Skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

Comments made by pllorenzo

Review: 'Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon'

We have definitely given this film more publicity than it's worth. It's a loud, obnoxious, racist, sexist, waste of character, waste of good actors (John Tututurro, Frances McDormand, and Alan Tudyk), and waste of our brain cells. There was only a few really good scenes (anything with Tudyk, 'cause he actually acted) and the sequence with the "squirrel" suit dive, which was cool.

@themann - it's better to be gay than to be Bay.

July 5, 2011 at 10:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Rants and Raves: Takashi Miike

astrofan - Let's get something clear, film is not merely an escapist form of entertainment that's meant to lighten the burdensome load that is our troubled existence on the world. It is meant as a looking glass into our existence for better or worse. It is also at it's best when it explores the human condition at it's most human and inhumane.

If you believe that the prepubescent horror that comprises the glut of what horror films are in the United States are not garbage film-making, while the original vision of someone who refuses to follow convention while telling innovative stories and giving us the opportunity to see great Asian actors in a horror setting that in this country is reserved for CW flunkies who perform in tired formulas that the studios feed us as if we are infants, is garbage film-making then obviously you are exactly what the studio system (indies included) wants.

Miike is great because he pushes the envelope; if filmmakers like him are not there to see how far they can travel into the human psyche, then we will never get film to be an art form, it will simply be product that E! television promotes commercially while we suck on their formula. Without Miike, Malick, Wong Kar Wai, Kurosawa, Polanski, Visconti, Rossellini, Godard, and countless other filmmakers who dare to force us into uncomfortable places then we would even have the great cinema that can counter drivel like 80% of the films that will come out this summer.

Yes, there is a place for consumable product that promotes other products under the guise of "palatable" and "safe" entertainment that DO sully the history of film. So for those who want to escape and merely enjoy film instead of use it as a vehicle for social introspection and discovery, there it is. For me, my friends and for Cinema Junkies, we like our films to provoke us and inspire us to see what is possible for cinema, even at its most uncomfortable.

Now, astrofan, I do not want to call you out and assume you are one of the masses, but please formulate a better argument when you throw a filmmaker who has proven so many times to truly take cinema to places it has never been (and NOT just horror) and at least has the courage to be prolific and adventurous in his art under the bus, then I have no other option but to defend cinema.

June 2, 2011 at 10:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Review: 'Sucker Punch'

Also, he uses no original musical score to speak of, (only in flashes) so this "original" idea is marked with concepts that he developed while replicating Miller's and Gibbons' comic, and what is more insulting is that his use of music is boring, uninspired covers and remixes used in long extended, boring sequences. The first 10 minutes of the film is the most unoriginal and uninspired pretentious work I have seen in quite a while.

So, when I see new bold and truly visionary work by the likes of:
-Edgar Wright
-Oliver Assayas
-Alejandro Inarritu
-Cary Fukunaga

I understand that Zach Snyder is not a visionary at all, he is not someone who's work I will never respect and you blasting film critics (or anyone else) goes against every tenant of the modern film movement. The greatest film movements in modern history were founded by critics (Italian Neo-Realism and French New Wave) and without their influence film would not have the effect that it does today. I do not you thatlldo, but I do know that defending a director so much is not beneficial, film goers have a "unwritten" duty to question and criticize their work as that is an essential part of critical analysis. In addition, if it gets personal is because WE film fans hate it when an individual chooses to insult our intelligence and still manage to experience a victory of any sort (in this unfortunate case, financially). Think about this - why is the rest of the world (specifically developed nations) able to fund films that are relevant, creative, uncensored, and often times thought provoking and brilliant, while all we have to offer is Sucker Punch and Jackass.

Finally - if you don't like critics - DON'T READ THEIR REVIEWS, you clearly have a mind of your own, and make your own decisions, so, clearly you do not need me or anyone to tell you what is cinema. Which, I will gladly never want to explain to you in this manner again. Good luck watching Hollywood drivel, but be warned, it is not really that good for you.

March 26, 2011 at 12:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Review: 'Sucker Punch'

I want to clarify a few things for thatlldo:

"Hollywood is all about "stealing", any critic worth their salt knows this"
-just because this may be a paradigm in the perversely flawed studio system does not give your defense of it any merit. The fact that you are defending a filmmaker who has depended on leaning on source material that is not his is at best, laughable.

-For many zombie fans and purists - George Romero represents the standard for zombie filmmaking, just because Snyder sped up action, threw in some Disturbed and cast some decent actors does not excuse the hollow shell of a remake of a film that defined it's era. In other words: Dawn of The Dead MAKES NO SENSE. When Dawn of The Dead was released, malls were new which allowed for the consistent social commentary that defined Romero's zombie films. So in short: Snyder did not consider the sociological strength of the original and made a bland, uninteresting exploitative remake.

-300 - If Frank Miller did not illustrate the comic, Snyder's "storyboarding" of the film would not have existed, and the amazing images would not have been there to save an utterly boring, man-glazed WWE fan's wet dream of a film. The only good thing to come of that film was the introduction of Michael Fassbender. Please keep in mind that Frank Miller still suffers at time from simplistic storytelling (please refer to Robocop 2 for example).

-Watchmen - THIS FILM SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN A MOVIE. Snyder's selfish attempt to again "cut and paste" a comic book into a storyboard resulted in an uninspired and shallow interpretation of what was a genre defining graphic novel. Now, all my kids will know Watchmen for is "that weird movie with that weird blue guy with his thing hanging out." But don't worry, they will never see the film and only be allowed to read the novel.

And now Sucker Punch. Which is not an original film. The topic of false commitment of women to mental institutions has been used in plays and film, and is indicative of the notion that was present in the Victorian era that concluded that women did not have the mental capacity that men do, and thus were more susceptible to mental illness. This notion is continued in Sucker Punch, but even as the women are shooting and slashing and destroying things, they are still:

-listening to a man
-wearing next to nothing
-sacrificing to men
-depending on men ultimately to succeed (especially in the ending(

there is nothing original about the not-so-well disguised misogynistic film that does nothing for generating any interest in the topic of mental illness, and further continues to subjugate women in predefined roles - THAT IS UNORIGINAL.

March 26, 2011 at 12:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dead Snow: Interview with Tommy Wirkola

The zombie genre is proving to be a needed one for cinema. The themes that can be explored with a film like "Dead Snow" may not be explored in other genres of cinema. I am a proud zombie-film lover and I am looking forward to "Dead Snow" and "Zombieland"!

June 23, 2009 at 3:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )