Change Your Image
Systematicer
The book of Systematicera.k.a. Systematica (approx. 2001-2002) a.k.a. Systematiker (2006)
Personally, I'm usually not too interested
in reading profiles.
So instead of listing trivial stuff about me I
let other people speak for me, and my deeds for
themselves.
And I'll try to keep it a fun read and expedition.
Statements other users made about me or my posts on IMDb
(version uncut: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1045065/board/nest/103097119)
"Systematicer,
You are awesome."
- bwcogburn (01/31/2008)
"I guess that you are a mean fister."
- Rockerbabie2005 (08/31/2006)
"Manwhore!!!!!"
- LondonLollipop (03/04/2008)
"You're not a man, you're a MACHINE!"
- Cueball_Col (03/19/2008)
"...You are one sick, twisted F ucker..."
- SpearGun (03/07/2008)
"Rarely have I seen a person I respect fail so entirely."
- AtxAxLoss (02/28/2008)
"Systematicer's Bible - where to find it and why you should dedicate your life to studying / understanding / following it."
- Mr_Fantastic_III (03/13/2008)
"you are an IDIOT!"
- cdkan (02/29/2008)
"I see you are one of those pathetic humans with too much time on their hands that want to act stupid to get a rise out of people because you love attention. Now please stick your face in a blender then jump in the ocean with a couple of bull sharks; thank you."
- SpearGun (03/07/2008)
"I love you!"
- BloodBang (03/19/2008)
"Yes you are fun. You are a bad motherf ucker."
- Rockerbabie2005 (08/29/2006)
"People used to label Systematicer as a troll."
- Under_The_Sycamore_Trees (04/12/2008)
"Used to? He's the very definition of "troll".''
- OldAle1 (04/12/2008)
"Perhaps, but he's much more likable than most of people I'd consider trolls."
- Under_The_Sycamore_Trees (04/12/2008)
"�it sounds like he can be intelligent at times. and has a smart humor."
- Maximus_Decimus_Meridias (04/12/2008)
�Honestly, you are a genius.�
- Then_I_Woke_Up (04/12/2008)
�Systematicer's ass is full of FGers and that almost makes me puke daily.�
- BloodBang (04/12/2008)
"with systematicer it ranges from moments of brilliance to 'wow, this guys an ass' i havent quite figured it out yet..."
- TooCloseToCall (04-30-2008)
�I like Sys' deadpan dadaist humour, he's never rude to me either, unlike most of fg's small-minded posters.�
- matthewscott8 (04/12/2008)
�It's not that I dislike him, but believe me, the day will come where he goes too far and you'll be pissed off.
I actually knew someone like that in real life once, those types are to be handled with care. Systematicer is a high-end character-swine.�
- BloodBang (04/12/2008)
"Ever thought of being a Movie Critic you will be great at it man."
- The_Master_of_Darkness (02/29/2008)
"Brilliant!''
- Phlagtastic (01/22/2008) and CellarDoor_ (01/31/2008)
"Wanka!!!!!''
- LondonLollipop (03/04/2008)
"the enigma that is systematicer...''
- matthewscott8 (05/24/2008)
"Bravo sir, a true work of ingenuity here."
- Mr_Fantastic_III (01/31/2008)
"There once was a Film General Czar
Known only as Systematicer
He couldn't be ignored
He was the best on the board
And my favorite poster by far."
- jeremyshowX (04/11/2008)
"I've never understood what you were fighting for. And maybe you don't even know yourself. But I think you know that you failed."
- Systematicer (06/30/2010)
"...he was never the one to troll around places."
- InspectorDC (03/04/2008)
"...I found he was particularly well behaved recently..."
- SabrinaFayre (03/04/2008)
"...I enjoy watching Systematicer's disrespectful behaviour, he's a true Nihilist."
- matthewscott8 (03/16/2008)
"People like you should be shot in the face."
- ItwasuCharley (03/01/2008)
"you are the only one capable of posting a 30 lines post about a subject like this one!!!"
- aymansousa (02/17/2008)
"I respect Systematicer the most,..."
- matthewscott8 (03/16/2008)
"I like that if you think someone is a know-nothing fool, you just tell them that. Being ignorant on film general is almost like a badge of honour, and if you tell someone they are ignorant everyone gangs up on you. So I don't generally have the balls to do it unlike you."
- matthewscott8 (03/18/2008)
"You ARE a bad motherf ucker, System. With a name like that, how could you NOT be???"
- Rockerbabie2005 (09/08/2006)
"Systematicer you are a legend."
- Jye71 (05/29/2008)
"Honestly. - You are the most pathetically narcissistic person I have ever encountered in all my life. Put this in your insipid profile, or maybe just shove it up your smug ass. Whichever you prefer -- but either way, you desperately need to find new meaning in your life."
- OldHabits (03/29/2008)
"System, I do believe I was wrong about you.
I like your logic.
Well done."
- OldHabits (06/04/2008)
"Systematicer! You fackin a$$hole!!! I hope you die!"
"You $h!t-brained, fack-faced, ball breaking, duck f ucking pain in the a$$!"
- CharmingChrispy (04/12/2008)
"I like you a lot as a poster, I like your take on things and your stance if perhaps I don't always understand your motivations behind the actions but perhaps that is your point. No matter, shine on you crazy diamond."
