Brakathor Reviews

Rebound (III) (2014)

The Lack Of Technical Skill Shines Through

[5/10 · 12 October 2023]

So, let's start with the obvious. This is a flawed film. It's a lack of skill draped over a very solid skeleton. That is to say, it's actually a very well-conceived premise, and it plays out extremely logically. Moreover, the actors are honestly quite competent. The lukewarm end result is basically ALL the director's fault.

The female protagonist, I think is really well cast just for being so average, both in looks and in temperament. She has a born victim energy about her, which is exactly what the role calls for. She's essentially about as uncrappy a person as you can get, and the moral is, of course there's going to be SOME nutcase who feels aggressed by her. I do agree that she could have produced a little more emotion and tension in some scenes, but that's really the director's fault for not pushing for it.

As to the nutcase, he serves as a great case in point for the TYPE of movie that this is, i.e. I thought his performance was fairly badly conceived, but the point is, it's still good enough to be worth criticizing. I think it was a huge miss trying to make him into this explosive bombastic character in the second half of the film. He did a great job at being subliminally creepy. They should have intensified that. It would have worked so much better. As it is, both sides to the character seem almost irreconsileable, like two separate characters. Is he a meek timid weirdo or is he an assertive forceful A. Hole? Make up your mind!

In the end, there's just enough that works in this film for it to be SOMETHING, but not enough for it to be something GREAT. For one, a fair amount of effort was put into establishing mood, and it's very clear what they were going for, but in terms of pacing, cinematography & camera angles, the director just simply lacked the skill to pull it off seamlessly.

The bar scene in particular really dragged on. Now, on one hand, you could say the drabness of it adds to the realism, but not a lot was said, or more specifically, expressed. They could have made a lot more out of what ended up being just a fairly dull conversation. "Yeah I like fixing up wrecks, I don't go for tacky new tinsel." Maybe throw in some flashback sequences; Use a few snappy camera angles: SOMETHING to give this line the weight that you clearly want it to have.

The ending is a little weird, sure. Almost anticlimactic, but it didn't really bother me. There are LEVELS of anticlimax. Some are the level of "what the hell did I waste my time on?" This one I think falls more into the sphere of mundane horror that brings you just a little more close to reality than you thought you'd be. THAT didn't bother me. What REALLY bothered me was the fading of night into day. It was done so clumsily towards the end, that this alone is just such a dumb and avoidable continuity error, that it almost ruins the whole thing for me. I suppose this film is worth watching from an academic point of view unless you just really really love independent horror.

Fish Tank (2009)

Duck Liver

[4/10 · 26 September 2023]

My second time watching this... I was very on the fence the first time, probably because I was too drunk to be too discerning, but this time I just couldn't take how sloppy and forced every other scene is: the whole premise, actually. Mom gets a new boyfriend; a few days later he has a fling with the oldest daughter, Mia, and then he F's off the next day. The film opens with Mia's newfound obsession with an old horse who dies at the end of the film, right on schedule, everything wrapped up in a neat little package. Also the kidnapping scene was forced, overly convenient and contrived, as was the break-in scene, and it's a little bit annoying how she's always catching this one guy just milling about before they run off together. They can never just text or knock on each others doors like normal human beings, and that's another thing. Why does this girl seem to have absolutely no social circle? Just this guy who she randomly gets to know in our little two day time frame... so it's not so much that she's a loner; it's that she's not a real or fully fleshed out character.

It's like the characters and the entire backdrop are pastiche. This is one of those movies where you WANT to like it, but it's like running through a meat grinder, and you eventually realize what you're watching. It's classic British nitty gritty for the sake of grit, and not much else. The mom and her two daughters are miserable, because they're SUPPOSED to be. There's no real object of strife in the film; they're just people who are miserable to each other nonstop, for the sake of being miserable, because that's just how low income British people are supposed to act, doncha know? Nothing about this dynamic is really deconstructed AT ALL, and it kind of needs to be, at least a LITTLE bit, because for me at least, as someone from a very poor upbringing myself, it's hard to accept it as a given.

Every single thing the mother and younger sister say to Mia is an insult or a put down, and there's no real reason for it. She's aggressive to girls her age, while she's very aloof with her family. The only one in the film who's nice to her is the sleazy American would-be stepfather, which is supposed to be the impetus for the minute and a half of AMAZING life shattering, ovary thumping, teeth gritting, lip biting sex, that she eagerly offers up to him. His self-adulating "do you like that?" style of dirty talking really was hilarious in the context of how short it was, which I honestly don't think was the intention, and if it was, fine, but I'm still stuck asking myself how this guy made such a strong two day dent in this otherwise unreasonably maligned girl's home life, who's character is all about this thuggish hard-nosed low class stoicism, and who begins very standoffish towards him. I just can't see any reason for her to willingly give herself to this guy in such a narrow time constraint EVEN with the horribly forced context.

Yeah I'm sorry, but style over substance, that's what this film is. Its long shot scenes and the roaming camera give it a very gritty and compelling aesthetic, but you feel like a force-fed duck watching it, because of how strung together all the elements are. It COULD have worked well if they cut out the dumb sub plot with the horse and his ever-roaming owner, and instead added a few more scenes where Mia had some comings and goings with the guy's family, so they could do without the extremely goofy and forced abduction/break-in scenario, and instead have her be a familiar to the guy's daughter, which could have led to something a lot more organic and plausible rather than some grubby looking teenager shouting "Oy littah guer, oim gunnah take yah fah oyce cream, let's see oo ken go faustawh!" to the guy's daughter, who's conveniently riding back and forth in front of her like a lemming for no reason at all, well outside of her parents' sight. That would NEVER work. Kids aren't that dumb in 2009, even if they ARE wearing a "Please kidnap me for the sake of plot progression" sign on their back. Just my opinion, but this is a classic example of a film with strong minimalist elements trying to do too much.

The Baby (1973)

Dimensions Of Munchausen's Syndrome

[6/10 · 25 September 2023]

While this film may contain elements that are kitschy and theatrical, it's still grounded in reality just enough to be extremely unsettling and creepy. Indeed, it's a really twisted and perverse story. Healthy people who are being made sick by loved ones is a level of perversion that's hard to fathom, and one that does mirror certain real life cases of abuse that have been quite similar. The difference is here you're putting more than one of these scenarios together, which converge like colliding asteroids.

Ultimately, the story revolves around the fate of one single character "The baby," the subject of intense psychological abuse, and the real question is, who do you root for? At this state, what is the best possible outcome for this character, and under who's control? The moral ambiguity of the whole thing creates a really interesting dynamic, one where you ask yourself. Who are the real bad guys? Are they as bad as they seem? What is the best of all the bad options? Most of all, do these people know that they're bad, and do they actually believe that they're standing up for something righteous?

More to the point, do you even care enough to be invested? Did the director do enough to make you care? The answer to that question I think comes down to the film's obvious limitations. This is a B movie without question, but to me, the premise is so strong that in more capable hands, this really could have been transformed into something groundbreaking.

Again, the biggest limitation by far is "the baby" is very hard to empathize with. The character is almost treated like a prop, and not enough work was done to really bring you into the character's mind. It's obviously an EXTREMELY hard role to pull off convincingly too, and I've got to give props to the amateur actor playing him for putting in a genuinely decent effort.

As to the rest of the cast, the weakest link is probably the blonde haired daughter. She's an adult woman who's clearly meant to have childlike tendencies. This could have added a whole other creepy layer to the thing if there was more skill behind it. The oldest daughter was really well cast, in my opinion, and has a really good look for this movie, portrayed in a subtle mystifying sort of way. She ALMOST seems normal, but there's something extremely off about her, conveyed in the most subtle of ways. The domineering abusive mother, by far plays a large part in selling the premise as a whole. Her performance is grainy, and convincing enough to add a much needed layer of realism to the whole thing.

Again, to remind you that this is still just a B movie, i thought the final showdown, so to speak, wasn't particularly well handled. The action scenes are fairly clumsy without a great conception of the space in which they occur. It all seems very strung together all for the sake of a planned linear sequence of events. If only it was a little more organic and a little less planned. Again, so many complex elements that were hard to put together, but still enough to make this one a classic, and one to remember.

Held Up (2010 TV Movie)

Self-indulgent Standup-school Comedy

[1/10 · 19 September 2023]

The next time I feel the need to explain to someone why I don't like "comedy" films, at least now I can cite this movie as the quintessential example. You know what's funny? Life is funny. Literal clowns are hard to relate to unless you're 6 years old, because many adults tend to be grounded in reality, and based on the rating, a lot of people seem to agree with me here. This type of comedy, it's like a little kid jumping up and down yelling "Look at me! Look at me! Look at me!" It's just a self-indulgent club-you-over-the-head aesthetic that tries too hard. To put it simply, there is a lot of comedy that fails, where you at least respect the ATTEMPT. Here it's impossible to respect the attempt, because it's so self-fellating.

A drama movie with comedic elements. THAT'S funny. If you look at how Judd Apatow movies tend to rate, a lot of people agree with me there too. So, why is that relevant, and who cares if anyone agrees with me? Well, to put it in standup terms, if you're performing live, and only 20% of your audience thinks you're funny, while the rest think you're awful, guess what. You're bombing. That's why you can't package your fetish comedy into a feature film, and expect any degree of resonant success. In a feature film, you're not just performing to YOUR audience... EVERYONE sees it, and sure, of course, whether or not your comedy is GOOD, really doesn't rely on playing to the room per se, but either way, you can't JUST be playing to yourself, which is how this film feels to me.

Now, does that mean a bunch of comedian friends can't get together and just make a silly movie? Of course not, and that's where the term self-indulgent comes in. This is a passion project; a home movie. It's so incredibly awful. I'd say it's objectively awful from a comedic standpoint. EVERY single line doesn't have to be an attempt at a joke. If done properly, the JOKE is made much much funnier by the straight elements: the basic straight man/funny man dynamic. You really do have to take your foot off the gas at times.

I need to at least on SOME level believe the characters and the scenario for it to be situationally funny. Otherwise, in a way, it's like the film is making fun of itself, which it literally does quite a few times. In the end, it's just a very BAD parody of a heist film, which WOULD have been funny if that was their true focus, and it doesn't seem like it was. I don't think I laughed even once when watching this. The closest I came to laughing was the "sexy" shot where they try to showcase the EXTREMELY average looking female bank robber as some sort of hot luscious $ex object. This is conceptually funny in a fairly basic way by parodying perfect Hollywood aesthetic with the mundane.

In the end, this really is just such a white yuppie comedy, to the point where I actually feel bad for the black guy in this film. It's just such cornball puerile dreck. The only good thing I'll say about it, is at least it's not pc. There are lot of non pc racial jokes in this. They even used a lot of the forbidden no-no identity politics words that would get you blacklisted if you used them in 2023, even in a comedic context. Just hearing those in a film, even a garbage film such as this one, at least made me feel good in a very subtle way.

If nothing else, at least this film is genuine... a genuine pile of garbage that ISN'T so bad that it's good, and here's the perfect example to drive my point home: Tommy Wiseau's "The Room". You think it would still be funny if he was legitimately TRYING to be funny. Of course not. The context is what makes it funny. Sketch comedy just doesn't work well when packaged as a feature film. Sorry, just my opinion, and that of a lot of people.

13 Minutes (2021)

"I'm gay... I'M GAY!" ... "Can't Talk, Son, I'm Urgently Running Head-on Into A Tornado For No Reason."

[4/10 · 18 September 2023]

Hopefully the title of this review sums up how trite most of this movie's plot points are... I will say this, however. After watching this movie, a lightbulb suddenly lit up in my head over why so many disaster movies are so poorly received. More than anything, it always feels like they're building the characters around the disaster. Instead, why can't we just have a movie with a built up story in it's own right, and then just inflict a disaster upon it? Unfortunately that would go against the reason of being, for most of these films.

In that respect, this is a film that seems fairly competent and soundly put together until you start picking it apart for what it is. The fact is, it has no heart or essence, and as stated previously, has no real reason to exist other than to showcase a disaster. So, what do they do to make up for this? They try to be relevant by finding a way to cram EVERY single hot button social issue into the plot somehow.

You have the sub plot about a gay son in a macho household; you have a sub plot about the illegal immigrant struggling to be treated equitably; you have the subplot about a pregnant mother deeply questioning a possible abortion; and you have the sub plot about a special needs disabled girl. Back to my previous point: why can't we just do a film about a GUY, just an average normal guy. "Hi my name is Zeke, I mostly like girls. I blew my friend back in college, but those days are far behind me. Now I'm married, and my wife just gave birth to a completely healthy baby. I learned Spanish in high school, which I've put to good use with all my latin friends who all live here legally."

Further still, just the fact that all of these characters with a bright shining, and oh so resonant social issue attached to them, all have interwoven lives, seems a little strange. I mean sure, if you're an artistically and intellectually shallow person who thinks the ONLY way someone can be interesting as a human being, is to be the physical embodiment of a hot button social issue, then OF COURSE you could cherry pick a bunch of individuals in any city to represent each issue. Would be a little hamfisted if they all lived on the same street block though, no?, Well that's this movie, and not to mention the fact that all these DEEPLY resonant social issues all seem to come to a head RIGHT at the same time, RIGHT when a tornado hits.

Now let's talk about the tornado itself, and the portrayal of the disaster, which comes across as extremely puerile in the exact same KIND of way as the social messaging: "Oh no, I hurt my hand, so now I'm on a stretcher and can't walk, and the fact that I'm on a stretcher shows you I'm hurt, because that's what hurt people do. They lay down on stretchers, immobile and useless so you visibly know they're hurt even though they only hurt their hand," even though he was able to free himself from his car without any assistance...

So there's that one... and then there's, "Oh no, dad was out in the tornado, and his heart dun stopped... because that's what happens when you're visibly hurt by something in a generic way that's hard to visibly establish... Your heart just stops... so we better perform cpr. Oh would you look at that, we dun brought him back to life as a pair of non medical professionals valiantly displaying our meagre means of resource! Much heroics; much enginuity; many lives saved, and much clumsily piled debris briskly pulled away with little effort."

Here's another thing... The fact that none of the people who got caught in the tornado die, feels pretty hamstrung too. At least let the gay dude die so his ultra conservative parents don't have to be ashamed of him anymore, but no, everyone is just piled under rubble with scrapes and bruises, happily rescued within a couple hours, no fuss, no muss. It's like they're trying to deal with hardship without actually dealing with it... on EVERY level.

They even go so far as to dedicate the film to "victims of extreme weather," as hilariously vague and generic that is. Like, what do you mean? Flooding? Do you mean forest fires? Do you mean mudslides? Do you mean global warming? ...or is it just everything? It's EVERYTHING isn't it? ANYONE who's EVER been in a precarious weather situation... One time I got caught out in a thunderstorm, and got soaked to the bone. I was uncomfortably wet for a good three hours. What about me? Do I count? Am I a victim of extreme weather? Maybe I feel like a victim... and I guess to feel like a victim is to be a victim to some people, at least the type of people who promote a victim cult for EVERYY single issue that's SLIGHTLY uncomfortable to talk about and to live through. Just stop it. You're not relevant. You're not impactful. You're the champion's voice that no one asked for.

Again, hilarious how the type of person who makes a movie like this thinks that to embody depth and sensitivity, all they had to do was showcase their superficial concept of social issues. It's a bit like how the social elites are trying to convince you that the trans issue is THE most important thing, and that you should REALLY REALLY REALLY care about it, even though it barely affects anyone you know, and the current discourse certainly doesn't do anything to impact people's fundamental human needs, by redefining them. People really haven't changed much in the past thousand years...

For the mostpart, you're conditioned to react to these issues based on fear, self-preservation, perceived social taboo, and most of all, as a means to define your own self worth, so you can establish to yourself and to others that you're a "good person." Films like this rely on that same reflex. You're supposed to be impressed by hot button issues. You're supposed to think that this film is more than what it is, because of their presence. Luckily, in this particular case, more people seem to know better than not, and in closing, I would put it to you that regardless of your own level of depth on these issues, you can't ever really be a "good person" if you're relying on other people to define what a "good persoh" is, for you.

Sometimes "I don't know," or "I don't care." is the correct answer, and yeah in the big picture, I don't really care about any of the issues presented on screen, don't give a damn about them, at least not any more than say my love of music, my need for food, sleep, love, diversion, sport etc. TRUE value has to be personal, and by definition it has to be completely devoid of what society tells you it is. Again, if you need someone to tell you what value is, you're deluding yourself, and you are by definition shallow i.e. The opposite of value: films like this in a nutshell.

Never Rarely Sometimes Always (2020)

Most Women Who Have Abortions are Garbage... But...

[8/10 · 4 September 2023]

I think the ultimate problem with the abortion debate is both sides like to use the exception to prove the rule, i.e. "0.1% of abortions happen as a result of rape, therefore abortions should be legal for EVERYONE," or, "0.1% of abortions happen in the third trimester, therefore NO ONE should be allowed to get abortions." Funny enough, this film appears to use one exception to tear down the other exception, i.e. It's heavily implied, though not overtly stated, that the girl was raped or abused in some way, and therefore it doesn't matter that she's in her second term.

I should probably take a step back for a second to say, regardless of any type of social messaging, this is actually a really good movie in a lot of ways. Stylistically speaking, it's hard to put your finger on it. It's such a threadbare plotline. Many of the scenes seem borrowed from different types of movies or plots. It's a bit like if you took the characters from a happy-go-lucky Disney movie, and you showed only the grainy aspects of their lives. Not everything is a joke, though we use humor to mask our pain. Not every moment has a funny clever quip. Teens sometimes throw water in a bully's face, and no one's a winner. Teens sometimes tell their parents to F off. Teens have periods. Teens Get pregnant. Teens get abortions.

Of course, none of these aspects of growing up haven't been dealt with in a serious way in film before. This is what makes this movie so good: it deals with them without the writer's stamp, so to speak. The film encompasses a relatively short and drawn out span of time (just a couple days). A typical made for tv movie might deal with this aspect of the plot in 15 minutes of screen time, for example, and then come full circle. In a sense, this film feels like a sort of purgatory with everything left up in the air, by the end of it.

We really don't know much about this girl's life other than what has been vaguely suggested, and we don't know where she's going, or what her plans for the future are. All we know is she's the type of person who feels her life is more important than the life of her child... and of course, this is what you get from being raised in a world with an over-abundance of choice centered around individualism.

The "Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Always" scene is super intense in a way that grabs you midway through. At the same time it's also super simple and basic, almost tawdry to the point where it doesn't seem worth dignifying as a film scene, but actually that's what makes it so strong. The fact that you can picture this type of interview happening countless times in more or less the same way, is what gives you that sense of purgatory. But to focus in on those words particularly, without giving a direct answer, it almost feels like a progression: first never, then rarely, then sometimes, then always. This is a life based around pleasure and impulse, this is how it progresses, and this is what it leads to.

A second wrinkle I'll add to the to the whole abortion debate, is women who get abortions as a result of being raped, are ultimately just perpetuating the cycle of abuse, one that suffocated their sense of empathy in the first place, enough to cause them to do so. Trauma begets more trauma. That's not a solution to a problem; it's a symptom of it. That really should be obvious to more people. Abortions ultimately are a form of self harm, to be honest, ESPECIALLY if you don't think an unborn child is a life, and the scene where she beats herself in the guts black and blue puts great emphasis on that. How do you kill your own flesh and blood? I just don't get it...

If you had an abortion out of desperation, I can understand, but it's not something you should be proud of. If you had an abortion out of convenience, it's because you are garbage. That's obvious. Why? Because you treat sex and life as disposable, and you are the object of that sex: probably the type of person who throws leftover food in the garbage because you have no respect for life/sustenance in the macro sense. The good news is it's never too late to pick yourself up out of the dumpster, and find value in that which you were gifted. The cycle of abuse has to stop somewhere. As long as you're living you will get a second chance, even if you don't know it when you see it; even if it does feel like purgatory. A life of singular motive will only ever lead back to the same place: Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Always...

That being said, while this film appears to be very much a pro abortion film, in this case a second term abortion, seeming to suggest that rape justifies ANY action on the mother's part, they're not being heavy handed about it, and the real boon you have when you're trying to present a pro abortion case, I find, is you're certainly not going to be depicting a HAPPY scenario. The second term abortion here is being depicted as a horrific experience, and when the female protagonist has been sexually active since 14, having had 6 partners in the space of 3 years, anal, oral, and vaginal as per the query of her case worker, it really is painting a picture of a problem that appears to be systemic only to a very certain lifestyle.

Either way, they're simply showing you a moment in time of a character's life, and without the writer's stamp, it's hard to internalize it negatively, whatever your personal views may be. The film will pass and float over you. It's a nightmare WITH an end, but no clear new beginning. A must see for fans of minimalism in films. It will definitely give you aomething to think about.

The only minor criticism I have of this film, is I really don't see how this is supposed to be 2002. The three main characters always on their phones, constantly saying "I'll text you," feels very anachronistic. I mean, this is just two years out of the Napster era. Back in 2002 most schools still had a no cell phone policy. In 2001, I remember my friend showing me his phone with the new built in camera, and I remember being blown away by this amazing new fandangled "spycam" technology.

"Texting" wasn't common. You could actually go to a party with friends and NO ONE would be checking their phones. PC's were still king, and everyone was using MSN messenger. I'll "message" you, is what you'd say, and sure, in theory the technology was there, so while it's not IMPOSSIBLE for these three characters to be super into their phones, in 2002, they'd be outliers and weirdos. Again, otherwise it's a good film, this is just one gnawing wrinkle I wish I didn't have to deal with while watching it.

The Flesh (1991)

A Dumb Film

[1/10 · 20 August 2023]

I titled this review in this way because the description says "a beautiful film." To me, the word "beautiful" becomes obscene if used frivolously, and in this case, it deserves its just counterpart, in what I confess may be a subjective interpretation as well. I stumbled upon this film looking up the Gaspar Noe film "Carne," and I figured, it sounds silly, but why not give it a try? I haven't watched an Italian film in awhile, and I was in the mood for something different.

Suffice it to say, at this point in my life, I hate films like this, HATE them. Back in the day I used to bushwhack my way through giallo films, and Italian sex comedies on an almost daily basis, and I think this film is as good a place as any to completely neuter that curiosity. In that respect, I'm not even completely sure how to classify this film. Is it a comedy? Is it a romantic drama with cutesy elements? This aspect of Italian culture may be somewhat elusive to me,, but to me, films like this aren't funny, they're energy sucking. The female romantic lead says of the protagonist "You're like a vampire!" Well that's how I feel too.

I do hope Italian cinema has evolved from this, but in 1991, this feels like a fairly late entry into the typical Italian sex comedy premise of silly ridiculous sexual scenarios, and goofy men acting goofy during sex with knockout bombshell women who apparently have no better options in love and in life. This film is largely in that vein, with typical dumb giallo style gross-out scenes peppered all the way through for shock value, with the characters' actions being justified by typical Italian pseudo-intellectual drivel. To me, this is the boon of any 20th century Italian film that tends to be conceptual in nature. You see it even in films that are considered good, like Fellini Satyricon or Farinelli, where the characters cease being characters, and become vessels to express an idea, usually one that's not applicable to real life in any direct way.

It's very hard for me to find value in a film based around characters who I can't relate to, and don't feel real to me. Again, I'm just expressing one man's opinion. If you enjoy this type of thing, have at it, but personally I'd rather leave it in the dustbin of film history. For what it's worth, at the very least, in this era of film, the Italian actor would actually be bold enough to give the booby a squeeze and a lick during the numerous farcical lovemaking scenes, which is pretty much the one redeemable aspect there is here, and if you're' a casual unassuming viewer, the best you could hope for, so if you share the director's obvious fetish for frizzy-haired women, you could give this one a try, though personally, Francesca Dellera's implants ruin her for me.

