Ebbywebby's activity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYg9S0Sbmh0&ab_channel=AravisiaSalesi

https://vimeo.com/189068910

Well, that was an interesting twist.

It's astonishing that a sex farce could be this dull. And the direction is fine -- it's just the overacting and the wretched script. Parental advisory: contains no nudity.

https://vimeo.com/899017942

I'm dubious about picking a 1971 Doors song to be the soundtrack for 1967 footage?

It's a quality film worthy of a Best Picture nomination, but I did have plenty of quibbles. If I were to review the film in three words, I'd just say "TOO MUCH ZENDAYA." She had no chemistry with Chalamet and every time she was on screen, I felt like I was watching a kids movie. Terrible choice of actress. And so many heavyweight actors are wasted in small or even miscast roles. For instance, Christopher Walken didn't suit his part. Walken needs a character where he can smile and be a bit devilish, instead of just being dour and old. And I'm never excited by what Chalamet does and am mystified by his superstardom. However, I will admit he came through better than expected at the end when he becomes the messiah and has to turn stentorian and powerful.

Florence Pugh's character was barely developed, and she's a dull actress whom I don't even find attractive. I wish she and Lea Seydoux had switched parts. But with the way the film was scripted, Chalamet being paired up with Pugh at the end just seemed totally random and out of the blue. And Austin Butler was out of his depth — I didn't like him at all. His only inspiration seemed to be Pennywise from "It." Dig deeper.

I guess it's tough to do something with a story where you're in sand the whole time, but the film wasn't all that visually striking by effects-blockbuster standards. Maybe the details of the ships could have been dwelled upon more, or maybe Paul's spice-driven hallucinations could have been more prominent and vivid. The sequences on the B&W planet were more interesting but, there, I kept wrinkling my nose at those giant crowd scenes where the flailing people were so obviously computer creations.

I think the film was hurt by straining to be PG-13. The violence was so avoided and non-explicit that it had little dramatic impact. All these people dying with a single stroke of a bloodless sword. *Swoosh*. He's done. Next.

I can't recall the first part in enough exacting detail to micro-compare my reactions to the two parts. It does seem like the first part wasn't so relentlessly battle-heavy. Fight scenes usually make my attention wander. But I didn't think the film felt overlong, despite its hefty duration.

Strange to see pop in for just one quick scene. I assume they're planning for a third part where she stars.

They're young! They're now! They're happening! And so are zip codes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKAe0ValDcs

Tip: If you're traveling across country for a multi-day stay in another state, do bring some luggage.

So well-acted and directed/photographed, but this must be cinema's dumbest lead character who wasn't actually disabled. And the script sure makes Irish people look like drunken morons.

If Willem Dafoe hadn't been in it, I don't think I could have sat through it. The story did not engage me at all.

In the National Film Registry, really? Soundless, B&W, sped-up, chopped-up footage, both personal and found, with a heavy emphasis on how natural variances in light and shadow affect a scene. The whole film looks like it was shot around 10am. If you love to hate experimental cinema, this film will be a joy.

A man gets out of prison and tries to find his way. Doesn't especially foreshadow Kieslowski's future greatness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOBko5Q1WVQ

A rare glimpse of '30s nipples and one late sequence with some strikingly dissonant use of sound, but I didn't find the film too interesting otherwise. Surprised it's on the DTC and 500<400 lists.

Huh.

https://icheckmovies.com/movies/seven+men+at+different+ages

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcXEJbWkLWE

I was so unimpressed with this film and these people. Most of them aren't too articulate or sophisticated. And they're in the art world, yet their dominant concern is protesting major money being donated to the art world. Oh noooo. What an outrage that is. These greedy, money-crazed Sacklers who donate millions to art galleries. Huh?

