Tag Archives: movie review

Traci Kochendorfer has been teasing her short film with her first in film making and producing an experimental documentory. Watch the trailor. Check out news and more

http://Facebook.com/safelinkshortfilm

 

 

In the trailor Traci gives the audience a glimpse of what is safe in the mind of those who deal with PTSD, sexual gender, abuse, unemployment, industry trafficking and much more.  It made the semi finalists in NBC shorts and nominated for a shorty award.  What comes next is more film festivals and oscars .

The press release for “SafeLink” stated it got scene with comprtions like Art with an Impact that gives notice to short films for mental health.

Traci who directed and acts in this short film plays several characters.

Setup by her own production with help of photography from some of your finest who serve overseas with US Army.  Plus many contribute showcasing with alliances on capturing the art of what is in their minds.

Traci after coming back from military life in 2013 released her first music album on MTV.com “Fitness Fantasy”. Which her single ” Kiss Me Love Me ” landed Grammy nomination.  Visit her http://MTV.com/artists/traci-k-kochendorfer-1/

 

 

Share Button

Directed: Peter Webber

Cast: Colin Firth and Scarlett Johansson

The fantasy teaches us how to desire and it is desire which keeps us ‘alive’, in the sense of seeking an object in reality whose positive encounter, we believe, would satisfy our desire. According to Zizek, ‘a fantasy constitutes our desire, provides its coordinates; that is, it literary ‘teaches us how to desire’ (Zizek: 1997, 7) [1]. Fantasy decides how a man would behave irrespective of what he consciously thinks of it, and directs him to develop a desire towards another human being (in the form of reality or virtuality). In short, fantasy possesses the capacity to regulate one’s desire and establishes the fact that there needs to be an intersubjective relationship for us to desire.  The desire can change a person’s fate especially when he finds the object of desire as a worthy cause of pursue of his existence. Man is capable of sublimating his desirous object (fantasy), when he could ‘de-sexualize’ it and place it where it becomes immoral. It will then be appreciated by millions of others in future. What we find ultimately in the movie ‘The Girl with a Pearl Earring’ is man’s infinite effort to abide by the above principle to sublimate his desire.   What he could not ‘reach’ in penetrating the woman who carried his final fantasy (or, in other words, the Impossible), was made immoral through his aesthetic skills. His primary sexual energy was converted/diverted to some sublime force to produce an object (in this case, a painting) which was further away from man’s reach.

Griet, the protagonist of the movie The Girl with a Pear Earring (2003), comes from a poor family where her father is also a Delftware painter who is financially bankrupt now. After her father went blind and subsequently unemployed, she was sent to work in Johannes Vermeer’s household that is initially portrayed with some mysterious misunderstanding between the husband and wife, though not obvious.  She continues her duty honestly, while gaining the attention of some butcher boy to whom she responds slowly. Griet is sometimes treated harshly by Vermeer’s children and even Vermeer’s wife becomes a bit inquisitive about her going to the studio which she is never permitted to enter. Griet gained Vermeer’s attention one day when she busied with cleaning the studio after she made a comment about color of an on-going painting. After that they became acquainted and developed strong aesthetic attachment based on taste when Vermeer further encouraged her appreciation of painting. In the meantime, he used to give her lessons in mixing painting and related jobs. Her going to the studio and helping Vermeer was kept as a secret from his wife but Vermeer’s mother-in-law treated this affair in a pragmatic manner considering her usefulness to his immediate production of commercial painting. In the meantime, Vermeer’s patron Van Ruijven, having seen her beauty, demands for Griet to work in his household which Vermeer denies. However, he agrees to paint a portrait of Griet for Ruijven.

