BlizzyFoxTF

Pixar's 2000s streak of golden cinema is now a distant memory. Their products in the 2010s vary from the exceptional to the absolute mediocre. Among those, "Inside Out" stands out as not only their best effort in years, but also an all time crowning achievement in the genre as a whole. So what hopes that Pete Docter, one of the few subsisting minds left in the creative powerhouse that is Pixar's founding cast, can deliver another impeccable 90 minute film with a blueprint so similar to his 2015 masterpiece?

Soul pales in comparision to Inside Out. By a lot, for that matter.

The most troubling thing about Soul is its pacing. This is a recurring problem for many of Pixar's recent works, like Coco. Scenes do not hit hard enough because there is no time to build them up. The level of investment in these characters is rather average because there is little time for development. Plot points are confusing and trivial because they are too hurried to make an impression, or contribute to the narrative meaningfully. The world building is poorly executed. The film opens with a salvo of expositions, lasting but a few seconds before being buried into the pile. Everthing feels shallow at the getgo, and as a result all these colourful scenary and technical marvel are squandered by the film's breakneck pace. Soul has an interesting story to tell, but its narrative is so exceptionally bad that the first hour of the film sits among the worst things Pixar has to offer, the trench of Pixar's illustrious oeuvre. It is really an example of how not to do a high-concept film, which is surprising considering its Pixar. The worst moment in the film is easily Joe's confrontation with his mother halfway through. His mother's change of heart was done so abruptly and so nonsensically that it makes me wonder why Pete Docter, a legend no less, would even let this lazy character arc to creep into the final product. Not even a kid would appreciate this montrosity. Also, you cannot argue that given how plot heavy the film is, it cannot be trimmed. If the film makes the bold decision to break away from their imbecilic Pixar formula and stop forcing in mediocre jokes every two minutes, there is room for better delivery.

Soul hammers hard on its themes and messages. While it is evident in Inside Out as well, it is done so much more organic there. In Soul, almost every motivation and thought process are articulated (except for Dorothy Williams' analogy). Characters burst into philosophical solioques and repeat the same ideas in case the 4 year old child does not get it. The themes themselves are okay. I enjoy them. I don't find it as emotional and profound as Inside Out's carthatic epiphany of coming of age blues, and its melancholic probe into the value of sadness among other emotions. Still, I cannot deny the relatability of Soul's meditation on human consciousness, purpose of life, and the value of process/journey (a theme so overdone that I will give it pass owing to it being a children film), which may be a stronger case for many others. That said, The abundance of themes can come as a detriment to the film. I never got really buy into 22 struggles, whose sense of self-depreciation eventually causes a meltdown, where I think the takeaway message around her character is rather shoehorned in and superfluous. It is quite thoughtful though that she tries to mask the true reason why she doesn't want to go to earth, which isn't because she hates earth but her frustration that she can't find a purpose. Not that the climax, once again, mirrors another scene from Inside Out (where Sadness rides a cloud). The Inside Out parallels are prolific throughout the Soul; the sense of deja vu is strong.

Even if I look pass the weaknesses of Soul's storytelling, I still don't think it belongs to the upper echelon of Pixar films, which remains so colourful, memorable, revisitable so many years since their releases. Here in Soul we do not have characters that are nearly as iconic as the Incredibles or the entire cast of Finding Nemo, not to mention a villain as stellar as Anton Ego or Buddy Pine. Pete is a legendary director, but in this case he is not as deft and sharp as Brad Bird, nor as patient and deliberate as Andrew Stanton. The animation does not feel as ground breaking as Pixar's early CGI ventures, or as bravura and photorealistic as The Good Dinosaur. The writing is quite garbage, and the exposition smothers me for a good part of the film. Like Coco, it follows this newfound Pixar formula, marked by colourful but dull characters, bad jokes, reusable story structure, and a steadfast propensity to play it safe, sadly undermining the unhinged creativity that blasted Toy Story and Wall-E to the stratosphere decades ago.

All that said, I like this movie. Surprising considering the length I went into critizising the movie, but it is only because Pixar standards are not easy to meet. I find the film's plot rather interesting and well rounded. The last leg of the film puts the film into perspective and does a great job at delivering a message whilst making you emotional. That part is also much slower and allows for several key scenes to sink in, which is a very nice change of pace. Pixar's take on NY city is quirky, fun and occasionally clever (metro sign). While it is nowhere near the love letter Ratatouille concocted for Paris (Joe plays the piano how Remy bites into food, quite the ripoff), I think it still does a very decent job. It is also nice to see Pixar's inclusion of the black community as the centerpiece for a major release. The only other occasion where black culture is the focus in any Pixar film is Samuel L Jackon's Frozone.

I can go into great lengths on why I rank Soul below the studio's magnum opuses or even Pete's last brainchild from five years ago. However, I can't deny the film merits and overall charm. Pete Docter is a creative talent and his spirited delivery, for the better or worse, defines the film. You can see his passion seeping out of every frame. Overall, a decent Pixar entry.

A very good war film that depicts the throes of war to a tee, but lacking the nuance that is evident in Spielberg or Cauron's works. Polanski seemed to opt for a less realistic approach in directing this movie, and characters seem more aware that they are in a film than in Schindler's List or Children of Men. In other words, despite the direction being incredibly deft and skillful, it can feel stiff at certain points of the film, and the set pieces artificial and unnatural. The pacing is very well done here, but the fast pace bereaves time for character building. As a result, despite the plethora of violence and moments of despair, they don't land as hard on an emotional level. The side characters/victims are not fleshed out enough, and there's a feel of spectacle for spectacle sake, where scenes play out for an overt intention to fish out visceral reactions. Without ample build up, I find it rather void. There are also quite a few plot contrivances in the film, which point to its main goal of achieving mainstream appeal. The story is decent, and I do not consider it a weak asset despite how simple it is. The protagonist's journey is wild and gripping, but it is not consistently interesting enough to considered very memorable - there aren't quite enough iconic moments or sequences that leaves a profound mark. The reaction between two certain characters at the end of the film could have used a bit more development, especially for one person whom we only come across at the end of the film; a better approach would be to do a dual/ interspersing narrative to introduce that character before that critical scene, such that it holds more weight. Speaking of characters, I feel like there are not enough bad important characters in the film, as opposed to a few good ones that exist. Perhaps it is intentional, with which the film conveys the message that warfare itself is the evil menace while humanity is inherently kind. Still, if there is more contrast presented in certain individuals, those "noble" characters would make a bigger impact in both the story and the audience, since it would accentuate the film's "message". Lastly, the film's core theme isn't entirely new either. I don't see any new ideas presented in the film other than the cruelty of war, and the struggles of suppressed ethnic groups under tyranny. The protagonist is a lovable character, carried by an amazing performance by Brody, but it is also rather one dimensional that sees little character growth by the end of the film. The Pianist is after all a standard war film, a very well rounded, crowd-pleasing one at that, or at least it feels like one. It does not seem to try achieve much more beyond that.

As for the positive aspects, there isn't much that people haven't said already. The cinematography is fantastic, especially the scenes filmed at night. Brody's performance is electrifying and pretty much carries the whole movie. Like I said, the pacing is very well done, and although I find the first hour of the film rather dull, it never feels like it drags at any point, thanks to Polanski's expert direction. The wide appeal of the film means that it is a good recommendation for people who are new to war films. Overall, I don't think it is a 10/10 masterpiece that many hyped it up to be. I think Schindler's List and Children of Men are both far superior films. Yet, it certainly is an enjoyable experience if you are looking for a more palatable war film (there is a fair bit of violence though, so I wouldn't consider it too family friendly).

Who knew there is still so much gas left in Sacha Baron Cohen's tank 14 years into the future? And as Borat, no less.

I have been a big fan of SBC's work for many years. Borat is a one of a kind classic. Ali G and Bruno are also testaments to not only his comedic genius, but his keen eye on social satire. I am not the biggest fan of "Who is America?". I think the series is inconsistent and relies too much on crude humor. No one expected SBC to pull his beloved old character from the dead in what I consider to be his most adventurous project yet, and yet he did.

While some of those vulgar sex jokes from "Who is America?" still carry over to this film, it is its most salient flaw. This "sequel" took the retired character of Borat into the limelight and improved upon its predecessor not only in terms of its narrative flow, but also its characters and plot. The quality of the pranks get better as the film plays out, and what the film delivers in emotional beats, political commentary and entertainment value as it resolves is way beyond my original expectations. It feels like both an update on the American social and political climate and a love letter/beautiful resolution to the themes and ideas presented in the first Borat film. It justifies its existence in triumphant style. Given the circumstances surrounding the production, with the COVID-19 virus still prevalent throughout the film's production, this film is a rare gem that almost feels impossible to concoct given its sheer ambition and big risks. Not sure if I can credit it to a perfect storm of coincidences or just SBC's experience and genius.

This film is an essential watch. I can understand how it may be unsuitable for certain audiences, especially parties that the film blatantly targets against and audiences who are turned away by Baron's typical hard R content. However, for those who "gets it" and appreciate what SBC has contributed to humanity over the last two decades, this is a fresh classic, almost a throwback to the old days of the Ali G show and Borat. For this, I and many others are elated. Ladies and folks, another Borat film to savour! What a memorable one at that!

Great direction. Great script. Great cinematography. Feels like a Coen brother adaptation of a John Steinbeck novel in the first half. I was thoroughly impressed until the third act, which I think the film loses its focus and resolves weakly. Quite a shame because the final product shows a lot of potential. Had the ending been better, and the focus on established themes continued into the film's final moments, this could have easily been one of the best films of the year.

SPOILERS While heavy handed in it's delivery, the film shows from many perspectives how corrupted religion can become and how it destroys lives. At the end of the film though, the main theme somehow becomes fighting the evils in the world in general. This peculiar shift in focus is the film's major problem, and it also applies to Tom Holland's Arwin being the centerpiece at the end while shunned for a more sprawling narrative for a big portion of the movie. While I'm not against Arwin surviving, I'm certainly not in favor of the direction it takes to keep him alive. The film does not want to kill their prized star. They make it very obvious and it is a tad bit disappointing.

Another gripe I have is how the film explains it's plot and themes to it's audience - it holds your hand instead of letting you decipher the ideas yourself. "This person is no good, and also that person." Look, I get it, you clearly showed it in your many other scenes. Why articulate it out loud? Those short flashbacks are also superfluous. Not everyone in the audience has goldfish memory, although the director thinks we do.

Overall, Tom Holland's performance is good but rather inconsistent. Patterson did an excellent job as the pastor, although his terrible accent did stick out at certain moments. This pretty much sums up all my major problems with the movie. I still like it a lot though, because the direction and dialogue are truly above average. I would imagine the Coen brothers taking on the same material and deliver a very similar but slightly better work. Lots of unrealized potential, but still my views are quite positive given that it exceeded my expectations.

Easily the most abstract of legendary screenwriter Charlie Kaufman's works, and probably his most underappreciated, which says a lot considering how many of his films fit into the same description (Synecdoche, Anomalisa). To me, Kaufman is a mixed bag. Although one of a kind, his themes are bogged with self obsessed ideas of aging and relationship troubles that often come off as heavy handed. It shows up in this film, but like Synecdoche and Eternal Sunshine, veritable masterpieces need not distant themselves from these ideas. I'm Thinking of Ending Things is close to being on the same level as these Kaufman magnum opuses.

My original view of the film was negative. Although I appreciate Kaufman's direction and his trademark enigmatic script, the film is so dense with obscure literary references and experiemental sequences that I fail to seek enjoyment on a facile level, which is important since the hook of the film is not there to draw the audience's attention to its core themes and messages. I cannot understant the film on the first watch, and I didn't receive the payoff that reward the boredom I felt sitting through its runtime. But a simple Googling on explanations regarding the plot immediately recontextualized what I saw. When the film makes sense, it is truly genius. It is typical Charlie Kaufmanism with loads of purposefully and beautifully intertwined references, foreshadowing, hints and details, and it demands multiple viewings to fully grasp.

I suggest everyone who gave a negative review to look up its the plot. I do not think it is a good Charlie Kaufman entry film. I feel like the aforementioned masterpieces, and even Being John Malkovich are more instantly attractive and indicative of a Kaufman film's main appeal. Still, as big fans of the screenwriter/director's work, this is another fantastic entry that justifies its existence.

Nolan is mixed bag. This comes from a person with a deep deep appreciation of Nolan's works. By integrating intellectual elements and creative narratives into mainstream films, Nolan is arguably the 21st century's greatest director, becoming a household name synonymous with Spielberg in the 70s/80s. He is one of my favourite directors, but as my taste for cinema changes over the years I underwent a re-evaluation of his works (The Dark Knight is no longer a 10/10). While he can always churn out intellectual concepts, dense scripts and mind blowing non-CGI action set pieces, his films also suffer greatly from choppy editing, overstuffed exposition, awkward direction, and most of all, giddy confusion. Tenet is no different. It is a typical Nolan fare, exemplifying both his genius and flaws to a tee.

The first half of the movie is one of the most lackluster pieces of cinema Nolan has ever concocted, though at this point in his career it is nothing new. Nolan can bore people at the beginning of his films. However, I would argue that Inception did a better job at its "inception" than Tenet, albeit sharing similar conceptual goals. The movie is not impressive until it introduces a core idea around halfway through, and when the film enters a this new realm where it plays with its established internal logic, it becomes a hell of a ride. Overall, Tenet feels like the veritable mind twister like what Memento did two decades ago, and to some extent the last decade's fan favourite Inception (which I absolutely adore).

The crazy plot of the film will take multiple rewatches to decipher. The ambition of Nolan might have eschewed other crucial elements of good filmmaking, and it may come off as full of himself, but at the end of the day, Nolan films are must sees. A solid recommendation.

