Story: what story? It's art!
Characters: Nope. Let's focus on the walls instead.
Not scary in the slightest the only scares were jumpscares with loud music. I didn't care what happened to the two pairs of legs. If you're going to do a movie about a child's point of view put the camera on their forehead, not on the floor. The walls and ceilings got wayyy too much screen time. Painfully boring!
3 Thoughts After Watching ‘Skinamarink’:
Just, no. I went in with an open mind. But no. This was way too random for me. I need some semblance of a story, not a string-out of creepy visuals and sounds. If I hadn’t read the synopsis, I would’ve been even more lost than I already was. The toy phone scene is a perfect example of something eerie that existed for no particular reason other than to be eerie. No.
The interactions and reactions were not realistic enough. I understand this film was more of a mood than a story. More of a dream than reality. But there were too many characters talking to other characters without a proper response, if that makes sense. And no child would be wandering that house alone.
There is something here, somewhere. An original idea that may inspire future horror films. The familiar glow and hum of a TV that we wake up to from nightmares. That momentary feeling of helplessness. It was all supremely atmospheric, for sure. But there was zero payoff.
This was actually the worst movie I've ever seen.
As a historical drama of palace intrigues, it is acceptable, due to its classic concept of narration, but it falls back into presentism to interpret History from a current point of view, placing the #metoo stamp on events that are not even clear. It improves in the second part, when the effort to empower the female characters ceases to rely on their victimization. It is an undoubted casting mistake for a 28-year-old actress to play a character who was 13.
There are intriguing and intelligent narrative nuances brought out in Elizabeth I's pre-coronation years, yet.. (sigh) the pacing is a muddle. Halfway through, Edward is still alive, still half-king. We have yet to get through Lady Jane's and Bloody Mary's reigns. Where is this series going? As for Elizabeth—oy. Out of over a dozen characterizations (in films I've screened), I've never seen Elizabeth written as so dull, witless, and stupid a girl. All the characters surrounding her—particularly her lover/pseudo-step-father, Thomas Seymour—proclaim to behold the spark before them, which will one day ignite a bold and canny Virgin Queen's 45-year reign. But I don't see it in Alicia von Rittberg, though the fault may be with the writers and director. The love triangle between Elizabeth, Seymour, and King Henry's widow, Catherine Parr, is interesting, and the impulse is correct (in my view). However, to hang the entire season grinding the angle into dust is less interesting, particularly as Elizabeth comes out of it seemingly more vain, self-absorbed, and unenlightened from the tortured romance. Bella Ramsey's Lady Jane is equally tedious. The surprise standout of the series is Romola Garai. Compounding the stellar acting, Garai's Mary grows more intelligent and sharp with every episode, while her character groks each new event, spiritually evolving into a higher nobility and rank. We watch in awe as Mary's stature gains momentum. Considering the grotesque portrayals common to Bloody-Mary-past, seeing Mary from this angle is a treat and a surprise. Clearly, the producers wish to see the seasons grow with Elizabeth surviving each of her siblings' (+ short-lived cousin's) reign. However, the series would be far greater if Becoming Elizabeth would just, well.. become Elizabeth.
UPDATE: —welp— I guess the reign of Elizabeth is not to "become." CANCELLED.
Showing the studio set at the end and beginning was not necessary.
Like what you had for dinner last night: routine and forgettable.
From the exorcist nun who must spend every waking hour dyeing her roots, to the mass of noobie priests who scurry into a possessed child's room only to stand there and watch possessed child shit, this movie is -- fortunately -- not one you'll remember.
World Premiere Review: Sam Raimi, you legend. This was one of, if not the most, fun MCU movie yet. It's very Evil Dead inspired visually, particularly the camera work. The character arcs here are fantastic, the action is wonderfully violent (the multiverse gives so much opportunity to kill off characters without impacting the main timeline too much), and the pacing is great, just go see it.
In 'The French Dispatch' director Wes Anderson goes all out with his characteristic aesthetic, beautiful visuals, use of colour and attention to detail. The music is great, fantastic even at times. There are more top actors than you could find at an average Oscars party. And visually most of shots are works of art all by them self. It is rather unfortunate that Wes his attention to detail do not translate to a more coherent story as a whole, holding the movie back.
'The French Dispatch' contains three separate stories, only trivially connected by a fourth overarching story about a newspaper and its journalists (based on the origins of a real newspaper.) On their own, each story is serviceable, but unfortunately the guiding story is lacking enough substance to make it work as a whole. The at times rather dense dialogue, riddled with puns and metaphors, also do not help with avoiding confusion. Especially for the average cinema visitor. However, the jokes and puns are often positively unexpected and with a great show of comedic timing, even during otherwise non comedic scenes. And this is without having to resort to the type of subversive humor we so often see nowadays in blockbuster films.
The three stories on their own, especially the rather quirky first one about the convicted murderer, are all interesting and fun enough to make the viewer invested. And although each story is not likely to be strong enough in its current form to carry a whole film, I think they could have benefited from some more time. To give the characters some more and/or better introduction. It would also have the benefit of seeing some more from all the fantastic actors.
I would recommend to watch this movie at (a somewhat larger screen) at home, where you have the option to rewind. That way it is also possible to appreciate the many details in many shots and scenes.
With every movie Wes improves his meticulous and almost obsessive attention to detail in every shot. Considering the visuals; In 'The French Dispatch' he once again trumps every movie Wes Anderson has made before, including the well received 'Budapest Hotel' and his critically acclaimed stop motion films 'Fantastic Mr. Fox' and 'Isle Of Dogs'. Of course there is an ample amount of his characteristic centered camera work, straight angle moving and panning, and the painting-like sets in almost every shot. He plays with aspect ratio and switches between colour and black and white for significant portions of the movie. And there is even a fully (drawn) animated section, which is a lot of fun.
If a movie was only visuals, this one would have been rated a 10/10.
I absolutely enjoyed the music and music timing in this. Composer Alexandre Desplat (who often composed for Wes Anderson his films) made a score that was often subtle, while still reinforcing the atmosphere of the movie and the scene. I also noticed some parts where video and audio were carefully timed to match one another. On a few occasions the music felt like a temporary extra character in the scene, leading the atmosphere instead of only enforcing it, and I found myself actively appreciating it more than I usually do when watching a film.
With all the actors involved, and the limited time they are given, it is difficult to properly discuss acting as a whole. There are so many fantastic actors in this, but the lack of screentime for each of them makes none of them award worthy. I have to mention Benicio del Toro for his acting though. With his menacing performance he outshines most of the other actors. And that is with a cast like this very difficult to do.
Overall I enjoyed this movie a lot, but even though I would like to recommend it, it is difficult to recommend to most people except for people already familiar with Wes Anderson his work. It might be not accessible enough for the average person, with the separate stories and visual style. While for a film fan the story issues can be problematic. Its shortcomings are especially unfortunate, because it likely will be a cause for less people to watch it.
Raging Bull was okay. The opening credits weren't aligned with the boxing ring ropes, grrr. A lot of the dialogue seemed pointless, I felt like it didn't develop the characters much nor move the plot forward. LaMotta sits around with people and talks a lot, but it doesn't fleshen out anybody, it just reaffirmed what you already knew. Unfortunately, none of the characters were particularly sympathetic either. LaMotta himself is completely loathsome and his entire personality can be summed up as "jealous and violent". I'm not saying you have to make characters likeable or anything, but if you're going to do a character study, shouldn't your character be a complex realistic human being? Shouldn't they be intriguing and multidimensional? Otherwise why else should I care what happens at all? Though DeNiro no doubt gives a great performance, ultimately I'm not interested in what happens to his character nor any of the relationships he has with others.
Overrated beyond belief. Sorry, but with this one A24 borders on a self-parody.
Like a high school philosophy student, The Green Knight is very flamboyant and mumbles when he babbles, hoping you'll mistake his incoherence for intelligence.
The Green Knight follows the recent A24 trend of treading on the thin line between intrigue and obscurity. It stays on track for much of the film, and when it falls, at least there's the safety net of lush cinematography.
This first season is 2 episodes of what you came to see, and 6 of something else. I should say I feel like it could have been 3 episodes shorter, but overall even though it was a bit slow at times, it's still a show I would recommend...
If you didn't see too much of the marketing material and aren't hyped about seeing "a series about going to mars", but rather just see it as a story about human struggle (in multiple ways), then this is a pretty good show.
The first and last episodes are good. I mean "crying from excitement/dreading a future without this/wanting this for humanity/loss" good. Maybe I'm just a sucker for tales about human exploration, especially with the space part in it, but I really liked them. I feel like you could maybe make a 3-episode edit with E01, E08 and some cuts about the MAV fuckups/various political stuff and it would make a great tale about a possible future for humanity. The family relationship drama doesn't ruin it per se, but it definitely disappoints expectations you might have going into it.
Émile Zola is the best French writer of all time, and not because he's my favorite. He's France's best writer because his 20-volume novelization of the country's 2nd Empire is a monument to French literature. He's my favorite writer because not only is he enormously talented, but in an epoch when antisemitism was systematic and systemic, he (a casual antisemite himself as a child of his era) stood up against the army, Ministry of Defense and the entire nation to decry a cover-up concerning the innocence of an exiled Jewish officer.
Zola is a gifted artist who also possess integrity, a combination that is as precious as it is rare. Many modern 'artists' simply use their talent as an excuse to commit unforgivable atrocities.
(For example: towards the middle of this film a convicted pedophile makes a cameo appearance in a party scene!)
I find myself watching people bicker about the distinction between drizzle and rain with no hint of subtext or irony in a TV show ostensibly about politics.
This is a poor substitute for watching a better made show like The Crown.
Its a low budget movie but it shouldn't be overlooked. Works as both a heartbreaking family drama and a chilling horror story, this is a small gem that is worth your time.
Waste of time. Wouldn't recommend to anyone.
This was quite frustrating thing to watch. It wasn't scary, it wasn't interesting and it didn't explain anything. And like everyone else said, nothing happened. At all.
If you have insomnia this is a good movie to put you to sleep. Wasn't scary at all and didn't explain anything at the end. A very unsatisfying ending.
This is the most frustrating, overrated, pretentious 'horror movie' I have ever seen. Don't waste your time on it. Nothing is explained in the end and 8/10 reviewers on IMDb didn't get it either.
You know there were a lot of things I loved about this film but for the sake of this review and to keep from spoiling too much I'll keep it short. The scene where nothing happens really blew me away along with the part where nothing happens. There's a slow, intense scene that really sets the stage for nothing happening that I found really well done. I also enjoyed the ending that took 90 minutes to get to in which, finally, nothing happens. Really a great film about the ins and outs of nothing going on. Solid 10/10.
....I didn't like it.
There was no plot.
There was no literary protagonist. There IS a main character, though.
When I say plot, I mean an objective that the protagonist is after from the beginning; Some kind of imbalance that they sense needs to be rectified or corrected. When there is no objective, there is no obstacles in their way, either. This movie is 3.5 hours of, just, things that happen and it never clues the audience in on the endgame...so there's also hardly any climax, either. Its just, this happens, then that, then that, then that...with characters you can't really call "likeable" or "rootable" I wouldn't have cared if DeNiro died at any given moment in the film because I couldn't connect with him.