"Cinema is the ultimate pervert art. It doesn't give you what you desire; it tells you how to desire."
So begins "The Pervert's Guide to Cinema," in which Slovenian philosopher and psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek applies his Freudian/Lacanian brain-scalpel to world cinema. This film in three parts is the second feature documentary directed by Sophie Fiennes (yes, sister of Ralph and Joseph), and it is a notable accomplishment, clocking in at 2 1/2 hours of talk from one man and yet remaining humorous and engaging throughout. In essence, it is an extended film lecture, and one of the best you may ever get. Over the course of the film, Zizek guides us through a catalog of obsession and desire in film history. He touches on more than 40 films and, in particular, spends a great deal of time with Hitchcock, Lynch, Chaplin, Tarkovsky, the Marx Brothers, and Eisenstein. But he also takes a close look at "Persona," "The Conversation," "Three Colors: Blue," "Dogville," "Fight Club," and "The Exorcist." Thematically, Zizek's inquiry into cinema ranges from thoughts on the death drive to the "coordinates of desire," and from Gnosticism to "partial objects."
"The Pervert's Guide" will be a slightly better experience if you've taken a few minutes to bone up on your basic Freudian terminology. However, even if you're not steeped in psychoanalytic theory, Zizek's dynamic and hilarious personality carries the film forward with such gusto that you aren't likely to balk at the specialized lingo. The film frequently cuts from movie clips to images of Zizek *inside* the movie he is talking about--that is, in the original locations and sets. The transitions in these sequences sustain such tension and humor that the trick never gets old. And Zizek himself is constantly making us laugh, either from bizarre little jokes or from his enthusiastic insistence on, for example, a bold Oedipal interpretation of "The Birds." And this go-ahead-and-laugh attitude, on the parts of both Fiennes and Zizek, is essential to the gonzo character of the film. It is the spoonful of sugar that helps us digest Zizek's weird medicine. After all, don't we all have a sense that, past a certain point, psychology theorists are just pulling our legs?

I like monster movies, generally. Even if they are implausible and silly. But its hard to like this movie when its so implausible and silly AND tries to take itself seriously all at the same time. Like in a really posh kind of way.
While the idea is somewhat factual, like Orcas are known for killing Great White Sharks, its really hard to find it scary when I can't help but just see an angry Shamoo destroying stuff. Especially that one scene where some building exploded cause of the Orca's doing...and while it explodes, the thing jumps out of the water and it felt like I was watching a show at Sea World with fireworks. Plus they kill a lot of the scary moments before they even hint that they're going to happen. On top of that, it takes a few jabs at JAWS. Its like "hey look, we're being factual and we can come up with BETTER reasons why the Orca is attacking".
Yes you are, ignoring your outrageous **** ups in logic of course. But JAWS had one thing your movie doesn't. Its scary. Yes its implausible. Yes its somewhat outrageous. But quite frankly, factual or not, a Killer Shark is not close to being as scary as a Great White. And the poor attempt at character development and writing just hurts it more. Even JAWS the Revenge is scarier than this.