Film Reviews

This was weird to watch sober because last time I watched this it was homework for a philosophy class and I was tripping balls. On this rewatch I have pleasantly discovered that I do not really care about Ernest Becker and he has nothing on me because:

a. Who asked.

b. I, alloemak, am immortal.

Thank you.

venom but if eddie listened to deftones

for a horror, this is… eh. there are a few good shots but nothing exceptional—music is this films biggest enemy as its excessive from the start and consequently drowns out all the tension that is attempted to be built in the film. which is… not a lot….actually… since this is so fast paced. even silence would have been better tbh.

VHS handheld style would have been good here — take advantage of the cutting curcuit and dark atmosphere. 

a letdown but the process was a fun experience. dunno if im generally a fan of gatekeeping, especially when it comes to media.

Interesting. Profound. Impactful. But only if you had a stick up your ass the entire time watching this.

Shots were pretty and themes clear—‘out of sight out if mind’ is killing us when our waste treatment really just boils down to moving lots of shit around and nothing else. And that was kinda just… the whole thing? Like it made me feel bad but was absolutely not constructive at all. How is this adding to the dialogue? Like give me something to work with! Something to do! 

For films like these, I’ve decided that a guilt trip is just …not enough. It doesn’t really mean ass if people feel guilty after watching your film but then proceed to do nothing. Offer audiences something to do with that guilt. Hell, monopolize off of it. Take advantage of it.

TLDR i learned NOTHING 😝😝😝😝😝

with as many amazing shots as there are plot holes (an infinite amount, truly), what Buffalo '66 lacks in realism is partially made up by an excellent script, great acting, and technical filmic prowess. however, im not sure any amount of skillful cinematography or any number of profound themes could ever truly disseminate this from being what is undeniably a 2-hour wet dream of the psychopathic, delusional, hateful person who is Vincent Gallo whose misogyny, prejudices, and multiple layers of derangement linger (who am i kidding—the issues are constantly palpable) at every corner and sentence of his beautiful directing. 

this film is largely commendable because Gallo plays his role well—its just uncanny knowing he probably isnt playing any role at all. this is …just ….him. and that feeling is uncomfortably clear. the movie feels like Gallo made it for himself—made to indulge himself in all his problematic fantasies rather than for the enjoyment or appreciation of any audience. and i dont like being victim to that.

for a film about summoning the devil, apathetic and mysterious murders by rich elites, and supernatural happenings around Europe, everything about this film is somehow consistently underwhelming and dull. technically speaking, transitions are abrupt, shots are in no way creative (and only ever vaguely interesting because of a violently dark academic set that cannot be credited to production), and the script is uncomfortably unrealistic to the extent that it'll pull you out of the narrative.
all characters are never situated within any context besides This-Person-Is-Rich-Look-At-Their-Nice-Library, so characters are nothing more than overwhelmingly functionalist plot points (like, truly astounding how there's no background at all?). further, though the whole cast is morally gray, something that might have been interesting if expounded on, never is the opportunity taken! shame, as there's a lot of conversation to be had about money and ethics (especially in a story like this one). the result of all of this is that fight scenes, murders, and threats by supposed antagonists have no real impact because... i don't care if anyone in this movie dies.
in layman's terms, theres no reason to actually give a shit about any of this. what the hell, Polanski?!

it's a crime this is considered a horror. an insult to the genre. at least Depp is nice to look at?

funnily enough, Takashi Shimizu does better with a lower budget. newly added music and special effects take away the creativity featured in previous installments which relied exclusively on eerie camerawork and original foley. sad to see those aspects less emphasized here and am subsequently confused as to why this film is the cult classic and not Ju-On: The Curse (2000), which holds the same themes with better execution. still, fun how its still enjoyable while being necessarily deterministic and repetitive. plot and characters are better fleshed out. just wasnt creepy by any means compared to the others in the series.

side note im such a fiend for japanese 2000s fashion.

sooo... who can kill a child? why is that people are so impartial and tolerant of the killing of kids all over the world as they die in wars and famines? i... still don't know! on the note of the message of the film, im just not sure if the right way to portray that innocent children suffer the most from wars is to depict them enacting revenge against adults. ig i wish they just expounded on the moral in a more concrete and impactful way that might have been more constructive—j felt that it all could have been more profound. i wish we got a bit more dialogue from the children (maybe not with the adults, but between each other... the ending conversation is definitely the best part) and am also not a huge fan of the supernatural eye contact aspect—pure rhetoric would have been better. without the montage im not sure if the film would’ve been able to stand alone and have its thesis be understandable. a defense of innocent children all over the world, i suppose? tldr, message can weaken a bit under simple scrutiny.

as a horror, this is what i love to see. eeriness done right! past the politically charged message and if i were to see this without the mondo imagery in the beginning, this was pretty entertaining and fun. i enjoy how it attempts at lengths not to be exploitative to the children actors, though maybe the same can’t be said for the adults (why was the naked lady necessary??). tension building is done rly well. uneasiness and uncanny valley shows us that movies can indeed be scary even in broad daylight and without shitty jump scares or excessive effects! great shot w the kids all creeping down the hill towards the house with the mom and grandma.

punk mechanic art-house film which is pretty much a headache brought to life. on brand for what i typically like (see: hardware) but i did not enjoy this in the slightest and vibes were off. i paused midway to watch a 12 min minecraft video that provided more gratification than the 67 mins of this combined. i would indeed recommend Minecraft's History of Mega-Builds by Sipover.

at least the filmography was interesting? i can understand why this is a cult classic. ish. also why is everyone sweaty

james wan … what happened. what happened.

this is like a chatgpt horror movie bc goddamn this cannot be real. horrible score. like, genuinely reprehensible. horrible script. horrible acting. bad camera work. acc a comedic intro.

this is not how real people act! or speak? or exist?!? this is not how real houses look. none of the characters could be real people. this is .... such a movie. and a mid one.

only the action scenes in the last 20 min were good when there was no talking and just violence. which… like....lame for a horror movie.

gah! good plot. terrible execution.

Most plot holes ive ever seen prlly bc it tries to take on 4 stories at once and then doent flesh out any one of them but boy are some of the actors nice to look at (when theyre not being beheaded or getting beat with their detached limbs)

Do u guys think if i bring an unidentified corpse into the house i will also be able to finally form a relationship w my father or nah

i ugly cried for the first half of this and was prepared to put it in my top 4. but then the second half hit, and it just didn’t do it for me.

i don’t have any issue with Will Oldham’s controversially nihilistic monologue—not to say that i agree with any of it, or that it didn't feel a little out of place stylistically. i just think the whole point was that it was a ridiculous, random tangent. it is intentionally so.

everything that follows the speech goes to prove that Oldham’s assertions are false, self-righteous, and insensitive. ok, yes. in the cosmic grand scheme of things, nothing matters. but we don’t like on a cosmic scale, and the things we feel and experience are valid for the sole reason we feel them at all. who else is to say otherwise?

philosophical dilemmas are what make life worth living. is humanness not to be found in the wanderings of life and desires for wisdom? is value not to be found in the melodrama of man that comes with the experience of consciousness? of grief?

beauty would never exist if it were not being beholden, and the capacity to behold is a privilege above all else.

the film does a good job of making that point. sort of. it’s overshadowed slightly by what it attempts to take on—a Christopher Nolan sort of time travel that while interesting, was ultimately predictable and to the films detriment. it just tried to take on too much and it pulled me out of the story, and the film overstayed its welcome by the end.

the first half, however, is beautifully abstract and existential. idk why i thought a thursday night was yhe time to revisit my grief, but hey. the most accurate, heart wrenching, agonizing depiction of what losing a loved one feels like. idrc that the second half fell off since the first half hit so hard. 

if the goal of this was to make you cry and to help you get through grief— it did its job. bc i cried more than i have in the past year over a woman eating pie for 10 minutes. i just wish we got more of that.

the film is its own enemy. it identifies issues but doesn't deconstruct or analyze them sufficiently enough (or even at all). although not completely worthless, this is ultimately ineffective, unconstructive, and horrifically inaccessible.

at least this has stood the test of time. it is still relevant, but that points to the issues within society, and should not necessarily be credit to the film.

we get the point within a few minutes. by 30m, it is getting tiresome. by the 1h—no! even the 1h30m mark, you start to wonder if any of it at all has a point. and no—the film isn’t purposefully senseless in the way the violence it depicts is—it clearly at the end (in the last 8 minutes) does bring some sort of conversation:

“how long can we afford to have unregistered guns, handcuffed prosecutors, and revolving door prisons? whatever it takes, the solutions will be expensive. but is living in fear worth a cheaper price? how many senseless murders are we willing to tolerate? does the rate need to quadruple again before we’ve had enough to make us fight back?”

but the first 1h27m before this one, useful sentence, is nothing but exploited, real violence. and on that note—by god does it hammer in ruthlessly the increasingly violent and uncensored shots and videos of dying and dead people. 

the worst part of this “social commentary” is how inaccessible this is—i don’t blame those who would turn their eyes from this. not because of the movie's thesis on the issues of America, not because this was censored and not aired in places around the world, but because of the gore, and the real, genuine pain you must bear witness to, for no rhyme or reason. i mean rock music w pictures of dead people? this is snuff. for someone who hasn't watched people die on the internet like i did at 13 this would be harrowing. how isn't this also mythologized violence? how isn't this contributing to the same issue it identifies?

this could have been productive. this could have been better. there are hundreds of hours of conversations to be had about the psychology of sex killings in the 70s, the desensitization of sexual violence through unregulated porn, and the attitudes and potential reasons why people turn to aggression toward others.

every story told here, every picture, every video, every life lost shown on screen, is another opportunity to bear valuable and worthwhile conversation that might give those acts of violence some sort of depiction that isn't exploitative, but respectful and to a point. but no.

every shot is just a shot. 

there is no commentary. 

i hate shockumentaries.

mid. forgettable. generic ahhh shit. ouija ouija ouijia. fun enough for its runtime. lack of storytelling about the father is to the films detriment because viewers find it hard to empathize with nothing to base their relationship off of—no emotional hook. also no explanation for creepy sage like blind nun who for some reason plays a pivotal role in this story . also she doesnt help at all. also what is the point of her being blind. but boy is she silly goofy!

i don’t remmeber when i first watched this movie. i was probably 7 or 8, but i like to think of it as the first deeply philosophical film i ever came across and that directly led me to pursuing philosophy in college.

there’s so much to say about contact. to begin, the film’s history. people hated this shit when it came out, and i think only because they weren’t ready for what Robert Zemeckis could offer after forrest gump.

sci-fi films often (sometimes inadvertently) become those which do the best examinations of the human condition by tackling those ontological questions we’ve all asked ourselves at one point or another. and i can’t blame people for kind of being afraid of that—especially when a film does such a good job as this.

“could we talk to the moon? could we talk to jupiter? dad, could we talk to mom?”

theres a loneliness that comes with being a child, especially when being surrounded by adults. there’s something past the innocence and curiosity about the world that causes this—something more about the innate ability to grasp concepts of the way the universe works when adults cannot. the little prince, you know? anyways. contact brings you back to that place and allows you to think back to a time when instead of being pushed around by the daily cacophony of life, you could listen to the noise of the totality that is the world as it works so silently and soundly around you. contact leaves me with the same feeling that interstellar does.

further, there's a lot of conversation to be had here about religion and technology...and just technology in general. the social commentary of this film makes it constructive and worthwhile. it very convincingly portrays the reaction of the whole of humanity to the confirmed discovery of sentient life outside of earth. what ensues is a scramble to fit this new discovery into the existing paradigms of religion, science, and government policy. as if these new discoveries ever COULD BE. contact is more about these global concepts being unable to reconcile with universal ones, wonderfully conveying in a great way what little progress we make when we find discoveries. we've only been sending humans to space for less than 100 years, and we're not ready for something more yet. if we had contact with someone else, direct contact, more than what the movie had, we wouldn't be able to handle it. it takes generations. the film highlights how it takes generations for us to shift and to change. the dad to the daughter, the daughter to the children. and even then!

the film has its issues, but none that takes away from the themes of this film and what it'll leave you feeling. the first sound of contact still gives me shiverz in my bonez

a modern shakespearean tragedy but theres interstitial hard rock screamo music and broken eggs everywhere. find shame in the catharsis!

Breathtaking, and painful. This was a hard watch—there were times I almost felt like turning away, especially the scene with the disabled rubber farmer and priest's children. I watched this in two increments and it helped—this is a film that will stick with you for awhile, and I think does an adequate job for what it attempts, and will serve as a deserving cult classic. 

So, people are right to say the cinematography is beautiful. But it could have been better. Color defines the Amazon and taking it away strips part of its character—disappointing, as much emphasis is put on the forest's presence. Was black and white the right choice? All to amount to a mediocre montage meant to leave you breathless…but did not do so. 

Further, the script was unnecessarily direct—Karamakate loudly details and narrates every time the white man is materialistic. The scene’s never feel like they speak for themselves when they definitely could have. Subtlety is an art. 

On Karamakate, I think he could have been a much better character. He doesn't say much else... and I'm not sure why. You could replace him with a stick of wood. How is he impartial to literally everything? He sees a white man calling himself Jesus, skewering people to crosses, and barely bats an eye. No big, I guess. I don't think it's just because he's desensitized. I think the writing was just mid.

I have many serious contentions with this movie’s aims and questioning if it was able to achieve them. And this is isn’t me being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. When you retell and rewrite stories on the behalf of others, you have to seriously consider if how you are effectively rewriting their existences is done so adequately enough for you to do it at all. Especially when it comes to the identities and experiences of indigenous people who have been spoken over and histories rewritten to their horrific detriments for centuries. You have to take this from an indigenous point of view, or else you’re not doing it correctly.

I appreciate that this film tried. It took the steps to speak and consult indigenous actors and cast them correctly. But thats the bare minimum and should be the norm. Still, kudos. But just because they tried doesn’t mean it worked.

Though the movie is praised by critics for lambasting colonial evils, I’m not sure if it deserves such acclaim. Portrayals of Theodor Koch-Grunberg and Schultes do so in a way that is highly sympathetic to them and makes you believe that they aren’t the sinful white men who are doing the colonizing. They are the good white men! But Koch-Grunberg was the director of a Berlin Museum that to this day will not return stolen artifacts from the Amazon. And Schultes, in later life, harvested rubber and helped the growth of plantations for US colonial war efforts. Are the depictions truly so anticolonial? For a film with such a weighty undertaking, this wasn’t thorough or constructive enough.

I consistently felt the film was building up to a profound finale—but it never did. Maybe because the climax of the movie—when Schultes finally dreams, is done so within an unsatisfactory context. Why does he deserve to have Yakruna? Karamakate found his people and in a split second walked away from them—destroyed Yakruna, the most sacred thing he knows—since his own were abusing it and cultivating it. Yet he does not abandon Schultes when he is ready to do the same—when Schultes is ready to kill him so he can exploit the plant for his own gain. Why does the white man get the exception? The review by Johnny Clyde says it is the best.

“White people take and take and take. Slaughter and destroy and abuse and it leads up to, "You people have destroyed our entire livelihood, but here. You asked in the right way. You can have permission."'

Filmbroes love this. No kidding. The film poses as something more profound than it is. Filmbroes are the same.

r u…. kidding me. feminist horror to the max. Like this is only scary because it makes me think of the tortures of living as a woman. 

🤓🤓well ACCSSHTUXALLY 🤓🤓the GUY is the victim bc even tho he virtually assaulted an unsuspecting woman through lying ab his identity and heavily breaching all ethics codes in regards to being a doctor, he doesn’t have social skills and cant get laid through any other means that isnt assault . so

:(((( also he’s lonely and sad which makes the coercion ok :((

 gawdamn this made me irksome. women have to deal with creepy men irl i dont care to see it on the big screen!

…at least the acting is good??? this couldve been so much better . couldve had a lot of room for philosophical analysis . too bad the film is chronically misogynistic and sexist. i am angry. goodnight. 

so.. i think in many ways this film has the right ideas, but the execution was not super up to par. like, yes—in horror, fear of the unknown is scarier above all else, and Edward Ball understands the power of building tension. through long shots where your vision is marred paired with vhs style grain and limited audio, stress and fear is brought alive. it is nervewracking, and sometimes very well done—the scene with the mother in particular. and, as probably the first full-length analog horror film, this will undoubtedly serve as a trailblazer for a new and budding genre. as a first-timer, it does a pretty good job and im excited to see this type of media taken off of youtube and onto the big screen.

however. i think this film suffers from being excessive. it’s a little TOO much grain, the long shots are a little TOO long, and theres also a little TOO many of them. i cant see for TOO much of it and i don’t know what they’re saying either for most of the film. that isn’t to say it doesnt work—there are definitely moments that are genuinely terrifying and unnerving.

but it feels like every shot is trying to bring about that fear, which kind of nullifies a lot of it for me. i couldnt tell when i should or shouldn’t be tense because everything was tense, so nothing was tense.

