Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) in Movies
May 20, 2021
Tobe Hooper's seminal The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is a straight up horror classic, that changed the face of the genre. It's influence can be seen all over the place, and it's notoriety is still prominent. To this day, TTCSM is still misunderstood by wider audiences. It's title, alongside it's "video nasty" reputation that stuck for decades, suggests that the viewer is in for a depraved gore fest, when in reality, this film borders on arthouse more often than not. Its brimming with iconic shots, and beautiful cinematography work courtesy of Daniel Pearl. In terms of gore, you don't see much of it. Pretty much all of the violent scenes are implied, and the movie shies away from showing anything explicit, a move that is incredibly effective.
Its pacing is pretty much perfect. The slow build first half is suitably uncomfortable, and full of great performances that keep it engaging. When things kick off, it grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go until the credits roll. Some incredibly well done sound design and tense music score compliment the breakneck final act, that is just an unencumbered assault on the senses. It's exhausting (in a good way).
Marilyn Burns' Sally is a badass final girl that causes the Sawyer family a whole bunch of trouble, and Leatherface is a wonderfully portrayed maniac - a genuinely terrifying MF, who has a sympathetic side. He's the main reason why TTCSM is still scary as fuck all these years later. The scares on display are all well earned, and the jump moments are startling and are far from being cheap.
What more can I say, TTCSM is truly one of the greats. It's uncomfortable, entertaining, extremely well put together, and is wholeheartedly deserving of its place in horror royalty.
Its pacing is pretty much perfect. The slow build first half is suitably uncomfortable, and full of great performances that keep it engaging. When things kick off, it grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go until the credits roll. Some incredibly well done sound design and tense music score compliment the breakneck final act, that is just an unencumbered assault on the senses. It's exhausting (in a good way).
Marilyn Burns' Sally is a badass final girl that causes the Sawyer family a whole bunch of trouble, and Leatherface is a wonderfully portrayed maniac - a genuinely terrifying MF, who has a sympathetic side. He's the main reason why TTCSM is still scary as fuck all these years later. The scares on display are all well earned, and the jump moments are startling and are far from being cheap.
What more can I say, TTCSM is truly one of the greats. It's uncomfortable, entertaining, extremely well put together, and is wholeheartedly deserving of its place in horror royalty.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Pig (2021) in Movies
Nov 30, 2021
Nicolas Cage's placement within the zeitgeist is almost legendary at this point. His various unhinged performances over the decades have ensured that he's the go-to-guy for any movie with a whacky premise that needs a lead who will commit to the part, no matter how ludicrous. Pig is a film that has fallen a little foul of this. It's a film that had been mistakenly billed to me as "John Wick but with Nicolas Cage and a pig", a film that's very synopsis lends itself to the absurdity that surrounds Cage and his career.
The finished project however is an emotional and heartfelt triumph. For starters, the whole movie is shot beautifully with plenty of stunning cinematography on display. It verges into arthouse territory fairly regularly, but works hand in hand with the way the narrative chugs along, quite wonderfully.
The slower pace of proceedings is filled with great dialogue and great turns from the likes of Adam Arkin and the ever-reliable Alex Wolff, but make no mistake, Pig belongs to Cage 100%. His performance here is nothing short of fantastic. His character is layered, and aspects of him are slowly revealed as the story unfolds, and Cage delivers it all pretty flawlessly. No joke, probably his career highlight.
The tone is a rollercoaster, from optimism amongst sadness to flat out despair. The climactic scene in particular is an absolutly beautiful and emotional shit show, that lands perfectly thanks to its stellar cast.
Pig is a movie that I didn't expect to get me as much as it did. It's an incredibly competent, subtle, and well realised debut full-length feature from Michael Sarnoski, that I imagine will be criminally overlooked when awards season rolls around. Give Nicolas Cage an Oscar dammit!
The finished project however is an emotional and heartfelt triumph. For starters, the whole movie is shot beautifully with plenty of stunning cinematography on display. It verges into arthouse territory fairly regularly, but works hand in hand with the way the narrative chugs along, quite wonderfully.
