Change Your Image
nickspinner-65201
Reviews
The Wake of Light (2019)
Well, if you've never seen a Terrence Malick film...
...I'll give it a 7 out of 10 for you! But I'd suggest skipping this and watching "Days of Heaven" instead, and if you already saw that, I'm not sure what this film will do for you. The style is very similar but not nearly as effective as prime Malick; after a while it starts to feel manipulative. I think these kinds of films work well when the audience senses urgency for the main characters (s). Here, however, the main character is young and likely has plenty of time to pursue other things. Moreover, she doesn't come across as all that motivated to do something else with her life (perhaps giving her a special goal/dream and showing us how she longs for it in her spare time would have helped a lot). The visuals are nice, but only for a short time, and then we see that it's a rather alienating landscape to some degree, but the director doesn't utilize this and instead we just get the same types of scenes and music. The plot is too thin if the acting is just okay and the visuals or audio/visual patterns just keep repeating, which is the case here.
Utopia (2020)
Just go watch the UK version!
There is nothing in this that is better than the UK version, or even about the same. It is inferior in every way. The story feels rushed and boring at the same time, so that is quite an accomplishment, though a negative one, of course. The characters blended together whereas in the original they were distinct and interesting. Even if the two were exactly the same, the music and sound effects of the first one were far superior. This reminds me of what happened after the first three Star Wars films. They made a few changes but those were all bad decisions. I'm giving it some stars because it might be watchable if the UK version had never existed.
Lady in the Water (2006)
All over the map; even the thought-provoking material is confused or simplistic.
I think this could have worked well if there was some focus/unity. For example, have a guy read his kids a bedtime story (of his own making). Portray him as a dreamer before that night, with his wife working and he is taking care of the kids. He's an artist or something along those lines. After his kids fall asleep he goes to clean his pool, slips and hits his head, and then appears to awaken to find a creature from his bedtime story come to life, etc. Then at the end we see him in the hospital and it was a "Wizard of Oz" sort of situation. Still, it would have to be made for an children's audience (with enough for the adults to enjoy) or make it "dark" and more or a horror movie, perhaps with some absurd or black humor. The problem I find with his movies is that there is too much much that should be edited out or some "touches" need to be added to maintain the audience's interest, but instead it just becomes more muddled over time, until the twist ending, which makes one think it should just be a half hour Twilight Zone episode and then it might work.
Vivarium (2019)
The Truman Show meets Night of the Living Dead.
But overall a more intellectual version of a Twilight Zone episode (compelling you to think how the pieces fit together, or if they do). For those who say it made no sense, yes, if some alien species came here and "experimented" on us, we might not think it made any sense! I agree also with the person who said "Relies on Style, Atmosphere and Metaphors." There were some minor parts I thought could have been more consistent, but putting those aside, if you like movies such as Dark City, The Signal, The Gift, and Dead End, I think you'll want to watch this one. And though not as graphic, if you liked Begotten this one should be up your alley as well. Needless to say, this is not "family viewing," or for those who require cheerful or resolved endings.
A Hidden Life (2019)
If you are a Malick "fanboy" (or girl) you won't be disappointed.
If you thought some of his earlier films were great (Days of Heaven and Thin Red Line especially), but you are a very critical thinker, you might be saying to yourself, "no, I don't want second rate Malick, and that is what this film is." Seriously, if another director would had done this, I would be thinking, "why did you need to copy Malick but add nothing and not even do anywhere near as good a job as he has done in some previous films?" You'll get the spacious shots of scenery that linger too long, the people frolicking while we know something ominous is coming there way, the attempt to use music to illustrate the emotional states of the characters, etc., but it will be at least one significant step down in quality, relative to his earlier, better films. So, if you haven't watched "The Thin Red Line," I suggest watching that and reading about Franz Jägerstätter on Wikipedia. Then, if you want a thin red line (albeit not as good) version of Franz Jägerstätter, you can watch this film (though you will only get a slice of his life, which apparently is because Malick wanted to showcase his style rather than get into the details of Franz' life).
A Rainy Day in New York (2019)
I guess fans will love it, but I have no idea why ("cult mentality?").
I thought it would be best to take notes as I watched it, so here they are:
unrealistic characters who talk past each other
bad camerawork, just "back and forth"
color is distracting, clashes; lighting is harsh
"jokes" are not funny and often it just sounds like Woody Allen, circa 1970
first key scene is girlfriend (Ashleigh) telling protagonist (named Gatsby) she wants to go to screening rather than with him to a Weegee exhibit that is important to him, but that is left hanging (interestingly, Weegee's film, though not especially good, seems to have been an influence on Allen's early films)
dialogue is often uninteresting, purposeless, disjointed, and at least somewhat offensive at times
it has the feel of Woody Allen imagining what he would be like if he was 21 years old in 2018 or whenever it was filmed
characters just "pop up" randomly to discuss something that moves things forward, but it feels forced and intended to "tell rather than show" - it would be amusing if done to be purposely silly
the director of "Love and Death" gives us "Love and Boredom" all these years later
protagonist sings and plays piano after telling a cancer joke, in a meandering scene that is meant, apparently, to show "chemistry" between protagonist and different young woman - the dialogue seems to be more consistent with people 20+ years older who have been in a long relationship and come to dislike each other (does Woody see "successful relationships" this way? if so that's rather sad)
basic premise certainly could work but most of the characters are drenched in narcissism, who only seem to be interested in proving that they are "worthy," which of course comes across as trying to "compensate for low self-esteem" if not demonstrativve of their self- loathing
Ashleigh seems to be trying to do an impersonation of Annie Hall at times (as Gatsby acts like the same character Woody Allen has played) - why not do something original? in "Annie Hall" we get a sense of why she acts the way she does, and we see her change significantly during the course of the film, but that doesn't happen here
one reviewer said, "An old man's movie played by young actors," but do "old people" enjoy this sort of thing? instead, I'd say these characters are reminiscent of ones that were mocked in earlier Woody Allen movies, but now he wants us to sympathize with them, care about their decisions, etc., though they are unsympathetic for different reasons
another reviewer's statement was funnier than this entire movie: "...oh boy is this a stinker. The plot - what there is of it - is like a 1970's Brian Rix farce. I was expecting people to appear out of wardrobes with their trousers around their ankles."
on some level, it feels like the director is saying, "see, this is what the super-wealthy are like, and they are just like us, aren't they?" but if you are like one of these people, I doubt you have the self-awareness to realize how unappealing your self-centered, insulated life is!
overall, it feels like a jumble, things thrown together randomly - there's the general premise, but that feels contrived (the way it gets played out) and there are unnecessary distractions, which lessen any tension that might begin to build up
it has a nearly absurdist quality, and perhaps if there was some sort of apocalyptic development and they all had to confront their imminent mortality, perhaps there would be a way to salvage this hilariously terrible mess
Gatsby goes to a poker game while thinking Ashleigh might be in great danger - so the super wealthy don't have smart phones in 2018?
TV news report that makes Gatsby jealous is quite contrived
Woody's amateurish devices, which sometimes come across as charming to many viewers, come across here as just poorly rendered
towards the end, the film changes focus, from Gatsby questioning his relationship with Ashleigh to Ashleigh fending off much older males who view her as a potential "sexual conquest," then we get a family drama with Gatsby; it seems like "filler" was needed because Woody couldn't figure out how to articulate the central drama
ending is ridiculous, with inverted cinematic values!
the main premise changed more than once, with none of them being at all satisfying. the protagonist decides to "choose" a different woman to be his romantic partner, yet he doesn't change or recognize that his view of himself was inaccurate. instead, we see Gatsby chose the "better" woman, which I find distasteful, at the very least (in some ways it was like the ending of "Manhattan" reversed); at the very least the story was flaccid and lazy.
the ending makes us question if Woody has "normal human feelings," because Gatsy doesn't seem to exhibit any normal attachment to Ashleigh, but rather possessiveness. if this was the case, there should have been at least one scene where Gatsby recognizes his flaws and treats Ashleigh with the respect she deserves.
Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019)
"Oh, no, you weren't supposed to take it seriously!"
Major spoilers here ahead! I have a friend who is a big QT fan and that's what he says when he anyone criticizes a QT film. So, then is it a comedy (nothing in this film hasn't been done already in a funnier way)? I didn't find it funny, just strange (though with some sadistic elements, a touch of racism, mysogyny, occasional tasteless mockery, etc.). The characters are not developed, other than a bit for Pitt's. There's no real plot, though at first (not knowing anything about the film) I thought it might be a comedy/bio-pic of a Clint Eastwood type of actor. As things go on we get the sense that the Manson murderers will be covered, though what we get is some sort of "alt history" that just makes one feel worse for Sharon Tate and the others who were killed by the Manson clan. We're supposed to be happy that all these years later someone made a lousy, very long film that featured a "happy ending" for Tate, Polanski, and the others affected by the murders? This is borderline psychotic to my way of thinking, but perhaps I'm "getting too old for this kind of stuff" (though I'm younger than QT). QT fans should know there aren't a lot of action scenes nor particularly amusing dialogue. And if you want to see some old video of Hollywood in the 60s and 70s, just go to Youtube!