The tragedy of this is I really liked the summary I read on Wikipedia (which is a determining factor when I'm not sure if I want to see a movie). The summary was really good and I thought I was in for a childhood nightmare of a movie. Unfortunately, while the story was good, they were way too subtle in execution. The scene in the bedroom was actually terrifying, they used the subtlety really well there, but there were two significant moments that were actually better in the plot summary than in the actual movie. I can write off bad movies but the painful ones are the ones that had potential, and this one did. I encourage you to read the Wikipedia summary. It's a good read. In execution, though, there were some details mentioned in the summary that I actually wouldn't have understood happened from just watching the movie. Once again, read the plot summary. I don't know who writes them all, but Wikipedia gives excellent plot summaries for any book or movie you might not want to give all your time to.
Reviews
4 Reviews
Li'l Quinquin
(2014)
Not my kind of movie
31 July 2018
This clearly wasn't my kind of movie and I only stuck with it based on a trusted reviewer's recommendation whom I would no longer completely trust if only I remembered just who that reviewer was.
This movie isn't completely unredeemable. There were moments of genuine laugh out loud comedy, but the reason you stick with the story is to see its conclusion, which either wasn't given or I was so done with the movie by the time it ended that I just didn't notice, but I have a feeling it's the former; and with how painfully slow and seemingly pointless the movie is, I wouldn't be surprised if the writer thought it was brilliant to have the story end without a conclusion because 'that's life, it's slow and there aren't always answers' but, assuming that was the intent, that's not why people see movies. Even the most out-there artistic movies still have an ending as to not lose an audience completely. Again, nothing against the people who made this movie. I clearly should've stopped 30 minutes in, but even though this movie's clearly not for me, not for most people (at one point I screamed, not in reaction to an offensive moment but successive, offensively boring ones, "this was on tv?! Who would watch this?! Well, tv is very different in other countries."), I find disturbing the seemingly unanimous critical praise. I don't trust Roger Ebert's website. Every time his site's review comes up in a movie's search, the review always seems backwards, praising terrible movies and being too critical of not-that-bad ones. He's dead, obviously. I'm saying whoever's writing in his name seems to have a very backwards view of culture, so his 4/4 rating was not at all surprising to me and his postmortem reviews carry no weight in my eyes. That being said, every other review seems to give this movie similar high praise. Were they watching the same movie? Did they really love every meandering, dialogue-free, action-free, progress-free moment? I find it very hard to believe that these reviewers would praise an equally abhorrently slow and pointless superhero movie.
And I wholeheartedly agree with another reviewer (here on imdb) who said this movie feels like it needs serious editing. It's not uncommon to hear of movies who's first cut was approaching 4 hours but was whittled down to 2.5, but I know the torturous pacing was deliberate, which makes me dislike it all the more. This movie feels like it was made to turn away people who wouldn't like or get it. Movies should be accessible. That's not to say cookie-cutter or inoffensive. I neither got nor liked Killing of a Sacred Deer and yet in a strange way that I struggle to put into words, I consider it a good movie in spite of (or perhaps because of) its going against everything I believe about filmmaking because it stuck with me. I didn't agree with how the story was told and I didn't get the larger point - the little of it I did I disagreed with - but it all felt purposeful. Maybe that's why Killing's offensiveness was magnetic whereas Quinquin's was repellent. Accessibility, at least for me, means a sense of purpose within and around the story. There was definitely (although with how slow everything else played out this seemed rushed) a smaller message or at least exploration of racism in France, but other than that I couldn't even sense a purpose out of my reach as with Killing. The only purpose I felt was, as I said above, the writer really liking to document the slowness, purposelessness, and imperfection of real life (that last one actually being a good thing, what gave the movie both uniqueness and life, but heavily weighed down by the first two). Beyond that I saw no purpose and that's what made this movie repellently different as opposed to magnetic.
This movie isn't completely unredeemable. There were moments of genuine laugh out loud comedy, but the reason you stick with the story is to see its conclusion, which either wasn't given or I was so done with the movie by the time it ended that I just didn't notice, but I have a feeling it's the former; and with how painfully slow and seemingly pointless the movie is, I wouldn't be surprised if the writer thought it was brilliant to have the story end without a conclusion because 'that's life, it's slow and there aren't always answers' but, assuming that was the intent, that's not why people see movies. Even the most out-there artistic movies still have an ending as to not lose an audience completely. Again, nothing against the people who made this movie. I clearly should've stopped 30 minutes in, but even though this movie's clearly not for me, not for most people (at one point I screamed, not in reaction to an offensive moment but successive, offensively boring ones, "this was on tv?! Who would watch this?! Well, tv is very different in other countries."), I find disturbing the seemingly unanimous critical praise. I don't trust Roger Ebert's website. Every time his site's review comes up in a movie's search, the review always seems backwards, praising terrible movies and being too critical of not-that-bad ones. He's dead, obviously. I'm saying whoever's writing in his name seems to have a very backwards view of culture, so his 4/4 rating was not at all surprising to me and his postmortem reviews carry no weight in my eyes. That being said, every other review seems to give this movie similar high praise. Were they watching the same movie? Did they really love every meandering, dialogue-free, action-free, progress-free moment? I find it very hard to believe that these reviewers would praise an equally abhorrently slow and pointless superhero movie.
