I don't know if this film is Oscar-worthy like it is being hailed as, but it is a truly heartfelt film that tells the story of a family struggling in Belfast at a very difficult time in history and the sacrifices they and the people around them had to make to stay safe but also thrive. The direction and acting in this film was really good and kept my attention the entire way through with some fairly intense moment.
Also talks about some fairly relevant things that are still about today, like the fact if some are of a different background it shouldn't mean we should shun them or not want to love them. Jude Hill (Buddy) is definitely a rising star and I can't wait to see him in more, but also I predict Jamie Dornan (Pa) is going to end up with a Robert Pattinson career of getting big from something truly awful but showing he is a phenomenal actor in smaller productions.
Now that's really all I can say about the film as it is a good film but is really short and doesn't actually bring anything new to the table and that's why I say it is good but not Oscar-worthy.
[8.3/10] I spent most of The Power of the Dog thinking the movie was nigh-plotless and not really minding. It’s not as though there was no story to speak of. People married. They adjusted to the new arrangement, as did their children and siblings. Friction and addiction ensued.
But it didn’t seem like a film driven by story. Instead, it was centered on the relationships between the characters: Phil, the gruff but jealous rancher; George, his simple but sweet brother; Rose, the caring but troubled woman George marries, and Peter, her effete yet scrupulous son. More than the ongoing lurch of the plot, the movie is built on the tangled, conflicting relationships of these four individuals.
That would have been enough on its own. Phil loves his brother but is emotionally estranged from him. He resents Rose for “stealing” George from him and psychologically attacks and undermines her at every opportunity. He's initially cruel to the effeminate Peter, compensating for his own insecurities over his sexuality, but eventually takes a shine to the boy after projecting the ghost of his lost love upon him. Phil is not the protagonist of the piece, but he is the main character, and there’s more than enough complexity and nuance in his psychology and his dynamics with the other characters to sustain the film.
George is a reserved character, but a unique one. Socially awkward, naive to the point of obliviousness, and a step slow to boot, there’s a gentle soul beneath his fumbling demeanor. His care for Rose and Peter speaks to a compassion Phil lacks. His tearful confession to his wife of how wonderful it feels not to be alone is sweet in his feelings for her and an indictment on his relationship with the brother he lacks the strength to stand up to.
Rose is, like so many others of her gender and station, the plaything of other forces who have the funds and position to give them an agency she almost entirely lacks. She is, arguably, the film’s most sympathetic character, who feels uncomfortable when plucked from her humble circumstances, and turns to substances amid both the weight of her feeling out of place and her brother-in-law’s tireless efforts to mentally destroy her.
Peter is the protagonist, the characters whose words we first hear in the film, and the one whose actions ultimately have the biggest impact on the story. But he is an unassuming, diffident, retiring figure. Lithe and unmanly, he is demeaned by the rough-and-tumble ranchers he finds himself surrounded with. He loves his mother dearly, in ways that verge on the concerning in a film with plenty of questionable family subtext. And in Phil, he finds both mentor and dupe, someone who attempts to show him how to be a man in this world despite the sense of difference, while learning, in grave terms, how well Peter’s able to protect himself and those he cares about in the final tally.
All of that would be enough on its own. There’s a different version of The Power of the Dog -- one that’s a pure kitchen sink drama about this unusual blended family in the 1920s Montana, and the intricate dynamics that emerge from so many worlds colliding and so many long-held attachments threatened from without -- which would still have been excellent.
The acting would remain a strength. Benedict Cumberbatch takes on arguably his most challenging role, that of a comprehensible monster. He straddles the line in his performance between pure menace and contemptibleness, to something pitiable and even sympathetic. Jesse Plemmons has the unshowiest character, but finds layers within his taciturn demeanor. Kirsten Dunst expertly communicates the sense of alienation for Rose in her new surroundings, and the quiet desperation she experiences which makes her turn to drink. And Kodi Smit-McPhee cuts the image of unlikely vengeance, an anti-villain whose shrinking presence masks an unsuspecting effectiveness in his chosen tasks.
So would the film’s impeccable craft. The Power of the Dog is awash in scenic beauty, with sweeping shots of the New Zealand frontier doubling for the fields and canyons of old Montana. The visuals within walls are just as striking, with sharp compositions and stagings that sell the thorny relationship dynamics amid the main quartet. The score perfectly suits the Western atmosphere, with dulcet guitar strings and other acoustic accompaniment setting the tone, as discordant notes emerge when situations go sideways.
Most importantly, writer-director Jane Campion and her editor, Peter Sciberras, aren’t afraid to let scenes breathe. There’s a recurring sense of dread in the film, as a judicious approach to cuts crafts a certain tension whenever two characters share the frame. At times, the film proceeds at a languid pace, but that makes room for the acting to truly thrive, and for the unspoken affections and strains between the different characters to grow and contort as a scene, and the movie, progress.
All of these elements would allow The Power of the Dog to succeed whatever direction its narrative took. At heart, the film is a character study, as interested in delving into what’s in the hearts and minds of its four leads as it is in advancing any central story. But there is a ghost in the machine, a central conflict that affects all of their lives when you step back and gaze at the bigger picture, which comes into focus in the film’s final act.
There is something of a feint when Phil takes Peter under his wing. It’s easy to believe that the two men have formed an unlikely bond, born of shared differences from the accepted sexuality of the era, lovers and mentors who faded away, and father figures who chose to leave in multiple ways. Their scenes are compelling, as ones which not only offer a softer side of the film’s most significant figure and antagonist, but which suggest he’s luring the boy away from his mother. There’s something both heartening and tragic about the suggestion, something to give Peter strength that comes at a terrible price.
And yet, Peter already had a hidden strength, or at least the strongest of convictions which Phil could never shake, in which this bond appears to be a mere cover. It is an opportunity for Peter to eliminate the man who was cruel to him in their first interaction, who is, if not the source, than certainly an accelerant for his mother’s unhappiness. Ironically, in the shadow of Phil’s performatively toxic masculinity, it’s Peter who defends his family, using methods of trust and attention to detail that allow him to get the upper hand on the man who so underestimates him. It is righteous yet terrifying, the birth of a killer made by a combination of brilliance and homegrown horrors.
The plot emerges almost as stealthily as Peter’s scheme does, only revealing itself once the time is way, but snapping into place in hindsight. That is the greatest strength of The Power of the Dog, a film that stands on its own with the strength of its craft and characters, only to tell a surprising yet sound story that emerges, slowly but surely, in the spaces between them.
Although it belongs to the Disney juggernaut, Pixar has always allowed itself to tell different stories, stories far removed from the world of princesses and dragons that made the mouse factory so famous. It proves it year after year (Luca and Soul are clear proof of this), and in 2022 it has done it again by focusing on something so important for young people: the arrival of adolescence and the changes they undergo in their bodies, added to how a family with such traditional dyes as the Chinese live through it all.
Red is hilarious. Not only is the script excellent (although it becomes less and less funny with each passing minute, turning the story into something more serious) and will make you laugh all the time, but Mei Lee's character is a real sweetheart. She's a real girl, with real problems, and all excellently portrayed.
Moreover, it focuses on the quality of the script, leaving the technical needs of the animation aside. Where other films seek to faithfully represent elements of fire and water, Red seeks fluidity of animation and elegance. Though kudos must be given for those few seconds of mouth-watering kitchen animation.
Musically it's not memorable, but that hasn't been Pixar's hallmark, so it's nothing new. The Spanish dubbing is also very good, but I'm curious to hear the original voices.
Ideal for family viewing, no doubt about it.
Encanto is a lovely movie that fails just a bit short on the way to being an instant classic.
The animation is top notch. That surely doesn't surprise anyone, but I really got the feeling the animators were flexing their skills with this movie. Many characters, but especially the protagonist, Mirabel, are dressed with big, floofy, flowing dresses that are just mesmerizing to look at. And Mirabel's hair! Incredibly well done. Since Tangled, Disney has nailed the animation aspect of hair. Honestly, they got everything right, from the fur of the animals to the light blonde hair on the characters' skin.
The whole scenery is also amazing to look at. I'm not Colombian myself (or Latino for that matter), but I've been told from someone who is that it really looks like a place in Colombia, from the way the mountains around look, to the style of the houses of the town.
The characters are honestly where this movie fails a bit short for me. They're all lovely, but since there is so many of them, they're not really that fleshed out. They feel shallow and one-dimensional, like they're there just to fill a bit of screentime instead of being functional to the story.
Speaking of the story, I really liked the premise of it. It started strong and it gripped me right away, but after a while I felt like it was missing a purpose a bit. Every time there was a conflict, it was almost immediately resolved, almost rushed. I liked that they did a movie without an obvious villain, though. It is a breath of fresh air. No evil character out for world domination, just the struggle of a family.
Of course, I have to say something about the songs. I enjoyed them a lot! Especially the introductory one and We don't talk about Bruno have been stuck in my head since I finished watching the movie. But they are all pretty catchy, though I have to say I didn't enjoy the choreography of all of them.
In conclusion, Encanto is a very enjoyable movie that I can recommend to any Disney fan. It has its funny moments and the more serious ones as well, like you would expect for Disney.
7/10
Great thing about animated films, and cinema in general, is that you will take from it whatever it tells you, personally. We each experience a film our own way and our interpretations and feelings towards it are inevitably influenced by our lives at the moment of watching.
Encanto to me is about the young-adult period of your life where everyone around you seems to have found their calling - some seem to have always known it even. A plan laid out out and a sense of purpose. Encanto deconstructs that idea by making the character with no gift its heroine, and by diving into the insecurities, the burdens and pressures of the characters who do have gifts. They have been reduced to their abilities or feel like they must never fail or complain, when really they just want to relax and be creative. That’s a powerful message - that it doesn’t matter whether you have a gift or not, your worth comes from who you are as a human being and your relationship with others.
I have to say, besides the colours, I found the animation pretty boring and alike a lot of Disney stuff we’ve seen for the past 10 years - it’s time for a change! The music was fun, the cultural and historical nods were great.
Solid effort by Disney!
The most terrifying horror story of the year has a name: The British royal family
'Spencer' takes place in 1991, during the royal family Christmas celebration, close to Diana and Charles separation. From the very beginning the film is successful in exposing some of the utterly conservative, outdated and ridiculous traditions followed by British royalty such as an extremely specific dress code, obsession with punctuality, weighing themselves before and after all the Xmas activities (they were supposed to gain weight) and hunting pheasants. Diana is already in a very bad place due to Charles's affair with Camilla and having to deal with all of the royal family over Christmas sends her in a downward spiral. This depiction of Diana is given life through Kristen Stewart's outstanding performance with some really nail-biting scenes. Timothy Spall, who plays the role of an equerry, and Sally Hawkins, who is the princess' royal dresser, also deliver fantastic performances. The cinematography is great and the costume design is on point.
Bear in mind that this is a fictionalized story. If you are looking for a biographical film or a more traditional telling of the princess' life you will be disappointed. If you are just looking for a great movie, a great psychological drama or one of Stewart's best performances then you should definitely watch this.
I remember enjoying this film immensely when I first saw it and surprisingly I didn't find it nearly as good upon a second viewing.
The good:
The not-so-good:
See my ratings of other Allen movies: - https://ihatebadmovies.com/movie-reviews/?_wpmoly_movie_director=Woody+Allen&_orderby=wp_review_total%2Cdesc
Who knew that 'misery' was a genre?
I wish this film hadn't been so well made. If it'd been less well made, I might not have taken it so hard.
Capernaum is a badly titled film about Zain, a 12-year-old Syrian immigrant growing up in the slums of Beirut. His parents love him... to bring home money and food but other then that they couldn't really care less for him or his indiscriminate number of brothers and sisters. Zain doesn't go to school, works full time at a convenience 'store' and his favourite sister is given away to be married at 11 years old. And then his life gets tough.
The film has its shortcomings. The ending feels like it was forgotten about until the money was nearly out and then they had to wrap everything up during their lunch hour. Or the court case which is used as a framing device and feels very gimmicky (and is fortunately not dwelt upon).
But what works, works too well. There is a devastating sense of realism that comes through thanks to the directing and to the cast, many of whom are amateurs plucked from the streets to play the roles of their lives. Zain (Zain Al Rafeea) was a Syrian immigrant, Kawsar Al Haddad (his mother in the film) was an illegal immigrant, the girl who played his sister (Haita 'Cedra' Izzam) was discovered selling chewing gum on the streets of Beirut, the real life parents of the baby (Boluwatife Treasure Bankole) with whom Zain bonds in the movie were illegals and were deported for a time during the filming...
There is enough reality here to choke you, or at least choke you up.
Capernaum is an experience so poignant it will pierce your heart, steal your breath, and wet your eyes with truth. It is a film you will probably love but certainly not like.
I like Labaki. I liked this movie.
But... I dunno, there's too much emotional blackmail going on in the movie for my liking.
In terms of Child Poverty Movie Genre, this is more along the lines of Slumdog Millionaire than, say... The Bicycle Thief, to put it briefly.
Good things in the movie:
Not so good things:
It is said that Labaki made this movie after seeing a child in the street so she wanted to tell the story of children like him. Nadine Labaki is not poor, she probably never been poor in her life (nowhere poor as the characters in the movie, at least), so that's why her view ultimately lacks depth and feels too simplistic. It's what you'd expect from someone who's never been poor in their life.
So, is it a movie worth watching? yes, the good things are good, and if you're living in a first world country you will enjoy how this movie makes you feel about poverty and all that stuff, abd unless you've walked those streets and went through these experiences, this movie will be alright for you.
Mike Nichols’ The Graduate gracefully transcends genre conventions with the use of one key factor: perspective. A perspective suffocated by youthful malaise for events yet to come. A submissive perspective tossed and turned by the will of adult superiors rather than his own. A perspective viscerally experienced through use of long tracking close-ups of Ben Braddock’s shuffle through the thick cascade of grown-ups, visual motifs emitting his inner sense of confinement, and his awkward, satisfying arc from a caged goldfish to a free-spirited dolphin.
This initial passivity is handled to full potential, generating tightwire tension from the elder Mrs. Robinson’s attempts at seducing his diffident innocence. Nichols analogizes Ben’s emotional states to bodies of water, once being trapped and controlled by outside forces in a swimming pool, and in another, sailing smoothly on a cozy pool bed and relishing in the presence of a lively, decorative fountain. Simon & Garfunkel’s soundtrack further enhances this thematic weight, figuratively charting Ben’s rise from the dark, silent abyss of emotional emptiness and passivity to a town-hopping hero charting his own path to instill a little more certainty into an undoubtedly uncertain future. Through Ben’s eyes, the older generation are represented with humorously exaggerated flourish, with the writers brilliantly tapping into parents’ natural, incessant need to control their children’s paths as well as their over-dominance that kickstarts Ben’s thrust into a more active control of his life.
By slowly exposing Elaine Robinson’s emotional scars and the similarities of her predicament, the universal naturality of Ben’s struggles is captured; with her joysticks also in hands of different pilots, the film’s themes immediately transcend social and gender boundaries and become mutually shared experiences. The same can be said for its masterful final seconds, which captures, through face alone, that despite the impermanence of life’s elations and the anxious uncertainty of an undrawn fate, these emotional pains can be eclipsed if fought together rather than toiled through alone.
Gloria Swanson is a treat to watch in Sunset Blvd. In any other film she would have come off as overly dramatic, but as a washed-up silent era diva she is absolutely perfect with all of the accompanying hand-wringing, dramatic head angles, and intense eye glares. It's old school acting, where theatre was more of an influence than realism.
William Holden's Joe is a typical macho hero of the Golden age: sounding grumpy and slightly shouty, but simultaneously emotionally blank. He typically calls his much younger love interest "kid", grabs her by the shoulders and smashes his mouth into hers as his interpretation of a passionate scene. I sort of dislike him. He takes advantage of Norma's wealth, but then acts like it's a burden, age shaming her to no tomorrow.
At the same time, the movie is a wonderful satire of the realities of Hollywood. How sad that a woman past her early thirties is considered a has-been with no prospects? While not as bad nowadays, the practice seems to persist, with most movie moms with teen children being played by 30-year-olds.
The structure is also neat, being told from the point of view of a murdered man. In the end, this film has an unmistakable tinge of gothic fiction - a tale of a haunted house, where the haunting is the apparition of regret, old glamour gone shabby, and madness. The monologue and snappy lines also put it squarely into a film noir territory - the quality kind, not overdone to death. Billie Wilder was a visionary filmmaker.
The first time I saw this was on late night TV a few years after it was released. It stuck in my memory although I can't say why. Terrible accents, poor acting, predictable plot and slow pacing.
Revisiting it roughly 20 years later, I am a little more forgiving because the personnel involved are more familiar to me. Soderbergh here shows little of the calibre he shows in Ocean's Eleven just 18 months later. The accent form Terence Stamp is (to a Brit) a terrible job of a posh fella doing a Cockney. Very over the top and ham-fisted.
The thought I had all the way through the rewatch was - "This is such an early run of Haywire. The edits, the plot idea, the final scene on the beach even." And what do I see afterwards, the same writer.
Where Haywire suffers from Gina Carano... Her action is good, acting mediocre and voice needed to be overdubbed entirely... This film suffers from a general overacting problem.
The old bits of what I assume are a Ken Loach film is a bonus for Soderbergh but ultimately irritating for the audience.
I would have enjoyed this more as a 1 hour TV special. Tightly edited and ramp up the action a little more. Something in this may have inspired Taken to be conceived...
5.75/10
Terrible audio mixing, especially toward the end - they kept bumping the music volume down before every grunt or one off line, and then bumping it back up. extremely jaring.
Pretty decent fight choreography for a western movie, but it's still full of nonsense. it's clear none of the actors have any martial training.
Amazing fight environments. I'm an absolutely sucker for for fights in the rain, so that was nice. The funhouse was a great environment too, tons of movement and lights and visually interesting stuff.
I just didn't really care about the plot. I'm not incentivized to care about Harley. and none of the other character's motives are really explored.
Canary deux ex machina being super powered is a weak get out of jail free card.
The cinematography is great. all the shots are super clean, visually interesting, and not jump cutting every .0003 seconds to avoid showing me how bad everyone is at fighting. i wish i'd seen it in HDR
I don't like how it ends with Harley trying to have an empowering "I can do it moment" and then immediately biffs it and gets saved by a 12 year old, it's a really lackluster ending to her arc, but it plays Kesha's Woman like the ending was some sort of BAMF moment for her.
AND THEN AFTER SHE RECOMMITS TO EVIL TRICKY TRICKS SHE FUCKING GIVES THE MONEY BACK TO HUNTRESS???!?!
Not entirely necessary, but 'Toy Story 4' still produces goods worthy of being attached to the initial trilogy.
Tom Hanks, I'm sounding like a broken record but..., is still tremendous as Woody, I love hearing his voice in this role. Tim Allen is solid as Buzz Lightyear, but I kinda feel they don't use him - or the other originals - enough considering who they are. It is, though, cool to see an old face return in Bo Peep (Annie Potts).
There are some more new characters and yet again, like in the past films, they strike the right chords. Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele are, entirely unsurprisingly, funny in the roles of Ducky & Bunny. Christina Hendricks is a good Gabby, while Keanu Reeves amuses as Duke Caboom.
The film focuses on giving the viewer(s) extremely heartfelt moments and for the vast majority it hits as intended, though they do try to tug on the heart too much in parts. The animation is stunning, especially in the early scene with RC.
Is it a thing everyone wanted? Most probably not. Yet is there fun to be had? Most definitely. For a third sequel, you gotta give respect to Pixar & Co.
These films are way better than they have any right to be - entirely thanks to Sacha Baron Cohen.
I enjoyed 'Borat Subsequent Moviefilm' more than its predecessor from 2006, which relied too heavily on shock sex humour for my liking - though I did still like it all in all. This sequel is a little more creative with its jokes, whilst still having the necessary silliness and cringe.
Cohen is excellent as he reprises the role of Borat. He made me laugh a number of times, any other actor in this role simply wouldn't be funny - he somehow makes it work expertly, his perfect delivery being crucial.
In the first film, Cohen had Ken Davitian alongside him. Davitian doesn't return which is a shame, but he isn't missed to be honest. Maria Bakalova steps in very well, I feared her Tutar character was going to be irritating but she's anything but - Bakalova holds her own alongside Cohen.
It's amusing, in ways that are indeed funny but also in ways that you know you shouldn't be laughing at - though that's critical to these films working. It also has the same Punk'd feel that the original production has.
Good satire.
The introduction to this review starts with one word: OUGH.
Make no mistake in assumption about this movie: It is politically incorrect, gross, misogynistic, racist and stupid. The good news in this is that most of this gross stuff is turned around, the stereotypes it starts with are basically shown to be not true.
I think the presentation of Kazakhstan, and especially it's people, was unnecessary for all of it's messages however, and I can fully understand every outrage about these parts and suggested images of them.
It took me a while to realize that apart of the Kazakhstan part and the character Borat and his played daughter pretty much everyone is not an actor and was not giving insight about the movie, or which kind of movie it would become.
It really wonders and baffles me how they pulled all of this off: What they did do, and maybe more how they must have filmed it. Because I have my doubts that they went around with a huge visible camera.
It is just absurd, and who they found and pranked in it, you would be like "nobody is ever like this" - except they were.
Some of the most absurd parts include a handbook for how girls are to be raised, and what they are not allowed to in Kazakhstan, such as driving a car or being a journalist. Take this a step further, as it was likely intended to be, and it shall be applies to religious conservatives and the bible.
Others conspiracy theories about Democrats, covid19, and Jews, and either disproving them, mocking them by calling the believers scientists or well...even topping them with one of it's own.
The other thing...well, they surely don't know any boundaries. But it also must mean you need to be pretty tough to act in this movie; Whether it is posing in a weird Borat mankini, making the most indiscreet remarks, including racist or antisemitic, to...well offering oneself as a woman visually to a crowd. You really need the correct actors for that willing to do, I suppose.
"fun" fact 1: The people of Kazakhstan did create a petition with 100k people who signed against the release of the movie. Also, no scenes were shot in Kazakhstan.
fun fact 2: I wonder if the movie had a take in guns getting temporary removed from Walmart. There is a scene where one supposingly got one from there and opens fire, and the movie got released on 23th Oct - the guns were removed before 30th Oct.
Rating: 8/10*
DISCLAIMER: I did not see this movie in its original language(Korean), but in a dubbed version(Italian). I may have missed some nuances.
I went into this movie without knowing anything about it, aside from the Oscar win and the praise it got from everyone. I didn’t know what to expect, what kind of movie it would be. I hadn’t even ever seen a Korean movie.
Before talking about the plot and the visuals, I have to say that the cast was all great. While I watched a dubbed version, the performance of each actor and actress was very convincing and entertaining.
I really enjoyed the plot of Parasite. It managed to subvert my expectations at every turn. The movie was able to shapeshift easily and seamlessly between a comedy, a thriller, even almost an horror (the scene were the ex housekeeper’s husband comes up the stairs and scares the child is super creepy; that shot with only the eyes peeking above the stairs gave me shivers). It changed so many genres that I wouldn’t know what to pick to describe it. But that, in my opinion, is one of its best features.
The visuals and photography were very well done. The shot were the family is fleeing in the rain is absolutely stunning and perfectly executed. Good job to the director.
In the end, I would recommend this movie to anyone, without any reservations. It reminded me of a theatrical play, in a good way. It’s absolutely entertaining, it keeps you glued to the screen for the whole runtime. It’s the perfect length, it doesn’t feel neither too long or too short. I honestly can’t find a negative.
10/10
I went into this movie with high expectations but knowing little to nothing about the movie itself (I hadn't even seen the trailer). A Nolan movie, packed with action, a touch of sci-fi and time travel: that's all I knew. And to be honest, it was more than enough. I went into Tenet sure that I would love it.
The reality, though, is not as pretty.
But let's start with the positives.
The soundtrack was great. Even though I feel that Zimmer would have elevated this movie to another level, Göransson did an excellent job. The music was appropriate, underlining every single moment of the movie.
The cast did really well. Especially Pattinson, which I really appreciated in this. Also pleasantly surprised by John David Washington, whom I didn't know before. He did really well as The Protagonist. Good job also by Debicki. Really, considering their characters, they all did the best they could.
The cinematography, as expected by Nolan, was top notch. Great CGI as well. The action sequences were done really well, I truly enjoyed them. Same for the car chase. I don't know how they managed to film/edit the inverted scenes, but they were amazing!
Now for the not so positives.
The sound mixing was really poor. Often the music completely covered the dialogue, making it really hard to understand what was going on. Thank God for subtitles.
The pacing was off. It felt really rushed, in a movie that should have left the viewer some time to understand the situation. Almost like a magician that doesn't want you to fixate your eyes too long or else you might discover his trick, the movie is always rushing you from scene to scene. I get what they were going for, but it was not executed properly.
The dialogue was also not as good as I expected. Very hand-wavy if that makes sense. Coupled with very one-dimensional characters, it really put me off. With the exception of Pattison's (and even then, not that much better), every character felt so flat.
And finally, the plot.
While it starts from an interesting and, at least for me, unheard idea, it quickly devolves into a generic spy/bond movie. I'm not personally a fan of the "it's always been this way" time travel solution, but I won't hold that against the movie. What I didn't like is that there was no sense of empathy for the characters. I didn't give a damn about their actions, because they felt more like automatons than human beings. Same thing for the time travel gimmick: it was really intriguing, but I soon didn't care for it because the movie couldn't be bothered to keep it consistent and to play by its own rules it had set up
In the end, I still think that Tenet is an interesting movie. Just not perfectly executed. Maybe a longer runtime would have given time to sort some of the issues by slowing down the pace a bit. But the interesting time travel mechanic, the fact that the movie will have you think about what was going on (in a good way!) even after it's over, the great score and the gorgeous looking cinematography make me recommend it. Especially to fan of the director or those who liked Inception (which is a superior movie, IMO).
7.5/10
This is a bit of a nitpick, but in the fight at the airport it was obvious that they were fighting another version of The Protagonist. I mean, Pattison unmasked him and looked surprised, while the camera didn't show who it was. Who the hell could have been?
Pieces of a Woman is an emotional drama dealing with grief, loss, womanhood, and broken familial relations. This film is a devastating and realistic portrayal of people hurting each other after a tragic loss because they don’t know how to cope with loss and pain. Such a difficult topic, so authentically realized into cinematography.
The first 30 minutes of this movie are actually perfect. The filmmaking and performances are so powerfully done, making the opening scene really engaging. Even though I knew what was coming, I was just 'glued' to the screen throughout that entire long take. Truly never seen anything like it. The audience is experiencing everything with the characters as they experience it. Unfortunately after that, things fall off a bit, the film turns to a cliché family gathering and trial. Lots of the choices work really well, but it still felt like they went a little overboard with the melodrama.
Vanessa Kirby’s performance was just flawless. Shia’s, on the other hand, felt very... well, Shia. He was good but not very memorable and not different to how he has portrayed characters in many other films. I get that the movie focuses on the female side of grief, but I don’t know why they had to include the themes of sobriety and addiction. There was a half-hearted attempt to show an addict relapsing and then Shia LaBeouf's character was pushed aside and never returns. This felt unfinished.
This is very much an actor's showcase but aside from Vanessa Kirby, other actors don’t have much to work with. Even Ellen Burstyn is misused. I wanted to see more of how a mother is not able to help her daughter during such a difficult time. I also didn't really understand the importance of Sarah Snook's character. She basically played Shiv Roy 2.0. The story would have stayed exactly the same if she had been removed. The script just doesn’t take time to explore the different characters.
Pieces of a Woman really doesn't bring anything to the table apart from the acting and directing. But it's certainly a gripping drama. Not a lot of movies portray such an intimate perspective of grief like this one.
A frustrating watch, mostly because a couple of poor choices make this film way worse than it should be.
It probably will get nominated for best acting, and that’s well deserved, as the two leads are excellent.
A lot has been said about the first thirty minutes, and while I agree that it’s a great showcase for the director and Vanessa Kirby, it’s a scene that didn’t need to be there, let alone be thirty minutes.
Why? Well, it’s dramatically unengaging, nothing interesting or extraordinary happens until the last two minutes, and as a result it tanks the pacing of the rest of the film.
Setting that scene aside, the film quickly develops into a sufficient, albeit fairly predictable drama.
I think it would’ve been creatively more interesting to focus on the conflict of grieving internally vs our human need for blaming someone, which is only briefly explored in the scenes with Ellen Burstyn.
This whole family grievance plot has been done to death, and the film fails to find a unique angle on it.
As for the characters, they do have arcs, but it should’ve been handled more efficiently.
Dramatically, it would’ve been so much interesting to delve a little more into the characters before the thirty minute scene, so that we’d have a good sense of who these people are before they get depressed.
All in all, it feels like a film that should’ve had a few more revisions during preproduction.
4/10
Okay so what's to say about this film that hasn't already been said...?
Let's do pros and cons...
Pros - Bill Murray being himself (all sarcastic and nonchalant); Scarlett Johannson being adorable, playing such a young woman struggling to find a direction in life; the coldness of a land where it is so foreign to our own, with strange customs and an impenetrable language; a cool soundtrack.
Cons - it takes about 10 minutes longer than I'd want to have the 'meet cute'; it offers up an image of men that isn't true - not every guy wants to f**k her just because she's there. This character did but that doesn't mean we all would; her actions toward the end are too cold, it doesn't gel with the rest of the film.
That said... it makes Japan a place to visit - and I'd imagine a hundred thousand Western tourists have used this movie to break the ice with a familiar face when visiting there.
I enjoyed it a lot. I liked the whole cast and I loved what it showed me of Japan. It could be a slightly faster pace with a little more storyline once they become pals.
For this part, I feel it suffers on rewatching and isn't aging as well as reputation would have you believe.
7/10
THE TERMINAL starts off uniquely non-spielberg, more attune to a Coen Brothers comedy by its performance and edit. Good news to me, not to be disappointed by Act 2 as the story progression shines through a classic Spielberg block and John Williams eastern inspired score. Tom Hanks never drops the ball in his performance, as his character may progress in his understanding of the English language and culture, his character retains his quirk.
Act 3 could be mistaken for any alternative in Spielberg's repertoire as its unique premise fades into its fullest progression, simultaneously lending itself as a film extending its run-time to a ridiculous degree.
For a film taking place in one geographical location I was for the most part impressed by the film's ability to fill it's feature, which it did up until a point where the direction and use of score becomes that of a cliché Xmas film, without semblance of the deadpan comedic elements introduced, instead replaced with a common and overdrawn structure of your average and plain feel good film.
You could argue it's better Spielberg lends the 3rd act to fulfil his style of film-making by taking a unique concept and an unusual genre by his standard and then morphing it into a film hes already made 10 times over, another falling deeper into Spielberg's Venus Flytrap of creative Bankruptcy.
6.5/10
Michael Keaton leads the charge as a teetering schizophrenic actor, struggling to find validation on Broadway after a long, expired run as a glossy Hollywood blockbuster-dweller.
On a purely technical level, it's astounding. Precisely edited to appear as though the whole thing were executed in one extremely long take, it's a mesmerizing experience, profoundly different and expertly crafty when the timeline needs to leap forward. It's dazzlingly acted, too, with Keaton delivering a masterful performance alongside noteworthy supporting work from Ed Norton, Emma Stone and (to my surprise) a very versatile Zach Galifianakis.
The moral lessons are laid on thick, though, and too often it feels like we're being lectured for daring to indulge in the kind of loathsome fun that drove our lead to this strange brand of mania. One scene in particular, Keaton's confrontation with a stuffy critic before opening night (who glares right into the camera before storming off in a cloud of self-righteousness) plays like a direct scolding of the audience.
Maybe theatre purists will take this as a firm voice of reason, the rare call of someone who finally gets it, but to me it came off as tremendously stuck-up and pretentious. I can't deny there's a lot to enjoy here, and it's a clear arrival for auteur Alejandro González Iñárritu, but I also can't help wondering how much better it would be without that permeating air of superiority.
Perspective from the street-level as a towering, rampaging monster plows straight through the heart of Manhattan. At the time this was released, we were roughly a decade past The Blair Witch Project, long enough for the found footage trope to have thoroughly played itself out. Yet in many ways this feels like a revelation, one which would collapse without that same central gimmick. Like bystander footage from a major disaster, the placement of the camera makes the chaos and mayhem of this sudden, citywide catastrophe feel completely vivid and tangible. It's like we're there with the victims; our pulse racing, our eyes widened by the dead and injured, our skin coated by the dust of so much collapsed concrete. Moments that would've certainly felt cheesy from a traditional POV, high above the action, now deliver beyond any reasonable expectation.
We get to know the core characters well, their thoughts and quirks and feelings, and we mourn when they're abruptly taken from us in the confusion. It tells a desperate human story in a genre that usually struggles with such elements, and doesn't shy from the profound, lasting conclusion that everything seems to be building toward from the start. The plot does have holes, some larger than others, but given the frenetic pace and rapid developments, those are relatively easy to shake off and leave behind. I was surprised by how Cloverfield moved me today, nine years after the fact. Surely one of the most memorable, ambitious, effective films of the decade.
WOULD BE A 8/10 BUT WHAT MAKES THIS MOVIE STAND ABOVE THE REST IS THE FACT THAT IT'S PART OF A TRILOGY WITH A 4th INSTALLMENT BEING MADE SO FOR THAT
IT'S A 10/10 BECAUSE HONESTLY I HAVE PIECED AND TIED THE OTHER 2 MOVIE'S TOGETHER OF THIS AWESOME FRANCHISE AND IF YOU KNEW WHAT I KNOW FOR HOW THEY ALL TIE TOGETHER
IT WOULD BLOW YOUR FRICKIN
MIND, IT'S SO AWESOME AND SUPER SUPER CLEVER TO THE POINT OF MATCHING RUNNING TIMES WITHIN ONE MOVIE AND THAT ACTUALLY EFFECTS SOMETHING AT THE EXACT SAME RUNNING TIME IN ONE OF THE OTHER MOVIES,
I MEAN IT'S JUST OUTSTANDING AND HONESTLY I'VE NEVER QUITE KNOWN ANYTHING LIKE IT AND I WATCH AND OWN A HELLA OF A LOT OF MOVIES, BUT I HAVE NEVER COME ACROSS ANYTHING AS AWESOME AS THAT.
JJ HAS DONE IT AND KUDOS TO HIM FOR THAT.
I HAVE NEVER EVER KNOWN IT DONE SO DAMN CLEVER IN ANY OTHER FRANCHISE, PERIOD.
AND THATS JUST ONE THING I'VE MENTIONED, THEIR IS SO MUCH MORE OF EQUALLY COOL STUFF RIGHT THE WAY THROUGH THEM ALL.
ABSOLUTELY CAN'T WAIT FOR THE
4th INSTALLMENT "CLOVERFIELD 2"
WHICH AS OF THIS MONTH SEPTEMBER 2022 HAS JUST OFFICIALLY GONE INTO PRODUCTION.
I CAN NOT WAIT TO SEE HOW MY MIND
WILL BE BLOWN NEXT
WOW...JUST.... WOW.
I don't know why I tortured myself sitting through all 135 minutes of that, but here we are.
The only thing that makes this movie somewhat tolerable is the cast. There's a lot of big names in this, but not all of them are featured as prominently in the movie as they are on the art in front of the bluray. Especially Rowan Atkinson isn't even a full minute in the movie, it's just another big name to add to the list of people that are in this.
It just makes it feel more like a feel-good Christmas movie cash-grab. The best is Emma Thompson, she's amazing in everything.
It could have been so much more. It starts and ends with people meeting with their loved ones in the airport, but it's not where the story starts off. It would have made a lot more sense to start off with that and build up characters through that. But it's just 10 or so stories that are slightly connected somehow (mostly done by things happening on screens). It just feels so bloated and convoluted because by the end of it, you barely know anyone from this movie, and that's a real shame with these kind of actors.
The only other positive thing I can say is that is was charming, but most of that is done by the excellent work of the actors handling a script that is laughable at best. The text just isn't written for the characters, it really feels like they've been put words in their mouth and had to fill in the rest by themselves. Luckily these people are pretty good at that. It particularly bothered me with Thomas Brodie-Sangster (Sam). The little kid talks about love like he's been through it all before and watching Titanic he knows exactly what it's like in real life. I'm just not buying it.
It would have been better if they cut half of the stories, connected them more deeply so it feels like more of a world of story. Make them come together for Christmas at the end. Not like only 8 of the 10 coming together for the nativity play. Get all of them in there, don't be afraid to get some drama in there (nothing is always lovey-dovey). Just... urgh, this feels too fantastical and whimsical.
Conclusion:
Not my cup of tea. I'm sure people love this for its charm, I just couldn't get into it.
The Five Faces of The Greatest Showman
:heart_eyes:
The great Hugh Jackman once again manages to impress, this time in a warm, emphatic, energetic and down-to-earth part.
A lovely, vivid and colorful historical setting supports the story and characters perfectly; the modern music fits the era surprisingly well.
The lovely Zendaya is the icing on the cake. I admit this film made me have a celebrity crush on her.
:smiley:
There is some lovely detailed humor and playfulness in the cinematography and the dialogue.
Fortunately the song numbers do not dominate the run-time, since they do little to progress the story, even if they are spectacular in choreography and cinematography.
Jackman and Zac Efron work very well together and form a lovely duo upon which most of the film rests.
Great performances, fine music and beautiful visuals make this an entertaining film to sit through, even if it isn't the most original musical.
:neutral_face:
A musical and make-your-dreams-come-true-story in true Disney spirit (even the songs sound like something from a classic Disney musical). The big difference is the very brief backstory that is handled and finished during the first major song number. It's not as much of a coming-of-age story as the best Disney musicals are. The script brings up many of the same themes as well and does that part well.
The music is modern and polished, but there is a lack of memorable songs, with a couple of notable exceptions.
There are hints of dramatic tension present here and there, but the fast tempo of the film makes it impossible for the script to properly handle said tensions. The film scratches the surface and then moves on.
The Zendaya/Efron love story bothers me, because it appears out of nowhere and doesn't feel very realistic or natural.
There's a shallow love triangle thing going on in the story that really doesn't go deep enough to tug on my heart strings.
It's hard not to enjoy all the happiness, energy and love induced in the story and the performances.
:frowning2:
Jackman and Efron receive so much focus and take center stage for most of the film, that the supporting cast and the wife never properly stand out.
:face_vomiting:
//
The Final Face: :smiley:
(Anyone else find it interesting with some of these movies now, in order to coax people to give the movie some extra credit points, they show a brief behind the scenes clip about the movie right before the movie starts? And then they say thanks for coming out and supporting the movie? Disney's Coco did it and now this. Guess it's going to become a trend now, considering the sky-dropping ticket sales...)
I'm gutted. Like, genuinely disappointed. As someone who was looking forward to this spectacle, listening to the soundtrack on Spotify before the movie even came out, I can't believe this is what I'm having to write about this. I expected this to be in my top ten of the year. I was hoping for a grand and memorable epic that had wonderful stuff, full of lovable characters, magical musical sequences, and etc. But this is not what I was treated to, no sir. Through the first half of this depressing bore, I kept bouncing around my head with my future rating, asking like, "Is this above-average? Am I enjoying this? Yeah, I guess so. There's been some cool scenes and music so far." But as the movie just kept trudging along past some seriously unexciting and eye-rolling numbers, I very slowly started to lower my expectations and rating. It wasn't until the very end when I very audibly said, "Oh my god, that can't be the end," and then the black screen came. The credits started rolling, and I just stood up. My face was literally down and I just felt depressed. I was the only one in the theater, by the way. Walking to the car, I couldn't believe what I just saw.
I'd say there's less than 10 actual minutes of P.T Barnum doing fantastical things on a stage. The rest of the movie is drama between him, his family, some European singer whom he takes on tour which causes further drama with his ensemble of freaks, and then Zac Efron's absolutely pointless subplot trying to get with one of the performers. There's so much the movie tries to tackle, and yet doesn't develop any of it, and then forgets the main reason people are there in the theater in the first place: To see the big dance numbers with jukebox music. I understand, this movie is really just about Barnum's life (When it actually isn't) and not about the big musical numbers, but if you're going to sell your movie on being a Luhrmann-esque musical, at least try to deliver on some of that. And if you won't do that, at least make your movie interesting to watch. There's the whole thing with Barnum's daughters, wanting to give them a good life, then there's his greed and wanting to become better than what he was, then the tour with the singer, then there's fulfilling what his wife wanted in their initial marriage (She has no character development the whole fucking movie, by the way, she's wasted), then there's gathering the freakshow people, then there's meeting Zac Efron, then there's Zac's sub-plot, and just, god, there was so much tapped into, but unused fat. This is actually a case where I would've preferred a four-hour 60's style musical epic, just so we could flesh out all of these ultimately pointless scenes. Some are genuinely interested. I wish there was like a big confrontation with the protesters, there KIND of is, but not much.