The slower pace of proceedings is filled with great dialogue and great turns from the likes of Adam Arkin and the ever-reliable Alex Wolff, but make no mistake, Pig belongs to Cage 100%. His performance here is nothing short of fantastic. His character is layered, and aspects of him are slowly revealed as the story unfolds, and Cage delivers it all pretty flawlessly. No joke, probably his career highlight.
The tone is a rollercoaster, from optimism amongst sadness to flat out despair. The climactic scene in particular is an absolutly beautiful and emotional shit show, that lands perfectly thanks to its stellar cast.
Pig is a movie that I didn't expect to get me as much as it did. It's an incredibly competent, subtle, and well realised debut full-length feature from Michael Sarnoski, that I imagine will be criminally overlooked when awards season rolls around. Give Nicolas Cage an Oscar dammit!
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992) in Movies
Jan 8, 2022
Hellraiser III is undoubtedly an odd beast. It feels so out of touch with the genuinely fantastic first two films, to the point where it should be a massive shot in the foot, but somehow, it's ludicrously entertaining.
The big and obvious potential for error is the series' infamous antagonist/anti-hero Pinhead. I say anti-hero because the first two films don't portray him as a flat out villain. He's rather, an indifferent creature, who acts with some sort of honour. Hell on Earth just goes full blown bad guy, aligning him more accurately with slasher villains of the 80s. It's proves to be a hinderence in execution, replacing the mysterious and sparingly shown Pinhead of before with one that throws out an evil cackle whilst slaughtering his victims, and even provides a couple of quips. He gets some cool lines here and there but it leans too heavily into occasionally goofy over-exposure.
The other cenobites that surround him are kind of lame this time around as well, even if there's a weird enjoyment in watching one of them slice up innocent bystanders by throwing CDs at their faces.
The story kind of makes sense, and it's commitment to staying connected to the previous films is commendable, but it does completely fall off the rails near the end. It doesn't help that the editing is so jarring between scenes.
In spite of these issues, the overall experience is a lot of fun. It lacks the subtlety and borderline arthouse style that really set the first two apart, but it still kind of works. It's not ideal, but intriguing, kind of like an oddball cousin that might visit now and again.
The big and obvious potential for error is the series' infamous antagonist/anti-hero Pinhead. I say anti-hero because the first two films don't portray him as a flat out villain. He's rather, an indifferent creature, who acts with some sort of honour. Hell on Earth just goes full blown bad guy, aligning him more accurately with slasher villains of the 80s. It's proves to be a hinderence in execution, replacing the mysterious and sparingly shown Pinhead of before with one that throws out an evil cackle whilst slaughtering his victims, and even provides a couple of quips. He gets some cool lines here and there but it leans too heavily into occasionally goofy over-exposure.
The other cenobites that surround him are kind of lame this time around as well, even if there's a weird enjoyment in watching one of them slice up innocent bystanders by throwing CDs at their faces.
The story kind of makes sense, and it's commitment to staying connected to the previous films is commendable, but it does completely fall off the rails near the end. It doesn't help that the editing is so jarring between scenes.
In spite of these issues, the overall experience is a lot of fun. It lacks the subtlety and borderline arthouse style that really set the first two apart, but it still kind of works. It's not ideal, but intriguing, kind of like an oddball cousin that might visit now and again.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Waltz With Bashir (2008) in Movies
Mar 11, 2021
This is the fifth in the series of films I would recommend to an alien to explain humanity. Not, as posted on the Instagram account, #6 – sorry for the confusion, I think I skipped #4 on there when posting for Schindler’s List a few weeks ago. Anyway… today’s choice is Ari Folman’s extraordinary antiwar film from 2008, which combines several forms of animation and live action footage to create a dreamlike landscape of the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and one man’s journey to reconstruct his own lost memories of events.
I saw this when working at The Cameo Cinema in Edinburgh on release. It was the kind of thing I loved to discover that I wouldn’t normally have paid to see. Its impact on me was immediate, and I went back to see it 3 more times. When it was released on DVD in 2009, it became my go to movie to gift to people who I knew would love it but may not have even heard of it, due to its low profile arthouse origins. It was nominated in the Best Foreign Language Film category at the Oscars, but otherwise went under the radar in many ways. I still doubt it has been seen by a quarter of the people who would immediately say it was one of the most amazing films they had ever seen.
