apereztenessa-1 Reviews

Challengers (2024)

Lots of tennis, but little more

[5/10 · 5 May 2024]

Challengers tells the story of Tashi (Zendaya), a former college tennis star whose career was prematurely interrupted due to an injury, and her love/ power triangle with Art (Mike Faist) and Patrick (Josh O'Connor), two tennis players and long-time best friends.

There might have been a story there, around Tashi's obsession with tennis and winning, how she manipulates Art to achieve her personal goals, and how Art lets himself be manipulated without fully ever acknowledging it.

There are glimpses of that story in Challengers, and that is certainly when the film is at its best, but they are barely carried forward and get lost in a continuous back and forth in time that may have been aimed at engaging the audience by uncovering pieces of the story progressively, but in practice just deflate the tension inside and between the characters.

Instead of that story, most of the film focuses on filming a lot of tennis, from every possible angle, without fear of ridicule (the underground camera angle, the subjective ball point of view shot, etc.). And it ends-up turning into a celebration of male bonding around a sport, contrasting with the divisive impact of a woman entering the two boys' lives. Such early teenage boy philosophy of life naturally fails to intrigue us much.

Certainly, Zendaya has screen presence and delivers a strong performance, but she is also weighed down by a pretty mediocre screenplay, and constant slow motions aimed at admiring her cool movements and beauty but that end up becoming repetitive and annoying.

Civil War (2024)

This is what civil war feels like

[8/10 · 21 April 2024]

Civil War surprises. The one thing everyone who has seen the film will agree on is that it's completely different from what they expected.

Most notably, the war as such is hardly seen. For most of the film, it feels more like small nucleus of terrorist cells than an all-out war. And it is either distant or it is made to feel distant through the involvement of the journalist protagonists who take pictures of the events and feel like filters between the audience and the action.

Put off by this setting and the fact that the civil war construct reuniting California and Texas feels as disconnected as can be from today's political reality, many people have thrown the towel and claimed that the film is not about a civil war but about journalism courage.

I don't agree. While the nature of journalism is certainly a topic (and Alex Garland has stated it), the film is called Civil War for a reason, and the conceptual nature of the conflict is very intentional. One of the cruelest aspects of a war is that people rationalize it based on its motives. Civil War says that no matter the motives (which are never explained in the film), the suffering, the deaths of people are the topic that needs to be looked at. Focusing on the politics instead of the people is actually part of the mistake. How blind do you have to be to accept deaths for some political reason?

Actually, the film shows that many times the very people involved in the war may have forgotten what the reasons for the war were in the first place, or may have created their own reasons, used as excuses for the most intolerable and cruel of acts.

The political discourse in Civil War is therefore not about the individual topics dividing this country today, but about the division itself. It is an extrapolation of what polarization does to a people. It creates senseless suffering -which is extremely tangible in the film-, and tragically one that people get used to, embrace as normal. This is likely the meaning of the character evolutions. While Lee Smith (played by Kirsten Dunst) tolerated and photographed violence when it was exceptional (and therefore worth documenting), she seems to lose her drive when confronting violence that is recurrent and comes almost naturally, while the younger Jessie Cullen (Cayley Spaeny) seems increasingly comfortable with it. The journalists are a microcosm representation of society, where some accept polarization and inadvertently participate in it, while others observe it growing but feel powerless to do anything about it.

The Animal Kingdom (2023)

Lacks purpose

[3/10 · 8 April 2024]

This film has been a box office success -and to some extent a critic success- in France. Why so much passion for this film there? Because it represents a type of film that France likes to imagine it can do: popular, entertaining, well-crafted including on the special effects side, but ultimately much deeper than an American blockbuster.

And it is true that measured against that standard, the Animal Kingdom is more interesting. But it plays in a different segment. For better or worse, American blockbusters aim at providing "mindless entertainment", target teenagers and have little or no artistic intent. They are to film what McDonald's is to cuisine.

But if you try to cook actual cuisine, or make a real film, then you will be measured against that higher standard. And that's where Animal Kingdom falls short.

The main issue is that the story of the characters never extends beyond an excuse for a long physical transformation, almost as if the transformation scene in a werewolf movie had taken over the full movie. Don't get me wrong: there are some stories and some character development in the film, but it's very clear that they are the accessories of the transformation, as opposed to the transformation being the accessory of the story.

Poor Things (2023)

Lacks ideas

[3/10 · 8 April 2024]

Much has been written about this one already. Taken together, the reviews basically add up to « weird movie, but great acting by Emma Stone ». And depending on the person, « weird » is either energizing or revolting.

But what is the film ultimately about? About a Frankenstein-like figure of a woman who is implanted a baby brain and reanimated and what ensues after that, of course. So what is it about? It's about how we humans would behave in the world, and how the world would behave with us if we entered it from a state of absolute purity and innocence. That could be an interesting topic to explore. Put it in the hands of Yorgos Lanthimos and Fox Searchlight, however, and it's simplified for mass consumption, in the form of a pretty standard and somewhat derogatory female empowerment story, to the point of losing all interest.

The film tries to counter its fundamental lack of originality with extreme wide angles (pretty annoying pretty quickly), increasingly absurd sets and yes, a strong performance by Emma Stone. But it's all cosmetic, and the core remains too void of ideas to actually generate any real interest.

Drive-Away Dolls (2024)

Revoltingly bad

[3/10 · 17 March 2024]

In recent years, it's as if the Coen brothers had agreed to participate in a test and control experiment to see which of the two was actually the talented filmmaker, by separating and making films individually. Watching Drive-Away Dolls, it seems like the answer is certainly not Ethan.

The screenplay might have had potential. If you were able to abstract the lines from what is being shown on the screen, you may find some that are actually funny. But the filmmaking is so bad that the film loses all interest, and it's not even very funny. What makes the filmmaking so bad? Hard to put your finger on it, but it's probably a lack of a sense for editing, framing, rhythm that would make situations either more exciting or funnier, or contribute to develop characters beyond uni-dimensional stereotypes aimed at reciting clever lines.

It is probably this lack of character depth that makes Drive-Away Dolls a bit problematic too. I am not one to believe that only lesbians can make films about lesbians. But by turning the lesbian characters into caricatures, and assigning them either masculine behaviors (some lines feel pulled right out of the Big Lebowski) or projecting masculine lesbian fantasies (like a supposed obsession with dildos), the film does make you cringe.

Love Lies Bleeding (2024)

Wonderfully surprising

[8/10 · 17 March 2024]

I went into Love Lies Bleeding expecting to watch just another thriller, maybe with a dash of feminism and lgbtq rights, for taste. What was my surprise when I discovered a real movie.

Love Lies Bleeding is one of those movies that catches you from the beginning and never lets you go. Is the filmmaking style a bit excessive? Yes. Sometimes almost inelegant? Yes. It uses a few too many tricks a little too frequently. But the result remains captivating, diving into the world of female body builders while mixing film genres and cinematographic styles, to create a unique film. One that, by the way, is genuinely feminist and lgbtq in an original and authentic way.

Kirsten Stewart is outstanding, confirming her as one of the greatest talents in Hollywood today.

One Life (2023)

Just boring

[2/10 · 16 March 2024]

It's been a long time since I connected so little with a movie. One Life's main issue is that it focuses exclusively on telling the events of the story, without caring for character development. And the result is it feels like watching two hours of project management. It's boring, and tragically, it takes what seems like an incredible story and it makes it feel like something small, almost not worthy of putting on film.

The sense of boredom is further augmented by an overly academic style. Nothing new under the sun in the style department.

Some people say Anthony Hopkins carries the movie with his performance, but I disagree. Without depth of character, even his acting skills have nothing to anchor on, and he also looks like he's just "doing the job".

Dune: Part Two (2024)

Too busy trying to look good

[6/10 · 10 March 2024]

It is hard not to get excited by Dune Part 2's first minutes, taking in the beauty of the photography and the elegant style of Dennis Villeneuve. But it is equally true that the excitement wears off as the film unfolds.

While better and more engaging than Part 1, the story continues to struggle to catch our interest. Part of the issue is that Denis Villeneuve walks on egg shells, trying to avoid hurting any of today's sensitivities, including the promotion of religious fanatism, creating a white savior to an oppressed people or a female character who chooses to follow a man. Villeneuve navigates those risks skillfully by casting doubt on Paul Atreites' messianic nature, but it comes of course at the cost of a much diminished mythical power of the story - in a story that is fundamentally about the birth of a myth. The only magic left seems to be in the form of heavily distorted voices. To make things worse, Timothée Challamet, whose androgynous physique conveyed well the frailty of a young prince called to a higher destiny despite himself in the first film, struggles to transform into a people and military leader here, despite his attempts to scream very loudly and stand at the top of sand dunes with his legs open a bit too wide.

The main issue however is that Dennis Villeneuve focuses too much of his attention on how the film looks, and too little on character development, plot, rhythm or excitement. While smooth surface spaceships, slow motion shots and designer sets felt refreshing in The Arrival, and to some extent in Blade Runner 2049, they begin to feel today like overused toys that have lost their shine.

Let's be clear: this is still a decent film, nowhere near the depths of recent Marvel or DC universe movies, but one cannot quite elevate it to the status of Great Film. In the midst of the general indifference it generates in us as audiences, the presence of Austin Butler, however silly his character, is a standout. Here's an actor that continues to demonstrate he fills the screen with a magnetic presence of a great star.

Avatar: The Last Airbender (2024– )

Neither the fun of the cartoon nor the poetry of Shyamalan

[1/10 · 24 February 2024]

I must be the one deep fan of Shyamalan's Last Airbender. Having not watched the cartoon before, I was amazed by the universe, but more importantly, by the poetry of that movie.

Fast forward 14 years and Netflix has come out with a new live action show and the least one can say is it's profoundly disappointing. The first thing that stands out is the casting, which feels directly pulled from a Disney Channel show. And when you look at it even more closely, you realize everything in this version of The Last Airbender is like a Disney Channel show. From the bad dialogue to the poor acting and the impersonal directing, everything points to a show made to spend just enough to please the masses without taking any risk.

But without risk, there is no payoff. The Last Airbender cartoon was fun and goofy. Shyamalan's film was poetic and choreographed like a ballet. This show, at least three episodes in, is just plain bad and a bit cheap.

Argylle (2024)

A movie that never believes it can be good

[2/10 · 18 February 2024]

Some people are defending Argylle on the old theme of "it's brainless stuff, and it kept me entertained for 2 hours". That is somewhat true, but too low of a bar.

The reality is the first 15 minutes of the movie are almost intriguing, in particular as the character of Elly Conway is introduced, but it only goes down from there, and progresses slowly towards scenes that are increasingly bad until they become embarrassing by the end of the movie. The casting of the movie doesn't help. Dallas Bryce Howard is not credible as a former super spy. Sam Rockwell is supposed to be funny as a non-glamorous spy, but ends-up just being non-glamorous. And Henry Cavill seems to be there to show that he is not fit to play any role beyond Superman, at least not in this century.

Overall, the movie seems never to believe that it can be good, and tries to over-compensate by multiplying the plot twists. But all of them cannot fix the unoriginal plot, flat dialogue and more than anything the ridiculous cast.

By far the most intriguing part of Argylle is the possibility that Louis Partridge may play a role in a future installment of the series. He has charisma and would make for a great young spy. Maybe that movie will be better?

The Zone of Interest (2023)

Bone chilling

[9/10 · 29 January 2024]

The Zone of Interest (the title refers to the name the nazis gave to the Auschwitz area) depicts the lives of Rudolf Hoss, the Commander of Auschwitz, and his family around the concentration camp. The most terrifying aspect of it all is how this family has come to accept the horror they live next to, from the operating sounds of the concentration camp (industrial sounds, gunfire), to the prisoner buildings visible over the fence of their backyard, to the cruelty with Jews and prisoners embedded into their every day's lives. While living next to the darkest hell on earth, they actually feel like they are living their best lives, exceeding their dreams, because of the material comfort they enjoy.

Beyond the value in reminding us all of the horror of Nazi Germany, the film finds resonance with today's Western countries, where so many of us are willing to accept the deepest injustices, the lowest values, in exchange for our own comfort.

The Zone of Interest confirms Jonathan Glazer as one of today's most brilliant filmmakers, and one with a unique ability to create tension from the thinnest of plots. His style is original, intelligent and creative. The film is however questionable in its depiction of Nazi violence. Appropriately, it chooses not to show the violence on screen, checking the good behavior box of being 'non-voyeuristic'. However, what it veils on screen, it compensates for in sound, giving itself free rein to show all the violence, unfiltered, in the soundtrack. That is actually just as voyeuristic, just through a different sense.

Despite this, the movie is deep, haunting, intelligent and relevant at once.

Past Lives (2023)

Just a very simple romantic story

[6/10 · 20 January 2024]

Past Lives is ultimately a pretty traditional romantic movie. What makes it stand out is its cinematography, and maybe even more than that, Celine Song's undeniable sense for building a frame. What's in the frame is actually debatable and in its worst moments feels like a collection of cliches, which can get a bit irritating when used to juxtapose two countries and by extension their cultures in postcard-like simplification. However, even then, the construction of the frames is impeccable, and you often find yourself forgetting the story to admire the images.

But what is the movie about? 50% of it is just a romantic story like any other. Replace the Korean actors with Jennifer Aniston and Hugh Grant, and you have a plain love story you have seen a thousand times. The remaining 50% is about America's favorite topic today, identity, a symptom of country that feels like it has lost its own, leaving its citizens looking for meaning in their ancestry, in their family heritage. A24 has become an expert in producing movies on current but not-overly controversial topics like this, and extracting some box office wins out of it. That the message on identity in Past Lives reminds you so much of an old grandma saying "why couldn't you just marry a nice Korean boy?" doesn't elevate the film to great philosophical heights. But there are a couple of scenes where the film characters, at night in bed, or chatting at a bar, share what feels like a slice of intimacy that feels real. Those moments make you build hopes for Celine Songs' future films.

The Boys in the Boat (2023)

Feels dated

[4/10 · 28 December 2023]

When George Clooney first started directing movies (with Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and then Good Night and Good Luck), his classical style came across as a welcome restraint, a preference to let the screenplays speak their message and a form of respect for the classical forms of filmmaking. With time however, it has become increasingly clear that his style is mainly a reflection of his lack of imagination. This is abundantly clear in Boys in the Boat, where the filmmaking style is so extremely classical that the movie feels as if it had been made a decade or two ago. The character stories never manage to grab us, and in the end, you feel like you are watching many interchangeable rowing scenes, all shot the same way, all equally exciting or unexciting depending on your level of patience.

George Clooney has never been shy about his political views and one can't help but wonder what the message of his latest film is. If there is one, it seems to be a reminder of the continued relevance of the American Dream, the way it always used to be: with hard work and dedication, people in this country can achieve anything they want. Surprisingly, the characters chosen to paint this picture are all white males (many blue-eyed), with leading female characters being stereotyped, and relegated to a role of supporters of their men's feats. One may argue it's the novel, or it was the times, but in today's world, it feels so out of sync, it's just shocking, visually even. Why this choice? It is puzzling, but there is a chance Clooney has made this film to appease conservative audiences, as if saying "there is a lot of change out there, but the values you grew up with remain as strong as ever, the same way they used to be". Or maybe George Clooney's version of being progressive is closer to the old left, focused on income disparity but ignoring other aspects of modern progressive thinking.

Anyone But You (2023)

Entertaining rom-com

[5/10 · 26 December 2023]

Rom-coms are a difficult genre. I find I like teen rom-coms the most, because the freshness and naïveté of their characters allows the romantic parts of the story and the dialogues to be acceptable, and feel almost idealistic. Whereas the same lines and scenes with adults tend to feel overly silly, often embarrassingly so.

That's why the more a rom-com veers into pure comedy the better. "Anyone but you" gets halfway there, and it will certainly get a few laughs out of you.

The most interesting thing about it however is its commitment to the traditional ingredients of a rom-com. Beyond replacing the traditional wedding around which the story takes place with a cross-race lesbian wedding, the movie doesn't innovate -or seek to innovate- for a second (for example, an interesting detail is how cell phones are largely absent from the movie, which is highly unusual in any type of relationship movie today). Some people have argued this makes the movie predictable. It does, but honestly rom-coms are usually predictable before you even enter the theatre. So it doesn't matter, and Will Gluck (the filmmaker) knows this is not the genre for that type of innovation, and instead seems focused on recreating the simple pleasure of a romantic comedy, extract a few laughs and maybe see if the actors (Sydney Sweeney and Glen Powell, both good looking and fine in their roles) develop any surprising chemistry. Whether they do or not is debatable, but Gluck's commitment to the essence of what can make a rom-com fun remains commendable.

Wonka (2023)

Cute, touching and fun

[7/10 · 24 December 2023]

With Wonka, Paul King, who had previously directed the two installments of Paddington, confirms that he has a unique personal style, one that sits refreshingly at the antipodes of most other filmmakers today. King of course positions himself very far from the nuanced study of human emotions from the greatest filmmakers out there, but he sits equally far from the cynical, second-degree attitude of so many of today's blockbuster films, starting with superhero franchises.

In his films, and it's certainly the case of Wonka, King chooses to believe in unambiguously brave and big-hearted characters and in the power of a feel-good story. Feel-good movies have a bad rap because they paint an edulcorated picture of reality that consciously hides the struggles of life. King avoids this pitfall by placing his feel good stories in fantasy worlds, removing any sense of guilt. Where fantasy is often used as a metaphore for the real world, King uses it instead as a safe space for the conveyance of stories that can be perfect without hurting anyone's feelings. He's not the first to do it, but he certainly pushes it to a point of conviction that makes the films stand out. And it wasn't necessarily easy to achieve this with Willy Wonka, a character that always had aspects of him which were creepy and morally questionable. All of that is gone in this version of Wonka, in which King reinvents him into a fully good character.

The other reason Wonka stands out is because of the quality of filmmaking. Scenes demonstrate a consistent cinematic sense from King, like for example when Wonka inspires flamingos in a zoo to fly by flying himself pulled up by colorful balloons. Almost every scene in the movie has cinematic beauty to it and good taste.

Finally, the movie also benefits from a strong performance by Timothée Challamet as Willy Wonka and a funny appearance by Hugh Grant as an Oompa-loompa.

Overall a highly enjoyable movie, great to watch with children or on your own.

Maestro (I) (2023)

Tone deaf

[4/10 · 23 December 2023]

Here's a good acid test for a movie: whenever you see an unusual format being used, you need to ask "why?" Does it serve a purpose, or is it just a gimmick to pretend to originality or artistry when the core material has none? In Maestro, there are two such instances: the film is shot in a 4:3 format (unusual outside of some independent European films) and some portions are shot in black and white. Neither serves a purpose, and they are the symptom of the film's intrinsic weaknesses.

Maybe the most surprising one of them all is how little passion it conveys for classical music. In a film like Tar, that came out last year, we went deep into the meaning of music, its purpose, its impact on the characters' lives, and the passion was palpable. In Maestro, the music is rarely anything more than an interchangeable background for its scenes. Even in the rare moments when it is supposed to be central, like the scene of Bernstein conducting Gustav Mahler's Resurrection Symphony, the passion for the music is never truly felt. Instead, Bradley Cooper tries to reproduce Bernstein's extravagant conducting style (largely mimicking the recording from the actual event, as if that were how truth was reached!) but you never understand how all of that energy contributed to the music output. In an ironic sign of failure for a film about a conductor, the music and the conducting feel completely disconnected.

The reason Bradley Cooper chose to make this movie seems to be his identification with Bernstein as both a performer, a conductor and a creator (the parallel being an actor, a director, a screenwriter for Cooper), which, as he explains in an interview scene, are very different roles and trying to live them at the same time can make you schizophrenic. While this could have been an interesting angle, the depths of the internal conflict never come to the surface. It is also a little early for Bradley Cooper to compare himself, after his second film, to Maestro Leonard Bernstein, which highlights another weakness of the film: its unearned arrogance and egocentrism. Several scenes are there just to give Cooper the opportunity to showcase his acting skills. But there again, he is okay not great as Leonard Bernstein, reproducing his mannerisms, but never touching his soul.

Ultimately, the best thing about Maestro is Carey Mulligan, which is exceptional as Felicia Bernstein and contrasts, with her impeccable acting and deep association with her character, with the superficiality of everything and everyone else. Looking back at Cooper's previous movie, A Star is Born, the best and most surprising thing in it was Lady Gaga's performance. So it may very well be that Bradley Cooper's talent is in directing actors (or actresses specifically?). While that's no small feat, it seems not to be enough to make a great movie.

The Boy and the Heron (2023)

Mysterious, engaging, complex

[9/10 · 18 December 2023]

In the past 20 years, pretty much everybody has become a Miyazaki fan. And yet, while his style is unmistakable from film to film, it is also true that there are many Miyazaki's, and you're not forced to love them all equally. There's the beautifully poetic Miyazaki from Totoro, Kiki's Delivery Service or The Wind Rises. The master of entertaining fantasy and imagination from Spirited Away or Castle in the Sky. And there's a dark Miyazaki, the one from Princess Mononoke or Howl's Moving Castle.

The Boy and the Heron falls into this last category. These films tend to mix many elements that aren't always easy to bring together for the audience. Great beauty and great ugliness (the heron from the title is disturbingly ugly, there's bird feces throughout the entire film), harsh reality and unbridled fantasy, a simple story and a complex one, childhood and death. The Boy and the Heron isn't always easy to watch. The story, ultimately a version of Alice in Wondeland, isn't actually all that hard to understand. But the many paths it takes to get to its conclusion, the many characters and creatures introduced make it feel like a winding road that can make you more than a bit dizzy.

Through it all however, you stay engaged, you have the feeling of watching the work of a great artist and something you will never get to see again. Whether you love every scene or not, whether you are able to engage in the plot fully or partially, you certainly always enjoy watching a story like no other, and a work of true personal passion.

