Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)
a nauseating muddy mixed up mess
The film is a nauseating mixed up muddy mess, from beginning to end. Incredibly gimmicky and shallow. Nearly unintelligible dialogue. The gimmickry present reminds one of how the works of Arthur Conan Doyle should *not* be turned into CSI, Batman, or James Bond. And sadly other recent works within the "Sherlock franchise" fall prey to this evil temptation (eg: the BBC's recent Sherlock series). Save your brain. Save your money. Keep your lunch in your stomach. Avoid this film. Instead seek out works with Jeremy Brett. Other portrayals by Robert Downey Jr., even by Benedict Cumbersplatch / Smebersmoch / Hoobersmich / Cumberbatch, are rather akin to shallow harlotry in my view. Mostly unconvinced. Forced. Contrived. Gimmicky. But Jeremy Brett's portrays were near perfect. So search for them instead.
Gravity (2013)
Boring. Pedantic. 5 minutes worth of "real material."
Incredibly boring and simplistic plot. Pedantic performances, particularly by Bullock Whiz-bang CGI is nothing more than porn to the Oscar-voting crowd. Whatever Hollywood produces - they have to vote for. They have to vote for something, and give an Oscar to something - however shallow, uninteresting, boring, pedantic, etc.
Too bad Clooney wasted his time on this one. And the plot would have been much better if Bullock's character would have "bought it" within the first 5 minutes.
In fact the whole movie should have been 5 minutes long. That's pretty much how much "real material" the film had. 5 minutes. The end. Boring. Stupid. Pedantic. Move on.
Fitna (2008)
A highly relevant short film.
This film, whose main site was preemptively censored by an American web hosting company, has been released by it's producer on liveleak. And there is a current wikipedia page about the film that is still up. So I have now seen the film. Here's my review: There are some inflammatory parts. But they are not unreasonably inflammatory when one considers what is actually advocated by some Islamic Imams today.
I have previously exposed myself to speeches given by people such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Dutch Somali woman who has to have round the clock security. The producer of this film, Geert Wilders, has to have similar security for him also. And why does this occur? Because of the current primitive state of the Islamic culture as compared to that of Christianity, Judaism, and of the Asian religions & cultures.
In the film Fitna Mr. Wilders shows some Koran versus & then visual examples of how those verses are played out in his view. He also shows Islamic teachers advocating violence & murder.
Since Mr. Wilders has to go around with round the clock security, I can see why he would be anxious to put out a film on these issues. He apparently feels the freedom-loving culture of his own country (Holland) is at risk, and he sees freedom in Europe at risk as well.
Anyway, when a film is preemptively censored by an American company, you know there's a problem & that the censored film is even more important to see. Consider all the past films that have been censored. They basically were telling some key social truth which was inconvenient to the powers that be. And that's what this film does also.
The film shows how Islam is essentially operating along a medieval Bronze-age type track. The Christian Bible & the Jewish Torah (Old Testament) do advocate murder & other horrific things. Yes they do. So subjectively one could consider both Jehovah and Allah to be cruel & sadistic.
But the Jews & the Christians have for the most part moved beyond the medieval thinking their ancestors embraced. The Crusades are over, for example. And when Jehovah supposedly advocated to the Jews that they kill whole groups of people who weren't Jewish (ref. the Old Testament), that was "back then." Today there are not active Jewish & Christian schools that advocate killing "the other" - at least not nearly as many as currently exist in Islam.
I am aware of the "Jesus Camp" people, but there's no Jesus-camps being financed by a national state.
Saudi Arabia does fund schools where children are taught to hate the non-Muslim. Fitna does address this issue. And similar documentaries put out by Channel 4 in the UK ("Root of all evil?" - with Richard Dawkins), also talk about how Saudi Arabia is funding schools which teach Islamic children to hate "the other" - the non-Muslim. And Sam Harris & Christopher Hitchens have spoken about these issues as well.
Anyway the fact that a.) the film's first web site was censored by an American company, and b.) that the film's producer has to have round the clock security due to death threats against him as a result of his film & similar works, it is all a commentary on the state of Islam today.
After seeing the film I am left wondering how we all can cause Islam to move beyond Bronze-age murderous medieval thinking. I know there are some in that culture/religion trying to do this. But Europe is unfortunately doing too much appeasing, and Mr. Wilders agrees as per what he states in his film.
Toward the end of the film Mr. Wilders asks for help with defending freedom: That Europe previously defended freedom in the case of Naziism and Communism. He sees Islam as a similar threat.
European countries do readily ban Nazi groups & paraphernalia. Maybe they should do more banning of these Saudi funded schools where children are taught to hate & to harbor murder in their hearts. I hope they do implement such a ban.
Multiculturalism & diversity has it's limits. Mr. Wilders film, the fact that Islamists sought to censor it, and the fact that Mr. Wilders has to go around with round the clock security are direct proofs of the limits.
I hope more films of this nature come out.
Fitna is 16 minutes long. A similar film, called "Submission" by Theo van Gogh, was 10 minutes long. Mr. Van Gogh, a descendant of the brother of the painter Vincent van Gogh, was murdered because he put his film out. That's outrageous, and my reaction to such things is visceral. I am going to temper my reaction with some reason though. For example, I'm not going to allow myself to be taken advantage of by people who advocate continual war. But the whole point I think of the work of people like Theo Van Gogh & Geert Wilders is to show in stark terms just exactly what the problems are with having too much politically correct multiculturalism - where you allow people who don't value freedom to be in your midst. To allow people who really don't value freedom to take advantage of the free societies they're allowed to live in.
Certainly a large proportion of humans who call themselves Muslim have moved beyond Bronze-age murderous thinking. But one point brought home by Mr. Wilders' film is this: There are apparently more murderous freedom-hating radicals in Islam than there are in other current religions. And there's big problems with allowing nation-state funded (that is, by Saudi Arabia) schools in your freedom loving countries which teach children to hate & to kill those who are not members of their religion. And to teach children that it's OK to have a culture that oppresses women, that does not value freedom of speech, and so on...
El Topo (1970)
a crow/raven snuff film
Prior to my viewing El Topo I had given Jodorowsky's other movie Holy Mountain a ten. I've changed my rating for that other movie to a two, and I rate this a movie a 1 (awful), and both actions are taken for the following reason: In El Topo Jodorowsky kills two crows or ravens. You see them die on screen. Seeing them die right there on screen was incredibly disgusting, disturbing, and outrageous.
If the deaths were simulated that would have been OK. But crows and ravens are (along with parrots) the most intelligent types of birds. Their intelligence is comparable to that of great apes and five year old human children.
So seeing them killed changed my view of Jodorowsky instantly. I now see him as nothing more than a shallow self serving hack.
I've seen The Holy Mountain before on DVD, but yesterday evening I saw it on the big screen at The Tower in Salt Lake. Then El Topo was shown afterward. I'm sorry I saw El Topo, and I'm sorry that I previously considered Jodorowsky to have any level of credibility as a director. Those killings ruined my whole evening.
I can put up with a lot and I'm not into censorship. But generally snuff films of any sort remain taboo, even in the art film community - and for good reason. El Topo was a snuff film where two lovely intelligent birds were murdered by the hack Jodorowsky. In The Holy Mountain crap is turned into gold. But El Topo shows that there's some crap which remains crap no matter what you do with it.
Avoid Jodorowsky. Do not honor his work by viewing it. A person who kills intelligent animals may have their good traits, but they are in my view morally bankrupt and deserving of shunning by those more enlightened.
Lastly El Topo is a jumbled uncomfortable mixed up mess.
Anyway I can take Salo. I can take Caligula. I enjoyed Destricted. And I can even handle simulated snuff films where humans or intelligent animals are killed (albeit in a simulated way which isn't readily apparent) as part of a film. But no one would accept having a person killed as part of a non-documentary movie which was released. And no one should accept having highly intelligent animals like a beautiful crow or raven killed either.
Maybe in the 70s such actions were more common. Maybe in the rough and tumble world of Mexico morals differ. But abuse is abuse. And any man who kills such birds should be severely fined and locked up for a time. That's my view, after spending the last 12 years of my life living in very close contact with four parrots, and as the operator of an online mailing list with hundreds of crow lovers on it worldwide.
When you interact with these fellow animals first hand you recognize their value. So to see such creatures clearly & purposefully killed in a film, well, it made me conclude that Jodorowsky is not any sort of a visionary director. Instead he's merely a shallow & vain hack.
Fast Food Nation (2006)
boring movie and impudently hosted preview - I walked out
Why did I walk out on this movie? It was boring. It was about as much fun as watching paint dry - only worse. Uninteresting people. Stupid situations. And within all that I saw a product placement ad for an online retailer! How lame. But perhaps the more fundamental problem with the film is that it's being parented and fostered by Fox, and the local preview showing I saw was paid for by an infantile local wireless ISP (Internet Service Provider).
Before the movie started (at a preview at the Broadway Theater in Salt Lake City), we had to listen to an incredibly demeaning, childish, moronic, and aggressive advertisement spiel by a local wireless Internet provider, by an idiotic presenter who spoke to the audience as if we were children.
He asked us if we knew that the Hummer H3 was fuel efficient - as they were raffling off an H3. When he first mentioned the H3 some in the audience booed, but this idiot was not deterred. He went on to cheer the great value of the H3. Then after that he told us about the wireless services of his company. And then he closed his stupid childish speech with contained a very hostile threat which went like this: "You have been granted a great honor by being allowed to be here. Now, if we see any of you texting or using your cell phone in any way, we will confiscate your cell phone! It is a great honor for you to be here, so you better watch out!" Now I'm not a big fan of cell phone use during movies, but no one has a right to confiscate your phone period - and this moron from a local Utah wireless ISP should have known better.
Anyway at this point I had had just about enough, and before the opening credits I just about walked out. I like the Broadway Theater and it's general mission, but no one goes to a movie to be abused by the hosts - even if the showing is free.
If I were the non-profit group who was a co-host for the film in question I would have been ashamed. Ashamed not only for hosting a film by Newscorp/Fox, but also ashamed for hosting a film which had a local sponsor who acted in such a demeaning, childish, aggressive, and in my view illegal way toward the audience.
So, since I just about walked out of the film after the idiot representative from the paid sponsor spoke, I wasn't in a particularly good mood to see the film. But I stayed. I stayed for another thirty minutes. That's all I can stand.
Here's some phrases which come to mind as I consider what I saw as I watched the film: boring; uninteresting; stupid; who cares; amateurish. The characters were so flat. The scenes were so boring. The scenes switched from place to place with no premise. There was nothing worth caring about. What a waste! Avoid this paint drying stupefying film at all costs.
Perhaps you can tell by now that I'm not a big fan of Fox. So even though they happen to have a film label which is supposedly independent, their dirty corporatist hands tend to stink up whatever they touch. Independent or not, it's still Fox, it's still Newscorp.
And, the incredibly aggressive way we were all threatened about cell phone use, and the aggressive and demeaning way the local paid sponsor dealt with us - it was all par for the course for a Fox film in my view.
We're not children and we don't go to films to be abused. Avoid Fast Food Nation at all costs. It's no documentary. It's nothing worth your time. Save your money for films made by truly independent artists - artists who more fully embrace the values of the common independent, avant-garde, and progressive film goer.
Zui hao de shi guang (2005)
An utter travesty. Avoid at all costs.
An utter unintelligible unmitigated travesty. Watching the paint peel on your walls at home is a far better activity than patronizing this absurd utter waste of a movie. My god what a waste, a complete and utter waste of my and everyone's time. And I'm sad that my local art house theater choose to show this vacuous film.
A particularly poorly thought out part of the film was during the 1911 section, where the film is shown in color and yet we don't hear anyone speak. Instead the film maker puts up silent film type displays showing what's being said. It was all completely unnecessary and stupid. No showing that section in black and white wouldn't make it any better. But god it's all way too rarified. And for what? For no story at all. Just watching paint peel. I guess that's the message of this film: "Life is boring, ho hum. We may as well turn off the projector and sit in the theater twiddling our thumbs for two hours." The entire "message" of this film could have been conveyed in about five minutes. But what the film producers really are doing is imposing a cruel joke upon art house theaters and independent film goers. We people who enjoy the avant-guard can put up with a lot, and with some experimentation. But what this film does is a complete joke and a waste of time.
To all art house theaters showing this film: Please stop. Stop now, before it's too late. You'll turn away potential supporters for life by showing such dribble one more day.
