Radu_A

Do yourself a favor and stop watching once Dua Lipa leaves the scene after ten minutes. She is great. After that you get Bryce Dallas Howard. She is terrible. Her cat is great, which makes herself even more terrible. Spy films with female leads usually make an effort to be a little believable, like Charlize Theron in "Atomic Blonde" or Jennifer Lawrence in "Red Sparrow". Silly films but these two made it work. Bryce Dallas Howard doesn't make it work because she is too old and did not exercise. Dua Lipa obviously does, so one cannot help but wonder why she did not get the lead. Or some other fit 28 year old instead of an unfit 43 year old. Sam Rockwell is even worse since he's 55, they might as well have gone with Bruce Willis. Even an action parody requires a smidge of credibility. This is a joke without a punchline. I give it two stars for Dua Lipa and the cat. For those of you who want to watch a silly spy film that actually entertains, I recommend "The Man from U. N. C. L. E." by Guy Ritchie, also starring Henry Cavill, with a much nicer haircut and even nicer suits. Ritchie has also released the Netflix version of "The Gentlemen", which stars a significantly sexier Theo James and has an infinitely better script.

To start with the positives, the costumes are wonderful, the cinematography is gorgeous, the atmosphere is the most Fellini since his own "Satyricon" (1969) or "City of Women" (1980), which Lanthimos is obviously familiar with. Yet those films, lavish as they may be, have aged rather badly as they present an exclusively male gaze at sexuality. So even if Emma Stone delivers the most daring performance of her career, it is a far cry from a believable characterization, let alone a story of emancipation. It is a parody of female liberation set in an absurdly upper class context, shot from an exclusively male perspective. It has a story but no substance. It is series of effects without any tale to string them together.

The Frankenstein premise is what survives of the original novel next to its 1980s Greenaway-ish dialogue, another director who succeeded far more at achieving what Lanthimos attempts here in "A Cook, a Thief, his Wife and Her Lover" (1989). The question of emotional fidelity over sexual instinct is raised in an interesting, albeit borderline pedophile manner (remember, this woman's body contains the brain of a baby). Yet once the protagonist elopes with a brutish lawyer - played in an awfully trite way as to be expected from Mark Ruffalo - the film becomes a series of inconsequential vignettes which do not make the slightest pretense of offering any insights or development. They rather hold together a series of rather dull representations of fornication. The final wrap-up comes off as rushed and unbalanced, and the ignominious goat-brained husband sums up the film quite nicely in its last phrase: "Meh".

If this snorefest has so many admirers, then that's because it's so Instagram-able, because it lends itself to the fabrication of nice little gifs, just like "Saltburn" did (which in my opinion had more gusto). Hollywood is a barren desert of vanity and exhausted moral pretenses, so the slightest whiff of non-conformity comes across as strikingly original to a viewership bereft of any sensual experience. Among the many films which have done what this one has in more entertaining and challenging ways, I would recommend "In the Realm of the Senses" (1976), "Conspiracy of Women" (1988), "Girl on the Bridge" (1999), "Lust Caution" (2007) or "Invisible Life" (2019).

Sometimes banal is just banal, even if it's supposed to expose the banality of evil. But put the Auschwitz label on any footage and it's guaranteed to land an Academy Award nomination.

The film is not without merit, it emphasizes the horror by obliterating it from view. Unlike the kitschy "Boy in the Striped Pajamas", it does not juxtapose evil with innocence. The privileged lifestyle and emotional detachment of the Höss couple highlights the willful ignorance of the Germans towards the enormity of suffering they caused. But this story has been told over and over and over again, and I fail to understand how a few gimmicks like soundscape and infrared camera shots add anything new.

You may find yourself downright annoyed if you are familiar with Martin Amis' novel. The film has nothing at all to do with it and just borrows its title, which I find misleading and disrespectful. The protagonist in the novel, who is completely absent in the film, becomes infatuated with the commander's wife, and this makes her aware how sordid her life is, and that her husband is a sociopath. Contrary to this literary melodrama, the film's sole point is to portray the Nazis as emotionally vacant. That is far from the uncomfortable truth: they were passionate about what they were doing.

