Author: Henry

Henry Jarvis is the youngest member of the Reel Nerds. His favorite films include Space Jam and Dude, Where’s My Car? and Lawrence of Arabia. He enjoys those pretentious art house films that Ryan hates. He sees a lot of movies! Honestly more than he should. He replaces his lack of social skills and meaningful friendships with his love of cinema! He’s also crying while he writes this biography for himself. His favorite directors are Andrei Tarkovsky, David Fincher, and David Lean.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : Voyeur

Do you ever want to feel artistically superior to all of your friends? Maybe you are tired of your friends talking about how great the latest action film is and want to sound better.Maybe you want to impress your date with obscure film trivia. Maybe you think that knowing a lot about film history and art will somehow validate your meaningless existence and will replace that ever-growing pit in your heart that tells you that you don’t matter and no one cares about you/ Well don’t worry! Because I watch a bunch of art house films and can give you recommendations on what to watch and what to feel superior about! So without any delay, let’s get pretentious!

 

—

 

When I saw this film I had the uncomfortable experience of being possibly the only person, or one of the very few, who were in the audience who did not work on the film. When it started, it was the only screening I’ve ever been to where people not only applauded the distributor logos but also yelled and cheered. They were super into this film, which might have been why I wasn’t as big a fan of it as I might have been.

 

Voyeur is a documentary following journalist Gay Talese and his relationship with his subject Gerald Foos. Gerald Foos was a Colorado Motel Owner who used this motel as a way to spy and watch his guests without their knowledge. Part of me wants to say stop there and watch the film without getting spoiled. But honestly, there aren’t any major reveals that leave your jaw on the ground. It isn’t like The Imposter or Tickled where the plot twists and how you see them are important to the story. When the “plot twists” happen in the film, firstly you see them a mile away, and secondly, they don’t matter. There is a reveal a little after the middle of the third act, and it is surprising but ultimately doesn’t add or do anything with the film. The reveal happens then is almost immediately dropped. And I know this is a documentary and the purpose of a documentary is to show the audience “truth”. But at the end of the film, I was wondering why they would get even through that into the film. Other than to just fit the tone of the film.

 

The film follows the tone that you see in documentaries like The Imposter and Who Took Johnny. That being an overarching darkness being present throughout. Partly because Gerald Foos spied on his guest without their permission and went into detail about watching sex acts and murder. If you have seen enough documentaries of this nature, you know there is going to be a twist because that’s how docs with this tone work. There will be a big reveal toward the end of the film that will be shocking and come from nowhere. You don’t know what it is, but you know it’s coming. Which is why it bothers me that the tone is corrupted by the fact that the documentary filmmakers also try to get you to like Gerald Foos.

 

It might have been the entire audience I saw the film with. But throughout the film, the audience was laughing at almost everything Gerald Foos said. The film tried to get you to see him as this quirky character who was a little out there but was still kooky and fun. But that’s not who he is. Maybe I’m seeing the whole voyeur aspect a bit harsher than I should, but given how straightforward and proud of what he did, I am disgusted by Gerald Foos throughout the film. Which I feel they could have played up a bit more. But the entire film tries to get you on his side. Which I think is both wrong and deluded the film. It’s clear that Gay Talese liked him. There is a scene toward the end of the film which is genuinely the best scene of the film, where Talese can tell the filmmakers are trying to get a “gotcha” answer out of Foos and Talese calls the filmmakers out and mocks them for a solid five minutes. And Talese defends Foos throughout.

 

I think at the end of the day this film’s success is highly dependant on how you view the act of voyeurism. If you think it’s fine, or think it’s a minor crime that isn’t a big deal, then this film will work very differently than how I saw it. But the entire time I was creeped out and kind of hated Gerald Foos, and by extension Gay Talese for his alignment with Foos. But if you view the act differently you will see the film differently. That in itself makes it hard for me to review this fairly because I can see someone thinking this film is great and going along with what the filmmaker wants you to think. But that isn’t something I can do.

Voyeur is a well-made film with a murky message and a tonal problem throughout. I have already recommended this film to a few people, but as I said, you have to be careful with this film. Because at the end of the day if you read the description of this film and think that Gerald Foos is a creep, I don’t think the film will make you change your mind. But if you don’t think that already, this might be up your alley. It is all up to you.

 

Also, in this review, I have to include an image to be the featured image. No images exist of this film yet. Not even a poster. The film comes out next month and I’m sure there will be images then. But because of this, the image in the thumbnail for this film, is one of the pictures that comes up when you google “Horse Dragon”. Because I thought that would be radical.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : The Square

Do you ever want to feel artistically superior to all of your friends? Maybe you are tired of your friends talking about how great the latest action film is and want to sound better.Maybe you want to impress your date with obscure film trivia. Maybe you think that knowing a lot about film history and art will somehow validate your meaningless existence and will replace that ever-growing pit in your heart that tells you that you don’t matter and no one cares about you/ Well don’t worry! Because I watch a bunch of art house films and can give you recommendations on what to watch and what to feel superior about! So without any delay, let’s get pretentious!

 

—

 

It’s rare that I see a film that understands it’s audience so well, while also completely mocking it’s audience flatly. For context, I saw this film at the New York Film Festival, and this film knows the kind of people who go to film festivals are the only people who are going to have interest in this film. If you read about this film in regards to its plot, you won’t find much. If you go to the IMDB for this film you will find this regarding plot – “The Square is a poignant, satirical drama reflecting our times – about the sense of community, moral courage and the affluent person’s need for egocentricity in an increasingly uncertain world.” I’m not sure you can be more generic while also saying absolutely nothing about the film. There isn’t a trailer for the film that isn’t just a scene from the film. And all of this is done on purpose. Because the film isn’t about anything. But it does say something.

 

The Square is a film directed by Swedish Director, Ruben Ostlund. Ostlund has also directed 2014’s Force Majeure which was one of my favorite films of that year. The Square is marketed as starring Elisabeth Moss and Dominic West. When in reality Elisabeth Moss is in three scenes and Dominic West in two scenes. The main character of the film is played by Claes Bang, a Danish actor who has a fair amount of credits but this is by far his largest role. The film follows Claes Bang as the curator of a modern art museum. And then the film just follows his life as he messes up some things and then because he is a flawed and kind of bad person, just ends up making it worse. And then around halfway through I realized that on a plot level, The Square is just a two and a half hour long version of Swedish Curb Your Enthusiasm. It is just a comedy about a stubborn man who gets into a situation and then tries to get out of said situation but only ends up making it worse. That’s the film at its core. That is what this film is about. And the film is genuinely funny. And I like this film. But not because of what the film is about.

 

At the beginning of the film, Claes Bang is being interviewed by Elisabeth Moss about the museum and specifically about a new installation. And I can’t remember what Moss asks him, but I remember his response. This exchange is in the beginning, and I mean this is the first scene of the film. Claes Bang responds to the question saying that something that he struggles with is the definition of art. Expanding on this he says, putting a piece on display and giving something awards doesn’t make it good art. For more context, this film won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival this year. This is the highest award at what is thought to be one of the, if not the, most prestigious film festival in the world. I will also remind you that I saw this film at the New York Film Festival, arguably one of the most snobbish film festivals that I go to. And I think the film knows that anyone who has interest in this film, are the people that are going to think this film is more than it is.

 

When I left the theater, I was riding the Subway train back to my apartment. While in the train I could hear a conversation happening next to me between three different guys who had also seen the film. The discussion was them talking about all of the symbolism and deeper meaning to all of the characters in the film. The next day I was talking to someone who said the film is a big statement on power structure and the homeless. And the film talks about the poor and power structure, but that isn’t what it is about. Ostlund knows that the only people that will have interest in this film are the people who are going to want to dissect it and proclaim it to be art. When really, at the end of the day it’s just a comedy about some guy who works at a museum and is finding meaningless interpretations to art pieces that have no meaning. And this might be a bolder statement. But I don’t think the film is art. I think it’s just an entertaining comedy that doesn’t say much. And that isn’t a bad thing. You’re allowed to like and make things that don’t have a bold thought-provoking message. Everyone knows that Cannes tends to be more political regarding what they award. And maybe that’s why this film won the Palme d’Or. Maybe the politics that the world is facing is so tiring that perhaps it’s time that film enthusiasts just step back and laugh at a bunch of stacks of dirt.

 

The real question that I still have in the film is whether or not the film warrants to be art or not. Because maybe by stating the fact that it isn’t art, that in itself makes it art. By not saying anything it is saying everything. The film is saying that it isn’t saying anything, thus saying something. I don’t know. Art is pretentious and hurts my head sometimes. Art sucks. Movies suck. Fuck you.

White Coats

White Coats : Nude on the Moon

Man discovers a NATURE CAMP on the MOON!

—

Nude on the Moon is technically classified as a “nudist film”, but the reasoning is fairly weak. Nudist Films were exploitation films made as a loophole before the Excelsior Films V. New York Board of Regents in 1954. Basically, before this landmark court case, it was considered obscene to have any nudity in film. This combined with the Haynes Code, it was fairly difficult for anyone to have any nudity in their films. However, somewhere able to get around this by labeling their films as “Nudist Films”. This would mean the film isn’t obscene or perverted but instead is educational about the lifestyle of Naturalists. And the lifestyle of Naturalists often includes nudity. Thus filmmakers were able to get around this rule and show nudity in their films.

Though, as you watch nudist films, you will realize that they often are fairly one-sided. Often focusing and romanticizing the breasts of the female members of the naturalist camp. Rarely ever focusing on the genitalia or bodies of the men in the camps. Yes, those films exist, but they are much less common than the former. Typically nudist films don’t have a lot of plot in them as they are essentially documentaries about communities. You get people just kind of existing. Rarely are there any plot points or character development in this brand of filmmaking.

That’s where Nude on the Moon comes in. Like I said earlier, this film barely classifies as a nudist film. I would honestly call it a more spacesploitation film before a nudist film, but even that is a stretch. Really at the end of the day, this film makes absolutely no sense and doesn’t fit into a genre.

Nude on the Moon was made in 1961, which is eight years before the moon landing. So keep that in mind when this film isn’t completely and scientifically accurate. Nude on the Moon follows the two employees of the US Space program. Yes, there are only two of them. Why would we ever need more than that? You only need two people to build, operate, and command a space program. Everyone knows this. So these two dudes are like “Yeah! Let’s go to space!” And their secretary is very supportive about this. They even make reference to this in the beginning of the film and say that “Man, our secretary really puts everything out there and makes sure that we get out job done!” Eat your heart out Hidden Figures because we have a much better film about women in the space program here! We then don’t see this secretary figure for the rest of the film pretty much.

So our two heroes, who I will refer to as Old Guy and Dr. Handsome because I honestly don’t think they ever say their names, then get in their space ship and fly to the moon. This of course only takes two hours. It’s like a Sunday Drive. Old Guy and Dr. Handsome get out of their spaceship and wear the safest space suits to ever be put on screen. Old guy wears a red pair of long underwear with some football padding on it. Dr. Handsome wears the same thing but in green that way, they can tell each other apart. They also have state of the art helmets, which are pieces of plastic that is in no way connected to the rest of the suit and in multiple shots we can see that they are resting on their heads with bottoms completely open to the moon air. I honestly don’t know why NASA made those dumb looking ones when they had this film to show them how radical and cool the space suits could be.

