Change Your Image
CineParaTodos
Reviews
Scrapper (2023)
TRIES WAY TOO HARD to make you feel something
SCRAPPER has so much potential but unfortunately quickly falls apart.
What Worked: The characters were authentic and grounded and the acting was strong. Some of the magical realism was done well. There was heart. The way the characters in Georgie's neighborhood and life are explored is creative, as is the use of color. I also appreciated that even though Georgie had a hearing aid, it was just part of her world and never really spoken about. It just was normalised.
What didn't work: The story was trying too hard to pull at your heartstrings and often took itself too seriously. Not much happens, it's slow and repetitive and the whole story could have been told in a 25 minute short film with the same emotional arc. The emotional investment that is established in the prologue is promising but it then you're living in that same space for what feels like a 2hr film (even though it was 84 minutes it felt like it never ended). The script wasn't tight and some plot points were left unanswered.
Overall it's definitely what you would expect a Sundance film to look and feel like (hence why Sundance is becoming more and more irrelevant and tone deaf).
If you wanna watch a great movie about poor white single-parent family, I much prefer THE FLORIDA PROJECT as it was more restrained in its request for your heartstrings and yet manages to tug at them harder. Watching THE FLORIDA PROJECT I was moved to cry, watching SCRAPPER I kept think wow, they're really wanting me to feel this certain way at this moment in the story, when will this be over?
The Whale (2022)
A solid 10 for Brendan Fraser! but THE WHALE gets a 6!
Brendan Fraser should win every award possible for his role in THE WHALE. This would have been a very easy role to stereotype, yet Fraser made it complex, compelling, full of vulnerability and heart. This film succeeds because of Fraser's performance.
Otherwise the film struggled.
WHAT WORKED:
Tonally it worked. It had a dark, dramatic feel, the eating scenes were hard to watch, because you felt the pain of the character. The Production Design also worked well. The relationship between Charlie and Liz was the most believable, compelling, and grounded. I also didn't mind the aspect ratio, a bold and jarring choice at first, but you quickly realize it makes Charlie seem bigger in the frame, and this also works. Sound design worked well and the score (though at times a bit too dramatic) also served the film.
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
Because it was based on a play it was filmed much like a play. The blocking was really distracting, characters would get up and walk two steps then turn around, making human actions and purpose a bit unbelievable. There was overacting and overly dramatic performances especially from Ellie and Mary. Ellie was supposed to be a hurt and broken teen, yet it was played one note, with the same intensity from beginning to end. With the exception of Ellie's last line "Daddy!" the entire time she's on screen the actress portrays the same over the top actions, lacking in subtlety, nuance and emotional range. Even Samantha Morton who I consider to be a fantastic actress has some moments where it feels overacted/over the top and disingenuous, which makes me wonder if it was directed this way (as a play might have been on a stage). The writing was also at times a problem. It was hard to believe character motivations at times for why they would do certain things. The character of Thomas's want didnt' see earned or strong enough, the main purpose of his existence in the story was to give Ellie a "person to save" but the continued appearance of Thomas's character felt unearned and at times unbelievable, and when his true mission is revealed it's not some big altering reveal, more of a forced, and lack-luster one. Overall, some script/story decisions felt forced and convenient. Compared to Aronovsky's Pi, Requiem for a Dream, and Black Swan, The Whale is forgettable, lacking that "je ne sais quoi" that exists in Aronovsky's earlier works. But all of that aside, BRAVO to Branden Fraser who deserves to bask in every glory for his stellar performance as Charlie.
See How They Run (2022)
Lazy, gimmicky, self-aware garbage
Lazy writing, and gimmicky directing. Acting was fine but wasted on a lackluster story. What was the point of this film? Like on a thematic level, it just didn't have a point, so why should I care?
The split screen shots were so gimmicky. Why? Just seemed like the director wasn't sure what shot to choose so he split screened it, but it didn't serve the story in any profound layered kind of way. It just was for the sale of being.
On a morality level, you side with the murderer once all is revealed, becauSe what they went through is worthy of empathy and at that point, as a viewer you're confused morally, in a way that do any help the script. The clues leading to the murder are never planted so when it's revealed who the murderer is, it's not like an "A-Ha! Of course!!!" Moment it's more like an "Eh?" Not really an arc for any of the characters. Also the breaking of the fourth wall at the end, so cheesy, self-aware and just lacked sophistication. I'm glad I didn't pay to watch this garbage. Probably made by some privileged white male director and written by some privileged white male writer who doesn't need to work as hard to get an opportunity in this industry. It's unfortunate these lazy big budget films are being made while so many other stories are left untold.
The Offer (2022)
Still idolizing men and diminishing women in 2022!
While the production value and the acting is high no review better articulated my issues with this show than The Guardian's recién of this show: "Why the Godfather making-of series The Offer has a nostalgia problem"
Go Binge or Go Home (2021)
Distasteful to say the least.
Watched this ay the Crystal Palace film festival, and to say it was bad is an understatement. This was so over the top in every want, that it was hard to care about any of the characters. It mocked these characters rather than make audiences relate or feel empathy. The story structure didn't work. Characters had no clear wants. It was also very triggering. Binge-eating (like bulimia and anorexia), is a real mental/eating disorder that affects many people, and sadly the way in which the film made light of binge eating was offensive and distasteful (pun intended). It also didn't help that the characters were so over the top, as this made them caricatures and not real-flushed out characters. When I first saw these actresses as leading ladies I was excited about the potential of this film only to be quickly disappointed. It was trying so hard to be funny but failed by not grounding any of its characters in believable humanity. I don't believe it was the fault of the actors since all three actors were over the top, the hair and make up was over the top and the entire film was very heavy handed and lacked subtlety.
Black Mirror: Striking Vipers (2019)
WOW! Speechless
This was such a beautiful episode. Unlike a lot of the other reviewer's comments I don't think it's about being gay or straight, but rather about sexuality in whatever form it comes. This isn't an episode about LGBT, I think it's trying to present a future where sexuality isn't confined to labels, and I quite enjoyed that in the world of the game, Karl (Yahya Abdul Mateen II) always played Roxette, love when he says (I'm paraphrasing): "Being in my body is like a guitar solo, but being in this body (Roxette's body) it's like a whole symphony." The episode is also about marriage, and family and how relationships are affected by time and children. It raises so many interesting questions! Is having sex with someone other than your spouse in VR world considered cheating? Must a healthy marriage be monogamous or might there be other healthy ways to be in a partnership that fulfills the needs of both parties?
The architecture was stunning. Shot in Sao Paulo it had everything from colonial to midcentury buildings and a gorgeous cityscape for a backdrop. The mood was light but dense. The acting was strong. I especially liked Nicole Beharie as Theo, but all of the leads were fantastic. There was a lot of contained emotions and one could feel the inward struggles of the characters.
I highly recommend this episode. I've seen all the Black Mirror episodes thus far and this has to be one of the better ones.
Widows (2018)
McQueen's latest film Widows is a lesson in bad storytelling
First What worked...
1) The representation of diverse female characters on screen in leading roles.
2) The acting was great despite the bad script.
3) Directorial choices: Two moments that stood out were: 1) the intro to the characters, a well executed and well edited and sound designed sequence that cut back and forth between snipits of the women prior to becoming widows, juxtaposed with the violent heist gone wrong that eventually turned them into widows. 2) Another standout directorial moment is when Mcqueen chooses to show the journey from an impoverished predominantly black neighborhood to the wealthier part of town, all while two characters talk but are never seen. This was smart because it showcased the environment as a player in the story, and because the dialogue was mediocre at best, and actually showing the characters speaking would have felt melodramatic, expository, and uninteresting, but by shooting it in this way, it forced the viewer to listen less to the dialogue and focus more on the environment in which the event was taking place.
Now for what DIDN'T work......
