Saturday, August 30, 2008
Christophe Gans is a man I feel people should watch out for. While he only has one well known film in the US (Silent Hill) and one that has been gaining more recognition with it's new release on Blu-Ray (Brotherhood of the Wolf) his talent has managed to poke it's head out on occasion, and while I disagree with his choice to go into video game movies (Silent Hill and his upcoming Onimusha) I will not give up hope that he will bring out some original works to keep us amazed.
Born in France in 1960, Christophe Gans apparently took up cinema at a young age and went on to develop his skills throughout the rest of his life. That is about all the biography you are going to get from me.
As I see him, the man has a very good eye for cinematography. His camera work can sometimes astound me with it's beauty. On the same note, he also knows how to cool it down to the basics, as to not distract the viewer during important dialogue scenes or that ilk. Another trait of his deals with an apparent hatred for religious extremists. His hatred almost seems too strong, as it can lead to some very out-of-place visuals, and, if continued, will give away the bulk of the rest of his films (meaning the bad guys will most likely be part of a cult/sect/etc...). While I personally understand his distaste, I feel toning it down would do his works a lot of good.
Some other notes:
Created the cinema magazine "Starfix". I have never heard of it, but maybe that is because I don't follow magazines.
While starting in his native French language, it appears the rest of his films will be purely English (which I find to be a shame). Most likely reason is for the longing of even larger audiences.
Most Well Known Films Include: Silent Hill, Brotherhood of the Wolf
This review, I feel, was the first that was needed for two reasons. Number one, I am continually astounded by the amount of people who still haven't seen this movie. If any of you are reading this, go out and buy two copies. One copy to watch, and the second copy to replace the one you should have had years ago. Number two, I just watched it again.
Three film makers go into the woods to make a documentary about a local legend, "The Blair Witch". Basically a spirit that haunts the local forest near Burkittsville. As time passes in the woods, the unease of the three amateurs starts to become obvious, tension builds between the group itself, and the once comfortable forest seems to grow a whole lot larger.
As people should know, this film is shot from the perspective of our three friends, as we are watching the footage found in their cameras. This leads to endless possibilities in the horror genre (a lot of which are still being explored to this day) and makes for a very unique experience to those unfamiliar with the style. The switches between black and white and color seem to coincide perfectly with the events as they unfold, adding another layer to the already gripping atmosphere.
Without trying to spoil anything, I will say that most of the chills and scares in this film are never shown on camera, leaving the noises we hear and our imagination to piece together what we think is really happening in this forest. To top that off, as days go past and the group becomes lost deeper and deeper in the woods, tempers flare constantly as sanity slowly slips through their fingers.
It was only supposed to be a movie.
Fuck, I hate this part. Young Billy (Bill, William, What-have-you) goes to visit his grandfather when he is young. His grandfather is in a mental hospital sitting around, apparently unable to talk. As his family steps out of the room for a minute to see what the doctors think of their poor grandfathers condition, the old man glides his eyes over to Billy and tells him to beware of Santa Clause. I forgot to mention that this is on Christmas Eve, but whatever, it is a Christmas movie, and he is talking about Santa Clause, so I suppose I really shouldn't need to spell it out. On the way home from the mental place, they run into a man in a Santa suit who seems to be having car troubles. The man turns out to be a psycho, and proceeds to kill Billy's parents.
Billy grows up, is haunted by that night, and blah blah blah starts killing people dressed as Santa. Look, I tried to get detailed, but I just couldn't take it any longer. It had to end.
For what I expected to just be a nice night with a shitty movie ended up being a nice night with a pretty enjoyable film. I can not stress this enough however, do not take this movie seriously. If for one minute you actually try to watch this as a serious movie, just shut it off. While this film offers some pretty decent gore, I personally don't find gore itself very serious. I find it is only serious when the tone of the film as a whole is serious (see any comedy/horror in existence as proof of this).
Like I just said, this film displays some fair amount of gore, (and like I didn't just say) a good amount of nudity, and a decent amount of those two combined (see the still above). As anyone remotely interested in horror knows, those ingredients never get old (mixed together is always preferred... I am not creepy at all).
So what I guess I am trying to get at, is while this film really doesn't prove itself as a gem (no inspiring camera or color work) if you approach it with a light heart, you will find yourself having a fantastic time.
One last thing to point out: I really enjoyed the score in many parts of this film, so if you have the pleasure of watching this piece, take note of it.
2/5 (Taken Seriously)
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Rogue, a very new addition to the monster movie table brought to us by a fairly new face to the horror world (and who has actually made quite a name for himself already) Greg McLean. Okay, by the amount of bias I have already thrown at you, you can already tell I really loved this movie, so I will just move along and spill my love affair later.
If it is not already obvious, I try my hardest to find excuses to make summary's as short as possible. There are two main reasons (and a million minor ones) as to why I do this. The first reason is that I hate spoiling much of anything in a movie, because even the slightest details might be important to the films construction of atmosphere as a whole. The second reason is I am a lazy bastard. Anyway...
Our hefty crew of characters (always need a hefty crew for monster flicks) are taking a tour (or giving one) of the Outback (steakhouse). Who they really are never matters in a monster flick (ever) so I will just skip that and say they act good. Our hefty group is then put in a spot of bother when a very big crocodile (yeah, get over it) punctures their boat (well, really, it only belongs to one of them) leaving them stuck on a very small patch of land (Gilligan). The rest of the film follows the hefty group as it gets less hefty and they try to find a way to survive (witty).
Now for the compliments, which, if this movie is anything like a girl, will lead to me being a very happy man tonight. The first thing you notice when you start watching this is that the landscape is absolutely breathtaking. I mean, you might as well be watching the Travel Channel, because you are shown some shots that almost make Australia look habitable.
Rogue constructs itself very much like most monster flicks do (and should, any who don't follow these rules sucks) by starting off with a very light-hearted venture with a few silly jokes and a light score. The hefty (I knew I could use it again) group then is thrown into trouble (about 7 meters of it) which is followed by killing and running. Rogue showcases the perfect balance of these parts (in the right order too, I hate to see them getting killed before a monster even exists) which creates a throroughly enjoyable monster romp.
Does this film bring anything new to the monster table? Not a thing. We have a big crocodile. We have people getting picked off. We have an escape. This lack of anything even remotely close to anything newer than 1980 means I should probably take a point or two off of the score. The one part that does feel new about it is the use of amazing CGI and special effects, I mean, this croc looks real, and it looks angry. This complete lack of originality by no means detracts from the movie itself. You will leave this film with a content smile, having reaffirmed to yourself that monster movies are very much alive, and very much... well... kicking ass.
Notes: Fly Coffee, Hotel Reviews, No Human Emotions Added To Create Sympathy For Crocodile
Saturday, August 23, 2008
I have a feeling that almost every single person has seen this movie, so I will make the summary very, very brief. Lady and daughter. Daughter gets possessed. Priests try to save her. Stretch that out for around two hours and you got the idea. This movie is a classic and that would mean you should expect a solid 8, 9, or 10 from me. However, I have a surprise for you.
Why this film is a classic sort of stumps me. Is it the decent looking scares? Is it having a child actor that some people can actually tolerate? Is it having said child actor begging to be fucked? Who knows. I find this films pacing to be quite painful at best, having most of the film crawling like a baby on it's back while sleeping, only to then wake up, join the Olympics, and set a new record for the 100 meter sprint. I suppose that would mean your child would also turn Jamaican. (hah. hah.)
The camera I find very unimaginative, and it feels they only used it because somewhere along the process of making this movie, they learned they needed to. I doubt they even paid someone to use it. They most likely just set it on a tripod and filmed the whole thing from that.
Now, the one thing I will give a decent amount of credit for is the scares. They had the right idea by throwing some very unique feeling moments to add to the mood. I won't list them, because whether you have actually seen it or not, I am sure you can still name every single one of them. All of them were simplistic enough that not much was needed for the effects, making them feel a lot more real.
One last pointer before the score, it has come to my attention that the creators of this film actually do believe in exorcism, which while I know I shouldn't let that effect my judgment of the film, I can't help think of those idiots when I watch it, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
It depresses me thinking that the only picture I could find was the cover. It is not that it is a bad cover, it is that there aren't enough people out there who know about this film to post actual stills. This fantastic work was brought to us by Higuchinsky, a man who is terribly under worked (only having two full lengths and this under his belt) and whose best known film, Uzumaki, has been considered one of the most imaginative movies around. One reason this short (not really a short... it is somewhere near the one hour point, which makes it more of a... silm? fhort? I will stick with fhort) has gotten so little attention is because for some reason no one wants to release it? Why that is is absolutely beyond me, as the story of the film is very thought provoking to say the least.
Nagai Yume (literally Long Dream when translated) has a character with a very troubling problem. Whenever he goes to sleep, it feels as if his dreams are the lengths of whole days. He soon discovers that each time he goes back to sleep, the dreams feel longer and longer, to the point where months or even years go by in the dream, which begins to have effects on not only his mental stabilty but his outward appearence as well. One night he asks his doctor a very important question that no one could think of an answer to. What would happen if the dreams got so long, they lasted forever?
True to his form in Uzumaki (why that film doesn't feel the need to be translated like the rest is beyond me) Higuchinsky brings us a very interesting concept in a very stunning manner. His use of colors is simply captivating to me and while his scores never really seem to stay in my head long, everytime I do hear them again, I get the comfortable feeling of nostalgia.
My main problem with the fhort was how the story had to close with the doctors not the patient (I am trying to be as vague as possible). I feel that leaving the doctors as minor characters and focusing only on the patient would have made it a much more compelling piece of work.
No, that is not a shitty still from the film, that is what it really looks like. I know it almost seems unfair to review a Troma film so harshly, but for the safety of non-Troma fans, I must go on.
I am going to make this short and sweet. We follow three couples (that is six people) on a hunting/picnic adventure that they apparently do quite often. However, the men decide (they are so brave) that they would rather take a new trail then retread the same tired path over and over. They happen to stumble upon a church with a graveyard... zombies... end.
Okay, I must stress this again, that is really what the film looks like. Once night strikes, the film becomes an orgy of indecipherable masses flailing about. That becomes exceedingly annoying when we are forced to watch zombies rise out of the ground for roughly ten minutes. That's right. We are shown pictures of people in masks standing up for ten minutes. There is a reason that most good zombie movies either never show that or only show it for a brief few seconds. The reason being that it is fucking boring.
Pretty much the rest of the film is trying to guess what you can see through the darkness. If any of you have the pleasure of going through this wonderful piece of cinema, try looking for Waldo, he might be there for all I know.
Note: There is one certain point in the movie that does bring about a sense of unease. It is during a point where, as far as I could tell, the zombies were eating some people, and the only thing you could hear was slurping and chewing for anywhere from five to ten minutes. It made me cringe, which is more then most decent horror movies can say, even if it is for a ridiculous reason. So after saying that...
Sunday, August 10, 2008
The entirety of the film is not stretched, so we are really watching ninety-seven or so minutes of these peoples lives, yet the consequences of the acts performed in those drastic minutes are so far reaching it is almost incomprehensible. The story is unfolded to us backwords (Memento style for those who know it) and is infinetely more powerful. We are told the tale of a woman's (Alex; Monica Bellucci) night with her current boyfriend and her ex as they go to a party. She gets in a fight with her boyfriend and leaves to go home and sleep. On her way back, she goes through an underground tunnel where she is brutally raped. I am talking brutally. This has to be one of the most emotionally potent scenes in cinema. After they discover what has happened by seeing her on a strecher (whether she died from the abuse or trauma or is just unconscious we never know) the men take matters into their hands.
The cinematography only adds to the impact. We are flown around on a freeroaming camera that seems to explore every possible angle of certain rooms. That sensation of being floated around leads to the sense of us simply being voyeurs to the crisis as it unfolds, and never feels over done or distracting. The only time I can recall the camera sitting still is during the one time we beg for it to move.
The color pallette used during the first half is dramatically different then what is used at the end. We are completely drenched in dark reds and black to where when we are finally treated to the rest of the color wheel we feel liberated and the tense nature of the colors becomes non-existant. This, of course, corrolates directly to the events in the film, which means the only uncomfortable feeling you have when the rape is over and the film tones down is the haunting memory that will continue to play through your head for a long time to come.
The film plays with some very heavy themes as well. It dabbles with the importance of dreams and the powers of time. Near the end of the film, at the start of their day, Alex tells her boyfriend the events of her dream, how she was traversing through a tunnel of red until it suddenly broke in two. The point where her old life ends and her new life begins.
I could go on for a long ass time, but I will cut it off there, having only touched each area of the film I felt was important so that you will have a feel of the film, but not come to full grips with it until you are thown into Alex's life yourself. The only flaw that detracts from this film is that it will suffer from more then one viewing.
