5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Hungry Hearts (2014)
2/10
a lesson of what NOT to do in a movie.
16 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
------------SPOILERS---------------------------

First scene: She enters in a bathroom in a movie theater set according to the sound the door does when she slams it. NO. It's not done on purpose!! It's called horrible set designer, horrible sound team!! They are stock in a toilets where he just had a poo that smells bad. That's how they meet. That's how we are supposed to establish a connection with the characters. OK. But all we can think of during this sequence shot is: WHEN THE HELL WILL YOU WASH YOUR HANDS, PIG??? But the director liked this take and said "it's OK, who cares? it'a detail!!" So they keep this take in spite the importance of this scene. And that's how everybody on the set must have act to abort this film "it's OK, who cares? it's just a detail!!" well ...i, I care!! because unfortunately I PAID TO SEE THIS Catastrophe!!!!!

-The Director: Which one? The one who wasn't there or the one who was asleep or the one who thought that's enough to stick your camera to an actor's face to be called a director???? THERE IS SIMPLY NO STAGING IN THIS FILM. None. Nothing. Void. Absolute Nothingness. It is static, lazy, apathetic, i love Kiarostami and Cassavetes but here i was hoping that some TRANSFORMERS break a wall, that some AVENGER rip off half of the earth so that something happens, because a moving disaster is always better than a static disaster!!! It has the drama material for a short film and it makes a lame long long long long long 1h45 film. If you want to watch tiny innovations that makes a one room film a great film, watch UN AIR DE FAMILLE by Cédric Klapisch.

-The actress is good but what can she do alone with Mister Apathy being the wheel?

-The music: Flashdance!! out of the blue? why? for what? because "who cares?!!" remember? It was the crew leitmotiv while shooting. She is a vegan. He gives their baby meat behind her back. She enters, sees that and ... and some Hitchcock string waving from the sixties pop up in the middle of the silence!! THANKS DUDE TO TELL ME WHERE AND WHEN TO WORRY!! The fact is, the staging didn't made a suspense about her discovering that, so the strings are like a cannonball to say hello. A Pathetic attempt by the music to save the absence of staging.

The sound: dreadful during the first scene then OK.

-Finally: The message of the film: slightly dangerous: man has no balls anymore, they are sissy unable to protect there kids, it was better before????

And the final shot: a sunset after one a of the character's death, why? because the director hasn't been lazy enough? Because he has to deliver the lamest cliché ever for no meaning?? Or just to say one more time "who cares about this film? about this story? hey!! sunset!! isn't it nice?" ... ???? WTF?????????????????
30 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Greg Araki: no more!!
3 January 2015
When a 15 years old teen, fan of John Waters and David Lynch is given way to much money and power to make his first film, that gives WHITE BIRD IN THE BLIZZARD. ... what a pompous title!! ... EXCEPT that Greg Araki is no longer a teen and it's not his first film even if that directing is spoiled with amateurism!! Every section of the film- making is crap here!! The shot are static and for no reason, the editing is lame (Yeah we get that!! Next shot!! ... too late.), the make up is dreadful: either it's Shaleen Woodley teen character who wakes up with the thickest make up on, either it's all female character who looks like whores!! Why? Does the director suggest that all women are prostitutes? Or maybe he doesn't know that all the decision he makes should means something for the film? Why putting this ridiculous wig on the father's head? I'll tell you why, the director thought it was funny. Yeah, the director mocks his actors, so the character, so he acts against the film!! And sometimes it's just lame directing: In one dream the teen see her mom with no hands she says EXCEPT THAT WE DO SEE THE PHALANX UNDER THE SLEEVES before the close up where the hands had been digitally removed!!!! And beyond the dreadful directing there is the dreadful directing!! Which is unable to create any kind of attachment with the main character. I talk to a girl who loved the film. I ask her to give one, only one adjective on the main character she just spent 1h30 with... she couldn't. I don't blame the actress (i went for her) but her character is just not written!! And taking Eva Green to play Woodley's mom when they are 11 years apart? Hey, don-t worry, just trust the make up team who transform any girl into a whore!!!! Even the set department put so much in the "hey did you notice that we are in the 80's???!!" And vulgar!! Because everything is vulgar in this film, the set, the clothing (poor Sidibe) the make up of course, the way Woodley has to say "fuck" every 2 words to tell the audience that she is a teen, everything is vulgar in this film!! And on the top of everything, i read that Woodley was very uncomfortable for the sex scene. So the director was also unable to create a safe or fun environment for his actors!! Maybe it's because he mocks them on screen and that he does what ever he wants alone with no regards for the film or his co-workers!! To conclude i'll just say: Greg Araki: No more!!!!
23 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Client List (2011–2013)
3/10
Go England!!!!!!!!!!
26 March 2014
The idea was good but the show is totally artificial (for example all her clients are 25 years old body-builders/models), and not even the always great Loretta Devine can save the show.

So i'm expecting the English remake with real down to earth characters and situations like in "Secret Diary of a Call Girl".

And i still put a generous 3 for brainless teenagers how will be able to have fantasies about Jennifer Love Hewit in lingerie playing a hooker next door. But for people over thirteen it's just ridiculous.

And there is not much more to say about it but i can't be published under ten lines so don't read me no more, i said it all but i'm still filling the lines to get over with it. This ten lines rules is a problem when a show is so bad that there is nothing to say about it.
28 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Japan (2002)
1/10
Jerking off isn't cinema, it's... jerking off.
11 August 2013
Imagine a guy filming cactus in slow motion for 2 hours and because he add Beethoven Ninth on it, critics call him an artist!!! There you can picture hell on earth, or hell in a movie theatre as viewer. There is SOOOO much nothing that's happening in this film for so long that i remember: once, after 20 or 30 min of watching dust and the back of some people wandering in the back ground, shot in slow motion, suddenly, a dog cross the street , stop in the middle, and bark!!!!! AMAZING, isn't it!!!!! The audience did laugh out loud, exploding of happiness so glad that something happen in this crap movie after so long spent thinking "really?? There's really going to happen nothing during all this film?? Really as much nothing of this the empty nothingness?? Really? No, i can't believe this is as crappy as it is??? There's must be something else????" NO THERE IS NOTHING ELSE but a pretentious so called "director" masturbating his brain and literally shooting cactus in slow motion on big classical music for 2 hours!! And critics took his load in there eyes to be that blind and to send me to this hell. I have stop reading professional critics since that.
2 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Movie 43 (2013)
1/10
Embarrassing!!
21 June 2013
This film is embarrassing. I felt so bad for the actors while i was watching it. I Love all those actors and it's terrible to see them in such stupid, vulgar not funny situations. It's traumatic. I hope to erase those images of my memory. Saying "sh*t di*k sper*" every 2 words doesn't make a comedy it makes a sh*ty embarrassing movie. While watching 2 things happen: first i was wondering if it wasn't better to run away and secondly I was wondering ...how?? how could this sh*tty ideas could go through all the process of making a film to end up to a screen. How?? And i finally got the answer at the end of the credit: The Farrelly it's-time-to-go-back-to-the-white-room Brothers thank "everybody who has dirty thoughts". So i think they have sold this package of sh*t with a freedom speech on the rights of thinking differently. Except that if, in deed, everybody has dirty thoughts, everybody don't make a film out of it without any artistic transformation!!! This freedom speech is a fraud to allow them-selves to be freely gross. To summarize it i'll say: Run away from this film and save time and money!!
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed