Change Your Image
BigBoote66
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Alien Sex Party (2003)
Lousy
Not funny, not shocking, not much of anything. The movie strives for that slapped-together indie vibe and overshoots the mark, much to its detriment. My problems? The characters are one-dimensional and unfunny; they're all made to be so "wacky" (but not funny) that it becomes tiresome almost immediately, especially the boss. The music reminds me of the kind of songs you make up spontaneously while performing some task ("I'm taking the garbage out/Go garbage go/No more will you stink up my house/No garbage no"). The story is nonexistent.
On top of all this, the "Let's teach a lesson" vibe of the sex talk fails to amuse or educate. Nothing these people is saying is anything you couldn't read in a issue of some random supermarket magazine anyway, so what's the point? Do they think they'll be scandalizing the squares with "shocking frankness"? The acting is so wooden that it's a serious possibility that the filmmakers were parodying real pons, with their stilted dialog, but realization of that doesn't make the film any easier to swallow.
The whole thing has the feeling of a home video made by a bunch of freshmen in an afternoon, but since it's a Moby project, you get to see it on the shelves of your local store & pay a few bucks for the privilege to see it. I suppose if you're a rabid Moby fan, it's a worthwhile view, in the same way that you'd get a kick out of checking out his vacation photos. But for anyone else, you may as well just get a bunch of friends together, get silly and start filming each other - you'll have a lot more fun & end up with an equivalent product anyway.
La planète sauvage (1973)
Neither a masterpiece, nor scifi, nor allegory
Don't watch this movie expecting some clever allegory, nor speculative sf. It's no masterpiece either - extremely dated music, downright cheesy by today's standards, and the "adult themes" are limited to lots of identical-looking bare female breasts (and a glimpse or two of an occasional tiny penis).
It seems like the filmmakers started out with grand ambitions, but ran out of money, since the editing & general story has major continuity problems, and the ending stops the story short like a brick wall. The story is extremely simple, and has been told a million times, before and since. The "allegory" is limited pretty much to the idea of "Soviet Union = blue giants, Eastern European nations = tiny humans; can't we all just get along?". It's also a low- budget animated film, so don't expect even Hannah-Barbara level production values.
However, if you're interested in some trippy, hippy spins on weirdo-70s alien lifeforms - sweater barfing tribbles, giant anteater bats, seasons that are marked by crystals growing on your body, etc., then check it out. There are definitely some clever ideas from an art direction standpoint going on here - too bad the filmmakers didn't have the budget or the writers to do it justice.
Not entertaining, but of interest to fans of obscure animation.
The Jerk (1979)
Wow, this movie didn't age well at all
I remember this movie being THE movie to see back when it came out and I was a teenager, and it didn't disappoint - there was a ton to laugh at.
But I saw it for the second time last night, and it had almost no effect on me at all. I had one laugh out loud moment - the "shinola" lesson (mainly just from the concept, not the fact that he steps in it at the end, which presumably is the "punchline"). Otherwise I was deadpan throughout, although the musical number was charming, especially when Peters pulls out the coronet.
The movie was really a product of its times - back then it was unlike everything else in the theaters - it hearkened back to some of the Marx Brothers anarchy - but by today's standards, it just didn't do it for me anymore. There are more genuine laugh out loud moments in any given Simpsons episode than there are in the entire movie. Perhaps it's because most of the comedy lessons that this movie taught have now become part of mainstream comedy, even cliché. If you were seeing it through fresh eyes, it might have the ability to get a laugh (it didn't for my wife, her first time), but it doesn't hold up to repeated viewings.
Idi i smotri (1985)
Worth seeing, but caveats
As others have said, the film is brutal and visceral. Definitely worth watching; this is the kind of movie that would never be made in the United States (either by Hollywood or independents), for good or ill.
Examples of the "difference" include things like live ammunition being used for gunfire, and the fact that they actually machine-gunned a cow (and filmed a close-up of its death-throes).
However, I'd like to address an issue that seemed quite plain to me but others haven't touched on. People call this an anti-war movie, but I feel it works almost as well as anti-Nazi propaganda. The tone of this movie is unrelentingly bitter and every instance of anti-war sentiment can be interpreted as an indictment on the brutality of the Nazis.
I'm not trying soft-sell anything perpetrated by Germany during the war, but merely contrast the way that an anti-war movie would be made by the West. In every serious war movie I'm familiar with, there is a strong sense of regret and ambivalence over the actions of both sides. The message that you walk away with is "both sides are capable of committing terrible acts." But this film squarely puts the acts of evil in the hands of an almost cartoonish (although terrifying) "enemy" that would seem over-the-top in "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Perhaps things were as bad as this; perhaps this is the directors way of showing how traumatized the boy was by what he witnessed. But the fact remains that the Russians are universally portrayed to be good and suffering and heroic, given the circumstances. Even the denouement of the film, showing the destroyed German force, would indicate that ultimately the partisans, with their rifles & handful of mortars, were capable of destroying an body equipped with armor, air support and plenty of fresh lobster.