And while pretending to stick to the facts, the film fails to mention the real reason for the sudden recall of Höss from command: he impregnated a prisoner. There is a much better German film called "Death is my Trade" (1977) about Rudolf Höss starring Götz George, the son of a Nazi collaborator who died in the Soviet camp Sachsenhausen, incidentally where Höss committed his first mass murder. George's performance is much more involved, the film gives you a far better idea what the Nazis were like.

And if you're really interested, Höss' autobiography is far more horrifying than this bland self-absorbed example of Holokitsch, as the New Yorker's reviewer aptly phrased. You should really read a few books about Auschwitz if you seriously believe this film tells you anything about it.

As someone who lived in Japan between 1994 and 2001 and worked for NHK, I must say that this seafarer tale of yakuza, bôsôzoku, mizu shôbai and the occasional murder is a borderline racist hodgepodge of stereotypes. Yet it's not a bad series, as long as you don't believe any of this to be true.

Tokyo is a mega-city of about 37 million people and its police force has over 40000 officers, so the suggestion that a foreign reporter would meet the same cops over and over again is utter nonsense. You wouldn't believe this in London or New York, why would you believe this in Tokyo? Yakuza membership was already declining in the early 1990s and then went into free fall from Chinese and Russian competition, decreasing to about one third of what it was, so the lifestyle relishly illustrated here was already a thing of the past - and Japanese films of the era reflect that (i. E. "Sonatine").

Jake Adelstein's book has been debunked as self-glorifying, albeit entertaining trash. Ansel Elgort makes a real effort to make his character work. A lot of us Japan nerds were somewhat like that. But the atmosphere at work was hostile, as a gaijin you are left in the loop, nobody gives you any serious work, anyone "showing initiative" like Jake here would be relegated to become a madoguchizoku, "someone staring out of the window". In a Japanese company, you have to run everything you do by your superiors, a realistic look at this would be the French film "Fear and Trembling". I suspect that this is pretty much what happened to Adelstein, and that his book was his response, a form of revenge on a culture he initially admired and then felt excluded from. That is exactly why the Japanese keep us foreigners outside, which is what the word foreigner literally means ("outside person").

However, once again - the series is good entertainment, well written and condensed, as long as you don't believe anything.

Percival Everett's "Erasure" came out in 2001 as a response to the commercialization of rap culture and the ensuing in da ghetto stereotypes. This much belated adaptation, which would have been perfectly timed ten years ago, does a good job in bringing the main points across, but the novel is far more enjoyable and uncompromising.

I understand why the death of the protagonist's sister has been watered down, that part was the most difficult to accept in the original text. But the book he writes as a response is printed in full there, and I don't get why this was just briefly alluded to with a completely different characterization. In the real "My Pafology", the protagonist is a youngster with four kids by four mothers whom he abuses and cheats, and his downfall is copied from Richard Wright's "Native Son" replacing murder with rape. That is way more revealing as to the perverse satisfaction white Americans derive from confirming their stereotypes of the good-for-nothing black male, a service they compensate with recognition and money.

The film rushes through the talking points without giving due credit to its own title, the work of fiction it's based on. There is one nice add-on, a dialogue between the protagonist and the author of the stereotypical book that initially draws his ire, but overall those who have read "Erasure" will likely feel disappointed, while those who only watch the film will not know how much they've been missing.

When I think about the best films on a controversial subject in the past decade, whether it's feminism, AI, urbanization, natural disasters, global warming or a pandemic, the standout film is from Kerala, and now this extends to closet life. It must have been hard for Jeo Baby to finalize a follow-up to the much celebrated "Great Indian Kitchen", but to tackle this issue and get a star like Mammootty involved is without precedent. The result is a film that could never be produced in Bollywood because it would be seen as too much of a commercial risk. Imagine SRK's reaction had he been offered this script.

The story unfolds in a much simpler way than "Kitchen" and it's probably less enjoyable the more you know, because then you're just waiting for the key moments. Jeo Baby has a fantastic talent for visual storytelling, you experience the development the characters go through, particularly Mammootty who might have done his best work here in spite of such a long and illustrious career. Jyothika is a bit too reserved apart from the end, but it is a difficult role.

The two weaknesses of the film are a) the absence of the daughter's opinion which is quite surprising. That's a really important part of the story, I don't understand why this has been omitted. And b) there is no explanation of the crux of the matter, which is just superficially brushed upon, but maybe you have to be queer (like myself) to notice this. Stop reading if you don't want to know too much, continue if you are straight and confused about this bit in the story: if you are gay and identify with the active male role, it is not only common to be pressured into marriage by your relatives, since there's "nothing wrong" with you. You also keep telling yourself that you're nothing like "them" because you talk and behave "normally". There should have been a dialogue about that between the two united friends at the end, we've all been there.

