#Movie Critic

[spongebobssquarepants]

[ki11tr4p]

Like c’mon what were they expecting?

[nanmemes]

It’s insane how out of touch movie critics are.

[zebracorn-chan]

If you're upset the FNaF Movie got low ratings by critics I would like to remind you what they think about "Cuties".

[virginia-the-opossum]

Im not seeing alot of posts on here about this, but i have on youtube sooo...

Doctor Skipper, Nerdstagic, Cinema Sins, Rotten tomato critics, other movie critics and youtube movie reveiwers have ruined media literacy by their need for money.

All they do is sit around and hypercritic movies that they know jack shit about while pretending they do, some of them havent even watched the movie, they just want attention and to ruin the movie for its fandom and its chance in the box office.

Doctor Skipper and Nerdstagic have both made videos shitting on the Monsterverse and American Godzilla in general because Godzilla Minus One was "better". Yeah, the movie was awesome! And it deserves all the attention and The Oscar it got. But GxK: The New Empire isnt even out yet, stop bullying it, telling people something is going to be trash before they see it, means theyre going to view it as trash through the lense of your opinion.

Godzilla Minus One and GxK: The New Empire dont compare, they are two separate genres. Godzilla is allowed to be goofy or serious. There is no right or wrong Godzilla. If you like goofy, good for you! If you like serious, good for you! People are allowed to enjoy the two genres separately or together. I love both! But critics dont look at the fact that in the og showa era made by ToHo, it was goofy as hell, he was doing dances and flying using his breath.

The directors of both movies support each other and love each other's work.

Yes, all the shitty sequel cash grabs we've been getting are awful. But Godzilla isn't that,.... yet. If we keep getting divided on these issues and only viewing them to trash and meme, that spreads negative interest, but more profits. More profits means theyre gonna do it again. Boycott movies you know you wont like, but leave other people alone about it, and especially don't make videos without researching the subject or even watching the movies. Just like some of the recent Marvel movies and shows, if we let it turn into a cash grab, our fandom will inevitably die. Like the posters and trailers for GxK- "Rise together or fall alone".

Sidenote: theres nothing funny about the Lucky Dragon Incident.

Sidenote 2: Please stop spoiling GxK

Edit Sidenote 3: stop using ai for your clickbait thumbnails for your edits of GxK trailers

[late-nights-in-chaos]

Nosferatu (2024)

Alright, so I have seen a fair amount of discourse surrounding Nosferatu (2024) on my feed, and concerning my background (a degree in film studies and a ravenous appetite for heated debate) I thought I'd weigh in. This is a long post. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS POST I WILL NOT SPEAK ON WERNER HERZOG'S REMAKE OF THE FILM-- ITS JUST NOT AS RELEVANT TO MY POINTS.

I'd like to preface this by saying that this is MY OPINION. I accept that your opinion might differ and you might disagree with me. That's fine. But, because all of these are opinions, you cannot tell me I am incorrect, because that makes no sense. SO!

My first point of contention with the film is that it is mistakenly evaluated as an adaptation of Dracula. So, I must rigorously explain. The original Nosferatu film from 1922 was indeed heavily inspired and technically PLAGIARIZING Bram Stoker's 1897 novel Dracula. In fact, after it was done so, Florence Balcombe (Stoker's wife) had a furious legal battle with the production company and had almost every copy of the film burned. The only reason we are able to watch and study the film today is due to illegal, pirated copies and the meticulous piecing together of the film and its inter-titles by enthusiasts, historians and rigorous preservation.

Now, there are notable differences between Nosferatu (1922) and the Dracula novel, including the names of both the vampire and his primary female victim, and the inclusion of a NUMBER of other characters including Dr. Seward, Lucy, etc. We could argue foils or connections to many characters between the book and the film but most of them are fairly obvious so I will gloss over it. Renfield=Knock, Harker=Hutter, Mina=Ellen, etc. There are additionally a large number of thematic similarities. However, the primary distinction I would like to highlight is the differentiation between Count Orlok as a MONSTER type character, and Count Dracula as a suave nobleman who happens to also be a vampire. I'm not saying our boy Drac hasn't done some seriously horrible things, but even if you compare the first Dracula film (1931), Dracula's character is MUCH more of a ladies man, so much so that Bela Lugosi became something of a sex icon.

The 2024 remake (though I don't like this word, as the new film adds a lot that the 1922 film does not have) is incredibly distinct from this concept. That does not change the fact that this film is a re-done Nosferatu and NOT Dracula! Nosferatu is distinct from Dracula in that Count Orlok is intentionally framed as a monster. Orlok is framed as having had this vampiric affliction at the end of his living life and has since died and descended into this depraved state of undead wherein the only real human aspects he maintained is his body and the ability to speak and articulate thought. He is a monster. Despite what anyone with a monster-related kink or preference might say, Count Orlok in the 2024 Nosferatu is not supposed to be attractive, nor is he supposed to be a love interest. That brings me to my next point.

I am fully aware that both Lily-Rose Depp and Robert Eggers have explained the film contains a "love triangle." But I'm here to tell you something and I'll hold both sides of your face while I say it loudly. This is an oversimplification stated as an explanation to the audiences for them to understand that there is sexual tension between Ellen and Orlok, Ellen and Thomas, and Orlok and Thomas. All three of them. This. Does. Not. Mean. They. Are. In. Love. This movie is not a romance. It's not a love story. And when myself and others describe it as romantic, because it is, this is not referring to the concept of romance wherein two people love each other. We are referring to the Romantic Period of art and intellectualism that heavily inspired the Gothic Period and emphasizes the concepts of subjectivity, passion and individualism. I cannot stress this enough. The only romance happening is between Ellen and Thomas. And even then it's a capital-T Tragedy.

Ok now let's get into some plot. There is a hefty amount of discourse about Ellen and her relationship to Orlok and the themes surrounding her. This is the biggest point where (I believe) people get things wrong. Firstly, there is ZERO point in the movie where we are led to believe that Ellen was a child when she first encountered (and was raped by) Orlok. Lily-Rose is still playing Ellen at that point and it only says "many" years, which is subjective, so I draw the conclusion that we are not dealing with a theme of child sexual assault. The film doesn't carry that tone, in my opinion, and there are specifics surrounding children that I'll get into later.

I am of the opinion that Ellen's character goes through incredible trauma in this circumstance, having only been searching for companionship and pleasure and existence and receiving a manifestation of your worst nightmare. She is traumatized by this circumstance, yes, but she is also then conflicted with her own lust and desire. I don't believe its for Orlok, I think it's more about the idea that women, especially in this time period, were made to feel ashamed and horrified at the very notion of initiating sex or showing qualities that one might deem "whorish." Her character then uses this situation with Orlok as an opportunity to banish these imposed social conceptions and instead allow herself this sense of pleasure and companionship, even if it comes from a monster. These themes are about reclaiming her own sexual agency with Orlok because she'd be seen as a crazy bitch either way. "Do you ever feel at times that you are not a person?" Yeah, girl, you're a woman in 19th century Germany. You're not a person. And thus sprouts your trauma.

ORLOK. Is not a manifestation of her shame and horror. Orlok is his own thing, thereby emphasized by the amount of actual Romanian folklore and cultural reference woven into the film. He is established as a being and his own character. He can act as a stand in for the purpose of carrying that theme, but it is SO much more layered than him simply being a manifestation of her disgust. Besides, if this is a remake, you have to honour at least some of the original. You can't just turn Orlok into a metaphor and completely disregard the vampire storyline. He is an appetite and nothing more. He is death. He's a fucking monster. He doesn't have sexual preference because he's above such trivial human bullshit. He feels pleasure in satiating his appetite thus the sexual nature of his attacks. He's a guy that got fucked/is getting fucked by his own immortal curse (pun intended.)

