Change Your Image
fahdshakir
Reviews
Dilili à Paris (2018)
Incredibly Charming
First, I gave it a 6 because on my scale a 5 is a good watchable movie and a 10 is an all time masterpiece. Both the tiny character, Dilili and the film itself are incredibly charming. The little girl for her sense of wonder, amazement, inclusion, and resolve, and the film for it's airy and colorful atmosphere and the way it introduces kids to important historical artists and scientists. My first thought upon finishing it was that I need to show it to both my niece and nephew, but it's an entertaining distraction even for adults.
American Masters: Loretta Lynn: Still a Mountain Girl (2016)
Awful uninteresting documentary on a presumably interesting woman
This is a pretty terrible documentary. I've heard of Loretta Lynn, but don't know anything about her. According to this documentary, she is less interesting than some of the people I've run into at McDonalds. At best this documentary might be considered all the parts cut out of an exceptionally tepid obituary for someone who isn't dead. There's virtually no drama, no tension, no narrative arc, nothing to make her seem interesting for the last hour and a half of the movie. The most unique thing about the presumably hard grinding times before she became really famous was that she once had to wait four hours at a radio station before they played her record. That's it. The most unique thing after fame was that she randomly displayed a pair of panties Patsy Cline loaned her. With no real explanation provided either, it's treated as something awkward a grandparent said that's quickly brushed aside by the children. Most of these interesting hints are clumsily contained in the first 30 minutes or so as well. The rest is just bits and pieces of her family (with less than fascinating insights such as the children were sometimes given a type of chewing gum at a bar) and a handful of celebrities saying the same two or three things none of which have any emotional resonance. She must have been an impressive figure in her time. This documentary unfortunately manages to convey none of that.
Dream, Girl (2016)
An excellent genuinely motivating work
Just purely as a documentary, it has some minor weaknesses. Just to get those out of the way, the first part of the film focuses primarily on introduction of the project and the people involved and I couldn't help but think it was a bit corny. There was one part that evoked for me the joke of women in stock photography seeming to find their salads hilarious for no discernible reason. It just had that same type of "trying too hard to convey joy" vibe to it. But this is nitpicking.
The strength of this work comes from the women it highlights. The most impressive for me personally was Clara Villarosa, the founder of Hue-Man books. She has such a charming self-assuredness underscored by practical honesty to her interview that it makes the audience feel like they've just been imparted some sage wisdom with someone with actual sage wisdom. Similarly, the rest of the women are impressive in their own projects and very notably diverse. And not just in their spectrum of backgrounds, but also in their fields, their business maturity, and their target markets representing everything from . As the film moves beyond the introductions and into the stories of these women, you can't help but want to root for them. Beyond the cast, the scope of the film doesn't ignore the realities and the various challenges that women face in business, but subtly neither does it dwell on them. Instead there's a prevading pragmatic approach to describing the role of entrepreneurial women in society that gives the film its motivational (but without being hokey) feel.
I watched this in an art-house theater in Dubai and came away wishing my niece and nephew were old enough that I could have brought them with me. Dream, Girl is a lovely and necessary work, that's also an engaging and enjoyable experience.
Coco (2017)
Well-done, compelling, and entertaining, despite minor flaws
This is probably one of the best animated films I've seen in some time, though I never would have watched if not for seeing it praised in somebody's must-watch list.
Let's get the handful of flaws out of the way first. That is a terrible title. It conveys nothing useful, inspires no intrigue, and is utterly forgettable. The premise is also insanely bizarre. The entire conflict in the film comes from a matriarch forbidding multiple generations of her family from music. Remarkably though, that almost makes sense in this movie, probably because the characters are charming and realistic, and the Mexican setting is bright and exuberant. In regard to the nonsensical anti-music setup, this is the anti-Hollywood movie. Where Hollywood starts with an interesting premise then devolves into hackneyed and formulaic storytelling, Coco starts with nonsense, just to let it get to the fun parts.
But the rest of the movie is fun. At first, it seems like a standard Wizard of Oz style quest to go home, but then twists it with mild, but satisfying surprises. There are gags throughout, but they're folded seamlessly into the story and the universe. Even if they don't necessarily add to the plot, they importantly never deviate from it. The plot itself is satisfying and cathartic, even if predictable. One of the film's strongest aspects though is the emotional attachment it manages to evoke in the audience. There are several moments of intense both intense sadness and joy. Unlike so many movies, you genuinely feel happy to have shared in these imaginary characters' lives.
Probably the most remarkable thing about the movie, however, is that it is such an impressive way of helping kids deal with death and mortality in both a non-horrifying and non-trivial way. Most likely just as the Mexican "Day of the Dead" the plot is based around is meant to do. What a wonderful way to not just shine a light on a culture, but to show its remarkable value.
Exceptionally well done.
Toni Erdmann (2016)
A decently acted, but rehashed, overlong, boring movie
I was expecting better from the buzz I heard about it, but this felt like an edgy European version of the "kooky and infantile oaf teaches sad sophisticates how to laugh" movie. Except, where American movies tend to amp up the slapstick or stupidity of the characters, here the protagonist just uses awful props, out-of-touch dad humor, and absurdity. The absurdity of the final act does create a handful of moments of suspense, where you genuinely wonder what's going to happen next, but overwhelmingly there's never a payoff. The whole story is just two remarkably inconsiderate people interacting with a host of characters who don't seem to have enough cohesive traits to form their own personalities.
I'm sure there is meant be a subtle running commentary on identity, considering the masks, the props, and the nudity, but instead of evoking any poignant reflection, it just induces eye-rolling annoyance. Imagine someone at your work handing you a stop sign and a plastic rose first thing in the morning and telling you to really think about it.
The acting and casting are solid, and I suppose I should applaud the effort too, but overall, there's not enough to compel me to watch it again.
Chevalier (2015)
It does grow on you, which is annoying
It reminds me a bit of Seinfeld and their master of your domain competition but with just a group of middle aged men that are more acquaintances than friends. There's no external conflict, no impetus but themselves driving the men. The pacing is slow in the beginning, annoyingly so, and just like Seinfeld, nothing much happens. I wonder if the movie was originally meant to be a play since it's all about the character's interactions - the only point to the yacht setting is to slightly isolate them for a bit - it may as well have been set in some cabin or other vacation. And yet the film grows on you.
The men's insecurities and anxieties bubble up and a simmering tension develops out of really, nothing. The acting is solid too. Once it gets going, you can't help but participate in their game. Why did this character do this? What were they trying to accomplish with that one? And how do I compare myself in that respect? It's good enough to draw you in. It's just thought provoking enough to not be a waste of time. And yet I don't know if I'd want to watch it over and over again either. The best thing though about this movie is the troll ending. The whole time it plays with your expectations, and then at the end makes fun of you for it. Touche, movie, touche.
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)
Insipid
For a little while I thought I was watching one of the spy kids movies, but with annoying characters, less amusement, and a much younger audience in mind. I don't know who the casting director was, but this was terrible work. First, the main characters are aggravatingly smug children, but who are apparently going to get married. And really, the small kid with puffy red eyes who constantly looks like he just finished crying about some Pokemon is the "lady killer?" And the ship's computer has a yearbook style gallery of all the women he's bed? And he woos the girl character, first with what I'm pretty sure is textbook harassment considering he seems to be the commanding officer, and then by rattling off his test scores and other cringe-inducing boasts? Really? Did whoever write that part ever talk to a real girl? One day, buddy, one day, I hope. I'm also pretty sure Clive Owen was dead broke when he signed on for this. And why did the always disappointed replacement commander look more artificial than the CGI aliens? And what was the deal with stern faced, constantly shocked Asian guy? The way they kept cutting to him, it seemed like he would have had some sort of back story like he only recently discovered he wasn't born on stern faced people planet. Whatever. Rihanna you can do so, so much better. I'm not even going to bother with the gratingly idealized utopia aliens, who mostly just looked like they'd discovered malnutrition and glitter.
What else, the plot was awful and obvious. Pretty much as soon as you see Clive Owen in the first third of the film, it becomes obvious what's going to happen. Everybody else is giving ham-fisted unfunny one-liners, while Owen's rocking an eerily serious and malevolent actor look. His robot bodyguard buddies did look fantastic though. I would watch a movie based entirely upon them just destroying random planets. No dialogue, just silent intimidating murder. I was definitely rooting for them at the end. There is no drama to anything. Every plot point is telegraphed, every problem is carefully explained just before it occurs. Lots of parts of the movie seem like they were just stolen from other movies too. The first bad guy looks like Jabba the hut from Star Wars, The fat aliens inexplicably make the captured girl wear a pretty dress like in pirates of the Caribbean, which itself just copied it from Raiders of the Lost Ark. The three bird looking things looked like mutated offspring of the skinny aliens from men in black and Howard the duck. Bob the pirate also seemed like a mix of every Pirates of the Caribbean character and come to think of it, the fat alien even roared spit into the girl's face just like the Kraken.
Whatever. You could watch the movie on mute and you wouldn't miss anything.
Actually, i recommend doing that because some of the visuals are pretty nice. Not consistently though, the tiny dragon armadillo thing looks jarringly fake compared to everything else. But that's what I'd recommend, watch it on mute, and turn it off when the robot bodyguard buddies finally come to life. Just assume everybody died, it's better that way.
Finally, Luc Besson did some really interesting things with 5th Element, especially in the way he first set up then destroyed the usual movie tropes. How many other movies have a protagonist and antagonist that never even meet? I can only assume Luc Besson was somehow dead broke when he signed up for this.
The Lost City of Z (2016)
Long-winded, unfocused, unconvincing
And that was before I looked up the true story and found the plot was based on exaggerations and outright lies.
They had me skeptical about historical accuracy with the piranhas which have been shown repeatedly to pose no danger to people, but the real problem were all the melodramatic obscenely tedious scenes. The movie was simply too long and poorly edited.
First, for a story about uncharted jungle exploration, the audience never feels any tension from their journeys. One moment, they look like they're sauntering through a compliant and friendly trail, the very next they're dying of mysterious maladies on a raft, somehow at once emaciated and paunchy. Similarly, the hostile Indians they meet are exceptionally accurate with their first dramatic arrow, then storm-trooper incompetent with every other shot. Every issue is resolved almost instantly which gives everything a feeling of in- consequence. Still, the jungle scenes were the only bearable parts of the movie, but even there the movie would have really benefited from just showing one of the excursions, instead of haphazardly traipsing through all three.
None of the characters are well developed, and I can't think of any that were even somewhat relate-able. So many scenes should have been cut out. The wife's anguish might have been enough to show the high cost to their family life, but the eldest son's sporadic outbursts were pointless overkill. But again the conflict is resolved so quickly and easily that the melodramatic moments later on hold no gravitas whatsoever. Every single problem Fawcett comes across resolves itself summarily and disappointingly.
The entire world war 1 scene could have been cut. It's such a bizarre divergence from the plot that even if there is a semi-prominent character's death in it, all you really remember is the random fortune teller brought to the front lines for some stupid reason.
The ending is pretty obvious, but the movie tries to make it out to be some unsolved mystery. Apparently, the actual fate of the real life Fawcett was determined more by his incompetence than the dubious luck the movie would have you believe.
Don't bother wasting your time with this movie. Watch Aguirre: Wrath of God, or Fitzcarraldo, or even Apocalypse Now if you want to see how this sort of movie is competently and brilliantly done.
Survivor (2015)
Completely mindless
This is a terrible movie that made me miss spare Jackie Chan style movie plots. The story makes no sense, and the movie would probably have been 5 times better if they just started with the restaurant scene and removed everything but the action scenes. It's already mindless, but at least that way it wouldn't have been insulting to the point of ruining immersion. None of the characters behave like human beings and every other scene made me wonder why would they ever do that. Terrible writing makes it a waste of what should have been a pretty good cast.
The Company You Keep (2012)
Well acted, but thematically problematic
The biggest problem with the movie is that the reporter role seems forced and he's just not that interesting compared to the others. The time spent on his obnoxious sleuthing might have been better spent on developing Mimi's character. Redford and Christie seemed to have no chemistry in their eventual meet up scene. They don't interact so much as they spout plot points and backstory at each other in the cabin, and there seems to be nowhere near enough desperation in Redford, who is ostensibly a parent on the verge of never again seeing his daughter. Susan Sarandon's character could also have been fascinating - it's her somewhat inexplicable desire to surrender that sets the whole story off after all. Her motivations might have been better developed than simple and somewhat pointless exposition to a random reporter. And why would the FBI decide to let her give an interview in the first place? How does it benefit them in any way? Overall, it seems like the journalist angle felt shoehorned in to artificially add mystery. Remove all of that, and there could have been brilliantly powerful scenes depicting their struggles between their idealism and their wizened reality.
Capsule (2015)
Poor effort, annoying more than anything else
It's not well made. It doesn't have a sensible or even interesting plot. The soundtrack is overly melodramatic. The limited cinematography is annoying. The characters are terrible and sound like they're doing a reading for a school play. The astronaut is a jangled ball of nerves and might be the least qualified person to ever send into space.
In the opening scene the astronaut in the capsule is fiddling around with random bits of an unconvincing spacecraft while being annoyingly lit for way too long by an intermittent red light. That basically sums up the film - everything that's meant to evoke dread, just engenders annoyance instead.
Hell or High Water (2016)
Pretty good, but missing just enough to
Not bad. Much better than your everyday Hollywood garbage. Cleanly edited, doesn't drag too much, fairly engaging plot. Has some parts that aren't entirely fleshed out like the stupid line right at the beginning. There's just something off and it feels like it's not polished, but still has a Hollywood sheen on it nonetheless. it's all done pretty well, but none of the characters seem real. None of it feels authentic. The three main characters seem like actors trying on their country western clothes, though Jeff Bridges is always fun. The social commentary is also pretty ham-fisted, and non-committal aside from "banks = bad." I suppose they should get credit for at least stepping somewhat away from the good guy vs. bad guy cliché. Pretty good cinematography. Makes the Midwest look serene and lovely and solemn all at once. Worth a watch, and maybe a second viewing.
South Pole (2016)
Sudden and brief, but thought-provoking
I don't know exactly how to review this with IMDb's guidelines. This is not some sort of heartwarming short where you follow a quick story, like a brief joke or parable told in visual form. This is minimalism and subtle surrealism and I suspect the majority of people that watch it will feel cheated and unsatisfied because the credits and the intro seem longer than the film itself.
I watched it as part of Cinephilia 2016 in Alserkal Avenue along with 4 other films and compared to the others, the extremely brief run time meant it felt like a preview to another film, or perhaps a hiccup in the projection.
But if you can focus beyond the brevity all you have are questions. A seemingly inconsequential man, minding his own business, or perhaps apathetic to the violent reality outside his doors, becomes suddenly and inexplicably part of that reality. That's it. What we see is coherent, but seems inconceivable. The more I think about it, the more I pore over the few scenes in the film, trying to deduce what it is the director is trying to evoke with each move. Is it a nihilistic view of a seemingly unimportant man made a symbol through a lie. Is it a warning about appearances and perception? Absurdity in the context of war? I don't know, but it makes me linger on the idea of bystanders and misconceptions and context, exert a mental effort, I might have considered were I simply given all the answers.
I suppose in that sense, the film - in succinct brilliance - works.
Gesher (2010)
Potential wasted
I really disliked this film to the point where I'm wondering if I managed to catch some unedited director's copy instead of the finished product.
There's a lot that's wrong with the film and it really squanders what might have been very compelling subject matter. First. I have no idea why the men are living in the pipes. It's obvious they're not really supposed to be there seeing how they all run to them covertly, but it's never apparent who exactly they're hiding from. At one point in the film, there's mention that they can't be drinking or the supervisor will do kick them out, so somebody presumably already knows they live there. Next. Why do they live in the pipes? Is it protection from the wind - one or two seem to have tarps, but the rest seem open on each end. It's not for privacy, as there seem to be multiple men in each pipe. I guess it gives them a place to keep their belongings? But fine, maybe some of these questions don't need to be answered, but the next problem is the actual content of the film - there simply isn't much.
Every shot lingers painfully. There is some lovely rusty machinery imagery serving as a backdrop, but the camera just sits there for minutes at a time. You can show me the shot of the man drinking his tea after emerging from within the machinery, but I don't need to watch him silently almost motionlessly finish the whole cup over several minutes.
It gets worse too because it shows the misadventures of the guy that fixes the squat hole style toilets when they get clogged. And it goes into unnecessary and graphic detail of him getting covered in feces fixing the clog. Fortunately, it just looks like dirty brown water, but there's no reason for the film to show nearly the entire process as if there are people watching and taking notes on how to do it themselves. I get that the point of the scene is to show just how miserable the job is and as symbolism for the man's life, but it goes from being a shocking and potentially poignant moment to one of aggravation, disgust, and annoyance. Especially considering some of the best and most serene shots come next with the same man floating and letting himself be washed off in the sea while still looking utterly defeated.
And that's probably my biggest gripe with the film. There's substance there. There's a legit film in the unedited mess. All three men have their mini-story and they're depressingly compelling. There's a genuine contemplative wistfulness that you feel for them as they watch barges far off in the distance wondering just how much better life might have been and just how inaccessible such realities are. I wish I had access to the film and a proper editing suite.