- DrStrangeposter (03/14/2008)
"Systematicer, in all of your cruel glory - you are a posting god!"
- paranoid_knight2008 (08/25/2008)
"sys I sometimes wonder whether you're a computer program that comes up with random cryptic responses, dragging out the active words from the previous post and spewing them into to a semi-dadaist sentence."
- matthewscott8 (04/06/2008)
"Sys, as always, your comments are all either very shallow or very deep and I can't decide which. It's almost a Zen thing."
- Lukhs (07/29/2008)
"Systematicer, you truly are king of men."
- Apathy-Ren (02/25/2008)
"Dickhead!!!!!"
- LondonLollipop (03/04/2008)
Selected threads
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0481699/board/nest/109992086
Quotes on film and film making
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124355/board/nest/109992722
Previously used signatures
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0301177/board/nest/107614280
Films about me and films made by me
Systematicer and the Women (2007) http://tinyurl.com/2jjhzz
Systematice Me by DrStrangePoster http://tinyurl.com/66xuf3
And don't let the world forget the greatest film ever put on celluloid. Almost Human from 1927 directed by Frank Urson. Give it a 10, write a review for it, add a piece of trivia, but do something. If you haven't seen it this is even more a reason to do it. All I'm asking you for is to give this innovative, life-changing film a chance. Help the world remember 'Almost Human' http://imdb.com/title/tt0017619/.
Reviews
The Happening (2008)
Just a few personal thoughts from me for people who have already seen The Happening
I have always found the idea interesting of nature being more interwoven with human beings and their actions than we can scientifically prove at this time in history. After all, human beings don't stand above nature but are a part of it, and maybe you could even say nature created us, making nature a part of us.
So consequently any movie that incorporates and deals with this idea becomes a more valuable movie to me, no matter in what form this idea is part of the story. If it is something like nature protecting its population against an outside threat as in War of the Words, or if it is nature protecting itself against the threat that is the human race, as is the idea of this film. I especially enjoy the concept of human race being like a virus to nature.
In The Happening this is very much the case and nature reacts to the human disease suddenly and mercilessly. It starts in the biggest park in the biggest city of the world. Makes sense...well, movie-sense, to be fair. At the same time it hits some construction workers who are high up on a building three blocks away from Central Park. Makes sense...well...exactly, it makes movie-sense. Next we have another park in an American city that David Lynch loves to hate. Ding dong. Now it's clear what's going on here. Nature VS Humaniy: Round 1
People...Americans...New Yorkers, to be specific, naturally assume it's a terrorist attack. Makes sen...exactly. It's something we had in many disaster movies since 9/11. War of the Worlds, Cloverfield,... That's how it is and I'll just leave it at that. In The Happening it obviously isn't terrorists. Nature turned against humans, in the most original way that I have seen so far in a film.
Back to the plot. Our protagonists, a science teacher, his girlfriend and their friends, another teacher with a daughter, want to leave the affected area (the thirteen colonies of Great Britain, basically) but their train stops in the middle of nowhere in some little town because the train conductors "lost contact". Long story short, turns out that smaller and smaller groups of people are being attacked. If you can say "attacked". Either way, it's a fascinating concept, I think. I asked myself what I would have done in this situation. I thought it probably would be the safest to get away from any other human life form and stay at a place where nobody else is around within a radius of a mile or so.
The audience that I saw it with reacted quite strongly to the film. The biggest reaction came from, what I think was quite a mundane scene. After waking up in the morning Marky Mark searches for the old lady at whose place they stayed the night and enters what supposedly is her bedroom. He slowly approaches the bed. We, the audience, don't see much. We see some legs on the bed as he opens the door. Legs that look like that of a doll, which in the end turns out to be just that. Absurdly, though, Wahlberg, while slowly approaching the bed, says the old lady's name to the thing on the bed. He must have seen that it is a doll, right? I mean, come on. Anyway. So we have tense music playing and all that and then we finally see the doll on the bed. The camera stays grotesquely long on the doll's face and we start to ask ourselves if maybe the old lady turned into the doll. Gladly the film doesn't go that way. We learn that the lady in fact did not turn into a doll when she suddenly screams at our hero and jumps out of a corner. And she jumps and screams at the audience, as the camera is right in front of her. She looked freakier than she did the evening before. And the theater jumped and screamed too. I don't know what was up with that. Had I seen this scene alone at home I would have thought to myself that this is some weak and conventional crap, but since I witnessed what strong reactions the scene got I can't possibly condemn this conventional yet bizarre scene.
Overall the audience was quite jumpy throughout the whole film and especially during the suicide scenes. But it also got quite a few laughs. One such scene I remember because it got the biggest laugh from me was when the science teacher spoke to the plant, saying that he comes in peace. I found it amusing but not ridiculous. While speaking to the plant he notices that it is a plastic plant. "I'm talking to a plastic plant." That was a good joke, I thought. Other than that I remember that the scene with the construction workers apparently falling down the sky evoked some laughter. And I understand why. It was a most grotesque event, in a film that was full of grotesque events. Frighting, but so unusual and out there that you can't help but be amused by it.
