The show wants to cover too much in just eight episodes, but it fails miserably. Too many characters, too many subplots, too many conflicts: Richter's fear, the love between Olrox and the knight, Maria and her father, the fight against the Messiah, Anette and her disconnection from her ancestors and her loss of Edouard. The viewer doesn't have time to focus on anything because they throw everything at the same time.
The only thing I cared about at least a little was Richter's plot and, although it was developed, it was not the best executed. The magic returns to Richter when he realizes that he has many people to protect. That trope is something we are tired of seeing, especially all those who come from consuming anime, consuming shounen to be more specific.
I was not interested in any character and I was even less interested in the antaognists. As usual, I remember that the first part of Castlevania did not shine for its construction of villains either. Who on the team thinks of making the vampires so one-dimensional and giving them so much focus? What is not attractive to the viewer is supposed to be kept on the sidelines.
It makes me laugh how they saved the worst for last: Alucard's appearance. It was not necessary to use the nostalgia card and even less so at a critical moment like that: right at the end when everyone is at their lowest moment and almost about to die. The way they executed those last scenes, Alucard feels like a Deus Ex Machina.
The action scenes were on point. Kudos to the group of animators and directors behind it. Castlevania has always had some of the best choreographed animated battles I've ever seen.
The first part of Castlevania was not something that was very worthwhile, but Castlevania: Nocturne disappoints even by those low standards.
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.
"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.
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.
