emdeewee
Lifetime Total
10+
Lifetime Name
1+
Lifetime Filmo
1+
IMDb Member
20 years
Reviews
Victoria (2015)
Victoria is a movie about the fact that is was shot in one take.
Victoria is a movie about the fact that is was shot in one take. This movie is about itself.
That is what this movie is about. That is the subject matter. It is not a movie about a Spanish girl living in Berlin, about being estranged in modern modern city life, it is not about Berlin, not about making choices, it is not about life, death, conscience, it is about nothing, nothing other than; the fact that is was shot in one take.
It gets five stars in major newspapers, for, as is the case with most films these days; it blows a screen of action and tension, the smoke being a decoy for substance.
I remember this space movie with Sandra Bullock, Gravity; that was also supposedly a brilliant movie, since it was made with special techniques. But it was empty all the way through, and people fall for this stuff. This movie is the same thing.
Characters are flat as can be, not well written, and the so called slow scenes on poetic music are not telling anything at all. For example: at a certain point our characters are in an elevator and all the dialogue, up to this point very dominant, is turned down to silence; we just see them talking and laughing, as nice music comes up and images seem to slow down. It is supposed to be telling of something, or to be dramatic. What is this telling us? Nothing. That is because there is no drama what so ever, that is accentuated here. It is simply hollow aesthetics.
It would be so cool if this was a great movie. Because then the makers would have had their revenge over mainstream cinema, which they were trying to rebel against. A beautiful goal, full of heart and energy - but if the result is a flat movie, obsessed with form and without any substance what so ever, like in Gravity, then what do you have to show for? Where is this an argument for? You only prove yourself wrong, is what you do, and as we say in Holland; you throw in you own windows.
I guess the process was exhilarating, which is a good reason to make anything of course.
But if you want to watch a movie that is not about itself, and will be dear to you for years to come, because you love the characters, their struggle, their mannerisms, their pain and courage, then don't bother with this.
If you want some kind of thriller, then go for it.
That is what this movie is about. That is the subject matter. It is not a movie about a Spanish girl living in Berlin, about being estranged in modern modern city life, it is not about Berlin, not about making choices, it is not about life, death, conscience, it is about nothing, nothing other than; the fact that is was shot in one take.
It gets five stars in major newspapers, for, as is the case with most films these days; it blows a screen of action and tension, the smoke being a decoy for substance.
I remember this space movie with Sandra Bullock, Gravity; that was also supposedly a brilliant movie, since it was made with special techniques. But it was empty all the way through, and people fall for this stuff. This movie is the same thing.
Characters are flat as can be, not well written, and the so called slow scenes on poetic music are not telling anything at all. For example: at a certain point our characters are in an elevator and all the dialogue, up to this point very dominant, is turned down to silence; we just see them talking and laughing, as nice music comes up and images seem to slow down. It is supposed to be telling of something, or to be dramatic. What is this telling us? Nothing. That is because there is no drama what so ever, that is accentuated here. It is simply hollow aesthetics.
It would be so cool if this was a great movie. Because then the makers would have had their revenge over mainstream cinema, which they were trying to rebel against. A beautiful goal, full of heart and energy - but if the result is a flat movie, obsessed with form and without any substance what so ever, like in Gravity, then what do you have to show for? Where is this an argument for? You only prove yourself wrong, is what you do, and as we say in Holland; you throw in you own windows.
I guess the process was exhilarating, which is a good reason to make anything of course.
But if you want to watch a movie that is not about itself, and will be dear to you for years to come, because you love the characters, their struggle, their mannerisms, their pain and courage, then don't bother with this.
If you want some kind of thriller, then go for it.
The Swedish Theory of Love (2015)
Very general and
I Just saw this documentary at IDFA in Amsterdam. I am as disappointed afterwards as intrigued as I was beforehand. This movie never really touches anything at all. To my mind it is vague, general, never precise, never dramatic, countless statistics and sad anecdotes notwithstanding; it shows stories of people lying deceased in their houses for years on end without anybody noticing (worth a full feature documentary of itself; then would it have gotten somewhere!); but it does nothing at all with this sad fact but pointing to it as a fact. We already know this happens. But I would like to see what a filmmaker makes of it, more than pointing out the existence of the fact.
