Reviews

It's almost a general rule of thumb that anything Netflix touches turns into a diluted excrement. This is no different with the Witcher frenchise (or what's left of it), which has once again been defiled. For example, in The Wolf's Nightmare, we learn that there is indeed something behind the hate campaigns and crimes that discriminate against certain groups of people! There's no rust when the wind isn't blowing, is there! They deserved it, definitely! I suppose the same noble logic could be applied to the most beautiful moments of antisemitism, slavery or centuries of oppression of women. Hey, everything for my precious narrative symmetry! Surely they had their very legitimate and logistically advantageous reasons, right Netflix? Or is that not what we play? Of course, we know that for enough profit, they wouldn't have a problem with that either...

I'm not sure what's more painful: the fact that the rapidity of the characters' Spanish speech makes it feel like you're watching the film at 1.25x speed making you miss a lot of important details and nuances, the fact that they were able to reduce the story's most dramatically powerful moment to a half-sentence dropped casually, or the fact that the whole plot was deflated and marginalized with this nonsensical, forced CGI blood moon mystical element.

I've seen very few films this unnecessary lately. Do yourself a favour and watch the Italian version instead, and leave this one alone. When an adaptation takes when it wants to give, you know you've wasted another hour and a half of your life.

If it gives you intellectual pleasure to see first-world, entitled upper-middle-class ordinary people lamenting about the boring, marginal conflicts of their lives, from which nothing emerges, then that film is for you. It's like getting Woody Allen's art without Woody Allen's art. No energy, no excitement, just a struggle against the constant urge to fall asleep or turn the film off and watch something more interesting instead. Elegant, sophisticated, subtle, nuanced - these are the words that might be used to describe You Hurt My Feelings by those who tend to confuse lack of content with content. Make no mistake, I could bear to watch snippets of humourless people's inconsequential lives, if at the end all the incoherent puzzle pieces came together into something worthwhile in a meta sense. I don't expect catharsis, I gave up on that in the first half hour. But it should evoke ANY emotion. Well, it didn't...

Please, stop it! Stop making more V/H/S films! The quality is so low now that I'm starting to forget why I loved this franchise in the first place. Do that, or hire better directors, screenwriters, actors, special effects specialists, costume designers, editors and sound engineers. That's all there is to it! Then maybe, maybe the end result won't be like a bad porn movie without sex scenes.

Oh, and while you are at it, please, I beg you, stop this undignified, despicable joking that makes it impossible to take the film seriously. It really doesn't suit it. We came here to be scared, not to sit in our chairs looking at our watches in utter embarrassment!

Poradnik Usmiechu is a theory-makers' wet dream. The minimal number of clues and the incoherent nature of the plot mean you can see a psychopath holding a girl captive in his basement, socialising her on magic mushrooms and '70s VHS tapes, or a schizophrenic fever dream born of a little afternoon holocaust trauma, a runaway suicidal teenager's cry for help from an apathetic and hostile society, the crisis of growing up in the shadow of losing an abusive but loving matriarchal parental figure, the the nihilistic misanthropy of a generation disillusioned with the world at the turn of the millennium, the self-loathing and disgust symbolically displayed after a youthful and repressed sexual abuse, and... well, pretty much everything else you can come up with. It's weird for weird's sake, and we usually don't like that because it's self-serving and pretentious 95% of the time, but that's okay, because after two glasses of Polish vodka, even that's more tolerable than some random Marvel product what's being made lately.

In general, you can recognize a good animated film by the fact that it has something for all ages to enjoy. However, Hotel Transylvania is so pathetic, so unbearably humorless and so amazingly predictable that I think it can only be enjoyed by kids at the age of 3, or by people who suffer from serious mental illness. The characters are horrible (perhaps it is not an exaggeration to say that Jonathan is one of the most embarrassing and irritating characters in the world who was born on the screen by the imagination), the story is the antithesis of drama because it is so infantile that it discredits itself at every moment, and the rap piece of the closing concert with Adam Sandler... just kill me now! I would have to really push myself to write anything positive here, so I won't even try, and I'll end this review with a benevolent 2*.

There's only one reason to get into this anime, and you'll find countless better solutions for that on any hentai site. There is no story, the characters are superficial cardboard figures, the humor is infantile and vulgar, the graphics are mediocre, the ecchi content (which basically consists of the entire female cast being molested by monsters, naturally as a result of the most idiotic situations possible) and even for a teaser, there is not enough of a healthy for a sexually active adult, so do yourself a favor and watch something meaningful, or be honest enough to admit your need for porn, because that's a really bad way to hide it. Such effortless, cheap garbage should not be supported under any circumstances, as it sets harmful precedents for the entire anime industry.

Although at first glance it may seem that this film is about class struggle, this is not true at all. The film is actually the viewer's struggle against boredom, nervous breakdown and existential crisis, while trying to convince themselves that it was worth watching an hour and a half of Godard's deconstructed, yet somehow mystically didactic and uninteresting propaganda film. Nearly everything's bad about Everything's good. Characters? Lifelikeness? A coherent story? Dialogues? Let's not even dream of such things. If "failure" is an artistic self-value, then we have really found a gold mine here: Godard breaks the most basic rules of filmmaking, makes his characters talk to the camera, shows nothing for 10 minutes, makes narration of the lack of events in a monotone voice devoid of the will to live, and I could go on and on. If the goal was to alienate the viewer from the social/political message it wanted to convey, it succeeded. Of course, there are excellent technical achievements here, the "dollhouse-like" side view shots of the factory building is excellent, and the shopping center scene is also lavish, but even with these, I don't feel that it would have been worthwhile to waste the creative genius in such an unworthy way. It's an experimental film, yes. We took note of that. Personally, I don't have a problem with this, just like I don't have a problem with art films, slow pace, European film language, or the atmosphere of older movies. In fact, these are things that I really like. But we should also note that not all experiments end in a eureka moment. And not all experiments blow up in the scientist's face. There is an experiment where the chemicals do not actively interact with each other and the reaction does not occur. This was one such case. I would be intellectually dishonest if I were to rate this largely unbearable and unenjoyable work higher, either out of respect for Godard or out of a fondness for old movies.

We have a lot of reasons to criticize Talisman (just think of the existence of the "ghost" that goes against all rationality living in the house undetected, or the inconsistency of language use), but the worst part is Sean Lu's acting. There is no question about it. I know, I know... child actor. We are well aware that in the vast majority of cases they are talentless, bad, or just plain annoying. Criticizing such a thing has no sporting value. But how can someone be THAT bad? I mean I'm sorry, but even those who read the script on first rehearsal act more lifelike and believable than this kid. I don't know what the other reviewer was watching, although he could be watching whatever, because he can only talk about everything and anything in pretentious superlatives. Just look up any short movie, there is a 95 percent chance you find the guy creaming his pants about the groundbreaking poetry and fairytale-like themes of the title, talking about it the most vague, cliche way know to man. Anyways, Sean Lu can rightfully enter the pantheon of anti-acting next to Tommy "I did not hit her!" Wiseau and Neil "How could you have committed suicide?" Breen, setting an eternal reminder to all the growing generation how not to act. If someone can invalidate and destroy a short film all by themselves, should be rewarded!

If, for some inexplicable reason, you could only watch one short film in your lifetime, Ama has a very good chance of competing for that spot. An overwhelmingly beautiful, heartbreaking work of art. Although Julie Gautier did not touch the surface of the water, she touched perfection. There are many ways to interpret what we see, but as is typical of the noblest works, critical analysis feels unworthy here as well. There's simply no need for it. If something is capable of conveying a quintessential message beyond the rigid framework of linguistics, then it is a shame to pollute it with the filth of words. For that reason I'll stop here, and watch it again...

Imagine this: we are introduced to a nice little business. It has its problems, like every other business, but it seems fine and managable. But we look under the hood, and BAM! The chicken is so raw it's bleeding, the walls sweating mold, the freezer is full of rotten, maggot-ridden gooey animal corpses begging you to end their suffering, the kitchen is on fire and the building is about to explode into a big puddle of grease and dirt, the menu is an amateurish mess, the vile and disgusting selection of food makes no koherent sense and way overprised, the unrealistically loyal employees are about to have a mental breakdown and kill each other with overcooked scallops, the disfunctional owners have no effing clue about anything and are about to divorce and would commit suicide before admitting that anything is wrong, guests hate everything about the place and they will only come back with a lawsuit or the staff of the public health office, and the business makes minus 15.000 dollars per day (not counting the $1,000 worth of food they throw away in the evening). Looks like all is lost, but BAM! Here comes Gordon "Christ" Ramsay, the redeemer of culinary tragedies! In a week or so, he not only saves the business and make a 5 star fine dining restaurant out of it, but he changes the whole live of everyone, handing out salvation with every snarky comment. He is not just a pro chef and a successful business person in this "of course not scripted" (winky face) mess of a show, he is an angel sent by God who will save not only your business, but also your soul. For the love of all raw scallops, in one episode (S2E6) Ramsey takes the owners and the manager to a church where he confesses them himself! Do you need any more proof of his total role confusion and shameless delusion?! I mean yeah, the guy is charismatic, famous, rich, bloody successfull, and as far as we can tell a damn good chef too, but that's about it! He is neither a priest, nor a therapist, and certainly not a philanthropist. But who cares, because gotta show that pure, manipulated and manufactured human drama, baby! They will fight back, but God damn, they'll get their happy ending (and their very own state of the art POS system) in the end! It's an absolute joke.

