I've seen a ton of TV shows. This is the best one. I love The Sopranos, I love Fargo and Band of Brothers. They don't even compete.
Just watch it.
Just watch it.
Reviews
18 Reviews
After Life
(2019–2022)
Ricky Gervais at his most conceited
30 January 2020
I generally like Ricky Gervais. His collaborations with Stephen Merchant (The Office, Extras and the Ricky Gervais Show in particular) are always go-to's when I want a quick laugh. At times, he can make me laugh harder than any other comedian on the planet can. Despite this, I've noticed a trend recently: his comedy has grown increasingly more conceited and self satisfied in recent years. After Life is a prime example of this.
In After Life, Gervais plays "Tony" (aka Ricky Gervais), a terribly annoying character who's constant whinging is one of the show's main hooks. Clearly, the problem here is that Gervais has cast himself as the smart character, somebody who sees humanity for what it is, when his real talents lie in playing delusional idiots. Tony's proclamations, instead of being brutally truthful (as probably intended), come off as smug and make him one of the least likable characters I've ever seen on television.
Another problem is the show's themes. After Life, for all it's faults, has a fairly consistent tone throughout, pure misery, but in it's final episode, it takes an insincere turn, becoming "emotional" in an incredibly smarmy way. Add to that, it's satirical take on religion is comparable to the "genius" ramblings of a 14 year old atheist. I hate to say it, but nobody finds atheism cool anymore, especially if it's conveyed in such a caustic, nastily entitled tone.
Ultimately, I wouldn't recommend this show.
In After Life, Gervais plays "Tony" (aka Ricky Gervais), a terribly annoying character who's constant whinging is one of the show's main hooks. Clearly, the problem here is that Gervais has cast himself as the smart character, somebody who sees humanity for what it is, when his real talents lie in playing delusional idiots. Tony's proclamations, instead of being brutally truthful (as probably intended), come off as smug and make him one of the least likable characters I've ever seen on television.
Another problem is the show's themes. After Life, for all it's faults, has a fairly consistent tone throughout, pure misery, but in it's final episode, it takes an insincere turn, becoming "emotional" in an incredibly smarmy way. Add to that, it's satirical take on religion is comparable to the "genius" ramblings of a 14 year old atheist. I hate to say it, but nobody finds atheism cool anymore, especially if it's conveyed in such a caustic, nastily entitled tone.
Ultimately, I wouldn't recommend this show.
Barry
(2018– )
A brilliant comedy that you cannot miss
8 January 2020
When I first read the description of Barry, I immediately dismissed the show as being either too high concept or too gimmicky to be fun. I was wrong. Not only is this show a total hidden gem, but it contains some of the funniest and most morally complex characters on TV.
From the start, Barry gets almost everything right. The writing is caustic and funny, always delivered with both heartfelt sincerity and a darkly funny edge (you have to look no further than the character of Noho Hank to see where the soul of the show lies). The violence is frequently punchy and always well done, sometimes quite shocking in it's unexpectedness. The performances across the board are stellar, especially from Winkler, Hader, Carrigan and Root, who all play extremely eccentric men who's goals come at odds.
All that being said, I think it's imperative for more people to watch this show. This is "peak TV". Like Breaking Bad and The Sopranos, Barry portrays a conflicted character with depth and surprising beauty. Don't miss out on it.
From the start, Barry gets almost everything right. The writing is caustic and funny, always delivered with both heartfelt sincerity and a darkly funny edge (you have to look no further than the character of Noho Hank to see where the soul of the show lies). The violence is frequently punchy and always well done, sometimes quite shocking in it's unexpectedness. The performances across the board are stellar, especially from Winkler, Hader, Carrigan and Root, who all play extremely eccentric men who's goals come at odds.
All that being said, I think it's imperative for more people to watch this show. This is "peak TV". Like Breaking Bad and The Sopranos, Barry portrays a conflicted character with depth and surprising beauty. Don't miss out on it.
Uncut Gems
(2019)
This is how I win
16 December 2019
In Uncut Gems the Safdie brothers pull from a litany of influences, including the films of Altman (California Split in particular), Cassavetes, French New Wave and bling culture, creating a kaleidoscopic, brilliant, heart pumping masterwork in tension. When I say tension, I truly mean tension. I thought Good Time was punishing on my heart rate - clearly I hadn't seen anything yet. The constant pace is only aided by Adam Sandler's brilliant, enthralling performance.
Hands down this is the greatest film of the year. See it without any preconceptions.
Side note: I was delighted to see that Martin Scorsese had produced this film. Considering that his incredible film The Irishman was also released this year, it brings me joy to know that he's passing the torch to the new generation of auteurs.
