Subservient to no one

There might be some spoilers. Towards the end of this film I was shouting at the TV for it to hurry up and END, partially because I was bored, partially because the ending was predictable, and partially because I did not feel the character deserved such a long send-off. I'm getting kind of tired of watching films whose only purpose is to be shocking, either through extreme violence or extreme emotional turmoil, but otherwise have nothing to say, and which leave you with that lingering, nagging question: what was the point of that? If this film's intention is to show how a psychopath thinks then it was pretty much same-old same-old. There was nothing new here and I can get so much more insight reading a book about a serial killer instead. I'd be interested more in how he got into the serial killing game, how he deceived his victims, and this is something the film fails at. It shows him deceiving one woman, but other women appear without any preamble. If there is anything...

There are many ways to tell a story, and stories can be allegorical, sure; but with the allegorical you can end up with a story that lacks internal logic. Characters might not follow any meaningful rules, instead being guided by a narrative outside of the story being told. Often they act completely out of character, and the only explanation we are given is that it is 'allegory'. This is the case with Aronofsky's mother! Allegory isn't necessarily a problem in storytelling, but if the viewer/reader is not aware of what being referenced the story can be perceived as confusing or unrealistic. If you were to watch mother! and not understand the (frankly glaringly obvious) references to Judaeo-Christian lore, the film would not make sense. You would end up with a story that is more surreal than anything else, something nonsensical in which the characters don't react to the events that have come before, who don't learn, who don't develop. Jennifer Lawrence plays...

I watched Blade Runner 2049 last night but decided to go to sleep before the end. I cannot see what there is about this film's story structure that could keep a viewer interested enough to watch the entire film. The key plot points of the film were predictable. I knew K was a replicant from the start and I knew there would be a fight between him and the other replicant, despite K averting his eyes from the other replicant. In fact, since he was there to kill the other replicant, the other replicant's only option was to try to kill K first. So K putting his gun on the table and averting his eyes makes no sense and it seems its inclusion is merely a lazy cinematic trick to create tension, nothing more. I also guessed K was the replicant who was born – or at least the film implies this up to the point I switched it off – and I was profoundly underwhelmed by this reveal. Another underwhelming feature is how drearily slow the pace of the film is, and how difficult to...

If I was a twelve-year-old boy I think I'd probably rank Deadpool as one of my top ten favourite films ever. It is a film clearly written by a teenage boy, perhaps fifteen or sixteen: how else can one explain the plethora of nob-gags and wank jokes?   This fixation on the penis is hardly homo-eroticism however, despite the constant jokes on ejaculation and anal penetration, although Deadpool himself in his pre-super-power days is decidedly camp and it appears to me this story is really a tale of him concealing his true gay self by fooling himself of his straightness by fixating on a woman. The film is certainly watchable. The characters are reasonably likeable and the film moves at a swift pace so that the easily-duped cannot reflect for a moment to realise the story is meagre and simplistic. The story basically goes: Deadpool gets super powers, he wants revenge on the guy who gave him super powers, he nearly succeeds but doesn't, then the bad guy kidnaps his love in...