khaktus's Reviews

Belle (2021)

5/10

In the world of anime - an average hodge-podge, emotionally derailed

28 December 2022

I don't feel like reviewing everything, but as this was an apparent hit, it appears often at the top "new anime to watch" lists and has undeservedly high rating here - I feel like I need to rectify the deluded enthusiasm.

Perhaps, for someone it was one of their first Japanese animated movies - that are made for kids as much as grown ups. Well, welcome to the genre, that is a cinematography of its own. Often far ahead of the Hollywood production, that it tends to inspire. It has its masterpieces - from Akira and Metropolis to Only Yesterday and Spirited Away. Anything from the wise grandpas of old Ghibli. You will never want to play Disney's shallow good-vs-evil plots to your kids, after dealing with the complexities of Nausicaa or Princess Mononoke. You will never praise Nolan's Inception once you see its predecessor: Paprika. Etc., etc.

On the positive side - "warm fuzzy feelings" - of the Ghibli-esque 2D animation ... the house in the terraced village, walking through the bridge over the river that constantly reminds the heroine of the childhood trauma, cute slightly vintage local trains, the usual constellations of the local school. All one wants from "classical anime".

But then ... I'd imagine a different anime about running away into the anonymous safety and illusory opportunities of the virtual world. There is so much sci-fi and high-tech anime out there, that I start to miss those tales that actually take one back to reality, back to nature, back to family. Especially if it pretends to be one of those animations that try to educate youngster about something. "About something." About something?

The 3D world looks cheap and ugly in a way. No rules, just random things happening, random characters claiming random roles, doing random feats - no inner consistency of the vision. It feels so generic, as a copy of a copy of a copy of something that we have seen somewhere in the Hollywood feature films. Yes, since its inception anime holds this odd characteristic - of resembling or even imitating well known stories - with a bit of cheapness to it. Imitating superhero poses, generic replicas, over-dramatized emotions - often without understanding the context that they came from. Copying superficial "cool" without the content.

The musical part sounds like "ok, our heroine has to become the greatest start of the 5 billion users of this VR world", so they try to develop "5 pounds of wonder", mechanically, in the workshop. And the songs sound like that - hypnotic pathos, instant wow. Covering it up with tons of glittery particles running around in arranged flocks.

The worst part, as mentioned by the other reviewers, is the emotional dimension of the movie. After dozens of pieces, I am used to certain childishness in the Japanese animation. Cringiness, embarrassing exaggeration, unbearable pathos. I love their emotional minimalism at times, I dislike the prevailing maximalism. The endless blushing because of the tiniest triggers - followed by unmeasured outbursts. Yelling. One would expect that over the years, this will get tamed down progressively. Unfortunately, in Belle it goes over the top and then further more. All the time, everywhere. Belle+Beast initial interactions remind me of seme+uke dynamics in yaoi. Awfully contrived.

Then, the most annoying part - the plot twists - that are so forced and unanchored, that it did hurt watching. The rules of VR. The inexplicable self-serving destructiveness of the Dragon. The self-proclaimed Justice league. The creepy first assisted talk between Ruka and Kamishin at the station is drawn way beyond parody and farce, it's almost idiotic. Then they try to play on serious note - the domestic violence. Well, they have 4-5 women from the choir who know about it and do nothing? The teenager Suzu then goes to Tokyo alone, to fix it herself, in another creepy unrealistic stand off with the boys' father, that beats any even fairy-tale logic?

Compared to Spirited Away, Girl Who Leapt Through Time, From Up On Poppy Hill, Your Name and whatever else... the scenes are so derivative, "let's say something like when you had the usual generic scene in the other movie". Anything that happens in the movie lack some sort of inner logic, justification, gradual uncovering or believable mystery.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)

6/10

Painfully simple

19 December 2022

6 stars for my nostalgia for the original Avatar and the wonder I have experienced back then. Both 3D tech as well as the world-building - from the flying mountains to the interconnected ecosystem and Mother Earth / Gaia / Eiwa cross-references. Particularly the fact, that our Earthly ecosystems actually HAVE the similar kind of biosphere interconnections - mushrooms, trees etc. - just a bit more subtle and less VFX. I'd found it awesomely smart to engage kids with those cool dinosaur-esque visuals that they seem to crave these days, all the 3D and computer game plot flow - and in the same time smuggle these important themes from ecology and the human tendencies to destroy the ecosystem that we are all part of.

Technically, Way of The Water is still cool as it WAS, but has left the "nothing new" aftertaste with me. Despite the need to develop new motion capture for shooting underwater scenes - in the era of CGI, Marvel, sci-fi of whatever scale - it becomes irrelevant to the viewer, if not boring. We have seen so much blinking exploding colorful epic visuals already in the past decade ... that any visual effect evokes just mere "whatever".

Though, making so long and so expensive movie, with those 13 years waiting time - and having such a poor, generic script, with unbearably generic dialogues and abysmally generic scenes - is almost unforgivable. One more standard Hollywood-esque "war cry" or creepy "Sullies stick together" scene - and I get serious allergic reaction. Even the military feels ... 1980s.

If Avatar ripped off a bit of Aliens music and its immersive experience (descending to a new planet and finding out what is what) ... then Avatar2 goes as far as to rip off the most flat badass "cool" dumbness of all the 1980s Action movie cliches ... and a bit of Titanic towards the end. I can't even say if it was an intentional parody, or serious ...well, but the audience was laughing.

This was "traditional family values" movie in the worst sense, easy-to-sell in Russia, Indonesia or any conservative s***e of our poor planet. Save my family, save good papa, save bro, save wife, save son, save daughter, save bad papa, stick together, you killed my kid and I kill you, roar roar. Disney would blush in embarrassment.

I appreciated original Avatar for its real-life analogies - be it local community terrorized by the colonialist exploitative corporation, or even the "amazed by the ecosystem" themes ... but these now just merely and poorly echo in the sequel. Yes, there are evil fishermen (a.k.a. Japanese whale-killers, or Chinese elephant killers) and the Earthly re-invasion and take-over of someone else's home infuriates ... but it somehow felt like a poor commentary, failing to achieve more than piss the audience against "the bad guys". No subtleties, no psychology, not any more than one-dimensional villains.

Even in the large scale ... where does this movie/plot lead to? What is the overall dramatic arc? You destroy that one big bad ship - and what about all those spaceships, the new human colony - the cities and infrastructure they start to build? It's like a ridiculously small battle and victory for the scale of the invasion and expected reprisals. Will the heroic family continue to run? Will they try to establish peace with the invasive human locusts? Did anyone from those who traveled back to Earth report on the absurd injustice of human colonialism, snatching someone else's planet, the genocide committed on Na'vi? Well, but we survived the bathtub battle, yay!

Nah, I expected much more for this money and in this era ...

3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Moonfall (2022)

2/10

Bad even in its own category.

3 July 2022

This is not a disaster movie. This is a disaster. Period.

I am quite sad that good old science-fiction disappeared from the cinema screen, what's left are just the comic-products that progressively seem more like watching someone play a (way old) computer game. But if you invest the money once a year to make one sci-fi piece, why does it need to be something like this?

Even in the category of great-destruction spectacle - where are the times of Twister, first ID4, or even Volcano? I know what to expect from blockbuster, I know what to expect from catastrophic movie ... it ain't no art-movie stuff. Not much to tease the brain.

You are supposed to set your calamity straight, draft the characters to root for, give them just enough of backstory, something to interfere and serve as the catalyst to the whole "saving the world" drama, build a simple story arch, give it just enough seriousness (perhaps some science-based touch) and of course a humble perspective in form of functional humor, watchable CGI, who is doing what and why, some sense of "civilian heroism" and "getting the best out of human character in the extreme circumstances" inspiration.

But seeing something that fails in all possible aspects: spectacular destruction (boring as hell) and the story and the logic and the dialogues and the characters and the pathos and the humor and the civility and the wonder - this is almost an art-piece of failure. I wish it was so bad to make it funny ... but Moonfall fails even in that!