Hands down this is the greatest film of the year. See it without any preconceptions.
Side note: I was delighted to see that Martin Scorsese had produced this film. Considering that his incredible film The Irishman was also released this year, it brings me joy to know that he's passing the torch to the new generation of auteurs.
Joker
(I) (2019)
What people actually mean when they say "a comic book movie for people who don't like comic book movies"
12 October 2019
For those that are experiencing severe ennui in the age of conveyor-belt blockbuster monstrosities, Joker is a breath of fresh air. Not only does it totally subvert expectations in it's own genre (the film is extremely small scale and barely relies on any superhero/comic book tropes) but it manages to be an excellent film noir/ character study/ hilarious dark comedy in it's own right.
Joker has all the hallmarks of the film's it's emulating, but through the lens of a comic book antihero origin story and with Todd Phillip's direction brilliantly balancing callousness and tenderness, it becomes unlike anything you've seen before. Of course, it harkens back to the films of Martin Scorsese in a way that borders on problematic. Plot wise, Joker feels like an odd fusion of The King of Comedy (pathetic loner aspires to be stand up comedian and ultimately takes on his talk show host hero to achieve fame) and Taxi Driver (sociopathic, mentally ill man lives alone in an atrophied society that ultimately leads him to commit freeing acts of violence), but ultimately it overcomes it's inspirations to become it's own film.
All in all, I think this is definitely worth a watch. I wish Hollywood would make more films like this.
Joker has all the hallmarks of the film's it's emulating, but through the lens of a comic book antihero origin story and with Todd Phillip's direction brilliantly balancing callousness and tenderness, it becomes unlike anything you've seen before. Of course, it harkens back to the films of Martin Scorsese in a way that borders on problematic. Plot wise, Joker feels like an odd fusion of The King of Comedy (pathetic loner aspires to be stand up comedian and ultimately takes on his talk show host hero to achieve fame) and Taxi Driver (sociopathic, mentally ill man lives alone in an atrophied society that ultimately leads him to commit freeing acts of violence), but ultimately it overcomes it's inspirations to become it's own film.
All in all, I think this is definitely worth a watch. I wish Hollywood would make more films like this.
Tarantino's best film
9 August 2019
I'm not a Tarantino lover. I like a decent amount of his films (I thought that Resevoir Dogs, Kill Bill 1 and 2, Jackie Brown and Inglorious Basterds were just OK). I am, however, a film lover. I love the cheesy Spaghetti westerns of the late 1960s. I love a good cut when I see one. I love a great set-piece. I love Hollywood mythology. This film is a love letter to all those things and more importantly, it's a love letter to cinema. A love letter to the art of film. It's kaleidoscopic, enthralling, ugly and beautiful in tandem. After finishing this film you will shout to the skies "that was a good MOVIE!". I missed that feeling and now my soul as an artist feels rejuvenated. I feel like I've just witnessed a historic piece of art.
It's truly a cinephile's film. If you ever frequent this website, watch films semi-regularly or like a good work of art, then please SEE THIS MOVIE!
It's truly a cinephile's film. If you ever frequent this website, watch films semi-regularly or like a good work of art, then please SEE THIS MOVIE!
Velvet Buzzsaw
(2019)
Gory good fun is undercut by weak art world satire...
6 February 2019
Velvet Buzzsaw is a strange movie. It feels like an amalgam of a whole litany of stylistic and narrative influences, it's strongest being the totally air-headed (and overpraised) bourgeois satire of Bret Easton Ellis and Cronenberg's vacuous critique of vacuousness, the ensemble film Maps to the Stars. Here's the thing about Velvet Buzzsaw, however: it is better than it's influences.
Much of the film is genuinely inspired, from the beautiful cinematography, set-design and gorgeous color palette to the excellent turns from the main cast, specifically Jake Gylenhall . While some aspects of it's narrative could have been more fleshed out (specifically the background of it's villain) and the slightly-jumbled introductions to our many characters could have been tighter, it's ultimately brought down by it's weak satire. It's a stale take on the modern-art world, and as a result, there is a acidic backwash that eeks throughout the rest of the film, bringing down the enjoyment level significantly.
But ultimately, I like this film a-lot more than most are giving it credit for.
Much of the film is genuinely inspired, from the beautiful cinematography, set-design and gorgeous color palette to the excellent turns from the main cast, specifically Jake Gylenhall . While some aspects of it's narrative could have been more fleshed out (specifically the background of it's villain) and the slightly-jumbled introductions to our many characters could have been tighter, it's ultimately brought down by it's weak satire. It's a stale take on the modern-art world, and as a result, there is a acidic backwash that eeks throughout the rest of the film, bringing down the enjoyment level significantly.
