Change Your Image
jabox-oneandonly
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)
9/10: AMAZING
Low9/10 (future to change to a 10 depending on rewatch)(also some spoilers at the end) wow what a beast of a movie. For an almost four hour film, this kept my attention the whole time (besides 2 bathroom breaks which I really couldn't hold, had to run to the seats). Can't really say one scene was not important or vital to the story. And what a story it is. I picked a good crowd to watch it too because the way they would react to these situations were so entertaining, really made the twists and turns that much better. The way it ended also gave weight to the reality. Kind of joking about the true crime nature of this country that turns these real life heinous actions into subject matter. Next it's also GORGEOUS. I love how it was shot and loved how much thought went into it and it's movement. A lot with how it's shot also strengthened character motivations and themes. The acting, especially from Lily Gladstone, Deniro mostly and Dicaprio did the best with bringing these real people to life. This isn't a dig btw but the main character is probably martin scorsese's most VIAL, most contemptible yet. It might be the quarter indian that's angry in me but the way this character would do bad things then justify it and feel bad afterward was akin to bojack horseman and just like with him, I got sick of it (more here because this was based on REAL people). Some for a reason said Dicaprio's performance was bad but I disagree, he play's a sniveling two-timing weasel to a T and that makes his failed redemption and rejection from his wife that more satisfying, at least to me.
Cry Macho (2021)
Crying Average
Clint Eastwood is an enigmatic and iconic director and actor. His films often are filled with his many passions and hobbies to the point of admiration. His storytelling is usually maculate and even when you know where it's going you're still colored impressed. Sadly doesn't happen that much here. What separates this from his other works is it's hook which is simply an old washed-up cowboy helps bring a son to his father all the while teaching him like one. Very similar to Gran Torino. And like Gran Torino it offers a buddy-buddy adventure through the lens of an old wise man teaching his young but tough kid pupil. Pretty simple when said aloud, which unfortunately happens too, literally so; it being very exposition heavy especially in the beginning. I guess what makes this different is it's many takes on being tough, "macho", and Gran Torino is more about how our cultural differences don't make us indifferent as a whole. Unlike Gran Torino, Cry Macho lacks that energy and edginess. Not that it's terrible but it feels like it's missing something. It's got Clint Eastwoods performance but what it doesn't have is a good supporting actor and interesting story. Lot of it feels superficial and surface level, which to be fair is most of his films but this one lacks all the grand positives that make his other films feel so great. Yet it's not unwatchable too. What keeps your attention is the dynamic between the two (despite the kid sucking). It's snappy and quiet funny when the pace picks up but also stagnates and is repetitive when it doesn't. And outside the two actors are alright performances but the majority are cartoony. Also for a movie that say's it takes place in the 80's it sure doesn't feel like it. There were points where it was too modern. Couldn't really differentiate it and without the dates, I honestly couldn't tell.
Sorry, it's just in my opinion this is his weakest and safest film. Filled to the brim with convenient exmachinas. Ones filled with the rooster they carry, whose obvious foreshadowing and symbolism were already enough annoying, it seemed like being a vocal point.. It's just I don't disagree with any of the politics behind the film, it's more on how it was shot and how it played out I have a deal with. Some of it feels genuine through the guise of an average movie but I overall it's just a boring story. The ending is good though, not surprising. Clints typically good with saying things that aren't alright said.
Finally, I don't dislike this film, it's just it feels so safe. Almost like he listened to his critics of Gran Torino. Average at best. Good performance from Clint of course but god awful performance from the supporting actor. Their dynamic was at times fun but mostly mundane because of the heavy exposition. The plot often forgettable and repetitive. Exmachinas at the ready, Overall I'm glad I watched but I'm not seeing it again.
Gisaengchung (2019)
the line between class
Bong Joon Ho has an amazing track record. Memories of Murder, Mother, and the Host are fantastic, Okja was awesome and Snowpiercer is good. He's never made a bad movie and with now seeing Parasite twice, I can say he's still going strong. Moreover this might be his best film or at least competes with it (Memories of Murder is still a considerable contender.) The madman went as far as I say, to making the second best movie of the year, only behind the Lighthouse for me. But for everyone else it's their number one and deservedly so. It's just one of those masterpieces everyone and anyone can enjoy, critic and casual viewer alike. The end strikes with blunt surprise and it was nice to gauge the theaters reaction after knowing what was going to happen. Bongs drama and comedy have always meshed so well together without bringing the tension out the scene but with this movie there's that and this amazing tone shift near the midpoint that fits like a puzzle piece; changing the atmosphere, themes, and style in a way that makes 100% sense. It's like many movies in one. This will be talked about as being a classic of the decade for these reasons because of how perfectly it was done.
Without spoiling too much, this movie is about class. And not in the obnoxious in-your-face way where the poorer characters can do no wrong and there's an obvious message of "rich bad, poor sad" but done in the way by subverting those tropes by making the poor flawed but smart and the rich into gullible people. Themes and messages the movie has are very subtle to being said out loud: that being mostly about exploring the "line" between class. Whether that be through extremely great writing or literally through the directing and how it's shot. The whole film is like this where a line in the shot separates the two classes. It's done through lines in the wall, one genius moment of a reflection on a window as it's being looked out of, a fridge, or just as simple as panning down like in the beginning to show they're the lowest of the low in a already low shot. How they view the same things such as rain tells a whole lot too. While the rich enjoy its beauty and smell, the poor despise it because it floods the neighborhood and house in a very tense dramatic scene. Another nice touch is where they're located: the poorer family living at the bottom of the hill get the brute end of the storm while the rich on top are unaffected. But how the poor view and react to other fellow poor people in a twist situation was the point where I knew this movie was genius. Rather than live together, they fight, accomplishing nothing but a good time for the audience.
The performances are memorable and witty and not one dimensional, each with a purpose and each one being immensely entertaining in their own way. They all had a time to shine and they did with flying colors. Bongs directing prowess is at an all time high as every frame and movement feels methodically thought out. His gorgeous use of cinematography, seamless editing, and music fits so well and help flesh out the soothing, chaotic, and claustrophobic atmosphere/tone. The set design was also noticeably pleasing as it explores into the themes more. I would give my interpretation on the rock but that would spoil it. I have nothing more to say other than don't read much else about it and go in blind if you can. 10/10
Midsommar (2019)
Hereditary's great follow up
After Ari Asters debut film "Hereditary", I had that itching feeling some have when I first saw it. I wondered if, like many other directors, his first film was just going to be a fluke. Yes while the directing was amazing, the acting was phenomenal and some may argue if there's enough talent put out it's unjust to assume the next one won't be amazing. But I had my fair share of meeting flukes too (cough cough Nightcrawler then Roman J. Israel, Esq.) and know that too familiar emotion of disappointment . So I went in with normal-to-high expectations, re-watched Hereditary in preparation and went with my brother... And here I am and Midsommar proves that he's a capable promising director and should be looked out for whenever he makes a new film.
Now this movie is obviously similar to hereditary but I wouldn't say it's the same as hereditary. It's almost like a different take on it. Both are about grief and family but both say something different. Hereditary talks about mental illness, family dynamics, and coping. Meanwhile Midsommar talks about toxic relationships, culture, friends and relying on people. Like Hereditary though both have amazing performances. Florence Pugh at least deserves an oscar nomination if not because they didn't give one to Toni Collete last year. She definitely is in her own when it comes to this movie. Not only portraying someone with extreme anxiety very accurately but like Collete shows subtlety where it's needed.
When it comes to the horror aspects that are the tone for both films, they contrast here and there. Hereditary is shot in a dark house to make you feel like someone's watching you in the dark (the parts where you have to almost squint to see what's in the dark not only puts you in the characters shoes but is also unnerving not knowing right away what the danger is). Midsommar has this bright white color palette the whole movie, confusing the watcher of what the time is or how much time has passed (which is brilliant considering the characters in the movie felt the EXACT same way). At points some of the scenes even feel euphoric and striking. Again similar to Hereditary, the way it's shot has a lot of purpose to it.
Just like Hereditary it's well thought out and deserves extra watches for things we missed and things that add extra weight to scenes once you know what happens. Now having time to think a lot about this movie, I saw some female empowerment things there but I need to watch a second time to make sure.
Now comes to the question on whether it's better than hereditary or not. The people I've seen online review this are mixed. My brother for example liked it even more. But where my gripes come in that keep it from a perfect movie or even being better than hereditary (which I think despite being fantastic, for me hereditary wins there) are that it's too slow at parts. Mind you everything they show is essential but they could have gotten there a lot faster, which by the way I think Hereditary did. It's ending too is something that'll make you finally decide whether the movie is fantastic or not liking it. What I think this film did better was expand on the other characters in the film (Hereditary's dad is someone almost no one goes bananas over performance wise.), the horror in general I thought was more disturbing, and being a more complex film (in a good way). There are a small things I could nitpick but I'm going to keep that to myself.
strong7to8/10
Funny Games (2007)
A fantastic movie you should at least give a chance
From the ratings alone you can see the reception to this movie is 50/50. And the reason isn't solely because anything is done poorly; most agree the acting to the cinematography, etc is done professionally. It's what it says as a film to the viewer that pisses people off. And honestly I'm not going to act like I don't understand it. I mean it sort of wags its finger at you for expecting the outcome. But to me I think it's also a great message and I think we do need it considering the saturation of horror and our numbness to violence in general. (At least what most people interpreted out of it). And even though I understand why people hate the message I still think people are too hard on it. Most films don't even include the audience as a character in the film. And the message doesn't say you're a bad person for expecting the outcome. I mean if you are going to think it's still forced and useless, at least acknowledge the effort gone into it.
Any-who the performances were still phenomenal all around. The director took the blueprints of the old house from his previous film and based the new house off that. And despite being a shot-for-shot remake, it was vastly improved on the cinematography front. It's tense, smart, and just a fun experience.
Hope I persuaded someone to at least check it out. I tried to keep this spoiler free. Just wanted to explain to people who are on the fence that the ratings are not low graded because it's a poorly made movie rather it's what it has to say. And what I interpret out of the film might be entirely different than what you interpret out of the film. I personally love this film and every time I see it I get more out of it every watch.