Review CXXIII - Love

Review 123
Love (2015)

Hey guys! I was all ready to rock 'n' roll with a couple of reviews before 2016, but unfortunately, I caught an absolutely awful gastro. Consequently, I only have an unedited review for you guys. I'll be sure to update it in 2016 and provide maybe a few more reviews before I return back to school. Happy New Year until then!

Ahh, 2015 is coming to a close, and I must say, it was a pretty shitty year. I guess I thought continuing my Gaspar Noé saga would be appropriate to thus close the New Year, not to mention he had a new film out this year. This one's called Love and it stars a bunch of random people you have never heard of in your life. Let's get to it!

Remember how much I hated Enter the Void? ... Yeah, I still desperately hate that movie, but Love somehow has less plot and makes less sense than Enter the Void. You'd think Gaspar Noé would up his game and maybe improve over time, but I guess he just gets worse. So why does Love suck such balls? Because it does just that: suck balls. That is, this is a freaking porn movie. An extra long porn movie with an attempt at culture, but it's porn nonetheless. We'll go from beginning to end with this shit fest, so strap in for a spoiler-induced review.

The film starts off with some announcement about putting on your 3D glasses. ... Okay. I'm not sure why this was included on my DVD copy of the movie, but whatever. What's the first scene? A man and woman jacking each other off. Great stuff. We get a full view of the woman, with the guy partially covered by the woman, although we still get a great shot of his dick. This lasts I think about three minutes. Then we cut to the same guy and a woman sleeping in the same bed. An alarm goes off... And then we get shitty, shitty monologue from the guy. This guy has a son, but immediately we're told that he feels "trapped" and a bunch of other shit typical of a guy that got a girl pregnant because he's a douche. Then he checks his voicemail after giving the baby to his mother, the woman he was laying in bed with. "Hello, this is Electra's mom. I haven't heard from her in two months - call me back," the message goes, with the woman possessing a thick French accent. Okay, before we go anywhere, let's point out the obviousness of the name Electra. Hm, that name is pretty uncommon... Could it be a reference to the Electra complex? Seems a bit stretched, but I think maybe it could be that. But don't worry, the obviousness continues when we see Murphy's law pop up and absorb the screen. "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong." Huh! Our protagonist's name is Murphy! I'm sure it's a coincidence, though. *rolls eyes* I love it when films take out any ambiguity from its depths so you walk away from the film without any questions. Well, I do have one: WHY AM I STILL WATCHING THIS?

We find out through a series of flashbacks that Murphy and Electra were going out and were so "madly in love". The two confess that sleeping with a blonde chick would up their relationship, and, oh look, the new neighbour is blonde and conveniently young (jailbait young)! After finding out she's pro-choice (plot anyone?) and enjoys smoking up (idiot anyone?), they invite her over. Ensue a threesome because everyone's a whore. However, one weekend when Electra's gone, Murphy goes over to the chick's house, has sex with her, but the condom breaks. And thus baby nine months later. But apparently Electra gets very angry and breaks up with him! Oh no :(( Electra, no :(( You're not that much of a whore :(( Anyway, so Murphy is furious, and tries to get her back, but it fails of course, and we cut back to present time. The film just jumps around, so I'll just discuss some scenes from here on out about the film that worth mentioning for rage.

Somewhere in the middle of the film - how I made it more than one minute in, I don't know - our lovely protagonist, Murphy, is talking to Electra and some whore at a party. "What is the number one goal in life?" he asks. The whore yells out, "Love!" Satisfied with the answer, Murphy then asks the second goal in life. "Sex!" the whore giggles, ready to pounce on his dee for no fathomable reason. Murphy excitedly agrees. "I want to make a film about sexual love. I've never seen a film like that!" As you can see, Gaspar Noé decided breaking-not-breaking the fourth wall would be a good idea, so we have Murphy basically telling us that this film is new, it's creative, it's grand. But I've also never seen a film focusing solely on decapitating babies, but does that mean it should exist? No. Not all ideas are good ideas, so I'm glad some freaking contemporary film student came out with some idea that hasn't been touched before. We're screwed. Anyway, that girl gets the dee from Murphy in the bathroom (why why why), but Electra finds out immediately as they are super loud about it, and, quite understandably, is super pissed off. Murphy claims she's sleeping with her ex (played by Gaspar Noé - he's damn short compared to Electra), and they argue in a taxi. "Calmez-vous!" the taxi driver tells them (it was bad acting). What follows is two aggressive sex scenes, one of them in a club. I don't know if they're connected, but to me, they're connected. I don't know when he says it, but Murphy claims his dick does not "think" and keeps "screwing things up". Apparently it does, but it doesn't because this guy CONTINUOUSLY CHEATS on his girlfriend and sex follows. Cheating is INEXCUSABLE. But this guy and film treat it as nothing. Sure, Electra gets pissed off, but they have mad sex after that. This girl must have the lowest self-confidence in the world to go back with a guy like this. Then again, she does hard drugs, and her mom finds them in one shot. That is, an IDIOT. And that scene was weird too, but eff it. What is this film?

I skipped through the end because there were too many sex scenes, too much random anger because everyone is an idiot, and too much melodrama from a guy who deserves castration. The film ends with Murphy taking a bath and crying to his baby, telling the baby that, "Life isn't easy :'((" Life isn't easy, but all these problems are brought on by HIMSELF. And then Electra is in the bath, they hug, and then the credits roll.

I missed some things, but I can sum it up: sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, and sex. We even got transvestite sex after Electra decides it would help them or something. I'm surprised there were no horses. And, just like in Enter the Void, we get a 3D penis-in-vagina scene. Great, just what I needed.

What about the acting? As was the case with Enter the Void, Love had absolutely SHIT acting. The acting was complete GARBAGE, except during the sex scenes, but it was actual sex, so I don't see how they could screw (heh) that up. Murphy was shit, Electra was god awful, the blonde chick was shit, Gaspar Noé was shit, every single character that said anything said it in such a robotic way, I felt like cutting my wrists. A film doesn't need the best acting in the world to be a good film, BUT DAMN, IT SHOULD BE VIEWABLE.

Was there anything redeemable about Love? No. It was atrocious. Even the name drives me up the wall. The film was not about love. The film didn't portray a story of love through sex. It was a shitty porno disguised as art so if your mom caught you fapping to it, you could tell her it was an "art" film. But it's not. I saw some reviewers saying there was more to this film than meets the eye. There isn't. Watch a porno and you'll get the same experience. Honestly, why do films like this get MADE? This one was even premiered at the Cannes festival. HOW. It was also produced by the same guy who did La vie d'Adèle. Why am I not surprised?

Sex should be an intimate show of affection, but Love and other films like it ruin every notion we should have about sex. I'm tired of garbage being labelled as "artsy" when it's really just bad. Don't watch it. I am beyond furious with this crap and beyond furious that this film wasn't burned at the reel at its first premier. God DAMN it.

Review CXXII - The Lobster

Review 122
The Lobster (2015)

Christmas is a time for family, for friends... It's a time where we take the time to be with those we love the most and try and think of a meaningful gift for them. So of course I went with Yorgos Lanthimos's The Lobster for the holiday season... Yeah, didn't I review Dogtooth not that long ago and say I didn't really get the film? Well, since The Lobster was an English film and I thought the plot was interesting, I was actually planning on watching it eventually. My boyfriend happened upon it recently, and with my words of encouragement, he was down. Thus, so was I. This one stars Colin Farrell, Rachel Weisz, Ben Whishaw, Angeliki Papoulia (Dogtooth!), and Olivia Colman (whaaaat Hot Fuzz whaaat), among others.

David (Colin Farrell) lives in a society where companionship is a must. After realising he doesn't love his wife, he checks himself into a "love" hotel. In this hotel, you must find love in 45 days, or you are turned into an animal of your choice. Will David find love or turn into his chosen animal, the lobster?

