Change Your Image
roryburke2211
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Fitzcarraldo (1982)
Not a classic
If you've gone out of your way to watch Fitzcarraldo, it's very likely what drew you to it was the incredible documentary Burden of Dreams. I've read many of the reviews here, most have been glowing, and few if any of those have neglected to mention the fact that "he really did pull that ship over the hill".
I have to question though, is the praise for this film truly based on its own merits? Or does the knowledge of the epic backstory, of Herzog's unrelenting war against the jungle, factor into your review?
I would argue, that if we knew nothing of how this film were made, or were told it was all immaculate greenscreen CGI, that this film would not be so lauded.
A few reasons why:
1. The main character's motives are shaky at best. All this for an opera in the jungle? Why? He is clearly mad from the very outset, and while I can sense the 'romantic' viewing of this voyage that Herzog intended, it just doesn't land convincingly
2. I may as well say it... The film is exploitive. Forgetting the making of the film, and how all of this was done for real, and simply watching it on its own merits, it depicts extensive exploitation of local people and their lands. In doing so it makes no effort to show this as exploitive, but rather seems to expect us to ignore it and cheer on the ignorant white characters leading the charge on their pointless and reckless mission
3. The dialogue is atrocious. The movie is frugal with its dialogue and is mostly silence, and when the characters speak you can understand why
Finally, since everyone is so intent on linking this movie to it's behind the scenes documentary, let's talk about another: Heart of Darkness, and the production it showcases, Apocalypse Now. Apocalypse Now is an immaculate film on every level. It's engaging, it's original, it's complex and it's gripping throughout. It's production was similar in scope and context to Fitzcarraldo. But you do not need to have seen Heart of Darkness to appreciate Apocalypse Now, in the way that you desperately need to have seen Burden of Dreams to see value in Fitzcarraldo. And, in case that wasn't enough, Apocalypse Now, a movie that is beloved to this day, was released 3 years before Fitzcarraldo, a movie that feels like it was released in the 60s.
It's not a terrible film, but in my opinion, it's really not very good and I think if we were to all take a step back and analyse why we rate this movie so highly, we might come closer to seeing it for what it really is: a bit of a mess.
The Batman (2022)
Style over substance
Look, I'm not going to say this movie was bad. Compared to recent DC movies, and interpretations of Batman in particular, this movie was stellar.
However, I have to say it fell well short of the hype for me. Matt Reeves created a beautifully stylized Gotham City and got great performances from the whole cast, but I really feel this movie as a whole is style over substance.
First off, the plot. The incredible Christopher Nolan Batman movies had their own well-documented plot holes and areas that asked you to somewhat suspend your disbelief in favor of allowing the excitement to roll on, but I think this one takes it a step further, with less payoff. The plot itself (which I will try to keep somewhat spoiler-free), consists of Batman solving straightforward riddles and beating people up around town. Ultimately, as far as I can tell - the villain wins. None of Batman's actions have any effect at all in his plans, in fact, all of his exact actions were all part of the plan. At the end when the villain is crying in his jail cell about being thwarted, I initially thought it was a joke - and was scratching my head at what exactly hadn't gone to plan for him. There's also a news report proclaiming Batman as a hero - for carrying a few people out a building after being at least somewhat responsible for the city's near-complete destruction.
The 'love' angle between Batman and Catwoman is also fairly non-existent and played up. They rely on Pattinson and Kravitz's natural chemistry and some triumphant music to basically make us feel like they are falling for each other, when absolutely nothing of note relationship-wise happens between them throughout. Why the movie chooses to roll credits with a scene on this topic is beyond me and is a huge anticlimax.
The dialogue and occasional dramatic monologues are all painfully generic, and make it clear this movie has nothing at all of note to say other than 'more Batman'.
Finally, and this may be nitpicking - but the way in which the Riddler is presented is sort of unnerving to me, and not in a good way. DC is trying so hard to be 'dark' with the Batman entries, and are obviously trying to capitalize on the successes of both Heath Ledger and Joaquin Phoenix's unsettling Joker portrayals, by having a freaky and unhinged villain. However this version of the Riddler really isn't 'comic book' enough for me. The performance is good, but he is basically playing a total 'school shooter' type, and to be honest that's not something I find to be a particularly fun addition to a blockbuster superhero movie that realistically has a level of influence over those exact types of people. In addition to that, despite trying to be so realistic in his portrayal, he lacks any real depth, and collapses into a whimpering mess really as soon as he meets Batman, at which point I found myself wondering 'is this it?'.
Like I said at the outset, this movie isn't bad by any means. It's thoroughly watchable (although at 3hrs it's definitely too long for what it delivers). What bothers me about this movie, is I feel that the hype lies more with the reputation of the franchise than with the movie's own merits. This isn't a movie with any real suspense, it doesn't tell any incredibly interesting story, it doesn't impart any sort of lesson, it doesn't even have any real romance (although it does have a few nice action sequences, in fairness). I ask, if this was a standalone movie, and not one that we already have some affinity for ahead of time - would we really look at it so highly?
Superhero movies often seem to be held to a different standard than normal film. The criteria here for 'excellent' really seems to just be 'good enough'. If you want 3 more hours of Bat action that just about does enough to remind you of how good those old Nolan movies were, then this is for you. If you want an actual piece of quality standalone cinema, you might better spend your time elsewhere.
Pretend That You Love Me (2020)
Raw emotion
I've been a big fan of Joel for a while, and have watched a few of his films, so I knew on some level what to expect with this. The same cannot be said for my housemate. He's the sort of guy who likes movies on for background noise more than for plot, and is the last person I would expect to sit through anything resembling an 'indie' movie. I expected he would insist I turn this off within 5 minutes, but instead, we both sat there 90 minutes later speechless and with tears in our eyes.
What I'm trying to say is that Joel's filmmaking style is unlike anything I've ever encountered. It is so raw, so unfiltered, and so honest that it doesn't feel like you're watching a movie at all. The lines between fiction and reality are so blurred, and all the performances (if they can even be called that) are so insanely authentic and believable that you really feel you are a fly on the wall of the most intimate moments of these peoples lives.
At times this feels like watching a train wreck in slow motion. It can be agonizingly awkward but for some reason you can't look away. The creativity in which Joel uses the medium to convey such a strong and specific emotion reminds me of the power of indie movies, and how sometimes larger production and budgets can get in the way of emotion, rather than enhance it.
What else can I say. If you love indie movies, you will love this. If you hate them, I think you'll love it to.
Adventure Time: Water Park Prank (2015)
It's another episode of Adventure Time
What makes Adventure Time so great is that it doesn't care. Any given episode could be a Litch-ridden trippy fever dream as easily as it could be a slow-paced kids-friendly B-Mo episode or just another random funny Finn and Jake adventure. This show has no rules and does what it wants, episode after episode, and that's exactly why we all love it so much.
This episode isn't a showstopper, and nothing crazy happens in it. It's just a simple, fun little story about Finn and Jake chilling at the waterpark, and I think that is perfectly fine.
I gave this episode a 10, not because it's jaw-dropping cinema, but because it doesn't deserve the hate it gets and isn't worthy of such a low score. To lambast the shows creators for 'Water Park Prank' goes against the whole laid back vibe of the show, and unfairly criticizes them for mixing things up a little and having some fun with it.
Chill out guys, it's just Adventure Time - not every episode has to change your life.