Grab that #totallynotscripted, #onehundredpercentreal scenario, multiply it by 92, and you get Kitchen Nightmares (minus Amy's Baking Company, not even Jesus can save those nutjobs...). It's a guilty pleasure to watch, but still very bad. Let's assume for a second that what we see in this show is perfectly valid and real! Then Gordon Ramsey makes a show of the most vulnerable, most downtrodden, most desperate restaurant owners, who let themselves be humiliated in front of the country and the world for the lifeline of a financial injection from Fox, naturally for the most noble purpose. No, not for our entertainment, you silly donkey! This is about saving lives! It's a noble cause, you see! A shame that these so-called success stories only work until Ramsey and his crew leave the restaurants: in most cases, the heartwarming miracle bubble bursts in about a year, leaving nothing but disappointment, a huge debt, and a potential tragedy with the loss of reputation as a cherry on top, since this diaperstain can never be erased from the internet, but of course this fact is hardly ever mentioned, because it spoils the pink fairy tale.

I'm sorry, I don't want to step into anyone's lily field soul, but it's very hard to take something this incoherent, rambling, and disjointed seriously. Is it a great adaptation of Don Delillo's novel? Probably. But this does not change the fact that the end result is as if 3 films with completely different moods, themes, pacing and dramaturgy were cut side by side, with the demand that they would make some meaningful narrative arc. This is a 2 hour and 15 minute long audio-visual madness smoothie, and not the good kind. It's about as successful as Cosmopolis. And we know how great that one turned out. Capitalism is shaking in it's boots...

White noise. An apt title, although the movie is not even suitable for background noise. The characters are lifeless and unsympathetic, the dialogues (if you can even call them that, because pretentious parallel monologues would be more appropriate) are irritating and artificial, the mood is bizarre and disconnected even in the most dramatic moments due to the weird and completely unnecessary black humor, the story is nonsense mess (sometimes it seems like it's going in an interesting direction, but then drops it to do something else entirely, only to drop that too before any meaningful conclusion and yes, not having an actual conclusion could be meaningful, but not here), and as for the weak, dotted line narrative arc, whatever lesson the film wanted to convey about man, life, death, consumerism, or the internal dynamics of dysfunctional families, it fails irreparably because it loses all meaning when presented so badly. White Noise is one of the worst celluloid pieces of trash I've seen recently. It is infuriatingly disoriented, and what's even more infuriating is that while it's disidentified, somehow it manages to act convinced of its own importance and comes forward with the confidence that it's destined to at least solve the mystery of the universe, but even a four-step IKEA furniture assembly manual is more complex than this.

And those who think they find value in Noah Baumbach's absurdist fever dream, and praise it for the very reason that every sane person condemns it: I hope you will praise the "innovative intention" with the same fervor when, say, your newly bought house is turns out to be a random pile of bricks, tiles, pieces of glass, pipes, wires, planks and cans of paint. Don't let your fixed idea of the house limit the stormy artistic freedom of a creator! It's a masterpiece, you just don't get it, dude! Exploring the human condition? Don't make me laugh! How can anyone with a serious face praise the depth of the way White Noise deals with the topic of mortality when we have movies like Amour, Ikiru, The Seventh Seal, Sunset Limited, The Seventh Continent, Youth, The Fountain...etc? If you're a snob, at least have taste...

There are two points where I would like to criticize Pasolini's film as an adaptation, despite the fact that I am generally satisfied with it overall. On the one hand, the extent of the horror, the thematic destruction of the human body, as well as the rate of descent into the dark recesses of the human soul, is very incomplete and weakened. Yes, De Sade's original is much, much worse than this, with a much clearer and more defined chain of events. It is so horrible that the disgust and mental anguish I felt after reading it almost made me physically ill. Pasolini toned down this effect, probably because it is almost impossible to make an authentic film of 120 Days of Sodom, even with a 2 hours running time. The level of amoral brutality that the original presents would further alienate the viewer from what they saw. So, I understand and accept it from a filmmaking point of view, but I still criticize the final result due to the effect deficit.

