Change Your Image
herostratus-690-719695
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Below Her Mouth (2016)
Psychodiagnostic display, not mere "wank-rag"...
Since many viewers seem to ask or wonder about the meaning of this movie: This movie depicts first and foremost from my point of view that lesbian "love" is primarily motivated by sexual impulses or instincts, and thus primarily lust-oriented. Which somehow matches old psychiatric diagnosis of homosexuality as sexual identity disorder (which is no further allowed to talk about openly, since our totalitarian Zeitgeist prohibits such ideas today). For this rather psycho-diagnostic display I give 1 star. Of course there are some quite direct jerk-off-scenes which can be used that way, if one likes. For the explicit lesbian-sex-scenes I give a second star, because they are partially made quite nicely. For some beautiful chicks in the movie I give a third star. Although the movie does not have much more meaning than the above stated, one might find in it also some sort of "a woman on her way to finding her true distorted self" - but who cares? Movies like this are legion nowadays. Personally I think that this makes part of some sort of propaganda-project to brainwash people into thinking, homosexuality is normal behavior or drive, and not a psychological problem. Therefore I would recommend this movie only to someone who's in desperate need of a nice w.-r.
Alien: Covenant (2017)
Great Explanation for Aliens, part II
Just like PROMETHEUS, this movie also gives us some important hints on the background of the first four Alien-Movies, and it is also as well and as beautifully made as its predecessor.
What I found entertaining as well as annoying again was the fact, that almost the whole crew also of this space-ship showed totally stupid behavior - and therefore again was not at all suited for the job.
What did Ridley Scott intend to show by again depicting weak & brainless characters, that really neither look like scientists nor that any space-company would ever hire these highly nonprofessionals? Or is it just our view of "how a good and genuine astronaut" has to be? The would-be-astronauts in this movie however look like freaking idiots, too, and thus would not even be hired as parking lot attendants.
Of course it is always funny to see lemmings rush into their own death and demise, and they also make a great contrast to the highly intelligent artificial intelligence, but it seems unrealistic.
Therefore, just like in PROMETHEUS, throughout the movie I had the impression of extreme "unrealism": who would hire such a gang of wrong-decision-makers and emotionally-corrupt-hysterics for any important space mission? But still overall a great movie despite the problematic aspect of mf morons running again an entire space-ship and thus miserably failing their own space-mission-job once again - and it will probably continue this way (in Scott's further Alien-Sequels)...
Prometheus (2012)
Great Explanation for Aliens, part I
First of all: this movie is fantastically made: the landscapes are beautifully chosen, the characters are doing a great job, and the makers of mankind are finally shown - no gods, but quite god-like.
What I found entertaining as well as annoying was the fact, that almost the whole crew of the ship looks like "Hooligans" - bad language, bad behavior, totally stupid - and not at all suited for the job.
What did Ridley Scott intend to show by depicting weak & brainless characters, that really neither look like scientists nor that any space-company would ever hire these highly nonprofessionals? Or is it just our view of "how a good and genuine astronaut" has to be? The would-be-astronauts in this movie however look like freaking idiots, and thus would not even be hired as parking lot attendants.
Of course it is always funny to see lemmings rush into their own death and demise, and they also make a great contrast to the highly intelligent artificial intelligence - the robot on board - who never fails.
However, throughout the movie I have had the impression of extreme "unrealism": who would hire such a gang of wrong-decision-makers and emotionally-corrupt-hysterics for any important space mission? But maybe this was the purpose: to show the reason why "our makers" regarded their "mankind-project" as failure? At least I found it as amusing as logical: the cancer of the earth has to be canceled.
So, overall great movie despite the problematic aspect of mf morons running an entire space-ship and thus miserably failing their own space-mission-job - being even unable to compute a safe robot...NICE!!!
The Night Manager (2016)
Embarrassing and mendacious ZEITGEIST series
This short-series is absolute mainstream-garbage! Why? 1. The series has a shallow plot, knit from a mindset-pattern that is easy to see through: "Good" guy «kills» "bad" guy - under the applause of the audience. This is utterly boring and not very realistic - nothing new, no surprises, all in all an excellent sleeping pill.
