Change Your Image
zettaichan
Reviews
Schneeflöckchen (2017)
"Unique" is not the same as "worthwhile," and also, this movie is not at all unique
Reviewers calling this movie different and special missed the '90s, I guess. After Pulp Fiction hit big, endless wannabe auteurs tried to imitate Tarantino in a thousand smarmy, self-referential, ultraviolent movies. Almost 25 years later, Germany made another one. Here it is.
Snowflake pushes it a little further by literally including the screenwriter in the story, but even that isn't new. Every potentially interesting concept here was already done better in Charlie Kaufman's Adaptation in 2002. Hell, it was done better in a Will Ferrell movie, 2006's Stranger Than Fiction.
Any time Snowflake threatens to explore its recursive ideas even a little, it quickly diverts into boring gun violence, interspersed with the occasional dental torture scene or cannibal serial killer for an equally dull and derivative change of pace. If you've ever wanted to be bored by a disemboweling, this is your film. Yes, eventually you'll get to see a blind martial artist fight an electro-powered superhero for about ninety seconds, but you'll have to sit through TWO FULL HOURS of squibs and gouting red corn syrup to get there. There's nothing stylish or inventive about the gun violence; does 'bullets fly, people fall down' even qualify as "action" at this point? It's just padding.
There's just enough here to fill out a trailer and make it look gonzo and inventive, but you could edit Snowflake down to a five minute short without losing much. As it is, the one or two cool moments aren't worth the time investment for the rest of this very boring revenge-cubed plot pile. I can't stress enough that this movie is 121 minutes long and the entire plot is "All characters want revenge on other characters, so everyone onscreen shoots everyone else until they run out of fake blood and go home." Don't waste your time.
Darling (2015)
Stylish and overwrought, but it works (hints of mild spoilers)
Darling is a throwback to the mood and methods of early '60s horror. Shot in black and white, there are clear nods to classics like Psycho and Repulsion.
Like The House of the Devil, it uses its of-the-era styling to set viewers' expectations, then toys with them. Long, slow takes punctuated by sudden jerky inserts of disturbing shots, shrieking string music, a ringing phone used to create urgency and tension... all the era- appropriate touches show up, along with more modern horror staples like flickering lights and a hacksaw.
One of the style elements that I see other reviews criticizing is the over-the-top soundtrack; early on, when the main character is simply walking along the city sidewalk, the music is high-key and frantic.
The music is so shrill and suspenseful during these mundane scenes that it's almost laughable, but that in itself is disarming by design. It made me think the entire film was going to do nothing but ape '60s styling, which made it more shocking as the plot developed into something more explicitly brutal than I expected.
Lead actress Laura Ashley Carter is mesmerizing, and easily drew me past the early slow scenes and the hectic soundtrack. From the beginning it's clear the main character has issues, and it doesn't take long before clues add up that her perception of reality may be distorted. The actress and director do a great job of playing on her petite size, enormous eyes and air of fragility, and she's expressive even when she simply gazes steadily into the camera.
The final scene, arriving midway through the credits, is what elevates the movie for me and makes it really memorable. With just a few lines, Sean Young implies a completely different reading of the entire film. For me, the punch of those last moments took this from an enjoyable style exercise and acting showcase to a creepy delight.
Reminiscence (2014)
Slow scenes, fast cuts, no content
I love terrible horror movies, but this... this doesn't really qualify as a movie. It's more like a long pointless vacation video with some superficial scares edited in. Kind of like Manos: The Hands of Fate.
As others have noted, the high ratings for this movie have to be fake. The positive reviews all employ the same off-key grammar and even use the same phrases. Always doubt reviews that praise a movie for including the most basic building blocks of cinema, like "music that matches with the mood of scenes."
Not to mention all these good reviews that call the plot "very unique" when the premise (characters traveling to alternate universes) has appeared in everything from Star Trek to Sliders to The Butterfly Effect.
The film's tagline claims it's "Based on true physics events and black hole theories" - that's the paper-thin pretext for a series of disjointed "thank goodness it was only a dream!" style scenes, as the characters visit horrific alternate dimensions then escape back to their own, only to do it all over again a minute later. None of these dimensions are different in any way that would increase the budget: it's just the same settings at different times of day, with the same actors in weird makeup or cheap CG effects. Strange, they always go to alternate dimensions where their doppelgangers are creepy. There's no happy alternate universe, just their doubles with rotted faces or ghost makeup or knives covered in fake blood.
The few good horror images in Reminiscence are lifted from other sources, like The Exorcist, The Grudge, and Silent Hill. Most shots are pans over the nice beach scenery, or the ground and feet filmed hand-held by running actors, or the lead actress with her hair blown into her face. You risk getting motion sickness from the hand-held photography, and seizures from the frantic editing that's used during "scary" scenes to cover up for the lack of special effects or decent imagery. This movie gave me a headache.
The Other Guys (2010)
Some good improv, but it can't save this movie
There are funny moments in The Other Guys, but they mostly seem to be due to offbeat line readings and on the spot improvisation. Will Ferrell, Michael Keaton, Eva Mendes and Steve Coogan are all responsible for some good bits, but overall this thing doesn't work.
The script can't stop patting itself on the back for making scathing jokes about TARP and financial scandals. But don't get too excited, left-leaning viewers, because as much as you might like the satire of capitalist excesses, you'll be put off by the relentless sexism and homophobia.
There are ways to make jokes about the macho culture of police officers without wallowing in a million woman-hating, gay-bashing one-liners. The cops are all portrayed as violent, sexist, homophobic fools. I thought the movie might show these childish characters growing up a little. That never happened.
The best Will Ferrell movies, like Anchorman and Talledega Nights, follow his man-child characters as they mature just a tiny bit. In The Other Guys, Ferrell starts as a naive but level-headed character who doesn't need to grow up; he just needs to take off his blinders. None of the other characters change. Mark Wahlberg starts with grating, inexplicable anger cranked up to 11 and doesn't seem to know where to go from there.
There's no buddy chemistry between Ferrell and Wahlberg. The action scenes are fine, but unexciting; who cares about slow-mo gunfights anymore? And since most action movies do such over-the-top stunts these days, there's not much The Other Guys can do to comically exaggerate the action.
Skip this limp attempt and watch Hot Fuzz instead: it's a much more observant and clever parody of buddy cop movies, and there are so many jokes packed in, you can watch it again and again and find new things that will actually make you laugh all the way through.
Sakebi (2006)
Disappointing
This is a rather forgettable horror film, which is a letdown coming from Kiyoshi Kurosawa. I see people on the messageboard for this film claiming that disliking it shows a lack of sophistication, or a failure to appreciate Japanese cinema. I'm a fan of the Asian horror wave of the past decade or so. I had no trouble following movies like Suicide Club, The Eye, and A Tale of Two Sisters. And I love several of Kiyoshi Kurosawa's other works: Cure, Charisma, Korei (Seance) and Kairo (Pulse.) I didn't like Retribution. It has long tension-building takes and quirky observed moments like Kurosawa's better works; he's an assured director who excels at atmosphere. But the plot of this film may actually be TOO clear. Cure, Charisma and Pulse are evocative films that leave central questions unanswered, haunting viewers.
In Retribution, everything is revealed, and the supernatural comes to seem ordinary, a little boring and even a little silly. Techniques and images repeat from Kurosawa's better films. Retribution has its moments, but there's nothing here that Kurosawa hasn't already done better elsewhere.
Sweetgrass (2009)
Woolgathering
Sweetgrass is a documentary, literally: a document of a particular place, time and events. There's no narration, no host or guide, and seemingly no attempt to edit the footage to tell a story. Each scene appears to be chosen because it illuminates the subject, rather than for drama.
The camera records a group of sheep farmers and herders preparing a flock and getting them across the mountains. The focus is on everyday details of animal tending and herding, straightforward and unsentimental. The people working with the sheep seem mostly unconscious of the cameras, just going about their business. It's like seeing into another life.
Of course, it's another life that's centered around sheep. If that sounds boring, this probably isn't the film for you, because that's all there is to it, and it's slow-paced. It's very different from Discovery Channel style documentaries that try to teach and entertain. There's no Mike Rowe here to relate everything he's doing to you so that you can understand what's going on.
But there's something to be said for just watching things happen.
The movie isn't trying to reach out and explain itself to you, and that enables it to draw you in, if you're willing to go along for the ride.
Cowboys and Angels (2000)
Weak
This isn't an awful film, it's just very, very weak. It deserves its obscurity.
Radha Mitchell's character, JoJo, is a total Manic Pixie Dream Girl. She loves to crash weddings and attends one every week! How whimsical and charming! Like most Manic Pixies, JoJo sweeps forcefully into the hero's life and teaches him about life... and himself. There's not a single thing about JoJo or her relationship with Adam Trese that rings true. And most of the first act is given over to this unconvincing character and relationship. (A later revelation about JoJo that explains some of her oddness seems awfully forced.)
When the focus shifts to Trese and Kirshner, things pick up a little, but only a little. To give you an idea of the level of plotting here, Trese and Kirshner meet when a group of threatening guys get pushy with Kirshner and a friend, and Trese steps in and gets beaten up protecting them. It's ridiculously contrived.
And while JoJo is the least believable character, none of the characters seem authentic. Trese is apparently a lawyer who dreams of being a cowboy, but all this seems to mean is that he wears suits at work and cowboy hats in his spare time. Kirshner is cute, but who is she? Who are any of these people? Good romance is about unique relationships between distinctive, believable characters, not 2-dimensional "cowboys" and "angels."
On the plus side, Radha Mitchell and Mia Kirshner both look beautiful. They're not overly glamorized, just healthy and glowing and gorgeous. And the relationship between Trese and Kirshner develops sweetly, if you make it that far. The country music on the soundtrack is pleasant enough, but there's a repeated music cue that rips off the Enigma sound and seems really, really out of place.
I guess if you want a wholesome romance with a focus on weddings rather than cussin' and sexin', maybe this will work for you, but if you like good movies, look somewhere else.