simonwoodhart Reviews

Men (2022)

Important Message, OK Film

[5/10 · 6 February 2023]

I think the message of this film (abused women shouldn't be at the mercy of a widespread victim blaming and perpetuating toxic masculinity) is important and Alex Garland should be applauded. I also think the film is also beautiful to look at (lots of vivid greens and beautiful rolling his of Gloucestershire) and to listen to (great track selection as well as original music be Geoff Barrow of Portishead). However something feels off about this film, primarily that the events of it, and particularly the end of the film, are just a metaphor and nothing else. Throughout the film the protagonist doesn't notice that all the men look the same, which is fine for making a point but it takes the character (for me) outside of events and makes the climax as if is just a dream.

Speak No Evil (2022)

Miserable Film w/ Ilogical Characters

[1/10 · 17 January 2023]

Have you seen that Geico ad where they reference teen slasher films and the propensity of characters in those films making poor choices? This is like that but longer and with ominous music. This isn't a horror film. It is a social commentary film that happens to have a kids tongue get cut off and stupid characters getting killed for being stupid. If you enjoy watching films that have you yelling at the TV "don't drive back for the stuffed toy rabbit you imbecile!" Then you might like it. I found it miserable and nonsensical and illogical and miserable. I should come away feeling shocked and horrified, but I'm just angry.

The Trip (2021)

Unpleasant & Boring Trash

[1/10 · 22 October 2021]

He wants to kill her for cheating on him, she wants to kill him because he directs soap operas? This is a supposed comedy film filled with dismembered limbs, poop in a dudes face, rape and shotgun wounds aplenty, but no entertainment to be found anywhere. This film is so incredibly stupid, tasteless and, worst of all, boring. At least they could have populated the soundtrack with black metal instead of this Dum Dum Boys rubbish, oh well. Zero stars!

The Sparks Brothers (2021)

Standard Documentary / Too Long

[5/10 · 13 July 2021]

Watching Edgar Wright's documentary on the band Sparks put me in mind of another documentary, Scott Walker: 30th Century Man. With both I knew next to nothing about subjects of the documentary, with one I ended up seeking out their music and becoming a massive fan, the other I really don't see myself getting into at all. 30th Century Man focused on a pop idol who faded to obscurity until many years later coming out with new material that was extremely different and difficult for some (the Sparks Brothers certainly misses a moment like in 30th Century Man where Lulu looks on horrified while listening to a carcass-punching new track from Mr. Walker). The Sparks Brothers focuses on a pop band who has had varying degrees of success but keeps on trucking despite their downward trajectory. Judging a documentary on whether I am into the product of the subject is obviously not right, maybe I am just not into the music, right? However, I feel that with The Sparks Brothers in the beginning I was into it and adding albums to my library in iTunes. However, as the film went on, I just lost interest. Perhaps that is due to the length of the film, as a comparison, 30th Century Man is 1 hour and 35 minutes, Sparks Brothers 2 hours and 21 minutes. Two hours of faux British accented falsetto vocal led synth / rock music with talking heads, some of which not appearing not to be overly enamored with the group, is too much. There is some added wackiness in the film such as the visual puns (which are OK) and made-up "facts" about Sparks read by Sparks (which are intolerable), but all-in-all it is your run-of-the-mill music documentary. Some of the talking-heads add nothing (Jason Schwartzman and the guitarist from Sex Pistols for example), to be honest most of them essentially say, "I love them, and they aren't well known...Hitler mustache!". There is one drawn-out story of the singer hitting his head with a mallet on stage accompanied by an animation. Why? It makes no sense and adds nothing. Also, Edgar Wright putting himself in the documentary? That is indulgent and unnecessary to say the least. In some respects, I can understand the rationale behind the length as the film goes from album to album, going into personnel changes, records label changes / interference and becoming, maybe, the world's first synth pop band. I can appreciate that fans of Sparks may love this and may want more. However, as someone who isn't a fan but who is susceptible to becoming a fan of bands based on documentaries, this did not work for me. As a documentary it is well done and has some nice visuals (the aforementioned unnecessary animation is well done).

Behind Her Eyes (2021)

Just Watch Behind Her Eyes, I Have Questions.

[1/10 · 3 March 2021]

1. The protagonist, a single mother, lives in a decent place with a balcony in London while working just three days a week as a secretary. How? 2. Did the makers of this show hire the same SFX team that was responsible for the 1995 Stephen King based miniseries The Langoliers? 3. English actors playing Scots, why? 4. So, Adele / Rob's plan was to have her soul escape and wait for Louise to come to her house, do the soul escape thing and take control of her body? How did he/she know Louise would be so stupid? 5. Was the twist that Adele is Rob? Or that in the fifth episode they introduce a ridiculous supernatural element that makes one regret watching the four previous episodes?

Another Round (2020)

Skol?

[7/10 · 5 January 2021]

I had a few misgivings about watching this film as someone who has not had a sip of alcohol in over six months. Would it trigger me into drinking? Would it portray drinking in a positive light? Obviously I threw my doubts aside and watched it and I am glad I did. This film primarily tells the tale of Martin (Mads Mikkelsen) who is going through the motions of life. He is no longer effective as a teacher and his family life is lacking due to the alienation of his wife and kids. However, on a boozy night out with a group of co-workers / friends an idea is formed, based on Norwegian philosopher and psychologist Finn Skårderud's theory that humans are born with a blood alcohol level 0.050 lower than it should be, and that that amount should be drunk every day in order to bring about optimum performance levels. As all four friends engage in drinking in the morning things appear to work well, until the inevitable escalation. First off, this film is genuinely funny. Secondly, it is moving. Third, it is beautiful to look at. However if I were to judge this film as person who has a troubling relationship with alcohol and try to pinpoint a message to the film, then I would have some trouble. I believe the film is a commentary on the absurdity of Danish drinking culture. Not being Danish I maybe can't fully comprehend the social intricacies, but being British I can certainly understand (drinking is our culture). For better or worse this film doesn't appear to state definitively whether drinking alcohol is good or bad. Certainly you view tragedy born from over imbibing, but then it shows that there are some positives. For someone like me who wishes to moderate but can't and wants a binary judgement, this rubs me the wrong way.