People make fun of the Room, but at least it's enjoyable. It makes you laugh. This film was boring. It had no pace / rhythm. It had no interesting story. It's supposed to be a musical, but Adam Driver can't sing. He plays a comedian, but he's not funny. I mean I like Sparks, their music is wacky but fun. However, this project is a complete failure and I blame the director for that!
Reviews
9 Reviews
This Is the End
(2013)
this film is like poison in your consciousness
25 June 2013
I went to see This Is The End thinking it will be silly and funny, judging by the trailer of the film. However, experiencing the film last night was like one long bad trip, and an unfunny, too, I must add! Most if not all of the film's jokes revolve around perverted sexual references, drugs (esp. Marijuana, of course!), and gore/violence. The film was completely tasteless and uncreative, and it does not deserve 8/10 on IMDb. The people who LOVED it, just like the actors. I have no problems with the actors. They probably could have made a much better film. The writing is poor, and so the result is mediocre. In any case, go see the film and judge it for yourself, but watching felt like being inside the mind of a mentally ill person who watches PORN or plays violent VIDEO GAMES all day while smoking WEED and snacking on junk food. I can go with Peter Sellers or Monty Pythons any day for silly tasteful comedy.
Antichrist
(2009)
Not Recommended
4 April 2010
First of all, allow me to state that I am a fan of avant-garde art. So I love films that shock. To give you an idea, some of my favorite filmmakers are Luis Bunuel, David Lynch, and Alejandro Jodorowsky.
I was completely disappointed by Antichrist. I have an OK knowledge of psychology and I am interested in mysticism and this film--even though it looks poetic and seemingly deep because of the heavy symbolism--is shallow and boring. The characters seem unrealistic and the plot is not engaging. I find Lars Von Trier to be mentally ill and I think he needs medical attention. When a reporter at a press conference at Cannes asked Von Trier to explain his position on Antichrist, the Danish filmmaker became tense and in a self-defensive manner he replied that he's the best filmmaker in the world and that God is imperfect. How can I like a film the thesis of which is that Satan has created the world and there's no hope. It's basically the myth of Sisyphus.
I had higher expectations of this film and it turned out to be a complete disappointment. It has no depth, no humor, no meaning... nothing. It's just painful. Painful and monotonous. And it's sad because the cast is great and the imagery is beautiful, but the screenplay is nonsense. And I say that even though I love dreamy or nightmarish films that function based on dream-logic. But this film had no logic, but that there's no hope in anything. Even though Von Trier might strike us as an atheist or something, but if he acknowledges good and evil and such forces then he's subconsciously referencing the Bible and to some extent he's support Christianity this way through his opposition of it: his anti-thesis.
I was completely disappointed by Antichrist. I have an OK knowledge of psychology and I am interested in mysticism and this film--even though it looks poetic and seemingly deep because of the heavy symbolism--is shallow and boring. The characters seem unrealistic and the plot is not engaging. I find Lars Von Trier to be mentally ill and I think he needs medical attention. When a reporter at a press conference at Cannes asked Von Trier to explain his position on Antichrist, the Danish filmmaker became tense and in a self-defensive manner he replied that he's the best filmmaker in the world and that God is imperfect. How can I like a film the thesis of which is that Satan has created the world and there's no hope. It's basically the myth of Sisyphus.
I had higher expectations of this film and it turned out to be a complete disappointment. It has no depth, no humor, no meaning... nothing. It's just painful. Painful and monotonous. And it's sad because the cast is great and the imagery is beautiful, but the screenplay is nonsense. And I say that even though I love dreamy or nightmarish films that function based on dream-logic. But this film had no logic, but that there's no hope in anything. Even though Von Trier might strike us as an atheist or something, but if he acknowledges good and evil and such forces then he's subconsciously referencing the Bible and to some extent he's support Christianity this way through his opposition of it: his anti-thesis.
The Limits of Control
(2009)
It's Jarmusch... it's artistic... what do you expect?
1 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The movie delivered what it had promised to do: it was full of those moments of silence that Jarmusch (a fan of Antonioni that he is) so greatly admires--since what's not being said is a lot of times much more important than what's being said, it captured some of the essences of our time beautiful, it was a tour de force in terms of sound and image, and it was Jarmusch's best framing/composition by far.
Isaach De Bankole doesn't need to utter a word. His face is extremely expressive.
The lack of dialogue creates suspense, mystery, and tension.
The film is lick a loop tied together with rituals, codes, symbols, colors, sounds, and landscapes.
There's a sense of architectural and decorative exploration.
The main character progresses through stages defined by where he's living and what he's wearing.
Remember that we experience most of the film through his point of view. So it's a subjective experience, wherein reality and imagination have obviously merged. The Lone Man does not sleep. He eats fruits. He drinks espresso. He doesn't have sex while he's working. He does Tai Chi every morning. He goes about his business meeting the different people he needs to meet. He has an appreciation of art. He contemplates his surroundings. He daydreams. He's in concentration or rather a constant state of meditation... sort of like a monk, which is why the drama is not in your face. It's inner. It's inside us. It's in the questions that we ask ourselves.
Paz de la Huerta has the best ass that I have ever seen on celluloid. And that is artistic! The music puts you in a dream-like mood.
At the end, I believe The Lone Man has teleported into the headquarters in a trance-like state. A bohemian that he is, he suffocates the American with a guitar string. The American strikes as a Master Mason or something. And the Lone Man is an independent individual artist: Jarmusch? The weakest scene in the film was that "climatic" scene between the Lone Man and the American because the Lone Man finally spoke sentences. We were dying to know what's on his mind, but instead there was no crescendo in the dialogue, I thought it was thrown away.
I like the fact that Jarmusch has referenced different cultures and languages. We are in Spain. Our main character is Black. We were in France. He meets a Japanese woman, a British man and woman, Spanish people, Mexicans, and an Arab. Different facades... different colors... different races, but the same philosophy... the same people. We're all one! The film had to be subtle because it's like a piece of music or a painting. It does not follow a Hollywood formula. It lives. It breathes. It's alive! It may be slightly flawed but it's an audio-visual trip of the mind/soul!
Isaach De Bankole doesn't need to utter a word. His face is extremely expressive.
The lack of dialogue creates suspense, mystery, and tension.
The film is lick a loop tied together with rituals, codes, symbols, colors, sounds, and landscapes.
There's a sense of architectural and decorative exploration.
The main character progresses through stages defined by where he's living and what he's wearing.
Remember that we experience most of the film through his point of view. So it's a subjective experience, wherein reality and imagination have obviously merged. The Lone Man does not sleep. He eats fruits. He drinks espresso. He doesn't have sex while he's working. He does Tai Chi every morning. He goes about his business meeting the different people he needs to meet. He has an appreciation of art. He contemplates his surroundings. He daydreams. He's in concentration or rather a constant state of meditation... sort of like a monk, which is why the drama is not in your face. It's inner. It's inside us. It's in the questions that we ask ourselves.
Paz de la Huerta has the best ass that I have ever seen on celluloid. And that is artistic! The music puts you in a dream-like mood.
At the end, I believe The Lone Man has teleported into the headquarters in a trance-like state. A bohemian that he is, he suffocates the American with a guitar string. The American strikes as a Master Mason or something. And the Lone Man is an independent individual artist: Jarmusch? The weakest scene in the film was that "climatic" scene between the Lone Man and the American because the Lone Man finally spoke sentences. We were dying to know what's on his mind, but instead there was no crescendo in the dialogue, I thought it was thrown away.
I like the fact that Jarmusch has referenced different cultures and languages. We are in Spain. Our main character is Black. We were in France. He meets a Japanese woman, a British man and woman, Spanish people, Mexicans, and an Arab. Different facades... different colors... different races, but the same philosophy... the same people. We're all one! The film had to be subtle because it's like a piece of music or a painting. It does not follow a Hollywood formula. It lives. It breathes. It's alive! It may be slightly flawed but it's an audio-visual trip of the mind/soul!
Youth Without Youth
(2007)
Deep, Entrancing, Thrilling, and Thought-Provoking
2 January 2009
I am happy masterful filmmakers like FFC are coming back to the big screen and not only that but full force with a "youthful" independent spirit, an inclination towards the digital medium and a great sense of experimentation. Directors who come to mind are George Lucs, David Lynch, Mike Figgis, and Steven Soderberg to name a few that come to mind.
YOUTH WITHOUT YOUTH is a brilliant film. It is very appealing visually. Artistic in every way. Philosophically deep and psychologically complex and full of spiritual themes.
The pacing of the film will seem very slow to the average viewer and it is slow, but it is more contemplative than slow. And it is stylistically so to go along with one of the main themes of the film: TIME.
The plot is all over the place. And I mean that in a good way. It's epic. Progressive. And utterly unpredictable.
The acting is BRILLIANT. Thank you, Mr. Tim Roth for another great performance.
The screenplay is poetic not less than any other quality in the film.
This movie needs a deep viewer with some patience and a love for art, philosophy, spirituality, and science.
Honestly, the film should get a higher rating, but it's not the kind that would be accessible to all kinds of audiences. It is in essence EXPERIMENTAL but in every POSITIVE sense of the word. Consciously experimental in a natural and mature way.
I am happy this is Coppola's comeback after not so strong movies in the 90's. Well done! It was worth the wait.
YOUTH WITHOUT YOUTH is a brilliant film. It is very appealing visually. Artistic in every way. Philosophically deep and psychologically complex and full of spiritual themes.
The pacing of the film will seem very slow to the average viewer and it is slow, but it is more contemplative than slow. And it is stylistically so to go along with one of the main themes of the film: TIME.
The plot is all over the place. And I mean that in a good way. It's epic. Progressive. And utterly unpredictable.
The acting is BRILLIANT. Thank you, Mr. Tim Roth for another great performance.
The screenplay is poetic not less than any other quality in the film.
This movie needs a deep viewer with some patience and a love for art, philosophy, spirituality, and science.
Honestly, the film should get a higher rating, but it's not the kind that would be accessible to all kinds of audiences. It is in essence EXPERIMENTAL but in every POSITIVE sense of the word. Consciously experimental in a natural and mature way.
I am happy this is Coppola's comeback after not so strong movies in the 90's. Well done! It was worth the wait.
Be Kind Rewind
(2008)
Interesting Ideas... Dull Screenplay
4 July 2008
I respect Michel Gondry's work in every aspect of the word, whether his innovativeness in music video making or his film work. He has definitely a unique style, some whiz, excellent film techniques, and a generally good sense of humor. However, Be Kind Rewind, which I have been waiting to see for some time... was a huge disappointment. And I don't mean to be harsh... but the film is really badly written. Yes, it has good ideas, but it has no believability of character... and it's extremely dull. That film should have been co-written with someone like Charlie Kaufman per se.
I don't recommend Be Kind Rewind. It's hardly funny. And it's not worth watching. Yes, it has cute ideas, but I prefer watching plot less art films than this trying-to-be-commercial unentertaining flop.
I don't recommend Be Kind Rewind. It's hardly funny. And it's not worth watching. Yes, it has cute ideas, but I prefer watching plot less art films than this trying-to-be-commercial unentertaining flop.
200 Motels
(1971)
Mr. Zappa is a composer indeed, but he's not a god
25 January 2008
I've been reading about it for years. I got to finally watch it. It's absolute rubbish.
I'm not to happy with what I said because criticizing something doesn't mean attacking it or cursing it. And I'm a big Zappa fan. I listened to most of his music, read about him, read his book, watched almost all of his videos. I'm not fond of his dark egotistical sexually-obsessed cynical obnoxious side. I'm more for his unique, innovative, independent, genius, creative, pleasant musical side.
He was intelligent. He was an articulate speaker. A funny man.
He's not a god. And he's definitely not a filmmaker.
The film is just boring. I lost interest after struggling with it for 1 hour. And it's not like I'm not open-minded or I don't understand. I like surrealism, absurdity, and the avant-garde. But the film was just tasteless.
I'm not to happy with what I said because criticizing something doesn't mean attacking it or cursing it. And I'm a big Zappa fan. I listened to most of his music, read about him, read his book, watched almost all of his videos. I'm not fond of his dark egotistical sexually-obsessed cynical obnoxious side. I'm more for his unique, innovative, independent, genius, creative, pleasant musical side.
He was intelligent. He was an articulate speaker. A funny man.
He's not a god. And he's definitely not a filmmaker.
The film is just boring. I lost interest after struggling with it for 1 hour. And it's not like I'm not open-minded or I don't understand. I like surrealism, absurdity, and the avant-garde. But the film was just tasteless.
Lost Highway
(1997)
Too Much Darkness: I can't see!
26 November 2004
David Lynch is one of my favorite directors. I respect his work, and I am very much into surrealism and para-psychology.
However, what I didn't really like about the film was the lighting because more than half of the film is in real darkness, wherein active events are happening and I just can't see them. The film is interestingly written, but I didn't enjoy being a blind viewer at times. David seems to have understood that in his following mystery, Mulholland Drive, where it was technically flawless. It had very dark scenes, but they were well lit for cinema:
1) They could be scene. 2) They have an aesthetic quality. 3) They add meaning to the script and its enactment. 4) They create a mood.
However, what I didn't really like about the film was the lighting because more than half of the film is in real darkness, wherein active events are happening and I just can't see them. The film is interestingly written, but I didn't enjoy being a blind viewer at times. David seems to have understood that in his following mystery, Mulholland Drive, where it was technically flawless. It had very dark scenes, but they were well lit for cinema:
1) They could be scene. 2) They have an aesthetic quality. 3) They add meaning to the script and its enactment. 4) They create a mood.
The Village
(2004)
M. Night Shyamalan: Setting Priorities
2 October 2004
I went all alone yesterday to the movie theatre to watch The Village. I must say that I was drawn by the all star cast and the aesthetically beautiful movie poster. I haven't liked Signs though, I thought it was boiled eggs. To be objective I consider Shyamalan a conceptual director meaning that he has very interesting themes. He's a master in portraying these themes in terms of motifs and symbols visually and verbally throughout the film, but he has two problems with his screen writing techniques and that's due to NOT setting priorities. When I watch his film, I sense at times that he's a very commercial director who plays with sudden/sleazy sound effects just for the thrills, but at other times I see interesting personal themes portrayed. You can't gain both audiences, Shyamalan: the majority and the minority. Honestly, he succeeded in doing so, but he has a potential of being an artistic writer, why care for the bucks? You had them already. To emphasize, he doesn't set the world of the film. Is this film about plot? Character? or Theme? I noticed that plot and theme were fighting, and character was vanishing throughout. As a director, I don't think of him very highly. I think some scenes are like boiled eggs: the use of long useless shots and uninteresting decoupage.
To summarize, he's a potential screenwriter with very interesting personal themes who has to set his priorities. And if you will direct, Shyamalan, FOCUS.
To summarize, he's a potential screenwriter with very interesting personal themes who has to set his priorities. And if you will direct, Shyamalan, FOCUS.
Tell Your Friends