What a beautiful film! The choice to use non-actors was brilliant, as this film feels entirely real and true. I was absolutely engrossed by this simple story filled with immense complexity, dealing with family politics, gender, the working class, tradition, the encroachment of the new, among many others. Beautifully shot as well, the film had many frames that looked like paintings. Beautiful and quietly devastating, yet hopeful. 9/10.
Reviews
9 Reviews
Silvia Prieto
(1999)
Lovely, slow, quiet and offbeat
12 October 2019
A lovely film about late 20-somethings in late-90s Argentina. Though quite slow for the first 30mins, it then starts to feel utterly transportive, taking you to another place and time. The film is imbued with that lovely ambling 90s vibe, where someone putting on a fur coat can enthral, so past comparisons to Jarmusch or Kurasmaki films are definitely valid. B+
Suspiria
(I) (2018)
Bravado filmmaking
14 November 2018
I am a huge Guadagnino fan, so I see all his films. Loved this crazy follow-up to Call Me By Your Name. He applies his flair for melodrama to the horror genre, which I rarely watch admittedly, with aplomb. It's really confident filmmaking, which has polarized fans of the original, which I have never seen, admittedly. But like all his films, it gives you a heightened vibe and tone and photography and editing style. And The 70s film vibe hasn't been so well-realised since...the 70s... or maybe The Love Witch. For Suspiria, the film craft is at a massively high level. The choreography is next-level. And Tilda Swinton's multi-performances are brilliant. I'll admit some of the digi felt out of place near the end of the film, but perhaps some of these 1-star hater-reviewers should try to make a film and see how easy it is...
Filmworker
(2017)
Have these people made a film before?
10 September 2018
Was really looking forward to this film as a Kubrick superfan, but the documentary is so derailed by the terrible craftsmanship of the filmmakers. It looks like they've never shot an interview before, or never considered editing pace. It's highly ironic that a film about Kubrick would be so shabbily crafted. Could barely get through it.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
(2009)
X3 was better
1 May 2009
Yes X3: The Last Stand is a better film. In fact, Fast & Furious is a better film.
This was pretty diabolical throughout. The visual effects were delivered poorly, the edit was all over the place, the dialog was basically one cliché after another, and the characters' actions were motivated not by their own initiatives, but by the need to fit into the events of the other X-Men films.
This is a classic example of why I think pre-quels don't really ever work. And don't even get me started on the horribly weak female character. Pretty average fellas.
This was pretty diabolical throughout. The visual effects were delivered poorly, the edit was all over the place, the dialog was basically one cliché after another, and the characters' actions were motivated not by their own initiatives, but by the need to fit into the events of the other X-Men films.
This is a classic example of why I think pre-quels don't really ever work. And don't even get me started on the horribly weak female character. Pretty average fellas.
Bring on Indy 19!
25 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I suppose my opinion of Indy 4 hadn't really cemented until I was waiting outside the theatre for my friends to file out and the last few bars of the John Williams Indy theme were cascading faintly into the lobby. In these days of sequels upon sequels, I often think about the scene in Back to the Future II, where Marty McFly has gone into the future to 2015 and the cinema in his beloved hometown is playing Jaws 19. It seems sometimes as though we are living in this future already. Especially with rumours of three more Indy films in the pipeline featuring teen star Shia LaBeouf (is he a star, really? or did someone just decide that he's going to be the young person to put in new action films? I guess he's not too bad an actor) - the question is will they eventually get to Indy 19? Hey, if things go to plan, there will be a Terminator 6, so I suppose anything is possible. But when I contemplated the sound of John Williams' iconic score emanating from the theatre, I wondered if our current future really has a place for our favourite crusading archaeologist (perhaps I should have stayed until the end of the credits and allowed the song to finish so the bubble of the cinema could have been preserved instead of letting the theme intermingle with the reality outside the theatre).
I think what bothered me the most about this film (swinging monkeys and alien finale aside) is where the other Indy films felt like they were part of their historical context (or perhaps as a younger viewer, I was quicker to believe the context), this one felt like the era was just something going on around the characters. Hey, here's Indy (or Henry, Jr. as he is called most of the time isn't that weird? why not call him Indiana? That's his name right on the poster!) in a 1950s house that's about to be devastated by a nuclear test. Hey, here's Indy in a 1950s soda shop, replete with young toughs in leather jackets, young toughs in football jackets, young blond girls and "Shake, Rattle and Roll" on the radio. Hey, here's Indy in a 1950s era Army vehicle. With a rocket launcher! Yay! Explosions are cool! I don't know if the film-makers could have done anything different really, but something about the historical context didn't quite gel for me.
And that leads me to think about my overall reaction to the film. It wasn't really that bad a movie there were exciting sequences (the motorcycle chase by far my favourite, possibly because that was the one least enhanced by CG), there were historical puzzles (though I felt like Indy was just figuring them out without bringing us along in the revelation, they were just solved), there was a good villain (Cate Blanchett is awesome in everything, even when she's hamming it up). But all these elements did not quite come together in an engaging way. I also found that when I was laughing in the theatre (my friend said afterwards that she thought she was going to laugh more), it was because of how ridiculous it all was. Perhaps I am unable to suspend my disbelief the way I once could. Weren't the other films just as unbelievable? But everything in Indy Upgrade 4 just felt like Indiana Jones caricature - here is a search for an old artifact - we find the artifact - oh here are the bad guys - here is that Harrison Ford charm etc etc.
But really, what more do I expect when I go to see another sequel twenty-seven years after the original? Art? As David Lynch says, "When you go to the cinema, you go into a world." So I'll admit freely that for 2 hours, I was pulled successfully inside the Indiana Jones world, despite its flaws and my own (newly found) reservations about ever-expanding film franchises. Bring on Indy 19! That's what we want, isn't it?
I think what bothered me the most about this film (swinging monkeys and alien finale aside) is where the other Indy films felt like they were part of their historical context (or perhaps as a younger viewer, I was quicker to believe the context), this one felt like the era was just something going on around the characters. Hey, here's Indy (or Henry, Jr. as he is called most of the time isn't that weird? why not call him Indiana? That's his name right on the poster!) in a 1950s house that's about to be devastated by a nuclear test. Hey, here's Indy in a 1950s soda shop, replete with young toughs in leather jackets, young toughs in football jackets, young blond girls and "Shake, Rattle and Roll" on the radio. Hey, here's Indy in a 1950s era Army vehicle. With a rocket launcher! Yay! Explosions are cool! I don't know if the film-makers could have done anything different really, but something about the historical context didn't quite gel for me.
And that leads me to think about my overall reaction to the film. It wasn't really that bad a movie there were exciting sequences (the motorcycle chase by far my favourite, possibly because that was the one least enhanced by CG), there were historical puzzles (though I felt like Indy was just figuring them out without bringing us along in the revelation, they were just solved), there was a good villain (Cate Blanchett is awesome in everything, even when she's hamming it up). But all these elements did not quite come together in an engaging way. I also found that when I was laughing in the theatre (my friend said afterwards that she thought she was going to laugh more), it was because of how ridiculous it all was. Perhaps I am unable to suspend my disbelief the way I once could. Weren't the other films just as unbelievable? But everything in Indy Upgrade 4 just felt like Indiana Jones caricature - here is a search for an old artifact - we find the artifact - oh here are the bad guys - here is that Harrison Ford charm etc etc.
But really, what more do I expect when I go to see another sequel twenty-seven years after the original? Art? As David Lynch says, "When you go to the cinema, you go into a world." So I'll admit freely that for 2 hours, I was pulled successfully inside the Indiana Jones world, despite its flaws and my own (newly found) reservations about ever-expanding film franchises. Bring on Indy 19! That's what we want, isn't it?
Clunker
27 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I haven't hated a film in a long time. Usually, I can sit through bad or boring films with a shrug and find its hidden merits. During Pirates 3 however, I was beset with ill-feeling. I hated this movie.
Perhaps it was due to the fact that I haven't seen Pirates 2 since last year, or maybe it's just me, but this film was making no sense! Characters would change sides without any apparent reason or consequence. Chow Yun-Fat was around for about ten minutes of screen time, and did nothing. And the love angle between Keira and Orlando was nonsense. The final beach scene anyone? And Johnny doesn't even show up for at least 20 minutes! (His first scene was the best one in the film in my opinion.) And the thing is, I really enjoyed 1 and 2. Pirates 1 was great and 2 was tolerable. But for some reason, this installment triggered something in my mind that I could not let go.
And SPOILER OK they have a god. What do they come up with? Let's turn her into a giant, have her grunt in low bass tones, and then turn her into thousands of crabs... Hmmm... Right.
But... everyone's going to see this anyway. I mean, they got my $10 right?
Perhaps it was due to the fact that I haven't seen Pirates 2 since last year, or maybe it's just me, but this film was making no sense! Characters would change sides without any apparent reason or consequence. Chow Yun-Fat was around for about ten minutes of screen time, and did nothing. And the love angle between Keira and Orlando was nonsense. The final beach scene anyone? And Johnny doesn't even show up for at least 20 minutes! (His first scene was the best one in the film in my opinion.) And the thing is, I really enjoyed 1 and 2. Pirates 1 was great and 2 was tolerable. But for some reason, this installment triggered something in my mind that I could not let go.
And SPOILER OK they have a god. What do they come up with? Let's turn her into a giant, have her grunt in low bass tones, and then turn her into thousands of crabs... Hmmm... Right.
But... everyone's going to see this anyway. I mean, they got my $10 right?
Birth
(2004)
another excellent outing for glazer
18 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I've been hooked on Glazer since 'Karma Police' and yet again, he succeeds. This film feels both dark and whimsical. It is eerie throughout, but never frightening. It flirts with our taboos but is not offensive.
Nicole Kidman is in top form; especially noteworthy is her final scene on the beach. And certainly this is one of the best child performances in recent memory. Each line is utterly controlled, and Glazer is the poet who never allows excess. Everything must be interpreted; nothing is given.
'Birth' also has a strange and fascinating score, which contributes to, and almost controls, its ambiguous tone.
It is a subtle and odd and beautiful film.
Nicole Kidman is in top form; especially noteworthy is her final scene on the beach. And certainly this is one of the best child performances in recent memory. Each line is utterly controlled, and Glazer is the poet who never allows excess. Everything must be interpreted; nothing is given.
'Birth' also has a strange and fascinating score, which contributes to, and almost controls, its ambiguous tone.
It is a subtle and odd and beautiful film.
Judgment Night
(1993)
don't ever leave your house
29 December 1999
The final moral of Judgment Night seems to be: never leave your home. This dull and not-even-mediocre movie pushes its message throughout: the streets (ie. downtown) are no place for middle-class suburbanites; don't try to go downtown because it's rife with gang members and homeless people who will take you for everything you have (including your life). Unfortunately, movies like Judgment Night only seem to perpetuate the myth that life is safe only in white-suburban neighbourhoods.
Tell Your Friends