yv_es

Nightmare Alley starts promisingly enough. The casting and acting is good, and the 1940s circus setting is full of potential. The film almost even had me fooled for the first hour or so.

But then I started to see through the film's tricks. What I mistook for the character's depth and complexity was soon revealed to be nothing more than caricatures ripped from a Screenwriting 101. And soon I could clearly see the course that had been charted for them too. Minute by minute, the people on screen felt less like humans and more like puppets hurtling towards an entirely predicable conclusion. This robbed the film and the central relationship in it of any of the emotional weight it had once had.

Farther along I actively started to resent the film makers for taking the film in the direction they did. It felt emotionally manipulative. Yet at the same time, Nightmare Alley never commits enough to shake off the air of being a PG rated tale from Sin City. That leaves the film dangling in an uncomfortable spot: it mistakes being gritty with having emotional heft, but is also scared to fully commit to grittiness / noir / the surreal because it is still clinging to an undergrad's pretensions of telling some very human and very important story.

And without going into full on spoiler territory, the end of the film is truly insufferable. The whole time you're thinking, "Oh no, there's no way they'd have the sheer audacity to try pulling something that stupid off!" But no! Off go the film makers, leaping headlong into the stupidity with such grinning gusto that I felt viscerally embarrassed for them.

There's no angle from which I can recommend Nightmare Alley. It's certainly not good noir. It also does very little beyond the obvious with its traveling circus / freak show trappings. The acting is the high point, but this is undercut by the plot. And at two and a half hours, Nightmare Alley really gives you time to bask in the vast creative and emotional emptiness that lies just beneath its occasionally flashy posturing.

Last and First Men contains some of the most beautiful shots ever committed to film. At points the visual and sonic composition come together with such raw force that I was left on the verge of tears.

Last and First Men also feels long at only 70 minutes. Shots linger and linger. There are almost comically long pauses in the already sparse story. You can almost feel the pretentiousness washing over you.

That story is also a mixed blessing: at time evocative and at others silly. The sparseness of the narration and abstractness of the images gives your mind plenty of space to wander. I found this refreshing. Others may not.

If your mind does wander though, perhaps you will wonder: what is the connection between the story and the images? Is what we see meant to be a literal representation of what the narrator is describing? A figurative one? Maybe what unites the two is the concept of communication across time?

You can treat the film as an intellectual problem or you can just treat it as a purely sensory experience. Could be interesting. But do yourself a favor and watch it in a theater. Some of the film's magic would be lost outside of a darkened room.

Although I am a big Terry Gilliam fan, even I have to admit that even his best films can be most charitably described as beautiful messes. While The Fisher King is very much a mess of a film in the classic Gilliam vein, unfortunately it lands with a dull thud instead of soaring to the heights of a Brazil.

The plot is very heavy handed and for the most part lacks the charm of Gilliam's other work. The handling of mental illness is especially clunky, which I felt made the film's attempts at compassion feel hollow. There's also a baffling love story that is never justified. Why is Robin William's character so taken by a woman who is both graceless and sometimes even verges on rude? And why is she (so predictably) won over by him? We are just supposed to accept that that's the way it is.

And that's the way it is for much of The Fisher King: things just happen because they do, not because they make sense from a storytelling or character development perspective

If there's one reason to watch The Fisher King though, it's Robin Williams. Even though his character is not great, there are still a number of fun scenes where he is basically just playing Robin Williams. It's a real delight, perhaps only topped by Michael Jeter's absurdly good song and dance number.

Yes even a bad Gilliam film still has some very memorable moments. I just wish there were more of them here. As it stands though, The Fisher King is too long and too clumsy in all the wrong ways.

My cinematic standards are pretty low: I can forgive less than stellar acting; I take great joy in non-sensical plots; I even find there's a certain charm to low-budget effects and filming techniques. What I can't forgive though is being boring, and unfortunately Straight Edge Kegger commits this most unforgivable of sins.

The film is only 75 minutes, but the first 40 of those are spent on an overly drawn-out setup. The second half is where the action starts, but surprisingly even then it all still feels like a slog. I found myself constantly checking to see how much longer I had left to watch.

For a film about punk, the plot and action also feel maddeningly mainstream. It feels restrained, conservative even. I got the sense that the film thought it was being really balls-to-the-wall, but I felt it never truly committed. I wish they had just gone for it, even if ended up as a complete failure. Interesting failures are at least memorable. Right now though the film stands in this awkward middle ground: too low budget to be an effective normal horror film, while also far too normal to be an underground gem.

I hate dunking on a smaller production like this. Just getting a film to screen deserves commendation, all the more so if that film is reasonably competently made like this one is. However I just can't really recommend Straight Edge Kegger. It feels far too long even with it's short runtime, and ultimately does not capture any of the punk spirit.

For a film revolving around incest, Spring Night, Summer Night is surprisingly restrained, captivating, and ultimately beautiful. The characters, writing, and production are all far better than I expected, and really remarkable for a film made in the late 1960s.

The filmmakers were quite brave for taking on this subject matter. This film could easily have turned to trash in less adept hands. Yet they somehow managed to tell this story in away that feels authentic and is almost entirely non-sensational. The entire film feels like a documentary really. The dialog and acting come across as real in a way that few films ever successfully pull off, especially older films. The film never explains anything to you, and the characters rarely can explain themselves, and yet you still walk away feeling like you know all of the characters and even the town itself.

The cinematography is also wonderful. Often intimate, it makes you feel like part of the scene. This isn't common in films of the era and it's done really well here. The bar scenes are the highlight for me. There are also some excellent creative shots that are beautiful yet not overly showy.

The audio design also stands out. There is no background music and audio is often jumbled. A family dinner for example is appropriately noisy, with family members talking over each other combined with the sounds of the meal itself. Sometimes part of a conversation will be drowned out by a passing car. Again, this all makes you feel like part of the scene instead of passively viewing it.

Overall, this is just a remarkable film: sometimes beautiful, other times thought provoking, and always captivating. It's like nothing I've seen from the era and I highly recommend it, even if the plot description turns you off.

There is no doubt that Ghost in the Shell is an anime classic. However does Ghost in the Shell still hold up in the distance future of 2021? Well, I guess it depends.

