Change Your Image
pob75
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch (2020)
""Let's fire another rocket at it...."....again. And again. And again
How is this still going? Awful, inane, illogical, unsupported, wild and nonsensical "conclusions" and "interpretations" of repetitive, ridiculous and unspectacular pseudo-scientific, mumbo-jumbo "experiments." All while displaying fake earnest frowns or badly acted shock or wonder.
Nothing is ever followed to an ending. Nothing is ever found. No statement or hypothesis ever has any remotely solid foundation.
They just do the same things over and over. Let's fire a rocket...... Let's try a drill........ Let's measure radiation....etc. Etc. Let's assume the least likely conclusion, ignoring the obvious explanations and pretending to find something.
The only mystery here is how any supposed scientist descends to ham acting and spouting utter rubbish whilst abandoning any objectivity or logic. Or how anyone takes any of it seriously.
"Maybe it's a portal."
Or maybe it's just guff.
Incredible in entirely the wrong way. And not even entertaining.
The Angel of Auschwitz (2019)
Disturbingly unengaging
I am genuinely amazed at how unengaging and superficial this film felt. It surprises me that a film with this subject can be so uninvolving and unaffecting. Just about everything is well below standard - music, acting, dialogue, editing..... etc. There is not one area where it feels like there has been real skill applied.
It is very difficult to try and imagine what the director thought he was showing. We jump around in time and characters have not even been aged. We follow (a very unconvincing) Mengele more than the title character. Most scenes seem to have been filmed against a shed wall. All the sets feel small and there are no wider shots or context. The sets, the costumes and the actors just do not convince in any way.
I won't even bother addressing historical inaccuracies and the ridiculousness of some scenes because the film never gets the viewer to a point where those things matter - it never grabs you or gives any convincing sense of even one character to latch on to or care about.
There is no atmosphere. No sense of any realism. Women deliver nice clean babies without breaking a sweat. A short, lazy scene showing the pre-Auschwitz life of characters does not automatically give them life or create empathy. A few wipes with a muddy cloth on your actors' legs will not suffice to convey that they are people suffering in Auschwitz.
I have learnt one thing. I know now it is possible to make a film about Auschwitz and leave the viewer almost completely emotionally untouched. I wouldn't have believed it before this.
Peaky Blinders (2013)
Liverpudlingham accent, casting, invasive music and poor writing all get in the way
Finally I caved in, figuring there must be something here for everyone to keep banging on about it. Coming late to this means I've been able to watch it as a relative binge. Last series is now airing and I'm halfway through series 4. Usually this makes something easier to get in to and more enjoyable for me.
Despite that this is hard work for low reward.
There are too many barriers to stop me getting in to it. The most invasive initially - the accents. They don't even seem to improve over several series over several years. Special mention to Aunt Polly who seems to be from Liverpudlingham and speaks several variations of scouse mixed with caricature brummie (and some newly invented, highly unique accents) often all in just one sentence. Her accent jolted me out of this so many times. She is not the only offender. Truly awful accents at times - I'm surprised some of the scenes were not refilmed (or even re-recorded vocally and dubbed over) until the accents were at least less bad.
The casting of a few characters feels wrong to me but I accept that is highly subjective. There are some performances that are good but can only work with what is written. Too many important characters are not well written and/or cast and/or acted.
As jarring as some of the accents is the retro-MTV-ness of the whole thing. Slow-motion Reservoir-Dogs-type walks and anachronous, unfathomable music choices feel completely wrong. It just does not work for me. It really feels MTV-ish or similar in tone to "Lock Stock..." (which I also really struggled with).
I could have possibly acclimatised to all the above but for the last barrier. Probably the biggest and most important issue for me is the writing. It feels lazy, rushed and poorly done, like it was written the night before it was filmed. It does not feel like there is any ongoing, over-arching or consistent character development.
Some characters are thin, bare-bones stereotypes.
There are many times I don't believe the characters would do what they are made to do. Too many flip-flops in how they act or inconsistencies in major aspects of their personalities get wedged in and then near-instantly they randomly revert to previous versions of themselves.
Characters are vaguely re-introduced, remembered or mentioned from nowhere and then (Hey presto) they pop back in to things a scene or two later. Situations which could have been used to increase tension are quickly and casually resolved and tossed aside.
You can almost see the writers violently yanking the strings on their half-finished puppets. Many events are like a boxer choreographing his punch and are highly predictable.
Things that could (and should) have been major character threads get brought up, played with a bit and then dropped within an episode or two. PTSD ("shell-shock" back then) becomes Brief-TSD. It then never recurs despite gun battles, massive explosions, violent bereavements etc. Which would undoubtedly be triggers at least some of the time. Major drug problems just crop up then disappear with no effort or difficulty.
It all ends up feeling like the writer(s) realised they needed something for a scene so flipped back a page and put in a lazy set-up reference to it a few paragraphs before. Or felt they needed a bit more meat in an episode so introduced a major issue for a character but then couldn't be bothered to keep it going or resolve it properly. It happens over and over again.
To me it does not feel rich in character, depth or detail as others seem to judge it to be.
I want to give this a 5.2 but rounded up to a 6 purely as it has a bit more merit than some of the things I have given a 5/10.
Dark Night (2016)
Mundanity, mundanity, mundanity....end titles.
Maybe I'm missing something, but the only point of this film seems to be to emphasise that the victims of mass shootings are normal people leading mundane lives with no clue that they will be involved in a mass shooting before it happens. That seems so obvious it is not a point that needs making, which makes this a film that didn't need making.
Most of the characters are nameless and no flesh is put on the character bones. No emotion is evoked. Even as an unsensational snapshot of normal daily life it seems abnormally devoid of life. Mundanity is emphasised to the degree that you feel these are not normal people - they don't seem representative - they barely talk, they are all flat in affect and extreme in their inactivity.
Once all the things this could have done have been missed or avoided it can only be a Who's-Gonna-Do-It. I don't get it.
February (2015)
They forgot to put any character in to the characters...
This feels like a partial good idea that the writers had but they then forgot to flesh it out and add any characters.
It is filmed fairly nicely, there is some atmosphere courtesy of the settings, lighting, colours (or relative lack of them) and the weather.
The story and way they have filmed/edited/presented it does not feel particularly clever to me. I got the "twist" and figured out what was going on but the editing did not help the story or give any real revelatory moments. There were lots of opportunities missed to set this up much better. I don't mind a "slow" film - some of my favourites are very long with long segments of relative lack of activity - but, however fast or slow, the viewer has to want to invest in it.
For me, a film cannot create horror, suspense/foreboding or any emotion if the viewer does not care about the characters. There was nothing in the characters to grab hold of me. They felt like bare bones shadows of characters. If none of the characters grab you any positives of the film are wasted and nothing else will really work.
Nothing special here. Average for me.
Auschwitz (2011)
Even if sincere, this fails miserably.....
The best I can say is that this gets people talking/thinking about Auschwitz and the Holocaust. That is why 2 stars, not one.
I have no idea if the intentions of Uwe Boll were noble. It doesn't feel to me like he was trying to be exploitative. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not sure attempting to show the true horror of Auschwitz in this way is useful or necessary. Either way, if this is the best you can manage as "realistic" and suggest as coming anywhere close to the true horror of Auschwitz you should not have bothered.
Nothing looks or feels right. The trains are not dark enough or packed enough. All the buildings are totally wrong. I could go on and on and on.......
Admittedly budget probably prevented giving any idea of the true scale of the industrial conveyor belt of death that occurred at Auschwitz, but given that why not zoom in and follow one or two people as individuals with much narrower focus? Or better still just stick with the interviews of german teens along with some of the facts and archive images.
The interviews and, for the most part, stunning lack of knowledge about the holocaust are the only compelling parts. The problem is I'm not convinced by this film that Uwe Boll's knowledge of this part of history is much better than the majority of interviewees.
Something like Son Of Saul is far more effective at achieving what Uwe Boll claims to have wanted to achieve.
The Soloist (2009)
All the stars are for pretty much for Jamie Foxx
I found it hard to rate this film. I wanted to like it. And Jamie Foxx deserves a higher rating for his performance.
The main reason to see it is Jamie Foxx's performance and I suspect the portrayal of auditory hallucinations is quite authentic (I work in Mental Health).
I was jolted out of the film by both Robert Downey Jr. and his character at several points. His character was not engaging and didn't feel well acted to me. Surely a journalist has to be intelligent (intellectually and emotionally) and possess some degree of empathy. His selfish motivations, saviour-complex, lack of empathy, foresight, total absence of common sense and consideration were jarring to me. His (partial) realisation and "soul-searching" at the end do nothing for me.
There were two scenes which I strongly hated. The pathetic scenes of near-slapstick - both involving urine. They are completely out of place. The worst is the supposedly intelligent character juggling a bag of urine whilst managing to unconvincingly "accidentally" (but wholly predictably) spill it on himself. I have absolutely no idea why they were there - they did not give anything to the story, they did not fit at all in the film, they were ridiculous, badly acted and not at all amusing. WHY?
If one could somehow erase the slapstick urine scenes and tweak (or better still replace) Robert Downey Jr's performance/character it could be much better.
If I were scoring Jamie Foxx or the portrayal (via audio effects) of schizophrenia I would score at least an 8/10.
"No people do so much harm as those who go about doing good." (Mandell Creighton)
The Son of Kong (1933)
Kin of Kong. Odd tone in an overshadowed but entertaining first ever creature feature sequel
This is not King Kong. It never could be and I don't think anyone can expect it to be as good or better than KK if they know the history of it.
At least they don't cheat much with the scenario - Denham is hated and being sued left right and centre at the start of the film. They don't just rehash the original plot. Denham seems remorseful and changed. There are some entertaining scenes but it must be around the 40 minute mark that we finally get anywhere near Skull Island. Once there you get a bit of the Kong stuff you'd expect with less screaming, inferior effects and with a very different flavour.
Son of Kong is watchable and entertaining but the biggest struggle for me is the strange tone of the film, especially the stop-motion scenes with little Kong. He is outrageously anthropomorphised and the whole thing becomes cartoonish and even a bit slapstick which didn't work for me.
This feels much more of a cartoon/kids film than the original but is entertaining and not awful.
Kong Minor. Worth a look but don't expect the depth, excitement or emotion of King Kong.
King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table (2017)
"I'm not gonna hurt you. I'm just gonna disintegrate your soul"
The above quote can pretty much serve as a review for this film.
I wasn't expecting Boorman's "Excalibur" or anything like it, but even so this was far worse than I thought. Once you have watched it for 10 minutes you know what territory you are in. The guy playing King Arthur is absolutely awful, as are the lines he (barely) delivers.
I stuck it through to the end as I don't feel it is right to rate or review a film you haven't actually watched. It gets 2 stars because 1 star (for me) is reserved for absolute rubbish with NO redeeming features. If I could rate those as zero, this and others like it, would get one star.
This film has one (relative) positive - Sara Lane (Morgana) appears (to some degree) able to act and delivers her part with commitment and a couple of minor characters were not awful.
Other than that it is awful. Script, plot, acting, special effects - all of it. The majority of roles are played by people who would seem bad in a poor school play. Almost every line made me cringe either for the script, delivery or terrible acting. Often all three. It feels like the direction consisted of "OK. Just say these words any way you want to. Let's get it done."
There is so much more to say but in short this is just very poor.
Dragged Across Concrete (2018)
The reviews are polarised - I'll try and indicate which camp you would fall in.....NO SPOILERS
The reviews on here are more polarised than I think I've seen before. So which is it - a low scoring film worth 3/10 or less, or a film worthy of 7/10 or more?
I think it is the latter. The current IMDB average of 7/10 seems about right. It is not perfect but it is very good. The answer for you depends on what you are like and what you are prepared to bring to it.
My aim in writing a review was to try and give ways to separate the one-out-of-tenners from the high scorers so you can tell if you want to give it 150+ minutes of your time.
Here goes....
If you love the 10+ minute scene of a gunman trapping a fly in his gun at the start of Once Upon a Time in the West, give this a try. If it drove you nuts, don't.
If you've ever enjoyed an early Takeshi Kitano (a master of underacting) and the inactivity as well as cinematic poetry are enjoyable to you, and the flare ups of sudden violence are acceptable to you, give this a try.
If you often watch a film with your phone in your hand and your attention split - just don't bother with this.
If you always need fast-paced action, shouting, loud music and overacting this is not for you and you will end up with a rating of less than 3 or 4. If your cinema diet is mainly fast, loud blockbusters, don't bother with this. This is not for those that need the film to constantly poke at them to keep them engaged. If you are one of them then just move on to another film. Don't waste your time.
A lot of the one star reviews basically just say nothing more than "boring", "slow" or "worst film ever." They say nothing about the film unless you know the reviewer. Do people really mark films down for "moral ambiguity" or because some questionable characters do ok and don't get their come-uppance? Come on! It's not a fairy tale - the world is not fair.
This film rewards concentration. It is dark (visually and in tone) but even has some quiet humour. If you appreciate some of the more subtle or poetic films that are not afraid to be understated with their acting and sparing with their action give it a try.
I am no great fan of Mel Gibson. He probably peaked with Mad Max for me as far as enjoyment of his films. Vince Vaughn is growing on me but I would have avoided him completely not too long ago. There is certainly no star loyalty inflating my score here.
The film is languorous at times. It lingers. Deliberately. The camera is almost fixed for each scene which feels like it is deliberate as well - your eyes get time to explore. It is not as poetic and metaphor-laden as Kitano but it is very nicely visually put together and immerses you in the world the director has built. The lighting and pace fit and are cohesive and consistent with the world of the film.
The lack of soundtrack is quite stark - the only music during the film is from characters' car stereos. There is no flashiness or gimmickry. Relative to most films there is a lack of close-ups or zooms.
The runtime was not an issue for me - there is not much padding out. It could probably have a light trim without losing much. It has the pace and character focus of a good quality TV mini-series (maybe 3 episodes) and if it was one I suspect people would accept it more. It is not typical of the films we seem to generally be served up. And that is a good thing for me.
Hopefully this may guide you on whether you should align yourself with the 1 stars or the 7+ stars..... before you watch and invest 2.5 hours. Enjoy. Or avoid.
Morte sospetta di una minorenne (1975)
A tale of two glasses (spectacles)....and three genres.
This one is slightly odd tonally - there is a bit of poliziotteschi, some giallo and some broad and slapstick humour. If I had to pick a genre to pigeon-hole it in it would be a poliziotteschi. It owes more to that genre than giallo for me.
Giallo purists will likely be disappointed. Some giallos have a little humour so that isn't necessarily a problem. This has more humour than I've seen in a giallo before but I think the giallo label goes by the wayside for me for a few reasons. The main one - it can't really be a giallo if you see the face of the killer during the first scenes of the film. After seeing the killer it is not a whodunnit, more of a who-hired-them-to-do-it and why? It also leaves you dangling as far as exactly what the main character's role or job is until about 40 minutes in. A few other fairly crucial giallo conventions or tropes are flouted here but I won't say which as they would be potential spoilers.
There are some heavy nods to (or maybe little borrowings from) Profondo Rosso, which precedes this by only a few months - evidence of how quickly these films were made. The first track on the soundtrack is certainly Goblin-esque and the trashy, falling-apart car I assume was "inspired" by Argento's film.
The tone wobbles around and this may make or break the film for you. It feels deliberate and mischievous rather than clumsy. Once you get that it will break with convention, and play with tone and genre I think it is a lot of fun. The price you pay is less tension, although some is achieved especially in the latter half. It is reasonably paced and a few bits of the humour work. The main two characters interact quite nicely together. There is no glaring deadwood in terms of the actors. The last hour of the film is more conventional and rattles along well.
Glasses (spectacles) are a running theme - the main character spends the whole film repeatedly breaking his prescription glasses and the killer wears mirrored sunglasses (which enable a few nice little camera shots).
I can't resist mentioning two other things. (I guess this technically counts as a spoiler but it is not related to any plot or anything crucial). Firstly, during a car chase they hit the front of a bicycle and when the bicycle loses its front wheel it magically turns into a unicycle leading to a wobbly ride and fall. Secondly, again in a car chase, there is an unfortunate pedestrian who is narrowly missed (twice) and manages to contort himself into an almost-breakdance-move headspin both times before dizzyingly walking into a lamppost to knock himself out. (Was this breakdancing move around in 1975? - I don't know).
The subject matter should be dark. Abuse/prostitution of underage girls (a la What Have You Done To Solange and What Have They Done To Your Daughters), a network of corruption, cover-ups, murder etc.....). This film feels less dark, depressing and gritty and has less exploitation-type sequences. In fact, for this type of film it is quite light on nudity. If that disappoints you it does have a topless Barbara Magnolfi in what seems to be her first credited role - if you are a fan of 70s Italian genre films you will possibly know her from Suspiria (as Olga) and Sister of Ursula (in the lead role).
With the subject matter it seems wrong to say but this film is quite fun. Have a look.
I definitely like it. Just don't come in to it with a fixed idea of what genre it is and what that genre should constrain it to.
Hana-bi (1997)
Serene and poetic with flashes of violence and quiet humour
This is my favourite of Kitano's work as a director. It has all the traits you expect if you have seen his earlier films but this feels like a pinnacle to me.
