cix_one

I caught this movie at a local film festival. The topic was super intriguing to me personally since I happen to have lived through the times and places referenced in the movie. That being said, I fear that for people without such a framing context the documentary may fall a bit flat.

The editing is the first thing struck me as being fairly amateurish. Quite a few scenes should have been either left on the editing room floor, or at least cut short(er) - Most likely these scenes made it in because there was nothing more compelling to add up to a regular length film...

The character featured in the documentary (he's a real person, I call him "character" because, well, he *is* an unusual character) opens up on camera and gives us a glimpse of his life many decades ago. Except he doesn't seem to have moved away from that time, he is still re-living his glory days. And this documentary provides a good vehicle for him to reminisce and for us (the viewers) to peek into cultural scene in that oppressed era in Romanian history.

The movie was looong. And felt looong. Characters either speak in elaborate metaphors or stare in the void to convey their inscrutable complexity and depth. Drama ensues again and again from people not checking their phones. Really? My days of trying to swallow this... stuff... are over.

In recent decades, Romanian cinematography has made great strides and has produced amazing films. Spoiler alert: this not one of them.

One thing going for the movie is that it manages to create a good atmosphere of suspense and omen. If only the atmosphere had a compelling story to wrap around - but alas, it doesn't. The story is pretty random and unremarkable.

I caught the movie at a local film festival. My slight disappointment was that it isn't a true story, but rather a composite story pieced together from shards of reality. The poetry used as a backdrop (both Farsi & Romanian) and the editing was very powerful and for me made the movie into a great thriller-documentary (although strictly speaking it is a work of fiction).

The movie aims to capture the fervor and hopes that fueled the two revolutions (in '79 Iran, then in '89 Romania) and draws parallels between the two through the eyes of two friends. The use of archive footage interweaved with bits of the storytelling lead the viewer to walk along - and think about - the events of that era, the political forces at play, and the human experiences.

At times, the English subtitles were missing - for example when the soundtrack was Farsi or Romanian poetry. That editorial decision I felt diminished the viewing experience a bit.

There are parts of RMN (English title should read "MRI") that I found delightful and thoughtful. Unfortunately, these parts have been "photobombed" by plot twists that made little sense and, at best, muddled the narrative.

The good: the narrative in the movie is based on a true story, an event that is somewhat representative for how Europe struggles to come to terms with economic migration. The story could have been a masterful commentary on how the villagers rejected Sri Lankan workers in their factories, while at the same time going to work in western Europe themselves. To me, not exploiting the special position this small Eastern Europe village has in this dynamic was an unfortunate miss. I also loved the realistic depiction of an otherwise integrated village, with people switching casually between Hungarian, Romanian, and German - as well as conversant in French and English. The way the atmosphere in the village was captured was truly delightful and realistic, and I loved the movie for that. Although Cristian Mungiu claims proudly that he's not making an "American style movie" (i.e. Black and white, morally speaking) you'll find the expected personas that would power any movie contrasting globalization and preservation of a traditional way of life.

What spoiled the movie for me was the Neanderthal that the director pushed forward as the main (?) character; not to mention the bears, I'll come to the bears later. The character of Matthias is not representing either the traditional way of life nor is he representing the pains of globalization. He's just a brute sloshing around in the story. He's violent, uncaring... I ask myself: what would be missed if the character were cut out of the story, or if he were less antisocial?

The movie has many delightful themes: it is capturing a snapshot (or, MRI) of a society in flux; it is pondering the clash between the life in a quaint Transylvanian village and immigration / globalization. But that would have been too much of a "straight line" story for Mungiu apparently... So just to get us off balance, the director threw in a boy with a vision of a future suicide (...because the future is scary and maybe gruesome? I'm grasping at straws for meaning here...), and a finale comprised of group of bears standing around with thoughtful faces as if to say: "if you don't dig us, then you missed the whole point of the movie!"

The rave reviews, the Oscars... There are surely more meaningful and thought-provoking movies that were made in 2022, were there not?

The movie is an incomprehensible jumble of martial arts stunts and random special effects, severely lacking a storyline (because the action always jumps laterally, and that's intentional) or meaning. For those patient enough to sit through the first (excruciatingly senseless) one hour and 45 minutes, some meaning may start to emerge. I almost didn't make the cut to be in that group, I almost bailed out at the one hour mark (that's how much I normally give films to start becoming interesting or meaningful). But being an Oscar winning film, I made an exception.

