Change Your Image
artemis84-1
Reviews
Broken Vows (2014)
I enjoy watching bad stalker movies but this was atrocious
I sometimes watch bad stalker movies. I find their predictability, bad acting and uninspiring dialogue somehow entertaining on a rainy day.
But this was bad-bad. Who green lit this? Who wrote this and why did they want to punish us?!
Defending Jacob (2020)
This Could Have Been So Good
Having read the bestselling novel by William Landay it is based on, 'Defending Jacob' has been on my watchlist for a while. I added it as soon as I found out it is in production without knowing anything else - I enjoyed the book so much that I was already sold into watching the series without needing to know more.
Therefore I was very pleasantly surprised to see none other than Chris Evans starring as Assistant DA Andy Barber whose teenage son Jacob (Jaeden Martell) is accused of murdering a classmate.
Without including any spoilers, the premise of the 8-part mini series centers around the ambiguity of Jacob's innocence, his parents' determination to protect him whilst being ostracized from their community, the relationship between father and son, and whether a proclivity for violence can be determined by one's DNA.
All characters are well-cast in their respective roles. Michelle Dockery does a fine job portraying Andy's wife, but it is Chris Evans who carries the show.
I'm all for dark and gloomy atmospheres, but each episode looked like it was shot with the same blue-tinted filter and every single interior had an oddly similar minimalistic, barren feel to it. This took away from experiencing the emotions the actors were trying to convey and was too sterile for the subject matter. Portraying a child's murder and its consequences shouldn't be filtered into oblivion. The audience needs to see the rawness and magnitude of this tragedy and not blue-tinted fancy furniture store displays.
I started out really wanting to like this. The cast certainly did the best with what they were given and the first 3-4 episodes were intriguing enough (although frustrating at times) to keep me going.
Had it not been for the last episode, I would have likely given this a higher rating.
I don't want to put any spoilers here, so I will just write that I genuinely don't understand how one can ruin something when they had all the right ingredients: a bestselling novel, a great cast, and a seemingly generous budget to work with. I almost want to say it takes a special kind of talent to mess that up.
This would have worked great as a feature film (same cast), especially if the storyline fully followed that of the novel.
It's really a shame as I was very much looking forward to this and as a viewer, I almost feel 'scammed' after watching the finale. I can't defend any of this.
Borat Subsequent Moviefilm: Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit Once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2020)
A Well-Orchestrated Cringefest Lands a Bit Too On-The-Nose
Welp - I went for it. I watched the very much hyped "Borat 2", which is available for free for Amazon Prime members and premiered yesterday. I put my cringe PPE hazmat suit on first because just like its predecessor, this "moviefilm" very much relies on sometimes painfully cringey, uncomfortable situations in order to relay its social commentary.
Although I appreciate the talented Sacha Baron Cohen's work and admire his very vocal criticism of Facebook and the spread of misinformation, the Borat-type genre was never my cup of tea so to speak. But given the now infamous Giuliani incident, the masochist within me decided to watch the whole thing and decide if the screenshots I saw were really as bad as I thought or a clever marketing ploy.
Well, they were both. It definitely hyped up the movie even more, and yes, Giuliani is totally inappropriate and gross with Maria Bakalova, the actress playing Borat's 15-year-old daughter, Tutar.
Bakalova (24), did a phenomenal job. Originally from Bulgaria, she has not had any major roles until now. It must have taken not just a significant amount of talent/skill, but also quite a lot of courage to agree to this risky venture and her character outshone Borat's.
For me personally, the movie was just not as great as its predecessor. It lacked the originality and 'unscripted feeling' the first Borat film brought with its shock value. Although this still had plenty of shock value, it was obvious that it was orchestrated and that took away from me seeing it as Borat vs. Sasha Baron Cohen in character trying to convey a social commentary.
Worth a watch, just make sure to wear your cringe protective gear. You will need it.
Sala samobójców. Hejter (2020)
Couldn't take my eyes off the screen
I watched this Polish thriller today without reading any reviews or having any expectations... and I loved it!
The overall atmosphere is Parasite meets Nightcrawler (but the plot is quite different), with a pretty scary take on how misinformation is spread online and just how much influence social media has on politics. It is also very much about the division between social classes and the desire to belong. Far-right wing politics (very much alive and well in Poland and its neighboring countries) is seen more as a means to an end.
The acting, script and cinematography were brilliant. If you are into anti-hero sagas or just want to watch a good thriller, I recommend this movie.
Only for One Night (2016)
Cute house.
I hate-watched this with low expectations (you know it can't be good when the reviews seem to mention the house's decor as the most redeeming quality about the movie). I just am a sucker for stalker movies and knew this would be bad so it did not disappoint in that regard.
The other reviewers have already mentioned everything there is to know about the movie. So yeah... I guess the interior decor of the house is pretty nice.
The Hunt (2020)
I'm here for it.
OK, so this will probably be an unpopular opinion given all the negative reviews this movie has received. In fact, I was planning on hate-watching it during one of my many miserable days under lockdown. But... I thought it was pretty decent as long as one sees it for what it is: a SATIRE.
It is very gory so if you are not into lots of violence, blood and all that junk, best to skip this one. But if you can stomach that, The Hunt actually pokes fun at our current society (predominantly at the American left vs. right extremes). It unapologetically amplifies all the flaws on both sides to the point where no one is particularly likeable (apart from one character).
Yes, it was absolutely created to stir the pot and that it did. However, if you do not take it literally and are able to see the dark comedy (all of which is inspired by exaggerations in our current reality), then you are in for a fun ride.
The Danger of Positive Thinking (2018)
Terrible.
With 2020 already being a dumpster fire, my mind needed a distraction from all the bad news. I don't mind bad movies (after all, at this point we are all seemingly living in one) as some have the ability to make up for it in unintentional hilarity where they are lacking in plot, character development and script.
Well, this movie is just plain bad. I was genuinely confused by Mallory's character as I thought she was in her 30s and not a "teen" as the movie was trying to sell it to the audience. Also - they portrayed the parents (who also look like they are in their 30s - 40s) as complete imbeciles when it comes to technology. You don't know what a drone is - really?? You talk to your (obviously twenty-something actor) kid about "surfing the net"?
I don't know who gave this the green light or why Netflix unleashed this upon us at a time when most of us are stuck at home. Netflix - do better.
Robin Hood (2018)
My friend made me watch it
A very, very dear friend of mine made me watch this train wreck of a movie and I tolerated it because my friend has been there for me during the most difficult time of my life, so I thought the least I can do is politely sit through a movie he insisted on watching that clearly is not my cup of tea.
What can I say - it was painful. It gave me a headache. I had to force myself not to make snide remarks or walk out of my own living room 5 minutes in because well... I live here. I mostly spent my time silently rolling my eyeballs and counting the seconds until the credits.
Thank you for making me feel less alone in detesting this film.
Eye for an Eye (1996)
Great Actors, Great Premise, Disappointing Script
This movie had quite a big premise: a brutally raped and murdered daughter, a despicable criminal, a fallible justice system and a mother who decides to take matters into her own hands. It should not come as a big surprise that after reading its brief description, I was expecting a very emotionally-charged movie dealing with a particularly difficult subject.
Now, I understand that the creators of the movie wanted to ensure that transformation of Karen McCann (Sally Field) from grief-stricken mother who relies on the justice system to well, exert justice (ergo keep evildoers behind bars), to a strong female lead who decides to protect others and her daughter's memory by making sure that said evildoer (Kiefer Sutherland) will never harm anyone else. This transformation is the main storyline, and a rather compelling one at that.
I was still missing something very important within that dramatic transformation. I wish the script would have allowed the viewers to see behind the McCann family's dynamics after this horrible crime was committed. I wanted to see how the McCanns go through all stages of grief individually and as a family. The cut from Karen being an "ear witness" via the phone to her daughters rape and murder and then sitting at the police station and sobbing was a tad too quick. Next thing I knew, the funeral was over. As a viewer, I would have wanted to feel for Karen, see her go from shell shocked to the 5 stages of grief (Kübler-Ross).
I wanted to see her husband, Mack (Ed Harris), play a more crucial role in the entire storyline. His character seemed only to serve the stereotypical male role of "just keep on keepin' on" and "trying to keep the family together". Why couldn't we see Mack McCann's grieving process?
That being said, it is true that there is no set way to grieve and everyone deals with loss in their own way. However, what happened to Julie (Olivia Burnette) was so horrid that I was expecting to get a glimpse into a genuine family tragedy and see how such an atrocious act can upset the family dynamics.
Another thing that made it difficult to fully indulge in the movie's premise was the character of Robert Doob (Kiefer Sutherland). He was portrayed as the absolute villain: despicable, arrogant, cruel to humans and animals alike, filled with rage and just waiting for the next opportunity to rape and kill another unsuspecting victim.
Again, I understand why he was portrayed in such a manner: The movie makers wanted the audience to dislike him from the get-go, feeling the outrage and anger that Karen felt when this predator was set free with not so much as a slap on the wrist. Given the nature of his crimes, it really wouldn't have taken much vilifying to dislike such a character. I personally get more affected by exposed criminals when it comes to light that he was just the "guy next door" or had some element that allowed him to seemingly blend in with society. Well, our evildoer is bad to the bone and the movie does nothing to show him other than The Bad Guy. We do not get a glimpse into his psyche, his background, his real motives, or the full extent of his character.
The movie does deliver some fine acting from Sally Field and Kiefer Sutherland, both of whom are unfortunately restricted by the script to portraying somewhat flat characters. It does make a good 100 minutes of entertainment and the movie does a great job at holding the audience's attention.
Verdict: 6/10. Exciting premise, great actors, but with a script that chose to follow generic Hollywood formulas instead of showing the audience the real abyss of grief.
The Fluffer (2001)
The Trio of Tragedies: Review of 'The Fluffer'
'The Fluffer' (2001) intertwines the lives of three very different characters: Mikey (Scott Gurney), Julie (Roxanne Day) and Sean (Michael Cunio). Mikey (a.k.a. Johnny Rebel) is a star in the gay porn industry, yet claims to be heterosexual. He is in a romantic relationship with Julie, an erotic dancer who wants to get her life straight while struggling with Mikey's infidelity, drug addiction and lack of responsibility. Sean, a self-proclaimed bisexual, is in total awe of Mikey and decides to join the porn industry because of him. He starts out as a cameraman yet soon finds himself as Mikey's personal fluffer, meaning he 'helps out' when the pornstar cannot get an erection.
What makes this movie interesting is the dynamics between these three characters, as all of them are shadowed by some form of personal tragedy. Perhaps the most obvious one is Mikey. He has a physique enviable even by Greek gods, and also has a gorgeous girlfriend with whom they truly love each other. However, he is not only unable to stay sober or loyal, he is living an outrageous lie. He finds success in acting as a gay pornstar yet openly yearns after females. He is infatuated with people being infatuated with him, no matter what their gender may be. For him having sex with men is just a job like any other. He is well aware of his bodily gifts and takes advantage of it to manipulate his environment. However, to me he did not seem entirely as a negative character. I found his fate truly sad, since he could have so easily had it all; the family, a change in life, and yet he chose to throw it all away. I could not dislike him, because to me he seemed like an eternally lonely person who got lost in a world where he is viewed as a piece of meat.
Sean is a smarter character. He is well aware of just how impossible it is to fulfill his desire to be with Mikey. He is quite literally on his knees before his idol, and lets Mikey take full advantage of him. Sean's tragedy is his inability to break free from the spell Mikey's beauty has cast upon him. He knows he is being used, yet does not do a thing against it. He lives for those occasional moments when he matters to his object of desire, which sadly enough has nothing to do with Sean. He only matters to Mikey when Mikey needs something; an erection, money or a getaway. This relationship is perfectly visualized in Sean's dream when he is watching Mikey from behind the mirror and in reality Mikey is kissing his own image when Sean leans in. Sean is nothing more than a fluffer, temporarily satisfying the ego of his idol.
Julie is a girl who also works on the surface of the sex industry, though is not as consumed by it as Mikey. She simply is fed up by Mikey's inability to be there for her, and it takes an abortion for her to literally lock him out of her life and move on, possibly towards a brighter future. She finally understands that it is not enough to have a sex god as a boyfriend. Her tragedy is the loss of her unborn child, and the loss of the man she loves
However the latter bit is not necessarily a negative issue in the long term. She is a sympathetic character who finally is strong enough to break the devil's cycle.
Directors Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland did a good job at portraying how the fates of these three characters first meet, then part. While Julie and Sean both find a painful but efficient way to drag themselves out of their constant source of unhappiness, Mikey's future looks the most bleak. He is clearly not heading towards any positive change, he is merely continuing the wrong path he decided to initially take.
Overall the movie was certainly unusual and had no lack in some explicit sex scenes. Though I will not count this among my favorites, it did a great job at showing the terrible consequences of denial and lies, as well as how easily the sex industry can lead to drug addiction and burnouts. The most memorable line for me was when Sam, the main cameraman says to Sean: "We're not talking about sex here, this is pornography." That says it all. Sex and pornography do not go hand in hand, just as well as adoration and appreciation (or love and happiness if you will) are not reciprocals of one another either. It paints a crude, raw picture of one form of reality.
Bound (1996)
Bound to the Screen
Wow. This one definitely caught me off-guard. Written and directed by the more than talented Wachowski brothers (creators of 'The Matrix') who were nothing but creative-minded college dropouts in their 20s in 1997, 'Bound' is a brilliant example of how they could convince the world of their unique ability to create unusual scenes.
Take the story for example: A lesbian ex con, Corky (Gina Gershon) is hired to work as a plumber in an apartment, right next door to Violet (Jennifer Tilly) and her mobster boyfriend, Caesar (Joe Pantoliano). The initial attraction between the two women soon turns into a passionate affair, and the two decide to set Caesar up by stealing $2 million from the Mafia. The plan works smoothly up until Caesar reacts in an unexpected manner.
I must admit that at first I was a little disappointed to see Corky and Violent embark in an affair so early into the movie, because I was afraid this piece would be yet another example portraying lesbian relationships solely consisting of near-pornographic encounters between strangers. However, later on it becomes evident that the two women are not only drawn to each other due to sexual attraction, they are bound by something beyond that. Perhaps it is the recognition that they are not as different as they appear to be; Corky being the sexy slim tomboy type, while Violent representing the epitome of curvaceous femininity a'la Betty Boop.
Though it is set somewhere in the 90s, it displays characteristic film noir traits, which also gives a great opportunity for unique directions. I loved the way the Wachowski brothers managed to jump from one scene and time to the other without much problem, or show what the characters were thinking without using words, or focus on an object (such as a pistol) before zooming out onto the bigger scene. They also managed to make the sex scenes very intense without being overly pornographic. That is the kind of directing I treasure, as it does not allow the viewer to divert their attention.
The acting was impeccable. Both Gershon and Tilly did a wonderful job, every little detail of their characters seemed to make sense in the greater picture. Pantoliano was seemingly born to do the role of Caesar, and he aptly displayed the mobster's paranoia and moments of weakness, along with the cruelty that goes with the job.
This movie is definitely a nail-biter that will keep you wondering what's next. It is remarkable that it shows women in a powerful position especially in contrast to the Mafia. This one will definitely keep you bound to the screen.
