Dude Rates Movies
Still making a 2025 audience laugh 73 years later. That's sustainable cinema!
On the edge of my seat from the beginning to the end. This is really good stuff.
I really enjoyed the urgency of the movie, the attention to details of how TV worked back in the day, and the ethical (and practical) questions raised by broadcasting events on live TV.
It was also impressive to see how talented TV directors, journalists, hosts, actually are. Only matched by the talent of this very movie's crew. 👏
It seems that this movie stayed under the radar, but it shouldn't have!
I thought it was very well written, and somehow deeper than I expected. Overall I felt it was kind of a poetic movie.
I would say that's a strong debut in directing for Eisenberg. The slow zoom into himself during his monologue at the restaurant might be a bit too pretentious (Oscars didn't take the bait), even though the restraint and solemnity of the camp scene definitely shows he knows what he's doing.
Kieran Culkin is excellent.
Very nice tension and suspense, up to some questionable resolution in my opinion. I still pretty much liked the movie.
The cinematography is saturated as fuck, although I get it's intentional.
Blah blah blah blah blah... oscar-performance BLAH BLAH... blah blah blah blah...
Felt it was filmed theater, and was not quite captivated by the plot...
Looks like a very good episode of Black Mirror.
Even though the AI plot is mainly a scenaristic backdrop for what really is a suspense-thriller flick, it has nothing to shy about in comparison to more intellectual science-fiction stories. In the contrary, I thought it was raising exactly the good questions, and brilliantly calculating many clever implications. I especially liked turning the "evil AI" trope on its head. This trope exists because humans project themselves into the robots, as the movie shows.
Had a good time!
I fell asleep before the big final action scene, only waking up transiently from time to time. Each time I opened my eyes it felt like a déjà vu experience where I just had traveled 5 minutes back in time to when I first woke up. It felt like an infinite loop I couldn't get out of. Terrible experience.
Not a great homage to the singer unless you meant to convey that she was making the audience fall asleep. 😴
"Men will motion capture a monkey instead of going to therapy"
A very good surprise!
The monkey thing works oddly well.
I didn't know that Robbie Williams had had such a difficult life, and this adds a lot of depth to his songs. The fact that he's involved in the movie is also a great testament to his character, as this is one hard look in the mirror.
The musical bits are excellent, in particular Rock DJ 🕺
It's really slow... but I can recognize some poetry I guess.
Love interest: "but you are young and never traveled"
Guy: travels and ages a bit
Love interest: "fair enough"
I mean you can't blame the consistency.
Third watch is a charm.
The ending makes so much sense, as this definitely feels like a feverish dream/nightmare
The Devil Wears Wish. Painting edition.
I felt disconnected from the movie for some reason. I found the ballroom dance scene particularly beautiful though.
Not my cup of tea overall.
No much original ideas in there (a regular drama), but great execution.
It felt like that kind of slow burning movie where you need to be fully focused and invested on each detail of the scenes to be satisfied, but I failed at the task (notably because I nodded off at times), and found the whole endeavor a bit too long.
What I can say for sure, is that the cinematography in this is STUNNING.
I liked the beginning with the setup of the character played by Sandra Bullock, and the end with the hacking scenes. But the middle, which is very cat-and-mouse thriller, is not my thing. I was a bit bored.
The computer scenes were actually not that bad, and I was surprised by how advanced Internet was back in 1995. Not much less than what we're using it for today (chat, food delivery, online booking, etc), just with vintage cosmetics. The thematic of all our lives being online is still as relevant, and things have only got worse since 30 years ago (!!)
It feels like a significant movie in the context of the history of Internet.
No comment
Is this the Wolf of Wall Street of women? A critique of an appalling business and culture, but told with inevitable glamorization, since viewers, as independent-minded as they want to be, cannot escape the matrix of their societal education.
After the unbearable book, I hoped the movie would bring me a more easily understandable story. Not quite. Wikipedia article it will be then.
I guess Christmas TV movies are like Christmas ugly sweaters: a tradition of ugliness to share in excellent company.
Shows how complex an art making a movie is, and how the "anyone with a smartphone can film a movie now" mantra is off the mark.
A very rich movie, with some acceptable weaknesses.
Richness:
- The directing is full of wonderful ideas and interesting camera-work.
- A nice zest of fantasy such as the Cure clip or the beating chewing-gum
- Cinematography, music, sets, which are all excellent craft.
- The story which actually got me hooked.
Weakness:
- Exarchopoulos does not resemble her younger counterpart.
- Concerting the crime plot, the asymmetry between the very detailed first part, and the rushed (basically 1 montage) second part.
- The ending: the overruled foreshadowing of the opening scene would surely have been a superior ending than the actual wishy-washy ending. Him not using violence because he promised to her means he doesn't deeply understand the reasons for non-violence; her not doing anything with her life means she never actually recovered from her teenage trauma (which took off her the desire to have a project). It's a pretty sad ending, which is pretty unacknowledged by the movie.
I still think it's a pretty remarkable movie.
Looks like a goofy stupid movie, but multiple elements (the good cinematography, the music from John Williams, the thoughtful plot between pigeon lady and kid) show how much "goofy stupid" from 1992 does not play in the same league than "goofy stupid" from 2024.
Sounds like I'm getting old...
TL;DR: Italy is homophobic, and has reached the point where they have comedies about it, just like France and their xenophobic's ones.
So apparently you can foster fascination for utter inanity and incompetence if you have enough money to hold a billboard in Hollywood for a few years, and surf on the viral nature of social media.
No comment
Someone wrote a movie instead of a Medium blog post about theology.
Hugh Grant is excellent in this, though!
I had seen this when I was a little boy (!!), because my big bro and sis liked it. I now realize that:
- I didn't understand what it was about at all
- My big bro and sis were showing me things not appropriate for my age.
- It's a pretty good musical!
I have reservations about Baz Luhrmann absolutely frenetic editing (what the hell), but I guess you need to embrace the style.
Gladiator worked because of the charisma of the lead character, because of emblematic visuals, and because of a strong character arc.
Here we have a lead character who looks like my old boss on some steroids, visuals consisting of a crappy CGI rhinoceros, and a plot focusing on politics.
The movie opens on a perfectly bland shot of a hand holding grains of wheat, to demonstrate its inability to create something as good as the emblematic hand of Russel Crowe fondling with a field of wheat; it ends with literally the music from the first opus, to demonstrate its inability to create something new at all. A perfect encapsulation of mediocrity.
The critic monologue/review is very well-written and had me a bit emotional.
As always when revisiting old Pixar movies, it's interesting seeing the evolution of the richness of their 3D models.
I spent the first half of the movie wondering what the hell I was supposed to hold onto in this collection of vignettes of generational American profiles. The second half has some drama which got me a bit more involved, but even that was rather weak. In the end, I found it to be quite uncompelling. Good idea, moderately bad execution.
Classical, but nicely done biopic about M. Aznavour. I had a great time watching it, and learnt a lot (hopefully truthful things, as I can't find a French equivalent of History vs Hollywood).
This cut from Parce que tu crois to What's the Difference was fire!
This joins Don't Worry Darling in being a rather nice episode of Black Mirror in movie format. Except with a Cannes touch to make it artsy and particularly weird. I don't understand how this got Best Screenplay at Cannes, considering how unsatisfying the details of the plot are, but I guess Cannes is more interested in extended metaphors (If you do too much fillers to try to look young, you'll end up looking like a monster, and people will make fun of you.) than in compelling storytelling craft.
Ultimately, I didn't understand the maneuver the movie was trying to make. (To denounce Hollywood obsession with youth and beauty, let's film a lot of young ass shaking.)
I enjoyed the references to Kubrick.
The story is well told and had me hanging all along, but I find the main character infuriating and cannot think about the movie without getting upset.
We don't see him experiencing guilt about having killed someone. He is only focused on the transactional aspect of the justice system and strategy about avoiding jail. Doesn't he have issues with the fact that he apparently can't be trusted to drive without even realizing whether he killed someone or not? Doesn't he think about the life he has taken? He seems fine avoiding any sort of accountability if that's what will ensure he does not go to jail. Then when he realizes throwing someone else in jail is the only way, he does so, argues that because he is a well-dressed white suburban father his life if fundamentally more worthy than a ex-gangster, and goes home to play with his baby, fully knowing that someone else is in jail instead of him. The guy is a PSYCHOPATH. And the movie is like "hurr durr look those are morally interesting questions about justice, the system is obviously not perfect tadadadida."
Guy who is convinced that a man and a woman cannot be friend tries to be friend with a woman. The unpredictable ending will shock you!!
Cute movie. The beginning was a bit too childish, and the end a bit too dragging. One aspect I found interesting is how The English one is more easily spotted than the Californian one. Because it's easier to fake being sophisticated (when you're laid back) than to fake being laid back (when you're sophisticated).
Pretty good mix of drama and comedy. I particularly liked the unhinged character of Toros (played by Karren Karagulian). I admit I found the main character, Anora, a bit stupid (She mocks Ivan's proposal when he proposes, rightfully so, but then reacts like a surprised deer when Russian guys come up to deal with WTF this marriage is.)
Still scary enough.
Megalopolis is a bloated mess that feels like Francis Ford Coppola handed a blank check to ChatGPT and said, "Make me a masterpiece." The result? A pretentious, self-indulgent disaster that could've been directed by an overzealous art student with too much cash and zero oversight. Hollywood should take note — AI-generated scripts are looming, and Megalopolis feels like the first casualty.
The film reaches its creative low when Nathalie Emmanuel wanders through a heap of random scraps and hallucinates a perfect city. I'm convinced Coppola wants us to hallucinate that we're watching a masterpiece when, in reality, we're stuck with this pile of incoherent garbage. It's a prime example of what happens when a director is left unchecked, à la Terrence Malick post-Tree of Life—except even worse.
Visually, the movie is downright ugly. The sunset-yellow hues, overused in the cheapest blockbusters, create a nauseating backdrop. The acting? Atrocious. Even good actors deliver performances so stilted and awkward that you start to wonder if the director was asleep behind the camera.
The plot? Characters do random, nonsensical things. By the end, you'll be drained of your time, your patience, and your will to watch anything Coppola touches ever again. Megalopolis? More like Megacoppolas, because this movie is an ego trip that never should have left the driveway.
Source: https://chatgpt.com/share/671556d3-c174-8003-87ae-d138c6d8fef6
As unhinged as I remembered it. There is a charm in the classicism of the movie: exposition, development, resolution; one scene at a time.
I've never seen that much density of scary stuff in one movie. This is hysterical. Very neatly directed, including several impressive long takes, and overall splendid craft from beginning to end. I also noted the sound design/mixing which was "powerful" somehow. This was quite the experience watching all of this in a packed theater.
My only problem with it is that I didn't like the end of the movie, which was a big letdown for me. The end implies that quite a big chunk of the last part of the movie was hallucinated (not exactly sure from where it started being all fake), which I don't find as interesting as an alternation between reality and hallucination, with at least some kind of link to reality that the character would be able to hold onto in order to fight the hallucinations. Without that, we're just watching a pure descend into madness, which is artistic, I guess, but not narratively compelling, in my opinion. At least not as compelling as what it could have been.
Why is this shit rated 6.4 on IMDb?
Original format, good execution, moderate scares. Enjoyed the experience.
The movie basically has two parts: A first one where Trump is young, (relatively) well-meaning, a bit naive, and gets his crook education from a ruthless lawyer (Roy Cohn). And a second one, after an ellipsis, where he has basically became the Evil itself and is a definitive scumbag. I think a more gradual progression would have been a bit more interesting from a character development standpoint (as I guess it have been in reality).
I was also a bit annoyed by how much Roy Cohn's advice (particularly his "three rules") maps so well to Trump's current behavior. It feels too perfect a fit, and makes me doubt the timeline and substance of the "apprenticeship" shown to me.
It still remains a very interesting movie, with incredible vibes of the eras it takes place in, and a masterful acting demonstration from Sebastian Stan.
This isn't as bad as I expected it to be according to social media.
My gripes with it is that: 1) I didn't expect it to be a prison movie, and certainly not to be a dwelling prison movie. 2) There are too many singing acts disconnected from the main narration (many of them are (day-)dreams), as if it is a Bollywood movie with some random clips in the middle. 3) The ending doesn't make any sense at all.
Although I would say it's a cinematic success in many ways (the atmosphere, the directing, the acting, the make-up, etc), the sum of those high-quality parts unfortunately results in a low-quality whole.
There is some nice world-building in the first part, that I would have enjoyed to be exploited more, before it switched to being a scare-fest. It is a very well-crafted movie, with amazing directing and sound design, but as all other Aliens except the first one, it lacks the sort of elegance and tension from the movie that started it all. Still, it has succeeded the feat of making my entire theater collectively GASP (viewers will guess at which reveal). At any rate, that was at least a very nice entertainment.
PS: I recently tried out the video game Alien: Isolation from 2014, and the set design of this opus is exactly like in the video game.
PS2: I heard some James Horner-esque harshly metallic sounds in there. An homage from Benjamin Wallfish to Aliens' soundtrack? (foreshadowing the homage via catchline later)
I know this is an audacious comparison, but the level of tension in this movie is comparable to the one I felt while watching Portrait of a Lady in Fire, except trading seduction with... something else. The directing and acting deliver such a strong intensity out of scenes that would superficially appear mundane. It's all in the eyes, reactions, hesitations, and, ultimately, outbursts. With a touch of madness. A work of art, in my humble opinion.
I mean it's all fun and games, but what in the actual hell was this thing we saw in the window from the outside.
Having read the book recently, I didn't succeed in having an "independent" reading of the movie. So, sorry, this is an "annoying guy that read the book" type of commentary.
The main aspects that the movie failed to convey was 1) the repetitive nature of exposition to brutality, which leads to despair and PTSD (the movie kind of concentrates the violence in one harrowing scene) and 2) the constant shelling noise (this is just impractical to do with a movie, unless you want spectators to go crazy alongside the characters).
Interestingly, the movie still choose to explore some internal considerations of the main character in the book, about bureaucrats making decisions while having no "skin in the game" about the consequences of their decisions. This is done with no voice-over, but just by contrasting the visuals of war with those of the lavish food the bureaucrats are eating. However, the philosophical consideration about the failure of civilization allowing such atrocities to happen is gone (it was one of the most important aspect of the book for me).
There are some innovations in the movie, such as the scarf from the French woman being passed on as a token of survival (what does it mean?), a side plot about time trouble with the armistice (what?), as well as a particularly shocking choice to end the movie, which, unfortunately, defeats a significant theme from the book, most notably carried by none other than its title (WWI soldiers who came home couldn't really talk to their closed ones about the war, because of the unhealed trauma and also the fact that what they had seen was so outlandishly horrific that people literally couldn't compute what they were saying. So they ended up just saying that nothing was really happening: "all quiet on the western front". This is also presented in depth in Peter Jackson's documentary They Shall Not Grow Old)
For this one literature wins over cinema.
No comment
No comment
Going into this without knowing that it was a musical and about a transgender person was a wild ride! I think it's an incredibly original movie, and a well-done one. There is a segment in the middle that is a bit too long in my opinion.
Who is this director Ti West, that nobody talks about, and who just pays tribute to Hollywood with style and elegance matching what the Oscar usual favorite pets do? Who is this actress Mia Goth, who, in the space of one opening scene, showcases a sheer talent in a mise en abime, on par with similar performances we have seen with DiCaprio or Emma Stone. What is this trilogy, "X", that seems to have stayed under the radar, while being very original, very well-made, and just overall solid and consistent?
I loved the mask fitting scene where Maxine has a panic attack while remembering the events that happened in X. I initially thought it was sort of inconsistent in tone, considering that those events had a sort of "wild" "unserious" tone to it, and it was weird to revisit them with 100% psychological seriousness. Then I remembered that Maxine was a cocaine addict, and figured that those differences in tone might actually represent whether she's currently in a high or in a low.
The main weakness of the movie is the crime plot, and notably when the police are involved, which feels kind of weak. I thought it remained acceptable enough to enjoy it pretty much.
A real jewel of cinema. It achieves what recent movies like Oppenheimer failed at: a sort of feature-length montage that doesn't make you feel disconnected from the characters and the action. I don't exactly know what the magic formula is, but I guess it notably knows when to land, stop the music, stop the context switching, and just let the present moment be, when it's time for important stuff.
The seams between those "summarized montage" moments and those "present action" moment are wonderfully done, the finest instance of it being the moment in Vietnam when the rain stops and we switch from a montage to real-time action in one single shot, where Zemeckis confirms he is one of the best film blockers out there.
The story (adapted from the novel) is a mixture of an interesting overview of US history and an incredibly original character story. I enjoyed its most unhinged aspects, from the main character being named after a KKK member to him singing at a gospel church with his dumb face.
What a delightful classic I had the chance to rediscover on a big screen. I cannot look at the list of Oscars won by this, and find a single one that wasn't 100% deserved. I might however find some missing ones like Alan Silvestri's soundtrack losing to Hans Zimmer for The Lion King (I admit it's a close one).
As if Celine performance at the Eiffel Tower was not stunning enough, what we learn from this documentary makes it monumental.
I liked the Like a Prayer cover and the traveling tracking shot. I disliked everything else.
With hindsight of a second viewing, I'm realizing this is an incredible depiction of a psychopath in the making. The contrast between her cuteness and the danger she actually is, is actually brilliant. This final monologue also. 😙🤌
That's mid-Shyamalan: not bad, not a masterpiece either. Considering its never-ending, multi-climax last chapter, I thought for a moment good old M. Night had us actually trapped in the theater!
No comment
No comment
Safe to say that it's a strong contender to Anastasia!
⚠️ Spoilers
I found the atmosphere it was happening in too weird and it disconnected me from the movie. Why don't we ever see Harker talk to anybody besides her boss? Why is she working on the floor in a weird storage room? Why doesn't she call the cops when a serial killer actually trespass her home? None of this hooked me and I was already half asleep when Nic Cages was smashing his head on a table.
I think it missed some wide shots of the tornadoes; in this TikTok and drones era, images from reality have become bigger than those from fiction. https://youtu.be/IEFGKMWYD-E?si=6Og1yjD_7APxmQra
Nice entertainment overall. 🌪️
No comment
I found it to be simply brilliant. Casting and dialogues are fire.
No comment
When you're a conspiracy theorist but not really, but actually kind of a little bit, but in fact not.
French is able to describe this movie in one word: Lunaire
The rise and fall of a bikeriders gang in the 60s, under the talented eye of Jeff Nichols, with a banger soundtrack, and pretty solid cast. Not far away from a Scorcese saga, but with a raw aspect to it. Oddly captivating.
One of the few French high-budget movie that uses the money for good cinema rather than celebrities cameos. It is sufficiently faithful to the novel, keeping the most precious parts as-is, at least to my taste. I was apprehensive of Pierre Niney, but it turns out that he's very good for the cast.
Good movie.
The cat understood the assignment.
The dialogues are the worst. The whole Oscar arc got me hooked tho!
There is no exact English translation for the French « Ça ne tient pas debout » ("it doesn't make sense"). The screenplay is just very sloppy. Also not a fan of the casting. Liked the scene where they hide while out with the creatures, notably because it initially wasn't clear whether the creatures were facing them or the Coop.
Definitely a better experience than the first one, mostly because I could identify more with Anxiety. But I kept reminding me of the same weakness than bothered me in the first one: the underlying emotions are just the same as surface-level emotions; there isn't much more difference between Anxiety being anxious and Riley being anxious. Maybe Inside Out adult edition will bring the concept of introspection into the mix.
Some girl who doesn't give a damn about her boyfriend, falls for a paralyzed guy because she succeeded in breaking his shell, is upset when he still wants to die in spite of her cheering him up.
There, spared you the trouble of watching this piece of crap.
A bit too many things wrong there:
- The narrative arc is too ambitious, too big in scope, to fit into a movie with appropriate rhythm. Some parts end up rushed, and I think the whole thing should have been a miniseries. This is not as bad as Dune 2 though, because there are still some scenes taking the time to develop proper action.
- Chris Hemsworth character doesn't work for me. Any important character of the universe is in one way or another charismatic or particularly recognizable, but he just looks pretty random; too young, notably.
- Some parts of the seams of the plot are weak. Immortan Joe values Furiosa as part of a deal, but when she disappears this is a non-event? Some parts are just barely understand-able.
- Although overall the action scenes are very impressive (and there certainly are a lot of incredible stunt craft), at times the image somehow looks fake-ish (CGI? The volume?)
I give it a rating in the "positive" side of the range because I didn't get bored and still had somewhat of a good time, but that's a weak prequel.
What a drag. I didn't expect for such movies to bore me more with age, but there we are.
This is Asylum-level badness wrapped up in high budget and famous actors. But there is one thing that makes it highly watchable, which is that it just never stops; there is no stupid chatter, no filler, no boredom, it just goes on and on always with an acute sense of urgency. So it becomes a spectacle in cinematic ridicule, and a highly entertaining one at that. Not sure that was the intended effect, but I take it!
👍
There is absolutely nothing that works in this movie; a pure demonstration of film-making incompetence and bad taste.
It's hard to find anything bad to say about a movie that is well-made yet doesn't take itself seriously.
The movie opens with Kiss' I was made for loving you to a long-shot of Ryan Gosling getting prepared for a stunt which the character effectively does, and therefore makes you wonder whether this was actually Gosling that did it (since the shot is uninterrupted). I was made for loving you eventually comes back multiple times in the movie in various forms (orchestral, trailer-like cover, etc), and is just one example of the many fun artistic ideas that The Fall Guy has in store, including, for example, a meta-commentary on the usage of split screens, or how psychedelic a fight under influence looks like.
It is quite fun, and hinges on a solid story and solid performances from its leads, including what might surprisingly be the best role of Ryan Gosling, who succeeds in playing a quantum superposition of complete chill attitude and emotional vulnerability (culminating to a remarkably and bizarrely intense scene).
There is of course no lacking of action, with a complete stunt fest. The small bits of making-of shown during the credits offer a glimpse of the logistical challenge that the movie must have been, and proves the grand mastery of the art of crafting stunts from the Fall Guy crew. Bravo!
I remember when I was a little boy we watched this movie together some night. Twas fun! From an adult point of view it's not as fun as I remembered, but still okay 🙂
Moderately good and Coen-esque entertainment. Becomes sort of un-seriously goofy in the second half.
Woody Allen casually trying to expand the Overton window about banging 17 years-olds, ingeniously admitting a zest of guilt in dating a bit too young while the rest of his society doesn't bat an eye. I guess when building fantasy worlds one should follow the same principle as in "never commit more than one crime at a time": the world wasn't ready for teens gangbang, so you have one movie for the 17 years-old (Manhattan) and one movie for the gangbang (Vicky Cristina Barcelona).
Great cinematography by the way.
Both the directing (e.g. the "POV" scenes from the camera) and the screenplay (relatively deep psychological thriller) feel very modern for a 1960 movie. I understand that putting the spectators in the bad guy's shoes could be quite shocking at the time, but I'm happy the movie eventually earned recognition.
Pretty clever, surely a bit too clever in the end. I like the vibe (and the soundtrack that contributes to it).
Feels like this should have been a short movie. Nothing really happens.
I remember liking this movie when big bro and big sis were watching it. Not quite the same impact as an adult. WTF is this plot with the new fiance. He lets her there like she's a prop or something.
Didn't remember it was that good. Really solid thriller.
Would have been a B is not unnecessarily so looooong. Story is good enough, Pacino is on point, final speech is FIRE.
Psychologists: progressive exposition therapy blablablah
Me: LET'S GO KAMIKAZE THERAPY
I guess the rather lame story helped limiting the immersion and mitigating the trauma. The constant aggressive speech from the characters to one another is very distracting (apart from serving the subtext, I guess).
I went into this blind since it had a good IMDb rating, disliked it, googled it, and wondered what can of worms I had opened.
TL;DR: it's a movie from a company doing "Christian movies" about a guy who fights child trafficking inspired from the true story of a guy who, in real-life, is accused of sexual misconduct by several women. Also, Jim Caviezel lectures you during the rolling credits about how important this movie is to fight child trafficking, and gives you a QR code so that you can donate money.
Anyway, if you like nonsensical editing (or nonsensical story, for that matter), the dullest soundtrack (or dullest everything, for that matter), and long shots of thousand-yard-stare-Jim-Caviezel, watch it!
It's good, but not A-level good.
James Cameron be writing his screenplay like "so the fighter jet hovers under the crane, and he asks his daughter to jump onto the plane" and then he actually films it. Must be a nice job.
If Dogma 95 is supposed to be about authenticity, then it doesn't work because the tight constraints of its manifesto apparently forces directing towards hyper-stylized camera work and cinematography, which I found way less sober than well-equipped (but cleaner) productions.
Anyway, the story and actors are very good. Christian has only one friend, who is the cook. Those who rally once the tide has turned don't count.
Late-night TV really broadcasts the randomest movies; never heard of this before.
The project was announced as 17 Bridges in July 2018
yo they can't actually count or what
Beware, this joins the ranks of War of the Worlds in having a misleading marketing campaign about war when it's actually a more intimate and artsy movie — in this case a road movie. I re-calibrated my expectations quickly enough to enjoy it as what it is, which happens to be pretty good.
We get to see a roadshow of scenes ranging from somewhat mundane to highly stressful, but constantly accompanied by a backdrop of war. Those who expect an action movie will need to wait for all this US-under-war imagery to pass by to enjoy the finale — a very well-crafted depiction of urban warfare.
The story and character development is certainly not revolutionary, but just solid enough to hold this thing together.
Special props to the cinematography (quite beautiful, on point for the subject matter) and the incredible sound design.
It's okay entertainment but I didn't like the homage to Titanic when they decided to drag the movie by going to save people underwater. Also you're in desperate need of a globe if you think Hawaii is on the way of a flight from Vegas to China.
Monday 17 February 2025
permalinkThis movie takes the time to tell its story very carefully and properly. It hooked me from beginning to end, slowly burning through its outstanding cinematography and Ralph Fiennes' very strong presence.
It raises the usual (but always interesting) questions about faith, in a way that is still very interesting to follow for a non-believer.
It is a good demonstration of the power of restraint. When the end goal of the story is so straightforward, the slightest twist is an interesting plot point. When the diction of characters is so serene, the mere raising of one's voice is an event. When the visuals revolve around men being sequestered inside a conclave, a specific framing or contrast is a painting.
The music sounded a bit too dramatic in my opinion, but it was close enough to being a good companion to the image that it's not really an issue.
Good movie!