Change Your Image
teryolawwashere
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Decline of Western Civilization (1981)
A terrible stereotype and makes Punk come off as braindead.
Punk is supposed to be hopeful and inspirational. It is supposed to be intelligent and empowering.
The rejection of fascism and materialism for genuinity. The ethic of DIY - Do It Yourself; Individuality is encouraged and the idea that everybody can accomplish things on their own. You don't have to rely on other people and you don't have to rely on the corporations - If you want to do something, you can show people an entirely brand new way of doing it.
Punk is about freethinking. And freedom. Both freedom on the physical plane and the mental. Punk rock is very hopeful indeed. And I would like to consider myself a fan of punk because all of these things resonate with me.
Which is why THIS DOCUMENTARY IS AWFUL. I couldn't even watch all of it. She makes punk people come across as complete idiots who just drink, do drugs and pick fights with people for NO REASON. That's all this documentary ever focuses on. And what's worst of all is that they can't even explain WHY they are fighting!
You have a kid who rants about how everyone is a "poser because they're wimpy" and when asked about why he is so angry: He replies that he DOESN'T KNOW. >_> The very definition of braindead. How can you possibly NOT know why you're angry!? It's like he's never even bothered to develop an advanced thought in his entire life and never even bothers with self-reflection.
I really hate the notion that punk people are supposed to be dumb drug addicts. It's an awful stereotype that this movie tries to put across as a general truth. And what makes it worse is all the other reviews talking about how this is "TRUE PUNK ROCK". It's not. It's a dilution of Sid Vicious and it's annoying to watch.
Punk isn't about teenage angst and beer. It's about making the world a better place while living for yourself.
Rat King (2012)
A point for effort? No, not even that.
The movie starts out pretty nice, but halfway through it turns into a crazy sandwich that is literally all over the place. The plot starts out as this one thing and near the end it's something completely different which is just, in some odd way, really cheap. Despite being somewhat original.
When watching a movie, you're prepared to give it one shot at "suspension of disbelief". There is always that moment that is kiiinda sketchy but still works when it all comes down to it.
Yeah, well, this movie has SEVERAL of those and not to mention that a very big basic plot element expects you to resort to the suspension of disbelief - But it's just NOT POSSIBLE because it is so damn ridiculous! How the hell doesn't ANYONE notice that Juri isn't, well, JURI!? THEY HAVE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CHINS. One guy has a thin v-shaped chin and the other has a heavy u-shaped chin. Im PRETTY DAMN SURE THAT if one of my friends suddenly CHANGED THEIR CHIN I WOULD NOTICE. V_V No less someone who is a girlfriend or a mother!!
I could possibly try to tolerate it at first but as the movie goes along it just gets more and more riduclous. That kind of cheapness is just NOT acceptable for something that has a budget! And pay attention to the words I used: Budget. Not a big budget. A mere budget.
Also: Near the end, why does the gym teacher stalk Juri to the factory? There is absolutely no reasonable explanation for that, it's just REALLY weird. XD
The only saving grace for this movie is that it's so bad - AND WEIRD - that it at least didn't feel like a total pain watching. You could laugh at it because of how bad it is, unlike the last movie I saw. So for that, it gets a 2 and not a 1.
But come on. I can't believe that this story got a budget. I can't believe that this movie was financed. The plot, and thus movie, basically feels like a bunch of stoner teenagers trying to be "professional" with what they are making.
Last Days (2005)
Absolutely awful.
The theme/plot/point of this movie simply doesn't work as some kind of obscure art-flick. Gus Van Sant uses the exact same framework as he did in 'Elephant': Long shots of boring everyday things that everyone does.
The very big difference however, is that it worked very well in Elephant. The seemingly trivial shots of everyday happenings worked as a contrast to the disaster that would eventually come in the end. (And this isn't a spoiler because if you're gonna watch Elephant, you know it's about a school shooting.) Showing the young children interact with one another and their families for the entire movie made sense to give off just how unexpected and horrible the event must have felt.
In this movie however, it's really just stupid and doesn't make for anything than a really boring film that you regret giving a chance. Absolutely nothing happens during the entire movie and then he dies. That's it. Im not exaggurating either, all we see is long shots of "Cobain" stumbling around looking druggy. He barely ever talks and when he does he just mumbles incoherently, there is no insight into his mind, he just looks doped up and then he suddenly dies. It's really just a terrible terrible disappointment and a failure of cinema.
"An introspective artist who is buckling under the weight of fame, professional obligations and a mounting feeling of isolation" is a very interesting topic for a movie. The right thing for Van Sant to do would have been to actually include dialogue with psychological insight into the mind of Kurt Cobain and really bring us into his head and what he is going through. It's not IMPOSSIBLE to do that because there are plenty of diaries, biographies and journal entry's that you can draw from to give some kind of a understanding into his problems with fame and himself.
But no. Instead he chose to do something that is just wrong on every concievable level. Im not going to say that he chose to do something cheap, because I have more respect for him as an artist than that. I don't think he threw together a shitty movie just for the sake of it. But misguided? Poor judgment of how to treat the subject matter? Completely. 1/10.
Super (2010)
Loved it, until the ending hit.
I was loving this movie. Until the last minutes of it.
Why did I love this movie? Because it is dark and bizarre. The person that we get to follow is a psychotic man who is clearly mentally unstable and a fantastic "Black/White" type of character that has no sympathy for any kind of injustice. It is a really strong character. The movie is also realistic in aspects that other superhero movies usually do not touch upon. While this is a comedy in many aspects, some other aspects are very dark such as the rape of his "wife" by a big black gangster, being shot and wounded, the way he kills people.. There is strong graphic violence in the movie that other Superhero movies don't really bring out in the same way. It's more in the sense of "cold hard reality" rather than romanticized violence. And the worst "realistic" part of all has to be when his sidekick dies. That was absolutely horrible and way too reminding of how fragile life can be, especially when you try to play hero.
So, you have this fantastic dark movie. Then the ending comes. And it ruins everything because it takes the entire dark world that the movie has been building up for an hour and a half and just throws it all away into some stupid Disney-universe where everything is about love and children. It's just utterly pathetic! The ending doesn't fit together with the character that you have been seeing for the entire movie whatsoever! His wife leaving him, that's a pretty cool aspect of the ending - But all that damn bullshit about how children make him happy made me upset because of how cheesy and irrelevant it was for that kind of a dark character. Because of that, I can't give this movie a higher rating than 6/10. I was LOVING it up until the ending. Then I was just very disappointed.
Le locataire (1976)
This movie is awful. And the only reason it has a high rating...
Is because Roman Polanski made it. Yes, I do realize what a "hater" comment that is to make but I quite frankly cant see any other reason for why ANYONE would give this piece of garbage a high rating.
The first hour I spent relatively bored, because nothing happens. I am waiting for something to happen, but it doesn't. It is slow - Boring - Uneventful. And I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to care about the person that I am observing. I do realize that Polanski is trying to build some kind of suspense and yadayada but it just ain't working. It's just BORING. And I do have to point out that I am pretty damn open-minded and tolerant when it comes to "pointless scenes" in movies, but this one just drags it out way too long. This is hardly a psychological thriller, it's more like a shitty drama.
After an hour and a half, perhaps more, it becomes more clear that he is suffering psychosis. And when it does, it just doesn't make any sense and it just isn't interesting in any kind of way. By this point, you are utterly bored of it and the movie failed to draw you in to begin with. It's just way too random for you to possibly care.
I think that I am stating a very good point when I say that you can't just throw any kind of random bullshit out and then expect it to be "abstract art". I would consider it an impressive feat if Polanski had managed to take the insanity that the lead character is experiencing and made it UNDERSTANDABLE. Drawn the viewer into the psychotic persons world and made you see how they think. But he doesn't. He just shows us a bunch of weird random scenes that don't make any sense and expects that to be some kind of a reflection of "insanity". Well, anyone who has the least bit of psychological education - And by that, I mean anyone whose simply read any kind of book about it - knows that insanity is hardly without it's own kind of logic. Romanski fails to show this logic to the viewer. As such, it just becomes boring. It's like going to a psychiatric hospital and watching a delirious patient slap his face and yell at birds all day long. It just ISN'T very stimulating for the mind whatsoever. It's just random.
Then in the ending we are left with a completely cliché "it was him all along" twist that by that point of time, makes you want to slap whoever gave this pretentious garbage a high rating. Because it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever for the entire movie to be some kind of a loop.
And the thing is, we have seen these kind of movies a million times before. The twist formula is a well-known one: "Lead character suffers insanity". But, other movies did this SOOO much better! Shutter Island was fantastic because it made the whole thing credible and offered understanding to the randomness. A Beautiful Mind was fantastic too because it focused more on the main characters recovery and dealing with his illness than the simple twist of "hes insane" alone. But this? The Tenant? It's a shitty movie that was way too long and hardly built any kind of atmosphere or suspense. A Beautiful Mind did in 30 minutes what this movie did in 2 hours, and it did it better as well.
Conclusion? This movie is NOT special in any kind of way whatsoever and you aren't losing anything by letting it slide. Don't watch this. It's a boring utterly mediocre film. And I don't care who made it.
Mean Creek (2004)
Bad movie, for all the wrong reasons.
The biggest problem with this movie is the fact that HE ISN'T EVEN A DAMN BULLY. The only time that you see him being a "bully" is when he beats up Sam for touching his camera - Which in no way qualifies as "bullying" because all he did was look after his own damn property. Yes, it was exaggerated to beat someone up because of that when he could have just told him to leave it alone. BUT, it does not in any way qualify as bullying. I have been bullied in my lifetime and I know plenty of what a bully can be like. THIS is not a damn bully. And it's not credible that he should be seen as one just because of that incident.
Of course, later on in the movie you get a better picture of why George is a bully because he talks about having hit someone in the face with a baseball bat or something. But it's still pretty far in and they should have drawn the viewer in from the beginning. How are you supposed to understand what makes George so despicable when all he does is beat someone up for touching his camera? A bully beats someone up for NO GOOD REASON. Clearly he didn't beat him up for fun, he was genuinely upset that someone touched his camera. I find that very annoying because it's just not credible and Sam is the one who was in the wrong there.
The movie proceeds along and I was thinking of giving it a 4. But when I saw the ending I gave it a 3. It was so terribly awful that you don't even get to see what happens TO THE MAIN CHARACTERS!!! Who the hell cares about George's recordings of his attempt at being philosophical about his deranged sense of self distance? I wanted to see what would happen with the main characters. I don't CARE about George.
The ending leads me to believe that this movie is trying to give a sympathetic view of bullies as well offer some kind of insight and understanding into how they work. And in some way, state that "punishing a bully is wrong". That is the dumbest and lousiest morale EVER because George is hardly the ordinary type of bully, he is a rare example of a bully. Most bullies don't have mental issues and require special education like George does. George didn't know what he was doing wrong. Most bullies KNOW EXACTLY what they are doing wrong. If he had been a true bully then their plan would have been excellent but he wasn't, he was a jackass with a learning disability and he probably had ADHD as well.
This movie fails on so many levels. I did find it amusing to watch ONCE, but I wouldn't want to watch it again. And I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. It's not special enough for me to do that.