A Review of "A Serbian Film"

Confessions of a Film Junkie: A Review of “A Serbian Film”

By: Brian Cotnoir

     Back when I used to post weekly film reviews on blogspot and facebook, I would always ask my friends and anyone else who read my film reviews to recommend films that they would like me to review.  The second most popular film that I was requested to review was a foreign film, simply entitled “A Serbian Film”.  I got a synopsis of the story from someone I used to work with, and I was so appalled by some of the things he told me, that I flat out refused to ever review this film.            
    One year later, another co-worker and I were reminiscing about the first time we watched Ruggero Deodato’s “Cannibal Holocaust”, he simply asked “I wonder if there’s anything more violent then [Cannibal Holocaust”, too which I replied, “Oh yes, there is.”  After a couple weeks he convinced me that we should give it a try.  In the days leading up to the films screening, I was absolutely terrified as too what horrors I would have to endure to get through the Director’s Cut in just one sitting.  Now that it’s over, here is my review.     

Boo Yeah! Made I through This Film in Just One Sitting!

     So here’s the background to the film first:  A retired Serbian Porn star, named Milos, is living a typical suburban life with his wife and young son.  Milos and his wife are having some financial issues.  Since Milos is retired he and his wife don’t have occupations, and are living off of the money Milos form his porn films.  However, the money is drying up quicker than Milos and his wife had ever expected, so Milos is approached by an old friend/porn star who tells him of a man named Vukmir who is planning “a New Age of Porn” and wants Milos to be his star.  Milos agrees to do it and in exchange Vukmir promises to make Milos wealthy enough that he won’t have to worry about money “until his son is a full-grown man”.  Unfortunately, for Milos, Vukmir has something much darker in store for Milos, and everyone he is close to.                 

     Now without giving away too many spoilers, I want to tell say that Yes, this is a graphic movie, and No, it is not the most violent movie I’ve ever seen.  For the first half of a movie, it’s pretty boring. It’s just Milos and his family living day-to-day life; they are pretty much regular average people.  As the film progresses, however, it gets more and more violent.  People die some pretty horrendous deaths in this film, and a good portion of them are related to/or caused by sexual pleasure.  I didn’t have much of a problem with the graphic deaths because they weren’t just violent for the sake of being violent.  The graphic violence in the film, to me, represents Vukmir’s mental and sexual control over his actors and film crew, and we later find out that before becoming a Pornographer, Vukmir used to be a psychologist, so that would explain why he has this “Puppet-Master” like control over everyone in the film.      

    I am NOT a fan of rape scenes in movies, typically when one is happening in a film, I’ll look away or fast forward the film.  There are three rape scenes (that I counted) in this film, and for two of the rape scenes the victims were unconscious.  So for the most part they’re not typical in the sense that they show their victims being forced against their will or tortured because they’ve been drugged unconscious and have no idea what is going on or happening to them.  One of those scenes shows Milos stumbling upon a tape of him being sexually assaulted by one of Vukmir’s Male workers while he was heavily sedated, and Milos until seeing this tape had no memory or any idea that he had been sexually assaulted.                                         

    This film does break a lot of taboo’s on what you should and should not show in films, but they do actually draw a line at pedophilia.  One of the (many) horrible things Vukmir tries to convince Milos to do is have sex with a very young girl on camera, and Milos flat out refuses to.  Milos is so against the idea of pedophilia in film that there a part in the film where he actually holds a knife to his own genitals and threatens to cut it off if Vukmir does not let him leave.  He agrees to let Milo’s go, but devises a plan to get his scene of pedophilia in a way that is sure to humiliate Milos and his entire family.       

    So is this film really as violent and as horrible as everyone says?  In my opinion, no.  I think “Cannibal Holocaust” was way more graphic and violent then “A Serbian Film”.  Yes, there were a few parts in the film that made me cringe and look away from the screen in terror, but overall the film had a good story, good actors, and for the most part the violence had relevance to the plot, and was done in good taste—at least in my opinion.  I would not consider this film controversial, but I would not recommend this film to anyone who is under the age of eighteen. 

THERE I REVIEWED IT!  ARE YOU ALL HAPPY NOW?????????

A review of "Dear Mr. Gacy"

Confessions of a Film Junkie: A review of “Dear Mr. Gacy”

By: Brian Cotnoir

American’s for some reason or another have always had some unique and unknown fascination with serial killers.  Lately I’ve been noticing a lot more independent film releases which are essentially biographies of famous serial killers, and they’re not just films loosely based on actual events—these films stay as true as they can to the stories and the methods of these madmen murderers.  For decades before serial killers such as Ed Gein, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Charles Manson have provided inspiration for some of horrors most notorious villains and bad guys, but now it appears that the real life murderers are finally getting recognition for their life’s work and legacies.  Recently, I watched a film about serial killer John Wayne Gacy, entitled “Dear Mr. Gacy”, and I almost never say this about horror films/thrillers, but this film scared the crap out of me.  I am dead serious this movie is so chilling; I actually had to pause the movie a few times and splash my face with cold water to help calm myself down.                                          

William Forsythe is Terrifying as
notorious American Serial Killer
John Wayne Gacy

    The story of “Dear Mr. Gacy” is based on the true events and conversations that took place between Gacy and a young college student named Jason Moss.  Moss wants to write his thesis paper on John Wayne Gacy and believes that he can get Gacy to open up about his life and find out what makes him tick.  Moss begins to send letters to Gacy.  In the letters Moss lies to Gacy and says he’s from an abusive home, that he thinks he might be homosexual, and that he’s thinking of becoming a street hustler, and how he believes that Gacy is the only person who could understand him.  Jason Moss’ lies (along with a few homoerotic pictures he sent to Gacy) eventually get the stoic murderer to open up to him.  Moss has Gacy eating out of the palms of his hands, and the whole time Gacy believes that it is he who is taking advantage of Jason Moss.  At one point Moss contemplates if what he is doing is wrong or harmful as he begins to exhibit erratic and destructive behavior—he manages to push through and it all comes down to one first and final encounter with Gacy himself in prison.  I don’t want to give away the thrilling (and 100% true ending), but I will tell you once you see it, you will be left with a feeling of terror and unease.     

Forsythe & Moss's characters meet for the 1st time

The Real Gacy and Jason Moss

     The acting in this film is fantastic.  Jesse Moss (no relation to the real life Jason Moss) is fantastic as the films protagonist, and actor William Forsythe is absolutely terrifying as the serial killer John Wayne Gacy.  I actually read parts of Jason Moss book The Last Victim years before this film was made and this film made the stories he told all the more frightening.  It’s actually quite a good book.  I believe that John Wayne Gacy was the most dangerous serial killer the world has ever seen and this film does a excellent job of not sugar-coating this psychotic murderer or distorting the truth of his horrible and bloody legacy.      
      
   I would recommend this film to anyone who is a fan of Serial-Killer Horror films and/or Psychological Thrillers, but be warned this is a terrifying film based on true events and is one of the more accurate films I’ve seen that is based on real-life events, which I think adds to the terror because they didn’t have to add or make up anything to make him more scary because he was already one of the most shocking and evil people to have existed in history.

A review of "Freaks"

Confessions of a Film Junkie:  A review of “Freaks”

By: Brian Cotnoir

     Director Tod Browning broke all sorts of barriers and standards of film when he directed his 1932 film, “Freaks”.  Browning first gained his notoriety in the cinema world in the early 1930’s for his collaborations with early horror movie icon stars Lon Chaney Sr. and Bela Lugosi; Browning was the director of the original film “Dracula” (1931).  One year later Browning decided to push the envelope of shock value in horror films and make the movie “Freaks”.                                         “Freaks” is set in France in the late 18^th century and tells the story of a group of circus performers.  One of the circus performers, a midget named Hans, falls madly in love with a trapeze artist named Cleopatra.  Hans begins to buy Cleopatra gifts and lend her money because he believes that she loves him, but Cleopatra doesn’t really have any feelings for Hans; she’s just using him to get whatever she wants.  One day Cleopatra finds out that Hans has inherited a large fortune and decides that she will marry him and then poison him so she can inherit Hans’s fortune and run off with her lover—the strong man, “Hercules”.  However, if the other circus performers find out about Cleo’s plans they could be ruined and she and Hercules could be in a lot of trouble.                                      
     I really like how Browning cast actual circus “freaks” in this film.  Many people who saw this film in theatres walked out before the films shocking ending because they were appalled and repulsed by the people that appeared on the screen.  Browning actually posted in a disclaimer at the beginning of the film that basically said that the people that appeared in his film were real people and just because they look different it doesn’t mean that they should be judged or looked down upon and that everyone is unique and special.  I was absolutely blown away at how sensitive and ahead of its time this film is on the issue.  All the freaks that appear in the film are memorable and really likeable and here’s a fun trivia fact; the actor who played Hans in this film, Harry Earles, was also a member of the “lollipop guild” in the “Wizard of Oz”.                   
    I cannot say enough nice things about how great this film truly is; it is definitely my current favorite classic-film, and I think it should be seen by everyone.

A review of "Pride & Glory"

Confessions of a Film Junkie: A Review of “Pride & Glory”

By: Brian Cotnoir

            One of the most dissapointing films I’ve ever seen is the 2008 cop-drama “Pride & Glory”.  When I first saw the trailer for “Pride & Glory” I was very excited; it looked mysterious, action packed, and was starring my favorite actor, Edward Norton.  What I got after seeing this was total dissapointment.  This film could have been great, but unfortunately it was one giant failure.                              

          The story of “Pride & Glory” is the following; Detective Ray Tierney, played by Edward Norton, is a policeman with the NYPD, along with his older brother, Francis, and brother in-law, Jimmy.  One night four of Francis’s men are gunned down during a drug raid and his brother Ray is assigned to the investigation.  Ray quickly discovers that the man they are looking for is a local drug dealer named Angel Teaso.  While searching for Teaso, Detective Tierney discovers that a group of cops from his precinct have been doing murder-for-hire and that the head of this murder-for-hire ring is his brother-in-law, Jimmy Egan.  Ray brings this news to his father, an ex- NYPD detective, and his father, who is played by John Voight, pleads with his son not to tell anyone what he has discovered in fear that the news might tear the whole family apart.  Ray is left with a tough decision, does he come forward with his discovery and turn in his brother in-law or does he keep quiet about everything?                                                                                                                 
          Like I said, the trailer led on that this film was going to be more action packed than it really was.  Just by watching the trailer it looked like Norton’s character was going to be a tough, take-no-bull-shit detective, when in actuality his character was a total pushover.  The whole film he’s taking orders from his father, his brother, his brother in-law, and they all expect him to take the fall so that the rest of the family remains unharmed and can stay out of trouble.  The real star of this film in my opinion is Colin Farrell.  I’m not a Collin Farrell fan, but I think he did a great job as the good cop turned murderer, Jimmy Egan.  Farrell’s character is psychotic, driven, manipulative, and just pure evil.  One scene in the film actually shows Farrell threataning to burn a newborn baby with an iron if he doesn’t get any answers from a witness he’s illegally interogating; that scene right there is absolutely terrifying.  I also like actor Shea Whigham in this film.  He plays a cop and one of Jimmy Egan’s goons, but his character is at times very imcompetent, but still he provides some comedic relief.  The rest of the cast his really hit and miss.  John Voight does a great job as the family patriarch, Francis Tierney, Sr., but his characeter isnt’t really all that likeable, and I didn’t really like the performance of Noah Emmerich’s character, Francis Tierney, Jr.                                        
          This film isn’t awful, but certanily could have been a lot better.  I’ve seen films similar to this with Edward Norton that were better than “Pride & Glory”, but this film still did not live up to the hype and potential it could’ve lived up to.

A review of "Heavy Metal"

Confessions of a Film Junkie: A review of “Heavy Metal”

By: Brian Cotnoir

            “Heavy Metal” is the closest thing that you can get to experiencing an acid trip without actually taking drugs.  The first time I saw this 1980’s animated cluster-fuck of insanity I had to pause it, turn on the lights, and make an observation of my surroundings to make sure that I was, inded, not having an acid trip.  This film is just weird, and I mean that in both a good and bad way.  The film was made in 1981 based off of a magzine of the same title.  There’s really no story-line to the film.  I actually think that they just took 5 separate stories from the magazine and tried to link them together to this glowing green orb known as the Loc-Nar.  The Loc-Nar, like I said, is a small glowing green orb that has traveled through, space, time, and parallel universes.  The Loc-Nar is described as the “sum of all evils” in the film and has powers that can change or destroy the universe, and man, as well as aliens.                                                                                                   
        The film has a great soundtrack featuring songs and peformances by many great bands, such as Sammy Hagar, Black Sabbath, Devo, Cheap Trick, and many more.  The film also features the voice work of actors such as John Candy and Eugene Levy.   The artwork for this film is also very creative; extremely weird, but creative.  This isnt childrens animated movie though, this is an adult movie with scenes of animated graphic nudity, sex, and drug use.  Before I saw this film I never would’ve thought that aliens enjoyed snorting large amounts of drugs or that robots like having sex with humans.                                                                               

        “Heavy Metal” is strange, it’s confusing, and I’m not really sure what all the stories have to do with one another; I still say using the Loc-Nar to relate all the stories is a real stretch. Still, I found the artwork and the music to be enjoyable, but other than that this film sucked.  I’m sure if I took gratuitous amounts of drugs that this film would make a lot more sense, but I for one have no intention of doing that in order to find out.

