Change Your Image
TokyoGyaru
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Joe Rogan: Burn the Boats (2024)
Most of the negative reviews are by his FANS, so...
The "cope" in the positive reviews is just that, cope, specifically in the form of them pretending only liberals and haters disliked this show. Well, I'm a progressive and still enjoy the seemingly controversial humor of ACTUAL, highly talented comedians like Katt Williams and Dave Chappelle. Katt Williams has done entire political sets before that I've enjoyed and laughed my butt off at because he, like Dave, knows how to properly construct a joke that challenges you. It's no coincidence that they both happen to be black comedians, and that's relevant because they inherently understand the cheapness and ultimate failure of punching down, especially without seasoning your bits with self-deprecation. Katt Williams knows we know that he's been arrested 50-11 times, so he plays that up and makes it funny (like when he said he's been arrested so many times that he doesn't even have to take a photo anymore but can just choose from a book of them-hilarious stuff). He also makes fun of his own height. Dave Chapelle is a great storyteller who can also make you think by posing an alternative perspective (like how when an executive who had a problem with him using the f-word but not the n-word, he pointed out he's no more the n-word than a gay person is the f-word).
I think about a clip I saw of the likes of pillow-faced Brendan Shlob praising Joe for using the n- and r-words with great delight as someone clearly in a position of punching down. It's really weak when the top of the food chain--the apex predators, as it were--pretend to be field mice. No, you can't have it both ways. Neither their comedy, nor this special, are funny because they not only fail to understand humor on a fundamental level but they are so insecure and fake societal injury to the point where they're even cringeworthy to look at. Both PEDs-bloated, insecure lames who pretend to not want to be seen as legit while desperately wanting it. And it keeps bringing me back to Joe's assumption that there are only 250 comics in the world (you'd best believe he thinks they're all Americans) and counting himself among them. The look on Katt Williams' face when he said that spoke VOLUMES. Joe even admits he essentially cheated to get on at The Comedy Store (by having someone else pretend to find him funny), so he's even more of a mediocre charlatan.
Katt and Dave aren't really good people, imo. However, they're two of the legitimately greatest of all time because they're actually, naturally funny AND know how to construct effective narratives. They're constantly saying things lames like Joe (and Jerry Seinfeld) claim you can't say now. It's just cope, that claim.
Beyond that, no one wants to see a bloated, juiced-to-the-gills tiny tot with sexxual orientation issues do bug eyes, scream, and simulate sexxual activity for one minute, let alone one hour. Joe Rogan HIMSELF said he would like to experience being a woman and getting screwed by a man with large genitals, AND he said he wanted to know what it was like to be pregnant, yet he comes after gay and trans people. Thus, this "special" was a lot of projecting and self-hate. He's clearly envious of people who can live their truth. Meanwhile, we have to be subjected to the self-soothing antics of a pretender.
In conclusion, the only good thing about this "comedy" "special" is that it resulted in an epic takedown (IYKYK) that snowflake Joe and friends tried to have taken down. Because free speech and edgy jokes and ridiculing others are just for them. Ironic given how this hypocrite attempts to opine about people being too sensitive nowadays.
Burn the boats? Yeah, you did, Joe, the ones that led to a comedy career.
Hannibal (2013)
Compelling in one aspect yet still overrated.
It's interesting but overrated, and it glamorizes serial predators. Also, even as someone who's watched gory films since they were a little kid, I can see how the gore would seem excessive and disturbing to some people (not me). Even though a show like The Walking Dead has a lot of gore, it's the sick and horrific framing of it in Hannibal that I think a lot of people couldn't accept (especially on network television).
I'm in a minority, but I HATE Hannibal Lecter. People get so goo-goo over him and Will's relationship, but it's clearly an horrifically abusive relationship. I loathe Hannibal (as I should) for his abuse of Will (and others), a mentally distraught person who needed real help. Even so, the exploration of what happens when you put a mentally unstable person into the hands of a master manipulator is the best and the most frustrating aspect of the show. But people, as they always do, took the wrong message from it. It's not love. It's not sexy. It's not admirable. It's abuse. I don't mind the thinking aspects of the show. I get it. But some more black-and-white minded people could not see past the veil. A person who lacks empathy cannot truly love. Hannibal didn't love Will. He was simply entertained by him and wanted to be wanted by him, wanted a companion like him so he wouldn't be alone in his madness. That's not love. That's codependence. And both the audience and the show itself increasingly showed that they didn't get that.
For me, the Manhunter version of Hannibal remains the scariest version (and Manhunter the most underrated film) because he seemed normal. We got so little of him in that film, but you could see both the affable charm and the desire to brutally destroy in his eyes, and that's unsettling. I believed that version of Hannibal. Mads is too flat. I don't dislike him in the role, but he gave nothing except amusement when someone would do something so rude that Mads would make a "what TF?" face. I did, however, love his fight scenes. The smartest thing the show did was show that he could be hurt. Even so, he wasn't not one iota scary. The show could have easily just been about him being a manipulative therapist and it would have hit me the same.
I've seen people placing it above the first season of True Detective and the good seasons of Game of Thrones, and I strongly disagree. The special effects are low quality and almost laughable at points, though the makeup and practical effects are impressive. They spam certain things when they're not necessary (the stag and the dark horned man) for a thinking person. They keep characters around for too long (Abigail, Freddie) and lean too much over the line of sympathizing with those we shouldn't instead of presenting a purely objective viewpoint. A rational person, even one with strong empathy, should see the danger of Hannibal. But so many people take the wrong message from his relationship with Will. They just see two good-looking men and their desire to be dominated ("their," as in viewers who clearly need therapy themselves) kicks in.
It was something a cut above most network television, but it was not quite prestige television. The same ingredients on cable or a streaming platform and it could have had the budget and better writing to be a contender. To be honest, it reminded me of The X-Files several times (especially the music, the tone, some of the brutal slayings), but The X-Files was a much better show.
Oh, and I won't even get into all the plot holes and plot contrivances and plot armor because it'd be several more paragraphs. But I will say that this show is a perfect "that's not how that works" example.
The Bear (2022)
Binged it all in one day
It's currently at two completed seasons and I just finished the last episode of season 2. Obviously, I really enjoyed it. It's incredibly chaotic, probably the most chaotic show I've ever watched regardless of the profession.
The Richie character is annoying AF until the very end of season 2; so, if he's not your cup of tea from the jump, be forewarned that it's going to go on for a while. Sweet Haysus, he should have been fired so many times (as should some others), but they have the family angle. Lemme tell you, I've worked at a chaotic company run by a family, and it was a piping hot mess. So, it's entertaining to watch, but it's toxic to work in. Fortunately, there IS character growth, so that's why you don't end up hating the characters.
I like that the series is light on romance as well, not really introducing any until the second season (which, NGL, I couldn't care less about). Personally, I don't feel the show really needs it. For a show with an ensemble cast with so much going on in their primary profession and limited runtime, I don't think romance is necessary. Good for the character and all, and I get it, but I care about the restaurant and the people who work there.
I would watch future seasons of this show. I'm no longer really into watching TV series, so I had to make myself watch it because I heard it was good, but I'm glad I did.
And I love that everyone looks like regular people! None of this typical Hollywood supermodel casting crap. Actually, they're cast like a British TV show would be, with natural-looking actors; so, it's really nice.
Valhalla Rising (2009)
This isn't for me. I get that.
First off, I can't believe the cartoonish CGI blood they use at times. It looks ridiculous for a film that contains a disembowelment. Were they low on squibs or something? Did they not want to reset?
Anyway, I would have to understand/know about Scandanavian culture and religion to understand this, I suppose, although it was interesting up to a point. I do watch media from/about that area, but this film just couldn't hold me.
But once I saw that the director of Neon Demon, Drive, and Only God Forgives made this, it made a lot more sense. However, while I can say that I enjoy his more abstract style, this film is too bleak and vague for me to get into despite there being bleak and/or vague films I like.
Lights Out (2016)
Great except for the unlikable kids!
I'd not seen this film in a while, so it was great...until the scene with the social worker came up and I remembered that I didn't like the kids.
Here is this woman who's actually trying to help, yet they're giving her is attitude like she's the bad guy (The Ring did the same thing with the teacher). Some films DO present the social worker/teacher in a negative way, but this film doesn't (and The Ring didn't), which makes the kids' reaction to her unwarranted. They're privileged kids who the system clearly cares about, but they're like, "Ugh, whatever." And, suddenly, I couldn't care less about what happened to them. The little boy rolls his eyes when the social worker says she's there if he needs to talk...even though he has something to talk about and his sister (who also rolls her eyes) is rarely ever around. It's not like he'd told the social worker what was happening and she just ignored it. She hadn't done anything wrong.
So...they want help, just not from the person there to help? So, yeah, then the only person I cared about is the mom. I get that the kids were upset about their mom's behavior, but why did they write the interaction with the social worker that way and present someone genuinely trying to help as a bad guy? I hate when films do this. It's a lazy way to separate characters, and it's confusing when the "authority figure" hasn't even done anything wrong.
It's so difficult to continue watching a film, especially a horror film, with protagonists I dislike. So, I skipped the scenes that focused on the kids (unless it involved investigating the past) and focused on the mom, because the mom is living in a hell all by herself. If the film had focused on her, I'd have rated this higher. The kids came across as d-bags who never tried to understand their mom, so their mom had to struggle to protect them their entire lives without anyone knowing. The only character who really subverted expectations was the boyfriend.
So, when a film only has, maybe 15-20 minutes I could enjoy because I disliked the central protagonists, it gets a 5, and only because I really liked the monster/ghost. The story isn't bad, but the characterization was off at points, so it threw off the entire film for me.
The Invitation (2015)
Excessive while not giving enough at the same time
I've seen this film at least three times, actually, but what a viewing difference it makes when you watch it when you're not just trying to zone out after a long, stressful day.
Nothing happens until the last 20 minutes of the film, and that wouldn't be bad if it was paced well and threaded effective tension throughout with a shocking moment or two before everything goes south (think "Hereditary"). But no, you have to sit through cliché sadness-pørn flashbacks and awkward interactions. Thus, although they do an OKAY job of building some mystery (if not tension), it's stretched WAY too thin to be as effective as it might have been otherwise.
Also, NO, you don't get to express your grief by taking people's lives, especially when you don't give them an opportunity to say no/get away. They trap and keep the guests under false pretenses, then the killing starts. I didn't realize that murder was one of the stages of grief! They're taking the lives of people's partners right in front of them but I'm supposed to feel sorry for the female killer because she lost a child due to an accident? No! Let her pass away right on the floor where she falls! Insulting!
Also, I find it interesting that only one person's friend circle is invited to be killed. What about the other three cultists? Where are their family and friends (aside from that one dude's deceased wife)? They're so weird and off-putting that I could buy that no one likes them, but it says a lot that they only took the lives of one person's people. The gall of these randos to think they're entitled to the lives of people they don't even know.
S/N: While the diversity isn't weird (it's L. A.), the writer clearly had no black friends, because there's NO way that a black woman is gonna sit in that situation that long. If anything, she would have also left when they broke out drugs and the clearly mentally ill woman kissed the other female guest. In fact, she wouldn't have gone in the first place! She'd have considered the fact that her partner and his ex had broken up on doubly bad terms (the loss of a child and the partner cheating on him) and would have questioned why he wanted to go anyway. Anyone who has black friends, when inviting them to a party, will have heard the question, "Who's all gonna be there?"
What's more, she would have responded to her partner's reservations about being there and left! That woman didn't know that friend group. She's trusting her partner knows them well enough that she can be comfortable. Ergo, if he's feeling weird about it, she'd have responded the same way. The real-life Tamla Horsford case is an example of why it's unusual to go into isolating scenarios with strangers. It doesn't end well, and chances are there will be no justice.
Thus, it's clear that the role wasn't actually written with a black woman to play her in mind but was a "generic" role. So, it was difficult to buy/distracting. So, it's nice that they had a black actress (who did what she needed to do in the role), but they didn't consider how a black woman would possibly react in such a situation because they couldn't.
Martyrs (2008)
It's gorn.
If you read nothing else I say, at lead read this first bit. I'm a long-time horror fan, but one of the most horrifying scenes I've seen in a film was in NOPE, a film that's not strictly horror. The Gordy's Home segment was such effective horror because literally everything in that scene served the horror. And the director had the sense to leave some things to the imagination. Now, that's important for two reasons: 1. It allows our imaginations to run wild, and 2. It keeps the victims sympathetic by not sensationalizing their brutalization/passing. You hear the thud of Gordy's fists as he beats his victims, and you hear the squelch of blood and flesh as he eats his victim's face. We didn't need to see it directly because we needed room to feel for the victims and be horrified by what we were imagining. The same applies in the case of the film 8MM. We didn't need to see what happens to the girl in the secret film. How it changed and motivated the main character told us what we needed to know. It made her passing mean something beyond her mother being sad. She was worth someone caring enough to risk their life for her, and her passing--the way she passed--was so abhorrent that a good woman was so devastated knowing someone she loved had a hand in it that it drove her to take her own life.
However, the director of this film was very clearly disinterested in sympathy for the victims. He was only interested in reveling in their brutalization and violent ends. He also clearly has contempt for women that is as such that I suppose we should be grateful he's in film instead of on the streets putting his fantasies into reality (though it's possible to do both). Anyway, people say that the Saw films are just gorn, but at least they pose questions worth asking: What are you willing to do in order to survive/save others? How much do you value life? Not saying they're high-brow or philosophical, and the execution isn't very effective, but there is some semblance of a point. It didn't need several films to ask and answer the question, no, but still.
People overrate this film because it's French, and we know how pretentious both Europeans and Francophiles can be when it comes to cinema, looking down their noses at U. S. cinema yet still consuming it in droves. So, this, like Switchblade Romance (which partly stole from an American author), gets graded much higher than is warranted. It's not special. It's not transcendental. It belongs in a dumpster nestled right next to A Serbian Film. It doesn't say anything, even when "explained" by the director, a man who compared the remake being made to seeing his mother getting r_ped. CURIOUS choice of words by a man who made a sadistic sicko's beat-off film that focuses on the extra-brutal torture of women and girls. What does he know about r_pe from the victim's side? He knows only of making victims, clearly.
I've been watching gory horror films since childhood, so I'm largely desensitized. But if you want to make a gorn, just say that. Don't pretend it's something it's not. The NERVE of screening this at Cannes, even if the creator is French. It's low-level brutality posing as horror (nothing about it is scary, just brutal) because it can't be presented as anything else without inviting some uncomfortable questions. The movie stops being interesting as soon as the chick offs the family and then starts seeing someone who obviously isn't there. So, I look forward to the day when people look back at this film and reassess it to give it the contempt it deserves.
If it says anything, it's that the French can be edgy try-hards too.
Friend of the Family II (1996)
For the "I don't owe her anything" crowd
(Called "Passionate Revenge" on Tubi. And I'm assuming it's the rated-R version because no one "bares it all" as someone claimed.)
So, a woman who suspects her fiancee of cheating decides to help a married man cheat? Kind of makes you not care about her own problems. Definitely doesn't. She's the type of antagonist that reminds you of think of when women say "I don't owe his wife/girlfriend anything" and "He's the one in a relationship" when they want to justify engaging in cheating with a man who already has a partner. Very selfish, especially given that they want people to care when their own heart is broken.
This film is poorly acted and edited. I guess a compliment I can give them is that the cheating husband and the selfish woman he cheats with both have nice bodies. It's amusing in a trashy sort of why. It did have me talking at the TV a time or two. It'd be fun to watch with a group so we can laugh at the nonsense and critique the fashion.
Possum (2018)
Unsettling and sad
I must applaud the direction, editing, production design, ambient music, and acting. They did a good job with creating this persistent sense of dread throughout the film, especially with the ambient music in the background and the tension between the main character and his uncle. Every sneer, every stare, every implication punctuated the horrible relationship between them.
I have to say that the main character really is a tragic figure. I saw a man trying to get away from the stain on his life but having it follow him everywhere. I don't know if he actually preyed on others (it seems to be implied but it left unclear), but as we see him in the film, he is a broken semi-man. He clearly needed help, and he clearly wasn't getting it. All his life seemed to be was the pain and awful memories he was carrying. What a cruel existence. If he was a predator like his uncle, then I'd feel less bad for him, but things were vague enough for us to either fill in the blanks or keep some doubt.
It's not a "fun movie night" kind of thing but something you watch alone that makes you think.
Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (2022)
Black Panther, Colonized Gaze
I'd love to gush about this film that I saw eleven times in the theater (everyone did well, but my goodness, Angela and Letitia were just...amazing), but there is something that's sat on my mind for a while. I mention the number of times I've seen it to say I've seen it enough to form an opinion of it. Secondly, I'd suggest anyone watch the film at least twice. Why? Because the first time you see it, you're going to have baggage going into it. I've done my best to try to avoid the hatred directed at this film for merely existing, but it does seep in. And whenever a minority or women or (goodness forbid) minority women do anything, the hateful are going to misuse the slang usage of the word "woke." Black folks came up with that term (as slang) to say to stay "awake" (i.e., keep your eyes open to what goes on in the world); however, certain people use it to mean "minorities are there and aren't in service." You know what I mean.
Now, to get more to the point. The title of my review is because a lot of people (including some confused black people) have been using a far-white lens to look at this film. However, black people know good and well that black women have always (and I mean always) led families in the absence of men, whether it was because they passed away, were locked up, or simply left. And that goes for on the continent as well. There have been female warrior queens in African history, but what does the U. S. or any colonist country know or care about that? What do their descendants know about it? Nothing. Point is, it is not unusual, even in the world of this fictional franchise (because a woman has been the Black Panther before, as was Shuri in the comics) for black women to lead anything. I hate to bring up statistics because they're so often used as a weapon but need to do so to make a point, but just over ten years ago, 72% of black babies were born to unwed mothers. Goodness knows what the statistic is for 2022. You have black male celebrities like Nick Cannon, Future, and several others having children they don't intend to fully parent by several different women. But some of y'all are mad that the film features black women in leadership roles? It's a reflection of life whether you accept it or not, and even though two black men wrote the script, you still don't want to accept it. There are no "girl power" or "in spite of being a girl/woman" moments because womanism (not feminism) doesn't work like that. Like, at all.
Something I like that Letitia pointed out in an interview is that they don't make some big, showy deal about women doing anything. And that's true. It's not a "fxminist film," and if you think so, that's because you're looking at it through a far-white gaze. It is unusual to them for their women to lead in such ways, to be the military leaders, top spies, the whole of the king's guard, etc. And the tone of their films about women leading things tends to be "girl boss," abrasive, and emasculating. However, Wakanda shows what real equality between men and women would look like. Not someone humbling someone based on their gender but disagreeing based on opinions and policy and adherence to non-gender-based traditions.
But in Africa, that's not as strange and "empowering" as you think it is. It's just a thing. I almost feel sorry for any black folks that have a colonized mind to dare to look at this film in that way. There is rising far-rxght sentiment in young black men, and they turn to black women to blame for the fathers who weren't there. And so they hate this film that literally worships Chadwick and his memory while they are using the memory of a good man as a weapon to attack black women and whomever else. I might not have known Chadwick personally, but I watched every single interview I could about the film and listened to his FRIENDS/FAMILY talk about him. I wish I could have known him -- he sounds so cool and interesting and smart and kind! It still hurts that he's gone (I literally still cry) because I wish I could have known him personally. He was studious, curious, selfless, and LOVED his co-stars like family and they him. If they'd recast him (which they technically do anyway), would we have gotten the outpouring of love on screen that we did? The movie was about him and how his passing affected everyone, even the Talocanil! (Also, Shuri was his favorite character, btw.)
So, as a kind of TL; DR: This film shows love to an actor (i.e., Chadwick) in a way I've never seen a film do before. Never before have I seen a giant corporation spend hundreds of millions of dollars to dedicate this much to the memory of an actor. If you can't see that, if all you could see is women-this and black-that, then you're missing out on so much. As I said, I saw it eleven freaking times in the theater. While it's not perfect, there's so much love put into it and such a powerful message about confronting and processing grief. Also, it DID "recast" T'Challa by giving us his son (of the same name) AND possibly M'Baku as the new king of Wakanda. If you watched in hate, even if you think you didn't, I think you did because the film, like the first one, humanizes black people and doesn't center whiteness, and you're simply unused to that. But at the end of the day, it's a HUMAN story, whether you see black folks as human or not.
S/N: Anyone who didn't see the greatness in M'Baku's role really missed out. He earned that kingship (if it truly is to be his) by being level-headed, empathetic, brave, self-less, and a sound source of council. Two of my favorite scenes/dialogues in the film involve him and Shuri. I loved M'Baku's character in this film! Also, I loved the interpretation of N'amor (kind of not "Namor" anymore) and his motivations. He was fully fleshed out and his concerns were understandable. Great job by Tenoch, Mabel, and Alex. This film has my favorite ensemble cast (with Chadwick there in spirit) of all time!
The Score (2021)
Maybe have "musical" as a genre for this?
Though "music" is listed here (which could mean anything), I was not aware this was a musical before I started watching it. I simply thought, "Hey, there's that weird-looking guy with villainous brows and a pretty lady. The plot sounds okay, why not?"
And then their mouths started moving to the song (wasn't against the song, btw) and I went, "Wait, what?" I like a musical. But I like them better when I know beforehand that it's going to be a musical. The streaming service I'm watching this on doesn't even use the vague category of "music" to describe it, so it just seems like it's going to be a thriller.
Edit: So, I decided to give it another shot. Will Poulter and Naomi Ackie were enjoyable to watch. Will has a dumb kind of charm as this character (I hate to call him it that considering how often he's called "dumb"), and the two do a good job with portraying a tentative kind of chemistry. It seems an impossible situation because even 10,000£ isn't enough to do whatever. The Mike character is so hateable, just a miserable little man going around trying to make other people miserable. So, that actor did a good job as well.
But the singing...I either muted or fast-forwarded it. Very much unnecessary.
S/N: Why do British movies always have cheating in them? I watch so many British films and shows, and so many of them have a cheating plot or subplot. Maybe they don't realize, but it makes it seem like cheating is normal there.
Feardotcom (2002)
Boring and pointless but not the worst movie ever made.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a good film. It's not. I can't really say it's an entertaining one either. However, as a cinephile of both quality cinema AND absolute dreck, while this is not so bad it's good (like Death Promise or Troll 2), it's not the worst like some claim. There are movies I've seen that truly frustrate and boggle the mind, movies that barely/don't really qualify as movies, movies that shouldn't be. I'm talking your Rollergator and your Things. Watch either of those two films and this movie will seem competent by comparison. But don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying people shouldn't complain, only that it's not the worst.
Why they thought Europe could pass for NYC, I don't know, but they certainly don't make it any less European with the poor lighting (in a morgue? Really??), Rammstein, style, and the accents. Also, if the ghost is web-based, why can't she just directly attack the killer...who is STREAMING his murders?? He's online more than the investigators or anyone whose life she took! Why is she killing innocent people who 1. Didn't ask to watch her little show, 2. Clicked choices that said they didn't want to hurt her or whatever. She calls them a liar, which implies she doesn't care about the truth, only about whatever she wants to believe. How can people help her under duress and increasing insanity? What if they were very poor and didn't have the resources to conduct an investigation within 48 hours? What if the unwitting viewer was a single mom working three jobs that will disappear like a vapor if she misses one shift? The "victim" ghost seems like a d-bag; having her take the lives of innocents makes the audience unempathetic. If she was as stupid as the one chick we saw be easily picked up by the killer, she has no one else to blame but the killer (and her poor choices).
The film seemed like a proof-of-concept of something by a music video director. People keep saying it's like The Ring (which hadn't come out yet, assuming they mean the U. S. one, considering the style), but I very much got edgy 90s alt-rock video vibes. Actually, it'd totally work if it was recut into a music video, like someone did for The Cell (another utterly boring "horror" film that banked on aesthetics but forgot that the leads needed chemistry and appropriate acting ability).
S/N: I think it's funny one of the 2002 reviews was so sure Stephen Rea was Geoffrey Rush. His performance, especially the truly awful (not as in evil, just awful) dialogue they had him say, was the worst thing about the film for me. So vapid and cliché.
The Shape of Water (2017)
A perfect film.
I really enjoy Guillermo del Toro's work. In fact, for me, one of the biggest cinematic what-ifs (and, quite frankly, missed opportunities) is if he'd directed The Hobbit. Another is if he'd directed a third Hellboy film (what about the twins??).
Simply put, it is a beautiful film. It looks great, the story is great, everything works for me.
And the creature is truly beautiful! I get Abe Sapien crossed with the Creature from the Black Lagoon and upgraded. But whereas I wouldn't have been able to understand a woman falling in love with the Creature from the Black Lagoon (largely in part based on how it was always characterized), I could buy anyone falling for the creature in this film.
The costume is AMAZING. Whenever I watch this film, I'm in awe of how it works (the look he gives Eliza at the end when she's not going with him, the way his eyes moved -- he looked so sad and hurt!) Honestly, when I think about this creature and Grogu from The Mandalorian, I think about how crippling it would have been to their respective media to make either of them CGI. In any case, Doug Jones does a great job, as he always does in anything he does!
As for the subtexts beyond the basic story, they were was on point as well. Overall, I honestly can't say anything bad about the film. It just does exactly what it intends to do so well.
La mirada invisible (2010)
It's a horror movie if you switch the main character's gender.
While it is metaphorical, it is a slow, plodding film in very much the wrong way that is typical of these kinds of films, only worse because what they fill the space with is so unattractive, from the people to the locations. Even when Marita is "dressed up" for a party, she looks worse than her usual self. I started skipping ahead after a point because it's just so boring and subtly distasteful.
