Change Your Image
fedor8
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur7059410/lists
My other internet names are Qwerty100, P*****k, Vjetropev and others.
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againStvaranje filma nije kao pisanje par pesmica za neki shalabajz domaci album, ni blizu. Za jedan (dobar) film je realno potrebna pozamasna svota novca, a na Balkanu toga vrlo retko ima na raspologanju. Ovde krimosi, kako politicki tako i oni sa kajlama, drze svu lovu, a dobri filmovi takve specije ne zanimaju. Filmove je tesko finansirati na Zapadu, a kamoli kod nas. Kod nas je, primera radi, dug niz godina bio standard da se skoro nikada ne snimaju scene vise od jednom zbog skupoce filmskog materijala - sto naravno drasticno koci i rezisera i glumce u teznji ka savrsenstvu (kada takva teznja uopste postoji). Vec taj podatak u vecoj meri objasnjava zasto domaci filmovi nisu na visokom nivou cesto - a da ne govorimo o tome da je decenijama Tiletova Komunjar-Partija uglavnom trazila samo propagandne, anti-cetnicke, pro-komunjarske filmove odnosno sam kvalitet cesto nije bio na vrhu prioriteta mnogih rezisera vec samo da shire neku debilnu politicku ideologiju zarad love, karijere i napretka u toj Komunjar-Partiji. Ne treba potcenjivati broj onih koji su dosli do vecih uloga ili reziserskih projekata samo zbog slihtanja Komunjar- Partiji.
Jos jedan veliki problem domaceg filma - pogotovo u poslednjih par godina - je naravno rastuci nepotizam. Tesko je ocekivati jaku kinematografiju kada reziseri i producenti (koji su cesto i sami izgradili svoje karijere preko rodbinske/politicke veze) angazuju skoro iskljucivo decu prijatelja, njihovu i svoju rodbinu, i/ili neku (mahom netalentovanu) decu politickih elitista. Pravim audicijama se retko ko bavi vise; ali ko aktivno ne trazi mlade talente nece ih verovatno ni naci. Odnosno ako trazis perspektivne mlade pisce i glumce iskljucivo medju decom svojih kolega, ti onda sebi - a ujedno i srpskom filmu - ogranicavas potencijal drasticno, jer sa osrednjom ili cak totalno netalentovanom decom nekih tamo kosarkasa, partijaca, scenarista i glumaca ne mozes da ocekujes stvaranje filmskih klasika. Od g**ana se pita ne pravi. Pogotovo ne kod komedija koje zahtevaju pravi talenat a ne banalno kreveljenje neukih laika.
Ali je vise nego ocigledno da trenutno u Srbiji obicna deca iz naroda (tj. bez rodjaka u svetu filma) slabo koga zanima u nasoj licemernoj filmskoj "eliti" koja se samo folira kako sve rade "zarad umetnosti" a ne zbog svog dzepa i slave. Ko zna koliko glumackih i scenaristickih talenata sedi neiskorisceno po citavoj zemlji jer etablirana incestoidno-klanovska garda smatra da su samo njihova deca predodredjena za film, tj. da su genetski nasledila sav njihov talent - sto je naravno budalastina u koju mogu da poveruju samo veoma naivni i povodljivi ljudi (koji nazalost cine vecinu na Balkanu). S jedne strane laprdaju u intervjuima do besvesti pretenciozno kako je njima (tj. rediteljima i glumcima) glavni cilj "stvaranje umetnosti" - a ovamo gledaju uvek da uguraju neke svoje pajtose i rodbinu (cak i one najnekompetentnije) u glavne uloge i kao pisce sto znaci da ih NE zanima umetnost, bar ne kao primarni cilj u toku stvaranja filmova.
Cast izuzetcima, naravno, jer su se neki glumci ciji su roditelji iz tog miljea stvarno pokazali, ali to je sitna manjina. Niti ja sugerisem da je nepotisticki podmladak u Srbiji neka razmazena i obesna bagra kao u Holivudu, jer kod nas glumci uglavnom zaradjuju relativno skromno, znaci mnogi od njih stvarno idu u taj biznis jer to vole a ne da se obogate. Mada, taj bedni motiv zvani SLAVA je i dalje cesto glavni pokretac takvih ljudi.
To sto gotovo nikome u Srbiji vise ni ne smeta sto je nepotizam toliko zavladao medijskim profesijama (guglirajte nepotizam u srpskom filmu, necete naci nijedan clanak na ovu temu - sem ovog - iako je nepotizam sve-prisutan) govori koliko se nas narod navikao na korupciju i dekadenciju kao NORMALAN nacin zivota. A nepotizam je ogranak korupcije, i to jedan od najstetnijih, po sve nas. Ne postoje dzaba zakoni u izvesnim "trulim" zemljama koji sluze da se nepotizam sprecava ili barem drzi u granicama normale.
Kad se sve ovo uzme u obzir, ne moze i ne sme da cudi da nema mnogo odlicnih domacih filmova, jer je u tako koruptnoj (anti-)stvaralackoj atmosferi pa jos uz manjak love tesko proizvesti nesto kvalitetno. Dobri filmovi ne padaju s neba, cak ni kada je u pitanju nebeski narod. (Ili pogotovo ne tada.)
S druge strane, YU filmovi (i dobri i losi) imaju neku specificnu atmosferu koja se ne moze naci kod stranih filmova. (Ovo vazi pretezno za starije filmove.) Ja ne mogu ni da zamislim kako oni deluju stranim, a pogotovo zapadnim gledaocima; verovatno bizarno i zbunjujuce. Bez obzira na sve prepreke, i finansijske i stvaralacke prirode, Jugoslavija je uspela da proizvede izvestan broj dobrih filmova - a za to su uglavnom zasluzni odlicni YU glumci, a mnogo manje scenaristi koji se ne mogu pohvaliti velikim ucinkom; malo njih se istaklo na nekom visem nivou.
Karl Malden je jednom rekao da je glavni problem Balkanskog filma nizak nivo scenarija. Pavle Vuisic je, po prici njegove udovice, skoro svaki scenario koji je dobio prelistao na brzaka i bacio s gadjenjem, a onda napravio neki komentar u fazonu "opet neko sranje". Da je pisanje bilo na nivou glume, Jugoslavija bi imala daleko bolji ucinak. Nemamo dobre scenariste - surova istina. Ili im ne dozvoljavamo da dodju do izrazaja zbog pomenute korupcije kompletnog sistema i drustva.
FILMOVI SU RANGIRANI PO KVALITETU, od najboljih pa sve do onih ocajnih, kojih ima poprilicno.
OCENE: Domaci korisnici ovog sajta, kao i mnogi strani, imaju tendenciju da daju maksimalne ocene filmovima koji im se svidjaju. Ali ja 10/10 ne dajem za dobre filmove vec za genijalne filmove. To i objasnjava delom zasto toliko domacih filmova ima nesrazmerno vise proseke od npr. americkih filmova. Ja ocenjujem drugacije od vecine korisnika sa Balkana:
10 - skoro savrsen film ili savrseno zabavan 9 - ispunjava sva ocekivanja 8 - odlican 7 - veoma dobar 6 - dobar, solidan 5 - OK, nije los, moze da prodje 4 - mediokritet, manje-vise gledljiv, ali felerican 3 - los film 2 - uzasan film 1 - Ceca Raznatovic
Inace, evo vam mali savet kako da dodjete do objektivnijih ocena za domace filmove, ali i filmove uopste, na ovom sajtu. Kada ste na strani nekog filma, idite na statistiku odnosno demografsku podelu glasaca, pa vidite koji je prosek dat od "top 1000 voters". Ta ocena je bliza objektivnoj prosecnoj oceni nego kada racunamo sve glasove, jer ti ljudi su gledali daleko vise filmova te imaju jace kriterijume.
VASI KOMENTARI: Posto je IMDb odlucio da se samo preko Facebook-a moze komentarisati, onemogucio sam ovu opciju. A posto je IMDb izbrisao i opciju privatnih poruka izmedju usera, nemate nikakvog nacina da se meni obratite sa kritikama, pohvalama ili bljuvanjem. Ne ljutite se na mene, vec se obratite ljudima nadleznim za ovaj sajt. Posto se sloboda govora sve vise tamani na internetu (kao i u medijima), necu da ja budem nista gori odnosno bolji od njih, te vam vise ne dajem sansu da komentarisete, jer je FB jedina opcija (a pre desetak godina je mogao svako aninimno da ostavlja komentare), a ja FB nalog nemam niti mi treba, a jos manje ce neko da izvrsi pritisak na mene da ga otvorim.
P.S.
Mislim da je sramota sto velika vecina domacih filmova nemaju plakate (tj. slike) ubacene na ovaj sajt, i da je prilicno jadno sto su biografije domacih glumaca tako oskudne a ponekad i nepostojece. Uopste receno, na internetu ne mozes doci do nekih bitnijih i/ili detaljnijih podataka ni o domacim filmovima ni o glumcima. Eto koliko Srbi cene svoju kulturu. Vole da masu zastavama i da vicu "SRBIJA!" ali kada treba nesto konkretno da urade za svoju zemlju (ili u vezi nje) nema ih ni od korova.
Sto se tice "plot summaries" domacih filmova na IMDb, mahom su lose napisani, odnosno na losem engleskom sa puno gramatickih gresaka i sa konfuznim, jadno prevedenim frazama. Pa ne moze sa Google Translate da se odradi dobar tekst. Dobrovoljno se javljam da ih ispravljam.
P.S.S.
Izgleda da kritika utice! Jer u medjuvremenu su postavljene slike za velik broj domacih filmova. Kada sam zapoceo listu, svaki deseti film je imao fotografiju plakata ili bilo kakvu fotku, a sada je to ucestala pojava.
NEDAVNO DODATI:
Drugarcine Cao Inspektore Druzbina Pjere Kvrznice Skupljaci perja Splav meduze
Obviously, I'd lost that hope years ago already, not as of recently. But after so many years of witnessing this accelerated devolution, my patience had reached critical mass, and I simply had to react to this disgusting onslaught of rubbish and lies. I want to compile as many examples of this ever-flowing river of trash as I can. About 15 years ago, Discovery Channel used to have scientific programs, even challenging programs that went against the tenets of political correctness, but now it's all fake reality-TV hooey. The National Geographic, once a legendary institution that stood for serious exploration and science, now stands for political indoctrination, cheesy sensationalism, and goofy hahaha comedy programs. The History Channel used to be jokingly called "The Hitler Channel" because of its numerous WW2/Hitler programs, but bad as it was now it is far worse: it's become just another reality-TV pile of useless junk. Travel Channel, Planet Earth, and BBC Earth are examples of other culprits. And that's just the channels I have: there must be 100s of others that serve mostly as dumbing-down machines. Documentaries are not a dying breed, they're a dead breed. As dead as the Dodo bird. Quasi-documentaries and propagandamentaries replaced them.
The list consists of non-scientific, quasi-scientific, semi-scientific and anti-scientific "documentary" series, programs and films, plus pseudo-historic films/series. This list is about the wholesale rape of science and history on the small and big screens, focusing predominantly on the last 30 years or so.
When I say "orchestrated" dumbing-down I am not implying a vast global conspiracy that involves 100,000 "one-percenters". Some of these entries - especially the politically-laden films - are definitely part of an orchestrated (political) movement to stupidify and armageddonize audiences (hint hint a certain former Vice President of the U.S. who now lives off millions he'd made from ecological fear-mongering), whereas most of the TV series shown here were created more spontaneously and are based purely on jump-on-the-band-wagon profiteering off a fad. For example, haunted houses being "inspected" by charlatans pretending to be psychics.
Of course, supernatural gobbledygook has never been just a temporary fad, it's been part-and-parcel of human ignorance for millennia. Except that a prehistoric caveman or a 15th-century serf had very valid excuses for their ignorance. What excuses might modern-day paranormalists have? Pretty much none.
In recent years/decades, the level of propagandist brainwashing and sensationalist "science documentaries" have hit the television (and even the big screen) like a crapavalanche that won't stop and only seems to get stronger, bigger and more omnipresent. Practically every major film company is in on it. Motives? Either financial or political, and sometimes both. (Any political motive is by definition financial as well, in 99% of all cases. A certain ex-Vice President has created enormous wealth by preaching Doomsday scenarios to the clueless and the naive.)
Some of these films/series are the very obvious kinds of trashploitation "documentaries" that advertise the existence of Bigfoot, the Yeti, alien invaders, the Loch Ness water-lizard, UFO cover-ups and other silly rubbish.
But I've also included the less obvious scams, i.e. the more refined and better funded (politically funded) "serious" films and TV series that don't lie about everything but "cleverly" combine facts and lies in the service of promoting fashionable/current ecological fables. These are the politically-orientated entries veiled as "dire ecological warnings by concerned citizens": all those propagandist shows/films that proudly, pompously (yet unconvincingly) wave the flag of "real science" while misusing science for nefarious ends.
Unfortunately, a lot of these entries feature real scientists, i.e. archeologists/anthropologists/biologists/physicists/cosmologists with college degrees (and even cushy government jobs) who have no qualms about participating in crackpot-science programs, as long as the check is in the mail... There is a rapidly increasing trend among (younger) scientists to promote hogwash and non-science as real science, simply because it brings them easy/quick money. They are hired by non-principled producers (and populist politicians) to lend their films/shows "credibility". I mention some of them in the entries below, though it should be anyway rather obvious who these "mercenary" scientists are. Some of them are household names.
Of course, some of these programs/films use clueless 16 year-old upper-class kids to promote their lies through, because clearly a 16 year-old kid from a wealthy/privileged elitist family is so much more convincing than a middle-aged scientist who refuses to appear in garbage... (This really should tell you everything about the dishonest intentions of certain producers of these laughable films.) What's next: animated Disney cartoon characters preaching save-the-Earth malarkey?
Included also are history "documentaries" that show extreme bias and/or lack of substance: programs that approach history from a very superficial angle and/or with a clear political agenda, and/or with the focus being on sensationalism rather than truth and facts. Added to these are also biopics and "historical" fiction films that toy with historical facts in ways that are obvious, blasphemous, and fantasy-like.
Many history documentaries that are factually sloppy have not been included, simply because I am not aware of their flaws. I am not an expert on Roman Times nor the Viking Eras, for example, so I am not competent to judge just how flawed some of these programs are. Hence many such series that deserve to be here aren't listed.
This list will never be complete, because:
a) Some shows/films aren't listed on IMDb, especially many non-American ones
b) Many new dumb shows/films are being made as we speak
c) I can't possibly be expected to hunt down every single piece of nonsense that exists currently
Hence this list should probably be at least twice as long as it is. My intention isn't to get ALL the rubbish on the list, because that's impossible for one person to do, but it's to show you just how rampant dumbing-down has become, and how accelerated this devolution is.
The order is somewhat structured: the list starts off with UFO stuff, then goes into ghost territory, then climate change, and later biopics, psychics, religious tales, and other nonsense... There are sections, it is more-or-less ordered.
This is the order, more-or-less:
UFO/Aliens, Ghosts, Monsters, Climate Change, Moon Hoax, Flat Earth, Bible/Evolution, Pseudo-Medicine, Movies, Diana, Hitler, Slavery, Moore, 9/11, Psychics, Nostradamus, Bermuda Triangle, Exorcism.
Nevertheless, assigning each person a rating (good, bad, awful, whatever) isn't such a precise "science" because some comedians are very uneven, or some may be charismatic but with weak material, or unlikable but with OK material. The label/rating I give out is intended to be approximate rather than precise.
Very few are listed as "the best". That's because there are very few comics who fulfill all the criteria necessary to not make me switch them off after just a few minutes. My criteria used to be lower, which is when I sometimes had interest and patience in watching 30 minutes of an average comedian, but now only a few are deserving of my time; these few I can watch for over an hour without ever getting bored.
Criteria:
1. Charisma and an interesting personality. A comedian needs to be unique in some way otherwise he's just a random Joe Shmoe off the street telling (bad) jokes, and the moment a comic seems average he is automatically of no use, to me at least. Just as I don't listen to average music (except when checking out new stuff), I completely try to avoid comedic mediocrity: being bored AND annoyed is way too much. In fact, "comedians" such as Amy Schumer are so bad they are actually worse than a randomly picked pedestrian telling jokes. But nepotism will do that... She is the niece of a powerful Washington politician and she is also that other thing, so all doors to show-biz were open for her.
2. Courage to be politically incorrect - which is pretty much the same thing as being honest, as opposed to being an Establishment sycophant: a "minorities pleaser", in other words a devious, calculating liar who pretends to care so much for women, blacks and gays that he can't ever make "fun" of them. EVERYBODY should be made fun of. Life is absurd in all of its forms, and all of it contains comedic potential. No gender, race or religion can be exempt, for any reason. The moment you start censoring yourself to such an extent you're doomed - as a person as well as a comedian.
(Except invalids, that's where I draw the line. Jokes about the paraplegic and similar junk is ugly. But just because I draw the line there doesn't mean everybody else should: each person has their own tastes, limits, tolerance levels... We can't allow anyone - least of all hypocritical, dishonest liberals - to impose such Orwellian restrictions on us. Far from being "liberators" of society and mankind, they are in fact the biggest censors and freedom-of-speech opponents on the political spectrum. Liberalism is oppression, as all offshoots of Marxism are.)
