Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
"Wildboyz" is accidentally good. It's a far more comprehensive "cultural exploration" than any offered up by usual travel programs television docs enhancing typifications of a city's carnality, or the snobbish drivel you find on the Outdoor Life Network.
I'd recommend "Wildboyz" to those inquiring what life is "really like" in Thailand, Africa, or wherever. Steve-O and company may not outline any ethos entirely (who could?), but they don't construe the matter to satisfy predominate interpretations like "life outside American is always in squalor and suicidal." And to the other side: Life outside America isn't whimsical; there are no fairy tales for your keepsake.
People, everywhere, are living and breathing, sometimes smiling, sometimes crying. The wildboyz get it.
Possible Worlds (2000)
Science Fiction is hooey, and so too is multi-dimensionality, which is, from what I've heard, the latest theoretical craze in philosophy. These elements may be highlighted in "Possible Worlds"; they can be used to categorize the film. I, contrarily, would rather not fix my viewpoint on "Possible Worlds" while referring to film texts (science fiction), or to texts of philosophy (multi-dimensionality).
I enjoyed Possible Worlds as a whole, and my explanation of what made it enjoyable is inexact. There was a unearthly mood to it, a friction of impossible magnitudes. And then there was the score. Peter Gabriel's contribution mystified "Possible Worlds," a necessity, we may say in hindsight. The film's captured images similarly aided mystification. I didn't at all get the feeling the director was slipping in pictures from a "nature calendar." It seemed "Possible Worlds'" imagery was that of solitary reflection, they were of the detached mind, when memory overrules whatever continuity we're surrounded by. Individuals sat alone, in their minds.
I suppose "Possible Worlds" isn't an everyman's film. And it should not be. It should not find a category whereby it becomes easily approachable.
The Hunters.... They hunt don't they
"For those that hunt the wounded down" introduces Jerry (played by Callum Keith Rennie), a man numbed and haunted by unsettling memories. Jerry, though haunted, carries on with what may be considered mundane activities. The figures around him are loaded with burdens that could be explosive if not also dulled by routine. Emphasis on the particularities of Jerry's sadness sets him apart from others, however. His Sorrow out-stands because it is active: It threatens to invade routine. In this way we observe sorrow as both perpetual and pushy. Jerry is numbed, but doom is coming, and cannot be emaciated. This feature of the story strikes me enduringly. I always imagine Jerry a wounded figure, walking through the forest, tracked by hunters, heading toward nothing other than one final movement. Such finality cinematically arrives, and a last burst is solely becoming. It is not quite heroic, nor is it comforting. One is only left to reflect on this wounded figure's final breath, the very breath that had haunted, a breath that arrives because the severity of the man's pain does not permit anything additional.
I really wish those who hunt would turn away, and leave the wounded to some other fate. But they are hunters. When the hunter strikes, a final blow assertively follows.
Poolhall Junkies (2002)
I rented Poolhall Junkies. Sometimes one rents a string of bad movies and wonders if the end will ever come. One may even think of giving up. Well, poolhall junkies didn't make me give up, but I have taken to renting movies I have already seen and liked. Watching Poolhall Junkies, as I see it, is like finding out you have a terminal disease and doing your best to find new habits that may save your life for a little while.
I couldn't sit through the film. I felt bad that I couldn't as I did rent it. But, after that scene where the main character (I hesitate to use the word character at all in a review of a film with no character whatsoever) is informed that his brother has been beaten, I just turned it off. "God please stop" went through my head. And so I did. The memory remains though.
I suppose mostly the characters bothered me. The lead actor was completely unconvincing. He was supposed to be tough, witty and well-rounded, but he came off as a pretentious brat, a true fake. In fact, all the characters were pretentious brats.They were not smart or clever (and the characters were shown over and over, like a broken record, to be what they weren't.... I feel greater sickness as I remember the details). They were not anything. They were just fakes. Alison Eastwood was in the film. Wouldn't it have been immensely satisfying if Clint Eastwood somehow entered the plot to visit his daughter, and ended up doing a high plains drifter job on everyone. Then, poolhall junkies would have been a classic. The most hated collection of film fakes getting killed off by the ultimate gunman. Forgive me, I'm dreaming -- trying to manipulate my poolhall junkies nightmare.
I'll say it definitively. Just about everything about Poolhall Junkies is fake ... imitations of imitations. Its fakeness goes along with the growing number of fake people strolling around, so I'm sure a very real fan base exists for it.
Most have heard the line "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." This is like a law in many circles. One could then propose and argue that poolhall junkies is admirable (if you recall,I did infer doing so would make one a fake, just for the hell of it, you know) and all I could do is accept it due to perception laws. I won't though. In response to syllogisms about perception, I propose ugliness goes right down to the bone. Ugliness to the bone: This is how Poolhall junkies looks in my eyes, and my perception may be more than an opinion. Yes, this is a matter of perception too. Oh well!
Great On Many Levels
How many directors have the guts to mix philosophy with film in this way? How many have the talent to do it in a meaningful and innovative way? I can't think of too many but with Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai, Jim Jarmusch has done it. With Ghost dog, we see that Jarmusch has actually thought about his film and thought about how to tell this story. Jarmusch shows us that he cares about detail but is not bound to some foolish rule book. The philosophy, music, characters and setting all come together to make something which becomes more than just a movie. For Ghost Dog, The Way of the Samurai is a way of life and this movie, in its own way, is also like a way of life. I am very impressed with how Jarmusch brought together this movie. He thought about casting, not starts, but characters. He thought about music and what context it would be in. He, unlike so many others, thinks!
My favourite scene was when Ghost Dog came across the hunters. It's Classic!
