Reviews

I've been trying to get into Jaime H. Hermosillo's films since his recent passing, and i think he's certainly a very interesting and special director, especially in Mexico's film history. I started out with 1977's Matinée, which i really enjoyed, and now i come to this film with some mild interest. And interesting it certainly is.

To tell you the truth i'm still somewhat conflicted on my opinion of this movie, mostly because of how weird and absurd the story is. Our nameless main character sees a cute, mute woman with his blind father and immediately gets attracted by her. We learn soon enough that this woman is just as attracted to him (she literally undresses herself in front of him and her unknowing father) and they hit it off right away. Unfortunately for our couple, this woman and her father and into some weirdo cult of handicapped people, and after an -not really- accident that seriously injures the father, who also happens to be the leader of this cult, insanity and persecution insues.

The film itself is really well made, with some really good acting and shots as well as a great score and atmosphere of dread and anxiety. The film, especially in the 2nd act, can have be pretty frenetic and scary tone and pacing, and the ending in particular is pretty insane. However the film is just kind off.....off, which i suppose was the intended feeling, however i was left wondering what was the point of it other than being a very strange and kind of scary experience. While i was entertained by the characters, i really wasn't invested in any of them, and i kept watching more just to see where the story was going (and some place it went, for sure) rather than to see what happened to these characters. And while this might be me just overanalyzing, but it kind of had a very scummy way of looking at handicapped people, which i assume wasn't the original intention, but having all the people be part of a sinister and creepy cult ain't a good look.

This was a very interesting movie and i'm curious if my perspective changes after a second watch, though who knows when i'll see it again. I would recommend it if your in the mood for some creepy/strange stuff, but you may find yourself confused as to what you just watched.

With my mother being a huge fan of Parchis back in the day (she had a crush on Tino like most girls at that time in Mexico) and me personally interested in the story of this group, if found this to be a pretty enjoyable documentary.

Outside of some clever editing and the "photo album" bits, the presentation was nothing to rave about and standard, although well made. The music (outside of Parchis's own songs) was good, although again not amaizing. And overall they did a pretty good job of getting you in the context of these people's lives and the world at that time and place. The whole "legal and money issues" part of the film was a bit confusing but i assume that's because the whole situation was also confusing and a complete mess.

I wouldn't say this is a great documentary or anything, as most of the entertainment comes from this crazy story of a bunch of kids and business men surrounded by unexpected and gigantic success. The honesty of all the interviews really does make this worth while, however, and if you're the least bit interesting in this, you won't be disappointed.

If you're a LEGO or a Halo fan, it is impossible for you to not have seen or at least heard of this short film. And with this video getting close to being 10 years old, it has become a classic for brick film fans, gamers, and YouTube itself.

This short was mostly made by Alex Kobbs, who was pretty well known by his LEGO creations and videos back in the "old days" of YouTube, myself being a big fan of his LEGO Wii video, and has been working on various shorts for LEGO and Mega Blocks. It is clear that this guy's passion is on stop motion and LEGO, as well as action and sci-fi stories, and this is a clear example of that, as his "magnum opus" took over half a decade to complete, not to mention balancing highschool and college while making it.

In a time where stopmotion films and brickfilms have never looked better, this short still holds up tremendously, and you could argue was very ahead of it's time, for LEGO videos anyway. All of the things that make brick films iconic are here: cotton posing as explosions, the unproffesional and humoristic voice acting (if i had to guess it was probably Kobbs himself playing these spartans), the excessive and over the top "gore-clay", and speaking of which, clay being used for things LEGO can't do, not to mention all of the (very cheap) practical and special effects used in throughout. It is both charming and impressive.

But most importantly, the film is a great watch. The story is brain-dead simple, as two opposing teams try win a Steal The Flag game. Why? Who knows, as the only thing we want is an excuse for an epic war of ridiculous proportions. It's self aware and does not try to be anything more than what it is despite it's ambition. And it is very entertaining, for a short where basically soldiers shoot eachother for half an hour.

Even if you don't really enjoy these kinds of videos, you can't deny the insane amount of effort put into this, as it is very inspiring and, personally, brings you back to the simplicity and imagination of childhood.

This is quite the unique film we have here, and i feel like even if you don't really like it (i did), you can't deny that it will likely stay with you for a while.

Technically speaking, this film is wonderful. While it may not seem as impressive as a Birdman or Victoria (at least comparing them to "one take gimmick"), it is still an insane piece of filmmaking. The camera work, which is mostly handheld, adds to the chaos and energy of the film. The acting is purposely melodramatic and exagerated, which makes it more difficult to figure out what's real and what isn't, which is obviously what the film is trying to do. The sense of time and reality is such an intentional confusing mistery that it makes you feel just as lost as the characters and, potentionally, the filmmakers.

The music is something that i'm still not sure what my thoughts are. At first glance it just looks so ridiculous, annoying, and some might say even pretentious. However, it strangely fits into the film, and it just might be a nod to how ancient theater used singers to explain the characters feelings. At least that how i see it.

Over all, this is a must watch for any Japan-film fans and even something to recommend to film fans in general, although i can definitely see someone not enjoying it, as it's really out there.

There was a lot of hype and expectations going into this film. Although funny enough, none of them were influenced by the film's initial controversy back in the 90's, in fact, i've never even heard of the said controversy until i saw the film just today. The only reason i've had known of this film was because of my father, being one his all time favourite films and also being a big fan of Michael Douglass. So he was very excited and enthusiastic to see this film with me and my family, as he usually is when we watch a film he really likes. But more importantly, he was very interested in hearing my what was my opinion on the film and what was it that i was trying to say. Which is i guess what i'm writing about right now.

The direction of this movie is pretty fantastic. And it's all exemplified in the opening scene. The close ups to Douglass's dismayed face, the music building up higher and higher, the heat on the road making everybody uncomfortable. It sets the tone perfectly for the rest of the film. With great cinematography, intriguing writting, and of course, amaizing performances from almost everyone involved.

Similar to a movie like Taxi Driver (which was also really controversial upon release), it depicts a lot of social and personal struggles in day to day life that many people around the world go through, all though maybe in a more exaggerated and almost comedic way. Perhaps this is why my father was legitimately interested in my takeaway, as these are things he relates with and he wants to know if I understand them as well. 2 characters go through similar existential struggles: the feeling of unfufillment and lack of importance in you're life, and the apparent indifference and mean spirited nature of the exterior world. However, one of them has already lost it and has decided to take vendetta against the world around him and it's injusticies, while the other still holds on and tries to live his life the best he can (try to tell which one is which). We watch "Fenz" do things that at some point of our lives we always wanted to do, being a badass while calling out the dumb bullcrap that annoys us all the time, but it also exposes those same desires as being ultimately pointless and dangerously violent. Most of us would never do these things, but at the very least we have thought of doing them, and the movie shows us that we are all the victims and we can easily become "the bad guy", just as we encounter people whom we think are "the bad guys". We have all been there, after all.

In my father's own words, he believes that the message of the film is that " you can never know who you're messing with". While at first that may seem shallow, i don't think it's entirely wrong. In fact, i think he may have a point. You see, while "D-FENZ" is a complete lunatic, most of the people he encounters (key word being MOST") just straight up provoke him and make matters worse. And these people truly don't know what has been going on with someone's day or even at what state in their lives they are. And being mean to them can set them off in ways you may not be prepared for. So like the film states by the end, just because you have struggles doesn't mean you can lash out to everyone else, you should try as much as you can to be empathetic and nice, as you can never truly know "who you're messing with".

Noah Baumbach has showed himself to be one of the most interesting filmmakers working today, being an incredibly talented director and writer. And from the films i've seen from him, this is one of his more unique ones. not only because it's his shortest one, and also being co-written by Greta Gerwig, but because how personal but also how magical it feels.

According to Baumbach, the "black and white" look the film is to reflect the barebones, simple presentation of the film, and also giving the film a sense of nostalgia. But in my personal view, i saw it as way to reflect how Frances may see, or may want to see, her life: as a film, more especifically, a kind of fairy tale/story about her dreams and aspirations. Frances is a very interesting but also relatable character. Her life is a mess. She has dreams of success despite not being very talented. She goes back and forth on making decisions. She tries to be friendly but can often feel akward and nervous around people, etc. And she's not the only one with internal problems. Benji clearly has an interest on Frances but can't express it. Sophie can have relationship problems and lie about how good her life is. This are all things that Frances (and a lot of other people) struggles with. And yet she appears to be almost oblivious to this, since she thinks everyone but her has their lives figured out, even if it's not true.

The film also has a lot of Baumbach's stylistic choices, like his hard and rapid cuts, both in visual and audio, his natural but carefully crafted dialogue scenes, and his ironic and dark sense of humor. The use of music is also very effective. And despite the film's legth, it does have a pretty good structure, making you feel like you have really gotten to know this girl and the way she interacts.

I would say that the main issue with this film would be it's ending. Not that it was a bad ending, in fact, i would say it was pretty effective it what it was trying to say. It just felt too short and a bit rushed for me to get to that point. Maybe if it was 10 to 15 minutes longer i would have felt it more natural in it's progression. And also (and this is not really the movie's fault), while the film is pretty well made in it's own right, it pales in comparison to Baumbach's other films. Adam Driver is pretty good in this film, but looking back at his role in Marriage Story, he's nowhere near as incredible as he is in that film.

In conclusion, check out this movie whenever you get the chance. If you're a big fan of Baumbach's movies then you'll probably enjoy it. And it can also be a good introduction to his films if you're unfamiliar with him, although it might not be as amaizing as some of his other works. As it's own, Frances Ha delivers a heartful and enjoyable story where you will most likely find something to connect with.

I watched this documentary with basically little to no knowledge of anything involving ISIS, muslim culture, or the war on Syria. So I was fairly excited to watch this very interesting story about the effects of someone's loved ones when they become involved in something so horrible.

However, I was very sadly unimpressed by it. I don't think it's terrible, but it really did feel like i just read a Wikipedia article and nothing stood up for me.

While I did like some of the presentation a bit, particularly the usage of photos and the way they're altered, and also how intimate it felt, i really didn't felt like I knew any of these people or what their relationship were. Sure, I got the basic stuff: these group of friends are Muslims, one of them, "Mark", feels like an outcast because of his ethnicity, and starts to believe in extremist ideologies when his friends can't answer his questions. That's it. As for his friends (which I guess are the focus of the short), I can't even tell which one is which besides the masks. Just something about it felt very cheesy.

For me, the short's biggest failure is it's length. It's WAY to short, which saddens me because it feels like a missed opportunity. The scenes were one of the friends start to argue with the other, or when "Mark's" texts are shown, these are ideas that could have been explored and could have added a lot more to the short's point. It almost feels like the short ends in it's introduction, when it should start going more in depth.

Overall, I wouldn't really recommended.

I started watching this mini series with my family knowing nothing about Madame C.J. Walker or her brand of hair products, semi interested in her story of rags to riches, and finished the whole thing in one sitting (it's not a very big commitment, being a 4 episode miniseries after all).

All the acting is good in this, maybe not incredible or noteworthy, but you can tell that everybody tried to come across a character (even if it's very cartoonish, but we'll get to that later). The production design, costumes and direction of it all was very well done, and it definitely had a personality which it helped it from becoming boring, those dream/fantasy like segments being the biggest example.

Unfortunately, i really wasn't able to enjoy this, or feel the emotions that the show wanted me to. This due to a lot of it feeling like a fictional representation of Sara's life, rather than a honest one. This not only from the historical inaccuracies (which didn't really bother me personally, but still find pretty dumb), but just in the way this characters were written. Almost everyone who is white or semi white is racist, jealous, mean, and a moron. And even if we ignore that, a lot of the characters felt very one dimesional and stereotypical, maybe with the exception of Sara, her husband, daughter, and lawyer, although they're not that developed either. Everyone else is either a villian or a goddie. It's so black and white (no pun intended). It's also felt a little bit too short, at least for me. They could have expanded a lot of the relationships and important events in Sara's life (especially in a episodic format) but it just went too fast. Maybe it's just personal taste, but i would think 1 more episode would help. Or maybe don't and make the story feel more natural. Something like last year's The Irishman also tried to tell a large portion of a person's life and did it way better in my opinion despite being a movie and not a mini-series (although to be fair, The Irishman is slighty longer). And one last thing, the music was really annoying me and taking me out of the show. And i don't mean the score, which i thought was ok although a bit overused, i mean the pre-existing music playing over a lot of the scenes. It's not that the music itself was bad, but they just felt so misplaced and distracting. Like, why would you put Harlem Shake if they're supposed to be in the 1910's? It doesn't even fit with the tone of the scene at all! They're literally just looking at people walking in New York!

Anyway, if you're seriously super interested in watching this mini-series i guess it's fine, but i wouldn't really recommend it, as there are far better period pieces and 1910's based films/shows out there.

This was my first introduction to Martin Scorsese, and i was very interested in seeing it after watching Joker (2019) and hearing that it was heavily inspired by this film. With this film being close to 40 years old, it's suprisingly relevant today. Seeing Pupkin's delutions of grandeur play out right in front of the audience is both disturbing and sad. This may be a black comedy but you won't laugh very often, if ar all. Speaking of which, Robert De Niro is absolutely astounding. He IS Rubert Pupkin, and never once i felt i was watching De Niro. All the acting was top notch too, from Jerry Lewis's desperation to Sandra Bernhard's insanity.

It is a brilliant satire of fame and celebrity worship, showing not only the disconnected relationships between artists and fans, but also how these ideas and dreams i've mentioned can infect people's minds in very severe and dangerous ways. Rubert's fantasy land that he refuses to leave is able to afect people's lives and even the film itself. Is the ending accurate? Or is the ending accurate "according to Pupkin"? Either way, it still portrays a dark reality in a movie that Scorsese, Zimmerman, and everyone involved, perfectly crafted.

This is my second time watching this movie and i'm still unsure how i feel about it or what it is trying to say. What i am sure, however, is that every film fan should probably watch it at some point, as the movie is pretty much begging for it to be analyzed. Other than that, the amaizing music from Mica Levi, the great special effects, stellar acting from everyone, and the eerie atmosphere of the film from beggining to end definitly makes it worth while.

And if the only thing you care about are getting some Scarlet Johansson nudes then i guess this does not disappoint.

This is the first movie i've seen in The Conjuring franchise (strange to start with this one, i know), and it was fun at it's best and boring at it's worst. The acting was good and some of the ideas were cool, but the film really doesn't know how to be scary besides just "loud noise" and "screaming".

I enjoyed it, and it wasn't terrible in any way, but by the end it was just a passable "spook" that came and went with no impact. Kinda like a haunted house on a carnival or a Six Flags.

You may have fun watching it, but i bet you will have more fun making fun of it with your friends and/or family (which i did).

While it can sometimes get very chessy and the low budget is aparent, this is still a interesting story with a very unique point of view and capable actors. Give it a watch if it sounds good to you! You won't be dissapointed.