agitpop Reviews

Bones and All (2022)

Like a Romero & Korine collab

[8/10 · 2 February 2024]

"Bones and All" takes a bite into the heart of cinematic convention, serving up a feast of love, horror, and the inexplicably bizarre in a way that only a hypothetical collaboration between George A. Romero and Harmony Korine could. This film doesn't just walk the line between horror and romance; it devours it, reveling in the raw and the unorthodox.

At its core, the film embodies the visceral metaphor of wanting to consume one's lover, transforming an intense expression of love into a literal, flesh-and-blood reality. It's a wild ride through the landscapes of America and the human heart, where cannibalism becomes a twisted mirror reflecting the depths of intimacy and connection.

Luca Guadagnino has concocted something truly outlandish here, blending the tenderness of young love with the gore of cannibalism in a manner that both shocks and captivates. The performances are hauntingly beautiful, infusing the film's bizarre narrative with a sense of grounded humanity amidst the madness.

"Bones and All" might puzzle some with its pace and unique blend of genres, but it's this very oddity, this daring to be different, that marks it as a potential cult classic. It's as if the film itself is in love with its characters, so much so that it wants to consume them, enveloping them in a narrative so strange yet so compelling, it can only be described as a love letter to the weird and wonderful in cinema.

In essence, the film is an unforgettable exploration of love's darkest desires and deepest needs, wrapped in a narrative as peculiar and provocative as a weekend bender with cinema's masters of the macabre and the marginal. "Bones and All" doesn't just cross boundaries-it feasts on them, leaving us utterly engrossed in its weird, wild world.

Daliland (2022)

Great acting, great story, sloppy execution

[5/10 · 4 July 2023]

I really wanted to like this film and it's not a film I wouldn't want to watch again. I usually reserve my 5 stars ratings for films that are "good but that I don't want to watch again".

In Daliland we have some great acting by Kingsley and Barbara Sukowa, actually some great settings and scenes (the laughing fit when Dali meets Gala for the first time!), and the film is overall entertaining. I probably would watch it again.

Still, the film feels like a mediocre and slightly "cheesy" and somehow uninspired execution of a great story, and it's difficult to pinpoint this to a single factor. I'll try to give an overview:

• Most of the actors besides Kingsley and Stukowa are not really convincing

• All the music they've used in the film feels like it's supposed to be provisional fill-ins. Did they run out of money to buy better music or was it just bad taste? Most of the music is generic Rock, and Alice Cooper's "School's Out for Summer" feels completely out of place.

• The editing and pacing feels off. It feels like they came to a rough cut and then they ran out of interesting ideas. Especially the last scene feels underwhelming. What could have been a grande last scene feels like something you'd expect to see in a student's movie.

• I still don't get that second sex-scene, it feels completely out of place and unnecessary, as if they just put it in to make the film 3 minutes longer

• The camera-work is mostly uninspired (see: last scene)

This film is still enjoyable and watchable, but after watching it you'll automatically have the feeling: "well, they could have done that better".

Primal Fear (1996)

Pro-death-penalty and weak women

[3/10 · 7 July 2013]

The story is very well told, with a lot of unexpected twists. Excellent acting, especially by Edward Norton. He outplays them all, as well as his character outsmarts them all. Gere is sleazy as usual.

Apart from that I dislike the film for its questionable morals that are being transported in the subtext. Every film has a message. The message of this film is basically that "clinically insane persons" are "faking their insanity". The film implies that they should be toasted on the chair instead of being sent to a medical facility. The message is: pro- death-penalty.

The film also implies that women can be smart but they can not control their emotions which makes them weaker than their male counterparts (again: Norton and Gere, completely in control of their emotions).

Without the moral implications this film would be a 8/10, but as explained I can not stand the very conservative political image - especially the pro-death- penalty subtext - that's being transferred in the subtext, so I'll give it a 3/10.

Suicide Club (2001)

Tokyo Suicide

[9/10 · 7 July 2013]

I was living in Tokyo for many years but I only recently watched this film.

In my opinion it describes the superficiality and loneliness of this city better than any other film that I know. It also is a very important document illustrating Japanese society and its metaphysical / mythological foundations which not only accepts suicide but in some way even encourages suicide as a convenient "way out".

It's all just a game, let's do suicide, so we can stay connected to each other forever and will never hurt each other again. We will all be one.

The Machine Girl (2008)

Japanese Splatter Porn of the very cheapest kind

[1/10 · 6 July 2013]

This is a completely mindless splatter and gore-film for people who consider fountains of fake-blood, flying body parts and looking at Japanese girls' panties a time well spent. Or in other words: one has to be very drunk, mentally challenged or sexually retarded to be able to enjoy this junk. I can imagine that an all-boy frat-house-party might be the right screening place.

It's like watching gangbang-porn, with the difference that all penetration is substituted with stabbing, chopping, slicing. Instead of sperm you'll see ejaculations of fake blood and instead of sex-organs you'll see intestines and brain-matter. Same as in porn the act of f*cking / killing itself in all its weird variations is considered to be completely sufficient for a movie plot, but the constant flow of blood and violence is numbing and debilitating and it's honestly extremely boring.

You will see random acts of cheap violence over and over again, nothing changes: chop chop chop, head body arm, left right across. So if you're the kind of guy who's hysterically laughing again and again about the extremely cheap and mindless cinematic execution of the same kind of dumb violent joke repeated over and over for 90 minutes then this might be the right film for you. For anyone else it's boring after 5 minutes.

Conclusion: avoid by all means.

PS: If you're interested in violent Japanese cinema then watch "Itchy The Killer" instead; if you're into weird Japanese cinema then watch any "Pink Eiga" movie from the late 70ies / 80ies. I'm not sure if these films are available outside of Japan though (I'm living in Japan).

Hard Candy (2005)

Deadly candy, important film

[9/10 · 6 July 2013]

The story is masterfully acted and told, the plot takes several unexpected turns. In the beginning I couldn't help myself but sympathize with the male character (well: I'm male and I'm also working as a photographer), but as the story unfolded my sympathy changed into disgust.

The first half of the film reminded me of Michael Haneke's "Funny Games". There is a castration-scene that is a gruesome piece of cinema. Even though there's nothing particularly gory visible, it's audible. Just as with Haneke's Funny Games it's therefore extremely painful to watch - because the worst images happen in your head.

The second half of the film is more like a psychological thriller that peaks and concludes with the confession of the child-murderer and his suicide.

The last images show Hayley in a dress that reminds of "Little Red Riding Hood" an image that is probably meant to underline her 'innocence'.

///

"Hard Candy" is a very important film.

First it's one of the few films that deal with the subject of pedophilia and violence against women.

It is interesting (even though slightly unrealistic) to see such a strong independent female character. Other films with strong female characters that come to my mind are: Kill Bill or Kick-Ass, but these are in one way or the other comical films. Hard Candy on the other side is dealing with a dead serious subject, but it's not realistic even though it looks more realistic from the onset. Does it need to be realistic? Not at all: it's a film.

It's the strongest and deadliest and smartest female character I've yet seen, the character of Hayley acts completely self-sufficiently and without any influence of a male character.

What I can not completely agree with are the moral implications of Hard Candy, for example the self-justice and that awkward mentioning of Roman Polanski (what do the film-makers imply by that? That Polanski should be castrated and killed?).

The film is also full of many clichées, for example by making the male character a photographer. As mentioned I'm a photographer myself, I feel slightly uncomfortable when I hear that voyeurism in general is considered castration-worthy. Every photographer is a "voyeur" in one way or the other.

It is also awkward for me - as a man - to find the main actor running around after a DIY-castration without showing any sign of pain. I'd guess that this is completely unrealistic. In reality that man would have probably puked through the whole second part of the film from the resulting pain.

Conclusion: If it was a film about a different subject I'd probably give it 5 or 6 points out of 10. The reason why I'm giving 9/10 points is because I think it's a very important film: it's dealing with a very serious subject and depicts a female character as strong as I've never seen it before. It would be great to see more characters like this.

I Sell the Dead (2008)

Lame, lamer, lamest

[3/10 · 23 March 2010]

I am a usually a very generous voter on IMDb and don't bother commenting on movies I did not like, but this was just lame. I actually turned it off 15 minutes before finishing it, to watch "This Is It" (because my gf wanted to... I just chose the lesser of two evils).

If you want to watch this movie: picture this film as a collection of worse-than-average "horror"-stories, like "scary short-stories" that you find in an issue of "Reader's Digest" in the waiting room of your dentist's.

I did not expect anything particular terrifying or funny, I am not the "I want to see blood!"-type of person, but this "movie" is neither "horror" nor "comedy" nor entertaining in any other way.

It's probably more scary/funny and entertaining to look at the movie-poster of "You've Got Mail" for 90 minutes while drinking chamomile tea.

Conclusion: a "horror-comedy" for people between 4 and 7.

Human Mutants (2004– )

Brrrrh.... man, this is bad...

[2/10 · 1 August 2007]

I have just seen the first episode and I wonder what this is about. OK: I expected to see some "freaks of nature", but I am also really interested in the backgrounds and the theory behind it. I expected something semi-scientific. This is not semi-scientific, it is zero-scientific. It is just show.

The first thing you see are Nazis(Dr. Mengele), in the mist of a night at Auschwitz, the whole scenery put into back-lighting. I got interested and thought I might be able to learn some background information, but they kept on showing Nazis using those horribly cheap and inappropriate sound-and camera-effects that made absolutely no sense in the documentation at all. Whenever they changed the subject they were cutting Nazis in between, without any further comment. What the %^&*?

It is as if in UK no one likes to watch a film if there's not at least one Nazi in it. Jesus... they kept on repeating: Mengele was gruesome and he performed gruesome experiments on dwarfs, you see all those pictures filmed in an aesthetic like "Hostel", brrrhh... they repeated that over and over. OK: I know that the Nazis were bad. What has this to do with genetics!!?? Every 8 to 10 minutes they were showing the same pictures again, without any reason at all. To be honest: I am German and I honestly do feel offended by that crap, but not because I would feel any sympathy or whatever for Nazis, but because showing them like they got shown in this docu is just a Mickey-Mouse-ation, a trivialization of the gruesomeness and cruelty of the Nazi regime. I do not mind showing Nazis, but the way they were shown here was just for plain stupid show-effect. I am not a Nazi at all (rather the opposite) but ... arh.

That's stupid show-effects for the dumbed-down masses...

Anyway: apart from that British Nazi-obsession there was that extremely vain reporter, who always got put into scenery as if he was some kind of uber-magician, running through the scenery without making any sense at all. There are the dwarfs in the casino, here is the Mr. wanna-be-David-Copperfield floating (sic! FLOATING! they made that Spike Lee camera-effect with this guy, omg) through the casino talking gibberish.

Something else? Actually: no. All the extremely scarce and superficial information of this crappy documentary is delivered in a way that reminds me of a cheap copy of a Las Vegas show. They probably had a huge expense on all that artificial mist and the light-effects. No knowledge whatsoever got transported that you wouldn't have read before, as long as your normal lecture is above the level of "The Sun" headlines.

You could read all the information that was delivered in 1 to 2 minutes on half a page of text.

Last not least: it's made like a freak-show: here the dwarfs! Here a monstrous skeleton! Here an eunuch! Oh my god. Pure sensationalism but not even sensational enough to be at least provocative. Watching this crap feels as if they wanted to produce a science show for people who normally watch "Pop Idol". I fear that I will get dumber when watching the second part, not smarter.

By the way: where's Sir Attenborough?

16 Blocks (2006)

Terrible (Yawn)

[3/10 · 1 August 2007]

This movie was terrible, but good things first: Mos Def was alright; Bruce Willis was pretty good, he really can look like a totally f***ed-up alcoholic (especially in the beginning, in the end they gave him a more "healthier look" to symbolize the change of his personality). That's it with the good things about this movie. All the other actors were boring; the plot is was if they had a computer-application running to deliver a mediocre script made out of 5 other mediocre movies: it starts at point a and it ends at point b, no surprises, one straight line from a to b; absolutely no no no tension; absolutely no action-scenes; absolutely no twists; absolutely no laughs; absolutely no feeling between Mos Def and Willis; an incredible kitschy ending; moreover this film had as many plot-holes and totally illogical scenes (Willis talking at the phone that he will kill everyone in the bus, but everyone looks as happily as if he's singing a birthday song for his pal Mos Def; he runs around in the city like n alcoholic, but he can grab anyone's telephone and run into any apartment and doesn't even have to say he's a cop, people just smile and are happy to help that sme3lly bastard; Willis' character is sometimes so illogical and unbelievable that it's not ridiculous but sad, that Willis even agreed to play that in the first place x_0).

I did not expect a good movie, because I assumed that it's only mediocre from the beginning. I at least expected a mediocre movie. This was not mediocre, this was as interesting as a bottle of coke that stood in the sun for three days, meaning: bad, really really bad.

Only Willis and Mos Def made me give 3/10 points for that, even if they were not really good, nevertheless the editing and the boring script ruined most.

Better don't watch if you value your time and braincells.

PS: Might be something for adolescents though, like 11 to 12 years old, but only the dumb ones.

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006)

Great Un-stupid Teenage-Slasher-Popcorn-Cinema.

[8/10 · 30 July 2007]

Behind The Mask / The Rise of Leslie Vernon is an exceptionally well written horror-/ slasher-film / mockumentary. I did not expect very much, because I was watching a lot of movies lately and 50% of the movies that get a high rating on IMDb actually are crap (seems as if a lot of people have bad taste, ungh...). BtM/TRoLV is low budget and for sure you can see it when watching it. Also the actors are not totally on top, but all play at least acceptable. The one thing that really kicks it for me is the story-line, although it is very reminiscent of Rémy Belvaux's "Man Bites Dog" from '92. It's been some years that I've seen Man Bites Dog (omg! 15 years!!??) but I remember MBD being much more cynical and dark, so: Leslie Vernon actually is a little bit more moderate; nevertheless it has some really good twists and subtle humor. Please note that I wrote "subtle". This is not "Scary Movie", so you will not laugh until the beer you've just sipped squirts out of your nose because you can not hold yourself laughing. It's also not a real "slasher" film, because you do not see much slashing around, there are not many horrifying close-ups (besides some ripped out larynx that looked rather artificial) ... it's generally not very gory, it's not laugh-out-loud-funny, but all in all I highly enjoyed watching it.

Don't ask me how I came to my (relatively high) rating, because there was no real highlight beside the well-written script, actors were good (not more), camera-work was really good (nothing special though), editing was fine (but nothing special), sound was fine (but nothing special), but nevertheless I would highly recommend watching it together with a girl, a big bag of popcorn and a beer. Not perfect but great to watch! 7/10.

††† SPOILERS ††† PS: I hope Leslie will rise again from the death for a second part x_0 PPS: If you are disappointed by this film then go and rent Man Bites Dog... it's much more dark and cynical as I mentioned before. This movie is more a bastard of Man Bites Dog + Scream

The Descent (2005)

Scary but not really special

[7/10 · 5 February 2007]

I really was in the mood for some popcorn cinema, so I got me The Descent. I did not get disappointed, but it really is not very psychological besides the psycho-effects of sounds and fast cuts and some gory scenes. I do not understand, why some people see this movie high up there with Alien!? It's like a very good claustrophobic roller-coaster ride through a house of horrors with lots of hungry gollums inside. A good screamer nevertheless. Watch it with your boy-/girlfriend and it won t let you down, just don t expect to have a lot to think about after you left the cinema or switched off the TV.

10 lines of text, 10 lines of text, 10 lines of text, 10 lines of text, 10 lines of text" ... stupid 10 lines of text rule.

Ichi the Killer (2001)

Truly Repulsive...

[9/10 · 15 January 2007]

I've seen Visitor Q some years ago and it shocked and deeply disturbed me,though I have seen a lot of gore and horror flicks before. I must say, that I am not a gore-fan. I just like to watch good movies, if there's gore in it or not is not important to me.

Now I have seen Koroshiya 1 / Ichy the Killer and it was not as surreal as VQ, but at least as disturbing as first mentioned one. It definitely IS an extremely well and intelligently done movie, but it also is one sick, repulsive and deeply cruel flick, beyond any moral borders, top notch perverted twisted sick as *&^%$£$%. The weird thing is, it's probably the first movie where I wanted to throw up and pml at the same time (I am not sure if this can be seen as a quality feature ...). It's a really well told story, too. But things like the killing of the boy or the girl (who got raped) ... that's beyond any morality, that's just sick, though it surely is filmed from an Asian perspective on things (with other values...don't want to say that Asian's kill little boys and rape crying girls before slaughtering them...just the completely different point of view on things when doing a movie adds a whole lot of weirdness to Asian films when being watched by a westerner). I also know it's wrong to ask for human values in a movie like this, but it really hurts watching anyway.

I feel somehow twisted now.

The Outsiders (1983)

Like Dirty Dancing Without Girls

[5/10 · 16 August 2006]

I watched this movie mainly for the reason that it s a Coppola-Movie. I was confused from the first minute on, because it looked more like a a sentimental journey into adolescence from the first scene (sunset, soft music, it makes me cringe). Youth gangs in the 60ies. OK. Nice. I like the moral values, that are transported , even if they are as shallow as I have seldom seen it before (violence = bad; anyone s the same, if with or without money; even poor people have moral values).

So please don t get me wrong, but I thought this movie was somehow "gay". I don t have anything against gays, some of my best friends are and they re great persons, that I respect and love, I just didn t think that all that pubertal erotica as its shown in this dirty piece of a movie is cool. It s not cool at all. It s baroque. Maybe other ones don t see it like that but I thought it was "greasy" (to speak in the language of the film) and "kitschy". This is not Marlon Brandon and it s not A Streetcar Named Desire (although it plays in a similar context and settings). Brando was cool. It s also not Lord Of The Flies. Lord Of The Flies was tough, one can think about the movie for a long time. But "Outsiders" didn t make me think about anything for more than 30 seconds, not even when the movie was running. How cool is Patrick Swayzeeeee in his too tight jeans, jumping around with his greasy mullet like a monkey after an (s)experimental lobotomy with testicles swollen to the size of coconuts? It s like Dirty Dancing without the girls. I wouldn't t have wondered if there were dancing and singing scenes in it. And actually I wouldn t have wondered if there would have appeared The Hoff, too. The film shows sweaty dirty boys hugging and punching all the time, but it s not even homo, it s just plain stupid and "shallow" is actually a too good adjective for the moral values, that this dirty piece of a movie actually transports. It s just a big gay-ish opera with crying poor dirty kids who d like to have a homo experience but because they are too stupid, they have to punch each other instead of heaving the real thing. Jesus... The movie gets 5 out of 10. It s mediocre. In my opinion the worst thing that can happen to a movie. I like the ones that I gave one point only actually more than this one. Seriously. Unbelievable that Coppola has done that. Shame on you F.F.! Bad bad boy! What a crap...

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

Mediocre Roller Coaster Ride + Outstanding Johnny Depp

[6/10 · 21 July 2005]

I have to admit that I also really enjoyed this movie a lot in 2003 when it was showing at the cinema and I also thought it was one of the best movies of this year. The strange thing is: I ve seen it again on DVD now and it - for some reason I can not explain - rather bored me. It has great actors, fantastic settings, but the story is not more than "okay" (it has some far-fetched useless halfhearted twists in it) and in the end one feels like having seen a teaser for Walt Disney parks ... and that s probably what the film actually is: a roller-coaster ride with some narrative lengths (it s far too long for a real exciting roller-coaster ride).

Johnny Depp s acting is absolutely outstanding though (selfironical overacted, rather camp without being really gay). I also believe that Depp himself would not say that it s one of the best movies he played in (hopefully not), but probably one of the best payed jobs he s done (hopefully). Without Depp the movie would probably be quite boring and "cheap" (in the meaning of "cheap tricks"), with Depp it s at least well entertaining and particularly quite funny.

At last: this is definitely not a movie one has to see twice. While other movies develop a higher quality after being watched for the second, third,... time this movie loses a lot of quality when seen for the second time.

6/10

Time of the Wolf (2003)

into the profane

[7/10 · 25 January 2004]

this movie doesn t explain itself. it s more a description of a fictional social condition after the loss of all human and social rules and regulations (as money, executive, legislative) than a narration. highly depressing, very profane, very simple. more a picture than a movie.

The Green Mile (1999)

unbelievable disgusting

[1/10 · 29 August 2002]

a) this is a spoiler b) read it also if you liked the movie and ask yourself if its transporting the right human image and the right political image c) sorry for my bad english, my words probably won´t be able to transport the things i want to say in the way i want them to be understood

this movie transports the worst political opinion and the most disgusting cynical picture of human that I´ve ever seen in cinema.

This is not a movie, this is brainless pro-death-penalty-propaganda for sentimental ex-ku-klux-klan members, although it´s made veryveryvery (very) good, the story is told in a brillant way. this movie is definetly dangerous for people who do not have brains (anyone who voted more than 3 points), because it manipulates in a very sentimental way.

when you watch this movie, you can say afterwards: "oh man, i´ve been so sad when they´ve toasted the negroe" and you can feel as if you are a very good-minded person.

you have to see that tom hanks plays a friendly but cowardly "angel of death", who only does what the law tells him to do. he´s the ideal brainless executioner, he could also play a nazi who´s poisoning some jews in a concentration camp, just because adolf told him to do it. also the very very silly played negroe says: "hey man, toast me, i do not want to live forever! it´s okay when i´m getting barbequed also if i´m not guilty at all and you know it and although i´m a gift from heaven". and: the negroe himself says, that it´s good to kill someone who´s "really bad" and then the "stupid nigger" (sorry, but that´s the way blacks are discribed in this "movie") cries, because the world is so bad...this is so brainless simpleminded and stupid!

once more: this movie is made really really good. if you like good "handcraft" and are interested how it comes, that so many people did rate this "movie from naziheaven" with a 8, 9 or 10 (!!!!! what kind of freaks are you ????), then watch it and think about propaganda and leni riefenstahls "triumph des willens" (that´s doing the same thing in a completely different way) and maybe "pearl harbour" and that this film and tom hanks really suck! and that propaganda really sucks and that it sucks that it´s allowed in america to grill another human.

if i could give less than 1 point, i´d give this movie a -10

Vanilla Sky (2001)

scifi-romance

[9/10 · 23 August 2002]

perhaps i should not write right after watching the movie because i think it should take awhile to think about it. i can only say that it was a great experience. i got sucked into the movie from the first second on and after it was over i was kind of shocked that it took around 2 hours to watch it. it´s a great story about love, desperation, life, identity, reality and it´s told in kind of "intellectual acid science-fiction style", means: you feel like on a very sophisticated lsd-trip. only problem i see is that it looks and feels so good, that you definetly have to look out for sth that´s "wrong" with it...maybe Cruise? No! He´s great! He´s on his best! Although I normally do not like him that much, he´s playing really f***ing good in here! Penelope Cruz: wonderfull! Cameron Diaz: hell is blonde! Not one bad actor, not one scene that would bore you or even annoy you.

i wonder how i will like the original, because this one gets 10/10

Recommendations: nothing comparable, because it mixes so many ideas and styles, that its standing solo. (may-may-maybe fightclub, total recall, phantom of the opera, matrix, eyes wide shut, brainstorm, ...)

The Opposite of Sex (1998)

the opposite of a good movie

[1/10 · 21 August 2002]

sorry, this is the biggest spoiler i´ll ever write, but this definetly is one of the most boring movies i´ve ever seen.

the story-line is ridiculous dumb, the characters are unironical white-trash-squareheads and there´s not one character in the movie, that would be performed in an inspired way of acting: this is a square head soap opera. christina ricci plays as if she got a brain damage, martin donovan as if he had an overdose of valium and lisa kudrow is just a pain in the a**. the best actor in this movie is William Lee Scott (no joke! he´s definetly not one of the best actors ever, but hes the best one in here, hes even smart!) and maybe Lyle Lovett, but just because he´s got such a funny face. there´s definetly no reason to make such a boring movie, just because the subject (homosexuality) may offend someone. it seems as if the moviemakers tried to do a "mainstream" film about homosexuality: to provocate, but "just a little". just because one of the main characters says "vagina! vagina! vagina!" and another one talks about two men sucking each other´s d**** doesn´t make a good movie out of it. it´s like watching "the wonder years" with some obscene expressions in it.

this movie is a waste of time!

2 out of 10 (and the two are for WL Scott and L Lovett) recommendations (just to proove that i´m not homophobic): ich bin meine eigene frau, boys dont cry, der bewegte mann.