Reviews

As a Stanislaw Lem fan since I first read his "Cyberiad" at a young age, I am admittedly biased. Lem's sense of humor (largely predicated upon irony) is a refreshing change of pace from some of his literary contemporaries in the field of science fiction--for instance, Philip K. Dick, who breathed "high concept" but often struggled to explore any but the most tortured aspects of human existence. I find that much of sci-fi to this day suffers from a similarly monotonous focus on darker and more dramatic outcomes of scientific progress (think "Dark Mirror"), to the utter exclusion of the more ridiculous or zany types of stories.

In this film, Lem's clever writing combines with Wajda's insightful direction to create an utterly surreal (and at times zany) tone, providing a whimsical approach to what would otherwise be some fairly macabre story elements. It is dark humor with an emphasis on the "humor," with that emphasis being predictably underlined by Bogumil Kobiela's performance.

The limited budget of the production is evident in the set and costume design, though this does not necessarily detract from the film. In my opinion the attraction is the creative use of limited materials, as with most truly innovative or expressive films (as opposed to lavish and extravagantly expensive blockbuster productions that dispense with deeper themes in favor of visual excitement). Some highlights include a psychiatrist's brick wall that seems to breathe in and out, and a 60's-style scanty female outfit that appears to be secured in the front with a strip of duct tape.

Perhaps the most distracting element of the limited budget is the totally asynchronous looping of dialogue. It is abundantly obvious that the actors recorded their dialogue without the benefit of having the film itself to view. Looping was common practice in many European productions of this time period, but to my recollection, even the cheesy Italian horror films of this era (featuring multilingual, often non-Italian, casts) managed to achieve some illusion of synching between ADR and lip movements. It may seem a small complaint but there are several instances where the dialogue is so imperfectly juxtaposed as to mimic the clichéd dubbing of a Godzilla film. This is the primary reason I could not rate the film higher--at a 9 or even 10/10-- but it is certainly no reason not to watch what is otherwise an imaginative and fun production.

Bonus points are awarded for the face-painted hippies and the very shirtless bejeweled surgeons of the future .

I often watch films of dubious quality with the commentary track on, in the hopes that the director will give me a glimmer of some deeper intention or meaning they wished to convey with the film. Having now watched both this, and the first film, "House of 1,000 Corpses," with the accompanying director's commentary, I am pretty confident in my belief that Rob Zombie is just an amateur with enough money and connections to play director whenever he feels like it.

The shame is that RZ is entirely honest about some of the minor goofs in his films, like continuity errors, but he seems entirely oblivious as to the deeper mechanics of storytelling. Characters are one-dimensional, the plot is predictable (other than the finer points of who gets tortured, when and how), and if there is a theme, it is a very confused one. When a "good guy" gets killed and the audience cheers, Zombie mentions on the commentary that he is perplexed; he simply cannot fathom that he has made the villains into heroes because they are the only characters of any depth in the film.

Some may defend this empathetic portrayal of characters that are nothing short of evil, as if RZ is deliberately trying to tell us something about how we conceptualize good and evil, but there is no alternative other than to follow these despicable characters; the confused reaction of the audience seems to say more about the movie's singleminded desire to generate traumatic scenes than anything else. At best this is old ground that has already been better covered by better directors, not the least of which is Wes Craven's "Last House on the Left."

I have seen some truly horrifying/disgusting movies that can at least manage to explore deeper issues or themes, like most of Cronenberg's work, "Salo," or even (I might argue) the much-maligned "Serbian Film." These are all films made by directors that use the horrific material to communicate or reinforce a message. A less viscerally disgusting but distinctly uncomfortable and ethically horrifying cousin would be "Come and See." This film, like its predecessor, has all of the disconcerting gore but no underlying message; it simply exists as a gratuitous display of disconnected scenes that might as well be vignette-style with recurring characters in the vein of "All Hallow's Eve."

I'm sure it was fun to make this movie, and it is definitely a gory thrill ride, so kudos for those elements. People have been producing mindless gory flicks since the 70's and there really is nothing remarkable about this effort, other than the relatively high production value and the fact that Zombie clearly managed to attract some competent cast and crew to support his amateurish effort. Some of the acting is alright, but the scripting is hackneyed and it would take Daniel Day Lewis to make this "real-world" dialogue seem like anything other than uncensored outtakes from "The Osbornes."

If the soundtrack is any indication, Rob Zombie has some pretty good taste in music. It is by far the most redeeming element of the film, and the musical choices are appropriate for their scenes. If all he worked on was the music, then Rob Zombie would be knocking it out of the park. Unfortunately, the rest of this film is a disjointed mess, and listening to the commentary does nothing to dispel the notion that it is a sophomoric premise executed in a mediocre fashion.

You can easily tell what you're getting into by watching the trailer of this film. It is a very basic premise: two good guy cops doing their job, and dealing with "the forces of evil," if you will.

Perhaps the message rings hollow in 2022, in a way that it didn't in 2012. I think this film would definitely have been perceived/received differently if they had tried to release it even a couple years later, after Ferguson, Missouri.

Now that we regularly see body-cam footage of police shooting unarmed people (whether we want to or not), it seems rather dissonant with reality that this movie shows us the same images but glorifies the heroic cops who engage in multiple shootings. According to the Pew Research Center, while most Americans believe it is common for police to discharge their weapons at least once during their career, only about 1/4 of all officers surveyed have EVER fired their weapon while on the job. Compare that with that ratio of cops in movies, which is roughly 100% (and bonus points for multiple killings, which is also almost 100% guaranteed in a cop movie).

If we are to believe this "gritty" and "realistic" depiction of police work, then we would probably think the same thing that police departments have been telling us for years, that police work is very dangerous and we need MORE police with MORE weapons on the streets. To be fair, if working as a cop was as intense as it is in this film, I would probably say that's a justifiable claim. Unfortunately, the movie's depiction of police work is no more realistic than "Dirty Harry" or "Lethal Weapon"; the primary difference here is that the "found footage" style makes it "feel" realistic to naive viewers (much like "COPS," which is deliberately edited to present the police in a uniformly positive fashion).

Personally, I am not opposed to humanizing the work of police officers in a way that illustrates the difficulties of their position, which is certainly not an easy one. IMO, there is a desperate need for a movie that shows cops as real people doing a difficult job that is mostly boring paperwork, welfare checks, and other mundane nonsense, peppered with occasional interactions with jerks. Being a public servant sucks no matter what department you're in.

Unfortunately, I believe we are still waiting for such a film, since police dramas tend to portray cops as either (a) absolutely corrupt and hedonistic (like "Bad Lieutenant") or (b) absolutely virtuous and duty-bound (like Die Hard). Even when genre writers attempt to create more less one-dimensional "anti-hero" main characters like Mel Gibson's Rigg's in "Lethal Weapon" and Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry," they give us a caricature rather than a real person: someone so committed to "justice" that they're willing to get "a little bit crazy." Sure, they may commit civil rights violations or even human rights abuses, but since they do it to "bad guys," then it is okay. Note that this is a key element of the equation: the bad guys have to be unquestionably, most certainly, very bad people whose sole motivation is to do bad things to the rest of us good people.

It is also necessary, in this genre, to display lots of acts of heroic compassion from our main characters so that we don't see them just as guys with guns. You can easily distinguish these scenes in any cop movie because they have nothing to do with the main plot: for example, Riggs saving a suicidal guy in "Lethal Weapon." In this film, featured side-plots include a neglectful crack mom, human trafficking, and, in perhaps one of the most familiar movie cliches, a woman running out of a burning building and yelling "save my baby" like a helpless waif from a 30's cartoon. Not pictured: 99% of what police officers do, from traffic accidents to misdemeanor citations and nonviolent drug arrests.

In these respects, "End of Watch" does not stray very far from a well-trodden path. It would seem that the biggest draw for most positive reviewers is the "found footage" style, which by this point in cinema was pretty tapped out, but folks seem to have enjoyed it and found it "gritty" (let's all agree to stop using that term soon, okay?) and/or "realistic" as a result.

I find nothing remarkable or redeeming about the "found footage" style of the movie. It does have the virtue of being reminiscent of COPS, another brilliantly-conceived piece of pro-police propaganda that parades as reality. There is a throwaway explanation about how Jake Gyllenhall's character is taking a film class as an elective for school, but then the movie's events seem to encompass a much longer span of time than just a single semester. There is also no explanation of who put the footage together (his film class?) or how they got ahold of footage from police helicopters or ICE surveillance cameras.

Yes, this movie is praised for it's "gritty realism," but the director cannot even consistently limit themselves to "found footage" so there are all sorts of scenes (especially dialogue scenes in the squad car) where there are 5-6 different camera angles during a running conversation, which would be absolutely impossible with just a camcorder and two body cams. If you are going to do "found footage" it needs to be a 100% commitment, you can't just randomly start throwing in inexplicable wide shots or close-ups from unknown sources.

