1917 (2019)

I'm not sure, but I guess that last time I've been convinced to give a max rating to a movie in a blog entry was in 2016. Not that it would count much, but I was thinking at some point that I'm excessively selective. So, it was about time to get a confirmation that there still exists a category, unfortunately threatened by extinction, that separates itself from the rest. Or, to put it in a more optimistic tone, you can still find sometimes cinema that has in impact, in all its departments = subject, acting, cinematography, sound, which moves you a bit outside of the idea of pure entertainment. It's possible that part of the impression I got left from "1917" to be on the ground of exceeding my expectations, but it clearly gets into this narrow niche of great movies.

"1917" is a war movie, or better said an anti-war movie. That's one of the reasons why I didn't give it much credit, because I'm just not that fond of the genre. Another reason is hearing about a bland story, with no depth, as well as the characters development. Indeed, the subject is simple: two British soldiers in the trenches of WW1 get the mission to deliver a critical order to a detachment that reached beyond enemy lines. From here, however, to "lack of depth", there's a long path...

An image is worth 1000 words. Tehnically "1917" is exceptional. The idea of long shots and getting an effect of continuous scenes is not at its first use, the most representative being probably Emmanuel Lubezki as cinematographer ("Birdman", "Gravity", "Revenant"). What's Roger Deakins doing though in "1917" is like a level on top of everything we've seen by now. It's not just the continuous scene, is how the camera moves in this continuous scene. There are aspects that might get to seem a bit unrealistic due to this. And here we could get to a long talk with philosophical interpretations, but in brief, WW1 was a static and stupid war - unrealistically stupid. So, what we have first in the camera work part and supplemented by sound, only strengthens this idea. The movie is not that hard to watch regarding what we see on the screen compared for instance to "Hacksaw Ridge". Even so, it doesn't take long to get a feeling of: thank God we're not living such times, and God forbid to ever get there again. And that "lack of depth" actually gets into the ingredients package that contributes to this. What would you expect from a story spanning pretty much the screen time, where somewhere in a desperate situation of getting through with an order of which more than 1000 lives depend of? I think there's already too much depth for a character in this context. The script even finds time to integrate some front line stories here and there, the feelings on returning home, or the direct interaction with the enemy where the first impulse is the human one to help somebody in need. And we have more.

"1917" has what's missing in "Dunkirk", which is a story, and also has what's missing in "Hacksaw Ridge", which is technical excellence. Sam Mendes somehow managed to put together a complete movie, which breaths through every aspect the anti-war idea, and which probably could fit well on a mandatory watch list for some head of states. I've seen comparisons between "1917" and "Saving Private Ryan". Forgive me, but I don't remember much of "Saving Private Ryan". I will definitely remember "1917".

Rating: 5 out of 5

Oscar 2020 - Nominations

No worries, I'm not gonna restart my entries on each of the categories, as I once did. Last year, however, I got the impression of some attenuation of the "politically correct" attitude that perturbs the Oscars since a while ago. Not that these are the only awards suffering of such issue - just look at the discussions stirred by the BAFTA nominations of this year. Well, look at the Oscars list for directing, it's the same, talking about some of the reported "inequalities", and that's simply because it's just probably the best selection of this year for directing.

With all the risks, I said it before, and I'll keep saying it, discussions on race, gender, or whatever else equality are valid in many situations but not that normal in the context of some awards given on artistic criteria. It's like someone would revolt on the lack of equal appreciation for jazz singers from Asia, or on the reason of why don't we have recognized black renaissance painters. The simple answer is that from a set of nine green balls and one red ball, it's perfectly normal that one of the green balls to probably be the most "spherical perfect" of them all. Why from start we have nine green and just one red? that's a very reasonable subject to debate of how we got into this situation. But once we have what we have, the choice criteria of a movie/person/etc normally should strictly depend on the artistic value of the nomination and not be altered by other discussions with social implications. Anyway, long story short, as usual the best source for the nominees list is on IMDb = at this address, where we easily can get to more details.

Probably, as we get closer to the awards, I'll dedicate one more entry for some predictions, but again, as usual - the awards mean less, more important is the nominees list which brings to light sometime some really good movies, especially in the categories that are more low profile = foreign movie, screenplay, etc. So, enjoy watching ;)

The Lighthouse (2019)

There are two of "The Lighthouse" released in latest years, both inspired by the same incident. At some point during the 19th century on a small island close to the coast of Wales two lighthouse keepers got stranded from any passing ship due to a storm that kept going for weeks. In brief, history says that one of them died in an accident and the other went through a terrible episode of cabin fever, and never recovered completely. The first movie of something like three years ago is apparently a more accurate representation of the events, the one we have here being just loosely based = indeed, we have two lighthouse keepers isolated somewhere, but both of them slowly advance in their madness. Actually, half of the movie is the prologue for that, and half of the movie is the effective manifestation. In other words, what we have here is a sort of "symphony of madness". In some sense might be seen as a horror, in some other sense like a sort of psychoanalysis of a human being in isolation, but in any of these senses I'd say it finally fails. Maybe I'm subjective because I didn't like it. What I can objectively say is that leaving aside the subject and the action development, it's the only movie until now that convinced me that Robert Pattinson can act (by faaaaar his best role of what I've seen with him - shouldn't mistake him for Hayden Christensen anymore after this), and this + the camera work and the sound, which send you somewhere close to Hitchcock make the movie watchable. That's about it.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Knives Out (2019)

Hercule Poirot returns as Benoit Blanc. That's the first feeling you get after the end credits of "Knives Out". Or otherwise said, since the distant ages when I had time to watch episodes of Midsommer Murders I didn't see anything more Agatha Christie than this. The difference is that we have a personal touch of Rian Johnson here, which transforms what would be a Sunday afternoon TV show in a bit more than the classic murder mystery story.

But that's where we start from, "the classic murder mystery story". Harlan Thrombey, a best-selling author of crime novels (how else), celebrates his 85th birthday in the company of his dysfunctional family, out of whom everybody seems to have a reason to not let him live up to his 86th anniversary. In this setting we also find Marta, a nurse, immigrated from somewhere in the South America (nobody remembers the exact country), who's responsible with the daily shots administered to the old man, and also acting involuntarily as a psychotherapist for the patient. An important character, especially due to a key element in the whole context - she cannot lie without triggering instant puke. The morning after the party, we find Mr. Thrombey in a pool of blood, with his throat slit, everything pointing to a suicide. But the verdict is postponed when Benoit Blanc, a renowned PI is hired by an unknown somebody to solve the case, and he asks the police to let him get involved in the investigation. So... "the plot thickens" ;)

Surprisingly the "thickens" part doesn't last more than a quarter of the movie, and we find out who did it. Which makes it close to impossible to continue this blog entry without spoilers. That's the cool part of "Knives Out". From a classic approach: group of suspects -> case investigation -> solved murder, we have an unexpected move into another movie pattern: we know who did it -> let's see if/how they catch the murderer. It's not exactly revolutionary, there are plenty of movies following that approach too. But more interesting is that after this twist providing the answer, clear and beyond doubt, leaving as only reason to continue just admiring the talent of Mr. Blanc in his path of unraveling the truth, surprise... Three quarters in the movie we get another major change in the action plot. Again, I won't spoil it. All I can say is that it's not as much of a surprise after all. Half the movie is enough to start catching some elements and doubt a bit about that clear answer not being that complete, but I would be an hypocrite to say I was expecting everything that followed ;)

To move out a bit from the temptation area of providing spoilers, let's talk about the movie making. We have many known names as actors, and their acting could compete for the best ensemble cast at the Oscars, if such a category would exist. Besides that, initially it seems to look like that Sunday afternoon TV show = a crime story with a decent plot, the typical complications + a comic part, but nothing very special, just up to the last quarter. Which is probably a bit long, although compensated by good editing, sound, witty dialogues, all of these summing up to a final verdict of a "light fun twisted movie". Still, I would say that the last part starts getting also some depth. It's a fine touch, but it's there, and besides the dark humor of the situation, in the end it also adds a more serious note of "karma fights back & the good wins" ;) That's it, I'm getting back to spoilers, and if I continue more like that it will get too cryptic - just watch the movie ;)

Rating: 4.5 out of 5