Change Your Image
JustHavingALook
10⭐️ Iconic. Masterpiece. Timeless. Watch it and you can learn something (about film making and maybe life itself)
9. 8.⭐️ Amazing stuff. Highly recommended. Exceeded expectations. Great starting point for a conversation about the theme presented.
7. 6.⭐️ It’s ok/could have been better. Can watch it if you like the genre.
5.⭐️ Wouldn’t recommend it. Disappointing (in a way or another) considering the starting point.
4.⭐️ Terrible. Waste of time and money. This is bad for humanity.
Will consider Filming and PostProduction mainly.
If anything interesting when it comes to Development, PreProduction, Marketing&Distribution I'll mention it.
Not gonna give 3, 2 or 1. Reason? The fact they put the movie together and got screened it’s already something.
English is not my first language.
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
White Collar: Pilot (2009)
the thin line between entertaining and cringe
Oh boy what a ride.
I'm all in when it comes to movie magic/suspension of belief and so, but you guys are testing me big time.
You want me to believe that our protagonist (handsome of course):
- after spending years in jail he makes himself unrecognizable by growing a beard and then shaving it
- orders a police uniform online from within the jail
- walks out from the main door and no guard recognizes him
- knows about a mysterious con man, while not even the police knows nothing
- steal a fancy car just because he wears a yellow raincoat
- goes to the main location where the cops will look for him and gets arrested again
- the doors to a mansion are wide open for him because he charms a widowed lady (and flirts with her young granddaughter)
anything else?
I might have found all of the above hilarious and stayed for the ride if the acting wasn't so surface level, the dialogues weirdly unsettling and our hard to believe couple of detective had a bit of chemistry.
Hard pass.
The Gentlemen: Refined Aggression (2024)
fireworks as expected. good.
One thing you can be sure with good old Guy Ritchie is: he doesnt fail to deliver what you would expect.
Solid pilot with a fascinating theme, comedic scenes with a touch of dark British humor, it's unfortunate the dialogues are a tad (a lot actually) forced/over the top.
Now: opening scene is glorious in its effectiveness and the smoothness of the camera movements. Our protagonist is a leader in the most exemplary definition of the term: flexible, responsible, understanding, caring, strict. Everything revealed in a matter of minutes without obvious exposition. Good scriptwriting guys.
The family reunion is the perfect setting to introduce our characters and their traits, especially the older brother who is a dangerously unreliable, hence comical. Fireworks coming.
Interesting how the weed operation under the mansion can be seen as either part of the protagonist goal of keeping the family estate or an obstacle to do that. Anyway... not really impressed with the lady relations with our hero, he seems too quick to accept the whole thing as "not a big deal" and the chat with the caretaker seemed more like a dream like state induced by the weed vapors than a real conversation.
Anyway: the theme. Ah some exposition perfectly cooked in a super cool environment (playing pool in a crazily luxurious mansion or whatever that is) with who most likely will be a fake ally bound to become an opponent later on. I digress: theme. It's in the title. Refinement and ferocity. How to balance the two? You wanna live in a zoo as a prisoner, or fight in the forest to survive? Obviously conflicts will abound and the audience will be served entertainment non stop
ending is a surreal predictable cliffhanger with unnecessarily repetitive scenes.
Overall a fun ride!
Sly (2023)
Bizarre PR piece from Netflix
Netflix should have titled it something like "In the name of Sly" and they would have avoided a lot of headaches.
I guess there is an agreement or deal between Netflix and Stallone for some potential good biz, otherwise it doesnt make sense. Maybe Netflix will leave California for Florida too?
Anyway: when my generation sees something titled "Sly" my mind races to the '80s and Sylvester Stallone, and... well, I do expect to go through his whole life.
Instead what we get is the relationship between Sly and his father, the friction, the bitterness, the highs and lows, the sudden rise to iconic fame. Anyway: something that makes you think, "ah that was the American Dream". So cool.
Opening with his mansion being emptied, ready to move to Florida is neat and engaging: a new chapter in life is ready to be written, the excitement is in the air... those old audio tapes? Perfect time to face the past and see how mature our hero now is.
Unfortunately the whole structure falls flat. This inciting incident sounds fake. No one believes Stallone is going to Florida to find his artistic verve rushing again, rather is that California has crazily high taxation + dangerous criminality. Simple.
Stallone's life is, of course, formidable and yes would deserves a documentary, but it gives the impression of being overly scripted and, ultimately, self aggrandizing. Stallone talks for a solid 70% of the runtime, the "interviews" are too few and too friendly to be interesting. The scene in NYC is so fake it hurts.
So if they had chose the "In the name of Sly" they could have played with:
- Stallone is the director. It's clear. And it shouldnt be a surprise from a guy who wrote and directed his movies and wanted to improv on set.
- the doc is about the pain of a father (in the name of the father, you know); first Stallone's dad (borderline psycho I'd say) then Stallone himself (losing his oldest son)
Instead those of us who love Stallone for what he represents will cringe when his wives are not considered. Heck, at about 1:24:00 turn on subtitles, his current wife is talking for like 5 seconds and is referred to as "woman".
Barely a mention of his daughter (and they did a reality show together)
Not recommended.
Lost: Pilot: Part 1 (2004)
how to make a top notch pilot 101
Of course there are reasons why this first episode (part 1 of 2 actually) is considered gold, when it comes to crafting a memorable pilot for a series.
How can you not love it? The opening image is iconic and the scene that follows with a continuous shot is a pretty bold statement: we go from stillness to a brutal reality that is horrifying in the way it is relatable. (now tell me who has never feared for his life when boarding a plane, I'll wait).
Yes the start of a love story between our good looking protagonist (a doctor, ie high in the hierarchical structure within that situation) and the beauty who follows him without a doubt might send cringy vibes, but it is totally acceptable, after all when you feel in your bones you might be dying...
Anyway:
- top notch editing with solid pull and release between emotionally fast paced scenes and much needed exposition in the form of flashbacks.
- enough mysteries to keep me on my seat without getting disoriented, from the pregnat lady, to the Korean couple to the sketchy dude to, of course, the invisible monster. This is something modern productions should be go back doing, instead of weaving elaborate plots and subplots that are just meant to throw some so called shock value at the audience in the hope they will keep watching.
- a lot at stakes, not only the injuries and the fear, but once we learn the plane was on the wrong route, no one knows where they are and the radio is gone the level increases.
Watch it.
Our Flag Means Death: Pilot (2022)
comical madness
Obviously these guys are not the Monty Python but if you don't laugh here I'm not sure where.
Even though some dialogue seem unnatural and forced, the overall rhythm is so enjoyable that it's everything I needed when I pressed play: a comedy that actually makes you think about the miseries of life, an incompetent protagonist with a heart of gold who discovers what is needed to gain respect within his new family (ie violence). All of the above compressed in about 30 min. Perfect.
Of course the crew won't move on with their plan to take over the ship and hang our captain (otherwise the show is over) but it's always good to know there's a danger looming behind the corner: it adds potential drama and,in our case fun stuff.
The dinner scene is a masterclass in editing, so good. I watched it twice. If you like a period piece, costumes and production design are well put together (love the skit with the library)
3 Body Problem: Countdown (2024)
Confused by this first episode
Which is not a good sign, I must say.
First of all I do agree with other reviews here (and somewhere else): the way the "setting" (or "world") of this show is presented to us is not believable at all. Now, yes it's sci fi and I'm ok with having a particle collider in the UK or anywhere else but: if you suggest that the theme might be "our science is broken" I do expect our cool scientists to go on an adventure and find new paradigms to create a "new science"! Not to go depressed, hanging out at shabby karaoke bars. This is a major weakness of the whole story and a major disappointment that is not redeemable and made me stop watching the series.
Add to this the inability to understand who could be the protagonist, the lame girlboss females with a sharp tongue and, alas, the inexpressive cop. Overall too many characters just doing things and too busy mourning their deceased friend than to show us a bit of their traits. Except the former science guy now selling chips and snacks: he's the only one who is a round character, and he's funny.
The storyline based in China during the cultural revolution is actually a surprise since it exposes a horrible part of human history that should be a warning for today's cancel culture in the west. And it flows well, it does help us to understand her. Unfortunately the secret lab is clearly there to communicate with aliens. Too predictable.
Flat photography, too many hiccups in the editing and some artificial dialogues: distracting.
The only positive note is the uber cool golden visor at the end. That's promising.
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
fairytale: Andy is an angel. otherwise: critical flaws.
Watched it again after 20+ years. As a young man I found the whole movie too slow. Time to watch it with new eyes. Yes the title is still... I can't believe they decided to release it with this incomprehensible title. Anyway.
Fast forward: it's obviously an important flick with a deep main theme: Hope in the face of an unjust adversity; plus additional subthemes like the power of an unlikely friendship, revenge against the authority that abused their power and, of course redemption. Is it among my top 10 movies? I dont think so, but it can be a good starting point for a conversation. It is poetic enough, brutal enough; easy to spot symbolic motifs (building the chess pieces, the bird in the pocket, the rock hammer, knowing how to play the game when it comes to money, the movie posters etc etc) The whole thing is really well put together. Filming, cinematography, acting (the warden steals the spotlight in my opinion), score, editing etc etc: good job, you guys played it safe and the final result is enjoyable. Still fairly slow here and there (especially the 3rd act)
The main thing that most reviews and commentators seem to miss is that the protagonist is Red (M Freeman) NOT Andy (T Robbins). It should be evident by the title, since Red needs redemption, while Andy doesnt, since he's innocent. But what kind of redemption? From having killed? Nope it is from having lost his human nature, once Red became "institutionalized" ie he came to love his slavery in prison and to fear his freedom in the outside world. Also the voice over narration - albeit monotone makes it clear we are seeing what happens through Red eyes). Andy is the main character and like Don Vito Corleone, everything that happens in the movie revolves around him. But, we the audience follow Red in his journey.
Andy seems a supernatural entity, almost like an angel. I mean, he was a banker, most likely enjoying a fairly cosy life and... he doesnt go bananas as an inmate, considering the horrible food, the small cell, the sexual abuses, the hard work in the laundry. Heck he barely shows any emotion through the movie, it's not a normal thing.
The only time we see him going off is when he realizes he might be able to prove his innocence. Instead this first emotional response lands him in isolation for a long period of time + leads a young fellow he was mentoring to be killed. If he really is an angel this might indicate he made a terrible mistake by letting his emotions taking control of his action, hence he has to redeem himself.
Also: after 20 years in prison (with poor food and abuses and stress) Andy seems he barely aged. Now: either we accept my theory that he's an angel in disguise meant to help people or the make up team did a really poor job. Also the acclaimed ending is just unbelievable: you really want me to accept the fact he carved his way out with that small hammer? Without making noise and never getting caught? When then, during the night? So he didnt sleep? With a thin movie poster covering everything up? And he could sneak a neat suit while dragging himself into a sewer?
All of the above requires supernormal powers.
Tokyo Vice: The Test (2022)
this pilot didn't pass my test
Disclaimer: I dare to say I know a thing or two about the so called Japanese "culture", especially when dealing with gaijins (outsiders), hence was curios to see this pilot, but without expecting too much. Usually a western production makes obvious mistakes especially when it comes to production design and dialogues.
So: it's a solid pilot, Michael Mann obviously knows how to keep the action moving in the frame and give audience a sense of dread, anticipation, claustrophobia. It's kind of unnecessary and exaggerated sometimes, eg the scene during the exam: we know our guy is gonna make it, no need to stress his anguish, just show us the uniformity of the Japanese folks, contrasted with the westerner attire and let's move on. The last scene with the yakuza family doesnt serve any purpose other than mere spectacle.
Yes, I do like the way the represent Tokyo in the 1990's: small spaces, heaps of people, the club scene, order and cleanliness. The soft neon vibes + desaturated palette is hard to pull together, no one cannot say it doesnt work.
The fact the blonde dude learnt Japanese for his role is indeed impressive, but it gets unrealistically painful and cringy when he acts like the classic extroverted westerner at his workplace. He wouldnt have done that, he would be perfectly aware he would have been kicked out or relegated to stare at the wall in a flash.
Dialogues are... passable.
Now: I found out the series is inspired from real events... and... it's one of those cases where real life stuff needs to be reworked to make it more interesting for the audience. Thing is: our protagonist doesnt have a decent "why". He goes and learn Japanese, move to japan, take the exam to start working like a madman as a reporter...why? As he says talking to the western singer: I feel it's a good thing to do, that's it.
Well, not enough my friend, not enough for me to care about your journey. I get it, it's dangerous out there with the yakuza families but... why should I care? What does he have to lose ? What's his real goal? Too shallow.
I'm wondering if there will be some supernatural things involved, the last scene with the "ghost"(?) of a deceased dude.
Utopia: Episode #1.1 (2013)
form over substance. what a pity
When the first scene of a pilot doesn't make sense in any possible way but it's clear that the only goal is shock the audience with a kind of violence dear to Tarantino... well... you don't have my attention.
The characters are flat and, pardon my French, unrealistically stupid. The pinnacle is the guy who gives his home address to a group of complete strangers he had met online. Come on. And these are the guys, based on trailers and whatnot, who are supposed to go against a dangerous conspiracy?
While I appreciate the stylistic choice of the oversaturated color palette - even though the risk is to fatigue the audience- the main sin is that the writing is lazy. It's one of those situations where "this happens, then this happens, then this happens", without much thought of cause and effect, rather the main concern is to arrange the sequences according to how "cool" they will be considered.
The gore is unnecessary, many questions that arise are useless, characters not only are not relatable but also unlikable. Not sure what is the theme of the series, since I wont keep watching it.
Reptile (2023)
too many red herrings and loose ends make this movie so frustrating I was expecting some supernatural stuff
Kind of surprised that Netflix greenlit this crime thriller movie. First time director, slow pace, third act that obviously will piss people off, confusing title
Now If you like Benicio del Toro, (I do) Cop mystery drama stuff (sometimes), looking into every single detail within each scene to then write your own fan theory (I don't): go ahead, you are gonna have a good time. Avoid reading reviews. It's not Seven or Zodiac or the Usual Suspect mind you.
The good stuff:
-Benicio Del Toro/Alicia Silverstone work great together to present a subversion of the cop genre. Here the wife is alert, smart, loves early his husband and knows how to use a gun. Benicio is impeccable in his role of beaten down, realistic cop; since he's listed among the writers I guess that's why.
-good editing and direction, indeed. It's a slow burner, true but at least until the end of the second act it makes sense; the camera movements are on point and it's clear both the director (again his first feature) and the cinematographer spent time and efforts to make it as "stylish as possible"
the so so stuff:
- sound design is irritating at best: I don't need intense braams and whatnot to let me know we are in danger zone
- justin timberlake wooden performance. Nope.
- useless scenes that dont move the plot forward nor reveal any info about a character personality (eg the crazy couple who were house hunting, the funeral, the cop stopping benicio at night)
the bad stuff:
- well, the story structure is a big mess. Unrealistic plot motivations that make the 'bad guys' look like idiots (eg the car parked in the garage), and the starting point (real estate scheme) baffling: every clue and proof in publicly available
- as said in the title there are too many red herrings and subplots that go nowhere. The whole reptile thing is just fluff, from the skin to the tattoo. There's a long list on some reddit groups where they discuss this aspect at length, quiet entertaining I have to say
I honestly was waiting for a Rosemary Baby revelation - everyone, even the wife is involved - in a supernatural, satanic ritualistic operation.
America Lost (2019)
Bleak, gloomy intimate snapshots without direction
While the warm cinematography, sensitive camera work, and attentive editing are to be praised, this documentary is yet another example of a contemporary production that lacks a proper, engaging storytelling.
After the reporter (from WaPo if I remember well) mentions something like "journalists are supposed to show cause and effect" I told myself: well here's the theme that will be explored!
Not really, or at least partially.
It would have been necessary to follow someone: the young lady who finishes high school and is about to leave the depressing town seemed a good starting point but nope.
We get one depressing story after another in a repetitive, hopeless loop of wasted humanity. While it's "easy" to be sympathetic it's impossible to relate, root and really emphasize with any of them: not enough time on screen. I already can't remember any of them.
Also:
- a touch of entertainment here and there is very much needed when tackling such subject
- the VO is poetic and well written but personally sounds too preachy .
Bama Rush (2023)
"You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in my head, man."
Now: I'm not American, I'm not a college student, I'm not a girl. Generally not interested in teen drama, romance, coming of age stuff.
But: even though I found it overall confusing, because of the several storylines (hence the Dude's quote), it is enjoyable.
Personally: it presents a neat image of what, generally speaking, American society can be: competitive, elitist, power grabbing, longing to belong, money driven, secret societies ruled, hypocritical, charming, supportive, well organized, courageous, shiny ... (anything else?) just for this reason I'd recommend watching it.
Anyway: I'd change quite a bit. The 4 girls we are following... simply too many. If we add the consultants, the active members, the "experts", and last but not least the director's own story... wth: simplify man, simplify. Who am I supposed to follow? The director storyline could have been the main focus yes, but it would have been a very different documentary.
I'm not clear what's the focus here: to show the emotional process of getting ready to do the "Rush"? Ie stepping into adulthood? Dealing with past traumas and fears, while asking for help? Longing to be loved no matter what? Forging connections to make a lot of money? The power of social media (i.e. The angry irrational mob)?
The abstract scenes (walking barefoot, swimming in the lake) are weird.
I liked the work done in postproduction: it's edited (mostly) right: didnt like the beginning where we spend 3 min (too long) with fast cuts showing girls screaming with their outfits and whatever, after a menacing and intriguing opening. But: the sound design is really really well done, as well as color.
The 4 girls gave me the impression of acting every now and then: when their speech has all those "like..", "you know...", it's when they are the most authentic but, alas, social media created a generation of actors so not a surprise. Makalya is my fav because of her personality.
On a side note: this whole sorority thing destroys any feminist ideology behind the alleged empowerment of the sororities themselves: they are highly judgmental and hierarchical, and the rank (top, mid, bottom) of each house is decided by... the boys. And the machine, of course, the shadow government. Hilarious: a perfect example of smoke and mirrors. Not clear how the crew could film around the campus after they got those threats, but anyway.
Born in Evin (2019)
Emotional, personal story. Gracefully shot and edited.
I found this documentary not only calming and visually appealing but it made me ponder about life and family relationships like it didn't happen in a while.
The harrowing, terrible events are weaved throughout the conversations and the inner reflections that the director/protagonist display on screen for us. It's a personal story of searching for the truth with a healthy dose of stubbornness and diplomacy that are very much needed when working on a project like this: the suffering of political prisoners in the 1980s Iran, especially women, especially women who gave birth in prison. Hence our protagonist who was born in such conditions and wants to know what happened.
It is interesting indeed, but unfortunately it is hardly relatable. Yes, pretty much anyone had conflicts with their parents and there have been misunderstandings and maybe even secrets. And yes, as young people we want to belong somewhere. But here it just doesnt click.
The weird choices when it comes to "branding" don't help: I dare to say the title is obscure for the vast majority of the international public (why not having something "born into an Iranian prison"); the poster it's even worse: what's the point of the helmet from the parachuting? And nope, using the parachute scenes as a bookending doesnt work: too abstract and disconnected from the events.
I loved the slow, wide shots during the interviews, it gives you the impression of a respectful distance. The meaningful, slow paced transition between scenes helped to give me mount time to reflect and absorb the events, especially names and places and events. This where the production team shines.
After a very good start it slowly loses focus. Maybe because it took them 3+ to make it? The mother seems to represent too many storytelling aspects: the goal (she knows the truth), the obstacle (she gets pissed and doesnt want to talk) and what's at stake (will the mother-daughter relationship survive the making of the movie?) . The ending has no resolution whatsoever, and if does it was too abstract for me to understand; some conversations are superfluous , they dont add much to what we already know: like the one in California.
Michael Moore Hates America (2004)
should have been titled "Michael Moore and Me"
This should be shown in film schools. Why? It can help to understand how hard it can be to make a proper documentary.
It's not enough to have a strong theme (love vs hate? Or truth vs lies? You tell me), a dedicated crew, solid interviews and cool quotes. Pursuing the "truth" that ideally should distinguish a documentary from a (fiction) movie will take you down a road of moral dilemmas.
Now our host/protagonist is obviously biased, let's say pissed about Michael Moore.
His naiveté is sometimes cringe and, personally, painful to watch. Why? Because what he's doing is relatable: he's David against Goliath and heck, we are rooting for him.
Now: If he had titled the whole thing "Michael Moore and Me", and:
-if he had presented his personal story trying to understand why Moore made those movies (they are not documentaries hey: the lies when filming and editing are well documented, as well as his political activities) ;
-if he had interacted with Moore at that live presentation with more discernment;
-if he had presented the dark sides of America together with America the beautiful...
it could have been a great documentary.
