There is no story, just plot points.
No characters, just objects thrown in front of the screen.
Events just occur without meaning.
And it all happens at an incredible speed.
It is one of the most bewildering movie going experiences of my life.
I am truly astonished that people enjoyed this.
Reviews
11 Reviews
The Sequel Trilogy now has life
22 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
When I first saw TFA, I knew that there were issues but was just happy that Star Wars was back and that it wasn't boring. On rewatches, I realized that the movie didn't make any goddamn sense and was filled with contrivances. JJ opened up a mystery box hoping that would provide intrigue, but it was really just poor storytelling.
Fast forward to TLJ, rather than waste his film revealing the contents of all the mystery boxes, Rian Johnson moves forward and tells the story he needs to tell, as if he said "it's not my job to make your movie better."
Before, the heroes were mildly annoying or uninteresting. Now, they are sympathetic and humanized. Before, we had a soft reboot of ANH. Now, we sprint through ESB and ROTJ while twisting and subverting their tropes and structures until we are left in unexplored territories. It's a shame RJ didn't write/direct the first film in this trilogy and that we are only now breaking away from the template. People can theorize where we will go with episode IX but the future is really murky, which means Star Wars gets to be exciting again. Knowing JJ though, moving forward will likely mean going back and IX can only be a letdown.
Fast forward to TLJ, rather than waste his film revealing the contents of all the mystery boxes, Rian Johnson moves forward and tells the story he needs to tell, as if he said "it's not my job to make your movie better."
Before, the heroes were mildly annoying or uninteresting. Now, they are sympathetic and humanized. Before, we had a soft reboot of ANH. Now, we sprint through ESB and ROTJ while twisting and subverting their tropes and structures until we are left in unexplored territories. It's a shame RJ didn't write/direct the first film in this trilogy and that we are only now breaking away from the template. People can theorize where we will go with episode IX but the future is really murky, which means Star Wars gets to be exciting again. Knowing JJ though, moving forward will likely mean going back and IX can only be a letdown.
Mother!
(2017)
You're either on board with the concept or you aren't
20 September 2017
It's a few things: the story of religion and women, the story of a famous male artist and his relationship with women, and the story of God, man, and the earth.
it's incredibly in your face about this, there is no subtlety here. Does that mean it's bad? No, you just have to be on board for a loud and abrasive exploration of these ideas. It's an art film that crescendos from quiet and patient to loud and vulgar, and that's totally fine. I'm glad it exists, I'm glad it's in as many theaters that it is, and I think it will become a classic as people make peace with it.
it's incredibly in your face about this, there is no subtlety here. Does that mean it's bad? No, you just have to be on board for a loud and abrasive exploration of these ideas. It's an art film that crescendos from quiet and patient to loud and vulgar, and that's totally fine. I'm glad it exists, I'm glad it's in as many theaters that it is, and I think it will become a classic as people make peace with it.
Wiener-Dog
(2016)
How do you write about a Todd Solondz movie?
3 May 2016
I went into this thinking it was a sequel to Welcome to the Dollhouse; I guess it technically is but it has greater concerns than letting us know what happened to Dawn and the rest of the WttD crew so adjust your expectations accordingly.
The movie is broken up into 4 parts, each part focusing on a different owner of the titular Weiner-dog.
The first part was my favorite, about a young boy struggling to understand his dog's place in the world. It is sweet and funny and I was incredibly nervous about what would become of the dog since I did not know the movie would take on a 4 chapter structure.
The second part reunites the Welcome to the Dollhouse characters Dawn and Brandon. Greta Gerwig's performance was a little strange and there were some distracting continuity issues and cutting. In fact, the entire movie had very distracting moments of editing, usually cutting back and forth from character to character for each individual line. It's very jarring, particularly because the moments without dialogue are usually portrayed in long takes.
There is an intermission, it is fantastic.
The third part is the weakest. It focuses on Dave, a screen writing professor, who is struggling to sell a script. It drags on a bit long and ends with a punchline that doesn't really have a ton of punch.
