Jabs at the movies

Phantom Thread
One of those films that requires multiple viewings to be completely understood and/or appreciated. As expected, the performances from the lead cast were great and the cinematography made this a very nice experience. My biggest complaint had to do with the score that was not subtle at all.

The story is refreshing -albeit not that original-, and what makes it so is the obscurity of the protagonists motives. There was one scene especially that confused me in regards to this.

Nevertheless, an enjoyable and thought-provoking film.

First They Killed My Father
I really enjoy dramas that expand into history and politics and this was a very nice effort from Angelina Jolie. It deals with the turmoil of the Cambodian people from the Khmer Rouge during the Vietnam war. Jolie's direction seemed to have borrowed a lot from well-known war films and of course from The Killing Fields which is a great film with the exact same theme. I really appreciated that the film was not in English but in Cambodian as it made the experience much more authentic.It is essentially a story about the woes of war through the eyes of a child so whether you are a fan of these types of films or not, it is something you could really enjoy.

The score was subtle and fitting and most of the performances were quite good. The effects were a bit iffy in the 1-2 scenes that they were present (in the mine fields) but that did take anything away from the experience at the end.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

@Mr Minio

@Joel It's the other way around.

Freud, Alma Mater, Hitchcock's Rebecca, are some keywords to keep you thinking about the film.

Was this meant for me?

Roman Holiday
This film has a very interesting backstory which you may be familiar with if you ever watched Trumbo. The writer was in the Hollywood blacklist at the time (accused of being a communist) so he wrote this film and credited one of his friends as the writer. He won the Academy Award and it wasn't until years later that the Academy acknowledged him as the real writer.That alone combined with the impact the movie have had in romantic comedies years later, made me watch it.

Roman Holiday is a pleasant romantic comedy of the era with a very good leading cast (Gregory Peck and Audrey Hepburn) giving solid performances. Watching it so many decades after its release will make you feel that the story is familiar and that is a testament to the influence it has had on the genre. Notting Hill is a famous example of that, as it can be viewed as a modern day remake in its core. The final scene is essentially a copied version of Roman Holiday, which to its credit chose not to give the film a typical Hollywood ending, even if the era demanded one for a lighthearted film like that.

The settings are beautiful and give you an opportunity to take a journey through Italy. Finally the comedy included has aged decently which was a very nice change of pace from the dramatic aspect of the film and Audrey Hepburns' overly dramatic performance. I guess you can say it was a combination of her being a Thespian and try to convey how the character of the princess is a little bit spoiled, but in the end it is still over-acting. Luckily this was only present towards the start of the film.

Sorry, I confused you with @Jabs.

Love and Death
I have been slowly trying to go through Woody Allen's filmography and my main complaint is that most of his films have been a carbon copy of some of his more successful work. This one was not one of them, but that didn't mean it was a good one. If you are a Monty Python fan, then you will definitely appreciate this. I am not though so I was kind of disappointed. It merely served as an excuse for Allen to throw around jokes like it was a stand up comedy through his narration, and the ridiculousness that was in every corner really threw me off. It served as a satire of czarist Russia with the usual romantic implications that accompany Woody Allen. It was lighthearted and cartoonish, so it's not meant to be taken seriously in any respect, but the comedy didn't do anything for me. On the plus side, some Bergman and Dostoevsky influences were highly appreciated, but on the whole I was just waiting for it to be over and although it's got a run time of merely 85 minutes, it seemed to me way longer than that.

You are not alone. This is a clip from my own comments re the film's pertinent section: "...To suddenly believe that Woodcock would knowingly and purposefully consume poisonous mushrooms to make himself ill in order to enter into a pact with his wife, who will then both control and take care of him, is perplexing and uncharacteristic. Putting his life in jeopardy to continuously be his wife's ward strains credulity. The scene offered the opportunity for a fine bit of acting from Day-Lewis; and in fact reportedly the idea for this came from a time when Anderson himself was sick, and his wife showed him extreme tenderness. But yet the notion that the protagonist as a self-centered monomaniacal artist who insists on obedience and complete control of all his endeavors would suddenly cede his life and well being to another is irretrievably far-fetched. Presumably Anderson must have been consumed by the story point, but since it was not lead up to with sufficient preparation, it didn't make sense."

~Doc

Concussion
I enjoy films that are based on true stories and I am always willing to give them a pass in some aspects that I wouldn't let a purely fictional story get away with. This was a decent film overall and the premise itself was potentially intriguing, but I didn't care much about the characters or the performances. Smith, who was carrying the film, seemed bland and his character seemed one-dimensional. Perhaps you need to be an American football fan to fully appreciate the impact this story had on the sport and the subsequently the film itself, but for my taste the whole thing was simply mediocre through and through. From the direction, to the cinematography and score, nothing stood out. One of those films that leaves no mark on you, and you really don't have much to discuss about it as it did not excel in any way.

Annihilation
This was one of the films I was most excited about this year. It didn't live up to my very high expectations but it was a very decent sci-fi nonetheless. The world Garland built, as well as the premise were very interesting. I also saw a lot of Kubrick influence in this (mainly from 2001), however Garland didn't succeed in my eyes in establishing the slow pace of Space Odyssey or even the parallel story-telling that Villeneuve did in Arrival, two films that seemed quite similar in structure. Isaac's casting felt like a miss, but I understand why Garland would want to give his biggest male role to an actor he has worked with in the past. Not every character is suited to be played by one actor though. Also, I would have liked to see a bit more from the mutated animals variety. The world itself opened up a lot of possibilities for wild creativity but that only came in small bursts.

Another thing that didn't feel right was that the supporting characters lacked depth. We learn just enough about them to classify them under tags like "the smart one", "the badass" etc, which is a very child-like approach. During one scene that only lasts a few seconds, we brush over their motives for joining the mission, never revisit them again, and just start killing them off. How are you supposed to care for or even understand a character if you know nothing about them? They might as well be called "girl who's about to die #1", "girl who's about to die #2" etc.

Finally the CGI was not great, bordering on mediocre at times, which is a shame since when you create a fantastical world like the one within the Shimmer, effects can make or break the experience. All in all, it was a decent film, with a lot of potential and good ideas, but the final product was nowhere near as good as I had hoped it would be.

Ready Player One
Every nerd's wet dream. Spielberg's latest film is an ode (or criticism according to some) to pop culture in all its forms. A very fun endeavor by the master of blockbusters and the man who has the lion's share of establishing much of what is today considered pop culture. The legendary director shows us at the same time, all the things we love and why we shouldn't love them that much. He provides a commentary on the past few generations and their dependence on technology, subtly letting us know that things can get out of hand.

From the score, to the dozens of references in every corner, this was like a trip back to all the things you loved from childhood to today, in a post-modern, slightly dystopian sci-fi setting. But it's a view on all the things that Spielberg (and many of us) loves with a touch of nostalgia and regret. Depending on how deep you look into the film and on which side of the spectrum you are on you can either praise it either for being a fascinating journey through decades of pop culture or it being a living criticism of it by utilizing it to perfection.

On a more shallow level, Ready Player One feels like one long video game and thus it could afford to get away with every cliche in the book.The cinematography reflects that, especially within the Oasis. Needless to say, that for every movie/music/video game fan of a certain age, this should be a highly enjoyable experience. Little things, from the odd background character that you recognized, to the reference you got, to the song you used to listen to all the time, there is between one and a million reasons to find this movie purely entertaining.

Spielberg takes a small detour from his more focused, serious work in the past few years (The BFG excluded) to remind us why he is the best at what he does: entertaining us and leaving his mark in contemporary culture.

The Cloverfield Paradox
People love interconnected film universes which is probably the only reason this got the Cloverfield title, but the connection felt a bit random. Some of the ideas that were included regarding the merging of two dimensions were very well executed (the woman inside the wall was a great example of that), but some went overboard (like the hand which brought to mind Evil Dead II). It was a surprise to see Chris O'Dowd (from the IT Crowd) in such a film, until balance was restored with his character being treated solely as comic relief.

This certainly borrowed a lot of themes from various films that take place inside spaceships but little things like the flooded chamber freezing in space or the moving walls were relatively original and refreshing to see. However, in general, the execution of most of their ideas could certainly have been done in a much better way. Even though it was probably the worst addition to the franchise, it was still watchable.

The Remains of the Day
A decent period drama with solid cast all around. I am not overly fond of these types of stories unless they have some very interesting subplot that deviates from the usual romantic element. This one didn't do so and even though it had a lot of potential taking place during WWII and including the nazi regime, it did not feel like this plot was given any importance. Hopkins' apathy towards this reflects the obedient nature of his character but it transmitted this to the audience making it feel like these events were not as important. Instead the focus was heavily on the romance between him and Emma Thompson's character.

You can appreciate this type of film for the good performances, the well designed settings and costumes and the score which fits the tone of the film quite well. I have been told that it is very similar to Downton Abbey, so that is something that might draw more people into to it.

War Machine
Presenting itself as a satire on America's wars in the Middle East in general and Afghanistan more specifically, this Brad Pitt film promised a lot of laughs. Goofy Pitt is fun indeed and the jokes on the first half of the film was very much on point. However, the second half takes itself a bit more seriously and delivers some of those patriotic cliches, which although they are inserted to be parodied, are presented more seriously that they should. Subsequently there is an abrupt change in tone and after that point, the film tries to deliver some obvious messages in an even more obvious way.

There is one very nicely done scene, when a soldier goes rogue and walks towards a target in the middle of a village, but it was quite brief, and the outcome of the scene lands you back to reality fairly quickly. The direction is nothing to write home about and the whole experience seemed bland. Overall, this was slightly worse than I had anticipated. Perhaps if it kept the momentum it had built over the first half, it might have been better.

Wow, you were a little rough on this movie.

Why? 7/10 is a pretty solid rating in my book. It means I enjoyed the film, I just wasn't crazy about it.

Plus, the only negative thing I said about it was that Hepburn went a bit overboard with her performance at the beginning of the film.

Death Note (2017)
In a world where the anime did not exist, this would have been a decent movie. Cramming so many hours of character development and story into a movie was always going to be a nearly impossible task, let alone trying to do it in less than 100 minutes. As a result, this adaptation glossed over many important parts of story and the final product was highly disappointing.

Wolff's performance as Light is pretty bad, as he never really exhibited the true intelligence of his character. Dafoe's voicing of Ryuk was good enough for me, but the effects used to portray him were a let down. This was pretty much as bad as I had expected from the moment I heard that they were making. It was always going to be an uphill battle though, so you can't blame them too much....or can you?