One of the main reasons why I watch films is because they can make you believe that something you know won't and can not ever happen does actually happen. You are safe and after two hours it's over, which is why you just role with it. And that's what the audience's job is when there is something outrageously unlikely shown on screen - to role with it. You are not doing yourself a favor if you reject the most outrageous concepts of cinema. The filmmaker's job is it to build a vehicle that you can role with, without the passengers falling out of the vehicle, if you pardon my allegorical speaking. Well, this ride worked for me.
Nekromantik (1988)
NEKRomantik: A recap of the film's best scenes. (spoiler heavy)
It's a film about death, but like the writing in the beginning tells us, there is no life that doesn't feed off of somebody else's death. But I don't want to go too much into detail with this boring symbolic stuff. Instead let's look at the things that make this movie a worthwhile watch.
I love the opening scene of the woman pissing into the grass in close-up. It immediately tells you what is about to come. We will get to see parts of people's lives that usually are hidden to us. Stuff we usually don't even get to see in movies.
The second pissing scene (5 minutes later) is even better. It has it all. Full pissing action in all its banal glory. A man taking a penis out of his pants - holding the penis and waiting for the urine to leave his bladder - a sniff - the urine uncontrollably shoots out of the penis' glans - urine running into the black nothing of the urinal - urinedrops dripping from the uncircumcised foreskin that hinders the urine from flowing in one perfect unity - the urine slowly coming to an halt until the spring is dried up - the man shakes it off a few times, which looks like jacking off a mini penis - he brings the fella back home.
A bunny being slaughtered. First a hit over the head while its ears are being hold and then a knife slits its throat. It slowly bleeds dry, jerks and quirks and obviously still is very much conscious. After this process the bunny's fur is being peeled off like banana peel, although you don't need a knife to peel a banana, of course. After that the bunny's eyes are cut off like buttons on a shirt. Its belly gets opened up and the bowels are being taken out. The dead bunny, which hangs upside down during this whole process receives a cut to the crouch and the testicles are being removed.
But all of this only plays in the protagonist's imagination. He longs for death, in a playful kind of way.
Apples are being taken off a tree. A different form of death. The man picking the apples accidentally gets shot into the neck. He dies at the scene. Death the way we know it.
A suitcase is being opened. It has a book and papers in it. It's raining hard. The stuff must get wet. Death in disguise.
A necrophiliac couple (the girl is a real honey) gets a decayed body to play with. The body basically is a very wet and juicy skeleton covered with crap and stuff. It's got a juicy eye, though. The girl (she's got a nice ass too) is visibly excited about her husband's gift and they go feel up the body real good.
They saw off a chair's wooden leg and the honey rams it into the body's crotch. It gets her all hot and bothered. She rolls a condom over the chair leg... pardon me... over the body's newly gained huge and super hard erection. Mrs. Honey drops her black saucy lingerie and sits on the erection. She kisses the corpse - her husband feels her up from behind - her breasts touch the corpse's chest - her tongue goes all over the dead man's face - then the man kisses its face and takes its eye into his mouth.
They sit up Mr. Dead and the girl's penetration continues. The eye falls out of Mr. Dead's skull and Mrs. Honey tries to catch it with her mouth. We get to see this sequence in slow motion so we don't run risk to miss it. Their intercourse almost looks like a dance but all this time Mr. Dead appears to be awfully stiff and apathetic.
The man gets a prostitute and they fornicate on a cemetery. The whore sits on a gravestone. He can't get it up because she is too much alive and moving and such. So he does what every man would do in this situation. He strangles the life out of her. Then the sex works for him real smooth. He goes off better than the average teenage boy goes off masturbating to Internet porn of fake celebrities.
The man nails a Jesus miniature onto a crucifix real hardcore style with a hammer.
The man takes a knife and rams it into his own belly. He lays on the bed and takes the erect penis out of his pants. As he rams the knife deeper into his torso the white stuff (spermatozoon) shoots out of the penis. One huge white fountain after another. The scene is intercut with the rabbit footage played in reverse. The bunny jerks and quirks back to life. The man pokes around in his bowels like a kid would poke around in a plate of broccoli hoping somebody would finally tell him that it doesn't have to eat it. The white stuff turns into red stuff (blood) and the fountains get even bigger. He didn't survive it.
The End
The film's most original idea seems to be that one way to overcome a phobia is desensitization by confronting ones fear. This method, for example, can cure somebody's fear of spiders. So the idea or the film's thesis is that you can do the same with the fear of dead bodies. After a short talk-show skit of a man talking about this the film doesn't explore this idea any further, though.
But you could argue that desensitization happens to us while watching the film. Maybe it will take some viewers' fear to ram a chair leg into a decayed body to have sexual intercourse with it. I'm not sure it worked on me but maybe it worked on you. Well, did it?
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006)
Splendid
I was very skeptical when I heard and saw the first things about this novel adaptation. The accusations of it being too lurid or too far off from the original novel didn't come true and the trailers don't really do it justice. But in the end it is the final product that matters and not the things surrounding it. Not even the novel it's based on, because a film always has to stand on its own.
Now the film actually is pretty faithful. It leaves out a lot but it doesn't add on anything that would turn it into something else. And the story still makes sense. Granted, the alleged pubescent girls are too old and the main character is too handsome. Even though it's supposed to take place in 18th-century France, it is as if it is taking place in its own world. Now I couldn't tell how close to reality the behavior of the people and the single facts are, but the reality as shown in this film is wild, filthy, nauseous and of low morale. Especially the working-class is gruesome. But it adds effectively to the story and even more to the excitement.
