100% in agreement with you sir.
It has always irked me when people commend a sci-fi movie for being good because it is "escaping the trappings of science fiction" or some such, as if science fiction was just some fluffy genre to look at shiny exploding things in space. It originated as a way to comment on society in a setting that is more accessible and safe, and is more easily swallowed by the general public. Sci-fi offers a freedom of expression that most other genres of film do not have.
Michael Fassbender needs to win the Oscar for 'Shame'. That is all.
I don't know... I do agree that he can do some really good work in his lower budget films, but I also feel that when he is given too much freedom his work suffers. It often becomes very repetitive and derivative of his own work. 'Dogma' worked for me because his vision was clearly present in the film, but it wasn't all about him and how great he thinks he is.
Interesting take on the horror genre. I actually really liked the terse, uneventful buildup, but the payoff was less than satisfactory.
Eh, never really had any strong feelings for any of his films other than 'Dogma', which I really liked. 'Zack and Miri Make a Porno' was decent, and 'Mallrats' wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen. Maybe I'll get around to eventually seeing the rest of 'Red State', but probably not.
Okay, so to be perfectly honest I didn't get through the entire film. I got about halfway through. The writing is horrid. The first part is really boring, and it doesn't exactly get better from there. Maybe it suddenly gets better from there, but in my experience if the script is still bad halfway through, the movie is not going to het that much better. This was one of those movies that has a really good trailer, so I guess I should have known it wouldn't actually be good.