Change Your Image
Shilo_R_A
I'm Shilo, and I'll probably write a review here and there.
Just looking out on the day of another dream~
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo (1966)
6.7/10 - The Embodiment of the Spaghetti Western
Sergio Leone is probably most famous spaghetti western director (western because it's taking place in "the wild west", and spaghetti because the directors were often Italian). He has directed some of the most critically acclaimed and widely loved films of all time - Once Upon a Time in America, Once Upon a Time in the West, and this one, which we'll soon get into. I didn't really know what to expect of this one, considering how the other Leone movies I've seen were very different from one another. Either way, this is the first movie I'm reviewing from the IMDb top 10, and I'm very, very hyped. Hopefully the end of this top 100 journey will be interesting.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a classic western - probably the most well-known western out there. The title refers to our three main characters: The Good is Blondie (Clint Eastwood) is the aloof, quiet, handsome outlaw, having more dignity and respect than your average criminal. The Bad is Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef), a cruel, calculated man who would plot his schemes with no mercy on any innocent bystander. And finally, the Ugly is Tuco Remirez (Eli Wallach), a Mexican criminal with a dirty mouth, all childish and barbaric, with a tidy sum on his head. The three characters, every one of them in his own fashion, discover some information about an unbelievable stash of gold that's hidden somewhere. Once they hear about it they all want to get to it, starting a journey full of dirty tricks, conflicting interests and badass gun duels.
The first thing I'd like to address here, since my intro is already touching the subject, is the cast. These three are basically the only main characters, and though the side actors generally give good performances, the main cast is great. It's not like the roles are the most emotionally nuanced thing in the world, but each of the main actors fits his character perfectly. Likely one of the main things that helped immortalizing this movie, and yeah, the cast deserves lots of praise for fitting into vibe of each character so smoothly.
Now, Mr. Leone, friend, I have a question for you: is it THAT hard to make a movie that's not long af? It's not like lengthy movies are inherently bad, but it does create a situation where you have to be spot on with everything, especially the pacing, since stuff that could be forgiven in a short movie becomes much more of a pain in a long one. Pacing-wise, I'd say that this one has its ups and downs. The first and the final act are both rather tight and well-structured, while the middle part, I feel, sidetracks more than it should, sometimes feeling a little too slow. Not a huge, glaring issue, but an issue it is.
Let's talk about vibes for a moment. When you think about the vibe that a western ought to have, you think of this rough, gritty badassness, the hot desert sun frying everything in the frame, a lone gunslinger looking into the distance. So yeah, this is exactly what this film is going for - in a way that probably has shaped every western, or western-adjacent movie to come for decades later. There's definitely something memorable here - many cool one-liners, badass shots, unexpected courses of action the make you go "woah". I'm overhyping it a bit. It's never reaching to mindblowing levels of badassness, but it has many fun moments and a gritty aesthetic. That's what I'm getting at.
One element of this film that you all know something about, probably, even if you haven't watched it yet, is the iconic soundtrack by Ennio Morricone. Once this recorder starts playing, you know that you've heard it before, that this soundtrack is the first auditory association you have to the word "western". It comes back as a motif through different instruments, and though it feels derivative once in a blue moon, mostly it works really well. And the score in the climax of the film, by the way, is absolutely phenomenal. This guy always delivers.
I make it rule to myself to never spoil anything I review, so I'll be really vague when talking about the climax of this movie: this iconic sequence, especially that famous scene, revolves around a situation that could really be shown to us in a manner that's a lot quicker. The slow-burning nature of the final act is really felt here, and I feel like this is worth mentioning. Pulling you in, guiding you from one person to the other, feeling almost like you can hear the wheels spinning inside their heads. Good stuff.
I hate to be saying it about so many movies lately, but there really is nothing else to it that I can put my finger on: It's just not enough to be really good for me. It's a really well-done western, like I said, but no aspect of it truly blew me away, made me get sucked into this movie, be fully immersed. I get why so many people find it iconic - it is - but I can't agree with it being one of the best movies ever. Not even close for me.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is the embodiment of the western classic. I can see how the cast, the soundtrack and some iconic moments helped to immortalize this movie in pop culture. Despite being pretty badass overall, I don't think it's a masterpiece - far from that - but it was a good watch, one that I mostly enjoyed, especially through the first and the final act. Feeling a 6.7/10 on this one.
Arrival (2016)
7.1/10 - Poses Interesting Questions Without Being Pretentious
Like I've already written in my review for Punch-Drunk Love, I'm taking a short break from the IMDb poster right now, so I can watch two movies that are less well-known and mainstream before diving right into the top 10. I've been planning on watching a Denis Villeneuve film for quite some time now, and Arrival seemed like a pretty good place to start, so yeah. I went for it.
The plot, adapted from a book called Story of Your Life, goes something like this: twelve alien ships have landed on Earth, their intentions unknown. Dr. Louise Banks (Amy Adams), a linguist who has helped the US government before, is required to try and communicate with the aliens - teach them our language, learn theirs, and to ultimately find out what is their purpose here. Working alongside Dr. Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner), an expert theoretic physicist, and under the watchful eye of the military, she has to find a way to make it all work out without it leading to global chaos.
It's quite ironic, but the first thing that came to my mind after watching Arrival for the first time was how Nolan-esque it is, in a sense, which is exactly what I've been trying to avoid when taking a break from the poster. The mix of philosophy and sci-fi (also something about the way that this film ends) made me think of Nolan. If you've read some of my Nolan reviews, you know what I dislike about his work - the way he puts a complex concept in the heart of the film instead of something with more meaning, often failing to create a strong emotional core, getting lost and tangled in advanced science and pretentious thought experiments. I'm glad to say that this is not exactly the case here. Let's get into what makes this one different.
First of all, this is a much humbler film than your usual sci-fi blockbuster. It had a budget of only 47 million USD, it takes place in a very small number of locations, with not too many characters in the cast, too. It focuses on communication, without getting lost in grand battles, and in this kind of story we get to focus on its philosophy and the questions that it brings to the table without feeling like the director constantly tries only to outwit us or to distract us with fancy visuals. This simplicity is not common in sci-fi films nowadays, and there's definitely something refreshing about it.
Saying that this is not an action-packed movie doesn't mean that it lacks conflict and tension. The politics, the mayhem that starts to take hold of society, the way that Louise's approach differs from the government's at times so much that it's like she fights against a cold, hard system, with the aliens looming at all times over the story, elusive, unclear. This focus on dialogue and politics, and the story being less grand and epic, allows the film to put more on the philosophical and sociological aspects without sacrificing the plot, and actually thus making a rather well-paced, engaging movie.
Regarding the characters themselves: I've heard an interview with Villeneuve or with someone else that was involved with the script, and he said there that they were writing Banks as a very general character, one that could represent anyone. I wouldn't say that the characters are completely blank here, but I'd say that this is definitely not the type of movie to make you analyze characters, but one that focuses more on society as a whole. The background story of Banks, with the way that the film ends, relates to that, too, and I feel like alongside the main themes in the movie, this aspect managed to dive into some themes that are more on the philosophical side, in a way that makes the main character more interesting. Yes, the ending's a little messy, but it's working well, overall.
The only aspect that truly impressed me here in a consistent way (even though I can say that this film is technically well-made in every aspect) is the sound here, both the soundtrack and the sound design. It's doing such a good job in creating this ominous, otherworldly feeling, with wailings of sorts that are as elusive as the aliens themselves: are they sorrowful, or is it just our imagination? Will they harm us? It just helps with the immersiveness of everything, especially in the scenes that include communicating with the aliens.
And, truly, when it comes to criticism towards this movie, nothing here - even the parts that are rather messier logically - is truly bad. Most of this film is just pretty good, and while definitely being far from a mind-blowing sci-fi masterpiece, it's an enjoyable watch that gives you some food for thought. I'll admit that I was hoping for more, especially with this being the first Villeneuve film I'm watching, but oh well. It is what it is.
Arrival is a solid sci-fi film, that look at the first-contact-with-aliens scenario from a perspective that we don't see often - linguistics. It's a rather humble film, without any grandeur, and it definitely poses some interesting questions about the way we communicate with each other. It doesn't reach a status of greatness for me, and no element of this movie is truly phenomenal, but it's worth watching. Feeling a 7.1/10 on this one.
Punch-Drunk Love (2002)
7.6/10 - Quite a Beautiful Love Story With Lots of Panic Attacks
So, before diving into the top 10 movies of the IMDb poster, I thought I'd take a break from it once more and watch two movies from my watchlist. Well, Punch-Drunk Love immediately stood out to me - because it's directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, who has directed two of my favorite movies (Magnolia and There Will Be Blood), but also because I already knew that this is a rather humble movie, production-wise, when compared to most films I've seen lately, so yeah, though t it might be a good chance to give it a watch. Let's dive into it.
Punch-Drunk Love follows Barry Egan (Adam Sandler), an awkward, anxious guy, who can't break out of his loneliness for quite some time now. One thing leads to another, and Barry now needs to deal both with a group of extortionists while starting to work towards what is potentially a new relationship with a girl named Lena (Emily Watson). His sisters bully him, his habits are not exactly fitting into social norms, and now he's forced to deal with all of it. Quite a lot, I'd say.
The first thing that came to my mind after watching this film for the first time was how peculiarly close it feels to a play, vibe-wise. After hearing Jon Brion likening this film to a musical of sorts (more on that later), I think that it finally clicked for me. There's something about the pacing, the small amount of characters and locations, the intimacy that some of the scenes have with the audience, something that makes it feel like a play of some kind. It has some charm, and it definitely provides an interesting experience, one that feels a bit simpler and more down-to-Earth than your usual movie experience.
I could also tell y'all that this film is quite wholesome. Barry being stuck in this loop of loneliness and then, in a true Deus Ex Machina fashion, being pulled out of it slowly by this calm, curious, slightly quirky girl, has some awkward little magic to it. The character arc, the slow navigation towards intimacy, it's quite relatable and kinda cute. A truly wholesome character arc there, and I love the interactions between Barry and Lena. Lots of iconic moments with the two of them.
I've mentioned Jon Brion, the guy who made the music for this film, and all of my past experiences with projects he was involved in (Fiona Apple stuff, the soundtrack for Magnolia) were really good. This movie is no different - the soundtrack, when not wholesome and cute, is so chaotic and messy, making some scenes feel like constant panic attacks on Barry's side. Being very deeply integrated with the film, too, it makes everything feel even more like a play of sorts, (a musical where no one bursts into song, to paraphrase Jon) and I really like the rhythm it gives this movie.
I also love the blend of drama and rom-com here, which feels natural and works well with this story. Nothing cranky, and the genre picks help creating the very special vibe that this story has, and yeah, I like it. Fun stuff. It feels well-balanced, and someway more authentic because of the awkward comedy bits.
The cinematography doesn't have any unique elements that I can put my fingers on, but with PTA being PTA, he can form quite a substantial amount of memorable shots. The kissing silhouettes, the panicked running sequences, even the love-marked knuckles. It's all very beautiful without trying too hard to be something grand, keeping a certain quirkiness even when being more drama leaning. Many shots will linger in my head for quite some time, for sure.
