Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Loveless (2017) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Speaking as someone who grew up in the United States, prides themselves on having a vast and diverse movie library, and only leaves the confines of the greater Seattle-area on very rare occasions .. I’m the first to admit that there are times when I don’t fully appreciate the films produced in other countries. It’s amazing how different they can be based on even differences in other cultures. Take films made in Russia for example. Perhaps it’s the cold and bleakness of the country but Russian filmmakers are amongst the best when it comes to tragedies. I imagine it’s a ‘carry over’ in part from the great literary masterpieces to come out of that country. Not to give it all away right from the beginning but if you’re like me, you need to prepare yourself for a good tragedy and that’s exactly what the film is that is up for your consideration.
‘Loveless’ is a 2017 Russian tragedy from noted director Andrey Zvyaginstev and co-written by Zvyaginstev and Oleg Negin. As with Zvyaginstev’s 2014 tragedy ‘Leviathan’, ‘Loveless’ has quickly risen to critical acclaim and already won several accolades including the Jury Prize at 2017 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards.
‘Loveless’ stars Maryana Spivak, Aleksey Rozin, and Matvey Novikov. It’s the end of the day for 12 year-old Alexey (Novikov). He says farewell to the few friends he has at school and takes the long way home through the woods following a river on the outskirts of Moscow. It’s a cold, dreary afternoon yet it’s preferable to what awaits him at home. His parents Zhenya (Spivak) and Boris (Rozin) are separated and engaged in bitter divorce proceedings but to both, the marriage was over long ago. The only difference is now are that they are living separately and they’re also trying to shrug parental responsibilities off on one another. They seem to have no issue vocalizing their mutual belief that having Alexey was a mistake. Their only real concerns seem to be getting their son out of their lives so they can move on with their new spouses and each begin a whole new family obliterating any connection they ever had or made. All this in a country that that is engaged in a war against its own people and against the Ukraine. The destruction of a family with parents at war with one another leaving the child as the innocent victim.
Zhenya returns to her apartment after spending time with her new lover to find Alexey gone and messages from his school stating he had not been there in two days. She calls Boris in an attempt to locate Alexey and after another argument over the phone finally decides to call in the police. After starting to show the smallest amount of concern for Alexey and disgust over the low priority that the police are assigning their son’s case, Zhenya and Boris call in a special volunteer unit specializing in searching for missing persons. While the parents actively participate in searching for their son, they continue to fight and engage in hostilities towards one another showing such selfishness and a blatant disregard for their son’s well being that you begin to wonder how far they can take it.
Although the film isn’t my ‘normal cup of tea’, i’m going to give it 4 out of 5 stars Zvyaginstev has crafted another tragic masterpiece putting ‘Loveless’ almost on par with ‘Leviathan’. The film highlights the lack of empathy displayed by families in modern society. Although the film has a ‘predictability’ given Zvyaginstev’s past work it is beautifully shot and well written. Watching the downward spiral of the family in this film is almost like reading a piece sheet music. It’s ominous. It’s not just name calling and insults … it’s as though it’s being disassembled piece by piece which although dark and bleak is still quite intriguing. I’d personally recommend you catch it in an independent movie theater or a small art house theater. It’s a 2 hour movie so I’d recommend catching it at a small theater.
‘Loveless’ is a 2017 Russian tragedy from noted director Andrey Zvyaginstev and co-written by Zvyaginstev and Oleg Negin. As with Zvyaginstev’s 2014 tragedy ‘Leviathan’, ‘Loveless’ has quickly risen to critical acclaim and already won several accolades including the Jury Prize at 2017 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards.
‘Loveless’ stars Maryana Spivak, Aleksey Rozin, and Matvey Novikov. It’s the end of the day for 12 year-old Alexey (Novikov). He says farewell to the few friends he has at school and takes the long way home through the woods following a river on the outskirts of Moscow. It’s a cold, dreary afternoon yet it’s preferable to what awaits him at home. His parents Zhenya (Spivak) and Boris (Rozin) are separated and engaged in bitter divorce proceedings but to both, the marriage was over long ago. The only difference is now are that they are living separately and they’re also trying to shrug parental responsibilities off on one another. They seem to have no issue vocalizing their mutual belief that having Alexey was a mistake. Their only real concerns seem to be getting their son out of their lives so they can move on with their new spouses and each begin a whole new family obliterating any connection they ever had or made. All this in a country that that is engaged in a war against its own people and against the Ukraine. The destruction of a family with parents at war with one another leaving the child as the innocent victim.