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
cardbord cutouts - not believable
The professional reviews for this film are strange. Some loved it. A few thought it was formulaic. One wanted more body fluids to show up in the gay sex scene. I didn't have the later sentiment. It's possible it was formulaic perhaps. It wasn't particularly moving for me though either. What I came away from the film with was this impression: The movie was believable up until the first gay sex scene. And all the subsequent gay encounters were not believable either. At one point one of the two core cowboys met another presumably gay man and he asked him out. I watched in disbelief and wondered "how the hell did he know that third man was gay?" It was as if they both had built in gay-dar. Maybe since I'm not gay (so far as I know, but I'm pretty sure not) maybe I don't have a keen gay-dar spidey-sense, and perhaps I cannot recognize it in others. On the other hand perhaps the best option is to go with my first and continuing core impressions on this one, and that is this: all the gay portrayals in this film felt fake and artificial and like cardboard. Perhaps the more emotionally malleable or infantile among us saw great & deep meaning & value, & sucked up all the stuff which selected professional reviewers saw through as trite formula. As for me I found the film boring, not satisfying for the most part, and largely not believable.
Dave Chappelle's Block Party (2005)
too much rap, not enough comedy
Dave Chappelle's comedy on TV has been good, although lower & middle class whites who are also oppressed by greasy fat fascist neocons may question the moral validity of having comedy which uses too broad of a brush relative to assigning guilt to lighter skin colors. The In Living Color TV series did that pervasively, where they often lumped all Caucasians into the same boat of being "the man," and yet as a left leaning anti-authoritarian in the same political camp as Gandhi and the Dali Llama, I find myself somewhat offended at being lumped in with the modern right wing fascists of today just because of my skin color and genetics.
In any case, I still found Mr. Chappelle's comedy on TV to be funny. But make no mistake about it, this movie is not, that's n-o-t, a "Dave Chappelle comedy movie." For the most part here's what it is instead: a.) rather pedantic and boring clips of him organizing his 'party,' and b.) way too long bouts of annoying lower grade rap music.
One of the rap songs had some strong put downs for all the "crackers" in city hall. The poor in America may agree as they find that the war on drugs is really a war on the poor - the poor who have no good job prospects and who cannot afford to pay big drug companies for pain meds.
But even so, even if you agree that the war on drugs is evil & does more harm than good, what you're getting from this film if you're a Dave Chappelle fan is not what you would expect to get for your $8. There's simply not enough comedy. The ratio of rap songs to comedy is way off. Mr. Chappelle apparently felt it should be about 95 to 5, whereas the common Chappelle fan would have rightly expected it to be at least 50:50, and more properly about 20:80.
So, yes, I think there's some use in getting music of the rebels out there into the movie houses of the US, but we need a bit more sauce with dry meat.
Also, there's something to be said against a glorification of gangsterism. One can advocate for the poor and for the rights of everyone to be free without advocating gangsterism. And rap music tends, unfortunately, to sometimes glorify more negative & crass aspects of human nature. There is in it a certain brutishness and crassness and blunt aggression, and the rap music serves to transit blunt aggressiveness to future generations.
If the ghetto is to be brought up so as to fight against oppression, it needs to do some internal de-ghetto-ification. Don't drop rap, but maybe kick it up a notch more toward egalitarianism and more toward an advocacy for kindness and respect and a higher level of education.
So I suppose the film was interesting, but it was also boring, and not worth the price I paid. I went expecting to see much more comedy. But what I got instead was to see what the ghetto looks & feels like. And there is some use in that I suppose, but ideally it would have been easier to swallow the dry meat if there would have been more sugar filled jam added on top. I would still get the meat of the rap down, but I can personally only do so happily if it's more interspersed with some good comedy.
Sadly therefore I recommend holding off on seeing this film. There is value in learning about how the "other side" lives, if you're a middle America person & whatnot. But to tell you the truth, it would be easier for the middle Americans to do learning on this level if we can at least every five minutes or so, do some laughing. That's what we went to see a movie with Mr. Chappelle's name on it to do. And there were a few funny spots. But after a while I got bored and wanted to leave, even though I fully agree with the common goals of left leaning anti-authoritarians.
Is it really useful to crassly gain comedic points by pervasively pointing out whites who happen to show up to a black comedian's show? I don't think so. Humans of all colors are capable of great evil and great compassion. All of us have lovers and rapists and abusers in our heritage. I don't particularly want to be blamed for the sins of my mothers & fathers, unless I today am acting as an enabler for continued abuse of the planet & of fellow humans. The no sense of humor modern fascists deserve to be fully excoriated via comedy, and I encourage all comedians of all colors to do as much. Mr. Chappelle and all modern comedians who purport to advocate for the common man should realize that everyone is being oppressed by the right wing modern fascists of today, and that the common man comes in all colors including the color of the oppressor and there are darker colored people amongst the oppressor's ranks here. Also in Africa there are a lot of dark skinned people doing a great amount of harm through wars and ethnic cleansing. So let's just admit to each other that humans can be good or evil regardless of skin color.
The above text is the type of dialogue which needs to take place amongst us, and movies like Mr. Chappelle's could have some value to that end. But if a movie is boring, or not what a person expects, they sadly may loose interest in the topic & walk out. The movie either needed more comedy and less rap, or perhaps a third each of rap, comedy, and a dialogue which would serve to convey to middle America how voting fascist hurts the all American children and puts all of us at risk.
Destricted (2006)
large brown slugs and very long breasts need not be feared
The film contains some shorts about sexuality and pornography. At first we are presented with what looks like a gigantic brownish slug. It was not with shock & horror that the giant darkened slug was viewed by the audience. Rather, the giant slug was greeted with amazement and laughter. The giant slug turns out to be the thankfully in-tact penis of a man who is suspended within a gigantic machine he was making love to. Thankfully the man's penis and testicles aren't torn off by the shaft of the machine, as some lubricant and plastic are present.
In another short we get to see a young man play doctor with a nice regular looking female. The innocence and humor are poignant.
In another we get to see several young and old Balkan women. They either stand and sing with their breasts showing, or they ran around in traditional frocks briefly flashing their vulvas. We also learned about Balkan sexual folklore, such as how their men used to put their penises in holes drilled in wooden bridges so as to prevent impotence. Several other fascinating and funny tales are told.
Another great short starts with several young men being interviewed to be in an adult film. Each talks about their experiences with exposure to porn, and each ends up showing their shaven packages. The showing reveals a certain vulnerability and common humanity between them. Eventually the short producers choose one from the group, and he then gets to interview prospective women who're going to be in the supposed adult film within the short. He ends up selecting the forty year old woman - a lady who is outrageously overt toward him, and who most strongly fits the stereotype of an impish porn star.
The key things revealed in the short are: the vulnerability and tender commonness of human sexuality; the silliness which comes from all the fakery present in regular porn; what it's like for a young male who's been exposed to porn to finally get to have sex with a porn actress; and the strange mix of beauty and silliness that is present in commercial porn. The short wasn't really "porn" itself, it was an effigy of it, a clearly focused full color shadow or impression or view, a clear caricature illustrating what commercialized porn is: some beauty; some realism; some fakery; some pandering; some silliness; some crassness, although there was no crassness in the short itself.
In another short we see several less-than-a-second shots from various porn films.
In another we see a panning shot of the breathtakingly beautiful Death Valley and a man masturbating on the ground there. His struggle for release and his subsequent exhaustion is shown.
In another we see a man and a woman separately watching adult films and masturbating in their own separate bedrooms. Our view of the movie flashes at about seven times per second, and there's repetitive music and faint baby cries heard. We see the young man screwing a plastic doll. We see the woman with her fingers up her vulva. Each are alone. This short illustrated several things including that even when we are having sex the experiences we're having are our own.
In a final shot for the film a line of men in presumably Balkan costumes are all standing with their erect members, which slowly deflate as we all watch. One audience member comments "concentrate" in an attempt to help the men maintain their stature.
Here's the impressions I was left with after the entire film concluded: 1. That porn and open expressions of human sexuality in film should not be feared. Those who fear it simply haven't seen enough of it. Seeing enough helps one realize what porn is. It's not a substitute for real in person interaction. Some couples in western countries use it to help enhance their real in person interactions. Some individuals use it to either help educate themselves about the functionality of human sexuality, or to "get by" during times when they're alone. What is revealed through extensive viewing of humans having sex, in whatever context, is that there is beauty and strangeness and silliness. Everyone has their own tastes. Some more educated more sensitive types probably prefer material which is less crass and more authentic. More real, and less directed and less micro-managed. More true to life.
Also, a lot of exposure to such material does not result in moral degradation. Rather, it results in several things. In part we come to see human sexuality as something akin to the work in a sausage factory. To a birth. To a biological process we get to observe & participate in. To joy, pain, strangeness, a recognition of our connection with all organic life. It's all skin on skin. Flesh on flesh. It's living. Get used to it.
2. That authentic expressions of human sexuality in movies should be celebrated. I'd personally rather see independent films focus on such things, because most anything Hollywood touches turns to crass commercialized crap. So, films like Caligula, Intimacy, 9 Songs, the works of Tinto Brass, and the Pier Paolo Pasolini films such as The Decameron, and The Canterbury Tales - all these films, and this most recent film Destricted, are revolutionary in that they show: That what some of us fear and loath need not be feared, when stared in the face.
3. The human sexuality is pedestrian and beautiful at the same time. Common. Tender. Personal, but public as well. Experientially individual and shared simultaneously. Sometimes intimate and sometimes detached. Overly hyped by some. But not valued enough by others.
At Sundance '06 some of us got to stare a huge slug in the face. The slug moved. The slug grew. But in the end, we found it was just a part of being human and being alive.
Pine Flat (2006)
compares with watching paint peel, with a few good points mixed in
OK, well, I saw this film at the Broadway Theater in Salt Lake at the Sundance Film Festival. This film consists of twelve ten minute shorts which have a still sixteen millimeter camera fixated on a part of nature in the Sierra Nevadas apparently called Pine Flat. In each of the shorts one or more kids are shown, along with a shot of nature.
For the first half of the film, the first six shorts, there was a serious problem with the sound. There was a very loud hissing. Now, normally one would expect to not have this impact a review. However, during the question and answer period after the film completed, the director said that she had to walk out and go see another film because the sound was so bad.
Why in the heck did she leave the rest of us in that room to suffer then? Not stopping the film at that point was inexcusable. She stated that a key part of the film was to foster an appreciation for ambiance. And yet, when that ambiance was destroyed for the first six ten minute shorts, she did nothing to inform us or to rescue us from the pain.
As for other aspects of the shorts, some of them felt highly contrived, especially in the shorts which only had one kid in them who was just sitting there - in a clearly "directed fashion." For example, there was this one male kid with a gun of some sort. He looked uneasy just sitting there for ten minutes. He looked as uneasy as we were. Then there was another male kid with a harmonica. The sound was very loud & poor at that point and I had to cover my ears. But regardless his actions looked contrived. What kid is going to hum on a harmonica for ten whole minutes and sit in one fricken place? No one! In another shot, some young teens are shown making out in the grass. And yet in the background we hear some sort of a sport utility vehicle blasting around. We would normally assume that the kids would get up and look to see which other teen just drove up in his souped up four by four, but they just laid there in a forced manner sucking face. So that shot seemed contrived.
Now, there were some better shorts. In the second half of the film, we get to see some girls swinging on a swing attached to a very old and large tree. In another short we get to see some older teens rough housing and smoking in some very nice woods. In the final short we get to see a tree in fog and some kids on occasionally popping in on the bottom of the frame and the ambient sound in that short was appealing.
So, the shots where kids were moving were much better than where the kids are clearly told they had to stay put. Why? The kids who had to stay put seemed uneasy in almost all cases. They seemed unnatural.
This was an experimental film, and it will probably never be released on DVD. As such it's sad that the director didn't take more of an active role in informing and rescuing the audience from the outrageous sound problems during the first half of the film.
And yes, the second half of the film did cause me to think and ponder about the value of getting out into nature, and about how so many children today are deprived of the wonderful aspects of being out in the trees and grass and away from TV and video games and cell phones. And ambient reflection can be useful.
If the children in some of the shorts hadn't been "directed" to stay put, and if the director herself had rescued us from the poor sound - had stopped the film and fixed the sound problem once and for all before continuing with the film, then I probably would have given the film an eight out of ten. However, since some of the shorts were more painful and contrived, my rating falls to a six, for a second at least. But the sound problem which the director said nothing to us about as she escaped to go view another film to leave us to suffer for the first half of the film brings my overall rating down to a four.
In the future, if any film of this nature is to be shown at Sundance or any film festival, special care MUST be taken to ensure that the film is watchable! If a KEY problem such as sound in an ambiance emphasizing film cannot be fixed, then all the audience should be given passes or refunds.
So maybe parts of the film were good meditation pieces. But if it were every released on DVD, the best value would be to allow people to pick and choose which shorts they want to watch. Normally you'd really only want to watch the parts that interest you. Or on the other hand, instead of watching nature on TV or on the big screen, go out an experience it first hand, and work to preserve what's left.
I suppose in some possible future world if global warming goes out of control, films like this could serve as museum exhibits in institutions built on the poles of the planet where the last remaining survivors of our species live. That is perhaps the primary value of this film. But hopefully those future generations will recognize that our children didn't normally sit in one place for ten minutes at a time in an abnormal fashion - except maybe to watch TV or to play video games.
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)
a vacuous vehicle latched onto by philistine fools
Disney's approaching the philistine mega & evangelical churches was a disgusting marketing ploy along the same lines as the equally disgusting yet aptly bloodthirsty worshiping "Passion of the Christ" - it's all a sign of the times. A time when corporatism and warmongering and religion go hand in hand. A time when the worship of money and power match up quite nicely with what was wrought from 2000 years of bloody history from organized religion.
But what the mega & evangelical church pastors didn't bargain for perhaps was a plot-less heartless mess of the film. Knowing how it was being used by the churches & Disney cast a wide shadow which almost prevented me from seeing it. But I did see it Christmas day. And what I found was a soulless movie. A movie which matches up with the soulless corporatist warmongering which modern conservative churches wallow in today in America. There was no plot. No feeling. The talking animals were absurd, and their talking disgraced & demeaned what our fellow animals really are - just as Disney's films did in the past.
The only useful thing I got out of the film was thinking again about the whole absurd nature of the mythical Jesus's resurrection. Lewis makes a vague reference to it with when the lion sacrifices himself. But what does he sacrifice himself for? Why does he do it? Because of an arbitrary and chosen law. An adherence to "old magic." "It's all poppycock," I thought, "just as is what Christians claim happened with their mythical Jesus, in paying for sins passed down to us by our fathers. The concept that sons & daughters must pay for the sins of their fathers is a reprehensible concept," I thought some more.
So perhaps the church preachers succeeded in having a message conveyed, by latching onto Disney's corporatist fascist greed in a disgusting marketing attempt to use religion to market their mess of a film - but the message conveyed is perhaps not what the preachers wanted perhaps. The synergistic marketing conveyed a message that organized religion in America today primarily worships at the feet of fascist corporatist warmongering. And the film itself, with it's vacuous & wrote nature, shows that it's little more than a self serving vehicle for the corporation known as Disney, a vehicle which the philistine evangelical churches latched on to to serve their own selfish interests.
The poor person centered teachings of the mythical Jesus are far removed from these blatant but vacuous attempts to suck ever more of the uneducated & increasingly disenfranchised American workers, into an ever increasing sense of self denial & delusion - but a state of self denial which serves New American Fascism. Yes, fascism is on the march in America, and sadly Lewis's Narnia is yet another victim.
For comparison, the Narnia story as conveyed on PBS a few years ago was more interesting. But I recommend not wasting your time on this latest mess. Instead, go buy the expanded DVD versions of Lord of the Rings, and maybe check out the PBS Narnia version from your local library or buy it - if you were a fan of the written version. But don't waste your time on this wannabee imitator - on this vacuous soulless sham of the film latched onto by preachers who love war, money, and corporatist power wrought through disgusting marketing synergies. Bletch. Away from me you trashy film. Away from me thou philistines.
9 Songs (2004)
More true portrayals of life should be celebrated
Any movie which tries to show sex the way it is deserves a 10 in my book. I live in a part of the US (Utah) where many sexually repressed (& therefore abused & damaged & deranged) people live - where many people live who hate their own bodies & the sexual parts of their natures. I grew up in the culture here which fears & loathes sex & true honest naked human bodies. When I was growing up I hated & resented the sexual feelings I started to have. Now as a mature adult who's rejected the abusive repressive culture of his youth, I am very pleased and honored that Salt Lake City is as of today (12 August 05) one of the places which is showing this film in the US. I commend the film makers for trying to portray sex the way it is - in a way far better than the fakey nonsense of Hollywood, and in a better way than the fakey nonsense of the crass forms of "porn." I know that porn was a term created by people who didn't like the wall paintings at Pompeii, and I think that non-fakey non-coercive "porn" is highly useful, but fakey porn which has moans and other accouterments which are fake isn't useful. I think we need more portrayals of true human sexuality. It's not all that flashy. It's not fake & restful either. It's just plain old wonderful sex. In "9 Songs" one type of sex is shown - the type where the female prefers that the male leave his condom on long term. But the couple is young, and 20 something young adults rightly play the field, and that's good. Anyway, one local repressed-culture-advocating newspaper in Salt Lake referred to this film as a type of "porn." I would say that it's not, any more than getting up in the morning and taking a shower, or seeing yourself naked in the mirror, or even your masturbating or having sex is "porn." A far better term is life! Sex is part of life. To the repressed repressing people I say: Get used to it! Learn to love it!