Reviews

A real surprise. Very well written, a combination of a 70s paranoia thriller, sci-fi and the Battle of Algiers kind of war movie. Not for everyone though (you have to bring your brain with you for this one)

Don't believe the nitwits with the usual incredibly boring, amateurish and worst movie ever lines (you never should eh?)

This is one of Schrader's best. Thoughtful and will made in all respects.

Is just more like good whisky than a bag of popcorn.

Man what a complete deadening amount of boring soundtrack music this doc has. Totally kills the whole film.

A modern masterpiece of film making. More in vein with Lowry's A ghost story than his Pete's dragon.

It's not a megaplex popcorn crowd pleaser.

Will you like it? Well, it's not very difficult. Read the reviews here and decide which group of (re)viewers you might belong to.

:-)

Man man man, I really love this subject but the completely over the top, loudly mixed, overbearing soundtrack that just goes on and on and on and smothers everything made it unwatchable. Just had to turn it off after 30 minutes.

Man was this a mess of a movie. So many different little ideas cobbled together without any underlying coherent vision or more importantly, commitment to any of them. And because of that it fails in any of the directions the story could have potentially been taking. The whole finale was laughable in it's unearned seriousness. And then to start the credits with such a cheap horror thunder soundtrack sound. Hahaha.

Like some other reviewers stated the film is very beautifully shot.

A shame that apart from that it's a rather incompetent mix of various surreal movies (of which David Lynch is the most prominent). Acting is also very amateurish.

A truly visionary, intelligent and funny follow-up to the simplistic, sugarsweet first film.

Miller simply pulls of this wildly ambitious tale.

And folks.....there's nothing wrong with some darkness in children's stories. Ask Roald Dahl or the brothers Grimm.

This is as far from a masterpiece as it is from being the worst movie ever.

It's just a little different. Talky. Perhaps too talky for it's own good.

But still a nice throwback to 70s thriller/drama's.

Very very ambitiious & intelligent script, great visuals, music and acting. Will be regarded as a masterpiece in years to come.

So don't believe all these "worst blah blah blah ever" people. This film either flies over their heads or they slavishly compare it to to "the original". It;s a very different beast alltogether, way more ambitious in it's themes but hey....it isn't the technicolor set piece nightmare that the original was (let's also not forget that despite that the original has a very poor script, always Argento's weak spot)

Really nice little movie. Well written, funny, very well acted....and with a healthy dose of ambition. More movies could use that.

Amazing confident second feature from Brandon Cronenberg.

Very intelligent script. Amazing visuals and soundtrack. Yes, intellectual. Yes, clinical both in attitude and (for sure!) violence.

Funny of course that this triggers all the dimb witted "worst movie ever" and "snorerefest" reviewers.

Really: This isn't for everyone.

And it's all the better for it

All hail Cronenberg. Both father and son. Curious how cozy Cronenberg family dinners are though.

Don't believe the "worst movie ever" reviewers (hey.... there can't be many worst movies ever anyway right)

This is a pretty entertaining thriller like they made lots in the 90s.

Yes, a bit pulpy, but there's nothing wrong with that.

And indeed (as some worst movie ever reviewers note) it doesn't have a typical storyline or cliché finale and closure.

But why should every movie follow that boring pattern?

So if you're up for something a bit different yet still in a pulpy thriller entertainment mode you can't go wrong with Looking Glass.

A smart, ironic, funny critique of America and the American dream.

And all that wrapped in delirious neon.

Guess the bright colors and sleazy nude made it hard for people (mainly Americans by the way, irony eh, not their strongest point) to "get" this one.

While not as great as Aster's debut (best horror film of the last 10 years) this is another very good, intelligent horror drama.

Intentionally uneasy viewing, and very intentionally funny as well.

With a slow build that really works (is even needed, the longer director's cut is better therefore than the theatrical cut) to soak up the atmosphere.

And hey....of course all this brings out the fury (the 1 scoring fury) of people who like their movies fast, dumb and without ambiguity. And cannot understand so it seems there are different kind of films as well. That are not for them....but nonetheless (hugely) appreciated by different people.

Skål!!!

Got a half decent idea for a short tv episode (but hey... leave out the cuckoo opening scenes then, no need to spell out the whole thing beforehand) but as a feature it's just an amateurish mess without much thought, balance in it's storytelling or coherence behind it (and yes it is "surreal" but that doesn't make it any better)

This is an amazing artwork. Deliberately dark and disturbing. Very intelligently and technically well-made (which makes it all the more disturbing).

Like the protagonist of the story it pulls you down a very dark tunnel. Will you go along? Will you keep watching?

Will you keep watching ant then try to puke out your negative feelings by writing a silly, dumb negative review?

Man was this a disappointment.

Such a story to tell....but none told.

Yes, the archive footage is gold, but at no point did the makers tell a story, give insights. The only point IS the archive material and a voiceover that has nothing of note to tell.

Almost every minute I wanted to shout at the screen "Yes but how did this happen?" or "Why was this decided", "What was the idea behind this?", etc etc.

Halfway though I gave up.

This episode in World History deserves a more intelligent, insightful filmmaker.

My God, how many cliches about war (and war movies) can you pile up in one film? A lot it seems. There's not a single line of dialogue or sequence in the script that isn't a rehash of far better movies, the dialogue mostly consists of overblown, patriotic rubbish, the wives that stay at home are portrayed idiotic. And the Vietcong have little sequences that are supposed to show them as "being humans too", after which they get massacred by the thousands by the brave American soldiers. And apart from the fact that it's a very bad movie in itself, it's also another bad movie that tries to simplify and rewrite history in a very ugly way.

Though it's long since I've seen the movie (but I've seen it a couple of times) the previous comment urged me to write something. This is an EXCELLENT movie. It's in a very different tone than the other two "dead" movies. Whereas "dawn" was largely played for laughs (except for the end) this one's dead (forgive the pun) serious! No laughs. A very nihilistic movie that's claustrophobic and towards the end VERY gory (that's why it's banned in some countries). However, none of this is played for laughs (as in most contemporary horror movies) and therefore very disturbing. It doesn't paint a very bright picture about humankind. But if you're in for a serious movie (and be scared ****less) definitely go see it!

Simply put this is a great movie. And one that was years ahead it's time dealing with the now so popular "serial killer" theme. But most interesting about the movie is the way it makes you think about the moral aspects of the death penalty. Friedkin simply shows and lets the viewer make up his /her own mind about it. That's why it succeeds: it doesn't want to teach you a moral lesson or oversimplify like most Hollywood fare does. And on top of that it has a wonderful Ennio Morricone score.