Change Your Image
GeeWillickersRadioactiveMan
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Hateful Eight (2015)
Worst Tarantino Film
I understand people like this movie, and they're free to do so, but for me it's awful. It feels like QT forgot how to make movies and write in general during this simultaneous snore fest/gore fest.
Jackie Brown had weird pacing and bad beats, but this movie is just depressing. Having hateful in the name doesn't require having a hate filled movie, but this sure delivers.
A great score, costume and set design are ruined by hit or miss acting and writing that should have never made it past a first draft. Every twist is predictable and every payoff is underwhelming. What could have been an interesting mystery is reduced into ultraviolence with no purpose beside weak plot justification.
The first chapter of this film is mostly just racial epithet and woman beating behind some attempt at "historical realism". I hoped in the second chapter, with the introduction of the sheriff, there might be some changes to the rhythm, but no, it's just spiteful nonsense the entire way through.
The notion of realism is funny in this movie, it takes the painstaking point of continuity to include Samuel L. Jackson's bounties onto the stage coach, but ignores the pistol within reach of Jennifer Jason Leigh for the second half of the film. A pistol it dwells on for the sake of a meaningless bit.
Speaking of meaningless bits, this movie is full of hackneyed nonsense, all the way up to, a "we can't close the door" joke which repeats so far past being welcome it's absurd.
Really any other QT film is worth watching over this one. Those at least justify their absurdity or violence with story, this is just pretty Western pictures mixed in with viscera.
Fat-Topia (2019)
Pretty Well Done, A Little Soft Around the Edges
From the outset, you can tell this is a new director, who doesn't have much experience. He does pretty well considering that, but falls short in a number of areas. The low budget nature of the documentary is easily ignored, but the lack of creativity in the shooting is a problem at times.
A long, meandering scene where he is interviewing a well-known British physician comes to mind, where he keeps changing windows on his computer, while she discusses some of the most relevant information in the entire film. It's quite disjointed, and this scene frankly seemed like a poorly recorded zoom call.
On the other hand, there are some slick edits at times which capture the feeling of scrolling through a social media feed. So, more of that. More cohesive. Would be my technical advice.
As far as the subject matter, it was decent. I think the issue with interviewing most people from the fat acceptance community is you will produce similar results in each interview. There were a few empathetic, and intelligent minds who did a good job expressing why they have interest in that movement, but generally, the response was quite vitriolic.
I understand he may have done something to garner that reaction in some capacity, but speaking anecdotally, the fat acceptance community is pretty closed off. And, from what I understand, is largely based around the notion of they are fine as they are. I don't see how you could ever have a productive conversation in that capacity. It will always devolve into a discussion over health, then a deconstruction of how that's an irrelevant concept subjectively. This happens over and over in this film, ad nauseum.
I do think, regardless of what the filmmaker may have done to offend the fat acceptance community, it does reflect very poorly on the people who flat out refused to be interviewed for totally arbitrary or race-based reasons. I've seen a documentary where an Indian woman interviewed numerous white supremacists in their settings, under their conditions. So, it's quite something to behold they should be that unwilling to talk to someone they don't like, when even neo-nazis have made that concession. Granted, the neo-nazis said they would have declined those interviews had she been Jewish instead.
Overall, a pretty good film from a new documentarian. My advice would be to consider the discussions he is capable of realistically having with groups in the future. What makes someone like Louis Theroux so great is he is capable of asking questions which provide insight into the subculture he's interviewing. His films are also edited in a more cohesive way where the visuals benefit the narrative. I hope the director moves towards those changes in the future, I think it will produce a more impactful narrative.
Funny Games (1997)
You've Seen It Before...
In the sense that I am going to make similar criticisms to other viewers, and that this movie has nothing to say which hasn't been said better before it.
I'm not educated on cinema like some of the other reviewers here, I can't reference esoteric French films. I can however reference a reviled French writer, Marquis De Sade. This is the same man whose name is literally referenced by the word "sadism".
I consider Funny Games to be an inadvertent 100 Days of Sodom. Where De Sade was fantasizing about continuing his cruelty while wasting away in a bastille (some have argued this is a vague deconstruction of the cruelty and hypocrisy of the French ruling class at the time, which seems abundantly generous), Haneke created a film to disparage his audience. I compare to Haneke to De Sade, not because I think he has nearly as horrible machinations, but the contents of his film is equally useless and unredeeming as De Sade's novel about violent pedophilia.
Haneke believes that people who wouldn't finish this film, "don't need to watch it". While this paraphrase may be a little exaggerated, I can't remember his exact comments. He indeed made this film to completion. Then marketed it. Then profited from it (I assume, the returns weren't immediately available in my searching which seems unusual by itself, again I'm no film expert).
He has undermined his own thesis in his very action. This comes through in the half-baked puritanism which underlies this film. It yearns to chastise the audience in partaking in it, but never once applies the same criticism to itself. Ultimately, this film proves to be an entirely useless endeavor, making the finale more poignant than the writing seems to have actually intended.
While we can see that a character like Patrick Bateman in American Psycho finally resigns to the unreal nature of his privilege, making the violence both moot and poignant, we see no such meaningful conclusion here. Instead, the viewer is left to ponder their own responsibility in worldwide violence. Which makes me wonder if Haneke thinks that violence in video games and movies causes violence in real life? If we're adult enough to recognize the morality of this film immediately, so that we choose not to watch, surely we're mature enough to tell the difference between fiction and reality?
I think the most telling aspect of the hypocrisy of this film is that he remade it, and for no plausible reason other than, "people need to see it again". This was his rationale as far as I can remember. The only thing propping up this exploitation film is the attempts at art house pseudo-intellectualism. Otherwise, I think it would be roundly eviscerated for being entirely soulless and horrible. Maybe the thing Haneke should be investigating through cinema is our own self-aggrandizing nature, and the desire to call ourselves "deep", "smart", and "moral"? Of course, that would require he include himself in that same group, but judging by this film, that would never happen.
Torment (2013)
You've Seen it All Before
***Very Mild Spoilers***
The mildly serviceable acting and the mediocre characterization in the first third of the film is the only reason, I have given this 2 stars. Otherwise, it would be totally irredeemable. It's one of the darkest movies I have ever seen. Not in tone, but actual lighting. It's impossible to see about half of this movie. I applaud their efforts for realistic lighting, but all it truly accomplished was making this movie incredibly hard to see.
It's your typical home invasion style thriller. And, when I say typical, you have probably seen every trope this movie will throw at you before. Full disclosure, I'm not a fan of Haneke's Funny Games. I think for all of the intelligent criticism leveled at the audience, the director and studios are miraculously spared. Even though, they are the ones profiteering from violent and exploitative cinema. I bring this up, because to be honest, Torment is a caricature of Funny Games. It lacks the wit or genuine suspense. And, though I loathed Funny Games, it garnered a strong emotional response from me. This movie made me feel nothing. Not even Nihilism. Literally, nothing.
The first third is okay, and the characterization is subtle, often that it works in explaining who these people are. It's also daytime and a rare point of high visibility in the film. We have the semi-typical dysfunctional family unit. And, I actually bought that. Over time, it devolves quickly, once horror is injected.
Hillbilly sadists invade their home and seemingly abduct the son of the two protagonists. We're left to wonder if indeed he was abducted or not. Over the course of the movie, we discover to some small extent the motivation behind the psychopathic hillbillies, but barely. Don't expect any satisfying explanations as to their psychopathy, because you will not receive one.
The family goes through typical "escaping the killer" scenarios. And without offering too much information, it's essentially what you'd expect. The father is put to some test of his moral fortitude. But, it's pretty laughable. Time and again I thought, Funny Games. Without going bit by bit, if you've seen both films, the way this film blatantly copies numerous scenes in Funny Games is mildly embarrassing. I'm not sure if it's meant as homage. But it just feels like unintended plagiarism.
Overall, Tormented is a very weak movie with below sub-par writing that has no intention for a genuine conclusion (sequel!). What we're given about the characters is unimportant and dissatisfying for the most part. While our actual questions are never answered. Don't waste your time with this one. Watch Funny Games. If you're like me, you'll hate it, but at least it will mean something to you. Where, this movie is just a melange of bad horror tropes compiled into a pitch black universe where their concept of psychological terror is veiled cliché.
Silver Linings Playbook (2012)
A Decent Film Hurt by Condescion
Silver Linings Playbook is a romantic "dramedy" about two mentally unstable individuals finding the ability to overcome their personal issues through the power of love. I thought the acting was very good throughout this film. Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence both play relatable characters whose power comes from the subtlety of their portrayal. And, for me, Robert De Niro's portrayal of a gambling- addicted father always waiting for his break was utterly brilliant. I found some of his scenes to be the most moving, despite his role as a secondary character. The flawed way many of the characters are portrayed is true to life and is the strongest point of the writing. However, I did feel that this movie falls into familiar and predictable tropes that are at best forgivable and at worst pretty condescending.
---Spoilers Below---
While I enjoyed Bradley Cooper's acting very much, I was thoroughly perplexed by his character. The entire story seems to hinge up a singular plot device. Which is, when his wife cheats on him. I couldn't help but repeatedly ask myself, "why does he still want her back?" I found that motivation, entirely unbelievable. So, since the entire plot rests upon that event, it really hurt my ability to suspend my disbelief for the rest of the film.
Jennifer Lawrence does well with what she's given. But, unlike many people, I found her character one-dimensional and thoroughly stereotypical. While Bradley Cooper is given providence over his mental illness, Jennifer Lawrence's character is an amalgamation of Hollywood stereotypes about women. When her husband dies, shes loses control over her sexuality. They work that back in, but only by expressing how before, she still couldn't control her own sexuality. Further, without Bradley Cooper, would she have been able to recover? He has a famliy for support, she is an outcast. So, she's relegated to dependence upon a male, and that's how she overcomes her mental illness.
To focus on the death of the husband, I found that totally ridiculous. Just thoroughly unbelievable. For him to die in a freak accident would have been fine, but to make the situation have to be so pseduo- poignant was stilted and painfully reaching.
Every time I started feeling invested, I was quickly deterred. For example, when Robert De Niro is confessing his shortcomings as a father, I was thoroughly moved. I'm a big fan of his, and I can say, that was some of his finest acting ever. Then, the mood immediately changes and all the weight is gone. This happens with needless conflict as well. Bradley Cooper is going to go to the game with his father. This is a really important bonding trip between them. It's meant to signify "silver linings" and positivity. And then, Jennifer Lawrence's character is angry because Bradley Cooper will have to miss dance practice. If she cares for him, shouldn't she see how important that is? Couldn't they have had dance practice early that morning, instead? It really throws a wrench for me, when needless conflict is suddenly injected. And, once again, Jennifer Lawrence is acting incredibly irrational.
I'm not sure if her being irrational is supposed to be her "mental illness", but it just feels like a total trope to me. I thought her scene in the diner was pretty great, and then her character is never given that kind of agency again. That was the only time I thought she had a genuine mental illness instead of some caricature of one. That's not her fault, either. It's the stereotypes in the writing.
The writing and direction is supposed to make us feel in the scene. And, it works pretty well. The dialogue succeeds in that area. But, the cinematography tries way too hard. The camera is constantly shaking around and bobbing like some MTV reality show. It's a pet peeve of mine to begin with, but this whole movie was bobbing up and down like a ferry ride.
Overall, I would say Silver Linings is a pretty good movie. The acting is quite good and at times it's able to transcend the stifled writing. But, the strange camera choices, the repeated stereotypes towards Jennifer Lawrence's character, and overall unbelievable motivation take away from what would otherwise be an excellent film.
#Horror (2015)
A Parody Too Close to the Real Thing
This is a surprisingly complex film, despite the general reception. #Horror is a parody about the nature of shock-value cinema and the coded morality therein. Movies about the dangers of the internet and in particular, social media have been fairly prevalent in the last few years. And the "Lifetime"-ish nature of those films often takes away from what would otherwise be potentially valuable subject matter. And, in this ironic exploitation is where #Horror finds tremendous parody.
The camera work feels very purposeful throughout this film, even as it spirals ever closer to the Lifetime narrative it is parodying. A giant portrait of Marilyn Monroe with egg on her face. The idea of slasher cinema as a way to demean beautiful women. No, #Horror has more to it, indeed.
---Spoilers Below---
#Horror functions by bashing us over the head with all too familiar tropes, only to juxtapose them in a way that makes the audience question our own morality. Time and again we are shown uncomfortable and voyeuristic images. The general draw of the "scream queen" and the inherent violent sexuality that is tied to that trope is interestingly dissected. First, by using girls so young as the victims. And then, by giving us images that are over-sexualized. Like, when we watch the girls playing dress up. In no way does the film cross any genuine lines, but it feels very voyeuristic and quite unnerving to be watching them in such a visceral and intimate fashion. Then, at the same time, they are dressed like fashion models posing for the camera. Seconds later, they are all in mink coats. As if to say, "it's okay to kill these rich girls, see they're mean and entitled, they have it coming."
Another interesting trope is the "surviving virgin". Our main character who does survive this entire incident explicitly states she isn't a virgin. We can assume this is related to the trauma from her previous school. When she reveals she isn't a virgin, she is the only character outside of the red light filter. A double meaning, one about fertility and another being foreshadowing.
Violence is given a backseat, even though it's promoted as the main feature. We don't often actually watch anyone die. Instead, we are given insinuation. A comment on the nature of violence against women in horror movies. We are meant to left "unfulfilled" and in doing so, question our own morality. The own death we do see for an extended period is pretty brutal. A girl screams in agony for help in a glass tennis court. Again, the audience is judged for our voyeurism. We want to watch this girl die, but morally, we want to save her. We can't because she is stuck behind the glass.
Cyber-bulling, the main issue this movie focuses on. From what I've seen, most people seem to view this movie as having an "anti-cyber bullying" message. But, I would disagree. The cyber bullying is there to be parodied. This is commenting on thing like "Cyberbully" and "Megan is Missing" and the fear-driven campaigns behind those kind of stories. Many things claim to be moral, but in fact are exploiting an actual issue. This is why #Horror repeatedly feels so exploitative, it's meant to. We're supposed to reflect on the nature of shock cinema. And how, when the message is demeaned by poor writing, we are often just left with a story that ends up demeaning women.
This all comes to a head as Sevigny and Hutton's acting gets perpetually worse and more insanely maniacal or totally withdrawn. These characters have become a caricature by the ending. Which is meant to be totally melodramatic and predictable, just like the movies it's parodying.
#Horror is not a perfect movie. And for many people, I would say, the parody is far too subtle. It's disjointed and the second act into third act lost me for a while. But, it succeeds undoubtedly in commenting on the nature of women within the horror genre and morality within cinema.