Alright, this was excellent! I haven't watched a lot of Dario Argento's work (I saw Suspiria and Phenomena), but this was definitely the best of him that I have seen so far. I genuinely loved the misdirection and I was puzzled till the very end about what exactly what was happening. There are small clues in the editing and what is shown that kind of give you hints, which I really love. The soundtrack is just awesome and the tension building through the use of slow panning shots are great. And well, there's a lot of violence, but it did not feel over the top. Kitschy eighties style? Absolutely. Big fan of the fact that it was set in Rome and yet none of the historical buildings were shown. We only see modern architecture and a lot of angular shapes, which give it this post-futuristic feel and look, also making it feel outside of its time. I enjoyed it!
Beautifully shot (interesting compositions that work really well). Pacing is excellent with the use of interesting cutting techniques to build tention (and this is before Psycho, which it made me think of, so I wonder how much this has influenced Hitchcock in making it or how much Laughton was influenced by earlier Hitchcock's works). The acting was really outstanding too, I don't think there was any one who fell out of the boat, even the children were really believable. Robert Mitchum plays a really good bad guy and I don't know who came up with using the hymn as a leitmotif for him, but it works brilliantly. My favourite shot was the underwater shot with the flowing seaweed, I really wonder how they did that (if anyone knows that reads this, please do send a message my way). Maybe there is one or two things that are left hanging, but it didn't bother me in the overall sense. It's a shame that this is the only movie we have that was directed by Laughton, but on the other hand if this is the only one we get, I'm glad that it is this one. I thought it was excellent!
Ok, I enjoyed this way more than I thought I would. I wasn't too sure about yet another Toy Story movie, with part 3 being so perfect. But this, despite the main cast of toys not having much to do, did open up some new philosophical insights in their toy lives. And went into some new directions with how toys see and experience the world. It's not as 'good' as the third one, but it is incredibly hard to follow up such a masterpiece. Despite that, I think the story was really good and they did a great job! It made me cry a couple of times, so that is always a good sign for me.
Disappointing, weak, not creative... Is this how you celebrate 100 years of history, Disney? Not even the fun cast can help, which is where I gave most my points to. The kid was great though, he had some good acting.
Alex Garland is a filmmaker who is masterful at his craft. He knows exactly what emotion to wring from you and the entire time I was on the edge of my seat. It gripped me, it gripped my humanity and made me look at what humans could do when all rules have been thrown out the window. We are a vile, vile species and what we do to each other is disgusting.
Beautifully shot too. Some shots look like photographs, exactly when a photograph is being taken. When an actual photograph is being shown, it adds to the tension.
We're only shown how these 4 journalists experience it, everyone else is just passing through. And these guys are brave. If that is really how they act, out there in war zones, my god.
I love movies that can make me feel something besides just entertainment. To enact an emotion from me that is not just pure awe at technological adeptness of the medium, but to show me with mesmerizingly neutral yet horrendous content is daring. I am so happy films like this are still being made.
Alex Garland is a filmmaker who is masterful at his craft. He knows exactly what emotion to wring from you and the entire time I was on the edge of my seat. It gripped me, it gripped my humanity and made me look at what humans could do when all rules have been thrown out the window. We are a vile, vile species and what we do to each other is disgusting.
Beautifully shot too. Some shots look like photographs, exactly when a photograph is being taken. When an actual photograph is being shown, it adds to the tension.
We're only shown how these 4 journalists experience it, everyone else is just passing through. And these guys are brave. If that is really how they act, out there in war zones, my god.
I love movies that can make me feel something besides just entertainment. To enact an emotion from me that is not just pure awe at technological adeptness of the medium, but to show me with mesmerizingly neutral yet horrendous content is daring. I am so happy films like this are still being made.
Bizarre movie
I had no idea what its intentions were until about halfway in
Diverse cast
Tone felt off for me
I didn't entirely enjoy it. It was trying to be something else than what it was, which made it a weird experience
I know what it was trying to do, but it didn't get there for me
Movie 1 in my Ben Affleck binge-watch. One of his early roles, in a large ensemble cast of actors that would grow up to be stars. Besides Affleck we have Matthew McConaughey, Milla Jovovich, Anthony Rapp, Adam Goldberg, Cole Hauser of the names I recognize because I’ve seen their later work before. It’s a great cult film because it accurately portrays the 70s and high school life, with an excellent soundtrack to boot.
A haunting dive into the life of an artist ahead of her time, struggling with her own identity while love interferes with creativity. Ostracizing herself, she allows herself to believe the delusions in her head.
This movie cements just how great an actress Adjani is, she's phe-no-me-nal in this. The way she let's herself loose in the moment of emotions is breathtaking.
As I'm reading J. Hoberman's "An Army of Phantoms", it's quite fascinating to see persons that are subject in the book be beatured on the big screen. Albeit a bit fictionalized, it takes place before the events in the book. Back in the day, politics shaped movies way more than they do now. (Although there are examples of this happening to appease certain nations in the world.) Propaganda in movies to shape the public's mind is something only Herman J. Mankiewicz frowns upon in Mank.
It took me longer to watch because I had to keep consulting Google and IMDB for the period correct mentions of events and persons. I left the movie not only better informed about how Citizen Kane came to be written, the impression I now have of the people involved helps me to humanize them. They're no longer just names on a page for me. The magic of the movies.
One has to mention the thorough effort to establish the particular sense of nostalgia for the 80-year old setting. They way it is filmed brings forth the unmitigated sense that this is a passion project. David Fincher did not hold back turning this era-defining story into this skillful product, although I do feel sorry for the actors having to go through multiple takes to reach his defenition of perfection. (Stanley Kubrick-flashbacks anyone?).
However, that leaves us with a picture that has accomplished acting, remeniscant of old Hollywood that is neither glamorous nor dismissive. If you love movies, this is a perfect addition to your "Must Watch"-list.
Credited as directed by Cameron, most of the work done on this movie was by Assonitis. Cameron did however provide the work on the "special effects' and clearly rubber fish (whose designs would later return in a more well known franchise).
The movie has the flair of a small Italian man screaming "More fish!" at his crew. Plagued with tonal horrors and incredibly obnoxious side characters, this movie is an absolute delight in being as bad as it is. It's completely devoid of any vision or creativity and reeks of dictatorial leadership in making it. As a result, it creates a framework that barely holds on to its hinges.
This one is firmed deeply into the following category, for me: "Things that have changed my life."
Much better than the second one, can't tip the first one. James Wan's influence is still there in Whannell's go at it, his directing is way more stable and less... sweeping camera, open door way, wide-angle lensed, this is red so pay attention to it, directing... like Wan likes to do.
This movie keeps going. And going. Eternity in hell doesn't feel as long as this movie. The moments I hated the most: Maria Pitillo falling in love with Matthew Broderick on tv while the reporter mentions thousands dead (talk about wrongly timed Friends-moment), the very obvious Raptor-scene 'hommage' of Jurassic Park, Jean Reno's empty muppet moments, Kent Brockman in real life reporting, Michael Lerner's useless mayor, Doug Savant's bumbling sergeant, the Gorilla screeching over "Come With Me". It doesn't work. And yet, it is endlessly entertaining in just how bad it is.
An incredible visualization of what animation could achieve about 80 years ago. Even now, in 2020 it has an impressive air. I cannot imagine how difficult it had to have been to time hand drawn animation to composed music. It is important to remember this movie, as it helped shape the industry.
Tight and gripping. Dips 3/4th in. Very human and a great attempt at creating something very real. The atmosphere is very dense in the sense that there's only the sound of the engines on the background and the set is only lit by the interior lights and any kind of moonlight/city lights. It's bleak and serene and I found the attemps to keep it as simple as possible commendable. If it wasn't for Joseph Gordon-Levitt's excellent perfomance, it would not come in as strongly as it does. In my opinion, it's one of those little gems of cinema that try something else, succeed, but will never have a big audience. For me, it could have done with less chaotic camera movements, less cuts, longer takes to really drive home the situation.
There is something irresistebly effective in the combination of a heartwarming message with great oops-what-did-I-get-myself-into-humor. My favourite part was Nicole Kidman and Matt Lucas acting together.
One of the best movies of this decade that best catches the sense of the 80s and not the neon side of it, but that bleak, almost neo-noir feel of old Polaroids. Visually, it is gorgeous. The content pulls on your heart, the pre-adolescent love beats intensely and lingers wantingly while gruesome things happen in the background. And yet, it leaves a warm smile on your face.
It almost begs for a new scan, touch-ups and colour corrections. It does not go deep, but with a great cast (and legion of cameos), it features a fun travelogue kind of adventure filled with slapstick and awesome wide shots of locations.
The fact that it doesn't go anywhere and that the movie reaches the point it wants to make before even a third of it has passed doesn't mean it can't be a stylistic and well acted throw in the right direction. They just missed their mark.
Fuck you David. Fuck you.
Sometimes I wonder why certain things exist.
This is one of them.
Style Over Substance: The Movie
Someone paid money to have this made.
Screw it, we'll do it with cgi
Fun, Nicholas Cage being Nicholas Cage. William Fichtner is really good in this, David Morse deserves more screentime. First Billy Burke movie I'm watching, he's pleasant. Who is Amber Heard?
Passable. I was entertained. Last half hour = meh. Great suspense.
I feared rewatching this for the exact reasons I hated this.
The story makes no sense, I have no idea what mcguffin leads to the other mcguffin and I have no idea why they need it. Shia LaBoeuffs character does nothing to add to the story, remove him and you have the same movie minus one scene with swordfighting.
It's such a cool idea, but it's hobbled together like a rusty old car is held together with ductape. The cinematogrphy is awful, it did not inflict the nostalgia on me I had hoped for and expected. I'm sorry Steven, but what the hell?
Vera has been on the air for 10 years now and a lot has happened. It leaves it first couple of seasons far behind in this one, as is pretty evident in this episode. It's still good, it's just lost something essential. A bit of spunk, a bit of urgence that was underneath it and I feel was fueled mostly by Brenda Blethyn. Brenda will always be a delight to watch, but that fury to do what is right that was so enticing to the character has left her a little bit. It's still there, but it has just wittled away over the years. I'm not saying her performance was bad, I'm saying it has shifted tones. Either it's because Vera has been established enough or Brenda's years are finally starting to catch up with her, being that's she's well into her 70s now. She hasn't aged at all, she looks wonderful still. But her performance has undeniably shifted. I hope she isn't growing tired, because I absolutely love her and want her to do 10 more seasons.
The episode is absolutely cramped with plot development and you have to have a good memory to follow what is actually going on. I honestly always found it convoluting and I couldn't pay much attention. Now that I have, I can really appreciate the level of detail that goes into this mini-movie they're making. And that for 3-4 episodes each year! It's really impressing. It helps they have the police set, but a lot of it happens in what appear to be real houses and locations. There must be a lot of travelling around for this and I can't imagine the logistics of keeping track of what is happening. This is why I'm so into this series, it is produced and written so well.
On to the episode at hand. Spoilers ahead!
Luke, a 28-year old cleaner guy is found by some binmen behind a dumpster. He has a wound on his head, his ribs and possibly self-inflicted chemical burn wounds on his legs, caused by bleach. The wound on his head caused his death, happening 5 hours before it. His brain was slowly filling with blood and he was literally a dead man walking. The bruising on his ribs looks irregular and potentiall has a further clue to his murderer.
At first you suspect his bosses, a maried couple who own the cleaning company. They act like they're the most caring and helpful bosses, but his ex-girlfriend and colleague Nadiya and her roommate Daisy confess to Vera and Aiden about the terrible working conditions they have to go through. Assault with bleach, unfair payment, exploitation, blackmail, terrible housing situation,... you name it, it's there. In the end the husband is arrested for assault, but has nothing to do with the murder of Luke.
Luke's father, Seth, was murdered when he was younger by a Terrence Kayle. His brother Raymond is the next big suspect. Terrence called the murder self-defense, but no one else seems to have backed this up. We learn in fact that Seth was an abusive husband and father, hitting his wife and son over many years. He was very aggressive and must have attacked Terrence immediately when he found out he was robbing his house. Luke seemed to have known this, as he had confessed this to Raymond, but he didn't want to accept it. That's why he hit Luke in the ribs (the strange bruising was from his rings), but the head wound does not seem to be made by Raymond, so he is also cast aside as a suspect.
Lastly there's Jasmine Asher, the last in the list of main suspects. When they were younger, Luke and Jasmine were a thing. But after the suicide of his neighbor Thea, who they hung out with, he broke up with her and left the town they lived in. Through the course of the episode Jasmine keeps denying things and lying about what happened in the passed. Arguing that Thea was depressed and a huge cannabis user, pushing her towards jumping of the edge of the crag. In fact, the three of them had used one joint and Jasmine had dared Thea to stand on the edge. She fell in. For years she has kept this silent, until Thea's sister, Georgia finally confronts Jasmine and her mother with this story. Luke had come to visit Jason, Thea's father, the night of his death to explain everything to him, because he felt so guilty about the whole thing. He was blackmailed by Jasmine the entire time. Instead of talking to Jason, Luke talked to Georgia, explaining everything to her instead. She grew angry and confused, starting to hit Luke overcome by emotion causing him to fall and hit his head. That caused a heamatoma in his head. Without realising it, or ever linking it together, Georgia has killed Luke.
This was an interesting conclusion to the story, mostly because the killer never realised that she killed someone, only at the very end. I think Georgia would have gone straight to the police if Luke had been instantly killed after hitting his head. She did not calculate his murder. But it's still murder.
My only comments would be is that the eventual murderer was not prominently featured in this and I kinda wanted it to go more into the subplot of the cleaning company. I could have gone without the Raymond subplot, instead filled it in with exposition of how the murder happend. I miss that, the little cinematic at the end of how it happened. It gives the actor playing the dead body for the most part of the episode something fun to do and we can better fit in the conclusion into the entire plot. That said, I do appreciate how the mystery branches off into dead ends, like a real police investigation. They cirlce around until they pinpoint the story that has the most potential to render a result.
Vera still has me, and I'll follow her adventures for as long as Brenda wants to do the role. I love you, please keep doind what you love as well!
February 16, 2020
Diary Entry #1
Jojo Rabbit (2019)
I’ve been a bit on a Taika Waititi binge lately, watching movies of him I had not seen before. I’ve seen What We Do in the Shadows (2014) and Thor: Ragnarok (2017) before, but I’ve yet to see his particularly well balanced style in yet another movie. So I went through his oeuvre and found another couple of gems in Boy (2010) and Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016). His excellent use of character combined with a fun way to use a camera (he likes to rotate it in place so you experience the entire room and actions in it in one take, it’s quite lovely) drew me to really look forward to this experience.
I just came out of It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) when I put this on and of course, the movie experience is quite different. I don’t know how Waititi manages it, but he draws us into the Nazi world without ridiculing them too much but also not vindicate any kind of their actions. He shows and tells us that Jojo does live in a cruel world, despite the slapstick like qualities his surroundings form around him.
Taika is very good at building relationships between people that meet each other for the first time. It’s a recurring theme in all of his movies. Two characters that meet up and are forced in some way to spend time together and get to know each other through dialogue and sharing of philosophies. His Andersonesque way of story through exposition makes me happy every time. Sometimes you don’t need words to tell what is going on. A well shaped image guides your mind towards the conclusion he wants you to draw from the scene. I admire that a lot in a filmmaker.
He doesn’t ask a lot of his audience, he’s not as symbolic as Anderson can be. But Taika knows how to be precise and concise at the same time. At this point, his style has become quite streamlined and he can fit pretty much anything he wants into the format he has become comfortable with. That’s why watching Jojo Rabbit feels like coming home to me. You know what to expect camera and dialogue wise, throw in a little bit of Waititi awkwardness, sprinkle in a setting that is compelling and homely at the same time and voila. You have a Taika Waititi movie.
Now, it’s definitely not his best. What We Do in the Shadows (2014) reserves that right. But it was of the same level as Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016). It’s bright, it’s funny without ridiculing itself. The story, you know, it’s a play on the Romeo & Juliet situation. It’s how it’s told and shown which is important. With the help of brilliant child actor Roman Griffin Davis as Jojo, this story just glitters off your screen.
Scarlett Johansson deserved that Oscar nod, Sam Rockwell was delightfully apathetic at first but vindicates himself later on. Rebel Wilson was there too and her bluntness got a good laugh or two out of me. The only thing that bothered me is that their accents jumped all over the place and all I could hear from Rockwell was Waititi’s New Zealand accent.
I think Waitit blends humor and emotion again in a perfect way, the story feels satisfying, has humor and sadness, regret and delight. If you’re a fan of his work, you’ll love this. If you’re not into him, you’ll question things a bit more than I did.
Thanks for reading, have a wonderful day!
Well, I liked this one way better than Love Actually, that's for sure.
I know what this thing wants to be, it's very clearly aimed at children. It feels like a children's book brought to life and it is definitely filmed like it too. If done well, something like that can be charming and heartwarming, but this movie is neither of those things.
A lot of scenes feel like excuses to have Will Ferrel do what Will Ferrel does best, play a big child. Now, this fits his character well enough, but I got to wonder that during 30 years living at the North Pole, Santa or his wife didn't educate him thoroughly about how the world works outside of their magical Christmas land. Especially when Buddy decides to leave the safety of his home and venture somewhere he is very unfamiliar with. He doesn't know social cues, customs or how anything really works. The least he could do is give him some safety tips but he leaves it with some funny quips about peep shows and gum on the street being not for eating. (I gagged when he actually put some in his mouth from a filthy looking iron bar).
Buddy's supposed innocence gets really tiresome halfway through the movie. I mean, after a couple of days, wouldn't he realize that he needs to adapt to be able to be accepted in this world? Even after being beat up by a wonderfully great Peter Dinklage, he remains positive. He doesn't even wonder /why/ he was beat up or ask what he did was wrong. Instead he just accepts the beating and makes a quip about Peter Dinklage (he calls him an elf because he's small, har har) being a South Pole elf. Even if he grew up as an elf, he still has human emotions. I mean, even the elfs at the North Pole are mean to him, as he overhears a conversation that he's pretty useless in the shop. Words hurt more than physical violence, huh? In any case, watching Peter Dinklage kick Will Ferrel's ass was very satisfying.
The movie features a lot of movie tropes that are forgiveable, because it's aimed at movies and the rest of the actors are charming enough that it elevates the movie for me. It's not bad, but it's not good either.
Robert Egbert looks like he doesn't know what the hell is going on half of the time and the lines do not feel right to him at all. Zoey Deschanel is very charming, but doesn't add a lot more to the story besides being a love interest. James Caan pulls an incredible amount of patience from... somewhere. He must love his wife very much (a forgettable Mary Steenbruggen) because it's her that convinces him to let Buddy into his life. A selfless choice from her that's only there to have Buddy move in with the family and cause mayhem.
Not everything in this movie is annoying, I was pretty charmed with it. I loved the scene in the shop where he spends the entire night decorating the place. It shows that his background as living as an Elf is good for something in the real world, and feels like it's something that he can contribute to society over there. Despite that, there's not a lot going on that makes him a valuable character to society. That's not something he actively persues, not even if he wants to impress his dad. But at the end he ends up being a writer for a children's book that gets popular? There's not a single mention about him being interested in that anywhere. His father just took the story of his arrival and adventures in NYC and cashed it. Well done Dad.
Conclusion:
I didn't hate this, but I didn't love it either. It's a good attempt at making a child-friendly Christmas story, but the charm is partially ruined by Will Ferrel's man-child acting.