Old Guy and Dr. Handsome land on the moon, which as we all know is Florida. Now, decades later, it is obvious how smart and ahead of it’s time Nude on the Moon was. As we all know, the moon is a lush swamp/jungle and there are pools and lakes all over it that are perfect for bathing in. Next year in college I’m taking a class called “Foliage of the Moon”, and this film really helped me prepare for it. Old Guy and Dr. Handsome look around the moon and are like “Wow! The Moon is super cool!” Then it gets even cooler because who would have thought, but the Moon is completely inhabited by naturalists! Except you know, they technically wouldn’t be considered as such because they are all wearing shorts. But besides that all of the women are topless! And the two guys look pretty good too, but we aren’t going to focus on that.

Then they meet the Moon Queen played by Marietta. I have spent a lot of time researching who this woman is and I can’t find anything. I don’t know if she was a singer, a burlesque dancer, a stripper, or some woman from down the street. I don’t know why she only has one name. She only starred in this film and made one appearance on The Jack Pair Tonight Show as herself one year before the release of this film. I can also find out no information about that episode. Please if you know anything about Marietta, tell me. Because I need to know why she only has one name.

Anyway, the Moon Queen does some kind of hypnotist thing or whatever. I honestly didn’t understand any of the second act of this film. The second act is really where this film becomes a nudist film because you just see the aliens hanging out skimpily clothed. It’s whatever. While they are doing this Dr. Handsome is taking a bunch of Polaroid pictures.

Before we get to the ending, I forgot to mention that the aliens talk through antennas. These antennas are also conveniently headbands because the aliens also have a firm grip of fashion. This isn’t discussed in the film. I just know a good fashion choice when I see it. So Dr. Handsome goes over to the Moon Queen and gives her a candy bar. She eats it and the two are now in love. To the point where Old Guy is like “Yo! Dr. Handsome! We better get out of here because we don’t have oxygen and will die.” But Dr. Handsome is so in love with Moon Queen that he is like ‘Nah, I just going to hang out with Moon Queen and not go to Earth.” Then Old Guy is like “But bro, you will totally die if that happens.” And Dr. Handsome kind of just shrugs and doesn’t care. Which is odd considering the two fell in love without talking to each other or having any time with each other, besides the one scene immediately before this where Dr. Handsome gives the Moon Queen a candy bar. I also am confused as to why Dr. Handsome doesn’t just go back to Earth and refill on oxygen then go back to the Moon as it is only a two-hour drive. 

Dr. Handsome then says, “Why don’t we just bring the Moon Queen back to Earth?” to which Old Guy is like “No! You know we can’t do that!” Now the movie never actually tells us why they can’t bring Moon Queen to Earth. But I will break it down for you. Most likely what Old Guy was thinking was that if they take Moon Queen off of the Moon and bring her to Earth, yes things would be fine. There is no way that Moon Queen would have problems breathing Earth Air and the pressure of the atmosphere probably wouldn’t be an issue. The issue is that back on the Moon, there would be no Queen. There would be no ruler of the naturalist society. Upon realizing there is no ruler, the Moon would immediately break out into a complete hysteria. The two men would obviously murder everyone except the ones that they liked. They would keep that small toddler that was still growing into his antenna headband for breeding purposes. But in general, the Moon Nudist Society would crumble within hours of Moon Queen being gone. Then of course of the two men, jealousy would rise (presuming the aliens have the same emotional threshold that humans do). The two men would then battle it out to the death until they were both killed at the same time in a Seven on Thebes or Antigone kind of fashion. And once that would happen either the women would also have been killed at this point or the species would have died out with no way to repopulate. This was bound to happen because that’s how civilization works. So really Old Guy was thinking very diplomatically.

So through her antenna, Moon Queen also says that she loved Dr. Handsome, presumably because that candy bar was dope as hell. She also says that since she loves Dr. Handsome so much, she must force him to go. She then taps Dr. Handsome on the forehead and he passes out and Old Guy brings him to the ship. But keep in mind that the aliens can’t talk through their antenna to humans. So Dr. Handsome didn’t hear any of this. So in Dr. Handsome’s mind, Moon Queen just knocked him the fuck out for no reason.

So Dr. Handsome and Old Guy are flying back to Earth and having a nice chat. This is when Dr. Handsome reveals that he left the camera with all of the pictures on the Moon. This means that the two have no proof that the Nudist society exists. So they get to Earth and Old Guy is like “No one believes us, and I’m starting to think none of it actually happened.” Why Old Guy doesn’t believe himself anymore is beyond me. I’m blaming dementia. But Dr. Handsome is super bummed about the whole thing and how he will never be able to see his Moon Queen girlfriend again. It’s an understandable issue. But then the secretary from the beginning comes through the door! Yeah, she is still in the movie! And Dr. Handsome would recognize those bazongas anywhere! It’s the Moon Queen! He runs up and kisses her passionately and he is extremely happy.

Now there are multiple problems with this. Is Moon Queen and the secretary both the same character? If yes, then how the hell does that work? Secondly, if they aren’t the same character, then the secretary is probably extremely confused as she was just sexually assaulted by her boss, someone she hasn’t seen in at least six hours. This ending honestly makes no sense at all. But it’s a happy ending and Old Guy comes in and shakes his head then leaves. Old Guys response also doesn’t make any sense and is actually a lot more worrisome. But I’m probably thinking too much about a film called Nude on the Moon.

