Change Your Image
spockaholic
Reviews
Prospero's Books (1991)
Oh dear, my screen is infested with ugly naked people
It's a challenge to come up with a description that conveys the abomination that this film is. I think "cinematic holocaust" sums it up. This film is offensive, painful, shameful and a blight on the face of human history.
If you've actually read Shakespeare (and not just read the cliffs notes to pass your 8th grade English exam), you will sense right away that this "adaptation" has absolutely no connection to the lyrical masterpiece. For one thing, I don't think Shakespeare had fat, naked people prancing around the stage yelling "Boatswain!" for no reason.
Peter Greenaway should've really been a porn director; he seems to have so much sexual frustration built up in his little noodle. As far as artistic expression, I think I've seen more compelling visuals in the radiogram of a fart.
Delivery (2005)
The sort of film that makes environmentalists look like idiots
I can't stand films that oversimplify problems and offer juvenile ways of solving them. That approach does not help at all.
Here's the theme of this laughably myopic flick: Pollution is bad! Solution: get rid of all the pollution!!!!
Seriously, that's as deep as this gets. If you're an idiot who doesn't already realize that "pollution is bad!" then sure, go ahead and watch this film. But to the rest of us--a world of people who are struggling to find answers to this complex problem of how to reverse the damage we have done whilst continuing to thrive as a society--this film is little more than a child's notion of how to save the world.
It reminds me of the idiots who parade around with catchy picket signs like "make love not war!" and "flower power!" (the latter of which is *literally* the theme of this movie). Oversimplifications like this do not help.
A few words about the graphics: initially impressive but somewhat shoddy on closer inspection. Someone obviously spent a lot of time rendering these images, but he or she failed to pay attention to the details that would have made it realistic. For example, when the man walks, he seems to be weightless because the animator did not realize that people slump slightly when their feet hit the ground. Overall I guess it's a good first attempt, but the animator should study human movement more carefully before trying again. I've seen Atari videogames that are more impressive.
Diva (1981)
Another stupid movie where the plot is to "get the tape!"
You mean to tell me that no one has a freaking dual cassette deck? The stupid tape changes hands a dozen times. A dozen people listen to it. Not a single person has the good sense to make a damn copy? Of course not. Because if anyone had any sense in this movie, there would BE NO MOVIE.
I don't know if I should laugh or cry. Having seen Beneix's "Betty Blue" several years ago, I thought I could count on him to deliver another thoughtful, artistic film. But this is utter tripe.
This stupid movie has so many loopholes I lost count. A car chases a moped for 10 minutes and fails to catch up with it. Aha, so this must be some sort of hyper-nitro magic moped, eh? OK. But then why, in the next scene, do we have a man chasing it on FOOT for 10 minutes, and he DOES catch up? This logic tells us that a man can run on foot faster than a Pugeot. Alrighty then...
A man gets shot in the left shoulder. Why, then, does he use his left arm to support himself as he stumbles oh-so-dramatically down the hallway? And then there's my favourite scene where someone sprays a can of what looks like endust in a guys face, and the man instantly drops unconscious (without even taking a breath!).
Don't get me started on the horrible acting. The chick may be able to sing, but she can't deliver a line to save her life. And her awful accent doesn't help much.
But I suppose everyone can overlook the lame plot, the plot holes, the awful acting and the continuity errors because there are so many colorful sets! Yes colorful sets are all this movie has to offer. A big blue apartment complete with a brooding idiot who spends all his time sitting on the floor in the lotus position while listening to the worst new age music you've ever heard. This is, I assume, supposed to add a sense of drama and "art" to the film which would otherwise be a bad Hardy Boys episode.
Yes, I say Hardy Boys, because the poorly-chosen star of this film is a skinny twerp of a kid who looks like he's 15 years old. But somehow he manages to seduce all the women in Paris.
Is this a joke? The only good thing about this film is Dominique Pinon as the killer who says about 3 lines in the whole film: "I hate cars," "I hate Beethoven," and "I hate parking lots." Seriously, those were the highlights of this movie.
Now get that cassette tape! It's worth MILLIONSSSSS!!! Get that tape!!
A Zed & Two Noughts (1985)
A Lindsay Lohan flick with penises and rotting animals
To those of you who think this is an intelligent film, I say wake up and smell the rotting carrion. This flick is about as intelligent and subtle as a suicide bomb. There are a lot of ostensibly clever puns, but Greenaway feels the need to smash us over the head with them, like a bad comedian who keeps repeating the punchline with "did you get it? did you get it??" Take the title for example. A zed and two noughts. Mildly clever. But Greenaway feels the need to bash us in the face with it, with (literally) neon signs saying ZOO throughout the flick. Peter, I think anyone with a heartbeat gets it, OK? Similarly, he grosses us out to no end with disgusting rotting corpses. Again this is his way of saying "Gross, eh? Are you grossed out? Are you grossed out? How bout I throw in a penis? Now are you grossed out? A naked fat chick?" This is not cinema. This is not intelligent expression. It's abstract, visceral "potty art". People who think farts are funny will think Greenaway is intelligent. Avoid this film, and while you're at it, avoid all Greenaway films. They're all the same.
Andrey Rublyov (1966)
Its hypocrisy is its downfall
I cannot endorse this film due to its blatant hypocrisy. Here we have director Tarkovsky, moralist extraordinaire, attempting to tell a moral tale of righteousness and spiritual depth. But fans of this movie overlook the disgusting fact that Tarkovsky committed horrible, ghastly crimes in order attain his "righteous vision".
Tarkovksy lights a cow on fire. Tarkovsky throws a horse down a flight of stairs. Tarkovsky has that horse speared to death at the bottom. These are not special effects. These are genuine acts of depravity. How, then, can this film POSSIBLY be applauded for its moralism? I much prefer the gratuitous animal killings in CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, because at least in that film we're under no premise that the director is sending us a lofty message of spiritual purity. Please, if you are a true art lover (meaning: one who interprets the depths of art to its very core), save yourself the horrible disappointment, and skip this flick.
Oldeuboi (2003)
Really, really, really, really bad.
I can't add anything to the criticisms of this film except to add my voice emphatically. This film is a horrible mess of mediocrity, hype and poor writing. Yes, it is very popular with youngsters (who are allowed to see R movies), and heck, if I were 14 years old I would probably find it interesting, too. It has shock value. However this shock value is devoid of meaning and purpose, much like if I were to bring a turd to the dinner table. Shocking? Of course. Intelligent and poignant? Hardly. Artistic? Don't make me laugh.
Please don't waste your time on this. I'm sure you have much better things to do with your brain. And yes, the allegations of animal cruelty are true. Apparently Korean law doesn't prohibit such things in cinema. But that didn't bother me nearly as much as how juvenile this film was. There should be a Korean law against that.