This would be OK if it wasn't so obviously written for American film festival audiences as the story of a teacher trying to inspire his pupils never gets old. "The Class" (2008) or "Monsieur Lazhar" are good examples of the genre. What is totally missing here is conflict, an effort to win the kids over, which is crucial for the relevance of films of this kind. "The Teacher's Lounge", which is nominated for best foreign film this year, is an example how badly communication between teacher and students can go wrong.

In "Radical", things just magically work themselves out, the low class children have no problem whatsoever to accept the authority of a weirdo. The two stand-outs are defined in crystal contrast, a highly intelligent girl whose father is a garbage collector and dreams of becoming an astronaut, and a pretty boy mixed up with a narco gang. Of course these two have to become involved and of course there is a very predictable tragedy.

This comes out of a country which has given us some of the most hard-hitting dramas of recent years, like "Prayers for the Stolen", "Identifying Features" or "A Cop Movie". It's OK not to constantly show gritty brutality and go for a more uplifting approach, but I fail to see a local style in this yankee pleaser, like Cuarón's in "Roma" or Iñárritu's in "Bardo" which could only be Mexican films. This is American through and through, it has no life of its own, and I find that rather insulting to the real-life people the story is based on.

While this is not just Doris Day's personal favorite among her films, it was also a lesbian cult film and is still regarded as a milestone in queer film history. The number of allusions, apart from the famous reference in the Oscar-winning song "Secret Love" (which used to be sung by drag queens in underground bars as a gay anthem), are far too many to be coincidental:

• The mistakenly invited drag performer Francis sings "I'm over 21 and free" while a trombone tears off his wig, a reference to the legal age of consent at the time;
• He and the theater manager end up being covered by a pink shroud in the subsequent riot;
• When Calam arrives in Chicago in her cowboy suit, she ogles a passing woman who smiles back at her;
• Upon meeting Abigail / Katie in the dressing room, Calamity says "'I've never known a woman could look like that";
• Arriving in Deadwood, the theater manager shows Katie the drag performer Francis with the words "permit me introduce a fellow thespian" as he wears a lilac suit matching her dress;
• When Calam shows Katie her cabin, she says "You and me will batch it here as cozy as two bugs in a blanket";
• While renovating the cabin, Katie paints "Calam and Katie" on the door together with a few pansies;
• When Calam and Katie ultimately reconcile and embrace, the coach driver says "Females. Pure females".

All that being said, the film is set in the Black Hills which were well known to be sacred to the Sioux even then. On the way to the ball Calam tells Bill "Don't it thrill you just to look at them hills? No wonder the Injuns fight so fierce to hang on to this country", and then Bill sings "Take me back to the Black Hills, to the beautiful Indian country that I love". So while I love the banter, this scene is insulting for the Sioux and was featured in the documentary "Lakota Nation vs. United States" (2022).

So this is of course polarizing and yes, Silva does have a tendency to deliberately shock for no dramatic purpose, but this film is carried by his muse Catalina Saavedra who helped him to stardom as "La Nana" (2009) which won Sundance back in the day. Silva then moved to the US and made one terrible film after another, all lacking the ingenious timing of "La Nana", so he has good reasons to be depressed and suicidal. This film is obviously a cleansing ritual of sorts, Silva kills himself to be born again, and while this may seem terribly self-centered, it does provide one of the most neglected actresses a chance to show her vast range.

It's also a rare satire of hedonistic queer life as only Almodóvar did before respectability killed his genius, also in collaboration with muses, most importantly Carmen Maura. It's no coincidence that Saavedra's part has similarities with Maura's in "What have I done to deserve this" (1984). Firstman is pretty gutsy doing a role like this (just imagine, Michael Cera turned it down). He is an Instagramer and this film makes you hate them even more. Most people don't seem to get the allegory of the artist working on film and canvas (which Saavedra destroys in her first scene) being replaced by the digital usurper, although that elevates the film to social criticism.

For me it's a positive surprise as I didn't expect much from it, but the shock value for non-gays makes it niche. To paraphrase a Latino saying, Americans just can't look cocks in the eye(s).

