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

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)

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

The Morning After (1986)

As it seems, I'm back to old movies not having a better subject. "The Morning After" is not the best of the '80s, but it has some certain charm (+ obviously I've watched it more recently than the '80s so I can still remember what I've seen).

An alcoholic actress, beyond her prime, wakes up one morning, somewhere in a penthouse, near a dead body with a knife in his chest. Completely amnesic and with no recollection of meeting the late fellow, she decides to run away. Where running = flying out of town, but the whole thing happens to coincide with Thanksgiving so the plan fails due to lack of room in scheduled flights. So, having also her car picked up by the police, the only escape she finds seems to be a guy who struggles to start his wreck's engine in the airport parking lot and who's nice enough to offer her a ride back to the city. Leaving out the details, "the plot thickens" the second morning after another drinking night, when the dead body gets mysteriously teleported in the shower of her own house. Fortunately, the guy she met earlier, who we find out to be a former cop, offers to help the apparent murderer to find out how dead men can walk.

Probably half the movie's charm is given by the acting of Jane Fonda and Jeff Bridges in the lead roles, and the totally atypical romance story. For the rest, you can feel the direction of Sidney Lumet building up the suspense, even though it's not really among his best. Also, we don't actually have a perfect crime novel resolution, the last part becoming predictable enough about the solution of the mystery. Even so, the script with the comic nuances it has it's nice, and makes a watchable movie despite the age it shows sometimes.

Rating: 3 out of 5

The Limehouse Golem (2016)

 

Set in the Victorian London of the 19th century, "The Limehouse Golem" fits in the crime mystery genre, somewhere between Agatha Christie and Arthur Conan Doyle, maybe more close to the latter and his Sherlock Holmes. 

The movie follows the investigation conducted by inspector Kildare of Scotland Yard concerning a series of murders in Limehouse, one of London's bad neighborhoods in the 1800s. The subject, adaptation of a book, has similarities with the case of Jack the Ripper, which is an obvious inspiration - from the setting up to the investigator and suspects, some picked out from the real figures of the time. The action thread intersects with a parallel case of poisoning a writer, and of his accused wife, this becoming basically the main lead in the investigation, both cases revolving around the same people.

I can't say that I liked the movie, but I have to give it credit for some aspects. The subject is convoluted enough to keep the mystery alive until the end, although you can reduce the number of suspects relatively fast. The director's approach is interesting and seems to put more weight on the artistic side (visuals, set decoration, etc) than on the concrete story. Sometimes, however, it feels rushed, and you lose track of what's going on. And if I got to the negative parts, there's a bit too much red paint in it. The grim scenes bring a strong contrast to the rest, but it doesn't feel really useful in the sense it's probably intended = to strengthen the same contrast between the personality of the murderer and the real image of the character ( no more spoilers :) ). As last remark for this entry, Bill Nighy seemed rather tired for the lead role, although again, maybe that's what was intended for the character to look like. Bottom line... 

Rating: 3 out of 5

La French (2014)

I think that I've watched "The French Connection" (and its sequel) like 3-4 times until I was 14-15 years old. I remember nothing. Just that at that time I liked it, and for a while was my first reference for Gene Hackman. When I heard for the first time about "The French" I didn't get that's set in the same context. I only understood that when I've seen the English title: "The Connection".

A bit of trivia. The period: '60s-'80s; the path: Turkey - South of France - New York; the context: one of the best organized networks specialized in heroin traffic. In brief, opium growing was still legal in Turkey at the time, the raw product was shipped to Corsica and Marseilles, and then refined as final drug and exported in the USA. The history of "the connection" goes back in time before WW2, involving a bunch of interconnected clans. All the story has obviously many episodes that fit to a movie, and "La French" just picks one of these, toward the end of the period, when after years the DEA in the US and the French police were slowly getting close to an end with disbanding the network. And like that we get to know Pierre Michel, a judge in Marseilles specialized on juvenile matters. One day he gets a promotion to organized crime, and obviously the first case he gets is the "La French" problem. Not for long though. After some success in his investigation leading up to the mayor's office he's quickly taken off the case. That's the extremely brief summary for the first part of the movie. For the second, I wouldn't give any spoilers...

...But unfortunately the beginning of the movie it's telling you almost too clearly where all this is going. Anyway, the build-up of the action is relatively slow, surprisingly calm and realistic for the subject it has. Especially since the production design helps a lot = everything looks really authentic for the time it's set in (the cars, the music, the locations, etc.). The script drives you from work matters to their effects in the personal life, so we have also quite some drama packed in, which sort of saves the movie of extra senseless action scenes (it doesn't mean we don't have action). On the other hand, the characters, who are real persons - Pierre Michel (Jean Dujardin) and Tany Zampa (Gilles Lellouche), the local drug lord - are taken to the level of some sort of sort of extremely gritty cold war, stuff that somehow seems a bit artificial. But well... it's a movie, it's not meant to put you to sleep :) Finally, I could say it's a solid movie, but I can't say it left me such an impression to motivate re-watching it 3-4 times as with "The French Connection". However, I'm not 15 years old anymore, and I neither have the time I had back then ;).

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Gemini (2017)

Again I'm not really in the mood, I don't have much time, and neither a proper subject for the weekly entry. There's, however, a movie that I watched last month, which is far from a masterpiece but I found it underrated (at least for its IMDb score), so I guess it deserves some attention. "Gemini" is a crime mystery, more close to the classic type than it might seem in the beginning, even giving some glimpse of neo-noir. Anyway, the story: Heather is a successful, but moody actress, who delegates most of her problems to her personal assistant, Jill. After an evening with some sort of tensed resignation from an ongoing production, followed by some alcohol, pestering paparazzi, and an annoying fan, Heather remembers that her assistant owns a gun, which she requests for personal protection. With some reserve, Jill decides to grant her wish, and also spends the night in Heather's house, saying goodbye the next morning and returning around lunch, when... surprise, she finds her boss' disfigured corpse with the empty gun nearby. Fingerprints: only Heather and Jill. And so, the mystery begins...

At some point, it reminded me a bit of "A Simple Favor", especially since the title might sound as a spoiler close to what's there for who saw it, but (spoiler of a spoiler) in the end there's not much alike. The subject seems to get tangled in a complicated intrigue, and the development creates more and more potential for that, but what you get is a quick solution and the movie ends, leaving you waiting for some apparently clear but not given answers. Even though the end might be disappointing, overall it's quite engaging, the acting is ok and in particular Lola Kirke (Jill) was an interesting presence. For more, check "A Simple Favor" ;)

Rating: 3 out of 5

Cop Car (2015)

"Cop Car" is a bizarre movie, from the title to the end of it. Two kids, of about 10 years old, who ran from home, find an abandoned police care near a field. Despite manifesting a level of intelligence that seems similar to "dumb & dumber" in the kindergarten years (the comparison's not mine, but I don't remember where I heard it), the two kids manage to start the car, make a couple laps with it, hit the road through a fence, reach over 100 speed and get alive out of this. But they don't get away from the owner of the vehicle... a local sheriff involved in some really unorthodox stuff, from dumping a corpse in the woods to dumping some bags of drugs in his toilet. We don't get a clear image of what's going on. What's certain is that he's a bad guy who wants his car back. Especially because of what's hiding in the trunk.

The movie runs relatively quiet for its first half, the action level rising towards the end. I liked the dynamic = lately I appreciate a moderate dosing of the tension . The cast is small in size, Kevin Bacon clearly being the star here in the sheriff's role. The camera work is nice and the score has a minimalist sound which seemed familiar, but I don't know where I heard it before.

I said that "Cop Car" is bizarre starting with its title - which might be related with what we see on screen most often, but still seems picked like... well, what's the first idea for naming the movie? The main issue though is the contrast between the kids actions. They either shine in their capacity to handle things, or they make you wonder why the script says 10 years instead of 5 (and that's not as positive remark). Or looking at tit from a different perspective, if such an improbable sequence of events can take place, maybe we should play the lottery more often. Anyway, it's an ok thriller, no lengths in it, and can get you away from the daily issues for a bit of time.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

El Camino (2019)

A more educational topic for the current global context would've probably been an appropriate episode of TWD (very useful generally for analyzing the group psychology during crisis, even though it's just fiction). On the other hand maybe not = let's not add more panic. Anyway, it's another week when I don't have a proper subject, but I told myself maybe find something to keep the usual blog frequency + watching movies fits with solitary indoor activities, which doesn't hurt promoting these days. So I got to "El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie" to provide the complete title - which I've recently watched.

To start with, it doesn't make much sense to watch the movie if you didn't watch the series (++more solitary indoor activity :P). Ergo, if you didn't see "Breaking Bad", also what follows it won't make much sense. As in "Deadwood"'s case, I've seen the series at 6-7 years after ending (long live project-free periods!). In different words is quite fresh, thing that might count on how much you'll like the movie. For me it was like a sort of epilogue for the finale episode - quick recap: Walter White guns down pretty much everybody who's "bad", including himself. Except Jesse Pinkman, his oldest associate, who we could say redeemed himself after a year of solitary confinement and slavery as an expert meth cook. That's the story of "El Camino": the torment of Pinkman during that time and his run for a new life after the end of the series, in chronological order: find car, find money, lose money, find escape route to Alaska, find money again and wrap up some unfinished business, final escape.

There's enough post-"Breaking Bad" material, but we also have plenty of flashbacks with former characters in the series. That's why I was saying that the time when you watched that has probably an impact in how much you'll like "El Camino". After a 6 years break from the series finale there are chances to like this more, and after all the "retro" material has also the role to remind you of stuff you might have forgot. If you watch "El Camino" immediately after the series it might seem that such extra sequences inserted here and there don't add any value to it. As example, there's a scene with some lunch in a diner from when Walter White & Jesse Pinkman were meth cooking partners. It would've been terribly disappointing to have zero Walter White in "El Camino" for somebody who took a break from "Breaking Bad" since 2013. On the other hand, as I said, that's just an extra sequence = it doesn't bring any significant content to the rest of the movie. Anyway, overall it's an ok movie, and it brings some "closure" feeling, which might have seemed a bit incomplete at the end of the series. That's all for today, 'til next time: stay safe ;)

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

A Most Violent Year (2014)

As aggressive as the title may seem in the start of "A Most Violent Year", as much lack of dynamic we get till the movie ends. I even was in doubt: to watch or not to watch, given the context - 1981, the most violent year in the history of New York City - because I really wasn't in the mood for a realistic exposure of the period. No worries, even this statistic fades out in the film. But that's not the main problem...

The action follows a period of 30 days from the life of Abel Morales, a young entrepreneur in the industry of fossil fuels - we don't get a precise activity domain explicitly, stuff that's quite irritating at least for the first half of the movie, where you need to deduce by yourself what's the exact area of operation for this guy. We start with a transaction for a shore property, where Morales pays and advance with a term of a month to complete the sum. Also in the start we see a fuel truck hijacked, the driver beaten and left lying on the highway, finally being visited and encouraged by Morales in the hospital. Like that we get to find out that he's the owner of a truck fleet that got to be a target for such attacks. On top of everything we have a prosecutor interested in a career advancement, intending to place charges on the company on multiple counts, not clear for a while which all these might me, or why there are so many. This wouldn't matter much, but in the context of an investigation that looks more fit for a drug lord, and not for a small business, the motivation should probably be made more explicit quicker. The conclusion is that Abel's request for a loan to complete the transaction we started from is rejected by his bank, which brings him close to bankruptcy. Somehow contradictory with moving into a new villa. In any case, he's forced to look for an alternate money source... and that's pretty much the subject that the movie offers in its second part, after we manage to untangle a bit the whole context...

I'm sorry but I'm not within the same page with J.C. Chandor, who got praise for both this movie as for others like "Margin Call" in regard to screenplay and direction. For me it looks like a contradictory "performance" - the narrative tires you with a bunch of gaps that either you must fill in or to keep in mind and wait for an explanation to come out, while at the same time it bores you with a slow pace, which if you look over the story is not actually there! I mean, we have action, but somehow from what's on paper to the screen it mysteriously fades away and we're left with a general slowness garnished with a pretentious unjustified feel of middle-class social analysis. I don't know where's the precise issue, maybe it's about how all this is staged, but except the acting I find it to be way below the critics appreciation it received.

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

The Irishman (2019)

To be clear from start where we stand, and since I'm not in the best writing mood and also I don't want to get too long, for me "The Irishman" compared to "Goodfellas" seemed like the new "Jumanji" vs. the old "Jumanji" (the new = the one of two years ago, because for the latest one I won't lose time anymore). Yeah, I know that the new "Jumanji" is ranked better than the old one (maybe I'm getting older, but... come on), exactly the way "The Irishman" got in a couple days to be considered by at least a part of the critics as the best of Scorsese. Really?...

So, I said I don't want to get long with this = if you want the full story, Wikipedia search for Jimmy Hoffa, union leader in the '70s in US with some mafia connections, and the unfortunate protagonist of one the most controversial disappearances ever, not solved by today. Unofficially, at 30 years after the event, an Irish guy from the close circle of Hoffa, Frank Sheeran, on his death bed makes a stunning confession - he killed Hoffa... and also Joe Gallo, another mobster who's killer's left unknown... and even other hits of the same type... and also transported weapons for the Bay of Pigs invasion. All these so cleverly put together, that he didn't get charged for any, and the FBI still has the case officially unsolved. It's an excellent subject for a best-seller, and now for a top grossing movie. I don't say that everything's fake, but still it looks too much like a fishing story, and the fish might not be that big.

But the movie, how is the movie.. well, even the new "Jumanji" is ok in some parts. "The Irishman" starts well, with a bit of a "Godfather" feeling that you don't meet nowadays anymore, but soon it starts to hit you with some not so nice stuff. The effects and/or make-up to rejuvenate De Niro didn't look more artificial since "J. Edgar". De Niro is more Italian than Irish, and as well as he gets his role played, it doesn't really completely belong there - in comparison is enough to look at Ray Stevenson in "Kill the Irishman", a much less pretentious movie some years ago, also set in the mob wars niche. Hoffa didn't have Italian roots as Pacino has, although here the contrast is not so big, but again, Jack Nicholson in "Hoffa" directed by Danny De Vito, which I've seen long long ago still stays in my mind as more credible. On the other hand, we have a comeback on screen after a very long break of Joe Pesci, which is indeed and undeniable made for the role he plays.

What's left to say - the movie is very long, and the ending even longer - I've never had this feeling of extra unnecessary lengths anywhere else except "LoTR: Return of the King" after the ring is melted, or in the latest "Avengers", after... well, I don't remember after what, completely forgettable. Even so, it's a movie to see. Until the end, the script is written sufficiently ok to keep you there. Technically: camera work, editing (minus the effects I was saying) is top class. And if that doesn't move you, at least for the fact that you don't get to see much often something in this genre that reaches a decent quality.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Parasite (2019

"You know what kind of plan never fails? No plan. You know why? If you make a plan, life never works out that way." That's the approximate translation for what could be "Parasite"'s tagline. I agree with the first answer. That's an axiom, not much to contradict there. I don't agree though with the second. And in the end the movie seems to agree with me ;) (at least indirectly.

An unemployed family in South Korea finds a way to move into the life of an "upper class" family - or to put it more directly: a family that has money. One by one, each of the poor family's members finds a job at the residence of the wealthy, job that's made available with the support of the previous employee: a private English teacher, a combo of a private art theacher + a children psychologist, a driver and a housekeeping lady. The small problem - each employee comes with fake recommendation and identity, and except the first of them the open position for the next to be hired is vacated through highly unorthodox means. Only that, as usual, karma fights back, and when each member of the family got a well paid job, there's a big surprise to show up.

And being a surprise let's not spoil it ;) I found already space left for more, although half the movie is built on this suprise, but there's still something missing. Or some of the development moves to quickly to properly conclude. There are also some other aspects that seemed a bit improper. Light spoiler: the script wants somehow to empathize with the four crooks, at least in the last part this being obvious, the characters being given some sort of positive aura. But comparing this with "Shoplifters", the Asian brother with a Cannes trophy, if there this approach worked, here it seemed a bit hard to movie over the first half. Despite my personal opinion that people can change, this wasn't very obvious here, so... Conclusion: I almost always found overrated the Cannes winning movies, and the exception that confirms the rule = "Shoplifters" passed. There are still many positive facts: the typical Korean dark humor, the attempt to shock, the actors, the score, etc. So it's a good movie, but not a very good one ;)

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

London Fields (2018)

1. It's been a while since I'm trying to do a strict selection of what I watch - unfortunately time is limited, movies to pick from not. 2. "London Fields" was a guilty pleasure - where after watching I'd say it was more guilty and less pleasure. 3. IMDb gives it 4.3, Metacritic ranks at 16/100, and RottenTomatoes shows an epic 0% for this title, which should be more than enough as a red flag of "stay away!" - but Amber Heard has green eyes, and eventually I gave up resisting...

...in my defense: not before finding out that there is a director's cut, apparently a bit better than the initial version released a year ago. To be honest, I'm not sure what version I did watch, but from what I heard I tend to think it was the one which is at least a bit better edited. Meaning that we have some continuity in the action, which you can follow, compared to the chaotic development I heard it's present in the initial version. Now, about the contents of this action, oh well...

"London Fields" wants to be a neo-noir mystery set around a femme fatale: Nicola Six, who enter a bar some day, where she intersects her path with 3 guys, and has a vision of her own death at her 30th anniversary being cause by one of them. Only that she doesn't know who's the murderer... an American writer, temporarily moved in London, a drunk darts player, broke and heavily in debt, or a young banker, whose IQ seems similar with the degree of variation in his everyday life. In this context we have a love triangle getting shape (or better said a square), though without getting much sense. Or if there is one, the movie doesn't offer much reason to lose also extra time to look for it. The mystery part is at least partially shattered at a certain moment when you find out that one of the three guys doesn't have much to lose. The neo-noir part is also fading away quite fast due to the directing style, not having many scenes to support it. And still...

There is a certain action thread that the movie follows. Nicola struggles to get money from a guy to pay another one's debt, while the third is observing all of it. It's not very clear why she's doing that. As well as her reaction of accepting the cruel fate. Anyway, with the exception of Jim Sturgess, whose overacting is a bit too "over", the actors do a good job. Despite a gratuitous Razzie nomination, Amber Heard (with all the objectivity I can have) can act, and actually she does a good part here compared to others. There are also a couple scenes of what looks to be the "director's cut" that have some artistic sparkle in them in respect to editing/camera work. Shame though there are a couple more that cancel that. The major problem though is the story and the script - both having Martin Amis as author, who also signed a best-seller with the same name, 30 years ago.

As an objective conclusion, I don't know how the novel managed to gain success, but a bizarre mixture of romance with tons of darts thrown in, barely showing some clear ending, it's probably a good alternative only to a B series movie, instead of a sleeping pill. It can be worse though ("The Counselor" comes to my mind). At least here I didn't expect anything. Anyway, as another option of a mystery with a sort of a femme fatale central character, I reviewed a while ago "A Simple Favor". Much more clever, and overall much, much, much better.

Rating: 2 out of 5 ( objectively ;) - subjectively +0.5 :P )

Joker (2019)

I was thinking about which tagline would sound better: "from Road Trip to Joker" or "much ado about nothing", but both are bit unfair, although also both hold some truth.

Does it make any sense to do a synopsis of the story? Let's do like that: this is not a superhero universe movie. I don't even think it has DC Comics mentioned in the opening titles, which are very '70s - including the Warner Bros logo of that time. That was promising. At least for me, who I'm fed up with the most successful recipe to cash in from cinema in the last 15 years. Well... correction... -this does not seem- to be the same superhero universe as the latest Justice League or Avengers (oh yes, I've put them in the same sentence - not much difference). Of course we are set in Gotham, when Bruce Wayne was living his childhood and wasn't using his bat wings yet. Arthur Fleck is a lonely guy, with a neurological problem, periodically generating hysterical laughing, kept under control with plenty of medication, besides probably many other psychiatric issues. The guy lives with his mother, and has a lousy job as a clown hired on various events. Predictably, when it seems that things going wrong will go even more wrong, that happens. The job is lost, the social assistance also, the medication along it, as well as the self-control, followed by several murders and like that from Arthur Fleck we get to Joker. Well, I finally did a sort of synopsis... Probably not a very comprehensive one, but that wasn't my intention.

And it wasn't my intention because the movie is very very linear. That's the main issue. You have some little mystery, with a scent of soap-opera at some time concerning the abandoned mother who sent letters all her life to Thomas Wayne, the father of the future Batman, but it doesn't take long to have that mystery solved. And since this is pretty much the single digression from a line where you know at least 5 minutes ahead what's gonna happen, I'll refrain from more spoilers. Besides that, as a story at least, doesn't bring any surprise. And now, the taglines...