An indisputable masterpiece in storytelling, cinematorgraphy, acting and direction, the film was captivating from beginning to end despite Villeneuve's signature slow burn approach. Before I saw this film, I never thought Villeneuve could ever top the slew of great films he made thoughout the 2010s. This statement seems irrelevant considering that his magnum opus came out long before all his English language ventures.

The best aspect of Incendies is its direction. Villeneuve's direction is smart and meticulous. This is a patient, methodical film that knows exactly how to deliver its emotional punches and heighten drama, while maintaining a consistent tone and style throughout. Some of the shots are sweeping and establish a great sense of scale. On a technical level, the film is pretty flawless.

There are many gems in this movie. These are only some of many memorable scenes that I find note-worthy.

• The careful build up in the desert bus ambush. The average director would not spend so much time showing a character entering a bus and all the people around her, but these directorial touches are what make Villeneuve such a unique talent. The sequence of the ambush is very tense, and a huge part of it is due to the element of unpredictablility that Villeneuve infuses into every shot. This scene foreshadows similar brilliant moments in his later works, notably the highway scene in Sicario.
• The still reaction shot of the sister's face as the school janitor reveals the truth about his mother. The camera is unflinching as the graphical details are described, and tears flows midway through the scene. It is a powerful moment that features expert executiona and incredible acting.
• The clever writing in the meeting to track down Chamseddine. The local claims to not know Nihal of May and immediately asks for the brother's identity. The brother smirks, finding the gangster's code rather banal in the way it is presented to him. Such a smart scene, where character motivation's are naturally and subtly delivered to the audience.

Villeneuve hides critical information from his audience, and reveals them in all sorts of creative ways. He would let certain scenes play out organically, and in others he would use editing to his advantage and achieve beautiful symphony between image and dialogue. The camera is moved so confidently, with a singlular intent to show information carefully and methodically. So many moments packed with details and clever touches. Villeneuve films are always a blast, and its appeal is very evident here.

The cinematography is gorgeous, using a consistent palette of cold colours to paint the vistas of the Middle East. The acting is top-tier. The actors who played the sister and mother are phenomenal in their roles. The narrative is interesting. The film jumps frequently between flashbacks to show the late mother's perspective of her experiences, as her children revisits those same places in the current timeline, collecting the puzzle pieces containing mother's backstory and the shocking truths along with it. Very intriguing.

Speaking of which, the film tells a very interesting, moving story. It is a searing tale that begin with two siblings tracing the life of their recently passed mother as they searches for hints of lost family members. The film is mostly set in the middle east and depicts a turbulent, despondant world, where at the centre of it all lies an incredibly human tale of love, preserverance, morality, ultimately forgiveness. The character of the mother is tough, independent, and upright. Her quest for survival in a brutal world is inspirational. However, it is only by the end of the film is the full picture of the film's core themes and ideas laid bare for all to see.

It took me a moment to figure out the twist, but I did it before the film straight up told me that (the only blemish I have with the film). The film would still be powerful enough without the twist. I would have accepted an ending where both of the targets of interests were actually dead, and whole expedition being a bust. Of course, such a nihilistic approach, redolent of a Colan brother film, would be too much to bear for a lot of people. Looking back on his entire filmography, Villeneuve is like a big fan of twists. There is no problem in that, considering how well executed every twist in his films is, including this. (DV twists that are considered great: Incendies, Enemy, Prisoners, Arrival, Blade Runner, wow that's almost all his films)

Incendies is a veritable masterpiece that further accentuates how good of a year 2010 is for film. Usually, everything the same director works on goes down hill from here, considering how hard it is to top a film with such quality. In my opinion, while Incendies is the most perfect film he has made, his later films are far greater in scale and tackles genres that never saw the same treatment being applied before. In this sense, I'd say the brilliance of Incendies are overshadowed by his more ambitious, almost equally great works. Blade Runner 2049 is one of my favourite films of all time, and I am more familiar with Prisoners and Arrival. I don't think it is shame when a director's oeuvre is so varied and consistently high quality that some great works are shunned. Also, I would rather see him make another Blade Runner 2049 than another Incendies, because it is a mark of growth for a great director making his way up the ladder. I look forward to seeing Dune, but Incendies will always hold a place in my heart.

Rich in both substance and style, Soderburgh was on fire in this deft, haunting, accurately realist depiction of a global virus outbreak, prescient of the events that would take place 9 years later with covid-19.

The sharp cuts and meticulous script form an intriguing narrative that balances several distinct plotlines surrounding characters from different walks of life, medical workers, normal citizens, journalists etc. The film is both small and large. It is great storytelling with tremendous versatility and intelligence. I can recall many particular shots in the film where the context isn't really clear and the viewers have to decipher the meaning themselves. Soderburgh is a great filmmaker.

"We are putting healthy people next to sick people and hoping the healthy people don't get sick." - Lawrence Fishburne's character

The virus is not the only enemy in a pandemic, and as pop culture has taught us in zombie apocalypses, people is just as if not more menacing of a threat. Almost every party in the film is morally ambiguous. No character is perfect, even the doctors in this case. There is an interesting scene in the middle where two major characters engage in a debate where they accuse each other of their wrongdoings. Both claims are based, and yet in this perpetual one-upmanship for the higher moral ground, what good is done? It is dystopian society portrayed at its most realistic, a scary reflection of modern society even, where many hideous predictions have already befallen on humanity in 2020.

As of now, I am still waiting for the day when the governement randomly draws birth dates from a lottery machine to decide which group of people they give the first batch of vaccines to. It is dark humor that could actually come true.

The wealth of ideas and Soderburgh's creative storytellings give this film a unique flare, with a lot of details and messages to decipher after the credits roll. I had a blast throughout the film. The ending is brilliant, winding back the clock and answering a very basic yet overlooked question regarding the situation, somehow giving the film's story its perfect closure. I am looking forward to seeing more of Soderburgh's films.

In a world where films like The Godfather, 2001 A Space Odyssey, There Will Be Blood, Birdman exist, this above average Steven King adaptation tops the IMDb list and lowers the standards of Hollywood cinema for generations of movie viewers who only have time for what society, manifested in questionable IMDb ratings, deem "the best films of all time".

While a fantastic film, Shawshank Redemption does not hold a candle to 80% of the Top 100 films in this list. It is an anomaly that it attains such a high score, which is presumably to be the result of initial falsified ratings aggrandized by cinema neophytes who don't know how great movies can be. Snowball effect ensues.

There are great aspects to this movie. Morgan Freeman's acting, Roger Deakins' cinematography, Thomas Newman's score. The lead and director were relatively obscure, but they did fine. The story is as average as films of its calibre can get. While it would certainly be a highlight of the legendary year of 1994 (second greatest year in cinema behind 1999), I CANNOT comprehend the notion that it is the best film of all time. It missed out on every critics poll list.

This movie ain't that great y'all. Skip this and dig further down into the list if you want the real gems. The Godfather is truly a 10/10.

Ambitious and unique. The Tree of Life is Hollywood's ultimate statement on paternal/maternal love. There are also other themes such as the cycle of life, the meagerness of humanity, and the significance of memories. The film sets a very unique tone at the gecko, its abstract imagery coupled with bold, abrupt cuts, its interweaving narrative projecting the film's enormous scale, its subtle delivery of ideas beautifully applying the "show not tell" rule.

The film feels a little long as it reached the 90 minute mark. The ponderous length bogs the film down, but it is not enough to overshadow the constant brilliance in the film's concept and storytelling, brimming with ambition.

The Tree of Life is our generation's 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is easy to draw comparasion between their tone, style and vision. I'd say The Tree of Life has an extra layer of emotional depth. The kid actor did a very fantastic job with his character!

The Coen brother's pessimistic view of the world, where its evilness, selfishness and hostility are soaked in the quirkiness and alacrity of daily life, is never better portrayed than in The Big Lebowski. Lebowski (not to be confused with that Mr. Lebowski), is one of the most interesting characters in cinema, a jobless drifter who has nothing going on with his life, mistakenly placed amongst people and a society that does not appreciate the beauty of his character. The film portrays a nihilistic view on life, a showcase of how meaningless life is, just like the drama and conflicts that unfolds in the story. The life Lebowski leads might not appeal to everyone, but we should all learn a thing or two from the the way he speaks, deeply rooted in a socially unacceptable philosophy that upon second thought yields more happiness than most. Why take life so seriously when deep down it is such a amorphous ridiculous mess that points nowhere? Do you agree with Lebowski? How can you apply his philosophies in real life where the stakes both smaller and higher than in Lebowski's fictional world of 90s LA? These are only a few of the questions this film inspire in its audience. In a weird way, The Big Lebowski makes for quite a touching film, and the way it does so is to make you reevaluate the attitude with which you lived your life until then. How is the truth about life, hidden in plain sight, so simple and yet so easily shunned?

Coen brother's directorion and Deakin's cinematography are both highlights, but in this film I find the script and character study more intriguing. After all, it is what this film's enduring legacy is built on, and from which a cult following and even a so called religion engendered. The Coen's brothers eye for the folly of society and the frustrated human condition shines in this modern classic. They write dialogue that is rich with dark humor and subverts clichés to deftly convey underlying messages. The Big Lebowski is another one of those definitive Coen films - subversive, funny, dark, thought provoking, perhaps even an exemplar at that. An endless revisitable film with so much character and a timeless message

What an incredible finale to a 30 years long TV show! The ratings must be out of the stratosphere. A series best ever since the teeth episode. Worth the wait 10/10.

The direction and style of the film reeks of a 80s mainstream comedy. The film improves throughout and expounds many interesting philosophical ideas by the end. It is no short of clever political and social commentary, and there are lots of great details, for example showing a still shot on TV draws an all time high viewership (subtly referring to real live TV shows and the audience's taste). There was a sequence in the middle where the creator reveals his throught process behind writing a scene for Truman, which make for an ingenious touch. There are a lot of moments like that, and they clearly show how well-thought the film is compared to many contemporaries of its time. It is certainly a film that demands several rewatches, and it provided how joyful of a ride it turns out to be, it is not hard to do so.

Jim Carrey delivers a solid performance that showcases the full extent of his talents. His usual antics aside, there is also surprisinng amount of emotional depth at certain scenes. He is an underrated dramatic actor, and if you haven't seen him in Eternal Sunshine, I highly recommend it. The villain is also pretty awesome for a comedy of this calibre. Intelligent, electrifying and fundamentally human, it is a villain that we sympathize with, not the kind of cold and despicable stereotype that Hollywood movies haven't grown out of yet back in the 90s, and to a smaller extent today.

My expectations were rather reserved before I saw this film. I am pleased to say that they are absolutely defied upon my first viewing. A very rewatchable and memorable comedy.

Tim Burton struggles with tone and consistency. The film tapers off in the last 30 minutes, where a noticable tone shift and thematic repetition hampers the overall experience. Nevertheless, Ed Wood is easily one of Tim Burton's most personal films, drawing parallels between its autobiographical events and Burton's own career - almost to a point that it becomes a dissection of his life philosophy and vision. The titular character is one of the best Burton has created in his career, which is saying a lot considering how memorable many of his characters are, whose charm, quirks, and kind heart are presented with incredible alacrity and warmth. The script, acting and direction are rock solid. One of the core messages of the theme revolves around the beauty of filmmaking, all its idiosyncratic ideas, its boundless creativity, its immediate appeal, and the people who strive to enlighten others around them with this medium. There's also the commentary on the woes of film industry, how it strangles the arduous artists whose well intended ventures fail to meet those arbitrary thresholds and standards. Lastly, there's the homily to the weak and the underappreciated, an almost ubiquitous theme across Tim Burton movies. Burton's eye for the weird and the macabre shines in everything he does. Compared to other films in his oeuvre, Ed Wood feels much more mature and grounded. It seeks to tell real life events and the real people that are involved in it, and it is probably why I think the character study in this film bests most of other Tim Burton works, such as Beetlejuice.

I along with movie fans around the world wish Tim Burton would rediscover remnants of his past self, one who deftly blends dark gothic settings with incredibly human stories and delivers on both facile entertainment and profound emotional resonance. I highly recommend Tim Burton fans to check out Big Fish, which I think is even more personal and heartfelt than the already great Ed Wood.

Shane Carruth. The indie legend. The troubled genius. Primer was an unimitable masterpiece in intellectual storytelling, and while Shane took the world by storm with one of the greatest debut films of the century, he had not made a film until Upstream Color, which was released seven years later. The pressures and atrocities of the film industry weigh down on Shane, and it is heavily implied that he will retire from filmmaking, just two films into his career. It is a shame, but at least we can all rejoice at how worthy this film is as a follow up to Primer, and as a swan song to Shane's brief yet legendary career.

It goes without saying that Upstream Colour is full of merits. We can all appreciate the film's beautiful cinematography achieved on a Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Camera, its layered and nuanced editing, its outstanding lead performances, its abstract and unconventional narrative beautifully interweaved together without overt explanations. The level of filmmaking and the quality of the script is something we expect from a Shane Carruth project.

Upstream Color takes effort to decipher. There are a lot of plot points and details that would require several rewatches to fully wrap your head around, but rest assured there is a very interesting plot at the bottom of it all. It is a thinking man's film, like Primer. Comparing the two films, I'd say Primer has more of a shock factor considering its budget restraints and unassuming look. Primer took the concept of a indie film into new heights by incorporating genre defining concepts; we've seen a lot of time travel films before, but none feels as unique and jaw-dropping as Primer. Upstream color feels more like a high concept film that lacks the element of surprise. Nevertheless, I still think Upstream Color stands on its own. I like Shane Carruth. I hope Modern Ocean comes out not as a script, but as a full fledged movie.

At a mere 60 min length, the film achieved much of what it set out to - a simple, contained, yet emotionally-resonant, neatly-paced high school love story. The highlight of this film is its score. Not only is it musically diversed and full of personality, it also plays with the scenes fluidly, in a way that indicates the use of the common technique of "animating over music", which is unique to animation and appreciated by meticulous filmmakers. The theme track is particularly catchy. It captures the quiet, contemplative, and wistful tone of the film very well.

The film has a rather simple story, an almost generic one, such so that the film can feel ambiguous. The focus is, after all, on the ending, the payoff at the latter part of the film. Everything that precedes it is rather bland, and while I don't consider those parts uninteresting, for they do carry meaning in retrospect, I feel like they could have been done better, enriched, made more memorable. The film's limited scope is its biggest enemy. With all the animation talent at its expense, the film could be more impactful, memorable, hard hitting had they decided for something more unique for the bulk of its story.

While I feel like the story substracts from the overall experience, there are still a lot to appreciate. The dynamic between the lead and the female lead is well crafted. I fairly enjoy the characters, and they deliver on the emotional core pretty well, which despite the film's simplicity, still packs quite a punch.

Overall, Ocean Waves is beautiful, quiet and contained, with an exceptional soundtrack and copious emotional impact. However, it is also too quiet, too unambitious, ultimately pointing towards plenty of unrealized potential. As a TV movie, it delivers on all of the fundamentals. For the wistful, nostalgic people out there, this film is for you.

What more can be said about Spielberg's direction? Five years after the landmark Schindler's List, he once again flexes his dramatic storytelling abilities with the seminal Saving Private Ryan, which heightens the bar for war film for generations to come. The D-day scene is one of the greatest opening sequences in film history. This is a director who committed to depict the brutality of war as much as he faithfully recounted the terrors of the holocaust. There was so much lurid gruesome imagery, and yet never for a moment does this depiction of violence feel gratuitous. Here Spielberg parts himself from Tarantino and Scorsese in its tasteful use of violence in his films. It is never for show. It is never for thrills. It is baked into the very genetic material of these events, in a bid to show that however scarily exaggerated they seem, they happened. This one aspect of this film is worthy of all the accolades and acclaim it garnered over the years.

Tom Hank gave an excellent performance. I am rather lukewarm about Matt Damon though. Jeremy Davis as Uphelm gave an incredible performance at the end. My main issue with the film is its second act. Spieldberg's knack for swelling emotional arcs sometimes do harm to the film narrative, giving rise to some cheesy scenes and unnatural character actions. The script is only decent. I am not a fan of a lot of dialogue choices, one of which being the last few lines of the film, where a previously silent character delivers a few unnecessary lines. The scene would have played out better if he remained silent, but this is only a nitpick. The film makes everything clear and appeals to general audience, who would appreciate its clear and direct approach, while the main selling points are the hard hitting action sequences.

The D-day scene lives on as one of the greatest achievements in modern cinema, but the praise does not stop there. The almost 3 hour long epic is an eye-opener filled with great moments that certified Spielberg status as one of the most unique drama auteurs in modern cinema. And yes, it does rank among the legendary director's best.

Edgar Wright's magnum opus. An exceptionally ingenious, yet surprisingly heartfelt film about the struggles of relationships and themes of commitment, change and self-belief. The film delves into an troubled young adult's psyche and puts him in a bizzare world of magic-realism, which fosters Wright's typical blend of visual comedy. It is an exhilarating and awe-inspiring watch that showcases Edgar Wright creativity, humor and deft direction, whose endless improvisations and defiance of conventional filmmaking points to him being the INFP soul that his protagonist is.

The film opts for the usual light-hearted and fast paced approach to tell its story. It is impeccably scripted with great comedic touch, filled with cleverly layered callbacks and foreshadowing. The pop culture references are genuinely hilarious, especially the part concerning veganism. The film also subtly covers broader social themes such as racial inclusion. Despite of its unique flare, it never throws itself off the track in all the dazzling visual spectacle and frivolity, delivering on a solid emotional core that is relatable and meaningful.

Scott Pilgrim is a clever and detailed film with the usual blend of visual comedy that Edgar Wright is known for. Compared to his Cornetto trilogy, I would prefer this to the other three also very good films. It is mainly due to personal taste. I find the story and characters more appealing in Scott Pilgrim.

The direction feels cold. The performances are rigid and unnatural. Everything feels so rushed. I felt empty when the first part ended, which in all honesty, is also the worst part in the original novel, so it gets a pass.

The second leg of the film really picks up and shows a bit more of that directorial flare. For the better or worse, the film retains the backbone of the novel, which in my opinion is slow and bloated at parts. It is a nice story with a memorable twist, the latter of which is well delivered here and makes for considerable satisfaction as the film ended. All in all, the film feels more focused than the novel, and yet it also shuns a lot of the aspects in the novel that I consider as highlights, such as the excellent character building and the sometimes sweeping feel of the prose, none of which is translated to the film medium.

This is a film of inconsistent quality that did its basic job at adapting a very famous novel.

I like Rise of the Skywalker not as an entry in the trilogy but a popcorn sci-fi film. Yes, it is entertaining. There is so much fan service, so much corny dialogue, but if you could overlook that alongside its contingency errors and rushed pacing, you could actually enjoy this film as a pure Star Wars nerd; I just think people can be too obsessed sometimes and forget how to have fun.

People are taking the chance to lash at Disney for their mismanagement of the franchise (how could you start a trilogy without a roadmap??). I agree, but honestly the disconnect between ep.8 & ep.9 is not the fault of the talented JJ Abrams and Rian Johnson, both of whom were very adept at achieving their singular visions. The films as a stand alone are at the very least good films, and to me it applies to both ep.8 & ep.9 (ep.7 retread is fantastic).

At the end of the day, I feel entertained. I probably like it more than Chris Stuckmann and Jeremy Jahns combined, and trust me, I mean it when I say I am a pretty cynical filmgoer (I stick with the yms rating system). Star Wars are nerdy movies that shouldn't be taken as seriously as a Scorsese picture. ep.4-ep.6 are terrible if we delve into their technical aspects, but since they are fun, they become classics. Double standards do not apply here and I am giving ep.9 a pass because of that.

Despite Tarantino's deft direction, the film lacked the impulsive thrills of his earlier works which I adore, opting for a mature approach slightly short of that visual pop. The classic Tarantino trait only came by at the climax, and even then I thought it was pretty underwhelming. There were lots of moments of built up tension that led to nowhere. Although I think it is still a good film, and I enjoy the hilarious overextended sequence of flashbacks about Cliff Booth and the acting of both leads, the film pales in comparison to the many towering works Tarantino has produced in his career and makes for a slight disappointment. Again, still, I think it is a well made film.

What a ride. Some parts can be cut short though. It is too long of a film, although I never feel bored until the end, which drags albeit for good reason.

Scorsese, De Niro, Al Pacino, and good ol Pesci played their roles so well. The film is a homily to the old Scorsese mob films like Goodfellas, and while The Irishman does new things with the concept, I still think the two films are quite alike. I am not blown away by The Irishman, and the deft direction kept me nodding my head, but not dropping my jaws awe. I feel like there are a lot of missed potential, rooms for more emotion. Too subdued and subtle for my taste. The story feels a bit unfocused in the grander scheme of things, and its unique structure actually hampers it a little.

I rank this considerably lower than Scorsese's best films, and a rank lower than Goodfellas.

Spike Jonze takes page from Kaufman's script to produce a more mature product of the same sensibility - a story steeped in existential dread and the claustrophobia of a cold crowded concrete forest, where a powerfully beautiful relationship buds in the most unlikely of circumstances. A deep insight into the nature of love, human connections and AI technology, this is a film that feels both big and small; straightforward and subtle; refrained yet resonant. Not to mention its excellent cinematography. A crowning jewel in 2010s cinema.

Clever script from the legendary Charlie Kaufman that contains multiple layers of meaning concerning the creative process, the nature of story, life and love, often in a meta way. However, I don't think the story delivers a satisfying enough viewing experience, which the film itself has acknowledged. I understand the direction it takes but it ended up taking to much liberties with its plot, and at the end left me kinda puzzled. Synecdoche and Eternal Sunshine have better execution.

I'm also fed up with Charlie Kaufman's self obsession on depression and fatalism, which he finds it so necessary to evince on screen even though its often hit or miss. He's too self indulgent and is better to have a small audience who are happy to relate to everything he says.

A masterpiece so profound and philosophical, while in equal terms bold and challenging, even to the point of mass censorship. Such incredible storytelling that can rival the best western titles; its motifs, messages, themes, and narrative brilliance putting everything HK television has produced in the last decade to shame.

"The city is dying." There are a plethora of meaning to unpack, social commentary, meditation on human nature, relationships, and the worth of life itself. Not to mention that it spawned two of the best themes songs TVB has ever concocted, alongside a multitude of unforgettable quotes.

It's legacy lives on forever. It is a matter of whether people will still be here to remember it once it becomes fully censored. I remember it a decade after its release. Will more people join the ode?

Kinda short in story though, and a whole plot dedicated to showing how brutal the conditions of black slaves in 19th century are is not quite my cup of tea. There are more films out there that are more beloved, which I full heartedly enjoy. This is quite a hard film to sit through, but it is a must-see, and after viewing it in its whole length I can say it's one of the most well made films of the decade. From 9/10 to 8/10.