The animation may seem gimmicky at first, but once you identify its utility in this context and understand this is not a film for children, it becomes a transcendent trip of vibrant colour, emotion and… humanity. I would call it as indispensable an antiwar movie as Apocalypse Now, and in many ways so much more moving than that classic. If you have yet to see it, do yourself a favour, pick a time you can reflect and allow the dreamlike quality to carry you away.
I saw this when working at The Cameo Cinema in Edinburgh on release. It was the kind of thing I loved to discover that I wouldn’t normally have paid to see. Its impact on me was immediate, and I went back to see it 3 more times. When it was released on DVD in 2009, it became my go to movie to gift to people who I knew would love it but may not have even heard of it, due to its low profile arthouse origins. It was nominated in the Best Foreign Language Film category at the Oscars, but otherwise went under the radar in many ways. I still doubt it has been seen by a quarter of the people who would immediately say it was one of the most amazing films they had ever seen.
The animation may seem gimmicky at first, but once you identify its utility in this context and understand this is not a film for children, it becomes a transcendent trip of vibrant colour, emotion and… humanity. I would call it as indispensable an antiwar movie as Apocalypse Now, and in many ways so much more moving than that classic. If you have yet to see it, do yourself a favour, pick a time you can reflect and allow the dreamlike quality to carry you away.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated X (2022) (2022) in Movies
Mar 22, 2022
Ti West has been gruesomely carving his name into the horror genre for a little while now, but with X, it feels like everything is really falling into place. It's a snappy, funny, unnerving, visceral, and chaotic ride that is easy to get lost in.
Despite it's fast moving narrative, it still finds time to slowly build its tension. Even before shit goes south, and everyone's having a bloody lovely time snorting cocaine and filming porn, something just feels off, to an almost unbearable degree.
Creepy, elderly antagonists have been done before, but the villains of the piece here have a well realised soft edge to them in the form of their relationship. There's some touching moments between them (as well as some gross ones), and it very much drives home the point that getting old sucks, and there's definitely a sliver of sympathy in there somewhere in between all the stabbing and nastiness.
The main group of protagonists are all a joy to watch on screen and are all pretty likable. Mia Goth is superb in her dual role, and it's great to see Jenna Ortega furthering a promising career in horror. The whole cast are decent and sell the unfolding madness with aplomb.
It's beautifully shot as well, from the opening scene, to the moment the credits roll, every frame feels like it's been slaved over with a great degree of passion. There's homages everywhere you look, the most obvious of course, being The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, from its setting and general vibe, to the very arthouse style that the film is presented in. It's really quite a treat to look at.
The more slasher side of things eventually takes over, and proceedings do become relatively predictable, but by that point, the film has descended into a crazy, gory, good time, and it's hard to care about any slight misgivings.
In short, X is a fucking blast and is well worth making a cinema trip for any fans of the genre. Don't sleep on it!
Despite it's fast moving narrative, it still finds time to slowly build its tension. Even before shit goes south, and everyone's having a bloody lovely time snorting cocaine and filming porn, something just feels off, to an almost unbearable degree.
Creepy, elderly antagonists have been done before, but the villains of the piece here have a well realised soft edge to them in the form of their relationship. There's some touching moments between them (as well as some gross ones), and it very much drives home the point that getting old sucks, and there's definitely a sliver of sympathy in there somewhere in between all the stabbing and nastiness.
The main group of protagonists are all a joy to watch on screen and are all pretty likable. Mia Goth is superb in her dual role, and it's great to see Jenna Ortega furthering a promising career in horror. The whole cast are decent and sell the unfolding madness with aplomb.
It's beautifully shot as well, from the opening scene, to the moment the credits roll, every frame feels like it's been slaved over with a great degree of passion. There's homages everywhere you look, the most obvious of course, being The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, from its setting and general vibe, to the very arthouse style that the film is presented in. It's really quite a treat to look at.
The more slasher side of things eventually takes over, and proceedings do become relatively predictable, but by that point, the film has descended into a crazy, gory, good time, and it's hard to care about any slight misgivings.
In short, X is a fucking blast and is well worth making a cinema trip for any fans of the genre. Don't sleep on it!
