Nicole Kidman looks like she's made of plastic.
The editing is a bit frenetic, and I felt like I didn't see any proper exposition to the character of Nick Cage. It's like 30 seconds into the movie he's already discussing his role with some director/producer, and the next 10 seconds he's at his daughter's birthday. What the hell is going on here. Then the whole CIA act is so generically boring I literally fell asleep as if I was the one having taken a drop of acid.
Interesting acting idea. Ridiculous story. John Woo's action be like pew pew boom I have on idea what's happening boom pew boom look slow motion pewpew bam.
Interesting yet depressing, ultimately tedious, Nicolas Cage's character study #2.
Interesting yet depressing, ultimately tedious, Nicolas Cage's character study #1.
Tooooo long. Also didn't really explain how destroyers manage to get to them when they're so deep.
Great concept (step by step, factual depiction of the event), moderately good execution (some cheesy parts).
I watched it because it's from the director of Portrait of a Lady on Fire, which I love. But this one didn't quite got my attention as much.
😯⚠️ Very explicit movie (basically porn). This is an almost-documentary (fictitious story with fictitious characters, but it looks very real) about a Swedish girl who goes to LA to become a pornstar. We get to see the inside of this industry (assuming the movie is accurate), including some very shocking aspects. The movie is explicit, but not unnecessarily so: it shows what it needs to show to hold to its goal of pure realism, and hides the rest. This is really an interesting take on the subject.
This looks like it was synthesized by a cocaine-powered artificial intelligence who just took control of drones.
So this is actually a pretty good flick. I always had difficulty with Batman as a super-hero since this guy is a strong karate man in a strong suit, like how the hell you're going to save a city because you know kung-fu or whatever. But this opus strikes a good balance between a simple vigilante and a full-fledged super-hero, playing on the theme of fear (through the bat symbol), making him a skilled investigator, and of course showcasing the extent of his equipment and skills with impressive action scenes. I also enjoyed the fact that Bruce Wayne has close to no screen time, to the opposite of Batman, who is often expressive through gestures and glances rather than words. This is truly a movie about The Batman.
This is a well-directed movie, with many pretty nice shots and directing ideas (this scene in the hallway, wow). The music uses a simple haunting theme whose creshendo I can't get enough of, damn this is strong shit.
The movie has some weaknesses. The character of Selina Kyle (Catwoman) is not strong enough in my opinion; Batman always has the upper hand over her, physically and psychologically, she's like an intern to him instead of a sidekick. The cast is weak; Robert Pattinson is like an emo teen with mascara falling off his eyes when he get out of his mask (fortunately this rarely happens); Andy Serkis as Alfred suffers from the comparison with Michael Caine; Jeffrey Wright "this guy from Westworld" lacks charisma as Officier Gordon; Paul Dano is the only cast good call.
This is not a great movie, but this is a good movie. Well played, DC. The 3 hours (!) pass rapidly.
So what the hell is Pixar doing. Are we at the point we must just assume that some of their movies are some corporate factory output, and we can ignore them?
This must be the most GORGEOUS animation I've seen. Colors and details everywhere, wow. Catchy songs too. The story and overall construction is kind of awkward.
It's so quiet and intense at the same time. Fabulous.
So bad it's... bad.
Rather poetic, but boring too.
Not sure what this movie was trying to tell. I liked the Bradley Cooper and truck arc; in fact it would have been a pretty good flick if all the scenes had this energy. I was as perplexed going out of Phantom Thread back in the days, and yet I now consider it as a masterpiece. I'll let it the time to steep in my mind, give it the opportunity to grow like fine wine, if it has this kind of potential.
That's really much cinema about so little, but it's watchable.
Okay feel-good flick.
Good psychological thriller. Good cinematography ideas.
- This is to The Matrix what this cover of Wake Up is to Wake Up.
- Those flashbacks of installments 2 and 3 make them look like fine art, mostly because of the cinematography of this one being absolutely ugly.
- Not sure what to make of of this meta Matrix gaming company, but I hope it's about this being voluntarily crap.
the invasion of Zion tho
this highway chase tho
Watching "old" Pixars reminds one of two facts:
- How much progress Pixar has made in terms of quality and details of animation.
- How little it matters because story-telling outshines form.
Boo is the cutest.
Oscar Isaac as charismatic as always. Paul Schrader as intellectual as always.
The mix of /r/iamverysmart vibes and cynicism feels unwise, but this fires in so many directions without even trying to be subtle, I lost track of wisdom and abandoned myself at having fun with this outrageous circus.
Not sure how the royal family doesn't qualify as a sect. Weird movie anyway.
Benedict Cumberbatch showcases intensity I didn't know he had.
Well that was boring.
Discount Scorsese saga.
I didn't realize how it was back then. It's insane. Makes you wonder what sort of crap is going on today and I hope I'm on the good side.
I completely underestimated this movie. I'm awaken now.
Basically, Kubrick Shyamalaned the original Shining by making the supernatural blend into the natural, observing it through phenomenological manifestations rather than subjective ones, which maximize suspense and tension. Doctor Sleep does the opposite, with full-fledged telekinesis super-power stuff, which completely undermines the mystery. Also the movie is tasteless, starting with Rebecca Ferguson's ridiculous hat.
I underestimated this movie so much. I was too young.
As a modern spectator, you just need a bit a re-calibration to get past the absence of proper sound effects as well as the native doubling (or whatever sound capture system is making the dialogues sound so unnatural). Once that is unlocked, that is just an absolute unit of camera work, stunning cinematography, poetic storytelling, and subtle acting, which all work together to capture the breadth of human emotions in resplendent and contemplative poetry.
Wes Anderson doing Wes Anderson things.
Freedom is on the other side of that hill son.
Thank heavens! Let's get out of this theater.
Neat and clean historical stuff. Didn't make me feel much.
I liked the atmosphere. Characters were interesting. Story is a bit trivial.
The movie is underexposed and it must have triggered a melatonin release, because I fell asleep for some 5 minutes in the middle (not missing much as far as I could tell). Interesting for pretty forgettable stuff. Nicolas Cage as fascinating as ever.
Very nice surround sound transition. I genuinely though something was wrong with my theater for the first 15 minutes. High-potential concept, which unfortunately didn't went a way I saw fit.
There is no directing idea. It's all rampage and blood.
It needs 45 minutes to get started before you understand what the hell it's all about, then it's damn interesting. The last duel is indeed delivered, and because of the overall brutality of the movie, it's hard to predict its outcome. Dialogues are off for some reason.
I went without any expectation, then built expectations out of the first 30 minutes, then was disappointed by the rest of the movie.
Fantastic cinematography. Good story.
On one hand I was never bored and I wanted to see what would happen next at all times. On the other hand I never felt any particular emotion. This is a large scale story about planet-wide civilizations, and the movie carry us on a ride of this scale, with very impressive visuals and big fucking things (ships, battles, creatures, anything). All of this is pleasing to watch, and made with an elegance that gives it an impression of grandeur. This is where the movie gets my A-rating. You can corrupt me with any about a story big enough to make it look like it's playing on the "Significant" league, and well-crafted enough so that I don't spot the fraud.
There is a bit of awkwardness in the way the story blends human-scale events together with civilization-scale events; at some point I asked myself "Why am I watching this particular scene involving those persons, which seems like an anecdote in comparison to all those big-scale things happening in the story". I think this problem of integration between the important and the detail is at the heart of the movie's weakness, which is its inability to convey strong emotions.
A note on the music: the movie is fucking LOUD, and extensively uses modulation of the volume of Hans Zimmer's soundtrack in order to make everything ultra-giga-epic. This is a trick that has been used for the last two Nolan's movies (Dunkirk and Tenet). Nolan defends the "sonic" quality of his soundscapes and says it's entirely intentional for it to be so loud. I guess Denis Villeneuve thinks the same. I think it's easy.
Anyway, the 155 minutes passed by like a flash, and since the ending is actually an opening, I'm all set for Part II.
Interesting spotlight into a not well known social issue.
Biopic #647364 from the biopic factory.
Well that was boring.
So, nothing has been learnt.
A movie that lets its scenes breathe.
Above the law is Jesus, above Jesus are the founding fathers of Freedom Land.
I reckon there has been many attempts at making me laugh.
Quite the balancing act between drama, comedy, and thriller. It's actually rather well done. Mads Mikkelsen as an intense badass will always be a pleasure to watch.
It's like a long episode of a sitcom that would be rather funny.
Late 90s Disney traditional animation was top-tier quality. The story is alright.
Somehow this movie feels "simple". No non-sense, no side scheme, just one straight scene after another and a steady progression. I like it. Also it's disgusting.
This is so incredibly bad.
This could come out in a few years and be "inspired by real events". Except it came out 10 years ago. The movie is not particularly great in a void, but boy is it clear-sighted.
Very interesting to watch as a fan of the Peter Jackson remake. Various thoughts:
- Surprisingly, the original contains more action scenes than the remake (even though those in the remake last longer, so it may have more in duration). Encounters between the boat crew and the first dinosaur, and the water monster are scenes which are only present in the extended version of the 2005 remake. To be frank I prefer the theatrical version from 2005 rather than the extended one, because I think those 2 scenes bring nothing to the story; at least now I know where they come from. The original movie really rushes those action scenes, one after another, like a Disneyland ride, whereas the remake intertwine action with character development, which makes for a slower rhythm, and therefore a smaller need for raw action.
- On one hand, I found the love story from the original between Ann and Jack to be more interesting, because she's isn't pre-disposed to woo him, and because of his tough-guy-not-falling-in-love style (which is consistent with the overall "Beauty and the Beast" theme). On the other hand, Ann is such a stronger and richer character in the remake, so I guess they had to find a more interesting plot than just her falling in love with the random sailor.
- The remake explicitly makes Carl Denham a bastard whereas he's a nice guy in the original (although a bit crazy). We could say that the character from the original is a more nuanced one, but maybe Peter Jackson was trying to tell us something about the brutality of the Hollywood industry.
- I burst out laughing in the scene where Kong look at the window of Ann's apartment, because this shit looks like straight out of a TikTok.
- There is one little detail in the remake which bothers me, which is that when Kong takes Ann for the first during her sacrifice by the natives, he grabs her entirely and pulls her body, breaking the ropes which tie her arms. It really looks like this would only break her arms if it was real. In the original, Kong is way more diligent, and carefully use his finger on a little device to untie the ropes manually; this is ridiculous. In the end I'm happy of the trade-off they made for the remake.
Overall this only enhance my admiration for the 2005 remake, which is faithful to the original but develops what needs to be developed (Ann, Kong, and their relationship), and of course with modern, vivid action.
Robert Redford's avoidant attachment style was the only interesting thing in this stay-on-your-couch safari for middle-aged housewives in lack of love and soft sensations. I also liked the lions.
The transitions between eras in the non-linear narration were really subtle and I felt that I needed to put the pieces of the puzzle together to understand what the hell was going on. Overall I liked the tenderness and delicacy of the narration. The only issue is that it's quite long (3h) and slow, and I wasn't absorbed 100% in it, so my focus had ups and downs. Fortunately the final act (when the parents return visiting their old city) is really poignant, especially because of all the plot points achieving a resolution, which ends the watching with a warm sense of contentment.
One interesting aspect of this movie is that it was validated by China's propaganda department (and even won awards from China), even through it doesn't exactly shed a favorable light to China's policies, most notably the one-child policy. One explanation I can imagine is that the movie focuses on the human impact of such policies rather than on the ideological side of things; those circumstances are seen as rules that shape the lives of individuals, which can be lamented, but which aren't really meant to be questioned, as rebellion against them will only bring more drama.
Low-key chill movie.
Wow Oscaar Issac can actually sing. The Coen brothers are one of the few writers/directors who know how to make a good movie with no plot. Mostly thanks to character development.
I liked the way to movie makes us empathize with M. Merrick. I liked the way the characters are communicating clearly and without mischief (especially between the doctor and the hospital governor). I didn't quite get the point the movie was trying to make, or if it was trying to make a point at all. I guess sometimes some stories are just meant to be told.
Shyamalan could hire a screenwriter. Some of the dialogues are off, the way the sequence of scenes is laid out feels awkward, and character development is... well... rushed. The result is that it's never far off looking like a dud. I also feel like there is too much fatality in the concept: we're invited to watch how the whole thing unrolls, without thinking there is anything characters can do about it. So, what's the point? I liked the creepy scenes, because that's what Shyamalan is very good at.
A lot of questionable decisions and behaviors. Efficient scary shit nonetheless. Nice superposition of dramatic tension over multiple storylines. Great opening scene (although John Krasinski likes to watch himself a bit too much).
It would be an A without this ending.
<spoiler>The movie puts us in a position where we know that Ellie actually went through a wormhole and met aliens (assuming reliable narration). Then the public has no proof of this fact, but she's urging them to believe her nonetheless. So this is a situation where 1. There is some truth. 2. There is no proof of this truth. 3. The only way to access this truth is through faith. This is a very religious and non-scientific message! Don't urge anyone to believe in some stuff you say if you have no proof! What happened to "make me a liar" when she discovers the first signal? I ain't even mad at her for this moment of weakness, because she's visibly emotionally overwhelmed, and the morale might as well be that scientists are bad at keeping their emotions in touch, but clearly this is just a "lol sometimes you need faith to be true" kind of morale. Imagine for a second the same ending, except we don't see the wormhole scene from her point of view, we just see the ball falling through the machine from the external point of view.</spoiler>
I went to a Saturday night screening, during the closing ceremony of the Cannes Festival, which I didn't even realize. When the movie was over and I was checking out my phone, I read that it had won the Palme d'Or. My reaction was one of surprise.
The first act has so much potential, and can go in so many directions. Out of all the possibilities, it chooses a very arbitrary and plain one. A firefighter station. Like, why. The movie becomes quite weak from then on, much because of the passivity of the main character who was first introduced to us as badass.
A masterpiece of storytelling. E.T. is such a peculiar and interesting creature.
Everybody talking about whether she's faking it or not, nobody talking about the fact she speaks with the fucking deamon voice.
The body of this man is surreal.
Chuck Norris looks like a parody of himself before he could even be parodied.
This movie got me as stoned as the character in it. What the hell did I just watch.
There I finish the filmography of Bong Joon Ho. This is my second favorite movie of his after Parasite. Very clever movie. Nice shot composition. Interesting mixing of dark humor into dramatic elements.
Cuteness in all simplicity. Made me smile.
2h hours of hard patience, hoping that the movie will resolve its plot and not let us on the side (like many such movies do), and a final half-hour of pay-off with an incredible, sublime, touching scene. Not sure that it was worth it, but I ain't even mad.
This was one of my favorite movies when I was a child. I love the rythm from the first act, everything is so fast. The second half (starting when we see the ladies with their respective date) is less fast and I got a bit bored.
I spent the whole movie shaking with laughter. Jean-Pierre Bacri is an absolute unit of a comedian. This bought me joy and happiness.
Wowowow Tom Hardy be like a mad dog really to kick ass.
It does a good job of explaining this part of history I was ignorant about (I hope I'm a bit less now), but damn those dialogues are as plain as the nose on one's face.
Anything that happens anywhere near that cliff is definitely grotesque.
For some reason animes are triggering my attention deficit disorder. I just can't.
The acting is meh. The woman is like LOOK AT ME HOW MAD I AM OH I AM VERY MAD. I liked the native.
Incomprehensible pile of philosophical crap barely saved by some clever tidbits of meta-humor.
Indeed he did. He factually escaped. And we watched him escape for 100 minutes.
Life, death, existence, desires, consciousness, the meaning of life, yada yada yada.
Netflix is doing TV movies with A-list actors.
After my third viewing I start to understand what people complain about when they say that the movie goes nowhere. Not that it isn't entertaining anyway, but the structure feels a bit off. There is one day of storytelling occupying the first 2 hours, followed by a night of storytelling happening months later. I would have preferred if the fateful night would have happened at the end of the day that is presented in the first 2 hours. Could have been "One day at Hollywood".
I remember liking it, but not that is was that good. Please Tarantino delight us with more closed, real-time action. Such an incredible screenwriter.
Good guy Christoph Waltz after all.
Fassbender worst spy ever.