The visual design most certainly does. The background art is especially stunning. Its futuristic yet gritty city feels alive and tactile. The entire film a is great example of the Cyberpunk aesthetic, and watching it today you can clearly see its influence on many later directors. My only criticism of the visual design is that it definitely reflects a male gaze in a way that does not seem self aware.

Compared with the design however, the animation leaves something to be desired. There are drawn out still shots that linger for quite a long time and long sequences where only a character's mouth moves. This of course is not uncommon in older anime, but it feels cheap even by 90s anime standards. Thankfully you'll usually be busy enough looking at the amazing background art and other design that you can overlook this.

For me, the larger disappointment was that the plot and characters are rather basic. The film touches on a number of interesting philosophical topics, such as the nature of consciousness and what it means to be human, without exploring them in any depth or offering any real insights. I find that even bad cyberpunk films, such as 1995's Strange Days, to be much more intellectually interesting.

I was also disappointed by how underdeveloped the characters are. Major Motoko has pretty much one line where she talks about herself and doubting her identity. Her partner is basically just the muscle. This underdevelopment makes it difficult to care about them or what's going on in the film. Even the ending feels very low stakes.

All told, Ghost In the Shell is undoubtably an anime classic. Visually it more than holds up today, although adult viewers may find it disappointingly shallow in terms of exploring larger concepts and developing characters. Compared to other anime work from the mid 90s, such as "Memories" or many other OVAs, I don't think Ghost In the Shell is quite as revolutionary as some make it out to be, although I do love its cyberpunk aesthetic and do appreciate how influential it was.

Part of the problem with watching Ghost in the Shell today is that anime has evolved a lot since 1995. While this film once passed as a groundbreaking work for adults, today I can't help but feel it is not an entirely mature work. All of which is to say that while Ghost In the Shell isn't a bad film by any stretch, in my opinion it's been somewhat eclipsed by the universe of anime it and its ilk helped spawn.

All the 10/10 reviews are cute. How ironic. Ha. Ha.

But let me tell you, Foodfight is not one of those so bad it's good films. Foodfight is no Room or Plan 9. Those films are endurably bad. They are fun! Ed Wood had a story to tell and did the best with his limited resources.

Watching Foodfight though just feels dirty. Like binging the home shopping channel on TV. Like stumbling across some weird animated fetish film made by artificial intelligence. This is a film that makes you feel like you need to take a shower after watching. It should be illegal to show Foodfight to anyone who is not a consenting adult.

I watched Foodfight during a Twitch virtual afterparty for a Fire Toolz movie night. We tried to joke though it. We tried to laugh at it. But ultimately, the film won. It was simply that bad.

Only watch Foodfight if you want to see how bad an animated film can be. Otherwise, even as a joke, don't waste your time.

Altered States is one of those films that kind of leaves you in shock. The film wraps and you just sit there, staring blankly at the credits and wondering, "What the heck did I just watch?" Finally, and without a word, your partner switchesover to The Great British Baking Show to try lightening the mood. Yet, try as you might, you just can't focus on the butter block drama because you're still recovering from the drug known as Altered States.

But what a trip!

Altered States is one of those film that I remember in flashes: the amazing opening sequence, the droning tribal music in the Mexican caves, the hallucinatory explosions of color, the swirling primordial waters. Oh, when it's good, Altered States so, so good. Altered States also induces emotions that I don't often feel in cinema: the fear of having gone too far, the primal sense of losing control. It's horror, but a unique type of horror.

At its best, Altered States feels like a big budget art film, such as Solaris or 2001. Altered States so close to being amazing. And yet there's something holding it back. For me, this was the story.

The plot takes a while to emerge and ultimately isn't too important. Character use a bunch of big words and speak in scientific mumbo jumbo. The science bits make zero logical sense to anyone who has not been slurping mushroom soup. I personally wish they had kept some parts of the story more vague and opened ended. This is definitely where the movie's mainstream side shows through the most.

However the plot is not as important as the characters, and this is where I feel the film is least successful. The core characters are all interesting but I find them one dimensional. They are less like fully realized humans and more like embodiments of a concept the writer wanted to capture. For example, Mr. Hot Science Guy is all about science and the search for truth. Why? And why is he so smitten with science that he ignores those around him? The film's best answer: "because." Meanwhile, Mrs. Hot Anthropology Lady is super into Mr. Hot Science Guy. Why is that? Because that's what the story required. None of the characters speak, act, or behave like real humans. This artificiality really detracts from the love story the film tries to pull off.

But story is not the reason to watch Altered States. Watch it for effects and the odd emotional state it induces. Again, it all starts slowly. The story elements somewhat break the flow, but by the end, it's quite the trip.

The hallucinatory sequences in particular are like mainlining a blend of the ending color sequence from 2001 and bits of Exorcist II. They range from rapid fire sequences of images and shapes flowing into one another, to abstract explosions of color. I'm really curious how they filmed some of them. And while there are few instances of bad compositing that stand out, you have to applaud their creativity.

The other effects are also wonderful. I forget sometime how much I miss practical effects like those used in this film or how amazing they can look when executed well. Combined with some great sound design, and this film is one of the better visual representation of a psychedelic experience. It's especially amazing that it does all this in the context of a more mainstream, big budget film.

Although Altered States never quite reaches true greatness, I still give it my full throated recommendation. It's a n especially good find for those like me who love practical effects and trippy visual sequences. It has aged remarkably well besides a few instances of bad visual effects, and remains emotionally effective in its unique style of horror.

I forget exactly when I realized that Lovecraft Country was not a great show. Perhaps it was when magic entered into the plot. Or maybe, it was when characters started straight-facing about "The Book of names" and chanting spells at each other. Or could it be when the writers trotted out subtle masterpieces of dialog such as, "I didn't need money, whiteness is its own currency." Ugh, what a shame. For although Lovecraft Country could have been great, it instead opted to be a cliched mess without a clear voice or message.

Now that's not to say that Lovecraft Country is terrible. I would even venture that, if you go in with the right mindset, you can enjoy it. But I wanted Lovecraft Country to have some teeth, I wanted it to bring us an interesting perspective on race in America. Horror, especially Lovecraftian horror, seems like the perfect way to do that. For say what you will about Lovecraft as a person, the man created a unique style of horror that remains immensely effective to this day. His stories are usually slow burns with unknown dreads lurking in the shadows. Often the most horrifying bits are what you don't see. The potential parallels to racism in America are clear. By invoking Lovecraft's name, the show leads you to believe it's going to pull off a grand ol' coup by using Lovecraft's own style to show the horrors of racism. Racism that he very much practiced. Yet this potential is almost completely wasted.

