Change Your Image
knows_film
Reviews
Contagion (2011)
a movie about a pandemic with a spine chilling ending
the movie was great, it really showcased what a pandemic that kills millions of people would be like, however the ending was truly cinematic beauty at its best, without spoiling what the pandemic does to mankind, the ending of the movie casually shows the bat/pig/first human exposure that lead to the movies events, and its chilling to watch, to know how much destruction that was wrecked against the world on the back of a little bat flapping its bat wings towards a pig pen, where it dropped a bit of food that was then eaten by the pig that was then cooked..
the movie truly is spine chilling when looked at from the perspective of the film being told followed by the a quaint scene involving a bat a pig and a man
Entourage (2004)
Entourage was an absolute delight. One of the best shows I have ever watched.
I just had the pleasure of finishing all 8 seasons of this wonderful show. Being a casual fan who had caught the odd episode I wasn't expecting much more than a few laughs from the box set I managed to pick up for a steal. Boy I didn't realise I was going to get more than just the laughs I had already come to know when catching the odd episode. What I got was what we all get when we get hooked on a show. Addictive Story Arcs. Where the cast becomes your family and you care about what happens to them.
This show is quite faced paced and light hearted. So its not too heavy on the drama front its definitely geared more around comedy. However there are episodes that have so much heart man tears might be induced.
Each seasons has its own personality and some of the later seasons get quite heavy as story arcs come to conclusions. But your in for a real treat if you decide to ride the roller coaster of all 8 seasons. Which I highly recommend you do. At first the show starts out like an entourage but by the series end its definitely a family.
The highpoint of every season had to be Arhi. I particularly loved how foul mouthed he was. As its rather enjoyable listening to his antics as he is hilarious with his choice of words and turns of phrase which are all incredibly insulting but behind that tough exterior is a sense of heart and purpose thats admirable.
The show is also really good for the insights it gives you on the business of making movies. Through Vince and Johnny we really get a good insight in to the implications of movie making and the behind the scenes business that goes in to it. I will never forget the ups and downs that this show took in to it and with all the real celebrity cameos through out it really seemed more real than other shows.
I highly recommend checking out this show if you haven't already and if you have but have never sat down and properly watched it beginning to end I highly recommend you make that upgrade!
Amadeus (1984)
Epic film
Amadeus is one of my all time unsurpassed movies.
It's a biopic on Mozart. In terms of plot however it does not play like a biopic. The story is about as faithful to Mozart Amadeus Wolfgang as Forrest Gump was to Forrest Gump. Mozart in Amadeus is a drunken buffoon whose music talent comes so naturally it's merely something he does between scenes for shits and giggles. The real story is how green with jelly the films narrator gets. He hates Mozart yet we rely on him to tell us the story. At any minute during the film you expect the narrator to have a fit of jealousy and stop narrating. On the contrary it never happens because the narrator is a student of music. He loves Mozart's music as do we. This only further exasperates how jealous of Mozart he must be which in turn reinforces how funny it is.
I love this film for its humor, for its music and most of all for its epic depiction of envy. No film or medium better encapsulates the essence of envy than what is presented to us in Amadeus in the form of Salieri.
Southland Tales (2006)
1 (awful) out of 10
He has made a porno of every thought he ever had and put it in to a film AGAIN! Like how he did with his other "masterpiece". Donnie Darko's multiple story lines had multiple story lines inside the multiple story lines.
This film is exactly the same but 10 times worse! This guy has creative ADD! Cant he just make a story with two; maybe four, even 10 subplots! NO! He cant.
He makes litanies of scrambled eggs! What next? I KNOW! I KNOW! KELLY: "A film set in 2016 that explores the mating patterns of female zebras with coke addictions in the plains of Ethiopia whilst also featuring an adjacent impending alien plot to assassinate 'animal rights groups' during a period where our ozone layer is eroding from the greenhouse effects. Whilst this is happening abroad there is a domestic storm brewing as an ambitious small town blind rap star tries to break in to the competitive New York music industry at a time when the presidential election is being fought; and the key issue is a nation wide prohibition against iPods. The story culminates in a finale that leaves as many unanswered questions as answered ones whilst also blowing your mind with the deep philosophical interludes interwoven in the mind blowing truth-seeking self reflecting ideals we are left to contemplate. Not to mention; a car chase; some CGI dinosaurs; and a final show down between good and evil".
That of course being one piece of the multi layered jig saw puzzle. You have to buy the book, browse the website and collect all 150 collecting cards until you know the back story of all the main characters, minor characters and extras. Do this and you will know the entire story. Until of course you listen to Richard Kelly's DVD commentary and find out he doesn't have the slightest clue what the heck he has created.
Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970)
Awful. Just Awful.
This film was written by Roger Ebert. He is the "movie review" guy. Its like seeing Simon Cowell singing in the shower. This guy bashed "A clockwork orange" for its "ultra violence". He should bash his own film for the some kinds of reasons. This film according to some is a classic and has a cult following. This might be true in which case you might enjoy it. Anyways giving this film 1 is my way of reacting to say Simon Cowell singing. Even if he is half decent, shows promise, has some ability. Your gana go straight for the jugular. Its only human. So with that said, Roger, stick to reviewing films and not contributing to them.
American Psycho (2000)
This movie makes me want to get a business card with a watermark.
American Psycho is way better than Psycho.
Alfred Hitchcock passed on American Psycho in favor of Psycho because American Psycho was too American for him. Being British he couldn't handle the Americanism of the subject matter.
Originally Patrick was to be Norman's Father. But given the 40 year window of their release dates; it's now Norman who is Patrick's father. Which probably works better; like Luke in Starwars the force is stronger in Patrick and he becomes a better psycho than his father. BUT both the bates are good its just Patrick is the better bate's man.
American Psycho is the must see film of the decade. I haven't seen a better constructed; intellectually executed slasher film since before the genre was incepted. The scene where Patrick introduces himself to an unemployed homeless black man named Al and tells him to get a job before stabbing him to death became an instant; all-time-classic.
Melinda and Melinda (2004)
not for me
this movie is just an excuse for the writer to make a film out of 2 failed scripts.
its characters are just an assembly of characters with cliché tragic or comic attributes the sum total of which is neurotic dialog like only woody Allen could write. woman love this because its like looking in the mirror so they will enjoy this film probably
this movies was not enjoyed by me however because there was no car chase and also the film didn't have any fights. there was also no drug lords or gang bangers. Not to mention a lack of snakes. This film had no snakes. Not my cup of tea and maybe not yours ether so think about what I have said before you find yourself watching this film.
Unless of course you resemble a female have weight issues man issues enjoy sex and the city and ally mcbeal then this is meaningful for you.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
This is worse than Demolition Man!
I hate people who like this film and I hate people who hate me for hating it.
There is no way on gods green earth I have to "Get it" or I am stupid. Or I am part of some low brained modern trend of idiots. Or that I fully don't appreciate various art forms that are above me.
I get this film. I get every scene. Its stupid.
Hal the computer is not interesting. Who did his voice? All the humans in this film are like robots and Hal is like a person. Its just dumb. I hate it. I hate it very much.
Anyway I tried to watch this crap on TCM a few years back. Could not. I am now watching it on TV whilst on the computer as a background life line to the boredom felt during my 2001 Odyssey experience.
I cant believe I passed up on watching Demolition man on the other channel so I could watch this.
The Usual Suspects (1995)
10 (excellent)
Fantastic! Sublime! Great great great film.
Why it is only #15 when its predecessor Casablanca is #5 is beyond my comprehension. Casablanca set this film up so it should be in the top 250 but only #245 or something and not #5. Not unless you make this one #4 to illustrate its superiority over its predecessor Casablanca.
Obviously at the end of Casablanca we hear that the usual suspects are about to be rounded up. Fast forward 50 years and they finally got the funding to round them up.
Boy was it a good sequel. Its right up their with other great sequels like Shrek 2 Terminator 2 and Strikes back. Its really got more than the first one whilst keeping what made the first one the first one.
Also this film has a pretty good ending.
But really great sequel to Cassablanca I have to say. Obivously not too many similarities but their is no doubt in my mind its been penned by the author as the sequel. The idea behind the film comes from wanting to conclude Cassablanca obviously.
I think its the modern version of Cassblanca. Still keeping the theme of rounding up the usual suspects except removing the romance and adding violence. Pure genius. Pure genius. All art would be served well if more artists removed all romantic connotations and replaced them with violence. I know they'd put more bums on seats and thats what art is all about in my opinion. Bums on seats.
Special interest group art is dumb and for culture vultures. We don't need art like this in society. We need more bums on seats art. Like NASCAR.
Citizen Kane (1941)
This is so bad.
I hate this film. I really do. Its currently number #21 in the top #250. I remember when it use to be like #3 or #4.
Its obvious that people born after the war have started watching it. I think we can thus all agree that the show is completely crap. I call it a show because it doesn't remind me of a film really. More of a show.
The plot is based on a single word. Rosebud. Once you learn the meaning of "Rosebud" you spoil the film for yourself because the plot of the film is working out what a rosebud is. Its obviously not the bud of a rose; but it might be. Thats the question this thought provoking film raises to the intelligent viewer.
Thats the intended magic of the film; is it or isn't it an actual rosebud. Or is it something else; say an important prop to the main character. Doesn't that sound like a fantastic idea for a film? NOT More like a bad idea for an episode of on a unpopular TV show. The academy had it right ignoring this film. Critics letting time be a positive judge on this film is a 65 year old mistake I am correcting in this review.
If you have not seen this film consider yourself lucky. Don't watch it. Unless you want to see over-hyped and overpraised personified. Because thats what this junk is. Its crap really. To like it is to jump on a bandwagon and be stupid. I don't know who the first guy to praise it was but people been jumping on that band wagon ever since and it makes me sick. This film is awful junk.
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
Being catholic. And a hater of the book I haven't read. I enjoyed this!
This film is excellent if for no other reason than its an exciting thriller!
Being catholic. And a hater of the book I haven't read (not because I feel strongly or anything) I just like to jump on bandwagons and am not much of a reader.
But I defiantly enjoyed this film because it offered me what I feel was a good depiction of what would be the books main events. And it was very exciting learning the "naughty" stuff about Jesus. A bit of a 'guilty pleasure' if I do say so.
If you have read the book I don't need to tell you to see it.
But if you have not don't let that put you off seeing the film. It's a good film in its own "film merits". Additionally Tom Hanks and Ron Howard pairing up to bring you a film about a crazy albino monk? If thats not a formula for a successful plot then what is?!
Mission: Impossible III (2006)
Not great. Not good. Not even average.
If you like your action films to have retard story you are in for a real treat.
Not only is there a car chase, explosions and a final showdown; but they all happen in the same movie! Like... OMG! Have we the viewer like totally like not seen this before like! Seriously. This movie has "nothing" new. I found myself throwing pop corn instead of eating it the film was that bad. Its not that it was "terrible" so to speak. Just throughly forgettable.
Mission Impossible I is still the "highlight" of this now over pumped franchise. Mission Impossible I had "memorable" moments and thus it will always be the best in my opinion.
This effort is much like "Mission Impossible II" except a little better. So if you enjoyed "Mission Impossible II" then you have no reason not to actually like this.
Having said that this film sux and I wouldn't show it in a prison.
Although I would show it to fans of Tom Cruise.
HAVING SAID THIS. If he makes a fourth I'm like totally there dude! What can I say I'm for ever curious as to how they do their car chase, their massive explosion and the final show down.
RV (2006)
Terrible concept for a film. (Putting Robin Williams in a confined space)
Anyone ever seen a Robin Williams interview? Doesn't he make you feel claustrophobic? Or some other kind of "phobic" to do with "get me me away from his monologues".
WELL...
Being trapped with him in his R.V. is no picnic. In fact its a nightmare. From watching the film; I can assure you Robin did NOT stick to the script. His personal touch of "comic genius" is rampant throughout.
It's a litany of trashy Robin ad lib.
If you like his "brand" of humor. First off your a loser and I hate you. But thats besides the point. If you do indeed have the "aquired taste" you might enjoy it. Although ask yourself this; did you enjoy flubber or jumanji?
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
WORST movie EVER
The bridge is the main character of the film. The entire film revolves around the building of this bridge. A lot of responsibility falls on the performance of the bridge.
Now I must admit that at first I didn't really notice, but as the picture wore on it became really obvious. The bridge was giving a wooden performance. There is nothing that ruins a film more than a wooden performance. I'm sorry but its true. Take the Godfather for instance, part I and part II sucked. Totally sucked. There is no way around it. But part III was a masterpiece.
Part III had everything you could ask for and more. Except one fatal flaw. Francis ford Coppola casted a wooden performer. His own Daughter! What was he thinking! She completely ruined the movie! As does any wooden performer.
David Lean has done the same thing here with this bridge. I haven't seen a more wooden performance since Geppetto gave birth to Pinocchio! However that wooden performance mellowed out half way through. Unfortunately there was nothing mellow about this film. If anything the bridge got more wooden as the film wore on. In fact once it started sharing scenes with Obi One the bridge looked more wooden than ever! He really nailed the scenes. Brought out the wood in the bridge and vice versa. Which is often the case when you have two bad performers sharing a scene.
The ending was also terrible. Besides the wooden performers the film really had a bad ending. It was like watching the phantom of the opera or something Chaplin directed. The final scene is just absurd. I kept expecting the camera to speed up and bring us back to that time before talkies; where circus acrobatics took center stage. Because thats exactly what happens in the last segment. A complete side show!
The Notebook (2004)
Movies like this make me sick
This is one of those exploitation pieces geared at your heart strings. For the entire film this movie's plot tugs at the viewers heartstrings. It'd be moving if it wasn't so obvious! Without being too negative, I'll say that Rachel McAdams is a stand out! And the fact that she didn't get nominated for an Oscar let alone win is a complete tell. That for me completely rings home the tune that art is subjective and how can you compare it. Not that you cant criticize it. Which I'm about to do.
The Notebook is crap.
A film about a notebook was always going to be a gamble. And I must say it didn't pay off. But how could it? A two hour film about a notebook? Seriously what next. A 3 hour film about a phone book? But can I just reiterate that Rachel McAdams is the most attractive looking thing I've seen on film since Katharine Ross in The Graduate. But seriously tho, the make up people need to paint some eye brows on her. What a weird looking thing, reminds me of some kind of DNA gene botch up albino monster!
Patton (1970)
For a war film was way too nansy pansy
Patton I'm sure was an interesting guy.
Hell maybe even more interesting than me.
I'll even be as bold to say he might have accomplished more in his time than me too.
But that doesn't mean I want to see a movie on the guy! The only reason I had to watch it was it was on my to do list. It was only on my to do list because it won best picture. Which makes me now wonder why the hell?
The movie isn't as much about Patton as it is an anti war movie. Anti war not only in its message but anti war in the fact that its just a bad war movie. What war? The movie spends to much time looking at Patton. Given the title that can be forgiven. To a point!
Given my now greater understanding of the man I'm sure he would prefer a movie about him to be more about war. Hell I bet his favorite all time war cinematic experience would be watching Band of Brothers.
If you want a war experience watch Band of Brothers. If you want a nansy pansy depiction of what was really a tough man watch Patton.
Thanks Coppala for giving your soft feminine touch to Patton.
Scott was amazing as Patton though BTW.
Scarface (1983)
Too long
This movie is like watching 100 mafia themed television commercials in a back to back marathon staring the corporations advertising mascot dubbed "Angry Cuban" who is played by Pacino.
Or a cartoon, except the loony tune is played by an actor. Tony Montana is a larger than life character. And Al Pacino created him. As a character he is up their with Hannible Lector from Silence of the Lambs. But that movie whilst a 1 out of 10 too actually tried to be a good film.
This movie only has ONE thing going for it and thats Pacino talking like a South American person trying to talk more South American than any other South American has ever talked. It was funny the first hour.
Hell it was even funny the second hour.
But you push it to three hours and your asking. Correction, your not asking anything. The movie needed to do more if its going to be a 3 hour film. The Godfather is a good example of how much story you can fit in to three hours. Scarface is a good example of how slowly you can pass 3 hours. Ether way both films were 1 out of 10. At least the Godfather bores me for good reasons.
Stone penned this film based on his addiction to coke. At least that's what I heard. And the film shows. Its a sucky thing to base a 3 hour film on. If he had written it in the Betty Ford maybe the plot could have worked. Instead we get this angry stupid plot that just goes on and on.
House of Wax (2005)
This movie does what no other horror movie has done for 30 years.
This is better than The Execisit and should have been nominated for an Academy Award.
It actually has engaging content. An unpredictable (within reason) plot. And antagonist(s) who actually seem like real characters for a change. Opposed to just being deranged and never part of the story except when its time to chase down another victim and kill them.
I have to disagree with my esteemed colleague ROGER EBERT who takes delight in parodying this movie as the quintessential cliché. Suggestion to Ebert; give this film more credit for not actually being as pathetic as the rest. The rest are literally slash feasts where the filmmaker thinks all you want to see is sex and people die. Which is true but I enjoy the backdrop being an Academy Award worthy nomination of Best Picture. Like this masterpiece.
The cast of characters of this film might actually have a lot of cliché tall tale warning signs. But unlike other movies where you know the character is endanger because they are just plain stupid and going in there is just a device to show us their death. This movie actually has you wondering what a character is going to see opposed to just criticizing their actions and predicting their fate.
Whilst the movie did have a period where it became "like every other" slasher that thinks its necessary to knock off a few characters. This film took an admirably long time to even do it once and when it did it went about it in a respectively quick fashion as to just get it out of the way. Unlike in other similar films where the filmmakers actually think thats what you came to see and thus space it out over the entire course of the film. This film more or less spares you.
I really liked this film because the Wax is just unique. The wax is a creepy element that the other dumb films don't have. This movie is worth watching just because the wax is creepy.
I did not like this movie because the scantly clad suggestive Paris Hilton reenacts her recent internet fame. Not to mention the same costume design and choreography. Okay I did, thats the only reason I liked it. Is this why I gave the movie a 10? You bet!
On the Waterfront (1954)
This film was involving
On the Waterfront staring Marlon Brando is a black and white film even though it was made after The Wizard of Oz, so there is no excuse.
Brando plays a soft touch with a moist affection for pidgins. This 'two bit godfather' plays no sides of a dock revolution because he's 'too cool for school'.
But the bird in this film who is part teacher, part nun, part private eye and part love interest to this pidgin whisper tries to make him shed his feathers and sing like a canary.
Will he sing? Will he shut his mouth? Will he ever get to work the warf again? Will he get the girl? Will he win the Oscar for his performance? Who knows because I was too busy not caring.
This film is about as involving as heart surgery. There's a lot going on which would be great if you weren't comatose.
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
A Perfect Movie with something for everyone
Brokeback Mountain.
A movie about many things. But for me one thing stood out. And that was the sheep. Being from New Zealand you can appreciate my love for sheep.
All the sheep gave really good performances playing sheep. I felt the cast of 700 sheep did a fantastic job portraying 117,000 sheep. Not one time was I able to distinguish which sheep were used for particular shots. Now that is what I call method acting.
Casting did a great job getting just the right sheep for the meatier roles. I hear some sheep were flown in at last minute from all over. But credit to crew who obviously had to pull strings to get such a great ensemble. And a pat on the back for the producers who showed guts in hiring not only the best sheep, but taking a gamble on some of the unknowns too.
Ang Lee I feel really captured the essence of sheep.
He also captured that other stuff too.
But really good job on the sheep. I had lamb chops for dinner that night and I must say they tasted just that little bit better. Thanks Ang!
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
This film is like watching sand in an hour glass. A "4 hour" hour glass
The main character in this film is the desert.
The beginning of the film is desert.
The middle of the film is desert.
I wont spoil the ending.
I think its safe to say this film is dirt. But not just any old dirt. No this film is 'desert' dirt. 'Desert' being a new word for boring.
Without the desert they were on to a real winner. They could have had a 2 hour film. They could have had the same cast too since it was an Arabs need not apply affair anyways. The only Arab they actually used, Omar Sharif, is more English than English bob.
If I was asked to choose between watching the sand in this film, or the sand in a "4 hour" hour glass. I'd absolutely positively choose to look at the sand in this film because I'm not retarded. But you make that hour glass an hour shorter. Well lets just say I'd choose to be extremely bored for 3 hours instead of 4.
Die Geschichte vom weinenden Kamel (2003)
OMG! Worst movie EVER!
This movie is about a bunch of Mongols who have nothing better to do than sit round and wonder what they are going to eat today. Let me see, we had goats milk yesterday, goats milk today, and you can bet tomorrows goats milk its goats milk tomorrow.
Basically this movie focuses on a newborn camel who's mother is suffering what brook shields would call post natal depression. She basically hates her spawn. The movie doesn't really move beyond this point. The little camel is played terrifically by the little camel, in fact all the camels gave good performances as camels. But the Mongols were all wooden. Terrible casting.
Not to mention a Mongol named Dude! Terrible film.
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Ghastly, Junk Film
"The Shawshank Redemption" or "Shawshank" as I'm sure it's said to death in the film is an elongated short story that just 'lingers' from one hour to the next. There's no real 'charm' to the film except of course 'dry wit' from Red as if it's the gospel according to Red. He basically plugs Andy the entire movie as if he's his agent. "Now Andy this" and "Andy that". Not to mention a walking brochure for penitentiaries "Shawshank this" and "Shawhank that" his gospel just never lets up.
Now Tim Robbins was perfectly cast for about 5 minutes playing 'the babe in the woods' who "looks like a stiff breeze would blow him over" a "tall drink of water with a silver spoon up his ass". But once nothing seems to break him, its definitely a part for Mel Gibson. Tim Robbins didn't have the 'acting chops' to bring the 'required depth' to this character. Fortunate for Robbins in post production Morgan Freeman saved his ass with extensive voice overs. Most people think this was premeditated but 'the truth' is Robbins gave such a wooden performance it was necessary.
Most people think this isn't your average prison drama ether because its not about violence and melodrama. But 'the truth' is this film is no better than your TV movie of the week that features a 'prison escape'. The whole 'poster thing' couldn't be more 'implausible' if an elephant hang from a cliff by a daisy. Don't let me get started on how he just happened to have the cell on the end ether! The music was 'elevator music' at best. The only time I even took notice was when they actually featured it in the plot And even then if I'd heard it id have personally punctured my eardrums. Why the 'sound' was nominated for an academy award is beyond me. If it weren't for packaging and distribution this film would be a made for TV movie. Which it was if you consider its box office taking against home rental.
The entire cast reeked 'cartoon'. You have your 'evil' warden with his 'religion'. You have your 'mean' guards you 'grow to love'. Not to mention 'the kid', 'the old guy', 'the black guy' and 'the guys'. The prison was so stereotypical it even had 'fags'. Some other failings of this 'pathetic' movie. The dialogue was 'harebrained'. If it was supposed to fascinate, well, it 'failed'. The manner in which the mini stories unfolded was 'not stimulating'. His ability to get beers and do taxes in particular 'sucked'.
In short this film 'sucked'. Worst film 'since', well since ever!
The Godfather (1972)
Terrible, Junk Film
"The Godfather" is a 'terrible' film.
It's 'the worst' movie I've seen in a decade. The acting in this film is 'excruciatingly painful'. The whole family are 'watered down Sopranos' who show some phenomenally strong 'lack of' chemistry. The 'boring' weeding scene is the 'highlight'.
Michael is a 'wet fish' and his relationship with Kay is very dumb, and also 'stupid' and 'weird'. The Godfather scenes make me 'sick' and 'woozy'. I haven't seen such dramatized 'try to be cool' dialogue since "Any Given Sunday".
Pacino was less wooden in "Gigli". That other film he also 'carried'. Both Puzo and Brest were largely let down thanks to this 'Tony Montana' The characters of Sonny and Fredo were so 'unrealistic' I thought they were 'comic book'. I must also highly criticize the music in this film as being 'childish' and sometimes often 'out of place'.
Now on to some other failings of this 'pathetic' movie. The dialogue was 'silly'. If it was supposed to be nail-biting, well, it 'failed'. The manner in which the actors delivered their lines was 'uninspiring'. Brando in particular 'sucked'. What about the 'long' and 'tired' Sicily scenes? Reference to four hours of "Lawrence of Arabia" I don't know? The car exploding was so 'unoriginal' and 'clichéd'. And the 'take over' cross baptism montage. Come on, do some CGI instead! Bah, 'armatures'.
How this is ranked above that masterpiece "Muriel's Wedding" stumps me. If they had replaced the old and tired Francis Ford with the more youthful Nicolas they might have hit pay dirt.
Donnie Darko (2001)
Garbage, Junk Movie
A film about an 'axe wielding' kid and a 'demonic bunny' is not conventional stuff. But outside the box is good. However 10,000 miles outside the box, is garbage! The problem with this film is all of its 'rubbish' and 'garbage'.
It begins with 'the jet engine' which you have no clue about until it finishes so that's garbage. But even when you account for that there's still all that other stuff that has lengthy explanations but no real meaning so that's all 'garbage' too.
The writer/director of this 'garbage' has crafted it in such a way that one asks if it's really garbage and not in fact misunderstood 'art', obviously everyone who 'worships' this 'gobbledygook' some how understands it's every aspect because it speaks to them. But that's rubbish because even the 'creator' of this 'junk' doesn't know what he's talking about.
It's clear as crystal this film is just an 'orgy' of every thought Richard Kelly ever had. That's why there's half a million half baked ideas 'scattered' and 'interwoven' in to the stories already too multifaceted "basic" premise. That thing your English teacher tells you not to do "was it all a dream?" is one of two front running conclusions this film leaves you pondering too. To make this movie even worse I actually believe the later. Because how else can you explain the fact that was his mother's flight! Unless of course you just accept it on a whim like everything else from this film.
Conversely this garbage has 'extremely' funny mini stories throughout. The kiddie porn ring is hilarious! Sparkle motion is outrageous! The fear/love line discussion is interesting. The Smurf speech! Katharine Ross as Donnie's placebo prescribing physiatrist is a welcomed sight. But these are all just 'great moments. Good television commercials are great moments. It doesn't save this garbage from itself.