Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
The Act of Killing (2012)
Yes, a new level of honesty has been reached. Slavoj iek, love him or hate him, shares an idea of mine - that we are in a very bleak moment of history - When he was talking with Julian Assange (Wikileaks), about US war (& other) crimes; he said something about how amazing it is that these days people can be caught red-handed in said war crimes, yet with stupefying impunity, simply reply with the likes of 'So what'!?
Welcome to sinister conundrums and lack of accountability 101; where post modernity has brought us. Welcome to an amazing Doco that shows us this stark reality, transplanted to Indonesia. Imagine these days, hopefully less people (than at any other point in history) would accept an official criticism of Indonesia from the International Community. Why, of course the USA supported Suharto, fascists and the massacring of (supposed) Communists.
So, there you have it - eternal impunity, and let's look forward to a huge amount of war crimes & genocides, still happening and still to come! (Sarcasm's in the 'look forward to it' part, nowhere else, unfortunately).
Failed, it did
Hey kids, can't criticise (intelligently) without being intimate with the better part of his career! And that stripping him from Korea, into US movie making is one, HUGE, F A I L. Once again, as I watched a film where I had forgotten who Directed it and so forth - I thought - this is an amazing, visual feast, FIRST FILM Failure, (by someone with more resources at hand than talent)... I could not have been so wrong, while being so totally correct! Wam, bam surprise, it IS his first film in THAT cu *beep* ntry. Oh, what have they done to one so beloved! In Korean, Park Chan-wook opens up a fresh world of the most wonderfully and absurdly neurotic characters in cinema history. His violence seems like the funniest, farcically staged, (while being hyper) violence there ever was. UNFORTUNATELY, yankee land HAD to get their hands on him: The violence turns almost garden variety, excessive, and instead of interaction between neurotic characters; the US has injected his screen with people addicted to (lame) pathology and psycho-sex formulas. Now, don't get me wrong, children, I'm not saying the film was a total failure, nor that the US is all bad - it is just a terrible mixture. Things can be the sum of, something more than, or less than, their parts, huh... It's obvious what I'm getting at. For all pseudo- intellectuals (well, that's a lot of who comes to IMDb), who argue on the basis of (false) universalities, I'll tell you now; Neuroses manifest differently in Korea, as they do in the States -- The societies, peoples, their cultures and their relationships to guns, violence and sex are INCREDIBLY different, (it's a shame, that if more than one person will read my post, I probably HAVE had to make this clear!) SO anyway, it doesn't work. With the style of his Korean films, and the interaction of all the above elements, he doesn't even need story, but usually has a fairly loose one. Whereas here, 'Stoker' looks like an amateur mess of narrative. (That tries to save itself with surprise, surprise, not - re the uncle and India). And lastly, hey, we can still give Park credit for an extremely sumptuous, aesthetic fest! (I.e. feat and feast, and from the Latin, festa = party/ festival). Unlike all you children, I won't even give this film a grading, not until he returns to form and/or Korea.
Best review for interesting people, IE. not boring people :)
Wow. Funny about who are now old school film makers and their latter works. Nice coincidence (for me) that the ideas to write about Saraband come str8 after talking about Lynch's personal psychology recurring in his films.
Apparently, Bergman's youth was horrendous... Let's go and "study" that to reconfirm, wait a moment... Ha. I am SO very forking switched in and on. During the film, as I was thinking about my own knowledge of the Swedes, I couldn't help criticizing how they are maybe the world's most childish lot, in terms of being so obsessed with marrying, over and over and over again - always blaming the partner (worst, childish conundrum), and thinking they'll milk yet another to try to get better than what they deserve in the next... marriage. FORGET ABOUT LOOKING IN THE MIRROR YOU A-HOLES, MAYBE THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR MULTIPLE MARRIAGES IS YOU! So, I just found out that, not only in this film but also Bergman himself; ridiculous, incorrigible re-marry-ER's. Too many times over for a decent, responsible person, (let's say, adult). Of course it has a lot to do with this film! But what it has EVERYTHING to do with, is the intense love & hate within a family, which seemingly plagued Bergman until death.
And wow. I think the best art drives even great, creative artists like myself, to clichés. It is an emotional tour DE force, thoroughly compelling and entertaining. I reflect on 2 scenes which rival any scene of personal confrontations one could ever imagine, whether in reel life or real. If you are heavily, emotionally & intellectually inclined, this is powerful stuff.
The Indians, at least one or some branch of Hinduism believes that the best way to deal with addiction is to increase your indulgence in it, until you may be purged. If it kills you, even better, (authorial reflection). So if you've read anything else I reviewed and saw my hackneyed, anti USAlien rants - here's one more.
Whereas Yank crud would have the WOW kiss between father a daughter become some important disaster, our Swedish friend, Bergman implants one as a subtle, mere accent above a note to highlight the tension, and pretty much natural, psycho sexual, familial tension at that. Bergman is Freud incarnate in cinema; I wonder if his illustrious fans (incl. one of the world's most famous pedophiles, Woody Allen) acknowledge that, OR, like so many beepers around here, feel that good film reviewing consists of waxing lyrically about banal crud, (while nothing so bad in itself), yet - NEVER GETTING TO THE HEART & CORE of the matter - IE. film makers and their films, the real motivations behind it all, and what's really going on. G darn it!
If everything carries meaning, how amplified is it in (better) cinema!?
Because I have provided insights and intelligence for you, maybe you can return the favor by hypothesizing: WHY oh why is granddaddy most obsessed with his dead daughter in law, while (I believe) there is absolutely no mention of his own, nth wife, IE. the mother of his poor son and much beloved cellist grand daughter!? Is THAT something relevant to Bergman's screwed up life too?? (I'm sick and tired of whatever research about total losers, even those that make great films).
Do NOT answer with your nerdy, technical, literal calculations - this is the fleshing out of psychology and intelligence, not rocket science.
NB. IMDb ripped me off by not allowing spelling differences, let alone swear words! Is this the Imperialist Movie DB or what - FORCING me to spell with z's instead of s's!!? And what may be the prohibited words!? You post puritan losers!
The Tree (2010)
Finally, a decent review
Reviews about this film being "universal", about "love and loss", well, they half touch a point, but pretty bland, unimaginative and nothing profound whatsoever. Another had a title such as 'Australian Nature' - good title, but the review said NOTHING of interest, expanding on that. This French woman has done the marvellous work of seeing very deeply into Australia's soul. Maybe as only a foreigner could. As Australia is rightly coined, "The country with Apartheid, but without the name", don't expect an Australian to give credit to a foreigner . . . . . . . . ..................... for understanding their land, better than most Australian's understand it.
Yes, Australia is an extremely tough land. Extremely dry one season, then flooding areas the size of Europe the next. Nature is Australia's wonder and speciality, not really the post-British, neo-Yankee, people. Don't get me wrong, the film shines a positive light on Australians. Trust on them in the hard times, but beware in the good (times). If I'm wrong, (just watch the difficulty of anyone liking this review, particularly parochial Aussies), don't blame me - is the "tall poppy syndrome" a fallacy!? I didn't invent the idea! But more than my personal feelings and reactions to the film; the film maker has brought a unique touch to themes and a story that could be otherwise bland. Just when you thought you were going to experience a purely emotional adventure, bang, a better than "Tornado", people against nature ACTION opens up before you: The Death vs The Tree (it's roots and life force being a symbol of us, dead and alive - hanging on - too much?) vs The Family vs The Climate, (ie. mother nature, we mostly abandon or disrespect her, even, or especially, "country folk"). Re: cuntry folk - live on the land WITHOUT making profit from it, THEN tell me what city people don't understand or give credit to. I LOVE The Country. PS. last cute point - when the girl sees the jellyfish, does that represent potential danger? It's funny when you meet a foreigner who knows about the danger of swimming in Australia, quite unlike a majority of the rest of the world - even where there are safety nets, deadly stingers can get through... Who knows the world knows that ALWAYS people are saying "BEWARE" even when the REAL danger is non-existent, more chance of being hit by a car or lightning. Whereas in OZ, many times, it's the opposite, danger, danger, everywhere, and struggle - look for the parallel in the people too :)
The Bank (2001)
Geez I hate Australian/s, but . . .Poor Aussie film
Not a particular hate - I 'm not racist, I hate equally. I like and love a lot of Australia/ns too. My important point is that Aussies may never wake up to their self loathing - further illustrated by the lukewarm or simply cold reception to this film. An inferior, Hollywood equivalent, may look prettier or maybe just DAZZLING (instead of good looking), but would do much better business and garner much better reviews, maybe even pulling huge audiences. Once again, I am the reviewer who deserves your thumbs-up, yet I rarely gain them - I cannot write for fools. A review of the film is better for containing very little about the film, maybe just a general idea and some related thoughts should be enough to whet your appetite, OR show you it may not be your cup of tea. YOU CAN READ COPIOUS PLOT DESCRIPTIONS ALL OVER THE PLACE! This film is like music - you've basically heard it all before, but the timing, rhythm and tune here are fantastic, and do attain an originality - a thoroughly engaging little thriller that adds TEXTURE instead of twists. You can pretty much guess what will happen but that doesn't have to change your ability to be engaged by a better than average script, (more realistic, FORGETTING plot holes - fiction will ALWAYS have them), and fine performances. I state that even though I am NO fan of David Wenham either. Melbourne is used in a lovely way as the back drop, too. A great surprise of a film, I actually found out about this, researching the Aussie production company responsible for 'Balibo' - also a FINE film. Basically these Aussie films have an engaging, more realistic feel and not in a gritty sheety way either.
Copie conforme (2010)
Is Kiarostami going to die?
How funny that I read a review, and it said something about being aware of some (named) idiot and their bad review. I would normally write my review before reading others, but didn't here. Even though I had a short review formed and a particular feeling about this film, for some reason, accidentally I read THAT terrible review and am unashamed to have ONE thing in common with it.
It did remind me of Kubrick's last film before dying, 'Eyes Wide Shut'. However, in my case, I loved them both. They are two all time classic films on the theme of 'great dialogues between man and woman'. That should be enough said - why oh why do so many of you value reviews that tell you a lot about the film, sure you want to be able to discern SOMETHING but, what are you worth if you have NO imagination and won't watch without (too much) prejudice!? Watch this film because it concerns a subject that most people hold central in their lives or hope for; failed/ successful, sexual/ romantic relationships. It is incredibly well scripted, and Kiarostami deserves an award, especially because it's in 3 languages, (none of them his native!)
DON'T be intimidated because you are a complete fool, and OVER use that silly word, pretentious. You must be stupid because the conversations about art, man and woman and placement of VALUE were as simple yet profound as could be, not pretentious. Bourgeois yes, (a word that wouldn't be wrongly used when describing 99.9% of all films - do you really know what it's like for the 60, 70 or 80 % of poorest people in the world!? Like the movies, NOT!) Frankly, I preferred 'Eyes Wide Shut' because it was fantastical and unreal, and had a happier ending, 'Let's F***'. But more importantly, there is not really that much comparison, except maybe that one theme in common. It is great that Kiarostami made a departure from his usual. It's good to get surprises and a change of ambient. He has done so, excellently and universally (for us Bourgeois that is).
Kisses. Beijos. Baci.