A review of "Oliver Twist" (1922)

Confessions of a Film Junkie: A Review of “Oliver Twist” (1922)

By: Brian Cotnoir

            I’m not really a huge fan of silent films, but wow did my impression of them change after watching the 1922 silent classic, “Oliver Twist”.  The story of “Oliver Twist” was of course based off of the novel by the great Charles Dicken’s and tells the story of a young orphan boy, Oliver Twist.  Oliver’s mother died shortly after giving birth to him and he was raised in a workhouse.  While, in the workhouse Oliver stirs up some controversey by asking for some more gruel.  Oliver, is severely punished for his menial request, but is later saved when he is purchased by an Undertaker by the name of Sowberry, who takes Oliver in as an apprentice.  The life of an Undertaker’s apprentice is not the life style that the young Mr. Twist has dreamed of and he runs away in hopes of finding a new life in London.  While in London, Oliver is found by a young boy known as “the Artful Dodger”, and he takes Oliver to a good friend of his named Fagin.  Fagin immidieatley takes a shine to Oliver as does Oliver to Fagin, until Oliver uncovers that Fagin and the other boys in Fagin’s homes are gang of roaming pick-pockets and thieves.  Now, it’s up to our young hero to stop Fagin and the others and uncover who he really is.                      

      Even though it’s a silent film and there have been other films made based on the story of “Oliver Twist”, I still like this one the best.  What I like best about this version of the film is the cast.  Everyone in the 1922 film looks and acts the part of their character.  Actor Lewis Sargent does a wonderful job as the troubled Noah Claypool, Edouard Trebaol is a quite funny as the pick-pocketing scamp the Artful Dodger, and Lon Chaney plays a very frightening Fagin, but the Best Actor hands down in this film is the star of “Oliver Twist”, Jackie Coogan.  The films director, Frank Lloyd, couldn’t have picked a better child actor than Jackie Coogan to play the young, kind-hearted orphan, Oliver Twist.  Throughout the film Coogan is chased, beat, used, and tossed around like a rag doll; all this adds up to comedic and cinematic gold.  It’s actually quite a shame that when people start listing the greatest child actors of all-time that Coogan is often over looked to other child actors, like Macauly Culkin, Mary Kate & Ashley Olsen, and Dakota Fanning.  Jackie Coogan is one of the most underrated and underappreciated actors in Hollywood history and I think every child start owes Jackie Coogan a lot of gratitude for setting the bar and the standard of what it really means and takes to be a child star.  So if you are a serious fan of films, then you should check out the Silent movie classic “Oliver Twist”.

A review of "How to Be"

Confessions of a Film Junkie: A Review of “How To Be”

By: Brian Cotnoir

                “How To Be” is an independent comedy/drama starring Robert Pattinson, who plays a confused and depressed teenage musician, named Arthur.  Arthur suffers a number of personal setbacks and seeks help from Dr. Levi Ellington, a therapist from Canada.  Dr. Ellington agrees to fly out to England to help Arthur with his personal problems (for a fee).  What follows is a montage of bland humor and self-loathing.                                                                                                                                                                                                     
               Pattinson’s character, Arthur, goes through a variety of emotions that range from over emotional, depressed, neurotic, psychotic, totally pathetic, and at points mildly humorous.  For the most part his character is very bland; like tofu spread on wheat toast dipped in hot water bland!  Pattinson’s role isn’t terrible but I did not find his character to be very likeable.  Compared to some of the other characters in this film, Pattinson does the best job out of all of them.  Rebecca Pidgeon, who plays Arthur’s neglectful mother, is absolutely terrible in this film; she does one of the worst acting performances I have ever seen in a film.  The late Powell Jones character, Dr. Ellington, comes off as slightly creepy and at times his “methods” appear to be highly irrational.                                                                                      
       
          I will give Rob Pattinson some credit; he actually sang and performed some of the songs written for the movie and that takes balls no matter who you are.  Pattinson doesn’t have a great voice, but he at least he tried.  This film in not terrible, but I really can’t think of any group recommend this film too, unless you’re a fan of whiny, pathetic, Emo boys.