as i said, excessive. theres just a little too much vagueness so that i dont even know why i should be scared at all. like.. you don’t have to tell me what to be afraid of, but you should give me a reason for me to be afraid. but… im just staring at the ceiling for 90% of this so why should i be afraid? why shouldnt i just go to sleep. thats what staring at the ceiling reminds me of. lol. 

this film also asks TOO much of you. at an 100 minute runtime, its definitely a bit tedious considering its method and the fact that it doesnt really get started until 30 minutes in. and its really until the last 20 min that the horror really hits. maybe in a theatre this wouldve been more impactful, but watching this at home i had to exercise more self control than i have had to in the past like 3 months to not pick up my phone. bc goddamn.

still, i think this film brings about new themes that im excited to see more of, so kudos. but if i have to see one more damn shot of the ceiling made of like 6 pixels i swear to god.

consistently captivating and oddly existential, The Hand is a film that manages to set the bar high for stop-motion films in only 18 minutes. following an enthusiastic potter living a simple life dedicated to his craft, the story is quickly set in motion when a malevolent hand begins disrupting all the potter's attempts at making what he desires.

by looking a little deeper and situating the short within the context of when it was made, the film’s messaging is made a little more clear (despite being generally succinct and on the nose). Trnka’s film was banned after his death in the Czech Republic until the end of communism due to its perceived critique of the regime... and its not hard to understand why.

The Hand challenges both the aesthetic and culture of the time, with the protagonist being an artist who is unwavering in his attempts to create what he would like instead of obeying the hand which encourages the making of repressive craft on behalf of the state. with the artist depicted as a happy, dancing harlequin and the hand as a looming object of power that never directly attacks but consistently threatens, it suggests that its existence is inherently antithetical to that of the artists.

even today, The Hand's moral remains relevant despite being made decades ago, especially in a world where conversations on what constitutes art, what constitutes modern art, what art should be allowed, and what artists should be allowed are increasingly prevalent.

authorotarianism often makes strong efforts to bring art under a rigidly bordered, culturally appropriate definition. theres a pursuit to make everything of “an aesthetic”—one that is simultaneously mythologized or made into the history of a culture. and once that culture is appropriately mythologized, the art that feeds back into it is seen as “contributing” to the created society. when, for instance, every artist that the dominant ideology has valued for the last thousand years has been white guys who create things that glorify white/colonialist ideals, there's something that starts to feel “natural” about that sort of art, which creates a fundamental hierarchy.

art isn’t meant to fit into the cultural narrative, and because of that, it becomes a target. and ultimately, the crime that artists commit is simply upsetting the hierarchy. artists take themes, experiences, and emotions that don’t fit into a narrative and express them in a way impossible to ignore. and thus, the rejection of nontraditional forms of art so often boils down to a rejection of oppressed people within those mediums. white supremacists didn’t vandalize Newman’s work because of the apparent simplicity of his art, they did it in an attempt to show who in society actually held the power.

it was never really about the pottery the harlequin was making, i suppose.

an explosion of colour, music, chaos, and death, this psychedelic shoebox diorama brought to life is an perfectly overwhelming turbulent mess of fun. theres not much to say besides that this was an extremely entertaining watch—its impossible to get bored as you get a little bit of every genre meshed into one. this is further packed with multiple filmic techniques including claymation, stop motion, A SING ALONG NUMBER, music video formats, and horror effects. filled with some of the best slapstick comedy ive seen in awhile paired with genuine, loveable characters and a simple storyline, this is able to cover a lot of ground in the only 113min runtime. easily a new favourite and recommendation for anyone and everyone

i appreciate how the religious aspect of the plot from the first movie was expanded on bc it felt useless beforehand, but this film was too direct for it to be scary at all—the creepy aspect in the original was completely stripped away. never once was i fearful of something unknown because everything was both explicitly said and shown which left 0 room for suspense. some of the scenes are better, though they could have done more with the end. the idea of seeing unseen things is definitely good and they use the camera creatively (for the first time in the whole film), but execution was mid.

everyone in this film annoyed me so bad i have never felt more irksome in my life i was about to reach through the screen to strangle the reporters and all the screaming people “PABBLOOO! QUE PASA PABLO” “JENNIFFEEERRRR NOOOO JENNIFERR” SHUT THE FUCK UP SHIT THE FUCK UP common horror movie symptom of main-character-that-could-have-survived-if-they-just-didnt-scream-to-the-high-heavens ong. couldnt enjoy a lot of it because i was just so cheesed at how everyone was behaving

…otherwise this was a well done found footage film though not a horror as much as it is a thriller

a simple plot executed to suffocating perfection.

idc that people say this movie is too dark to see anything or has a lot of plot holes. idc idc idc this movie is so fun and such a good watch—i never get bored of it and shauna macdonald gives a great performance. the set is great and i always feel exhilarated whether it be my second, tenth, or twentieth time seeing this. i love how claustrophobic it is and as a horror it does a great job—doesnt suffer from the usual symptom of an excessive amount of pointless gore—its perfectly gnarly and bloody. made me feel better after watching shitty horrors who dont understand my latter point.

What????. the fuck??????????? 

that pretty much summarizes my reaction.

i watched this a few years ago, dissociated the hell out, forgot it, and decided to rewatch it. i hope to forget it again. three words: depraved, cruel, pointless. is that supposed to be the moral? if so, the movie executes it …admittedly …pretty well. ugh. i hate how theres something about it that works—the art is…. horrifically good and grotesquely bewitching. the way it plays with absurdist ideas of all pain and suffering being ultimately futile in an indifferent universe is impactful and clear, especially in the coda, which left me feeling probably more powerless than after any other movie. at least the worst of the plot happens only in the beginning—the rest of the film is more chill in comparison, with only a few more disturbing scenes at a time.

but…. idk. i still think so much of this was just shock value and the depictions of sexual assault towards a child were just … were way too excessive. im thankful the majority of this was comprised of still shots so i didnt have to endure watching the actions in motion.. but like,,? its not any better just because its animated. uncomfortability was further exacerbated by the low budget, choppy animation paired with uncannily well done voice acting.

there isn’t any remorse found in this film, probably to get across its message, but since people usually only watch this for the vile experience that it is and trauma it will leave you with,…yeah. this did a good job, but idk if it was worth it… im conflicted between 1/2 a star and like 3 and a 1/2 stars. i suppose that ultimately the world would be better off it this wasnt made.

Can you believe i watched this in grade 8? Me neither. join me in rewatching all the (literal) horrors i saw in middle school to unpack my brain. So, i hated this when i watched this the first time and … i still hate it!!! Waohoo! but… im happy (or at least satisfied on some level, not sure i can call this one a happy watch) i rewatched this because now i can … sort of appreciate…or at least recognize, this films message and art by situating it correctly within the context of the time and setting it was made. after ww2, knowing that those around u who came back from war might have inflicted the worst crimes in human history, all while having to see them as normal, kind neighbours, would surely have been a consistent and unbearable weight on Pasolini’s mind. having read some of marquis de sade, of which whos work this film is directly based off of, some of the characters are made more sense of, and the moral of “all-men-can-be-evil-including-you-and-me” is a bit more clear. further, having read “must we burn sade?” by beauvoir partially excuses the sour tastes often left in my mouth when reading sade’s works.

…but does this films message make up for its 117 minutes of physical horror ? …nah. idts. and i dont like having to have to go read Sade to make sense of this film, and having to read Beauvoir to make sense of Sade. Why did i have to go through 2 layers of shit to be like, okay, this might have some merit. this is in addition to having to catch up on italys history!! all that fucking effort to feel that some vague semblance of a message might be lurking underneath all the horror—a message, no less, that truly teaches me nothing. idk maybe this would resonate more if i had just been through a war but i have not !

also like yeah, congrats, the movie filled with rape, torture, and pain has a message. bro, every movie has a message. u dont get points for having a message. is the bar underground?

fucking hell. Boo. Added to list of horror movies with kind-of-a-meaning? that is expressed with an overly excessive amount of blood, gore, and rape. just because the horror is MOREEE traumatizing doesnt mean the message has any MOREEE meaning. I need film majors to pls pull those sticks out of their asses. Next time ill just go watch kung fu panda.

an overstimulating, psychedelic, post apocalyptic cyberpunk film with iggy pop as a DJ and one of the sickest sets, costumes, and props ive ever seen. omg. this movie was literally made for me. this low budget, goth shoebox diorama brought to life creates tech noir perfection by being taken to its extreme.

i LOVED this. the punk, radioactive vibes were so good and redeemed this movie wholly from its slow opening and admittedly shit script. stars off for having questionable portrayals sometimes. nevertheless, this was enjoyable and the score was sick as hell. 

also, i am literally Shades brought to life. new self insert character just dropped. have never related to a character so deeply. also i have a crush on the faceless nomad at the beginning his drip is unreal

best christmas film to date.

Watched this when i was 13 and it became a comfort film (this is my biggest red flag).

im not surprised misogynists eat this film up despite the message of the film being counterintuitive to that fact. i also am not surprised a lot of people hate this, bc… lars….. but, imo, this film is often (easily) mistaken as an indictment against women when its truly about delving into the existential and physical tortures of living as one; this is a film about what it means to be condemned to be woman. the woman is continually broken down through fractured editing, framing, montaging, and unclear ways of interpreting her behaviour—her self identity is consistently being cut up and taken out of her hands. the audience is therefore able to understand her however they would like and metaphorically play with her. simultaneously, however, sexualization of her body is associated with disgust, anger, outrage and pain. imposed pornification or objectification of the woman is therefore difficult and painful due to the grotesque portrayal of it.

but…this didn’t feel super enlightening to me in any way, and thats… probably bc im a woman. no surprise, since this is directed by von trier, but im sure watching this as a man would feel  fucking revolutionary. 

Had like two guys tell me this was their fav film. Lol. Lol. 

…like… i (metaphorically) live this shit out on the daily. this movie is just an average thursday afternoon.

i digress. theres something weirdly comforting and homey about the first half—i feel that same sort of solace in the first part of melancholia (2011). i think both of these movies are ones u should watch every few years bc the experience of doing so will undoubtedly be vastly different. anyways. ill be back in 2028.

this movie is so fucking unbelievably bad but in such a counterintuitively exceptional way (does that makes sense? idc) that this remains one of my fav movies ever. the plot and excessive fight scenes are laughable, and ridiculous GCI even more so. but, despite the fact that the coda consistently leaves me disgusted and annoyed, this watch is always enjoyable and i never get bored. shots and set are great—the entire film is redeemed by that one bathroom scene with Pak, which is forever cemented in my mind. above all, Juno Mak is truly able to capture a creepiness that most horrors almost never nail effectively. eeeeeeeeeek revisiting my childhood trauma on a thursday evening is such a personal favourite past time tbh. anyways, i digress. very epic wild gamer moves in this film 11/10

devastatingly absurd and existential but in the best way possible. this examination of the human condition is done humorously, bittersweetly, and more adequately than ive ever seen done before despite the script being TINY. so well done.

good ending and acting…but i am sick of horror that is actually just senseless and repetitive gore. it was so unnecessary (is that the point? if thats the point thats…a shallow point anyways).

“u cant become the devil just to destroy him” is a pretty flat (and predictable) moral that doesnt warrant such excessive violence and exploitation of womens bodies in this film. like why were the assault scenes so detailed… literally served no purpose. mid.

side effects of being pro life fr (teethless earless insect)

man goes demon mode for 2 hours not clickbait

the lighting and camerawork was great—the diagonal birds eye view shots and ones where Gengobei is framed between doors are personal favourites.

that being said, all upsides were overshadow by the excessiveness of ….everything. excessively long, excessively edited…! the length and repetitive nature of the film drained all moments of any meaning and managed to turn even bursts of bloody violence, which were supposed to be quick and gory, dull and uninteresting.

even if this was remedied, the philosophy of this film was nevertheless shallow (ooga booga… man go into joker arc because darkness in his heart is unleashed in vengeance of a vile woman) and kind of insufferable. “deep” misogynistic emo thought does not warrant 185 mins, but im sure schopenhauer would have fucken loved this one

damn. ow.

well done, but imo the ending was unnecessarily direct. would have gotten the message across just as clearly, and perhaps more effectively, without such detailed depiction. blah. music was great.

controversially let down. heard good things but theres undeniably parts that only has intense gore for the sake of it. if theres gonna be blood (everywhere) and violence (this was borderline snuff) it should serve a purpose. horror isnt horror truly well done if its just shock factor (see: human centipede 2), and the majority of this was just shock factor.

nevertheless, i do think that they demonstrated what “found footage” should be and executed the genre amazingly. its a hard nail to hit on the head but they did it—this looks real. u could probably publish some of this to liveleak and bitches would eat it up fr. the slow buildup turning to mayhem was great. a star for Epy Kusnander’s amazing expressions as well as the pacing and camerawork.