Zoomorph

Did I watch the same film as other reviewers? Because this one just isn't funny, or even entertaining. I guess this is an example of a film that has not aged well. Likely it was enjoyable in the 1950s, and those viewers have fond memories of it and have rated it very highly, but there's just not much there for a modern viewer. It's a little bit cute, but it's mostly just predictable, shallow, and lackluster. So many much better films have been created in the last 70 years (and in the 1950s, and earlier) that this one rightfully ought to fall into obscurity. It's not worth watching unless you have a special interest in it.

I had high hopes for this film based on the other reviews and ratings, and was shocked at how terrible it turned out to be. The story was completely predictable and cliche. The characters were as thin as cardboard, with no personality or intrigue. The cinematography was average. There was nothing at all in it to challenge the intellect.

So what are we left with? Watching a superhero kill the bad guys for 2+ hours, knowing well in advance how it will go. Extremely tedious and banal. This is far from a great film, it is not even mildly entertaining despite all the action. It was a chore to stay awake until the end.

The film is centered around the psychology of the main character, so when he is highly unrealistic and terribly acted, it is doomed to be boring. Most of the other actors do a bad job, too. The story is just totally unbelievable.

After watching the film, I looked up the true story it was based on. I think there's a decent story there, but film completely failed to capture it. Not only bad acting, but also a bad script.

Maybe if Herzog had made this a few decades earlier he'd have pulled something off. As it is, it's a weird mix of late Herzog and your standard modern Hollywood trite which amounts to nothing of value.

The best thing about this documentary is that you get to watch The Rolling Stones perform. Other than that, there's very little reason to watch this. It's a poorly edited documentation of a small event (some free performance they put on) in distant history. It doesn't provide any interesting context, discussion, or insights. I learned way more from reading 2 paragraphs about the event on Wikipedia, this film basically tells you nothing. You watch The Rolling Stones perform plus some shots of dirty hippies partying and fighting. The end. I'm amazed that the Criterion Collection touched this. It's just not a good film in any way.

Perhaps this film was relevant in bygone times, but to the modern viewer it's just a bland documentary about an extremely minor political figure. Few young people nowadays will have heard of Harvey Milk, and nobody is missing out by not knowing about him because he just wasn't very interesting.

The film was decently put together, but the subject matter just isn't worthy of a great documentary. The high ratings are puzzling and are likely based on political views, not because it's a great or important film (it's not). You might find it interesting if you're into the history of the gay movement.

There is a single positive thing that I can think of to say about this movie, and that is that it has some slight value in terms of pretty still shots of a small town in the Northwest in the 1990s and of the machinery in the mill. Perhaps if the film was re-edited into a 15 minute documentary about this subject it could be considered a good film.

Unfortunately, everything else about this film is poorly done. The acting is terrible with stiff, unbelievable characters that the viewer does not care about. The plot is particularly terrible, consisting of only a handful of dramatic scenes which are poorly related and leave the viewer to guess at what the purpose was and try to piece together the story for himself. The ending is unbelievable. Most of the the film is long still shots of random stuff around the town such as traffic driving by, and is tedious and leaves the viewer wondering why they are wasting their time watching this. Then there are a small number of "artsy" shots with a moving camera that feel completely out-of-place in the film and convey that someone is trying too hard to put some artistic shots into a generally terrible film.

The film is long, boring, vapid, pointless. It has very little artistic value or value of any sort. Comparisons to any great film director are absurd and likely made in jest. This film has amateurism written all over it and I was saddened by the end credits as I thought maybe this was a project that Jost did all by himself on a $5 budget in his spare time, but it looks like there were actually a few other people involved in this producing this junk.

I would suggest that the prospective viewer sit on their deck and watch traffic drive by for 2 hours while pondering pretty much any topic of interest: that would be a more profound and valuable use of time than watching this.

This film tells the story of a weird couple who produce modern "art". Their "art" is slightly more advanced than smearing poop on a canvas and framing it, but just barely. It's crude, boring, pretentious, and bland.

The people who view their "art" at their exhibitions and who are fans of the couple are presumably similarly "sick". There is a cultural sickness that this couple are exemplifying.

