shabanavdulaj Reviews

The Souvenir: Part II (2021)

The more personal, the better!

[9/10 · 24 March 2022]

It seriously threatened to take the first spot on my list of the best films of 2021. Unbelievable! I didn't receive well the first film because I think I wasn't prepared for it when I saw it, and that is - I have to rewatch it, but that's an incredibly challenging film. In this one, you can get aboard trouble-free. And I'm not saying this is a more conventional film. It's not. Hogg managed to "reach out" to the viewer (at least to me) smoothly this time around while at the same time preserving the same confident, sumptuous directing style she displayed in the first film. Where the two films differ quite a bit is the writing. Here, there's a good deal of dialogue. Characters express themselves a lot, whereas, in the first film, you have to drain your intuition empty to understand what's going on; what's the motivation behind the characters' actions. And while I think that's what Hogg intended with the first film, and it wasn't an anomaly of the movie, I have to admit I didn't get along with it. Anyway, the rewatch is on the way, so I'll settle the score with the first film shortly.

Back to Part II, I loved it! There's a peaceful vibe that's so welcoming naive with its brute honesty yet disarming with its gentle way of coming to meet us. Honor Swinton gives a nuanced performance, fully embracing the pure nature of her character. And her performance gets even better and more genuine, almost unselfconscious when she's acting alongside Tilda. Double-Swinton powerhouse! Here, Hogg showcases a bit of her humor through my favorite character in the film: Patrick. I love hysteric characters, and this guy was my poison. - "You're forcing me to have a tantrum." I yelp-laughed at that. He almost ruined the rest of the movie for me because, after the scene where the line above takes place, I was in such a hurry for the film to end so I could go back and watch the scene on loop. Anyway, 'The Souvenir, Part II' is such a rich film. And it's this richness that allows for it to connect with everyone. I think everyone would find a piece in it they will relate to if they let themself reminisce in Hogg's confessional cinematics.

Paris, 13th District (2021)

Audiard is back!

[8/10 · 16 March 2022]

It's excruciating having on your laptop the video file for a film you're dying to see but not having the subtitles for it. - 2022 goal: learn French. - Today, someone, God bless his soul, uploaded the English subs for the movie, and I finally got to watch it.

A beautiful film! A candid and unreserved look at love life in the early thirties, portrayed brilliantly by an - Merlant excluded - unknown cast. What I loved the most here was how the film floats around from one character to the other, detaching you in a way from them, but that worked so well in creating a cozy, calming atmosphere where you can enjoy the movie without getting too emotionally attached with any of them. Audiard takes you and puts you into a place where you can't "get hurt" by connecting too deeply or caring a lot for a character while at the same time telling a story that's supposed to do that to you. That alone, I think it's incredible to pull off, but Jacques managed to do so with flying colors. Here we got, essentially, the tearless, color-deprived version of last year's 'The Worst Person in the World' (plus through some "online dating" perspective into it). 'Paris, 13th District' was a comfortable watch for me, and I think it's a film I'll revisit because, again, I found it extremely relaxing. And with that, I don't mean there weren't moments I didn't have an emotional response to what I saw. The emotions are there, especially in the end. They just don't hit you like Hiroshima.

After Yang (2021)

Philosophical, but is it cinematic?

[7/10 · 4 March 2022]

Hmm, emphatic 'Blade Runner' vibes during the first half, while in the second half, as the film clarifies what it's about, it brimmed with 'Her' mana, especially in those last ten minutes. 'After Yang' is Kogonada's stylish, sensitive reminisce on the connections we create with what we often consider "easy-replaceable" stuff.

A light, very comfortable sci-fi - it reminded me a lot of another 2021 release, 'Nine Days,' and/but similar to that, the film didn't land as firmly as I was hopping. So, this is a beautifully decored film. The production design is aesthetically pleasing and all, but I think all that wasn't inspiring enough for Kogonada's camera. Very forgettable imagery I'd easily compare to your usual run-of-the-mill sci-fi movie released during the past decade ('I Origines' comes quickly to mind). And adding to that the excessively ambiguous/speculative writing a more cynical thinker would call it pretentious, and what I thought was slightly underdeveloped, yes, 'After Yang' unfortunately isn't anything special. And that's unfortunate, is so for Kogonada and Farrell too. Colin has been in intriguing small projects during the last couple of years, and I've been curious to see him in these diverse roles, but here he isn't given anything interesting to leave his imprint. Anyway, 'After Yang' is far from a bad film. It's a soulful reflection on the humanity of humans, but it's not the riveting cinema I'd expect from such a promising filmmaker.

Licorice Pizza (2021)

PTA delivers!

[9/10 · 19 February 2022]

I might need to sleep a bit on it before naming this the best film of the year, but all doubts on PTA's latest being the most entertaining piece of cinema that came out of 2021 is put to rest when Bradley Cooper goes on a full-rampage mood around the middle of the film. 'Licorice Pizza' is Paul's most lighthearted film to date. The film doesn't have the seriousness of 'There Will Be Blood' nor the philosophical dynamics of 'The Master' nor the highly visceral sentiments of 'Phantom Thread,' but what it has is Paul's introspective, profoundly realized approach to a particular time and place.

To me, when we're talking PTA, we're talking the pinnacle of contemporary cinema. I was chatting to some kids a few days ago, excited film nerds, we were talking PTA, and I said, "oh, he's the best," and I shared my ranked list of PTA's work. One of the kids noticed that I hadn't given a ten out of ten to any of his films, and he was like, "how come he's your favorite filmmaker when you haven't given him not even a single ten?" And my answer to that was Paul's progressive consistency film after film. I don't think Paul has ever made a bad film. His debut film, or even 'Magnolia,' which, IMO, is the most overrated film on Paul's entire filmography, is still a very respectful piece of cinema. And what I love the most about PTA is his urge to get out of his comfort zone and challenge himself. Paying close attention to his work, you'd notice that he's a very versatile filmmaker. I see a lot of new filmmakers coming into the spotlight with a banger film, and seeing the success they got from that, they seem to try to be as similar as possible to that in their next project (Jordan Peel, Ari Aster, Adam McKay, to mention a few). But that's not the case with Anderson. He doesn't seem to care much about what the audience wants to see him doing next. He is always coming up with unconnected projects, implying an admiring self-confidence with anything he brings, and I think that that's what elevates him, head and shoulders above everyone else.

I had to take a paragraph establishing why I think PTA is the best, but back to the movie now. So, 'Licorice Pizza' was a highly anticipated film for me. If it hadn't been for 'Dune,' this would've probably been my number one most anticipated film of the past year. And Paul didn't let me down. As I said, I'm too lukewarm to judge it correctly right now as for where does this rank in my "Top 10 Film of 2021" list, but this is an assured work. And like almost all of Paul's work, I think this is a film that can benefit a lot in a second or even a third viewing, as Anderson's contemplative, layered, and fast-delivered writing leaves enough meat to offer a more rewarding experience on multiple viewings.

I loved the transition from one scene to another. 'Licorice Pizza' feels like it's tacitly divided into these short episodes. The film shows these kids deal with many different characters and circumstances. And in each new situation that they get in, new characters are introduced, played by stars like Bradley and Penn who feel like they're guest-starring in a television episode for some big series. But it's the shifting from one of these unspoken episodes to the other I liked because that, I thought, was done in such a way that challenges the viewer to keep up with it. See, these episodes don't have an elaborated, spoken closure. PTA, as always, doesn't want to get behind the viewer. He expects the reverse.

Young Hoffman seems to have inherited a great deal from his father's talent. He's charming throughout, delivering an applaudable performance, but the star here is undoubtedly Alana Haim. Her performance seems to come very naturally - you can see she's wholly underneath the skin of her character, and she's on fire - a joy to watch. I mentioned Bradley at the start of this review. He gets to play a hysteric character here, which I loved, but I read an article saying that he was snubbed big time by the Oscars this year for his performance here - I don't think so. If any actor here got robbed here, she's Alana Haim.

I loved the movie! PTA directs with commendable grace and manages to, yet again, deliver, at its worse, a subtle cinematic piece. Furthermore, Paul played one of my favorite songs, "Slip Away," not in the best moment possible - I would have played that in the end when they run toward each other, but still, it's in the movie, so that's a bonus.

Irreversible (2002)

Noe: Step Into The Darkness

[5/10 · 29 January 2022]

Noe's style of filmmaking reminds me of the time when I didn't read the book for my literature class. I went in anyway, the teacher asked me about it, and I started winging it. Now, that didn't really happen, but that's the perfect example to describe how I imagine Noe's work ethic. - "You haven't read the book? What are you going to do?" "Oh, you'll see."

I'm not a fan of Noe's films. I appreciated 'Climax.' I thought that was a neat effort in expanding the cinematic frontiers without presenting too much of the usual garish shock value I've seen in Noe's other films. But other than 'Climax,' nothing I've seen from him appeals to me (I haven't seen 'Enter the Void'). 'Irreversible,' I knew it was going to be an uncomfortable watch. I had heard so much about its unflinching depiction of sexual violence. And I had prepared myself for that. Or so I thought. I found the infamous rape scene disturbing. But Noe cheated. What I mean by that is that, even though the scene got to me, it wasn't the result of impeccable filmmaking. It's just that no person with even the slightest amount of empathy in him would sit through it and not flinch.

The first thing I want to talk about is the cinematography, as that's the keyword here - filmmaking-wise, I'm not getting into the story and its themes. So, to put it harshly, Noe raped the art of the hand-held camera. I love the hand-held camera. It might look like the hand-held camera-work it's easy; a quick and cheap way to handle a particular scene, but I opine it's the reverse. I believe that there's nothing uglier in a film than a poorly choreographed hand-held camera-work. Here, while I think that in certain scenes, the ideas for the camera are ingenious (that ever-rotating camera in the beginning), they don't feel like they serve the story. It feels like Noe didn't understand his movie by the way he shot it. He didn't have to go that hard with the camera. - It's overkill to the worst degree. And yes, you can argue that the exaggerations with the camera come as means of parallelizing it with the tremendously sensitive content, but as I said, I think it's too much. It works to the film's disadvantage. It pulls you off the movie - You can't keep up with the movie when the rotating camera it's making you dizzy. And that's another thing. If I had been more naive, I'd think Noe's secret goal with his films is to provoke pain in the viewer. - I stopped watching 'Lux Aeterna' halfway through because that was obliterating my eyes. So, I think that the cinematography here is a complete mess. It's like they tried so hard to prove that they could go "balls to the wall" with it, for no reason at all. - Not appreciated!

The thing I enjoyed - yes, weirdly, there is an aspect here handled with the virtuosity of the greatest of professionals, and it's the factor that kept me constantly engaged with what I was watching, and was the acting. I find Vincent Cassel so charming. There's something about him, an all-consuming charisma that he manages to bring in every character he portrays. And here, he delivers nothing less than a thoroughly captivating performance.

With 'Irreversible,' Noe forces you to stare into the abyss of human darkened degradation. But, unfortunately, he leans heavily in shock value. And again, I can't get over the flaccid camera-work. It's unbelievable. What was he thinking? Neon-bathed visuals plus unusual camera-angles plus non-linear narrative equal guaranteed success? The scene where the ambulance takes Bellucci's all-beaten-up body (among others) was filmed so bad - you'd think a monkey was holding the camera. The biggest shock from this movie is what they do with the camera here. Anyway, 'Irreversible' is far from the worst film I've seen, and it's certainly not as bad as the most passionate haters of the movie make it sound to be, and yet, it's not the high art cinema its electrified fans will tell you it is.

A Hero (I) (2021)

People, the true stuff!

[8/10 · 21 January 2022]

There is no filmmaker working today who can match Farhadi's ability to portray real-life family dynamics, everyday occurrences, and all the small details of life. Farhadi is the master when it comes to bringing a true sense of realism in his movies, and in this latest effort, he makes sure of making that obvious. Yet, although 'A Hero' conveys successfully that Farhadi touch for genuine realism, the film is deprived of the kinetic energy Farhadi's most triumphant films enroll on.

Here Farhadi decides to go for seemingly a more rewarding path regarding the script. He chooses to construct a long pattern of conflicts, hoping to keep the audience constantly interested. But Asghar goes overboard with it. It's like someone dared him to create the twistiest story he could come up with, and voila, this is the result. But this amount of plot-heavy nature of the screenplay didn't play as Farhadi was hoping. The film gets tiresome; too convoluted - not that I wasn't able to keep up with the story because Farhadi does an incredible job constructing it meticulously, but it lacks that spark that, as I said, made Farhadi's other films such masterpieces.

But my problem with the script is from a story standpoint only (that later would cause some plot holes with the character development of the main protagonist, which I can easily overlook - minor issue). As for the dialogue, here we get to enjoy some of the best character interactions Farhadi has ever created. And the actors deliver, at worst, grounded performances. I loved the performance of the actor playing the protagonist. I appreciate non-verbal acting, and Amir Jadidi shines in those moments here. His face is naturally compelling. He says so much with a sole glare - terrific performance!

As all Farhadi's movies, 'A Hero' is a film told with an enormous grace; a nuanced portrait of domestic life that's so far-reaching as it deals with thematics that are true to life in any culture and society. Again, the film is not up to mark with the best's of Farhadi. The numerous twist and turns seem to pile up and can become exhausting, plus the film feels longer than its running time due to its gradual pacing. But the simple approach, the assured direction, and outstanding performances make this one of the finest portrays of intricate human drama.

The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021)

All hail, Macbeth!

[9/10 · 14 January 2022]

'Tis the oddity of the year, and further proof within the same year ('The Green Knight' being the other) that old won't grow to get old as the modern artisans will never cease to be fascinated by and borrow from the unmatched, aged but undying literature. Joel Coen's 'The Tragedy of Macbeth' isn't the most welcoming film you'll come across, especially to those exposed to Marvel films more than anything else, but to the ones who peculiar, unconventional art is what they hunt for, the film is a gift, a most pleasant one.

From the trailers and what I had read up and down the internet, I knew this was going to be odd. People say that the unusual scenery gives it a theater-like look, and I agree, it's not your typical film set, but I think that more than the peculiar set, it's the writing inducing that stage-like vibe to you. The dialogue, in particular, it's so stagy. You think 'The Lighthouse' was too theater-like - buries that! It's like they took a script written for a play, and with no polishing of it all, they worked with it, like that. And I'm usually not a fan of these types of endeavors, but here they proved that the cinematic realm knows no boundaries and that everything can work on it if the man in charge has a fully realized idea of what he's doing.

So the script, to me, was genius! But work of this nature needs to be backed up properly by the actors. Here, there is a thin line resting in-between stage acting and film acting that needs to be found by the actor. The actor has to be exceptional for the film to work, and such was Denzel Washington for Joel's bone-shaking visionary work. The rest of the cast does well, but if you put attention to the acting, Denzel is on a whole other level, even if compared to Frances. The screenplay can effortlessly overshadow the performances as it's the keyword here, but if you manage to overcome the weight of the script, you can't fail to see how Denzel is unrivaled here.

I don't want to drag this any longer, 'The Tragedy of Macbeth' is by far the most challenging film Joel has ever made (at least, from the ones I've seen). A bold step into experimental filmmaking! One that makes Shakespeare's masterpiece resonate as strongly as ever.

Oh, I almost forgot to mention the craziest thing about the film, a weird version of Smeagol from LOTR, is in this.

The Last Duel (2021)

The truth according to me.

[6/10 · 29 November 2021]

First things first, the looks of Ben Affleck here look as plastic as his acting performance. But apart from everything concerning Ben's appearance, the makeup artists and the set decorators did a fine job polishing the film to the point of making the thing look authentic and raw, especially during those fight sequences. And the cinematographer captured everything quite well, although I didn't notice anything remarkable.