Slight spoilers here. Honestly, the plot sums up only part of the film. It extends to so much more in the two hours it runs. It's like Martyrs in a way, where the film starts as one thing and turns into something else. I mean, I guess the film isn't as different as From Dusk Till Dawn let's say, but anyway, you get it.

The Lobster is a fine piece of cinema. I was a bit worried it would leave me feeling... odd and not sure, as was the case with Dogtooth, but in the end, with the film revolving around a global idea encompassing the world now, as well as the explanations from a particularly observant viewer, I got this one. But let's look into what I got from the movie. Here are maybe bigger spoilers for the movie in terms of plot analysis, so you have been warned. Basically, the film revolves around a more egocentric view of love. The limping man (Ben Whishaw) explains that his distinct characteristic is his limp. His dead wife had what? A limp. The man with the lisp (John C. Reilly) has his defining characteristic - a lisp. There's a woman with a frequent nosebleed (Jessica Barden), and a completely heartless/sadistic woman (Angeliki Papoulia). We never know them beyond this one characteristic. And this is what they search for in their partner. They are self-absorbed individuals who can only love those who are closest to them. The limping man, knowing he will be transformed in a short amount of time, fakes nosebleeds by bashing his head against walls, and ends up being paired up the nosebleed woman. A love based on a lie in order to not be alone - doesn't seem so unlikely, does it? Or at least, it doesn't from my experience. David also attempts to fake being heartless as he claims he has always been attracted to short-haired women and women with accents. However, the lie is quickly noticed after a particularly gruesome scene (akin to Dogtooth's cat scene), though he manages to escape the authorities. This is the way the society is made up, and if your defining characteristic sets you apart from the rest, you are transformed.

However, we have the opposite side of the equation with the loners. The loners, led by Léa Seydoux's character, have completely rejected this culture. They aren't allowed to have partners and must dig a grave and not risk getting the others in trouble. They cannot listen to music other than techno and must do it alone. They conduct missions where they attempt to ruin partners' lives. David joins them after escaping from the hotel. Of course, we see that there is a flaw in their being as well since completely rejecting love isn't a solution. It will only lead to their demise as the only way they can continue is to bring in others. However, David finds love in the group when he meets a woman who is short-sighted (Rachel Weisz) just as he is. They are found out eventually by the leader, and while the leader attempts to break them apart, we see that the two of them break the mold. They make sacrifices for the other, meaning they reject the programmed society they live in, something the leader could not have expected. They are the only ones who have truly found what love is. Of course, the ending is cringe worthy just as Dogtooth was, but it's a happy ending.

So why do I find The Lobster particularly meaningful? Love and marriage are not as they used to be. It is true that we get along best with those who are most similar to us, but we also have to be ready to make sacrifices and accept the differences we possess amongst each other. Nowadays, we are in a more "throw-away" culture where, if we have a problem with a partner, divorce is an option. Divorce is not bad if a partner is particular abusive, or if you are truly unhappy and have made an effort, but so often an effort is not made. It is hard for me to speak since I have never been married, but marriage isn't always easy and it's a learning experience. It seems wrong to me that we have a joining in love, have children in the middle, and then decide it isn't worth it. The Lobster shows this effortlessness with egotistical love. However, The Lobster shows us that the alternative, completely rejecting marriage is not a healthy option either. The movie presents an exaggerated portrayal of the current state of affairs, and it's something I have often discussed with my boyfriend. And thus, The Lobster has hung around with me. Even now, I still feel some heart strings tugging. Might I also say the acting was awkwardly adorable and just wonderful?

The Lobster is definitely unconventional, but totally worth a watch. Maybe not the most Christmas-y, but still worth a watch before the new year rears its ugly head, hehe. Merry Christmas guys!

Review CXXI - Сталкер

Review 121
Stalker (1979)

I'm back, guys! Exams are over, I got two days of rest, and now my crazy work schedule will begin for Christmas! Fun times, eh? I honestly don't mind all that much - anything to get a break from studying every night. Anyway, I'm back (for now), but I haven't had any time to watch any holiday films... I'll try and watch one, though I can't make any guarantees. Instead I'm here to share with you a classic film, a Russian film, that I had the pleasure of watching a few weeks ago right after regular classes finished. I present you Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker, or Сталкер as it is known in Russian.

The "Zone" is an area forbidden to laypeople after the disappearance of a group of military men. However, the "Stalker" (Aleksandr Kaidanovsky) agrees to take in two curious men, the "Professor" (Nikolai Grinko) and the "Writer" (Anatoli Solonitsyn), who wish to visit the "Room", an area in the "Zone" that apparently grants a selected wish from whoever steps inside it.

I really, really liked this film to start off with. I was told it was long, it was quiet, and it was Russian. But guys, the time didn't seem long at all to me. I felt the two hours and forty minutes were justified and there was never a dull moment. But I'm just gushing over this thing and not reviewing it. Shall we back track a bit?

Stalker was based, very loosely apparently, on a novel titled Roadside Picnic by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, a novel depicted as one of the greatest science fiction novels ever written (I'm getting this from Wikipedia because I never read the novel, so I can't comment). However, if you've played S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or read/played Metro 2033, you'll start the film and start hmmming it and seeing super close similarities. Indeed, both games refer to stalkers, and even in the novel of Metro 2033, they point out that the word "stalker" is a foreign word to their mouths since it's English (I loved Metro 2033, though the ending was kind of meh). So already, if you really love those games, check out Stalker from 1979. However, it is not exactly the same, so it's probably closer to Roadside Picnic than it is Stalker... I digress! Long story short, I had read Metro 2033 prior to watching Stalker, had enjoyed myself with S.T.A.L.K.E.R., so I was going to like Stalker.

As I said, Stalker is different because it doesn't deal with alien life and creatures birthed through hideous radioactive sewage. While radioactive explosions are a topic of the film, something predating the Chernobyl incident, it also focuses on the journey of man through faith and expectation. I can't say I one hundred percent got the film... I tried reading an analysis of the film, but it went on for so long that I ended up skimming it (reference). I read some shorter ones (here and here), and I basically got the conclusion that Stalker was not a religious piece, a humanitarian piece, a life piece: it was really what the viewer saw in it, with a definite message of keeping faith and harbouring love. This is based on the words of the director. This works throughout the film, but again, the film is long, so there is so much to say about it. I think Andrei Tarkovsky really wanted to raise issues in Russia at the time given that he wasn't happy with the censorship that was occurring at the time. Yet, the ending with the little girl makes you wonder if the whole thing could actually have happened, or if it was just a post-traumatic experience on the "Stalker"'s behalf. ... I really can't offer anything new. Read those articles guys, if you're interested

However, if you aren't the type to really give a shit about meaning, the film will not be lost of you. The reason? The shots are really, really beautiful. The film starts off in a crisp coffee-brown-black-white super contrasting palette that turns into the real world once our protagonists enter the "Zone" (I keep thinking the "void" for some reason). It was jarring, but it worked so well. Honestly, those opening scenes were absolutely beautiful, and it only continued from there. The "Zone" had beautiful, beautiful cinematography as well. I particularly loved the tunnel and the last shot in the "Zone" with the water and stone. If you want a beautiful film, Stalker will not disappoint. It is so, so beautiful. Thank you, Andrei Tarkovsky and Alexander Knyazhinsky!

The 1979 classic really deserves its status. It is long, but honestly, I thought every moment was worth the time. The acting was great (the "Writer" was a beautiful man, hehe, and the wife of the "Stalker" (Alisa Freindlich) was great), the cinematography was astounding (common of classic Russian films ;) ), the story and plot interesting, the meaning, ambiguous yet deep, the film, great. I can't wait to check out Solaris!

Review CXX - They Live

Review 120
They Live (1988)

I've been wanting to write a review for the month of November, but I haven't even watched any movies this whole month. I ended up going on an anime spree (and by spree, I mean I watched three shows, one of which had only seven minute episodes), but I didn't really have much to say. I can sum them all up in three words: Cowboy Bebop is pretty good, Tonari no Seki-kun is pretty cute, and N.H.K. ni Yōkoso! is shit (at first I thought it was great, but halfway in, the show died). So what was I going to do? Finals are coming up and I have to study! But I ended up going out for yoga with my friend Thursday evening, so I had completed all my homework the day before, plus I got home late and wasn't going to start on homework then. Enter movie time. The winner? John Carpenter's They Live starring Roddy Piper, Keith David, and Meg Foster. Awesome.

Nada (Piper) is a construction worker drifting through town, hoping to find work. He does, but in an "aliens-have-taken-over-and-are-keeping-us-in-the-dark" way. With the help of his friend Frank (David), and the mysterious woman Holly Thompson (Foster), Nada is ready to kick some alien butt.

They Live started off rather normally, but turned into a bad-ass John Carpenter after about twenty minutes. Seriously, the moment Nada gets the sunglasses, he starts killing and not giving a hoot. And I'm happy to say I finally know where that bubble gum line comes from now. It's pure, pure John Carpenter. If you like his weird, campy style, you'll love They Live. You will. I was actually expecting a more serious film given the subject matter. It's discussing the current state of affairs with a pretty good metaphor, I must say. I guess I was a little disappointed it wasn't as serious, but I always had a good time with this one. It brings up a true message, but it's still John Carpenter having fun. Thus, unlike the glasses, you can watch this film and not worry about coming down too hard. Great fun.

I... again have nothing else to say about this one. It's funny, it's serious, it's John Carpenter. Happy November, guys!

Review CXIX - Society

Review 119
Society (1989)

Happy Halloween everyone! I know I don't really have that much time to review movies during the school year, but I try and make an effort to watch at least a Halloween movie for this time of year. I'm a bit late this time, but horror movies can be enjoyed any time of the year, am I right? And today I bring you one that I had heard of before but completely forgot about it. It is Brian Yuzna's Society.

Bill Whitney (Billy Warlock) should feel like he has it all - born into a rich and loving family, a wonderful girlfriend, living a high class life - but instead he feels like he doesn't quite belong. His parents don't treat him exactly as his sister, his friend keeps warning him against his family, and he has weird... visions. Is Bill just crazy, or is there a disturbing truth about this... society?

The film apparently has special effects done by a well-known man going by the name of "Screaming Mad George". I don't follow horror movies all that much, so I had never heard the name before, but it might mean something to someone out there. For those who know nothing about him and want to know what I thought of the gore, well, it was... creative. This is maybe spoiling a little bit, so be warned. You only really get it at the end, and I found it pretty minimal. I mean, what's there is good, though it wasn't as bloody as it was gooey, and even the goo wasn't as exaggerated as I would have liked. What was there was creative, I'll give it that - there's one cover for the film that demonstrates this - but to say it was a film for the gore and special effects, no.

What you'll check this movie out for (maybe) is the plot. Society is like Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut, except with no finesse and beautiful camera shots. It goes right out and tells you about an upper class preying on the middle/lower class and claiming they have every right to. And it adds it in a horror movie style. Also, the acting and characters in Society are flat as hell - the main guy is just too typically eighties-sitcom protagonist. And the ending was lame.

Overall, Society has a proper message to deliver, but it fails to do it well with characters tripping and falling on their faces, gore that's interesting but lacking, and a vibe way too eighties for my liking. It's an interesting watch, but only check it out for a little introduction to Eyes Wide Shut. And to see a face where an ass should be.

Review CXVIII - Spring Breakers

Review 118
Spring Breakers (2013)

I'm angry and ready to rant, so I decided to watch a film I knew I could complain about. Time for another Harmony Korine movie - this time his latest shit, Spring Breakers, starring James Franco, Selena Gomez, and honestly, a bunch of other names I don't care for.

Honestly, you only need to know one thing about this film, and it straight up says it in the title: spring break. There. That's my plot summary.

Guys, when I reviewed Kids, I pretty much said this film was about drug culture in youth, something I know little about, and I concluded the film was okay. If I said otherwise, sorry, I can't recall. Now, what is this film about? Drug culture in youth. Okay, okay, there is a bit more to it. There's also the party culture, and it focuses more on women (yay, great) than Kids. But basically, Harmony Korine hasn't changed what his films are about. I mean, look, Harmony Korine is not a well-liked director, or so I've seen. Anyone who likes him has not yet been introduced to real pretentious films because his "deep" films are not deep - they're superficial and just garbage. Taking random guys off the street to act in your films doesn't mean they'll be good - it means they'll suck. But I'm just telling you what you already know. Kids wasn't the worst from what I remember, but let me tell you, I'm gonna rip a new one for Spring Breakers. And there is mostly one reason for it: the reviewers.

I debated watching this film. I knew what it was about because this film captures the garbage shit high school/college kids follow now. Dances consist of grinding, meeting with friends means drinking to no end. It's everything I hate about my generation, so I was really on the fence. I was curious, but I wanted to know if the film actually had a message, maybe one of Kids where the cycle of debauchery will continue forever. Plus it had James Franco - I mean, I don't like the guy, but it was still a big name. The only name I recognise from other Harmony Korine films is Chloë Sevigny. Everyone else is some rejected kid. So this film looked higher budget, had bigger names - maybe things had changed? Still, I decided to check out some reviews. Here's what I got:
1. Deep
2. Meaningful
3. The best Harmony Korine film
4. Not good, but got better over time
5. Boring, but worth it

Well, shit, that seems pretty convincing, right? Apart from 3, which could still mean the film was shit, Spring Breakers at least had potential, am I right? I should have remembered the golden rule of reviewers: they don't watch good films, and their top tens include some crappy Marvel film like Guardians of the Galaxy. Of course I'm generalising, but seriously, Spring Breakers was breaking my back and mind... Yeah, that didn't work. It was bad. I was angry. The film was party, party, party for the first half, and then it went to violence I didn't even care about. What is it trying to tell me, that our youth has crazy parties and they are messed up? What I'm getting out of it is that having spring break and going nuts is okay, as long as you let it go. Spoilers: do we support Selena Gomez (called Faith because this film is made for nimwits who did everything spelled out to them) when she leaves? Is it okay that she got drunk and made out with some guys/girls because she didn't rob the chicken place and because she's a practicing Christian? The film points to yes. We sympathise with Faith. I didn't. She's an idiot for following these girls as soon as she finds out they rob a place to go on spring break. Not to mention the guy she follows at her church seems like the shittiest trucker shit I've ever seen. He's not a priest - he's a joke. I feel like Harmony Korine picked him up off the street and told him to pretend to be a priest. The film basically mocks Faith, and while we, the audience, are supposed to sympathise with her, I didn't. She's an idiot. I'm glad she left when the going got tough, but this idea that a "one-time" partier is okay is wrong. It isn't right, it will never be right... Argh. Anyway, the rest of the movie. Was it deep? No. There was only one reviewer who got it right - you can't have your cake and eat it too. The film is trying to tell me that this party culture is bad and will lead to serious consequences, but then it exploits tits like no tomorrow. This is what brought people in - young girls in bikinis and possible nudity. It delivered, and not in a negative way. You could make it evident it happened without showing, but don't worry, Harmony Korine made sure to exploit those breasts and lean, young girls. This is deep? This is a message being delivered? Again, I just... how can a film lecture me about moral standings when it itself is not holding a moral ground on the very subject matter it's lecturing me on? So no. This film is not deep, it's shit.

Meaningful? Same response as the deep idea.

The best Harmony Korine film? It's a step-up because it has a bigger budget, but it's still boring, it's still shit. It's still Harmony Korine.

Not good, but got better over time? Do I look like this film is going to stay with me? Again, I could see some kids going like, "Wow, man. That film was so Harmony Korine. He's so deep, the message is so deep." Please, go watch The Seventh Seal and tell me which one is better. Please, let our generation have an appreciation for good films, not bad ones...

Finally, boring, but worth it. No. Russian films can be long, they can be boring, but that's their cinema. It's how it works. I skipped about after the one hour mark because it was tedious and kept going on and on about how I'm a gangsta and I'm a bad girl and blah blah blah. If a film is boring, don't defend it. It's boring, that's it. It's garbage, it's garbage. That's it! Guys, no.

