When studying writing one aspect that varies upon discovery is the… MoreWhen studying writing one aspect that varies upon discovery is the usage of formulas and learning how different plot devices work in conjunction to each other. One area where the discovery of formulas is the most deadliest and most uncertain is comedy. If the punchline to a joke is foreseen before it delivery in the way expected than the joke fails. However, comedy is a tricky area to fully understand for a non comedian as even the most tire jokes can be made funny again if done right. In the case of the Mr. Peabody & Sherman it's a well made film weighed down heavily by subpar writing.
Mr. Peabody & Sherman is about an advanced canine and his adopted son attempting to fix a time rift they created. One immediate thing is made clear early on is the lack of sufficient material to sustain a ninety minute runtime. Everything in the film from characters, humor, and conflict are rushed. So insecure about its own material that if it were to take a breather it would lose the audience. The main duo of intellectual dog Mr. Peabody and his dumb son Sherman aimed to present a meaningful relationship despite the odd setup. It's intention are well meant, but as the characters stated themselves it's just presented as child causes overblown issue and parent has to fix it. It's not a father son relationship where the conflict actually helps strengthen the relationship or aptly show how this duo interact with each other outside of conflict. Rather it serves to highlight one's very useless and the other is god like. There's no dilemma ever arising in this relationship because Mr. Peabody written to be a perfect character. Instead of putting effort to make Peabody near perfection in everything he does be part of the conflict it becomes a tool for an easy fix. Leading to convoluted filled acts. Without good characterization in general filling up supporting characters with specifics humor functions what it main characters feel never become organic. This same issue pops up when we're being told how much Mr. Peabody and Sherman care for each other when a good scene itself can get that across much better. While the idea behind Mr. Peabody as a parent is worth exploring the execution of it undermines the value of parenthood.
The biggest disappointment with this film is its uninspired take on a good premise. When you have time travel and characters who are interested in history the possibilities should be endless instead of recycled. Filled with humor revolving around the rule of three (writing principle that suggests that things that come in threes are inherently funnier) invents a formulaic immunity through it course. Usage of the rule of three come around frequently enough that jokes revolving around the rule become tiring. Once you get used to the formula it stops being funny. Another area it builds its humor around are puns. These puns are very lazy and not given much thought which goes against the characters the film consider to be smart. It's a lot dumber than it admirably wants to ignore. Historical figure were welcomed in the film, but the setup and delivery of them not as much. When Sherman gives a speech about second chances Bill Clinton appears in the background saying "I've done worse". Out of all the possible jokes it chose to make a safe one. Which best describe the humor in a nutshell. Jokes are predictable, safe, reused periodically, and foreseen making their delivery fall flat. Though the biggest nitpick for me stems from the fact there's not a single female character that's well written. Penny Peterson has the biggest role out of any female character and she's a tool to set the chain of events going. She changes quickly at the whim of the story demand, never redeem despite what she does early on in the film, and her only contribution in the story is negative.
Ty Burrell voices Mr. Peabody and his performance is excellent. Everything about he exquisitely voices judgement, from the way he sprints through Peabody's scientific exposition, but never so quickly that he confuses the viewer, to the way he unveils the dog's wretched puns is spot on. Max Charles who plays Sherm is also good in the role. His performance is filled with energy and sincerity. Ariel Winter voices Penny Peterson who despite being given a poorly written character her performance is one key. She's bratting when the script demands it and caring when the scene demands it. Winter portrayal is more dynamic and much better than the material provided for her. Supporting cast are fine having the kind of voice actors ranging from the loud beefy character, the snooty evil character, the hyperactive inventor, and so forth. Animation is a bright spot even if the style isn't impressive. Characters are allowed to be expressive and movement is smooth especially in the film chase like sequences. It's colorful that's easy on the eye. Another great spot on the animation department are the vastly time era that are provided different looks. The score won't register much, but it is diverse in the sort of music provided depending on the era the film is currently in.
Mr. Peabody & Sherman themes and humor are undone by its predictable formula and lack of working characterization. The cast of the film elevate the material with their performances delivery some good dramatic scenes and laughs even if the material doesn't accomplish that task to the same extent. It's a well made film, but one that's really needed more thought put into it that would match its characters intellect and make good use of its premise.
When in doubt in what to see I go back to a series I have yet to… MoreWhen in doubt in what to see I go back to a series I have yet to complete. Naruto is a different case since the film adaptations tend to leave out vital information about the world, the characters, and how it function translating poorly for newcomers. So what's better way to familiarize myself with the series than playing videos-games based around the series which helped me understand the world of Naruto allot more than I originally did. However, even after doing some homework on the series it didn't help that this film is inaccessible for the uninitiated, receives another downgrade in production values, and its story will leave you stupor by the end of the whole ordeal.
Naruto Movie 3: Guardians of the Crescent Moon Kingdom follows Naruto Uzumaki, Kakashi Hatake, Sakura Haruno, and Rock Lee mission to escort the prince of the Land of the Moon, Michiru, during his trip back home. Like the previous film, unless you're familiar with the material the film will make no effort in providing even the basics. The opening of the movie tells the audience who assigned the heroes their mission and its importance through narration that gets dropped early on, but that's where all the explanations end. How our heroes abilities work and the extent of those abilities aren't discuss. In context of the anime series and manga it eventually explains these things, except in this film any new superpower ability shown is a plot convenience. Taking away any possible enjoyment from any fight scenes since it comes across the writers are just making things up as they go along. Past the film opening you're left with a story with no substance. Suffering from having too many underdeveloped characters and one dimensional villains that get sideline. Once again, in the form a film Naruto and his group aren't engaging characters. Naruto is given the center of attention from the entire team and what screen time Naruto does have paints him negatively. He's not the likable goofball, but an annoying weakling. In this film Naruto picks on a little kid making him look bad. He has the abilities to turn his shadow into clones, but the little spoiled kid he picks on can't even fight. Yeah, that's the sort of hero I want to get behind. Sadly his character doesn't improve falling victim to receiving a beating in nearly every fight he's in. It's hard to overlook how amateur Naruto ability are when the opening of the film said these ninja from a specific clan trained for years.
Among this mess of a story that can't mesh family drama, growing up, ninja, possible war torn country, and marriage there's an idea for an engaging story. The characters that receive the most development are Michiru and his son Hikaru who are of rich royal blood. Both of these character arcs play like a coming of age story growing up from their previous ways into maturity. If one were to remove anything ninja related than there's enough ideas to make at least a decent story. As is the case it's not close to average. One plot element that gets toss aside is the trouble marriage that Michiru is facing with his wife leaving. Aside from when it's introduced never again is it brought back. Around the thirty minute mark it felt as if the film would have better fitted being an episode of it rush pacing. Another plot element that is dropped is the whole group dynamic of the team. When it does feature the team dynamic it's the equivalent of sentimentality saying friendship is magic. The character Rock Lee is only in the film for comic relief which is allot more than I could say for the like of Sakura Haruno who once again gets the short end of the stick. Although, it's a slight improvement over the previous film actually beating up a villain henchman with her abilities. These two characters don't have much to do and the team interactions is sparsely spread across. Than the climax overstays its welcome highlighting just how cardboard the characters are and how weak and stupid the villains are. I mean seriously, the villain whole desire is to simply kill a specific person, but simply delays it even receiving that specific person at day time. After a couple of scenes it's night time and cuts back to the villain and he still hasn't killed the one person he wanted to kill the entire time. So mixing incompetent heroes facing against even more incompetent villains.
So far the Naruto films have been consistent in downgrading their production values with every preceding film entry, especially the animation department. Once you get past the first three minutes you finally glance at it undetailed art style. There's no depth of perspective making everything look flat. Backgrounds are blurred to cover up dead space and characters designed are more simplified giving them less expressions. Movements are stiff and whenever there's a fight a scene the action moves slowly. It's movement is so bad the film story makes up an excuse for why in a particular scene since it's worse than usual. Action scenes are a huge disappointment with very little usage of jutsu/superpower abilities in fights. Every one of them is rushed, poorly choreographed, and usually only has one person moving while the defender is static until it's their turn to attack. None is more harmful than the climax in which it cuts between three fight scenes and they all play out the same. That's just lazy on the animators part. The only aspect that can't entirely panned is the voice acting. Both the Japanese and English deliver some good performances from the cast. None of them outstanding due to the poor material, but effort is definitely evident by the cast. A technical area that won't register is the music. There's not a single track that will stick with you, but are all place in the appropriate scene.
Naruto Movie 3: Guardians of the Crescent Moon Kingdom regardless on your exposure to the series will make you see the closing credits knowing its over. Characters are cardboard, the story is unengaging dropping plot points or leaving them underdeveloped, and the animation is very poor. Not even the action scenes make the endeavor worth sitting through having received a serious downgrade in its visuals and delay movements regardless of what occuring on screen. While fans of the series might be more forgivable to it lack of development in certain area it's story and action is the one area where it completely fails to deliver for any sort of viewers.
In every rare viewing of a bad film there are things you never… MoreIn every rare viewing of a bad film there are things you never expected to see and ponder thoughts you never believe would come to mind. For me it's perhaps the first time I actually wished a film would fully commit to ripping off another film because of how unsalvageable the original material was. "Ninja Apocalypse" takes ninja with superpowers, an apocalypse setting, an underground military bunker, and zombies committing the unimaginable sin combining all of those elements into a boring film.
Ninja Apocalypse follows The Lost Clan gang from...it's never clarified where the movie takes place so lets us pretend New York. So a charismatic leader summons several gangs in a post apocalyptic world in a bid to overtake their rivals. When he is killed, The Warriors are falsely blamed and now must fight their way home while every other gang is hunting them down to kill them. My mistake I meant The Lost Clan not The Warriors. It's hard to believe even though it rips off the basic premise it manages to make whatever material it steals from "The Warriors" come across as the most competent components in its script. Except this time the context and the setting are extremely nonsensical. Then again should one really judge the logic of "Ninja Apocalypse". Yes it should be judged because if there's one thing it lacks is a working brain cell. Now aside from the basic premise and three plot devices (the sacrifice, seduced by women wanting to kill males characters, the ending) calling it a ripoff of "The Warriors" would be praising it instead of criticizing it. Yes, the fact it didn't ripoff "The Warriors" successfully is a negative. Especially in regards when it comes to the film "plot twist" in the end finally revealing who shot Cyrus, I mean Fumitaka. It's a failure of twist because the character doesn't appear for a majority of the film and whatever recurring characters do reappear in the film don't get enough characterization to make audience guess who the culprit is. Part of the fun of a "who done it" is guessing who actually committed the crime which you can't do if you aren't provided anything that'll allow that.
I'll buy the utter nonsense premise like anyone who likes seeing B-movies, but stocked characters, plot exposition upon plot exposition filled dialogue, attempts to add humor only to discard it within ten minutes, and bereft of a story can't be overlooked. Our cast of heroes consist of two brothers, a woman, a deaf mute blackman, and a ninja with questionable loyalty. From that selection of characters their background are simply mentioned. It never elaborates on Cage having a family or ever goes into detail in how he became the leader of "The Lost Clan". The same applies to all of its characters where it simply mentions moments or characteristic than moving on without elaboration. Another area it lacking is logic. Now with a title like "Ninja Apocalypse" of course it shouldn't be taken seriously, but radiation doesn't work the way this film believes it does. In this film ninja have powers so it would safe to assume it's a result of radiation. Except later on in the film it is said by our heroes that radiation basically turned people into zombies. Not just any zombies, the kind that if cut in half can duplicate. So if the radiation turns people hundred of feet in an underground facility into zombies how in the world are people not below the earth not zombies! Radiation does not work like that! If it was just this oversight I would have not given it another thought. Than it claims the lowest level of the underground facility contains radiation. Hmm....so the inside of an underground facility consisting of hundreds of level below the surface of earth contains radiation yet the surface doesn't. These writers can't seriously be this stupid...oh yeah they probably are given they were to lazy to fully commit to ripping off "The Warriors".