Also, this documentary is confused about what it wants to be. I thought it would be all about Nan Goldin versus the Sacklers. But the film is barely informative about the Sacklers or Oxycontin. It just starts with presuming the audience already agrees the Sacklers are pure evil and goes from there. No one ever benefitted from Oxycontin, right? You get on it, inevitably abuse it and probably die. And it's all the Sacklers' fault. So simplistic. And the film can't decide whether it's about this specific issue or just Goldin's life story. About half the film is details about her own background, which frankly didn't interest me much. Another person whom I'm supposed to revere because they have a background of sex, drugs and squalor. Woo. Her photographs are mostly snapshots that just had the luck of capturing a resonant situation. There's also a substantial detour into AIDS discussion that further muddies the film's focus.

Not impressed.

https://festival.ilcinemaritrovato.it/en/film/a-movie-trip-through-filmland/ says the complete film lasts 24 minutes, though that's just one source and I like to get confirmation.

And http://www.amiaconference.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2007-Conference-Program-Rochester.pdf says 25.

This is a really fascinating film. Fragmented portrait of a woman alienated from the world. Enjoyed it about two levels more than expected. If you like experimental feminist filmmakers from the '70s such as Chantal Akerman and Yvonne Rainer, don't miss this one.

This wasn't what I expected. The story's tone and content made me think of Mike Leigh or Ken Loach more than R.W. Fassbinder. Solid, but not one of Fassbinder's best works.

Friendly warning: The second episode is agonizingly tedious compared with the other four.

This film could have been utterly devastating, if not for the trite element. I dropped my IMDb rating a point for that.

KG copies are 112 minutes, a version on a Polish site is 109 but IMDb says it's 92. Puzzling.

Well, clearly, this movie just ripped off its plot from "Triangle of Sadness."

A bit overlong, but a strong script.

Halfway between "Hamilton" and "La Commune (Paris, 1871)"? Except "West Indies" precedes both by decades. I was frustrated that the second half was much duller than the marvelous first half.

Footage of animals in the African wild from lions down to ants, mostly arranged in a detached procession of 10-second edits. No narration, with just a sparse bit of avant-garde score. Most of this film is wonderful, but I really grimaced when it threw out its established style and became a heavy-handed protest against hunting at the very end.

Watching this and the previous film "Nobody's Children," I just imagine a hot, crowded Italian theater full of uneducated peasants casually chattering through the whole film and cheering and wailing at all the absurd highs and lows.

You missed Jodorowsky's "The Holy Mountain."

It was a pleasant watch. But rather implausible that this young girl can go months without a thought of her real family? The biggest surprise: hearing a toilet flush in a movie like this.

This is almost a really wonderful Kaurismaki film, but it's just a little too cute. Also, Seymour Cassel is such a likeable actor that I just couldn't buy him as an 100% evil character.

The international situation is intensifying. Wonderful satire.

Excellent film. I just wonder why they spent so much time on

Damned if I can figure out why this is one of the 1,000 greatest films ever. All this inflated drama attached to a crummy air-show race? Who cares? And "newspaper man" Rock pursues this story -- even after being fired? -- as if it's the scoop of the century? Whatever.

Wow, I'm back in sixth grade again. I can hear that old projector whirring.

Highlights: the woozy music (by a composer who also scored Bergman's "Sawdust and Tinsel"!) and the early segment about deviant, malformed sperm.

If I totalled up all the times I've heard the word "Bro" in a movie, I think 96% of them would be from this movie alone. Yikes. Did the screenwriters believe the film wouldn't have any teen appeal, otherwise? By the last hour, I and mate were bursting into laughter, every time the word was repeated yet again.

I basically enjoyed this film, but there were a lot of strange things about the story's structure.

44 people have seen this already. Impressive.

This is a frustrating doc because it goes into deep detail about Fuller's journalism career and war service, but then just whisks through his film work in a snap. Also, Bill Duke's performance as a reader is sooooo over the top.

This is a captivating enough story, but why are the women in the film on a completely different evolutionary level than the men? Even the little girl is smarter than all the (white) guys.

That final tableaux is spectacular.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIidbF-33sI

Dizzy montage of hippie-era sights. A cute naked gal rolls in the surf.