TV REVIEW: GAME OF THRONES – SEASON 07 – EPISODE 04

the spoils of war1.jpgDaenerys strikes back. Jaime faces an unexpected situation. Arya comes home.

Director: Matt Shakman
Writers: David Benioff, D.B. Weiss
Stars: Peter Dinklage, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Lena Headey

Review by Mary Cox

Tonight was an episode focused on both reunions and revenge. There haven’t been this manyStarks in the same room since the first season. We’re finally getting to see the plots we’ve been following for close to a decade now intertwine, and it is SO rewarding. Seeing Arya go one-on-one with Brienne of Tarth was incredible! Jon, who still believes that Theon murdered Bran and Rickon, barely manages to control himself when the last of the Greyjoys wash up on Dragonstone.

An obvious highlight of tonight’s episode is the battle between the Lannister army and Daenerys’ dragons. The tension between Bronn at the Scorpion and Daenerys on Drogon was incredible. After a close call with Drogon, some unknown person shoves Jaime out of the path of fire and into the bottom of a lake. Is this really how the Kingslayer dies? Probably not.

One question I keep having is: what is Littlefinger up to? His character seems almost undirected while he’s surrounded by a court of pragmatic Northerners who don’t give into manipulation as easily as the nobles at King’s Landing. Obviously, his long-term goal is Sansa, but how is he planning on getting there?

Something to watch out for in future episodes: Tyrion seems to be having his doubts about which side he wants to be on while watching his fellow Lannisters fall victim to the flames of Daenery’s dragons, but is he willing to throw away his alliance with the Targaryen queen for the sake of his blood? I doubt it.
the spoils of war2.jpg

******
“Mary Cox is an entertainment writer from the United States. Her hobbies include making good beer and bad decisions, watching drag queens fight on the internet, and overanalyzing everything. Mary one day hopes to be the person shouting “World Star” in the back of a Waffle House brawl video. She is currently tolerating life in Toronto. You can follow her on Twitter at @M_K_Cox”

 

TV REVIEW: RICK AND MORTY – SEASON 03 – EPISODE 03

rickandmorty1Rick turns himself into a pickle.

Creators: Dan Harmon, Justin Roiland
Stars: Justin Roiland, Chris Parnell, Spencer Grammer

Review by Mary Cox

“Pickle Rick”

It’s Pickle Rick! On this week’s Rick and Morty, we see Rick turn himself into a pickle (and gets himself into a pickle) in order to get out of going to family therapy with Beth, Morty, and Summer. Susan Sarandon guest stars in this episode as Dr. Wong, the family’s therapist.

This series does a great job of juxtaposing ridiculous and serious content, even as far back as the first season with episodes like Rixty Minutes. Tonight this was accomplished by flashing back and forth between Pickle Rick’s sewer adventures and Beth’s complete failure to embrace (and actively participate in) her family therapy session.

Beth seems to be taking center stage this season, where in past episodes, she’s been more of a supporting character. This season is spending a lot of time exploring the unhealthy dynamic between Beth and her father, and how she’s willing to put everything in her life, including her children, aside in order to make Rick happy.

I’m hopeful that this series’ exploration of this dynamic doesn’t delve into cliché “daddy issues” territories, but that it takes a broader look at how toxic relationships can function. Also, I seriously doubt this is the last time we’re going to see a reference made to Mr. Goldenfold’s literal shit-eating grin.
 
rickandmorty2

******
“Mary Cox is an entertainment writer from the United States. Her hobbies include making good beer and bad decisions, watching drag queens fight on the internet, and overanalyzing everything. Mary one day hopes to be the person shouting “World Star” in the back of a Waffle House brawl video. She is currently tolerating life in Toronto. You can follow her on Twitter at @M_K_Cox”t

TV REVIEW: TWIN PEAKS – SEASON 03 – EPISODE 13

twin_peaks_13.jpg“Part 13: What Story is that, Charlie?”

Picks up 25 years after the inhabitants of a quaint northwestern town are stunned when their homecoming queen is murdered.

Creators: Mark Frost, David Lynch
Stars: Kyle MacLachlan, Sheryl Lee, Michael Horse

Review by Mary Cox

Tonight’s episode was all about looping energy and repeating patterns. This is the most obvious in our return to the Palmer household, but it’s present in other scenes. If you revisit Sonny Jim’s gym set scene, you’ll notice that the footage of him playing is looped as well.

After a cutesy conga line with the Mitchum Bros., Good Coop narrowly avoids being poisoned and continues with his obsession over cherry pie. Bad Coop wins an arm wrestling contest, the Owl Cave Ring makes its first appearance in the new season, and Phillip Jeffries is back in the game. Audrey’s character has flipped from a confident, embittered harpy to a weakwilled, terrified child. Watching her rapidly cycle between aggression and learned helplessness makes you wonder: what the hell happened to her? Is Audrey possibly even still in a coma?

Holy shit. The Roadhouse. Some people seem to think that Lynch’s stunning choice to feature James Hurley’s “Just You (and I)” is a part of a larger commentary about toxic nostalgia, and about unnecessary returns to twenty year-old TV shows or film franchises. Certainly, last week’s episode where Lynch, as FBI Director Gordon Cole, stares right at us with a shiteating grin as a French woman does nothing for close to five minutes, would support this theory. Cooper being reduced to a goofy shell of himself who obsesses over coffee and pie also adds evidence here.

However, thinking that Lynch is somehow sneering at his fans seems to totally ignore the notion the level of detail and craftsmanship put into this series. Lynch recorded the Log Lady scenes even before Season 3 was greenlit. Mark Frost’s companion book, The Secret History of Twin Peaks, is incredibly well thought-out and is rich in detail and nuance. There’s no way he’s making this series just to laugh at the people who love his work

******
“Mary Cox is an entertainment writer from the United States. Her hobbies include making good beer and bad decisions, watching drag queens fight on the internet, and overanalyzing everything. Mary one day hopes to be the person shouting “World Star” in the back of a Waffle House brawl video. She is currently tolerating life in Toronto. You can follow her on Twitter at @M_K_Cox”t

Film Review: THE NUT JOB 2: NUTTY NY NATURE (USA 2017) ***

the_nut_job_2.jpgFollowing the events of the first film, Surly and his friends must stop Oakton City’s mayor from destroying their home to make way for a dysfunctional amusement park.

Director: Cal Brunker
Writers: Bob Barlen, Cal Brunker
Stars: Will Arnett, Katherine Heigl, Maya Rudolph

Review by Gilbert Seah 

The sequel to THE NUT JOB delivers much more of the same with the coloured squirrels and other rodent park animals, led by Sury and his rat sidekick Buddy, voiced by mostly the same actors.

Surly (Will Arnett) and the park animals must band together to prevent Oakton City’s crooked mayor (Bobby Moynihan) from bulldozing Liberty Park and replacing it with a dangerous amusement park. Surly even gets help from the territorial street mouse gang leader Mr. Feng (Jackie Chan) into thwarting the mayor’s plot.
The sequel introduces three new and welcome characters that provide most of the film’s freshness and humour. These are Bobby Moynihan as the Mayor of Oakton City, Isabela Moner as Heather, the mayor’s spoiled daughter and Jackie Chan as Mr. Feng. Credit should also definitely go to the animators of these three creatures.

When Mr. Feng, the white mouse first appears in the film, speaking with a strong Chinese impression, the immediate thought that will come to mind is racism. Society has progressed a far way since Mickey Rooney could get away doing really awful and unacceptable Japanese impressions with fake teeth in Blake Edwards’ BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S. But the credits list Jackie Chan as the voice behind Mr. Feng, and Chan does speak that way with a strong Hong Kong accent. The animators are also smart enough to make sure all he mice characters including Mr. Feng have really round and no slanted eyes.

THE NUT JOB films are the lower breed of animated films after films like SHREK, MADAGASCAR, HAPPY FEET, KUNG FU PANDA, HOW TO SAVE YOUR DRAGON, MEATBALLS. The NUT JOB films are have nothing really new to offer. Despite a few relatively new ideas (such as the mice and Mr. Fend who refuse to be cute – a sort of direct attack at cutest animated characters), parents will find the whole enterprise a chore to watch while children will undoubtedly be entertained.
Though the film is listed as an American production, there is a lot of Asian input (especially in the animation) as mentioned in the closing credits. Not only that but two asian companies are credited as with producing credits at the start of the film.

THE NUTJOB films are modest productions. The first cost only $42 million to make and went on to gross $120 million thus green lighting a sequel. The original director, a Canadian Peter Lepeniotis who based the first film on characters he created in his short was supposed to co-write the sequel but his name is missing from the list. Number 2 is co-written by Cal Brunker
Bob Barlen andScott Bindley.

The closing credits in the first THE NUT JOB film featuring an animated version of South Korean rapper Psi performing “Gangam Style” dancing with the park rodents were so irresistible that almost the entire audience stayed to the end. This was indeed a difficult act to follow and the rap sequence the closing credits of NUT JOB 2 unfortunately emptied the theatre in no time, thus allowing almost everyone to miss a last sequence of animation that appears once the closing credits rolled over.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lpw2gJt9Us

Also, Free logline submissions. The Writing Festival network averages over 95,000 unique visitors a day.
Great way to get your story out: http://www.wildsound.ca/logline.html

Deadlines to Submit your Screenplay, Novel, Story, or Poem to the festival:http://www.wildsound.ca

Watch recent Writing Festival Videos. At least 15 winning videos a month:http://www.wildsoundfestival.com

Interview with Festival Director Chris Grigsby (Cinevision Film Festival)

festreviews's avatarFestival Reviews

Cinevision Film Festival is an international competition for short filmmakers located in Santa Fe, NM at the heart of the city.  We aim to help amateur filmmakers make the professional leap.  This year’s competition is a little bit different than in the past.  We’re focusing more on shorter films to allow more directors the opportunity to be seen.  This year’s festival is directed by Chris Grigsby who is partnering with film4change and this is our film to help create the best program we’ve had yet.

http://cinevisionsfuad.com/

Interview with Chris Grigsby:

Matthew Toffolo: What is your Film Festival succeeding at doing for filmmakers?

Chris Grigsby: Cinevision Film Festival is located in Santa Fe, New Mexico. For those who don’t know, Santa Fe, Nm is indeed a real place and it happens to be a film and artist hub. Independence Day 2, Seth Rogan’s new project, “Preacher” and the ever popular Netflix show…

View original post 592 more words

Film Review: AN INCONVENIENT SEQUEL: TRUTH TO POWER (USA 2017) ***

AN INCONVENIENT SEQUEL TRUTH TO POWER.jpgA decade after An Inconvenient Truth (2006) brought climate change into the heart of popular culture comes the follow-up that shows just how close we are to a real energy revolution.

Directors: Bonni Cohen, Jon Shenk
Stars: Al Gore, George W. Bush, John Kerry

Review by Gilbert Seah
 

AN INCONVENIENT SEQUEL: TRUTH TO POWER is the sequel to the 2006 Academy Award Winner for Best Documentary AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH starring Al Gore where the former Vice-President of the United States championed the fight on global warming. In that film, the effects of global warming were convincingly portrayed on screen, rallying uncountable numbers of followers to fight against global warming. After more than 10 years, many of that film’s predictions (the best example used being the flooding of the World Trade Centre grounds), laughed upon by skeptics have come to pass. This sequel is timely and premiered at Sundance early this year.

The film follows the efforts made to tackle climate change and Al Gore’s attempts to persuade governmental leaders to invest in renewable energy, culminating in the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2016.

The film begins lightly with references to the 2006 film and with Al Gore in lighter mode shown joking and laughing. His joke about a lady (not recognizing him) telling him that if dyed his hair black, he would look like Al Gore is funny enough, enabling the film to transition slowly to a more serious nature. Gore is also shown, in the film’s best moments giving his climate speeches, while getting fully worked up in the process.

Gore is undoubtedly presented in the film as the conquering hero, besides a champion for the climate change movement. Well, better a hero for a crucial course that no hero at all.

While the film traces Gore’s attendance at the Paris talks in 2016, it narrows the events to his victory at convincing India to cooperate. At the same time, the film shows how each country contributes to the reduction of global warming and where the problems lie. The film’s high is the revelation of how much Chile has done in the construction of solar powered plants. Another high is how Geogetown, Texas through its comical mayor has also championed itself towards 100% renewal energy. He emphasizes the saying that we should leave the world a better place in terms of renewal energy.

The ultimate question asked is whether AN INCONVENIENT SEQUEL is better than the original INCONVENIENT TRUTH. The truth is that it is difficult for anyone who has seen the 2006 film to remember, especially after 11 years have passed. A fellow critic colleague mentioned that SEQUEL is the better film, being more focused, also claiming that he has just re-watched the original for comparison. For myself, I remember being more moved by the first film, and understandably so, for the more disturbing images of the effects of global warming shown. In SEQUEL, though many images are still shown, most of these are the catastrophes like the flooding and drought scenes, but the melting ice and the depletion of ice created the greater impact.

Still in SEQUEL, directors Cohen and Shenk have re-edited the film following President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, to expand Trump’s role as antagonist before the film hits theatres. All the better to incite the workers for climate change to have a common enemy, and an easy target at that.
The film ends, predictably though necessarily, with how everyone can contribute to the cause, with the website they can log on to.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huX1bmfdkyA
 

Also, Free logline submissions. The Writing Festival network averages over 95,000 unique visitors a day.
Great way to get your story out: http://www.wildsound.ca/logline.html

Deadlines to Submit your Screenplay, Novel, Story, or Poem to the festival:http://www.wildsound.ca

Watch recent Writing Festival Videos. At least 15 winning videos a month:http://www.wildsoundfestival.com

Film Review: LANDLINE (USA 2017) ***

landline.jpgIn 1995, a teenager living with her sister and parents in Manhattan discovers that her father is having an affair.

Director: Gillian Robespierre
Writers: Elisabeth Holm (story by), Gillian Robespierre (story by)
Stars: Jenny Slate, Jay Duplass, Abby Quinn

Review by Gilbert Seah

 
Director Gillian Robespierre and actress Jenny Slate team up once again after their mildly successful film, OBVIOUS CHILD. Their new film LANDLINE opens to a couple having sex in the woods. There is no full nudity, just trousers and skirts down or up as the case may be. It is a comical scene as the orgasm is interrupted by what she calls a woodchuck’s peter pater. Most people can relate to this scene, as most people would have had sex in the outdoors at least once in their lifetime and the scene would be a familiar if not an amusing one.

LANDLINE is a female point of view relationship romantic comedy/drama involving three females of the Jacobs family – the mother Pat (Edie Falco), and the two daughters, Dana (Jenny Slate) and the younger, Ali (Abby Quinn). The main plot involves the sisters finding out, by accident that their father, Alan (John Turturro) is having an affair. They decide to find out who his mistress is but they debate on whether they should inform their mother.

A simple premise of a father’s secret infidelity in a slightly dysfunctional household is not enough material to keep an audience interested throughout an entire movie. So, the scriptwriters (the majority of whom are female, as is obvious from the film) have inserted other subplots or distractions. Two are the relationships of the two daughters. Another is the use of drugs, heroin by the youngest daughter. And another involves the film’s setting in the 1990’s. The setting means no use of cell phones as they were not invented yet, hence the film title of LANDLINE. Robespierre also has the excuse to put in plenty of 90’s period music which include lots of really popular songs like “Higher Love” by Steve Winwood and My favourite song “Two of Hearts” by Stacey Q.

The film tries too hard at times making it look too smart for its own good.

Many of these involve Dana and her boyfriend, Ben (Jay Duplass). The bath tub scene looks too manipulative and false, only there to create an artificial ‘cool’ segment. Their corny dialogue in the scene does not help either. Working better is the relationship between the younger sister Ali and her drug using boyfriend. Their banter and relationship appear more natural and comes across as not only more spontaneous but credible.

Of all the performances, Edie Falco (the mother) is the most winning. John Turturro does well as the hapless asshole who cheats and then expects to be forgiven for his errors by his smart talk. This confrontation between Alan and Pat forms the film’ s best part with the audience clearly on the side of the female’s.

Despite the film’s flaws, it succeeds on the performances of its cast. The humour is slight but the drama is real. The sibling interactions work. The feeling is that the dysfunctional family onscreen could be yours.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llmki0lioMs

 

Also, Free logline submissions. The Writing Festival network averages over 95,000 unique visitors a day.
Great way to get your story out: http://www.wildsound.ca/logline.html

Deadlines to Submit your Screenplay, Novel, Story, or Poem to the festival:http://www.wildsound.ca

Watch recent Writing Festival Videos. At least 15 winning videos a month:http://www.wildsoundfestival.com

1977 Movie Review: EXORCIST II THE HERETIC, 1977

  MOVIE POSTEREXORCIST II THE HERETIC, 1977 
Movie Reviews

Director: John Boorman

Stars: Richard Burton, Linda Blair, Louise Fletcher

Review by Mark Engberg

SYNOPSIS:

A girl once possessed by a demon finds that it still lurks within her. Meanwhile, a priest investigates the death of the girl’s exorcist.

MOVIE REVIEW:

During our podcast discussion regarding the best horror films of all time, WILDsound founder Matthew Toffolo asked me a brilliant question: what defines a horror movie?

Cheating an answer out of Wikipedia, I said that a horror movie tries to evoke a negative reaction from the audience by playing on their primal fears and anxieties. So, here is a follow-up question: what makes a bad horror movie?

Is it bad acting? Like any other genre, bad acting in a horror feature can certainly damage its integrity. But it seems unfair to blame a movie’s appeal based solely on the acting abilities, or lack thereof, of its principle stars. Besides, if you were going to condemn a horror movie for its unbelievable acting, the list of bad ones would be endless.

Is it bad because of its unbelievability? That hardly seems the case. A Nightmare on Elm Street and Child’s Play are among some of the most beloved and successful horror films released in the past twenty-five years. And you would be hard pressed to explain that the premise for either franchise is in any way plausible.

Or does it only appear bad based on its low budget? I can’t go with that one either. Henry: The Portrait of a Serial Killer and The Blair Witch Project are two of my favorite horror films of all time. The production team behind Henry spent about $110 grand on its budget, while The Blair Witch spent about half of that amount.

It can be inferred that a bad horror film fails to elicit a reaction from the audience by playing on their own emotions. In other words, it is boring.

And if Exorcist II: The Heretic were merely a boring picture, I could still look past its narrative shortcomings and acknowledge that sequels rarely live up to their predecessors. But Boorman’s take on the story is an incomprehensible mish-mash of locust swarms and doppelgangers. The story loses so much focus in its final act, I thought I was possessed by a demon spirit myself because all I wanted to do was vomit green bile all over the place.

Richard Burton and Linda Blair seem to be playing a game as to who can do the worst acting throughout the picture. Burton constantly undercuts his Father Lamont with sad, motionless expressions that convey nothing. Blair might as well be doing a spot for an Informercial reenactment.

She herself blames the flawed story structure on the fact that it went through too many rewrites due to creative differences between Boorman and screenwriter William Goodhart. Eventually, Goodhart was replaced by Rospo Pallenberg, who rewrote the script with Boorman. Even though I never read Goodhart’s original script, I feel bad for the playwright, who must have endured a lifetime of harsh criticism for something he did not write.

The production crew had its own set of problems. Burton, allegedly, started drinking again. Boorman contracted a respiratory fungal infection, which offset production for a costly month. Blair refused to wear the demon make-up this time, which meant that her demon scenes had to be performed by a double. The animal wranglers had trouble with the grasshoppers they needed for the ridiculous locust scenes. The City of Washington DC denied the crew permission to film at the famous staircase in Georgetown.

The entire filmed seemed doomed from its inception. Even one of the producers, Richard Lederer, admits in Bob McCabe’s book The Exorcist: Out of the Shadows that the sequel was conceived as a low-budget rehash of the original, using deleted scenes from the original to give audiences something new.

When the film opened, it was laughed off the screen by crowds who were probably initially intimidated when the lights first dimmed. In fact, Boorman yanked the film out of theaters and attempted numerous re-cuts and alternate endings to no avail. When there is so much wrong with your picture, there is only so much you can do.

The plot is a dull concept regarding Burton’s Father Lamont and his assignment to investigate the death of Father Merrin (once again played by the great Max von Sydow). When Lamont visits the tormented yet oblivious Regan MacNeil at a NYC psychiatric institute, the plot quickly sinks into absurdity. They experience synchronized hypnosis together using a pair of wires and headbands when Lamont discovers an unquiet spirit still residing within Regan.

The rest of the movie mostly consists of terrible looking sets of African tribes that were filmed at the Warner Bros’ backlot. Lamont has delusions and unintentionally hilarious visions of James Earl Jones in a locust costume. But the most troubling aspect comes at the end, when Father Lamont confronts the evil Pazuzu spirit dwelling within Regan’s body . . . even though she is standing behind him. I don’t understand why there were two Regans in the final act. More importantly, I didn’t care. I just wanted it to end.

For those looking for some of the old metaphysical and supernatural nerve of the original, be advised to skip this entry and check out The Exorcist III: Legion instead. That movie was written and directed by William Peter Blatty, the author of the original novel. It goes without saying that he is thankful for having nothing to do with this absurd chapter. Wisely, he chose to ignore its subject matter in his own feature.

ACTORJohn Boorman
Best of the ARTIST
ACTORLinda Blair
Best of the ARTIST
ACTORRichard Burton
Best of the ARTIST
ACTORLouise Fletcher
Best of the ARTIST
ACTORMax von Sydow
Best of the ARTIST
ACTORKitty Winn
Best of the ARTIST
ACTORPaul Henreid
Best of the ARTIST
ACTORJames Earl Jones
Best of the ARTIST
ACTORNed Beatty
Best of the ARTIST

exorcist 2.jpg

1977 Movie Review: TENTACLES, 1977

TENTACLES, 1977 
Movie Reviews

Director: Ovidio G. Assonitis

Stars: John Huston, Shelley Winters and Bo Hopkins 

SYNOPSIS:

Several people disappear from and at the sea. Their bodies are found gnawed to the skeleton, even the marrow is missing…

CRITICS REVIEWS:

It’s pretty rancid, although it’s the perfect party picture to screen in the background as your guests get suitably soused.

June 16, 2015 | Rating: 1.5/4 | Full Review…

A Jaw’s rip-off.

May 8, 2010 | Rating: C | Full Review…

Indesculpável.

December 18, 2007 | Rating: 1/5

John Huston and Shelley Winters in a clunky monster movie? Even the Octopus is up in arms.

August 1, 2005 | Rating: 0/5

TENTACLES

1977 Movie Review: STROSZEK, 1977

 

STROSZEK,   MOVIE POSTERSTROSZEK, 1977
Movie Reviews

Directed by Werner Herzog
Starring: Bruno S., Eva Mattes, Clemens Scheitz, Wilhelm von Homburg, Burkhard Driest, Clayton Szalpinski
Review by Jordan Young

SYNOPSIS:

In Berlin, an alcoholic man, recently released from prison, joins his elderly friend and a prostitute in a determined dream to leave Germany and seek a better life in Wisconsin.

REVIEW:

Herzog continues to blow minds of the viewer’s of 1977’s Stroszek. This film depicts three pariah’s in their native Berlin, and their overseas quest to find happiness in Plainfield, Wisconsin. The pariah’s include a prostitute (Eva), a ex-con alcoholic (the titular character Bruno Stroszek) and an old, reclusive, brittle Scheitz.

Roger Ebert wrote that this film is “one of the oddest films evermade.” This is because of it’s seemingly non sequitur segments,jarring examples of music, and it’s drastic setting changes. Not to mention that this is almost cinema en plein air, meaning this entire film is comprised of found people and places that add dramatically to the overall feel of the movie.

Bruno himself was a street musician, found by Herzog, Bruno was also a diagnosed schizophrenic… which apparently added to his troubled character due to his magnificent performance. I found myself however, sympathizing with the character of Eva much more in the beginning. She goes through some pretty miserable times, but then seems to adjust rather well to American life.

Bruno and his pack of friends quickly realize that the American dream, is just that… a dream. This reality arrives to them at the exact same time that the banker starts pestering them about their mortgage payments. This banker again was found by Herzog, but his character is just miserly enough, to make any viewer want to punch him in the face.

As Scott McCloud theorizes in Understanding Comics, no non sequitur is actually in fact a non sequitur. The fun part is about these scenes in Stroszek is, any meaning that you can create from these scenes, is the correct answer… it’s what you take from it. Therein lies, the genius of Herzog, the readers (or viewers) create their meaning. DON’T BELIEVE ANY CRITIC ABOUT THE CHICKEN SCENE! Let the chicken mean what you want it to mean. (You will know what I’m talking about.)

See this movie for Bruno’s magnificent performance, as he takes you off the beaten path of the typical character you have to love, and sets you up for his endearing depiction of a man trying to earnestly find happiness.

Very touching view of the struggles that we all go through. My belief is that Herzog tried to depict how utterly confounding life can be at any given point and time. Except where a mainstream director shows a tough life through a montage and a stereotypical song, Herzog shows a side of America we wish we could distance ourselves from. Keep in mind viewer, this is German Art House film. It will be a challenging, but extremely rewarding experience.

stroszek.jpg