On a technical level everything about it will come across as low budget not for the reasons you expect. Yes everything looks cheap from the convenient store bought costumes, the fake weapon props, and the very shoddy CGI effects. It's the tinier details that also display the lack of funds that even with it budget wasn't enough to make such a simple movie. For instance there's a fight scene consisting of several gangs against "The Lost Clan" and in the background it's visible the performers are standing still. Only to be moving when they see some sort of signal off screen. Issues like these are always present in the action scenes despite taking place in the same location bodies will sometime disappear in a cut. Details like blood spatter on a wall will disappear immediately in the next cut in the same fight scenes. Adding to the problem are the slow performance of the action scenes that make these issues noticeable. Fight choreography is below average and these fight scenes instead of diverting your attention from the inconsistencies is build around that to reuse as much as resources as possible. In context the characters power aren't used to diverse the kind of fight scenes you see all usually resulting in a fist fight or sword fight. The most visually annoying about how it shot are the dozen of lens flares and few instances of white flash effects. If the story or acting was any good the lens flares wouldn't have been much of an issue since there's something to divert from that issue. However, like everything else the lens flares are a results of visible light posts in every scene. Intentional or not they get distracting.
Late in the film there's a scene that can causes seizure if seen in the dark because of how much white flash effect are onscreen in less than ten seconds. Set design, much like the performers in costumes, reused the same textures, material, and structures. Actors have to go around in circles to give off the illusion the set is actually a lot bigger than it actually is. The acting is no better. All of the performances are stiffed and wooden. Christian Oliver is incapable of selling himself as the film heroes. Even when he's angry there's no ferocity in his delivery. If anything Isaac C. Singleton Jr. does the best among the hero cast given he can't speak or listen to sound. Not to forget Ernie Reyes Jr. who plays the villain is weak. If "The Rundown" could make Ernie Reyes Jr. beating up Dwayne Johnson look convincing with less screen time what's this film excuse. Even Reyes Jr. fights against Christian Oliver whose physically same size as him never comes across as a threat. Just everything in this film is poorly assemble together.
Ninja Apocalypse fails as a ripoffs not coming close to duplicating anything with success from the source its copying from and fails as a b-movie due to it's failing in every area without entertainment to be found. It could have been a ripoff, it could have been a entertaining b-movie, but in the end is devoid of anything positive from a filmmaking and entertaining perspective.
Santa Sangre follows a young man named Fenix from his traumatizing… MoreSanta Sangre follows a young man named Fenix from his traumatizing childhood through the present attempting to live a normal life. The film narrative is straightforward while the way it tells it story is surreal. Right from the introduction of Fenix we understand this young man is not well. Once the flashback begins you receive the foundation that structures religion, sexuality, obsession, and identity into it central themes. Each introduce in odd context that triggers an array of emotions. One scene in particular that stood out occurred after the funeral of a circus Elephant. A huge coffin carrying the corpse is hauled by a truck to a ravine and tipped over the edge to get eaten by the locals in a shanty town. Not only does this easily telegraphed how distraught a young Fenix must be feeling, but also illustrate the contrast between the joyous surreal circus life and the cruel reality when it comes into the picture when Fenix is a full grown adult. It's a scene that imprint an odd image as much as it does fuel interpretations on its possible meaning. Every scene is easy to read and the meaning upon receiving development become layered. It's a film that while reliant heavily on metaphors has dialogue that directly gets across the main story. While the metaphors are tackling the subjectivity behind faith indirectly. In the center of attention is the more direct physiological torment of Fenix. Whose unable to free himself from the control of his mother. Fenix and his mother are in hindsight very complicated characters. One lives with a mask of following a faith she herself doesn't live purely by her faith. Another is a man whose unable to form an identity of himself.
Characters arrive in all forms of personality further adding to that surreal nature of the narrative. Fenix and his mother have the most prominent roles in the story being told. Together these two offer a story about redemption and revenge. In hindsight, Fenix childhood sneakily provides clever characterization or a physiological regression. As a young boy, Fenix wears a man's moustache to imitate maturity. During his childhood he shows the least amount of childlike fear or sadness arguably in his mentally assured state. As oppose when Fenix becomes an adult he's unable to detach himself from his mother influence for his own livelihood. Another usage of Fenix characteristics are the usage of birds. When we first meet Fenix, he is locked in a nuthouse, living like a human bird. His obsession with the mime-faced deaf/mute girl centers around her graceful panto of a hawk. Until the birds disappear from visual sight to juxtapose the trap Fenix is in - mentally and physically - with the freedom of being unable to simply 'fly away' from his mother control. The best aspect about these birds narrative usage is even if its missed the same intention gets across. Fenix mother, Concha, is positioned in the story in such a way where nothing ever feels lost when it narrative reaches it conclusion. Concha is a given a backstory that conveys her upcoming downfall and a motivation that is shown in developing in her scenes. Becoming a fleshed out character with her own arc. One key moment in the film that is rather genius is the film twist. I was able to catch the usage of birds as metaphors, but this twist genuinely caught me off guard. Not only does the twist has the potential to catch any viewer off guard, but it's rather fitting for the film surreal nature. Closing the story metaphorically on its themes while directly closing the conflict Fenix faces.
Alejandro Jodorowsky lets his visuals do the speaking more so than his dialogue. The rich color palette adds to the almost otherworldly elements of the visual narrative. Mixing colorful costumes and set designs against the dark context of scene. From the sterility of the hospital gives way to an explosion of vivid colous when we fly to the circus. Before long, this multihued vibrancy is then itself with the bizarre 'elephant funeral procession' is burdened with sobering blacks and charcoal complete with a grey American Flag. Jodorowsky visuals is a story tool giving it more meaning than just simply looking pretty. Laid on top of the visuals is an incredibly convincing musical score. Simon Boswell's soundtrack fluently bonds with the varying moods to become immersed in the Mexican fantasy. Blanca Guerra is excellent in the role of Concha. Her ability to convey far surpasses her co stars who all play characters with their arms in tact. Axel Jodorowsky delivers a more subdue performance which he pulls off. There's hardly a moment of certainty in the way he deliver his lines going hand to hand with his characters. Where these two actors shine are their scenes working in perfect sync. Using Axel Jodorowsky hands to convey the illusion of Blanca Guerra hands movement in several are synce in movement and emotion. It's a convincing sight to behold when the actors have great chemistry and can in sync in such scenes so perfectly.
Santa Sangre (Holy Blood) covers various themes both directly and indirectly that is not accomplished very often in filmmaking. It's a film that has a straightforward story and the viewer understands there's plenty of layers behind the way it's made, but never does it offer a moment of doubt in its execution. Not everything Santa Sangre touches on will immediately come around in full circle for a revelation in how it balanced all of it themes. Neither is it lost on the audience telling a straightforward story that even if not the pieces come together the intention of it is never lost. On a technical level it's an achievement of captivating visuals, the performances are outstanding, and the narrative very fulfilling even without all its meaning being found. Plain and simple it's a masterpiece.
There were two reasons that convinced me to see "Brick Mansions" aside… MoreThere were two reasons that convinced me to see "Brick Mansions" aside from liking the original "District B13". The first was David Belle who for some reason decided to play the same character twice was in front of the camera again. Second reason is I like Paul Walker. When it came to playing stoic heroes he fit the bill understanding these kind of roles. While this was the last film Paul Walker completed, thankfully it's not the last film he appeared in (thank goodness for Fast and Furious Seven). This remake is a lazy carbon copy of the original adding insult to injury are it overabundance of action scenes that makes it feel longer than it actually is.
Brick Mansion follows an undercover Detroit cop navigating a dangerous neighborhood that's surrounded by a containment wall. With the help of an ex-con in order to bring down a crime lord and his plot to devastate the entire city. If you've seen "District B13" you've seen "Brick Mansions". Nothing about the story is given the tiniest thought of effort as it copies every plot point used in "District B13". It's one tedious experience for fans of the original film as it offers no new surprises and the few insignificant changes (like the hostage this time being a former girlfriend instead of a character sister) it does make are pointless. Most astonishing for this viewer is how it manages to contains even less story. The difference here is primarily quantity in action. Whereas the original film knew when to take a breather no matter how small it was and not over saturate itself with action scenes. In "Brick Mansions" in my timing experiment (that's how bored I got) the longest it could last without an action sequence is almost nine minutes and the shortest it could last without an action scene was around fifty seconds. Now does that in any way sounds like good pacing with that little amount of breathing room. In execution it's far worse whenever you expect the story to return at any moment. Characters are either getting chased or fighting repeatedly since there's little substance to sustain viewers attention.
If you've never seen the original "Brick Mansions" feels like an endurance test. This is one of those instances where highlighting characters and story become part of the issue. Since it doesn't have a single engaging character the overabundance of action scenes that come one after another become yawn inducing. With an overabundance of action scenes the story is not given any time to developed naturally. A double edged sword crippling itself in anything it attempts to do. The writers of the remake are so indolent in their position they don't bother to write good original dialogue. "Sometimes you don't gotta be a rocket scientist. You just gotta have a rocket" is said by the film villain while he's cooking after revealing his rocket. All characters are stock action archetypes, filled with cheesy moments poorly contrasting the more gritty side of the material, and every scene not involving our characters fighting to remain alive pulls out action cliches after action cliches. It believes its clever throwing off audience expectations with it twist, but in this remake they don't work as sufficiently as they should. Much like everything else in the story it appears nothing translated well in this remake from the original film.
Camille Delamarre (editor of Taken 2) makes an unengaging action movie even worse with his inability to film or edit an action scene properly. Action scenes ranges from meh to passable in terms of staging and choreography, but with Delamarre direction he downgrades what should have been solid set pieces. They all generally suffer from being over edited having too many quick cuts that makes it look erratic. There's no fluidity to be found in how these action scenes are cut together. What makes this worse is you know there's some good stunt work to enjoy from the setup provided in them, but is framed to close or cuts off an important visual from your sight. Paul Walker is likable in the leading role, but his role doesn't demand much of him. Walker remains stoic throughout the film letting his supporting cast react to what's going on around them. David Belle performance is passable. His lines are dubbed (some bad lips syncing included) so when he has to talk it shows his inexperience, but where Belle shine is in his action scenes. He performs them convincingly whether he's performing parkour or doing a fight scene. Unfortunately Belle and Walker don't have any chemistry with one another. There's always a disconnect with them whenever they have to interact with one another. It doesn't help the actors we follow most has only one that could act and the other could only do action scenes convincingly. RZA plays the film the villain and not a single line said is convincing. Granted his lines are terrible, but he plays a clearly cartoonish villain rather straight. Instead of being loose and over the top he delivers everything at face value. The rest of the supporting cast is also passable without outshining the leads.
Brick Mansions short and simple is the definition of indolent remakes. It copies the story without significant changes and since it wants to highlight its characters it makes it that much more noticeable how weak they are. More than half of the action scenes are copied from "District B13" except this time are poorly framed being unable to enjoy the stunt work and overly edited that it become distorted. If one were to remove the fact that this is Paul Walker last starring film there's nothing much of value to appreciate once it ends. By the end of the film the first thought that came to my mind was "Thank goodness this wasn't Paul Walker last movie". Just for even making me think that is enough for me to consider "Brick Mansions" a failure of a film.
Izanagi: So the reason you're seeing this… MorePre-viewing Conversation
Izanagi: So the reason you're seeing this movie is because of bragging rights correct?
Caesar Mendez: No I'm not. I just want to get it out of my system.
Izanagi: Why? You already proved your endurance seeing Salo and Cannibal Holocaust arguably considered to be the most disturbing movies ever made.
Caesar Mendez: I know, but "A Serbian Film" is, well, a Serbian film.
Izanagi: Are you sure you don't want me to invite Matoi? At least when she's around you put effort into your jokes.
Caesar Mendez: Oh please no. Last time I made her see a movie she hated, well lets just say it got very elaborate.
Izanagi: Oh yeah. Who knew you could do so much with a pair scissors when it came to....
Caesar Mendez: Don't complete that sentence. Remember my policy.
Izanagi: Really? You know it's not that bad. You don't have to censor it. And since you're not paying any attention to me. Just start the film.
