Bad Movie

I am pissed.
I just saw "Dogville" starring friggin' Nicole Kidman, and directed by that dick Lars Von Trier, whom I had never heard of before, and I wish I never had.

*before you continue, you should know that I am a big cinematography nazi. (By cinematography I mean, like, literally cinematography.  Not just a geek's way of saying 'movies')*

This movie just pissed me off and made me sad and mad in a bad way because the story was SO good (or at least the idea)  and the acting was great, too (well duh!  Since they spent all their budget on uber expensive actors.)  BUT everything else SUCKED!  I don't fucking care how fucking acclaimed Lars here is, HE SUCKS!  I hate him.  And I don't care that Mr. Tarantino, that bastard, said it was on his top 20.  Wikipedia makes this movie sound good and then I think "fine, I'll sit through all THREE FUCKING HOURS and watch it.  WELL GUESS WHAT?  NO!

*here is what pissed me  off.  Just know that there are spoilers and disclaimers so... yah.*

* * * * * *
1- There was no set.  The entire movie was shot in a sound stage, and the walls were drawn on the floor with chalk.  They couldn't even get a dog or some bushes.  That's just GAY! (I don't usually say that)  Either they ran out of money because they had to pay Nicole and all the others, OR the director said something gay like "Oh I want people to focus on the acting and the characters and blahnkanlvjfoaw;idk"  FUCK YOU, LARS.

2-  The Cinematography sucked.  Well, obviously.  With nothing in the background what can you do? The only good shot was the one where Nicole was hiding in the truck, because it looks like a normal movie.  And of course they use that shot as the cover art and on the damn posters and they print it everywhere BECAUSE IT WAS THE ONLY ONE IN THE ENTIRE MOVIE THAT DIDN'T SUCK!

3-  CAMERA WORK WAS CRAPPIER THAN THE SHIT I TOOK LAST NIGHT.  What's wrong Lars?  Do you think you can operate a camera better than a professional camera operator?  Or did you run out of money for that too? (Wikipedia said he operated the camera most of the time.)  Well,  IT SUCKED!  I'm not a big fan of 'free hand' unless it's done right (like in that one scene in "La Vie En Rose, zomygod,) But here in fucking Dogville, You might as well hire a crippled five year old to hold it.  The entire thing was shaky, and I know that's the point when doing freehand, BUT IT WAS SHAKY IN A BAD WAY!  Most people can tell the difference between good shaky and bad shaky, right?

4- SERIOUSLY?  WHAT THE FUCK WAS WRONG WITH THE EDITING?!  It's all choppy.  Feels like it was edited by blind cows.  And when I say choppy I mean FUCKING CHOPPY.  Eg:  Nicole is standing on one side of the room.  She says something, then in the middle of the sentence the shot changes, AND SHE'S ON THE OTHER DAMN SIDE! WTFFFFF?!  I guess that's more of a continuity thing, but  it's the same damn thing you idiot.

5-  That's all the bad stuff I can think of... Fuck I'm mad at this shit.  You probably can tell by all my run on sentences and that crap.

* * * * * *
SPOILERS DONE!

Forty five minutes into the movie I realize that I can't stand watching that crap, so I go over to Wikipedia and read the plot.  I will only say this once.  It. Is. Genius.  I am literally speechless after reading what happens, so I think to myself "I have to watch the rest of this movie"  and I do.  Honestly, reading it is more exciting than seeing it.  I'm so sad such a good idea was wasted on such a bad director.
This movie is one of those movies that sort of makes you feel like if you don't like it then you can't appreciate cinema and you fail, but I'm no an idiot.  The joke's on all those people who are like "This movie is great!"  And I'm like "You idiot. I made better movies in High school"  (ok, maybe not.)

So yeah.  I'm pissed.  I hated this, but I loved the story idea.  The acting was good.  It's one of those things that need to be analyzed, and I don't like that.  And if you disagree then I don't care.  humph!

In other news, I saw "The Rules of Attraction,"  but I'm not white enough to give my thoughts on that. Let me just say this.  If you are an indie-hipster at Harvard or something, who listens to 'indie' music on the radio,  and your cutoff shorts were $100 at Urban Outfitters.  This movie is for you.  One of those movies for EXTREMELY white people who 'appreciate' cinema more than anyone, and if they hadn't switched their major from film to biochemistry and business, they would have been the next greatest director of all time.  (That's irony btw.)  The movie is about white people in college who are rebels! yeah!  There is only one black character, and he's a Jamaican drug dealer.  Hilarious, I know.  Pretty much all they do is drink, have sex, do drugs, and take million dollar vacations to Europe.  There they drink, have sex, do drugs, and they are 'hipster' while banging 75 prostitutes on shrooms taking a train to their hotel in France.  I didn't like it that much either.  Like, the story was never really going anywhere, and when it did, it was to late.  Whatever.  It's for white people, so I didn't understand it, therefore I can't really give a proper review.  Cinematography wasn't bad though.  They had some really cool camera techniques, but they get old after they use them like twenty times in ten minutes.  and what was up with the five minute split screen?  There were some scenest that looked like they were hard to film, but other than that.  meh.  ps:  when I say this movie is for white people, I mean THAT kind of white people, you know?  I hope you understand.  Thanks.

This weekend was pretty much bad movie weekend.  It sucks.

Thanks for reading my rant.

ta

- Ricardo