L'ombra di Caravaggio (2022)

It happens sometimes, quite rarely I'd say, to find in the schedule of the mall cinema non-mainstream titles produced outside US or locally. But it's also rare to make me interested enough for a big screen experience, and to be able to get to what's typically one scheduling per day in cinema requires luck. Well, one exception was "L'ombra di Caravaggio". I can say that visually did worth the time, except that so & so...

The subject, the life of Michelangelo Merisi known as Caravaggio, is one that you'll find very fitting for a movie if you do some quick online research. This production starts from the point where the painter, fled to Naples after being sentenced for a murder during a street brawl tries to find his way back to Rome, needing for this an official papal pardon. The script introduces in the story a character hired by the church for investigating the accused. From here onward we have a radiography of Caravaggio's entire career getting us through the troubled life of the man from his first paintings to the status of recognized artist of the time, but permanently in conflict with the clergy for the freedom taken to depict his works.

The director of the movie is Michele Placido, probably known for his main role in "La piovra" decades ago, and all I can say is that.. well, unfortunately it confirms my opinion that when directing is done by an actor it typically shows, and not in a positive manner. What we have here is a "deconstructed" Caravaggio. The connections are sufficiently coherent for linking the experiences in the life of Caravaggio the man with the impact over Caravaggio the painter, which more or less speculating what history preserves as known facts tries to get to deeper meaning. Still, the keyword remains "sufficiently". You can feel that the movie is sort of disconnected and made by patching pieces, permanently jumping from flashbacks to present and back to the past. Another problem, even more obvious, is the secondary cast. If Riccardo Scamarcio makes a perfect role for how the history preserved the image of the charactere, the rest of actors seemed to me overacting way too often, starting with the "shadow" Louis Garrel as the church investigator. Maybe it's a directing metaphor as reference to the contrast met as specific element in Caravaggio's pieces, although I doubt it. It looks more like an economy for more takes on a scene.

Over all the above problems, we still have left a visual story that's done very well, getting you through the history of Caravaggio's paintings, up to reconstructing an entire piece on the screen. So, I can say that if you're interested in the cinematography of a movie, this one definitely deserves watching. Besides that, what's presented behind the documentary value of the production, is also probably up to a personal interpretation for each viewer, on which, at least at the current time, I'm not sure how objective I could be. The essence is probably that during history, whoever had some level of inteliggence high enough, more obvious in arts but there are examples in other areas, also had his or hers own demons. The important part is how well can you keep these for your own without affecting the people around, and it's complicated to find a balance that allows you to leave something behind you. Over time, history seems to say that Caravaggio managed to get right at least the second part. Besides that... Happy Holidays ;)

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Winter-Spring 2023-2024 Movie Preview

I got to the seasonal entry for the start of winter for what's coming up in the next six months, which once again saves me for lacking another subject. So, let's see...

For December, we already have a release that normally wouldn't be in my area of interest: "Godzilla Minus One" or using its original name "Gojira -1.0". There are two reasons that made me stop to this title: the reviews that got out until now are quite promising and the fact that this is not made in Hollywood = here we have the Japanese alternative to the American version, for which I skipped the last installments. As I said, "monster movie" is not really part of the genres I watch, but for this I'll probably make an exception.

In January we have a light action with some nuance of comedy: "Role Play". The recepy of the wed couple where one (or both) has a secret life is not a new one, but I don't see any other more promising title for the beginning of the year. At least this one has some "fun to watch" potential.

I didn't stop easily in February at a movie with the Marvel logo attached somewhere in its credits, but I've been expecting already for some time to see a better version of what "Next" with Nicolas Cage was (originally a short story by P.K. Dick), and this is something I finally seem to get in "Madame Web". Out of the trailer looks like that the super-hero context, if present, at least won't be dominating this. Hopefully...

The most expected release in March is the second part of "Dune" postponed from November, which I checked on the previous previews list, so let's move directly to April. Unfortunately it's not a month with many released trailers, and the only I can pick is the US replica of the title we started with = "Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire". And like that, I ended up having two "monster movies" in this list. Now, everybody can choose which to pick...

I'm going to end with May when we'll have the "Furiosa" prequel, by George Miller to his "Mad Max" reboot from 2015. I wasn't very confident back than in how the movie will end up, but it was a nice surprise. I'm not very confindent now either. So...

Killers of the Flower Moon (2023) + 16y

I'm going to move quickly over the last part of the title = the 16 years of age of the probably most unread blog with such an age, which is, however, connected to how I got to the current topic. I've seen I think only three movies this year in cinema (unlike 16 years ago, when the average was at something like 2 per month). Still, I made an effort to get to the final screening of "Killers of the Flower Moon", because I did expect to reach the point of an anniversary entry without having a decent subject for it, and I needed a backup. So, here we are. Luckily, Scorsese still delivers...

