Buried

He's not having a good day... image via The Guardian

2010's Buried stars Ryan Reynolds (and except for a few people the other end of a phone, only Ryan Reynolds) as an American truck driver in Iraq who is kidnapped by terrorists and buried alive. The entire film stays in the coffin for the full running time, with Reynolds becoming more and more stressed by the situation as time goes own. The film was very well received by critics, but obviously it took no time at all to find some contrary opinions on amazon.co.uk:

A man makes phone calls in a coffin for an hour and a half (Yes I suppose that is true, but every film would be simple if you whittle it down to a single sentence. The Godfather saga would be pretty simple if you described it as 'A man becomes a crime boss and things don't go well for 9 hours.')

I'm surprised there are customers on here giving this film 5 stars (Really? I'm not surprised that there are 1 star reviews. Peoples opinions differ.), i.e the highest rating possible suggesting this is some sort of amazing film (Yes, and? They obviously felt that it deserved those 5 stars. Personally I'd say four stars would be more appropriate but I can see where they are coming from.). Even if you liked the film could you really say it was that good and mean it? (What? Obviously they did because otherwise they wouldn't've given the film 5 stars would they? People didn't give the bloody film 5 stars just to hurt you.) You would want to sit through it more than once? (Yes I would. Indeed I almost certainly will.)

Anyway, the title of my review pretty much sums up the film (Again, you shouldn't just describe a film in a sentence. Citizen Kane could become 'A dick dies.' But that would be stupid.), which creates unrealistic (Unrealistic? How so?) suspense and for the most part is Ryan Reynolds making increasingly frantic phone calls (Yes. The phone calls are excellent at introducing fresh tension through his not entirely successful phone calls.). All the while the background music is ramping up and the camera spins about a bit trying to convince you this is a thrilling film (It's not trying to 'convince' you of anything. It is a thrilling film.). I found it actually quite tedious (Well you are very much in the minority there I'm afraid), especially as most viewers know the camera never leaves the coffin (Many will know that for sure, but you can't possibly claim that 'most' will know that. Not if you expect to be taken seriously anyway.), nothing else is going to happen, so in the end all you want to know is if he gets out or not (I knew that the camera never left and it didn't ruin the film for me at all, there was still plenty of tension.). The only drama that unfolds for the protaganist is dealing with annoyingly stupid/heartless people on the phone (The annoyance of being put on hold/coming across unhelpful phone operators is very much at the heart of the film, at least as much as being buried alive.) and a ridiculous scene where a snake comes out of nowhere, providing something for our hero to do (I believe it had come into the coffin through a small hole whilst he was sleeping). 

I really wouldn't bother with this film, it was brave attempt but turned out to be an empty film with little point. (Well it has as much a point as any other film. Is to entertain and to thrill no longer good enough? Besides this film does have messages. That innocent people are often made to suffer during times of war, and that being put on hold is really fucking annoying...)

Here's another one for your delectation:

This is a film that is far too in love with its own cynicism (I don't think its 'too in love' with anything. I mean I could get it if you complained that it was trying to be too clever with its stripped back story, but too in love with its cynicism? Give me a break.). That causes two major problems (I bet that they aren't that major...), but first, the good things, which others have touched on ('Others' being intelligent people probably...);

The script is, by and large, pretty good. (The script was very good. No 'by and large' about it.)
There is a VERY tense atmosphere. (There is. Congrats.)
The lead and solo [visible] actor is excellent. (He is indeed. Not many would have thought that Ryan Reynolds could have pulled this off, but he did. Expertly. Also, I would throw in the direction by Rodrigo Cortés as being superb. He got that camera into every conceivable spot.)

BUT...the film doesn't want to you to feel good about anything (It doesn't beat people up for being happy. I mean it isn't by any means a happy little number, but I've seen far more depressing films.). Anything at all (It's probably okay with you being glad that you aren't buried alive...). Our hero, Paul, phones several people. He's constantly put on hold. Whilst this adds to the tension, it soon becomes clear that rather than using a jaded worldview to create dramatic effect, the writer is more interested in making his character suffer because he can't think of something else to do (Look, films rely on interesting events. Sometimes, those events are not happy events. The film would be pretty dull if Reynolds just went around doing a bit of shopping and driving his truck around. If you want to watch something that makes you feel good inside stick with Disney. Not a film entitled Buried about a man who is buried alive. I'm forced to ask, how fucking dimwitted are you?).

