Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
I'm focusing much more on my lists in recent years than the reviews. So check out those:
My other internet names are Qwerty100, Prtopek, Vjetropev and others.
Za one koji traze YU/srpske filmove sa recenzijama na srpskom, evo ove liste.
ListsAn error has ocurred. Please try again
If I were to make a list of all the celebs that are liberal/left-wing/Marxist, it would be a mission of a lifetime, something I haven't got time for. The IMDb computers would probably all explode, in a spectacular chain reaction, for lack of capacity to handle so much data.
So I thought it'd be much easier to point towards those celebs that aren't liberal.
The term "non-liberal" means just that, people who aren't liberal. This does not mean that all the people listed here are right-wing or share the same views, or that they're all hardcore anti-Leftists or anything like that. After all, the Right wing of the political spectrum is far more varied than the mostly uniform and one-dimensional Left. Besides which, there is a certain thing call "Center". Quite a few centrists are listed.
This list is by no means intended to serve as a mindless glorification of the individuals on it. There are people here whose views by-and-large do not correspond with mine.
Nevertheless, even though celebrity glorification is a hobby that lacks any merit and isn't something I ever encourage, one has to give the individuals on this list at least some credit, especially since certain actors and directors here have been victims of "Red-Listing". It takes courage to go against the grain in Hollywood - especially politically.
"Red-Listing", i.e. blackballing, involves making life difficult for those who do not subscribe to the Left's dogmatic and fierce political correctness; it includes career-hindering and such.
The names are listed in no particular order.
COMMENTS: The comments section changes introduced several years ago have basically ruined what used to be a fun interaction between list-maker and reader, hence I will be disabling comments on nearly all of my lists. (I said nearly: you're free to spend an hour perusing my other lists to find one that does allow comments.) So if you want to let me know what you think, PM me.
Oh no, wait. They've disabled PMs. So I guess there is no way you can share your views of my lists and reviews with me. That's called "progress".
Or you can go to Vjetropev's blog and find me there.
Or go to my new YouTube channel, it's mostly music-related:
Stvaranje filma nije kao pisanje par pesmica za neki shalabajz domaci album, ni blizu. Za jedan (dobar) film je realno potrebna pozamasna svota novca, a na Balkanu toga vrlo retko ima na raspologanju. Ovde krimosi, kako politicki tako i oni sa kajlama, drze svu lovu, a dobri filmovi takve specije ne zanimaju. Filmove je tesko finansirati na Zapadu, a kamoli kod nas. Kod nas je, primera radi, dug niz godina bio standard da se skoro nikada ne snimaju scene vise od jednom zbog skupoce filmskog materijala - sto naravno drasticno koci i rezisera i glumce u teznji ka savrsenstvu (kada takva teznja uopste postoji). Vec taj podatak u vecoj meri objasnjava zasto domaci filmovi nisu na visokom nivou cesto - a da ne govorimo o tome da je decenijama Tiletova Komunjar-Partija uglavnom trazila samo propagandne, anti-cetnicke, pro-komunjarske filmove odnosno sam kvalitet cesto nije bio na vrhu prioriteta mnogih rezisera vec samo da shire neku debilnu politicku ideologiju zarad love, karijere i napretka u toj Komunjar-Partiji. Ne treba potcenjivati broj onih koji su dosli do vecih uloga ili reziserskih projekata samo zbog slihtanja Komunjar- Partiji.
Jos jedan veliki problem domaceg filma - pogotovo u poslednjih par godina - je naravno rastuci nepotizam. Tesko je ocekivati jaku kinematografiju kada reziseri i producenti (koji su cesto i sami izgradili svoje karijere preko rodbinske/politicke veze) angazuju skoro iskljucivo decu prijatelja, njihovu i svoju rodbinu, i/ili neku (mahom netalentovanu) decu politickih elitista. Pravim audicijama se retko ko bavi vise; ali ko aktivno ne trazi mlade talente nece ih verovatno ni naci. Odnosno ako trazis perspektivne mlade pisce i glumce iskljucivo medju decom svojih kolega, ti onda sebi - a ujedno i srpskom filmu - ogranicavas potencijal drasticno, jer sa osrednjom ili cak totalno netalentovanom decom nekih tamo kosarkasa, partijaca, scenarista i glumaca ne mozes da ocekujes stvaranje filmskih klasika. Od g**ana se pita ne pravi. Pogotovo ne kod komedija koje zahtevaju pravi talenat a ne banalno kreveljenje neukih laika.
Ali je vise nego ocigledno da trenutno u Srbiji obicna deca iz naroda (tj. bez rodjaka u svetu filma) slabo koga zanima u nasoj licemernoj filmskoj "eliti" koja se samo folira kako sve rade "zarad umetnosti" a ne zbog svog dzepa i slave. Ko zna koliko glumackih i scenaristickih talenata sedi neiskorisceno po citavoj zemlji jer etablirana incestoidno-klanovska garda smatra da su samo njihova deca predodredjena za film, tj. da su genetski nasledila sav njihov talent - sto je naravno budalastina u koju mogu da poveruju samo veoma naivni i povodljivi ljudi (koji nazalost cine vecinu na Balkanu). S jedne strane laprdaju u intervjuima do besvesti pretenciozno kako je njima (tj. rediteljima i glumcima) glavni cilj "stvaranje umetnosti" - a ovamo gledaju uvek da uguraju neke svoje pajtose i rodbinu (cak i one najnekompetentnije) u glavne uloge i kao pisce sto znaci da ih NE zanima umetnost, bar ne kao primarni cilj u toku stvaranja filmova.
Cast izuzetcima, naravno, jer su se neki glumci ciji su roditelji iz tog miljea stvarno pokazali, ali to je sitna manjina. Niti ja sugerisem da je nepotisticki podmladak u Srbiji neka razmazena i obesna bagra kao u Holivudu, jer kod nas glumci uglavnom zaradjuju relativno skromno, znaci mnogi od njih stvarno idu u taj biznis jer to vole a ne da se obogate. Mada, taj bedni motiv zvani SLAVA je i dalje cesto glavni pokretac takvih ljudi.
To sto gotovo nikome u Srbiji vise ni ne smeta sto je nepotizam toliko zavladao medijskim profesijama (guglirajte nepotizam u srpskom filmu, necete naci nijedan clanak na ovu temu - sem ovog - iako je nepotizam sve-prisutan) govori koliko se nas narod navikao na korupciju i dekadenciju kao NORMALAN nacin zivota. A nepotizam je ogranak korupcije, i to jedan od najstetnijih, po sve nas. Ne postoje dzaba zakoni u izvesnim "trulim" zemljama koji sluze da se nepotizam sprecava ili barem drzi u granicama normale.
Kad se sve ovo uzme u obzir, ne moze i ne sme da cudi da nema mnogo odlicnih domacih filmova, jer je u tako koruptnoj (anti-)stvaralackoj atmosferi pa jos uz manjak love tesko proizvesti nesto kvalitetno. Dobri filmovi ne padaju s neba, cak ni kada je u pitanju nebeski narod. (Ili pogotovo ne tada.)
S druge strane, YU filmovi (i dobri i losi) imaju neku specificnu atmosferu koja se ne moze naci kod stranih filmova. (Ovo vazi pretezno za starije filmove.) Ja ne mogu ni da zamislim kako oni deluju stranim, a pogotovo zapadnim gledaocima; verovatno bizarno i zbunjujuce. Bez obzira na sve prepreke, i finansijske i stvaralacke prirode, Jugoslavija je uspela da proizvede izvestan broj dobrih filmova - a za to su uglavnom zasluzni odlicni YU glumci, a mnogo manje scenaristi koji se ne mogu pohvaliti velikim ucinkom; malo njih se istaklo na nekom visem nivou.
Karl Malden je jednom rekao da je glavni problem Balkanskog filma nizak nivo scenarija. Pavle Vuisic je, po prici njegove udovice, skoro svaki scenario koji je dobio prelistao na brzaka i bacio s gadjenjem, a onda napravio neki komentar u fazonu "opet neko sranje". Da je pisanje bilo na nivou glume, Jugoslavija bi imala daleko bolji ucinak. Nemamo dobre scenariste - surova istina. Ili im ne dozvoljavamo da dodju do izrazaja zbog pomenute korupcije kompletnog sistema i drustva.
FILMOVI SU RANGIRANI PO KVALITETU, od najboljih pa sve do onih ocajnih, kojih ima poprilicno.
OCENE: Domaci korisnici ovog sajta, kao i mnogi strani, imaju tendenciju da daju maksimalne ocene filmovima koji im se svidjaju. Ali ja 10/10 ne dajem za dobre filmove vec za genijalne filmove. To i objasnjava delom zasto toliko domacih filmova ima nesrazmerno vise proseke od npr. americkih filmova. Ja ocenjujem drugacije od vecine korisnika sa Balkana:
10 - skoro savrsen film ili savrseno zabavan 9 - ispunjava sva ocekivanja 8 - odlican 7 - veoma dobar 6 - dobar, solidan 5 - OK, nije los, moze da prodje 4 - mediokritet, manje-vise gledljiv, ali felerican 3 - los film 2 - uzasan film 1 - Ceca Raznatovic
Inace, evo vam mali savet kako da dodjete do objektivnijih ocena za domace filmove, ali i filmove uopste, na ovom sajtu. Kada ste na strani nekog filma, idite na statistiku odnosno demografsku podelu glasaca, pa vidite koji je prosek dat od "top 1000 voters". Ta ocena je bliza objektivnoj prosecnoj oceni nego kada racunamo sve glasove, jer ti ljudi su gledali daleko vise filmova te imaju jace kriterijume.
VASI KOMENTARI: Posto je IMDb odlucio da se samo preko Facebook-a moze komentarisati, onemogucio sam ovu opciju. A posto je IMDb izbrisao i opciju privatnih poruka izmedju usera, nemate nikakvog nacina da se meni obratite sa kritikama, pohvalama ili bljuvanjem. Ne ljutite se na mene, vec se obratite ljudima nadleznim za ovaj sajt. Posto se sloboda govora sve vise tamani na internetu (kao i u medijima), necu da ja budem nista gori odnosno bolji od njih, te vam vise ne dajem sansu da komentarisete, jer je FB jedina opcija (a pre nekoliko godina je mogao svako aninimno da ostavlja komentare), a ja FB nalog nemam niti mi treba, a jos manje ce neko da izvrsi pritisak na mene da ga otvorim.
Mislim da je sramota sto velika vecina domacih filmova nemaju plakate (tj. slike) ubacene na ovaj sajt, i da je prilicno jadno sto su biografije domacih glumaca tako oskudne a ponekad i nepostojece. Uopste receno, na internetu ne mozes doci do nekih bitnijih i/ili detaljnijih podataka ni o domacim filmovima ni o glumcima. Eto koliko Srbi cene svoju kulturu. Vole da masu zastavama i da vicu "SRBIJA!" ali kada treba nesto konkretno da urade za svoju zemlju (ili u vezi nje) nema ih ni od korova.
Sto se tice "plot summaries" domacih filmova na IMDb, mahom su lose napisani, odnosno na losem engleskom sa puno gramatickih gresaka i sa konfuznim, jadno prevedenim frazama. Pa ne moze sa Google Translate da se odradi dobar tekst. Dobrovoljno se javljam da ih ispravljam.
Izgleda da kritika utice! Jer u medjuvremenu su postavljene slike za velik broj domacih filmova. Kada sam zapoceo listu, svaki deseti film je imao fotografiju plakata ili bilo kakvu fotku, a sada je to ucestala pojava.
Dnevnik masinovodje 9/10 Stado 7/10 Sizif K 1/10 Tamarin Izostanak (nije ubacen na listu jer sajt zeza) 2/10 Ime: Dobrica, prezime: nepoznato 3/10 Sve nase nesto tako 1/10 Mali svet 8/10 Belo odelo 5/10 Tesna Koza 2 3/10 Tesna Koza 3 4/10 Tesna Koza 4 3/10 Crni Bombarder 4/10 Vidim ti ladju na kraju puta 8/10 Rode u magli 8/10 Jesen stize, dunjo moja 2/10 Neko me ipak ceka 3/10 Lajanje na zvezde 3/10 Tegla puna vazduha 2/10 Carlston za Ognjenku 4/10 Pejzazi u magli 3/10 Sivi kamion crvene boje 5/10 Pored mene 4/10 Rat uzivo 6/10 Nije kraj 8/10 Pljacka treceg rajha 5/10 Hiljadarka 6/10 Inkarnacija 4/10 Nebeska udica 6/10 Mamaros 7/10 Bokseri idu u raj 6/10 Balkanska pravila 3/10 Tamo i ovde 6/10 Karaula 6/10 Falsifikator 8/10 Zena sa slomljenim nosem 4/10 Tri Ane 4/10
I would like to dedicate the list to those 3 people who urged me to make it, but also to the 188 who begged me not to.
All 191 of you were an inspiration. Thank you.
I've picked those 100 from the 3,500+ films I've seen so far. It's a mixed bag, as you'll see. The list is neither dominated by pretentious/meaningless/pointless/dull "surrealist" Euro-crap nor is it entirely made up of commercial mainstream stuff. Me not being either a film-student nor a film critic means that this list could actually be of some use to you.
WARNING: This list is full of spoilers. Not just my comments are filled with them, but the synopsis of most episodes contains spoilers to some degree.
Hey, I'm a whistle-blower of sorts! Why won't Hollywood side with me as they do with Edward Snowden?
Oh right, I'm blowing the whistle on THEM. They don't appreciate it when THEY'RE being scrutinized. They prefer to do the moralizing and the finger-pointing themselves, especially in their brazenly deceptive political propaganda films, while always hoping that not too many people notice what a cesspool of hypocrisy, egomania and decadence the American film industry itself is.
(And besides, Snowden is a bad example. There is a big difference between a whistle-blower and a spy.)
First off, let me explain why this list aggravates some people within show business: because it exposes the hypocrisy of their elitism which goes against all of their left-wing, "equal-opportunity" public-persona politics. The main reason the list annoys some movie fans: because it reveals to them how easily they're manipulated into devouring anything - or accepting anybody as a "talent" - that the powerful movie-industry hype-machine forces into their defenseless brains. Nobody wants to be informed that they are uncritical and lacking criteria. Nobody likes to find out that they aren't capable of differentiating between a great actor and a mediocre one. (But it's precisely this widespread - and growing - inability among most movie-goers that enables nepotism to flourish more than ever before.)
The list that proves that practically anyone can be turned into a star, or at least a moderately employed actor. If you can talk, walk and learn lines, you're in. But you do need connections, because the Pearly Gates of Hollywood are holding off hordes of incoming potential actors, writers and directors whose unexplored talents will remain forever hidden thanks to favouritism. Thanks to nepotism (and other forms of Hollywood corruption that I won't get into here but which you can easily guess) these gates are firmly shut most of the time. At least for the "plebs".
The movie industry - everywhere, not just in the States - is a very incestuous, sect-like world in which family connections, political affiliation - and even ethnicity - are major factors when it comes to the forging of careers. Talent is far behind in 10th place: nobody seems to be interested in it anymore, certainly not studio bosses and producers. And that is a big part of the reason why at least 90% of all movies are pretty much useless.
Which brings me to why (American) movies have been going down the toilet in recent years. The amount of garbage being put out by major studios has been on a steady rise for some years now. There are several reasons for this, but perhaps the most negative impact stems from the exponentially growing nepotism. It is difficult to find a recent movie in which more than a half of the cast members didn't have influential parents/relatives/friends in the industry before they got their foot in the movie door. (Ditto the film crews).
The list focuses almost solely on actors and directors - hence it doesn't even take into consideration the vast number of bad scripts that have been a result of nepotistic infiltration! Nor does it include the plethora of nepotistic offspring that had appeared only in several smaller roles in fairly meaningless productions. You can click on the bio of just about any better-known actor older than 45 and you'll find that at least half of them have kids who are either actors, producers, or working in film crews as set designers or whatever. So movie "art" is now an arena limited to a predetermined genetic karma, to a select few with the "right breeding", huh? Nice. How monarchistic. How anti-socialist.
Tinseltown's elitist jet-set would have us believe that acting "talent" is passed on genetically, but if you believe there is such a thing as an acting gene (or a "charisma DNA") I would like to see some scientific proof of it first. Besides, many nepotists on this list come from non-movie, or at least non-acting, backgrounds. Furthermore, MANY of the kids who got a shot at fame in the past few decades - that aren't related to actors or producers - are children of upper-class, millionaire clans, wealthy industrialists for example, a fact that offers more proof how anti-equal-opportunity the film industry is.
They would also have us believe that nearly all of the world's acting talent has already been collected from all corners of America, that the world's "acting talent pool" has dried up, been totally depleted, so why even bother looking for potential new De Niros and Pacinos amongst the "masses"? Hence the debilitating current trend whereby the vast majority of the younger stars today have parents in powerful positions in the business - or commerce, or politics. I wouldn't mind, IF these kids were any good. But they usually aren't. Armies of Pauly Shores and Casey Afflecks and Amy Schumers dominate Hollywood, while much more talented kids are sitting around stupidly, naively waiting for their agents to cast them in good auditions. So anti-socialist.
It would seem that auditions serve very little purpose in Hollywood (and elsewhere), except to weed out the worst from the bad. A typical high-profile Hollywood audition must be like a who's-who of famous actors' children, all fighting for a shot at fame and additional cash. It makes one wonder just how many truly bad nepotists never make it! Even a severely talent-free case like David Arquette must have beaten out several dozen failed nepotists, i.e. they might be even worse ones than him. Scary (but fascinating) thought.
The list also exposes the startling hypocrisy of the movie business which is predominantly left-wing (now more than ever before), i.e. supposedly orientated toward the rights of the poor and "oppressed" - and yet there's this little anti-equality thing called elitist nepotism that proves that this is just an act: in reality, no poor or unconnected person with talent can make it in Hollywood unless they have wild luck. Hollywood predominantly employs its own spoiled rich kids, plus a whole array of sons and daughters of powerful politicians, famous pop stars, and high-profile athletes. It rarely hires middle-class or especially blue-collar talent. Again, I wouldn't mind this at all, IF only this corrupt selection-process worked - but it clearly doesn't.
So what is the real message Hollywood is giving blue-collar kids with dreams of movie careers? "You go on working in your factories and washing dishes and flipping burgers like your parents, we don't really need you here." That is the real message here, and one that is in total contrast/opposition to Hollywood's left-wing equal-opportunity baloney - the politically-correct and completely dishonest message Hollywood is selling to the brainwashed masses.
So, yes, as insane and as despicable as it may sound, Hollywood is about silver-spoon-fed, righteous, holier-than-thou millionaires creating and starring in movies that preach about the rights of the oppressed, the poor, promoting socialism, minorities and the working class. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it. This fact alone should tell you what kind of people run the film industry.
(It's interesting how this list had close to 500 views per week in its first year - then suddenly the numbers went down to two digits. I wonder how that happened.)
The list will be continually upgraded, there are LITERALLY HUNDREDS MORE people that haven't yet been added. Listed in the order from worst to slightly less bad.
And no, I am not a disgruntled actor or director. I have never had any aspirations whatsoever to be in show-biz, since I am neither an exhibitionist attention-seeker nor obsessed with money. All I want is to watch good movies, but that is only possible when a good script is complemented with a good cast, and directed by someone chosen on the merit of his talents, not as a favour for a friend.
Nepotism is a branch of corruption. It is amoral, and it leads to a lowering of artistic standards. Whoever can't grasp this simple concept should skip this list altogether.
And if you do decide to skip it, or if you don't, check out my new YouTube channel, it's mostly music-related and very silly:
The order is VERY DELIBERATE, which means that the difference between the top 10 and the last 10 is substantial, i.e. the list starts off with 10-star movies and ends with 7-star comedies. I didn't rank them merely in terms of which made me laugh the most, but also how entertaining, interesting, unique or even visually excellent they are. But yeah, the laughs are the deciding factor, just not the only one.
Listed in alphabetical order.
COMMENTS: The comments section changes introduced several years ago have basically ruined what used to be a fun interaction between list-maker and reader, hence I will be disabling comments on nearly all of my lists. (I said nearly: you're free to spend an hour perusing my other lists to find one that does allow comments.) So if you want to let me know what you think, PM me.
Oh no, wait. They've disabled PMs. So I guess there is no way you can share your views of my lists and reviews with me. That's called "progress".
U Srbiji je razlika izmedju levice i desnice cesto nepostojeca ili barem nejasna, jer u srpskoj politici oduvek vlada cist oportunizam a ne ideologija. Kradomanija kao cilj, a lazna ideologija kao paravan za kriminalne delatnosti - uglavnom bazirana na nacionalizmu. Jer u Srbiji su velika vecina "politickih stranaka" zapravo mafijaska udruzenja koja funkcionisu vise kao sekte nego kao politicke organizacije. Zato neke od ovde pomenutih stranaka mogu da se vide i kao jedno i kao drugo, i levica i desnica. Ili ni jedno ni drugo, jer mafija nema politicku obojenost. Uostalom, SPS je tokom 90ih bila kvazi-socijalisticka stranka koja je prevashodno koristila nacionalizam da debilizuje masu, sto znaci da su bili bukvalno nacional-socijalisti odnosno Nacisti.
Za razliku od zombificiranih i veoma licemernih holivudskih glumaca od kojih velika vecina podrzava onu najgoru politicku opciju u svojoj zemlji (citaj: komuniste kamuflirane u naizgled nevino ruho "Demokrata" tj "liberala"), velika vecina domacih glumaca podrzavaju umerene stranke odnosno generalno "normalne"/normalnije politicke opcije. Ova lista prikazuje one kojima su demokratija i interesi drzavljana Srbije daleko manje bitni od licnih interesa ili cak totalno nebitni, kao i one koji mozda nisu imali lose namere ali su zastranili zbog naivnosti ili manjka inteligencije. (Mada, ova druga varijanta slabo pije vodu, ipak je ova prva najverovatnije dominantan faktor.) Ovo su znaci izuzetci, zato je lista i tako kratka.
Neki od njih su se priklanjali takvim strankama iz ubedjenja, neki iz cistog interesa. Prosudite sami ko je sta.
I have decided not to include any politicians because everyone already knows that they always speak the truth.
This list will be gradually expanded, because there are so many truth-tellers out there. If you can offer me any suggestions, please do.
COMMENTS: The comments section changes introduced several years ago have basically ruined what used to be a fun interaction between list-maker and reader, hence I will be disabling comments on nearly all of my lists. (I said nearly: you're free to spend an hour perusing my other lists to find one that does allow comments.) So if you want to let me know what you think, PM me.
Oh no, wait. They've disabled PMs. So I guess there is no way you can share your views of my lists and reviews with me. That's called "progress".
Zar je moguce da nijedna ovakva lista ne postoji na internetu na ovu temu? Zar sve ja moram uvek da radim? A opet, sta se cudim; kod nas je korupcija postala toliko normalna pojava da retko ko nepotizam uopste dozivljava kao losu stvar. A od mene dobijate, po obicaju, novinarstvo i izvestavanje na najvisem nivou. (Nisam "pravi" novinar, ali sam i kao takav daleko bolji novinar od danasnjih "novinara" koji lupetaraju i lazu po raznim publikacijama i sajtovima. Doduse, ovo i nije neki podvig s moje strane jer biti bolji od dunstera nije razlog za samo-hvalospev.)