2. The series makes part of overall manipulative mass-media, following basically Hollywood-propaganda-rules: The attentive viewer may easily detect the old revenge-mould or perpetrator-victim-saviour-pattern - which is meanwhile as boring as useless, because it changes nothing. We already live in a world of violence, and we all know that. This series does only perpetuate this, nothing less nothing more. The revenge-and-destroy-logic, by which most western countries operate and function today, is promoted in this series and is responsible for probably most governmental breaking-the-law-in-order-to-do-good-myths. "People don't change", as "House M.D." once put it - at least not as long governments do not respect even their own constitutions. In the case of this shallow series, "the bad guy" is depicted, of course, as "really mean" (kills children, beats wife) and therefore has to be destroyed or killed. But this rule has proved itself as totally useless in fighting violence - which somehow makes this series pointless and superfluous.
3. The series represents political mainstream brainwash: That there are evil forces within every government we already know. That there are starry-eyed idealists or brainless do-gooders around, always ready to save the rotten world, is also well-known. So what's the point? Even the main protagonist does not know why he does what he's doing, and maybe this is the best part of this bad series: the successful portrayal of a totally shallow "hero" who has no self at all, who has no motives whatsoever. If he'd say "I" he would have no clue at all what that would mean - an unconscious ant, shambling through live like under drugs. So the end justifies the means? So we are entitled to travel around the world, meet interesting people and kill them? So the empire is allowed to cause "collateral damage" where ever it wants to - it does not matter? No, it does matter! Maybe we could see real changes as soon as such films are no longer produced. Maybe that would be a sign of real change: that nobody would watch such garbage anymore. All in all we really know already (and are fed up with the fact) that governments are the greatest criminals today (and the hidden states and so-called "elites" behind them even more). But the movie wants to make us believe that there are governmental forces that really care - for humanistic reasons even. Untrue. See current destruction of this earth and the ever-ongoing killing of people (best current example: Syria, another land destroyed by the big white west).
Summary: Mainstream garbage at it's worst. I only watched it because I liked Hugh Laurie as "HOUSE M.D."! Now I am betrayed of 8 hours of my precious lifetime. Thank you, dear Night-Garbage-Managers.
Honig im Kopf (2014)
Head full of sh.t
Sorry for the good rating - ONE - still far too good for this extremely crappy movie.
I quite used to like Till Schweiger for his appearances in older films, but I really started to dislike this guy for his appearances on TV recently regarding different political issues - and I really start to "hate" him for this movie - since he not only wrote the script but also had to (compulsively?) use his own kids to do the movie! Well, this kiddy-girl who plays the lead is really such a bad actress that it might have saved the movie if she would not have got the role by her father. Family business sucks, especially if one is some sort of frickin' dilettante, as in the case of this sorry girly! And how often her stupid-strange-expression-face-head pops up on screen - it really made me wanna puke after a while. Also technically this movie is a mess.
Hallervorden, on the contrary and as always, plays quite well - but of course he ain't got no clue at all how to play an Alzheimer-candidate - even if he looks like one (but he does so since ages)! Instead this whole crappy movie turns out to be some sort of would-be-funny-comedy - but having Alzheimer is not funny at all, I tell ya. I've seen someone who watched this movie who has got this disease, and watching it made him wanna kill the makers of this film, as he told me afterwards. It is no sign of decency nor is it a sign of intelligence to make a movie in ways that make people wanna destroy you!
I have to deal with Alzheimer patients each day at work, and this movie is really NOT AT ALL helpful regarding this disease: neither does it display the REAL Alzheimer as it is, nor does it deal with this overall issue adequately! Instead it seems to take the Mickey out of the subject and mock at both these patients and their relatives! Nobody ever would act or react as these stupid folks in this stupid movie do - neither the Alzheimer-candidate nor the Alzheimer-relatives! So is this funny? Not at all. Alzheimer means real horror. So is this helpful (in dealing with that disease)? Not at all. It just shows some stupid clowns walking around like brainless ants in a totally senseless plot.
The fact, that this whole stupid crap even won some award really makes all this even worse: cause it doesn't mean that this movie has got at least some hidden qualities, but it rather does show in what sorry state we live in. These idiotic awards this moron-movie won is just the proof of the sensational shortcomings of our so-called "culture" and our completely insane Zeitgeist, that obviously sipped into the minds of the makers of this movie and as well into the minds of the jury that made this movie have awards, on top of everything, and nothing more.
