Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
What happened to Michel's teeth?
27 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I liked the film, I found it captivating in spite of or perhaps because of Michel's appearance as of late-what happened to his upper front teeth? More important: why hasn't had some bridgework done? Is he making some kind of point by completely distorting his appearance, purposely trying to look like an old bum. Catch the scene where he is trying to talk and eat a sandwich, it's not an easy scene to watch. The funniest scene is where they are trying to teach him free fighting. And the end is very strange. So ten lines minimum ? Check out the review elsewhere on this page-I just can't get past the fact that his appearance has so radically changed, as if he is saying "f-ck appearances, i just don't care anymore, and you shouldn't either". But what about the females? Has he given that up as well?
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Holy Motors (2012)
1/10
A rip-off
13 July 2012
Probably the most disgusting depressing dirge of misery to ever hit the screen. I am more amazed by how the audience continued to sit staring at this noisy nonsense like dumb grazing animals than by Carax's neurosis of putting this truly miserable ugly guy on screen for almost two hours of boring absurdity. Gratuitous rip-off, meaning that Carax is ripping off the movie-going public. Failed art is therapy and that is precisely what Carax accomplished here; and the grazing animals buy into it, after all, they paid for their tickets so they ain't gonna walk out until it's all over. Truly,the audience was more depressing than the film.
41 out of 122 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bandidos (2006)
1/10
What an incredibly horrible piece of crap
31 March 2006
No plot, no acting, no photography, no editing, no anything...not even any THINKING was put into the making of this waste of time.

This debacle was absolutely the worst junk to ever have the presumption call itself a movie; the image on screen so fuzzy that the film is almost impossible to view which served the purpose of masking the total lack of... anything . To even call this a film is an insult to people who actually make movies. To dignify it by assuming this is a review is a mistake. Movies get reviews. This was not a movie. This was an exercise in nothing more than some kind of pathetic therapy by someone

with a video camera who should be receiving serious treatment somewhere rather than being allowed to foist his pretensions on an unsuspecting audience.

Like it must have been filmed with the cheapest of vintage 8mm cameras,

I could have made a better film with my portable telephone on the way home from the theater with friends after having laid out 21 Euros for three tickets and wasting an hour of my life, having stayed that hour waiting to see an actress friend make an appearance on screen and when she did I could hardly recognize her through the blur.

Why did the Entrepot cinema agree to to screen this monstrosity?

It's easy to see why the number of art house cinemas in Paris has diminished if they are willing to subject audiences to such nonsense.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed