Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Ploydsge just watch it!

Pluskylang Great Film overall

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

willson_x It's not everyday I venture out of my comfort zone when it comes to film- I'm happy watching The Wedding Singer, a good psychological thriller, a cop thriller, the sort of thing Harrison ford would've appeared in in the 90s, you know, standard movie-going fare- but once in a while you come across a peculiar film that you just stumble across and you give it your full attention, and if you hang on, there is a reward at the end. I've read the other reviews for this film on this website, and they say things like it's "hypnotic" or "surreal", the bad reviews are mainly by pretentious types that use musty words like "Lynchian", or say "I wish I could give this a zero!" words that should end up on a tissue, but somehow end up here. The point is, I gave it a go, and I can safely say its a belter, the "hypnotic" and "surreal" quotes definitely apply. Firstly, is it entertaining?: Yes, that would definitely be a yes. It's got a shed-load of big actors on board doing unconventional performances, there many quirky, messed up moments, a lot of dark humour and a floaty script that fleshes out a distinct dreamy, lost atmosphere, accentuated by the incredible cinematography and music choices that are not typical of any film I've ever seen.Secondly, the cultural merit: It starts off like a pragmatic cop drama, you get Willem Dafoe and his understudy, chatting chit, doing what cops in films do, shooting the breeze and driving to the crime scene like any other day on the job, but then they arrive and the mystery starts to unravel and the story's told in a series of flashbacks told by witnesses, and cutbacks to the "present" where the police are negotiating Michael Shannon's surrender. Like Sherlock Holmes said "Everything becomes commonplace by explanation", and though I've laid out the formula, and reading my own explanation back to myself, I make it sound like an episode of Columbo, the truth is, it's closer to something Rod Serling would've come up with, and then some. What's interesting about this film is that unlike a lot of other killer/cop dramas, they don't really try and make sense of the crime, the crime itself is solved within the first 5 minutes, what this film does is try and legitimately explain *WHY* this guy committed a murder, and then through secondary storytelling methods, the Killer's clouded mind becomes the primary focus of the whole thing, and the voices of his friends and family kind of become ghostly and fading as you start to understand more about the fantasy he lives in and how certain events drove him to do it. The mystery is an unsolvable one, but granted by the end of the film you will have some sort of self-made answer, and I think, lame as it sounds, that's the joy of this film- The sun bleached camera, the hazy L.A. suburban Americana, the unique characters and mini- stories all come together and it just sort of washes over you. It's a quirky indie film like you've never seen, not quite as good as "Paris, Texas", or "Romeo is Bleeding", but it's in the same vein, and whatever it tries to do, whatever that is, it succeeds on all fronts. It's worth a watch, it's sharp, it's clever in the right places, and stupid in others, but that absurdity gives it genuine character, which is rare in films with such big Hollywood actors involved. Really, when a film like this comes out, and it's the closest thing to art you've seen for a long time in modern cinema, believe me when I say it's worth a watch. Don't take my word for it, read up on the true story, it's based on a real case, 1979, murder by sword, Oedipus and all that good stuff, The calibre of actors speak for itself, and the collective interpretation of all involved is worth the price of admission alone. I read somewhere that this was supposed to be a "horror" story, well it's not quite that, and it's not quite a psychological drama, it's definitely speculative fiction, and lies somewhere on the periphery of explanation, between all those genres, a little to the left and then up a bit, then forward a bit more, then left again, then right, then left....