So enter the plot holes: we are presented with some incongruities that never amount to anything (I'm curious to see how bad these are... Oh, and SPOILERS ahoy);

-A woman mad at Paul...though we never find out why, making his angry outburst totally unsympathetic (Pretty sure it is explained actually... And he's buried alive. I think he was pretty upset about that so his outburst is really quite understandable...).
-A woman knowing Paul's name then pausing dramatically before telling him HOW she knew it, making you suspect something is wrong (I think that is what is known as a red herring.).
-The counter-hostage guy man acting very suspiciously on the phone, again leading you to think that something larger and more devious is happening (That is a continuation of the previous red herring. It is perfectly acceptable for a film to lead you to question another characters motives, when they are in fact clean.).
-A video of a fellow hostage (NOT buried, by the way (Well they didn't bury her so that they could force him to do as they asked by threatening her.)) who is killed. Yet the story she gives and the story given by the people on the phone don't add up. This too goes nowhere (I don't remember anything like that, personally. And besides, not one of those is a plot hole. A plot hole is something that disrupts the flow of the plot. Things such as the omission of relevant information, direct contradiction between two parts of the film, events which are impossible or otherwise do not sit with the established world, or such things as characters performing actions that contradict past actions etc. could all be plot holes. What you have listed here do not fall into any of these categories.).

And then Dramatic DevelopmentsTM ('DevelopmentsTM'? What the fuck?) that DO lead to something, namely two F-16's levelling part of the city where Paul is buried. Why are they flattening part of a city? Because the scriptwriter wants the character to suffer, logic be damned. (Because there are lots of insurgents there? That might be a reason...) 

And so we come to the ending (SPOILERS aplenty here too, funnily enough...). I could have forgiven the flaws above- even the silly use of a Zippo lighter in an enclosed space that doesn't eat up the air at all- (But it does use up the air. He says repeatedly that he can't breathe properly when he has it on. And then someone else tells him to use it sparingly because it uses up oxygen. There is plenty of air in a coffin though, he would last a little while.) if the ending hadn't been so bad, so WRONG (An ending cannot be 'wrong'. You may dislike it, but it is not wrong. Besides, the ending sits perfectly with the rest of the film. If the rest of the picture had been a rabbit doing a merry jig in a field, then perhaps you could have a point. But it wasn't, so you don't.). Rather than amount to anything, even in a tragic or dramatic way that moves the story or your understanding forward, all we learn is that the [END] happens, then the film finishes. (Because the story has been told. Paul is dead so there's nothing else to say.)

No aftermath, no consequences (I think the aftermath is pretty obvious. Why does it need to be shown?); just pure, hateful cynicism for it's own unlovely sake (Why can't a film be cynical? And as I said up there ☝, there is plenty of purpose for this film). The sake of cheap shock (It's not cheap. In many ways this is far more terrifying than Saw or anything like that. Gore is cheap shock, tension and suspense are the true kings of horror). And that is why I despise this film. 

It goes nowhere then stops. (I wish your review had stopped about 8 paragraphs ago...)

Those were both pretty long, so we'll close today's edition with this shorter one:

I was'nt (Wasn't, the apostrophe denotes where letters have been removed, not where two words have been joined.) expecting much before watching this film (Always good to go in with an open mind...) - but the fact it had Ryan Reynolds in was the factor that made me watch this / very disappointing (That is so very not how forward slashes should be used...) - we never left the coffin (Not necessary. Indeed, I would say the fact we never leave the coffin brings us closer to Conroy's plight.), we never saw the introduction of him getting into the coffin (Because that would have been completely extraneous and unnecessary. He's in there, so we can safely presume he was put in there, why would we need to see it?), lots of completely black screen moments where you're mind just drifted away (Your small mind might have drifted away, but I felt the black screen bits with only the sound of his ragged breathing pretty damn effective.), his air supply seemed to last an awful long time unless he was getting air in (It was a fairly big box. It would have taken a while for the air to run out.) - because somehow a snake got in ?? (It came in a hole, yes, but underground, so little air would come in through there) He fell asleep at least twice (So? What point are you trying to make here?), he was tied and gagged in the coffin - the abductor took a big risk, that he would wake in time before suffocating and could then release himself (He was bound and gagged, one suspects, so that he couldn't shout for help or anything should he wake up before they had got him into the coffin.) and get to the items they left for him at his FEET ? (They probably just chucked them into the coffin) He had the poorst (Good God man, learn to type...) quality battery in the phone, it only took one or two calls before losing charging bars (It was an old model, that had only half battery when he found it.). He was told to use the phone sparingly - but the guy who told him to do this ended up telling him a long story (I think he weighed up the options and decided that making him feel better was more important. Especially since he had already realised they probably wouldn't find him in time). 