The fourth part is a bit more surreal, and feels more similar to his recent movies. It focuses on an elderly woman whose daughter comes to visit. Then takes sort of a bizarre turn in its second half.
I walked away from the movie thinking it was great but feeling terrible.
Overall, Todd Solondz continues to be one of the most interesting filmmakers out there. I feel like he's definitely making the kind of movies he wants to be making: quiet comedies reflecting our superficial, pathetic, and delirious culture packed with incredibly uncomfortable conversations and situations; I just think his previous work is more interesting.
The movie is broken up into 4 parts, each part focusing on a different owner of the titular Weiner-dog.
The first part was my favorite, about a young boy struggling to understand his dog's place in the world. It is sweet and funny and I was incredibly nervous about what would become of the dog since I did not know the movie would take on a 4 chapter structure.
The second part reunites the Welcome to the Dollhouse characters Dawn and Brandon. Greta Gerwig's performance was a little strange and there were some distracting continuity issues and cutting. In fact, the entire movie had very distracting moments of editing, usually cutting back and forth from character to character for each individual line. It's very jarring, particularly because the moments without dialogue are usually portrayed in long takes.
There is an intermission, it is fantastic.
The third part is the weakest. It focuses on Dave, a screen writing professor, who is struggling to sell a script. It drags on a bit long and ends with a punchline that doesn't really have a ton of punch.
The fourth part is a bit more surreal, and feels more similar to his recent movies. It focuses on an elderly woman whose daughter comes to visit. Then takes sort of a bizarre turn in its second half.
I walked away from the movie thinking it was great but feeling terrible.
Overall, Todd Solondz continues to be one of the most interesting filmmakers out there. I feel like he's definitely making the kind of movies he wants to be making: quiet comedies reflecting our superficial, pathetic, and delirious culture packed with incredibly uncomfortable conversations and situations; I just think his previous work is more interesting.
Possession
(1981)
Just watch it
23 October 2015
If you find yourself enjoying most cult classics then watch this movie. If you are a fan of the surreal then watch this movie. If you enjoy atypical narrative structures then watch this movie. If you like to be challenged by the art you consume then watch this movie.
It is so incredibly frantic that I felt like I was assaulted with a smile on my face. An exhausting experience that leaves you feeling as though you've stepped off a crazy ride. The only time the phrase "an emotional roller-coaster" actually makes sense.
Advice for watching this movie: Watch with other people, do not talk during the movie. You will have questions, do not ask questions. Do not attempt to ground anything you are seeing in reality. Do not attempt to justify confusing character behaviors, save this for after the movie.
Advice for the post movie conversation: Why does the movie take place where it does? Why do the occupations of the characters matter? Where do the characters spend most of their time? Recite the actions of the characters in chronological order.
Don't read any more about it, just watch it!
It is so incredibly frantic that I felt like I was assaulted with a smile on my face. An exhausting experience that leaves you feeling as though you've stepped off a crazy ride. The only time the phrase "an emotional roller-coaster" actually makes sense.
Advice for watching this movie: Watch with other people, do not talk during the movie. You will have questions, do not ask questions. Do not attempt to ground anything you are seeing in reality. Do not attempt to justify confusing character behaviors, save this for after the movie.
Advice for the post movie conversation: Why does the movie take place where it does? Why do the occupations of the characters matter? Where do the characters spend most of their time? Recite the actions of the characters in chronological order.
Don't read any more about it, just watch it!
Crimson Peak
(2015)
Hard to figure out the genre on this one
16 October 2015
A mystery that isn't very mysterious. A horror that isn't very horrific. A romance that's not too romantic.
I guess it's a Gothic drama? Either way, its hard to tell who this movie is for.
The movie has the usual GDT visual appeal: wonderful sets, vibrant colors, elaborate costumes, and a few creative spooks. It feels like Argento meets Burton.
The story is a lot like a French folktale but I won't name the folktale specifically to avoid spoilers. It's not very engaging, despite the adequate performances.