The story is told quite poetically with a lot of strings and choirs which gives it a tense and partly even epic atmosphere without being obtrusive. Half the time the main character Jean-Baptiste Grenouille is on screen we see him sniffing, which takes us into a different world where scents are the most important sensations.
The fact that it is an European production hardly shows. While almost always visible for me in other European films it doesn't show much here because of its tense atmosphere and great lightning. Overall it is more stylized, which I, most of the time, prefer.
I often read people say the omnipresent narration is annoying because it just describes what we can see anyway. And I can understand the criticism. My biggest point of critique would be that the narration maybe seemed a little impersonal because the narrator didn't have a connection to the actual story. It was just a voice telling us a story. But overall I don't agree with it being unnecessary or annoying. The main character himself barely talks and so I'm not sure everything would have been perfectly clear to everybody without the narration. Especially in the beginning of the film the narration is very present. It gives us a sense of how this world is working and what the situation is. It is quasi replacing the internal monologue that is often used as a narration in other films. I guess this is to create more distance to the main character, to mystify the figure. But the narration actually disappears completely after a while into the film, when other characters become more present, only to return for the final minutes. So the narration isn't even that omnipresent and has its justification, I think.
All in all the film is made in a way it should be very mass appealing. Sometimes I wished it would have been a little more explicit and gory so it would be more repugnant to people (especially the ending), but in a mass appealing film this is luxury. It was also gruesome and effective enough without it, so I won't complain. I can't say it captured ALL the essence of the original novel but it's more important that the film doesn't feel soulless and since it is well-structured (dramaturgic & story-wise), it works for me very well.
Sisters (1972)
Enjoyable direction but doesn't make sense
First of all Margot Kidder's performance was really odd. On the other hand I was surprised at how cute she looked just 5 years before she starred in "Superman". OK, back to her performance. I haven't guessed her accent is French before I was told so. When she acted drunk she didn't act much different than to when she was not drunk. It was like her character had an alcohol level of 200 milliliters all the time. She sure didn't seem like the brightest girl. So much about her.
The movie was pretty stylish, as always when De Palma is on it, and the score was very...well...PRESENT. Pretty good, though. It made the half movie.
The first murder scene is quite effective but this is some of the most fake looking blood I've ever seen in a movie. So SHE kills the guy (there's no twin sister anymore). Something I suspected (and feared) from beginning on. Especially since the Danielle talking to her "sister" scene reminds so much on "Psycho". On the other hand (unlike in "Psycho") you can HEAR her sister from another room while Danielle is on screen! And you can even see the shadow of something that looks like a woman which wouldn't be all too bad if there were an explanation given by the end of the movie. Which directly leads me to the most important point of critique. There is no real conclusion to the story. The unanswered questions remain that way and even though there were scenes that had that "pinned on" feeling to it, they weren't revealing or concluding at all. Not even the character of Danielle seems to have a real conclusion. The final shot is more than odd since I don't see the relevance of it.
The b/w dream sequences (so to speak) have a nice touch but they don't add to the story in any way. I enjoyed the long split screen sequences, as always (I could watch a whole movie in split screen).
The reasons why the movie makes no sense: The way it was shown it is very unconvincing that she murdered the guy (for the obvious reasons). She looks completely different when she murders him, she wears different clothes, her hair is more tousled and Danielle is ALREADY lying in the bathroom (the same way as before) while the guy is STILL living and waving out of the window. We can see this thanks to split screen. There is no time in between.
Unlike in "Psycho" the schizophrenia persona is not believable due to underdevelopment and missing explanations. And the other reasons given before.
Overall there is way too less information given. In the end we know pretty much nothing. By not giving us some details it's taking the easy way out. And very easy that is.
It's a shame De Palma often wants simply too much with his stories and in the end it's a total mess that lacks logic, leaving the whole movie just mediocre. Because his directing craft is tremendous. Maybe it's also because he's adjusting his stories to his direction instead of doing it the other way around (like normal people ;). You can see that the movies he hasn't written himself are much more...let's say "usual" but also more logic.
5/10
M - Eine Stadt sucht einen Mörder (1931)
Good for its time - but has many flaws
In my opinion this is just an OK film. Except for some little stylistic tricks there is nothing special. The story is OK, how it is told is rather weak, in some parts it's even ridiculous, the acting is mostly very weak except for Lorre who you don't see much of anyway, and the sound quality is horrible (something you can't blame it for, but I had to use HEADPHONES on full volume to even understand the words!) but switching from sound to silent all the time is very distracting and has no dramatic effect at all (even if some say so) - the opposite is the case, it seems very amateurish. The slow pacing is typical for it's time. And suspense? I don't think so.
In my opinion the main reasons why this film is so critically acclaimed are:
A) Lorre's overacting. Whenever overacting has a purpose it's critically acclaimed. And his acting as a madman is very effective.
B) I'd call it "heavy look". The topic seems "heavy" and the plot and style seem all too heavy and important. You almost want the film to be successful so you search for it in Lorre's acting. As a justification so to say.