But ultimately, I like this film a-lot more than most are giving it credit for.
Revenge
(II) (2017)
A-lot of talent on display, needed some fine-tuning
16 May 2018
The plot of Revenge is nothing new. Somebody has something horrible done to them, they somehow recover alive from that incident and they come back to wreak havoc on their assailants. The presentation of it is what sets it apart from something like I Spit on Your Grave. It's lavishly shot, with the bright desert landscape the perfect canvas to throw buckets and buckets of blood and gore on.
In the beginning, the camera focuses on backsides, pretty faces and lavish scenery (you can see a winking parody of Michael Bay's style in this film), until it begins to focus on mangled bodies, cuts oozing blood and some of the most absurd blood loss I've ever seen on film. Yes, this film is very unrealistic, and that's not necessarily my problem. My problem is that the main character (no spoilers) by the end, seems basically invincible. Yes, she hobbles and breathes rapidly to show that she isn't, but with so much blood spilled, is there anything that she can't get out of? To me, that just kind of deflated the tension. If it had been a twee little bit more grounded I think it would have functioned much better.
All and all, I can recommend this film. It has a feminist message without being condescending or hamfisted. As a genre-piece, it operates somewhere between Kill Bill, Wolf Creek and I Spit on Your Grave, and if you can get down with that, as I can, then I'd recommend this film.
Side note: The way the director handles space is actually really well done. There is a scene where two characters chase each other around and it evolves so that we see that they are moving in circles. She's good at repetition to enhance narrative.
In the beginning, the camera focuses on backsides, pretty faces and lavish scenery (you can see a winking parody of Michael Bay's style in this film), until it begins to focus on mangled bodies, cuts oozing blood and some of the most absurd blood loss I've ever seen on film. Yes, this film is very unrealistic, and that's not necessarily my problem. My problem is that the main character (no spoilers) by the end, seems basically invincible. Yes, she hobbles and breathes rapidly to show that she isn't, but with so much blood spilled, is there anything that she can't get out of? To me, that just kind of deflated the tension. If it had been a twee little bit more grounded I think it would have functioned much better.
All and all, I can recommend this film. It has a feminist message without being condescending or hamfisted. As a genre-piece, it operates somewhere between Kill Bill, Wolf Creek and I Spit on Your Grave, and if you can get down with that, as I can, then I'd recommend this film.
Side note: The way the director handles space is actually really well done. There is a scene where two characters chase each other around and it evolves so that we see that they are moving in circles. She's good at repetition to enhance narrative.
Annihilation
(I) (2018)
A brilliant movie hidden in a mediocre movie
25 February 2018
The only advice I can give to anybody going to see Annihilation is: stick with it. I definitely was close to checking out around the middle point, but quickly my interest was piqued and in the blink of an eye the movie turned into a profound, 2001 meets Under The Skin meets Predator surreal science fiction near- masterpiece.
The first half is so patiently mediocre that the second half almost feels like a completely different movie, making the movie a mixed bag but one that's totally worth it. Some of the performances are great, some are okay, and at least one is noticeably bad. Natalie Portman turns in a great performance (she carries the entire film) and Jennifer Jason Leigh gives a reserved and underplayed angle to a well worn out archetype. The side characters however, like Gina Rodriguez and Tessa Thompson, are mostly annoying and sometimes border on being simply bad. Oscar Isaac is very good.
Most of the technical choices are good. The cinematography isn't particularly flashy but it captures the world behind the shimmer in all of it's messed up glory (the last twenty minutes are truly a thing to behold). The music choices are also a mixed bag. Soft strum guitar comes in at random intervals and doesn't really work, but the dark, brooding thump of a certain synth track really gives you a sense of cosmic horror.
I don't want to spoil anything, so I'm going to leave it at that. Go support this movie, even if it isn't perfect. There are so many great things about it that they way outweigh the flaws.
The first half is so patiently mediocre that the second half almost feels like a completely different movie, making the movie a mixed bag but one that's totally worth it. Some of the performances are great, some are okay, and at least one is noticeably bad. Natalie Portman turns in a great performance (she carries the entire film) and Jennifer Jason Leigh gives a reserved and underplayed angle to a well worn out archetype. The side characters however, like Gina Rodriguez and Tessa Thompson, are mostly annoying and sometimes border on being simply bad. Oscar Isaac is very good.
Most of the technical choices are good. The cinematography isn't particularly flashy but it captures the world behind the shimmer in all of it's messed up glory (the last twenty minutes are truly a thing to behold). The music choices are also a mixed bag. Soft strum guitar comes in at random intervals and doesn't really work, but the dark, brooding thump of a certain synth track really gives you a sense of cosmic horror.
I don't want to spoil anything, so I'm going to leave it at that. Go support this movie, even if it isn't perfect. There are so many great things about it that they way outweigh the flaws.
The Bad Batch
(2016)
Some interesting moments, but overall incredibly lacking
26 September 2017
The Bad Batch is a bizarre, sometimes fascinating, but mostly dreadfully glacial, try hard artsy film. The main problem with it is that it confuses silence and a plodding pace for depth, and despite some unique moments, it's really not worth your time.
The story is actually a fairly interesting one, something that you could see in a Mad-Max type of film, but unfortunately the premise is mostly squandered on shots of empty expanse and our main character, the lifeless Suki Waterhouse, staring dead eyed, either sober or on hallucigenic drugs from Keanu Reeves. If she had given a better performance I might have cut this film some more slack, but in this movie she has about as much personality as a piece of plain white bread (which is also a good metaphor for the movie as a whole). It's there, it serves it's purpose, but its ultimately forgettable and bland. With actors like Keanu Reeves and Jim Carrey, I'm surprised that the director chose this actress for the lead. Even Jason Momoa gives a middling performance. Keanu is hard not to love in everything, but his role could be played by pretty much anybody else. Jim Carrey doesn't say a word.
To resist the urge to rip this movie to shreds, I'll say that the scenes between Momoa and Waterhouse are the highest point in the movie. My favorite scene in the entire movie is where they hide from a sandstorm. It only lasts a couple of seconds but it's one of the only moments in the movie where you actually feel a connection between two human beings.
Ultimately, under a better or more talented director and with a more likable lead this movie could have been something, but as it stands it's a mostly lifeless shell of something that could have been decent, with a couple of interesting moments thrown in. I wouldn't recommend seeing it, for art house fans or not. It's just not a good movie.
The story is actually a fairly interesting one, something that you could see in a Mad-Max type of film, but unfortunately the premise is mostly squandered on shots of empty expanse and our main character, the lifeless Suki Waterhouse, staring dead eyed, either sober or on hallucigenic drugs from Keanu Reeves. If she had given a better performance I might have cut this film some more slack, but in this movie she has about as much personality as a piece of plain white bread (which is also a good metaphor for the movie as a whole). It's there, it serves it's purpose, but its ultimately forgettable and bland. With actors like Keanu Reeves and Jim Carrey, I'm surprised that the director chose this actress for the lead. Even Jason Momoa gives a middling performance. Keanu is hard not to love in everything, but his role could be played by pretty much anybody else. Jim Carrey doesn't say a word.
To resist the urge to rip this movie to shreds, I'll say that the scenes between Momoa and Waterhouse are the highest point in the movie. My favorite scene in the entire movie is where they hide from a sandstorm. It only lasts a couple of seconds but it's one of the only moments in the movie where you actually feel a connection between two human beings.
Ultimately, under a better or more talented director and with a more likable lead this movie could have been something, but as it stands it's a mostly lifeless shell of something that could have been decent, with a couple of interesting moments thrown in. I wouldn't recommend seeing it, for art house fans or not. It's just not a good movie.
Death Note
(I) (2017)
An outsider's perspective...
29 August 2017
I came into Death Note with an open mind. I had never seen the anime (although I plan to because it looks great) and I had liked some of Adam Wingard's stuff before, namely The Guest. And after sitting through Death Note's 1 hour and 40 minute runtime...I can only imagine how the fans of the anime feel. If I had to describe this movie in three words it would be: messy, misguided, awkward. I'd say the first twenty to thirty minutes are the most solid of the entire movie, except that you'll see enough high school clichés to think that you're watching some YA nonsense and not a gory thriller about a sociopathic teenager with a book that can kill people. But it's not too bad, yet. Willem Dafoe brings a typically great performance, there's some intriguing ideas, an excellent gory kill... But then, after those solid twenty or so minutes, the movie collapses in on itself. What could have been a dark and investing thriller about a kid who has the power to do basically anything he wants turns into into an absurd clusterf***k of a film that's tonally literally all over the place. Is it a gory thriller? Is it a dark drama about what's morally right and wrong? Is it a absurd comedy? Is it a teen romance? All of this, and the saddest thing is that it's just wasted potential. It could have been a classic, but instead will probably end up a cautionary tale about what not to do when you're adapting something beloved. It's not ALL bad: the cinematography is interesting, it's never boring per say (but never really entertaining in the way they want it to be), Willem Dafoe, of course. But it is a LOT of bad.
John Wick: Chapter 2
(2017)
A bit disappointing
27 August 2017
I was excited for John Wick: Chapter 2. The first 2014 film was a action film for people who don't like action films, or at least what they've turned into in recent years. The story was reminiscent of a Clint Eastwood western: A man has something taken from him by some bad men, and now it's time for him to take something from them (probably their lives). It was stripped down and minimalistic, while also managing to pull off some epic, bone-crunching action scenes that were, mercifully, spared of the shaky cam treatment. John Wick: Chapter 2 has many of these things. The action scenes are arguably better. Keanu Reeves brings the same energy and force that made him the perfect protagonist in the first film. The stylistic influences range from the films of Jean Pierre Melville to Westerns to Enter the Dragon and even Buster Keaton (a couple of frames into the film you'll understand what I mean). All of this and yet it's so much more disjointed. The first film knew what it was. It was a lean, mean, stylish, gritty action thriller. The world building wasn't heaped on. It didn't feel necessary to the plot but instead it felt like the icing on an already tasty cake. Chapter 2 takes the world of John Wick and makes expanding on it one of the key issues of the film. Admittedly, the world is pretty interesting (but do I really need to know where John Wick gets his suits tailored, though?), but the story is lacking because of it. In the first film, no spoilers here, but anybody who saw that movie knows that John had a clear motivation for doing what he was doing. In Chapter 2, the motivation feels lackluster. Therefore, even if the action sequences are the reason why the word "epic" was invented, you feel less involved in his revenge. One of the first things a revenge film has to do is get you on the side of the avenger. With the added problem of a weak villain, John Wick: Chapter 2 has a rough time doing that. The film's other major problem is a lack of character drive. Wick seems to be stumbling through the scenarios, figuratively of course (he could eat a bowl of Fruit Loops and make it look slick), but we never see a clear vision of what he wants and what inside of him he's fighting against to get there. We see the external problems: he's being roped into something he doesn't want to do under threat of death, Common is gunning for him, he needs to convince Laurence Fishburne and his hobo-assassin league to help him. But we don't have that same drive from the first movie. He doesn't want to get out of retirement, but he has to have his revenge, and in the end, does he really want to be retired? In a way, Chapter 2, as over-bloated as it is, is more stripped down the the first film, as Wick barely grapples with any of the internal dilemmas that were the undercurrent to his character in the first film. In the end, Chapter 2 is a stylish and entertaining film, and comparatively with most sequels, it's more than we could have possibly wished for. Just be aware, it works almost entirely on the surface level. Imagine Bret Easton Ellis and John Woo teamed up to make a James Bond film and somehow it turned out to be a sequel to John Wick. Fun, but no so much fun.
Dunkirk
(2017)
One of Nolan's best films yet...
5 August 2017
Christopher Nolan is an admirable filmmaker. Every time he comes up to bat, he swings for the fences. Sometimes he misses (The Dark Knight Rises, Interstellar) and sometimes he succeeds wildly (Memento, The Dark Knight, Inception). Dunkirk is a wild success, and may rank as one of my favorite of his films. The film immediately throws you into the action and never lets up, taking you on a journey that is intense, terrifying and incredibly satisfying. Technically, the film is impeccable. The cinematography is gorgeous. Nolan uses both 70mm and IMAX cameras, giving the film both an epic and a claustrophobic look. The score is brilliant, using a ticking clock motif that never lets up. The film is also complexly structured, following land, air and sea and the different stories that take place in each different area. Dunkirk jolts back and forth in time to tell each of these stories, and honestly, I think it works all the better for it. It gives you the feel of the confusion and chaos of war. At this point, I'm not sure if this movie is a 10/10 yet. I'd have to go see it again, but as it stands, it is a very solid 9/10. Go see it on the biggest screen possible.
The Neon Demon
(2016)
Flawed, but unique and entertaining
18 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The Neon Demon is definitely a gorgeous film. Each shot is painterly, giving a sense of personality and energy to every frame. I can't quite name one shot that couldn't be framed and hung up at an art gallery. The soundtrack too is completely gorgeous, nailing a distinct mixture of haunting electro beats and fairytale synths. The Neon demon is definitely a welcome and fresh surprise in this barren apocalyptic landscape that is current movies, but it's not completely free of sin.
The main problem with the movie is the screenplay. While it skirts along from one epic artsy- setpiece to the next(The nightclub scene, the gold paint shoot scene, the runway scene, the eyeball scene), the connecting tissue to those scenes isn't as strong. The characters are mostly vapid and since this is a movie about Los Angeles and the modeling industry I completely understand that, but it can become a bit tiresome after a while. It's obvious that Nicholas Winding Refn is trying to give the main character (Elle Fanning) a certain sense of innocence and naivety as to make her transformation (during the pivotal runway scene) all the more jarring, but once she makes that transformation, she doesn't really follow through on it. There's one scene where she gives her sort-of boyfriend the cold shoulder, but other than that she (spoiler alert!) dies before she can even do anything. I would have liked to see become as cold as the models preying on her, and perhaps kill the character of Ruby, who isn't a part of the shocking set-piece at the end of the movie.
