@michaelhanekememes on instagram
ironic how a film that almost entirely consists of shots where the camera is replacing a mirror starts with a shot where a characters face is hidden by a mirror.
Ulrich Seidls films are a form of observation. the audience observes characters living their (chances are high that it's awful) life and he picks out certain, often reoccuring, scenarios within a time span of their life to give the audience a picture of what their life is based upon and…
having a feature length discussion that dives into different subjects such as philosophy, personal issues or a persons experiences and ideas towards a certain thing might have worked fine for the first film of this trilogy, as it was fitting quite well into the scenario the charcters having the discussion were finding themselves in, yet having the same concept for a sequel of a film with this premise was not a thing that worked out quite as well as it…
I am speechless about the fact how incredible well haneke creates characters and shows them to the audience. they always feel so real, you sometimes think you aren't watching a movie, you're watching real events. The usage of no soundtrack always supports this, you really can understand how the characters feel in this situation.
caché shows us in intelligent ways how the characters work, how the think and how they act. it's an unsettling experience, created by usage of long shots and shameless demonstration of reality.
terror 2000 seems to be the peak of offensive satire, only existing for the reason to provoke, disgust, engross and disturb by using an abnormal amount of racism, sexism, violence, gore, rape and every other political incorrect thing in existence. this may sound like it could be hella hilarious and it definitely had the potential to be so, it just wasn't. I didn't find it unfunny because I was offended, rather because it's probably only funny if you're on drugs…