Change Your Image
lokidog
Reviews
Climax (2018)
Boring remake of Reefer Madness?
Annoying characters, lack of a story, unrealistic events, silly acrobatics that mask as dancing, and boring. Is this a 'Don't Say Know?' video? Characters that seem to be familiar with rave culture that are outraged at being exposed to psychedelics - Really!? I've seen LSD users many many times, this is not what happens. If I wasn't so convinced this was made by a kindergartner it would have been funny.
Maybe if this focused on an experimental or designer drug, or a mystery as to why someone would spike the parties punch, Maybe a take on Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde sort of theme. Filmmaking was at times interesting, but turning the frame upside down is not creative, it's childish. If it's trying to capture what it's really like in the film, the filmmaker should realize that when you are physically upside down, your perception is not completely 'upside' down.
Foxcatcher (2014)
Why did that just happen?
I guess I had really high expectations about this film. I also thought I'd get some answers to the real life mystery. Perhaps with no preconceptions I would have enjoyed it more. Wonderful acting, some great dialogue. Understated performances is an understatement here (with notable exceptions). I was not really captivated by the wrestling scenes, but this could be my lack of interest in them rather than the film itself. It's all atmosphere, character development, and performance, with some fine direction. But where is the story? I also found fault with what I assume is the editing. There are parts of the film that seem be skipped, where I was sure a scene was missed - or parts that were so briefly shown it was nearly impossible to observe what was important, but this could be a fault of direction or camera- work.
I am still wondering why most of the events in the film happened. Time after time, events occur in the film that beg the question "what!? - where did that come from?". Did I miss something? I even went back to re-watch some scenes and there were no answers.
Perhaps the filmmakers did not want to make this an 'inspired-by-real- events' film, but a more accurate portrayal. Fine aspirations but the result here was a really long dissatisfying film.
Frank's Place (1987)
Still miss this show! Update on Austin Leslie
This show was truly great. It must have been - I still think about it regularly after so many years. What I wanted to put here was a sad update on the show's inspiration - at least for it's atmosphere and location - Chez Helene in New Orleans and it's proprietor Austin Leslie. I visited New Orleans a few years after the show was canceled, and sought out the restaurant. Austin talked to me at length and told me stories about the influence his place had on the show, as well as many other stories and anecdotes, as well as advice on my visit. He was really a great host. It was first time to New Orleans and his welcome really made my trip special. So did the smothered cabbage and pig tails!(it was a creole and soul food restaurant). Years later, after Katrina, I looked him up to see how he was doing. I have a cookbook he signed for me (as well as drawing a caricature of himself inside); and I was making a recipe out of it... Sadly he died from the ravages of Hurricane Katrina. He was trapped in an attic and was exposed to heat (over 120F!) and other deprivations, which weakened him, and he eventually succumbed to pneumonia. But what a cook and truly remarkable person!
The Cannibal in the Jungle (2015)
A Spoof gone too far?
Well my opinion of Animal Planet is pretty low. I want a documentary channel mostly about animals. What I get is a channel full of reality shows about idiots. So a fake documentary - I guess I would expect it. But they don't say it's fake, and say it's 'science' etc. If I could I would take if off my lineup. Nothing about this is real, except some reality about a species discovered that were nicknamed hobbits (though even that is controversial on many levels).
My sister was fooled, as was my dad (who was told it was real by my sis). I watched and was not fooled - the interviews were just wrong - too perfect, and they just felt acted. Then old home movies came up and they looked like ones made for MTV - to look old. Also and Indonesian official with an Indian accent (perhaps, but not that likely - and he was too perfect in his dialogue too). Strangely I did not see glaring errors in the science behind some of the show, which usually I catch right away (but I see these in documentaries too). But after I realized it was all fake I think I turned off my scrutiny glasses.
The Château (2001)
Horrible waste of time
This should have been a horror film where all the characters were killed off - in ever more devious and tortuous ways. None of the characters are likable. The plot itself is actually interesting, but it's completely undone by all the unbelievable details. One of the worst is the brotherhood of the two Americans - Rudd and Malco. These two did not grow up together! To me they seemed to be random people who met on a train rather than brothers. There is a sort of explanation for this, but it is not at all believable, and actually takes away from the storyline - I think they realized something needed to be done as the actors were not well cast. There are other films with similar plots like "A Good Year", and "Year of the Comet" that, although not great films, are much more satisfying.
Dom Hemingway (2013)
Black Comedy and self examination in the guise of a Gangster Flick
I had no idea what type of film this was - just watched it because it had Jude Law in it who I have not seen in a while. Almost turned it off after the opening scene, and the next scene did not impress either. Both suggested this was going to be a revenge themed movie and I was just not in the mood. It seemed that it was going to be a loud, British gangster flick, all hype and flash, no substance. Well, I continued, and to my surprise it's turned into a comedy - albeit a really dark black comedy. And Jude Law is simply mesmerizing. I think the negative comments about this film are due to peoples expectations. This film simply is not like any others - and is really hard to fit into a box. I laughed and was really touched (with tears welling) in many scenes as well. I am almost sure this is one to watch again too - as there was really way too much going on to capture in one viewing. The dialogue is memorable and needs a re-listen or two to really appreciate. The other characters counterpoints are just as important, but you often don't catch them till later, and then another scene is distracting you from thinking about them. Sure this dialog is not realistic, but this is not that type of film. It's a bit like Shakespearean prose delivered with a frenetic Robin Williams style, but with the attitude of Dennis Hopper (various roles) combined with a bit of Joe Pesci as Tommy DeVito in Goodfellas.
The Girl (2012)
Response to those who doubt validity of story
First, this is an excellent bit of film. It draws you into it's story with witty dialogue, excellent acting, and great cinematography. However one of the main criticisms of this story hinges on the somewhat negative portrayal of Hitchcock. This is not created out of thin air. Tippi Hedren has on many occasions told these stories - and many have backed her up. Others have also mentioned similar examples of Hitchcock's eccentricities, especially related to his female stars. There are many other stories about his disdain for actors in general (he was perhaps the opposite of an actor's director - though there are many others who have worse reputations!) This takes nothing away from Hitchcock as a film-maker. It simply means people are complicated. This film is one perspective on a set of relationships and can't, as a dramatic film, really be objective. However, it does not completely trash Hitchcock - it's actually more sympathetic than some. He was clever, charming, creative, witty, and talented, but also could be conceited, vindictive, and even vulnerable.
Black Death (2010)
Horrible - Nearly Unwatchable
I did like the concept, and the general story, but it's a very poorly made and executed film. The camera work is like something you would expect from a film made at a drunken frat party; by the winner of the chug contest. It is so jerky at times as to make it hard to tell who is in the frame. Often this is at times when there is little action. I hate this type of camera work except when it is important to telling the scene. The story comes out in dribs and drabs - but is mostly disappointing. It really misses the mark of what could have been good. I do like the general setting, the characters, and the acting was at times excellent.
La posesión de Emma Evans (2010)
Everything about this film is awful!
I thought I'd watch a good horror flick on a foggy evening at home. Well, I watched about 1/4 of this film, and gave up to watch re-runs. I hardly ever do this usually watching anything through to the end. I then watched the rest the next day, just to see if I missed something - Nope! Was this a high school project? Did anyone in the production ever go to film school? The story starts out sort of interesting with a girl cutting herself in a sort of flashback. Then family scenes with teenage angst and a sort of goth teen angle. So I thought maybe this would explore psychological problems of modern teens and frame it as demonic possession. Well, it does, sort of... It just skims the surface, and then the plot becomes ridiculous. The demon-possessed girl goes around recking havoc on everyone, yet is just allowed to go about her daily routine! It's nearly laughable, but not quite. Then lets talk about the characters... I wanted all of them to be killed, just to shut them up. They seem to act randomly - without really following any track. And lastly, the shaky camera of Cinéma vérité - come now! This should only be used for certain reasons. I assume the film maker wanted this to make us feel closer to the story, but it's actually distractive and alienating. If this camera work is supposed to represent the view of a character in the story - who could this be? I am not a fan of this type of camera work in nearly any film - but here it's really misused. It's not at all documentarial, nor are we following a missing third person - so it just makes me sea sick! There is a line near the end of the film - sorry I don't want to re-watch to find it!, but it's something like "Someone has to stop this" and I thought this should be the tagline!
The Brothers Bloom (2008)
One of the worst movies of 2008
Hard to watch, hard to follow, hard to understand the dialogue: simply horrible. The plot is so convoluted and contrived and full of so many holes that you end up wanting the 'good' guys to meet a horrible end. The characters are not really developed - but all presented from the beginning the same as the way they end - no changes or learning really. Especially bad in this is the weird camera work, and I assume editing (though it's hard to judge this as I have no idea what he had to work with). Scenes are shot from low angles at a slant with apparently no reason, cuts are made between scenes with no continuity - and this is not done for any dramatic effect that I could fathom. This film reminded me most of Harold and Maude (even has a Cat Stevens tune) - but unfortunately combined with Hudson Hawk. The only good thing about the film is the scenery, when it isn't being shot at a slant, and some of the scenes where Rachel Weisz is allowed to shine (far too little), Maximilian Schell adds his special touch, and when Robbie Coltrane is the focus. Mark Ruffalo's character is flat and uninteresting, and Adrien Brody's is just plane pathetic.
Derailroaded (2005)
Fine Film, Poor Music
It is hard to separate a documentary from it's subject. The film was entertaining and insightful. It captured the life of Wild Man in a way that was honest and insightful. I really enjoyed the inclusion of his family as well as his past friends and collaborators. What I found hard to stomach in this film was his music - and a few of his 'critics' who thought his music was original outsider art/music. I could not fathom anyone thinking his lyrics and especially his music anything but naive babble. I know that a big part of outsider art is it's naiveté and that it is sometimes hard to find the core of creativity in this. But usually something - composition, a vision, a perspective - something comes through to make it art. His music is mostly spontaneous ramblings that have no coherence. I've heard much of this sort of thing coming from toddlers and preschool children. I composed some great tunes to my dog last night (but I may have obscured my tunes in too much irony to qualify as outsider music?) One of the critics, I believe it was the Rhino records executive, started to analyze one of Wild Man's tunes as if it were a clever comment on society and I laughed out loud. I think he is most akin to the dadaists - and most of their work has not stood the test of time - and is more important as a historical movement than an artistic one. Can you name a Dadaist - besides Man Ray or Marcel Duchamp (both of whom may also be classified in other artistic movements). But opposed to the Dadaists, his music is not really protesting anything - and is not (as the really annoying Mark Mothersbaugh in this film suggests) reacting to prevalent musical trends occurring in the late 60's and 70's - resulting in a nascent punk genre? Mothersbaugh's contention that the white-get-drunk-party 'concert' rock of the 70's as being bereft of meaning and conformist is ridiculous. His music is the answer? I have Devo albums and although I like them still - they are silly, pretentious at times, and hardly have any deep meaning. I also have some Styx albums (an example of the concert rock genre) - and although also silly and contrived at times, I believe have more heartfelt and sincere sentiment (mostly non-conformist at that) in the lyrics than most new wave (is this even a music term anymore) or punk tunes. 'Concert' rock was perhaps over-produced, and punk - under - but both were often saying very similar things. Disco however.... (Although I like some Disco too - usually in an ironic way - but then again that foot sometimes starts tapping itself into places where the ears fear to tread).
Now I have to compare this to another documentary that I saw a few years ago - 'The Devil and Daniel Johnston' the subject of whom is mentioned in Derailroaded (most annoying title of a film?). See this film if possible - it's finally released. This film is amazing! It brought me to tears - in several scenes. The film haunted my dreams, early morning groggy thoughts, and daydreams. And Daniel Johnston, as opposed to Wild Man, is an artist. His music has a point and is almost pure emotion that sometimes tears you apart. (Not so sure about his visual art). Wow.
The pathology of each of these people is rather similar, although mention was not made of Wild Man's drug use (if there was any), and it was a prominent part of Daniel Johnston. However, the personality of each is markedly different. Wild Man - I find very annoying - I think that I am on the side of his family here. I did not believe his depiction of his mother, Frank Zappa, or most other people in his life. Not only is he schizophrenic, and bi-polar (I think manic depressive is actually more descriptive here), but he is also self absorbed, selfish, and egocentric. Daniel Johnston is none of these things. So this makes it also hard to separate these films - Johnston is likable - Wild Man is not. I've know a few people like Wild Man (without the extreme pathology) and have had to work with them - it is not fun - extremely exasperating only touches the surface of a description of the experience. Maybe this personality type is so antithetical to mine that I can not judge the merits of this film objectively - but isn't that true for many of us?
Dune (1984)
Very Bad Realization of a Great Story
This film is terrible. The latest version has the directors name as Allen Smithee - meaning that the real director disavowed any relation to it (David Lynch).
The original problems in the release were largely thought to be the confusing plots and language. However, I never thought that was it. I had recently read the book and then saw the movie (not always a good idea). But I knew the plot, and the language. Much of the story is in the film too - perhaps too much. I remember thinking I wanted to physically harm Dino De Laurentis for producing it. The acting is horrible - at times it seems a parody of old spaghetti westerns. The dialog is even worse - who wrote this drivel? Language that seems fine in the novel just fails on screen. And voiceovers - get rid of them! Do it with visuals. They only work in very select situations.
The editing is also horrible. The cuts seem to jump around so randomly that I suspect this is what most confused the original audience. I think the editors tried to keep up a time-line continuity, but it was not necessary - it would have been much better to focus and stay with the small stories throughout the movie (and just leave out many of the non-essential sequences).
The only things in the film worthwhile are the photography, and visual effects. Quite advanced for the time. Perhaps the only negative here are the dream/vision sequences - these look like they were added later and quickly.
The Devil and Daniel Johnston (2005)
One of the best Documentary Films
This film take you on a journey into a creative genius' struggle with life. Daniel Johnston recorded his entire life on cassette tape and his early life on film. Later he appeared on MTV, and in venues in Austin, TX on film and video. These provide the film-maker with a wide array of media for telling this story.
Jeff Feuerzeig weaves this material seamlessly into what is one of the most emotionally wrenching films I've seen in the last year and one of my favorite documentaries ever. It is hard to compare this film with documentaries like those of Michael Moore which are comedic and topical, or those of Errol Morris, which tend to focus on issues and facts. This documentary brings emotional threads and creativity into play in a way that dissolves the usual harsh contrast between a story and it's telling. You forget you are watching a documentary film, and become immersed in Daniel's life. Daniel's effect on those around him is interwoven with his own recordings. His family and friend are there to add to his story to show how his life is reflected upon them. Feuerzeig use of Daniel's parents narrative is simply masterful - it provides important information, and at the same time illustrates the the emotional turmoil his illness causes in the lives of those that love him. Daniel's family is portrayed from the early period of his illness when they have no idea what mental illness really means, to the present time when they become his supporters and advocates. Eventually, family and friend's are shown coming to terms with Daniel's mental illness, and experience their own emotional growth as well.
It deservedly won the Directors Award at Sundance 2005, and I think it would have won the audience award if it had a different play schedule.
Forty Shades of Blue (2005)
It won the Sundance Drama Grand Prize?
First, the plot summary is incorrect in a couple minor ways. Laura, the Russian girlfriend of Alan James (Rip Torn) met him in Russia on a business trip/ conference (according to a long conversation in the film between Laura and Michael (Alan's son). Second they don't live in a penthouse, but on the banks of the Mississippi, in a sprawling 70's era house (NOT luxury but great set). Michael is not a freelance writer, but a literature Professor (as he discusses in a couple instances in the film - but would probably rather be a free-lance writer).
