Change Your Image
thehellhole
1.Blue Velvet
2.Happiness
3.Rosemary�s Baby
4.Death Becomes Her
5.The Shining
6.Vertigo
7.The Fearless Vampire Killers
8.The Big Lebowski
9.Pulp Fiction
10.The Silence of The Lambs
Movies that I appreciate very much:
Psycho
Chinatown
Twin Peaks Series
The Straight Story
Andreij Rublev
Dekalog Ten Comandments
Once Upon A Time In The West
Die Hard
This Is Spinal Tap
Sei Donne Per L�Assassino (Mario Bava)
The War Zone
Paris, Texas
No Country For Old Men
Straw Dogs
Persona
Picnic At Hanging Rock
and many more...
I prefer films that are constructed like dark adult fairy tales with hints of perversion and dark comedy.
I also like movies that display subtle or lough out loud social critisism.
A poetic touch is also fantastic. Simply put, I like movies for the thinking man.
Reviews
The Hateful Eight (2015)
Trapped in his private hell
I want to state a couple of observations concerning this movie, namely aspects that are not obvious the first time around and even less obvious if you have a girlfriend/boyfriend in your arms to spend time together in the cinema. Well, in this case, it is wiser to stay home and do the 1-on-1 in bed rather than to subject yourself to this insane and dumb bloodshed that is called The Hateful Eight. By the way, there are more than 8 people in this movie. Maybe Tarantino didn't like his 8th movie himself but was forced to deliver it.
Sadistic Tarantino-style was evident from the beginning of his career (Reservoir Dogs) but then, his self-hatred was not as big as now. He still had a sense of black humor. With Kill Bill it started to go downhill and every movie got worse and worse. If you open your eyes, you clearly can see that Tarantinos mental health deteriorated heavily. He camouflages the fact that he is full of passive-aggressive tension by talking a lot and describing everything, but that's not the main point although I feel sorry for him. He has his reasons. The bad point is, that he feeds it to the audience.
The first element we see in this movie – when the credits start to roll – is a cross with Jesus on it. The cross is a symbol for "the world" and Jesus represents god that incarnated as a human and was displayed to the world. Now we all know how it ended.
In my opinion, Tarantino tries to make a point, but he fails horribly. With a good movie he would have told the most important thing in existence: the sense of being and why the world is like it is. In Tarantinos viewpoint the world is hell, full of betrayal, murder, hate and evil tendencies. Just like in the bible, the world is the playground of an evil spirit. Tarantino has the power to portray his own inner turmoil but is not respecting the audience. So in a way, he is just like his characters in the movie. The trailers don't really tell what this movie is all about, so – in a way – they are even more awful than the flick itself.
Movie is not recommended. Good things though: lighting, camera, parts of the score and the 70mm format.
Il racconto dei racconti - Tale of Tales (2015)
Is power all that matters?
After watching the movie in the theater I could not decide, if it was good or bad, maybe it was both. On the good side there was good acting, excellent costumes and very beautiful imagery/camera work. On the downside, the movie lacked the most important ingredient, the point that mainly separates a very good film from a mediocre film: good storytelling with the ability to balance between fantasy and a sense of reality with the right amount of dosage. This movie failed at that, in my opinion.
Three stories of three kingdoms are told in this film and the problem starts with the introduction of the second story. The beginning of "Tale of Tales" is very exciting and has a flow on its own. The scene with the white dragon is excellent and has iconic qualities. In my humble opinion, the first story (the albino twins) should have been the whole movie. The other two stories pale in comparison and are full of standard fairy tale motives and clichés.
Basically, all characters in the movie are immoral, cruel to a certain extent and have a lust for power. The ones who try to be good are auto-aggressive or plainly insane, like the woman who gets skinned, because she wants to be young again.
This movie is not a fairy tale, "Legend" by Ridley Scott is a fairy tale for example. Garrones movie is more of a panopticon of insanity, inhumanity, psychosis, neglecting, obsession and greed for power over others. So make yourself comfortable in your cinema chair and have a nice viewing.