The main character is unsympathetic because she's so hypocritical and creepy, also weird in her attractions, from inappropriately young to inappropriately old. She's a creep. The headmaster is a creep. The other teachers are creeps. Even some of the kid characters are creeps. I was wondering if there was no one in her town her own age until the party, but now I see that there was just no one attractive in that entire town.
Meet, Marry, Murder Hosted by Michelle Trachtenberg (2021)
STOP.
This modern true crime style of using sarcasm and gossipy, jokey conversational voiceover is TRASH! I'm not someone who's overly sensitive, but they act like they're not telling the story of someone who died, sometimes quite brutally. It's so disrespectful.
"As she popped out two more kids..." -- Michelle actually narrated that.
NO.
Kairo (2001)
Boring.
Positive: The message.
Negative: Everything else.
I'm a foreigner living in Japan and a cinephile, but I'm not a weeb, so, while I like many Japanese films, including horror films, I'm not one of those people who find J-Horror superior to American horror by default and above criticism. While I never find Japanese horror films scary, they can be interesting (One Missed Call) or touching (Dark Water). In two instances, I've even found the American version to be better (The Ring and The Grudge). However, sometimes they're just boring, edited awkwardly, under-acted (and sporadically overacted), tensionless, unscary, and an endurance test overall (Kairo).
Kairo has a worthwhile message that earns it two stars, but Serial Experiments Lain did it better.
We Are Still Here (2015)
I really like it.
I've watched this a few times and shown it to someone else, who also enjoyed it. The only criticism I have is that some of the dialogue is bad/cliché. The script could have used another pass in that regard. Also, the Dagmar's timing/victim choices were somewhat questionable. Otherwise, I'm satisfied with the story, the performances, the pacing, the music, etc. I also liked the end credits filling in some of the backstory.
Ghosts of Mars (2001)
This movie is BAD!
Everything about this movie is bad. I can't believe the same director directed this and The Thing!
The characters are the cheapest cardboard cutouts. The performances are wooden and stereotypical. The music is generic. The story is sparse. It's filmed and lit like a Syfy original. And you have Pam Grier but use her like that??
I cannot think of a single redeeming factor. I truly cannot. And looking directly into the camera at the end?
S/N: Why, knowing he's an obvious creep, would the main character kiss the sleazy fellow cop who's been making overtures to her that she's rejected. Also, WHY would "Desolation" (stupid name) come back to help her?
Shadow of Fear (2004)
Starts out really interesting.
But, man, it's really let down by the lead, who cannot generate any kind of empathy even outside of being someone who goes farther than just hit someone and run but make sure they cannot get help were they alive but merely unconscious and dying. He's bland and unlikable, a scrub who somehow lucked up on a rich girl despite having all the charm of a weed eater and no business acumen. He's just lame, and the movie giving him a happy ending in which he gets off scot-free is insulting. I don't care if the guy he killed was a murderous bank robber: He's ALSO a criminal. And despite how the movie makes him inconvenienced, he's not paid his debt. And I can't root for someone so creepily bankrupt that he'd kill someone, hide it, keep going to look at the body, and never turn himself in. He thought he killed his wife's brother, saw that family's pain, and did nothing! So I'm assuming they're implying he took over Ashbury's spot? Also, he's a nasty piece of work for covering for the guy cheating on his wife, leaving her possibly at risk for STÎs or worse!
Also, his wife sucks, willing to help cover things up even when suspecting her husband killed the brother she's so broken up about. I kept hoping that bag she threw in the water would come back to sink her husband, given how stupid it was of her to do that, but no.
James Spader is that go-to guy for a villain, but I'd rather he'd been the lead. At least he has charisma.
Weird, random stuff: Lacey. Just everything with that annoying, superfluous character. (Also, stick to voice acting.) And the ridiculously unprofessional secretary who keeps her chest out. I'd fire a secretary for dressing like a barmaid.
Finally, they could have been more ambitious. The ways I saw the story potentially going would have been better than what we got.
Dream Lover (1993)
The dialogue took me out.
Less than 10 minutes in and I'm done. Two stars just for Spader being there, but the dialogue was so atrocious and ignorant that I knew I'd not be able to go a whole movie listening to it. The characters became instantly unlikable, so there was no point in continuing.
Wolf (1994)
Boring.
The only good, interesting thing about this is James Spader, who expertly plays the slimy, ambitious backstabber turned creep that you love to hate. Jack, on the other hand, is way too old for this role and he sleepwalks through it.