1) The Story: is not only formulaic and filled with predictable tropes, but everything that happens from beginning to end is at the expense of believability and truth. While Widows pitches itself as a heist movie, there's no set-up, build up, or pay off for the heist. There is simply no struggle. Because the script never gives us a plan of the heist, we don't follow the protagonists through the process of preparing to execute a plan that may/may not go as expected, instead we just see the widows running around and buying guns and vans but with no explanation of why and how they will carry out the deed; and thus, the viewer is unable to emotionally connect to the potential exciting/scary trials and tensions of a planned heist gone awry. One of my favorite things about heist movies is that the planning involved builds the viewer's expectations for the undertaking, so by experiencing the process with the protagonists we'd immediately feel for them and want them to succeed. However, in Widows there is no mention of a plan, or a near-impossible undertaking that will keep the viewer at the edge of his/her seat rooting for the characters, instead it's just a given that there is some sort of plan in place that already exists and that is never really talked about or explained, so when the heist is in full swing, it becomes a missed opportunity to have manipulated audience expectations and to take viewers on an emotional, tense filled and action packed journey. This also eliminates any sense of real/potential danger in the film which makes for two hours and nine minutes of very slow and uneventful boredom. There is no payoff at ALL. I attended the WGA screening of this movie (followed by Q&A with Steve McQueen and Gillian Flynn) and the screenwriters made sure to mention that they wanted the heist to be more "small time," they didn't want the characters to steal $20 million dollars, but rather a smaller amount that would be divided among all of them. This comment felt more like an excuse for why Widows' stakes were so low, and less of a commentary on how wonderfully effective "small time" crime movies can be. In a good "small-time crime" film, the circumstances and stakes are so dire that stealing $10 could have really significant consequences, and the build up could make it very compelling (and sad) to watch someone risk everything for a small reward. Widows fails to deliver on any substantial set-up that could lead to either a great pay off, or sad/violent/disturbing disappointment. A missed opportunity for the writers to manipulate audience emotional connection to the story and its characters.
Another big issue with the film is that entire storylines are built up in Act I and then just dropped and unexplored by Acts II and III. An example of this is the story of Jamal Manning (played by Tyree Henry), who is painted as a crooked politician who serves as the catalyst/threat in the story that leads Veronica (Davis) to pursue this heist. However, while he does threaten her in Act I, Jamal's pursuit of this money falls by the wayside sometime in Act II, and Veronica's intention and reason for "going on this heist journey" (to pay back Jamal the money her husband stole, and to split the rest among the widows) never gets a resolution. She never has to face Jamal about the money, Jamal never comes back to claim the money, Jamal's entire storyline and intentions which seem to take center stage in Act I are barely mentioned or addressed by Act III. So the script sets up the audience expectations for really high stakes: If Veronica doesn't pay Jamal back the $2M then terrible things will happen to her (and to her dog?!?!) but then Jamal never comes back to collect on his threat, he never again inquire about the money that is owed to him, this storyline never really goes anywhere except on tangents and weak socio-political commentary.
2) Character choices are unbelievable, relationships are poorly developed and intentions are weak and misleading. Secondary characters like that of Jatemme Manning (Daniel Kaluuya) are given center stage and built up in Act I, only to conveniently be killed off in easy and uninspired ways without struggle. Another major issue is the character of Harry Rawlins (Neeson). After his death, Harry leaves his wife a key, and a lock box combination, that sets Veronica on her journey. It is the set up that leads the viewers to believe that Harry loved his wife; so much so that after he's gone he wants her to have his most important possession - a special "notebook" that she can sell to the Mannings for a significant amount of money. So while in Act I, the story leads us to be believe Harry's intentions are to "help his grieving wife," by Act III the story wants us to believe that now he's all of a sudden willing to kill Veronica for money (If Harry was willing to fake his own death and leave Veronica his most prized possession, then why all of a sudden is he willing to kill her for this money? Wouldn't it have been easier if he never would have left her the notebook to begin with? His intentions are so muddled and all over the place that it's difficult to take anything that happens seriously). Harry's actions feel imposed onto the story to create a false sense of drama, and to add shock value, all the while compromising the believability of the characters. A ridiculous twist happens in Act III that makes Veronica's relationship to her husband feel like it was a joke all along, one with zero history, and zero emotional depth which is a contradiction to how the writers set up their relationship in Act I. When we first learn of the love story between Veronica and Harry, we are led to believe the couple shared a profound, deep connection, a complicated romantic history, they even raised a child together, and experienced the shared trauma of losing that child, but nothing in the set up of their love story would lead any smart audience member to believe that these characters would so quickly try to kill each other without a second thought. Nothing up until this point in the story leads the viewer to believe that these to people don't care enough about one another to think twice before pulling the trigger. What's shocking is not that they are willing to kill each other, but that it's even happening in the first place. The motivations, intentions and actions are confusing and completely unbelievable.
3) The film is filled with convenient plot points that account for missed opportunities for dramatic tension and struggle. For example, during the heist, the women's van is taken from them (it's not stolen, it's taken because stolen would imply a struggle, and there is no struggle). This could have been a fantastic opportunity for action. The protagonists had a plan, the plan went wrong, and now they have to fix it and get their van back? Watching them have to figure out a plan B would've been interesting, they would've had to struggle to figure out a solution, but instead the film cuts to them in another car chasing the van, and magically and conveniently Kaluuya's character hits a curb/wall, and dies instantly, allowing the women to simply just take their money back. There is no confrontation with Manning. So while the script attempted to give us a shocking twist (with Kaluuya taking the van from the widows immediately post heist) the women didn't have to fight very hard to win their van back. They're also never chased by cops (at any point), even though there are gunshots during the heist, even though they are robbing an affluent neighborhood that likely has surveillance cameras and security guards, even though they leave loose ends at the Mulligan house (Nurse could call the cops when her patient Tom Mulligan is killed) but no, there is no one after the widows. Any potential complications that could make the story more interesting are never explored. There is never a sense of fear, or urgency. During the heist, another obstacle presents itself that is quickly dismissed. This happens when the nurse (Robert Duvall's caretaker) comes out of the bedroom mid robbery, at which point the widows decide to let her go back to her bedroom. In a film more grounded in reality, when the stakes are supposedly so high, and these women are supposedly so desperate and reckless, when prison or death are at risk, and their children could be left without mothers, WHY would these women let the nurse go right back to bed after being discovered? Are they not afraid she will call the police? Are they not worried she'll wake everyone up and they'll be caught? Apparently NOT. And in an attempt to make this feel like a believable choice, one of the widows says "do you think she'll call the police?" and another widow says "No that would be stupid" what is so stupid about calling the police if you're being robbed? It's just a terrible story.
American Gods (2017)
Lost faith in American Gods
I really wanted to believe in American Gods. After reading raving reviews by The New York Times and IndieWire, I was stoked to watch a show that dealt (supposedly) with the topics of immigration, mythology, and "America's existential crises." Unfortunately, what I subjected myself to, was a sequence of wonderful images, beautiful cinematography, and equally striking production design, all desperately grasping to engage, while masking a bad story, where the main character(Shadow Moon) has zero motivation, or drive; and where all things happen to him, while he takes no real actions of his own. God-like characters with supernatural powers are introduced, gratuitous violence is indulged, and sporadic bits of mildly interesting dialogue is dispersed amidst painful exposition and bad story.
American Gods is so caught up in it's desire to impact viewers with bizarre metaphorical scenes, and visual pyrotechnics, that it misses the opportunity to create engaging characters with relatable conflict for audiences to identify and engage with.
Even in ancient mythology, stories of Gods still have universal human emotions, causes and consequences. For example, in Greek Mythology the story of Agamemnon, sacrificing his daughter Iphigenia in exchange for Artemis to change the winds so his men can travel to Troy, etc. ---- this is a story of sacrifice, which causes Agamemnon's wife (Clytemnestra) to then murder her husband Agamemnon, etc..... CAUSE-EFFECT, Action, Reaction. The reason I bring this up (without giving too much away) is because American Gods begins with a similar reference to mythology and the wind gods; however, rather than a captivating story, all we see are gratuitous violent scenes that lead to more unrelated violence.
While the production quality is high (great special effects, sensational vast exteriors and well designed interiors); it masks a weak structure, with a hero who wants nothing, pursues nothing, and reacts to nothing.
It is most definitely possible for films/television to deal with larger-than-life questions (for example The Seventh Seal, The Matrix, Melancholia, Werckmeister Harmonies, Solaris, almost all Roy Andersson films, and Charlie Kaufman films (just to name a few), all deal with existentialism in very human, captivating ways (while addressing much larger narrative questions). American Gods however, heavily relies on its superfluous violent, and sexual images, as a way to superficially lacquer an incomplete structure, and weak story.
Cuatro estaciones en La Habana (2016)
Well Constructed Cock Fest
Four Seasons in Havana is a very stylish, well constructed crime mini series. It has a "Noir" feel but with overly dramatic and Cuban banter. Noir typically showcases more subtle acting, and minimal dialogue, and generates a "colder" more mysterious tone. Four Seasons in Havana, for all of its noir-esque elements, is still a warm and colorful show. The story is interesting enough. The biggest issue with this show is the male chauvinism and relationships established with the minimal female cast whose sole purpose is to: 1) be raped and murdered (Lisette - Ep1), 2) to be the object of the man's sexual desire ("Stick it to the redhead"), or 3) to serve the men (feed them and bring them coffee). It's funny actually how backwards it is (We found ourselves laughing out loud each time a man asked a woman for coffee, or thanked them for feeding them).
Outside of the minor (almost no speaking) female roles, the show is a Cock-Fest of men in positions of power whether it be on the right side of the law, or the left side. Male police officers, male drug dealers, male doctors, male criminals, male students, it's a one dimensional show that hides its outdated caveman worldview behind a beautiful landscape, beautiful colors and shots (some pretty cool drone-shots of Havana), and exceptional acting by Jorge Perugorria and his supporting Cuban cast.
But when compared to other Latin American shows that have recently broken into the Netflix market, "Four Seasons in Havana" is not current with the politics of our time. In the Brazilian show "3%" (also on Netflix), the cast is diverse inclusive, and the leads and power players, both male and female, making the science fiction action/adventure an interesting complex forward thinking show about bi-racial relationships, composite women characters (and male characters), which was an element missing in "Four Seasons in Havana"
While the styling is forward thinking, the colors vibrant, and the setting (Havana) alluring, the show leaves much to be desired when it comes to building tension, and to the representation of three dimensional characters. The tension is lost when every bit of the mystery is told as back-story or as a memory. So rather than anything happening or being revealed, plot points are told in flashbacks, making the pacing slow and boring. The lack of three dimensional characters is due to the overpowering testosterone that fills the screen throughout each scene, and the lack of diverse creative Casting, as well as the perpetuation of the White Cuban as the hero, and the Black Cubans as the poor Drug dealers.
I hope more culturally relevant shows get produced and brought into the main stream. As a Cuban, artist and filmmaker i hope that Cuban stories and Latin American stories get shared and accepted as universal, but no matter who you are, or where you come from, everyone should be held to the same standards of political correctness and good storytelling. After all, as a medium, we all want to keep moving forward, not backwards.
Ah-ga-ssi (2016)
A Feminist, empowering, sexy love story, told in a most creative and thrilling way.
"The Handmaiden" by Park Chan-wook is a very feminist film (though it may not identify as such) that unearths a morbose, and sado-misogynistic world of literary pornography, as well as a culture of women subjugated to read these books out loud to gatherings of wealthy older men. It is a story of trickery, scamming, and conning. It is a story of power, dominance, and control. It is a story of ritual, customs and twisted desires. But, above all things, this movie is a beautiful and empowering love-story.
Much like Kurosawa's "Rashomon" Chan-Wook's film creates powerful suspense and tension through its multiple perspective story-telling; allowing the viewer to slowly piece together a narrative puzzle (as each character recounts their experience), revealing bits of information that unravel the truth about the chain of events that occur. Divided into 3 Parts (not to be confused with Acts), the different Points of Views serve as a witty story-telling trope that plays out beautifully and seamlessly in "The Handmaiden."
