Film Reviews
This is a domain where I can journal the films I watch. It is a work in progress, as I am not only exporting previous diary entries, but add ones as I watch new films.Oldest at the top, newest at the bottom (an annoyance that I didn't realise until later and which I can't undo). I hope that through this, I can improve my film skills, and maybe even track my progress in a way that looks visually appeasing :) If you are looking for humour and my film log, check out my Letterboxd:
https://letterboxd.com/criticalwannabe/
https://letterboxd.com/criticalwannabe/
October 4, 2021
Let The Right One In/ Låt den Rätte Komma In
(Tomas Alfredson, Sweden, 2008)
4/5
Let The Right One In is a horror film in the way that the atmosphere itself is horrifying. It takes place in a suburb in Stockholm, Sweden in the 80's and follows the story of two kids. The first kid, the main character is Oskar who gets picked on by bullies at his school. The other is his neighbour, Eli, whom he falls for; the problem is that she is a vampire.
The fact that Eli is a very young girl contributes to the sense of complexity that is evoked in the film as Eli has to go through far-reaching lengths to have her thirst of blood satisfied, yet she is only a young girl trying to survive. One by one, we watch as members of the neighbourhood disappear. And it is this sense of unexplainable disappearances, is where the dread and horror come from.
The representation of this suburb in Sweden as grey, empty and depressing contributes to the tone of helplessness and this permeating feeling that no one will be there to help: both kids and to actually find the killer. This sense of detachment is the perfect setting for Oskar to fall for a vampire girl, who is ready to defend him against his bullies.
October 31, 2021
Last Night in Soho
(Edgar Wright, United Kingdom, 2021)
2.5/5
As this may or may not have been noticed, I haven't watched a movie in a while (at least one where I sat down and critically thought about it afterwards, the most recent one in mind is The Lego Batman Movie which is just capitalism in the form of a movie... it was really funny though). This was due to exam season and just lack of time in general.
However, I did get to watch Last Night in Soho in KINO on opening night and let's say, I was not impressed. Last Night in Soho follows the story of a girl who moves to London to study fashion, moving to an apartment where she starts to dream about a murder that happened in the 60's. The premise is fantastic, the actors are great, with Anya Taylor-Joy being one of the leads, and the cinematography is gorgeous. The era of the 60's is represented through neons and amazing visuals are just a demonstration of this excellent cinematography.
Unfortunately, the film does not work. It starts off as a psychological thriller, with the main character being somewhat of an unreliable narrator, but then switches into the realm of horror. The tone throughout is pretty grim. However, there are a lot of points that were unintentionally funny, especially the horror scenes that looked too goofy at times. I understand that the movie being "campy" could be intended, but at the same time it should still be coherent and not redundant. The film relies heavily on recurring imagery to evoke fear (it fails), and jumpscares, which I think is one of the worst tropes in films ever. I see that this film has elements of many Giallo films. It particularly reminded me of Suspiria (the one from the 70's) due to it's gore, the colour palette, cinematography and its' particularly campy nature. However, where Suspiria succeeded, Last Night in Soho failed.
The representation of college life is cliché and unrealistic. This can be forgiven as it gives the main character more characterisation, but at points it was just annoying rather than campy.
The film itself is not coherent. There are plot-holes and unanswered questions that were left unresolved. The reveal/twist at the end was not very good and did not make any sense.
I found the theme of toxic nostalgia as amusing. I find that theme and topic actually extremely interesting currently and have not seen much media actually tackle this subject. The film does portray the 60's as not as amazing as it seems which clashes with the main character's admiration and glamorisation of the 60's. It's an important message and theme as nostalgia without acknowledgement of the major issues that underpinned the past can be very harmful. It's important to understand that some aspects of the past may have been incredible and nostalgia is completely understandable; but a disregard of the issues of the past is not helpful at all.
All in all, I was disappointed. Edgar Wright is one of my favourite directors and there is not a movie by him that I don't like (well, except this one). He also proved that he can genre-bend with Baby Driver, but this was a complete mess unfortunately. I may revisit it, but it was simply not well-made. Looks nice though.
Last Night in Soho
(Edgar Wright, United Kingdom, 2021)
2.5/5
As this may or may not have been noticed, I haven't watched a movie in a while (at least one where I sat down and critically thought about it afterwards, the most recent one in mind is The Lego Batman Movie which is just capitalism in the form of a movie... it was really funny though). This was due to exam season and just lack of time in general.
However, I did get to watch Last Night in Soho in KINO on opening night and let's say, I was not impressed. Last Night in Soho follows the story of a girl who moves to London to study fashion, moving to an apartment where she starts to dream about a murder that happened in the 60's. The premise is fantastic, the actors are great, with Anya Taylor-Joy being one of the leads, and the cinematography is gorgeous. The era of the 60's is represented through neons and amazing visuals are just a demonstration of this excellent cinematography.
Unfortunately, the film does not work. It starts off as a psychological thriller, with the main character being somewhat of an unreliable narrator, but then switches into the realm of horror. The tone throughout is pretty grim. However, there are a lot of points that were unintentionally funny, especially the horror scenes that looked too goofy at times. I understand that the movie being "campy" could be intended, but at the same time it should still be coherent and not redundant. The film relies heavily on recurring imagery to evoke fear (it fails), and jumpscares, which I think is one of the worst tropes in films ever. I see that this film has elements of many Giallo films. It particularly reminded me of Suspiria (the one from the 70's) due to it's gore, the colour palette, cinematography and its' particularly campy nature. However, where Suspiria succeeded, Last Night in Soho failed.
The representation of college life is cliché and unrealistic. This can be forgiven as it gives the main character more characterisation, but at points it was just annoying rather than campy.
The film itself is not coherent. There are plot-holes and unanswered questions that were left unresolved. The reveal/twist at the end was not very good and did not make any sense.
I found the theme of toxic nostalgia as amusing. I find that theme and topic actually extremely interesting currently and have not seen much media actually tackle this subject. The film does portray the 60's as not as amazing as it seems which clashes with the main character's admiration and glamorisation of the 60's. It's an important message and theme as nostalgia without acknowledgement of the major issues that underpinned the past can be very harmful. It's important to understand that some aspects of the past may have been incredible and nostalgia is completely understandable; but a disregard of the issues of the past is not helpful at all.
All in all, I was disappointed. Edgar Wright is one of my favourite directors and there is not a movie by him that I don't like (well, except this one). He also proved that he can genre-bend with Baby Driver, but this was a complete mess unfortunately. I may revisit it, but it was simply not well-made. Looks nice though.
December 17, 2021
Spider-Man: No Way Home
(Jonn Watts, United States, 2021)
4/5
You can tell that I'm in a movie-watching slump but I think that it is also okay to take a break from watching a lot of films. There has been a great debate regarding superhero films and if they are really "films". A lot of big directors such as Scorsese have come out and compared them to theme parks, which is a valid opinion, and Ridley Scott who called them boring... which is also an opinion. What they definitely are though, are movies. Maybe not Films. But superhero movies not only have the power to be impactful and well-written, they can be culturally important as well. Films such as Avengers: Endgame, Infinity War, Captain America: The Winter Soldier and so on and so forth, have the power to also have cultural commentary and well-written characters. They also have the power to have a message and an interesting philosophical conflict. Superhero films can be much more than just fun movies.
I think Spiderman: No Way Home is very valid proof of that. Spiderman is one of those superheroes that has been adapted countless times. It can be hard to retain an audience's interest after so many depictions. I think this film breaks that curse in many ways.
First of all, it is not obsessed with connecting itself to the larger MCU as other movies intend to do. It is connected, but naturally so, and naturally so, sets up the multiverse storyline that will extend throughout the new MCU phase (I sound like an expert on this, I am not). What I mean is, it is not forced. Doctor Strange's presence makes sense, and actually impacts the plot (massively). The dynamic between Spiderman and Doctor Strange was interesting, and I was glad to see that explored a little bit.
Something I love in this film too, is how it shows the repercussions of Spiderman being revealed as Peter Parker (I don't think this is a spoiler, it is in the promotional material I believe...). It's actually handled quite realistically ( as realistically as is possible in a Marvel film :) and I love how they show how it affects him and his friends personally. It adds depth to the character, especially showcasing how far he goes in order to try to protect his friends from the repercussions of this reveal. It does a great job of setting up the conflict for the rest of the film between Peter Parker having a normal life and Peter Parker being Spiderman. And how both can often clash. The focus on friends and family is central to this film, and it focuses on this sometimes above else.
It's fair to say that there is a lot of fan-service in this film. No shame in that. But I think that it is fan-service done right. Characters such as Doc-Ock and Green Goblin (also not really a spoiler) are brought back, but they are not just brought back for intertextuality's sake for a shallow "hey, remember this!" moment(If i see one more of those, I might lose it). Those characters are actually integral to the plot, they serve to advance Peter Parker's character, and in essence, set apart this Spiderman and differentiate him from previous renditions of the character.
The character development of Peter Parker is why this movie works as well as it does. It is a darker film than you expect for a Spiderman movie especially, but it is not forcefully dark (the way DC does it). Peter deals with the consequences of his actions as a character, and grows. And by the end, you are left thinking...what now? And that is a feeling that you often do not feel at the end of superhero films.
I really liked this film, and I think that if other superhero films were to focus on making their films more focused on the characters (think Logan) and their humanity, then maybe the age of superhero films won't be over. Because nobody really cares about Captain America being an all-American hero anymore, they care about him when he becomes a fugitive to protect his best friend :)
Spider-Man: No Way Home
(Jonn Watts, United States, 2021)
4/5
You can tell that I'm in a movie-watching slump but I think that it is also okay to take a break from watching a lot of films. There has been a great debate regarding superhero films and if they are really "films". A lot of big directors such as Scorsese have come out and compared them to theme parks, which is a valid opinion, and Ridley Scott who called them boring... which is also an opinion. What they definitely are though, are movies. Maybe not Films. But superhero movies not only have the power to be impactful and well-written, they can be culturally important as well. Films such as Avengers: Endgame, Infinity War, Captain America: The Winter Soldier and so on and so forth, have the power to also have cultural commentary and well-written characters. They also have the power to have a message and an interesting philosophical conflict. Superhero films can be much more than just fun movies.
I think Spiderman: No Way Home is very valid proof of that. Spiderman is one of those superheroes that has been adapted countless times. It can be hard to retain an audience's interest after so many depictions. I think this film breaks that curse in many ways.
First of all, it is not obsessed with connecting itself to the larger MCU as other movies intend to do. It is connected, but naturally so, and naturally so, sets up the multiverse storyline that will extend throughout the new MCU phase (I sound like an expert on this, I am not). What I mean is, it is not forced. Doctor Strange's presence makes sense, and actually impacts the plot (massively). The dynamic between Spiderman and Doctor Strange was interesting, and I was glad to see that explored a little bit.
Something I love in this film too, is how it shows the repercussions of Spiderman being revealed as Peter Parker (I don't think this is a spoiler, it is in the promotional material I believe...). It's actually handled quite realistically ( as realistically as is possible in a Marvel film :) and I love how they show how it affects him and his friends personally. It adds depth to the character, especially showcasing how far he goes in order to try to protect his friends from the repercussions of this reveal. It does a great job of setting up the conflict for the rest of the film between Peter Parker having a normal life and Peter Parker being Spiderman. And how both can often clash. The focus on friends and family is central to this film, and it focuses on this sometimes above else.
It's fair to say that there is a lot of fan-service in this film. No shame in that. But I think that it is fan-service done right. Characters such as Doc-Ock and Green Goblin (also not really a spoiler) are brought back, but they are not just brought back for intertextuality's sake for a shallow "hey, remember this!" moment(If i see one more of those, I might lose it). Those characters are actually integral to the plot, they serve to advance Peter Parker's character, and in essence, set apart this Spiderman and differentiate him from previous renditions of the character.
The character development of Peter Parker is why this movie works as well as it does. It is a darker film than you expect for a Spiderman movie especially, but it is not forcefully dark (the way DC does it). Peter deals with the consequences of his actions as a character, and grows. And by the end, you are left thinking...what now? And that is a feeling that you often do not feel at the end of superhero films.
I really liked this film, and I think that if other superhero films were to focus on making their films more focused on the characters (think Logan) and their humanity, then maybe the age of superhero films won't be over. Because nobody really cares about Captain America being an all-American hero anymore, they care about him when he becomes a fugitive to protect his best friend :)
December 23, 2021
WarGames
(John Badham, United States, 1983)
3.5/5
Just watched this film, not expecting much, I was just lying on my couch post-dinner. But, I got interested when I saw a very young Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy as the main stars cause I thought to myself... is this a Hughes film that I haven't heard of? Feels like a weird crossover. That was the first 5 minutes, but I quickly realised it clearly wasn't a Hughes film.
There is not much to say here about the plot and the characters, it is a very traditional, very basic Cold War film. However, what makes it special I think, is the techno-thriller aspect. WarGames was one of the first mainstream films (if not the first mainstream film) to tackle the concept of hacking (in turn, cybercrime) and how that can possibly lead to dangerous consequences. In this film, a young boy named David (played by Matthew Broderick in what is considered his breakout role), accidentally triggers some sort of "War Game" on his computer whilst looking for a game computer company; however what he doesn't realise is that this "War Game" is not just a game... Even though this film was made in the 80's and therefore the technology shown and used is quite old in comparison to today, this threat is very much still relevant.
Worries and tensions of the time are reflected in this film (in my opinion). The most obvious one is Cold War tensions, it is a Cold War film and therefore it is a no-brainer that it would reflect the almost imminent threat that was felt at the time, that the possibility of such a scenario happening was not only plausible albeit in a different manner, but also quite difficult to understand. The fear that the Soviet Union had more advanced technology, or that it was one step ahead is definitely displayed in this film. As throughout, this "game" that manifested into real life (kind of) was taken very seriously, and they felt as if the Soviet Union was in control of this mystery technology in some way; this element of mystery and fear of the unknown.
However, there is also the tension, and the rising fear of technology in general. This is manifested in the most obvious way in the film, in which someone can merely hack into a system to perhaps trigger a war. But then also, technology can also be used to tamper with other systems as David changes his grades in his school's database at the beginning of the film. This means a threat to credibility too. This theme of systems being vulnerable permeates throughout the film (David literally words this out in dialogue but I can't remember the exact wording). Perhaps this was some sort of call to action? The concern of technology awakening, is definitely present. No spoilers but there is a part in this film where that kind of happens, but the ending is still positive.
For me personally, I also really enjoyed having the main character be a teenager in high school. Representation of teenagers is something I studied in high school, and continue to be interested in. I feel like you can see a clear shift in the 80's in the way teenagers were represented: more mis-understood, somewhat neglected by parents, more interesting (meaning they have distinguishing personality traits) but still a little delinquent; they are definitely teenagers but not juvenile delinquents in an awkward limbo between adult and child as in earlier decades :)
However, the plot was very thick and unlike a lot of teen films, there was not a lot of room for the characters to develop and breathe. I mean David learns his lesson I guess, but there is not a genuine three-dimensionality. The female character is just there as a sidekick. BUT, at least she has some distinguishing qualities, and in some way contributes to the plot. She's not necessarily neglected in comparison to David is what I'm saying.
Not a perfect or amazing movie by any means, there is a lot left to be desired. Character building as I mentioned before. And also, the plot is resolved wayyyy too easily. At one point for example, David convinces an integral character who was quite convinced by his own philosophy of his point of view in ONE SCENE and only a few lines of dialogue. And the few scenes that follow are not very easy to believe too. The ending is also interesting and all, but I just don't buy it. This very resolute ending though I think is characteristic of those types of films at that time though :) Oh, also, you can TELL this film had a director change, I feel like you can tell with a lot of films.
ALSO, now I realise that this film was referenced in one of my favourite Marvel films a.k.a Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and it was a woah moment. Actually, this film has been referenced quite a bit in pop culture, I think this speaks to its continued relevance and impact that still resonates today!
WarGames
(John Badham, United States, 1983)
3.5/5
Just watched this film, not expecting much, I was just lying on my couch post-dinner. But, I got interested when I saw a very young Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy as the main stars cause I thought to myself... is this a Hughes film that I haven't heard of? Feels like a weird crossover. That was the first 5 minutes, but I quickly realised it clearly wasn't a Hughes film.
There is not much to say here about the plot and the characters, it is a very traditional, very basic Cold War film. However, what makes it special I think, is the techno-thriller aspect. WarGames was one of the first mainstream films (if not the first mainstream film) to tackle the concept of hacking (in turn, cybercrime) and how that can possibly lead to dangerous consequences. In this film, a young boy named David (played by Matthew Broderick in what is considered his breakout role), accidentally triggers some sort of "War Game" on his computer whilst looking for a game computer company; however what he doesn't realise is that this "War Game" is not just a game... Even though this film was made in the 80's and therefore the technology shown and used is quite old in comparison to today, this threat is very much still relevant.
Worries and tensions of the time are reflected in this film (in my opinion). The most obvious one is Cold War tensions, it is a Cold War film and therefore it is a no-brainer that it would reflect the almost imminent threat that was felt at the time, that the possibility of such a scenario happening was not only plausible albeit in a different manner, but also quite difficult to understand. The fear that the Soviet Union had more advanced technology, or that it was one step ahead is definitely displayed in this film. As throughout, this "game" that manifested into real life (kind of) was taken very seriously, and they felt as if the Soviet Union was in control of this mystery technology in some way; this element of mystery and fear of the unknown.
However, there is also the tension, and the rising fear of technology in general. This is manifested in the most obvious way in the film, in which someone can merely hack into a system to perhaps trigger a war. But then also, technology can also be used to tamper with other systems as David changes his grades in his school's database at the beginning of the film. This means a threat to credibility too. This theme of systems being vulnerable permeates throughout the film (David literally words this out in dialogue but I can't remember the exact wording). Perhaps this was some sort of call to action? The concern of technology awakening, is definitely present. No spoilers but there is a part in this film where that kind of happens, but the ending is still positive.
For me personally, I also really enjoyed having the main character be a teenager in high school. Representation of teenagers is something I studied in high school, and continue to be interested in. I feel like you can see a clear shift in the 80's in the way teenagers were represented: more mis-understood, somewhat neglected by parents, more interesting (meaning they have distinguishing personality traits) but still a little delinquent; they are definitely teenagers but not juvenile delinquents in an awkward limbo between adult and child as in earlier decades :)
However, the plot was very thick and unlike a lot of teen films, there was not a lot of room for the characters to develop and breathe. I mean David learns his lesson I guess, but there is not a genuine three-dimensionality. The female character is just there as a sidekick. BUT, at least she has some distinguishing qualities, and in some way contributes to the plot. She's not necessarily neglected in comparison to David is what I'm saying.
Not a perfect or amazing movie by any means, there is a lot left to be desired. Character building as I mentioned before. And also, the plot is resolved wayyyy too easily. At one point for example, David convinces an integral character who was quite convinced by his own philosophy of his point of view in ONE SCENE and only a few lines of dialogue. And the few scenes that follow are not very easy to believe too. The ending is also interesting and all, but I just don't buy it. This very resolute ending though I think is characteristic of those types of films at that time though :) Oh, also, you can TELL this film had a director change, I feel like you can tell with a lot of films.
ALSO, now I realise that this film was referenced in one of my favourite Marvel films a.k.a Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and it was a woah moment. Actually, this film has been referenced quite a bit in pop culture, I think this speaks to its continued relevance and impact that still resonates today!
January 5, 2022
Wag the Dog
(Barry Levinson, United States, 1997)
4/5
This came on TV and I decided to watch (I don’t have cable tv in The Netherlands and therefore I only watch cable when I’m home).
Barry Levinson’s film about a sex scandal involving the U.S president briefly before elections is quite interesting considering this film was just released before quite similar events happened with Bill Clinton. You could say this is a film about corruption or politics, but more so I would say that it is a film about the power of media and public relations on our daily lives. Especially nowadays, our whole reality is framed by what we see on media.
Although this may sound slightly like I’m a champion of the hypodermic needle model, but a scenario like this - a manufactured war between America and Albania - if crafted realistically enough, could easily be believed by the public. However, maybe it’s because this was the 90’s, but an American war with Albania in the modern day could even be considered a proxy war, and in my opinion, may not even be documented that heavily about (at least as headline news) unless perhaps there is indeed a necessity of a cover-up such as the one in this film. It’s not as easy as the hypodermic needle theory. It’s just easing people to think about a topic more due to an increase of coverage - and coverage that is particularly impactful and emotional. However, perhaps what was striking is the use of symbols and icons like the ‘old shoe’ (as usual, it must be a symbol that evokes a certain patriotism and nostalgia to Americana through the use of country for example, reminding the public of the fictional American dream) and the involvement of celebrities and artists that caused the war to reach public concern.
And truly, yes, the public needs a figure or a symbol to idolise, a part that the film also discusses. Maybe I’m wrong though, and something like this would totally fly in the modern day… with the existence of Twitter though… However, I believe this film is meant to be a satire and therefore, hyperbole is ensured. It can be difficult though when satire becomes eerily close to the truth.
The similarities between theatrics, film and politics is clear though. Actually theatrics in everything.. “The world is a stage” as Shakespeare used to say. What is the difference between being someone and pretending to be someone fictional (I am not referring to identity fraud, in a metaphorical sense), if identity is a performance we all put on?.. anyways… that’s a discussion for another day.
As far as the film goes, the dialogue is pretty good. I actually think a film with a lot of dialogue is not flawed because of that, as many people say. Writers like Aaron Sorkin write a lot of dialogue; but it is masterful dialogue. There’s a rhythm, and it reveals character and intention, it’s not just filler.
In addition to that, Dustin Hoffman is my favourite part of this film because his lines are the most effortlessly funny ones. It was a fun watch, suffers a bit from slow sections, but ultimately a great watch that stays relevant. Life really imitates art...
Wag the Dog
(Barry Levinson, United States, 1997)
4/5
This came on TV and I decided to watch (I don’t have cable tv in The Netherlands and therefore I only watch cable when I’m home).
Barry Levinson’s film about a sex scandal involving the U.S president briefly before elections is quite interesting considering this film was just released before quite similar events happened with Bill Clinton. You could say this is a film about corruption or politics, but more so I would say that it is a film about the power of media and public relations on our daily lives. Especially nowadays, our whole reality is framed by what we see on media.
Although this may sound slightly like I’m a champion of the hypodermic needle model, but a scenario like this - a manufactured war between America and Albania - if crafted realistically enough, could easily be believed by the public. However, maybe it’s because this was the 90’s, but an American war with Albania in the modern day could even be considered a proxy war, and in my opinion, may not even be documented that heavily about (at least as headline news) unless perhaps there is indeed a necessity of a cover-up such as the one in this film. It’s not as easy as the hypodermic needle theory. It’s just easing people to think about a topic more due to an increase of coverage - and coverage that is particularly impactful and emotional. However, perhaps what was striking is the use of symbols and icons like the ‘old shoe’ (as usual, it must be a symbol that evokes a certain patriotism and nostalgia to Americana through the use of country for example, reminding the public of the fictional American dream) and the involvement of celebrities and artists that caused the war to reach public concern.
And truly, yes, the public needs a figure or a symbol to idolise, a part that the film also discusses. Maybe I’m wrong though, and something like this would totally fly in the modern day… with the existence of Twitter though… However, I believe this film is meant to be a satire and therefore, hyperbole is ensured. It can be difficult though when satire becomes eerily close to the truth.
The similarities between theatrics, film and politics is clear though. Actually theatrics in everything.. “The world is a stage” as Shakespeare used to say. What is the difference between being someone and pretending to be someone fictional (I am not referring to identity fraud, in a metaphorical sense), if identity is a performance we all put on?.. anyways… that’s a discussion for another day.
As far as the film goes, the dialogue is pretty good. I actually think a film with a lot of dialogue is not flawed because of that, as many people say. Writers like Aaron Sorkin write a lot of dialogue; but it is masterful dialogue. There’s a rhythm, and it reveals character and intention, it’s not just filler.
In addition to that, Dustin Hoffman is my favourite part of this film because his lines are the most effortlessly funny ones. It was a fun watch, suffers a bit from slow sections, but ultimately a great watch that stays relevant. Life really imitates art...
January 23, 2022
West Beirut
(Ziad Doueiri, Lebanon, 1998)
4/5
I was very excited when I saw that this film was on Netflix because I've been meaning to watch it for a while. I finally had the time to watch it yesterday, and it is a splendid film indeed. I am quite subjective here as I love films where a big event is happening in the background, but the central focus is not that event itself, rather on the people in it or affected by it.
The film is at it's strongest as a coming-of-age film (coming-of-age films can be very impactful and have the ability to convey so much about changing times literally within adolescents and especially within the culture it takes place in). The spirit of this film lives and dies with these storylines of small goals such as developing a film.
Throughout the film and conflict, the coming-of-age film becomes entrenched with the consequences of the events that surround the main characters (crossing to the East side for example), up until the point where it literally traps the characters and forces them to 'face reality' (the final shot is absolutely indicative of this). Showing the story from the main characters' perspective (who are just kids) creates a film that is more effective, showing the true consequences of the conflict amongst the true symbol of innocence and naïveté - kids - on the larger people. It is impossible by the end to not view them as victims (the larger cast too), but humanising them, giving them real characteristics and flaws, almost made it feel like a documentary. It is a one of a kind film, one that is a triumph as well as a tragedy, and hits close to home (literally).
However, the film itself is definitely flawed: the pacing can feel very weird, the tone can be all over the place sometimes, the acting is not always the best (child actors are always difficult, but the ones in this film are okay), and the focus can be very shoddy - but it's a great directorial debut!
Also, the jokes in this film do not translate so well in English, they can be pretty funny :)
West Beirut
(Ziad Doueiri, Lebanon, 1998)
4/5
I was very excited when I saw that this film was on Netflix because I've been meaning to watch it for a while. I finally had the time to watch it yesterday, and it is a splendid film indeed. I am quite subjective here as I love films where a big event is happening in the background, but the central focus is not that event itself, rather on the people in it or affected by it.
The film is at it's strongest as a coming-of-age film (coming-of-age films can be very impactful and have the ability to convey so much about changing times literally within adolescents and especially within the culture it takes place in). The spirit of this film lives and dies with these storylines of small goals such as developing a film.
Throughout the film and conflict, the coming-of-age film becomes entrenched with the consequences of the events that surround the main characters (crossing to the East side for example), up until the point where it literally traps the characters and forces them to 'face reality' (the final shot is absolutely indicative of this). Showing the story from the main characters' perspective (who are just kids) creates a film that is more effective, showing the true consequences of the conflict amongst the true symbol of innocence and naïveté - kids - on the larger people. It is impossible by the end to not view them as victims (the larger cast too), but humanising them, giving them real characteristics and flaws, almost made it feel like a documentary. It is a one of a kind film, one that is a triumph as well as a tragedy, and hits close to home (literally).
However, the film itself is definitely flawed: the pacing can feel very weird, the tone can be all over the place sometimes, the acting is not always the best (child actors are always difficult, but the ones in this film are okay), and the focus can be very shoddy - but it's a great directorial debut!
Also, the jokes in this film do not translate so well in English, they can be pretty funny :)
February 1, 2022
Licorice Pizza
(Paul Thomas Anderson, United States, 2021)
2/5
I just watched this film this week and did not really have any expectations, other than simply knowing the director's work. I unfortunately did not like this film...
There is the central issue that I have with the film in which it romanticises a relationship between a 15 year old and a 25 year old. In my perspective, the scenes with the main two characters always had a romantic tone rather than a naïve tone, and there was never really the feeling that it was supposed to be a representation of horrible people such as in a film like The Color Wheel (I also didn't like this), instead the film just showcases both characters as lost (albeit for different reasons).
Gary Valentine is a 15 year old going through puberty and very badly wanting to be an adult. There's not much else about Gary that is interesting, other than his infatuation with Alana. Alana wants to be an actress, but at the same time has no clue what she wants to do, and is lost; this is interesting and perhaps one of the best drivers of the movie's plot actually. However, I simply found it difficult to care about any of the characters.
This film is supposed to be funny but the dialogue is just not that strong, and the acting from the main two is alright, but not mind-blowing by any means. There was also a very bad racist joke that continually got brought up in the film which was clearly very distasteful.
I'm okay with plotless films, but the pacing here was not very consistent, and it felt like it was trying just a little too hard to seem like a coming-of-age film, with random sequences of events being slapped together that offer little to no growth to Gary Valentine, well, other than him pretending to be an adult(?)
The tone in the film was something that was consistent which was something that was definitely a pro. However, it's 70's setting almost becomes suffocating as a song from the 70's would play almost every 5 minutes, and random elements from the 70's like the legalisation of pinball machines felt very shoehorned in as a plot device as a Look, it's the 70's type of thing, rather than it actually adding anything of substance to the story or plot.
I think that the overwhelming use of nostalgia for no reason in stories is becoming very vacant and unnecessary. The use of a time period or a reference to a thing in that time period should be there for a reason, and should serve to further the plot or provide a fitting backdrop to a story; and not the other way round.
All in all, this may be an unpopular opinion, but I didn't like Licorice Pizza. To me, the film was like the very concept of Licorice Pizza, not a good idea, and I would definitely not try it again.
Licorice Pizza
(Paul Thomas Anderson, United States, 2021)
2/5
I just watched this film this week and did not really have any expectations, other than simply knowing the director's work. I unfortunately did not like this film...
There is the central issue that I have with the film in which it romanticises a relationship between a 15 year old and a 25 year old. In my perspective, the scenes with the main two characters always had a romantic tone rather than a naïve tone, and there was never really the feeling that it was supposed to be a representation of horrible people such as in a film like The Color Wheel (I also didn't like this), instead the film just showcases both characters as lost (albeit for different reasons).
Gary Valentine is a 15 year old going through puberty and very badly wanting to be an adult. There's not much else about Gary that is interesting, other than his infatuation with Alana. Alana wants to be an actress, but at the same time has no clue what she wants to do, and is lost; this is interesting and perhaps one of the best drivers of the movie's plot actually. However, I simply found it difficult to care about any of the characters.
This film is supposed to be funny but the dialogue is just not that strong, and the acting from the main two is alright, but not mind-blowing by any means. There was also a very bad racist joke that continually got brought up in the film which was clearly very distasteful.
I'm okay with plotless films, but the pacing here was not very consistent, and it felt like it was trying just a little too hard to seem like a coming-of-age film, with random sequences of events being slapped together that offer little to no growth to Gary Valentine, well, other than him pretending to be an adult(?)
The tone in the film was something that was consistent which was something that was definitely a pro. However, it's 70's setting almost becomes suffocating as a song from the 70's would play almost every 5 minutes, and random elements from the 70's like the legalisation of pinball machines felt very shoehorned in as a plot device as a Look, it's the 70's type of thing, rather than it actually adding anything of substance to the story or plot.
I think that the overwhelming use of nostalgia for no reason in stories is becoming very vacant and unnecessary. The use of a time period or a reference to a thing in that time period should be there for a reason, and should serve to further the plot or provide a fitting backdrop to a story; and not the other way round.
All in all, this may be an unpopular opinion, but I didn't like Licorice Pizza. To me, the film was like the very concept of Licorice Pizza, not a good idea, and I would definitely not try it again.
February 4, 2022
France
(Bruno Dumont, France, 2021)
2.5/5
Yes, the film is actually called that. I watched this film today as part of IFFR 2022. I can report back that this movie was okay. There was potential, but unfortunately it does not really do it for me.
France centers around the main character (played by Seydoux) who is a famous French journalist named France (literally) who goes through an internal crisis after running into a delivery boy with her car in Paris. The film in itself is meant to be a satire or parody of French media and particularly French journalism, which can clearly be seen in several parts of the film such as France making stupid faces in a war zone (and joking around), and her making jokes to her co-worker whilst President Macron gives a speech in response to a serious question that she asked.
However, France fails as a parody. It is not funny, and it's satirical nature is unfocused as the film tries to handle topics like depression and loss (which are both not really represented satirically). It is obvious that France as a character is supposed to be a sort of satire of France's media, as characters scream at her "I love you, France" or "France is crying" While it seems like it may be funny or poignant, there's really nothing there. If France as a character is a representation of French journalism/media, she is an unclear character who does not have clear motives and seems to not be understandable by the end.
I don't know if this is unintentional, but the film has many events that are very vague in nature (like France crying on camera, spoiler-y things that I won't mention) and it is not really clarified if these things are staged on purpose in order to get views or clicks or if they are adding to France's story. Either way, it is confusing, and makes the film less focused and puzzling rather than hammering in the message.
France as a character is puzzling. Her character makes sense until it stops making sense, especially in the middle of the film. It is also quite annoying that a huge portion of this film was dedicated to a romantic subplot that was just completely unnecessary, as France almost seems desperate for any romantic partner throughout the film. While this may add to her psychological breakdown, it was unnecessarily a big part of the plot; which contributes to the film's general lack of focus and sometimes strange pacing. The film also becomes redundant as it repeats elements such as the war zone sequences (this adds to the pacing issues too).
Something that the film does manage to explore a little bit is celebrity culture, and it's psychological effect on celebrities. In that way, it does do that with the character of France, however, the other themes in the film seem to be trying to say something, but are never quite fleshed out. By the end, it feels like the film itself is confused, and does not know what it wants to say other than maybe that media is sensational (we got that). It had potential of exploring other elements more deeply, but just does not.
Léa Seydoux also really does her best here. Her acting is great, but unfortunately, the character's writing fails her. It's not clear by the end what her resolution is. And France, by the end, as a film, ends up not knowing what it wants to say clearly.
France
(Bruno Dumont, France, 2021)
2.5/5
Yes, the film is actually called that. I watched this film today as part of IFFR 2022. I can report back that this movie was okay. There was potential, but unfortunately it does not really do it for me.
France centers around the main character (played by Seydoux) who is a famous French journalist named France (literally) who goes through an internal crisis after running into a delivery boy with her car in Paris. The film in itself is meant to be a satire or parody of French media and particularly French journalism, which can clearly be seen in several parts of the film such as France making stupid faces in a war zone (and joking around), and her making jokes to her co-worker whilst President Macron gives a speech in response to a serious question that she asked.
However, France fails as a parody. It is not funny, and it's satirical nature is unfocused as the film tries to handle topics like depression and loss (which are both not really represented satirically). It is obvious that France as a character is supposed to be a sort of satire of France's media, as characters scream at her "I love you, France" or "France is crying" While it seems like it may be funny or poignant, there's really nothing there. If France as a character is a representation of French journalism/media, she is an unclear character who does not have clear motives and seems to not be understandable by the end.
I don't know if this is unintentional, but the film has many events that are very vague in nature (like France crying on camera, spoiler-y things that I won't mention) and it is not really clarified if these things are staged on purpose in order to get views or clicks or if they are adding to France's story. Either way, it is confusing, and makes the film less focused and puzzling rather than hammering in the message.
France as a character is puzzling. Her character makes sense until it stops making sense, especially in the middle of the film. It is also quite annoying that a huge portion of this film was dedicated to a romantic subplot that was just completely unnecessary, as France almost seems desperate for any romantic partner throughout the film. While this may add to her psychological breakdown, it was unnecessarily a big part of the plot; which contributes to the film's general lack of focus and sometimes strange pacing. The film also becomes redundant as it repeats elements such as the war zone sequences (this adds to the pacing issues too).
Something that the film does manage to explore a little bit is celebrity culture, and it's psychological effect on celebrities. In that way, it does do that with the character of France, however, the other themes in the film seem to be trying to say something, but are never quite fleshed out. By the end, it feels like the film itself is confused, and does not know what it wants to say other than maybe that media is sensational (we got that). It had potential of exploring other elements more deeply, but just does not.
Léa Seydoux also really does her best here. Her acting is great, but unfortunately, the character's writing fails her. It's not clear by the end what her resolution is. And France, by the end, as a film, ends up not knowing what it wants to say clearly.
February 5, 2022
West Side Story
(Steven Spielberg, United States, 2021)
3.5/5
So, I went to watch the remake of West Side Story yesterday and I liked it! The last time I watched the 60's rendition was several years ago, so my memory of details like the chronology of that film are kind of rough around the edges. As a remake of that film though, there are some noticeable differences which I will mention, but I think I prefer the older version all in all.
This new remake directed by Spielberg feels grander in scale in every way. As characteristic of his style, the wide angle shots are beautiful and manage to capture the racial tensions and general rift between the two main gangs in a much more pronounced way. Racial tensions and this sense of anger is portrayed much more vividly in this version, it makes the tension more buildable, more believable and what it manifests to by the end feels like it was a result of the organic buildup throughout the film. In that regard, the film does well. The dialogue is also better than in in the 60's version for sure.
Something else that was really nice about the film is the casting choice. I think it's really important to cast Broadway performers in a Broadway musical, and that is done here. They are great here, the choreography is amazing, and so is the singing (so it all makes the musical numbers look incredible). What is of note too is that María is played by a Latina actress in this version and not by a white actress (like Natalie Wood was in the 60's version), which is great. Her voice is also amazing. However, Ansel Elgort does not really work here, I feel like the role doesn't really fit him that well, and he isn't very charismatic in general in the role.
There's really not much else to say about the film. However, the reason I prefer the 60's version is because something about this film feels very manufactured and spectacle-y (which is fine) whilst I felt like the tone of the 60's version was much more beautiful to look at (can't quite explain it). Don't get me wrong, numbers such as 'America' in the new film were absolutely amazing, but it felt like the film did not have a certain vivaciousness or spirit. However, I do things that most aspects they changed in this film do improve on the 60's version though, but, I don't know, I guess nostalgia has gotten the best of me this time. This requires a revisit in a few years :)
West Side Story
(Steven Spielberg, United States, 2021)
3.5/5
So, I went to watch the remake of West Side Story yesterday and I liked it! The last time I watched the 60's rendition was several years ago, so my memory of details like the chronology of that film are kind of rough around the edges. As a remake of that film though, there are some noticeable differences which I will mention, but I think I prefer the older version all in all.
This new remake directed by Spielberg feels grander in scale in every way. As characteristic of his style, the wide angle shots are beautiful and manage to capture the racial tensions and general rift between the two main gangs in a much more pronounced way. Racial tensions and this sense of anger is portrayed much more vividly in this version, it makes the tension more buildable, more believable and what it manifests to by the end feels like it was a result of the organic buildup throughout the film. In that regard, the film does well. The dialogue is also better than in in the 60's version for sure.
Something else that was really nice about the film is the casting choice. I think it's really important to cast Broadway performers in a Broadway musical, and that is done here. They are great here, the choreography is amazing, and so is the singing (so it all makes the musical numbers look incredible). What is of note too is that María is played by a Latina actress in this version and not by a white actress (like Natalie Wood was in the 60's version), which is great. Her voice is also amazing. However, Ansel Elgort does not really work here, I feel like the role doesn't really fit him that well, and he isn't very charismatic in general in the role.
There's really not much else to say about the film. However, the reason I prefer the 60's version is because something about this film feels very manufactured and spectacle-y (which is fine) whilst I felt like the tone of the 60's version was much more beautiful to look at (can't quite explain it). Don't get me wrong, numbers such as 'America' in the new film were absolutely amazing, but it felt like the film did not have a certain vivaciousness or spirit. However, I do things that most aspects they changed in this film do improve on the 60's version though, but, I don't know, I guess nostalgia has gotten the best of me this time. This requires a revisit in a few years :)
February 6, 2022
The Blazing Sun/ صراع في الوادي
(Youssef Chahine, Egypt, 1954)
4/5
I love Youssef Chahine's films. His way of creating films that combine drama with political commentary in a way that makes them almost inextricably linked is fascinating, especially in the context of Egyptian cinema. The Blazing Sun (as it is called in English) is one of his earlier works, and might be considered a little weaker than his later entries, but it proves to be a bombastic display of Chahine's style and the way he presents films.
To begin with, this film is flawed technically for sure, and it can become overtly melodramatic at some points (this is so characteristic of a lot of Egyptian cinema in general, though). It is the first official acting debut of Omar Sharif (who would go on to star in several Hollywood productions), and whilst it shows his pure and raw talent for acting, it is obviously not as great as his later works. The villain/s of the story are very by the book, and there wasn't as deep of a complexity as I would have liked. There were a lot of tropes too in general. Despite this, the story itself has many of the tropes of a hero's journey, placing a working class character (and the larger working class) at the forefront. This also intersects with the clear influence of Italian Neorealism present in this film and many of Chahine's films in general which tend to highlight the stories of the working class.
Our main character is a farmer, and in his village, the income mostly depends on the production of sugar cane, and the year in which they finally succeed in having better crops, their competitor (a rich landowner) does not like this new development and several (no spoilers) things are done to jeopardise the village in general; it includes murder too.
Clearly, it displays class struggle, and this feeling where the villagers' fate is dictated almost entirely by the rich landowner's actions. The rich landowner lives in a palace, and is mostly isolated from everything that goes on outside, with the majority of his scenes taking place in this same palace. This contrasts with the villagers consistently being moved around by the elements. There is also the very cliché element of a love story between the landowner's daughter and the main character (no surprise here).
The locations where they film a lot of scenes in this film are just incredible and very fitting. The climax of the film culminates in the Valley of the Kings, a place where the theme of Justice vs Corruption that permeates in the film finally concludes. The location works as a perfect place to film a cat-and-mouse type scene due to it's spaciousness and layout, and rectifies class struggle as not just a struggle in the 50's, but a historical struggle.
The Blazing Sun/ صراع في الوادي
(Youssef Chahine, Egypt, 1954)
4/5
I love Youssef Chahine's films. His way of creating films that combine drama with political commentary in a way that makes them almost inextricably linked is fascinating, especially in the context of Egyptian cinema. The Blazing Sun (as it is called in English) is one of his earlier works, and might be considered a little weaker than his later entries, but it proves to be a bombastic display of Chahine's style and the way he presents films.
To begin with, this film is flawed technically for sure, and it can become overtly melodramatic at some points (this is so characteristic of a lot of Egyptian cinema in general, though). It is the first official acting debut of Omar Sharif (who would go on to star in several Hollywood productions), and whilst it shows his pure and raw talent for acting, it is obviously not as great as his later works. The villain/s of the story are very by the book, and there wasn't as deep of a complexity as I would have liked. There were a lot of tropes too in general. Despite this, the story itself has many of the tropes of a hero's journey, placing a working class character (and the larger working class) at the forefront. This also intersects with the clear influence of Italian Neorealism present in this film and many of Chahine's films in general which tend to highlight the stories of the working class.
Our main character is a farmer, and in his village, the income mostly depends on the production of sugar cane, and the year in which they finally succeed in having better crops, their competitor (a rich landowner) does not like this new development and several (no spoilers) things are done to jeopardise the village in general; it includes murder too.
Clearly, it displays class struggle, and this feeling where the villagers' fate is dictated almost entirely by the rich landowner's actions. The rich landowner lives in a palace, and is mostly isolated from everything that goes on outside, with the majority of his scenes taking place in this same palace. This contrasts with the villagers consistently being moved around by the elements. There is also the very cliché element of a love story between the landowner's daughter and the main character (no surprise here).
The locations where they film a lot of scenes in this film are just incredible and very fitting. The climax of the film culminates in the Valley of the Kings, a place where the theme of Justice vs Corruption that permeates in the film finally concludes. The location works as a perfect place to film a cat-and-mouse type scene due to it's spaciousness and layout, and rectifies class struggle as not just a struggle in the 50's, but a historical struggle.
February 12, 2022
The Lobster
(Yorgos Lanthimos, Ireland/UK/Greece/France/Netherlands/US, 2015)
3.5/5
I made a joke that this movie is my unintentional Valentine's Day pick as it follows the story of a dystopia where singles must find a mate within 45 days or they will get turned into an animal of their choice. It's an absurd premise, and that is exactly what this film is: a surreal but absurd dark comedy. It's also one of the films from the pioneer of the so-called 'Greek Weird Wave' himself: Yorgos Lanthimos. The majority of the films I've seen that were part of this movement had the same unsettling and absurdist nature that this film had too. However, I was not much of a fan of Yorgos Lanthimos' early film Dogtooth and so I approached this with caution (I liked Killing of a Sacred Deer quite a bit though). However, I actually did think this was a cleverly done film (albeit not flawless of course).
The coldness and the absolute vacant nature of the film is very much displayed from the way the characters interact, the way that their dialogue is delivered (very monotone, characteristic of Lanthimos' direction), and the greyscale colour palette of this film are some of the many ways that 'The Lobster' evokes a sense of emotionlessness and dread of the society that it takes place in.
Similarly to his other films, you do not really feel sympathy for the characters either; instead they are simply products of the world they have been socialised in. For example, in the society in this film, you match with someone who is similar to you in some way ('compatible' as the film calls it), and even when one of the main characters manages to break free of these rules (no more spoilers from here), he still approaches love and companionship in the same way that he was socialised to. Every character in the film is merely a product of their socialisation in society which in itself acts as a cultural statement.
This film is also at the end of the day; a surreal abstract film.
However, I have the controversial stance of thinking that surrealist films or stories do not work unless there is some story, theme or message behind it; it has to leave enough room for the audience's interpretation. Anyways, philosophy aside, this is why I liked the film: besides its' surrealist quality, a message or idea can be extracted from here. For example, it can be seen as a criticism of the stringent ways that society forces people to only have self-worth if they are in a relationship (especially by institutional forces too), and even a criticism of the other extreme of the spectrum too. Basically, it can be seen as a criticism of the bureaucratisation and/or pressures of being in a relationship and how relationships are meant to be like. That was my interpretation at least. It explores this in a very darkly comedic way, with a great cast.
However, the pacing towards the middle of the film was quite strange and there were parts of the film that felt unnecessary in addition to the way that everything suddenly happens in the last 15-20 mins. Actually halfway through, the film starts to lose its' grip a little bit story-wise as well. All in all though, it was a nice watch.
The Lobster
(Yorgos Lanthimos, Ireland/UK/Greece/France/Netherlands/US, 2015)
3.5/5
I made a joke that this movie is my unintentional Valentine's Day pick as it follows the story of a dystopia where singles must find a mate within 45 days or they will get turned into an animal of their choice. It's an absurd premise, and that is exactly what this film is: a surreal but absurd dark comedy. It's also one of the films from the pioneer of the so-called 'Greek Weird Wave' himself: Yorgos Lanthimos. The majority of the films I've seen that were part of this movement had the same unsettling and absurdist nature that this film had too. However, I was not much of a fan of Yorgos Lanthimos' early film Dogtooth and so I approached this with caution (I liked Killing of a Sacred Deer quite a bit though). However, I actually did think this was a cleverly done film (albeit not flawless of course).
The coldness and the absolute vacant nature of the film is very much displayed from the way the characters interact, the way that their dialogue is delivered (very monotone, characteristic of Lanthimos' direction), and the greyscale colour palette of this film are some of the many ways that 'The Lobster' evokes a sense of emotionlessness and dread of the society that it takes place in.
Similarly to his other films, you do not really feel sympathy for the characters either; instead they are simply products of the world they have been socialised in. For example, in the society in this film, you match with someone who is similar to you in some way ('compatible' as the film calls it), and even when one of the main characters manages to break free of these rules (no more spoilers from here), he still approaches love and companionship in the same way that he was socialised to. Every character in the film is merely a product of their socialisation in society which in itself acts as a cultural statement.
This film is also at the end of the day; a surreal abstract film.
However, I have the controversial stance of thinking that surrealist films or stories do not work unless there is some story, theme or message behind it; it has to leave enough room for the audience's interpretation. Anyways, philosophy aside, this is why I liked the film: besides its' surrealist quality, a message or idea can be extracted from here. For example, it can be seen as a criticism of the stringent ways that society forces people to only have self-worth if they are in a relationship (especially by institutional forces too), and even a criticism of the other extreme of the spectrum too. Basically, it can be seen as a criticism of the bureaucratisation and/or pressures of being in a relationship and how relationships are meant to be like. That was my interpretation at least. It explores this in a very darkly comedic way, with a great cast.
However, the pacing towards the middle of the film was quite strange and there were parts of the film that felt unnecessary in addition to the way that everything suddenly happens in the last 15-20 mins. Actually halfway through, the film starts to lose its' grip a little bit story-wise as well. All in all though, it was a nice watch.
February 15, 2022
House of Gucci
(Ridley Scott, US/Canada, 2021)
2/5
I finally got around to watching House of Gucci and oh boy, was it a laugh. I feel like I'm sometimes overtly critical to films, but to quote Lady Gaga from the film "I am fair". If I don't like the film, I say I don't like it, but I can still acknowledge the good and bad things about it. So yea, I didn't like House of Gucci..
First off, I don't think I've laughed this hard in a movie theatre. The problem was, I was laughing in the parts where I don't think you were supposed to laugh in, and the worse part is, people around us who were watching were also laughing... I don't know if this is intentional, but the acting is simply not good, and the accents are worse. The accents become almost a parody rather than a depiction as it felt as if characters were just yelling random stereotypically Italian things here and there. Jared Leto's performance left me heaving for air because of laughter because I honestly couldn't tell if that was the worst performance of the year or the best one. Was he the only one in the cast who recognised that this film was indeed not serious? I don't know. Point is, I had a laugh. It is clear to say the dialogue.. not good. I am not sure if this is film is supposed to be funny or campy or whatever, but this border-lined ridiculous; it felt like a parody.
Anyways, moving forward. Let's say this film was actually a giant elaborate joke set up by the director. Okay, sure. It is also flawed because of many other things. It has fallen into the biopic trap of depicting a person'e entire life and as a result losing focus and grip on the actual story; it was difficult to see a coherent storyline and to actually understand what the film was trying to say or set up due to the constant time jumps. This film is also way too long for it's own good. The editing is very strange at times and the music choices were not any good either. The film felt all over the place, which it was.
The hairstyling, makeup, and costumes were pretty good though and at least I commend them for that. However, I feel like I don't have much else to say. It's sad cause I wanted to talk about the positive aspects, but simply speaking, the film was not good. At least me and my friend had a good time!
House of Gucci
(Ridley Scott, US/Canada, 2021)
2/5
I finally got around to watching House of Gucci and oh boy, was it a laugh. I feel like I'm sometimes overtly critical to films, but to quote Lady Gaga from the film "I am fair". If I don't like the film, I say I don't like it, but I can still acknowledge the good and bad things about it. So yea, I didn't like House of Gucci..
First off, I don't think I've laughed this hard in a movie theatre. The problem was, I was laughing in the parts where I don't think you were supposed to laugh in, and the worse part is, people around us who were watching were also laughing... I don't know if this is intentional, but the acting is simply not good, and the accents are worse. The accents become almost a parody rather than a depiction as it felt as if characters were just yelling random stereotypically Italian things here and there. Jared Leto's performance left me heaving for air because of laughter because I honestly couldn't tell if that was the worst performance of the year or the best one. Was he the only one in the cast who recognised that this film was indeed not serious? I don't know. Point is, I had a laugh. It is clear to say the dialogue.. not good. I am not sure if this is film is supposed to be funny or campy or whatever, but this border-lined ridiculous; it felt like a parody.
Anyways, moving forward. Let's say this film was actually a giant elaborate joke set up by the director. Okay, sure. It is also flawed because of many other things. It has fallen into the biopic trap of depicting a person'e entire life and as a result losing focus and grip on the actual story; it was difficult to see a coherent storyline and to actually understand what the film was trying to say or set up due to the constant time jumps. This film is also way too long for it's own good. The editing is very strange at times and the music choices were not any good either. The film felt all over the place, which it was.
The hairstyling, makeup, and costumes were pretty good though and at least I commend them for that. However, I feel like I don't have much else to say. It's sad cause I wanted to talk about the positive aspects, but simply speaking, the film was not good. At least me and my friend had a good time!
February 20, 2022
Volver
(Pedro Almódovar, Spain, 2006)
4/5
One of the seminal works in Almodóvar's filmography and European cinema in general, Volver is simply an excellent film. It was simply a breath of fresh air after a streak of bad films I've been watching recently.
Firstly, I have and continue to be very vocal about the role of women in film. I simply do not think enough is being done to represent women as fully-rounded characters with vulnerabilities, strengths (not only the ones that only fit patriarchal masculinity dominance), and well-written character in general. Don't even get me started on the depiction of motherhood and female friendship, I don't even want to open Pandora's box.
Anyhow, the reason I mention this is Volver is one of the most feminist films I've seen in recent memory. The way it depicts the female experience, relationships, mother-daughter relationships and friendships with such dexterity and care is an example of a story written where each character feels real; as if they exist outside the screen (the way all characters should be written). Almost all the characters have qualities that make them interesting. In addition to this; the film rarely has any screen-time or lines dedicated to its' male characters. The Bechdel test has been obliterated. The film doesn't even pursue a romantic relationship in its' runtime (this is so common in female-led films).
It is undeniable to say that this film is about family, motherhood and sisterhood. That is tied almost centrally to the plot device of Raimunda's (the main character) mother returning as a ghost, almost as a statement to how our relationship to our mothers almost affects our personal and spiritual trajectory in life. Friendship, sisterhood, and motherhood are all expressed here as female characters show support for one another and have compelling relationship dynamics. It's an example of cultural feminism at it's finest.
There is also clear influence from neorealism (there is a trend here, I seem to like films influenced by neorealism), as the story focuses on characters who are disempowered in society and also attempts to represent the reality of the working class where one of the primary concerns really is survival.
Just a note as well, the style of the film which is very reminiscent of other Almodóvar works is very fitting and gorgeous; the almost too bright colours contrasting with the often grim subject matter. It also feels very much like a domestic drama which I thoroughly enjoy.
I would say that the only part of it that I didn't like is some aspects of the ending (no spoilers); it also felt a bit abrupt.
Volver
(Pedro Almódovar, Spain, 2006)
4/5
One of the seminal works in Almodóvar's filmography and European cinema in general, Volver is simply an excellent film. It was simply a breath of fresh air after a streak of bad films I've been watching recently.
Firstly, I have and continue to be very vocal about the role of women in film. I simply do not think enough is being done to represent women as fully-rounded characters with vulnerabilities, strengths (not only the ones that only fit patriarchal masculinity dominance), and well-written character in general. Don't even get me started on the depiction of motherhood and female friendship, I don't even want to open Pandora's box.
Anyhow, the reason I mention this is Volver is one of the most feminist films I've seen in recent memory. The way it depicts the female experience, relationships, mother-daughter relationships and friendships with such dexterity and care is an example of a story written where each character feels real; as if they exist outside the screen (the way all characters should be written). Almost all the characters have qualities that make them interesting. In addition to this; the film rarely has any screen-time or lines dedicated to its' male characters. The Bechdel test has been obliterated. The film doesn't even pursue a romantic relationship in its' runtime (this is so common in female-led films).
It is undeniable to say that this film is about family, motherhood and sisterhood. That is tied almost centrally to the plot device of Raimunda's (the main character) mother returning as a ghost, almost as a statement to how our relationship to our mothers almost affects our personal and spiritual trajectory in life. Friendship, sisterhood, and motherhood are all expressed here as female characters show support for one another and have compelling relationship dynamics. It's an example of cultural feminism at it's finest.
There is also clear influence from neorealism (there is a trend here, I seem to like films influenced by neorealism), as the story focuses on characters who are disempowered in society and also attempts to represent the reality of the working class where one of the primary concerns really is survival.
Just a note as well, the style of the film which is very reminiscent of other Almodóvar works is very fitting and gorgeous; the almost too bright colours contrasting with the often grim subject matter. It also feels very much like a domestic drama which I thoroughly enjoy.
I would say that the only part of it that I didn't like is some aspects of the ending (no spoilers); it also felt a bit abrupt.
February 21, 2022
The Worst Person In The World/ Verdens Verste Menneske
(Joachim Trier, Norway/France/Sweden/Denmark, 2021)
3.5/5
So, I finally watched The Worst Person In The World. I had delayed watching this film because of the storm, but this movie I went to watch it even though it was still very windy (I was very intent to go watch it). And yep, I enjoyed it. What can I say? I was entertained for the most part. Had a good time. It was good.
The movie is split into 12-part chapters with a prologue and epilogue French New Wave style. As soon as I saw that, I was worried - I enjoyed The French Dispatch a few months ago but I've got to say I much prefer an underlying story or theme with this type of style - and I was mistaken because it actually works very well. The film is very poetic in nature, in the sense that it feels like a recollection of memories - similar to the way that Lady Bird does it - scenes merge into one another and there is a large focus on the moments themselves. It doesn't feel self-righteous and it mostly (I say mostly) does not act very self-important. These chapters influence Julie's (main character) trajectory of thought and usually mark some emotional growth or lesson for her which I think is what makes it so interesting. Although it is interesting to see a very uneasy character development here at the end - I'll get to that later.
Renate Reinsve is just fantastic as Julie and can display a fierce range of emotions with just one look which makes her character so much more interesting. Her character reflects that immense state of indecisiveness that plagues us when it comes to what we want to do in our lives. It's something we are almost immediately introduced to in the prologue; it is a theme that pervades throughout which felt very deeply important to explore. This pressure to decide, decide, decide, especially in the modern day and age can be overwhelming. However, the consequences of our decisions, must be met, and sometimes, we can never predict them, and that's okay. It's human. This is the most compelling part of the film.
The dialogue too and screenwriting is probably the best thing I've seen in a while. The writing is real, authentic, and feels like something a character would actually say. It's not superficial and feels just right for each character.
Additionally, there are some sequences like the freeze frame sequence which are just beautifully shot and add to the cinematic style of the film, an attempt for Julie to be the main character I guess :) Oh,oh, also the music is very good!
However, I must say there is a massive missed opportunity here with the aforementioned theme. The film seems to be a romance too which is fair, but the extent to which Julie's storyline is centred around relationships is frustrating. There is so much to explore with this theme of indecisiveness in life and with careers, etc. but the film chooses to solely focus on choices made within relationships which makes a slice of life female-centric film almost completely reliant on being in relationships. This is also the part of the problem with the ending, it feels disjointed and does not feel like it is set up quite clearly. Perhaps the message is to just keep moving (and it is a relief that the film doesn't focus on the relationships at the end), but that epilogue is way too short and vague. I just felt like it could've been balanced out more: make the epilogue longer and make some of the earlier scenes which drag on for too long a bit shorter.
Despite that, I don't think Julie is the worst person in the world. There are definitely worse people :)
The Worst Person In The World/ Verdens Verste Menneske
(Joachim Trier, Norway/France/Sweden/Denmark, 2021)
3.5/5
So, I finally watched The Worst Person In The World. I had delayed watching this film because of the storm, but this movie I went to watch it even though it was still very windy (I was very intent to go watch it). And yep, I enjoyed it. What can I say? I was entertained for the most part. Had a good time. It was good.
The movie is split into 12-part chapters with a prologue and epilogue French New Wave style. As soon as I saw that, I was worried - I enjoyed The French Dispatch a few months ago but I've got to say I much prefer an underlying story or theme with this type of style - and I was mistaken because it actually works very well. The film is very poetic in nature, in the sense that it feels like a recollection of memories - similar to the way that Lady Bird does it - scenes merge into one another and there is a large focus on the moments themselves. It doesn't feel self-righteous and it mostly (I say mostly) does not act very self-important. These chapters influence Julie's (main character) trajectory of thought and usually mark some emotional growth or lesson for her which I think is what makes it so interesting. Although it is interesting to see a very uneasy character development here at the end - I'll get to that later.
Renate Reinsve is just fantastic as Julie and can display a fierce range of emotions with just one look which makes her character so much more interesting. Her character reflects that immense state of indecisiveness that plagues us when it comes to what we want to do in our lives. It's something we are almost immediately introduced to in the prologue; it is a theme that pervades throughout which felt very deeply important to explore. This pressure to decide, decide, decide, especially in the modern day and age can be overwhelming. However, the consequences of our decisions, must be met, and sometimes, we can never predict them, and that's okay. It's human. This is the most compelling part of the film.
The dialogue too and screenwriting is probably the best thing I've seen in a while. The writing is real, authentic, and feels like something a character would actually say. It's not superficial and feels just right for each character.
Additionally, there are some sequences like the freeze frame sequence which are just beautifully shot and add to the cinematic style of the film, an attempt for Julie to be the main character I guess :) Oh,oh, also the music is very good!
However, I must say there is a massive missed opportunity here with the aforementioned theme. The film seems to be a romance too which is fair, but the extent to which Julie's storyline is centred around relationships is frustrating. There is so much to explore with this theme of indecisiveness in life and with careers, etc. but the film chooses to solely focus on choices made within relationships which makes a slice of life female-centric film almost completely reliant on being in relationships. This is also the part of the problem with the ending, it feels disjointed and does not feel like it is set up quite clearly. Perhaps the message is to just keep moving (and it is a relief that the film doesn't focus on the relationships at the end), but that epilogue is way too short and vague. I just felt like it could've been balanced out more: make the epilogue longer and make some of the earlier scenes which drag on for too long a bit shorter.
Despite that, I don't think Julie is the worst person in the world. There are definitely worse people :)
February 28, 2022
Tokyo Story/ 東京物語
(Yasujirō Ozu, Japan, 1953)
4/5
So, I've been watching a handful of movies so bad that I'm considering not even noting them down (they were however very entertaining gotta say, I was laughing a lot). Tokyo Story is not one of those films. It's a film I've wanted to see for a long time and finally managed to see in KINO yesterday.
This film has been named as one of the best films ever made, and while I am not sure if I share the same opinion personally (I can't sit down and name films as the best of all time, I'm way too indecisive). Either way, it's an incredible film and is undoubtedly a classic that should be seen.
Something that is instantly recognisable in the film is Ozu's consistent use of static shots; they are a great fit. Firstly, the film's simple structure and its' general focus on simplicity makes the persistent use of this shot very fitting. In addition to this, it provides for a way to fixate on the emotion in the story and also as a tool to trap the subject in the frame when necessary. It makes us seem as a spectator in a domestic setting (which is where the majority of the story takes place), thereby creating a more intimate feel.
Anyways, other than my (obvious) love for the static shot when used correctly; the main themes of old vs new is central here. It's also related with rural Japan and urban Japan quite literally with shots of buildings contrasting against shots of temples. This is also explored with the undercurrent of the new generation vs the old generation.
What is striking, and very important, is this film reflecting an understanding of the change in family dynamics in post WWII in Japan. Many factors including Japan becoming more westernised, meant that children would often become more separate from their parents in search of jobs, etc. Instead of reflecting anxieties and fears of these societal changes, the film attempts to portray them with a sense of understanding. There is a scene in which (as usual) adults discuss youth and how the are more lazy (this happens all the time throughout our history), and the father reflects that the world has indeed changed and that his children are trying to fit into it and make sense of it too. There is an acceptance of the idea of family changing too; you do not have to be a blood relative to feel like family.
There is also the main idea of the unpredictability and pain that is a constant in life. All of the children of the parents in this film often talk about how busy they are, and it is clear that they sometimes even neglect their parents despite them not seeing their parents frequently. The film's ending (no spoilers) come as a shock to some children, but some of the children attempt to take advantage of it (clear depiction of how far they have drifted). Despite this, the ending does truly reflect that you truly do not know what you've got until it's gone.
The only thing I would say I didn't like about the film was the relatively slow start it has, half an hour in though, it becomes good :)
Tokyo Story/ 東京物語
(Yasujirō Ozu, Japan, 1953)
4/5
So, I've been watching a handful of movies so bad that I'm considering not even noting them down (they were however very entertaining gotta say, I was laughing a lot). Tokyo Story is not one of those films. It's a film I've wanted to see for a long time and finally managed to see in KINO yesterday.
This film has been named as one of the best films ever made, and while I am not sure if I share the same opinion personally (I can't sit down and name films as the best of all time, I'm way too indecisive). Either way, it's an incredible film and is undoubtedly a classic that should be seen.
Something that is instantly recognisable in the film is Ozu's consistent use of static shots; they are a great fit. Firstly, the film's simple structure and its' general focus on simplicity makes the persistent use of this shot very fitting. In addition to this, it provides for a way to fixate on the emotion in the story and also as a tool to trap the subject in the frame when necessary. It makes us seem as a spectator in a domestic setting (which is where the majority of the story takes place), thereby creating a more intimate feel.
Anyways, other than my (obvious) love for the static shot when used correctly; the main themes of old vs new is central here. It's also related with rural Japan and urban Japan quite literally with shots of buildings contrasting against shots of temples. This is also explored with the undercurrent of the new generation vs the old generation.
What is striking, and very important, is this film reflecting an understanding of the change in family dynamics in post WWII in Japan. Many factors including Japan becoming more westernised, meant that children would often become more separate from their parents in search of jobs, etc. Instead of reflecting anxieties and fears of these societal changes, the film attempts to portray them with a sense of understanding. There is a scene in which (as usual) adults discuss youth and how the are more lazy (this happens all the time throughout our history), and the father reflects that the world has indeed changed and that his children are trying to fit into it and make sense of it too. There is an acceptance of the idea of family changing too; you do not have to be a blood relative to feel like family.
There is also the main idea of the unpredictability and pain that is a constant in life. All of the children of the parents in this film often talk about how busy they are, and it is clear that they sometimes even neglect their parents despite them not seeing their parents frequently. The film's ending (no spoilers) come as a shock to some children, but some of the children attempt to take advantage of it (clear depiction of how far they have drifted). Despite this, the ending does truly reflect that you truly do not know what you've got until it's gone.
The only thing I would say I didn't like about the film was the relatively slow start it has, half an hour in though, it becomes good :)
March 2, 2022
The Batman
(Matt Reeves, United States, 2022)
3.5/5
To be fair, I was immediately skeptical when they announced this film. I have had enough of Batman films post-The Dark Knight that felt like they were desperately attempting to mirror that film, or outdo it in some different way (and failing miserably). It feels like it's also becoming difficult to attach an actor to Batman due to actors and movies being dropped (e.g. Ben Affleck). So, I entered this film with no expectations.
I was pleasantly surprised. The thing about having no expectations about a film is that you can't really be disappointed. The three hour runtime could have been shorter for sure, but it never felt boring or was just long for the sake of being long. The pace was adequately good, and on the contrary, it felt like too much was happening at the same time (I will get to that in a sec). The tone of this film almost reminds me of A Fincher film. Even some of the shots (the motorcycle shots for example) evoke ideas of Fincher's direction. The film feels dark, gritty, and it definitely feels like a crime film and even carries a lot of crime film tropes without it seeming forceful or artificial. It's a refreshing tone for a Batman film where Batman essentially plays detective (although at one point in the film I was puzzled with just how much he understood The Riddler's riddles.. like does he like solving riddles for a past-time?) The directing and editing was sleek, and looked very good in general actually. For a Batman film too, there are surprisingly few action scenes (I'm not complaining, it's different). The tone was the best thing about the film (and I am told by my brother who is a big Batman fan that the detective style is also very comic-accurate, I personally have no clue).
I am also very happy that they didn't use Joker as the villain here. The Riddler is a villain that sometimes feel similar to the Joker with his mannerisms, and even his tactics, but I was just glad they weren't using the Joker because I feel like any depiction of the Joker is going to be related to Heath Ledger's Joker. It's time to move on to other villains. Paul Dano plays The Riddler quite well and is really a perfect fit. I love how they really tackle the power of the internet on building distrust and really rallying behind people like The Riddler - people who feel like they are not being heard - and that is essentially the main theme of the film. The disempowered; and how communities can really collapse when people's voices are not being heard. Penguin is also good, but he could have been more interesting (I heard there was a show in the works so maybe...)
While I like Catwoman in this film, and I really do like Zoë Kravitz's role, I really do not understand the need to immediately pair her up with the most readily available male character. I understand it reflects the comics. But in a three hour runtime, it really did not feel like there was any buildup to that relationship, and I genuinely did not think it was one bit necessary. Not a fan of this. Female and male characters can just be friends too, it's possible, I promise. I'm not against the idea of a relationship; but it needs to be built up organically. Additionally, Selina's story could have been explored more in-depth than it was in my opinion too, but that is not too big of a problem to be honest considering the amount of things that are put in the film. Selina also has a lot to work with and an interesting, engaging storyline which is great.
The main problem with this film for me unfortunately is Batman, himself. Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of the depiction of Batman as an emo, Nirvana-listening, privileged boy who has people problems. I actually really like the part where his privilege is acknowledged. But I'm quite torn about the delivery. Robert Pattinson is a good actor, but some scenes here looked straight up goofy when he was trying to be broody. Is that the point? Perhaps. But even besides that, Batman is hard to understand. Until the end at the least where I think the film wraps up with a nice, strong message. For example, a certain huge revelation is uncovered by Bruce Wayne: he tackles this revelation in around one scene and it is never quite addressed again. I just don't know why we should root for this vigilante. Why does Bruce want to save people? It's never quite clarified.
Lastly, I am so GLAD that we don't have to see Bruce Wayne's parents' death scene for the millionth time on screen. Everybody say thank you, Matt Reeves. Also, the music in this film is pretty good. I like. Although it's overused.
Very well-made film, but I'm contemplating how much I personally like it.
The Batman
(Matt Reeves, United States, 2022)
3.5/5
To be fair, I was immediately skeptical when they announced this film. I have had enough of Batman films post-The Dark Knight that felt like they were desperately attempting to mirror that film, or outdo it in some different way (and failing miserably). It feels like it's also becoming difficult to attach an actor to Batman due to actors and movies being dropped (e.g. Ben Affleck). So, I entered this film with no expectations.
I was pleasantly surprised. The thing about having no expectations about a film is that you can't really be disappointed. The three hour runtime could have been shorter for sure, but it never felt boring or was just long for the sake of being long. The pace was adequately good, and on the contrary, it felt like too much was happening at the same time (I will get to that in a sec). The tone of this film almost reminds me of A Fincher film. Even some of the shots (the motorcycle shots for example) evoke ideas of Fincher's direction. The film feels dark, gritty, and it definitely feels like a crime film and even carries a lot of crime film tropes without it seeming forceful or artificial. It's a refreshing tone for a Batman film where Batman essentially plays detective (although at one point in the film I was puzzled with just how much he understood The Riddler's riddles.. like does he like solving riddles for a past-time?) The directing and editing was sleek, and looked very good in general actually. For a Batman film too, there are surprisingly few action scenes (I'm not complaining, it's different). The tone was the best thing about the film (and I am told by my brother who is a big Batman fan that the detective style is also very comic-accurate, I personally have no clue).
I am also very happy that they didn't use Joker as the villain here. The Riddler is a villain that sometimes feel similar to the Joker with his mannerisms, and even his tactics, but I was just glad they weren't using the Joker because I feel like any depiction of the Joker is going to be related to Heath Ledger's Joker. It's time to move on to other villains. Paul Dano plays The Riddler quite well and is really a perfect fit. I love how they really tackle the power of the internet on building distrust and really rallying behind people like The Riddler - people who feel like they are not being heard - and that is essentially the main theme of the film. The disempowered; and how communities can really collapse when people's voices are not being heard. Penguin is also good, but he could have been more interesting (I heard there was a show in the works so maybe...)
While I like Catwoman in this film, and I really do like Zoë Kravitz's role, I really do not understand the need to immediately pair her up with the most readily available male character. I understand it reflects the comics. But in a three hour runtime, it really did not feel like there was any buildup to that relationship, and I genuinely did not think it was one bit necessary. Not a fan of this. Female and male characters can just be friends too, it's possible, I promise. I'm not against the idea of a relationship; but it needs to be built up organically. Additionally, Selina's story could have been explored more in-depth than it was in my opinion too, but that is not too big of a problem to be honest considering the amount of things that are put in the film. Selina also has a lot to work with and an interesting, engaging storyline which is great.
The main problem with this film for me unfortunately is Batman, himself. Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of the depiction of Batman as an emo, Nirvana-listening, privileged boy who has people problems. I actually really like the part where his privilege is acknowledged. But I'm quite torn about the delivery. Robert Pattinson is a good actor, but some scenes here looked straight up goofy when he was trying to be broody. Is that the point? Perhaps. But even besides that, Batman is hard to understand. Until the end at the least where I think the film wraps up with a nice, strong message. For example, a certain huge revelation is uncovered by Bruce Wayne: he tackles this revelation in around one scene and it is never quite addressed again. I just don't know why we should root for this vigilante. Why does Bruce want to save people? It's never quite clarified.
Lastly, I am so GLAD that we don't have to see Bruce Wayne's parents' death scene for the millionth time on screen. Everybody say thank you, Matt Reeves. Also, the music in this film is pretty good. I like. Although it's overused.
Very well-made film, but I'm contemplating how much I personally like it.
March 7, 2022
Taste of Cherry/ طعم گيلاس
(Abbas Kiarostami, Iran/France, 1997)
4/5
It's quite difficult to write some sort of tangible review for this film. It's something that I think will resonate with me for a long time. Taste of Cherry is a film that is somewhat slow-paced and simple in nature; there is one storyline and it mainly revolves around the main character trying to convince several characters to be complicit in his suicide. It's about communication, humanity, and morality.
It is only halfway through the film when the main character attempts to describe what he actually wants to do, feeling somehow more desperate and caring much less about how he seems to sound in the eyes of other characters. Suicide has never (and should never) be an easy topic to talk about. In addition to this, not to generalise at all, but mental health and suicide in general in middle-eastern society (coming from someone who is from a middle-eastern society) is not only taboo, but it is a topic that is undoubtedly interlaced with faith. Taste of Cherry is not afraid to show these conversations in a humanising and delicate way, tackling themes such as morality, faith and the nature of life itself.
Morality and saving other people seems almost common-sense to the characters in this film. All of the characters in some way deal with problems in their own lives, and add their perspective to the situation; instead trying to convince the main character of the importance of life or outright rejecting his monetary offer despite their need for the money. In my interpretation at least, throughout the film there are many signs that the main character himself is doubting his own decisions and recurrently goes to lengths to make sure that someone does check if he is indeed alive. This, alongside the directing choices at the end leaves me with my own interpretation which I won't share as to not spoil the experience.
Most of the film takes place inside a car, implying the claustrophobic situation the main character is in. The location too feels perfect, most of the film takes place outside the city and helps to add to the feeling of being lost and outside the grip of society. We also never know the circumstances of the main character purposefully so, because it does not matter; the problems he faced are most likely universal. There is also no score (at least not noticeably so) which just adds to the tone of the film; no embellishment.
All in all, it's a great watch. However, sometimes the pacing could be a little slow and the ending could have been better. It's a love letter to living :)
Taste of Cherry/ طعم گيلاس
(Abbas Kiarostami, Iran/France, 1997)
4/5
It's quite difficult to write some sort of tangible review for this film. It's something that I think will resonate with me for a long time. Taste of Cherry is a film that is somewhat slow-paced and simple in nature; there is one storyline and it mainly revolves around the main character trying to convince several characters to be complicit in his suicide. It's about communication, humanity, and morality.
It is only halfway through the film when the main character attempts to describe what he actually wants to do, feeling somehow more desperate and caring much less about how he seems to sound in the eyes of other characters. Suicide has never (and should never) be an easy topic to talk about. In addition to this, not to generalise at all, but mental health and suicide in general in middle-eastern society (coming from someone who is from a middle-eastern society) is not only taboo, but it is a topic that is undoubtedly interlaced with faith. Taste of Cherry is not afraid to show these conversations in a humanising and delicate way, tackling themes such as morality, faith and the nature of life itself.
Morality and saving other people seems almost common-sense to the characters in this film. All of the characters in some way deal with problems in their own lives, and add their perspective to the situation; instead trying to convince the main character of the importance of life or outright rejecting his monetary offer despite their need for the money. In my interpretation at least, throughout the film there are many signs that the main character himself is doubting his own decisions and recurrently goes to lengths to make sure that someone does check if he is indeed alive. This, alongside the directing choices at the end leaves me with my own interpretation which I won't share as to not spoil the experience.
Most of the film takes place inside a car, implying the claustrophobic situation the main character is in. The location too feels perfect, most of the film takes place outside the city and helps to add to the feeling of being lost and outside the grip of society. We also never know the circumstances of the main character purposefully so, because it does not matter; the problems he faced are most likely universal. There is also no score (at least not noticeably so) which just adds to the tone of the film; no embellishment.
All in all, it's a great watch. However, sometimes the pacing could be a little slow and the ending could have been better. It's a love letter to living :)
March 12, 2022
Parallel Mothers/ Madres paralelas
(Pedro Almodóvar, France/Spain, 2021)
3/5
Madres paralelas is a film I've been looking forward to seeing for a while now and was very pleased that I could get the chance to watch it in KINO yesterday (which is slowly but surely becoming my favourite cinema theatre). To start with, I do think it is a decent film that I somewhat enjoyed but I have to say a lot of it did not click for me story-wise and thematically.
Almodóvar's style here feels modern and stylistically crisp. The direction for the most part is pretty nice, and I do think that a lot of the charm of his films are present here. As mentioned in my review for Volver, he tends to write his female characters with a lot of empathy in a way that attempts to develop their personal story rather than linking it to the conundrum of a relationship (which is way too often presented as the ultimatum in a female character's storyline). The score and Penelope Cruz's acting is pretty solid, not anything to write home about but quite good. The editing and pacing was strange at parts though.
The saving grace of this film is the very important theme of generational trauma. A theme that is seldom explored with such care and passion. The impact of generational trauma is not just important, but integral to the way a society and the people living within it function. One of the main plot-lines revolves around the main character's attempt to excavate her great-grandfather's remains from a mass grave in her hometown. Characters in the film are constantly doing DNA tests; the need to know where you came from is an essential part of consoling and handling with generational trauma and the indirect consequences of the trauma that the people before you have faced. The problem with this plot-line and theme is simply the fact that it is not focused on enough. The structure of the story is somewhat of a mess. This is introduced at the beginning of the film, ignored throughout the whole film until the very end where it completely focuses on that plot-line - a complete shift in focus with other unresolved plot-lines too. The story unfolds in a messy way that feels disjointed.
The theme of motherhood seemed promising at first, but throughout started to feel unfocused and unsure. What becomes of it is confusing. The relationship between the two mothers in the film (Ana and Janis) is not explored in a meaningful way that relates to a wider theme... and their plot-line is left hanging. The melodrama becomes excessive and does not really resolve in a coherent idea or message. I tried to find a link with the larger theme: maybe Janis's problems stem from the aforementioned lack of closure with her past? I was left more confused than in a pensive mode. Maybe it's just me, but it was also not a fitting plot-line to the aforementioned plot-line. I really couldn't see a connection and it made a huge part of the film feel tedious, unnecessary, and purposeless.
Either way, Madres paralelas while undoubtedly is quite a mess, the sensitivity in which it acknowledges the past, and the performances by the leads made it a halfway decent watch.
Parallel Mothers/ Madres paralelas
(Pedro Almodóvar, France/Spain, 2021)
3/5
Madres paralelas is a film I've been looking forward to seeing for a while now and was very pleased that I could get the chance to watch it in KINO yesterday (which is slowly but surely becoming my favourite cinema theatre). To start with, I do think it is a decent film that I somewhat enjoyed but I have to say a lot of it did not click for me story-wise and thematically.
Almodóvar's style here feels modern and stylistically crisp. The direction for the most part is pretty nice, and I do think that a lot of the charm of his films are present here. As mentioned in my review for Volver, he tends to write his female characters with a lot of empathy in a way that attempts to develop their personal story rather than linking it to the conundrum of a relationship (which is way too often presented as the ultimatum in a female character's storyline). The score and Penelope Cruz's acting is pretty solid, not anything to write home about but quite good. The editing and pacing was strange at parts though.
The saving grace of this film is the very important theme of generational trauma. A theme that is seldom explored with such care and passion. The impact of generational trauma is not just important, but integral to the way a society and the people living within it function. One of the main plot-lines revolves around the main character's attempt to excavate her great-grandfather's remains from a mass grave in her hometown. Characters in the film are constantly doing DNA tests; the need to know where you came from is an essential part of consoling and handling with generational trauma and the indirect consequences of the trauma that the people before you have faced. The problem with this plot-line and theme is simply the fact that it is not focused on enough. The structure of the story is somewhat of a mess. This is introduced at the beginning of the film, ignored throughout the whole film until the very end where it completely focuses on that plot-line - a complete shift in focus with other unresolved plot-lines too. The story unfolds in a messy way that feels disjointed.
The theme of motherhood seemed promising at first, but throughout started to feel unfocused and unsure. What becomes of it is confusing. The relationship between the two mothers in the film (Ana and Janis) is not explored in a meaningful way that relates to a wider theme... and their plot-line is left hanging. The melodrama becomes excessive and does not really resolve in a coherent idea or message. I tried to find a link with the larger theme: maybe Janis's problems stem from the aforementioned lack of closure with her past? I was left more confused than in a pensive mode. Maybe it's just me, but it was also not a fitting plot-line to the aforementioned plot-line. I really couldn't see a connection and it made a huge part of the film feel tedious, unnecessary, and purposeless.
Either way, Madres paralelas while undoubtedly is quite a mess, the sensitivity in which it acknowledges the past, and the performances by the leads made it a halfway decent watch.
March 27, 2022
Flee/Flugt
(Jonas Poher Rasmussen, Denmark/France/Norway/Sweden/Netherlands/US/UK/Finland/Spain/Italy/Slovenia/Estonia 2021)
4/5
Noticeably, I haven't seen a proper film in a while (I'm watching TV, now?), or been to the cinema for while for sickness-related reasons. I was lucky enough to catch Flee in the cinema. I heard people walk out the cinema and call it timely considering what is happening, I think that term completely bypasses the fact that this was also timely last year in times of humanitarian crises (albeit not White crises may I add); it's just people are selective with what they care about (or show interest in). And this is the power of a film that can constantly feel timely and important.
Flee is a unique film that reminds me a lot of Waltz with Bashir (2008), as it also tackles memory and trauma in a documentary/animated style. While the animation style is not my cup of tea, and I think it could've been better (and utilised better); undeniably the animated medium is used here to portray Amin's memory. When a memory is tough to recall, can't be recalled; or is implied to be fabricated; the animated style becomes more minimalist with pencil sketches and unclear facial features. It's an excellent and creative way to show the malleability of memory, and how it can be just out of reach. In addition to this, the malleability of memory is also shown in sequences such as one earlier in the film where Amin recalls his mother just having white hair, but in the shot just before she has black hair (an idea that was not that continued unfortunately). The blending of the animated style with real-life footage grounds us in the reality of the events that took place, evoking the documentary part of the film as it is a true story. Although this switch to real-life footage can be jarring at times.
The most important parts of this film for me were the themes and the ideas that it was putting across. Firstly, humanising the refugee can be something so rare and I do think it's really important that this story be told in the perspective of the person themselves. I feel like when you humanise the person, their story can actually be so much more jarring and impactful; which is something I felt here. More stories should be told in the perspective of the storyteller themselves, because, in a way only they can truly and honestly tell their own story. I think the interview style was a great choice.
While the film follows the story of Amin's journey, the part I found the most impactful is the current consequences of a life lived like that. Amin had to erase his past and his history in order to continue living in the society he lives in and something about having to suppress your origins and your past felt utterly harrowing as these things impact the way you go about your lives, your relationships, and even who you are as a person. It's not something you just can ignore. Perhaps it was also something suppressed due to it being too traumatic, but I do think that facing it is an important part of this film - being honest about your past.
The idea of 'home' is something that is tackled here too, and something that resonates with me. What is home? The beginning of the film answers: "something that isn't temporary". Something you know you can always go back to. In a way that encapsulates the film and the true feeling of instability that our main character amongst many others face. A great watch; not perfect but important. We need more stories.
Flee/Flugt
(Jonas Poher Rasmussen, Denmark/France/Norway/Sweden/Netherlands/US/UK/Finland/Spain/Italy/Slovenia/Estonia 2021)
4/5
Noticeably, I haven't seen a proper film in a while (I'm watching TV, now?), or been to the cinema for while for sickness-related reasons. I was lucky enough to catch Flee in the cinema. I heard people walk out the cinema and call it timely considering what is happening, I think that term completely bypasses the fact that this was also timely last year in times of humanitarian crises (albeit not White crises may I add); it's just people are selective with what they care about (or show interest in). And this is the power of a film that can constantly feel timely and important.
Flee is a unique film that reminds me a lot of Waltz with Bashir (2008), as it also tackles memory and trauma in a documentary/animated style. While the animation style is not my cup of tea, and I think it could've been better (and utilised better); undeniably the animated medium is used here to portray Amin's memory. When a memory is tough to recall, can't be recalled; or is implied to be fabricated; the animated style becomes more minimalist with pencil sketches and unclear facial features. It's an excellent and creative way to show the malleability of memory, and how it can be just out of reach. In addition to this, the malleability of memory is also shown in sequences such as one earlier in the film where Amin recalls his mother just having white hair, but in the shot just before she has black hair (an idea that was not that continued unfortunately). The blending of the animated style with real-life footage grounds us in the reality of the events that took place, evoking the documentary part of the film as it is a true story. Although this switch to real-life footage can be jarring at times.
The most important parts of this film for me were the themes and the ideas that it was putting across. Firstly, humanising the refugee can be something so rare and I do think it's really important that this story be told in the perspective of the person themselves. I feel like when you humanise the person, their story can actually be so much more jarring and impactful; which is something I felt here. More stories should be told in the perspective of the storyteller themselves, because, in a way only they can truly and honestly tell their own story. I think the interview style was a great choice.
While the film follows the story of Amin's journey, the part I found the most impactful is the current consequences of a life lived like that. Amin had to erase his past and his history in order to continue living in the society he lives in and something about having to suppress your origins and your past felt utterly harrowing as these things impact the way you go about your lives, your relationships, and even who you are as a person. It's not something you just can ignore. Perhaps it was also something suppressed due to it being too traumatic, but I do think that facing it is an important part of this film - being honest about your past.
The idea of 'home' is something that is tackled here too, and something that resonates with me. What is home? The beginning of the film answers: "something that isn't temporary". Something you know you can always go back to. In a way that encapsulates the film and the true feeling of instability that our main character amongst many others face. A great watch; not perfect but important. We need more stories.
March 31, 2022
C'mon C'mon
(Mike Mills, United States, 2021)
4/5
Unpopular opinion, but I think that watching a film on a flight can be a nice experience. I don't know, the vibe is just different, I can't explain it. I very much enjoyed watching this film even if it was on a flight. in fact I was pleasantly surprised. Me and a close friend (who happens to be my film confidant) are very wary of A24 films. Well, that's because as a production company they have some sort of expectation of creating arthouse films (than can sometimes feel pretentious and superficial and may not be fun to watch). So I felt a bit of hesitation here, but honestly this film was rather quite comforting and sweet.
If I were to describe what this film is about; it's truly about the difficulty of communication as both a child and adult. It's also about the attempts to communicate. The film parallels how children can often communicate and see the world through one of the main characters (Jesse, who is a child) and how that can differ and even become similar to the way Johnny can deal with the difficulty in his life. The bond between the two characters is central to this film and shows characters who are both at a distressing stage in their lives.
The documentary style wherein Johnny goes around various cities to interview children with tough questions feels very fitting and even poetic; it's as if Johnny searches for answers to life's questions by turning to those who could have a fresher, newer, and more optimistic perspective. Even with this, the film often presents certain short stories and essays from writers throughout the film that also feel like an attempt to communicate and understand life in the way that is often done best; through stories. Stories are a huge part of this film as characters use it to make sense of their lives (The Wizard of Oz as an escape for Jesse, and the several short stories and essays as a melancholic and poetic view on life for Johnny).
The structure of this film is quite unorthodox but feels very fitting. As mentioned before, the documentary-style tidbits (which often are juxtaposed with establishing shots of the busy atmospheres of the cities the interviews take place in against the simple and minimalistic style of the film) feel like they contribute to the story and the overall theme of the search for beauty in life with the very naturalistic, slice-of-life style this film intends to adopt. The monochromatic style of the film (which tends to often feel pretentious in films) actually feels very fitting to the melancholic yet warm tone this film was attempting to convey. It does not feel superficial as credit to the very naturalistic acting of the leads (and the great script).
The style of this film also evokes this feeling of nostalgia paralleled with the urge to accept the present and the future with a sense of melancholic beauty. The black-and-white style conveys this for sure. But I also noticed the heavy use of jumpcuts and j-cuts also make some of the scenes feel like memories (and memory is a theme in this film) which is a great way to create the tone and atmosphere of the feeling of nostalgia paired with the way that passage of time is depicted in this film as fleeting.
However much I liked this film it is far from a great film: the pacing can feel off, the final idea and message can feel muddled, and the ending felt abrupt and incomplete. Despite this, I have quite a bias for films that can really expertly create effective atmosphere and tone. And the rating is always my personal rating :)
C'mon C'mon
(Mike Mills, United States, 2021)
4/5
Unpopular opinion, but I think that watching a film on a flight can be a nice experience. I don't know, the vibe is just different, I can't explain it. I very much enjoyed watching this film even if it was on a flight. in fact I was pleasantly surprised. Me and a close friend (who happens to be my film confidant) are very wary of A24 films. Well, that's because as a production company they have some sort of expectation of creating arthouse films (than can sometimes feel pretentious and superficial and may not be fun to watch). So I felt a bit of hesitation here, but honestly this film was rather quite comforting and sweet.
If I were to describe what this film is about; it's truly about the difficulty of communication as both a child and adult. It's also about the attempts to communicate. The film parallels how children can often communicate and see the world through one of the main characters (Jesse, who is a child) and how that can differ and even become similar to the way Johnny can deal with the difficulty in his life. The bond between the two characters is central to this film and shows characters who are both at a distressing stage in their lives.
The documentary style wherein Johnny goes around various cities to interview children with tough questions feels very fitting and even poetic; it's as if Johnny searches for answers to life's questions by turning to those who could have a fresher, newer, and more optimistic perspective. Even with this, the film often presents certain short stories and essays from writers throughout the film that also feel like an attempt to communicate and understand life in the way that is often done best; through stories. Stories are a huge part of this film as characters use it to make sense of their lives (The Wizard of Oz as an escape for Jesse, and the several short stories and essays as a melancholic and poetic view on life for Johnny).
The structure of this film is quite unorthodox but feels very fitting. As mentioned before, the documentary-style tidbits (which often are juxtaposed with establishing shots of the busy atmospheres of the cities the interviews take place in against the simple and minimalistic style of the film) feel like they contribute to the story and the overall theme of the search for beauty in life with the very naturalistic, slice-of-life style this film intends to adopt. The monochromatic style of the film (which tends to often feel pretentious in films) actually feels very fitting to the melancholic yet warm tone this film was attempting to convey. It does not feel superficial as credit to the very naturalistic acting of the leads (and the great script).
The style of this film also evokes this feeling of nostalgia paralleled with the urge to accept the present and the future with a sense of melancholic beauty. The black-and-white style conveys this for sure. But I also noticed the heavy use of jumpcuts and j-cuts also make some of the scenes feel like memories (and memory is a theme in this film) which is a great way to create the tone and atmosphere of the feeling of nostalgia paired with the way that passage of time is depicted in this film as fleeting.
However much I liked this film it is far from a great film: the pacing can feel off, the final idea and message can feel muddled, and the ending felt abrupt and incomplete. Despite this, I have quite a bias for films that can really expertly create effective atmosphere and tone. And the rating is always my personal rating :)
April 27, 2022
Drive My Car/ ドライブ・マイ・カー
(Ryûsuke Hamagachi, Japan, 2021)
3/5
I have evidently not been watching films for the past month... I am very ashamed to The reason is that I have surprisingly started getting into TV shows again and am even considering making a page here for the ones that I've watched and have been watching recently (currently watching like 3-4 at the same time right now and find myself short of time for full-length films so it makes sense...). Nevertheless, Drive My Car was the first film I watched after this short hiatus... and I honestly can't wait to watch something more fun and engaging. As mentioned before, my reviews are from my own perspective so when I say I simply did not connect with or enjoy Drive My Car that much that does not necessarily mean it's not a well-made film. - which it somewhat is.
It may be my short attention span or something, but this film was way too long. Any film with a three-hour runtime in my opinion has to justify that runtime - in other words it has to be gasping out of breath to fill that space with content that is useful for the story. This film's three-hour runtime is just not justified. It's slow pace can be felt quite brutally at times, and that also ties in with its' pacing issues. At least an hour can be cut here. The rehearsal scenes were poignant at times of course which I will touch on in but there is a point where these scenes feel too redundant and meandering. The point is proven. There is no need for several more scenes to prove the same idea. Same idea with shots too; it felt like some shots would go on just longer than is necessary without any reason....
When I also say that I didn't connect Drive My Car, I mean that I didn't find the main character/s and their relationships that compelling. It's hard to understand the sympathy for the recurring infidelity in the film and therefore personally I could not really understand Kafuku's motive in the film. Also, the relationship between the driver and Kafuku is not developed very well and seems to just deepen out of nowhere when perhaps it would have been useful to have a bit of build-up to the end of the film (which I did find very nice).
Now I've said quite a bit of cons, I think we should move on to some pros. I really thought the dangers (and vice versa) of using art/work as an avenue for your personal internal issues was represented quite neatly here. It becomes clear throughout the film that Kafuku uses his 'work' as a gateway to escape from his personal issues, and does not properly express his inner emotions in a healthy way. In fact, I felt like there were a lot of parallels between acting and real life, and how playing 'characters' can often be just part of our very own life. I don't think I've seen a film that deals with art quite like this in this manner; a tool for revenge, a tool for miscommunication, and a tool for communication. The message of acting one's self is just great too. The cinematography too is just awesome too; and the car looks pretty cool. Also, it's just pretty neat that the film does not awkwardly exclude (and explicitly awkwardly point out) the reality of the pandemic :)
Overall, decent, but some parts were just completely unnecessary.
Drive My Car/ ドライブ・マイ・カー
(Ryûsuke Hamagachi, Japan, 2021)
3/5
I have evidently not been watching films for the past month... I am very ashamed to The reason is that I have surprisingly started getting into TV shows again and am even considering making a page here for the ones that I've watched and have been watching recently (currently watching like 3-4 at the same time right now and find myself short of time for full-length films so it makes sense...). Nevertheless, Drive My Car was the first film I watched after this short hiatus... and I honestly can't wait to watch something more fun and engaging. As mentioned before, my reviews are from my own perspective so when I say I simply did not connect with or enjoy Drive My Car that much that does not necessarily mean it's not a well-made film. - which it somewhat is.
It may be my short attention span or something, but this film was way too long. Any film with a three-hour runtime in my opinion has to justify that runtime - in other words it has to be gasping out of breath to fill that space with content that is useful for the story. This film's three-hour runtime is just not justified. It's slow pace can be felt quite brutally at times, and that also ties in with its' pacing issues. At least an hour can be cut here. The rehearsal scenes were poignant at times of course which I will touch on in but there is a point where these scenes feel too redundant and meandering. The point is proven. There is no need for several more scenes to prove the same idea. Same idea with shots too; it felt like some shots would go on just longer than is necessary without any reason....
When I also say that I didn't connect Drive My Car, I mean that I didn't find the main character/s and their relationships that compelling. It's hard to understand the sympathy for the recurring infidelity in the film and therefore personally I could not really understand Kafuku's motive in the film. Also, the relationship between the driver and Kafuku is not developed very well and seems to just deepen out of nowhere when perhaps it would have been useful to have a bit of build-up to the end of the film (which I did find very nice).
Now I've said quite a bit of cons, I think we should move on to some pros. I really thought the dangers (and vice versa) of using art/work as an avenue for your personal internal issues was represented quite neatly here. It becomes clear throughout the film that Kafuku uses his 'work' as a gateway to escape from his personal issues, and does not properly express his inner emotions in a healthy way. In fact, I felt like there were a lot of parallels between acting and real life, and how playing 'characters' can often be just part of our very own life. I don't think I've seen a film that deals with art quite like this in this manner; a tool for revenge, a tool for miscommunication, and a tool for communication. The message of acting one's self is just great too. The cinematography too is just awesome too; and the car looks pretty cool. Also, it's just pretty neat that the film does not awkwardly exclude (and explicitly awkwardly point out) the reality of the pandemic :)
Overall, decent, but some parts were just completely unnecessary.
April 30, 2022
The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent
(Tom Gormican, United States, 2022)
3.5/5
Movies can be such a point of contention for people. What is a good movie? What exactly is cinema? I'm not sure I have a concrete answer to all of these - because of the nature of art itself - but also it may just be quite difficult to find an answer at all. We can assess film based on criteria... but not everyone can like a film, and not everyone can hate a film. So I find little point in arguing? What I am trying to say is The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent may not be a completely well-made film and is quite flawed in many aspects, but I enjoyed it a lot - sometimes that is enough. Because my ratings are based on my personal liking, it will reflect a mix of both the quality of the film and whether I personally enjoyed it (and where that interlinks). Well-made films don't have to be well-liked and vice versa. So yes, I liked this film and was quite looking forward to it because it looked very fun and weird - which it was.
Firstly, the pacing of this film is super quick (compared to the previous entry), which can feel a little too fast at times but honestly wasted no time - I never felt bored. The film itself is very energetic, and you get the feeling that passion was put into it - there is definitely a Nicholas Cage fan behind this film. It doesn't take itself seriously or at all and that majorly helps with the jokes (but when it does take itself seriously it loses a bit of charm).
The meta nature of the film was super fun and the quips it takes at Nick Cage himself and in general at the industry were very fun. It was also nice to see some visual humour here with conventional Nick Cage film elements being used comically here, the slo-mo and dramatic cuts - very nice and funny. Pedro Pascal was also very good and the friendship between his character and Nick Cage's character was pretty nice (the best part of the film in my opinion). It's a really interesting dynamic - starstruck millionaire criminal (although this becomes a pitfall later in the film...).
Tonally speaking, the film is quite all over the place as it tries to balance serious narrative with comedy in a way that often feels jarring (even more than it does in Marvel films). The parts that were way too serious did not tonally feel right, and sometimes even felt completely off-putting. It felt like the "acted" serious parts were the parts that felt fitting in this context only. This becomes a particular problem in the third act where I personally think the film is at its' weakest - it's just action but without the visual humour, comedy, and charm that the film was trying to nail. My biggest gripe with this film is that it could have been more absurd, funnier, and have incorporated more visual quips. Some plot points also did not make sense or should have just not been included - this could have been okay if the film had reeled in absurdity even. more. The ending too, felt very rushed and somewhat confusing (and not in a nice Inception way).
Overall, I enjoyed watching this film but I am legitimately not sure about my rating because I'm not 100 percent decided yet... Perhaps, I'll change my mind - we will see. Sometimes I watch a film, and the next day I'd wake up I'd realise I absolutely hated it and vice versa! My gripes with it were much less than the things I enjoyed though :) Fun watch.
The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent
(Tom Gormican, United States, 2022)
3.5/5
Movies can be such a point of contention for people. What is a good movie? What exactly is cinema? I'm not sure I have a concrete answer to all of these - because of the nature of art itself - but also it may just be quite difficult to find an answer at all. We can assess film based on criteria... but not everyone can like a film, and not everyone can hate a film. So I find little point in arguing? What I am trying to say is The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent may not be a completely well-made film and is quite flawed in many aspects, but I enjoyed it a lot - sometimes that is enough. Because my ratings are based on my personal liking, it will reflect a mix of both the quality of the film and whether I personally enjoyed it (and where that interlinks). Well-made films don't have to be well-liked and vice versa. So yes, I liked this film and was quite looking forward to it because it looked very fun and weird - which it was.
Firstly, the pacing of this film is super quick (compared to the previous entry), which can feel a little too fast at times but honestly wasted no time - I never felt bored. The film itself is very energetic, and you get the feeling that passion was put into it - there is definitely a Nicholas Cage fan behind this film. It doesn't take itself seriously or at all and that majorly helps with the jokes (but when it does take itself seriously it loses a bit of charm).
The meta nature of the film was super fun and the quips it takes at Nick Cage himself and in general at the industry were very fun. It was also nice to see some visual humour here with conventional Nick Cage film elements being used comically here, the slo-mo and dramatic cuts - very nice and funny. Pedro Pascal was also very good and the friendship between his character and Nick Cage's character was pretty nice (the best part of the film in my opinion). It's a really interesting dynamic - starstruck millionaire criminal (although this becomes a pitfall later in the film...).
Tonally speaking, the film is quite all over the place as it tries to balance serious narrative with comedy in a way that often feels jarring (even more than it does in Marvel films). The parts that were way too serious did not tonally feel right, and sometimes even felt completely off-putting. It felt like the "acted" serious parts were the parts that felt fitting in this context only. This becomes a particular problem in the third act where I personally think the film is at its' weakest - it's just action but without the visual humour, comedy, and charm that the film was trying to nail. My biggest gripe with this film is that it could have been more absurd, funnier, and have incorporated more visual quips. Some plot points also did not make sense or should have just not been included - this could have been okay if the film had reeled in absurdity even. more. The ending too, felt very rushed and somewhat confusing (and not in a nice Inception way).
Overall, I enjoyed watching this film but I am legitimately not sure about my rating because I'm not 100 percent decided yet... Perhaps, I'll change my mind - we will see. Sometimes I watch a film, and the next day I'd wake up I'd realise I absolutely hated it and vice versa! My gripes with it were much less than the things I enjoyed though :) Fun watch.
May 2, 2022
Love on a Leash
(Fen Tian, United States, 2011)
3/5
I am simply not joking when I say this is the best worst movie I've ever seen. It's absolutely horrendous but in a way that entertains you. This "so bad it's good" genre is something that I can't wrap my head around - because it's a genuinely very low-quality film that is highly enjoyable to watch, so I have a more difficult time reviewing these films. However, I feel like mediocrity is the mark of a truly bad film; bland and forgotten immediately. Love on a Leash on the other hand is something that I will never forget, just from the sheer absurdity of the whole thing. I think I will be quoting parts of this film the same way I quote The Room from now onwards.
First of all, nothing in this film makes sense in any way shape or form. The film itself is shot like a horror film, with recurrent Dutch angle shots, a sickening green colour scheme (I don't care if the main character likes it)... it was just everywhere; why is this character obsessed with this colour??
More of things that just don't make sense: the love interest (Alvin Flang, the dog, yes you heard that right) transforms into a man in the evening and this is never explained at all except with a stupid description coming out of a lake in the park in the form of sparkles (?). He apparently had a previous life or something, and he got cursed because he was not very nice. Then apparently we find out, he transforms into a dog only when there's sunlight... which becomes the most ridiculous plot point ever in the film. Either way, his personality entirely changes when he becomes a dog, with an entirely different voice actor (the Alvin Flang scenes are the best in the film, they are insanely hilarious); that just makes sense. And yes, the main character Lisa falls in love with her dog.
In fact, it seems like Lisa's main goal in life is to just find a man because as soon as she meets a man she just immediately discusses marriage. Then as soon as Alvin transforms into a human, she just immediately falls in love too because that also makes a lot of sense. Yea, she gets married to her dog Alvin Flang. Lisa and every other character in the film are literally so insanely bland and boring to the point of humour.
As for practical elements, wow, does this movie shine. The camerawork itself is very shoddy (in addition to the weird angles + lighting) with the framing sometimes being laughably weird. The editing is awful in a hilarious way, and the audio is just bad. A lot of the ADR is just noticeably off and bad quality - and it honestly just makes the film funnier. The structure doesn't make any sense, with everything happening in the first 20 minutes then the pacing becoming uneven and very slow even, at times. The acting is bad too... there's not much else to say, it's just SO bad.
I would've honestly given it a higher rating if it weren't for the 1 hour 25 minute which felt insanely lengthy and redundant. Also, sometimes the low quality was more frustrating than hilarious. Overall though, I had so much fun watching this and I think it's a new classic for me. I haven't laughed this hard while watching a film in a while. There's also something about these films that is inspiring: it motivates you to want to make a film no matter your resources.
Love on a Leash
(Fen Tian, United States, 2011)
3/5
I am simply not joking when I say this is the best worst movie I've ever seen. It's absolutely horrendous but in a way that entertains you. This "so bad it's good" genre is something that I can't wrap my head around - because it's a genuinely very low-quality film that is highly enjoyable to watch, so I have a more difficult time reviewing these films. However, I feel like mediocrity is the mark of a truly bad film; bland and forgotten immediately. Love on a Leash on the other hand is something that I will never forget, just from the sheer absurdity of the whole thing. I think I will be quoting parts of this film the same way I quote The Room from now onwards.
First of all, nothing in this film makes sense in any way shape or form. The film itself is shot like a horror film, with recurrent Dutch angle shots, a sickening green colour scheme (I don't care if the main character likes it)... it was just everywhere; why is this character obsessed with this colour??
More of things that just don't make sense: the love interest (Alvin Flang, the dog, yes you heard that right) transforms into a man in the evening and this is never explained at all except with a stupid description coming out of a lake in the park in the form of sparkles (?). He apparently had a previous life or something, and he got cursed because he was not very nice. Then apparently we find out, he transforms into a dog only when there's sunlight... which becomes the most ridiculous plot point ever in the film. Either way, his personality entirely changes when he becomes a dog, with an entirely different voice actor (the Alvin Flang scenes are the best in the film, they are insanely hilarious); that just makes sense. And yes, the main character Lisa falls in love with her dog.
In fact, it seems like Lisa's main goal in life is to just find a man because as soon as she meets a man she just immediately discusses marriage. Then as soon as Alvin transforms into a human, she just immediately falls in love too because that also makes a lot of sense. Yea, she gets married to her dog Alvin Flang. Lisa and every other character in the film are literally so insanely bland and boring to the point of humour.
As for practical elements, wow, does this movie shine. The camerawork itself is very shoddy (in addition to the weird angles + lighting) with the framing sometimes being laughably weird. The editing is awful in a hilarious way, and the audio is just bad. A lot of the ADR is just noticeably off and bad quality - and it honestly just makes the film funnier. The structure doesn't make any sense, with everything happening in the first 20 minutes then the pacing becoming uneven and very slow even, at times. The acting is bad too... there's not much else to say, it's just SO bad.
I would've honestly given it a higher rating if it weren't for the 1 hour 25 minute which felt insanely lengthy and redundant. Also, sometimes the low quality was more frustrating than hilarious. Overall though, I had so much fun watching this and I think it's a new classic for me. I haven't laughed this hard while watching a film in a while. There's also something about these films that is inspiring: it motivates you to want to make a film no matter your resources.
May 22, 2022
Tokyo Godfathers
(Satoshi Kon, Japan, 2003)
4/5
It might be concerning to see that I made a film review for Love On a Leash then disappeared for a month. But truthfully, I haven't seen a full-length film in almost a month until now. With a busy schedule it can be hard. I've also been watching shows and writing a lot. Like a lot. But fret not, as I went to watch the only film I haven't seen by one of my all-time favourite directors: Satoshi Kon.
Satoshi Kon is one of those directors that truly left us too early: his films had a massive impact on cinema, and the way he represents reality, memory and dreams whilst also having a scathing societal message is only something a visionary can do. There's a reason why many Hollywood filmmakers attempt to emulate him but in my opinion fail to.
Tokyo Godfathers is probably my least favourite release of his, because in many ways it does not connect with me the same way that his other films do; but I still think it's pretty excellent. It's pretty much a given that the animation is great, and the comedic part of this film is well-represented visually and even in dialogue - for a director who makes a lot of very dark films, he can make some funny jokes. Fret not though, it is pretty dark humour - well done in such a way that only Satoshi Kon can do.
While we are used to characters in his other films being somewhat of a mystery and even sometimes completely up to interpretation. his characters here are the most grounded. They are well-rounded and it is completely easy to see why they are the way they are. While the characters are not a mystery here, identity is still a theme (and the stories we tell about ourselves are too), as you discover that characters aren't completely truthful about their past. It's well done and can represent the shame that we often feel towards our past, and how we need to actually come to terms with it rather than repressing it. You can also see some signature Kon - with the surrealist way he represents dreams and reality, and some of the cuts that are just very. Kon (like match cuts).
A big theme here is actually coming to terms with your past, which is really nice. The moment they find the baby in the dumpster (which obviously represents hope) in a sea of hopelessness really starts to hammer in the idea that indeed it is important to "know where you came from" metaphorically and literally. The baby is just a tool in the story that allows the main characters to go on their own personal journeys. This also links with the concept of fate - things just happen in the film conveniently because they are meant to happen. And because the film utilises this absurdist humour and this theme of fate, plot conveniences are actually quite amusing and funny rather than frustrating - because it is intentional.
As usual, Kon interlaces elements of societal commentary. There is obviously an air of cynicism towards materialism here - and the film mostly takes place in the slums, within hidden rooms, dark alleyways, etc. The scenes that take place in public arenas rather showcase public disapproval towards the homeless and the unfortunate whilst also showcasing the hypocrisy and dichotomy of a society obsessed with order and family. The clearest example being the dumpster baby. In this film though, none of the characters that we spend time with are villainised; just a victim of circumstance. Victim of society. Isn't that a social commentary within itself?
Other than that, the only parts I didn't vibe with where the ending with the overtly long action scene, and some of the random unnecessary scenes.
Tokyo Godfathers
(Satoshi Kon, Japan, 2003)
4/5
It might be concerning to see that I made a film review for Love On a Leash then disappeared for a month. But truthfully, I haven't seen a full-length film in almost a month until now. With a busy schedule it can be hard. I've also been watching shows and writing a lot. Like a lot. But fret not, as I went to watch the only film I haven't seen by one of my all-time favourite directors: Satoshi Kon.
Satoshi Kon is one of those directors that truly left us too early: his films had a massive impact on cinema, and the way he represents reality, memory and dreams whilst also having a scathing societal message is only something a visionary can do. There's a reason why many Hollywood filmmakers attempt to emulate him but in my opinion fail to.
Tokyo Godfathers is probably my least favourite release of his, because in many ways it does not connect with me the same way that his other films do; but I still think it's pretty excellent. It's pretty much a given that the animation is great, and the comedic part of this film is well-represented visually and even in dialogue - for a director who makes a lot of very dark films, he can make some funny jokes. Fret not though, it is pretty dark humour - well done in such a way that only Satoshi Kon can do.
While we are used to characters in his other films being somewhat of a mystery and even sometimes completely up to interpretation. his characters here are the most grounded. They are well-rounded and it is completely easy to see why they are the way they are. While the characters are not a mystery here, identity is still a theme (and the stories we tell about ourselves are too), as you discover that characters aren't completely truthful about their past. It's well done and can represent the shame that we often feel towards our past, and how we need to actually come to terms with it rather than repressing it. You can also see some signature Kon - with the surrealist way he represents dreams and reality, and some of the cuts that are just very. Kon (like match cuts).
A big theme here is actually coming to terms with your past, which is really nice. The moment they find the baby in the dumpster (which obviously represents hope) in a sea of hopelessness really starts to hammer in the idea that indeed it is important to "know where you came from" metaphorically and literally. The baby is just a tool in the story that allows the main characters to go on their own personal journeys. This also links with the concept of fate - things just happen in the film conveniently because they are meant to happen. And because the film utilises this absurdist humour and this theme of fate, plot conveniences are actually quite amusing and funny rather than frustrating - because it is intentional.
As usual, Kon interlaces elements of societal commentary. There is obviously an air of cynicism towards materialism here - and the film mostly takes place in the slums, within hidden rooms, dark alleyways, etc. The scenes that take place in public arenas rather showcase public disapproval towards the homeless and the unfortunate whilst also showcasing the hypocrisy and dichotomy of a society obsessed with order and family. The clearest example being the dumpster baby. In this film though, none of the characters that we spend time with are villainised; just a victim of circumstance. Victim of society. Isn't that a social commentary within itself?
Other than that, the only parts I didn't vibe with where the ending with the overtly long action scene, and some of the random unnecessary scenes.
May 26, 2022
Everything Everywhere All At Once
(Dan Kwan & Daniel Scheinert, United States, 2022)
3.8/5
So, I watched “Everything Everywhere All At Once”, the film everyone has been raving about. And it was well - a lot. I think that is the best (and worst) thing about it, it’s just a lot of overwhelming elements. Until now, I am pretty stuck on whether it was a 3.5 for me or a 4, but I think 3.8 captures that feeling pretty well. Despite this, I just had a good time watching and that’s really important because while the movie is almost two hours and a half, the runtime is never felt. I was also in a pretty nice audience which always helps - in other words it was more of an experience than a film. And that's totally fine by me!
Michelle Yeoh gives a great performance here (as usual cause she’s an icon). Jamie Lee Curtis plays an auditor in probably the funniest way possible. No one really gave an awful or bad performance it seems.. And I think that a lot of the actors understood the fact that it is kind of an absurdist film and played along to that with their line delivery and such. Sometimes the dialogue felt weak - the quality of the dialogue was inconsistent - sometimes it was pretty great and sometimes it was just not good. And although the film was humorous a lot, some of the humour just wasn't my thing (which is also fine).
As for the multiverse aspect: Multiverse/time travel stories (in my opinion) do not feel coherent if overtly explained - most people will find a plot hole - and I think here they did just enough, while also keeping in line with the absurdist tone within the movie. The movie (like the previous entry) can get away with lack of explanation because of the way the film is designed and what it is about essentially! Although it is important to note I never quite understood the motive of the villain that well and what they exactly wanted to do in the multiverse. No spoilers but the whole bagel thing was the weakest part of the film.
Tonally, this film is all over the place. Kung fu film becomes a homage to Wong Kar-Wai becomes an action film, becomes a Ratatouille homage. It’s a lot. And while that is pretty cool, it’s just wayyy too much to keep track of or to find significance in. And it can frankly be quite tiring to keep up. I do think it is fun but there needs to be a balance of it, and a significance to it, when it comes to character and plot. It was just disappointing to find that sometimes the real plotline took a backseat to allow some weird shenanigans to take place.
I am impressed witj the CGI (the fact that it was a team of almost 5 people who learned this stuff on Youtube is mind-boggling..). It’s well directed, and technicalities are pretty spot on - no gripe there. Although the score was not anything to write home about, Son Lux is great but not memorable in any way here. It was nice to hear Mitski in the credits though!
Strangely enough, I felt the ending was rushed. I didn’t quite understand how and why things were resolved (that easily too). And the messaging of the film was not that clear, it felt like it was trying to say multiple things at the same time. It’s a rejection of nihilism, yet at the same time “nothing matters”, and then at the end it is not clear if the message is to accept the path you are on or the opposite This amongst more jumbled messaging. And to wrap my thoughts up: my biggest problem with this film is that it attempts to just do wayyy too much in a way that can somehow be exhausting for the audience .
Also, this movie is just an arthouse version of a superhero film tbh. I don't care if it is A24, you know how I feel.
Everything Everywhere All At Once
(Dan Kwan & Daniel Scheinert, United States, 2022)
3.8/5
So, I watched “Everything Everywhere All At Once”, the film everyone has been raving about. And it was well - a lot. I think that is the best (and worst) thing about it, it’s just a lot of overwhelming elements. Until now, I am pretty stuck on whether it was a 3.5 for me or a 4, but I think 3.8 captures that feeling pretty well. Despite this, I just had a good time watching and that’s really important because while the movie is almost two hours and a half, the runtime is never felt. I was also in a pretty nice audience which always helps - in other words it was more of an experience than a film. And that's totally fine by me!
Michelle Yeoh gives a great performance here (as usual cause she’s an icon). Jamie Lee Curtis plays an auditor in probably the funniest way possible. No one really gave an awful or bad performance it seems.. And I think that a lot of the actors understood the fact that it is kind of an absurdist film and played along to that with their line delivery and such. Sometimes the dialogue felt weak - the quality of the dialogue was inconsistent - sometimes it was pretty great and sometimes it was just not good. And although the film was humorous a lot, some of the humour just wasn't my thing (which is also fine).
As for the multiverse aspect: Multiverse/time travel stories (in my opinion) do not feel coherent if overtly explained - most people will find a plot hole - and I think here they did just enough, while also keeping in line with the absurdist tone within the movie. The movie (like the previous entry) can get away with lack of explanation because of the way the film is designed and what it is about essentially! Although it is important to note I never quite understood the motive of the villain that well and what they exactly wanted to do in the multiverse. No spoilers but the whole bagel thing was the weakest part of the film.
Tonally, this film is all over the place. Kung fu film becomes a homage to Wong Kar-Wai becomes an action film, becomes a Ratatouille homage. It’s a lot. And while that is pretty cool, it’s just wayyy too much to keep track of or to find significance in. And it can frankly be quite tiring to keep up. I do think it is fun but there needs to be a balance of it, and a significance to it, when it comes to character and plot. It was just disappointing to find that sometimes the real plotline took a backseat to allow some weird shenanigans to take place.
I am impressed witj the CGI (the fact that it was a team of almost 5 people who learned this stuff on Youtube is mind-boggling..). It’s well directed, and technicalities are pretty spot on - no gripe there. Although the score was not anything to write home about, Son Lux is great but not memorable in any way here. It was nice to hear Mitski in the credits though!
Strangely enough, I felt the ending was rushed. I didn’t quite understand how and why things were resolved (that easily too). And the messaging of the film was not that clear, it felt like it was trying to say multiple things at the same time. It’s a rejection of nihilism, yet at the same time “nothing matters”, and then at the end it is not clear if the message is to accept the path you are on or the opposite This amongst more jumbled messaging. And to wrap my thoughts up: my biggest problem with this film is that it attempts to just do wayyy too much in a way that can somehow be exhausting for the audience .
Also, this movie is just an arthouse version of a superhero film tbh. I don't care if it is A24, you know how I feel.
June 4, 2022
Belle/ 竜とそばかすの姫
(Mamoru Hosoda, Japan, 2021)
2.5/5
I kept telling myself that maybe I wasn't the right demographic for this movie throughout watching it. But honestly speaking, I'm someone who watches movies with a target audience of children all the time, and I still enjoy them. So this could only mean one thing: I didn't really like this film that much (that was selected in Cannes 2021 btw). It tries to say a lot of things, but those things end up falling quite flat and being unfocused most of the times. I understand this film was supposed to be emotional, but just ended up not earning those moments that much.
First of all, I don't know if it was just me and maybe as I mentioned before, this film was made for younger audiences, but the editing is so fast-paced at times that it feels like you really can't process a beat in a scene before you're already thrown into something else completely. It's frazzled with an energy that feels overt rather than purposefully fast-paced. Sometimes, I also felt like I was overstimulated too - maybe that was the point - there was just too much happening at the same time and it felt exhausting to behold (which could be facilitated by this aforementioned editing).
The film does not know what it wants to focus on and instead gets completely caught up in its' unnecessary retelling of Beauty and the Beast. When the film starts, it clarifies that our main character is in better lack of words - going through something. Her grief, and her dealing with what happened in her past whilst also hinting at somewhat of a disconnect with her father are things the film kind of forgets about even though it would have made for a much more compelling story. I do understand that our main character uses the U virtual world app in the film as an escape, but that is never quite questioned or really delved into. Although the point at the end is self-acceptance and at least that was well put-across (albeit in a quite messy way in my opinion).
The sequences taking place in U are the least interesting as there is almost an insanely long time spent on completely useless fights sequences (and repetitive song sequences), and most importantly the Beauty and the Beast analogy. There is no reason to involve that analogy here at all as at the end it was not really a love story (also I thought we were over the "I can fix you" love stories in general.) It didn't feel like a clever parallel, but rather a messy rehash. A long time in the film is dedicated to this (even then it feels rushed) and at the end it doesn't really make sense. Although I guess you can say that it makes sense that the user's real life anger manifests into the virtual world. Although then how come Belle also doesn't have any flaws even though she is dealing with grief in real life? Anyways...
The dialogue and clichés in the film can feel overwhelmingly cheesy (and not just in a charming teenage way). The characters speak weirdly with each other, and our main character has a horrible best friend (which is never acknowledged!) that almost consistently discourages her real-life character. And while I don't mind romances at all, it was like there was an overwhelmingly long time spent on romance plots, which is valuable time I feel could've been dedicated to seeing our main character growing to accept herself outside of the virtual world - rather than forcing that development in the last part/third act of the film. Althoughhh it is nice that the main character doesn't end up with anyone at the end after all and rather has new-found strength! Also side note: character motivations and moments in this film make NOOOOO sense at all (there is a point where some characters manage to know where someone lives in a massive city just by looking at a video of someone's room, there's a lot that is wrong here).
I did like some stuff believe it or not. The animation is gorgeous - for real. Every frame a painting for real. I also thought it was nice that they integrated the digitalised environments that kids are growing up with nowadays in the story as natural - the film doesn't judge it or give doomsday scenarios but rather accepts this reality and actually tries to mobilise it as a force that can be used for good too which is a nice change (However, completely ignoring possible downfalls I don't think is a very good way to go about it either). I also did like the final act much more than the rest of the film, and thought it was sweet in general. The characters too whilst clichés at times, really bond together which is nice to see.
Overall, the film is a nice message of self-acceptance, but the relatively uninteresting way it handles grief and it's tonal lack of focus + its overwhelming balancing of several things at the same time ends up feeling bloated rather than poignant unfortunately.
Belle/ 竜とそばかすの姫
(Mamoru Hosoda, Japan, 2021)
2.5/5
I kept telling myself that maybe I wasn't the right demographic for this movie throughout watching it. But honestly speaking, I'm someone who watches movies with a target audience of children all the time, and I still enjoy them. So this could only mean one thing: I didn't really like this film that much (that was selected in Cannes 2021 btw). It tries to say a lot of things, but those things end up falling quite flat and being unfocused most of the times. I understand this film was supposed to be emotional, but just ended up not earning those moments that much.
First of all, I don't know if it was just me and maybe as I mentioned before, this film was made for younger audiences, but the editing is so fast-paced at times that it feels like you really can't process a beat in a scene before you're already thrown into something else completely. It's frazzled with an energy that feels overt rather than purposefully fast-paced. Sometimes, I also felt like I was overstimulated too - maybe that was the point - there was just too much happening at the same time and it felt exhausting to behold (which could be facilitated by this aforementioned editing).
The film does not know what it wants to focus on and instead gets completely caught up in its' unnecessary retelling of Beauty and the Beast. When the film starts, it clarifies that our main character is in better lack of words - going through something. Her grief, and her dealing with what happened in her past whilst also hinting at somewhat of a disconnect with her father are things the film kind of forgets about even though it would have made for a much more compelling story. I do understand that our main character uses the U virtual world app in the film as an escape, but that is never quite questioned or really delved into. Although the point at the end is self-acceptance and at least that was well put-across (albeit in a quite messy way in my opinion).
The sequences taking place in U are the least interesting as there is almost an insanely long time spent on completely useless fights sequences (and repetitive song sequences), and most importantly the Beauty and the Beast analogy. There is no reason to involve that analogy here at all as at the end it was not really a love story (also I thought we were over the "I can fix you" love stories in general.) It didn't feel like a clever parallel, but rather a messy rehash. A long time in the film is dedicated to this (even then it feels rushed) and at the end it doesn't really make sense. Although I guess you can say that it makes sense that the user's real life anger manifests into the virtual world. Although then how come Belle also doesn't have any flaws even though she is dealing with grief in real life? Anyways...
The dialogue and clichés in the film can feel overwhelmingly cheesy (and not just in a charming teenage way). The characters speak weirdly with each other, and our main character has a horrible best friend (which is never acknowledged!) that almost consistently discourages her real-life character. And while I don't mind romances at all, it was like there was an overwhelmingly long time spent on romance plots, which is valuable time I feel could've been dedicated to seeing our main character growing to accept herself outside of the virtual world - rather than forcing that development in the last part/third act of the film. Althoughhh it is nice that the main character doesn't end up with anyone at the end after all and rather has new-found strength! Also side note: character motivations and moments in this film make NOOOOO sense at all (there is a point where some characters manage to know where someone lives in a massive city just by looking at a video of someone's room, there's a lot that is wrong here).
I did like some stuff believe it or not. The animation is gorgeous - for real. Every frame a painting for real. I also thought it was nice that they integrated the digitalised environments that kids are growing up with nowadays in the story as natural - the film doesn't judge it or give doomsday scenarios but rather accepts this reality and actually tries to mobilise it as a force that can be used for good too which is a nice change (However, completely ignoring possible downfalls I don't think is a very good way to go about it either). I also did like the final act much more than the rest of the film, and thought it was sweet in general. The characters too whilst clichés at times, really bond together which is nice to see.
Overall, the film is a nice message of self-acceptance, but the relatively uninteresting way it handles grief and it's tonal lack of focus + its overwhelming balancing of several things at the same time ends up feeling bloated rather than poignant unfortunately.
June 19, 2022
Daughters of Abdul-Rahman/ بنات عبد الرحمن
(Zaid Abu Hamdan, Jordan, 2021)
3.8/5
Screened in Rotterdam Arab Film Festival last weekend, Daughters of Abdul-Rahman is one of those entries that reminds you and assures you that we have so many stories to tell, and some have just started telling those stories too. A tragicomedy that often makes you laugh and also makes you cry, it is the kind of culturally relevant and resonant work that reflects changing times (and also the lack of change). A film that tackles how societies can have a culture that is pitted against women, with a focus on the importance of family.
While this film is written/directed by a man, it presents the core four sisters in a sensitivity that personally surprised me. They are never surface level and while they start out as rather shallow archetypes - those archetypes becomes more three-dimensional throughout the film and displays the fears, dreams, and flaws of all of these characters without any judgement - rather in a observational to sympathetic manner. Despite the four characters differing, they all realise the power of sisterhood (or something like that) and standing up for each other (and for yourself).
There were so many moments in this film that felt insanely true and authentic. The way that it represents rural neighbourhoods - while can come off as somewhat exaggerated - the representation of the surveillance that takes place, the consistent judgement that neighbours have of each other, the upkeep of outer appearance, and lastly, the way that women can be trapped in such an environment because no matter what they do, they will be judged for it unfairly and even be put in danger - is representative of the lives so many live. A life that is pre-planned - without any choices. Therefore, the ending of the film is cathartic, but it is what I would like to call a faux "happy ending".
The themes in the film are important and the film was enjoyable - but it was definitely flawed. It was hard to find out the motives for some of the characters for certain things they did and the structure felt all over the place at times (and the ending felt incredibly rushed and sudden).. It also felt like maybe the characters' issues could have been highlighted more rather than focus on the bickering between the sisters (which while can be fun), it can be redundant sometimes. The tone of the film was also uneasy as it balanced between tragedy and comedy and while both sometimes worked together, sometimes the tone was a bit frazzled and confused. I feel like also their relationship with their father could have been explored more - but again that was not explored that much. There were also some questionable editing and music moments (also the directing was nothing groundbreaking).
All in all though, this was a good film and i would definitely watch again.
Daughters of Abdul-Rahman/ بنات عبد الرحمن
(Zaid Abu Hamdan, Jordan, 2021)
3.8/5
Screened in Rotterdam Arab Film Festival last weekend, Daughters of Abdul-Rahman is one of those entries that reminds you and assures you that we have so many stories to tell, and some have just started telling those stories too. A tragicomedy that often makes you laugh and also makes you cry, it is the kind of culturally relevant and resonant work that reflects changing times (and also the lack of change). A film that tackles how societies can have a culture that is pitted against women, with a focus on the importance of family.
While this film is written/directed by a man, it presents the core four sisters in a sensitivity that personally surprised me. They are never surface level and while they start out as rather shallow archetypes - those archetypes becomes more three-dimensional throughout the film and displays the fears, dreams, and flaws of all of these characters without any judgement - rather in a observational to sympathetic manner. Despite the four characters differing, they all realise the power of sisterhood (or something like that) and standing up for each other (and for yourself).
There were so many moments in this film that felt insanely true and authentic. The way that it represents rural neighbourhoods - while can come off as somewhat exaggerated - the representation of the surveillance that takes place, the consistent judgement that neighbours have of each other, the upkeep of outer appearance, and lastly, the way that women can be trapped in such an environment because no matter what they do, they will be judged for it unfairly and even be put in danger - is representative of the lives so many live. A life that is pre-planned - without any choices. Therefore, the ending of the film is cathartic, but it is what I would like to call a faux "happy ending".
The themes in the film are important and the film was enjoyable - but it was definitely flawed. It was hard to find out the motives for some of the characters for certain things they did and the structure felt all over the place at times (and the ending felt incredibly rushed and sudden).. It also felt like maybe the characters' issues could have been highlighted more rather than focus on the bickering between the sisters (which while can be fun), it can be redundant sometimes. The tone of the film was also uneasy as it balanced between tragedy and comedy and while both sometimes worked together, sometimes the tone was a bit frazzled and confused. I feel like also their relationship with their father could have been explored more - but again that was not explored that much. There were also some questionable editing and music moments (also the directing was nothing groundbreaking).
All in all though, this was a good film and i would definitely watch again.
July 31, 2022
Prima Facie (National Theatre Live)
(Justin Martin, United Kingdom, 2022)
3.8/5
I admittedly haven’t been to the movies in a while. Experiencing burnout is not fun, and it’s made a lot of things I love doing more exhausting than usual. But I went to see Prima Facie yesterday, a great comeback after a break from the cinema. Technically, Prima Facie is not a film, it’s a play from National Theatre Live screened on the big screen. It somehow is a very interesting experience, as a play, which usually has a static set in real life has editing and camerawork applied to it. Here the editing is smooth and not too distracting - just the way good editing should be. The camerawork highlights rather than calls attention to itself - fitting for a play;
Prima Facie is a one-woman show about a barrister who is forced to evaluate her profession after experiencing it’s pitfalls especially towards women. And let me say, I was absolutely floored by Jodie Comer here. The only cast member, she is fluid, dynamic and most of all, she is an absolute powerhouse of an actress. If there was ever proof needed that she is one of the finest actors working today, this is it. Her range is absolutely impressive. She jumps from role to role as she jumps from imitative of other characters not present in the scene to herself in a seamless manner.
The play itself feels very fast-paced, jumping between different periods of time if necessary. The set is not too complicated as Jodie Comer herself moves some of the props around from scene to scene, changing outfits on the spot, with the lighting fitting the general ambience of the scene. It does not need to be extravagant, as Comer does all the heavy work. And the subject matter is put on focus with the minimalist style giving the impression that this could indeed happen to anyone.
The subject matter is of immense importance and is handled quite well. The way that the system feels immovable and quite catered towards a more patriarchal perspective becomes apparent when topics like sexual assault are raised. From the very beginning to the actual court room, it is harrowing and essentially dehumanising for a victim of trauma; raising the question of whether traumatised victims should be dealt with in a legal, calculated manner. The court (and essentially being a barrister) is treated rather like a game, even in sensitive cases. The symbol of the chair showcases the sheer dehumanisation that some victims face - contributing to the theme of nonchalance towards victims.
As for cons, I wasn’t a huge fan of the music. The play was rather minimalist in nature when it comes to setting and such, but the score/music was rather distracting as there were sometimes vocals that were not very fitting to the situation, and sometimes even songs with lyrics would play that did not fit the tone and was just a little too distracting. It would unfortunately hamper particularly impactful moments. Sometimes the music would kind of be too loud as well.
The end section of Prima Facie is admittedly very strong, but the monologue becomes redundant and essentially repeats itself - the monologue itself was great, but it could have benefitted from being slightly shorter. However, the fast pace of Prima Facie is lovely, but sometimes it does not leave space for specific moments to sink in - perhaps that is the point, but it can often be jarring.
Lastly, and this is something regarding the screening itself and not the play - but there was an interview that they played before the play that tried to explain what the play is about - which for me was interesting but I would rather see for myself first and then listen to the interview - just nitpicky things.
All in all, Prima Facie was an experience. And one that I thoroughly felt impacted by. I was moved, truly, and felt shaken to an extent - that we have such a culture of nonchalance to sexual assault and harassment. Something does have to change.
Prima Facie (National Theatre Live)
(Justin Martin, United Kingdom, 2022)
3.8/5
I admittedly haven’t been to the movies in a while. Experiencing burnout is not fun, and it’s made a lot of things I love doing more exhausting than usual. But I went to see Prima Facie yesterday, a great comeback after a break from the cinema. Technically, Prima Facie is not a film, it’s a play from National Theatre Live screened on the big screen. It somehow is a very interesting experience, as a play, which usually has a static set in real life has editing and camerawork applied to it. Here the editing is smooth and not too distracting - just the way good editing should be. The camerawork highlights rather than calls attention to itself - fitting for a play;
Prima Facie is a one-woman show about a barrister who is forced to evaluate her profession after experiencing it’s pitfalls especially towards women. And let me say, I was absolutely floored by Jodie Comer here. The only cast member, she is fluid, dynamic and most of all, she is an absolute powerhouse of an actress. If there was ever proof needed that she is one of the finest actors working today, this is it. Her range is absolutely impressive. She jumps from role to role as she jumps from imitative of other characters not present in the scene to herself in a seamless manner.
The play itself feels very fast-paced, jumping between different periods of time if necessary. The set is not too complicated as Jodie Comer herself moves some of the props around from scene to scene, changing outfits on the spot, with the lighting fitting the general ambience of the scene. It does not need to be extravagant, as Comer does all the heavy work. And the subject matter is put on focus with the minimalist style giving the impression that this could indeed happen to anyone.
The subject matter is of immense importance and is handled quite well. The way that the system feels immovable and quite catered towards a more patriarchal perspective becomes apparent when topics like sexual assault are raised. From the very beginning to the actual court room, it is harrowing and essentially dehumanising for a victim of trauma; raising the question of whether traumatised victims should be dealt with in a legal, calculated manner. The court (and essentially being a barrister) is treated rather like a game, even in sensitive cases. The symbol of the chair showcases the sheer dehumanisation that some victims face - contributing to the theme of nonchalance towards victims.
As for cons, I wasn’t a huge fan of the music. The play was rather minimalist in nature when it comes to setting and such, but the score/music was rather distracting as there were sometimes vocals that were not very fitting to the situation, and sometimes even songs with lyrics would play that did not fit the tone and was just a little too distracting. It would unfortunately hamper particularly impactful moments. Sometimes the music would kind of be too loud as well.
The end section of Prima Facie is admittedly very strong, but the monologue becomes redundant and essentially repeats itself - the monologue itself was great, but it could have benefitted from being slightly shorter. However, the fast pace of Prima Facie is lovely, but sometimes it does not leave space for specific moments to sink in - perhaps that is the point, but it can often be jarring.
Lastly, and this is something regarding the screening itself and not the play - but there was an interview that they played before the play that tried to explain what the play is about - which for me was interesting but I would rather see for myself first and then listen to the interview - just nitpicky things.
All in all, Prima Facie was an experience. And one that I thoroughly felt impacted by. I was moved, truly, and felt shaken to an extent - that we have such a culture of nonchalance to sexual assault and harassment. Something does have to change.
August 24, 2022
Elvis
(Baz Luhrmann, United States/Australia, 2022)
2.9/5
I watched Elvis finally - and let’s just say I have mixed thoughts. In a way, I was entertained and had a good time. I didn’t feel the runtime as badly as I felt it with House of Gucci - another biopic I watched last year. But it’s just all… too much.
First of all, I commend the fact that throughout the movie, you truly felt like the film comes from a true place of admiration for Elvis Presley. It does not shy away from taking a side either, as throughout the film you see Elvis as a boy who was emotionally manipulated and gaslighted throughout his career. It also emphasises the origins of the music he makes, and how there were far more superior black artists who weren’t getting the same attention as he was due to their race. That was done quite nicely and I felt like in a movie that can sometimes feel very tacky and strange, this aspect did not feel tacky and as seen as a legitimate and large part of Elvis’ story. Elvis was very much a product of his environment in every way, and that is represented here.
While I find it disagreeable when people take their roles outside their role and into their life past the movie as that defeats the point of acting, one must admit that Austin Butler’s performance was simply astounding. He embodies Elvis in every way and did not ever feel like he was trying too hard. His emotional scenes were done very well too. What really makes it go beyond a film like House of Gucci is most certainly the lead’s performance; you could really understand how he could make a crowd go wild. It just made sense, and that was in huge part due to Butler’s performance. I’m curious to see where he goes from here.
Luhrmann’s editing choices were pretty tacky (will touch on more of that in a sec), but in many parts the fast pace fit the story and the tone of it. For example, I thought the split screen effects and the soaring location shots, in addition to the performance scenes were well done. However, I am not a fan of the movie in general and his style perhaps.
The movie unfortunately feels like a giant music video or a twitter fan cam or an insta fan edit; or all at the same time. It falls into the biopic trap of trying to literally squeeze an entire man’s life and legacy in one film; it usually does not work well for me and ends up feeling bloated rather than well-paced. There is barely enough room to breathe in the first half of the film. The fast pace almost gave me a headache from how fast it skims past things that happen. Moments that are supposedly significant to the main character are not allowed to really run their course, and the next part of the film immediately comes flying at you without any proper sense of pace. It makes it difficult to not only empathise with the lead or understand him, but also feels rather rushed in general. For example, the start of his relationship with Priscilla and his relationship at the beginning of the film are skimmed over despite them being quite significant for the character. Also, what happened to his first relationship? Despite this fast pace, the second half and the third act sometimes felt boring and focussed way too much on elements that weren’t properly set up in the first act. All in all, it felt disconnected and had poor pacing.
There were some editing choices that I despised. While some of the transitions felt fun and fit the tone, most of them felt too stylised to a weird degree. Maybe it’s Luhrmann’s style, but it was simply too much, and it ends up looking tacky rather than balanced. The zoom-ins were weird and sometimes funny rather than anything else. It’s an awkward vibe when you know it’s a scene where you’re not supposed to laugh and you end up laughing anyways. A prime example of this is when a Doja Cat songs starts to play (and later Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys??). Despite it being completely disjunct from the era; what it does is completely takes you away from the film’s atmosphere and just ends up feeling tacky
Tom Hanks gives what I think is the worst performance of his career. His acting is not good - and his character doesn’t make any sense. He is supposed to be the villain and throughout you don’t quite understand what to make of him, but rather than it being an interesting take on a character being multi-faceted, it just ends up feeling incomplete and confused rather than anything else. I just did not like him, and not because he could be considered as a villainous character, but just as a character I did not find him to be well-written - which is an issue considering he narrates the film.
Priscilla Presley is also poorly casted, and while the actress tries her best too, nothing can save her from the strange way they wrote her character and her relationship with Elvis.
I feel like there may be a lot more to talk about, but that’s because there probably is and that’s the problem. The film is stuffy, and yet does not devote any proper attention to any themes or storylines and ends up feeling an elongated exposition dump/music video/YouTube video explainer-type extraordinaire rather than a film. Butler’s Elvis is unfortunately betrayed by a film that simply does not care for a more interesting take on the character and his struggles as the film opts for a more chaotic trajectory rather than focussing on themes and character; yet again falling for the biopic trap rather phenomenally so at least.
Elvis
(Baz Luhrmann, United States/Australia, 2022)
2.9/5
I watched Elvis finally - and let’s just say I have mixed thoughts. In a way, I was entertained and had a good time. I didn’t feel the runtime as badly as I felt it with House of Gucci - another biopic I watched last year. But it’s just all… too much.
First of all, I commend the fact that throughout the movie, you truly felt like the film comes from a true place of admiration for Elvis Presley. It does not shy away from taking a side either, as throughout the film you see Elvis as a boy who was emotionally manipulated and gaslighted throughout his career. It also emphasises the origins of the music he makes, and how there were far more superior black artists who weren’t getting the same attention as he was due to their race. That was done quite nicely and I felt like in a movie that can sometimes feel very tacky and strange, this aspect did not feel tacky and as seen as a legitimate and large part of Elvis’ story. Elvis was very much a product of his environment in every way, and that is represented here.
While I find it disagreeable when people take their roles outside their role and into their life past the movie as that defeats the point of acting, one must admit that Austin Butler’s performance was simply astounding. He embodies Elvis in every way and did not ever feel like he was trying too hard. His emotional scenes were done very well too. What really makes it go beyond a film like House of Gucci is most certainly the lead’s performance; you could really understand how he could make a crowd go wild. It just made sense, and that was in huge part due to Butler’s performance. I’m curious to see where he goes from here.
Luhrmann’s editing choices were pretty tacky (will touch on more of that in a sec), but in many parts the fast pace fit the story and the tone of it. For example, I thought the split screen effects and the soaring location shots, in addition to the performance scenes were well done. However, I am not a fan of the movie in general and his style perhaps.
The movie unfortunately feels like a giant music video or a twitter fan cam or an insta fan edit; or all at the same time. It falls into the biopic trap of trying to literally squeeze an entire man’s life and legacy in one film; it usually does not work well for me and ends up feeling bloated rather than well-paced. There is barely enough room to breathe in the first half of the film. The fast pace almost gave me a headache from how fast it skims past things that happen. Moments that are supposedly significant to the main character are not allowed to really run their course, and the next part of the film immediately comes flying at you without any proper sense of pace. It makes it difficult to not only empathise with the lead or understand him, but also feels rather rushed in general. For example, the start of his relationship with Priscilla and his relationship at the beginning of the film are skimmed over despite them being quite significant for the character. Also, what happened to his first relationship? Despite this fast pace, the second half and the third act sometimes felt boring and focussed way too much on elements that weren’t properly set up in the first act. All in all, it felt disconnected and had poor pacing.
There were some editing choices that I despised. While some of the transitions felt fun and fit the tone, most of them felt too stylised to a weird degree. Maybe it’s Luhrmann’s style, but it was simply too much, and it ends up looking tacky rather than balanced. The zoom-ins were weird and sometimes funny rather than anything else. It’s an awkward vibe when you know it’s a scene where you’re not supposed to laugh and you end up laughing anyways. A prime example of this is when a Doja Cat songs starts to play (and later Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys??). Despite it being completely disjunct from the era; what it does is completely takes you away from the film’s atmosphere and just ends up feeling tacky
Tom Hanks gives what I think is the worst performance of his career. His acting is not good - and his character doesn’t make any sense. He is supposed to be the villain and throughout you don’t quite understand what to make of him, but rather than it being an interesting take on a character being multi-faceted, it just ends up feeling incomplete and confused rather than anything else. I just did not like him, and not because he could be considered as a villainous character, but just as a character I did not find him to be well-written - which is an issue considering he narrates the film.
Priscilla Presley is also poorly casted, and while the actress tries her best too, nothing can save her from the strange way they wrote her character and her relationship with Elvis.
I feel like there may be a lot more to talk about, but that’s because there probably is and that’s the problem. The film is stuffy, and yet does not devote any proper attention to any themes or storylines and ends up feeling an elongated exposition dump/music video/YouTube video explainer-type extraordinaire rather than a film. Butler’s Elvis is unfortunately betrayed by a film that simply does not care for a more interesting take on the character and his struggles as the film opts for a more chaotic trajectory rather than focussing on themes and character; yet again falling for the biopic trap rather phenomenally so at least.
August 28, 2022
Mur Murs
(Agnés Varda, France/United States, 1981)
4.2/5
I got the unique chance of watching Agnes Varda’s restored Mur Murs as part of the Roffa Mon Amour film program. This documentary showcases mural culture in Los Angeles especially in the late 70’s and 80’s; providing a beautiful commentary on the importance of art and how it can reflect the society it comes out in.
This documentary successfully conveys a bygone era, with a lot of the murals being showcased not being there anymore - perhaps as a result of what the film displayed as a disappearing mural culture. Still, the film documents these murals as having a symbiotic relationship with those who live in LA - representing them and yet being constantly re-contextualised - a true proclamation on the timelessness of art and the power of art.
A huge part of the film focusses on the murals themselves and the people behind those murals; but mostly the murals speak for themselves. The mural is a respected art, and it is paralleled with the human experience and the urge to be seen, dating as far back as the cave paintings. In this way the film becomes political and sociological, as many of the murals and their stories - especially the ones that are highlighted in the film - represent the struggles of the unseen in society. It is a celebration of communities and a representation of the struggles of the community, cementing art as a legitimate way to have your story be heard. Still, there is a kind of tragedy when it comes to murals due to the often casual way they are often treated - and not as if they are a true art form.
There is also a striking difference of privilege between some mural artists and others. Varda lets the subjects speak for themselves. And she also lets the art speaks for itself. Especially as the art transforms and is being influenced by the surroundings. The film is consistently engaging and engrossing. It is shot beautifully, with a great score. I especially love the shots that put across the theme of life imitates art vs art imitates life. And that theme is honed on in the documentary. It takes you on a journey, and is laidback in tone. The film sometime loses focus, but it never takes you out of the experience.
Varda has a way of displaying true humanity and highlighting the underrepresented and that is done beautifully here. The European perspective here strikes a balance; it doesn’t immensely glamorise the place or demonise it but yet allows for a more balanced outsiders’ perspective. What results is a film that is critical of LA, yet celebrates it - a documentary masterpiece that represents an era and place.
Mur Murs
(Agnés Varda, France/United States, 1981)
4.2/5
I got the unique chance of watching Agnes Varda’s restored Mur Murs as part of the Roffa Mon Amour film program. This documentary showcases mural culture in Los Angeles especially in the late 70’s and 80’s; providing a beautiful commentary on the importance of art and how it can reflect the society it comes out in.
This documentary successfully conveys a bygone era, with a lot of the murals being showcased not being there anymore - perhaps as a result of what the film displayed as a disappearing mural culture. Still, the film documents these murals as having a symbiotic relationship with those who live in LA - representing them and yet being constantly re-contextualised - a true proclamation on the timelessness of art and the power of art.
A huge part of the film focusses on the murals themselves and the people behind those murals; but mostly the murals speak for themselves. The mural is a respected art, and it is paralleled with the human experience and the urge to be seen, dating as far back as the cave paintings. In this way the film becomes political and sociological, as many of the murals and their stories - especially the ones that are highlighted in the film - represent the struggles of the unseen in society. It is a celebration of communities and a representation of the struggles of the community, cementing art as a legitimate way to have your story be heard. Still, there is a kind of tragedy when it comes to murals due to the often casual way they are often treated - and not as if they are a true art form.
There is also a striking difference of privilege between some mural artists and others. Varda lets the subjects speak for themselves. And she also lets the art speaks for itself. Especially as the art transforms and is being influenced by the surroundings. The film is consistently engaging and engrossing. It is shot beautifully, with a great score. I especially love the shots that put across the theme of life imitates art vs art imitates life. And that theme is honed on in the documentary. It takes you on a journey, and is laidback in tone. The film sometime loses focus, but it never takes you out of the experience.
Varda has a way of displaying true humanity and highlighting the underrepresented and that is done beautifully here. The European perspective here strikes a balance; it doesn’t immensely glamorise the place or demonise it but yet allows for a more balanced outsiders’ perspective. What results is a film that is critical of LA, yet celebrates it - a documentary masterpiece that represents an era and place.
August 29, 2022
Oldboy
(Park Chan-wook, South Korea, 2003)
4.5/5
A classic that has cemented itself in every filmgoers-catalogue, Oldboy (the original) is a revenge thriller film that is unique with its’ commentary on revenge. It’s a dark action thriller for sure, but there’s an assured sense of dark comedy - a should-I-be-laughing-at-this aspect to many moments in the film. I’ve recently gotten round to watch it, and yes, I am late. It’s been difficult reviewing and watching films recently as I’m still recovering from a burnout but we will see how this goes...
We are not supposed to sympathise with the characters in the film, we are supposed to empathise with them. And as characteristic of many non-Western films, characters are not just black and white or villain and hero. There is a genuine understanding of why they do what they do - it makes sense. By the end of the film, you come to understand that it is not just a one-sided revenge, and that things are indeed way more grey than they seem.
Dark comedy seeps from every pore in this film. It adds to the whole absurd and dramatic tone of the film. A man isolated for years in a room is bound to struggle to come back to the real social world, and although this is not continued on as much as it was in those first moments, the way it is represented evokes dark humour and displays our main character as socially inept. However, it seems like the other characters too are socially inept and naïve, despite not being isolated for years. Dark comedy fits with revenge film here, as in a way it is a deconstruction of revenge film. And revenge + holding grudges are main themes here; tackled well.
The action scenes here are famously unique, and so is the score. I won’t speak too much about them, but they show the violence in a matter-of-fact manner, displaying the almost comical way our main character knocks out (almost) everyone in his way, making it clear that this is indeed absurd and much more of a revenge fantasy - commentary on the absurdity of revenge.
Oldboy is a classic, which again has moments that could have gone without and some editing I don't agree with, but it comes so close to being pretty much incredible. And the twist - so disturbing...
Oldboy
(Park Chan-wook, South Korea, 2003)
4.5/5
A classic that has cemented itself in every filmgoers-catalogue, Oldboy (the original) is a revenge thriller film that is unique with its’ commentary on revenge. It’s a dark action thriller for sure, but there’s an assured sense of dark comedy - a should-I-be-laughing-at-this aspect to many moments in the film. I’ve recently gotten round to watch it, and yes, I am late. It’s been difficult reviewing and watching films recently as I’m still recovering from a burnout but we will see how this goes...
We are not supposed to sympathise with the characters in the film, we are supposed to empathise with them. And as characteristic of many non-Western films, characters are not just black and white or villain and hero. There is a genuine understanding of why they do what they do - it makes sense. By the end of the film, you come to understand that it is not just a one-sided revenge, and that things are indeed way more grey than they seem.
Dark comedy seeps from every pore in this film. It adds to the whole absurd and dramatic tone of the film. A man isolated for years in a room is bound to struggle to come back to the real social world, and although this is not continued on as much as it was in those first moments, the way it is represented evokes dark humour and displays our main character as socially inept. However, it seems like the other characters too are socially inept and naïve, despite not being isolated for years. Dark comedy fits with revenge film here, as in a way it is a deconstruction of revenge film. And revenge + holding grudges are main themes here; tackled well.
The action scenes here are famously unique, and so is the score. I won’t speak too much about them, but they show the violence in a matter-of-fact manner, displaying the almost comical way our main character knocks out (almost) everyone in his way, making it clear that this is indeed absurd and much more of a revenge fantasy - commentary on the absurdity of revenge.
Oldboy is a classic, which again has moments that could have gone without and some editing I don't agree with, but it comes so close to being pretty much incredible. And the twist - so disturbing...
September 3, 2022
25th Hour
(Spike Lee, United States, 2002)
3.2/5
I don’t know why 25th Hour didn’t resonate with me as much as I thought it would. I guess I tend to feel my way around films. Maybe I’ve just been having a weird weekend as mentioned in the previous log, but while this film does indeed have several shining moments with a stronger second and third act; I couldn’t quite grasp what it was trying to say. Not exactly anyways. And when a film leaves me like that, where things don’t feel well-fleshed out; I have a bit of a problem.
The direction is fine here. I’m really fond of Spike Lee’s floating dolly shots; they’re pretty much an incredible way to represent major character moments or beats in a story. In addition to that, they are introspective and give us a unique look into what the character is feeling in a way that often breaks the fourth wall. I also think there are some incredible shots and scenes here, with great performances pretty much across the board. Norton, who usually does pretty great though, doesn’t quite sell his role here - but unfortunately I think that may have something to do with the character writing. The score is also pretty good and the second and third act come across much more engaging and interesting, with a very good final scene. However, this still feels disconnected.
In a way, the characters in the film are floating through lives, dealing with chronic aimlessness. In a post 2001 world, New York City feels conflicted in the film. However, the monologue delivered by Norton at the beginning is just a theme and moment that is not much explored throughout the film - while I feel like a similar theme was explored much better in another Norton classic - American History X. (although that is pre-2001). It’s trying to showcase the post-2001 atmosphere, and while I think there are moments here that hint at a fleshed-out theme or idea, they are rarely explored in a meaningful way. Too much attention is focussed on side plots and scenes that do not really convey this chronic aimlessness that is hinted at, or at the underlying casual pessimism and racism present within our main character/s. This unfortunately is also worsened by character writing.
Montgomery feels like a vacant character, and even unlikable most of the times. There are hints of things, but again- never explored. Montgomery’s friends also feel the same way. It makes it harder to really care about what happens to them. Despite this, character moments like the one at the beginning where Montgomery saves the dog and some of the last scenes attempt to save the characters but still - I felt nothing. And when I feel nothing - I don’t think that’s a very good sign.
I do see a lot of patriotism here and love for NYC and its’ diversity, which is pretty cool. But overall, 25th Hour is a nice watch but ends up feeling a little bit confused. But hey - this is just my personal opinion…
25th Hour
(Spike Lee, United States, 2002)
3.2/5
I don’t know why 25th Hour didn’t resonate with me as much as I thought it would. I guess I tend to feel my way around films. Maybe I’ve just been having a weird weekend as mentioned in the previous log, but while this film does indeed have several shining moments with a stronger second and third act; I couldn’t quite grasp what it was trying to say. Not exactly anyways. And when a film leaves me like that, where things don’t feel well-fleshed out; I have a bit of a problem.
The direction is fine here. I’m really fond of Spike Lee’s floating dolly shots; they’re pretty much an incredible way to represent major character moments or beats in a story. In addition to that, they are introspective and give us a unique look into what the character is feeling in a way that often breaks the fourth wall. I also think there are some incredible shots and scenes here, with great performances pretty much across the board. Norton, who usually does pretty great though, doesn’t quite sell his role here - but unfortunately I think that may have something to do with the character writing. The score is also pretty good and the second and third act come across much more engaging and interesting, with a very good final scene. However, this still feels disconnected.
In a way, the characters in the film are floating through lives, dealing with chronic aimlessness. In a post 2001 world, New York City feels conflicted in the film. However, the monologue delivered by Norton at the beginning is just a theme and moment that is not much explored throughout the film - while I feel like a similar theme was explored much better in another Norton classic - American History X. (although that is pre-2001). It’s trying to showcase the post-2001 atmosphere, and while I think there are moments here that hint at a fleshed-out theme or idea, they are rarely explored in a meaningful way. Too much attention is focussed on side plots and scenes that do not really convey this chronic aimlessness that is hinted at, or at the underlying casual pessimism and racism present within our main character/s. This unfortunately is also worsened by character writing.
Montgomery feels like a vacant character, and even unlikable most of the times. There are hints of things, but again- never explored. Montgomery’s friends also feel the same way. It makes it harder to really care about what happens to them. Despite this, character moments like the one at the beginning where Montgomery saves the dog and some of the last scenes attempt to save the characters but still - I felt nothing. And when I feel nothing - I don’t think that’s a very good sign.
I do see a lot of patriotism here and love for NYC and its’ diversity, which is pretty cool. But overall, 25th Hour is a nice watch but ends up feeling a little bit confused. But hey - this is just my personal opinion…
September 4, 2022
Little Miss Sunshine
(Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris, United States, 2006)
3.8/5
Little Miss Sunshine is just a good film. A tragicomedy that indeed feels bittersweet rather than being just happy or sad. Paul Dano, Steve Carell, Toni Collette, and Abigail Breslin (and actually the whole cast) gives great performances.
In a way, the road trip movie has its’ roots in America, and therefore can act as a powerful symbol of Americana and in this case; a commentary on the American Dream. The beginning really showcases this contrast between a glamorised representation of reality, and what reality tends to be. With beauty pageants also having roots in America, the ending acts as an even stronger commentary and theme. The dad is trying to project his ideal of the American Dream, with a meritocratic philosophy that sees life as a constant competition with winners or losers - and it becomes clear from the very beginning - that things are not that straightforward. Every character, and every scene especially ay the start conveys a very real situation a lot of families are in - on the verge of bankruptcy yet still trying to follow misguided dreams (at least partially so).
Throughout the film, the VW van that is used is falling apart, and in a way each obstacle throughout feels like it crushes the characters’ personal goals and aspirations which in a way they have formed their identity around. The importance of family, and trying even though you fail is just the message it tries to put across. It’s not overtly political as such, it is essentially portraying the journey, rather than the destination - as the family becomes closer through pain - hammering in the idea that indeed failure is a part of life. In a way, this American Dream commentary does feel open-ended, but maybe that is intentional. The critique of beauty pageants feels telling. Not to get too philosophical or anything - but it puts across the theme of family and the true meaning of success pretty well.
The dialogue can indeed feel a bit stilted at times, and some scenes could have been shorter - but honestly every character here feels unique and three-dimensional. They all deal with issues, and in an ensemble film - fleshing out the characters in a good way is essential. Carell gives a more serious, yet great performance. Paul Dano essentially steals the show in one of his breakout roles and Abigail Breslin proves that she is indeed (or was) one of the best child actors in Hollywood in the 2000’s (she was everywhere!).
The tone is warm, melancholic, and supposedly darkly funny - but I never truly felt the comedy that much - which sometimes dragged the film and made it quite tonally confused at times when it felt like their were lines that weren’t landing. The Hoover dad feels unlikable throughout most of the film, which is a problem because there’s not really much of a huge growth in his character and I’m not sure by the end if his philosophy has truly changed by the end. I feel like the dynamic between Carell and Dano was under-utilised, and it is a shame that Dano’s character doesn’t speak throughout but I do understand the dramatic build-up that they were doing there - and that scene is very good indeed.
Music was great, pacing could have been better, directing was not all too special. But it was just a warm film, and maybe it ends up not saying much at all and the pageant section was not the best thing ever - but it is quite literally a comfort film. And it never presents itself as anything more or anything less.
Little Miss Sunshine
(Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris, United States, 2006)
3.8/5
Little Miss Sunshine is just a good film. A tragicomedy that indeed feels bittersweet rather than being just happy or sad. Paul Dano, Steve Carell, Toni Collette, and Abigail Breslin (and actually the whole cast) gives great performances.
In a way, the road trip movie has its’ roots in America, and therefore can act as a powerful symbol of Americana and in this case; a commentary on the American Dream. The beginning really showcases this contrast between a glamorised representation of reality, and what reality tends to be. With beauty pageants also having roots in America, the ending acts as an even stronger commentary and theme. The dad is trying to project his ideal of the American Dream, with a meritocratic philosophy that sees life as a constant competition with winners or losers - and it becomes clear from the very beginning - that things are not that straightforward. Every character, and every scene especially ay the start conveys a very real situation a lot of families are in - on the verge of bankruptcy yet still trying to follow misguided dreams (at least partially so).
Throughout the film, the VW van that is used is falling apart, and in a way each obstacle throughout feels like it crushes the characters’ personal goals and aspirations which in a way they have formed their identity around. The importance of family, and trying even though you fail is just the message it tries to put across. It’s not overtly political as such, it is essentially portraying the journey, rather than the destination - as the family becomes closer through pain - hammering in the idea that indeed failure is a part of life. In a way, this American Dream commentary does feel open-ended, but maybe that is intentional. The critique of beauty pageants feels telling. Not to get too philosophical or anything - but it puts across the theme of family and the true meaning of success pretty well.
The dialogue can indeed feel a bit stilted at times, and some scenes could have been shorter - but honestly every character here feels unique and three-dimensional. They all deal with issues, and in an ensemble film - fleshing out the characters in a good way is essential. Carell gives a more serious, yet great performance. Paul Dano essentially steals the show in one of his breakout roles and Abigail Breslin proves that she is indeed (or was) one of the best child actors in Hollywood in the 2000’s (she was everywhere!).
The tone is warm, melancholic, and supposedly darkly funny - but I never truly felt the comedy that much - which sometimes dragged the film and made it quite tonally confused at times when it felt like their were lines that weren’t landing. The Hoover dad feels unlikable throughout most of the film, which is a problem because there’s not really much of a huge growth in his character and I’m not sure by the end if his philosophy has truly changed by the end. I feel like the dynamic between Carell and Dano was under-utilised, and it is a shame that Dano’s character doesn’t speak throughout but I do understand the dramatic build-up that they were doing there - and that scene is very good indeed.
Music was great, pacing could have been better, directing was not all too special. But it was just a warm film, and maybe it ends up not saying much at all and the pageant section was not the best thing ever - but it is quite literally a comfort film. And it never presents itself as anything more or anything less.
September 10, 2022
Bodies Bodies Bodies
(Halina Reijn, United States, 2022)
3.2/5
There is a lot to like and dislike about Bodies Bodies Bodies. It essentially teeters the line of providing a commentary on Gen Z culture and young rich kids, but ends up somehow falling flat with what it’s trying to say or convey. It was not ever truly boring, and I was invested in seeing what was going to happen, but never felt it to be truly ground-breaking. It’s quite shallow in nature, with shallow characters, and a shallow plot, relying on common tropes (albeit a bit modernised), which I am fine with. I was not attached to any of the characters, and in a slasher-type/thriller film; that is kind of a problem. You see, I’m not anti-fun, I like movies that are fun - but when I can’t understand or latch onto any of the characters, that is a fundamental problem.
I think this movie creates a pretty unique atmosphere and I do think that this type of Gen-Z vibe it was trying to put across wasn’t completely unsuccessful, and the colours were nice. Lighting can be quite dark a lot though. This Gen-Z-ness of it also boils down to the actors themselves being young and Gen-Z themselves, and some successful incorporations of social media and such. That’s not to say there wasn’t some clunky dialogue that tried hard to be edgy, but there were certainly some funny moments that really felt like it reflected Gen-Z-speak better than it has usually been reflected.
However, it was uncreative with its’ dark comedy, paling in comparison to similar horror-comedy outings such as Ready or Not (which is a great movie by the way). Directing-wise there is also nothing special here, there is like only one good scene, and one shot that was excellent, but in general it is just passable. And while a movie like Ready Or Not got you rooting for the main character, and conveyed it's class criticism and absurdity in a more pronounced fashioned, here all the characters are obnoxious and the tone unclear.
I’m not sure if this was in part to put across the shallowness of highly privileged Gen-Z kids, but literally every character of Bodies Bodies Bodies feels like a parody of a person, but without intention of parody. When most of the punchlines come from the character’s stupidity and toxic behaviour and mannerisms, I think maybe the idea is not to sympathise with them and rather see them as caricatures. However it makes the moments when they haphazardly (not cleverly) deal with topics like mental health and drug use odd, out of place, and tonally dysfunct. Rachel Sennott does a great job here though and sells her character - getting that self-aware vibe that the film should have gone for in general. The film was not nearly as funny or absurd enough to warrant a general absurdist reading of the characters which would have made the film work so much better with its’ messaging and set of shallow characters than imagined.
Some scenes could have been shorter, and some scenes could have been better (or removed)- but the plot twist ending is actually well done - but it is hampered but what just could have been a funnier and more enjoyable film if the script and acting reflected the intended tone. The writing is not always bad per se, it’s just the tone felt off, and the messaging muddled. It ends up being defeated by the same shallow-ness and entitled-ness it very much tries to commentate on. It seemed like only one actress here understood the assignment. Overall though, it was an enjoyable enough watch.
Bodies Bodies Bodies
(Halina Reijn, United States, 2022)
3.2/5
There is a lot to like and dislike about Bodies Bodies Bodies. It essentially teeters the line of providing a commentary on Gen Z culture and young rich kids, but ends up somehow falling flat with what it’s trying to say or convey. It was not ever truly boring, and I was invested in seeing what was going to happen, but never felt it to be truly ground-breaking. It’s quite shallow in nature, with shallow characters, and a shallow plot, relying on common tropes (albeit a bit modernised), which I am fine with. I was not attached to any of the characters, and in a slasher-type/thriller film; that is kind of a problem. You see, I’m not anti-fun, I like movies that are fun - but when I can’t understand or latch onto any of the characters, that is a fundamental problem.
I think this movie creates a pretty unique atmosphere and I do think that this type of Gen-Z vibe it was trying to put across wasn’t completely unsuccessful, and the colours were nice. Lighting can be quite dark a lot though. This Gen-Z-ness of it also boils down to the actors themselves being young and Gen-Z themselves, and some successful incorporations of social media and such. That’s not to say there wasn’t some clunky dialogue that tried hard to be edgy, but there were certainly some funny moments that really felt like it reflected Gen-Z-speak better than it has usually been reflected.
However, it was uncreative with its’ dark comedy, paling in comparison to similar horror-comedy outings such as Ready or Not (which is a great movie by the way). Directing-wise there is also nothing special here, there is like only one good scene, and one shot that was excellent, but in general it is just passable. And while a movie like Ready Or Not got you rooting for the main character, and conveyed it's class criticism and absurdity in a more pronounced fashioned, here all the characters are obnoxious and the tone unclear.
I’m not sure if this was in part to put across the shallowness of highly privileged Gen-Z kids, but literally every character of Bodies Bodies Bodies feels like a parody of a person, but without intention of parody. When most of the punchlines come from the character’s stupidity and toxic behaviour and mannerisms, I think maybe the idea is not to sympathise with them and rather see them as caricatures. However it makes the moments when they haphazardly (not cleverly) deal with topics like mental health and drug use odd, out of place, and tonally dysfunct. Rachel Sennott does a great job here though and sells her character - getting that self-aware vibe that the film should have gone for in general. The film was not nearly as funny or absurd enough to warrant a general absurdist reading of the characters which would have made the film work so much better with its’ messaging and set of shallow characters than imagined.
Some scenes could have been shorter, and some scenes could have been better (or removed)- but the plot twist ending is actually well done - but it is hampered but what just could have been a funnier and more enjoyable film if the script and acting reflected the intended tone. The writing is not always bad per se, it’s just the tone felt off, and the messaging muddled. It ends up being defeated by the same shallow-ness and entitled-ness it very much tries to commentate on. It seemed like only one actress here understood the assignment. Overall though, it was an enjoyable enough watch.
November 5, 2022
Boiling Point
(Philip Barantini, United Kingdom, 2021)
4/5
I finally went to the movies after a hiatus. Hiatus because of uni, but also because I have slightly become a TV show person… kind of…. maybe.... slightly? Anyways, I watched Boiling Point and I really liked it! This whole one-take movie thing scares me a bit with films because I feel like it’s going to be pretentious, chaotic or flashy for the sake of being flashy. If that makes sense. Just my perspective. However, that is not the case with Boiling Point; a thrilling film that takes us through an evening in a very stressful restaurant. I love movies about restaurants and food, so I was really looking forward to this one...
Firstly, the choice to have the film entirely shot in one take fits very well with the breakneck pace of the film. The entire film doesn’t have much physical action, but from the very first scene, it becomes clear that we are in for a stressful ride. Every situation becomes enlaced with stakes, and every part of the restaurant is at stake. Situations with the waiters, managers, chefs, and even the cleaning staff are showcased to be all interconnected. Yet, in between those groups that work together, there is hierarchy, and there's tension/power issues. In this film, working in a restaurant is a job similarly to a one-take is boundary-less and does not give you a moment of privacy and rest. In fact, the film doesn’t not have to shove the message down your throat: working in a field such as hospitality is largely unstable despite it requiring incredible skill and a whole lot of effort/stress.
The acting in this film - although done by largely unknown actors - is quite good and you really get to understand a lot of characters in the restaurant and their motivations. In what feels like a very high-paced film through and through, there is at least some space for characters’ internal conflict which I really appreciated and think helped flesh out the characters that would just often be left in the back catalogue of films. I really enjoyed some of the dialogue here as well, while not insanely masterful or anything, it is well done and really carries the film. It also just transcends the tone of the film, and the tone/atmosphere is really well-sustained and maintained.
Unfortunately for the film, it’s short run-time and fast-pace leaves a lot of moments unresolved. Perhaps that is the point it was trying to make, but as mentioned previously, time is given to character moments and conflicts. However, those character moments and conflicts never really end up developing and the film then feels like its’ juggling a lot at once. Again, perhaps this is intentional and that the film was just trying to catch a snapshot in time, but I feel like maybe focusing on a few fleshed-out characters rather than a plethora of them would have been much better. The ending also - while makes a lot of sense - feels sudden for no discernible reason, and the film ends suddenly. I sometimes would like this, but here it feels like the film just ends suddenly, there is no lead-up. Just- fin.
All in all, Boiling Point is a well-made thriller film that really encapsulates the wonders and capabilities of the one-take mechanism and the utilisation of one location and storytelling only. It is a film that uses its’ limitations to the max, and it certainly excels at it.
Boiling Point
(Philip Barantini, United Kingdom, 2021)
4/5
I finally went to the movies after a hiatus. Hiatus because of uni, but also because I have slightly become a TV show person… kind of…. maybe.... slightly? Anyways, I watched Boiling Point and I really liked it! This whole one-take movie thing scares me a bit with films because I feel like it’s going to be pretentious, chaotic or flashy for the sake of being flashy. If that makes sense. Just my perspective. However, that is not the case with Boiling Point; a thrilling film that takes us through an evening in a very stressful restaurant. I love movies about restaurants and food, so I was really looking forward to this one...
Firstly, the choice to have the film entirely shot in one take fits very well with the breakneck pace of the film. The entire film doesn’t have much physical action, but from the very first scene, it becomes clear that we are in for a stressful ride. Every situation becomes enlaced with stakes, and every part of the restaurant is at stake. Situations with the waiters, managers, chefs, and even the cleaning staff are showcased to be all interconnected. Yet, in between those groups that work together, there is hierarchy, and there's tension/power issues. In this film, working in a restaurant is a job similarly to a one-take is boundary-less and does not give you a moment of privacy and rest. In fact, the film doesn’t not have to shove the message down your throat: working in a field such as hospitality is largely unstable despite it requiring incredible skill and a whole lot of effort/stress.
The acting in this film - although done by largely unknown actors - is quite good and you really get to understand a lot of characters in the restaurant and their motivations. In what feels like a very high-paced film through and through, there is at least some space for characters’ internal conflict which I really appreciated and think helped flesh out the characters that would just often be left in the back catalogue of films. I really enjoyed some of the dialogue here as well, while not insanely masterful or anything, it is well done and really carries the film. It also just transcends the tone of the film, and the tone/atmosphere is really well-sustained and maintained.
Unfortunately for the film, it’s short run-time and fast-pace leaves a lot of moments unresolved. Perhaps that is the point it was trying to make, but as mentioned previously, time is given to character moments and conflicts. However, those character moments and conflicts never really end up developing and the film then feels like its’ juggling a lot at once. Again, perhaps this is intentional and that the film was just trying to catch a snapshot in time, but I feel like maybe focusing on a few fleshed-out characters rather than a plethora of them would have been much better. The ending also - while makes a lot of sense - feels sudden for no discernible reason, and the film ends suddenly. I sometimes would like this, but here it feels like the film just ends suddenly, there is no lead-up. Just- fin.
All in all, Boiling Point is a well-made thriller film that really encapsulates the wonders and capabilities of the one-take mechanism and the utilisation of one location and storytelling only. It is a film that uses its’ limitations to the max, and it certainly excels at it.
November 14, 2022
Don't Worry Darling
(Olivia Wilde, United States, 2022)
1.5/5
Don’t Worry Darling is just as messy as the PR surrounding the film. We are not talking about the PR stuff though - it’s just about the film. The film follows a couple living in a utopia-like city that seems to be hiding something sinister. It really has the sensibilities of a film that’s trying really hard to say something, and yet ends up saying nothing or saying something extremely vapid or obvious. It’s not soulless or anything, I think there is a real effort here to try to convey something and it feels like it comes from a kind of real place, but it’s just so so unclear. Not even Pugh could save this film. I laughed at the parts I wasn't supposed to laugh at, found myself audibly saying "what?" throughout, and sighed consistently out of frustration.
First of all, it is just so boring most of the time. The pacing is incredibly slow and so redundant (there are an insane amount of flashback scenes). There were some scene choices that didn’t make any sense - there is literally no reason for the excessive amount of scenes that went nowhere or were just aimless. There’s no development of certain creepy moments (like the fake egg scene), the tension is not building, and you slowly realise that there’s actually nothing being said…. Like there’s a moment where Florence Pugh wraps cling film around her face and it was lowkey just laughable because there’s no development of that idea or meaning attached to it. Super random for the sake of being random.
There is so much meandering dialogue. Most of Chris Pine's dialogue makes absolutely no sense. Actually Chris Pine’s awareness of Pugh’s skepticism of the Victory Project in the film is never really explained or explored, much like many of the other character moments and themes throughout. It’s just style, style, style, and absolutely no substance. I guess there are some odes to Suspiria (1977) and Jeanne Dielman.. (1975) but they never actually mean anything or try to build a coherent message. They're there to make the film seem like it's good by association, but they can't play that trick on me. Oh, also, there’s a song every like 5 seconds which is just very distracting and annoying. Like I get it, it's set in the 50's.
Perhaps the Shyamalan-like twist is when the film nosedives into absolute stupidity. SPOILER ALERT from here. So, the twist is that everything is they experience in the Victory Project is a part of some video game/simulation that a weird Incel Harry Styles imposes on Alice (his real-life wife). Yea… I mean maybe it’s like a thing about the patriarchy where men feel like they have to be the providers and in the real world Alice is the provider (??) So it’s like a critique?? Maybe it’s a commentary about Hollywood’s treatment of women?? Who knows?? What is this film trying to say?? The last few scenes do not make any sense as Alice just suddenly regains her memory in the simulation and then Wilde’s character knows about it (but then why didn’t she show any signs earlier)?? It turns into an action film towards the end of the film? Then Chris Pine’s wife kills him?? With no development whatsoever? I stopped asking questions at that point.
However, I must give credit where credit is due. The film is kind of pretty, I must say. Some effort is given by the cast with the material they have. Harry Styles can’t act, he doesn’t count here. That’s it.
Films that try to seem smart are judged a bit more intensely by me, because they set themselves up for that. And this film, come off a bit pretentious, and by trying hard to say something; it ends up saying absolutely nothing. Not good. Pass.
Don't Worry Darling
(Olivia Wilde, United States, 2022)
1.5/5
Don’t Worry Darling is just as messy as the PR surrounding the film. We are not talking about the PR stuff though - it’s just about the film. The film follows a couple living in a utopia-like city that seems to be hiding something sinister. It really has the sensibilities of a film that’s trying really hard to say something, and yet ends up saying nothing or saying something extremely vapid or obvious. It’s not soulless or anything, I think there is a real effort here to try to convey something and it feels like it comes from a kind of real place, but it’s just so so unclear. Not even Pugh could save this film. I laughed at the parts I wasn't supposed to laugh at, found myself audibly saying "what?" throughout, and sighed consistently out of frustration.
First of all, it is just so boring most of the time. The pacing is incredibly slow and so redundant (there are an insane amount of flashback scenes). There were some scene choices that didn’t make any sense - there is literally no reason for the excessive amount of scenes that went nowhere or were just aimless. There’s no development of certain creepy moments (like the fake egg scene), the tension is not building, and you slowly realise that there’s actually nothing being said…. Like there’s a moment where Florence Pugh wraps cling film around her face and it was lowkey just laughable because there’s no development of that idea or meaning attached to it. Super random for the sake of being random.
There is so much meandering dialogue. Most of Chris Pine's dialogue makes absolutely no sense. Actually Chris Pine’s awareness of Pugh’s skepticism of the Victory Project in the film is never really explained or explored, much like many of the other character moments and themes throughout. It’s just style, style, style, and absolutely no substance. I guess there are some odes to Suspiria (1977) and Jeanne Dielman.. (1975) but they never actually mean anything or try to build a coherent message. They're there to make the film seem like it's good by association, but they can't play that trick on me. Oh, also, there’s a song every like 5 seconds which is just very distracting and annoying. Like I get it, it's set in the 50's.
Perhaps the Shyamalan-like twist is when the film nosedives into absolute stupidity. SPOILER ALERT from here. So, the twist is that everything is they experience in the Victory Project is a part of some video game/simulation that a weird Incel Harry Styles imposes on Alice (his real-life wife). Yea… I mean maybe it’s like a thing about the patriarchy where men feel like they have to be the providers and in the real world Alice is the provider (??) So it’s like a critique?? Maybe it’s a commentary about Hollywood’s treatment of women?? Who knows?? What is this film trying to say?? The last few scenes do not make any sense as Alice just suddenly regains her memory in the simulation and then Wilde’s character knows about it (but then why didn’t she show any signs earlier)?? It turns into an action film towards the end of the film? Then Chris Pine’s wife kills him?? With no development whatsoever? I stopped asking questions at that point.
However, I must give credit where credit is due. The film is kind of pretty, I must say. Some effort is given by the cast with the material they have. Harry Styles can’t act, he doesn’t count here. That’s it.
Films that try to seem smart are judged a bit more intensely by me, because they set themselves up for that. And this film, come off a bit pretentious, and by trying hard to say something; it ends up saying absolutely nothing. Not good. Pass.
November 19, 2022
Blade Runner
(Ridley Scott, United States, 1982)
3.7/5
I just watched a classic. Blade Runner is a sci-film from the 80’s that is potentially one of the most influential films in the genre (and in general). It’s clear influence can be seen on films that incorporate AI and cyberpunk. Follows the story of previous policeman who has to capture replicants (androids) after a slew of murders. Culturally impactful, but maybe doesn’t hold up as much (for me).
Tonally, it’s excellent, and the set design is sublime. It’s futuristic, yet somehow filled with filth and misery. Ridley Scott really creates a world here that feels visceral, showing that over-explanation of sci-fi locations is not always necessary (unless it IS necessary). The story is thematically engaging, asking the quintessential question of “what makes us human?”, using directing to convey this (with the focus on eyes for example). It’s beautiful, and it explores the theme well - leaving the question open. It also has one of the most memorable final scenes and performances (by Rutger Hauer).
Unfortunately, I do think the film does struggle with pacing a bit. It sometimes feel like the plot could have been more developed - or at the least focused on character much more if not plot-driven. There are some moments here that really hamper the film. There’s a moment of clear sexual assault that makes it really hard to sympathise with the character from that moment onwards. Moments of orientalism but perhaps that can be explained by the nature of the city itself as multicultural. Also there was one comment towards the beginning of the film that compared calling replicants “skin-jobs” to saying racist slurs…(perhaps a blog post about this one? you probably already see the problem here)
In fact, the main character is not that interesting, evoking a film noir kind of attitude (which is fine but still). There was also unnecessary voiceover throughout (the version I watched) that kind of slammed you in the face with what Deckard was thinking, even though you could see that through Ford’s reactions to things (and the act of subtlety and nuance). The film also shows little interest in the love interest despite introducing her plot line - linked to the memory theme.
Ok so all in all, it’s a good film and highly culturally resonant. I love atmosphere and tone - so that’s why the rating is so high for me. I also think cultural impact is so important, the themes and cyberpunk tone still feel relevant today. Despite this, it’s far from flawless and some parts have aged pretty poorly.
Blade Runner
(Ridley Scott, United States, 1982)
3.7/5
I just watched a classic. Blade Runner is a sci-film from the 80’s that is potentially one of the most influential films in the genre (and in general). It’s clear influence can be seen on films that incorporate AI and cyberpunk. Follows the story of previous policeman who has to capture replicants (androids) after a slew of murders. Culturally impactful, but maybe doesn’t hold up as much (for me).
Tonally, it’s excellent, and the set design is sublime. It’s futuristic, yet somehow filled with filth and misery. Ridley Scott really creates a world here that feels visceral, showing that over-explanation of sci-fi locations is not always necessary (unless it IS necessary). The story is thematically engaging, asking the quintessential question of “what makes us human?”, using directing to convey this (with the focus on eyes for example). It’s beautiful, and it explores the theme well - leaving the question open. It also has one of the most memorable final scenes and performances (by Rutger Hauer).
Unfortunately, I do think the film does struggle with pacing a bit. It sometimes feel like the plot could have been more developed - or at the least focused on character much more if not plot-driven. There are some moments here that really hamper the film. There’s a moment of clear sexual assault that makes it really hard to sympathise with the character from that moment onwards. Moments of orientalism but perhaps that can be explained by the nature of the city itself as multicultural. Also there was one comment towards the beginning of the film that compared calling replicants “skin-jobs” to saying racist slurs…(perhaps a blog post about this one? you probably already see the problem here)
In fact, the main character is not that interesting, evoking a film noir kind of attitude (which is fine but still). There was also unnecessary voiceover throughout (the version I watched) that kind of slammed you in the face with what Deckard was thinking, even though you could see that through Ford’s reactions to things (and the act of subtlety and nuance). The film also shows little interest in the love interest despite introducing her plot line - linked to the memory theme.
Ok so all in all, it’s a good film and highly culturally resonant. I love atmosphere and tone - so that’s why the rating is so high for me. I also think cultural impact is so important, the themes and cyberpunk tone still feel relevant today. Despite this, it’s far from flawless and some parts have aged pretty poorly.
November 24, 2022
The Menu
(Mark Mylod, United States, 2022)
3.7/5
I watched The Menu a few days ago and I was honestly pleasantly surprised with it. It’s a sharp dark comedy with an interesting premise. A couple goes to a faraway island for a fine dining experience with some increasingly interesting menu options. I had a lot of fun watching this and I definitely think it’s just a good time.
The tone of the film is just great. It’s absurd and darkly hilarious. Dark comedy can be difficult, but here the interesting concept of the menu items as well as the underlying satire of fine dining and the culinary industry makes for humour that actually delivers. I especially love the use of visual humour and the course introductions. Although, I did feel like at parts the film incessantly used shock value scenes which weren’t particularly necessary.
The performances were great across the board. Although Anya Taylor-Joy shines as usual and is the true star of the film. Her character is the most relatable and you really root for her at the end. The other guests portray just the right amount of naïveté and shallowness that comes across as fitting with the film’s tone. Ralph Fiennes too was a standout. It is clear that the film is making a commentary about the rich, but many of the characters feel very surface-level (I guess that is the point, but I feel like there’s more to the matter than just rich bad, working class good).
As mentioned, the film provides a commentary on the state of the culinary industry. This is the second movie I’ve seen this month that attempts to grapple with the topic of pressure on people in hospitality and how easily restaurants can close down - it may very much be a post-Covid thing, we’ll see! It also attempts to comment on power structures and the acceptance of authority figures’ actions without question - in addition to its’ critique of the rich. Despite some gleaming moments, it grapples with too many themes and leaves many under-developed. Some of the themes it does deal with extensively aren’t really examined in an incredibly meaningful way, but they are just looked at enough to be deemed as understandable.
There are also a few plot contrivances I found to be weird and un-explained (like the cheeseburger scene, and unclear moments like the reveal that Anya’s on screen boyfriend knew about X, etc.). The music wasn’t too memorable and the directing was decent. All in all, very enjoyable watch but many of it’s themes feel half-baked. Enjoyed it a lot though and thought it was very unique and funny so it’s getting a high rating! One of my favourites of the year so far.
The Menu
(Mark Mylod, United States, 2022)
3.7/5
I watched The Menu a few days ago and I was honestly pleasantly surprised with it. It’s a sharp dark comedy with an interesting premise. A couple goes to a faraway island for a fine dining experience with some increasingly interesting menu options. I had a lot of fun watching this and I definitely think it’s just a good time.
The tone of the film is just great. It’s absurd and darkly hilarious. Dark comedy can be difficult, but here the interesting concept of the menu items as well as the underlying satire of fine dining and the culinary industry makes for humour that actually delivers. I especially love the use of visual humour and the course introductions. Although, I did feel like at parts the film incessantly used shock value scenes which weren’t particularly necessary.
The performances were great across the board. Although Anya Taylor-Joy shines as usual and is the true star of the film. Her character is the most relatable and you really root for her at the end. The other guests portray just the right amount of naïveté and shallowness that comes across as fitting with the film’s tone. Ralph Fiennes too was a standout. It is clear that the film is making a commentary about the rich, but many of the characters feel very surface-level (I guess that is the point, but I feel like there’s more to the matter than just rich bad, working class good).
As mentioned, the film provides a commentary on the state of the culinary industry. This is the second movie I’ve seen this month that attempts to grapple with the topic of pressure on people in hospitality and how easily restaurants can close down - it may very much be a post-Covid thing, we’ll see! It also attempts to comment on power structures and the acceptance of authority figures’ actions without question - in addition to its’ critique of the rich. Despite some gleaming moments, it grapples with too many themes and leaves many under-developed. Some of the themes it does deal with extensively aren’t really examined in an incredibly meaningful way, but they are just looked at enough to be deemed as understandable.
There are also a few plot contrivances I found to be weird and un-explained (like the cheeseburger scene, and unclear moments like the reveal that Anya’s on screen boyfriend knew about X, etc.). The music wasn’t too memorable and the directing was decent. All in all, very enjoyable watch but many of it’s themes feel half-baked. Enjoyed it a lot though and thought it was very unique and funny so it’s getting a high rating! One of my favourites of the year so far.
January 2, 2023
Puss in Boots: The Last Wish
(Joel Crawford & Januel Mercado, United States, 2022)
3.9/5
Okay, here I am watching a film that I didn’t know existed until a week ago. Puss in Boots: The Last Wish was an unexpected delight to watch. The film follows Puss in Boots looking for a mystical last wish to restore his nine lives which he had already lost 8 of (at the start of this film at least). I had a similar viewing experience to Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse (2018). Following the first - kind of okay decent Puss In Boots - literally and chronologically; this film exceeds in quality and uses the animated medium to the max. Arguably the best Shrek film since Shrek 2.
The story itself is your typical animated adventure film stuff, albeit it tonally feels like a fairytale with the spirit of the Shrek films. It plays with the whole “I wish” trope and magic systems that Disney fairytales have and basically feels like a callback to Shrek’s original subversion of Disney clichés and tropes. In fact, a lot of this film has humour that is surprisingly not just childish, reminiscent of Shrek 1 and Shrek 2's tongue-in-cheek style (still not on the same level though). It also does have quite a bit of easter eggs and references that do not feel hamfisted in at all and rather feel relevant to the tone, story and situation (although some moments at the end did feel slightlyyy excessive).
Okay, the music here is great and everything, but the animation is just… incredible. It swaps out the realistic style of its’ predecessor and feels more fit to the fairytale-like elements of the story. The action sequences were particularly a stand-out as well. You can just tell a lot of love, passion, and creativity went into it and it was honestly incredible. Nothing else to stay about the style, I loved it and it just showed what the medium is capable of.
I respect and admire that the film focuses on the characters more, to the extent where this almost feels like a character drama (at times). I love the character development that the characters goes through, although this also can be unbalanced at times (partially fuelled by the pacing which wasn’t always perfect). The additional side kick character was not annoying at all and was a useful addition. Butttt this is where I have an issue.
There’s just too much happening in this movie and there are way too many villains. It just bloated the film in my opinion. I think it should’ve been just the main 3 and Goldilocks + 3 bears. They are adequately introduced and given a backstory + place in the movie with the theme of chosen family. Although I think it’s funny that the other villain was straight up the CEO of a confectionary company + nepotism baby, there just wasn't enough motive for him to be in the story at all (not to this extent at least). And because of this bloat, the film doesn’t have enough time to flesh out everything (including its themes which sometimes are focussed on more than others).
As for fanservice and the connection to source material, it didn’t feel excessive but I also am very intrigued by the final scene… will there be another Shrek film? Anyways, I hope they continue this trajectory!
Also, the new Dreamworks intro made me feel old (Like why did I tear up when I saw toothless? Maybe nostalgia is killing me). Anyways, Shrek 2 remains a true masterpiece and the best in the series no questions asked.
Puss in Boots: The Last Wish
(Joel Crawford & Januel Mercado, United States, 2022)
3.9/5
Okay, here I am watching a film that I didn’t know existed until a week ago. Puss in Boots: The Last Wish was an unexpected delight to watch. The film follows Puss in Boots looking for a mystical last wish to restore his nine lives which he had already lost 8 of (at the start of this film at least). I had a similar viewing experience to Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse (2018). Following the first - kind of okay decent Puss In Boots - literally and chronologically; this film exceeds in quality and uses the animated medium to the max. Arguably the best Shrek film since Shrek 2.
The story itself is your typical animated adventure film stuff, albeit it tonally feels like a fairytale with the spirit of the Shrek films. It plays with the whole “I wish” trope and magic systems that Disney fairytales have and basically feels like a callback to Shrek’s original subversion of Disney clichés and tropes. In fact, a lot of this film has humour that is surprisingly not just childish, reminiscent of Shrek 1 and Shrek 2's tongue-in-cheek style (still not on the same level though). It also does have quite a bit of easter eggs and references that do not feel hamfisted in at all and rather feel relevant to the tone, story and situation (although some moments at the end did feel slightlyyy excessive).
Okay, the music here is great and everything, but the animation is just… incredible. It swaps out the realistic style of its’ predecessor and feels more fit to the fairytale-like elements of the story. The action sequences were particularly a stand-out as well. You can just tell a lot of love, passion, and creativity went into it and it was honestly incredible. Nothing else to stay about the style, I loved it and it just showed what the medium is capable of.
I respect and admire that the film focuses on the characters more, to the extent where this almost feels like a character drama (at times). I love the character development that the characters goes through, although this also can be unbalanced at times (partially fuelled by the pacing which wasn’t always perfect). The additional side kick character was not annoying at all and was a useful addition. Butttt this is where I have an issue.
There’s just too much happening in this movie and there are way too many villains. It just bloated the film in my opinion. I think it should’ve been just the main 3 and Goldilocks + 3 bears. They are adequately introduced and given a backstory + place in the movie with the theme of chosen family. Although I think it’s funny that the other villain was straight up the CEO of a confectionary company + nepotism baby, there just wasn't enough motive for him to be in the story at all (not to this extent at least). And because of this bloat, the film doesn’t have enough time to flesh out everything (including its themes which sometimes are focussed on more than others).
As for fanservice and the connection to source material, it didn’t feel excessive but I also am very intrigued by the final scene… will there be another Shrek film? Anyways, I hope they continue this trajectory!
Also, the new Dreamworks intro made me feel old (Like why did I tear up when I saw toothless? Maybe nostalgia is killing me). Anyways, Shrek 2 remains a true masterpiece and the best in the series no questions asked.
(Sometime Late) December, 2022
Searching
(Aneesh Chaganty, United States/Russia, 2018)
3.6/5
I watched Searching last week and by the time I post this I think it will be even further than then but it’s holiday season and everything is even more slower than usual. I was hesitant at first with this film because the concept of a film that takes place completely through a laptop screen reminded me of Unfriended (2014) which was a movie I frankly do not want to remember. Basically, an innovative concept is not enough to be an engaging story. In this case though, the format works hand in hand with a well-told story. The film follows a father as he unravels the mystery behind his daughter’s disappearance.
In a way, the film almost feels like an interactive webisode or something. It’s very intimate, point-of-view and feels visceral and real. It takes you through the journey of a father who is trying to find his daughter through her laptop. Through FaceTime calls, evidence from social media, and real-time reactions to news and videos, we receive exposition that feels natural to the story and a sense of foreshadowing in a way that doesn’t feel excessive. The lack of cinematography or camera angles were actually contributing to the realness of the film and its’ modern leanings. The score and the panning across the screen especially when it comes to text reveals a lot about characters as well as adequately provides tension.
The twist in the film doesn’t feel like it comes out of nowhere, and as soon as it is revealed it feels like it was well set up and it really provides a nice juxtaposition to the leading character (the father). In a way both parents were acting out of blind protection and love towards their family and kids, albeit manifested in different ways - it contributes to the movie’s theme of parenthood in general and works very well from a storytelling perspective. In addition, the film definitely implicitly has a lot to say about both the triumphs and the dangers of the digital age.
The father solved the mystery of his daughter because of her digital footprint and her social media accounts, but in a way it was also incredibly difficult to find something in the clutter of online interactions and content. The film approaches social media presence in a nuanced way, presenting it as both a force for good but also potentially dangerous when placed in the wrong hands. It wasn’t mind-blowing or anything (the commentary) but the way in which it was utilised as a narrative device in the film, also allowing the audience to participate in solving the mystery was very unique and well done.
All in all, I enjoyed the film and I think that it represents the fact that you do not need a crazy budget to tell a good story.
Searching
(Aneesh Chaganty, United States/Russia, 2018)
3.6/5
I watched Searching last week and by the time I post this I think it will be even further than then but it’s holiday season and everything is even more slower than usual. I was hesitant at first with this film because the concept of a film that takes place completely through a laptop screen reminded me of Unfriended (2014) which was a movie I frankly do not want to remember. Basically, an innovative concept is not enough to be an engaging story. In this case though, the format works hand in hand with a well-told story. The film follows a father as he unravels the mystery behind his daughter’s disappearance.
In a way, the film almost feels like an interactive webisode or something. It’s very intimate, point-of-view and feels visceral and real. It takes you through the journey of a father who is trying to find his daughter through her laptop. Through FaceTime calls, evidence from social media, and real-time reactions to news and videos, we receive exposition that feels natural to the story and a sense of foreshadowing in a way that doesn’t feel excessive. The lack of cinematography or camera angles were actually contributing to the realness of the film and its’ modern leanings. The score and the panning across the screen especially when it comes to text reveals a lot about characters as well as adequately provides tension.
The twist in the film doesn’t feel like it comes out of nowhere, and as soon as it is revealed it feels like it was well set up and it really provides a nice juxtaposition to the leading character (the father). In a way both parents were acting out of blind protection and love towards their family and kids, albeit manifested in different ways - it contributes to the movie’s theme of parenthood in general and works very well from a storytelling perspective. In addition, the film definitely implicitly has a lot to say about both the triumphs and the dangers of the digital age.
The father solved the mystery of his daughter because of her digital footprint and her social media accounts, but in a way it was also incredibly difficult to find something in the clutter of online interactions and content. The film approaches social media presence in a nuanced way, presenting it as both a force for good but also potentially dangerous when placed in the wrong hands. It wasn’t mind-blowing or anything (the commentary) but the way in which it was utilised as a narrative device in the film, also allowing the audience to participate in solving the mystery was very unique and well done.
All in all, I enjoyed the film and I think that it represents the fact that you do not need a crazy budget to tell a good story.
January 17, 2023
Infernal Affairs
(Andrew Lau & Alan Mak, Hong Kong, 2002)
3.6/5
Just watched Infernal Affairs, a classic that I’ve been meaning to watch for a while. It basically follows the story of two mole; one in the police and one in a drug gang. The Departed is based off of this movie in almost every way except the ending and some little details. At times it felt like a shot for shot remake and made it quite difficult to enjoy the movie without comparing it to The Departed.
This film cuts out much of the filler that the Departed has. It’s fast-paced, and it leaves no room for anything unnecessary. The tone is consistent, doesn’t feel wonky in delivering the story, and has some nice action scenes and moments. I feel like a longer film though wouldnt’ve hurt as I felt I needed to understand the characters’ motives a bit further and I didn’t feel like there was much room for that. There were also some romances introduced that weren’t fleshed out enough.
Wasn’t a massive fan of the score and some of the directing choices but there were some standout shots. I’m really someone who dislikes unnecessary flashbacks in films, especially one that feels so ham-fisted in order to contextualise and set up relationships that should have been set up more elaborately throughout the film (in that way you don’t need a montage or a flashback). Unfortunately, there were some annoying flashback/montage moments. Acting is fine, Tony Leung always delivers.
I actually much prefer the ending in this one and the themes of ambiguity of good and evil. Western movies (in this case, The Departed) often seek a sense of resolution, but the ending here feels very fitting to the tone, the story, and feels more befitting to the plot. Theme of ambiguity of evil is very cool but wish it could’ve been delved in further.
I can’t help but feel that The Departed is really uninspired after watching this one. The Departed has a different tone for sure, and is more “light”, but there’s a lot of clutter. I was really amazed at how similar the dialogue, the scenes, and even the shots are to The Departed and I feel like that goes against what I feel a remake should be. Either way, I still think both are excellent films and I enjoyed The Departed more as a watching experience but this one is the source material and it’s very well done in that regard.
In conclusion, Infernal Affairs is a great crime (almost neo-noir) film that feels almost too fast-paced for its’ own good but still ends up delivering a gripping story.
Infernal Affairs
(Andrew Lau & Alan Mak, Hong Kong, 2002)
3.6/5
Just watched Infernal Affairs, a classic that I’ve been meaning to watch for a while. It basically follows the story of two mole; one in the police and one in a drug gang. The Departed is based off of this movie in almost every way except the ending and some little details. At times it felt like a shot for shot remake and made it quite difficult to enjoy the movie without comparing it to The Departed.
This film cuts out much of the filler that the Departed has. It’s fast-paced, and it leaves no room for anything unnecessary. The tone is consistent, doesn’t feel wonky in delivering the story, and has some nice action scenes and moments. I feel like a longer film though wouldnt’ve hurt as I felt I needed to understand the characters’ motives a bit further and I didn’t feel like there was much room for that. There were also some romances introduced that weren’t fleshed out enough.
Wasn’t a massive fan of the score and some of the directing choices but there were some standout shots. I’m really someone who dislikes unnecessary flashbacks in films, especially one that feels so ham-fisted in order to contextualise and set up relationships that should have been set up more elaborately throughout the film (in that way you don’t need a montage or a flashback). Unfortunately, there were some annoying flashback/montage moments. Acting is fine, Tony Leung always delivers.
I actually much prefer the ending in this one and the themes of ambiguity of good and evil. Western movies (in this case, The Departed) often seek a sense of resolution, but the ending here feels very fitting to the tone, the story, and feels more befitting to the plot. Theme of ambiguity of evil is very cool but wish it could’ve been delved in further.
I can’t help but feel that The Departed is really uninspired after watching this one. The Departed has a different tone for sure, and is more “light”, but there’s a lot of clutter. I was really amazed at how similar the dialogue, the scenes, and even the shots are to The Departed and I feel like that goes against what I feel a remake should be. Either way, I still think both are excellent films and I enjoyed The Departed more as a watching experience but this one is the source material and it’s very well done in that regard.
In conclusion, Infernal Affairs is a great crime (almost neo-noir) film that feels almost too fast-paced for its’ own good but still ends up delivering a gripping story.
January 21, 2023
The X Files
(Rob Bowman, United States, 1998)
3.4/5
I’m a big X Files fan at the moment - partially cause I’ve been watching it for the past few months (I’m at Season 6)- I’m considering reviewing shows too at this point. This entry is about one of the two X Files feature films that were made. The X Files is a decent film with great moments and a nice plot that could work standalone; but ends up suffering from its’ lack of adaptation to the big screen.
First of all, watching the TV show makes the viewing experience here much more contextual - and makes the characters of Mulder and Scully way more set up than if you were to watch the film alone. But they anyways have a nice arc here and their scenes together here are probably some of their best duo scenes. The movie is essentially about their relationship more than the actual subject matter.
The tone of the film is similar to the X Files in general: dark, moody, tense, and somehow campy with humour (in a way). However, going from small, stuffy rooms to corn fields to the Arctic was slightly jarring to say the least. There are some nice shots and directing moments with some nice ‘cinematic’ moments. Noticeably so, the film shows off its budget with special effects, sets, and such which I understand, but it still feels like a normal episode with a more than generous budget. The pace really suffers in this film. It’s structured very much like a long episode. The same beats occur, they’re just extended - that’s not really movie material and the pace can often feel very wonky here. The last act though is a standout but that in a way is just the same for any end of the episode where things go down.
Plot issues are really some of the same things that The X Files as a tv show suffers from sometimes and they are on display here for sure and possibly even more obvious. SPOILER - Scully gets kidnapped for the x1000th time which keeps happening every time the plot starts to unravel when it comes to the alien conspiracy plotline - it becomes a tool to steer us (and Mulder) away from finding out the truth or the conclusion to the conspiracy. This becomes frustrating when it happens almost every time and takes us back to square one. A lot of plot contrivances here also that feel random (like the random man Mulder meets in a pub who provides very useful information). It was definitely interesting and fun, but sensical and congruent it was not.
The themes here are honestly the same as the show’s as a whole - a 90’s/Y2K fear of the unknown/globalisation and a growing distrust in authority (maybe a blog entry about this is overdue). In addition to the persistent theme of science/positivism vs belief/constructivism which threads throughout the whole show and works quite well as its’ embodied by Scully and Mulder's characters.
Overall, The X Files film makes for a nice viewing experience and has some particularly awesome moments that help set up Season 6 specifically; but unfortunately it ends up feeling like a long episode where not much is achieved by the end. Still enjoyed it though.
The X Files
(Rob Bowman, United States, 1998)
3.4/5
I’m a big X Files fan at the moment - partially cause I’ve been watching it for the past few months (I’m at Season 6)- I’m considering reviewing shows too at this point. This entry is about one of the two X Files feature films that were made. The X Files is a decent film with great moments and a nice plot that could work standalone; but ends up suffering from its’ lack of adaptation to the big screen.
First of all, watching the TV show makes the viewing experience here much more contextual - and makes the characters of Mulder and Scully way more set up than if you were to watch the film alone. But they anyways have a nice arc here and their scenes together here are probably some of their best duo scenes. The movie is essentially about their relationship more than the actual subject matter.
The tone of the film is similar to the X Files in general: dark, moody, tense, and somehow campy with humour (in a way). However, going from small, stuffy rooms to corn fields to the Arctic was slightly jarring to say the least. There are some nice shots and directing moments with some nice ‘cinematic’ moments. Noticeably so, the film shows off its budget with special effects, sets, and such which I understand, but it still feels like a normal episode with a more than generous budget. The pace really suffers in this film. It’s structured very much like a long episode. The same beats occur, they’re just extended - that’s not really movie material and the pace can often feel very wonky here. The last act though is a standout but that in a way is just the same for any end of the episode where things go down.
Plot issues are really some of the same things that The X Files as a tv show suffers from sometimes and they are on display here for sure and possibly even more obvious. SPOILER - Scully gets kidnapped for the x1000th time which keeps happening every time the plot starts to unravel when it comes to the alien conspiracy plotline - it becomes a tool to steer us (and Mulder) away from finding out the truth or the conclusion to the conspiracy. This becomes frustrating when it happens almost every time and takes us back to square one. A lot of plot contrivances here also that feel random (like the random man Mulder meets in a pub who provides very useful information). It was definitely interesting and fun, but sensical and congruent it was not.
The themes here are honestly the same as the show’s as a whole - a 90’s/Y2K fear of the unknown/globalisation and a growing distrust in authority (maybe a blog entry about this is overdue). In addition to the persistent theme of science/positivism vs belief/constructivism which threads throughout the whole show and works quite well as its’ embodied by Scully and Mulder's characters.
Overall, The X Files film makes for a nice viewing experience and has some particularly awesome moments that help set up Season 6 specifically; but unfortunately it ends up feeling like a long episode where not much is achieved by the end. Still enjoyed it though.
February 20, 2023
The Banshees of Inisherin
(Martin McDonagh, United Kingdom/United States/Ireland, 2022)
3.6/5
I watched The Banshees of Inisherin sometime last week and didn’t have time to write a proper film review. Life gets in the way like that. The Banshees of Inisherin is a unique film set in an island just off the coast of Ireland in the 1920’s at the height of the Irish civil war; although its’ scope as a film and story is restricted to this small rural town where news travels at lightning-speed and everyone viscerally knows each other. It’s a story about loneliness, friendship, and evokes a sense of universality as a result.
The atmosphere and the sense of space and lack of direction in the people’s lives is beautifully presented with the sweeping shots of this island where it often feels that not much occurs, and where people’s dreams are just that - dreams. It’s a sharp contrast from what is happening on the main land which is strategically mostly in the backdrop of the film, only showcased by ultra - wide shots (and the tense interactions between the police officer/s and the characters). The characters seem to be emotionally repressive to their feelings (the male characters more so), but there’s a sense of feeling of entrapment and distance from the situation. It was an interesting paradox to the conflict that our main characters’ faced, where their fallout does not seem like a big problem at first glance until we realise that the alternative is an internal collapse of social scripts.
Loneliness is a big theme in this film, and therefore the fallout between the two main friends in the film is a threat to the routine and social scripts that the people in the town have gotten used to. Another theme is the need to be remembered and a person’s impact when faced with death. The two characters are at a crossroads here as they both come to realise that greatness and remembrance can manifest itself in different ways. Ultimately these two sides are never resolved, and the ending portrays the lengths that someone can go to so that they can feel like they exist - to feel something different and to do something different in a place that feels monotonous and dull.
There are definitely darkly comedic parts of this film, especially at the end. However, this film more often feels sad more than anything else as we really feel for the characters’ inability to grapple with their place in the town and in the world. They are victims of circumstance, and they have to face the fact that perhaps this is all they really can do and often go to great lengths to wallow in their own suffering just to feel something. It’s an interesting film, and allows the audience to interpret and to create their own meanings out of what’s happening on screen.
The acting is superb as usual, the McDonagh x Farell pairing is just sublime (however this film is not as good as In Bruges). I think the music was pretty nice, and not overdone. Technically speaking, it was also very nice. However, it often felt like it wasn’t as rich (thematically speaking) and extended on for a little too long for comfort. Although I did like that the wider conflict on the mainland was in the background, perhaps it could have been weaved in the story in more interesting and subtle ways. Other than that, I liked it, but I just felt like there wasn’t enough to hang on to. I doubt I will be revisiting.
P.S. The animals in this film are so cute.
The Banshees of Inisherin
(Martin McDonagh, United Kingdom/United States/Ireland, 2022)
3.6/5
I watched The Banshees of Inisherin sometime last week and didn’t have time to write a proper film review. Life gets in the way like that. The Banshees of Inisherin is a unique film set in an island just off the coast of Ireland in the 1920’s at the height of the Irish civil war; although its’ scope as a film and story is restricted to this small rural town where news travels at lightning-speed and everyone viscerally knows each other. It’s a story about loneliness, friendship, and evokes a sense of universality as a result.
The atmosphere and the sense of space and lack of direction in the people’s lives is beautifully presented with the sweeping shots of this island where it often feels that not much occurs, and where people’s dreams are just that - dreams. It’s a sharp contrast from what is happening on the main land which is strategically mostly in the backdrop of the film, only showcased by ultra - wide shots (and the tense interactions between the police officer/s and the characters). The characters seem to be emotionally repressive to their feelings (the male characters more so), but there’s a sense of feeling of entrapment and distance from the situation. It was an interesting paradox to the conflict that our main characters’ faced, where their fallout does not seem like a big problem at first glance until we realise that the alternative is an internal collapse of social scripts.
Loneliness is a big theme in this film, and therefore the fallout between the two main friends in the film is a threat to the routine and social scripts that the people in the town have gotten used to. Another theme is the need to be remembered and a person’s impact when faced with death. The two characters are at a crossroads here as they both come to realise that greatness and remembrance can manifest itself in different ways. Ultimately these two sides are never resolved, and the ending portrays the lengths that someone can go to so that they can feel like they exist - to feel something different and to do something different in a place that feels monotonous and dull.
There are definitely darkly comedic parts of this film, especially at the end. However, this film more often feels sad more than anything else as we really feel for the characters’ inability to grapple with their place in the town and in the world. They are victims of circumstance, and they have to face the fact that perhaps this is all they really can do and often go to great lengths to wallow in their own suffering just to feel something. It’s an interesting film, and allows the audience to interpret and to create their own meanings out of what’s happening on screen.
The acting is superb as usual, the McDonagh x Farell pairing is just sublime (however this film is not as good as In Bruges). I think the music was pretty nice, and not overdone. Technically speaking, it was also very nice. However, it often felt like it wasn’t as rich (thematically speaking) and extended on for a little too long for comfort. Although I did like that the wider conflict on the mainland was in the background, perhaps it could have been weaved in the story in more interesting and subtle ways. Other than that, I liked it, but I just felt like there wasn’t enough to hang on to. I doubt I will be revisiting.
P.S. The animals in this film are so cute.
March 20, 2023
Aftersun
(Charlotte Wells, United Kingdom/United States, 2022)
4.3/5
I finally got around to watching Aftersun after missing it at IFFR. It follows the memories of a woman as she recalls a vacation with her dad in Turkey. What they say is true: it’s just an amazing film that tackles, memory, growth, and grief in such an insightful and nuanced way. It’s just so nice, and never feels pretentious or inappropriate in its’ wallowing.
The tone of the film is consistently nostalgic, utilising that 90’s video camera aesthetic that feels very much in place rather than nostalgic for the sake of being nostalgic. The blue hues, the way the film feels slow but also tells us a lot about the relationship between the father and his daughter in these well-written conversations that feel pretty realistic. It’s melancholy is very much well-portrayed too, and at the end, it just hits like a ton of bricks. The soundtrack also contributes to this in a very visceral way, not falling for the how-many-90s-songs-can-we-stick-in-here route that feels all too common.
While vacations on screen are often represented in just a very look-how-much-fun-we-are-having way in a lot of films, this film really pays attention to the silences, the unsavoury, and what is now being recalled by the daughter as her father’s declining mental state. It’s really incredible and the editing also does a great service here to represent this.
The theme of memory is strong here, and the interplay between video camera and memory kind of really show the duality of memory as being completely subjective and maybe even (slightly fictionalised at times based on the time of our lives) vs the actual videos which represent actual events. It shows the power of recollection, and the importance of documentation of memories in identity. In this way, our main character can really negotiate her own identity through her father’s and perhaps allow herself to let those attachments go.
Representation of mental health issues is just great here. It’s not gratuitous, it’s alarmingly melancholic in a realistic way that feels like it doesn’t really try to hide from the effect that (depression?) can have on someone and the people surrounding them.
While the film does feel like it extends a bit too long and basic at times in terms of camerawork, it never feels boring (although it could have benefitted with more depth and themes with that runtime). I still very much loved it, and it is definitely a movie I see myself revisiting.
Aftersun
(Charlotte Wells, United Kingdom/United States, 2022)
4.3/5
I finally got around to watching Aftersun after missing it at IFFR. It follows the memories of a woman as she recalls a vacation with her dad in Turkey. What they say is true: it’s just an amazing film that tackles, memory, growth, and grief in such an insightful and nuanced way. It’s just so nice, and never feels pretentious or inappropriate in its’ wallowing.
The tone of the film is consistently nostalgic, utilising that 90’s video camera aesthetic that feels very much in place rather than nostalgic for the sake of being nostalgic. The blue hues, the way the film feels slow but also tells us a lot about the relationship between the father and his daughter in these well-written conversations that feel pretty realistic. It’s melancholy is very much well-portrayed too, and at the end, it just hits like a ton of bricks. The soundtrack also contributes to this in a very visceral way, not falling for the how-many-90s-songs-can-we-stick-in-here route that feels all too common.
While vacations on screen are often represented in just a very look-how-much-fun-we-are-having way in a lot of films, this film really pays attention to the silences, the unsavoury, and what is now being recalled by the daughter as her father’s declining mental state. It’s really incredible and the editing also does a great service here to represent this.
The theme of memory is strong here, and the interplay between video camera and memory kind of really show the duality of memory as being completely subjective and maybe even (slightly fictionalised at times based on the time of our lives) vs the actual videos which represent actual events. It shows the power of recollection, and the importance of documentation of memories in identity. In this way, our main character can really negotiate her own identity through her father’s and perhaps allow herself to let those attachments go.
Representation of mental health issues is just great here. It’s not gratuitous, it’s alarmingly melancholic in a realistic way that feels like it doesn’t really try to hide from the effect that (depression?) can have on someone and the people surrounding them.
While the film does feel like it extends a bit too long and basic at times in terms of camerawork, it never feels boring (although it could have benefitted with more depth and themes with that runtime). I still very much loved it, and it is definitely a movie I see myself revisiting.
March 21, 2023
Scream VI
(Matt Bettinelli-Olpin/Tyler Gillett, Canada/United States, 2023)
2.8/5
Scream 6 is a movie I watched. It’s a popcorn movie to say the least (I wasn’t eating popcorn sadly due to illness but it is the thought that counts). What I mean by a popcorn movie is to say that I enjoyed it on a surface level, but I really had to switch my brain off big time. I think it’s fine to do that, but even switching my brain off wasn’t enough.
Scream 6 shakes up the vibe of the original Scream films, opting for a more self-aware narrative instead, and intertwining the main characters’ with previous Scream lore - our main characters here have already survived an attack. It feels like Ghostface is trivialised because he literally could be any film bro hiding behind a mask, but still keeping that same feeling of legitimacy of danger that the figure has (until later in the film, we will touch on that).
I thought the location and tone of New York City was great for this film. In a busy city, people are less likely to stand out (and there is great danger in that for our protagonists). It also was really clever that the film takes place in Halloween, albeit for completely different reasons (Ghostface is a pop culture icon in the film and therefore finding the real Ghostface becomes a challenge). Setting is prime - I like it. Soundtrack not so much - but I thought it was a bit camp.
The characters are all quite likeable, I think the problem is that there were just way too many and that some were obviously going to be the big bad based on how they were set up. The stakes were high though, and the film really doesn’t shy away from killing the characters. I thought the main character’s relationship with her sister was a standout, and the main character herself (Sam) and the way she grapples with the events of the previous film was interesting (although not nearly as centre stage as preferred). There’s just way too many characters. Nice to see some legacy characters incorporated in an organic way. This is shameless nostalgia content though. It really needs to clarify some things for people who haven't watched the full series though, I believe in standalone films even if they are sequels (or sixquels, I don't even know).
Similarly to other Scream films, the campiness is real and it’s really felt here. I think camp is important to these films because the murders are indeed so grisly, and in a way it still is a film that throws like a ton of jokes (that’s not to say there aren’t serious scenes). However, I feel like this film really struggles with that balance, especially towards the end. Some things felt more goofy than campy, especially when it comes to the plot.
I thought it was fun that they were meta in the film and I think that it was a great way to address some of the franchise’s cliches, but I hate when that self-awareness is done to circumvent and excuse the very same cliches and sloppy writing done in the film. Like there was an extended humorous scene in the film that goes on and on about the Ghostface suspects that becomes uncomfortably self-aware, teetering on actual messy writing due to things actually representing themselves in the plot. I also thought that it became unclear what was film fiction (in the film) and what was real, considering in the film they don’t know they are in a film (or do they?) I don’t know, it just felt more sloppy than well thought-out.
I think the film tries to make a commentary about how easily accessible weapons are, and how modern/digital culture has really transformed the way we approach serious issues. You see, there’s a sense of trivialisation of everything in modern culture where murder is normalised at worst (I mean we can talk about the U.S and gun laws but I’m not even going to talk about that here). I feel like the thing about this movie is it kind of falls into its own trap, when you create a Ghostface museum and legitimise it it’s existence (and make a weird twist reveal that makes little sense), you kind of create a spectacle of a murderer (that the film tries to take a stance against). Poorly-baked theme.
I don’t know, I feel like we’ve had enough of these films as a society. We need to move on. Be original, just put on a different mask, let it die. Also, I can't help but think they yassified Scream, can't explain it.
Scream VI
(Matt Bettinelli-Olpin/Tyler Gillett, Canada/United States, 2023)
2.8/5
Scream 6 is a movie I watched. It’s a popcorn movie to say the least (I wasn’t eating popcorn sadly due to illness but it is the thought that counts). What I mean by a popcorn movie is to say that I enjoyed it on a surface level, but I really had to switch my brain off big time. I think it’s fine to do that, but even switching my brain off wasn’t enough.
Scream 6 shakes up the vibe of the original Scream films, opting for a more self-aware narrative instead, and intertwining the main characters’ with previous Scream lore - our main characters here have already survived an attack. It feels like Ghostface is trivialised because he literally could be any film bro hiding behind a mask, but still keeping that same feeling of legitimacy of danger that the figure has (until later in the film, we will touch on that).
I thought the location and tone of New York City was great for this film. In a busy city, people are less likely to stand out (and there is great danger in that for our protagonists). It also was really clever that the film takes place in Halloween, albeit for completely different reasons (Ghostface is a pop culture icon in the film and therefore finding the real Ghostface becomes a challenge). Setting is prime - I like it. Soundtrack not so much - but I thought it was a bit camp.
The characters are all quite likeable, I think the problem is that there were just way too many and that some were obviously going to be the big bad based on how they were set up. The stakes were high though, and the film really doesn’t shy away from killing the characters. I thought the main character’s relationship with her sister was a standout, and the main character herself (Sam) and the way she grapples with the events of the previous film was interesting (although not nearly as centre stage as preferred). There’s just way too many characters. Nice to see some legacy characters incorporated in an organic way. This is shameless nostalgia content though. It really needs to clarify some things for people who haven't watched the full series though, I believe in standalone films even if they are sequels (or sixquels, I don't even know).
Similarly to other Scream films, the campiness is real and it’s really felt here. I think camp is important to these films because the murders are indeed so grisly, and in a way it still is a film that throws like a ton of jokes (that’s not to say there aren’t serious scenes). However, I feel like this film really struggles with that balance, especially towards the end. Some things felt more goofy than campy, especially when it comes to the plot.
I thought it was fun that they were meta in the film and I think that it was a great way to address some of the franchise’s cliches, but I hate when that self-awareness is done to circumvent and excuse the very same cliches and sloppy writing done in the film. Like there was an extended humorous scene in the film that goes on and on about the Ghostface suspects that becomes uncomfortably self-aware, teetering on actual messy writing due to things actually representing themselves in the plot. I also thought that it became unclear what was film fiction (in the film) and what was real, considering in the film they don’t know they are in a film (or do they?) I don’t know, it just felt more sloppy than well thought-out.
I think the film tries to make a commentary about how easily accessible weapons are, and how modern/digital culture has really transformed the way we approach serious issues. You see, there’s a sense of trivialisation of everything in modern culture where murder is normalised at worst (I mean we can talk about the U.S and gun laws but I’m not even going to talk about that here). I feel like the thing about this movie is it kind of falls into its own trap, when you create a Ghostface museum and legitimise it it’s existence (and make a weird twist reveal that makes little sense), you kind of create a spectacle of a murderer (that the film tries to take a stance against). Poorly-baked theme.
I don’t know, I feel like we’ve had enough of these films as a society. We need to move on. Be original, just put on a different mask, let it die. Also, I can't help but think they yassified Scream, can't explain it.
April 24, 2023
Air
(Ben Affleck, United States, 2023)
3.0/5
I just watched the “Air” movie, the Matt Damon movie (at least that’s how I see a lot of Matt Damon movies, I'm a big fan) It was a fine movie, I guess. It was fun, had some engaging moments but ultimately felt like a strangely long Nike advertisement that felt vacantly inspirational. It’s as corporate as it gets, and you need to be prepared for that when stepping in to watch this film.
The movie itself has a compelling story as it follows Nike’s journey in getting Michael Jordan to be the face of the company (and the Air Jordans of course). As with a lot of biopics, there is a lot of passion and love behind the film evidently (towards the company and Michael Jordan) and there is a clear appreciation towards Basketball and athletes/sport personalities in general. You know the ending, but it still allows for a decent watch as you follow (fictional) Sonny (and the company's) attempts (and successes) in winning over the Jordan family. It’s about the power of an image (and a shoe lol).
The acting across the board is actually pretty great. The pacing is okay, but lags a little in the second to third act and is propped up by scenes that go on just a tad bit too long. The characters feel interesting and three-dimensional (the Nike people) which is something that biopics tend to fall short in. Actually, the fact that this film focusses just on this one event does break the cram-everything-into-a-film biopic formula that tends to be quite popular. That’s nice and allows for nice (and funny + more fleshed-out character moments).
The directing and some of the editing I found to be a bit weird though. There are moments at the beginning editing-wise that made me think it was gonna be a mockumentary style -which I would have loved actually (Or something akin to The Big Short). Then there are montage moments akin to Edgar Wright’s signature rapid cuts and pans that are never revisited again. Just felt out of place. Thennn there are moments that feel like they’re trying to recreate motivational videos with the inspirational music and everything. There’s also just basic directing moments (which are the best because they are consistent). Music used is very nostalgia bait with the 80’s songs that play every while (a little annoying but I wasn’t tooo annoyed).
The problem with this movie is I’m not sure what it’s trying to say. I don’t agree with the deification of athletes vibe the film was going for - they try to sell it from a marketing standpoint but this is a movie and not a commercial (I think). They show Michael Jordan’s (monetary) influence but never question what it means culturally or even show many regular people (other than the guy in the grocery). The real-life clips of Jordan they use in the film feel odd and out of place and the representation of the Jordan family is very one dimensional and kind of stereotypical too…
It’s also very clear this is a corporate film (and that is fine) but I feel like there needs to be something deeper. Like the conflict in this film is the characters losing their jobs which is why they make the audience empathise with them (fair enough from a storytelling standpoint), but I feel like Nike needs to be a bit self-reflexive if they choose to include dialogue that references who makes the shoes. Maybe I am asking for too much, but I just felt like there could have been more. Ah well, it’s just a turn your brain off movie I guess. I enjoyed the experience, just felt a bit weird and detached afterwards.
Air
(Ben Affleck, United States, 2023)
3.0/5
I just watched the “Air” movie, the Matt Damon movie (at least that’s how I see a lot of Matt Damon movies, I'm a big fan) It was a fine movie, I guess. It was fun, had some engaging moments but ultimately felt like a strangely long Nike advertisement that felt vacantly inspirational. It’s as corporate as it gets, and you need to be prepared for that when stepping in to watch this film.
The movie itself has a compelling story as it follows Nike’s journey in getting Michael Jordan to be the face of the company (and the Air Jordans of course). As with a lot of biopics, there is a lot of passion and love behind the film evidently (towards the company and Michael Jordan) and there is a clear appreciation towards Basketball and athletes/sport personalities in general. You know the ending, but it still allows for a decent watch as you follow (fictional) Sonny (and the company's) attempts (and successes) in winning over the Jordan family. It’s about the power of an image (and a shoe lol).
The acting across the board is actually pretty great. The pacing is okay, but lags a little in the second to third act and is propped up by scenes that go on just a tad bit too long. The characters feel interesting and three-dimensional (the Nike people) which is something that biopics tend to fall short in. Actually, the fact that this film focusses just on this one event does break the cram-everything-into-a-film biopic formula that tends to be quite popular. That’s nice and allows for nice (and funny + more fleshed-out character moments).
The directing and some of the editing I found to be a bit weird though. There are moments at the beginning editing-wise that made me think it was gonna be a mockumentary style -which I would have loved actually (Or something akin to The Big Short). Then there are montage moments akin to Edgar Wright’s signature rapid cuts and pans that are never revisited again. Just felt out of place. Thennn there are moments that feel like they’re trying to recreate motivational videos with the inspirational music and everything. There’s also just basic directing moments (which are the best because they are consistent). Music used is very nostalgia bait with the 80’s songs that play every while (a little annoying but I wasn’t tooo annoyed).
The problem with this movie is I’m not sure what it’s trying to say. I don’t agree with the deification of athletes vibe the film was going for - they try to sell it from a marketing standpoint but this is a movie and not a commercial (I think). They show Michael Jordan’s (monetary) influence but never question what it means culturally or even show many regular people (other than the guy in the grocery). The real-life clips of Jordan they use in the film feel odd and out of place and the representation of the Jordan family is very one dimensional and kind of stereotypical too…
It’s also very clear this is a corporate film (and that is fine) but I feel like there needs to be something deeper. Like the conflict in this film is the characters losing their jobs which is why they make the audience empathise with them (fair enough from a storytelling standpoint), but I feel like Nike needs to be a bit self-reflexive if they choose to include dialogue that references who makes the shoes. Maybe I am asking for too much, but I just felt like there could have been more. Ah well, it’s just a turn your brain off movie I guess. I enjoyed the experience, just felt a bit weird and detached afterwards.
May 13, 2023
Beau is Afraid
(Ari Aster, United States/United Kingdom/Finland, 2023)
2.9/5
Beau is Afraid is kind of a strange horror movie, considering it almost feels like a 3-hour epic/adventure film following a man who has some serious parental issues as well as an insurmountable fear of well.. most things. It’s a highly surrealist film - and if anyone has been following any of my reviews about surrealism - I hate it when surrealist films don’t make sense or don’t make me feel anything. I mean - it’s just a preference but I feel like if the audience is more confused than anything else after watching a film (and not thinking) - maybe there’s something wrong...
I think what works the best in the film is its’ greatest downfall. It functions as some kind of nightmare-type never-ending dream sequence that feels extremely random. It’s about an anxiety (from Beau’s perspective) about literally everything. It’s a creation of the worst possible scenarios and then living them out (the lines between real and fake in this film are extremely blurred which makes sense). There are clear indications that he is indeed catastrophising, because he simply cannot handle the world. It’s a kind of dark comedy because of this - and the small details in the background - are very telling towards the idea that this is perhaps not real. Despite things changing pretty rapidly (when it comes to set changes), acts are clearly defined - aided by a hero type story arc that the film takes - and the darkly comedic as well as just dark tone the film has that really works well.
While I do think the film is just too long and goes off on unnecessarily long tangents - it never feels boring (but again there are a lot of repetitions and unnecessary elements). The cinematography however is great, and the latter part of Act 2 has a stunning sequence that makes little sense but is supremely creative and perhaps suggests that our main character just lived a potentially GOOD dream out until it crashed and burned again. No gripes with editing and music. Acting is great from Joaquin Phoenix, but not quite on the same level from the cast (I feel like it could have been way more absurd if the delivery was different). I did love the Bill Hader cameo though.
Although I do like some of the # random moments in the film that often represent Beau’s irrepressible fears of the world, it does come off a lot as if not thought through or random or the sake of being random. There are certain elements introduced that feel like they will lead to something that end up going nowhere - and it feels haphazard and unnecessary instead of thoughtful. There are also scenes that do not do anything at all for the film and could have easily been left out - and moments that feel like they are not adding to the sense of deep-seated trauma and fear of everything that the film is trying to represent. Confusion just took me out of the film - at one point I thought maybe that it was all an advertisement for his mother’s medical company… it’s just a lot and while I get that is supposed to feel overwhelming it sometimes comes off as unnecessarily bloated and not followed through. The first act actually works great because it feels like almost everything is contributing to the film’s core. The ending of the film though feels very fitting anyways…
The theme of parental trauma (mommy issues) is definitely a big part of this film and it is clear that it plays a big part of Beau’s fears and the way that he views the world (and is subdued by the world and motherly figures throughout the film - he does not have a strong character per se especially around these figures). It is this part of the film that works the best - it’s funny because I feel like it wasn’t explored ENOUGH actually. Something that is so central to Beau’s way of viewing the world should be more centre-stage.
I’m not sure I quite understand - that’s fine but in this context it’s one of the times I’m not fine with it - the commentary about medicine and mental illness? It’s clear that Beau is suffering some sort of psychotic break or maybe just having a hard time, it is never clear. He is taking meds though so yea, actually, he does have some sort of mental issue. What this film does is tackle the subject of mental illness in a very weird way - I’m not sure if it’s a subtle way to handle it or even a meaningful way to handle it especially when taking meds is depicted in the way it is in the film (as overt and not helpful). Perhaps if that theme was followed through then there would be some sort of message about mental illness/ medicalisation of mental hardship but yet again the film takes this theme and just doesn’t do anything thoughtful with it. Just thought I would put that out there. I think the worst part is that it is sort of a comedy in a way, so we are laughing at Beau sometimes rather than with him - and that is slightly unnerving. Maybe it says something about us as an audience? Or maybe it’s trying to say something about how irrational some fears are? Don’t know - but when a film makes me feel quite confused (and not much of anything else) I don’t really like it that much…
Beau is Afraid
(Ari Aster, United States/United Kingdom/Finland, 2023)
2.9/5
Beau is Afraid is kind of a strange horror movie, considering it almost feels like a 3-hour epic/adventure film following a man who has some serious parental issues as well as an insurmountable fear of well.. most things. It’s a highly surrealist film - and if anyone has been following any of my reviews about surrealism - I hate it when surrealist films don’t make sense or don’t make me feel anything. I mean - it’s just a preference but I feel like if the audience is more confused than anything else after watching a film (and not thinking) - maybe there’s something wrong...
I think what works the best in the film is its’ greatest downfall. It functions as some kind of nightmare-type never-ending dream sequence that feels extremely random. It’s about an anxiety (from Beau’s perspective) about literally everything. It’s a creation of the worst possible scenarios and then living them out (the lines between real and fake in this film are extremely blurred which makes sense). There are clear indications that he is indeed catastrophising, because he simply cannot handle the world. It’s a kind of dark comedy because of this - and the small details in the background - are very telling towards the idea that this is perhaps not real. Despite things changing pretty rapidly (when it comes to set changes), acts are clearly defined - aided by a hero type story arc that the film takes - and the darkly comedic as well as just dark tone the film has that really works well.
While I do think the film is just too long and goes off on unnecessarily long tangents - it never feels boring (but again there are a lot of repetitions and unnecessary elements). The cinematography however is great, and the latter part of Act 2 has a stunning sequence that makes little sense but is supremely creative and perhaps suggests that our main character just lived a potentially GOOD dream out until it crashed and burned again. No gripes with editing and music. Acting is great from Joaquin Phoenix, but not quite on the same level from the cast (I feel like it could have been way more absurd if the delivery was different). I did love the Bill Hader cameo though.
Although I do like some of the # random moments in the film that often represent Beau’s irrepressible fears of the world, it does come off a lot as if not thought through or random or the sake of being random. There are certain elements introduced that feel like they will lead to something that end up going nowhere - and it feels haphazard and unnecessary instead of thoughtful. There are also scenes that do not do anything at all for the film and could have easily been left out - and moments that feel like they are not adding to the sense of deep-seated trauma and fear of everything that the film is trying to represent. Confusion just took me out of the film - at one point I thought maybe that it was all an advertisement for his mother’s medical company… it’s just a lot and while I get that is supposed to feel overwhelming it sometimes comes off as unnecessarily bloated and not followed through. The first act actually works great because it feels like almost everything is contributing to the film’s core. The ending of the film though feels very fitting anyways…
The theme of parental trauma (mommy issues) is definitely a big part of this film and it is clear that it plays a big part of Beau’s fears and the way that he views the world (and is subdued by the world and motherly figures throughout the film - he does not have a strong character per se especially around these figures). It is this part of the film that works the best - it’s funny because I feel like it wasn’t explored ENOUGH actually. Something that is so central to Beau’s way of viewing the world should be more centre-stage.
I’m not sure I quite understand - that’s fine but in this context it’s one of the times I’m not fine with it - the commentary about medicine and mental illness? It’s clear that Beau is suffering some sort of psychotic break or maybe just having a hard time, it is never clear. He is taking meds though so yea, actually, he does have some sort of mental issue. What this film does is tackle the subject of mental illness in a very weird way - I’m not sure if it’s a subtle way to handle it or even a meaningful way to handle it especially when taking meds is depicted in the way it is in the film (as overt and not helpful). Perhaps if that theme was followed through then there would be some sort of message about mental illness/ medicalisation of mental hardship but yet again the film takes this theme and just doesn’t do anything thoughtful with it. Just thought I would put that out there. I think the worst part is that it is sort of a comedy in a way, so we are laughing at Beau sometimes rather than with him - and that is slightly unnerving. Maybe it says something about us as an audience? Or maybe it’s trying to say something about how irrational some fears are? Don’t know - but when a film makes me feel quite confused (and not much of anything else) I don’t really like it that much…
May 26, 2023
The X-Files: I Want to Believe
(Chris Carter, United States/Canada, 2008)
2.5/5
The X-Files: I Want to Believe (2008) is a needless addition to The X-Files canon that suffers from the same elongated feature-lengthification of what could have been an X-Files episode that the earlier movie suffered. Unfortunately, unlike its’ predecessor film, it has none of the energy and doesn’t feel like a decent elongated episode. It feels like just a bad episode. I think the fact that it feels more like a standalone is perhaps what makes it even worse, because it feels like there’s a pressure to just judge it as a film on its’ own (released years after the run of the show originally at that).
I’ll start with the positives because there are quite some negatives. I actually think the darker tone of this film is not all that bad. The location is way more consistent than the first film and therefore does build a feeling of hopelessness and dread. It’s not my favourite tone when it comes to The X-Files considering it shines when its’ being self-aware and camp, however, it wasn’t completely unwelcome. Score is okay, nothing to write home about - except for the iconic motif from the show that will always be perfect - it just feels out of place here.
While I do feel like the two lead actors kind of didn’t want to be there that much, they do try their best with a shoddy script - but it’s just not the same energy as before. Same if not worse energy levels than Season 9. Despite this, their dynamic is potentially the best thing about this film. Their chemistry continues to be there, and it just really works in a film where little makes sense. I think their characters do not particularly evolve or anything throughout the film, but because their characters are originally quite well-written (based on their foundations in earlier seasons), their character moments feel richer as a result only due to existing context. Their characterisation is not credited to this film though, it is because they were already written like that almost 15 years prior.
While I do think it is not the worst thing to check up on our favourite two agents years after Season 9’s finale in film form, the film is just not very good. It’s just really boring. That’s like the antithesis of a thriller - and it’s not just like slow-burn, it’s just really badly paced. Nothing much happens because it definitely feels like an elongated (badly-paced) episode, and the film really REALLY suffers because of this. Bad pace and pretty basic direction/ camerawork, and really not good screenwriting at all. Mulder and Scully have nothing to do and don't reallyyy push the plot forward.
The film suffers from fatigue - writing fatigue (which is strange considering this is years after the original run!!!). One of the cons of the show is that it does kind of ending up going for everything, believing-in-everything-without-skepticism-in-the-later-seasons vibe and that’s what makes it ultimately feels like a confused film that ends up saying nothing about anything. It is a perfect reflection of that Season 9 vibe that I do not appreciate. The plot is contrived, plot convenience-filled and uninteresting. There were also some head-scratching moments like Scully Googling stem cell therapy only after proposing it as a legitimate solution to a patient.
The theme of belief and reality/ faith and science has been stretched out to the point of breaking at points, and while this film does return to it (because it often works lol), it’s not entirely clear what the film is trying to say. There’s a thing about a pedophile priest, and I’m not quite sure what they’re going for there - and the Russians at the end - yea like what is this about? What is it trying to say? Like there’s no thematic richness or depth at all and it’s entirely frustrating. Ughhhh.
Even though I do not like Amanda Peet, Mitch Pileggi makes an appearance AND THAT WAS A HIGHLIGHT!!!
Worst part about The X-Files is I sadly love it. And therefore, I consistently am very critical towards it (level-headed fan). However, there must be a moment where you need to step away from something and admit it’s a hot mess due to severe mediocrity (I haven’t touched season 10 and 11 yet, I think there’s more to be seen). Sad and contrived mess that should have never been made. Leave. Good Things. To Rest..
The X-Files: I Want to Believe
(Chris Carter, United States/Canada, 2008)
2.5/5
The X-Files: I Want to Believe (2008) is a needless addition to The X-Files canon that suffers from the same elongated feature-lengthification of what could have been an X-Files episode that the earlier movie suffered. Unfortunately, unlike its’ predecessor film, it has none of the energy and doesn’t feel like a decent elongated episode. It feels like just a bad episode. I think the fact that it feels more like a standalone is perhaps what makes it even worse, because it feels like there’s a pressure to just judge it as a film on its’ own (released years after the run of the show originally at that).
I’ll start with the positives because there are quite some negatives. I actually think the darker tone of this film is not all that bad. The location is way more consistent than the first film and therefore does build a feeling of hopelessness and dread. It’s not my favourite tone when it comes to The X-Files considering it shines when its’ being self-aware and camp, however, it wasn’t completely unwelcome. Score is okay, nothing to write home about - except for the iconic motif from the show that will always be perfect - it just feels out of place here.
While I do feel like the two lead actors kind of didn’t want to be there that much, they do try their best with a shoddy script - but it’s just not the same energy as before. Same if not worse energy levels than Season 9. Despite this, their dynamic is potentially the best thing about this film. Their chemistry continues to be there, and it just really works in a film where little makes sense. I think their characters do not particularly evolve or anything throughout the film, but because their characters are originally quite well-written (based on their foundations in earlier seasons), their character moments feel richer as a result only due to existing context. Their characterisation is not credited to this film though, it is because they were already written like that almost 15 years prior.
While I do think it is not the worst thing to check up on our favourite two agents years after Season 9’s finale in film form, the film is just not very good. It’s just really boring. That’s like the antithesis of a thriller - and it’s not just like slow-burn, it’s just really badly paced. Nothing much happens because it definitely feels like an elongated (badly-paced) episode, and the film really REALLY suffers because of this. Bad pace and pretty basic direction/ camerawork, and really not good screenwriting at all. Mulder and Scully have nothing to do and don't reallyyy push the plot forward.
The film suffers from fatigue - writing fatigue (which is strange considering this is years after the original run!!!). One of the cons of the show is that it does kind of ending up going for everything, believing-in-everything-without-skepticism-in-the-later-seasons vibe and that’s what makes it ultimately feels like a confused film that ends up saying nothing about anything. It is a perfect reflection of that Season 9 vibe that I do not appreciate. The plot is contrived, plot convenience-filled and uninteresting. There were also some head-scratching moments like Scully Googling stem cell therapy only after proposing it as a legitimate solution to a patient.
The theme of belief and reality/ faith and science has been stretched out to the point of breaking at points, and while this film does return to it (because it often works lol), it’s not entirely clear what the film is trying to say. There’s a thing about a pedophile priest, and I’m not quite sure what they’re going for there - and the Russians at the end - yea like what is this about? What is it trying to say? Like there’s no thematic richness or depth at all and it’s entirely frustrating. Ughhhh.
Even though I do not like Amanda Peet, Mitch Pileggi makes an appearance AND THAT WAS A HIGHLIGHT!!!
Worst part about The X-Files is I sadly love it. And therefore, I consistently am very critical towards it (level-headed fan). However, there must be a moment where you need to step away from something and admit it’s a hot mess due to severe mediocrity (I haven’t touched season 10 and 11 yet, I think there’s more to be seen). Sad and contrived mess that should have never been made. Leave. Good Things. To Rest..
May 29, 2023
Possession
(Andrzej Zulawski, France/West Germany, 1981)
3.8/5
Possession (1981) is a bit of a weird horror movie if I say so myself. It kind of knows it’s a weird movie as well, and so it comes off intentionally delirious and unhinged. Needless to say, I liked it - it was this rollercoaster where everything essentially feels like its’ falling apart. The more you pick apart the plot - the less it makes sense, but it feels intentional rather than random.
I think I have to start with Isabelle Adjani’s monstrously magnificent performance in this. I’ve never seen an actress so unhinged in a performance without it coming off like they’re trying too hard. She’s really the core of this film and her hyperbolic acting comes off the best. The other cast members were definitely overt in acting (that was the point, it was not supposed to be coherent or realistic) but sometimes it comes off a bit laughable rather than deranged - although Sam Neill does pretty well mostly. I will touch on the director later in the review because I think it’s integral to talk about the toxicity surrounding the direction on this film set and the toll that this role took on Adjani.
The music is sparse and doesn’t really need to be used most of the time but when it is it kind of creates that sort of dread and video-nasty vibe that the film really has. The cinematography most of the time is just beautifully claustrophobic and isolating - perfect for the film’s atmosphere. Not much I need to add here - although there were a few strange editing choices (just being nit-picky at the moment).
The tone of the film almost feels hellish. It’s dark, incoherent, and extremely unnerving. A lot of the dialogue is nonsensical with the characters’ actions feeling primal and inhuman (because there is a feeling that most of the characters in this film are indeed possessed by something). It is this nonsense vibe that really makes it a horror film - it also wasn’t frustratingly hard to follow or paced horribly at all. The incoherence of the characters’ makes you feel like they are just losing their minds a bit (and the film itself loses its’ mind). I think the subway scene is a perfect encapsulation of that. At the beginning, I asked myself why the dialogue was the way it is, but throughout the film you get the impression that it is really meant to be intentionally cold and vacant. The structure of the film which feels quite strange and abstract intentionally creates discomfort and unease but there were definitely some moments and scenes it could have gone without. The whole film does feel more like an abstraction.
It’s clear that the film is a kind of gruesome metaphor for the process of divorce - involving fake ideas about your spouse through doppelgängers and the psychological toll of it all. There’s so much anger and resentment here. The film’s setting of West Berlin too enunciates this feeling of tense duality and unrest - a context that makes the film richer in tone and theme. Many of the rooms feel scrapped down, and the city feels vacant/isolating. It almost feels like purgatory.
I don’t think its’ fair to praise this film without talking about it’s potentially harmful underlying elements. The film is based of the directors’ own experience with divorce and it just feels like a lot of this film targets women in a very strange way. All the characters are unhinged for sure, but Anna is especially the most unhinged in the film - for reasons obvious to anyone who watched the film. I don’t know if it was intending to make a commentary or essentially represent women as female monsters in this situation. I feel like Adjani’s performance is so rich that it implies that it may be a commentary, but I am not sure if that was a result of what the director was trying to put across… For sure, women are objectified here in the film 100% - it is not as bad as Dario Argento (especially as women tend to be victims a lot there) but it certainly reminded me of it. I don’t vibe with directorial revenge against women or something.
Cast members of the film (with the worst sufferer potentially being Adjani) spoke of the directors’ hostile direction style on set which scarred them and especially Adjani so much that she herself suffered a nervous breakdown down (not sure about the exact details, but she has spoken out about how it was just too extreme). I really don’t like this and I don’t think method acting or abusive directing is ever ever worth it - never.
Possession (1981) is a film that feels more like an experience, cementing itself as one of the most unnerving and incomprehensible horrors that signify the breakdown of relationships on a micro and macro level amidst an isolated city in sociological turmoil.
Possession
(Andrzej Zulawski, France/West Germany, 1981)
3.8/5
Possession (1981) is a bit of a weird horror movie if I say so myself. It kind of knows it’s a weird movie as well, and so it comes off intentionally delirious and unhinged. Needless to say, I liked it - it was this rollercoaster where everything essentially feels like its’ falling apart. The more you pick apart the plot - the less it makes sense, but it feels intentional rather than random.
I think I have to start with Isabelle Adjani’s monstrously magnificent performance in this. I’ve never seen an actress so unhinged in a performance without it coming off like they’re trying too hard. She’s really the core of this film and her hyperbolic acting comes off the best. The other cast members were definitely overt in acting (that was the point, it was not supposed to be coherent or realistic) but sometimes it comes off a bit laughable rather than deranged - although Sam Neill does pretty well mostly. I will touch on the director later in the review because I think it’s integral to talk about the toxicity surrounding the direction on this film set and the toll that this role took on Adjani.
The music is sparse and doesn’t really need to be used most of the time but when it is it kind of creates that sort of dread and video-nasty vibe that the film really has. The cinematography most of the time is just beautifully claustrophobic and isolating - perfect for the film’s atmosphere. Not much I need to add here - although there were a few strange editing choices (just being nit-picky at the moment).
The tone of the film almost feels hellish. It’s dark, incoherent, and extremely unnerving. A lot of the dialogue is nonsensical with the characters’ actions feeling primal and inhuman (because there is a feeling that most of the characters in this film are indeed possessed by something). It is this nonsense vibe that really makes it a horror film - it also wasn’t frustratingly hard to follow or paced horribly at all. The incoherence of the characters’ makes you feel like they are just losing their minds a bit (and the film itself loses its’ mind). I think the subway scene is a perfect encapsulation of that. At the beginning, I asked myself why the dialogue was the way it is, but throughout the film you get the impression that it is really meant to be intentionally cold and vacant. The structure of the film which feels quite strange and abstract intentionally creates discomfort and unease but there were definitely some moments and scenes it could have gone without. The whole film does feel more like an abstraction.
It’s clear that the film is a kind of gruesome metaphor for the process of divorce - involving fake ideas about your spouse through doppelgängers and the psychological toll of it all. There’s so much anger and resentment here. The film’s setting of West Berlin too enunciates this feeling of tense duality and unrest - a context that makes the film richer in tone and theme. Many of the rooms feel scrapped down, and the city feels vacant/isolating. It almost feels like purgatory.
I don’t think its’ fair to praise this film without talking about it’s potentially harmful underlying elements. The film is based of the directors’ own experience with divorce and it just feels like a lot of this film targets women in a very strange way. All the characters are unhinged for sure, but Anna is especially the most unhinged in the film - for reasons obvious to anyone who watched the film. I don’t know if it was intending to make a commentary or essentially represent women as female monsters in this situation. I feel like Adjani’s performance is so rich that it implies that it may be a commentary, but I am not sure if that was a result of what the director was trying to put across… For sure, women are objectified here in the film 100% - it is not as bad as Dario Argento (especially as women tend to be victims a lot there) but it certainly reminded me of it. I don’t vibe with directorial revenge against women or something.
Cast members of the film (with the worst sufferer potentially being Adjani) spoke of the directors’ hostile direction style on set which scarred them and especially Adjani so much that she herself suffered a nervous breakdown down (not sure about the exact details, but she has spoken out about how it was just too extreme). I really don’t like this and I don’t think method acting or abusive directing is ever ever worth it - never.
Possession (1981) is a film that feels more like an experience, cementing itself as one of the most unnerving and incomprehensible horrors that signify the breakdown of relationships on a micro and macro level amidst an isolated city in sociological turmoil.
June 24, 2023
Cars 3
(Brian Fee, United States/Japan, 2017)
3/5
Cars 3 is quite okay to be honest - not exceptional. It still pales in comparison to the first because it just feels a bit less charming (still better than Cars 2 which is straight up bad) and suffers from a severe lack of the small scope of Radiator Springs that made the first film so special. Despite this, it is very much a character-based film which is what I really liked about it. It feels like a film that had to exist so that it can avoid Cars 2's canonical existence that it is so desperately trying to ignore. The film doesn’t take any huge risks but feels like it is still a decent love letter to the franchise and to Paul Newman + Doc Hudson.
The movie immediately runs into trouble in the first 10 minutes. The logistics of the Cars universe has always been its greatest flaw and what a lot of critics seem to have issue with when it comes to the films. However, the first film doesn’t really tackle the concept of cars being “better made” or the concept of cars being discriminated against because it just wouldn’t translate well and would not make sense with the proper context. The emergence of the quite insufferable Jackson Storm and these super-cars who are implied to be younger but also with better tech poses the question of what place eugenics has in the Cars universe. If Cars can be built to be better from the start is that like having better genetics that are HANDPICKED? What does that imply in terms of discrimination?
This problem gets exacerbated by the newly-introduced Cruz Ramirez who is not only supposed to be a female car but also implied to be a person of colour. Sexism is not an issue that can be translated well into the Cars universe when it is the focus of the film due to the aforementioned issues. However, I did understand the narrative reason for this - Lightning passing on the torch to the new generation (not quite) - also giving the platform for women and people of colour. This does still feel a bit tokenised though throughout the film... However, the ending takes away the gravitas of that - there should’ve been a nice mirroring of Doc Hudson's storyline completely - perhaps recognising that there is more to life than just racing..
I quite liked going back to Doc’s mentors - thought that section was the strongest. To find strength in nostalgia and old methods but perhaps recognising that times have indeed changed (and that’s fine). There is a bit of a memorial here to Doc’s character and Paul Newman that is done very nicely and is arguably the sweetest part of the film. There is a clear admiration here and it's just really well done. I also loved that McQueen is the most likeable in this film (vs the whole franchise) and like that he really struggles with his lack of relevance in the racing industry - mid-life crisis and all. Despite this, the film lacks the very thing that made Cars so beloved - Radiator Springs.
What made the first film so charming was the consistent tone and the way it just knew it was more lighthearted. This is not quite the case here. The charm and humour is a bit gone and it doesn’t really feel like the characters are played with the same conviction - it is also not a funny movie despite it trying to be. In order for a film like Cars to not be taken seriously in terms of logistics and believability of the universe is backed up by how absurd and funny it is - which is not really what is happening here. What perhaps make it worse is rather than the film exploring the existing characters of Radiator Springs because there are quite a few that people are also attached to - it introduces us to completely new ones. I really liked the character moments between McQueen and the Radiator Springs crew but there should have simply been more...
The score is off sometimes which is potentially intentional (until the very end where some motifs from the first film return). The songs were not very iconic either - nothing tops the songs from the first film especially with songs like “Our Town” by James Taylor. There is no sense of consistent tone here partially because of this - from pop song to rock song… quite weird. It feels random and the callbacks to the first film (like the Mack driving montage) feel vacant and less filled with wonder and intention.
The tone was quite consistent in the first film due to Radiator Springs as a town and a character - whereby the film felt more like a story about a small American town with larger-than-life people (or CARS lol) but this one feels more like a sport film rather than a drama/comedy which is not the worst thing in the world but it isn’t really what the first Cars films sets up - it is still a film about racing but it is overwhelmingly more of a film about NOT just racing :)
In conclusion, Cars 3 was decent but it fails to really capture what made the first one special. It has some pretty solid themes but does not explore them as deeply due to the introduction of new characters, etc. The idea behind the film is okay and I think the idea of Lightning growing old is brilliant - I just don’t think there’s that spark anymore. There also isn’t enough Jackson Storm - who works great as a villain.
Cars 3
(Brian Fee, United States/Japan, 2017)
3/5
Cars 3 is quite okay to be honest - not exceptional. It still pales in comparison to the first because it just feels a bit less charming (still better than Cars 2 which is straight up bad) and suffers from a severe lack of the small scope of Radiator Springs that made the first film so special. Despite this, it is very much a character-based film which is what I really liked about it. It feels like a film that had to exist so that it can avoid Cars 2's canonical existence that it is so desperately trying to ignore. The film doesn’t take any huge risks but feels like it is still a decent love letter to the franchise and to Paul Newman + Doc Hudson.
The movie immediately runs into trouble in the first 10 minutes. The logistics of the Cars universe has always been its greatest flaw and what a lot of critics seem to have issue with when it comes to the films. However, the first film doesn’t really tackle the concept of cars being “better made” or the concept of cars being discriminated against because it just wouldn’t translate well and would not make sense with the proper context. The emergence of the quite insufferable Jackson Storm and these super-cars who are implied to be younger but also with better tech poses the question of what place eugenics has in the Cars universe. If Cars can be built to be better from the start is that like having better genetics that are HANDPICKED? What does that imply in terms of discrimination?
This problem gets exacerbated by the newly-introduced Cruz Ramirez who is not only supposed to be a female car but also implied to be a person of colour. Sexism is not an issue that can be translated well into the Cars universe when it is the focus of the film due to the aforementioned issues. However, I did understand the narrative reason for this - Lightning passing on the torch to the new generation (not quite) - also giving the platform for women and people of colour. This does still feel a bit tokenised though throughout the film... However, the ending takes away the gravitas of that - there should’ve been a nice mirroring of Doc Hudson's storyline completely - perhaps recognising that there is more to life than just racing..
I quite liked going back to Doc’s mentors - thought that section was the strongest. To find strength in nostalgia and old methods but perhaps recognising that times have indeed changed (and that’s fine). There is a bit of a memorial here to Doc’s character and Paul Newman that is done very nicely and is arguably the sweetest part of the film. There is a clear admiration here and it's just really well done. I also loved that McQueen is the most likeable in this film (vs the whole franchise) and like that he really struggles with his lack of relevance in the racing industry - mid-life crisis and all. Despite this, the film lacks the very thing that made Cars so beloved - Radiator Springs.
What made the first film so charming was the consistent tone and the way it just knew it was more lighthearted. This is not quite the case here. The charm and humour is a bit gone and it doesn’t really feel like the characters are played with the same conviction - it is also not a funny movie despite it trying to be. In order for a film like Cars to not be taken seriously in terms of logistics and believability of the universe is backed up by how absurd and funny it is - which is not really what is happening here. What perhaps make it worse is rather than the film exploring the existing characters of Radiator Springs because there are quite a few that people are also attached to - it introduces us to completely new ones. I really liked the character moments between McQueen and the Radiator Springs crew but there should have simply been more...
The score is off sometimes which is potentially intentional (until the very end where some motifs from the first film return). The songs were not very iconic either - nothing tops the songs from the first film especially with songs like “Our Town” by James Taylor. There is no sense of consistent tone here partially because of this - from pop song to rock song… quite weird. It feels random and the callbacks to the first film (like the Mack driving montage) feel vacant and less filled with wonder and intention.
The tone was quite consistent in the first film due to Radiator Springs as a town and a character - whereby the film felt more like a story about a small American town with larger-than-life people (or CARS lol) but this one feels more like a sport film rather than a drama/comedy which is not the worst thing in the world but it isn’t really what the first Cars films sets up - it is still a film about racing but it is overwhelmingly more of a film about NOT just racing :)
In conclusion, Cars 3 was decent but it fails to really capture what made the first one special. It has some pretty solid themes but does not explore them as deeply due to the introduction of new characters, etc. The idea behind the film is okay and I think the idea of Lightning growing old is brilliant - I just don’t think there’s that spark anymore. There also isn’t enough Jackson Storm - who works great as a villain.
July 11, 2023
Asteroid City
(Wes Anderson, United States, 2023)
2.9/5
Asteroid City is certainly my least favourite Wes Anderson film just because I feel like I enjoyed it the least. Don’t get me wrong, I love the cinematography, the ensemble cast, and the very straight humour that I’ve grown to love from Anderson - there is however something that doesn’t sit right with me in the film. The best and worst thing that it is going for is it’s trying to do everything and nothing at the same time.
The performances are great as usual - when actors sign up for a Wes Anderson film, it’s just great because they know exactly what type of film they are making - this makes the tone come out perfectly. I think the idea of a play inside a play inside a film is very fun and creates a lot of metatextual fun that commentates on the performativity of life. However, it is hard to really understand what the film is trying to say and why that narrative device is used. There’s no real concrete reason, and the characters are way too many for there to be a real story or character development going on. That’s really the curse of such a big ensemble cast. There are inklings there of dealing with grief but it is not expanded on in an interesting way.
I also think the idea of the alien is hilarious and just lament that it was not used more as it creates a more absurd tone that the film is definitely going for. The pacing really struggles and I think that’s really due to the hard-to-follow plot and meandering scenes. The film commentates on its’ own lack of understanding and incompetence (my pet peeve if not used correctly) and this does not help its’ case at all. It just feels like there was no real point, and I guess they were trying to say that’s the point? I don’t know, it’s quite messy.
Not much more to say about this film, it’s an Anderson film and it doesn’t really say anything or tries to tell a coherent story.
Asteroid City
(Wes Anderson, United States, 2023)
2.9/5
Asteroid City is certainly my least favourite Wes Anderson film just because I feel like I enjoyed it the least. Don’t get me wrong, I love the cinematography, the ensemble cast, and the very straight humour that I’ve grown to love from Anderson - there is however something that doesn’t sit right with me in the film. The best and worst thing that it is going for is it’s trying to do everything and nothing at the same time.
The performances are great as usual - when actors sign up for a Wes Anderson film, it’s just great because they know exactly what type of film they are making - this makes the tone come out perfectly. I think the idea of a play inside a play inside a film is very fun and creates a lot of metatextual fun that commentates on the performativity of life. However, it is hard to really understand what the film is trying to say and why that narrative device is used. There’s no real concrete reason, and the characters are way too many for there to be a real story or character development going on. That’s really the curse of such a big ensemble cast. There are inklings there of dealing with grief but it is not expanded on in an interesting way.
I also think the idea of the alien is hilarious and just lament that it was not used more as it creates a more absurd tone that the film is definitely going for. The pacing really struggles and I think that’s really due to the hard-to-follow plot and meandering scenes. The film commentates on its’ own lack of understanding and incompetence (my pet peeve if not used correctly) and this does not help its’ case at all. It just feels like there was no real point, and I guess they were trying to say that’s the point? I don’t know, it’s quite messy.
Not much more to say about this film, it’s an Anderson film and it doesn’t really say anything or tries to tell a coherent story.
July 22, 2023 - Barbenheimer Edition
Oppenheimer
(Christoper Nolan, United States/United Kingdom, 2023)
4.0/5
Oppenheimer I watched before Barbie - I thought it was a really good biopic and documentation of Oppenheimer’s life and his point of view in the invention (and use of the atomic bomb). Was a great watch, not Nolan’s best but certainly not his worst.
First off, I think the performances here are Oscar-worthy - especially by Cillian Murphy. While the ensemble was distracting at times due to starpower, Nolan does a great job of reminding you who everyone is because there’s a veryyyy large cast in this (in this case flashback shots are NEEDED). The amount of research done for this film is extensive and it shows - it’s incredibly dense with information and it’s a marvel for that. It’s also a cinematic marvel - absolutely dazzling and has incredible scenes and shots. Great sound design as well.
Nolan still does not really write women great but I just think Pugh’s character is done a disservice here - completely objectified with unnecessary sexualisation the film could have completely gone without. I like Kitty more (played by Emily Blunt) and I think she works as a more complex character but I still felt she wasn’t completely properly fleshed out. This is inevitable with such a film but due to their significance, Kitty and Jean should have been more fleshed out.
The switch between eras is very clear especially with the use of monochrome which I think is done incredibly well. The music is nice but honestly not my favourite, it was quite annoying at times. I miss Hans Zimmer and Nolan’s collaborations much more. It would have been more fitting for a film with such a scope. The pace also suffers a lot in the third act as it becomes extremely dialogue heavy and just way too long.
I love the dilemma of “do the ends justify the means?” in the film. Does the use of the bomb as a proof of its’ magnitude/scope and as a warning of its’ power so that it can never be used a hefty price to pay to avoid its use again? It’s a question I have an answer to personally (No), but it is an interesting question nevertheless. There’s also the age-old “do we separate the invention from the inventor?” Is the creator of a gun morally responsible for countless murders by guns worldwide? Great themes that pose great ethical dilemmas.
I just wish Oppenheimer’s psyche and post-bomb reflections could have been expanded on more, but I understand the need of the third act (should be way shorter though).
I liked the film, sure. However, it’s not my favourite from Nolan.
Oppenheimer
(Christoper Nolan, United States/United Kingdom, 2023)
4.0/5
Oppenheimer I watched before Barbie - I thought it was a really good biopic and documentation of Oppenheimer’s life and his point of view in the invention (and use of the atomic bomb). Was a great watch, not Nolan’s best but certainly not his worst.
First off, I think the performances here are Oscar-worthy - especially by Cillian Murphy. While the ensemble was distracting at times due to starpower, Nolan does a great job of reminding you who everyone is because there’s a veryyyy large cast in this (in this case flashback shots are NEEDED). The amount of research done for this film is extensive and it shows - it’s incredibly dense with information and it’s a marvel for that. It’s also a cinematic marvel - absolutely dazzling and has incredible scenes and shots. Great sound design as well.
Nolan still does not really write women great but I just think Pugh’s character is done a disservice here - completely objectified with unnecessary sexualisation the film could have completely gone without. I like Kitty more (played by Emily Blunt) and I think she works as a more complex character but I still felt she wasn’t completely properly fleshed out. This is inevitable with such a film but due to their significance, Kitty and Jean should have been more fleshed out.
The switch between eras is very clear especially with the use of monochrome which I think is done incredibly well. The music is nice but honestly not my favourite, it was quite annoying at times. I miss Hans Zimmer and Nolan’s collaborations much more. It would have been more fitting for a film with such a scope. The pace also suffers a lot in the third act as it becomes extremely dialogue heavy and just way too long.
I love the dilemma of “do the ends justify the means?” in the film. Does the use of the bomb as a proof of its’ magnitude/scope and as a warning of its’ power so that it can never be used a hefty price to pay to avoid its use again? It’s a question I have an answer to personally (No), but it is an interesting question nevertheless. There’s also the age-old “do we separate the invention from the inventor?” Is the creator of a gun morally responsible for countless murders by guns worldwide? Great themes that pose great ethical dilemmas.
I just wish Oppenheimer’s psyche and post-bomb reflections could have been expanded on more, but I understand the need of the third act (should be way shorter though).
I liked the film, sure. However, it’s not my favourite from Nolan.