And I wholeheartedly agree with another reviewer (here on imdb) who said this movie feels like it needs serious editing. It's not uncommon to hear of movies who's first cut was approaching 4 hours but was whittled down to 2.5, but I know the torturous pacing was deliberate, which makes me dislike it all the more. This movie feels like it was made to turn away people who wouldn't like or get it. Movies should be accessible. That's not to say cookie-cutter or inoffensive. I neither got nor liked Killing of a Sacred Deer and yet in a strange way that I struggle to put into words, I consider it a good movie in spite of (or perhaps because of) its going against everything I believe about filmmaking because it stuck with me. I didn't agree with how the story was told and I didn't get the larger point - the little of it I did I disagreed with - but it all felt purposeful. Maybe that's why Killing's offensiveness was magnetic whereas Quinquin's was repellent. Accessibility, at least for me, means a sense of purpose within and around the story. There was definitely (although with how slow everything else played out this seemed rushed) a smaller message or at least exploration of racism in France, but other than that I couldn't even sense a purpose out of my reach as with Killing. The only purpose I felt was, as I said above, the writer really liking to document the slowness, purposelessness, and imperfection of real life (that last one actually being a good thing, what gave the movie both uniqueness and life, but heavily weighed down by the first two). Beyond that I saw no purpose and that's what made this movie repellently different as opposed to magnetic.
It
(I) (2017)
Painfully boring
16 September 2017
Oh my god I was so bored, I would've walked out if I was alone. I think the biggest problem was that I just did not care about the characters at all. It makes me appreciate feeling so bad for the main character in Mother! Movies that make you feel bad are good in that way. I just could not bring myself to care about the characters. Their slow-scene dialogue was cringeworthy, often didn't sound natural. The scares were decent. I certainly appreciate the movie not being made up of 100% jumpscares, but again, just decent, and the impact was lessened by the strange artistic choice of pacing - cut from dark creepy scare to bright sunny calm scene. The combination of all of this left me very restless in my seat. Like The Witch, it feels a lot longer than it is. Towards what i thought was the end of the runtime I said "I'm surprised they're not gonna wrap this up" but I was surprised to see it was only 90 minutes in. I suppose it's a dense movie, they pack a lot in - not that that's a bad thing, but the content doesn't inspire any emotions other than restlessness, impatience. If you feel you must experience it, go alone so you have the option of walking out.
The Evil Within
(I) (2017)
Fairly good on its own, incredible in context.
21 April 2017
On its own, it was fairly good; not very much to say since I couldn't help but think about the context. The ending was a little confusing, but if you saw the movie you'd probably be surprised if it wasn't confusing.
Now for the context. No one's first film is great or even good, but this was a very good first effort from the writer-director and I think it showed a great natural artistic capability that a longer career would have honed. I was amazed at how good this was for a first film and it's tragic to think there will never be another movie from this clearly gifted artist.
That being said, if I didn't know the backstory behind the film, I probably wouldn't have sought it out, let alone even heard of it, and it's better to judge a film on its own rather than the context around its making. I acknowledge that I had a bias going into this movie as I went in knowing the tragic story of the writer-director, but the bias should not be judged too harshly as I've gone into many movies wanting them to be good and that's never stopped me from judging them to be bad if they were indeed bad. While The Evil Within is not great, it's certainly memorable. 6/10 might not sound like a good rating, but I prefer a 4-star scale, with 2 stars being average, not bad but not exactly memorable, and 3 stars being good, and this movie's in between, so my rating is 2.5/4 stars. A not exactly good but certainly memorable movie, and an incredible first and only film from an untapped talent.
Now for the context. No one's first film is great or even good, but this was a very good first effort from the writer-director and I think it showed a great natural artistic capability that a longer career would have honed. I was amazed at how good this was for a first film and it's tragic to think there will never be another movie from this clearly gifted artist.
That being said, if I didn't know the backstory behind the film, I probably wouldn't have sought it out, let alone even heard of it, and it's better to judge a film on its own rather than the context around its making. I acknowledge that I had a bias going into this movie as I went in knowing the tragic story of the writer-director, but the bias should not be judged too harshly as I've gone into many movies wanting them to be good and that's never stopped me from judging them to be bad if they were indeed bad. While The Evil Within is not great, it's certainly memorable. 6/10 might not sound like a good rating, but I prefer a 4-star scale, with 2 stars being average, not bad but not exactly memorable, and 3 stars being good, and this movie's in between, so my rating is 2.5/4 stars. A not exactly good but certainly memorable movie, and an incredible first and only film from an untapped talent.
Tell Your Friends