I've seen this maybe twice before at different points in my life, and it's clearly not aging well with me.
Dick Tracy (1990)
I can see why it's largely forgotten.
I couldn't get past 20 minutes. The makeup was impressive, but pretty much everything else wasn't, including the knock-off Batman music (yes, I know Danny Elfman did it). The cartoonish effects were obvious (chasing the kid running alongside a train-Who Framed Roger Rabbit looked better), the sets were so obvious it felt like touring a studio lot (Burton hid the limitations of his sets far better), Madonna's styling was really bad and anachronistic (she was, honestly, miscast), Pacino is screaming and making me cringe as per usual, and why are there so many mutants in this "city"? I have no problems with real deformities, but this isn't that. Why did it start out as though we're supposed to know the characters already? Dick Tracy is no Batman or Superman. He was old even in 1990.
Maybe this film made good money for its time (?), but it clearly hasn't aged well (unlike Batman).
The only thing I liked was the redhead character.
Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996)
The last somewhat good one.
Good in the sense that there are some really interesting ideas and Doug Bradley's performance in this was great. He didn't have a lot to work with, but he did very well with what he was given. I also really enjoyed the weird intensity of Bruce Ramsay who, may I say, is SO good-looking in this film. What a beautiful face, and I liked his 90s hair (though it looked slightly wiggy at some points). He was honestly prettier than Angelique! I don't know what his direction was, but there were some strange choices being made there. But I still wouldn't call him bad. Just a somewhat weird performance.
I really enjoyed Angelique as a character, though she needed to be fleshed out more (no pun intended). I really love her Cenobite form. But in her especially you can tell that a lot of time was cut from the film. It feels underdeveloped, and transitions don't stitch the scenes together convincingly enough.
Pinhead's makeup doesn't look so good in some scenes, where it almost looks like the lines on Pinhead's head are merely drawn on. I read that it was simplified and then scaled back up, so maybe that's what I was seeing. Speaking of FX, the visual effects in this have aged well. And for anyone who would say otherwise, consider Spawn or Blade, which came out one or two years later, respectively. They both have far worse SFX in their climaxes.
This movie is good to put on while you relax on a weekend, but this, like Event Horizon, is a film I'd really like to see completed. Put the missing context/story back in, please. I think it'd be a stronger film.
Finally, Miramax sucks. They neutered so many movies because their creepy studio heads thought they knew better than filmmakers. Still, I would love a quadrilogy box set because the fake Hellraiser films that follow this one aren't worth me watching them again (though Judgment had a couple of interesting ideas).
The Seasoning House (2012)
Brutal and depressing
It's hard to give something like this a truly positive review, but I saw this years ago and never forgot it. I don't know why it came to mind right now (maybe what's going on in the world), but it's not something you'd want to watch twice. It is, however, an example of why, if war came to my door and/or someone tried to traffic me, I wouldn't be taken alive. For some reason, no matter the time period or country, women are foremost on the minds of soldiers in very much the wrong way. I'll leave it at that.
La sorella di Ursula (1978)
More exploitation than anything, really.
I've watched a lot of giallo films, but this is the most exploitative I've seen yet. You want full-body nudity within the first four minutes? You've got it (though the actress is very thin and almost unhealthy looking)! Do you want nudity so gratuitous that they foist it on you more than once when we should be feeling concerned for a woman clearly distressed and having an episode? Here ya go! Do you want tons of female nudity but no equal male nudity? Have some! Do you want a bunch of women who merely serve as vessels for bodily fluids and then victims? Help yourself! This movie is someone getting a bunch of women he deemed attractive to take their clothes off and very poorly simulate coitus under a thin veneer of filmmaking. Also, what fully grown woman sleeps fully nude (and plays with herself) in the same bed as her sister?
It's sexist and stupid, as many giallo are, but at least the others I've see have tension and an actual plot, even the weird ones. This is a loop of a night of murder, the sisters wake up, argue, be rude, endure unattractive, flawed men, rinse, and repeat. Also, the description for the film says promiscuous women were being killed, but how is a 16-year-old girl in love with her boyfriend "promiscuous"? And finally, this movie continues the giallo tradition of having awful, unattractive, abusive or borderline abusive men with women we're supposed to care about, making them even more unpleasant to watch. This is the most softcore adult film masquerading as a thriller that I've ever seen! Oh, and the music is very repetitive! 2 stars for the location.