Master Cheng takes us on fish out of water journey when a mysterious Chinese man Cheng and his young son arrive in a remote Finnish village town on a mission. Stepping off the bus and arriving at the empty town, Cheng and his son head to the local diner. Cheng is met with blank stares as he repeatedly asks whether anyone knows “Fongtrong” the name of the man he is seeking. His quiet and polite manners clash with the straightforward behaviour of the locals.
The diner owner Sirkka offers them a simple room to stay the night. It doesn’t take too long for Cheng to find an opportunity to pay her back. A bus full of Chinese tourists rock up at the diner, and when they turn their nose up at the regular diner food being served, Cheng offers to cook chicken noodles for them. The noodles prove to be a great success, and the tourists return again the next day for more of Cheng's special cooking. Sirkka strikes up a deal to keep Cheng’s help in the kitchen in exchange for her help trying to locate “Fongtrong”. Cheng’s creative dishes soon begin gaining popularity with the adverse to change locals, and the cultural barriers begin to melt away.
The unlikely connection between Cheng and Sirkka gradually develops as they both reveal past trauma and they are focused on the path to rebuild their lives. While the plot is simple and slowly paced, the charm is in the details and the authenticity of the characters.
The picturesque scenery of the Finnish town is accompanied by a beautiful soundtrack. The enchanting score is so divine that at times I just wanted to close my eyes to zone in my attention.
With countless close ups of appetising dishes, this wonderful heartfelt film is best watched with a full stomach and a box of tissues on standby.
THE PERSONAL HISTORY OF DAVID COPPERFIELD NEW website review by Olga Kirk
The Personal History of David Copperfield, Directed By: Armando Iannucci Written By: Armando Iannucci, Simon Blackwell Stars: Dev Patel, Hugh Laurie
The producer has taken up his own interpretation of the classic work of Charles Dickens. The film tells the story about the life of young David in London in the XIX century. Fate throws the young man many obstacles and problems that he copes with in order to find his happiness. Iannucci loves to twitch, so in his previous films it was hard to see humanism. David Copperfield’s personal story, seems to be for the director as well. In it, he can finally demonstrate all his philanthropy without regard to the laws of genres, whether it be black comedy or political satire. Iannucci's new film is simply a direct injection of kindness into the heart. All his heroes are funny, outcasts, eccentrics, losers and simpletons. But out of their friendship, a story is born that can inspire and console.
A quintessential representation of a man torn apart - stemming from being a fellow Klansmen (Mike Burden, who is the namesake of the movie) in one of the southern states of the US in the mid-1990s. The movie is framed to be a biopic of the Church Reverend (portrayed by the brilliant Forest Whitaker) of the town, who happens to be an African American, and the battle he takes on with the members of the Klan, which is led by Tom Griffin (played by Tom Wilkinson).
Several scenes depict explosive amounts of energy, and it is captivating to note that basal human emotions are beyond colour and creed - one in which the movie advocates through both in its undertones and in stark overtures. 'Burden' is a must-watch for the year.
Making a good quality horror movie is not an easy task. Any horror aficionado will attest to this. There’s such an over-saturation of horror on the market that creating a movie that stands out from the crowd by offering something new or creative is a struggle. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those horror films that are so bad they’re good, and have a loyal cult following of viewers who lovingly laugh at their flaws. Unfortunately, The Wretched doesn’t seem to be interested in either of these camps.
This movie seems to have pulled out a ‘how to make a horror movie’ template and followed it point by point. The main cast are walking, talking clichés and every trope you can possibly think of is used to march the story forward, without anything particularly unique to hook you in. That being said, the monster concept in this movie is an intriguing one – having a supernatural creature which steals people’s skins and memories and inserts itself into their households could have made for a wonderfully dreadful thriller-slash-horror, with the audience not knowing who the creature is impersonating or whose memories can be trusted. Such a build-up of suspense and disquiet would have played to the monster’s strengths and paid off the plot twists at the end with a lot more punch. This movie, on the other hand, decides to point out most of the monster’s abilities in the first five minutes, and then proceeds to show the audience its every step and decision before the main characters even know what’s happening. Without any sort of tension, the jump-scares lack strength (few and far between as they are), and the plot twists fail to deliver the shocks that they’re designed to. Those twists only work if the whole movie has been built around themes of mystery, suspense, and uncertainty. Also hurting its credibility is that the main cast of characters are just not interesting. They only exist to serve in horror movie tropes – take Liam, the father of protagonist Ben (John-Paul Howard). He dips in and out of the story with the sole purpose of highlighting the troubled relationship he has with his son, disappearing between those scenes and never giving us anything more than that. The other characters similarly lack motivations for their decisions, or even proper personalities. The exception to this is Mallory, played by a heartwarming Piper Curda. She at least shows some spunk and a likeable charm that sets her apart from the other characters. Apart from her, I struggled to feel anything for the others being preyed upon by the monster stalking the quiet seaside town.