There's this other part where a critic comes to Barnum about the show, and honestly, he was the most interesting and sound character the whole movie, not even joking. Barnum tries to write him off as a snobbish newspaper critic who hates fun, but later after Barnum's building is destroyed in a fire, the critic comes back to him a final time. His words are actually the focal-message to the entire film, the big message, "Even with your cheap and fake display, you had people up there, all shapes and sizes, yet treated as equals." This line didn't come from the propped-up "wise" Barnum, not his wife, not his children, not even one of the freaks... the freaking newspaper critic. There's a problem with your movie when your most interesting character is that guy. I could even forgive the gigantic sub-plot about the European singer if at least the editing and pacing was done better. I'd say roughly 1/3'd of the entire run-time is this scandal drama that Barnum gets into with this woman; it's so uninteresting. People say this movie is like a tribute to Luhrmann's musicals; oh fuck no, it absolutely isn't. If you pay attention to the creative choices in that Red Curtain Trilogy, the dialogue and camera movements are so wacky and crazy, even in some of the calmer moments. The only shots I remember from this are clearly the trailer shots from the first 10 minutes. All The Greatest Showman has are some decently-done musical numbers mixed in with some really bad and under-developed "character" scenes.
When I was listening to the song "This Is Me" before I saw the movie, I envisioned something much more grand and amazing than what I saw on-screen. I got this idea of like a big emotional performance on-stage by Keala Settle, during the circus tour or something. Or even what if this was to the protesters? Wouldn't that have been more emotionally engaging? Instead, this is just her walking into ball-room with all the rich people scoffing her. Sure, I get what they were doing, but it was not nearly as effective as it could've been, and there was no build-up to it. What if the song happened after a whole sub-plot of confrontations happened with the protesters? I don't know, just something better than the shit I saw. The opening sequence with Barnum as a kid is so rushed and over-looked, that the connections to that opening later on have no effect because it's so brushed over. There's a whole part with his wife that ties back to that opening, and it's longer than the opening itself, it's ridiculous. Let me ask you a question: Without looking up the IMDB or page here, can you name off any of the characters besides Barnum's family and Zac Efron? What's the bearded fat lady's name? Why is it that I'm not able to remember her outside her appearance and one song? Great job getting me attached to these freak-show displays. By the end of the movie, I'm still in the exact same place as when I entered, not moved or mentally changed.
@Jumpy, I'm jealous of the theater experience you had. Getting to laugh at the movie with a bunch of other people? Man, did I wish I enjoyed sitting through this, at least for the rights reasons. Just the fact I was actually bored by what I was watching is a testament to how much they fucked up. I'm really, seriously disappointed. Don't go into this movie expecting the circus. You're not going to get it. All you'll get is a boring fan-fiction of a much more interesting sounding movie. Maybe my imagination for The Greatest Showman was more than what they could deliver. Just unbelievable. I'm going to go watch Moulin Rouge! again, bye guys.
THIS MOVIE IS ABSOLUTELY AWESOME, AMAZING AND VERY VERY TOUCHING.
I WAS COMPLETELY ENTERTAINED FROM START
TO FINISH,with a tear
in my eye. I GOT CHILLS
AND
GOOSEBUMPS EVERYTIME
THEY SANG, THE TRACK'S ARE FANTASTIC AND VERY VERY MEMORABLE.
HUGH JACKMAN IS PHENOMENAL AS ALWAYS IN THE ROLE SWAPPING HIS CLAWS FOR A TOP HAT AND TAP SHOES. IT WAS AN ABSOLUTE JOY FROM START TO FINISH. THE HIGHS THE LOWS ALL CONTRIBUTE TO WHAT AN AMAZING SPECIAL TIME YOU HAVE WITH THIS MOVIE. ALADDIN 2019 COULD TAKE SOME TIPS ON HOW TO PUT TOGETHER A PERFECT
HEART WARMING TOUCHING
SUCH GOOD FUN MOVIE
MUSICAL, THAT HITS YOU RIGHT IN THE FEELS. & EVERY OTHER MODERN DAY MOVIE CAN TAKE LESSON'S FROM THIS MASTERPIECE ON
HOW TO GET DIVERSITY
AND RACISM & LITERALLY EVERY OTHER "ISM" RIGHT WITHOUT BASHING YOU OVER THE HEAD WITH IT SPOILING AND RUINING THE MOVIE AND YOUR GOOD TIME
BLOODY LEFT AGENDA SJW
BS TOXIC TICK THE BOX
POLITICS MAKE'S ME SICK ,
BUT THERE'S NONE OF THAT HERE, JUST GOOD OLD FASHIONED AWARENESS THAT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY FROM THE STORY ARE YOUR GOOD TIME, AND I ABSOLUTELY LOVED IT FOR THAT. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS SPECIAL SPECIAL MOVIE TO ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO JUST BE WHISKED AWAY TO A MAGICAL PLACE FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS AND
JUST FORGOT WHAT'S GOING OFF AROUND THE WORLD AT THE MOMENT WITH
THE WU-FLU:panda_face:
BECAUSE THIS MOVIE TRULY IS-THE GREATEST SHOW
......ENJOY......
From the comments here I think people are missing out the idea I think is behind the movie and it's actually a good one.
The level below doesn't exist. I think Goreng died at the bottom and threw the Panna Cotta because the rules of not keeping the food should still apply but didn't, as part of his illusion. The little girl couldn't survive the last level and was too clean for the place, also an illusion.
I think she's the Panna Cotta, which found it's way up and we see it in one of the earlier scenes, where the head chef tried to find whose hair is on the dish.
Goreng thought that his message doesn't need a messenger, that it will be clear - but it was missed. The administration, which I think is a analogy to God which is mentioned a few times in the movie and at every level the question of belief is asked, misses the whole point of it and is clueless to the pain and the suffering of the people below (Imoguiri worked for them, didn't know what the people really go through and thought there are only 250 levels).
They make everyone their favorite food of the highest quality and they probably think it's enough for everyone because each one should get his. The people being people, take more than they should or have to and as a result there's only enough food for the first 50 levels and the familiar hierarchy (the rich take most of the food that can be enough for everyone).
