This movie works quite well as a celebration of creative visionaries who can remain true to their ideas and principles. On that level it hit pretty close to heart more than once. Also it isn't half bad as a quirky romance movie that centralizes these elements of character in human relations.
If viewed as an apologia for some modern libertarian views, political and philosophical positions, as it perhaps should also be considered, it fails pretty bad. The depiction of how the world works and at what height we should hold some values relative to others it just isn't convincing.
I'm all for individual freedoms against collective mandate in a lot of areas of endeavor, and for celebrating visionaries that can create amazing things while holding true against popular ideas and forms and genres, but if viewed as a political piece it seems a bad choice that these ideas are presented through the world of architecture. How are we supposed to see the main character as a "self made man"? In the world of high level architecture it seems most likely that such a creative "genius" can exist because of family influence and wealth and/or as a result of many sacrifices made by others beside him (the family?).
I haven't gotten far enough in the original book to make this claim about the novel, but in the movie the lack of information on how this man got to university and how he got the privileged position of associating with the highest in the field, is quite jarring. At least when viewed as a political statement. I'd say there are very few people that can work at that level designing prestigious buildings. To try to generalize it to other people and their freedoms, is weird. Why should we hold the integrity of this man's vision above let's say the practical needs of the people who would have to live or work in these buildings?
Yes, I'd agree, contracts should be honored, but more than anything this movie serves to push forward the position that public housing should never be built accepting such conditions of the architect.
The freedom and creative control over the design of the building by the architect is presented as if the highest value in such situations, and it leaves much to be clarified. What if there is a conflict with the freedoms, the safety and the quality of life of the people to live and/or work in those buildings? Should the creative vision (perhaps mad and out of touch with reality) still be held as the highest value? Especially if it is a public housing project not paid for by the architect.
The movie might work as a character study, but for it to work as an ideological/political piece of some conversion power the claim that the house in question at the final trial should somehow be considered "his house" to do with as he pleases, above being anyone else's is very very thin.
Good as a character study and engaging as an emotional celebration of integrity and visionary creatives, but at the moment of time quite a failure as in any way coherent political, ideological piece.
I'd say Prometheus is a seriously underappreciated movie. One of only a few sci-fi movies of the last couple of decades that has had any staying power. It was exciting before it came out and it is still exciting 11 years after. I haven't really understood the backlash it has had, I could only speculate and I lean towards a guess that at least some of the viewers might have been threatened by the non-human-centric and hostile world it depicts.The reason this movie hasn't gone over that well with many people I think could be similar to why Lovecraft hasn't really broken to mainstream. To me it seems this movie really honed in on the "lovecraftian" aspects of the Alien films, arguably with more teeth than the original Alien, perhaps over some tolerance threshold for people that want mindless repetition in their action.
I personally would rank Prometheus way higher than most movies of the "big budget action-sci-fi/fantasy movie" genre made since the turn of the millennium, perhaps even all of them, excluding "Mad Max: Fury Road".and the "Lord of the Rings" movies. Better than all the super hero, big budget sequel-prequel-reboot movies of the "blockbuster genre", but also some quite supposedly "serious and intelligent" sci-fi movies, often considered classics.I'd say while all of these movies have their strengths, Prometheus beats District 9, Interstellar and Annihilation with not too much effort as an idea-driven sci-fi movie. Yes, all of these films had something going, but all had some faults compared to Prometheus: less ambitious, less original, more sentimental or stuck in some form of ideological world view that made them seem more average than they could have been. That sort of lessened the excitement and staying power of those films, while I am still thinking about and re-watching Prometheus occasionally.
Prometheus is epic and grandiose, although a prequel to a four movie universe, I'd say feels more original, thought and emotion provoking and engaging than any of the critically acclaimed "original films" I listed.
Yes, the scientists could have been smarter in a few situations, but that is a really minor gripe, and the critique that it had "plot holes" could be raised as convincingly to true monumental classics. "2001: The Space Odyssey" and "Solaris" by Tarkovsky had plot holes by this definition, The Matrix and Terminator 2 as well, not to mention Nolan's Batman movies that were more hole-ridden than swish cheese. When someone critiques David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" for having plot holes I think many would agree with me it is missing the point and perhaps the problem originates from the lack of or fear of imagination by the reviewer. Although definitely a different genre, and more rooted in action tropes and extravaganza, I'd raise that possibility with Prometheus.
I'd argue some people don't like Prometheus not because it is somehow more "mindless" in it's entertainment than most of the action sci-fi spectacle that has been coming out of Hollywood for a couple of decades, but because it was more ambitious, added something extra to the safe escapist formula that might have either flown over the head of many viewers or threatened consciously or sub-consciously a deeply held belief-system.
Either way, that is their loss. I personally will probably be returning to this film in the future as well. A grandiose spectacle, thrilling, thought provoking and original, something similar to what "Mad Max: Fury Road" was to Mad Max movies, a seriously visionary late entry in quite a long series.
Seems well worth of a spot on at least the 366 Weird movies list. I have to let it sit with me for a while, to think if it is up there with the best of Kaufmann's, there is a slight possibility of it having one or two endings too many, to be quite on the level, but the film's highpoints are quite definitely up there.
I myself have trouble describing politically motivated fantasy as poetic and beautiful. Next I'll see "Birth of a Nation" and "Triumph of the Will" described thus. :)
Ok, I can understand the description "beautiful" aesthetically, as in beautifully made and depicting beautiful emotions, but regarding the naivety of the characters, any sort of "liberation" taking place instead of rape and pillaging, the ways soviet soldiers were motivated to fight, how well they were stocked, what they were eating, what was their relationship and interaction with any sort officials like, etc, this should probably be in Butler's Fantasy list first of all.
Western support for this kind of fantasy-making about the nation being some heroic liberators has probably not had an insignificant role in creating the situation where we are now - many Russians are still convinced they are "liberating" Ukraine from American nazis at the moment by bombing hospitals and schools, sending criminals and marauders to the front, mass-executing civilians, deporting Ukrainian children to be reeducated as Russians.
I mean I am a huge advocate of the importance of fantasy, but I think this particular kind of fantasy depicted in this movie of innocent and heroic Russian liberators has not played out too well, has had some consequences. I hope I don't seem too political. No intention of talking about that, simply about facts as far as I know them and morals and ethics in film criticism.
Should we just praise such movies without highlighting the fantastical elements in the light of such further developments? Something for us as film critics to figure out I'm sure.
To anyone who'd want to see similar stuff, I recommend the animations of an Estonian director, Priit Pärn. It quite surprised me how similar the style of this cartoon is to that on Pärn. I recently watched a documentary on Pärn and in it he mentioned a Japanese director he seemed to be in correspondence with. I now wonder if it could have been Tatsuo Sato.
Awesome, awesome movie. To the all time favourites, for sure.
I've never been to America, nor have had any connection with the spring break tradition, but to quote Rammstein - "We're all living in Amerika" - it seems to reflect back to other cultures and in a language I feel familiar with, so I think I can talk about it as a semi-insider.
I don't believe it condemns the people depicted in the movie, I think it presents them and depicts the spring break tradition with all of its excesses as almost a religious journey in a world driven and dictated by excesses, hedonism, material and sensational gain.
It seems the school system is strongly linked to the whole thing, school system creating a need or basis for a religious journey such as this.
The movie is so American, but also so human in a much wider meaning.
The people getting high on Jesus and the people getting high on crime, sex and narcotics are all sort of part of the same thing. The guy in the beginning talking about getting high on Jesus looks like he might have had a religious experience similar to the one the main characters are having, in the past.
In a way movie that is trolling, but also a profound almost religious movie.
It was building up to be a potentially amizingly good film...
a tragic or triumphant love story commenting on the disconnect by people that could "hear" the arts and would want to dedicate their lives to it, and those that don't, but it turned into something else when the Sam Neill character either telepathically or as a hallucination started to "hear" the arts, or at least hear the pianist and decided to let her go. It made the love story/freedom cheap when it wasn't won, but handed over. Yes, the mutilation prior to that was turning it towards a more tragic outcome, but it was to be a "meaningful" outcome, instead of what ended up feeling quite meaningless, even with regards to the subtext of "hearing the arts". Did it become a story about the Sam Neill's characters path to "hearing the arts" instead of the love story? In any way it seemed to lose meaning and memorability with that turn of events.Makes one suspect of a "hands on, but illiterate studio exec"-syndrome.
The Infamous remake of Ingmar Bergman's "The Virgin Spring".
I never watched it before, probably because thinking it would be a cheap and schlocky film overplaying the shock, but now having watched it I find it not to be the case.
Well, definitely a lot of the fame comes from historical value. The film was made in the context of something that has now become widely called "a cultural revolution" in America. As I understand, a lot of such deeper/rougher themes were missing from American cinema before that time. I doubt many people had access to seeing Ingmar Bergman's original. Craven presented the idea in a b-movie scenario, to an audience that had been shielded from a lot that was going on in the cinema of other countries.
Definitely rough around the edges, and being usually listed under horror movies probably does it disservice, as people are watching it trying to find something "believable" or "scary", something "examining the essence of violence", while seeing from historical perspectives might give it much more meaning.
The characters and situations are unbelievable, it's a "constructed movie", to be sure, but I think it might have a lot of value if used to analyze "culture wars", "generational conflicts", etc. The horror movies from that time period ("Night of the Living Dead", "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre") definitely were doing things in relation to what was on at the time, they reacted to the failure of the happy "hippy-love"-attitude (that perhaps could be compared to the "pc-culture" of today - people thinking that by making other people not talk about bad stuff, it would disappear), and they definitely played with the "genre and function of horror movies as whole" to be sure.
In a way this movie does seem as "conservative horror" at the start, and a lot of horror movies seem to present this "conservative" picture of the world - a girl deals with people of the wrong class, plays with "dangerous behavior" and gets what's coming to her, but from the ironic/playful/comedy tone that is used, (which it seems to slightly have in common with "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre") and the fact that it turns into a revenge-fantasy film by the end, and by the year it was made, I doubt it's too "serious" in some such conservative message.
This film really makes you think of the "horror genre" as irony on conservative views. Just when imagining the context. Young people going to the cinemas (or renting a "banned in UK" videotape) to watch films with an exaggerated conservative message (don't do drugs or participate in disallowed forms of sexual behavior or there will be consequences), for fun, to smoke pot and to hopefully participate in disallowed forms of sexual behavior. It seems to be sort of like an ironic form of viewing (and making) movies, perhaps.
I enjoyed aspects of this movie, both in music, editing, script: the main villain is quite good at almost being an iconic villain, though trying to do that in some quite unbelievable and constructed scenarios and I think the script definitely has it's moments: Nice reference to Alice Cooper through the fictional band Bloodlust. (Cooper's famous chicken incident had happened just a few years before.) I also quite like how the group of villains are talking about the "sex crime of the century" and the girl lists Sigmund "Frood", because he can't ever see phone posts without thinking of male sexual organs again. Yes, boys and girls, psychologists/philosophers can be the greatest sexual criminals of history.
Overall, the movie is probably not ever going to be a "masterpiece" in any category, but valuable if seen from a historical or genre theory perspective and with somewhat clever moments of screenwriting, framing, editing, scoring here and there throughout. Also seems to foreshadow chainsaw as an iconic horror weapon.
Reading comments describing it as an "evisceration of macho/rape culture" made me quite doubtful of the film being good, as I think I haven't read an argumentation on the subject, where words "rape culture" were used unironically, that felt convincing enoguh to start taking these words seriously. It might be from my own lack of reading certainly, and there might be some intelligent reasoning behind putting the blame on this "culture" instead of the power structures of social hierarchies, and paradoxes in our own minds and biology (as victims, perpetrators, bystanders), but was happy to find out that the movie didn't seem to be an "evisceration" of this made up fantastical creature, at all, in my view, but a well acted, well crafted examination of the issue in it’s complexities from an emotional point of view as a “genre” film, with good comedic and dramatic timing, emotional heart, skillful use of music and "double meaning" (as in the title), etc.
Although it is debatable, I too find that the ending could be seen as possibly undermining the movie’s ultimate resonance.
My personal initial feeling at least was that using the police as the savior in the end could be seen as a “cop out”, as the “just hierarchies and power structures of our society”, knights on white horses in service of our great and just society coming in to save the day, and perhaps in a situation where some magical “rape culture” was to blame which needed to be slain by heroic men on white horses, it perhaps could be the case, but to me it does seem to lessen the probable depth of the situation.