Simply put, Lovecraft Country show is not Lovecraftian. It borrows a few names and high level concepts from Lovecraft, but that's it. It's not even its own variety of pulp. If anything, Lovecraft Country reminds me more of a show you'd see on the CW.

Which, again, fine! A bit of false advertising IMO but whatever. Yet even if you take Lovecraft Country as its own distinct work, it's just not great TV. The larger series plot is an absolute mess, the messaging is muddled, and the writing ranges from passable to laughably bad. It's a guilty pleasure type of show at best, sort of like True Blood was.

Again though, it's not like I hated it. I liked the characters for instance, especially the core family group. A few podcasts and reviews I've heard also note that the show features characters who you don't often see on the screen. Such as having a Black girl who likes astronomy. Such as opening with a Black man reading a book. I mean God that's a depressing low bar for representation when you think about it, but the real sad part is that it's true! And while these characters suffer from some major writing issues, at least they are properly fleshed out and feel like unique humans in their own right. It's not revolutionary but a good step towards what normal should be.

But oh man, let me tell you: these characters are saddled with some amazingly bad dialog! Characters often just state what they are feeling and why. Sometimes a character will straight up tell you what the writer wants you to take away from a scene, such as the whole, "I don't need money ..." bit. That line made me cringe so hard that I fell off my couch. Writing like this insults the audience's intelligence. Maybe some old white dudes need blunt message like this, but the rest of us would have been far better off with more showing and far less telling.

And then there's the season plot. I'll be honest here: I had no clue why anyone was doing anything or what was going on a good deal of the time. Why do they need this magical book? Why is their family special? And why is there magic in the first place? I'm sure all the lore and details and whatever are documented on fan blogs, but I was really paying attention and I still didn't understand the plot or what was motivating the characters much of the time. At some point, I just stopped caring too.

I really don't understand why the show decided to involve magic at all. Like not pseudo magic or symbolic magic, but literal Harry Potter style magic! They were clearly trying to make some meaningful comments on race and racism, so why throw some many downright silly elements around magic books and spells and whatnot? It's some major thematic whiplash to have Emmett Till's funeral going on in one scene and then to have someone talking about invulnerability spells in the next. At best this feels like what a bunch of executives would cook up while hamfisting a difficult topic. At worst, it feels exploitative to use real world historical events as the backdrop for stories involving monsters, spells, and time travel. It would take a very deft hand to pull something like that off well. Lovecraft Country is nowhere near up to the task.

The poor writing, over reliance on melodrama and cliche, and some of the fan service around revenge, romance, and wish fulfillment would be easier to overlook if Lovecraft Country didn't try so hard to prove to viewers that is has big important messages. Yet even here, the show again falls into cliche and the sort of obvious takes that fit nicely into hashtags. The show never develops its own distinct voice. Lovecraft Country is a house of the racist horrors, but fails to capture the living horror that was, and is, racism in America. And unfortunately the fantasy elements of the plot deaden the impact the real life horrors the show tries to examine.

As entertainment, Lovecraft Country is an ok guilty pleasure. Watch it for the characters and some of the fun action/adventure/horror bits. The larger season one plot is pretty garbage and you may find yourself chuckling at some of the unintentionally silly moments or cringing at some of its fumblings. Lovecraft Country just could have been so much better though. It should have been so much better.

Of all the films that have been graced with the title "Maniac" over the years, this one is probably the most boring. That's not for lack of potential. The idea of a Native American man stalking and murdering millionaire townsfolk sounds like exploitation gold. And Assault in Paradise even opens strong, with a classic car-makeout-session double murder, rapidly followed by some crossbow police executions. Not the highest quality 70s film kills to be sure, but it's something we could have worked with at least. Unfortunately though, it's only downhill from there.

It turns out that the real goal of our villain (aka, "The Wind *whooshing sounds*") is to blackmail a brilliantly mustachioed fellow who we'll call Mr. Rich. Of course Mr. Rich is a big man around town and won't be having any of that, so he hires Mr. Tough to take care of the problem. A pretty classic setup all things considered.

Mr. Tough is one of those tough guys who says tough guy things like (paraphrased), "I do things two ways: my way, or my way." He also picks up a woman by sticking a loaded gun in her face over cocktails. I guess back in the 1970s that was considered quite the move because in the next scene they are having rather bland sex. The whole deal would be hilariously stupid if I didn't get the sense the filmmakers were not entirely in on the joke.

The rest of the film is a series of increasingly dull action scenes interspersed with people you don't care about talking about things you don't care about. All the characters act exactly as you expect them to when you first meet them. The action itself is fine for low budget 1970s stuff but lacks any real charm and just doesn't hold up today. There are lots of long shots with helicopters hovering but never any real suspense.

The biggest problem I have with the film is that all of the characters besides Mr. Tough and Mr. Rich are completely forgettable. The tracker character who ends up working with Mr. Tough is never developed. Most of the time, I forgot he was even in the film. Even the evil, faux Native American villain is amazingly boring. He wears face paint that looks like something you'd see at a kindergarten play retelling the first Thanksgiving and his motivation only seems to be money. Money! Not revenge, or ancient Indian spiritual possession, or even just because he's completely nuts, but instead boring old cash. How pedestrian.

Overall, this is just a very forgettable film. I watched it two days ago and literally had to look up what it was about so that I could write this review. There are far better action and exploitation films from the time period. This isn't even the best film that had the alt title "Maniac" from the time period. Compared to "Maniac" (1980), "Assault in Paradise" is a total snoozefest.

The first half-hour of SHE contains more movie than any objectively better film can squeak out in it entire runtime. Horseback kidnappings by Bad Max style villains wearing football outfits with swastikas! Scantily clad Amazonian goddesses! Knife combat! Sex kills! Shirtless musclebound men! Frankenstein monster battles! Nude bathing! All set to an epic rock soundtrack. Just a half hour in and you are exhausted. Your body aches. Your brain is jelly. You plead for some reprieve - however brief - from the awesome spectacle now before you. Yet there is no reprieve. There is no mercy. For this is SHE!

And so, bring out the Mutants! And the Werwolves! And the cultists! And why do the mutants have chainsaws? And why do the cultists like whipping bound, scantily clad women so excessively? And why is there a big ol' lumberjack of a man in a tutu and gas mask? And why is there a sailor who speaks entirely in old cartoon/movie impressions? Why anything? These are points that scholars have debated for time immemorial, and will continue to debate long after "The Cancellation" has rendered all other media obsolete, leaving only SHE!

At this point, you may be wondering, what does any of this have to do with the 1897 novel, "She: A History of Adventure" that the film is supposedly based on? Absolutely nothing. Well I guess the film does have adventure. I guess Sandahl Bergman is a regular Amazonian goddess. That's about it really. If anything, SHE is more like an Wizard of OZ tale, except, you know, with all the sex and death that L. Frank Baum probably had to cut from his early drafts. Take "Return to Oz"; throw in few spoonfuls of "Deathstalker", "Raiders of Atlantas", and "Heavy Metal"; season well with some absolutely bizarre filmmaking decisions and a dash of right proper exploitation; and there you have some idea of SHE!

But enough.

I could continue trying to review SHE. I could try to describe the plot of SHE to you or list out every bizarre point along the way. But doing so gives only the vaguest outlines of the spectacle that is, and forever will be, SHE. For SHE is not a film that can be described or explained or indeed comprehended. SHE is an experience for the mind and the body. Indeed, SHE even transcends simplistic categorizations such as "good" and "bad". Some people will not understand SHE. Some people may even disparage SHE. But, just between you and me, we both know that such people are knaves and godless heathens, for - simply put - what's best in life is SHE!

10/10. Great! Terrible! SHE!!!

Cherry 2000 has been sitting on my watchlist for years. And ok, I added it mainly because the cover suggests one of those low-budget Mad Max / Sci-Fi films from the 80s. And I do certainly love that type of film. But now that I have finally gotten around to watching Cherry 2000, I have to say that it is a unique beast. While it is perhaps not a good film in the traditional sense, it's surprisingly solid action and unique campy charm make it really enduring. I regret holding off on this easily overlooked cult film for so long.

The first scene should be a pretty good signal that Cherry 2000 will not take itself seriously. The plot is set in motion by a businessman short-circuiting his android lover (the titular Cherry 2000) while they engage in some soapy loving in the kitchen. And yes the scene is even more ridiculous than it sounds. The best part is that the film doesn't linger on its own silliness or wink too hard at the audience. You could conceivably watch the opening scene and walk away thinking the film makers were just really, really inept at filming a steamy romantic encounter.

From there, the film veers into western and Mad Max territory. The plot is simple and the characters are pretty one dimensional but that's never a problem. Even if you know exactly how this film will end twenty minutes in, it's still a fun ride pretty much the whole way.

Many reviews describe this film as low-budget. That clearly was not the case, at least in the monetary sense. The film makers really do pull off some pretty impressive practical stunts (I've always dreamed of sliding down the spillway of a dam). The action is filmed well and can be spectacular. One highlight is a rocket launcher battle involving a car that's been picked up by a crane. However there's always a lurking campy quality even in the action. For example: tens of bad guys will spray bullets everywhere without ever hitting a thing, while our heroes casually pick them off.

Low-budget is a more apt description of the film's aesthetic. Cherry 2000 has some very creative sets and wardrobes. A woman emerges at the pool in a silver fire suit. There are many neon signs and flamingos and weird igloo shaped building. The bad guys drive a "fun bread" truck. Oh and at one point there's a cat inside a plastic water cooler jug on a counter. Why? Who knows! This is the future! This is all what makes the film so fun though! The sets and wardrobes and whatnot clearly required a lot of work and had some budget behind them, but are the result is undeniably campy. I love it.

Overall, Cherry 2000 feels like a film Terry Gilliam could have been involved in. I mean that as a high complement. Tonally, Cherry 2000 feels similar to The Zero Theorem or Brazil with its mix of humor, action, and weird stuff that's just never explained. I found Cherry 2000's creative and unique vision very enduring. Watching it really felt like a discovery. With films such as Demolition Man experiencing minor revivals recently, I can only hope that Cherry 2000 may soon also find more fans.

It's absolutely gutting to watch this documentary today and see how little has changed. How for all the talk of police reform over the past twenty plus years, Black and brown men are still being shot and strangled to death by the police.

This must have been a powerful documentary when it was released. But how can a modern viewer hear one mother's story about the NYPD choking her son to death and not recall George Floyd or Eric Garner? And even though you already know how the story will end, that only makes it all the more gutting when the responsible officer isn't found guilty. I had to take a break. It was too much.

I grew up thinking of the police as the "good guys". Frankly even today, I lean "law and order" (conceptually, not in the dogwhistle sense). And still, this quiet little documentary upset me like few films ever have. This is absolutely shameful. I am upset and embarrassed by my country's inaction. And while I am firmly against dehumanizing the police and calling them names, this documentary is yet more proof that the problem is far greater than "a few bad apples". Our country is broken for many of our fellow citizens, and perhaps the only positive thing about 2020 is that more people than ever now realize this.

You need to watch this. You need to watch and be mad. And then we need to take our anger and work together to change the system. Because our children cannot be hearing these same stories in 2040. We need to turn this documentary into a historical artifact.

'The Seventh Seal' is without doubt a very good film. The dialog, acting, and cinematography are all wonderful. The film also has a distinct aura that just sucks you in and fills you with this sense of foreboding and dread. I feel it's also one of those rare films that you can enjoy directly or on more intellectual levels.

However, for me at least, the film was not exemplary. Perhaps my expectations were too high going in, for after years of hearing film critics rave about The Seventh Seal, truthfully I was a tad disappointed by it. While I thoroughly enjoyed watching it, for some reason it just didn't click with me the way that some other films have. I didn't spend the rest of the night thinking about it. And while I'm sure there is a heck of a lot I missed in my first viewing, I don't feel the need to rewatch it anytime soon. It was good. It made me think. It made me feel things. Once was enough though.

I definitely recommend 'The Seventh Seal' to cinema buffs, however I also recommend going in with more managed expectations. Who knows, maybe 'The Seventh Seal' will be a true revelation for you. It just wasn't for me.

I'll just get this out of the way: I believe that 'Citizens United' in effect suppresses the free speech of real citizens. So yeah, I am biased. Having said that, this is not a review of the subject but a review of the documentary itself. And, all things considered, "Dark Money" is honestly a pretty middle-of-the-road documentary.

Here's what I liked about it: I don't live in Montana so it was interesting to learn a little about the state's history and about their local politics. I also have to commend the filmmakers for taking on a decidedly non-sexy issue that is easy to overlook. The film also speaks to individuals with a range of political backgrounds and ideologies, although there's limited representation of the "dark money" interests themselves for obvious reasons (interest which, it must be said, are often not corporations directly but wealthy individuals with strong corporate leanings).

Here's what I didn't like: the film drags in many spots. The same ideas end of being restated multiple times. The numerous individuals and organizations involved can be difficult to keep track of. The documentary would have been stronger by focusing in on just a few individuals rather than trying to tell a universal story. The film's term "dark money" also combines a number of related yet distinct concepts, such as: campaign finance, political action committees, disclosure, corporate influence, campaign coordination, and good old fashioned political corruption. Again I feel the film's argument would have been stronger if they have focused on a specific case instead making more nebulous, universal arguments.

Overall, I also just don't think this documentary will change anyone's opinion. Those who dislike "dark money" will like the film because it confirms what they already believe. Those who view "Citizens United" as a win for free speech, will dismiss this film as biased. And the depressing truth is that those citizens who can be swayed by random political mailers are never going to watch a rather boring documentary, no matter how important the subject it covers is.

Given the polarized nature of our nation at the moment, maybe the sad truth is that it's just too much to expect any documentary to change anyone's mind. Still, I can't help but feel a more deft documentary on the subject of "dark money" could have, at the very least, gotten a few more people thinking about these issues and what they mean for our democracy.

Ok, I admit that I started watching this movie ironically. I thought it was going to be one of those "so bad it's good" low budget action movie rip-offs from the 70s/80s/90s. The box art certainly makes it seem like that's what's in store. Plus the name "Remo Williams" sounds like one of those wannabe Jean-Claude Van Dammes that every B-movie studio seemingly had back then.

But although Remo Williams does have some silly 80s action movie moments, it's actually a pretty solid film! The stunts are impressively physical. The writing and characters are fun. And the editing and filming are well done. It's an all around fun summer movie. The only big negative is that the entire movie feels like the first act of a larger saga that unfortunately was never made. That's a shame.

The stunts are probably the highlight. They are impressive! Compared to the high-octane, cities exploding CG BS of your modern action movie, Remo Williams practically seems understated. That may be why its stunts feel so impressive. The combination of good old fashioned physical stunts and clever editing is genuinely thrilling. The Statue of Liberty sequence is the most memorable part of the film, in part because it really feels like they filmed it all on the real statue. However my favorite sequence is when Remo is trying to run away from a pack of guard dogs. That scene mixes humor and solid yet non-flashy stunts to tell a little story within the film. It reminds me something you'd see in a Buster Keaton film.

The first half of the film focuses on Remo's training. Most films would have reduced this to a few minutes and a montage or two. This part of the film really should be boring but it somehow isn't. There's some good humor and fun character interactions. And while certainly not Oscar worthy stuff, it's close in spirit to some of Arnold's 90s work. Now it must be said that his trainer, Chiun, is written as a stereotype and the fact he was played by a white actor in yellow face is not great. Still, Chiun doesn't exist solely for laughs and the character isn't completely one-dimensional. Chiun's relationship with Remo is a solid take on the Mr. Miyagi style mentor trope.

As I said, the biggest downside to the Remo Williams is that it really feels like a first act. Remo's mission is important but not James-Bond-space-laser important. The budding romance with Captain Janeway never progresses beyond a few longing glances. It leaves you wanting to spent more time with the characters, either in a proper sequel or in an A-Team style TV show.

Still if you're looking for a fun popcorn film, you can go far, far worse than Remo Williams. I went into with zero exceptions and was very pleasantly surprised by it.

People often give me a strange look when I tell them that Mondo Cane 2 is one of my favorite films of all time. You mean that dated trash? That film full of scenes that were staged or at least severely misrepresented? That film with shots of dying flamingos? That film which invites its viewers to gawk and guffaw at people from different cultures? Well yes, I guess that would be the film I'm talking about.

Yet if you are similarly confused by what anyone could possibly see in Mondo Cane 2, may I humbly suggest that the problem lies not in the film itself but in the viewer. For, taken as a documentary - or even for basic laughs - Mondo Cane 2 is truly not a good film. If you think otherwise, I am deeply concerned about your mental wellbeing. However, viewed from the correct angle, Mondo Cane 2 verges on sublime.

For the true joy of Mondo Cane 2 is not in laughing at people from different cultures, but in watching the film present people from different cultures for laughs. This is meta humor at it's finest. It's hard to believe the filmmakers were not in on this joke too, for some of the scenes are just a little too over the top, the narration just a little too ridiculous, to be taken seriously (even in Mondo movie terms). I mean, was there ever really a room in which frustrated drivers could vent their road rage by throwing tomatoes at a projected driving scene? Probably not. But does that scene not excellently parody the very glimpse of "reality" a Mondo film would offer to its viewers? Undoubtably, especially if you throw in a cheeky English narrator.

And even if we accept that the filmmakers were perhaps not engaging in a meta filmmaking exercise that still feels fresh even 60 years on, it must be admitted that they certainly did know a thing or two about working a camera. While most films from the early 60s have fairly boring static shots, Mondo Cane takes the camera into the scene. You feel like you are part of the action. The film is full of interesting composition and really excellent shots.

Some of the editing is also noteworthy. One of my favorite sections is the photoshoot for the detective novels. The music is silly, but the long pan and mix of fast motion/stills is like something Kubrick would have created. I am not kidding. It's a shame that so many people over the years have dismissed Mondo Cane 2 just because it's one of those "mondo" film. No, Mondo Cane 2 is art. It may not have been created as such, but that's how I choose to view it today.

In my humble opinion, Mondo Cane II is even superior to its predecessor. The British narrator is amazing (make sure to find the cut with him), the scenes are more varied and interesting (if less "shocking"), and the camera work is excellent. Most later mondo film have none of these charms. They are poorly filmed and rely too much on shocks that no longer have much capacity to shock (hello Faces of Death!).

This ride may not be for everyone, but for a certain type of viewer Mondo Cane 2 is difficult to top.

Dr. Sleep isn't a bad film. I'd happily watch it on an airplane. Well actually, maybe not on an airplane given that this film does contain some surprisingly gruesome scenes, but you get the idea.

However, is Dr. Sleep a good sequel to The Shining? Well, although the film certainly pays homage to the original, I must admit that, in this regard, Dr. Sleep does not fare nearly as well. That's a problem given that a key reason anyone is going to watch Dr. Sleep is that it is a sequel to The Shining.

Let me pause here to once more remind myself that Dr. Sleep is actually an adaptation of a Stephen King novel of the same name. That novel is a sequel to King's original Shining story. In this light, some of the creative decisions taken with in the Dr. Sleep film start to make a lot more sense. Why are there pseudo-vampires and a weird cult family for example? Stephen King, that's why.

But let's not kid ourselves. Dr. Sleep was advertised as a sequel to Kubrick's The Shining. The filmmakers certainly thought they were making a sequel at least, since they make callbacks to the film all the time.

Thankfully Dr. Sleep isn't some Bambi II or Phantom Menace. Instead, it's more of a "2010: The Year We Make Contact". 2010 is decent enough, but it's saddled with being the sequel to one of the greatest films of all time.

If nothing else, I'm thankful that Dr. Sleep didn't go full Jack Torrance on Kubrick's masterpiece. It's respectful, even though it feels more like your standard Halloween blockbuster. I miss the atmosphere from the original, the creeping psychological horror, the slow burn.

So no, Dr. Sleep isn't a bad film at all. But it's also not a worthy sequel to The Shining. Kubrick's take on The Shining famously strayed from Stephen King's source material. Perhaps Dr. Sleep needed to do more of this as well

Look, I get it. I know this film is-if not outright racist-from a decidedly colonial point of view. I know that shots in it are inaccurate or staged. I know that ten minutes of Africa Addio consists of women in bikinis bouncing on trampolines in slow motion. I get it.

But there are so many scenes from this film that stick with me.

In one, two jeeps race through the Savana with a rope tied between them. They are using the rope to mow down a heard of galloping Zebra. It is shocking, even in the age of Youtube. And yet, at the same time, it is beautifully filmed. It is horrible and yet you can't stop watching.

Honestly, Mondo Cane 1+2 along with Africa Addio have some of the best cinematography of the 1960s. The colors, framing, and composition is sublime. And I love how they play around various effects such as zooms and fisheye lenses. Many shots are handheld, which gives them an intimacy that feels very modern. Almost all Mondo spin offs got this wrong. They thought they could just toss together some uninspired shots of sex and gore. Africa Addio has sex and gore, but it makes its sex and gore into art.

Another scene in the film shows the aftermath of what is today known as the Zanzibar Revolution. From a helicopter, we see a compound full of people waving for help. The next day, we return. Now the compound is full of bodies. I've seen the aftermath of genocides in the news but this felt different. The before and after. The non-BBC style narration. It felt more authentic in some strange way. It's crazy that these shots are some of the only photographic evidence of the genocide. It's crazy that such an event was only captured by a Mondo film.

Africa Addio is undoubtably an achievement. This film managed to capture select glimpses of a world that no longer exists. And it did so in a beautiful way. Today we can overlook much of what was once considered most shocking in the film and see it as a unique work of art.

And yet, it must be said that Africa Addio is also a dangerous film. I know that the film's narrative, combined with its many powerful visual, could easily reenforce racist views. The film is dangerous if for no other reason than there's far, far more to Africa than what it presents. For this reason, I personally do not think of it as a documentary even though it consists of real footage.

I can only recommend Africa Addio to film buffs. For would be connoisseurs of exploration like myself, it is a true gem. If however you are just searching for a fun watch-or worse, looking for a documentary-look elsewhere.

Olga's House of Shame is not a good film by any measure. And it must be said us moderns-with such vast depths of pornography at our fingertips-will find little titillating in Olga's House of Shame. Indeed these days its S&M aspects could probably sneak into a CBS primetime serial without anyone batting an eyelash. The "punishments" are hilariously poorly executed to the point that they feel almost charming. Pointy instruments are moved within six inches of grimacing women, whipping never seems to make contact, and although Olga looks good strutting around in her jodhpurs, the film made me doubt she could even dominate a conversation.

But that's what makes Olga's House of Shame so fun! If the film was more realistic, you'd instead feel sad knowing that there are men who enjoy watching women get sexually abused (even if it is just simulated for the screen). Because this film is so bad though, you are free to enjoy the ride.

And what a ride it is! Olga's House of Shame is a very loosely connected sequence of scenes involving the titular Olga dominating her "girls" when they disobey her. The film uses a classic Mondo-style narrator to present these. Dear god do I love this narrator! This would not be the same film without him cheerfully describing all the "punishments" Olga will be dishing out. He's always just a little too interested as well... The whole thing is like one big wink at the camera as if to say, "hey we know this is some real sick stuff here, but you're into that aren't ya?"

Nor would the film be the same without its soundtrack. Classical music blares as Olga works over her girls with tongs and brands and whatnot. The music is bafflingly out of place, and yet I simply cannot imagine the film any other way. Now every time I hear "Night on Bald Mountain", I will think of my dear Olga!

I have little doubt that I am a terrible person for laughing my way through Olga's House of Shame. For lovers of sexploitation though, Olga's House of Shame is a classic. And deservedly so.

Fritz the Cat is often remembered as the first feature animation aimed at adults, full of sex, drugs, and commentaries on race relations. Shocking!

However the most shocking thing about Fritz the Cat-and indeed about most of the raunchy sex comedies from the 70s and 80s-are how completely non-shocking they are today. If anything, they are just plain boring. While watching Fritz the Cat I can see where the jokes are supposed to be. I can understand what the film makers thought would be subversive. But none of this has any weight. I was offended by the film's complete inability to offend me.