La haine (1995)
Really, BEST FILM EVER, by certainly the best film reviewer ever :)
YES, it's ridiculous to try to create a hierarchy of "best" films. Then again, we humans are extremely imperfect, our every decision needs some form of prejudice or HIERARCHY-al-lise-ing meant. But this film should be, and is, put at NUMBER 1! At least for younger people. This is the simplest, jew boy, black boy, arab boy parable ON THE BEST DOPE EVER SMOKED. BEST SHOT EVER - look for Edith Piaf mixed with NWA (YES, f*#$ the police) FLYING OVER THE FRENCH GHETTO. Did I mention the BEST FILM SHOT EVER, (not counting the entire 'Russian Ark'). This film also takes the distinction of making Black and White film not only worthwhile, but the best choice. (Those that singularly prefer B&W are sentimental fools - "when men were men, and film making was FAR MORE ELITIST than it is, even today".) La Haine is the ONLY film to see before you die. Unless you are gay and then you'd better also see 'Brokeback Mountain' and if you are super gay, 'Prayers for Bobby'. No kidding, certainly no Homophobia, I loved those two films as well. But am I being far too influenced by 'Family Guy', persistent gay jokes? Probably not, Seth McFarlane DEFINITELY has something repressed there, and me, I was the classic, "Gay guy with a straight guy hiding in the closet", post modern freak show: 'Mum, I like Trannies.' 'Yes son. See that you understand how difficult it is for her, with the operation, they suffer a lot of trauma.' 'YuuuuuuuuuuuK. OPERATION, Mum? No way!' Making a fist that comes from the elbow embedded in the pelvis. 'I don't want no "girl", post some mutilating operation, mum.'
La Haine, if you read this, and don't click that it helped JUST because I didn't tell you scene by scene - (Jeez Louise, ANOTHER thing the losers on IMDb do, way too much) - you need your head read. Trust me, I ain't selling you cars, I am telling you that this is equally the finest piece of art for you to go and see, ALREADY. AND it should really appeal to anyone from high art lovers down to action-needing, problematic, even stupid, young men. All that and it could probably help you from wanting to commit suicide! :)
Are you a fool sitting in the projector's booth, but NOT controlling the image
This film is one of a few prime candidates for being mistreated. All over IMDb there are these sinister little, absolutely not intellectual, parasites. When will far more people allow films to escape their expectations, (read moronic projections). People, baby steps. I project too, that is very human. "Are these animals, aliens, is that planet earth? . . ." BUT HOW FANTASTIC that the film will not deliver what I may have already started imagining, shock horror, my mummy of a film won't give me what I am wanting from it. SICK PEOPLE! You are bad lovers, I won't even say "I guess" or "you must be" - YOU ARE BAD LOVERS. You are mean and most likely, projecting without any conscience. You are stupid and a danger to the environment and people around you. This film is NOT!
It is rich. It enriches. I have seen many hundreds of good or great films, and only in the last year or two or three. This film was a fantastic surprise, a gift whose wrapping kept unfolding, more and more, the people becoming more beautiful as their horror deepened. The humour, more absurd and funnier. I could not pick a fantasy that better echoes, so truthfully, life experience, as Nuovomondo does. Even if all facts happened to be wrong, you certainly shouldn't fix this film in historical context - of course it's incredibly relevant today. AND did I say how incredibly funny it could be.
And many other fine things I could mention but I've run out of late night, early morning, steam. Just let some things be magic, silly. Don't let post modernity turn you into another dissector of everything that's good. PS. something I rarely do - I read an interview with the Director, bless him. He said the valid thing that many things are supposed to be mysteries, but gave away this generous piece when asked why the statue of liberty wasn't shown / seen: "They never see it because they never properly arrive in the USA". BRAVO. Beautiful. If the (somewhat obvious, still) allegories don't appease your feeble mind, ruminate on that, whether you arrived or not. (Don't call me Coolio - I don't wanna see you when you get there, if you ever get there).
Mr. Nobody (2009)
But which are the 3 primary colours?
Did anyone feel like they were getting sucked into Aronofsky's 'The Fountain' (which I HATED) but for an incomparably better experience??
I think that I am not un/consciously doing: Aronofsky : 'Requim . . .' : Jared Leto : Mr. Nobody.
It felt like the pace, texture, colour, aural aesthetic and maybe a 9th other dimension was being engaged, to correct the wrongs of 'The Fountain'. I had waited as much for any film ever for 'The Fountain', after 'PI' and 'Requiem . . .', and it was also the biggest disappointment ever. Clichéd drivel, horribly boring and sentimental but . . . for what. HOWEVER, this felt like the extremely well made, seemingly obscure but not so much, exquisitely beautiful to look at exploration of love and loss that 'The Fountain' wanted to be.
What are the 3 primary colours?
A great, pretty little trick, putting the 3 girls in those colours :) BUT WHICH 3? Thanks to this film I went to learn that there are an "additive" and "subtractive" 3! Primary colours particularly for video!
It was such a great film in its attention to detail. I don't get off if a Director is showing off. Even "similar" films I like seem to be a LITTLE pretentious, ('Synecdoche' for example). But here the Director seemed to want to give us LOTS of little and playful pieces, witty and even WOW transitions, it was SO playful. And in THAT sense I agree with a review that it was like nothing else. (I have already made reference, and otherwise, it felt a LOT like a few other films). For my money, Jeunet/ Caro, 'Amelie' (would be the most famous) was pretty good & I liked it, but it seemed a little obsessed with "faking the childish wonder" in things, drivel in many ways, and again, more contrived than Mr. Nobody. (BUT, NO comparisons to 'Delicatessen', no no). Mr. Nobody is the only one of these that didn't need to cut 10 or so minutes, (except, again, how long was 'The Fountain'? :) Time wise, Mr. Nobody comes after all those comparisons, so of course the Director has that in his favour . . . ENOUGH!
Does anyone agree or care that the Asian girl (wife?) was as good as non existent to him? Would that be a parallel to the way Asians have (are) objectified by Europe and the USA as though not even humans? Which I believe is different to the racism with Blacks - IE. unconsciously, anti-black racism comes from inferiority complex/es, including if not particularly, physical ideas of perfection, penis size, etc. Write that off if you will, but you are wrong - once people are not starving, predominantly, sexual impulses will reign supreme in one way or another. Dave's example - what is the most marginalised sexuality? : Bi? Lesbian? Trans? . . . NO! Asexuality, fools. WAY OFF TOPIC, yes :) But I just like to explore any idea, and if anybody goes with me, the more the merrier.
Opération lune (2002)
Out of Hand
It is brilliant in one sense. But then, why bother. People like Kissinger or Rumsfield are the most evil, sinister, worse than the devil, nation building, murderous, imperialists. They were and are. Even though that sounds like some "socialist" student rant - should not be easily discounted even where the student may turn into an old man even more conservative than the media's most evil man, Rupert Murdoch.
Evil is a bad word, sullied by biblical, fictitious illusions. I am sick of how, in this world, there are men who force an evil agenda, far worse than imagined in the bible, and they get off scot free, even celebrated - going where all the Bourgeois hang out (and make docos together), as if "everything is everything", and we are all friends and it's all a laugh. IF war were over, I wouldn't make this rant. In that case, forgiveness could start.
Innocent people die, still, while war criminals are treated as heroes and make jokes about fooling everybody, or not. One obvious step further; the main reason those innocent people die is so that some other people pillage the resources to make sick jokes on very expensive film. And here some of them are, having fun at mocking the idea of a conspiracy.
Hence I use words like the devil or evil, as understatements.
WAKE UP WORLD. I have been saying this for a long time now. The biggest problem with conspiracy theories is that fact is already more shocking! Kissinger, Rumsfield, et al, are directly guilty for leading, sending men to kill many other men FOR A PARANOIA (WITH FAR LESS BASIS FOR IT) THAN YOUR AVERAGE CONSPIRACY THEORY/IST.
And here is this Documentary maker, allowing them more fame and the arrogant position to mock. Kissinger didn't feel as though he had enough Vietnamese killed, so why not take part in a mockumentary that uses them as bit parts. They may be kidding, however, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea, Iraq, etc, etc, etc. the tens of millions murdered, are no joke.
Certainly an interesting documentary, just as Hitler's men made some interesting experiments on people too.
A very strange co-incidence for me, that I saw this so very soon after 'Exit Through The Gift Shop' - (apparently NOT a hoax, but I still dilly-dally on that). Said documentary or elaborate hoax is far more interesting and incomparably funnier. Jeez I hate Donald Rumsfield, with politicians like him you can bring back Stalin or Saddam any day.