Osim uvoda koji sledi, jos jedan opsirni uvod za ovu listu mozete naci na internacionalnoj verziji ove liste - Holivudski Nepotisti:
Na engleskom je, ali na tom linku imate jos jedno detaljno objasnjenje mojih razloga i stavova vezanih za ovu temu. Mada i na ovoj listi u pojedinacnim komentarima mozete da nadjete srz svih mojih argumenata.
U Srbiji je javna tajna da se skoro sva zaposljavanja obavljaju ne preko konkursa za posao (konkursi? zaista smesno) vec preko veze iza zatvorenih vrata. Prema tome, sasvim je logicno da se ovako zaposljava i u domenu "sedme umetnosti", i to u mnogo vecoj meri nego sto je to slucaj na primer u Velikoj Britaniji ili Holivnjudu. Mi smo zaista svetski rekorderi u filmskom nepotizmu (odmah iza Bolivuda, oni su jos gori), jer iako ova lista pokriva samo deo svih domacih "vezista" samo je za dve trecine manja od moje internacionalne verzije.
Odlucio sam da se fokusiram iskljucivo na glumce, rezisere i scenariste, odnosno samo na kreativne aspekte filma. Jer koga zanima ako neko ubaci clana porodica da obavlja fizicke poslove i slicno na snimanju; nebitno. Ova srpska lista "vezista" je tek u zacetku, za razliku od mnogo detaljnije i starije holivudske liste, znaci ima sigurno jos puno vise njih koje treba da ovde dodam. Ovo su samo nepotisti za koje znam, odnosno glumci/reziseri/scenaristi za koje postoje informacije na internetu kako su se domogli do svojih (ne)zasluzenih karijera. Ko zna koliko ih jos ima za koje nema nikakvih podataka, a posto ja nemam nikakve licne kontakte ni sa kim iz srpskog filma/pozorista, imam samo internet i ostale medije kao (mrsavi) izvor informacija.
VAZNO: Imajte takodje na umu da ova lista ne uzima u obzir silne karijere koje su zapocete na sledece slicno dubiozne nacine:
- suprug daje supruzi karijeru i obrnuto
- mlada zena ili muskarac spava sa producentom/reziserom/glumcem ili nastavnikom/nastavnicom glume i na taj nacin dolazi do tako kljucne prve uloge
- reditelj/producent nudi prvu ulogu svojoj ljubavnici starleti
- politicki odnosno partijski kontakti (medjutim, ubacio sam neke primere kada partijci i uticajni rezimci ubace svoju decu u svet filma)
- NOB-ovske karijere, od kojih ima citava plejada
- glumac daje karijeru prijatelju iz detinjstva
Jer da sve ovo sracunamo zajedno, lista bi bila pet puta duza, u najmanju ruku. Znaci, ja ovde pokrivam samo onaj klasicni nepotizam - pa sam opet nasao tonu primera. I, naravno, fali na listi jos gomila nepotista za koje nema informacija u medijima vezano za uticajnu rodbinu. (Oni su se "nekaznjeno" izvukli te njihova sramota ostaje tajna - ukoliko spadaju u onu netalentovanu ili malotalentovanu vecinu.) A sve ove tacke nedvosmisleno ukazuju na to da sami "umetnici" tu svoju "sedmu umetnost" cesto ne tretiraju uopste kao umetnost vec samo kao nacin da se obogate odnosno nekako ovajde. Ovakvo ponasanje objasnjava u velikoj meri zasto ima toliko losih filmova, serija, scenarista, rezisera - a pogotovo osrednjih i cak losih glumaca. Jer od G se pita ne pravi.
Nije nikakva tajna da se na FDU danas prakticno ne mozes upisati bez debele veze. To znaju cak i mnogi ljudi koji se ne zanimaju preterano za filmove i pozoriste, a i vrapci. I ranije je bilo jako tesko bez veze, a sada skoro nemoguce. Razlozi za to su prvenstveno mnogo veci broj vec postojecih glumackih klanova nego pre 50 godina - sto znaci velika navala klinaca koji ne mogu da padnu prijemne - i to sto korupcija uopsteno gledano stalno raste u Srbiji. (Raste kao rezultat opsteg pada morala, kako u Srbiji tako i u svetu, ali to je vec neka druga tema.) A od ovih koji se upisu i zavrse taj faks, veoma malo njih izgradi iole ozbiljnu karijeru jer interes za pozoriste i film padaju, kako od vlasti tako i od raje, a time i finansiranje projekata postaje jos veci problem. Znaci, za upis su potrebne veze, a onda je opet veza neophodna i za karijeru nakon zavrsene skole. Na zalost, to u prevodu znaci da se ne vrsi odabir NAJBOLJIH i najsposobnijih u Srbiji, vec onih sa najdebljim vezama, odnosno prednost se daje politickim, klanovskim i rodbinskim elitama. Jasno je da takav truli sistem ne moze da vodi do mnogo kvalitetnih kadrova, a time ni do dobrih filmova.
Nepotizam najjace zaudara u svetu glume, i to mislim prevashodno u modernoj eri srpskog filma: nikada srpski glumci nisu bili gori (u proseku) nego kao u zadnjih 15-ak godina. Scenariji (koji su bili dosta losi u doba YU) su se drasticno popravili, rezija je takodje donekle poboljsana (zbog moderne tehnologije koja je bolja i jeftinija), ali je zato nivo glume dosta propao (cast izuzetcima), i to u velikoj meri zbog neharizmaticnih nepotista koji nemaju "star quality", a time urnisu mnoge filmove sa potencijalom.
Glavni razlog zasto ovaj nedavni pad u kvalitetu glume ne smeta preterano narodu je jednostavan: ljudi ga ni ne primecuju. Toliko su standardi i kriterijumi opali u zadnjih nekoliko decenija (samo pogledajte popularnost "Kursadzija" i slicnog djubreta), sto se skoro svih oblasti umetnosti tice, da retko ko uopste ima mozdani kapacitet da konstatuje kada posmatra losu glumu, bilo da je to u pozoristu, na filmu ili u nekoj seriji. Uostalom, ako se narodu moze s lakocom prodavati turbo-folk u toliko sablasnim kolicinama, zasto im se ne bi proturali pod nos i losi nepotisticki glumci? Sve je to jos i te kako povezano. Dumbing-down. Idiokratija. Nova era je pred nama, i sve ce biti samo ne blistava.
REAKCIJE NEPOTISTA: Ne ocekujem ni trunku razumevanja od ljudi sa ove liste, ako slucajno neko od njih naidje na nju i vidi sebe. Oni su "profiteri" koruptnog sistema koji vlada ne samo u srpskoj glumi vec svugde na svetu (ali ovde mnogo vise), tako da od njih ne ocekujem da mogu objektivno da sagledaju sebe, citavu tematiku i kakav je njihov udeo u svemu. Naravno, ovo ne vazi za onaj manji broj ljudi na listi koji valjaju; oni se valjda nece ljutiti. Ali meni uopste nije svrha liste da ikoga naljutim, vec samo da ukazem na jedan aspekt srpske korupcije i kako ona utice na (ne)kulturu.
REDOSLED: Lista pocinje od najgorih nepotista. Doduse, ovi koji su bez mojih komentara su manje-vise nasumicno rasejani po listi dok ih ne budem negde gledao odnosno procenio koliko su dobri ili (sto je mnogo verovatnije) losi. Znaci, oni najslabiji su na pocetku, a oni retki dobri ili cak odlicni su na kraju liste: na drugoj strani. (Da, neki od vas zaborave da kliknete na nastavak liste, posle 100. mesta.)
KRATKA FUS-NOTA O YU ROKU: Oduvek mi je takozvana "zlatna era" balkanskog roka (70te i 80te) bila smesna, iako sam odrastao u Srbiji, i to kao adolescent bas u tim "bajnim" 80im. (Sarkazam je rezervisan samo za YU-rok, ne za 80te u globalu.) Ja tu gotovo nista od visokog kvaliteta ne cujem. Plitke decije pesmice sa uglavnom mediokritetnim vokalima i osrednjom produkcijom. Nekad sam mislio da je to zato sto su ovi narodi jednostavno muzicki netalentovani, ali u skorije vreme sam otkrio da su se gotovo svi iz te scene probili preko politicke veze. Naime, velik broj nasih rok "velikana" (well... malisana) su bili deca vojnih lica, visokih KPJ funkcionera, urednika novina i slicno. Drugim recima, privilegovana CRVENA BURZOAZIJA. U to "drevno doba" nabavka instrumenata nije bila nimalo laka, a nastupi su mogli ici samo preko omladinskih organizacija kojim je upravljao rezim. Sve je bilo kontrolisano. Obicna - talentovana - deca nisu imala skoro nikakve resorse, nikakve izglede da izgrade karijere u rok muzici, to su bili retki izuzetci. S obzirom koliko je bila sitna ta crvena elitna klasa, pravo je cudo da YU rok nije jos gori bio!
Ali eto, ukoliko se sa mnom slazete da je YU rok izvikan i slab, dao sam vam sada objasnjenje zasto su te grupe bile toliko prosecne i dosadne. Ukoliko (ni)ste toliko primitivni da slusate samo domacu muziku, idite na ovaj link da cujete pravu muziku svetskog ranga. Moje nametanje svog ukusa u muzici na druge, to cete naci na YouTube-u:
Moje recenzije domacih filmova (na srpskom):
Moje recenzije stranih i domacih filmova (na engleskom):
Hellraiser: Judgment (2018)
Even a Bollywood version would be better.
The Hellraiser franchise is in the hands of demons, and not in a good way. That much is certain. After parts 9 and 10, suddenly parts 6-8 don't seem so bad, huh? Fans were moaning about those, but now they probably go back to them for comfort - after watching these last two amateur turkeys.
Entry no 10 has three basic, glaring problems.
1. The visual quality is poor.
It looks like it had been filmed by students (accounting sophomores, not film students) on a mobile phone camera. You can't even film comedy on your mobile phones - at least if you want good results - let alone a demon-based horror film. This kind of premise needs as much glitz as it can get. Not Hollywood glitz, of course, because Hollywood is dead and buried (has been for over 15 years now), but perhaps a European kind of glitz, French glitz for example. Russian glitz? Anything but Hollywood and Bollywood glitz will do.
(No, I take that back. I might be interested in a Bollywood musical version of Hellraiser.)
A demonic world needs to look extraordinary in order to be believable. Filming this drivel with such inferior equipment makes it look ordinary, like a cheesy YouTube video.
2. The killer is the cop.
Not only is this "mega-twist" THE biggest cliché of modern thriller/horror cinema, it is also incredibly stupid (it practically never worked except to elicit laughs, at least from me).
Simply from a logical standpoint it makes zero sense. Who assigned him to the case? Did he assign himself to a case to hunt for himself? Does a detective just go up to his boss and say "hey look, I volunteer for this new case that every detective in the world would love to get"? I mean, these serial-killings by their very nature would have to be the absolute top priority in the city at that point - and would make regular national/world headlines - and yet OF ALL the detectives to be picked, they pick the killer to hunt for himself! Of all the detectives to work on the case, they end up with the killer. Sorry, but this is comedy gold, which translates into thriller trash.
As a result, in hindsight very few scenes make sense. For example, the fact that aside from the three detectives we never see any other cops of any kind. (A low budget prevented fatter casting?) I was baffled by how the killer managed to find/shoot that photo of the cheating couple together in bed. But hey, thriller fans rarely switch on, so why even try? Hence why they don't ever try.
Let alone the fact that the fashion-model female detective goes ALONE into the killer's lair despite knowing that her colleague is the killer. So she's a suicidal shnook? And how the hell did she manage to survive the series of hits with a pistol? She quite literally gets pistol-whipped by the killer, repeatedly, yet a little later she stands up and shoots him. Apparently, these Hellraiser super-models are made of sterner stuff, sort of like that ultra-realistic Lara Croft series or that amazingly fact-based girl-power flick with Scarlet Johansson.
Not to mention that the "corrupt cop" premise had ALREADY been covered not once but TWICE within the Hellraiser franchise, in parts 5 and 6. (Yes, they actually did that shtick in a row, that's how smart Hellraiser's producers are).
3. There is an aura of clumsiness permeating the movie.
Already the first scene, the dialogue between Pinhead and the short demon, looks unconvincing. (It sounds unconvincing too, but that's another issue.) The way that scene was "framed" is amateur hour. The early gore scenes in the demon-house are half-clumsy half-effective. It's as though an amateur director got lucky, so a few scenes worked - simply by chance, because, logically, they had no right to work. For example, the kneeling nude female demons: they look like something out of a very cheesy uncensored Motley Crew video, utterly corny hence unscary.
The casting is shoddy. The female detective looks like such a delicate flower, I couldn't see her hunting for mice, let alone serial-killers. Perhaps she could play in a sorority comedy. Plus she's too young. The biggest serial-killer mystery on the hands of the NYPD, yet they assign a 25 year-old fashion-model? So experience counts for nothing in detective work? Apparently, detective schools are so bloody good that fresh graduates already know everything there is to know (by studying bad Hollywood thrillers?), and are ready to solve the toughest cases simply on the basis of girl-power, youth, and great looks.
The awful casting doesn't end there. The blonde demon/angel woman looks and sounds positively hilarious in her role. Not only does she not look the part, but she is given inane Z-movie dialogue and is dressed as ridiculously as possible. She looks like she's ready to film the sequel to "Dynasty" or "Dallas", not like a major player in the netherworld.
Which brings me to the "exhilarating" finale. It's horrendous. Not only do we have to sit through yet another "oh no, the cop's the killer... again???" moment, but we are witnesses to some of the klutziest dialog between demons and humans in the history of cinema.
And then, just so the producers could cement the fact that we know it was a comedy all along, we get Pinhead reduced to his human self - looking like none other than Michael Myers! And I mean the comedian, not the masked movie slasher. Why would Pinhead dare kill one of the "angels" (or whatever that woman was supposed to be)? How could he possibly even consider hurting one of his "superiors"?
It does play out like a comedy, doesn't it.
It's fair to say that Hellraisers 11-15 will all be filmed with mobile phones, will feature cops as killers, and will be scripted by lobotomized humans. The question of whether these films will be bad is moot; the only thing that remains unknown is the levels of incompetence they will serve us with in the next 5 entries.
You can fit the brain of the writer on the tip of a needle.
Damn stupid Aussie slasher that predictably tries to throw blame on the protagonist's brother, and this is done shamelessly, using the usual absurd plot-devices that make no sense in hindsight. For example, he is made to smirk like a sociopath and appears precisely where and when a killer would. The film-goers are desperate to make us think it's him, so much so that they achieve the opposite. He just happens to visit after two years, just before the murders. He just happens to shoot murder victims for a living. Far too many coincidences for the movie to get away with. Too manipulative in the dumb sense.
Why do you think the killer wore gloves? Does one operate a machine with frigging gloves? Obviously, because she's a woman. She did that to fool the viewer into thinking the killer's a man: a classic example of a CHARACTER willfully helping the writer achieve his goal - which is of course dumb/absurd beyond words. Anyone could see that coming a mile ahead.
The motive is absurd and so were the lengths she took: the old man's daughter actually PRETENDED to be a lesbian as part of her mega-conspiracy! And what roundabout and NEEDLEssly complicated revenge that is: she proceeds to kill just about anyone connected with the main protagonist - rather than just get on with it, bump 'em off one by one in one sitting. Stupidly - and very predictably - she doesn't get to kill either of the brothers or the girlfriend, the people she really wanted to kill the most. OK, so the killer is a dumb blonde! A dumb blonde for a dumb movie: I can't really complain, in a sense.
I won't even go into how dumb those scenes look in which a hot young blonde starts acting all tough and serial-killery in that extraordinarily unconvincing finale - which plays out predictably and of course stupidly.
A very repetitive plot in a sense: friend gets killed, brother takes pics, brothers discuss case and the whole thing gets repeated. A typical dumb slasher. We watch the protagonists piece the puzzle together, which half the time is a complete waste of screen time: it's a mystery that makes the detective work obsolete and uninteresting because the viewers are a few steps ahead. The viewer simply gets to hear a bunch of things he already knows.
What a dumb script.
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2010)
Not nearly as terrifying as Katie's marriage to Cruise.
A fairly sadistic and brutal opening scene, especially for what is basically a commercial horror flick with a little brat in the lead role. However, it gets comparatively tame after that.
The premise of vicious little monsters who talk like Gollum is cute and fun, but the plot is quite undisciplined, the writer simply ignoring loose ends in order to move the story forward. For example, after the fat Aussie is attacked, neither the cops nor the Pearce are even a tiny bit curious about how you can "accidentally" get stabbed in several places with sharp objects just by working in a house. Nor do we find out whether Pearce and Holmes are shown the Polaroids that the brat made during the party in the library.
The ending makes little sense: Katie Holmes's voice van be heard whispering to the little Gollums. So did she become one of them? Why and how?
The Traveling Executioner (1970)
The mystery of the elusive 70s movie.
There must be a logical explanation why this movie is completely overlooked, and why it's been one of the hardest-to-find American films for decades. Although, the latter may well be directly related, at least somewhat, to why this is a complete unknown to most people, even film buffs. I've had it sitting on my waiting list since the 90s; no other movie has eluded me for that long, especially not in the era of free downloads. There were times I was questioning the very existence of this film - that's how impossible it was to find.
Maybe it was a box-office flop, as so many good and great movies are/were, but then again many financial duds get TV re-runs, over and over and over, have their own special DVD/BluRay releases even, so that alone certainly wouldn't explain much. Is it too wild and experimental? Not at all. (In fact, that would only make the movie more appealing for the lunatic fringe, which is always growing, especially among snowflake millennials filled with helpless sadistic rage and aggression.) Is it some odd hence rare example of Hollywood making a politically incorrect movie that doesn't suit movie fans accustomed to political propaganda? No. Is the movie some kind of stereotypical boring commercial fluff with little appeal value to any demographic? Far from it.
The theme may be quite original and there is no movie quite like it, but this is basically a slightly off-the-wall comedy that almost anyone should be able to enjoy. (Or perhaps I'd been watching Monty Python for so long that my sense of the "normal" in terms of comedy is a little skewered.) Having never read the synopsis beforehand - combined with the cult status it "enjoys" as an unfindable movie - lead me to half-expect some bizarre "New Hollywood" LSD trip with gore, which would have explained a lot, but that's not what this is about at all. It is in many ways a typical movie of its period (the best period in cinema): original, wonderfully shot, and unique.
If there is one flaw, it would be the predictability of Keach getting some poetic (in)justice by landing on his own chair. I saw that coming well in advance. Nevertheless, in the film's defense, there are one or two plot-twists right after that, which cement the quality and fun factor of TTE.
The Ward (2010)
With Carpenter it's usually very hit-and-miss. But this may be his worst film yet.
Horror fans are familiar with Carpenter's split personality: the great film-maker and the lousy/lazy film-maker. So who better to do a movie about schizophrenia? The snag is that the lousy Carpenter was in charge when this was made. Perhaps electro-shocks might have helped? Great film-makers can use huge plot-twists without lying to the viewer, whereas lousy film-makers can't.
Meryl Streep's daughter is pretty much the least appealing, worst actress I've seen in ages. When Carpenter screws up, he screws up real proper, and casting his movies with nepotists and bland wallpaper is an integral part of the inept Carpenter.
The film looks plastic and uninspired, with a dumb plot-twist reminiscent of "Identity". All the insane-asylum cliches are covered too. Carpenter doesn't even have the decency to show us any of the women's breasts in the shower scene, that's how far gone he is in his laziness and cluelessness. (I don't include Meryl's demonic offspring, she can stay covered as far as I'm concerned.)
The 4th Floor (1999)
A good premise ruined by a corny finale and zero logic.
A classic example of how to ruin a good set-up with a crappy finale worthy of a Bugs Bunny cartoon (provided those cartoons sucked caj*nes and were made by cretins). The first hour sets up an interesting mystery that touches vaguely on the haunted house genre, but when the villain reveals itself the movie falls apart like a badly stacked up deck of cards hit by a cyclone.
The villain is none other than the old geezer from the building. Now a quick rundown of the shoddiness of the goofy finale: the old geezer is basically indestructible and insane (though not near insane enough to pull of a string of tricks and manipulations that would normally require a sound mind and a dozen people). Juliette Lewis who shows spunk and courage throughout the movie behaves like a little schoolgirl lost when faced with this non-formidable foe who is shorter than Tom Cruise and has the build of a 14 year-old kid. She gets knocked out by him - yet again (does he walk barefoot? float through air?) - and then it's time for Thrilleric Clicherama 101: she knocks him out with a rod, but instead of finishing him off she, very typically for thriller/horror victims, throws AWAY her weapon, turns her backhriller/horror victims, throws AWAY her weapon, turns her back to the predictably not-badly-injured villain and very predictably he gets up to resume chasing her and endangers her yet again. Wow. Why must victims in thrillers always be so damn stupid in crucial situations?
WHY do people who fight for their lives - in dumb thrillers and horrors (obviously, not in real life, when everyone goes to much greater lengths to crush/bash/annihilate/destroy/pulverize/neutralize/bash the attacker) - never CONTINUE bashing the villain, just to make sure they're incapacitated, severely injured or thoroughly killed? Is this some unwritten-rule pacifist movie thing invented by left-wing writers whereby the hero can never be shown to be human i.e. justifiably vicious toward their attacker?
Dumber still, the janitor (played conveniently by the "Saw" guy before "Saw" was written and released by random dweeby knuckleheads), can't manage to overpower this tiny little old man, in a scene so stupid it can compete with any horsepoop from "Saw" or the even more amazingly dumb "Copycat" - perhaps even an Argento thriller. And then William Hurt just happens to arrive, and even he struggles to get the old man to put down the weapon.
The killer's motives for murdering so many building residents without anyone noticing they're missing or dead? Some gobbledygook about Ancient Egypt, the serenity of peace and what-not: it's not as if any of that stuff made enough sense for me to pay much attention to the killer's obligatory and very silly why-I-dood-it speech. We never find out WHY the stench of several corpses - plus the maggots - only manage to reach and bother Lewis. Nor do we quite understand how come NOBODY wants to believe Lewis despite the fact she has bundles of evidence. The nonsense reaches Hitchockian levels, because the overrated chubster also tended to use ridiculous plot-devices that ensured that nobody ever believed the protagonist.
Furthermore, they couldn't resist make the conspiracy even sillier. The epilogue heavily hints that William Hurt was in cahoots with the old geezer, which throws the already inane and far-fetched plot squarely into totally absurd territory. Once Lewis's boyfriend is somehow involved, one can safely say that literally nothing ties up logically.
It gets dumber. The "Saw" guy acts extremely suspiciously. In fact, what Lewis saw through the window in his apartment should have pegged him as a serial-killer, at the very least, and yet he turns out to be a helper in need. In fact, everyone is made to behave suspiciously or oddly, including Shelley Duvall and even Lewis's female colleague. Needless to say, the viewer is lied to and manipulated in the worst shoddy-plot-device way, and then "rewarded" for his time spent watching this dross by giving us the most laughable killer in years.
You anyway won't be able to find this movie easily, because it's made-for-TV drivel.
The Den (2013)
An impossibly stupid serial-killa-thrilla without an ounce of credibility or logic.
Everything about this movie is dumb. As in D-U-M-B.
Let me re-spell that. DUMB - just in case you didn't catch it the first time. STOOPID works too.
Right off the bat the movie lets us know it wants to be dumb. They couldn't think of anything better, more rational or logical than have the main character get a whole bunch of money from some moronic fictional company to do something NOBODY would hire anyone to do, especially not a useless L.A. bimbo: chat with a bunch of people online. That would be like spending money for a study to find out why people go to McDonald's and what they do there: they bloody eat. "Could you pay me tons to watch baseball games and the NBA?" That sort of thing. "Hey, I found this company that's willing to pay me make a study of what alcohol does to people!" Yes, companies can hardly wait to throw away money on useless things! But that's the least of this turkey's problems.
I hoped this was a supernatural, nifty thriller a-la "Unfriended" from which it borrows the basic set-up. But it turns out to be just another anti-intelligent modern serial-killa-thrilla with omnipotent sadists who seem to have more super-powers and abilities than all of Marvel's stupidly clad clowns combined. If only the producers of this dross had hired that writer of said film to help out with this lame script which was obviously written by zombies who treat their viewers like, well, zombies. You didn't feel like a zombie watching this? Well, I did.
The cretinized conspiracy offered here in the usual cretinous manner is a very absurd, undoable, extremely far-fetched and intelligence-insulting joke, almost like a prank being played on the viewer. In "Hostel" the conspiracy had a realistic logic to it: there are sadistic people out there and they'd pay lots of money to be able to torture people at their own time, free of any legal hassles, and without having to hunt down their own victims: the murders are perpetrated in a far-off place - and certainly not against cops and even detectives like here! (I was half-expecting a celebrity or a country's president to be kidnapped and shot for fun.) In "Hostel" things are done hush-hush, discreetly, unlike in this silly turkey, which is why that movie is chilling, because it is grounded in reality, because it seems like it CAN happen.
This bomb however is grounded in a crapcake garden (where t**ds grow out of the grass along with the poop-stained script) which is why none of it is effective. One of the things that make this movie DUMB beyond words is that this kind of conspiracy would require dozens of people involved, in which case it couldn't remain secret for longer than 10 seconds: yes, the FBI would find out about it pretty quickly. And no, they wouldn't all end up in the "den" as prisoners because in the real world (that world that has nothing to do with this malarkey) these sadistic losers wouldn't stand a chance of running such a site longer than 5 minutes. Because no vast conspiracy can remain secret for very long: that's just human nature. The more people are involved in something large yet clandestine, let alone extremely illegal, the more chances rise exponentially that someone either screws up or starts talking. This goes especially for a conspiracy that involves mentally unstable sociopaths - rather than scientists and bureaucrats or what have you.
I mean, come on, people, ISIS only wish they had this kind of organizational skills! ISIS are nowhere nearly as organized and master-mind-brilliant as this absurd outfit and yet they have the western world by the caj-ones. So what kind of cosmic power do these knuckleheads have that they can organize a venture of this magnitude - simply to run an internet site! That's their motive for all this? You gotta be kidding me. And people actually get into this...
That's their motive? To run a sadistic site - which you ANYWAY can fake these days with CGI and clever editing, especially given the kind of enormous budget this ridiculous organization seems to work with. (Again, ISIS is jealous.) Why risk killing all these people for a quick buck (the revenue stemming from presumably 1000s of site users - at least one of which will report the site to the cops) when all of those can be easily faked - as this movie, for example, shows (badly though), and as all the other thrillers show. Some people are so gullible they will believe "Star Wars" is real, let alone a fake snuff film.
In other words, the people who run this organization are so THICK that they would jeopardize everything by actually attacking and killing cops and detectives? Even after they kill or abduct one person from someone's circle of friends - which means the cops start an investigation - rather than WITHDRAW and decide to harass someone else they actually go out and kill the cops too! (And they kill them so easily. As if cops and detectives go alone when entering premises where extreme danger might be lurking. This writer has seen way too many Dirty Harry flicks.) This is so asinine that even the tiniest thriller-fan amoeba should feel its intelligence is being insulted. The conspiracy goes so deep that one of the killers just waltzes inside the pregnant woman's house and harasses her a short while after her house is swarmed by the police. (The usual nonsense: a conspiracy that MUST go all the way to the White House, probably. Is Obama in on this too?)
Speaking of which, WHY did they not kill that woman and the unborn child? Are they implying that this organization has MORALS, boundaries they won't cross? Because certainly the reason couldn't have been the approaching police sirens, because a slice of the knife lasts just a second. The movie contradicts itself in the dumbest way possible.
The main character said she hates cats (an unforgivable sin) so I was hoping half-way through the film that cat-lovers were the ones torturing her. Even THAT would make a lot more sense and would certainly be at least original rather than this "Hostel" rip-off premise which sponges off all the dumb all-powerful thrilla-killa cliches that'd been used tons of times, especially in recent years during which the thriller genre had sunken to new lows. The movie does manage to top its own conspiracy nonsense by allowing the puny, skinny, tiny 50-kilo female protagonist to kill two of these clowns and to badly hurt at least two more. That in itself is a contradiction, because if they're as powerful and cunning as they'd been shown previously - even killing cops and detectives with total ease - how the hell do they get impaled, stabbed and killed by one of their harmless victims?
I hope films can't get any dumber than this. But every time I said that before, someone came up with an even more moronic killa-thrilla. Despite this seeming like an impossible mission, I do not doubt that there are even dumber new thrillers out there. The future looks bright for fans of garbage.
Elephant v ants. A pointless battle with a predictable outcome.
A seemingly interesting premise (though not nearly as original as horror newbies who've only seen 5 "scary" movies think it is), original only inasmuch as it hasn't been used often (the way vampires and zombies have). The film is executed well from a technical point, and with a competent cast, but unfortunately yet another pointless retelling of the ant vs. elephant story, the most pointless fable of them all.
We know the elephant is infinitely superior to the ant in every way conceivable, so why watch the duel? I never watch Djokovic or Nadal play a guy ranked outside the top 100, because the outcome is just too predictable. Remember that hilarious Python sketch in which John Cleese beats up a schoolgirl over and over in a box-ring? Similarly, once the mirror elephant showed that it can literally do ANYTHING it wants to, what chance did the two ant siblings have? Zero. And so they got royally screwed - as ants always do when picking a fight with an elephant.
The entire movie is about how the ant siblings don't stand a smidgen of a chance against their mighty adversary. But believing that the writer can't be THAT unimaginative, that daft, we the gullible, easily dupable viewers hope that the film gives the ants some kind of an innovative, unexpected lifeline, to turn the tables, to make the war interesting. No dice. For the duration, the ants lose round after round - just like Connie Booth in the boxing ring vs Cleese - while we even get "bonus scenes" to watch them lose round after round as kids too - and then the mirror comes out as the undisputed winner with flying colours, as it had been for centuries. Hence a question to the lousy writer: WHY tell this story if it's the same story that's been going on for centuries with that mirror? Why THIS mirror episode and not any of the previous ones?
If we the gullible viewers are to be handed a totally lop-sided fight - which is in itself idiotic because the outcome is a foregone conclusion hence boring - which involves a superior warrior battling a tiny defenseless infant, at least give the infant a fighting chance: make up something, anything, invent a way for the infant to fight back (give him toxic drool or something). Otherwise what you're serving to the viewer serves no purpose whatsoever: telling viewers that total superiority must always beat total inferiority is like informing them - in an "astounding" plot-twist - that the sky is blue. But, once again, feeble-brained film-makers have such a raging st*ffy for turning this stupid mirror into a franchise, that they wanted to make sure that the sequel door was left wide, very wide, open. What a dumb overkill though.
I shall make sure I skip "Oculus 2: The Return of the Predictable Superior Mirror", "Oculus 3: Mirror Kills More Helpless Inferior Humans", "Oculus 4: The Mirror Has A Ball Killing 100 More People Without Being Ever Even Slightly Challenged" and "Oculus 5: Mirror Destroys Entire Cities Without Even Trying".
Nor did I like the movie's increasingly schizophrenic dual-time story-telling style which gave us too much detail of what happened a decade earlier - despite the fact we could already predict the outcome. Very silly. And what's the mirror's back-story anyway? Who built it? When was it built? Nope, we don't even get a tiny clue. Despite the hype and the flash, this is a very primitive, idiotic movie.
Purgatory is a dark, slow and illogical place.
In Purgatory demons and angels fight each other over souls. Sort of like "Blade Runner" meets "The Prophecy". I just have a few questions:
1. The introductory captions state quite clearly that only one angel and one demon is allowed per cycle. And yet nearly all of the 14 demons and angels are present in Purgatory.
2. Only one demon and one angel allowed? Let's say that was the case: does that mean there are actual rules to this tug-of-war game between the Horned One and God? If there are, then there must be a referee to enforce them. This begs the question: who is it?
3. What are young kids doing in Purgatory? If humans don't hold children legally accountable for crimes why does God punish them for sins? What did they do: steal milk? Hit a friend on the head? Use "nya-nya-nyanya-nya" to taunt their friends in playgrounds?
4. If you find yourself in Purgatory, surely you'd be HEAVILY inclined and motivated to be good - coz you found evidence of afterlife hence why would evil reign in the city? Shouldn't EVERY lost purgatorian soul be vying to get into the shiny place rather than the fiery place?
5. Guns in Purgatory? Really? Now, how the hell did humans manage to smuggle guns into that place? Oh right... the Devil. He is the arms dealer probably.
6. How can civilians be killed in Purgatory? Aren't they already dead and awaiting some heavenly tribunal or something to decide whether they go up or down? Where do they go next, another Purgatory?
7. What a weird plot-twist: angel Michael had become the leader of Hell's minions. Not only that, but his identity wasn't known by God? Gabriel was sent to Purgatory WITHOUT knowing this crucial fact? So basically God doesn't even pay attention to what's going on in purgatory; I guess it's not a priority. Do Satan and God just send angels and demons and not check up whats going on there? At least occasionally?
8. One would expect a female angel to be beautiful, but instead the pungent casting director gave us a nepotist, the irony being that even the demon blonde looks a lot better.
Yes, on closer scrutiny nothing makes sense, but then again one is not supposed to let common sense get in the way of entertainment in those religious flicks. The plot moves quite slowly, this being a lengthy film, and the action scenes - whatever few there are - don't display much flash.
A Night in the Woods (2011)
Like so many found-footage crappolas that reveal a major spoiler in the first scenes, this one doesn't respect the viewer either because it tells us straight away that the three characters will all be killed. (As if the film has so much else going for it that it can actually afford to give away a major spoiler!) So why should I hide the spoilers?
"The **** is this?!" says Brody at one point. It's as if he speaks for 99% of the viewers: "the **** is this found footage nonsense?! The **** is this dumb movie that makes no sense? The hell am I doing watching three nincompoops stumble around in the dark?!"
American Brody plans a night out in the woods with his English girlfriend Kerry, played by the ravishing Anna Skellern, but we soon find out that she is in fact a slag. The third person joining them is not her cousin, as she claims, but her ex. Brody straight away shows jealousy, but the slag isn't that bothered - for the moment at least.
The viewers are first lead to believe that the trio will encounter some loony cult, then they find out that Brody is scheming something - because he knows about Leo and Kerry being former screw-colleagues. For some reason he had never confronted Kerry with the damning evidence of Leo sniffing her underwear, or whatever, earlier on, but decided instead to teach her a lesson(?) by getting her to experience an "epiphany"(???) as he so stupidly says. (By leaving her in the woods? Huh? Or by making her watch all those pointless peeping-tom clips of her?) We never find out what bloody epiphany he's talking about because all hell breaks loose - as things tend to in horror films and especially in the woods at night - and nothing ever gets explained. People just end up running around screaming, alternately chasing or following one another, stumbling in the dark - perhaps trying to entertain the viewers? Even a standard love-triangle drama between those three buffoons would have been far more enjoyable than this pitiful excuse for a horror film.
To cut a very long, very silly story short, the movie constantly lies to the viewer, but in a very clumsy way that makes no sense. Loony woodsman? Druid cult? Witches? Brody the killer? Leo the killer? Who the hell is the killer?
