The film takes place at a time when smoking cigarettes was apparently more important than paying attention to the traffic lights.
Carole, the main character, seems to be under the spell of something. Even in her childhood, she is not with herself, as you can see in the photo of her family. She constantly looks quite apathetically somewhere, as if she were not there, or as if she saw something that others do not see.
She may be obsessed with something that she has been able to suppress halfway successfully all these years, but then is unleashed by a trigger and can no longer be held back.
Actually a really nice movie. Only the end was a little too abrupt for me from today's point of view. The film builds up for a long time and it does that very well. Soft camera movements and a beautiful image composition make you very close to the main protagonist. It almost feels like you're experiencing the story together with Carole.
Except that the film is black and white, I would not have thought that it was from 1965.
Precisely because the film is black and white, lights and shadows appear much more clearly in their expression.
In my opinion, the film is even better in black and white than in color.
The German film title is: Disgust – Ekel.
So I wondered all the time where the film title finds its place here. Now I know it's not the disturbing moments that are disgusting, but rather the men in this film. They take themselves more important than anything else, simply touch women and invade their privacy.
The scene where he, who fell in love with Carole, visits her at home and then enters the door violently because he supposedly saw a shadow through the peephole, is the icing on the cake.
What's going on? Then he stands in the middle of the room and says: "Oh, sorry." No wonder Carole feels harassed. Or the landlord who browses through the whole apartment, looks at everything, condemns the tenants and then also harasses Carole.
I think I'll get some cognac.
David Lynch did it again...
This morning I saw the movie and thought to myself: 'Oh God, what will that be now?'
After the movie, I was confused at first and didn't think of anything special. But throughout the day I had to think of Rabbits.
The movie gave me something.
During the film, I noticed how I tried to pay attention to small details all the time and were looking for a specific goal or storyline. At first I missed a clearly told story, but then I realized that I had a very uncomfortable feeling even without much action.
Was it now due to the rabbits, who talked like in different time parallels, but were somehow able to keep their conversations?
Was it the special camera perspective and the setting that made everything look like miniatures?
Angelo Badalamenti's gloomy music and the rain, which sounded more like it was in my living room?
The movie made me shudder, although not much actually happened. Even the rather demonic scenes made me less uncomfortable than the overall impression of the film, especially in the quiet moments.
Rabbits shows how to tell a plotless story and leave the viewer any possibilities for interpretation.
Nevertheless, the film manages to leave an unpleasant feeling.
It's all about Toototabon.
Is it the true love of the poor little, interrogated monkey, or is Toototabon just his excuse to distract from a terrible murder?
Who knows that?
In any case, the monkey finds the right words and always looks like the poor victim of a false interrogation against him through his facial expressions. He remains cool and calm to distract the suspicion of the crime. Well, that goes well until Toototabon appears.
And what should I think of all this now?
My first thought was: 'Incredible how emotional and credible the interrogation situation seems and in such a short film length!'
Maybe David Lynch wanted to show how much different and more real it can seem if you sit down a real monkey and make him speak using old techniques instead of completely animating him, as today. Whether the film was shot with old cameras, or it is just a filter that lies on the film somehow supported my thought. Just as this completely normal interrogation situation is depicted, I really believe that the animal kingdom plays a major role in the film. Monkeys go to work, orangutans may not be the smartest, but also have their place in society and all are also subject to human rights. Even how the monkey spoke and what he said felt honest and not wrong.
However, the perspective from bottom to top to the big man, the interrogator, already made clear the inferiority of the little monkey. I really hoped that the poor little one would get out of the situation safely again.
... and all this in 17 minutes.
Dynasty Warriors is literally screaming for a sequel that I don't think would be necessary at all. By this I do not mean the content, but rather the quality of the film, of which I have definitely seen enough.
Since the video game Dynasty Warriors 4, which I loved, I have been following the game series, which got worse from time to time. I was always wondering why no blood is depicted. This would greatly enhance the game with all the thousands of killings. The developers' answer is that this is too computationally intensive.
Okay, but that almost no blood could be seen in the movie made me smile. Don't misunderstand, I'm not thirsty for blood, but in my opinion that's just missing.
Surprisingly, it was extremely close to the games, which I think is very good. Even in different movements of the characters, you could see the parallel to the games.
However, the problem was often also here.
Many things were animated so badly that I often thought: 'Oh God... really?'
In contrast, other animations were extremely good, which I found extremely strange. As if they had two CGI teams. One for the extremely pretty and well-done animations in the background and a team that took care of the animations on and around the characters and had little to no time for it.
If I didn't know the game, I would have rated the movie even worse.
However, the camera team is very commendable. The movie can really score points with very good camera work and beautiful drone images.
I have to admit that I would probably have just turned off the movie if the beautiful landscapes hadn't been there.
Overall, I still have to say that the movie reminded me a lot of the cutscenes from the games, which I only skipped at some point.
DOOM spread over several floppy disks was part of my childhood. As a child, climbing through the MS-DOS in order to ultimately be able to enjoy the colorful images in a new 3D environment was more difficult for me than the game itself.
Since I was far too young, I didn't understand what I was doing and what was happening, but it was always a lot of fun. Almost 30 years later, I finally played through both titles and without "IDDQD"! :)
Regarding the film, I have to say that I am divided. An implementation that is close to the game is certainly very difficult. That's why I can't complain and thank them for trying. The mere fact that there is a movie is great and awakens childhood memories in me. However, they could definitely have taken more time to spice up the film and offer more depth.
The first-person scene was best. This was most likely to come to the pace, the oppressive mood and the close contact with the demons that I expect from DOOM. Unfortunately, this was far too short. Otherwise, it was more of a TheRock-shows-how-it-works movie.
However, I have to say that I have already seen the movie three times and it somehow got better every time.
