Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Avoid. Watch the TV series instead.
Twin Peaks was a good and enjoyable TV series. This movie is terrible in comparison. For one thing, it lacks all the charm, suspense, plot twists, story lines, quirky characters, and polish that the TV series had. But even worse, there are blatant inconsistencies. For example, Laura was supposed to have had sexual relations with three men on the night of her death, and to have been attacked by the bird. In this movie we only see her with one male and she is not attacked by the bird. This movie brings almost nothing new to the plot and just summarizes what we already knew from the TV series, so I expected that it should at least try to be consistent and get the details right. The characters are dull, it drags, it has a low quality B-movie feel, and it's complete with pointless little cameos from other characters from the TV series that don't belong in Laura's story. (The majority of this movie revolves around Laura and Donna exclusively, with minor roles for Bobby, James, and Leland.) It has no suspense, but it does have some nudity and unnecessary grotesqueness. Presumably this poor excuse for a movie was a shameless attempt to cash in on the success of the TV series. I would not recommend it, even to fans of the TV series. And if you haven't seen the TV series you won't understand any of it - something that might not bother Lynch fans!
A cheesy agricultural industry promotional video
This is hardly a good documentary. It looks like an advertisement for the agriculture industry. Everything is peachy and wonderful. The movie is completely superficial and vapid with a cheesy narration. Watch tractors drive around to overbearing and flirtatious music. Might be tolerable if you're interested in a glimpse of agriculture from the late 60s, but otherwise I would not recommend it.
Michael Moore in TrumpLand (2016)
One hour of bottom-of-the-barrel political maneuvering.
There is nothing redeeming about this show. It is utter trash.
The first half is spent ridiculing Trump and his supporters. Moore then flat out claims that Trump won't do anything he promises and that his supporters will all regret electing him the day after. He provides zero argument, reasoning or evidence for this. Instead he plays an extremely lame mock TV clip ridiculing Trump on inauguration day.
The next half is spent trying to convince viewers to vote for Hillary. Again, Moore has absolutely no argument, logic or reasoning as to why anyone should vote for Hillary. Here are the 3 tactics he uses to try to entice us to vote for Hillary: 1. He tells us that we should elect Hillary because she's a woman. 2. He tells us that he has a "crazy thought" that Hillary might literally be Bernie Sanders in disguise. 3. He breaks down and simply begs us to go vote for Hillary.
It's all so cringeworthy and ridiculous. Sorry Moore, but I'm not selecting a candidate based on their gender. Sorry Moore, but I'm not entertaining the ridiculous fantasy that Hillary might be Pope Francis; she's just as likely to be Hitler or the tooth fairy. And sorry Moore, but I'm disgusted that you would make a movie to beg us to vote for someone when you can't even explain why.
Je, tu, il, elle (1974)
Long, slow, static shots. A girl does a couple random, pointless, inane things in a small room. Long fades to black. Bland narration. Nothing very interesting happening. It actually starts to get slightly interesting when we finally get a second character who provides some real talk. Then jumps into an incredibly long, exaggerated, and boring lesbian scene. The end.
This is just another artsy fartsy film that is fairly pointless and meaningless and vapid. It's some kind of "reflection" on sexuality, but with nothing insightful or even interesting to provide the viewer. The photography is just average. It slightly reminded me of the vastly superior film "Un homme qui dort" from the same year.
El Topo (1970)
Sparse, minimalist religious symbolism
As someone not too interested in religious symbolism, I did not enjoy this film. It's sparse and minimalist and very little happens in 2 hours. There's not much offered to the viewer other than a very brief story that appears to be some kind of metaphor pertaining to religion. The meaning isn't obvious either, so you're just watching some weird, meaningless stuff unless you put thought into it and try to come up with your own explanation. It's not particularly visually beautiful or engaging in other ways.
I can see how this could be an interesting film for people who are interested in Christianity and enjoy these kinds of exercises, although I suspect this is a film that receives a lot of spurious praise from people who like it just because it's so out there or because they think that's the cool thing to do. It's trendy in certain circles.
Not overtly political or surrealist
This is a good film, but from some of the other comments you might get the wrong idea of it. The story here is exceedingly simple and straightforward. There is no surrealism a la "The Exterminating Angel".
The film is about laziness and sloth. And it will frighten anyone who struggles with laziness or feeling overly comfortable in their lives.
While you can certainly theorize about laziness on a the level of social classes, there's no obvious indication that the film is supposed to be carrying a political message.
It's great that the film makes you think, but let's avoid forcing everything through the lens of our political ideology.
Dalla nube alla resistenza (1979)
This "film" equals 100 minutes of continual, fast, abstract dialogue. Most of the scenes are very long, near-static shots of single characters standing perfectly still, rambling on ad nauseum. There are several long stretches of just a black screen while the monologue drones on. Once or twice the viewer is treated to movement on screen (eg. characters walking while they converse).
I think they should've written a book instead. At least the reader would have a reasonable chance to decipher the point of it. The visuals add very little to the film.
Avoid unless you're on a quest to find the most pretentious film.
Pasqualino Settebellezze (1975)
Overrated anti-Nazi film that's lacking in insight.
This film deals with idealism vs. pragmatism. The main character starts off deeply caring about his honor, then gradually gives it all up until he becomes a prostitute for the Nazis and complies in killing his friend for his own survival. Several of his peers retain their ideals, refuse to submit, and die pathetic deaths.
The film seems to be admitting a harsh truth of reality: that life is ultimately about survival and that ideals and thoughts are not important beyond how they influence our actions. At some point they hold us back and we're better off abandoning them.
At one point the Nazi female commander laments that the Nazis are trying to make humanity better but doomed to fail, and the snivelling rats who will do anything to survive (the main character) will continue on. This is a good point. The Nazis were idealistic too in wanting to elevate humanity.
So the film isn't on the side of idealism or pragmatism. Clearly humanity is a complex combination of both; every person has some degree of fundamental ideals and some degree of flexibility and pragmatism. And there are many different ideals that are in opposition to one another.
One of the idealist characters at one point mentions a possible resolution that is popular: for humans to turn into sheep. If we can only stop evolution and eliminate violence from the world, we can live happily ever after.
The film is otherwise lacking in insight. It's not clear what it views as a resolution. It does seem clear that the film isn't happily embracing the world as it is, give its sombre tone.
The film starts out with a montage of stock footage of Hitler and Mussolini set to cartoonish music and a voice narrating some phrases that sound like they're probably insulting. A short ways in, we see evil Nazis shooting innocent women and children in the forest. At one point, the dialogue is set up for one character to defend Mussolini and another, wiser character to rebut all of their arguments and explain why Mussolini was bad. Finally, the characters end up in a concentration camp where evil Nazis shoot innocent prisoners for no reason. Who knows what the director really believes - she isn't telling us - but the apparent heavy anti-Nazi, Nazis-are-pure-evil bias of the film is annoying.
The film is otherwise fairly mediocre. Far from a masterpiece. It's an odd mixture of genres. Not very funny. The best thing about it is probably the excellent acting of the main character.
Very, very bad.
This movie has exactly one interesting idea, which is repeated in every second line of dialog just to make sure that nobody will miss it: a group of humans have lifespans of only 8 days.
Beyond that, it's utter rubbish. The viewer is supposed to shut off his brain and watch the main character fight some random monsters, run through some buildings that are collapsing for no apparent reason, and so on. We don't know why any of this is happening, but we're supposed to be happy when the main character finally pushes a button so that humans can live "normal" lifespans again.
There's zero backstory. The story line is the most inane imaginable (it seriously amounts to pushing a button to magically fix everything). The acting is bad. The dialogue is bad. The costumes are bad. The visuals are the least bad thing about it, but they're certainly nothing special.
I can't believe that anyone likes this. If you like intelligent sci- fi, stay far away.
Le grand Meaulnes (1967)
Doesn't quite work.
This film tries too hard to be weird, surreal, and fast-paced. It seems like the director was trying to create an atmosphere of intrigue, mystery, dreaminess, and magic. It worked too some degree but it came at a cost and could've been done much better.
From the beginning, it's difficult to follow what's happening because the story jumps around too rapidly. The characters are never revealed to us, but kept at a distance and thin as cardboard. While this keeps them mysterious and makes the story feel more like a fairy tale, it also makes us much less able to empathize with or care about them.
In the middle, the film slows down a little. Unsurprisingly, it gets tedious. We don't learn much about the one-dimensional characters for the length of time spent on their story.
Towards the end, we start to sympathize with the characters a little due to the heightened emotions shown on screen. We grasp the tragedy of their story, but they still don't feel real and it's too late to salvage the film.
Ultimately, this film feels rather hollow and gimmicky. The characters aren't real. As plenty of better films have demonstrated, you can build a strong sense of mystery and intrigue without sacrificing having characters. Alternatively, if the film was technically stronger, it might have kept the viewer engaged that way.