shimonmor

William is a slacker. He's not unintelligent nor unendearing. But he battles addiction which saps his drive and corrupts his life choices. His unreliability is maddening. Occasionally, he straightens out, does the dishes and tries to gather the shambles of his life into some semblance of order. But he inevitably reverts to his chaotic ways. Inheriting a cabin from his deceased and estranged father might be the crucial impetus for him finally getting his life together. But with addicts, it's never a sure thing.

By the end, do we find enough compassion to redeem William or is he a lost cause? This question is not easily answered which is what redeems this film. We aren't provided with a sappy sweet ending but are left on the fence to make a choice and it's not an easy one. I've wavered back and forth and still do after watching this film. If you're the type of person who needs closure and pat endings in films then stay away. But if you prefer to ponder and wonder then you'll find this film satisfying.

In four 20-minute episodes, this Norwegian mini-series delivers a wry and humorous indictment of 21st century capitalism and its failings. Severe income inequality has made affordable living in Oslo unattainable while jobs have become increasingly Kafkaesque. Our protagonist, Julie, stumbles on an elegant solution to the housing crisis but soon discovers that in capitalism's zero-sum system, she can only climb the ladder of success by using friends and colleagues as rungs. While other are forced to resort to fraud in order to survive. There are no winners in the middle-class. This black-comedy is sharp and witty, quickly paced, efficient and razor-sharp. The series is very well crafted and entertaining.

An expertly crafted film on every level. Alaa Eddine Aljem has not only written a surreptitious commentary on superstitions but has directed a nearly perfect example of efficient, well-paced film making.

Unlike so many directors (even big name directors), Aljem was not absent the day filming principle "show, don't tell" was taught. There is hardly an ounce of exposition in this film which is so refreshing. Dialogue is sparse, flabby scenes non-existent, extraneous shots cut. Aljem trusts the viewers to interpolate action and context without hand-holding which dramatically improves the viewing experience; no excess fat on this film. And no melodramatic score, no CGI, no fast-paced-witty-banter, no gravity-defying-action-scenes, no overstuffed crap that chokes the art and joy out of so many contemporary films. Just pure story telling executed perfectly.

In addition, the photography deserves accolades. Even though shot in a mostly tan, desolate, near moon-like setting, the images captured are beguiling beautiful. Everything from the compositions to the blocking to the lighting and smart use of colorful buildings and clothing adds to the visual feast.

The characters are a motley bunch including a thief, a criminal (there is a difference), a surly, bored nurse, a newly arrived doctor, a dirt farmer and his discontented son, a shrine night watchman and his loyal German Shepherd, a crafty barber and a slew of others. They each play a minor supporting the thief's main thread of attempting to recover buried stolen money that has been covered by a shrine which people visit for spiritual relief and healing. The story is filled with understated and sly humor which adds an extra dimension and kept me smiling throughout the film.

We are introduced to not only the various characters' superstitions but also to the skepticism of others. The interplay between the two groups is the crux of this film and how some characters move from one group to the other forms the tension and release. In the end, it's the one character who chose the wrong side of superstition who is left to wander alone in the desolate desert. The commentary on superstition can be interpreted anyway you want which is what elevates this film. Rather than forcing one viewpoint upon the viewer, the film offers a story and situations that can be interpreted depending upon the viewers mood or temperament which comes across as effortless in the film but takes careful writing and directing which is why I believe this work to be of the highest order.

Overall, one of the best films I've seen in the past number of years. I was never once bored...I was fully engaged by the story, characters, humor and visuals. To some, this may seem like a simple, slow, boring story where not much happens but in reality, it's evident to students of film how much effort was put into crafting this gem.

If you prefer imagination over spectacle, story over CGI, and heart over the sameness and blandness of many movies being released today then this film is for you.

The production value isn't top notch but the story and ideas are original, inventive and exciting. This film percolates in your mind long after viewing.

It's an enjoyable and satisfying journey which I'm sure to take again and again through repeated viewings.

Wyrm confesses, "I just don't want to be alone." This is the fear of all adolescents...and heck, most people.

This film is a wonderful peek into the lives of middle-schoolers struggling to connect under the pressures of developing emotions and a limited understanding of world around them. But all done through dark, biting humor and quirky situations. Absent (emotionally and physically) parents, turbulent sibling relationships, cruel hate mail and the added pressure of your first kiss (further complicated by a "Scarlet Letter"-like collar) are all obstructions to navigating the difficult and trying transition to adulthood.

The script is tight, funny and honest. There is no Aaron Sorkin witty dialogue or overly precocious teens...these feel like real middle-schoolers having real conversations and struggling with real problems. Christopher Winterbauer shows he's adept at both directing and writing and proves he has not forgotten the realities of growing up. He doesn't look back through rose-colored glasses or mire us in sappy nostalgia but presents us with an honest and humorous record of a sometimes-painful adolescence.

This is not a documentary nor an accurate history of events but a humorous send-up of the scandal itself. The story itself is a funny-mirror reflection of the (not so) mysterious tape erasure.

Meandering away from Watergate, most of the film explores and revels in eccentric characters and their interactions. Subtle humor and satire abound if you pay attention and let down your hair: conspiracy theories involving Wonder Bread and ITT; Bossa nova music; broken tape machines; mysterious fishermen; one-eyed desk clerks.

Smatterings of the missing 18½ minute recording are revealed and they are nothing more than what we expect although amplified through a filter of ridiculousness and cartoonish caricatures. It really helps to be a student of Watergate and recognize the various characters like Mark Felt (who is referenced hilariously), H. R. Haldeman, Al Haig and Rosemary Woods in order to "get" all the jokes.

This film is an unexpected surprise. Wry, intelligent humor, a brisk pace and wonderful characters make for winning combination. Worth a second viewing to catch all those subtle cues and clues. Bravo, Mr. Mirvish.

The humor is silly but it works because the show doesn't take itself seriously but rather takes pleasure in poking holes at silly humans and their silly planet Earth (or is it Turd?).

This isn't highbrow material. This isn't high production value. This isn't going to sate your existential crisis. But this first season is a giant satirical poke in the ribs for a crazy and self-destructive species.

If you sit down on your deflated sofa, let down your hair, release that pent-up angst and drop your self-righteous shroud...you just may have a great laugh at yourself.

Charles tells Diana, "there has to be two of you." She needs to have two personas in order to survive: your "real" self and the "public" self. Unfortunately, many people cannot play that game. They can only be themselves and playing another role is difficult and may cause mental anguish and lead to instability which may have contributed to Diana's pain and suffering.

Diana's mental anguish is the core of this wonderfully crafted film. I find most biopics tedious, predictable and ultimately unsatisfying. Pablo Larraín has approached the biopic correctly: rather than regurgitating Diana's biography, he has sharply focused this film on one aspect over a few short days. This concentration of topic and effort allows Larraín to explore and present us with a full-bodied study in gorgeous palettes backed by an eclectic soundtrack with few characters, efficient dialog and a total focus on one person's mental state.

This is not a popcorn movie but a filmic ode to Diana Spencer and we are all fortunate to experience such nuanced artistry.

Although this film will never win an award for "best editing", Philip Barantini has created a masterful thriller with tension that overpowers and then ebbs time and again as the restaurant staff struggle through a busy evening.

The single-shot element is really just a gimmick and would not save a weak film (but it does deserve accolades for technical achievement). Thankfully, this film doesn't lean on this one aspect: it is strong on every front of film making.

The tragic figure of the chef, flaws and all, still draws out our sympathy as do all the other characters. Each is flawed and despicable in their own annoying fashion; but each, is also fully realized making them real humans who deserve empathy. Not an easy task to accomplish on film especially across the board with major and minor characters.

Barantini has demonstrated acumen and skill which speaks well to his future endeavors.

Title says it all. This is a total plagiarisation of 1983's "A Christmas Story" without the charm. If you yearn for 80's nostalgia you may enjoy this. There are a few funny moments (Dewey Decimal System) but otherwise this is a tired story with flat characters. Yawn.

Although there is an ongoing debate regarding the benefits of "recycling" to the planet, I don't think there is much to debate about the worthiness of this heavily recycled movie. It's all been seen and done before. If you don't mind unoriginal content, then this film is mildly entertaining and harmless. But if you are tired of watching the same movies over and over, pass on this (unless you need your Tom Hanks fix).

Saw this when it first came out and I was not impressed. Thought I would give it another try 35 years later and I can confirm the cheese still stinks badly. This is just bad filmmaking all around. My sympathies go out to Lynch who I usually enjoy. It's like "Flash Gordon" without the fun. At least that movie had the sense not to take itself seriously.

Many people conflate sci-fi with space/lasers/aliens/action/etc. This film has none of the latter but is pure sci-fi of the highest order.

It's a film of imagination and exploration of ideas: technology and our relationship to it; existence and our place in the universe; relationships and our inability to connect. These are concepts that are explored through a number of short-story-like, loosely interconnected sketches.

Agata Alexander's direction is first class and shows great promise. I look forward to her future offerings.

I'm going to keep my eye on Ted Stenson.

This is a wonderfully unpretentious, subtly humorous, well-paced, well-written indy film that's pure fun.

Directors working with their own material can sometimes allow a film to sprawl or have trouble editing their "baby". But Stenson doesn't overstay his welcome giving us a well fashioned story that doesn't bog down or meander even with a full cast of characters and storylines.

The concept is a simple "slice-of-life" at a high school basketball game without overwrought drama or forced humor but with lots of very wry dialog and dry wit.

This really is a master class on efficient film making and the camera work is steady and unobtrusive (a rarity these days).

Job well done on every front. Worthy of repeat viewings.

Great sci-fi films are grounded in an imaginative story. They posses thoughtfulness, originality and well written screenplays. This film has none of the those requisites. It abounds in tired clichés, recycled stories and banal dialogue. Even the well-executed spectacles can't lift this film. Some of the actors are quite weak and even the normally excellent ones are hampered by inane situations and speech. De Palma's direction feels wooden and lifeless. This certainly isn't the worst sci-fi film but it's not very much more than middling popcorn fare.