I have nothing against Moon falling on Earth, evil Matrix-ish AI, the megastructure non-sense, the gyroscopic halos, the ancient humans seeding galaxies and whatnot. I have nothing against studio trying to create some reliable no-brain fun, that will just generate revenue. But then ... just don't do everything against achieving this simple goal.

At least one wink at People's Republic of China. Xie xie.

At least two winks at Elon Musk, the reliable producer of the most idiotic ideas of humankind - both on Earth and in space. So befitting this movie-calamity!

The only thing that gives me joy is the box office bomb. Straight in the face of the big bosses, who are most probably responsible for this abomination. You deserve it you smart fools! Giving so much money (that could be used to create multitude of good art movies, or even some bearable teenager fun) and letting it burn with so little fireworks ... oh my! (I am just slightly afraid that the regular employees somewhere down in the corporate hierarchy will be punished by losing their jobs to make up for the loss, instead of those who are behind the bad management decisions - the untouchable caste.)

If you make a movie as a no-surprise but reliable product for the target audience, at least get your economic calculations right! It's 2022, there has been enough time and attempts to learn already, people! The fact that something so idiotic as this can still happen is the best commentary on the system.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Single All the Way (2021)

4/10

Offensively artificial - even for Christmas mayhem

27 December 2021

Yes, as a gay consumer - "the target group" - I felt quite alien(ated) watching this. When I saw the Christmas Setup last year, I was thinking of lethal dose for sugar and positivity, I had no clue that it could be overdone in orders of magnitude. And I do know what is kind-of-expected of Christmas product: It's like a punch - supposed to be sweet, fragrant, bright colored, hits you instantly, some headache next day to be counted on. Well, this one tasted too manufactured and artificial to be swallowed.

At first glance it looks professional - the visuals are appealing, neat, hollywood-ish. Although the craft of movies lays not only in cinematography, pleasing filters or direction, but stands on script and acting. Acting as in Meryl Streep, not acting as in straight-acting or being fake.

This movie feels like a true commercial product, pink dollar & co, the army of marketing designers working hard to hit the senses of the target group with a precisely calculated impact, every second of it. It's a perfect example of Netlfix - for what it is in its essence - a low-cost under-average spectator platform that evokes the "first class" illusion, superficially, but with no soul, sort of like a Chinese gadget. It pleases the eye, but has no soul. A copy of anything you vaguely recollect from somewhere, a concoction of superficial impressions. Enthusiast but sterile.

It creates an "illusory landscape" that we gays supposedly dream of, but it is lifeless, forcedly smiling, too good to be true, something-is-not-right, eerie wonderland - and this is ironically the most xmas-fairy-tale-ish aspect of it. With barely any perspective. A bit like a Matrix world - a cosy illusion plus some tactically placed winks of reality aimed to make it palatable. Alas not enough. Not even for "a film that I want to watch over Xmas". The marketing department correctly recognized (well, it's clear like a fist in the eye) that there is a "hole in the soul" of many a gay viewer... we have watched so many X-mas films, were even fond of many, but they were gay-less, we were carefully vivisected from those stories, they felt sterile to us. And we crave for something with "Christmas trees, snow, string lights, gingerbread, cosy warm kitchens, family reunions, nostalgia ... and some man-on-man mischief." But, as the corporate marketing departments usually do, they got it completely wrong. They mixed up superficial ingredients, but failing to warms us (believably) where needed.

From a political perspective - is this supposed to be that brave new world - where they "finally" accept us ... but only as a cotton candy made of artificial flavors and colors? Can someone call F. D. A.? This feels like a gay rendering of a "normal world". The boys have no other dreams just finding a great romantic love for life - and present it (the object) to the other great delusion of their "wonderful family". Muscular Santas - nude bodies and red hats - like from the kytchy softcore for women from 90s. Everyone grinning - the over-motivated mother, diva aunt, over-agitated nieces, template nephews, everything and everyone rounded and cute and nice. The most believable thing was probably the over-consumption of alcohol - gosh, now wonder with all that acting, forced smiles, forced enthusiasm, reciting expected replicas - regardless of feeling sad, anxious or disappointed - just out of cultural habit. It's a like a cult of "yeeeeeah". Musical entrees. Christmas theater. Elk horns. Perfect houses. Perfect cars. Perfect careers. Perfect lives. Perfect dresses. Gadgets in the pockets. Smiiiiiiiles. Consumerism - is already an insufficient word here.

If it was a movie making fun of kytch ... well yes, it tries, a tiny little bit, but from the large part it actually embodies it and exaggerates it. Sarcastically nailed by those plates with motivational slogans from the cheap kytch shops or self-help books. "Yeah, if you really want it, it will come true, you just have to work hard, follow your dream, believe in yourself, think positive, be nice to others ..." The question is, if this pseudo-world is not already a reality for certain caste of people. They take it dead serious - and the less it works, the more they are frustrated and more zealously they act in it. For themselves, for the other believers, to perpetuate the belief. A sort of a cult. From a Eastern European perspective, this movie (and this mindset) would make even a soviet propaganda bureau blush red.

Honestly, this is not how I imagined the bright queer future, or queer emancipation. In this unbelievable artificiality, it becomes dangerously fragile and can bounce back. If it makes a gay person wary and worried - how would it feel to straight folks? At the end, there is not so much difference between having to act straight in the past (to fit in), and today when we are accepted only if acting perfect normal people "like everyone else", consumerist robots, imitating traditional family aspirations and relationships, fitting in the corporate product, just with a carefully manufactured "distinct" pink flavor. Yuck.

Good intentions, bad rendering. Less radiant smiles, more life please ... I am already afraid to say "next time".

10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Eternals (2021)

4/10

Lifeless corporate product with perhaps some good intentions

9 November 2021

While one must appreciate some progress in inclusiveness in the Hollywood entertainment - though long overdue and too lukewarm in the context of the West, rejected with the ridiculous stubbornness in the (Middle and Far) East - putting a representative of multitude of imaginable ethnicities, sexualities and differently-abled in the movie and let them do a bit of punching ... does not suffice.

From a large part this felt like a pre-calculated corporate concoction made according to "good old recipe" proven to generate some cash: a bit of distorted history, a bit of adjusted mythology, a bit of "cool" swords and sandals, some spaceships, some dragon/wolf-like monsters with lot of eyes and teeth (jeez, some imagination please!), some family values, some internal fighting, some hero traumas ... and stir occasionally, bake until golden.

I am sick and tired of all these fights and battles inserted tactically just because "it is cool" and "that's what people come to see". Just make someone fight for something. Really, it is boring and left me so oblivious, that I will not even ponder if the blockbusters degenerated into this sterile hodge-podge because that was what the average audience wanted, or the customer taste was over time "cultivated" to be satisfied with this "a bit of fight a bit of love" template non-sense. Even the 1990s catastrophic epics look like a "high art" compared to this "fast film" hamburgeriade.

Idiotic costumes and kitschy designs - even for a comic adaptation. Some fighting with absurd weapons and abilities that in its entirety would be too much even for a parody. Concocted storyline. Horribly painful replicas, debilitating dialogues, whimsical motivation. Are the studio managers so stupid or so anxious in relying on the elementary-school few-word sentences that actually just comment on what is happening on the screen? Is drawing a real story, real characters with real problems and real conversations (even at the median intelligence level) such a market risk for the product? Please let the writers write and the directors to direct!

1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Power of the Dog (2021)

5/10

Praiseworthy attempt to turn the western genre (and toxic masculinity) inside out ... with excellent visuals, but leaky unengaging script and unjustified plot twists

29 September 2021

Warning: Spoilers

An unusual grasp of a western genre with above-average production, captivating visuals and stylization of the Wild West, decent acting performances ... but a rather leaky script and a very dubious reason for existence. This piece reaffirmed my belief in the recognizability of the "netflixian" qualitative category: these films can compete with Oscar-winning Hollywood productions in looks, but in the depth they appear somewhat empty, one-dimensional, even amateurish. There is the undeniable craft skill of the enthusiast fans of The Great Cinema ... although who lack sophistication, feeling, or something fundamental that they would like to say. Technical talent, no soul. They know how, but they don't know what.