July 22, 2023 - Barbenheimer Edition
Barbie
(Greta Gerwig, United States, 2023)
4.4/5
Barbie is a difficult one to review just because I had so many stakes involved and personal connections to it. It was one of those movies that I was gonna enjoy because I love the source material. I’ve blogged about it, I’ve made a 50 minute video about the Barbie Cinematic Universe, and I’ve even academically written about Barbie. It’s something that a lot of women especially feel strongly about - so making a film about it is definitely gonna be a challenge. I did love it, but it was definitely a mess - the kind of mess I like though.
The movie shines when it’s satirical. It’s a very funny movie that is not afraid to make fun of conceptualisations and expectations of how things are meant to be in the “patriarchy” which itself is satirised in many different ways. The set design is so incredible and just felt so immensely nostalgic and fitting to Barbie that I just couldn’t stop grinning from nostalgia. Everyone is giving a great performance, and it’s clear that there’s a lot of love here for Barbie and for women. Ryan Gosling gives what I personally think is a career performance - I have never seen himself commit to a role in such a way. He is undeniably the stand out. Things are so much funnier and enjoyable in Barbieland. The pace is perfect and the music while distracting at times adds to the very campy tone the film is going for. It’s a great vibe and works well.
Gerwig and Baumbach do camp and satire without really making fun of their characters or their circumstances which is just great. They also have a lot of funny moments that make a commentary on commercialisation and Barbie as a product vs the meaning of Barbie in people’s lives. It’s very much existentialist in the way it teeters the line between product and fantasy vs reality. It gives an unexpected spotlight on Ken - who if anyone is aware is Barbie’s footstool in most Barbie canon. It’s a great twist that I thought had a great message and felt genuine rather than contrived.
I think the movie is a celebration of women and I think it’s really a love letter to women’s childhood and what Barbie is meant to represent (the inclusion of the creator of Barbie and her daughter is sublime as well). It’s about how the world prepares women for self-criticism as well as criticism from other men and women no matter what they do. While Gerwig is incredible in the way she writes women, I am not sure if I was a fan of a lot of the heavy-handed dialogue in the second act. There’s a scene with America Ferrera that’s great for sure, but the dialogue could have been more subtle.. I think the film makes that point without the dialogue. Even Stereotypical Barbie feels flawed - isn’t that enough? I don’t know - maybe that’s part of the Mattelification of it (and the satire?)
I loved the theme of childhood and the way in which we conceptualise things as a response to something. The conclusion of the film does not reject Barbieland (which in itself is a allegory to woman’s childhood imaginings) but rather accepts it through Barbie as she realises that she must leave behind Barbieland (childhood) but not abandon it completely or change who she is, but accept that it is something that needs to grow with her and become a flawed and nuanced part of identity as WE become flawed and nuanced. Nostalgia is great but it needs to grow - that’s my interpretation at least.
As for Barbieland, maybe our imaginations also need to be more inclusive so we do not create such a division between women and men that would allow no progress whatsover (but still being female-centric). However, it needs to be on our own terms. Men shaming women for their childhood imaginations is something the film rejects (from my interpretation). America Ferrera’s daughter in the film is also part of accepting femininity as a battle against internalised misogyny. The film makes lots of statements and I feel like it could have been more focussed because of them.
I like that this film is highly interpretable but I must say there is definite bias in this review. This film is flawed - third act suffers a bit, some beats don’t land perfectly, it feels like some relationships and characters are underdeveloped and just a lot is going on. BUT it’s also just very larger than life and very very fun. I see myself enjoying it on repeat viewings. It’s ambitious - (late) capitalistic as hell but has fun with it as much as it possibly can. Still not better than Barbie as the Princess and the Pauper (2004). WHERE ARE THE BCU REFERENCES???
Barbie
(Greta Gerwig, United States, 2023)
4.4/5
Barbie is a difficult one to review just because I had so many stakes involved and personal connections to it. It was one of those movies that I was gonna enjoy because I love the source material. I’ve blogged about it, I’ve made a 50 minute video about the Barbie Cinematic Universe, and I’ve even academically written about Barbie. It’s something that a lot of women especially feel strongly about - so making a film about it is definitely gonna be a challenge. I did love it, but it was definitely a mess - the kind of mess I like though.
The movie shines when it’s satirical. It’s a very funny movie that is not afraid to make fun of conceptualisations and expectations of how things are meant to be in the “patriarchy” which itself is satirised in many different ways. The set design is so incredible and just felt so immensely nostalgic and fitting to Barbie that I just couldn’t stop grinning from nostalgia. Everyone is giving a great performance, and it’s clear that there’s a lot of love here for Barbie and for women. Ryan Gosling gives what I personally think is a career performance - I have never seen himself commit to a role in such a way. He is undeniably the stand out. Things are so much funnier and enjoyable in Barbieland. The pace is perfect and the music while distracting at times adds to the very campy tone the film is going for. It’s a great vibe and works well.
Gerwig and Baumbach do camp and satire without really making fun of their characters or their circumstances which is just great. They also have a lot of funny moments that make a commentary on commercialisation and Barbie as a product vs the meaning of Barbie in people’s lives. It’s very much existentialist in the way it teeters the line between product and fantasy vs reality. It gives an unexpected spotlight on Ken - who if anyone is aware is Barbie’s footstool in most Barbie canon. It’s a great twist that I thought had a great message and felt genuine rather than contrived.
I think the movie is a celebration of women and I think it’s really a love letter to women’s childhood and what Barbie is meant to represent (the inclusion of the creator of Barbie and her daughter is sublime as well). It’s about how the world prepares women for self-criticism as well as criticism from other men and women no matter what they do. While Gerwig is incredible in the way she writes women, I am not sure if I was a fan of a lot of the heavy-handed dialogue in the second act. There’s a scene with America Ferrera that’s great for sure, but the dialogue could have been more subtle.. I think the film makes that point without the dialogue. Even Stereotypical Barbie feels flawed - isn’t that enough? I don’t know - maybe that’s part of the Mattelification of it (and the satire?)
I loved the theme of childhood and the way in which we conceptualise things as a response to something. The conclusion of the film does not reject Barbieland (which in itself is a allegory to woman’s childhood imaginings) but rather accepts it through Barbie as she realises that she must leave behind Barbieland (childhood) but not abandon it completely or change who she is, but accept that it is something that needs to grow with her and become a flawed and nuanced part of identity as WE become flawed and nuanced. Nostalgia is great but it needs to grow - that’s my interpretation at least.
As for Barbieland, maybe our imaginations also need to be more inclusive so we do not create such a division between women and men that would allow no progress whatsover (but still being female-centric). However, it needs to be on our own terms. Men shaming women for their childhood imaginations is something the film rejects (from my interpretation). America Ferrera’s daughter in the film is also part of accepting femininity as a battle against internalised misogyny. The film makes lots of statements and I feel like it could have been more focussed because of them.
I like that this film is highly interpretable but I must say there is definite bias in this review. This film is flawed - third act suffers a bit, some beats don’t land perfectly, it feels like some relationships and characters are underdeveloped and just a lot is going on. BUT it’s also just very larger than life and very very fun. I see myself enjoying it on repeat viewings. It’s ambitious - (late) capitalistic as hell but has fun with it as much as it possibly can. Still not better than Barbie as the Princess and the Pauper (2004). WHERE ARE THE BCU REFERENCES???
August 23, 2023
Miraculous: Ladybug & Cat Noir, the Movie
(Jeremy Zag, France, 2023)
2.6/5
Just watched the Miraculous Ladybug movie and I kind of did not like it.. I’ve been watching the TV show since I was basically a tween/teen and my ultimate bias always comes through, but if I am watching a not good film I am watching a not good film. Even though everything I kind of wanted to happen story-wise did happen, it was in such a sloppy and non-sensical fashion in terms of the larger universe that I just did not feel satisfied. It’s also a poorly executed film, that doesn't help its case one bit. They let the cat out of the bag with this one (pause for silence).
To be fair, the budget shows in this one. The animation is often dazzling at best and mediocre at worst. I don’t know how I feel about the character animations just because I feel like it is such a harsh clash against the voice acting/singing which sounds more mature (I will get to this in a SECOND…). I’m all for the cute-ification thing but it just doesn’t feel very congruent with their age. Kind of off-putting. I’m already going to negatives here so I’ll stay on track - Paris is so much better here. Paris in the show almost feels comically vacant, only characterised by its’ monuments that are used as tools for destruction. In this film, Paris has seedy alleyways (accurate), sidewalk cafes, and is filled with pedestrians. It has character (despite my own opinions about the city). The action scenes are also not bad but come off (as typical with the show) very exaggerated (this works in the show because it’s camp…)
Marinette is written decently (better than the show in some regards - I shall get to this). Marinette is clumsy but it is not a hindrance to her functionality (as with the show), and her weird obsession with Adrien in the show is written out (also as with the show). Despite this, I hate that we have a strangely inserted bullying subplot at the beginning for Marinette because that was honestly never an issue in the show and even then it is not properly developed or resolved in the film either, she just suddenly stops getting heckled (by everyone except Chloe of course). Her hesitance in picking up the Miraculous is good enough and the message of partnership as a tool for battling conflict is also nice.
Adrien is just sulking here most of the time. He is clearly a more introverted person and his relationship with his father is also exemplified good enough (it was nice to see some agency from Adrien in tackling this). He doesn’t just feel vacant and stupid -although some of his lines are comical and he still comes off as less interesting. His relationship with Marinette feels decent (same with Ladybug and Cat Noir) but the whole thing just feels rushed (I am GETTING THERE…). The movie made a good decision by not focussing too much on side characters (imagine if they did that in the show….)
The worst thing about this movie is that it is a musical. One thing Miraculous isn't - is a musical. It fails spectacularly as a musical movie. The songs stagger the pace to a grinding halt as they do not add anything to the plot that wasn’t added already by dialogue or action. At best, they are amusing, and at worst they are absolutely unnecessary and make no sense in terms of plot or character. The singing does not match the voice actors at all and is just gratingly painful to watch as it’s just extremely uncanny and incongruent with the voice actors and the age (I speak for the English version only). It’s also not a musical singing voice, and the lyrics are not great. Just why?? WHY was this decision made… It makes an already rushed film longer for no reason.
The pace of this film is pretty puzzling. It is in a way a dignified episode of the series - it follows the same plot flow of the episodes. The film suffers from TV Show-Film Adaptation syndrome, the cure is good writing your honour. At the same time, it tries to develop around what could have been 3 seasons (or 5!!) of the TV show in one film…. I heard there are movie sequels planned but still, this feels like whiplash. We do not spend enough time developing anything: the love square, the actual development of Ladybug and Cat Noir independently + together, Hawk Moth, etc. It’s so rushed and yet feels slow. So odd.
I also wanna add that the existence of this film is super weird to me… Like this is supposedly an alternate canon? Like a fan fiction from the same people that created the show? Like Jeremy Zag’s alternative vision? Even at this age (above 20 I promise) I was confused as to what this film means in terms of the larger universe of the show because it essentially retcons the entire show (???). I really don’t get if we are supposed to see this as part of the show. In fixing the show’s (which has been running for 5 seasons till now) flaws in ONE film feels impossible - which is why this film fails in that regard.
Overall, okay watch but it is not good! I will probably go back and rewatch it but for now, I’m confused. Not a nice feeling at the end of a film :(
Miraculous: Ladybug & Cat Noir, the Movie
(Jeremy Zag, France, 2023)
2.6/5
Just watched the Miraculous Ladybug movie and I kind of did not like it.. I’ve been watching the TV show since I was basically a tween/teen and my ultimate bias always comes through, but if I am watching a not good film I am watching a not good film. Even though everything I kind of wanted to happen story-wise did happen, it was in such a sloppy and non-sensical fashion in terms of the larger universe that I just did not feel satisfied. It’s also a poorly executed film, that doesn't help its case one bit. They let the cat out of the bag with this one (pause for silence).
To be fair, the budget shows in this one. The animation is often dazzling at best and mediocre at worst. I don’t know how I feel about the character animations just because I feel like it is such a harsh clash against the voice acting/singing which sounds more mature (I will get to this in a SECOND…). I’m all for the cute-ification thing but it just doesn’t feel very congruent with their age. Kind of off-putting. I’m already going to negatives here so I’ll stay on track - Paris is so much better here. Paris in the show almost feels comically vacant, only characterised by its’ monuments that are used as tools for destruction. In this film, Paris has seedy alleyways (accurate), sidewalk cafes, and is filled with pedestrians. It has character (despite my own opinions about the city). The action scenes are also not bad but come off (as typical with the show) very exaggerated (this works in the show because it’s camp…)
Marinette is written decently (better than the show in some regards - I shall get to this). Marinette is clumsy but it is not a hindrance to her functionality (as with the show), and her weird obsession with Adrien in the show is written out (also as with the show). Despite this, I hate that we have a strangely inserted bullying subplot at the beginning for Marinette because that was honestly never an issue in the show and even then it is not properly developed or resolved in the film either, she just suddenly stops getting heckled (by everyone except Chloe of course). Her hesitance in picking up the Miraculous is good enough and the message of partnership as a tool for battling conflict is also nice.
Adrien is just sulking here most of the time. He is clearly a more introverted person and his relationship with his father is also exemplified good enough (it was nice to see some agency from Adrien in tackling this). He doesn’t just feel vacant and stupid -although some of his lines are comical and he still comes off as less interesting. His relationship with Marinette feels decent (same with Ladybug and Cat Noir) but the whole thing just feels rushed (I am GETTING THERE…). The movie made a good decision by not focussing too much on side characters (imagine if they did that in the show….)
The worst thing about this movie is that it is a musical. One thing Miraculous isn't - is a musical. It fails spectacularly as a musical movie. The songs stagger the pace to a grinding halt as they do not add anything to the plot that wasn’t added already by dialogue or action. At best, they are amusing, and at worst they are absolutely unnecessary and make no sense in terms of plot or character. The singing does not match the voice actors at all and is just gratingly painful to watch as it’s just extremely uncanny and incongruent with the voice actors and the age (I speak for the English version only). It’s also not a musical singing voice, and the lyrics are not great. Just why?? WHY was this decision made… It makes an already rushed film longer for no reason.
The pace of this film is pretty puzzling. It is in a way a dignified episode of the series - it follows the same plot flow of the episodes. The film suffers from TV Show-Film Adaptation syndrome, the cure is good writing your honour. At the same time, it tries to develop around what could have been 3 seasons (or 5!!) of the TV show in one film…. I heard there are movie sequels planned but still, this feels like whiplash. We do not spend enough time developing anything: the love square, the actual development of Ladybug and Cat Noir independently + together, Hawk Moth, etc. It’s so rushed and yet feels slow. So odd.
I also wanna add that the existence of this film is super weird to me… Like this is supposedly an alternate canon? Like a fan fiction from the same people that created the show? Like Jeremy Zag’s alternative vision? Even at this age (above 20 I promise) I was confused as to what this film means in terms of the larger universe of the show because it essentially retcons the entire show (???). I really don’t get if we are supposed to see this as part of the show. In fixing the show’s (which has been running for 5 seasons till now) flaws in ONE film feels impossible - which is why this film fails in that regard.
Overall, okay watch but it is not good! I will probably go back and rewatch it but for now, I’m confused. Not a nice feeling at the end of a film :(
October 14, 2023
Choose Love
(Stuart McDonald, 2023)
1/5
I’m a very simple movie-watcher. I enjoy movie, I like the movie. It’s really simple like that. Yes, I do care about quality and all that - but it’s never really just about that. I like to speak for myself - did I actually enjoy the film. You see, when I found about the film that is aptly titled “Choose Love”, I told myself I had to watch it. I didn’t hate Bandersnatch, and I think interactive movies are not the worst idea (maybe they are dignified video games).
From the get-go, I knew this movie was not gonna be a good. The inciting incident takes place in a fortune teller’s house, whereby she tells our main character played by Laura Marano (who deserves better roles, by the way) that three men will come into her life. It becomes clear early on that there’s one real choice in the whole film, the Life is Strange flashbacks were real.
There are no real stakes or tension in this film, just mid energy. It’s so boring because nothing is actually happening. There are literally like four conversations in the film, and they are all not filled with difficult choices or interesting themes or ideas. All the love interests are so bland and uninteresting, and it just feels like a dignified version of an Episode chapter (if you do not know what the mobile game Episode is, maybe that is for the better dear reader). Our main character is insufferable because she’s literally a compulsive cheater, falling for two people on the same day and not being communicative with her partner until the very end. It’s not good, well-explained, well-set-up, or justified. Bad. Not even choices can change anything.
They try to create a Fleabag-type moment and actually I didn’t hate it sometimes. Actually, I take that back. MAYBE I gaslit myself into liking it. I didn’t hate when Laura Marano (forgot her name in the film) addressed the audience. It was just so unnecessary and ridiculous in such a film which has no subtlety at all. The tone of the film feels so corporate and clinical, like an AI made a film. Sometimes like the colours.
Pace is awful. I don’t have to say it twice. This 1h20 film felt so long, and the ending is so rushed. You literally have to make a choice in the film about who to choose as a partner, and then it ends. Laura Marano’s frustration with her job is only addressed in a total of 4 lines, and her frustration with herself for not knowing what to do in terms of relationships is way more focussed on. Even then, it’s not well-written and the ending does not feel earned. Not much to say. Potential that isn't even neared. Skip.
Choose Love
(Stuart McDonald, 2023)
1/5
I’m a very simple movie-watcher. I enjoy movie, I like the movie. It’s really simple like that. Yes, I do care about quality and all that - but it’s never really just about that. I like to speak for myself - did I actually enjoy the film. You see, when I found about the film that is aptly titled “Choose Love”, I told myself I had to watch it. I didn’t hate Bandersnatch, and I think interactive movies are not the worst idea (maybe they are dignified video games).
From the get-go, I knew this movie was not gonna be a good. The inciting incident takes place in a fortune teller’s house, whereby she tells our main character played by Laura Marano (who deserves better roles, by the way) that three men will come into her life. It becomes clear early on that there’s one real choice in the whole film, the Life is Strange flashbacks were real.
There are no real stakes or tension in this film, just mid energy. It’s so boring because nothing is actually happening. There are literally like four conversations in the film, and they are all not filled with difficult choices or interesting themes or ideas. All the love interests are so bland and uninteresting, and it just feels like a dignified version of an Episode chapter (if you do not know what the mobile game Episode is, maybe that is for the better dear reader). Our main character is insufferable because she’s literally a compulsive cheater, falling for two people on the same day and not being communicative with her partner until the very end. It’s not good, well-explained, well-set-up, or justified. Bad. Not even choices can change anything.
They try to create a Fleabag-type moment and actually I didn’t hate it sometimes. Actually, I take that back. MAYBE I gaslit myself into liking it. I didn’t hate when Laura Marano (forgot her name in the film) addressed the audience. It was just so unnecessary and ridiculous in such a film which has no subtlety at all. The tone of the film feels so corporate and clinical, like an AI made a film. Sometimes like the colours.
Pace is awful. I don’t have to say it twice. This 1h20 film felt so long, and the ending is so rushed. You literally have to make a choice in the film about who to choose as a partner, and then it ends. Laura Marano’s frustration with her job is only addressed in a total of 4 lines, and her frustration with herself for not knowing what to do in terms of relationships is way more focussed on. Even then, it’s not well-written and the ending does not feel earned. Not much to say. Potential that isn't even neared. Skip.
December 29, 2023
Priscilla
(Sofia Coppola, 2023)
3.8/5
Priscilla (2023) is a movie that will warrant comparisons with the earlier Elvis (2022) film just because of it’s proximity to it as well as it’s stark difference to the way Priscilla is depicted in the latter film; in a rather surface-level and surprisingly insignificant way. Priscilla (2023) is Priscilla’s story through and through, handled with nuance and care by Coppola. A perfect pairing with Coppola’s career being defined (but not bounded) by her depictions of Lana Del Rey-coded girlhood, especially reflecting women of privilege, teenage girlhood, and the loneliness/suffering women endure growing up.
While Spaeny plays Priscilla throughout the film starting from age 14 - it is obvious that she is a child. She speaks the way a child would, consistently asks for her parents’ approval, and the film depicts her going to school several times. And Elordi's height difference is enough to really show that age/maturity gap between them. A fan of Presley, Elvis’s age and difference feels comparatively strange from the start. Something weird is in the room. My mom (who I was watching the film with) would say it over and over again. “It’s weird”. Clearly dysfunctional from the start, Elvis using Priscilla as an emotional crutch, and Priscilla just being agreeable - always in his shadow; a tale of grooming. Her defiance is met with anger (and an immediate apology), as Elvis almost treats her as if she were his student. It’s a strange dynamic - that is clear. And Priscilla is clearly the victim, but she is never depicted as just a victim; there is nuance there.
Film itself is really just gorgeous. A Coppola film is gonna be a Coppola film. There’s beautiful production design, costume design, so much attention to Priscilla alone and her reaction to things. Close-ups and all. Such delicacy. Shots of the surroundings tell us about the character (especially that Chanel perfume moment!) It really feels like a fairytale, but one in which our main character is deeply unsatisfied with the excess that surrounds her.
The film is faithful to Priscilla’s memoir and depicts Elvis with shocking sensitivity, despite it all. It’s such a complex thing and yet Coppola pulls it off. It’s in the hushed calls Elvis has with Colonel who tells him off for exploring spirituality, it’s in the scene where he talks about his mother passing away, his drug usage, and in Elordi’s performance. It tells us what Elvis was also dealing with without shifting away focus from Priscilla, and funnily enough with less words and screen-time than earlier Elvis (2022). This is clearly Priscilla’s story, and she loves Elvis despite it all. It never excuses his actions which always speak for themselves.
Performances are great by Elordi and Spaeny who truly shine here. Cinematography is gorgeous and I actually think the Estate’s refusal to incorporate Elvis Presley’s music in the film actually works to it’s advantage as I feel it adds to the alienation that Priscilla feels in the film and it would take away the shine from her/ her narrative. Only complaint I have really is with the pace. Slows down a bit in the middle, then hurtles to an ending that feels slightly sudden. Could have been more developedthat ending.
It’s worth a watch, and is certainly a biopic that I really liked. One that works well (many don’t). Captures the infamous couple with a subtlety and complexity from a perspective that has often been abandoned.
Priscilla
(Sofia Coppola, 2023)
3.8/5
Priscilla (2023) is a movie that will warrant comparisons with the earlier Elvis (2022) film just because of it’s proximity to it as well as it’s stark difference to the way Priscilla is depicted in the latter film; in a rather surface-level and surprisingly insignificant way. Priscilla (2023) is Priscilla’s story through and through, handled with nuance and care by Coppola. A perfect pairing with Coppola’s career being defined (but not bounded) by her depictions of Lana Del Rey-coded girlhood, especially reflecting women of privilege, teenage girlhood, and the loneliness/suffering women endure growing up.
While Spaeny plays Priscilla throughout the film starting from age 14 - it is obvious that she is a child. She speaks the way a child would, consistently asks for her parents’ approval, and the film depicts her going to school several times. And Elordi's height difference is enough to really show that age/maturity gap between them. A fan of Presley, Elvis’s age and difference feels comparatively strange from the start. Something weird is in the room. My mom (who I was watching the film with) would say it over and over again. “It’s weird”. Clearly dysfunctional from the start, Elvis using Priscilla as an emotional crutch, and Priscilla just being agreeable - always in his shadow; a tale of grooming. Her defiance is met with anger (and an immediate apology), as Elvis almost treats her as if she were his student. It’s a strange dynamic - that is clear. And Priscilla is clearly the victim, but she is never depicted as just a victim; there is nuance there.
Film itself is really just gorgeous. A Coppola film is gonna be a Coppola film. There’s beautiful production design, costume design, so much attention to Priscilla alone and her reaction to things. Close-ups and all. Such delicacy. Shots of the surroundings tell us about the character (especially that Chanel perfume moment!) It really feels like a fairytale, but one in which our main character is deeply unsatisfied with the excess that surrounds her.
The film is faithful to Priscilla’s memoir and depicts Elvis with shocking sensitivity, despite it all. It’s such a complex thing and yet Coppola pulls it off. It’s in the hushed calls Elvis has with Colonel who tells him off for exploring spirituality, it’s in the scene where he talks about his mother passing away, his drug usage, and in Elordi’s performance. It tells us what Elvis was also dealing with without shifting away focus from Priscilla, and funnily enough with less words and screen-time than earlier Elvis (2022). This is clearly Priscilla’s story, and she loves Elvis despite it all. It never excuses his actions which always speak for themselves.
Performances are great by Elordi and Spaeny who truly shine here. Cinematography is gorgeous and I actually think the Estate’s refusal to incorporate Elvis Presley’s music in the film actually works to it’s advantage as I feel it adds to the alienation that Priscilla feels in the film and it would take away the shine from her/ her narrative. Only complaint I have really is with the pace. Slows down a bit in the middle, then hurtles to an ending that feels slightly sudden. Could have been more developedthat ending.
It’s worth a watch, and is certainly a biopic that I really liked. One that works well (many don’t). Captures the infamous couple with a subtlety and complexity from a perspective that has often been abandoned.
January 17, 2024
Mean Girls (Musical)
(Samantha Jayne & Arturo Perez Jr., 2024)
1.8/5
Something fundamentally bothers me about Mean Girls (the Musical movie). It is not the fact that it’s a bad sloppily made movie - it is - but it’s existence is really symptomatic of a really struggling film industry. From a disaster marketing campaign that did not quite clarify that the film is supposed to be a musical movie to the obvious comparisons that a Mean Girls reboot was gonna evoke either way. It’s clear that Mean Girls (2004) is the better one, it is a better film, more tightly written, funnier, of-its-time, and with performances that feel way more self-aware to the type of film they were in. There’s a really odd feeling that this film does not really feel real or impactful the same way the original does.
The music numbers are largely uninspiring and seem to come out of nowhere, acting like music videos plopped in the movie. I haven’t seen the musical but some of these songs are just pretty painful to sit through (the halloween one especially). They’re not catchy, they don’t sound good, and they just feel cheap. They feel cringeworthy and not in a cute way. Maybe I’m too old to watch this film? Maybe this resonates for the younger audience? Anyways, the songs are not good and they fit awkwardly in the film. A select few can sing really well in the film, and Cady’s actress is just okay. I don’t know, every time a song came on I groaned, it just hampers the pace and that’s never a good sign if your movie is a musical (your musical is a movie?)
Aaron is a miscast. Cady is a miscast. Reneé Rapp steals the show, and Janis/Damian are not bad either. The rest are serviceable as the are carbon copies of the characters from the 2004 version. The story is good, I mean it is the original story but highly sanitised and mostly with changes that often do nothing for the movie. I think that the reason why Mean Girls (2004) used words like “slut” was exactly to prove the point that those words should not be used and that they are degrading to women. Although I do understand the racially insensitive parts that were removed, the parts regarding weight, etc. which are still relevant should have been there - it just makes it more relevant. At the end, it feels like a lecture rather than anything else - we didn’t earn the ending. In the original, it was kind of a satire of high school but there was also something very real about all of them being genuinely mean to each other and attention seeking - I do not see that same level here. The source material is never elevated and the last act is almost verbatim from the original. Lazy.
I HATE the use of TikTok here. It doesn’t make sense. It’s weird. It’s off-putting. They try to show how social media changes bullying but it’s really weird because they show like random people making memes about this random high schooler which makes no sense because Regina George isn’t a celebrity? If satire was the goal, it was not conveyed well and I think it was not good or funny. There are parts that are so obviously designed to be TikTok dances and I just wanted to look away it was so painful. They had potential here to explore how social media exacerbates meanness and all - but they use it in such a weird way that it convinces me that they have no idea how people actually use it to bully each other.
Time passed quickly in this film. I liked the Lindsay Lohan cameo. Nothing else. Not nice. I’m so tired of the film industry just rebooting things or making movies out of musicals based on movies - especially musicals that were mixed to start with. I miss old musicals, and when we could just tell original stories. Can we bring that back?
Mean Girls (Musical)
(Samantha Jayne & Arturo Perez Jr., 2024)
1.8/5
Something fundamentally bothers me about Mean Girls (the Musical movie). It is not the fact that it’s a bad sloppily made movie - it is - but it’s existence is really symptomatic of a really struggling film industry. From a disaster marketing campaign that did not quite clarify that the film is supposed to be a musical movie to the obvious comparisons that a Mean Girls reboot was gonna evoke either way. It’s clear that Mean Girls (2004) is the better one, it is a better film, more tightly written, funnier, of-its-time, and with performances that feel way more self-aware to the type of film they were in. There’s a really odd feeling that this film does not really feel real or impactful the same way the original does.
The music numbers are largely uninspiring and seem to come out of nowhere, acting like music videos plopped in the movie. I haven’t seen the musical but some of these songs are just pretty painful to sit through (the halloween one especially). They’re not catchy, they don’t sound good, and they just feel cheap. They feel cringeworthy and not in a cute way. Maybe I’m too old to watch this film? Maybe this resonates for the younger audience? Anyways, the songs are not good and they fit awkwardly in the film. A select few can sing really well in the film, and Cady’s actress is just okay. I don’t know, every time a song came on I groaned, it just hampers the pace and that’s never a good sign if your movie is a musical (your musical is a movie?)
Aaron is a miscast. Cady is a miscast. Reneé Rapp steals the show, and Janis/Damian are not bad either. The rest are serviceable as the are carbon copies of the characters from the 2004 version. The story is good, I mean it is the original story but highly sanitised and mostly with changes that often do nothing for the movie. I think that the reason why Mean Girls (2004) used words like “slut” was exactly to prove the point that those words should not be used and that they are degrading to women. Although I do understand the racially insensitive parts that were removed, the parts regarding weight, etc. which are still relevant should have been there - it just makes it more relevant. At the end, it feels like a lecture rather than anything else - we didn’t earn the ending. In the original, it was kind of a satire of high school but there was also something very real about all of them being genuinely mean to each other and attention seeking - I do not see that same level here. The source material is never elevated and the last act is almost verbatim from the original. Lazy.
I HATE the use of TikTok here. It doesn’t make sense. It’s weird. It’s off-putting. They try to show how social media changes bullying but it’s really weird because they show like random people making memes about this random high schooler which makes no sense because Regina George isn’t a celebrity? If satire was the goal, it was not conveyed well and I think it was not good or funny. There are parts that are so obviously designed to be TikTok dances and I just wanted to look away it was so painful. They had potential here to explore how social media exacerbates meanness and all - but they use it in such a weird way that it convinces me that they have no idea how people actually use it to bully each other.
Time passed quickly in this film. I liked the Lindsay Lohan cameo. Nothing else. Not nice. I’m so tired of the film industry just rebooting things or making movies out of musicals based on movies - especially musicals that were mixed to start with. I miss old musicals, and when we could just tell original stories. Can we bring that back?
April 11, 2024
Anyone But You
(Will Gluck, Australia/United States, 2023)
2.3/5
A lot of people like Anyone But You (2023) and it’s not hard to see why. It’s a rom-com with Sydney Sweeney and Glen Powell. It’s the kind of film that has a reputation that precedes it and it’s massive success is in part due to - in my opinion - a PR stunt that has worked a bit too well. That PR stunt being rumours that Sweeney and Powell were dating during/after the making of the film. Now, that rumour has been debunked and has been halfway confirmed as kind of part of the whole rom-com film promotion shtick anyway, so I think we can move on from our lives. Maybe we can learn that it’s really bizarre to pry into people’s lives… especially when they are already in a relationship. See, this is what I mean when I said the film's reputation precedes it. We didn’t even start talking about the film itself.
Anyone But You (2023) is as Lifetime movie as it gets. While it is based on Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing (with a very odd nod to this at the beginning of the film with a graffitied Shakespeare quote on a wall behind Sydney Sweeney), it doesn’t feel vivacious or inspiring. I don't know if the Bard would approve this entry. There’s a lot to unpack and yet nothing to unpack at all. I definitely would have not paid money to see this film. It’s an airplane watch (in the best and worst way).
Almost all the characters in this film are so insufferable and uninteresting. I’m kind of done with making fun of characters that try to get two people together, because matchmakers do exist in real life. However, the disregard for the lead characters’ wishes to pursue this insane matchmaking quest is questionable. Considering that the film mostly takes place in a wedding, it feels entirely selfish to focus on these two characters who are in the midst of a situationship (this word doesn’t make sense but the relationship in the film doesn’t make sense). They do apologise at the end for their selfishness, but Sweeney’s character still runs off DURING the wedding. It seems to be the case that both of our leads have got main character syndrome. This is why couples get a bad rep. It can wait after the wedding, or at least be a short aside. I don’t know.
Characters are boring. Powell’s character’s mom died, and that’s his whole character other than being a yuppie/Wall Street coded entity. Sweeney’s main conflict is centred around her dropping out of college because she doesn’t know what she’s doing with her life (heard), but also, do you know how much it costs to like go to college in the U.S? Why doesn't she wanna be in law school anymore? Her parents’ reaction.. everything.. just seems a bit too unrealistic… it feels like that type of conflict should be more central. It’s kind of a big deal? I don’t know, maybe the film is in a utopian land, but the whole thing just reeks of privilege. Can’t explain it.
While there is chemistry between Powell and Sweeney, the romance’s development does not really feel natural. I don’t really see how from one scene you can hate the other character, and then the next scene you’re in love. How. Like how. There’s no sense of upward development, and it doesn’t really feel like there’s a sense of “oh they’re perfect for each other” or “this relationship makes sense” feeling throughout my viewing experience. If someone wants to make the argument that the whole thing was a play-fight from the start, that would imply the film has no conflict (which it barely has anyways).
The film just has no personality at all. Like it’s so basic. No interesting directing choices. Nothing. Unwritten by Natasha Bedingfield is the only part I kind of enjoyed. But somehow… somehow… I kind of was fine with watching it. It was just kind of ok, and had hot people, sometimes that’s all you need (I was in the throes of a stomach bug). 2 stars for hot leads, 0.3 for Unwritten and two jokes that made me chuckle.
Anyone But You
(Will Gluck, Australia/United States, 2023)
2.3/5
A lot of people like Anyone But You (2023) and it’s not hard to see why. It’s a rom-com with Sydney Sweeney and Glen Powell. It’s the kind of film that has a reputation that precedes it and it’s massive success is in part due to - in my opinion - a PR stunt that has worked a bit too well. That PR stunt being rumours that Sweeney and Powell were dating during/after the making of the film. Now, that rumour has been debunked and has been halfway confirmed as kind of part of the whole rom-com film promotion shtick anyway, so I think we can move on from our lives. Maybe we can learn that it’s really bizarre to pry into people’s lives… especially when they are already in a relationship. See, this is what I mean when I said the film's reputation precedes it. We didn’t even start talking about the film itself.
Anyone But You (2023) is as Lifetime movie as it gets. While it is based on Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing (with a very odd nod to this at the beginning of the film with a graffitied Shakespeare quote on a wall behind Sydney Sweeney), it doesn’t feel vivacious or inspiring. I don't know if the Bard would approve this entry. There’s a lot to unpack and yet nothing to unpack at all. I definitely would have not paid money to see this film. It’s an airplane watch (in the best and worst way).
Almost all the characters in this film are so insufferable and uninteresting. I’m kind of done with making fun of characters that try to get two people together, because matchmakers do exist in real life. However, the disregard for the lead characters’ wishes to pursue this insane matchmaking quest is questionable. Considering that the film mostly takes place in a wedding, it feels entirely selfish to focus on these two characters who are in the midst of a situationship (this word doesn’t make sense but the relationship in the film doesn’t make sense). They do apologise at the end for their selfishness, but Sweeney’s character still runs off DURING the wedding. It seems to be the case that both of our leads have got main character syndrome. This is why couples get a bad rep. It can wait after the wedding, or at least be a short aside. I don’t know.
Characters are boring. Powell’s character’s mom died, and that’s his whole character other than being a yuppie/Wall Street coded entity. Sweeney’s main conflict is centred around her dropping out of college because she doesn’t know what she’s doing with her life (heard), but also, do you know how much it costs to like go to college in the U.S? Why doesn't she wanna be in law school anymore? Her parents’ reaction.. everything.. just seems a bit too unrealistic… it feels like that type of conflict should be more central. It’s kind of a big deal? I don’t know, maybe the film is in a utopian land, but the whole thing just reeks of privilege. Can’t explain it.
While there is chemistry between Powell and Sweeney, the romance’s development does not really feel natural. I don’t really see how from one scene you can hate the other character, and then the next scene you’re in love. How. Like how. There’s no sense of upward development, and it doesn’t really feel like there’s a sense of “oh they’re perfect for each other” or “this relationship makes sense” feeling throughout my viewing experience. If someone wants to make the argument that the whole thing was a play-fight from the start, that would imply the film has no conflict (which it barely has anyways).
The film just has no personality at all. Like it’s so basic. No interesting directing choices. Nothing. Unwritten by Natasha Bedingfield is the only part I kind of enjoyed. But somehow… somehow… I kind of was fine with watching it. It was just kind of ok, and had hot people, sometimes that’s all you need (I was in the throes of a stomach bug). 2 stars for hot leads, 0.3 for Unwritten and two jokes that made me chuckle.