Change Your Image
BeholdTheRiversofBlood
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Mary Poppins (1964)
Perfect in Every Way
Yes, these reviews are genuine and not carefully selected.
An absolute masterpiece. Don't question it.
The Grand Tour (2016)
The (hopefully not) last stand of Western Masculinity
Yes it's a silly and humorous show "about cars", but deep down it's about something much greater.
It's about the struggle for the soul of Western Civilisation. Do we go the way of the nu-male metrosexual cuck who hates his own culture, or do we uphold the values of our forebears and show an example of daring, adventurous, heroic spirit of the Western man to the world? The Grand Tour is a step in that direction, while also being good entertainment.
13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (2016)
Surprisingly sober for a war-movie
What to expect from a Michael Bay movie about a highly publicized and politicized violent event? I don't think that question even needs an answer.
The result is surprising though.
Throughout, it doesn't attempt to glorify violence and American power, except for the very end (which is why it doesn't get a higher score from me).
To me this story, while not perfect, is much more digestible than for example American Sniper. Why? First of all it stays pretty close to actual events and there's a real sense of realism in the danger and mortality of war.
Secondly it has believable characters and interesting personal conflicts. Of course it helps that these were taken from the actual history, but it's a point that most films of this genre take very lightly ("People just want to see people killed, bullets fired and fiery explosions").
Thirdly it doesn't portray the non-Americans as a homogeneous, evil group. Sure, we didn't get too deep into the dynamics of the Second Libyan Civil War, but when portrayals of the locals are usually infantile caricatures it has to be commended that this movie at least takes a step above that.
Now, I wouldn't call it a game changer, because besides the realism, it doesn't bring much new. But if you are interested in the event and/or Libya it's a good, sober look at the factual events. Just don't expect any intellectual or cinematographic revelation.
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
Return of the New Hope Strikes Back
It has been 30 years since the destruction of the Death Star and the Empire. We are introduced to two new factions: The First Order and the Resistance. Our two heroes and main characters will find themselves to be interlinked between these factions and will fulfil their promising destinies. In doing so, they are introduced to figures both new and old, figuratively and literally. Who will triumph?
Money, will triumph. Easy money.
This movie was made as a blockbuster and that is all that it will ever be. It has no charm, no originality, no story, no engaging character developments and no respect for the Star Wars lore and universe.
But most of all it is an empty-shell action regurgitation based on plagiarism of the original trilogy.
It's like watching IV, V & VI in 8x speed with 8x less depth. There's seemingly a constant need to interrupt dialogue and switch over to robotic military command manual language. It's like watching the 5th rehearsal of a war game where the only thing that differed from the last runs is the officer's insistence on protocol.
It's so boring that even looking at rocks seems like a more entertaining usage of time.
The only break from this constant rush to do meaningless action sequences we get is a few mannerisms by the new droid BB-8. It's pretty cute for a machination, but it's cheap laughs and nothing more. It doesn't have it's own independent story (much like everything else), and merely serves as a delivery tool.
Ah, but can't I at least give it a few million stars for it's keeping with the old trilogy and faithful nostalgia? No. Surely we could have seen things in the SW universe that were markedly different from before, even if it's "only" been 30 years. Instead, we are served recycled stormtroopers, recycled Tatotine, recylced Empire, recycled Rebels, and recycled 3 main fing characters. Maybe recycling isn't the right word though, as that actually carries a positive connotation in the real world.
Talking more specifically, the 3 new characters are awfully done.
Rey is supposedly a super pilot even though she hasn't ever before left her own (orphaned) planet. By doing some guesswork, we can identify a few motivations for her actions, but we barely know anything about her except that she's prone to get herself into a lot of action scenes, I guess? She instantly learns how to use the force and how to wield a lightsaber.
Finn is given less than a minute in the movie to explain his prior story. He is not given a proper motivation for his actions and at no point can you really understand why he's doing the things that he is. He also instantly learns how to wield a lightsaber.
Kylo Ren is the son of Leia and Han Solo who is apparently turned to the dark side and has a dark lord as a master. He has no depth of character - he is a Disney evil caricature personified, and he is a joke. He fights like a clumsy gorilla even though he is a super slim human and uses his force powers like he doesn't know one thing about psychology. At no point is it ever made to be felt that this character is in any way a threat to anyone who is "important" to the "story". He's a clown made to enable the happy ending. Enjoy your "villan".