Overall, its a totally skippable movie. Watch GDT's Devil's Backbone instead if you haven't already.
I guess it's a Gothic drama? Either way, its hard to tell who this movie is for.
The movie has the usual GDT visual appeal: wonderful sets, vibrant colors, elaborate costumes, and a few creative spooks. It feels like Argento meets Burton.
The story is a lot like a French folktale but I won't name the folktale specifically to avoid spoilers. It's not very engaging, despite the adequate performances.
Overall, its a totally skippable movie. Watch GDT's Devil's Backbone instead if you haven't already.
Mad Max: Fury Road
(2015)
A Masterfully Executed Achievement
30 September 2015
I love Road Warrior and I would say it is still my favorite Mad Max movie, despite the climactic action sequence being a little boring to me, it has a wonderful tone to it.
So, I was incredibly excited to see George Miller returning for Fury Road. I showed the trailer to all of my friends, expecting a wild beast of a movie. When the reviews came out, I was cautiously optimistic, but didn't want to build it up too much in my head or else I'd be disappointed.
Then I saw it.
After the opening sequence that leads up to the title flashing on the screen, there was a massive release of tension from the theater's audience. I even heard someone say, "jeez!" Everyone was clearly sucked in, and this was only the beginning.
By the end of the movie I felt like I had seen something that I'd never seen before, and something that I don't expect to see again any time soon. George Miller took the ambitious idea of a 2 hour car chase and made it work. It was wonderful. A movie that is driven by action rather than dialogue.
So 5 more viewings later, I feel like I can say what makes this movie so great. Obviously, the art direction and cinematography are great, and the way the story makes you put the pieces together on your own makes the experience more rewarding and engaging, but what really makes it such a tight package is the fantastic editing. Watching this movie is like watching a Stan Brakhage movie, or a really great music video that you can put on over and over again. It's because it is such a joy to watch. The editing is so tight that it just FEELS good. And it was all edited by George Miller's wife Margaret Sixel, who had never edited an action movie before. I can't wait for the video essays breaking down and analyzing the construction and piecing together of shots.
The only complaints I have about this movie: We don't get a great understanding of Max's personality. Most of the time he seems like a wild dog but other times it feels like there is still wisdom rattling around in that head of his. Maybe that's the point though.
I'm not crazy about the score, and there are a couple moments where it actually feels a bit intrusive.
There are a few moments during loud action scenes where the dialogue doesn't properly sync with the mouths of the actors. "First they take my blood, now it's my car!" for example.
Even though there is such limited dialogue, some of it still feels unnecessary. The line, "that's our fuel!" delivered by a rock rider chasing the tanker almost feels like it was thrown in because a test audience was confused about why the riders were pursuing the vehicle.
The line, "it's the bullet farmer! They're coming from the bullet farm!" Yeah, no duh Furiosa.
These are minor nitpicks though, overall it's a great movie and I recommend it to anyone with an appreciation of action cinema, experimental cinema, silent films, or anyone with experience in film production. If you are someone who believes movies are only meant for telling stories, then you may need to expand your understanding of cinema before you'll really appreciate this.
So, I was incredibly excited to see George Miller returning for Fury Road. I showed the trailer to all of my friends, expecting a wild beast of a movie. When the reviews came out, I was cautiously optimistic, but didn't want to build it up too much in my head or else I'd be disappointed.
Then I saw it.
After the opening sequence that leads up to the title flashing on the screen, there was a massive release of tension from the theater's audience. I even heard someone say, "jeez!" Everyone was clearly sucked in, and this was only the beginning.
By the end of the movie I felt like I had seen something that I'd never seen before, and something that I don't expect to see again any time soon. George Miller took the ambitious idea of a 2 hour car chase and made it work. It was wonderful. A movie that is driven by action rather than dialogue.
So 5 more viewings later, I feel like I can say what makes this movie so great. Obviously, the art direction and cinematography are great, and the way the story makes you put the pieces together on your own makes the experience more rewarding and engaging, but what really makes it such a tight package is the fantastic editing. Watching this movie is like watching a Stan Brakhage movie, or a really great music video that you can put on over and over again. It's because it is such a joy to watch. The editing is so tight that it just FEELS good. And it was all edited by George Miller's wife Margaret Sixel, who had never edited an action movie before. I can't wait for the video essays breaking down and analyzing the construction and piecing together of shots.
The only complaints I have about this movie: We don't get a great understanding of Max's personality. Most of the time he seems like a wild dog but other times it feels like there is still wisdom rattling around in that head of his. Maybe that's the point though.
I'm not crazy about the score, and there are a couple moments where it actually feels a bit intrusive.
There are a few moments during loud action scenes where the dialogue doesn't properly sync with the mouths of the actors. "First they take my blood, now it's my car!" for example.
Even though there is such limited dialogue, some of it still feels unnecessary. The line, "that's our fuel!" delivered by a rock rider chasing the tanker almost feels like it was thrown in because a test audience was confused about why the riders were pursuing the vehicle.
The line, "it's the bullet farmer! They're coming from the bullet farm!" Yeah, no duh Furiosa.
These are minor nitpicks though, overall it's a great movie and I recommend it to anyone with an appreciation of action cinema, experimental cinema, silent films, or anyone with experience in film production. If you are someone who believes movies are only meant for telling stories, then you may need to expand your understanding of cinema before you'll really appreciate this.
Sixteen Candles
(1984)
Great when you are too young to know any better
14 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This was one of my favorite teen movies when I was a kid, meaning, before I was even a teen. I remember watching this, along with Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller, and thinking it was clearly the best of the three due to it's wacky humor that never felt so absurd that it took you out of the movie.
Cut to years later, watching this as a 26 year old. Wow, while it still stirs up some of my nostalgic emotions it also stirs up a lot of disgust.
First, the racism. I always thought, as a kid, that the Long Duk Dong character seemed like an offensive caricature but as an adult I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt. I don't believe the character himself is offensive, it's more the way the character is presented. For example, a gong rings almost every time the character's name is said out loud. And the music that plays when his character is on screen is also stereotypical. As for the character himself, he seems like a nerd but is actually the life of the party, which isn't very stereotypical at all. Still, it's a shame they had to stoop to cheap sound racist sound effect jokes.
Next, the gender issues. Ted the nerd sexually harasses Molly Ringwald throughout the entire movie, we're meant to think this is funny but really it's just kind of infuriating. Next, her romantic interest Jake says he could violate his drunk, passed out, girlfriend 100 different ways if he wanted to. Ted says something along the lines of "what are you waiting for?". WOAH, is Ted, this character that we're supposed to laugh along and sympathize with really condoning that Jake rape his passed out girlfriend? To make things worse, Jake offers his passed out girlfriend to Ted if Ted will help him pursue Molly Ringwald. So now Jake and Ted are using the rape of another character as a means of bargaining. It's insane to that this part of the script was ever greenlit. The whole thing is very gross and creepy but it doesn't ever feel like the intent is to say "look how creepy and awful these guys are" instead, we're just supposed to laugh along with them, which is pretty disgusting.
I know what you're probably thinking, if I'm so offended by it then why did I still give it a 6/10. Well, when it comes down to it there is still a lot of content here that is relatable when you are a teenager and there is still quite a bit of comedic gold. It would be wrong to say that the movie is without it's merit so a 6/10 it is.
Cut to years later, watching this as a 26 year old. Wow, while it still stirs up some of my nostalgic emotions it also stirs up a lot of disgust.
First, the racism. I always thought, as a kid, that the Long Duk Dong character seemed like an offensive caricature but as an adult I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt. I don't believe the character himself is offensive, it's more the way the character is presented. For example, a gong rings almost every time the character's name is said out loud. And the music that plays when his character is on screen is also stereotypical. As for the character himself, he seems like a nerd but is actually the life of the party, which isn't very stereotypical at all. Still, it's a shame they had to stoop to cheap sound racist sound effect jokes.