While one can take issue with a heavy-handed plot and character exaggeration, there has been no other European film this year that pulled at my heart strings so hard. In part that's due to another Academy Award-worthy performance of Mads Mikkelsen, perhaps the world's greatest active actor. His lonely hero fighting the elements and a brutal class system could not have worked with anybody else. No one else can express grief and dejection or pride and resilience like he can, with as little as a raised eyebrow.

The story is classic Western lore: a single settler attempts to cultivate barren land. He gets no support from a hostile upper class who see him as a threat to their privilege, and makes an enemy out of a sadistic landowner who wants to buy up the entire area (it's never properly explained what he intends to use it for). He weathers setbacks and intrigues, eventually succeeds, but then abandons his ambition for love.

The novel by Ida Jessen won many awards for being meticulously well researched in a style similar to Hilary Mantel's. The screenplay by Anders Thomas Jensen, a more prominent director than Arcel who launched Mikkelsen's international career with "Adam's Apples" (2005), keeps this attention to detail. The female lead is also a familiar face to American audiences, since Amanda Collin played the lead in the dystopian SciFi series "Raised by Wolves".

What makes this my European favorite film of the year is the presence of a non-stereotypical Romani character, since the debate on racism over the past ten years has almost completely ignored them - justifying doubt in its sincerity. The foundation of the hatred against gypsies is the idea that they are strangers without any history, while they have lived in Europe for 600 years under atrocious conditions. This film is a long overdue first step to acknowledging this.

Period dramas are usually set in royal courts (including Arcel's own "A Royal Affair" (2012), this one explores the power dynamics of the late feudal era - nobility versus the people, men versus women, Danes and Germans versus Roma and Travelers. Apart from the Romanian "Aferim" (2015), which was also a Western, I do not recall any other film addressing slavery in Europe. It would have been too much for a single movie to explain all this, but a little more information would have lessened the outlandish quality of the villain's cruelty, which borders on caricature. That is the one weak spot of the film, his behavior borders on ridicule. But it is true that these horrific practices actually happened and were actually legal.

So all in all this is the best European fiction film of the year, although I'm fairly certain the foreign Academy Award will go to the more important "20 Days in Mariupol".

...And will lie there forever / If your hands were in mine / I'd be sure we'd not sever / My apple tree, my brightness / It's time we were together / For I smell of the earth / And am worn by the weather

Given the most controversial scene of this schlocky satire, it's safe to assume Fennell is familiar with the 17th century Irish ballad made famous by Sinead O'Connor's melodramatic interpretation. And that scene also represents the best and the worst of her follow-up to "Promising Young Woman", which has the same strengths and weaknesses: the lead is far too old to be believable in that role, but the photography is awe-inspiring; the story is completely overboard, but as long as one doesn't take it seriously quite enjoyable; and the shocking tidbits that will become popular memes barely camouflage how shallow the film is.

It's better than PYW because of Archie Madekwe, whose vitriolic Farleigh steals the show. I didn't see that coming after the rather bland "Gran Turismo", but he really seizes this opportunity to make a big name for himself. And the fact that he is so good also points out the cringe-worthy weakness of the last act - where is he? The audience expects a last turning of the tables, but it's not coming. And you are also supposed to believe that there are no police investigations into the untimely expiry of rich people, in a country where class determines everything according to the script.

If you are a young viewer interested in punches at British class hypocrisy, I'd recommend "The Ruling Class" (1972) and "Eat the Rich" (1987). "Saltburn" is a vain film about vanity yet gorgeously made. And I can't wait to see what Madekwe will do next.

Zhang Yimou is the most famous Chinese director of all time, but even he cannot be sure to get away with social criticism after the clampdowns against Jack Ma, Hong Kong activists and CoVid critics. So what does a film maker do when he wants to address the frustration many of his compatriots feel? He resorts to satire, and sets the action comfortably far away in the past.

What starts out as a mystery concerning a missing letter no one must know quickly turns into slapstick comedy, and many viewers familiar with Zhang's epics feel let down by this because there isn't really any suspense. There are numerous twists and turns which seem haphazard and do not dive the plot forward. All the while the action is confined to the same palace grounds. It's totally understandable if this seems rather pointless and dull. And the Hamlet-like ending seems out of sync with the previous irony.