Show some balls out there on stage, or go home and shut up. We have enough cowards in the media as it is - among actors, musicians, directors, athletes, political analysts, journalists, and authors - so we don't need liars and phonies in stand-up comedy too, which is (or should be) a special, unique arena which serves as the last refuge for Free And Open Speech. Once we allow Reds to destroy stand-up comedy as well as everything else they'd (nearly) destroyed, we will be one huge step closer to totalitarianism which Soros and his gang have been pushing for in the last few decades. (If this is news to you then know that you've been successfully brainwashed: it's not too late for you, but curing you will prove a difficult task, mostly because you'd been trained/programmed not to think for yourself, or not to think at all. Learning to think at an adult age can be a daunting task for the intellectually apathetic.)
Unfortunately, most comedians lack the balls to be honest. They just don't have it in them. Whether that's because they are privately dishonest too, or because they are afraid of "offending" someone, is irrelevant: the results are the same. Especially these days there is so much cowardice and so much obsequiousness, because truth and honesty are considered "racist, homophobic, misogynist, Islamophobic, transphobic" (by hypocrites and the New Moral Police) and whatever other dumb-phobic words these people had invented in the meantime while I was typing up this text. Dishonesty becomes obvious rather quickly in most comedy routines, within 5 minutes or even just 30 seconds: these types of pseudo-comedian con-artists are quickly identifiable and the moment I smell that stench of political correctness i.e. "playing it safe" I shut them off, forever. No second chances. Once a devious sell-out, always a devious sell-out.
Comedy has to be all-inclusive, which is something that - very ironically - liberals struggle to understand and accept. They allegedly want an "all-inclusive egalitarian" society, but with their ultra-biased non-inclusive routines Red comics prove that they have no interest in that: they actually want MORE EQUALITY for minorities and women than for example male Caucasians. Much more. They want white men to be relegated to the status of pariahs of society, to have their rights curtailed, and all in the name of virtue-signaling, just to satisfy their own narcissism (coz narcissists want constant acceptance and praise, and they will always seek it among those who offer more of it i.e. to the highest bidder, and liberals just happen to be currently the highest bidders), but more importantly to have more job security in a media landscape dominated by the Left, which doesn't care who is funny, just who is politically compliant. So much black-listing is going on behind the curtains, not "just" people getting "cancelled" which is done out in the open - as warning to anyone else who wants to "step out of line" and dare question the Grand New Liberal Status Quo.
Extreme bias is ugly and malicious, can be a sign of low intelligence too, besides which it makes a comic very predictable and boring, plus makes him out to be a calculated d****e as opposed to a genuine, frank character who lets it all hang, who takes risks, doesn't play it safe for fear of offending some minority of uptight lunatics who can't take a joke. Cowardice isn't funny in a comedian. Balls are. Comedians are funny when they are brave, not when they are compliant. Nobody wants to hear a routine consisting only of G-rated humour.
This means that if you make fun of men, make fun of women too. If you make fun of "rednecks", then make fun of blacks and Orientals as well. If you constantly ridicule moderate Christians then at least have the decency to poke fun at Islamic extremism as well (if you dare). If you make fun of the Right, mock the Left too. Be "all-inclusive", since that is what our Marxist Overlords allegedly want...
Especially mock the Left. Because they are the ones in power, dominating nearly all discourse and propaganda, and because we've been fighting them in recent decades. They are the spoil-sports, the NWO Moral Police, the screaming righteous street preachers, the fanatically aggressive lynch mobs, the zealous regressive hypocrites, the narcissists who loathe the world because it isn't exactly to their liking. What was that last movement that so fanatically tried to "mold" the world to their own liking? The Nazis, who else. National-socialists. Not a coincidence, at all.
3. A good sense of humour. This may seem bleedin' obvious, but it's hardly a given. Most comics are mediocre or even pitifully unfunny; they go for the cheap, obvious stuff and they do it in ways that are off-putting, boring, cringy, or their personality just isn't up to scratch. Not EVERY confident person seeking laughs can just hop on a stage and be funny. You can give a talented comedian weak material and they might be able to save face to some extent on account of their other strengths, but give average material to a hack with a mediocre personality/charisma and/or low comedic instincts and the jokes have absolutely no chance, they will bomb like a Chevy Chase TV show. Evidently, gifted comics very rarely use weak/average material, so this was just a hypothetical thing...
------------------------------------------------------------------
The list might change, because I might add a few names I'd omitted, or that I checked out for the first time recently.
Many big names are missing, such as Lenny Bruce or Don Rickles, because while I know (some of) them from movies I'm not familiar with their stand-up stuff.
I don't pretend that I am an expert on stand-up comedy, I am not. I haven't watched numerous stand-up comics as some other people have done. This is hence not a comprehensive list by a long shot - but it does contain a lot of the very best ever, that much I am certain of. Besides, my lists always give you some information/descriptions unlike most other lists that are cobbled up in 5 minutes. I may not have everyone here, but at least there are (accurate, brilliant) descriptions of the ones that are here.
The ones I haven't started reading yet are all at the bottom of the list.
I have (or had) most of these books, though a few I'd read off a PDF file, which is definitely not my preferred reading method for anything. I also listened to a handful of audio-books, which is always great provided the "celeb" reads it themselves. But the majority of the books here I read from a physical copy.
The "honesty" rating is used only for autobiographies, and it tends to be somewhat tricky. Let me clarify: there are two types of "honesties", the celeb's honesty when writing about other people and the celeb's honesty when writing about themselves. Two very different things. So while an actor/musician/scientist might be very eager to tell-all about others he/she may not be nearly as honest about themselves. Or reversely, they might wanna be totally open about themselves but be wary of lawsuits if they say too much about others. But I anyway usually clarify this whenever there is a discrepancy between the two...
Naturally, how honest a celeb is can be sometimes very difficult to assess, so how I decide to rate their honesty could be very easily flawed in a number of cases. In some cases before reading the book I had a lot of pre-knowledge about that person hence could often tell when someone was hiding something, twisting facts or outright lying, but sometimes I had very little or just basic knowledge hence could not easily gauge to what extent the account is truthful or not. Reading autobiographies requires a certain amount of experience, knowledge about the field in question (cinema/the metal scene/whatever), the ability to detect bullshit, and the ability to read between the lines - which may or may not be made easier by the writer.
Why bios are my preferred type of reading material, and has been for some years already, I can't fully explain. I used to read more fiction, nearly always sci-fi, but you can't get me anywhere near a proper novel anymore, not even at gun point: I'm just not interested in that made-up stuff anymore.
Admittedly, some autobiographies are considered just that: works of fiction. I am well aware of this fact... Most celebs are going to lie a lot, hide a lot, plus of course many are simply delusional hence serve you BS because they honestly believe in it. I try to avoid autobiographies by these types of celebs anyway, just as I avoid reading biographies scribbled up by total sycophants paid to write dishonest, adulatory nonsense.
But you can't be too picky. There is probably no such thing as a totally truthful, honest autobio just as it's rare to come across a bio written by a person who was under no obligations or pressures to portray the person in a certain way, either positively or negatively. Writers of bios are not rarely gossip-columnists who make up shit, or even more commonly hired slaves instructed to write a squeaky-clean account that deifies the person. I am not too picky but I try to stay away from these two categories of "biographers".
To be honest, I am not much of a book-reader anyway, never have been. I doubt I'd read more than 200 books, if I count the completed ones only. I generally prefer essays, articles, encyclopedia entries and the like. Or I merely read only sections (in non-fiction books) that interest me and skip the rest, so there are many half-read or somewhat-read books that I'd gone through, plus some abandoned fictional ones, like for example "Dune 6" which I couldn't complete despite getting half-way through: it just bored me too much, so much weaker than the first 5 parts. That may actually have been my last attempt at reading sci-fi; I'm not sure anymore...
Perhaps the main reason I'm not a huge fan of fiction (anymore) is mostly because the majority of writers have some kind of a political agenda that they feel they must so very self-righteously rub into our noses at every single opportunity. This doesn't just apply to recent authors i.e. that whole dimwit army of modern writers who are all up the Establishment's ass, obsequiously parroting the Left's agenda, never questioning anything - yet expecting the readers to question everything, and by "everything" I naturally mean "conservative" viewpoints. I don't like being patronized, brainwashed (good luck with that! I'm immune to all forms of it), being preached to. I just want a good story, yet I so often find all these "subliminal" (i.e. bleedin'-obvious) political messages all over works of fiction, and that makes me lose interest in the story with lightning speed. It is actually possible to write a story devoid of political posturing, and perhaps some day it will return to literature, but until then I believe I'll just stick to non-fiction...
The advantages of biographies over fiction are multi-fold:
1. They're about real people, real life, no made-up shit. Real situations and real lives are generally crazier, funnier and more original than the stuff one invents for a novel. "You can't make that shit up" is a very true phrase, and whoever reads a lot of bios cannot disagree with it.
2. Bios of older generations can give you interesting insight into how people lived in past eras. I never skip the "early childhood and adolescence" sections because very often these are the most interesting.
3. In cinema-related bios I occasionally come across movies that I like, or at least have seen. Reading about the anecdotes and various problems related to the making of those films can be fun. Ditto music-related bios: you can find entertaining stuff about the recording of certain albums.
4. Biographies can serve as good myth-busters. Behind-the-scenes stories give you a far more realistic take on people and events than the bullshit you read in "headline news".
5. There's plenty of gossip, and I enjoy gossip. For all the hipsters out there who pretend not to care about it, lemme just tell you that David Bowie gossiped a lot too and loved gossip whenever he could get it. I have fairly little interest in the day-to-day kind of gossip, but some of the celeb stuff is obviously hard to resist.
6. Biographies are generally not pretentious, they are easy-reading fluff, so it's a good way to read something non-hostile i.e. relaxing - yet without the content being too dumb. This, obviously, largely depends on the biography and the subject matter though...
There are probably other reasons I omitted.
The books are listed in no particular order, except the first few which are all the ones I'd read or re-read recently.
This is the very essence of the popularity and status of privileged/elitist women such as Jennifer Aniston, who would never have passed a single audition had she not been born into a show-biz clan. Empirically average, yet hyped to such ludicrous extremes and for such a long time whereby most people were eventually duped into believing she's one of the most beautiful women in the world!!! Yes, it is shocking, funny, tragic, bizarre and idiotic - all at once.
And this is why beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder. It is decided more often than not by the media, by hype, by liars and crooks. Beauty's beholder is the corrupt, fraudulent, hidden-agendas media.
Because I am fully immune to all types of propaganda, be it politics or women or music, there is hardly anyone else on the planet more qualified than yours truly to tell you which women deserve to be on a MOST BEAUTIFUL ACTRESSES list. And because I've seen over 4,000 movies and am a mini-expert in TV and cinema, this list is in fact the ultimate such list.
Aside from media hype, a combination of nepotism, blindness, bad taste, and gay casting directors (with gay aesthetics when it comes to women) are further reasons why women in film are becoming worse and worse. Whether Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Aniston, Kate Hudson, Julia Roberts, Jennifer Lopez, Jennifer Garner, Sarah Jessica Parker, Claire Danes, Jessica Biel, Milla Jovovich, Eva Mendez, or Drew Barrymore: increasingly homely and unfeminine women are being hyped as the next sex goddesses of cinema.
Think again. This list doesn't include any such estrogen-starved ladies. It's real women only.
Keep in mind that I didn't choose these photos. Obviously, some of the pictures of the older generations of actresses do not show them when they were young i.e. at their best. (Why anyone would place a photo of Anne Bancroft aged 98 on her page - beats me!)
The criteria used is primarily the face, and then charisma and sex appeal.
THE ORDER IS PRETTY MUCH DELIBERATE.
Here is where you can comment:
https://vjetropevsmusic.blogspot.com/2020/08/recent-movies-august.html
Here are some aspects of this fakeality show that need to be addressed, and some of the more amusing idiocies associated with it.
You can post your comments here: https://vjetropev.blogspot.com/2014/04/fatties-in-wild.html
Basically, the list should help you choose good films, while warning you which turkeys to avoid. This is why it's ranked in the order of quality. Although, you might find the bottom-pile reviews more fun, coz bashing films is more fun than praising them.
Until I was around 18 or 19 I had very little interest in horror. But once I subdued my inner snob (the same deluded snob that had prevented me from trying out metal until I was 15) I realized that there's a distinct advantage to watching demons and zombies slug it out in mindless movies over most other movie genres. The majority of horror films are pretty bad, mediocre at best, but give me a bad horror flick any time over an Oscar-awarded drama or a mediocre western, not to mention a boring, pretentious "art" film devoid of a story, with lazy actors staring emptily into walls while contemplating the meaning of life or suicide, or both. Horror films are refreshingly unpretentious, unpompous: usually cretinous but certainly more entertaining than Meryl Streep doing a Moroccan accent while tied to a wheelchair because she'd been raped and beaten by skinheads in some abominable Hollywood flick.
Which advantages does this list have over other horror lists from my highly esteemed horror-aficionado colleagues?
1. I've seen a lot more horror films than most horror fans. Over 1200. That's a sample big enough to give me some bragging rights.
2. I am a bit of a stickler for logic. This means I don't let the really dumb ones get away with contradictory, far-fetched or plain stupid scripts. If a movie is dumb, I call it out, sometimes in great detail. You don't get that from most horror critics who are quite happy to ignore blatant disregard for common sense. I try not to nit-pick though, coz they are mostly fantasy films.
3. My opinions are completely independent from the majority. If a "classic" that everyone loves stinks, I will rate it low and harass its badness. I don't let myself be influenced by general consensus. I get the impression that many horror reviewers follow the herd a little too much, and that some are afraid to admit not liking a "classic" that one is supposed to like. I don't give a hoot for these unwritten rules: I will bash and smash any overrated piece of crap. Reversely, if a good movie is underrated, I shall praise it. I am not interested, in the slightest, what is or isn't considered a classic. I decide what's classic and what isn't. (I love my arrogance sometimes!)
What is a horror film? Which kind of movies qualify? I've decided to include thrillers but only when they're filmed with an obvious horror slant, with gore or an appropriate atmosphere. So the list doesn't only deal with supernatural films, although fantasy is part of at least 90% of the titles here: that's coz I am not a fan of thrillers at all; I consider them hands down the most idiotic movie genre, far too stupid/illogical/absurd, so you won't be finding many of them here. Sorry to disappoint you if you're into home invasion and superpowerful-serial-killer flicks, there aren't many of those here. I am primarily a fan of supernatural horrors, whereas I've grown to despise horror thrillers so much over the years that I hardly even watch them anymore - except when I make a misjudgement (due to someone's flawed synopsis) and one sneaks in and I end up wasting my time on it. I don't see the point in including every thriller, far from it, as most of them are a separate genre. Sci-fi is also allowed, but only if it has emphasis on monsters and/or gore.
What isn't a horror film? Which kind of movies do not qualify? Young Frankenstein, Scary Movie, Arsenic & Old Lace - any kind of totally harmless comedy that merely uses a horror backdrop to string gags to. These movies are neither gory (or at least not in the real sense) nor remotely scary or intended to be such, and often use extreme humour such as farce or absurdist comedy which simply has zero to do with horror. There are many horror comedies on this list, but they're firmly entrenched in the horror genre. Short films don't qualify: if you think I'm going to bore you with every Tom Dick and 5-minute Harry, you're wrong. Rather than use this list as a dumping ground for EVERYTHING even vaguely related to horror, I decided it's better to focus on ACTUAL horror films, because that's what the list title promises to the reader.
RATINGS: Many of these films I'd seen in the 90s, and back then I was less strict, more easy-to-please. Hence not every rating here represents my opinions realistically. The newer movies have more reliable ratings, in general. I don't pretentiously rate films according to how ground-breaking, unique or technically accomplished they are; I focus much more on the entertainment value. AND I am a stickler for logic; I can tolerate a certain amount of stupidity (almost inevitable in horror, and just films in general), but I don't tolerate movies that break all idiocy records. So if a movie is a critics' darling but boring and/or stupid it gets a low score.
NO RATING: Movies without a rating are the ones whose level of quality I can't pin down anymore because I'd seen them decades ago. I placed them roughly where I believe they should be. But generally, films with no rating could be potentially much higher or lower ranked than they should be.
SPOILERS: I have done my best not to spoil any good films for you, even the smaller events and plot-twists that might not necessarily count as proper spoilers. However, I have hidden spoilers for the good and averages films. I can't vouch for the bad ones, for those that are rated 2 stars or lower: those reviews sometimes don't have hidden spoilers, simply because those are all turds and there is nothing to spoil. They're already spoiled. Nevertheless, even most of those have spoiler warnings.
REVIEWS: For some movies I have two reviews: a brief one consisting of one paragraph, and a proper lengthy one. Some reviews are copy-pasted in their entirety, but most only have the first few paragraphs offered. You have to go the link provided below each text to read the rest i.e. the whole thing. Some reviews aren't posted on IMDb (yet): these are, obviously, pasted in their entirety.