The couple are not particularly interesting. Furthermore, I doubt the sincerity of what we see before the camera as they are making a documentary about themselves and they do not come across as very authentic.

Ultimately, the film is another of their pieces of "art", and it's not much different from their other pieces of "art" which are featured within the film. It's an amateur piece which is fairly lacking in any value, other than as a glimpse into the sickness of modern art and the niche that they happen to fit into.

Bland and pointless. At just over 1 hour in length, it drags on for what feels like a much longer time. At best, this movie might be useful for its soporific effect; it could very easily lull a tired person to sleep with its slow pace and meaninglessness. Beyond that, it's just another pretentious "art" project by someone who wanted to make a movie but had nothing to provide the viewers other than a small bit of surrealism.

Interesting documentary that shows how even sand has become an environmental problem in the modern world. Sand itself isn't really much of a problem (unless you live on an eroding beach) as there's an abundance of it on the planet and more is constantly being made. But the fact that humans are making a problem for themselves out of sand really points back to the overall magnitude of human impact on the planet, which is the elephant in the room that few people want to acknowledge.

Instead of looking at the bigger picture, people tend to prefer to focus on individual little symptoms. If they can "fix" the one little symptom that's in their mind, they'll be at peace until the next one arises, and happily ignore everything out of sight. So, what can we do about the sand problem? Well, this documentary suggests that we use recycled glass (ie. sand) in concrete instead of sand.... This seems laughable and I almost wonder if they are trying to make a joke about the lame ideas that humans have to "fix" our environmental impacts. I think they are serious, though. Overall, the documentary isn't great but it's a fascinating topic, especially if you can look beyond one individual grain of sand and see how it's connected with the rest of the beach of human environmental impacts.

An extremely dull film. It's even complete with gimmicks such as rewinding the play so you can watch the cat jump off the couch multiple times. Apparently other commentators have been fooled into thinking this nonsense is genius. The premise is trivial and there's nothing subtle about the execution. It drags on forever and is a relief when it's finally finished.

There is not much good about this documentary other than the music. The narrative is lacking, the interviews are short and boring, the camera work is poor, the editing is disjointed. The film is almost boring and is only saved by the music and one interesting character. The film comes across as a very low effort project and it could've been a lot better.

This is a bottom-of-the-barrel junk documentary. Not worth watching except to be disgusted at how bad it is. The only reason it was made was to promote the female empowerment agenda, and it should not have been made.

It lacks a coherent story, it barely touches the surface of its character, it barely tells us anything about the sport, the dialogue is terrible, and it's poorly put together.

The main character is an annoying obese woman who studies gender studies and believes she's oppressed because nobody cares about female sumo wrestling. Suddenly she's at some kind of competition. Nobody cares about it, nobody is watching, and almost all the other competitors look like average women - not people who take sumo wrestling seriously. The single other woman who is as obese as she is, beats her! She loses. Well, she wins second place which amounts to a participation trophy.

This documentary has no narrative and almost no interviews. It mostly consists of footage taken on the set of Tarr's last film. Tarr fans will enjoy these extra little behind-the-scenes glimpses.

While this film was interesting and enjoyable, I can't help but think that a better and greater film could've been made out of Alex Honnold and his feat. Unfortunately, the directors like to keep things superficial. Jimmy Chin & crew, editing it as they went along, created a very simple, feel-good story which included themselves as major characters. Way too much screen time was given to their own antics. As far as Alex goes, his living and dating habits are about as deep as they delved into him. In the end, the film just wasn't serious enough. It's a superficial glimpse at an enigmatic person through the eyes of a shallow and egotistical person that doesn't understand their subject all that well and doesn't care to delve deeper. Jimmy Chin & crew should focus on camera work and leave the directing to someone with some vision and talent for it. The potential was perhaps there for a legendary and enduring biopic, but they only made a cheap Netflix movie.

This documentary has its flaws: Lauren Southern's narration is over-the-top; the content is superficial, consistenting mostly of a small number of anecdotes and interviewee's opinions; and it's a bit one-sided. It doesn't really answer the bigger questions it raises about its subject matter. Despite that, it's an important subject that doesn't get enough attention. This movie shows a side of the story that's not well known (that of many of the white farmers) and made me want to learn more about the situation in South Africa. There's definitely nothing racist, neo-Nazi, or hateful about the movie. It's unfortunate that many people will leave 1 star reviews for this film without even watching it, because of their political agenda.

This film is a long, slow glimpse at the lives of a group of 19th century Italian peasants. Unfortunately it is very superficial and too dreary. Despite its length, we get to know surprisingly little about the characters because the film meanders and jumps around between too many characters without getting close to any of them. The plot is extremely thin, with the story of the boy and his clogs barely being covered. From a historical perspective, the film is lacking in detail and too dreary. Even poor peasants have sources of happiness and positivity in their lives, which are not featured here. After the first hour, when the novelty of watching the peasants way of life wears off, the film gets boring and drags on for two more hours, ultimately leaving the viewer wishing they hadn't wasted their time.

Twin Peaks was a good and enjoyable TV series. This movie is terrible in comparison. For one thing, it lacks all the charm, suspense, plot twists, story lines, quirky characters, and polish that the TV series had. But even worse, there are blatant inconsistencies. For example, Laura was supposed to have had sexual relations with three men on the night of her death, and to have been attacked by the bird. In this movie we only see her with one male and she is not attacked by the bird. This movie brings almost nothing new to the plot and just summarizes what we already knew from the TV series, so I expected that it should at least try to be consistent and get the details right. The characters are dull, it drags, it has a low quality B-movie feel, and it's complete with pointless little cameos from other characters from the TV series that don't belong in Laura's story. (The majority of this movie revolves around Laura and Donna exclusively, with minor roles for Bobby, James, and Leland.) It has no suspense, but it does have some nudity and unnecessary grotesqueness. Presumably this poor excuse for a movie was a shameless attempt to cash in on the success of the TV series. I would not recommend it, even to fans of the TV series. And if you haven't seen the TV series you won't understand any of it - something that might not bother Lynch fans!

This is hardly a good documentary. It looks like an advertisement for the agriculture industry. Everything is peachy and wonderful. The movie is completely superficial and vapid with a cheesy narration. Watch tractors drive around to overbearing and flirtatious music. Might be tolerable if you're interested in a glimpse of agriculture from the late 60s, but otherwise I would not recommend it.

There is nothing redeeming about this show. It is utter trash.

The first half is spent ridiculing Trump and his supporters. Moore then flat out claims that Trump won't do anything he promises and that his supporters will all regret electing him the day after. He provides zero argument, reasoning or evidence for this. Instead he plays an extremely lame mock TV clip ridiculing Trump on inauguration day.

The next half is spent trying to convince viewers to vote for Hillary. Again, Moore has absolutely no argument, logic or reasoning as to why anyone should vote for Hillary. Here are the 3 tactics he uses to try to entice us to vote for Hillary: 1. He tells us that we should elect Hillary because she's a woman. 2. He tells us that he has a "crazy thought" that Hillary might literally be Bernie Sanders in disguise. 3. He breaks down and simply begs us to go vote for Hillary.

It's all so cringeworthy and ridiculous. Sorry Moore, but I'm not selecting a candidate based on their gender. Sorry Moore, but I'm not entertaining the ridiculous fantasy that Hillary might be Pope Francis; she's just as likely to be Hitler or the tooth fairy. And sorry Moore, but I'm disgusted that you would make a movie to beg us to vote for someone when you can't even explain why.

Long, slow, static shots. A girl does a couple random, pointless, inane things in a small room. Long fades to black. Bland narration. Nothing very interesting happening. It actually starts to get slightly interesting when we finally get a second character who provides some real talk. Then jumps into an incredibly long, exaggerated, and boring lesbian scene. The end.

This is just another artsy fartsy film that is fairly pointless and meaningless and vapid. It's some kind of "reflection" on sexuality, but with nothing insightful or even interesting to provide the viewer. The photography is just average. It slightly reminded me of the vastly superior film "Un homme qui dort" from the same year.