Next, the gender issues. Ted the nerd sexually harasses Molly Ringwald throughout the entire movie, we're meant to think this is funny but really it's just kind of infuriating. Next, her romantic interest Jake says he could violate his drunk, passed out, girlfriend 100 different ways if he wanted to. Ted says something along the lines of "what are you waiting for?". WOAH, is Ted, this character that we're supposed to laugh along and sympathize with really condoning that Jake rape his passed out girlfriend? To make things worse, Jake offers his passed out girlfriend to Ted if Ted will help him pursue Molly Ringwald. So now Jake and Ted are using the rape of another character as a means of bargaining. It's insane to that this part of the script was ever greenlit. The whole thing is very gross and creepy but it doesn't ever feel like the intent is to say "look how creepy and awful these guys are" instead, we're just supposed to laugh along with them, which is pretty disgusting.
I know what you're probably thinking, if I'm so offended by it then why did I still give it a 6/10. Well, when it comes down to it there is still a lot of content here that is relatable when you are a teenager and there is still quite a bit of comedic gold. It would be wrong to say that the movie is without it's merit so a 6/10 it is.
Kung Fury
(2015)
Disappointing
29 May 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I was stoked on the trailer but when I saw it it was pretty disappointing. Don't get me wrong, the action and visuals are wonderful. In fact, it has one of the funnest Tim-and-Eric-esque action scenes I've seen in ANY movie. The problem is the writing and the humor.
I won't talk about the character development. It's a half hour short so its totally understandable that they couldn't explore their characters and ideas more. However, it can be argued that, knowing the piece was going to be this short, the creators should have tailored their script to be more concise for the short film format.
So let's focus on the humor.
If you have a setting and premise that are absurd and ridiculous, you don't need to fill it with jokes. If you fill it with jokes then EVERYTHING becomes absurd and the audience has nothing to hold on to. The audience cannot point at anything and say, "THAT is the ridiculous element, THAT is the funny thing". This is why so many movies that intentionally try to be "so bad, they're good" fail (I'm looking at you Troma).
Examples: >The use of one liners. You don't need to have your character struggling to think of one liners. Having your character struggling to think of one liners becomes the joke, not the actual one liner. It is bringing attention to the absurdity of one liners existing, rather than just allowing the one liner to happen and be its own funny and awesome thing. Instead of the character struggling to think of, and then delivering, a really bad one liner, just have them deliver the bad one liner with stupid confidence. >POSSIBLE SPOILER HERE Another example is in the animated sequence. "I'm afraid you're dead" "What? But it looks so real?" "Yeah..." The joke here is that our stupid hero thinks the cartoon world looks real. However, this joke is diminished by having the spirit cobra say "yeah..." and look at the camera with a "can you believe how dumb this guy is?" attitude. The audience already knows the character is dumb from the character's dialogue, they don't need another character reminding them.
I hear they're turning this into a feature so hopefully they resolve the writing issues. If they treated the absurd setting and characters as serious, it would create for a much stronger piece. As it is now, it's just a disappointing mess.
Overall: +great visuals +great action +some clever ideas +awesome music, love mitch murder +creators are very talented
-forced jokes -nazi bad guys aren't funny anymore -really dumb hasselhoff joke
I won't talk about the character development. It's a half hour short so its totally understandable that they couldn't explore their characters and ideas more. However, it can be argued that, knowing the piece was going to be this short, the creators should have tailored their script to be more concise for the short film format.
So let's focus on the humor.
If you have a setting and premise that are absurd and ridiculous, you don't need to fill it with jokes. If you fill it with jokes then EVERYTHING becomes absurd and the audience has nothing to hold on to. The audience cannot point at anything and say, "THAT is the ridiculous element, THAT is the funny thing". This is why so many movies that intentionally try to be "so bad, they're good" fail (I'm looking at you Troma).
Examples: >The use of one liners. You don't need to have your character struggling to think of one liners. Having your character struggling to think of one liners becomes the joke, not the actual one liner. It is bringing attention to the absurdity of one liners existing, rather than just allowing the one liner to happen and be its own funny and awesome thing. Instead of the character struggling to think of, and then delivering, a really bad one liner, just have them deliver the bad one liner with stupid confidence. >POSSIBLE SPOILER HERE Another example is in the animated sequence. "I'm afraid you're dead" "What? But it looks so real?" "Yeah..." The joke here is that our stupid hero thinks the cartoon world looks real. However, this joke is diminished by having the spirit cobra say "yeah..." and look at the camera with a "can you believe how dumb this guy is?" attitude. The audience already knows the character is dumb from the character's dialogue, they don't need another character reminding them.
I hear they're turning this into a feature so hopefully they resolve the writing issues. If they treated the absurd setting and characters as serious, it would create for a much stronger piece. As it is now, it's just a disappointing mess.
Overall: +great visuals +great action +some clever ideas +awesome music, love mitch murder +creators are very talented
-forced jokes -nazi bad guys aren't funny anymore -really dumb hasselhoff joke
Avatar
(2009)
Easily the worst movie I've seen this year
19 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Worst movie I've seen in a while. It's pretty to look at but it doesn't give the viewer any reason to want to look at it for a whole 2 and a half hours. The dialog feels like it was written by an elementary school student and it feels like James Cameron is just insulting his audience the entire time. I want to say that if I was a little kid I would have enjoyed it more but then I look at mainstream kids movies and realize that most of them are actually better than Avatar.
synopsis: SPOILER ALERT White man comes to reap the natives land of all its resources. One of the white men infiltrate the natives to understand them and win them over. White man falls in love with native. War between whites and natives. Natives are weak and can't defend themselves Guess who saves them? go on guess....
The WHITE MAN. Unites all the tribes, teaches them that they can tame an animal they didn't know they could, and gets help from their deity which they didn't know they could do. END SPOILERS
People are going to say that if I was watching this movie for the story then I was watching it for the wrong reasons. I wasn't watching it for the story. I saw the trailers and heard the movie was in 3d so I thought "fantasy setting with groundbreaking special effects in 3D? Sounds like it might be a good time" WRONG. After about 20 minutes I dozed off for about 10, I woke up and wished that I had stayed asleep because it would have been a better use of time than watching this piece of garbage.
synopsis: SPOILER ALERT White man comes to reap the natives land of all its resources. One of the white men infiltrate the natives to understand them and win them over. White man falls in love with native. War between whites and natives. Natives are weak and can't defend themselves Guess who saves them? go on guess....
The WHITE MAN. Unites all the tribes, teaches them that they can tame an animal they didn't know they could, and gets help from their deity which they didn't know they could do. END SPOILERS
People are going to say that if I was watching this movie for the story then I was watching it for the wrong reasons. I wasn't watching it for the story. I saw the trailers and heard the movie was in 3d so I thought "fantasy setting with groundbreaking special effects in 3D? Sounds like it might be a good time" WRONG. After about 20 minutes I dozed off for about 10, I woke up and wished that I had stayed asleep because it would have been a better use of time than watching this piece of garbage.
Cloverfield
(2008)
Didn't see it in the theaters
11 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't see it in the theaters cause I really wasn't that interested. My friends all saw it and they said it was alright so I decided to watch it when my friend bought it on DVD. I was at his house watching it and honestly I was just annoyed the entire time I was watching it. The acting was terrible and I really didn't give a about any of the characters. One of my friends told me it was so I wouldn't feel so bad when they start dying. The monster stuff was pretty cool but I just hated the characters so much and the beginning with the whole party (I understand it was meant for character development and everything) was terrible. I don't care about these people, I have no reason to care about these people. Maybe if they weren't so lame I would like them a little more but they just aren't likable at all. When does the monster happen? I just want the monster to happen! I have to say though, one scene I thought was really cool was the very end when the footage cuts back to before the accident and there is a shot of the ocean. My friend pointed out that you see something fall from the sky and land in the water, possibly the monster.
Tell Your Friends