"From Road Trip to Joker": Todd Phillips has been directing almost only light comedies since year 2000. His association to Joker (no pun intended) was somehow surprising, and the critics rushed a bit on lowering the expectancy, at least until the title role was attributed to Joaquin Phoenix. Obviously neither "Road Trip", neither "Hangover", not even "Borat" where Phillips wrote the script, aren't the best references to guarantee a powerful drama as "Joker" wanted to be, and it actually is. So, that's why I was saying that the tagline sounds a bit unfair. If you've seen "War Dogs", the last movie made by Phillips before "Joker", despite all the comic line present there, you can feel already some drama nuances that are quite strong. Although the movie is heavily linear here, from the directing perspective, I highly doubt it could've been done much better. And the script for a "story" like this... well... I would even say that Phillips made wonders with the base material. From a story that can be summarized in three words = crazy guy snaps - he somehow managed to squeeze a sufficiently solid character (obviously the acting has its role here) to make some noise with it. And like that we're getting to...

"Much ado about nothing": Or what are the critics complaining of after release. The American at least, because in Europe the movie was better received. It's said that the movie is dangerous, that it's pushing to violence, that's pro-guns, and others. I'm curious how far can go the degree of filtering a movie through the social-political perspective. Well, I have the luxury of not being a resident of the American continent, where maybe the daily pressure of this factor might have went so far that distinguishing between a movie release and a political declaration is not done anymore. A movie is a movie, is art and should be first an escape from reality not a reference to it. I'll stick to that belief, although there are nuances. I doubt that Todd Phillips wanted to "positivise" the character, or to justify some violence, although it might seem so. A complex character is complex because it has its good and its bad, and here we have a solid construction that includes both, but that's something to appreciate not to criticize + after all, in the end, bottom line, what's left is a negative character. Even more, I doubt there was any intention for a movie associated with any left or right wing protests or movement. It doesn't even deserve debating. But well... For who's not smart enough and takes directly the idea of solving an issue with a gun, or connects what you can see in a fictive Gotham city and what's near you in the real life, then... well... it's indeed a movie that's harsh and strong enough to exert a direct influence. And that might make it dangerous indeed. But that depends on how smart is the viewer and doesn't throw any blame on the director ;)

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 (prea liniar...)

Searching (2018)

Sorry, I'm not in the mood for writing. But out of respect for the only "drug" that helped me through the time to "move on", I decided to try marking a movie recommendation for this week too. The only option that comes to mind right now is "Searching", watched about 3 weeks ago. A single father, loses his 16 years old daughter, who is gone missing after an evening with a study group. And so the searching starts, with a dedicated support from the police. But the police doesn't seem to keep up with the parent's detective abilities. The most original part of the movie is that is almost entirely shot via a computer screen. Besides that, we have an ending twist that's a bit forced, but the story is catchy enough to keep you watching. That's all for today.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Side Effects (2013)

Is it the pill, or it's not the pill? That's the essential question in "Side Effects". And which sticks up to the end. It's been a while since I've watched a movie that gives you that feeling of "I know who did it!" and change it after. And I think it does it more than once.

The setup goes like this. Emily is a depressive woman, whose husband is jailed for something like evading taxes (you're not told that, but it's probably something like that) being released after four years. Unfortunately from the status of former prosperous businessman, the guy now lives out his wife's salary who meanwhile wishing or not, had to find a job. Unfortunately neither his release, nor his efforts to get back his life seem to comfort the woman, who reaches out for a psychiatrist. The doctor switches her between several prescriptions, until we're getting to one with side effects. Bad, terrible, side effects... Since, up to this point you have to get through what I could name the boring area, with an extra touch for some moment trademarked Soderbergh (the director) that seem way longer than it's needed although you can't tell clearly what's the extra part, I will give a light spoiler: somebody dies (which makes you think if there aren't too many faces on the poster...). After that... is it the pill? :)

Risking another spoiler, between the lines, looking at the ending, I can say that the movie is quite disturbing. I mean, I would've taken the first "I know who did it!" and left it there. Although the action is quite different it reminded me somehow of "Gone Girl". Even though there you know quite well who's guilty. Here, as I said, you're induced of believing something, after which something else, and so on, and the development is subtle enough to not let you know until close to the finish if you're taking the right side.

Rating: 4 out of 5 (objectively, subjectively we stick to the standard 3.5 :) )

Small Town Crime (2017)

Short and effective. That's a quick summary for "Small Town Crime". The trailer puts it between "Three Billboards ...", as a recent example, and "Fargo" or anything else by the Coen brothers. It's indeed in the right area to classify it, but doesn't reach to any of the two above. Overall, however... not bad.

Mike Kendall is an ex-alcoholic cop who struggles to not find another job, and lives out of his unemployment stipend hoping to get back in the force. After a drinking night resulting in a sleepover on the open fields, on his way home he notices on the side of the road the body of a young girl seriously beaten. Unfortunately, she doesn't survive the first night in hospital, and neither leaves any clue on who brought her to that state. Since Mike doesn't really have something to fill the time with he decides to take the case as an unauthorized private investigator, despite his former colleagues insisting for him to stay away. The minus of the movie is that the "mistery" in the whole investigation gets revealed relatively quickly and what we're left with is a pretty simple story... so enough details.

What brings value to the movie are mainly the actors. John Hawkes makes a lead role here that's probably comparable with the one in "Winter's Bone", although playing a totally different character. Clifton Collins Jr., who's a latino actor, is cast as a pimp who struggles to show up as a sort of black gangsta, from his car to the way he talks. Robert Forster is an angry grandpa with a "high quality musket". And I really don't know who plays the main villain, but we have an overweight guy with thick eye glasses who's appearing as the ultimate assassin. Despite the obvious comic factor the cast brings, the movie is actually quite serious through its course. I guess it would've been even to dark and gritty if we wouldn't have had the characters in the cast... Too bad that the simple story brings it down. It's probably the perfect example of where the difference between a story and a script comes from = the dialogues are excellent. Besides that, I don't think we could've get a much better movie on this subject.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Wind River (2017)

From the first scene "Wind River" reminded me of "Winter's Bone". We have the same harsh reality, isolated location, a community at the edge of poverty, lack of police, uncontrolled crime. The similarities stop here. The story is different. In "Wind River" everything starts with the corpse of an 18 years old girl, with rape marks, found frozen at several miles distance from any residence, in the middle of an Indian reservation from Wyoming. The body is discovered by a local hunter, who alerts the local chief of police, who asks the presence of FBI for investigating the case. Tha follows is a drama with crime thriller accents (not the opposite, as it might look like). We have a much stronger accent set on the geographical-social context, starting with a snow storm up to the specific community customs. The crime/thriller part is relatively linear, unlike for instance "Winter's Bone". To make another comparison, Taylor Sheridan who directed and wrote "Hell or High Water" does the same here, and you can feel the same touch, every detail in the whole story/setting being carefully taken care of. To conclude: if you want a mystery story it's probably not the best option, but as a composition movie it's highly recommended.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Detour (2016)

The first scene in "Detour" sort of reminded me of "Drive" + I discovered Alison Goldfrapp as background voice (or at least the intro song got me...). The rest was so & so. We have an indie movie, where the action revolves around 3 characters - Harper is a law student coming from an upper-class family who hates his stepfather accusing him of putting his mother in a coma following an accident, Johnny is the typical no-good punk in the local neighborhood with debts to more important punks, and Cherry is a dancer in a bar - Johnny's girl and one of the ways he's rounding his income. Well, after the first two intersect at a whisky bottle and decide what should happen to the evil stepfather - opportunity for Johnny to make some cash, all this trio gets in a road trip to Vegas where the presumable victim should be located. Now, one of the issues of the movie is that's way too predictable, and since (obviously...) I don't have time to write much I'll stop here with the story. What's left to be said - the production varies from surprisingly well done scenes (yet again, it reminded me of the editing in "Drive" + we get some neo-noir references to an old noir from 1945 having the same name I guess) to parts where it shows that's an indie = the acting and directing have some flaws here and there. The major issue is, however, a subjective one - I don't like the ending. And more, you can foresee what's revealed in the final "twist" way, way ahead, so when it's delivered, but doesn't move further the feeling is of a loose ending. I can appreciate though the scene inserted after a couple credits roll :) brings a comic relief that feels needed and fits especially since it's missing completely through the rest of the movie... no spoilers...

Rating: 3 out of 5