Take Care of Maya (2023)

It's Tough When The Mother Is Legitimately Mentally Ill

[4/10 · 10 August 2023]

I came into this film very predisposed to side against the hospital after my own negative experiences with the medical establishment, but let's just take a step back for a second... The mother kills herself... It's ONLY been three months... She has a son too... It's not just her daughter who relied upon her... How incredibly short sighted. How emotionally unstable. How incredibly self-oriented, and this was all the fault of who? The judge? Because he didn't let her have a hug? Stop it... The presentation of this documentary becomes delusional after a certain point.

The trained hospital staff saw something extremely off about the mother, and clearly what they saw was a real thing, even if it wasn't Munchausen's syndrome, which is certainly much more common than CRPS. Keep in mind, it's an EXTREMELY rare medical condition, one that hardly anyone knows about, and one that's hard to test for. Where is the line? That's what I want to know, because if we follow the narrative here, a hospital should NEVER intervene; the parents ALWAYS need to be listened to, and there's NOTHING they can EVER do that would warrant state intervention.

Does the medical establishment have its limitations? Sure. Are they bound by hubris and professional pride? Of course, but again, if you follow the narrative here, the very idea of a case review, in and of itself, is wrong. At one point, they try to highlight the history of an abusive hospital staff member "Catherine Bedy," as a case in point for why the case review was ill-conceived or illegitimately handled. Basically, Catherine Bedy lost her temper with a child one time. Ok... And? Did she abuse Maya? No... So I'm sorry, but that's a non sequitur, as it doesn't relate to the case of Maya at all. That's what you call trying to muddy the water with guilt by association, which is dishonest.

I think we deserve a less biased presentation. I'd have preferred to hear a little more from the hospital staff, and a little less from the father who threw his wife under the bus when it was convenient to do so, but hey, they did reach out to them, and they declined to comment, which is sadly all too typical of institutions like this, when in recovery mode. A lack of transparency inevitably allows for a more biased presentation, and it sure as hell leads to suspicion, often times warranted. If you serve the public, it's your DUTY to communicate to the public, whether you like it or not. Because of this lack of transparency by the hospital, this documentary will convince a LOT of people of the hospital's wrongdoing, and fairly so, in this context.

One thing I'm really not a big fan of is taking a suicide victim, and then assigning a culprit to their suicide. You and ONLY you are responsible for your own mental health. No one else. When a tragedy like this happens, people feel angry, they feel guilty, and they want to take revenge. What makes it so disingenuous when it comes to this aspect of revenge-taking, is its ALWAYS someone else's fault. Does the father think HE should be held responsible for lying to his wife? For failing to stand by her under cross-examination? Of course not.... it's ALL Dr. Sally Smith's fault, and the fact that a few other families with similar experiences came out of the woodwork is supposed to be proof of that I suppose?

Of COURSE the doctors aren't always right, but how many cases of legitimate neglect/abuse do you think the hospital successfully intervened on? I wouldn't hazard to guess, but let me tell you, it's not zero. Why didn't this documentary try to answer that question? A fair-minded film maker would set that as their number one priority here. HAVE these case reviews actually helped people or not? Let's see some stats, results, and/or real numbers... or maybe they actually do know the answer to that question, but it's just not convenient to the narrative.

These are tough cases... for EVERYBODY, The families, the doctors, the nurses who deal with abominations upon humanity on a daily basis. If someone is so unstable that they kill themselves amidst this type of emotional turmoil, I really don't think that's anyone's fault, and if a doctor acted in good faith, I don't think they're a criminal. If the daughter, Maya, died under the care of the hospital, we would be having a COMPLETELY different conversation. THEN we could fairly entertain the conversation of criminal negligence, and in the end that's a huge problem I have with this documentary; they're tricking you into thinking someone's suicide is the same thing as criminal negligence by a medical professional. They're conflating the whole thing as ONE big tragedy, when it's not. The mother's suicide is its own thing. The "care" they gave to Maya, as per the title of this film, is separate.

You have to understand the substance of the case brought against the hospital "infliction of emotional distress." Essentially they're arguing that the hospital INTENTIONALLY induced the mother to suicide, and that they knew she was likely to do so. That's literally insane, and it negates the very reasonable assessment, which you can infer inductively based on the outcome of suicide itself, that the whole reason why the case began in the first place, is because the hospital staff detected something very off about the mother, which was clearly true. Three months is just such a short time. I can't reconcile that aspect of the case. Me and my mother have had to deal with an abusive, neglectful, and belligerent hospital staff for YEARS in regards to my father's care. Suicide is a PERSONAL choice, and it's NOT a justifiable one when you have a dependent, in this case TWO dependents who rely upon you. If you kill yourself and leave your two children motherless, YOU'RE the criminal. It's easy to lose sight of that.

It's easy to dismiss the fact that when Maya was brought to the hospital, her condition was so serious that they had to resort to drastic measures, and that there was a chance she could have died if they listened to the mother's instructions. Do you think the hospital staff are LYING to you when they say that? I don't. Why? Because it's ridiculous to suggest that an entire staff of medical professionals would knowingly invent a risk assessment that didn't exist, to intentionally harm a random child patient who literally just rolled in off the street.

On the other hand... Sally Smith repeatedly testifying that Maya wasn't suffering from CRPS when the hospital billed them for CRPS treatment is a huge contradiction. The hospital made a decision, and Sally Smith wouldn't put her name to it on record. Basically, if she would have testified that she knew Maya had CRPS, it would delegitimize the case review that she initiated... so what began as a matter of hubris and professional pride, clearly turned into someone trying to duck liability, and that's a legitimate problem that indeed does reveal a rather disgusting level of corruption, since the hospital stood by her.

That being said, one does not negate the other. One side looks like ambulance chasers, and the other side looks like a corrupt establishment. The way this case ends is very predictable... They settle out of court, the family receives some recompense, everyone involved gets a chance to think long and hard about what happened, and no one involved ultimately accepts any blame, which given the circumstances, is about as good as you can or SHOULD hope for, to be honest. The fact that this documentary was released BEFORE the case against the hospital goes to court, is interesting, because given the blatant bias of the filmmakers, it suggests that they're afraid of losing the case after having settled with Sally Smith.

Sparta (2022)

Peter Pan Syndrome: Is It Real?

[8/10 · 8 July 2023]

I watched this film back to back after the first in the driptych, "Rimini," and it really makes you question what you thought you knew about human nature, and human culpability, or maybe you've already thought about these things at great length. Either way, this film gives you a lot to think about through the purest minimalism imaginable. There's something supremely majestic about that to me. You often see directors with this same style fall flat, or more accurately, fall limp, but in my opinion, this series is not only some of Seidl's best work, but the absolute best that minimalism can be.

This film FEELS very different than the film "Rimini." In Rimini, you see a certain lethargy while watching the film. All the tenseness in that film tends to be washed away by Richie Bravo's lackadaisical good nature, and willingness to please. It's like a symphony of grotesque hedonism, which you accept for all its excess. Conversely, throughout the film "Sparta" you experience a constant looming sense of dread, which intensifies more and more up until the climax. On a standalone basis, the film "Sparta" is probably superior from a mechanical point of view, but in the end, it really all depends on where you personally are more comfortable in your emotions, and there's no doubt that I personally am more comfortable in strife, than in opulence.

Why the looming dread? It's all through implication. Erwald is soft spoken, is kind, is giving, is loving, and has a gentle nature. You only want to see the best for him, but early on, you know that something is deeply deeply broken in his mind, and you're in constant fear that he will act on it, or be blamed for something he didn't do. As of now, (2023-07-08) *(word censored by IMDB)* is listed on the page of this film's keywords, which adds an interesting layer, albeit inaccurate... or IS it inaccurate? In and of itself, the IMDB title page really made me question this issue in a serious way.

Peter Pan Syndrome is defined as a psychological disorder where the "sufferer" has childlike sensibilities, and is interested in children's things, having never left their childhood mentally, I.e. "the desire to be young forever." Is it even POSSIBLE to have those sensibilities as an adult without it being sexual too? People who defend Michael Jackson say there's a difference. I'm not so sure that there is, and while you might not like this film because you think it humanizes a *(word censored by IMDB)*, I think what it actually does, is it casts a very dark shadow, basically on ANY man who has a fixation on children: this would include Mr. Rogers; this would include Mr. Dressup.

As far as we know, and all the evidence suggests, that Erwald actually doesn't do anything illegal or criminal, or "evil," at any point in this film. All we know is that he has an OBSESSION, with being around kids that HE himself thinks is wrong. We know this from the scene where he gingerly puts his arm around the boy, watching tv together, hesitating a long time, as if he feels guilt or apprehension. He psychotically joins a bunch of children having a snowball fight, and then just as quickly as he joined in, he departs, and breaks down weeping in his car, as if feeling guilt, when he didn't really break any laws here. This scene was actually quite funny to me, because something similar happened to me as a kid, and unlike the kids in the film who think its normal, I ran away from the guy like i was running for my life.

Ultimately the question is, is any of that WRONG? DID he cross a line? I don't know the answer to that question, but what's clear is he's a broken man who's missing something from his childhood that he can never get back. The question is, did he exploit anyone in the film? It doesn't look like it. It looks like all he did was try to enrich the lives of the boys in this community, who's lives many people would say he has no business being a part of.

In that picture, you're forced to juxtapose him, his character, and his actions, to those of all the other adults in the film, and you have to focus on the idea of TRAUMA, particularly when it comes to child abuse. Erwald didn't do anything to traumatize the kids in the film. Meanwhile, the father of one of the boys kills his son's favorite pet rabbit in front of him to "make him into a man," while Erwald vehemently protests the action. That's a life scarring and traumatic experience to put your son through, but in some cultures, it's considered normal. The father doesn't like Erwald, because he sees him as a wimp, (which by those standards, I guess he is) and he doesn't want him influencing his son... in the end, it's Sparta Vs. Greece, and if you know anything about history, the comparison here is genius in so many layers.

One minor criticism I have of the film, is I do find it a little bit hard to believe that a small Romanian town, full of some very macho attitudes, would so willingly hand their kids over to some random German newcomer teaching FREE judo lessons, with the rampant stigma that there is attached to "the shady German tourist," especially in eastern Europe. I really wish the director would have put a little more effort into building a more developed and plausible backstory for Erwald, like he moved to town with his Romanian girlfriend, or something, who you see at the start of the film, presumably a failed relationship. Simply put, that's not Seidl, and it would have made the film much too linear to maintain the same aesthetic, this film probably already being Ulrich Seidl's most linear film.

This film ends and begins the same way the first film does, at the old age home, focusing on the old man, the father of the two brothers, in the near end stages of Alzheimer's calling for his mother. This is when the arc, and message of the series really hit me. It's all about childhood trauma, and how it's passed on from generation to generation. These men all had a terrible relationship with their mother, and it scarred them for life, at least, that's what it looks like. It affected both brothers in almost the complete opposite way, Erwald internalized all of his anger and resentment, and led an unfulfilled life, and childhood. Richie developed a bombastic demeanor, and drowned himself in hedonism, ramping up debt, losing touch with his daughter, and forced to prostitute himself to haggard older women to make ends meet. Both lives are lives of desperation felt and expressed in polar opposite ways, both waiting to explode. All I can say is it would be so awesome if this was a trilogy and the third instalment would be one where the two brothers come together and all this tension finally gets its release. Again though, that might just not be Seidl.

The Divide (2011)

Yes, People Really Do Suck This Much

[8/10 · 26 June 2023]

There is a caveat to my title, of course, and that is: IF the suckiest of them are there to bring the others down to their level. It's the same reason why in prison you're liable to get clubbed to the back of the head by anyone at any time, even the inmates who CLAIM to be good people. A guy named Larry Laughton comes to mind. The average person can justify ANYTHING they do, and still argue that they're "good people." Meanwhile in the "real" world, you're supposed to never kick a man when he's down, and never throw a sucker punch.