Kerry finally finds Brody, distraught and injured, and just as she finally regains her trust in him, she finds Leo's bracelet - and suddenly that makes her distrust Brody again! WHY? What does the bracelet prove either way? She'd already been ATTACKED by Leo beforehand, so what bloody difference does the bracelet make? WHY would she blame Brody for Leo's behaviour - unless she thought Brody is some kind of a sorcerer who put a spell on Leo to turn him into a murderer? There is nothing whatsoever in the movie to hint that Brody might have such miracle powers. Hence Kerry is an imbecile?
Or how about Kerry being chased by someone (the hell knows who), then suddenly falling down (without explanation), taking a nap while being filmed by the mystery person, then getting up again and resuming her running? What the hell was that about? This movie throws almost random stuff at you, as if desperately hoping that you're one of those nitwits who thinks that the more confusing a thriller is the more brilliant it must be. You know, the sort of people (hipsters, for example) who actually worship David Lynch's more recent dross, or who consider De Palma to be some sort of genius because all of this, thrillers are utterly cretinous.
There's more nonsense. Leo talks into the camera, saying how he knows that Brody once attacked a woman. How does he know this? How come he never told Kerry about it? None of this stuff adds up even remotely.
The epilogue is hilarious: "After an intensive police search, none of the three people were ever found." What they really should have put in the caption is this: "Despite gathering hours of (found) footage, the director hasn't found a way to meaningfully tie it all up together. He totally failed in editing it in a way that would remotely be logical, which is why what you've just seen makes zero sense - and you're a gullible for hoping a found-in-sewage flick with a title that promises dark wobbly scenes with lost of pointless screaming might actually be good."
Fine, I'm a gullible. Although, in my defense, I took this movie only because Anna is in it.
The movie starts off with a spoiler. So the question is: can any review of this Dreck contain spoilers?
There's nothing much to write because nothing much happens in the film - aside from the opening scene which actually serves as a SPOILER by telling us in advance that all four main characters will be hung on the tree! So not only is the movie devoid of thrills and dull, it doesn't even let you guess. Typical found-footage crap.
13 Eerie (2013)
How do you best help zombies eat humans in an area called "13 Eerie"? Answers follow.
1. You make sure someone is clumsy enough to accidentally spill a black acidic liquid on all the cables and walkie-talkies so that the humans can't be in communication with each other once the poop hits the fan.
2. Make sure that when the equipment does work, it works only when there's no danger.
3. Make sure that when the equipment does resume working after it's been fixed, only the ex-con (whom everyone treats like a child and whom nobody believes a word he says) gets to see a zombie on the TV monitor.
4. You make sure that all the forensic-science students are imbeciles who treat each other as imbeciles hence don't ever take each other seriously when any of them show any concern for their safety - and this despite the group being in the middle of nowhere on a forest island where unpredictable things CAN happen (as even any small child knows).
5. You make sure the zombies all learned their walking and sneaking techniques at the military zombie boot-camp so they can sneak up on humans who only spot the zombie when he's just a meter away from them - or already gnawing at their leg or arm. The zombies don't even have to try to sneak up: they're just given that gift by default - because the writer had to resort to weak plot-devices because he couldn't think of a smart or logical way of endangering the humans.
6. You make sure the professor treats his students as utter imbeciles, so that when a female student informs him that she saw a 4th corpse - when there are only supposed to be three - he reacts with "impossible!", dismissively ignoring her factual statement and both of them going on with the work as though she had never noticed anything. Did he consider this to be a hallucination? He trusts his students so little, that he can't even believe their ability to identify a corpse. (They're forensic students even, just keep that in mind though.) I seriously doubt real forensic professors and students are anywhere nearly as childish and stupid as that.
7. Make sure that the students reciprocate the professor's lack of respect in their intelligence by not showing any respect or trust in the professor, which allows the students to draw conclusions as idiotic as "the professor must have tinkered with the corpse do mess with us". By "tinkered" they mean pull out all its innards outside while they're were away. Yes, that's what forensic professors do on field trips: they goof off.
8. Make sure the professor is so delusional, arrogant - as well as stupid - that when a student tells him that he heard screaming in the woods the professor ignores him: despite several people missing already. (I see potential for a sketch there: "Screams? Extra corpses? Come on, stop talking nonsense. You're all dummies and I hate you and nothing you say makes any sense."
9. Just make sure everyone is an imbecile, alright? Except the zombies, who are supposedly really dumb but somehow outwit the humans most of the time.
10. Make sure that a zombie - when walking slowly - is faster than a student who's running. Make sure your zombie can catch a running human even if he crawls on all four, let alone walks slowly.
11. Make sure that the humans behave even more stupidly once they finally realize they're under attack. For example, allow one of the students to ATTACK the ex-con after the ex-con tells him that they're all under attack. Makes sense, right? It's sort of like a policeman telling you there's a serial killer on the loose, and you react by punching the policeman for telling you that.
12. Make sure the humans are so incompetent that they wound each other in some classic "friendly fire" nonsense. Katherine Isabelle (looking hot as always) wounds her boyfriend in the back in a very idiotic scene.
13. Make sure the humans can't figure out that it's the head they need to shoot or destroy - even when they'd already figured it out! Isabelle says "if I become one of them, shoot me in the head", but an hour later she can't seem to hit the head even from very close range. We can't quite figure out: is she an imbecile or is she just such a lousy shot that she can't hit a huge zombie cranium from a meter's distance, shot after shot?
It's also interesting that the movie suggests that being a forensic student means that your accommodations consist of a bed with animal carcasses lying on it. So medical students are immune to extreme lack of hygiene?
And must the zombies pose? Whenever a zombie has ample time (or he thinks he does) to attack and kill a human, he sort of poses for a few seconds, growls in a show-off kind of way, almost does a rap pose, and THEN attacks. Why do we have to even have zombies be so self-aware these days? Will zombies start becoming hipsters too? Will they start releasing rap albums? Reading beatnik "poetry"? Wearing funny hats?
There's plenty of stupid stuff in this zombie flick, but it's watchable, not least of all because Katherine Isabelle isn't just anyone. Yes, she's a nepotist, but she's a very sexy nepotist, a rarity.
Chinese water-torture in the middle of an ocean.
There are very few directors that make me cringe as much as Wes, and God knows there are many embarrassingly bad "auteurs" out there. He tries so hard to be deadpan, clever, original, intellectual and profound even, but falls so flat, fails every single time. He could take a lesson or two from Hal Hartley on how to cast, write and direct this type of comedy.
Wes's only talent is to set up a scene visually. That's it. That's literally all he can do well. He should be a cinematographer only, and stop thinking he is more than just a guy who's good with the camera. A great visual style comparable to Kubrick and other greats, though? I need to sniff those mushrooms too. I bet they're Bolivian.
He makes comedies tailor-made for hipsters. Wes even throws in a couple of useless Bowie songs, hence endearing himself to those skinny poseurs forever. He picked 70s Bowie songs which of course makes him "legit". Hilarious.
And the ca-jones he has to extent this dull plot to two hours! Wes doesn't follow even the most basic rules of comedy and common sense: don't go over 90 minutes when doing horror or comedy. Only a select few geniuses can get away with a 2-hour comedy without torturing the viewer. Though I did feel violated already after 30 minutes of this dross. So it's a bit like Chinese torture. Plenty of water in the movie to go around water-torturing millions of people.
Oh well, at least he didn't cast the movie so badly this time. Wes seems to think that Owen Wilson and Schwartzman are comedic geniuses. He even casts Brody in comedies. Admittedly, casting Brody in ANYTHING is a sign of blithering incompetence.
You're Next (2011)
I'm next. Or I was. They wanted to lobotomize me with this film, but they failed.
Yet another idiotic modern thriller. Just as moronic, illogical and far-fetched as most others. Hence its very solid rating, because people just love their thrillers dumb. As dumb as possible, in fact. Nothing's too dumb: logic is the real enemy these days. This can be seen in politics and just about everything else too.
1. In a room full of people, it takes them ages to realize the director was shot and that the window is smashed. Or were they going for Bugs Bunny slapstick?
2. It takes them ages to realize they should stay away from the windows.
3. "Mobile phones don't work!" (They never do, of course.) Then they give us a lame-o excuse why they don't work, but I don't buy it for one second.
4. They send a woman - running - outside. Extremely dumb idea, ends predictably.
5. A killer gets pinned down with a huge kitchen knife. Seconds later he disappears. As usual, serial-killers have superhuman strength and supernatural abilities - in a non-supernatural setting. They also predict events much better than average humans. Modern thrillers: the age of the genius omnipotent serial-killer.
6. I knew the left-wing chick would turn out to be the toughest one: it's in the nature of U.S. thrillers to be as PC as possible - not just dumb.
7. Why wear masks? They intend to kill them anyway.
8. People get stabbed in the back - but run or walk away anyway.
9. A couple devises the entire shebang - while they're at the house. Why would they do that? Just so the audience can have the first of a series of moronic plot-twists.
10. Brother conspirator stabs his brother then says I'm sorry. Wow. It's frightening to consider that some people enjoy this silly junk.
Trust me, I could go all the way to 100. And that's why thrillers are ideally suited for people who simply don't give a toss about intelligent plot-development. It's a totally pleb genre.
As for this being considered a "black comedy" by some, people who think that should finally face their inner sociopath. Fascinatingly enough, this obsession of finding humour in sadistic movies (even when there is none, or very little) is very much a hipster hobby. Or perhaps some people just can't comprehend that that there are such dumb film-makers out there so they simply assume the nonsense must be intended to be ironic or "clever" in some intentional way. Some people aren't bright enough to distinguish between a dumb monologue (by fatso) and intentional comedy.
Whenever a movie aims for that elusive "cult status", you know chances are it stinks.
Standard: whenever a horror film has a high rating, it invariably turns out to be crap. If you prefer to be alternately bored (the damn thing is almost two hours) but also flabbergasted by the most asinine plot imaginable, watch this garbage. Just don't go whining to me that I hadn't warned you.
It's not a real comedy. It's just a highly cretinous thriller with the usual sub-standard Kiwi humour thrown in occasionally. The plot-twists are mind-boggling in their imbecility, starting from the guy who's been living - undetected - within the walls of the house for years (living on air and worms?), then the junkie who doesn't lose her house-arrest privileges even after numerous incidents (including stabbing a man with scissors), all the way to the intelligence-insulting twist that gives us the SOCIAL WORKER as the girl's killer.
Utter rubbish in every conceivable way, with so many plot holes that it's the movie equivalent of cheese. Avoids the lowest rating for the peeing scene.
A bunch of octopussies travel all the way to Earth just to give us a riddle.
Usually a bad movie is either boring or stupid. This flick manages to connect a bridge between the two, accomplishing what only a select few bad movies have done before. Congrats, Villeneuve. If I used to be 99% sure I'll never watch your awful Blade Runner "sequel", now I am 100% sure of it.
These "superior aliens" are so inept and disorganized that they didn't even have the basic common sense to first LEARN an Earth language - ANY language (Swahili if need be) - BEFORE landing with 12 egg-shaped hover-crafts on Earth, scaring the bejesus out of everyone. Surely these "superior" aliens (let's call them squiddies) are smart enough to realize that Earthlings are deeply divided, paranoid, dumb and easily frightened. No? Well, in that case the squiddies are daft too, and that means the whole movie falls apart because its fundamental premise of a superior alien race doesn't hold water.
Speaking of water, they look like octopus. OK, fine: better than skinny bug-eyed big-headed generic anal-probing Area 51 type of green lizards, but hardly original or menacing or interesting. And the squiddies fire black ink too: what is this, a comedy? Is the fact they're octopussies the reason why they got along so well with girl-power girl?