The most glaring point was the final scene, where the Germans are shot by the partisans instead of being burned alive. Given what had come before, I felt this showed a "turn the other cheek" attitude that simply wasn't reflected in the historical realities, where advancing Russian forces gave back nearly as well as they got, burning entire German towns , with plenty of rapes & atrocities to go around.
I understand that war movies almost invariably portray the protagonists as rising above their enemies level of barbarism, but given the portrayal of the horrors visited upon them by the Germans, I didn't buy it. The ending smacked of propaganda, and I would have preferred the film to conclude after the destruction of the village - the anti-war message would have been complete.
Instinct (1999)
Cheesy Hokum
I'm having trouble believing all the positive comments that this film is pulling down. From its cliched and plagiaristic script, to its heavy-handed, obvious, "here's how you should feel now" score, to the flat direction & cinematography (when I first saw it on TV, I was convinced I was watching some made-for-tv CBS "Movie of the Week" until you get to see Hopkins). The only thing it has going for it was the competent performances put in by the principles (Hopkins, Gooding, Sutherland), but the roles they were portraying were the most generic stereotypes going, so it was somewhat in vain.
What's to hate? How about the way the movie creates cartoon-evil prison just so Gooding & Hopkins can have an "enemy" to fight against for some phony conflict. How about the way the "incompetent" prison therapist gets to have a redemption halfway through the film (resulting in not only his personality changing, but his hair suddenly becomes neatly groomed), which leaves the movie without a villain. What to do? Create a new one by passing the buck to the warden & chief guard. Dialogue as obvious & predictable as a nursery rhyme (the second Hopkins asks Gooding "what have I taken from you?", I knew Gooding would get three guesses and I knew they would be "Control", "Freedom" and "My Illusions"). How about the cheesy gorilla-suited actors - the baby gorilla, which was already pretty suspect due to the puppet-like way it moved it's head (it looked like Yoda), becomes preposterous when it does its all-too-human "reach out the hand" gesture as Hopkins is fighting the killers.
Overall, the movie seems like something that was written, directed & acted on autopilot.
Roger Dodger (2002)
Try to figure out what makes Roger tick
This is a great movie, made greater by the fact that there's more to it that meets the eye. On the surface it appears to be a "cynical womanizer learns about life from his naive nephew" story. As that, the movie is pretty darn good - great (if mannered) dialogue, score and acting by Campbell Scott & the others. But what really knocks it out of the park is the way that the filmmakers slyly gave you the whole story about how Roger gets to be the way he is without hitting you over the head with it, or piling it on with exposition (despite the fact that the movie's all about dialogue) or even appearing to reveal it at all. In fact, you can watch the movie without ever knowing his underlying reasons and it still works. All of Roger's actions, his relationship with Joyce, his alienation from his sister & father, his initial reasons for tutoring Nick & his final redemption (not a cop-out or Hollywood ending, by the way) hinge upon the conversation that ensues in the booth where Nick tells Roger & the two girls stories about his Roger's childhood, as heard from his mother. See my post in the comments section regarding Spoilers if you have something to add or contend.
Mat i syn (1997)
Best Coffee Table Book of 1999!!!
I loved this movie! It's the finest parody of Russian cinema to date. Who else but Sokurov could lampoon Tarkovsky so brilliantly. You thought "Stalker" was slow? Well, step up to the plate. "Mat i Syn" makes "Stalker" look like "Raiders of the Lost Ark". By no means should you miss this film! There's no excuse - even if you live a busy life, you can still enjoy this film to its fullest by holding down the fast-forward button on your VCR. Sokurov has given us the first feature length film that can be appreciated in 12 minutes.
I suppose the next great masterpiece of the form will come when someone has the vision and courage to exhibit a film that consists of no sound or image at all - 45 minutes of a black, silent screen (wasn't this already explored in "In The Soup"?).
Apparently the filmmaker (and fans) have forgotten that "motion" is the first word of "motion picture".
!!!MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
Want to reach the heights of genius that this film achieved? Here's a step by step guide:
1. Find a talented photographer.
2. Find some subjects and a suitably picturesque landscape (think Tuscany!). If you need inspiration, watch some luxury car or perfume commercials.
3. Shoot about 3 rolls of film.
4. Photoshop the results to play around with saturation, blur & aspect ratio.
5. Now just get out your movie camera, film 40 of the best pictures and have your "actors" mumble their lines off-screen. Don't worry about writing it ahead of time - just let the actors say whatever they want (lines like "Do you want a drink?" and "Let's get something to eat" are really all you need to fill up 8 minutes or so). If you can't think of enough dialog - no problem! Just have them repeat what they say a few times. If that still isn't enough, just let the camera run anyway.
Congratulations, another masterpiece! As a bonus, if you want to distribute it over the internet, no problem! The static images will compress down to nothing with standard mpeg encoding - a 73 minute movie would probably be about 2-3 megabytes, even at the highest quality levels.