What we have here is inspired by a gruesome story, happened in the Osage County, forgotten mostly in the '20s press until a more thorough documenting by a journalist, David Grann, who wrote a relatively recent book, the base for the current movie. In brief, following the oil discovery on the Indian territory during that time, the native American people got rich over night from the exploitation rights they obtained over the land. Obviously, the opportunity to drain their money along with the oil didn't go unnoticed by the white population in the area, who started finding all sorts of means of doing this, from official guardians to administer the obtained income, to businesses based on the overpricing of goods, up to marriages of convenience. In this landscape there was the particular case of a rich farm owner, William King Hale, exerting a major influence in the politics of the area, who put together an intricate plot for increasing his fortune. Among different "mechanisms" like cashing life insurance policies for friends died in suspicious circumstances, his system apparently had a strong root also in marrying some of his relatives with the native people, followed by their deaths due to mysterious diseases and inheriting the rights for the land. And to get more rights, the mysterious disease had to hit first the relative of the final victim, passing their fortune further. In brief, a pyramid of killings, thought in such way that the last one to claim as much as possible from the succession chains in the deceased's final will. The scheme got stuck, however, when the recently established FBI started looking into the matter and also due to the resentment of a Hale's nephew, the consequence being the conviction of the two along a couple of their accomplices. This, unfortunately, after many deaths.

As most of Scorsese's movies, the actors shine more than the technical part, although honestly Di Caprio as the nephew of W.K. Hale seemed to me a bit overacting here, and actually who steals the show is surprisingly not De Niro, but Lily Gladstone as the native American wife. On the technical side, the score, the last in Robbie Robertson's career (who passed not so long ago), is probably the best in his collaborations with Scorsese over the years ("The Irishman", "The Color of Money", etc.). The cinematography is good, there are some nice variations of lights and chromatics sometimes. It deserves a big screen watching, but I don't think I can call it something exceptional. To make a comparison given the setting, "There Will Be Blood" is the first it comes to mind now, and I can say I have more scenes shot there stuck in my mind than what we got here. What's more impactful is the editing, where we have the usual pair made by Scorsese with Thelma Schoonmaker, resulting in an essential part that alleviates the effect of the movie's extended length. Periodically, there are some short insertions, but effective for getting you a bit out of the narrative line, either by placing in a scene with an owl announcing the end of someone's life, or the scene of meeting others passed ones after the end of the life, or others. The most consistent sequence is at the end as a setup of a radio show, presenting us an epilogue of the life of the main characters in the story, closed at the mic by Scorsese himself.

The movie is not the best, not the worst, and at least from the IMDb's statistic 3 minutes shorter than "The Irishman", so neither the most lengthy of Scorsese's :) But still... is a very long one, at its almost 3h30. And you can feel it, but you can also feel the director's experience in this. Meaning that you can have a long movie without obvious lenghts, so it doesn't drag a lot. And for this part I think he got it better than "The Irishman".

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Creator (2023)

Since I lowered my frequency of blog entries, I'm trying for the few I'm posting to close these with a rating above average. This means finding a movie that deserves recommending. And this is the reason why I was very close this time to turn back again to a South-Korean title from the 2000's, but finally the "payback" urge for two hours lost with "The Creator" won. So...

What we have here is a SciFi set in a future where the Western world banned AI, apparently guilty for a nuclear blast that swiped Los Angeles. The Eastern World doesn't really agree with the general opinion that AI is bad, the result being some sort of war targeting an android population made in Asia, persecuted by the US army through incursions within the enemy territory. In all this context we have a romance between an US sergeant and the daughter of the main mysterious AI architect. Long story short (and it is short, because there's not much else), she dies in an attack, he gets back home, and after some years he's sent back to get "the weapon" - some device developed by the AI camp, which would be capable to disable the entire armed power of the West. As we find out from the trailers, the weapon is a child, and from here onwards we have a couple of predictable mini-twists, which I'll leave aside to keep something left for watching.

The humanity vs AI conflict is a SciFi theme since the notion of AI emerged, meaning decades. In cinema this theme catched traction mostly by positioning AI on the negative side: Terminator, Matrix, etc which is probably the simpler perspective = it's more natural for the average person watching a movie to empathize with the man than with the machine. "The Creator" wants the opposite, and probably attempts to build up on the ongoing trend where we have AI everywhere. I'm not saying that good AI vs bad people is something to be excluded, having elements of this kind in SciFis like "Blade Runner" or "I, Robot", or more precisely in the classic writings which these are based on, by P.K. Dick and Asimov, respectively. But there the story is much, much more nuanced than what we get here. What we receive in this movie is just some pale recycling of bits like the robotic laws where the android is not capable to commit murder, but that's something quite selective which we find out in the end. What we really do get in the movie is the Hollywood standard from the last years thrown over this shallow base of SciFi, transforming everything in a very politically correct class fight, where the AI become an actual social category ostracized by others and demanding its rights. Everything is one-side and black and white. It's probably enough for a public used to not bother anymore with thinking about the grey nuances in a story, preferring to get some shooting and explosions VFX instead. But well... maybe you can't expect from Gareth Edwards (director + screenwriter), who started from VFX in his career, to be an Asimov.