Almost Normal (2005)
Almost But Not Quite
Picture this: Unhappily single gay professor Brad Jenkins (J. Andrew Keitsch) is approaching the big 4-0 and is going through some serious inner self-evaluation. He is not only single, but also lonely. His best friend Julie (Joan Lauckner), who married his brother, convinces him to attend his parents' wedding anniversary. After a bad night, Brad gets drunk and wounds up in a car accident. When he wakes up, he finds himself back in high school as a young man. However, the big shocker is this: homosexuality is the 'normal' way of living. To solve reproduction, parental partners are set up, otherwise it's all guy with guy, gal with gal.
At first Brad finds himself in heaven, and makes his ultimate teen dream come true by dating Roland (Tim Hammer). However, after meeting the unsuspecting young Julie, Brad finds himself more attracted to her. The two soon start to have an affair and thus become "breeders", that is a heterosexual couple, subject to discrimination.
This latter part is what I personally found a tad problematic. The movie implies that homosexual chose their sexual orientation rather than being born that way. Up until Brad and Julie's affair, I thought this was an excellent movie that showed what it is like to be the minority all of a sudden; it had great potential to grasp the audience, regardless of their sexuality. The sudden heterosexual twist came as an unpleasant surprise for me, as I found the storyline could have been much more interesting if it would have focused on Brad's homosexuality and how his experiences from the 'past' could change him when he went 'back to the future'.
It was also startling to watch the Blue Jean Ball scene when all of a sudden heterosexual couples formed even though moments earlier most of them were convinced that being gay was the only way. It just didn't make sense and from then on it was hard to take the movie seriously.
Then of course, in the end Brad does meet his love, Roland, when they go hiking as 40-year-olds. I was unsure about this movie's message. Did it mean to say that gender is insignificant when it comes to finding true love? Or that who we are attracted to solely depends on our environment? Perhaps that we are mere products of our environment? It is unclear.
Overall this was definitely an interesting movie to watch, as it showed a new take on homosexuality, and (at least for the first half) provided a unique way of portraying an if-you-were-in-my-shoes situation. The fact that it was a low budget production cannot be overlooked, nonetheless it is worth a watch. Maybe someone can decipher the message.
Cruising (1980)
Cruising for a Thorough Scrub
You know, there are certain movies that make you feel dirty just for watching. Brr. I had an aching desire to take a shower after seeing 'Cruising'. The thriller, made in 1980, is written and directed by William Friedkin. There is a brutal serial killer at loose in New York City, who slays homosexual men by using S&M tactics. Police detective Steve Burns (Al Pacino) is assigned to go undercover and attract the killer, as he matches the victim's general appearance.
I actually felt worse watching Al Pacino look painstakingly uncomfortable in leather pants and a tank top than by the movie's highly provocative sexual content. Perhaps the notion of Steve Burns wanting to bolt out of the underground gay bar and go home to his girlfriend wasn't just acting. At the time rumors were that Pacino actually wanted out of the movie after he learned about its offensiveness.
What bothered me the most was that Steve Burns was given no leads. He practically had nothing else to do than mingle in various gay bars of the S&M, B&D scene and hope that sooner or later the killer will start hitting on him. Indeed, the detective seems to randomly point a finger and pursue suspicious-looking figures (and let's face it, at the places he shows up in, there are plenty of things to point fingers at). Therefore it is no surprise that when he actually stumbles upon the real killer, Stuart Richards (Richard Cox), it is by a mere coincidence (namely that Richards was in one of his victim's classes).
Meanwhile Burns is struggling in his personal relationship with girlfriend Nancy (Karen Allen), as he is not allowed to tell her about his secret assignment and finds this continuous exposure to the underground homosexual club scene affecting his physical relationship to her. I wish there would have been a bit more time spent on developing this couple's relationship, because all the viewer gets to see from them are seemingly brief scenes during and after they have sex. There is no strong connection between them, though it is evident that Burns finds comfort in Nancy's company and her cozy apartment that is miles away from the dark places he has to go to every night.
I also hoped to see the character of the killer being more developed. We do get a glance at his disturbed relationship with his father, but other than that he seems like a faceless figure stabbing his victims while reciting nursery rhymes. Sure, that is creepy enough for a thriller, but it is not enough for a credible character.