I don't have any real criticism towards the film, except maybe that I wasn't as emotionally invested as some of my fellow cinema-nerds that I know were impacted by this film in a very deep way. The emotional aspect works for me, sure, but it's not immersing me in it completely, not a life-changing film-watching experience. Just a very good, very well-made film that feels almost like an indie movie, in a sense, with how minimalist and down to earth it is compared to PTA's pervious film, Magnolia. It's short, it's easy to digest, and even without being as epic as PTA's other works it manages to be its own unique thing.
Punch-Drunk Love is almost like a play, with how down-to-earth it can get and with its intriguing rhythm. It's a strong left-turn for PTA, but one that works well, managing to present a beautiful, quirky little love story, with a lot of awkwardness, panic attacks and a need to break out of one's loneliness. Many beautiful, iconic shots, too. I'm feeling a 7.6/10 on this one.
Fight Club (1999)
8.0/10 - A Restless, Gritty Look at Toxic Ideologies
This is an exciting one for two reasons. One: I've been reviewing only films that I've already seen in middle school, at least when it comes to films from the IMDb poster, for like 3.5 months now, and this is the last one for a while. It's not inherently a bad thing, but I do often prefer diving into films that are new for me. And two, this is the last film on this row of the poster, which I've started like 5 months ago. Soon getting to the top 10, too, which is NUTS, but anyway: let's get into the film I'm reviewing today.
Fight Club is a 1999 David Fincher film, based on a book by the same name, and it follows an insomniac guy (Edward Norton) - we'll call him the narrator, since we never learn his name - who has quite the repetitive, tiresome life, and he feels this immense sense of emptiness. He tries to fill this void in all sorts of ways, but nothing seems to work. One day, out of the blue, he meets a dude named Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), who holds some ideas that are completely new to our narrator. This fateful meeting leads to a journey of self-discovery, one that is full of mayhem, testosterone and all sorts of violence.
One of the main things I could tell you about this movie, and this is relating to almost every aspect of it, is how hyper, how restless it all feels - and I mean it in a very good way. It works well thematically, because the narrator himself feels this disorientation, this feeling that everything is happening so rapidly, pulling him out of his familiar comfort zone and into increasingly intense chaos. This is the tone that many aspects of this movie set, and I really enjoy it.
The pacing, for instance, is really tight. How tight? Well, it made me think of Parasite, which is a very big complement considering the fact that Parasite is the first film that comes to my mind when I'm trying to think of a well-paced movie. It's perfectly paced, and Fight Club maybe doesn't feel AS tight, but it's still has a very good pacing. There's always something interesting happening, always something to keep you hooked, and it never feels like it's dragging or rushing. Smooth as hell, but in a way that feels gritty and messy.
I think that credit for that is due to two things. First is the editing, which makes the scenes feel like they're almost melting into each other (not in the surreal way, but just the general feeling, if that makes sense). Second, and maybe as important if not more important, and easily one of my favorite aspects of the movie, is the script, the dialogue. It's fire. Intelligent, cynical, filled with iconic lines. Whether you're agreeing with a character or not, their dialogue is always amazing, bouncing off of everything, dynamic, never dry.
Which leads me to something I've already talked about on my other socials before posting this review: the discourse revolving this movie. Listen, y'all. This movie is literally about how toxic ideologies that are presented by charismatic people (and, like I said before, with awesome dialogue and memorable one-liners) can make one fall for them. Thinking that the ideology presented here is something you should follow is like thinking that this controversial Nirvana song from In Utero (look it up) is literal and not exactly the opposite of that. Think it over.
Now, the casting was so on point here that even the side characters are performed flawlessly, and in a memorable way - from the support groups to the fight club, no weak performance has caught my eye. They didn't have to go as hard as they did with the side characters, but they did, and this is before even talking about the main cast: Brad Pitt is such a cocky, charismatic douchebag here, delivering each line like it's going to change your life, always elusive and mysterious enough to keep the suspense up. Eduard Norton gives a cynical, misanthropist, exhausted, anemic performance here, and it works perfectly. Helena Bonham Carter as Marla Singer feels spot-on, too, and I love her nonchalant way of being a walking, nihilistic mess. Everyone are doing a great job.
The electronic, trip-hop-esque aesthetic of the soundtrack, composed by The Dust Brothers, really adds to the gritty, rebellious, slightly dystopic feeling of the movie. The cinematography is really solid as well, and each shot feels dynamic, captivating, and has quite a bit of style. And honestly, thinking of it, I think that the pacing isn't the only parallel I can find here compared to my experience with Parasite: I feel like Fight Club is flawless in a similar way. Everything is solid, no mistakes, potential executed in the optimal way.
To sum it up: Fight Club is a gritty, cynical movie, and a great breath of fresh air after a streak of disappointing films. It's fast-paced, intelligent, gritty, always restless and bouncing from one fire line of dialogue to another one, and the way that it dives into how radical ideologies can impact us when delivered with enough charisma definitely gives some food for thought. This movie doesn't have any flaws, in my eyes - taking its potential to the maximum, doing everything right. Glad to have rewatched it. I'm feeling an 8.0/10 on this one.
Forrest Gump (1994)
6.4/10 - Like Your Average Pizza - Agreeable, Pretty Fun, But Nothing Special
Since January, every film I've watched that's from my IMDb top 100 poster has been one that I've already seen before, and this one keeps the streak. Soon I'm getting into the top 10, which I hope will be interesting, since it has quite a lot of films that are completely new to me. For now: two last films from this row of the poster. Pushing on.
Forrest Gump has a very simple premise: there's this guy named Forrest Gump (Tom Hanks) who's not the sharpest tool in the shed. Despite this fact, this man manages to go on all sorts of adventures, innocently passing through big historical events. Throughout his journeys, more than anything, he tries to come back to his one love, Jenny (Robin Wright), even if fate doesn't seem to allow it.
Let's start with some general stuff: the soundtrack, for starters, is pretty good. I love the classic rock dominance there, and the score itself carries this light, slightly wistful tone, and it complements the film well. The cast is solid, too. No mind-blowing performances here, in my opinion, but pretty good ones nonetheless. The movie also has a sense of humor that's not too bad, often revolving around Forrest not understanding a situation but still acting based on his instincts, explaining it later in an amusing, cute way, and yeah, it leads to moments that were pretty fun to watch.
The movie goes for this stream-of-consciousness structure plot-wise, which is rather linear here because this is Forrest we're talking about, after all, but it does feel just like him spilling everything regarding his story, innocently, truthfully, and to complete strangers. This structure allows us to go through a lot of fun anecdotes from Forrest's life, but it makes this movie feel rather messy and directionless from time to time. It can get a little exhausting, especially considering its 142-minute runtime.
The philosophy of this movie is a bit off, too. Like, it tries to discover fate and free will and all, but I feel like it doesn't really tackle those questions in any interesting way whatsoever, and when the movie tries to go a little deeper into them it's always a little cringeworthy. Not related to it being a very Christian movie, but just to how it's very surface level and self-contradictory, not in a way that works well.
There's also the Jenny thing that's going throughout the movie, and I honestly feel like something's missing here, too, both when it comes to their chemistry, the lacking true emotional connection, and when it comes to the way that things went plot-wise. They have their moments, but I can't help but feel like the movie wants to feel like it has solved some issues between those two when this is actually far from being the case. I don't know, it's just that something's a little weird about it. Lazily written.
The thing is, Forrest Gump is still working, overall. Mainly because of just how likeable Forrest is, always trying to be a good person and having goofy, fun little moments. He just lets his feelings out, like a child, and there's something really pure about that.
I feel like, at the end of day, this movie is a little bit like your average pizza - it doesn't have much value health-wise, and the taste won't blow your taste buds, but it's enough to fill you up if you're hungry and you'll still have a nice time eating. Pizza is, like, the most agreeable thing ever. So, yeah, just an accessible, easy-to-watch movie, that doesn't really do much special, but still works okay. Likeable main character, a plot that's a little messy, a little tiresome, but still a good time overall. I'm feeling a 6.4/10 on this one.
Inception (2010)
6.2/10 - Entertaining Enough Concept, but Very Lacking Emotionally
In the IMDb top 100, Christopher Nolan is easily one of the most prominent directors you'd find there. When looking at my scratch-off poster, 6 out of the 100 movies are directed by him - more than any other director there, actually. Quite insane. As those who are following me for a while already know, Mr. Nolan and I have a... complicated relationship, let's call it. He directed one of my favorite films, Memento, and some of his films - including the one that I'm reviewing here today - have provided my earlier experiences with more mature cinema. On the other hand, as I got into reviewing stuff here, I've been finding more and more recurring issues with his filmography. So, here I am, coming back to this film after like four years.
Inception, considered by many to be Nolan's magnum opus, follows Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a guy who specializes in something called "extraction" - getting into someone's dreams in order to get information they're trying to keep secret. But this time, though, Cobb gets an unusual job proposal - Inception, getting into someone's dreams in order to plant an idea in their mind. With Cobb's tragic past and haunted present, and an offer by a powerful figure to make things right for him if he succeeds in his mission, he knows that he has to do it. One last job.
If you've already read my review of The Prestige, you know that, in my opinion, Nolan has the same core issues with many of his films, and in each film it shows in different amounts of intensity. Here, I'd say, it's not the worst it's ever been, but still noticeable, substantial. Essentially, I feel like Nolan is addicted to this "wow" effect, trying to outsmart the viewer with complicated concepts and clever twists, but while focusing on the form and developing his concepts, he ignores the core of the film - characters, emotion, even a solid plot that feels like a good story and not just a way to communicate a concept, sometimes. That's the gist of it.
So yeah, the whole getting-into-dreams thing is a really cool concept, and you can see it right away, from the opening scene. The way that throughout the film, action scenes are influenced a lot by this dream physics thing, and just generally the way that this concept carries the plot, is at least somewhat entertaining, yes. The problem is, as usual, that Nolan gets lost inside it, only trying to outsmart the viewers. Sorry, but with this much exposition, when most of it is spoon-fed to the audience, things get exhausting and mechanical. There are better ways to go about concepts of this kind, buddy.
Dreams and their meanings have always been fascinating to me. Look at some of my favorite films: Requiem for a Dream, Eyes Wide Shut, Mulholland Drive. The reason that all of them work so well is because of the fact that they realize how much dreams represent our deepest, most buried emotions and impulses. Nolan tries to address that, but he's doing it so mechanically, mainly because his characters here are flat, without any real psychological depth to explore. Yes, even Cobb is not a very good character in my opinion, when it comes to the depth that could be explored in dreams. The so called "depth" that we discover feels alright on the story part, as we try to put the pieces together, but it is quite lacking emotionally, I'd say.
With all that being said, I can still call this film entertaining. The main cast is pretty solid (DiCaprio, Tom Hardy and Joseph Gordon-Levit, mainly, and Cillian Murphy is doing a good job as well), so they manage to carry the simple characters with enough charisma to make it work. The plot has me interested, even if not completely immersed, and I do think that it manages to be just enough to make this film...pretty okay. With some huge, glaring problems, but not that bad to watch, most of the time.
One more point I have to devote a paragraph to, because it's just so goddamn annoying: Mal. She's horribly written, both in dialogue and when it comes to the emotional aspect of it, and almost every scene that involves her feels forced, mechanical, overdramatic. I mean, sure, Nolan, you could go for a Femme Fatale character if you really wanted to, but there are better ways to do it than...whatever this is.
Inception suffers from a severe lack of emotion, and yeah, it's too mechanical, rigid, stiff to have me immersed. As he often does, Nolan gets lost in exposition, spoon-feeding us his oh-so-clever concept. However, I'd say that with enough charismatic main actors, a plot that's entertaining enough and a concept that's developed in ways that are pretty okay, plot-wise, this movie is not a bad watching experience. Lacking, but not horrid. Feeling a 6.2/10 on this one.
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
5.9/10 - Starts Well, Then Getting Too Silly
Now, after finishing this classic trilogy, I can say for sure: It's not bad, but I'm far from being the biggest fan. The first one was rather fun, the second one was pretty good, and now we're here. The closer. My expectations weren't high - I knew that this one is controversial, too - but they weren't too low, either. I just hoped for a solid closer for an overrated trilogy.
Return of the Jedi is the third Star Wars film to come out, and the final segment of the original Star Wars trilogy. With the Rebellion being on the run from the Empire, Han Solo still a captive, and Darth Vader yet to be dealt with, Luke has a lot of circles he needs to close, lots of loose ends that need to be taken care of. Will he succeed and become a true Jedi knight?
I feel like at this point I'm a little exhausted from spending so much time with George Lucas' mind child, so I'll be straightforward. This movie starts off pretty well - until the Dagobah scene, this scene included, I feel like things are pretty fun. The saga with Han and Jabba is interesting and fairly captivating, even if a little messy. The way that things unfold makes the plot flow well, overall, and it produces some iconic moments. After that, things get worse, but before that, let's address something else that's relevant to the entire trilogy: the CGI additions.
Upon Blu-Ray release, George Lucas had decided to add some scenes, shots and effects to the original movies. Sometimes it's cool and subtle, sometimes rather cringeworthy. The scene with the dance and song that were performed for Jabba is a great example for the worst facets of it. It feels like it was taken out of Minions or something. It's not something that impacts the film in a drastic way, but I still can't help but wonder if changing an original cinematic experience to a point where this is the easiest version to find is the best way to go about it. Food for thought.
Anyway, back to the movie. So, the beginning is pretty fun, but somewhere around the halfway point this movie gets so, so silly. I know that the Ewoks are cute, but don't y'all feel like there's a bit of a fan service thing going on here, lazy writing with not enough creativity? The Ewoks also appear in a section of the movie that's related to the climax, when the movie is going back and forth between two different locations, and the vibes are so unmatched there that it just feels weird and awkward. Not in a good way. Empire jumped between two plotlines as well, but still managed to hold a solid vibe. Here it's just all over the place.
And talking about the climax - without getting into any spoilers - the climax of this film is peak silliness, at least when it comes to this trilogy. In the previous movie, the conflict between the Dark Side and the Jedi has much, much more weight, because the writers knew how to portray it. The struggle there was about aggression and offense vs clear-minded defense, and it was evident the most in the final battle of Empire. The bottom line is simple: if you succumb to your anger, you will end up hurting the people you care about, even if your intentions are pure. Here, on the other hand, it was watered down to only silly dialogue ("be angry." "never!!" is the gist of it), which felt so repetitive and devoid of meaning. Sorry, guys, but this is not the way to go about it.
Return of the Jedi starts in a solid way, but around the halfway point gets too silly to really do anything for me. The climax was especially messy (not in a good way), and yeah, couldn't say that the second half of this movie does anything for me other than being exhausting and cringeworthy, mostly. I'm feeling a 5.9/10 on this one.
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
7.2/10 - More Character Driven, Dark, Well-Paced
Moving forward from A New Hope, I now arrived at the most beloved Star Wars film to ever exist (most likely to ever will) - The Empire Strikes Back. I thought that the previous movie was pretty nice, but apparently I should've had liked it more because I got quite a bit of noises of disagreement from friends, so yeah. With hopes to like this one more, I pressed the play button and watched it. Let's dive into it, then.
The Empire Strikes Back starts at a low point for the rebellion - now they're the ones hiding, being hunted by the empire, and despite having a magnificent victory against the death star recently, they, and especially young Luke Skywalker, still face more danger than they ever had before. Will Luke manage to shake off his pride and become a true Jedi, or will he succumb to the euphoria of his previous victories and fail everyone he cares about?
I'd say that one major change from A New Hope to Empire is the main focus - in the previous movie I felt like the focus was on the worldbuilding (which makes sense, considering the fact that it was the start of a big franchise), and now the story feels much more character - driven. It's not like suddenly we're at a best-psychological-thriller-of-all-time levels, but I just feel like there's more focus on personality and flaws - especially with Luke and Han - which I like quite a bit. Also, Yoda is such a fun character here, both as an indicator to show us Luke's personality, and just as himself, too. He's really fun all around.
One more thing that's an improvement over the previous film, I'd say, is the cinematography. Just the compositions of each shot, the darker color grading, the more mature aesthetic. I like that, and I'd also say with that that the action scenes got so much better here, pulling you into the movie more, with more engaging choreography and more slowburn moments.
The pacing, which was one of my main issues with A New Hope, is much better here, more tight and consistent. Throughout the entire film, or almost the entirety of it, there's a good balance of drama and comedy, and I never felt straight-up bored, with each scene having just enough clever script and interesting scenarios to keep me interested. So yeah, definitely an improvement on that front.
The John Williams score is still great, of course, and here he adds the brooding, dark and epic Imperial March - definitely deserves to be considered as iconic as it is, and a fine addition to an already great score.
Just like with the previous film, though, things here don't have impact on me as much as they do on other people. Yeah, it's an improvement on all fronts, but still not enough to blow my socks off, to make me fall in love with the franchise, to truly win me over. Sorry, y'all. Also, the Leia and Han thing that's going on in this movie has some good moments, but it has some moments that felt a little too cliché for me, or a little too forced. Either way, yeah, I think you get the gist of it - I think this is an improvement, but still far from the masterpiece I was told it is.
Sorry to disappoint you, folks, but I have to conclude it that way: The Empire Strikes Back is a big improvement over the previous film, but still didn't amaze me. It's good, more mature, I like the way it focuses on character arcs more, and it's more well-made overall, but it's still far from a masterpiece. Feeling a 7.2/10 on this one.
Star Wars (1977)
6.6/10 - Fun, Great Worldbuilding, But Could've Been Tighter
After two movies that are less mainstream, I'm diving right back into one of the most well-known and enormous movie franchises ever - Star Wars, which is honestly much more than a movie franchise nowadays, but you get what I mean. This will be the first time I'm reviewing a full trilogy here, with the original Star Wars trilogy. I've watched it before but it was years ago, so I didn't really know what to expect now.
Feels ridiculous to say it, but the first Star Wars film, the one that came out in 1977, follows Luke Skywalker, a young farmer boy who wants to see the galaxy but never gets to leave his home planet, Tatooine. He ends up getting sucked into a mess that's much bigger than him - the rebellion against the galactic Empire. Will he manage to prove himself, to conquer this task and help the rebels? Will he find his way?
Disclaimer: I don't think that this review will end up as one of my best ones. I'm not this passionate about this movie, and so it is that I don't have much to say about it. I'll try, though. Let's go ahead and dive right into it.
From the very beginning of this movie, I feel like one of its strongest facets is the world building. It feels full, curious, even when looking at this film as its own thing, without knowing that there are more movies. Like, I want to explore more, to see more, I want more questions answered, but not in a bad way - in a way that just makes you want to see more of this stuff, I guess, more aspects of this world. Making this movie feel like sort of an appetizer, you know?
The John Williams soundtrack is, of course, iconic for a reason. I love it, especially the Mos Eisley track. The music can be both epic and a bit tongue in cheek, and it just fits very well to the general vibe of the movie.
The cast is very solid, too - Harrison Ford as Han Solo is super fun and charismatic, Mark Hamill catches the naïve vibes of Luke in a way that's both endearing and annoying (spot on), and even C3PO is portrayed in a very fun way. I enjoy the interactions between the character quite often, and they're simple but still fun to watch. The contrast between Solo and Luke, or the bratty cuteness of R2D2 vs the cynicism of C3PO. Fun overall.
Some issues I have with the movie: Leia, unfortunately, suffers from the "badly-written-female-character" syndrome (not that most characters here are particularly deep, but come on - Leia is like the shallowest representation of what a girlboss is, at least in this movie, and it's not that good). I also feel like something about this movie, mostly after the first act (which is very well-paced) and especially towards the final act, feels a bit off. Maybe because it's part of a bigger story and some details are still missing, some major plot points, but still, I can't help but feel like the pacing is handled weirdly.
Star Wars: A New Hope, despite not being as tight or emotionally involving as I'd like it to be, is a pretty fun movie, with amazing production/set design and great worldbuilding. The characters are simple but mostly fun, too. It's not worth the hype, at least for now, but I definitely had a nice time here, especially during the first act. Feeling a 6.6/10 on this one.
Paris, Texas (1984)
8.0/10 - Portrayal of Slowly Moving On
As I've already written in my previous review, I'm on a streak of reviewing very mainstream movies, and I wanted to take a little break from that and review two movies that are less popular, relatively, but have been on my radar for quite a while. I started with Aftersun (was really good, I cried a lot), and now I'm moving on to the next one - Paris, Texas. Tons of film nerds have told me how great this one is, so I was really hoping for something special here.
Paris, Texas is a 1984 movie by German director Wim Wenders, and it follows Travis (Harry Dean Stanton). For the last four years he was thought to be dead, and no one knew what happened to him or to his wife, Jane (Nastassja Kinski), who disappeared as well. All of a sudden he's found at a god-forsaken place in Texas, looking worn-out, completely silent, barely communicating. The people who found him called his brother, Walt (Dean Stockwell), and then the story starts - Travis' way towards getting into civilization again, the life of everyone who thought him dead being shaken to the core, and the mysterious past of him and Jane seeming more and more important, urgent, crucial to understanding everything.
Let's cut to the chase here - the heart, the core of this movie is the way that people deal with relationships that ended in a very painful way, especially when knowing what they should've done differently. Travis walks slowly, engulfed in sorrow and guilt, until being pulled out of there, being brought back to "the land of the living". The way that this movie slowly builds itself from this painful state is quite effective, and I like it a lot. It really takes its time diving into rebuilding your relationships after you collapsed into yourself, not ready to come out yet. It's really good.
This film is very well-made, too, and I could praise, to some degree, almost every aspect of this movie. The score, for instance, reminds me somewhat of Dark Was the Night, but maybe a bit more hopeful, despite its melancholy. The slide guitar there filled with a sort of yearning, and also embodies this very Texan, wild-west vibes, which works very well with this movie. (update: just found out while writing this review that the soundtrack was largely inspired by Dark Was the Night. Pretty cool.)
Even more important and memorable than the soundtrack, though, is the cinematography. I love how it gives everything a look that's sort of mythical, as if this movie is a tale old as time, with simple yet memorable compositions that are very pleasant. The color symbolism aspect of it is what makes some scenes so unique and dream-like despite the film's plot never getting into the truly surreal. I've seen an interview with Sam Mendes, btw, the guy who's made American Beauty, and hearing about the way that this film influenced his was quite fun.
The mystery aspect of the plot plays a big part in the movie, of course, but I actually had a feeling that the rewatch had more impact on me than my first time watching. Two main reasons for that: one is that when you know the entire story the dialogue has more impact, and the second is just the color symbolism thing I've mentioned earlier. This film's dialogue manages to communicate, often with much subtlety, just how painful everything is to Travis, how frustrated he is, how desperate for a closure. Whether we're talking about contrasting Hunter with Travis, or the little details in the way he was talking about Jane, things really fall into place on rewatch. I like it.
Now to the part of the review where everyone's booing me, but still gonna say what needs to be said - yes, I do think that the phone scenes in the final portion of the film are really strong, and besides maybe some acting that's rough around the edges (mainly from Hunter), I can't really say that I find any issues or flaws here that are worth mentioning and impacted my viewing experience significantly. Still, I don't see this movie as a masterpiece. Just hasn't reached this height for me, never really blew me away. It's special, it had me emotionally involved overall, I like the premise, the production and almost everything, but still, just not enough for me to fall in love with.
Paris, Texas portrays the slow road from the sorrow of a relationship that ended painfully to being back in society, going out of your own head, accepting, moving on, or at least trying to. Despite being very well-made, with the cinematography being especially memorable and somewhat mythical, I don't feel like this movie managed to blow me away completely. Very good, though. Give it a watch. I'm feeling an 8.0/10 on this one.
Aftersun (2022)
8.2/10 - Simply Beautiful, Real.
"I think it's nice that we share the same sky."
For more than two months now, I've been only reviewing films that are quite mainstream. I can't say none of them were good, and I also managed to watch some new movies in the cinema (which I haven't reviewed here yet), and those ones were less well-known and a bit more unique, but still - considering the fact that the next, like, two months will be full of very mainstream, grand stuff, thought I should review two movies that are less popular, with a more humble budget, a simple story, giving myself some space to breath before coming back to the IMDb poster. Enter Aftersun, a film that's been on my radar since it came out in 2022, and I've never really got to watch. Well, I said, it's finally time. So I did, and here we are.
Let's dive into it.
Aftersun is the debut movie of Scottish director Charlotte Wells, and it came out, like I said before, in 2022. It follows a vacation that Sophie (Frankie Corio) took with her dad, Calum (Paul Mescal) when she was eleven. As adult Sophie goes through old videotapes and bright childhood memories, she tries to figure out things about her dad, trying to see what he had tried to keep hidden under the surface when being with her.
Let's start with some general anecdotes. Aftersun isn't a very long movie - it's only about a 100 minutes - but it's slow. It takes its time. I think I can almost say that this film lets you sink into it, be completely immersed with it. It shows in almost every aspect of this movie. The shots are often long, lingering, not quick to cut. The plot itself is, for the most part, full of day-to-day, overall normal interactions. There isn't something gripping and thrilling about it - not a huge conflict that will leave you at the edge of your seat nor an epic, mind-bending plot, but instead a relationship that fills every moment of this film, one that feels authentic, as if it exists beyond the movie. Slowly pulling you into the father-daughter dynamic there.
To give credit where it's due, the actors are a huge part in what brings these characters to life. I know that Mescal and Corio really formed a special connection in real life, too, which may explain how things seem so natural with both of them, how there isn't a moment where their relationship feels forced. And some credit is due to the script, too - I've seen a script-to-screen video about the final sequence of the movie, and you can see how Wells has really poured her heart into the characters and the dialogue. The funny moments, the frustrating ones, the ones that are full of pure affection and love. It's all there, and it works well.
The cinematography, which I've briefly touched on before, is, much of the time, very haunting and beautiful. The fantastic color-grading the gives everything a painting-like feeling, as fitting for the bright and sharp moments of one's childhood, or the core-memories, if you will. The shot compositions often convey a longing, sad feeling, especially with the score, which is full of tender grief for a childhood long past, warmth that can no longer be found, times that have past and are now gone. Good song picks, too, by the way, always on-theme, always decent tracks.
Despite its short length, as you may have understood from the previous paragraph, this film manages to touch on fairly deep and complicated subjects, and it does so with so much heart and attention to detail. It's touching, and yes, I've cried a lot during the ending sequence (which is absolutely fantastic, by the way, and so powerful that I can cry only from hearing people talking about it on YouTube or something), both times, and yeah. It's a lot. It never tries too hard to portray a deep subject, never goes over-the-top, always potent emotionally, whether we're talking about the bittersweet feeling and having to grow up, being on the edge of childhood but not yet into adulthood, the helplessness of it all, the way one may hide their struggle to not hurt their loved ones. Great stuff. Devastating, but great.
Aftersun is a slow-burning, emotionally-packed movie. Looking where it hurts, picking old wounds, being beautifully shot, haunted, bittersweet. Great chemistry between the two main characters/actors, too. It makes you sink into it, cry, and despite being very simple plot-wise, it's very touching, and it discovers growing up and leaving the warmth of your childhood behind in a very powerful way. I'm feeling an 8.2/10 on this one. Simply beautiful, real.
The Matrix (1999)
7.2/10 - Fun, Digestable Philosophy in a Post Apocalyptic World
Truth be told, The Matrix is a film I've watched many times when I was a kid. Sixth, seventh grade, this trilogy was, along some other films, what I'm going to call "Shilo-Core", meaning, films I've been obsessed with before diving deep into cinema. I'm talking about middle school and the late elementary, maybe. Getting now to the top 16 of the IMDb top 100 poster, I can tell you that we're about to hit a streak of Shilo-Core movies. I won't do this long preface before each and every one of them, but I'll tell you that even though I'm more excited for new stuff than rewatching stuff I've watched ages ago, I'm still hyped to see how my opinions differ now from then, to re-experience some of these movies, and just generally to climb my way to the top of the poster here. So, yeah, fun times.
Now: let's dive into it.
The Matrix is a 1999 movie, directed by the Wachowskis (brothers at the time, sisters nowadays), follows a guy named Thomas Anderson - or, as he's known at some dark corners of the internet, Neo. During the day he works in a computer company, and at night he's a hacker who've committed more digital crimes than one can count. After years of searching for an answer regarding the nature of our reality, a chain of unconventional and weird events yanks him out of the safety of his reality and into the harsh truth: Earth is a post-apocalyptic world, ruled by machines, a world where humans have to fight a hopeless war to survive.
The first thing I'm going to tell you about this movie is this: it's mostly the vibes, alright? Mostly the vibes. It's a Cyberpunk movie, and it captures this darker, less colorful aspect of darker Cyberpunk in a really fun way. The color grading that turns everything green, the production design with everything being leather and badass sunglasses, and yeah, it's just there throughout the whole movie. I think that because the setting itself is very solid, and the premise works really well with this aesthetic, the movie is so memorable. Just soaked with vibes.
Talking about things that this movie is memorable for - and it might sound funny at first, but this is quite an action-packed movie so this is a really central thing here - the fight scenes. Good stuff. The directors have brought Yuen Woo-ping, who's like a really acclaimed martial arts choreographer, and he has done quite a good job here. On every single battle here, each move is so thought-out, well-planned and memorable. I think I can easily recall more than a dozen moves that happen during fight scenes here, probably because besides being very well choreographed and directed, many battles here are so fun and over the top, bending the laws of physics to create a video-game-like spectacle. It works even better considering the weight that some battles have in the plot.
When talking about the emotional potency of this film, though, I feel like there's quite a lot of room for improvement before I'm actually emotionally involved here. The characters are very, very simple, and I don't think like there's a character here, maybe besides Cypher, that has an interesting personality. The performances here, combined with the good setting definitely give me some level of involvement, but it's far from having an emotional impact on me. I'm not sure if the movie should've taken more time to build characters - after all, it's a very fast-paced film, which is good, and maybe building the characters more might've hindered the pacing - but still, I feel like The Matrix lacks when it comes to this aspect of the film.
Before I wrap my review up, I want to address the philosophy of The Matrix. As every video essay and analysis online can tell you, The Matrix leans on a lot of philosophical ideas regarding truth and reality, going all the way from ancient Greece to France of the 1980's. The philosophy here, though, is very soft and digestible - it's there, of course, and it's central to the film, but the ideas aren't really explored in a way that will shake your worldview, for better or worse. The ideas are interesting, sure, but I just don't feel like The Matrix's approach to that is more than a very soft, simple, accessible version of these ideas. A cool thought experiment, but not a philosophical gut-punch.
The Matrix is a grim, action-packed Cyberpunk movie. The philosophical and emotional aspects of the film might be soft and not as well-developed as they could've been, but this makes for a very viby, fast-paced film, that manages to hold your attention quite well. Also, great fight scenes. I'm feeling a 7.2/10 on this one.
Goodfellas (1990)
7.0/10 - Very Well-Made, Not Powerful Enough to Get Me Emotionally Invested
Martin Scorsese is handily one of the most popular and well-known directors out there. Ask every average filmbro and they'll tell you how much they worship the ground this guy walks. As a certified film nerd myself, of course I got to watch some of his films before. They've all been fun overall, and somewhere between pretty solid to good, but I'm yet to fall in love with a Scorsese movie. The most recent Scorsese film that I've reviewed was The Departed, which I've had a good time with but couldn't see it as the masterpiece people claim it is, and I'm pretty sure that I used the same terminology in my review for The Departed as well - yet to make me fall in love with Scorsese's work. I mean, come on, guys, I don't want us to be just friendly faces in the lobby of the building, I want us to be more. *sigh* But jokes aside, let's get into the review.
Often considered to be Scorsese's defining masterpiece, Goodfellas is based on a book, which, in its turn, describes the true story of Henry Hill (Ray Liotta), a notorious New-York gangster who started out young. Really young. This movie basically follows his rise and his fall, with a special focus on the relationship he had with two other gangsters - James Conway (Robert De Niro, which is probably the actor most associated with Scorsese) and Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci).
If you find this plot description a little vague, well, it's not a coincidence - this film hardly has a coherent, easy to sum-up story. It's more like a timeline, filled with little stories that paint a bigger picture, than a straightforward, classic storyline. It's not completely random structure-wise, of course. Like I said, it's about the rise and fall, and as the movie progresses the small doses of Henry's life that we get are less glamorous, less shiny, and the so-called gangster lifestyle shows its true, bloody colors.
Talking about bloody colors, one thing that I absolutely love here is the cinematography. Out of all the Scorsese films I've seen, this one's handily the best-directed one. I love the use of red and black as main colors in certain scenes, especially when it becomes sort of hazy and surreal because of it. The famous one-shot scene, the dynamic camerawork and editing, the memorable compositions, everything just comes together to create quite a beautiful result. The cinematography makes this movie feel ALIVE, you know what I mean? One of the best aspects of my experience with it. Scorsese undoubtedly knows his craft, and he works with people who know what they're doing as well.
The soundtrack is also pretty cool. It's always the same vibe with Scorsese soundtracks, from my experience so far (dad-rock stuff or classic pop hits from the 1950's), but he always has solid ones. I also enjoyed how he handled a pretty big ensemble of characters with enough attention to each so you can feel how big the mafia is and how it surrounds Henry everywhere he goes, but not so much that it would feel tiresome. It's nice, and rather immersive. Cool stuff.
I guess that my main issue with this movie is that I wasn't really emotionally invested. This movie is just good enough to be pretty fun while watching, but I never was fully gripped by the plot, never was truly moved or impacted emotionally by watching, except for maybe a few moments here and there. There are some scenes that are iconic and memorable - I like the "you're a funny guy" one, the one where a shovel is involved, and the wake-up-darling scenes, but it never passes the threshold, the critical point where it becomes actually powerful. Just pretty good, I guess.
One last thing I want to address - I'm having conflicted feelings regarding the way that Henry narrates this film. I feel like it should, on paper, get me more immersed (City of God is my favorite example of a good use of a narrator voiceover), but in reality it just feels a bit...I don't know, flat? It should've had more character, at least, and it was rather dry here compared to how it could've been. It's not bad, and I like the way that some moments are narrated, but something's definitely lacking here.
Goodfellas is a dynamic, very well-made film. It looks quite fantastic, it has a large cast of characters that it handles really well, it has its fair share of iconic, memorable moments, and it generally tells a pretty good story. I feel like I wasn't emotionally invested enough to truly love this movie, but I do like it overall. I'm feeling a 7.0/10 on this one.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
6.0/10 - Not Bad, But Far From Being Gripping Enough to Deserve the Praise
Milos Forman is a very famous and well-respected director. He has made several films that are regarded as classics, and some of his movies are amongst the films that have taken the highest number of academy awards ever. I've only watched two of his movies before this one, and quite ironically, it's hard to imagine two films (from those that I've reviewed), by the same director, with such an immense gap of quality between them. I'm talking about Amadeus, which is one of my favorite films ever (layered, well-paced, beautiful and full of interesting motifs) and Hair, which is...not. Hair is a movie that's pretty full of itself, thinking that it has a lot of charm while it actually has very little of it, and just generally has little to no substance besides the fun soundtrack. Too over-the-top and flat.
So yeah, I didn't really know what to expect here, despite knowing how this movie is one of the only three to ever win all the big 5 academy awards. I think I was cautiously excited to watch, but unfortunately, again, I was disappointed.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a 1975 film, which was adapted from a critically-acclaimed book by the same name. The plot follows R. P McMurphy (Jack Nicholson), a guy who's just arrived to a state mental hospital. McMurhphy, always chaotic and absolutely hates being told what to do, tries to get the ward to rebel against the strict Nurse Ratched, who's in charge there. This is the conflict in the heart of the film - authority and order versus freedom and, maybe, chaos.
Let's start off with some of the things that I like about this movie: the cast is very, very solid. I feel like a wide arrange of actors are used here in a simple, yet effective, way (and this is maybe a compliment to the plot of the film as well): there is a wide cast of characters in the ward, each with its own mental issues, and all of them are portrayed really well by the actors. Taber (Christopher Lloyd) is violent, cynical and loves to pick a fight, Cheswick (Sydneny Lassick) is childish, clingy and very emotional, Martini (Danny DeVito) is almost floating on a cloud somewhere, always playing games in the wrongest way possible, smiling to himself. I could go on - they're all simple characters, but each has its own bits and gags, and I find it enjoyable. Entertaining, one might say. I like the bonds that are made between them and McMurphy, and I also enjoy the interactions they have with one another.
I also generally like the cinematography. There are few shots that are really memorable to me but they're there, and things are generally well-shot and well-composed, and even though I can't say it has tons of uniqueness/ personality visually it's still pretty good.
That being said, I think that it's time to address the biggest issue I'm having with this movie, funny as it may sound: it's just not that interesting. I mean, I wasn't bored for most of the runtime, but I also know that throughout most of this movie I could just stop watching and I probably wouldn't have had a desire to know what happens next. I didn't suffer while watching, but it wasn't gripping, wasn't moving. I can point out some scenes that I think are pretty good, like the party aftermath scene or the "they just worked on him" scene. But again, the actually GOOD material here is scarce, and I just don't feel the impact that people say this movie has on them. It's not really thought-provoking for me, nor does it make me view psychiatric wards in any new way.
One other thing that really bothered me was how stupidly machoistic is this film's perception of freedom, how it focuses on sex and football and fishing like this is what freedom is. I mean, sure, Nurse Ratched could be seen as a villain - her little sadistic expressions, the shadow of a smile on her face when she does something that hurts others, the way she worships order, but still - the ideological clash that should be in the center of this movie feels quite hollow, considering the way in which it portrays this so-called "freedom". I get that the 1960's were a time of sexual awakening and they wanted to bring sex to the mainstream and stuff, making it less taboo, but it just feels sort of cringe and too over-the-top here, the way that it's being portrayed. It actually reminds me of Hair - the main character thinks that freedom means doing whatever you want, which makes him kind of a douchebag, which makes it harder to like him and his story resonating with me.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest, despite being well-directed, having a really solid cast and containing a decent amount of entertaining, fun gags and bits, is just not interesting enough for me to want to keep watching, throughout most of its runtime at least. I'm not having a bad time watching, and I do enjoy it overall, but it's too thin to really stick with me. Feeling a 6.0/10 on this one. Insanely overrated.
P. S
I'm on a streak of disappointing movies, I really hope that my next review will be a really positive one.
Shichinin no samurai (1954)
5.8/10 - Impressive, But Doesn's Justify its Length
You know, even though I consider myself a rather big film nerd, I can't say that I've seen much when it comes to Japanese cinema. I mean, I've seen my fair share of anime, sure, but when it comes to non-animated stuff I could count the number of Japanese movies I've seen on one hand. Even so, I know who Akira Kurosowa is. If Hayao Miyazaki is the best known Japanese animation director, then Kurosowa is the best known director of Japanese live-action films. I've only watched one other film from him so far, High and Low, and it was pretty good, but, in my opinion, RIDICOULOUSLY overrated among film nerds. Considering the fact that Seven Samurai is even more highly regarded, and my previous experience with Kurosowa, I didn't really know what to feel or what to expect. Before watching this movie, though, a fellow film-nerd told me that Kurosowa is like a Japanese Spielberg. After watching this movie, I can say that this is pretty accurate, in the context of this film, but I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's dive into it.
Seven Samurai is a 1954 Japanese film, and it follows a little village of farmers in 16th century Japan. Each year, after harvest, bandits come to the village and forcefully take most of the crop. The farmers, in a desperate measure, decide to send a few people to look for Samurai that could protect the village. The problem is that Samurai are from the highest levels of society, while the farmers are poor and can only pay with food. As the film progresses and the mission to prepare the village to defeat the bandits once and for all proceeds, we see the internal conflicts, the seemingly impossible fight that's in front of the farmers and the bloody chaos that rules in 16th century, war-infested Japan.
The Spielberg comparison actually makes so much sense to me after watching this movie. Critics and film nerds alike tend to worship Spielberg, but at the end of the day he is, generally, a blockbuster director. Very accessible, very mainstream, able to dabble in different genres each time but still be adored by almost everyone with each film he releases. From my experience with Spielberg so far he tends to capture ideas that weren't really brought to the mainstream before and execute them in ways that are maybe not mind-blowing, but are definitely enough to make an impact on the mainstream - sometimes the result is pretty good, sometimes it's just okay. This is, more or less, how I feel about Seven Samurai. This movie is like the prototype, or the gen-1, or even the original, if you will, blockbuster.
We'll come back to that later, but I want to touch on some other aspects of the film. First of all, it's truly well-made visually. Kurosowa is known for his masterful blocking, and though I can't say that there are many shots that made me feel something, many of them are really pleasant and well-composed. Gotta give credit when it's due. This just goes to show you that whether a film looks good is not a question of technology first, but more a question of how good is the directing, the cinematography, the composition of each scene.
I really like the score, too. From the brooding, dark theme song, through the colorful music of the big city and to the careful, almost childish music in the background of the romance-related scenes. It's not crazy, but again, well-made. An aspect of this film I definitely enjoyed.
I think that when talking about this film as a blockbuster, one can really appreciate the scope of this movie, considering the time in which it came out. At almost 3.5 hours, and with a really big cast of characters and grand battle scenes, this film was really ambitious. It almost made the studio go broke with how much money the production needed. Nothing can take that away from this movie, but even though it's very impressive to pull this sort of plot off in the 1950's, it doesn't make this film good. You see, there are some parts of the story that I like - cool use of tropes that later became classic, some aspects of the romance subplot, the BURNING HOUSE SCENE WITH THE GIRL WAKING UP (which is WAY too good for this movie, honestly), the way that this movie manages to make us feel the setting, the location, how it teaches us about the village's structure to make one of the more realistic battle scenes I've seen, strategically speaking. But these parts are not the main thing here, and are scattered throughout the movie. Most of it I honestly find nothing more than okay, and sometimes (like almost every scene with Kikuchiyo) it's just too stiff, too forced, too shallow. A film that establishes so many characters (that are simple but still all different) might really need this runtime, sure, it's not unheard of, but the story itself is just not that interesting. I like some parts of it, but 3.5 hours that are mostly just pretty decent to mediocre blockbuster material are just not worth it. Sorry for anyone who loves this film, but this is how I feel.
Seven Samurai's scope is definitely impressive, and it has some cool, fun moments, well-composed shots and a good soundtrack. The biggest chunk of this 3.5-hour long movie, though, is somewhere between mediocre and not bad, and this just won't do in such a long film. It becomes tiresome, and along with the parts of this film that feel too over-the-top to really work, I feel like this movie is not much more than a mediocre experience. Again - it has some good, and not a lot of bad, but with such a length and not enough substance it just doesn't succeed at getting me immersed. Feeling a 5.8/10 on this one.
Se7en (1995)
7.2/10 - Lots of Style, Could Be More Substance
David Fincher is one of the most well-known and critically acclaimed directors out there right now. He's loved by audience and critics alike. I plan on watching more stuff of his, but so far I've only watched Fight Club (more than 2.5 years ago, that's why I haven't reviewed it yet) and now, of course, this one. Se7en.
Se7en takes place in a bleak, nameless city, full of crime and bloodshed. Two homicide detectives, the young, freshly transferred Mills (Brad Pitt) and the older, on the brink of retirement Somerset (Morgan Freeman), are assigned to an especially gruesome murder case. As the week goes on they discover that this is much bigger than it might've seemed at first, as a case of serial murder unravels in front of them, seemingly inspired by the Christian idea of the seven deadly sins.
Well, let's get to the meat of it, folks. The script of Se7en is decent - not masterful, not amazing, but it's decent. The thing that, in my opinion, elevates this script, transforms it into a memorable story that succeeded at becoming a classic in the eyes of many, is the fact that the people who have worked on this movie really, really loved it. It shows. You can see how much they cared. You can hear about it if you do a little research and read about the production of this film - everyone fought against the studio to make this movie exactly like they wanted to. But I think that, ultimately, this combination of decent script with good, talented production crew results in, well, style over substance.
There's some substance, sure, but I don't feel like the philosophical ideas presented there have given me food for thought - there's nothing truly moving or groundbreaking there, there isn't raw emotion, there isn't a deep feeling that I'm watching an emotionally loaded human story, not consistently at least. But still, even without being that deep, like I said, there IS some substance. This movie revolves around the idea of tolerance, of turning away, of people who choose to ignore suffering or wrongdoings because it's just easier. The movie deals with this conflict between our desire for a better world to live in, and our apathy towards it after being desensitized by it, in a memorable, stylish way, but it's still very simple. Not to the point of being bland, but to the point of, well, just not having enough impact on me. Same goes for the characters, except maybe for the murderer (whose character I liked quite a bit) - every character works well enough to drive this story, but neither Mills, Somerset or, I don't know, Tracy, feel interesting enough for me to want more of them, to want to explore their character.
But like I said, the style is there, for sure. The cast is great, to the point that even the side characters (the guy who was telling the story in the interrogation room was so good) feel like they were treated with much care and respect. There are many great stills and memorable visual moments in the movie, and Fincher definitely deserves the credit there. Especially when it comes to apartment 604 or to the murder scenes, I feel like despite not seeing murders happening on screen they still burn into your mind because they're made with a lot of attention to detail, and they're made to have a lot of shock value. Kudos to the production designers and the set designers too, by the way. They did a really great job here, and again, just caring so much for the project always elevates it, at least somewhat (a cool example: the notebooks that we see on the opening credits and also later on, at least the pages that appear on screen, are really filled with relevant text and not just a lorem ipsum type of deal). This is part of the reason I was a bit disappointed by the film - every single time I came across a still from Se7en it looked so, so cool. But still, like I said - the style over substance type of deal here is just the reality, in my opinion, and it doesn't mean that the movie is bad. It doesn't need to be the deepest film ever to be entertaining, cool or memorable. It is what it is, and it's pretty good. Like, there's enough substance so the film won't be hollow, and enough style to cover for the lack of substance, you know?
Also, it might feel weird that I mention that, but I really love the opening credits to this film. The remix of Nine Inch Nails' Closer (this song goes so hard) fits so well with both the themes and the vibe of this movie, and the montage there has so many hidden details that just pop up when you do a rewatch. Also, the way they chose not to mention a specific actor there, but only in the end credits, is really smart. It's dark, it's eerie, it has some horror vibes. Good stuff, really.
Overall, Se7en is a pretty good movie. It's a case of style over substance, sure, but there's enough substance so it won't be hollow, and enough style to cover up for the lack of substance. Decent script that got put on the screen by people who truly, wholeheartedly loved it, and it shows. It was a cool watching experience. Feeling a 7.2/10 on this one.
La vita è bella (1997)
7.8/10 - Charming and Smooth
As some of you might already know, I'm working my way through a scratch-off poster of the IMDb top 100 movies for over 2 years now - well, it was actually one of the reasons that I even started reviewing stuff more seriously. This review marks the end of another row in the poster, which is really cool, and that means that up next are the top 20! I'm really excited for some of the movies there. Hype.
Life is Beautiful (La vita è bella) is a very critically acclaimed Italian film from 1997, and my expectations were kinda mixed here. I know how many people love this movie, but I feel like when it comes to the Holocaust it's quite easy to tell a lazy story that will have some tear-jerking moments, and it might only work because the real history of the Holocaust is so sad and horrible that every story told in that period can be sad just because of the setting. I'm happy to tell you that this is definitely not the dry film I was afraid it was going to be. Let's dive into it.
The story follows Guido (Roberto Benigni, who has also directed this movie), a Jewish waiter in fascist Italy of the 1930's. Guido is basically the relentless optimist - he always makes the best of every situation, laughing cheerfully about everything he can. We follow his story throughout two periods: the first one is when he's still trying to open his own business, to find love, when he's yet to settle down. The second one takes place when the Holocaust reaches Guido's life, and now he has to face it and try to stay the relentless optimist he is.
Watching this for the first time, at least in the beginning of the movie, Guido seemed to me like a jerk. Flirting with random girls, being obnoxiously extroverted, stuff like that. After a while, though, I started to see his charm, and I'll admit that in my rewatch the beginning of the movie felt much smoother, too. He's a very likeable protagonist. He's truly funny, and it seems like no matter what the universe throws at him he'll find a quirky, fun way to deal with it. He reminds me a little of Charlie Chaplin's classic character, The Tramp, only with much more charm and wit (I'm not the biggest Chaplin fan, you can find my reviews to some of his films online as well). The Tramp done right, if you will. Guido just wants to love and to give and to have everyone around him happy. He's a simple character but it works really well, especially in the harsh situations he's put in.
One of the main genres of this film, despite taking place during the Holocaust, is comedy. The first half has more comedy bits then the second (it's almost a rom-com of sorts), but the second half has some funny moments as well (though they're often bittersweet). The humor here is often wholesome and ironic but really fun, and I can tell you that this film made me smile quite a bit. This movie has also got, especially in the first half, a really great comedic timing. Everything flows together so well, funny, charming moments pop up around every corner. The first hour or so of the film truly flies by, with smooth pacing and just non-stop fun. The pacing in the second half of the film, by the way, is also solid, but for some reason during my rewatch I've had the feeling that the pacing is slightly less tight there, in the second half. Maybe staggering sometimes just a bit, but nothing down bad.
Now's a good chance to talk about the way that this film uses setup and payoff. I've seen others pointing it out, but it's still worth mentioning: this movie does a really good job at this. We have scenes with certain details that may seem trivial or unimportant, but dozens of scenes here are actually full of stuff that will turn out as fairly important later, or at least stuff that will be used again in creative, fun ways. It's surprising, it's effective, and it ties this whole film together very nicely, making it even smoother and more fun to watch.
I've heard many people saying that this film has brought them to tears, but even though I was rather emotionally invested I can't say that I find this movie THAT touching. It's effective, especially in the second half, and I felt for the characters, but it didn't move me as deeply. Still solid emotionally, though, especially scenes with Joshua - the child actor there, Giorgio Cantarini, does a really good job at cute, natural acting, and he has a very good chemistry with Benigni.
The cinematography is very solid - nothing crazy or avant-garde, almost everything is pretty simple, but I absolutely adore the ways that some scenes are composed in this film. The opera-house scene is especially a favorite of mine in that regard, and also the scene that follows it of walking around in the night. Beautiful. It's not like that all throughout the film, but it's well-shot, so the cinematography is just pretty good and then every once in a while there's a burst of beauty.
I don't think I have any harsh criticism towards the movie, but I will say that I enjoyed the first half of the movie more than the second one, even though both of them are good. I just preferred the non-stop, charming rom-com segments over the Holocaust-centered, bittersweet parts, at least overall.
To sum it up: Life is Beautiful is a charming film, which succeeds in pulling off a lot of great setup-and-payoff bits all throughout its runtime. It wasn't as deeply moving to me as it is to others, but I was definitely emotionally invested - and with bursts of beautiful cinematography, very good pacing (especially in the first half) and great comedic timing throughout the entire film, and with a good mix of comedy and drama, I think I can understand why so many people love it so much. I'm feeling a 7.8/10 on this one.
Saw (2004)
6.2/10 - Not Bad, but Really Amateurish and Rough Around the Edges
When September has come this year my social media was suddenly full with autumn-related stuff, specifically Halloween-season memes and posts. Seeing it all made me think that maybe I should hop on this opportunity and review some horror films that I've been wanting to watch for quite a while. I've already reviewed another horror film, Inland Empire (which is a very experimental and bizarre horror movie), and this is, well, the other end of the spectrum in that regard - the original Saw, the popular horror movie that started a huge franchise. Let's dive into it.
Saw is a 2004 horror film that follows two people who find themselves in a weird, unfamiliar toilet, chained and unable to get out. Soon they realize that they're part of a deadly game now, trying to solve the puzzle of an unconventional, morally twisted serial killer, forced to play for their lives.
I think I'll start with the core of this review: this film is, quite understandably so, amateurish. With a budget of around 1-1.2 million dollars, and with the fact that this is the first feature film that James Wan has directed, well, things are kinda rough around the edges here. The dialogue has so many moments in which you know that someone has written it down and said "this is AWESOME, man, they're gonna LOVE it", when in actuality it's just an okay line. The characters are very simple, though I have a feeling that this movie tries to be this deep psychological mystery thriller. It only ends up feeling like one of the better horror projects that a film student has made in his final year, not a lot more than that.
The premise of this film is pretty cool, at its core, but I find the film's approach one that tries to have a bit of everything without the necessary skills to pull it off. I liked the parts of the film that focus on Jigsaw a bit more - the victim montage, for instance, worked well because it felt pretty creative, and it was dynamic and engaging. It never lingered on one idea too much. In contrast to that, everything that took place in this toilet, up until the final act, is not that interesting. The puzzle feels like it was taken out of a teen horror drama or something, and the character dynamics (which are supposed to be the heart of this part of this film) are just not intense and well-written enough to make this film more than fine. This is the problem - the film tries to be a thrilling, puzzle-based horror movie without an actually interesting puzzle. It tries to be a deep psychological film without characters that have the necessary depth. I haven't seen any other Saw movie, so maybe James Wan's later work is, in fact, better, but I can't ignore the feeling I have here that everything about this film is somehow too ambitious for the set of skills and the budget the director had, at the time.
If there's one thing that encapsulates this, it's the final scene. There's a certain reveal, which is a pretty cool reveal, not gonna lie, but the music is so, so cringy. Again, this "dude, dude, wouldn't it be awesome dude?" moment in the writer's room. The soundtrack, which has some nice highlights (I liked the soundtrack in the flashback to Adam's apartment, and I liked the soundtrack in the mannequin factory scene), is so childish and absurd here, trying to be the most epic thing in the world when in reality it's far from it. Subtlety would be better here.
Why would I say that I generally like it anyway? Well, first of all, the parts that I criticized are never *horrible*, and they do have some trashy entertainment value, in my opinion. And besides that, most of the stuff that happens outside the room is at least mildly interesting, and the final act maintains tension in quite a solid way. It's not the most intense final act ever, but it works well. Definitely redeems this movie a bit. The production design is also solid, and there's definitely a reason that the Jigsaw puppet is so iconic nowadays.
The original Saw film feels too amateurish, too rough around the edges to truly be as tight as some people feel it is, at least for me. The final act's intensity somewhat redeems this film, and it's not terrible, really (the main puzzle itself is probably the only flat-out boring main aspect of the film), so I think that despite the film being undeserved of the classic status it holds, it's still a fun, trashy little horror film. Cute. Feeling a 6.2/10 on this one.
Inland Empire (2006)
8.2/10 - Like a Long, Surreal, Harrowing Poem.
"Forgetfulness! It happens to us all."
David Lynch is one of the most well-known surrealist directors. With lots of love from film nerds all around the world, several classics under his belt - Mulholland Drive prominent among them, one of my favorite films of all time - and a certain obsession to dreams, Lynch had shown us time and time again that he can create experimental cinema which lives on and doesn't fade among the countless movies which are produced each year. As someone who has watched three Lynch films before this one and really enjoyed the Lynch experience so far, I was quite hyped for Inland Empire. I thought that I have enough experience with Lynch's work to deal with anything he throws at me. But oh, boy, I was not prepared for this. This one's on another level of Lynchness.
Inland Empire, at the time of writing this review, is David Lynch's most recent feature-length film. It was quite the massive fail in the box office, and quite understandably so - this film is long, it's far, far from accessible, and most people probably won't be able to sit through to whole thing. Even I, watching for the first time, felt like it just dragged more and more, weird things popping up all the time, and I couldn't get into it. I'm happy to say that doing a bit of research, and mainly giving another watch to the film, definitely helped me getting into it.
The plot is really, really hard to sum-up in a way that will do any justice to the film. I guess you could say it's about actors being sucked into stories, about the terrible secrets that one holds from themselves, about preying men, about women who sell their bodies to survive, about mind games and manipulations. But maybe it's better to say that it's about an actress, Nikki Grace, who gets to play a lead role in a new film. After discovering some disturbing tales about the history of the script, she begins to lose her grasp on reality.
Now, this is by far the most inaccessible, hard to follow, and generally bizarre film I've ever watched or reviewed. It doesn't mean that this film isn't worth watching, but know what you're getting into. This is like watching a nightmare that was caught on camera. Even the first hour of the film, which is the easiest part of this film to digest, already feels like a dream in which there's something bad concealed from you, some predator who's about to do what he intends to do the moment you let your guard down. Even dialogue bits that don't feel like they SHOULD be haunting are off-putting and creepy, with the dark, cerebral ambience in the background and the motifs that keep coming up. It's like reading a long, surreal poem. That's how it is.
Visually, this film is very rough-looking. Not bad, per-se, since this style definitely does something to enhance this unnatural feeling this movie gives me, but because the quality of the footage, and the cinematography itself, many moments seem like they could've been found in some found-footage type of horror story, or in the depths of the dark web. There are some beautiful shots here, and interesting compositions as well, but this film is far from looking as clean as films tend to be.
I love the ominous soundtrack, with many songs having darker undertones, especially in the context of the movie. David Lynch's soundtracks are always great, at least judging by my experience so far with his work.
Laura Dern truly gives a great performance here, and she communicates this feeling of being lost, disoriented, hunted and haunted, really well. This is not an easy performance to pull off, especially considering the way that her character's behavior shifts and changes all the time. Can definitely understand the cow thing Lynch has done to promote her for an Oscar nomination.
I think that the strength of this film is, more than anything, its way of creating a throbbing, hectic fever-dream, that still feels so full of meaning, so dense with the deepest thoughts and fears and desires of our protagonist. It creates a harrowing atmosphere, and I really can't name any other film that does it this way. There lies its weakness, too - the film, like I said, is hard to watch. It's long, it's weird, it's unsettling. This is a double-edged sword - I know that I wouldn't have changed anything about the film, but the ways in which it experiments and pushes boundaries are the thing that causes it to lose me at certain points, or to tire me a bit. Maybe a third time with this movie will improve my experience even more, but enough for now.
Inland Empire is a boundary-pushing, harrowing film, that feels like a dense nightmare about stardom and relationships, animalistic fears and desires, repressed memories and losing one's grasp on reality. Something about it is moving, like a long, surreal work of poetry, but with this type of style 3 hours of runtime are definitely hard to sit through. The most bizarre, inaccessible film I've ever seen, but worth your time if you're looking for this kind of stuff. Feeling an 8.2/10 on this one.
Cidade de Deus (2002)
8.1/10 - Dynamic, Associative, Unique.
City of God (Cidade de Deus) is a Brazilian movie from 2002. It's an adaptation of a book by the same name from 1997, and it's easily the most critically acclaimed Brazilian movie ever (also one of the highest-grossing Brazilian films ever). I'm pretty sure that it's the first Brazilian film I've ever watched, and I went into it almost completely blind.
The movie takes place from the late 60's to the early 80's in City of God, a slum in Rio de Janeiro, where most of the poor people live. Through the eyes of Rocket (Buscapé) we see how gang violence prevails in the slum, how people get sucked into these conflicts, and how hard it is to try and escape the black, bloody hole that City of God is.
Despite having an average runtime (something like 2 hours) the film feels very epic, unfolding the story of the City in a detailed, all-encompassing way. One of the coolest things about this film, and one thing that helps it accomplish this epic feeling, is how associative it is, how dynamic. I mean, the way that this film jumps from one scenario to another, dives into a certain location or character and then returns to where we were before, the way that all of it still flows well and makes sense - it all makes me feel like there's a literal person in front of me who talks about all of this stuff. This is how people tell stories, and something about it also makes the people and the places we're shown here feel more real and solid. I mean, they ARE real, or at least based on real people, but capturing this in a film is not an easy task. This movie pulls it off in a really good, unique and engaging way.
The editing and cinematography also add to my engagement with the film. It's dynamic and hectic, and the way that everything flows together, many shots somehow well-composed but also feel like an authentic footage of something that really happened, like someone was just there to capture it - it just adds a lot to this feeling that we see real stuff, that the city is really there also when we're not watching it
More than anything, the film shows how cycles of violence never end, how people who grew up into crime will eventually end up committing it. Kids are scarred, those who attempt to run away are gunned down, finding a job in the City is never enough to get you out. The hopelessness of it all is communicated well. I think that my favorite scene in the movie is the party scene (you know the one if you've watched it), and it encapsulates this feeling really well.
My biggest criticism towards this film is probably the lack of deep emotional involvement with any character. Like, I still care about what happens to them, and they feel real and engaging, but I just don't feel any deep connection to characters here. Maybe because there are so many, or maybe because the city itself is like a main character, in a sense. Either way, I just feel like there were moments where I could've been more involved emotionally, despite my interest in the story itself.
City of God is a very dynamic movie. The setting feels alive and breathing, the editing makes everything flow together really well, and I think I can safely say that this is the most associative narrative structure I've ever seen in a movie, almost like there's someone who tells you a long story right in front of you. There's a certain lack of emotional involvement for me when it comes to caring about characters, but City of God is still a unique cinematic experience and I'd definitely recommend checking it out. Feeling an 8.1/10 on this one.
Over the Garden Wall (2014)
7.3/10 - Charming, Witty and Very Autumn-Appropriate
Over the Garden Wall is a Cartoon Network mini-series that aired in 2014. Its runtime is really, really short - with ten episodes, each of them 10 minutes, the whole thing is less than two hours long. Despite how short it is, and even though a continuation has never been discussed, as far as I know, it's quite the cult classic. The series has an avid fanbase, and it has been on my radar for quite some time now. Also, as Halloween gets closer, the discussion around the series sparks again - you see, it's kind of considered to be a series with some heavy Halloween, autumn-vibes, so I guess that this time of year is truly the best to dive into it.
The mini-series focuses on two step-brothers, Wirt and Greg. Wirt is the elder brother, an anxious, depressed teenager who always imagines the worst-case-scenario before any new encounter or experience. Greg is the younger brother - random and fun and curious, maybe naïve but always a relentless optimistic. Somehow, they both find themselves in somewhat of a weird place, this forest called "The Unknown". Will they manage to come back home, or are they doomed to perish there?
The art director of the series is a guy named Nick Cross, whose shorter works I've seen quite a while ago on YouTube and really enjoyed them. He has a capability to create animation that feels really dynamic and detailed and have an air of slight whimsicality to it, and I think in Over the Garden Wall it definitely shows. The animation here feels really old-school, and the old-English-folklore-type aesthetic that some aspects of The Unknown have is really cool. The Unknown feels mysterious but also somewhat familiar and cozy, and I think that this dichotomy adds a lot to the series' vibes in general. Character design is also fun and on point, so really, kudos for that. Good work there.
The main theme of the show, in my opinion, is The Unknown in the broader sense of the word - growing up, facing new challenges, being a stranger in a weird, unfamiliar land. The series explored this theme in a rather simple way, but still with a lot of charm. All throughout the series there are thing that are not as they seem, and both Wirt and Greg change as they spend more and more time in The Unknown, slowly learning that one can't always trust others, and neither can one always be paranoid about everything. I think that the soft worldbuilding, along with the subtle details that hint the true nature of things whose nature isn't as obvious as one may think, beyond making this series rather rewatchable it adds to this feeling that things are never set in stone, that we all have to change in order to see the true nature of things.
The humor here is somewhat witty but also whimsical and childish, and it has a lot of charm. Reminds me of Gravity Falls, in some way, only more subtle and calm. Auntie Whispers, Quincy Endicott, the whole Dark Lantern affair - side characters here are often memorable and fun, and have something slightly weird about them but funny all the same. Resonated well with me.
One last thing: the soundtrack is frickin' great. From wistful, nostalgic songs about death to Greg's random and cute bits, this soundtrack is iconic and it's way better than I'd expect from such a short project, even if there are some big names involved. Love it.
Over the Garden Wall is not a mind-blowing masterpiece, but it's really solid and special. It feels nostalgic almost instantly, filled with wit and charm and whimsicality. Everything about it is really fun and memorable, from the haunting bits in the soundtrack to the surprising climax and closure in the end. Short, sweet and very autumn-appropriate. Feeling a 7.3/10 on this one.
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
8.3/10 - Bloody Mind Games Under the Male Gaze
"We begin by coveting what we see every day."
This is a film which I've seen quite a few times before, the most recent one being several months ago with a good friend of mine. It was one of the first movies that truly blew me away in the beginning of my dive into cinema (quite some time before I started reviewing stuff here). I used to bring it up anytime I was talking about my favorite films, and I was curious how this film will feel now, after some research and in a less casual watching.
The Silence of the Lambs, based on the book by the same name, is a 1991 psychological thriller, directed by Jonathan Demme (the guy that made Stop Making Sense, which I'm yet to see but just a little fun fact I wanted to throw in there). The film follows Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster), a young FBI trainee who aims to work in the Behavioral Sciences Unit of the organization, and gets assigned an unusual task: she's told to interview Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), an imprisoned psychiatrist murderer with a bad cannibalistic habit. As their conversations go on, a connection is drawn between Clarice's task and the efforts to catch Buffalo Bill, a serial killer who's been highly active as of late. Will she be able to endure Hannibal's cruel mind games in order to catch a murderer on the loose?
First of all, I think that the cast deserves some kudos - almost everyone is giving very solid performances, but I'd like to focus on the two main actors, the way I see it: Foster and Hopkins. Foster has a pretty subtle performance here, sliding naturally into Clarice. You can see the nuance that makes it clear that she tries to brush thing off or put up a tough front even when she's in a harsh situation, and that makes it all the more powerful when Clarice does show signs of anxiety, stress or horror.
I want to hold my thoughts on Hopkins for a moment and take a look at another aspect of Clarice, and this movie in general. One thing that has a lot of presence in this movie is the idea of "the male gaze", the way that beautiful women get stripped down and objectified by men's lustful stares. Clarice, as an FBI trainee, is often threading in very male-dominant territories, and there are a lot of instances in which she's in this power struggle, trying to gain respect from machoistic figures that can't seem to wrap their head around the idea of seeing her as equal. These moments create a very interesting and constant tension in the film, and the cinematography enhances this feeling as well, putting us in Clarice's shoes more often than not.
Hopkins as Hannibal is great, too, almost like he was born to play this role. He has this cruel, cold charm about him, while he always keeps so calm and composed, even when he does some pretty horrible stuff. This guy is the most dangerous person in the room even behind bars, and it definitely speaks to his power as a villain of sorts in this movie. The conversations between Clarice and him are always full of mind games, and most of the time it's like Hannibal is only playing with Clarice, his prey. A totally well-deserved Oscar, in my opinion. I won't spoil anything, but my favorite sequences in the film involve Lecter and they're really, really amazing. Especially the one that starts with classical music in the background and ends with a twist. If you know you know. Also, something about the way that Hannibal toys with Clarice and the way that Jodie Foster portrays this tough front of her cracking up when she needs to either dive into her traumas or let someone else lose their life makes her really relatable. She comes across as a real person, and again, kudos to Foster on that.
The pacing is really solid, and I like the way that some scenes are edited in a way that they seem to really flow into each other. I do enjoy the second half of the movie more, but it's only understandable, since the first half has more buildup in it, and the second half has so many climaxes.
I don't feel like I have any major negative thing to say about this film. The only thing that slightly bothered me was the feeling that some psychological aspects were a little oversimplified, but it's nothing serious and I still think that the movie is doing a really good job when it comes to building characters that feel full and solid.
The Silence of the Lambs doesn't impress me as much as it did when I first watched it, but I still had a really good time with it. It's tense, the main cast is great, and there are some mind games that are truly immersive in my opinion, especially as the plot moves on and it gets more bloody and intense. Feeling an 8.3/10 on this one.
P. S
This is one of the only three movies to ever win 5 academy awards, so if you need more reason to go watch this movie, well, here it is.
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
6.3/10 - Not Bad, But its Emotional Core is Too Dull. Overrated.
So I went into this film almost completely blind - I knew that James Stewart is there and that there's a famous scene regarding taking down the moon or something like that, and also that its main genre is romance. After watching it I realized just how much this film is referenced in Christmas-related media, and, well, that it's one of the most famous Christmas films ever, probably even at the top of that list.
It's a Wonderful Life is a 1946 Christmas film that follows George Bailey, a man loved by everyone in the town, in the most fateful Christmas eve of his life - George Bailey is considering taking his own life. Everyone's prayers make something move up there, in the heavens, and an angel named Clarence is sent to save the lad. Most of the movie we learn, alongside Clarence, how George has come to this harsh situation, and the big question is hovering in the air: will Clarence be able to save George?
Honestly, there isn't a single aspect of this film that I see as truly phenomenal, or even above "pretty good". It has its enjoyable comedy-oriented scenes, its witty dialogue bits from time to time, and I'd even say that the film does a pretty good job showing us George's desperation, the way that his dreams escape him because he's too involved in helping the townsfolk. The main cast is also solid, but that's about it.
The film's conclusion is supposed to be moving and endearing, but I couldn't help but find it cheesy and artificial. Not only that, but the whole final act of the scene, the part that's supposed to be the climax (and is also the most famous part of the movie) feels rather dull and cliché. Sorry, just couldn't get into it. Also, the relationship between George and Mary feels forced, too, when it comes to some pivotal moments in the film. They have their cute moments, but moments that are supposed to be cute or romantic in the late parts of the film just feel slightly off to me.
This is a simple review for a simple movie. I get why the movie is being referenced so much, since it has some iconic moments, and the first half of the film is pretty fun indeed, but I just couldn't get emotionally involved when it came to the emotional core of this movie. I guess it was worth watching anyway, if only for the pop-culture value, but this one's truly overrated in my opinion. Feeling a 6.3/10 on this one.
P.s
I watched the colorized version, couldn't find the black-and-white one in good quality.
Severance (2022)
8.0/10 - Fun, Philosophical and, Well, Just Human
Severance - Season 1 (2022)
"Forgive me for the harm I have caused this world. None may atone for my actions but me, and only in me shall their stain move on. "
Severance is an Apple TV+ original sci-fi/drama series, and at the time of writing this review there's only one season out so far - 9 episodes, each of them something between 40 minutes and an hour. The next season should be airing in 2024, and I can tell you that you may officially count me in as one of the people waiting for this season 2. Let's get into it.
The severance procedure, from which the series derives its name, refers to a way in which one can cut her or his workplace memories from their outer-world memories. Just imagine: you yourself arrive at your workplace each morning. You take a step into the elevator and next thing you know it's evening and the whole work day is behind you. A blink and it's gone. On the other hand, there's a version of you with no knowledge of the outer world, a version that's trapped in the workplace and can never leave. This version doesn't remember the color of your mother's eyes, the tint of sky at dusk or even your name. It was born at work and it will die when you get fired. The show follows some workers of a company named Lumon who have chosen to undergo the severance process and live their life this way. Throughout the series we slowly discover more and more regarding the reasons one chooses to have this procedure, the company behind it and the way that it affects society in general.
This series reminds me a lot of some Black Mirror episodes, though I'd say that it does go deeper than most BM episodes I've seen, and Severance also has more charm. The charm of Severance lies in the very human way that it blends comedy and drama, and the slow manner in which they make us care for the characters. The story starts in a rather abstract way, but as it escalates I'd say that my care for the characters has only gone up, and this is definitely not a given in every series, so kudos for that. The drama and comedy blend is elegant and not too over-the-top, but it makes the series more fun to watch. It's very self-aware, I'd say.
Talking about escalation, this final episode of this season got a lot of praise, and even though I won't praise it as much as others had (9.7/10 on IMDb), I will say that it was a hell of a way to close the season. So much new information and so many cliffhangers, but without feeling too stiff and unnatural at all. This final episode (and the last third of the season in general) has a great flow, and I think that almost everyone will want more after how intense and moving the episode was (I almost cried when she said this thing in front of the mirror, and if you know you know). Great, and hands down the best episode so far.
The only criticism I have is that maybe the series takes a little bit of time to truly take off, but even the more chill episodes are fun to watch, and you can see how things are getting hotter and hotter beneath the surface. Not every story blows you away constantly, and that's okay, too.
This is quite the short review for me, so I'll just conclude it with this: Severance is a good, balanced fusion of comedy and drama, with a Black Mirror kind of concept but more charm and a slower, deeper dive into it, with more things to unravel the deeper we go into it. Fun, philosophical, and, I guess, just human. Feeling an 8.0/10 on this one.
Ivanovo detstvo (1962)
7.1/10 - Best When Surreal and Poetry-Like, but Lacks Focus
"I'm only afraid of spiders."
Ever since I started reviewing films online (some 2.5 years ago) I've been hearing about Andrei Tarkovsky, the Russian director. Tarkovsky has always scared me: he's considered a tough director to get into, with films that are hard to watch and digest, but most things I've heard about him were very approving of his work, and I was indeed curious for quite some time regarding his filmography. Several people I know who are really into Tarkovsky recommended watching his filmography chronologically (except for Mirror, which shall be last), and even though I'm not planning on doing it all in a marathon - after all, my film-watching pace is not so fast already, as it is, and I don't want to spend months watching only Tarkovsky stuff - I still took a dive into it and started my journey, right here and now. The time will come for the rest of his movies, too.
Ivan's Childhood is the 1962 feature-length debut of Andrei Tarkvosky. The events of the film take place in WWII, and they follow a Russian kid named Ivan, who operates as a scout against the Germans, despite his young age. It's pretty hard to sum up the plot beyond that, and the reason for that is closely related to the main problem I have with the movie, so let's dive right into it.
So, I know that Tarkovsky has said on multiple occasions that he doesn't like Ivan's Childhood that much, and even though I'm yet to see the rest of his filmography, I still can tell that there was probably some lack of experience there that might've led to the feeling I had while watching the film that it's not focused enough. I mean, I get the fact that some films just have unusual structures and sometimes it works, but even though I can't put my finger on exactly what's missing here I feel like something about the general experience of the movie might've felt a bit brief or scattered. Like, the film lacks drive.
Also, talking about unusual things in this movie: I think I can safely say that this is the most avant-garde film I've seen from that era. Sure, it doesn't have the full-on dream vibes of Mulholland Drive or something as modern as that, but it has some surreal sequences that I wasn't ready for. I'm also pretty sure that the surreal, dream-like scenes in this film (whether they occurred inside an actual dream or not) were the best parts of the movie for me. Some were disorienting, making me feel a certain uneasiness, and this is something I can always appreciate when done right. The surreal scenes that weren't dreams or flashbacks were especially interesting, since you know that it's supposed to be reality but something is still off, something is distorted. Really made me curious for what's in store down the road of Tarkovsky's body of work.
The more "regular" sections of the movie are still not bad. The cinematography is pleasant and most shots feel well-composed, the acting is solid, the plot may lack focus but it still provides its own unique experience as a window to Ivan's life. There isn't any significant thing here I'd rather change, despite the experience being unusual and maybe lacking some more focus or depth.
The main theme in Ivan's Childhood, in my opinion, is the corruption of things that are pure and beautiful by the evils of mankind, in this case war. The theme isn't explored in a particularly deep way, but when it's presented I find it to work well, overall, especially on the emotional level. It doesn't provide tons of food for thought per se, but Tarkovsky's visual language enhances the themes he chooses in the same way that strong imagery in a song might not say anything philosophical in particular, but still work very well emotionally because it depicts reality from a perspective that we haven't seen before, and it taps into some unconscious part of us. So yeah, that's cool.
Last but not least: the score was very good. I especially loved the music which is playing when Masha is walking through the trees, and there's something sweet and tender but also haunting and distorted about it. It's powerful.
If you know me you know I have a soft spot for surrealism, and Ivan's Childhood is best when it turns to the slightly surreal, the slightly off, the poetry-like cinema. I do think, though, that it lacks some drive or focus when it comes to the plot, and even though it displays the corruption of beauty in a pretty solid way, it doesn't touch me as deeply as it has others, and the lack of focus definitely threw me off a little bit, even though it was less evident on rewatch. Feeling a 7.1/10 on this one.