So if a film has a stigma for "disturbing content" I might see it since I'm naturally curious on what my "breaking point" will be. You know, the film that makes me just want to stop seeing it because of how vile the content is. It is a search that while not ideal for the common film fan it is for this maniac. As stated in the past, I'm open to all forms of cinema rather than limiting choices on personal preferences. I absolutely detest rape, but I've seen films exploring the physiological consequences of rape throughout one's life (the masterpiece Mysterious Skin) and seen films that uses it as a cheap tool to gain sympathy (I Spit On Your Grave). In terms of content there's only two films (as of the date this review posting) that I can think of that can top "A Serbian Film"; the documentary "Earthlings" and semi-found footage film "Cannibal Holocaust". Specifically because everything in "Earthlings" is actual footage of animal slaughter is shown in detail and parts of "Cannibal Holocaust" are real that blurs the line for the uninformed between what's real and just fiction. As a work of fiction "A Serbian Film" should check itself into a mental ward. The closest fictional film that comes close to matching it psyche is "Nekromantik" which if you know what's good for you. DON'T look up the ending to "Nekromantik".
A Serbian Film is about an aging porn star who agrees to participate in an "art film" in order to make a clean break from the business, only to discover that he has been drafted into making a pedophilia and necrophilia themed snuff film. The story of the film is handle sloppily disregarding common sense. So try to picture a shady man you never met before offering you lots of money to do a specific job without giving you any details. At first the protagonist makes the rational hesitation on taking up the offer to participate in this specific job. Despite the protagonist gut feeling that there's something wrong about the job he's put in a position where his irrational acceptance makes sense. It's a motivation that's simple to grasp and garner some sympathy towards some of the film characters. Now picture you accepting the job and notice on your first day what you experience further strengthen your hesitation to work for this shady man. Our protagonist is given a reasonable motivation for taking the job, but does not apply equally to his dedication to maintain the shady job knowing the possible hint of danger. His motivation to remain isn't developed to the point it's able to sell the viewer with the protagonist decision. Plus there's these things called phones which the film characters sometime used to communicate to each other except when it crucial in order to move the story.
Logically the protagonist should have been more cautious, but at the same time is sympathetic. He's given a simplistic backstory of being a struggling father who's retire from a perceived less than glamorous profession. It's simple and straight to the point. However, the "bonding" moments between the protagonist and his son are things no words can do justice too. How one exactly goes about casually discussing how to "play with one self" is beyond me, especially if the kid is around ten years of age. These scenes give off a different vibe than what was meant to get across, but does display the protagonist attempting to be a good father even if the topic of discussion is inappropriate. Another good aspect about the film is the physiological breakdown of the film protagonist. Progressively the protagonist is broken down and his faith in humanity is utterly broken when it reaches the climax. Naturally seeing every step of his breakdown and what exactly triggers it to the point where his reaction is difficult to argue against. Especially when witnessing what the poor man goes through in the climax.
Where the story falls apart is also during its climax. During the course of the film it comes across as if the film would touch upon the film medium. As if to make a point on how far should the visionary and the participants take the artform before it's consider to be too much for any rational thinking person to dissect. Of course I'm kidding since characters dialogue is often nationalize basically saying stuff like "make artistic porn to bring back our nation's pride" or anything basically involving sex. In context character talking like this is rather goofy not adding to anything in the long run. How exactly the correlation between "Newborn Porn" ties into government injustices is flimsy at best. If it does connect to political commentary than the message is government likes to [you know the word] with people. In some cases that's a true statement of poor government, but the context of the story and the devices implemented doesn't in any form represents any ideals of politics. Let alone provide any elements where the correlation is feasible even metaphorically.
Now on to the main course of discussing aspects of it content and this is coming from a person who witness necrophilia, castrations, animal cruelty, and prolonged rape in some films he's seen. A Serbian Film does not live up to its stigma of having vile content that makes you want to stop viewing it. For example, in the film there's a scene involving two characters seeing footage of "Newborn Porn". Sounds disgusting regardless how questionable the content in films you've seen have been, but instead of showing the actual "Newborn Porn" we see the back of a specific performer and primarily shown reaction shots of the characters viewing the footage. The way it's presented is not vile nor difficult in taking in the scene as a plot device thanks to good editing conveying the purpose. However, given the title of the footage being "Newborn Porn" there's no arguing the director went about it the best way in not showing it directly towards the audience since it occurs off screen. Rather than simply include this scene for shock value (ok, from my perspective at least) it gets across there is fine line between what should be film and what can be film. Within the context it's the film inciting incident which is basically a fancy way for writers of saying it's an event that is struck upon the protagonist(s) where their life changes from the norm to adapt to the story's plot. The way the scene is film gets across the idea of it rather than explicitly show it. Although I'm not sure if the sadist filmmakers that came up with the scene or the actual viewers that fill in the blank in their minds when viewing said scene that has a more troubling mindset than the person who's defending it.
Where a majority of the film "vile content" comes from is in the film final thirty minutes that contain a number of rape scenes and spontaneous murder. Out of the whole film there is one scene that might trigger a reaction of sickness and one in the climax that will trigger a reaction questioning your decision to view the film entirely. Of course due to personal regulations I won't discuss the specifics despite the previous paragraph touching on the most controversial (off screen) scene in the film. The reason being we're shown in these scenes the whole performance of vile action rather than a fraction of vile action being performed. However, despite what occurs in the climax it will bring new meaning to the term "hard-on". It's very questionable why the director would include a moment where's the protagonist cocka doodle doo can pierce through flesh and a kill a man in a scene that involves rape. Not lying, I laughed when I witness this moment in the scene, and at the same time am very jealous of the power of it. Lets just move on after that questionable series of sentences.
The production values for the film are very good. Director Srdjan Spasojevic maintains a bleak tone throughout the film. By creating such an atmosphere even during the film first hour you never feel like you're adjusting to comfortably seeing it. It's lighting is one of those reasons that while in most scenes everything is visble there's are always a hint of shadiness. Where the dynamic of a scene is made very clear and more effective for it. The score for the film is foreboding slowly building to a more enraging sound when it becomes more transgressive. Acting is also another bright spot especially from it star Srdjan Todorovic. He's fully committed in his performance never once being unconvincing, even when the film goes to the extreme. Becoming enveloped in a wide arrange of emotions when he's angry it's believable and he's a broken man he really come across as someone loss hope in humanity. His costar Sergei Trifunovic is also excellent. Even when he's given simple talking scene his mannerism makes anything no matter how positive sounding very shady. Trifunovic appearance also adds to his role in particular his sinister smile. Supporting cast are also good, though most of their roles aren't as developed as Todorovic. Slobodan Bestic for example mostly stays in the mindset of secretly desiring his brother wife and it isn't until the climax where he gets a change in character. Jelena Gavrilovic is is allowed more ranged and comes across as the most sane in the cast which is saying something. Each of the actor are believable in their role and are committed to it not letting the context bother them.
