Change Your Image
di_Notte
Reviews
Presque rien (2000)
So what happened?
I'd really, really wanted to see this movie, and waited for months to get it through our Blockbuster Total Access account. When it showed up in our mailbox, I threw it straight into the DVD player.
I was very sadly disappointed, which in turn made me mad. I'll give any movie a chance, even if I want to walk out of the theater/press 'stop'. I watched it all the way through, but didn't get anything from it but frustration.
The acting was very, very good, but that was about it. Nothing is explained; while we understand that Mathieu becomes depressed and lands in a psych ward of some kind, we're never given insight to his 'downfall'. While we understand that he and Cedric break up, again, we don't see it happen or WHY it happened. During an interview with Mathieu's doctor, Cedric reveals that he'd cheated on him once, but it was no big deal. I expected to see this in flashbacks, but no--nothing. We also gets the hints that Cedric was the one to bring Mat to the hospital--but AGAIN, we don't see it.
I know some movies are a 'take it as it is' basis, but this movie honestly ticked me off. When Pierre, Cedric's ex shows up in the club and starts trouble, we don't see hide nor hair of him until near the end, and it took me a good chunk of time to figure out that Pierre WAS the ex. His personality at the club and when Mat finds him are entirely different. I might even be wrong saying this, it was that confusing.
The film expects you to know everything and move along with its disjointed, out-of-place and confusing pace. I can keep up with films like 'Pi', 'Citizen Kane' and other films that have flashbacks/flash-forwards left and right, but CU didn't capture and hold onto the style. At the end of 'Citizen Kane', you know what's going on and discover the answer to the main mysteries. CU just leaves you hanging. It has an air of pretension in its 'we're not gonna tell you a damned thing, figure it out for yourself' presentation. It's like reading a book with the chapters switched around and pages missing.
Good acting, like I said. I liked the characters, but the whole story was just too disappointing.
Doogal (2006)
Almost walked out
My husband and I can cut a lot of slack for movies, even when we KNOW they're terrible after viewing. We both had never walked out of a theater feeling morose and depressed BECAUSE of the movie. Until today. We took our son to see it, seeing as we had our free passes on us and had three hours to kill betwixt appts. I had, all in the same town. We thought "Let's have some fun! What to see... Curious George or... what's Doogal?" Didn't even know what it was. Wish we did. Everyone saying the dog was charming... uh, wha...? The dog made me mad, for good God's sake. He was selfish and didn't learn anything, even if he did pull 'the last task' of diamond... whatever. Was I supposed to care about his relationship with the little girl? Cos' I really, really didn't. They talked about them being best friends for two seconds then oops, frozen. If they'd given some backstory instead of shooting ahead to the crappy storyline, perhaps. Establishment, people. Foreshadowing. The makers of the film should have done a titch o' dat. For everyone saying "It's for kids" or "If you don't like it see another movie" (um, logic go boom? How can I have SEEN another movie while watching THIS one??) Are we HONESTLY underestimating our kids ability to see crap for crap, no matter how old they are? My kid sat through Corpse Bride, Pooh's Heffalump movie, and most of Wallace&Grommit. This? Heck no. And he's only 2 1/2. Anyways, I got the preschoolers I taught able to identify Orson Welles without question in his radio recording of "War of the Worlds". I've done my job. Junk. Pure junk. Wished I'd left for ice cream when I'd had the urge, but the counter was way far and this movie sapped the life from me to move.
Van Helsing (2004)
When will they learn...
My husband and I were ambushed by my mom to go see this; that was our first hint. Most of the time my mom loves campy "oooh they look goth! Did Nine Inch Nails sing this???" "No mom, it's Korn..." type of stuff. God love her, she's an excellent woman. But I knew she'd love this. She DOES watch "Passions", the soap after all. We watched a documentary she'd taped for us from the sci-fi channel on it. All the director pimped out was "I made everything BIGGER and BETTER and it's because I LOVE the old films!!!". The best way to show love is to leave it alone. I love a lot of old films, but if someone came out with a remake of "Citizen Kane" or "Double Indemnity" I'd give them a scowl and boycott it, urging others to do the same. Either that or HOPE something good comes from it. And tonight, she lent her copy of it to us. *Small sighing groan and slow blinking eyes, shaking head....* I just don't get it. They expect one to follow along with the characters as if we know what they're thinking; I don't get it. We got a total smack down of information in one scene, or complete ridiculous over exposed-exposition as if the plot line is so complicated. It's not complicated, though it wants to be. The *reason* I don't get it is because I feel like this movie pushed me to the floor, told me it was going to kill me, then got up because it was distracted by a doughnut across the room. It confuses me with it's ridiculousness. I don't even know what I'm saying right now. It's late, this movie was in no way good before bed.
Son of the Mask (2005)
Haven't seen it, but here's the deal...
I know a good amount of Norse mythology. I haven't seen this movie but if what I've heard is true, I'm pretty mad already.
1~ Loki is not FUNNY, people. Nor would he be able to come back as he did in this movie. He sorta died in Ragnarok; after he released himself from a rock the Gods had tied him to (with the entrails of his dead son) and released Fenris to EAT everybody. 2~ Odin is the "Allfather", but not LOKI'S FATHER. 3~ By all accounts of the skalds and what not, Loki had red hair and was evil looking, not some tripped out club kid with spiky black hair. 4~ He wanted to make trouble with Odin. He sort of destroyed him and his entire kingdom because he hated him to the point of death. You don't visit Hel, queen of the underworld to be ordered around to find some ridiculous mask, especially when you're willing to kill Odin's son on top of everything else.
There's a hundred more points surely, but I don't have the time. Norse mythology is a big part of my beliefs and this film (which I've not yet rated due to my not- and probably never will- seeing it) is like trying to convince a Christian that a movie about Jesus dancing on the cross would be a funny thing.
Vampire Clan (2002)
Gee, wonder who they were trying to hook...
For approximately 5-7 years I frequented a club in Western Mass. on Tuesdays, when they held "Haven", a goth/industrial night. At first it was quite cool, yet we stopped going. Mostly because we had our first child last summer, yet a good part was because no one we'd known for those years was really going anymore. Why? Because the people that WERE going are the people who would think this movie is cool. People with made up names and online personalities named "gothyboy88" or "batboygothone312". People who would watch this movie and think the characters were cool. Little bat children and all such trite nonsense. The fact that this movie uses almost nothing but Genitorturers for the music says something. No Kidney Thieves? How about even Bauhaus? Or did they watch the movie and say "like hell we're using any of our songs in that."? I'd say so. The characters use the "I smoke" factor to make us think they're cool. Uh-huh. The scene where they kill the parents is about oh... 34 minutes too long. And tell me what you want, wearing white makeup all the time is just such a cheese factor. Those kids weren't vampires... they weren't even goth. Spending all your 'rents money in Hot Topic all day doesn't put you in a "goth category". Maybe a "hot topic goth" category, but that's worse than being a football jock or cheerleader. You paid too much for the vinyl and now you wanna take it out on some innocent folks by killing them and taking their car? Sorry buddy, that ain't destiny, that's just poor spending. Dorks. I wish I knew the real people, then I could go to them and tell 'em "Hey, guys... just saw your movie. Next time when you play some random role playing game why don't you take your human being pills? Idiots." Tell me what you want about their upbringing. They're stupid, plain and simple. Psychotic? Maybe. But that'd be giving them credit they'd like to flaunt.
Passions (1999)
Oh sweet God, why...
...I'll tell you why. This is the perfect soap for anyone who likes Mystery Science Theater. I myself obssess over MST3K, so it fits well with me. My mom got into it after seeing Timmy and Tabitha, and she's one of the most outlandish people I've ever known so of COURSE she's going to get into this. So it's all her fault. Can I ask some really serious questions though? #1- The idea of Teresa's child being taken away. Um, this whole idea just could NOT happen. They'd need more solid proof to not even allow to see this kid, let alone take him away. #2- As in any soap these people are supposedly rich, or have jobs that MAKE them rich. Yet when do we see them working? #3- Back to the idea of Teresa... she loves her kid to death right? Then why have her mom, Pilar, watch him for two straight months (or was it 3?) while gallavanting in LA? Okay, I digress; this storyline was supposedly like what, a week? But it TOOK two or three months to get the point across. Which leads straight into #4... #4- Do we REALLY NEED 2-3 months to see if Teresa and Ethan KISS or not??? Come the flip ON. Let's get this moving. By the time the whole Sheridan getting her baby back storyline concludes, the "baby" will have to be technically 15 years old. #5- Luis beats up a doctor, two orderlies, and Antonio all in one day at the psych ward, and he wasn't taken to jail with huge amounts of bail?? No matter the soap ridiculousness, that was just... ridiculous. #6- On a slightly serious note, at least with the whole Sheridan&Luis/Antonio&Beth storyline, as crazed as Beth is, was it not just mean for Luis to just DUMP her butt when Sheridan came back? And as much as this kid was kidnapped, he doesn't know that and is giving her the shaft completely. Same kinda thing with everyone on the show who has a baby right now... which is just about EVERYBODY at this point. Kinda teaches guys that it's okay to fall for other chicks, or dump the ones you have and not pay attention to your baby. Nevermind the girl. Like that scene with Kay, Charity, and whatshisname (can't remember suddenly): "Oh, the hospital called! We can take our baby home! Why don't you go home and put the crib together?" "But me and Charity have plans to go skating," Uh-huh. #7- This is just a stupid point, but I've just NOTICED it... the fact that Charity (who is just too darn goody goody for my taste) WON'T STOP LEANING FORWARD AND LOOKING ALL "HO-HUM", PUTTING HER HANDS IN HER POCKETS AND ROCKING BACK AND FORTH ON HER FEET. It's SUCH a stupid pointless point, but I find it annoying anyways. #8- Does anyone honestly stand around, saying out loud "I WILL get your husband. Even if I have to kill your son and mother-in-law to do so. I just need my uncle to return from the Cayman Islands. But just you wait." when someone leaves the room... and do you not only do it that one time, but say the SAME darn phrase everytime you feel like it???
I could go on. But I really should assess why I'm even posting all this, lol... I guess it just amuses me. This show *can* be fun even with all the horrid flaws and completely ridiculous acting. Me and my mom just make fun of it, but we tune in nonetheless. It's just... well, it's 'just'.
The Adventures of the Wilderness Family (1975)
Yuppie Guilt
I saw this film from what my father told me about it; I like watching cheese, and from what he'd said, this is CHEESE. As people started moving into the mid-1970s, they were leaving behind the hippie-dippy daze, getting into more sophisticated drugs, then becoming clean corporate slaves. Everyone began forgetting how wonderful the earth was because they were too busy drilling it for oil or tearing down trees to make room for our growing population. This film's answer?? Make a senseless decision involving your entire family by moving into a wooded area you know NOTHING about where there's no help for miles and you have no skills dealing with wild animals, baking from ABSOLUTE scratch, hunting, etc. We went from the streets of L.A. to the hills of the Rockies in less than two minutes. Were there books taken out of the library on survival techniques in the wilderness? Did the family take shooting lessons? Was there any talk on food, such as how are we going to grow a garden or bake bread or fish or hunt? If there was, we weren't allowed to see it. We are supposed to believe that this family knew all this, that they had a thriving garden in the city, that the woman could bake bread without so much as a wooden spoon, and that the father had been shooting at the neighbor's cat regularly. The only reason the mother and father had had kids is for the cute factor alone, though it fails miserably at the feigned feel of it all. The little boy sounds like he's reading lines but can't read yet, and the daughter seems drugged into a dazed happiness about everything. Their dog Crust (is that honestly his name?? Crust???) must have attacked wild animals at home as well, seeing as he attacks EVERYTHING in this film; it's surprising he doesn't mutilate flowers if they move too much in the wind, becoming a threat to the family. Here are some things that make me refuse to have suspension of belief: ~The father fly-fishes. He is NOT going to feed a family of 4 on fly fishing. That's called sport, not necessity. ~The dog survives brutal attacks of wolves, bears, and MOUNTAIN LIONS. Something is wrong when a domestic dog from the city makes it out alive in those circumstances with barely a scratch. ~How much does a contruction worker make? Enough to ensure a plane to bring supplies every so often? How about when he has no more job and makes no more money? ~A 10 to 13 year old girl would never outrun a bear. ~Just from my own opinion, I would have lost all faith in myself, my family, and my dog to be able to survive in this place with the attitude and lack of planning that this family accomplished.
Reviews of the plot aside, I'm thinking of starting a drinking game. It's called "Take a shot everytime you see the boom mike."
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
It only said what I've been saying for years.
The people who deny this films plausibility and truths by blocking their ears and closing their eyes are the very examples of why this film exists. It only supports what I've been saying for years; that Americans are scared to death of each other, and perpetuate their own fears through media and prejudice (which could be seen as one in the same). It speaks of the merit in the 2nd amendment, which of course supports the right to bear arms. I've never been totally on one side or the other, and in my opinion this film isn't that way either. It gives a good perspective from both sides, and allows you to choose for yourself what you want. It supports the fact that tens to hundreds of other countries have just as many guns as we do, possibly more. But what's the difference 'twixt us and these countries, who have such low death rates by guns even with their own possession of firearms? Like the film stated very clearly through history and present tense. Fear, plain and simple. Someone commented on how the facts are stunted and without merit. What research have you done on this subject? I have friends in England, one of them a reporter for her local town's newspaper. She went on a drug raid that their police did. I was in shock: "Weren't you afraid of getting shot??" She laughed out loud, saying "What? Vee, we don't HAVE the guns you do. Not even the cops going INTO the raid had guns." The sheer disbelief that I'd suggest guns would be at a drug pusher's house, or even have the cops have guns showed me a lot, being that I'm from a country where a cop has to carry thirty-five different forms of artillery just to write a speeding ticket. I DO love my country, and I'm glad that we can bear arms should we want/need to. But do we NEED guns that can shoot 900 rounds into a person breaking into our home(s)? Honestly? I know I've spoken more on my views rather than the film itself, but that's what this film did. It showed me what I already knew from another's perspective, and gave me real proof to boot. Unless you want to shoot back 50 years into the past and get a McCarthy hearing going, what reason would Moore have to lie? This of course is directed to the person disagreeing with the statistics of this film. Granted I haven't run my own personal census so I don't know 100% myself that these statistics are true. Yet what does anyone have for proof... besides the dead bodies of innocent people we killed in our meandering around, supporting Iran, then Iraq, then Bin Laden, etc. etc.? These aren't even undercover facts or conspiracies, it's WELL KNOWN that we taught Bin Laden everything the CIA knew. Is the denial stemming from the fact that you don't want to believe?
That's what these films are here for. To make you think past the box Americans have been put into. What is wrong with seeing your country's faults? Do you deny you have your own? Are you selfish sometimes, or gullible, depressed, manic, etc.? Then how is it a whole conglomerate of Americans and their elected officials aren't WRONG a good portion of the time? I'm wrong about 78% of the time dealing with my own LIFE, nevermind anyone else's. I don't agree with taking guns away. I agree with taking people's minds and stirring them around a bit. That's what this film did. I think it was truth no one wants to hear. Because everyone's scared to death, everyone's depressed and on some sort of medication, everyone's hoping the bombs don't land in their town, everyone's worried about taking the bus because they don't want to get shot... and it's sad that not everyone will get to watch this film to learn WHY they think that. Or, to learn that they have to open their minds more to other peoples opinions. This movie was so well done, I wouldn't eat it.