lino_reis

Civil War is a very competent cinematic exercise in an atempt to portray a civil war in the United States, focusing on the violence implied. That will include heavy fighting, to allow the whole display of (sound and visual) special effects at hand, and the added spectacularity of IMAX.

The movie avoids explicit mention of political motivations of the parties in conflict, thus avoiding what might be a worrying identification with the current political trends. (Well, not entirely, although to a quite satisfactory extent.) This is done at the cost of reducing the plot to the economic functionality of supporting the duration of the road adventure of the journalists (here and there punctured with gruesome episodes) to just in time reach the final grand battle at DC.

The movie underlines the horror of war. If some additional, nontrivial message emerges from the modest stance of the film, it concerns the frivolity of the journalist characters in their pursuit of the right take - or a quote. This is probably unintended, but in my opinion it is deserved.

The actors do everyting as fine as is to be expected. The music is very good and the soundtrack plays its own role - sometimes, quiet appropriately, overlapping the actors' lines.

This is one of the best movies I've watched recently. Visually stunning, it has a good plot, fine humour in the dialogue, brilliant acting. Some people may find it unpleasant, obsessed with sex, or even empty of meaning and interest: the fact that we have different tastes and react differently to a given object is just one of the features that make reality interesting. "Poor Things" reinvents people, animals, chariots, boats and places, and it does it dazzlingly. The objects it portrays are scenically improved versions of the real ones: Lisbon and Paris, for example, appear surprisingly engaging while allowing you to recognize the respective originals. It should be mentioned in addition that the score is fabulous: it should be heard until the last piece of sound that closes this cinematographic ceremony.

This is an inspired version of the chocolate saga. There are some pleasant songs, there is great acting, stunning visual shots, and (very welcome) lots of fine humor (e.g. The taps with two choices of temperature - cold and very cold). The script writers had even the opportunity to cite Tennessee Williams (Wonka depending on the kindness of strangers...). Many features of the staging are reminiscent of Sondheim's Sweeney Todd masterpiece - but here the bright, not the dark side prevails.

This movie is a joyful homage to the power of theatrical expression. It conveys in the most effective way all the oddities of a fantasy plot.

Deservedly, "Hoppenheimer" has attracted a lot of attention from the public and the critic. So far so many people have written about this movie that it is almost impossible to say something new and worthwhile. Therefore I shall concentrate on two points: a (mild) complaint and a remark about form. But first let me state that I rate the film as a successful achievement in every aspect. When I entered the cinema I was afraid I couldn't stand the three hour projection; in the end I was surprised not to have noticed the passage of time.

1) The complaint. It seems to me that a certain amount of deception is currently being built about the IMAX format. Almost every IMAX theater uses digital projection, not 70mm film. This may explain why the image seems to lack the very high definition characteristic of that analogue format which subsisted until the seventies. In short, watching a film in IMAX is only a small improvement (bigger screen) with respect to a normal session in a well equipped theatre.

2) An assertion. "Oppenheimer" is an opera without singing. The prodigious score by Ludwig Goransson pervades the whole action. Or sometimes we should say that the action pervades the score. This is especially remarkable in the final "third act", when at some moments the words have to fight to be heard. The music creates a unique, dreamlike, obsessive atmosphere that pulls the spectator to complete immersion. That is why the movie's duration may easily appear shorter.

This film by Kinuyo Tanaka is a moving account of the lives of women disgraced in post WW II Japan for having become prostitutes. The movie follows a group of women hosted by a rehabilitation center after prostitution became ilegal. It focuses on one of them, Kuniko, in her search for a new life as she is allowed to leave the center.

Most of the characters are women and their acting is great. Life in the real world turns out to be harsh for Kuniko: the story is told as crudely as a realistic view of life may allow. Some excerpts are perhaps lacking in subtlety, or the plot may be insufficiently worked out, as it seems it would be not difficult to make it gain richness and complexity. This is most remarkable in what concerns the brief episode where Kuniko seduces her boss, the shop owner.

Towards the middle of the story, a male character - Tsukasa -- appears to bring a refreshing, soothing change in the way Destiny has treated Kuniko. However both Kuniko and Tsukasa soon learn that happiness escapes their reach. Tanaka wants to underline this feature in the concrete situation, in the fifties in Japan, of women whose fate is haunted by the indelible stain of prostitution. Forgiveness is not possible and it starts inside the sinner itself. Hence the finale (in a most Christian flavor!) carries signs of resignation and redemption.

What a pleasant movie, in the current state of cinema, where disappointment lurks at the threshold of most theaters as you step in.

Just like when you go to a vampire movie you implicitly accept all the features of the vampire universe (garlic, mirrors, crucifix and so on), when you decide to watch a movie like The Pope's Exorcist you agree to suspend your disbelief in the Devil during two hours.