While it has the unapologetic perversion of Pasolini's "Salo:120 Days of Sodom" Chan- Wook has a sense of (dark) humor throughout his film. Telling a compelling, somewhat-stylized, and dark story but without taking itself too seriously; provoking moments of laughter despite the discomfort, the beauty, the perversion, the seduction. We are not only seduced by what is unveiled, but Chan-Wook also seduces us with lavish sets, luxurious costumes, and beautiful scenery, as well as meticulous directing, and gorgeous cinematography. The love-story and the tension that the Director is able to build between the two leading female characters is reminiscent of the forbidden love between Mrs Chan and Chow Mo-wan in Won Kar Wai's "In the Mood for Love;" generating tension and density in the air by controlling and denying us (the viewer) of our desires and expectations. By not allowing love to consummate when we most wish it to. And, although I have not actually seen "Fifty Shades of Grey" (and nor is it on my "Must Watch" Movie list), I imagine "The Handmaiden" also shares similar thematic elements with the E.L. James franchise.
Much like the 2013 Cannes favorite, Abdellatif Kechiche's "Blue is the Warmest Color," Chan-Wook's film also shows graphic sexual encounters between two beautiful women (and runs about 3 hours long), but unlike Kechiche's film which indulges in woman-on-woman sex through a very accentuated self-centered, male-gaze, "The Handmaiden" on the contrary, is a very empowering story about two bad-ass women who--despite the sedimented patriarchal world they inhabit-- are able to break away, find love, express themselves sexually (in a very tasteful, romantic, at times humorous, and tender ways); and outsmart the ego-centric, sex-obsessed, wealth- obsessed men.
Chan-Wook is very smart in the way he shows us grossly perverse "acts" performed for the amusement of men, and under the control of men; and the same act later reclaimed by the leading females and turned into an act of pleasure for themselves, and for each other. A very beautiful, current, and empowering love-story told in a most creative and thrilling way.
"The Handmaiden" is now added to my list of feminist films directed by progressive male filmmakers. Sure, Chan-Wook is a male Director, and by default, it's impossible for the story not to have "a bit" of a male gaze, since it is a man literally standing behind the lens and looking through it; however the film is quite feminist. Like Rivettes' revolutionary "Julie and Celine go Boating" and Eric Rohmer's "La Collectionneuse" and "Claire's Knee" as well as Truffaut's "Jules et Jim" really progressive feminist films made by male filmmakers. Much like the aforementioned auteurs, Park Chan-Wook has managed to deal with sexuality, misogyny, and power from a very feminist perspective. Unapologetically and refreshingly empowering.
Scandal (2012)
A Revolution in Television!
This show is fantastic! It's addictive and well structured. Overall it is well written and the characters are pretty solid; although some of the episodes themselves don't have the strongest dialogue. The foundations are pretty solid and the pacing is fast and fluid.
The best and most exciting thing about this show is its representation of people of color in diverse and powerful roles; from the main actress Kerry Washington (as Olivia Pope), a self empowered, intelligent, go-getter; to small but equally powerful roles such as doctors and CEOs and lawyers portrayed by men and women of color. This is incredible, as it is by only challenges notions of roles that are expected to be played by certain racial/gender groups but it also provides artistic work for actors of color. This, not only opening up acting possibilities and jobs for talented minority groups, but also inspiring and challenging the social norms and beliefs that certain groups of people can/cannot be in positions of power and success based on their race/gender/ethnicity/identity. It is a fantastic show for that reason, as well as the fact that it's entertaining, witty and thrilling to watch.
La vie d'Adèle (2013)
A Palm D'Or?
I will begin with the positives:
- I appreciate that this film deals with sexuality and presents an exploration of love, the self and and understanding of one's own identity through the character of Adele. - I appreciate the strong female roles, and female leads both played by strong female actresses.
What didn't work: - All the references to Sartre, Egon Schiele, Klimt, French Literature, Kubrick, Scorcese, Buena Vista Social Club poster on Adele's bedroom wall, there were way too many cultural references in the script that were a bit pretentious and too "on the nose" and that felt like the Screenwriters/Directors thoughts and beliefs vs. those that help push the story forward in a way that is creative and/or innovative.
- the Editing was terrible. The film is 3hrs long. And let me tell you this is NO Spartakus and no Lawrence of Arabia and no Gone with the Wind, so by an 1hr45 people in the theater were already getting antsy and some even getting up and leaving. This same exact story could have easily been told in under 2hrs. A 3hr movie only shows the inexperience of the Editor or the self indulgence of the Director. The editing was so sloppy that in a classroom scene where Adele is dictating sentences to the first graders we see a shot of the back of her brown dress and for a good 5 seconds we see a microphone strapped to the back of her dress. Another scene that needed editing was the first sex scene between Adele and Emma; i don't mind that it was graphic and borderline porn, that's fine, it was just so long that by the time it transitioned into the next scene you forgot you were watching something other than lesbian porn at a mainstream movie theater. Another sign that this scene should have been shorter was when people in the audience started laughing after a while, it was beautiful and graphic but after 5 minutes of two women having sex it stops being interesting (another example of the Director's self-indulgence, or inability to cut).
- the overuse of the color blue. Corny. And...it's been done. In Alfonso Cuaron's 1998 film Great Expectations he utilizes the color Green for the entire set, costumes, except for those of Lustig (played by Robert De Niro). Like in Cuaron's film, in Blue is the Warmest Color, Abdellatif Kechiche has the main character wear the color blue almost throughout the entire film. But while all of her bedroom furniture is blue, and she is attracted to the girl with the "blue" hair, it's more gimmecky than it is powerful in terms of story-telling.
- the sets/Production Design was unbelievable and cheap. Adele's bedroom, other than just being painted blue (what a surprise), had barely any decorations, other than a few postcards on the walls and a poster of Buena Vista Social Club. The Cafe where Adele and Emma meet near the end looks like a set rather than an actual bar or coffee shop.
- the music also felt ill-fitting and out of place for the story. Though Adele says (in the dialogue) that she listens to all kinds of music "everything except heavy rock/metal", but yet, we get mostly salsa and Cuban Timba. I am Cuban and I love Cuban music, but i also love film, and in order for a film to be good, the audience has to "buy the choices that the characters make" otherwise it isn't believable, having only Cuban music was a choice that felt forced, as if there was an outside voice imposing this music onto the character, rather than the character choosing it for herself. I didn't buy it.
- Also in the Cafe scene near the end when Adele comes on to Emma. As desperate as she is in that moment, I also didn't buy it. Something that intimate would happen in the bathroom, or outside near an ally, by a car, not in a crowded bar/cafe. It too felt like a forced moment and it took me out of the "reality" of the story.
I am very surprised it won the Palm D'Or for 2013. I saw the list of Runner Ups, and while I have not seen all of them, this one is not better than most, in fact, it's less than mediocre when compared to some of the sloppier "Sundance-y" movies made this year.
The Goldbergs (2013)
Another Dumb show to Dumb Audiences
I was raised on Family Ties, Growing Pains, Full House and the Wonder Years. Unfortunately as we have (d)evolved over the years so has television degenerated and been dumbed down to entertain an ignorant mass of people.
Five Reasons this show sucks! 1) It's not funny 2) It is hyper-sexual in ways that are- again- not funny, or productive in any way. If it was at least sexual to make a point about sexuality - but no- its just blatantly perverse and disgusting how the character of the grandfather comments in the pilot that the daughter "with her looks-can get a ride from any boy she wants" and later teaches the 11 year old kid to lie to his parents to go and pick up girls at a diner. It's really trashy- but not like Married with Children-trashy- rather trashy like bad writing, not funny, not insightful, boring, and offensive- kind of trash television.
3) the characters are over the top "stock" characters. The mother is an overbearing woman who is hard to believe is a human being because it is written so over the top that it is impossible to buy into it as a viewer. The father verbally offends the kids, calls them: idiots, morons, etc. all of which perpetuates bad parenting through mainstream media. I don't understand how calling a child stupid or an idiot is supposed to be funny? Words are powerful and when used so mindlessly in a show that is watched by ignorant people, it can only perpetuate more ignorance. I just don't understand what the point is of this show.
4) It's boring and the viewer does not feel invested in any of the characters. Because the characters and situations are so over the top, the viewer cannot get into the show or relate to what is happening and therefore, we could care less and get bored easily by what is happening on the screen.
5) the writing is over the top, and bad.