DalaiNylon

Well, it's not all bad. This 6th series of Black Mirror had a lot: first of all it had a loud voice, something that the last one definitely didn't have. But the format wasn't there, it was somewhere between Black Mirror and Something completely different.

Two episodes belonged to Black Mirror, without a doubt. That would be Joan is Awful and Beyond the Sea. The latter one being one of the anthology's better episodes, certainly the best episode of the 6th series IMO. Also, the first episode episode was quirky in a good way, I did like it. I think those added together with another good episode would have made a very decent comeback for the series.

On the other hand, we had the episodes that were not Black Mirror, but kept exploring themes that have to do with the film industry itself (something explored in the first episode too). Loch Henry failed it's potential and ended up messy, but Mazey Day was a very good episode. Again, those two could make up a separate series tied together some more similar episodes.

I would prefer the idea of having two separate series rather than that, but that would demand more episodes than the existing ones.

And then, we had that last episode which was just completely flat. I don't think it was good enough for the expected standards, it didn't tie in with any other theme, it was just another one hour and then some of boring, lame television. It was what I'm trying to avoid watching and the reason I stay away from TV shows generally, except for exceptionally good ones like Black Mirror- oh what a shame, it was Black Mirror!

I consider Demon 79 the lowest point of series 6 and a good contender for the lowest of the whole show.

This is an episode that I enjoyed a lot as I like dark elements and humans as the 'real monsters' in the horror genre. I love the Scottish scenery and accents I'm a total fool for all that. And up to the 35th minute or so it was a very good cut, if not a bit run and gun - I'd like it perhaps in a slower pace. But it flowed nicely and the twists were backed up well.

There's two or three things that don't work here though. First, I'm one of those people that can't see this tying in to the rest of the anthology of tech specific drama. Even 'Shut up and Dance' had a gadget that the whole plot was generated from (that was the on-computer camera). I really can't think of any other episode so far that hasn't been related to anything digital. But this one didn't which makes it the odd one out.

The other thing that's even worse is a big mistake in the writing. There's certain inconsistencies in a film that you can excuse right on arguing that 'it's a film'. This can be a grey area however. The fact that his mum had all these VHS tapes with recorded atrocities right above the telly in the front room of the house is not making sense at all. It needs to be justified, it's not something that just 'happens' because 'it's a film'. The character is generally a sane person, but a very evil one, so there's nothing self destructive there. Did she want her story to be told? Well that should have been explored a whole more than it had been earlier in the episode.

Subsequently, the last five minutes or so which show the aftermath of the story try to point out an immoral, beyond reason exploitation on behalf of the film industry but that's one villain too many as we already had our monster, which was his parents. Ends up being confusing.

I would like to review this film. The following is nothing more than my personal opinion. But hey, so it's yours.

I understand that Polanski's work was very innovative for 1968 standards. I actually am a big fan of Polanski's work. The Tenant is my favourite Polanski film.

I would like a bit more of what he did with The Tenant to be evident in Rosemary's baby. The subtleties. The dark undertone. Nowhere to be found in Rosemary's baby. Instead, this is more of a shouting statement to the society I guess. And it did work miracles for him didn't it? It was his big break. What a way to shock the audiences back then. It really is a good film. But not too good.

That's because Polanski didn't go with what the film needed in this one. He went with what he did - and his career. Good for him. Bad for the movie. This movie good be a 9 but now it's a 7. This movie is a horror film that doesn't feel like a horror film. It feels like a black comedy, or even a political film. It got a bit all lost.

This is a perfect example of a movie that was cut and chopped up like a main dish of ribs, back in the 90s. I was motivated from the start to invest in this for many reasons. The size of the production and the hype about it should do the trick. Another thing was that the original music for this picture has to be one of the best ever. During the watch, I found out that it was also worth it for the beautiful landscapes and some great performances. That's about all the good things I can say about this film. When a bunch of people work together to make a film, especially when they work on book adaptations and/or on a large movie set with many actors, cutting down the footage so that it fits the two hour feature film limits simply destroys the whole effort and it's a shame. I don't know if there's another cut for this movie- perhaps a director's cut exists? Probably would be best to be cut as a mini series. It would honour the soundtrack a lot better. One of the best themes I've ever heard in a movie- tied with 'Jesus from Nazareth' and other great ones. I mean, the story just wasn't told naturally, the characters never developed, it was all mismatched. What a shame!

Some things I liked about this movie. David Fincher's trademark camera work was nice. Forest Whitaker does an amazing job as Burnham. Kristen Stewart being a teenager LOL but nice. Jodie Foster is good. The plot is simple but not bad, the characters and the setting are all well written.

Some things that I didn't like about this movie. Early 00s CGI and general photography hasn't aged well at all plus the whole film is very dimly lit for my taste. Jared Leto is a cool guy but I find his acting a bit sallow. The plot development could be better, the first part of the movie was a bit boring. I guess the moment-to-moment narrative style is not my thing.

I feel that more than anything else, this is an exploitation film and a rather good one as well. I realise that this might come up as an unpopular opinion so I'll attempt to explain. The writing wasn't much to my taste. Quick-paced, punchline-after-punchline, full of 'cool' references, yes it succeeds in being edgy but it has a great deal of pretentious in it too. As such, it fails to give substantial depth to the dialogue and the characters. Along with an interesting neo-noir (or is it neon-noir?) photography and some really cool soundtrack, it sketches an outline of the statement it wants to draw. Even the twist and the double twist are not hard to expect if you keep your eyes on the screen. Enough with the writing. Margot Robbie's performance makes the movie. As I said before, this is an exploitation film. It talks about the evil of men against women. Man is not to be perceived as nothing else than a monster; The hero beautiful, righteous, vengeful and badass. Perfect in short. That's the writing. MR and her emotive performance add a grey area in all this black and white ridiculousness. Her acting is full of hate, she overgrows Annie's 'perfect' persona and she turns the saying-nothing-hero to a saying-something-anti-hero. I could see this film growing to have a cult following in the years. But then again it could get forgotten really easily too.

I think this is such an important show with a huge fanbase for it to have such a poor page- as of 2020/06/13 the imdb information re:Def Comedy Jam is minimal, there's not even a complete seasons list! The whole page looks like a draft, I was really not expecting this. By 2020, there's almost EVERYTHING submitted on the IMDb, I have found even the worst kind of toxic garbage documented here, but this World Famous, iconic HBO show --I guess not! I shall make a start with things I can find around in Google, (even if not accurate enough, still better than NOTHING!) but I sincerely hope that more people will come to help soon

Yo came here to ask just a quick question, was "Tone" from the film supposed to be the same Tone with the one from the "Trackmasters" fame? Thank you, holler if you know anything.

First of all, I hate it when I get to convince someone to join me in watching a movie that "I really expect to be great" and at the end it turns out to be awful. I hate it, you hate it, everyone hates it, I'm pretty sure Kevin Smith hates it, so Silent Bob you owe me one after this, because that was the case with the "Red State".

Besides that, I didn't find a single thing on this movie, any detail at all to be really fascinating (EXCEPT from the very ending).

My disappointment is not based on the fact that the film wasn't a comedy. For example, "Jersey Girl" was more like a sensitive-family-fun film than a straight-up comedy but I admit it was fine and unique in its kind. Now, if "Red State" belongs to a certain movie genre, that is IMO the no-plot-disturbing-cult kind of thing. No problem. Though, it has no power as a concept, it's a weak attempt, a complete failure.

If you think that my critic is hard, you got that right. If you say that my expectations were far too many, you're right about that too. We' re talking about Kevin Smith here. For God's sake it's the same director that created "Clerks"!!!

Nuff said. I'm out.