I wasn't expecting much from this film as it has been time now since I considered Scott: a burned-out filmmaker, or he's just not even trying anymore, always staying inside his comfort zone. Yet he seems to enjoy the faith of big studios in Hollywood, and that of some of the most interesting actors right now, and it's because of these last why 'The Last Duel' was among the films I was eagerly looking forward to watching. I thought if Scott would continue his series of tautological movies, at least the cast of actors (Driver and Comer mostly) might find a great opportunity in them for exercising their talent. Unfortunately, it seems like they were absorbing much from Scott's underwhelming energy, and they don't go further than delivering just fine performances here.

'The Last Duel' is a film worthy of dedicating hours of discussion as for what the movie talks about, and that's fine, but - and I'll never get tired of repeating this - that doesn't indicate great filmmaking. As expected, the film is passable! To this point, I feel bad I'll have to go through not one but two Scott films this year. - Gotta watch that Gaga performance.

The Suicide Squad (2021)

Nothing new.

[4/10 · 24 August 2021]

To the people that loved or even thought the movie was "OK": Please read no further. I'm going to avenge my wasted two hours, and I don't need enemies at this point in my life.

In my defense: David Ehrlich rated this 7/10, and also - and I've yet to comprehend how is this possible - the movie has a 74 Metacritic score. So, that's that for what it's worth. Now, I should've ditched this the moment I heard James Gunn had defended Marvel from the "accusations" Scorsese made toward it almost two years ago, saying that Martin did that to publicize his movie, which I think it's true. A guy making movies about mobsters all his life has to be a mobster himself. But that's beyond the point. Bringing that up after this long means only that is Gunn, the one who's in desperate need of some press. And, I get it desperation pushes you to do silly things. But it's embarrassing to "go against" Scorsese in such a lame and ignoble fashion when you have a perfectly well-constructed fanbase filled with rednecks that are going to love the movie and even complain of why isn't it longer. You have to be satisfied with that.

I might have gotten a migraine watching this movie, so bear with me while I try to explain it. This movie felt like some children were playing with their favorite action figures, creating these very random, mindless play scenes. - The giant star at the ending crashing the buildings reminded me of when Stitch from 'Lilo & Stitch' creates his play scene and destroys the cars and other toys. - And then someone who saw the children playing sat down and decided to put all those play scenes together, and that's the movie. - "Embrace the senseless action and the gorefest!" Some of the scenes have something severely wrong with them on some level, be it the writing, the acting, or the over-the-top action choreographies. Something else they did which is unforgivable is that they raped some of the songs they used here by playing them in the most unfitting moments possible. So, there is a lot they did wrong with this movie, and they had no right to because it hasn't been long since the last dumb 'Suicide Squad' film. The comics on which these characters are based must be phenomenal for these guys to attempt to bring them into the film realm this often because I don't want to believe they're making these films only because they know there is big money behind them.

The Green Knight (2021)

Lowery makes a statement here!

[9/10 · 19 August 2021]

Ah, finally, the first noteworthy new film after quite a while. I had this film buried in my watchlist for more than a year now, and lately, after the rave reviews that got from almost everyone, my need for watching it was soaring wild. A24 kept this from sliding it into any streaming platform and released it in cinemas only when the pandemic situation got a little "safer" because they were confident in the product they had in their hands. They knew how grand this is, and they wouldn't settle for passing it as a random release. And they were right! Part Tolkien, part Bergman, and part Lynch, 'The Green Knight' is a refreshing take on the medieval genre that merges both modern and old in creating a highly original, captivating cinematic delight.

Lowery is one of the most uncompromising directors working today. The unique, highly unconventional 'A Ghost Story' shows hints of the type of filmmaker he is as he goes into making a movie most directors wouldn't dare even think of doing. And yet, even though 'A Ghost Story' was original and uncompromising throughout, I feel like it didn't fully flash out Lowery's immense ingenuity. It would have to be this last film, the one that distinguishes and turns him into one of the most exciting contemporary directors. Here, David takes the adventure-fantasy genre and decomposes it to the point of throwing out the window the genre's crucial tropes.

So when I think of "adventure-fantasy," 'The Lord of the Rings' comes quickly to mind (obviously), and although 'The Green Knight' shares some DNA with it, for the most part, it differs a lot. What separates Lowery's medieval fantasy from what has come before in this genre is the lack of a clear, cohesive plot. The element of "cause and effect" is not fully embraced here. Things would happen, and they will not immediately get along with your common sense. A lot it's left in shadow. Lowery doesn't hold your hand throughout this film. Instead, he kicks you in the nuts and makes a run for it. David wants you to let the movie wash over you. He wants to trigger your intuition rather than your harsh, sound judgment. And you can read and interpret a lot in the way he does that, or you can shrug it off like shambolic and vague. I defend the first idea. I think that being ambiguous can swap with ease from a genial approach to a pretentious mess. But Lowery's poetic eye is not to be underestimated. He fills and riches the film with delicate symbolism, as he does in that magnificent shot that flips the landscape upside down as the protagonist was walking. You can interpret that as a parallelization of the transformation the protagonist was about to go through. But this is one of the "light" stylizations Lowery comes up with because, at times, he would go to almost Lynchian levels of surrealism here.

What I also found interesting here was Patel's performance. And this is another aspect that differentiates 'The Green Knight' from other medieval fantasy. 'The Green Knight' is not your typical adventure fantasy in how personal to the protagonist this journey is. We aren't dealing with the end of the world here, but with one's quest in responding to the honor, he so effortlessly gained. So it's a more intimate story and one that leaves room for the actor portraying the protagonist to take perfect charge and show himself. And Patel did so by delivering a sincere and vulnerable performance. As for the looks, the film is a visual wonder. I'm going to leave it at that. Ah, note that if you watch this during the daytime, I hope you have very dark curtains.

'The Green Knight' might not be the most accessible film you can come across. Lowery's odd spin on the genre lets a lot of room open for interpretations. The film is challenging to say the least. Alongside the shallowish plot, there's also the slow pace that demands patience. So, I think that most of the audience won't celebrate this, but I loved it. The ground of philosophy Lowery steps upon here - and he does it with such a simple premise - it's unbelievable! I was expecting this film to be good, but at the same time, I was a bit skeptical about it, and what a surprise I got. It's like Lowery received guidance through some divine intervention from Bergman himself. What an ending! - can't stop thinking about this!

Tenet (2020)

Muscular filmmaking!

[6/10 · 30 November 2020]

Tenet is Nolan's visually most breathtaking film, but it lacks heart and emotion. Think of it as a bombshell you'd like to be seen around with, but not as someone with whom you'd want to spend your midnights talking.

Nolan is one of the few directors who can bring everybody to watch his films and create a cinematic momentum in the film world. And he is doing that consistently, ever since he made The Dark Night, the movie that elevated him to the stratosphere where he takes residence to this day. Now, although his films are some of the biggest money-makers in the business, I consider Nolan to be a slightly above average filmmaker.

I used to love Nolan's films, but as I've been rewatching some of his movies lately, now I think that they are some of the most boring films ever. The concept and the story are exciting, but all the freaking dialogue ruins everything. Gallons and gallons of exposition that feel forced in the mouth of the characters is not good writing. Nolan's characters feel very cartoonistic. If you check, except for Heath Ledger, none of the actors portraying Nolan's characters hasn't been nominated for an Oscar. Nolan has worked with some of the best actors in Hollywood, but he has failed in pushing them to give their best.

His writing is always on behalf of the plot. He is a cerebral, plot-driven filmmaker, and the concepts he comes up with for his movies are mind-consuming, but something lacks in his films. To present his invigorating and complicated ideas, he has to sacrifice his characters. His characters are just pawns he uses to explain and further the plot. They don't feel real. They feel robotic, out of touch with the way people act in their everyday life. There are so many cringe lines in his writing that sometimes come out of nowhere. I can't forget this vomit-worthy moment in the movie Interstellar. I'm talking about the "love transcends dimensions" scene. That is more painful to me than the slow-motion moments in the Indian telenovelas. But it seems that the average audience has no problem with Nolan's lovey-dovey touch on the dialogue.

Tenet is nothing new in terms of how Nolan approached the storytelling/plot-structure. Here Nolan decides to keep us in the dark for a bit more than usual, and I think that's what drags this film down. If we would have known more about the characters and about what this story is about from the very beginning, we'd have felt for the characters more. We get to know everything only later on in the film, when Nolan explains in luxurious details, as always. Nolan doesn't believe much in his audience. It's like he creates these very complex stories about scientific stuff, and then he sits down and thinks: "Oh wait, I'm not making this movie only for the people who have a Ph.D. in physics." And then, in his attempt to make his movies accessible for broader audiences, he ruins them a bit.

What I liked here were the mesmerizing color palettes. I think that the color palettes in most of Nolan's films (Dunkirk excluded) are a bit messy, not very well thought-out, but here they are very alluring. I liked the whole look of the film and the vibe of the images. Also, the score is almost as good as in any other Nolan film. Ludwig Göransson was very important in giving Nolan a better grip on the overall theme of the film. The score is gripping, suspenseful, and exciting. Yet another exceptional piece for Göransson to add to his body of work.

I am very disappointed. I was hoping for Nolan to keep up at least close to the level of Dunkirk, but nope, he goes old Nolan here again. He went back at the Nolan that strikes for grand audiences by being politically correct and sentimental in the cheesiest way. Yes, those are the two most important details for a blockbuster movie, Nolan style.

The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020)

Nice effort but I was expecting more.

[6/10 · 17 October 2020]

The Trial of the Chicago 7 is the typical Hollywood film. Sorkin plays it too safe. Much like last year's Ford v Ferrari, this film falls on the monotony of that tedious and overdone Hollywood movie formula.

We're talking Aaron Sorkin here, so let's talk about the script. As you should expect, Sorkin did a fine job, but I'm not impressed, and I think that this is not Sorkin at its finest. The writing is a bit too self-indulgent. Sorkin is in an urge to display his razor-sharp lines of dialogue, but those lines are all over the place, and they don't feel to come naturally and organically. Also, what I noticed is that those sharp lines can come from everybody. Everyone here is witty, and that I'm afraid, that does not speak well for Sorkin. Because he "arms" everyone with these sharp lines, but to do so, he must have deviated a bit from doing justice to the characters. Here Sorkin seems not to care much about preserving the authenticity of his characters, as long as his witty lines get to take place. And I get it, everybody likes to let loose, but man, you got to read the room.

The acting also is not something I would point out as done very well, and I don't blame the actors for the most part. I think that Sorkin didn't do a good enough job of directing them. Jeremy Strong did better when compared to the rest of the cast, but again, I think that no matter how good the actors would have been, it's Sorkin that doesn't get the better of them. Sorkin's direction lacks focus and dynamic. For the most part, he did a good job here, but I think - this being his second effort from the director's chair - that he should be better at staying in the shoes of the screenwriter.

The Trial of the Chicago 7 is a very redundant film. It adds nothing new to the game. Things being as they are this year, with the whole pandemic situation that has made a lot of movies to be postponed, this film might get some Oscar nomination in the technical categories. But I don't think that the movie has what it takes to create a legacy like some of the other Sorkin's works have.

I Killed My Mother (2009)

A grounded and personal story told on a small scale but never lacking passion and honesty.

[7/10 · 9 August 2020]

Anyway, I think it's a bit overrated, people talking about this film and making it sound like it's something so special. I think that a lot of people are blown away by the fact that Dolan made this film when he was barely out of his teens. And yes that's a big deal, but if we are judging the film not knowing who was behind it, I think that the impact wouldn't have been the same.

Hereditary (2018)

I have held Get Out like the best horror film of this past decade, but I'm not sure about that after this fourth watch of Hereditary.

[9/10 · 9 August 2020]

I consider Hereditary to be more a compelling character drama, rather than a straight-up horror film. Even the way the film is lighted it's not that of a typical horror. In most horror films the lighting is very dark, in order to create a more ominous and treacherous atmosphere, but this film is considerably brightly lit, looking even more like a drama. A drama with horror elements, that don't kick in until the third act of the film.

What I like about Hereditary is that it stands out from the usual James Wan horror movie formula we have been used to seeing, loaded with so many jump scares. It's rare to find a horror film where the main purpose of it, it's not scaring the viewer, but telling the story in the best way possible, and if the viewer gets some scary chills along the way, all the better. I like the way the film opens, with the camera creeping into the miniature house, suggesting that there might be something odd going on with that place. It is the perfect way for setting the mood of the film, and this odd and "unsafe" feeling we get from those first shots, stays with us for the rest of the road.

What keeps this movie together is the directing. The directing it's nothing flashy like it is in, for example, Get Out, but it is bold, it lingers when it needs to, it closes in when it needs to, and it gets uncomfortably close when it needs to (the grief scene). Ari did an amazing job with this film, and he did well with Midsommar also, and now stands alongside Peele and Eggers as one of the best directors when it comes to horror.

Aster did great writing and directing the movie, but the one that shines above all in this film is its lead actress Toni Collette. She is phenomenal here, waltzing around and owing every scene she's in. There is one scene in particular that I consider it to be one of the best scenes from this past decade, and it is all because of Toni's outrageous and demanding performance (the arguing scene with Alex Wolff's character). She was like "I'm going to take a solo now guys, watch me, but try on keeping your jaws off the floor". And the academy not nominating her was an act of war that everybody let it slide.

Hereditary is a gripping horror, it's a challenging film that it's not afraid to take risks. The film "plays" with the viewer, changing in between its acts the usual horror elements, from psychological to the supernatural, giving the audience a hard time deciding whether they're watching a harrowing drama or an abnormal horror. But I think that it's always good to trust your public, and I'm glad they decided to do so here. They made some smart decisions in this film and created something truly special, a gem for every film-lover to marvel at.

Shame (2011)

I don't know but for some reason, I keep coming back to this film, and no it's not the reason you're thinking.

[8/10 · 9 August 2020]

Steve McQueen is such a unique and talented filmmaker. I like the way he is able to exhibit and transmit real behavior in this film because it's very hard to do it in the way he does it. He does it using long-takes to the absolute limit because there is one scene here when it looks like he just drops the camera in one place, and he doesn't move it throughout the whole scene, and the scene it's seven minutes long. But it's perfect because has it been shorter he wouldn't have got his point across and it would have been boring if it would have been longer.

With what I completely fell in love within this film it's the score. The score utterly manages to convey the sad and melancholic emotional state of the main character. There is something enigmatic but completely alluring about the score that always gets me - it's one of my most favorite scores.

I think that Michael Fassbender is one of the most underappreciated actors of the past decade. If he were a black person I am absolutely one-hundred percent sure that Spike Lee would have made a movie of how Fassbender was shamefully snubbed by the Oscars. His performance here is, not to exaggerate, breathtaking. He is naturally compelling. I think that his face has that look when you can tell that it has a lot going on underneath it, making him easily the perfect choice for this character.

Shame has one of the best character examinations I've seen, and I think that it is a must-watch film for everyone.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Movie magic.

[10/10 · 11 July 2020]

How do you put statistics on this one? This isn't measurable, because this is the art of human at its most daring and uncompromising state.

I felt bad in the end of the film because I was thinking of what a talent Kubrick was, because of the way he changed cinema and because of how much he has influenced filmmakers, and it seems that everybody takes that for granted. They don't take it for granted really, but it sure feels like that because no matter how much you talk about Kubrick's talent and his achievements, it will never be enough to match his ingenuity, his knack for originality and so on.

Inception it's a fantastic film, it destroyed ratings and blew everyone away when it came out, but think of how much Nolan borrowed from other films on it. You see "parts" of Paprika in it and you even see "parts" of 2001 in it as well. And I'm not saying that it was a piece of cake making a movie like Inception, because although Nolan did borrowed a lot, he did a great job at attaching and orchestrating everything in the right way. But when Kubrick made 2001 the world had never seen nothing like it before, there is sheer originality and imagination in it and it all came from inside of Kubrick, and I can't find the right word to describe what does that mean, especially because of the time of when it was made. And no matter how many directors will try to imitate him, they will never come close on reaching him, it's as if they follow him on Facebook and he comes out on Twitter - one of a kind.

When you think of all of the great directors, Hitchcock, Fellini, Kurosawa and others, you would notice that the type of films they made were very similar. What I admire about Kubrick is that every movie he made was so different from each other, and they were all masterpieces. You can't find a more diverse director than him, always extending himself, playing with the genres like they were his yo-yos - he doesn't make the other directors feel in awe of him, he makes them wear diapers. He was such a virtuoso, always challenging himself on doing something new, and he did it with an ungodly artfulness and that makes him in my eyes the greatest director that ever lived.

Filmmakers are storytellers, they 'tell' stories. In 2001 Kubrick decides not to tell, he goes even further and instead of telling he 'shows'. That's the reason why a lot of people find 2001 an empty film, because when you don't tell but show, you do not give away your point of view, therefor there is not a message for people to absorb it directly, they have to figure it out on their own. And this remands me of a great quote I read during my university days, "The best teachers are those who show you where to look, but don't tell you what to see. ", and that's exactly what Kubrick did with 2001.

2001 it's his most superlative work, a film for the ages. All of his films are amazing but with this one he had the audacity to break boundaries of film and he did it in such a poetic way, for one to just watch and admire.

Cinema Paradiso (1988)

One of all time Italians best films.

[9/10 · 1 July 2020]

I have never been a big fan of Italian cinema, but I liked this one and because of that I think that it's safe to say now that if a film it's about cinema I'll end up loving it. But Cinema Paradiso it's about much more than that.

Rarely do you come across with a film done with so much love as this one. I didn't looked it up on the internet, but I bet this story must have been very personal to Tornatore. Personal for the director but not only, every film lover will find this film a bit relatable. The film it's about love, love for cinema and above all it's about friendship. It's one of those rare films that will make you feel a ton of different emotions, but with an effortless grace it will never let you put your smile away from beginning to end.

I loved everything about this movie, the cinematography, the production design, the music, everything, but above all I loved the storytelling. Tornatore does such a great job at putting you in perspective to the main character since the very beginning. He dictates the film with such passion that evokes real genuine emotions, using editing superbly well, as he did for example in the scene when Toto leaves. He cuts the scene exactly when Toto it's in the train looking at everybody he's leaving behind and immediately after that we see the airplane that it's bringing him back - the film it's full of perfect moments like this.

A melancholic film, a bittersweet film, a film that is consistently funny and sad at parts. And that ending, it is amongst all the perfect moments of this film, the greatest one.

One Piece: Stampede (2019)

Absolute garbage

[1/10 · 25 June 2020]

This is the result when you make a herculean effort to look stupid, a normal effort to look this bad wouldn't do. I am not a big fan of shounen anime, I try to avoid films like this, but today I took a leap as they say and tried something fresh - it was anything but that. It's the same story repeated all over again. The world of One Piece it is filled with villains that are waiting for their turn to be beaten by the good guys, it's too stupid. I understand that the film works fine on sales, no matter how bad it is the money is good so they don't need to challenge themselves into creating something really artful, but they are filmmakers, they are supposed to love film - I don't know how they don't try on pushing themselves because I refuse to believe this is their true potential. One of the worst films ever, even the animation it's bad.

Da 5 Bloods (2020)

First of the biggies of the year and it didn't let me down.

[8/10 · 13 June 2020]

I loved the first half. The first half it's calmer than what comes after it. In the first half the dialogue it is solid, it is slow paced, it requires you to put some effort into holding on to it, but it was interesting because Spike knows how to write rich characters, so even though slow I didn't found it boring at the slightest. I liked the way the film is structured. Spike wanted to make something special, and he has made something special, it's just that the way that some scenes are presented in the second half really disappointed me.

The second half, and my problem with the film, it could have been so much better. Some scenes are so naive, they stand out from the overall tone of the film and the worst part yet is that I think that those scenes could have been handled in a better way with so ease, and I'm mad at Spike for not seeing that. I'll put it like this, the first half it has the seriousness of let say Apocalypse Now (minus the eerie tone) and in the second half you find scenes to the level of dullness you would find in a movie like Tropical Thunder. It's not to make such a big deal of, because the film works fine, but I really would have liked for those scenes to have been executed in a different way.

The strongest aspect of the film it's the writing. Here is another proof that Spike is a better writer than he is a director. It felt so comfortable watching this war veterans talk and interact with each other and that's because Spike and his buddies knew how to write them and make everything look natural and organic. Both the score and the songs work perfectly for the tone of the film, they are the best part of the film next to the writing.

This is easily the best film so far this year, even though that's not saying much taking into account the low amount of films that have been released this year so far.

Do the Right Thing (1989)

A tick on the "ORIGINAL" box.

[9/10 · 5 June 2020]

20 minutes into it and I had to pause the movie to check how old Spike Lee was when he made this, because he produced, directed, wrote, and stared in it and he looks like he is 20 years old in it. I checked and it turned out that he was 30-31 when he made it, immediately I was feeling a litter better about myself.

The film it's very different, it's very stylish and it really stands out from everything that I've seen. I loved the dialogue, it's by far the strongest aspect of the film, it feels smart, slick and above all real. What I also liked a lot are the new angles that they came up for putting the camera. I usually don't like when a director goes a little above his head and experiments with the camera movements and placements, but I liked the way they shot this film.

I really had to struggle for a moment in the end to not be mad with Spike for giving the police officers the perfect excuse for what they did, he really is a sneaky, frustrated guy for the way he wrote the mess that happened.

Overall, it is a great movie. I haven't seen much of Spike's work because he tends to make films that are politically heavy and I am not a fan of that particular sub-genre, anyway, now I can't wait for Da 5 Bloods.

Capote (2005)

Such a depressing film.

[7/10 · 25 May 2020]

In a very odd way I can't help but connect with these characters. For me the film it's about looking for kindness and trying to understand everyone, that's with what I came out from this film.

Hoffman is one of my most favourite actors, he was a character actor and a pretty good one. Prior to Capote he would have had mostly minor roles, but even though those roles were so small he would put a lot of effort in them, and that is why I liked him so much. In Capote he shows of what he's was made of, carrying the film on his shoulders, because although Catherine Keener was nominated for her performance (I guess it would have been a weak year for supporting actresses), Capote is a one-man show.

Amazing performance. Maybe it's my current mood for finding the movie depressing and a bit boring, but although depressing, much like Miller's other work the film it is a bold effort.

The Player (1992)

Hugh Grant was hilarious, nevermind.

[8/10 · 21 May 2020]

I really liked that opening scene with that long take showing everyone as they were getting to work. What was special about that scene is the way that everyone's sentences overlap with one another, they were all talking at the same time and that felt like real life dialogue. One thing I think film can do really well, better than any other medium is capture the reality of conversations. In a book no matter how you lay it out, one piece of dialogue has to follow an other, you can't simulate people talking over each other, which is what we all do all the time. I don't see it very after this kind of realistic dialogue, and that is why I applaud the director and the writer here, they really had an ear for real life dialogue. The film has a particular tone since the very start and doesn't lose it throughout the whole running time. I think that the writing is done really well, undoubtedly the best aspect of the film, the characters feel real and I really liked Richard E. Grant's character, he was really hysterical. Overall it is one of the most enjoyable films I've seen recently, I love movies about Hollywood.

Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (2019)

Tarantino at his finest.

[9/10 · 21 May 2020]

DiCaprio and Pitt for the first time in a film together and further more the film is written and directed by the 'dialogue master' Tarantino. The thing I love the most in a film are the characters. The more hysterical the better and you have some of the most hysterical characters in Tarantino's films. So yes this was my most anticipated film ever. And the film does do deliver. The acting is really good by the entire cast especially by DiCaprio, a lot of people are saying that Pitt steals the show with his performance but I don't see that. I think Tarantino could pushed them a bit further but then again it is fine, I'm content with what I got. The slow pacing in the film might get some people off, because Tarantino takes his time here, but I myself think that the pacing is perfect. And as in any other Tarantino film the music choices are really good, they fit very well to the tone of the film. Overall it is a bold film, I had a great time watching it, it's easily Tarantino's most enjoyable film since Pulp Fiction and even though it's not as exquisite and eloquent as Pulp Fiction it might be as rewatchable, we'll see.

The Irishman (2019)

An old cast and crew come together to make probably the last movie of it's kind.

[8/10 · 21 May 2020]

The movie is a true achievement. There isn't a false note here. The only problems I had with this film are the prolonged ending and the young computer generated De Niro, Pesci and Pacino. Although everyone is praising the VFX's work up and down in the internet, I think that they haven't done a very good job. Maybe they have done the best that could have done, all I'm saying is that De Niro looks like an old guy throughout the entire film. Now I loved the acting, all the cast did an amazing job. Joe Pesci killed it. He is extraordinary here, very believable. The role of the mature mob boss suits him perfectly and to me he gave the best performance. De Niro is also good. He has been playing so many gangster roles over the years, he looks like he is home when he's underneath the skin of this guys. Pacino played my favourite character in this film and although his performance is very decent I think that he has less chances of getting an Oscar nod than the other two legends. What I also want to point out is the production design. I think that they nailed it, the buildings, the streets, the cars and the whole set is done really well. Overall I think that this is a very well made film, that will surely test the patience of the average movie goer, it tested mine during the last 30 minutes.

Ad Astra (2019)

Cold and heartwarming at the same time.

[9/10 · 21 May 2020]

I have seen only The Lost City of Z and Two Lovers from James Gray's filmography and those are both decent films. You can see that the director has a very powerful and rare style of filmmaking. He likes to take his time in his films, he uses long shots, he doesn't like telling you what is going on, he challenges you on figuring that out on your own. But although his prior two films are very well made films I think that with Ad Astra he has outdone himself. Movies like Ad Astra require a bold vision that can come only from the director and I think that Gray had that vision in this film and executed it perfectly. In my opinion this is the best directed film of the year. What I'm most impressed other than directing, is the cinematography. This movie is gorgeous. The shots are amazing to look at. People are saying that they borrowed a lot from A Space Odyssey and I agree that some shots are very similar, but that's beside the point. Brad Pitt gave a very good performance. I liked him here even more than in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. Along side the director he carried out this film. I am not quite sure but I think that there isn't a scene that he is not at during the movie. He got a lot of screening time and he managed it very well. Overall this is a very well made film, it's definitely one of the best of the year and Gray's masterpiece.