This film reaps success among reviewers - although it seems to me rather out of some didactic predictability, because it appeals to a postmodern thematic "vocabulary" of a certain type of engaged liberal audience (alas mechanically, without humor, perspective or balance). "Toxic masculinity", check, female perspective, check, something queer, check." The lay spectators seem to be divided into two extreme camps: The fans praise the atmosphere building, the camera painting, the meditative pace, but also the portrayal of the toxic masculinity of Phil. Opponents appear to be typical by-products of the toxic masculinity: "manly" men, logical, technical, practical, just not emotional - for whom western genre is to be about tough guys who don't talk much, shootings not emotions, plot not contemplation, so this film seems unreasonably slow to them.

I don't have issues with twisting the genre, playing out melodrama in the ecosystem of western, questing the classic/outdated cliches of manliness. I don't have issue with slow-paced movies where one is expected to soak the atmosphere of a place and time. (For example I love Terrence Mallick's early visual delicacies ... however this might be not only positive comparison with this film :) ). By the way, dear machos, what do you think those stone-faced western heroes did when they were staring into that far void, all the time, wordless, (e)motionless? Perhaps, could they have been soaking the greater beauty of the land? :D Visually, TPOTD is really an art-piece Montana of the 1920s was evoked first-class, even if on New Zealand sets.

Western is a genre traditionally narrated by men for men. Reaffirming cliches - one type of imagining masculinity, in sense of "when men were still real men". Because women could not be strong and self-dependent and men could not be beautiful or objects of desire or emotional or vulnerable or whatnot. Men's appearance was practical, purposeful, technical ... or just given by the conditions of perpetual adventure - they were robots to fight, win and die, who created and perpetuated the culture of hardiness. "Seeing" western through the eyes of a female director seems like a juicy invitation ...

And then the "gay thing". It is easy to expect that TPOTD will be compared to a similarly slow (and gay-related) Brokeback Mountain ... but And Lee presented at least a cleverly constructed dramatic arch of an impossible romance. Here I missed any emotional spark between anyone and anyone. Of course, Jane Campion is a talented award-winning director (for example, the famous Piano, which told much stronger and more consistent story in a much smaller set-up). Well, it is simply not possible to compare the fragile but at the same time internally determined and willful main heroine of Piano with how Rose is depicted in TPOTD.

In The Power of the Dog (despite a quote from the Bible I don't see how the title is related to the content) we start with cowboys embedded in a harsh male frontier environment. The distillate of this peculiar world - Phil (arrogant, tactless, immature, vicious, an icon of an almost infantile cult among his peers) - is contrasted first with the polished gentle-man brother George, then Rose - the fragile owner of the inn and her even more fragile (stiff, artificial, camp,...) teenage son Peter. Burning some paper roses ... cool, let's dislike each-other a bit and gradually get closer - as expected from similar stories, right?

No. And here comes the script: Half of the film (!) it portrays the landscape and lets Phil's sadism and machismo bloom. Torment the paper and human flowers "a bit". Then, for incomprehensible reasons, an evolution not even barely sketched, Phil decides to mentor Pete. Huh? Even if I might have secretely wished for it, even if "this type of film" calls for it, I could not get how/why. Where is the development, growing towards it? Zero. Maybe Phil does it just to tease Rose, ... but he apparently doesn't feel like fighting her that much, she's not a partner in battle at all, she's a poor untalented wreck that sinks into booze and almost some sort of pathetic incestuous attachment to Peter, wrigs her face dramatically, runs like a crazy hapless caricature (glove scenes). Her trauma somewhat doesn't seem to reflect Phil fully, it is hard to believe that she's sunk like this just because of him. Then Mr. Peter - he doesn't evolve his personality in any way, he's still awkward, artificial, polished. Even if I like to see intermediate personalities (and genders) and I don't applaud straight-acting among us gays, Peter is portrayed as a rather annoyingly stiff alien as if transposed from old or odd art drama into the Wild West. Out of place. At the same time, Phil - pain in the ass as he is, seems also natural in some aspect, a guy who likes to talk straightforward without fuss (e.g. A scene where George suggest for him to wash), also a slightly something of a "misunderstood artist", who has at least some musical talent and seems to have passed through college studies of classical languages (!). He chose "to stink". Why did he become a cowboy? Did he escape from a moralist conventions of the city into a freer wilderness, where he found male lover, bonding unseen at the fringe? It is these paradoxes in the background that would be worth of more insight. There the untapped potential. What went wrong - the script, the corporate producers, Netflix' average audience, or too much budget to make "too gay movie"?

The final plot twist of the film may take time to digest (what happened). Not because the clues would not be suggestive enough, but because it just does not fit into drama we have just watched. Again, it is as if from a different movie, does not smoothly align with the previous development of the story and characters, it catches one unprepared. Why? What for? To achieve what effect with the spectator? Why the rapprochement from the middle act - if it turns out that we are at the end again in the initial premise "we against him"?

The macho (with a background story!) develops into a complex and slightly understandable character, the fragile woman into a half-lunatic wreck that just wanders helplessly in her decorative-object fragility, a young stiff queen into a schemer more cold-blooded than his antagonist. Why? What for? Was it a mirror - "the survival of the most callous" - or a bitter irony? Unfortunately, for some reason I can't believe this sophistication was present here. It's definitely not as smart as many intellectuals will claim. It's leaky, unfounded in the story or characterization.

Gay characters here are extreme, almost on the level of a cartoon book, and therefore somehow lifeless: a toxic alpha-male who humiliates everything "sissy" around him (it is hard to associate here his true sexual orientation) and then an artificial walking hanger who seems to feel nothing, just survives and dissects and "big eyes goggling". But in the context of the story, the gay themes seem almost useless to me. The "discovery" in the middle of the second half has somewhat lukewarm effect on both characters. As if there were just "some winks to queer audience placed".

This film left me neither feeling good (content, understanding, resonating,...) nor with any intense aftertaste on my tongue. An unnecessarily long journey to nowhere (while I am capable of enjoying those otherwise), with unnatural plot twists, incomprehensible jumps in the behavior of the characters without the necessary development. Although the toxic masculinity, with its rugged unemotional John Wayne-ish cliches, needs to be denuded and dissected - here absurdly it seems to me that the most flesh-and-blood character to empathize with was the one embodying it.

16 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Wandering Earth (2019)

2/10

Expensive looking, but lifeless, heartless imitation - even in sci-fi genre.

12 May 2021

The first impression: this movie is a commercial product of a totalitarian state/society. It tries to imitate anything we have seen in dozens of western sci-fi blockbusters, but without any added value, touch, flavor. Just to prove "yes, we can make something like it" and show off in a childish competition "bigger, bolder, more outrageous".

I am considering a sci-fi genre, which is not that renowned for story, plot, characters etc. I am a fan of the genre and can enjoy even its low-budget, experimental or exotic productions. But in the blockbuster league, where this one aspires, even Independence Day or Asteroid or Fifth Element or whatnot felt more coherent in orders of magnitude. With a simple human-scale story wrapped in the epic commotion. With flesh-and-bone-and-blood characters. With simple but believable emotions.

While understanding that sci-fi has to work with an artistic license often, there should be at least some basic physics background. Sol turning to red giant in this era? Considering how just the axis inclination - which is a few 1000 miles distance - changes seasons - moving the Earth 4 light years away from the Sol? Stopping the rotation? What about lithosphere? What about the Earth core generating the magnetic shield against radiation in space? What's the point of using earth-based thrusters if there is an atmosphere above - what do they propel or push against? Wouldn't they blow off the air - if not burning it in the process? The atmosphere would have to be removed first before making Earth into a space ship - but then how does Jupiter suck the air, it must be still there? What's the atmosphere's composition without usual dose of sunrays? What's the temperature on Earth with/out atmosphere? How come people without helmets don't suffocate instantly? Why's everyone underground (litosphere again?) if the surface seems busy with cars, traffic, high-tech infrastructure that seems to be working fine? Why is not everyone in some insulated buildings on the surface? Not to mention people running around nuclear-based thrusters just like that, no radiation worries. And with time and tech that was needed to build those gargantuan engines - why there isn't rather more spaceships? I mean ... these are not usual genre-based plot-holes, this feels like a pure abandonment of physics in an attempt to make something "even more unheard of". Bravo comrades!

Hollywood blockbusters are said to be cheap and silly and flat oftentimes. But at least there is some basic decency of the idea. Simple but trustworthy relationships. Some sort of simple story, a dramatic arch. Here, the situation changes constantly - people do something, regroup, do something else, it fails, they do something else, it fails, regroup, do something else. Even the situational dialogues make barely any sense, do no connect. Who is doing what and why, with what motivation, allegiance? It's like toy robots suddenly left loose, running in amok here and there. This is not "a great entertainment with slightly poorer character development" as many (paid for? Troll?) critics say, there is literally none.

If anything, this reminds me of traditional East-West cultural translation problems. East (and I mean also my own east-European space) imitating the dramatic gestures and/or pathetic lines or and/or cool tech feats seen in the western pop-culture, imitating the superficial appearances, imitating the surface of the cliches - without really understanding the meaning or context or content. You remember Rambo? Not exaggerating Sly Stallone's acting/emotional abilities - it was a story of traumatized soldier pushed into the extreme situation. There was certain flatness, but also a flawed/ambiguous/real character(s) with pain and vulnerability. But the eastern boys watching those VHS tapes saw and admired just this muscular man-machine that "will kill them all", with no capacity to understand even that minimalist depth, ambiguity, fragility or humor and irony of the characters. Metaphorically speaking: flattening the pretty shallow story into pure 2D plane. And this cultural habit continues to this day, turning the East into a sort of (love/despise) cargo cult.

For me this movie does not qualify even for the blockbuster standard. Great VFX without a soul. Mechanical, cold, artificial ... as the regime.

0 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

A Wrinkle in Time (2018)

4/10

The story that succumbed to its own villain

11 May 2021

The film feels like it was produced by The IT itself - so arranged, artificial, by the template - that it as a whole reminded of the scary suburban street with copy-paste houses and inhabitants. Calculatedly pleasing to the eye, but otherwise lifeless. I guess there were the good intentions and perhaps even the talented ensemble - but The IT in the form of the big badass corporation as Disney, in the board of directors, distorted manager's minds, pseudo-psychology calculations on what "moves" and "sells" to the audience and all "the science" of the business ... could hardly produce anything else than the tombstone to the deluded corporate world, Hollywood style.

Don't get me on praising "at least the stunning visual effects". They are unimaginative kytsch, boring, underwhelming - considering what we have seen already. No, nowadays spectators cannot be stimulated by quantity, nor by colors anymore. That's not the way to go. Is that the storytelling and acting and directing of the 21st century - people interacting with random "cool" CGIs, almost detached from reality? "I am flying. I am walking the imaginary stairs. I am interacting with zillions of flying dots. I am changing shape and colors." Is that all to the contemporary kid's souls - interacting with VFX? The three godfairies, divas, drag queens - or whatever - are sort of an emblem of this production: Lavishly dressed, but static, statue-like, arranged (symmetrically) ... lifeless.

Good=light, evil=darkness? Seriously? What about the potential of art to challenge the status quo, cliches, moralism, cheapness, simplification ... and thus educate?

That good=nice vs evil=mean is so neatly contrasted, that there it leaves no space for real-life characters, emotions, or audience's connection.

I appreciate the irony towards suburban dystopia - or the overcrowded beach scenes ... yeah, the standardized normal families, the template lives, the template fun, the template joy - epileptically colorful and in the same time same, alike, interchangeable - but that theme could have been juiced endlessly. As an independent movie.

Oh my, where are the times of The Toys at least.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Tribes of Europa (2021)

4/10

Interestingly conceived world, an unashamed rip-off, drowned by the horrid script.

6 March 2021

For unknown reason I won't resist the utopian/distopian (dark) magic. I needed a lot of patience to watch through this one.

"The world" (or the good old quarrelsome Europe) is sketched well, some of the Brahtok/Berlin sets are epic ... what you can't do with CGI these days, right? The conflict among 4-5 different parties (at least) as an idea is intriguing - why not, the initial episode's drama engaging.

But, oh, just that stunning cheapness! The script that is a copy of a copy of a copy of anything one could have seen on the screen recently. At some moments it feels like much cheaper rip-off of The 100 - it's various seasons recycled in just 6 episodes. While the whole concept of "great outage" and subsequent dark ages (literal) with the village-level tribalism mirrors Ondrej Neff's "Darkness" (without that nasty palette of social characters) or let's say Ziemowit Szczerek's "Grey Smoke" (without that sarcastic edge).

I cannot say if the actors are acting so flat - because they have nothing to act in the first place, in that poor script. They try, but the characters are so one-dimensional, flat, dumb, naive, incoherent.

Also, I cannot bear another series based on this absurd contemporary fashion of going from a cliffhanger to cliffhanger. Give me good old 60s-90s series with each episode holing a solid dramatic arch of its own, with a feeling of conclusion/resolution to each one ... while inconspicuously continuing the slow development of the characters' dynamics across the whole series.

I would not mind even drumming the strings of the Europe unable to learn from its history, breaking up into micronations, still dreaming of its undying Union project, cocquetting with the idea of common army, even the eternal conflict between the interventionism and isolationism, pacifist idealism and militarist realism, "we have to negotiate peace and let others be others" versus "we have to actually do something for the oppressed"... just if it was not conceived in such a cheap sketchy textbook way.

The nature-loving hipster commune ("all life is one") could not be more cheesy and superficial concoction of any possible "hippie"/"esoteric" cliche (as a person from the city who has no clue about them and does not care at all - would probably try to describe them). The Crimson army oscillates between patriarchal hierarchy, sens of duty and anarchy (!), dreaming bold but unable to provide even basic security. The Crows are like Olivia Blake cloned 80000 times, ruthless butchers "but with a sense of honor" (what the heck is that?) that are progressively depicted as somewhat cool.

And then the three main protagonists to hold all these places - from central European forests to South African desert (was this really necessary, for a plot taking place in Europe ???!!!!) - together: I could not stand the boy with the cube - in general the characters that keep secrets with no justification, just out of stubborn dumbness (I have to complete my mission!), because it dramatizes the plot... this is that sort of teasing that just annoys me. It was simply a lethal dose of dumb naivety, random emotions on a plate, impulse driven little "cute" animal. The elder brother has to undergo transformation from a bit cocky offspring of the children of peace to a ruthless warrior - but hard to believe there is any transformation at all, it goes all somewhat too smooth and straightforward. He pushes forward when he should actually resist, suffers when he gets what he actually pursued. Consistency, anyone? And the girl - oh my, she runs with the wind, believes anything that the next new encounter tells her, changes her allegiance or even moral compass at a whim, several times back and forth - hoovering at the edge of becoming quite unsympathetic or leaving the viewer indifferent. Adding up all the supporting characters - template figures one after another - there is no one to identify with or hold for at the end.

Still, the sets are quite interesting (who paid for it ... for such a bad bad bad script?) and the most watchable of those is Berlin/Brahtok as the Crow metropolis. Imagine, they live in futurist high-tech palaces, still have the impressive techno parties, indulge in post-post-modern Hunger Games artifice, but ride horses and fight gladiator arenas and hold slaves. Oh yes, did you know "nudity, sex, fetish, bdsm, kink - is all on the evil side"? Again! :D So cliche, so first plan. As much as the names of the tribes, that even a bad sci-fi would be ashamed of. Please, some imagination!

Tribes were probably meant to be a nice pro-European, pro-nature, pro-diversity project, that would induce something like "we are distinct, we are cool" in young Europeans. (I am just imagining the good intention from the superficial impression.) But unfortunately, again, it ends up more like a farce, with an forced/artificial/"acted up" aftertaste.

There are some interesting plot twists, or "moments with potential", where even an average teenage fiction could pull a decent philosophical dilemma or at least drain some tears - was it not so predictable and already seen.

This show feels paradoxically too fast paced and in the same time unbearably slow in terms of pointless running around of its characters. Somewhat dense in its shortcuts and in the same time diluted as the ten times brewed bag of tea with a synthetic aroma.

4 stars of 10 are only for some of the visuals and good potential it wasted.

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

It's a Sin (2021)

7/10

Professional, conteporarily accute, though somewhat flat

20 February 2021

This miniseries has its undeniable qualities, though I'd hesitate to say that the superlatives of the critics are fully deserved: Is it for Davis' life-long merits, or because anything LGBT needs to be praised, because it is "good manners"? (I am gay and liberal myself). If I recollect at its own time provocative Queer as Folk, or more contemporary Cucumber/Banana/Tofu not that easy to put in the box or grasp, full of dry humor and oddly mature irony and sarcasm, or even sharply edged distopic Years and Years - then the newest work of Russel T. Davis feels suspiciously lukewarm, unoffendingly template. Saying this, I was twice more surprised that even in the contemporary UK there were such issues with a production of series carrying this topic. A compromise reduction from 8 (?) episodes to 5 can be felt at some moments - unpatched holes, events jumps, unexplained evolution of life of some characters. I did not have a feeling of a consistent story. A similar impressions with Years and Years series - this weird overall fast-forward quality.

Positively speaking: unlike some critics, I did not find anything wrong with most G/L roles cast with G/L actors. Presence of Stephen Fry or Neil Patrick Harris lends a gilded feel, but they would deserve "a bit more to play". I admire the singer, performer and actor Olly Alexander - his youth/pop musical work stands high above the average (Worship, Desire, King, ...), there's undeniable talent there. He loads the character of Ritchie with the same energy, though I wonder how much he just expresses as himself, the performer. In essence it is a one-dimensionally appearing character that looks always happy, excited, grinning ... of course partially because of his upbringing. He is automatic "heart of the collective" (we don't know why but he is simply "cool" and everyone adores him - I admit here my allergy to the emptiness of the narcissistic extroverts), but in wider take a sympathetically unsympathetic person: He denies something all throughout the series - be it the existence of epidemic, his sexuality as an actor and as a son, at the end his disease in front of some partners.

The biggest asset of the series seems to be its timing. Maybe in the truvada times, the 1980s and the onset of HIV/AIDS appear as a seemingly outdated topic (though undeniably and tragically outstanding and mobilizing moment in LGBT history), but it correlates well and ironically with Covid-19 season. We watch the same responses in many moments: denial, dismissal, conspiracy theories, esoterical experimental pseudo-treatments (battery acid drinking was heavy), fear and rights suppression when facing the unknown infection, etc. As if these parallels into the present times were the propulsive engine of this artwork.

I appreciate other outstanding characters/actors that did not get so much praise: Callum Howells as the good-hearted innocent introvert - upon whom the life bestows quite a fierce irony. Lydia West as Jill - no bored manipulative fag-hag - she gives herself to the care of "her own" as much as the stranger boys with sacrificial care - that oddly contrasts with self-centered-ness and shame among many gay guys. She is the most vivid, full-blooded and wholesome character here. Not to forget about Keely Hawes as the compulsively "all-is-good" sort of mother monster, the vicious blame-thrower, that managed to infuse her family with a denial that killed, oh so many beyond her household. Her "mal-functioning robot spree" storm of a performance of the final episode was the series climax for me, content-wise.

Despite many good and chilling moments, the remaining serial "fill in" felt somewhat dull. Standard situations, standard dialogs, standard jokes. Maybe I am getting old, but the expressions, emotions, themes of this band of twenty-somethings felt quite flat, one-dimensional, empty. A copy of a copy of a copy of something remotely familiar. Their acting almost sitcom like - as if lacking depth, humor. "Let's play eighties" - putting on some costumes and it's done... missing the mood of the thatcheriite years, the atmosphere, the genuine content. It all feels somewhat too contemporary (even those costumes, mask, sets!), too much of post-modern careless superficiality, a hipsterish "playing retro" in erratic hints.

On the other hand, it has this reliable professional look, the most beloved/cliche hits of the 1980s are there, the work with dialects and backgrounds is awesome, gender and ethnic inclusiveness by the textbook. Maybe it is all too pro and slightly lifeless. Still worth seeing.

2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Two Eyes (2020)

7/10

Nice, important, tear-squeezing, but slightly didactic

8 September 2020

The movie has a potential to become a seasonal treasure of the queer cinema, but also left me with an awkward feeling. I am happy that the topic of two-spirit roles among the Native Americans arrived to the feature film screen. But in the broadness of what those roles represented and what meanings it carries for the present - I find it very paradoxical that it appears only as a mere "mention" - the character of Poopahte just "is" there for a moment and indirectly becomes a trigger for the self-reflection of the main character from the oldest timeline. His paintings are then just a "pretty souvenir" decorating the point(s) of the further timelines.

The cowboy story line is in the first-plane view the most attractive part, thanks to the unbearably handsome styling of Benjamin Rigby (Alien:Covenant) and Kiowa Gordon and references to the still popular gay fantasies induced (also) by Brokeback Mountain. With a pleasant/progressive interracial twist. But the story flows somewhat predictably, didactically, artificially nicely or artificially emotionally moving. The second timeline revolves around teenage dream of escaping the small-town reality and meeting amazing creatures on an amazing road-trip. Stolen-moment excitement. It is decorated by the presence of South African singer Nakhane (known from the exotic xhosa gay story Inxeba), who again very charmingly and naturally inhabits his role (quite much himself, I'd say). The third line - the cautious opening up of the suicidal trans-boy to his maternally-caring non-binary therapist - is the most contemporary and acute one, although also the most "by the textbook".

That's the sand grinding between the smiling teeth - the movie presents its meaningful messages and lecture very straightforwardly. Sometimes evoking feeling of watching an educative documentary on gender-related issues for high-school students. The dialogues could not be more simple, direct and purposeful. The script is missing some refinement, naturalness.

On the other hand I appreciate the well made visuals, the intense (though a little kitschy) atmosphere depiction in various spaces of its stories. The beautiful but also hopeless monotony of Montana or Wyoming prairies or social space. I see the film's added value in stepping beyond cheesy masculine gay romance, including the trans and intersex and two-spirit characters and topics. It's all there (positive) alas it's all just there (negative). All the timelines nicely meet, complement, explain themselves - it's a beautifully made "bouquet" - but with a strong aftertaste of being (cleverly) arranged. Good start.

6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ad Astra (2019)

7/10

Visually impressive, touchingly sad, but somewhat empty and shallow.

7 October 2019

First of all, I have nothing against science-fiction diverting into moody psychological drama. The best science-fiction pieces of the recent decade might be Arrival or Blade Runner 2048 - wistful, hopeless, resigned. The mood of Ad Astra goes into this direction quite clearly. I found the astronaut's rumbling on loneliness in the parallel of the outer space and the inner space of his soul - quite easy to relate to. Point made, now what?

Even if I kept hesitating, whether this is a metaphor for the average humankind feeling - the civilization tired by its own history, the environmental collapse and creepy addiction to technology gadgets - or a rather ridiculous portrait of an old-fashioned straight guy unable to share feelings, unable to get in touch with his own feelings, unable to feel - what? Technical, compartmentalized, rational thinking - check - but on behalf of emotional intelligence of 10-year-old boy. This "human" is a product of expectations of traditional masculinity - a soldier, an astronaut, a scientist, a hero, a plumber - being quite good in his field - but unable to relate to the other human beings. Living robot, executing instructions, doing "what needs to be done" (by habit, by hierarchy, by artificial values) - with no feelings. It's nothing new, it's not described for what it is - but just showing it on screen, in its raw purity - felt brave. Still a long way to go.

But maybe I might have been cheated. "Make a cool science-fiction movie - some stunts, some shooting, some explosions, let it have rockets and planets and villains ... and add a bit of pretense ruminating, because it is hipsterically fashionable nowadays." I wonder where did the ruminating go or what was its point. Just being mostly silent, staring into the space, blank face, "doing the thinking eyes", "humm, ehm, errrm" - so many people find it already "so deep" (i.e. their shallow grasp of "deep") - and that's quite a commentary on contemporary humans! I find it archetypally male - inability to express/feel/relate disguised as a philosophical depth. So transparent as the universe.