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Mandy (2018) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Oh Mandy
#Mandymovie is an intoxicating & nauseating experience that left my head spinning & my body warm/tingly sunk into my seat. From the second #mandy starts i was simply hooked, #nostalgia running through my body & its #perfect visuals glistening off my eye balls. I felt almost in a #trance with its soothing/#hypnotic #soundtrack & its cinematography bathed in colour Mandy is simply #gorgeous right to its core. Atmosphere begins #beautifully creating so much intrigue, a sence of wonder/#mystery & a massive sense of love/commitment however its not long until this flips to deeply #unerving, #unsettling & down right skin crawling fast. So many scenes are Dialog sparce but with so much depth in the visuals & sound its really not missed or needed at all. An example of this is Cages love for mandy is shown as complete devotion, #passion/commitment like he sees her almost as a godess/his reason to live (shown using glowing light and warm fire acompanied by soft slow dialog) yet other peoples love for her is the complete oposite more as an #obsession, an object or a #desire (shown using pulsing red light, slow zooms and freeze frames and frantic pitch changing broken dialog). Its a masterful way of telling us about the characters & story making us feel/experiance there #emotions rather than wait for dialog to develop them for us. Acting is also stellar with this being #nicolascage best role in a very long time. His character is a #haunted & troubled man & his #pain can be felt deeply whenever he is on screen. Infunces/homages are everywhere here from #darioargento to #fridaythe13th & other #80s #horror movies. Infact mandy could easily be mistaken for a film released decades ago its that well made & its also destined to become a #cultclassic its self. Mandy is an absolute rare gem, every scene its drenched in such style, care & mesmerising #beauty youll be pushed to find another film like it now days. Im being vauge here on purpouse because to watching this film in the dark, on a big screen, turned up loud trully is one of the best experiences ive had watching a film this year. Insanely good & the perfect #arthouse #horror movie. #odeon #odeonlimitless #filmbuff #filmcritic
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022) in Movies
Feb 23, 2022
The very concept of Leatherface not taking kindly to artisan bakeries and influencer inspired sushi bars is one that is absurdly tantalising, but it arrives at a point in this up-and-down franchise where no-one involved seems to be sure what they're trying to achieve.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a film that has been advertised as a true sequel to Tobe Hoopers groundbreaking original, ignoring all other sequels, prequels, and remakes that have come and gone over the years, similar to Halloween (2018) and Candyman (2021).
The main issue is then, of course, that it couldn't be further away from the original in terms of general tone if it tried. The claustrophobia, the implication of unspeakable violence that is never shown, the overall arthouse style, essential ingredients of '74, are nowhere to be found. Instead, we're presented with an unsubtle splatter flick that reeks of the unpleasantness of most mid-00s slashers. It's a far cry from what a lot of '74 fans love, but once this fact is accepted, there's a fair amount of fun to be found in what we've been given.
Let me be clear, I absolutely did not hate TCM. The writing is atrocious, the characters are almost exclusively unbearable, the return of the original films final girl is poorly handled and ultimately wasted, and it half arses attempts to tackle serious subjects such as gun violence and gentrification, but, some truly gorgeous cinematography, air tight pacing, and copious amounts of gore go someway in making up for its negatives.
Seriously, there is an ungodly amount of gore. As mentioned, it's light-years away from the originals subtlety, but I can respect it's ambition to go for the jugular. I mean, there is an actual, literal, chainsaw massacre, during a scene that made me say "Jesus Christ" out loud a couple of times.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is far different to what I, and I imagine plenty of other '74 fans, expected and wanted, but at the end of the day, it's an easy to watch, super gory, and fun slasher that is what it is. Leave your thinking cap at the door, and I'm sure you'll find it entertaining at the very least, and remember, the original still exists!
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a film that has been advertised as a true sequel to Tobe Hoopers groundbreaking original, ignoring all other sequels, prequels, and remakes that have come and gone over the years, similar to Halloween (2018) and Candyman (2021).
The main issue is then, of course, that it couldn't be further away from the original in terms of general tone if it tried. The claustrophobia, the implication of unspeakable violence that is never shown, the overall arthouse style, essential ingredients of '74, are nowhere to be found. Instead, we're presented with an unsubtle splatter flick that reeks of the unpleasantness of most mid-00s slashers. It's a far cry from what a lot of '74 fans love, but once this fact is accepted, there's a fair amount of fun to be found in what we've been given.
Let me be clear, I absolutely did not hate TCM. The writing is atrocious, the characters are almost exclusively unbearable, the return of the original films final girl is poorly handled and ultimately wasted, and it half arses attempts to tackle serious subjects such as gun violence and gentrification, but, some truly gorgeous cinematography, air tight pacing, and copious amounts of gore go someway in making up for its negatives.
Seriously, there is an ungodly amount of gore. As mentioned, it's light-years away from the originals subtlety, but I can respect it's ambition to go for the jugular. I mean, there is an actual, literal, chainsaw massacre, during a scene that made me say "Jesus Christ" out loud a couple of times.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is far different to what I, and I imagine plenty of other '74 fans, expected and wanted, but at the end of the day, it's an easy to watch, super gory, and fun slasher that is what it is. Leave your thinking cap at the door, and I'm sure you'll find it entertaining at the very least, and remember, the original still exists!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Babyteeth (2019) in Movies
Aug 25, 2020
I've had more fun at the orthodontist's
Now, before I start, I know I'm likely to be at odds with a lot of viewers on this one. Having had a glance at the IMDB ratings, I can see a lot of arthouse love for this Australian movie. But this really was not for me.
Eliza Scanlen plays Australian schoolgirl Milla, displaying typically rebellious symptoms of adolescence but hampered by a crippling medical issue. She meets a 23-year old drug addict, Moses (Toby Wallace), and the pair feel an immediate pull towards each other, much to the horror of her parents Henry (Ben Mendelsohn) and Anna (Essie Davis). The kids are dysfunctional (for different reasons); the parents are not much better. Adding to the drama is a strange violin teacher (Eugene Gilfedder) and a pregnant (MILF-to-be) next door neighbour (Emily Barclay). We follow the life and love of Milla as she struggles with her circumstances... and the last of her Babyteeth.
I can draw parallels here to the movie "Animals" from last year. Indeed to the Oscar-winner "Moonlight" from four year's ago. I could readily perceive it to be intelligent and artfully produced. But I'm afraid I felt zero empathy or pull from any of the characters. Given that, and the slow burn of writer Rita Kalnejais's screenplay, I found myself constantly looking at my watch for the last half-hour of the movie.
The movie's not without its merits though. Babyteeth has picked up a number of nominations, and as many wins, on the international film-festival circuit, mostly for the direction of Shannon Murphy. This is a first-time feature for TV-director Murphy (she directed two episodes from this year's series of "Killing Eve" for example). Awards have also gone to Toby Wallace for his portrayal of the slightly unhinged and unpredictable Moses. But for me, it was Eliza Scanlen's performance as Milla that appealed to me most and kept my attention. Other-worldly and slightly ethereal, she pulls off the role well. Scanlen was of course Beth March in the recent superb version of "Little Woman". (She's a young lady with great potential, but she needs to be careful not to get typecast as sickly waifs!)
Babyteeth was for me a curate's egg in the photography department. Cinematography was by Andrew Commis, and I found it both breathtaking and frustrating in almost equal measure. There's a scene towards the end of the movie with Milla's face half-lit in the moonlight that was reminiscent to me of the star-child in "2001: A Space Odyssey". Simply gorgeous. And scenes in a nightclub are both strangely and effectively shot. But - and art-house movies seem to mandate this approach - the movie is shot on handheld cameras. This makes a lot of the shots drift in and out of focus. Moreover - and most frustratingly for me - it makes the multitude of scene titles, employed in the telling, float ever-so-slightly against the backgrounds, with a generally nauseating effect.
I'll no doubt feel a right Charlie if Babyteeth gets into the Oscars nominations short-list. But for me, it just wasn't engaging enough to be entertaining. It's billed as a "Comedy Drama". While there were a few good comic lines, it rarely made me do more than smile. And as for the drama, I'm afraid tears were far from being spilled. It's in no way a "bad film": it just personally wasn't for me.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movie on https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/25/babyteeth-you-might-have-more-fun-at-the-orthodontists/.)
Eliza Scanlen plays Australian schoolgirl Milla, displaying typically rebellious symptoms of adolescence but hampered by a crippling medical issue. She meets a 23-year old drug addict, Moses (Toby Wallace), and the pair feel an immediate pull towards each other, much to the horror of her parents Henry (Ben Mendelsohn) and Anna (Essie Davis). The kids are dysfunctional (for different reasons); the parents are not much better. Adding to the drama is a strange violin teacher (Eugene Gilfedder) and a pregnant (MILF-to-be) next door neighbour (Emily Barclay). We follow the life and love of Milla as she struggles with her circumstances... and the last of her Babyteeth.
I can draw parallels here to the movie "Animals" from last year. Indeed to the Oscar-winner "Moonlight" from four year's ago. I could readily perceive it to be intelligent and artfully produced. But I'm afraid I felt zero empathy or pull from any of the characters. Given that, and the slow burn of writer Rita Kalnejais's screenplay, I found myself constantly looking at my watch for the last half-hour of the movie.
The movie's not without its merits though. Babyteeth has picked up a number of nominations, and as many wins, on the international film-festival circuit, mostly for the direction of Shannon Murphy. This is a first-time feature for TV-director Murphy (she directed two episodes from this year's series of "Killing Eve" for example). Awards have also gone to Toby Wallace for his portrayal of the slightly unhinged and unpredictable Moses. But for me, it was Eliza Scanlen's performance as Milla that appealed to me most and kept my attention. Other-worldly and slightly ethereal, she pulls off the role well. Scanlen was of course Beth March in the recent superb version of "Little Woman". (She's a young lady with great potential, but she needs to be careful not to get typecast as sickly waifs!)
Babyteeth was for me a curate's egg in the photography department. Cinematography was by Andrew Commis, and I found it both breathtaking and frustrating in almost equal measure. There's a scene towards the end of the movie with Milla's face half-lit in the moonlight that was reminiscent to me of the star-child in "2001: A Space Odyssey". Simply gorgeous. And scenes in a nightclub are both strangely and effectively shot. But - and art-house movies seem to mandate this approach - the movie is shot on handheld cameras. This makes a lot of the shots drift in and out of focus. Moreover - and most frustratingly for me - it makes the multitude of scene titles, employed in the telling, float ever-so-slightly against the backgrounds, with a generally nauseating effect.
I'll no doubt feel a right Charlie if Babyteeth gets into the Oscars nominations short-list. But for me, it just wasn't engaging enough to be entertaining. It's billed as a "Comedy Drama". While there were a few good comic lines, it rarely made me do more than smile. And as for the drama, I'm afraid tears were far from being spilled. It's in no way a "bad film": it just personally wasn't for me.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movie on https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/25/babyteeth-you-might-have-more-fun-at-the-orthodontists/.)
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2019
Caught in a bad Roma
Contains spoilers, click to show
It’s been a long while since I watched a film deserving of a truly, harshly negative review. I have gotten so close so many times, and I’ll be damned if Netflix hadn’t gotten close to earning that with the fridge-logic that ruined Bird Box. Even Bird Box, though, feels enjoyable in retrospect compared to another Netflix exclusive: Alfonso Cuarón’s Roma.
Since I’m in a clear minority on this film, I feel obligated to preemptively address some common criticisms. If Roma had been produced in English, presented in color and with any score, it couldn’t fix the fact that I simply dislike Roma’s genre. Sure, I’ve liked slice-of-life drama films, and modern period pieces do fine by me. Pretentious Oscar-farming arthouse flicks like this, though, never win my praise.
Roma follows Cleo, a housemaid in Mexico City. Cleo has gotten pregnant and the presumed father, Fermín, leaves her to buy cigarettes before the baby’s even born. Her employer, Sofía, is dealing with a cheating spouse. What follows is two hours of both of these women marginally helping each other with their respective situations. As slice-of-life films do.
Since it's a slice-of-life film, much of the story just basically happens. You'll remember a scene here or there that happened, even if it was ultimately insignificant. In one scene for instance, Cleo goes to confront the baby daddy, who’s at a huge martial arts class. She spectates and proves to be the only one able to perform a certain yoga pose. Which is important because it helped add another few minutes to the film.
Cleo goes into labor not long after this confrontation, but her daughter ends up being stillborn. This all happens in the midst of the Corpus Christi Massacre. What the heck was the Corpus Christi Massacre, you may ask? According to this film, it was a brutal inconvenience on Cleo’s way to the hospital after her water breaks. This actual historical event simply happens and is never addressed for one second more. You know, just like in Titanic where the shipwreck just makes things inconvenient for Rose and Jack.
The last major scene in the film comes when Sofía invites Cleo to come with her family on a trip to the beach, not as staff but to help Cleo cope with the tragedy of losing her child. While they’re there, Sofía leaves the children in Cleo’s care for two freaking minutes, and two of the kids nearly drown. Cleo, though, can’t swim, and so she stands out in the water as the kids rescue each other. And that's about as close as Roma gets to a cohesive plot. Cleo only came with them to help her grieving, which meant she could be there to be powerless while her employer’s kids save each other’s lives. Bad things happen to us, the film teaches, so that good things can coincidentally happen in our proximity.
In fact, coincidence seems to be the running theme, here. Remember the Corpus Christi Massacre? No? What if I call it “the scene where Cleo goes into labor”? Maybe that helps? Fermín briefly held Cleo at gunpoint in the middle of it. Again, mere coincidence. Just like it’s a mere coincidence that she goes into labor the same day as a massacre that killed 120 people. As coincidences do.
Roma isn’t an aggressively bad film. There are a rare few moments within Roma’s 2-hour runtime where you think, “I can see that clip showing up during a Facebook video binge,” but again: These are moments more rare than our current president ordering a rare steak. That rarity has everything to do with the fact that the movie has so few moments, at all. The rest is shots that linger too long from angles that repeat themselves all too often. It’s like Cuarón asked someone, “What does a movie like Juno need to be better?” They responded, “Nothing.” So Cuarón packed Roma with nothing.
Which brings up one of my biggest criticisms of Roma: The cinematography is bland. Cuarón shot practically the entire film on one camera, set a specific distance from the subject, and kept takes running as longer than they should have, padding out a short-film’s worth of content to feature length. It’s bland cinematography that somehow earned an Oscar for Best Cinematography.
Gravity showed us what Cuarón was capable of. Beyond bringing a seemingly authentic view of space to the big screen, Gravity offered variety. Yes, the huge collision scene in Gravity takes on the feel of a one-take scene, but even then, the camera moves with the action. And if your attention moves away from the foreground the shot, you’re able to see other important things going on. With Roma, though, your foreground is your film. Period. And to be sure, you'll be kept at arm's length from that foreground at all times, both metaphorically and cinematically.
There's a number of reasons why Roma wasn't the Best Picture, this year. Gravity proved that Roma is not Cuarón’s best film. Bo Burnham–yes, that Bo Burnham–wrote and directed a better slice-of-life film with Eighth Grade. And Roma might not even be the past year’s best black-and-white film; I dare suggest that Cold War may have been better.
To give it the credit it’s due, Roma’s cast rightly earned nominations for their performances. Yalitza Aparicio and Marina de Tavira earned Best Actress nominations for their roles, and for their part, their performances were authentic as can be. It's the least the Academy could do for having them endure Cuarón's lengthy takes.
But now that I've given it credit, I demand my time back for the scene of Fermín going Star Wars Kid meets Full Monty.
Since I’m in a clear minority on this film, I feel obligated to preemptively address some common criticisms. If Roma had been produced in English, presented in color and with any score, it couldn’t fix the fact that I simply dislike Roma’s genre. Sure, I’ve liked slice-of-life drama films, and modern period pieces do fine by me. Pretentious Oscar-farming arthouse flicks like this, though, never win my praise.
Roma follows Cleo, a housemaid in Mexico City. Cleo has gotten pregnant and the presumed father, Fermín, leaves her to buy cigarettes before the baby’s even born. Her employer, Sofía, is dealing with a cheating spouse. What follows is two hours of both of these women marginally helping each other with their respective situations. As slice-of-life films do.
Since it's a slice-of-life film, much of the story just basically happens. You'll remember a scene here or there that happened, even if it was ultimately insignificant. In one scene for instance, Cleo goes to confront the baby daddy, who’s at a huge martial arts class. She spectates and proves to be the only one able to perform a certain yoga pose. Which is important because it helped add another few minutes to the film.
Cleo goes into labor not long after this confrontation, but her daughter ends up being stillborn. This all happens in the midst of the Corpus Christi Massacre. What the heck was the Corpus Christi Massacre, you may ask? According to this film, it was a brutal inconvenience on Cleo’s way to the hospital after her water breaks. This actual historical event simply happens and is never addressed for one second more. You know, just like in Titanic where the shipwreck just makes things inconvenient for Rose and Jack.
The last major scene in the film comes when Sofía invites Cleo to come with her family on a trip to the beach, not as staff but to help Cleo cope with the tragedy of losing her child. While they’re there, Sofía leaves the children in Cleo’s care for two freaking minutes, and two of the kids nearly drown. Cleo, though, can’t swim, and so she stands out in the water as the kids rescue each other. And that's about as close as Roma gets to a cohesive plot. Cleo only came with them to help her grieving, which meant she could be there to be powerless while her employer’s kids save each other’s lives. Bad things happen to us, the film teaches, so that good things can coincidentally happen in our proximity.
In fact, coincidence seems to be the running theme, here. Remember the Corpus Christi Massacre? No? What if I call it “the scene where Cleo goes into labor”? Maybe that helps? Fermín briefly held Cleo at gunpoint in the middle of it. Again, mere coincidence. Just like it’s a mere coincidence that she goes into labor the same day as a massacre that killed 120 people. As coincidences do.
Roma isn’t an aggressively bad film. There are a rare few moments within Roma’s 2-hour runtime where you think, “I can see that clip showing up during a Facebook video binge,” but again: These are moments more rare than our current president ordering a rare steak. That rarity has everything to do with the fact that the movie has so few moments, at all. The rest is shots that linger too long from angles that repeat themselves all too often. It’s like Cuarón asked someone, “What does a movie like Juno need to be better?” They responded, “Nothing.” So Cuarón packed Roma with nothing.
Which brings up one of my biggest criticisms of Roma: The cinematography is bland. Cuarón shot practically the entire film on one camera, set a specific distance from the subject, and kept takes running as longer than they should have, padding out a short-film’s worth of content to feature length. It’s bland cinematography that somehow earned an Oscar for Best Cinematography.
Gravity showed us what Cuarón was capable of. Beyond bringing a seemingly authentic view of space to the big screen, Gravity offered variety. Yes, the huge collision scene in Gravity takes on the feel of a one-take scene, but even then, the camera moves with the action. And if your attention moves away from the foreground the shot, you’re able to see other important things going on. With Roma, though, your foreground is your film. Period. And to be sure, you'll be kept at arm's length from that foreground at all times, both metaphorically and cinematically.
There's a number of reasons why Roma wasn't the Best Picture, this year. Gravity proved that Roma is not Cuarón’s best film. Bo Burnham–yes, that Bo Burnham–wrote and directed a better slice-of-life film with Eighth Grade. And Roma might not even be the past year’s best black-and-white film; I dare suggest that Cold War may have been better.
To give it the credit it’s due, Roma’s cast rightly earned nominations for their performances. Yalitza Aparicio and Marina de Tavira earned Best Actress nominations for their roles, and for their part, their performances were authentic as can be. It's the least the Academy could do for having them endure Cuarón's lengthy takes.
But now that I've given it credit, I demand my time back for the scene of Fermín going Star Wars Kid meets Full Monty.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Eggers made a striking introduction for himself in 2015 with the moody and disconcerting The Witch, bringing a future star to the world’s attention in Anya Taylor-Joy in the process. You could argue after seeing his sophomore effort, The Lighthouse, that in terms of creating deliberately nauseating landscapes his work is the third cog in the arthouse revival of intellectual “horror”, after Ari Aster (Hereditary / Midsommar) and Jordan Peele (Get Out / Us). The group actually sits quite well together, as there is an obvious social commentary by metaphor crossover going on here, as well as just a little bit of “crazy”.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.