Reviews

A time capsule to observe how the destruction of the American/Western civilization from the late 1960s on, has been commited.

Wow, what poison.

Well acted, but still deadly poison ...

In this movie I think there is not a single scene with decent and normal behaviour of the main roles.

Movies are an excellent mirror of its time. If one wants to understand, how it came, that the boomer generation could become that stupid, how the rapid decline from the very decent silent generation became possible, movies can show, how the cultural foundations of Western civilization were systematically destroyed, by normalizing totally antisocial and (self) destrucing behaviour as cool to the (boomer) youth.

From lying, stealing, putting dirty street shoes on seats and beds, to pissing on seats and even killing, while portraying normal people as evil, this movie turns everything on its head.

The movies also includes scenes of blasphemy, ridicules Jesus, Christianity and Catholicism.

Besides the promotion for life and soul wrecking behaviour to the (boomer) youth, the film shows normal people, working people, married Christian men and women as dumb and evil; what an outrageous promotion of hatred against the parent generation of the boomer generation.

Why the boomer generation has become a wrecking ball to the USA and Western cilivization as a whole and why there are no wise old men among hippie boomers? Watch that movie to see the spiritual wrecking ball first hand.

I guess its just a cohencidence, that the director, Schlesinger, was imported from "The City" (Tavistock institute)?

Besides 'Easy Rider' I think this movie is an extraordinary example, how the West had been destroyed culturally by mass media (movies, music, newspaper, books) in the 1960s and 70s by the small but powerful group controlling Hollywood and the media (necessary to promote disgusting filth, because otherwise normal people would neither watch it nor tolerate the poison).

The whole movie is full of filth and dirt, that it surely must take a very strong conviction and immense hatred against the host nation, that grown up men invest time and efforts, to produce such poisonous movies, instead of good movies, that are not harmful to the soul of (not only young) people.

I think I have lost 10 IQ points already by watching 30 minutes.

Steven Soderbergh, a big name among critics - therefore I decided to give him another chance, because I assumed, it can't be possible, that critics are lying that blatantly about the competence of a director.

4,5 stars on Prime video.

Hm... The dialogues are infantile, stupid like in C-movies. Often they do not even make sense given the circumstances in the scenes.

The acting of the lead role and of Guzman is not convincing, but acceptable - but Peter Fonda? Just horrible! His acting is exaggerated and affected.

One can almost sense, that boomer Soderbergh liked another incredibly stupid boomer movie "Easy Rider" so much, that he really wanted to make a movie with Fonda. Showing Fonda's ugly smile and how he is picking around his teeth is just... I don't even...

Only very bad directors have no sense how the actors and their scenes will be perceived by the audience...

And because Prime Video keeps bugging me with Chabrol garbage movies - another written up name, who comes to mind, with no sense of human behaviour, stupid dialogues and stories making no sense.

I recommend to watch a Roman Polanski movie and pay attention to the dialogues, the behaviour of the figures and the story's logic - besides the good camera - and compare it. Night and day.

Director Luhrman and Berman (The Jackal Group - the name seems to say it all) actually remind me indeed of hyenas, the way they have worked on the persona, the songs and the story.

The film seems more like a collage of scenes, but not like a film.

There are no dialogues longer than three sentences, no character development and all scenes are clichéd and superficially seem like music videos. This is further reinforced by the many breaks in tempo with slow motion shots.

The quick cuts during stage performances make some scenes appear more authentic, but on the whole you don't notice anything at all of the charisma that Elvis had on his audience and still radiates in recordings today.

In particular, the replay of his last performance in Vegas at the end is a mess, because when the original recording is shown suddenly, the glaring difference becomes so noticeable (the actor did not even convincingly play the piano...).

The main role cannot convey Elvis in terms of charisma or movements. Instead of aesthetic, sexy movements, there is convulsive shaking and trembling.

As if the director himself either has non sense, or was doing this on purpose...

The singing is also not convincing at all, the timbre of the voice is similar, but far too rough and aggressive, and - above all - without the feeling that characterizes the singing to this day.

I'm a little puzzled as to why his songs were covered in a much worse way instead of using the much better originals: 1. Intentional sabotage (the film often suggests that he was a white(!) plagiarist who didn't create anything of his own), or, 2. The rights were not received (because anyone can cover).

But although the songs were covered and therefore newly produced, they completely lack the impressive theatrical sound possibilities.

Hollywood had tried in vain for Frank Farian's rights for a Milli Vanilli film for years and had not received them. Farian only gave up the rights when the production would not end up in the clutches of Hollywood. Very clever, as this film shows once again what Hollywood does with facts for political reasons...