Zhenya returns to her apartment after spending time with her new lover to find Alexey gone and messages from his school stating he had not been there in two days. She calls Boris in an attempt to locate Alexey and after another argument over the phone finally decides to call in the police. After starting to show the smallest amount of concern for Alexey and disgust over the low priority that the police are assigning their son’s case, Zhenya and Boris call in a special volunteer unit specializing in searching for missing persons. While the parents actively participate in searching for their son, they continue to fight and engage in hostilities towards one another showing such selfishness and a blatant disregard for their son’s well being that you begin to wonder how far they can take it.
Although the film isn’t my ‘normal cup of tea’, i’m going to give it 4 out of 5 stars Zvyaginstev has crafted another tragic masterpiece putting ‘Loveless’ almost on par with ‘Leviathan’. The film highlights the lack of empathy displayed by families in modern society. Although the film has a ‘predictability’ given Zvyaginstev’s past work it is beautifully shot and well written. Watching the downward spiral of the family in this film is almost like reading a piece sheet music. It’s ominous. It’s not just name calling and insults … it’s as though it’s being disassembled piece by piece which although dark and bleak is still quite intriguing. I’d personally recommend you catch it in an independent movie theater or a small art house theater. It’s a 2 hour movie so I’d recommend catching it at a small theater.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Poltergeist (1982) in Movies
Oct 25, 2019
The TV People!
When the Freeling family moved into their suburban California home, little did they know what they were getting themselves into! Minor oddities began showing themselves like chairs stacking in the kitchen lights flashing or even being pulled across the kitchen floor. It felt like a "tickle". The situation quickly grows more severe as a tree outside the children's room plunges inside and tries to ingest son, Robbie. Simultaneously, a gateway of sorts opens in the children's room eventually pulling the entire contents into its closet vortex including youngest daughter, Carol Anne.
Parents Steve and Diane have little option but to accept "professional" help. The Ghostbusters were not available since that film was not released until 2 years later. Instead, they convince a doctor and paranormal scientists to enter there home to record some of these events and provide some answers if they can. Eventually, the Dr. summons a spiritual medium who says someone must enter the void and rescue Carol Anne from the evil which surrounds her. After apparent success, the house is considered "clean".
I wonder if it will stay that way?
Over the years lots of interesting facts about the film and production have emerged including the Poltergeist "curse" since a prominent cast member passed away after each film was completed. Tragically, oldest daughter, Dana, played by actress Dominique Dunne, was strangled by her boyfriend and pronounced brain dead a few days later.
Spielberg was hot off Raiders of the Lost Ark at the time so was busy with one production after another. Immediately following the wrap of filming of Poltergeist he filmed E. T. The Extra Terrestrial, but was still heavily involved in post production. It has been widely speculated Spielberg even directed some of Poltergieist due to having control issues or maybe not liking what credited director Tobe Hooper was doing.
Drew Barrymore auditioned for Carol Ann, but didn't get the role. Obviously, she was remembered and given her breakout role in E.T. when it was also released in 1982.
So much of the movie is still remembered including the menacing tree, the clown scene with Robbie and a rich, interesting screenplay Spielberg himself wrote. The line "They're Here" is listed on the AFI's 100 YEARS...100 MOVIE QUOTES list at #69. As with a lot of Spielberg's early work, the affect of slowing building tension and the starting out "normal" and moving toward higher tension gradually is a staple and works amazingly well here.
I will admit some of the optical effects used now look a bit dated by today's standards of film perfection; however, does not diminish the scares, creeps or overall feel of this horror classic one bit. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is haunting, foreboding and captures the magic of the Freeling household perfectly.
I love the production design in the house especially the children's bedroom. There must have been some inside joke between Spielberg and George Lucas who had just collaborated on Raiders of the Lost Ark as their room is filled with Star Wars licensing of every type (so was mine as a kid) including action figures, bedding, movie posters and even clothing. I do draw the line at the Alien poster on the wall, through, as I don't think a 5 and 8 year old would have seen that film so young.
One other funny thing which us older folk take for granted is a network actually going off the air and showing just snow. This fact happened every day before the days of the 24 television cycle and would be completely foreign to the younger generation. Oh how things have changed.
I revisit this film often and is one of my Halloween traditions every few years. I should probably upgrade my 20 years old DVD copy for a fresh Blu Ray. Add it to the list! 😜
Parents Steve and Diane have little option but to accept "professional" help. The Ghostbusters were not available since that film was not released until 2 years later. Instead, they convince a doctor and paranormal scientists to enter there home to record some of these events and provide some answers if they can. Eventually, the Dr. summons a spiritual medium who says someone must enter the void and rescue Carol Anne from the evil which surrounds her. After apparent success, the house is considered "clean".
I wonder if it will stay that way?
Over the years lots of interesting facts about the film and production have emerged including the Poltergeist "curse" since a prominent cast member passed away after each film was completed. Tragically, oldest daughter, Dana, played by actress Dominique Dunne, was strangled by her boyfriend and pronounced brain dead a few days later.
Spielberg was hot off Raiders of the Lost Ark at the time so was busy with one production after another. Immediately following the wrap of filming of Poltergeist he filmed E. T. The Extra Terrestrial, but was still heavily involved in post production. It has been widely speculated Spielberg even directed some of Poltergieist due to having control issues or maybe not liking what credited director Tobe Hooper was doing.
Drew Barrymore auditioned for Carol Ann, but didn't get the role. Obviously, she was remembered and given her breakout role in E.T. when it was also released in 1982.
So much of the movie is still remembered including the menacing tree, the clown scene with Robbie and a rich, interesting screenplay Spielberg himself wrote. The line "They're Here" is listed on the AFI's 100 YEARS...100 MOVIE QUOTES list at #69. As with a lot of Spielberg's early work, the affect of slowing building tension and the starting out "normal" and moving toward higher tension gradually is a staple and works amazingly well here.
I will admit some of the optical effects used now look a bit dated by today's standards of film perfection; however, does not diminish the scares, creeps or overall feel of this horror classic one bit. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is haunting, foreboding and captures the magic of the Freeling household perfectly.
I love the production design in the house especially the children's bedroom. There must have been some inside joke between Spielberg and George Lucas who had just collaborated on Raiders of the Lost Ark as their room is filled with Star Wars licensing of every type (so was mine as a kid) including action figures, bedding, movie posters and even clothing. I do draw the line at the Alien poster on the wall, through, as I don't think a 5 and 8 year old would have seen that film so young.
One other funny thing which us older folk take for granted is a network actually going off the air and showing just snow. This fact happened every day before the days of the 24 television cycle and would be completely foreign to the younger generation. Oh how things have changed.
I revisit this film often and is one of my Halloween traditions every few years. I should probably upgrade my 20 years old DVD copy for a fresh Blu Ray. Add it to the list! 😜
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Everybody Knows (Todos Lo Saben) (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I can guarantee that Everybody Knows was woefully under scheduled in cinemas across the country. I luckily got to see this while I was travelling for work, there's the occasional handy perk!
A certain amount of people find foreign language films a little daunting (I may have said this when I watched the Kobiety Mafii series, if I did, apologies). Everybody Knows certainly has its issues, mainly there are a lot of characters and when you couple this with the subtitles you miss a certain amount of introductions because they're so quick.
Initially the film doesn't really flow well and I was concerned that this might be consistent through the rest, however once we get into it thankfully that changes.
Spanish farmland always seems to offer the opportunity for fantastic scenic shots and they definitely took advantage of this in the early sequences. The drone shots at the wedding were particularly stunning to see from that vantage point.
Laura is an interesting character, she's got complicated relationships all over the place, her husband, Paco and then tensions rise within the family as we progress. Penélope Cruz is incredible in this role, she adapts to every situation as it arises and brings Laura to life with an emotional performance throughout. There's a stark change in her from before to after the wedding, everything adapts to support this, acting, wardrobe, make-up. In a movie full of good things this is probably the best.
Paco, played by Javier Bardem, is a great match for Laura. He's strong, loyal and he has a very clear sense of right and wrong. The connection between the two characters is incredible, which I'm sure is due in part to the fact that they're married in real life. Paco's journey is fraught, there's confusion and frustration through a lot of it. I can' say I was overly happy with how his story ended, but then I guess not everything ends the way you want it to.
I liked the idea behind the main story, it wasn't over complicated which allowed us to connect with the characters more. I was surprised when I came out that the film had been quite so long, at no point did it feel its length, it was incredibly well paced.
Suspicions were formed fairly early on (by me) about the twist. The film presents you with a few options, I'm glad that I didn't guess correctly.
Collectively this film is wonderful, Cruz had me crying like a baby, there were surprising moments of suspense and it had a laid back Spanish attitude to it, nothing was rushed but it still manages to keep you jogging along at a quick pace.
Apart from that initial issue with the flow there is little to quibble about. It's a very enjoyable (I'm not sure that enjoyable is the right word) film. I'm not sure that I could watch it again and get the same fire out of it that I did the first time now that I know what happens.