I don’t know if it is appropriate to bring this into it, but from my own observations, it would seem, that yes, probably it usually is some men coming to the rescue of women from these abusive social structures, usually probably young men, idealistic, with determination and new technologies (social networks and apps) saving abused women from the movie and music industry or the “club scene”, but probably naive about how they would soon start building and using similar structures themselves for getting as much sex from as many women as they could for as little commitment or cost (having to learn their names? Ugh) as possible.
It was a really good movie in a lot of aspects, but I think it ended up choosing to be more shallow than it had built up promise for by then. As a genre film more soothing ending probably, making someone ready for a nice episode of television where cancer was cured, the issue of racism was solved by the police or the military, or something and everyone could be happy about their society. As I said, it is definitely debatable. As a message of hope to someone who could find themselves in unjust situations, perhaps good, but to actually trigger someone to emotionally process the complexity of the issue, the depth of it, to grow themselves, it kinda seems like a more childish choice. A case of different perspective perhaps. Many people seem to think keeping young women naive and hopeful in regards to entering clubs and other such social constructs that probably at the heart are market places where powerful men can exchange their status for cheap sex, is a good choice, and we shouldn’t traumatize people with the probable depth of this, shouldn’t destroy the hopes of young girls who are about to venture to these entrances to sex dungeons, so that sex trafficking could go on, but perhaps there are valid arguments for keeping girls naive and hopeful about “partying” as well, I don’t know.
Was there a reason mentioned in the film why they had to parachute through the storm into the party? Did all the guests arrive that way? Were the special agencies unable to come up with a better way?
To reply to the sarcastic commentators on some of these films: Indeed these films might seem irrelevant to some, and dull, but I think it would be good to keep in mind that you watching these films that you don't get value from or could not connect to is not that much of the creator's or even the list maker's doing. It's like speed reading as many books as possible without any specific criteria of choice and then complaining of not understanding some of them.
Not to ricidule someone, these comments are definitely valuable, but in the future could be seen as existential comments from people trapped in a machine that guides them from watching one one minute clip to another, constantly ticking boxes for the serotonin rush and illusion that they are getting cultural.
Well, as a side effect they probably are getting a little more "cultured" or "cultivated", but the turning of culture into too much of a sport definitely does take something away from the whole experience, and makes for an amusing spectacle of people ticking off boxes and complaining about having watched something and then going for the next one, similar to the last, to just repeat the same. If the appearance of cultural sophistication is important, doesn't the constant commenting of how one doesn't get it, not defeat the purpose?
LOL! All those IMDB lists really have lost all their significance. This film is in 9 lists and ranks #56 in the best movies of all time? I mean it was acceptable as mindless entertainment, a couple of jokes were funny, but among the very best films humankind has created? Those IMDB lists really have fallen.
Surprised to see this one getting that many dislikes. It was dedicated to his recently deceased grandmother and using some of her memories, as I understand. Perhaps he couldn't express himself in any other way than with such unbearable films, but it's from the heart.
The humiliating of the carcass is the most offensive part, aside from that it's not that shocking in this day and age, there are porn films about genital mutilation and real accident / execution videos on the internet to which this really doesn't quite compare and back then you had to go to a performance to see this kind of stuff. It's a film of it's time, no doubt about it, one of a more innocent time, as you can see none of the entrails were used to penetrate the girl and they had even washed the girl before the one penetration act with the man who probably was her husband. Aside from the carcass defilement it was a straightforward romantic couple bondage sex with a little entrail rubbing thrown in for good measure.
I don*t understand what pitchomeirda is saying or anyone else here actually. This was quite an upbeat film and with a lot healthier point then Umberto D.
Life turns to crap once you can*t take care of yourself, but there is still some hope and dignity when you can say f*ck you to people putting you into uncomfortable situations and treating you depressingly. Quite liked the old guy in the end.
