as a big fan of return of silent hill and also just because im exploring french cinema this year and i love horror films, this seemed to be up my alley.
to some degree it is as its costumes, sets and performances are all excellent and generally a joy to watch because of its wonderfull cinematography, editing and lighting but what i fail to have any emotion towards besides like, one character until he becomes the bad guy are the characters. nearly a 3 hour film and most of these people are made out of cardboard and thats a shame.
(watch my filmography: https://boxd.it/2A45h )
Recently Reviewed
4,613 reviews
Action slop
This being seen as a lesser godard is so interesting to me because its probably one of the best "war" films i've. It explores a lot of ground but the most interesting thing that suprisingly a lot of people forget about war but fascism as well is it always begins small, its a collection of small things that build to something more sinister and evil.
The main character have a sort of childish nature to them that allows them to be positioned in way that feels very weird but appropriate for a satire like this. They more so act as a unite then individuals but thats also the thing, war is comprised out of unites as we lose the individuality during it.
there is a special place in hell for people who like this.
as spineless as warfare where the director wants to actively say something, in here you can definitely feel a bit of irony but thats drowned out by a script that does not support that. also bradley cooper's performances is so dogshit.
the feeling off it being 3am and getting fastfood is captured excellently well here as the pursuit is love is stylish, aesthetically exotic yet painful and violent. i love how most of these performances are so wacky as it strikes a juxtaposition with the themes at play which is the exact idea, people are wacky and strange but they can also be endearing.
it gives the film so much personality.(watch my filmography: <a href="https://boxd.it/2A45h">boxd.it/2A45h</a> )
as someone who loves films from jane schoenbrun who, like them or not, are incredibly milennial in writing comedic dialogue. wether THEIR comedic dialogue works is up to you but what i mean by bringing it up is that i don't specifically dislike milennial comedic writing. sure it can be the most unfunny shit ever but it can be done and......this just doesn't.
the worst thing about is that its character writing is arguably on the same level and really i don't like the hazbin hotel-ification of queer media at all. why does everything has to remain and presented with zero weight, danger or impact? i think its setup is actual decent but after that it kinda limps forward for like 70 minutes where i don't know whats suppose to be funny and what im suppose to take seriously.
tone is incredibly important for such a film yet i never really felt a shift in it whenever something serious came up. also blablablabla "white males" blablabla.
its stereotypical.(watch my filmography: <a href="https://boxd.it/2A45h">boxd.it/2A45h</a> )
While its rooted in religion and this is my 10th time stating this but i have no interest in religion whatsoever but that doesn't beauty can come from it.
Don't torture the duckling is one of those beauties as it tells a story about a child murderer. I think by being mainly a horror film, its perspective on the evils of media publications and authorities who are more preoccupied with finding the quickest scapegoat rather then actively solving anything is fascinating because of that.
Also fulcio directs the film amazingly well. The town it depicts is tip toeing the line between modern and something from the past where its religious aspects come from.
(Watch my new film, <a href="https://boxd.it/fTmWFv">vacation intruder</a> )
absolutely ridiculous and it owns that but when looking past the weird nature of it, its not an effective horror film nor is it that interesting.
frankly, its mostly boring and when your movie is about a killer monkey then you have a huge problem.(watch my filmography: https://boxd.it/2A45h )
my childhood was filled with european comics, from donald duck which while not originally from europe, is a cultural touchstone of the continent so i include it. anyway, asterix and obelix, lucky luke and all the shows and films that came with it but also a majority of them are...well, extremely racist and thats mainly BECAUSE they are from a european perspective which doesn't mean everyone living in europe is racist but a lot are ignorant.
also not to mention the fact a lot of the live action asterix films are him and obelix just travelling and at a point, you have the think if there is maybe something else worth telling then them going to a very white egypt and england.
arguably inarritu's most thoughtfull work but where i struggle to understand his line of thinking is in that...well what does it say?
it WANTS to put its best foot foward and blur the line between animal and man but the film doesn't recognize what constitutes as animal behavior and human behavior. to me animal behavior is just like any other creature, there are good and bad but mostly those bad things are nurtured into or a defense mechanism. so where amores perros and it fails to portray that is in the fact that for one, its characters are all rather unlikeable, and you don't need likeable characters and i recognize the film wants to seek the horrid in society but to me its never that mean and only portrays vague ideas of that. Like the way nurture plays for human, its never interesting nor portrayed beyond what you'd expect from a b grade drama flick about crime.
animal and people are put against eachother alike but there is no greater force present in case of the people and its just....themselves, the animals are fighting because of the people so....who is controlling the people in this? the homeless man who turns out to be someone else? i mean sure he is a important character and is shown to be just as bad but he isn't shown to be in a powerfull position so it makes me all the more confused. i think more so then any other inarritu film is his most earnest work yet its the one that also fails the hardest for me.
it tries to go big, it uses multiple perspectives in its story yet those perspectives are from 1 dimensional characters that are well performed yet lack nuance to me.and just like another recent watch, a girl with the dragon tattoo, its partial commentary on violence against woman remains shallow by the lack of time and dialogue given TO the woman.
"Whatever comes in our way, whatever battle we have raging inside of us, we always have a choice. Its the choices that make us who we are. And we can always choose to do the right thing"
Kinda funny in retrospect that this is seen as a mess and i can't disagree more simply because the connective tissue is still there from the previous films. Peters past and future are intertwined in this film and its kind of beautifull, funny, cheezy but the most important thing is that its sincere.
Sandman, harry and venom are all equally good or at the very least competent villains. But i think the greatest achievement of spider man 3 is its excellent drama where both individuals are allowed to pick their own choices and were reality fills in and shows that not always do you get the girl.
Also it gave us funny memes.(Watch my new film, <a href="https://boxd.it/fTmWFv">vacation intruder ) </a>
