Change Your Image
EugeneOL
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Godfather (1972)
All-time classic
People often compare "The Godfather", which in many ways is thought of as the original crime drama, with many others that have come since(namely Goodfellas). However, I have yet to see one of these films surpass the original Godfather; it really is as great as everyone says it is.
Based on influence, iconic moments and authenticity alone, "The Godfather" has entrenched itself deeply in film history. The acting, character writing, cinematography and screenplay are all outstanding and make the three-hour long runtime more than worth the experience. In particular, I was most impressed with the ensemble staging when a crowd was present which, combined with the editing, kept the film more than engaging enough even when not much was happening. There are more great iconic moments in this film than I care to name; "The Godfather" has been referenced and mimicked countless times. Yet even without the glow of its influence, these moments would stand well on their own.
This film can be very daunting for a first-time viewer. It is nearly three hours long and a universally acclaimed classic that one feels the pressure to appreciate. However, I promise you that this one has earned every bit of praise that it gets.
Stoker (2013)
Need a rewatch
This is the first film that Park Chan-wook has made in the english language(though he did not write the script). Often, when a foreign director makes a film in English it can end up feeling horribly sterile and uninteresting in comparison to their native language films. I am glad that I can at least confidently say that this is not the case for "Stoker"; if nothing else, it is unique and well-crafted.
That being said, I could totally understand the perspective of one who claims this film to be either a work of genius or total garbage. Some of the performances are odd, but they are clearly laced with subtlety. At many points, characters say certain things, act in certain ways and do certain things that feel bizarre or out of place, and it's not always clear what the film is trying to communicate. To the best of my knowledge, Elizabeth is a disinterested mother who had grown distant with her husband and daughter, and after the incident, holds her daughter in contempt. India seems to be extremely on edge, self-isolating and antipathic, likely due to her acute senses(something she has in common with Charlie).
Matthew Goodman as Charlie, though, delivers an unquestionably brilliant performance as a psychopathic menace. Admittedly, some of the lines he is given sound extremely off, but he still manages to communicate his threatening nature in a subtle way.
The cinematography, as would be expected of a Park film, is brilliant; however, the technical aspect that stands out the most to me is the editing. Even parts that might otherwise be boring are carried by some extremely creative editing. It is often said that a film is made or broken by its presentation, and "Stoker" truly underscores this.
Overall, I remain ambivalent on this film because of some choices in the script, but I feel as though it was well worth my time.
Prometheus (2012)
It's just not that smart.
Though the opening is a bit jarring and out of place, I would say that the first 15 minutes of the film are pretty brilliant, taking the audience in with beautiful cinematography and landscape. Like Ridley Scott's other films, it feels as though it is being filmed at an actual location and not being made by studio people drinking coffee and sitting in front of a green screen. Of course, what makes a film isn't just how it looks.
For all its visual flair, "Prometheus" is undone by substandard writing.
First of all, too many of the characters either have dull or inconsistent personalities and motivations, or just aren't fleshed out at all. Also, there are too many characters, period. Don't get me wrong, it's possible to make a well-written film with a myriad of characters; however, they need to be presented in an interesting way through the film or developed memorably with what screen time they have, and Prometheus does neither of those things. The notable exception here would be the character of David. Michael Fassbander is great as usually, and his performance brings out a lot of subtleties to this character who holds a fascination with the alien form and a hatred of humanity. Charlize Theron as Vickers was also great, and though her character sometimes felt like a tough captain archetype, we could always clearly understand her actions. On the other side of the spectrum for me was Elizabeth, whom one could call the protagonist of the film. Her religious crusader/superhero complex is so large and her head so far up her ass that I find it impossible to believe that she was chosen to be an astronaut at all, much less one with a crucial role in the most important mission in history.
Even worse is the dialogue. I kid you not, there is literally a line where the pilot asks Charlie why they shouldn't just wait until the morning, and he replies with "No. It's Christmas, and I want my present now". The script was written either by someone who completely fails to write quirky dialogue or someone who doesn't understand how actual human beings talk. When the characters aren't busy making a complete parody of normal human interactions, they are mostly standing around explaining the plot. As a side note, I would like to point out that despite dedicating his entire time to studying human language and watching film, David somehow didn't know what "casualty" meant.
Speaking of which, the plot and the narrative are so unfocused that it's frustrating. We start with an exploration of Elizabeth's past traumas and her strong belief in God, something that doesn't get resolved by the end or left for us to ponder in any meaningful way. We are also presented with the concept of human mortality and the significance or insignificance of a creator, something that doesn't get resolved by the end or left for us to ponder in meaningful way. Another question brought up is the nature of these creators and their past, and... you guessed it!
I'm gonna make one final point here, and that is addressing the 2001: A Space Odyssey comparison. 2001 was an amazing film because it explored the film medium in a unique way and had a purposefully unconventional structure, visuals that transcended its time, great use of music outside the universe, and a great antagonist. Prometheus has maybe half of those things. This comparison is completely undeserved.
I'm not even going to get into the litany of stupid character decisions(especially considering they're supposed to be the BEST SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD), since everyone has talked about that enough. For now, I'll just say that these stupid decisions are probably the most the writing has to offer for me in terms of actually getting me to think. And that's not a good thing.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Brilliant
2001: A Space Odyssey is truly one for the ages. It explores the visual medium in such a creative and hypnotic way, all film lovers should be glad it even exists.
The film is broken up into several acts. In the first, a tribe of prehistoric apes discovers a mysterious monolith, which we can already tell is truly out of this world. They are hesitant at first, but quickly find themselves enthralled by the wonder of this foreign object. I suppose one could say that many viewers have the same experience while watching the film; we don't really understand it, but are mysteriously captivated nonetheless. Like many things, this object is never clearly explained, but it seems to teach the tribe how to use bones as weapons.
After this sequence, however, is where the film quickly gains its unique sense of identity. The use of in-universe sounds and dialogue are minimal, and several sequences are purely visual with Strauss' music playing in the background. It is slow, but intentionally so as befitting of a film about a journey in space.
Eventually, the scientists discover an identical monolith to the ones that the prehistoric apes discovered. Throughout this entire sequence, as scientists are discovering a "mysterious finding", it is incredibly clear to the audience what this discovery is. Visually, Kubrick has allowed us to fill in the gaps of information while maintaining realism in the dialogue. Although not explicitly stated, it is heavily implied that the monolith inspires the invention of the HAL-9000 sentient supercomputers.
In the next sequence, a team of astronauts are on a journey to Jupiter. Although nothing immediately seems amiss, there is a growing sense that something is off. The environment becomes even more unsettling as we sense the growing friction between the impossibly proud Hal and the wary astronauts. As the film cuts to an intermission, things are about to quickly spiral out of control for these astronauts.
Many copies suffer from the unfortunate trend of impatience that has invaded Hollywood over time; the intermission is cut down to a minute or removed entirely. It is quite unfortunate that the content that Kubrick put out should be butchered so that people can get back to scrolling through Twitter a bit sooner. There is a certain beauty in intermissions; people can take a breath and reflect on what they had just witnessed. In the epic "Seven Samurai", I distinctly remember the intermission as an integral part of the experience, and I can say the same for "2001".
The final hour of the film is all about losing one's limited grasp of reality: first the characters, then even the viewers themselves. Normally, I am very hesitant to get into films that become purely metaphorical, but it fits the context perfectly in this case. The mysteries of space aren't meant to be perfectly understood; as far as we know, they never will be.
Kaze no tani no Naushika (1984)
Super unique
This film has several similarities to Mononoke, the most notable being a more nuanced take on the otherwise standard "human vs. nature" conflict. Admittedly, at first it seems as though we are being presented with a bunch of evil humans who want nothing but to destroy nature. Later on, though, it becomes way more believable that people in this post-apocalyptic future are driven to such extreme actions due to their paranoia, ignorance and irrational fear. Normally in such a film, I would be extremely irritated at people's unbelievable stupidity, but it worked for me this time.
The world and creature design were extremely creative and unique and hold up to this day. In particular, the image of the enraged Ohms still stays engraved in my mind. Apocalyptic landscapes are inherently an overdone concept, but Nausicaa manages to be its own thing. It makes no attempts to disguise the inherent harshness of nature nor the inherent ugliness that exists in humanity.
The score is absolutely phenomenal, as we have come to expect from Joe Hisaishi. The art and animation are stunning; Miyazaki proves himself to be a master of movement in animation even this early on.
Zombieland (2009)
Parody that loses itself
Apparently, for fans of the zombie genre, it's fun to ponder the potential zombie apocalypse scenario. I, for one, find this concept impossible to take seriously, so it's no wonder I was looking forward to a zombie comedy.
Unfortunately, "Zombieland" eventually devolves into the very thing it is trying to parody. The first twenty minutes are pretty funny and there are some great moments here and there, but so much of it is just completely irritating. The characters, outside of Woody Harrelson's, are terrible. Stupid and unrealistic things happen, but it isn't presented in a way which convinces me that the film is deliberately being stupid. Even if it is, self-awareness in and of itself doesn't make a movie good.
"Zombieland" also thinks of itself as way wittier than it is. In the first two minutes, an opening narration gives us 4 "Rules for survival", and I'm already rolling my eyes anticipating all of the predictable ways in which this will be reincorporated. We don't need to be told "RULE NUMBER 2!!!" every single time a character kills a zombie again to make sure it's dead; you told us a million times already. There are a select couple of scenes that I won't even bother describing, but you watch them and are already just waiting for it to be reincorporated.
People compare this to "Shaun of the Dead" because they're both zombie comedies. Personally, I find this comparison somewhat insulting. "Shaun of the Dead" had a memorable personality in terms of direction and editing, as well as tons of clever humor that rewards viewers upon paying close attention on a second watch. It is incredibly tightly scripted, unlike this film. Most importantly, it is a good zombie film on its own, while also being a parody.
If all you're looking for is something that defines convention, then definitely check this one out. As for me, I found it to be neither subversive nor solid on its own to fully enjoy.
Baby Driver (2017)
Was he slow?(No)
This is yet another classic example I would point to when I say that a film is defined by its achievements and not by its flaws.
What Edgar Wright was able to pull off in "Baby Driver" was beyond impressive. I couldn't help but notice the amount of work he put in to sync everything in the film's universe to the music; the use of the soundtrack is super original and unique. You know generally which direction the story is going, but things happen in unexpected ways which keeps you on your toes. The film maintains a breakneck pace throughout as his films tend to do, and it never lets up from the opening chase scene. The cinematography, stuntwork and screenplay are all amazing and help distinguish the film's personality even more.
The performances were all stellar; I only had a couple of issues, one being Jamie Foxx. His character was presented as a hard and crazy criminal, yet his performance seemed far too tame for this to be convincing. I don't exactly understand what the intent behind this was, perhaps it is something I can think about more on a second watch.
My other issue was with Lily James as Debora. At times, it felt like she was reduced to this unbearably bland sidekick girlfriend character. Plus, she was given some of the most cheesy lines ever. This has way more to do with the writing than the actual acting, though.
Another minor criticism I have, the last 15 minutes felt quite underwhelming. It seemed as though Edgar Wright had no idea how to resolve the story he had built up in a memorable way, and the end of the movie was just for the sake of ending the movie. Somewhat disappointing.
Overall, though, this film is pretty amazing throughout.
Sunshine (2007)
Recommend, but definitely not for me
If I were to be "objective", or as objective as one could possibly be with art, I would have to recommend this film to most everyone.
The cinematography is super stylized and unique for a space film, the characters are mostly well-written and acted, the visuals are stunning, and the score is memorable. So memorable, in fact, that several other movies since have ripped it off and utilized it as stock music. The first half of the film had a refreshingly grounded yet transcendent feel to it and defied so many of the tropes that bog down this genre in general, and I was genuinely enjoying myself. These people felt like actual scientists and not superhero-like characters written by Hollywood.
However, after a certain point, things just fall apart story-wise. The narrative becomes painfully transparent as we see several repeats of the same self-sacrifice situation seen in every space movie a million times. The second half of the film definitely makes it unique. Unfortunately, for me this portion was just defined by its characters being complete idiots when the story demands it wrapped around an utterly incomprehensible series of events. This is even more distracting when considering how intelligent and self-aware it was during the earlier half of the runtime.
The whole "fundamentalism vs. science" thing in the third act was extremely shoehorned and unsubtle. Generally, I make a concerted effort to judge these things based not on my personal opinion but on how it was presented in the film. In this case, I feel as though one would find it to be irritating regardless of their opinion on the subject matter.
Kumo no mukô, yakusoku no basho (2004)
No.
This is coming from someone who mostly enjoyed Shinkai's other works(Kotonoha no Niwa in particular). It definitely has the beautiful art that we have come to expect from him, but it was just such a hollow experience for me outside of that.
The first thirty minutes were nice and simple, and had some charm as a result. It showed the significance of an early childhood promise; this story had some potential from this point. However, once the sci-fi element was introduced, they just completely dropped the ball.
Every single supernatural/dream element felt like a complete contrivance, and the story fails to progress naturally as a result. So the tower has a bunch of interdimensional energy which is channeled through her sleep, yet this somehow didn't matter in her earlier years? Also, it seems that we have somehow figured out a system of coexisting parallel universes, and she is trapped in one alone! And it turns out, very conveniently, that memories are restricted strictly to the single dimension that one is in, which she somehow figures out. How tragic! Plus when Hiroki walks into the room she used to sleep in and she is also there, they can communicate somehow! Let's all worry about how much sense this makes later.
Even aside from the eye-roll worthy logic, the story just doesn't stand on its own at all. Takuya's narrative is incredibly unsatisfying; at one point, we even have a super forced "conflict" where he and Hiroki hate each other for no reason for about 5 minutes, after which it is brushed off as if nothing happened. The film tells us what happened to these characters in the aftermath of Sayuri's disappearance, yet it isn't shown in any sort of interesting way. And let's not even talk about that ending.
Overall, the film is just dragged down by too much for even the best parts to stand out.
Suspiria (2018)
Somewhat confused
And I'm not referring to the film itself, as that was easy enough to understand; I'm talking about some of the audience reaction to it.
Now, don't get me wrong, this movie is far from perfect. It's too long, especially the Berlin Wall subplot that doesn't add much to the film at all. A certain sequence with tons of CG violence is bad enough to ruin all immersion. The setting is there, but seems to insist a degree of historical significance that just isn't communicated that well at all.
However, this remake of Suspiria is not only a fresh take on Suspiria; it is a standout among its genre. Gone are the cringe-worthy film score jump scares and the unbelievably idiotic character decisions that are a staple of the horror genre. The imagery, when not hampered by unrealistic CGI, is genuinely disturbing and stays burned in one's mind. For a psychological thriller, the film also spends a surprising amount of time on character.
Mononoke-hime (1997)
It's Mononoke, What Can I Say
Whenever someone dares criticize a movie marketed towards kids, there is an overwhelming response of "But it's for kids! It's supposed to be dumb!". I long for the days when this isn't a valid excuse for subpar storytelling. But that is another discussion for another time.
"Princess Mononoke" proves that kids' movies can be intelligent. Sure, it doesn't delve into complex real-world social and political issues or use extremely subtle techniques to tell a story, as that would be stupid and ignore the main demographic. However, it is a nuanced narrative that doesn't pit strictly good against strictly evil, and shows no clear favoritism in a traditional "humans vs. nature" way. It is an exceptionally well done story that can be enjoyed by anyone, not just children. It isn't "great for a kids' movie", it's just great, period.
The environment and fantasy world are absolutely jaw-dropping. It legitimizes and solidifies anime as a form of film, as no 3D live action adaptation would ever be able to replicate the wonders of this world.
Call Me by Your Name (2017)
Absolutely wonderful
This is a film that immediately got me interested in a) Luca Guadagnino's other works, and b) the original source novel. It impresses on every level.
More than anyone else, Guadagnino has a perfect grasp on appeal to the human senses. Just because of the sound design, this world was immediately immersive, believable and realistic.
One thing that immediately sets this film apart is that it is essentially plotless. It has a well-defined structure for sure, but really the whole story is just about how these two people discover themselves and build a relationship. This in turn helps avoid so many of the gay romance tropes that have come to annoy me incessantly; no "angry parents walking in", no "OMG GET AWAY FROM ME FAGGOT" at school, no "we're just friends, I'm not gay!".
I won't reveal how this film ends. Even if I did, I don't even know if I would call it a spoiler. It is incredibly sobering and is a hard dose of reality; no overly contrived turn of events waiting for you at the end.
My only complaint with this film is that there could have been less time spent on Elio's girlfriend and more on Oliver. At times, it felt like the screentime delegated to Marzie somewhat detracted from the main relationship.
Chinjeolhan geumjassi (2005)
A forgotten masterpiece
When I first saw this film, I enjoyed it well enough, but found the pacing to be more than a little bizarre. Having understood the sequence of events from the first watch, I found it to be far more rewarding the second time around. I guess I also came to understand why I waited so long for a rewatch; it is one of the most emotionally uncompromising experiences ever.
The first half plays as a particularly morbid black comedy; despite tackling a dark subject matter, it keeps itself emotionally indifferent and with a sense of humor. However, as Geum-ja(played by the incredibly talented Lee Young-ae) goes further for her 13-year long quest for revenge, she comes to discover the horrifying results of her actions. As the film plunges deeper into the dark depths of her heart, it gradually fades to black-and-white. The second half is, quite honestly, one of the most raw and visceral emotional experiences put on film in some time.
What's particularly notable, and what stands out in comparison to other thrillers and revenge stories, is that this film's intensity and brutality is carried by character and psychological violence rather than physical violence. Even in a sequence that could have easily been played off as gratuitous torture, there is surprisingly little gore. Because the film takes its time to go through our main character's quest for vengeance, we are immersed in its fantastical reality through its characters. At the end, the story is only half-resolved, leaving us to ponder the implications for all of our characters and whether they can truly find closure. This is far from unintentional, and only serves to make the narrative that much more powerful.
The cinematography and screenplay are top-notch, as we have come to expect from Park. The original musical score is also truly one for the ages. Overall, I only have a few minor gripes, which I won't even bother to list here because they did not detract from the experience at all.
10/10
The Smurfs (2011)
Absolutely painful
This movie was so joyless and stupid. There is really not much that's worth trying to remember. It's almost as if their intention was to make a parody, but somewhere along the process, the whole "parody" aspect was ditched.
Creed (2015)
Essentially an updated Rocky
This movie has been done six times prior to Creed, but its superior execution and presentation elevates the story. Unlike many of the other rocky films, it feels as though there is genuine drama in the lives of Adonis and Rocky, although not all of the scenes work. The scene where Adonis gets into a fight in the club felt unnatural and Rocky's cancer felt very hamfisted and unearned. Otherwise, this movie mostly hits all of right notes emotionally, and the fight choreography was good as usual. It's worth checking out even for those who did not like Rocky, as it doesn't have the same dated feeling. Overall, this is a solid entry that is able to stand on its own.
Memento (2000)
Loved it!
Not only is this film one of the only few films with a truly unique style of presentation, it had a purpose to a unique mode of storytelling. Although one may be confused for the first 10 or so minutes with the color and B&W sequences, one can truly be captivated and view the world through the lens of the protagonist. The film is very intricately planned out, and it is clear that this was a passion project for Nolan. On second watch, one can notice many details that give newfound appreciation for the film, which is unfortunately a rarity in his work.
Creed II (2018)
Solid sequel
Although predictable and without the emotional core of the first film, Creed II was a worthy sequel that more than did its predecessor justice. This film stood out particularly in the aspect of developing the villain. In all of the other films, the opponent is just some guy that needs to be beaten, whereas the audience can relate to the antagonists and understand what is at stake for them as well.