After the senseless setup, most of which should have ended up on the edit room floor, a message starts to emerge. The message is pretty trite and far from revolutionary. The movie does take the crown in one category in my opinion, that of "the most disappointing movie of the year". Especially when considering the hype to value ratio. Very disappointing.

The cast and the subject of the movie drew me into watching this movie. Looking back, I can't believe the good reviews. It appears that if one picks a woke-friendly subject, quality and craftsmanship do not matter. Scenes in this movie were either trite or at best re-hashes of ideas from better movies. Anachronisms and sloppiness run rampant. Even during a casual viewing on a tiny phone screen (I was a captive audience on a 5 hour flight) I couldn't avoid noticing (at minute 0:26) the group photo being taken with a Digital camera (it has a conspicuous LCD screen), or Paul's dad suggesting a "career in computer graphics" (do you kids who made this movie know what a computer looked like in the '80s? There was only one color: green, and the only graphics were ASCII symbols).

Then there are the weird moments. Are we supposed to be inspired by the "free spirit" of kids disappearing from a field trip w/out letting the teachers know? Oh, how poetic! Crapping on everyone around you... Then young Paul is sent to the "new" school with a briefcase because supposedly knapsacks were frowned upon, but in the scenes at the new school everyone But Paul had knapsacks (oops, editors were asleep at the wheel). Then we're being peddled a story about a plumber in New York fixing a heater for free (that was the premise of Paul being let off the hook by the policeman). Seriously? I'm Walking Here! I've been to New York, that's not happening, not now, and not ever; fairy tale (I can't use a New York native word in polite company). All these sloppy details peppered my viewing experience with "wth" moments of disconnection; they constantly served as reminders of what a trite and stilted movie I was watching.

And at the end, was the memorable phrase "I'm sorry about your friend... but keep trying" supposed to be inspiring, or a lesson in shrugging off other's problems and stepping over your friend's dead bodies? Pathetic...

I can't believe all the negative ratings. This is *not* a whodunnit people, it's more in the vein of The Pink Panther than Murder She Wrote. If the ringtone didn't clue you in, you're perhaps not as good as you think at "finding clues"...

Now, that you'll be coming to the movie with the right expectations, you will be in a position to savor the humor and social satire. And you'll also be in a better position to kick back and enjoy the acting in this light and refreshing comedy.

... and like real life, the slice in question is jumbled. The movie uses the premise of a (relatively short) disruption in the routine of its main characters to make the audience think through questions of morality and life's tradeoffs, as the story unfolds. I chuckle when I see other reviewers accusing the movie of being "too predictable" - that is not the case. No terrible things happen as a result of the characters' occasional bad decisions, like they would in any other garden variety horror/action movie with the same setting. More like in real life, things end up being ok and life moves on.

The director takes us up close and personal to experience the anxiety and the humanity of the three main characters. Even when their decisions are not ideal when judged from the comfort of our LazyBoys, we follow why the characters do what they do. The movie depicts two worlds, one affluent, fast, and a tad self-righteous. The other is slow, stuck in time, and poor - but clinging to survive with dignity and be self-sufficient. Normally these two worlds whirl by each other with only superficial points of contact. But because of an unplanned turn of events, people from one world are stuck with people from the other - and with each other. The superficiality of the human contact in the modern world starts to come into relief, if only for one night, and people are forced to have actual interactions and make uncomfortable decisions.

I can see how the ending can elicit strong reactions from people in need of closure. To me, it said very powerfully "... and life moves on". The past 24 hours, as uncomfortable as they were, will be no more than an interesting safari story told time and time again at cocktail parties.

The absolute delight in this movie (and I left that for desert!) was the character Kente (and of course the man who played Kente). It's unbelievable how a real life woodcutter with no formal training delivers such a strong performance. I would be the first to nominate him for best performance in a supporting role... Even for that performance alone (but of course, not only), you must see this film for yourself!

First, hats off to Radu Jude for making this film and others like it. We need these stories told so we never forget the history that - in Romania like in many other countries on both sides of the pond - has conveniently been ignored by dictators and nationalists (who masquerade as "patriots") alike.

