EDIT: There has never been a movie like this that I didn't like but I really wanted to read and talk more about with other people. I guess Darren Aronofsky at least got people talking about his movie, even if people didn't like it.
What a weird movie. I really thought the sound design was great. Really creepy and creates great tension.
So Jenifer Lawerence is Mother Earth and Javier Bardem is God? Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer are Adam and Eve and the heart crystal is the apple of eden? I don't know much about the bible but that is what I got. I guess the message Daron Aronofsky is trying to say is we treat the Earth like shit. It is going to kill us all but its bound to repeat again? I don't know, it is a weird movie.
EDIT2: So after seeing this after a long time of not thinking about it I realized that Darren Aronofsky really hates humans. The bat shit crazy third act can not make up for the boring first two acts. And knowing that this is just the bible made it even worse. I don't hate this movie but I'm definitely not a fan.
Honestly not sure what I was getting into starting this movie. Obviously I am one of the many that are drawn to this because of its stacked cast haha. This movie has a lot of ground to cover; not only is it based off of a book (which is already a challenge in general), it also spans the course of 20 years with like, six separate arcs. It's not surprising that some characters seem a bit shallow compared to others just because of the need to cram as much as possible into a two hour movie. While it's disappointing not being able to dive deep into these characters, the actors do a stellar job at giving us a glimpse. I think every casting choice was perfect, to be honest. Tom Holland leaves behind the dorky cuteness of Spider-Man to fully shine as a twisted protagonist caught in a pressuring, depressing environment. Robert Pattinson blew me away. What the HECK was that accent. I loved it. LMAO.
What really gets me with the film isn't just its overall depressing themes— it's how all those themes tie back to God and religion. Be warned this tackles tough stuff head on: extreme violence, murder, sexual assault/rape, animal abuse, & suicide are all in there. It's frustrating seeing all these characters justify their hypocritical actions with religious intent. It's depressing seeing the more good-hearted characters be gaslit with twisted religious reason. Please do not get me started on Pattinson's character arc, HA. What's worse is that all of these messages that are spread under the guise of the grace of God/God's will/what the Bible says, is that it's not really dramatized. This crap is coursing through Christianity to this day. I was constantly extremely uncomfortable throughout the movie. I started to go down a spiral of just wanting Tom Holland to kill everyone and get it over with, similar to the descent into madness you feel in the Joker as you either cheer Joaquin Phoenix on or wince as he laughs and cries. Either way, this film is definitely a think piece. Does it toe the line of just being trauma porn? Yeah. I think it depends on who you are as a person and how you view it as to whether or not it crosses that line. Catch your pastor preaching about this movie next week lol.
But uhh....BACK TO GENERAL STUFF. The score is absolutely phenomenal. I adored the music. The cinematography is subtle and gorgeous, and the set and costume design seamlessly build this small town world where everyone is related to everyone...ah, gotta love white people. While it is a slower film, I didn't find it to be boring. The suspense and tension built little by little serves for some great showdowns and climaxes between characters. It's a good watch for the cast and if you're into much darker pieces, but it's definitely not for everyone.
I don't think I have ever been in love with a movie, like I'm in love with La La Land. From the first few seconds, till the very end. This movie had me and didn't let go. My english vocabulary is not good enough to express my love, heck, my dutch vocabulary is not good enough to express it. This movie is everything.
It is beautiful, happy, magical, romantic and I could go on for a little while longer but I won't. I wasn't expecting it to be this musical-y, but I mean, I love musicals so I'm not complaining. I think this is a great "musical" because there isn't non stop singing, so people who don't like musicals might like this one because it's more "subtle". I can only imagine how much practice went into all those dance routines and don't get me started on the impressive piano skills Ryan Gosling showed us.
Something that really impressed me as well was the way they filmed everything. It's a very creative and different way, which I really enjoyed and think makes this movie a great inspiration for those who love film and camerawork themselves. The build up and flashbacks and stuff were really cool as well. Yea I really enjoyed that. Also, the storyline, which does so much for a movie, was so great.
This is normally the part were I talk about the actors, but seeing that there were mainly only two actors and they were both amazing (I do think tho, that Ryan Gosling his character wasn't a very challenging one for him because we have seen him in roles like these before. Mixing it up with all the dancing, singing en piano playing though, you got something quite different and I loved it), I'm going to skip this part and say that you should watch this movie, do nothing more, just watch it, enjoyed it and love it.
I expected to get some questions answered and I got almost none of them answered. To say a few:
-Why did Thomas do what he did and more importantly what did he do? This was not elaborated on at all other than the few vague lines and scenes we got on the 1st movie
-Why/How did Thomas and Theresa end up in the maze?
-Was WCKD good or bad? (Maybe this was let up to the viewer)
-What was the whole point of attacking the city other than cool explosions and action shots? This didn’t seem to be a major plot point especially with Thomas being there, Also, who was Lawrence? and why purpose did he serve other than none?
-How did no one at WCKD know about Thomas’s “special immunity”? You’d think they’d test their employees before hiring them given the circumstances.
-Why did it seem like not everyone was on the same page about the cure? That was the purpose of WCKD right?
-Why did Theresa even “betray” them in the first place? I get she just wanted to find a cure but what?
I feel like it had potential but it just devolved into mostly mindless action scenes and facepalm moments ( Like Theresa’s death I mean COME ON ) that just watered down the conclusion of a story that had so much potential and had me so interested in the beginning although I will admit Gally's return did surprise me. Nevertheless we never got the Thomas/Ava moment I was hoping for which, in turn, could have also lead to some of explanations to the above questions. Some of the side characters are just there to tug hearts ( RIP Newt ) or to just be there so you have some known faces to look at. All in all not a terrible conclusion to the saga but also not a great one… Just a cliché fest which comes expected with this sort of source material so no mayor points docked there for my taste. Kudos for the VFX, Some of the score and the Direction.
1>3>2
P.S The bus crane scene has been added to my not-even-a-tiny-bit-belivable scenes list cause I don’t care how much movies play around with stuff like physics but they gotta at least try for me. I’m sorry, all of those kids would have died.
I've had an amazing experience watching the movie premiere in Venice, I've been waiting for this movie for a long time and I was not disappointed in the slightest.
It's a gorgeous movie, it's disturbing but moving at the same time, violent at times, but also subtle. It's a different and fresh spin on the character and on the cinecomic genre as a whole and Phoenix delivers an amazing performance portraying a version of the Joker we've never seen before, he's not the villain of someone else's story, he is the hero and villain of HIS own story, and the audience can be orrified by him, but we can't help but feel for him at times.
Without giving anything away I would recommend to go and see the movie not expecting to go and see an action packed, but gritty cinecomic, I suggest going in and watch it pretending that it's not even about a famous comic villain, but simply a movie, I think that people will appreciate it more in that way, not comparing it to the cinecomics we've seen before, but thinking of it as a normal movie.
P.S.: People will of course compare Phoenix to Ledger, I don't think it's possible, they give a totally different percormance because they portray totally different versions of the character, and I think it's going to be hard to compare them, you either prefere Ledger's version or Phoenix's but only based on the character, the actor's performances cannot be judged by comparison, they're both great. Just enjoy the movie
I've seen this movie 3 times now and have a ticket purchased for Wednesday night again in the Dome. I LOVE IT. Favorite movie of the year and well on it's way to one of my faves of all time. The music wonderful, the cinematography is gorgeous, the script is hilarious and everything just keeps moving. I love every single scene. I think it has the chance to be the fourth movie ever to win Best Picture, Director, Screenplay, Actress and Actor. Man, is this amazing!!!! See immediately then buy the soundtrack!!!!
UPDATE: Saw it for the 6th time yesterday at the Chinese Theater in IMAX. I. Still. Love. This. Movie. !!!!!!
UPDATE: Took my fam to see it the other night for #7. Still great!
UPDATE: Saw this last night at the Hollywood Bowl, making it my 8th time on the big screen. And I gotta say, my friend and I had an epic epic nightmare of a battle making it to the show and we were 20 minutes into movie when we got there but this movie is so special and spectacular it got us out of our funk instantly. Love it! Then I went home and watched it on blu-ray to hear the commentary man oh man I love this movie. Okay done with updates now that it's on home vid.
Queens exploiting the third world like American bosses the movie.
Apparently, Queenpins is based on a real life situation. Googled what happened to the real life people and only the fact that two (actually three) bored and lazy suburban American housewives wanted to get rich exploiting people in other countries (the American dream) is based on the real life story, basically everything else is almost entirely fictional. As often happens with comedies inspired by real life, his film forgoes historical accuracy for some cheap shit jokes instead of anything clever.
The script went all out on presenting two criminals as 'poor me' Robin Hood types. Am I supposed to be rooting for these women? Because most of the things they do throughout this film are awful. There was a buddy cop element to the investigation, it did not deliver any funny moments. I don't find potty humor funny. This part felt like it was written by Judd Apatow or Seth Rogen.
Queenpins falls somewhere between not taking itself too seriously (it's not a dramatic recreation of actual events) and not being funny (someone needs to explain to Paramount what the word 'comedy' means). As a result, the movie ends up neither as funny nor as incisive. Instead, it’s a bland and generic mess.
The moral of the story is utter crap and I'm unsure which demographic this is aimed at, as the focus is so bad. The worst part is the last 5 minutes, presented as some female empowerment moment. Made me think this movie is made only for US “Progressives”. They are imperialists, they just want to invade for different reasons than that of neocons, who at least make their imperialist ambitions naked and clear to see. The 'woke' American liberal imperialists dress it up in a progressive veneer and mislead people. Go to poor countries to basically exploit their low costs of living, American ladies!! Go feminism. Be like your Queens - Rihanna is using child labor in India
or like Beyoncé using sweatshops in Sri Lanka, while preaching female empowerment. USA! USA!
Cool concept but terrible, terrible writing.
None of the characters behaves in a believable way, it all feels staged (you know those lines that just happen in movies but just don't feel right in real life? Like "there's no time to explain, just follow me" or "we've got company"), even at the beginning at the resort, before the supernatural part kicks in, like a series of scenes almost unrelated one to the other and patched together, each with the precise purpose to stimulate a feeling in the audience or to get the plot ahead. Characters falling as flies like in predictable horror movies.
Some unexplicable sloppy screenplay moments:
The ending was the best and more naturally progressing part of the movie
Not as bad as I thought it was gonna. Still full of clichés though but that's to be expected(obviously it had to include the whole innocent girl and bad guy trope). The main thing that gave me the impression that it was gonna be really bad was based on the things I've heard about the book but a lot of the really bad stuff that happened in the book was left out of the movie which is good. In the book he kept the used condom(!!) and a sheet with Tessa's vagina blood on it to prove to his friends that they had sex....so the movie could have been worse, there's also a bunch of manipulative and abusive shit in there and some dubious consent but thankfully that's not really in the movie.
Every single character in this movie annoyed me(mainly in the first half) except Selma Blair. Bless.
Hardins backstory was severely underdeveloped.
Tessa is deadass out here being a dumbass. If a man that you barely know asks you to go into the woods with him, YOU SAY NO!This is common sense y'all.(I know that's not technically what he said but like if a stranger asks you to come with him somewhere and he drives into the middle of the fucking woods...bitch, that is when you run.
Also, towards the end when the teacher gives Tessa the assignment Hardin turned in for that class...you're definitely not allowed to give someone another student's work, wtf.
Not to mention at the very end where Hardin basically compares them to Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy....I have to laugh.
One more thing,this is not important in the slightest but I can't be the only one that thougth Noah was Tessa's brother in the beginning.
The acting is subpar at best but the script didn't give them much to work with so I'll let that slide.
It is pretty much exactly what you would expect from a movie that was based on a Wattpad "book"(I use the term "book" loosely).
Inessential, Muddled, Forgettable
Cutputli unabashedly ruins a classic thriller with a disastrous remake. With only one job at hand, to just follow the script of the original, but the makers decide to destroy it altogether. When a 170min film is compressed into a 130min film, the makers decide to chop off important twists and mess with the effective storytelling, still having enough time to add a non sensical romantic song in the middle of an investigative crime mystery.
Pooja Entertainment's Vashu Bhagnani and Jacky Bhagnani . What were you guys thinking ? Why did you mess this one? Of course , they knew this hence an OTT release. Akshay's is good but as a senior actor it's high time he should acknowledge creative differences and skip such terribly written content. Finishing each project in 30 days and cashing in all the money isn't making you a better actor. Rakul Preet is in the film just as she is the girlfriend of the producer man.
Overall, I would urge people to watch the original and skip this pathetic remake. Watch it only if you want to see a brilliant script get messed up, bundled with terrible performances and a saathiya song , where actors wearing gucci clothes and dancing weirdly in a crime mystery thriller. An obnoxious film, man seriously.
Check my page
www.instagram.com/stream.genx
This is definitely a unique movie...
This movie manages to combine many important topics and concepts:
- The absurdities that some part of our digital society has come up with
- The difficulty of conveying an important moral message during our times
- The problems that come up when trying to dealing with this situation in a disorganized way
- The uneasiness felt by people that have to deal with their fears and believes while pressed by society and people around them
- The undealt mental health problems of a chaotic but strong protagonist that might be driven by something hidden and not showned
- The difficulties of trying to stay true to our original self when having to deal with a very steep and fast climb into fame
This movie didn't wanted to be a documentary so we should not judge it based on how well it conveys an important message. This movie has an original story; it has a strong protagonist interpreted by a very good actor; it has nice transitions and original VFXs; it touches and puts a light (even if in a disorganized way) on important moral dilemmas of our current society.
I will rewatch this movie in the future probably, I would have hope for this movie to have been more in touch with the public so that the message could have been sent better, however as it is a form of art I respect the director decisions.
What a very long winded way of saying "sometimes people aren't the idyllic norms that society has deemed of certain roles".
I think the problem with something like this is that once the message has been telegraphed, there's not much to build on from that. Yes, Leda does not revel in the wonders of motherhood, and even hates certain aspects of it, but what does that say about her as a person? The movie seems daring enough to ask the question, but not follow through with any kind of character building or resolution for this societally controversial stance.
There are some nice turns of metaphor, mainly the fruit and the doll being "nice" on the outside but rotten to the core, which plays right into how Leda sees herself, and how the family on the beach have something sinister under the "perfect" exterior. These metaphors aren't enough to elevate the absolute slog that his movie becomes after the first hour.
Colman and Buckley really carry this movie, but the performances are hindered by the very limited scope of the script and screenplay. I also found some of the camera work, editing and scene compositions a little basic and clumsy, especially considering they had the beauty of the Greek coast to work with.
Watching this straight after Red Rocket, which shows you can portray off-piste characters with a level of empathy and truth, really was the worst case scenario for The Lost Daughter. I feel it has so much to say, but is too scared to say it and follow through with the consequence. Then again, I am a single male in the dying days of his 20's, so maybe I just didn't get the nuance on show here because I can never experience what these people are going through.
Poor showing, I'd probably only recommend this if you must watch all the movies up for award contention this year.
[7.4/10] There is a certain Pixar magic. Towards the end of the film, once the crazy adventures are mostly adventured, and the major antagonist has been subdued, those manipulative show-offs reach out and tug on your heartstrings like a hungover twenty-something pulling down the shades. I am, however cold and cynical my heart may be, no where near immune to their charms.
So when Miguel sings his great great grandfather’s song to the person it was written for, and she wakes from her forgetful stupor to sing along, and brings out both the letters that tell his story to the world and the torn photo that’ll save his life (er, afterlife), it hit me hook line and sinker. Coco earns that moment. It earns that sentiment. And the afterglow of a family reunited, of feuds resolved and wounds mended, of music being a bridge to remembering one's ancestors rather than a wall between them, it’s easy to get swept up in that emotional swell and call the whole thing great.
But Coco wanders and stumbles to get to that point. It doesn't make that ending any less boffo, any less emotionally piercing, and yet it doesn't wipe away the standard wild and wacky adventure and trite theme the film uses to build to that point. If it leads to that extraordinary finish, it can’t be all bad, but it can’t help but leave you wondering why the rest of the movie can’t match that standard. It’s a pretty good movie with a pretty great ending.
Still, pretty good is pretty good! The film tells the story of a young boy named Miguel who loves music, to the chagrin of his tune-hating, shoe-making family. After a Footloose-esque tiff, he crosses over to the land of the dead during Dia de los Muertos, and after meeting his bony ancestors there, has to figure out how to resolve his musical passion and the importance of family.
That’s a hell of a presence! The best thing about Coco is its world. Very quickly, the film establishes what its rules are: when the ancestors can cross over into the world of the living, why you can stay in the afterlife vs. facing “the last death”, how the family blessing rules work to send Miguel back to the real world. All of these little strictures and regulations make for an interesting set of obstacles for our hero to have to leap over, and to build a story about family and memory around.
More than those magical laws, the land of the dead is just a cool little ecosystem. However predictable the story beats might be, you can always count on Pixar to wow you in the visuals department, and Coco doesn't skimp on that front. The glowing, multicolored world that the dead occupy is a feast for the eyes, with distinctive shapes, movements, and style. From the skeletal residents to the mural-skinned spirit animals to the bridge between worlds, it’s a joy to spend time in the afterlife.
The catch is that the story set there is no great shakes. The film hammers home the point that Miguel wants to be a great musician and that his family doesn't approve of it over and over and over again. There’s a lot to be said for having a main character with a clear, driving motivation, but Coco underscores the conflict so often that eventually it becomes rote. Everything hinges on that one drive, which makes for a good Aesop’s fable about the importance of making room for other things, but not necessarily a great overall story.
There’s also a fairly predictable reveal at the center of the narrative where, as in Up, the young boy’s idol turns out to be a selfish jerk who turns murderous and inadvertently teaches the protagonist to appreciate his familial connections over his grandiose aims. Once you figure out that Hector must be Miguel’s long lost great grandson, not De La Cruz, the movie’s vagary and convenience whenever anyone’s discussing the topic starts to feel corny and contrived. There’s a laudable lesson of learning that your heroes are flawed and there’s more to life than your individual passion at the core, but turning that whole thing into a secret murder story weakens the lesson, and puts a standard good guy/bad guy dynamic at the forefront rather than the maturation of Miguel or Hector.
Still, this is Pixar, so the script is fundamentally sound. Even if the twists seem overly telegraphed and the relationships destined to be mended, every setup has a payoff and vice versa. We learn of Miguel’s love for the linchpin song of the film, “Remember Me” in the film’s early going. We learn a little more than halfway through that, in actuality, Hector wrote it for his daughter. And in the end, we see Miguel playing the song to his abuelita Coco to remind her of her father, in the film’s best and most affecting scene. Whether it succeeds on every score, the entire movie is built like that, with minor details and important precursors established in time for them to come back in a big way down the line.
Along the way, there’s also the trademark Pixar whimsy that makes the proceedings more enjoyable even where the narrative becomes a bit trying. Dante the dog is an animator’s delight, all floppiness and spunk, and his reveal as a secret spirit animal is a delight. “Cameos” from Frida Kahlo and Santo help the world feel populated (and even come back in a relevant way in the film’s climax). And the whole picture taps into Mexican culture in a fashion that makes the entire story richer and more distinctive.
There’s just a moment when the credits have rolled, and the afterglow of family reunions and memory-restoring songs wears off, that you remember the clunky (bony?) path the film took to get there. Themes like the need to balance your passions with your family, and the importance of honoring the memories of those who came before are strong, but also come off a bit trite in delivery. The bulk of Coco’s melody is filled with repetitive licks and the odd, fumbling pluck, which makes it harder to bob your head along from beginning to end, but it does hit one hell of a final note.
After seeing several people on SM recommend that it be seen in Spanish if possible, I waited until I could find a theater nearby that was showing it. I am estatic that I saw it in Spanish. It was an amazing treat to see it in the language that the characters would have spoken. The spanish language voice actors are all Mexican, giving the film it's final seal of authenticity that the english language is missing (though this is not a negative critique of the english language cast, but rather an extra treat of the spanish language version).
The film is a heartfelt tribute to the tradition of The Day of the Dead, part of the cultural heritage of Mexico and it's indigenous roots. The film shows the time and care the producers, writers and director took in staying true to and understanding this celebration as observed in Mexico, from the offerings to the dead, the significance of the vibrant marigolds, and the love and gathering with our ancestors and family.
Yes, Coco follows the tradition of all Pixar movies, with a focus on love, family and friendship. The difference this time is that it places Mexico, its culture and its people, at the center of the story.
This anthology series is connected together with the theme of isolation, lockdown and covid, yet more than half of the stories do not do justice to this central theme and remain as general short stories. As they are fairly disconnected, it makes sense to look at them separately.
Glitch, directed by Raj & DK and starring Gulshan Devaiah and Saiyami Kher.
This was a strong opening for the movie. As much barren the science fiction space is in Indian cinema, the likes of this and Cargo keep the hope alive. Enjoyed this extrapolation of the persistent long term lock-down. Always liked Raj & DK, since Go Goa Gone. I like the quirky freshness they bring to the industry which otherwise produces pretty formulaic movies.
Apartment, directed by Nikkhil Advani and starring Richa Chadha, Sumeet Vyas, and Ishwak Singh
Not at all related to Covid, but still a tale of isolation, hopelessness and betrayal. Felt as this was made for Richa Chadha alone as she gets to the most screen time and most emotional scenes. She does not disappoint, but still, the story is fairly simplistic, and not believable.
Rat – A – Tat, directed by Tannishtha Chatterjee and starring featuring Rinku Rajguru and Lillete Dubey
Two women having nothing alike, share a house. Both are lonely and upset for vastly different reasons and it is in that loneliness they find an unlikely friendship bridging decades worth of age gap. The house in this story is a character too. Loved almost everything on the set and of course the Mumbai rains. The last semi-classical rendition in the backdrop of rains is worth a memory.
Vishaanu, directed by Avinash Arun and starring Abhishek Banerjee and Geetika Vidya Ohlyan
During the lockdown, a young migrant family is thrown out of their rented house, decide to sneak illegally into a lavish sample flat. It is the same site on which Abhishek Banerjee’s character has worked as a construction worker. This is by far the best and unique setting among the bunch. It gets up close and personal with the lockdown days. The plight of migrant workers comes alive in Abhishek Banerjee’s flawless acting. The ending could have been better, it felt abrupt to me.
Chaand Mubarak, directed by Nitya Mehra and starring Ratna Pathak Shah and Shardul Bharadwaj
Ratna Pathak is a powerhouse. Like the second story made for Swara, this is made for Ratna Pathak. A middle-aged lady coincidently meets a rickshaw driver and develops an affable bond. There are social and religious divides, and their conversational relationship almost reaches levels of friendship. This too isn’t the best choice for the central theme of the movie, but still a decent watch.
Haseen Dilruba is a decent watch, but you would need serious suspension of disbelief to digest the ending.
A guy marries a girl out of his league. Unfortunately, they both know it just after the wedding day. A third person enters this unhappy marriage and things take a turn for the worse, and soon we enter a murder investigation. The trailer gives a lot of important details.
It is a pretty straightforward plot is made enjoyable by Vikrant Massey's acting and beautiful camera work by Jayakrishna Gummadi. Vikrant's transition from an affectionate but timid guy next door to a psychotic cold-blooded person is masterful. He has quite a range and has a good sense to choose a variety of roles. I still remember him from Cargo or even from the small role of Dil Dhadakne Do. His 10 min short Detour is a good watch too.
Taapsee Pannu's characters are usually quite strong. In Haseen Dilruba she portrays the inner turmoil well. She has an image of herself in her own mind and when the world around her does not affirms it, it is not very pleasant for her. Both these leads do a great job of carrying this story forward. Harshvardhan Rane tries to catch up with these two but falls short by a small margin.
Amit Trivedi's music has some signature tunes. Especially, Mila Yun and Lakeeran have his trademark style and they have turned out quite well.
Overall, this is worth watching for images of the fictitious town of Jwalapur and the acting of both the leads. Not worth going for the story, that department does not offer anything memorable.
[9.8/10] In recent years, when it comes to horror films, I’ve come to appreciate mood over scares. Scares have become cheap, with scads horror flicks offering monsters popping out of nowhere or surprise deaths or gruesome images to the point that it’s all too easy to become inured to them. Instead, I’ve come to really like films that do well at establishing an atmosphere, something that may not make you jolt out of your seat in a given moment, but that makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up on end for the entire runtime.
Get Out has that in spades. Long before anything goes bump in the night, there is a tension in the air, the sense that something just isn’t right or comfortable, even if you can’t quite put your finger on it.
Writer/director Jordan Peele does that perfectly through blending multiple kinds of anxieties into one unsettling collage of moments. There’s the horrorful text of the piece, with hints that maid and groundskeeper on the Armitage estate are not all there, and ominous portents like dead deer or rustling trees. There’s the anxiety of meeting your significant other’s parents for the first time, the relatable sense of being off balance as you’re both trying to be on your best behavior while also feeling out a group of people who are likewise feeling you out.
And then there’s the fact that Chris (Daniel Kaluuya), is made to feel like a curiosity, like something out of place, as he steps into a lily white world where seemingly well-meaning folks patronize or unwittingly insult him. One of the great achievements of Get Out is how it steps into the proud tradition of using social anxieties and real world fears and discomfort to undergird the textual horror the film slowly unspools. Peele manages to wrap so many facets of that sort of experience in this work -- belittling compliments, a sense of being out of place, and questionable, othering comments -- in a way that fits perfectly, and gives force to, the straight horror movie he’s presenting.
This seems as good a place as any to acknowledge that, as a straight white male who grew up in the suburbs, there is a limit to how much I can speak to the way those experiences are depicted. Get Out touches on any number of ideas -- how even committed progressives can have old prejudices behind their facades, the appropriation of black bodies and black labor for white needs chief among them -- that I’m simply not qualified to do anything but note with appreciation. Those elements, and the social commentary that comes with them, are one of the most striking and effective parts of the movie, I’m woefully ill-equipped to analyze them in the depth that someone who’s lived those experiences could.
But one of the stellar things about Get Out, and well-made movies in particular, is how they can convey those experiences even to those who will never live them. Peele uses all the tools in the cinematic toolbox to make you feel Chris’s discomfort, the way in which he’s ill-at-ease in this place that seems unfamiliar and off-putting. He combines that cross-cultural discomfort, the awkwardness of meeting your significant other’s family, and the hints at something more supernaturally sinister to create a film that affects the viewer on multiple levels.
That’s just one of approximately fifty things Get Out does incredibly well. It’s a nigh perfect film at nearly every level. The acting is superb across the board, from Kaluuya who carries the film, to the familiar sense of the different Armitages, to a superb turn from noted character actor Stephen Root, to a gobsmacking scene from Betty Gabriel as Georgina, done almost entirely in close up with nowhere for her to hide. The pacing is outstanding, with the hints, uptick, build, and climax of the mysterious events each coming at just the right time.
Technically, the film is just as remarkable. The use of color in the film is incredible, with golden hues in the background that symbolize visually how out of place Chris is, lush naturalism, and spooky blues and grays in the dark. The cinematography and editing are just as superb, with Peele, director of photography Toby Oliver, and editor Gregory Plotkin able to make an impromptu hypnosis session in a well-appointed den feel like the most intense thing in the world, and manage to make chases and close calls feel just as dramatic. In the same way, Michael Abels’s score perfectly accents the unsettling quality of each scene and moment.
The most miraculous thing about Get Out is that as terrifying, tense, and thematically rich as it is, it’s also a damn funny film. Chris’s friend Rod (LilRey Hower) initially seems like minor comic relief in the film, but his role goes much deeper than that. Still, between his amusing dialogue and the wry tone to Chris’s less creepy interactions with the Armitage’s well-heeled friends, there’s plenty of laughs, naturally, in Peele’s script, even as he’s just as able to bowl you over with the complex commentary and horrifying developments at play.
It’s also as sound a screenplay as you’re likely to see realized on screen anytime soon. More than a few horror films mix their haunting with a layer of social commentary, but few of them balance the text and the subtext as well as Get Out does, with the film working just as well at both levels. At the same time, its reveal is impressive, a swerve from the predictable read on the Stepford quality of the situation that deepens both the horror and the metaphor. And it’s a tightly-written script to boot, with details like the stir of a spoon, the taking of a picture, or a childhood memory each established and revisited at the perfect time. It all comes together to tell a story imbued with that deeply unsettling atmosphere with seeds planted that bloom in horrifying splendor.
But as great as that atmosphere is, as much as it primes the audience for what’s to come and sets a tone that makes the film unnerving even when nothing particularly dramatic is happening, Get Out has just as much virtuosity in delivering its scares. When the scales fall and the reality of the threats and machinations at play unfurl, Peele and company are equally adept at delivering that tension, intensity, and fear that will keep you on the edge of your seat.
There’s been no shortage of outstanding horror films in the last few years. Everything from the moody inventiveness of It Follows to the period paranoia of The Witch, to the psychodrama of The Invitation. But with Get Out, Peele has set the new standard by which each of these modern artistic successes must be judged. It’s a film that works on every level, bringing wit, atmosphere, story, metaphor, horror, sight and sound with equal success. It’s a film that wants to scare you and wants to challenge you, while never letting the one get in the way of the other.
So we reach the end of Phase Three, and what an ending this is. Not as epic in scale as Endgame and not as good as it either. But, this to me, is better than Homecoming. Better arcs, a better realisation of character and overall an excellent way to represent story through visuals.
For some Mysterio has been poorly represented in recent media. But here, he is done so well and the abilities are Doctor Strange visuals of good. While still not copying anything we've seen yet. This allows for great tension and using trust against the characters that I don't think has been seen in the MCU since The Winter Soldier.
Tom Halland is Spider-Man. There's no denying it, he was born for this role as Robert Downey Jr was for Iron Man. Which makes this story sink so well into the narrative when it all comes down to loss and how to avoid falling into stress and anxiety's grip. Which makes this an important movie to follow Endgame. Wrapping everything up nicely and even starting some great elements for the future.
So yes, there are end credit scenes in this movie. Two of them. But instead of not caring about a bit of strapped on humour, stay. These scenes are vital for the future of this series of films. Plus, there is an added bonus for those who are fans of the original Sam Raimi trilogy.
So yes, it is a good movie. But there are flaws. For one, there is the whole convenient timing and placement of things. Which I thought they were going to explain but never did. The story does feel like a bit of rehash of Homecoming and how the motives of some are shown, and that was my biggest gripe.
This film is funny, has good action, pretty well-done CGI and amazing performances from all its cast. This movie deserves to follow Endgame and closes Phase Three fluently. Spider-Man: Far From Home is a great movie and has given me hope for the future of Marvel's plan.
8.6/10
CLASS OF 83' (2020) REVIEW
#classof83 #classof83review
.
.
.
:scroll: Plot: Tale of A Policemen who has been sent to a police training academy in 1983 as a punishment posting, teams up a squad of 5 men to fight the crimes in Mumbai .
.
.
.
:man:⚖ Review : Class of 83' is a brilliantly directed cop drama set in the time period of 1980s. The setting of the period drama is close to accurate and imparts the right mood in every way. The Movie being tightly edited makes a runtime of 98min in which the narrative is amazing. Vijay Singh (Bobby) trains 5 new police officers and sets them in their path to finish criminals in Mumbai. The Dramatization of Training is very short , and loosely written which fails to make a solid impact of why the 5 trainees adored Vijay ao much. The Cinematography and Screenplay is to the point and seems a work of brilliance.
Atul Sabharwal has extenuated brilliant performances which are the shining points of the movie. Brooding Bobby is back in some serious acting. He fits and suits perfectly in the uniform, with his calmness in dialogues and stern look on his face he shines throughout. Wish he does more of such roles than what he did in Housefull 4. The 5 Trainees are perfectly casted and have done tremendous portrayals of unhinged police officers. Shoutout to Hitesh Bhojraj and Bhupendra Jadawat , these two were brilliant. Great work by Anup Soni and Joy Sengupta in the supporting roles.
Overall , Class of 83 is a decent drama to binge on netflix if you have a subscription. With a period set drama, some amazing Performances and good direction this movie doesn't entirely disappoints. Wish it had more juice in the jar.
.
.
:thumbsup:Goods :
1. Bobby and The Trainees
2. Brilliant Direction and Narrative
.
:thumbsdown: Bads :
1. Disappointing Climax
2. Loosely Written Events
3. Doesn't leave an impact
.
.
.
:fire: Final Rating : 7/10
.
.
:white_check_mark: Verdict : One time Watchable
.
.
- Follow in Instagram for More : @RiteshReviews
I saw this movie way back when, and the first thing I’ll tell you is that the concept is memorable, but not so much the plot. I remembered the switching of the faces, the faceless Nic Cage, but I remember little else. I couldn’t remember how they got away explaining the voice change or really – how putting a face on another man even works. I mean, the bone structure, jaw line, hair line, body weight, chest hair, hair length, etc…differed on both bodies. A simple face switch wasn’t going to work – and not even an “it’s just a movie, relax” explanation was going to cut it…thankfully, there’s not only an explanation, but it shows us everything. It might not be an exact science, but the movie did a good job making it reasonably believable and that’s all that matters.
The story, on the other hand, could use some work. It’s really a very basic cat and mouse tale with generally bland characters. The two leads are different enough from each other in order for them to need to impersonate one another throughout the movie (which was kind of cool), but as far as a colorful background, the characters are simply linked to a family member, but you know little else about them. Instead, it focuses a bit too much on the action and violence side of things. If that’s why you’re watching, you won’t have a bad time. The action, as well as the violence, were both done rather well, and it was mostly fun kicking back and watching the things that happen unfold. If you want to see something meaningful and memorable, I’m afraid a different body switching film may be the opportune choice there.
All in all, Face/Off delivers an unforgettable concept along with all the action and violence a man’s man could ask for, but it leaves out a meaningful plot and offers only half-developed characters. It’s fun, but a bit incomplete. Another year in pre-production could have made this movie a winner.
I love the Studio Ghibli films. So far I think it is safe to say that Miyazaki is my favourite anime author, and I doubt anyone will ever take his place because I have grown so attached to the work of this man and his ideals reflected on the way he conceives animation, that I can't think of a deeper connection with one's style in any way.
That is the reason why "Howl's moving castle" was, at my first viewing, a serious disappointment. It was the first time a movie by Miyazaki didn't transport me to the world and imagery it showed. Almost two years later, however, and trying to bring another perspective about this film, I have watched it again, and while this has worked with some other works, it seems "Howl" is still my thorn in Miyazaki's filmography and will always be.
Of course the world introduced here is amazing. This is probably the most gorgeous and visually powerful film Miyazaki has ever done, just watch the scenery, the many traces of impressive imagery, and of course Joe Hisaishi with another solid performance. It's a pleasure for the senses, such a beautiful experience to look at and hear that surely makes it worth viewing.
But that is not an excuse for the many plot holes and sudden changes in character behaviour. That is, in the same way we have a really eye-candy experience given only by the -already known- technical skills of Miyazaki and his group of animators, the story is always lacking.
I would seriously like to be able to fill my review with interpretations and theories about this fascinating world, but quite honestly, didn't find any thread to follow or to keep my interest on. I just can't sit through what in my opinion are clear character and story inconsistencies sucking the emotion or the involvement in whatever the movie is trying to tell me. I won't go with specific scenes to avoid spoiling anyone, but will just say that I find it really disappointing to find that Sophie, the girl who is supposed to introduce me to the story and let me see the events from her eyes, looks so incoherent and variable in her interaction with many of the elements, say the Witch of the Waste or the reactions at some magic events happening around her.
The construction of the storyline is pretty poor, and that is fully shown at an ending scene that feels rushed and ridiculous, where there is not any hint to follow why some characters make some relevant decisions, and looks just plain lazy writing. Really, really lazy, and unsatisfactory. I don't know the original source, but I know Miyazaki far enough to be sure that the fact the novel may or may not be good shouldn't affect the quality of the movie, as in his adaptations he chooses to change stuff freely in order to adjust it to his own subjects and concerns.
It has been said that in this case the plotline is secondary, and it should be seen as a fascinating travel around a world full of magic, where the logic is not needed and if it appears it doesn't make any effect in the enjoyment of the movie. I couldn't disagree more with that statement. During my experience in Miyazaki's works, I have found often this recurrent idea about him, seeing his films as powerful visuals with messed up plots, and as far as I can tell I have never conceived them in that way. Even -and specially- at his least linear and most complex narrative, "Spirited away", every event tries to follow an internal logic, therefore the plot is here and is unavoidable. It also should happen with "Howl"; the fact that it's filled with fantastic and strange elements isn't a valid excuse to make the storytelling lackluster and inconsistent, and of course doesn't change the fact it is needed. More so when it's so clearly intended to be.
In conclusion, and while I can say this work is extremely powerful and memorable at the artistic aspects, I still see it as an unsuccessful attempt that becomes evident at the many plot holes and lack of competent character writing. As entertaining as it could be, it is my biggest disappointment with the otherwise excellent work of this director and the only one that has never fulfilled my expectations.
