Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Who is this series for?
22 February 2021
I believe this series is supposed to happen in a parallel universe, in a fantasy land. Not because of the intentional anachronisms (modern music even though the action is set in the 70s, for example); but because I highly doubt the Berlin shown here has ever existed.

All club scenes seem to be made for people who have never set foot in a techno party. The club itself looks immaculate and everybody has space to dance; nobody is dripping with sweat; and the music is laughably tame (come on, at least play stuff with some edge! This is Berlin!).

The series looks great. Obscenely great. People wear the most wonderful clothes, even though they have no money. A character is about to commit suicide and the scene could be framed and hanged on a wall. There's an orgy party more baroque than the one in Eyes Wide Shut. It's almost admirable, as if the creators have decided: "let's do a story about teenagers getting addicted to drugs and turning to prostitution, but the whole thing will be LIT." Had this been a dare, I could perhaps admire the audacity. But the creators wanna have their cake and eat it, too: so here and there you'll have someone from the young cast looking horrible, beaten, destroyed. It never lasts long though: soon after there'll be more glamorous shots (no pun intended) for the viewer. I kept myself thinking about the incredible make-up abilities of the characters: they manage to go from scabs-in-the-face ugly in one scene to breakfast-with-mom-looking-fresh in the next.

And who's the audience for this? Teenagers who will be scared by the drug world, but might be seduced by the fabulous clothes and cool attitude of the young cast? Adults who want to see an aseptic version of Christiane F.'s story? I honestly don't know. I watched the whole thing wondering that. And now I wonder if there is any reason for this series to exist.
75 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Hallow (2015)
6/10
Starts OK, gets better, then gets silly
17 August 2015
The premise of "The Hallow" is nothing new: a family in an isolated house in the woods. Strange things start to happen. Is there a logical explanation (unfriendly neighbors who want the family away) or is there something supernatural in the forest?

Unoriginal concepts in the horror genre are not a problem per se; old stories can always be told in new, refreshing ways (see "Insidious" or "The Conjuring", for example). But "The Hallow" doesn't have the energy to keep things interesting until the end, despite a strong middle act and good performances from the cast.

The film starts OK, then it gets better and more tense. Some sequences in the second act - when it's fully revealed the cause of the disturbances - are genuinely frightening (plus, that poor baby suffers a lot). But then the script gets lazier and lazier, unfortunately. Inconsistencies abound, jump scares replace real tension, and by the end I was just bored. It's a pity. It could've been a small horror gem.
64 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Frustrating follow-up to Excision
30 August 2014
I went to see Excision, Richard Bates Jr.'s debut, knowing almost nothing about it. All I had read was a 5-star Empire review. I'm so glad I trusted said review: Excision is a funny, original, sometimes horrifying, and also disturbing film. I'll never forget its ending (a true rarity: a profoundly sad ending in a horror movie). And it made me very excited about future films from writer and director Bates.

Well, to put it mildly, Suburban Gothic is a disappointment. The goal here is obviously to pay homage to John Waters' trash/filthy/defying humor (no wonder Waters himself shows up in one of the best scenes of the film), but the result seems more like not-really-inspired Waters (Cry-Baby, Pecker) than excellent Waters (Polyester, Pink Flamingos). Close-up shots of feces, vomit, and sperm add nothing to the story - and unfortunately most of the humor of the film doesn't go much higher than this.

But it'd be unfair to classify Suburban Gothic as just scatological humor. There are some truly funny scenes, Matthew Gray Gubler is charming as the protagonist, and he makes a good team with Kat Dennings. (The cast is the best thing about the film, including Leland Palmer himself, Ray Wise, and Barbara Niven as the parents) But the story is so generic I couldn't believe it came from the same man who wrote Excision. There's not a single scary moment - which wouldn't be a problem if the film was a riot, like Shaun of the Dead. Unfortunately (for me), I wasn't laughing nearly as much as the girl behind me, who was almost dying of laughter every time Gubler gave a high-pitched scream - and he does it a lot.

I guess I'll have to wait for the next film from Bates. Or watch Excision again.
25 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It should be called Mark Cousins' Story of Film
23 September 2013
Even though I'm a longtime IMDb user, I've never written a review here. However, I felt compelled to write one after watching the 15 episodes of Mark Cousins' odyssey through film. Most of the reviews here seemed to focus only on his narration, or the reviewers didn't seem to have endured the 900 minutes of Cousins' work (which is completely understandable). My opinion on the series changed as the episodes went by.

First, the narration. Cousins' voice didn't annoy me that much. Maybe because I'm not a native English speaker (even though I was following what he was saying, cause I watched it with German subtitles - and my English is much better than my German!). But he's definitely not the best narrator around. Its not about the accent. He lacks emotion in his voice. He basically says everything with the same tone of voice. But that's far from being my main problem with his approach.

One thing can't be denied: Cousins has a tremendous knowledge of cinema. Maybe the best thing about The Story of Film is how it encompasses basically the whole globe. I'm basically ignorant about African cinema, for example; Cousins showed me a lot of stuff I didn't know (not only about African cinema). It's refreshing to see such a global approach. And the movie clips are mostly superb - they're the main reason of the six stars out of ten.

The biggest problem, however, is called Mark Cousins. Be warned, this is not "The Story of Cinema". This is "The Story of Cinema according to Mark Cousins' point of view". Fair enough, the man wrote and directed the whole thing. But his choices became more and more puzzling to me, as the episodes went by and the story entered the 1970s. I was curious about how he'd treat the classic period of horror movies, for example; how the genre produced some of the most daring (and influential) films of the past 50 years. Surprise! He only mentions "The Exorcist". No "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", no "Carrie" (hey, De Palma is only mentioned by name), not a single mention of the Italian giallos. Another example: animated films. There's one "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" here, one "Toy Story" there - and that's it. Again, not a single mention of Hayao Miyazaki, for example; or Pixar ("Toy Story" is only mentioned because it's the first completely digital animated film). I know it'd be practically impossible to cover everything movie-related, but to almost ignore two genres is, in my opinion, baffling.

And as the series came to a close, another thing got on my nerves: Cousins' love of superlatives. The man LOVES superlatives. On the last two or three episodes, basically every film he puts on screen is "one of the best this", "one of the most that". I ended up laughing whenever he said it - and I even laughed at things that shouldn't be laughed, like the beauty of the final shots of "Breaking the Waves".

In the end, Cousins left me exhausted. I didn't watch The Story of Film, I watched Movies Mark Cousins Thinks That Matter. It felt like talking to someone who has obviously a great knowledge, but should learn one or two things about persuasion. As a viewer, Mark should leave me salivating for these amazing films I didn't know. Instead, he just sounded repetitive, without arguments. Several movie clips spoke for themselves; I'll definitely be checking some of the stuff he showed. But I doubt I'll be checking any more stuff Mark Cousins produces.
94 out of 115 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed