MaesterFilm Reviews

Septembers of Shiraz (2015)

Boring film

[3/10 · 23 February 2017]

I'm not Iranian nor Jewish or do I have anything to do with this production. This movie is just boring. The script itself leaves a lot to be desired.

This script should not have been made into a film. In truth, this film is so-so and fails compared to a real documentary. In entertainment, this film film fails completely compared to better films from the US and Iran.

Production-wise it's a mixed bag. I don't fault them for hiring non-Iranian actors or using English, that is, I don't dock points, but they don't get bonus points for using English. All these small things add up. The place doesn't look like Iran and they didn't even try that hard. I see a better effort from a TV "small screen" shows like Tyrant and Homeland than this supposed "big screen" Hollywood film.

There are obviously 10 star reviews from people that liked the films message more than they liked the film. Yes, the regime sucks. Yes, looting is bad. No, the movie still sucks.

Rotten Tomatoes: 33% Metacritic: 16% Guardian, Roger Ebert, etc. 1/5 or so.

It's not "polarizing," it's just a crappy film in a world filled with great films, great TV shows and great documentaries.

Soul Kitchen (2009)

Encyclopedia of Clichés

[5/10 · 19 February 2017]

This film started so well that it was beginning to look like a hidden gem, a classic in the making. I give this film 5 stars out of 10, but I have to say that the 5 stars are for the first 30 minutes, which were so well done. The remaining 60 minutes deserve a zero.

The comedy is not funny. Slapstick and cheap laughs. Everything is so predictable that we were trying to take bets on the story in the middle of the film, but no one wanted to take any bets. We were all on the same page and guess what? Every single thing we predicted happened. Predicting one thing or another is fine, but not everything.

The movie just drags and drags without direction. You're not sure if it's a story of two Greek brothers, a story of a couple, a story of another couple or a story of a restaurant and a rag-tag team of staff that turn a failure around.

Everything is so contrived you wouldn't believe it. Sometimes in life you can make decisions or take actions that COULD lead to something bad happening. There is that risk in life. But in this film characters take "chances" that almost guarantee an unwanted event. As in, the director wants this event to happen so he has to find a sure-fire way to make it happen. So the characters take actions to ensure this event, even though it is not in their personality to do so.

The expression Americans now use is "because script." People do things that don't make any logical sense in their world, but it makes sense "because script" says so. There was also one bit of incredibly amateur screen writing - a character in another country knew a piece of information that (s)he could not have known in real life (unless they had access to the script somehow!).

The music scenes are too long, some reviewers say "the female characters are flat and without depth" - well you gotta take a closer look at the male characters, friends, because they're cardboard caricatures just the same.

The cinematography and camera work were really good. Locations too. But you can't get too many points for that.

It's a wanna-be feel-good movie that fails terribly at making you feel good or at entertaining you in most ways.

Hopefully someone takes the idea from the first 30 minutes and does something else with it.

Twister (I) (1996)

Why is there a team of evil meteorologists?

[5/10 · 7 February 2017]

The problem with this film is that it was not written as a tornado film, it was probably written with a generic plot generator where you have to fill in the name of the sport, um, event and it would generate a plot.

In this case, we have a team of good meteorologists and a team of evil meteorologists who accepted corporate financing and "do it just for the money." What? They do their job for money? As opposed to what? They accepted corporate money, so what? Is it a bad thing that corporations are funding research that helps save lives?

This evil team is doing the exact same research as the good guys, so what's the harm in it? And who funds the team of good guys? Not explained. The bad guys are bad guys because the film says they are. At the end of the day they do the same work, using the same techniques. It would be like saying "he's an evil doctor. He only work for money." I would have serious doubts about gynecologists that do it for the love of the job and have no interest in a salary.

The generic plot doesn't stop there. There is some ridiculous love triangle that makes no sense. Bill is engaged and is about to get married, he just needs a signature from his ex-wife. She refuses to sign over and over, "forgetting" a page, etc. but we are never told why. She doesn't really show much of an interest towards him. She just doesn't to sign the papers for some reason. Then he leaves his fiancée for his (ex-? current) wife. His fiancée is there just so that he doesn't appear too desperate running back to his wife. Supposedly he loves her, yeah, right. And supposedly she loves him, uh-uh. But then she just says "I'm leaving." She says she can't compete with his current wife. She's not really in love with him and it doesn't make her sad. He doesn't get sad either. I don't know what kind of relationship this is or why this is in this film. Two people that are getting married for...? What exactly?

Great films are based on hard choices. Stay or leave. This person or that person. This movie runs away from the difficult choices - everything resolves itself by itself without anyone needing to take a decision. The evil guys go on a suicide mission and get killed by a tornado. His fiancée leaves by her own volition. His wife just falls in love with him by default, as does he. The machine they built just works. They got the data they need. Everything just works out.

There are never any difficult choices anyone has to make. This man is not torn between two women. He has no interest in his fiancée. He even lets her drive alone while he drives with his wife. The evil team is there just in the background. They do not offer him a position, try to lure some of his teammates or present any kind of competition whatsoever. They're there, they're evil, then they die.

It's all like that. The backstories are just as ridiculous. Jo's dad died in a tornado and that's what made her want revenge, I mean to research tornadoes? So predictable.

There's a scene where the whole team is eating and they explain to his noob fiancée about the tornado scale. They talk about F3 and F4. She says "Did anyone see an F5?" and the whole table goes quiet, everyone stops eating. It's so cheesy.

The music was good, but that's about it.

A Separation (2011)

It puts the D in Drama

[10/10 · 5 February 2017]

This is what all drama films should be. I went into this movie not knowing anything. The intro credits showed some names, I didn't recognize a single one of them. Doesn't matter.

I take it back, this film is what all movies should be. It's built around a script and a solid story, not on bankable names, famous faces and such. It's a story about something entirely new, not something that is en vogue right now (zombies, terrorism, vampires, etc.) It tells a universal story, one of marriage and divorce, one of loyalty to one's principles or to one's family, making the characters having to choose between very difficult choices - father or wife for Nader, mother or father for his daughter, debtor's jail and financial ruin or blood money and sin, truth or lies, and all the dancing in the gray in the middle.

This film is specifically set in a particular context, modern-day Iran, not something that is set in anywhereville, devoid of any references, nor does it choose Iran just as a backdrop to tell a story. Iran, its culture and legal system, is the setting and so the characters have to play within the rules of that game. Iran here is the chessboard. Setting the story elsewhere would've made it an entirely different film, even if the ideas of this film are universal.

There are so many layers here - a legal system that puts the accusers and defendants front and center without any lawyers, courts that do swear in witnesses before testimony, letting them tell the court the truth, half-truths and lies with the judge to decide, there's the legal power of the judge to hold people in contempt but also the informal power of people to beg for clemency, there's a completely informal, cultural system of settlements done outside the legal system, then there's religion and the Quran, where defendants who may lie to their spouses, friends or the court system have serious reservations about lying under oath or accepting blood money.

Note: The subtitles I read used the word "blood money" to refer to the payment made by a defendant to a victim or victim's family to settle a case, in this case a miscarriage. The term "blood money" is also used (in some translations) for bad or cursed money that was gained through criminal means or deceit. In this case, the victim refused to accept a settlement because she could not swear under oath that she lost her fetus in the confrontation. Lying under oath would, in this culture, risk her living daughter's health or well-being.

You do not need to know all these cultural details because the film presents them to you, not in an expositional way, but in a real life way. "I can't take that (bad) money, what if something happens to my daughter?"

The intertwining of all these layers, customs, laws and traditions, makes this a really interesting story. A purely legal drama done with courts and lawyers would not have been that interesting. A purely mediator-based story about two parties arguing for settlement would not have been better.

I wish more filmmakers would watch this film and learn. I see a lot of mediocre films and directors hiding behind the excuse of small budgets.

100 Streets (2016)

Don't watch this film. It's just not good. Only one minor spoiler

[3/10 · 5 February 2017]

I read some bad reviews for this film but as a fan of Elba I just covered my eyes and ears and said "nananana." I was wrong.

This film is just not good. If you've seen the trailer, that's about it. The whole film is in there.

The production qualities are high, the acting is mostly good, but the film is less than the sum of its parts. They should've focused on one story and expanded on it, instead of getting hints, glimpses and slices of different, completely-unrelated lives.

SPOILER I thought the stories would be intertwined, a sort of cause-and-effect type thing like many films do, but no. The stories happen in parallel. They don't really affect one another. This film could've been presented as a bunch of short films about people in London and they would've been rated poorly. END SPOILER

There simply isn't enough time to deal with all these stories. If you think that 90 minutes is enough time to deal with a failing marriage and affairs, a death, a misfit in a lethal street gang and a few subplots (if you can call them that) then this film is for you.

The trailer made it look to be all about Elba and probably revealed most of the Elba stuff. The rest is just inconsequential. The film consists of several subplots and has no major plot or overarching narrative.

It's sad to waste all the talent that went into this film - actors, director, crew, etc. when the script is so horrendously poor.

Elle (I) (2016)

Not a comedy, not for everyone - very, very light spoilers

[6/10 · 5 February 2017]

This is a good film. Don't expect to be wowed, but go in with no expectations and expect to be pleasantly surprised.

The story is non-conventional, dealing with difficult themes but in a very strange way. It does court controversy a little, but not needlessly.

I don't want to spoil the film for potential viewers but the film is not "difficult" or "painful" to watch. There are some scenes and themes that are meant for mature audiences but they're presented in a neutral, very distant light. You are more of a cold observer than anything.

There is no "gratuitous nudity" - I think people don't understand what gratuitous means. These are adult, middle-aged people having normal lives. There are only flashes of nudity here and there (sometimes really less than a second) but that's it.

I was not disturbed nor offended by the unconventional behavior of the protagonist. I think it's more offended to say that all victims behave the same and that there is a template for victim behavior that this film should've followed. Every person is different. Sometimes people do the strangest things. The media is filled with real life rape accusers coming forward that simply cannot explain their subsequent behavior toward their rapists. People have all kinds of defense mechanisms. They don't just curl up into the fetal position and cry in the shower.

My issues with this film is that there are many sub-plots and they don't tie in well with the story. The sub-plots are either given too much time for something that doesn't tie in or not enough time for them to be tied in. They're in the middle of nowhere.

This film also does something interesting in letting your mind play tricks on you, making you see everyone as a potential rapist in a crazy whodunnit as the world goes on.

This film is not for everyone.

I'm a person who couldn't handle Irréversible but this particular film was not a problem for me. It presents a heavy issue in a light way, and even though it may not be 100% realistic, I have to concede that we wouldn't want something too realistic anyway.

Shutter Island (2010)

Not a great film

[5/10 · 4 February 2017]

As a fan of the Scorsese-DiCaprio partnership (Departed, Aviator, Gangs of New York, etc) as well as their separate works (Casino, Goodfellas) (Inception, Blood Diamond, Catch Me If You Can) I thought this film would be a slam dunk success. The ratings show that it is, but it simply isn't.

The plot is so obvious, so predictable, it is hinted at, then basically shown and then hammered on over and over and over until you get it. The twist is an acknowledgment of what you've already been told many times over. It is the equivalent of the twist of Titanic being that the crew were not prepared for this and many are going to die.

This film is proof that Scorsese can do no wrong. No really. People will like whatever he does. He can release a weak film with a big name and people will still give it 10 stars.

The Immigrant (2013)

Really boring film

[5/10 · 2 February 2017]

The acting is good, the production is good, the script is not and so the film is a dud.

The film deals with a difficult subject matter but does not present it in a way that is entertaining or enlightening. It's just cheap emotions and melodrama, searching for emotional payoff without any of the set up.

It just tries to tug at your heart strings. Nothing more.

I can't believe how much praise this film has got. It's really a soapy melodrama for people that don't watch day-time soaps. You can cut a soap to 2 hours instead of a million episodes, you could hire big stars, you could use film instead of digital, you could play it at night instead of daytime, show it in the theater instead of on TV, but soap is soap.

How do you say "soap" in Polish?

Conspiracy Theory (1997)

6.7/10? Nopes. Too much.

[5/10 · 31 January 2017]

I looked at the score of this film before watching it. 6.7/10, I thought, can't disappoint me. I know what I'm getting and I know what I'm in for. If it were rated 10, I'd expect a disappointment. If it were rated 4, I'd steer clear. I thought 6.7 was a fair rating.

It's not. The film is less about conspiracy and more of a combination of action, car chase, random fights, guns, NYC street hacks, etc. It wants it to be about the big bad government, especially security agencies, but doesn't go too far with it to not upset people.

It's too theatrical for my liking. A government agency has Doctor Jonas, an evil scientist who interrogates Fletcher (Gibson). Fletcher escapes, so Doctor Jonas conducts the investigation in finding him. Then Doctor Jonas conducts the manhunt to get Gibson. What? Is he or isn't he a doctor? Aren't there other agents that are better at this? Isn't the doctor part of his name mean that he's hired to do medical stuff, not conduct manhunts? Oh, this is one of those agencies where only one guy is in charge, he does everything himself, and everyone else is his goon. He has no superiors, no directives, no one to report to.

The big names ruin the picture. Mel Gibson, Julia Roberts and Patrick Stewart are too high profile for this picture. I'm just not buying Gibson as a cabbie, sorry. Their forced attraction feels forced. I don't see him being attracted to her at all.

Ultimately, this film is not entertaining. The mystery isn't that much of a mystery because everything is solved through action, not through investigation. This is a film about conspiracies, but the cabbie solves things by blocking a bridge with his car and running or tying a hot dog stand to an undercover car so that it drags it across the street.

Not entertaining, not enlightening, not anything.

American Beauty (1999)

Well-made but ultimately pointless film.

[4/10 · 31 January 2017]

This film is well acted and well directed, but what is the point of the story?

It's not a particularly interesting take on the suburban dystopia. What it says is all cliché, there is nothing new. Cheating wife, husband with terrible job, sexual frustration, bored teenager, yeah, nothing new so far. Extremist neighbor who is a closeted, self-hating homosexual, this is also old. The daughter is friends with a moody emo teen that wants to run away and sexually promiscuous and morally vacuous friend girlfriend.

It plays like theater but it's not really funny.

It attempts to be subversive but it really isn't. A mid-life crisis is not really subversive in any way.

A more interesting story would be if Lester's acting out was expanded upon. For example, he works in a fast food store. Let him become friends with the teens there, sharing joints during lunch break, exchanging non-elevator music, etc. Let him become friends with a bunch of punks and misfits, showing his own sense of being an outcast. Maybe the teens are using him, maybe he's using them. Maybe they think he's cool, maybe they don't, or maybe they don't care and don't judge him and that's what he likes. Maybe he uses the settlement money to fund Ricky Fits' first film. Maybe he meets a young girl at the burger joint.

I'm just throwing ideas around to explain the lack of consequence in this film. He quits his job, his wife gets angry, but there's no consequence. He works at a fast food joint, sees his wife cheating, still no consequence. Nothing changes from these life-changing events.

The ending appears to be an intertwining of all the subplots, a domino effect of sorts, but it really isn't. Rejecting the colonel's sexual advances resulted in the colonel killing him. It's a random event. There is no buildup to it. The colonel coming to Lester comes out of nowhere, the kiss came out of nowhere and that's it.

Highly overrated film.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Terrible film, slow, long, uneventful and ultimately pointless

[3/10 · 29 January 2017]

I showed this film to some people who did not know it was Kubrick, so they gave it no extra hype bonus points from the martyrdom of Saint Stanley who died shortly after the making of this film.

Too long. The film is long in every way possible - total duration, scene length, dialogues. People speak slowly, with multiple breaks between every sentence or word, ask a single questions of 10 words over 30+ seconds. Everything is slow and labored.

The film is just slow. There's so much fat in every scene, so much that could be cut without losing anything from this film. Someone walking outside, fine, but 2 minutes and 20 seconds would tell the same thing.

There are very few events in this film. Things happen, but you really don't care about them. There are subplots that have nothing to do with anything in the story. The costume store story has no purpose. Cruise goes to rent a costume from a costume store, the owner of the store sees his underaged daughter having sex with two older men so he traps them in the store and continues doing business, threatening to call the cops. When Cruise returns the next day he sees the Johns leaving the store, thanking the owner, who tells Cruise that they worked it out financially before offering his (still underage) daughter's services to Cruise.

The music is beyond irritating - a single piano note being hit over and over.

So this is a 3 star film. They got some things right, mostly technical things, the acting is not bad, it's not the fault of the actors who did the best they could.

I cannot recommend it to anyone and I regret watching it.

Meet Joe Black (1998)

Pointless film - utterly and completely disappointing

[3/10 · 29 January 2017]

There really isn't any point in this film. The story is minimal, it's incredibly long and finally pointless.

Death comes to an old man nearing his birthday telling him he's going to die soon. The man's daughter is planning a lavish party for him, while his son in law (who works for him) is preparing a merger/take-over in his big business. The news of his imminent death changes him - he becomes distracted, disinterested in the lavish party and reverses his business decisions, he doesn't want the merger anymore.

The son-in-law organizes a boardroom coup to go through with the deal anyway. The daughter organizes the party anyway.

On the day of the lavish birthday party (during, actually) the old man foils the coup and ousts his son-in-law from the company. The company survives. The lavish party is nice. Then the old man dies.

That's the story. I missed the part where death dates his other daughter, but that's completely inconsequential to the story. Long story short, the daughter meets Brad Pitt in a cafe, he dies, death takes his body, now death visits her dad with Brad Pitt's body, dates his daughter with Brad Pitt's body (but death's personality), until the end where the old man dies. Then death leaves Brad Pitt's body for the original body and personality to come back and date the same woman again.

Long story short, it doesn't matter who you are as long as you have Brad Pitt's body. You can be a fan of coffee or a huge peanut butter fan, you could have a career as a pro-bono volunteer or be death itself, doesn't matter, the same girl will go out with you either way.

The film is filled with long epic, dramatic music, wailing violins and ends in the longest, cheesiest manner, fireworks and dramatic score music, as the old man dies and Brad Pitt returns to his long lost love who had a relationship two other men (her husband + death) in the mean time.

Speed (1994)

One of the best action films of all time

[8/10 · 27 January 2017]

Action is not one of my favorite genres of film but I really enjoyed this movie.

The action was amazing, it was actual action, thrilling high-stakes action, not a fight scene. I'm not a fan of two robots fighting and destroying an entire city, or fist fights between people on top of a train or any of that stuff that's been overdone to death. Those scenes have one inevitable result and you're just waiting for it to happen.

In this film the driver has to keep the bus going, but there are numerous challenges as the roads are not empty. It subverts the hostage situation in films, where the captor is actually there, often surrounded by police, and negotiates with a negotiator for his safe passage and ransom.

Here the hostages are on a bus, the negotiator is on the bus, but the captor isn't. We don't know where he is, so the police cannot send a SWAT team to fix this. They actually have to use their brains for this puzzle. Even the location of this thing is not stationary, so the cops can't cordon off the block, they have to clear the roads as much as they could.

Hostage films are usually about police that follow protocol, usually with a rogue negotiator who thinks outside the box to do it his own way and save the day. This film is about a situation for which there is no protocol and they have to think on their feet.

That's why it's interesting and worth the watch.

I give it 8/10. There are some flaws, such as the bad guy being a cheesy, stereotypical villain, among others, but it still is a great film.