Change Your Image
paoloemanuele
Reviews
The Batman (2022)
And yet another Batman movie...
Being a creature of the eighties, I was alive and sold when the first Batman (1989) reached the screens. Now I have seen so many versions, perhaps I have become weary of them. I thought Affleck, despite his very lackluster movies, was the best presentation of the character on screen. Bale was ok, just looked a bit like a cosplayer, but the movies (well, one and a half) were quite good. Keaton didn't look like superhero material but ended up being very good for its time. What about the former vampire? Well, he's good, as acting goes. Has presence, a not ridiculous batman voice, doesn't look too massive (ie. No steroid galore like those other two) but resonably strong, a good jawline. Bruce Wayne is a bit too frowny and emolike, but I bet it's not his choice but it's in the script. What does this film lack then?
Well, editing, for one. It's overlong, and highly cuttable.
The script is decent, but contrived, generic, and even with very good performances by the villains, doesn't seem very convincing.
Too much back and forth, the fact that batman walks happily among cops as he's not a masked vigilante, all that talk about shadows when he's often in plain neon light (also, I know it's a comicbook movie, but c'mon, nobody realizes he's freaking Bruce Wayne? Any face recognition software would get it in seconds, not to mention he looks just like him and he walks often centimetres from people's faces...).
It takes itself very seriously, but fails to deliver. The voiceover was very corny too, like it was trying to convince us.
The action is ok, nothing to write home about but competent.
The costume was a bit meh, with an almost Adam West nose and too much details, but it's hard to beat Affleck's costume as it looks just like the comics while being resonably realistic.
Zoey Kravitz is goodlooking as usual, and can act as well, but her motivations seem a bit stretched.
Alfred didn't convince me, no fault to Serkins though, and neither did the Penguin; again, Farrell gave a good performance, but the character was a bit pointless.
I don't know, it all seemed like some videogame cutscenes instead of a proper movie. Maybe with a slicker edit it would have been better, but as it is, I honestly wouldn't pay to watch a sequel.
Puerto Escondido (1992)
Good film, much better book
Salvatores has been directing movies for more than twenty years, and most of them are very watchable with great ones every now and then. This title, although I enjoyed it a lot, is to me a bit of a hit and miss. The casting is good (the usual Abatantuono, Bisio, Bentivoglio etc.), the film flows quite alright and some of the points it makes are spot on. Yet years later I decided to read the book and I found out the story was just much better, and could have made a greater film, or even a short series, if budget wasn't a problem (in Italy often is). The comedic turn Salvatores decided to make doesn't convince me thoroughly, and although it is funny, it's not as good as other films he made (Mediterraneo, Marrakech Express). To all the Italian readers (because I don't know if it has been translated in any other languages) I can only advise to read Pino Cacucci's book, if you like travels and serious storytelling, it's the right book for you. Ah, and be careful because you'll become obsessed about going to Mexico!
Chinatown (1974)
One of the best noir thriller ever
I watched this movie recently for the first time and I'm 26 (I know, shame on me). I didn't know anything about it and didn't even read the cover of the DVD, so it came as a surprise to me. Well, it's an amazing thriller with very good acting all along. First of all, Jack Nicholson portraits a great character, very different from the types we got used to see him playing later on. John Houston is also very believable in a role that could have easily turned into a stereotype. The LA setting in the '30s is very suggestive, and Polanski's direction follows the story with a objective eye that suits the film perfectly. I recommend this masterpiece to anyone who likes good cinema.
Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)
Would make a good tourist ad
I just have to say, I currently live in Catalonia. And I'm a bit fed up with all the Catalan nationalism I'm surrounded by. But this hasn't much to do with the film, actually there's hardly anything 'Catalan' in the it, only the fact that Cristina is studying 'Catalan identity' just because she likes Gaudí (quite absurd, I like Mondrian but I'm not gonna study dutch identity because of that!). The whole movie looks more like a 'visit Spain!' ad than anything else, the scenes in Oviedo are merely a touristic walk with all the Spanish stereotypes you can think of, Spanish guitars and all. The actors are good, but they struggle to make believable a script that is preposterous and ridiculous, especially Penelope Cruz has the worst character of her carrier. Allen seems to have lost not only his touch, but also common sense, putting films like this (or Cassandra's Dream) in his CV. It seems like he has to change city every 5-6 years to give some fresh air to the same old plots he has. For the ones who don't know, the film is set in Barcelona only because the government paid good money for it, otherwise it would have been somewhere else. It's just so hard to me to believe he is the same director of Manhattan.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Merely a bad filmed Indiana Jones rip-off.
Indy 4 is just an ugly cash-in. There's no other way to explain it. How on earth could Mr. Spielberg and Lucas agree on this script is beyond my comprehension. And it's not just the plot, it's badly filmed, edited, the musical score is way below the standards we'd expect from John Williams, and the over-abused CGI makes it look more like an Indy spoof than an Indy sequel. Ford doesn't deliver one-liners the way he used to (but I'd rather blame the dumb, cheesy dialog for that), Karen Allen is just useless and not even a shadow of what she was in Raiders. Shia LeBouff is no Marlon Brando and we knew it, here he's not fully awful but no memorable either. John Hurt and Winstone are wasted for stupid useless characters, the first playing most of the film the Savior-fool cliché, the latter an hybrid between the stereotyped greedy-English-traitor of many old American war-movies and John Rhys-Davies character in 'King Solomon's Mines, actually an Indy-spoof from 1986. And in fact Indy 4 could easily be more a money pumped-up Allan Quatermain than a Indiana Jones movie. I believe they had the right script when they did the Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis video game in 1991, when Ford was young and Spielberg still a good Hollywood director. But it wasn't written by Lucas and we all know how egocentric the man is. Let's hope at least we won't have the insipid Shia as the next hero. But then again, we won't be forced to watch it.
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
The greatest adventure movie of all times.
Raiders of the lost Ark is, to me, where the minds and hands of Spielberg, Lucas and Kasdan peaked, and never quite succeeded to get even close to this high ever again. The movie simply hits every point, the characters are fully developed (for an adventure movie of course, it's no cinéma vérité), the plot is interesting and the visual effects are just the best you could get back then. Not to speak about the actors, Ford is just perfect as Indiana Jones (and that's why he will always be Indy for the rest of his career), Karen Allen was a strong actress and the supporting roles really work as friends or baddies. Comparisions with the two sequels are hard, this one is way too much better filmed, written and acted. The latest, useless installment is not even a challenge to me, being the lowest point of the Lucas-Spielberg franchise, and the gravestone of the great late Indy character. In the end, even if you don't like the genre this film is good entertainment for two hours.
L'auberge espagnole (2002)
You'll want to go back to your Uni years!
L'Auberge Espagnole (all the other titles and translation don't really work) is an important film for the whole European culture, the first one that analyses the phenomenon of Erasmus, which was quite new at the time. The characters are enough developed, the young actors seemed to have fun doing it, and you have a good immersion in the atmosphere of Barcelona, with its meltin' pot, troubles at University with Catalan speaking teachers, etc. If there is a fault, is the typical 'French' way of portraying stereotypes of any foreign characters; we got the French main character, obviously the 'cool' one, and all the others, the almost dumb Italian guy, the nearly hysterical Spanish girl, the stubborn German guy and so on. This is a common thing in French films, overly nationalistic in most cases, and makes this particular film not fully enjoyable at times. Beside that, it's a memorable film for whoever has had an Erasmus gap-year or has just travelled a bit. Just DO NOT watch it dubbed.