Change Your Image
machined
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Murder by Death (1976)
Well, this certainly doesn't hold up
I'm sure people thought this was funny when it came out. Judging by reviews, some people still think it's funny. I regret to inform you, however, that it is not funny.
It does not take much time before we are presented with the first thing that ruins the movie, a racist caricature meant to spoof a racist caricature. While that may have seemed like a good idea at the time, it simply just comes across as racist instead of funny, as the jokes rely entirely on racist tropes instead of subverting them. If you think it's going to get better, it doesn't
The other jokes that this movie is relying on in order to be funny are unfortunately quite stale, obvious in terms of what they're lampooning, and serve no purpose other than to make you think "yep, that was a joke". It's partly the fault of the characters being send-ups, because you know they are caricatures and therefore don't care about them or their one liners at all.
The only thing that could have saved this movie is if it had actually included a real mystery in it. Instead we get a tease, where you think you are getting a mystery, but then instead you have another joke about the stupidity of murder mysteries as a whole.
It's a shame because the cast has some great names in it, but the end result is that this movie gives you very little, except a few nice moments of humorous parody (Peter Falk does a great job as a Noir trope) and a lovely house that is the perfect set for a murder. Was there a murder? We don't even know, and we don't really care.
We Have Always Lived in the Castle (2018)
Criminally underrated and overlooked, and wonderfully true to the novel
I don't think you have to have read the novel by Shirley Jackson in order to appreciate this movie, but it might give you an idea of what to expect if you do. The story is a true, classic example of horror as exhibited by society, family, and personal fragility. The characters are perfectly depicted and acted with glorious depth, and the direction and cinematography only amplify the dreadful emotions that are brought forth as our main characters deal with the outside world, their own history, and the cruel reality of a town pitted against them. I rarely feel like a movie has truly captured the magic of the source material, but this one does. It also gives you things to think about long after the movie has ended. Are the townspeople justified in their hatred? Are they sorry for what they ended up doing? Is Merricat a hero or a villain? Is Constance the good one or is she enabling Merricat? Stories that don't spell out everything for you are the most interesting and engaging ones out there and this movie, even if you feel it is slow (it's not, the pacing is perfect) has the right combination of disturbing actions, unsettling tone, and open ended morality to really stick with you in a way that few movies ever do.
Personal Shopper (2016)
Pay no attention to the one star reviews, this is a good film
This film is not a thriller, although there are a few thrilling moments. This is not a horror film, although there are a few really good horror scares. This is not just an art film, although it has a lot of art in it and is very artfully done. What this movie is, is a slow character study that Kristen Stewart really delivers on. This movie isn't even about the pain of loss as much as it is about the way it can affect you when you don't know what to do next. Maureen, the main character, is trying to deal with the loss of her brother, as well as her own mortality, as well as her connection to the spirit world, as well as her job that she gets no joy from, as well as creepy stalker texts, as well a traumatic event, and we're watching her try to keep it all together, and she barely does in a completely believable way. This is a unique and thought provoking film in that by the end you are fully invested in her figuring things out. Even if the ending is slightly ambiguous, you get the feeling that she does.
The Man from Earth (2007)
I can't believe this poor excuse for a film has such a high rating
I am amazed at the rating this movie gets on here, and the number of people who give it positive reviews who I assume are avid film lovers. This is simply not a good movie, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves for confusing it with one.
First, let's talk a little about what a film should have in order to be considered watchable.
Writing
This is not a well written movie. Yes, there are lines of dialog, and yes those are written in a grammatically correct fashion, and yes we understand why people are saying what they're saying, but that doesn't make it well written. None of the dialog serves any purpose other than to allow our main character to spin his tale, and the reactions they have to it are hardly realistic and only there to serve the furthering of this story. Not the story in the film, because the film has no story, but the story that the main character is telling about himself. That's essentially all there is, which might be fine in a lecture hall, but that alone does not a film make.
Characters
These characters are what I think most people would consider "paper thin". In a normal movie, you get some basic understanding of who people are beyond their job description and how they're dressed. Not here though, as there's very little to go upon besides some vague caricatures of "professors" who we're supposed to believe are working professionals with degrees and such (except for one caricature of a student) but we're not given any evidence that they actually have anything more than a cursory knowledge of any subject they talk about. Instead we have a couple half-assed attempts at giving them personality traits that don't lend anything to the movie and no real reason to care about any of the characters or why they're there. That goes for the main character too. We don't care about him except for knowing the fundamental premise of the movie, which is supposed to make his character interesting, but really doesn't. His character only exists to spit out this story, which save for a few interactions with the other people in the room all of which fail to convince me that he's actually known these people for 10 years, is exactly what he does.
Acting
Maybe it's the fault of the writing, but the acting didn't even come off as all that good. I know you can't do much when you'e given stereotypical characters delivering ham-handed dialog, but I didn't see anything noteworthy from any of the actors or actresses involved. It actually reminded me at times of a group of real professors with no acting experience trying to act, although no academic would ever be caught dead reading this stuff out loud, and I doubt the actual actors were trying to act like they weren't acting.
Direction
The direction is basically nonexistent. It's not because it all takes place in one room. It's not because there's a lot of talking. It's because there was seemingly no interest in doing anything interesting with the camera. That's okay because there's nothing interesting done with the music, or with the cinematography, or anything production wise really, so at least it's consistent.
Concept
Here we get down to brass tacks, because everyone who loves this movie presumably does so because of the fairly original concept of one man living through all the ages of human civilizations. On the surface I have no problem with this idea as I've never seen it played out before, but as this movie progressed it became clear how very self serving this concept is. My wife calls this an "ultimate white male fantasy" second only to the "one of the last men on earth and needing to rebuild civilization" trope of dystopian fiction. In this case, not only do you get to be a part of every major era in human history, and in one case being THE most important figure in history (taught by another very important figure in history), but you get to stay 35 forever, be more knowledgeable than your peers, and then you get to EXPLAIN IT ALL to them, even thought they don't end up believing you but that's okay because you know the truth and they don't (exasperated sigh). Don't even get me started on the "twist ending" as it wasn't really unexpected or mind blowing, and didn't even seem to be all that important to the main characters as the movie comes to a close, which if I actually cared for the movie would have infuriated me.
I am giving this film 1 star, not because I disliked the movie, but because it fails on all levels as a movie. Film is supposed to be an art form. Art is not simply telling your audience to think about something and expecting them to think about it. Instead it's supposed to use every creative tool it can to get people to respond to it and think about it the way you want them to. Was this movie supposed to be only shown in first year History of World Cultures classes and used for discussion purposes? Even then, the ideas are really only mind blowing to those who haven't actually studied any comparative religion and seen the commonalities and differences among them.