So the film really doesn’t fit the nudist film label. Primarily because Naturalist are not aliens, do not live on the moon, and don’t operate under a monarchy. But whatever. It’s a love story and Dr. Handsome is cute so it’s okay.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : It’s Only the End of the World

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of It’s Only the End of the World.

—

Like I said in my review of Heartbeats, Xavier Dolan is five months from being a household name. I strongly believe that his next film The Death and Life of John F. Donovan will make everyone in America aware of Dolan’s presence. And after watching his most recent film It’s Only the End of the World, I’m not sure if the world will be in awe or in mockery.

It’s Only the End of the World is the sixth film from 29-year-old French-Canadian director Xavier Dolan. It tells the story of a young world famous writer who returns home for a dinner to tell his family that he has a terminal illness. This film premiered at Cannes in 2016 to pretty harsh criticism, many critics saying this is the worst film Dolan has made thus far. And I will admit that this film is very problematic, but I will not go and say that this is his worst film.

The writing of the film is where I am the most conflicted about the film. Because I think this is certainly Dolan’s most mature and explores more adult themes than the rest of his filmography. So I do want to celebrate the fact that he is exploring these real subjects and is maturing out of what he is brave enough to explore out of what he has been made famous for. On the flip side of this, the dialogue in this film is particularly awful. In almost every scene was at least one line of dialogue where I was taken out of the film for one reason or another. Whether it be that the line is too wordy or the line is too expositional or plain and simple that no one would ever say that. So where his big picture with the story is great, the smaller more precise parts of the film just fall flat.

The film is also fairly predictable in terms of how it plays out. It follows this moving narrative where there is a scene for each character for the protagonist to talk with. You get everyone’s perspective this way but it doesn’t ever do anything to make you care about their perspectives. None of the characters are fleshed out enough to make you truly care about what they think and what they say. You are just watching them explain their perspective without much interest.

Another plus about this film is that the acting is all superb, for the most part. The main character played by Gaspard Ulliel gives the performance of a piece of plywood and doesn’t react to really anything. He has a stone cold face the entire time, and if that’s the point then the protagonist is horribly written. The best acting comes from Vincent Cassel, who always gives an incredible performance. I haven’t seen all of his work but I can’t think of a time where I didn’t enjoy Vincent Cassel’s performance, and he is by far one of the best actors in this film. If Vincent Cassel isn’t the best actor in the film then it has to be Léa Seydoux. both Cassel and Seydoux have this rawness to their performances that make them both incredible. They display this emotion in their performances that make arguably two of the better performances of the year. And a lot of people have been in love with Marion Cotillard’s performance. But personally, I just didn’t find it all that compelling. I adore Marion Cotillard in almost everything she does, but I just thought she was average in this film. Probably because of the fact that the writing for her character is the worst out of all of the rest of the cast. But either way, she didn’t blow me away.

Another thing that I want to talk about quickly is Xavier Dolan’s music choice in this film. Much like Tarantino or a thousand other directors, Dolan uses Pop music in his film very frequently. And in this film, it might be my biggest problem. In Heartbeats, I thought his choice of music worked well, and I think his choice of music usually is pretty good. But like I said earlier, his vision for this film and the one of this film is much more mature and much more serious. And when you match that with the upbeat pop tunes that he puts in, it doesn’t work. It is a jarring contrast.  And one that has no purpose in the film without reaching. If Xavier Dolan wants to make more serious and mature films, then he needs to grow out of the childish tools he used in the past.

It’s Only the End of the World feels very much like a transition film. This is Xavier Dolan dipping his toes in the water and feeling something out before jumping into it. Xavier Dolan has said in interviews that he considers this film to be his best work. And if that’s the case then we as an audience need to learn to adjust to the new direction that he is going in. Because if that is the case then it seems like The Death and Life of John F Donovan is probably going to be even more of what we see in this film. And I can tell you right now, Xavier Dolan is going to be the household name in 6 months. We will either be talking about how great of a director he is, similar to the breakout of Denis Villeneuve. Or we will be talking about the downfall of one of the most promising young directors.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : The Beguiled

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of The Beguiled.

—

I think I’m starting to realize that I don’t consider Sofia Coppola to be a good director. I think she did an amazing job with her first film, Lost in Translation. But almost everything else she has made has either been mediocre or straight up awful in my mind. And this film is no exception, spoiler for the rest of the review. I think of the directing Coppolas, she is the best besides Francis Ford Coppola obviously. But honestly, the bar has never been set that high.

The Beguiled is a remake of the 1971 film of the same name directed by Don Siegel. In the original version, we had Clint Eastwood playing a soldier from the North during the Civil War as he is treated by a school for women in the South. The 2017 version of this film, gives the same story but from the perspective of the women. And that in itself is the first major problem with the film.

I will say straightly that the original film isn’t a masterpiece, or even great or good frankly. The 1971 version of the film is fine and something you would catch on television one night, but there is a reason why it isn’t remembered as one of the necessary films of Clint Eastwood’s career. The story in general of “The Beguiled”, really isn’t that interesting. For a film that takes place during the Civil War with members of both sides trapped in the same house together, there is close to no political or racial dialogue in both films. Which I feel is a major missed opportunity. More importantly, however, is that the original story is not interesting enough to warrant two different perspectives on the same situation. The 2017 version is better written in parts. Noticeably is the female characters are more defined and more interesting in general. The issue is that they are more defined characters who do more or less nothing the entire film. The story of “The Beguiled” isn’t complex enough to have this film and the original film work as separate films. There really isn’t anything new or interesting from seeing the story from the female perspective. And frankly, there wasn’t really anything interesting in seeing it from the male perspective either.

One of the more surprising elements of this film that I wasn’t expecting is that for a film that is trying to give a feminist perspective or at least a female point of view, the female characters are fairly weak characters. The most interesting character in the entire film is played by Kirsten Dunst, who gives a great performance. But Dunst’s character is the most insecure and punching bag of a character in the entire film. To the point where I in the final act I couldn’t relate to her character anymore because she became so insecure that it became almost a caricature. Nicole Kidman, again a great performance, but is still portrayed as a villain. The film is from her perspective, and you see that she doesn’t have any cruel intentions, but the direction and the performance are played like a villain which only made me not particularly care for her character. Then Elle Fanning, again a great performance and probably my favorite of the film, doesn’t serve much of a purpose other than to really want to sleep with Colin Farrell. Thinking back to the film, Fanning’s character is used for one specific moment, but other than that her character serves no purpose. For a film that has been boasting about its female perspective and almost reclaiming of the genre, none of the female characters are relatable or likable. The most likable character is played by Oona Laurence, and her performance is probably one of my favorite child performances I’ve seen in a long time. She and Angourie Rice both were the surprises of the film, and I feel like we don’t get enough of either of them. Honestly, Angourie Rice gives the most interesting performance playing the daughter of high-ranking Confederate General. She gives multiple throwaway lines that tease that racial and political conflict I mentioned earlier, that ultimately go nowhere. That isn’t to say that Colin Farrell’s character is any better. I will say that the impression I got was that Colin Farrell’s portrayal was more charming and fits the womanizer angle better than Clint Eastwood. But it has the same problem where I just don’t care.

The tone of the film is never consistent. The screening I went with was laughing almost the entire film. Which there are humorous moments in the film, so the laughs were not completely unwarranted. But when you have these kinds of scenes and the more brutal and “suspenseful” scenes, it just doesn’t click. It feels like Coppola can’t decide between her more comic style that she has used in the past or if she wants to use a more serious and darker style. The film bounces between the two so frequently that I don’t take the darker moments seriously. Toward the end of the film, the conflict between Farrell’s character and the girls rises to an escalation, and I wanted it to go a certain way only because I knew the film would end once that happened. Not because I cared about any of the characters or their motivations, but because I knew that would be the logical conclusion and I could leave. And then it happens and it is the most lackluster moment of the entire film. I won’t call it “anti-climatic” because I think anti-climaxes are often times really good to show a certain tone. And I can tell that Coppola is trying to do that here, but it comes off as nothing as opposed to melancholy. And for a film that is trying to be suspenseful, the film is horribly paced.

A lot of the problems with the tone and pace of the film originate from the fact that this might be the worst editing film I’ve seen all year. It feels like this film could be a solid forty to fifty minutes. But every shot starts too early and every scene lingers a bit too long. If you trimmed that up, the film would be more suspenseful and it would get to the point quicker. That combined with the fact that there are multiple scenes that tease something, but then is never mentioned again are bothersome. The biggest example I can think of is there is an entire scene that is edited in a way to highlight this button. There are at least three close up shots of this button in the scene. The scene is just Oona Laurence talking about this button. We see her very carefully take care of this button, then we never see it again after this scene. There is literally no point in this scene. And there are multiple moments like this in the film. It feels a lot like Sofia Coppola decided on making this film and couldn’t find enough material to make a feature film. Going back to my first complaint that this story isn’t complex enough to warrant two different films.

I’ve been harsh up to this point, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t anything good in the film. The cinematography has good shot composition. I won’t say that it has great cinematography because a lot of the great shots of this film are great stills. I’m sure these stills will pop up around Tumblr blogs and around the web for a great example of cinematography, and they are great stills. But in context to what they mean and why they are composed that way, there is close to no meaning. The camera is completely static the entire film, which just leads to boring cinematography. But the composition of the shots are well done, even if they don’t serve much of a purpose.

I will also say one of the biggest standouts of the film is the sound design. The sound design is honestly the most artistic and well done of the entire project. Throughout the film, you hear cannons going off in the distance. This adds to the suspense of the film. The cannons act almost as a heartbeat to the film. The pounding of the cannons only gets louder and more powerful as the film goes on and after the defining moment of Colin Farrell’s the cannons stop. The sound design has the most artistic merit of the film and it might be my favorite sound design of the year.

Overall, the film is fine. The sound design and the art direction is really where the film shines. The acting is all well done without anyone being what I would call the best performance of the year. The direction and the editing are really where the film struggles and is the film’s ultimate downfall. If you wanted to see the film, I would still check it out. Just know that it is an extremely slow paced film that never extends beyond “Exploitation Film” territory.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : The Manifesto

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of The Manifesto.

—

So this film is the most self-indulgent film I’ve seen in a long time. It thinks it’s so much better than everyone else and that only it’s opinion could possibly be correct. Seriously, I’ve met the most pretentious films students of all time and they would think this film is going too far. I’m sure the director masturbated while making this film. So much so that instead of reviewing this film, I’ve just copy and pasted a guide of how to masturbate. So Julian Rosefeldt, next time you feel like subjecting us mere mortals to your genius, please read this and spare us the eye rolling.

The basic way to masturbate is to lightly grip your penis in one hand, with your fingers underneath and thumb on top.

You then move your hand up and down the shaft. Don’t go too hard or fast to start with – start slow and build up.

With some experimentation you’ll be able to find the finger position, speed and strength of grip that most stimulates you.

If you like, you can pull your foreskin back and include the penis head in the up and down movement.

If you find the exposed penis head is too sensitive, it helps to use lubricant. Alternatively, you can keep the foreskin in place, so it acts as a protective barrier between your hand and the penis head.

Even if you only use your hands to masturbate, you can still add some variety and extra pleasure.

Try not to get stuck on just using your strong hand, as there are some fun ways to include your other hand:

• Sometimes only use your other hand when masturbating.

• Have a go at using both hands at the same time. If you can put them one next to the other on your shaft, lucky you and your future partner. If you’re like most mortal men and you can’t, try squeezing your penis between your palms and experimenting with a stroking action.

• Use one hand to move up and down the shaft while the other plays with the penis head, for example doing a circular motion with the palm.

Remember the last time you got hit hard in the balls, collapsing to the floor with that agonizing nauseous feeling while everyone laughed at you?

Yep, your testicles are seriously sensitive!

They can also be much more than simply an oddly shaped storage facility.

They are in fact an erogenous zone which you can use to heighten your pleasure and orgasms when masturbating.

If you’re only using one hand to masturbate, your other hand is free to explore other parts of your body. Here are a few ideas for including your balls:

• Pull them slightly downwards while masturbating.

• Try caressing, stroking or tickling them – experiment to see exactly what feels good.

• Try just holding them in a light grip with the other hand.

There’s also an important health reason to get to know how your testicles feel. If you know what they feel like normally, you’ll be quicker to spot any unusual lumps or growths, which is important to keep a check on during your life.

It’s a popular belief that only women have multiple erogenous zones. However, the truth is that your body is far more sensitive than you might think (just look at Robin Hood’s inability to shoot straight when Maid Marian blew in his ear).

For example, try playing with your nipples – yes, your nipples! – and experiment with different strokes, pinches, pressure and movements.

Try caressing the inside of your thighs or your stomach. And if there’s anywhere else on your body that feels good to touch, enjoy exploring the different sensations that arise.

Some guys are more sensitive than others in different areas, so it’s up to you to find out what works for you when masturbating. There are no rules, so don’t be shy – get to know your own body and find out what floats your boat.

The Perineum is the area between your anus and testicles. It’s a soft padded bit of skin which can be very sensitive to touch. You can try caressing it or pushing it gently with your one hand you use the other to masturbate.

Tempting as it might be to lock the bedroom door and sit in the same position every time you masturbate, it can be fun to try other positions from time to time.

Here are 4 ideas:

• Lie on your front on the bed, with your penis in one hand underneath your body. It might be easier and more comfortable to arrange some pillows under you to take some weight off your hand. You can then move your hips to thrust into your hand.

• Try kneeling or standing, and also then try thrusting into your hand rather than always keeping your body still and stroking with your hand.

• Change positions during your session: kneeling, standing, sitting, swapping hands or anything you can think of to add variety.

• Some readers have commented about how they sometimes like to put their penis between their thighs and then move their legs up and down. It’s a technique that’s probably not that common, but might be fun to explore if you can do the necessary yoga.

Some say the male G-Spot is like the lost city of Atlantis, and never existed in the first place; others claim that guys are in fact blessed with 2 different G-spots.

Whether they are officially G-spots or not, many guys find these areas particularly sensitive, and that they can increase the intensity of their orgasms enormously.

The first is the area on and around the frenulum – that weird string-like fleshy bit that connects the penis head to the shaft and you always wondered what it did.

If you play with it gently with your spare hand, you’ll probably find it’s the most sensitive part of your penis.

The second G-spot might not appeal to everyone, but some guys like to include their anus when masturbating.

If you’re willing to explore this area, you might find it adds an extra dimension to your masturbation and gives you super strength orgasms. Here’s how to find it:

• Wash your anus and hands before starting.

• Put some lubricant on your finger.

• Rub around the outside of your anus to begin with.

• Gently insert a finger as far as is comfortable.

• You can then just keep the finger inside while you masturbate with your other hand as normal, or move it gently in and out.

• The G-Spot is supposedly a small area a couple of inches inside. It should feel like a little ball just over an inch in diameter, which is actually the outside of the prostate. You can softly rub this spot if you manage to find it.

By now you’ve probably worked out that the key to great masturbation is to experiment and find out what really works for you. Try to be open-minded, but if there are things that just don’t appeal or do it for you, don’t worry about it!

There are two ideas in this article that I recommend above all others. First, take your time when masturbating and don’t rush it. Something Julian Rosenfeldt should take into consideration.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : Okja

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of Okja.

—

I’m going to make an effort to not talk about Netflix in this review because it isn’t necessary. With all the talk about the premiere of this film at Cannes Film Festival, the debate of is this actually a film or is this a television movie has sparked. But at the same time, who cares? If a release is what determines a film’s legitimacy then that’s kind of stupid. Some of the best films are never released to theaters, whether they be just on HBO, Netflix, or even just straight to VOD. Transformers: The Last Knight had one of the widest releases this year and I don’t think that film is any more a film than this one. So if your definition of a film is determined by where you put your ass before watching it, then maybe re-evaluate what your film priorities are.

Okja is the new film from South Korean Director Bong Joon-Ho, known for Memories of Murder and The Host, or how most American viewers know him as the director of Snowpiercer. Okja follows more of a situation than a character. Okja is about the discovery/invention of a new creature that produces requires less feed, produces less waste, and most importantly tastes amazing. One of these “Super Pigs”, as they are called, is named Okja and is own by a small Korean girl named Mija. The corporation that controls Okja comes and takes Okja away to be slaughtered and Mija ain’t having that. Thus Mija goes across the world to save her pet with the help from various characters along the way.

If you have seen Joon-Ho’s work in the past, you know that he does not shy away from things. His films are often brutal in nature and show things that the audience does not want to see. Okja is no exception to this. And I think I might have trouble recommending this film to animal lovers due to how brutal the film is in terms of the slaughterhouses and all of the stuff that comes with this kind of subject matter. And this isn’t brutal in a Marley & Me kind of way either. This is never a cute thing that becomes tragic, this film is straight tragic from beginning to end. It is very much in line with Joon-Ho’s filmography. So keep that in mind before watching the film because it might not be the feel-good film you are looking for or even the emotional animal film you are looking for.

The acting in the film is incredible. Everyone will be talking about Tilda Swinton playing the head of the corporation and for good reason. Tilda Swinton is incredible in this film, just like she is in every film she takes part in. Ahn Seo-hyun, who plays Mija, is also fantastic in the film and does an amazing job with emoting both silently and verbally. In a film that does the same thing that Scooby-Doo did with the CGI animal, Seo-hyun does an amazing job as does the rest of the cast. The person I want to acknowledge the most, however, is actually Jake Gyllenhaal, who gives probably my favorite performance of 2017 thus far. Is it the best performance of 2017, no, but I had so much fun watching Gyllenhaal perform in this film that he was easily my favorite part of the film. Some describe his performance as campy, but I disagree.

The idea of “campy” has been thrown around for this film for in my opinion no merit. Some have complained that the can’t find a balance between Campiness and Seriousness. Which I don’t believe that there really is a lot of campiness to Okja, I strongly believe that the film is just having fun in certain aspects. For example, Paul Dano leads a group of ecoterrorists. The humor to it is that these are the friendlies terrorists you will ever see. The ecoterrorists in the film were another highlight because the humor with them works so well, and as a heads up, there is an after credits scene with them that has one of the best jokes in the entire film. And there is a look of that “quirky” or “fun” humor to it, but I would never call it campy. Campy implies some kind of poor taste or some kind of irony, neither of which is present in the film. When a film is called Campy, it is usually in defense for something bad in the film, and there is nothing really bad enough in this film to warrant the film being called Campy.

I won’t spoil it, but the ending is I think the best part of the film. The last thirty minutes of the film is easily the best part of the film. There is a scene involving the slaughter house and is haunting and one of the best scenes of the year, and the scene following it is the final scene and that is what I think makes this film. The final scene has the overall melancholic feeling to it. It’s a cold scene when it shouldn’t be. And these two scenes alone show how this is the best-directed film of the year. It isn’t the best film of the year, but it is extremely well done. 

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : Son of Saul

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of Son of Saul.

—

Well, this certainly took me long enough. This has been one of those films that I’ve been wanting to see since it won the Grand Prix at Cannes in 2015. So you are probably wondering, “Hey! If you wanted to see it since then, why are you now watching it in June of 2017?” That’s a good question voice in my head that gives me all my insecurities. Admittedly I’ve kind of always put this film off because of the subject matter. I had always heard of good things from the film, especially following it winning Best Foreign Film at both the Oscars and the Golden Globes, this film is the first time a Hungarian Film has won the Golden Globe. And I’ve always recommended the film to people, without seeing it. Thinking about it now, I don’t think I’ve ever heard any heavy criticism of the film. From what I’ve seen the film has only been given universal praise. But with a film like this, it isn’t something that I’ve ever wanted to jump in and eat a bucket of popcorn with. But we’ll get into it.

Son of Saul is a Holocaust film concerning a member of the Sonderkommando. In other words, our main character is a prisoner in Auschwitz who has the job of moving and burning the deceased. Are you having fun yet? No? Well, don’t worry, because the film is about to get more sad. The plot of the film follows as Saul moves bodies until he recognizes one of them, whom he thinks is the body of his dead son. The film then follows as he does everything in his ability to give the body a proper Jewish Burial. So yeah. You can probably tell why I haven’t leaped into watching this film.

It’s interesting, both this film and Schindler’s List are on that list of films I have that I need to watch but have always not had the motivation to do so. And in the same week, I watched both. And they are both fantastic films but have different tones to them. In Schindler’s List, you have this horrible depressing but magnificently made film. You get the same thing in Son of Saul, the exception being that you can still tell that Spielberg made Schindler’s List because there is this magical element to it. That isn’t in Son of Saul when you hear the bodies burning and the children screaming in pain, you can’t ignore it. The director, László Nemes, doesn’t shy away from showing the horror and pain of the Holocaust, and he shouldn’t. The film has a dark and dirty and painful point of view and it isn’t for someone with a weak heart.

The film is shot in 1.37:1 aspect ratio. Often times the camera will stay on a close up for an extended period of time, to the point where I’m sure the shot list to the film was much shorter than the average feature film. At a certain point, would forget the last time there was a cut in the film because it would stay on a close up for so long that it just pulls you in. The shallow depth of field the film uses really puts you in the mind of the main character and drags you through the hell that the main character is experiencing. It keeps almost everything except the face out of focus to where you can’t focus on the dead bodies, you can’t focus on the details. This done in a way where you see how the main character is so apathetic to the situation because of how much of the horror he has had to see. You aren’t sensitive to everything being presented because the main character has become so desensitized to the horror that he doesn’t see it either. It’s very well shot, not in a compositional kind of way but in a psychological kind of way.

Yes it took me awhile to check it out, but I am very glad that I did. It’s a wonderfully crafted film, and one that deserves all of the praise it has gotten. Would it have cracked my top ten of 2015? Probably not, there are very small sound issues that end up being the weakest part of the film, but it is worth checking out. So if you are like me and haven’t made the jump, go ahead. You won’t have fun, but you will be glad you did it.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : Afterimage

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of Afterimage.

—

I don’t want to be too harsh on this film. And that isn’t to say that the film has qualities that warrant being harsh on it, far from it. But this is the director, Andrzej Wajda’s, last film. If you haven’t heard of Wajda, no worries! Admittedly I was no familiar with Wajda before going into this film. But in a quick run down of his work, Wajda is a legendary Polish director who won the Palme D’Or and an honorary Academy Award. Wajda also directed this film at 90 years old before passing away before the film’s premiere. So I don’t want to be too harsh on this film because I know fans of Wajda are going to have a different reaction. From reading about the film’s premiere it is clear there are strong emotions attached to this film, especially considering the film’s subject matter.

Afterimage follows an Avant-Garde painter living in Poland a few years before Polish October. In other words, it’s about how much Communism in Poland sucked. As the film progresses you get to see the painter evolve from being a well-beloved art profession and notable painter to the decay and eventual demise to the painter. It is not a feel good kind of film. It is more of a “dear god everything is awful and nothing is going to work out and I need to stop taking everything I have for granted” kind of film. After everything in the film, the only thing I take away from the film is that Communism is awful and that living in Poland during Stalin’s empire was also awful.

I think the aspect of the film that shines the most is the cinematography. There are a lot of shots that show the decay of both Poland and the painter. The color palette of the film slowly evolves from a bright and vivid color scheme to a dark and murky color scheme. By the end of the film, we see the world as almost dystopian in nature while the beginning is almost comically bright and happy. I remember seeing the opening scene and thinking this is too happy, possibly to contrast the rest of the film and the murkiness of the scenes. Something in the beginning that I thought was a flaw ended up being one of the strongest parts of the film.

I think the acting in the film is quite good, especially by the lead actor Bogusław Linda. Linda, being a 63-year-old actor at the time of production, looks around ninety in this film. And where the rest of the cast is forgettable in terms of their characters, they give hefty performances. The only performance that I would say isn’t spectacular is the girl who plays Linda’s daughter. But even that, it never got me to roll my eyes or wish her scene was over, it just didn’t fully grasp my attention.

Another thing to keep in mind with this film is that it is extremely slow paced. Don’t expect anything to get exciting. There is one scene in an art gallery that is kind of exciting, but other than that, you are watching an elderly man get sad and depressed for an hour and a half. So if you don’t like that, do not watch this film. Even by my standards, I was getting a little bored by the film. Partly because the film is pure sadness and decay, which I applaud as this is a true story and Wajda did not simplify the film for an audience. At the end of the day, the film has a very bold stance and it sticks to it. It shows you how God awful the Communist Regime was and how it affected the people of Poland specifically.

As time goes on I do like this film more, or I think a more accurate term would be that I respect it more. But at the end of the day that isn’t making me think it’s a better film in general. And where I wish it wasn’t true, I do feel as though I will forget this film in due time. There isn’t a lot of this film that would make me think about it or want to revisit it. One of the constant struggles of extremely depressing films is that they don’t draw much from me in terms of lasting image. Which is ironic given the title and message of this film.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : Mustang

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of Mustang.

—

Jeez. This film is a lot more depressing than I thought it would be. I was really hoping this would be the feel good film that I could enjoy about girls being girls and having a good time and growing up. I should have known better, because those kinds of films don’t get nominated for Best Foreign film, nor do they get made honestly. Instead, we have this depressing film about how awful it is to be a girl in Turkey. So yeah. Know that going in because it never gets happy.

Mustang tells the story of five orphan girls living together in a small village in Turkey. Their caregivers are very strict and conservative making their lives not great, and by not great I mean their entire lives revolve around arranged marriage. So we follow the girls as they are married off to a bunch of men they don’t like and are generally miserable. The story is fine honestly. Despite it being about the complex subject of forced marriage, it is actually pretty straight forward and extremely easy to follow. My only issue story-wise is that there are very few traits that distinguish the girls from one another, besides age. I never felt like we got to learn a lot about each individual girl, it always put the story over character development. But that didn’t bother me too much so I can let it slide.

The direction of the film is good if not anything spectacular. The director, Deniz Gamze Ergüven, is a first time directing woman, which is always welcome especially around these parts. The film is put together well even if the film lacks anything special in terms of style. I’ve read that the film is somewhat autobiographical, and if that is the case I can see why the story would come first over the style. I also read that Ergüven directed the entire film while pregnant (eat your heart out Prevenge), so that adds major props to the filmmaker. So if you are looking for a straight forward story this might be up your alley. But ever since the film came out I’ve heard only rave reviews so I was a little disappointed by how standard the film is. But that didn’t bother me too much so I can let it slide.

If I had to say something in the film that is blatantly bad, I would be inclined to point to the cinematography. The cinematography is done by two fairly new DPs and it looks very artificial and fake in certain points. But I wouldn’t call it bad, I would more along the lines call it passable. There were only a few points in the film where the cinematography took me out of the film, one being when they went to the futball game. But other than that it didn’t bother me. It didn’t ever scale into anything worthwhile, but it didn’t bother me too much so I’ll let it slide.

I would say that I’m disappointed by this film, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad per say. I might have gone into the film with much higher of expectations than I should have expected. This and Son of Saul are the only films nominated from this year for Best Foreign Language that I have not seen. And Theeb, A War, and Embrace of the Serpent all have been better than this film. So this film might be the weakest nominee. Which isn’t a bad thing. This is still a very well made and provocative film. The only downside is that the film goes all out with its story to the point where everything else falls by the wayside. It’s a finely put together film and I believe that Ergüven has a bright future ahead of her, but I am more interested in seeing what she does next than watch this film again. Maybe I’m not the target audience, it is a very heavily female based film. But this film ended up just being a bit of a disappointment.

Scroll to top