Probably someone could argue against the above, saying that we have the main character who's the good human, capable to understand that AI is not evil. Well, the problem is, if I would compare John David Washington with Arnold Schwarzenegger from the 30 years old Terminator 2, I don't think there's any doubt who of the two characters brings more balance. The acting doesn't help at all, and I really don't want to comment on what could be the reason behind the casting, but after all the script is still the root of all evil. The rigidity of T-800 that changes slowly over the course of Terminator 2 gives a much more human and credible side to the killing machine there, than the hysterical sergeant who moves here suddenly from extremes of threatening with a "shut down" to others with scenes drowned in tears. Add to this a terrible dosage of comic relief that's limited to the start of the movie followed by a continuous, totally opposed, tragedy feeling towards the end. The clip I added besides the trailer is relevant, despite the praising regarding the director's capacity of empathic infusion (didn't catch for me, sorry). All this is garnished with an editing including some flashbacks that are breaking the developing action thread and could've very well be placed in the normal chronological order. The only part that saves a bit what we get here are the visuals and the production desing, which indeed give a feeling alternating between a dystopic setting a la "Blade Runner" and bits of "Star Wars". Moreover, this looks like somehow trying to tell you, despite everything else, that if you had a different script and directing, the movie could've been actually good. But it's not.

Rating: 2 out of 5

A Dirty Carnival (2006)

Considering that I'm in a writer's block on technical writing = what I should do right now, and noticing that I reached the last day of the month without a blog entry, I decided for a quick context switch. However, I don't have anything recent as a subject, so I'll just pick an older movie which I've watched during the summer. As a side note, 2006 keeps coming back to my attention periodically, and I think it probably was one of the best years for cinema in this century - a look over this list (the entire one, not just the box-office) confirming that the yearly average quality of today's movies is far below of what it was, if we just count the titles that move you enough to remember after more than a decade. Anyway, "A Dirty Carnival" is not on that list, being a South Korean production. Also, it's probably not a movie I'd like to remember, although it will be...

If I'd have to look for an Asian equivalent of "Goodfellas" or "Casino", "A Dirty Carnival" would come up as a main contender. The story is pretty much in line with "Goodfellas", following the ascension of a small gangster up to nearly reaching the position of a partner in the businesses of the crime boss. The brutality is closer to "Casino", where it's probably better to skip the details, leaving this as a warning. You shouldn't forget that we have a Korean movie here, where when there's violence it doesn't really have a rating barrier, and the context is after all different from the romanced stories of the italo-american mafia. Unfortunately, it's a context that seems much more grounded into reality, which is emphasized by a side story care converging with the main thread. A young director, former school mate of the main character, decides to ask him for advise on a gangster movie, in return arraging him to reconnect with a girl he was friend of during school years. The context switch between the "peaceful" interactions in which the main character wants to show up as somebody who's living a normal life, adding the attempt on a romantic relationship, it makes even more hard to digest the episodes from the other life. The ending that gets quite predictable, is not a happy one, and it's hard to not leave you with a bitter taste.

"A Dirty Carnival" is part of a select category of movies, about which I can't say I enjoyed or I'd like to watch again someday, but I can definitely say it's a good movie. Starting from the perfect acting, up to the script that introduces in some places notes of sad humor, which are very particular, the impact the movie has on the viewer is clearly above average of today's Hollywood productions.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 (subjectively, objectively would be probably higher)

(better quality, but no subs)

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)

It's probably a bit late for this review, but I'm not used anymore to jump up to watch a box-office title in its first day of release. Actually, for a few years already, I'm more like avoiding these. "Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny" was an exception, but one still far from exceptional. The perfect artificial rejuvenation of Harisson Ford in the beginning of the movie is pretty much the single memorable thing about it. Besides that, you can still appreciate that it's a bit above the common superficiality found in most summer movies. But not with much.

The above appreciation stems from the story the movie offers. Not spectacular, but it's pretty consistent. The object of the quest this time, is a mechanism, Antikythera, fictitiously conceived in the movie by Archimedes and capable to predict temporal fissures. The reality about the artifact is obviously a different one, but let's move over it (you can Google it). The nice part in the movie, especially if you didn't have much of a vacation, is that it gets you through a classic quest moving between various touristic locations, until the tangled puzzle is completed. After which, finally (spoiler) we also have a brief travel back in time to the ancient Greece.

Initially the movie seems catchy, throwing at you familiar facts and faces from the Indiana Jones universe, the end of WW2 introducing the villain - a nazi physicist, the return of Sallah (John Rhys-Davies) - migrated from the first movie's Egypt to New York, the tour of an exotic location - Morroco in this case, the well-known melodic line by John Williams, and others. But slowly, this starts to drag, and the action becomes somehow dull. What saves it, more or less, is the time travel element in the end, but the fact you know from the start where the quest goes, doesn't make it a surprise anymore. Unlike, for instance, "Raiders of the Lost Ark", where you have no clue up to the end what exactly happens when the ark will open. Here, the final feeling, after more than two hours of movie, is somehow similar to the main character who being at the age of retirement complains that he doesn't fit anymore in such a story - the movie's sort of meeting the base expectations through its background elements, but seems a bit too "tired" to deliver enough impact. Even so, compared with the precedent exaggeration atempted by Spielberg in 2008 for reviving the character, what we got here seemed to me more in tone with the Indiana Jones I remember from when I was a kid.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Suzume (2022)

It's rare when it happens that I really want to write a blog entry on a movie but I don't have much idea of what I could write about it. I think that in the history of this blog I had like two-three situations when I felt the need to not let a title move by without pointing something out about it, but struggling to do it, and being aware from start that besides saying the movie's good I don't have much else left. Well, maybe there were more similar cases when I wasn't aware it happens :) What's certain for "Suzume" is that we're in such a situation. So...

What we have here is an anime where the background story is some sort of Japanese fantasy, in which a giant worm symbolizing the earthquakes and other natural disasters, escapes from time to time through some doors meant to be closed by somebody called, well, a "closer". The somebody meets during such a journey with Suzume, a teenager on her way to school, who eventually takes over the closer role. And from here on we step into a semi-fantasy road trip, which in my opinion is, as I said already, just a background story. Or a context to build metaphors, and maybe surprisingly, a very.. abstract one.

Let's move quickly over the technical part where, for an anime, the visual experience definitely deserves a viewing. I'm actually sorry I missed this on big screen. Now, we're getting to the part where I don't really know what else to say. As in other more "classic" anime movies, where obviously Miyazaki comes to mind, there are parts far enough from reality to be hard to get their meaning and even slowing down the movie. Still, these are also part of the metaphores set, and I believe each of these can be understood differently depending on who's watching it, which is probably the most interesting thing in the entire movie build-up - somebody could relate something with his or hers own life in a very different way than somebody else will probably do it. It might sound cryptic what I'm saying, but it's more practical to experiment on your own and see if it checks. Maybe I'm wrong :)

Rating: 4 out of 5

Oppenheimer (2023)

There's a while already since I'm not going to cinema as often as I used to, but there are exceptions. "Oppenheimer" is one of these. Reasone: top 250 IMDb, Nolan and a feeling that it deserves a big screen viewing. TL;DR: I think its place in top 250 is justified, it's not Nolan's best - but it's probably among the top half, about the big screen.. I wouldn't call it a "must see", but it's true I didn't watch it in IMAX.

Who read my blog knows that I'm not really fond of biopics. Besides that, Oppenheimer's life is not the most offering subject movie-wise, despite his importance in the context of WW2 and his major contribution in the development of the first atomic bomb. That's why the best part of this production is to squeeze out a script that wouldn't probably be easy to top with anything else covering the same subject. The story builds up on three temporal lines, started simultaneously. The main one is the "classic" type, following the biography of the main character since his student years up to his involvement as a chief physicist in the Manhattan project and to the detonation of the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This timeline merges afterwards with a second one, probably less familiar, covering "the trial". In brief, after WW2, Oppenheimer's activity became much more politically oriented than scientifical, implicitly drawing enemies and culminating with a closed hearing meant to revoke his security credentials, but which discredited him publicly. A third timeline, suggestively nuanced in black and white follows the reversal of that episode, happened a couple of years afterwards, when the principal political adversary behind Oppenheimer's hearing gets his own "trial" when attempting to occupy a secretary of state position.

"Oppenheimer" has perfect screenplay construction. A review that I read before watching it was saying something about the long length it has, where the third hour, coming ofter the nuclear explosions, is dilluting the effect and the movie should stop before it. I believe that's precisely the third our that makes it worth watching it. Even if in its beginning we have some dialogues that are a bit supperficial, the ending is filled with much more fine and mature nuances, some of them quite deep. From aspects that relate to form, like using the first person plural - a natural thing for a researcher given the typical writing customs - in complete opposition with an attorney's perception that interprets that as a lack of responsibility, to the fundamental idea that is built as a warning: mix science with politics and the last will bury you. There are some details, which I believe are more evident for who had some experience in research, and in particular in technical research. There's a point when somebody working in this area will most certainly have some opinions or even get forced by circumstances like management or other collateral activities, to take a position concerning more.. "humane" matters than the scientific niche. However, who's getting drawn too much into this direction will involuntarily end up sacrificing the other, which in an optimistic scenario will at least cost time, but worse might make the person a lamb to slaughter in a political jungle (the case of the movie). There's rare the case when somebody manages to fight both fronts and keep the standards high - because a technical area has a dynamic that sometimes is hard to keep up to even without something else distracting you. Anyway, we got into a very particular niche :) so let's move back to the movie.

As a cinematic experience "Oppenheimer" is ok, but not impressive. We have some nice shots, but overall its camera work is not spectacular. I appreciated the reserve on using CGI - I think it's better like that, but on the other hand I'm convinced that cinematography could've been better. The sound, as the editing are typical for Nolan, meaning a bit too aggressive, at least for start. Nevertheless, towards its end the video editing fills the gaps you fill in the cinematography, the result being probably the best edited movie hour I've watched in the last two years. The jumping between timelines begins in adagio and gradually advances to a tense allegro, which in the last ten minutes builds up into a sensory impact explosion.

My casting opinions are typically subjective, so we can move quickly over - what's obvious is that both Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey Jr. will probably collect plenty of nominations in the upcoming awards season. I didn't talk at all above about the biggest star on the poster though... = the bomb :) This will generate a long boring philosophical paragraph. To summarize it, unfortunately, despite the setting being more than 50 years ago, the movie is very timely. As I was saying about "1917", or more recently about "Im Westen Nichts Neues", it should probably be included on a mandatory watching list for many heads of states. I'm not sure though how much would they understand it...

The conclusion: it's a long movie and it can get boring. As I got bored by "Mank", "The Iron Lady", "Mr. Turner" or other biopics over the years. It probably won't happen though if you have some interest in history or some minimal technical background. And the latter can make you a bit subjective ;)

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Maggie Moore(s) (2023)

It's probably obvious from the frequency of my blog entries that I didn't have time, and honestly neither much mood for movies lately. I'm considering to compensate a bit more during this summer time, but we'll see... For now I stopped at "Maggie Moore(s)", which I also mentioned in the previews entry a couple of months ago, a title that afterwards received some mediocre ratings on various sites, but which I still decided to watch. And I liked it. Therefore, the current subject.

Probably the best fit for mapping this movie to a genre would be dark comedy, drawing apparently some inspiration from some creepy true events. In the suburbs of some town, some Mr. Moore doesn't get along well with Ms. Maggie Moore, his wife, and Mr. Moore also has some shady relation with an expired foods supplier for his franchise restaurant. When Ms. Moore finds out and threatens to call the police, Mr. Moore decides to hire a local thug to scare her. Unfortunately the scare goes a bit too far and Mr. Moore loses his wife. Through some unfortunate coincidence, Mr. Moore finds out about some other Maggie Moore living in the same area, and an idea pops up... What if, for building a solid alibi as a grieving husband, to hire again the same "assassin" to execute the same scare job on the second Ms. Moore, which would make the first "accident" to really look like an accident with a wrong address. To add more to this plot, the second Ms. Moore proves to be a likely target for some other people, which results in the most complicated case the local police chief ever encountered. Top that with a side romance + a comic relief offered by the bad jokes thrown in by the deputy.

The movie clearly doesn't fit the trend of the last years, and is more likely close to a TV production or to an episode from some crime mystery series. Overall though has some particular charm of a calm story but not a boring one, funny but not childish, "spicy" but not exaggerated. It's a perfectly fine movie if you're looking for one hour and a half of chill time, but still active for your brain, because the script is dense enough and well written. It probably becomes dull for the expectations of the mainstream critics who I guess got used during latest years either with the action box office standard not delivering much substance, or with the range of Scorsese, Paul Thomas Anderson and others. Something in between... bit more hard to get accepted. For me it seems way too underrated. But, watch it and then judge it... Maybe I'm just tired :)

Rating: 4 out of 5

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (2023)

I know that I'm relatively behind the release date of what seems like a first iteration of a novel "Dungeons and Dragons" series, but 1) I didn't have much time for movies lately and 2) I didn't really trust the subject. So it took a while to decide watching this. But probably both 1 as well as 2 had a subjective contribution to my final impression = it was clearly beyond my expectations.

To clarify a bit point 2 above, I'm not a complete stranger from the D & D universe. Sometime, like 15-20 years ago (when my amounts of free time were different) I had some contact with the video games niche placed in the same fantasy setting, which originate from board games started long long ago. The contact was enough to realize that the bunch of repetitive quests like talking to character X who can be found in tavern Y for finding the object Z from location Q were usually mingled in a gordian knot, making hard to believe that this kind of stuff can be easily adapted for a screen story. But it seems it can. If there's something to appreciate most about this movie it's the screenplay. In a fantasy universe that's pretty common with what we know already = people, dwarfs, druids, good wizards, bad wizards, dragons, etc, somehow we can find a story that's not told so many times to bore you. For the connoisseurs it keeps the D & D feeling using a series of nuances like: the ensemble of different characters typical to a game - "the party" - where each has specific abilities, the NPCs = non-playable characters who you can add temporarily to a party but at some moment they go on with their lives, the classic quests mentioned above, and others. For who's not familiar with the D & D lore, these nuances are difficult to observe but don't bother either because the movie adds anyway an excellent dose of humor set in such manner to mock all aspects that would bore even an experienced gamer = why a spell meant to interogate zombies must really force you to ask 5 questions when you need only 2, why do you need a path more convoluted then everything you've seen in a Indiana Jones movie to cross a trapped bridge, and again many others.