Theres lots more i could add (Bet you've run out of things to say...)- but this film was nonsense from start to finish (It wasn't really... It made perfect sense.), made on the lowest budget of any film i could imagine (It was made for less than $2 million. I've seen films with smaller budgets. Paranormal Activity, for example. But just because it has a small budget doesn't make it bad. In many ways it can be a plus since there is less pressure to be hugely successful to recoup the funds there is more artistic freedom. I'd rather see this than the multi-million dollar train wrecks that are the Pirates of the Caribbean or Transformers movies again...).  

If you want a good film about a guy buried alive - try "Buried Alive" & "Buried Alive II" starring Tim Matheson. (Films so good they don't even have wikipedia pages... Even IMDB, the world's worst site for sensible ratings, can only muster around 6 and 4 out of 10 respectively for them.)

I think that'll do for today, though there are plenty more reviews for this film, so we may be returning some day in the future! 

M

The M stands for Mörder don't you know. You can
 probably guess what that means... image filmjournal

The German master director Fritz Lang made a lot of noteworthy films during his long career, including Metropolis in 1927 and the Dr. Mabuse movies. However, the film that he regarded as his finest work was 1931's M. M told the story of a child-killer in Berlin and the measures taken by the police and fellow criminals to stop him. A biting critique of the fascist methods of justice, the film was banned by Hitler's Nazi government shortly after it came into power. The following Amazon.com reviewers, however, most definitely disagree with the esteem in which it is held:

I know my comments will provoke the ire of movie fans who hold this movie in high regard (Well, at least you're prepared I suppose...), but I can't remain silent about a movie that fails to deliver in the end, especially after all the exaggerated reviews I've read concerning its place in film history (Like the film or not, it is an important piece of work in the history of cinema). What's more, from what I could see, most of "M" is bogged down by excessive talk that doesn't propel the story forward (I must disagree here. The vast majority of the dialogue does move the story along. Without much of the talking the viewer would be unsure as to what is going on.). In fact, it does the opposite and holds the movie back (It really doesn't you know.). Case in point, in one scene, you have the chief of police on the phone talking to his superior about what's being done to capture the killer (That was required so that the audience would be aware that  the police were doing everything they could, making the criminals' methods seem the more attractive). I think 10 minutes or more elapsed before the next scene even appeared (I don't remember it being that long to be honest...). Why Lang decided to cover the minutiae of the investigation is beyond me (He doesn't discuss everything. Just enough so that it is clear how much the police are trying to catch him). It just wasn't necessary, especially when a superficial account would have sufficed (It really wouldn't have. The whole film is a comparison between the fascist and traditional justice systems. It would have been biased in favour of the fascist methods without these scenes). But to be fair, this is 1931 and tight scrip writing wasn't part of the writing craft. (Timeist...)

Also, Lang took so much away from Lorre's character just to focus the film on the volk, in terms of their fears, helplessness, and anger over the situation they'd been thrown into (Well that wasn't the point of the film, now was it. It would have failed as a criticism of fascism if it didn't bother covering fascist methods, don't you think). Instead, he should have redirected his efforts on Lorre so we, the viewer, could understand what twisted forces compelled "Hans Beckert" to kill little girls. (First of all, you do find out at the end. And second of all, you're a moron who has failed to grasp the central concept of this film.)

I'm sorry but the accolades are undeserved (They really aren't. I've studied this film at Uni, and it is a beautifully directed, well thought out picture, with a timely warning about fascism), except for Lorre's acting which was top notch in my opinion (At least we agree on something.). And another thing I'd like to point out, just because Criterion releases a film they deem is deserving of their rolls-royce treatment doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a winner. (No. I suppose not, but that being said, this one is a winner. By almost any definition.)

Here's another:

"M" is an example of a good idea that is poorly executed (In what way? I do hope you are going to expand on this point, but I doubt it). Peter Lorre plays a child murderer who is terrorizing a city in Germany to the point where both the police and members of the local underworld are hunting him down. With more action involved, this could have been the "intense psychological thriller" that many critics claim it to be, but it is very hard to become emotionally involved in a film when 80% of the film comprises non-descript characters (police and gangsters) sitting around and discussing the need to capture the murderer (If 'action' is what you like from a film then perhaps you had better stick to Die Hard, or The Terminator. Or if they're too good for you, Transformers). It is repetitive to the point of being sleep-inducing (I don't remember it repeating itself much. Are you sure the disc wasn't skipping?) and with the exception of Lorre's murderer (who barely even appears in the first hour of the film), all of the characters feel like the same "person" (How? They all look different, sound different and say different things. The police and the criminals have very different motives for wanting to catch the killer. I really can't see where you got this from). They have no real distinguishing characteristics (Well, Lohmann is fat for a start, whereas Der Schränker isn't and wears a leather jacket. That is surely incredibly easy to spot, even if you fail to see the more subtle differences). Even by the standards of the time when this was made (1931), "M" is a slow-moving and uneventful film (Another timeist I see. Not all old films are slow, just as not all modern films zip along. It depends on what the story in question calls for), which is surprising, since director Fritz Lang himself had already demonstrated that he was capable of making better films with 1927's "Metropolis", a film which is just as engrossing as any modern film (Whilst Metropolis is also an exceedingly good film, I remain unsure as to which I prefer, such is the brilliance of both.). If you want to see one of Fritz Lang's "masterpieces", then "Metropolis" is the way to go, not "M". (Or, perhaps [and I realise I'm putting forward a radical, even dangerous idea here] they could watch both and make up their own mind?)

And another:

Maybe this shocked in its day, but it's terribly dated, with long dialogue scenes that could have been condensed way down (Yes. Lang should have realised that morons in the future would dislike films with talking and put some robots fighting in the corner for them instead while everyone else is given important plot details...). Interesting to see Peter Lorre so young and speaking German. But I thought I'd be caught up in the actual movie, but was forced to watch it as a piece of film history, like a college film class (I did it at uni, and was expecting it to be something of a chore to be honest. I was very pleasantly surprised to find an interesting [on many levels], absorbing piece of cinema that was eminently watchable). The one thing that prevents film from being the greatest art form is movies date so quickly (How? Because it's in black & white? Because its set in the past? This is the most ridiculous statement I've seen for a while. Of course film is art. How can you see films such as this, or Bergman films, or The Godfather movies or Luis Bunuel films and say that they are not art? Either you are pretentious and feel only works by famous painters or sculptors can be art, or you are an idiot. Which is it?). This is a perfect example (Of a really good film).

That's your lot for today folks, hope you had a merry Christmas and such like. 

The Godfather, part II.

Fucking Spoof De Niro and his shitty acting in this non-story boring timefuck. Image via Wikipedia Well, you all wrote to me demanding more Godfathery goodness, so here you are, you ungrateful bunch of bastards.

Amazon.com:

I found myself falling asleep watching this movie(Well, I hope you didn't. Else you're not really qualified to review it...). I don't know why anyone would think this movie is the best sequal of all time(They don't. They consider it the best film of all time). it was too boring, although the actors were preety good. (Pretty good? Mr. Pacino, Mr. De Niro, you've finally received the accolade you deserve!)

Amazon.co.uk:

I re-watched this film last night, after watching the first Godfather with my Son on Thursday evening,which he enjoyed greatly.

MASSIVE DISAPPOINTMENT ! (Oh no!)

What a pathetic excuse for a sequel. (Yea. It was pathetic, wasn't it? I hope someone killed themselves over it)

First - it is VERY CONFUSING. (Perhaps I have a gigantic brain, but I don't remember being very confused. But please, do explain how it confused you, my good fellow)
To attempt to interweave 2 different stories has the negative effect of Destroying(Why's there a capital letter there?) the Narrative (Again. Do you know when you're meant to use capitals?) of the main story-line about Michael etc (No it didn't. You just got two stories. Could you not deal with that?)

Secondly - the filming of the older events,looks cheap and comedic.
A bit like a spoof - ' Harry and Paul do the CodFather ' etc (Yes. I was laughing all the way through. It was riotous.

WHATEVER POSSESSED (Demons. Probably demons.) F. F. Coppolla (Good Ol' F.F.) to RUIN the saga in this manner ?¿ (Why an upsides-down question-mark thing?)
IF he intended to show more of Vito Corleone's rise to power, then he should have included it in the first Godfather epic. (Or here. Here was good. I don't think anyone else got so confused)
In the end, this is one Confused Mess (This isn't How you Use capital Letters) of a movie,limping along with a weak story-line, devoid of decent, well-formed and comvincing Characters (Could have fooled me...) like the first film,amd fragmented by the all-too-frequent interruptionsof an earlier story-line, which has the effect of totally confusing viewers over chronology, events and time- scales. (How? How did you get confused between the two stories? You mock Vito's sections, likening them to a cheap spoof, but now say you get confused between the scenes? Also, the story with the young Vito is IN ITALIAN! How could you get confused? Are you that bilingual you don't recognise the difference. You could at least be consistently wrong...)

DON'T BELIEVE those who will try to deceive you that this sequel is better than the first!! (Oh. Ok then. That's me convinced)

Nothing - could be further from the TRUTH. (Truth? You can't handle the truth)
IT PLAINLY - FOR ME(Yes. This is a subjective review. If you realise that, why are you trying to force your opinions on us so harshly? Asks a man re-writing someone's review to reflect his own views...)- DOES NOT WORK, and both distracts, dilutes and cheapens the main plot-line of the sequel.

The Godfather.

Cover of The Godfather (Widescreen Edition) I've decided to stick reviews for The Godfather, parts I and II together. Mainly because I'm far too lazy to do anything else. In fact, I'll probably get distracted and talk about puppies. Delicious, edible puppies. So here we go. In fact, I got so distracted, I've just written about part I. And I'm too lazy to go back and edit the earlier stuff what I wrote. Here we go again:
  The Godfather, part I

Amazon.com:

Godfather Haiku (1 Star)
choke on an orange,
tape a gun to the crapper
that's not a whole horse! (Nice enough. I just don't understand why you would do this.)

Amazon.com

When's an editor when you need one?(I don't know. I'm not the right person to ask really. I'm sorry) This movie is so long that I played it on my TV, drove across the state, and when I came back, it was still playing(Really? I'm interested to know where you live. Not so I can kill you, of course. But seriously, did you drive really fast?). Since when is a movie this long(I don't know. There's not a time limit)? Movies are supposed to be 1:30-2:00 hours long (Erm. No. They're just usually that long. It's not the law or anything. Really? You're complaining because the movie doesn't meet your mental film-Nazi length laws?). Plus this movie is as boring as a trip to the doctor's(I've never had a boring trip to the doctor. I go when there's something wrong with me. I don't find medical problems boring...). No good violence (I agree. This movie lacked good violence. That is, without a doubt, the worst crime imaginable. Let's start a petition to have everyone involved fed to clowns), no hot sex scenes (You're confusing films with porn), and furthermore, it stereotypes Italians (Not really. Do you assume, having seen this, that every Italian is a member of a crime family then?). The only decent movie in this series is The Godfather III. (<sigh>)

For a good crime movie, get Gigli instead. (Ok, now I know you're not being serious. If this was a spoof review, I credit your convincing idiot-review technique. If you actually believe these things, I may have to change my stance on eugenics.)

Amazon.com:

This movie was so violent I couldn't believe it! On a scale of 1 to 10 on the violence in this movie I would give it a 9! For this system to make sense, you must have seen a more violent film - a "10" on your scale. I'm interested to know what it was. I'm more interested to know how you got this without realising it - an 18-rated film about the mafia - would contain violence. And why, knowing this, you rated the film one-star? The acting? The music? The story? These are nothing besides a horse's head and an old man eating an orange. (Yes. Eating oranges is violent)

Amazon.co.uk:

I know everyone is gonna disagree with me (Sadly not. Don't you read this site?) but I think this is the most overrated movie ever made. The fact that it gets good full marks EVERYWHERE(Indoor voice please) and its hailed as the best movie ever made really confuses me(Yea. I'm not surprised). There's nothing special about this film (Really? Nothing? Oh, ok then. I'll sell my copy to the homeless). Its so dull and I was really bored watching this.

WHY!!!!! (!!!!!!!) Does everyone praise this movie?(So, so many reasons) It HASNT got the exciting feel of Pulp Fiction (Was it meant to?), it HASNT got the sylish scenes and great music of the Warriors(No. Because that was an entirely different film. The Godfather does have it's own stylish scenes though, and it's own great music.), it CERTENLY HASNT got the powerful feel of the Shawshank Redemption(It wasn't set in a prison either. Why don't you shout about that?) and Braveheart (Powerful feel? Braveheart wasn't powerful, it was historically inaccurate and shitty) and it HASNT got the excellent written story of Reservoir Dogs (The story for Reservoir Dogs was that some guys robbed a jewellery store, then hid. What was interesting was the dialogue, the characters and their interactions, the acting, the ear-cutting) . All it has is a very basic (Well, I don't think it is any less detailed than the other 'classics' you've named, but what do I know?) story, boring characters (Oh, for fuck's sake), very dated looking(It is old, you know) and such boring dialogue(You must be riveting to talk to then) which makes it very hard to get into. As to why people love this film so much will always be an unexplained mystery. (Only to you though. And I could probably explain it, or you could read reviews by people with actual talent. They'd explain why the loved the film better than me.)

I know its harsh but I give it a 1 out of 5(It is harsh, yes. Well done, you got something right). Its the most boring movie I have ever seen and I am really shocked how most people list this as their favorite film. I couldnt stand 20 mins of this. Well, boo hoo. Francis Ford Coppola will never get over this, you know...