Sure, I'll give it 3 stars for the visual effects, but that is all a movie this bad in every other field will get.
Ant-Man (2015)
The Best-Worst Movie of All Time
The dialogue is shocking. No, beyond shocking. It's so appallingly bad I don't know whether to cry or explode from stupidity whenever I hear it.
You thought Star Wars II was bad? You don't like B-movies? You don't dare watch your friend's school movie project? Well, this is worse.
The acting is also horrendous, but just normally so for a Superhero movie.
So what makes it tolerable and fun to watch? Ant-man is just a cool concept, even if the story is straight F- grade garbage. The effects and suit designs are nice, as are all the sequences with the ants.
Suffice to say, the two combined makes for the most nauseating brain-damaging movie I've seen yet. Would not watch again.
Interstellar (2014)
A stunning journey of possible real catasphrophy and thought experiments
So I just saw Interstellar, and in relation to the premiere, quite late. Since there's no IMAX theatre in range of at least 500 km of where I live, I couldn't watch it in that format and in the cinema I watched it had already been (surprisingly) downgraded from the biggest screens with 3d capability to just a smaller 2d screen.
That colored my entire experience of the film. Just like Gravity, it was obvious to see how this film was meant to be watched in 3d and nothing else (except also IMAX).
But even if it's an obvious downgrade, watching it in 2d allowed me to look beyond the visuals of the film and really think about it's plot and world.
I thought it was a entertaining piece of what-if, stretched to the max and the beyond it, science fiction masquerading as a vision of the future. The drama between the main characters was exceptionally well done for a sci-fi and even in 2d, allowed me to get sucked in to their hypothetical reality.
However, and this is where the spoilers come, so beware, it felt extremely constructed and unnatural whilst attempting to appear at least possible.
We barely know if wormholes exist, and if they do (which is somewhat likely, granted), you certainly couldn't survive them as a human organic being. And while black holes are pretty much proved as much as they can be without any human having ever seen one without a secondary device, the ending that happened in "Gargantua" was downright impossible, at the very (!) least in the given context (a 5th dimension and warping of space-time is theoretically possible, but impossible practically, and if it makes it any clearer "200 %" impossible as organic lifeforms). Also, the saving of the earth was left unexplained even though that might actually conceivably be possible and certainly is much easier to explain. But no matter, even if it's "only" an artistic reference to the psychics of our universe and the current research, it's still a very long step in the right direction and way away from Star Wars or even Star Trek if you want to see a vision of future actual intersteallar space travel.
It has to be said, with the concerns of using metaphysics and pseudo-science, it was a visually stunning movie even in 2d so I can not recommend everyone to go watch it in 3d if they can. The space travel besides the hyperspace stuff was also well done, and so where the 2 (3) worlds we get to see. The phenomena there are actually completely in line with the observations and data from modern astronomers.
Finally, I think this movie's biggest force is not that it's a thrilling (yet unrealistic) journey through space that is also visually amazing, but that it actually get's people talking (about practicality vs. theory, for instance), inspired and to be considering the topic of space travel, and least but not last, climate change.
Both things are incredibly important for our future survival on earth, and with Interstellar there's really no excuse for this generation to be wilfully ignorant about it anymore. Don't defund something as important as space science because you want to fund more wars or petty consumer spending loans, and don't say climate change making our planet unlivable is inevitable and thus we have no responsibility to do anything when there's still room for us to stop the crazy path of self-destruction we're currently heading towards.
Edge of Tomorrow (2014)
A good, but entirely unoriginal "sci-fi"-memory flick
1) It has a good plot that draws you in with its tempo and different directions.
2) It's also, sadly, your standard American movie glorifying the military, violence and downplaying and dumbing down the importance of actual science in science fiction. Yes, I do think the entire military side-plot line was entirely unnecessary.
3) Here are the real spoilers, so don't read beyond this if you haven't seen it yet.
Alright then, the Aliens are so conventional and unoriginal in their design and so unrealistic that you have to take some kind of ironic distance at them. If you just take one step back... biological beings that can fire magic missiles from their body, travel at less than the speed of sound (how the f did they get to earth traveling so slowly? do they magically live off gasses that are hostile to every other organism known to date?) do telepathy and even turn back and control time.