Luckily my TV has got an off-button. So I turned the frickin' sh-t off after 40 minutes, cause I couldn't stand it anymore. 140 Minutes of mere garbage? Unbearable! Is there some super-extra-money if a movie-maker crosses the 120-minute-line? I just wonder how sick a brain must be to write some stuff like this! But Schweiger outed himself on various occasions as warmonger and at the same time "fascist anti-fascist" (yes, such people do exist indeed today!) and also as an as violent as antidemocratic refugee-lover. So what can one really expect from such a distorted mind full of sh.t like Schweiger's?
The Other Woman (2014)
Totally brainless and awful display of current state of "culture"
Unfortunately this movie doesn't deliver anything new at all - just boring clichés about love and an even more boring remake of the old patho-logic about violence and revenge: An eye for an eye - who does hurt me I will harm in return - how desolate this logic is. Even more tristesse can be found in the picture drawn of these three awkward "girlfriends" on "exchange principle" (I give you stupidity and you give me your idiocy in return): acting-out of narcissistic huff on basis of Freudian hysteria. It would be better to read a psychiatry in-patient-report instead. Who really seeks some sort of possible solution to one's own inner unpredictabilities - especially regarding adultery and other themes alike - will be disappointed big time here. And what could "good old" revenge-garbage like this produce other than lecherous feelings of petty satisfaction for people without any self-esteem at all (like the three brainless girls shown here)? So Adorno was right: these three miniature-versions of kinky witches become themselves what they allegedly most hate by means of their own dirty deeds. Meticulously how they get off on their torturing of the one they apparently once "loved" - without, of course, realizing how they expose their own inner garbage dumps by doing so. Because by intentionally trying to damage the person they claim to having "once loved", the three chicks just proof that they not only have got no brains at all (just see what they are babbling about all the time), but rather that they are people without morals and totally unable to love somebody in general. What a sorry state of culture that excretes such a film, even showing diarrhea as some sort of entertainment in more than one scene. And what a sad thing to see that there are even people out there who actually "like" this movie. But any so-called "culture" gets the movies it deserves. My conclusion: ultra-primitive film for wretched people. Nothing more, nothing less.
Die verbotene Frau (2013)
Ridiculously unrealistic and presumptuously pathetic
This movie seems to tell apparently a real story – despite the fact that it has not even been shot at the original scene, though. Probably because its makers could not land with their idiotic ideas or super-shallow script at Dubai – the cultural authorities there denied all access, and they were right. Because the whole thing is so stupid that one would switch off actually – if there weren't at least these nice graphics of landscapes, nature and alike (of Morocco, not of Dubai though – because in the real Dubai-heat nobody would walk or drive or whatever around like the morons depicted in this movie). And anybody, who has ever spent some time at Dubai, will agree: this film has got nothing to do with Dubai, neither with the culture nor with the scenery there – it is simply ridiculous and pathetically sentimental. Of course, people who love tearjerker-romances will truly enjoy this movie. But anyone who's looking for the real Arabian culture will turn it off, because there's nothing of it in this screener. Instead there are so many dumb western clichés that Dubai seems probably a part of Germany (the country of the producers of this senseless waste of time) – not in real life, but rather as if the picture of this city displayed in the movie stems from one of these as brainless as cheap novelettes of Rosamunde Pilcher. This also means, that the "love mania" displayed in this movie is not even real or realistically portrayed. Therefore: thanks for not watching – for your own good.
Hesher (2010)
Metallica meets Megaboring
The essence of this movie: do not live in the past but rather in the future - forget about your losses and be happy about what you still have. Unfortunately, this is the only "deeper" meaning that this movie does offer, and it needs almost two hours of the viewer's precious lifetime to display it. What a loss. I watched it in the car while driving from S.F. to L.A., but still it was a waste of time - I should have watched the landscape instead, passing by the window. Maybe because of the meager, stingy screenplay the producers hired some well-known actors to compensate for the loss? Maybe because many ordinary people don't like metal-maniacs like "The Hesher" (or should I say "The Thrasher"?) this movie depicts some average heavy-metal-moron as the wise-guy. Not that I personally have got anything against metal music or it's fans, but this movie seemed to me as some sort of counter-propaganda - which makes it even worse because of it's diapositive discrimination: if it is important to brush up the image of the metal-music-guy by displaying a long-haired metal-berserk who looks like Jesus having fun destroying other people's property, then what picture of such people do we have in mind – and does this movie change it? But what definitely makes this whole stupid concoction the sorry and pathetic effort it just is are it's lousy "dialogues" (which in truth are usually monologues): not only that there is a total absence of wit in all the babble that is puffed out here, no, it is most of the time total annoyance. Like an insult to any intelligent person. One could do many better things than watching this total waste of time that tells us - in an as stupid as senseless manner - platitudes we already know.
