Reviews

5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Porsalin: Blacklisted (2018)
Season Unknown, Episode Unknown
8/10
masterfully woven documentary about a canary
2 September 2020
A masterfully woven documentary about a canary in the coal mine of cancel culture, namely Sam Hyde and MDE. I especially loved the narration of Sam's quotes.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Deep multi-layered story about personal fears and insecurities, especially about social isolation.
13 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
He kills himself at the end, finally, right? (He attempted suicide a few times before -- eg. by trying to drown himself on his marriage anniversary, and lastly in the theater with the real gun. (The nose we see after he removes the bandage is his delusional mind, telling him that "things aren't so bad", or something like that.)) And, in all likelihood, his daughter kills herself too. She always had a suicidal penchant for jumping off buildings (for very similar reasons -- lack of love from daddy), and when she finally partakes in Keaton's flying birdman delusions, that's the sign that she's dead too. She jumped.

I cried during his last performance when he shoots himself. It resonates extremely deeply with me -- being fake, unloved, an actor in a play, "an idiot, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage". Deep.

The dissonant discordant chaotic drumming music was genius -- perfect for the constant irritation and discomfort of having to lie and fake it.

There were many times when we weren't able to tell the acting from "reality". Genius. Eg. a bunch of times during the play rehearsals when we think that he's gone berserk and actually kills himself, or when he fakes having been beaten by his dad with Norton. And Norton does this too a few times. There were also many times when they were hyper-real. Eg. Norton sharing his fears and insecurities about masculinity (erection problems), and lack of connection (unable to be honest off stage), and Keaton with his fears about being a forgotten has-been, and being vulnerable (walking in underwear in a crowded city). These precious glimpses of reality were the guideposts to help figure out exactly what is going on. If it wasn't for them, the film would be a lot harder to penetrate, because the rest of the acting was kinda believable -- I could have convinced myself that it was simply about a guy with a playful imagination struggling to become a famous actor/director.

The second-guessing about whether what we just saw was real or fake was really trippy. Losing one's sanity / grip on reality is super frightening :s. Especially without anyone (a beloved) being a guide.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
an intimate, accurate but disturbing portrayal of life in Jakarta
14 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The camera work was superlative. It felt like a genuine and intimate portrayal of life in Jakarta. Although it really made me question the line between being a mere fly-on-the-wall observer (and thus providing a more authentic picture), and being an active participant. Most (perhaps all) the scenes involved incredibly tragic abuse and ignorance, including abusive psychological pressure to obey a religion (either the grandmother's Christianity, or the father's Islam), a hell-like hair-raising male circumcision scene, physical assault against an innocent girl for being too close to a boy (I'm not sure how the camera-man didn't intervene), rampant political corruption, and general disregard for education (they prefer watching fighting fish on TV, rather than learning to use a gas stove or other more prudent studies). But such lifestyles are still the norm throughout the world, not just in Indonesia, so the film serves as important documentary evidence of the present state of our species.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Doesn't go inside enough
31 January 2013
This biopic doesn't really delve very far "into" Lara Roxx. The director painfully tries to use her for her own naive agenda (mandatory condoms in porn?!), whilst the protagonist resists this over-simplification and detachment, and yearns for the one and only thing she never gets -- love. She never got it from her parents. She didn't get it from the director. The film never attempts to properly explore the more difficult and important issues of her childhood -- the abandonment she experienced from her parents and family -- although there are hints of this that a more discerning viewer might be able to piece together.

There is a real story to be told here, with the charismatic and honest Lara that anyone should be able to identify with, but it's not in this movie.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Deceptive and compelling obfuscation
11 June 2011
On the plus side, it's a wonderful demonstration of how compelling blatantly incorrect theories can be, using misquoted experts and ignoring well-known contradictions.

In addition to the glaring omissions that JC from the UK pointed out here on 3 March 2010, many more can be found on Wikipedia, which denialists shockingly don't seem to be keen on "correcting": See WikiPedia's "AIDS_denialism" and "Misconceptions_about_HIV_and_AIDS".

For example, the film points to the theory that Poppers were the root cause of Kaposi's Sarcoma in the original US gay community, but those Wikipedia pages point to real studies that conclusively disprove that theory. The film does not mention this.

Also, two of the interviewed experts (Constantine and Weiss) explain how they were completely misquoted and misrepresented: See google for "constantine and weiss pinpoint misrepresentations"

The idea of inaccurate HIV testing seemed to play a large role in the film, even though studies show it is 99.9% accurate. (I'm not sure if this includes PCR tests, which perhaps are 100% conclusive?) The film does not mention this.

Also, the film refers to Padian's study on HIV transmission, but completely misrepresents it, as she herself explains: (See: "HIV heterosexual transmission and the Padian paper myth". Basically, she says the study was specifically analyzing safe-sex interventions (condom usage in couples), and simply showed the effectiveness of condoms, not the non-transmissibility of the virus. The film deceptively hides this piece of information.)

The film is highly deceptive, and outright false on most of it's critical points. But it was an entertaining and compelling narrative while it lasted.
36 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed