Reviews

With a character like Tatcher its safe to presume that a film could be made to be entertaining without having to dramatize scenes or re-imagine them for the sake of making a more entertaining film. Yet despite this The Iron Lady is a bore of a film. Its mostly centered on an old Tatcher conversing with her dead husband who's oddball behaviors throws off the chemistry they hared all their lives. As she revisits her past we see her as a young aspiring lady, confident here and without a trace of confidence there, which again throws the balance off the character when we do not know who she is. Tatcher in her career as prime minister could have been the centerpiece of the film, most notably the Falklands War and her eventual decline. But these major events are glossed over with just as much relevance as her dancing with her husband, which leaves the movie with barely any climax. As for the resolution, Tatcher confronts her dead husband and if something came from it, i dnott remember because by then i didn't care. The only bright light in this movie is the acting, yet its often so underwhelmingly delivered with unnecessary cuts and generally bad directing. The movie has no center point, no conflict or resolution, considering that such a plentiful life had many. Its wasteful of talent and source material.

A guy comes home, his brother jumps him, he is sorry. The guy asks if his brother is high. The brother says hes not, but he certainly looks like. They enter the kitchen. Our point of view is that of a spying camera, slightly skewed angle. The brothers enter the room. One keeps apologizing to the other that just came. He throws himself around, becomes hysterical. The characters know very well what they're talking about, but we do not. Something about their mother. Is she fine? The viewer is intrigued less than two minutes in. Questions pile up as another man in a suit enters the scene ominously holding a gun. He says he is police. The hysterical brother begs for forgiveness. He is panicking. The policeman is calm, stoic and eager to bring them to justice. By mow the tension is high. The motives are unknown, the stakes are unknown, the motivation for any of this is hidden and dragged out perfectly, as we look down, like incompetent viewer, unsure even as to who is the good guy here, in this standoff. El Insidente is like two pieces of string knotted together at one end. Two stories start off patiently. The characters are set up so well, with great dialogue and the most basic contribution to their persona. In the other story a young boy is in his car with his mother, stepfather and younger sister. The happily annoying couple is slowly becoming aware of what we are aware of from the first story. Not until the story skips back to the policeman and one brother does it become evident as to what this is. And because the theme is now hinted at, the director stresses it so massively and graphically, it becomes impossible to look away. The second story more so. Then their paths intertwine and the movie that started like calm water and revisited the characters has now come to a downpour of information that splashes across the screen. Perhaps a bit too quickly, or just quick enough because i found myself thinking it over and over again, trying to piece the two stories together but it always seems to escape me. I will re watch it, but not in long time. The move does turn your stomach here and there. It is the Lovecraftian horror you've been waiting for with a message that stays behind like the tough scenes. Amazingly well acted. The performance could have ruined it so easily and instead it brought it forward.

On the heels of his previous film BlackKklansman that came out when it was indeed relevant, Spike Lee tries again, and fails miserably. The movie opens up at a hotel reception in Vietnam and some very bad dialogue that's too on the nose and practically gives the viewer a list of things that are of relevance without ever contributing something meaningful or intriguing the viewer as to why these men are relevant and whats to discover. In the next scene the characters are at a bar, dancing, (or rather just going through a crowd like they know everyone) and then sit at a table here again their discussions are perhaps relevant, but badly executed and without offering anything of interest to even better know and understand the characters, let alone to contribute to the entire film. Their personalities are relegated to their political views which are expressed so forcefully, it would be absurdist if it wasn't just bad writing. In a short flashback we see whats the point of all this. Some gold and obviously, a dead body, a fallen brother. What throws the movie off its course is mostly the age of the soldiers. They are depicted appropriately as older in our timeline and the same age in the Vietnam timeline. There is no effort to relate them to one another, just put them in both scenes, its going to make it easier, nobody will notice and move on. When movies are so condescending to its viewer it produces a mode that throws you off the story. Coupled with the one character meeting a Vietnamese woman who was a prostitute and now shes a well off lady with a daughter, whose father is the soldier and who never know of his now 30 y.o. child. And two scenes are given to this, which bared so much weight on the character but remained undeveloped (if you're by now capable of calculating the age differences here. The scenes from Vietnam are shot in the aspect ratio we all know from Vietnam footage and it sort of adds to the atmosphere of another timeline, but the way these scenes are filmed is so poor, its almost laughable. Spike Lee should have known that action sequences are something else. No direction, no orientation, who is who is where is irrelevant. Again, it borders with the absurd, reminiscing about Classical Vietnam movies which depicted whites in the same battle and even poses and dramatic deaths which bare no weight considering what happens. They find the gold, a symbol of power for one and of freedom for the other. As the story progresses one of these four veterans steps on a mine because he delivers a pointless speech that started from a meaningless argument. He walks backwards as he speaks, the camera anticipates a sudden moment, making us anticipate it and in the anticipation the message is lost and the scene where one of the soldiers is killed by a mine in a horrible fashion remains uneventful. Spike Lee fails continuously as a director of action sequences and he fails in anticipation building as well. Then the son of one of the guys steps on a mine and remains standing not to activate it. Some guys that deactivate mines just happen to be i the same region and they cant help them. Did I mention they work with mines? (turns out they barely have any weight int he story, not as a love interest or a way to propel the plot). They tie a rope around the kid standing on the mine and pull it, and he survives, because they pulled him away before the mine exploded. Did i mention there is no point or explanation as to why the kid is there and what kind of relationship he has with his father, a Vietnam war veteran who later gets killed too. The movie is on on hand a miserable buddy comedy, trying to paint these men as fun guys. Their political opinions are given, never elaborated on. At no point does the film utilize film as a medium, as Spike Lee has done many times before. At no point does the film leave food for thought. It is a poor execution of a hastily written film. The only reason this movie was made was to be as timely relevant as Blackkklansman, which it would have been if it was not written in a day and made the week after. Someone should have looked at the script. Its a missed shot because it is so bluntly served its almost insulting to the intelligence of the viewer considering its timeliness. In time the films rating will drop as people re watch it and those who actually disliked it can say so. Spike Lee, do not stop making movies. Let film do the commenting.

When a movie puts together great actors its usually at the cost of a storyline. The names sell the tickets and you get to see two or three big names on the screen together and behind it is a plot unworthy of them and characters they portray are not something you'd want to see. But this is different. Stand Up Guys is a movie that really focuses on its big names and reminds us why they're big. The storytelling makes them lovable and their jokes are great. There is nothing in this movie that is over the top, nor is there something you'd want to add (maybe, for some). Its a great balance of a real, believable story, fantastic actors portraying very fine characters, a movie worth watching. I enjoyed it very much and although its just the start of the year i know that at the end of the year when i summaries all the movies I've watched, ill be mentioning this one for sure.