Nimona's character is the best thing in the film and steals the focus from the first time she appears. Then no other character matters unless he's used as comic relief, not even Ballister.
"Nimona" lacks real conflict. The whole question is summarized in "I don't have any problem, it's society that is wrong." It is obvious what the correct answer is, no viewer will support society, not when you present it in such a simplistic and one-dimensional way. On top of that, the topic is something already quite hackneyed that has been discussed hundreds of times in recent years and apparently no one knows how to execute it in an organic and credible way. However, I appreciate that "Nimona" has something to tell even if it doesn't manage to tell it well.
The half-medieval, half-futuristic setting is dissonant and strange. It feels absurd, but seeing the tone in which the film works and the direction it takes, it seems like a conscious decision.
The jokes are great, at least for me. That's why the movie is entertaining even if it fails in many other aspects.
"Nimona" does not respect serious moments, it is as if it was afraid that the film was too serious for his audience. Every time something remotely strong happens, it's interrupted by comic relief. That kills the immersion and seriousness that the film tries to build.
The last conflict where Ballister has the fight with Nimona when he doubts her because of the piece of parchment that her boyfriend gives him... Terrible. How is it possible that all this time Nimona gives you to understand that society and everything in it must be questioned, but when they show a parchment all worn out that was in God knows where, drew it God knows who and talks about a time in the past when you were not born, you believe what it says and question the person who was helping you not die all this time? You more than anyone know that the director is the real villain of the matter, she said it herself, she herself tried to kill your boyfriend when she was confronted by him. Are you really going to question everything you saw and know with complete certainty because of a piece of paper? Teeeerrible execution, an attempt to create a simple conflict at the expense of the realism of your characters and your own narrative construction.
So few dialogues give the film a great personality, until now I have not seen a film that has the same style. The cinematography, on the other hand, doesn't go that far, but it's decent. It has good shots and excellent scenes and, together with the script, they all help to tell things with very little.
The big problem with Nicolas Winding's film is that it completely lacks substance. It is undeniable that the style has left the film on top, but when you repeat the film about three times you realize that neither the story nor the characters are going anywhere. The first half of Drive is a romance story, the second half is about gangsters; the film doesn't quite decide what it wants to be and doesn't achieve anything on either side. When you know that no character has relevance beyond being a plot device to advance the story, you will stop caring after the first twenty minutes.
Drive has nothing to tell on a narrative level, it has no message like "(500) Days Of Summer" nor does it leave an impact like "Hard Candy." The only impact it has is its style, which, without detracting from it, is very good and not every film has a personality as marked as this one has.
I give Drive a light 7.
Another movie that I don't understand. If they don't explain everything to me at the end, I wouldn't have a clue about anything. I feel like the pieces fit together, and thank God, because my head was already hurting from seeing so many things disjointed and out of place.
Someday I will return to this film and I hope I enjoy it with the context I have of it now.
It's entertaining, most of the time. The other part of the time it's cheesy and stereotypical. There are great sequences like Jack Wilder's escape from the police when he uses all the magic tricks against them, tremendous choreography. But then there's the romance between Dylan Rhodes and the French police; His only function was to give a loving touch to the tape, but it only serves to blur the tape.
The twist at the end that Dylan, Lionel Shrike's son, driven by revenge, was the one behind everything is nice, but when you repeat the movie you can't see any details that lead you to that conclusion, it's just a ending that surprises you and nothing more. "Now You See Me" has no replay value. The film is a set of very entertaining shows, the problem is the moments in the middle of those shows: boring, irrelevant, without substance or style. Beyond small fragments, it is not worth spending two hours on this film to watch again.
"The Incredibles" is a movie about superheroes trying to live the lives of ordinary people, but this time the concept is well-executed, not halfway as is often the case.
Set in a time when superheroes are real, living hidden among the crowd, and saving the day like they provide a public service. Over time, due to collateral damage and civilians annoyed by the mess the supers made in the city, the government decided to shut them down. (In just twenty minutes, the movie did what "Civil War" couldn't.) The main story takes place fifteen years later.
Bob Parr, Mr. Incredible to his friends, a married super with a family, misses his glory days when he was a superhero and considered exceptional by the public. He lives a normal life with a job he hates, and the burnout and lack of interest in his work keep him from connecting with his family. It's not until he receives a secret message about a machine causing havoc on an island that he can return to superhero action, but without his wife, Helen Parr, or Elastigirl, finding out.
The new superhero activity suits Bob well. He rediscovers himself, starts exercising, his desire for his wife returns, and he connects more with his children. But his happiness won't last, as in the midst of all this, a plot of mysterious superhero deaths and Helen's doubts about what her husband is doing when he goes to "work" will be waiting for him at the end of the tunnel.
The film explores the dynamics of a not-so-normal family that wants to be normal, and the situations that arise from that are very interesting to watch. The attempt at normalcy makes the characters deeply relatable: the whole family feels like a normal family trying to navigate their lives with superpowers; each of them has characteristics that differentiate them greatly and contribute to the development of conflicts in the plot. It's impossible not to love them.
The cinematography, use of colors, and composition are beautiful. The clean style reminds me a lot of Dune for some reason. On the other hand, the jazz musical composition is so good that I could listen to the pieces from the film every day and in any context.
The only thing I would criticize about the movie is that the emotional catharsis at the end doesn't do justice to the entire build-up. What is the final evolution of the characters? What do they learn and in what ways do they change? Yes, the kids learn to accept their superpowers, and the family becomes a more united superhero family fighting against evil, but what about the marriage? There is distrust, deception, vulnerability, but I didn't see as strong a change as I expected. The ending almost feels like just another event in Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl's catalog, as the development is very smooth and almost nonexistent. Also, the acceptance of their powers at the end seems more like a positive consequence from society after they defeat the Omnidroid.
There are many things that feel underexplored and should have had a more significant impact on the viewer. "Toy Story" manages to strongly impact due to the catharsis of its characters' conflicts, "The Incredibles" does not, and it's a pity.
"The Will of Fire" spends the entire time telling Naruto to let Kakashi die, that there is no other way to defeat the antagonist, but the movie has his name and we can't make the character give in to the logic and experience, we have to make it super idealistic and irrational. Oh, and agreeing at the end just because and on top of that betraying the coherence of the magic system and preventing the villain from absorbing his rasenshuriken despite having been able to absorb even the chidori more times than I can count on my hands. .
The fights before the finals had creative resolutions however.
To date the best film I have ever seen in my life. I still don't give it ten stars because I lack reasons and by "reasons" I mean seeing more films as good as this one to justify "Inception" being the best of the best. Fair, right?
Something that Nolan did not know how to do in "Batman Begins" was to maintain the protagonist's internal conflict, something that remains in place until the end of "Inception." Cobb is warned and tested by Ariadne so that he understands that has a problem and must solve it: let go of the memory of Mal and accept the blame for his death. It is only until the end, in limbo, where to see his children again he accepts his wound and grows. This is how you keep your viewers hooked until the tape ends.
The concept is also very creative and is executed masterfully. Book sagas could be written where the magical system is based on the whole question of dreams. The concept is taken to the extreme with things like inception and a dream within a dream. And with that same level of construction, Nolan manages to effortlessly explain the entire system he built without it feeling condescending or breaking the viewer's immersion.
"Inception" is the best Nolan film I've seen so far.
A round, focused and forceful film. How the paranormal component affects the emotional component of the protagonist and leads her to do what she does is magnificent.
I have nothing bad to point out about "Talk to Me".
"Batman Begins" has more similarities to "Man of Steel" than I expected, and of course when it's Nola and Boyer who wrote both screenplays.
The first half is a nearly immaculate origin story. Wayne lost seeking to escape his anger and fear of it, being taken as a disciple of Ra's al Ghul and growing as a character to bring justice to Gotham. The second half, although good, is still an empty shell that has nothing more to tell. Bruce Wayne already had his hero's journey, there is nothing more to overcome internally, only external conflicts like all the corruption in Gotham. In that sense it is also very similar to Snyder's "Man of Steel", only better executed and with more details. It also reminds me of the first installment of Favreau's "Iron Man" where Tony also goes through his growth stage very early in the film.
But that does not prevent this Nolan film from being established as one of the best superhero films ever produced in live action.
It's a Naruto movie, there wasn't much to expect from this. Incredibly, it did not disappoint me, but not because it was good, but because I expected a fairly mediocre production, a cashgrab for the fans.
Much of The Lost Tower is built on the viewer knowing a little about the series. If this is not the case, you will not understand the reason for many of the characters or the dialogues.
Naruto is Naruto, there is nothing more. The real protagonist, Sara, is a flat character who they tried to give a hero's path to, but her execution was pretty bad. The villain, as is customary in Naruto productions, makes others feel sad and boring in a way I couldn't even imagine; The guy had four transformations and each one of them was the same as the previous one only bigger. Hilarious.
This Matthew Vaughn film is incredible, nothing more needs to be said. Too round, with a tremendous narrative flow. He does everything well and stands out for the style he works.
The antagonist is nothing out of this world, but he works and leaves you with that impression like the antagonist in Sam Mendes' "Road to Perdition." The action, however, is above average by far, with those great choreographies and such marked cinematography to support it. One of the best action films I've seen, definitely.
In a psychological or content sense it doesn't go very far, but it is of great quality in everything else.
It was difficult to keep up with the film due to the speed of the dialogue and the compactness of the information it was trying to convey. It's as if Anderson wanted to present you with a two-hour-plus film in a short film of just forty minutes.
Still, the story and the character move. In essence it is a simple, textbook story, an Aesop fable, but it undeniably works.
The style that works is, as expected, very Wes Anderson, and that is appreciated. To this day, this man's style is one of the most interesting I have ever seen, perhaps the most impressive of all. The colors, the shots, the staging and the mimicry of the theatrical works, all of this leaves a great impression on the viewer.
I couldn't get a reading of the tape and, to be honest, I don't know if I'll ever do it, I don't even think I have anything to say beyond the obvious, but what is obvious is the great impression it has left on me.