Tulitikkutehtaan tyttö (1990)
Lovely perverse bit of storytelling
This was an extremely fun film for me just for how completely the director shocked my allegiances. Iris is fantastic. Kaurismäki makes you feel deeply sympathetic towards her and does it with virtually no words for most of the beginning of the film. The pacing is still solid, there isn't any unnecessary lingering, just solid scene setting. I don't remember any specific shots making an impact aside from maybe a long shot of the avenue her brother presumably takes her to. I'm wondering now if Kaurismäki subscribed to the dogma 95 method of cinematography from how sparse every shot was.
In any case, it worked and I couldn't help but root for Iris as she desperately and unsuccessfully tried to find companionship. A few lines of dialogue, an undeserved slap, and a peeled orange all endeared her even more until she finally snapped. Even then, some of her alarming behavior, if not condone-able or justifiable, was at least somewhat understandable. It isn't until the drunk barfly scene that it becomes obvious something is seriously wrong. And even then I assumed some contrived machina would yet resolve everything for Iris. The ending is so cold and logical, it's brilliant. The initial feeling after shock is a bit of guilt for having rooted for her, as if you were complicit for having been in her corner, but then after some consideration, there's more of relief as if your ardent stance was shown to be thoroughly incorrect, but fortunately there were no consequences. If you think about it, the film is asking you to question how you determine a person's character without having known everything about them. Lots to ponder through such a simple story.
The Solitary Life of Cranes (2008)
Not as mesmerizing or profound as one would expect
It wasn't bad. It was tame. I think that's the best description for it. A bit needlessly melodramatic. What was surprising was how unimpressive most of the cinematography was. I just assumed that a birds eye view of London from many many different points would have been more mesmerizing, but the shots were underwhelming. It might have been better if there were better stories. And I don't know why we needed to see the backs of so many of their heads. They mentioned that to everybody they were just feet in a cab, and not faces, but that sort of doesn't work with the backs of their heads. Also, the storm bits had the possibility for some fantastic weather shots of the wall of rain the operator is mentioning, but it's not very clear. It all just looked overcast. There were some interesting insights from the crane operators, some bits a little creepy even, but the tone and the music and the title made it seem like they were aiming for the profound, but it just wasn't there.
The Searchers (1956)
Overrated
The opening shot is pretty gorgeous and there are a few other remarkably picturesque moments, but let's be honest, the film itself is campy foolishness. Aside from John Wayne himself, the acting is terrible in that nonsensical and overacted "aw shucks, billy!" way that detracts from what was an interesting portrayal by Wayne of a seething and bitter old man presumably still pining for the good old days of slavery. And probably it's easy to say this now, but the movie itself is a sobering reminder of how poorly Native Americans were treated and depicted. I suspect that's why it's rated so highly, perhaps compared to other contemporary works, this movie was more progressive - I mean, he didn't even kill the girl at the end for having been with an "Injun." After some persuading, anyway.
Deadpool (2016)
Underwhelming
The jokes are trying too hard. There's a few decent ones, but when every single line of dialogue seems to be some quip, it becomes tiring pretty quickly because there's nothing to contrast it with.
The plot is nonsensical. So the untransformed guy was supposed to be a super jaded ex-military special ops guy and the basic plot is that he's afraid his girlfriend won't like how he looks anymore. Seriously?
And the guy can heal complex fractures, take a knife to the brain, regrow an entire hand, close up full bullet holes, but can't get his skin to look normal - and that need for plastic surgery seems to be his entire beef with the almost kinda impressive bad guy that gave him immortality? Who wrote this?
Unlike most superhero movies, there was real potential here, but it seem to have been wasted on essentially Scary Movie 8.
Bølgen (2015)
Adequate, still sadly making it way better than anything out of Hollywood
By no means perfect, and with a slew of disaster movie clichés, it's still a reminder of just how shitty Hollywood disaster flicks actually are. The writing and especially the dialogue here is not horrifically terrible, even though none of it is even remotely groundbreaking. Possibly it works because it's sparse and generic enough to seem believable. The characters aren't exclusively dipshits, the experts aren't all zealots. There's a hint of a love story, but winds up being a slight plot point and nothing else. There's no product placement. None. Just a lot of gorgeous setting shots of Norway in the beginning, but they're hardly advertising Norwegian tourism with a natural disaster flick. For all intents and purposes, this was essentially a Norwegian San Andreas, but without any of the moronic overkill. Very, very adequate or mediocre, though with gorgeous scenery and some lightly tense moments.