I didn't really say much about the subject, right? That's because the subject is typical to D & D, meaning exactly what I was mentioning above - we have the heroes of the story trapped in untangling some tangled threads of what proves to be a diabolical plot of a necromancer to corrupt the living world via an evil witch, who raises to power with the help of a crook that manages to usurp the throne of... Whatever, it really doesn't matter that much how many threads we have but more how these are tangled, with anything that comes by along the script = acting, sound, camera, for which the description here is useless; it's better to watch the movie. It's refreshing ;) And I'm not really in a moment to say this about anything, no matter how subjective I might be after my low expectations.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Summer-Fall 2023 Movie Preview

As it happens lately, my mood for writing new entries is "incapacitated" due to various reasons. I'm still trying though to keep this blog alive, and since we reached the usual time for the preview of the next six months, that's making my job easier. After all, here it probably matters more what trailers I include in the enumeration than what I'm rambling besides these => it allows me some economy with the extra comments. So, let's check out what we have on a short list...

In June, "Maggie Moore(s)" makes a difference in the typical scenery of summer blockbusters, reason why I decided to choose it to start the list, hoping for something more original. It looks like a mix of a mystery thriller and a dark comedy. We'll see how that works out.

It's rare when I refer to biopics on my blog, because it's definitely not among my favorite genres. However, for "Oppenheimer", announced for July, I decided to make an exception. One reason is the direction by Nolan. The second reason is because (unfortunately) the topic seems to become more and more timely.

I didn't have much choice of trailers for August, so I'm skipping through to September when we have "The Creator". The movies's baseline is overused, and I doubt it can reach the heights of predecessors like "Terminator", "Matrix" and others. But at least is a "clasic" SciFi (not a SH = "superhero" movie), which is a genre that we don't see very often.

In October we have the official release date for "Killers of the Flower Moon", the most recent film by Scorsese. After the Cannes pre-screening, the reviews look good.

I'm closing the list with "Dune: Part Two". All I can say is that I hope they'll keep some limits on the adaptation freedom we've seen in the first part, although what's already done is done. Except that, we'll see how it goes in November... Let's get there first.

Puss in Boots: The Last Wish vs. John Wick: Chapter 4

I wanted to write this entry, or at least the first half of it = "Puss in Boots", before the holidays but I couldn't find the time. So, since then I added to the pack the last episode of "John Wick". Where do these two connect? There's not much in common apparently, but wait... First, both somehow seem to end their series, or at least try to send a "good bye" (not really an "adieu") from their main character. Besides that, more or less ironically, after watching JW, I can't say it's very far from an animated movie.

I've never been very caught by the DreamWorks' fairytale universe that began with "Shrek", maybe except "Shrek 3" (despite what critics said about it). So, I didn't rush watching the last "Puss in Boots", but finally I can say that's probably the best animation I've seen since "Isle of Dogs", 5 years ago. The story goes like this: Puss in Boots finds itself reaching the last of the nine standard cat lifes, and followed by Death impersonated by a bounty hunter armed with two sickles, decides to move out from the public life of a fairytale hero. That's until finding out about a star fulfilling any wish, but only one, and implicitly opening a path to gaining back the peace of mind in front of the deathly perils of the world. However, Puss in Boots is not the only one wishing for that wish - so we end up with a race of who's the first to find the magic star. And obviously to a duel when we're finally getting there.

I didn't find either the "John Wick" universe too compelling, the notable exception being the second part, which clearly stands out in comparison to the rest. Here the story goes pretty much as it went before: John Wick has a big price on his head and a bunch of bounty hunters on his tracks, and he also tries to find some peace getting through the intricate customs of the assassins guild of which he's part of. The quest implies reaching various locations. So finally, we have again a race from death, heading up to a final duel - an actual classic one this time = pistols, 30 steps, witnesses, and all the rest. Well, does the title of the entry make more sense now?

Ok, let's be fair. Looking at the reviews I was expecting much more from JW4, and after what I've seen I felt it deserves this comparison. Practically, it recycles a lot from previous movies, from some locations = clubs, mirror or glass walls rooms, etc. up to the same tiringly long sequences of gratuitous violence = I ask myself how do screenwriters, directors, or whoever decides, choose the optimal number of henchmen beaten in an action movie scene. Really, does it make any difference if we see more than 7-8? In this type of movie, I can get over inconsistent plot parts or story threads left hanging, but it's hard to accept senseless attempts to get a record on the body count. I don't have an issue with violence in a movie, but when it takes, in a repetitive manner, over a quarter of the movie time, I think it's legitimate to ask yourself if it wouldn't be more reasonable to watch wrestling, mma, or some other contact sports instead.

There are some good parts in the last JW - especially concerning the camera work. But unfortunately it's not enough. We have some witty lines, but overall the script is quite shallow. In "Puss in Boots" at least I found enough humor to make me smile a bit, not that I was expecting this from JW4, but it seemed even more dry than the previous installments. Even the soundtrack in JW4 has its ground in the one introduced in Chapter 2, an excellent one otherwise, but there's not much novelty here. For instance, "Puss in Boots" comes up with a memorable score (composed by Heitor Pereira), at least for the pieces where Death makes an entrance, reminding somehow of Morricone's western music tones. If we're to talk about villainous characters, again JW4 fades when compared to "Puss in Boots". I would've never believed that an antropomorphic wolf with red eyes and two sickles can have more charisma than the head of a criminal organization, but well... it does. Fortunately there are more in the JW cast that somehow compensate, but I found Bill Skarsgard to be a very poor choice for the main villain.

To sum up the comparative overview, as forced or hilarious this might seem, there's the substance of the story, which in essence is represented by running out from death in both movies. As unlikely it might sound, I'd say this is much more maturely presented in "Puss in Boots" then in "John Wick". The sense you get from there is stop de run, face the problem, live your current life and not the past one. We even have a symbolic "ressurection" of Puss in Boots at some point. Probably JW's action attempts some similar direction, but the whole idea is much more fuzzy and lost between fistfights and guns + (spoiler) it "encouragingly" wraps up with a tombstone. So, surprisingly.. in the end, at least for now, Puss vs. John: 1-0.

Rating:
Puss in Boots: The Last Wish - 4 out of 5
John Wick: Chapter 4 - 2.5 out of 5

Im Westen nichts Neues (2022)

"Im Westen nichts Neues", incorrectly translated with the more positive sounding title "All Quiet on the Western Front", is an anti-war movie, based on the novel written by Erich Maria Remarque after his experience on the World War I frontline. In the review I wrote three years ago for "1917", set in the same context, I was saying it should be included on a mandatory to-watch list for some state leaders. I can't say about "Im Westen nichts Neues" that's in any way superior as cinematic experience, but I can say that it should probably be on the to-watch list for even more people.

The movie, or the novel, which I didn't read, but that's the source for this, is somehow particular by showing you the perspective of the "evil" soldier in the finally defeated German army. Shocking, or actually not really, we come to terms quickly with the idea that at the frontline level there's not much separation between good and evil. The perspective of the individual tormented by the phyisical and psychical pressure finally reaches a neutral stance concerning the conflict's reasons, or to approximately quote one of the lines - we're nothing but a pair of boots with a rifle, what do we know? This is probably one of the key moments of a movie that doesn't have basically other subject than showing us repeatedly that the outside vision on a war at some point becomes quite different from what the person within the line of fire feels, despite any "expert" opinions on conflict reasons from outside observers. Obviously, there might be exceptions to this, and in a cynical evaluation, probably the impact of WW1's hand-to-hand combat is not exactly equivalent with killing the enemy from a distance specific to modern warfare, but that doesn't change the reality that on a war front lots of people die for purposes set from a safe distance by much few people. The same reality, well expressed by the movie, says that any war ends with a negociation and any postponing of this does increase the body count, which number, again in a cynical logic, might have some sense (but not for the dead ones) if it would at least change something on the front. But to move back to the harsh reality and the final statistics displayed by the movie, the West frontline during the 4 years of WW1 barely moved but left within the trenches more than 3 millions of dead bodies. Probably a partial explanation for such absurdity is provided by some other sequence of linse: half century without a war; what's a soldier without a war? The problem is that these lines don't come from a soldier's mouth, but from a general longing for the glory that his father gained in three victorious battles.

The saying that a war doesn't have victors but only losers is a naive cliche, real though but only if we refer to masses. Unfortunately, there are winners in a war, at least during the conflict timeline, either gaining material profits or bolstering their public image, or simply knowing that if the conflict ends this will change their lives, and not for the better. If there wouldn't be any winners, as ephemeral they might be, we wouldn't have wars. It's true that their number is small, but they're typically highly influential. But let's leave the history and politics for experts to discuss, and let's move back to the movie. Although I don't have much left to say there :)

I didn't like "Im Westen nichts Neues". I doubts it's a movie meant to be liked. It's violent, repetitive, without a rich narrative, although the screenplay is quite good. The casting is ok. The cinematography is fine but inevitably you'll compare it with "1917", which is almost imposible to match on this. What's more interesting is the soundtrack here that shows some fine tension notes, but overall I can't qualify this as a remarcable movie. It's, however, a necessary movie. Despite the fact I'm typically against political correctness in cinema, this time I'll pass on blaming BAFTA for throwing all awards towards this, although I can't say I'd list this objectively as the best film of the year. I can risk blaming in advance the AMPAS = the Oscars, because I'm almost certain they'll pick a weaker title that checks all their criteria that don't have much in common with the cinema. Anyway, considering how relevant these awards got to be in the latest years, who cares anymore? Conclusion: watch the movie, enjoy the peace as long as you have it ;)

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Triangle of Sadness (2022)

It's hard to fit "Triangle of Sadness" in a genre, but probably that would be again a dark comedy turning into drama if I'd be forced to pick some category. However, it's an entirely different type of movie than last time's "Banshees of Inisherin". It's also quite complicated to write a spoiler-free review sufficiently eloquent for what we have here. Or I don't have enough inspiration to do it now. That's why I did something that I typically only do before watching a movie, not after = to also have a look at what others wrote. It seems to me, however, that my opinion diverges from the majority, so I'll stick to the essentials.

The movie's split into three acts, the first introducing a couple, Carl and Yaya, two fashion models, somewhere close to their 30s. The second act brings them on a yacht cruise together with all kinds of wealthy but disagreeable characters. The captain of the ship, himself a very special character, always drunk and upset about the capitalist regime he's part of finds a drinking buddy in a Russian oligarch, and ultimately drives the ship to its doom. Or otherwise said, he brings the movie to its third act, where we have a handful of survivors shipwrecked on an island, and forced to adapt their lavish living to a Robinson Crusoe existence. That's the summary in a few words.

"Triangle of Sadness" is a pretty objective movie relative to the current reality and a quite direct one. That's where the criticism stems from, apparently for "lack-of-depth", as I've seen in some reviews close to Hollywood (in Europe it was received ok). I think the real reason behind it is a different one. The movie probably doesn't fit well with a political agenda very firmly oriented in a certain direction during the last few years, which I'm not really in the mood to debate here. Setting some base on "the rich aren't nice" image, the movie first enters some cliches showing the superficiality behind luxury, which is not something new indeed as reviews say, funny enough turning this into low ratings. The last act drives us to some reversing within the social ranks, the control being taken by a former cleaning lady on the yacht, apparently the only one with the necessary practical skills for surviving. This outcome slowly turns the tide towards some exploitation or even tyranny perspectives, and the new group leader feels very well in her position. The essence here (or the probably inconvenient "depth") is that not even the "equality" naturally created by the sunken ship can resist as it would be believed it can. Or at least that pushing to extremes when trying to create equality won't hold, the attitude in commercials can't be standard - sometimes depends on the brand, Thursday is not a day as any other to have dinner despite weather forecasts, a ship's crew cannot indulge in leisure activities as much as the passengers do, not all ships have washable sails, having the stomach full is not a universal recommendation for sea sickness, you can't say "yes" all the times to what's requested from you, and maybe others, maybe even more "deep", that wrap up into the same idea.

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Banshees of Inisherin (2022)

"The Banshees of Inisherin" is the fourth feature film written and directed by Martin McDonagh after "In Bruges", "Seven Psychopaths" and "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri". At the first sight it could fit the same line of dark comedy as the predecessors. That's until it becomes clear that it's much more dark and much less a comedy.

Somewhere on Inisherin, a fictitious island on the Irish coast, at the beginning of the 20th century, two glass mates, Colm and Padraic, abruptly get into a conflict. The reason, Colm, the eldest of the two, and having some talent of playing the violin, decides that his life is wasted in useless chit-chat. So, without explaining much, lets his former friend know that there's nothing to be dicussed between them and that he's busy with composing a new tune. The news is a real shock for Padraic, disrupting without warning a routine where pretty much the only "entertainment" on the island were the afternoon chats at the local pub with his buddy. Confused, Padraic tries to make Colm change his mind, but his attempts hit a rock. Moreover, to prove that he's not kidding, Colm threatens to cut one of his fingers each time he's approached in conversation. The situation seems funny initially, but slowly escalates to a typhoon disturbing the peace of the small local community.

I vaguely remember that also "In Bruges", starring the same Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson, switched from comedy to drama, but here it happens quicker and more harsh. Even if in the first part of the movie the action seems sometimes to drag. The humor is not lost though, and it's really good, but it slowly gets to having more of a tension relief role, which is really needed. As a drama, "The Banshees of Inisherin" is much more complex than the summary above might suggest. There are a lot of ideas that can be drawn from what we see here. From the amount of risk in someone's life that a strict separation between black and white can create to the difficulty of leaving a comfort zone and its consequences but as well the lack of understanding of such situations, and others. These many senses seem somehow to contrast the small number of characters and the geographic isolation. The entire community that interacts with the two main leads is limited to a number below 10 (+ 2 animals), out of which more present in the action are actually just Padraic's sister and the son of the local policeman, where we have another mini-drama as a side-story. I guess, however, that actually this reduced context creates an opportunity, such that each character can be carefully crafted and integrated in the script, so that finally what you get is a rich picture of an isolated corner of this world. A picture that is completed by a tragic but open ending, reason why it might be a bit disappointing. Even though, if you want you can see here some tiny hope for a happy-end. It really depends on which half of the glass you prefer ;)

Rating: 4 out of 5