The minute you give an 'art film' 1/10, you have people baying for your ignorant, half-ass-ed, artistically retarded blood. I won't try and justify how I am not an aesthetically challenged retard by listing out all the 'art house cinema' I have liked or mentioning how I gave some unknown 'cult classic' a 10/10. All I ask is that someone explain to me the point, purpose and message of this film.

Here is how I would summarize the film: Opening montage of three unrelated urban legends depicting almost absurd levels of co-incidence. This followed by (in a nutshell, to save you 3 hours of pain) the following - A children's game show host dying of lung cancer tries to patch things up with his coke-addicted daughter, who he may or may not have raped when she was a child, and who is being courted by a bumbling police officer with relationship issues, while the game-show's star contestant decides that he doesn't want to be a failed child prodigy, a fate which has befallen another one of the game show contestants from the 60s, who we see is now a jobless homosexual in love with a bartender with braces and in need of money for 'corrective oral surgery', while the game show's producer, himself dying of lung cancer, asks his male nurse to help him patch up with the son he abandoned years ago, and who has subsequently become a womanizing self help guru, even as Mr. Producer's second wife suffers from guilt pangs over having cheated a dying man; and oh, eventually, it rains frogs (You read correctly). And I am sparing you the unbelievably long and pointless, literally rambling monologues each character seems to come up with on the fly for no rhyme or reason other than, possibly, to make sure the film crosses 3 hours and becomes classified as a 'modern epic'. 

You are probably thinking that I could have done a better job of summarizing the movie (and in turn of not confusing you) if I had written the damn thing a little more coherently, maybe in a few sentences instead of just one... Well, now you know how I feel.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
negative
Så fort du ger en 'konstfilm' 1/10, så har du folk som letar efter ditt okunniga, halvt as-ed, konstnärligt utvecklingsstörda blod. Jag kommer inte att försöka rättfärdiga hur jag inte är en estetiskt utmanad efterbliven genom att lista ut alla "konsthusbiografer" som jag har gillat eller nämna hur jag gav någon okänd "kultklassiker" en 10/10. Allt jag ber om är att någon förklarar för mig poängen, syftet och budskapet i den här filmen. Så här sammanfattar jag filmen: Invigning av tre obesläktade stadslegender som skildrar nästan absurda nivåer av samincidens. Detta följs av (i ett nötskal, för att rädda dig 3 timmars smärta) följande - En barn spel program värd dör av lungcancer försöker lappa upp saker med sin kokainberoende dotter, som han kanske eller kanske inte har våldtagit när hon var barn, och som uppvaktas av en brummande polis med relationsfrågor, medan spelshowens stjärntävlande bestämmer att han inte vill vara ett misslyckat barn underbarn, ett öde som har drabbat en annan av spelet visa tävlande från 60-talet, som vi ser nu är en arbetslös homosexuell förälskad i en bartender med tandställning och i behov av pengar för "korrekt oral kirurgi", medan spelshowens producent, själv döende i lungcancer, ber sin manliga sjuksköterska att hjälpa honom lappa ihop med sonen han övergav år sedan, och som sedan har blivit en kvinna som självhjälp guru, även som Mr. Produs andra hustru lider av skuld över att ha lurat en döende man; och åh, så småningom regnar det grodor rätt). Och jag spar på er de otroligt långa och meningslösa, bokstavligen svamlande monologer varje karaktär verkar komma på i farten utan rim eller anledning annat än, möjligen, för att se till att filmen korsar 3 timmar och blir klassad som ett "modernt epos". Du tror nog att jag kunde ha gjort ett bättre jobb med att sammanfatta filmen (och i sin tur inte blanda ihop dig) om jag hade skrivit den jävla saken lite mer sammanhängande, kanske i några meningar istället för bara en... Tja, nu vet du hur jag känner. Hur skulle du beskriva känslan av denna recension? ALTERNATIV: - negativ - positiv
As soon as you give an 'art film' 1/10, you have people looking for your ignorant, half-ed, artistically retarded blood. I will not try to justify how I am not an aesthetically challenged retard by figuring out all the "art house cinemas" that I have liked or mentioning how I gave someone unknown "cult classic" a 10/10. All I'm asking is for someone to explain to me the point, purpose and message of this movie. I summarize the film: Inauguration of three unrelated city legends depicting almost absurd levels of samincidence. This is followed by (in a nutshell, to save you 3 hours of pain) the following - A child game program host dies of lung cancer trying to patch things up with his cocaine-dependent daughter, whom he may or may not have raped when she was a child, and who is courted by a bumbling police officer with relational issues, while the game show's star contestant decides that he does not want to be an unsuccessful child prodigy, a fate that has struck another of the game show contestant from the 60s, which we see now is an unemployed homosexual in love with a bartender with braces and in need of money for "correct oral surgery", while the game show's producer, himself dying of lung cancer, asks his male nurse to help him patch up with the son he abandoned years ago, and who has then become a woman who self-help guru, even as Mr. Produ's second wife suffers guilt over having deceived a dying man; and oh, so eventually it rains frogs right). And I save on you the incredibly long and meaningless, literally rambling monologues each character seems to come on the move for no rhyme or reason other than, possibly, to ensure that the film crosses 3 hours and becomes classified as a "modern epic". You probably think I could have done a better job of summarizing the film (and in turn not confusing you) if I had written the fucking thing a little more coherently, maybe in a few sentences instead of just one... Well, now you know how I feel. How would you describe the feeling of this review? ALTERNATIVE: - negative - positive
negativ
negative