There's also another point, something about James Franco. Honestly, his character was annoying. I'm glad he was able to piss me off the moment he talked - good job, James Franco (sarcasm)! Don't watch it for him because you'll likely blow your brains out how James Franco's character's brains SHOULD HAVE EXPLODED. Who keeps GUNS FULLY-LOADED AROUND. This guy is the biggest idiot I've ever seen. Eff him. And eff the stupid girls too. You see these girls acting like men, drinking like crazy and having sex like mad? I love it. Thanks, feminism. Thanks.

Spring Breakers should be ignored and never considered. Never watch it. Don't support it. The only reason I didn't waste my time with this piece of shit is because I did an assignment at the same time. Freakin' damn...

P.S. Did you watch the film and are now feeling filthy? Here, some Gregorian chants. You're welcome.

Review CXVII - Vampire's Kiss

Review 117
Vampire's Kiss (1988)

I've reviewed one Nicolas Cage movie before, but I decided to pick a good one. This time around, I was hanging out at a friend's, and he was feeling a Cage movie. Of course I got say over the movie to watch, so I chose Robert Bierman's Vampire's Kiss. You probably know it because of this face. Yeah, if a film is only known for a face, that's when you worry.

Peter Loew (Nicolas Cage), a literary agent, suffering from impeding insanity, lives a sleazy lifestyle after work consisting of clubs, drinking, and one night stands. However, when one of his one night stands (Jennifer Beals) turns out to be a vampire, Peter Loew's life takes a turn for the worst.

Before I sound like I defend this movie, let me say I'm not. The film is bad. It's confusing in its narrative, random, poorly written, stupid, lazy... I could go on, but you get the idea. The film is not worth watching. I mean, it's funny, but it's not that funny - it's just more boring and mediocre than anything else. Honestly, balls-to-the-wall honesty, I wouldn't recommend this film except for a select few scenes, my favourite being the entrance to the club nearing the end of Vampire's Kiss. But that's it. As far as Nicolas Cage movies go, there are worse and there are better and there are definitely funnier.

But. But, but, but. Well, it's not a "but", but I like the segue. See, although the film was bad, there was kind of an underlying theme that I can't say I disagreed with. Spoilers. All right, so what do we know about vampires, classic vampires? If you read Dracula, or even if you checked out a classic vampire film, you notice something that happens to the women after they get bitten by the men - they turn a little... sexual. They wear revealing dresses, they seduce men, they seduce many men. Basically, vampires can be taken as these degenerate beings that explore and exploit all types of sexual vices. Now, what kind of behaviour is Peter Loew engaging in? One night stands. Pretty degenerate, eh? What does he encounter with the first one night stand? A bat. A bat, as we know, is what a vampire transforms into. What happens with the second one night stand? She's an actual vampire. Well, shit. That was unexpected. And the first girl actually tries to get a relationship out of Peter, but Peter keeps ditching her for the vampire, casual sex. When he's the vampire, he becomes an asshole and completely beats on Juanita (Maria Conchita Alonso), his secretary. And of course she's the devote the Catholic who he wants to break down, and does eventually after raping her. Finally, in the end, we see that Nicolas Cage decides that to escape his fall, he would need to find actual love. Of course, he's too far gone, so it's too late for that, but still, it's something I can completely agree with. We think that a life of debauchery is typical of youth and necessary to live, but it could very well lead to your downfall. Take any celebrity who died of a drug overdose. Look at the people who sleep around and get a venereal disease because they aren't careful. I also think it's also interesting to note that Nicolas Cage ends up with a white woman at the end of the film... But for the sake of avoiding being called racist, I'll let you check out the film yourself if you're curious (it's still bad, so don't).

That's all I got for you in Vampire's Kiss. I'm also exhausted and have class tomorrow, so I had better go get some shuteye. I wouldn't recommend this film, but I would totally recommend the message... Assuming I got the proper message... Anyway, bye, folks!