That being said, if you hated this movie, because you thought it was an unrealistic portrayal of human nature, you're definitely looking at it the wrong way. It's not supposed to be a sample study of you and your neighbors, and how you would work things out together in a tough situation. Keep in mind, this is an inner city tenement, with averages working joes who barely know each other, and all sorts of lowlifes mixed in, be they drug addicts, reformed prostitutes, or petty criminals.

The bunker gets taken over by two psychopath friends who feed off of each other's negative intent, and like in prison, the worst of the worst bring everyone down to their level. Remember, this is the end of days. There IS no salvation waiting at the end of this ordeal. It's not crazy at all to think that a room of eight people would descend into a bacchanal of pure nihilistic hedonism, and ultimately defeatism.

In the end, the group has ONE functional hazmat suit to share between eight people, most of whom don't even know that there's an escape route available until it's too late. The moral of the story is simple. If you own a bomb shelter, which you obsessively keep stocked and ready, and if your crazy borderline demented level of paranoia actually proved to be correct, don't let ANY strangers in, because the fact of the matter is, in the end of days, not everyone needs to be saved. There are a lot of mistakes walking around who bring us down as a species, day after day, and we all know it. How far would YOU go if you had to overcome a couple of psychopaths who had no law, no compunction, and no good sense to keep them in check? You really think you could do it without stooping to their level?

I never had to experience anything similar myself, but I had a dad who survived a bloody civil war. You can't even imagine the atrocities committed by "ordinary" people under the guise of nationhood, and if you think the events depicted in this film are wholly implausible, you've lived a very sheltered life. Again, the cast of characters were assembled specifically to create an extreme scenario. In 9 out of 10 cases, this wouldn't happen, but that's not the point. The point is that it would, and COULD happen, very similarly to the way it does here. All it takes is for the exception to suddenly become the rule, and that's what people adapt to.

People don't realize how well thought out and purposeful this film was. The truth or dare scene is the perfect depiction of that point, because yes, even psychopaths conform to "rules," and if literally the only thing separating you and them is a "lack of empathy," you might be surprised at how easily that wall can be torn down. Personally, I've never met an "ordinary" person who wasn't capable of justifying the worst atrocity imaginable. Some people call this the banality of evil. I call it human DNA.

Shut In (I) (2022)

The Dark Prophet Returns.

[7/10 · 7 June 2023]

Poor Vincent Gallo... What exactly have you been doing for the past 15 years? Every time I see a guy like him I think. "Yeah he can act... He's a typical low range actor with a very special niche... and there are thousands of people just as good who could take his place at the drop of a hat." It's like any job that entails a certain level of obsession; there's a point where the artist starts to fantasize that who they are and what they are, their craft as a whole, is more than what it is. He's another Daniel Day Lewis, but noticeably less good, which is the comical aspect of it. In the end, much ado about who knows what exactly, and how much does it all matter in the end?

Fittingly, in this film he plays a dark prophet of sorts, and yeah he plays it well, a manipulative guy with selfish desires and a poisonous tongue. Of course, much has been said about the REAL man,, I'm sure some of which may be true, and some overstated. Can porn still be art? That's of course the blight that's been flying above this guy's head for the past two decades, which I'm sure is a large part of why so many directors steered away from working with him. It really doesn't take much these days, one way or the other... Clearly not the case with this director, who I would Imagine sought him out specifically, and yeah to great effect.

Overall, it' a pretty good psychological horror/thriller film, whatever you want to call it. It succeeds in not biting off more than it can chew, and sticking to a simple premise without feeling the need to blow the roof off with more action than needed. Certain aspects I kind of wish were expanded on a little more. You feel like the relationship between the dad and Gallo's character was underdeveloped, for example. Also, the whole "child molester" backstory... We're sort of meant to take it as a given, and it's a little bit weird that the dad would be hanging out with this guy in spite of it, when we have no idea what he specifically did to make the mother view him that way, and the father not care about it.

Certain plot points felt a little bit forced, but it still all remains within the realm of plausibility. I realize they're trying to keep the film relatively tight, to about 90 minutes. In my opinion it could have gone a little longer. A more fleshed out backstory for the three main characters would have done wonders for the film, in my opinion. Either you like a close-knit drama or you don't, but the VALUE, i think is almost purely character driven, and the characters do come across as a little generic. I mean we get it, you're a single mother with a deadbeat boyfriend, who's ineptly trying to handle being a good parent. The ensuing drama is only made meaningful by the underlying story, if you get my meaning.

That being said, I'm not knocking the film, by any means. It does as much as it needs to do to be above the fare, built on the back of solid performances, and a reasonable care to detail, and plot progression. Like I said, some films rely on simplicity, and this is one of those. The most memorable aspect of this film, might actually be the thumping sound of the child scurrying across the floors of their big empty house. This in and of itself communicates a feeling of trapped helplessness, which ultimately is what this film is all about. That, and breaking free. The obvious symbolism in the rotting apples is more blatant, and less impactful.

The Menu (2022)

A Critique Of The Pretentious That Shockingly Avoids Being Such

[8/10 · 5 June 2023]

Going into this film, everything is predictable in a sense. You really should be intuitive enough to figure out that "The Menu" is a play on words, and a type of role reversal. It's a slasher styled premise. What else would it be? The worry I had going into this, is that you would see too much of the director's hand, that it was going to be an example of the director himself speaking to you, sharing his own worldview, and I really think this film did a good job at avoiding being THAT type of film, unlike the film "Funny Games" for example. I. E. It avoided being pretentious.

Ultimately, what the film is criticizing is people who literally, PRETEND to be what they're not. That includes the chef in this film. He's not a deep misunderstood hero. He's not Robin Hood righting the world's wrongs. He's just a moron from a bad background, who thought he wanted to be part of the upper class, and then realized he would have been so much happier just flipping burgers in a shack. He's an obsessive WEIRDO, who lost his joy for life, couldn't find a place to put his exorbitant pride, and decided to take it out on other people, a reality he was ultimately confronted with. His pettiness is made very clear by the fact that he invited one of the "guests" to his dinner, literally just because he didn't like the guy's acting in a movie. That's not a hero. If you don't like an actor, you accept it and move on. That's life. No SERIOUS person would ever think that's a valid reason to enact revenge, which proves that the director isn't being preachy here, and that you really shouldn't take the film more seriously than it's meant to be taken.

To me, the most resonant aspect of the film, is it really has all types of people represented in showcasing an artform as basic as the preparation of food, and how people appreciate it. You have the people who take it WAY too seriously, like the male protagonist; you have the pretentious snobs who go along to get along, to avoid "looking stupid"; you have rich people who use it as a status symbol, you have clout chasers like the critic, and her yes-man assistant, and then you have the female protagonist, who lacks any sort of sensitivity altogether.

This is where you see how full of it the chef is. He chastises one customer for not paying attention to his meticulously crafted meal, while he places the lady who eats just to fill her belly on a pedestal, all the while, berating the one guy present who REALLY cares about what he represents, and the ingredients used. Bottom line, it's NEVER good enough for this guy; he wants everyone to be just like him, down to the decimal, with no deviation, because again, he's an obsessive weirdo who's lost his purpose, and really doesn't care about making any customer happy because he himself is miserable, which is more or less what the female protagonist confronts him with. What use does someone like this have to the world and those around them? Absolutely nothing. If you don't like your job, quit. Don't be a WEIRDO, like this guy.

In the context of the film, I actually thought it was genius that they made the female protagonist a call girl. Because it plays so well into the theme, and she embodies the role perfectly. She's a primitive, insensitive, base, unappreciative person, but the only type of person with the street smarts to get herself out of a tough situation: borderline psychopathic even, as exemplified by her callous demeanor at the end of the film. If you've ever dealt with call girls, this just might remind you of someone... It's not always what you think too. They're not always someone from a rough background with a poor upbringing. A lot of the time they're rich girls rebelling against daddy, who are super materialistic, and want to live fast.

When it comes to food, frankly something that should be treated as sacrosanct in most contexts, there are people of means who have so much that they waste it, there are those who pretend to understand what they don't care about for social standing, and then there are those who gorge themselves to excess. You certainly don't need to be rich for the latter. ALL of these are awful attitudes. If you don't respect food, then you don't respect ANYTHING in life, and if you abuse it just because you CAN, then there's no form of abuse in this world that you wouldn't commit if you were pushed just a LITTLE bit, because it all starts at the bottom. These are all really good things to be thinking about, and the director gives you room to breathe when thinking about them.

At the end of the day, I don't think it's about class or wealth. If you don't care what rich people think about you, then nothing is forcing you to be in the room with them. That's YOUR problem, Mr. Chef. Who profited from a society that allowed him to claw his way up from humble beginnings to a wealthy salaried lifestyle. If anything, this film is a depiction of Jonestown. The island is essentially a cult, and the chef is the cult leader, a misguided soul, a blinded soul, leading those blind and even more misguided. This gives the film a deft air of plausibility and realism that elevates it above your everyday gimmicky slasher premise. It's not JUST a gimmick. Enough thought was put into it that you actually can believe the characters and the setting. To some degree, you CAN envision most of the events depicted on screen here actually happening in real life.

If you disagree, you might be thinking what a pathetic group of people these are, to just sit back and let it all happen without putting up much of a fight, "If that was me, I wouldn't put up with a second of that crap, and I would fight back right away," Well, if that's what you think, then consider the fact that on September 11th 2001, terrorists hijacked 4 planes armed with nothing but plastic knives, and only on one of those four planes did the passengers fight back. In a nutshell, that's who we are by nature, obedient, compliant, and easily susceptible to cult like ideologies. That's why we pay 50 bucks for some piled high B. S. on a plate with some dopily sprayed drizzle, when we easily could have prepared something just as good or better at home, and why most of us are too scared to call it out for what it is, in public.

That's why a Las Vegas study revealed when people were asked to rate food quality at two separate locations serving the EXACT same food prepared the same way, by the same people, with one place priced higher. The higher priced place got a full star higher rating. That's the average person's sense of culture, value and self worth. It all comes down to money, and how it allows them to be perceived by others. That's why they're debt slaves who owe thousands of dollars over luxuries spent that they didn't even appreciate, You really think if an authoritative cult leader tells such a person that it's time for them to die, that they're going to put up much of a fight? They won't and they didn't, on 9/11, or in this film.

Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father (2008)

Never Forget These Two Things...

[7/10 · 15 May 2023]

The inception of this film in a way is as interesting as the story itself, and it adds to it, the fact that it was put together by a aspiring would-be director, who never really went on to do great things, or establish himself as an artist. This whole film revolves around unrealized potential, and in many ways, it feels like it was this director's reason to be. Some people are only put on this earth to do ONE great thing, artistically speaking, and most people don't even get to do that, myself included. Aesthetically, the film has some really tacky elements, like the flapping mouths, and personally, I found the main bait and switch of the movie to be really really gross, vampirically gross, disgustingly so, because of how contrived and disingenuous it is.

You LIED for the first half of the film, because you were maintaining the illusion that you were making it for someone who ultimately would never see it. Imagine dancing on the grave of your friend to build a kitschy slasher-film level of intrigue. Again, so gross, but in the end it doesn't matter. The story speaks for itself. This IS a good film, because ultimately the truth rang through, and the portrait of Andrew Bagby came through fully formed. You really got to know who this guy was, and his story serves as a great cautionary tale. This film shows the horror of being trusting and caring to a fault.

If you ever meet a psychopath, you better learn to know one when you see one, and you better take it seriously, e.g. His friend who told him "You broke up with her and she drove 1600 miles to see you. You need to call the police immediately, and don't ever meet her alone." His friend intuitively, immediately understood something that he unfortunately would never understand, and in the end, it cost him dearly. This, fortunately is the one thing you can actually do something about in your own life, the other is not.

