MovieChat Forums > Ai no mukidashi (2009) Discussion > This film was RUBBISH

This film was RUBBISH

posted 14 years ago by oliveroliveroliver2000
45 replies | jump to latest

If you want a succinct review of this film it is quite easy; this film literally lacks everything you would normally appreciate and enjoy. I'm quite serious, this film does most things bad and everything else below average.

The acting from some of the actors was so bad calling it amaturish is to compliment it. So much so you really are unable to experiance any connection with the charaters(!), I've never had that before in any film I've ever watched. The acting and scene execution being so poor that you are unable to identify and so emotionally connect or sympathise with them.
The story is completely unrealistic, often nonsensical and unbelieveable. It is a mad pastiche of unlinked elements thrown together by a pop and movie culture obsessive, which rambles (for four ****ing hours!) with no definite direction or artistic and poetic meaning. This also extends to the characters and to many of the scenes, both of which, at times, are totally unbelieveable and often surreal and cunfusing.
All of this could theoretically be excused or explained by humour, and a cute or endearing ideosnycratic quality to the aformentioned and film in general. It has none of those. The humour is limited, and the idiosyncrasies or quirky quality consists of a confused story and scene play nethier of which are enjoyable or endearing.
It really is like watching a group of high school students with filming equipment having a laugh, which by the end you feel they're having at your expense.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] oliveroliveroliver2000 14 years ago

Anti-Christ was meaningless, and there are quotes by the director which prove that. And were did I say this film was 'visceral meaningless'? Actually I didn't even say Anti-Christ was visceral meaninglessness. This attempted to have meaning in the story at points but simply never pulled it off beacuse it was badly written, badly directed and badly edited.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] oliveroliveroliver2000 14 years ago

"You do not say it directly but infer it quite obviously."

I'm talking about the people watching, not the film. I'm only using a part of the film to explain that point.

"Real art is just a creative endeavor that serves no purpose other than that said creativity. Its easy to create 'real' art, but that doesn't mean what you create will actually be any good. A film like Anti-Christ qualifies as 'real' art because of its lack of commercial compromises - whether its good art, though, is debatable. As for it being meaningless - I though it hit you over the head with the whole parody of original sin and misogyny stuff, it wasn't hard to see what the director was getting at."

You don't get it. There is real art and artistry, and there is faux art. It isn't about what is good or bad, it is about what has real artistic imput and what has trappings to make it look like art. That is what we were getting at in that other thread.

"Back on topic, the central meaning of Love Exposure was a very simple one. It was just about how peoples different behaviors, no matter ho how odd they may seem, are driven by their need for real human connection and forgiveness. The way they search for these things is just warped by personal experience so understanding and tolerance is needed."

Really? Yu's dad does the opposite of that when he becomes a priest. What about the girl forcing them into the cult and then killing herself? What about Yoko before she meets miss scorpion? And Yu before he meets Yoko?
And even if that was the meaning, there is no point, there is nothing interesting, there is no reason to make a story where you have meaning placed in a simplistic manner on screen. Totally defeats every point to film making.
Which ever way you look at it you'll never get any meaning out of the whole thing beacuse there was none there in the first place, it is a horrible hodge podge. The original cut was 6 hours, and I can see why, the director didn't know which of the many story lines and themes going on in his head he was supposed to be following.
Sono is simply a self publicist, all his other films have been niche filcks based on thier controversy factor to get them wide exposure. In fact his entire career has been doing that. Alot of art is like that nowadays sadly.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aManInBackOfThisPlace 8 years ago

"artistry" that's it i'm done.... wat.

Antichrist had a plentitude of symbolism, like what are you talking about?? i like how you need SO much sophistry to make it appear as though you have an original opinion (or a good one).

So many f@$king paragraphs of over-intellectualized bs. srsly. "Antichrist is faux art because * no further specifying needed", you basically said NOTHING!!

pretentious af, man. you know there's ACTUAL faux art that wants you as the viewer to fill in all the blanks (Only God Forgives, Lost in Translation, A Serbian Film). But Antichrist doesn't have any blanks, personally i think you didn't get it and now you're being a pissed off little nancy.

As for Love Exposure, whatever.

Just stop being a smart-aleck because you don't get it.

[–] cinesimon 13 years ago

So basically if it has no meaning for you, then it simply is meaningless, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just wrong.
Doesn't need any explaining, just your word is fact, no matter how pathetically non-articulated...

Don't worry kiddo, it does get better.
As you grow up, you'll realize just how much of a sociopath you were - and hopefully that realization will help steer you toward becoming a thoughtful human being.

[–] lordrogue 14 years ago

I agree with almost everything in your first post, yet I loved this movie. I've never rated an 'entertainment' movie this high but I think I did just because of many of the things you saw as 'flaws'. All his movies are quite warped both execution and plot in a way you can't find in any other director. I think this is one of his positive attributes, clearly you do not.
If you could embrace the 'bad' acting and 'surreal' environment, it is an extremely intensive movie. Your second post indicates that you couldn't relate to or understand the characters at all, which obviously is the main problem for you viewing Love Exposure. I don't think the goal in his movies is to make the characters easy to identify with.

[–] chilone (17251) 7 years ago

Yes, I know this whole thread is antique but it should be resurrected as this is such an awesome movie! The points the OP made illustrate that people have vastly different tastes and perceptions which is wonderful. He however, projected HIS opinions and tastes upon others which is clearly unrealistic and egotistical. You like chocolate, I like vanilla and a LOT of people love this movie.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] amteex 14 years ago

What's in your vocabulary other than "bad"?

Many, many, many films are as unrealistic as this one. Does it make it bad? It depends. In fact, this one actually deals with modern issues in society. Want to see unrealistic? Just watch Disney.

Some films are 1-3 hours long and have nothing worth seeing in it whereas Love Exposure did not waste any second at all and made it feel like watching a two hour film. That's mastery.

Perhaps a lack of understanding dynamic human emotions on your behalf makes it hard for you to identify with the characters. (Oh, and I connected to these characters emotionally better than I did with Benjamin Button, quite ironic. I mean, I was supposed to connect with the characters in Benjamin Button but I couldn't. Why? A lack of honesty and vulnerability in portrayal.)

Just because a film has great cinematography, slow paced scenes and high quality cameras does not mean it's great. It's the content that qualifies it as great or not.

What's your definition of artistic direction or poetic meaning? Surreal, confusing and unrealistic does not equate rubbish.

Remember, Film Noir did everything bad according to its times. It was considered B-Films, cheap. What about now? It is elite. You only use an arrogant tone of voice to state your unintellectual response to this film.

As for the mentioning of music used to mask how 'horrible' this film is, there were only 3 songs used. It was well executed, meaning, it wasn't noticeable.

[–] rboykins-1 14 years ago

@ amteex...

Thank you for the Ownage!!!!!

[–] waterwizard2005 14 years ago

Aw really OP? I thought everyone would love it. It seems like one of those that would have a lot of mass appeal hee hee. Film snobs and unwashed masses will sing its praises I'm sure. Just a little something for everyone in this film.

Oh yeah and just who was Angel-A for? I guess it was for me wasn't it? I wonder who else and why is it 20 bucks to buy new?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vspirit-585-971367 14 years ago

First, let me say that I don't agree with the thread starter at all, seeing as their comment was more flame than the valid criticism the movie at least deserved. In fact, I've seen negative reviews that I respect but this one just struck me as blindly done and doesn't seem at all valid so I just brushed it off as a typical yankee kind of hate remark and forgot all about it. Which was why I didn't even bother refuting what they said. But I do come back once in a while to check how others respond to this sort of thing. Which is how I came upon yours.

I understand your anger, especially if you're as big a Nishijima fan as you seem to be, and I'm kind of one myself, too (though it's really the group he's a part of that I'm a fan of), but I can't help but feel the way you phrased your reply didn't actually help matters much. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it might have made things worse since I'm thinking it might make the flamer feel most justified in what they said. And probably wrote you off the way I wrote them off.

Uh, lemme guess. *beep* me, right?

[–] danuracula 14 years ago

just realize it... this film has won many awards!

[–] shakeen 14 years ago

great movie!

I'm from NEPAL.

[–] bnluu 14 years ago

The acting isn't bad. Everything done is ultimately suppose to be comical and it's difficult to pull off those facial expressions with a script that is so blatantly a parody of society. If you watch j-dramas which are themselves not really serious but more like soap operas, this movie is pretty much that caliber of acting but with an impressive plot-line. If you sat this movie which is approx. 4 hours and don't pick up on any of the obviously outrageous things they did...*spoiler* ninja panty-shot acrobatics, drag-queen love triangle, samurai-sword massacre and expect serious "good" acting then you totally miss the point. This movie is definitely about content and the acting supplemented the script superbly.