Omni's Random Video Noise

→ in
Tools    





I won't dance. Don't ask me...
No one can watch every movie. Every opportunity taken is an opportunity lost.
That's true, but sometimes it's impossible to choose.





The Rocky Horror Picture Show
Horror Comedy Musical / English / 1975

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Been long on my watchlist, plus certain people around here seem to think I'd have an affinity for it. I wonder why.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
"Come up to lab, see what's on the slab."

Kissing, Marriage, Meat Slab.

This was way more head****ery than I was prepared for. I probably underestimated the sort of source material they were going out of their way to parody here, but taking it for what it is, I'm pretty underwhelmed.

There are moments throughout where I feel like I get what they were going for (such as when Frank N' Furter elucidates the purpose of Rocky Horror in song), but then there are others that just completely lose me (like the end when Frank N' Furter de-petrifies everybody into white face, corsets, and fishnet garters to perform a song everybody just goes with for some reason).

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Since his youth, O'Brien had loved science fiction and B horror movies. He wanted to combine elements of the unintentional humour of B horror movies, portentous dialogue of schlock-horror, Steve Reeves muscle flicks, and fifties rock and roll into his musical.
Oookayyy... I think you succeeded in doing that... I'm just not all that impressed with the final product.

For one thing, what's the purpose of the Narrator? He's not funny, he adds virtually nothing to the movie, and in fact he chops up the movie's pacing which already suffers from stop-and-start by forgoing the continuous soundtrack and rhyming-out-of-song options.

Musicals live and die by their songs and I can see the appeal in Sweet Transvestite and The Time Warp, but those are very shallow peaks to me. Most of the songs barely registered to me at all and a lot of them suffered from poor clarity in delivery, especially with respect to Riff Raff who I can barely understand. I probably missed most of the lyrics because of this reason, some combination of goofy voices, chorus, echo, and sound leveling made it all disappear into the background.

That and I'm not especially fond of 50s style music, if that's even what you could call what this was.

Tim Curry is obviously solid in this movie and it's cool to see him slip into such an unconventional role (I think he pulls off fishnet garters quite well), but it's definitely not my favorite role he's played and frankly, having him sing throughout most of his screentime removes much of the opportunity he has to show much of his reactionary wit. There was one instance of it when WhatsHerFace describes Rocky Horror as "okay" and it stops the train of compliments dead which gives him a deathly slow headturn, and THAT'S great, I just wish there was more of that.


Please stop. Too far. Go back.

I also stress a distinction one may not recognize in musicals and that is the function of the songs. In Nightmare Before Christmas you can point to multiple occasions in which the song serves to develop the characters involved, transitioning them from one behavior to the next such as Poor Jack, in which Jack begins the song thoroughly defeated by his ambitions before resolving by the end to go back to what he's good at and not let it get him down.

Compare this to Willy Wonka, or Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, or even Rocky Horror Picture Show in which the songs revolve around simply describing a plotbeat. There's A Light is probably the most glaring and unforgivable of these, because it incessantly repeats the same point over and over "there's a light in that mansion over there, someone there might be able to help us", but even in-movie it doesn't make any ****ing sense because even if you were to abstract out the fact that the characters are singing the plot, they're still either walking slowly or or standing stock-still in pouring rain in slack-jawed discovery "OMG A LIGHT, LET US STOP WALKING, LOOK INTO EACH OTHERS' EYES MEANINGFULLY, AND SING ABOUT HOW WE SEE A LIGHT FOR SEVERAL MINUTES WHILE WE NARRATIVELY JUSTIFY THE OTHER CHARACTERS STEALING OUR CLOTHES LATER".

That doesn't even make any sense either if you think about it.

"Would you look at that we got a flat tire."

"I saw a mansion A FEW MILES BACK, I'll just walk over there in the pouring rain and ask for help."

"Oh I'll come with you cause I'm jealous that you'll abandon me in a broken down car in the woods in the rain for a random women who may live there."

"Sounds good, why don't you take a newspaper? That'll keep you dry."

****ing lunatics.

Nevermind the literal non-reaction to the resident transvestite scientist axing a guy to death, no it's the singing and dancing that are really terrifying. Oh, you want my clothes? I see no issue with that, see I only wanted a phone, but it looks like I'll be staying for a while because reasons.

Frankly, if they were going for "unintentional comedy" you can't really do it intentionally unless the parody is clear. Rival Scientist Guy expressing some sudden and profound familiarity with the technobabbly trans-whatever device I get, but even that wasn't funny, so what exactly am I missing besides the absurdity of it all?

Better songs would have gone a long way.


Final Verdict:
[Meh...]

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	rocky1.jpg
Views:	566
Size:	87.7 KB
ID:	29556   Click image for larger version

Name:	rocky2.jpg
Views:	334
Size:	41.5 KB
ID:	29557  
__________________
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel
Movies / Anime / Ultimate Showdown / Veg*nism / Action 2015



[center]

[The Rocky Horror Picture Show[/color]
I really enjoyed reading your review of this film and understand a lot of your feelings regarding it. A lot of your feelings are probably legitimized by the fact that when this film was originally released, it DIED at the box office. The movie only gained recognition as a midnight movie house phenomenon where the audience actually participates in what is happening onscreen. This is how the film gained the cult following it developed, not the quality of the film. I saw the movie dozens of times at a midnight movie house before actually renting it one night and watching it by myself alone...it was like night and day and I, too, saw a lot of the things you mentioned in your review and didn't enjoy the film nearly as much as I did at the midnight movie house. As it stand alone as a movie, I think "meh" pretty much sums it up...it's the experience of seeing it at a midnight movie house where the audience yell things at the screen, throw rice during the wedding scene and squirt water guns during the rainstorm that made this movie the near classic it now is.





Drive
Crime Drama / English / 2011

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Highly recommended everywhere I see, even the artsy crowd seem to like it.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
Chicken Chow Mein, Peking Duck, Crabs, EverythingYouWould ExpectToFindFromAJewish-ItalianMafiaRestaurantFront, and Kissing.

The "Action" crowd like this movie because it's a crime movie, it has stupid CG blood effects, a completely unnecessary topless scene, Breaking Bad Guy, Hellboy Dude, and and Ryan Gosling as a loner with little to say, but asses to kick. Plus cars. Because cars = sex.

The "Artsy-Fartsy" crowd likes this movie because it unfolds slowly, there's a lot of quiet talking, a lot off attention is paid to shadows, and a general focus of city nightlife combined with an ambient 80s-tinged soundtrack makes it stand out when it's marketed with neon colors.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Drive had been shown at a number of film festivals, including the 2011 Cannes Film Festival, where it was praised and received a standing ovation,
I was bored.

There's so little plot in this movie and every character is paper thin that when they drag out EVERY


SINGLE


INDIVIDUAL


SCENE


it's like they're pulling teeth just to get the editor to cut to the next shot. There's no reason the movie needs to be this long, here lemme try to summarize the plot as succinctly as possible:

Dude is a getaway driver by night, stunt driver by day.
Meets neighbor whose husband is in jail, gets mushy on neighbor.
Husband comes home, needs help paying off protection debt.
Dude helps husband, husband gets shot, Dude takes revenge.

Like, the central conflict of the movie is when Husband gets shot and Dude needs to make things right so the bad guys don't come after Neighbor Lady and her kid, I think, and yet this happens, what, over half way into the movie?

What, is there some floating assumption that my level of caring rises in proportion to the characters' literal screentime? Cause I genuinely don't give a crap.

Most emotional moment for me was seeing Bryan Cranston get punked out when you know how close he was to getting away, and sure enough after a murder that slick you can't help but facepalm as Ryan Gosling's character goes "oh yeah, the million dollars is in my car, here let me turn my back to you, I'll walk within arms reach and lead you to it" *gut stab*

Gosh, couldn't have ****in' seen that comin'.

Not as pretentious as what you'd get with Kara No Kyoukai (that'd be sickeningly impressive), but it is nonetheless boring. It is less plot and character development than an average CSI episode stretched to fit a movie's running time and the blood effects look like they were borrowed from The Walking Dead.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
As a character study, Drive examines themes of "loyalty, loneliness and the dark impulses that rise up even when we try our hardest to suppress them."
What a complete load of ****.


Final Verdict:
[Meh...]

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	drive.jpg
Views:	264
Size:	48.1 KB
ID:	29560  





Dog Day Afternoon
Crime Comedy Drama / English / 1975

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
What is it with all these movies from 1975?

Been recommended around the boards, has an potentially interesting concept, and directed by Sidney Lumet of 12 Angry Men. Let's check it out.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
Dog, Yogurt, Pizza, Hamburgers.

Dog Day Afternoon is the tragic tale of a young Al Pacino as he discovers how **** he is as robbing banks.

At first there seems no shortage of confidence here, but the degree to which the robbers take insults from their hostages, perform petty tasks to keep people happy, and eventually even just GIVE THEM THEIR GUNS to hold onto is just ridiculous, it inexplicably verges on comedy in a manner that cannot be true to the real life events it's trying to portray, and yet sure enough people get shot by the end of it and you don't even get a hard cut to credits.

It's just "here is this terrible bank robber, here's how he drew out a hostage situation to a ridiculous degree and here's how he inevitably ****ed it up".

There's like 3 hostages with time-bomb style crippling illnesses for some absurd reason (THANKS AMERICA) and for some reason I don't even understand he started shouting "Attica" at the cops which got the crowds cheering for him?

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The Attica Prison riot occurred at the Attica Correctional Facility in Attica, New York, United States in 1971. Based upon prisoners' demands for better living conditions and political rights, the riot was one of the most well-known and significant uprisings of the Prisoners' Rights Movement. On September 9, 1971, two weeks after the killing of George Jackson at San Quentin State Prison, about 1,000 of the Attica prison's approximately 2,200 inmates rioted and took control of the prison, taking 42 staff hostage.
Oh, okay... so it was a social justice thing... what does this have to do with the hostage situation exactly? Does Al Pacino's character want better rights for being an armed bank robber imprisoned in a building?

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
During the following four days of negotiations, authorities agreed to 28 of the prisoners' demands, but would not agree to demands for complete amnesty from criminal prosecution for the prison takeover or for the removal of Attica's superintendent. By the order of Governor Nelson Rockefeller, state police took back control of the prison. When the uprising was over, at least 43 people were dead, including ten correctional officers and civilian employees, and 33 inmates. Only one death could be attributed to the prisoners.
Whaaaaaaaat, so let me get this straight, people are harshing on the cops responding to a bank robbery because many people died when police tried to retake control of a prison a year earlier?

DO YOU EXPECT THERE TO BE NO CASUALTIES FROM THAT?

What, was it just the police's inability to save the hostages because BELIEVE IT OR NOT, that's not always an option, you people shouldn't be putting that much faith in cops to begin with.

And yet, when the robbers and hostage leave the bank in the limo the crowd is suddenly upset with them?

WELL WHAT THE **** DID YOU PEOPLE WANT!? These guys busted into a bank to steal money from people like YOU, what's your major malfunction, here, huh???

The guy even went to prison in the end anyway, how does that click with your "Prisoner's Rights" ********?

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
After being apprehended, Wojtowicz was convicted in court and sentenced to twenty years in prison, of which he served six.
Okay, that's really annoying, why even do you set a mandatory minimum sentence length for crimes if you're just gonna let people off for little more than a quarter of the usual punishment?

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
According to Wojtowicz, he was offered a deal for pleading guilty, which the court did not honor, and on April 23, 1973, he was sentenced to 20 years in Lewisburg Federal Penitentiary, of which he served five.
Wait, FIVE!? Get your story straight, Wikipedia, and why in the **** is prison even a thing? Some scumbags would be better off dead, but instead you want to make them a tax burden on the entire population, that's really ****in' smart, why don't you institute penal labor so criminals can work off their crimes and actually pay back something to society, yeah? Would make those 5 years a hell of a lot more reasonable.

And don't give me that "slavery" bit, what, do you think I'm crazy? Here I am arguing with people from nearly 50 years ago who have nothing to do with this movie over their flawed prison complex and here you are calling me crazy, WELL I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW SOMETHING, I just have nothing interesting to say about this movie! This movie is more interesting than what I have to say and what I have to say is marginally more interesting than shopping for vegan butter which I am EXTREMELY familiar with so you'd best take that as sage advice.

The movie's decent. Chugs a bit. Goes off on weird tangents. Rather anti-climactic.


Final Verdict:
[Pretty Good]

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	dogday.jpg
Views:	258
Size:	213.7 KB
ID:	29561  



Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?
ahh, you demented derelict, you

WELCOME BACK!!
__________________
- This is one of those films where I liked it on first viewing but I feel like watching it again might actually make me dislike it, but that's pretentious existentialism for you.



As it stand alone as a movie, I think "meh" pretty much sums it up...it's the experience of seeing it at a midnight movie house where the audience yell things at the screen, throw rice during the wedding scene and squirt water guns during the rainstorm that made this movie the near classic it now is.
I'd rather watch the movie without people squirting water guns at the screen. Just me.





The Rocky Horror Picture Show
Horror Comedy Musical / English / 1975

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Been long on my watchlist, plus certain people around here seem to think I'd have an affinity for it. I wonder why.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
"Come up to lab, see what's on the slab."

