Reviews

The essence of this story is quintessentially absurdist. The void is everpresent and the lack of any meaning or sense of purpose destroys one's desire to live.

Albert Cammus actually gives three solutions to the problem, but we see two of them in this film. One is to be destroyed by the void and accept how meaningless everything is. Another is the very poetic desicion to deal with existential dread through love. Not very original, but very wholesome nevertheless.

There is also a lot of physical and slapstick humor that doesn't really work. They reference a lot of films and we even hear a little something from Zarathustra. What would Nietzsche think about this film?

Loved the scenes with the rocks, the crayon drawing and the dolls hanging on a tree. Talk about character development. How often do you get to be a rock?

In the end love triumphs in this movie. What is better than that?

In the newest indie gem from a24 we see a little retouched version of Jonathan Raymonds novel "The Half-Life". In the screen adaptation one of the character is turned into a chinese emigrant. This works fine for me and doesnt seem to take away from the story in any way.

While a lot of people are complaining about the slow tempo of the film i think thats exactly what Kelly Reichardt is going for. If anything, the story actually could be prolonged even more allowing us to see more of the lives and personal philosophies of Cookie and King. The plot is minimalist, but it suits the message.

To me Fist Cow seems like a critique of capitalism and a moral story about how we shouldnt take too many chances. You get lucky ones or twise, but you wont be lucky forever so dont push your luck too much. In that sense it is a fatalist story, because were aware that things will probably turn bad eventually. And when they inevitably do it seems like justice is served. Despite that we still sympathize with the main characters because their struggle is not to take advantage of others, but to make their dreams come true and finally get out of the misery they exist in.

The movie does a great job of not being black and white with its ethics. A great deed is followed by an act of stealing. People are complex and the choices they make are often the result of their environment and the circumstances they live in.

Many people will milk your cow in a lifetime and this story goes to show how you cant really hate anyone that you understand. Regardless of that greed is also a factor here. Dont be a fool and grab the opportunity while you can. Maybe youll never have another one. And milk it while you can.

The King is inspired by historical events and the works of Shakespeare. A lot of people say that its historically inaccurate and it misrepresents many historical facts.

The thing that struck me while i was watching it was how quickly this movie rushes through the different stages of its story. This is a bit of a double edged sword, because it gives the movie a good tempo, but at the same time i felt like there is so much happening in such a little period of time. I think that it couldve made a great tv show if the writers wanted to really develop their plot and characters.

Personal relationships play a great role in this movie and we are exposed to many acts of bravery, leadership and betrayal. We see the virtue of friendship and duty. There is a lot of cruelty as well.

I didnt have any issues with the inspiration of the film and its choice to pick random events and to give them a spin fitting its trajectory. I really liked Pattinson in the role of the french prince and his accent didnt bother me at all. What i disliked though is how pathetic and unimportant the actual french king was. For a character of such importance, i think his presence felt incredibly marginal.

The movie emphasizes a lot on how brave and honorable young Henry is and how he is ready to sacrifice himself in order to safe his men. Yet at the end we see that being young means being naive most of the time. Henry is questioning his decisions and is struggling to find meaning behind them.

Its a great story of how growing up with more responsibilities than you can take can lead to unwise, spontaneous decisions. We find a lot of Shakespearean traits to the people surrounding the young king as they play their own personal games and pursue their own individual goals.

The sets are great and the productions is wonderful. For the relatively small budget of $23 million the movies looks really convincing and the choreography of the battles is awesome. Im not sure if it was because of the budget or the length, but many important ceremonies and meetings were shortened and felt a bit rushed.

Overall a great medieval tale of kings and battles, but if youre looking for historical accuracy its probably not for you.

Color Out of Space seem to be more interested in its stylistic choices than the exploration of its themes. There isnt any structure to the dialogue after the 40th minute, which renders it completely unnecessary. There are a few hints of intrigue, but thats more because of Lovecraft and less because of Richard Stanley.

The premise of the story isnt entirely clear from the beginning and that works well for the movie. The dynamic gets faster and faster the further the story progresses. One of its weakest features for me was the development of the characters or the lack of it. I cant imagine someone being really invested into the struggles of the Gardner family. What keeps us interested is the hope of learning more about the mysterious light and why does it work the way it does. But as you know in the end we are left with a simple platitude about the limitations of the human cognition. That would be fine if we saw a masterfully executed movie, from a technical and creative perspective. Instead we see something reminiscent of a b movie imitation of a Cronenberg film.

Visually stunning with great screen chemistry between the leading actresses. I really like the distinctive vibe each character has and i believe that if you like to see personal movies, this one will be for you.

It seems like the close up shots play an important part in the artistic vision of Sciamma. I feel like after watching the film i will have the faces of the characters in my memory forever. The camera loves to show us their every expression and this is how we understand a lot of whats happening inside of them. Words dont seem to be that important, because they are often deceptive and only lead to more confusion. The girls want to say a lot to each other, but arent really sure how to and this is recreated very well with the tempo of the story. Sciamma never rushes with the establishment of the different subplots and takes her time to make sure we are really into the atmosphere of the story.

The movie tackles important issues of the 18th century that today seem to be just as relevant. We dont see men on the screen for the exception of a brief appearance at the end of the film. But nonetheless the influence of men is constantly present on screen, shaping the lives of our characters. They suffer from the constraints of being a woman in an age dominated by men.

I enjoy the style and really like how truly artistic this movie is. Every shot is precise and every scene is a little piece of the bigger puzzle. The metaphor with the finishing of the portrait and finding love is great and works very well. I was truly curious to see what its going to look like in the end.

But at the end i was left a bit conflicted. My issue with the film is that after a while it starts to feel a bit hollow and deprived from any direction. One one hand the story itself is worth telling and definitely has a lot of elements that deserve to be explored, but on the other i really dont think we see something we arent aware of. Here the circumstances of the story are more important than the story itself. Remove the painting process and youre left with an Impossible Romance. The subplot with the pregnancy and abortion feels very distant and somehow trivial and i feel it shouldve been more integral to the story.

One of my favorite things about the film are the visions that Noemie is getting of Adele. It shows us how original and artistic Sciamma can be with the symbolism of the story.

Overall stunning visuals with subtle, but powerful performances from the leads with a great amount of creative vision behind it.

I'm a little surprised by the negative reaction this movie is receiving from critics and audiences combined. For me personally it's an interesting exploration of the mysticism surrounding suburban life. We see a lot of defferent types of symbolism in it. The movie tries to tackle the issues of family life, parenthood and modern day working life cycle. It has a charming art style with an interesting color scheme. I accept the fact that it looks a bit corny, but for me this compliments the vibe of the movie. Eisenberg isnt doing anything special or new but that's perfectly fine with the type of character he is playing here. Poots is really pushing a dramatic performance, but in my opinion this movie is so self aware that it doesn't really need it. The performance I liked the most was that of Hardwick, who is making his first steps in the field of acting. Cold and distant, his acting made me believe he really isn't human. The climax, which so many dislike is perfectly fine for me. Of ourse the monologue of Eisenberg was stretched out and we saw his death coming a long time ago, but still the revelation that the child is a supernatural creature holding them there until their deaths worked fine for me. We got a couple of great elements and the whole atmosphere was sweet and warm. Perhaps too sweet for its own good. Nonetheless I think it's a charming little film which is executing it's tasks perfectly fine. I would surely see it again.

Little Joe is trying to explore a lot of things. It doesnt really succeed in any of them. The strained relationship between a single mom and her son, the fear that her kid might want to leave her for his dad. The placebo effect that fear can have on people. The movie aslo tries to tackled the danger of corporations playing god and underestimating the dangers their products. The production is the key feature of this film. From the visual style and the color scheme (with bright colors dominating the screen most of the time) to the beautiful camera work and set designs there are a lot of scenes that are pleasant to look at. The problem that so many people seem to have is that the story is moving rather slowly and its ultimate culmination doesnt leave us with much of a payoff for the time invested in watching it. For me slow and vague stories arent an issue in themselves. At least not necessarily. The important thing is that the flow of the story must be fitting its premise and narrative. Here we see a story that could work really well as a meditation session on the dangers of the corporate world and the development of more and more advanced technology. We often see the same shots and it seems like the movie is trying to get us to really think about what we see on screen. The issues come when we actually do it. Then we stumble upon one of the biggest problems of the film. Its desire to combine the elements of personal family drama with the otherwise cold and distant nature of its main theme. The dramatic effect seems to be completely lost in the key moments and insted of being sentimental, the movie seems quite dull. The hardships of the characters and even onscreen deaths didnt seem to have any impact on me. The music in this film is like a separate character. I didnt have issues with it. Yes, its bizarre and sometimes it can bother you, but i think this is what the movie is trying to achieve. The weird and chaotic sound are making us feel exactly as confused and exhausted as the characters in the movie. There big question we are left with in the end is not a new one. What is real and what is imaginary. I guess we cant be too critical the question itself. The problem is in the way the question is being posed. I like the way that the movie ends. In my opinion its one of the only scenes that are actually impactful in any way. In retrospection i wouldnt say this movie is a waste of time, especially if you like great visuals and awesome, creative camera work. But if you want to see a fast moving, dynamic story you will have to look somewhere else.

Il Posto is not an ambitious movie. Its told from the perspective of a regular working class boy. What it tries and ultimately succeeds at is showing us how alienating and distant the corporate world can feel. But this story is not about kafkazque alienation with bureaocracy, because at its center we see a romance between two young people. Facing the cold, gray reality of the working life, Antonietta and Domenico rely on each other to prove that love is still possible even in the grim world of tight work schedules and endless forms and papers you need to navigate around. Domenico, like everyone else in his place is trying to cope with his new life and to make the most out of it. My favorite character is the person assigned to supervise him. He is so used to the corporate life that nothing can really get to him. While Domenico faces every new thing with anxiety and fear, Portioli is relaxed and doesn't seem to take anything happening there seriously. In the end we see corporate climbing at its best, with different workers fighting for the desk at the front, which Domenico has been given. He gives his desk to a senior worker and takes the desk at the back, learning a lot about the corporate circle of life.

The main theme of the film is the mom questioning if her son is an imposter or she's just projecting her fears on the little boy. I was a bit surprised to find out that the hole from the title is actually a giant crater in the middle of the forrest. The story is very economical and simplistic with its cast, including no more than 4 characters. The capgras syndrome is the belief that one of the people that you know is actually an imitator and not the real person. It can be caused by mental illness or a brain injury. We quickly realize that there is a big scar on the forehead of our lead, which migh lead us to the second conclusion. What actually happens is that like in many other good and bad horror movies, the paranoid crazy woman, screeming at you on the street has a point. Movies like this one don't really need to rely on the horror genre to tell their stories, but they often do it with the intent of expanding their audience and avoiding the possibility of being called a misfit. Here we see a lot of that with most of the horror tropes seeming forced and out of place. The notorious kitchen fight scene is only one of them. The problem I have with the dynamic of the story is the constant desire to break it in order to achieve a wow effect. I'm perfectly fine with the vagueness of the story and the minimalistic aproach to the events happening on and off screen. The problems appear when you see the same crazy old woman, banging her head on the window, people dining in the dark and the sudden death of the crazy old woman. The many cliches that the story utilizes harm it more than they help its progress. Otherwise the film is competently shot and the direction is acceptable. The final sequence works and if it wasn't for the questionable performance of Kerslake I could've even said that I enjoyed the film. Totally colorless and vague with its plot, the hole in the ground wouldnt appeal to many, but if youre looking for a movie exploring the relationship between a mom and her son, the struggle with doubt and mental health it might be for you.

Swiss Army Man is as weird as you can get on so many levels. But at the essence of it is a broken, lost and desperate man who is just looking for love. When a body washes up on the coast just a moment before he finally kicks the bucket, he suddenly finds a friend, a boat of a sort, and later a romantic interest. Their journey takes them trough a lot of new and past experiences. A movie like this one would never work if you dont have strong actors, in the two leading roles with good charisma and professional chemistry between them. Radcliffe and Dano are doing an awesome job and seem like the perfect casting choices for the movie. With their future film debut the Daniels bet on one of the weirdest screenplays ever written. The film tries to balance between the macabre character of its premise and the idea that love could save us even in the most difficult situations. The message of the story is that we should embrace our nature and be more open minded when it comes to already established ideas about what is to be in love and to be alive. My issues with the film are the lack of diversity in the locations. Besides from the opening scene on the coast, a river crossing and of course the wonderfully edited bus scene the movie is sort of dull when it comes to its locations with dirt and trees dominating almost all of the screen time. The humorous and a bit supernatural abilities of Radcliffs body dont bother me, but i just wish that Danos character could be something more than a boy with a crush for the girl on the bus. As an experimental piece the movie is a success. Its themes of necrophilia and using the body of a death man as a vehicle and a tool angered a lot of viewers which is always a desirable characteristic for a provoking film, like this one. Ultimately i think its a fresh story, with perhaps too much comedy for my personal taste, but nonetheless a good amount of charm and good work behind it.

Greener grass is perhaps too self aware to be taken seriously. The bit with the football as a baby goes into some Adam Sandlerish teritory. On the other hand, when it works with already established ideas it's tolerable and gives an interesting spin to the kafkaesque man cockroach. The drama of the every day suburban life is one of the driving forces in this movies. Is your kid part of the rocket math club, do you have a pool (and how big it is), are you content with your life and marriage. The absurdist elements are constantly present in the film. People give away their newly born kids, everyone drives a golf cart and dogs go to school. My personal problem with the film is that its only engine seems to be how utterly bizzare it is. Even if entertaining for a while, the world that the characters live in doesn't give us a lot of reasons to be interested in it, except of course for its countless peculiarities. The serial killer subplot is supposed to be a central part of the plot, but I was barely paying attention to it. The last scene has an interesting macabre element, but it's not really enough to make it up for all of the chaos before that. The best thing about surrealism is that it gives us a different look at every day objects that we accept for normal and makes us question our own ideas about what's normal. Greener grass does that, but as a murder mystery it falls really flat.

1917 is a perfect film. It's not only captivating, moving and thrilling but it's also one of the best crafted movies ever made. My favorite things about it is how easy it is to remember all of its scenes in a chronological order. Every single scene is an element and a tool for the progression of the story. It doesn't matter if it's a crossing of a battlefield, pushing a cart or having a one on one shootouts with the enemy, it's all beautifully done and an example of how continuity should be executed. My favorite scene is the one in which we see the soldiers sitting in a big circle and listening to the Wayfarig Stranger. In this scene, one of the most touching I've ever seen our hero finally reaches the soldiers he's trying to find, but he finds that out only after the end of the song, because it's so electric that nobody really notices his presence there. The death of one of the main characters also serves as an example of a wonderfully crafted picture, because it's as sudden and realistic as none of us expect to see. Another interesting feature is the pain that the characters go through. Its constantly present on screen with characters putting their bleeding hands in a rotting corpse, being blown up, shot, beaten and chocked to death. One of my favorite things about the film is the fact that it never addresses the physical pain and the injuries that William Schofield constantly sustains. Every once in a while he sits down for a moment, touches the back of his head, which is bleeding of course and at the next moment he is back on the road. The fantastic Oscar worthy cinematography, direction and effects add the finishng touches to this timeless masterpiece.