It is a hard film to describe without feeling you are being critical. Much of its charm and power is achieved with little dialogue and long scenes of subtlety and inaction. And yet it is very engaging, balances darkness and humour, violence and serenity and portrays a lot by apparently doing so little. It has a contemplative, poetic feel but never feels slow or dull. There is the typical stone-faced Kitano acting but he cracks a smile now and then. (This is part of his charm - not a criticism). Many of the long scenes show an odd warmth and have an underlying tension and inevitability.
***Spoilers from here***
The basic plot is that Kitano is an ex-cop. Initially he seems cold and unlikeable but his actions tell us otherwise. He is a strange combination of quiet, almost wordless love/loyalty for a select few along with unflinching, unemotional, sudden violence for others. He feels responsible for a colleague getting killed and another getting paralysed. In the background he has a terminally ill wife (I assume - it is not made explicit what is wrong) and they have lost their only child who died aged 4 or 5. He remains loyal to the injured man and the widow of the dead man but gives up being a cop. There are the usual Yakuza characters but the film is not really centred around them like some of his other films are. Don't expect a Japanese Yakuza thriller/action film. Kitano performs the quietest and calmest face-to-face bank robbery you'll ever see on film and gives money to the paralysed colleague and the young widow. He then takes his wife on a kind of road trip which can only really have one ending.
It is hard to do this justice - the plot is almost irrelevant, there is little dialogue but it carries you along, makes you feel much more emotion than is ever displayed on screen and is very cinematic. It feels almost perfectly balanced. Highly recommended.
Silent Scream (1990)
Impressive central performance carries this film based on a real murderer.
I knew nothing of this film before watching it on DVD.
Not to be confused with the 1979 horror/slasher of similar name. It is a British prison drama centring on one man and based on real life events with a central performance which is quite impressive - Iain Glen. The character is someone who is imprisoned for an utterly senseless murder which we see in flashback. The whole film plays like a shuffled series of snapshots/flashbacks of past events. There is no overt explanation, no clear suggestion of causality and no excuses or reasoning spoon-fed to you.
The murderer is clearly pretty damaged but is intelligent. We are shown some humour and strong but dysfunctional family relationships. He is a violent man but also experiences brutality by the guards and is a heavy abuser of drugs. He interacts more warmly and intelligently at times. He is certainly not a character you end up liking but there are aspects to him that make it seem like he may not be wholly beyond any form of redemption. Neither he nor the prison staff are painted as all good or all bad.
This is less difficult to watch (and more cerebral) than something like "Scum." There is some sense of empathy with the murderer in that we are encouraged to think about the justification of locking someone in solitary confinement for long periods and the value of brutalising or mistreating people and leaving them hopeless versus trying to rehabilitate them. For some of the film he ends up on a prison wing run as a democracy with a flattened hierarchy between prisoners and staff. This was apparently a real project.
There is not much plot so the non-linear nature of it with flashbacks and memories helps hold your interest. At times it can be unclear whether the events are true memories or imaginings and we are placed very much inside the perspective of the main character so it is not clear if we are seeing accurate events or just his version. The overall structure does have a plot device to hang on. Without spoilers I can't really give any more comment about the structure and plot.
Overall it feels a bit like a TV play and feels older than a 1990 film. Runtime is short at 85 minutes and it holds you for that. It feels gritty and realistic and the structure contributes to the feeling that many of the events are basically senseless and without explanation. It leaves you as an observer invited to think a bit rather than trying to explain, preach or teach.
Worth a look.
Piercing (2018)
Please don't use classic giallo soundtracks. Especially for a non-giallo film.
Overall this is a slightly better than average horror/thriller. The plot could be wholly explained in one sentence - see the last sentence of this review - no spoilers until that last sentence.
From the opening credits you are aware they are trying something stylistically and it feels very 70s. Many shots are reminiscent of some of the 70s giallos and if you were in any doubt it slaps you in the face with multiple borrowed tracks from a number of them. Most prominent is the Profondo Rosso track by Goblin used more than once.
Personally, I think it is a huge mistake using all the giallo music - it jarred me out of the current movie (which was barely carrying me along anyway) and just made me play a "Name That Tune" game or think about the films they had nicked tracks from. They could easily have made a giallo-esque original soundtrack and avoided reminding me of much more enjoyable films - it was very tempting to bin this off and stick Deep Red or any number of others in the player.
I'm not sure what the intention was - if you want that vibe so much why not set the film in the 70s? And why all the giallo soundtracks when this film has nothing to do with giallo? It felt a bit anachronistic and didn't add anything for me. Yes, the music is great - but it belongs to other films and already has associations with scenes and films that are much better than this. Giallos are much loved and have cult status, so deliberately using the music so much is only going to draw unfavourable comparisons. Would anyone use Tubular Bells (Mike Oldfield, The Exorcist) or the Vangelis Bladerunner soundtrack? I would hope not.
I was left feeling they had just stuck on "Now That's What I Call Giallo" to play along with the film. (I've made that up - it doesn't exist). Such strongly associated tracks will only detract from the film that steals them.
Characters are shallow, sketchy and unlikeable. Their actions don't really make sense even in the internal logic of the film. What little fleshing out there is undermines the plot - obsessively planning and rehearsing does not fit with so much indecision and ineptitude. Perhaps it was just to pad out the runtime.
As I'm typing this it feels like I have over-rated it at 6/10, but realistically it is worth a little more than a 5.
This is only 81 minutes and although I couldn't say it dragged it certainly didn't fly by either. This is a disappointing cocktail of a film - a few great ingredients padded out with substandard mixers and it doesn't taste right.
Summary - Murderous man who you'll not like accidentally discovers the valuable sublimation qualities of S&M whilst trying, pretty non-commitally, to kill an equally disagreeable, personality-disordered prostitute who then tortures him a bit. But he likes it. Eventually. Probably.
Possum (2018)
Bleak, grimy visuals. Discordant, grating soundtrack. Not a flicker of humour.
Other reviews have covered the director - Matthew Holness' - back story. I am a fan (since Garth Marenghi) and he has done some promising short films. He clearly loves horror.
This is the first thing I've seen by him that has not the slightest hint of any humour. None. At all.
I consider this to be horror in the truest sense. Horror is subjective. This is not a slasher or gore-fest. It is not a formulaic, loud, screamy and jump-scary thrill-ride. Instead it leaves you feeling a bit soiled and uneasy. For much of the film I wasn't quite sure what it was - was it going to take a supernatural/evil entity direction? Was he just psychotic? Was I being shown real events or hallucinations. There are little visual clues and props which nudge you, but are they there to lead or mislead? The film is odd enough that you feel anything is possible. Once I thought I had a grip on it I was starting to think it was taking a "M" (Fritz Lang) direction and giving me some degree of compassion for a man who may have done terrible things. It becomes, in small part, a whodunnit. The final reveal(s) are very late and rapid.
This film only really has 2 characters and it relies on them heavily. They both do a great job. I was carried along with it for the full duration, unlike some other reviewers. It doesn't feel baggy or overlong to me - much of the duration is reinforcing the dingy, grimy bleakness of the setting and the isolation in the lives of the characters. The dirtiness and grubbiness is all pervasive. A kind of modern, suburban, grubby gothic. I'm not sure how this will be received outside the UK - it feels quite English to me.
A massive part of what engaged me is the facial expressions, posture and even movement of Sean Harris. He does a great job of being a bit weird, a bit sinister, damaged and odd but not fully losing your compassion. He seems truly tortured without overacting it.
A major part of this film is the excellent soundtrack that makes you uneasy and edgy. If you are finding it slow going, turn the volume up and let the soundtrack unsettle you.
This film is all about one thing. TRAUMA. All the events and the dreamy not-quite-logical events fit quite realistically with this. Sean Harris' character, his perceptions and his actions then make sense. And all the retrospective information slips in to place and takes on more relevance than you assumed it had. I don't agree that the childhood story he wrote is irrelevant - it is crucial.
Not for all tastes and it is not perfect but is a strong film that I will watch more than once.
Lager SSadis Kastrat Kommandantur (1976)
For "Video Nasty List" completists only....... and I think they'll be disappointed
If you are looking at this page and reading about this film you probably know what you're getting, or should be getting. It is what it is. At best it should be entertaining or at least of some interest to those who have an interest in these films. I should be one of them but this is not good.
I watch plenty of similar fodder and am happy to be entertained by many exploitation films of questionable taste. There's a certain pleasure to be gained by leaving your brain in neutral and plopping down in front of some trashy exploitation film or similar. If you watch this genre you have to forgive a lot and just go with it - there's no point picking these films apart - they were never meant to be worthy and few are well-made.
Nothing is theoretically off-limits as far as subject matter goes. The "S.S." exploitation films are not generally offensive to me as they inhabit an entirely different universe to the real world or actual events and are completely separate things. The supposed settings are just an excuse (I'd hesitate to call it a plot device) for a procession of sex/violence/torture-type scenes. Even these are not well done.
This film is fairly boring. The 90 minute run time feels like a long time.
There are many things covered by other reviewers, which I won't repeat here, about the quality/dialogue/acting/"plot" etc.
This doesn't have the campy charm of some exploitation films. It won't surprise you that there are multiple sex scenes. These can only be considered rape but the victims are almost all portrayed as willing participants who enjoy it.
Two things stand out to me and discomfort me.
Firstly I've seen an interview with the director where he seems to suggest that he had extensively researched for this film. He seems to think his film is researched and verging on historical and the tone of his interview suggests he has done the world a service by showing us this. Come on mate!!! Really!!! That makes it more offensive to me than if he just accepted it is a straight-up, bad taste, low budget exploitation film. The testicle transplant mentioned by others is obviously not the only b*llocks associated with the film.
The second thing I found odd and jarring is the use of burning scenes - they are so badly done it is hard to see why they are included. The only reason would be to shock but these corpses (surrounded by fake superimposed flames that don't mark them) all start to dance about like some modern interpretive dance troupe. Any potential shock value is gone. (As an aside, I suspect this is part of the "research" - burning corpses DO flex and can sit up etc. What they don't do is flex and extend and move to-and-fro in silly jerky dances - think Peter Crouch's robot goal celebrations - like is portrayed here)
So, in summary - duller than it should be, not well done, no humour or campy charm as you almost always have in exploitation - even inadvertently.
The interview with the director has probably made me judge it more harshly than others of its ilk - it is hard to keep your brain in neutral when he seems to suggest his film is so much more worthy than it so obviously is.
Completists will watch whatever anyone else says. No-one else should be bothering with this.
It is arguably the most notorious of the S.S. films but is one of the worst. If you only watch one or two consider Ilsa, or even Hellcamp/Beast in Heat before you get to this.
Get Out (2017)
Not bad. It doesn't feel particularly new or original to me.
This is a slightly better than average horror film.
I suspect that overinflated expectation probably doesn't do the film any favours. Hyping it as particularly new or original doesn't feel warranted to me. There are several similarly themed films and certainly several similar feeling films. Maybe it has attracted an audience that wouldn't normally watch this type of film.
It is reasonably well-done for what it is. Many of the criticisms I have I would forgive of horror films that carry me along with them. They stand out more with this because it didn't pull me along with it as much as it should. It didn't build tension much at all for me. It didn't really have me rooting for anyone or questioning things. It just didn't grab me very much.
There is a lot of talk of race around this film. Is this a black/white film that divides on those lines? Do I find it racist? If the black/white characters were reversed would it be racist? Is it rebalancing previous racism by turning it on its head?
Does it really matter? Are people taking it too seriously?
Race is obviously an issue in the film but presumably to prod the audience a bit - it doesn't feel preachy. It is noticeable that ALL the white characters are devious, manipulative and unpleasant but it is a relatively small number of people. Within the world of the film all the white characters are bad - that's OK - it doesn't have to mean all white people are bad unless you want to deliberately generalise beyond what the film does.
Leaving the whole black/white thing to one side - ultimately it is meant to be a horror/thriller (maybe with a bit of old-school sci-fi thrown-in) that is not too serious. Is it entertaining? Yes, moderately. Is it something I've never seen before in some form? No. It isn't an 8/10 but neither is it a 1 or 2/10 IMHO.
Overall I think 5 or 6/10 feels about right - it is watchable, a bit better than average for what it is but not any more than that for me.
Landmine Goes Click (2015)
Awful. Ignore all the high ratings.
There is something very wrong with the rating for this (currently over 6/10). The only reason I'm giving this 2/10 is that it is slightly better than some truly unwatchable films I have given 1/10. If I could give this 1.1/10 I would.
The story is wafer thin, contrived and poorly written. None of the characters feel real or engaging. The dialogue, performances and plot are annoying.
There are some pretty bad films that I enjoy or find something in that I like, but I can find nothing of merit here. I cannot believe the reviews singing its praises are genuine and unbiased.
Maplewoods (2003)
Truly awful - please don't waste your time.
I generally love zombie films. Even bad ones are usually entertaining and I'll forgive a lot as long as it entertains in some way. I can find a lot of entertainment in the trashiest, silliest, lowest budget horror offerings. This, however, must rank as one of THE worst films I have ever tried to sit through. There are low budget films that manage to be inventive, or build atmosphere or carry you along without anything expensive or spectacular - this is definitely NOT one of those. I watched this under the title "Nazi Zombies" and even expecting very little I was disappointed. I only spotted one zombie that could be considered anything Nazi-ish. The cover was the best thing about the film. It makes little sense. I'm not sure there was a plot at all. Whole swathes of the film are badly acted, poorly scripted, largely pointless dialogue. The sound quality was just terrible. The effects were just bad - and not even funny-bad. There is really nothing here for me to be positive about. If you read the most negative reviews about this film and think nothing can be that bad - be warned. It really can. The only reason to watch this is to show yourself just how bad a film can be. And it's not worth it. Don't waste 90 minutes of your life - take my word for it.
Monster (2008)
Completely unwatchable
Even bored on a rainy Sunday afternoon I could not cope with watching this. It's another "found footage" film, which in itself is not necessarily a bad thing - some of them can be good. This, however, was in my opinion unwatchable. A large amount of the run time had nothing discernible on screen thanks to the massive amount of camera-waggle and low light etc. I know some degree of this is part of the genre but in this it was far too much. Unless it was a dull (and often repetitive) piece to camera by one of the 2 main characters you could barely see anything and the waggling camera is enough to make you feel sick. This is one of those low budget films where almost nothing happens, when it does you don't see much (it's basically a monster movie with almost no monster at all) and it felt like a total waste of my time. I've thrown this away because I would feel guilty if someone else ended up paying any money for it and wasting 90 minutes of their life on it. It truly is awful.
Hannah House (2002)
Interesting and well worth a viewing.......
A strange, almost silent, sepia toned black & white film complete with intertitles. There are a few brief sentences of dialogue (which seem incongruous) and some voice snippets in the soundtrack. It is difficult to describe and to me sometimes has an almost Eraserhead feel mixed with the early surrealist films of the 20s and 30s. If you had to place it in a genre it would be a horror film – an experimental, unusual supernatural horror – but that does not really describe it well. Visually striking, original and often very effective but the relatively clunky effects and low production values tempered my enjoyment at a few points.
A basic plot, slow paced early on becomes a much more frantic succession of images which are quite effective and disquieting later in the film.
It seems caught halfway between trying to look deliberately unreal/dream-like and looking like an authentic silent film from the 1910s or 1920s. I can't make my mind up whether they intentionally gave it a less than authentic look with some slightly jarring, out of place effects to increase the surreal, dream-like feel or whether some of the visual effects were just clunky. It's possible that some of my issues with this film are things that the filmmakers were deliberately putting in. On balance it felt to me like they were mainly aiming to achieve an authentic 1910s/1920s silent film look. As far as overall tone and feel this was quite successful, probably impressively so on their budget.
***If you haven't yet watched the film I would suggest that you stop reading here – there are no plot spoilers but my comments following this are perhaps hyper-critical and I wouldn't want to draw your attention to things that might dilute your enjoyment of the film***
I feel bad criticising this film too much. They have achieved an original, interesting and different film with some decent ideas and disconcerting images............... .......but........... ........I couldn't help my attention being drawn to aspects that jolted me out of feeling that I could be watching an old film. Much of the (intentional) low resolution and the CGI ageing effects (darkened screen edges, sepia tones, varying contrasts and flickering brightness, vertical thread-like faults etc etc) worked quite well. Other aspects didn't. The often overly pixelated quality of the image rather than the less squared-off, grainy, low contrast, out of focus fuzziness you get with proper old celluloid images was, at times, intrusive for me. This sometimes made me feel I was watching a poor quality streaming video on the internet that would have looked OK as a smaller image but had been expanded to full screen giving it that Lego-like, blocky, large pixel look. Some of the CGI overlays felt very poor and gave the impression of unrelated images floating over the top of a background they had no connection with – this even happened when they were characters that were clearly meant to be interacting with other parts of the scene.
As someone who has watched many early 20th century films I couldn't help noticing the camera movements and angles. I felt that the camera moved too much rather than the often static camera of the early films that shot scenes as if they were stage plays filmed with a fixed camera. There were a lot of zoom shots and some point-of-view and tracking shots that felt out of place.
The soundtrack was variable but often worked very well. The weirder organ and string based soundtrack in the latter half is much more effective, disconcerting and atmospheric than the earlier acoustic guitar music which did not do anything for me.