4) The reason I still give it a 7 is because of the plot, as mentioned earlier, and because of the acting - Cruise and Blunt are really making their characters believable. In short, I like the drama in the movie - the "sci-fi" (IMDB won't let me use the abbreviation itself for some reason...) itself isn't hugely appealing to me.
5) As recently as in Pacific Rim, we had this problem: Why do we have to have the 'Murican military in these movies? I mean they're always highly ineffective at what they do and only ever serve a side role making a commercial out of blindly following orders and being a stupid ****. Please stop including them for no reason, or if not, at least be honest and transparent about the money you received from the US army to finance your movie, so people with half a brain will know not to give those movies any money.
Pussy Riot: A Punk Prayer (2013)
Russia: Phsycopath hotspot
This is the scariest movie I've ever seen. It features actual, real people so evil in mind that no fiction I've seen could replicate.
The crazies said it best themselves: "What would they have done to them in the 16th century?". That's the time they live in. Sexism, discrimination, torture, thralldom and enforced religious servitude. That's their ideal society. These people are the real demons and true monsters of the human race. They should think long and hard about being lucky enough to have been born as a human being on earth, and what moral ethos should follow that.
Instead, they claim the right to enslave an entire nation of people under a set of submissive, authoritarian and tyrannical principles. Not only is everyone not subscribing to this a "sinner", "witch", or "demon" but anyone giving it any sort any sort of criticism is a "blasphemer" fit only for the harshest penalty.
Watch for yourself if you want to dwell into the horrors of a small-minded and reactionary society that exists to this day. I couldn't get through more than 3/4s of it before getting a very deep momentary depression. Pussy Riot are heroes for fighting this very real and extremely widespread and systematic oppression that so many of their countrymen help support (actively or passively).
So to any Russians: Please don't stand by and let Putin make your country an Orwellian society come to life. Don't let these people who belong in insane asylums be the spokespersons of your country backed up by their cold-hearted leader. I don't blame you for being scared and wanting stability (though those problems will only increase with a real dictatorship), but if you're willing to fight back that's very admirable. I would surely flee into exile abroad if any opportunity presented itself, had I grown up there.
Fetih 1453 (2012)
History without depth - filmwork without honesty, but pretty nevertheless
The movie is supposed to tell the story of how Mehmet II conquered Constantinople. So far so good, it could be a good story, given the right conditions.
However, it ends up being a whole lot of bad. Except for most parts of the visual aspects of the movie, which look great to the human eye.
Now, from the start we are introduced to Mehmet and how it's his destiny to conquer Constantinople. Good, but why is he portrayed as a man with no flaws? Clearly, he was a great and inspiring man when he lived, but he was just as human as all others of the species who have lived. Bring some depth to the characters when writing your script, please. I shed a tear when I saw the death scene with his father almost at the start of the movie, but no other psychological elements where ever expanded upon.
The worst part of the movie is not the portrayal of the conquest itself, no, it's the build-up to that. There's just too many inaccuracies. Sure, if you watch this movie purely from a pro-Turkish point of view, those "details" might not matter, but no matter how you put it you are being deceitful to your viewers about the other "sides".
1) There exists two languages in this movie: Turkish and Arabic.
2) There exists a standardized uniform for European Crusaders (11th century mail tabards), Latin Auxiliaries (Clunky over-sized immobilizing chainmail or cloth-like leather) Byzantine Soldiers (Grey scale armour), and the Turkish army (Red vests with all with the same fluted Ottoman helmet). Of course, these things are historically based and fit in some kind of time period, but variation is important too. To add to this, the two lieutenants of the movie are again wearing some sort of fantasy leather armour no one with money at the time would have worn. Where's the plate armour for the Genoese? 3) There exists three ways of melee-combat: 1: Slowly move around and wait to die (All others but the Turks). 2: Thrust and slash hard with your weapon to kill your opponent or die trying (the Turks). 3: One-hit kill people with agile and fast movement (supporting characters/heroes).
4): Apparently, no sack had ever happened in 1204 and Constantinople still stood as the towering beacon of Antiquity and Medievality combined, looking better than ever imagined. I know this is computer graphics, but again this is dishonesty.