Did anyone see the point of having a barely dressed huge black male police officer randomly show up at Skip's questioning and slap the guys around? To me that was hilarious, but I am kind of worried that I may have missed out on the deeper meaning of this
truly memorable scene.
Though the movie does start with a disclaimer, it does little to nothing to avoid portraying gay men as leather-clad freaks lurking around in some shady basement and engaging in orgies. The only glimpse the viewer gets into gay relationships is a couple strangers agreeing to have some form of sex (in a motel, park, middle of the bar, anywhere really), which of course is very offensive to the homosexual community. It is said that the "leather bars" shown are actual gay bars in New York and the extras are its real guests who were instructed to act natural yet tone down their sexual activities for the movie .
Now, I am well aware that this might have been a realistic portrayal of underground homosexual phenomena. My problem is that the movie exclusively resides to this portrayal, which is not only offensive for gays, but also makes the movie rather shallow and flat. It could have been made into a real nail-biting thriller, but instead Friedkin delivered a ridiculous freakshow. I really am going to take a shower now, but I wish the makers of this movie would have taken a cold shower before releasing it.
The Final Destination (2009)
Maybe the movie is 3D but everything else about it is FLAT.
All right, I will spare your time and just get straight to the point, because in effect that is exactly what the movie does. It does not spend much time developing anything more than a meager, predictable plot line. In fact, at times I asked myself whether the movie was making fun of its own lameness? Watch this movie if you haven't seen a 3D movie for a while and you feel like wearing those odd glasses in the theater. Watch this movie if you have nothing better to do. Frankly, it offer nothing to the audience other than the 3D effects, which could have been a bit more creative, like every single aspect of this movie. The characters are plain, predictable and rather boring. The 'deaths' are at times comically ridiculous and yet one feels inclined to laugh at the movie, not with its creators.
In a nutshell, it is a huge letdown. Do not expect much because this movie gives you absolutely nothing... other than getting a chance to wear glasses in a dark room.
Shutter (2008)
When Will This Genre Show Us Something New?
Lukewarm. Very lukewarm at best. These are the words that first came to my mind after I finished watching this movie. My main problem was that it is too predictable and presents virtually no original ideas. The title "Shutter" sounds promising and thus I was hoping to see more of a mystery or at least a different angle on creating intense, dark scenes.
To be fair, the acting was totally acceptable. Though Joshua Jackson is the better known actor, it is Rachael Taylor who delivers. Even if you are not in the least bit into the movie, you can spend the next couple of minutes thinking what a marvelous job her hairstylist did. Of course that is not her only forte; she depicts the intensity very aptly.
My problem is that the whole story seems so flat. All characters are fully predictable as is the plot.
If you really have nothing better to do, it is worth a watch. Don't expect anything you haven't seen before though.
The Happening (2008)
Just Expect The Unexpected
I just finished watching this movie and I have very mixed feelings about it, which is not unusual when one comes in direct contact with M. Night Shyamalan's vivid and ever so subtly terrifying imagination. For it is exactly the unusually subtle nature of the fear he invokes that makes his works so remarkable.
If you are looking for blood, gore and spilled guts, do not watch "The Happening". This movie's strength is in exploring the kind of horror most of us can relate to: treating our direct environment (let that be people or any other living organisms) with neglect and then facing the unpleasant consequences. We get a sense of havoc, but the story revolves on the fragile state of the human psyche in terms of dealing with a sudden shock.
I suppose I liked "The Happening" more than I disliked it. It is so refreshing to see something unexpected in a genre that lately has presented such monotone plots. It also allowed me to reflect on the possibility of an impending doomsday with a little more objectivity.
As for what I personally did not enjoy so much was that the movie seems to progress at a slow, comfortable pace - up until about the last ten minutes, during which events sped up so rapidly that I was scared to blink in case I might miss something. I am not so content with the ending, which keeps me from highly praising this movie.
This is one of those love-it-or-hate-it flicks. I happen to love it more than I hate it.