Savages (2012)
Big Stone Disappointment
Wow - a new movie made by the master himself - Oliver Stone! - I thought when reading in the news about his SAVAGES. Unfortunately the movie really portrays savages: three young major leads that show savagely bad performance as actors and as humans here.
Well - the good news about the movie is: there are also three mega-great actors in it: Travolta, Hayek and DelTorro! Do they function as some sort of counter-caricature to the three young "savage actors"? I really don't know, but they're the three stars I would give in this case.
What the seven missing stars are: three lead actors without character, bad lead acting, shallow entertainment with no deeper sense or meaning at all, a more or less stupid story, senseless violence, anachronistic "revenge" ideology (who kills wins?), the idiotic Blake-Lively-remarks.
Why did Stone fail to make a good movie? That's the main question this one poses. Even though one is momentarily reminded of Tarantino - formally and technically SAVAGES is well made (camerawork etc.) - but from the point of view of content it is worth nothing.
Was it Stone's fault that the script is just perfect emptiness, or why did he take the Winslow novel? I guess the error lies already in the writing, in the story itself. No wonder that NATURAL BORN KILLERS - written by Tarantino (!) - became THE Stone hit! Obviously times bygone...
Habitación en Roma (2010)
Just another senseless softcore second-rate
Oh no, not this again: yet another propaganda movie aiming at promoting homosexual behavior as being totally normal. Is there a secret organization working in some subculture underground to change basic anthropologic attitudes, sensations and feelings? Of course, the bodies displayed here are of great beauty - at least according to our current common ideal of beauty - as well as the numerous orgasmic sex-scenes, which show artistic decency and could be considered as erotic art. But is there much else to this or the whole film than mere satisfaction of physical lust? At least the exchange of body-liquids is just as rhythmically interrupted by the just as dynamic exchange of biographical extracts and excerpts. Surprise #1: Yes, of course - lesbians, too, do have their personal problems and mental traumas, normally linked to one's own family tree and history. Surprise #2: Yes, of course - everybody is looking for something, for someone "special" or better: super-mega-special. So, yes: there is some "existential touch" to this whole plot - but unfortunately it is so much in the background of the action that one needs a special detector to identify it. Thus also in this movie the meanwhile boring myth of the one and only perfect love is being sold - but as if one should not look any longer for the cliché at common places. As if only hedonistic pleasure domes outside ordinary time and space could provide such experiences of the "other kind". As if that was the one and only purpose in life: to seek and find the mystical soul-twin - here once again in the homosexual field - seemingly predestined for this quest (according at least to the makers of this erotic entertainment). So is there any difference at all between sexual orgasmic lust of the body and inner fulfillment of the soul? So what's the message or meaning of this movie? Forget all moral, ethical, religious and other norm-values and do whatever you want whenever you want to do it? Seek your personal sexual pleasures before anything else? Eat all you can eat as long as it's possible? Take all escapades and amorous-erotic adventures life offers you? I really don't know, and maybe I don't care after viewing this. So, what lasts is only one impression: Baby you can turn me on! For some viewers maybe too soft though to work as wanking material. The wonder remains: what wanted these makers of this movie? Maybe I should go get me some catalogue to order one of these gorgeous Russian porn chicks like the Ukrainian one in this movie... Oh God, please spare us from more of this ideological softcore crapstuff.