I saw quite a lot of potential in a commentary on the planetary affairs, wars, creepy nature of commerce, corporations intertwined with governments, humankind unable to learn from its past, repeating the same old patterns - resource competition, wars, locust mentality - in an enlarged space of neighboring planets and moons. Never mind that the commentary is subjective - but here it is presented in somewhat detached manner, brief/sketchy almost shallow and at the end it makes no emotional impact on the viewer. Blade Runner 2048 was much more ominous in that regard, while Arrival provided even some hope and The Expanse felt indeed politically ccurate and acute.

Last but not least is the sci-fi dimension. I liked the exploration of middle ground between the contemporary reality and the imaginary tomorrow. This really felt like our near future, the extrapolation of today, with some technological progress, a bit expanded scale, but still on the course of recent development - it feels more familiar than most of the science-fiction fantasies. The bases on the Moon and Mars and not beyond, well known rockets taking fairly limited number of passengers into space, living in claustrophobic barrel-size modules, spacesuits, gasping for air, assimilating the familiar air-travel culture. It's nice to see a fiction attempting for a subtle balance between realistic and visionary - even if it is enacting it in the well-drawn sets of The Martian or The Expanse.

When the movie fails, it is in the moments when it introduces the odd cliches of the comic and superhero movies that have de facto annihilated the traditional "serious" space-travel science-fiction. Free fall from the giant antenna through the whole of atmosphere? Surfing through the Neptune's ring (ice and rocks that may be kilometer wide?) with an improvised shield - in a course of seconds? Nuclear explosion push? Creeping into the rocket through the running exhaust? Coming to call the Neptune from Mars?

The remaining impression evolves along the storyline - that used to be a key element of a movie. What's the story here? A journey through sad worlds of the expanding human race? Saving the planet on a linear course? I somehow missed a motivation in the momentary decisions of the main character (or any of the characters at all) - throughout whole movie. They just go on on their trajectory, like an ejected spacecraft, without any emotional background. I felt like on the amusement-park scary-castle train ride, where the route is pre-written by the script, whatever random, non-sensical or even pointless the turns to be. This film feels almost resigned on its own dramatic arch. Whatever... If it must be...

Despite the interesting technological point of view, despite the moody vibe, despite the trace-like attempt to make a gloval/social comments - I ended up asking: why? Why was this made? Why have I seen it? Did not hurt. Did not bless.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Interstellar (2014)

6/10

The most stupid science fiction of these days

23 June 2015

To explain my daring title - I'd like this review to be a counterbalance to many over-enthusiast appraisals.

Yes, it is a good action/drama. Yes, it is a spectacular science-fiction film. Every genre fan's dream: travelling among different worlds (though, try to watch Europa report!), bending the laws of "common sense" newtonian physics and playing with blackholes and wormholes (the space-bending explanation is just a shameless "borrowing" from much older Event Horizon).

Though, this movie betrays the "common sense" in yet another way. its plot. "We have destroyed this Earth, let's find another one." Irresponsibility, anyone? while we may argue - if this is not a premise of every beloved pot-apocalyptic distopia, if "space travel" is not what we want from science-fiction at the end of the day ... this movie dared to start with really hot topic, so boldly that it should be judged by its own "higher standards".

So we have an ecosystem collapse in the beginning - It is quite obvious that the reason of it are monocultures stretching towards the horizon - a direct consequence of machist, industrial, technocratic approach to science, progress, planet, life, agriculture, thinking... The root cause is so clearly visible in every picture frame of the down-on-Earth part of the movie - but the only "solution" offered by the writer(s) is again the technocratic one: "Let's build super complex machines to transport us zillion light years away" ... instead of simple (!) cheap (!!) responsible (!!!) fixing of the darned monoculture issue down on our original planet.

While many claim that this movie is sophisticated if not even intellectual - it is not - it is actually offensive to the intellect. There might be many of the-good-old space travel operas, whom I would forgive this and spare them the "common sense" critique. But not Interstellar - because it pretends that it is "aware", "eco-conscious", it pretends that it urges us to think about our relationship towards the planet, but it fails exactly in this point. Thinking.

Watch Avatar and Home instead.

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Divergent (2014)

9/10

The best queer science-fiction (alternative perspective)

23 June 2015

While not the most appreciated and perhaps not the most innovative, breathtaking or technically exquisite, Divergent series have become my favorite science-fiction & distopia on screen in the recent decade.

What rings my personal bell is unintended parallel to a topic, that was never before "discussed" on screen. There is an old tradition in native American tribes of two-spirited people. If a boy (or girl) in his/her early pre-teenage years did not show required characteristics of its own gender, a ceremony was held to find out what are his inclinations. If a boy chose weaving utensils or girl went for the bow&arrows, he was considered a two-spirit - that is having male and female spirit in one body. These people were not punished, condemned or persecuted - they were considered quite important for the survival of the tribe. Having both male and female characteristics, they were believed to possess talents to bridge the world of men and women, settle the disputes, harmonized them. As much as bridge between material and spiritual worlds - they have become healers, shamans, storytellers, organizers of the ceremonies.

Even if this traditional role was not considered "sexual orientation", but it was gender based ("third and fourth sex"), it nicely translates into contemporary language. While straight people are naturally more competitive, self-centered (me, my wife, my kids, my family) and also they are much more prone to become specialists (they tend to excel in one thing, but are often narrowly focused on this one domain only, without much understanding of the importance of the others ... they are experts always competing with the other experts "who's better"), queer energy is more generalist, cooperative, inclusive, seeing bizarre interconnections between various topics, seeing things from the perspective, a "bigger picture". Hence - the harmonizers, the bridge between worlds, the glue among the professions. There are more artists, teachers, caretakers among them - that's exactly the modern version of shamans, storytellers, those who educate and give different perspective, those who are able to see things from multiple sides.

While even the contemporary LGBT/queer movement is afraid to discuss these quite provocative queer histories and myths, it is interesting to see the exactly same topic being shown on screen. We see the majority of specialist (factions) who tend to quarrel who's more important for the society, compete for the power over the other factions ... and the rare (!) hated (!!) minority (!!!) of the generalists (divergent) who have the abilities to appease the eternal wars among those talented only intellectually (erudite), physically (dauntless), socially (abnegation), green (amity) or have strong sense of justice (candor).

This - competition versus cooperation, specialists versus generalists, majority versus minority and also the omnipresent "versus" - are the most hot topics of the contemporary world. Gives us more of it!

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

6/10

A satire that does not wink at the audience.

19 June 2015

This is one example of a bizarre vision - that presents itself in 1:1 scale.

Some portion of straight men (or gay clone-lovers perhaps) can take this seriously and just see a "cool" guy-kind-of-movie, that reeks of petrol, sweating muscles and glorified death ... with helpless supermodel girls endlessly soaking in water and playing with hose.

I'm wondering, how would it sell if it was happening in the Third Reich, since the content (life-style) of the movie is the same.

It seems this is a life-scale rendering of how the ideal man's world would look like: No whiners, no weaklings, man reduced to combating machine (muscles, shaved head, constant action, aesthetic/sensitive sides suppressed - just a pure functionality ... without a chance to reverse the old phrase "women are pretty, men are strong"), life as a perpetual battle with lots of huuuge metal toys to play with, speed, fury, madness, strict hierarchy of ranks, fetishized death (what else could be a purpose of life of the non-feeling machine?). And then, the objectification - of the other men (use them as tools for ones own project) and women (living baby-ovens) - they are not treated as human beings or equal partners, they are used as things.

As such, it can be taken as an extreme kind of satire - to what's bubbling in male heads under the civilized camouflage of post-modern sensitivities. A satire that does not wink at the audience. You just have to have an intellect and will to grasp it as very bitter irony. As such, there hasn't been any more provocative and "straight-in-your-face" movie around recently.

1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Red Riding Hood (2011)

7/10

Refreshing pagan tale

26 December 2013

A positive one for a change... As I have to spend 2-3 hours of my life with a movie, I always try to enjoy it, whatever the movie turns out to be. And these 2 hours were not unpleasant at all. In the middle of Christmas (or winter solstice?) fairy-tale invasion, I don't dare to hope for characters, breaking the rules of cheesiness, heteronormative love etc.

Though...

I enjoy the movie's visual - modern fairy-tales tend to be overdecorated, bright, sterile or too stylized for its own sake. The forest and village of RRH were quite suggestive and appealing for an eye without being smarmy. Realistic as well as beautiful of magical kind with a little touch of poisonous... as much as the whole movie, that balanced on the border of fairy-tale and horror, though it was neither oversweetend as Christmas bakery, nor "something barks at you from darkness" fear-exploitation. Besides that, this fairy-tale was definitely not sexless - and even if the "erotic" scenes were tamed and cut-short, they were more vivid or daring than I have seen in the genre.

The strongest point I have found with this story was the fact, it is not a Christian propaganda. Luckily I cannot use word "politically correct" - i.e. for Christian (abrahamic), wiccan, (neo)pagan and atheist audience inclusive. The rituals of the village seemed quite unashamedly pagan - e.g. not-too-repressed sexuality, weak and not-so-respected priest, tribal dancing in the feast scene. Especially that one - for many spectators too long, for me these scenes where story stops going forward and I am given a smell of atmosphere allows me to dive into the settings, stay in the different reality for a while. There was a slightly modern undertone (music), but unlike many other modernizations of classics, this did not feel disturbing or out-of-place. The pagan element showed up quite well in contrast with arrival of Christian witch-hunter, who sets up the machinery of inquisition (love to see that, especially during Christmas)... the village is submitting, but not enthusiastically cooperating. As one of the characters says - the inquisitor's suite is worse than a wolf-menace.

Avoiding the spoiler, the Christian narrative tells us about the "battle of good and evil" and it is in some way just a variation on hockey match (who will win, who will loose)... everyone must choose sides "are you with us (and shall live) or with them (and will die)". Pagan narrative tells us about different forces in nature, each one with a right to be, that sometimes cross ways. Everyone has history, pains, traumas, anger, record of injustice done upon him, handicaps or talents - motivations that are behind our acts - which may seem "evil" from one point of view, "justified" from another. This movie, better than many others, admits the non-black-and-white reality, out of infantile simplicism. It is a fairy-tale for adults.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fist of the North Star (1986)

2/10

One of the worst films of my life

30 December 2011

This movie has terrible animation. Hypermasculine monsters (I can't call it men), moreover with somehow curiously effeminate features (!), disproportionate bodies, unrealistic movements, ridiculous costumes, ... OK, I could stand that as it is kind of peculiarity of certain style of anime.

It is pointlessly and absurdly violent. Be it so, some (not only Japanese) films are gory, but at least with meaning or certain style.

But everything in this movie is meaningless. It is a copy of every cliché and caricature you have seen in the action movies of whatever decade, but... you know, Rambo, Terminator, or anything with JCVD had at least a bit of a plot and motivation in it - but this movie is based on "what kids see in those action movies, if they have no mental capacity to understand it yet". Flashing, flexing, rough voices, arrogant heroism, violence for violence (absolute power, ruling the world, conquering all) with terribly bad dialogue lines.

To be clear - action movies, fighting movies or dystopia - are relevant genres with its rules and can be interesting and even excellent. This one is worse than if someone has shot a "bad movie" on purpose. You can't even laugh at it.

4 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Going Greek (2001)

4/10

Let's enjoy some bullying, torture and inhumanity ... it's comedy, isn't it?

16 October 2011

Does this movie take itself seriously? Meaning, seriously as a comedy targeted on young audience? While I know the (self imposed) limitations of American campus comedy and know what to expect from such a movie, I must say, that only a few moments were worth a laugh (and I can take even cheesy or perverse jokes).

The point is, that many moments probably were meant to be laughed on, but in the same time they were pretty sad... Sad in a way, that the movie, without its end (that I don't want to reveal for those who might want to watch this movie "seriously" as it is) could be pretty illustrative sociological study of the American youth, or even of the birth of many specific pathological features of the American society.

Bearing all the possible inhumane hazing, torture, ridiculous rituals, laws of the mass, do-what-group-does mentality, declaring machismo and pure male chauvinism as "tradition", or self-destructive alcoholism as "culture" ... for what? "Being part of"? "Helping friend being part of"? The motivation of characters is not very believable - considering the amount of dignity they are willing to sacrifice, with absurd indifference.

With all this said, the movie might be pretty good serious study of the college fraternity mentality system - evoking the despair from any well-known tragedies, invoking lot's of anger in viewer. But in this sense, it lacks something like catharsis. One can see, how genre framing can deform our view of certain situations. We try to laugh on what is really a matter of anger and sadness.

Thus, one has a feeling, that all this inhumanity is just fun, part of wonderful students life, something to be consumed and laughed on ... and forgotten. As this movie should be.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dark Planet (2008)

5/10

So many wasted visual effects...

30 June 2011

... for the movie cooked from all possible clichés. Let's call it "a movie of the future": no interesting dialogues, no interesting character dynamics, sexually decent, a product. Not only lacking a point, but totally chaotic at the end. Much like a ruined orgasm. Actually, there were lots of completely confusing moments all along. Main character was so artificially angelic beautiful - in a nonsense commercial-romantic way, that it was almost disgusting to watch.

The only positive things was a vision of the perverse futuristic world, dark, totalitarian, rainy, muddy, technocratic, but also kind of futuristic baroque. A bit reminding me of 5th element, or Chronicles of Riddick. (Or just today.) So much more interesting plots, events, interaction could have been set in this environment.

It's 2011 ... and you want a science-fiction? Watch Aliens, Avatar, Abyss, Terminator or at least Matrix.

5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

La question humaine (2007)

8/10

Corporate capitalism vs. fascism

23 October 2010

Warning: Spoilers

This is one of the rare movie, that prove "the last word can change the meaning of the whole sentence" - or the last scene can turn the message of the movie.

Yes, it is dull, boring, long, unbearable - most of it's time - and you'll keep asking "why do I watch this?". But, the end will not only compensate for all the time of cinematic torture, but it will explain its meaning and importance. At the end you will be thankful, that you did get there and that you have seen this unknown, but breakthrough movie.

Simply put - even in its form it uses the language of the topic, that it describes - and that is dehumanization of contemporary world, soulless work environment, corporate business. It not only shows you "the thing" and says it is not OK, it lets you experience, feel, live the thing.

Now the part that may contain spoiler: Three sequences that stuck in my head - Boring and dehumanized talking of the corporate bosses among the present (but futuristic or distopian) exteriors of the glass & steel business centers. Next, yuppies "relaxing" on the party - according to the 0/1 digital approach of life. Maximum performance versus maximum limbo, from the top to the absolute bottom. Next, the discussion about the reduction or renewal of the work positions, optimizing, job-applicant's tests etc.

The end - shocking, sharp and true comparison of our machine-like terminology related to work/job, "human resources", "working units", reduction, performance, effective - that is identical to the language that Nazis have used when describing human extermination process.

3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Taking Woodstock (2009)

9/10

Pleasantly spent time

20 February 2010

Seeing from the other reviews, to watch and enjoy this movie, you should be able to tune in the same wave quickly. Growing up on various movies from China through Iran through Europe to USA, that was not a problem for me. The movie has its own aesthetics, its own pace, its own atmosphere, the way characters communicate - it's a bit of a game, but I think with no problem of understanding the rules. The biggest need towards the audience is to "want to enjoy the time". The movie is slow... kind of "laying on the meadow, where a plaster deer sits, and enjoying the sun".

There may be some elements that might disturb the purists... whatever. It's not a Woodstock documentary, it's a bit of a fiction, the personal story, one person's perspective (touching one of the quotes).