The flick is not very sensible either and portraits some disgusting viewpoints like: if a woman looks ugly, chances are good that she gets thrown out of the window by a selfish and narcissistic man (in this case the sex-maniac king, played by Vincent Cassel). Or: if your husband is an ugly monster, an effective way to get rid of him is by pretending that you love him and slitting his throat after he gained your trust again (the raped princess with daddy-issues story). In the middle of the movie I thought: I would send all of them into therapy.
So if you are longing for a true dreamy fairy tale, i would suggest that you look elsewhere.
Excision (2012)
Go hurt yourself!
This movie is basically a portrait of the auto-aggressive tendencies of a young girl (Pauline) who goes overboard in the end. She is 18 years old, has unkempt looks, a very masculine body and rejects her womanhood. She dreams about lesbian sex connected with violence as a symbol of self-neglect and hidden homosexual desires. There are a couple of artistically styled dream sequences, where this situation is spelled out very violently (for example: she removes an unborn child from her womb and gives it to a devil-like figure, who puts it in an oven). So, if you have some insight into auto-aggressive behavior and are able to read the signs, it is quite easy to decode the symbolic level of Excision.
Yeah, and there are a few funny scenes to lighten up things.
So: 1) If you love and adore women and can fully understand the wondrous miracles of life (giving birth, for example) this movie is a very sad movie 2) If you are a naive, extremely sensitive or overly religious type this movie is a rather disturbing movie 3) If you think that this film is a freaky cool fun flick filled with bloody and gross scenes to cheer about, then go and hurt yourself!
I saw this movie at a festival and at the end the majority of the crowd cheered enthusiastically and applauded, so they might fall into category 3
*** out of ***** stars.
Antichrist (2009)
"Antichrist" - The new fragrance by Lars von Trier
That's what I thought when I saw the artsy slo-mo epilogue. Pretentious advertising. The content is tragic (little son falling out of the window while his parents make sexy love in ze bedrum) but the way the scene is shot destroyed the emotional impact for me somehow. The brief in-and-out-porno-shot at the beginning is completely unnecessary by the way.
The first time I saw von Trier's film I wasn't impressed at all. Nice eye candy but pretends to be more than it actually is. I had to re-watch it to confirm my opinion and to be able to structure my criticism. Von Trier is not a lazy moron, always puts a lot of work in his pictures, so I don't want to bash his efforts just to compensate for the loss of the money I paid to see the movie.
But now it is not the time to be nice, so let's start with the smashy-smashy: Visually this movie is top-notch. Sound effects are excellent and the voices of the actors are impressive. Art direction is also superb. Willem Dafoe is a brilliant actor and the reason why I watched Antichrist in the first place. Well, that's all the praise I have to give.
Now I want to concentrate on the bad parts: Pic is filled with a lot of pretentious, self-indulgent and forced scenes (in context), edited badly to great extent. The editing and jump cuts of this movie were the worst decisions the director made in my opinion, especially in the first two chapters. They took you out of the moment when the camera should have moved slowly. Very bad. Neurotic editing. I noticed this in detail the 2nd and last time I watched Antichrist (on DVD).
The plot is too simple and illogical in places. A lot of dialogue is used to explain situations or actions we already have seen. Not very smart, although the movie pretends to be intellectual and highly symbolic. At the core, the concept of this film is misogynistic. Women are evil, want to have sex all the time, kill you if you leave them, laugh at you if you are impotent and are responsible for all the troubles in the world. They will burn in hell. Poor Lars von Trier. Maybe in your next life you'll be a porn star with a big penis and a lot of hair on your head. Then there is no time to be depressed.
Charlotte Gainsbourg is an exceptionally unattractive woman. I always thought that and now Antichrist proves it. She looks like Joey Ramone, Iggy Pop and Patty Smith mixed together with a soft voice and well trimmed pubic hair. Skinny as hell and naked most of the time. Lars should have used a beautiful woman who plays a highly disturbed person and destroys her beauty piece by piece. That would have been to much greater effect.
Here, sex & violence is for the sake of sex & violence. Not very subtle indeed, Mr. von Trier.
Well, that's all I have to say about Antichrist. I confront myself a lot with art-house movies and most of them are garbage. Antichrist is not a complete drivel but also not worth your time. Sorry to say this, but in the end, Antichrist is a failure.
Dawn of the Dead (1978)
Dawn of the dumb
This is not a review. This is a warning.
Before I start to slay, three things I have to say:
1) Dawn of the Dead is a B-movie. Weapon grade BALONEY. 2) George A. Romero is a very, VERY BAD director. 3) Tom Savini is a cool dude.
Dawn of the Dead (DOTD) is not a horror movie, it's not a comedy, well, in fact it's a big NOTHING! Why? I tell you why!
CONCEPT/BASIC IDEA: The basic idea of this trash is quite good. A couple of people hide in a shopping mall to stay away from flesh eating zombies. The set-up is promising but the delivery is ridiculous. A good idea was wasted in the hands of a director who has no clue of what is good and what is bad.
SCRIPT: Romeros 5 year old niece, who obviously wrote the script, is not very talented and a bit inexperienced. Romeros contribution made everything even worse. Dario Argento didn't read the script, he just pretended that he did. When it came to the Euro Cut, it was too late to make changes.
ACTING: Half way into the movie I thought that I saw a zombie holding cue cards for the "actors". Think of Steven Segal or Jean Claude VanDamme trying to deliver a credible performance. It is not possible, because there is no acting talent. My theory is that between two takes the zombies ate certain parts of the actors brains which are needed to give a convincing performance. Romero should have noticed this but maybe he was too busy coloring some sexy blonde zombie boobs with red paint.
MAKE UP/EFFECTS: Well made gore, guts and cut off limbs are crucial to a zombie movie. What do you do when you realize that you are short on money and everything looks like garbage? You make a satirical comedy that tries to reflect society with a biting edge! What do you do if you are George A. Romero? You produce an unfunny mush-mash without focus and fail miserably!
MUSIC: Scary, suspenseful music is neglect-able, after all it is a comedy! Goblin used all the good ideas for Suspiria. You don't try too hard when you get paid 2 Dollars for a movie score. Romero realized that after he finished coloring the boobs and bought the cheapest synthesizer of 1978 to create some ambiance.
THE ENDING (Spoilers): Big black man tells dumb blonde girl that he doesn't want to escape with her. He does not want to live so he prepares to commit suicide with the smallest gun in the entire movie (a model that evil ladies used to hide in their stockings). When the zombies finally arrive and attack him he suddenly changes his mind, climbs onto the roof, combats a couple of zombies like Bruce Lee on a bad day, and gets into the helicopter to fly away. That's it. That's the climatic ending.
Seriously, I think that DOTD has become a "classic" because a lot of American people are in love with guns and shooting. The body-count is really high so this may satisfy some urges. If you want good horror that leaves you disturbed and speechless, look elsewhere. Luckily a friend of mine borrowed me this movie, so I didn't feel bad when I finished it. I was glad that I haven't bought it.
The real brain-dead zombies are the people who give this film a high rating and call it "one of the best horror movies ever made".
Hable con ella (2002)
Girlfriend in a coma
Well, TALK TO HER (Hable con Ella) isn't a bad movie but after seeing it, I felt that something was fishy. Maybe that one of the leading actors, the male nurse Benigno, looked like a gay alien from outer space with too much Make-up? Maybe that the other leading actor, author Marco, seemed to have a bad day everyday, had a grumpy look on his face and started to cry too easily? Or was it the female characters? Rosario Flores, the most unattractive she-male I've ever seen in a Spanish production, wasn't even an entirely sympathetic figure, because she cheated on Marco and couldn't depart from her ex-lover. Leonor Watling, although very pretty and sexy (just like Elena Anaya) was mostly in a coma and couldn't show off her acting abilities at all. She was reduced to her nice boobs and sizzling female curves.
The topic of raping a comatose patient was handled with subtlety and creativity, which I found was one of the strong points of the movie. Some American director, brainwashed by Hollywood studio executives, probably would have done this in a more explicit manner. The story was OK but not Oscar-worthy. One or two things were quite naive in my book, like the fact that a pretty girl like Alicia (Leonor Watling) did not seem to have a boyfriend before she fell in a coma. In real life interesting girls like her always have a boyfriend, mostly a sporty male-model type with rich parents and not an average-looking but nice guy like Benigno. Why can't the male-model-types fall in a coma? OK, I'm off topic...
This movie tried to be emotional but was quite rushed in parts and didn't manage to evoke deep feelings, in my opinion. Women will see this differently. I think that the drama was a bit forced but fortunately there were also very good moments. My problem with Almodovar-movies: They always have a few gripping and very creative scenes but also cliché-ridden ones that spoil the film being a perfect film.
6/10
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)
Cannibalism, murder, burning women alive, betrayal & gallons of blood
This is a musical for the insane. Not for the funny crazy ones but the truly psychotic madmen you never want to meet in your personal life. Tim Burton definitely has lost it. I was deeply disappointed by how low the maker of brilliant films like Beetlejuice or Ed Wood has sunk.
I have to admit that I write this review because I am enraged about the careless morals of the film. There are parts in this movie where Johnny Depp cuts throats in a cascade for several minutes and kills innocent people just because he is in a bad state of mind. A great number of bodies drop on the floor of the cellar and you see their heads crack open and the blood splashes all over the place in different ways. All over again. Just to see how cool it looks.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against graphic violence in movies. Sometimes they can be powerful elements that are essential to the plot (like the killing of those two guards in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS to show us that Lecter is truly evil for example). But with Sweeney Todd (what a cuddly name, they also could have named him Humpty, Dodo or Fluffy) it's different: the gory mayhem is meant to be part of the entertainment value of the movie.
In connection to this they sing a lot of unmemorable songs in friendly and harmless ways as if everything was OK. Highly disturbing. And I mean not amusingly disturbing like Dennis Hopper in BLUE VELVET but disturbing in a way that forces you to shake your head and makes you think things like "How can someone be nominated for such a role at the Oscars? If movies reflect society, in what kind of world are we living in?"
Sweeney Todd is full of clichés and unnecessary gory violence. Johnny Depp once said in an interview that he also wants to make movies for his kids to see. SWEENEY does not fall in that category. I'd rather say that he should be ashamed of himself and one day he will be. Burton, too. If he's an intelligent man, he will realize what a turd he has produced.
As you can see I am totally opposed and truly don't like this film. Therefore I will spoil the ending with great pleasure to illustrate the ill nature of SWEENEY TODD:
Showdown at the cellar of blood: Sweeney realizes that the beggar woman - who has been slain a couple of minutes before - is his beloved ex-wife who once was separated from him by Judge Turpin (slashed too by Mr. Todd). He looks at Bonham Carter and says "You knew it, why didn't you tell me?" "Because I love you and I want you to stay with me." she answers. Sweeney tosses her into the oven and she dies under horrible screaming. After that realistic slaughter Sweeney holds his ex-wife in his arms, caresses her face softly and thinks "Oh my, what have I done!". Meanwhile Toby, a child who has been beaten constantly by his former employer (Mr Pirelli) sneaks up from behind. Mr. Todd raises his head, looks in the air and we all know what is going to happen: Yes, a 13-year old (or so) child cuts Sweeney Todds throat open. Ice-cold like a contract killer without a whimper. Streams of blood run down Todds body and onto the face of his ex-wife. They both die in a pool of blood. Fade out...
This movie is a sick joke. And studio execs will laugh their butts off. At our costs. This is Hollywood of today.
Inland Empire (2006)
Fallen Empire
First of all, I'd like to say that I found David Lynch's Inland Empire to be a disappointment, not entirely, because there were a handful of good scenes, but overall it's a great mess, sugarcoated with bloated non-linear structure, which is so complicated that you start losing interest and simply don't care anymore. Personally I could not feel for the characters, because the film failed to touch me emotionally. It was just the opposite to all the other Lynch movies that I adore with great enthusiasm, especially Blue Velvet, Elephantman, Twin Peaks Series and even Eraserhead, that is a truly great work of abstract art. I like non-linear structure, because it makes you think but this one went too far, straight into self-parody.
I watched the movie a few days ago, gave it time to rest in my mind and tried to figure out why I disliked it. It was not the DV-cinematography (it's a new technology with new possibilities), the actors were all great (well, most of them), the music and sound effects were really good, too. It was THE FORMULA that bothered me. David Lynch added nothing new to his world, except the DV technology. In a certain way, it was painting by numbers by David Lynch:
"Mistreated Woman + Losing Reality + Immoral Counterparts (Men) + Threatening figure in the background (Husband) + Non-linear time structure + Spooky Sound Effects + Director Trademarks (Hallways, Curtains, Light Effects, etc.) + Beautiful singing voice at the end (Crysta Bell and DL on the synth) = David LYNCH MOVIE (TM)"
Now, this formula was too obvious and leads automatically to disappointment, if you've seen all David Lynch movies and know his biography. You can compare and you can tell the differences. It does not have to do with form, it has to do with substance and whether an artist has to say something important or not. Maybe David Lynch said all there is and he uses Digital Video as a toy to experiment with new technologies. And Inland Empire just looks like that. But that's cool with me. The only problem is that I invested 3 hours of my life, spent 8 Euros and waited more than eight months to see his new work.
The most positive thing I can say about Inland Empire is that it shows the possibilities of Digital Video. It inspires you to do a movie on your own. The quality is gritty and cold and very realistic (that's why DV works for porn and Reality TV so well) but with artistic lighting, a creative set-design and good actors you can create a masterpiece if you're lucky.
The first hour of Inland is quite good, "the story" begins to unfold and there is a certain amount of suspense. There are a few brilliantly executed scenes, like the title sequence, the Marilyn Levins scene or one of my favorite, when Nikki/Sue realizes that she fell in love with Devon/Billy. You can see it in her eyes! Now that's great acting! Later on there is a death scene that is very disturbing but great and memorable, but the rest is not very intriguing. The end sequence is nice and ironic but I thought it was confusing and broke the mood. As a standalone it would be awesome. The rest of the movie is - like another reviewer wrote - overdosed mental masturbation. Nothing else.
So, can I recommend this movie? The Lynch-Fans, like myself, who can't wait for it, should see it. For all the other people out there who are just curious, I suggest a DVD-rental.
The Dreamers (2003)
Mr.Bertolucci, you dirty old man
Mon dieu, "The Dreamers" is one crappy art-house movie! It's highly self-indulgent, pretentious and offers nothing except a glimpse on Eva Green's luscious anatomy (and some bare butts and small sized wieners for the more female male out there).
The story is paper-thin and laughable at times. The "shocking moments" in the movie (rubbing menstruation blood in the face, incest, masturbation while someone is watching, etc..) all feel forced and do not serve the story at all. There are more subtle ways to show that the main characters are deranged and decadent than wanting someone to shave pubic hair as a proof of love.
Here's the basic outline of the story: naive American student meets French twins while protesting at the cinematheque in Paris. They invite him to live with them at their flat while mommy and daddy are away on a long long trip. The three create their own world of rebellion and decadence and screw everything up in the end.
There were two hilarious scenes I really could enjoy: 1) "The Dreamers" are out of money and food, so naked Theo (the twin bro) puts on a jacket (nothing else) and goes straight for the garbage can in the backyard to find something to eat. I literally could not stop laughing!
2) Isabelle (the twin sis) finds daddy's paycheck and realizes that their parents visited them while they were sleeping naked in the tent, so she decides that they have to commit suicide because of the shame. She takes a hose from the kitchen to kill the boys and herself with gas. But SUDDENLY there's a riot on the street, they all wake up, Isabell has to change her plan, quickly puts back the hose and tries to act casual.
The characters in "The Dreamers" act "highly illogical" as Mr. Spock would say. This fact combined with the impression that all three are arrogant morons, who think "Well, f*** up the system, cause daddy is going to fix it!", makes the story really offensive. I'm in my late 20ies but I wanted to kick them all in the nuts, except Eva Green, mainly for anatomical reasons.
If you want to see an interesting film about incest, dysfunctional relationships and consequences watch "The Cement Garden" or way better, read the book by Ian McEwan.
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
Tinseltowns take on Global Warming
The day after tomorrow... I still will be angry to have wasted 2 hours of my life. Plot holes as big as the holes in the ozone layer, bad performances all around that send cold shivers down your spine (in a bad way) and an embarrassing attempt to manipulate emotions by creating forced drama. Roland Emmerich showed us once more that he is not capable of making a good film, although the original idea of this movie is interesting.
Emmy "I'll warm you with my body" Rossum offers two facial expressions: being cute and looking confused, both not very convincing. Jake Gyllenhaal is up there (or should I say down there?) with Miss Rossum,followed by a stiff Dennis Quaid, who tries to walk from Philadelphia to New York in record-breaking time just to fulfill the Happy End a la Hollywood.
There is so much nonsense in this picture I don't know where to start. It tries to be smart but it fails miserably. There were a bunch of hungry CGI wolves that looked so artificial that I nearly wet my pants (laughter not excitement). The only interesting thing in this crap-o-rama is to witness the destruction of NYC, but that's it. Toss everything else into the garbage.
If you are a Homer Simpson-type you might enjoy this movie, otherwise I advise you to avoid this disappointment and read a good book on Global Warming instead.
I'll give one star for the New-York-Destruction-Sequence. I also would have liked to see some Wallstreet-broker horribly drowned by the flood but I think that's too much to ask for.
Marie Antoinette (2006)
Fluff, puff and a lot of hot air
Compared to Sofia Coppolas previous efforts, this film is a disaster of historical proportions. It's not a totally bad movie but it lacks depth and heart. At times it feels like an unwanted child, because it didn't turn out the way everybody imagined.
Marie Antoinette has little plot, but unlike the magical Lost in Translation, it creates VERY LITTLE EMOTION. And that's a major flaw. LIT was packed with emotion and you cared about the characters, in Marie Antoinette the people are very shallow. The performances are OK, but nobody gets a chance to shine. The direction by Sofia Coppola creates no contrasts, no real drama, no dialog and no great acting moments. It's like entering a beautiful room, sitting on a beautiful chair and staring at the wall for a couple of minutes.
There are a handful of really good sequences like a ladybug flying away or the scene with the elephant in the park, but the rest is a waste of time and money. And that's a darn shame, because it could have been good.
This movie has no real concept. It's meant to be punky and fresh but it isn't. It's not consequent enough. Neither is the film dreamy like the Virgin Suicides. Showing the sunlight breaking through the trees and people rolling in the grass or falling into bed is not very surprising if you use these tricks in every movie.
The use of 70ies and 80ies rock music in this biopic is OK, too, but it delivers not the same emotional impact like the songs in LIT or the dreamy soundtrack in Virgin Suicides.
I watched this movie on opening day, the theater was only half-full and the people that sat around me reacted negatively when the film ended. It just didn't work. I had a lot of info beforehand, so the situation was not surprising to me at all but I have to admit that three questions popped in my mind after leaving the theater: Who the hell directed Lost in Translation? Is Sofia Coppola a fraud? Why is there so much nepotism?
Just think about LIT with different leads, like David Hasselhoff and Paris Hilton for example. Would the story stand the test of time?
I give three stars for Marie Antoinette: One star for Milena Canonero, who will win another Oscar for her costumes. The second star for the brave decision to use modern music. The third star for the location, the Palace of Versailles.