The Wretched is a bog-standard horror movie with nothing new to say, but features a fascinating monster that could have scared me properly if the movie didn’t insist on telling me its every move. The scares are rare and noticeable from a mile away, and a lot of the character’s motivations make little sense apart from driving the plot forward. Again, a decent horror movie is a diamond-in-the-rough deal, but The Wretched misses the mark on almost every front.
LOVE SARAH Who knew a movie about starting a bakery could bring out so many aspects of the human lives it touches? Every character feels real and normal, and therein lies the beauty of this film. It’s heart-warming and easy-going without throwing a lot of conflict toward the characters; rather it focuses on the personal journeys of each person touched by Sarah’s death. It is interesting to watch a film which revolves around a character whose death occurs in the first minute of the story, but even though Sarah is absent for most of it, her character and personality is felt through each of the characters who knew her. Celia Imrie does a wonderful job of playing Sarah’s estranged mother, as she does wonderfully in every role she’s given. She breathes warm, sympathetic life into the role of absent mother striving to atone for her absence once it’s too late. Gracious and compassionate, watching Mimi open up as the film progresses is a delight. Similarly, Bill Paterson’s performance as inventor Felix could easily have stopped short as the comic relief, but his burgeoning romance with Mimi injects warm humanity and believable flaws into his somewhat exaggerated character. Shelley Conn as Isabella is a very flawed character, easily interpreted as being irrational even as she fights to save her best friend’s bakery, a situation that many others would give up on. While some of Isabella’s choices seem exaggerated for the sake of bringing some sort of conflict into the story, overall Conn’s performance is sincere. Wrapping up the main cast are Shannon Tarbet as Sarah’s daughter Clarissa, and Rupert Penry-Jones as Sarah’s once-lover and fantastic baker Matthew. The subplot surrounding these two characters’ relationship may feel a tad unnecessary but serves to reveal their unique quirks and underlying empathy.
I very much enjoyed ‘Love Sarah’. It is a light and compassionate story about a group of people learning to keep on living even when the very worst happens. It reminds us that there is always something worth living for, some meaning to the complicated jumble of our everyday existences. And sometimes, we have to create that meaning for ourselves, as Clarissa does when she urges Isabella to open the bakery.
RESISTANCE NEW website review by Marygrace Charlton
Film Review: RESISTANCE By Marygrace Charlton
Director:Jonathan Jakubowicz, a Venezuelan filmmaker and writer, whose film Secuestro Express was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the British Independent Film Awards and was a New York Times "Critics' Pick" in 2005. He is of Polish-Jewish descent
I wasn’t sure what to expect when I decided to review RESISTANCE since I had no prior knowledge of it. Consequently, I was very surprised to learn it was not just “yet another” French resistance/WW11 movie but also a story inspired by the early life of Marcel Marceau.
For those who are not aware, Marcel was a French actor and mime artist, famous for his stage persona as "Bip the Clown". Marcel (22.3.1923 – 22.9.2007) was born in Strasbourg, on the French/German border in the historic region of Alsace, France to a Jewish family. He and his younger brother, Alain, changed their family name of Mangel to "Marceau" during the German occupation of France for obvious reasons.
The "art of silence" was how Marcel referred to mime which he performed professionally worldwide for over 60 years. His first major performance to 3,000 American troops occurred after the liberation of Paris in August 1944.
Released in March 2020, RESISTANCE, a biographical drama, centres on the invasion of France by Nazi Germany. Thousands of young Jewish children were orphaned by the NAZIS. The French Jewish Resistance - Organisation Juive de Combat (OJC) composed of nine clandestine Jewish networks made it one of their objectives to rescue and house Jewish children and adults in safe accommodation in various locations. However as the war developed these sanctuaries were deemed unsafe and a plan was devised to relocate the children over the border to neutral Switzerland.
Marcel was urged to join OJC where he found his unique mime talent an asset in calming and entertaining these psychologically traumatised children. His talent also helped to communicate silence to the children when making their perilous journey first by train and then on foot over the border with the NAZIS hot on their heels, escaping war torn France to hopefully freedom. He worked with the French Resistance during most of World War II, aiding in the salvation of thousands of children during the Holocaust.
Jessie Eisenberg, actor, author, and playwright portrays Marceau. Jessie is best known for playing Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network (2010), for which he received a BAFTA Award, Golden Globe, and Academy Award nominations in the Best Actor category.
Matthias Schweig plays an extremely convincing Klaus Barbie (Nikolaus Barbie), the SS and Gestapo functionary during the Nazi era known as the "Butcher of Lyon". Assigned to Lyon as the head of the local Gestapo where he established his headquarters, he led a reign of terror till the end of the war. His stomach-turning, brutal methods of interrogation and torture are legendary.
A nail biting, suspenseful movie, worth watching.
RESISTANCE was dedicated to the all the children who lost their lives in WWII.
Iceland landscapes, Tarkovsky style and scared granddaughter...This film will remain unknown to the general public and it's a real pity.
The movie was shot by the Icelandic director Chlinur Palmason, again, not recognised by the wide world attention, but already noted in Cannes and having a number of local, Scandinavian awards for his previous art work “Winter Brothers”. Scandinavia in general is not very rich in big names and of course, Bergman immediately comes to mind while watching this particular film. Palmason, in fact, is only starting off his career and we rely on his strong work in the future. He is definitely very promising director in my own humble opinion.
Hearing the title “A White, White Day” reminded me, the admirer of Tarkovsky's films his original name of the film "Mirror" and his father's poem:
Камень лежит у жасмина. Под этим камнем клад. Отец стоит на дорожке. Белый-белый день.
В цвету серебристый тополь, Центифолия, а за ней -- Вьющиеся розы, Молочная трава.
Никогда я не был Счастливей, чем тогда. Никогда я не был Счастливей, чем тогда.
Вернуться туда невозможно И рассказать нельзя, Как был переполнен блаженством Этот райский сад.
Tarkovsky haunted me for the whole film duration. The film: is like unhurried meditation, with prolonged shots, close-ups of objects. There is symbolism that we can not always understand, we understand it on the level of heart beats. There is an abstract game taking place with colors and light in the film that bewitches you. Tarkovsky's presence is obvious in so many details, even in the tragedy that takes place. The expression “A white, white day” is an Icelandic saying that indicates the time of day at which snow merges with the sky and the dead can communicate with the living. Knowing this, it may be easier to understand some points when you watch the film.
From the first seconds we see a tragedy: a car falling off the cliff. Later we learn that the main character's wife was inside that car. He is a stern northern man, a police chief, a loving father and grandfather. He, Ingimundur is trying to hide away from the tragedy. He builds a house for himself as a symbol of caring for his family and at the same time he builds a shelter from everything external: it is like a coverage fr him from his grief. In addition, he visits a psychologist, who, given the northern mentality and isolation, is actually useless for Ingimundur, but for us it is another way to show the man in sorrow.
Until a certain point, it seems that the action is not taking place and we just observe just an everyday life, filled with internal torment, domestic issues and communication with the granddaughter (by the way, a terrible tale is told to her at night by Ingimundur - one of the most memorable moments of the film). But when he starts to analyse the events that took place with the deceased wife, Ingimundur suddenly realises that she was not loyal to him, he finds some evidence of her betrayal and begins to suspect that death could not be accidental.
This is where the thriller part starts, but the tension is really growing like the storm outside the window. It will be unfair to tell the story further though. I will only say that there will not be a classic denouement and the finale will be quite unpredictable...
There are some awesome artistic tricks present. We return to Tarkovsky again.
I mentioned the unusual lighting and color solutions. The film was shot on a 35mm analog film, which can also be considered to be a tribute to the masters of the past. So, about the symbols in the picture.
The archetype of the house, which we mentioned above, is of great importance for many masters like my beloved Tarkovsky where, again, in his “Mirror” house plays a great symbolic role. House is family a nest of the clan and, at the same time, a man-made creation, an embodiment of the ego. A horse who accidentally enters the house at the very start of the film made it to be immediately "Tarkovsky movie". Tarkovsky often used horses in many of his art works, as the bright image of nature, but nature tamed by man. The main character's unity with nature is shown in all its glory. Nature's presence is overwhelming. It changes with the mood of the characters. It is so powerful in that country. It can not be left unnoticeable. Please also watch how the construction of the house going on: with each step there is a change in the mood of the character, please notice doors, plastic on windows and the windows themselves: how they change from plastic to the glass... and much more. The house is the main character.
White color is the leitmotif of everything: this is also the spiritual purification that Ingimunduk seeks and the innocence of his granddaughter as well as the color of death and the world of the dead.
In fact, all of these images can be argued endlessly. What ever you see in the film for yourself - keep it inside. If it connected you deeply with your spiritual self, the director has done its great work. If now, this film is not for you then...
But... It is better to watch once than to read ten pages of reviews. For those of you, the lovers of Tarkovsky and meditative cinema as well as arthouse movies, and the lovers of Scandinavian films or for those of you who want to expand their film knowledge and artistic knowledge by watching something other than Hollywood, I highly recommend this film.
You will grow.... and this is the only thing Universe wants from you as only through you it cognises itself.
SAME KIND OF DIFFERENT AS ME website review by Elice Thomas
SAME KIND OF DIFFERENT AS ME
As a white woman, how do I begin to understand the experiences of the Black community? I will freely admit that I had a sheltered upbringing, since I was home-schooled by my mum in a predominantly white, middle-class, Christian home-schooling group. I wasn’t exposed to different lifestyles or perspectives until I started a casual job when I turned sixteen. Because of this, I don’t want to speak over or make assumptions about the experiences of any marginalised groups. The best thing I can do is let them speak: I wholeheartedly believe in giving voice, wherever possible, to the disempowered and oppressed. When it comes to this film, then, it strikes me as a good introduction for anyone with privilege who hasn’t realised just how good they’ve got it; it opens up a dialogue in a way that is easy for most people to understand. However, in making the story of Roy and Denver palatable for the masses, it also fails to push the narrative in any ground-breaking way. The film in and of itself is well-crafted and eloquent. The struggles of the poor and homeless are given voice, and by letting the characters share their stories on their own, we are confronted by our own judgements and biases without being preached at. Greg Kinnear and Djimon Hounsou, as the titular Ron Hall and Denver Moore, are superb, bringing a gravity and sense of warmth to their roles that grounds them and avoids the sort of moralising high-ground that Ron Hall’s character, in particular, could have fallen into. Renée Zellweger breathes gentleness and quiet steel into Deborah Hall, a lovely person who I genuinely believe wanted to do her best with the position she had. There are many beautiful moments throughout the film, when the characters are given time to breathe without hurry or hassle. This is a calm movie, in which every character, whether son or grandparents or angry homeless lady, have a moment to speak.
Nonetheless, this film is being re-released at a difficult time, to put it lightly. Racial tension in the United States has climbed to an all-time high, and dialogues about privilege and oppression are being had all over the world. I’m going to be honest, I’ve been given the task of reviewing this film but I don’t want to speak over Black people’s lived experiences. That being said, I’ve done what I can to listen to what they are saying, and what they want out of this renewed spotlight on their struggles. This movie fails to deliver. Granted, it is based on a true story, but it comes across as more ‘white saviour’ than anything. We’ve seen this story before, over and over again, where the wealthy white man saves the poor black man – Intouchables and The Blind Side follow the exact same formula. It feels indulgent, almost, as the white person pats themselves on the back for taking this disadvantaged person under their wing; as they give the Black man treats in the form of cinema and museum outings, so is the audience reminded of how benevolent and good the white man can be. This is not the message to be sending out into the world right now. We don’t need stories about how good a wealthy white person can be, if they feel like it; what we need is Black stories, told by and through Black people. Give us more Black voices, not Black voices told through the voice of a wealthy white man. Don’t cushion your message of privilege and accountability in comfortable terms – we are passed that. Challenge your audience to fully examine their biases, not just of other cultures but of the entire system we live under.
While “Same Kind of Different As Me” is a quality film, it is a film that does more to mollify the white audience it is directed at than it does to challenge them. After watching this film, challenge yourself. Help those who are crying out. Lift up their voices, in any way you can. Follow in the example of Ron Hall and Denver Moore, and help the disadvantaged.
It is difficult to describe the feelings that you experience after watching. Perhaps the first thought that came to my mind was: “If I didn’t know for sure what it was, I really would have decided that it was taken from Nicholas Sparks.”
"I Still Believe" is not a typical film about love, moreover, it is not a film designed for teenage girls (although the participation in it of Kay Jay Apa clearly makes them the target audience). The film contains something that is not customary to talk about between young people: faith and love for God, the realization that everything is His will and the only thing that remains for us, the people, is to continue to believe, in the hope of a miracle.
The story of Jeremy Kemp is told in the spirit of classic melodramas. We see acquaintance, first kiss, love and an obstacle in the form of a disease that divides the lives of the main heroes on "before" and "after". Kay Japa and Britt Robertson got along well in their roles. It is amazing that a film in which faith is preached does not look like “sectarian” cinema (whatever that means), given the rather high proportion of the philosophical component of the dialogue of the main characters.
The two main components of the film, in my opinion, are music and aesthetics, which harmoniously complement each other. When I started watching the film, in spite of the timekeeping at almost 2 hours and watching every 10 mintes how much is remaining, I went and took it in one breathe.
Of course, not everyone will like this film. There is no alcohol, no smoking, no swearing, no vulgar jokes and remarks, and even the topic of sex does not slip in a hint, because it’s all not important when something more is at stake: the love for which you are ready to sacrifice
A realism-gritted movie of the 21st century workforce, where we are presented a view of the life of a young college graduate, Jane, who works as a personal assistant to a business tycoon - who is never shown through the course of the film.
The feature is about a single day in the office, and of the sequence of events that unfolds over the span of sunrise to sundown. The director, Kitty Green, offers us another possibility - that of the mundane setting that a typical assistant is pushed through, and of the abuses and power play that comes with it.
The Assistant is a powerful reminder that there are unsung heroes that are in our blindspots, everyday of our lives.
Starring: Kerry Mack - Christine Ralph Schicha – Walter Maresch Judy Nunn – Mrs Lewis (Christine’s mother)
Hostage is based on a novel of the same name by Christine Maresch. It outlines her “adventures” with a sadistic German criminal with Neo-Nazi sympathies
Set in the 1970s in regional New South Wales and based on a true story, 16-year-old Christine runs away to a fair/circus to escape her mother. The first scene shows a naive Christine boarding a truck
Whilst working at the one of fair’s sideshows, Christine meets handsome Walter Maresch, a German immigrant. In very bizarre circumstances and under the threat of Walter committing suicide, a pregnant Christine feels blackmailed to marry him. A priest supports the marriage by saying “it’s a godly act”. Christine gives birth to a daughter and they travel to Germany.
Christine soon realises that not only is Walter, a sadistic criminal has taken her hostage. He prevents her escape by locking her up, monitoring her every movement, and controlling her by physical violence and drugs. Walter spent four years in prison and also ascribed to the tenets of the Baader-Meinhof group. Undaunted by his previous sentence, Walter forces Christine to become an accomplice in a series of bank robberies both in Germany and when they return to Australia.
This film made in 1983, has now been restored and is soon due for re-release. It has all the hallmarks of a film made in the 1980s with the cinematography and fashions of the time. Though terrifying, I found it rather melodramatic and laboured at times. No doubt, it will impress fans of this genre. Through Christine’s terror she let opportunities pass where she and daughter could have escaped this monster, especially after she returned to Australia with her daughter. However, this film’s re-release maybe quite timely with today’s emphasis on family violence.
Director: Drake Doremus Writers: Jardine Libaire, Drake Doremus Stars: Shailene Woodley, Jamie Dornan, Sebastian Stan
Daphne’ (Shailene Woodley) life is in crisis, in her 30’s and on an emotional and physical time out, she is looking for stability but lives for drama. She recently just broke up with her boyfriend of four years, quit her job and lives in her sister's guesthouse and is desperately looking for long-term love. Then, at one of her sister's parties, Daphne meets two handsome guys - Frank and Jack who also happen to be best friends. Both are very attractive to her: one is the bad boy, unpredictable, and always ready for adventure; the other one is a successful author, sober, intelligent, smart, and investing in his career as an academic and woos her with words. Unable to choose between these polar opposites, Daphne finds herself bouncing between them and has strong feelings for both of them. It's as though she's auditioning different versions of herself and the life that might be waiting for her. But fate has a way of making unpredictable decisions, in the end Daphne is forced to accept that the troubled centre of this crazy love triangle, in this leisurely romantic drama leads her to the true love, a new page of life. Acting is amazing! Watching this film you feel like you’re actually watching someone’s life. This film is very raw and realistic which I really love.
review by Jeanette Russell
Thank you for the opportunity to review this film. It's the story of Daphne, a lady in her early 30s who has just broken up , from a long term serious relationship. She felt he could be " the one". Daphne moves in with her sister. She is seeing a counsellor who suggests she take some time alone, and to find herself.
Doing the exact opposite to what was recommended, at a party, Daphne meets 2 men who are friends. Jack who seems kind, considerate and quiet, and one of Jack's closest friends Frank who as Jack describes him is quite unlike him. " The life and sole of every party." They seem to be opposites and our main character seems taken with them both. Frank knows that Daphne is seeing Jack but he is still pursuing her. She enters relationships with both the guys.
Shailene Woodley plays Daphne, Jamie Dornan is Jack and Sebastian Stan portrays Frank. The story is provocative, intriguing , and stirring. Shailene does a stellar job. of characterizing Daphne showing her vulnerable, sultry and sensual sides. The men present Jack and Frank amiably, illustrating their friendships, loves and lusts, as they both engage, and gun for the same women.
An interesting movie with some twists and turns towards the end as Daphne, agonizes and tries to choose between them not wanting to hurt either. A compelling engaging and rousing tale. Well worth watching , I felt.
For the first time since I began writing professional movie reviews, I don’t know what to say about a movie. I like to think that I keep an open mind when I dive into a new story, but I cannot think of one good reason why this movie was made. The premise sounds like something a couple of nine-year-old kids dreamt up, and that might have been okay if the film didn’t take itself so damn seriously. There is not one joke in its entirety, even though the main character literally sucks things into his bum where they’re transported (somehow) into a gigantic, poo-covered version of his intestines. He starts with soap and a TV remote and then, for reasons I cannot fathom, moves right onto small dogs and babies. I ask again, why was this film made? Am I missing something? Unfortunately, the quality of the acting and writing doesn’t redeem the story either. None of the main characters are likeable, least of all the anti-hero Chip Gutchell; Tyler Cornack’s performance is stodgy and does nothing to redeem the loathsome character he plays. Tyler Rice’s detective Russel B. Fox is slightly better but often cliché, while the only reason I like him is because he is in direct opposition to Gutchell. My favourite character is Kai Henderson’s Andrew Lee, and unfortunately he doesn’t survive the entire movie.
The best thing this film can hope for is that it becomes so bad it’s good, but even that is a stretch. At the end of the movie I didn’t know what to think, but I felt very uncomfortable. Don’t watch this; you don’t want it in your memory.
review by Marygrace Charlton
Director:Tyler Cornack, also a writer and known for Tiny Cinema (2016), The Pocketeers (2016) and most recent, Butt Boy (2019)
Screenplay: Tyler Cornack, Chip Gutchel is a bored and totally dissatisfied IT Engineer. Life has become an agonising burden for this middle aged husband and father. His boredom is so acute he is unable to focus at work or home and finds himself continuously drifting off elsewhere in his mind. Unfortunately the viewing audience is unable to establish where he travels in his mind as this is not evident. Tyler Cornack writes, directs and also plays the lead role.
After a routine prostate exam, Chip realises a previously unknown (to him) fetish which becomes uncontrollable, addictive and sinister.
Russel B. Fox (Tyler Rice) portrays a tough and aggressive police detective. He is assigned to investigate a missing persons case.
Coincidentally Chip and Russel meet at the local AA where he (Chip) is appointed Russel’s sponsor.
After a few meetings between the two men, where they share each other’s experiences, Russel starts to suspect Chip might be the criminal he’s seeking.
This movie has been classified Thriller, Comedy, Thriller/Comedy. Personally, I find these categories entirely inappropriate. I suggest, given this movie’s puerile and bizarre concept, Absurdist, Black Comedy or Dark Fantasy is more suited.
Everything about this movie is fourth rate – the script, acting (or lack thereof), photography all pitiable. Frustratingly slow at the start, it gains no momentum or interest. The only positive remark I can make is that unlike any other movie I have seen, it’s unpredictable and so keeps you guessing throughout the entire movie.