And yet, there is something beneath which only people familiar with authoritarian regimes will catch on to - the zeal of government officials to save their own skin with complete disregard to the task at hand. The characters constantly plot against each other and/or form allegiances to somehow emerge from the whole dilemma unscathed. It's mostly in vain because they are puppets of an invisible power - like in contemporary China, where no one can figure out the meaning behind the latest regulations, and where even the powerful thrive at the mercy of appearances. Even the title-giving poem, which could be seen as an allusion to Taiwan, is actually just another smokescreen for personal ambition.

If Zhang had made this into a straightforward mystery or wuxia, it could have been interpreted as subversive by the censors, but because it's farcical, it's all a joke so they can't. So even if the story is too convoluted and the black humor doesn't stick, it's probably still a breath of fresh air for many Chinese spectators and deserves its commercial success.

Turkish-born Ferzan Özpetek has long been Italy's most prominent gay film maker, but his films have always missed a certain something. They are extremely well made with gorgeous photography. Özpetek was the first to revive the aesthetic qualities of Italian cinema with "Hamam" (1997), which would later be perfected by the likes of Sorrentino and Guadagnino. But his films have lacked character depth, and had interesting themes but remained superficial. His greatest film so far was definitely "Le fate ignoranti" (2001) but that was because of the extraordinary acting of Margherita Buy who became a star because of it.

In "Nuovo Olimpo", however, he finally puts his talents to work on a largely autobiographical story. The imagery of Rome, the location setting, the contemporary look of the male leads, their moving back and forth from each other, the incidental quality of gay encounters, the specific Italian sexual ambiguity, and even the sex scenes are perfect. Because Özpetek invests his own emotions of the time, you can actually FEEL them. Only a handful of gay-themed period pieces have achieved this blend of nostalgic reminiscence and romantic storytelling.

The one weakness of the film is female characters, which is a problem of most gay directors apart from Almodóvar (whose female roles are his films biggest strength). Precisely because the emotional world of the two male leads is so well observed, the similarity and sometimes stereotypical behavior of the film's women becomes a bit of a burden (and in the end descends into outright kitsch). They all share a similar look and way of thinking which keeps the film from becoming flawless. Still, it's far and away the best gay-themed movie since "Call me by your Name".

This is arguably the most controversial European film this year and was targeted by the Polish government as being fascist because it showcases the fascist methods this government has employed. Director Agnieszka Holland, the most important living Polish director who won the Academy Award for the German Holocaust film "Europa Europa" in 1990, became the victim of a vicious trolling campaign. It's laudable that she took such a risk at age 75, but at the same time, the film is also extremely one-sided and juxtaposes poor helpless refugees and honorable Christian-minded activists with fascist Polish and Belarusian border police.

The reality is, as usual, in the middle: Europe cannot harbor all of the estimated 300 million people at risk in the world, and the laws to regulate illegal immigration have been put at place to protect society as a whole. Angela Merkel - the most overrated politician of all time - did Europe a huge disservice by creating pull factors resulting in a permanent humanitarian crisis, which puts those who are tasked with enforcing the law under constant pressure. The film completely refuses to address this.

By doing a Cinema Verité approach with a Good vs. Evil angle, Holland ignores the existential crisis the European Union is in (and which it most likely will not survive). The nod towards Ukraine in the end would have been an opportunity to point out the difference between those for whom political asylum is intended - war refugees - and those who are using the system for a chance of a better life far away from their corrupt governments. But Holland sticks to her images of noble poor and evil authorities. So while the campaign against her is odious, that doesn't make her agitprop simplistic film any better.

I don't understand the lackluster reviews, this is the edgiest Conan movie in about 20 years and not safe for kids. I'm writing this review mainly to warn parents that this film is too dark for kids under the age of 12, but that doesn't mean it's bad, on the contrary.

The TV show switches between harmless kids entertainment and the occasional intriguing mystery, the films usually cater to a high school audience - like Kudô Shin'ichi's real teenager identity. In recent years, they've added more action and violence, probably to keep first generation fans interested (who are around 40 now). But this time, there's a new political dimension paying tribute to the popularity of darker themes in mainstream anime. The abduction by submarine places the Black Organization in the orbit of North Korea, which indeed captured a number of Japanese citizens. The topic of face recognition AI being hijacked by terrorists is quite scary and difficult to explain to little kids without freaking them out. There is an assassination scene which is definitely too much for small children (but very well done with a lot of suspense).

"The Phantom of Baker Street" (2002), arguably the best Conan film, took a similarly sinister approach but was the exception from the rule. I for one am grateful that the franchise is trying to take a more mature direction, but if you want your kids to have a harmless good time, watch the latest "Doraemon" with them.

This show is a perfect example how a good idea crumbles under the weight of its own premise. The setting makes for a perfect mystery scenario: reclusive tech billionaire assembles a motley crew of entrepreneurs and artists in his Icelandic resort, and then death comes a-knockin'. The writers obviously thought that the rest of he story would appear by itself, so we get a cringe-worthy Lisbeth Salander knock-off as an internet sleuth trying to put the pieces together. She has no painful back story like in "Dragon Tattoo", but just happens to be a moody Gen-Z making increasingly bad decisions. By the end of episode 5 you will either have quit this show or you'll enjoy the worst ever written lead character for its trash factor. I mean, what is the one thing you don't do on a nocturnal date by a pool with an unknown informant?

Supposedly intelligent people doing incredibly stupid things has become a major problem in US content. "The Glass Onion" had a similarly convoluted implausible plot. Good mystery shows have identifiable characters like "Only Murders in the Building", which is so beloved by its fans that it may run until Steve Martin and Martin Short's natural expiration date - because it is very well written and even its least important roles are memorable. This show is just about a bunch of unsympathetic elitists unable to figure out the laziest murder mystery ever (if you don't know who the killer is by episode 5, you've never read a novel).

The intriguing setting could have been saved by a local director like Baltasar Kormakur who perfected the Icelandic murder mystery with "Trapped" (2015-2021) and made use of its spectacular landscape in the disturbing "Katla" (2021). Kormakur makes trashy action films like "Beast" for Hollywood, but his local films make excellent use of the isolation Iceland's unique atmosphere inspires.

Science is hard. You have to read a lot of stuff and you also have to use your brain to understand it. This pseudocumentary is one of the most prominent examples how mental laziness combined with the devastating impact of (a)social media can turn historical science into conspiracy banter. The Ph. D. holders in this world stand little chance to weather an avalanche of BS, but the willingness of so many people to subscribe to outlandish theories forces as many clarifications as patience can muster.

The film's premise is that the tools of 4500 years ago would not have allowed Ancient Egyptians to build on such a magnificent scale, and that the pyramids - and other major ancient constructions - serve an astronomical rather than a religious or funerary purpose. The jumpy conclusion is that they must be remnants of a civilization that came before us, and that they intend us to warn about the consequences of climate change. To make that last point, artifacts from a time span of over 4000 years are haphazardly combined, from the pyramids to the Moai on Rapa Nui.

All of this can be easily debunked. The Ancient Egyptians developed an understanding of Geometry early on because the tide of the Nile was paramount for harvesting and taxation. Architects such as the first Pharaoh's chancellor Imhotep were revered (in his case deified), and construction was viewed as supreme art. Astronomy was one of the earliest scientific endeavors because the stars were the only source of light apart from the sun, which was identified as the source of vegetation and therefore life early on. The combination of ritualistic and scientific purposes makes complete sense in such an environment. Ancient Egypt was a totalitarian monarchy, so the entire population could be obliged - perhaps even willingly so - to participate in the construction of a monument to not just their ruler, but their society as a whole, which would explain their relatively short construction period.

Why then do so many people believe that this is just not possible? The most likely response would be racism. Mathematics and Geometry are commonly ascribed to Caucasian Greeks of the 6th/5th century BC, although it's obvious that they learned it from Egyptians during the Minoan Age. There's just no solid proof for this because of thousands of years of warfare. Especially Frenchmen like the "informer" of this film Jacques Grimault (who is involved in lots of litigation by the way) have come up with intellectual constructs to declare non-Caucasian civilizations incapable of scientific achievement. The inventor of race theory, Arthur de Gobineau, was French after all. That doesn't mean the Ancient Egyptians were black, they were bronze-colored, but African nevertheless - and so are their achievements.

While I am generally not in favor of critical race theory (complex problems are not solved with general theories), this film is actually a fairly good example why it's necessary. The real mystery is not how the pyramids were built, but why so many people regard our civilization as the pinnacle of human existence.

While this is not the worst film of the year - that title belongs to the intolerably pretentious "Beau is Afraid" - "The Creator" is a horribly patchy pastiche of dozens of SciFi classics, and if "Tenet" was not testimony to John David Washington's complete lack of acting skills, then this mindless drivel is. Having Denzel's genes doesn't mean having talent, and it's time for Washington to finally realize that and enjoy his football money on some island retreat. He walks through the film like one of the robots, and I for one will never put myself through watching anything with him in it ever again.

The almost non-existing story centers around the relationship between a merc and his mark, and a director can either downplay this as much as possible by blowing things up every two minutes, or one can use an actor who can carry emotions through explosions - which Denzel Washington can, but his son most definitely cannot. Unfortunately, Edwards does both, so the film meanders between brainless shootouts and incoherent encounters. If you use your brain for a second while watching this, you will inevitably experience the searing pain of intelligence insult since nothing makes sense.

The tidbit narrative is a constant reminder how much better the films that inspired it are. Most annoyingly, the film makes zero use of its underlying theme of a fascist white American society persecuting an Asian culture. And while that is a tired and simplistic approach to begin with, going all the way with a "bad white people vs. Good Asian hybrids" would at least have been edgy given US-Chinese relations. Yet this is just one of the many missed opportunities here. A genuinely bad film is easier to watch than one full of wasted potential, and "The Creator" is a prime example.

While the story is fairly simple, Paul Negoescu (who did the 2016 hit film Two Lottery Tickets) certainly gives it a typical Romanian twist which will keep us expats chuckling and foreign audiences well entertained.

There are quite a few similarities with the deadpan narrative style of the Coen Brothers in "Fargo": a rural police officer, who covers up the mayor's smuggling activities, has just gotten a new partner when a murder happens. It's pretty clear from the start who's responsible, but since this community is ripe with corruption, the cop knows better than to investigate for real. Yet another event pushes him into a crisis of confidence, resulting in a quite unforgettable showdown.

The film starts very slow and observant like the Romanian New Wave ones but gradually changes into a very dark comedy. It deserved its many Gopo awards (domestic Oscar) for this, especially for Iulian Postelnicu's zero to hero performance. Rare for a Romanian film, it got released in the US, so I suppose it may land an Academy Award nomination. Like Caranfil, Negoescu is a bit too funny for the European idea of a Romanian film, so you'll have to search for this if you live abroad, but it's definitely worth it.

That is a new wave of gothic horror mixed with social critique, its most famous representative being Mariana Enriquez. If you like this film, you should definitely read "Things we lost in the Fire" or the fantastic "Our Share of Night" which has just recently been published in English. Demian Rugna is obviously familiar with that book, there are many similarities, especially the gore. I would not be surprised if he adapted it next, hopefully with a much higher budget, which is the major drawback of this little gem. This is a fairly good possession movie but there are some major continuity problems and the climax is weak. Still, better than anything genre coming out of the US this year.

What is the most famous Australian horror movie of all time? "The Babadook", which strangely has a way lower rating on this site. If you compare that film to this one, you will invariably notice that the writing is much tighter. There is nothing excessive or unnecessary. The atmosphere keeps building throughout the entire film. And the suspense of not knowing whether or not you're watching a supernatural event or a psychological breakdown never lets up.

"Talk to me" starts with an establishing scene that gives away what is going to follow. The embalmed hand of the poster is a poorly made prop compared to the genuinely scary children's book in "Babadook". And what I really did not like is the resolution, which combines a psychological and supernatural explanation in a very lazy way. The last shot was completely unnecessary - in horror, less is more.

The popularity of what is ultimately an average low budget psycho thriller with an illogical twist must be due to the lack of any solid horror films lately. Better re-watch or discover classics with a similar vein but better execution, like "The Innocents" (1961), "Rosemary's Baby" (1968), "Don't look now" (1973) or "Jacob's Ladder" (1990).

Nader's tombstone will probably say that he single-handedly prevented a green president by running for the Green Party.

What's very good about this film is the contrast between most journalists who condemn Nader's hubris for not taking responsibility to help the worst US president in history to power - and the unrelenting support by his team and partisans. They are right that the two party systems turned the US into an oligarchy of interest groups. But by 2004 it was already clear what a disaster the Bush presidency was, so the personal attacks on Nader's renewed run were understandable.

Michael Moore is shown endorsing him in 2000 saying that it's undemocratic to vote for the lesser evil, and then in 2004 he begs him on his knees not to run. Yet the Electoral College was the same impediment to democracy in 2000, so given what was at stake, the Nader supporters should have known better. Nader points out that the Democrats supported many Republican efforts, foremost the Iraq war. He is absolutely right to condemn Kerry for taking a pro-war stance at a time when 42% of Americans wanted it to end. So it is unfair to blame him for the Democrats' disastrous campaign(s).

While fairly balanced, the film tries to point out through his legacy in consumer protection that he would have made an excellent president. Still, all of us who remember Election 2000 will forever wonder what kind of a world we would live in if Nader had conceded in favor of Gore before election night. Probably a far better one.

"It's just human nature to take time to connect the dots. I know that. But I also know that there can be a day of reckoning when you wish you had connected the dots more quickly" (Al Gore on his father stopping farming tobacco after his sister died of lung cancer).

This is essentially a slideshow presentation of Gore's book and yes, it is a bit self-promoting, but a neutral observer can hardly deny Gore's arguments. We are now past the point of no return on various issues discussed here. Gore describes heat waves and storms in 2006 which have meanwhile occurred in reality. The Arctic permafrost is almost gone which has indeed slowed down AMOC; this summer we began to see the consequences. But we're still here, and the fact that we're still breathing still serves as justification for climate change denial.

Gore was wrong about a few things - Lake Chad still exists, water levels have not yet risen (apart from Bangladesh). But he was right about the consequences of doing nothing - migration to Europe exploded because arable land desertification in the Equatorial Zone. Gore also mentioned the consensus on climate change, that not a single peer reviewed article in the past ten years had denied the existence of the problem.

So why is climate change still such a contentious issue for so many Americans? Don't they realize that this is not a matter of partisanship but a matter of life and death? The core issue might be that it is very likely that, had Gore been president, the world would be a better place. So Republicans would have to admit to themselves and the world that they were not just wrong about global warming, but their entire agenda as well. It's easier to militantly deny having been wrong for so many decades than to admit to endangering one's own children's future. Yet like for Gore's father, there will be a day of reckoning.

I lived in Berlin at the time the story is set and know that district, and while there is some truth to the story (which has gotten a lot worse), I gotta say it's far fetched and overblown. Berlin is not Paris and Neukölln is not Nanterre - that area is 25 minutes by subway to city center. A far cry from growing up in da hood classics like "Fresh" (1994), this is a series of bro stereotypes: meek German teenager constantly pressured by dysfunctional relatives, immature peers and bloodthirsty Muslims. I'm from the Balkans and even I think that's a tad simplistic. The director comes from a privileged background and has an annoying preachy tendency. The film is to be used as learning material on toxic masculinity in high schools, that gives you an idea what to expect. That being said, it's well made and the acting is very good for a German film. And the pressing motive has meanwhile become very real: German youngsters (and men) feel emasculated and worthless among migrant alpha males.

...of Romaphobia, but given how virulent this problem is, it's remarkable that a film about this subject has been made at all.

The story is straightforward and simple: a Ukrainian immigrant mother (BEFORE the war) learns her son is in hospital with heavy injuries. Under police interrogation he alleges to have been attacked by three Roma, and the eldest son of the mother's neighbor is arrested (with whom she has a bad relationship). It quickly emerges though that the boy made up this story to cover up a silly accident. By then, the political engine is already running, and the mother finds herself receiving benefits for being a convenient victim of the threat Roma represent.

While the focus on the mother befits the story, there is no context, no explanation why the Czechs have this deep-seated hatred towards the Roma. The film would have benefited from giving the other mother of the imprisoned boy - the real victim - a voice.

The relationship between Czechs and Roma is so bad because of a sterilization program under Communism so the distrust of the Roma towards the Czechs is very strong. The Czechs do not accept them because they used to work in mines and were resettled as cheap labor from other parts of the Austrian Empire about 150 years ago. They became impoverished when the mines shut down so the Czechs consider them useless.

It would take at least ten films to properly explain this, so while the film is a good character study of a mother dealing with the consequences of her son''s lies, it is not a social commentary on racism, but rather accepts racism as a given.