The spirit of the Hippie movement... OK, I don't know if the director hit the point, but maybe he even didn't want to, that is such a wide topic, that it would need many films to describe it "completely". In current time, it is enough to concentrate on love, the vibes (with some people making it just spiritual poses, some misunderstanding spirituality for marijuana state of mind, some taking it really seriously) and on sexual freedom, which might get a more bitter taste after the AIDS pandemic.

Yes, there are gay motives. I can't understand why it bothers some people to see something like that. Because my dears, that is real free sexuality and that is what for sure belongs to hippie time. I'm a person and I ask myself and I am responsible only to myself whom I like. I'm not gay, I'm not straight, I love this person and that person. I'm not constrained by macho rules how to be a man, whom I can't look at in a particular way, who I can't kiss, touch, or whatever. The sexual life is continuous exploring... No one forces you to a particular experiment, just do what you like while you don't hurt others and do not prohibit others of living their own sexuality, given to them by Nature/God/Evolution, or whatever you believe in. That's all. Simply put - get used to the guys kissing guys and girls kissing girls around you - as we had to get used to see men and women do that around us. Saying gay sexuality is a private matter, that is supposed to stay behind the doors is a real hypocrisy - with all the straight pairs kissing almost on every bench. With a bit of irony, "it's so 50's".

I'm very positive about the way people are organized in the movie, how they move, how they talk, how they look like they are "out of place", or "not-completely-present" sometimes - I consider it too be a kind of very subtle absurd humor, which I like very much. The Vilma character of Liev Schreiber - who are you to say, what a trans character should act like? Men should be manly, gays camp and talking about fashion and travesties and transsexuals just singing? And all that are out of the norm should be weak, suffering and unsure? I enjoyed seeing Vilma just walking around, drinking tea, being with a family (and no one questioned it, that is a bit of THAT absurd humor I was writing about)... and acting manly, self-confidently... just a guy with a wig and decently hidden gun... very sympathetic for a change.

Finally, with all that mass scenes and chaos arranged... I must say wow.

3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Moon 44 (1990)

4/10

E-class copy of the Aliens

24 November 2009

This movie is a quotation after quotation of James Cameron's Aliens (1986)... or better said copy, rip off, stealing. Or, how do they call it now... "remake", "homage". Yes, if you like some movie and its (virtual) reality, you'd like to spend more of your time "in it", but you can do it creatively (invent your own sci-fi world, or your own story, or your own extrapolation of the story), but you don't copy everything word by word, scene by scene. Scene of the spaceship approaching planet (repeated more than three times of course), tough soldiers, colony on the planet, Ripley character, Hicks character, Newt-like character, Burke character, elevator scene, what more do we miss...? An alien!

Roland Emmerich is good at copying movies, but I prefer cocktails like Indepenedence Day - where more famous movies and their features are blended into one VFX spectacle. This small movie is not even a B-category. I developed a category of his own, for Mr. Director.

Regarding the "gay interest"... what do you mean? The wannabe-homoerotic electricity between Felix and Jake character? Yes, we all do dream :) Or the rape scene in the showers? Homosexuality = rape? Sexuality = violence? I might call it a hidden not-slightly homophobic remark...

3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Hole (1998)

9/10

Surprising way to reach each-other...

6 December 2006

Warning: Spoilers

(the description of the mood of the movie may be considered as a spoiler - because there is not much action in fact)

Great one...

Is it for my peculiar interest for the dystopias and utopias? Is it for the atmosphere of the movie. Or is there some more magic? If yes, it is for sure the utmost human one...

This film is, no doubt, extremely artistic/artificial (depends on taste). I can imagine most of the people who hate to watch slow movies (and those of Tsai Ming Liang (who I didn't enjoy other times) are one of the slowest that I know), suffering during the movie. Yes, people are unable to slow down and to let time pass - and to watch it without feeling they waste it. One can take this piece as torture or as a therapy...

The topic at the surface? The lack of communication - even if we live in rabbit cages - one next to each other - but not really together? People are tired, sick of something and unable to describe it - just don't want to meet, touch, talk, confront the others... like if they had disappeared. The big block of flats looks void and the rain falling constantly evokes the strange melancholy inside. And sometimes it must be something abnormal, unexpected, some unwanted decay as a hole in the floor of concrete - that allows us to reach each other.

One of the possible ways to look at it is this: Don't survey the inner world of the characters - consider the whole movie-space to be inside of yourself. And ask - why is it there? Where could these depressive states and moods come form? Is there a place for them, they don't have a right to be here? And search for the answers (if you need them) among the walls and halls of the block - instead of inside hardly transparent mind of a man.

The key to understand is not-to-understand - to let a movie borrow us - as a subject of study - inside itself - and at the end safely return us to our more colorful and "normal" looking reality.

Then, maybe, you will reach - like me - the feeling of real, possible, non-pathetic hope, that in core we are still humans... and this state of mind can help one much to live in this world.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Circuit (2001)

9/10

Party boys and Hangover

8 October 2006

I saw this movie with a title "Party Boys". For me, it was NOT about some circuit in L.A., or wherever. It reminded me of the feelings I had - in my party times - every weekend - in the middle of Europe - far away of the gay paradises of the west. This is why I dare to call this portrait more general. Forget about drugs, forget about time and place... the thing that remains is that next-day's "why?" and "nothing more?". All that love-is-in-the-air (that is just the text of the song, not what is present in the atmosphere), all that boys-good-in-bed (that are so bad actually in their imitating of the porn, thinking that THIS IS a sex), all that care-about-your-body that disguises the lack of purpose of the void corpse, all that rainbow-colourfulness (that is the dictate of one color actually - even if different every weekend).

Being myself...??? Come on! I loved and still love the parties, music, dancing, nice guys, feeling of something happening - but I don't wanna see just ones side, to get drunk by this "pure happiness"... After one gets drunk, the hangover comes... I like gay culture (subculture, pseudo-culture, whatever), the ideas of colours, unconstrained love, freedom, enjoying of life - but what there really is - is far from this ideal. Uniformity, sex as a sport (who experienced nothing else, will not understand), vogue, must-have-fun must-smile must-laugh for any price... Maybe this is what the director wanted to say.

Maybe it's not true about your L.A. circuit - but there's more to feel than to see.

11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dependencia sexual (2003)

8/10

Not see-and-forget this time.

8 October 2006

There are some movies you start watching with "oh what now?!" and at the end you thank the Providence you did...

I avoid describing formal part - it's something you can discuss for long if you like after the movie and maybe it makes you watch it again "to fully understand". Whatever. Don't forget a wonderful selection of the music - at least for this reason the movie is something to see for those who are not interested for the other reasons.

The importance for me consists in a topic. Let's say it simply - the mentality of a straight-male world. "Oh, they are not all the same." Of course, we talk about those who are. About the chronical misunderstanding between genders - "marry me, let's make children, build a house,..." and the other gender, that learned that "I love you!" is a good way to say "I wanna f..k you" without offending the romantic ideals of the other one. I am not a frustrated woman whose feelings were hurt. I am a gay man - who just watches this never-ending game as a third part (with insight to both sides) and has "fun". Sometimes not so funny-kind-of-fun.

I'd relate it to a movie In The Company Of Men - that was told "to divide times" to Before and After. May it be so. Now perhaps again, from different continent(s) - and with more characters to watch (maybe in different times) - so the image we are served is to be much more "universal"-like. But - it's not Bolivia, it's not America - this is the slight touch to the general mentality what the masculine thinks about what their masculinity is. That men never grow up inside from the age of 15...? They are the hunters in the core? They are expected to be so? What you think? At least consider...

And now time for the point - the movie is a precise composition of the images that will be burnt in your head like a CD. And if not the scenes, not the dialogs, then for sure all the feelings and tunings and small internal shame you'll experience. One of the reasons to recommend this movie is the one mentioned in the title - for me it took days to digest it - even if my opinion was similar before. It HAS A TASTE - maybe bitter - but it's more then nowadays you can expect from the other politically correct and all-is-nice or all-will-be-OK films.

Enjoy it, first feel, then think, admit, then the change will come itself. Let's hope.

3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

khaktus

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed