Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs

The Antichrist (1974) - Directed by Alberto De Martino
Genres: Supernatural Horror, Psychological Horror



About to tackle the MST3K episode, Operation 007 which parodies James Bond, I dived into other Alberto De Martino movies first, starting with Shadows in an Empty Room and moving onto The Antichrist. I admit, I nearly got this rare cult classic mixed with the 2009 film, but I was able to find the one I wanted on Tubi. Apparently it gets pretty mixed reception for being an Exorcist knock-off.

The Antichrist tells the story of a woman who cannot walk due to an accident. After visiting churches doesn't work for her, she goes to see a psychiatrist who believes the paralysis to be psychological as opposed to physical. On her first visit, he tells her to try to access a past life, only to find out that she used to be a witch. But this kickstarts a series of strange satanic dreams and visions, as well as other things which may only mean one thing: she's possessed.

OK, saying that this is capitalizing on The Exorcist is completely fair. That movie popularized a scene. But to say it's a "knock-off" seems a little unfair, since the two movies are very different. The Exorcist is a slow-burner in pure terror. The Antichrist is more frantic and surrealist, relying on constant activity and storytelling. In fact, the movie feels closer to Juliet of the Spirits, concerning that it deals with a woman having experiences with the spirit world.
In fact, the past lives subplot rings similarities to Dream Theater's album Metropolis Pt. 2: Scenes from a Memory. This is not to say the movie relied to much on imagery, as much of it was quite disturbing and artistically directed. Martino's direction and Joe D'Amato's cinematography merge beautifully with the Italian designs and sets.

Right from the get-go this movie is weird and disturbing, thanks to many minor characters in a church acting psychotic in desperate desires to be healed. The clunky direction gives it a kinetic energy that brings out the disturbing prowess to its fullest extent, giving us an accurate view into the mindset of the extremist. The weird-ass score does this as well. But the effect of this dated 70's movie would not be so strong had the cheese been properly utilized as a way to bring out the best of the actors. Carla Gravina's performance not only nails the character, but gives into the cheesiness necessary for the movie to work. When paired with the dated but advanced special effects, her acting is just so perfect that it makes the movie both funny and engrossing simultaneously.

Now it's pretty obvious from the beginning that it has a bit of a "science fails" mentality, as it is a atheistic hypnotist who unwittingly kickstarts the demonic possession via taking her to a past life. But still, the movie never falls any further into religious debates than the average supernatural horror movie. And even though the third act's basic storyline plays out how one would expect it, it's still a very wild ride.

OK, this is an understated cult classic with various levels of appeal whether it be cheese or true horror. But obviously, it's purely understated for horror fans. There are currently 15,000 reviews on Movieforums, and this is the first one for this film? That's kinda sad. Gideon, you watch this right now and review it ASAP. The Antichrist finds ways to entertain that other Exorcist knock-offs don't achieve. It's not for kids at all, but the adult that can handle a weird-ass movie like this might get a real kick out of it.

= 83/100

Holocaust 2000 (1977) - Directed by Alberto De Martino
Genres: Psychological Horror



Alberto De Martino created a cult classic with his disturbing Italian horror, The Antichrist. Soon afterwards came one of his first English movies, Holocaust 2000, also known as Rain of Fire and The Chosen. Old A; seems to really like apocalypse stories, as this one also centers around an antichrist, but with a very different approach, one that takes the symbolism of The Omen and applies it to the scientific world. In fact, I watched this immediately after finishing the aforementioned film.

The incredible Kirk Douglas plays Robert Caine, a hotshot CEO in the world of industrialism who decided to build a giant nuclear power plant in the Middle East. But in the dig, he uncovers pictures of the great apocalyptic beast, and since then he;s been seeing sign after sign that the beast with seven heads and ten crowns is in fact his machine. He tries to ignore the signs at first, but eventually there are some signs that are too real to ignore.

The movie has a bad habit of switching tones, going from some cute sentiment to straight up horror to intrigue in a few confusing ways. But the bright side is that it picks itself up with a lot of really good plot twists in the second half, capitalizing on the symbolism that was loose in the first half. In fact, it gets to the point where a religious fanatic would have a field day with a movie like this. Despite that, the movie combines plausible doomsday theories with inventive religious symbolism without ever straying into environmental or religious propaganda.

But the plot moves with predictability until the last act, meaning that for more than an hour the movie is slow, at least until the brilliantly directed dream sequence that brings out the absolute best of Martino's direction. That was really an incredible artistic achievement. And when the movie gets boring and there's nothing that great going on, we still have Kirk Douglas bringing out some of that incredible restricted dramatic acting that you can clearly see was passed onto his son Michael.

But the biggest criticism is something that must be addressed for any horror movie: this movie isn't that scary. It tries to spend time being an intriguing story, but it'at at the expense of any fear factor, so we got a double-edged sword here. Still, the Lionsgate DVD edition that retains the original ending delivered it well.

I'd say Martino's second crack at the apocalyptic genre did it's job fairly well, even though it's a bit slow and not very scary. It needed some polishing, but there were some obvious strong points. I recommend this to anyone who wants a kind of twist on the apocalypse genre, even if it's clearly capitalizing off of The Omen.

= 68/100

Let me tell you about a weird Thanksgiving tradition my family had for years. Every year we would watch all three extended editions of Lord of the Rings, one every Thursday. When the Hobbit trilogy came out, my sister purchased those and we upgraded to six weeks. And every year we had a different name. There was "Shirefest," "Hobbit Fest, "Thanksgimli" and a couple others. Now some of the family has moved out, and it's been a while since we did it. Now my family has decided to bring it back this year (although the Hobbit movies were owned by my sister who's moved to another state), so we're only doing the original LOTR trilogy. I admit, the original theatrical edition felt rushed, so I wasn't in love with it the first time I saw it. My step-grandmother got us into the movies, and it wasn't long until my mother bought me the trilogy of books, even though I only finished the first because I wasn't fond of Tolkien's rambling. But the movies still remain dear to me heart for the sheer cinematic power and effort that Jackson put into the trilogy.

Pretty much everyone knows the story of Frodo and the Ring. About fifty years after Bilbo Baggins' adventure with a baker's dozen of dwarves and the world's favorite wizard (excluding the damn mouse), the old hobbit is planning to leave his hobbit home of The Shire when his wizard friend Gandalf notices him acting strangely, and attributes it to Bilbo's magic ring that he found in a grisly little monster's cave. Heeding Gandalf's warning, he leaves the ring and his home with his nephew, Frodo. But Gandalf leaves to research the ring, and finds that the ring is in fact the cursed One Ring, an artifact created by the late warlord Sauron, which he used to control the minds of kings and queens that he gave other magic rings to before his defeat. Frodo realizes that Sauron's forces are after him, and with the help of three of his friends he leaves home in search of the Elvin city of Rivendell. When it's heard that the One Ring is constantly being sought after by Sauron's forces, Frodo decided to take the ring to the only place it can be destroyed, the lava of Mt. Doom where Sauron made it. But even though he has Gandalf, his friends and warriors from the three sentient species of Middle-Earth to help him, can Frodo resist the magical temptation of the Ring which drives people to madness? Especially now that Sauron has a new lackey, the one wizard more powerful than Gandalf?

OK, this is gonna be a long-ass review.

Does the movie remain faithful to the book? 80% I'd say. They cut out the whole Tom Bombadil subplot which I found pointless back then and I find pointless now. They made the movie largely about the battles, but still managed to let a lot of the story's emotional background focus on Frodo being at the center of all of this turmoil, and this doesn't just bounce off of his friends, but they bounce off of him perfectly. Sam, Merry and Pippin (the other three Hobbits) are not only acting as proper comedic relief, but they act as real friends who stand with Frodo no matter what, even to the bitter end of the movie which includes the first part of the second novel where the three warriors battle a bunch of the evil wizard Saruman's forces.

Does it really need to be said at this point that the Special Effects are revolutionary? Even eleven years after the release of this film, the first Hobbit film has difficulty topping these effects. Even the Balrog itself (with its seriously badass design) has special effects that the MCU has difficulty topping. And even outside the CGI, wait til you hear about the constant types of special effects that make characters seem shorter than others for the purposes of being dwarves and Hobbits. In the scene at the beginning where Frodo was sitting next to Gandalf, he wasn't. The actor Elijah Wood was sitting right behind Ian McKellen, and the cart was made to look like it was the same seat. All these effects for a four-hour movie were done on a budget of 93 million.

As for the casting, this was absolutely perfect. We've got two experienced child actors Elijah Wood and Sean Astin taking the lad as Frodo and Sam, and who would've thought that these two would make such perfect hobbits? Then we have Dominic Monaghan in his big screen debut and the young unknown Billy Boyd taking the helms of Merry and Pippin, and the two are just incredible, bringing these characters to life effortlessly. And these four already have a lot on their plate, what with Elijah Wood having to butt heads with Ian Holm of Alien as Bilbo and Ian McKellen from X-Men as Gandalf on several occasions, and McKellen already has to deal with Christopher Lee himself as Gandalf. Hell, this movie does Lee's acting abilities perfect justice, unlike a Dracula movie I can think of that didn't give him any lines as Dracula after the first act.

And then we have the young unknown Orlando Bloom completing a the Aragorn, Legalos and Gimli threesome as the elf himself, butting heads with the legendary John Rhys-Davis as the dwarf, and Viggo Mortensen who already made his bones in quite a few movies with some big name actors, suich as when he played the devil in the Christopher Walken film The Prophecy or when he starred with a few big names in the remake of Psycho. And strangely enough, all three of these characters fit their bills perfectly. This justifies the fact that Aragorn doesn't have a British accent in the film. Hell, there were a few people auditioned for the part of Aragorn, and Russell Crowe couldn't make it, so Viggo was the back-up. His audition started immediately after a bunch of actors in costume rushed him to fight, and he sword-fought them off. That was his audition, as detailed by the sword documentary Reclaiming the Blade. And then we have the man who is considered the undisputed king of modern death scenes, Sean Bean, taking the role of Borimir to its fullest extent, all the way through the Gondorian strength and the existential emotion.

Other big name actors make their way into this iconic film. Would Galadriel be Galadriel without Cate Blanchett? Maybe if you got Tilda Swinton, but she was already busy with a few films. I mean, Cate Blanchett is like the freakiest woman to appear on screen, freakier than Christina Ricci. And our beautiful little lady Liv Tyler (daughter of Steven Tyler of Aerosmith), plays Aragorn's elvish love interest Arwen with lots of passion (and whispering) while the iconic Hugo Weaving of the Matrix takes the role of her father Elrond, and pulls off the wise old elf role as easily as he pulled off a Smith agent. Easier even.

But the real question here is: does the extended version beat the original?

Honestly, it's been so long since I've seen the theatrical edition that I can't even remember most of which scenes were omitted from the original. Many of the scenes in the theatrical edition were extended on their own, but the second intro sequence in which Bilbo details the lives of Hobbits gives us incredible insight on the mentality of the species, something the original struggled with because of the rushed time. The Shire is absolutely gorgeous, and the fake hair and feet given to the Hobbit actors are as real and lively as the sets. Of course, all of the sets are realistic and gorgeous, and the cinematography is out of this world.

Let me also say that, while Tolkien himself composed much of the music, it was Trevor Jones who not only brought these compositions and themes to incredible life, but with his own compositions he made something iconic. I don't know about you, but I occasionally get the sudden urge to play or hum these tunes in my head, something most fantasy adventures are sorely missing. And I'm not talking about remixes.



Well, I'd say that thanks to the better pacing, LOTR 1 is a four-hour movie you can watch in one day and never feel guilty about wasting time, not like other four-hour flicks like the Dinotopia film. Everything about this movie is pretty much flawless. The mystique, the adventure, the horror and the world-building is only half of it, but the cast is what really does it. This is a fantasy movie the world will be struggling to beat for years, even for people making movies of other genres. The only reason this is not my number one is because it's only part one of something originally meant to be a third, unlike my number one which was meant to stand on its own despite the fact that it got two sequels: The Godfather.

= 100/100

By the way, for future reference, the genre tagging is color-coded. I'll be tagging each movie review with some pretty obscure tags whenever necessary, this is just a reference point. Also, I don't want to forget these or store this on my computer when I could just post it here.

Action - Red
Adventure - Orange
Comedy - Yellow
Crime - Dark Blue
Documentary - Green
Drama - Teal
Experimental - Olive
Family - Lavender
Fantasy - Magenta
Horror - Purple
Musical - White
Mystery - Brown
Noir - Black
Romance - Pink
Sci-Fi - Blue
Sports - Cyan
Thriller - Gray
War - Dark Green
Western - Tan
Other - Dark Red
Movement - Slate Gray

This is probably one of the most controversial movies in the critic vs. common man debate: a two-hundred minute movie about an average woman doing average household chores over the course of three days. There are defenders of the faith of Jeanne Dielman, and there are deniers of the false goddess that is Jeanne Dielman. If there ever was a movie that needed an acquired taste or a specific audience, it's Jeanne Dielman. And what with its newfound place as the crowning artistic piece of BFI's new Sight and Sound top 100 of 2022, the discussions will be more ferocious than ever. Some attribute this newfound glory to the movie's recent accessibility to streaming, while others associate the choice to a feminist message. But we are not here now to debate the cause of the position. We're here to see whether or not it really does deserve to be there.

Jeanne Dielman is considered the crowning achievement of female directors worldwide for its accurate portrayal of the housewife and her daily chores, but the movie also gives us little hints detailing her eventual breakdown and drastic actions in the third act, as the monotony of life has finally cracked our leading lady. We see three days of her daily routine as she waits for a present from her sister, starting with an evening with a random man, and this routine continues until the big twist at the end.

By the way, I am happy to claim ownership of the first review of this film on Movieforums. So without further ado, KeyserCorleone's Review of Jeanne Dielman, also titled I Am Woman, Don't Hear Me Roar for 3 Hours.

Because this is an artistic attempt at capturing the full "women" of the time, our director Akerman has no problem with drawing out full scenes of dishwashing, shoe-scrubbing, dinner eating and non-erotic bathing followed by cleaning the damn tub. This is all in an effort to capture the full essence of "boredom," which is a seriously risky move. On the one hand, the fact that the audience is desperate for something to actually happen obviously mirrors Jeanne's desperation. On the other hand, the haters are in part justified because this is a risk so great that it's bound to draw even some experienced critics away. The most exciting thing to happen for the first hour-and-a-half is a conversation with an offscreen woman concerning what meat to buy.

However, it can also attract the critics with the fact that, technically speaking, there seems to be nothing wrong with the technique itself. That's where I think they may be wrong. This is slow cinema. I cannot help but compare this to my two top picks for slow cinema moviemaking, my singular SC five-star, Satantango, which clocks in at 7 freakin' hours, and the Tarkovsky runner-up Stalker. Both movies have the cameras move in specific ways that capture entire landscapes and scenarios which go hand-in-hand with the storytelling and theme. Here we just a house, and it goes hand in hand not by creative choice but by the obviousness of the setting. And honestly, I was no more amazed by this house than I was by a friend's house when I was a kid. And I can't remember one moment where the camera was doing nothing but staring with an angle good enough to work. It's not BAD cinematography, since it gets the job done, but it's not AMAZING. It's only bold in the same way that a hidden camera is. If we're looking into her life, then I'd like to look around the house the way I typically would, and I know I wouldn't stare at a woman cooking. I'm sorry, but 90 degree angles can pretty much always make everything that needs to be seen be seen in the long run. At least Wes Anderson was able to tweak things around by applying these strict angular rules and captured The Grand Budapest Hotel in a unique fashion.

I suppose you could try and guess what Jeanne is thinking whenever she finds a moment to be alone, or read or eat or do something else. But I didn't feel like any emotion was captured in those kinds of scenes, or at least not in the same way that the scenes lacking dialogue in Once Upon a Time in the West did by centering on the characters' faces. In fact, the acting talent required for this movie didn't seem high. It seems par. I mean, for a movie about slowly going insane, I have a plethora of movies to compare theme delivery with, and they usually pertain to the acting quality of the person going insane or eventually breaking down. We don't really get scenes of "acting" often in this movie, rather than just going about everyday life with little dialogue necessary. In fact, I believe that the best example of the test of patience and the attempt at reading poor Jeanne's mind is during the third act when she's sitting on an armchair for a couple of minutes, leaving us to wait for an answer. But we get none. We get the uncomfortable awkwardness of silence. That makes it either really boring or really intriguing.

But this doesn't mean there aren't a few strong points. On the second day, we see Jeanne forgetting little things and walking around the house with a slight sense of confusion, and thus the second day becomes a little more interesting than the first, meaning the entire middle act now has a stronger storytelling basis. But you might miss this kind of thing if you're not seriously devoting attention to it. Even earlier on, Jeanne's actions can give us little hints toward the final breakdown in the end, such as the aggressive method of cleaning a pair of shoes. This means we're getting close to the breakdown, giving us a message that we shouldn't force anyone into monotony. In fact, once we have a serious heart-to-heart about a great secret that her son has, we realize something about Jeanne's adultery, and wonder exactly how it plays into day three? As she's going about her chores in day three, we can only wait and see what's going to happen. In fact, the third act is easily the slowest and the most testing of the whole movie, especially after that short, short free time she gets.
You'll know that scene when you see it.

Now I may not be a woman or a housewife, but don't ever let it be said that I don't understand the grueling effects of monotony. I quite my first job at a plastic food company after two months because it was more monotonous than monotony allowed. Not only did I have to just pour wet plastic into molds and wait for them to cook all the time in a lonely corner full of constantly turned-on ovens, but if the painters messed it up, which happened often, then I had to do it all over again. It was pretty horrible for me, and I almost considered killing myself because that was the best damn job I could get at the time. Believe it or not, I am much happier as a cashier at Dunkin' Donuts where I can chat with customers, offer recommendations and communicate with my co-workers. And because we get a bunch of new people every week and new stock every couple months, it never gets too monotonous. Jeanne Dielman is very relatable to me. But nowadays I still have variations on my daily routine, and so I can safely say that Jeanne is somebody I can grant honest sympathy towards, even as a fictional character because she is an accurate caricature of someone who, while I've never been this person, can grasp the pain of for having lived variations of it. And I also know what it's like to be criticized for something superficial like gender or race or age. Put the two together, I could NEVER live as a 70's housewife. If I were a woman, I'd Catherine Called Birdy the hell outta Dodge.

You could potentially call this a "minimalist" movie. However, that feels kinda off since this "minimalist" movie has a maximalist runtime of 200 minutes. Now that may not seem maximalist, but the slow cinema artstyle makes it feel the same, and the very idea is to test the patience like playing the album Panopticon by Isis three times. There is one thing I can say about Jeanne that is a valid criticism concerning the slow cinema genre in general: compared to Satantango and Stalker, Jeanne Dielman isn't doing much to capture the visual artistry which often goes hand in hand with the themes. Literally everything about Jeanne Dielman has to be purely average, as the theme is average living, and thus the statement is nothing more than a visual recreation of something that technically anybody can think of.

In other words, it usually feels like a movie anyone can make at home. Maybe they need the right film equipment first, but everything else is purely average. But if this constitutes as fine filmmaking, then ANYBODY could write this. They could just jot down three days of their life and end it with a "shocking twist" and play it up a little throughout the movie.

Well, it's time for my final consensus. After one of the longest reviews I've ever written for anything, I can safely speak my true feelings about this, and pick my stance on who I view is right about Jeanne Dielman. Drum roll, please, Nyangostar?



YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT!

The movie is technically good, but it's also overrated. Every aspect of the movie works well together, but as they stand alone, they're only either on par or decent. So, no. I don't think this movie holds a candle to the two Agnes Varda movies I've seen so far, Cleo from 5 to 7 and Vagabond, which capture womanhood well enough but still balance out social themes with experimental technique. However, the movie does have its standout features which are all built for the purpose of creating hatred for monotony, and as a result this sympathetic movie ends with a bang and a cliffhanger. There is a lot to take from this movie, as well as a lot to discuss and theorize (this is the benchmark for the grand reception of various artistic films, notably 2001: A Space Odyssey as the very first movie that comes to mind). I admit that I was getting more excited for the infamous twist at the end as the movie progressed, so there's a definite positive.

BUT, and this is a big but... while I'm aware that most people want to cut to the action, since this is slow cinema I want it to cut to the philosophy. Philosophical discussion is the benchmark of movies like Stalker and Werckmeister Harmonies, and while there was philosophy in this, I don't really feel like the hyper-slow scenes on monotonous daily life captured the whole of what it means to be stuck. I think things would have been more interesting if Jeanne had some girl friends come over more and the discussions took some interesting turns. that could provide a lot of insight into the mind of a woman, while Jeanne gets bored with the same old discussions being talked about, like the behavior of their husbands or politics or anything else that can help an aspiring filmmaker to fully capture the essence of humanity, even if Jeanne was to maintain her typical robotic resting face through the conversations. I'm certain Chantal Akerman could have done it, and I would have loved to see that. In fact, that could've made Jeanne Dielman one of my favorite movies. But, we got what we got, and it isn't a terrible thing. But this flower didn't fully bloom to me, despite the fact that I'm very happy to have crossed this movie off of my to-do list due to the reputation it received on the new BFI Sight and Sound Poll.

Well, as the movie was a very long passion project by Chantal Akerman, this is my longest review and I deem it a passion project just for the sake of thoroughly examining one of the most talked about experimental movies on filmbuff forums worldwide. I am confident in this review, am very proud of what I wrote...

And I hope I didn't bore anyone.

= 68/100

I'll read your review tomorrow. Curious what your thoughts on the film are.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Here it is, the second chapter of the Extended Lord of the Rings trilogy. As I said in my review for the first, I haven't seen the original in years, and so have seen the extended editions so many times that I can't remember all of the scenes that were absent in the original version. But I do know that this was my favorite of the original versions because he rushed time was less apparent. Now does that hold up in the extended edition?

Continuing from the battle at the end of the first movie, Frodo has left the fellowship to journey to Mordor alone to destroy the One RIng, but Sam follows him. Along the way, they meet Gollum, a creature who was mutated by the One Ring for five-hundred years, and has been made a servant of Frodo by the force of an oath. While Sam doesn't trust Gollum, Frodo warms up to him as he slowly begins to succumb to the ring's powers of temptation are tire. Meanwhile, our trio of Aragorn of Gondor, Legolas the Elf and Gimli the Dwarf travel to the kingdom of Rohan to find Frodo's ho9bbit friends Merry and Pippin, who have been kidnapped by orcs to be questioned by Saruman. But they escape in the dreaded Fangorn Forest where the trees come to life and hate orcs. With Merry and Pippin safe, the three discover that Gandalf is alive again and more powerful. With his powers, he lifts Gandalf's evil spell from the king of Rohan, Theodin, who plans to protect his people from the forces of both Sauron and Saruman by travelling to Helm's Deep. But Saruman's army is massive, and they may not survive the night. And as Frodo is interrogated by the late Boromir's brother, it's looking like the Ring may find its way back to Sauron.

The epic adventure vibes are just as strong as in the first film, if not more so. And it's not just through a bunch of sword violence. Even our comedic relief pair have adventures of their own with the trees, and their experiences with the Ent leader Treebeard are charming, humorous and welcomed in this epic four-hour film. Speaking of characters bouncing off of each other, Gollum's dual personality as a result from the ring, mirroring the temptation of a man by a demon in religious context, adds a grotesque mystique to a film about the friendship between Frodo and Sam, and upgrades the pain and suffering that Frodo is going through. Elijah Wood must've been training for a year to nail the weakness and slow-growing insanity that brought him to this role. But Sean Astin's Samwise is at peak relevance, as he's able to match Wood and Serkis' acting with that good ol' Sam wisdom, charisma and independence, as well as his friendly behavior.

Even the minor characters bring an incredible presence to the screen. Miranda Otto's Eowyn is just as good as Liv Tyler's Arwen, but her presence as an independent woman gives her more character than Little Lady Whisperpants, whose character arc remains minimal despite being so important to Aragorn's character. And the character of Faramir is played perfectly by David Wenham, who brings out the struggles in Faramir without even trying. Changing his character arc a little more to mirror Boromir's struggles, as opposed to the man who already decided he never wanted a ring, this allows multiple layers of the character and the actor to be brought out. And don't even get me started on Brad Dourif (Chucky) playing Grima Wormtongue. He's good enough as the original Chucky, and his appearance on X-Files was phenomenal. But this was flawless. People really underappreciate Dourif's ability to mimic strong accents, and he always has the right face on.

Aside from the usual compliments of score, direction and cinematography, there is a pretty big criticism I have: there are a few continuity errors. For example, as Gandalf is walking through Theodin's hall, you see the way Gandalf holds his staff alternating between shots. And then there's where Pippin's hands are tied in one shot, but they're untied when he's almost stepped on by a horse, and he rolls out of the way and his hands are tied again.

And this is my review for the extended LOTR 2. It's still an incredible experience that shows Peter Jackson at some of his most creative, but there are revealing mistakes. Nevertheless, despite being the worst of the trilogy, this is still a wild ride that is perfect and more in all other ways.

= 96/100.

Like the opening number to Blue Velvet, Le Bonheur starts with such a perfect caricature of absolutely perfect household living, so perfect that it's obviously fake to the point of artistic notability. But instead of just an opening sequence, it's almost a full act. Already I dread where the plot will go for the sake of the characters. In fact, the three-year-old mentality that powers the dialogue of the child is plain adorable. And for the most part it pretty much stays adorable. Through the plethora of exaggerated colors, we're basically seeing a metaphor for happiness as opposed to the real deal. The exaggeration creates a charm that makes the darkness of the actual plot not only watchable but all the more concerning and thoughtful. It;s basically saying that the happiness we strive for for the sake of normality is built on sacrificing a big chunk of real happiness, and that that is oftentimes made up for by sin and breaking moral conventions.

However, its titular vibe can also be its biggest flaw. See, the cheerful 60's Pleasantville vibes get in the way of any sense of dread or concern regarding its main plot. So, it's a little too sweet and sugary when its subject matter is a little bitter. Having said that, there really isn't much of a plot when I consider that thing kind of thing is so normal now to the point that a movie like Fatal Attraction only makes for a good movie because the one person Michael Douglas had to cheat with just turned out to be a psycho.

I feel like this is one of those movies that's more well-shot than engaging, and in the end it relies on the occasional extra boost of charm to keep the movie drawing for enough breathe to remain the bare minimum of classic cinema that Varda was obviously hoping to achieve. She obviously had some skills to hone, but cinematographically speaking (if that isn't a real word, I don;t give a damn), she did a fantastic job. Because of its lacking plot, the 80 minutes is only slightly overlong. This plotless and visual look on simple life is comparable to the last movie I reviewed, Akerman's Hotel Monterey, in this sense. But because it's not testing patience and it has a clearer message, the movie is much better, even better than Jeanne Dielman, including its shocking (and morally conflicted) twist at the end.

However, this is far from perfect. It deserves to be a classic for its cinematography and bold message, as well as the unique way this message is told. However, Varda has done a perfect movie before with Cleo from 5 to 7, a truly visionary experiment, and came damn close again with Vagabond. I just can't compare this movie to those two. Varda's outlook on life is stronger than any "realist" director I can think of, and this early piece reflects that despite the simplicity.

= 72/100

I approve of all the Akerman watching.


One of these days I need to watch Le Bonheur. I'm sure I've got it somewhere around here somewhere in pieces on the floor.

Joe D'Amato, essentially Italy's Jesus Franco. He;s directed countless movies, and yet the general consensus is that very few of them are any good. He's done every genre in the book, including straight-up porn. But he's probably most famous for one reason: Ator the Flying Eagle. It wouldn't be long before he'd take his B-movie evil to America where he would capitalize on the cyberpunk buzz with cheesefests like Endgame.

In this dystopian thriller, Ron Shannon, a hotshot player in a kill-or-be-killed game show is called upon by a mutant to escort her mutant community out of the city, because the government is hiding the fact that they're killing off these mind-readers. Reluctant at first, our Chuck Norris knockoff with shitty moves when he hears about the paycheck. But he's being hunted by the same government agents who are killing off the mutants, and so Shannon even needs to hire his comrade who fought against him in the so-called friendly sport and was spared of death.

First, let me say this about the production values: in terms of quality, everything is the bare minimum of acceptable quality, save the incredibly fake-looking cars. The sets and the effects are all fine for the movie, but there is absolutely nothing that stands out. This is apparent from the opening night sequence with the average moonlight and dust surrounding a broken down dystopian city. And the action sequences aren't usually very good. The movie makes too strong of a point of our man being a superhuman killer, even though his moves really suck.

The costumes aren't entirely convincing, especially for some of the more grotesque mutants. And the make up for the "futuristic-looking" people is mostly just triangular-patterned metallic face paint. In fact, the community of blind people are just wearing the same black robes. As he was walking towards the heroes through the desert sands, immediately ringing in my mind was: "Lord Malek was most displeased."

However, the subplots they invent concerning psychic powers can occasionally be interesting, such as the one concerning the prisoner kept by the community of blind mutants, all the way to the end of that. Otherwise, the movie's simple and derivative. It takes the simplest plotlines for these kinds of movies and runs on them with no sense of character development.

I had a little difficulty deciding if this was better or worse than Ator the Fighting Eagle, but as the movie got more and more typical, I decided that it was slightly worse. They're very close in quality, so if I was to recommend one for anyone here, I think I'd recommend the more serious sci-fi movie despite being slightly worse in quality.

= 29 / 100

Need a link?

Btw, I may end up watching more Varda than Akerman in the weeks to come, since I'm way more in tune with Varda than Akelman for the moment.

Also, for y'all major BFI fanboys, 2001 is on Tubi. Gonna watch it and maybe review it tomorrow. I'm done reviewing for the day. Got a lot of work in that regard done for Saturday.

Albert Pyun may not be the greatest moviemaker ever, but you gotta admit he knows how to make a movie built for sequels. He's one of the best names for cheesy action movies, specifically sci-fi ones, and he's pretty much established himself as a cult name, especially with his cyberpunk classic Cyborg, which a lot of fans of Jean-Claude Van Damme say is one of his better ones, a statement I feel obligated to challenge.

Van Damme plays a man hunting down the one who killed the family he protected and decided to stay with. Several years after the tragedy, he comes across a cyborg who's carrying information to a great city where scientists are working on a cure to a deadly plague: Atlanta. But she ends up kidnapped by Fender, the man that our JCVD is hunting. Followed by a woman who believes in the cyborg's cause, they both make their way to Fender for their own goals.

I knew right from the start that this wasn't gonna be fine filmmaking, but wow, even for a cheesefest this movie's overrated. I mean, whoa. The worst thing about this movie, despite the fact that the movie's still better than my most recent and similar sci-fi venture, Endgame (1983), is the villain. He has absolutely no originality, and he and his annoying band of pirates have no development. Yes, he has a band of screaming future pirates wearing fake-looking punk/animal clothing. And lo and behold, this includes a girl he used to live with in the flashbacks! And the best part is that she gets no dialogue until the climax where her emotions are conflicted!

As for Van Damme's character, his backstory is essentially ripping off the nameless man from Once Upon a Time in the West, and there's nothing outside of that except for another travelling killer who "just doesn't care." All that's left are action sequences that very in quality, from being decently choreographed to being just plain lame. And lemme tell you, I am sick of hearing these people make fake screams throughout the whole thing. It's practically a third of the dialogue! Seriously, I was at the point to where I told myself after the climax, "If I hear one more damn scream, I'm gonna-"

"AAAAAAH!"

The body's still in my room. Not hiding it. And one more thing, the movie barely had anything to do with cyborgs except for rescuing one.

This generic sci-fi work didn't deserve the three sequels it got, but it got them. Cyborg doesn't do anything for the sci-fi genre and is nothing more than Van Damme fodder with basic moviemaking quality and fairly good cinematography from Albert Pyun, who knows how to use a camera more well than do anything else related to moviemaking.

Nah, I'm good. I own a copy, but thanks for the offer.



I just need to get around to it. Like a hundred thousand other movies.

OK. I'm interested in this. Clearly, the greatest Exorcist knockoff is Beyond the Door, but...I'm open to more knock offs.

If Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men proved anything, it's that you only need a room, a camera and a few people to make a great movie. You just need to know how to do it right. In fact, it takes a genius to do it right. And even though I still prefer the much more technical and unique Network by Lumet for its sheer outlandishness and proper exaggeration of reality, I think I found the ultimate less-is-more movie, one that keeps shooting you with twist after twist, and each one hurts like shit.

This is a Danish film called The Guilty, a directorial debut by Gustav Möller about a cop demoted to chair duty after a criminal charge. With his court trial coming up the next day, he ends up getting a call from a woman and deduces that the woman had been kidnapped. He has difficulty getting proper help from any other departments of the police, and has to do most of the work himself. However, as he directs the people involved in the situation, he uncovers darker truths which redirect the entire case from scratch, until he finally pours his heart out and the case takes a serious turn which may end the cop's career.

Our hero, Asger, is essentially a spin on the dirty cop. He's calmer and collective, but he doesn't entirely respect the rules. Constantly he directs people over the phone through his own methods rather that the norm, and occasionally breaks procedure. And each time there's a new layer to the truth pertaining to the events dictated by our "hero," the hero realizes that some tragedies pertaining to the investigation are his fault, which means this dirty cop is biting himself in the ass. Every time he gets closer to the truth, he's also making things worse.

The cinematography is unremarkable, which is the only flaw of the film. But the two rooms that the entire film takes place in create the famous claustrophobic effect. This man needs solitude in order to do what he needs, because everyone else is nothing but a distraction to him, considering they aren't that willing to help because they're already busy or do things by procedure. But in those small rooms a cop can feel so powerless. The simplicity of the film creates this desperation and pain, especially when the dialogue and the script are so damn brilliant. In fact, most of the characters don't even appear onscreen. They're voice characters for pure necessity. You may as well have gotten Rob Paulsen. And there's almost no music in the film, not until the case is over and the credits are about to roll. The awkward silences after each twist are just grueling, because you desperately want to get back on that phone and DO SOMETHING TO HELP!

I was gonna watch the Antoine Fuqua version on Netflix first, but since I needed to watch more 2010's movies for a recent game, I decided to get this out of the way first. And hell yes, am I satisfied. Once again, the cinematography needs a little work, but this is one of the most thrilling, painful and tense movies I've ever seen. And it's all done at a desk job. Incredible. I gotta shake Möller's hand right now. I just gotta.

= 95/100

Btw, change of plans, I'll post my 2001 review tomorrow or the day after.

Apparently, Albert Pyun, director of the Van Damme film Cyborg, had a thematic "Cyborg Trilogy?" And this trilogy was made up of two other unrelated sci-fi tales? One was a 1993 movie called Knights, but I had very little awareness of it before I decided to check out the horribly named Omega Doom because it sounded cheesier. Plus, Rutger Hauer cheese is usually a good way to pass the time. Usually.

So, the plot: Long after a war between man and machine wipes out most of humanity, one soldier played by Rutger Hauer, our titular character...



Our titular character and machine is injured in the war, with his memory and purpose in life wiped from him. Now a drifter, he stumbles upon a ghost town where two different android gangs are on the hunt for a large stockpile of guns which is rumored to be hidden there, and he decides to play both sides so he can get some of the weapons himself. But no one there are his friends, and they don't trust him.

Yep. It's Yojimbo.

So, how this THIS Yojimbo hold up to the other Yojimbos? Shitty. Asbolutely. Impossibly. Once again, the only strength of this Albert Pyun movie is the cinematography. Otherwise, the first and foremost criticism is the crappy special effects. I think the Animorphs TV show was doing better than most of these effects. The headless android's body is FADED OUT at the end. You can see the fade not adjusting as this head turns himself. I mean, headless effects like this already beat this movie 18 years before its release with Alien.

As for the plot, the idea of turning the shipment of guns from A Fistful of Dollars into a secret treasure horde from after a world war didn't really have a lot of merit. It was basically just rearranging plot elements from A Fistful of Dollars and Yojimbo, compensating the shootout vibes Pyun couldn't possibly recreate with Power Rangers action direction and flashy (and bad) SFX.

The characters are paper-cutouts of previous characters with even less development, unless they're either trying to be Mad Max knockoffs or proto-Neos. They hardly even feel like robots most of the time as their programming is too human and not psychological enough to get into the mind of a robot to any great extent, and any development they could possibly get is resolved in the climax two seconds after it starts.

The direction and serious tone are the only things that make this poorly conceived movie watchable. But this "thematic followup" is nothing more than a failed cash-grab for an indie director trying harder than Jesus Franco typically did, and without the comedic undertones of Fred Olen Ray. Don't bother with Omega Doom unless you wanna make a list of all the Yojimbo adaptations and rank them.

= 23