As someone not too interested in religious symbolism, I did not enjoy this film. It's sparse and minimalist and very little happens in 2 hours. There's not much offered to the viewer other than a very brief story that appears to be some kind of metaphor pertaining to religion. The meaning isn't obvious either, so you're just watching some weird, meaningless stuff unless you put thought into it and try to come up with your own explanation. It's not particularly visually beautiful or engaging in other ways.

I can see how this could be an interesting film for people who are interested in Christianity and enjoy these kinds of exercises, although I suspect this is a film that receives a lot of spurious praise from people who like it just because it's so out there or because they think that's the cool thing to do. It's trendy in certain circles.

This is a good film, but from some of the other comments you might get the wrong idea of it. The story here is exceedingly simple and straightforward. There is no surrealism a la "The Exterminating Angel".

The film is about laziness and sloth. And it will frighten anyone who struggles with laziness or feeling overly comfortable in their lives.

While you can certainly theorize about laziness on a the level of social classes, there's no obvious indication that the film is supposed to be carrying a political message.

It's great that the film makes you think, but let's avoid forcing everything through the lens of our political ideology.

This "film" equals 100 minutes of continual, fast, abstract dialogue. Most of the scenes are very long, near-static shots of single characters standing perfectly still, rambling on ad nauseum. There are several long stretches of just a black screen while the monologue drones on. Once or twice the viewer is treated to movement on screen (eg. characters walking while they converse).

I think they should've written a book instead. At least the reader would have a reasonable chance to decipher the point of it. The visuals add very little to the film.

Avoid unless you're on a quest to find the most pretentious film.

This film deals with idealism vs. pragmatism. The main character starts off deeply caring about his honor, then gradually gives it all up until he becomes a prostitute for the Nazis and complies in killing his friend for his own survival. Several of his peers retain their ideals, refuse to submit, and die pathetic deaths.

The film seems to be admitting a harsh truth of reality: that life is ultimately about survival and that ideals and thoughts are not important beyond how they influence our actions. At some point they hold us back and we're better off abandoning them.

At one point the Nazi female commander laments that the Nazis are trying to make humanity better but doomed to fail, and the snivelling rats who will do anything to survive (the main character) will continue on. This is a good point. The Nazis were idealistic too in wanting to elevate humanity.

So the film isn't on the side of idealism or pragmatism. Clearly humanity is a complex combination of both; every person has some degree of fundamental ideals and some degree of flexibility and pragmatism. And there are many different ideals that are in opposition to one another.

One of the idealist characters at one point mentions a possible resolution that is popular: for humans to turn into sheep. If we can only stop evolution and eliminate violence from the world, we can live happily ever after.

The film is otherwise lacking in insight. It's not clear what it views as a resolution. It does seem clear that the film isn't happily embracing the world as it is, give its sombre tone.

The film starts out with a montage of stock footage of Hitler and Mussolini set to cartoonish music and a voice narrating some phrases that sound like they're probably insulting. A short ways in, we see evil Nazis shooting innocent women and children in the forest. At one point, the dialogue is set up for one character to defend Mussolini and another, wiser character to rebut all of their arguments and explain why Mussolini was bad. Finally, the characters end up in a concentration camp where evil Nazis shoot innocent prisoners for no reason. Who knows what the director really believes - she isn't telling us - but the apparent heavy anti-Nazi, Nazis-are-pure-evil bias of the film is annoying.

The film is otherwise fairly mediocre. Far from a masterpiece. It's an odd mixture of genres. Not very funny. The best thing about it is probably the excellent acting of the main character.

This movie has exactly one interesting idea, which is repeated in every second line of dialog just to make sure that nobody will miss it: a group of humans have lifespans of only 8 days.

Beyond that, it's utter rubbish. The viewer is supposed to shut off his brain and watch the main character fight some random monsters, run through some buildings that are collapsing for no apparent reason, and so on. We don't know why any of this is happening, but we're supposed to be happy when the main character finally pushes a button so that humans can live "normal" lifespans again.

There's zero backstory. The story line is the most inane imaginable (it seriously amounts to pushing a button to magically fix everything). The acting is bad. The dialogue is bad. The costumes are bad. The visuals are the least bad thing about it, but they're certainly nothing special.

I can't believe that anyone likes this. If you like intelligent sci- fi, stay far away.