How this film tries to turn Elvis into a Marxist and a left wing activist is embarassing.

All in all very disappointing. But actually I should have been more skeptical when the mainstream media hyped the film so much...

Just because quickly edited exploitation documentaries have dominated for years, for an audience in a vegetative state, only for visual stimuli without cerebral activity, should a documentary about film music be edited that way?

I want to read the display of names and the function of the person and also be able to think who that person is, while I want to have time to watch the picture, where the person is interviewed, if it is the working place, how it looks like, what equipment and tools are there!

The documentary creates the incorrect impression, that 2016 everything was done with real world orchestras. For example Hans Zimmer's famous sample library is not even mentioned.

The workflow and the timing during film production is not explained. Test screenings are not even mentioned.

Also the workflow on the computer during composition and production is not explained at all.

But instead long stories about recording sounds in the real world -without explaining the role of sound design vs composition.

IMO it creates a false impression of the modern production workflow.

While important INFORMATION is thin, the audience is fed with advertising for Obama, how powerful filmmusic can be, when used on stage...

You can tell that the creators were showered with crowdfounded money - and so they traveled all over the world and put together a superficial quick cut collage, with little insight.

Probably a good example that shows that the budget does not really determine the quality.

At first the report gives the impression that time (and money) plays no role in the production soundtrack.

Later suddenly, the intense time pressure is discussed shallowly.

There are very interesting anecdotes about the creation of famous film music motifs, such as the Bond theme. The viewer learns nothing about this.

James Cameron telling the interesting story around Horner's Titanic motif, is only included as sideshow in the credits?!

But instead pseudo-experts talk about different brain regions and the perception of music. It seems as if students, without having any idea about the complexity and depth of the subject, quickly came up with a list with certain talking points they want in the report.

But what annoys me the most is that I constantly had to pause and rewind to read who this is again, in what capacity he is speaking, how the workplace is looking,... This is a joke.

Not enough, sit down.

Season 2 At first I asked myself, how is it even possible that after so many decades, films are still being made using thin car sheet metal as a protective armor against bullets?

50 years ago, when Crash Boom Bang was visually new, this absurdity didn't matter much, just as with then-novel slasher films, the plot didn't matter.

But if, after 50 years, adults and film professionals are still directing the same nonsense, making no effort at all to incorporate a little realism into the plot, and getting averagely highest ratings for it, that says a lot about the intellectual level of the audience out of, doesn't it?

What does it say about a society in which, in films, the good guys, after incapacitating their opponents, murder them unnecessarily? The good guys, mind you, not the bad guys!

And why this absurd brutality? Why isn't a nicely choereographed knockout punch with great sound enough? Why breaking legs and arms like in a horror movie by an evil MONSTER?

Because the audience likes it.

And why? Identification with the good guys who do that.

Where is the masculinity? The honor? Ofcourse primitive societies do not know this - they are ruled by animalistic instincts...

I see more and more films in which the good guys show no piety. Human corpses are treated like trash!

Because the audience likes it. Therefore it's good for the business.

Why is pure sadism, such as that of the mentally ill, is equated with the revenge of heroes?

Because the audience likes it and doesn't find it repulsive.

Teen audiences are easily impressed by visual stimuli only (no story or any logic is necessary). But this is a streamed mass product, largely with an older audience. And it loves this sadistic, primitive filth...

I don't know what disgusts me more: such a brutalized, primitive audience, or filmmakers who serve such poison to the dumb masses and make a fortune from it.

I was a bit flashed and afterwards had the typical feeling, after 2 hours in a good movie, being back in reality.

But I think this movie really needs a big screen/viewing angle.

It's not an overall exciting story. It's not filled with big emotions that carry the film.

But it's carried by good acting, atmosphere and IMO amazing camera and very good lighting (i.e. Kerry Condons beautiful and expressive face, and even Neesons wrinkles - amazing).

There's even a scene, with maybe the most beautiful wild red female hair waving in the wind, in all of movie history.

But to notice the subtle but amazing visual craftsmanship, it needs to be watched big, big, big.

Neeson finally can show again, that he still is a really good actor - and not only a too old wannabe action star playing stupid scripts.

But who really blew me away, is Kerry Condon: Usually chicken Rambos (even female detectives in movies) I find unbearable, laughable and usually make me quit.

But here, already far into the movie, finally I noticed, that she even was leading the group and how convincingly she fills the role as leader! It just feels natural and organic - and not at all feminist or politically "correct".

The petite Kerry Condon is able to easily fill a supporting role that usually can only be played by the Ray Winstones of this world? Amazing.

While some criticize the simple script, I think in this case it's a strength: The movie gladly tries not to invent superficially something new, it does not try to be exciting with stupid ideas, it is not exaggerating things to be more spectacular (except maybe the exaggerated evil villain role of Condon's brother, which cost the film 2 stars), but it trusts in quality: A story that flows naturally, solid tension and easy, enjoyable entertainment, with good acting as foundation.

Worth seeing reportage, but a few things caught my eye: The story told has gaps, especially when it comes to the most important details:

Farian supposedly finished the song and then he argues with Rob Pilatus and tells them they won't sing. Why?

There's something missing.

I still remember when the scandal broke and the media reported how embarrassing the two of them sang: I thought the media criticism was exaggerated because of the similarity in their voices.

Today I know, it was the blame game of the media machine, that make money off young people wanting to become stars and are willing to do everything for it.

Thankfully, you can hear it clearly again in this documentary: The similarity in timbre is absolutely there.

Both in singing and in rapping.

Frank Farian is a perfectionist.

If you pay close attention, the gaps in the story and the similarity of the voice make it plausible that he probably tried the vocals with both of them:

Why should he have played the instrumental for both of them and not tried the vocals?

It seems much more plausible to me that vocal recordings were of course attempted - why not? It was his studio, everything was there, no extra costs.

But the level he expected as a perfectionist was not there.

If you listen to the songs today, you'll see that they are incredibly well produced. EVERYTHING just fits.

That's what bothers me about the report: Black and white.

Now instead of the two Vanillis, Farian is essentially made into the bogeyman.

Another question I ask myself: Who paid for the drug withdrawal?

And why is Rob close to Frank's lover?

Most people are only interested in films and music as consumers.

But the makers of music and films not only know the reality of show business, but also what makes the masses of consumers tick. They want idols and identify with them. And we get that.

All you have to do is listen to what the boomer generation says about the Beatles or Stones... As if Flower Power, Peace, Love & Rock'n Roll were ever authentic and Tavistock and Laurel Canyon never existed. As if youth culture, in the age of mass media, just emerged like that...

The moral of the story shouldn't be that Frank Farian is the villain who got away scot-free - the moral should be that the pursuit of fame destroys people.

If you want to understand, why every generation since the war generation has lost their minds.

You meet a stranger and all that matters is looks and likeability. Background? Career? Character? Parents? Family tree? Nothing to see, move on, goy... Subversion of family and culture par excellence.

I'm starting to understand why the boomer generation was the first generation so incredibly stupid.

A man sees a pretty woman and is supposed to believe that the sex hormones are love - after the war, Hollywood had free rein and completely burned out the brains of the boomer generation.

Evil. Deeply evil.

I guess the war generation was not so affected by this, probably simply because they grew up without movies and without this poison.

Underlying this profoundly evil intention must be a complete contempt for the audience. Therefore it is logical that the plot makes no sense whatsoever. There is no observation, no investigation, no one behaves the way professionals behave and do their job.

In addition, there is the plot, that it is not Hollywood and the Mockingbird media that are brainwashing people and dismantling culture, but evil countries outside - and, funnily enough, always with infantile methods, while the REALLY effective programs that the media apparatus in the USA is using against the population, remain unmentioned.

All the brainwashing is packaged into a robber's gun with a few murders and the Hollywood recipe is ready.

Edit: I have now forced myself to watch the third episode after the first two and I have to take back my general criticism of season 3.

In contrast to the unbearable feminist soap opera level of S3E1 and S3E2, without any intelligence or subtext, episode 3 suddenly shows some quality again: Instead of suggesting political correctness as a reality, the main actress can suddenly give meaningful speeches again.

The conversations with party donors suddenly show some realism again, instead of propaganda.

And even when the shaven-headed Casper takes off his hat in front of the editor-in-chief, the direction shows great humor without a word being spoken.

What I particularly like is that instead of the stupid political propaganda in E1 + E2, this is now sarcastically mocked and that confidential conversations with women do not remain confidential... Great.

I've now looked and S3 E1 + E2 have actually committed two new ladies: Director: Charlotte Sieling Author: Maja Jul Larsen

Maja Jul Larsen gets to let off steam again two episodes later. That makes me fear the worst - but I'll let myself be surprised and keep looking.

***

The first two seasons are really good.

The first break comes with the Africa issue. Until then, the series will distinguish Realpolitik's expertise. With the Africa issue, politically correct clichés are suddenly brought to the fore and women's desire for recognition is increasingly being courted.

In season 3 there is no longer any good dialogue in everyday scenes. Example: Editor-in-chief woos a journalist with exaggerations that a female script writer might wish for, but which has nothing in the least to do with the dialogue of a recruiting interview.

Season 3 only wants to sell left-wing extremist propaganda as "political center".

There is no longer any trace of the quality of the first 2 (1.5) seasons.

The writering credits show that a Tobias Lindholm was only there for the first 20 episodes.

You often notice an extreme drop in quality in series (e.g. Suits) when an important author is no longer involved.

These writers are not the inventors, or do not write the overall rough story, but these writers are often the ones who make the inventor's idea become real, by developing the characters and understanding how people involved in a certain profession, think and talk.

They make the class and quality by being able to design the dialogues and the characters' actions realistically and intelligently.

If this brain is no longer available, a series can collapse totally to moronic soap opera level. As can be seen extremely well here in season 3.

My 10 points are for S1 and big parts of S2.

Averaging the points with the garbage season 3 would have not done justice to the series.

Wow! The implosion of A-list Hollywood.

Lent the movie for 99 ct., without even watching a trailer, because I trusted Brad Pitt having at least enough self esteem, not to choose a script without a story, and not to participate in a very dumb production.

That was a mistake and the trust misplaced.

As always, the first scene already gives a lot of indications, how well produced and intelligent the whole production will be.

Well, it already starts quite absurd, but it lacks intelligence. Subtext. Wow, is that man fat! HA! HA! HA! So funny!

A huge elephant on a truck? HA! HA! HA! So funny!

Elephant sh.tting into a man's face? HA! HA! HA! So incredibly funny!

Or is it a statement of the director and the producers that PRIDE Hollywoke literally means being attracted to feces? I guess not...

I was a bit shocked that Pitt, reading the first pages of the script, wanted to participate, instead of throwing the script into the dustbin.

But some doubts remained: maybe that incredibly disgusting scene was not in the script he read?

It is known, that even A-list actors not always do know, what happens in the whole movie.

Especially when there are many and long scenes, that do not contribute to the story, it's very easy for the production, to put total gargabe into a movie, even turn the movie on it's head, with the final cut.

So I still had some doubts and hoped, when Pitt would appear, the story could improve.

But when he enters the movie, his scenes, his role and his dialogue are simply not good. There is no improvement.

It's an incredibly vulgar, primitive and dumb movie.

Not a single funny scene.

Not a single intelligent dialogue. Well that's not totally true: in the three hours there is one single good dialogue, towards the end, when Pitt confronts the film critic. I would even say, that scene is really good and it feels, like an intelligent adult had written, and a different director filmed it...

Nothing makes any sense storywise.

A director trying to mock historic Hollwood productions as cheap and dumb? Fine! But then you better do not sound like very low IQ people telling a joke about someone...

The original movie Fargo is brilliant. It is intelligent and has subtle and great humor.

Seeing the extremely high ratings and the nominations, I was thrilled to watch it. With a positive expectation.

But I can't get beyond the first 20 minutes: A father bullying a much weaker man. Ha ha ha! So funny! And so realistic!

Extremely vulgar and infantile language is funny?

A rating over 8 stars? Really?

The behaviour of everyone is totally unrealistic and dumb - while in the movie people's behaviour ofcourse makes sense and the humor is not for < IQ 80.

What is going on here?

Are the dialogues becoming intelligent and less vulgar later? Do people begin to behave in a realistic way?

I can't rule that out, since I haven't seen it, but usually the people who write the first scenes either have a sense how people behave and talk, or they don't.

Ofcourse it could also be geared towards a low IQ audience.

The man made Terminator and Titanic!

Isn't it tragic, what happens to men, if they become soyboys?

Rumor has it, his family jewels were confiscated years ago by Kathleen Kennedy... That he is calling testosterone a toxin nowadays makes sense.

I find it fascinating, how satanic Cultural Marxism, invented by smallhats to destroy European culture, does to the brain and how it brings down Hollywood and the USA itself now.

Spending so much money, resources and time on a few lights under water, while being incapable to tell a story, that is not embarrassing for 14 year olds?

With Avatar 2 it's over for Cameron. Another victim of Cultural Marxism and a tragic model of the decay of the USA.

A good example, that similar looks is not enough to create a certain feeling of a character's authenticity.

A movie like that also needs good dialogues. In the German version the dialogues are flat. They also do not reflect insights into the movie business and what the thoughts of an actor like McQueen might have been regarding the productions and roles he was offered.

Permanent jumps among the four or five locations makes it feel even less like a movie.