M (2018) Poster

(III) (2018)

User Reviews

Review this title
5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Distanting collage of scenes in a work of art which essentially is not a film
ernesti29 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Essentially M is just an artwork, a collage of moving images without an inner logic, neither plot. It is cheap, distanting and boring as a film, but to some it may be an artwork to interpret in different ways. It's not very promising if everything had been self-produced, self-acted, self-directed, self-written. When something's too important to the creator, it cripples everything usually.

It goes without saying that today technology has become so cheap, that any kind of film can be cheaply produced up to the technical quality (image & audio) of the real cinematic features. That means an avalanche of art films that don't have the traditional qualities which used to make a film good.

Someone's going to love this anyway.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Auteur's M. Monroe 'homage' / mish mash mess imagery of salaciousness
Bofsensai18 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
"Collage is a demonstration of the many becoming one, with the one never fully resolved because of the many that continue to impinge upon it." David Shields: 'Reality Hunger'; '10.

Hmm; with that in mind, this was seen at where I believe was its big screen premiere*, and with (it seems) first to take opportunity to 'review', then well, what on Earth can be, ah, 'observed' from this 'collage' (mish mash!) of scenes put together, it would seem, ostensibly, on M. Monroe's less well known iconography (lifetime - and death - travails)?

To begin with, at least from the director herself - admittedly, an impressive auteur of sorts there, too, as having not only directed, acted, too, the main (MM?) role, but also many other aspects right down to the 'colour grading' (!) - to know that all the characters portrayed are (possibly?) dead - and as apparently, too, mostly amateurs, no problem, as appear to be doing nothing more than smoking most of the time (death and ciggies, see?: in any case "Plots are for dead people" [Shields; Ibid.!]: but even so, one might wonder why on Earth - (or, er, Paradise, perhaps?) - are they focused upon? Perhaps some sort of cinematic presence and / or lifetime worn facial features captured: but even that left me personally unimpressed (not so, ah, arresting.) So, what else might one enjoy of the 'story' (conceit) set up on screen by Ms Eriksson, undoubtedly impressive auteur:

since I'll tolerate almost anything Ms Monroe ('M'; see?) related, even if only inspired by her (e.g. A la the late Roeg's 'Insignificance'), and as seemingly also displaying surely (deliberate or accidental) umpteen D. Lynch touches (or homages - 'wrapped in plastic' anyone?), too, nevertheless, little could I discern in this mish mash of images and ideas, other than the visual assault of some of Ms M.'s more (possible / alleged) salacious lifetime - and deathtime - details, and that of one, most astonishingly, involving possibly (probably!) one of the most astounding longtime shots to have ever be depicted in ya face like (assaulted the viewer!) on the screen (outside of pornographic - 'caviar'!! - ah, 'penchant') of an anus (plus an, er, extrication from! What?! Indeed!)!

This is surely so becuase earlier on, the conceit is set up with an old reel to reel tape player close up with a woman voiceover (Ms E. - again) flirting with a 'psychoanalyst'; which presumably takes as its prompt, her - supposedly - anally fixation (suppository medication*') along with the apocryphally 'transcribed / lost' last psychiatrist (Ralph Greenson: by way of a one J. Miner, 'deputy state attorney') 'lost tapes'! - published 'Playboy'; 12.05.)!

So that, along with later even cadaver portrayals of Ms M (by, again, casting herself as MM) - that perhaps alluding to the tragic circumstances of how her body (broom-cupboard!) was treated in the small mortuary that was plagued with, ah, scandal then? - plus along the way, allusion to still (lost) childbirth / miscarriage - (although, in motel and (or) drug addled car; I'm not quite so sure about) and some further lost in southern - Mexican? - pueblo peripatetics (although there, I believe in her real life, when shopping - not nocturnal horse riding searching ...!), and it would seem at one stage, screaming some of the lines from 'The Misfits' and at another makes an assertion that acting and suicide are the same if not for concentration .... thereby, from all of this, what could be Ms E. Trying to convey to us with these visual cues (assaults)?

Some sort of post-feminist polemic on how women, MM as tragic example, were mistreated (even in death) .. in that case, all well and good and kudos to you to so try and portray, Ms E., and especially so in all the work involved efforts to get up onto the screen.

Otherwise, this was a thorough chore to get through, and even cinematically, so to its major focus on the image (that colour grading***), still this ranks - in a way, like some of the imagery presented here, perversely so - with one of the worst films I've ever had to tolerate sitting patiently through a big screen showing.

Awful!

  • Unless you are a MM fan, and might appreciate the visual depiction of the more salacious aspects of her life alluded to!


* the Finnish (in town Turku) 'Suomalaisen' (=Finn) Spring annual film screenings.

** although NOT the scurrilous myth death: see Donald Wolfe's 'The Assassination of MM' ('98.) *** e.g. Well, certainly Ms E.'s rear view hugging ('pedal pusher' known as, as indeed loved by MM when off duty) pants portrayal of MM was almost incandescently white - although, of course, Ms M. Was famously full of figure buxom - especially later in her life: Ms E.'s rear view - alluringly appreciated as it is as like in those interminable evening stroll shots - is far too lithe in this respect!
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Stay away
Myssi from McF4 March 2020
It's only weird and graphic footage slapped together and made some screaming on the background. The forced art aspect make no sense and the movie aspect is so amateur that it hurts. Not ever the promise to see Anna Eriksson nude can keep me watching this dumpster fire.

Stay away!
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
luvps
Pehtoorixxx17 April 2019
I love it. combination of creativity and insanity whit pure understanding. first 10 ever from me
3 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not Really a Movie
erostew13 December 2022
I don't know exactly what this is but it certainly isn't a movie. At least not in any traditional sense of the word. And calling it "experimental film" is not accurate either. What it is, is an example of an art piece as provocation.

I'll tell you right now that if you are easily offended by nudity then you will be extremely unlikely to enjoy this. Hell I'm not offended by nudity whatsoever and I didn't enjoy it either.

If you are the sort of person who is outraged that their local municipality or whatever spent money on a work of art that doesn't conform to classical standards then you will certainly be outraged by this piece.

If you are bothered by explicit gore then you are also not going to enjoy a lot of this.

The main "character" spends a lot of time as a naked corpse and things happen to that naked corpse that should be disturbing to most sane people. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

To summarize: Most people will be disturbed by at least some of this piece. Many will be offended. And I think that most will not enjoy it. So watch at your own risk. If you take the chance I hope you do enjoy it.

I did not like this art piece. But I gave it a 6 out of 10 simply because the attempt was made.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed