Change Your Image
harlekinrains
Reviews
Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery (2024)
I like some part of the logic the documentary explores...
So if you invented BTC lets say there is a decent chance you wouldnt lose the keys.
If you didnt die, what do you do with the keys?
You hold them to potentially topple governments or high rollers, once they adopt it (the fear of one of the potential investors the filmmaker talks to).
You make a conscious decision to burn access because you are an idealist. (Actually burning them on chain would be far less romantic, and give you bad media attention.. ;) )
And the movie makes a pretty good case for that community having been idealism driven - having nothing in common with the craze that developed along side the fast doubling in worth over time sales world that developed around bitcoin analogues.
So - if you believe Satoshi lives, and he didnt lose access to the keys, this is what you believe in, in some form.
I also liked how they differentiated and explored the different crazes on a timelime as their central theme. I think they got the characterization of those down pretty well.
The end was overzealous and you actually start to see the fear of "what does it mean, if the world thinks I'm it" building in the main culprit the journalist honed in on. :) That felt like a pretty gradual building up of "what the eff I'm getting framed here", and not so much a "someone has found out my very personal secret".
Decent documentary with a horrible end (Dont put the fear of jebus into Crypto Nerds!)?
El Salvador is in the black whop did doo! ;) (I may eat those words some day... ;) )
Lost in the Shuffle (2024)
What it takes to be a magician
And what it feels like to be in the company of ones. What differentiates them from engineers and people in scientific trades. The value and the heartfeltness of truths for all factions and for all types of people. The value and place of story telling. And still all the aspects it takes to become a performer in your own right.
With good editing.
The final big time and place cut I was sceptical on, but upon the second viewing - it fits and brings the (not so obvious) story arc to its intended finish.
Whats especially well done is, that it stays truthful to the audience throughout, while it tells them everything to know to understand whats happening before their eyes in an analytic way also -- and yet in its credit sequence it ends with the most easy thing you can do to an audience - mislead them, but in a way - that if you listen to it closely you'll understand, that it is misdirection in a very fundamental way. Yet still truthful. And for certain, no big mystery, because you've been told how it works by one of the magicians in the first third of the movie.
And yet the movie is not about any of these things. Its about the sense of wonder, the heart, the comfort and the story telling, that Shawn Farquhar brings and brought to magic -- and about being entertained by a shockingly probable murder mystery. And at least in my interpretation, how he hands over his understanding of the craft to future generations.
The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: The Blue Carbuncle (1984)
Wonderful
I only recently came to know about the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes Series due to a video podcast interview Stephen Fry had done - and to my utmost delight, this was a rendition of the famous literary figure, one that portrais the entire Canon no less, that I could watch. Holmes played with emotionality and whit as part of the character, the logic deductions played off as part of a superior intellect, which we know today they arent, but more importantly not to the effect of some cheap magic trick of holding the attention of a room, but often to the smirk of a real, believable Watson, thats played as a real friend to our famous protagonist. For all the flashy and untouchable renditions of the character by other actors mean nothing in comparison to an actor that made Holmes believable again, through his acting alone.
I watched this episode in the background while working first, but when It came to the scene where Holmes makes the carbuncle reappear, there was something in the eyes of all characters in the scene, and in the fact that I remembered it (the scene) as being talked about by Fry and companions in the aformentioned podcast, that made me presume that this one was special, so I started it over, watching it with full intent, this time.
And what a special episode it is.
It gives us fully flashed out glimpses into the character of the entire repeat cast, including a sleep daze grumpy Holmes. It includes a mockery of a deduction sequence that becomes the story of the town in an instance, it includes a first good deed, where the officer who deserves it fully, faints in a shot so full of heart you couldnt have constructed it, if it didnt come out of the acting, it leads us to a dark place on the edge of town, called the alpha inn, thats decent in all respects of how its presented, and by whom it is run. It gives us, by an element of chance of them reading it in the papers, a decent man getting reimbursed what he has lost, and his life story of helping others to do research in the museum, and about selling some of his books to this being the part of the season to do so. Its rounded off with Holmes mocking seasonal greetings and everyone being in understanding not to take it the wrong way. It solves the case through gambling as a weakness of character. It includes the loveliest (feathery) McGuffin one could imagine. It shows Mrs Hudson being miffed about food getting cold, and our duo - in the end decidedly making sure to free a culprit from prison, in an ending after the ending, while their food is getting cold. A men of changed character that hasnt broken his vow of honesty to his wife - and she believing him after all in about the middle of the episode. With children brushing the streets, getting thoughtful presents bought (almost bought actually.. :) ) and running towards their father on a snowy afternoon. At christmas time.
I wasnt aware that in the UK the episode is shown around christmas time, and became a ritual to watch for many people in this review section. But once I read it in here it gave me another jolt in my stomach - of this being entirely right.
Exemplary.
Takeshis' (2005)
Best deconstruction of society, the people in it and fame in a Kitano movie
And of japanese TV productions, but then not many other Kitano movies deconstruct japanese TV production (Getting any? Might be the only other one), so that one kind of is a given.
Also, you have to add the "in a Kitano movie" part, because if you havent seen his interviews on the topic (largely that he often feels that he does TV for the money they are offering him, and then he just delivers what is demanded from him, and turns his head (critical thinking) off other wise) it would be hard to interpret what you are seeing on screen here - as the movie also isnt very accessible. :)
Takeshis' juxtaposes the life of "famous Takeshi" with a beat down, further along the way than just starting out version of him, that has had no success in life, and then gradually gets power, money, the girl - and then again has everything taken away from him in the end again -- largely to underline the nature of it all. So you can experience what it does to him as a character one step at the time, some times in wrong periods of his "raising to success" story. And not so much, because of -- as the convention goes, the successful Yakuza (as well as the film noir antihero) has to always die in the end for it to be an "acceptable movie" - at least according to the Hollywood conventions in the Bogart and Bacall days. A reference to which the movie also includes.
(Because you couldnt portrait a successful gangster on the silver screen. But then - not much has changed in movie making conventions since then, and in Japan it probably still remains the same.)
The movie also explores the themes of the beat down "nothing more to lose" archetype that then grabs some form of power, as soon as it is presented to him, going down the selfdestructive route - but that just makes it a Kitano movie and isnt so much the main attraction here. So enough preface, lets review the movie. :)
There is a key scene in it that even sticks out to me two days after watching it (again - I believe, but my first time seeing it was at a festival years ago, so this was a fresh experience) and it is the aloof TV personality of the artsy type singing in a cabaret at night in front of a packed audience.
The songs bridge and refrain are, that "the singer can still hear the workers song, the one the poor workers were singing, back in the day, working oh so hard hard" - and her performance is bad - as the entire emotion of the scene spells out the opposite. The audience enjoys it just as much though. This then gets interlinked into the performance of three step dance artists representing having fun on stage as the youthful - carefree artist', which then gets interlinked into literally a dead man dancing the robot on stage. That then cuts into a mediocre DJ scratching records on stage, which gets an intercut to fondling a womens breasts - a representation of why the person is drawn to work "for the fame". Which is also a reoccuring theme played with throughout the movie. But thats not the entire scene -- the singing of the aloof artsy type TV personality in the packed cabaret club at night, also gets an interlinked dream sequence where two sumos (representing conformism and stupid slapstick to the end of their roles in the movie) bash an oversized caterpillar into the ground "working really hard", as the song thats sung keeps reminding you of.
The caterpillar theme is explained in the movie outright. Kitano hates the flowers he gets presented with on TV all the time (again interview knowledge about the man) and would "much rather be represented with more money" (as the artist adds with a grin), not so much because of the flowers (that get dumped in the trash in the third act of the movie), but because of what they represent. This is more subtly presented throughout the movie - if you look at all the scenes representing the same flipping bouquet of flowers, but its negative meaning then also is openly anchored to a small little fairy tale to make it hit home for the audience. The fairytale goes as follows:
"I always hated flowers. Sometimes they even have thick caterpillars in them, that then - when you bring them home develop into ugly, scary moths."
No beautiful butterfly to be found in this movie.
Well, you get your scene at the seashore again, so theres the heart if the movie, right? Well - in as much, as you get a ball gymnast performance of the beat down Takeshis girlfried he attained through the allure of "power" (presented to the character at a stage too late in life and in the movie) on the shore, who is then immediately picked up by her former boyfriend, as soon as Takeshi sits by the seashore in a more contemplative mood.
No one is spared in this movie.
The fame or power "makes the character ("the Takeshi") and the surroundings, and his interactions" representations are everywhere in this movie, and they are unfiltered (no artists eye on them - more a philosophers harsh gaze). They constantly get interwoven with the superficiality of every interaction, with the real "parasocial bonds" that fans build up to a famous actor being "best ignored -- dont be stupid" - because of the dreams and emotional investment fans put into them, only superseded in frequency by scenes depicting how much worse TV production makes any given scene we know from Kitanos movies. Objectively worse. With a bluescreen, digital effects, harsh lighting and cricket sounds, you know -- on TV it will just look like Okinawa. Except that it will not.
Dont go that way!
(I cant anymore, the car is too heavy, you have to get out - no go on, you can do it, drive on -- you can transform, caterpillar - go on, you must transform, like society tells you, in those old folk songs, to get the girl and ...)
Cut back to Kitano on the fake movie set in Okinawa: "Damn crickets!" *draws a gun**blast**bang*, thats better - and I'm done with you too (looking at the female companion in that scene) *bang*.
If your famous thats what you do - people will still love you. And tell you how great you were in that scene. The power you wield.
To the clown, Takeshi Kitano
Except, that you will overdo it. And then Kitano ought to die. According to movie conventions. Wielding no more power Kitano has to kill Kitano with a knife. As Kitano even took the dignity away from him.
Kitano says nothing
"I envy you, killing all those Yakuza at the end of the movie, Takeshi!" "There are no Yakuza like these in real life, idiot." (Kitano says nothing.)
Then the movie ends with him killing everyone. An entire society (of Yakuza). Which seems about right.
Its only the scene with the GI thats a bit uncanny. Has american culture been the culprit here all along? Or just the first american movie that gave Kitano his break? Regardless, the Yakuza has to die at the and of the movie, as has the japanese soldier. And then Takeshi dies.
If you gave the movie a bad review, because it was boring, or because it has so many artificial layers it ventures into the absurd at times, you are the person whos actually being laughed about. But dont worry, you get your Yakuza ultra violence movie on top of that as well - so it will kind of work for you. And then you get the power fantasy, you get the girl, and then some really odd stuff happens in the end, but with great (absurd) action packed on top, so 5/10 stars? Keep on dreaming. :) You dont even know the first part of how the writer, director, actor sees you in your role. Which seems about right.
Kantoku Banzai! (2007) Is a more accessible version of the same theme, representing Kitanos view on society at large - because it makes you experience those moments while making you laugh (the Japan in the 50/60 scenes). This one is more to the point but also more analytical, and explores individual (but archetypal) peoples behavior (You cant buy a used Porsche, you have real money now ! Give me money! Here is 1000 yen, give me change. He is there! He isnt a grumpy cook anyway, look at him, hes not what we are looking for. I have to pay? Dont talk to her, her gift cant be worth much anyways. When you get the role, I will sleep with you.) towards fame and power. And of the business of japanese TV making.
Asakusa kiddo (2021)
Captured the essence
And thats the highest compliment one can give in this specific case.
"You dont cater to the audience. You tell them what is funny."
"I'm someone who left their past twice, I dont have any more time for not giving it all."
"Do you know Lenny Bruce?"
"People come here to see us, not you - or someones singing."
"You have tamer material, right? And you have still plenty of time, so change your set."
"If you cant joke about yourself in private, you wont be able to on stage."
An odd family --
and the rest is tragedy.
And ascendance above it all. But - you know, the Kitano way.
With a twitch,
and a whimper,
shouting "I'm a comidian, you idiot" into some agitated persons face.
I only gave 8/10 because of the one shot in the end, attempting to show the audience what the heart of the story is all about. It wasn't needed, as another reviewer already stated in here before. Less is more. But the film had me in tears even before that (nostalgia inducing) scene - so, all is good -- it captured the essence, and thats really everything that was needed, and the highest compliment one can give in this specific case.
Ripley (2024)
Its fitting they left the talented out of the title
Someone else in here characterized it well already, they try way too hard. Way too hard for this to be received as anything of substance. Ripley alone as a character study might have worked, but then when the interactions start to pick up in the plot, you realize that this is a piece created by try hards for people selfidentifying as "cultured" who just have to sing the praises of a work, because its black and white (which nowadays is not less expensive to film). And tonedeath.
As soon as the dialogue delivery starts between the characters, everything is off. Every glance lasts for the usual 5 seconds after it has seized becoming a glance. Every telegraphed "you are not welcome here" gets the extra 15 headnods while the actor really sells the delivery and sells it, and sells it, and sells it - and keeps selling it. Even the self recognition, of ok, you know that I cant paint, but you are being polite somehow manages to come in just minutes after its appropriate delivery time... Its not like the actors are bad essentially, but like they were told to "hold that emotion" so the typical Netflix customer has a chance to "catch the emotion on that face".
At that point all of the deliveries seize to be mediocre and just venture full into bad, which is then underlined by atmosphere heavy scenes, of listening to some chanteuse in a bar where the focus is on capturing her face and everyone being captured by their self indulgent righteousness of experiencing that picturesque moment of consuming an espresso in that venue - but no one cared enough not to hire the directors girlfriend for the singing part.
Sure, if you are the target audience of this, which has to be the tonedeath, asocial beings that Gen-Z are often mischaracterized as today, I guess you love this for all the gravitas it comes with -- but if you are anyone that isnt a self indulgent art lover to the maximum, its hard to see yourself putting up with this neurotic, depressing version of Ripley for more than the appropriate one and a half minutes while your ogling the god darn exit to get out of that social interaction.
This is not a display of a sadly all too likeable psychopath - this is the little wished to be on Apple TV show that fulfills the wish of half of their audience, to at least for once in their life, be able to read an emotion off of someones face - while giving them the impression that "asocial" is the totally new social and accepted, and "no you are perfectly fine in this interaction" if you just take that trip to italy to meet your dream upperclass prince, that always waited for you and you always wanted to have a seemingly meaningful conversation with...
I'll revisit this review, once I've finished watching the series, but just getting through the next scene has become a chore here...
And yet I'm absolutely sure that the mediocraty in filmlovers will love this - because it made them feel some emotions in every scene! Drab, dreary, idiotic, delivery with no timing - but for sure, some emotion will be plastered on every actors face for 12 seconds at least, just so you could catch up with that.
Talented? Who needs to be talented these days?
Argylle (2024)
Oh, wanna be film critics... What is this movie to you?
Couch critics, trying to win over everyone with how they've not understood a movie and therefore it must be bad... Am I getting old, when something like this becomes the expected reaction by about half of the public out there? :) Argylle is an eight easily. If you can get over the new Beatles song product placement.
Argylle strangely enough also is a writers movie first and foremost, where in the middle of the movie the writers banked on "suspension of disbelief", restructured the entire movie, and then fixed up pretty much every plothole that resulted from pulling that stunt (not all of them, but pretty much all of them), its also a writers movie, because from the "suspension of disbelief" to the "deus ex machina" in the end (saved at the last possible moment), narratively it flows with ease.
And its also a writers movie, because in the layered in allegorical storytelling it tells a coming of age story. Rebellion against your parents, overcoming selfdoubts, up until our hero is established, to then just fall back a little on the nerdy, quirky and silly side, to give our hero back the humanity. Its stacked full with motives of selfrejected love, anti-bodyshaming, but also with included male hunks, isolation, male/female role reversals, fossile fuel industry bad tropes and all the things you'd expect a thoughtfully written coming of age tale to be filled with, after about half of our societies went through a Covid lockdown - and so did the writer.
But, and thats the strange part (as in really good writing), it manages to do so in a comedy, thats first and foremost lough out loud funny, while at the same poking fun at some of the recent James Bond movies so expertly, it hooked me just with that. Twice.
The rooftop chase scene, and the smoke dancing scene later on. I couldnt help but to laugh fully, openly an honestly during both of them. And when I did, I laughed with the movie- Its not just expertly written, but also properly directed. They knew where they were hitting with those, what they were trying to achieve in those scenes.
Argylle also introduces some of the most memorable characters in a movie for a while, filled with enough "mystique" to enable them to push out a prequel movie -- just on side character development alone.
Even down to the whimsy that is the story device that is the cat-backpack, this movie just gets it right.
Come to think of it, I think I really dont have anything to fault the movie for, and I'm just giving it an 8 because it didnt try hard enough to be better than then best silly pulp fiction I've seen in a while.
In an age, where we are missing the "camp", and silly, and sexy, and overstylized, a "writers touch" could bring to B movie agent fiction, even fiction in general - in the recent past (thinking about Diabolik for instance), this might be the closest we will be getting to getting it back in a more conscious, politically correct, divers Hollywood nowadays.
But at the same time, the audience seems to have forgotten that its okay to "suspend disbelief". If your are at the hands of good storytellers.
They all now are critics. Already having forgotten, the qualities of a camp, silly but expertly crafted comedy.
Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)
The bare kind of bleak
The movie works. As a storytelling device more so than a movie, but substance over style seldomly is a bad thing. Drab, bleak, boring, dull..., uneasy are emotions it conjures up over its running time, all the while the plotdesign is so expertly crafted, that after its all said an done, I cant help but to get the feeling that it was to a large extend intentionally driven.
There is a "showing the audience the door is open, then telling it the door is open" in voiceover (not to be taken literally) moment quite early on, in the earlier parts of the first third of the move, that drives home to the audience what is happening here. There is no mystery - there just is purpose and greed. Then you get introduced to the main cast, then the likeable characters, and then you wait.
And the agony starts building. Come one, we know whats going to happen, let it happen. But the uneasiness is building. Then its happening, but we know it isnt over at this point, so now the agony starts building again, then it happens again, and its a little more painful, because the characters it happens to were a bit more sincere or likeable than before. And thats the loop of the movie. At the moment it is happening to the main character we always knew it would be happening too, the presentation makes it alla blur, and really elongates the moment, then intercuts with second story plot - while in the background we still have the lingering feeling, wait - this is still happening, right?
Then comes the Deus Ex machina which almost didnt happen because of "istitutional reluctance to give 300 USD", as a result of a character overcoming unbelievable odds, then we learn that the Deus Ex machina was bought with 20.000 dollars.
Then comes in the cavelary, and then the excuses start to get stripped away. Wait, that was a likeable fellow, right? Eight kids. But with a redskin it was different. No, no I'm just asking if it is legal and I'd get the money, if I dont get the money I would not do it. Then the matter of factness gets layered in. Yes he held her, and set her up and I shot. You didnt happen to loose the bullet, "carving the flesh from the bone"?
And then we are in the middle of the main characters character struggle. Never quit likeable, always uneasy. Then the main character makes all the wrong decisions as part of that character struggle, but no word is said, no word is uttered to him - even by his wife. He choses to stay on side of main antagonists logic for a little while longer. Then simply unfolds what we as an audience know would unfold. Someone close to his heart dies. Which was foreshadowed by the storytelling.
Then comes the change of heart. Leonardo di Caprio finally beating the struggle. All the while making up a self concept of his actions that makes it bearable. And then it comes down to a final question. What was it that you gave me.
And everything, the entire structure of the redemption arc breaks down at once.
The point is, if you look into the structure of it, it always was intended to move along that arc. Dont go to the doctors, go to the train, get the insulin directly from there. "You'll be next". What was it that you gave me. The entire selfimage the character has at that point, the hope of the heroes arch isnt worth a penny. I thought long and hard how I, the viewer, would weasel myself out of this situation, and the answer is I cant. "It was my uncle." "It was my uncle having power over me". "I did it because of the love of the family." "I dindt understand." "I did it because of the children." "I thought it would just relax you". None of it is possible - its all stripped away by plotdesign.
Its failure set up.
And its so obvious, that the heart of the film and the "good detective" dont even have to say anything. The lie is laid bare. The good (person) and the hero seperate.
To come to that point, no convincing is needed. The hero is led along that path using "what will you do next" open questions at the moment of his last wrong decision which he then reverses because of the emotional quandaries that follow after the final death, that gets to him.
And then the movie has to break to talk to the audience. Because all the while the parallel powerstructure was explained alongside ("keeping a secret part of free masonry", "brotherhood of the clan"), and in real life, that power structure one upped the storytelling. If the hero didnt change his mind in the end, he would have been better off.
And there is really nothing to say to that. So this is when the director has to explain this to us, the viewer. Here lies a women. She blossomed one more time, seperated from the "hero", she survived her Sister, her other sister, her child. Nothing on the gravestone talks about societies nature, or even that there were murders.
To get that to hit in a "more fast paced movie" is not possible.
Find the wolf in the picture.
The cinematography sometimes was lacking, the "highs" ("falling in love/dependance") could have been more accentuated. De Niro is maybe the only one that always feels spot on, its not a perfect movie, not perfect in an entertaining sense - but then it doesnt try to be.
For a 200 mio USD movie, thats quite something, actually.
So for not being a perfectly directed movie, when its a Scorsese - I deduct a few points. But everyone knew what they were doing here.
I think.
And if that translates to an audience as boring, well - cant fault the audience right? ;) And you also cant fault substance over style.
A Haunting in Venice (2023)
Who killed the Christie estate?
So apparently there is this group, lead by James Pritchard that is supposed to make sure Agatha Christies oeuvre is not turned into silly, useless, toneless adaptations of nothing -- oh sorry, I'm reviewing the movie already.
So Poirot is still the only one in the entire film you cant empathize with - because Branagh still character plays him as the choleric, emotionless can not act, but kicks every door open, one tone mask of a person, that almost rediscovers his childhood in an apple bobbing scene, but then almost gets killed for that - and then decides, to never show any emotion for the rest of the film.
Ariadne Oliver is played as a Bridget Jones "on a constant chocolate high" character by Tina Fey who serves two purposes throughout the movie, first to give the film any humanity and second to give the film the canvas the demographic that buys Tina Fey books as "self empowerment" needs to have a canvas to identify with. No one taught her method acting in a mostly method cast - so thats what you get. Tina Fey. Oh and make her Poirots best friend of course, you know - to increase Brenahs likeability and her on screen time, as the canvas the female audience will identify with. But its Tina Fay. In Venice, in the 1940s. In a horror house. In a mystery tale - explaining to the audience plotpoints, that were introduced by a childrens puppet show.
Javier Bardem is played by Riccardo Scamarcio, doing his best Javier Bardem impression in the role of Poirots bodyguard. The Javier Bardem character interestingly enough is also made into the most likeable character in the movie, because he is played by an actual actor being able to express emotions with a face.
Camerashots have the quality of the camera being tied to a carousel with the focus puller in place, being told "now" to get perfect focus halfway through the shot, on some characters face.
If its a shot from frog perspective, or over the shoulder, or overhead, depends on where the carousel horse ended up at that point. Plenty of circular motion and tight perspective in those camera pans though.
So to fix this, you use mashine gun frequency cuts, of course. Oh look, here is an iron mesh in a tunnel, filmed from an inch away! Perfect sharpness, on that auto focus!
Music is fine.
Film stock looks like digital, no character, no lenswork, and only color grading in post processing -- no depth of field, perfect focus, perfect lighting on closeups, in the darkest cellar with.lanterns being the only light - lighting HD rats, scattering on what look like crates from prop department "sturdy and plywood".
The sound department fixed that though, and is able to give the film some character with the strangest violoncello/contrabass sonatas you have heard in film for a while. But its a horror film apparently, so it serves a purpose and "Those children really died in here".
Sorry, I'm quoting a throw away plotline uttered by Poirots bodyguard to finish painting the scene.
So apparently, this is the new and more "edgy, kicks the door open" with a stone face Poirot, the Briget Jones demographic likes, because he hangs out with Tina Fey in a haunted house. Because thats what younger folks nowadays buy cinema tickets for.
Or so the person who murdered the Agatha Christie estate seemingly thought.
Die drei ??? - Erbe des Drachen (2023)
What are closeups?
So close, and yet so far away. Setdesign and location scouting is stellar - bordering on really well done. Casting in parts did its job - thats the best rendition of a Bob and Peter so far - in any of the movies around. Both teen actors are amongst the best actors in the movie in general. Shot design has flashes of true greatness, when it was planned for longer than two seconds. Pickup exposition sequences with 2D art are very well done, score was very well picked - and thats where the positive parts end.
When casting a the "Three Investigators" movie you have exactly one task you cant possibly fail at. Don't cast a pretentious, out of his depth Justus (/Jupiter) Jonas. Who's younger than the others in the trio, and then stands in the middle of the frame, feeling out of place. Because his delivery was so bad (with scenes feeling like on set he wanted to make the others crack up to get at least some positive affirmation during shooting breaks, and that had crossed over into the actual scenes) - you could see him recalling lines from memory always a few milliseconds too late, that therefore you have given most of the exposition to Bob anyhow.
Its a Justus (/Jupiter) Jonas you simply cant cast.
You can see that the stage direction was there, because in some scenes he can fill his role, and he tries his best - but then its never the default and the role never comes naturally to him. When he nails his delivery, as an actor, the boy is quite good - so its not that he doesnt have the capability, its just - that it doesnt come natural.
And its probably not so much his fault, as it is the fault of the director - because there are scenes left in the movie that would have benefited from another five takes. The shot planning, when its done quickly during 80% of the movie falls flat. You miss closeups for emotional delivery, not just for the teen actors but in general. The framing is often bad (with effort spent on getting each character centered in the image or the entire trio in a shot), character introductions sometimes are done in medium long shots, when a shot needs to breath no one told the director to move the camera out for more impact, and the dialog sequences are stale, usually complimented by stale shot, countershot cinematography.
This is then amplified by dialog that is even more stale... Characters internal motivations are glanced over and wrongly molded all the time, apparently the three investigators are pumped to be on a movieset, during the establishing minutes of their character introductions, and then pumped to see a bat-bot, and then extremely intrigued by a whole hooking sequence that just registered to the audience as weird...
... and then there is the meta-level on which the producers and the director decided, lets just make this a movie about a child trio on a movieset, and of course shoot it in Romania where it doesnt cost us as much - so now the kids are pumped to go to Romania over the summer, and of course give them some really child level edgy things to do - like you know, making filmblood - and now the children are pumped to make film blood and --
where is the plot development in all of this? Which plot development. After a full day of being pumped on a filmset about being on a movie, the three investigators wander trough an empty corridor at night - and dont you worry, a plot point will hit!
And the shot framing will be bad. And Justus' delivery will be off, and the supporting actors will be really overacting, like they were cast into a childrens movie (and thats right about their mindset during their text delivery), and the emotional reactions on screen will represent something, or someone, that we as the audience have only seen in a wide shot so far...
Supporting actors are often not very good, filler plotlines like Peters dad not having time for him in place, and then at some point, the least settled and sure of himself in the trio has to drop another plot developing line, that - the trio "must watch the empty corridor where the first plot point hit at random last night". Why?
Because strange music played. And because, apparently, aside from being pumped all the time, to be on a filmset in Romania, this also has to be a detective movie of course! So now this leads into a chase sequence!
The thing is that with its visual presentation, set design and music choices and its emotional story telling - especially in the bigger choreographed scenes, and also during the entire intro (which feels mostly rushed, probably because they booked not enough days to shoot in the US) the movie hits its mark. So someone knew what they were aiming for, and during those bigger planned scenes, the execution is there. Its just, that it falls apart during the remaining 80% of the movie.
They achieved flashes of excellence, but that in itself doesnt make a congruent or fun to watch movie.
Copenhagen Cowboy (2022)
Starts slow, ends with the world exploding
(In an allegorical sense.)
Any show that makes you say to yourself - well, the internal ethics of the chinese triads, probably are better than what was depicted of the balkan mafia, then instantly regret it, because of what you just thought, not because of anything that happened - and then has a meta commentary on it within the same series, is -- well really effed up to begin with, but in this case also something really special.
Show can hit you like a brick, when you realize that its dialogue is written for the main character to hardly ever say a word, while the exposition is provided by the people that interact with her, and then - at the same time also crafted to expose their internal wants and needs, and more often than not - obsessions - always in some way playing out to the detriment of the main heroine, or at least some person involved in the plot arc, and when the show then starts to do it over and over and over again, to show you different slices of human psychy, not in a university - first semester sense, but through myths that are rooted in collective memory -- almost shocking you with the simple "this is our interpretation of the collective unconscious - and why humanity produced those myths" statement it offers. Its outright perplexing, that tonally its never feeling out of place while hitting on one traumatic theme after the next, but then doing that thing that good storytelling does in those instances, and crossing over into creating hope, and divine justice, and magic at the point of utter despair.
Other people have touched on the body horror elements in this, and its hard not to, when its the opening shot on the first episode, but its the psychological horror thats overcome time and time again within this show, that really grips you conceptually and that will become the more lasting memory.
Its like Brothers Grimm, if told in the modern age by a master storyteller.
It suspends disbelieve to the point, where you are literally hearing advice from Hideo Kojima to seek out the Giants, because those are the only ones that can help in a situation, without this having any context in the storytelling so far - whatsoever, and you are saying to yourself - yeah, that sounds about right.
But more so, for me it always will be a show about overcoming traumatic events by the mind crossing over into magical arguing, the trappings of that, and the power of story telling that springs from it.
The last episode is kind of a departure, that maybe takes it too literal ("she is many"), but then offers some of the most visually stunning eyecandy of the entire series, as well as cliffhangers and and a glimps into what a second season might be interested in exploring - and in that it kind of feels disconnected from the rest, but nevertheless, the plot arc is completed by that point so its hard to really fault the show for it.
Loro (2018)
Wow.
(Differences between the international cut of the movie, and the version distributed to italian cinemas are described in the last paragraph of the review.)
Is wow more than one word? Because when reflecting on this movie it sure lingers for a while... Lets start again. If you are a heterosexual male, watch this alone the first time. Lets start again. The first 40 minutes of the film are a visual, sensual, guttural, powerfantasy on screen force majeure. Then you also slowly start noticing that the movie layers meaning in allegorical structures (when commercials are used as standins for the character that hasnt been introduced yet, or the sheep falls over in the first two minutes, or the political theme tune of the electoral campaign kicks in...) that decidedly seem hyper real. Then you'll start realizing, that this is "the best commercial shoot type production" you'll ever see in your life, because the women in it know its a persiflage, and knew where its hitting, and the main cast so far (again, we are still in the first 40 minutes) doesnt ruin the scenario, he focuses it. Then the main character (Lui? Lui, lui.) enters and the movie gets even better? Sure does. Then you have presence intercuts for a look of a sidecharacter, just to underline, that body language is a story telling device here as well (Oh it sure is... sorry my mind went back to the first 40 minutes...), then the movie becomes lyrical? But in a persiflage, that also kind of isnt? Its not so much that my mind was blown several times throughout the movie, its - that the powerfantasy became palpable. The draw in of that presentation is immense. And the absurdity gets sidelined even when its turned up to eleven, because you are still so mesmerized by the ride. And at the end of the movie you pick yourself up in pieces, and start to question who you are... And you might have learned a thing or two, about Lui lui, you hadn't picked up from the international press. Oh and "When Putin was here a few years ago..." Did I mention that its laugh out loud funny as well?
The international cut is the "better version", to it stripping out mostly political background and side character development. All the iconic scenes are in the international cut as well, basically uncut - so as a result the movie flows better, but misses many of the political allegories, that explain some of the setups you see playing out. So pacing and the main character (of the first 40 minutes, not Lui) arc benefit from the international cut, the message of the movie does not. Also the funniest scene of the movies got lost on the cutting room floor. In the telephone call scene with the producer type explaining to the audience the tiring fact, that everyone wants to be Mata Hari or Jeanne d'Arc - that gets underlined with snippets of various movie productions, one of which is "(Lady) Dianas (Republic of) Congo", but with eroticism (and minus the heart :) ), according to the voice over. If you can, source the originals as well, but watching the international version on your first watch will have more impact.
Watchmen (2019)
An absolute travesty.
The sheer guts it too to make Rorschach (in symbolism) the head of a white supremacist terror cell. The sheer nerve it took to make watchmen a hierarchical police unit, lead my a 'cowboy' that holds speeches about terrorists only sleeping, and 'so glad, we already know where they all are'. The sheer *lost for words* to make 'do you believe in squids as interdimensional beings' a 'control question' for - are you a terrorist. But luckily we give them state police them cool tropes from the original - so everyone cheers at the right intervals.
Takes every trope, and all symbolism of the original (highly moral beings, adventure seekers, mathnerds - coming to understand tough decisions within societal processes), flips it on its head. And makes out of it another tale about american patriotism.
Adds 20 cow carcasses just for visual effect and cool factor in the first episode.
Alan Moore must rotate in despair and disbelieve right now. Have you no mercy. Not even with artists? Not even with stories that originated at the edges of society?
Ricky Jay and His 52 Assistants (1996)
More than just magic
I'm 26 and every time I see this it makes me be overcome with nostalgia. Nostalgia, because I feel there will be nothing even remote to this performance I will see in my lifetime. This man is telling a life story of the con-artist, the cheat, the swindler, the impostor, the jester and he tells them in the evening of the trade, he tells the tale of one who would perform for people in theatre for a ticket price three times the yearly wage of a normal worker and he tells the tale of one who would pass around a hat in bars in the darker end of town. He tells tales across centuries, he tells his own. And he performs the best slide of hand you will ever see.
He plays the audience and participants, so charmingly - that they allow themselves to be - played. He excels in providing absolute nonsense alongside the knowledge of generations. Sharper intelligence at work you'll never see. And he does it, never missing a beat, counting cards alongside, masking moves with words and - pauses, crafting a rhythm out of thin air -
When at the heart of this performance, he shows a truth where each profession is...
When he tells of the never to be fulfilled struggle of the plebeians to reach the upper circles he does it in the voice of a plebeian, startling the higher ups, outplaying them in whits, and he tells of what really matters - when "booze and the blowens" have "copped the lot".
No really, it is that multi-layered and more importantly it is that good. If you watch it for the first time, or for the twentieth - it keeps on giving. A true classic.
My Antonio (2009)
This is it - The culmination of Reality-TV
Wow, how embarrassing is this? After all this guilty pleasure, watching other VH1 Shows just for the kick of it and arguably the social aspect, because at the end of the day, it seems like everybody does - enjoying the hilarity that usually ensues - it took the show with arguably the cheesiest premise to get me to this point...
I'd have to say I went in for the "peace of meat" bravado in the first place, because I found it somewhat refreshing, that "My Antonio" was the proverbial carrot on a stick for each and every female contestant on the show, and they all knew it from the very beginning - But instead of following the premise and "playing the game", like the many before - this guy somehow seemed to try building deep connections, acting to eliminate almost all group effects with a "everyone gets a chance" attitude - which ultimately made for some intensely boring middle episodes, because the decisions at the eliminations were so transparent. But, oh my God - the third act is almost divine...
You get it all - the all to obvious soap analogies in the form of a reenactment challenge, the former wife, the intriguing, but good willing mother, the bunny that gets played - this series culminates in a moment where three of the contestants - who at this point want "Their Antonio" badly, can stand in one room respecting each other, as well as the fact, that he has made out with two of them on the same day, just the day before (if editing didn't tweak time too much... ;)), while he is kissing the third one - just because they believe in the fairness and judgment of one guy...
The emotion in the last episodes is palpable and real, if I ever saw real emotion. I can't watch soaps, because I can't stand emotion that does not come out of the scene, but directly from script - but this made me understand the fascination and attachment, that others could have regarding this medium of entertainment.
This is the quintessential soap. The best Reality TV as a concept has to offer.