Change Your Image
JerSim94
Reviews
Crimes of the Future (2022)
Stops at "interesting"
I enjoy Cronenberg's vision and his attempts to create art from the weird (i.e., "Crash" and "The Fly"), but a whimsical commentary on both the creation of art and the destruction of humanity morally and physically, along with a showcase of Cronenberg-tame gross-out visuals is about all you'll get out of this film.
The film follows Saul Tenser (Viggo Mortensen doing his finest Christoph Waltz impression) and his partner Caprice (the admittedly ever-capable Lea Seydoux) as they perform performance art via surgeries wherein organs that Tenser's body is randomly growing--and has no use for--are removed in an autopsy machine. Suddenly, there is a discovery that there are humans being born with modified organs, showing an evolution (a word that the government is not allowed to use or recognize for the new flesh--Cronenberg-approved pun--given they see the changes as making someone "not human." Tenser is asked to perform an autopsy on a child who was born with a modified digestive system at his next performance, and he must consider the ramifications and what it could mean for the world.
The score is great, and good performances are given in earnest. There is an absence of physical pain in this futuristic society, and so much more is shown on the front of emotional pain and general evocation of strong feelings for minute tasks and conversations. However, the film manages to find a way to not make crying over a conversation about whether someone is interested in the work of a performance artist seem like overacting. Additionally, the production design is quite accomplished; it seems like a Cronenberg wet dream with the brutal architecture and misshapen plaster walls with every building (excluding Tenser's villa, which itself seems like a Cronenberg style from a completely different Cronenberg movie) seemingly like where a disbarred lawyer practices illegal law in a shanty town. Atmospherically, the film works.
However, the movie has a lot of problems. For starters, the story and the writing are half-finished ideas that start nowhere and end nowhere. There is a long build-up to the plot of the film where Cronenberg attempts to introduce viewers to his world, only to really point out that there is a government organization that... does organs? There is a concept of registration that the government is launching soon, but it seems wholly unrelated because there is no risk and seems like a convoluted addition to get important characters involved. People can't feel pain so they're stabbing themselves. And also multiple people are nude for like five minutes in the early-middle of the movie and that's all we see of nudity is this weird little chunk (not to express we needed more or less nudity, but rather it was jarring to have none, have three nude women in a short burst of screen time, and then none again). The plot feels like half-remembered dreams that Cronenberg wrote down over the course of COVID and got 10 random friends with money to finance a loose script.
And the plot? There is a concern that people are being born with evolved organs, and they are indeed being born with evolved organs. Tenser is in physical pain--particularly consistent pain when eating and with his throat--and there's this plastic food that will either kill him or cure him. So he eats it, and then it either kills him or cures him, but he isn't feeling the pain, and now it's over. That's essentially it. The subplots (which 98% of this movie is) may as well have been vignettes with little title cards in front of the sections to give it some sense of tethered artistic integrity. The undercover agent subplot, firmware agents just killing folks subplot, and government workers subplots could have been explored a lot more thoroughly and could have been properly connected to the movie. Were the firmware agents murdering because they were part of New Vice, or because that was their next step in terms of what it took for them to feel, given their obsession with the autopsy machine and, seemingly, progressively more shocking behavior? Was Timlin's tearful expression that Whippet was involved with subversive groups and her almost-use of "evolution" a byproduct of a forced performance of the surgery on Brecken? While these thoughts are fine to ponder post-film, it leaves a lot to be reconciled on the screen. And, due to the disjointed and sloppy nature of storytelling, there is certainly a sense that even if these were thoughts we were meant to think on, they are incidental given the lack of care toward structure and transitions.
Thusly, where this movie suffers the most is in the editing. The film has moments of good visual, thematic, and plot clarity, but the way that the film hops from moment to moment, without any sort of connection or without resolution of the prior scene, makes the film feel like a concept reel for producers that just runs long enough to be a feature-length production.
See the movie, but know going into it that it is the most uninspired Cronenberg has been with original work, perhaps ushering in the age of retirement as his more capable son Brandon Cronenberg usurps and becomes the new face of weird, theme-exploring cinema.
Dead Island: Gut Wrenching (2011)
Beautiful, painful, and yes, gut wrenching
This is the greatest promotional trailer I have seen for a video game, including Kosinski's "Mad World" trailer for Gears of War. When I taught at college, I showed my students--with a warning of the emotional quality of it--to express story through solely physical actions, plot development, and timelines. The way it all plays out is genius, and the art direction is fantastic, unique while also preserving the look of other releases of the time. The greatest element in my opinion was the score by Giles Lamb, which stands out as a vibrant and multifaceted emotional inclusion that truly makes the trailer stand out in greatness.
The singular downside to this trailer is that the game did not live up to the expectations emotionally or in the stakes. The Gears of War trailers (which I only keep continuing on about because of the genuine cinematic emotional punch that those trailers have) adequately established the tone of the games, yet this trailer was conceptually brilliant but was failed by the gameplay (which may be a fault of the makers of the video for disregarding the content, or more likely the fault of the developers for not providing adequate information to the video-makers about the content of the game.
Nonetheless, this is a masterpiece in storytelling and should be seen by all who are willing to face such emotion and rawness.
We're All Going to the World's Fair (2021)
Many thoughts
Synopsis: Casey is a video blogger who posts the "World's Fair" challenge, which has been an ongoing online trend that leads posters to change who they are, become psychotic, or something within the myriad of "changing." One night, JLM--a fellow World's Fair community member--sends her a message saying that she is in danger. From there, the spiral into internet insanity begins.
Review: Here's the problem... I REALLY wanted to like this movie. I wanted to give it a chance and be wowed. But that just didn't happen. The acting is quite good, provided what they were given (which isn't much, frankly). Both leads did a great job creating suspense, committing to their performances, and the mystery of the world and what is real permeates. The question of what truly is real is what garnered the most attention from me at the credits: Did everything that happened happen at face value? Did JLM develop a relationship with Casey and this is a story about the dangers of online grooming? Did any of this even happen and, instead, this is a tale of JLM's wishes to be a young woman in a medium where it is possible? Did JLM create The World's Fair? Is Casey's story, amongst others, just a CreepyPasta that JLM is writing to gain more money--which he seemingly has a lot of given his home, whether that comes from his mother (?) who we see for five seconds at one point in the film--or notoriety?
So many questions, no answers. Which would normally be fine, and the speculative material of the movie would be icing on the cake aside from the solidity of the product itself. But unfortunately, this is not the case for We're All Going to the World's Fair. There is too much that is intangible, unknown, to give more of a punch of story. The cinematography is fine, the editing okay for the most part, and the dialogue fair. My biggest qualm is that this is a drama film masqueraded as a horror film, and while this has been somewhat of a trend lately, this film is the worst offender since there is nothing in it that is remotely scary. It relies way too much on the fact that it is sometimes nighttime outside, and the one scene where I genuinely felt something was when the stuffed animal was ripped apart. It is a good character moment, because Casey is messed up enough to do it thinking it's just a game but also only seemed to connect to the stuffed animal compared to all else in the world so it would have been a stretch for a normal her to do this. JLM mentions her going to in-patient treatment after so perhaps this was also just face value.
I don't feel robbed, I'm just disappointed in what could have been a much scarier or much more approachable film. Again, the speculative nature of the ending and the prompt itself, along with the main stars' acting, are the highlights of the work, but there is nothing that makes this movie worth the price. Not for everyone, and this proverb is certain truly: never again will I be viewing the World's Fair.
See You Next Tuesday (2013)
Stunning
I saw this film when it premiered at the Sidewalk Film Festival in Birmingham, AL and all I can say is "wow." A stunning film with very real emotion and a fantastic character study. Does a good job of being beautiful without trying to be, and is easily my favorite independent film of the year. It is graphic, rude, hilarious, sad, and honest- much like the hand we are dealt in life. The acting is superb, Eleanore Pienta providing a very true turn as a pregnant girl in a world of pressure. Her sister, played by Molly Plunk, is a loving albeit opinionated body in said world while her seething disdain for her mother (an awesome Dana Eskelson) is only countered by the warmth and acceptance of her girlfriend Sylve (top-notch Keisha Zollar). The events that follow these characters and their situations are very real and most people in this world (let alone an audience) can connect to them. Do yourself a favor and see this movie. It might just be the best thing you've seen this year.
Inception (2010)
The Best Movie... Ever....
Inception is an amazing movie that must be seen to enjoy the Summer blockbusters. The fact is that this movie is probably the if not tied for the best movie that I have ever seen. The movie is amazing and should be seen regardless of the liking of which forte, for Inception covers them all and covers them so well that you can't help but have chills from the awesomeness of the movie, even well after the movie was over. The acting was fantastic (Leo's best performance), and the writing and directing from the master Christopher Nolan was amazing. Inception is a must see to, and deserves at LEAST 11 Academy Awards (but, this might be the film that can get to 12 with Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Original Screenplay, Best Makeup, Best Visual Effects, Best Cinematography, Best Score, Best Sound Editing, and Best Editing). My predictions: Instant Classic, high grossing, and well accepted by every movie lover in America.