Once Vermeer started painting Griet, their attachment further grew and she happened to spend more time in the studio. This is noticed by Vermeer’s children and later by Catharina (Vermeer’s wife) herself. Vermeer, while working on the painting, one day pierced her earlobe so that she could wear the earring for the portrait. Griet, taken by the surprise, ran to the butcher boy for consolation.  Griet is given the pearl earring which Catharina used to wear during the final days of the completion of the painting. Catharina, after found out that her pearl earring was worn by Griet, stormed into the studio she never set foot in before and demanded that she wanted to see the painting that Vermeer was working on. She was shocked to see Griet in the painting and wanted to destroy the painting since Vermeer did not consider her worthy of being painted.   Though she could not destroy the painting she managed to banish Griet from the house forever. At this point Vermeer becomes silent and Griet leaves the studio majestically. Later she is visited by the cook from the house carrying the pearl earrings and the blue headscarf as gift.

Griet gives her body to completes the journey that her father left unfinished in producing something ‘sublime’ to make his name ‘immortal’ (from a Western point of view). In that case, she is the instrument through which Vermeer creates the ‘gaze’ in his painting without which this work could have been just another drawing of no universal attention. Even his thin lip wife could not give that ‘inspirational’ look for him to see the world through, and for us see who he was. His wife could not give him this complex feeling about existence. That’s why he says, ‘you don’t understand’. Griet carries his fantasy to inspire that painting (which his business-minded mother-in-law understands) but such fundamental feeling cannot naturally be explained to his wife.  Vermeer starts a kind of intimate communication with Griet  and that inter-subjective relationship made her to make a ‘sacrifice’ (pierce her ear=penetration) for the completion of the work. Vermeer does not agree to offer her to his rich client but makes a painting out of her body to make her beauty sublime for those who appreciate painting. This ‘meeting’ finally produced what man is ultimately capable of.  Through the reality of a maid, Vermeer travels back to fantasy and through fantasy he returns to a fictional element called a drawing. In this process, the maid became ‘more than herself’; a symbolic entity where even she does not have a control.

However, there is a clear line between the Phallus and the non-Phallus; the sexual enjoyment and ethical goals. Vermeer does not take Griet as a primary sexual object; the fate of any maid in a household under this circumstance. Instead, may be because of the contemporary Victorian family values, Vermeer sticks by his own code of values to be faithful to his wife. According to Zizek, ‘in the guise of professional obligations, he is forced to chose between woman and ethical duty’ (Zizek 1994, 152) [2]. What he scarifies here by being ‘public’ is his true happiness by being with her. This means that his genuine happiness is eared only through a relationship with her, and his actual personal fulfillment is achieved only this way.   Woman is always aware of this ‘element of sacrifice’ that man readily makes. She knows that his public movement is just a ‘compensation’ for his guilt of being unethical. What I suppose in this movie is Griet was aware of his need to be with her (at the same time, she was also ready to be his fantasy-object) and the her intensified feeling and readiness to be his love-object lead her to go to so called ‘lover’; the second- rated substitute who can never replace her original Phallic signifier; Vermeer. Because of the symbolic order, she cannot express herself to him, other than her comments about the paintings, but she could pour her inner complexity out to the ‘butcher boy’. In this case, she does not care what happens to that boy from the side of his desire. Simply misreading her expression as a desire for him, he gets caught in her dialogue which is not made for him.

‘The impossibility’ here is Vermeer’s ‘need to be with her’ (physical desires) and the strict Victorian values with which he runs the family.   The painting ‘The Girl with a Pear Earring’ is Vermeer’s sublimation of the impossible or unfulfilled fantasy- love towards Griet, and, on the other hand, how he penetrated her was just through her ear. Her loss of maidenhood was demarcated by submission to be the instrumental object of the painting. Hence, one can argue that she became a ‘matured woman’ (both physically and psychologically) through certain non-phallic involvement that finally produced a universal object of appreciation. From an ordinary point of view, he could not bear her ‘gaze’ and wanted to penetrate it. He found the right lips for his painting (or the right woman who carried the exact fantasy object). Vermeer’s replacement of his sexual energy to an immortal object made his existence meaningful to this date. In this case, we can say that both Griet and Vermeer found true love. They found it through the renouncement of the primary phallic or through the ‘de-sexualization’ of the relationship. That is how the painting ‘Girl with a Pear Earring’ hangs before us.

‘If we are to achieve fulfillment through phallic enjoyment, we must renounce it as our explicit goal. Or in other words, true love can emerge only within a relationship of non-sexual goal’ (Zizek 1994, 152).

 

[1] Zizek, Slavoj (1997) The Plague of Fantasies, Verso, London.

[2] Zizek, Slavoj (1994) The Metastases of Enjoyment: Six Essays on Woman and Causality, Verso, London.

Share Button

The Blue Devil

Coming November

This movie is a $0 budget psychological horror written and created by 15 year olds Nick Paton (Director, Writer and Producer) and Oscar Smith (Writer and Producer) shot on the Canon EOS 600D (T3i). Oscar Smith originally pitched the idea to Nick Paton through an iMessage, this then grew to 3 scripts being made and over 5 months of solid work to create such a short film.

It follows the story of a boy (Max) being haunted by the fact of a serial killer being on the lose. Over time he becomes more and more scared to the point of thinking that his babysitter (Zack) is the serial killer. Throughout the movie as thing become more intense between his fear of this murderer he finally discovers who the killer is.

Directed By Nicholas Paton
Starring Hugh Findlay & Nicholas Paton
Produced By Oscar Smith
Written By Oscar Smith and Nicholas Paton
Twitter – Nickop9

Please Subscribe!!!

http://www.youtube.com/QuadricFilms

[five-star-rating]

Share Button

Black Swan (produced by Ari Handel, Scott Franklin, Mike Medavoy, Arnold Messer, and Brian Oliver) is a 2010 fascinating drama-horror movie directed by Darren Aronofsky and written by Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz, and John J. McLaughlin. This is a great story of a young, beautiful, weak, and mentally ill ballerina Nina Sayers, played by Natalie Portman. Portman won the Academy Award Best Actress award for her play in Black Swan and the film received nomination for Best Director by Aronofsky and Best Picture.

black swan movie

Nina is a hardworking member of a New York City ballet company. Nina’s mother, played by Barbara Hershey, was a ballerina who impregnated Nina during her ballerina career and as a result Barbara gave up her career in order to raise Nina as a brilliant ballerina. Barbara is controlling Nina’s life in every aspect from her eating to nervous habits and it seems like Nina is very scared of her mother for instance, during different plots Nina is trying to cover the itch marks on her body from her mother or she is unwillingly eating cake and breakfast in order not to make her mother upset.  Thomas Leroy, played by Vincent Cassel, the director of New York City Ballet Company is looking for a new face to play the head in Swan Lake. He chose Nina to replace the company’s star Beth played by Winona Ryder. He wants Nina to play the Swan Queen. However, Thomas is concerned about Nina’s capability to play the Black Swan half of this dual role because Nina is too much in control of her feeling and movements.

Aronofsky had the same story repeated in his 2008 film Wrestler played by Mickey Rourke. Natalie Portman and Mickey Rourke are representing challenging performances for totally two different kinds of art, ballerina and wrestling. Nina is facing the same problem as the wrestler. She knows that she doesn’t have the devil character in herself but she wants to force herself to perform the role, that’s when she starts to experience frequent feathery skin rash, hallucinations and anxiety attacks with her progress in rehearsal. Nina, just like the wrestler, pushes herself very hard; she forces herself through the rehearsals because she wants to be the best.

Black Swan is a rich enjoyable dramatic movie that connects with audience very well. The movie touches the audience as they watch the great performance of Portman dancing on stage and during rehearsals as White Swan. The dramatic and deep dialogs between Nina and Thomas or the love and happiness of Nina’s mother when she found out that Nina is selected for swan queen emphasize the dramatic tone of the movie and help the audience to feel the passion and love of Nina’s for dancing or her mother for Nina in the movie. However, when Nina changes to a bird and danced to the devil character of black swan, the dramatic genre of movie changes to horror. Audience can both see and feel the madness and evil spirit in Nina’s eyes and face. Moreover, audience was shocked and scared when Nina turned to an aggressive person and stands up to her mother and fight with her.