Elena Undone (2010)
Subculture and cliché - a film undone
First of all the "good" news: Everybody who loves "religiousness" as such will love this movie. Because it not only comes along as just another mere homosexual propaganda film, obviously in intention and attempt to make this kind of "non-straight" relationships socially acceptable. The second pseudo-religious effort of this film lies in immensely contributing to the at least also 2000 years old other myth of "the soul-mate" thing. For this purpose a non-gay guy is displayed who seems to be as impressively homosexual as unbearably precocious. The danger in "his" ideology - the so-called "two-flames" fairy-tale - lies in the eventually hopeless life-long search of the individual who believes and follows this saga, which practically means to be forever miserable. Since this movie is over-pretentious it is not surprising that it furthermore even pretends that everybody can and will find his or her "soul mate", equivalent to everlasting happiness. Because life itself proves otherwise it is even needless to explain why this fable represents in itself a severe reality distortion. But it is en-vogue to think that way these days, and people need - just like little children - sweet bedtime-stories as sort of happy-pills against the nameless dread(s) of our existence. Therefore people will love this film, especially if one chose to live a rather shallow life, and better not want to question, examine and analyze so-called "truths". Then again: of course we're all sick and tired of racism of all kinds - and rightfully so; one of it's most extreme form - so-called "gay-bashing" - is truly wrong and totally to despise. But this film - probably unwillingly - contributes to this old hatred in displaying "alternative" people as some sort of gay-shaman (the formerly mentioned "wise-guy" and the as primitively-dumb as vulgar-crude woman friend of one of the two woman lead roles). Watching these aversive characters I wonder: why not use ordinary grown-ups "like you an me" who can make the difference as well by showing tolerance? Why must it always be "strange" people who one usually (or: hopefully, in this case) will never meet in real life, who take over the role as "soul-advisors"? The movie would have gained enormously by showing normal people. The way this film was made I'm afraid it will only contribute to old gender stereotypes that in the end fuel even more hate. So everybody in this movie has his or her companion-guide who appears to be rather deranged than positive object, with which the viewer could identify in good manner. The same goes for the as well stereotyped pastor of a Christian church - true bible believers will hate this movie for it: there's this parish-woman and with her comes another undercurrent of adultery - this time on the Christian side. Of course the pastor is not practicing what he preaches (if one does not think he's - of course - preaching hatred), and of course the obsessive-compulsively moral churchwoman is a two-faced-creature (following, of course, rather the seven deadly sins than the word of God), and of course all possible clichés in the fields of homosexuality and of religion are borrowed here (yawn). It is clear: Christian believers are evil moralist culprits, homosexuals are innocent victims. It seems thus as if all characters were created out of the box of meanwhile super-boring stereotyped ideas, while the way fashionable subjects (like "Is being gay normal?" or "Should gay couples be allowed to have children?" - both answered positively in this film) are being treated in this movie reminded me of Goebbels' propaganda films, just the other way round. And yes: of course the hackneyed negative pastor treads his wife of course so rude and insensitive that it seems indeed totally natural that she willingly runs into the open arms of another human being at first sight or possibility. God save our souls from stereotype overflow. How can one bear such stupidity in a plot that just seems to aim at triggering certain feelings (serving as ideological carriers of certain worldviews) in the audience? So, all in all this undone film is because of its unused possibilities and despite the beauty of the two main actresses just another cliché-ridden display of idiocy in form of attempted manipulation of people's opinions. That would not be so grave if it could not be potentially disorientating for young people - or for the rather simple minded. Hell. It should have been really left undone.
Dread (2009)
Senseless Gorefest
The general description(s) of this movie sounded interesting, so I decided to give it a try, especially since the theme of the movie - fear, anxiety, dread - is something that concerns everybody. But I was extremely disappointed and had the feeling afterwards that I wasted two hours of my life on this bad thing. What especially annoyed me about this movie were three things: a) The verbal contents: what first seemed to having a good start – some smart phrases about fear and our human relation to it – did not go much further and remained, all in all, at the surface of this theme. Shallow, I would say. b) The gore stuff: there is some needless display of extreme violence, which could have been easily avoided, contributing by avoidance to the atmosphere of this movie. But by displaying senseless moments of blood-happy gore-feast the movie lost much if not all. c) The overall meaningfulness as dimension of a movie in this one is quite low. It appears to be just another splatter-ridden trash movie, "enriched" with some common phrases about fear, anxiety or dread. In my mind this movie is almost totally meaningless. So what is the point of this movie, if there is one at all, and what was the point of making it? My impression was, that someone turned-on by pointless violence has lived-out once again his own lecherousness about human suffering. I presume that already the producers must be persons who love to see other human beings tortured, which speaks for the sado-masochistic basic trend or underlying core-current of this movie. If someone never thought deeper than the common surface of fear, anxiety or dread he might find the shallow words put into this film maybe interesting, which rather serve as disguise for the real motives or justification for making the movie. And if someone also loves bloody gore, senseless violence and humans being tormented and tortured by other human beings, then he might actually like this movie. Since I am though neither sadistic nor masochistic, I truly disliked and despise this movie. We all know already what humans can do to fellow human beings. We don't need to watch it over and over again.