A Serbian Film doesn't live up to the stigma of "disturbing cinema" the same way "Cannibal Holocaust" does, but as a whole contains great production values, good acting, and an okay story with sympathetic characters. Of course with that said I will acknowledge that not all viewers have viewed the same films I have so from that perspective I understand because exposure to such material varies. However, there's no denying it is one well made film from a technical standpoint and well acted whose good qualities get overlook due to the reaction to its content.
Post viewing conversation
Izanagi: So it's a good thing I didn't invite Matoi to see this. Given her bad habit to lose large amount of blood she would have kicked your...
Caesar Mendez: Uh, I told you to not introduced any gimmicks when it comes to my reviews. If you keep doing this my readers are going to believe I plan to do something with these fictional characters gimmick even though I just simply want to express my position on certain films.
Izanagi: Wait? You're willfully admitted there's nothing meaningful to our usage in this review?
Caesar Mendez: Of course. If I pretended your usage in this review was to metaphor apartheid that would make me pretentious. Clearly pretending to be one thing to justify what I do even though the foundation provided does not support it.
Izanagi: You know could have said that in your review without including both dialogue. So in a way. Yeah, you sorta are pretentious.
Caesar Mendez: In this case, I'll give you that one. So want me to call Ryuk and you know?
Izanagi: Nope. Not even he can help me unsee this movie. It's actually his new all time favorite method when it comes to his job as full time Shinigami (Gods that invite humans toward death).
Caesar Mendez: Well then, I guess it could be worse.
Izanagi: It could be in. Three, two, one.
Matoi: WHAT'S THIS ABOUT YOU CALLING ME MEANINGLESS?
Caesar Mendez: IZANAGI!
Izanagi: Yep, she heard everything you said.
Ryuko Matoi: You thought "A Serbian Film" was rough? After I'm done you "A Serbian Film" will be a cakewalk in comparison.
Caesar Mendez: It was a cakewalk for me, than again I guessed the films I see and personal experience helped in my disconnection with my more human side. Well, that's all folks. So what's it gonna be this time Matoi?
Ryuko Matoi: For starter we'll begin with something by Jorge Ameer than I'll....
Caesar Mendez: No. Noooooooo. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Earthlings chronicles the day-to-day practices of the largest… MoreEarthlings chronicles the day-to-day practices of the largest industries in the world, all of which rely entirely on animals for profit. The documentary is not an easy one to watch especially it footage of animal cruelty. Never once shying away from showing graphic footage which can speak for itself even when taken out of context. Scenes showing factory farms, slaughterhouses, hunting, bullfights, puppy mills, and primates being used in head injury experiments will shock those who value all forms of life equally. These scenes aren't easy to watch and powerful enough get it point across towards viewers without ever needing to complete the film. By letting the sometime graphic footage play out in its entirety it will challenge what the viewer is capable of stomaching. The footage shown in its "Food" segment can make anyone unaware of what goes on inside a slaughterhouse think differently about what they eat. Its most haunting scene is at a fur farm. A skinned animal, perhaps a fox, lies glistening with blood and white fat and muscle. The creature is still alive, lifting her skinless head and blinking at the camera. Those few seconds gets across the horrific emotion that this skinned fox is feeling, and connect a thought to the viewer of seeing its own species brutally murdered for our very own livelihood without ever telling us.
How Earthlings sets up it proposition is by it's opening. By elaborating how over the years there existed racism, sexism, and speciesism. This is the idea of assigning different values or rights to members depending on their species, or in other words favoring one's own species. It acknowledges its purpose, in that it is demonstrating how animals have come to serve humankind. Never does it compare these crimes in being directly connected to one another as much it attempts to draw parallels that drive those action. Instead of making a direct comparison to the Holocaust it decides to make correlations; the most significant relation being both are caused by humans with power abusing those without power. What nonsense right? There's no way the Holocaust is similar to...well now that I think about it there's truth to that. The target isn't a single race or religion beliefs in this case, but instead an entire species which is being murdered for another specific purpose. Tackling different aspects of the subject in five segments; pets, food, clothes, entertainment, and scientific research. Each receive different amount of screen time and each use a similar tactic to get their point across. Drawing parallel to a crime alongside footage of that goes along with said segments.
As much Earthlings is consider the definitive animal rights film by animal rights organizations, much like PETA efforts, their delivery can be heavy handed and some aspects flimsy. One of the major flimsy aspects are it statistics on how many animals are killed by humans. Being blown over proportion to the point that makes you questioned how in the world a particular specie shown in the film hasn't become instinct. These statistics go into the billions which holds true for fish, but with other animals just accepting the facts becomes a mind game of what's true and fabricated. There is truth to be found in what's it saying, but exaggerating on the facts partially fail to inform the audience and instead make them question more if the information given to them is true inspite of the footage being played. Another issue is the film becomes very heavy handed in it delivery towards the end. The film last ten minutes beats the "animals suffered for our livelihood, man is bad" point over the head that is gives off an anti-human vibe. Despite claiming that all lifeforms consider Earthlings and should not contain the mindset of speciesism. The music by Moby sets a somber tone without being intrusive, and the narration by Joaquin Phoenix is very matter of fact. Though the script at times seems a bit heavy-handed, even quoting Shakespeare's King Lear at one point, Phoenix's delivery is calm and measured, in contrast with the visual horrors unfolding on-screen.
Earthlings graphic footage of animal cruelty and the degree it shows it too warrant the content in this film is not for everyone. For that it message delivery becomes cloudy, but never is it point ever loss. It certainly heavy handed towards the final minutes, but even before reaching the end it's capable of persuading.