It makes a trip to (I believe) Ethiopia to show the so-called opposite of Western countries, telling how people there take care of each other. But again, it does nothing more than point out the fact. It even just tells it, in voice over, or 'talking head'. I would love to be shown exactly, and deeply, how these things work, and how they are so different from what happens in Sweden. Don't just film a bunch of strangers carrying a friend to a hospital with a voice over doing the rest of the work.
It shows countless people alone in Sweden; on escalators, running through a forest, in the subway, etc. To me, it seemed to do all this without any clear idea of what it was trying to say. This is a movie not first about people, but about a subject, a subject having been chosen beforehand. That is what, to me, gives it its feel of being very general, and gratuitousness, about nothing and no-one in particular.
While this may be a matter of taste, I like to see it the other way around; you make a movie about someone, and it automatically will be about a subject too. The movie makes trips around Sweden and around the world that are gratuitous to the extent of annoyance: we see guys masturbating in a sperm-bank and we actually see sperm cells (somehow needed to tell something about family planning of single mothers that want to remain single), and that is supposed to be funny. But somehow, here it seemed to be out of place. I did not long for a comic or absurd note at all. We get a full blown view on the tumor in a girl's tongue in Ethiopia. Why? What did that contribute to anything? Most annoying of all was the part where this Swedish surgeon based in Ethiopia shows with what kinds of things he manages to operate (household stuff, wheel spokes). This got the audience laughing like hell, and in another context it would have gotten me too – but here it did not attribute anything to the investigation on loneliness whatsoever. I guess it had something to do with perfect organization in Sweden at the cost of having to improvise or something, but to my mind the movie did not do a great job of showing how that is shocking, dramatic, sad, or even interesting. It was a vague suggestion to the difference in lifestyles, and somehow this was related to loneliness too.
Also: once again I was reminded of the fact that arty documentaries can in fact use the same dramatic instruments as Hollywood movies: when it's sad, you hear sad music. When its threatening, you hear sound of threat.
I was about to stand up and leave, when darling and hero Zygmunt Bauman entered the stage. I listened to him respectfully and that was that.
Btw: I really liked Videocracy, so this was a big disappointment. Please come back and make a story about a particular someone, or someplace, and stick with it for 90 minutes. Try and take a closer at a subject instead of quickly flying over a landscape of generalities and anecdotes, of which it is unclear what they contribute precisely, and could have been a full blown docu all by themselves. The depth it will bring you will pay you back, I promise. And: there is no faster way to kill a story than to know what it is about beforehand (one of the Pixar rules of storytelling;-) ). That way it will never surprise you, because it will be caged from the beginning.
It makes a trip to (I believe) Ethiopia to show the so-called opposite of Western countries, telling how people there take care of each other. But again, it does nothing more than point out the fact. It even just tells it, in voice over, or 'talking head'. I would love to be shown exactly, and deeply, how these things work, and how they are so different from what happens in Sweden. Don't just film a bunch of strangers carrying a friend to a hospital with a voice over doing the rest of the work.
It shows countless people alone in Sweden; on escalators, running through a forest, in the subway, etc. To me, it seemed to do all this without any clear idea of what it was trying to say. This is a movie not first about people, but about a subject, a subject having been chosen beforehand. That is what, to me, gives it its feel of being very general, and gratuitousness, about nothing and no-one in particular.
While this may be a matter of taste, I like to see it the other way around; you make a movie about someone, and it automatically will be about a subject too. The movie makes trips around Sweden and around the world that are gratuitous to the extent of annoyance: we see guys masturbating in a sperm-bank and we actually see sperm cells (somehow needed to tell something about family planning of single mothers that want to remain single), and that is supposed to be funny. But somehow, here it seemed to be out of place. I did not long for a comic or absurd note at all. We get a full blown view on the tumor in a girl's tongue in Ethiopia. Why? What did that contribute to anything? Most annoying of all was the part where this Swedish surgeon based in Ethiopia shows with what kinds of things he manages to operate (household stuff, wheel spokes). This got the audience laughing like hell, and in another context it would have gotten me too – but here it did not attribute anything to the investigation on loneliness whatsoever. I guess it had something to do with perfect organization in Sweden at the cost of having to improvise or something, but to my mind the movie did not do a great job of showing how that is shocking, dramatic, sad, or even interesting. It was a vague suggestion to the difference in lifestyles, and somehow this was related to loneliness too.
Also: once again I was reminded of the fact that arty documentaries can in fact use the same dramatic instruments as Hollywood movies: when it's sad, you hear sad music. When its threatening, you hear sound of threat.
I was about to stand up and leave, when darling and hero Zygmunt Bauman entered the stage. I listened to him respectfully and that was that.
Btw: I really liked Videocracy, so this was a big disappointment. Please come back and make a story about a particular someone, or someplace, and stick with it for 90 minutes. Try and take a closer at a subject instead of quickly flying over a landscape of generalities and anecdotes, of which it is unclear what they contribute precisely, and could have been a full blown docu all by themselves. The depth it will bring you will pay you back, I promise. And: there is no faster way to kill a story than to know what it is about beforehand (one of the Pixar rules of storytelling;-) ). That way it will never surprise you, because it will be caged from the beginning.
Gravity (2013)
Nothing more than action, playing with your senses, all form, no content
I agree with reviewer tcara111. An empty film this one, truly empty.
Strange though, how ones body can react so intensely on something that is about nothing at all. Seen in 3D, it makes you dance around in your chair, dodging space dust, grabbing your seat, engaging with the bodies of the characters, who risk floating into deep space forever if they can't hold on to the space station.
But this is the sole thing the film does. It plays with your senses, and nothing more.
This is just fetish: fetish with new effects, used as toys, to play with your eyes, ears, and sense of suspension.
And at the end you have nothing. Nothing, nothing.
Nothing wrong with entertainment. Loved Pirates of the Caribbean, of the same director. A very funny film, colorful characters.
But this is not only not funny, it is anti-funny. The jokes are so lame, made of the same wood as the jokes Indiana Jones makes: making ironic remarks while in an impossible situation. Hollywood seems to have a monopoly on this stupid form of irony, which made exactly zero people laugh in the theater.
So 1 star, because 1: this film is about nothing at all and 2: it is about nothing, nothing at all.
Strange though, how ones body can react so intensely on something that is about nothing at all. Seen in 3D, it makes you dance around in your chair, dodging space dust, grabbing your seat, engaging with the bodies of the characters, who risk floating into deep space forever if they can't hold on to the space station.
But this is the sole thing the film does. It plays with your senses, and nothing more.
This is just fetish: fetish with new effects, used as toys, to play with your eyes, ears, and sense of suspension.
And at the end you have nothing. Nothing, nothing.
Nothing wrong with entertainment. Loved Pirates of the Caribbean, of the same director. A very funny film, colorful characters.
But this is not only not funny, it is anti-funny. The jokes are so lame, made of the same wood as the jokes Indiana Jones makes: making ironic remarks while in an impossible situation. Hollywood seems to have a monopoly on this stupid form of irony, which made exactly zero people laugh in the theater.
So 1 star, because 1: this film is about nothing at all and 2: it is about nothing, nothing at all.
Happythankyoumoreplease (2010)
Soap
Three stars: two for the music, one for Mississippi.
This is one of those 'misplaced irony' movies that this decade seems to have a monopoly for. I hear echo's from Gilmore Girls, Ally Mcbeal, and other hip 'ironic' series: series where characters have an ironic take on their (drama-deprived) lives, but it's a totally misplaced irony. Misplaced, because you know from the beginning that nobody really suffers from anything at all. It is as if the characters know from the first second that they are in a movie in which everything is going to be fine, so they 'take their problems rather lightly', and only act as if in pain.
Everything in this is unrealistic. There is a writer, but we don't know what he really writes about. He is just the appearance of a writer. Somehow he thinks that being born black and poor is guaranteed a success, while being a white suburban kid doesn't deliver anything: if there is one thing though, that makes a lousy writer, it's a lack of spirit and imagination. A writer who sees a small boy drawing magnificently, and only thinks about how 'big' and 'succesful' and 'rich' this kid could become? That's the least inspiring take on such a thing. It reveals the writers and director of this movie as a new york bunch who try their best at being creative themselves, but in a superficial, and sort of boring kind of way, more as a being part of a hip trend than as necessity.
The role of the kid in the story is the worst. He's nothing more than a dramatic instrument.
A movie that looks like a lot, but when watched with your BS-detector switched on, is endlessly empty.
I am sorry! I want to like movies, and I am the easiest victim when a movie is even a bit good!!!
This is one of those 'misplaced irony' movies that this decade seems to have a monopoly for. I hear echo's from Gilmore Girls, Ally Mcbeal, and other hip 'ironic' series: series where characters have an ironic take on their (drama-deprived) lives, but it's a totally misplaced irony. Misplaced, because you know from the beginning that nobody really suffers from anything at all. It is as if the characters know from the first second that they are in a movie in which everything is going to be fine, so they 'take their problems rather lightly', and only act as if in pain.
Everything in this is unrealistic. There is a writer, but we don't know what he really writes about. He is just the appearance of a writer. Somehow he thinks that being born black and poor is guaranteed a success, while being a white suburban kid doesn't deliver anything: if there is one thing though, that makes a lousy writer, it's a lack of spirit and imagination. A writer who sees a small boy drawing magnificently, and only thinks about how 'big' and 'succesful' and 'rich' this kid could become? That's the least inspiring take on such a thing. It reveals the writers and director of this movie as a new york bunch who try their best at being creative themselves, but in a superficial, and sort of boring kind of way, more as a being part of a hip trend than as necessity.
The role of the kid in the story is the worst. He's nothing more than a dramatic instrument.
A movie that looks like a lot, but when watched with your BS-detector switched on, is endlessly empty.
I am sorry! I want to like movies, and I am the easiest victim when a movie is even a bit good!!!
Bored to Death (2009)
I am in trouble, no I am not.
The characters in this world know that they can do just about anything, but never fall and get really hurt. If course, it happens in dozens of good movies and funny comics, but in this case it doesn't work - to my humble opinion, that is. This is because this world is presented as a modern new york scene, showing 'real' NY people. Why Seinfeld works and this does not, i don't know. Taking a risk in this show means nothing at all. Having cancer in this show means nothing at all. Having your girl breaking up with you means nothing at all. everything is received with an ironic sigh, and the show moves on. Nothing matters. Maybe that's the difference between Seinfeld and 'Bored to Death: in Seinfeld the smallest things matter the world, but here: nothing matters whatsoever. It seems so sometimes, for a second or three. But it really doesn't. Because of that the lives of the characters have something truly weightless, and flat. To me, it makes the characters uninteresting. Their only interest is themselves, which makes this a soap series to the core, but a soap series masked with eccentricity and with a lot of 'funny' action. 'O, the absurd situations they keep finding themselves in!' These characters drown in irony (I thought we were slowly getting past that), self-consciousness, and yes, boredom. But this boredom is not tragic, it is not funny. Someone writing this series confused emptiness with boredom.
The actors are funny, but because they are funny themselves. I certainly am a fan of the big guy, just for the faces he makes sometimes. The other two can be funny as well, but not because of the story.
All in all just one of those million series that are so ironic, and therefore empty and weightless. It will be forgotten within weeks from the appearance of the last episode.
The actors are funny, but because they are funny themselves. I certainly am a fan of the big guy, just for the faces he makes sometimes. The other two can be funny as well, but not because of the story.
All in all just one of those million series that are so ironic, and therefore empty and weightless. It will be forgotten within weeks from the appearance of the last episode.
The Dark Knight (2008)
a lot of screaming does not make a good story
A few arguments to show how mediocre this movie really is:
- two ships, having the choice of killing each other, or being killed. If every ship will be blown up at midnight anyway, what kind of choice is that? It is certain death, so pushing the button seems the only choice you have. The only way to survive is to push. It is no real dilemma.
- The weakest Batman in history. Being saved several times by humble earthlings. Carrying a suit that is not up for dog bites but yes for bullets? Further: the least interesting. Where is the psychology?
- Morgan Freeman's character: the whole city is burning, hospitals are exploding, people on ferries about to kill each other, and he's making a point of privacy?
- How can a joker have no sense of humor? Scary at times, he is as flat as a penny. A bit of humor, the dark one that is, would have made him really dangerous. Now he is but a nut. The whole point of a joker is that he is bad as hell, but charming too. He makes you fall in love with evil. Ledger did excellent with how little he was given.
- Harvey Dent: turns into a revengeful monster in seconds? Psychologically so empty: first all he wants is good, then all he wants is revenge. 'They took her away from me'. Such a stereotype.
- Chris Nolan seems to be: humorless, wanting to distract the viewer from a hollow story by means of flashes and effects.
Date My Mom (2004)
Anger
Just watched this show for the first time, and a strange sort of anger, a fury, took hold of me. Anger now, is reason enough for a comment on IMDb. 'Date my mom' is a show bought by a Dutch TV-channel, and probably bought by a whole lot of other countries, intended for people of 16 or less to watch. While watching the actors, because that's what they are, say their lines, because that's what they are, all i could think was: where or what or who is the force that gives shows like these the opportunity to be on television? And, assuming it's a human force, alas, is it not ashamed of itself? Not to mention the shows that are far worse.
Regarding this as a fictional item, i can be brief: the actors seem to do their very best at making something of the dialogue they have been given; it's quite obvious, however, that they are not comfortable in their roles.
As for the director and the writer: if you can't make up your mind as to whether you should make fiction or documentary, make nothing at all. If you are afraid of unexpected turns, stay away from either. If you can't write, stay away from either.
The producer has a talent for selling rotten fruit so, even though there are thousands of people with a talent for buying, please, use your talent somewhere else.
Thinking of the generation of children growing up with even the least bit of this sort of television, wondering how they will rule the earth, my mind goes apocalyptic on me, and i don't know whether to laugh or cry. Probably both, and that will be the way that i go under.
Regarding this as a fictional item, i can be brief: the actors seem to do their very best at making something of the dialogue they have been given; it's quite obvious, however, that they are not comfortable in their roles.
As for the director and the writer: if you can't make up your mind as to whether you should make fiction or documentary, make nothing at all. If you are afraid of unexpected turns, stay away from either. If you can't write, stay away from either.
The producer has a talent for selling rotten fruit so, even though there are thousands of people with a talent for buying, please, use your talent somewhere else.
Thinking of the generation of children growing up with even the least bit of this sort of television, wondering how they will rule the earth, my mind goes apocalyptic on me, and i don't know whether to laugh or cry. Probably both, and that will be the way that i go under.
Citizen Kane (1941)
LETS TALK ABOUT FILM, PLEASE
It occurs to me that most of you, with all due respect, should get their priorities straight. Namely: there's the movie of Citizen Kane itself, which is rich enough to provide for lots of interesting questions, and there's the question wether it should be rated best movie ever made. However uninteresting the last question, it seems the one most of you are trying to answer. If you want to know wether it really is the best film ever made, or the worst or second worst or third best, i suggest you do that somewhere else. Let's talk about film, if you please.
How can one say that rosebud is not interesting? Can anyone explain that to me? Why should i forget about it, when it seems to play such an important role in the story? Maybe i need not know what it meens, or maybe it's wrong to try to find out the truth behind it, but it sure asks to be thought about.
And how about the collectioning-fetish of Kane? Why statues? I think, maybe, because you can count on statues not to leave you, always to be there.
Another interesting view on the piece as a whole is the question: say that you have all the power you want, not only moneywise, but you seem to be able to persuade people into doing almost anything. In other words: you have total control over your life, and it seems you can mold it into anything you want. Does that guarantee happiness? No, because Kane got everything he planned for, but not the thing he really wanted: love (and giving it). So then: the thought that we have that control over our lives is an illusion.
Next: the mystery of man is as old as man himself. As long as we have been on earth, we've also been trying to find an answer to the question: who the hell are we? The reporter trying to find the truth about rosebud (which, in turn would be the truth about Kane), is a symbol for man trying to understand man. In the end he says something like: 'the truth about a human being is not to be found in a word'. Therewith saying that man (Kane) will remain a mystery.
Anyone thinks this makes sense or not? SHould i be thinking about Citizen Kane in these terms or not? Please react, i could be wrong about everyting.
How can one say that rosebud is not interesting? Can anyone explain that to me? Why should i forget about it, when it seems to play such an important role in the story? Maybe i need not know what it meens, or maybe it's wrong to try to find out the truth behind it, but it sure asks to be thought about.
And how about the collectioning-fetish of Kane? Why statues? I think, maybe, because you can count on statues not to leave you, always to be there.
Another interesting view on the piece as a whole is the question: say that you have all the power you want, not only moneywise, but you seem to be able to persuade people into doing almost anything. In other words: you have total control over your life, and it seems you can mold it into anything you want. Does that guarantee happiness? No, because Kane got everything he planned for, but not the thing he really wanted: love (and giving it). So then: the thought that we have that control over our lives is an illusion.
Next: the mystery of man is as old as man himself. As long as we have been on earth, we've also been trying to find an answer to the question: who the hell are we? The reporter trying to find the truth about rosebud (which, in turn would be the truth about Kane), is a symbol for man trying to understand man. In the end he says something like: 'the truth about a human being is not to be found in a word'. Therewith saying that man (Kane) will remain a mystery.
Anyone thinks this makes sense or not? SHould i be thinking about Citizen Kane in these terms or not? Please react, i could be wrong about everyting.