matrixfighter Reviews

Natural Born Killers (1994)

This is CINEMA!!!

[10/10 · 30 April 2004]

... one of the greatest pieces of cinematic art in history. Oliver Stone is Cinema! tHat's why to some people "natural born killers" appears odd.

It is not about what is being told, but how it is being told. One must try to step beyond metaphores and allow for metanarratives. This film is about everyone but Mickey and Mallory, it is about the natural born killers, it is about a society governed by the TV box and living in the spectacle of the TV box, where every experience of living has been transformed the animated image of TV shows. There is nothing original in what Oliver Stone tells us - it is about how our behavious now governed by the standards of the TV discourse. Yes this is the basic thesis of Guy Debord, but what is new is how that thought is transmitted. Last but not least it is new to Holliwood.

Everyone in this movie is sick. So sick that M & M appear innocent and natural, in comparrison to the law-abiding citizens.

I first saw this film when I was 15. What happened that night might be yet anoher wild story of individual liberation (maybe to be told in the future), so wild that it just may supercede the Natural Born Killers. At the end of the day, it is probably good that Tarantino only wrote the story, but did not get to direct the film itself.

Lost in Translation (2003)

So racist and so Boring that it is actually entertaining

[9 April 2004]

This movie was so boring and so racist that it actually develops its own charm. Nothing new. A boring character, briliantly casted, comes to Tokyo to shoot a $2mil advert for whiskey. He is so depressed that his depresion is contageous and it plagues the whole movie. He has one mission: kill time. One of the first things that surprises him in Tokyo is that Japan too is subject to late-modern capitalism. So what is this movie selling? Aparently it is paradoxical that Japanese people eat McDonalds, listen to rock-n-roll, drink whiskey and have ultra-agressive advertisement. But what is supposed to be funny is that Japanese people speak Engrish with Dzapaneeze accent. That's pretty much all that there is to this movie. Of course there is a female as well - Johanson. She is a bit different - at least she gets out of the hotel, but only for the purposes of cultural tourism. But still this movie has its racist value. It is not a movie about the Japaneese, but about how two ignorant Yanks would read Japaneese consumer society. From the earliest scenes we learn about the superiority of the arian man (the scene in the elevator). So the value of this movie: to record. The movie progresses in the most boring fasion. Not briliant. Though it is obvious that the intentions of Sofia Coppola were diffferent then to bore, she achieved quite the opposite effect. To put the final declaration of boredom there is the final scene of the car entering the same tunnel and comming out, just like in Solaris (Russian Tarkovski version) - I'm pretty sure it was a coincidence, for IF Copolla was to go on to pay tribute to Tarkovski we would have spent at least 1 minute in that tunnel. In short, this movie is worth watching for those who are interested to have the following question answered "How much worse can Holliwood get?"

Cold Mountain (2003)

A very very boring cinema

[1/10 · 30 March 2004]

... maybe I should not even call it cinema. This movie was utterly boring, as yet another episode in the society governed by the moving image. Boring boredom. Bad adaptation, badly used script... every thing about this was simply bad. I think Nicole kidman has great artistic skills and the same goes for Jude Law, but what on earth made them take up this horible movie - maybe the fact that miramax had 85 mil to misuse. Another paradoxical thing is that this movie was a great success in America only... hmm I wonder why? Would a movie like this be as popular before 911?

Holiday on the Moon (1994)

Brilliant

[9/10 · 2 January 2004]

I watched this film and all others of Sam Bozzo from TriggerStreet.com and it was like a breath of fresh air. I am generally a fan of this style of shooting-lighting-editing, which reminds me of german expressionism like in Fritz Lang's "M". I also sensed a bit of Terry Gilliam influence perhaps, but with a bit of a new touch. I hope that Bozzo makes it far as a director. There is certainly a great talent and potential in here.

Billy Madison (1995)

COULD HOLLYWOOD GET ANY WORSE???

[1 January 2004]

I honestly don't know what the reviews are on about. Billy Madison is CINEMA AT ITS WORST!!! Everything in this feature is unbelievably daft and stupid: the acting, the plot, the narrative, the set, the jokes, the editing, the everything. After reading the reviews on this page I thought, maybe I missed something out – so I watched it again: what a waste of time. Just as you get to the point when you wonder can things become any more stupid than this, surprise-surprise: they do!!! Toward the conclusion you realise that the whole of society is just as stupid as Billy Madison, as the producers who stashed $25,000,000 on this movie and as the auditorium who paid to see it. Billy's odyssey finishes with a jolly HAPPY ENDING, everybody lived happily and depoliticised ever after and the film got very good reviews.

28 Days Later (2002)

... not bad at all

[23 December 2003]

What I found infinitely exhilarating and perhaps even fascinating were the scenes of London without Londoners - a totally deserted Metropolis, standing in itself as an unattended museum of the achievements of capitalist civilisation. One may see certain freshness in these scenes. It is reminiscent of one scene from Devil's Advocate, but to see London as the desert of the Real itself, to me stands second to none. But the movie itself is loaded with bourgeoisie values, like the scene in the supermarket for instance, projecting the delights of just walking into a shiny supermarket full of `choices' (accompanied by a fairy-tale music) and just simply walking out of it with smiley faces and with no trace of any hard-earned cash involved - a very important scene. The hilarious and the daft thing, though, is that the advertisements of Pepsi, Lilt and Tango (as the life saving source of water), Maltisers (as the necessary sugar supply), Mars, Heinz, Tablerone, Budgens, Costa Coffee, National Lottery and others could not have been more explicit. After all, somebody must have financed an £8,000,000 project, and I suspect the Royal Army did as well. Succinctly put, the moral of this story is that the hippy activists can cause an Armageddon, while the radiated GM apples are necessary for human survival. This is a British movie and, thus, it is loaded with Hobbesian British common sense. The setting is, thus, designed to instil a horror in a Brit's heart - as Mark says, `No Government, No Police, No Army' - does that not amount to a tragedy???? Further comments: the scene of Heather's `wise' political speech is just ruinous. The director, however, must me credited for some nicely angled shots and what they manage to capture especially inside the mansion. The `futureless' being tied with a chain like a dog has to be the black male, objectively observed and commented by two while males. Good use of DV. Produces an effective phenomenological sense of the immediacy of the situation. Conclusion. For the scenes on deserted London and M6 - 10/10; for the story 4/10; for critique of military ethics and shalowness 6/10; for non-Hollywood ending 6/10; for directing 8/10; for intellectuality 4/10;

America's Dream (1996 TV Movie)

.. could be better

[23 December 2003]

I liked mostly the "Long Black Song"; whether black or white a woman is a woman, and a man is a man. I think the film should have had a more feminist shade. Still, Tina Lifford's performance is really good and natural, though the sex bit seems badly done with bad cuts. The "Boy who painted Christ black" seemed one of those still stuck between "good" and "evil". The narrative seemed limited and shallow. "The Reunion" seemed to tell the story, rather then ask questions - so to speak. I think it could have been better in terms of the screeplay, casting and acting.

Night Train to Venice (1993)

it is not that bad after all...

[9/10 · 22 December 2003]

Well, there are many things that have gone terribly wrong in this film from plot to sound, from acting to ending, from camera works to cuts and editing; bad/unpolished screenplay, bad post-production; poor directing... perhaps even an immitation of "Don't Look Now!".. etc etc etc.... BUT... I don't know, I still get the feeling that there is something to this movie. Somehow it keeps you engaged and a nervous through repetitious contrasts. There is a certain surreal feeling/atmosphere to it, especially with some (perhaps intended) "clumsiness" of actors costumes, movements, replies .. some rediculously amature camera moves, bad quality film used, and strangely horrible audio dubs. Then on the contrast to all of that you get occasional truely interesting and fascinating shots and scenes (which are then badly edidted). Maybe the movie was working toward braking some barriers of conventionality and maybe it required a better director and a better screenplay for that.

What I really didn't like however is the ending, and the excessive, and times - daft, use of metaphors.