Besides those problems, there's only a couple other minor grievances I have with the film. The models were all very good, and Jena Malone was fantastic, and also extremely daring and ballsy (a particular scene in a morgue is quite disgusting and shocking). The only character I particularly disliked was the male fashion designer, who was just completely absurdly unrealistic. The fact is that most male fashion designers are gay, and even if they aren't, their not as alpha and brooding as he was. The worst scene in the film is a conversation between Elle Fanning's sort-of boyfriend and the fashion designer, where the fashion designer says "Beauty isn't everything, it's the only thing". The boyfriend replies with: "I think it's what's inside that counts". WHAT? This is a line that betrays the character first of all (in the opening shot he is shooting Elle Fanning draped over the couch, dripping fake blood from her neck), and also just comes off as completely disingenuous. The film's entire aesthetic is beauty. It's beauty for beauty's sake. The film, up to that point, is not about feminism or ideology. It's merely bathing in aesthetics. You can make a film about how "Whats on the inside counts" but this is certainly not that film. If I were Nicholas Winding Refn I would not have let that line fly. At least next time you'll know, hopefully.
All that aside, I implore Hollywood to look at unique, interesting and well-made films like this and say "Let's do more of those". I don't know how many more ugly, stale Marvel films I can watch before my head explodes from boredom. I haven't seen all of Nicholas Winding Refn's films, and I'll admit that some of his earlier work isn't for me. I didn't really dig Valhalla Rising or Bronson, or the first Pusher for that matter (I know the sequels are better and I'm looking forward to seeing them), but what he's been doing recently, with Drive, Only God Forgives and now this, I'm pretty sure I'll be the first in line to see whatever he does next.
The main problem with the movie is the screenplay. While it skirts along from one epic artsy- setpiece to the next(The nightclub scene, the gold paint shoot scene, the runway scene, the eyeball scene), the connecting tissue to those scenes isn't as strong. The characters are mostly vapid and since this is a movie about Los Angeles and the modeling industry I completely understand that, but it can become a bit tiresome after a while. It's obvious that Nicholas Winding Refn is trying to give the main character (Elle Fanning) a certain sense of innocence and naivety as to make her transformation (during the pivotal runway scene) all the more jarring, but once she makes that transformation, she doesn't really follow through on it. There's one scene where she gives her sort-of boyfriend the cold shoulder, but other than that she (spoiler alert!) dies before she can even do anything. I would have liked to see become as cold as the models preying on her, and perhaps kill the character of Ruby, who isn't a part of the shocking set-piece at the end of the movie.
Besides those problems, there's only a couple other minor grievances I have with the film. The models were all very good, and Jena Malone was fantastic, and also extremely daring and ballsy (a particular scene in a morgue is quite disgusting and shocking). The only character I particularly disliked was the male fashion designer, who was just completely absurdly unrealistic. The fact is that most male fashion designers are gay, and even if they aren't, their not as alpha and brooding as he was. The worst scene in the film is a conversation between Elle Fanning's sort-of boyfriend and the fashion designer, where the fashion designer says "Beauty isn't everything, it's the only thing". The boyfriend replies with: "I think it's what's inside that counts". WHAT? This is a line that betrays the character first of all (in the opening shot he is shooting Elle Fanning draped over the couch, dripping fake blood from her neck), and also just comes off as completely disingenuous. The film's entire aesthetic is beauty. It's beauty for beauty's sake. The film, up to that point, is not about feminism or ideology. It's merely bathing in aesthetics. You can make a film about how "Whats on the inside counts" but this is certainly not that film. If I were Nicholas Winding Refn I would not have let that line fly. At least next time you'll know, hopefully.
All that aside, I implore Hollywood to look at unique, interesting and well-made films like this and say "Let's do more of those". I don't know how many more ugly, stale Marvel films I can watch before my head explodes from boredom. I haven't seen all of Nicholas Winding Refn's films, and I'll admit that some of his earlier work isn't for me. I didn't really dig Valhalla Rising or Bronson, or the first Pusher for that matter (I know the sequels are better and I'm looking forward to seeing them), but what he's been doing recently, with Drive, Only God Forgives and now this, I'm pretty sure I'll be the first in line to see whatever he does next.
31
(2016)
Not Zombie's greatest film, but far from being his worse.
23 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Rob Zombie's movies can be at best disturbing, brutal and deliciously entertaining, and at worst annoying, goofy and tedious. The films House of 1,000 Corpses and it's sequel The Devils Rejects perfectly show off the best and worst of Zombie's filmmaking. I found House of 1,000 Corpses to be shrill and irritating from beginning to end, with not enough gore or tension to make the watch bearable. The Devil's Rejects is the polar opposite. It's gritty, disgusting and thrilling, with characters that I previously couldn't be interested less in suddenly becoming fascinating. 31 has traits from both The Devil's Rejects and House of 1,000 Corpses, and what Zombie pulls together is a mixed, yet entertaining, watch.
The story is very Zombie-esque, following a group of carnies who are kidnapped by rich people who bet on their lives as round after round of murderous clowns attack them. The premise itself is enough to show up in the theater, and the film definitely starts out promisingly with a creepy black and white monologue from the scariest killer of the bunch, Doom Head. The intensity of that scene doesn't exactly carry through for the rest of the film, and neither does the quality of cinematography. Zombie takes on a shaky, hand-held look that occasionally undermines some potentially great scenes of horror, but it's no where near the worst shaky cam I've ever seen, and it also sometimes works to the film's benefit.
Where Zombie excels, and lords over some of his horror peers (Cough cough Eli Roth), is in the visceral horror department. He knows how to make your stomach drop to the floor. The Devil's Rejects is one long experiment in viscerally disgusting horror, and that's part of what makes it so great. There are definitely some great moments of visceral horror in this film that I won't spoil.
My biggest problems with the film have to do with the way it resolved, and some of our main characters. It leaves you feeling a bit unsatisfied at the end, and wishing for a more epic-ly gory finish to such a continuously violent movie. Our main characters aren't exactly likable, especially Sheri Moon Zombie's, who hasn't been exactly great in a Zombie movie since The Devil's Rejects, where she had the right balance of shrill and psycho, and none of them are really fleshed out in any way. It makes me wish a little that Rob Zombie would try using characters who aren't carnies for once.
All in all, I was entertained throughout the duration of this film. Is it great? Nu-uh, but it's still a fun, if flawed, addition to the Zombie canon. Keep it up Rob!
The story is very Zombie-esque, following a group of carnies who are kidnapped by rich people who bet on their lives as round after round of murderous clowns attack them. The premise itself is enough to show up in the theater, and the film definitely starts out promisingly with a creepy black and white monologue from the scariest killer of the bunch, Doom Head. The intensity of that scene doesn't exactly carry through for the rest of the film, and neither does the quality of cinematography. Zombie takes on a shaky, hand-held look that occasionally undermines some potentially great scenes of horror, but it's no where near the worst shaky cam I've ever seen, and it also sometimes works to the film's benefit.
Where Zombie excels, and lords over some of his horror peers (Cough cough Eli Roth), is in the visceral horror department. He knows how to make your stomach drop to the floor. The Devil's Rejects is one long experiment in viscerally disgusting horror, and that's part of what makes it so great. There are definitely some great moments of visceral horror in this film that I won't spoil.
My biggest problems with the film have to do with the way it resolved, and some of our main characters. It leaves you feeling a bit unsatisfied at the end, and wishing for a more epic-ly gory finish to such a continuously violent movie. Our main characters aren't exactly likable, especially Sheri Moon Zombie's, who hasn't been exactly great in a Zombie movie since The Devil's Rejects, where she had the right balance of shrill and psycho, and none of them are really fleshed out in any way. It makes me wish a little that Rob Zombie would try using characters who aren't carnies for once.
All in all, I was entertained throughout the duration of this film. Is it great? Nu-uh, but it's still a fun, if flawed, addition to the Zombie canon. Keep it up Rob!
Under the Same Moon
(2007)
One of the worst movies I have ever seen...
3 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Under the Same Moon is a horrible, horrible movie.
I was in agony watching it. It's so boring, so sentimental, so shamelessly one dimensional in it's portrayal of the heroic immigrant child and his mother, separated by those darn awful white people who hate foreigners.
Whatever political stance you take on illegal-immigration, whatever side you lean towards, you can't deny that this film takes a complex, multi-faceted problem and trivializes it, turning it into a simple battle of good versus evil.
Not only does it attack it's subject matter without an ounce of nuance, but it is also a horribly made film. You don't get a sense of the director at all, it's just so bland and generic. Sometimes that's okay with me when the story is gripping on it's own but... whoo, wee! This film could have used some style!
The characters are as horrible as everything else in the film. They don't feel real in the slightest. Both Carlitos and Rosario are one dimensional victims who were supposed to cheer on, right up to the unspeakably awful ending where they see each other across the street and were supposed to feel all emotional because finally they've found each other. Honestly, I just wanted them both to get hit by a bus or something.