May December (2023)

#LoveIsLove?

[10/10 · 17 December 2023]

May December is undeniably one of 2023's best films. Over the last 30 years, Todd Haynes has been making films about (so-called) unconventional relationships, be it gay (Velvet Goldmine), cross-race (Far from Heaven) or lesbian (Carol). While outstanding, all of these films started from a position of assurance in their thesis ("all forms of love should be accepted"), and didn't have the disturbing power of May December, where that certitude is pushed to its point of doubt, with the story of Gracie (played by Julianne Moore, excellent as always) and Joe (Charles Melton, impeccably cast), who started their relationship when she was 36 years old and he a seventh grader.

As we know, despite the inclusion rhetoric, never has the world or the United States been as intolerant of individual difference as today. People are only allowed to be different as long as it's within a set of acceptable norms, and as soon as they deviate from them, they are rejected, accused, bullied, in broad daylight and under the approving eyes of society. #LoveIslove makes for a great bumper sticker, but how deeply do we truly believe it? May December makes us confront this question. Because there is no doubt that Gracie had a form of power when she started sleeping with Joe. But it's equally true that their love was always real. Todd Haynes makes us question our certitudes further by focusing on Gracie and Joe at a much later period of their lives, where their age difference is perfectly acceptable, forcing us to wonder if it might not have always been the case.

Guiding us in the discovery of Gracie and Joe is Elizabeth (brilliantly portrayed by Natalie Portman), an actress preparing to play the role of Gracie on film. With her canned statements and silent judgment, she represents today's society in all of its hypocrisy. But she is also a reminder that making a film about a relationship of this nature inevitably implies a manipulation of the story, and an over-interpretation (Elizabeth is obsessed with finding "truth", but everything she does indicates a desire to generate an effect).

The screenplay by Samy Burch is thought-provoking and nuanced. She need not worry about being replaced by AI, because what she wrote is innovative and humanly profound. And the direction, music and cinematography are equally outstanding. With such quality, one has the right to ask why we are forced to watch the film on Netflix, instead of being given the chance to watch it properly in theatres?

In any case, you will come out of May December feeling like you watched something unique, disturbing and beautiful at once, and that it is a film that will stay with you for days.

Napoleon (2023)

Innovative in its way to depict a historic legend

[7/10 · 11 December 2023]

Napoleon has been a surprise hit, and how much ink has been spent on the film may be one reason for its success. Rarely in recent history has a film been so widely criticized for its historical inaccuracies. We didn't hear that kind of backlash for The Crown or Bridgerton, so why such disappointment in historic representation in this specific case?

It seems like the backlash may be driven by a misunderstanding on the purpose of the film. Maybe it would have been served by being called "An impression of Napoleon" instead of "Napoleon" - but it doesn't quite have the same ring to it, does it? Be it as it may, when you take a character of the importance of Napoleon, it seems impossible to represent him fully or do him justice in a film, however long it may be! How do you then portray a historic character of this nature? When you think about it, our mental image of Napoleon is shaped by images in our heads, some picked from paintings, some from a broad understanding of his feats, like Austerlitz, and his errors, like his Russian campaign. Rather than strike at the truth -whatever that means- Ridley Scott's Napoleon tries to reach for the image of the character, representing in short scenes some of the main events of Napoleon's career, without trying to tie them together, and punctuating them instead with short scenes of his relationship with Josephine - not to tell a true story of their relationship either, but just to add humanity to the character, to varnish the images of his military feats with a human angle that only make the character bigger. The result feels almost like a slideshow, which I think is what ultimately frustrates some moviegoers and critics. But a very powerful one. One where the full grandeur of Napoleon as a leader comes through, not in the linearity of the story, but in the amalgamation of images crafted with extraordinary skill - the battle scenes alone are extraordinary.

It's a really interesting and innovative way to film a historic character. Is it a masterpiece? Probably not. Is it one of the better films of Ridley Scott in a long time? Certainly.

Wish (II) (2023)

Uninspired

[3/10 · 25 November 2023]

Who would have known that, of all organizations in the world, Disney would be the one to forget that nothing matters more than love? After all those years hammering the message into our heads, they have forgotten it themselves! And that is one of the many issues with Wish. There's no love interest, and we, the audience, lose interest.

Maybe we shouldn't. Maybe we should appreciate that love for your grandpa and your mom is enough, and that friendship with your buddies is equally important as passionate love. Or maybe Disney could make peace with love. When a young person loves another, it doesn't necessarily mean that they need to let go of their personality, ambitions, ideals or for that matter, wishes. Love can be, usually is, a good thing.

Making an emotional story without love is not impossible, but it's hard. And the ingredients are not there in Wish. In the absence of love, humor can help. But the secondary characters in Wish, Valentino the goat or the mute lucky star, are not very good, and not funny at all. The music could help, but the songs aren't all that memorable. And the main characters, while decent, can't quite carry the story. Asha, a mix of Moana, Elsa and Pocahontas, is okay but she seems to lack a clear purpose that is believable, and we never really care much about her. Magnifico, the villain, may be the best character, but he feels so much like a rehash of other villains before him, that we struggle to see him as a character in his own right.

Left without emotion, without humor, without great music, the film doubles down on weaponry, raising the stakes on the use of dark magic with every scene to try and keep the audience awake. But it's not enough. I dozed off a few times.

My advice to Disney: make love, not war.

The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes (2023)

The Capitol's origin story

[7/10 · 19 November 2023]

In 2008, Suzanne Collins took the young adult world by storm with the publication of The Hunger Games, soon turned into a global phenomenon movie franchise with the first entry coming out as early as 2012. With hindsight, it's the political vision infused in The Hunger Games that is most striking. Panem reflects a vision of the United States where a small group of economic, intellectual and artistic elites live extravagantly in rich cities, devoid of true human values, while the rest of the country lives in poverty, working hard and sustaining traditional values and human authenticity. Whether you share this vision or not, it is hard to disagree that it reflected well-ahead of its time a political view that millions of Americans (and others in the world) would embrace a few years later.

Now, eight years after the last installment in the series, a prequel is released that tells the origin story of the franchise villain, Coriolanus Snow. Let it be said that the film succeeds in building an engaging story about the development of this character, one that is full of action, excitement and well-crafted character development. However, more than Snow's origin story, it's the origin story of Panem and the Capitol that catches our attention, given the strength of the political message in the first four films. In The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, we are presented with a Capitol that looks very different from the one seen in the previous films. Instead of the extravagant town reflective of liberal cities in the US, we see a grey city, built in massive concrete structures, that is highly reminiscent of the image we have of Soviet or Eastern European communist cities in the 70's and 80's. The structures, the clothes, the sculptures towering over giant squares, the cars, the propaganda posters are all reflective of communist imagery. That is ultimately the subversive political message infused into this prequel: the behavior and decadence of the Capitol (and by extension of liberal American cities) has its roots in communism. For anyone who understood the political message in the first four films and its connection with some political views in America, this conclusion is not unexpected, but it is certainly a bit disturbing to see it so prominently displayed in such a mass-market oriented movie targeting the young.

In the spirit of open-mindedness and democratic values, one can still choose to appreciate and enjoy the film without agreeing with its political message (something many are unable to do these days). There is for example no doubt that the Soviet imagery creates an amazing visual experience, in particular with the representation of a hunger games arena that is visually impactful and very different from the one in previous installments.

Ultimately, The Hunger Games is an exciting franchise and this new installment is no exception. And whether you agree with its political vision or not, history has told us that it has had a way of being ahead of its time, and therefore that it is worth listening to.

A Brighter Tomorrow (2023)

One of Moretti's worst

[7/10 · 17 November 2023]

Someone asked me one day which person in history I would want to have lunch with. While Julius Caesar, Jesus Christ, Napoleon or George Washington may have been good candidates, I couldn't think of a name that appealed more to me than Nanni Moretti. Over the last 25 years, starting with the exceptional Palombella Rossa, Nanni Moretti has had an uninterrupted streak of masterpieces including Caro Diario, The Son's Room, The Caiman, We Have a Pope, Mia Madre and Three Floors, to name a few, which rank among the best films made in that time period, and make Nanni Moretti one of the greatest living filmmakers.

With that track record, I imagine Moretti could only disappoint. And disappoint he does with A Brighter Tomorrow. Don't get me wrong, we are still talking about one of the best filmmakers in the world, one that certainly knows how to make a good movie. But this one feels miles behind his other films. One of the things that hit you is how self-referential it is. From the name of the circus in the film (Budavari, a reference to Palombella Rossa) to the obsession with shoes (a reference to his earlier films, in particular Bianca) to a scene playing with a soccer ball (a reference to Caro Diario), it feels reheated, almost vain, from a filmmaker who always looked decidedly into the future. And this feeling of lack of ideas is made worse by abundant references to classic films, in particular those of Fellini.

In a way, these shortcomings arise from the subject of the film itself: it is ultimately about the gap between Moretti's values, represented by his films and his film culture, and today's world. But the issue is the message feels conveyed without passion, which has been the one constant in his filmography to this day. A Brighter Tomorrow therefore disappoints. We can only hope for Moretti's next film and remember all of his previous ones.

The Holdovers (2023)

Fails to touch you

[4/10 · 6 November 2023]

The goal of The Holdovers is very clear from its very first images: to make a film in the style of a movie from the late 60's , early 70's. The rating card shown before the movie is in the format of the period, as are the production company logos and the opening credits. And everything that follows seems aimed at that overarching goal.

Let's talk positives: the Holdovers achieves its goal. The color, the grain, the camera shots all look very much like a movie from the late 60's, early 70's. Not necessarily one of the best -more Love Story or Barefoot in the Park than Faces or Barry Lindon- but hey, to each their own nostalgia.

The problem is it doesn't achieve much more than that goal. The characters fail to come to life. The story is a bit slow but more importantly, fails to touch our hearts. Too busy trying to "look like a movie from the 70's", it lacks a purpose. Ironically, it's this concern with "looking like someone you're not" that could bring The Holdovers closer to the psychology of its teenage characters. But that self-awareness never surfaces and all you're left with is an inconsequential limited distribution movie.

Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

A dark look at our past and an enlightened view on our present

[9/10 · 2 November 2023]

Killers of the Flower moon narrates a dark episode in American history, one that follows a number of Osage tribe member murders that took place after oil was discovered on their land. Like many other Scorsese films, Killers of the Flower Moon explores how evil emerges in a family community and takes control of men's actions. Different from other Scorsese films however, the pace doesn't accelerate as the film progresses. If anything, it seems to slow down: months and even years seem to go by in the first thirty minutes of the film, while a few days capture the last hour. It seems like historic Scorsese films like The Age of Innocence, Gangs of New York, Silence and this film share the characteristic of a steady, calmer pace, as if the distance of time allowed for a more balanced approach to the material. Running at three and a half hours without the entertaining excesses of Goodfellas or the Wolf of Wall Street, it is not surprising that the film has delivered mixed results at the box office. And yet it's as relevant, engaging and disturbing as any other Scorsese film.

The film doesn't hide its societal point of view, and addresses head on the topic of repression of Native Americans by white populations in American history in the most unequivocal of ways. But running as an undercurrent throughout the film lies another of today's hot topics, which is the right of representation (understood as the right to represent something in art, or in this case on the screen). Who is Martin Scorsese to make a film about the abuses to Native Americans by white men? Is it okay that he made the film with the main characters and actors being two white men? Scorsese states in a pre-roll shown before the start of the film that its story was of particular "personal relevance" to him. In what way? In making Killers of the Flower Moon, Scorsese states that repression of any person or population is never someone else's problem. It's ours, and should feel personal to all of us. Representing it on screen is not stealing someone else's rights, but on the contrary opening ourselves to the pain of others. That possibility of understanding a different human group, for a filmmaker who made his fame and fortune focusing narrowly on his native New York, is the ultimate theme of the film.

Killers of the Flower is masterfully directed by Martin Scorsese and brilliantly acted by Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro and Lily Gladstone. One can only be in awe at how every shot, every camera movement has a purpose, contributes to the story and reminds you of how great an art filmmaking can be. Every scene that Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro are together on is like an acting masterclass. It is a luxury to see these two great actors playing together.

The Burial (II) (2023)

Bland film but good acting

[4/10 · 21 October 2023]

The Burial fills Prime Video's quarterly installment of a diversity-themed movie. Maggie Betts is the filmmaker to take the order this quarter, apparently happy to cash a check in exchange for perpetuating all of the stereotypes she should have been fighting, while never stepping -God forbid- on any toes.

Not surprisingly, she completes the mandate without much passion, style or personality, mainly applying the playbook of traditional legal drama films to a somewhat boring case of corporate law. As a result, the film lacks heart, limiting itself to conveying the required messages, and feels more and more like a TV movie as you watch more of it. As a member of the audience, you keep hoping the film will take an unexpected turn at some point, surprise you with an original thought or some artistic intent, but unfortunately that moment never arrives.

However, relative to comparable titles, The Burial is at least supported by good performances by Jamie Foxx and Tommy Lee Jones, and a screenplay that, while certainly canned, is at least not horrible.