Comments 1 - 21 of 21
Movie comment on The Fountainhead
avatud2013
This movie works quite well as a celebration of creative visionaries who can remain true to their ideas and principles. On that level it hit pretty close to heart more than once. Also it isn't half bad as a quirky romance movie that centralizes these elements of character in human relations.If viewed as an apologia for some modern libertarian views, political and philosophical positions, as it perhaps should also be considered, it fails pretty bad. The depiction of how the world works and at what height we should hold some values relative to others it just isn't convincing.
I'm all for individual freedoms against collective mandate in a lot of areas of endeavor, and for celebrating visionaries that can create amazing things while holding true against popular ideas and forms and genres, but if viewed as a political piece it seems a bad choice that these ideas are presented through the world of architecture. How are we supposed to see the main character as a "self made man"? In the world of high level architecture it seems most likely that such a creative "genius" can exist because of family influence and wealth and/or as a result of many sacrifices made by others beside him (the family?).
I haven't gotten far enough in the original book to make this claim about the novel, but in the movie the lack of information on how this man got to university and how he got the privileged position of associating with the highest in the field, is quite jarring. At least when viewed as a political statement. I'd say there are very few people that can work at that level designing prestigious buildings. To try to generalize it to other people and their freedoms, is weird. Why should we hold the integrity of this man's vision above let's say the practical needs of the people who would have to live or work in these buildings?
Yes, I'd agree, contracts should be honored, but more than anything this movie serves to push forward the position that public housing should never be built accepting such conditions of the architect.
The freedom and creative control over the design of the building by the architect is presented as if the highest value in such situations, and it leaves much to be clarified. What if there is a conflict with the freedoms, the safety and the quality of life of the people to live and/or work in those buildings? Should the creative vision (perhaps mad and out of touch with reality) still be held as the highest value? Especially if it is a public housing project not paid for by the architect.
The movie might work as a character study, but for it to work as an ideological/political piece of some conversion power the claim that the house in question at the final trial should somehow be considered "his house" to do with as he pleases, above being anyone else's is very very thin.
Good as a character study and engaging as an emotional celebration of integrity and visionary creatives, but at the moment of time quite a failure as in any way coherent political, ideological piece.
Movie comment on Prometheus
avatud2013
I'd say Prometheus is a seriously underappreciated movie. One of only a few sci-fi movies of the last couple of decades that has had any staying power. It was exciting before it came out and it is still exciting 11 years after. I haven't really understood the backlash it has had, I could only speculate and I lean towards a guess that at least some of the viewers might have been threatened by the non-human-centric and hostile world it depicts.The reason this movie hasn't gone over that well with many people I think could be similar to why Lovecraft hasn't really broken to mainstream. To me it seems this movie really honed in on the "lovecraftian" aspects of the Alien films, arguably with more teeth than the original Alien, perhaps over some tolerance threshold for people that want mindless repetition in their action.I personally would rank Prometheus way higher than most movies of the "big budget action-sci-fi/fantasy movie" genre made since the turn of the millennium, perhaps even all of them, excluding "Mad Max: Fury Road".and the "Lord of the Rings" movies. Better than all the super hero, big budget sequel-prequel-reboot movies of the "blockbuster genre", but also some quite supposedly "serious and intelligent" sci-fi movies, often considered classics.I'd say while all of these movies have their strengths, Prometheus beats District 9, Interstellar and Annihilation with not too much effort as an idea-driven sci-fi movie. Yes, all of these films had something going, but all had some faults compared to Prometheus: less ambitious, less original, more sentimental or stuck in some form of ideological world view that made them seem more average than they could have been. That sort of lessened the excitement and staying power of those films, while I am still thinking about and re-watching Prometheus occasionally.
Prometheus is epic and grandiose, although a prequel to a four movie universe, I'd say feels more original, thought and emotion provoking and engaging than any of the critically acclaimed "original films" I listed.
Yes, the scientists could have been smarter in a few situations, but that is a really minor gripe, and the critique that it had "plot holes" could be raised as convincingly to true monumental classics. "2001: The Space Odyssey" and "Solaris" by Tarkovsky had plot holes by this definition, The Matrix and Terminator 2 as well, not to mention Nolan's Batman movies that were more hole-ridden than swish cheese. When someone critiques David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" for having plot holes I think many would agree with me it is missing the point and perhaps the problem originates from the lack of or fear of imagination by the reviewer. Although definitely a different genre, and more rooted in action tropes and extravaganza, I'd raise that possibility with Prometheus.
I'd argue some people don't like Prometheus not because it is somehow more "mindless" in it's entertainment than most of the action sci-fi spectacle that has been coming out of Hollywood for a couple of decades, but because it was more ambitious, added something extra to the safe escapist formula that might have either flown over the head of many viewers or threatened consciously or sub-consciously a deeply held belief-system.
Either way, that is their loss. I personally will probably be returning to this film in the future as well. A grandiose spectacle, thrilling, thought provoking and original, something similar to what "Mad Max: Fury Road" was to Mad Max movies, a seriously visionary late entry in quite a long series.
Movie comment on Beau Is Afraid
avatud2013
Seems well worth of a spot on at least the 366 Weird movies list. I have to let it sit with me for a while, to think if it is up there with the best of Kaufmann's, there is a slight possibility of it having one or two endings too many, to be quite on the level, but the film's highpoints are quite definitely up there.Movie comment on Ballada o soldate
avatud2013
I myself have trouble describing politically motivated fantasy as poetic and beautiful. Next I'll see "Birth of a Nation" and "Triumph of the Will" described thus. :)Ok, I can understand the description "beautiful" aesthetically, as in beautifully made and depicting beautiful emotions, but regarding the naivety of the characters, any sort of "liberation" taking place instead of rape and pillaging, the ways soviet soldiers were motivated to fight, how well they were stocked, what they were eating, what was their relationship and interaction with any sort officials like, etc, this should probably be in Butler's Fantasy list first of all.
Western support for this kind of fantasy-making about the nation being some heroic liberators has probably not had an insignificant role in creating the situation where we are now - many Russians are still convinced they are "liberating" Ukraine from American nazis at the moment by bombing hospitals and schools, sending criminals and marauders to the front, mass-executing civilians, deporting Ukrainian children to be reeducated as Russians.
I mean I am a huge advocate of the importance of fantasy, but I think this particular kind of fantasy depicted in this movie of innocent and heroic Russian liberators has not played out too well, has had some consequences. I hope I don't seem too political. No intention of talking about that, simply about facts as far as I know them and morals and ethics in film criticism.
Should we just praise such movies without highlighting the fantastical elements in the light of such further developments? Something for us as film critics to figure out I'm sure.
Movie comment on Nekojiru-sô
avatud2013
To anyone who'd want to see similar stuff, I recommend the animations of an Estonian director, Priit Pärn. It quite surprised me how similar the style of this cartoon is to that on Pärn. I recently watched a documentary on Pärn and in it he mentioned a Japanese director he seemed to be in correspondence with. I now wonder if it could have been Tatsuo Sato.Movie comment on Spring Breakers
avatud2013
Awesome, awesome movie. To the all time favourites, for sure.I've never been to America, nor have had any connection with the spring break tradition, but to quote Rammstein - "We're all living in Amerika" - it seems to reflect back to other cultures and in a language I feel familiar with, so I think I can talk about it as a semi-insider.
I don't believe it condemns the people depicted in the movie, I think it presents them and depicts the spring break tradition with all of its excesses as almost a religious journey in a world driven and dictated by excesses, hedonism, material and sensational gain.
It seems the school system is strongly linked to the whole thing, school system creating a need or basis for a religious journey such as this.
The movie is so American, but also so human in a much wider meaning.
The people getting high on Jesus and the people getting high on crime, sex and narcotics are all sort of part of the same thing. The guy in the beginning talking about getting high on Jesus looks like he might have had a religious experience similar to the one the main characters are having, in the past.
In a way movie that is trolling, but also a profound almost religious movie.
One for me to revisit, for sure.
Toplist comment on Golden Globe Award - Best Motion Picture
avatud2013
"Borat 2" was the best film of 2020?Movie comment on The Piano
avatud2013
This will mostly be spoilers.It was building up to be a potentially amizingly good film...
Movie comment on The Last House on the Left
avatud2013
The Infamous remake of Ingmar Bergman's "The Virgin Spring".I never watched it before, probably because thinking it would be a cheap and schlocky film overplaying the shock, but now having watched it I find it not to be the case.
Well, definitely a lot of the fame comes from historical value. The film was made in the context of something that has now become widely called "a cultural revolution" in America. As I understand, a lot of such deeper/rougher themes were missing from American cinema before that time. I doubt many people had access to seeing Ingmar Bergman's original. Craven presented the idea in a b-movie scenario, to an audience that had been shielded from a lot that was going on in the cinema of other countries.
Definitely rough around the edges, and being usually listed under horror movies probably does it disservice, as people are watching it trying to find something "believable" or "scary", something "examining the essence of violence", while seeing from historical perspectives might give it much more meaning.
The characters and situations are unbelievable, it's a "constructed movie", to be sure, but I think it might have a lot of value if used to analyze "culture wars", "generational conflicts", etc. The horror movies from that time period ("Night of the Living Dead", "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre") definitely were doing things in relation to what was on at the time, they reacted to the failure of the happy "hippy-love"-attitude (that perhaps could be compared to the "pc-culture" of today - people thinking that by making other people not talk about bad stuff, it would disappear), and they definitely played with the "genre and function of horror movies as whole" to be sure.
In a way this movie does seem as "conservative horror" at the start, and a lot of horror movies seem to present this "conservative" picture of the world - a girl deals with people of the wrong class, plays with "dangerous behavior" and gets what's coming to her, but from the ironic/playful/comedy tone that is used, (which it seems to slightly have in common with "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre") and the fact that it turns into a revenge-fantasy film by the end, and by the year it was made, I doubt it's too "serious" in some such conservative message.
This film really makes you think of the "horror genre" as irony on conservative views. Just when imagining the context. Young people going to the cinemas (or renting a "banned in UK" videotape) to watch films with an exaggerated conservative message (don't do drugs or participate in disallowed forms of sexual behavior or there will be consequences), for fun, to smoke pot and to hopefully participate in disallowed forms of sexual behavior. It seems to be sort of like an ironic form of viewing (and making) movies, perhaps.
I enjoyed aspects of this movie, both in music, editing, script: the main villain is quite good at almost being an iconic villain, though trying to do that in some quite unbelievable and constructed scenarios and I think the script definitely has it's moments: Nice reference to Alice Cooper through the fictional band Bloodlust. (Cooper's famous chicken incident had happened just a few years before.) I also quite like how the group of villains are talking about the "sex crime of the century" and the girl lists Sigmund "Frood", because he can't ever see phone posts without thinking of male sexual organs again. Yes, boys and girls, psychologists/philosophers can be the greatest sexual criminals of history.
Overall, the movie is probably not ever going to be a "masterpiece" in any category, but valuable if seen from a historical or genre theory perspective and with somewhat clever moments of screenwriting, framing, editing, scoring here and there throughout. Also seems to foreshadow chainsaw as an iconic horror weapon.
Movie comment on Promising Young Woman
avatud2013
Reading comments describing it as an "evisceration of macho/rape culture" made me quite doubtful of the film being good, as I think I haven't read an argumentation on the subject, where words "rape culture" were used unironically, that felt convincing enoguh to start taking these words seriously. It might be from my own lack of reading certainly, and there might be some intelligent reasoning behind putting the blame on this "culture" instead of the power structures of social hierarchies, and paradoxes in our own minds and biology (as victims, perpetrators, bystanders), but was happy to find out that the movie didn't seem to be an "evisceration" of this made up fantastical creature, at all, in my view, but a well acted, well crafted examination of the issue in it’s complexities from an emotional point of view as a “genre” film, with good comedic and dramatic timing, emotional heart, skillful use of music and "double meaning" (as in the title), etc.Although it is debatable, I too find that the ending could be seen as possibly undermining the movie’s ultimate resonance.
I don’t know if it is appropriate to bring this into it, but from my own observations, it would seem, that yes, probably it usually is some men coming to the rescue of women from these abusive social structures, usually probably young men, idealistic, with determination and new technologies (social networks and apps) saving abused women from the movie and music industry or the “club scene”, but probably naive about how they would soon start building and using similar structures themselves for getting as much sex from as many women as they could for as little commitment or cost (having to learn their names? Ugh) as possible.
It was a really good movie in a lot of aspects, but I think it ended up choosing to be more shallow than it had built up promise for by then. As a genre film more soothing ending probably, making someone ready for a nice episode of television where cancer was cured, the issue of racism was solved by the police or the military, or something and everyone could be happy about their society. As I said, it is definitely debatable. As a message of hope to someone who could find themselves in unjust situations, perhaps good, but to actually trigger someone to emotionally process the complexity of the issue, the depth of it, to grow themselves, it kinda seems like a more childish choice. A case of different perspective perhaps. Many people seem to think keeping young women naive and hopeful in regards to entering clubs and other such social constructs that probably at the heart are market places where powerful men can exchange their status for cheap sex, is a good choice, and we shouldn’t traumatize people with the probable depth of this, shouldn’t destroy the hopes of young girls who are about to venture to these entrances to sex dungeons, so that sex trafficking could go on, but perhaps there are valid arguments for keeping girls naive and hopeful about “partying” as well, I don’t know.
Movie comment on Mission: Impossible - Fallout
avatud2013
Was there a reason mentioned in the film why they had to parachute through the storm into the party? Did all the guests arrive that way? Were the special agencies unable to come up with a better way?Movie comment on Explosion of a Motor Car
avatud2013
Of slightly better quality compared to the last link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVbpGmX890I
Movie comment on Domashna rabota (predilki)
avatud2013
To reply to the sarcastic commentators on some of these films: Indeed these films might seem irrelevant to some, and dull, but I think it would be good to keep in mind that you watching these films that you don't get value from or could not connect to is not that much of the creator's or even the list maker's doing. It's like speed reading as many books as possible without any specific criteria of choice and then complaining of not understanding some of them.Not to ricidule someone, these comments are definitely valuable, but in the future could be seen as existential comments from people trapped in a machine that guides them from watching one one minute clip to another, constantly ticking boxes for the serotonin rush and illusion that they are getting cultural.
Well, as a side effect they probably are getting a little more "cultured" or "cultivated", but the turning of culture into too much of a sport definitely does take something away from the whole experience, and makes for an amusing spectacle of people ticking off boxes and complaining about having watched something and then going for the next one, similar to the last, to just repeat the same. If the appearance of cultural sophistication is important, doesn't the constant commenting of how one doesn't get it, not defeat the purpose?
Movie comment on Avengers: Infinity War
avatud2013
LOL! All those IMDB lists really have lost all their significance. This film is in 9 lists and ranks #56 in the best movies of all time? I mean it was acceptable as mindless entertainment, a couple of jokes were funny, but among the very best films humankind has created? Those IMDB lists really have fallen.Blog comment on The Departed
avatud2013
Cheaters? How do you cheat on icm?Movie comment on Gloria!
avatud2013
Surprised to see this one getting that many dislikes. It was dedicated to his recently deceased grandmother and using some of her memories, as I understand. Perhaps he couldn't express himself in any other way than with such unbearable films, but it's from the heart.Movie comment on Maria-Empfängnis-Aktion Hermann Nitsch
avatud2013
The humiliating of the carcass is the most offensive part, aside from that it's not that shocking in this day and age, there are porn films about genital mutilation and real accident / execution videos on the internet to which this really doesn't quite compare and back then you had to go to a performance to see this kind of stuff. It's a film of it's time, no doubt about it, one of a more innocent time, as you can see none of the entrails were used to penetrate the girl and they had even washed the girl before the one penetration act with the man who probably was her husband. Aside from the carcass defilement it was a straightforward romantic couple bondage sex with a little entrail rubbing thrown in for good measure.Movie comment on Make Way for Tomorrow
avatud2013
I don*t understand what pitchomeirda is saying or anyone else here actually. This was quite an upbeat film and with a lot healthier point then Umberto D.Life turns to crap once you can*t take care of yourself, but there is still some hope and dignity when you can say f*ck you to people putting you into uncomfortable situations and treating you depressingly. Quite liked the old guy in the end.
Movie comment on The Dark Knight Rises
avatud2013
Damn dumb movie. Tons of plotholes.Movie comment on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
avatud2013
Didn't have as much logic flaws as the third one, but wasn't as enjoyable either. Pretty good though.Movie comment on The Aggression Scale
avatud2013
Quite a nice remake of Home Alone