I commend the film for not making this yet another absurd U.S.-centric invasion flick in which only Americans make decisions, where EVERYTHING revolves around the White House. Admittedly, Americans save the day - again - but at least it's not JUST about the Americans. But the way the movie goes about making this a global invasion is just embarrassing; it's pedestrian, utterly unrealistic. In essence, the best minds in TWELVE (read: 12) countries are working on this mystery, and yet the ONLY person who makes any significant progress is a linguist professor at some rinky-dink U.S. college where 5 kids show up to class. And when she finally makes a large breakthrough, those same government hotshots who trusted her and hired her aren't that interested in what she's got to say. Really?
The film is trying to tell me that China and Russia are so trigger-happy that they can hardly wait to attack a species that is so advanced that humans couldn't even figure out how they communicate between their 12 ships. Humans couldn't even figure out what the ships were made of! Yet they wanted to nuke them. WITHOUT being attacked first. It's so idiotic, you need be a fan of "Armageddon" to believe any of this malarkey.
The film is somewhat "serious" science-wise - at least until the story turns all stephenkingsian on us by unloading a huge psychic turdcake under our collective noses. Suddenly Louise reads the future! Why? How? Why her? What about the Russian and Chinese counterparts? Was the Sudanese girl-power linguist expert not competent enough to learn this "time language"? Did the Pakistani girl-power linguist not try hard enough? Was she a lot less smart? Lazier? What?... Sure, whatever. It's Hollywood 2016 i.e. it has to be dumb.
Louise's sudden psychic powers are explained by her learning this "time language". Her theory that learning a language changes how you think was far-fetched enough as it is, but acceptable. They had to go a step further, however, and introduce this ludicrous premise that there is a language that makes you... see the future? I know this is sci-fi (well... soppy chick-flick sci-fi) but this is just too silly.
I also struggle with this laughable idea that aliens come here just to give us a puzzle to solve.
"We came here to help you, BUT you have to first solve an incredibly difficult puzzle. Failure to solve it could have disastrous consequences and actually ruin you more than help you, but we are willing to take that chance because we love playing around funny guessing games involving ink with inferior clowns such as yourself."
By the time the movie had already spent HALF-AN-HOUR on humans trying to communicate with squiddies, I was getting impatient, figuring "well, the film's gotta move on soon, can't be possibly ALL about this linguistic riddle nonsense". Oh yes, it can! The entire movie is about this puzzle-solving drivel and those boring meetings between the romantic couple and squiddies! Nothing else. In fact, there are 37 of these meetings and I'm just thankful that Villeneuve decided to show us "only" 6-7 of those. (Feels like 15-20, but that's just me.)
The "future flashbacks" concerning her daughter are so very boring, mushy and visually flat, I wanted to fast-forward them: they look like shampoo commercials. In fact, my finger was nervously circling the FF button during the entire movie. I felt like I'd spent an entire day watching this dreary nonsense.
Get this: Louise has a child with lover-boy DESPITE knowing her daughter will die in her teens!!! Kinda defeats the whole purpose of HAVING premonition, doesn't it? "Well, done, girl-power girl! You have obtained the power to see the future. Now feel free to not use it by not avoiding major mistakes such as giving birth to faulty kids". Un-be-lieveable. Some people actually find this TOUCHING, INSPIRING even. Say what? Obviously people who agree with her decision don't have children of their own.
I also have to mention how unconvincing and dumb the notion of a benevolent alien race is. Look, I like octopussies as much as the next person, but the idea that a superior alien race is this NICE to us for no real reason than because they have great etiquette and a perfect moral compass, is asinine. It is actually possible to make movies with goody aliens, but it's very difficult to make them convincing and intelligent.
The incessant MUMBLING of the entire cast doesn't help either. These thespians hadn't even learned to SPEAK, yet they'd been cast in a big-budget film about a linguistic expert trying to solve a language riddle. Kind of ironic.
Devil's Backbone, Texas (2015)
There should be a special film genre called "boredom cinema".
One of those low-budget mockumentary stinkers that have a very thin story (or in this case no story), just a bunch of annoying actors saying essentially the same thing over and over, implying that some weird danger is afoot. And they keep promising this danger, and promising and promising it to the increasingly restless viewers, but it never materializes - until the very last scene: but at that point it's a wrap-up, folks! You got nothing! Now go back to your real horror films, folks. In that sense, not much different from "Monster A Go-Go" actually.
The first hour is incredibly boring. All we get is the backstory of some dullard who may or may not have seen supernatural things, brought to us by actors that somehow manage to be quite annoying, and this goes basically for the male cast. They serve us the most boring details, over and over. An "expedition" made up of some of these amateur goons goes to his ranch, and they just wonder around aimlessly while doing their corny little camcorder improv shtick. OK, at least they're not teens, but they might as well be, intellectually.
After the first hour things pick up - ever so slightly, almost unnoticeably. The characters bicker and they seem scared - while the viewer waits impatiently for something horror-like to happen. Or at least some proper hints and clues as to what the hell they're supposed to find there: a cult? Indian sacrifice? What? Nope, we get no info at all. You, the viewer, are low in the pecking order and not much of a priority for the amateurs who make these kinds of turkeys.
And then the two idiotic plot-twists. It was all fake! Tuh-duh! The twerp set the whole thing up. Seconds after he reveals this stupid and quite illogical surprise, the group gets attacked by the real forces of evil and that's it. No explanation, not even an inkling of a hint of a clue. Like a Bugs Bunny cartoon, minus the ingenuity.
So if your idea of scary entertainment is watching boots hung on trees, or bad actors pretending they're frightened despite nothing much happening around them, this might be a film for you. Have fun with this dross, because these film-makers are in need of fans. Any fans. Clueless newbie horror fans and anyone else who finds boring things interesting.
Lyonne plays this for laughs.
For fans of bizarro cinema within a horror-film context, look no further. Not preposterously "far-out" as some of those idiotic, depraved, glue-sniffing, obscure Euro-trash hipster flicks from the 70s (always rated highly due to hipster bee-hive swarm-voting), but weird enough for the average film-goer. So if you're a meth-sniffing self-loather looking for something truly decadent and morbid, this might disappoint you because it isn't nearly as misanthropic as you'd like it to be.
Best described as a slow-paced version of "Rosemary's Baby" and "X-Files" with a touch of "Jacob's Ladder". In fact, the movie's main flaw is that it moves at a snail's pace some of the time. Could and should have been 20 minutes shorter. The other, though lesser, problem is Natasha Lyonne who seems to play quite a few scenes for laughs. Perhaps the director wanted her to play it that way (which would mean he's quite confused and clueless), or what's more likely is that the screenwriter wasn't smart enough to realize that her usual "chummy BFF teen" shtick doesn't work within this frame-work - in which all the other actors say serious lines. Only she seems to play her role almost as if it's a semi-sitcom - and she's the most suffering character by far. How do you write goofy lines for one character but have everyone else behave seriously? Never liked her, to be honest. (Guess how she got into movies? Three-letter word.)
So who says there are no movies for women, huh? Almost all the main characters are female, and they're well fleshed-out and not stereotypical. Sure, Lyonne plays incredibly ditsy street trash, a mindless drug-addicted skank of the lowest order, but this isn't B-movie characterization whereby everyone fits into neatly defined, very boring, predictable boxes.
Which brings me to why this isn't nearly as suspenseful as it could have been. None of the characters are likable or even marginally moral, except Meg Tilly's, so why the hell would we give a hoot what happens to Lyonne? Her disregard for her potential baby and her own health are so extreme that I sort of figured that no matter what happens to her she had it coming. How do you identify or sympathize with someone that far gone in decadence and stupidity? Darwinism at work, if you ask me. I always struggled to feel sorry for hardcore junkies.
Now for the loony finale. "With your body we can create a new race that will allow us to supply an everlasting demand for submission" says the mysterious black guy. But what does that even mean? Please analyze this statement, filter it through this movie's logic and script, and then tell me in all honesty that it means anything. It just sounds like some random sci-fi/horror gobbledygook that's intended to cheat the viewer out of a real explanation by sounding cryptic and pulp-fictiony.
The great finale is kind of predictable, I'm sorry to say: who didn't see it coming that she'd give birth to a monster? Did anyone expect Donald Duck to plop out of there? In that sense, the ending is a lot like a typical corny 50s monster flick, except that the monster comes out of a punani rather than a mad scientist's lab. And Gabriel getting killed by the monster was also very predictable. What was surprising though is how positively Tilly reacted to Lyonne plopping a severed monster head out of her va-jey-jey.
Because Lyonne's severely toxic, drug-infested womb was ideal for impregnation with an alien being, does that mean that Lemmy from Motorhead would have been the ideal sperm-donor? Just speculating. I do like the movie's anti-drug "message" though - if we can call it that.
Special Correspondents (2016)
If Gervais thinks this unfunny dross is some kind of hard-hitting smart political satire, then he must be completely delusional.
If you wanted concrete unassailable proof that Gervais is losing his comedic religion completely (or that, as some people claim, the real brains of the operation was Stephen Merchant all along), this movie might be it. I doubt that's true, but SC feeds that theory well. There are very few comedies (and I've seen hundreds) that manage to completely lose my interest after only 15 minutes or so, where it was a major chore to get through to the finish line, that moment of relief when the movie finally wraps up its dungation, then wipes itself, flushes, and then lets the viewer off into the sunset i.e. freedom.
Very ironically and amazingly, with the hindsight of having "seen" the movie in its entirety (I sort of saw the whole thing, kinda glanced at it now and again while doing other things, because it's literally impossible to watch all 100 min. of this unfunny, boring crap), it turns out that those first 15 minutes or so were the HIGHLIGHT of the movie. That section of the flick actually had a line or two that were solid, and the plot at that point still made some sense.
Made some sense, but not that much, either. For example, casting Farmiga as Gervais's wife is not only an example of embarrassing miscasting, but her character behaves in highly absurd and non-credible ways from the very moment she steps into the film. Her first conversations with Gervais are baffling, because not for one second can the viewer buy into this loony set-up that they really are husband and wife, and had been for years. They are a mismatch made in hell. Gervais plays a "loser", yet he has Farmiga as a wife: makes zero sense. Plus, given her ambitious nature and greediness, she should have left him ages ago, or more logical yet: she wouldn't have hooked up with him in the first place. This is just one in a series of idiocies, contradictions and inconsistencies within a script that insults the viewer's intelligence over and over.
What comes after the mediocre and increasingly dull first 15 minutes or so is the imbecile plot-twist (the movie's actual selling point!), a premise so illogical and preposterous that only a banal slapstick comedy or very infantile French farce could get away with it - perhaps. But SC is more akin to a satiric drama than an actual comedy, i.e. it plays around with the "real world" (or so its confused writers believe) way too closely to be able to get away with such nonsense.
Worse than all the shoddy logic and gazillion plot-holes is the failure of the comedy. The gags bomb wholesale, the dialog is as flat as Nicole Kidman's chest, and every additional plot-twist and event only serves to deepen the viewers' resentment toward themselves for picking this turkey in the first place. I will definitely NOT watch another Gervais film ever again, at least those made in this decade and onwards: so yes, hardship can teach a person some real life lessons.
Also, the very notion that the likes of CNN would bend the truth in favour of a right-wing agenda is mind-bogglingly stupid. Gervais either has a grasp of politics the way a child has a grasp of Civil Engineering, or he had sold himself lock stock and barrel to the current left-wing Establishment and the insane sociopaths who "run" it. Either way, one more reason to consider this one of the worst comedies of the century - and that really is saying a whole lot.
Gervais has become smug, lazy, unfocused and perhaps distracted by too many projects. Just guessing, though it essentially matters not. I am not really that interested in the reasons why SC sucks, just the fact does it DOES suck. His stand-up comeback "Humanity" is great, and that's what he should be doing more of, that's always been his biggest strength. Film-wise he is more miss than hit, and even his TV projects are becoming weaker.
They Look Like People (2015)
Where there's smoke there isn't necessarily fire.