The other thing is the setting. I understand and well aware that Pasolini can draw mostly from the inglorious era of Fascist Italy, but again: this works against the required effect. De Sade's novel wanted to be a universal when he gathered together the most typical representatives of the power elite to commit the inhuman atrocities described in the story. The Prince, the Bishop, the President and the Banker - the pillars and symbols of secular and religious power. Their figure is meant to symbolize that this event can happen anywhere, in any country, under any system or regime, because the abuse of power, the act of dominating the weak, the immoral pleasures of tormenting and destroying the vulnerable are not the characteristics of this or that age or environment, but such a dark desire that the libertarian principles only brings it out from the depths of the human soul. It is not the corruption that comes with power, but an inherent corruption that is made possible by power. It's needless to argue here whether this is the case or not, just as it's needless to mix into the equation how De Sade wanted to attack the church bigotry of the time with his exaggerated and transgressive novel. The point is that by Pasolini setting the story in the age of fascism, the viewer can draw the false conclusion: -Oh, so those ugly bad fascists are like that, huh? Well, then we can relax, because we live in a democratic state governed by law and morality, and we have nothing to fear!

However, there is no reason to relax, because under the thin mask of law and morality, the monster is lurking, ready to step forward again, or to continue its activities behind the scenes, as before. So don't spare yourself the introspection and the uncomfortable feeling of watching from the corner of your eye when the beast appears from the shadows...

Uzaki-chan Wants to Hang Out! Lacks everything that made Don't Toy with Me, Miss Nagatoro so enjoyable: the main character is bland and uninteresting, the supporting characters are similarly negligible, and Uzaki is irritating and fake. But she has big breasts. In most cases, the humor factor is either unimaginative or very direct sexual sitcom style nonsense, which is mostly confusing, boring, and I constantly found myself rolling my eyes at the stupidity of the situations. But Uzaki has absurdly enormous breasts. The plot hardly goes anywhere, the two protagonists, who are doomed to be a couple from the very first moment, move towards the goal with chicken steps, because one is an idiot goof, and the other is clinically dishonest with her feelings. But Uzaki's breasts are extremely large by the way. The drawing of the anime is average (meaning: they invested as little energy as possible), the music is flat, and the opening and ending are downright forgettable. However, Uzaki's breasts are in fact very large, and that's where all the value of the series comes from. That being said, somehow they even managed to make the breasts boring. Which is a serious merit...

Let me quote the movie for a sec: Someone has to save the franchise! You see, no one has made a good (insert random cult classic here) movie since the first one. Not really. (...) The last (trashy sequel or unwanted prequel) movie? It sucked balls. Because nobody takes the true fans seriously. Not really. They just laugh at us, and why? Because we love something? We're just a effing joke to them? How can fandom be toxic? It's about love! They don't effing understand that these movies are important to people. Hollywood's totally effing out of ideas, so we'd decided we give them some new source material to follow. You know, bring it back to basics. Because that's how you make a great (equally stupid and cliché-ridden plothole fest) movie, Sam. "Based on actual events".

Good one guys. It's a really nice thing to depict fans of a franchise as insane, psychopathic killers. Very subtle, but I think they got the message. Thumbs up and all that jazz. It's not like they provide ~90 percent of your income, you absolute donkeys. I guess if you look down on those damn fans so much from up there, you don't need their money, right? ...utterly pathetic.

I don't know which is worse: the fact that paid reviewers raise the score of unacceptably bad pop culture garbage for a living (and that this is a completely accepted practice), or that teenagers with bad taste or adults stuck at that emotional and intellectual level do the same for free. At least the latter honestly believe in the nonsense they write.

First kill is almost unwatchably lousy, lazy and irritatingly clichéd, but of course it should be praised for its brave and very woke choice of themes. The world is so two-bit, isn't it? You can make a series out of a "10-year-old fanfiction blogger"-quality story with the production quality of the Asylum studio, if you cram in enough modern ideological background content to satisfy the empowerment-hungry Twitter generation, then they will praise it to Heaven and back as the greatest miracle that has hit the screen in the last hundred years. I should be ashamed for you, and worse, instead of you. The truth hurts, I know. Feel free to hate.