Reviews

Disclaimer: I actually have not seen the first two volumes so please take this text with a grain of salt.

This was so overwhelmingly stupid and dull. Now I understand there are films that want to play dumb and get laughs that way, but it's a verdict of mine that there should be more to a story than just spamming and gagging "dude" in every possible intonation.

Reading that this was a comedy related to music, I expected it to be funny and also to feature some good songs. It did neither. I found this film to be as funny as "Hiroshima Mon Amour" and as musically interesting as "No Country for Old Men".

Watching Spotlight is like reading a comic book about a gang of heroes up against the evil forces, each of them having their own unique tools and traits. Such is the premise of Spotlight, a group of journalists led by the ever charismatic Michael Keaton in their quest to uncover the truth. These are our heroes, pen is their weapon.

There's a concept regarding films that circle around a certain disturbing subject, some European productions, some surfacing from American independent directors, a number coming from Southeast Asia each year. The concept is known as "shock value", a usually graphic scene(s) used to arouse intense reactions from its audience. The majority of these films tend to overuse this shocking, sickening images, but here I'm of the opinion that Spotlight could've been made better, more effective if it added a drop or two of shockwave.

When cinema was invented, the were several routes to enhance the theater experience. Some took the filming to realtime locations with portable cameras, some used various editing techniques like Eisenstein, some tried post-production modifying innovations. Ultimately, the were a number of films quite similar in style and design to classical theatre productions: Limited sets and actors, of talky nature with a very strong story.

In Bruges is such a one, and given that is was written and directed by the esteemed playwright Martin McDonagh, you get that feeling in no time. But what In Bruges does, and wonderfully, is to integrate beautiful scenery of its background set, the town of Bruges, into the otherwise a much-alike broadway show. The filmmakers have succeeded in creating a feature that simultaneously is a handsome film and an entertaining show.

The first time I saw Knives Out was at the 2019 tiff, where I was able to snatch myself a ticket for an extra screening. I arrived at the venue on-time, confused to see a lengthy queue stretched to a block or two, of all ticket holders. There was this general excitement in the air, people consisting of many ages and nationalities, all eagerly waiting to savor it. The theater was full of a passionate crowd, a crowd that laughed so loud and hard at every funny line that you'd find it difficult to hear the film. I immensely enjoyed that experience and thought Knives Out was such a special picture.

Couple years later, I sat through the same film with my family, this time in our family room in front of the television. The film was just the same, but the experience was not. This time it drew out mere chuckles in the moments it caused full out laughter explosions before, my family still loved it and we had a pretty good time together, but that palpable feeling, that enthusiasm were no longer there.

My point writing all this is, in short, that watching films is and can be considered an experience. An experience that can be impacted by many factors.

I actually had some fun with this film. Truth be told, my expectations were rather dismal for this considering the influx of disappointing new animated films I'd seen in the last 1-2 years, but this certainly could have been worse. The first half is boring, slow and mediocre, but it became better and better once the main plot was initiated. The technicals, aesthetics and visuals were stunning and a highlight for me.

As I said, the first half could and should have been more engaging, the humor was hit and miss for the most part, and I didn't like the amount of hip-hop songs they used for the soundtrack. All in all, it gets a pass in my opinion, especially in today's struggling cinema.

L. A. Confidential is a solid, entertaining neo-noir that manages to be engaging and gripping for its entire runtime. The core of Spacey, Crowe and Pearce work together with three distinct personalities, each of them offering something unique and interesting. I didn't really enjoy the last third when it becomes action-heavy and mindless (to a degree), but until then I was fully on board with the direction it took.

I'm not sure if this film deserves a classic status, but I'd recommend it to all noir lovers like myself who would be in need of a reliable fix. You'd wish there were more films like this one: A modern noir that's not a lazy reproduction of the genre's classics.

When it comes to films and cinema in general, I can't recall many pictures that felt and seemed more tense than No Country for Old Men, Coen brothers' 2007 output. It's curious though that a nihilist film, in which its villain kills by a simple coin toss or for the most trivial reasons, can be this much serious in tone and in atmosphere. Multiple times during the pursuit between Moss and Chigurh, I was genuinely scared, wishing things would somehow turn into his favor.

No Country is about the inability of the elderly to keep up with the excess of violence practiced, leaving them no choice but to self-retire. It's also a western, a genre that was fairly popular in the last century, but was put to sleep by the rapid change of our universe. Anton Chigurh is basically what technology is to western genre.

Mary Poppins is the film I hold dearest to my heart. It's part of my childhood, when I used to watch it at least once a week on a VHS player. The film has astonishing songs, cordial characters and a big, warm pulsing heart.

It's quite interesting that as kid, I used to hate Mr. Banks, the father of Jane and Michael, thinking of him as a vile, horrible person who has no empathy for his children. Rewatching it as an adult though, has a different impression. I was able to see life through his perspective, comprehending his intentions and actions. This only strengthened my fondness for the film, a film that can arouse excitement in me regardless of my age, my mood or how many times I've seen it.

This has to have one of the greatest ensemble casts of all times. Imagine have Ingrid Bergman, Lauren Bacall, Sean Connery, Albert Finney, Vanessa Redgrave, Anthony Perkins among others in a film directed by the great Sidney Lumet. You might as well think that such a film will surely be a massive success, a safe bet for a remarkable, unforgettable feature, but that happens not to be the case.

I think the reason is that the original novel, the famed whodunit book by the famed Agatha Christie is overrated. Once you know the mystery the charm withers, and considering her increasing overall popularity, practically everyone knows the events of this book. The film's definitely worth a watch because of its stellar cast, but it's not something you'd remember after a while.

I have serious trouble getting into Spike Lee's universe and Inside Man, his 2006 heist joint also left me cold and unimpressed. The film tries many things, it wants to break some of the genre's traditional trademarks, putting across a social/cultural point or two along the way and It attempts to raise a complex scenario with a lot of nuanced ideas flowing around. But none of these efforts worked for me, I just found the characters and dialogues strange, not being able to fully grasp them. Watching Denzel is always a joy but other than that, I don't have much positive things to say about this particular film.

Year is 1957, you are sitting in a local theater to watch a film called "Paths of Glory" with a group of friends. You have this friend that's been talking endlessly about this film, finally forcing the group to watch it together. Apparently it's been made by a Stanley something no one knows anything about. The film starts but people are talking loudly which annoys you. Very early in the film, all the noises drop down, everyone is pinned to their seats, like a strict catholic mass. The film ends in what seemed like 15 minutes, folks slowly leave the hall with bizarre expressions on their face. You feel empty inside, aimlessly looking for words to express your feelings and thoughts. You feel you'll need a strong liquor to digest it all. At the bar, you enquire about the filmmaker, the guy's name is Stanley Kubrick and he's only 28 years old. You make sure to remember that name, a name you sense you'd hear a lot more from.

Fun fact: The global prevalence rate of schizophrenia is approximately 0.5 percent (and most likely underestimated), meaning in a random train involving a random 200 people there IS a chance you could be sitting beside a literal schizophrenic person.

Strangers On a Train belongs to a more popcorn-ish side of Alfred Hitchcock's roster of films, while remaining faithful to his prominent characteristics : An innocent suspect no one believes, a cunning villain on the loose, the ever-growing suspense and a plot that is both crazy and believable. It's a film that offers a lot of quality entertainment.

Do you know the case of a very successful film, when Hollywood producers decide to come up with its sequel, but because the main character's story arc is closed, whether they died or ascended into Godhood or just because of artistic/financial disagreements they refuse to return to reprise their role, because of any of these reasons they decide not to scrap the sequel, but choose to explore the background: The lame story of how the main character was formed, and the events led to our first film. This is essentially what happened in The Godfather Part 2, but with a twist.

In this second installment, the backstory of Vito Corleone, played by a remarkable Robert De Niro happens to be the best part. Miraculously, director Coppola builds and unfolds this story in a way we, as viewers, never get bored nor lose interest. This is a towering achievement, to develop an iconic character owned by the legend Marlon Brando and to raise it even further.

This dreadful film wanted me to:

1. Immediately to take a full bath to wash off all the cringes it emitted,

2. Wish with all my heart, as unrealistically as it was, to have a bestie like Lydia,

3. Collect a quick résumé and apply as a song specialist so that I would put right songs for right moments,

4. Seriously doubt the authenticity of critics who gave this an average score of 70 out of 100,

5. Not think about how I wasted 2 hours of my life watching this,

6. Be rather grateful of all good, worthy films out there and appreciate them more, and last but not least,

7. Just beg Netflix to stop making these horrendous rubbish.

When reviewing films, what do you really prioritize to write about? Do you only pay attention to the film's technical or artistic aspects or other, more marginal details and points matter? For instance, would you be bothered if a documented case of animal misconduct happened in a very appealing film? Or do you still like a certain film after a certain participant actor was turned out to be a sexual offender just as you did before? Does the fact that a handsome film being a remake of another one from only 2 years before, which itself was a fascinating film that needed not a remake at all, does this fact impact your opinions in any way?

This film is very entertaining and well-made, but I'd rather watch a Swedish film made in Sweden, about a Swedish book in which the Swedish characters don't speak American English, but their own language.

I liked Prisoners a bit more this time around. In fact, I really like Villeneuve as a director and his ability to produce high quality products at a relatively high rate from a wide range of subjects. In here, the story is rich, a kind that makes you want to discuss it afterwards, the characters are well-developed and lively, there's a balanced amount of disturbing content that serves the film and the overall watching experience is satisfying.

The only major hurdle that I've had regarding this was Hugh Jackman's presence and his performance. He never managed to become his character in 150 minutes of the film's runtime. I even expected his famed steel blades every time his lost his nerves, which happened quite a few times. Perhaps someone else with more finesse and subtlety would have suited better.

In Nightcrawler (what a silly name) there are two interesting ideas. The first one is the concept of violent, brutal archive footages and a curious urge to see them: In the age of technology, chances are every graphic accident or fight is recorded somewhere on a camera, and because it's not fake, a lot of people are well drawn into this sort of stuff.

The second intriguing concept is to analyze humans with strong anti-social personality traits, the so-called sociopaths and their role in modern societies. There are theories supporting that these individuals can shortcut their way into their respective work environments, obtaining rapid progress.

Nightcrawler well establishes both of these concepts in the course of its plot, but ultimately it fails (or doesn't want to) delve deeper to make the whole case. It just settles in scratching the surface and when the curtains fall, it leaves us scratching our head.

Insomnia is unique as it stands as the only Nolan film that he didn't write, briefly taking us to a world in which he (and his brother) leave his hack-like, David Lindelof-reminiscent screenwriting all-together and put his directorial talents into good use. You'll notice that for its scope, Insomnia is actually competently made. The direction/technical aspects are of high quality , the three main actors (Pacino, Swank and Williams) are solid and the general atmosphere stirs a sense of unease and apprehension.

It's also quite ironic that this unique film, for the reasons spoken of, is at the same time a useless remake of the 1997 Norwegian feature by the matching title.

Gone Baby Gone has the right mixture to be a major success. It has a tight, thoughtful story built on corruption, morality and difficult, decisive choices. It's a sharp crime thriller with a multilayered structure that would have a lasting effect on its viewers. But director Ben Affleck (or castors/producers) decided to employ his brother Casey as the main lead, whose tough-guy, been to hell and back character as a private investigator is unconvincing at best. This in fact makes for a number of funny situations that you ought to be impressed by what's happening on the screen but instead you just want to chuckle. Hopefully Hollywood executives will cast him in more "Manchester By the Sea"s than "Gone Baby Gone"s.

Making a low-budget, independent film that doesn't look like one (or at least trying to) is not an easy task, you've got to be experienced, know your limitations and capabilities, and try to come up with the best formula possible. In Sisu, a low-budget Finnish production, we are constantly reminded of its shortcomings, whether it's because of some cheap digital effects or its lackluster, amateurish direction.

To put it mildly, the film doesn't offer much than bloodshed and brutal violence and those scenes aren't done expertly. It also broke more basic physics laws than pleasing or even tolerable.

Back in 2014, I really wanted to read some books that were being adapted to see the transition from an acclaimed novel, and to understand the art of screenwriting more clearly. In those days, Gillian Flynn's mysterious Gone Girl was a bestseller, to be found everywhere on bookshelves. So I grabbed it, knowing it would be released as a theatrical film later that year. I read the book in summer of that year which was rather a letdown, leading to a sense of indifference towards the film.

I finally saw this very recently with my family with the same thoughts regarding the contents, with the only positive I could take out being Pike's performance. Everything else felt mundane, average and devoid of life.

In Michael Clayton, Tony Gilroy's directorial debut, we make acquaintances with George Clooney's fixer character who shares the same name as the film's title, furnishing us with an almost perfect Bogart-esque turn as someone only in it for cash, leaving ethics for kids until he couldn't. He is supported by a stellar cast, such as Pollack, Swinton and Wilkinson but it's his film through and through: A thunderstorm shaking his whole world to its innermost core, requiring him to pull some nasty strings, to sacrifice a lot of valuables and not to lose vigilance in this physical and spiritual cataclysm.

More than anything else, Heat evokes the works of Jean-Pierre Melville, films about men who only excel at and care about their work; One-dimensional people that we see time-to-time in our lives. Pacino and De Niro are two colossi clashing with each other, Two masters of their crafts, while struggling at pretty much everything else. Although we usually regard such linear, obsessive personalities as lame and unimpressive, director Michael Mann, just like Melville, fetishizes this trend. Mix this obsession with talents and abilities of the two leads and you got yourself a brilliant police lieutenant on the hunt of a mesmerizing thief in almost three hours of continuous frenzy and "heat".

I sometimes fantasize about making a great film, to write a clever script, construct the setting, build interesting characters, and then when no one suspects anything foul, take my great film to places so meaningless, so irrelevant that it confuses and bullies my viewers. Now this is just a silly fantasy of mine, thoughts to indulge in under the shower, but a similar occurrence happens in The Dry, in which what fallows after we settle enough in its course doesn't quite feel right. You get a funny sense that the filmmakers are deliberately disrupting their own creation, and you can't help but wonder why.

One of the very few instances where a 3 hour film doesn't get boring at all, this is rightfully an epic war feature packed with interesting characters, subplots, lots of adventures and thrills, you name it. The film is smart, funny, exciting, suspenseful and pretty all at the same time. To top it all, you are provided with some of the best Steve McQueen stunts he did on pictures.

Another thing, I adored the treatment the Germans got in this. They speak their own language (yep), they are civilized, respectful and don't look like devilish fiends. I just wish we got more of that perspective in WW films.