What you should do
You should absolutely try this one, good story and good acting come together for a tear-filled journey. Cruz will make you feel so many things.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A vineyard, summer sun, wine made by my own fair hands... *sigh*
A certain amount of people find foreign language films a little daunting (I may have said this when I watched the Kobiety Mafii series, if I did, apologies). Everybody Knows certainly has its issues, mainly there are a lot of characters and when you couple this with the subtitles you miss a certain amount of introductions because they're so quick.
Initially the film doesn't really flow well and I was concerned that this might be consistent through the rest, however once we get into it thankfully that changes.
Spanish farmland always seems to offer the opportunity for fantastic scenic shots and they definitely took advantage of this in the early sequences. The drone shots at the wedding were particularly stunning to see from that vantage point.
Laura is an interesting character, she's got complicated relationships all over the place, her husband, Paco and then tensions rise within the family as we progress. Penélope Cruz is incredible in this role, she adapts to every situation as it arises and brings Laura to life with an emotional performance throughout. There's a stark change in her from before to after the wedding, everything adapts to support this, acting, wardrobe, make-up. In a movie full of good things this is probably the best.
Paco, played by Javier Bardem, is a great match for Laura. He's strong, loyal and he has a very clear sense of right and wrong. The connection between the two characters is incredible, which I'm sure is due in part to the fact that they're married in real life. Paco's journey is fraught, there's confusion and frustration through a lot of it. I can' say I was overly happy with how his story ended, but then I guess not everything ends the way you want it to.
I liked the idea behind the main story, it wasn't over complicated which allowed us to connect with the characters more. I was surprised when I came out that the film had been quite so long, at no point did it feel its length, it was incredibly well paced.
Suspicions were formed fairly early on (by me) about the twist. The film presents you with a few options, I'm glad that I didn't guess correctly.
Collectively this film is wonderful, Cruz had me crying like a baby, there were surprising moments of suspense and it had a laid back Spanish attitude to it, nothing was rushed but it still manages to keep you jogging along at a quick pace.
Apart from that initial issue with the flow there is little to quibble about. It's a very enjoyable (I'm not sure that enjoyable is the right word) film. I'm not sure that I could watch it again and get the same fire out of it that I did the first time now that I know what happens.
What you should do
You should absolutely try this one, good story and good acting come together for a tear-filled journey. Cruz will make you feel so many things.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A vineyard, summer sun, wine made by my own fair hands... *sigh*
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated War Dogs (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
The post-9/11 world changed how America conducted business and shaped our foreign relations. It also led to changes in how war was conducted and maintained. In War Dogs, we witness how companies of varying size were able to cash in on America’s need to supply their military and those of their allies as they continued their fight against terrorism and conducted nation-building. War Dogs follows the ill-fated careers of Efraim (Jonah Hill) and David (Miles Teller) as they aspire to cash in on the arms dealing frenzy that is unleashed by the US government. The film, based on actual events, gives its audience a glimpse into the problematic and perilous world of arms dealing. Efraim and David are confronted with international gangsters, bureaucratic “red tape,” and push their friendship to the limit as they pursue the goal of becoming wealthy by fulfilling government contracts.
War Dogs allows its viewers to have a greater understanding of how the government works and how businesses are competing with each other, to not only create a positive business relationship with “Uncle Sam,” but to become major players in an industry filled with companies and individuals who must suspend, amend, or terminate their moral code in order to become “merchants of death.” The film itself does a suitable job in telling the story of how these men form their own company from the ground up only to have it dismantled by mistrust, greed, and jealousy. War Dogs has its moments where you as a viewer envy the ability of these men to succeed in an industry that many would thumb their noses at out of disagreement with the war or adherence to their principles. We quickly see how money becomes a motivator for these friends as they pursue the opportunity to take on larger and more complex contracts in order to compete with the likes of Halliburton.
War Dogs allows its viewers to have a greater understanding of how the government works and how businesses are competing with each other, to not only create a positive business relationship with “Uncle Sam,” but to become major players in an industry filled with companies and individuals who must suspend, amend, or terminate their moral code in order to become “merchants of death.” The film itself does a suitable job in telling the story of how these men form their own company from the ground up only to have it dismantled by mistrust, greed, and jealousy. War Dogs has its moments where you as a viewer envy the ability of these men to succeed in an industry that many would thumb their noses at out of disagreement with the war or adherence to their principles. We quickly see how money becomes a motivator for these friends as they pursue the opportunity to take on larger and more complex contracts in order to compete with the likes of Halliburton.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Pain and Glory (2019) in Movies
Feb 3, 2020
Well acted by Banderas and Cruz
One of the reasons that I go on the trek this time every year to catch all the Oscar nominees in the all of the "Major" categories is that it forces me to catch films and have movie going experiences that I most likely would have elected to skip. This is especially true with Foreign Language films, like Spanish Director Pedro Almodovar's semi-biographical musing, PAIN AND GLORY.
Antonio Banderas, rightfully, has earned his (surpisingly) first Oscar Nomination for portraying a somewhat fictionalized version of the Spanish auteur - a once prolific film Director at the tail end of his career coming to terms with who he is, the physical pain he is currently feeling as his body ages and the reverent feelings and fond memories he has for his mother.
It is a strong, subtle and nuanced performance by Banderas - one that is in stark contrast to the bravura and panache that he has shown previously in such films as ZORRO, ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO and as the voice of Puss 'N Boots in the SHREK films. Banderas' acting his been getting better with age and while I do not think he'll win the Oscar, I do think that this is not going to be the only Oscar nomination he will receive in his lifetime.
I was happy to see Banderas work in his native Spanish language - the same goes for Penelope Cruz who plays Banderas' character mother in flashbacks. I recently saw Cruz working in Spanish in 2018's EVERYBODY KNOWS and was just as transfixed by her performance in this film - worthy of a nomination. She is very good in English Language films, but she elevates to a different level when she works in Spanish. I would have loved to see a whole film about her character - and not just get a few scenes in flashback form.
Watching these 2 performances was well worth the time of watching this film, and that is good for I did not connect with the themes, struggles and plot set forth by Almodovar.
PAIN AND GLORY is Almodovar's semi-biographical meditation on life - and as such is a little to "navel gazing" for my tastes. When I watch these types of films either I get sucked into the narrative and characters (like I did with Alfonso Cuaron's ROMA last year) or...I do not.
And...unfortunately for PAIN AND GLORY...I did not. It is a good picture with 2 really good performances but one I was kept at a distance from and one that I never really connected with.
Come for the meditation, stay for the performances. And...PLEASE...if you watch this, DO NOT watch the dubbed version. Listen to the performances of Banderas and Cruz in their native Spanish and read the subtitles.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Antonio Banderas, rightfully, has earned his (surpisingly) first Oscar Nomination for portraying a somewhat fictionalized version of the Spanish auteur - a once prolific film Director at the tail end of his career coming to terms with who he is, the physical pain he is currently feeling as his body ages and the reverent feelings and fond memories he has for his mother.
It is a strong, subtle and nuanced performance by Banderas - one that is in stark contrast to the bravura and panache that he has shown previously in such films as ZORRO, ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO and as the voice of Puss 'N Boots in the SHREK films. Banderas' acting his been getting better with age and while I do not think he'll win the Oscar, I do think that this is not going to be the only Oscar nomination he will receive in his lifetime.
I was happy to see Banderas work in his native Spanish language - the same goes for Penelope Cruz who plays Banderas' character mother in flashbacks. I recently saw Cruz working in Spanish in 2018's EVERYBODY KNOWS and was just as transfixed by her performance in this film - worthy of a nomination. She is very good in English Language films, but she elevates to a different level when she works in Spanish. I would have loved to see a whole film about her character - and not just get a few scenes in flashback form.
Watching these 2 performances was well worth the time of watching this film, and that is good for I did not connect with the themes, struggles and plot set forth by Almodovar.
PAIN AND GLORY is Almodovar's semi-biographical meditation on life - and as such is a little to "navel gazing" for my tastes. When I watch these types of films either I get sucked into the narrative and characters (like I did with Alfonso Cuaron's ROMA last year) or...I do not.
And...unfortunately for PAIN AND GLORY...I did not. It is a good picture with 2 really good performances but one I was kept at a distance from and one that I never really connected with.
Come for the meditation, stay for the performances. And...PLEASE...if you watch this, DO NOT watch the dubbed version. Listen to the performances of Banderas and Cruz in their native Spanish and read the subtitles.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Parasite (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Hello there! It’s been six weeks since my last post – Covid 19 related restriction issues sent me to a very odd place mentally and it has taken me a while to snap out of it enough to have the energy and will to keep writing these reviews. But what better way to recomense than with the history making Best Picture film from earlier in this strange year of 2020, before all the things that changed our way of thinking began?
The hype surrounding this movie in January was immense, for a film coming from Korea out of the blue, with an image and plot that didn’t fit into any of the normal marketing boxes. Every review ranged from this is incredible to… just see it for yourself. Nothing could have been more intriguing. I was certainly hooked on the idea, although by the time the Oscars came around I still hadn’t managed to see it at the cinema.
I found it fascinating that the academy had chosen 2020 as the year to change the dodgy sounding “Best Foreign Language film” to “Best International film”. It was about time, really, to acknowledge the us and them philosophy of world cinema didn’t really wash. And as the sublime Roma had paved the way for non English films to be considered again in all the main categories as serious contenders, I just had a feeling this was the year Oscar would make a statement with this film.
And so it turned out to be. It was a strong year. At the time I was a huge Joker advocate, having not yet seen 1917 either. Looking back now, I think, although not as perfect as Roma the year before, Parasite certainly deserves the praise and accolades it garnered from all around the world. Although any of those 3 films (Parasite, 1917 and Joker) would have been obvious winners in any other less competitive year.
So what is it about Parasite that raises it above the masses? Well, for a start it looks both beautiful and awe inspiring in every shot. Each image is designed and framed expertly to create a montage of mood and form that holds the multi-layered storytelling in place. Rarely have I seen such a well balanced and crisp visual design for a film, of any kind. Even with the subtitles off there is plenty to engage the eye and mind here. But it’s real secret is how it draws you in to believing you are watching one kind of satirical drama for about 40 minutes and then punches you in the solar plexus with the revelation that it has mutated into something darker, weirder and more entertaining on every level.
The “twist” when it comes along is so well placed and unexpected, even if you are told to expect one, that it entirely transforms your experience. You have been engaging with social issues and a basic satire on the rich vs the poor, where true power is a good wifi signal, and then, blam, you are watching a modern horror story with truly disturbing ramifications. I found this gear shift riveting and striking in a way that I can’t remember from a film in a long time.
But, looking back on it after several months, is that tonal shift really a strength? Some criticism, however minor in the scheme of things, did point this out, that what we get with Parasite is an unfocused and confused mix of genres that doesn’t entirely cohere. I mean, I see that, but have to disagree, simply because the writing at every point is too intelligent and sharp to give a damn about staying still and balanced on just one idea. Parasite is an exercise in energetic chaos that juggles many balls, all as interesting as one another, without dropping any of them.
Poverty, class, elitism, generational gaps, vanity, work ethics and morality, roles within a family unit, loyalty, weakness, revenge and bitterness are all themes here, and many more. Start going down the alley of one conversation that Parasite starts and end up somewhere entirely different in just a few sentences. And that is why it is worth seeing, several times. And that is why it works and was rewarded.
Is it a film I will be keen to see over again as the years pass? Yes and no. I’d probably be most interested to see it with someone who hasn’t seen it, to see their reaction. But I’m much less likely to give it multiple watches than the previous mentioned Joker and 1917, or indeed Roma, which I just can’t help comparing it to, even though they have virtually nothing in common, as I wish it had been Roma that made history at the awards rather than this. Of course, it is personal taste at that level of quality, but I believe Roma to be the better film.
If nothing else, however, Parasite marks the graduation of Bong Joon Ho, from a quirky filmmaker, whose interesting but not quite great near misses include The Host, Snowpiercer and Okja – all entertaining but flawed – to an auteur of considerable skill. Will the elements of his mind and vision ever align this well again. I hope so. I’ll be looking out for it, as will the rest of the world now.
The hype surrounding this movie in January was immense, for a film coming from Korea out of the blue, with an image and plot that didn’t fit into any of the normal marketing boxes. Every review ranged from this is incredible to… just see it for yourself. Nothing could have been more intriguing. I was certainly hooked on the idea, although by the time the Oscars came around I still hadn’t managed to see it at the cinema.
I found it fascinating that the academy had chosen 2020 as the year to change the dodgy sounding “Best Foreign Language film” to “Best International film”. It was about time, really, to acknowledge the us and them philosophy of world cinema didn’t really wash. And as the sublime Roma had paved the way for non English films to be considered again in all the main categories as serious contenders, I just had a feeling this was the year Oscar would make a statement with this film.
And so it turned out to be. It was a strong year. At the time I was a huge Joker advocate, having not yet seen 1917 either. Looking back now, I think, although not as perfect as Roma the year before, Parasite certainly deserves the praise and accolades it garnered from all around the world. Although any of those 3 films (Parasite, 1917 and Joker) would have been obvious winners in any other less competitive year.
So what is it about Parasite that raises it above the masses? Well, for a start it looks both beautiful and awe inspiring in every shot. Each image is designed and framed expertly to create a montage of mood and form that holds the multi-layered storytelling in place. Rarely have I seen such a well balanced and crisp visual design for a film, of any kind. Even with the subtitles off there is plenty to engage the eye and mind here. But it’s real secret is how it draws you in to believing you are watching one kind of satirical drama for about 40 minutes and then punches you in the solar plexus with the revelation that it has mutated into something darker, weirder and more entertaining on every level.
The “twist” when it comes along is so well placed and unexpected, even if you are told to expect one, that it entirely transforms your experience. You have been engaging with social issues and a basic satire on the rich vs the poor, where true power is a good wifi signal, and then, blam, you are watching a modern horror story with truly disturbing ramifications. I found this gear shift riveting and striking in a way that I can’t remember from a film in a long time.
But, looking back on it after several months, is that tonal shift really a strength? Some criticism, however minor in the scheme of things, did point this out, that what we get with Parasite is an unfocused and confused mix of genres that doesn’t entirely cohere. I mean, I see that, but have to disagree, simply because the writing at every point is too intelligent and sharp to give a damn about staying still and balanced on just one idea. Parasite is an exercise in energetic chaos that juggles many balls, all as interesting as one another, without dropping any of them.
Poverty, class, elitism, generational gaps, vanity, work ethics and morality, roles within a family unit, loyalty, weakness, revenge and bitterness are all themes here, and many more. Start going down the alley of one conversation that Parasite starts and end up somewhere entirely different in just a few sentences. And that is why it is worth seeing, several times. And that is why it works and was rewarded.
Is it a film I will be keen to see over again as the years pass? Yes and no. I’d probably be most interested to see it with someone who hasn’t seen it, to see their reaction. But I’m much less likely to give it multiple watches than the previous mentioned Joker and 1917, or indeed Roma, which I just can’t help comparing it to, even though they have virtually nothing in common, as I wish it had been Roma that made history at the awards rather than this. Of course, it is personal taste at that level of quality, but I believe Roma to be the better film.
If nothing else, however, Parasite marks the graduation of Bong Joon Ho, from a quirky filmmaker, whose interesting but not quite great near misses include The Host, Snowpiercer and Okja – all entertaining but flawed – to an auteur of considerable skill. Will the elements of his mind and vision ever align this well again. I hope so. I’ll be looking out for it, as will the rest of the world now.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Prey (2022) in Movies
Aug 12, 2022
Less Is More - And It Works!
In 1987, at the height of the ‘80’s action movie craze with the likes of Stallone, Van Damme, Segal, Norris and Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger came out with what on the surface looked like a throw away macho, sci-fi action flick, PREDATOR. What it turned out to be was one of the all-time classic action films.
It has taken 35 years for a sequel (in this case, a prequel) to be mentioned in the same stratosphere as the first.
While the other 5 sequels (if you count the Alien vs. Predator cross-over films) delve deeper and harder into the science fiction and macho-action of the first film, the straight-to-streaming prequel PREY (on Hulu and now on Disney+) decided to go in the other direction, it simplified the Predator/Prey dynamic, eschewing deep sci-fi mythology and settled on the “less is more” dictum of storytelling to great affect.
Set in the Midwestern Plains in the 1710’s, PREY follows a group of Comanches as they live their unassuming lifestyle - living off and giving back to the land. A lifestyle that is slowly being encroached upon by foreign entities. At first these “aliens” are terrestrial in nature (the approach of the White Man, in this case, they are in the guise of French Voyageurs), but later, in it takes the form of the extraterrestrial Predator. It’s an interesting juxtaposition of the duo forces outside of what this tribe of Native Americans know - and how they deal with it.
Leading us into the conflict are the main protagonists - the brother/sister combo of Naru (Amber Midthunder, HELL OR HIGHWATER) and her older brother, Taabe (Dakota Beavers, in what is his feature film debut). These 2 - along with their Comanche brethren track and then begin to understand what they are encountering and since they know they are out-gunned, they need to outsmart the Predator.
This could have devolved, quickly, into a gorey, CGI-fest of carnage, but in the careful hands of Director Dan Trachtenberg (10 CLOVERFIELD LANE) and with an interesting screenplay by Trachtenberg and Patrick Aison, this film becomes a thoughtful, intelligence game of wits that is satisfying on both sides.
Midthunder and Beavers are very strong in their roles of the brother and sister Comanches and they are 2 characters that you quickly start rooting for in their battle. These characters are drawn in an interesting, 3-dimensional, way and are a pair that you want to spend these 2 hours of struggle with.
Trachtenberg helps these 2 - and the story - by setting a deliberate pace, as if you the audience are thinking and encountering things along with these 2. There are long bits of thought and talk highlighted by spikes of action that are well choreographed and interesting, but really add to the depths of the characters.
I am as surprised as you are that I encountered an interesting character study in disguise in an action-packed Predator film - but that is just what this is…and very well done to boot.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It has taken 35 years for a sequel (in this case, a prequel) to be mentioned in the same stratosphere as the first.
While the other 5 sequels (if you count the Alien vs. Predator cross-over films) delve deeper and harder into the science fiction and macho-action of the first film, the straight-to-streaming prequel PREY (on Hulu and now on Disney+) decided to go in the other direction, it simplified the Predator/Prey dynamic, eschewing deep sci-fi mythology and settled on the “less is more” dictum of storytelling to great affect.
Set in the Midwestern Plains in the 1710’s, PREY follows a group of Comanches as they live their unassuming lifestyle - living off and giving back to the land. A lifestyle that is slowly being encroached upon by foreign entities. At first these “aliens” are terrestrial in nature (the approach of the White Man, in this case, they are in the guise of French Voyageurs), but later, in it takes the form of the extraterrestrial Predator. It’s an interesting juxtaposition of the duo forces outside of what this tribe of Native Americans know - and how they deal with it.
Leading us into the conflict are the main protagonists - the brother/sister combo of Naru (Amber Midthunder, HELL OR HIGHWATER) and her older brother, Taabe (Dakota Beavers, in what is his feature film debut). These 2 - along with their Comanche brethren track and then begin to understand what they are encountering and since they know they are out-gunned, they need to outsmart the Predator.
This could have devolved, quickly, into a gorey, CGI-fest of carnage, but in the careful hands of Director Dan Trachtenberg (10 CLOVERFIELD LANE) and with an interesting screenplay by Trachtenberg and Patrick Aison, this film becomes a thoughtful, intelligence game of wits that is satisfying on both sides.
Midthunder and Beavers are very strong in their roles of the brother and sister Comanches and they are 2 characters that you quickly start rooting for in their battle. These characters are drawn in an interesting, 3-dimensional, way and are a pair that you want to spend these 2 hours of struggle with.
Trachtenberg helps these 2 - and the story - by setting a deliberate pace, as if you the audience are thinking and encountering things along with these 2. There are long bits of thought and talk highlighted by spikes of action that are well choreographed and interesting, but really add to the depths of the characters.
I am as surprised as you are that I encountered an interesting character study in disguise in an action-packed Predator film - but that is just what this is…and very well done to boot.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
JT (287 KP) rated The Oxford Murders (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
From the first couple of scenes you’d half expect to see Inspector Morse and Lewis step out from behind one of the great pillars that surround Oxford University – sadly that is not going to be the case here. The story itself could have been taken right out of an Agatha Christie novel but the subsequent plot gets mixed up like the mathematical equation it is trying to lay out.
John Hurt plays Arthur Seldom a university professor whose life revolves around mathematical equations and whether or not we can prove truth and probability. Martin (Elijah Wood) is a graduate over from America looking at using Seldom to help him with his thesis.
The pair get mixed up in an altogether different set of circumstances when they must work together to solve a series of murders based around mathematical symbols. The Oxford Murders falls some way short of delivering on any tension or drama, which is a real shame. The script is over complicated and there is no real time to develop the characters before we are thrown head first into the first murder.
All in all it seemed rushed together. More strangely was the choice of director; Spanish born Álex de la Iglesia who also wrote the screenplay. A background largely based around foreign film I find it odd that he should have any idea about the true reflections of historic Oxford. Maybe that is where amongst other things The Oxford Murders falls down. In the hands of a more traditional English director we may have had a better outcome.
John Hurt plays Arthur Seldom a university professor whose life revolves around mathematical equations and whether or not we can prove truth and probability. Martin (Elijah Wood) is a graduate over from America looking at using Seldom to help him with his thesis.
The pair get mixed up in an altogether different set of circumstances when they must work together to solve a series of murders based around mathematical symbols. The Oxford Murders falls some way short of delivering on any tension or drama, which is a real shame. The script is over complicated and there is no real time to develop the characters before we are thrown head first into the first murder.
All in all it seemed rushed together. More strangely was the choice of director; Spanish born Álex de la Iglesia who also wrote the screenplay. A background largely based around foreign film I find it odd that he should have any idea about the true reflections of historic Oxford. Maybe that is where amongst other things The Oxford Murders falls down. In the hands of a more traditional English director we may have had a better outcome.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
I watched Roma exactly a week ago today. And although I knew 20 minutes in that I loved it, and at the end that I really loved it, I have taken that time to let it settle within me in before coming to write about it. Some films are so good that you have to do that: let it sink into you fully, before doing anything so trivial as judging and comparing them. Roma is incomparable! I have never seen anything like it, or felt as deeply moved by a film in a long time.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
