Volition (2019)

 

Even though "Volition" starts with a handicap due to a low indie movie budget, which is noticeable in pretty much everything, from production design to casting, it manages to stay at a decent level, enough to give it a chance.

The story is somehow close to the probably more known "Next", inspired itself from a short story by P. K. Dick. James is a guy who experiences flashes of what the future brings. If in "Next" this was for the "next 2 minutes", in "Volition" the gift is more generous, but also not that well defined - the visions don't have a specific time setting and are also intertwined. It's the type of movie that constructs itself as a puzzle, returning often into its own previous development. The plot starts with a vision showing James his own death, after he gets hired by some shady character to find a buyer for a pouch of stolen diamonds. After we advance a bit, we're presented with a first twist, but such a bad one in respect to credibility that I'm gonna spoil it - James also gets "time travel" powers - physically speaking, not only in his mind. After you manage to get over the way this happens (let's not spoil everything), the script slowly redeems itself by tying together quite well all sorts of events in the story, which suddenly looks more complex than it initially seemed to be.

Unfortunately... when you're comfortable with the low-budget feeling, also accepted the dumb way to time-travel, when the actors don't look anymore like amateurs, and when you could actually say that the movie has some deeper meaning carefully put together... the last 30 seconds destroy the entire script. All I can say is that if you're looking for a happy-end, it delivers. But it could have done it differently. Well, one more spoiler, can't help it...

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Uncut Gems (2019)

 

A while ago I've seen "Good Time", written and directed by the same Safdie brothers as "Uncut Gems" is. It seemed terribly overrated and so fit to a narrow niche, that I was convinced another movie by the same guys can't be much different.

I wasn't wrong. "Uncut Gems" is likewise annoyingly hysterical from beginning to its end, featuring the same type of a main character - an unscrupulous guy struggling to solve a problem by creating another one. The character in "Uncut Gems" is a loud jeweler from New York, addicted to gambling, probably the role of a lifetime made by Adam Sandler, way above any acting he did in the usual light comedies he played in. The movie is tracking some days of his unhappy life, being constantly chased by loan sharks, and trying to get back on his feet by auctioning an uncut gemstone, all these while he can't withold from placing more bets. The action is quite dense, catching also a glimpse of his family issues, the unorthodox collaboration with a forger, and other stuff. Unfortunately the movie is also too dense in screaming, almost any dialog ending in some conflict. At some point, as I was saying, it gets annoying and also tiring at the same time. 

It's not a spoiler to say that the story doesn't end well. It becomes so obvious that the guy gets from worse to much worse that the only unknown is how much worse it will get. And here, the ending is clearly better than "Good Time". In all this descending spiral, you feel at some time that there are exits, but each one is missed. The final one is the cherry on top. I think I had like three possible versions, none good, which crossed my mind during the last 15 minutes, which again try to deceive you with some glimpse of a light at the end of the tunnel. But I had the surprise of a different closure. I guess the only possible one able to save the movie, which I can't say I liked. However, the ending is forcing me to be objective and I also can't say it's a bad film. Now... I really shouldn't spoil more of this part. It's just something like probably would be the feeling when a neighbor drilled holes in the walls for an entire day and he gets a power cut. It's a sudden "silence", a short lived one that doesn't give much time to reflect on it. But you get a "L'Amour Toujours" on the end credits to complete it in case you need anything else. It never crossed my mind to listen carefully to the lyrics of this song until watching "Uncut Gems".

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

True History of the Kelly Gang (2019)

 

What made me watch "True History of the Kelly Gang" were some positive reviews and that I wanted to move out a bit from the old movies zone where it seems I'm more or less stuck in this period. I should have known better...

Short background info: Ned Kelly was an Australian bushranger at the end of the 19th century. The movie is not a true history as the title says, but some sort of minimalist approach that gives a flavor of low budget (despite the cast), aiming probably for being considered some artistic innovation. Actually, it's a failed copy of Terrence Malick, or... well, maybe it's a successful copy depending on which Malick movie you pick to compare with. We have the same painfully slow development that contrasts heavily with chaotic sequences full of "hidden meanings", which should make you wonder of the "director's genius" (doesn't matter that the meanings stay hidden - as long as the director will be labeled as genius by the critics we're fine). The first part of it, somehow more coherent, looked a bit like "Plunkett & Macleane", especially given that the topic is on the same page, but comparing these doesn't make justice in the end. It's been ages since I watched "Plunkett & Macleane", but I still remember that the chaos has some limits, and besides that the soundtrack of Craig Armstrong made history there. Here, the only part that deserves some praise is the camera work, but that too becomes repetitive + it also breaks any safety norm for epilepsy by torturing you with a continuous flashing scene that's probably longer than 2 minutes.

The coincidence makes that "True History of the Kelly Gang" to star as first name of the cast the same actor as "1917", the latest movie that seemed to me to worth a 5 out 5. That's the only common point between the two. 

Rating: 1 out of 5

It doesn't deserve a trailer, instead of it... 

The Sting (1973)

 

After I watched "The Verdict" about three weeks ago, I remembered that I still have something on my list of classics, "The Sting", of which I've seen bits and pieces on TV a couple times, but never the whole thing.

Honestly, it's quite hard to write a review for "The Sting". The subject revolves around the planning and execution of an an elaborate extortion scheme against a ruthless banker with connections in the underworld of the '30s Chicago. Everything starts with smaller scheme targeting a money courier working for the guy, a payback paid in blood, followed by the revenge that brings us into the main subject. The movie develops bit by bit in a puzzle that slowly puts itself together towards the end, and revealing more of it would spoil all the charm it has.

If I should compare "The Sting" with something else, as I often do, to see where we stand, it would be a Guy Ritchie with an episodic structure a la Tarantino but released in 1973, meaning much more calm and peaceful. Besides the stellar cast on the poster, what was the real positive surprise about this is the camera work. Even though it mostly runs as an "old movie", maybe even closer to a '50-'60s feeling than of the '70s, this line is sometimes abruptly cut by some scene that looks revolutionary compared to the rest. It's either a zoom in, or a kinetic camera coming from nowhere, or just the way a scene is organized like a chase where two people run in opposite directions one on a platform above the other. It's not something extraordinary if we check out the best stuff these days, but for '73 I found it remarkable. To conclude: a solid cast and subject + an excellent technique = a movie that for an age of almost '50, it still definitely deserves watching.

Rating: 4 out of 5