ADVICE: Concerning the top 100-200 movies, i.e. the ones I recommend the most, do NOT read IMDb's synopsis of any of them. They often contain spoilers which could diminish the fun factor if/when you decide to watch them. Whoever is in charge of writing "synopsises" is clearly not doing a good job i.e. some of the contributors need to finally realize that you shouldn't tell the film-goer what happens half-way into the movie, but only the broad outline of what is given early on, BEFORE the first twists.
Genre explanations:
non-supernatural - Since the vast majority of these films are supernatural, I've decided to simply mark those that aren't.
non-supernatural(?) - Can't remember for sure. Or the movie itself is so bad it doesn't give a clear answer.
zombapocalypse - When the plague is all-encompassing, and when the movie shows the outbreak itself not just the after-effects.
zombie - When the plague is focused in a smaller area, or is occurring in a post-apocalyptic environment.
infection - Of course every zombie plague has to do with infection of some sort, but I've added it when a zombie movie focuses on the whys and whats of the plague, rather than just show the resulting mayhem.
townsfolk conspiracy - When the inhabitants of a little town or village are all part of some sinister conspiracy or have a major secret. This is nearly always hidden in a spoiler.
camcorder - I don't like the name "found footage". I thought of calling it "wobbly footage" or "found-in-sewage" but this will do.
mono-setting - When at least 90% of a movie is set in just one room/house/whatever. Does not apply to a large singular area, only smaller spaces/areas.
religious - Films with Biblical themes or a priest running around fighting demons.
mono-colour - A bunch of modern horror films are filmed in doom-n-gloom-o-vision, with only 2-3 colours, or are photoshopped to have just one colour dominate. I am very much an opponent of both these drab-o-vision styles and this descriptor serves to warn you when a film is visually unappealing, when it is drenched in blue, green or just overall grey. I.e. some movies labeled this way may not be drab-looking but are dominated by just one colour basically.
teens - Obviously, teens doesn't mean literally teens coz most "teen" actors are in their 20s, but refers to any flick with all of the sheep-for-the-slaughter being presented as teens.
older teens - 20somethings; instead of "a group of teens goes out into the woods for a picnic" it's "a group of 20somethings goes out into the woods for a picnic", for example a bunch of typical dim-witted students.
malevolent - Films with a lack of moral compass that tend to glorify evil. Often they reveal the film-maker's or the writer's latent misanthropy.
nickotrash - Films with Nicholas Cage.
kingotrash - Films based on Stephen King's trashy writing.
netflixia - Films from Netflix i.e. garbage to be avoided.
wesocravenia - Films by Wes Craven, the master of crappy, shoddy horror.
argentonto - Films by Dario Argento, legendary for his dumb movies devoid of logic.
Some genres include others by definition: i.e. haunted house is automatically mystery as well, hence I don't add mystery to that descriptor. A horror western is automatically historic, so no need to add "historic" as a descriptor.
Initially I wanted to post this list AFTER I'd "finished" it, but because I realized that this kind of list can never be fully finished, here it is. Not perfect, not yet thorough, but useful enough as it is.
I might expand this to 350 or even 400 films, at some point. I have around 150 (8/10) films to pick from to fill up those 50 (or 100) places.
Just as I pick my music based on how enjoyable a tune is to me personally (as opposed to what critics, hipsters, or the Wal Mart masses think of it), I do with movies too. There is no opinion in this world that I value anywhere nearly as much as my own - at least when it comes to my tastes in music and film. No lies, no agenda, only the good stuff makes it on my best-of lists (except when it comes to movies I hadn't watched in very many years: more on that later).
It gets even better though: I put together this list with no pretentious intentions, i.e. no intentions to make it an "arty" list, a list that film students would approve of and "respect". I couldn't care less what those pompous kids think, their opinions are stale air to me. If anything, the more they disagree with me the better. They are my compass for awfulness, dishonesty and delusion. Hence it follows logically that I also have no interest in how "important", legendary, influential, commercial or non-commercial films are. If only everyone made their best-of movie lists this way, we'd have a lot more honest - hence useful - lists to get tips from. But... what can you do! Many people tend to be awfully insecure, so they misuse any opportunity to try to win "intellectual points" from others. Pathetic, really.
"I really like that dumb comedy that nobody respects, but I guess I better include a Bergman or Fellini instead. That will make my list more legit." This is the way many people put together best-of-cinema lists. Ditto music lists. There is a fear of appearing "plebby" if you pick stuff that's considered non-artistic, as if sheer enjoyment of films and music isn't a top priority; it is replaced by useless/fake criteria such as quasi-intellectual appreciation and historical significance: i.e. that which film students and the art crowd consider "meaningful" and "groundbreaking". They get to "decide" what is or isn't "valid". Political affiliation is a big part of it too. Basically, the enjoyment you get out of a movie plays 5th fiddle to all these other, very dumb, criteria.
"Hang on... this list has no Bunuel! No Wes Anderson! Better include at least 5 of their movies so people think I'm smart! I really enjoyed Scrooged, Rambo and the Naked Gun movies but they'll have to go to make room for the arty stuff. I've never really understood Bunuel and Wes always kinda bores me but I'm sure their movies are amazing."
There's none of that here. All of my lists are made primarily to satisfy my need for making them (list fetishism), and secondarily to provide people with useful tips. I am obviously interested in feedback from other film-goers, but not to the extent that I would even vaguely entertain the possibility of pandering to their tastes and expectations by injecting the list with dishonesty and BS.
"Everyone seems to have Metropolis and Battleship Potemkin on their lists, so, well, I guess I need to have those on my top 100 list too, despite the fact that they're nothing special. I'll just follow the herd, as I always do. Perhaps if I add a few of those then the rest of my list will be taken much more seriously."
While I value entertainment above all else, I do place importance on stuff such as photography and music, as well. However, as stylistically slick as a film might be, it can use visuals only so far to make up for lack of content. Besides, most content-free movies are anyway ugly. I have no use for an empty-canvas "art" film executed with an out-of-focus hand-held camera with lengthy scenes of actors staring at empty walls while contemplating the meaning of life. Fill-in-the-blanks Rohrschach cinema works only if you make it visually and stylistically compelling, and when it has at least a basic framework story-wise. But very few (pretentious) directors are capable of that. This is logical though: because if you're pretentious then you're very likely to be daft as well. And untalented: because lack of talent pushes hipsters toward pseudo-artiness. It's a way to mask your own incompetence.
Selecting the best 300 for a movie list is a lot tougher than for a music list. It is easier to assess and rate music than movies. For example, just take repetition as a criteria: the more often you want to hear an album, the better it must be, regardless of the music style. This rule doesn't necessarily work for movies however, because a heavy drama and a goofy comedy are completely different in that sense. So how does one rate and especially compare a heavy drama with a comedy? You will find such movies side-by-side, because I can appreciate both, but this list shouldn't be regarded as literally - numerically - comparing such films. Hence the exact ranking isn't that important.
Some of these movies I've seen a long time ago: perhaps I wouldn't like them nearly as much now. With music, my taste changes a lot less over time so my older music ratings are fairly reliable whereas my film ratings aren't, not even close. Why this is, I don't know, but the reasons are irrelevant. Movies that I once upon a time gave 4 stars I might rate as low as 1.5 stars now; that's how extreme it can get, i.e. it's not always a matter of nuances. Similarly, there are films I've seen a dozen times but which I don't consider brilliant. Should I add them because I've seen them numerous times? Not necessarily, because the reasons for re-watching movies can vary from movie to movie. Frequency is an important factor but there are many others.
Main criteria in approximate order of importance:
1. Entertainment factor: was I bored or immersed? 2. Awe factor: were there any fascinating scenes, and how many? 3. Repeat viewings: how recyclable is the film? 4. Visuals: scenery, photography, colours. 5. Soundtrack: timing, volume, quality (above all). 6. Casting: inspired/exact or lousy/absurd? 7. Dialog: intelligent/humorous/realistic or dumb/cringy/absurd? 8. Plot. 9. Originality. 10. Politically-correct, politically-intelligent, or apolitical? ... 893. What critics think. 894. What hipsters think. 895. What farm chickens think.
In fact, even this flatters critics and hipsters. Their opinions aren't even in the top 10,000 of my evaluation criteria. They aren't a factor at all. Farm chickens? Maybe. Their opinions might count for a bit more. Because animals are honest, poseurs aren't.
A problem in the selection process is the fact I had to rely on impressions that certain films left on me ages ago, decades ago in some cases. Those are usually the movies I've seen just once: they're the ones I might not even like much decades later, let alone place them on a best-of list. Hence the possibility is real that several such films - "subpar" or "not good enough" films - made their way on this list. Whereas with music, as I said, I can trust my past tastes and assessments, I can't with movies. As a general rule: if I've seen a film more than once then the rating is quite reliable. Another rule: if I've seen it just once - a long time ago - then the rating may be problematic. Perhaps to the extent where that film doesn't even deserve to be on this list.
I don't discriminate against horrors and comedies which are considered "inferior genres" by hipsters and the movie industry itself. I leave that kind of moronic attitude to Tinseltown's Oscar voters, snobs and insecure film buffies. How on Earth a vapid costume drama about romancing couples strolling in a neatly trimmed courtyard is supposed to be more intelligent - let alone more entertaining - than a good fantasy or a funny comedy is beyond me. How the hell a bone-headed drama with Meryl Streep directed by some politically-correct Establishment sycophant is supposed to be art and comedy is supposed to be "cheesy low-tier entertainment", I don't understand that either. That is moron logic, unconsciously adopted by the masses that are being too exposed to too many pompous, feeble-minded hipsters babbling hooey in their worthless dishonest columns and in TV interviews.
I often had to omit the "weaknesses" section for two simple reasons: either I couldn't remember or I didn't want to read my old review just in case I decide to re-visit the movie, because there are spoilers in many of these comments. Instead, I wrote "can't remember" or "it's been a while" even though I could easily find out the flaws by reading my reviews (in case I have one).
All genres are welcome here - except documentaries, short films, and animation because they're separate categories in my opinion. Obviously, I have my individual preferences like everyone else. For example, I prefer horror films while I avoid/dislike westerns.
I decided to make the list in ascending order, from no 300 to the best movie. Now, because numeration itself (on IMDb lists) cannot be manipulated you will get the reverse numerical order, which might be off-putting. In other words, my no 1 movie is actually numerated as no 300. You can easily fix this though by picking the reverse order option, available at the top of the list.
In terms of having proper numeration that avoids confusion I advise you do that, reverse the order. However, in terms of reading the comments (generously and miraculously provided by Ed Wood and his friends) I suggest you read them in order - from 300 to 1.
The list starts off with (very roughly) 150 4-star films, ends with roughly 50 5-star films. The lowest-ranked 50 or so movies can probably be replaced by other 4-star movies that are just as good, so I might make some changes there.
As I said, the list order is not very accurate, it is not exact. It can't be. There is no such thing as an exact order by quality, unless you're comparing films with very clear and distinct quality levels, which is not the case here. (For example, I can be "precise" with how I rank all 15 movies from one director, especially if they are all from the same genre, but comparing many completely different 5-star films is about nuances that are mostly elusive.) In fact, the order is approximate. This especially goes for the lower 100 movies i.e. roughly the ones from 150 to 300. Each of these films can be treated as having a "margin of error" of roughly +/- 30 places. I tried my best to rank the top 50 as "realistically" as possible, but obviously it'll always be far from perfect.
So what about this "expert commentary"? Here's the cast:
Ed Wood Jr - needs no introduction.
Travolta as Terl (from "Battlefield Earth") - legendary big-budget yet B-movie alien from planet Psychlo, blessing us with his own angles.
Tommy Wiseau - so young (only 156) yet already a legend. The director/star/producer/writer of "The Room" gives us gems of cinematic wisdom that only he can.
Ro-Man - ape-like alien invader from "Robot Monster".
Obviously, they are all just characters with fictional dialog/comments - although nevertheless based on real-life behaviour and real-life movie characters they'd created or helped to create. It's all in good fun, and all similarities to real aliens or film-makers are purely (un)intentional.
Bear in mind that I've read biographies of Wiseau and Wood, plus have watched "Battlefield Earth", "Plan 9", "Bride of the Monster", and "Robot Monster" countless times, hence in order to understand these pearls of genius uttered by them you need to be well-acquainted with their life and work...
I've seen around 4300 movies so far, so I have plenty to pick from. Not to mention the thousands of others that I know stink because I'd watched scenes from them and/or read what they are about, what they are like, who's in them, why they were made. You don't actually have to watch a Wes Anderson stinker with Schwartzman to know it is bad: that is a given.
I may alter the review somewhat.
And while I'm not supportive of this rising extremism and its many harmful side-effects and would prefer things to be the way they used to be (i.e. more chill and with more tolerance), I don't mind joining in the "fun". Since it's already there. So here is a politically-themed list since everybody is so enamoured with celebrities and with the "are you with us or against us" political division that rules much of the West now.
If you react with "who cares who celebrities vote for and what they believe" then you're absolutely right. Yet, a part of you still wants to know, possibly. The fact that you are (most probably) an IMDb user anyway very likely indicates that you do care about these things. After all, most entries you look up on IMDb involve celebs...
During the 2000 election cycle, Hollywood's actors/directors/producers donated about 40 times more money to Democrats than to Republicans. Thirty-one Oscar-winners gave a total of $381,000 to Democrats, vs. seven who anted up a total of $9,000 to Republicans.
Just one example to illustrate how skewed political support is in show-biz. Which is common knowledge. 20 years later, the situation is probably even more tilted to the Left.
If I were to make a list of all the celebs that are liberal/left-leaning/communist, it would be a mission of a lifetime, something I haven't got time for. The IMDb computers would probably all explode, in a spectacular chain reaction, for lack of capacity to handle so much data. I would easily find several thousand of them. Too much work.
So I thought it'd be much easier to list celebs that aren't liberal.
The term "non-liberal" means just that, people who aren't liberal. This does not mean that all the people listed here are right-wing or share the same views (far from it), or that they're all hardcore anti-Leftists or anything like that. After all, the Right wing of the political spectrum is (despite popular belief i.e. misinformation) far more diverse than the more predictable Left all of which revolves around socialism and the "oppressed". (The Right has atheist capitalists as well as "social justice" Christians as well as science-minded Christians as well as free-market Moslems as well as anti-science creationists, just to illustrate this with a few of many examples. Some are for abortion, some are against it. On the Left nearly everyone is for it. The Left has far less diversity, nearly everybody subscribes to widely agreed upon uni-opinionism.)
Besides which, there is a certain thing called "Center". Quite a few centrists are listed. In other words, some people listed here share the same or similar views with liberals on certain issues. All of the people included here are NOT to be lumped in the same basket: that would be completely inaccurate, and besides which it isn't the purpose of this list at all.
However, things have become more complicated in recent decades, making the creation of such a list tougher than before. As Republicans (and right-wing and centrist parties across western Europe) move more and more toward the Left, the differences between Dems and Reps become less and less palpable. For this reason I decided not to include people who are/were Republican or Independent only on paper but adhere to most of liberal ideology and talk like Democrat supporters and/or had recently supported Democrat candidates. (Examples: Patricia Heaton, Penn Teller, Jesse Ventura, Shannen Doherty, Tony Danza, Michael Medved, Kelly Clarkson, Alex Rodriguez, John Cryer or Arnold Schwarzenegger.) This is admittedly a grey area, i.e. some people would disagree with me to omit them, so the list isn't perfect. Some political and especially socio-political issues serve as key litmus tests for political affiliation, and I feel that these people I decided not to include are all more liberal than centrist or conservative. For example, Schwarzenegger went out of his way to oppose Trump, and his stances on most key issues are 100% liberal. (This is a combination of him personally veering increasingly to the Left, plus the Republican Party itself veering more and more to the Left.) Another good example is Jesse Ventura wanting to endorse Bernie Sanders (who rejected it), so obviously he can't be on the list either, considering how far to the Left Sanders is. Nobody who endorsed a socialist in recent years can be part of the list: I had to draw the line somewhere, otherwise this list would be meaningless. (Which it might be anyway...)
I decided that past affiliations don't count, only what's the most current and up-to-date, meaning that I did not include people who used to identify as Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, or independents but now support the Democrats. (For example, Dwayne Johnson, who must have been pressured by his agent and the studios to re-consider after many years of voting Republican; a very common practice in the film industry.) If I made some omissions in this sense, it certainly isn't intentional and could be eventually corrected.
Nor do I include those very rare cases who constantly flip-flop, such as 50 Cent (Curtis Jackson) who changes his mind so often (on issues and politicians), people who lack a clear political orientation and a well-defined belief system, people who are still on the fence or simply too apolitical despite being quoted as having an opinion. Nor do I include people who - for example - openly supported Trump only to apologize to their fans a week later, like for example Shania Twain. People are allowed to change their minds over years, of course, this is normal and natural, but not every week...
Which brings me to the elephant in the room: the celebs who may support right-wing/centrist causes/politicians but are afraid to speak out for fear of hurting their career opportunities in industries that aren't very flexible when it comes to political affiliation. Obviously, the list would be a lot bigger if the current political atmosphere weren't so one-sided. If true freedom and democracy reigned, as they once did several decades ago, we would have a lot clearer picture because there'd be far more honesty.
The descriptor "anti-communist" was included for people who had described themselves as such. In other words, just because some entries only state "Republican" doesn't mean these aren't/weren't anti-communist as well. I can only go by the information that is available, I can't make further assumptions without evidence. Being Republican should, logically, imply anti-communist sentiments too, so draw your own conclusions. I decided to include it only when it was clearly expressed, either in interviews, statements to colleagues or through their actions.
This list isn't intended as either a condemnation or glorification of these people, it's just an interesting list free for individual interpretation. Still, one would not be mistaken in giving some of them credit (especially the more current actors) for having the courage to go against the grain in Hollywood. The American film industry isn't a particularly tolerant or diverse environment, and there are even rumours of black-listing...
The names are listed in no particular order, with a few exceptions.
Reviews
Synchronic (2019)
Good start, but then devolution - much like the career trajectory of Benson and Moorehead.
The movie starts very well: intriguing, to say the least. For a short while there it appeared as if this would be another winner for the Moorehead/Benson team.
Unfortunately, what follows is a script of diminishing returns. It just devolves, and into a drama, no less. Too much backstory about the two paramedics and the guy's dull family. Why do we need so many scenes and so much soap-opera detail - when we can jump into the fantasy sci-fi horror aspects of the premise? Were they catering for a wider audience - a female audience? So much boring relationship stuff.
After the first 15 or so minutes I gradually started losing interest, and by the halfway mark I was getting fidgety. After an hour I almost completely lost interest.
After the medic finally realizes that he has a drug that induces time-travel, what does he do? He tells his buddy, right? No. The cops? No. Does he tell ANYBODY? No. Instead of telling his friend about the fact he found a way to get his daughter back, he instead wastes our time - and the very limited supply of these magic pills - on a series of experiments. (The pill maker conveniently kills himself later. The way he and this guy meet is pretty ludicrous.)
Sure, these experiments are useful, but if the point is to look for Brianna (the colleague's lost-in-time daughter) then WHY not immediately head to the house where she disappeared and use the pills THERE instead? Isn't that the obvious thing to do? Sure it is. He predictably does this later, but it takes him too long to start, while wasting many pills.
But this script isn't that big on sense, or in a big rush. I'm not saying the story is utter nonsense, but I don't understand why the medic tells NOTHING to his friend: doesn't tell him he's mortally ill, doesn't tell him that he solved the mystery of the drug, doesn't tell him that he has a way to save his daughter. This lack of communication eventually grows tiresome, because it becomes a running joke. It is anyway a laughable, unconvincing plot-device used by bad writers, which is why it's disappointing that it was used here as well.
Some more problems. Apparently, the drug keeps you in a different era only 7 minutes. Yet so many Synchronic users managed to get killed (or even bitten by a snake) in that brief period?! Gimme a break... This movie would have us believe that practically every time you go back in time 500 or 5000 or 50000 years, totally randomly, the likelihood of getting killed or seriously hurt in the first 5 minutes is extremely high. Snakes, the weather, people... everyone and everything is out to get you, and at great speed. The hell? That's pretty far-fetched, almost a premise for a parody.
Still, I do very much like the line "One thing I've learned: the past sucks big-time!"
This line encapsulates everything that's wrong with the modern age i.e. A total lack of appreciation for how incredibly tough our ancestors had it compared to our fairly cozy existence. Yeah, a pet-peeve of mine. The medic needed to go back in time PHYSICALLY in order to realize this self-evident fact! Unfortunately, most people are this way, which is why we have so many whiners: spoiled losers who claim that "the poor have never been poorer". You have to be fairly clueless to actually believe that.
The stupid scene when he beams over to early 20th-century America really takes the cake. Not only was the medic foolish enough to bring along his incredibly dumb dog but there's also the film-makers being all-of-a-sudden so PC as to inject some of that incessant race-based stuff - which really annoyed me.
Can't we have ONE movie these days without race and/or gender issues being discussed in that typically preachy and utterly idiotic way? At this point I'd lost all interest. This was the final straw. It appears that Benson and Moorehead had made their first preparations to sell out to America's corporate Establishment, because why else play this predictable corny game of injecting C. M. into your movies? Does this plot require a race-based theme? No. Does the film have anything to gain in terms of excitement or intelligence by including this nonsense (or any other type of generic crap)? No. The only reason you place that kind of stuff these days - as a film-maker - is to cow-tow to the deranged elites who control the media and the entertainment industry. I've noticed this time and time again. This is why I am convinced that the next films Benson and Moorehead make will be awash with horrible nepotists, dumbed-down scripts, and just general devolution. I've noticed this often, as well: nowadays, if you don't play along with the ideology of Hollywood's elites, you don't get to play their game at all. If you dare promote right-wing ideas, you get blacklisted. And the worst part of all of this - liberal cinema-goers are perfectly OK with this New Way. They preach diversity and freedom but promote the exact opposite. "WE decide which free opinions you can have!"
When the medic finally decides to use the pills wisely - at the location of Brianna's disappearance as oppose to his flat - he experiences yet another asinine past episode, this time involving French-speaking voodoo cultists or some other nonsense. A totally confusing, messy, pointless scene.
Naturally, how would he find her when he doesn't even have a precise location of her disappearance? This failure was obvious and predictable well in advance, though apparently not to the medic who insisted on doing everything himself - without the help of his friend.
He finally tells him everything when he's down to just two pills. But by that point I anyway stopped caring, not for the script or Brianna. Because anybody dumb enough to pop random pills deserves whatever happens to them. I have zero tolerance for drug users, especially bored young idiots seeking thrills this way. So what if Brianna is lost? One clown less. We must pity the 19th century for having gained an idiot from our era, as if they din't have enough already!
Then there's that utterly daft scene at the Civil War battleground, with some random Confederate soldier, coming out of nowhere, just raring to kill a person despite all the bombs falling all over the place... just because... it serves the script. So dumb, having the medic go back to yet another dangerous point in time. Sure, the past was ugly and violent but not every single minute and place in it was this dangerous. If it were, humanity would have been killed off eons ago. As I mentioned: a premise more suitable for a comedy.
Don't you love that "poetic" ending though? Who couldn't predict that.
A few years after the movie's events, Brianna can remind her parents: "hey, guys, remember when my irresponsible dabbling in dangerous drugs resulted in that friend of yours disappearing forever? Wasn't that fun?"
Alien Mysteries (2013)
What if...? Suppose we assume...? Could it be that...?
OK, enough of the "what ifs" and "could it be thats". I've got a question of my own, but a real question (and one of many):
How is it that these alleged aliens with alleged "superior intelligence" allowed themselves to get caught and then stored like objects and animals in various bunkers and hangars by "inferior" humans?
So they are STUPID aliens then, aren't they?
Yet, if they're so stupid how did they manage to fly all the way here? So they're not stupid?...
I'm confused.
This is just one of numerous contradictions these goofy UFOlogists try to get away with, and get away they do (unlike the easily catchable aliens) because their audiences are so astoundingly... "smart".
Google "Vjetropev UFO" for a very detailed explanation of this phenomenon - and by that I don't mean the easily explainable UFOs but its fanatical adherents.
The Survivors (1983)
This is what happens when you prioritize preaching over making people laugh. Your comedy fails.
Quite a feat, huh? Casting Matthau and still bombing. But really that is what happens when you have two lame sitcom writers and a director who are far more concerned with being "socially conscious" (read: subservient to their Overlords) than funny. This is why we have a hooded Caucasian robber who imitates a blac$ man, then later says "we always blame the bla$k guys for everything anyway". Which is in hindsight the dumbest line of all times, considering that since this movie had been made literally every societal ill has been pinned on the other side, the scapegoats. Wealthy Caucasian people... such as Ritchie? Nah, of course not him: he's a do-gooder. He doesn't count: it's all those evil Christ-fearing gun-totting Reps we need to smear and make pariahs out of, scapegoats. $oviets had taught Hollywood the ropes, and since then it's been cop-paste ad nauseam, plus a few imaginative touches by the West's own loony fringe.
That robber character makes zero sense. He chooses to impersonate a bl**k man... why exactly? (I mean, other than to satisfy Ritchie's need for political posturing.) If he is wearing a mask nobody will recognize him anyway so who CARES which race he belongs to? It's not as if him NOT impersonating someone else would drastically increase the chances of the police finding him, what with tens of millions of adult white men roaming the States... (most of them "evil raci$ts" by definition).
Much dumber though is that the robber is a high-end hit man who is "forced to rob diners because of the economy". What? First rule of comedy: "if it isn't based in reality, it isn't funny". Absurdist comedy is a whole other story, but we're talking about a regular formula satire, like this one here, which is supposedly rooted in reality. Especially one that wants to tackle social issues.
Except that it isn't rooted in reality. The way the cop station is portrayed... complete and utter nonsense. Or the fact that a hardened career criminal from a "famous armed robbery" gets out on bail - AFTER robbing a store at gunpoint, wounding a man, and AFTER doing home invasion in order to execute a witness.
In what America was Ritchie residing? Beverly Hills, probably... That explains a lot, why he was so out of touch.
How is any of this even remotely rooted in reality? And that's why most of the humor bombs. The reason why Matthau is actually less funny than Williams (which is another anti-feat) is because Williams is reacting to the situations with anger - logically and naturally, whereas Matthau is behaving basically like Gandhi. I mean, Ritchie may as well have given a shirt for Matthau to wear, saying "I'm a pacifist: peace and love, y'all". That's how subtle all of this is.
Of course, as always, whenever Reds preach they contradict themselves; they get entangled in the webs of nonsense of their own laughably illogical ideology. They want to mock the gun users, yet by allowing the killer to get out on bail - isn't that only confirming the need of civilians to bear arms? When the killer hunts down Matthau for the THIRD time (including the robbery), the movie is basically saying "yes, we all need to carry guns because the state is too soft on crime", and yet we know this can't be Ritchie's stance. Instead, the message is "guns never brought anything good, let's ban them".
That's why Reds should never mix comedy and politics, because they invariably get confused: the gags bomb and the "message" becomes contradictory hence stupid.
From beginning to end the film is full of absurd plot-devices that make it impossible to laugh at anything. One of many such examples is Williams mentioning Matthau's full name on TV, as if he could be such a total plankton that he wouldn't know this would endanger Matthau. Or the way he burns down Matthau's gas station, just like that. Or the way Williams aims the gun at Matthau and another car driver, by mistake, as if he were a total child, literally dumb. Yet he worked in upper management of a company, and has a pretty fiancée and a nice home, so how can he be such a plankton?
It gets dumber. After that third encounter, the killer actually lets Matthau go. Why? Makes zero sense, and that's why none of this is funny. Besides, the script doesn't even make a sufficient number of attempts to be funny, because the situations aren't exploited for their comedic potential as much as for opportunities to preach. Which is why Matthau rarely gets anything funny to say or do; he is a boring character. Why would anyone hire Matthau, in a comedy, then give him so few funny things to say or do?
Family Dinner (2022)
Starts off as a drama, concludes as a joke.
The first half is interesting, but eventually the plot starts giving us hints that it will reduce the film to a completely idiotic cannibalistic conclusion that simply makes no sense.
The kid's mother shows genuine love for her child so why would she want to kill and butcher him? If she was planning to kill him all along, which she was, WHY insist on her boyfriend to be nice to her son and hang out with him? And just days before the murder! That absolutely crushes all logic. "Come on, bond with him, even though that's totally pointless coz we gonna kill him in a few days anyway..."
But these are typical examples of audience manipulation, whereby you lie and cheat them by using plot-devices intended to mislead. It's acceptable to mislead the audience, but this must not involve lies - or scenes that are rendered nonsensical once the plot-twist is revealed.
The way the fat girl escapes and kills the two cannibals is rather unconvincing too. It's way too easy.
Nor do we even get tiny clues what the couple's plan was for AFTER the murder. Nor does it make any sense whatsoever for them to accept a guest into their home - whom they barely even know - just days before the murder. This is complete and utter BS writing detached from realty, from real human behaviour and logic.
A good story could have been developed from the initial set-up, but instead this European film decided to ape American thriller garbage by playing it dumb.
Extra Ordinary (2019)
Ons Jabeur as the romantic lead? No, this is unacceptable.
Even this kind of shoddy script deserves someone better than Forte.
The first 10-15 minutes appear to be reasonably promising but at the latest when the very mediocre Will Forte makes his very mediocre appearance do things start devolving at great speed towards the very mediocre - and the very boring. By the 30-minute mark I had very little interest in continuing with this pedestrian "comedy". It took me some real powers of self-persuasion and discipline to actually finish this dull nonsense. But it's not just Will's fault, the script stinks.
The way Maeve killed her father is unconvincing, unfunny, and utterly illogical. Three people are standing on a tiny and very flat road, a truck approaches at a speed of 30 km/h, yet it fails to break on time - because the driver was absent? Shooting heroin? Talking to UFO aliens?
Maeve not suspecting Forte is also illogical. Why would he call her for driving classes, right after she met him at the place where the "virgin" works, just a day before she becomes possessed/levitational? She supposedly has "the talent" yet completely fails to add 2 and 2, completely fails to "feel" there's something wrong with him. This makes her out to be not only not "gifted" but daft as well.
Forte's powers seem to be so extensive that I wondered why he'd even bother with such an intricate sacrifice when he could rule all of Ireland with the spells he already has - nevermind have another no 1 hit. In short: he is far too powerful for some bumbling hobby satanist. He was written that way because the writers (all 4 of them) couldn't come up with a cleverer plot. The motive for Forte to carry out the sacrifice seems trivial, considering what a powerful sorcerer he is. It'd be like Qaddafi hiring 50 terrorist bombers to kill a person who owns a pair of sneakers that he badly wants, despite the fact that he can afford to buy and get whatever he wants - including a new pair.
Villain's motive. 101 Writing. Very important. If the villain makes little sense the plot falls apart. Don't make the villain too powerful if it makes no sense, or too incompetent. Basic writing. 101. Even a comedy needs a halfway logical villain, especially one as unfunny as this. Forte goes against his character when he spontaneously kills his wife/girlfriend - to whom he had been subservient the entire time. That's the typical kind of random plot-twist that one encounters in badly conceived films.
But it's the overly "cute" humour that sinks the film. This kind of dumb banter is for millennials, for teens, for people who'll laugh at just about anything. Certainly not for me. Whoever considers this "clever" must have been watching Teletubbies well into their 20s. The last 20-30 minutes in particular feature some rather cringy juvenile humour.
Maeve being the love-interest is rather far-fetched, quite unacceptable, and would be so even if this were an absurdist comedy. Too absurd even for a ZAZ film. I know that some guys are so insecure that their standards have fallen to rock-bottom, but this is nevertheless too ridiculous for me. If you're gonna cast someone like Maeve (an even weaker version of Ons Jabeur) as the female lead - a romantic lead even - then you'd better make sure she is nothing short of hilarious. Not even remotely close...
Into the Storm (2014)
Plot-friendly tornadoes are no friends of mine.
So lemme get this right: tornadoes move at high speeds across the landscape - except when they locate the main characters which is when they decide to sit around for a while, take a break? So they HUNT humans?
The most laughable thing about movies like these aren't even the dumb scripts: it's the fact that barely anyone even notices how (un)subtly they're being brainwashed with climate change exaggerations. Nobody addressed this.
"It's only a matter of time until these tornadoes become a normal occurrence in L. A, Chicago, even London." Greenland also? Siberia? The Moon too? The Horsehead Nebula? Will we ruin neutron stars too with our "rampant capitalism"? No pollution and factories in $ocialist countries?
Hilarious. This movie was made, what... in 2014. 9 years on yet still no tornadoes anywhere near London. But this is a big-budget film, and where there's a lot of money involved the Red Establishment is never far, with its obedient lapdog Hollywood helping it every step of the way, helping promote dumbing down, anti-science and other nonsense.
Nope, we cannot have any movies these days devoid of political posturing: sometimes subtler, sometimes extremely obvious, but it's always there.
1. Rednecks so dumb it defies all belief. Hollywood would have us believe that these people are even dumber than your average Beverly Hills yentas, which as we all know simply isn't possible. Laughable. The way two of them get sucked by a tornado is like something out of a Bugs Bunny cartoon.
2. The young cameraman had been weary and anxious about his job the entire time - but suddenly and inexplicably he goes out of his way to film a burning vehicle within an extreme tornado, a situation that no person on this planet would agree to do. Beyond idiotic.
3. Not one but two mega-cheesy, very boring romantic sub-plots.
4. The "progressiveness" is as subtle as a hammer. The high school principal literally looks like Obama. (You remember Obama? That President that could do no wrong, the morally impeccable President who, because of his origins, never made a wrong decision during his 8-year tenure.) Very probably a former Obama impersonator.
5. The cheesy and awfully dumb teen who is trying to do a report about some polluting factory... Because, "environmentally aware and stuff".
6. A group of 6-7 people running/walking/waltzing through a tornado, while millions of bits of debris are flying at high speeds - yet none of them sustain any injuries.
7. The meteorologist endangering everyone's lives in the truck by insisting on helping two drunk rednecks.
8. Even dumber, when they notice a tornado nearby, these "experts" don't rush to their special vehicle but instead just stand there filming it, as if this tornado would disappear completely in the 5 seconds it takes them to get into the tank.
9. The unbearably soppy dialog. Admittedly, sometimes it's not soppy but only plain boring. AI-generated characters saying AI-generated lines.
10. How can anyone get close to drowning while standing in the ruins of a tornado-destroyed factory?! How does that work... Is there a recorded case anywhere of a person drowning in the ruins of a post-tornado building? They threw in everything but the (flying) kitchen sink.
11. Love it how these tornadoes behave as if they're alive: always being millimeter-precise about going into buildings and places that would endanger the friends and relatives of the main characters. The most plot-friendly tornadoes ever.
12. I had to laugh during the very dramatic situation when the tornado-chaser got out of the shelter during "the biggest tornado in history", and somehow avoided being sucked up into the air. After all, didn't they just show several airplanes and trucks flying way up? Utter hooey.
One of the silliest things I kept hearing is how "this is so much worse than Twister" as if that moronic movie didn't also suffer from a hack script, and stupid cliches.
Ondine (2009)
A very interesting set-up. It's just a pity that Jordan made three crucial mistakes.
Firstly, he didn't know how to throw a wedge into the rather idyllic relationship between Farrell and Ondine. In order to create "drama" writers thrive on "conflict" (a word that gives them $tiffie$ - even female writers), but since there was no conflict here, the writer decided to get Farrell drunk and get him to actually dump Ondine somewhere then scurry away like a frightened loser. The ensuing conversation with priest Rea was then intended to somehow convince us that Farrell got rid of Ondine because "he doesn't believe in luck" or some such far-fetched cockamamie rationalization that only the biggest pushovers in the audience might fall for.
In reality, a down-on-his-luck divorced recovering alcoholic fisherman would APPRECIATE great fortune coming his way, especially in the shape and form of a pleasant, attractive and willing mermaid... or a selkie, or a Romanian drug dealer, whatever she may be. He'd defend her against the "husband" with fists flying. (Which he does eventually in the rather silly conclusion.) But no, Farrell is portrayed as such a meek failure that he is suspicious of his good luck. He is behaving like an uber-neurotic, even worse than a Woody Allen character or a millennial beta. Writers and their bloody "conflict", they never tire of that nonsense. "Conflict" is all well and fine (although I prefer to call it "plot"), but as long as it's grounded in reality and logic, not when it's as shambolic as this.
Secondly, the daughter. The girl is well cast and likable, but far too informed, intelligent, articulate and far too superior intellectually to literally all of the (mostly childish) adults featured here. Even Rea, the only mature grown-up character here, can't seem to match her wit, sass, intelligence and class. Smart-alecy super-intelligent Einstein-like kids have always been a horrible plot-device and a terribly annoying obsession of many delusional screen-writers, who portray these mega-idealized kids as if they'd never spoken to or even met a real child before. Have these clueless writers never HEARD a 10 year-old girl speak? They don't speak this way; none of them do. Not even remotely close. In fact, even a real "selkie" would have been a far more realistic character than the girl!
But the drop that really spilled over the exaggerated glass of the girl's adolescent supremacy is when she mentioned Sigur Ros, and in such a casual off-hand way, the way a mindless, pompous 18 year-old American hipster might. That Neil Jordan has a hipster mentality wasn't anything I was aware of (nor cared about, to be frank), but I am surprised given his age. (Or maybe one of his kids or nephews suggested he mention them in the script.) He portrays the ex's drunken ginger boyfriend as a moron - who listens to metal. On the other hand, the 260-IQ 10 year-old girl likes her lame, whiny Icelandic hipster pop. What's Jordan trying to say? Whatever it is, it's not very intelligent, let alone remotely accurate. (He has as much knowledge about metalheads as he has about 10 year-old girls, apparently.) Besides, it's rather embarrassing for a Baby Boomer to be a hipster. Hippies, yes; hipsters, no. (Being a hippie is embarrassing too, but at least to be expected amongst Baby Boomers.) Generally, the oldest hipsters are in their 30s, the vast majority are in their late teens and 20s, because by their 30s most of them smell the glove and mature, i.e. Evolve from the inferior hipster-larva stage they had degraded themselves with while they were young: i.e. Confused, self-absorbed, gullible and foolish.
Thirdly, Jordan actually allowed the movie to degenerate into a stupid, generic thriller, with cardboard criminals and stupid, unconvincing crime-related situations. I hate thriller situations even in thrillers, let alone in "fantasy" dramas. There is nothing easier than to inject some lame-brained drug-mule-with-the-heart-of-gold thug-gangster bash-up/mix-up to wrap up a movie; it's corny and not what a demanding viewer wants from his fantasy drama. Film-makers these days are so hell-bent on providing plot-twists (at any cost) that they throw logic and substance by the side, sacrificing the entire movie just to "surprise" the viewer with some lame twist. That horror films and thrillers do this obsessively, I can even understand (though not support), but for a romantic drama this is ridiculous.
Of course, when we find out that this is NOT a fantasy film, i.e. That the woman is just a Romanian criminal on the run, suddenly the car-crash and her finding the drugs in the water appear extremely cheesy and absurdly far-fetched events, plot-devices that reek of writer's block. The odds of those two events happening involve a long line of zeroes. You can get away with that in a fantasy movie (which implies higher powers, destiny and such), but not in a non-fantasy drama/thriller. You can't have it both ways.
Then there's that dumb minor plot-twist with the little girl secretly moving the drugs! That was so stupid. This wasn't just writer's block, this was post-traumatic writer's block! PTWB. Surely there must be centers at Beverly Hills that treat it. Jordan, the next time he doesn't know how to finish a (good) story, should check himself into such a center. They might teach him a thing or two about why plot-twists-at-any-cost screen-writing is lame.
The writer, despite being Irish, seems to know less about Irish immigration laws than I do. Ondine doesn't go to jail, which is absurd. Also, the question of her deportation is a bit iffy considering that she belongs to an EU country. Or did Jordan think Romania is a mid-East nation? No wonder he listens to Sigur Ros.
The movie has a very good first half but then things (predictably) start going South with corny car-crashes, idiotic relationship drama based on nothing, cheesy criminals, and of course - Sigur Ros.
Speaking of which, that whiny little clown high-pitch-singing the movie's "siren song" sounds like a ca$trated mule right after an alcoholic binge. Irony or intent? Because, I mean, Farrell got drunk, so...
Jordan manipulates his audience into believing that Ondine has powers. It's one thing to manipulate subtly, but something entirely different to cheat and lie to the viewer. The Romanian thug's behavior was completely in keeping with the legend of a selkie husband searching for his wife. At no point did he behave as if he was primarily after the drugs - as he suddenly does at the end when we find out who he is. This is just plain bad writing.
Great Irish scenery, competent performances, and an original story nevertheless can't be entirely crushed by clumsy and unconvincing third-act plot-devices i.e. Forced drama and stupid twists, and can't be totally obliterated just because the writer is a tone-deaf Sugar-Ross-hugging hipster. Maybe in another universe this writer would have not become a hipster hence would have had a greater movie career, and more success in closing out well-conceived stories.
Inner Demons (2014)
They gave her a boy's name - Carson, so no wonder she turned to depression, Goth-chick-ism, Satanism and heroin.
Even worse, the name CARSON gets shouted out about 550 times, which makes that name triply annoying. Or not triply but 550thly annoying.
I vowed I wouldn't choose any more of these possession flicks, because they bore me so much, but decided to watch this because the premise wasn't stereotypical, and there was no over-the-top priest chanting gibberish - which I find particularly tedious.
I was right that the movie features no corny priests doing corny exorcistical things - but I didn't know that the cameraman character would be fulfilling that role at the end of the movie. In other words, I was naive and optimistic in my belief that there can be a demonic-possession film without yet another silly, generic exorcism.
I was willing to put up with the bad acting, the slow pace, the feeble direction and the overall air of semi-amateurishness, because I liked the notion of a junkie using heroin in order to keep a demon at bay, and the fact that the plot was set in a rehab, which is unusual for a horror film.
However, the movie suddenly, unexpectedly and bafflingly moved out of rehab after an hour, which was the first stupid decision. Then the 2nd stupid decision: giving us that wholly idiotic backstory how she got possessed in the first place. That college-kids conspiracy-prank Satanic ritual shtick was not only absurd and totally unconvincing, it was badly shot and amateur.
And of course the 3rd bad decision, which as I mentioned is the cliche exorcism ritual. Can't these bozo film-makers come up with a new way of casting out demons? Jesus, surely there must be a 100 new ways these "creative" writers can come up with something that doesn't involve holding a Bible and reading bits of random nonsense from it. Or as in this case, not necessarily a Bible but a book on demonology. Instead of being suspenseful, the big finale was very dull. Totally flat. And idiotic.
The acting isn't all bad. It varies from decent to awful, but it's mostly on the crap end of the spectrum. The girl's parents are unconvincing as are some of the rehab inmates, while the doctor and the female lead are OK.
Malicious (2018)
The conclusion is so dumb, it would have been perfect for a comedy.
A rather mediocre ghost flick during the 1st hour, with many horror cliches and a weak atmosphere, plus the usual tidbits of nonsense, but then the drivel drastically increases, featuring one of the dumbest, most illogical, preposterous endings in years.
When Delroy finally arrives to investigate, the Math professor husband gets agitated when Delroy points out to a box as the source of the trouble. But why would he be so adamantly skeptical?
Firstly, his wife had mysteriously had an accident, lost her baby. Secondly, he had witnessed his sister-in-law (a hot actress) having sex with a student, in front of the house, at night, which seemed absurd, and then he saw and heard her when she entered the room - just a few seconds later, which is of course physically impossible. Didn't that raise any alarm-bells? "Hey, why is she shtooping my student outside like some deranged animal-ho? And how did she get up all the way here in a second? And how did she know I was watching her?" Nor is the student-shtooping scene explained at all. Nor did the husband ever even address this incident to his wife, or her sister. It just happened, period. On to the next scene... Unacceptably sloppy writing.
Thirdly, he had visions of her while having sex with his wife, which should have spooked the hell out of him.
How did all of this not strike him as "odd", or put in plainer English - as supernaturally horrifying? Which is why his anger at Delroy just doesn't make sense. This "forced skepticism" is a cliche plot-device, and in this case defies logic, to boot.
I'm also mystified by the sister's reaction upon having her head SMASHED against the mirror - by her mirror image self. She just leaves the house without telling her sister what happened! Duh. Generally speaking, her role in this movie is very poorly conceived. Her behavior is confusing, her sudden pregnancy is confusing, and her brief appearance in the "grand finale" is baffling too. Was that her or a ghost impersonator?
After he gets stabbed with a very long, large knife by his possessed wife, he drops to the floor - then somehow gets up again and fights ghosts as if he had just a minor bruise. What the hell... Then he unknowingly stabs his wife and starts apologizing to her - despite the fact she'd stabbed him minutes earlier. What the...
The guy doing prison time for murder of his own wife... How did he know that the only solution was to kill his wife? I mean, he was there to tell the new couple about this - but who was it that told him, when he was in trouble with these ghosts? Was it just a wild guess? "Hey, perhaps if I kill my wife ALL the demons will disappear? Oh why not, it's worth a try, I got nothing to lose... except my lovely wife and my freedom."
And that final scene... was that cretinous or what. Despite suffering a deep stab wound, the protagonist not only managed to successfully fight of ghosts and kill his demonic wife - but he then ACTUALLY somehow managed to send the evil box - all neatly wrapped up as a gift - to his sister-in-law! Why was he so angry with her? She didn't know the box had an evil spirit when she gave it to them. More importantly, how the hell did he manage to crawl all the way to the post office (which presumably isn't even open at night...?) with the wound that he had, and how did he get the evil box wrapped up nicely AND hand it over to the post-office clerk - while all bloodied and in agony? Did this clerk not notice all of his guts and blood spilling over the post-office floor?
The very notion of him going to the post office all bloody and badly wounded is in itself comedy material...
It is a hilarious bit of inane writing, this gift. Not to mention that his sister-in-law was SUDDENLY heavily pregnant, which is also a rather absurd plot-device inserted at a whim, rather stupidly. It's supposed to be a revenge twist, but it makes zero sense on all fronts. Doesn't make sense that he wanted revenge, doesn't make sense how he sent the box all bloody and in pain, and it doesn't make sense WHY he'd want to unleash this evil onto the world. Totally inept script.
The premise is better than the typical haunted house film, but the way it was handled could have been far better, for example fix lots of the nonsense in the script - which would admittedly have meant a major re-write, maybe a total overhaul of the story. And hire a better male lead, because the guy playing the husband is pretty bad and miscast.
Paranormal Activity 4 (2012)
Para-Abnormally Para-Boring Para-Idiotic Non-Activity.
Sitting through 95 minutes of this rubbish was a chore comparable only to the mind-numbing school-years tedium of having to survive 6-7 classes a day without voluntarily smashing my head against the desk.
1. Predictability. The plot goes exactly as it's "supposed" to, which kills 99% of the "potential" suspense. The writing is so pi$$-poor, it allows even the most dim-witted viewer to figure out things in advance, let alone intellectual giants like myself.
2. Stupidity & Lack of Logic. Despite there being tons of footage proving the existence of weird phenomena, the teens barely show any of it to the adults, nothing to the police, or to anyone else. This absurdity especially applies to the 2nd half, when this becomes a huge logic hole, like an elephant in the room, an unintentional running joke that crushes this dumb film like a cow stepping on a tiny sea-shell.
3. Downer Ending, a foregone conclusion. If you know not only the plot in advance, but also the ending, what is the actual point of the movie? Certainly not to immerse oneself in its visual brilliance - because this junk has the same ugly "realistic" photography as all the other found-footage flicks.
Nor is there a soundtrack to enjoy. There is literally no point in following the plot because it is laid out at the beginning, and in previous films of this dumb franchise.
4. Characters. The blonde actress is the only good thing about the movie, though her character fails to inform anyone but her useless Emo-hair boyfriend of the plethora of stuff that's going on. She's got all this amazing footage, tons of it, enough to make headline news across the world - let alone convince people she's in danger - yet during almost a fortnight none of it is shown to anyone but her beta orbiter loser.
The kids. They are way too similar hence can't even be distinguished during the long shots. The "evil kid" is totally boring, unscary, abysmal. Crap acting, utter joke of a character. Even kids used to be better actors, once upon a time when movies sucked much less.
The adults. Knives falling out of nowhere and a 15 year-old almost getting suffocated in a garage mysteriously full of fumes - these are just some of the bizarre/extreme events that these people just don't seem to give a damn about. If they don't then why should the audience?
5. Direction. It's abysmal. Everything is about SMASH, BANG and BOOM, dumb loud noises, because these "film-makers" have zero creativity or sense of what makes horror work and what doesn't. This crappy phoned-in sequel is full of overlong non-motion shots that are meant to increase tension but end up being totally ineffectual, partially due to extreme repetition, partially because we know that every such scene will end in a loud thud. Whether that thud is a book falling or a chair hitting a wall becomes irrelevant.
6. Absolutely pathetic ending. Nothing's explained, demons just kill, we don't know why, what they want, who they are, and everything goes as "planned", hence zero tension, no surprises. In fact, I typed out this review during the last 15 minutes of the "movie". I was that bored.
The Power (2021)
If Corinne is so "concerned" for women's rights where is her movie about Iran?
Heavy on mood, but also ultra-heavy on stupid. Plus a political message that in a normal era (unlike the current one) would have been considered too hateful and morally repulsive, insane even. Which is exactly what it is.
Horror scripts don't get any more inept than this. A movie for the Beeeh Generation and the mentally mismanaged, hence another great litmus test for common sense and intellect. You've got a fiancee and want to make sure she's not the wrong one? Play her this trash, and if she likes it and agrees with it then you are saved - from a marriage in Hell.
So thank Corinne for making this junk. The irony of incompetence actually being helpful should not be lost on you, but you should nevertheless thank her, even though she very probably hates you if you're a white male, and probably blames you for at least 15 se$ual assaults that never happened.
She must be bundles of fun at family gatherings, huh? Pointing fingers at all the men, demanding they repent for all the crimes they'd committed. I kid you not, Corinne is really out there. Susan Sontag is like an obedient, meek nun compared to her.
Kind of like the idiotic central character in this pile of junk.
It's a political film, because why would a female writer-director do straight horror? They have to play up to the Establishment, they want to make sure their Overlords (white men, ironically) know that she is obsequious, in line with the current political doctrines: never questioning, only following them. I'm not saying all female directors are like this, but many feel compelled to push the ultra-femini$t agendas, as if having a punani gives them some kind of moral superiority over men. As if being female and a director is somehow interpreted by them as a sign from God (well, no, they're atheists by default, so a sign from Lenin), a mission to "liberate women from the oppressive devious hands of the vile white male." Their delusion is staggering, and their latent narcissism immense. Too few female directors these days avoid this trap which is a shame because some of them have potential. Very few are only concerned with transporting a good story to their audience. We live in politically corrupted times, very similar to Europe of the late 20s and 30s, just before $talin and that other demon went into overdrive, ransacking the world in ways that had never been done before. We live in a world so insane that all forms of lefty radicalism are considered righteous and morally untouchable. It is a recipe for disaster and this disaster is right around the corner... To say the obvious.
This turkey is the gender equivalent to that of any movie ejected out by Jordan Peele, one of the most insidious and inept A-list film-makers in recent years, if not decades. White men are to be despised, is the degenerate message here, once again, and it is hammered with the usual lack of subtlety and total lack of intelligence, i.e. Very primitively and fanatically, as one might expect from a person consumed by hatred and with little to no savvy about the world.
"You're lucky to be alive, but you might wish you weren't."
In what kind of a hospital do nurses speak that way to heavily traumatized patients! One of the many ridiculous lines.
What kind of a place did this young new nurse Rose walk into anyway? A London hospital from 1974, or an insane asylum from 1679? (Admittedly, this bogus "70s England" looks much more like 30s or 40s UK, but hey, what would a Millennial director know - about anything.) The negativity towards Rose is so relentlessly piled up, I was half-expecting Kutscher to spring out of a corner, shouting "you've been punked!" in that annoying, overbearing way of his. None of this stuff seems realistic at all, yet it's a movie with socio-political ambitions. What better genre to do that in than a ghost story!
First, Rose is interviewed by a Matron who is some bombastic evil character right out of a Dickens novel. (Is this really 1974 London?) She speaks to the nurse as if Rose had just arrived to a prison, and for slaughtering 15 children. Then Rose has to deal with a former acquaintance who hates her guts. Then this blonde dances like a clown while on the job (in ICU no less), along with a very shady maintenance man who resembles Tim Roth but behaves more like a tipsy serial-killer. Or serial molester. (All white men are se$ual predators in Corinne's deranged world.)
And to top it all off, she's being haunted by ghosts! Really?... Corinne threw in everything but the kitchen sink. I'm surprised an alien didn't a-probe Rose, too, then a dragon appears and burns all of her hair off. And of course molests her, because this movie is really just another Red anti-male junk-pile that portrays women as slaves, as the oppressed, as perpetual victims. A laughable fairy-tale in other words.
Rose was molested as a child, then (inexplicably) haunted by ghosts (and fondled by them too), then after barely surviving that night... the doctor she fancies also wants her. So only psychopaths worked in London's 70s hospitals? He couldn't wait for a few days until he groped her? Gets her straight out of her hospital bed after a night in which several nurses died - and drags her still injured to the basement to attack her? Is this a joke, Corinne? It's as if a daft 11 year-old wrote this.
Wouldn't there be evidence of assault? Was it legal in 70s Britain? Did 99% of the male British population consist of sexual deviants? (According to Corinne, it's probably 100%, and according to her 100% of all rape claims are true, because women never lie.) Why is this clueless writer-director treating 1974 London like Caligula's Rome? Who wrote those textbooks she read about 70s London? Chomsky?
Yes, the movie hates Rose, just as Corinne hates the opposite sex. Rose is the corny, utterly pure, 100% morally impeccable innocent stereotype victim ripe for exploitation by male sadists: we get it, Corinne. Subtlety goes a long(er) way, Corinne. (Obviously, all sadists have to be men, because "if women ruled the world"...) But can't you keep it at least a BIT realistic, Corrine? This isn't 25th-century London, you know, some hypothetical time and place that you can inject with random traits. There are numerous people who lived through London's 70s who can laugh at this dumb film, because they won't even recognize this time and place. The hospital isn't located in the netherworld, either. So why all the bombast?
Why so much random violence? Those bloody silly movie ghosts are so often irrational and dumb, nothing new, but this movie takes that shtick to a whole new level. For almost an hour random nonsense just... happens. No rhyme or reason. Silly chaos that would be comedic if the mood wasn't so bleak. The kind of script only a hack could green-light. That only a dilettante can write.
One of the many key questions beg themselves: WHY is the hospital haunting only her? And on her first work day? Isn't that a bit silly?
Corinne might answer this way: "But she is an assault victim, and the ghosts were themselves molested! That's why!"
To this I would reply: "Yes, Corinne, but considering how you portray all men as deviants or at least non-opponents of assault, then how come this ghost was triggered so late into action? If ALL men are rapists then nearly ALL women must be rape victims... right? In other words, the molested ghost(s) should have gone berserk ages ago, triggered by the arrival of ANY other female worker. No need to wait for Rose."
That's a contradiction right there. Not that Corinne would ever detect any bad logic even if it landed on her...
Nevermind Rose's relative calm given the circumstances... She gets shoved to the ground by a ghost, she hears whispers in the dark, things move on their own - yet she STILL isn't searching for the Exit?! Bloody hell, is there no limit anymore to the ineptitude of these wannabe "auteurs"? Yet another director who thinks they can write. Except that she can't: Corinne is just as inept a writer as a myriad of her director colleagues who can't bring themselves to delegate: to find a proper writer for their (dumb) movies. Corinne is a capable director but of what use is that when she writes garbage scripts... There is nothing even the most brilliant director can do with a dumb script, and Corinne is anyway hardly brilliant.
Never in a million years would any sane person on this planet NOT try to run away from a building after what had just happened to her, especially since this place is completely new to her. Sillier still, it turns out she has a phobia of the dark. Extremely stupid, unrealistic script, on so many levels.
What's with the blonde witch nurse? She has more mood swings than Hillary C on a broken-down roller-coaster. She dances with the maintenance man (the blonde, not Hellary), then utters three completely non-sequitur sentences, totally unrelated statements, in a row, to Rose. The 34th minute. Rubbish writing, yet again.
The finale is the dictionary definition of "imbecile". I expect the average of this trash to plummet over the next years, as more and more sane people vote for it...
The Banishing (2020)
Fairly mediocre ghost flick with dubious characterization.
By far the worst in that sense is the "gangster priest". Dunno what else to call him. If you know the Monty Python sketch with the mafia bishops, you will have an immediate sense of what I'm talking about. This guy behaves completely like a mobster. You wanna portray the Church as corrupt? Fine. But do it in a half-way reasonable, sensible manner, not like this. The bishop starts playing pool while issuing his many threats, then SUDDENLY is used as a jump-scare device, when he for no apparent reasons shouts and smacks a billiard ball with a stick (or something like that). What a dumb, overblown scene.
Much worse than his mobster-like persona is his complete lack of motive. WHY does he so insist on keeping the woman and her child in a house that is haunted? What vested interest does he even have in what happens with these three? There is some half-baked "explanation" he gives to the woman, about an hour into the movie, but it clarifies nothing, hence we're none the wiser. He seems to exist purely as a plot-device - to keep the three people from abandoning the house.
In the end, there's a nonsensical scene with the bishop meeting some National-Socialists and discussing the house. But that point I was utterly disinterested, so perhaps I missed a key detail. Maybe it all makes sense, but I doubt it. I very much doubt they managed to logically connect the National-Socialists to the house, and why the bishop would want to have tenants in it.
The "occultist" mumbles so much you need subtitles for every single scene he is in. It's as if he's doing modern theater or something, just seems eccentric for the sake of it. A Brando fan?
The priest's depiction is typical of a writer detached from reality, who "knows" about the Church only what he'd seen in movies. This priest is reluctant to copulate with his new wife, because... why? Because he is uptight about sex? Because sex is "impure"? If this writer actually thinks that any priests EVER - from any denomination - were repelled by sex and reluctant to stick their you-know-whats into women, think again: that is utter nonsense. Those guys and gals (nuns) hoompa-loompa like rabbits.
Ghosts are, once again, completely illogical, as well as cretinous...
"The woman was tortured and mutilated by Minassian Order monks many years ago, and now she holds your daughter captive as revenge."
The kid is not the priest's daughter, she barely even knows him. Besides, even if she were, the priest himself didn't torture the ghost woman, so why take it all out on the little girl? Why not kill the bishop instead?
Yeah, movie ghosts and their nearly always brazen lack of logical motives for being hostile... I wonder why writers think they can get away with this. Why they think ghosts are allowed to be so stupid. It makes the writing easier but it only piles on more nonsense.
"Her own unborn was ripped out by monks, and now she now holds your daughter captive, as her own."
So which is it then? The occultist gave us two different motives for why the ghost snatched the girl.
I didn't appreciate the subtle pro-Republican Spanish Civil War sub-sub-plot. If the director wanted to kiss the Establishment's rear end he should have done it in a more obvious way. You know, the usual obvious, in-your-face, Red-propaganda kind of way. I mean, why be shy with your Red leanings? Everyone in the film industry is a Red now. Might as well let it all hang: be open with your political extremi$m. It's hip to be an extremi$t these days. Not to mention PC hence profitable.
Ditto "The Shining" rip-off. Might as well name the priest Jack Nicholson, and the wife Overlook Hotel.
There are some interesting scenes on occasion, but too many things here are just plain average, or worse.
The last half-hour is an even bigger letdown. Instead of being more interesting and exciting, it consists of random scenes, inane speeches and a rather bad soundtrack.
Nude on the Moon (1961)
The movie's message? Some women you need to see nude first, before you can fall in love with them.
A noble message indeed. And a practical one.
It's a sexploitation flick, so can we forgive its many idiocies and incompetencies? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that I forgive every B-movie's incompetence, because that's what makes them fun. What's there to forgive? I love the fact that fools and hacks made so many low-budgies in the 50s and 60s. But that doesn't mean I am willing (or able) to ignore their stupidity.
After all, NOTM starts with a whopping 25-minute introduction, during which it's absolutely no different than any other sci-fi flick of the era. During this rather slow, breast-free section NOTM gives us lots of scientific gobbledygook; the movie attempts to be at least somewhat serious. Otherwise why bore the audiences with budgets, schedules and temperature shifts on the Moon? We learn that the young scientist is completely oblivious to women, most importantly to his secretary, who is smitten with him.
Plenty of nonsense, no way of including it all in one review. The usual space sci-fi cheese about getting the rocket ready for a historic mission (in this case a task as easy as organizing a picnic), and then the usual easy-as-punch lift-off. No stray passengers this time though! Which is odd... Perhaps the "writers" weren't aware of the unwritten rule that every Moon or Mars mission MUST have a stowaway...? Then the awesome landing: the astronuts doze off, yet perfectly land! This is where B-movie cosmonuts show total supremacy compared to overrated hacks such as Armstrong and Aldrin.
In Florida. They land in Florida. Not the Moon. Sorry to disappoint, but the movie uses some rather blatant false advertising.
The two astro-nuts marvel loudly at the amazing scenery, it's just a pity that the director wouldn't show us any of it. Still, I'd rather be a viewer than an astro-nut because these two are forced to wear rather gay costume-ball outfits that even the most eccentric and fey of superheroes might adamantly refuse to put on. They find gold, bicker about it, then they get briefly "kidnapped" and zapped(?) by the Moon Queen, played by none other than the love-interest secretary! Though why not? It's not like they'd gone THAT far: they're in bloody Florida!
And yet, they wear helmets. Well, "helmets" which don't cover their heads entirely - but they do have some sort of completely unnecessary breathing devices. Why the visors though? They lift them up occasionally, to have a closer look (at breasts, for example), then shut them down again! Why not just take them off, you clowns! We never ever find out why... Then again, we also never find out what two morons are doing in Florida exploring the "Moon" while dressed as dandy futuristic hairdressers, either. Couldn't they have simply bought train or plane tickets like everyone else?
After discovering a "civilization" (well, 11 naked people standing around sun-bathing), they don't seem to for a moment show either shock or even at least surprise. In fact, they find the flora much more interesting than the boobage! Sort of like "oh, some nude women... we'll get to them later, we must first examine these fascinating plants".
After being zapped, for no discernible reason, and vaguely "imprisoned" (a "jail" from which they could have waltzed out any time they wished), they are "released" (well, sort of, vaguely "escorted" out), and are now free to do the usual Florida tourist thingy. The writer is such an utter nitwit that the elder scientist/tourist tells his young colleague TWICE about gold being needed to finance future missions. The writing is so dumb we even have a role-reversal whereby the young astro-moron loses interest in the "scientific aspects" of the mission (whatever those may be in a Florida park) and has to be admonished by the elder one. Just minutes earlier the younger one had to admonish the elder one that "we're here for scientific purposes"!
Needless to say, it's as if a 12 year-old wrote this script... for his Soft-Core Pawn class. (Don't laugh. They probably have those in "progressive" Sweden.) The sort of script that would probably fail him in any half-way demanding Goteborg Pown School.
And directed by a 5 year-old. The editing, the same shots being used over and over, unrelated scenes being glued together stupidly, day-and-night transitions, ultra-awful anti-continuity...
Unfortunately, NOF (Nude In Florida) overstays its breasty welcome by a half-hour. At least. By the 50-minute mark, at the latest, NOF shoots off all of its load/ammunition, and after that there's nothing left but senseless, dull repetition. Sure, nine naked women are featured over and over (the kind of repetition I really don't mind), but whenever they're not part of a scene it is pure drudgery.
Still... there's that awesome ending, with its poetic, noble, righteous, feminist message. The young astronaut unwillingly goes back to Earth, depressed because he is leaving behind the Moon/Florida Queen/Earth-Secretary. But!... Upon returning to work, the dope finally realizes that his secretary and the "alien" floozie are the same woman. And so man once again proves that love for a woman cannot properly blossom until and unless she takes her clothes off.
So he can inspect the goods. Of course. Makes perfect sense. I'm not being sarcastic.
Without Name (2016)
Stylish and interesting.
One of those slow-paced horror films that have zombies pulling their hair out. This is the polar opposite of what the torture-po$n crowd wants from a movie. They don't want mystery, a story, good dialog, proper characterization - and a total lack of gore.
No splatter-butchering tore-limbs rivers of blood whatsoever here. This is every torture-po$n fan's worst nightmare: real people in unusual situations. (They prefer absurd people in totally contrived situations.) The only "unusual" situations a torture-po$n dweeb wants and understands is when an innocent tourist family find themselves in the middle of a huge shredder, observing their legs get cut into tiny pieces - while the torture fan finishes in their pants, stuff dripping down on his Coke cans lying around on the floor. A LACK of extreme violence repulses them. They don't want to be forced to use their unusable grey cells, they want pure unadulterated deprivation and sadism. As simple as possible, with a plot that even a lower-tier plankton can comprehend. When other people experience great pain - is their joy. The screams of a murdering hillbilly's victims is like a ballad to their monkey ears.
This is no such film.
Granted, there are many slow-paced horror films that absolutely stink, but those are the ones with a boring premise, and/or a lack of style, and/or lacking a proper soundtrack and camerawork required for such a film. Building a mood isn't easy, it requires effort and skill. Money, too.
A psychological drama is what this is, with strong horror overtones. The build-up is interesting, the score is very good (especially the tunes in the 6th and 86th minutes), the cast is competent, the dialog very solid, and the setting nice. A pretty, charismatic blonde helps a lot too, I admit. Niamh Algar (the brunette lead in "Censor") is the one I'm referring to. Yeah, being called "Niamh" is a bummer for her, but if she plays her cards right (and by that I don't mean weinsteining her way through) she could have a very good career. Of course, that also depends on luck, plus whether there are enough non-morons in the film industry to recognize her potential.
Did I understand the ending? No. But that's OK, because the movie never bored me, nor annoyed me, nor did I particularly expect to get answers, because I surmised that this wasn't that kind of film. There is a (small) possibility that Eric had split up into two: the part of him that joined the plant-life, and the physical part of him that ended up in a loony bin, along with his predecessor who had the same fate. This would explain him watching his family, friends and cops lead a searching party in the woods. I don't believe he was literally hiding, but that he was already assimilated into the forest. This is, perhaps, why there are two of them at the same time: one in the forest, "hiding" from the people, the other in the house, a shell of his former self.
Does he seem happy? Not really. This isn't some tree-hugging fable of a "man who becomes one with nature", a glorious state of bliss and contentment that hippies have been fantasizing about ever since the first joint was rolled. Eric appears distraught in the final scene, i.e. Perhaps the forest did a number on him, as a way to defend itself from being turned into a tourist resort, a factory, or whatever it was this land surveyor was sent for.
The Field Guide to Evil (2018)
"The Field Guide To Bad Writing" aka "Bad Horror Stories Are An International Phenomenon".
Very possibly the worst anthology horror film I'd come across until now. It consists of contributions from various countries. About as international as the United Nations - and just as effective and useful.
The 1st story "Sinful Women of Hollfall" is very well shot, full of colour, original, interesting - but then that baffling ending... I have no idea what it means, absolutely no clue. It'd be silly to even venture a guess: some random BS intended as a substitute for a proper conclusion.
Two Austrian girls from the 18th or 19th century get lesbian with each other, which results in a demon that acts as Sin Police starting to punish the "seduced one" (we don't find out whether the pregnant seductress is getting punished by Trud the demon too, which by all logic should be the case, yet the story pretty much ignores the blonde). There's also that weird scene when the seductress (the pregnant blonde) smashes her face in with a rock... twice, for no apparent reason. With no noticeable injuries, which is preposterous. But I was willing to let it slide, provided the rest made sense. It didn't... 5/10.