Cosmoeticadotcom Shannon is pitch perfect with his madness, starting from a Peruvian kayaking trip he demurs from (the scene of the start of another of Herzog's great films on insanity, Aguirre: The Wrath Of God), which kills his friends, to his assumption of the name Farouk, to his belief that the face of God resides on an oatmeal container, to his calm bizarreness in general. Sevigny is excellent as the clueless and desperately lonely fiancée, while Kier delights as the agog friend- and Herzog makes ironic use of Kier's iconic stature as a horror film actor to rein him in to comment on assorted bizarre things he witnesses, such as the over the top scenes between Brad and his loony and racist ostrich farming uncle Ted (Brad Dourif), which ends in a classic 'Herzog Moment' involving a dwarf. While Dourif chews scenery, it's perfectly apropos to the moment the film unhinges itself, and also given that we see this partly from Brad's POV. Other odd moments occur when we see Brad at Machu Picchu, in a Tibetan marketplace, and seeking to buy pillows for 'the sick, in general, ' at a San Diego military hospital, and often these scenes, retrospectively, are seen as telegraphed earlier, but not in the ham-handed way a Steven Spielberg would do so. The film ends with Brad's surrender, and asking Havenhurst two questions: 1) could he put in his report that it was ostriches running, not flamingos, that were the birds involved, and 2) what happened to his basketball, which, in the film's final shot, we see a small boy pluck out of the branches of a tree.Herzog's direction is flawless, and cameraman Peter Zeitlinger does his usual sparkling cinematography by making blasé San Diego seem feral. Ernst Reijseger's score is apropos to the scenes, but the weak link is the film's screenplay, written by Herzog and Herbert Golder. It is good, for all it does; the problem is with just a few more moments and scenes, here and there, this 91 minute film, at 100 or so minutes, could have hit greatness. Some critics missed the boat and panned this excellent work, usually bemoaning it as a bastard love child between director Herzog and producer David Lynch, but there is little Lynchian material here. It is all Herzog. And it is definitely NOT a black comedy. Moments of humor do not make a film a comedy. It is straight on drama, and very realistic to the point that its utter lack of real poesy hurts it, artistically. Still, this is a relative claim since Herzog oozes cinematic poesy in almost all his films.

starcrest-292-681988 Unbelievable bad! It's bad in every way! I can not believe how crap like this actually can be made? That people actually are getting paid for something this bad? It is just incomprehensible! Whenever Michael Shannon is involved it is guaranteed the movie is bad! Michael Shannon himself is, both as a person as an actor, loathsome.I wish I could get my an hour and 30 minutes back because it should be illegal to make, produce somethings this bad! This is such a bore that I rather become arrested by the police than to be exposed to this movie! In the future I will avoid everything Michael Shannon is involved in! I truly wish he wont play in any more movies!

rooprect The credits haven't finished rolling, and I find myself racing to my laptop to warn moviegoers to avoid this colossal ostrich egg.Werner Herzog, once my favourite director of all time, has for the last 20 years been slowly piling the dirt on his own grave. Let's face it, without Klaus Kinski's feverish madness to balance Herzog's drowsy nihilism, his films miss the mark by miles.MYMYWHYD is no exception. We begin with a compelling plot and a potentially riveting storyline with potentially profound themes: A woman is found dead, apparently run through by a sword wielded by her mentally unbalanced son. It is slowly revealed that the son had been suffering some sort of stage-based psychosis, fancying himself the center of a Greek tragedy. Reading the DVD box, I was thinking to myself, "How could this not be awesome?!"I'll tell you how. Despite its promising beginning, the film quickly devolves into one passionless ramble after another, punctuated inexplicably by Werner Herzog's vacation movies to South America. Apparently we are to surmise that something in South America drove the young man mad, but aside from that there is no substance. It's as if European/American audiences are supposed to be dazzled by the mountains, clouds and unfamiliar native faces into thinking something significant happened.Kinski would've been able to pull this off, and he certainly has. This is precisely the same recipe used in "Aguierre the Wrath of God" and "Fitzcarraldo", two of my top films. A man tangles with the crushing power of untamed nature and loses his mind. I repeat, Klaus Kinski was da man. But how long can Herzog try to milk this same formula with sub-par talent? It's like your favourite 70s rock band (Genesis, Foreigner, Journey, etc) having lost its passionate frontman and trying to carry on for 20+ years with some new weakling in the saddle every album. At some point you have to accept that the band is dead. Or at least they should move on to a new sound altogether (like Toto. Now that band has released some kickass stuff in recent years!).Enough of Klaus Kinski & classic rock. I was just trying to make a point that Herzog's latest efforts are falling flat due to his obsession with the old Kinskian themes that made him once great. Mr. Herzog should change the act altogether. Despite my utter disappointment in Herzog, I will continue to watch his films hoping one day he'll either find his new Kinski or move on. Just like I keep buying the new Genesis albums. Unless you're stupid like me, you should probably avoid both.