What really sinks this semi-weird movie is the predictably disappointing ending that lets you down in every conceivable way. Most movies of this sort are good at build-up but suck at wrapping things up intelligently and neatly. (The David Lynch school of BS writing.) And that's what separates the men from the boys in cinema, the excellent mystery films from the mediocre ones. In fact, nothing is wrapped up; the conclusion is simply confusing, offering no answers at all: is he insane or not? was he cured?
If you're going to revolve the ENTIRE movie around a simple two-way dilemma (insanity or aliens, in this case), you'd better reward the viewer with SOMETHING, anything. But we get squat. Very lazy.
Pity, because a smart ending could have turned this into a well-made movie. Even cheesy hand-to-hand chop-sokey combat between some aliens and the two protagonists would have been better than what they gave us.
Or were they saving money on CGI?
A Christmas Horror Story (2015)
Shatner is in it, but that's no reason for panic.
The four stories interlap, but it's still an anthology film because they are mutually unrelated. Initially, I didn't know it was an anthology film which caused some small measure of frustration during the first half when it seemed that there were too many characters and sub-plots and that nothing made much sense. But the set-up is anyway not as good as the unfolding of the plots, so the film's strengths lie in the second half.
There are some nice plot-twists, with the weakest story being the teen ghost-team story, partly because it hasn't got much to do with Christmas, plus it's a far too standard ghost-possession story; still, that girl is awfully cute.
Let's see if you can figure out the wild but excellent plot-twist at the end. I doubt anyone could predict that. Not an absurd plot-twist either, which happens much too often in thrillers and horrors.
T2 Trainspotting (2017)
Illogical, mostly uninteresting cash-grab from a director who just can't bother anymore.
So Begbie escapes from prison, but then just moves around Edinburgh free as a bird, as if the city is completely devoid of cops. And while making tons of enemies, it occurs to none of them to simply make a phone call to the authorities.
Hm, yes, a well thought-out script. Pity Boyle settled for the first draft. As so often.
A lazily cobbled-together script in the sloppiest Boyle fashion. It's as if he had the idea of doing a sequel on a Tuesday and had the first draft ready by Friday. That same Friday, not a Friday 15 fridays later as the more wise, conventional approach to film-making is. Because as a film-maker Boyle is an impulsive slob. He's got talent, but very little discipline with which to channel it properly. God only knows how he ever managed to write a good script that first time around, for the first junkie flick. Perhaps he got lucky, or maybe he was more hungry for success as a relative unknown hence more focused. Admittedly, it's also easier to start a story from scratch than to have to continue it 23 years later. Or is it the other way round?
Either way, the characters' motives are muddy, confusing, their actions often seem out of character, and the plot fairly wasteful with plenty of stuff that could easily have been cut out, because comedies should last 90 minutes, not the full two hours because they're not James Bond flicks.
One of the many plot-holes is the mysterious non-interest Renton and Simon show in the fact that Begbie is still out seeking revenge, and yet the two of them get caught off-guard by Begbie's extremely predictable second attempt at getting his revenge. So Renton didn't worry about Begbie after that close chase? That's the kind of writing geared toward more, how shall I put it diplomatically... "simply-arranged" viewers, not the kind of nonsense that can pass by the customs though of any half-way serious and/or experienced viewer. Yes, I'm bragging again, what the hell, it's The Age Of Brag, so I might as well join in. Yes, I'm too smart for this film.
And how about the Bulgarian hooker-with-the-heart-of-gold? What a dumb cliche that is, not a real person in the slightest, hence very dull. Not to mention the predictable betrayal she perpetrates that any viewer with half a brain-cell could foresee, which means I expect every single person to have predicted that "plot-twist" well in advance. Unless they were doing the same substances as these junkie goofball characters.
The movie has no spunk, it looks tired, just seems like a quick cash-grab by a director who figured that a half-attempt is more than enough when attached to a famous title. He may have been right, I don't know, haven't seen the box-office figures.
If you are quite content to watch badly scripted films - as long as they entertain you - feel free to give this a go. But then again, that's the other issue: it's not very entertaining, is it? I found myself fidgety through large chunks of the film, and that's sort of not what real entertainment is about.
Anti Matter (2016)
In 100 years maybe NASA "scientists" will have their noses pierced. Until then...
A goth chick with a pierced nose works on the biggest scientific breakthrough in the history of mankind? I don't think so. These nose-pierced types are lucky if they get can add and subtract one-digit numbers. (With appy polly loggies to the smart Goth chicks that take out their pins and needles soon after clipping them on, and then re-join the human race.)
The entire movie is based on the premise, or at least the implication, that this amazing project needs to be tested on a human in order to get financial backers: fairly asinine. Already the disappearing act with marbles would have hundreds of companies and banks falling over each other trying to finance this. These kids would have been stinking rich way before the first human were to be teleported - and under much safer conditions.
Sure, there'd be no movie without this dumb premise - or perhaps there would? All the writer needed to do is get off his lazy derriere and come up with a credible way why the trio decide to take such a huge and unnecessary gamble. But instead he took the Hollywood route of treating the viewers like idiots. Or perhaps he really does believe that a scientific project that has successfully teleported mice and cats can't get financial backing?! For one thing, Putin would have had them all shot and stolen all their secrets - right after the first marble. (Obviously, he wouldn't have done it personally.)
Already those absurdities acted as strong hints early on that the film won't exactly win prizes for tight script-writing, because how can I trust such a klutzy writer to untangle the mystery in a logical, reasonable manner? I knew all along that whatever the explanation, it would leave many logic holes. It turned out I was right.
The ending isn't awful by any means, but does not explain the bizarre behaviour of the cops, nor does it explain that absurd, impossible chase after the masked intruder during which the main character defies all laws of physics and biology. (Those silly "Transporter" movies come to mind.) The less said about her boyfriend getting shot in the neck and just waltzing off back to the lab as if he just had a scratch, the better. If I watched the film again, I am convinced I'd find even more nonsense.
But what annoys me most is that the writer/director CHEATS the viewer blatantly by HIDING the real Ana from us until she comes out of the locked room - as if she'd been THERE all along. Now, that's really dumb.
The flip-side of that twist is that the revelation (that we were watching a sort-of-clone version of Ana) is thought-provoking and original (if perhaps already seen before if you read enough pulp fiction). Hipsters should love its "existential" themes. It just makes little sense from a logical viewpoint for us to only follow her adventures, and not those of the real Anna as well. You don't construct a clever mystery by withholding information from the viewer in such a brazen way.
Oh well, at least there's no cop-out non-ending such as we get in that amazing piece of hipster trash "Primer". That was a truly idiotic, boring movie devoid of a single redeeming quality. If you want a truly original and non-stupid indie sci-fi flick, "Coherence" is the way to go. (Independent film-makers have been the only hope of good, intelligent sci-fi for some years now, what with Hollywood having reached that Idiocratic Miley Cyrus stage where you can only expect amoeba-brained dross from them.)
Despite an OK first act and a solid conclusion, the film fails because the mystery section is way too long, offering no clues along the way. I'm all for an intriguing plot that baffles the viewer, but the plot - no matter how confusing - does actually have to move rather than stagnate. We literally know as much about Anna at the outset of the mystery as we do just before the conclusion, hence we have a bunch of needless scenes that appear to be pointlessly repetitious.
As for movie science, people sometimes nitpick way too much about the impossibility of certain things. Well, duh, that's why it's called sci-fi: it's meant to have impossible science, it's just a movie, not a dissertation for MIT. Sometimes I get the impression that science-focused nit-pickers want the science to be 100% fool-proof, as if film-makers have to ACTUALLY devise a REAL way of teleporting people in order for the script to be kosher enough! "Hey, the science is all wrong! They don't give us a real way to beam people to other dimensions!"
Recommended only for sci-fi freaks. Others will not be able to overlook the flaws with such ease.
The Moth Diaries (2011)
"Dear Diary, I am a moth and I am slightly horny."
Some decrepit old ghost/vampire lady-thingy impersonating a sexy young dyevochka is really a moth, or actually 1000s of moths (we're made out of atoms, she of moths), and she is like really old and stuff and likes to kill young girls for fun and she's like such a filthy perv that she even sexually molests one of them, which is technically sex with a minor, right? But you can't arrest moths for sexual misconduct, can you. They'd just slip through the bars and then proceed to seek out new girls.
Anyway, Lily Cole Moth has her eye on killing Sarah Bolger Non-Moth - that's her ultimate goal, and one which Sarah figures out only at the end of the movie, way way way long after even the thickest of us thick viewers had already figured it out an hour earlier. So if Lily Moth wanted to kill Sarah all along, why did she wait so long and kill several people who aren't Sarah Bolger? No, Rachel Klein the author doesn't know and neither does Mary Harron the director. They don't bother to tell us WHY Lily came to that school to kill random people, nor why moths hate water (do they?), nor why moths are into same-sex activity. (If moths were inclined that way, wouldn't there be a LOT less of them?)
In fact, there's a strong whiff of lesb-ian*sm permeating the entire movie which makes me suspect that either the director or the author are leaning that way. They even portray the only hetero encounter in the movie - the actual inter-course - as painful and unpleasant.
And those of you who think that your patience will be rewarded with a grand finale Sarah vs Moth Lily, you're sadly mistaken, because Sarah sneaks up to Moth Lady real easy, sets her on fire, kills her, and that's pretty much it, and the whole movie was slow for no reason and it looked like a build up to a harrowing finale (which turned out to fizzle like a tiny firecracker) and quite predictable and Lily is far too tall for these small girls to be playing anyone but a ginger version of King Kong, and the make-up department should be hung for turning her into a brunette and giving her a goofy Goth-chick makeover - as if all mysterious vampire moth ladies are into Goth fashion - which made her look unattractive which is quite a feat because this actress is actually quite pretty (as is Sarah), and this movie is sort of like a stylized version of a les-b**n slasher flick and there's not much more else to say about this mediocrity.
Sweet, Sweet Lonely Girl (2016)
Plot-less flick with a mono-colour look. A good way to waste away 90 minutes.
Do you tolerate style over substance? I don't. I prefer to have both. Why should I settle for just one? Breadcrumbs film-making is not for me. You wanna offer me breadcrumbs? Go stuff them up yer Thanksgiving turkey, don't want them. Because this story doesn't even give you semi-useful hints. It gives you breadcrumbs - and nail-clippings.
Not that this movie oozes with kubrickesque or coenesque buckets of style; far from it. But the movie is modestly stylish, does have a solid mood. What it lacks is a coherent plot. Actually, any plot. It lacks A plot. This is a script-based film? They could have fooled me. This looks almost improvised. Either that, or the script was being re-written ten times during the shooting, which rarely results in a good viewing.
If you know what this nonsense is about, let me know. I am open to all theories, especially dumb ones, because I can only expect dumb theories - considering that this movie is like an empty canvas open to all sorts of random subjective explanations. Doubtlessly fans of this movie enjoyed the film precisely because they injected their own plot into it.
As it is, all we have here is a barely les-bian romantic drama with vague characterization and a bunch of nonsense.
Gotta love the utterly idiotic political dross they threw in: "He (Reagan) is an evil man." Did they set this in the 80s just to be able to spit on Reagan's rock-solid reputation? Only people with zero understanding/knowledge of history can make such a claim. Why not go to the 00s then and give us a "Bush is evil" line? Or wait another year to see how the 2016 election turns out, and then include a "Trump is evil" scene? Even horror films can't do without SJW whining anymore. That kind of propaganda is all over the place, and unfortunately millennials are falling for it because they simply don't know better.
Coming from an evil witch, are we supposed to take this comment as a compliment for Reagan? Or maybe the point was that even an evil moth witch is less evil than Reagan/Bush/Trump? That's why politics has no place in fantasy, or just non-political films in general. Film-makers can stuff their exalted propaganda in the same smelly place where I suggested they stuff their breadcrumbs.