"The Childbirth Djinn" is some Turkish nonsense. I always stay away from movies from that part of the world, and this just confirms my decision. I hope that poor goat wasn't really killed, for the movie, otherwise a heavy curse (doesn't have to be a djinn, anything demonic) would be in order for the director. 2/10
"The Kindler & the Virgin" is a lousy Polish story. If one can even refer to this mess as a story. More like several scenes thrown together on a pile. Fortunately, it's the shortest one at just 10 minutes. So far EVERYTHING I'd come across from Polish cinema has been garbage. 1/10
"Beware the Melonheads" should be "Beware of Dumb Kids and Their Even Dumber Millennial Parents." The kid meets a faceless older boy in the woods, yet fails to report this meeting to his parents right away. That was already strike 1 against this crap. Then the silly peeing incident. Strike 2. Then Strike 3: the"imaginary friend" malarkey, a cheesy plot-device to turn the boy's testimony null-and-void "because hey he's a boy and all children make up everything". Now, after 3 strikes the story should have been abandoned, right? Well, I am forgiving, especially since this is the American entry hence I knew it'd be very dumb hence my very low expectations. Strike 4: the 6 year-old boy says that William is "a little boy like me" when in fact William the Cannibal is clearly an older teen. At this point I was rooting for the cannibals, to have a nice meal: a family of three (dumb Americans). Strike 5: the Melonheads are more like aliens (Coneheads) than cannibal degenerates with "large heads". Laughable. Strike 6: the guy doesn't hear his wife's incredibly piercing scream. He couldn't have been more than 10 meters away, and in a quiet forest environment. I shall spare you the other 11 strikes which involve horrific acting, ridiculous make-up, idiotic dialogue and a stupid predictable "twist"... 0/10.
"Panagas the Pagan" is the 1st time I've ever watched any Greek stuff, and judging from this drivel I'm going to always give a wide berth around anything filmo-Greekish. On a side-note, isn't Greek supposed to sound like Spanish? Sounded more like Finnish. 1/10
"The Palace of Horrors" is cheap-looking B-nonsense not helped by being shot in b&w. The Indian entry, rather boring. 2/10
"A Nocturnal Breath" is the German entry. Finally something watchable after a string of stinkers. The only scary thing about this non-scary anthology is that Germans and Austrians win this "competition" hands down, despite both nations being infamous for their very mediocre cinema. 5/10.
"Cobbler's Lot" is "artsy" and presented in a silent-film way, but is better than most of the other crap here. Still, I'll never understand why the princess killed herself before the arrival of her spy-bird. Why send a bird to find out what happens at the lake when you can't even bother to wait for its report? The Hungarian entry. Good soundtrack. 4/10.
The House on Pine Street (2015)
The plot was stuck in a dumb loop.
If Hitchcock had ever done a haunted house flick, this is how he'd do it - by endlessly playing around with his favorite dumb gimmick of nobody-believes-me which is basically the same as his thriller innocent-man-accused-of-a-crime shtick.
THOPS spends way too much screen time milking that cow; after a while it becomes very tiresome and annoying, not to mention repetitive: 1. Woman gets harassed by ghost, 2. Woman complains to husband, 3. He says she's crazy, 4. Go back to 1. Over and over, for 80 MINUTES! That's how much of the movie is stuck in a rut, playing like a broken record. You can use that shtick for only so long before you're forced to stretch logic and go into far-fetched territory - which is why Hitchcock loved that gimmick, because he didn't give a hoot that his movies were illogical and absurd.
I prefer films in which a plot develops rather than stagnates, hits a wall. Enough already! Get on with the bloody story! And that's why the film lasts two hours, which is way too long for horror films, because it's stuck in a daft loop. Stupider still, the conclusion offers zero explanation: who is the ghost? Why did he kill and harass? Nope, sorry, the lazy film-makers copped out. There are some good, eerie scenes which save the movie from uselessness.
And let's have an actress with actual cleavage. This female character is supposedly in her last trimester and yet the actress is as flat as a board. Perhaps that's why the ghost is so angry.
The Seventh Sign (1988)
The nonsense in the last third sinks this.
There is a brief nude scene (one hour into the movie) showing Demi fully pregnant. I checked her bio and it turns out she gave birth to Rumer Willis the same year this movie was released. However, the movie came out in April, whereas Rumer was born in August, so the stomach has to be fake.
As for the breasts? Who knows. Her natural breasts are small, B size at the very most, yet here they seem larger. When did she get her awful implants?
Not nearly as relevant as the Apocalypse, I know, but still: we the audiences have the right to know these crucial things.
A weird sub-plot shows up early on involving a Down Syndrome kid who faces execution because he killed his parents "in the name of God". Utter rubbish, of course: no 80s California that I know of would have sentenced to death such a kid, regardless whom he killed. No other U. S. state either. Compounding this nonsense is the fairly far-fetched notion of a Down Syndrome person killing anyone. In fact, has such a case ever even been recorded?
The conversation between him and his lawyer is ludicrous too. Biehn is using legalese terminology and this kid understands it! The writer wanted a Down Syndrome character (just for kicks) but one who isn't mentally impaired. So stupid. The guy who wrote this script clearly knows less about Down Syndrome than I know about building Mars rockets. I get it: the 5th seal was this innocent being executed by a "corrupt world" or whatever, but this sub-plot could have been handled differently, and far less idiotically. For a movie that wants to be taken seriously as an apocalyptic horror film - as opposed to a comedy - they sure risked a lot with this needless nonsense. The last 3rd of the movie suffers for it. For someone who has worked with Down Syndrome people, I find this whole thing utterly dumb.
I struggle to understand why the immortal Roman soldier (the murderer) felt the need to approach Demi. What was his motive? To warn her? Why warn her? It makes no sense.
From a House on Willow Street (2016)
Don't expect us to root for kidnappers...
A very good 1st half is followed by a sudden drop (once the big reveal occurs) in the flawed, unconvincing 2nd half. The sense of mystery gone, the movie proceeds to resolve things in a somewhat clumsy way.
Hazel's escape from the demon goes against all logic and odds. Nevertheless, it was predictable all along despite not being plausible in the slightest, because it was so obvious that she was the central figure who might survive the carnage. (Why many horror movies make this so obvious, I do not know.) The demon had her caught on several occasions, yet somehow let her slip away. Inexplicably, the three demons wasted minutes flailing about with their tongues as if unsure what to do next, or as if drunk. It's not even clear how she escapes in the van scene: because they WAITED for her to finally reach her gun so she can shoot them? Laughable writing.
Then suddenly the ghost of Hazel's mother comes to the rescue, which goes against all the unwritten "ghost rules". Nor do we understand how a mere human ghost is so much more powerful than two demon-possessed humans. But OK, that's not a major point. Considering that the demon "increases his power greatly with every additional soul", he should have easily defeated Hazel (an understatement), by which point he'd gone from one soul to three - and he was mighty powerful with just the one to begin with. An incompetent demon isn't a scary demon.
The self-sacrificing nature of these low-life kidnappers is another issue. Not one but THREE of these four people sacrifice themselves for the others, or try to, throughout the chaos. Hazel even at one point actually WORRIES about demonic Katherine, despite the fact that she'd just seen the tapes of how she slaughtered 4 people with ease. Later on, the technician-guy offered his life to save Hazel and her boyfriend - despite the fact that he'd agreed to sell them to the demon in exchange for seeing his dead daughter just a few minutes earlier. And then, the boyfriend sacrificed himself to the demon so that Hazel could leave, in what was a very unconvincing, absurd scene. "Only one can leave" he stupidly says while shutting the hatch behind her. Huh? Why just one? Where was this rule written and by whom? At no point did the demon ever suggest that ANYONE could leave, let alone gave a number. Hence he could have easily joined her. It's not as if he bought her any extra time by killing himself either, considering that she stayed there the whole time; she started running only after he was dead, which made his sacrifice completely unnecessary. Silly writing.
Hazel not shooting at the demon earlier on was also a ridiculous moment. Her hesitation makes zero sense, in light of everything that had occurred before. This is not some mild-mannered housewife forced to shoot at a demon, but a criminal.
This notion of a kidnapper-with-the-heart-of-gold and this "honour among thieves" BS really sinks the 2nd half, making it unrealistic. The characterization is off. If the writer actually expects us to root for the kidnappers then he must be rather confused about not just characterization, but also morality in general. The fact that the gang is lead by a skinny fashion model also rings about as true as a shark saving a toddler on the beach instead of attacking it.
The Gate (1987)
Sacrifice - "Forward to Termination", 1987. Should have been included...
The high average must be due to nostalgia. Some of the people who upvoted TG must have been no older than the two protagonists here when they first saw the movie, hence must have been scared $hitle$$ by this tame, non-scary tale of a demonic gateway.
The movie fritters away its first half on barely anything much horror-related at all, preferring to keep us occupied listening to inconsequential dialog between the various kids.
Most of these kids' reactions make little sense. The teens all experience Dorff's levitation, yet nobody aside from him is impressed at all. Later, Dorff is SKEPTICAL about the "heavy metal band" Sacrifice and its Satanic lyrics about levitation! Duh.
No, not the Canadian band Sacrifice, who - interestingly - released their best album in the same year as this movie was made. This movie didn't have the class to feature real metal or any real bands, much less something as extreme as Sacrifice was back then. It's a kiddie horror after all. Not that I support metal music in horror movies (it almost never works), but since this is a menial little monster movie, then they might as well have. It's not as if TG oozes with atmosphere that any kind of unsuitable music could ruin.
When the demons finally start their big attack campaign, Dorff's friend seems hardly impressed and is acting blase about it, even joking. Duh. The fact that he was the only one who believed in all this supernatural stuff does NOT mean that he'd be calm about it when it starts happening. He is after all just a kid. An adult would react with fear, let alone a kid.
The way he falls into the hole is pretty damn stupid too. The writer needed someone to fall in there but couldn't think of ANY better way for him to fall than out of clumsiness. So dumb. There are a 100 ways you can make a character fall into a demonic pit, especially a dumb kid. Banana peels and the like aren't necessary.
When the trio initially gets rid of the pit and goes back into the house, they actually LAUGH at the two girls for hiding in a closet, as though the demons never existed. A few minutes later, the closet girls welcome some guys as a surprise, then behave as if NOTHING supernatural had ever transpired just 10 minutes earlier! Unbe-lievable.
Bizarre writing decisions, for sure, hence the asinine reactions.
Still, TG looks a lot better than most movies from the late 80s, the visually and quality-wise lousiest era of American movies, between the late 60s and early 00s. Also, the special effects are far better than what one might expect from an 80s horror film. The little demons are pretty good. The final 15 minutes are a bit of a redemption for the earlier tedium, and much better than this movie deserved.
Dave Made a Maze (2017)
Some weird character flaws in the writing but otherwise good.
Shouldn't it be called "Dave Found A Way To Beat All the Known Laws Of Physics"? The fact that he made a complex labyrinth is kinda trumped by this fact.
Borderline not horror, but I decided to include it anyway, because it does have elements of it, plus (at least) 5 people do get "butchered", after all.
Speaking of which, I know that it's an absurdist comedy, but I felt something was off about the ending in which the main couple seemed very happy despite having lost 4 of their friends to the maze. Dave seemed to show more concern about the movie title than his dead friends whom he never once mentions after the escape. In fact, only the sleazy movie producer mentions them. And what happened to the Flemish tourists?
A lower budget comedic version of movies like "Cube", with a good deal of imagination, but never truly hilarious. Interesting rather than funny, although it can get occasionally tedious due to its bland appearance and mild-tempered approach.
The female lead is very attractive, she just needs a nose job to look great.
The Block Island Sound (2020)
Starts off well, but don't let that fool you... What a silly story.
The whole movie is basically a sister blaming her brother for things he isn't guilty of. A vapid family drama instead of a thrilling supernatural story. Oprah goes horror. Or horror goes to Oprah.
Still, it's worth perhaps for the idiotic "Giiirlllll!" scene. That's funny, though it isn't intended to be.
Starts off nicely enough though, building up mystery, but after the first third you start realizing that the supernatural aspect of the plot is going to be stuck in a rut for at least another 40-50 minutes while the focus shifts then stays on friggin' family drama tedium.
It's similar to one of those annoying "nobody believes me" movies, kind of like a more ambitious hence less cliche version of "Invaders From Mars", in which nobody believes a child that Martians are up to no good - because he is just a kid. Like the drunk hobo nobody believes, in some other cheesy UFO film. Harry has had something done to him by the ocean, a creature, aliens... whatever: just like to his father who was killed by it a little earlier. Yet nobody, not even Harry, knows that he's a victim.
Yet, he is the victim, but everyone else considers him irresponsible, volatile, needlessly hostile...
Needlessly? To give you an idea how contrived this molest-the-innocent-victim shtick gets, consider the fact that his sister ("the nice one") blames HIM for instigating a brawl at their father's funeral, when in fact Harry was provoked by a sociopath who blamed him loudly in front of everyone for killing his father. Yet, Harry gets arrested, nothing happens to the psycho. And Harry is blamed for the incident.
Dumber still, his second sister, Jen (the egotistical, evil one) keeps provoking him yet when he lashes out (and not even in a big way) the "nice sister" blames HIM for provoking Jen. So yes, this writer is laying it on a little too thick. He is basically doing a Hitchcock: the overrated chubster loved to inject his dumb overrated thrillers with this kind of "innocent guy being crushed to the ground" nonsense. Newsflash: that kind of drivel is neither original, nor interesting, nor fun, nor realistic. It's just plain fake, far-fetched.
For a moment there I thought he was going to be blamed for the tons of dead fish, too. "Yeah, Harry must've done it! He is so VIOLENT, killed his father, he is up to no good, I bet HE killed 1000s of those poor fish too!" Well, if this were a Hitchcock film that would have likely followed next, literally. There would have been a lynching mob chasing Harry. So no, it's not as bad as a Hitchcock film but it's still annoying.
Of course, very conveniently this thing is happening only to Harry! There are thousands of fish getting washed up the shore, all victims of the mysterious menace just as Harry is, yet somehow only Harry of all human islanders has this problem. Was the writer more interested in the mediocre drama aspect of this story than the interesting side, the supernatural side? You bet. Why did he think that family drama can be more interesting - in a HORROR film - than the fantasy stuff? Because he is clueless.
So, knowing that I was going to have to sit through at least another half-hour of this kind of repetitive, unrealistic rubbish, I lost interest in the film.
Plus, I could just TELL that this was going to be one of those films that don't try to explain anything. "2001" didn't explain much, because it didn't need to. It's a cerebral movie about ideas. This premise, however, is too specific and banal (as opposed to vague and profound) to not owe us some kind of more concrete explanation. Basically, some "power" in the ocean has turned Harry into a zombie who brings him food from the land. Yes, it's that dumb. May be original, but it's silly, especially without any explanation. We don't even know whether it's an animal, an alien, the ocean itself.
Seriously, the way this super-powerful "creature"/alien feeds is hilarious: it hypnotizes a random fisherman, gets him to bring "exotic" food (deer, dogs and little girls are like oysters and octopus to us), then he LIFTS everything into the air, and the food drops... into the water and... into its mouth? This should have been a comedy. A Lovecraftian comedy. Maybe it's just about a huge Octopus God too lazy to get its own food so it uses its talent at hypnosis to get some free exotic grub. Or maybe it's just the Roman god Neptune pranking a whole island, for MTV.
Speaking of falling from a large height back onto the deck of a boat, it isn't clear at all how Harry managed to survive such a fall. Nor do we understand the "nice" sister's boundless stupidity, when she gets agitated by the reclusive guy asking her whether Harry is killing and transporting animals. Literally that day she'd found out he abducted a dog, and she knew about the deer. So she's an imbecile?
Instead of focusing on the ocean - where the answer must lie - we get brain-scans, sibling drama, a cop angrily shouting at Harry, and other filmic debris more suitable for an Oprah bomb.
There's also the stupid thing his nice sister says, before the problems started. "He tends to get paranoid." This makes little sense, in light of how he was introduced to us in his very first scene: he was shown being annoyed and bored by his conspiracy-theory friend, which a paranoid person would not do. Sloppy writing much? Don't define a character right off the bat as anti-paranoid - but then get a character who is the "voice of reason" (his nice sister) to claim the total opposite just 10 minutes later. Sometimes I wonder how writers can miss out on such gaping holes of logic in their own scripts...
In the end, instead of giving us a viable explanation, the film throws at us a really dumb plot-twist - that Harry and the others were like specimen taken for "study" by... whatever, whoever. An alien? Maybe a really lazy alien that can't be bothered to just pick up its own damn specimen.
No, it's not a profound analogy (between fish and humans as specimen for study), it's Pythonesque. And no amount of "eerie music" can change this.
There's no explanation whatsoever for how the 1000s of dead fish are connected to the "sea creature". Is "the monster" studying fish too? It needs thousands of fish of the same species to analyze - but only one or two humans? Besides, being a sea creature (?) he should already know enough about fish...
Broadcast Signal Intrusion (2021)
This review contains a detailed attempt at making sense of this messy script...
On the positive side, I was intrigued and interested most of the time, and the movie is professionally shot, it isn't B-movie amateurism. The mystery is unusual - certainly far more original than what we get from tons of mindless thrillers that are all about invincible, time/space-bending psycho-killers who seem to have more power than Beelzebub and his pals Baphomet and Belial.
No such BS here. It's not about blood, guts and wounded cops running through abandoned factories. It's not about an omniscient serial-killer who easily predicts the actions of 50 cops, 7 detectives and 115 screaming victims, as if he were a demon from Hell's loins. It's a genuine mystery...
Except that it has no resolution. Zero. The big negative is the ending, which is random, meaningless, incomplete, lazy and "artsy". I can't stand films with sudden endings, they always smell of desperation.
There's the obvious possibility, or at least theory, that the protagonist, James, is the killer. Certainly that would explain the dubious, extraordinarily huge "coincidence" of him getting involved in an urban-legend-like mystery that may lead to his wife's murderer. Or the fact that he finds the elusive 3rd tape in his flat, marked by his own writing - which would 100% mean James killed her. Or the fact that in a very early scene he has a vision of his wife wearing that mask - and that's before he even saw one of those mysterious tapes. Unless there was supernatural involvement, of which there is no real evidence, James would appear to have to be the killer.
But there are so many problems with that explanation - which is, sadly, the only half-way viable explanation, because everything else that happens is random nonsense, disconnected. Interesting nonsense, but from a logical standpoint utter hooey, none of which ties up with anything else. I don't mean that it doesn't tie in neatly, I mean that all of those characters and events don't connect at all, in any way shape or form. They can't. They are random dead-ends devised either to annoy us, fascinate (then disappoint) us, or because the writer was completely lost.
Yes, a lost and confused witter tearing the hair off his head in frustration as he sits over his laptop trying to write something good. Cinema-goers trust writers and directors way too implicitly, hence so often end up making excuse for the film's failings, not realizing that most writers are struggling semi-hacks or total dilettantes, not at all the "(mis)understood geniuses" that fans fantasize about. Cinema-goers overrate film-makers' intellects far too often and too much. They idealize them because cinema-goers live in a fantasy world, they are more disconnected (on average) than people who watch films only sporadically. It's no coincidence that the vast majority of film fanatics are Reds: delusion and confusion are part-and-parcel of their beings. They are pushovers for propaganda, they are naive, they are child-like, yet often pretentious. But that's another story...
Going back to why the "James the killer" theory doesn't work... Firstly, he seems genuinely upset about the death of his wife and/or her disappearance. (The details of her disappearance aren't clarified, which is a bit pathetic. We don't know anything abut how she disappeared, whether her body was found, nothing.) Unless he is a textbook case of a mega-schizophrenic, there is no way he could be her killer, and the killer of the two other women. There is no way he'd go through all that trouble just to miraculously "forget" that he killed them all, to "fix them". Did he have amnesia? If so, we should have been told when and how he lost his memory. He names "fixing phones" as his only hobby, which might be a hint that he is the "fixer" i.e. Women-killer, that he needs to "fix" women. Though why kill two random women at such large intervals (years in-between) then end with the murder of his own wife? Serial-killers don't murder their own wives. It's certainly extremely rare.
Then there's that guy he accuses of being the killer. His behaviour is not that of an innocent person, especially not with that semi-evil smirk he gives while tied and sitting in "the room". Besides, if he wasn't the killer how would he know where the clips were filmed? Unless this guy is a figment of James's schizo imagination? Or maybe he exists but James sees him as James chooses to? In this case the director would be not only manipulating the viewer, he'd be toying with us, giving us nothing. Which would be garbage writing.
And that's when we run into the next problem... If James is schizo and the entire film is shown through his mind, then NOTHING that appears on screen has any meaning whatsoever. If James is the killer then the director completely failed to help us distinguish between the real world and James's fantasy world - something a competent, wise director would have to do for such a "split-reality" or "alternating reality" script. If he is the killer then NONE of the other characters might be real. Not to mention all the other problems I already listed about this theory...
Besides, this protagonist-is-real-killer-and-he's-insane-too twist is nothing new. It's been done before. Protagonist's insanity has been worked to death in thrillers and horror films, even dramas. If it is true that James is the killer that would not only be far-fetched, it would be unoriginal too. A cop-out even. Because "how do I solve this mess I created?" the writer might have asked himself as he started planning to write the last few pages. "Where do I go from here, how do I conclude this maze? Oh, I know, James is the killer! That way I don't have to explain the numerous loose ends and weird all-knowing characters that keep showing up out of literally nowhere". Or a computer that speaks directly to James... Or the clip addressing James by his name (which is more "proof" that he's crazy).
James being the killer would imply that the director had LIED all along, totally deceived the audience, which is a terrible way to "entertain" and to forge a story. Lying is easy, any moron can do it. Try telling the truth to the audience yet still manage to surprise them: that is the trick. Not many can do that, of course... It requires very clever and disciplined writing.
Still, because I had no idea that the story had no ending and that it was random drivel all along, I got a chance to be immersed in it to an extent. That's much better than being bored out of my skull, which is what most movies do...
Meander (2020)
So we're NOT the most sadistic species in the universe? Well, that's a (small) comfort...
The beginning is pretty much the only part where you'll find anyone walking, on their two legs, at least for the next 70-80 minutes. (They're mostly sitting, but that's beside the point.) That's a warning.
After that, the film goes to a crawl, literally and figuratively, as the next 70 minutes is basically Weiss crawling through narrow corridors, trying to evade deadly traps. I can't say I was particularly impressed: this is neither an original idea nor does it create much suspense because the pace slows down ridiculously.
Yet, despite all these sadistic traps and obvious intent to torture, in her first encounter with an alien she utters these fascinating words:
"I know you don't want me to die."
Really? After she'd come across two corpses and after she'd witnesses the murder of the serial-killer, she still believes the aliens like her?
So she's either insane or stupid - or both.
Which makes sense. She was in the middle of nowhere in a foreign country, so clearly she could be both. Plus, she'd just undergone stress and abuse the kind that can kill people. Yet, she somehow has the energy to plow on, to crawl on and on like an energizer caterpillar, with as much stamina as 48 Olympic swimmers. Try crawling for "just" 2-3 minutes: if you can - especially at a fast pace. Anyone who did military service knows how extremely tiring it is. We have big apes as our ancestors, not slugs. Unless Weiss is related to a mole or a worm, I really don't know how she could have done all this crawling without passing out at least 30 times, plus all the stress, panic, anxiety, fear and with just a bit of water and from what I can tell no food at all.
Yes, this is sci-fi, but SHE isn't the alien here. She is a human hence I need her to behave like a human, not like a Crawl Champion emperor-worm. It's way too far-fetched.
Then, when she meets more aliens, she actually SMILES at these ugly deviants who are putting her through this torture, as if she does this sort of thing every day, and as if she'd met aliens before. This was by far the stupidest scene. No human, unless they were some kind of uniquely masochistic and schizophrenic specimen, would behave the way she does. She is friendly, cheerful and trusting with the aliens - none of which makes any sense at all. Any normal person would either want to punch them in the face or flee. Or both.
And how the hell does she constantly keep outrunning (outcrawling) the monster? His only job is to hunt down humans, that's literally his job description, yet somehow grrl power always wins over him.
Who couldn't predict that she'd end up back where she started? Raise yer hands all ye fools who had seen "Cube" yet couldn't figure out that obvious "plot twist". After she finds herself there, somehow she figures out what the symbols denote! That'd be like a person running a marathon while juggling 5 balls being able to do complicated calculus at the same time. There's no way in hell anyone in this kind of extreme, completely bizarre situation would be able to think halfway clearly, let alone analyze these symbols which are as vague as can be. Besides, what the hell do directions such as "left right right left left" mean in a complex 3D maze where even gravity changes!
Nor can she be that smart. After all, check out her dumb daughter, how she died. At the age of 9 any halfway intelligent, normal child should know not to walk out of open windows. I mean, duh. So silly. Weiss blames herself for this incident, yet she isn't at fault. One should be able to leave a 9 year-old alone without having to worry that the dummie will fall out of a window! It's so stupid... That was natural selection at work right there!
Still, after Weiss goes to Heaven (or a remote planet) she gets a new-and-improved daughter, who appears to have made a huge evolution from a window-falling brat all the way to a planetary guide working for the sadistic aliens. It isn't even clear whether this replace-daughter will keep her company or not. Where is Weiss supposed to live? There were no accommodations, perhaps at best a cave, in that barren landscape. That's her reward??? Being stuck on a distant planet, all alone, with just one weird dress? Don't these aliens know that a French woman has a fashion sense? She's not gonna be too happy wearing the same thing every day. Where will she shop? Whom will she share gossip with? (And which gossip? There's nobody else there.) She will likely stay there alone forever, because for sure no other humans will manage to pass that ultra-difficult crawly marathon thingy in the tunnels. This is supposed to be her "Heaven" after she died "many times over" (as she's informed). That is a depressing ending, not a positive one - as this film may (or may not) suggest. All that struggle - just to get more punishment?
So lemme get this right... Aliens abduct random humans and put them through extreme physical, emotional and mental torture - and only the survivors get to "enjoy" the scenery of some barren crap planet? This is not a premise nor a concept, this is goofy nonsense. These aliens must be weird at best, extremely malicious at worst.
Still, the French have a good aesthetic sense and the interiors are nice, the movie is slickly done, it's professional not amateur - although the acting can be iffy at times. Especially the girl-alien comes off flat. I just wish there were more of a plot, less crawling, and a tiny little bit more logic to it all.
Below (2002)
Nearly all WW2 veterans are dead, unable to be annoyed by this laughable premise.
One of my bigger ratings mess-ups. It's embarrassing that I left this mediocrity sitting in the top of my "100 Best Horror Films" list for so many years.
This is one of the more extreme examples of why I can't always trust my old ratings (and reviews). I had this nonsense at 8/10, but now I know better than to have this anywhere near the top 100. This happens relatively rarely, this amount of misjudgment.
I've never done any drugs (believe it or not), but I must have been on a potent cocktail-soup of Bolivian mushrooms when I gave this a high rating, almost 20 years ago. It does get exciting at times and most of it is not boring, but the far-fetchedness of it and the sheer stupidity do their bit in destroying the film.
A U. S. sub downs a British ship BY MISTAKE, and as a result THREE of its top officers try to cover up their error by spontaneously deciding to ASSASSINATE the captain, who is trying to save the survivors.
Translation: the American Navy was awash with psychopaths who'd sacrifice 100s of innocent lives - on their own side - at the drop of a hat. Additionally, like some feral barbarians they had zero loyalty to the chain of command, would actually resort to drastic measures such as murder, as if an error of this magnitude could actually be covered up anyway, as if it were some minor typo. Not one but THREE in the crew agree with this psychotic decision. One crew member, OK, that'd be acceptable, but three, and all at once, in unison, agreeing to kill a captain - instead of trying to somewhat rectify a very bad situation by helping him pick up the survivors?
I suppose the writer must have assumed that the military's recruitment used to take place in loony bins, deathrows, and the mafia. Yes, that must be it: the military used to recruit its staff among the $cum of the Earth, then hand out promotions based on who has the lowest IQ and the highest levels of psychopathy. What other explanation could there be?
Frankly, this is why America needs another war on their own home soil. 150 years is way too long. They've gone too soft in the head. We've had tons of liberal crappolas about serial-killer cops, about cynical genocidal army generals out to destroy American civilians (often just for fun), but now they'd gone too far ("now" being 2002 admittedly) when even WW2 personnel aren't sacred to these spoiled, clueless, "progressive", dweebs.
The premise in itself is not only an insult to all of the poor shlucks who died at sea during WW2, it is also an insult to our intelligence, because if the U. S. Navy had been this incompetent, this disloyal, this stupid, and this monstrous, we'd all be speaking German and Japanese now, without a shadow of a doubt.
The movie fails despite generating some excitement, simply based on this mega-stupid twist. Not to mention the daft ending, with the new captain going totally over-the-top, becoming a ridiculous character out of a bad John Woo movie.
Then there's further malarkey regarding how the murdered captain "takes revenge" on his three assassins by killing nearly his ENTIRE submarine crew! Laughable. Why kill all the wrong people first? Why not start with the three guilty ones and end it there? Just because the captain turned into a vengeful ghost doesn't mean he should have turned into an imbecile too. Very lame, lazy writing.
Besides, why do movie ghosts so often behave like complete and utter dolts? Does the afterlife hand out free lobotomies to everyone? There is some major contradiction here, too: why does a ghost get to be clever in terms of his traps, attacks and "spooky pranks" - yet totally stupid when it comes to the basics - such as whom to kill? He is a clever enough ghost to snidely torture the submarine's occupants - yet he never realizes that what he SHOULD be doing is killing of the three guys who murdered him. Very simple! Even a plankton would understand this ultra-basic concept. A military plankton is murdered by three sneaky, evil plankton, so the murdered plankton exacts revenge as a ghost on his murderers. It's that simple.
But logic is never an easy thing for inept, lazy writers.
The last 20-30 minutes is garbage.
The special-effects are pretty poor too, but that's not even a complaint, especially compared to the daft plot.
Come Back to the 5 & Dime Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean (1982)
The "big reveal" aka Karen Black's identity will leave you in stitches.
"The way he and the two of you (girls) danced, it was a scandal, he should have male friends not you girls, so Sydney was right, praise the Lord, for kicking him out before the boy turns into a communi$t!... Sydney and me are upstanding, good, Bible-believing Christians!"
As subtle as a sledgehammer crushing tiny defenseless hamsters. This anti-Christian, anti-conservative nonsense is what Altman considered "clever intelligent satire" of the Bible Belt, a region which pompous Reds have hated since the dawn of cinema. The boy in question is a gay character - and of course conservatives are all nasty, hateful, anti-gay lunatics who obsess over Reds and who draw these kinds of ridiculous conclusions, in their usual - very common - attacks of political hysteria.
Ain't that the pot and the kettle. Anti$a screamers, anyone? Nobody is more overemotional, intolerant or zealous than ess-jay-w snow flakes.
To make things even more pathetically obvious - which actually insults the audience - this Bible-thumping Juanita character is defined early on as a devious miser who recycles leftover drinks by pouring them back into the juice can. Because obviously right-wingers do that kind of evil, sneaky stuff - whereas Libs are all very refined, wonderful people.
That's how propaganda works: it reduces everything to banal demonization and glorification, and of course peppers everything with fallacies and lies.
It is a mark of very poor writing whenever "satire" is carried out by such black-and-white, bludgeoning bouts of uninspired simplification and extreme bias. By exposing such vitriolic hatred for the Bible Belt (or whoever happens to be your target) the writer cheapens his message, because the message is being relayed from the perspective of a zealot, not a rational observer of society. Altman was very far from an "intellectual" director as many consider him to be, he was in fact far from it: his strengths were in stylish directorial decisions: a great sense of aesthetics, not intellectual content. The proof is in so many bad and even downright horrible scripts that he'd given his thumbs up to. He actually received this trash of a script one day, and not only liked it - but decided to film it!
Of course, this movie has neither aesthetics nor intellectual content, it is completely devoid of anything redeemable. It isn't about fan-clubs nor is it about James Dean either. It's a thinly-veiled attack on Middle America, yet again, because Altman despised them with a passion that rivaled the Kremlin.
But on to a lighter subject... When Altman tries to convince us that Karen Black is really a man! This notoriously cretinous twist is one of THE dumbest moments in all of 80s cinema, and one of the most ridiculous B-movie scenes in any Hollywood studio film of any era.
Must I spell it out, all ye "progressives"?
The very notion that a man can be transformed into a woman looking like Karen Black is preposterous, having literally zero connection with reality. Ever hear of a "male fantasy"? Well, this must be a "tran$ fantasy". Or rather, "transci-fi". Perhaps in 50000 years this sort of conversion will be doable, but until then it will remain a very goofy fantasy. I've seen many of this new species (hard to avoid them these days: we're bombarded with this agenda) and not one of them was even remotely convincing. Certainly even the "least obvious" cases are nothing close to aesthetically successful.
Don't get me wrong, Black is no beauty, but she looked fairly decent back then, certainly not in the least masculine, and in fact I am amazed that she wasn't INSULTED to be offered this absurd role. After all, Kathy Bates - who is in this movie playing a woman - would have been a much more convincing choice.
Kathy gets to play a woman, yet Black plays a man! What Bolivian veggies was Bobby sniffing?
Another unsuccessful aspect of this terrible flick are the many past-to-present transitions. None of these women appear to have aged, despite the 20 years difference. But hey: Karen Black used to be a man, so how bad is that error? Comparatively tiny.
You'd think a bunch of James Dean fanatics would have reacted more dramatically to the news of his accident. Instead, that scene is very flat, unrealistic and decidedly undramatic.
And then there's Cher's fake, very corny-sounding southern drawl. I don't buy it for a second.