Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
"Salò" is vile, the most disgusting, repulsive and worthless thing I have ever seen, a literal pile of sh*t. I recommend that anyone who thinks this movie is "art" should get their heads examined. That anyone can see anything in this "film", if I can even call it that, of any value or artistic merit is shocking.
Marquis de Sade was a sick and twisted individual, but it takes a pretty sick and twisted mind to make his work into a film. The director pretends that it has some kind of political connotations, and that also is shocking, a weak and lame excuse to justify his execrable pornography. All the film shows is the workings of a bunch of people sick and disturbed beyond all comprehension, and it took everything I had and didn't have to continue watching the despicable tortures to the end. There are films that are disgusting but compelling, others that are disgusting but watchable up to a point. This is almost unbearable from the first viewing. Yes, art can disgust us and shock us. But this, almost two hours of cinematic crap, with absolutely no "deeper meaning" is the furthest removed thing from "art" I have ever seen, and anyone who appreciates real art should certainly not appreciate this.
To anyone who wants to watch this - certainly do so if you wish, and judge for yourselves. But just make sure you're not eating while doing so.
Ai no korîda (1976)
Nothing but bizarre porn
To put it simply, this film is most definitely not "art", and I'm surprised that so many people think it is. Simply having some nice sets or costumes does not make a film "artistic." This film has absolutely no plot, as much as it tries to. There is not one scene in the film in which the characters are not engaging in some sort of bizarre sexual activity - as the movie progresses, these sex scenes just become stranger and stranger.
Stringing together a bunch of explicit scenes does NOT tell a story - it's simply impossible to make an "artistic" film this way. I am at a loss as to how a film can possibly be art if 99% of it is only sex. Let's put it this way - if a person disguised themselves as, say a duck, then one would clearly be able to see that the creature in question was a human masquerading as a duck. It doesn't mean that they actually are one! Similarly, this film masquerades as art, making a lot of people fail to see what it really is - which is quite simply, dull, bizarre pornography.
Art can have explicit sex. A whole bunch of explicit sex scenes do not make art.
A View to a Kill (1985)
Don't believe the haters; this is a great Bond film
I am at a loss as to why so many people seem to dislike "A View to a Kill." In my personal opinion, I think it was a great Bond film. True, the girl was a little useless (though not as much as Mary Goodnight in "The Man with the Golden Gun...") - however, the rest of it was very entertaining to watch, not too long, not too short, and had a fantastic villain in Max Zorin.
The final scenes in Golden Gate Bridge were spectacular, and of course, the very last scene with Bond and Stacey was hilarious as always (Just cleaning up a few details, sir...).
A lot of people complain about Moore's age in this film. I find this to be one of the lamest complaints about Bond ever. Roger Moore looks very good for his age, and even at 57, he can still do the exact same stunts and go with the exact same, if not larger, number of girls. I see no problem with Moore's age at all.
Overall, this was a great, very entertaining and funny Bond film.
Never Say Never Again (1983)
I like it better than Thunderball!
This film is extremely underrated. It might not be an official Bond film, but it has better girls and a much better villain than Thunderball. When I heard that this film was extremely bad, I just had to judge for myself, and the truth is that I really don't know what everyone finds so bad about it. OK, so Sean Connery is a little greyer and a little chunkier, he's still Bond!
I think Kim Basinger made a great Bond girl, and Klaus Maria Brandauer was a fantastic villain, better than Adolfo Celi. There's nothing to dislike about this film - it might not be official, but in my opinion, it definitely qualifies as a Bond film.
OHMSS was an "OK" film. There was nothing special about it, and I honestly thought that it dragged on for way too long. It was interesting to watch, but I also didn't think George Lazenby made a very good James Bond. He doesn't look the part, and his clothes are absolutely terrible. He's a good actor, and he acts the way Bond would, but the role just doesn't suit him. That's the main reason why I don't think that this film is anything other than OK. Diana Rigg was one of the good parts about it though, she portrayed the heroine very well in this film. Another good part was that it was interesting to see why Bond never fell in love again.
The ending was very sad, and I really managed to feel sorry for Bond and his poor wife that time. It almost made me cry. That was something I liked about it, but apart from that George Lazenby is nothing special. Blofeld was a good villain, I have no complaints about him, and Irma Bunt was sufficient.
Tracy Di Vicenzo was a very beautiful girl, but she would have been better off with Sean Connery!
5/10 - worth a watch, but only if you're bored.
Casino Royale (2006)
Good action film? Yes. Good Bond film? NO.
This film was awful. Firstly, Daniel Craig is a pathetic Bond. In the end he was actually willing to resign for a girl. James Bond would NEVER do that. He would never fall in love, I know that for a fact. Secondly, there are no gadgets in the film either. I expected there to be many more. The movie also dragged on for way too long, and it didn't get any more interesting either. It was boring from the first second, and it stayed that way until the end. From the first five minutes I was already begging for it to finish.
The story is extremely confusing and very difficult to follow, and the romance between Bond and Vesper seemed ridiculous because there was no chemistry between them at all.
Daniel Craig is not the James Bond I know, he's an impostor. Blond, unattractive, and most importantly he's weak and screams when he's being tortured, he doesn't try to escape in an ingenious way. And he doesn't give a damn about how he wants his Martini!
Casino Royale is a good action film in itself, but it is most definitely NOT a Bond film. If they hadn't tried to make it as one, it would have been great. It really is a shame.
I really don't see what all the fuss about this film is about. I wouldn't waste my time or my money with this.
Open Water (2003)
I recently rented this film because I thought it might be interesting. How wrong I was. It was dull, and there was no real point in it at all. A couple gets stranded in the ocean, they talk a little bit, they occasionally get attacked by some form of sea creature, and eventually the husband dies after a shark attack. And we're never quite sure what the wife's fate was.
That, in my opinion, is a ridiculous excuse for a film. I've seen the sequel to this, Adrift, and found it a bit better because there was a point to it. But this had no point and was very uninteresting. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone unless you are really bored. Don't waste your time otherwise.
Very confusing film, but quite good anyway
This film really confused me a lot. None of it was explained at the end, as it should have been. At the end it seemed like Linda CAUSED her husband's death, but how could she have if she didn't know that he was going to die? Or something like that?! If, at the end, everything was explained in some way, then I would have liked this film a bit more, but I think that finally it just gets so confusing that not even the director can figure it out. I'm sure no one explained it just because they weren't sure of what really happened, just like none of the audience is.
On the bright side, Sandra Bullock is very good in this part, it really suits her, and I think she did great in the film. It's actually Julian McMahon that I found a bit cold. It didn't seem like they had a good relationship in the film. But I think it was supposed to be that way, so it doesn't really matter that much. What really matters is all the plot holes in the film and every element that's left unexplained, that stopped me from rating this film any higher than a 6.
Overall, I recommend this film if you're interested in this type of thriller - the kind that has something to do with time, and living your life out of order, that kind of thing. Because I am, and that's why I watched it. Oh, and another good note about the film, I think at the end it really makes you think about what's important in your life, and not taking it for granted.
6/10 - pretty good.
I'm not impressed
I have to say I don't know what people see in this film. For one, it was WAY too long. It was more than three hours and by the end of it I was practically begging for it to finish. It's also very difficult to get into the plot. I didn't even understand what was going on at first, where the plot was. It just seemed like lots of people were wandering around on screen without reason.
Secondly, it had so many swear words in it that it had to be turned into an 18, which I found unnecessary. The film would have been so much better without all the bad words. Also, another thing I didn't understand was the frog rain near the end! What exactly was that supposed to signify? All the sadness that was going on? What exactly did it mean? I would have liked it if that, and all the various stories of all the characters were explained a little better.
I wouldn't waste my time with this 3-hour film, you'll regret it. It's not worth it.
Rosemary's Baby (1968)
Let me first start by saying that I am not a fan of Roman Polanski films. I find them all incredibly dull and very very strange. And this one was no better. The plot was absolutely ridiculous and the ending was horrible. A woman has a baby that turns out to be Satan...what kind of "classic" horror film plot is this? Mia Farrow is a great actress, but eve she can't save this pathetic excuse for a psychological horror film. I don't care what others say about this film, but I hated it more than any of Polanski's films and it is most definitely not a classic in my eyes. It's all incredibly boring and I almost fell asleep twice while watching it. It was too long, and for the whole film you were just waiting for something more exciting to happen, but it didn't, just like it never does with any of Polanski's films.
1/10 - don't waste your time.