Trakt for iOS
Works on iPhone and iPad.
Nope is a movie of two equally great but disparate halves. The first is a harrowing examination of what we do when faced with ‘bad miracles’. Keke Palmer’s effortlessly charming Em wants to get hers, get the fame and money and recognition she and her family have fought for by explaining the terrible unknown. Perea’s Angel just doesn’t want to be left out of something this big. Steven Yuen’s Jupe is haunted by one from his past and looks to wrangle a new one as a way to understand and come to terms with it, give it meaning, And Daniel Kaluuya’s OJ does what black people have always had to do; weather the storm, stare it down, and know when to Nope the fuck out. This first half sets up that while Get Out reckoned with the horrors of the past that reverberate, and Us dealt with the monsters within us, especially the ones that don’t look like we expect, Nope will tackle the horrifically miraculous. The one in a million, can’t be explained but must be lived through natural tragedies.
The second half is a thrilling spectacle, a homage to both classic Spielberg fate like Jaws and old school schlock in the best ways. It plays like a fusion between a monster movie and disaster fare like Twister. It’s a heartening example of what blockbuster films can be with a director who truly has a vision and is allowed to execute it, as opposed to the ‘house style’ of the MCU.
Again, both of these halves are good, great even. And they are of equal quality. But they don’t quite mesh into one complete film like Peele intends. Still, it’s impossible not to recommend. The cast is fantastic. The things Daniel Kaluuya can do with his eyes are still unmatched, and Steven Yuen has a stare that feels nearly as impossible in length as it does masterful in conveying his character. Peele has fantastic shots, the naturalistic design of the monster unsettling while keying in on the core themes of the movie, and it has Keith David! It feels like a nod to one of Peele’s biggest influences, John Carpenter, cause there’s a good amount of overlap in theme and motivation of The Thing and the creature of Nope. There’s two great halves of two different movies that had they been paired with their matching half, could’ve created an amazing one. But it’s still no reason to Nope out of seeing this one.
I have long been a fan of Miranda July's movies (particularly Me and You and Everyone We Know and Madeline's Madeline) and I had been looking forward to this movie since it was announced. Thankfully it didn't disappoint. As per usual July cooks up a fascinating character study. Early in the film we meet a family (two parents and a daughter in her 20's) of small-time crooks. The family lives in an office next to some kind of factory and they are very late on the rent. What is more striking is that the family has harsh views (usually expressed by the parents) on people and life. They are fearful of becoming like other... normal?... people and live their life in a rigid, loveless and seemingly joyless manner to avoid becoming someone else.
Through it all you can see the daughter start to crack. The introduction of another woman into the movie begins to convert the story that felt cold and dark into something with some light. The film really spoke to me personally as I was raised in a household without love and affection. At different points in my life I felt like the daughter did when she opened the door that morning. The final scene is perfect on so many levels.
It is interesting to see that on RottenTomatoes.com the audience rating is half of what the critical rating is. I noticed the same for several of her movies. I think July's work is so unique that I think that a lot of people just don't understand what she is going for.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
After watching this movie, I can say that it's pretty awesome. This film succeeds in a way so that you don't have to be a fan of the subject matter to enjoy it.
I didn't know much about the "film's" universe, but hearing Jodorowsky's interpretation of it was quite interesting. To put it simply, his version of the film was SOO ahead of its time that it wound up ever even getting made. I love how well this documentary illustrated what he had planned, and I appreciate the effort of animating the storyboards to give us a better idea.
The interviews provided some great context but were also very entertaining. Not only is the story itself fascinating to begin with, but Jodorowsky is generally a funny and interesting character to hear a story from. Not only that but this movie stands as the last interview with HR Giger, who is most famous for his design work on "Alien".
Whether or not, you thought Jodorowsky's interpretation of dune would have been fantastic if it was properly funded, This film is fun and informative for anyone interested in film overall as an art form or is interested in Alejandro Jodorowsky. This is a great documentary! check it out!
I somehow queued up the Director's cut - 3 whole damn hours! - and almost dozed off. There was a lovely written message at the end from Flanagan thanking King for allowing him to actualize his cinematic dreeeaammm... zzzzz oops dozed off again Honestly, I was underwhelmed. Also I had just read the novel (a quick 520-summin pages, quick!) and was very distracted with noticing the myriad places the film veers from the tome. I'm a HUGE King fan, reading his books from when I was a kid... a normal, perfectly normal kid. And the film adaptations rarely do them justice! King is just so masterful at character development, back story, world building... I've not seen many movies that understand how to do that justice.
PROS:
- racially diverse cast WITHOUT King's subtle racism (yes, King's description of the characters of color is straight up racist in the book .... my fandom is complicated....)
- homage to the Overlook had nice touches
- great score
CONS:
- way too long!! Director's cut was 3 hours, and the theatrical release was over 2 hours.
- some of the plot departure from the book was distracting (at least for me).
- the villains The True Knot seemed so under-developed vs. how well King does in the book. Half of the crew on screen are given no dialogue, their purpose is unknown, and they don't even have names. (If I was the actor, I would've been pissed!)
So, yea, you can watch it. Why not? The book is better though (just remember it follow King's "The Shining", not Kubrick's).
Hardcore fans like to call Star Trek Voyager more suitable for "casual" fans, which means that this is the most approachable Star Trek TV series out of all Star Treks.
Voyager was similar to the original Star Trek with the same kind of balance between a sense of danger and the wonders of exploring different imaginary cultures, and without the mind numbing minutiae of keeping track of the sanctity of the story continuity or the micro-interactions between every single commanders in every fleet in some unnecessarily complex space war.
Every episode resets clean - to some fans' dismay - like a bitesized sitcom of the 90's, and I see that as a plus. You don't need to worry about jumping into the middle of an episode not knowing what had happened or spoiling what will happen, as every episode is a self-contained story, a single 45-minute episode you can enjoy at any time without the need to binge everything to understand what's going on. It's not so different from watching a random episode of Futurama or Friends. It's a guaranteed joyride, with Star Trek flavor.
The characters are interesting and likable. Unlike other Trek series, the technobabble is reduced to the minimum and the writing is more fun and intimate instead of stoic and serious. Captain Janeway is a flexible, warm yet tough leader and she sticks close to her moral compass. I don't always agree with her decisions, but that's the point. You see the ex-Maquis Chakotay and B'lanna slowly integrates with the crew, with the latter falling in love with Tom. And the cast was taken to the next level with the introduction of Seven of Nine, who does not need further introductions.
While I find other ST series kind of dry, ST Voyager is full of warmth. I genuinely cried at a few moments in the story. Despite the lack of emphasis on continuity, the story does keep track of how far they had travelled and how characters had grown and related to each other. Season 4, for example, had one big arc on the recovery of Seven of Nine with a couple smaller arcs on the Hirogen and the message from the Federation. There were also occasionally some two-parter episodes for a deeper storyline.
One might question how this small starship managed to survive so many hijacks and attacks within the course of 7 years with the crew seemingly still content as if nothing happened... but Star Trek has never been The Expanse, so it's pointless to try to compare Voyager to that. Deus Ex Machina (e.g. Q or usually some brand new unexplained scientific phenomenon) has been pretty much a main character of Star Trek since the original series. Star Trek has always been about the optimism of utopian futures and the pacifist and empathetic attitudes towards cultural conflicts. I much rather enjoy the guaranteed safety of this wonderful crew before I choose to watch an episode, in fact. It's nice to know that the crew will survive no matter what crazy difficult challenges they face. It's the optimism we need today.
Anyway, ignore the toxic fandom gatekeepers - get a nice warm cup of coffee like Captain Janeway, and enjoy the show for what it is.
If you are looking for a clear cut crime caper that you can follow from beginning to end this really is not that film. At times hard to follow and bit ‘wacky’ it is presented perfectly if you look at it as the drug fuelled reminiscing of Doc.
Frankly I like the style and after the film started I thought I was going to settle into another Paul Thomas Anderson film but equally a frankly I have to admit that the story sagged in the middle, another to let my attention wander, before thankfully it picked up again and came to a satisfactory if not slightly confusing end.
The plotline which should be simple to follow, proves to be more difficult than you imagine and the viewer has to quickly establish whether half of the events take place in Doc’s mind or are real. Thankfully there is no definitive answer so it really is left to you.
The acting is first rate from beginning to end with Joaquin Phoenix hitting the right note as a whacked-out stoner who is not quite as whacked-out as you think, likewise Josh Brolin is note perfect as straight-laced Bigfoot but there is more to him that meets the eye too.
It is nuances like this brought to life by the actors involved that make this film a cut above others of the same type. Without the acting and Anderson at the helm this could easily have been irritating to the nth degree.
Phoenix’s portrayal of Doc actually makes him a likeable character who you invest in as he stumbles his way from situation to situation without being violent, apart from one desperate instance, stupid or horrible. He is double-crossed, treated like crap by the LAPD, but still ploughs on and the longer the film goes on the more you side with him.
Ably supported by the perfectly cast Josh Brolin and Katherine Waterson, the film also boasts a myriad of ‘star cameos’ that in other circumstances could distract or annoy you but I found them entertaining and not distracting in any way.
It is shame that the film, like so many before it and to come, is just twenty minutes to half an hour too long. The middle section drags the film down like coming down from a drug high perhaps?
Overall the story is pitched perfectly, if a little confusing at times, but it does ask questions and give you something to think about as it flip-flops along. As far as I can tell the setting of California in the 1970s has been captured perfectly by Anderson, again. The casting is strong with actors playing the roles both in broad and sometimes comic strokes but yet still imbued with believability.
If you are patient and have do not mind some meandering in your film-viewing, then this film could be for you. If you are a fan of Paul Thomas Anderson and Joaquin Phoenix then you definitely will not be disappointed.
[8.5/10] I tweeted that that Can You Ever Forgive Me? is the “gentlest, most intimate Breaking Bad remake I've ever seen,” and I’m only half-joking. While selling literary forgeries and defrauding literary collectors is a long long way from making meth and getting into lethal scraps with drug cartels, there’s a common thread that connects the two stories in ways that illuminate what makes the Melissa McCarthy-fronted film succeed and yet also mark its own narrative territory.
Both movies feature a protagonist who is not great with people, fallen on hard financial times, and feels affronted by the expectations of the rest of the world that enjoys what they view as unearned success. Both Lee Israel and Walter White feel they have an underappreciated talent, an unrecognized greatness, that makes them all the more caustic and bitter at the rest of the world, and feel all the more justified in dashing off the mantle of the respectable and acceptable when the moment, and the need, suits them. And it leads both of them into unorthodox, less-than-savory ways of paying their bills.
For Walter White, that meant using his talents as a chemist to make meth so pure that users flip for it. For Lee Israel, it means using her talents as a writer to produce literary forgeries that are so convincing (at least for a while), that people utterly delight in them. But what distinguishes Can You Ever Forgive Me? and its protagonist is the extra layer of irony to Israel’s project.
The reason that Lee cannot sell her non-fiction accounts and biographies of various historical entertainment figures is that she disappears too far behind her subjects. That theme is, perhaps, laid out a little too plainly by her agent in one of the movie’s showpiece scenes, but it introduces so many incredible layers of irony to the situation.
There’s the fact that someone who seems as memorable and distinctive as Lee -- with her caustic wit and self-destructive bent -- can nevertheless make herself invisible on the page. There’s the fact that, like Walter White, she has an almost monastic devotion to her art, and yet that impulse to do what she believes is professionally and academically right and proper is what’s holding her back from commercial success. And last but certainly not least, there’s the fact that the very self-subsuming approach that’s made her a professional employer becomes the thing that turns her into a criminal success. Her ability to disappear into her subject makes her able to replicate and extrapolate the likes of Dorothy Parker and Noel Coward in a way that’s utterly convincing.
And like Breaking Bad there are such perfectly increasing levels of escalation, pride, tension, and eventually desperation for Lee. First she’s just selling something she found by accident. Then she’s adding a little post-script. Then she’s making up letter out of whole cloth. Then she’s buying typewriters and forging signatures and baking letters in the oven. Finally she’s rolling out an elaborate scheme to steal real letters and replace them with nigh-indistinguishable fakes.
There’s a nigh-perfect trajectory there, where you understand the circumstances that lead Lee to make each choice that leads her a little further along in her ascent and descent. You see the sense of grievance and feeling lost and overlooked. You see the joy and sense of accomplishment when, even if it’s under someone else’s name, people are finally appreciating her work. You see the relief when she can pay her rent and take care of her cat and feel like, in a weird sort of way, she’s finally getting somewhere in the literary world. And you can see her letting the self-satisfaction and comfort make her complacent, take things too far, as the film slowly but surely tightens the net around her and makes her fall seem inevitable.