Rosario and Carlitos are terrible characters, but they're not the worst in the film. The worst, most god-awful garbage character is Enrique, the classic "lone wolf" type character. He's brooding and sulky and doesn't want to help Carlitos but big surprise he ends up sacrificing himself so the kid can escape. Wow, I've never seen that in a movie before!
So, in conclusion, if you like your movies hyper politically-correct, un-nuanced, terribly acted, directed, written and shot, then I would recommend this trash to you.
I was in agony watching it. It's so boring, so sentimental, so shamelessly one dimensional in it's portrayal of the heroic immigrant child and his mother, separated by those darn awful white people who hate foreigners.
Whatever political stance you take on illegal-immigration, whatever side you lean towards, you can't deny that this film takes a complex, multi-faceted problem and trivializes it, turning it into a simple battle of good versus evil.
Not only does it attack it's subject matter without an ounce of nuance, but it is also a horribly made film. You don't get a sense of the director at all, it's just so bland and generic. Sometimes that's okay with me when the story is gripping on it's own but... whoo, wee! This film could have used some style!
The characters are as horrible as everything else in the film. They don't feel real in the slightest. Both Carlitos and Rosario are one dimensional victims who were supposed to cheer on, right up to the unspeakably awful ending where they see each other across the street and were supposed to feel all emotional because finally they've found each other. Honestly, I just wanted them both to get hit by a bus or something.
Rosario and Carlitos are terrible characters, but they're not the worst in the film. The worst, most god-awful garbage character is Enrique, the classic "lone wolf" type character. He's brooding and sulky and doesn't want to help Carlitos but big surprise he ends up sacrificing himself so the kid can escape. Wow, I've never seen that in a movie before!
So, in conclusion, if you like your movies hyper politically-correct, un-nuanced, terribly acted, directed, written and shot, then I would recommend this trash to you.
The Deleted
(2016)
The Deleted
19 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I was really, really excited for The Deleted.
I know, I know that sounds strange. It's a web-series!! I only have three words to explain it: Bret Easton Ellis.
After basically quitting being an author after 2010's Imperial Bedrooms, Ellis has gone off to have an interesting, if a bit bumpy, career as both a movie critic (if you've ever listened to his great podcast you know what I'm talking about) and a filmmaker (The Canyons, a couple short films and now this), a career which I have enjoyed following.
So you can see why I would be interested to see how The Deleted actually turns out,, and after watching all eight episodes I'm kind of, well, mixed.
It doesn't start out very well. The first episode has excellent, smooth camera-work and some pretty beautiful people, but it features some of the worst acting I've seen in a while. Like his 2013 flop The Canyons, Bret Easton Ellis' dialogue feels awkward transitioning from page to screen, and although his visual style is lovely, it seems as if he doesn't really know how to direct actors.
Don't worry though, it gets better.
Once the characters begin to meet up with each other and the cult they escaped from closes in, the show takes on a mesmerizingly soapy vibe, which fits it well. There's a lot of sex and some violence, and this is where Bret Easton Ellis finds himself at home. And then, suddenly, when you think the show has found it's groove...
It loses it.
The last two episodes are incredibly unsatisfying, and one contains one of the worst blunt-as-a- sledgehammer exposition scenes I think I have ever witnessed.
So, in conclusion, it's pretty much a mixed bag, albeit an (mostly) entertaining one.
I know, I know that sounds strange. It's a web-series!! I only have three words to explain it: Bret Easton Ellis.
After basically quitting being an author after 2010's Imperial Bedrooms, Ellis has gone off to have an interesting, if a bit bumpy, career as both a movie critic (if you've ever listened to his great podcast you know what I'm talking about) and a filmmaker (The Canyons, a couple short films and now this), a career which I have enjoyed following.
So you can see why I would be interested to see how The Deleted actually turns out,, and after watching all eight episodes I'm kind of, well, mixed.
It doesn't start out very well. The first episode has excellent, smooth camera-work and some pretty beautiful people, but it features some of the worst acting I've seen in a while. Like his 2013 flop The Canyons, Bret Easton Ellis' dialogue feels awkward transitioning from page to screen, and although his visual style is lovely, it seems as if he doesn't really know how to direct actors.
Don't worry though, it gets better.
Once the characters begin to meet up with each other and the cult they escaped from closes in, the show takes on a mesmerizingly soapy vibe, which fits it well. There's a lot of sex and some violence, and this is where Bret Easton Ellis finds himself at home. And then, suddenly, when you think the show has found it's groove...
It loses it.
The last two episodes are incredibly unsatisfying, and one contains one of the worst blunt-as-a- sledgehammer exposition scenes I think I have ever witnessed.
So, in conclusion, it's pretty much a mixed bag, albeit an (mostly) entertaining one.
Tell Your Friends