I'm sure you like the film for many other reasons too. Some more important reasons maybe. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. It's a film we want to like and where you don't want to look for the flaws. Well, long story short, I don't think the final result is a success. There is too much Average in it and the Great isn't all that great.
Metropolis, Nosferatu, Caligari, Sunrise, I think, have all a more stunning look. All silent and all made before "M". Don't get me wrong, the cinematography is good and also inventive in little parts, but not THAT revolutionary that it deserves the reputation it has.
Probably the flaws are too big for me to fully appreciate the rest. Like every time one said: "He doesn't leave any marks...blah, blah" I had to laugh. He talks with the kids in the middle of the day in the middle of the street, he walks along the streets with them, he goes into shops, buys stuff for them, he makes mad gestures in public. And then he also whistles this damn song all the time so loud you hear it from three streets away while everyone in the audience knows from beginning on that this will be his doom.
6/10
Mission to Mars (2000)
I wouldn't consider myself dumb but I like this trip
I still can't really understand the hate for "Mission to Mars".
Even compared to Brian De Palma's other pictures this is more coherent and logic. And the goofs aren't worse than in most other movies with so much Sci-Fi.
When I saw this in theater in 2000 the hall was so cold I felt like I really was on Mars/in space with the characters. The atmosphere is "cooool", the cinematography and effects are gripping, the story is believable enough. At least I bought it. It even had moments where I thought: "Wow, they even thought about this...clever."
The ending, which is probably the No.1 reason for the disrespect, is very unusual and you wouldn't expect it in this picture. But it works, I think, mainly because it's the best part of the movie. And it gave me a satisfied feeling after the movie was over.
I always hear the script is poor. Have you ever seen an other De Palma movie? I don't wanna pick on him but you should check out the movies he has written himself. They aren't exactly clever or logic. There ARE some bad points. It's overly sentimental, very clichéd in some parts, maybe not very involving on the emotional level (something a Sci-Fi buff doesn't care for, anyway), it's NOT thrilling (maybe that's what audiences wanted), it's not even close to being perfect.
It sure is a horrible movie if you think about all the things it is not and what it should have been (in your opinion) but if you take it as what it is, it's good.
I saw it three times now and I still wasn't bored by it. I was entertained, pleased and satisfied. On my record this is at least a 7/10 but I think it even deserves an 8/10.
The day I saw this on the big screen I will always remember as "the day I drifted in space".
It has a sterile beauty.
Caché (2005)
Total failure
This is the worst film I've ever seen in a theater. I'm not exaggerating! It reminded me of Andy Warhol films. You know, his masterpieces like "Eat" - You see a man eating ONE mushroom (or something) for 45 minutes WITHOUT any camera movement or ANYTHING happening. Or what about "Sleep" which is even better. Watch a man sleeping for 321 minutes. And let's not forget Andy's probably most "ambitious" work "Empire", a static view of the Empire State Building from dawn till dusk, 8 hours long. Did I mention that those films are all silent. They at least showed reality. You can hardly call it art, but at least it could make you think about life.
"Caché" has the same effect on me, only that Warhol made his crap 40 years ago and that he knew it is crap. Maybe "Caché" could inspire you to think about the world and it's provoking the weirdest thoughts in your brain but Warhol's "Eat" could do that, too.
It all does not change the fact that "Caché" is a bad film. The film is doing its best to be slow. No problem, I like many slow films. The story of the film is a little bit of a Mystery. OK, cool. As long as it is worth it in the end. OK, Mystery. What does that mean. For me it means something is not making sense. It's not making sense until something unpredictable happens. And suddenly it all makes sense. Great experience as long as everything is logical. If this film were a Mystery it would be like most other Mysteries, only that this one is missing the last 5 minutes that makes it a great experience.
But is this really a Mystery anyway? No. I have my theories about who sent the tapes but the answer is not given in the film. But what does it matter anyway? It doesn't matter.
So I don't really know what to say about the rest of the film. It's like reading a book without letters. The book isn't bad but it definitely is not good either. So the rest of this boring film that has no right to exist in a mainstream world has themes that have been explored in many, many Hollywood movies:
The "passive terrorizing" while the police can't do anything about it because it's not a crime - seen it a dozen times already. Tapes that show the house sent to the family's home - Lost Highway did it. Son is disappearing, parents freak out, but the next day he comes back like nothing happened - Aha, so...? A slow and "realistic" film about everyday life is showing a "shocking", sudden suicide - "Funny Games" works similar, only that "Funny Games" has something called tension. The suicide also wasn't surprising AT ALL. You just wait for him to do it all along because he's such a desperate and depressed person.
EVERYTHING seen before. Just in an entertaining way. And the "style" of the film (if you could call it that) - Has been done before. But normally you get something that makes it worth it. I'm 90% sure if there wouldn't be the suicide scene (about which I don't give a damn anyway) this film would be liked by barely anyone.
So now there is only one possibility left: The film is there to fool the audience. It's playing with the audience. I've seen dozens of films which do that, all very differently, some are less clever some are cleverer but it always is some kind of "joyride". This film is representing life; it bores you for 2 hours and then it's over. I don't think it's a bad film because it's not giving you what you expect, but more because it's giving you nothing at all.
Many people say the film makes a racial statement. And it's probably true. That's what Michael Haneke TRIED to make. And it doesn't fail because of a lack of substance (I think the idea is alright and it's complex enough) but because of the bad execution of the idea. In the film not a single act of racism is shown. Maybe Haneke tried too hard to be subtle and in the end the main character wasn't racist at all...whatever the reason is...he fails. I still can't explain to myself how anyone could think he is racist but maybe you have to be a little racist yourself to see racism in a (non-racist) conflict between two people of different origin.
Napoleon Dynamite (2004)
At first I thought it's surrealism.
I thought it's surrealism because the film doesn't have any qualities other than making no sense at all. But after one hour watching the movie I got it. It's not surrealism, it's mainly a crappy Sci-Fi film. The world as we see it during the picture is how the world would be if everyone had 40 IQ-points less. With that in mind the film actually DOES make sense.
The reason I'm saying it's bad Sci-Fi is that the world couldn't work like this. We wouldn't had any technology like computers and governments couldn't work. There wouldn't be no economy and so on... Of course you could say there has been a horrible event taken place in 2003 or something that caused people to turn into complete idiots. And from then on everyone continued their lives, just with 40 IQ-points less. But since there is nothing in the film that would imply that tragic event (even bad Sci-Fi films have that) I can't seriously consider this film to be Sci-Fi. So you could look at it as surrealism or Sci-Fi. Either way, it's a very weak film.
2/10 for not making sense and causing no emotional reaction at all for full 94 minutes (incl. the epilogue at the end) and for being the un-funniest "comedy" I've ever seen, which from some perspective is quite an achievement on its own.
Raising Cain (1992)
Don't watch it for the thriller elements but for the exceptional story
(SPOILERS)
First of all I have to say that this is an awesome movie. I completely understand why it has such a low rating. It's definitely not for everyone. But it's exactly my kind of movie (pretty much).
I think the camera work wasn't better than from a good TV thriller. At least it SEEMS that way. But in this case it has its purpose. It's sheer brilliant how we see the situation out of the perspective of the different personalities. Did you recognize that we never see it from the perspective of his father? That's simply because he is not one of the personalities, he's a real person. And the scene when Josh (John Lithgow) is speaking directly to the camera...wow.
So the movie is exploring Carter's mind. It's pretty much concentrating on the psychological aspects. This is not just an ordinary thriller. It's a psychology study. The whole movie we think Carter's father is one of his split personalities, too. But in the end we find out that his father is real and that he's even the reason for all this.
"Raising Cain" has not many elements of a thriller and it's definitely not for everyone. Watch it only if you are really into psychological movies but not necessarily if you are into thrillers.
It's by no means an expensive or perfect movie but I for my part like this movie a lot. It's more complex than most people can withstand.
8/10 for a deep psychological study.
Saw (2004)
It's OK
How long did I wait to say this: I saw "Saw". Yeah!
Well, it was OK. The last 20 minutes were pretty stupid. The twist (if you can call it that) had nothing special, but it was alright. I mean, who cares who did it if you don't see this guy during the movie or has any special relation to someone in the movie anyway. There was a point in watching this movie when I had hopes it's gonna be good, but every minute that passed made it a little more mediocre. The soundtrack could have been better and better placed and the plot had so big holes, I could have thrown my foot through it. But the filmmaker did a pretty good job. The acting was not that great but at any rate bearable.
It was shot in 18 days and it's budget was $1,200,000. According to that, it's pretty good. It was suspenseful, even if it didn't pay out in the end. But at least it didn't give me a reason to be p!ssed off about watching this.
I'll give it 7/10, even if I thought about giving it a 6 because of the bad and sometimes over-the-top plot. But it's sometimes intense and has some good stuff.
Funny fact: Tobin Bell lay on the bathroom floor, perfectly still, for six days. He was not replaced with a dummy because the filmmakers could not afford one.
My personal favorite was the guy who had flammable substance all over his body and had to carry a candle to save himself. He kinda lost.^^ That was funny.
Der Stadtstreicher (1966)
Just bad in nearly every way.
>A tramp finds a gun lying in the street.<
Imagine what you could possibly make out of this short plot line. Give me 10 minutes and I would make something good out of it. In case of this short nobody spent 10 minutes to think about the story.
What the film has:
bad points: -bad acting -sloppy characterizations -unbelievable situations -absolute no conclusion
good points: -a famous director
There is really nothing you could get out of this film. Not even with the weirdest mind. Even some Japanese action director would have made a more believable and satisfying 10 minutes film with this plot line. So is there anything good about it? Yes, if you would look at it as a dream. Because in a dream, nothing has to make sense. Just like this early short from Fassbinder.
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)
Good basic idea wasted on unspectacular story.
I don't like this film. I think it lacks of substance. I say that while 2 of my top 10 films are "Falling Down" and "American Psycho"...please keep that in mind!
I think it's so respected because it's probably the first serious film about a serial killer and nothing more. Only his deeds. No moral. I like the idea but the result is dull. And it's not even a true story. It's based on the real serial killer Henry Lee Lucas but in fact "Henry" barely has anything in common with him. Did I mention the sloppy direction? But it has an excuse: The budget. That's why it gets:
5/10 because it's not a waste of celluloid but (in my opinion) a waste of time to watch.
Gone with the Wind (1939)
The mother of soap operas
It's extremely rare that I'm such that bored of a movie that's that respected and popular (popular in a positive way). So I'm surprised by myself that this movie was so terrible for me. I expected to see a quite good movie (minimum).
I think if I had seen it about 2 or 3 years ago it would have been quite entertaining for me. But I have enough of love stories yet. And especially love stories that are told like this. I know this is probably the mother of great love stories and that's why I respect it. But there was NOTHING that I haven't seen yet in other movies. Of course 'Gone with the Wind' inspired a lot of them. But I really have enough of it and that's why I couldn't enjoy the movie.
But except of the innovative style it really had a stupid story. It's about 230 minutes long and it didn't happen that much. I hate that Scarlett turns from a hoity-toity Lady into a hard working person WITHOUT A SINGLE COMPLAINT. Suddenly she is leading the family. That wasn't convincing at all. She is in love with Ashley without any reason given. It's just a constant in this movie that you have to accept. She never thinks of NOT loving him. What's so special about this guy? Not convincing at all. You don't get any case history, nothing.
Clark Gable's character was SO stereotype. They all were completely stereotype. There was not a single surprising action of any character. You can say that's because this movie was "copied" so often. That's half of the truth. It was really boring for me. It wasn't suspenseful, very less action, boring comedy, stereotyped and predictable drama. Romance? - Maybe, but I'm not naive enough to swallow that.
Probably an enjoyable and entertaining movie for me as kid, but I'm too old for it now. So also if I didn't feel the greatness of the movie I can accept its greatness. And the visuals are top.
6/10 for a non-convincing movie with some admirable aspects.
Das Schloß (1968)
A film that never starts
It doesn't work. No. It definitely doesn't work as a film. It's pointless. I feel pretty messed around right now. Maximilian Schell did well. But that's it. There were two nice scenes. But that's it.
The film is creating its own reality just to deliver the right message. If you want to tell a story that delivers these messages it tries to deliver...then tell a better one!
The film is quite terrible. It never really starts and it's over before it comes to any relevant point. I didn't like it. Just watch it if you're really into Franz Kafka's story.
3/10 because it tries to deliver a great message but fails miserably.
Cradle of Fear (2001)
Everyone will suffer now!
It SURPRISINGLY had a plot! ;) I've seen movies with less plot (I don't wanna mention Asian movies but...). I thought the camera wasn't bad at all for a cheap movie like this, and also the atmosphere wasn't too bad. There is no real reason for most things people do and the way they react to what happens. Although I do think that about a lot of movies, in this case it was horrible, of course.
It ripped off some movies SO badly just for single scenes. The acting was bad but I've seen worse. The movie was bad but I've seen worse. Watching this film is an experience between boredom, laughing fits, death wish, sadism, horniness and entertainment on a low level.
So if you like gory movies with stupid plots this one is the right film for you.
I gave it 3/10, because it CAN be entertaining if you don't expect to see a good movie and you're in the right mood.
Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes (1972)
I fail to see the hand of god in this picture. A glorious mess!
This wasn't the great movie I expected to be.
I guess most of you probably aren't German...
1) If you were, you would recognize how bad this movie was dubbed. It ruined everything. The dubbing always gave the complete wrong emotions. Very amateurish. It's even much worse than most regular dubbings from English films when they get dubbed into German. And this was supposed to be the original version as it was meant to be? Just awful.
2) One of Klaus Kinskis best performances or even THE best?
Gosh! He wasn't bad, and compared to the other "actors" of the film he was godlike. He had about 3 monologues throughout the film and all of them awfully overdubbed. There wasn't much you could call acting.
3) I expected a story about a megalomaniac. What I got was an adventure movie that extremely neglect the megalomaniac story with a less than average plot. All I got were speaking heads and guys that make jokes after they get a spear through the breast. The single scenes don't fit together very well. It doesn't feel like a complete story. Just scene after scene after scene. You can virtually feel the production of the film and how Werner Herzog tried to make it all fit together, but it doesn't work.
The movie has some nice cinematography and was filmed on beautiful locations. You don't get to see the Amazonas very often in other films.
But that movie really sucked so hard. It's a mess to watch and fails to have a point.
2/10 for the cinematography and the Amazonas
Turbulence 3: Heavy Metal (2001)
I can't believe they made this: Incredibly stupid
I got nothing but bad words for this flick. It's just stupid. From the first to the last minute. Unbelievable. This is one of the most stupid films I've ever seen.
The """Heavy Metal""" music for the most part is Goth-Pop, or whatever you wanna call it. The music was as sweet as a half naked girl. Nevermind.
Slade Craven (John Mann) is just unbelievably ugly. Not because of the make-up. He's just an extremely ugly guy and nobody (and certainly not millions of fans) will think this guy is "HOT".
And this "Simon Flanders" thingy. WOW! I mean...WOW! At this point the stupid writer surpassed himself. How mindless...were they all brain dead or what?
What are their names...Wade Ferley...and...Jorge Montesi, the director. Don't get me wrong guys, but they would really deserve to be dead. Killed by some REAL satanics...yeah, that would be cool. Chr-Chr-Chr!
Uncle Sam (1996)
Oh my God. Can't get any worse.
I just rented this movie because of the video cover. It's very similar to the one on the IMDb site.
An awful film with some hilarious scenes, like when the family is on the table and enjoying their breakfast together, while the coffin of the dead Uncle is in the same room. I just waited for the family to take their food and chairs to carry it to the coffin for taking breakfast on the coffin. Unfortunately it never happened.
The actors were incredibly bad. The mother was always p issed about her son when he did something good and she was praising her son when he was doing shenanigans. The scriptwriter must be a beaver or a donkey or something and the director seems to be a six year old child. There wasn't even a second of plausibility in this picture.
In the end sequence, when Uncle Sam gets shot you can clearly see thick wires on his back reaching to the house. Everything about this film was just stupid. Everybody in this film was stupid. This director should get hung up on a flagpole.
1/10 with no comment.
Jonas qui aura 25 ans en l'an 2000 (1976)
Smart, critical film that is able to change opinions and views
Nice, small, intellectual film that criticizes the political system of its time. Even though the situation hasn't changed much yet. It even more criticizes the consumer society and economy for its lack of humanity. It makes clear, that the government has complete control over the masses, over me and over you - we have nothing.
Economy is going to eat itself up until chaos will rule again and nobody has control anymore.
The characters in the film try to change something, but it seems to go nowhere. They have good intentions, but simply lack the power. Just as these characters, we also get suppressed by our government. This film is not just about Switzerland of France. It's about democracy and free market economy. The film can make people realize how hopeless our existence is. How decadent our lives are...
Watching this film certainly isn't a waste of time. If you like your films a little more ambitious, it doesn't fail to entertain. And even if you can't begin "doing" anything with its message, the film is full of interesting facts about society and simply about the way it is.
9/10 for a smart, critical film that is able to change opinions and views.
PS: If you ask yourself whether you should watch it on TV today, or not...DON'T MISS IT! BECOME SOMEONE ELSE!
Magnolia (1999)
Great new Cinema, but pointless and unrealistic.
At the End of the movie you get a really unsatisfied feeling. The story is quite static. No development of anything.
It's a slow movie with some fast scenes which is a good combination. It's innovative. But the dramatic moments were unrealistic. So it's OK the Highlight of the movie is an amazing frog-rain. The intro was great. They tried to close with that story at the end, but they failed. I never felt sorry for any person.
The movie does impress many people with some spectacular scenes which were all quite unrealistic and not plausible. Not because of the chances-thing, even for themselves. So I think this movie must be overrated. All in all it was pointless. It was provocative and innovative narrated, but pointless.
I don't think this is a must-see-movie, but it's entertaining and interesting. Not a perfect motion picture but with a lot of good ideas just a little mindless converted. Acted very well but not outstanding.
I give this film 8/10 for new innovative cinema and the beginning of a new kind of movie. (kind of)
House of 1000 Corpses (2003)
A Film that kills you...through laughs
I would say, this film is a work of art. It's an extremely provocative film. Not everyone understands the humor. It's more like an insider humor.
But this movie is just amazingly well done. The story is as stupid, as in "Evil Dead" (Well, maybe not that stupid). It's full of great ideas, weird characters, pictures and film quotations. Rob Zombie made the film very varied, innovative, creative and professional.
The opening sequence is stupid as hell, but I fell from my chair laughing. In the end it gets a little fanciful, with that whole Dr.Satan thing down in the pit.
I really enjoyed watching that movie and I'm glad I got away with my life...for now. But it's a film just for people who can laugh about someone getting killed, but for these people it's got to be awesome.
9/10 for the funniest (deliberately funny!) "Horror" film ever made.
The Evil Dead (1981)
Amateurs, very professional
This is maybe one of the very scariest films ever. I gotta say, the editing is amazing. The fact that there are just a very few totals and that the camera is always quite close to the action and to the actors, is what the film gives so much atmosphere. Together with the great editing it drags you right into that house in that dark forest.
The male viewers will die laughing, the female ones will die out of fear.
You can see how cheap the film is, but, you know, the editing ;) Nothing in this movie is plausible, but you won't care.
Oh, and of course, the music. It's a bit exaggerated, but very effective. So I just have to say: This amateurs knew how to make a scary movie.
10/10 for the most...eeerm...daemonic experience of your life.
Kinder der Nacht (2000)
You are looking for the cheapest film ever shot? You won't be disappointed here.
This is the most terrible film, that I've ever seen in my entire life. And I've seen some thousand films up to now, so that really means something. My not too clever mother has bought this film on DVD. Yes, this piece of s*** was actually released on DVD and even is sold in major stores. The "performances" of the actors are the worst I've ever had to endure in a movie. The director is at the same time the leading actor and he is even proud of this work. (Taken from the bonus stuff on the DVD) The picture quality alone is so bad, you already feel sick looking at the screen. The sound is intolerable and difficult to understand.
I've seen "'Manos' The Hands of Fate" yesterday but in the light of 'Manos' "Kinder der Nacht" looks like the people of 'Manos' knew what they did. You better not watch "Kinder der Nacht" alone, since there is the risk of falling asleep and never wanting to wake up again. Even if you are not watching this alone, it's still hard to get through it without any physical pain. Even Beavis & Butthead would become even more stupid (YES!) watching this film.
Just watch the film if you want to torture yourself. I think I must puke now.