Instead it seems a hit piece from a rookie, unfortunately the footage and the audio didn't age that well. And I have to say the mea culpa of trying to swindle a couple of people to get an interview... seems somehow staged.
Anyway: it's overall enjoyable and down to earth.
Live to 100: Secrets of the Blue Zones (2023)
Shallow and Misleading
I just couldn't keep watching this boring stuff. Stopped at the end of ep2, it made me cringe. Dear Netflix executives (and others streaming platforms): this is why people like me are sick and tired of paying for this kind of "content".
--Shallow:
I admit we start with the right foot: the host talks about his childhood, his curiosity for a topic that promises an intriguing theme: specific areas where people live beyond 100 years (i.e. Mortality and living longer). Alas his role becomes soon insufferable: he doesn't have a strong reason to embark on this journey (other than traveling it seems); he's preachy; there are no obstacles and all the doors are indeed open. It gets boring.
Now I didn't expect deep philosophical stuff about the pros and cons of living for many many many years, but come on: you are serving us a list of things you check off one item after another like you are grocery shopping.
And: you need physical activity to live longer? No stress? Eat your veggies? No ____ sherlock!
Now let's move to the bad stuff.
--Misleading
the researchers left out major things in presenting their "findings". Stuff that you can realize by spending 30min reading about longevity:
genetics: not mentioned
blood type: not mentioned
quality of the air: not mentioned
then:
animal protein: the real blue zones are all in areas that had direct access to meat and diary. Areas where the farmers owned the land and could eat meat and cheese. I know for a fact that in Sardinia they eat heaps of pork and lamb and cheese. I highly doubt that in Okinawa they didnt eat fish.
So: is this "documentary" meant to push the vegetarian diet?
Listening to the host saying "americans are fat" "americans sit down all day" was almost painful. If you don't show numbers, percentage, age groups etc etc it is propaganda, not statistics
but the pinnacle is the Loma Linda community in California! They dont even reach 100 years! So what's the point? It smells like product placement, to sell their memberships.
Samsara (2011)
Screensaver images with ambient music
This is a perfect example of contemporary "art", where the author or the critics have to explain you the meaning behind the moving images, because... well, why bother with traditional storytelling, expressive acting, postproduction and so on and so forth?
Once you can convince a group of well off dudes to finance your gig just go ahead, travel the world for about 5 years, have a good time filming cliche' locations and events as a main course, add some "intellectual" exhibitions for good measure to spice things up and find the soundtrack that "feels" right. Done
you'll have a bunch of so called experts celebrating your accomplishment with noble sounding terms such as:
breath-taking visuals
awe-inspiring
close-ups (oh really)
narrationless narrative (say it again?)
celebration of life
natural wonder
Shot on 70mm (so what?)
Anyway I watched most of this "movie" for free on Tubi while using my spin bike. It was a good ride. Like watching a computer monitor with the screen saver activated.
Not recommended.
6 Days to Air: The Making of South Park (2011)
Disappointing: too shallow to be interesting.
Not sure what's the point of this 40 min "documentary".
It might appeal to die hard fans. For the rest of us: it might actually push some people away from ever watching any SP episode.
Now: I used to watch South Park (maybe the first 5, 6 seasons) then I guess I grew up and found most of the sexual and poop related "jokes" as being lame and fillers to carry on an otherwise empty episode.
But anyway.
The topic of the human centipede is just unwatchable stuff for anyone not familiar with SP; the unnecessary punishment to push through an episode in 6 days is not entertaining and definitely not meaningful at all (ok, it can help to work under pressure, but there are limits and they are not presented on screen). The pressure the animators, editors, etc are subjected seems like mobbing.
This is a sort of reality show that has been obviously heavily edited (even though the several black frames here and there tell us whoever reviewed it did a sloppy job). It seems the goal is to place the couple of Matt and Trey on the pedestal and see how they operate, rather than the process of making an episode. Again: cool stuff for a long time fan, useless for someone who doesn't knoew much.
The parts about the book of mormon, the oscars awards and how they started are cool yes, but totally unrelated to the premise of the documentary.
There is not much that made me say: "hey now I see how collaboration between different people can help trigger the creative process".
Asteroid City (2023)
A movie about Wes Anderson (by Wes Anderson?)
Like it or not Wes Anderson is one of the very few directors who nowadays can leave you in awe.
Not this time.
Yes, we have all the elements that made him relevant and likable: top tier ensemble cast, stupendous production design, unemotionally but witty characters, symmetric composition and fluid camera movements, and so on.
The theme, as I see it: what is real? How do we know what we are watching/listening to is truthful?
It's a fairly audacious road to walk on. Maybe this project was Wes Anderson way to deal with the lockdown and government overreach: maybe he realized it's all a truman show/1984 situation and maybe the only way to cope with his shock was to make a movie about it. Maybe.
The thing is: the whole movie it's not particularly entertaining, not particularly original, definitely not relatable (the protagonist seems to be the black and white director of the play we are supposed to watch in color on screen, ie wes anderson himself?).
And: it might be just too cerebral to be appreciated.
Maybe it will be reevaluated as a masterpiece in 5 - 10 years for its subtle metaphorical poking at the military industrial complex, the mainstream media, the education system, the entertainment industry.
Maybe.
1883: 1883 (2021)
Impactful production but predictable story
Well... if you like the genre you're gonna love this pilot. If, like me, really need something original, you might be disappointed.
Don't get me wrong: production design is great (yes, the teeth are too white, the make up is too nice but not a big deal, the town and the interiors are awesome); the tone/atmosphere is dark, gritty and hence realistic; acting is almost almost flawless, with some great moments (young lady getting slapped on the train for being a brat).
So what's your problem, you might ask? There's nothing really intriguing and the characters are painfully cliche: old man who lost his family needs a mission to find some meaning in life; young man is a badass (even too badass, he wouldnt survive against 5 bandits, but anyway) who loves his family but needs to learn how to trust others; the young lady who yearns for freedom who, based on the intense intro, will have to learn that in real life there's the rule of "no pain no gain".
Anyway: I like it. Editing, score, direction, sam elliott, costumes: good stuff. Doesn't really end on a proper cliffhanger, actually I was expecting exactly what happened, so won't keep watching.
Searching for Sugar Man (2012)
Raw emotions for a great journey
There's a reason this documentary won accolades and awards. There's a great story of human tenacity: looking into anything that can help finding the source of one's happiness.
In this case the journey of a bunch of south African seeking an American singer (Sixto Rodriguez) who brought joy during their youth (in a tough period of time when the dictatorship in South Africa was still there) through his music. The guy was a star in South Africa and other countries.
Let's add into the mix the fact that the guy they are looking for is a nobody in his country, he's basically a reclusive living a simple life (and has no idea how famous he is) , information about him were unreliable, and the companies that was distributing his works in south africa were not exactly honest... well, we get an interesting ride.
To those in the comments who said they felt betrayed by the fact the Sixto's success in other countries (like Australia) is not mentioned in the doc: the story is not about Sixto! It's about the South Africa guys who are looking for him! Sixto is the main character, obviously, but he's not the protagonist.
Salvatore: Shoemaker of Dreams (2020)
undeserving production for an unbelievable tale of human greatness
I had to check who the director of this so called documentary is and I have to say I'm even more disappointed. The guy obviously knows how to put together a visually engaging product (be it movie, doc or commercial) so what happened here?
This looks like a high school project: plenty of stills, meaningless pauses, excessive exposition (telling, telling telling) and not enough "showing".
The Voiceover is awkwardly confusing. I meant voiceovers, because we have Salvatore original comments plus someone else. Why?
Original footage from that era is basically gold and the interviews are neat and entertaining, but it's not enough
Maybe the Ferragamo clan commissioned this doc in exchange for funding the director's next project? Who knows.
What is particularly irritating is that Salvatore life is so full of turns and twists, with so many goals he wants to achieve and so much at stake and yet... it falls so flat it actually hurts. I mean, this guy basically helped creating the Hollywood star system as we know it today, plus popularizing Italian craftsmanship to the Americans. He was a genius since young age, a brilliant entrepreneur and able to discern (and create) real beauty.
How about having reenactment scenes here and there?
No Farmers No Food: Will You Eat the Bugs? (2023)
important subject matter. seems a bit rushed
This might be one of the most important social issues that most people are unaware of. I.e. A war against farmers, i.e. A war against humanity. Or at least those who are not part of the elites.
Hence: kudos to the team for tackling this matter. I would recommend this doc to everyone.
I have to say I would have liked this to be a docuseries in multiple parts. There's a lot to digest here. Having one episode for each country (US, Holland, Sri Lanka) would have allowed digging deeper. I found the Sri Lanka situation hard to grasp and too fast.
The scenes with the Dutch farmers are particularly harrowing, honest hard working people who are on the front lines of this war.
The animations are simple but effective, they help to visually present "boring" but important data and they work well as transitions between the various sequences between countries and topics.
Unfortunately this doc suffers from the same problem I see in many recent documentaries: there is no story. We don't really follow the host on a journey of discovering, rather he presents what the team already found: i.e. The UN is behind this war. Which should have been at the end of the journey IMO.
The beginning with the crickets' snacks was great and could have been used to propel a quest: "who is selling this stuff? How do they expect people to buy it? What about health risks? Who approved these things to be in stores? Who's buying them?" etc. There is a great scene with a Dutch producer (crickets and worms if I remember well) which is entertaining and would have been perfect at the beginning.
The editing seems rushed too. Too many unmotivated cuts, weird audio overlaps with the host saying mmm, yes, sure and so on when others are talking. Also breaking the 180 rules at the beginning (twice in a row) put me off. I guess "regular" audience guys won't notice though.
White House Plumbers: The Beverly Hills Burglary (2023)
Brilliant Parody (?)
Maybe it's because I enjoy that era, the 70s, with all the analog stuff, the color palette and the trendy mustaches but... even when Woody Harrelson is clearly over the top in his portrayal of an ex CIA agent who has to team up with an FBI agent, I' more than ready to forgive him.
Great chemistry between the 2 main actors, great production design and smooth tight editing. Love it.
What can I say, it might be it reminds me of a Benny Hill skit hence I can't help but laugh every now and then, but story wise is on point. Our protagonist (real person, involved in the overestimated Watergate Scandal) wants to go back and play in the big league, after failing miserably and being benched.
He loves his family, hate communists, has some problems to keep is tongue in check and his moral boundaries are kind of blurred.
Love the obstacle/conflicts: his FBI partner (whose moral compass is more straight), his family (daughter is rebelliously dropping out of college to fight the system her father incarnates), the democratic party, the press... who else?
There's a lot at stake for our protagonist: his ego mainly. Let's see in the next episodes. Refreshing first episode.
Fringe: Pilot (2008)
too much mumbo jumbo
So: it's Sci fi, ok ok. But:
we have:
mysterious disease that kills everyone on a plane in a few minutes, melting their bodies
said plane is the first one to have autopilot to land itself successfully
FBI agents find a bio lab in a storage facility, one of them explodes, doesnt die (but he's in a rough shape)
mad scientist gets out of a mental facility after 17 years and still knows how to operate his lab that still functions after being closed down for those 17 years (at Harvard)
mad scientist gets a cow in that lab
FBI agent goes into a deprivation tank where she can telepathically communicate with the other FBI agent
twin brothers are involved
artificial limb (arm and hand) indistinguishable from a normal one
now: the idea to have a new XFiles with more technologically advanced stuff is a bold one, I have to admit. But this pilot is a big mess. Too much to digest and accept. Stiff acting. Illogical developments
anyway: I guess they are right since they have 100 episodes under their belt.
The Bear: System (2022)
Starts with a bang! wish it was a bit longer
If you like fast paced, realistic, intriguing pilots... this should be on your list. Even if you dont care about restaurant business life (I personally do) you cant escape the raw emotions you'll face in a kitchen (especially a small, family run restaurant). I guess there's a reason why this series is beloved, the writing is great.
The soundtrack selection, editing, and performances are top notch. Especially the interactions between the 2 cousins are magnificent. Talk about conflicts.
The montages at the beginning with Chicago, the cooking the family photos really helps to understand the situation right away. The goal of our protagonist seems clear: make the restaurant work, make money. But is it? Most likely there is way more under the surface
I'm left with a lot of question marks that makes me want to keep watching... why the bear? What happened to the brother? To the sister? How did our guy win a james beard award?
Clocking at 27 min it's too short though. This is the main issue I have. The fast editing of certain scenes finds a balance with some exposition (the few minutes of the chef talking to his sister says a lot) but, while I do prefer a tight episode rather than a dragged 60 min thing, the impression I have is that I would have preferred an additional 10 minutes of screen time. The part with the ball breakers game feels a bit rushed.