Change Your Image
juliadalzielsnowball
Reviews
Angst (1983)
Definitely more for cinephiles than horror fans
The camerawork was spectacular, as was the lead actor's casting/performance. However some of the other performances (such as that of the youngest female victim) were a bit flat and lifeless (excuse the pun). The murders are much less intense and drawn out than I was expecting, which I was glad about as I was not personally looking for something particularly gory. While the killer's backstory is quite interesting, some of the anecdotes (such as those of the older girlfriend) are a bit far fetched and too fifty-shades-of-grey-esque for my liking, but some of the dialogue was intriguing. Overall, I enjoyed Angst as the camerawork was captivating. If you are someone that is more 'substance over style' then this film might not be for you, but if you're looking for a fascinating study in camera angles and over-the-shoulder techniques then this is a must-see.
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
So bad it's offensive
I decided to finally watch Requiem for a Dream as I had heard it's name mentioned in high regard many times over the years, but boy nothing could have prepared me for how godawful it was.
This film is not "art", and it's not entertaining either. It's glorified fluff. It's a composite of stories we've all heard a thousand times. We don't get to know any of the characters well enough to really sympathise with or care about what happens to them, aside from perhaps the mother. She was the only character that I could gather some semblance of a deeper understanding about, as at least some background information was given as we see a morsel of her life before the pills.
The rest of the film follows vapid youth that fit run-of-the-mill stereotypes of African Americans/young women in addiction in particular (young black man ends up in jail, young woman ends up doing grotesque sexual favours for drugs). I'm not saying that these situations never happen in real life, but Jesus Christ, could they not come up with anything more nuanced than that? Was it written by people whose only knowledge of addiction came from conservative 1980s documentaries? When you hear that overdramatic violin music start to play, you know that you're in for a painfully predictable attempted shock tactic that ultimately falls flat.
The film is disjointed and uncomfortable to watch (and not in a thought-provoking way, the only thought it provoked was whether the director was a 14 year old that had just come out of a high school anti-drug lecture) and serves only as a scare tactic for young people. Even then, it's surface-level depiction of addiction does little to scare anyone who isn't wildly sheltered. How people can praise this film as art or some kind of feat of storytelling is absolutely beyond me. Eye-wateringly boring, and no amount of decent shots or camera work could make up for that. 10 minute Vice documentaries shot by weedy teenagers do a better job of portraying addiction.