Ok so his relationship with Ellen is born of this one time where he, as an immortal being who's not really a person anymore, heard this hot young lady call out for someone and he jumped on it. We're not entirely sure why he left her alive... perhaps I've discovered a plot hole. If you can give me something other than "he liked her" then I'll give it to you, but I'm not convinced that's why. Either way, he has a thing for maidens, that's pretty straightforward for vampire folklore. And once Thomas shows him the token she gave him, Orlok gets a taste of his hot woman again and is like yeah, I gotta hit it again. His obsession grows, though I'm gonna say it's because it's more along the lines of fate and the story of the nosferatu and the woman who needs to sacrifice herself by giving herself up to him than because she has some kind of magic pussy. Her role in his demise is sort of pre-set on a cosmic sort of level (this sounds weird but hear me out) she's not entirely with it when she puts her hair in the locket. She's moving on autopilot because she has this kind of gut feeling that if she follows these weird instincts she can feel the pleasure and liberation she's craving and that she got a glimpse of in her weird murder wedding dream. She's not actually an enchantress, and Orlok basically calls her this as an insult because his logical/rational side is pissed that all he can think about is her and her blood.

None of this means that Ellen does not love Thomas. Of course she does. He loves her, is good to her, basically gives her everything she ever wanted EXCEPT this one taste of kinky pleasure that she will never stop dreaming about because it's SUPERNATURAL.

Side note I ADORE the three days motif. It's simple and thick.

Ok so about children. Orlok kills two (and a half, idk) children in this movie. The Harding kids and Ruth's unborn fetus. This murder is POINTEDLY UNSEXUAL. You know why? Because they're kids. That's an on-purpose thing, everyone. Vampires are sexual creatures, it's inherent, that's literally a huge point. This is not an opinion, it's a fact. It's all rooted in sexual themes and eroticism and homosexuality. Vampires should not be kids. That movie Abigail? Garbage. I hated it. Didn't even enjoy the camp, it was poorly done. And vampirism is not a kid-friendly venture. Eggers made that known in that scene and I ADORE him for it.

AAAND FINALLY. Orlok does not disappear because the sun came up. Holy shit. They literally outlined the exact specifications of his destruction and it being just right at dawn is a symbolic choice and made to be a COINCIDENCE. In the OG, yes, he is disintegrated in sunlight. We are introducing a new storyline here with Ellen being the key to his demise, and no previous sunlight-destroying was mentioned.

At this moment, I can't think of any more points I had but I'm sure they'll come up. If you want to counter anything I said feel free! Send me an ask or reblog or whatever you want, but let's keep it respectful. This is all MY interpretation and yours is just as valid as mine is. I love true debates, so if we can shoot ideas back and forth, I'd love it!

[shapelytimber]

I've seen so much post here saying Nosferatu 2024 is a great movie, or worse a queer one.... And I'm sorry, but no it's not ??? Went to see it a couple days ago with friends, and if I paid 10 whole euros to see this shit I get to bitch about it ! If you liked it good on you but I need to rant for a bit

It's like really racist ?? It has a disgusting message about sex (in how nudity is supposed to be scary, how the dangerous and exotic stranger will dirty good victorian bodies (bonus racist point here), how women's sexuality is a sacrifice), it sounds like shit, the music is really bad, they fucked up *the* staircase scene, it's shot poorly, the jumpscares are infuriating- But most damning of all, it's so fucking boring.

Also one of the least homoerotic vampire movie I've seen and I've seen *a lot*. Yes count Orlock sucks the blood of the Harcker type guy, but it's the only crumb you'll get jfkfkd also for the people saying that the two women lead laying in bed (fully clothed) together talking about how they love each other platonically right before one of them gets eaten by rats counts as lesbianism.... Do you know Lesbian vampire movies is a whole ass genre ? Like there is a lot of films from the 70s where it's full on girl on girl vampire action ? Why are you applauding nothing ?

