The fact that the entire asylum system in the EU does not really work is common knowledge. People fleeing war and oppression are very likely to be granted asylum or at least subsidiary protection, but they must still endure the perilous journey to Europe. Only after surviving traffickers, slave traders, and harsh environmental conditions can they hope for protection.
However, "Io capitano" is not about people who "have" to flee but rather "want" to take on the dangerous journey due to the rather bleak prospects for their future. The film follows two Senegalese teenagers, Seydou and Moussa, who dream of a better life in Europe. They soon have to abandon their naivety, as nothing goes as they had imagined during their journey. This whole ordeal is also staged quite effectively by director Matteo Garrone.
Overall, however, I find "Io capitano" somewhat misguided in its hopeful tone. The escape is somewhat turned into an adventure. And at the end, we don't find out what happens to the two boys after their journey. However, the likelihood of them being able to stay in the EU is probably pretty slim. In Germany at least, Senegal is considered a "safe country of origin," which means that the asylum recognition rate is extremely low and, in almost all cases, there is a threat of deportation back home. It would be interesting to know whether the boys would have made the journey with this knowledge.
One could certainly argue that the EU should open up legal possibilities for this kind of migration. In any case, it is indisputable that action must be taken against the criminal trafficking gangs that shamelessly exploit desperate people on the run.
But Garrone doesn't have much to say about this whole matter. The film's contribution to the debate is rather small. The strong performance of young actor Seydou Sarr in the leading role is impressive, and there are some depressing images in the middle of the film, but ultimately, it was all a bit too watered down for me. In real life, the escape does not end just off the Italian coast, as the film would have us believe.
Unexpectedly theatrical and with substance - like gothic thrilling vice laden modern Shakespeare. This is a film about consumption, the weakness and naivety of arrogance, and a complex first love emotion rolling obsession/jealousy/narcissism into one driving force.
There are three acts for me: Oxford, Saltburn, & madness.
The first act didn't work for me till the second act kicked in. I was worried about a overly-parody-fied and caricatured script. Whilst I recognised the feelings and experiences of Oliver at Oxford, the people were too larger than life and the early laughs didn't land properly for me. Laughing at silly posh young people or uber geeks just wasn't my thing. Some of the cruelty and snobbery played out well though.
The second act puts the first into perspective. The first act which shows an alienated and floundering Oliver gain acceptance from a dislikeable group through the actually sane, kind-ish and likeable Felix sets up for the second act. More unlikeable rich people consuming each other and tossing people away like toys. But Oliver has Felix now and has picked up skills in getting things his way, seduction and sweet talking. But the acting from everyone at Saltburn estate is spot on - I properly laughed at Rosamund pikes and Richard e grants moments. Even though they are all spoilt, sheltered, unwittingly arrogant and judgemental - these characters you like, you see their vulnerabilities and insecurities - you have fun when they have fun.
Things start looking beautiful in the second act. Sometimes distractingly so. The light play, framing, and camera work are stunning. You feel you are in the throws of first love in the best summer of your life. Sometimes this was at odds with the drama or tension in the story.
Final act madness. The sympathy built up for the family now leads into the thrilling dramatic unwinding. The consumers become the consumed. Arrogance and haughty ideas of invincibility led to weakness and fractures.
This isn't an overly cohesive film for me, but I think that's intentional as mis direction. Clues for the real story are laid throughout and I had guessed the ending about two thirds of the way in. I really enjoyed the moments of summer headiness, where everyone is enjoying each other's company. Sometimes the inter-character drama and tensions were too much for me - almost descending into reality tv pettiness. I think thats intentional to show the unsympathetic side of the upper class and olivers push back - I just don't think it needed so much.
The pacing and focus was a little off for me at times. The film was full of symbolism and clever lines but it almost felt too full sometimes. Like vacillating rapidly between moods. There was a moment where I was full of tears at portrayal of grief when others were laughing - very interesting but it left me feeling a bit all Over the place. But excited!
The score and the setting and sterling acting efforts lift the film up into a grand feeling vision. I was a little disappointed that the tone of the trailers wasn't present in the film at all (bloc party song teaser trailer was amazing) . But the score takes this to a different place - British, establishment, old money, young love, hubris and longing - great score.
The film is exciting and there are unexpected moments and some brave choices too. I enjoyed watching this a lot and am excited for more films. There's a lot to enjoy here. Barry keoghans metamorphosis through the film is really really thrilling. Reliving 2006 is fun too - wish just a bit more was done with the music and feeling of that time. Some duff moments for me too so a 7.
Recommend
If you enjoyed the TV show... DO NOT WATCH THIS.
It's crap.
There are shows and movies that you have to detach reality when watching them.. Spiderman, Batman etc. But you shouldn't have to detach reality for an entire 2-hour cop show set in London!!
There are so many bad scenes in this, there's no way a serious actor would have agreed to be in it unless it was solely for the $$$$$$$$$ offered if they had read the script prior to signing on.
I could list the bad stuff but it would take longer than watching the movie all over again. Here's one that won't ruin the plot....
Driving in the middle of nowhere - literally, there is nothing there. She folds the paper map and says "We're 3 miles out." They have to abandon the car minutes later (this scene is so impossibly stupid you have to see it to believe it). They get out and she says "We're 1 1/2 miles out." They walk for a bit, come over a crest and see their destination - about 2 miles away.
I won't even go into the absolute moronic things that happen from that point on.
Based on the final scene I think think this is going to turn into a James Bond type franchise going forward... and that's why this movie was made. I won't be watching it.
2/10
I didn't realize this was a Predator movie the first time I saw the poster and thought this was some random horror movie but the positive buzz certainly didn't pass me by so here we are again. After watching it I'm certainly... shocked?
From the get go this did very little to pull me in, be it the CG animals, one-dimensional plot or the the selfish attitude of our heroine. Now obviously one can argue how much that all matters when the action is good but it didn't really scratch that itch for me either... the Predator fighting with the animals was certainly entertaining but random guys biting the bullet with mostly offcam/unclear CG gore not so much. Would have been nice if they showed some wits when they fought him at the camp but somehow him going invisible is enough reason to lower their weapons and start talking to each other. She saw how the camouflage works multiple times in action already..?!!
What all those scenes, and the movie poster for that matter, certainly established, is that our protagonist has little to worry and that a showdown was coming but I would never have predicted the amounts of bullshit that would contain:
- Somehow becomes a baller and expert in alien technology. Knows when the Predator is coming, takes her magic herbs to immediately lower her blood temperature (but is not shivering and still standing up) and is in the Predators path who obviously doesn't see a standing corpse right in front of it or notices her moving out of the way...
- Never used the gun but knows the right angle to shoot and remove his mask (betting on this being a weakness when this did little to stop it before).
- Gets to conveniently escape for the n-th time and has enough time to finish up some traps (which the Predator even hit on some random tree lol).
- Gets hit to the head twice from the shield that cut through the Predators limbs, spear and even stone but is unscathed.
- Can easily remove a fang attached to it's face to save herself just in time.
- GPS dog that always magically reappears is ready to bring her the tomahawk...
- Manages to sit on top of the Predator and even pull him into the bog with a tiny rope and a much much smaller statue.
- The Predator obviously submerges immediately, but little does it know of her the grand plan to have him placed at that exact LOS of the mask in anticipation that he is gonna fire from his gun (despite not having had his mask for the whole time) while he is already targeted by the laser the entire time... b r a v o. Obviously that one shot was also enough to kill it.
...
Honest to god - how does a movie with such a contrived finale get so much praise, or even leave the script writing phase??
The watershed moment of the Italian Republic, its fundamental importance for what it produced in the following years highlighted in the incipit, which is the alternative ending of the true story. A film that does not save anything, neither terrorists nor institutions, much less their ideals. The protagonists of those weeks on both sides are all equally condemned, yet for them it is impossible not to feel pity, their more human side being dramatically exposed.
After the devaluation of the institutions from the point of view of its exponents, Cossiga / Alesi and Paolo VI / Servillo reduced to little men in the 1st part... there it is the identity crisis of the others men in the 2nd, Faranda / Marra and Nora Moro / Buy both executioners in spite of themselves, both who struggle to recognize themselves in a photo-sign and on television. Both witnessing the collapse of the foundations of their social life, the surreal vanity of the armed revolution and the facade hypocrisy of Catholic marriage. Collapse to which they react by shedding a single tear, only when faced with the responsibility for their actions, which they will try to remedy until the very end.
Everything closes by returning to the first point of view with Aldo Moro / Gifuni, however radically another person compared to the one in the 1st part: not the "crazy kidnapper" touted by "ex-friends" but rather lucid as never before, ready to confess the guilty indulgence of the already deceased 'free-Aldo' towards the aforementioned, Andreotti in particular being targeted by a ruthless final invective which bitter mouth considering what the post-Moro Italy's First Republic was and what it could have been without this watershed.
6 episodes to watch at all cost. Despite the television weakening compared to the big screen, the value of many scenes will still shine through their very strong visual and narrative symbolism, Cossiga's 'cyclothymic photography', Paul VI's martyrizing obsession, Faranda's maternal remorse, Noretta's dreamlike affection for a ghost that is finally palpable after 30 years of marriage. And the acting... in particular for Gifuni and Buy, I had no doubts even for a second that they were the real Moro spouses. Extraordinary interpretations compared to a cast that is already beyond the ordinary.
While the single take execution on display here is certainly deserving of praise, I can't help but think of it as the cherry on top of an already great film. The writing and performances are brilliant. The efficiency of character development is absolutely masterful, as the film somehow manages to juggle a large ensemble cast in 90 minutes. Some of these characters don't get more than a few minutes of focus and a few lines of dialogue, but that's all this film needs to make them feel real. This is all anchored and elevated by the powerhouse central performance of Stephen Graham. I am so impressed with the writing and execution of this character. It would have been easy to turn him into a very non-sympathetic caricature of the angry chef, but that's not what we get here. Yes, we get some profanity laced outbursts, but we also get heartfelt apologies and acknowledgements of his own responsibility. This is a man whose life is spiraling out of control and he knows exactly who is to blame: himself. This makes his interactions with his staff all the more tragic. Every time they are caught in the fallout of his mistakes he hates himself all the more. It's an effective portrait of someone who is desperately trying to be a good person, but addiction and self-sabotage are making that an impossible task.
My only critiques would perhaps be that the ending felt a little rushed and that the Alastair Sky storyline didn't feel quite as natural as everything else.
With its dirty glam sheen, bright chunks of color floating in filth, and an odor you can feel wafting off the screen, After Blue is all about making vomit cool again.
To be incoherent means to have faith in cinema, it means to have a romantic approach, unformatted, free, disturbed and dreamlike, cinegenic, an epic narration.
-Writer / Director Bertrand Mandico in his Incoherence Manifesto (2012)
After Blue is a surreal road trip where, if you aren't sure you're going to like it before you see it, then you're going to hate it. Fortunately, I knew I was going to like it because I'm a big fan of Bertrand Mandico after seeing his The Wild Boys (2017).
As someone who sees a movie everyday, a filmmaker who goes all out, who commits 100% to the bit and turns the style up to 11, makes the kind of movies I want to see because they're going to stand far out from the dump of rom-coms and family dramas that litter the cinema every week.
Look, let's be honest, you're not going to like After Blue so I can't recommend seeing it. It's just too weird. But if you want to watch a technicolor burp spew across the screen, if you like movies with a trippy 70's vibe, if you're into Ken Russell pompous extravagance then you might like After Blue but don't blame me if you don't.
(Mini-rant you don't need to read: Honestly, I don't get the criticisms saying After Blue is 'unintelligible' . Hell, I can tell you what it's about and I'm not even a native French speaker! In a post-apocalyptic world, a young woman (Roxy, or 'Toxic' to the people of the village) finds a woman buried up to her neck in the ground. Roxy helps the woman out of the sand, only to learn this woman (Kate(rina) Bush(owsky)) was buried there to be executed when the tide rose. 'Kate Bush' gives her three wishes, but the women of the village tell Roxy and her mother that they have to go on a road trip, find Kate and kill her. Yes, it's a surreal film, but those who say there isn't a story either didn't pay attention or they wrote a review based only on other critics' articles because they didn't see the film themselves.)
Full disclosure, I was and am a HUGE fan of the 1961 WEST SIDE STORY. I know it’s every detail, every word of every lyric, every emotional cue. Rita Moreno was the iconic Rita. So, I went to see this new Spielberg directed, Moreno produced, 2021 version with more curiosity than expectation. Not forgetting that WEST SIDE STORY was inspired by Shakespeare’s ROMEO AND JULIET, the general structure of the movies is the same yet contemporary and musical. The 2021 version is grittier. The context of the drama is more developed, setting it in a disappearing New York neighbourhood, which makes the rivalry of the street gangs more a matter of life and death that either the play or the first movie. Rita Moreno is very much celebrated in this new film, with a newly created character and a reallocation of a song. Two musical numbers in the 2021 version paled when compared to the 1961: (1) the dance at the gym didn’t have the battle fever of the original (probably solely due to the incomparable Rita Moreno in 1961) and by moving Tony and Maria’s first meeting from the actual dance to behind the bleachers it lost the transcendent quality of their love at first sight; and (2) Maria’s “I Feel Pretty” scene being moved from a Dress Shop (where the girls worked) to a department store (where they were but a small part of a cleaning crew), despite the clever use of store displays, changed the context from dreaming of a wedding to dreaming of blending into Americana. I also felt that 2021 suffered from the loss of (a) priest, which stripped away marriage vows in a church for promises in a museum (??), and (b) the the loss of the potion separated the lovers and the tragic death of love at the end. HOWEVER, ALL COMPARISONS OR DISAPPOINTMENTS EVAPORATED when Rachel Zegler’s soaring soprano lifted Maria’s first note. It was so beautiful I had to remind myself to breath. Her duets with Amsel Elgort were transporting. What would have been a rating of 7 (good) was made 9 (superb) by Zegler’s performance, making this a must see film. [Musical Drama]
People discovering they have psychic powers, experimenting with it, growing stronger, then falling out and confronting each other. Known story, except this time it's with very young children.
It's actually funny because every little plot issue made to keep the story go on that would normally be very easily spotted and annoying (like "why the hell is this character acting like that, that's so stupid, of course there will be consequences") is washed away by "of course they're children". For instance, Aisha's death was easily preventable, but they just weren't allowed to go out. Though why didn't she take precautions against her mother ? Ida did.
The whole story takes place out of sight of adults, they're just accessories. So much that you're kinda wondering what they're doing. Children are out all the time, unsupervised, even if one is autistic, left to the supervision of her 9yo sister, even when a teenager got killed. No one seems to be noticing Ben's mother absence either. It's an interesting take on the theme, the way the children experiment with their power is totally different from what adults would do, simpler, funnier, in the beginning, and rapidly more cruel too. Even the simple fact that they just simply accept the existence of these powers.
Not a fan of "the innocents" concept. These children are not innocents, it usually implies they wouldn't know the difference between good and evil, but they clearly do, they know what they're doing is bad. Even less a fan of the cliche of the psychopath child killing a cat.
Here it's still important, it's Ida's turning point but still would have rather not see it. Before that she's pretty bad herself, specially with her sister. I mean the broken glass in the shoe ? When she knows that Anna won't say anything and keep hurting herself for a long time, that was pretty hardcore. She was also ok with throwing the cat from the 10th floor, and just drew the limit at crushing his skull afterwards...
I like that we have no idea where these powers came from, and even if the last fight show us that lots of children are at least able to feel what's happening, it's not even a subject, clearly still a secret from adults, and they never interacted with others.
Anyway, even if it's pretty expected the story works, and the tension is still there, the children are actually quite good, specially Anna, and they have a lot of evolution during the story.
Ben is a solid antagonist. It's shown early that he's a psychopath but the getting worse part is well done and you rapidly have no issue accepting that this child must be killed.
“I've heard that there's a kind of bird without legs that can only fly and fly, and sleep in the wind when it is tired. The bird only lands once in its life... that's when it dies.”
Each person will come out of this film with a different interpretation for this quote, for me the bird symbolises those who are too terrified of feeling anything real, and so spend their whole lives distracting themselves with anything that will disconnect them from the ground, because they know if they ever come back down, the pain will be too great to bare.
In the first two acts of the film, we see the protagonist attempt to drown the grief that comes from not knowing who his parents are with flings with women (that he never allows to become anything real), sex and occasional violence. It’s only when his adoptive mother finally tells him where his birth mother is that he finally allows himself to face that hurt, which ultimately gets him killed. Like his adoptive mother said, all his life he used not knowing his parents as an excuse for “years of running wild” (like the bird that always flies), but the minute he’d know their identity he would no longer have an excuse for his behaviour and, much like the bird, would be forced to finally ground himself, face his complicated feelings and grow up.
Wong’s ability to explore such complicated human emotions through the story of a man and that specific metaphor is wonderful.
No one does atmosphere, nostalgia and longing quite like the Chinese filmmaker and Days of Being Wild is no exception. The beautiful, intriguing and often suffocating mise-en-scène, the delicious score, and the tantalising use of colour and light make this film yet another dreamy escape for hopeless romantics who just want to understand the pain in their hearts a little better, or rather sit with it for an hour and a half.
The ending feels out of place, but the fact that it eventually functioned as a link into his later film In The Mood For Love, makes the unofficial Love Trilogy all the more fun to experience.
I think the very best films are those that are able to speak to us, without being showy, of the rhythms and undercurrents that underpin our own lives. Sweeping emotional climaxes have never appealed to me as much as slow-burning, subtle explorations of our relationships with ourselves and others. Joanna Hogg's The Souvenir contains no grand climax, no catharsis, no resolutions. Instead it flows, shifting direction, twisting ever so slightly, looping back on itself and moving on anew. From reading the reactions to it, some have objected to its lack of obvious plot or its intensely personal nature, but these are the qualities I found myself relishing.
It's beautifully shot, full of muted tones and the grain of 16mm, and the use of space and light are remarkable—the feeling of a cramped student flat is captured perfectly. We move constantly back and forward between the living room, the bedroom, the stairwell. When Julie and Anthony are out for dinner they're shot from a low position, just a table in amongst the others. Close-ups are rare and all the more impactful for when they do appear.
What resonated deeply with me is the sense of being in a relationship that clearly isn't healthy but has enough charm, enough life, in it that it seems as if there really is no alternative. I have had relationships like that, where my partner would be equally controlling and encouraging. I was young and impressionable and even after it became clear to everyone else that there was only one way things could end I clung to it. I understand Julie: I understand why she stays with Anthony and goes back to him and indulges him; I understand it when she apologises to him for his bad behaviour; I understand it when she begins to borrow money from her parents to fund his lifestyle, remaining wilfully ignorant of its realities. There are seldom great, dramatic ruptures in real-life relationships and so it is here.
The performances from all of the actors involved are astonishingly good. Hogg spoke about casting Swinton Byrne because she seemed uncomfortable in front of the camera, like an artist and not an actor. This has proved to work very well as Julie seems, genuinely, like a young woman who hasn't figured out who she is personally or artistically. Tom Burke's arrogant, golden-tongued Anthony has a sort of feline character to him, sly and charming and managing to convey much with just his eyes. He worms his way into Julie's life, setting boundaries and then breaking them, pushing her far beyond what any partner should have to do. He encourages her, cajoles her, bullies her and it fills the heart with despair to see the relationship go where he directs it. Richard Ayoade has a memorable cameo and Tilda Swinton is typically magnificent as Julie's mother—a highly-strung parent who gets 'shopping headaches' and makes Julie and Anthony sleep in separate rooms.
Hogg also spoke of her lack of desire to make a film about class and yet class is everywhere in The Souvenir. It's in the sets, the clothes, the accents. It's in Julie's desire to make films about dockworkers in Sunderland, shown disdain by working-class and bourgeois characters alike. It's in the family dynamics, the parties, the cheques that pay for the dinners. It hangs obliquely over everything, and while Julie is often quick to acknowledge her own privilege it is clear that she occupies a rarefied existence.
The film's close comes almost delicately, and without the sweep that might be expected from a lesser, more obvious picture. It made me feel a quiet, deep sense of loss that I'm still thinking about days later. I will come back to it, revisit it, think about it. That is what I want from cinema.