The other lesson, and the much more bitter one to swallow, is that the entire court system is based around social status. If you're a doctor, or if you're wealthy, the judge, more often than not, will give you every possible benefit of a doubt, and keep you out of jail at any cost. This is not the exception, this is the RULE, and why? Because jail is for poor people, people with delinquent pasts, and people with a history of petty crime. They care about your history more than the crime before them, or even who you are as a person, and prison is certainly not for credentialed doctors, guilty of a fit of passion and nothing more. Shirley Turner's only real crime is that she loved TOO much. If anything SHE was the victim, at least, that's how the judge saw it, because at the end of the day, they're cut from the same cloth, and I wouldn't be surprised if her womanness played a large part in a ruling by a very likely female oriented judge who viewed her as a staple of success pushed to the limit in this man's world.

Don't you know a mother would NEVER hurt her own babies, and women are too naive and frail to really be criminally minded, which is why on average they serve much lesser sentences for crimes like this. (I say the first half of that sentence in a sarcastic tone) Don't get me wrong. If you're a male rapist and you come from wealth and power, you're more likely to get a mere slap on the wrist too. That's the justice system in a nutshell, a disgusting deformed mechanism that enforces certain biases and privileges at the expense of others, often resulting in further loss of life and suffering that could have been prevented. Sadly, I don't really know what you can set out to do about this. Just make sure you get that doctor's degree, and make sure you're a woman if you plan on committing murder, which lucky for you, the latter will be super easy for you to do these days. Again, the disparity between men and women when it comes to sentencing for murder really is insane. Just ask Karla Homolka.

Sissy (I) (2022)

The Filmmakers Have No Idea How Good This Could Have Been

[3/10 · 14 January 2023]

Certain concepts just don't lend themselves well to a slasher film styled premise, and I really wish someone smart would tackle the cultural rift our society is experiencing today. Ultimately, there's a lot going on in the buildup of this film, i.e. The first half, which was good enough that it at least was able to take a large part of the zeitgeist of our society as it is today in 2022, now just 2023, and lay it all out on the table for you.

The filmmakers decided to focus heavily on the social media aspect. All I can say is I'm so bored of this angle, which by now has been done to death, and more to the point, my personal opinion: I actually don't agree that social media and the internet, in and of themselves, are an unhealthy medium for the human mind. That's such an over-simplified diagnosis. I don't think people are any more disconnected per se, than they were in the days before the internet, and I don't think people are any more fake. The middle aged single man who was bitterly alone with no one to talk to amidst the everyday city bustle, was a common trope in the pre-internet era. Then after a couple decades of a free internet, came mass centralization. People are more monitored, more regulated, and less free. As a result, today people live within ideological cells. That's what's eating people alive from the inside out. To people who rely on these specific platforms, the online context creates an exponentially negative effect, both on the ADULTS being coddled, and on the ADULTS being shut out of the exchange.

Sissy, the main protagonist, is a video blogger, so the question is, how much of the social media aspect is truly relevant to her eventual meltdown? At the crux of it, this is a film about bullying. The problem is, bullying is not something you can protect people from, because it's very subjective. If you are overly-protected from something, you will feel attacked, victimized, and a sensory overload when you are exposed to it. That will often feel like bullying if you're not used to it. If you are used to it, it won't. The thing is, if you can't handle negative criticism online, then you don't deserve positive reinforcement, because the positive reinforcement is no longer real when the people who criticize you or dislike you are being blocked from your line of sight as if they don't exist... but they do exist... Certain places online these days create a really fake environment that sets people up for some very unrealistic expectations; i.e. Safe spaces, which make people ultimately unable to deal with adversity. Sissy found her safe space online, but it didn't help her in the real world. If the film makers are trying to communicate any sort of deeper message to you, it's probably that.

The above internet-based social life is the norm for zoomers today, especially those in middle class neighborhoods, who experience a lot of their "bullying" online. For most of MY upbringing, and Gen-Xers before me, the context for bullying was schoolyard name-calling, or a rock being hurled at your head. It's this particular crossroad, both cultural and technological that specifically applies to millennials who had the rare experience of both worlds in their formative years, which makes this such an awesome subject to tackle, specifically in the Australian context. I lived in Australia for a bit. The classic Australian has a very gruff sardonic non PC demeanor. I've met a lot of people who've grown up in the Melbourne public school system. Bullying can be on a whole other level there, especially among girls.

I think by far, the more interesting angle than the social media angle, is the cultural crossroads being experienced in places like Australia today; classic gruff Australian culture, being inundated by American-styled wokeness. What makes Australia such an interesting microcosm for this, is they're still a largely unified society. It's not right vs. Left in the same way that it is in North America. Australians can actually disagree and have conversations with each other, for the mostpart. Again, this wedge is not created by social media. Social media that's over-regulated simply puts it on steroids, for the reasons stated earlier.

Alex the main antagonist in this film, represents the old-school classic in-your-face bully who's very anti pc, and not at all worried about being overtly offensive, the classic gruff Australian "mean girl." It's clear to you early on that she's definitely a nasty person who hasn't changed in adulthood, one who deserves everything bad she gets. That being said, she's by far the most compelling character in the film, and as such, she'll probably remind you of someone who "nice" people would keep around, just because they're so dull in comparison to her. Sissy, and basically all the other characters at the 6 person party are typical smarmy woke progressive types who take a moment to comment on the "white privilege" in a generic reality tv show, people who click their fingers instead of clap I. E. VERY dull individuals.

Everyone in the film is a sensationalized archetype, but not to the point of being caricature, in my opinion. People like this are very real. Sissy, having been ruthlessly bullied as a child by Alex, has found new-age progressivism to be the perfect vessel for her to overcome her personal trauma. A greater focus on this aspect, the question of trauma in a macro-societal context is what could have made the film so much more than what it is. You can't get rid of bullying, EVER, nor can you get rid of trauma. Why? Because human beings have an inherent desire to destroy anything that's not like them. That's part of your biology and it's hardwired into you. So what is the answer to a better world and to a better society? There is no answer: something that people don't want to hear, and don't want to come to terms with. There's only shifting goal posts. If you make it so people can't express ideas that are "hateful" or use words that are "hurtful," the people who use those words or express those ideas will be ruthlessly bullied, no matter their intent.

There's a certain brutality in the discourse today that makes it very hard to be a free thinker. That being said. The type of bullying people have experienced in the 70's, 80's, and 90's when people were extremely unregulated was brutal too. The problem is, if you think 20th century brutality was a net negative compared to the regulated world we live in now, you still have to contend with the fact that suicide rates are through the roof today, as is mass murder. People need freedom. If they don't have it, they lose their minds. It's as simple as that, and if they don't experience bullying, it's harder for them to learn how to overcome adversity.

While the premise and buildup of the film really seemed quite promising, it sadly falls apart, largely due to the simple fact that they were absolutely determined to make this into a slasher film, causing the plot to devolve into a ridiculous train-wreck. This is further amplified by how poorly conceived the character of Sissy is. For one, they were absolutely determined to make her as sympathetic as possible, and thus, four of the characters who experience "misfortunes" as a result of her, all experienced them more or less by "accident." Yeah I'm sorry, but you don't just ACCIDENTALLY kill multiple people one by one in a 24 hour period. Maybe one. Maybe two in the space of a week if you're really unlucky. More than that just feels a tiny bit forced, if I may say so.

Then the questions you ask: is she crazy? Just how crazy is she? First of all, what does an insanity defence actually mean? It means you can't tell the difference between right and wrong... so she DOES know the difference between right and wrong, since she tried to cover up what she did. As a result, the character comes across very much like a psychopath who's trying really really hard to not be a psychopath... but that's not what a psychopath is. To try and not be a psychopath is to not be a psychopath.

The one interesting note I'll make here, is they did do a good job at showcasing how man is defined by his actions, especially when dealing with someone who's extremely emotionally detached (to be as favorable as I possibly can in regards to Sissy's character). I once knew a guy who came across as a really decent good guy. Then he stole 1000 bucks from a friend, just on a whim. Tons of people found out about it, and he never apologized for it or tried to make amends. Instead, he was angry over how people reacted, because he legitimately couldn't understand WHY on earth people would perceive him differently based on his actions. When you meet a psychopath it legitimately sends a chill down your spine the moment you realize what they are, and you'll be sure to keep that memory fresh for the next time you meet one. I've met 4 people like this in my adult life. Sissy reminded me of that guy, in a key moment towards the end of the film where she says "But you said I'm a good person." Again though, it's just so incongruous with the fact that she's ALSO crazy, and she ALSO wants to be liked so badly. They were trying way too hard to have it both ways, and the end result is a really poor character study.

I don't want to spoil the ending, but if I had to sum it up with one word, obnoxious would be a good one. Why? Because forensics are a thing. So are audio recordings. One ridiculous plot point after the other really puts it over the top, about as ridiculous as mistaking a blonde haired white woman, with a black woman sporting an afro. This could have been such a good movie because of the context it resides in, if they just took a step back and focused on the social aspect of the film, and/or had any real interest in making Sissy into a real person, rather than using her as a nonsensical plot device for the sole purpose of enacting one ridiculous grossed-out scene after another. Very disappointing in the end.

Samurai Cop 2: Deadly Vengeance (2015)

Who On Earth Is This For?

[2/10 · 4 January 2023]

This may not be the WORST ever movie sequel I've seen, as I've seen my fair share, but it's definitely the most nonsensical. If style over substance is a thing, then this movie is to substance what a black hole is to time and space. It swallows it up to the point where the style is based in practically nothing. It definitely is stylish though, to the point where you really do have to ponder the question of whether this director could actually put together a competent film with intrigue and purpose, if he had a little more focus.

Ultimately, it's nothing like the original, which had a beginning, middle, and end, and although ridiculous in its own right, was still grounded in the IDEA of a real world, if not grounded in reality. Conversely, Samurai Cop II deals in the world of the supernatural, and of the surreal. Which really makes it the worst TYPE of sequel. Whatever direction you decide to take, a sequel should at least be in the same vein as the original, and to my mind, the whole charm of these late 20th century action films is you had some legitimately well choreographed action scenes by non professional actors who were quite adept at martial arts. Not so here.

Here you have the same action hero from the last movie, and he's put up against a hodgepodge of pornstars, bimbos, and Tommy Wiseau ineptly flailing a katana in slow motion. Wiseau is actually the only reason why I'm here, and if you wanted an answer to the question of "Can Tommy Wiseau actually portray a compelling character role?" then in my view, this film answers that question with an unequivocal no. He just feels out of place, and he's too under-utilized for it to be anything but distracting. Sill, his character might actually be the only fresh thing in this entire movie.

To give you an idea just how threadbare the plot is, the baddie gang, don't even really have a motive or goal that I can detect, other than to kill Joe.... who's been called on to stop them.... from doing things.... just things.... So now Joe has to track them down, which all seems to revolve around them showing up and attacking him and rival gangs in his presence. There's no real plot progression, its just one massive brawl after another until you reach the final one. To really emphasize just how stagnant the whole thing feels, they brought back the main baddie who gets killed in the first film, as if nothing ever happened to him. A film like this comes across as more of a bizarre weirdo homage than an actual sequel, but sequel it is, for better or for worse, again, a sequel which I think no one asked for, if they actually enjoyed the original.

Clip (2012)

The Things They Made Isidora Think Were Normal...

[8/10 · 3 July 2022]

A full 10 years later, I decided to give this a second viewing. I forgot how insane this film is, and with the way the world has progressed, it feels so much moreso. The film is centered around pure unbridled teenage hedonism, and to a further extent, I'd even say nihilism, in the context of drab post war torn Serbia. The feeling you get when you watch a film like this, is that you're looking at a culture filled with residual pent up anger, and aggression, with nowhere tangible to direct it anymore, after all the dust has been settled from an extremely traumatic experience, and you have the new generation of confused youth, responding to this state of shock, in a climate where almost all sensitivity and sensibilities have been lost. I'm not sure how accurate a portrayal that is of Serbia in 2012, or other eastern European countries, I'm just explaining how a film like this impresses itself upon me as an outside observer looking in.