Even more laughable footage comes from the arch-nemesis gangsters who for some reason record themselves taking execution orders directly from a Mexican drug cartel over the phone, and then also take the camera along as they plan to murder two police officers. If you ask me, this is probably the weakest part of the movie, since there is no good reason or explanation for these career criminals to be taping their crimes, except that we need to see just how "evil" they are in order to justify their inevitably violent deaths.

(As an aside, the "bad guy" footage reminded me constantly of another found footage film seemingly designed to perpetuate negative stereotypes about "the ghetto": 2001's "Gang Tapes." I don't recommend it.)

The most redeeming aspect of the film, predictably, were the performances of Michael Pena and Jake Gyllenhall. The casting director should get a gold star, because the interaction between these two characters is pretty much the biggest draw, and the wrong pair of actors could've really slowed the film down. However, these are not very challenging characters to play, since they are both friendly, likeable, picture-perfect family men that experience no internal struggle or growth throughout the movie. Competent work by the two lead actors, but nothing to write home about.

The ideological angle of the movie definitely bugged me, but I can say without a doubt that it is good at what it does. I found the main characters relatable, in spite of my distrust of the police. It's hard not to like Michael Pena and Jake Gyllenhall, in general. I wanted them to win and beat the evil gangsters. I did get emotionally invested in the characters and the ending affected me.

Considering the emotional effect the film had on me, as one who is inherently skeptical of the police as an institution (rather than the individual humans), I'd say it's one of the best pieces of pro-police propaganda I've seen in a long time. It breaks no new ground, artistically, but it combines familiar styles and themes in a way that is very powerful for pushing the film's message.

This movie is pretty much a shot-for-shot remake of the French film "La Femme Nikita" by Luc Besson. I'll say right off the bat that I strongly suggest watching that one instead, since they are virtually indistinguishable but this one is just a clone, a (not so cheap) imitation.

As with many foreign films that are remade for American audiences (like "Let the Right One In," "Funny Games," or "Infernal Affairs"), I'm often left feeling hollow after viewing both versions. The original was, well, original, which is why it gained international acclaim at the time, opening doors to Luc Besson for productions like "Leon" and "The Fifth Element." With this Americanized repeat, there's nothing added, no extra twist, no real reason to remake a perfectly good first film, other than the fact that Americans don't like to read subtitles. It's no wonder Luc Besson refused the offer to direct; seems pretty boring for an artist to make the exact same movie again within five years of the first.

Don't get me wrong, it's a perfectly watchable film, but I'm not liable to give it any credit beyond that since the whole thing was lifted from a movie made only a few years before this. Bridget Fonda is solid, and makes the transition from despicable junkie to government assassin pretty believable. Gabriel Byrne, of course, does well in his role, but I think this character has a very limited range compared to that of which he is capable. Dermot Mulroney is easy on the eyes but his character is not particularly memorable.

Good action, a little romance, and Bridget Fonda kicking ass. Plus a small role for Harvey Keitel at his peak, fresh off of "Reservoir Dogs" and "Bad Lieutenant." The shootouts are pretty par for the 90's, with squibs exploding everywhere and the usual shots of the protagonist diving through the air in slow motion. At the time, the role-reversal of having a female spy/assassin as the lead was pretty unique, but nowadays, of course, that is not so uncommon at all.

Summary: totally watchable, but totally unnecessary.

I'm amazed by the number of reviewers who were surprised to find "socialist" or "left-leaning" commentators being interviewed for this documentary--especially those reviewers who mention the original documentary favorably. Since the thesis of the documentary is (essentially) that corporations are dangerous, I'm not sure who else they expected to be interviewed. The film features some of the same interviewees from the first film: Robert Reich, Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, Vandana Shiva, and so on. It does also feature a couple corporate representatives, but not the number that were featured in the longer and more in-depth first documentary.

As the film indicates with clips from Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman, since the 1970's, a market-based neoliberal philosophy has come to dominate political dialogue to the point that de-regulation is a central mantra of conservatives the world over (not to mention most centrist liberals). I would challenge these reviewers who demand a more "fair and balanced" presentation to scour the internet for a mainstream right-wing politician, thinker or activist that is strongly against corporate consolidation of power. You won't find one. It would be difficult, but not impossible, do do so within the mainstream centrists (Democrats in the US, or liberal parties in other countries), as well.

