Movie Tab II

I can't believe you actually watched it and liked it. It's one of my favourites of the 50s!!!

I love how even though Isou tries to turn cinema into a radio play, he still comes up with one of the most striking visuals of the 50s, namely to quote him:

This quote is one of the most powerful ever:

Such a contrarian!!!

Make sure to watch another lettrist masterpiece Has the Film Already Started?. Sadly, no English subtitles are available, but I wrote a review of the movie here.

__________________
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.

What makes it so unbelievable?

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Django Unchained



A slave is assisted by a German bounty hunter in pre civil war southern United States to recoup his wife from her evil owner. In the process he undergoes a transformation from a naive slave to a vigilante.

Quentin Tarantino after Pulp Fiction has realized that he cannot top the movie as long as his subsequent movies are set in modern time period. So he made kill bill movies in a hyper revenge filled setting, Inglourious Basterds set in world war 2 and this movie during slavery America. He is continuing to do that til date with all his movies. That obviously forces to increase the budget. Sets have to be built. So his movies have lately become more and more epic in scale. But still his storytelling is low budget. So you can always see all the money being spent on production budget but not in any other department.

One of the most frustrating things about the legacy of Tarantino is that his directorial style has prevented any other filmmaker from making any kind of controversial creative movies and get huge exposure during awards season. If the topic is controversial then filmmakers are forced to stay close to truth with very little creative liberties in story telling almost restricted to a documentary style filmmaking. Movies like Detroit , Zero dark Thirty , all Paul Green grass movies are examples of such movies. They almost feel like a text book brought to life. One might ask, why can't a director make a movie about Bill Clinton scandal and take creative choices in a cinematic way ? Well, he/she can do that but the the reception of the movie will be different and they must operate on a micro budget and the movie will be on the brink of releasing straight to VOD. So, forget about awards campaign its hard for the movies to even get a proper release. For example, there is movie coming up about Charles Manson called Charlie Says. Its made by a low profile filmmaker and the movie doesn't even have a release date and a distribution. So the odds of the movie making a splash at oscars is almost zero. It could be the quality of the movie but more often than not it does have something to do with the people involved. Its easy to convince an industry to rally behind a filmmaker with a unique voice than a filmmaker who made an awesome movie but somehow his/her style is not that unique. Industry is always inherently looking for unique voices.

Quentin Tarantino movies are always on the right side of controversy and that is the side that makes money off controversy. The other side looses money. People referred to this script as "hot potato" but I don't see it that way. Yes, the movie puts us right in the racist south. Yes, there are lot of curse words, but Tarantino takes each step with extreme caution in order not to make decisions that are insensitive. These are the main instances. He films black character's pain in a much more somber tone where as he enjoys racist white characters getting killed. He shows Klan members but portrays them as dumb illiterates. So, when they use offensive language we are more concerned with laughing at their stupidity and not even paying attention to the kind of language they use. So no one would look at Klan and think they are cool after watching this movie. Even the profession of Christoph Waltz character gives him cover and to Jamie Foxx Character to kill the bad people with no retaliation from people surrounding them. Because he is a bounty hunter. The movie is almost like a legend in pre-civil war south and will be told as camp fire or bed time stories to inspire slaves to rebel against their oppressors. The German bounty hunter sort of acts as a conduit for white guilt. Because , throughout the movie all the white people we witness are racists. So audience need a white person so that he has the social currency to take this slave into places where he otherwise would not be allowed.At the same time its a reminder to white people that their whole race is not racist and that its just the southern Americans that are racists. He is cleverly playing a logical and diplomatic tactic to not offend Oscar voters if he actually goes there.

The movie is basically following this weird tone in which it makes you laugh at bad guys when they say something offensive instead of laugh with them. That makes Tarantino go Scott free with all critics. The tone you set in a movie forces audience to re-calibrate their evaluation scale.As I pointed out earlier, the better scenes in the movie take place indoor. Most of the outdoor shots are either montages or violent scenes.The ruse in the movie mainly involves tricking a slave owner to give up his slave as a token of good faith for the future Mandingo sales business both parties might be involved in. I get that the slave owners would be pissed if they knew that their slave has a husband and that they are willingly giving her freedom. But the ruse to get her as a token of good faith for future businesses and not make a business deal then and there is kind of a weird logic to begin with. Django and his German bounty hunter friend were never gonna pay the ridiculous amount for the slave fighter. But they were gonna take the female slave first with them and then pay the whole sum once they get the mandingo fighter examined and see him fit which according to their plan is never going to happen. I am not sure why anyone would assume that that proposition don't give anyone pause. Even on a business level. You take the female slave with you only when you pay for the whole package. Even the way in which the ruse is exposed by the house slave is very circumstantial. Although giving credit where its due, the scene was meant to be much more demented than logical. Betraying your own kind or self hatred of your race or the idea of joining the enemy if you can't beat them on a morale level is brilliant multi-layered writing from Tarantino.

Let's talk about casting shall we. This movie made some news during casting when Will Smith turned down the lead role and Jamie Foxx was eventually replaced him. On a much more obtuse level this can be considered as an actor knowing his skill set or boundaries and not wanting to cross them just so he can rely on someone else's skill(aka Tarantino) to achieve success. Because at the end of the day the movie is as good as the director. So,even though you feel the part not right for your career/image just because director thinks you are fit for the role and the movie may be a success does not mean you need to take the role. After seeing the movie I can see that the character of Django comes to his own only at the end of the movie. Until then he is more a follower and silent learner , which is understandable. But the irony of the movie is the movie is about slavery and a legend and its title character is black. However at the end of the movie and during awards season, all you can notice is the white actors in the movie. Which is weird to be honest. Jamie foxx has nothing to chew on in the script. Most of the movie is revolving around the white characters. So , even though will smith exercised his ego in deciding whether or not to take on the role, I can see why he didn't take it ultimately. If he took on the role, he just had to let others chew scenery when he is on screen and see them walk away with awards. Let's speak about Christoph waltz role. His role is very weird in terms of its reception. It's basically an apologist role. It's there to give comfort to audience. This is one of those instances when an actor is just lucky that he was offered a role written for him and that fits him perfectly. Many times even though a director and writer says that they wrote a role for an actor it does not fit the actor. But Tarantino is too talented for that and he is a master at casting his roles. So Waltz won awards for being right fight for a very good role in a very good script. Compare that with McConaughey in Dallas buyers club or christian bale in any role. They have to work twice as hard to get the same amount of recognition for their work. Casting Samuel L Jackson is spot on. It had to be familiar yet evil. Someone who is so in denial of his own existence that he thinks he is white. Its a fascinating character and it sort of explores the mindset of some people irrespective of race who hate their own kind and have a misplaced sense of inspiration to be better. You don't have to hate your roots to be a better person. You need to accept yourself and build on it. Because your DNA is not going to change just because you hate yourself.

The least inspired casting in the movie is that of DiCaprio. He is cast because Tarantino needed 100 million $ budget to make this movie on an epic scope. There is no other tested and proven actor who can bring that kind of money to the project. Moreover he tries damn bloody hard. He chews on scenery in a rather awkward manner. He always reminds you that he is trying hard to make an impression. Trying hard to trick you into thinking that he is a great actor. Its a sense of desperation for approval. And since he is a sought after movie star he must have some gift and his gift seems to be an infinite supply of desperation to almost non-human levels. No person can put on an act to convince others to take him seriously like the way he does it for that long. His gift is not great acting, his gift is to create the illusion that he is a great actor. For a 15 yr old movie fan in Italy, what does he know what great acting is ? all he knows is if an extremely good looking movie star is screaming and shouting at the top his lungs and chewing scenery then that's great acting. Usually in a mediocre or bad movie by a little known director these kind of things will be called out by critics as overacting and the movies will be dismissed. But when you have directors like Scorsese or Nolan or Tarantino making awesome movies then even the most over the top performances are forgiven because the movies are just damn bloody good. In a world where mediocre performances are given awards just because they are well written in an awesome movie how are we to expect that a scenery chewing, approval seeking over acting performance will be called out ? it's never gonna happen. So, he has been camouflaging his inferior acting skills from criticism with his collaborations and box office star power post Titanic fame.

I would however give the movie a praise for its interesting script. It deals with a sensitive topic while pursuing a goal of achieving critical and financial success. In the end it achieves its goal.

Gate of Hell (1953) -








Machiko Kyo is the ideal of a Japanese woman. The colourful costumes (that won the movie an Oscar!) are almost as breathtaking as her. The film might seem retrograde by today's standards (after all it portrays 12th century!), but beautifully talks about love and sacrifice.

Toni Takitani (2004) -



To paraphrase a classic (you won't get it anyway): A sad movie about sad people and their sad lives. The free-flowing form (my favourite!) really adds to the experience, with the calm voice of the narrator and Sakamoto's beautiful score. A heartbreaking study of loneliness.

Seisaku's Wife (1965) -



I had hoped I could follow those two masterpieces with another pair of exceptional films. I was wrong. To quote a RYM user: "Seisaku's Wife is sooo good yet sooo flawed.". The cinematography is very good, so is Ayako Wakao who's more beautiful than ever. The story is fine, but it has some dissonances in its melodramatism and failed to truly move me. I'm truly mad at myself for not liking it more.

The Straits of Love and Hate (1935) -



A subpar Mizoguchi again, but this time it's forgivable given it's an earlier film. The feminist story might be progressive, but also annoying and not that interesting. His 1936 films were just as feminist and much better!

It's a relatively obscure and "hard to get" movie. It's avant-garde, experimental, abrasive....

Minio trying to find a nice way to say "I'm impressed any time someone's taste is as good as mine."

If this were true, then I couldn't be surprised at all. Ever.

I already like avant-garde stuff so this one wasn't so hard to get (if anything, it may well be a little too straightforward for its own good). I'm just disappointed that you assumed I wouldn't get it for whatever reason.

An Enemy of the People

That's right, zero stars. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. There is a reason this film was buried.

Mission Impossible : Fall out



Let me catch my breathe before explaining the plot summary. A rogue group of international terrorists decide to release a nuclear bomb that wipes out some of the most densely populated countries in the world. The mission is to stop them while bringing the culprits to justice.An old enemy rises in the process.

A funny thing happened in January this year. I was made aware that Tom Cruise broke his ankle while doing stunts. Then I was told that its during shooting of mission impossible movie. Then it donned on me "ooh this is a marketing strategy". As release date approached sure enough the promotion revved up about the movie and the main selling point is Tom Cruise doing his stunts in fights , helicopters and jumps. Not one mention about the plot or acting. Of course no one comes to these movies for plots. But my point behind bringing all this stuff up is to highlight a new kind of marketing strategy for movies. You see, mission impossible is not a superhero franchise. Tom cruise is not as attractive or as much of a box office draw as he once was. Once upon a time even when he puts out movies like few good men or last samurai type ambitious movies, people would flock to the movies. Now he needs to rely on international audience who are loyal for most part. But even then, a movie with close to 200 million budget needs to rely partially on domestic audience.

One of the few kinds of movies that make money apart from franchise movies are prestige ambitious epics. There is no specific genre to them. They can be action movies or thriller or historical epics. But these kind of movies once in a few years or sometimes in the same year make between 300-600 million dollars.Examples are the Martian , the Revenant, Wolf of Wall Street, gravity,great Gastby, Dunkirk etc. The sales pitch for those movies often involves some kind of track record. If you like the movies from this actor or this genre or this director then come check this movie out. This is very hard to build or even next to impossible. Because you need at least 3 or 4 films under your belt that audience like and then you can use this sales pitch.A director who is in the process of achieving that status is Denis Villeneuve.With this movie's sales pitch more so that before it became obvious that tom cruise is pitching this movie more as an intense adrenaline filled theatrical experience as opposed to a fun action movie. Basically he is pitching this movie as a Nolan-Esque cerebral movies like Interstellar or inception with spy aspect played up. Because the film makers are too smart to realize that inception had dreams , interstellar has space travel and this movie should have spy aspect high lighted to distinguish itself. One disadvantage this movie have is that it can never be the ambitious never-before-seen experience most of the above movies were . We have seen even in the same franchise these kind of stunts. But Tom Cruise is trying to let audience know that he is giving what they are expecting from a tom cruise movie by leaps and bounds.

