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.
Style Over Substance: The Movie
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?
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!
That was a disappointingly brief appearance of David Arquette
Finally! A good episode! Gosh, I enjoyed this one, the previous one established how dangerous he could be. This one takes you back to the story of the first two episodes and makes some progress with it. Honestly, for what, 8 episodes? I thought they could have fleshed out the main story a bit more, this feels very episodic. Oh wait...
While the ending left me a bit baffled by how far the character was going to push himself in his own rising convictions, the path towards it is one of pure character developing joy.
Ethan Hawke bites himself deep into this role, letting the Reverend take over. His performance is superlative subtlety as he fights against the convictions he has built up for himself over the years. Current events that he has no control over but has to tackle as his duty as pastor catapult him into a mindset he is not ready to dive into yet. His silent struggle is real, a part he does not easily show towards any kind of public. That forlorn nature of the character is actually what pulls you through the movie, the narrow frame helping to make him feel even more locked up. Not only by his function, but by his hard mindset.
A bit of the genius of Taxi Driver trickles through the dialogue in here, I have to commend Paul Schrader for giving us yet another movie that folds a difficult setting and current problems into a sandwich of genius that I enjoyed thoroughly.
I could have done with maybe 20 minutes less of footage and an ending that was a bit differently scripted, but that is personal taste and for that, there is no remedy.
Of course, I couldn’t not see The Dark Knight after watching Joker and Batman Begins. It’s better, oh so much better. Unlike Batman Begins, its villain has center stage. And 11 years (!) after the fact, Heath Ledger’s Joker knocks it out of the park. I cannot compare it to Phoenix’ in Joker. Neither one is better than the other. The both put whatever they have in the character and are very entertaining in their own regards.
Nolan cranked it up a notch in this one. It’s aged way better than Batman Begins and I’m curious now how The Dark Knight Rises will hold up too. I miss Ledger, but for this role to be his final act of acting (sorry...) on this world... I can’t be mad about that. Just not the way that he went. But if he hadn’t, I don’t think we would have had this performance to enjoy. I just wish he was still here to dazzle us with his talent.
Ah yes! Michael Mann’s master piece from the 90s. I’ve referenced it here before, it just happened to be on the list to watch this week. The Old Man and the Gun did not make me want to watch this movie, just for reference.
I’ve watched this movie before, a couple of years ago, when I was going through a list I compiled of the 500 greatest movies. I think I got about halfway, and there were some movies that I didn’t pay attention to. This was one of them.
Boy, was I wrong to. There’s a lot going on, and I imagine my younger self did not have the patience to sit through 2.5 hours with his full attention. I admit, I caught myself on my phone a couple of times too during this rewatch (I’m working on it). Watching Pacino and De Niro act together is an absolute joy, I’m so glad I’m experiencing this is a new, more grown-up light. Their acting is so good that the rivalry between the two characters kind of takes the main stage over the plot. Not that I think that’s a bad thing, because both are very pleasurable to witness.
I know it’s a good movie and I’ve rated it as such, and yet it was my least favourite movie to watch this week. It’s not entirely for me, I believe. But that’s ok, if everyone liked and loved the same things, it would be a boring world.
Ah yes! Michael Mann’s master piece from the 90s. I’ve referenced it here before, it just happened to be on the list to watch this week. The Old Man and the Gun did not make me want to watch this movie, just for reference.
I’ve watched this movie before, a couple of years ago, when I was going through a list I compiled of the 500 greatest movies. I think I got about halfway, and there were some movies that I didn’t pay attention to. This was one of them.
Boy, was I wrong to. There’s a lot going on, and I imagine my younger self did not have the patience to sit through 2.5 hours with his full attention. I admit, I caught myself on my phone a couple of times too during this rewatch (I’m working on it). Watching Pacino and De Niro act together is an absolute joy, I’m so glad I’m experiencing this is a new, more grown-up light. Their acting is so good that the rivalry between the two characters kind of takes the main stage over the plot. Not that I think that’s a bad thing, because both are very pleasurable to witness.
I know it’s a good movie and I’ve rated it as such, and yet it was my least favourite movie to watch this week. It’s not entirely for me, I believe. But that’s ok, if everyone liked and loved the same things, it would be a boring world.
This week starts off with what could well be Robert Redford’s last leading role credit. The man is in his 80s, and yet he does not relent in putting down the role of Forest Tucker. To feel alive, this man keeps doing what he’s good at and loves doing. Which is robbing banks. But it’s not a heist that you’re used to. Instead of impressing and intimidating, Tucker remains discreet, polite and above all, a gentleman. It doesn’t take much to feel sympathetic to the man, even if he’s committing crimes. The movie doesn’t portray him as a criminal, instead he feels like an older Georgey Clooney heist genius. Just with less bravado. A couple of times, Sissy Spacek turns up as a charming love interest. I also can’t help unsee the dewey eyed Casey Affleck from Manchester by the Sea and for me personally feels a bit lost in the role of a police detective, assigned to find Forest. It’s trying to push the Pacino – de Niro friendly rivalry from Heat too much and it’s not really working too well.
Tom Waits and Danny Glover feel severely undercast for the roles as Tucker’s aids. I think the film could have prospered with at least 20 minutes more time to flesh out the bonds the three have together, after having worked alongside each other for so many years. It’s just a bit of bickering about their situation and that’s it. Then again, sitting at 93 minutes, it’s not like it’s a huge waste of your time. If you like Redford and you like crime movies where the protagonist is lawful evil, this is definitely your jam.
This is, by far, the weirdest kind of bad movie I've ever seen. It's so bad it's good, kind of thing. So it deserves a low score, but you know why you want to watch this, if you're into this kind of thing at all. They speak in this weird, forced, official language that is really hard to follow. Half of the time, you have no idea what's actually going on. The solution to a problem is literally super handy and within easy reach, building no tension. Everyone is convinceable. The bad guy is a stereotype pur sang. The actors seem to have no idea what direction they want to go on and their well-tried efforts did not come out well from the editing room. It's so ridiculously edited, at one point they try to portrey 4 global disasters going one, while also telling a story down on Earth and one on the space ship. Which ends up with this... off-balanced act of fitting all the pieces together, it becomes surreal in the process. Must watch if you want to have a laugh at a good effort to make a decent movie, but lacks heavily in the the dialogue and editing.
I like foreign movies that take place in a small village, it gives a good view of how life must be like there. Combine that with some strong acting and writing, you get a family crime drama that pulls the story from the deep drama a big family can contain within the confines of such a small space. It's a good flick if you're into intrigue, mystery and eye-to-eye calling each other out on all the shit. A bit misguided with camera work, imo, but a well-brought movie that'll keep you guessing until the reveal.
Strong players and an excellent wardrobe do not prevent this clutter of plotlines and characters to be an entertaining watch. It jumps from point to point without a clear line of where it wants to go exactly and spends time delving into situations that would have been better suited to flesh out the actual rivalry between Mary and Elizabeth.
At the end, you're scratching your head wondering what exactly happened and what part each and every character actually played in the eventual downfal of the Queen of Scots. A pity, since the story must have been part to the concept of ASOIAF, yet it is sadly mistreated in this incarnation.
Raises nostalgia, wonderfully animated part, made me smile and laugh. Horribly cut around including an actor for 2 minutes. Didn't like the deus ex Mary Poppins. It doesn't fit her. Besides that, a wonderful movie for children to look at with wonder, just like I did with the original.
Despite being a fan of Reitman's work (Up in the Air, Thank You for Smoking), this one didn't land home for me. I know why he wanted to make this movie, the link to the current president (Trump at this moment of writing in 2019) and what character he is as a leader. The one thing they have in common is that they may, or may not, have commited adultery and if that should be taken into account whether or not they are fit to command the oval office. The media prevented Hart from achieving this, but 30 years later Trump managed anyway, despite being a more nefarious character than Hart. It is a clear vision that in only a couple of decades, things can change dramatically.
I've established that I know what he wanted to do. But it did not land. It has a very strong performance by Jackman and Farmiga is passable. It just focusses and zooms in on the wrong things. The story feels like an uphill climb, but the sights up there are not worth the trouble of the journey. I don't feel like I got to know the man Gary Hart, or his family. I didn't feel how big the impact actually was on his campaign and family, the movie only showed it to me.
The only reason it got 6 points is of Jackman's performance, the line it tries to draw with current events and the fact that it was made with technology that was only available in the eighties. Besides that? Meh.
Despite some stunning (and sometimes not so stunning) visuals, this movie never lifts me up to really be enthralled into the setting and story. I think it has an amazing setting, but I miss it being drenched in lore. It could have used a dash of mystery, wonder and soul.
Dudley Moore is great and his physical comedy entertains, but something's missing that lifts this movie from its starting blocks into greatness
The best James Bond while Roger Moore donned the role. Jaws is probably one of the creepiest villains out there. The quips are on point and there are some really cool shots, especially with the Lotus and the helicopter in Sardinia.
Not many movies are saved by the story until about the middle. Just yikes. Bay's directing style gives me headaches.
Cursed with bad luck which just adds to the haunting and hallucinating atmosphere it leaves you with a tangeable feeling of what this war was actually like for the human being.
Awesome special effects barely save this movie from it's dull and dialogue-heavy pace.
You never stop rooting for Rocky.
If it wasn't for Will Smith's strong performance and the excellent dog trainers, this movie would fall through in all regards. The effects are laughable for its time and its budget. This could have been better.
Not the sharpest movie in Carpenter's portfolio, but also not the worst. Of all, this is the most sinister and creepy. Acting was so-so, mood was decent, effects were splendid for its time.
I'm not too familiar with Woody Allen movies, so this was a first timer for me. I can understand that, in the 70's this was a very good romantic comedy taking the public by surprise and I can see that in the movie. Both characters, of Alvy and Annie, have a very likability to them in that time period. I could relate with both of them and recognized the problems/feelings they had.
But for me the comedy didn't work, I was touched though by how two such very different people managed to get together and have a splendid time together. They weren't shallow and that's why this is such a good movie. For me this was a very splendid romance story between two unusual people with some humor elements in them. I wasn't roaring with laughter, but I did smile throughout the movie.
