This is one of those rare movies that parodies a genre, but is at the same time one of the best movies in that genre. Like how Kill Bill spoofs the martial arts genre, but is at the same time one of the best martial arts movies. So The Fable is a spoof of the professional assassin trope, but at the same time one of the most enjoyable and satisfying examples in the genre. Perhaps the Branded to Kill of our age? The aggressively unfunny anti-humor, especially the bits with 'Jackal Tomioka', reminded me of Norm MacDonald's legendary roast of Bob Saget, and never failed to make me laugh out loud. Would give a 10/10, but I choose to keep that spot vacant for the sequal. (I'm in an optimistic mood.)
Reviews
10 Reviews
Dragged Across Concrete
(2018)
It was fine
30 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Read a piece that said the movie wasn't racist, only the (main) protagonists are, but because they die at the end, and arguably the black guy who wins at the end is the 'good guy' of the movie, the movie cannot be not racist. That's a bad argument because, yes, the main protagonists aren't your standard good guys, but they are still pretty portrayed in an (almost) unambigous sympathetic light. They are not so selfish, for instance, that are not willing to risk their own lives to save the lives of innocent people. They may be racist and criminal, but they take their jobs as cops still very seriously. And even their racism is being justified by fact of their lives which include stereotypical minorities harrassing their loved ones. And what's more is: they're super cool. These are some cool guys, they get all the cool lines. So even IF the audience was meant to see them as the 'bad guys' (which the audience is definitely not), then still they are supposed to be worthy of our admiration and fondness. They may be racist, but they're lovable and admirable racists is the message. Which may not have to mean the movie is guilty of racism per se, but it is pretty tolerant of it. "You cannot fight intolerance (racism) with intolerance " is an almost verbatim quote of the movie. And the movie seems to support that message, not making fun of it.
But that aside. I don't like this trend of judging movies or literature by the measure of its wokeness. I mean, it's fine to look at things like that - I certainly do, and I think it's healthy & helpful, in fact - but ultimately a piece of art or entertainment should be judged by other standards. Like does it achieve what it intends? Does it succeed at being beautiful, funny, informative, or moving in some other way? Does it make you think, laugh, etc.
And this movie, I think, achieves some of what it's trying to do. I mean, it's not a masterpiece, the dialogue is often so unnatural - because the writer/director is basically preaching to us his 'no politics politics' - even these experienced actors can't do anything but make it sound wooden. But it's entaining at least. So solid 6.
But that aside. I don't like this trend of judging movies or literature by the measure of its wokeness. I mean, it's fine to look at things like that - I certainly do, and I think it's healthy & helpful, in fact - but ultimately a piece of art or entertainment should be judged by other standards. Like does it achieve what it intends? Does it succeed at being beautiful, funny, informative, or moving in some other way? Does it make you think, laugh, etc.
And this movie, I think, achieves some of what it's trying to do. I mean, it's not a masterpiece, the dialogue is often so unnatural - because the writer/director is basically preaching to us his 'no politics politics' - even these experienced actors can't do anything but make it sound wooden. But it's entaining at least. So solid 6.
How is this for adults?
22 March 2019
This animation show is supposed to be for adults, but it's more childish than most kids shows I've seen. This problem is not unique to this show of course. A lot of children's animations have good character and plot development, and are just generally of high quality and entertaining. But, especially in the West, whenever an animation show is called 'adult' it become ludicrously childish in at least one of these two ways: either it's filled with 'edgy' sex & poo jokes (e.g. Sausage Party) or it's just completely over-the-top violent & gory. Neither species of nonsense is especially profound or entertaining to actual adults, maybe the stunted ones. It's really more for edgelord teenagers than any other niche.
This episode maybe even isn't the best example of what I'm trying to say, but it is exceptionally childish. It had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. No interesting characters, no original ideas, no story to speak of, it was just ... dumb. Uninspired & childish macho bs all the way down.
This episode maybe even isn't the best example of what I'm trying to say, but it is exceptionally childish. It had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. No interesting characters, no original ideas, no story to speak of, it was just ... dumb. Uninspired & childish macho bs all the way down.
Mindhunter
(2017–2019)
Hannibanal; or, One boring 10 hour long trailer for season 2
16 October 2017
If you' re hip and happening nowadays, and therefore don't consider plot to be essential for the enjoyment of a movie or show, then this show might be for you. It is well-crafted, looks amazing, has a good feel. It's a perfect mood piece, with production values every bit as high as you would expect from the names and amounts of cash attached to it. It's, honestly, a real work of art.
However, if you're a an old-fashioned square like me and need a story, in which there's drama and tension, and you know, stuff happening, here's my advice: just watch the final two episodes. There will be one (1) scene in episode nine you won't be able to make clear sense of (a woman confronts agent Holden over the firing of her husband, for which she holds him responsible), but it's not essential, or even relevant. For watching the rest of the shows you will have missed nothing as long as you know the premise of the show: FBI agents in the late 1970s are setting up a new serial killer profiling unit within the FBI, and for that purpose travel around the US prison system to interview several serial killers to analyze them. (And sort of solve crimes on the side, like Scooby Doo and his gang.)
I promise you there is nothing you won't get, because (and this may sound strange) hardly anything happens in the first 8 episodes. Well some things happen (and again, it looks good) but it mainly serves to establish character. If you already know the premise, you'll do fine.
Watch those two episodes to determine you want to watch the entire show, because you won't get back the 10 hours of your life you spend on watching this 10 hour long trailer for season 2. (Not that I've tried getting those 10 hours back by the way, I mean who'd you even contact for that? And how would that even work? I just assume.)
However, if you're a an old-fashioned square like me and need a story, in which there's drama and tension, and you know, stuff happening, here's my advice: just watch the final two episodes. There will be one (1) scene in episode nine you won't be able to make clear sense of (a woman confronts agent Holden over the firing of her husband, for which she holds him responsible), but it's not essential, or even relevant. For watching the rest of the shows you will have missed nothing as long as you know the premise of the show: FBI agents in the late 1970s are setting up a new serial killer profiling unit within the FBI, and for that purpose travel around the US prison system to interview several serial killers to analyze them. (And sort of solve crimes on the side, like Scooby Doo and his gang.)
I promise you there is nothing you won't get, because (and this may sound strange) hardly anything happens in the first 8 episodes. Well some things happen (and again, it looks good) but it mainly serves to establish character. If you already know the premise, you'll do fine.
Watch those two episodes to determine you want to watch the entire show, because you won't get back the 10 hours of your life you spend on watching this 10 hour long trailer for season 2. (Not that I've tried getting those 10 hours back by the way, I mean who'd you even contact for that? And how would that even work? I just assume.)
Blame!
(2017)
Mad Max Beyond Skynet
20 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Inside a giant 3D-city regulated by an AI-system that is trying to exterminate humans, a mysterious stranger of the Mad Max-type (named 'Killy') meets a desperate and isolated pocket of human survival. He is looking for humans with a certain type of gene which would enable them to reassert control over the AI. The villagers don't know what he's talking about. They have lost this technology such a long time ago that they cannot even imagine humans ever controlling the AI. They thought these were just stories. They have also lost the technology to reproduce the weapons and gear they need for survival, however, so they've become desperate enough to join and assist Killy on a mission. On this mission, they find a 'scientist'. A synthetic human (robot) that has memories of the technology Killy is talking about. She might know a way to reconnect to the AI.
'Will they succeed?' is the question this movies revolves around.
It's a cool premise, I think. A good world to set a story in. In my opinion it doesn't play out that good, unfortunately, but it's entertaining enough. The visuals i liked. If you've seen 'Knights of Sidonia', it's by the same guys and girls, and looks and feels similar.
'Will they succeed?' is the question this movies revolves around.
It's a cool premise, I think. A good world to set a story in. In my opinion it doesn't play out that good, unfortunately, but it's entertaining enough. The visuals i liked. If you've seen 'Knights of Sidonia', it's by the same guys and girls, and looks and feels similar.
The Returned
(2015)
Gets stuck in the 'what if' phase
7 May 2017
Stephen King says he doesn't plot. He just starts out with a situation in mind - one that can usually be described as a 'What If?' situation - and lets the story grow from there. It works for him.
This show also had a 'what if' situation in mind: 'What if dead people started returning?' Well. Great. Now you've got a premise. Lets see what happens next, shall we?
NOTHING! Nothing happens next! Well, of course some things happen, but it's more of a regular drama now - with love triangles and such - and it has hardy anything to with the premise anymore. I mean, sure, some of the people involved are now 'returned'. That fact registers, but it doesn't affect the drama. (The Australian show 'Glitch', which has the same premise, does this better.)
Sure, we get SOME 'hints of development' here and there, creepy kid is indeed creepy and such, but there is no actual progress in the development of the basic premise. If that's point A, we don't get to point B. We find out nothing as to why, how, who, and/or what's next. We're basically stuck watching a regular soap opera.
A badly written one at that. If you 'break up a fight' not by pushing or holding people away from each other, but by almost bashing someone's skull in with a heavy and blunt object, the guy whose skull you almost bashed in is obviously going to be a bit grumpy, isn't he? You're going to at least have some words about that. In this show too? Naah. Bash someone's skull in, guy says nothing about it. Doesn't even blame you. After all, you were breaking up a fight weren't you? Therefore you meant well by almost murdering me.
Also, apparently you can shoot unarmed people for no reason and still be the good guy. Woman who loved your victim all her life to the point of obsession won't even blink, lie to the cops for you.
Both of these scenes are bad enough on their own, what makes them worse is that they are completely out of character. Both of these guys are supposed to be the boring, sensible ones. Were we viewers wrong about them? Were they actually psychos and it's only now revealed? Nope. They go back to being boring and reasonable as if nothing happened. No reveal. Just bad writing.
More I think about it, more terrible it was.
This show also had a 'what if' situation in mind: 'What if dead people started returning?' Well. Great. Now you've got a premise. Lets see what happens next, shall we?
NOTHING! Nothing happens next! Well, of course some things happen, but it's more of a regular drama now - with love triangles and such - and it has hardy anything to with the premise anymore. I mean, sure, some of the people involved are now 'returned'. That fact registers, but it doesn't affect the drama. (The Australian show 'Glitch', which has the same premise, does this better.)
Sure, we get SOME 'hints of development' here and there, creepy kid is indeed creepy and such, but there is no actual progress in the development of the basic premise. If that's point A, we don't get to point B. We find out nothing as to why, how, who, and/or what's next. We're basically stuck watching a regular soap opera.
A badly written one at that. If you 'break up a fight' not by pushing or holding people away from each other, but by almost bashing someone's skull in with a heavy and blunt object, the guy whose skull you almost bashed in is obviously going to be a bit grumpy, isn't he? You're going to at least have some words about that. In this show too? Naah. Bash someone's skull in, guy says nothing about it. Doesn't even blame you. After all, you were breaking up a fight weren't you? Therefore you meant well by almost murdering me.
Also, apparently you can shoot unarmed people for no reason and still be the good guy. Woman who loved your victim all her life to the point of obsession won't even blink, lie to the cops for you.
Both of these scenes are bad enough on their own, what makes them worse is that they are completely out of character. Both of these guys are supposed to be the boring, sensible ones. Were we viewers wrong about them? Were they actually psychos and it's only now revealed? Nope. They go back to being boring and reasonable as if nothing happened. No reveal. Just bad writing.
More I think about it, more terrible it was.
Gantz: O
(2016)
Warning: not for adults and/or the uninitiated
25 February 2017
I understand that 'Gantz' is some sort of video game or manga cartoon show or both, and for fans of whatever-it-is this movie might be something fun. But you definitely need a backstory because - for someone who's had no previous clue as to what this whole 'Gantz' might be (like me), and just gave it a watch because Netlix - this whole thing is just too ridiculous and too terrible to watch.
The animation isn't good. It looks good in stills, but when things start moving the physics just feel off. The facial expressions are terrible. The action director isn't John Woo. In the opening scene some monster grabs a car (this looks weird, as the car seems to have no mass/inertia) and throws it at a lady. The car (in slo-mo) comes at her and is about to crush her, but then (not in slo-mo and way too fast to see what's happening) a fellow on some sort of motorbike-like machine intervenes to save her, but he bounces the car away like it's a balloon instead of a massive car. (So physics again way off.) I'm sure this intervention is supposed to look cool and heroic, but because of the poor use of slo-mo and terrible physics, it just looks weird and is anti-climactic.
(Also, this whole time the viewer who has no foreknowledge of this video game/cartoon show doesn't know what's going on. The puppets say things which I'm sure makes some kind of sense to the initiated, but to the uninitiated it was just silly.)
Then some other stuff happens which also sucks. A guy with unnatural facial expressions and body movements is stabbed and dies, but comes back to life to discover he is now in a video game of some sorts. The viewer is supposed to accept this without any backstory and/or explanation as to why, who, what and where - my guess is because the movie is made for people who already played this game. (So don't bother if you haven't, I reckon.)
Also the suits and the guns. They don't look cool. The suit looks cool on the lady, but for the men they're just too effeminate. Some guys from Osaka were supposed to look masculine and tough and definitely of the heterosexual persuasion, but because of the tight ladysuits and flaming snowboots they're wearing they simply don't. So when they start to sexually harass the lady at the first sight of her, it just feels ridiculous, like they're overcompensating. And the guns don't visibly shoot anything, plus it takes a while for the target to be affected by being hit, so it basically looks like they're shining an awkward blue flashlight at the monsters without much happening. Visually very unsatisfying.
Anyway, this is when I switched it off, about 15 to 20 minutes in. Don't bother if you're not a fan of this cartoongame already.
The animation isn't good. It looks good in stills, but when things start moving the physics just feel off. The facial expressions are terrible. The action director isn't John Woo. In the opening scene some monster grabs a car (this looks weird, as the car seems to have no mass/inertia) and throws it at a lady. The car (in slo-mo) comes at her and is about to crush her, but then (not in slo-mo and way too fast to see what's happening) a fellow on some sort of motorbike-like machine intervenes to save her, but he bounces the car away like it's a balloon instead of a massive car. (So physics again way off.) I'm sure this intervention is supposed to look cool and heroic, but because of the poor use of slo-mo and terrible physics, it just looks weird and is anti-climactic.
(Also, this whole time the viewer who has no foreknowledge of this video game/cartoon show doesn't know what's going on. The puppets say things which I'm sure makes some kind of sense to the initiated, but to the uninitiated it was just silly.)
Then some other stuff happens which also sucks. A guy with unnatural facial expressions and body movements is stabbed and dies, but comes back to life to discover he is now in a video game of some sorts. The viewer is supposed to accept this without any backstory and/or explanation as to why, who, what and where - my guess is because the movie is made for people who already played this game. (So don't bother if you haven't, I reckon.)
Also the suits and the guns. They don't look cool. The suit looks cool on the lady, but for the men they're just too effeminate. Some guys from Osaka were supposed to look masculine and tough and definitely of the heterosexual persuasion, but because of the tight ladysuits and flaming snowboots they're wearing they simply don't. So when they start to sexually harass the lady at the first sight of her, it just feels ridiculous, like they're overcompensating. And the guns don't visibly shoot anything, plus it takes a while for the target to be affected by being hit, so it basically looks like they're shining an awkward blue flashlight at the monsters without much happening. Visually very unsatisfying.
Anyway, this is when I switched it off, about 15 to 20 minutes in. Don't bother if you're not a fan of this cartoongame already.
Dust Up
(2012)
Fail of Tears - it's fun, but should've done without the racism
19 November 2015
This movie is not laugh-out-loud hilarious, but there's some good fun, and its play with cliché often produces a solid smile and even the occasional chuckle. If it fails to do so with you, you should probably eat more fruit or something, maybe get some fresh air, because there's definitely something wrong with you.
I mean, me, personally, I've got some pretty high comedy standards. The highest in the world maybe. I laugh at nothing. In fact, I'm annoyed by most things. Especially the elderly. Or even the weak in general. But also bad comedy. This movie made me smile several times, however, so it should do at least the same for you.
Where it definitely fails, in my opinion, is where it tries to mock anti-Native American racism. One of the main characters is a Native American named Mo. Like the fake Native Americans of the western movies this character is supposed to spoof, Mo is played by a white actor, but looks and behaves even more like a bad stereotype.
Ultimately, however, the joke lands on Native Americans. I mean, how can it not? Even when you indirectly mockingly mimic a people and their traditions, by mockingly mimicking a mimic, you still mockingly mimic a people and their traditions.
This may be funny sometimes, but it can also be hurtful. And whether it's funny or hurtful depends, mostly, on the history and especially the current power relations between the peoples who do the mocking and the people who are being mocked. In this case, both the history and the current socio-economic power relations between white Americans and Native Americans make it, at best, a little insensitive to for members of the former group to mock the latter. Although I'm sure the movie wasn't made with this intention.
I mean, me, personally, I've got some pretty high comedy standards. The highest in the world maybe. I laugh at nothing. In fact, I'm annoyed by most things. Especially the elderly. Or even the weak in general. But also bad comedy. This movie made me smile several times, however, so it should do at least the same for you.
Where it definitely fails, in my opinion, is where it tries to mock anti-Native American racism. One of the main characters is a Native American named Mo. Like the fake Native Americans of the western movies this character is supposed to spoof, Mo is played by a white actor, but looks and behaves even more like a bad stereotype.
Ultimately, however, the joke lands on Native Americans. I mean, how can it not? Even when you indirectly mockingly mimic a people and their traditions, by mockingly mimicking a mimic, you still mockingly mimic a people and their traditions.
This may be funny sometimes, but it can also be hurtful. And whether it's funny or hurtful depends, mostly, on the history and especially the current power relations between the peoples who do the mocking and the people who are being mocked. In this case, both the history and the current socio-economic power relations between white Americans and Native Americans make it, at best, a little insensitive to for members of the former group to mock the latter. Although I'm sure the movie wasn't made with this intention.
Amazing people & powerful footage, but ultimately too politicized
10 October 2015
You know that old saying, in the gist of 'avoid becoming what you hate'?
For fear of feeding the Russian propaganda mill, this documentary leaves out or distorts facts and elements to this story that are not easily digested in the western stomach, ultimately making it what sought to counter: (hopefully unintentional) propaganda.
This is why I cannot or will not give it a passing grade. But don't get me wrong, it's definitely worth seeing.
Just for the footage alone, it's worth seeing. The film uses mainly footage of protesters involved in the Maidan uprising themselves, and therefore contains a lot of the (often violent) action from very up-close.
The inspirational courage of the people standing up to the violent Berkut riot police is also definitely something you want to see and celebrate.
For fear of feeding the Russian propaganda mill, this documentary leaves out or distorts facts and elements to this story that are not easily digested in the western stomach, ultimately making it what sought to counter: (hopefully unintentional) propaganda.
This is why I cannot or will not give it a passing grade. But don't get me wrong, it's definitely worth seeing.
Just for the footage alone, it's worth seeing. The film uses mainly footage of protesters involved in the Maidan uprising themselves, and therefore contains a lot of the (often violent) action from very up-close.
The inspirational courage of the people standing up to the violent Berkut riot police is also definitely something you want to see and celebrate.
Life Itself
(2014)
Life Itself teaches us nothing about life itself
12 September 2015
Like the age we live in, this movie is aggressively vacuous and narcissistic.
A good biography uses the particular to teach us something more general. It uses the individual subject to dig up some truths about their life that apply not just to that particular individual, but also to the world we live in. To Life Itself, you could say.
So a biography of Napoleon, ideally, shouldn't just teach us about Napoleon's particulars; it should teach us about France, Revolution, War, Power, Love, Death, Europe in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, &c. And preferably how this all relates to the world we live in today.
This biopic documentary about Roger Ebert taught us something about Rogert Ebert, his personality and quirks, but hardly anything more. We learn nothing about film, nothing about film criticism, and hardly anything about TV or show business. We learn about almost nothing that related to the world Robert Ebert lived in and absolutely nothing about the world we live in.
All this movie basically says: 'Me! me! me! me!,' but about someone else. We love films like this, I'm sure, because we're secretly hoping that, when the time comes, someone will lionize and eulogize us in the same way. It's a sort of 'projected narcissism'.
That this documentary is universally acclaimed is telling of age we live in.
A good biography uses the particular to teach us something more general. It uses the individual subject to dig up some truths about their life that apply not just to that particular individual, but also to the world we live in. To Life Itself, you could say.
So a biography of Napoleon, ideally, shouldn't just teach us about Napoleon's particulars; it should teach us about France, Revolution, War, Power, Love, Death, Europe in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, &c. And preferably how this all relates to the world we live in today.
This biopic documentary about Roger Ebert taught us something about Rogert Ebert, his personality and quirks, but hardly anything more. We learn nothing about film, nothing about film criticism, and hardly anything about TV or show business. We learn about almost nothing that related to the world Robert Ebert lived in and absolutely nothing about the world we live in.
All this movie basically says: 'Me! me! me! me!,' but about someone else. We love films like this, I'm sure, because we're secretly hoping that, when the time comes, someone will lionize and eulogize us in the same way. It's a sort of 'projected narcissism'.
That this documentary is universally acclaimed is telling of age we live in.
Tell Your Friends