Coming back to the movie. The stunts in the movie are exceptional as usual. But most importantly the close ranges in which the camera was placed during action scenes highlights the craft and skill it took to pull those off. The Halo jump was shot up close because when the real actor is doing the stunt then why not make sure audience knows its him and sees it. Same with helicopter scenes. The movie had action set pieces at 3 main locations. One in France which has halo jump and building jumps ans street chases. The other two are in a snowy mountains and in a men's bathroom. The fights are bare knuckle and the stunts are realistic. One of the interesting aspects of the movie is its use of suspension of disbelief. Thats long been a staple in this franchise. People already have their guards down when it comes to mission impossible movies in terms of suspension of disbelief. One of which is "Tom Cruise never gets hurt no matter the fall or accident". In this movie at the end they address that to certain extent. But in almost all action scenes in the movie there is certain artificiality in the set up of those scenes. In a weird way it feels like the filmmakers started working on this movie with action set pieces and then came up with the script to connect those set pieces. They decided they needed a dark knight-esque action scene in the streets of Paris as opposed to Chicago in the dark knight and a helicopter chase in the snowy mountains. The women are all so ******* beautiful even a female cop who has a brief moment with tom cruise and not to be weird but she looks like a cop from a porn movie.So, there is certain amount of artificiality to all of this. It does play with multiple layered identity reveals and mask usage and all that.That is the third best aspect of the movie after set pieces. But the main twist falls flat and can be seen miles ahead.

The most impressive aspect of the movie that is very unique to this franchise is its cinematic representation of the "impossible". You see, in the spy genre that is mostly dominated by this and bond franchise there are some commonly used tropes namely seduction of women/beautiful women , exotic locations and lead character staying cool. They changed it up a little bit with Daniel Craig in bond franchise to give emotional depth. But his facial features , eye color and hair color sort of made his character hard to connect for audience. But Tom Cruise is a star for reason. His dark hair and looks make him attractive universally. So audience can empathize with his characters. From 4th movie in this franchise I started seeing scenes where Tom Cruise is relentless in getting some McGuffin and he acts like a guy who is just as confused and unsure of himself as the audience member but still tries his best to get it. Dialogues like "I don't know how to do it but I will figure it out" are indication of the vulnerable side of the spy that only Tom Cruise can bring out. There is a scene in this movie towards the end where the relentlessness of tom cruise's character in pursuit of something despite hurting himself and barely outdoing his opponent is the essence of this franchise. Tom cruise can sell the vulnerable side of bond more honestly than Daniel Craig.On another note the links with some characters from previous movies are brought up in this movie and the emotional weight of those scenes is missing. They tried to make this mission much more than it is by tying it up with other things from other movies and those elements felt out of place, But I was impressed with the movies decision to doubling down on the confusing plot of this franchise. Even the from first the movie with exception of 2 this franchise has been criticized for having over convoluted plots but I think its the decision of tom cruise to keep it as a signature element of this franchise despite criticism. Its almost like a heightened version of spy genre with double agents and stuff. The team members exist to brag about Tom cruise's character and are basically a representatives of audience in the movie.

So I would recommend this movie for set pieces and action and most importantly instant gratification of spy elements. You just have to enjoy a scene for what it is and then forget about it because next scene will be something similar. You can't try and connect the last scene with this scene and then the whole movie because its not meant for that kind of viewing. Thats breaks the logic of the movie. As much as I wanna say this is a dumb inconsequential action movie, this movie does have some very unique and awesome scenes and scenarios. It does suffer a little from action overload. There is just a little too much of action for me.

American Hustle



A couple of con artists are forced by an FBI agent to trap politicians willings to take bribery in exchange for freedom. This movie is more about the various characters involved in the movie and less about the con itself.

This movie came into my radar during 2016 oscars when I realized that there was a similar competition between bale and DiCaprio's movies in 2014 oscars as well. Back in 2013-14 I was not much of a behind the scenes guy. I was a fan of Bale and DiCaprio. So like many of my friends,I went to the movies and saw wolf of wall street and enjoyed it. I felt bad for him that he went to jail. Ironically I did not watch American hustle until 2016.So I had to watch the movie first and then browse the internet and went through the news articles and videos of awards and interviews and think pieces to get an idea of what it must have been during that season. After getting a gauge of audience and critical response here is what I found. The critical community very much liked the movie in general. But as it started dominating the nominations and winning ensemble awards at critics choice and screen actors guild awards the movie slowly went mainstream. People started talking about it in the same breath as wolf of wall street. A movie with awards nominations and 50 million gross worldwide is not a mainstream movie. Most people don't tune into oscars season to see what movies were nominated. They tune into to see if the movie they liked or anticipating is nominated for an Oscar or winning it. Occasionally some movies catch fire during the season but if your movie don't catch fire during the season then the Oscar night is not going to give you a 100 million $ bump. So American Hustle went mainstream as a cool movie. Since it made more money domestically than wolf of wall street, its treated as a heavy weight. Reaction from certain mainstream critics and fanboy critics is that the movie is a mild Scorsese ripoff and it doesn't pack any punch. So by the end of the season people who loved it stay loving it. But people who were skeptical about the buzz but watched it to see for themselves or people who didn't like it ,branded it as overrated. If this was a movie aiming at 60 yr olds or it made 40 million worldwide no one would have cared.

So what is the reason behind this backlash from a certain group of audience ? The answer to this question will work as review for the movie. The movie is very layered. Every character has multiple motivations and is selfish. No character in the movie is this all-intelligent and charismatic leader. So the consequences are not life or death. No person you root for is going to jail. You are not even rooting for the lead characters. Christian bale character is the living example of sleazy. He is not attractive to young teenage movie going audience. Amy Adams is not hot enough. Jennifer Lawrence is not exactly popular with teenage or younger male audience. Her fans are teenage girls who look themselves in her because of their own insecurities. Bradley Cooper is also partially repugnant in his desperation and stupidity. So, audience have no one to root for. Compare that to fanboy sensation wolf of Wall Street. It is very elemental. It is a story that travels internationally. Its a success story. This is a guy who starts with nothing and suddenly starts building company and he knows what to say to people and others are amazed by his skills. Which young 15 yr old wouldn't want to be the popular kid in college ? He steals other guys girlfriend and who doesn't want to do that. Moreover the consequences are very very exaggerated. Whenever sex or nudity or drugs or blood or cops or jail time is involved the audience get this adrenaline rush. But all these has to be elemental. The characters have to be two dimensional to sell the movie. You can't have a guy regretting doing drugs in the middle of doing drugs. All these are fanboy stuff. Fanboys love badass roles. Thats the reason people felt deeply about this movie. Its the staying power of the movie. If everyone goes about their lives and one guy doesn't get what he wants but he is still a freeman then where is the fun in that ? if a guys uses drugs and takes his daughter away and crashes his car and bleeds, then that stays with you.

And then we have critics, mostly older than 50 yr old critics who are not hip and buttoned up mostly British. They come into a movie with lot of preconceived notions. They go to a Scorsese movie to praise him and they go to a non-auteur movie to try and identify which styles they copied from auteurs. Its like blood bath during awards season. They try and deny the glory of the movie to filmmakers. I just wish they are more open minded to adding more directors to their "auteur " list. In the end the movie works. The threats feel much more real and less cinematic. This filmmaking is harder to do than Scorsese did with wolf of Wall Street. There is this sense of over acting and over doing to get a reaction. If I kill a baby on screen, I can get a reaction but that doesn't mean its earned. If killing a baby is your way of attracting audience attention then thats called cheap thrills. Christian bale's performance in this movie is far better than DiCaprio's in wolf of wall street. He just screams and shouts and overacts but christian bale gives a nuanced subdued performance. Basically Bale's role is to play an un-intimidating character. Someone who seems harmless and without any schemes. Compare that to the guy from American psycho or the fighter. It is a vastly different range. But one problem with bale is that he is not able to carry the whole movie. Something like there will be blood has Daniel day lewis carrying the whole movie. Even DiCaprio can't carry the whole movie except in wolf of wall street. So somehow bale has to be able to find roles where he can carry the whole movie. Because if anyone knows who christian bale is then one of if not the favorite movie performance of them would be American psycho. Thats one of the movies where he did carry the whole movie. It is interesting why he is not choosing roles where he can chew the scenery like DiCaprio. Because he will be crowd favorite during Oscar season if he does that. Because Oscar race is something where your performance should transcend the move you are in no matter what. Even if your movie is good, your performance should be better. Otherwise your performance will run out of gas the moment nominations are announced. People will start discrediting your performance for even worthy of a nomination, Its really disturbing how vile people can be during that Oscar season.

Jennifer Lawrence for some reason felt out of place and overacting. I am not really sure what critics like about her. Recently I heard an audio interview of Mel Gibson where in he explains the truth about Hollywood. In it he talks about how critics and industry insiders love fresh meat. They will pamper them with rewards and awards if they are directors or actresses or average looking male actors. Slowly things will take a turn because they are no longer fresh meat . DiCaprio is well aware of that. So is Christian bale. The slower the climb the harder to fall. The faster the climb the harder the fall. Thats the reason why actresses are washed up after 35 because their rise is too fast. I think David O Russell movies need to have real elemental and much more strong consequences in his movies. A break up is not something that will travel continents. But a drug overdose will travel continents. Movies need to be dark and funny. And most importantly the lead character needs to be charismatic and good looking. I think masses are attracted to charismatic leads than ugly leads in the movies. Even the drama going crowd. Screaming is great acting according to majority of movie fans. It is such a sad state of affairs. They mock transformations and makeup and period pieces because audience know nothing about skills needed to make movies.

This movie is awesome in the sense that its great entertainment. But the unfortunate thing is the movie never sticks with you. You don't feel emotional about any characters and even the set design in the movie is not something you wanna visit. It is a little cheap looking for its ambitions. The actresses are not bombshells. They are just good looking. Its lacking hyper realism. Its lacking the adrenaline filled rush that can appeal to 15 yr olds. You just have to appreciate christian bale for his weight gain but his character is not someone women wanna sleep with, he is more of a provider than a lover. He supports family. If christian bale looked like he did in The dark knight and the shouted and screamed a lot with full head of hair then the movie might have some teenage fanbase.

Olive Kitteridge (2014) -



Not really a film, but a four part miniseries that would have been a film if it weren't built like a miniseries. It's the construction that doesn't make it a film. But semantics aside, the film starts in a somewhat goofy manner with an annoying sweet idiot character of Denise and seemingly predictable plot involving her and a mature husband of eponymous Olive - Henry. The film is unpredictable, though, and even though certain traits are easy to decipher or foretell, the final outcome always leaves you with something new. A new insight, or thought. Apparently McDormand is the most perfect actress for roles of rancorous, unyielding mature women.

Borinage (1933) -



A short documentary about the misery of miners' lives in Belgium. Of course, capitalism if the root of all evil and the only salvation is Marxism.

The Golem: How He Came Into the World (1920) -



Been a while since I've seen a German Expressionism film, and even though this is nowhere near as good as the best in the movement, it's still a ravishing experience. The flower and final scenes are poetic!

Where the Wild Things Are (2009) -



I wasn't sold on this. I get the meaning behind it, but I simply didn't care about all those weird creatures with ADHD. The film failed to grab me and I found it unappealing. I guess it was too fast-paced and hysterical for my taste.

71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance (1994) -



Slowly descending into the nihil! Deconstruction of a baleful day at the bank and everything that led to it. Cold observation with no answers. The fragments of the film are much easier to put together than several pieces that make up a cross, but the great unknown is what lies below.

Young and Innocent (1937) -



Subpar Hitchcock. So prolix the Polish reader had a hard time keeping up with actors' fast talking. Splendid tracking shot that ends on a blackface.

A Pure Formality (1994) -



A chamber room film, a display of Depardieu's and Polański's acting artistry, a great exercise in atmosphere building, and finally - an impossible-to-predict ending.

Queen Kelly (1929) -



Erich von Stroheim must've been one of the unluckiest directors ever. This is an unfinished film, and more than half of it had not been made, but what had been made is a madly well-shot harlequinesque melodrama starring the unbelievably charming Gloria Swanson. Norma Desmond was right. It's the pictures that got small.

Let the Corpses Tan (Hélène Cattet and Bruno Forzani, 2017) -

The fact that I liked this considerably more than Cattet and Forzani's last two features suggests one of two things - either they have just improved that much or that spaghetti/acid Western action is a better fit for their aggressively stylish approach than the giallo horror of their previous features. It could even be both. In any case, I enjoyed this quite a bit.

Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (Danny Steinmann, 1985) -

Finally hitting a noticeable low with this franchise that cranks up the original's POV-heavy angle to absurd new heights with very little to offer in the way of new variations.

The Rider (Chloé Zhao, 2017) -

A narratively uncomplicated but emotionally potent indie drama about a young rodeo rider as he deals with the aftermath of a potentially career-ending injury. The down-to-earth choices of amateurs playing fictionalised versions of themselves and focusing on the quietly devastating minutie of its protagonist's external and internal life both make for a solid piece of work.

Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI (Tom McLoughlin, 1986) -

I know there's not a whole lot of variation among Friday sequels but as of writing this is probably the best of the ones I've seen so far. A welcome upgrade from part five that creates a good mix of silly, nasty, and engaging.

Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (John Carl Buechler, 1988) -

Ehh, this is kinda enjoyable in that it adds a sufficiently crazy novelty in the form of a Carrie-like psychic girl who crosses paths with the latest round of Jason fodder, but yeah, I'm not exactly big on this one.

Winchester '73 (Anthony Mann, 1950) -

From what I've seen so far, Anthony Mann has proved a rather dependable director, especially in collaboration with James Stewart. This is no exception with its concise tale centred around the eponymous weapon changing hands for better or worse.

The Chaser (Na Hong-jin, 2008) -

A disappointingly rote race-against-the-clock thriller where an ex-cop must prove a serial killer's guilt while attempting to rescue his latest victim. Despite showcasing the kind of morally grey darkness one has come to expect from past couple of decades of Korean crime dramas, it's still an underwhelming piece of work.

You Were Never Really Here (Lynne Ramsay, 2017) -

The extremely archetypal story of a soldier-of-fortune rescuing defenceless victims from evil people gets a much-needed variation through a combination of both the material's subversive approach to such a tried-and-true subject, Ramsay's distinctive direction resulting in something much more than just simple power-fantasy catharsis, and Joaquin Phoenix turning in one of his better performances as a truly broken warrior.

Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (Rob Hedden, 1989) -

While there is the novelty of the (relatively brief) relocation of the action from Crystal Lake to Manhattan Island, this currently rivals part five for my least favourite Friday... so far.

Tampopo (Juzo Itami, 1985) -

Never watch this movie without some food nearby - such is the power of its food-centric Western parody that uses the classic lone-drifter-helps-town kind of plot as the backbone for a series of vignettes that all work to celebrate food in ways that are weird, wonderful, or both.

Miami Vice



A Michael Mann-esque re-imagination of popular 80's TV show Miami Vice. Only now we have a wannabe huge blockbuster star and an actor coming off best actor Oscar win that the industry want to be a box office star.

Initially I gave it a 4 star rating but when I saw the budget of the movie to speak about box office performance I had to reduce the rating. Michael Mann was in his peak form in the 90s. Not with Oscars but in terms of making memorable to semi memorable movies. Last of the Mahicans , Heat, Man-hunter, insider and it even bled through into early 2000s in Ali and Collateral. For the most part his movies are about manly men doing manly things. But one of the things I like about his movies are that he most certainly is an auteur. There is no doubt about it. He is an auteur. He has a very specific style and an eye for shooting a movie and it not only transcends genres from corporate thriller to crime thrillers it also transcends time periods like in public enemies. That's a very hard thing to do even for some of the great directors. Because your directing style has to be so specific and strong for movie buffs to kinda remind them of you whenever they see particular scenes.

But the problem with Michael Mann from the get go is that he is not a commercially viable director. His style has two major disadvantages and both have to be opposite to each other in a successful business model of movie making. His style of directing is not commercial. Its very heightened reality but without the epic scope to it. He can't capture the epic scale of the movie with his directorial style. And the other disadvantage is that he need huge budgets. For him its all about trying to make unrealistic scenarios feel real. So his directorial style forces the epic scale of the movie to be underplayed. He basically doesn't wanna show off the budget of the movie. In this movie there are sets and shots in the movie that must have costed millions to realize but he just focuses on one character. So he just spend 10 million to realize a background that he is never gonna use. There is scene in this movie with a shipping container which takes place for couple of minutes. All they had to do to reduce the expenses is to shot it on a container that is anchored to the harbor. But the director needed few wide shots for fraction of seconds and and some establishing shots.That jumps the budget. There are long tracking shots of private jets transporting drugs traveling through the clouds , over the fields and landscapes. All these will cost pretty penny. But I don't think I have any movie where a flight have been shot like that. It almost feels like they drove a helicopter into the clouds and waited for the plane to fly by in the clouds to shoot it. The movie was low on action and high on style. The action when takes place is way too confusing and realistic. You feel the gun fires and you know that's the real sound an actual gun makes but for some reason you are not interested in the scene that much.

The plot basically starts with an undercover operation cover getting blown resulting in the death of the family of an undercover agent and himself. The teammates of the guy try to infiltrate the drug trade business as drug traffickers. Their secret identities were set up by government with fabricated track records of crime. The resulting story involves successfully transporting drugs into american border once and then a unsuccessful drug trade involving lot of causalities on both sides. The problem with the story is that they do way deep into drug trade way too fast. They meet the actual boss of the operation even before their first transaction. There is a love story between Colin Farrell character and an Asian business woman. Which obviously makes the things complicated but nonetheless she holds no emotions for him. The kidnap of Jamie Foxx girlfriend and the ensuing circumstances is well done but nothing exceptional. Nothing happens in the movie except few bad guys getting killed and few "tense" moments of men proving their guts. When you are spending 100+ million on a story it better be worth it. Its simple logic. If you want to spend 100 million on a movie then it has to be one of these a) It should have mass appeal or b) It should be a movie worthy of awards. When your movie is very realistic looking then you are going against point a and when you have sex scenes and gratuitous butt shots then you are dropping point b. Then who is this movie for ? Are you expecting Colin Farrell and Jamie foxx to put butts on seats ? they have no blockbuster track record. So this movie needed a miracle to recoup its 135 million $ budget even before production began. That is a very bad business decision by producers and the actors who signed on to the movie.This is not the first time Michael Mann has been through this. Except heat , collateral and last of Mahicans(to some extent) all his other movies have been financial disappointments. Insider and Ali can be considered bombs.These kind of movies can be considered as uncalculated and stupid risks. The movies should leave an impressive on audience if 135 million $ is thrown at them. Even if your auteur style is non commercial it will hurt the box office of the movie.

Having said all that, the movie does have a twist which is a surprise for characters in the movie but not for us.So I think the investment on this movie is a bad investment. It almost feels like a movie which is style over substance. The actors really are not doing much. So its not even a performance piece. Its just there. I hope movies like upcoming Ford v Ferrari by James Mangold takes a leaf from this movie on how to avoid the trappings of a genre or type of movie and give audience a cerebral experience. Audience don't just wanna see normal things and be forced to do work for themselves while watching a movie. They need the director to do stuff that is easy and complex at the same time. Creativity over attention to detail. Detail can be included but only till the point of making it look smart. You don't have to create controlled chaos with no fun. A lot of scenes in this movie are building up to something with no pay off. You need pay off. This movie could have been told for 40 million but director needed 135 million. He spent money on sets for shots that don't even last 5 seconds. Sets are not even building upon existing sets. They are completely new sets. All in all this movie is really a cautionary tale. This movie misses the cool factor and adrenaline factor. Audience will give you their attention for 5-10 in every scene. If the scene doesn't hook you up then you are lost. If there are 10 such scenes in a movie then the movie will not be liked ultimately. I think James Mangold is smarter in this area than Michael Mann because he knows what sells and what doesn't. Its just that his biggest success is based on comic book. So, will he transcend the genre like Nolan as a box office draw ? I don't know but we will have to wait and see.

(1981, Boorman)





It had been quite some time since I had seen this old favorite. As a kid, I watched this thing constantly when it was on HBO etc. back in the early 80s. I recall being sort of let down by the initial DVD release back when it first came out, so I never really took the time to revisit it after the initial DVD viewing. It was sort of a rough transfer and the sound mix was off in some odd ways. This Saturday, I used VuDu's disc-to-digital service to upgrade my DVD to HDX in the cloud, and fired it up. This was probably the best level of quality at which I had ever seen this film. It was magnificent! This film is perfectly cast, and it maintains an aura of enchantment and magic for the entire run time. Nigel Terry is perfect as King Arthur, and Nicol Williamson's Merlin is the best version of the character, hands down. I had remembered the film fondly, but this viewing really brought home how timeless and excellent it really is. Sliding this into my favorites list, at least for a while.


Milius, 1982





This was another favorite back in the day, around the same time period. Sadly, although it is still fun, it hasn't held up as well over time, mostly due to a couple of poor actors, especially Sandahl Bergman as Valeria, rendering the movie sort of cringe-worthy and awkward in places. Some of the battle scenes seem rather quaint, as well. That said, the film still has plenty going for it, including the always-excellent thematic score and some strong cinematic story-telling.


McTiernan, 1987





Continuing with the old favorites theme, I fired up this legendary Arnold classic. What a blast. This thing hasn't aged a day, and like Excalibur, the cast is pretty much perfect.Still the most bad-ass collection of ass-kickers in the genre, perhaps only rivaled by the Colonial Marines in Aliens, Predator delivers scene after scene of testosterone fueled action and one-liners, while simultaneously introducing one of the most iconic movie monsters of all time. This film works on all levels, and is entertaining from first frame to last. A couple of plot oddities do raise an eyebrow or two, but man, who cares! It;s all about Arnold and crew leveling jungle with gunfire, cracking wise all the way. Still one of the most bad-ass film experiences ever made.

__________________

Jackie Brown



A middle aged money laundering African american airline stewardess plots to save herself from her boss and cops.

This movie is coming after the universal success of pulp fiction. A movie that invented lot of dialogues that we take for granted in English language today. So Tarantino tried to follow that up with much more silent subdued movie. This is a very good movie. It doesn't have blood at all.Except may be on car windows.It however does have a lot of guns.The movie's antagonist is an extremely evil guy played by Samuel L Jackson. His role is evil in a very calm and calculated manner. He is evil in the same way a CEO is evil. They can't really be rude with people but they do hit where it hurts. His character is an illegal gun seller. His money is stuck in some south american country. So he uses people to launder his money into US. One such person is our protagonist, Jackie Brown. We find our antagonist at a stage in his career where he wants to retire. Cops are closing in on him but they can't seem to get enough evidence to nail him for considerable prison time. They desperately want to send him to jail before he covers his tracks and disappears. That's when they get in touch with our protagonist.

The person who helps cops connect our antagonist with our protagonist is killed by our antagonist just to not have any loose ends in a pretty evil way. The greatest trait of our antagonist is to evaluate and deal with people. However over the course of the movie our desperate protagonist beat him at his own game. The characterization of our protagonist is very unique. She is what she looks like. A middle Aged African american air-hostess who seems to be on the last legs of her professional life with no savings. That forces her to take on all these odd criminal jobs and mix up with dangerous people. She is in a situation where she has to help cops catch her "boss" red handed, but her life is already in a ****ty position, so even if she got off by setting up her boss her life is still miserable. They depict that aspect of aging so well in this movie. The movie treats this whole situation as a blessing in disguise. At 44 yrs old to her it's doesn't matter what she has achieved. All that matters is if her future is secure.It is almost like she is made to take risks that has life and death consequences.This situation also brings out the street smart attitude in her. The supporting cast involves Robert Forster , Bridget Fonda, Michael Keaton and Robert De Niro. I think casting is one of the strong suites of Tarantino. He doesn't go after top actors unless he needs 100 million $ budget. Any budget between 30 and 50 million is something he can get just using his name value. So the casting in this movie for the most part excluding De Niro could be non-finance motivated. Even De Niro felt like he is at home in this role. Robert Forster plays an easy going guy who works for the law and this whole situation is his little risky adventure in his life. He seems to be an uptight guy with no shady stuff.Bridget Fonda plays a role that can only be described as a biatch. She is one of those girls who has all the attention her whole life from a very young age. Then she used her charms to travel the world by dating different guys and then in the end she ended up with the antagonist due to his financial security. De Niro plays a bum. He plays a role which is partially a bum and partially a loose canon. What you realize looking at him is that this guy is a fck-up but he also doesn't seem to have the social contract every human have to abide by. People get mad during lot of situations like break up , road rages , sports or in any other public places. But in all those places no one for the most part is gonna kill the other person because they abide by a social contract. But once in a while you see someone on news who breaks the contract and ends up in jail. The relationship between De Niro and Bridget Fonda is one such thing. It's a slow moving train wreck waiting to happen. She is nagging and he doesn't abide by social contract. So he is slowly getting more and more angry until the whole thing reaches to a deadly end.

The sting of getting antagonist caught redhanded at the same time making some money for herself on side that can set her up for life is very interesting. It's not complicated and its not simple. It's complicated to the point of interesting. That's where most directors fail. They make it complicated to the point of either appearing clever or serious. But Tarantino just makes it entertaining. Characters feel lived in. They feel like they have some baggage to them. Some criminal past. Only odd bit of casting which didn't really work out is Michael Keaton as ambitious cop. He doesn't fit the bill nor does he add much to the story. No one made use of Keaton's uniqueness in this movie. He is just this cop who wants to make a name for himself. Replace him with Tim Roth and it would have been the same. Although there is some amount of officialism to Keaton.He doesn't look like someone who would do well undercover. The weaknesses are that there is some looseness in the plot. Cops felt a little dumb. They were cheated way too often. Samuel L Jackson didn't react like a cat cornered in a room. He acted more calm and cool than he should. But in a way what that says is that everybody under estimated Jackie Brown. The cops thought she may steal some small sum of money from the sting. Samuel L Jackson thought she is too scared to make a deal with cops and she would just be stupid to steal the money, so he never anticipated a cop overseeing the trap. That part is brilliant. There is another brilliant thing that I caught which may or may not be intentional is that in the movie there is a scene involving Robert Forster which would be the first scene in the whole movie where his character is actually getting his hands dirty in criminal life that could potentially kill him. It involves going into a dressing room to pick up a bag. The set up for that moment is that the protagonist leaves a bag in the room for Robert Forster to pick up. But she informs to the lady at the cash counter that there is a bag someone left in the dressing room, so that it wouldn't be weird when Ben Forster walk's up to the lady at the counter and ask for his forgotten bag. That's a clever element in the story. To tie up some loose ends. But if he wished Tarantino could have made it more complicated than it is by making the counter lady doubt the bag or open the bag before Forster shows and see that there is something worthy in it. That could have thrown a wrench into Jackie Brown's plans because the moment she sees the money, cops would have been called. But the scene flows so smoothly that the counter lady doesn't even go to dressing room to check what Jackie told. She is just on her phone after Jackie mentions her about the bag. Even when Forster approaches about his forgotten bag, she wouldn't assist him into the dressing room, she just lets him go by himself and pick it up. That's very smooth and uncomplicated compared to the rest of the story. To me that scene is a metaphor to the statement "try your best and god will take care of the rest". This whole sting is a complicated plot with Jackie at the center of it and she could get killed at any moment. But she pulled off most of it and so the higher power kinda helped her by not creating the counter lady as an obstacle. May be I am reading too much into it but even she kinda looked like an angel in the middle of this mean , complicated , sleazy human beings. Angel who helped her enforce her plan casually. This sting also forces Forster to step up his game to risk his boring life for once to do something highly dangerous. In the end Jackie Brown proves to be much more dangerous and smart than rest of the characters in the movie.

One of my favorites from South Korea!

American Hustle



A couple of con artists are forced by an FBI agent to trap politicians willing to take bribery in exchange for freedom. This movie is more about the various characters involved in the movie and less about the con itself.

This movie came into my radar during 2016 oscars when I realized that there was a similar competition between bale and DiCaprio's movies in 2014 oscars as well. Back in 2013-14 I was not much of a behind the scenes guy. I was a fan of Bale and DiCaprio. So like many of my friends,I went to the movies and saw wolf of wall street and enjoyed it. I felt bad for him that he went to jail. Ironically I did not watch American hustle until 2016.So I had to watch the movie first and then browse the internet and went through the news articles and videos of awards and interviews and think pieces to get an idea of what it must have been during that season. After getting a gauge of audience and critical response here is what I found. The critical community very much liked the movie in general. But as it started dominating the nominations and winning ensemble awards at critics choice and screen actors guild awards the movie slowly went mainstream. People started talking about it in the same breath as wolf of wall street. A movie with awards nominations and 50 million gross worldwide is not a mainstream movie. Most people don't tune into oscars season to see what movies were nominated. They tune into to see if the movie they liked or anticipating is nominated for an Oscar or winning it. Occasionally some movies catch fire during the season but if your movie don't catch fire during the season then the Oscar night is not going to give you a 100 million $ bump. So American Hustle went mainstream as a cool movie. Since it made more money domestically than wolf of wall street, its treated as a heavy weight. Reaction from certain mainstream critics and fanboy critics is that the movie is a mild Scorsese ripoff and it doesn't pack any punch. So by the end of the season people who loved it stay loving it. But people who were skeptical about the buzz but watched it to see for themselves or people who didn't like it ,branded it as overrated. If this was a movie aiming at 60 yr olds or it made 40 million worldwide no one would have cared.

So what is the reason behind this backlash from a certain group of audience ? The answer to this question will work as review for the movie. The movie is very layered. Every character has multiple motivations and is selfish. No character in the movie is this all-intelligent and charismatic leader. So the consequences are not life or death. No person you root for is going to jail. You are not even rooting for the lead characters. Christian bale character is the living example of sleazy. He is not attractive to young teenage movie going audience. Amy Adams is not hot enough. Jennifer Lawrence is not exactly popular with teenage or younger male audience. Her fans are teenage girls who look themselves in her because of their own insecurities. Bradley Cooper is also partially repugnant in his desperation and stupidity. So, audience have no one to root for. Compare that to fanboy sensation wolf of Wall Street. It is very elemental. It is a story that travels internationally. Its a success story. This is a guy who starts with nothing and suddenly starts building company and he knows what to say to people and others are amazed by his skills. Which young 15 yr old wouldn't want to be the popular kid in college ? He steals other guys girlfriend and who doesn't want to do that. Moreover the consequences are very very exaggerated. Whenever sex or nudity or drugs or blood or cops or jail time is involved the audience get this adrenaline rush. But all these has to be elemental. The characters have to be two dimensional to sell the movie. You can't have a guy regretting doing drugs in the middle of doing drugs. All these are fanboy stuff. Fanboys love badass roles. Thats the reason people felt deeply about this movie. Its the staying power of the movie. If everyone goes about their lives and one guy doesn't get what he wants but he is still a freeman then where is the fun in that ? if a guys uses drugs and takes his daughter away and crashes his car and bleeds, then that stays with you.

And then we have critics, mostly older than 50 yr old critics who are not hip and buttoned up mostly British. They come into a movie with lot of preconceived notions. They go to a Scorsese movie to praise him and they go to a non-auteur movie to try and identify which styles they copied from auteurs. Its like blood bath during awards season. They try and deny the glory of the movie to filmmakers. I just wish they are more open minded to adding more directors to their "auteur " list. In the end the movie works. The threats feel much more real and less cinematic. This filmmaking is harder to do than Scorsese did with wolf of Wall Street. There is this sense of over acting and over doing to get a reaction. If I kill a baby on screen, I can get a reaction but that doesn't mean its earned. If killing a baby is your way of attracting audience attention then thats called cheap thrills. Christian bale's performance in this movie is far better than DiCaprio's in wolf of wall street. He just screams and shouts and overacts but christian bale gives a nuanced subdued performance. Basically Bale's role is to play an un-intimidating character. Someone who seems harmless and without any schemes. Compare that to the guy from American psycho or the fighter. It is a vastly different range. But one problem with bale is that he is not able to carry the whole movie. Something like there will be blood has Daniel day lewis carrying the whole movie. Even DiCaprio can't carry the whole movie except in wolf of wall street. So somehow bale has to be able to find roles where he can carry the whole movie. Because if anyone knows who christian bale is then one of if not the favorite movie performance of them would be American psycho. Thats one of the movies where he did carry the whole movie. It is interesting why he is not choosing roles where he can chew the scenery like DiCaprio. Because he will be crowd favorite during Oscar season if he does that. Because Oscar race is something where your performance should transcend the move you are in no matter what. Even if your movie is good, your performance should be better. Otherwise your performance will run out of gas the moment nominations are announced. People will start discrediting your performance for even worthy of a nomination, Its really disturbing how vile people can be during that Oscar season.

Jennifer Lawrence for some reason felt out of place and overacting. I am not really sure what critics like about her. Recently I heard an audio interview of Mel Gibson where in he explains the truth about Hollywood. In it he talks about how critics and industry insiders love fresh meat. They will pamper them with rewards and awards if they are directors or actresses or average looking male actors. Slowly things will take a turn because they are no longer fresh meat . DiCaprio is well aware of that. So is Christian bale. The slower the climb the harder to fall. The faster the climb the harder the fall. Thats the reason why actresses are washed up after 35 because their rise is too fast. I think David O Russell movies need to have real elemental and much more strong consequences in his movies. A break up is not something that will travel continents. But a drug overdose will travel continents. Movies need to be dark and funny. And most importantly the lead character needs to be charismatic and good looking. I think masses are attracted to charismatic leads than ugly leads in the movies. Even the drama going crowd. Screaming is great acting according to majority of movie fans. It is such a sad state of affairs. They mock transformations and makeup and period pieces because audience know nothing about skills needed to make movies.

This movie is awesome in the sense that its great entertainment. But the unfortunate thing is the movie never sticks with you. You don't feel emotional about any characters and even the set design in the movie is not something you wanna visit. It is a little cheap looking for its ambitions. The actresses are not bombshells. They are just good looking. Its lacking hyper realism. Its lacking the adrenaline filled rush that can appeal to 15 yr olds. You just have to appreciate christian bale for his weight gain but his character is not someone women wanna sleep with, he is more of a provider than a lover. He supports family. If christian bale looked like he did in The dark knight and the shouted and screamed a lot with full head of hair then the movie might have some teenage fanbase.

^not only did you post the review twice and fill it with the same stuff you've been complaining about since day one (which seems to happen quite a bit in your reviews), but what really gets me is that the final paragraph refers to it as a great movie that also "never sticks with you" and is a cheap-looking, unemotional experience.

I'd have to double-check but it might actually be my least favourite of the South Korean films I've seen (but that's still not so bad).

It's nice to see that you really enjoy to write reviews, but why you don't make a thead only for your reviews? Like "aronisred movie reviews". It's a good way to not flood the Movie Tab and you can have a better control of your reviews.