[five-star-rating]

 

Share Button

Captain America Review: Part 2

[five-star-rating]

Share Button

Batman – The Dark Knight Rises – Hit or Shit?

Batman has a long history of fails and humiliation! Therefore we might presume that another Batman franchise might possibly suck as hard as it did, for example, Batman and Robin in its time. But we should also restrain ourself from the biased predictions towards Joel Shumaher’s clown show and look seriously at Christopher Nolan’s world.

This is probably the hardest part for every movie reviewer to try make something out of the movie which even hasn’t been released officially. There is no even signs for the closest pre-screen or any other sources for a new The Dark Knight. However, Batman The Dark Knight Rises, which is according to the comingsoon.com will be released in July 2012, already gives to us some prescriptions of doubt.

First of all, why its called the The Dark Knight Rises? As we know from the first The Dark Knight, Batman wasn’t dying or retiring at all, so what’s the point to name it as a “Return” or “Rise”? It sounds like “Batman the Beginning”, but we had that already in the a previous movie!

Moreover, through the entire series of Batman we’ve got a lot of titles like “Batman Return”, “Batman Forever”. We, as an audience are not so stupid to catch on the same cliche titles as:

  • Revenge
  • Returns
  • Forever
  • Rises…

I mean what will be next? “Batman The Double Revenge”, “Batman and the Raise of The Joker”? The unoriginal title already says to us that the movie will be probably unoriginal, and guess what? How could you possibly be original with Batman!? The franchise is already dead and even the death of Hit Ledger didn’t save it at all.

Another little problem… Garry FUCKING Oldman!

WTF? I mean, do we really need to put any other cliched “evil” actors to spoil the seriousness and darkness of the Batman franchise! It’s like putting a dancing gorilla in Batman and Robin movie! How will you possibly, buy that after his performance in the RED RIDING HOOD! His first problem he is literally OLD! Lemme guess, he’ll be a Double-faced, uh?

We will stay on tune about Batman The Dark Knight Rises and before that, watch some real footage, which dead4movie shares with you exclusively!

[five-star-rating]

Share Button

Transformers III: Dark of the Moon Sucks – Fuck This Boasted Movie!

It’s happened that I watched “Transformers III – Dark of the Moon” before its official release, that pile of hyper CGI budget shit and guess what? I was fucking disappointed in the whole franchise!

You probably thought that “Transformers II Revenge of the fallen” is by far the worst part of its series. But thanks to Steven Spielberg for his TS3! This piece of shit is like a Spider Man III of its genre – boasted, over-hyped and super pissed.

Transformers III Dark of the moon 2011

The worst part here that it doesn’t deserve our money on popcorn and ticket at all! I thought there will be more development about Optimums Prime and his new “chick”, but instead of that they put some new bizarre robotic heroes like Zordon, who transforms into a Phantom Truck. A giant truck which is invisible sometimes, or shit like that, I usually sleep on that part.

Phantom truck? Really?

The movie plot is shit – “evil” transformers tried to conquer the Earth and did I say “TRIED”? Of course the Black Team has been blown up by the… okay, I’m not reveling the movie plot, just listen what will say Mike.

[blockquote_message]Mike TYsonThis movie is so bad that I even bought Japanese Godzilla DVD collection to realize how did they manage to cook up so fascinating cyborg-action scenes with no CGI at all?[/blockquote_message]

Mike Tyson.


Yeah, you’re absolutely right Mikey,Transformers III is more like a fucking I-pod advertising than a movie. Even a fucking CGI level worse than any Evander Holyfield’s hook in the nuts. I mean, the quality is good but the level of execution, it’s like you’re watching another computer game not a movie at all!

Judging by the past prequels it has less originality in the plot and character development, there is no charismatic leader in Transformers III! It is more it like Power Rangers doodling and meddling in the middle of the battle. Imagine watching a Scarface with no Tony Montana, just a bunch of Cuban bastards trying to shoot each over – no “cockroaches”, no chainsaw, no sense and plot at all.

Don’t even waste your time guys and better re-watch some Robocop movies, not this shit!

[five-star-rating]

Share Button

Dog Day Afternoon (1975) – Movie Review

Before going to the Olympus of notorious Tony Montana expression Al Pacino played a role of Sonny Wortzik in the Dog Day Afternoon action movie in the far and old 1975. This is probably the best example of the early Pacino appearance on the big screen. This movie made the future Scarface prototype and established Al Pacino as a prominent Hollywood star!

It’s not about dog life!

Three guys Stevie (who the fuck remembers him now?),  Sonny Wortzik (Al Pacino) and Sal (John Cazale) are decided to robber the Brooklyn Central Bank.  But the company of the three nerds has hassled to do it professionally and well planned! Instead of the 1o minute operation it turned out to be a who fucking mess with FBI!

This is a comedy and action which eventually entails in a bloody drama in the best traditions of Scarface! You can find here even a wit and pleasant (not perverted) humor in the best French and Italian traditions!

First of all, Al Pacino plays naturally and energetically the role of the intellectual psychopath and looser who needs money for his gay and pathetic boyfriend Leon (on the picture below). Leon is a homosexual dude “trapped into the man’s body” and who needs dough for an expensive surgical operation on genitalia! Oh my God!

[divider_hr]

[blockquote_message]I’m flying to the tropics, fuck the snow! Sonny Wrotzik, 1975.[/blockquote_message]

[divider_hr]

Sal (on the picture below) is a complete psychopath, a self-circled schizoid, living in his dark and doomed hallucinations. He is a pretty nervous pal and don’t like then people talk loudly around, that makes him feel non-confident and that is why sometimes he is going to shoot with no sense.

The movie script is just a brilliant gift for any human being on this planet who loves intellectual and psychedelic action! This movie is not  joke and it drains out all your time, keeping your fat ass on the chair to try realize how the hell Sal and Sonny will get out of the ass robbery situation!

[blockquote_message]The robbery should have taken 10 minutes. 4 hours later, the bank was like a circus sideshow. 8 hours later, it was the hottest thing on live T.V. 12 hours later, it was all history. And it’s all true![/blockquote_message]

A MUST WATCH!

[five-star-rating]

 

Share Button

Nostalgia Critic – The Langoliers

Share Button

Cruising (1980) – Movie Review – Gay Al Pacino

Al Pacino… What can you say say about that notorious Hollywood actor, looking at his photo below?

Is he a gay? Yes, he looks like, but I can say more, his eyes are eyes of the great poet and an actor. His face is iconic! Al Pacino can be great and prominent even in a shitty movie, playing the role of the fagot and queer.

Actually, he plays a New Your detective cop under the cover. he enters to the shady gay places to hunt for the homosexual killer in a black leather. Cruising (1980) movie supposed to be a detective story, but I think it’s more internal struggle and drama.

It’s absolutely recommended to watch for every Al Pacino fan and not only. The movie has that pretty atmosphere of 80’s, the atmosphere of freedom and sex, open clubs and drugs! Wanna make out with some guy? No problemo, let’s go to the park!

Cruising (1980) it’s also hilarious gimp masks and public orgies, gay slang and even “cockroach” moments. Some people say that this is by far the worst picture with Al, but isn’t that fact makes you want to check it out the movie for yourself? The energy of Al Pacino will not let you go. I swear by God after that movie you will become a gay… even if you are a woman!

Check out the trailer made in Scarface style and convince for yourself!

[five-star-rating]

Share Button