I absolutely loved this.
I have tried going into more films with less pre-concieved notions about what to expect and hadn't heard much about this before actually sitting down to watch it. Lively was dripping with swagger every scene, Kendrick continues to knock it out of the park, and the story bounces you along after the first 30 minutes sets the scene. Once the ride gets going it has very little time to stop 'to smell the flowers' as you trundle towards the ending.
Some of the story beats are predictable, others are less so, and to an extent once you get to the close of the film you can start to see what is happening before it does. But that is not the sign of a bad film, as it leaves many clues ahead for you and is fundamentally a Hollywood picture.
I had an absolute blast watching this.
The Troubles were a truly fucked up conflict.
The British education on The Troubles is weak, and people are generally unaware of the events that lead to the escalating violence that defined Belfast's recent history. With this context, the film does a good job of humanising and villianising all sides with a level of fairness that is not often seen in British made media about The Troubles.
Soldiers are shown as both young men (often from a tough situation) with very little in the way of stakes in the fight and as the armed support for a ruthless and dehumanising state. Senior officers range from those who want to minimise the use of riot gear (because they're not their to start a riot) to those who are happy to kill their own to escalate the situation. Catholics range from the innocent, the angry, the rage-filled, the tired, and the violent. And it has a shown a decent understanding of what was happening with the IRA at this time in history, and how someone can end up involved in the IRA due to the circumstances of their lives.
All of this is weaved around what is effectively a cat and mouse chase across Belfast after dark when being in the wrong part of town is a death sentence for a British soldier.
Hanks manages to carry the story of Mister Rogers with the same level of sincerity that was unique to Rogers' charm and power. This is not an easy task, because without careful handling it is very likely to come across as drippingly fake and cold.
As someone less familiar with Rogers (non-American who grew up without him on TV), I was also unfamilar with the story on which this movie was based on. For a relevant outsider, the framing was actually very useful for getting into who Rogers was in a wider cultural context. The framing also meant that time spent with Rogers was cut down, and oppurtunities to see how Rogers interacted outside of the small interview pieces was only shown in a few places.
Fundamentally, the film wanted to show the impact that Rogers had on the microcosm of a single person, and it did achieve that well. A good companion to the documentary also released about Mister Rogers.
A Cure for Wellness commits a common sin of 'horror' films post the reguvination of the genre: it isn't actually a horror film. That is not a criticism of the quality of what the film is, but going in with expectations of a horror film is immediately going to leave many uncomfortable with what they see as it doesn't fulfil that niche.
What it is instead is a slowly building psychological thriller where the protoganist slowly begins to lose his grip on what is going on, which builds to a confrontation at the end. Unfortunately the film seems to think towards the end that we buy into the explanation offered in universe to dimiss their concerns. I am not sure if it is just a tonal mismatch as their story is so obviously a lie while filmed as if it could be real, but it sort of falls flat.
However, the actual story, hidden behind two and a half hours of wandering through a sanitarium, is a really interesting concept. It's genuinely neat, and that aspect of the film is worthy of a film. It is just a shame that the film it got was not able to do true justice to the idea. A well crafted film, which shows a lot of skill in lots of places, but really could've done with a significant script overhaul and edit for time, that doesn't quite reach the heights that are tantalising close.
When looking at the discourse of this film the question generally resolvs down to the nature of the unsimulated sex: is it a gimmick or is it a story-telling device.
Contrary to the others complaining about the live music interludes, my issue is more that they are pretty explicit in describing the theme of the previous or upcoming segment (or both depending on the point). It's an interesting approach, and one that is not unique but is not handled poorly here.
But back to the sex. There is a large amount of story-telling done through the sex scenes, mostly in how the two of them behave to one another when it comes to sex. The eagerness, the experimentation, the masturbation are all used to give you a glimpse through the relationship as it grows and continues.
But is it just a gimick? To be honest, it sort of is. It allows the film to have a naturalistic style and approach where the whole experience feels very real, which does add a level of normalcy to the whole events. Would simulated scenes have impacted this so negatively? Possibly, but Room in Rome managed to craft the same story-telling beats and moments through simulated sex.
The film is relatively average, and not something I would tell people to seek out.
(Note: Watched with English VAs)
A pondering on love and life, and the feeling growth and continuation that can exist in the most trivial of moments. A wonderful story told in flashbacks and vignettes that leaves you wondering if what you felt was the best action, maybe your only goal, was misplaced. Whether your determination is driven poorly when you represent a past for someone, and not their new future where they have grown beyond you.
C’était magnifique.
As many other reviews will say, the pacing of this film is definitely a little slow. It takes too longs to get to certain points, and then leaves things hanging around in the air for too long as well. It is a glaring issue within the film and consists of the major negative of the film.
The acting is solid, the story (when it gets rolling) is enjoyable, the scares are well placed, and the horror reveal is a good take on a well-trodden idea.
If you're into horror you will probably enjoy the 80 minute run time. It would stand out more if the last few years had not been one of the most delightful revitalizations of the genre.
I think I meant to add 'The Final Girls' to my Watchlist rather than this.
While not an awful film, it is a rather slow and uninteresting film that often feels preoccupied by 'artistic' or creepy shots over actual conveying a message within those shots. There are some fair performances throughout, though Wes Bentley's character is just outright odd.
I can't really recommend watching this unless you are a particular fan of any of the actors, as it is not gripping in its own rights, and doesn't lend itself to a fun group watch.
Do you want a fun romp where massive animals smash and tear up cities while Dwayne Johnson chases after as a primatologist with special forces training? Great, this is exactly that film.
It does require one to turn off their brain because stepping back even in a single foot to look at the wider perspective of this film will break a lot of the fun, but if you know what you are signing up for this is fun enough.
I remember around the initial release of this film, the general noise floating around was that it was just a bit rubbish.
Having seen the film, that criticism seems a little heavy-handed and unfair given that the film is perfectly fine. It is an action film with an interesting twist, held together by a loose sci-fi mechanism that tries far too hard to be convincing.
(A pretty basic rule of science-fiction is not to just mix up a bunch of real science terms to pretend and pretend it is something utterly unrelated to those science terms)
But, for all its faults, tropes, and corniness, it was still a fun action movie which didn't overstay its welcome.
Also, no stupid, hamfisted romance that is completely unbelievable. So that is appreciated.
Not nearly as clever and inventive as it Jarmusch thinks he is being, but not a bad film.
With the star-studded cast, the overall effect of the film does feel a little underwhelming, because it appears that Jarmusch's focus is on simultaneously aping and re-inventing the zombie movie, and doing both rarely works. It also feels like the immense amount of talent on hand was severely underutilized. Tilda Swinton is a magnetic presence whenever she is on screen, no matter the film, but is barely used, and despite Murray, Driver, and Sevigny in the leading roles they somehow also feel the same.
As a light movie, The Dead Don't Die is a fine watch, as a film many Jarmusch fans were waiting for with excitement it might disappoint.
Going into this with zero context, was certainly a far more enjoyable experience I could have expected.
While some of the jokes may feel well-trodden by now, this send-up of the slasher genre was overall a delight to watch. Dumb side jokes, an over-the-top and ludicrous plot, bizarre performance deliveries, and meta-commentary on the American movie rating system really help deliver this as a time-capsule of the slasher craze of the period.
The leads have no chemistry, the script is stilted as fuck, the whole premise feels incredibly weird in 2019, and even trying to orientate to the views of the 80s feels hard when the general attitudes of everyone seems to be that a woman's role is to just date and look pretty.
It was nice to see Richard Erdman in his younger years, but outside of that, the film had very little in the ways of redeeming features. But, it made a profit in 1985 so I guess that is all that really matters.
(Also, if you have any interest or knowledge of motor racing this film will be excruciating at times because all of the racing talk and shots are just awful. How much would it have cost to hire a stunt driver to actually drive the cars quickly.)
Fair enough, this has an interesting premise. It, however, utterly fails to follow that with anything interesting. The plot meanders with no direction or consistency. The world-building is constantly ignored, and the whole thing just feels like a complete waste of time.
I have long since forgotten why I added this to my Watchlist, but it is not at all worth engaging with. Avoid.
(The only saving grace of this film is that it is a technically fine film, and half of the acting is fine)
An enjoyable viewing, with a neat concept that is executed competently. This is the sort of film that people will be referencing back to as the inspiration when someone makes a version that really lights the film world on fire.
Dinesh D'Souza is a monstrous liar and this is another example of his pathetic behaviour
An overall enjoyable movie that plays with all the tropes that we love and enjoy. Some of the writing feels like the film thinks it is being really clever when it is being fun, rather than super smart.
The performances are good and fun, Kay, Batalon, and Gabriel are all good and competent leads.
Not entirely sure why the twist was so obvious to me, because I couldn't really think of what explicitly gave it away, but it made it feel like it wasn't as revelatory as they were hoping it would be.
How do you cover a tragic event, a massacre on a college campus, without turning it into an action movie, without giving any special standing to the killer, and while respecting the victims and their stories?
Tower found a highly successful approach by using a sort of rotoscoped animation style, overlayed and played alongside the real footage, so to humanise those involved and what they were thinking as it all went down. Truly captivating and engrossing the whole time, while giving you direct access to the thoughts of those involved.
Also, given the way the events were treated UT Austin by immediately moving on it gave a sense of closure to those involved, and exposed us to heroes we didn't know existed, like the astonishing tale of Rita Starpattern.