This movie is a damn classic.
Panic Room (2002)
Not a Very Good Movie
Frankly, I had low expectations walking into this one. I thought the movie might be about a couple people locking themselves in a room because somebody broke in, and it was. Who do you blame for this film's lack of entertainment value? Well, for starters, David Fincher. I was a fan and thought this guy knew what he was doing and really, I still think he does. But, panic room was a mistake.
Maybe that nike hat fincher wears finally started to harm his brain? Or maybe panic room looked good on paper? Whatever the case may be, this films biggest problem was its blatant promotion of capitalism. Forest Whitaker, who played the "good bad guy" deserved to catch a break in life, yet we're supposed to be happy with the ending of this film. We're supposed to be happy with rich white people maintaining their wealth at the cost of the lower classes, and we're supposed to feel sorry for these spoiled rich white people who, as far as I can tell, never had a "real" problem in their life. This movie is not redeeming and the only thing which could be considered suspenseful about it is the build up to the point where we got to see Forest Whitaker get screwed over. It was, after all, only a matter of time.
Finally, the potential of this movie died soon after leto's character. After this point, there should have been a struggle between Yoakam(good performance) and Whitaker for the prize, and as far as I'm concerned, the other characters should have gone the way of leto. This didn't happen and the result speaks for itself.
And the point is?
Hacking I don't know anything about hacking and neither does 99% of the population, so that aspect of swordfish didn't bother me.
Character Development I don't think there was any development, was there? The ending made absolutely no sense. What was the Trovalta character, a magician? That scene where Jackman sees the fake Trovalta made no sense and doesn't explain the ending. The stupid flashbacks at the end don't do anything for me. The Berry character was highly predictable. I suggest if your gonna call Trovalta a magician, then you should take some time to show his conjuring skills. Cheadle, unfortunately, was wasted in this bad movie.
Overall Message We, as the audience, are supposed to think the Trovolta character was cool for fighting terrorists. But that is stupid. Who are these terrorists? Dose this movie promote family values? No. Dose it promote American values? Maybe it dose, but that's not a good thing.
I don't know why this movie was made. I suppose it plays to a certain audience, and I'm happy to say I'm not a member of that audience. 1/10 because there was no point. 3/10 because at least Halle Berry is in it.
This movie seemed to take a piece of everything and fit it together into something great.The actors were extremely well cast,with Guy Pearce showing his on-screen might. Overall, all the characters mesh into a plot that, in a light hearted manner, questions the limits of humanity and civilization. Also notable is Jeffrey Jones as Colonel Hart. This guy always gives an entertaining performance and in Ravenous, he out does himself. There are so many layers to this film that it would be impossible to cover the details of them all. All I can say about them is that Antonia Bird dose an excellent job balancing the action, scenery, humor and philosophy. An added bonus is the soundtrack. Boyd's Journey, by Damon Albarn and Michael Nyman, is one of those songs you add to your library and play during the uncertain times in your life. Ravenous is a cool piece of work and if you can't decide whether to eat or die, you should watch it.
Week End (1967)
Simply one of the worst movies ever made.
I watched this movie amongst a group of first year film students. The reaction was, needless to say, resoundingly negative. However, don't let the "first year" stereotype infect you. Week End really is one of the worst(if not the worst) films ever made.
Now, in our world exists a group of people who like to call themselves film experts, or film professors, or film holy fools. These film "experts" consider week end to be one of the great works of all time. Why? Well, it would be enough to say they're idiots but I won't. Instead, I will explain the stupidity of their stance. Godard made weekend to make several points. With Week end, Godard supposedly said something about politics, the process of making movies and French people in general. Yet, Week End didn't say anything because Godard made a point to make a really bad movie. Abstract yes, but not art. A white square, with a black background, painted during the Russian revolution, is not to be admired and neither is weekend.
If I took pictures of a tree, a boat, an old lady swimming, half a glass of milk and called it The Bird Grass, would it be art? What if I said it was about greed in the western world; Would it be art? Probably not. My point is if you make a awful movie, but do it intentionally, it's still a awful movie. All the time,effort and money put into making week end, could have been put into something a great deal more useful. If you hate week end, holy fool film professors might call you a heretic and want to burn you at the shooting locations of weekend. But,don't live in fear. Holy fool film professors never leave there little world long enough to notice all the heresy that is taking place. So your safe.
Week end is the quintessential 1 out of 10. It's not admirable in what it attempted, and certainly not in what it achieved.
Almost Famous (2000)
In previous comments I have bashed this movie. I gave this movie a 1/10 and as I look back, I think I've misjudged this film. It is worse than bad, it is disturbing. This movie represents everything that is wrong with society. And No, i'm not talking about the sex, drugs and rock and roll element. Lets look at the bigger picture by first of all reviewing the basic plot. A youth dreams of being a writer and following around a rock band. This dream comes true which brings about encounters with roadies,sex with roadies, drugs with roadies and rock and roll with roadies. Now, to the logical mind, this plot would sound like something you would find in a hollywood trash can. But, to the macdonalds eating, nike wearing, gap buying corporate brainwashed citizens of the Americas, this sounds like "the best movie ever made." I don't mean to insult anybody but I do expect people to start thinking on a higher level. With a let down ending, a sappy, meaningless story, (that caters to people who think nsync is great music)Crowe manages to create an unheroic and inferior movie which is perfect for a society that doesn't bother looking for anything better.
Almost Famous, Almost Friends, Almost Britney Spears, call it what you will but I call it a cataract.
Maybe these comments don't sit well with people, but do keep in mind they were well thought out and have a right to be seen.