Hell, Lee even has her own quasi-Jesse Pinkman. Jack Hock, who’s played with delightful extraverted flair by Richard E. Grant, plays Lee’s lone buddy and eventual co-conspirator. Like Jesse, he is a little more colorful and a little less educated than his partner in crime. Like Jesse, he takes liberties and has screw-ups that earn his some legitimate ire, but he also gets some disproportionate abuse from his semi-benefactor that also earns him sympathy. And like Jesse he, well, deals drugs. As much as Can You Ever Forgive Me? is Lee’s story, her growing, and complicated, but ultimately heartening friendship and fractured partnership with Jack is one of its strongest elements, and Grant is an utter joy in the role.
But this is assuredly McCarhty’s movie, and she absolutely owns it. For all the brightness and occasional dramatic chops the actress got to show off on Gilmore Girls, and the outsized comic characters she’s played post-Bridesmaids, no other role I’ve seen her in has given McCarthy the chance to such range and emotion and unquestionable talent. Lee Israel goes on a journey here, in terms of the life of crime she stumbles into, but also in how it changes and eventually softens her. McCarthy gives you every single beat of that, from her dry blunt comic assessments, to her frustrations and hesitations, to her honest epiphanies that move her to change while remaining recognizably the same person you meet in the film’s opening scene. McCarthy delivers an absolutely superlative performance here.
It’s that final epiphany and change that, more than tone and subject matters, marks Can You Ever Forgive Me? as a different kind of story from Breaking Bad. The latter is a tragedy, with realizations and certain moments of redemptions, but ones that mostly come after it’s too late to undo wrongs and move forward. But it’s not too late for Lee.
While occasionally the plotting is a bit too neat in this regard, and the emotional explications a bit too up front, Can You Ever Forgive Me? posits that what’s really holding Lee back -- personally and professionally -- is her inability to let people in, to get to know the real her. She comes to the point of a connection with a local bookseller but pulls back when things start to get too personal. She tries to confide in an ex-girlfriend who talks about how Lee always put up walls. There is a sense that fulfillment in Lee’s life is eluding her because she won’t let it in.
And it’s the same thing that’s holding her back as a writer -- an inability to let herself, her real voice, emerge what she writes. That’s the crux of her arc here. It takes some desperation, some hardship, some dizzying highs that plummet into humiliation and humblings. But through all of this, Lee opens up, just enough, to let Jack in and to let herself out. She’s still grumpy and a drinker and has a dark sense of humor when the credits role, but she’s also found the experience and the catalyst she needs to push past her worst and most self-defeating obstacles.
Lee Israel and Walter White are both self-involved grumps. They both feel the world doesn't quite measure up to their standard or recognize their carefully-honed talents. Both fall into lives of crime when the going gets tough and there’s praise and recognition to be had in the process. And both rope in a comparatively innocent soul who ends up depending on them. The difference is that Lee Israel learns enough about herself, soon enough, to change, and hold onto the people she cares about, her dream, and her better self in the process.
Madame and her daughter Isabelle are wealthy owners of a house in France. They have a good worker. A maid called Christine. The power balance in the home is comfortable until Christine's sister Lea joins the home to work as a second maid. This connection reveals Christine has an unstable side when emotionally confronted. Especially about the past. Lea is more childlike and in need of protection and guidance. Madame is stern but not particularly cruel. She likes to talks about the sisters and run them down to show her power to her daughter. She is controlling of her daughter and tries to mould her. The sisters start a sexual relationship. It's not handled well. Isabelle sees how close the sisters are and may suspects something. Isabelle gets playful with Lea and neither Madame or Christine like this. There is jealousy in the sisters relationship and plans of a future by now. Lea has constantly been making mistakes in her job and Madame is growing tired. Christine's ultimate fear is being separated from her sister, which she believes is a possibility. Lea make a big error and Christine and Lea are backed into a corner.
The performances are good. Great character development and a great atmosphere telling of seperate lives in a small and intense home. You do feel the tension from the consequences and events in the home.
I binge watched the series all at once, and have lots of thoughts. The anti-superhero trope is strong lately, like 'Umbrella Academy', and 'Brightburn', which I generally enjoy. I'm not sure 'enjoy' is the word I'd use to describe this show though.
The main "superheroes" (called 'Supes') are direct evil twins to Superman/Captain America, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, etc. I would argue that there are NO superheros in this show, just super-villains. The vigilantes trying to expose and destroy the Supes are known as 'The Boys', thus the show's title.
But this show series has some triggering issues:
1) The show is based on a comic book series, but with widely varying character development, origin stories, and plots. If you can believe it, the show is MUCH LESS violent and darkly twisted than the comics. And yet still, this is a very violent and visually gory show. Like Robert Rodriguez/ Quentin Tarantino level. Be forewarned.
2) There's some overt plot lines along misogyny. Most of the women characters are victimized, assaulted, exploited, and otherwise manipulated, included the Supes. There's several rape references - and it is implied that the male Supes are repeat offenders. There is 1 woman vigilante of the Boys, who is actually the physically strongest of the group, but is mute and is only known as 'The Female', even after her name is revealed as 'Kimiko'. And more obviously, though she is a woman part of the team, they are still known as, and the show is still called, "The Boys".
3) There are also overt plot lines along homophobia - literally "fear of being gay". Supe 'Ezekiel' is an evangelist described as "Pray the gay away" who secretly engages in sex with men at a supe underground sex dungeon, and the video footage of his exploits is used to blackmail him. The Senator unknowingly has sex with the supe "Doppelganger" who turns into an obese man during coitus and takes pics, which is used to blackmail him. And supe Queen Maeve is tormented by feeling forced into the closet, unable to reveal her queer sexuality lest she be ostracized from The Seven.
Sigh. The more I think about it, and the more I learn about the source material, the less I like this show. Meh.
Midsommar is a complicated beast. Those going for something as linear as Hereditary will be immediately disappointed by Midsommars somewhat convoluted plot elements and meandering pace. I sat in the cinema as the credits rolled by, deep in thought about what I just watched, and if it was any good. Nothing really sat well with me, and the film didn't really connect upon immediate completion, but I gave it time to digest.
Ari Asters two movies are very much at odds with each other. Hereditary slaps you with it's excellent presentation, pace, sense of dread and quality of acting on display. Then, upon further inspection, it's woven plot elements and symbolism shine through on subsequent viewing.
Midsommar is very much the opposite. The film almost dawdles in it's presentation and doesn't fully attack you with it's acting chops or narrative (although Florence is simply stunning in her portrayal of Dani). Midsommar more presents it's parts in a very matter-of-fact fashion, and then leaves it up to you to connect the dots of both the plot and what's on display. While there is far too much to unpack in this small comment section, I'd just like to detail some of my favourite themes on display in Midsommar, and why it went from a 6/10 during my cinema viewing, to a solid 8 - 8.5/10 upon reflection.
--- LONG DISCUSSION OF SPOILERS BELOW THIS POINT ---
One of Midsommars central parallels is the individualism/selfishness of Western life and it's stark comparison to the commune we are introduced to. Examples of this are: During the intro, Dani is going through the trauma of a suicidal family member and her boyfriend, Christian, is encouraged by his friends to abandon her in her time of need telling her to see her therapist as it's not his problem. Christian echos these sentiments directly to Dani about her sister, telling her to leave her alone as she is just doing this for attention. Upon arriving at the commune in Sweden, Mark is unwilling to wait for Dani to be ready to take shrooms. Josh, knowing of Dani's recent trauma involving death, subjects her to the suicide of the elders for his own thesis and research. Christian uses the situation to further his own academic efforts, much to the annoyance of Josh. Everyone is acting in their own self interest regardless of the emotional toll this takes on their friendships. This is a stark contrast to how we see the commune deal with distress, emotion and personal issues. When Dani sees Christian cheating on her, the female members of the commune bawl, weep, scream and cry along with Dani, literally experiencing her burden with her to lessen the load. As described by Pelle, the commune "hold" you during your distress, helping you cope and living through those emotions with you. This is further cemented by the scene earlier in the movie, shortly after Dani's sister commits suicide. We see Dani hunched over Christian's lap overcome with emotion, screaming out the pain of the loss of her sister. Christian is anything but present however, his eyes vacant as if he weren't there with her at all. This is possibly my favourite theme of the movie, as it really paints how alone we are in modern society regardless of how many people we surround ourselves with. How many people are actually there for us in our time of need? Sure, they might be physically present, but are they actually there, sharing our pain? It's truly terrifying to think about.
My other favourite theme is who is and isn't a bad person. I've seen many people online say they think Christian is a horrible boyfriend for how he treats Dani. While I can understand their position, I struggle to see how Christian is the bad guy for his actions. Christian finds himself in a dying relationship which he is mentally checked out from but decides to stay to help her through the grief of losing her parents and sister. Christian even goes as far as to bring her on vacation with him to help her through her trauma, even though he wants to split up with her. Would the audience have prefered Christian leave Dani right after she lost her family? That would have been MUCH worse. Do these actions warrant what happens to Christian? I don't think so at all. Christian is so misunderstood in this movie, I can't wait to see it again to draw more conclusions on his character. Is Josh a bad person for wanting to fully envelope himself in a foreign culture? Although we know it is largely for academic gain, Josh does seem to love learning about the culture of these people, wanting to see how they operate and know every intricacy of their faith. Does this warrant his murder for trying to document their sacred texts? Should an outsider be murdered for enjoying and absorbing someone elses culture and customs, or should they be thanked for their interest and passion? (Sidenote, I see Josh's character as a direct reflection of the usual racial stereotypes we see in movies of this ilk. Usually we see the white academic researching the savage native/minority tribe, but Josh is the exactly flip of this, which is a nice touch). Were Connie and Simon wrong for coming into another culture and expressing disgust at their customs? Should they have been so outwardly disgusted and vocal about their disapproval while being welcomed in by the commune? Sure it didn't warrant their ultimate fate, but this small subplot asks an interesting question about outsiders attempting to shape and alter other cultures and customs as it doesn't sit with their ideals.
Other small details:
While it's directly conveyed to the viewer that the red haired girl is attempting to cast a love incantation on Christian via pubes in his pie and runes under his bed, very little attention is given to the fact that Christians drink is a slight shade darker than everyone elses. From the tapestry we see at the start of the festival, we know exactly what the red haired girl has slipped into his drink :face_vomiting: Fantastic subtle horror/grossness.
Pelle talks about how his parents died in a fire and the commune helped him through the trauma of that loss. After the ending, it's pretty clear the fire wasn't an accident, and they evidently died for some kind of ritual.
Artwork above Dani's bed at the beginning shows a girl with crown kissing a bear. While direct foreshadowing to latter events, it also asks the question if this was all fate. Dani's sister's final message reads "I see black now" (potentially a reference to The Black One) before killing herself and her parents. Were Dani's parents 72 and this was the end of their cycle? Was Dani's sister already a distant member of the commune?
Runes are scattered all throughout the film to foreshadow certain character arcs or add more meaning. My favourite hidden rune is the doors to the temple, which when open, make the rune for "Opening" or "Portal". Amazing attention to detail.
Yeah, this movie is much MUCH better on reflection and I absolutely cannot wait to see it again. I really hope Ari's 3 hour 40 minute directors cut is released so there is more to dissect. While not as immediately impressive has Hereditary, Midsommar definitely has the layers and complexity to be a slowburn horror classic.
EDIT: I am now 4 days out from my first viewing and I've not stopped thinking about this movie. I've become a frequent visitor of the films subreddit and have even purchased/listened to the films dread-inducing yet somehow joyous soundtrack a number of times throughout the days. I've been reading up on runes and their meanings, reading up set analysis for hidden meanings and any other small details others can find. A movie hasn't vibed with me like this for a long long time so to reflect this, I think it's only right I bump my score from an 8/10 to a 9/10. When I can get my hands on the digital download/Blu-Ray, I'm sure this might even go higher.
The problem with these kinds of "intelligence boost" plots is that usually despite the fact that the protagonist can suddenly do all manner of crazy stuff because they're super smart, like remember everything they ever read or calculate the outcome of any action and decide on the one most likely to succeed, they still somehow forget / don't think of the most basic shit. For instance, if I was suddenly extremely intelligent and also very well aware of the fact that this was only due to a drug I need to take daily, the very first thing that I would do is make sure my supply is, well, limitless. I'm not even taking the drug and I got stressed out every time I saw him reach into his pill box without thinking about how he would get more.
Or, how about the fact that he has absolutely no idea what is in this drug and how it might be affecting his body? Or that the person he got the pills from was murdered by unknown people? Or that appearing in the paper might attract unwanted attention, for instance from other people who are taking the same drug? It just doesn't make sense that he only considers any of these things after 2 months of taking it.
A psychadelic polygon. An ethereal deodarant spray.
Cinema has adapted over time and each decade has brought something new, most notably the 70s for its crime stories and gangster obsessions or the 80s for the birth of outrageous science fiction - many would certainly say the definitive genre of current times is that of the superhero and while I think this to be true in the mainstream, I think this is also the time for the 'experience film'. It has almost become a cliché to say a movie is more an experience than an actual film now but that's only because there's so many of these movies. It's not the birth date of this 'genre' by any means, but now they seem to be everywhere, and films like High Life really sum up this generation's vision in the world of independent cinema. What does this say about our generation? I'm not sure, maybe we're all hippies pretending not to be, but what I do know is that films like this show just how far filmmaking can go. Despite the (literal) other-worldliness to this, I think it has actually inspired me to pick up my phone and just start filming things.
Genre: N/A
You can really see that Claire Denis is comfortable here, and these visuals are some of the most hypnotising I've seen for some time. It's utterly gorgeous but more importantly unique and took me to places I never thought I'd go - this film manages to make the image of semen running down someone's leg still look fascinating. It takes a garbage dump of imagery, then injects it with both a rainbow-coloured sex drive and Claire Denis' mind, transforming it into something so atmospheric and spacious that you really do feel like you've been released from Earth for a... well, a couple of hours? a day? a lifetime? The concept of time is forever challenged in this movie.
I just can't believe how liberating this was. A meditative process resulting in a discharge of fairy dust and a hug of deep relaxation that I am about to carry with me to sleep.
High Life is hypnotic rape, flavoursome murder and a deep blue ice cream cone. An ocean blue cone with no filling.
huh?
I have no idea what I just watched but I loved every second of it.
Why is nobody talking about this show? Jim Carrey’s big return has to be my favourite TV show of 2018. I have never seen a show quite like Kidding before it’s unique visual style transformers what could be a mildly interesting concept into a masterwork about a damaged artist.
Michel Gondry, who previously worked with Carrey on 2004′s “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”, directed 6 of the 10 episodes and his music video inspired aesthetic can been seen in every inch of this show.
The cast is absolutely fantastic with Judy Greer finely being given the chance to deliver a performance as good as her scene at the end of “The Descendants”. Of course the star is Jim Carey who gives what might be the best performance of his career as a children’s entertainer dealing with depression after a traumatic event.
I have tried to keep this a vague as possible because I cannot recommend going into this show blind enough. Kidding is a show that has to be experienced, a show that is truly pushing the television medium forward. If you are looking for an artistic yet poignant depiction of mental health, sexuality and grief then this might just be what you need to see.
Three words: I. LOVED. IT.
Listen, I'm a simple bitch, okay? Let's establish that right out of the gate. I can make fun of tropes all day long (especially the romantic ones) but in the end, I will eat that shit right up and walk out of the theater with the biggest grin on my face. Arthur and Mera accidentally hold hands and suddenly I turn into your 80-year-old grandma Gladys clutching her pearls and going "oh my". Jason Momoa and Amber Heard are DCEU's new dynamite duo (as much as I love Gal Gadot and Chris Pine, they've been knocked off the top spot for me). Their chemistry makes my skin tingle. Was the romance cliche? Hell yeah it was! And I adored every second of it!
Of course some stuff besides the romance also happens (but who cares about that? Not Gladys, that's for sure). The main plotline of finding the Trident does feel kinda like a treasure hunt with Arthur and Mera hopping from place to place, but because their chemistry and dynamic is just THAT good, it's all very fun and watchable. The villain is... well, he certainly is, eh? Actually there's two of them, but neither really made me feel anything. Still better than Steppenwolf, I guess? Although that's not saying much. The jokes hit more often than they miss and the movie did get a few good laughs out of me. But the more serious moments hit home for me as well, whether it's Arthur's reunion with his mother or his admission that he knows he doesn't deserve the Trident but it's his only hope of saving the people he loves. The tone feels pretty consistent and the transitions between the dramatic and comedic moments don't seem as jarring as in some other DCEU installments. The fight scenes are awesome. Especially the one in Sicily really made me feel pumped.
My favorite scene was by far Mera really experiencing the life on land for the first time. Her wide-eyed wonder (no pun intended, I guess) not only reminded me of Diana arriving in London, but it also had something wonderfully Little Mermaid-like (and not just because of the hair) about it. It was soft. It was pure. It made me feel warm inside. Mera eating the roses and Arthur immediately doing the same? Nobody's ever gonna ride for me this hard. Those are the kind of scenes that ground these huge superhero movies, that make them feel relatable to me and allow me to take a breath and really connect with the characters. And when 20 minutes later Mera goes full Bad Bitch In Charge on those soldiers and kills them with deadly wine spikes? Oh, I just about lost my mind. I want her to murder me. But aside from that entire sequence, there were plenty of other moments that really got my attention: little Arthur at the aquarium, Arthur and Mera's escape from Atlantis (such a fun chase!), our favorite power couple emerging from the ocean looking like they're on Baywatch (it was great, don't @ me), every time Mera used her powers (the glowing eyes!), the list goes on.
The visuals are absolutely stunning. Gone are the dreary grays of some lesser DCEU movies. Instead we get beautiful colors (Atlantis is beyond gorgeous), some great shots (Arthur and Mera swimming with the flare while surrounded by thousands of Trench people is breathtaking) and of course incredible CGI. It's a very aesthetically pleasing movie. And the music! I loved the music. This is one of the soundtracks I'm definitely gonna need to listen to at some point. And it takes some big balls to put a cover of Toto's Africa in your movie. I appreciate that. Some people are definitely gonna cringe when they hear it, but I had the biggest grin on my face.
Overall, this was a very enjoyable ride. It's quite long, but it didn't drag. I was invested in Arthur's journey. I thought the casting was perfect (and gosh darn do Jason Momoa and Amber Heard look good together! That has to be one of the most visually stunning pairings to have ever graced the big screen). And I just... felt super happy afterwards. I still can't stop smiling. It's a good movie not just by DCEU standards, but in general. I'd love to see it again and I'll definitely try to do so over the holidays. I honestly didn't expect to like it as much as I did. What a great surprise.
What a tarrific movie. Again one of this lucky moments at the sneak preview - I hadn't heard of this movie before, hadn't seen any trailers, previews, reviews - it would have totally passed by me. This is director Sam Levinson's second movie as a director and in it he tells ports the story of Salem (the biggest witch hunt in the history of the USA) into the modern times and retells it as a story under high school teenagers who live an excessive live on social networks, in a society that still sexualizes women, discriminates against the different and stigmatizes those who do what everybody does in secret but get outed publicly. In this tinderbox of a society a hacker is doing his mischief by stealing private data from our teenagers and also the adults surrounding them and publicly displaying them on the internet, which first only leads to mobbing of individuals and personal tragedies but soon the entire situation switches into a nightmare and a new kind of witch hunt.
The first thought I had when the credits of the movie rolled was "Wow". The dangers of social networks of information leaking and the effects this has both on individuals as well as the society in its entirety is not new (there is even a South Park episode on this regarding the browser history); yet how this movie handles it is refreshing. This movie is different - you get thrown into the story without any introduction, you are there with a group of girls hearing their ordinary daily dialogues (which is kind of Tarantinoesque) about every day's boring stuff, to introduce the characters and their way of thinking. We get great story telling and a really great camera work that captivates you right from the beginning. From all the main characters only Bill Skarsgard rings a bell, so I guess all of them are newcomers yet they all play very well. The sets, the scenes, the costumes the colors, everything is trimmed to create really stunning images that are combined with a great soundtrack. But best of all there is an incredibly great one-take dolly shot that is really stunning as well.
But what kind of movie are we actually watching? That is really hard to answer, actually. The movie starts quite heavy, only unfolds its story slowly and is packed with social criticism without being in your face. The first part reminded me of Spring Breakers. However, Assassination Nation is also packed with a morbid sense of humor while staying serious the entire time, becoming more and more a personal drama until it actually turns into a Gore movie that starts reminding you strongly of the movie "The Purge". And if that is not enough we get a finale that has a lot of elements of a classic Rape-Revenge-Movie that slowly drifts into the surreal.
As you can see, this movie is hard to explain and I feel that rather than reading about it, you'd really have to experience this movie yourself to get a picture of it. I myself was captivated for the first minute, I was really curious how this story will unfold, I have been thinking about the message or the messages that this movie probably tries to convey a lot, I was entertained by the gore elements and I had a couple of scenes where I had to laugh. All in all a well rounded movie, with only one critizism that I have: I thought the ending was pretty forseeable. Not too worse, but still.
Other than that, a really great movie! And everything is done on a low budget!
Btw. here is a great "Anatomy of a Scene" with commentary by Sam Levinson, published by The New York Times. Worth seeing, but also spoilery of course: https://youtu.be/VJNLmfyNpqk
