Inland Empire
This still sums up the movie for me. I mean just fucking look at this, what kind of twisted weirdo would think of putting this in their film. Even by David Lynch standards this is weird. There are many theories as to what this film is about because it abandons what little plot it had after the 30 min mark and for the next 2 1/2 hours rides the pink zebra into Crazytown in the county of Your Nightmares. My theory is that this is more of an abstract painting than a film which sounds like a cop out but whatever. The sound is fucking schizophrenic with everyone talking about as loud as a mouse fart and then a boom of ear shattering white noise comes in for no fucking reason. The editing, the acting, the lighting, and the mood make it feel like a schizophrenic nightmare. I still fucking love this film and I don't know why. There is nothing good about this film except for its' soundtrack and Laura Dern who I think is the only thing that makes this work because unlike many strange films where the character's just go along. Laura Dern is just as confused as the audience and she shows it. This probably has to do with the fact that in real life she didn't know where the plot was going so she really is looking at the audience with a face that says "don't look at me I am just as freaked out as you are". Half of the movie is just Laura Dern's "WHAT THE FUCK?" face which makes her transformation more tragic and believable.
Return to OZ
This is a fucking strange film. Which is to be expected because it came from a strange man who wrote many strange books. The film is flawed to hell for many reasons
1. It is terrifying for kids. Seriously who thought that any kid would want to see a witch who killed women to take their heads so that she switch them with her own. Their is also shock therapy and fucking wheelers (but the less I say about them the better).
2. There is an annoying talking chicken that serves no purpose except for making me want KFC
3. There is a lot of stuff that they do not explain in terms of plot points, how certain magic works, and the general mythology of Oz.
That being said I love this film but probably because of how weirdly twisted and surreal it is. It seems like they took a lot of inspiration from German expressionist films and it has this atmosphere similar to a picture by Man Ray.
Death Proof
This is often paired with Jackie Brown as Tarentino's worst film. Whereas Jackie Brown a lot of people say is good but is way to weak many say this tried way too explotive. This like all the other films is flawed especially with the fact that the serial killer Stuntman Mike who put a girl in an unsafe car that had no seat belt that caused her death has not been put in jail for man slaughter. Now this is one thing about Tarentino's last three films that is starting to piss me off. There are plot holes so huge that you could ride a plane through them but he just expects us to ignore them because his films are so awesome. Like how in Inglorious Basterds (I really hate titles that are misspelled on purpose) they could have not interfered and everything would have been fine and all the Nazi including Landa would have been BBQ. Django Unchained they could have just waltzed up and offered a crazy amount of money for Broomhilda. Leonardo DiCaprio probably would have been like "Fuck its' my lucky day I didn't think I'd get shit for her" and they could have added Broomhilda to their gang and gone on more adventures fighting better villains. The biggest complaint I hear is that there is way to much talking about unimportant things, but I really don't mind one of my favorite films is "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" where the first 10 minutes is them trying to remember a title of a Betti Davis movie.
IZO
Now I think Takashi Miike is nothing short of a genius that needs an amount of praise that rivals Stanley Kubrick's (dead serious). Ichi the Killer is my favorite film of all time and will probably stay that way so I might only like this film out of fanboy love. This film has got Miike written all over it I mean you can play bingo with the trademark Miike aspects.
1. A hero that would be a villain in any other film. Who is unreasonable in his quest even if it means isolating himself from all others and having his superiors want to kill him.
2. More than one language being spoke.
3. Horrible but still fun CGI
4. A strange but kickass soundtrack
5. Countless cameos from random celebrities
6. Sex that looks really painful.
7. Children dying
8. Characters whose dialog is more random than a madlib.
If they had put in a scene involving needles this would have exploded in a mushroom cloud that is Miike. That being said this is also very flawed. The movie is mostly various scene with the main character Izo and how his soul is slowly deteriorating turning him into something not human. Most scenes play out like this: Izo is in a random place, Someone comes in who wants to kill him or make him change his ways, Izo kills them. Now this film's settings goes across many times making many to write that Izo can travel through time. I disagree I think this is his Hell where he is constantly in an unknown land trying to find some unexplained purpose. It is kind of like that movie The Cell only it is always in this nightmare world. The film is two hours, is very incoherent, does drag, and there is no real development to the character of Izo. It isn't really a fun film. This is only if you have a huge Miike boner and can watch anything he makes.
Return To Neverland
This film gets way more hate than it deserves which is weird coming from me because I generally stay away from syrupy sweet kids films. Now many feel that this was a cash in which to be fair was probably the intent of the producers. Now whoever wrote this film put a lot of love into the story because they improved the story especially with the character of Jane who has balls of steel unlike her mother Wendy from the first film who basically just bitched and didn’t do anything (seriously as a kid I remember screaming “you are worthless” at the TV screen). Jane flat out doesn’t give a fuck who you are she’ll punch you and pull a knife on a motherfucker, and at the end she saves Peter. That’s pretty empowering. Where were all the feminists praising this film? Huh? Anita Sarkeesian, you worthless bitch where the fuck were you? This film does have stuff I don’t like. The eye animation is kind of creepy, there is a lot of cliques in the story, and the songs aren’t very good. All that said I think it still deserves less of the hate that most of the Disney sequels get.
This still sums up the movie for me. I mean just fucking look at this, what kind of twisted weirdo would think of putting this in their film. Even by David Lynch standards this is weird. There are many theories as to what this film is about because it abandons what little plot it had after the 30 min mark and for the next 2 1/2 hours rides the pink zebra into Crazytown in the county of Your Nightmares. My theory is that this is more of an abstract painting than a film which sounds like a cop out but whatever. The sound is fucking schizophrenic with everyone talking about as loud as a mouse fart and then a boom of ear shattering white noise comes in for no fucking reason. The editing, the acting, the lighting, and the mood make it feel like a schizophrenic nightmare. I still fucking love this film and I don't know why. There is nothing good about this film except for its' soundtrack and Laura Dern who I think is the only thing that makes this work because unlike many strange films where the character's just go along. Laura Dern is just as confused as the audience and she shows it. This probably has to do with the fact that in real life she didn't know where the plot was going so she really is looking at the audience with a face that says "don't look at me I am just as freaked out as you are". Half of the movie is just Laura Dern's "WHAT THE FUCK?" face which makes her transformation more tragic and believable.
Return to OZ
This is a fucking strange film. Which is to be expected because it came from a strange man who wrote many strange books. The film is flawed to hell for many reasons
1. It is terrifying for kids. Seriously who thought that any kid would want to see a witch who killed women to take their heads so that she switch them with her own. Their is also shock therapy and fucking wheelers (but the less I say about them the better).
2. There is an annoying talking chicken that serves no purpose except for making me want KFC
3. There is a lot of stuff that they do not explain in terms of plot points, how certain magic works, and the general mythology of Oz.
That being said I love this film but probably because of how weirdly twisted and surreal it is. It seems like they took a lot of inspiration from German expressionist films and it has this atmosphere similar to a picture by Man Ray.
Death Proof
This is often paired with Jackie Brown as Tarentino's worst film. Whereas Jackie Brown a lot of people say is good but is way to weak many say this tried way too explotive. This like all the other films is flawed especially with the fact that the serial killer Stuntman Mike who put a girl in an unsafe car that had no seat belt that caused her death has not been put in jail for man slaughter. Now this is one thing about Tarentino's last three films that is starting to piss me off. There are plot holes so huge that you could ride a plane through them but he just expects us to ignore them because his films are so awesome. Like how in Inglorious Basterds (I really hate titles that are misspelled on purpose) they could have not interfered and everything would have been fine and all the Nazi including Landa would have been BBQ. Django Unchained they could have just waltzed up and offered a crazy amount of money for Broomhilda. Leonardo DiCaprio probably would have been like "Fuck its' my lucky day I didn't think I'd get shit for her" and they could have added Broomhilda to their gang and gone on more adventures fighting better villains. The biggest complaint I hear is that there is way to much talking about unimportant things, but I really don't mind one of my favorite films is "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" where the first 10 minutes is them trying to remember a title of a Betti Davis movie.
IZO
Now I think Takashi Miike is nothing short of a genius that needs an amount of praise that rivals Stanley Kubrick's (dead serious). Ichi the Killer is my favorite film of all time and will probably stay that way so I might only like this film out of fanboy love. This film has got Miike written all over it I mean you can play bingo with the trademark Miike aspects.
1. A hero that would be a villain in any other film. Who is unreasonable in his quest even if it means isolating himself from all others and having his superiors want to kill him.
2. More than one language being spoke.
3. Horrible but still fun CGI
4. A strange but kickass soundtrack
5. Countless cameos from random celebrities
6. Sex that looks really painful.
7. Children dying
8. Characters whose dialog is more random than a madlib.
If they had put in a scene involving needles this would have exploded in a mushroom cloud that is Miike. That being said this is also very flawed. The movie is mostly various scene with the main character Izo and how his soul is slowly deteriorating turning him into something not human. Most scenes play out like this: Izo is in a random place, Someone comes in who wants to kill him or make him change his ways, Izo kills them. Now this film's settings goes across many times making many to write that Izo can travel through time. I disagree I think this is his Hell where he is constantly in an unknown land trying to find some unexplained purpose. It is kind of like that movie The Cell only it is always in this nightmare world. The film is two hours, is very incoherent, does drag, and there is no real development to the character of Izo. It isn't really a fun film. This is only if you have a huge Miike boner and can watch anything he makes.
Return To Neverland
This film gets way more hate than it deserves which is weird coming from me because I generally stay away from syrupy sweet kids films. Now many feel that this was a cash in which to be fair was probably the intent of the producers. Now whoever wrote this film put a lot of love into the story because they improved the story especially with the character of Jane who has balls of steel unlike her mother Wendy from the first film who basically just bitched and didn’t do anything (seriously as a kid I remember screaming “you are worthless” at the TV screen). Jane flat out doesn’t give a fuck who you are she’ll punch you and pull a knife on a motherfucker, and at the end she saves Peter. That’s pretty empowering. Where were all the feminists praising this film? Huh? Anita Sarkeesian, you worthless bitch where the fuck were you? This film does have stuff I don’t like. The eye animation is kind of creepy, there is a lot of cliques in the story, and the songs aren’t very good. All that said I think it still deserves less of the hate that most of the Disney sequels get.
Last edited:
for typos and broken attachments.