Admittedly "The Holy Mountain" is one of the most difficult film I… MoreAdmittedly "The Holy Mountain" is one of the most difficult film I ever had to interpret. Not because it's story is so complicated it demands your full undivided attention to every detail in a frame, but because it draws its inspiration from Tarot cards (thank you Mr. Edogawa for those long lessons), Christian Iconology, Latin American History, futurism, mysticism, politics, astrology in a combination to strange images that correlate together into a difficult to decipher theme. Never do it characters explicitly tell you the significant of the events, but much like the characters it's a journey of enlightenment. It's also one that'll leave you scratching your head until you realize you hit a nerve in your skull.
The Holy Mountain gives an omniscient view of what social engineering caused by greed has done to the modern world, but shows us how to live and not give in to a material world. That's one way to put it or more honestly a series of strange visuals, odd metaphors, and a main character who isn't even involved in the ending. Breaking all logic of a traditional narrative being a witness of the journey is not at any point off putting. It speaks figuratively rather than expressing itself through a literal sense. If taken at face value the film will leave you wondering what in the world you just saw. Much in comparison to the thief we follow, the film asks its audience to either go on the journey and be open to whatever is let out of the floodgates of the storyteller consciousness, or if to be closed off then to might as well leave. Visually exploring what is the significant of immorality, religion, and beliefs pondering if reaching enlightenment is more important than the journey to achieve it. Over the top humor pokes fun of the lack of awareness of the form of escapism in surreal ways that ranges from manufacturing art with a fully functioning conveyor belt for butt-imprint paintings to conditioning children to hate specific future enemies. Scenes all of which are a natural representation of escapism either be through photographs, paintings, videos, or anything that mentally makes the subject escape reality. Before reaching the end the figurative meaning behind it images will culminate into a narrative that touches on various themes. Each of which make sense (in this film logic that is) in the surreal manner they are presented in. Once it reaches the abstract ending is where there's a glaring misstep. The ending itself spoon feeds everything the viewer witness in a final dialogue that reaffirms what you just saw was nothing more than it just appeared to be. Misguiding half of the meaning it actually was trying to get across. Then again, from a literal standpoint it goes along with the rest of the film.
Alejandro Jodorowsky is the film writer/director/producer/editor/music composer/costume designer/set designer/painter/sculptor/star and his input is on screen all the time. Creating a world that in semblance is no further than our very own, it's just presented in a different form. At times the film looks absolutely gorgeous and it's design are eye popping with surreal designs and bright colors. There is a scene where the thief enters a rainbow room with a single holy man and a camel. A struggle breaks out but the primitive learns that he is not worthy to overcome the much wiser man. Suggesting the brighter the color in the rainbow passage the greater the growth. It's just one of the symbolic nature elements within. This intricate collective designed is sure to challenge the thoughts and translation of the viewer. As well as the set decorations, props, and the costumes and it pays off as the film is gorgeous to look at even if at times it's a little hard to decipher without an innate knowledge of world religions and the occult. The whole film is a literal two hour intellectual LSD trip. In the scene where Axon of Neptune and his healthy young army massacre a town, the montage we see of blood, dust and guts isn't entirely wounds overflowing with deep red or gory close-ups of torn flesh. Instead there are sticky greens and blues bubbling from bodies, obvious red ribbons from the gut and, in a rather touching moment from within the violence, little birds fluttering from the chest of a dead body. This barely scratches the surface of the surreal images you're going to see in the whole film.
The Holy Mountain is surreal, deep, and one of the hardest films to make sense off if there's any to be found if we speaking in a literal sense. If taken at face value the series of events will have little correlation, but never is it boring because of it surreal images. It's a difficult film to recommend anyone to see because while it provides no background on everything it tackles. The abstract interpretation on the series of odd images is more than satisfactory for viewers seeking to challenge their minds. That is until it partially misguide viewers toward the end. No matter how the film is interpreted "The Holy Mountain" is never boring for what it bring to the forefront to the viewers that will confuse as well captivate the imagination.
When it comes to video games there's various things I love about the… MoreWhen it comes to video games there's various things I love about the industry from Atlus (specifically their Persona and Shin Megami Tensei series), Nintendo, Naughty Dog, and Hideo Kojima. There is also many things I absolutely loathe in the certain direction it's taking from EA, Ubisoft, always online drm, and the pay to play model. It's this general uncertainty about the industry that I rarely ever write about videogames or devote as much attention to them as I once used too. So when something simply called "Video Game: The Movie" is direct to the point of course I would see it since it's history is one aspect I've held an interest towards. Sadly the film is only partially about videogames history which it does rather poorly in explaining certain contributions and when it comes right down to it this film just glorifies its culture.
Video Games: The Movie aims to educate audiences about how video games are made, marketed, and consumed by looking back at gaming history and culture through the eyes of game developers, publishers, and consumers. In the early goings of the documentary the slick plethora of animated infographics and an effective opening-credits sequence that details the evolution of games over time shows promise. Slowly explaining certain aspects like graphic bits and statistics on the average gamer. For the first eight minutes the presentation is slick and focused, but then as it progresses it's made clear there's no directed goal. This documentary biggest issue is in it structure. In the beginning the documentary looks at the history of videogames and makes it first fatal mistake of giving rushed summarization of significant contributions. In some cases overlooking some achievements from certain consoles. For example, it fails to mention the Sega's Dreamcast contribution towards the industry for being the first home console to include a built-in modem, the first home console to support online gaming, and the first home console to support an MMORPG. If a non fully committed gamer like myself knows that fact without ever touching a Dreamcast console what makes you think this documentary will do a proper job of providing insight on videogames history. If removing quotes from Retamas Gandhi, Nicolas Tesla, and John F. Kennedy (who loved JFK: Reloaded) what the documentary aimed to achieve remains muddle. Over sighting important information causally in order to use to lesser effect later on. By not following a nonlinear format in its presentation of videogames history aspects of it will be loss to non-gamers coming across as shallow. How it presents it history will cause confusion in its constant jump from years to years. Poorly getting across what the technological differences from a Nintendo NES to a Sony's Playstation among other things. The insights provided can be sometime insightful, but are too often glib and come at the expense of the film relaying the events at hand to the viewer. For example, you could come away from the section on game violence with no knowledge that the fight made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the documentary aimed to be one thing there wouldn't be this full length review criticizing it. Unfortunately since it attempts to highlight certain aspects of videogame culture its aimed is bigger than what it grasped. Once again the usage of it timeline does a disservice to the structure and the viewers. In one moment the documentary is addressing the media blaming video games for violence and the next it's celebrating vudeogames. It's emotion is all over the place without feeling connected to each other. Another issue is it priorities when it comes to who's speaking on the subject. Someone important as Atari co-founder Nolan Bushnell whose contribution to videogames is very significant receives less screen time than actor Donald Faison who hasn't contribute to videogames in any shape. All the interviews sadly focus more on big stars than actual known videgame developers. There are several montages of video game trailers and gameplay footage that can on for minutes which also constitute as bad transitions. If you happen to be interested in any of the games in the montages you won't have their name listed anywhere in the film. If the director does anything correctly it is conveying the passion of the fans and game designers he interviewed. For many games are much more than just a hobby, and that love and enthusiasm shows through. However, that segment isn't enough to make up for the rest of documentary that says "All area of gaming is great" in a propaganda manner. For non-gamers it'll come across that way because the documentary is filled with nothing, but good words about video games therefore doing harm in not providing a fair view on the subject matter more negative aspects. Every area it wants to discuss on the subject either misses relaying information to the viewer or is sloppily delivered because of it poor choice of its own structure.
Video Games: The Movie is too glamorize in its poor representation of gaming culture that it's slick production values make it come across as one giant commercial. The whole structure of the documentary is sloppy jumping from certain subjects and specific years that muddles it message. If one thing it does express correctly is conveying gamers passion for video games going beyond simply enjoying playing games and touching on the more social aspect of gaming. It's just a shame that same passion wasn't shared by its filmmakers to make an engaging film on the same subject matter these gamers care so much for.
Earlier in 2014 a filmed titled "The Legend of Hercules" was released… MoreEarlier in 2014 a filmed titled "The Legend of Hercules" was released and it was absolutely terrible. Especially it leading star Kellan Lutz who was incapable of showing any personality and acting talent in the title role. If you were to tell me "The Legend of Hercules" was knockoff by "The Asylum" I would believe you, except "The Asylum" actually managed to make a better Hercules movie with significantly less money. The saddest part being if there was actually more effort put into it's screenplay and production it could have been entertaining.
Hercules Reborn follows Arius seeking help from the mythical hero Hercules to save his wife and his town from it's new maniacal king. Despite his name being in the title Hercules is not the film's protagonist. Instead it's Arius in a conflict that gets resolved in a by the number fashion. Protagonist power hungry mentor betrays protagonist by kidnapping his wife and killing off the current holders of power, protagonist goes to seek help from a famous character in the same job field to help him in his rebellion, but upon first impression in seeing the legendary figure is a pathetic drunk or in a pathetic state he loses some hope. Until a moment arrives to prove his identity in a situation requiring him to save the protagonist and the legendary character takes a chance to redeem their name to his/her former glory. Just giving that rough summarization on the first act is enough for experience film viewers and storytellers to predict how the film will play out. There's no twists of any sort to the story that is dead set on a straightforward delivery. Like every character in the film Arius is unengaging. Characters are one dimensional so there's not much to read into and motivations are strip down to the lowest common denominator. Everything is kept at a basic level simultaneously committing the screenwriting crime of being rush and lingering too much on something established. Whenever there's any possible room for characterization it's rush and whenever you're given a scene where you know the purpose it'll linger on it. Clearly that's some backward thinking in screenwriting. That's not even taking into account the story doesn't take advantage of Hercules as a character. In the film, he's not a demi-god going on fantastical adventure based on any of his famous stories. While the intention was clearly made to make Hercules more grounded as a character it's a decision that horrifically backfires especially when providing no characters of any depth. If given more time to fleshed plot devices and characters the film would have had an okay story. With some developed characters it would made the predictable journey feel less dull and uneventful.
Now on this corner we hear there are stories that claim this man is a God, has the strength of twenty men, and is a nearly unstoppable warrior. The actor that plays Hercules is none other than John Hennigan, or as some wrestling fans might him as WWE Superstar John Morrison. John Hennigan is not a good actor when he has to speak, but the script he's provided requires more of his physical mannerism than actual line delivery. Despite his physical appearance Hennigan understands how to play the pathetic aspect of his character usually stumbling whenever his character is drunk. His inability to maintain his composure when drunk helps with the illusion that maybe Hennigan is not that great of a warrior. He's also convincing in his action scenes, though it would be nice if the director knew how framed or shoot an action scene. Hennigan only falters in his line delivery, but his performance is above average since Hannigan knows how to portray the character on a physical standpoint. The only other actor that might register with viewer is James Duval (Frank the Rabbit from Donnie Darko) who gives a bad performance. He's very off in his comedic timing and shares no chemistry with any other actor on set. Than there's Christina Ulfsparre who's nothing more eye candy on screen. Her scenes don't amount to much aside from showing her in peril as the token damsel in distress. Finally Christian Oliver is the leading man and he's bland. Oliver is given a typical role with little range to do show more emotion. Action scenes on the other hand are all terrible. In every single action scene the camera is way too close to making it difficult to make out what's going on and the choreography behind the action scene is atrocious. Looking as if they were the rehearsal take instead of the actual finalize action scene. Adding to the bad action scenes is a shaky camera that makes it that much harder to enjoy an scene if in the faint chance you can make it something out of it. As for the editing, that's also terrible with too many frequent cuts destroying any sort of flow in the action scene. Another issue is something I never expected to criticize. This film lack of extra hurts the grand scope it wants to pretend to have. The lack of numbers makes everything smaller, in particular to the ancient cities when depicting a crowd at most you'll see on screen close to twenty. Although, knowing the studio history to be cheap it's a surprised the location the film shot at gives off the ancient city vibe it's trying capture.
Hercules Reborn is a knockoff and there's no hiding that fact, but as a film it falls victim to being uninspired dull trite instead of an entertaining B movie "The Asylum" more often gets wrong than it does right. It could have been entertaining if more effort was put into it. There's little for viewers of all kind to gain, especially those into B movies will find the film lacking inspiration in anything it does.