Kissing, Marriage, Meat Slab.

This was way more head****ery than I was prepared for. I probably underestimated the sort of source material they were going out of their way to parody here, but taking it for what it is, I'm pretty underwhelmed.

There are moments throughout where I feel like I get what they were going for (such as when Frank N' Furter elucidates the purpose of Rocky Horror in song), but then there are others that just completely lose me (like the end when Frank N' Furter de-petrifies everybody into white face, corsets, and fishnet garters to perform a song everybody just goes with for some reason).



Oookayyy... I think you succeeded in doing that... I'm just not all that impressed with the final product.

For one thing, what's the purpose of the Narrator? He's not funny, he adds virtually nothing to the movie, and in fact he chops up the movie's pacing which already suffers from stop-and-start by forgoing the continuous soundtrack and rhyming-out-of-song options.

Musicals live and die by their songs and I can see the appeal in Sweet Transvestite and The Time Warp, but those are very shallow peaks to me. Most of the songs barely registered to me at all and a lot of them suffered from poor clarity in delivery, especially with respect to Riff Raff who I can barely understand. I probably missed most of the lyrics because of this reason, some combination of goofy voices, chorus, echo, and sound leveling made it all disappear into the background.

That and I'm not especially fond of 50s style music, if that's even what you could call what this was.

Tim Curry is obviously solid in this movie and it's cool to see him slip into such an unconventional role (I think he pulls off fishnet garters quite well), but it's definitely not my favorite role he's played and frankly, having him sing throughout most of his screentime removes much of the opportunity he has to show much of his reactionary wit. There was one instance of it when WhatsHerFace describes Rocky Horror as "okay" and it stops the train of compliments dead which gives him a deathly slow headturn, and THAT'S great, I just wish there was more of that.


Please stop. Too far. Go back.

I also stress a distinction one may not recognize in musicals and that is the function of the songs. In Nightmare Before Christmas you can point to multiple occasions in which the song serves to develop the characters involved, transitioning them from one behavior to the next such as Poor Jack, in which Jack begins the song thoroughly defeated by his ambitions before resolving by the end to go back to what he's good at and not let it get him down.

Compare this to Willy Wonka, or Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, or even Rocky Horror Picture Show in which the songs revolve around simply describing a plotbeat. There's A Light is probably the most glaring and unforgivable of these, because it incessantly repeats the same point over and over "there's a light in that mansion over there, someone there might be able to help us", but even in-movie it doesn't make any ****ing sense because even if you were to abstract out the fact that the characters are singing the plot, they're still either walking slowly or or standing stock-still in pouring rain in slack-jawed discovery "OMG A LIGHT, LET US STOP WALKING, LOOK INTO EACH OTHERS' EYES MEANINGFULLY, AND SING ABOUT HOW WE SEE A LIGHT FOR SEVERAL MINUTES WHILE WE NARRATIVELY JUSTIFY THE OTHER CHARACTERS STEALING OUR CLOTHES LATER".

That doesn't even make any sense either if you think about it.

"Would you look at that we got a flat tire."

"I saw a mansion A FEW MILES BACK, I'll just walk over there in the pouring rain and ask for help."

"Oh I'll come with you cause I'm jealous that you'll abandon me in a broken down car in the woods in the rain for a random women who may live there."

"Sounds good, why don't you take a newspaper? That'll keep you dry."

****ing lunatics.

Nevermind the literal non-reaction to the resident transvestite scientist axing a guy to death, no it's the singing and dancing that are really terrifying. Oh, you want my clothes? I see no issue with that, see I only wanted a phone, but it looks like I'll be staying for a while because reasons.

Frankly, if they were going for "unintentional comedy" you can't really do it intentionally unless the parody is clear. Rival Scientist Guy expressing some sudden and profound familiarity with the technobabbly trans-whatever device I get, but even that wasn't funny, so what exactly am I missing besides the absurdity of it all?

Better songs would have gone a long way.


Final Verdict:
[Meh...]

I really enjoyed reading your review of this film and understand a lot of your feelings regarding it. A lot of your feelings are probably legitimized by the fact that when this film was originally released, it DIED at the box office. The movie only gained recognition as a midnight movie house phenomenon where the audience actually participates in what is happening onscreen. This is how the film gained the cult following it developed, not the quality of the film. I saw the movie dozens of times at a midnight movie house before actually renting it one night and watching it by myself alone...it was like night and day and I, too, saw a lo of the things you mentioned in your review and didn't enjoy the film nearly as much as I did at the midnight movie house. As it stand alone as a movie, I think "meh" pretty much sums it up...it's the experience of seeing it at a midnight movie house where the audience yell things at the screen, throw rice during the wedding scene and squirt water guns during the rainstorm that made this movie the near classic it now is.

I have to second what Gideon said about The Rocky Horror Picture Show. I'm not a fan of the movie, but if you watched it alone, without the whole audience participation experience, you missed out on what made this movie the cult classic that it is today.

As a stand alone movie, this is one of the dumbest movies ever made, but if you see it at a midnight showing with hundreds of people who've seen it more times than they can count, you'll have an experience that you'll never forget. (Just don't tell anyone there that it's your first time seeing it at a midnight showing.)
__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.



I have to second what Gideon said about The Rocky Horror Picture Show. I'm not a fan of the movie, but if you watched it alone, without the whole audience participation experience, you missed out on what made this movie the cult classic that it is today.

As a stand alone movie, this is one of the dumbest movies ever made, but if you see it at a midnight showing with hundreds of people who've seen it more times than they can count, you'll have an experience that you'll never forget. (Just don't tell anyone there that it's your first time seeing it at a midnight showing.)
I guess that's something that doesn't come up in reviews.



cricket's Avatar
Registered User
I'm also not a fan of Rocky Horror as a movie. However I have had a lot of good times going to the midnight show in Harvard Square with the audience participation. Still, when it's 1am, The Time Warp and Sweet Transvestite are over, and I've finished my bottle of whiskey, I'd be ready to get the f**k out of there.





Tremors 2: Aftershocks
Monster Horror Comedy / English / 1996

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Been sitting in my backlog. Time for RRRRReassessment time!

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
Ostriches, Deer, someother taxidermied thing.

"I FEEL I was DENIED some CRITICAL NEED-TO-KNOW INFORMATION."

Once again the redneck saves the day as we return to the graboid dilemma, except this time the movie basically assumes you've seen the first one, understand the basic concept, and essentially writes off hunting graboids shortly into it as a relatively easy way to make money up until the series makes it's Aliens-style sequel-justifying deviation; the graboids are merely a larval form from which approximately 3 smaller monsters hereby referred to as "shriekers" are born from.

Shriekers, being that they are much smaller than the monster they came from are a pretty anticlimactic step up, but I can appreciate the deliberate lampshade they hang on the moment of reveal, if anything to drive home the confusion of the situation. It would seem, provided the later movies, that the graboids develop new (or just previously unknown) developmental stages in response to their environment. I can appreciate this as a rationalization for sequels (as everything after Aliens was pretty much a rehash), but I do feel the shiekers are pretty dull monsters.

They at least retain a gimmick to them, here being that they can sense heat, which, putting them a couple feet above the ground, allows them to deal with humans who may otherwise be safe from regular graboids, although this eventually returns to people just climbing out of the way again to high ground.

The story itself is pretty predictable (especially romance-wise, take a long hard look at them thar denim ass), and the return of Earl's character (in the absence of Kevin Bacon) plays second fiddle to Burt's character, who also returns as the humdinger of a paranoid redneck ol' huntin' man. He's definitely the highlight of the cast, but apart from standing out he's doesn't seem unnatural among the rest, everyone pull their weight here.



There's not all too much to say about this movie. The first half of it is really just refamiliarizing with the predicaments of the movie before it, and the second half is really just the first half of every other monster movie, that is the attempt to slow burn reveal the monster, dripfeed the characters' it's apparent strengths and weaknesses, and eventually finagle everyone into a narrative position to foil it. Not much beyond that other than the occasional bad CG (but most of the time, the practical effects are pretty solid).

I enjoyed it for what it's worth, but I think the original got more creative with it's central gimmick.


Final Verdict:
[Pretty Good]

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	tremors1.jpg
Views:	2576
Size:	25.7 KB
ID:	29693   Click image for larger version

Name:	tremors2.jpg
Views:	552
Size:	79.4 KB
ID:	29696  





Ex_Machina
Sci-Fi Romance Mystery / English / 2014

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Been on my watchlist since I heard about it, but didn't expect much since it seemed like the sort of movie that would rather ride on the coattails of it's mo-cap CG artists.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
Fish, Kissing.

This movie's strange, there are moments of genuine tension throughout where that electrical hum kicks in and I'm reminded of what I wanted Beyond The Black Rainbow to be, but those moments are too few and and what moments there are are shrouded in confusion or even ambivalence towards the characters.

Best character by far is Inventor Guy, portrayed by Oscar Isaac, simply because he's the best acted, has more presence than every other character, and more than every other character he's the only one who I felt provoked to look for any level of depth in. Besides him you Main Guy and Robot Girl. Main Guy is painfully awkward and the transparency of his lies make him hard to appreciate. Robot Girl, who I guess is supposed to be the highlight here, is just altogether underwhelming.

The first half of the movie fails the second of it's two prerequisites: 1.) It manages to have CG that never looks like CG (credit where it's due, though it doesn't really resemble much that exists in the real world), and 2.) It manages to make talking to a robot-passing-as-human interesting. I don't think it does this.

Really what you have here is a rather peculiar conundrum which becomes all the more apparent when Robot Girl puts on clothes and barely any CG becomes involved. You just have a guy and a girl getting to know each other past a pane of glass. I imagine how much more interesting this would have been had Main Guy actually been a prodigy or something so he and the walking search engine could verbally spar over what does or does not constitute one or the others' sentience.

Add onto that the disparate pace at which the movie seems to expect the audience to follow along (not inferring that Inventor Guy's servant is also a robot, but making the sudden leap to MAYBE HE'S BEEN A ROBOT ALL ALONG!!!!) and you got a slow clunky movie.



Finally it rolls around to the end and Main Guy decides Robot Girl is actually sentient and erasing her memory (as is the plan) would be unethical and so plans to escape, but not before Inventor Guy rolls up with a laundry list of entirely reasonable counterarguments to doubt his own conclusions.........!..........run-on sentence.

Suddenly these two guys are plays SEVEN DIMENSIONAL XANATOS SPEED CHESS. It's fricken' ridiculous, and would make a whole lot more sense had the plot not backed out on the idea that our protagonist was actually the mental whip it pretended he was.

Mull over the cringe of that nice and slow knife smoothly sliding in and out of Inventor Guy's chest, wait as the movie takes it's sweet time ending, and then leave the theater before realizing that Inventor Guy's Dark Knight-style cellphone gambit doesn't make any ****ing sense the more you think about it.

It's a serviceable idea, but it's payoff isn't worth the build up.


Final Verdict:
[Meh...]

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	ex.jpg
Views:	418
Size:	30.6 KB
ID:	29730   Click image for larger version

Name:	ex2.jpg
Views:	220
Size:	27.9 KB
ID:	29733  





Chained Heat
Erotic Drama / English / 1983

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
After watching Savage Streets and wanting to see more Linda Blair, I realized she stars in The Exorcist.

So I watched this movie.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
A Roach.

About as plain and transparently marketed as you can get, it's Linda Blair in a Women-In-Prison movie and all said it's about as middle of the road as I expected. A lot of nudity. A lot of not-quite-sex. A lot of implied rape. Bitches knifin' bitches. Wholesome stuff.

Linda plays Main Girl, or in this case Prison Virgin who accidentally killed a man and she's awful sad about it and to be honest it's kind of hard to watch sometimes because she genuinely looks like she's on the brink of tears most times. She doesn't overdo it either, but that level of acting doesn't extend far to the other cast, nor does it really have to.

The movie makes a point of setting up how the corrupt-as-**** Warden is selling dope amongst the prisoners (somehow) and that there's a competing better dope distributer in the ranks answering to his second-in-command and her two-timing prison doctor boyfriend both with respective slutty snitches (who are bitches... itchin' for some stitches) and allies who get killed for threatening the economy or lookin' at each other wrong. At first I worry it's going to get over-complicated, but no, sure enough, it mostly resolves into "what's that? one of the inmates got a glasglow smile? eh, rape her" and that's pretty much the movie.

At least there's a black vs. white subplot that resolves all roses and sprinkles, nothing brings races together like throwin' bitches off buildings and stabbin' rapists in the throat.

Yeah, I know that one of them tried to rape you and killed multiple other inmates, but stop, we're havin' a moment here.

The physical acting is really off, especially when The Nicest Slut In The World gets killed. Like, what happened? One second Guard Lady is holding her up against the wall with her nightstick pressed in her mouth, cut away, now she's dead. How'd she die? Better Google it.



I'm sure I'm not on a list anywhere.

Anyway, it was an okay movie. Nothing great about it, but surprisingly little to complain about either.


Final Verdict:
[Meh...]

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	chain.jpg
Views:	1235
Size:	40.7 KB
ID:	29762   Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen shot 2017-04-07 at 12.15.03 PM.png
Views:	258
Size:	26.4 KB
ID:	29763  





Hellraiser
Erotic Horror / English / 1987

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
I DON'T ****IN' KNOW, DON'T ASK ME.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
Maggots, Roaches, Rats, Monkeys, Snakes, Birds, Crickets, Variousotherpetstoreanimals, Down Feathers, and Kissing. Not ****in' cool.

And the rest of the movie's not ****in' cool in general, it's deliberately grotesque and gory, apparently ripping peoples' skin off with hooks is just what kids were into back in the 80s, I dunno, I must have missed that fad and I'm rather glad for it.

AT LEAST I will go so far as to say that the movie doesn't eroticize gore in quite the same way as something like My Bloody Valentine 3D did, there's something lost between the two. Hellraiser at least seems to understand that pleasure is the entrypoint and the thrill of danger is what follows, for some people that involving pain, and so the idea is they take that to it's logical extreme by supposing a Lovecraft-esque hammerspace in which individuals have ascended into a sort of purgatory where they chase the most extreme highs in the form of self-inflicted tortures (all the "Cenobites" here having various body mutilations to distinguish them).

The gore really isn't appealing at all. But why would it be? Perhaps I'm trying to rationalize a distinction that doesn't really exist, but modern horror movies like My Bloody Valentine 3D and the Saw sequels and whatnot seem to make a money shot out of how graphically they can kill characters off, as if that itself is the appeal (and for many who aren't me, for some blisteringly insane reason, it is). Hellraiser seems far more intent to disturb with it's gore within the context of pursuing something ostensibly erotic, so to that end it doesn't quite gross me out like in other movies where the violence is shot like a porno.

The gore is pretty over the top and unrestrained from the word go so, frankly, to that end, it actually bothered me considerably LESS than a movie like Ex_Machina where the violence is isolated towards the end and sickening realistic.

Also, you gotta try and imagine that sort of... what was it? Saving Private Ryan moment where a knife just slooooooooowy slides into you, that's some skin-tingly **** right there. Hellraiser is just goofy by contrast and I dunno what it's deal is with chains, hooks, and blood. It's a theme I guess.



No Blood Geysers at least, though hammering someone in the head 3 times still leaves a ridiculous amount of blood on the hammerer.

I find it interesting, the route the story took, didn't really expect a story about a horny Step-Mom who tries to revive her dead **** of a boyfriend (heh, dead ****) by luring men to her home so he can steal their blood.

There's a frustratingly obvious diminishing return on each body though, Frank never gets his body back even though all it took was Mr. Dad to cut his hand once to give him a functioning head, arms, torso, and crippled legs. Another body and he can stand. Another and he can... taste? Another and... he's slightly more red? This sacrificial thing feels like a jip, how many more guys I gotta seduce and hammer in the back of the head before you have a penis and I can stand to look at you in dim light?

The end of the movie's just ****in' bizarre too. Main Girl uses the puzzle box to banish 3 of the 4 Cenobites, the last one shows up behind her boyfriend with a knife (um, what happened to your magic chainhook powers?) and he just gets clobbered by falling debris.

Oh, well that's approximately the same as zapping the other 3 magic reality phase shifting demons out of existence, I'll just leave this hyper dangerous demi-god of sadomasochism under these planks of wood and walk away, I see no further danger here...

OH ****, THAT WEIRD SCORPION MONSTER THING! QUICK! PLAY CUP SHUFFLE WITH THE PUZZLE BOX TILL WE CAN ZAP IT!

Oh thank goodness that's over with. Oh, thanks for the jacket, Chad, you're taking this sudden and unexplained exposure to extradimensional monsters suddenly trying to kill us extraordinarily well, you haven't asked any questions at all!

*creepy hobo walks up, pulls puzzle box out of fire, burns away to reveal winged bone demon and flies away*

STILL NO QUESTIONS??? Gosh, he's a keeper.


Final Verdict:
[Meh...]

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	Hell.jpg
Views:	589
Size:	50.2 KB
ID:	29764   Click image for larger version

Name:	hell2.jpg
Views:	186
Size:	23.3 KB
ID:	29768  





The Red Pill
Documentary / English / 2016

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Has become really popular for really topical reasons.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
"We're not blaming men, we just named everything bad after them."

Welcome to your clash of narratives.

The Red Pill is a movie (with obvious reference to The Matrix and by extension Alice in Wonderland) about your average ordinary everyday mainstream feminist who stumbles upon the A Voice for Men website and decides to continue her documentary career on the topic of "those damned evil Men's Rights Activists". Little does she know, but she's about to get de-programmed hardcore.

Now, to anyone like myself, this movie is 90% old news. We've been through the phase of calling ourselves feminists, realizing it's a misplaced label, and moving on as egalitarians. Both genders have problems.

Simple facts. Both have perpetrators, both have victims. Both have advantages, both have disadvantages. Are they equal? Ideally. But as the movie says itself, you can't really quantify the wealth of possible gender disparities in America when Women earn some 70% or so of what Men make on the aggregate and Men live 5 or so fewer years than Women do. It's hard to say it balances out, is likely to, or ever really should balance out. You gonna pay Men less than what they earn or kill Women to live similar lifespans to Men? No.

That's equality of outcome ********.

That's Affirmative Action.

That's garbage.

We, over here in the real world, want equality of opportunity, such as equal opportunity for fathers to see their kids, or women to see prison, or, ya know, babies not to have part of their dick lopped off.

Simple things.

Really this movie isn't meant for the Redpilled like me, it's meant for the Bluepilled, those people in first-world countries who are always so ashamed of their "privilege" and, dare I say, anyone who thinks they're standing up to "The Patriarchy" by putting "#Resist" in their Twitter bio.

You people make my spine crawl.

If that's you, then please watch this movie. Unfortunately, if that's you, it seems far more likely you're one of the raging ****waffles standing outside a local movie theater showing this movie and protesting it, fulfilling the very stereotype of the outraged echo chamber this very movie criticizes in the end. **** you, by the way.



The movie spends a lot of time on rehearsing well-known and well-ignored statistics, tackling domestic abuse, child custody, and just unilaterally taking a hacksaw to the most basic and therefor most commonly subscribed to assumptions about the role men play in society, all giving us short emotional stories told by the not-quite-literally-Hitler characters behind the Men's Rights Movement, revealing many of them to be former feminists themselves, not denying the hardships of women, but wanting to bring equal and pressing attention to the hardships of men as well, whether it be as victims of violence, victims of prostate cancer, or simply equal treatment under the law in general.

Really.

It's a big problem.

Why has no one questioned the obsession with breast cancer over other cancers? Why has no one questioned why cancer rates are higher in nations where processed means makes up a larger percent of caloric intake? Why aren't you vegan bro? TAKE THE RED PILL.

No, but seriously, this is newb-level stuff to me. That a documentary like this is at all necessary only goes to show that people unfailingly refuse to heed my advice.

QUESTION EVERYTHING.

That would probably be my biggest criticism of the movie, it's well shot, it's as far as I can tell accurate, it's got a solid biographical angle of discovery to go along with it as our feminist narrator records her increasingly conflicted thoughts and feelings between exchanges with MRAs... but... ya know... it doesn't quite go far enough. I could probably fill in the blank space at the bottom of the paper with 2 or 3 more movies. If you see this movie and you feel your mind opened a bit, go here: LINKAPOCALYPSE

But I suppose for normies this doc gets the job done.

Erin Patria Margaret Pizzey (born 19 February 1939) is an English family care activist and a novelist. She became internationally famous for having started the first domestic violence shelter in the modern world, Chiswick Women's Aid, in 1971, the organisation known today as Refuge.
Pizzey has been the subject of death threats and boycotts because of her research into the claim that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally capable of violence as men.
No chewing. Swallow.


Final Verdict:
[Pretty Good]

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	redpill1.jpg
Views:	220
Size:	39.2 KB
ID:	31866   Click image for larger version

Name:	redpill2.jpg
Views:	235
Size:	82.1 KB
ID:	31867  



Welcome to the human race...
Question everything, huh? Okay, then - why is this documentary necessary? If this documentary is so entry-level, why would you recommend it to the people who would protest it while working off a similarly basic understanding? Why assume that feminism (or "calling ourselves feminists") is just a "phase" that people go through? Does this film actually investigate the reasons for claims such as men generally dying sooner than women or is it just context-free point-scoring? Is the "red pill" community any less of an echo chamber for setting up their opposition as "bluepilled"? Does its questioning of assumptions about men's roles in society reflect back on toxic ideals of masculinity or is it all focused on blaming The Feminists? How does one distance themselves from feminism and also acknowledge women's hardships? Does the film do anything to acknowledge the Red Pill's toxic public reputation or the negative connotations it creates for legitimate men's-rights concerns? What exactly makes Sargon worth listening to? If questioning everything is so important, then how much did you question what this film was doing? I don't think I've questioned everything, but it's a start.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.



I will read your review after I watch it. Never heard of it, sounds both frustrating and interesting.
__________________
Letterboxd