The opening scene where the Devil is removed from young Enzo is well crafted. By the way, Crowe is a splendid father Amorth. Things deteriorate immediately after, because neither the American family in Castille nor the environment of the abbey seem credible for the purpose of frightening you. You start to understand the weakness of the plot when the only scaring element during the first 40 minutes or so is a set of arbitrary sounds which belong to the soundtrack only, without connection with what should be happening (and is not). Then the devil enters poor Henry and starts a dispute with Amorth, apparently because he knows a lot about his past. Some grotesque (not the same as scaring) scenes are on the way.

The problem (in my view) is that the main characters (Julia, Esquibel, Henry) seem too artificial, and the script does not help them. I watched the film in a cinema that allows an intermission by half of the run time. I suddenly noticed that, given the way things were going after one hour of projection, I absolutely could not care less about the fate of all the characters, Devil included, and I left the theater with a sense of relief.

"Red" is a collection of carefully and masterly shot scenes connected between themselves by a weak plot.

Each scene is pleasant to watch and the acting is great. My objection is that characters lack density and the way they interact is far from clear. Moreover each subplot is either sketchy or implausible. Let me mention two main examples: the relationship of Valentine and her boyfriend; the attitudes and activity of the retired judge. The lot of insufficiently crafted coincidences does not help, either. Towards the end, the shipwreck works less as a contribution to a dramatic solution than it evokes a comic character of Aunt Julie and the scriptwriter (a novel by Vargas LLosa, where a failed, crazed writer of radio serials, unable to find an appropriate epilogue, decides to drown all the main characters by sinking a ship with them on board). The film is thus built around a handful of symbols whose pertinence to the story being told is arbitrary and needs explanation.

In conclusion, the film leaves you with a first positive impression but this does not stand up to closer scrutiny.

What holds the viewer's interest despite the apparent triviality of a plot such as the one of The Fabelmans? It is true that a movie is much more than its plot, and if this film is so pleasant to enjoy, that is because many elements that are reminiscent of the magical side of cinema have been summoned with success. I feel that this works not only with senior audiences (where I include myself) to whom a certain nostalgia of the 60's and 70's is familiar and appealing, but also with young spectators. So, what makes The Fabelmans the great film it indeed is? Apart from the hand of director Steven Spielberg and a fantastic team of actors, the movie shines with the joie de vivre of its characters and with the delicate manner in which it displays some bad moments that life has in store for them. The whole of it is shown under the eyes of childhood and adolescence with its with its burden of illusion and occasional anxieties.

The final scene (with the appearance of "the biggest director of them all") is a well achieved epilogue, full of humor. The same can be said of the last shot, an epilogue within the epilogue.

Finally I must say I also enjoyed the initial address to the audience by Spielberg himself where, appropriately, he did not miss the opportunity to defy spectators to see films in theaters.

I am a little astonished at the high praise this movie has received. The film starts from a good idea for a story, has good actors and beautiful takes. I found it pleasant and amusing up to approximately two thirds of its duration. In the first part of the movie we are confronted with the ability of the "poor" to scam the "rich" and a comic presentation of the "rich" exposing their naivety and manias. The plot seems to change in nature after the servants are lead down to the underground bunker by the former housekeeper. In fact that moment is a turning point into chaos -- of the plot, I mean. My limit of disbelief was then reached. Moreover, none of the interpretations of the movie that I've read about in other reviews (e.g. A metaphor of class struggle, a concern with wild capitalism, climate change, and whatever) seems reasonable or applicable, because they are not compatible with the story and characters' description so far. My interpretation is that, simply, the final sections of the script are uninspired and pointless. I learnt with surprise, the day after having seen the movie, that Parasite won the Oscar for the best film.

This is a weak achievement from François Ozon - otherwise a brilliant director. Although the movie is watchable without effort and there is great acting, you may feel that something is missing. The intense dramma that fills the 1972 Fassbinder movie has been turned into grotesque comedy. Both films are strongly theatrical, but the tone in Ozon's movie works less satisfactorily. Stefan Crepon's character Karl, however, is superb.

Where is the main flaw of this film in my opinion? The author was betrayed by the belief that an easy transcript of the Fassbinder mise en scène (changing sexes and adding some comedy) woulf be enough to yield a significant remake.

For instance, what is the reason to maintain the action in the seventies as in the inspiring movie? The only explanation that I am able to find is a wrong feeling that much of the dramatic tension would disappear in a world full of mobile phones. The fact that Petra Von Kant becomes a prisonner and an anxious slave of her land line phone after being abandoned by Karin is naturally inserted in the action of the 1972 version. Extra work would be required to recreate the plot in terms of mobile phones: I believe the result might be innovative and interesting. Instead of harming the script, it could appear as a welcome refreshment. Just think of how many episodes of jealousy, lies and betrayal could be manufactured with resource to contact lists, text messages and what more you can think of.