5): The Greeks (who thought it wise to speak Turkish, of course) are naive gluttons who think they can puppeteer with the superpower of their time. In fact, at this point, they were nothing more than a vassal state who where sitting and hoping for a rescue or having already given up hope (most people having already emigrated to start the renaissance). This political reality could of course be less melodramatic to portray, but again, why not give the characters some depths? This brings me to my next point.
6) Constantine XI is portrayed as a raving madman who is spoiled and possesses no diplomatic skills whatsoever. It's bad enough that his beard is so clearly fake and that he speaks in Turkish and seems oblivious to the events around him: He also has to be the "evil" guy who hates the Turks. Kudos to whoever did the costume design, but his character is nothing more than a caricature, and while that could have it's place in a comedy, it shouldn't have any place in a serious historical war movie. I won't go into detail with his courtiers as they are even bigger stereotypes and imbeciles than he is betrayed to be, but with this kind of black/white relationship it's clear just how biased this film is.
7) No conqueror is all kind and loving. Mehmet's outward appearance holds only the authority the script writers gave him, there's nothing natural about it. Kingdom of Heaven had a similar setup, but there was at least a few character developments between Saladin and de Ibelin. As said here this is just the case of:
All-loving energetic smiling conqueror who loves women and children
vs.
Megalomaniac miniature-Emperor with a Napoleon-complex who holds the world record in cynicism and failed attempts of political spin
Where is the Devşirme recruitment system and the Kapikulu? Where is the Jizya tax? Of course these things never happened, as we all know.
8) Where is the awesome Ottoman military music? Also, the lack of any Greek in this movie prevents it from having any Byzantine Chant.
9) The Women in this movie act just as terribly as the men (or as the script decreed, quite possibly). Also, thumbs down for no real Harem of course :-).
My recommendation:
Watch Tirante El Blanco if you want more on the demise of the defunct Byzantine Empire. As for a movie finally worthy of the great statesman Mehmet II, I guess we'll all just have to wait.
As for the movie: 4/10 for visual effects, the construction of Rumelihisarı, the awesome Ottoman turbans the first charge and the entrance to the city where Mehmet is truthful to the quasi-historical picture. The rest is bad.
Mulholland Dr. (2001)
A nicely made, boring film...
David Lynch's movie Mulholland Drive mostly serves as a practical exercise in chronology and atmosphere. These two points it does extremely well, but movies do not have merit because they are well crafted: They need to give the audience emotion, reaction or amusement back. Apart from starring very beautiful women (which should not be the purpose of the movie), it fails to deliver in actually being an experience rather than a show of how well a film can be made technically. There's very little suspense, which it must be assumed has to be made up for by the presumed weirdness of the film. It isn't. The weirdness makes sense in a way and in others it doesn't depending on personal interpretation, but no matter the conclusion the film is still a long 2,5 hour bore overcompensated with sexually attractive women. There's nothing for anyone here to see, but in a way that (nothingness) is also the story of the movie (possibly as an extremely vague and week criticism of Hollywood, which is irrelevant to a movie of this kind). Just a shame that it's entirely fictional and unbelievable, then, since an empty movie without context is just a nicely wrapped time wasting scheme.
Quills (2000)
90 minutes of obscene hilarity and 25 minutes of Hollywood derailment
The movie is by no means historically accurate, but if you're willing to look past that and focus on the undergoing theme, philosophy and above all entertainment value then you'll have a laugh you won't soon forget. Without spoiling anything, the movie deals with our primate sexuality, and mixes it with the unique unleashed id of various personas and how it stands in contrast to social norms and society. It feels so liberating when it is done in such a witty and funny provocative way. To quote Rush from the movie, it's about "eternal truths". Sure, if you're a chaste, celibate or asexual you won't find much deeper value in this movie, though the circumstantial humour really does add some sort of icing on the cake.
Now for the bad part. The movie ends unnecessarily gruesomely and over-dramatized and knowingly altering a real-life death of a person in such a way is a much different thing than making a lot of stuff up about the rest of the person's life. If we are to be libertines, who cares if it's rude, though. But I'm afraid it does still spoil the whole premise and legacy of the movie, leaving only behind the very enjoyable experience prior to this.