On the other hand, if the demand is to present these interviews alongside those who speak on behalf of the corporation, we certainly don't need further examples of that: our lives are inundated with constant pro-corporate messages, whether explicitly in advertising, or implicitly in the various privatized systems we have to navigate on an everyday basis--you are reading this review on a website that has been owned by Amazon since 1998. The pro-corporate perspective is also represented in the first film, which is more broadly about the history of corporations and their general methods of operation; this "sequel" feels more like an addendum or appendix than something to be viewed in a vacuum. In other words, if you haven't seen the first film, you should watch that first, as it is certainly still relevant and revealing.

Chris Hedges is correct that it is hard to view the complex of issues presented currently without feeling a deep sense of despair. I think that is why the second half of the film, which I see here derided by others, is both important, and ironically the subject of such angst. We are at an impasse and many of us feel powerless to counteract global forces that seem to be spiraling toward inevitable destruction. To present this documentary without some iota of hope would not only be depressing, it would be irresponsible. In the internet age, where raising someone's ire is the surest way to generate traffic, and therefore revenue, we should take at least some time to focus on the causes that bring us together, not just the ones that piss us all off.

I came upon this movie from some stupid "top ten" list. At this point it boggles my mind how this poorly-conceived and -orchestrated red herring would be on a "top ten" list for anything. It's an uninspired "found footage" film from a time when "found footage" was about five years' out of vogue, but it can't even stay true to that style choice as the viewer is constantly presented with novel camera angles which defy explanation or stretch the bounds of belief. For instance, the camcorder strapped to a helmet as a 1997 stand-in for a go-pro, or the helicopter cam on a helicopter which blows up (for entirely unclear reasons)--not the only instance in this film where ostensibly destroyed or unavailable (e.g. classified) footage is simply spliced in with no explanation given. Unbelievable on many levels. Not to mention that the end result is entirely unimpressive and indecipherable anyways, leading one to believe that they actually did film this entire thing with a cheap 90's camcorder strapped to a helmet perched atop a drunken chimpanzee. This film manages to hit all the familiar cliches while simultaneously eschewing any semblance of a meaningful/logical plot. The dialogue is repetitive and unconvincing, the characters are one-dimensional at best, and their portrayal substitutes screaming for actual emoting. This is one of those films that suffers from a pronounced overabundance of characters yelling "go, go, go"-type lines during action sequences. Which I suppose is to fill in for the fact that you won't be able to tell who is where or what is happening for like 90% of these sequences thanks to the shaky and blurry camera work--those prone to seasickness should not board this cinematic titanic. All-around, one of the worst films I've seen in awhile. I would recommend it to folks looking for a film slightly better than a Tommy Wiseau production--but only ever so slightly. This film is a perfect candidate for MST3K-style riffing.

I've seen some reviews bashing this movie for not being a horror flick. If you expect jump scares, spooky atmosphere, ghouls or goblins, you will most certainly be disappointed. This movie is not genre-driven like most Hollywood big-budget flicks. It is not "The Conjuring" or "Paranormal Activity." You might also think, since its stated premise is "the end of the world," that there would be the standard apocalypse tropes coming into play. No, there are no zombies or massive catastrophes. To be fair, the trailer does not do the movie justice. Honestly, I think it would be difficult to create a trailer that encapsulates the themes and allegories embedded in the plot of this movie. It is definitely a drama piece. "Starfish" is a film about loss and isolation, about living with the consequences of your choices. The movie is almost solely carried by Virginia Gardner (who aptly represents her role). There are not a ton of tracking shots, nor shaky-cam nonsense, nor is there an abundance of overacting. It is an understated film, shot in mostly neutral colors set against the backdrop of plain old snow. The soundtrack is amazing (if you happen to like indie music, as I do), and is very well-integrated into the story, rather than simply serving as a backdrop for it. What little CGI exists is certainly realistic, especially considering the budget for this production. There is no race against time, fight for survival, or desperate bid to save the day. This movie is not a blockbuster. But it is very good at what it is attempting to do. The underlying message is well-conveyed, through clear symbolism and the obvious metaphor of the overarching plot (once you figure out what the movie is actually about). It is beautifully shot and accomplishes its objective concisely and completely. Frankly, I'm disappointed that it has such a low ranking here on IMDb, but I guess that's more a reflection on its general lack of thrills or frills. This is cinema as art, not as a product. I appreciated it greatly, and hopefully my review will help you decide if it's right for you, too.