I saw this film at the Best of Fest (Sundance) Screening in Park City, UT, knowing that it was the juried Grand Prize Drama winner with high expectations. After having seen several other films, and having been attending the festival for 15 years, I was very disappointed and quite perplexed that it went away with this honor.
The film plods along revealing the characters as boring, sad, and shallow ghosts. The only exception is Alan (Torn) who does a wonderful job (but he always place this sort of role - a curmudgeonly, outwardly genial, jerk). The story is fairly simple, and verges on Oedipal themes, however, there is no real impact of the relationship that develops between Michael and Laura, as it takes place in a miasma of moral uncertainty. Alan and Laura are not married; Alan openly courts another girlfriend and has other transient relationships, Laura picks up men in bars and has a fling here and there, and Michael is ambivalent about most everything.
The story moves so slowly and the characters have such restrained reaction to what would seem as provocative situations, that the viewer comes away with a sort of numb bewilderment. The dialog is simply awful, and often distracting. Laura goes around saying things that you might expect a Russian Tour Guide to say (which she was year ago). It would be fine if she said and reacted in this way occasionally, from a realistically portrayed film such as this, I want more: more emotion, more anger, more. Laura is just sad - throughout the entire piece.
Michael's dialog is even worse. He's a Literature Professor, but seems illiterate. He says things that at times are harder to understand than Laura with her Russian accent. And the content of what he say's are often out-of-place and silly. His character is also the most shallowly portrayed in the film. He is simply blank. It is never believable that he would have a relationship with Laura.
Don't bother with this film. If you want to see something similar, but with considerable more depth, see The Ice Storm.
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)
Irreverent Raunchy Silly Childish Hilarious
Well - you are either into Jay and Silent Bob or not. If you are then this will satisfy. No character development, complex plot, or that sort of Indie Film expectations should be expected. A self-indulgent movie of Kevin Smith's alter-ego. In the vane of Saturday Night Live skits, X-rated Abbot and Costello flicks, and a little bit of Autin Powersish Outlandishness. Great Fun for the Alternative Crowd (whatever that means) - all with a little movie insider satire. I loved it - hopefully there will be more of these!
Zero Effect (1998)
Great Filmmaking and a Story in the Holmesian Tradition
Other comments and reviews have missed what to me is obvious and intriguing about this film. It is based on the premise of Sherlock Holmes brought into the 1990's, more than a hundred years into the future. There is Steve Arlo, a lawyer in the stead of a doctor Watson. There is the detail of the drug habit of the greatest living detective, Zero; methamphetamine , instead of injects of a 7% solution of cocaine. Then there is the story which is based on a few Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes stories, especially "A Scandal in Bohemia" where Holmes encounters "The Woman" Irene Addler.
The film also explores the nuances of a Holmesian personality, the reclusiveness, the unrelenting observational compulsions, an over active ego, Zero's dependence on his employee and friend Arlo, Zero's difficulty at coming to terms with his feelings for "the woman" etc. All these themes run through the film, yet don't take away from the storyline, and only make the plot twists more interesting.
Holmes fans will, I think, love this film, and will ask for more. Unfortunately, given, this film's uninspiring action at the box office (due to lack of any real promotion) I think we have seen the last of Zero.
Benny & Joon (1993)
Depp's performance had me in tears, laughing uncontrollably
I agree with many of the positive comments posted about this film. I therefore won't repeat the positive comments concerning the love story line or the mental illness issues. This movie made me laugh uncontrollably until tears were streaming down my face. Depp's comedic scenes imitating silent screen stars like Keaton and Chaplin are wonderful. His facial feature as well as his choreography and body language all mesh into something that transfixes the viewer. It made me want to watch some of these silent movies and indeed I did. They were somewhat disappointing, however, since the cinematography or video quality often detracts from these old movies magic. Depp's scenes in Benny and Joon, conversely are well shot and really enliven Depp's performance.