The Pervert's Guide to Ideology
Philosopher Slavoj Žižek and filmmaker Sophie Fiennes reunites for this follow-up to their hit The Pervert's Guide to Cinema, using their interpretation of moving pictures to present a compelling cinematic journey into the heart of ideology – the dreams that shape our collective beliefs and practices.
We are responsible for our dreams. This is the ultimate lesson of psychoanalysis - and fiction cinema. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
The Pervert's Guide to Ideology torrent reviews
(br) wrote: A gritty portrayal of the Australian outback post-world-collapse. Good acting by both Guy Pearce and Robert Pattinson (who is barely recognizable). Halfway decent writing, but not enough back story or plot development (I was expecting more of an ending). Also, where are all the post apocalyptic women?
(jp) wrote: Italian director Dario Argento decides to give the oft-told Dracula tale new life/blood in a 3D format in a hokey, bungled tribute to the British Hammer horror films of the 1950s and onward. Hammer Films began in the 1930s and is best known for such "monster classics" as The Curse of Frankenstein, 1957's Dracula, The Mummy, the Karnstein trilogy and 1961's Curse of the Werewolf. Argento relies very heavily on his audience already knowing the Dracula tale as he is just plops his Bram Stoker characters into the Transylvanian setting without little build-up or explanation of Dracula's past. Argento has only used the character names Stoker has created as he does whatever he desires with each and every one of characters (don't get too attached to Jonathan Harker!! [Unax Ugalde - Goya's Ghosts]). Argento allows himself to be free with Stoker's literary source ... and it results in much confusion. Argento had hoped for a pulpy bloody gore fest but there are more laughs here on display than anything and there is actually quite little blood (which is rather strange). He has tried to make a tribute to the schlocky Hammer films so I cannot fault the film completely as being "horrible" as he has reason to be "less than spectacular". The look of the film has a cheap, staged look to it that fits the era of film making he pays tribute to and most of the acting is either campy over-the-top or look-away-horrible. Thomas Kretschmann (The Pianist) plays the supposedly mild-mannered Dracula here while Rutger Hauer (Hobo with a Shotgun) plays a very non grizzled Van Helsing. The director's daughter, Asia (Marie Antoinette), plays the ill-fated Lucy while Marta Gastina ("Borgia" ... NOT "The Borgias") plays Mina. The characters pretty much do what Bram wrote them to do; but Argento has decided to lessen the roles of some ... most likely because he found them boring and they didn't take their clothes off enough. The film has some bad moments -- look for the giant praying mantis (!) -- but Argento seems to knowingly imbibe in most of the campiness. So ... those who enjoy cheap, bad horror films of yesteryear ... this one is for you.
(fr) wrote: A teen zombie comedy romance. Not as bad as it sounds but nothing special really.
(jp) wrote: there were moments when it was grand, and other where it lacked entirely. it could be seen as a coming of age film, but it gets dry in spots. the ending is a twist that isn't entirely anticipated - except is, given the invitation of it in the beginning - but falls flat as some kind of culmination of anything good. it's intriguing, and i watched it because of the actors, who did a swell job of being themselves it would seem, but that was about it.
(br) wrote: The GenX movie...Bose is gr8...Mallika proves her worth..!!!!
(br) wrote: Well, I expected it to be pretty lame going in, and to be honest, the only reason I watched it was because my cousin had a small part in it... Anyway, I was mildly enjoyed by it. A teen angst jokes for me to laugh at and a good inspirational type deal to it. (which doesn't do crap for me) I think it did a pretty good job of capturing the feel of the Bahamas though...
(ag) wrote: The brilliance of Bowfinger is twofold - one, it's premise is awesome, and two, Steve Martin's screenplay is able to extend it all the way through into unexpected and hilarious places. It playfully pokes fun at filmmaking and Hollywood culture, with even some laughs tossed Scientology's way for good measure, and is among the better parodies Hollywood has made about itself. Plus, it features a great double performance from Eddie Murphy, serving a nostalgic reminder of the days when he was a magnetic presence.
(es) wrote: "AMBITIOUS | CLEVER | SINISTER | SOPHISTICATED | WITTY" (92-out-of-100)
(fr) wrote: my second time watching it and I never got bored from watching it again. one of the best movies I've seen.
(mx) wrote: Araki wasn't trying to make a film where gay people are always supposed to be shown in a positive light, he like some of us who are gay was/are annoyed and bored that gay people were only shown in a few carefully constructed ways. The acting is over the top or dry because he was using elements of camp within the film and to even make fun of the road trip movies out there during this time period. Honestly not every gay person is so wonderful (just like many straight people) and his film was trying to prove that there are all sorts of gay people and that not everyone is taking HIV/AIDS sitting down waiting for their death either! Araki attempted to use this film to challenge the LGBT community and to make connections to class politics as well. A prime example of this was when Luke said if Bush 1 were to be injected with HIV then there would be a cure tomorrow. Of course this film is swimming in identity politics at times to get it's message across and the use of camp can mean that some won't get the references, but overall I think this film was great.
(kr) wrote: This movie deals with more serious themes than Chaplin's other movies. The acting is awesome, and puts the spotlight on the extent of Chaplin's talents. Claire Bloom is pure magic. However, in my modest opinion, the movie is a bit long... it has a few slow-going parts.
(es) wrote: another film accident, yet, regarding its social content, it could be amazingly analysed - an Afro-American revenge, the return of the repressed
(mx) wrote: This cliche-filled boxer-mentor film is one of the early stinkballs of 2008. Gets boring in the first twenty minutes and you can already point out how the film is going to end. Don't expect more than a few well choreographed fight scenes and cheesy, heard-it-before dialogue.
(mx) wrote: Acting at its very finest, Idris Elba and Abraham Attah are simply superb