I wanted to close the year with something a bit better than the disappointing of last time. So, between two cooking rounds, I decided to try a short entry for "Youth", although it probably deserves a more detailed review than the previous one. Who has seen "Il Divo" and "La Grande Bellezza" probably knows already the directing and writing style of Paolo Sorentino. For who didn't see "Il Divo" and "La Grande Bellezza" what I can summarize in two words is: chillout movie. Probably this doesn't cover all that should be covered = the drama part, the reflections over life part, the bitter comedy, and all else you can find in the two movies and even more in "Youth". But I think "chillout movie" catches the essential regarding the mood state where this movie fits. It's slowly advancing, and it might awake some strong feelings on the way, but nothing suddenly. It does it gradually, until the end credits roll over.
Technically, "Youth" is a remarkable achievement. I cannot tell how it is overall compared with "La Grande Bellezza", but for camera work what we have here is clearly better (and it wasn't bad in the other place either). There are many voices praising Michael Caine's performance in the leading role. I agree, but what I find overlooked is the character played by Harvey Keitel, who I think here has the best performance ever at least from what I've seen.
I'll wrap up with what I usually have in the introductory part. What's the subject in "Youth"? We have a snapshot from the final years of an orchestra conductor, while he spends his usual vacation in a mountain resort in Switzerland. That's it. Mainly a few days from a guy's life and what surrounds him. To conclude, starting from the subject description, I think "Youth" is actually recommended to watch until a certain age .. Don't know why, but I guess seeing it after you're 40-50 years old might gain a stronger depressing factor than what it already has. Even if, in the end, the final part can be seen as a metaphor of "you can stay forever young" :)
First thing: If you didn't see any "Star Wars" and you'd like to start with this one, maybe it's better to stop reading here. You're the fortunate case! You might not get many references from the movie, but you might still like it. And it doesn't make sense to alter your expectations by getting a couple spoilers, which I'll try to minimize, even though it's impossible for me to remove them completely...
Now let's get to us, the rest who had a piece of the SW universe before. If I would do a statistic of my blog entries and the associated ratings, I think what I'd get would be at least 2/3 in accordance with most of the professional critics related to the "fresh" vs "rotten" verdict for a move. That's for saying that I can't be accused of being against the wave just for the sake of doing so. This was a disclaimer for what follows ... Because I'm baffled by the appreciation "The Force Awakens" gets. I simply can't understand, and unfortunately I can't say that I've read many reviews to get it .. but the reason for that is that they don't present reasons! at least not objectively! Besides subjective awe and ecstatic appreciation like wow, we finally find out that Force is in anything that's living (no man, we knew that already!!! - and seriously, I've seen that in a review by a "top critic"), that stormtroopers have heart and are capable of feelings (we knew that too! at least literally speaking = they're humans for God sake!), and others like these ... I'll try to make an objective analysis of what we're served with (as objective as I can). And I'll start with the negative part, because ... the dark side is stronger in this one.
Let's leave aside the many parts that are too SciFi even for a SciFi, because that's what we get in pretty much any movie of this size. This is minor. Let's get to what's much worse than this, and a first mark to make is the negative character: Kylo Ren. The comparison with Darth Vader is unavoidable. Both the one in the original series, and also Anakin Skywalker from Ep. I-III. The difference is huge. Hayden Christensen got many critics for his acting skills when he played Anakin, but ironically exactly his lack of expression served him extremely well for a character who's slowly dehumanizing. The voice of James Earl Jones for the original Darth Vader is the definition of charisma. That's totally lacking in the new movie. Maybe it's not that much the actor's fault, but the script is definitely to blame. Let's move over the unknown reason why the guy wears a mask, which is also damaged (maybe the Dark Side lacks funds for renewing helmets). The character is hilarious ... it's prone to parody. His nervous breakdowns when he strikes everywhere with his sword like a spoiled teenager made me think on the "Spaceballs" Darth Vader version. There's needless to say that even the movie itself makes a laugh out of it with one of the many jokes that aren't at all fit in the script = we have a scene when during such a breakdown, two stormtroopers change their patrolling route which passes by the the angry wielder of the red laser. May the Schwartz be with us ...
J.J. Abrams tried something that worked in "Star Trek". It made it more relaxed. And it worked because he had room to make it more relaxed (plus the crew of the original series fits with that). You can't do the same with "Star Wars". SW has already a wide target audience that's much less geek oriented compared to ST, and which includes also small age categories. There's no room, and in many situations as the joke above or other aspects it feels that "nope, that didn't work" ...
That's something more that Abrams got in "Star Trek", superbly I could say, and here gets close to embarrassingly bad. Trying to make key references through scenes close to the previous movies. Kirk's death scene in "Into Darkness" for instance, the exact opposite of the similar death of Spock in "Wrath of Khan" .. this was pure gold. Inverting the roles almost identically, the alternate timeline, the same negative character, the climax moment in the movie, there's lots of stuff that put together give a connecting point over years with the older movie, and it's impossible not to feel something about it if you know what dots to connect. "Star Wars" on the other hand is simply repetitive ... and that's it ... we start with a droid lost in the desert who carries a secret message (sounds familiar?) ... we have a bigger and meaner Death Star which does pretty much the same thing as the previous one: destroys planets ... and (spoiler alert) we have the climax scene as in "Star Trek", in which we also have here the role inversion, father-son with a reference to "Empire Strikes Back". Only that the symmetry we had in ST that hit you with a nostalgic feeling of "history repeats", that symmetry is really messed up here ... Ironically even if the symmetry is not that much there, probably unfortunately intending to obtain something original, this originality suffers of another huge problem: it's ultra-predictable! where ultra = you know what follows with something like 5-10 minutes before the scene's climax ... But, let's stop here and keep the "surprise" factor.
And still ... let's not drop it completely. Probably the scene wanted to be a key moment in the movie. A memorable one. It fails badly. Stuff that only happened (maybe) in "The Phantom Menace". In each of the other "Star Wars" we have at least a scene to remember. In "A New Hope" is either the first sight of Darth Vader, or the destruction of the Death Star. In "Empire Strikes Back" is the duel Darth Vader vs. Luke when the latter loses his hand. In "Return of the Jedi" is the death of Darth Vader and the first time when the mask falls down. In "The Clone Wars" is the duel Yoda vs. Dooku when we see for the first time why Yoda carries a sword. In "Revenge of the Sith" is the ending of the Anakin vs. Obi-Wan duel and practically the birth of Vader. In "Phantom Menace" maybe it wanted to be the death of Qui Gon Jinn, but that didn't work as it doesn't work now either ... you cannot have a key scene that looks like trying to repeat another key scene but it's also undecided about that ...
Let's move a bit to the light part ... at least a bit. The movie is long but you can't feel it. I have to admit this. And if one of the worst problems is the negative character, maybe the best part is the positive character: Rey. Finally, we have a girl as Jedi knight :) + the actress did her job perfectly. Unfortunately I can't appreciate much besides these. What I can, is to hope that "The Force Awakens" will be an Episode I "The Phantom Menace" comparing to what's coming after ...
Let's get into the subject: "London has Fallen" in March. I don't have much hope this will be less lame than Olympus, but I also don't have many trailers released for what's coming next spring ...
"Zootopia" seems a bit more ... no, actually a lot more promising. Even though we don't have Gerard Butler as a re-invented John McClane like in the one before.
DC Comics strikes back, with what it has more powerful: Batman and Superman in the same package in .. well .. "Batman vs. Superman" .. starring Ben Affleck .. as Batman .. (why I start having doubts that George Clooney is the worst Dark Knight? ...)
"Ratchet and Clank" is an animation getting out in April. I didn't like that much the trailer, but the synopsis was intriguing enough. Apparently with some PlayStation origins ...
If we have a fight between Batman and Superman, we definitely needed something from Marvel too ... "Captain America: Civil War" = Cpt. America vs Iron Man in May. In DC Comics' defense their subject has some older roots and was actually very well depicted in an animated version (probably one of the best Batman versions ever) ... Marvel's thing smells too much as marketing response for me ...
"The Nice Guys" seems for now the most interesting title announced for next spring. Shane Black is back after quite a while to the genre where we had the best from him as director, but even more as screenwriter: crime/thriller (as references every "Lethal Weapon" + the masterpiece: "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang"). Sounds promising ...
"X-Men: Apocalypse" ... no Wolverine ... too much Marvel, too many superheroes, enough said ...
That's about all for this preview round. Finally managed to finish it, a bit rushed it's true. Now' ... to take a vacation from blogging, not to take, to take, not to take ...
Yup, I know it's nearly the end of December, but better late than never. So let's see what we have this winter in cinemas. Starting with the already released "Star Wars". Not seen yet, and I must say that I don't have ultra-high expectations ... We'll see ...
"Youth" is not actually released this month, but this month it got the big prize on the European Film Awards. A co-production directed by Paolo Sorentino, which looks as a must see (at least if you liked "Il Divo" and "La Grande Bellezza"):
I don't trust much what I see in the "Point Break" remake trailer (plus it sort of reminds me how much older I am compared to when the original was released... OMG...), but I don't have any other option for this end of month ...
January starts with "The Hateful Eight" the 8th movie by Tarantino. Apparently more confined in terms of action space than the previous two, it somehow makes me think on "Ten Little Indians" by Agatha Christie. Let's see what we'll have there ...
"The Revenant" by Inarritu reminds me a bit of Gibson's "Apocalypto". Probably with comparable more chances on the Oscars though ...
"Synchronicity" seems to be a low budget indie. Since I love the subject, I said whatever, let's add it to the list. Maybe it's not bad after all.
In February we have... "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". Oh yeah... Well, if Abraham Lincoln hunted vampires (and actually the movie was ok), why not? Let's keep an open mind :P
We didn't get rid of super-heroes... Marvel gets out a new one: "Deadpool". Hmmm.. maybe we should give it a chance, maybe not, maybe yes, maybe..
To wrap up with more serious stuff, Jean-Jacques Annaud returns in Asia with "Wolf Totem". Considering that since "7 Years in Tibet" I didn't see anything to be indeed interesting from this guy, this one got my attention.
That's it for the winter. I hope I'll be back sooner with Part 2.
At this time of year (actually already gone) I was doing a preview of the following Winter-Spring season. Obviously I don't have time for this. But I've noticed that's been a looong time since I've had a philosophical entry on the issue of chasing rabbits ... (did I write about this in English? I don't even remember ...)
As I'm getting older, I'm also getting more convinced that the optimistic idea of my youth of running after more rabbits to catch at least one is awfully exhausting. I'm thinking if it isn't maybe more comfortable to become a vegetarian and stop running after anything ... Where's the thrill then, you would say? No adrenaline ... Wrong.
Slowly, as time goes by, I tend to conclude that life offers you so many and diverse problems, that you could definitely consider a peaceful gardener career. You'll have anyway rodents in your yard to chase for, so many maybe that you won't even have time to gather the carrots crop. Now, well ... that rabbit that you want, might be or not be there ...
I'm writing somewhere in transit, in a hotel room, trying to decide between half a Stilnox or an enhanced Ibuprofen for my back pains. Target: to sleep three hours until my next connecting flight. So maybe I'll better stop here, otherwise I'll only have two left ..
... & don't worry, that movie preview entry will come ;) If I could play with my time as in the shot took below where you can count the blades of a turboprop's propeller while it's in full ascension speed ... That would be something. Unfortunately it's not that easy ...
Long break again ... "No Man's Land" is a Bosnian movie from 2001. European co-production to be more accurate. I've seen by chance recently. Also by chance I guess it fits as a pretty good entry for the current times ...
Location: a trench during the Serbian-Bosnian war in 1994. Participants: a Bosnian and a Serb who got on their own feet standing between enemy lines .. + another soldier on the ground (still alive). I won't say on which side he is to avoid spoiling all the intro. What I can spoil is that the two conclude at some point that shooting each other is not a way out still standing.
It's a movie where if you give too many details you remove part of its charm. Because, as any other movie with a limited count of actors in a closed scenery, the action doesn't have much chance to lag and story keeps changing the path it has. The movie is a tragicomedy, unfortunately ending in a bitter note ... despite the situations that remove some of the tension from time to time. There are many fine nuances, which you can observe (and probably more that I didn't). Starting with the year, not mentioned explicitly, but appearing through a reference to the Rwandan genocide, underlining the uselessness of the UN policy of non-intervening in both conflicts, up to the fact that the press feeds too often with death (just notice when cameras stop shooting) ... Many nuances, which unfortunately are still valid. And the same for the conclusion: wars are stupid.
5 is the age of this blog (8 in its original version). "Blade Runner" is an old SciFi having my age (considered by most "the best in the genre"). "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" is the even older book that's behind the movie ...
Let's start with 5 (don't worry, I'll be short). It's been a while since I'm writing, and contrary to intuition, expectancy or any other logical reasoning I seriously feel that the output is worse and worse. Fortunately for my "self-esteem" I have an excuse: time = or lacking it. We can add on top also as news the back pains = I guess I prefer half an hour - one hour - or whatever takes to write an entry laying in bed instead typing. But let's stop complaining. I'm not shutting down the blog. For the traffic I get, which it's been a while since I checked just to keep my illusion that there's somebody reading, all I can promise is that I hope to keep up until the 6th anniversary. When hopefully, in a more optimistic mood I'll come up with an entry that's not as rushed as this one ...
What's above probably explains a bit how I got to "Blade Runner". The always missing resource = time, didn't let me try something new. So I said, let's do a query on my brain and see what good movie works for a "Happy Birthday" entry (especially considering the latest ratings). Risking some booing from the audience, I don't consider "Blade Runner" a masterpiece. But it's still a good movie. The story is relatively simple, the meaning is more complex. We have a bounty hunter, who in a dystopic future has the mission of hunting androids, identically human, and escaped from the "jobs" they have been produced for. That's the story. The meaning ... well .. the movie's not that fresh in my mind, but I guess everybody could find something there. For I don't know what reason, now comes to my mind the android's life length = 4 years, short and intense. The question is does it worth it or not, in a context where in the end there's no choice - so answering is useless - but still the question somehow stays there ...
"Do Android Dream of Electric Sheep?" is more fresh. Somehow, I managed to wrap it up this summer. And it's one of the reasons that strengthens my opinion that "Blade Runner" is not a masterpiece :). As usual the people say the book is better than the movie. Here is more than a confirmed cliche. The book is different. First of all, spoilers excluded, if the movie left you a question mark on the human condition of the main character, I think the book clears this out quite well. The nice part, just guessing, is that I think you can read it also "differently" = to make it clear also in the other way. Sort of Schrodinger's cat, it's both dead or alive, but it is the way you see it and stays like that. There are plenty of details in the book that make the story much richer than what the movie offers, and implicitly what you can get out of it.
To cut it short, and stop the philosophy until it drives itself into stupidity :) - there are two things incredibly clear in this foggy dark universe: despite the age "Blade Runner" is still an impressive cinematic achievement and it's the proof that Ridley Scott knew how to make a movie back then; also despite the age "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" confirms my belief that P.K.Dick remains incredibly actual no matter how many years pass by. The only question is when I'll get enough time for this blog :)? Depends if you "live" or not I guess...
BR - Rating: 4 out of 5
DADoES - Rating: 5 out of 5
I had a nightmareish week. And I hoped I can indulge myself 2-3 hours of rest watching the latest Bond. Unfortunately, for me "rest" in the context of watching a movie doesn't mean mental lethargy. I'm expecting something that if doesn't have a very innovative story, is still somewhat engaging or at least doesn't have a script that gets ridiculous once each 15 minutes. That's a generous average estimation ... too bad the movie lasts for more than two hours. Too much to lose more time with the writing. In one phrase, lacking ideas, the brilliant screenwriters (four of them) resurrected the main villain from the '60s-'80s Bond = Ernst Stavro Blofeld, adding to the package a soap-opera side where this guy has some teenage years traumas caused by Bond + of course the trendy topic of evil organization a la NSA that monitors worldwide communications. As we got used in "Skyfall" (which is at least one class better than "Spectre") we have again: stunts that couldn't be done by the mother of all agents in this world herself (at least not by getting out alive wearing the same impeccable buttoned suit), instant hacking of servers + "smartblood" + other IT&C aberrations for artistic impression, and finally the same reasoning Bond applies of leaving bad guys alive so we can re-use the actors in the next fight, or the bulletproof algorithm: "I'm a one man army => I can beat any army" <=> "I'm going alone, walking through the front door in the base of capo di tutti capi and I'll tell him I don't like him. I'm Bond ain't I, and we must have happy end. It's obvious that I'm the one getting out alive from there.". Ok, it's a movie ... You'll tell me "Mission Impossible" has the same problems. Yes, but that accepts it's just fun entertainment, and doesn't try to look like a serious spy thriller, where even simple dialogues sound overly pompous. Do I have to say that besides Christoph Waltz, all cast seems fed up with the part and as eager as you to get to the rolling credits? ...
The poster of this is totally inappropriate. Too much black, too much red ... Seriously, might make you think this is a horror. "Surprisingly" IMDb tells us the same. Fortunately it adds besides "drama + fantasy". Up to half of the movie you might be in doubt. Hmmm, looks like trying for a horror ... there's some drama too ... (don't know what the IMDb editor drank to put fantasy on the list, but well ..). Slowly though, the confusion fades away. The "scary" scenes are one, repeated in various chromatic (actually .. red and black, wait .. I start to get why the poster is using these). More important though, you start noticing that the lack of logic in the script and the over-theatrical acting is not an attempt for a gothic-victorian "hippie" feel of "let's forget the real and dream a bit" ... Nope, it's not intended. Because if it was there should've been an extra genre in the IMDb list: comedy.
So, what do we have here: a blonde girl attempting some literary career, daughter of an industry magnate. Bored by her life she's falling for an English baronet (without fortune) after he's complimenting her last novel manuscript in the 2nd second (measured on the clock) after looking through her wonderful writing. Love story. Daddy doesn't agree. The guy + his sister (especially his sister) seem suspicious. For everybody minus the blonde. Broken heart. The same for the father's head in an unfortunate "accident". Mourning. Marriage. Emigrating to England with the baronet. Haunted mansion (with a big hole in the roof). We find out "the mystery". Actually we already did a while ago, if we have more the one neuron. The blonde finds out too. Well, there are some nuances = some ghosts in the mansion, the evil sister has some background in mental institutions, details on previous victims, and others. The final purpose is anyway the same: the blonde's money. But wait ... the romance ... oh, the romance ... It clouds so much the vision of the baronet that unbelievable .. he wants to save the blonde. So much that he stabs non-lethally on purpose the American doctor (a blond guy) who traveled across the ocean and through a British storm to save the girl. But not before telling him what's the path to run away with the blonde. Let's cut a bit the spoilers and jump to the end. A showdown a la "Shining" in the bloody snow (well ... not too bloody, the paint ran out until the end): "the innocent blonde" vs "the evil brunette" (this film is a good candidate for gender balance of killers in movies). Round 1: weapons - knife vs cleaver. Round 2: weapons - friendly ghost vs cleaver (if the knife didn't cut it ... no pun intended). Fatality move: the shovel. And the winner is ... You won't expect me to tell you everything won't you?.
Conclusion: As the poster says, or the first ghost (a sort of other worldly Nostradamus, warning the blonde since her childhood) - beware .. beware .. of "Crimson Peak".
Rating: 1 out of 5
Trailer: I said everything ... I'm not spending more time to look for it, really, it's dangerous ... you might be tempted to see this
Disclaimer: nothing personal against blondes, but I can't help it when the movie uses more or less intended/nuanced the typical stupid stereotypes
If you've seen "Man on Wire", a very trendy documentary several years ago, you know what to expect in "The Walk". A biopic about the wire crossing of the twin towers in New York done in 1974. Author: Philippe Petit, a French guy with some experience in "the field" and lots of guts to try it out. I don't have time to write, so I'm sorry but I'm gonna stick to the essence of this: the story always seemed to me to be the perfect example of unjustified selfishness. Even just for the fact that the guy got into the whole illegal action a bunch of friends to help him do it. There's also the risk itself = to put your life at stake for the glory of a couple minutes show with an ad-hoc audience ... for me at least that's again a form of selfishness. The documentary I mentioned, very appreciated by the critics, made my opinion even stronger. The movie tough ... managed to achieve something that I wasn't expecting. To make me give a second thought about this. What if, when you try something crazy, you have somewhere a certain feeling that will work out ...
One last thing, checking out the current "peaks" in cinemas: Those towers might have been like 20 times shorter than Everest, but the movie is somewhere at 5 classes above ;) the 3D and all the rest ...
I've been waiting since quite a while for a comeback of Ridley Scott. There are already 10 years since the last movie that had something to make me remember it, despite the not so positive reviews. I'm referring to "Kingdom of Heaven". Since then I've went through "American Gangster", "Body of Lies", "Robin Hood", "Prometheus", "The Counselor". In the order of release. Do you see the trend? Well, there's "A Good Year" and "Exodus" that I missed, so maybe we can't generalize. Well ... surprise! ... The downhill slope is broken (though, to be fair it's hard to get below "The Counselor" with an 8+ figures budget). So, is it a comeback? ...
I say it's not. No comeback. Yup, the movie is ok .. Probably we're somewhere back at the level of "Body of Lies" in the list above (not that it's really comparable). But from here to the astronomic ratings this movie gets these days... I see a long path to walk. The subject of a stranded astronaut on Mars is catchy, as any type of Robinson Crusoe would be. What puzzles me though is that it seems so catchy that the exaggerated ratio of the Fi in SciFi gets unnoticed. A Robinson Crusoe stays a Robinson Crusoe wherever it might happen = I might expect some spectacular innovations when fighting for survival, but still not at the rate and success frequency that we're getting in "The Martian". You can say I'm not that optimistic, and maybe the technical documenting of the movie is good enough, but still the overall credibility it offers made me roll my eyes a bit too often. Even so ... at least we have a subject, compared to other trials in the genre, which were even more overrated ( guess which ... :) Sandra Bullock stars in it ;) )
"Sicario" is the fourth movie I've seen directed by Denis Villeneuve. After "Prisoners", "Enemy" and "Incendies". So my expectantions were high. As production level it doesn't disappoint. About the story, oh well ... the story ...
The story is so predictable that it contrasts about this even with "Enemy" from the above, not to mention "Prisoners" and "Incendies" where there are final twists. A mysterious guy with South-American origins is introduced in the beginning of the movie as collaborator of a task force assigned with surveying the a Mexican cartel trafficking drugs at the U.S. border. The movie is called "Sicario" - the assassin, and the meaning of the term given in the first 10 seconds makes that everything that follows to come up very clearly. You can see from a mile that our guy has his own personal vendetta. Yes, you're given bits and pieces of info during the movie about the reasons for that and his connections with the case, but nothing to produce the "wow" we had in the other pictures. Overall the story is decent, but doesn't rise above an ok action movie. So if you're expecting final twists, or something out of the ordinary to come up, forget it ...
The directing is, however, at the same quality level as we've seen before. A build-up that's again probably a bit too slow, but where you have an uneasy tension kept constant. It's that grim feeling that something bad will happen ... Which seems to become a trademark for Villeneuve that gets better with every new movie, although here seems a bit lighter than the rest. And the cinematography (Roger Deakins) comes as the perfect support for this as well as the soundtrack (Johann Johannsson). I can bet that Deakins will score another nomination at next year's Oscars. Probably that's the best part of the movie, and if you like innuendo-s or fine allusions obtained through visual metaphot, then probably it's worth to watch "Sicario" more than once. Even though pretty much all the frames that carry some extra meaning have this related to the idea that "life is desolate and dark, people are evil & death is near the corner". The shadows are, however, so nicely shot that you cannot get bored with what you see.
Thinking back now, it comes to my mind something quite close to the topic that I've seen during the last year: "Snitch". A story based apparently on real facts, almost unbelievable considering that, and clearly more complex than what we have here. Too bad that the production level there = directing, sound, cinematography, is average. I'm wondering... what if we would have had the "Snitch" story in "Sicario", or the crew of "Sicario" working on "Snitch" ...
Following the principle of "compensating rushed blog entries with movies quality" (Gosh, that sounds so anti-commercial ...) I stopped this time to a probably obscure production, made for TV, long ago, By HBO in collaboration with BBC. If you like submarine thrillers, or at least the context of US vs USSR during the Cold War, then what we have here is a must see. Despite the low budget, "Hostile Waters" has its place besides much more known names like "U-571", "Crimson Tide", "K19: The Widowmaker" or "Hunt for Red October".
The movie is based on a real incident, and as obscure as it might seem it did create some controversy at the date of its release relatively to the trigger cause of the incident (spoiler: the collision between two submarines, which apparently is not that sure it happened). As "K19" from the list above, the movie tends more towards disaster films than to thrillers, but unlike the "classic" type = "2012", "Volcano", "Gravity", etc - this is different ... Maybe is just my impression, but the setting of a submarine posing a nuclear catastrophe threat gives a specific feeling. Maybe it's because through the history this situation was a real assumed risk taken many, many times considering how many reactor-powered vessels were launched. Anyway, moving back to the movie, besides the action we have a nice cast: Rutger Hauer, Martin Sheen, Max von Sydow, Colm Feore and others.
There's only one minus that's a bit more consistent and gets noticed. I don't know why but the state of spirit on the Soviet submarine seemed a bit too American, reaching the climax at the end of the movie (which, well, it's not anymore on the submarine). Besides that, leaving the true facts aside and considering only the level of cinema realism, what we have here is probably more credible and more carefully scripted than many box-office hits in the "underwater" list enumerated earlier. Probably "Hostile Waters" might not be as engaging though as "Hunt for Red October", but in any case is very far from boring :) ...
It's strange how from time to time I'm picking "the right" movie to say so ... Meaning exactly something that fits either with my psychical state, either with the daily issues, or actually with both. Maybe it's just my unhealthy subconscious which makes weird connections. Anyway ... this never happened before with a documentary. I actually don't remember in all my blogging years how many documentaries I've had among my entries ... I guess there was one, but I'm not even sure about that. What we have heir is a modern approach, very nicely shot and edited, and very engaging. I won't express opinions on the subject (the period while Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense in U.S. = the last Irak war), because I don't really have enough knowledge on all aspects. In any case, leaving the context aside, what we're allowed to see is extremely interesting as a psychological analysis of a person placed in a leading position. The possible combinations between "knowns" and "unknowns" are referenced several times .. therefore the source of the title. And in the end, making again (of course, probably unhealthy) connections with your everyday life decisions you end up asking yourself if you're not in an "unknown known" area = what you know that you know, maybe actually you don't know ... Now, in the film it's clear that's not a really good thing, the question is how much can you trust yourself in practice ... Late night philosophy :) Let's stop it until it doesn't derail completely ;)
Guess what .. again no time :) I've picked "Thale" on length criteria, because it did seem a good option at less than 90 minutes (despite the IMDb rating which seems more and more irrelevant as time goes by).
The setting: Two guys, one weirder than the other, employed by a cleaning firm have the task to clear out a cabin in the middle of the woods after the owner died. Surprise, there's still something lurking there. Or somebody ...
"Thale" is not a horror as it's labeled and the way the trailer might suggest. Yeah, well .. it might have some scenes that are more tense, but it's far from my scary movie definition ... As a reference is as much as horror as "Dreamcatcher". Only that here as aliens we have the "hulders". If you're not an expert in Scandinavian folklore check-out Wikipedia (it's the way I did).
The Norwegian movies are cold. "Trollhunter", "Hodejegerne", "Pioneer", I don't remember watching anything made in Norway that didn't have a specific coldness. It's interesting that the Swedish films are not the same. And it's not the snow. Complicated to describe. "Thale" is not an exception ... And still, this time the so cold "horror" has a key moment. When we find out why the guy weirder than the other guy is so weird. I don't know why but somehow from this results in the end the warmest cold movie I've seen shot in that country ... still a weird one :)
"The Disappearance of Alice Creed" = the kidnapping of Alice Creed. Who is Alice Creed? The 20-something years old daughter of a wealthy guy willing to pay for her life. Even though the girl doesn't seem to get along well with her father. Oops, spoiler ... Let's change lanes. Who's the kidnapper? The kidnapper is two kidnappers. One cold and meticulous, the other more emphatic to the victim. Oops, another spoiler ... (almost). Everything goes sharp. The plan is ready and carried on flawlessly. At least until ... Until ... How should I continue without spoilers?
I assume that's a characteristic of an intelligent script. You can't really say more without stumbling fast into a potential spoiler. And as a sort of supra-spoiler, this can be very clearly explained: lots of twists; more or less predictable. If the movie would've had a bigger budget (= a bit better on the technical side), or some scenes would've been less rough (not that it's extreme but I wasn't in the mood for violence), then I guess I would've also had a better opinion on it. In any case, the overall result is quite good for just a 3 member band = the kidnappers and the victim, of whom we don't know who survives up to the end ... Oops, this was also a spoiler :) ...
When I've heard about a remake for "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." I've been very skeptical. I considered it just a trend movie in the endless row of genre flicks released this year: "Kingsman", "Spy", "Mission Impossible" and even the next Bond. Something along the lines "spy movies summer; it will sell". Besides that, loooooong long ago I've watched a couple episodes of the original series starring Robert Vaughn and David McCallum, and finding out that the leads for the Solo/Kuryakin couple are Superman and The Lone Ranger (= Henry Cavill + Armie Hammer) I said niet, it's a no go ... Oh, was I wrong or what? ...
The story ... well, a spy story in the '60s - something "classic" - a neo-nazi secret organization with a nuclear bomb and world domination on the agenda. Details are not important. They'll be when you'll watch the movie, not now. The way this thing is presented is important, or how to serve a bottle of aged Bond, aged in an oak barrel and just taken out of the wine cellar. Like I said, it's been ages since I've seen some of the original series. I vaguely remember the comic nuance that was present there. The new American-Russian spy couple keeps that but it still seems quite different. The character differences between the two are much more emphasized, e.g., the American charm vs. the Russian rigor. And it works. It works very well, and the two leads do their job perfectly.
The movie itself: what we have here is a jewel. It's without question the best I've seen this year as a cinematographic composition meaning the mix between the camera work, soundtrack and editing (yes, better than Mad Max). I can say that I'm impressed to notice that there are still cases of mainstream cinema, of 100% entertainment when you can catch a frame shot in style. Yeah, I know .. It's a clear reference to the '60s cinematography meant to impress through that, reversed perspectives, zoom out, editing with visual splits on the same frame with parallel action, etc. Doesn't matter ... The point is that the result looks very good. The sound - think on Tarantino movies. Enough said.
So, the answer for the start question is yes ... I was wrong. I forgot that the movie is directed by Guy Ritchie. Or, to be specific, I didn't notice that from all the movies he did there wasn't any that on my scale wasn't at least medium above average (even "Swept Away" got on the floating level - no pun intended - was ok for me). Probably the biggest plus in this whole production is given by the directing + script, and it's simply that at no time this wants to be another Bond, but just a fun movie, no constraints attached :) ...
I've noticed lately that the thriller, as genre, tends to get an "endangered species" status looking at the frequency of what's produced. Or at least it's less and less present on the weekly box-office list. I don't remember noticing anything since "Gone Girl" = last Fall. That's why I've seen "The Gift" as a very welcomed "color spot" in the series of action, superhero, comedies = the usual summer entertainment batch.
Long story short: a couple relocates in California where he got a new position in the company with a nice advancement perspective, and she's temporarily picking the role of housewife (+ implicitly gets into a mental recovery period after a pregnancy loss). Everything looks good, except Gordo. Gordo = a former school mate of the husband who apparently wishes to catch up and refresh an old friendship ... a wish which seems a bit one-sided. Where from, why, and where it goes ... see the movie ;)
The film is carried by three actors, doing their job perfectly. Leaving aside that I have a soft spot for Rebecca Hall (re-confirmed after having serious doubts following "Transcendence") I was really surprised to find out that Jason Bateman is not just a semi-average comedy actor. Besides the bad guy role, Joel Edgerton makes here a very promising debut as director + screenwriter. Strictly for this, it reminded me of "Gone Baby Gone", also a thriller that was giving a similar start boost for Ben Affleck as director around 8 years ago. If here it goes as well would be nice to see. The movie has an excellent dosage of drama, tension and violence. It's less and less the case these days when I see a director + the script in this case, who knows exactly where should stop. Most often, either the movie rating limits it too much, or when that's not a problem the shock factor is preferred (which for me at least works probably differently than intended, as for horrors = simply disgust). This movie is R rated, but even so (spoiler) I don't know if I've seen in all more than 5 minutes where we had blood on the screen. Everything is in building the tension, in a way a la Hitchcock ... although the feeling is somehow different. I can't say more ;) again, see the movie ...
I've seen "Largo Winch" around three weeks ago during a sleepless night, and since then I want to write an entry about it and I don't have time. Finally, I said that a short one would be better than nothing .. So, here we are. It's been quite a while since I had such a nice surprise coming from a comics based movie. However, there are two things to point out here, that make this different from the consistent batch of such stuff we had in the latest years: 1. it's not a super-hero movie 2. it's an European production (as well as the comics).
The story in brief: a magnate, owner of a big corporation, dies by drowning. The surprise of the administration council when getting ready to take over, the deceased has an heir, an adoptive son kept away for a long long time. From here onward we get "the origin story", somehow similar to the first part of any super hero franchise, but with the difference that we're kept in the credible realm of normality (= no superpowered spiders, no devices for heart powering, no SciFi stuff). "The origin story" goes along very well with the current action - being actually part of it, stuff that probably makes the difference between what we have here and the typical made in Hollywood material.
Probably there's more to say. The location setting for instance is flawless, despite the budget which I doubt is very big. There's also a sequel that I heard it's not as good, so I'll probably skip it just to avoid spoiling the impression I got. Which, given what we normally have in the genre, tends to max ... if it wouldn't be for a small problem ... the acting. Couldn't just be perfect :) ...
When I've found out about the subject of "Self/less" I thought that finally I'll get to see a clever SciFi, on a very particular niche whose potential was almost destroyed by last year's "Transcendence". When I've noticed the directing by Tarsem Singh ("Mirror, Mirror", "The Immortals") I understood why the movie ratings predict again an even worse failure. When, unfortunately, I've watched the trailer I got convinced that the movie doesn't have anything left to offer me. Despite all these ... I said let's give it a try. It wasn't such a bad idea.
"Mind uploading" - that's the subject in two words. Meaning mental transfer. Not only on computer as in the classical definition used in "Transcendence", but from human host to human host. I think the biggest drawback this movie has is the trailer, which gives almost all the story, so it doesn't make much sense to write more about what's going on. I'm convinced that if it would've left a bit more to discover from the story, the reviews would've been different. Especially when you don't have a flawless script ...
The acting is ok. In particular Matthew Goode who's playing a bad guy role that reminded me of "Stoker". He's not as good as there, but gets close. There are some other moments to mention, like the irony in "the final showdown" scene, but overall the film suffers badly. Of what I was afraid = Tarsem Singh's directing, who doesn't seem to know clearly if he wants to deliver a Hollywood style action movie, or to infuse more substance into it. Unfortunately, when it seems to catch a bit more on the life philosophy & stuff part, Bamm!, it either hits you with a gun, or a flamethrower, or whatever else. I don't have anything against action in a SciFi that wants also to gain some depth. There are numerous examples, from "Minority Report", up to even "Terminator". Here, however, I felt that the action stuff breaks the story. At least if I didn't know what's coming from the trailer ...
Conclusion: ok idea, major problems in implementing it. It deserves the time spent watching, if you're interested in the theme, and in the end it's decent enough to give some food for thought. However, if you want more as a movie, although the subject differs, try "Source Code" or even "Limitless". In essence, the idea is still "another life". Just the way to get there differs ;) ...
I would've liked writing a solid "MI vs. Bond" entry, but there's still time until "Spectre", "Skyfall" is long gone, and besides that I don't time to write. In brief "Rogue Nation" convinced me of something that I wasn't sure yet after "Ghost Protocol". Somehow, for me, the U.S. secret agent version beats the British MI6. I can't say exactly why. I guess it's mostly because "Mission Impossible" doesn't take itself as seriously as the "Bond" movies. And since we got to that ...
Probably the best part in "Rogue Nation" is neither the story (which is a bit unpolished anyway), neither the action scenes, nor the "MI" version of a Bond girl (more plausible than actual Bond girls), but the comic relief. Simon Pegg reprises his IT mastermind part, getting here a presence that's almost on par with the main role both as importance in the script, and also as screen time. And that's exactly the element that helps cutting off the rigorous feel you have in a solid spy thriller (a la John le Carre), and as result to admit that we're watching an implausible story that doesn't assume it's more than typical action movie entertainment. Stuff that Bond keeps forgetting ... or otherwise said wants to look more complex than it is. If the MI's stunts would've also been more normal and less SciFi ...
The subject? Better than what's in the trailer. It doesn't make sense to spoil it. Enough. As said, no time to write ;)
I decided to check out the pile of titles I missed in the last couple of years. And since "It Follows" re-opened a bit my appetite for horrors I decided to watch "Woman in Black". Even though this is vacation material = for times with less daily stress, which is not the case. The choice was good ... for the first part ...
The movie is produced by the famous British "Hammer" studio, responsible for many horrors, some of a debatable quality, between the '60s and the '80s (among which we can find the "Dracula" series with Cristopher Lee, or "Frankenstein" with Peter Cushing). Apparently, the brand was brought out from the grave (no pun intended) quite recently after a long hiatus, and "Woman in Black" is among the, let' say "major" titles released after resurrection. The movie adapts a novel which follows the classic path of ghost story + haunted house. A very classic version I could say. We have the typical dark story with the tragic ending resulting in an unrest spirit, who must be put somehow to eternal sleep. More details in the movie.
Why did I say the choice was good - at first. Well .. the standard context is not an issue (at least not for me). Especially given that the movie is really well done in the intro part, and actually for the first half. In particular, the location setting is superb, although the same road connecting the isle of the haunted house seems to have been used also in an older TV version, so they had source for ideas. The problems with the movie start when the main character decides to do some social service work for a small community (not his own) by putting the ghost to rest. Well, from that point onwards ... the action seems to be a bit far fetched. Not excessively, but enough to notice a contrast with the first part. And that leaves a final impression that's neither a light horror to watch for fun like "The Haunting" or "13 Ghosts" or many others, nor does it have a real scare potential as I've experienced long ago in "The Ring" or something more recently in "It Follows". In any case .. the result is much better than, well ... let's say "Sinister" which doesn't deserve getting tire with details.
Busy, busy days ... I have the same time to spend for "Ant-Man" as much as he occupies on the poster area. So let's get to the point ...
I'm waiting for the day when I'll see a super-hero movie that I'll like. But something to really like. I don't think this happened since '92: "Batman Returns", where either I was too young to be really impressed or Tim Burton did some magic in that movie. Ant-Man comes with an interesting perspective, and quite original compared to what's on the market. Literally speaking. Spoiler: we can see a tsunami in the bath tub. The subject itself is sort of average, but I didn't expect much more. Probably the best part of the movie is the comic relief, very present and sufficiently well integrated to not leave the rest to get to the disaster state of alternating cliches with CGI sequences as we've seen in Avengers 2. The script and the acting ... better not talk about it (= fortunately Evangeline Lilly and her green eyes were there to save it a bit .. at least for my concern).
It's a light, summer movie. Fine if you don't expect much, and also if you don't expect that you'll be surprised for not expecting much. Worse in my opinion than the last Spiderman or Iron Man, but above Thor, Avengers, etc. from the Marvel Universe (yeah, I know ... I have a messed up scale compared to the box office and fan preference in the super-hero niche). Obviously, I didn't include Guardians of Galaxy in the Marvel list. That was brilliant. Probably because, technically speaking, that wasn't a super-hero movie ...
"Slow West" is something hard to describe. In the end it's probably what it seems to be, a western. But a very particular type of western. I don't actually have another example to compare to. I was thinking to say that if Terry Gilliam would've done a western probably the result would've been something like "Slow West", but ...
But "Slow West" is still a bit .. let's say more "settled", or "to the point" than the average in Terry Gilliam's movies. What we have close to Gilliam is a fine nuance of surreal that persists for pretty much all the movie, and which is the best part of it. The subject: a young Scotsman travels to California to find his girlfriend who ran away from Europe, is just a pretext for an initiation road trip, short and ended, in my opinion .. (light spoiler) too "classic" for a western. Probably that's what missing in "Slow West" to transform it completely in an "anti-western": the ending that switches towards the normal standards.
I didn't hear about John Maclean (director and screenwriter) until "Slow West", but I hope I will again. I guess I know after all how to call the result. It's a Terry Gilliam mixed with John Michael McDonagh ("The Guard", "Calvary"). Maybe more of the latter. It's a movie that definitely deserves your time if you're open to something that's not mainstream, even if it's only for one or two memorable scenes. Pitty that the one in which "His heart was in the wrong place", wasn't what I was expecting after the rest of the movie :) You'll get it when you'll get there ;) Maybe ...
"Terminator Genisys" wants to be, but it's not ... "Genesis" (aka "T1 Reloaded" if the hint is too obscure), as well as Jai Courtney is not Michael Biehn, Emilia Clarke is not Linda Hamilton, Byung-hun Lee dies too quickly to be Robert Patrick (yeah, yeah, spoiler .. and yeah, yeah, I know that's in T2), and Schwarzenegger is "old ... but not obsolete" ;).
Coincidence after last time, we have again a movie saved by Arnold. Probably many critics who bashed Terminator Episode 5 won't agree with that, but I'm asking then ... if T5 is so lame, how would it be without even the recycled T-800. I don't want to imagine that ... But, let's get to the point. Why is T5 so bad? Well ... first it's debatable if it's that bad. As in many other case the story is good. The script, however, is horrible. And the casting is awful. To cap it, the trailer gives a twist, which even though it doesn't have a major impact could've been handled more discrete. In brief, the timeline got altered in a way that doesn't deserve killing neurons to figure out and Kyle Reese sent back in time to save Sarah Connor, gets to be "damsel in distress". And, in a conflict that seems picked out of a Greek tragedy, the unborn son, returned in time with metal anatomic parts, gets to be main enemy. As I said, let's not consume neurons. Anyway ... too many spoilers :) (still, the story is quite ok ...)
No matter what the hardcore fans would say, who probably would've preferred a T1 screening for their T5 ticket (I've heard comments claiming the effects were better there .....), the latest version is not that bad. For who's really nostalgic about the first movies, is impossible not to be touched a bit by some remade scenes, well .. evolving differently, but which we've seen for the first time many, many years ago. Starting with the landing back in time, up to more subtle references = landing (more or less ...) a chopper at the new Cyberdyne HQ. And even if this doesn't bring a memory, I've personally never seen a "serious" chopper chase before :) at least for originality it gets a well deserved plus ...
I guess that a bigger problem than the ton of cliche and the periodic stupidity of the script lines is the terrible casting. Jason Clarke is a major disappointment to what I was expecting. Emilia Clarke tries, but she can't be Sarah Connor. The "Mother of Dragons" is not sufficiently rugged as screen presence to offer credibility for a female version of a Che Guevara risen against uncontrolled technical advancements. And Jai Courtney as Kyle Reese ... I didn't think I'll ever get to praise the acting capacity of Michael Biehn, who got mostly obscure secondary parts in his career besides the Cameron collaboration. Speaking about Jai Courtney I remembered about another failed sequel = the latest "Die Hard". And about a big difference ... If Bruce Willis there seemed to just wait to cash in the check and go home .. Arnold here respects the part that defined his career. He enjoys it. And that probably makes him to be pretty much the only actor in the whole cast that doesn't seem miscast. Luckily there's still an ... "I'll be back" :) no matter how dumb is the moment when it's delivered ;) ...
I'll say it from start: if you want to see a zombie movie skip "Maggie". Look for something else. Even if you want to see a different approach to a zombie movie, still ... look for something else. However, if you want a proof that Schwarzenegger can act ... then you can spend one hour and a half for this. I'm not talking about an Oscar performance, but it was something like the revelation I had more than ten years ago when I've watched Wesley Snipes in "Liberty Stands Still". Schwarzenegger in a drama role of a troubled father, totally atypical, which is carried successfully up to the end credits, is probably the only positive aspect of this movie. A completely opposite shallow performance does Abigail Breslin, holding the leading part of Maggie, a girl infected by a zombification virus, who's health is slowly degrading. The script doesn't help. Neither the directing, the cinematography, the sound, nothing. It's a slow movie that seems to take more time than it does, and probably deserves watching mostly if you want to see something to make you sleepy before bed-time ... probably a paradox in the zombie movie range.
After more than 20 years since "Jurassic Park" and two less fortunate sequels, we're back on Isla Nublar where the story started. Somehow, despite the previous gruesome experiences, InGen (the owner company) finally managed to open the park for public, re-branded as "Jurassic World" and functioning at full capacity = somewhere at > 20.000 visitors present on the island. Or to put it differently, more than 20 thousand walking steaks for the dinosaurs lunch. Predictable, right ? :)
It's sort of rhetorical to discuss the subject of a "disaster movie", since this is what we have here after all. Obviously the situation will get out of control, the word end will come, and somehow everything will magically solve out. Because of this standard recipe, I generally avoid disaster movies. They're boring. The "Jurassic" series is the exception. I don't know if that's because the "disaster" = the dinosaurs is more exotic, or purely due to nostalgia related to the first movie I've seen in a fully packed cinema. Somehow, each movie managed to pass my "like" threshold, at least a bit. The recipe works again: it's summer, we have a tropical island, and the velociraptors have their hunting ground ready for play. Unlike a typical "disaster movie" (= asteroids, earthquakes, volcanoes) here the thrill effect is a different one. It might sound a bit strange as comparison, but it feels you have something more in common with a zombie horror a la Romero, where the survivors group must face a more dynamical, less predictable and hungry danger :) And that makes it fun ...
The contrast between a welcoming environment and the growing terror in it will always result in a "catchy" effect. No matter if, following the example above, we're speaking of zombie hordes keeping a mall under siege, or dinosaur hordes left loose on a vacation resort. As much as this movie gains from the context feeling, it unfortunately looses due to "SciFi" scenes like (spoilers) unpredictable alliances between T-Rex and raptors or the idea to use dinosaurs as hunting dogs. Even so, I liked it. It definitely has something from "the adventure feeling" of the first "Jurassic Park" specific for the '80s-'90s, something that sort of got lost in time. So, obviously subjective :) ...
September starts with "No Escape". I was expecting something like "based on real facts" when the trailer ended. Looks like it's not the case. Pure fiction ...
We're moving on to "The Little Prince". I don't know why this seems to be a bit too ... Hollywoodish ... for the story it's based on ...
September continues with "Maze Runner" - 2nd part. Apparently, my hunch that this will transform in a sort of yet another "Hunger Games" series is confirmed. True though, this is one that shows more promise ...
Guillermo del Toro returns in October to the genre he got known for before "Pan's Labyrinth" or "Pacific Rim" = horror. "Crimson Peak" seems like something a bit different in the latest flood of ghost stories ...
"Bridge of Spies" seems to be the most promising Spielberg production since "Munich". This means in the last 10 year. Seems to ... We'll see if it confirms.
Vin Diesel is "The Last Witch Hunter" during this year's Halloween. I don't see in the trailer other reason for watching this besides keeping the season "spirit", despite the movie having Michael Caine in the cast to inspire confidence ...
I didn't like the last Bond. Yes, I know, I know ... best reviews in years for the series ... don't care about that = too superficial for me. "Spectre", to be released in November, seems to be a bit more close to the level of Sam Mendes's direction ("Road to Perdition", "American Beauty"). Well, I hope so ...
That's pretty much all for this preview round. It could be better, but I think we're quite ok with the incoming line-up ;) ...
Let's start counting what this year's summer-fall season brings with a horror. My current mood asks for one ... In June we have the release of the third part of "Insidious". The first episode was spooky. The second I skipped since it seemed too lame. The third shows some promise. We'll see ...
If we're talking about sequels, soon arrives also "Jurassic World". Generally, I don't trust obscure directors leading box office hits, but in this case (Colin Trevorrow) we have an exception = remember "Safety not Guaranteed" ? ... probably not :) anyway ... If this is at least half heart touching as that one was ...
After evil spirits and sharp teeth equipped dinosaurs, let's move to a lighter area (not that I have many options left for June). "Inside Out", the latest Disney/Pixar production carries us into the dark threatening corners of the mind (I'm struggling to make this look like a horror too ... told you .. my current mood requires it)
July starts with "Terminator Genisys", top expected movie on my personal list for this summer. If it's hard to get why, after the last two iterations: T3 (which wasn't that bad actually) and Salvation, well ... the reason is sort of ... personal let's say = if somewhere around your 10th birthday you've watched T2 in cinema, trust me, the sequels can be as bad as possible, you'll still wait for the next one ;) (even though it's hard to accept Emilia Clarke in place of Linda Hamilton ... but well ... at least Arnold is back).
The only problem of "Self/less" is that the trailer says a lot. Pretty much everything. So I won't write more ...
I liked the previous "Mission Impossible". Much more than the latest Bond. So for the end of July that's on the what-to-see schedule.
Since it's impossible to pass a summer without Marvel movies, I decided to mention one for August - the reboot of "Fantastic Four". Contrary to most of the opinions, and opposite to other gatherings of this type (aka "Avengers") I liked the first two movies from 2005/2007 where Chris Evans was training as Johnny Storm for Captain America. I don't know how the new version it's gonna be, but I have at least a subjective reason to be interested in it: Kate Mara :P the rest doesn't count that much ...
I started with a horror, I'm closing the summer with thrillers. The first is "The Gift". Classic psycho stalker subject apparently.
Also in August we have "Cop Car". Seems more original. With a Kevin Bacon who looks so mean as we didn't see since "Invisible Man" (actually we didn't see him there either ... matter of interpretation).
That's the summer. Next round - september - november.
It took me four days to watch "Beyond the Black Rainbow". And not because it's split in four parts or has four hours. It's just an excellent sleeping pill replacement, despite the apparent promises of a tensed subject with nightmare potential. Well ... it actually might have nightmare potential (for who's brain is rested enough to make a difference), but tension .. zero. I'm not going to give details on the "action". The movie develops very very slowly like a "poor man's David Lynch" film. I decided to write this short entry for just one reason. Actually, two ... cinematography & sound. The visuals and the audio are excellent. Probably the frame composition was the main reason that kept me (sort of) awake. And the score complements perfectly the time setting, which is somewhere in the '70s (= we have again a lot of synth use a la John Carpenter as in "It Follows"). Unfortunately, after days with waking at 8:00 and failed attempts to go to bed at 2:00 I wasn't able to observe more than the technical side. If there is more ... Which felt missing. So ...
I was telling last time that I had low expectations for "Mad Max". Well, it was the complete opposite for "Tomorrowland". Huge expectations. Of course, unfulfilled ... fortunately, not completely ...
Subject: Somewhere there exists "Tomorrowland" = a world created by enlightened minds, as a refuge from the world including the less enlightened minds ... although, at some point, there's a cohabitation plan for all minds ... anyway, complicated. In the end the thing are going bad and we get to the point where we need to "save the world(s)" ( finally, managed a spoiler free description ... hopefully :) )
What's nice in this movie (besides the parallel universe topic, which as time travel has a soft spot in my heart), is that the story has some depth. There's a developing metaphor throughout the movie with two wolves: dark & light, the one living being the one you feed. Unfortunately, the way this is introduced in the story comes from nowhere = contributes to the serious eye-rolling potential the movie has. However, if you're capable (or at least in the mood) to be less acid for two hours you can probably digest all the cliches. There's still left the problem with the target age, which doesn't really get along with the philosophical reflections the movie tries to induce. When you're about to think that something was "deep", you're hit with a cartoonish sequence. Stuff like robots with ultra-ironic or hyper-benevolent grimaces (among other examples). It's clear that we have the same director who did "The Incredibles" distributed by the same "Disney Pictures" ...
Despite all issues (did I mention the introduction that's longer than half the movie or the final that candidates to the tear jerking sequence of the year? ... seems I dropped the "spoiler free" tag :P), somehow the story itself is catchy enough, and even the wolves metaphor fits quite well ... Too bad though for the full result. It could've been much, much better ...
Posts
