mach1ne Reviews

Inception (2010)

Boring, too long, illogical, awful dialogue

[4/10 · 20 July 2010]

This film really let me down.

I didn't expect a great film but I expected something that was at least 'OK'.

How wrong I was. I honestly can't understand the hype. 'Intelligent' they say?? What sort of intelligent film has to have it's protagonists explain what is happening continuously throughout the film?? Now Memento, that was a good film. And, I suppose, 'intelligent'. But by intelligent, I mean something that pushes boundaries of the viewer's understanding. I don't mean intelligent as in 1) able to do simple arithmetic, 2) develop reading and writing skills and 3) generally being one notch above a dolphin.

OK, let's make a start shall we? Firstly, one of the greatest literary and cinematic arts is the use of metaphor. This film has none. One thing the film is full of is too much explanatory dialogue (not to mention pre-teen psychology - the father figure relationship in the subconscious). For example, in the first Matrix film, the viewer understands the profundity of what is being delivered through metaphor (a feature that the subsequent Matrix films sadly missed). In this film here, everything is painstakingly explained. To me, this speaks volumes.

Secondly, great actors, yes. BUT ALL miscast and given appalling dialogue in an appalling script. I mean, Ellen Page was great in Juno, but here she comes out with painfully mechanical lines in the same way that Joseph Gordon-Levitt also does. In the same way that every character does. They ALL speak the same way and we are no better understanding one character by the end of the film than we were when they first appeared.

Thirdly, logic. Philosophy. Call it what you want. Why was Ariadne chosen to become the architect? What does she actually DO??

And Ken Watanabe. Why is he alive after dying on the third or fourth level 'down' in the subconscious after the film so adamantly stresses the dangers of dying in the 'dream'? How can he wake up on the plane?? Why, in fact, is there that scene at the start of the film where he appears old and which features the safe and the confidential papers Leonardo De Caprio finds.

Why does Leonardo De Caprio constantly have to furrow his brow? Oh, yes, it's a vain attempt to look mean and manly because the poor man still has, unfortunately for him, such a baby face.

Why is Cillian Murphy's character chosen to be their means of helping LDC's character get back to his kids? And isn't it convenient to have a dream sequence in a blockbuster that resembles a James Bond film snow-covered chase scene? Why does the film have to go on for two and a half hours instead of one and a half? And most importantly, if Leonardo De Caprio's character is so severely screwed up about his wife why, o why does he have to be the main character in this film? Couldn't the team work with someone more well-balanced?? Can he in fact be any use to his kids if he eventually finds them???

Nonsense nonsense nonsense. Big pile of nonsensical psycho-babble. And yes, where else but America???

The Hurt Locker (2008)

Narrow-minded, bigoted and self-indulgent movie

[2/10 · 24 May 2010]

A typically American film.

It's thoroughly shameful how every single Iraqi civilian in this film is treated as suspicious. In fact, all Iraqi characters are in some way the 'enemy' and 'guilty' of some crime, plot or other dubious activity.

All but the exception of one little Iraqi boy who is obviously 'an innocent' - uncorrupted and harmless.

Just like the person who made this film.

Not.

In any case, I would like to end this review here. But IMDb will not permit a review below 10 lines of text, and although there's plenty more to say about the portrayal of characters here - the 'macho'-ness of the US troops for starters, as well as the fact I would like to reference other reviews and how I cannot understand how so many people 'jumped onto the bandwagon' with this one, much of what surrounds this film is beyond me.

Not to my taste at all.

Cloverfield (2008)

Why do Americans feel the need for stupid, totally unrealistic disaster movies?

[2/10 · 10 February 2008]

Is it politics? Is it psychology? Is it sociology? I have no idea.

This film, at 1 hour and 15 minutes, is far, far too long. My friend who likes 'big' films made me go and see it. The story is about a giant alien thing being terribly frightening and even harmful, sometimes fatally so, to many, many people in New York. No explanation for this unfortunate event is given. The film is filmed on hand-held camera in order to capture the 'gritty realism' of said creature's destructive rampage.

And I feel I must share with the unsuspecting world out there the disgrace that is this awful - terribly awful - film.

The actors are abysmal (in fact, contrary to what I suspect I was meant to feel I actually wanted them all to die within 15 minutes of the start of the film they were so annoying). This is basically a teen flick, monster movie, stealing ideas from reality and fantasy and mixing them together - 9/11 vs Godzilla meets College Frat Party vs Alien.

I may have changed my mind had the acting been better but by God it was pathetic.

Firstly, the point of this film. Why? Why do Americans feel the need for this kind of movie, a film where they are destroyed by a superior external force? Simple, because it's reverse psychology because America has become so powerful it has no fear of anything real, which is why fear manifests itself internally in the psyche, and it's so bloody common and re-occurring, this theme, I suspect it's become pretty close to a whole new cultural archetype for the 21st century. Why, after all, for a country that's got everything, do so many people feel the 'need' for shrinks? Rhetorical question obviously.

So, here we are. Another disaster movie from, guess which country? Yes, America. 10 out of 10, you got it.

I was going to start this sentence saying, it's funny how this is the same country which had 9/11 and still they do this. But it's actually sad. A country so far removed from reality that it makes films inspired by real experiences to try and make them actual again so they can try and try and really try and re-live them in fantasy, 'World Trade Center' for example. Then they release this saying it's a reference to 9/11. Pull the other one. They want danger, they want death. Anything to pluck at what's left of a heart and make them feel alive. A strange sort of death wish.

Yet, in the face of the utter disaster happening on-screen, friends dying and so on, the main kid in this piece of celluloid garbage, after he and his dwindling group have gone 14 miles in tunnels underground and the group all collapses with exhaustion, this boy suddenly heroically states: "you don't need to come, I'll go on alone" (boo hoo). Come on you idiot, you've lost friends, the ones still alive aren't doing too good either and, for goodness sake, they aren't exactly going to turn back now are they? And besides, they'll probably wonder, after all you've been through, why suddenly you've reverted to being your usual insecure self ("what? Really? You want to come WITH me?") mixed with some new-found, Sir Galahad style bravado.....Anyhow, the surviving kids say "No (pant, pant, puff, puff)..we..we....we're comin' with ya". And get this, idiot boy says "ARE YA SURE?". Oh for crying out loud. Does he really need to repeat it? Of COURSE he's bloody sure. NOW is not the time for this sort of nonsense. I despair. I mean, if there's a time not to be paranoid, insecure, or selfishly acting the noble martyr it's now! DEAL with it! Idiot.

Oh and it's all been supposedly shot on hand-held camera. This starts of fairly plausible when being used at a party at the beginning (and for a few more minutes thereafter). But when they get lost in the dark and a fairly powerful torch type light comes on and beams ahead so they can see where they're going I realise this is an expensive piece of equipment these kids have got. And when the infra red, night vision lens came on that really blew me away and told me what we were dealing with here. It starts with B, it ends in T and it has the letters ULLSHI in the middle of it.

And another thing, when your best pal gets her leg blown off and you've all just crash landed in a helicopter and survived, since when do you hobble off and then suddenly realise you better turn back to pick up your camera and keep filming? Ah yes, I know, it's when you're completely detached from reality, that's when. When you can't tell the difference between a film and reality any more.

But OK, aside from that, I need to briefly go back into the whole basis of the film again.

Yup, it's the good ol' American Death Wish.

Let's sum it up: Spent too much time in Disneyland? Well come try the death experience in your own living room - 'grab' a coke while you're at it. Slurp it down and taste that bitter-sweet taste and if you don't do it yourself then hope somebody puts you out your misery.

Or wait until Part 2, maybe that'll help?

Shortbus (2006)

Worst Film Award, 2006

[1/10 · 1 December 2006]

This must be one of the worst films I have ever seen.

It encapsulates everything that is wrong with the world today.

All the characters were shallow, stupid, self-obsessed, false and had no apparent sense of their own identity and really should have pulled their heads out of their backsides (to put it politely for those more sensitive readers). And those people who gave it good ratings or good reviews should do likewise.

It was a film about people with neurotic complexes FOR people with neurotic complexes.

If only the characters took a second to look outside themselves instead of navel-gazing, they would see a world of REAL pain, real sorrow, real misery, starvation, war. And this film offers nothing except the cause of these things. Because most of the world's trouble is caused by the Fatman himself and those that feed him - Uncle Sam and all he stands for - the illusion of the American Dream/Nightmare.

The reason I went to see this film was because it had good viewer-ratings but I realised after seeing it that most of these ratings must have been given by viewers from the States. I was reminded of the fact that a large percentage of New Yorkers have therapists/shrinks. Well if they're like the people in this film I can understand why. Because they're living in a dreamworld where the only hell they have to face is their own unending hell.

It was utterly pathetic. An embarrassment. Not really worth me wasting so much time writing this comment on at all.

Anyway, maybe this is acceptable in America, or to not be so general, New York, but here in Scotland it isn't. It was a small screen with maybe 20 people and I was one of five or six people to leave the cinema and I stayed for at least an hour and a half but couldn't endure any more and thought why waste more time watching this self-absorbed nonsense? Honestly, don't waste your time. Be thankful if you're lucky enough to be as sheltered/deluded as those in this film.

You owe it to the world for being alive.

The Hot Spot (1990)

A few words of praise

[8/10 · 29 July 2003]

This film is great. The atmosphere, heat, casting, setting, plot, you name it. Everyone in the film is sweating up to the eyeballs, constantly mopping their brows, with stains all over their clothes, looking very hot and tense indeed. The seeds for a necessary release are sown! And sure enough, the pressure reaches boiling point and everything erupts. I don't want to give too much away, nor can I be bothered writing a proper commentary but this film is BLEAK in it's honesty with respect to it's (secondary/primary?) plot - all ideals are shattered: romance and (true?) love, freedom (whatever that really is) and so on. Some would call this a cynical work, I'll call it realistic - Sod's Law applies as heavily in the movie as it does in real life. Go on Dennis, more of this please!!

Ivans xtc. (2000)

One of the most life affirming films I've ever seen.

[10/10 · 7 January 2003]

This film is amazing. It begins by introducing a whole bunch of characters, including Danny Huston, none of whom have any redeeming features - scenes are frequently uncomfortable to the point of being cringe-inducing. It's when you realise that what everyone in the film is talking about is absolutely nothing or incredibly superficial to say the least is when you realise that what you're feeling is that there ARE no characters as such - they may as well be dead. They have nothing to say and when they do it's absolute worthless tosh. They are essentially characterless "characters". It's therefore impossible to feel any affinity, compassion or even empathy with anyone in the film - hence one's discomfort during viewing. And it's from this point of utter lifelessness that the film grows into one the most truly and deeply ALIVE films I've ever seen. Like one of those moments when you realise what you are when the clouds around your soul have been stripped off and you get a glimpse of your self. And it's pretty hard to put into words, but just like the guy from London who wrote the first review, my girlfriend and I were so stunned and emotionally moved into silence we didn't speak or rather just couldn't find WORDS that could justify what we'd just seen. I came out, sat in the foyer, said "what the f**k happened there?" and proceeded to smoke a cigarette knowing fine well I couldn't smoke there. (In light of the film, I think I just thought that stupid little humans' rules were often so pathetically insignificant they were laughable!) We were both absolutely amazed. But my advice is, of course, to see it yourself. Because after all, these are just words too.