Neiba's reviews

→ in
Tools    





The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Very good reviews, Neiba.

I'm looking forward to Interstellar. I'll probably rent it sometime soon. I admire Nolan's ambition and I like science-fiction films that are full of big ideas, which Interstellar seems to be. Not surprised to hear that the writing is a weak point, however, or that the film explains too much. Those are two issues that seem to arise in all of Nolan's work.

I plan on re-visiting Dr. Strangelove before I make my 60's list. Your review makes me more excited to do so. Hopefully some of your passion rubs off on me. I liked, didn't love, Dr. Strangelove the first time I watched it, but I caught some of it on TV a few weeks ago and found myself smiling at every scene. I think my opinion of it is going to improve with a second viewing.

I've added The Green Butchers to my watch list. Judging by your review and the fact that MovieGal recommended it to you, it must be pretty sick, but that appeals to me. I'm also a fan of Mads Mikkelson. He's a strange looking guy (and he looks ugly as a dog's a$$hole in that poster), but he's a great actor and possesses a true magnetic quality.

Keep up the good work.
Thank you for the feedback, Captain! I think you'd definitely should give Strangelove another try. And you'll probably like Interstellar, if you like Nolan! What he usually does good, on Interstellar he does better! He still doesn't correct those flaws I pointed out but it's a good film!

MM, I think the other two films I recommended were

Efter brylluppet, which I know he will enjoy and Valhalla Rising.
The first one was indeed Efter brylluppet but the second one was Elsker Dig for Evigt. I saw Valhalla Rising like 2 years ago and I liked it a lot! Though I need to rewatch it some of these days!



The first one was indeed Efter brylluppet but the second one was Elsker Dig for Evigt. I saw Valhalla Rising like 2 years ago and I liked it a lot! Though I need to rewatch it some of these days!

Yes. That is right.. I suggested that film..... the Dogme film.. .I think you will enjoy that as much as the first film..

(I actually love Dogme films)



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
All Quiet on the Western Front






This story is neither an accusation nor a confession, and least of all an adventure, for death is not an adventure to those who stand face to face with it. It will try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped its shells, were destroyed by the war...

---------------

Country: USA

Year: 1930

Directed by: Lewis Milestone

Screenplay by: Erich Maria Remarque (novel), Maxwell Anderson, George Abbott

Cast: Louis Volheim, Lew Ayres, John Wray, Arnold Lucy, Ben Alexander, Scott Kolk

---------------

All Quiet on the Western Front is the first great non-silent anti-war movie and arguably the most powerful one to date. Based on the critically acclaimed homonymous novel by Erich Maria Remarque, it portraits the transformations a young German soldier suffers during the World War I: the innocence before the war and the promise of everlasting glory, the shock with reality and the realization of his own mortality and of the hypocrisy of war and finally the return to the world away from the trenches, a world that didn’t stop to wait for him.

Full of symbolisms, violence and impressive camera work, the whole film is a cinematographic masterpiece. The viewer is placed directly in the battlefield to the point he can almost grasp the blood-soaped earth of the trenches and smell the rotten corpses in no-man’s land.

There’s two layers I can find in this movie: the first one tells us about the physical destruction endured in a war – hunger, dirt, explosions, amputations, diseases, death… The film does not try to hide the truth, war is ugly and dirty, it is constant suffering and painful.
If the first layer is strong enough to create a strong impression on the viewer, the second one is even more powerful: the psychological breakdown the soldiers experience is masterfully portrayed. The excitement turns into doubt, the doubt into disgust, the disgust into anger and the anger into complete numbness. A young promising student is gradually transformed into a soulless killing machine.

Also the acting deserves to be mentioned. The entire cast delivers stand up performances, especially Louis Wolheim and Lew Ayres who depict masterfully two generations united by war.

The only flaw I could find on this is the strong American accent on the few German words spoken, fact that can distract a bit especially on the beginning of the movie.

Overall, this is an overwhelming experience and a mandatory watch to every war film lover!




The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Nuit et Brouillard a.k.a. Night and Fog






With our sincere gaze we survey these ruins, as if the old monster lay crushed forever beneath the rubble. We pretend to take up hope again as the image recedes into the past, as if we were cured once and for all of the scourge of the camps. We pretend it happened all at once, at a given time and place. We turn a blind eye to what surrounds us and a deaf ear to humanity's never-ending cry.

---------------

Country: France

Year: 1955

Directed by: Alain Resnais

Screenplay by: Jean Cayrol

Cast: Michel Bouquet (narration)

---------------

The problem with most Holocaust films is that they portray the story as a one time only event. They make it so overly sentimental that the viewer is able to distance himself of what he's seeing and takes comfort on the idea that something like that will never happen again.

But not Night and Fog.

Alain Resnais presents the line between past and present as it really is: thinner than we think. To do that, it relies only on real footage of the concentration camps during the Holocaust and of the same concentration camps 10 years after the end of the WW II. The voice over tells us what we are seeing, making us look at all the details, never letting us off the hook. We're not supposed to feel comfortable, not even by looking at abandoned concentration camps. The fingernail scratches on the walls of the gas chambers are there. It happened and we better remember it!

The fact that it has only 30 minutes doesn't make it less powerful, on the contrary, it condenses its message into an overwhelming half an hour.

My only complain is for the soundtrack. Its complexity may get a bit distracting and almost inappropriate. Maybe some absolute silence moments could help make the message even stronger, if that's even possible.

Overall, Night and Fog is a masterpiece. The fact that my mind and my body can't disconnect of what I just seen is the first sign I just witnessed something extraordinary.





The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Per qualche dollaro in più a.k.a. For a Few Dollars More


-




I generally smoke just after I eat. Why don't you come back in about ten minutes?

---------------

Country: Italy

Year: 1955

Directed by: Sergio Leone

Screenplay by: Sergio Leone and Luciano Vincenzoni

Cast: Clint Eastwood, Lee van Cleef and Gian Maria Volonté

---------------

*it may contain spoilers*

For a Few Dollars More is the second spaghetti-western directed by Sergio Leone and the middle title of the "Dollars trilogy". It’s also his second partnership with Clint Eastwood and with Ennio Morricone, one of the most brilliant and prolific soundtrack composers of all time.

The basic plot is quite simple, but Leone takes a while to reveal it: during the first 30 minutes we are presented to Colonel Douglas Mortimer (Lee van Cleef), a quiet and clever bounty hunter specialist in long range shooting, Manco (Eastwood), also a bounty hunter who’s very quick on the trigger and with an obscure moral code, and Indio (Volonté), a twisted and ruthless bandit with a genuine relish to kill. These 3 men stories will naturally cross when Indio, helped by his gang, escapes from prison killing most of the guards what immediately puts a prize on his head, a prize that both bounty hunters want for themselves.
Manco and Mortimer eventually meet and, after a tense strength comparison, form a partnership to hunt the villain and his gang, who are in the meantime planning to rob the Bank of El Paso, said to contain a million dollars in a disguised safe.
On the center of this story are also two identical musical pocket watches, one used by Mortimer and the other one by Indio. Soon we understand that there is more than money at stake between these 2 men as the pocket watches seem to exert some kind of obsession upon their carriers.


Manco, Mortimer and Indio

For a Few Dollars More has all the advantages of not being the first major spaghetti western, being more mature than its predecessor, For a Fistful of Dollars (1964). Everyone knows now exactly how to do things: Leone has solidified his style and technique, Eastwood and Volonté are much more comfortable with their characters (Eastwood, in particular, delivers his best performance on a Leone film) and the new guy, Lee van Cleef is an amazing addition to the cast, lending his coolness and experience to this masterpiece.
Also in the acting field, it's a pleasure to watch Klaus Kinski and Luigi Pistilli as member of the gang. Small roles but huge actors!

I've already talked about Leone being more mature. In fact, it's his direction that makes of this film such a great one. From beginning to end, the tension is built at a slow yet steady pace, fitting perfectly its 2 hour length. It’s not made to be an “opera” like Once Upon a Time on the West (1968) or even The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (1965) and it’s its almost lack of grandiosity that makes this such a brilliant western. It’s hard, gritty and straight to the point and the italian director is clever enough to make of every aspect of the film perfectly tuned with his concept: the calm but relentless music of Morricone’s outstanding soundtrack, the quiet personality of the 3 lead characters, the great pacing management and the glorious cinematography and camera work create the ideal conditions to an apotheotic final duel, where the tension is stretched to an almost nauseating point, and solved with a fast and powerful explosion. And that is Leone’s secret: creating impact by contrast.


The final duel and the misterious watch.

Speaking of the final duel, the key scene of the film, again the musical pocket watches play a very important part. Indio always used the chimes from the watch to begin his duels: “When you hear the music finish, begin."
The obsession he had with that watch and the uncertainty created on his opponent of when the music would actually stop, always gave him advantage. However, Mortimer knew well the tune and had even stronger reasons to be attracted by that watch. For the first time, Indio had no initial advantage. On the other hand, Mortimer is using Manco’s gun, lighter and smaller than his own, hence faster to draw. The result is not hard to predict and yet the suspense created is breathtaking.
When it’s all over and the two bounty hunters go separate ways it’s hard not to feel a void inside, as we see Mortimer riding to the sunset perhaps not to be seen again.



Oh my God, why haven't I checked in here more often.

One of my must trusted followers write some solid reviews and I just leave him hanging? What a douche I am. Sorry, neiba. Seriously though, I looked back in the thread and realized I knew of its existence since I had repped about 2 reviews and wrote 1 or 2 comments. But that's just not enough! Step it up, MM!!!

Uh, anyways, good review of For a Few Dollars More. One of the greatest westerns ever made and possibly the best in the Dollars Trilogy. But I'll need to watch all three again, preferably on day-to-day basis so I can compare them properly.

Your review of Interstellar is spot on! I agree with everything you say. Especially the thing about "the more you think about the film, the less you like it". Rating for pure entertainment would be rather high for me, but if I have to criticize it I will give it a fairly low rating. I also agree about what you say about the script. Not good and sounds weird at times and yes, Hathaway I didn't like that much either.

I will check in more in the future, I promise, but it's so hard to keep up with all these member review threads!



Women will be your undoing, Pépé
very impressive movie choices followed with some solid reviewing.

The original All Quiet on the Western Front was one I had always wanted to actually watch and never got around to as been re-awaken severely with your review.

Reps abound!!



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Oh my God, why haven't I checked in here more often.

One of my must trusted followers write some solid reviews and I just leave him hanging? What a douche I am. Sorry, neiba. Seriously though, I looked back in the thread and realized I knew of its existence since I had repped about 2 reviews and wrote 1 or 2 comments. But that's just not enough! Step it up, MM!!!

Uh, anyways, good review of For a Few Dollars More. One of the greatest westerns ever made and possibly the best in the Dollars Trilogy. But I'll need to watch all three again, preferably on day-to-day basis so I can compare them properly.

Your review of Interstellar is spot on! I agree with everything you say. Especially the thing about "the more you think about the film, the less you like it". Rating for pure entertainment would be rather high for me, but if I have to criticize it I will give it a fairly low rating. I also agree about what you say about the script. Not good and sounds weird at times and yes, Hathaway I didn't like that much either.

I will check in more in the future, I promise, but it's so hard to keep up with all these member review threads!
Thanks man!
The fact that I don't post reviews on a regular basis is probably the reason this thread remains a bit forgotten, so my bad! I promise I'll try to write more! Though I'm not as good as you, MM!

I've been meaning to rewatch The Good, the Bad and the Ugly for quite some time and the fact I liked this one so much will probably make that happen faster. I'm curious to see which one I like the most!

very impressive movie choices followed with some solid reviewing.

The original All Quiet on the Western Front was one I had always wanted to actually watch and never got around to as been re-awaken severely with your review.

Reps abound!!
Thanks ed! You should definitely watch All Quiet!! It's in my Personal Top 10! And if you like war movies, there's one more reason!



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Joy






Don't ever think that the world owes you anything, because it doesn't. The world doesn't owe you a thing.

---------------


Country: USA

Year: 2015

Directed by: David O. Russel

Screenplay by: David O. Russel, Annie Mumolo

Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Robert DeNiro, Bradley Cooper, Édgar Ramirez

---------------

*it may contain spoilers*


Joy presents itself as an attempt of a fresh take on a very typical oscar-bait movie: the biopic. Sadly, it doesn't go beyond the attempt.

Joy Mangano (Lawrence) is a poor and overworking divorced mother of two children who lives with her disfunctional family that in addition to being completely dependant on her are also faithless on her ability to be more than a house wife that will always struggle to get some food on the table.
Despite all the negative influence, Joy's imagination and ambition are powerful and she manages to invent a revolutionary mop, which she will try to develop and sell. Despite the fact that this mop eventually turns into a success, she has to endure a path of betrayal, jealousy and corruption (starting with her own family), hardships that she will surpass (or else this would have never become a movie).

What first caught my eye (or in this case, hear) was the sountrack. Composed by some famous jazz, classical and rock-and-roll songs, the music was highly responsible for other positive features of this film: a frenetic pacing and a very light atmosphere.
These two features added to some quirky dialogues and surrealistic dream sequences and flashbacks gave this film a very interesting potential, that could have turned the very basic plot into a fullfiling experience.

However, Joy remains as flat as the synopsis would suggest.
The underdeveloped characters made impossible for any actor to perform well here. Even Joy, the title character, seemed exactly the same during the whole movie (the only reason I see possible for Jennifer Lawrence winning that Golden Globe is that she did the most what she could with almost zero material - and I don't want to believe that she was the most deserving actress of the year.)
The whole family seemed like one-dimensional caricatures of pessimistic morons, which lead to completely forgettable performances by everyone involved. There was also a very short appearance of Bradley Cooper as an executive who first believed in Joy's idea, but whose character suffers from the same problem as the rest.
There seemed to be a slightly romantic chemistry between him and Jennifer Lawrence that I found completely needless, as it lead to nowhere.
Another very distracting feature was the constant out-of-focus framing, especially on indoor scenes! Amateurish, to say the least.

Overall, I think David O. Russel tried to do something different from a biopic which is something I respect very much! The fact that he focused on a very particular moment of Joy's life, the invention of the mop, could be something he could have explored better, but in the end we are left with just that, which is kind of frustating...
To finish where I started, Joy could have been a good movie, but ends being nothing more than a typical hollow oscar bait.





The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
The Gentlemen





--------------------

Year Of Release: 2019

Directed by: Guy Ritchie

Screenplay by:
Guy Ritchie

Cast: Matthew McConaughey, Charlie Hunnam, Hugh Grant, Michelle Dockery, Jeremy Strong, Colin Farrell and Henry Golding

--------------------

There's only one rule in the jungle: when the lion's hungry, he eats!

"An American expat tries to sell off his highly profitable marijuana empire in London, triggering plots, schemes, bribery and blackmail in an attempt to steal his domain out from under him." (in IMDb)

Guy Ritchie started his career with a bang: "Lock, stock & Two Smoking Barrels" (1998) and "Snatch" (2000) defined a genre and solidified a very unique style of doing British gangster films. They were messier, faster and bolder than their American counterparts but still powered with great scripts and powerful performances.
It also created a faithful legion of fans who loved Richie's first two features enough to disregard a streak of subpar films after that and still keep looking forward to any new film he put out.

Being one of those fans, my expectations to "The Gentlemen" were still high and I sat down expecting to watch a true Guy Ritchie film, if not as good as the first two hits, at least something that could make them justice. After all, he was finally returning to the gangster genre and that was enough of a promise.

I wasn't left disappointed. The film brought back many of his traits he had seemed to forgot how to use, presenting at the same time a more mature and cleaner style.
I didn't have as much fun as with Snatch, but I felt entertained and at times drawn to that magic and filthy universe filled with violence, quirky characters, and politically incorrect racial and homophobic slurs - it's clear these are not ill intended, it's simply the world where this characters live in.

Grant, McConaughey and Hunnam convincingly exchange jabs at each other, making the most of a very tongue in cheek script with some well directed moments of drama and a few well timed twists. There are also some minor but interesting perfomances by Collin Farrell and Michelle Dockery who seem to be well positioned to have a lot more screening time in any eventual sequel this might have.

It's very satisfying to see Guy Ritchie closer to his prime! May he not lose the balance again.