Sideburns. If you could sum up any movie that easily, you could know what to avoid and what to watch. Well, with this movie, you can. Sideburns.
Our unnamed lead (Sven Garrett) is a photographer working in Las Vegas. He is a very big sideburn.
Let me try again. Our unnamed sideburn…
Our unnamed lead (Sideburns)…
Our unnamed lead (Sven Garrett) is a photographer working in Las Vegas. When he is not “working”, his days consist of killing. Well, really, when he works, he just kills. This movie is getting really hard to write about.
Ok, our guy (You know his name already) pretends to be a photographer so he can kill girls. That is it. The movie follows Sven’s sideburns around Vegas as he finds naked women and kills them. I have no problem with naked women, and I have no problem with slashy movies. I do have a problem with it being very unimaginative. All the deaths were never shown. This movie, wanting to be one of the goriest movies out there, cuts out during all the deaths. They aren’t even exciting pre-deaths, they are just your average, everyday pre-deaths.
As I watched the first few pre-deaths, I realized that most of the money for this film must have gone into showing boobies. I could think of no other reason for it to cut out as much as it did. I only remember seeing one interesting pre-death, but the rest of the film was so dull and mind destroying, I forgot what it was. I think it had something to do with teeth.
If you want exciting deaths, or even pre-deaths, you can pretty much watch any other movie where someone dies and at least get an equivalent to this film. That's right, even Bambi. If you want boobies, just watch a porno. If you want death and boobies, just watch zombie porno. It is out there. If you want sideburns, then this movie will absolutely blow your mind.
Edit: My review is on the apparently edited copy of this film, which would explain the existence of the pre-deaths. I am not one-hundred percent sure if my copy is actually the edited one or not, but if I assume it is, the gore would still not make up for the terrible ending of the film which I never brought up because I had so many other complaints. I hate children in film. Obviously I could point out movies that I loved where children are in them, but as a general rule, they suck. Keep them away.
This film was also the subject to boatloads of hype about how gory it was and how it was banned in some location I do not remember at this time (use IMDb if you need to know that badly, you lazy people). I can't imagine why that is so, so cut it out. Even with these added notes, that doesn't sway my opinion in either direction, giving it a final of...
As I sat with my very nerdy friends and talked about movies, one of them turned to me and said he had something he wanted me to watch. You see, me being the only person who really cares a lot about cinema in that group, my opinion tends to carry a lot of weight, and if his movie gains approval from me, the rest of them will want to watch it and he will be the hero of the day for finding such a film (we have small time ambitions). He pulls out this. A very old, very Tom Hanks movie based off of my friend’s favorite game in the world, “Dungeons & Dragons”. Now, I try to be fair, so I just smiled and said I would give it a run through. I am also very honest, so I told him I wasn’t expecting much of... anything for this experience. Well, I paid for my fairness.
The basics are that Tom Hanks… I mean… Robbie Wheeling and a group of college buddies decide that, as thrilling as their addicting game, WoW… I mean Mazes and Monsters is, they want to kick it up a notch. They decide to start playing the game in the local, legendary cavern that no one is allowed in. The movie follows Tom… Robbie and his friends as fantasy and reality begin to blur as the game seems to become their life.
The idea behind the movie wasn’t really that bad, at least to me. I have friends who base their lives around games like this, so I understand where it is coming from. It could have been a really fun movie to watch, however, an idea doesn’t make a movie good. This film excelled at failing. It failed so bad that I could be easily persuaded to believe that they made this movie bad on purpose to scare people away from such games. I was expecting huge mazes and exciting monsters. Instead I got a cave, a city, and a lizard man. Who appeared like... once.
On the positive side, like I said earlier this movie had a fun idea. This movie also had Tom Hanks. I am not saying that Tom Hanks makes it good in anyway, but something about his name...
12 Angry Men can be summed up very quickly, as all but about five minutes of the film are shot in one single room. In what appears to be one of the easiest murder cases alive, the twelve jurors are sent in to determine if an eighteen year old from the slums was responsible for the murder of his father. With several witness statements stacked against the boy, it seems quite obvious to the jurors that the verdict is guilty. However, a single man, juror #8 (Fonda in a remarkably commanding role) thinks they should at least try and give the boy a chance before sentencing him to death.
I will go no further in my summary, for to ruin even one small piece of the jury's debate would be to spoil so much. One thing I will say, however, is that building up the guilty verdict before juror #8 brings up his first disagreement makes that first disagreement that much more powerful. Not only is Fonda left with the duty of changing the minds of the other eleven jurors, he has to change ours as well.
One thing to pay very special attention to, is the way the cameras are controlled. As the movie progresses, the general height of the cameras is dropped, which adds a sense of the room enclosing upon us as if it was already not small enough to begin with. At the beginning we are generally placed above the jurors, and by the end of the film, we are at their feet. An extra step that pushes us into that room with those men is the fact that the temperature of the room is made so palpable, you yourself might start to sweat.
There is mountains more I could discuss about how well crafted and shot the film was, but that would require me spoiling bits and pieces, and that is something I will refuse to do with such a film. So having said that, there is only one thing left to do.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Okay, I, like so many others, love zombies. They are just loads of fun. However, the one problem with zombies is that while they are great, their movies are not. I feel that no matter how much I want to believe that most zombie movies are just fun and not good in any real way, I am constantly reminded that more often then not, they are just not good... and that is all. So on that note I bring you...
1. Most of the zombies are in white shirts. Why? They were too cheap to get fake blood on any real shirts.
2. The fuck is up with the camera? Is that suppose to be style or just not a good camera? The picture blurs with a lot of movement and it gives me a headache.
3. I know watching high school stereotypes is obnoxious in most cases, but hiring what appears to be real high school quality actors as well... come on.
4. No, Evil Dead references are not funny.
5. Black characters who make witty comments are not hard asses, they are just annoying.
6. Zombies are not going to sit in front of your gun while you proclaim "I think you have had enough to eat for one day".
8. The sharp point through the eye was great... when it was done first. Copycats.
9. Which leads me to believe that the fetus eating scene was stolen too.
10. GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY! SPOOKY!
11. Christ, that music. No real person likes that obnoxious noise except for teenagers who want attention, which leads me to...
12. The director must be a teenager to be responsible for such garbage.
On the bright side, the gore effects were pretty decent. They also had a good idea on lingering on a few deaths, which adds to the uncomfortable feeling of someone dying.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
This festival is nothing special.
Now to the feature of this review, The Gravedancers. A horror film that had me going at first, but grew too ambitious and suffered from a very common mistake that people just cannot seem to get over.
On to the bulk of this review... We are thrown right into this movie screaming. Not so much are we screaming, it's more the woman on the screen who is screaming. We are shown a brief struggle with an invisible foe (more on that later) then she is thrown over a staircase and is hung. I must add, it is a very nice shot, and I commend whom ever was in charge of the camera.
One year later... We are dropped into a funeral with the camera focusing on three snapping people in there... twenties? I don't know, I can't judge age. Anyway, there is a dude, and two girls. As to make one-hundred percent sure that we realize this, we are shown many times the tension between the girls over the dude, so I am just getting that out of the way now.
To make this short and simple so I can get into the more enjoyable part of actually reviewing, another guy comes along, three of the four characters dance on some graves while drunk, and then they become haunted.
Now, for the opinions. This movie (after the opening scene of the girl getting hung) has a very strong first half hour or so when it is dealing with just the first dude and his wife (I don't use names because I don't care enough about this film; on films I love more I promise I will use their names). There are some very real chills, and even some scares. Which brings me to the.. ghost/zombie things. I am torn, in all honesty. As shown above, they are very scary looking fellas, and I was very impressed at how scary they actually look. However, the director (Mike Mendez, director of The Convent. Never seen it myself, but it is suppose to be enjoyable? Don't take my word for that until I review it one day) felt the need to add some really obnoxious computer animated... smoke? around them (it looks like Dragon Ball Z characters when they are "charging up") which really kills any form of enjoyment while they are on screen.
Talking about the monsters takes me to the opening scene, and the thing that too many people do that I hinted at in the very start of this. First off, fights with invisible things are not scary. They aren't even enjoyable. You are just watching some person flail about and scream. I don't care how well they can act, I will never be able to get past that, and therefore will never enjoy scenes like that. Second, the thing people do too much. Stop showing so much of the monsters. People really need to learn that it is often scarier to leave the "bad guy" in the dark throughout most of the movie. The main characters actually get into fights with the monsters, so you see them on the screen for extended periods of time. No. Monsters are only effective if they are flashed at you for very brief moments of time or if they happen to be absolutely disgusting, foul concoctions that you can't help but want to throw up at the very mention.
As for the over ambition, Mike Mendez must have decided that the Dragon Ball Z monsters weren't scary enough, and seeing as he was so impressed with his (actually not very good) computer animators, he felt that he would make the last twenty minutes buried in it. Needless to say, if I wanted to watch cartoons (which is essentially what computer animation is, sorry if that upsets you) I would watch them on television for free.
Even after that very extensive list of complaints, I will manage to pull a small list of good notes. Some of the camera work (mostly during the first half that I enjoyed so much) worked very well, and gave off the sense that they knew what they were doing. The score is nothing to write home about, but it also could have been a hell of a lot worse.
So after all of that writing...
To kick off my director "spot light" column, I decided that I would use a man who was the butt of a joke from my Aristocrats review, because I figured some people might not get it, and could use this as an easy way to figure it out.
Uwe Boll! Yes, that man right above. Just look at that smile. You think a man who has never created a movie worth shit on a stick would have trouble smiling so innocently. No, really. I would not even trade my own shit for one of his films. I would rather suck my own dick then give him a penny. Hell, I would rather suck his dick. I would rather suck both dicks and swallow. Before I go any further, I would like to point out that he has a problem dealing with critics, so just incase he finds this, no, I am not really going to suck your dick. I'm sorry. Not even a little.
A little history to start us out, the man was born in Wermelskirchen, Germany. I tell you this, because out of all the places on the globe, that is the place that most likely hates him the most, meaning it is most likely the last place you will find him if you want to get away. He later went on to go to get his doctorate in literature in places I refuse to name for I do not want to harm their reputations (if it really is that important, I will put an IMDb link).
Some other bits of information:
Boll challenged several of his critics to a boxing match that would be put into one of his films (Postal). Being trained in boxing, he naturally beat up the critics (told you he had a terrible way of dealing with critics). I mean, what kind of baby is the man that he resorts to beating up people because of bad reviews? Pathetic.
Has a very creepy obsession with making movies bent on ruining the possibility of the video games they were based on ever getting rights to sequels.
According to IMDb, four of his more well known films are on the 100 worst movies list. I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure his newest suck-orgy-piece-of-shit, "In the Name of the King: I Suck Dick" is on that list with the rest of its bretheren.
This really isn't anything official (honestly I am just making this up because it would make since to me) but I am pretty sure he gives handjobs to all male actors in his films, because even the biggest sell outs could not possibly agree to take part in one of his softcore interacial gayfests he calls film.
Most Well Known Films Include: House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, BloodRayne, In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
No, no. I could never leave it at that. I will try to make this review deeper than an Uwe Boll film. I know that it really doesn't make any logical sense to proclaim a joke to be the dirtiest joke or the funniest joke, because those are simply subjective. However, the circumstances of this joke, the rules you have to follow to craft it, make it possible for this joke to be the dirtiest joke ever.
"Lemme tell you, when my seven year old daughter is giving my eleven year old son a blow job, it's priceless. "
I do not want to go into explaining the joke, as that is the job of the film, and boy does this film do it well. I am not a fan of stand up comedy. I do not really enjoy watching people sit around and tell jokes. I always needed to have more substance behind the material, or else it just felt like I was watching a guy jack off on stage. This fear of mine played into me putting this film off for a very long time, because no matter how bad I wanted to witness "The dirtiest joke ever," I had trouble assuring myself it would be funny.
Provenza does a good job keeping the joke, and film as a whole, entertaining throughout. Every time the joke is told, you think that that is as funny as they could make it, but then the next performer comes along and tops it. By the half way point, you feel like you have been in on this inside joke for years, and you almost bond with the little people on your screen. Even the camera use in the film is a joke, with very abrupt, drastic angle changes, making not only you, but the performer uncomfortable as the joke is told.
"Once for Hannukah he gave me a box of slim Tampax, and he says, "Leave them out so men will think you're really tight."
Now as the first review of the page, I will explain the very easy to understand scoring system. I will give it a score out of ten, and then add keywords and phrases to peak your interest. Later on I might decide to make it more complex, but this will suffice
Notes: Scat, Incest, 9/11, Bob Saget
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
I shall call this an exercise in my own patience and discipline to further express my love for the art of cinema. Each film a piece of glass to add to my mosaic of film exploration. My Cinemaic.