Now on to the movie itself. It tries to use a clever technique of telling a story and showing images that are "dissonant". But for me that technique fell flat. It got to be tiring to the point where the visual dissonance distracted from the narrative. The pictures are not "in opposition" to the narrative, they're just random and at times plain weird. The point seems to have been that "how come the pictures from the era did not capture the tragedy that was going on". One can draw such a "conclusion" with any set of selected pictures. You can find a picture of the Santa Monica pier in 2008 and look - there's no indication of the recession that was going on. Huh? The point being? Can't a man pose with his cow anymore without the fear of being judged? Don't worry, you'll get the reference once you watch the film...

If one wants to find relevant pictures for the story being told in this documentary, look no further than the last half hour of a movie by the very same Radu Jude - "The exit of trains". It's not like these pictures don't exist.

I applaud Radu Jude for bringing these stories to the fore. Luckily many of his other movies on the topic have been better. Strictly on its merits as a movie, it's just "ok", bonus points for trying a novel technique. Watch it to hear the necessary story it tells, and don't expect to be amazed by its artistic qualities.

I believe this movie is a missed opportunity. It has great ingredients (superb acting by both protagonists, good cinematography, local authenticity, intriguing plot). The storyline however meanders in search of direction, and doesn't necessarily go anywhere in particular. Like a slow river making its way into an amorphous marsh. The action is peppered with subtle humor, mostly derived from well-captured details of a new reality clashing with the old ways.

Did I enjoy watching the movie? Yes, I did. But at the same time I was left with a sweet whiff of what this movie could have been...

No, it's not the ending that everyone is complaining about. It's the story that's dragging aimlessly. The reason I watched the movie to the end is because of Denzel, I was hoping for something meaningful to happen; well, spoiler alert: it didn't. Rami Malek's attempt at portraying a buttoned up and strict detective ended up looking downright psychopatic, to a point where you can't stop but wonder if he was not the actual killer. In hindsight, I don't think that was the intent of the director. Other than that, throw in a few stale stereotypes (the classic "you know, you and I are a lot alike" made me chuckle) in a futile attempt to spice it up, but in the end the lack of storyline direction was downright painful.

The story the movie is based on is true and moving. The play that the movie adopted (not adapted, adopted, as in integrated with) might be good as well. Where the movie went off into the weeds for me was when the director decided to cut frequently and without any meaningful transition from the play (actors reading from old security service reports) to an eclectic assortment of TV clips from the era. The period clips have very little to do with the story. They neither complement the story nor does the sequencing of clips tell a story of its own. They're just filler, plain and simple. Big missed opportunity.

I saw the movie at the Seattle Film Festival. The subject matter is relevant and intriguing from a social point of view - so the movie had the potential of being poignant and thought provoking. Instead, it feels as if the editor had been AWOL. The first hour and a half of the movie is peppered with irrelevant scenes, gratuitous coarse "humor" that is neither here nor there, and static shots with noise in the background (not unlike the time I accidentally hit record while pointing at the floor). Had it been a topic that I didn't have a personal interest in, I would have walked out of the theater after the first hour.

Surprisingly, the movie does end strongly. A good editing job could probably do wonders, producing a good 1 hour long movie. And that, in my book, would be preferable.

This movie tackles a divisive topic, and if you come to it with either a righteous-black-panther viewpoint or a victim-complex-blue-lives-matter viewpoint you will miss its subtleties and the quality of the acting. If you want to gain something from this movie, you need to check those attitudes at the door. Otherwise, save the time and go with the news reel already playing in your head.

The movies is well acted. The main criticism one can level at it is that the movie does not present a well-rounded set of viewpoints. "Crash" for example did a better job at being more even-handed. But is that in itself a disqualifying sin? The movie portrays a pain that is searing, very real, and as intense as the movie depicts it. Capturing the intensity of the pain is what makes this a good movie.

If I, a white man with means (but alas, an immigrant!) kept waking up in the middle of the night to re-live the images of a cop lying through his teeth in court for years after it happened, I can't even start to imagine the scars of someone who experienced a frightened cop shoot his gun just because he didn't have the courage and the humanity to do something else.

Are there good cops out there? Sure there are. Are they depicted in this movie? Not really. Those good cops carry a double burden: first is doing an inherently hard and dangerous job; second they have to live with the bully image that the other 80% of the cops create for them not only through high profile cases, but also day in and day out during routine interactions with the rest of us. But that's a topic for a different movie I suppose.