Either way, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the cultural norms I am used to, are extremely alien to eastern Europe. On MY side of the world, you have American puritans freaking out over, from what I understand, is a fairly tame show called "Cuties" centered around tweens and dance, freaking out to the point where the state of Texas actually sued Netflix over it... and then meanwhile in Serbia... a full on cumshot over a 14 year old girl, erect penis included. Simulated or not, that's a bit nuts. That would just NOT be possible in an American film today, or even 10 years ago. Ultimately, if you believe in the precept that exposing minors to explicit sex will mess them up for life, it's CRAZY that this is in a mainstream film, not to mention all the other stuff they make her do, and this is the problem we get into when we attempt to regulate sex with laws. The assumption is that all humans are equal, and all human action can be reduced to a necessary cause and effect that is unilateral, and thus, is something we can regulate from a position of absolute moral authority.

The way the film is directed, the lack of any real plot, the pseudo-documentarian style, it all lends itself so well to what I think is a really interesting end. It showcases how familiarity breeds normalcy. Everything portrayed on camera is normal to all the characters, because they're completely immersed in it. Talking about something tends to build it up to a level of fantasy, and obsessing over the fantasy, the IDEA, is usually so much more traumatic than the reality itself. If you live it, and experience it, and no one around you freaks out over it, it becomes very easy to process and manage. In short, human beings can become accustomed to, and normalized to say and do almost anything. When it's not "normal" and it's something you only talk about, and treat with fear, THEN it becomes taboo, or even illegal, because the IDEA more than anything, is what's terrifying. This applies to sex probably more than any other type of human behavior we try to regulate. American slavery is another example though. We look back on it, as something horrific, something incomprehensible. To everyone at the time, it was just another day in the life of. It's been proven to me time and time again that attitudes around sex, violence, servitude, they're all purely cultural. There is no universal law. There is no right and wrong. All there is, is an agreed upon set of social standards, which vary from culture to culture. This film proves that to me, and honestly, it would not have been possible to explore these issues in as cerebral a way if it was ANY other type of film.

Essentially, either this type of film is your thing, or it's not. There's no real pride or shame in being attached or enamored to the question itself, the question that this film poses, around what I think is a showcase of a certain existential crisis in a society experiencing a state of arrested development. It's a very teenage and primal thing, to be a country in its infancy, a country that's barely been around for a generation. The scene where Djole is screaming about Kosovo being part of Serbia implies that very little healing has actually taken place, and ultimately, he's shouting into the wind. That's symbolic of a lot of things. More importantly, he is NOT a good person. The scene where Isidora's mom invites him over and keeps saying what a good boy he is, is an embodiment of gashed hopes and dreams, and failed potential. You're saying what you WISH was true, and you think saying it like a mantra will make it true, but you gave him nothing to hold onto, and you didn't instill him with virtue.

A man without a solid identity is an empty shell, and a danger to those around him. For example, if you're a Serbian man, and Kosovo is part of your identity as a man, you will never be able to feel whole, and you will be more likely to make bad choices which affect you and those around you negatively, as a result. That's just how it is. I definitely do like this film. I both hate and enjoy the characters for how simple they are. Isidora's character for example, is so detached from the suffering around her, and so centered around her immediate wants and desires, that she almost comes across as psychopathic. Any time she leans towards empathy, it's smashed down by those around her, because they too are equally broken. Psychopathy really seems to lean more to the side of nurture vs. Nature. There's a reason why It's almost always the kids from broken homes or failed upbringings who develop psychopathic traits. All the evidence is that empathy is something we LEARN, as humans.

There's very little empathy in this film. The characters are one dimensional beyond belief, and you know what? I'm sorry to say, but it's just like most people in everyday life. People erect these big highfalutin ideals for themselves, that they almost invariably can never live up to, because most people are hypocrites, and why are they hypocrites? Because they're shameless opportunists who will attempt to justify just about ANYTHING they do, no matter who it hurts. That's not psychopathy; that's just base human primalism. The difference is the psychopath doesn't feel the need to lie to themselves about it. People fantasize about all these high concepts and deeply woven intricacies in human motive. People fantasize and often obsess over the concept of redemption. Just like real life, there's no redemption here, just bleak emptiness, and in the end, the reality lasts for but a moment, until it moves onto another reality. It's VERY easy to see why people don't like this film. Most people spend their lives dreaming of a higher purpose, which unfortunately, is likely never going to arrive. I'm glad I gave this film a second viewing all these years later. It really gave me a chance to sit back and think about things at the perfect time.

Dave Chappelle: The Closer (2021 TV Special)

How To Take A Stand By Shooting Yourself In The Foot

[6/10 · 2 July 2022]

Late to the party as usual. After everyone and their mom has seen this special, I've finally gotten around to seeing it myself. The truth is, I was never a particular fan of Dave Chapelle; I never really watched his show, and when he made his big announcement of how he was walking away from show business because he couldn't handle the pressure, I pretty much reacted with a shrug, said "Ok..." and completely forgot about him until he made controversy 15 years later. If all the crybaby trans people didn't have a meltdown over some random guy, who happens to be a comedian, not embracing their view of themselves, I ABSOLUTELY never would have seen this special. Why is this so important for me to say? Because the type of people who put their own feelings and values on such a pedestal that they think they can impose them on everyone around them without question or debate, really need to know that average people like me DO NOT care about your hurt feelings, in ANY way shape or form, particularly if those hurt feelings revolve around a personality that they like. This is an EXTREMELY important thing to say in the context of a coversation about identity politics, which appears to be the entire purpose of Dave's special.

By definition, YOUR identity is YOUR own problem. If your identity is so reliant on how OTHER people perceive YOU, (1) you're a narcissist, and (2) it doesn't come from YOU, meaning it's merely a fabrication by those around you, and therefore, I'm sorry to say, your identity is largely non existent. That's obvious, or at least it should be. These days we give SO much time, and SO much consideration to people who don't even know who they are, and are unable to live their lives by self-defining terms. That being said, with full disclosure, I have to reveal my bias here. I don't like the time and effort that Dave took to specifically address the trans community here, because I don't like the brand of comedy that has a greater message and tries to address social issues. I like irreverent comedy, and here's the problem with people who claim to like the former, or claim that the former is somehow superior. The people who claim to like comedy that "punches up" or "speaks truth to power," it's so interesting to me how whether you like the joke or not, seems to depend ENTIRELY on whether you agree with the message being promoted, or if it complies with your own concept of "punching up." That's why I think I'm right about this. True comedy doesn't depend on who you voted for. True comedy is as universal as possible, or at least should try to be, and frankly, any true comedian does exactly that, refines any given joke so it can make as many people laugh as possible.

As mentioned previously, I don't even like Dave Chapelle. I only watched this because it got to the point where I was the idiot who was largely cut out of the conversation every time this subject came up. In short, those of you who tried get him cancelled gave me a reason to watch him and ZERO reason to watch you. That being said, I like him less now. 90's Chapelle was at least irreverent and fun. The guy has developed such an air of self-importance about him which I REALLY dislike. "Y'all wanted to know what I really think about trans people. We'll I'm gonna tell you... And that's all I have to say about trans people." Great... It's really great that we got to hear what Dave Chapelle REALLY thinks in his little TED talk. When I see this, I see a comedian who let himself get eaten up by the controversy, much like Lenny Bruce. Without question this special leans heavily towards TED talk rather than comedy. That being said, is it a GOOD TED talk? Sure it is. The man is great at telling a story, and he proves that here as well as anywhere, but I'm sorry, getting an applause break because the audience agrees with your deeply insightful intellect; that's not comedy, but for the mostpart that's what this is, with the odd reference of "dude's got a dick!" to pull it all together.

A lot of the jokes are very predictable. I think I only laughed twice in this entire special, actually. It's really so important for me to highlight this, in the context of who Dave is. The man literally said, he refuses to listen to what anyone has to say about his jokes on trans people unless they (1) saw the full special, (fair enough) and (2) admit that Hannah Gadsby is not funny. What are the two main criticisms people tend to have of Hannah Gadsby's "Nanette" special? (1) it's very politically biased and (2) it's very TED talk-ish. Dave's a hypocrite... Remember, if it's funny based on whether you AGREE with the person's politics... Putting yourself in that box as a comedian is a choice, but you can't act like you're not in that box once you put yourself there. Another point. I actually heard that Dave fired a guy on The Chapelle show for laughing too hard at a black caricature that he was portraying, because Dave perceived this as racist. People are SO hyper-sensitive about their own identity, and he's no different. He literally cancelled someone over the same type of thing that people holding to a different identity tried to cancel HIM over.

In the big picture, when I watch this special, I honestly get the impression that Dave just doesn't get why some people find him so egregious, how the words he uses attack SOME trans people to their very core, I think legitimately so, a lot of the time. See, I'm one of these people who I get it but I don't care... like REALLY don't care. I don't give a damn about tribalism OR your tribe, whether you're black or trans. I call myself an anticulturalist for a reason. "Black lives matter." GREAT! Well, I'm not black, so I guess I have no reason to care about your cause, Mr. Tribalist. This is the problem with people. Everyone puts their own BS on a pedestal, and it's like they're SHOCKED when other people do the same. The way we get out of this, and the ONLY way, is to laugh at ourselves, to see beyond our own tribe, and learn to appreciate our own personal experience as human beings collectively. Humanism: it's a not too new, and not too revolutionary concept. Dave's friend Daphne Dorman really does sound like he DID get it, based on Dave's story of when he used him as an opening act.

I really think Dave does care, but he doesn't get it. He doesn't realize that he's essentially asking them to give up the same thing in himself that he refuses to give up. "I don't hate trans people; I hate white people." Ooooh part of that wasn't a joke... part of that was based in something very real, Mr. TED talk guy. Ultimately, he's not just being irreverent for its own sake. That's part of it, but after watching this, it's so clear to me now just how starkly different the black American experience is, as compared to mine. We're living in world's apart. The best way to put it is like this. If you're an inner city white man, not only is it not a huge leap or much of an effort to go along full throttle with woke culture, feminist ideology, and all that sensitivity training stuff, it's actually DIFFICULT to go against it. To go against it is a STATEMENT. You're making a STAND to do so. If you're a black man from a ghetto neighborhood, it's just the opposite. It's a HUGE stand for a black man to go full woke. Everyone he knew from when he grew up would look down on him for it. For Dave to be as sensitive about these issues as some people would like him to be, would be to go against EVERYTHING that he is, and his entire life experience, and the worst part is he's TRYING. Good lord is he trying whilst balancing his identity as a black man and as a comedian.

Any straight man who calls a trans woman "she" is frankly trying so much harder than he should have to. Why? Because straight men want to have sex with "shes." By getting him to call you a "she" you already got him to lie to you, but worse, on some level, to lie to himself, by implying that he would hypothetically have sex with you. Lying to other people is bad... Lying to YOURSELF is worse... My point here is that when it comes to people with no self identity, people who are obsessed with destroying the self-identity of others, it will NEVER be good enough for them because they will NEVER be a self-defining person, by virtue of the fact that their personal identity relies upon YOU. To give into this discourse at all, in any way shape or form, is to destroy YOURSELF, especially as a comedian. Dave Chapelle, we don't need to play this game, and we don't need to wait another 15 years, as you said you would do in this special. You're not Jesus. We don't need another speech from mount Ararat. Go back to telling jokes about Wonder woman's big tits. You and everyone that cares about you will feel better for it.

Like.Share.Follow. (2017)

Frustrating Letdown

[3/10 · 29 June 2022]

There's an unsurprising growing trend of showcasing our modern reliance on social media and interconnectivity in as cynical a way as possible, so going into this, I did not have high hopes. In a word, I expected to find this movie tedious, pretentious, and cliched. While it doesn't begin that way, by the end of it, you suddenly realize that you've just witnessed so many hackneyed tropes, while the premise itself has been stretched so far to the breaking point, that the film more or less turns into a caricature of itself, though I suppose you can say it happens too late for you to be filled with a sense of tedium.

Honestly, 20 minutes into the film, I thought I was not only watching something outside the box, but something REALLY good. The whole premise appears to unfold in an extremely organic way; the dialogue is strong; the psychotic obsessive personality of Ema Horvath, I thought was really well portrayed. She actually reminds me of someone I knew in real life, in terms of appearance and mannerisms, and they were every bit as much of a psychopath. I would actually be shocked if this person hasn't fallen into a serious criminal situation by now. Suffice it to say, at this point, they completely won me over based on style, and I thought the film was very well cast.

Onto the character of Keiynan Lonsdale. He comes across as a complete A. Hole, and at first this is what REALLY makes the film seem like it's a cut above. There's a grey line created where he is very much responsible, and a participant in everything bad that's happening to him, because HE'S the one who pursues her at the start. This makes Ema Horvath's character seem human, sympathetic, and in some ways justifiable, so naturally I thought "Wow this is amazing: a REALISTIC portrayal of a stalker scenario that doesn't devolve into absurd caricature where the characters are behaving in a way completely beyond reason or logic... which of COURSE is when the writer/director steps in and says "Not so fast..." and kicks you right to the nuts... You think to yourself, ok that was a bit rude, but maybe this thing can still be turned around. "NO IT CAN'T," the writer/director fires back, then he squats over your face and drops a big steaming log right into your mouth.

Out of nowhere you're barraged with virtually every cheesy hackneyed trope you can think of. For one, way too much planning involved, from Ema Horvath's character. She kills a postal worker so that MAYBE she can get hired as the new postal worker, so that MAYBE Keiynan Lonsdale's character will talk to her, so that MAYBE they can go on a date. Wow, nice master plan, stupid. Literally all you have to do is follow him in as a customer and strike up a conversation with him, and your odds of success would be exactly the same... minus the complication of committing a murder and getting away with it. In movies like this, wouldn't it be so great if she kills the postal worker and then she shows up "So, I hear you're hiring," ... "Yeah and we've found someone else. Go away." It's just so dumb.

I did learn something fascinating from this movie though. If a cop is brutally murdered, apparently other cops don't care. "Hey, Bob just got an arrow through his neck... should we interrogate the stalker girl who keeps having missing people turn up around her?" ... "No, whyever would we do that?" This is the type of stuff you have to accept, aside from the basic fact that cell phone technology pretty much eliminates 90% of every horror movie premise these days. This isn't 1980 where you could just terrorize a group of people all night and they would conceivably be too isolated to call for help. Also, how are we still doing the "Oh no, muh car won't start!" thing. That's not a thing. It NEVER happens. Like I said, just about every trope. What a shame. The ending itself though... I won't spoil it other than to say it's like squashing an ant with a nuke: over-the-top cringe like you wouldn't believe.

Daniel Isn't Real (2019)

I'm With STUPID... Sometimes...

[5/10 · 24 May 2022]

First of all, someone was clearly influenced/inspired by David Cronenberg, but onto the subject at hand... Here's the picture we're given throughout most of the film. Either Daniel is a figment of Luke's imagination, which would be plausible, which would make sense, and which by the way, was directed in a very well-honed way as being a potential outcome... OR either Daniel is a demon that is able to physically manifest itself in the real world, which would be STUPID. Now, here's the thing... I'm perfectly willing to accept STUPID. I watch a lot of movies, many of which are STUPID, which I know will be STUPID; therefore STUPID in and of itself, is a perfectly valid trait for a film to possess, and still be able to be appreciated as high art.... I guess...

That's why I give this film a 5 star rating, because I know a lot of people enjoy STUPID, and there are many contexts in which to enjoy STUPID, some of which, are mutually exclusive between each man's subjective standards... So let's talk about those subjective standards. It's very difficult for me to enjoy STUPID when NOT-stupid is also presented as a likely option. If I'm given the option, I'm going to pick NOT-stupid every time, because STUPID is inherently inferior by virtue of what it is, as opposed to NOT-stupid. This is why very few STUPID movies win best picture, by the way. Mediocre movies sometimes win, but STUPID movies don't, and why? Because if a STUPID movie were to win, people would be like "Hey... That movie is pretty STUPID," and there's no defending STUPID as being superior above all else. You can defend mediocre, because mediocre is somewhat subjective, but STUPID is not.

Now, I know what some of you may be thinking. "Hey wait a minute. I believe In God. I believe in demons. I even believe demons walk among us. I even believe if you pray long and hard enough, God will intervene to fix your mothers cataracts. None of those are STUPID." Just a second though... So, you believe there are demons here on earth. Ok, fine, but do you believe demons can literally bend time and space, i.e. Transform a broom into a sword? Of course you don't. Because you know that cameras exist, and you know that it's STUPID to believe in earthly happenings that have never been captured on camera. Put it this way: if I came to you, and told you that I have a history of mental illness in my family, like Luke in the film, and that a demon is stalking me and trying to take over my body, would you believe me? Of course not, and why? Again, because STUPID is less plausible than NOT-stupid, so the "twist" does nothing but undermine the strengths and buildup of the first three quarters of the film. This is why I was thoroughly disappointed. Had I gone into the movie knowing it would be STUPID in advance, I would have been less disappointed by far.

Hunted (IV) (2020)

Garbage-accentville - Population: who cares

[2/10 · 22 March 2022]

First of all, it's been a long time since I've seen such a hodgepodge of goofy accents, and to that effect, let me just say that as a native English speaker, I'm so sick of wannabes trying to glom on to my culture, when all they can ever do is showcase to the world what failure looks like. I'm not saying you can't have foreign accents in films. No, I'm saying the fricking obvious, and that is, if you 're going to create art, it should have some type of grounding and integrity, and there really is no instant red flag for a garbage film, like a conglomeration of accents that are distracting and make no sense. If you weren't guided by shame in the wrong areas, you'd create a foreign language film, to which subtitles can be applied.

Anyway, the aforementioned criticism is far from integral; it merely serves as foreshadowing for the absurdity of the film as a whole. The fact is, this film has some of the most shoe-stringed plot development I've ever seen, with only two exceptions that I can think of off the top of my head: how they become lost in the woods in the first place, the paintballers, the security guy, the mother and son, the realtor. I'm purposely being vague so as to avoid giving spoilers. One thing I can say is the ridiculousness reaches a highly accelerated level in the last 30 minutes.

Since it happens really early on though, let's at least give one concrete example, in the gas station scene. Ultimately, the reason why the main bad guy starts chasing the lady through the woods is because she saw his face, and he's scared that she will go to the authorities. Ok... He cares SO much about mitigating risk... So why did he let her go at the start, and then cause a situation where he has to commit a crime in public (the gas station) where there might be cameras, with his face completely unobscured? As far as abduction scenarios go, this was a fittingly stupid beginning for the retardation that was about to follow. That's the thing that rings through your head throughout the film, how this guy cares SO much about mitigating risk... as the situation gradually escalates and escalates, and escalates some more, when really, all he had to do at multiple points in the film, is just walk away. Seriously, WHAT were you thinking when you put this garbage together?

The Rental (2020)

Really Awesome Morality Play With A Modern Spin

[7/10 · 13 February 2022]

This is one of those movies that might come across as very pedestrian to a lot of people, but that's only if they fail to appreciate the very poignant nuance behind everything that takes place in the film. First of all, the characters suck. It's hard to empathize with any of them, and that may be why some people were nonplussed by the film, but in reality, this is what plays into the film's major strength. Basically the film is about one family: two couples, who find themselves in a horrific situation, and they're the cause of 90% of it. The entire drama stems from the fact that the vacationers, especially the one girl, prejudged the guy who rented the place to them: they didn't like his manner; they accused him of being racist; they accused him of not wanting to rent to Muslims, because he turned down the girl's application initially. There's a million reasons why he could have turned her down, and there's no way they could prove it one way or another, but no, in their minds it HAD to have been racism, and everything that ensued afterwards was confirmation to them that the property manager was scum, as proof of their own righteousness.

Meanwhile throughout the film, each of the four main characters get a chance to display ALL their vices: they're erratic; prone to violence; they're selfish; they act based on impulse even if they know it will hurt each other; they do drugs; they're irreverent; they bring pets despite agreeing to a no pet rental situation; they don't respect their elders (the guy who rents to them is a fair bit older); so many things. I'm obviously trying to keep it vague so as to avoid spoiling the film. Ultimately they convinced themselves that they're so righteous, and the property manager is so deplorable. In short, they're human. This is what we do now, and it's on steroids. That's why the film presents such an awesome character study. It's such a perfect encapsulation of the 20's zeitgeist that we now live in, so perfect in fact, that I'm not even sure it was intentional. For example, midway through the film, the renter comes around and says "I'm here because the white girl gave me a call." That's not really racist, but up until this point that's the only thing that's ACTUALLY suggestive of racism in any way shape or form.

Personally, I think they really could have done without that one line. This line makes it feel like the film makers actually ARE trying to sell you an image, which I think is a lot more blurred than even they may realize, and the more blurred that image is, the more powerful the film is. The film speaks to the conundrum we live in as a society these days. You can be as vile, nasty, mean, abusive, and even violent towards someone AS LONG AS they're a "racist." You don't even have to prove it, you just have to suspect it, and get enough people to agree with you. What's the lesson? The lesson is that this type of attitude where you're constantly pointing your fingers outwards and never inwards doesn't solve any problems, it just creates and exacerbates them. You're a good person not because of anything YOU do, but because THAT guy over there is so bad, and the fact that he exists is definite proof that you're a good person. In the film, ALL they had to do was call the cops, and it would have solved all their problems. They had MANY opportunities to do this too. The longer they avoided doing this, the worse things got, and why did they avoid doing this? Because they were afraid of exposing their own morally reprehensible behavior. The plot development is so much stronger than a lot of people realize.

The Belko Experiment (2016)

So much Integrity Sacrificed For A Cheap Ending

[4/10 · 2 February 2022]

There are a handful of movies I've seen where initially I've found myself being really impressed by the movie; I feel myself becoming completely enamored by it even; I start thinking about adding it to one of my favorite movies lists, and then in the last 5 minutes... completely ruined with a REALLY stupid, facile, or forced plot twist. I don't think I've EVER been as disappointed by that as I was by this film. How far do you have to milk a decent concept before you grind it into dust? How far do you need to force a grainy and reality based concept into being some gimmicky superhero action movie type of b.s.? I HATE action movies, and despite the amount of killing in this movie, that's really not what this is, not until the very end, where it turns into some lame pseudo-superhero level of forcedness. I get the feeling that they REALLY thought they were going to kickstart another Saw franchise with this film. I'm trying not to spoil anything obviously. Your expectations should be well set and very measured after reading this paragraph. That's all.

Now, having just explained in as descript, yet non detailed a way as possible why this film was ultimately such let down, let's backtrack just a bit to explain why it's so disappointing. SO much of this concept was done right, and the plot develops with a deft precision. It plays out organically in a way that engages you like no other film. You're constantly asking yourself "what are they going to do? How are they going to react? How will this escalate?" as you begin to play out multiple scenarios in your mind. As far as "bunch of idiots trapped together," type of movies go, of which I've seen dozens and dozens. I've never gotten invested in one like I have with this one. You start asking yourself, what would you do in that situation. How would you react? As the story unfolds, you start to identify with the characters. You say to yourself "I would be that one guy." or "I would absolutely not be that one guy, and in so doing, it forces you to examine some REALLY deep concepts about human nature, and who YOU are as a person deep down. Your values, the things you PRETEND to be, not only to yourself, but to others, really what do they account for at the end of the day?

In many ways, that has to be what the point of this film was, what the point of the "experiment" was in and of itself, and in that regard, the film really was successful. Again, NONE of this would have been achievable if you didn't have characters who were relateable and organically motivated. Without the grainy realism, without the systemic buildup, you wouldn't really be prompted to think deeply about these things, because seriously, who hasn't seen a ton of films showcasing human barbarism? None of the concepts here are groundbreakingly new, however, there's a question a very pointed on; it's been put to you, and you're watching it play out in real time in a way that's both easy for you to quantify, and easy for you to accept as a premise of these characters being actual people, and not forced plot devices in human form.

Would you kill to save your own life? How many people would you kill? What if you had a choice of who to kill and who to spare? What if you killed them and there was a 10% chance you would die anyway. What is there was a 50% chance you were going to die anyway? What if you were asked to kill a room full of people in the hopes of being spared, and there was a 99.99% chance you would die anyway. I had to answer that question when watching this film, and it's not a nice thing to have to come to terms with, but since it's between me and myself, I can be completely honest about it. In the film, the main protagonist makes the argument. "We can't even contemplate starting killing each other, because they'll never let us out of here alive anyway." Of COURSE he's right, and you KNOW he's right, but that doesn't change what you are and who you would be in that scenario. The capacity of human reason doesn't trump the biology that motivates you, going all the way back to that very base concept: "survival of the fittest."

Having said all of that, am I being too hard on the film for its cheap ending? I've just explained how the film does some AMAZING things, so does a cheap and shoehorned ending really ruin ALL of that? Yes it does, because I can never watch this again and revisit ANY of these questions in a serious tone without thinking, "Oh these aren't characters, these are walking plot devices, and they serve one purpose, to spark another multi million dollar franchise. I've been divorced of the concept, which now lies in a trash heap for me. Not only that, but the ending being as annoying as it is, forces you to question aspects of the film in hindsight, which may not have bothered you at first. The first two deaths for example seemed fairly forced and inorganic. The devices in the back of their heads, the size of a large gumball, I can't imagine anyone living with a virtual tumor on the back of their heads like that for a full year. How do you lie down even?

Back to the premise itself, is it believable to think that the government, or any nefarious agency, could kill an office full of people, or at the very least, force them to do horrible things to each other and to themselves to survive? 9/11, the world trade center anyone? The vast majority of people cannot fathom that such a thing could be an inside job in any way shape or form. How about a hundred 9/11's and all happening simultaneously? Could you believe it? I sure as hell couldn't, and that being said, allow me to offer a case in point.

My dad was offered a job with the CIA as an elite marksman, but he declined. His friend accepted the same type of job, and was never heard from again. What happened to him? I don't know, and the fact is, they could claim whatever official story they wanted, and you'd have no way of knowing the truth of it, but it's something which we know is shady, and we know exists. You're not doing that to 100 offices full of people, all at the same time, all under one official banner of the same company, and getting away with that. One is a stretch, and that's as far as I'm willing to go in granting poetic license in this case. It's not just that though. Even moreso, it's the action sequence at the very end and how it plays out. SO bad. SO shoehorned. You'll know it when you see it. I was tempted to name this review "The Bellend Experiment" but that in and of itself would have been unfair and facile, because again, the premise itself was very well handled for most of the film.

The Explosive Generation (1961)

Interesting Time Capsule Showcasing An Idealized Shoehorned Premise

[4/10 · 4 January 2022]

Why is it interesting? Because the film centers around a fundamental question involving raising kids, one that is just as relevant today as it was 60 years ago: is it the school's responsibility to educate your children about sex, or should it be left up to parents? In the 50's and early 60's the question revolved around sex before marriage. Now it revolves around gender identity. One EXTREMELY interesting and stark difference between now and then, in terms of how the question is treated comes down to parental rights. In the film, the official stance of the school is "you're the parents, and you pay taxes; therefore you have a right to expect the type of education you so desire for your children. Compare that to now, where the school system has diagnosed a largely made up problem, gender identity, which statistically is something that less than 1% of people are dealing with; it's catapulted to be a top of mind issue, and a question shoved in the face of every single child today, a question if met by a positive recipient, has had parents jailed, literally for "misgendering" their own children. That's the difference between how we view parental rights now, vs. How the question is viewed in the film. Back in the 60's was when the idea was planted that as a parent you DON'T actually want to get involved with your children's upbringing on tough issues, so let us handle it for you.

Now the question, why do I call it an idealized shoehorned premise? Well, to start off, both now and then, a huge aspect of the propaganda around these progressive attitudes is that the children themselves are YEARNING for a discussion about these issues, BEGGING for one practically, which is something I personally can't relate to at all. In the film it's the students who are pushing so hard for sex education in schools, because marriage, having kids, being sexually active, is such a top of mind issue for them that they would risk failing school just to get it solved, so while the film starts off in a promising fairly ambiguous way, ultimately it goes WAY too far at portraying this narrative of a yearning for change. The way the protest is handled for example, that would NEVER play out that way. Again, I graduated high school post 2000, and sex was not even close to a top of mind issue to me or to most people at my school. You want to tell me that there's going to be an unbridled block of solidarity among every single student over this DEEP felt desire to talk about sex in class, and defy the authority of their teachers, principals, and parents, including all the kids who aren't in any relationships, realistically the vast majority of kids, and including all the nerdy poindexters obsessing day by day over their 4.0 grade averages? I'm sorry but it's not happening. That's not real now, and it wasn't real then.

Realistically teaching sex in schools, if anything, is an institutional reaction to social change, not the other way around as the film portrays it, and yes, the same way gender and sex issues are portrayed today by the powers that be. The architects of society had a vision for it, and still have a vision for it, which they have imposed in the past, and are continuing to impose, very very blindly. For example, we seemed to have this very naive idea that premarital sex was bad because it resulted in teenage pregnancy, which in turn perpetuated poverty, and thus a lower standard of living. Ok great... So they solved that issue, and by solving that issue, we then had a whole bunch of empty job positions for all the crappy jobs that no one wanted to do, because all the people who would have started poor families didn't, so as a result, we had to start importing poor people to fill those jobs, tons and tons of them from developing countries. Ideal societies don't exist. Every society needs poor people; every society needs sexual ambiguity. There are no one size fits all cookie cutter solutions, and no single education system has the antidote OR the final word. The idea that kids badly yearned for an education system to solve all the tough moral/social questions for them that their parents couldn't, is a fallacy.

Long story short, you can almost roll your eyes over how stupid and blindsided our society has been around sexual issues for as long as you can remember, but no, its NOT the kids who want this, who yearn for this type of institutional change, it NEVER is. This was a propaganda film, and most people don't recognize that. "Give us control over your kids, because they really really both want and need someone to tell them about the world, and you're not the one to do it." We hand our kids the world that we want for them. That's the reality. 60 years ago, we gave up the moral conscience of our kids to the public school system. 40 years ago, we taught our kids that they're special, and that their feelings matter more than anything else in the world. 20 years ago we taught our kids that it's ok to be gay, 10 years ago we taught them that they should feel safe at all times, and that its's more important for people to respect their feelings, than it is for them to manage their feelings, and now we're teaching them that anyone who disagrees with them should be silenced and blackballed, as long as they hold a "consensus" opinion.

We stopped teaching kids HOW to think, because now we teach them WHAT to think. Watching this film is like hitting the rewind button on society and stopping right squarely at the point where everything started to unravel, when the public school system started bastardizing its job, in my opinion. In the end, you choose the society you want for your kids. They don't want: YOU want. That's why they don't have a legal right to consent, because they don't have the capacity to know for sure. They don't know ANYTHING, and they're certainly not the ones begging you to tell them all about their bodies, as you may well like to fantasize if you're a sex education teacher. This film was pure propaganda of its day, but once again, it's an extremely interesting look back to compare where we're at with the idea of our education system now vs. Then. Just the title itself "The Explosive Generation," As if human beings in the 60's were fundamentally different sexually speaking as compared to their parents. This film makes an ass out of human sexuality: it really does.

The Delivered (2019)

A Feminist's Wet Dream

[6/10 · 7 July 2021]

What do you know. Thomas Clay finally put together a REAL movie. What do I mean by that exactly? Well, he's done "The Great Ecstasy Of Robert Carmichael, a teen angsty pseudo horror quasi experimental film which caused a brief splash, managing to alienate both the horror people for not being horror-centric, as well as everybody else for the seemingly senseless gross-out nature of the subject matter. Then there was Soi Cowboy, a very arthousey existential flick with not much of a plot, and which no one cared about. Don't get me wrong, I like both of his earlier films. I thought they showed a lot of promise. The difference is Fanny Lye is a film that normies will ACTUALLY go and see, and ACTUALLY appreciate for what it is.

Interestingly too, Thomas Clay seems to have dropped the trademark long drawn out scenes. This film is tight; it's well paced; very basic plot and cast, but enough to flesh out into something meaningful and resonant. In short, it's very conventional, in every sense of the word. The message I get from this film is "I want to make a career as a director, please." I think he's done with the experimental stuff. He wants to be mainstream, and with that point, let's talk about the subject matter. He couldn't have picked a more in vogue theme if he tried, the theme of female empowerment.

So, am I bashing the idea of a film where the men are blithering idiots who might as well be running around in circles, bumping into each other's heads, while a woman cleans up after their mess? Not exactly... But my description alone should tell you that I'm rolling my eyes at it JUST a little bit. I'm bored of female empowerment.. I just am. EVERY film has to have a heroin. EVERY reboot has to have an all female cast, and we KNOW it's all about satisfying a trend, and little else. That being said, Let's judge the film on its own merits. How did he do?

To start off on the downside of things, all the action scenes seem very forced, and not particularly well handled. It often comes across as "I want this to happen now; therefore this is going to happen now." Who gets overpowered and when, all seems to come down to the whim of the director. It doesn't feel very organic. Is this irredeemable? No, but I should mention the worst example of this. Early on when the vagabonds threaten the captain as the bounty hunter approaches. He doesn't notice any of the noise, commotion, or arguing back and forth going on within the hut as he's mere meters away. And why doesn't he notice? Because the director didn't want him to! That's how that comes across to me: one sloppy aspect of the film that's hard to ignore.

Onto the better points, as I've mentioned, the plot is very basic. This being the case, the film is fleshed out with strong dialogue and very well-focused tension between the characters. This actually isn't something you've seen Thomas Clay do in his previous films. How about the actions and motives of the characters? Is fanny Lye a well-developed character and do her actions make sense? Overall you'd have to say yes. She doesn't feel like a caricature. None of the characters do really, and that's important because each of them represent a very specific and classic theme in regards to human chaos, escapism, and order. There is one gross-out scene very sexual in nature, that might come across as a little forced, but to each his own.

To recap, it's a decent film. Maybe not groundbreaking, but it does have rewatch potential. It reminded me a bit of a film called "Blood Oranges," with all the sexual tension, by a director who reminds me a lot of Thomas Clay. So yeah I dunno, at the very least give the guy a tv career if that's what he wants. It's only taken him 12 years to find his voice, but I'll say it now just like I said 15 years ago, he does have talent, and I'm curious to see where he goes from here, after this, his second birth.

Jacob's Ladder (I) (1990)

Not all it's cracked up to be

[5/10 · 2 July 2021]

This film, while promising in the plot's development, in the end comes out as a bit of a hodgepodge, because it's based on top/down logic. Basically it's about a guy who's on his deathbed, and most of the film centers around an elaborate dream he's having as he's dying. What makes me feel so cheated by the ending is that in the dream there's this whole unraveling of a plot that's supposed to be centered around not just his wartime experiences, but what led to his death.

The problem is, it's ALL a dream! Therefore, you can't tie in a SINGLE thing explained in the dream to what's actually happening to him. The government testing drugs on its soldiers, well THAT'S neither here nor there, because the big reveal by the guy who developed the drug, he's just a dream character, i.e. A figment of Tim Robbin's imagination, so in the end, it's JUST about a guy dying from a stab wound, and the whole drug premise is completely illusory. I find overall, "mystery" films as a genre, films for people who absolutely LOVE twist endings, are basically for people with the sensibilities of a goldfish. You'll accept ANY twist that comes your way, because you literally can't remember the first half of the film, which COMPLETELY conflicts with the final analysis, and this film is no different in that regard.