And without shock, Fritz the Cat doesn't have much else to offer. The character Fritz is just annoying. A sort of hedonistic Holden Caulfield if you will. I can sort of see what they were trying to satirize in him but I just don't care. The characters all feel very much of their time without actually telling us anything about their time.

The animation too is unappealing in some indescribable way. Ditto the character designs. I just don't like looking at this film. I kept expecting it to get better and it never does. Even the psychedelic scenes are complete snoozefests compared to virtually any scene from Yellow Submarine. Perhaps the word I'm looking for is cheap. Fritz the Cat feels like 90 minutes of uninspired animation on a budget.

Fritz the Cat is more than just boring and unappealing though. Today it actually feels regressive. To laugh at its take on sex and drugs and whatever, you need to put yourself into the mindset of a teenage boy in the early 1970s. Only from that terribly repressed point of view could you ever find how Fritz the Cat handles such things funny. Fritz is not even entertaining on the meta level, as many Mondo films are today.

Yet it feels wrong to be so harsh on Fritz the Cat. After all, it did pave the way for much of pop culture today. Perhaps Fritz the Cat is a victim of its own success. If it is no longer shocking, perhaps it is because today we all live in a world Fritz the Cat helped to create.

So Fritz the Cat is certainly of historical interest. It was the first mainstream animation aimed at adults (even if plenty of much more subversive stuff was being created underground at the time).

As modern entertainment however, Fritz the Cat is one dried out turd best left buried in the litter of time.

It feels like there's a far better film hidden somewhere under the version of Tank Girl that we got. At its best, Tank Girl is a feminist punk story filled with irrelevant humor, psychedelic animation, and explosions. At its worst, Tank Girl tells a sadly conventional and safe story, with the same old heroes and villains you've seen ten thousand times before. The result is a film that doesn't seem to know what it wants to be, a film that left me wishing it could have been so much more.

I went into this film with an open mind. I had never read the Tank Girl comics and had never even heard of the film before watching it (although I did check out some of the comics after watching the film). I immediately liked the setting and tone of the film. Lori Petty is a pretty excellent Tank Girl too. Cool, sarcastic, and always on the verge of breaking the 4th wall. She really carries the film, making something out of a fairly weak story. She is an unapologetic, non-traditional feminist character. And although Petty's Tank Girl may be a watered down-or at least more mainstream-version of the Tank Girl character from the comics, I'd still take her punk-ish grin over Ryan Reynold's masked winking any day.

It's a real shame they shoved her character into such a boring and conventional plot. There's a bad guy (Malcolm McDowell) trying to do generic bad guy stuff for generic bad guy reasons. He kills Tank Girl's friends, so now she's out not only for revenge but also to save the wasteland and a child who Mr. Bad has kidnapped. That'd all be fine if it was just background noise, but there are lots of loooooong and boring scenes that only exist to support this boring plot. This film needed to be more Mad Max 2 and less Mad Max 3.

Not that Tank Girl is a completely boring ride mind you. There's action. There's singing and dancing. There are new friends, such as Naomi Watts' surprisingly bland Jet Girl (IMO she would have made a far better love interest for Tank Girl than dear Captain Kangaroo). Yes, some of it's lame but some of it is quite fun. The dressing room scene in the Liquid Silver club wonderfully skewer's how women are supposed to present themselves.

On the action front, by far the best action scene in the film sees Tank Girl hijack a moving semi truck from her tank, casually shooting goons with a bow while cooking hotdogs and surfing along the barrel of the tank, all while tossing out one liners that would make Arnold blush. It's random, it's silly, and it's awesome.

However easily the best bits of the film are the few minutes of animation in the middle and at the end. These are amazing! They feel sort of like what would happen if Ren & Stimpy shot a music video set in the Mad Max universe. These psychedelic trips are over far too soon and leave you wishing you were watching whatever movie the animations came from instead of this live action fare.

I was less stoked about how the film sometimes threw in comic book-style stills between scenes. This wasn't done with much consistency and it felt like they sort of forgot about it halfway through the film. The inconstant stylization and tone of the film make some of the more over the top scenes feel very out of place.

And while most of the film features more of a punk/rock sound track, there's a really bizarre usage of a rap song (presumably by Ice-T) for about 30 seconds during one action scene. This is a very minor complaint, yet the song nevertheless felt so forced as to be emblematic of the film's core problem. Tank Girl could have been subversive yet fun feminist film that would still hold up well today. Instead it tried to be more of a badass Waterworld, and suffers greatly for it.

So overall, while the Tank Girl we got is not a bad film and has some memorable scenes, it mostly leaves me wishing I could watch the film it could have been.

Watermelon Man is probably not the film you expect it to be. The Watermelon Man film you expect goes like this: a casually racist white businessman wakes up one day to find that he is black, experiences life in someone else's shoes, experiences trials and tribulations, has a personal revelation, and then wakes up the next day to find his whiteness restored and having learned a valuable lesson along the way. Thankfully Watermelon Man takes such Hollywood storytelling expectations and subverts them beautifully.

While watching the film, I kept expecting one thing to happen and then being surprised (in a good way) when things went another way. For example, as you would expect the black Mr. Gerber has run ins with the police, is called slurs, and gets turned away from restaurants. But he also faces discrimination from white liberals. His coworker tries to exploit his new race for business purposes and then gets upset when he won't go along with the company's scheme to treat black clients worse than white ones. In another example, Mr. Gerber's new black body is sexualized by a white woman who only sees him as a sex object. And finally, Mr. Gerber even uses his new blackness to exploit his white neighbor's racism, forcing them to pay him a lot of money to move out of the neighborhood. These were all interesting angles on race that I did not expect going into the film.

The biggest problem I have with Watermelon Man is that it never brings all these clever subversions together to convey a larger message. I find the film is strongest while pointing out the hypocrisy of white liberals, the kind who profess to care deeply about race issues but can't handle a black person moving into the neighborhood. However there's also a strong black power bent which I wish was explored further. By the end of the film, Mr. Gerber seems to have accepted his new race but his motivations are left unclear and there really aren't many scenes of him actually interacting with other black people. It feels like the film never fully commits to whatever story it is trying to tell.

Still, I am writing this all from a 2020 point of view. Watching this film today, I found myself wanting more. I wanted the satire to be far more biting. I wanted the black power aspects to be more emphasized. It's hard to put yourself back in 1970 and imagine how this film would have been seen back then. Heck, the famous Star Trek kiss between Shatner and Nichelle Nichols was only a few years earlier.

Beyond the plot, the film itself is also unique. A mix of neat cinematography and weird editing decisions. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Some of the editing and transitions in particular can be jarring in a way that makes the film feel not entirely finished.

I also find the plot spends far too much time on Mr. Gerber trying to get over the fact that he is now black. It was enough to watch him try to scrub off his blackness in the shower and try skin whiteners. We get the point. There was no need for him to bathe in milk or rage about his tanning lamp or encase himself in plaster. All this time would have been far better spent exploring Mr. Gerber's interaction with society as a black man.

Having said all that, I hesitate to recommend this film, especially to those who aren't interested in trying to understand it on its terms. On one side, some white viewers may find it too easy to laugh along at the film's many non-politically correct jokes-which are indeed funny-without challenging themselves with the uncomfortable points the film raises. On the other hand, Watermelon man is not your typical circa 2020 film about race. This is a good thing in my book, but it also means you are not going to see it on many "Black Lives Matter" watch lists. The film's name and plot alone synopsis are probably enough to ward off many potential viewers. That's a shame because I do think Watermelon Man, while certainly not without its flaws, offers a unique take on race in America, even if it doesn't go nearly as far as viewers may hope when watching it 50 years later.

PS: the song "Love, That's America" is another big highlight.

The most charitable thing I can say about Ad Astra is that it draws inspiration from many great films. The problem is that instead of standing on the shoulders of these giants, Ad Astra takes the all too predictable Hollywood path and instead dumbs them down for mass appeal.

To begin, the plot of Ad Astra is similar to Heart of Darkness (or Apocalypse Now). Someone has lost it out beyond the farthest reaches of civilization and one man must track them down to deliver some "extreme prejudice". And look: I'm a complete sucker for Heart of Darkness style plots, doubly so if they are set in space!

The problem is, Ad Astra is like stupid Heart of Darkness. Brad Pitt has to make this whole convoluted journey for stupid reasons. As in, let's drive buggies to the dark side of the moon to avoid detection stupid reasons. As in, we can only send secure messages from Mars because stupid reasons. I mean the entire driver of the plot is "antimatter", which I guess they just threw there in hoping no one would care enough to question. I mean just how antimatter is supposed to be causing electromagnetic storms that intensify as they head towards earth? And why did the earth even need to be in danger in the first place? Stupid reasons are why. Hollywood is why.

If the moon buggy combat and last minute saves are all too complex for you though, thankful Brad Pitt narrates much of the film. Now Apocalypse Now has a narrator as well, but the narration in Ad Astra is no Captain Willard waxing poetic about dear ol' Charlie. The narration here is half a description of the main character's inner state and half a description of the plot. It's just lazy storytelling. Even the psychological evaluations that occur throughout the film feel like a stupid version of the ones from Blade Runner 2049.

Although the clunky screenplay doesn't give Brad Pitt much room to work with, he does a fair enough job given that his character is poorly written and underdeveloped. Tommy Lee Jones on the other hand should have stuck to being a Space Cowboy. His character has little of the depth of a Colonel Kurtz type, and just rambles a few uninspired lines. It was sad to see him like that.

Ad Astra is strongest visually. It seems to draw from Interstellar and Gravity, and there are a few shots that stuck with me. It may even surpass Interstellar in the visual department-except for that excellent Saturn V style launch shot from Interstellar-because many scene in Ad Astra are full of colors (albeit often muted ones).

However for every nice shot, the plot would come along and poke me in the eyes again with its stupid stick. I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but the longer you watch the film the more you start the question just how and why they shoved all these Hollywood tropes in there. This film did not need the love subplot. This film did not need moon buggy battles. This film did not need fist fights in space. In fact, all these things make the film far worse than it should have been because they feel artificial and emotionally manipulative. Again, it is a lazy way to tell a story.

And while I'm generally no stickler for scientific accuracy in my space films (hello dear Moonraker), Ad Astra plays things far too loose even for me. For example, at one point they magically stop their rocket on a dime while on route to Mars. On the moon, the gravity is sometimes like earth's and sometimes like the real moon's. And that's just a few random examples. I mean the climax of the film is an absolute fridge nuking in which Brad Pitt literally jumps through Neptune's rings with a shield for space rocks and somehow hits his spaceship on the other side. Which is wrong on so many levels that I can't even begin. Ad Astra is stupid person's idea of how space works, which I'd be fine with if the film didn't take itself so damn seriously.

If you are looking for a better space film on the action side of things, checkout Sunshine (2007). It also has some pretty sketch science-and certainly is no 2001-but it's a far more entertaining and rewarding ride than Ad Astra.

After reading many of the other reviews, I feel those reviewers must have watched a different film than I did. Other reviewers speak of a film with "dreamy visuals", some good action and dark comedy, plus a nice helping of campy occult motorcycle madness. And indeed, that does sound like a great film! Even the name "Psychomania" conjures up LSD tinged trips through the wastelands of the video nasties.

By the Psychomania I watched was not that film. Instead I wasted an hour and half watching a rather boring, rather tame film whose was not even nearly trashy enough to be entertaining. Whatever cult this film belongs to, I don't any part of it.

The highlight of Psychomania are probably the motorcycle stunts. The long boring stretches are livened up a bit by some genuinely impressive stuntwork and some really nice action shots. I do also like when the motorcycle gang goes "rampaging" through polite society, although the delinquency on display here practically feels tame, especially compared to that found in earlier work such as "A Clockwork Orange" or in other films from the early 70s.

Oh and the occult/horror bits? Well they are there. This is a frog. There is magic. People rise from the dead and kill other people. Except these zombies look exactly the same as when they were alive, and you never actually see how anyone is killed. Everyone just seems to drop dead from freight. Or maybe they just all just feel asleep watching this film.

There's really not much else to say. And that's the problem. Maybe this film once had it place, but there are so many better films from this era. Psychomania's problem is that, while it is definitely not a good film, it's also just not over the top enough, or campy enough, or unique enough to leave much of an impression, even when compared to other films from the period.

I came expecting some trashy motorcycle mayhem and rode off sorely disappointed.