I ended up watching this movie for its historical relevance. I would have loved if the director took time to explain the ingenious financial underpinnings of the scheme, which is the soul of the story. The movie editing in particular was a disaster of epic proportions. The editors couldn't decide what to cut out of the movie, and as a result we have a collage of stunted scenes: e.g. someone in a plane getting ready to parachute, then cut to a completely unrelated scene, never to see the guy in the plane again. Very poorly put together, but I applaud the producers for digging up an interesting subject.

No folks, it's not the same without Meryl Streep. Not by a long shot. I absolutely loved the first movie, and the sequel failed short in so many ways... The first letdown was of course the absence of Donna. It was downhill from there. I had a general sense that nobody cared to put together a good story. The quality of the screenplay was eerily reminiscent of the one you'd expect in a porn movie (not that I myself ever watched one, of course). To strengthen the feeling, the casting crew seem to have raided the Chippendales for the young versions of Sam, Bill, and Harry. And have you seen the size of Bill's boat? Once again, nobody on the film crew seemed to give a damn about making the story believable. A boat like that would need a sizeable crew, and is not the boat a nomadic youngster would skipper, let alone afford. But they had a budget to burn through I suppose. Obscene!

Then there are the songs. They've raided a trove of more forgettable ABBA songs. Nobody stopped to ask why they were forgettable. Hint: because they weren't that good! What made you think they would make for a great movie?

Did I mention that the movie without Meryl Streep feels like a plane flying with one of the engines out? And no, her appearance as a dancing/singing/whatever ghost in the end does not count...

I saw this movie at our local film festival, and I had reasonable hopes it will tackle the topic of healing from an extremist youth. Even in the news, you sometimes read stories about terrorists who did come to grips with the dark side of their earlier path, or convicts who work with other convicts to help them rehabilitate - so excuse me for having expectations based on the catchy title...

None of that in this movie. Our protagonist has half reformed (he did stop killing people) but has no remorse or answers for the terrible actions in his past. Worse, he has no answers or thoughts about the collateral damage of his past actions. Instead, he's a self-centered, self-righteous dude who, besides the "minor inconveniences" his relatives suffer (such as being physically attacked, or losing a job, or having a career stunted - which arguably he's not single handedly responsible for) is about to destroy his daughter's future (that one is squarely on him). His grand plan of fleeing the country and uprooting his 16 year old daughter from the environment she grew up in and move to a place with obviously fewer opportunities - is quickly dispatched with by the director by injecting an unlikely accident that circumvents all the hard moral questions and leads to an awkward "happy ending".

This movie's title is a sham. The movie does not address any "after". Marco's war is still very much ongoing; he's a ruthless, selfish character who over the 20 years that have passed did not have any revelations - except the bitter realization that he "lost" his war. He continues to step over his family's bodies trying to escape his past.

The Italian version didn't have the marquee actors, but it was well written, well acted and had all the ingredients to make the audience identify with the moral dilemma of the characters.

The American version by comparison is grotesque: one of the characters is mentally ill - which makes it impossible for the viewers (at least the ones who are not mentally ill) to identify with; the story of the senator's bill keeps distracting the main plot without rhyme or reason.

I watched it to the end in the hope that the sheer presence of great actors is going to somehow redeem the film. It did not.

Given the cast, I came to this movie with great expectations. The subject of the film is also timeless (individual dignity vs. corporate greed), so the movie *could* have been great. But it's not, because of the plot.

The drama in the story hinges on a the CEO of a corporation that spans many industries losing sleep over the guy doing ads for... cereal? Seriously? And what is the big scandal, a horse being given steroids? How exactly is that breaking news?!? As a result, the character of the journalist going full-out to get the story is forced and unnatural. Jane Fonda's acting couldn't rescue her character from the ridiculousness of the situation.

Because the plot failed to pass the believability test, the movie fell apart for me. I ended up viewing the movie with a very cynical eye. Police car chase, check. Boy meets girl, check. Cheap. And a waste of good acting.

The director is a well known-Romanian stage actor, and the movie (his directorial debut) shows it - or suffers from it, depending on your point of view. The subject of the picture is inspired from a true and painful story of repression under communism. The story is told with humor, but many times the humor is over the top, cheapening somewhat the tragedy that swept over the Eastern block after the second world war.

The movie is framed as a fantasy/allegory the director and his crew take a few liberties with the script. The editing however is a bit sloppy (modern cars showing in the background in the field scene, mike booms cutting into the frame) and that left me with a tinge of disappointment.

On the bright side, the director's brilliance as an artist shines through in many scenes, such as one in which he masterfully and seamlessly weaves in a silent black and white comedy scene in the best Laurel and Hardy tradition.

The movie is based on a true story from Romania's rocky path from a corrupt totalitarian country to a modern society. Although based on real characters, the movie is not a documentary. It paints the characters with enough depth to capture the essence of the events, while being an entertaining thriller along the way. I found the director struck a superb balance between introspection and entertainment, making the movie both appealing to watch and thought provoking (even inspiring).

In a tip of the hat to "The Conversation" (with Gene Hackman), there is a scene where the young prosecutor, driven close to (justified) paranoia by being watched by the secret service, starts tearing up the wires in his house. Of course, nowadays surveillance is far more sophisticated and non-intrusive (wireless), but the scene drives home the point that the danger of a corrupt surveillance society is not specific to countries of the Eastern block.

Going into the movie, I was eager to see what the director had to add to an otherwise classic topic: two men in love with one woman. I assumed that if Louis Garrel took on the subject, he would only do so to add a fresh and novel perspective.

What a disappointment! The three characters in the movie are grotesquely one-dimensional caricatures: one is a sociopathic serial boyfriend, another is a ridiculous loser who's not only unattractive and has a whiny voice, but also sports an idiotic red baseball hat. The female character seems to have completely lost her compass in life, to a point where she inexplicably decides to hang out with two individuals who just assaulted her and whom she barely knows, at the expense of at least six months of her life. Why would anyone who's not irreversibly deranged do that? Other than to advance the plot of a wobbly movie, I mean.

The pivotal scene when the two men dragged the woman out of the train was to me as close as one can get to a rape scene. The power of the scene is in no small part a testament to the talent of Golshifteh Farahani. But her craft was wasted in this film, and could do nothing to salvage the incoherence of a bad script.

The movie starts off with a seemingly cookie-cutter story that follows the contours of a narrative we encounter (too often, unfortunately) in the news. This includes a very questionable police shooting, which is probably more relevant for the States than it is for Italy, but the director uses it to bring the idea of the movie in sharp relief. The characters' positions relative to the tragedy that unfolds fall quickly into "traditional" discourse patterns: liberal/conservative, sleazy lawyer/kind doctor. The director manages to make this part of the movie not as trite as it could have been, but nonetheless the character development is very "expected". We (the audience) nod our collective heads knowingly as the action unfolds...

Little do we (the audience) know that the first part of the movie is just scaffolding for what happens next. A second tragedy enters the story. This time it's not just a news story that our characters happen to be professionally involved with at arm's length. It's much closer. For the audience, the two tragedies may feel equally distant (and that's the genius of this movie!) but for our characters the second one is very personal. The choices these characters make are unexpected and thought provoking.

The movie becomes a dissertation about where we *really* stand when the rubber meets the road. Talk is cheap, putting your money where your mouth is turns out to be a whole lot harder. The movie contrasts an emotional response to the world around us to a cold and calculated one, and the conclusions may be anything but traditional.

I see a lot of reviews deploring the high rating "The Interview" got on IMDb. Looks like those reviewers expected a philosophical dissertation on the ills of dictatorship. Well, that the movie is not - so let's get that out of the way. It's slapstick comedy... Most of the negative comments are akin to a snob going to Vegas and complaining that the Venetian "is nothing like Venice". Of course it's not! It was never supposed to be.

Given the category this movie belongs to, it's funny and - don't laugh - surprisingly thought provoking. I was expecting Kim's character to be a one-dimensional caricature of a crazed villain a la Dr. Evil. Instead, the movie constructs an - albeit exaggerated - lovable sociopath. If movies like "Austin Powers" deserve 7+ stars, "The Interview" does too. Poking fun at "the American way" of assassinating dictators? Suggesting it may not be the best approach? Come on, admit it - that's deeper than anything you'll ever find in "dumb and dumber".

I for one haven't recovered from the dissonance between this movie's rating on IMDb and my own viewing experience. Maybe my expectations were too high because of the rating? It's one of those things that you like it if you like it (circular argument, but that's exactly my point). Many of the rave reviews I now realize come from Wes Anderson connoiss-fans.

The positives: it is a feast of visual surrealism; it's a virtual fireworks of movie mega-stars that make for a dazzling show. But when the smoke clears, there's not much left. Decent entertainment, but neither brilliant comedy nor sophisticated satire. The cast of the movie would have been capable to deliver either in spades, but the script and direction fell short.