The only highlights are that it's kinda pretty when there isn't too much cgi, the costumes are great (bare count Orlock) and Willem Dafoe.... But girl (gn) if you want to see a shit movie where the only highlight is Willem Dafoe and is sometimes about sucking blood go see Speed 2 at least it's less boring fjkfkfk

[theamandacollection67]

Film critic Ruth Waterbury, actress Dorothy Lamour and actor Glenn Ford.

[whatiwishfanfiction]

Movie Rant

One thing that bothered me about the 2012 Lorax is what a psychotic jerk the Lorax was. He literally tried to kill the Once-ler ("I was just trying to calmly float you away." Yeah sure!) and only bopped in occasionally to insult and bicker with him.

This is one of the main reasons I chose to rewrite the story and make him a better character. I imagine the Lorax as more of a mysterious fae-like creature who can be mischievous but capable of more compelling arguments, rather than just being a bumbling smart aleck.

(Illustration by Tony DiTerlizzi)

What other movies do you think they made the good guy seem like a villain or vice versa? I'm hoping this will be the first in a series of rewrites in the form of full novelizations on Ao3. (I'm looking at you Wish movie).

[tulip-in-a-cup3]

Is the Romantic comedy is still relevant?

Like many, I have spent countless endless hours watching romantic comedies. At one point they were the only sort of film I consumed (a very dark period) and also one of the many sparks of my love of film. But as I grew, changed and discovered all sorts of different films I next to completely forgot all about rom-coms only really revisiting them when I feel the need to turn my brain off and watch pretty people do things on screen. But now when I do turn one on I can't help but but notice how painfully sexist and unproductive they can be.

The romantic comedy is a very popular offshoot of the classic comedy genre. Rom-coms have been around since the time of Shakespeare's A Midsummer's night dream. The romantic comedy focuses on the romantic relationship between two characters. The movie usually follows a fairly basic structure with the characters meeting, falling for each other, facing some sort of adversity, and ultimately having a happy ending with them together. That's not to say some don’t break out of this with 500 days of summer being a perfect example. This genre of film became increasingly popular particularly among women because it was one of the only times that women were at the forefront of a movie. They were also easy, quick, and incredibly cheap to make. Allowing them to make massive profits when it came to the box office. Although romcoms did see a significant decline during the late 2000s and early 2010s we have seen a steady increase in them since the rise of streaming platforms producing their movies. On these streaming platforms, romantic comedies have managed to find an audience but that poses the question: are romantic comedies still relevant today?

Most romantic comedies tend to all have main characters that are white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, skinny, and Neurotypical. The rom-con never really showed the range and forms love could take. Rom-coms also sprinkled in this lovely layer of misogynistic undertones. Films like How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days depict women as “emotional, irrational and clingy” and that all these behaviours do is drive a man away, men of course being the complete opposite of these behaviours. Bride wars also show women in questionable ways with the leads completely turning on each other simply because of a wedding venue. Reinforcing the stereotype that marriage is a woman’s number one endgame. Even my personal favourite Bridget Jones isn’t immune to the problems laced throughout rom-coms. Bridget acted like her very healthy 136lb made her disgustingly fat or the fact she felt her whole life was a failure due to her being SINGLE of all things. There are many more examples I don't wish to get into that show how Rom-coms treat women. But does this mean we need to throw them in the bin completely?

No of course not it was an unproductive question in the first place. rom-coms can be misogynistic, but they are also changing take for example movies like To All The Boys I've Loved Before which has an asian american protagonist or Crush on Disney Plus which has a lesbian lead and follows multiple lgbtq characters (although it did get next zero marketing and only me and like three other people know it about subject for another day). The rom-com is not the same anymore just like how the landscape of film has changed. People are demanding representation and slowly we are receiving it. The rom-com is also one of the only genres that is dominated by women and tearing it down and ripping into does in some regard play into the demonization of all things enjoyed by women. Rom-coms are still relevant because love is still relevant. We just need to see it done in a way that reflects the variety of love we have and doesn't reinforce outdated stereotypes about women OR men. Rom-coms bring a lot of joy and fun that cinema needs and branding them as not relevant is moving backwards.

[gyarucoded]

quick loki preview bc i have fallen down the rabbit hole since i have nothing else new to watch

the way loki used his magic was such a serve omg

i'm still in love with b-15 ♡

i appreciate the subtle humor, the jokes in other new mcu contents (minus the guardians of the galaxy) annoy me but here it's well balanced yet funny👍

when brad said "playing dress up" to loki idk what he fully meant but my mind wandered to teen loki switching fem presenting & borrowing [stealing] frigga's clothing to try them on for funsies n shit (i used to do that w my mom's wedding clothes as a child 2 lol)

when brad was messing w/ loki he had the opportunity to do the most suicidal thing ever and add sth like "who isn't even your real mother" after bringing up frigga (bro would have gotten ANNIHILATED Ijbol)

the slap was so funny & satisfying at the same time. i didn't saw it coming but i love this side of mobius

this ep's genuinely the most TERRIFYING loki has been in the mcu. in the chase scene and both of the interrogation. i absolutely support it idgaf !! he was more intimidating then he was in the first avengers movie which says a loooot

when loki mentioned the new york incident that was either lazy writing or babe got brain damage cuz i am pretty sure when he was mad at thor & odin that was in new mexico?? when he sent that metallic shit down or wtvt💀 to prevent thor from returning. but i forgive only because he mentioned tony lmfao

i love seeing sylvie finally being content. even if it was thru fuckass mcdonalds. i hope she won't be reduced to the "weird love interest" cuz her chara has potential and you can tell she's tired of this bs as well...

another episode of sylki being forced, toxic, keep disagreeing with & avoiding each other with rather tense chemistry instead of a romantic one they supposedly meant to have & being one sided as hell. their "romance" makes zero sense in this series' context & i could go off for longer regarding this topic but i'll save it for a seeperate post, later!

o.b & casey are so wholesome

bro i'm starting to ship lokius i think? (not in a fetishzing way i just like their dynamics and they just both happen to be dudes/male presenting) cuz i am sensing romantic & soulmate-ish undertones. sad that disney is a coward to make it canon...

overall i loved the 70s-90s vibes they seem to be going for. this show deffo has the best aesthetics we've seen in marvel phase 5 so far and i can't wait to see what's coming next.

[the-celluloid-correspondent]

Shōgun: A Historical Masterpiece.

Set in Japan in the year 1600, Lord Yoshii Toranaga is fighting for his life as his enemies on the Council of Regents unite against him, when a mysterious European ship is found marooned in a nearby fishing village.

Based upon the acclaimed novel, Shōgun is a historical retelling of Lord Tokugawa Ieyasu's (Yoshi Toranaga) establishing the Tokugawa Shōgunate in early 17th Century Japan from the point of view of an English Pilot named, William Adams (John Blackthorn)Premiering on the small screen in 1980, the series received mass critical acclaim and earned an Emmy for Outstanding Limited Series. Four decades later, it returns, breathing new life into the television with its unparalleled storytelling. Breaking away from the mediocrity that often plagues the streaming industry, Shōgun stands as a monumental historical epic of a real-life struggle over the throne for Japan. 

Shōgun unfolds like a meticulously played game of Shogi, where every move, character, and line of dialogue is infused with purpose and significance. This captivating narrative takes viewers on a journey through a power struggle that shapes feudal Japan, weaving together political intrigue and human drama in a rich tapestry of storytelling. From the intricacies of Japanese society to the cunning maneuvers of rival warlords, Shōgun immerses audiences in a world where every scene serves a distinct purpose. Each twist and turn of the plot is carefully crafted, drawing viewers deeper into the heart of the conflict and revealing the complex web of alliances and betrayals that define the era. The dialogue and monologues in Shōgun are masterfully written, brimming with both context and subtext that add layers of depth to the narrative. Like beautiful lines of poetry, they flow seamlessly together, driving the story forward with precision and purpose. At its core, Shōgun captures the essence of one of the most pivotal moments in Japanese history, offering a compelling exploration of power, ambition, and the human spirit. As viewers are drawn into this world of political conspiracy and personal sacrifice, they are treated to a mesmerizing blend of drama, suspense, and historical authenticity that commands the screen from start to finish. 

Shōgun derives its true essence from its characters, each intricately woven with layers of complexity and depth, enriching the overarching drama. Among them, Cosmo Jarvis's portrayal of John Blackthorn emerges as a standout performance, deftly navigating the challenges of embodying a character whose natural loudness and clumsiness contrast sharply with the subtleties of his Japanese counterparts. While some may initially interpret Blackthorn's demeanor as a flaw in the performance, Jarvis's deliberate portrayal serves a greater purpose—to underscore the cultural abyss between him and the people of Japan. Through his portrayal, Jarvis adeptly captures the profound culture shock experienced by his character, allowing viewers to witness a compelling transformation from a brash and ambitious Englishman to a man deeply immersed in Japanese customs. It is in these quieter moments that Jarvis truly shines, infusing his character with depth and nuance.

Similarly, Anna Sawai's portrayal of Toda Mariko exemplifies the art of subtle acting. With a mere glance, Sawai effortlessly conveys a myriad of emotions, her thousand-yard stare speaking volumes about her character's inner turmoil and quiet resilience. Her performance is a testament to the power of restraint, as she deftly navigates Mariko's journey of suffering and hope, her emotions simmering beneath the surface until they erupt with raw intensity. Even in moments of despair, Sawai's portrayal radiates a glimmer of hope, underscoring the resilience of the human spirit.

The ensemble cast of "Shōgun" shines brilliantly, each member delivering performances that leave a lasting impact. From the charismatically charming yet brutal portrayal of Tadanobu Asano as Yabushige to the scheming and cunning rendition of Fumi Nikaido as Ruri, every actor breathes life into their character with skill and precision. Moeka Hoshi's portrayal of the broken yet resilient Fuji, and Takehiro Hira's power-hungry depiction of Ishido, further solidify the ensemble's strength, while Tokuma Nishioka's powerful and wise portrayal of Hiromatsu adds depth to the narrative.

However, it is Hiroyuki Sanada's performance as Yoshii Toranaga that truly stands out, marking a triumphant moment in his career. Despite being typecast and overlooked by Hollywood for years, Sanada seizes the opportunity to showcase his talents as both an actor and a producer in Shōgun. In his portrayal of the powerful and intimidating Toranaga, Sanada commands the screen with a commanding presence, embodying his character's intellect, ambition, and prowess with aplomb. What sets Sanada's performance apart is his ability to infuse Toranaga with an unpredictable nature, keeping viewers on the edge of their seats as they anticipate his next move. With each moment on screen, Sanada captivates audiences with his depth and nuance, delivering what can only be described as his finest performance to date. Finally given a role where he can truly shine, Sanada proves himself to be a force to be reckoned with, cementing his status as one of the industry's most talented actors.

Every aspect of this series is a visual feast. The cinematography is nothing short of breathtaking, capturing the stunning landscapes and rich cultural tapestry of Feudal Japan with remarkable skill. From the intricate costumes to the meticulously crafted production design, every detail is thoughtfully considered, drawing viewers deeper into the immersive world of Shōgun.

But Shōgun is more than just television—it's an immersive journey into one of the most pivotal moments in Japanese history. With its masterful storytelling and captivating characters, the series transcends the screen, offering viewers a profound exploration of the human experience against the backdrop of historical upheaval. In a landscape dominated by formulaic narratives, Shōgun stands as a shining example of the power of the historical epic, reminding us of the importance of stories that not only entertain but also enlighten and inspire.

My Rating: A

[allyjoe755]

watching barbie as the island princess and tbh when tika confessed about the letter i would have thrown her overboard and not looked back. "but she's a baby" and???? i said what i said

[maryrouille]

La Pianiste as a timeless movie. About The Piano Teacher (2001) by Michael Haneke

If it were not for the gift I received in the form of books about Haneke's work, I wouldn't have watched this film so quickly. Although I've wanted to see that iconic bathroom scene for a long time. Anyway, have I, as I intertwined with film experts - which I am definitely not one of with my subjective selection of films - begun to enter the era of writing about film based on professional literature? Perhaps!

More than twenty years ago, the film adaptation of the novel Die Klavierspielerin written by Elfriede Jelinek was released. Michael Haneke not only changed it to the French La Pianiste, but also showed the story in a different way. I will not make a book-film comparison here, but I will only mention that the novel is more explicit and much less subtle, which is visible in its vulgar language of the narrator-critic of the broken world.

Sublimity and dirt. Sacred and profane

Knowing the plot of the film, it is easy to notice Erika's touching relationship with her disturbed mother, which results in the perverse development of her sexuality. The dramatic love relationship, as if from an ancient tragedy, of a piano teacher and her student Klemmer is also clearly exposed. But there is something else hidden beneath it. In the literature about La Pianiste, you can find a description of Erika's conflict. Classical music belongs to the world of culture, but the heroine's sexuality reduces her to the level of an unrestrained animal world, manifested in cheap pornography [R. Koschany, Open Composition. The Piano Teacher by Elfriede Jelinek and Michael Hanake, 2019].

Georges Bataille in Erotism: death and sensuality (1986, p. 144) wrote:

Beauty is desired in order that it may be befouled; not for its own sake, but for the joy brought by the certainty of profaning it.

The activities Erika engages in to satisfy her sexual desires seem deviant from the norm, even disgusting, to a stereotypical viewer. This, in combination with the beauty of the main character and her grace, the beauty of the music and the sterility of the rooms, and the perfection of the piano playing skills, creates a striking contrast. Erika seems to profane the beauty around her, and the destruction of the ideal becomes what excites her. Recalling Bataille, it is not the act itself that brings satisfaction, but making a scratch on the transparent glass. While remaining reserved towards psychoanalysis, it can be said that she rebels against her mother in a much more extreme form than teenagers do.

Nudity without a body

Haneke's film is shocking. However, he does not do this through direct images denuding the characters. Even in erotic scenes, the camera is directed not at the characters' body parts, but only at their facial expressions, from which we read the emotions they experience. Regardless, the viewer in this situation is still a voyeur and feels embarrassed to see something that makes him step out of his comfort zone [T. Heimerl, Michael Haneke und seine Filme. Eine Pathologie der Konsumgesellschaft, 2008]. I would say that La Pianiste shows the nudity of the characters, leaving their bodies almost completely covered. In this film, the part focused on eroticism is narrated by eyes staring at each other and hands circling the piano keyboard.

Reception in the 2020s

What would an analysis be, here in a telegraphic version, without reference to today. It must be admitted that the Internet is amazing, that such a film can be turned into memes that accurately comment on the reality presented in it. Were both Erika and Klemmer red flags? On the one hand, a woman with masochistic tendencies, and on the other, a boy who tries at all costs to win and become his teacher's lover. It seemed like the red lights were blinding their eyes from a mile away! However, I would question whether Erika was asexual. Her sexuality was somehow disturbed, unawakened or malformed, but I still think she had it to some extent. This may be a point of discussion.

Coming to the end, I think this is one of Haneke's best works and will be remembered for a long time. It also seems timeless because of the perspective of a female narrator, unusual for the cinema of the 2000s, and the presentation of an attractive woman as an object far from sex appeal, which is cold, strange and caricatured.

[virginia-the-opossum]

GxK was fucking awesome, fuck the critics

[kuriipi]

I need you guys to stop lying and pretending like all Lanthimos' movies are some form of high art.

The guy is literally every greek film bro that went to cinema school.

I do believe he genuinely believes he is revolutionising and combining the greek mythos with modern philosophical ideas. A harsh critic of the fickle and contradictory human nature. But that's where the problem mostly lies. He's not in the slightest bit subtle.

His earlier stuff is seriously just a bunch of pretentious one liners masked as some big profound truth.

"oh you don't like a killing of a sacred deer bcs you don't get the original myth" like no. I get it. And I also know that the greek myth wasn't really a much about divine punishment as it was about facing the reality of your actions. Agamemnon didn't want to sacrifice his daughter to stop the punishment that fell upon them all, after he had killed the sacred deer. He is forced to do it after outside pressure, forced to move past his denial and recognize that it is his only way of atonement. And then the gods still ultimately decide to save Ifigenia because after all she was faultless in all this.

Making "the killing" a medical malpractice is honestly brilliant. Agamemnon hadn't known it was Artemis' sacred deer that he had killed. He only found out after his punishment had already begun. Colin's character hadn't meant to kill the man either, hadn't known of his identity either. But this is as far as the briliance goes.

It is a deeply dark story about a man's desperate attempt to escape fate, to find a loophole, but ultimately it falls flat cause there is not an ounce of sympathy for the characters. You can't feel anything for them or their struggle because they are , intentionally, written so uncannily. Most if not all of Lanthimos' characters really lack the human element.

And although I get the thought and it really does work for a story on human connections like 'the lobster ". The unnatural and completely "un-human" way the characters are portrait adds more layer, a greater punch. Honestly it's extremely well fitted and executed. But for "the killing of a sacred deer" a story whose point really is about the despair, the cruelty of actions and events one is far too powerless to prevent it's...well I think it's a pretty terrible execution.

"you don't like the lobster because you simply can't see the point" Yes it's about society, everything is, it's about forced intimacy, the fear of loneliness, societal pressure and they way we would rather lie to ourselves and our potential partner if it meant we won't be alone. It's about dating for the sake of dating, about children being reduced to nothing more that accessories. About the reactionary solitude, the loners being just as cruel as the hotel enforcing the same strict rules but at the opposite direction. (It doesn't even matter if that is the actual point of the movie because if I talk long enough with enough buzzwords, throw enough ideas at the wall, you'll believe I know exactly what I'm taking about.)

And it's still not really that good.

The premise falls flat. The macabre aspect of being turned into an animal, if you fail at forming a connection, the horrifying depersonalisation, dehumanising the characters is hardly explored.

Ok fine, it was just the premise, just to set the scene (arguably it's the most interesting part of the story, but I digress.)

It's all about human nature. Yes, but it's nothing more than a cynics caricature of it.

But you see the loners are treated like animals but we see how they function and enjoy mundane things like shampoo and going to the mall, and are actually human. Yes me playing with my barbies at 10 had more depth than that. On other news water is wet.

The humans are complex, and actually human and also just as bad as the other humans isn't deep enough of a point to make me watch 2 hours of a stagnant film, and endure like five separate dialogs about ass fucking and masturbation. And how you need a partner to protect you from being sexualy assaulted (like from whom, if that's the case why not just simply turn the entire male population into animals, they seem to have ways of procuring children out of thin air so that doesn't seem to be a problem)

"You can't ask things like that. It's about philosophy and human nature not mechanics plot holes" yes but they're still part of a rather drawn out movie.. if he didn't want me to comment on the plot wholes he should've made the film one hour shorter and avoided them all together.

Like I'll be honest what annoys me the most in his films is the way he forces you to watch these scenes that can only be described as pretentious if not outright bad, that are so meticulously woven into the story. How deep how profound all sex is rape, humanity is cruel and uncaring, detachment is the bain of our modern society. I'm going to add 50 one liners about ass fucking because then it's just about sex, depersonalised. It's really not deep at all.

Like I'm so sorry that not wanting to watch Colin Farrel fuck a woman cosplaying as a corpse multiple times in a movie makes me unappreciative of high cinema. But I guess it is what it is.

(That said, his newer stuff is getting better at keeping up the engagement and evoking more sympathy for the characters. There is far more space to connect to them. The ending of "The favourite" let me feel the despair, the hopeless and absolutely miserable situation the characters found themselves in at the end of the movie.)