j-m-d-b

The most obvious theme of this film is how strong perspective is, how people perceive their own reality. The depiction of the theme is strong, but it's just the first layer.

Another strong theme is how rumor or hearsay starts to live its own life. A quick remark, based on truth or not, is made and interpreted and then it becomes a reality and people are judged by it.

But there is a third theme that haunts me, days after seeing the film, and that is rebirth. It comes up several times. The first time is when Minato talks with his mother about his deceased father. What will he be reborn as? A giraffe? A horse?

The second scene with this theme is when the boys, in all their innocent inaptitude, try to cremate the dead cat they found; it may not get reborn otherwise.

And lastly, in the film's finale. Did Minato and Yori escape really the train wagon unharmed? Or perhaps their crawling out of the bottom, continuing on without a care, is a metaphor for their passing. They are reborn in a better world where they can be together. It's explicitly said: "Are we reborn now?" "No, we are not." But who can know if they are reborn?

This film raises many questions, and for that I commend it greatly.

I quite liked Beibî warukyûre (2021). While by no means a masterpiece, it did have a lot of charm. The goofy interaction between the two protagonists, the incredibly energetic and well-choreographed fight scenes, and the final confontation with the yakuza made for a fun watch. Alas, the sequel is a dud in this reviewer's opinion.

The interaction between Mahiro and Chisato is no longer goofy and funny, but rather overacted in such a manner that it just becomes stupid. There is still some okay-looking choreography showing us that Saori Izawa is one heck of a stuntwoman and martial arts expert, but there is nothing new to be seen and frankly it was not as impressive as in the first film.

The villians are a couple of somewhat relatable guys which doesn't really work, this type of film needs nameless thugs that can be discarded without regard. The 'big' finale lacks energy, as does the whole movie. I thought some of the gunfights looked suspiciously fake with muzzle flash added in post.

Lazy writing, poor production values, obviously trying to squeeze some more cash out of what was not a bad idea. Pity Yugo Sakamoto didn't leave well enough alone.

I find it quite hard (pun intended) to put this film in a particular box. Not being familiar with Kazakhstani cinema, I couldn't tell where it sits in that context. It's no doubt a comedy for the whole family, even though it handles the subject of sex quite directly. Then again, the playful way it does that is a breath of fresh air compared to a lot of modern Western material that is either much more heavy-handed or conversely rather prudish. This is more akin to a 1970s coming of age film, in that sense.

Bit of an enigma, this one. Harsh, somewhat impoverished surroundings are met with colorful, almost surreal costumes and scenery. Addresses serious subjects while still having a lightheartedness about it. As I said, hard to classify on multiple levels, but it fits together.

Good acting all around, nothing too pretentious, which is exactly why it works so well. All the kids come across really natural, so good directing. Esil Amantay stands out in particular.

The story is not too big and doesn't need to be; it's effective and entertaining. Some of it is a bit unbalanced, and the final resolution is not that easy to believe, which is my main gripe. However I thoroughly enjoyed this, and I left the cinema with a smile.

I could not watch this film without any expectation or prejudice, as I know someone who has a sibling that is an adopted Korean child. However I still tried to keep an open mind, and I think the film is executed well.

Freddie is the only character that is really fleshed out and I think that's right. There are several other characters, notably Freddie's father, that are treated with respect by the film but they are not given a lot of depth. But since it's not their story that is being told they all have to take a back seat to the little girl that it's all about.

After watching this I did a little digging and I found that adoption, foreign or not, is culturally, politically and therefore historically laden in South Korea. You have to want to go looking for it as the film does not push the subject too heavily, but it certainly has several scenes referring to this subject from the institutional rather than the personal viewpoint.

I do think the film has some problems in finding the right tone and there are segments that do not help progress the story. The whole birthday party segment might be nicely shot but does not really add anything.

All in all it's a good film and it triggered me to learning a bit more about its subject matter.

I will be the first to say that some science fiction has a penchant of being kind of sexy. Flash Gordon has scantily clad ladies, as had the original Trek which was devised during the era of sexual liberation. Also, Barbarella anyone? There is of course more of this to be found in the comic book realm of science fiction. And since TNG builds upon TOS, having some of that tongue-in-cheek sexyness is certainly warranted.

However in this episode of TNG it is just completely over the top. The away team (including a minor) transports to what I can only describe as a planetary swingers club. The dubbed-in moaning background noises in some scenes is just plain ridiculous. The rerefences to sexual encounters that have happened or are about to happen are so overt they lose all charm.

The other (or main?) message of the episode is about the prime directive, but is is pretty much botched. It could have been good, Picard being in a predicament needing to choose between the life of the one versus the life of the many, weighed against the importance of the directive. But since it was all storied in such a stupid way, I find it an opportunity missed. Bad and lazy writing, really.

One thing that bothers me about this film is the pigs. Love Machine is temporarily dubbed Pig Pen since he is hauling a load of pigs, and while we get a couple of shots of them early on, after that they are just not shown anymore. Which is disturbing because without any food or water they would surely have perished. So, maybe not the best narrative decision there.

Kris Kristoffersen looks great and has nice swagger, but he can't act his way out of a paper bag. Ali MacGraw apparently was strung out and/or drunk a lot of the time and that obviously did not help her acting. Ernest Borgnine and Burt Young are good though. Madge Sinclair and Franklyn Ajaye are alright too, as are some of the supporting actors.

I don't know if Peckinpah's cut survived, maybe it would have been better than this version. This film is somewhat entertaining but does not bear close scrutiny. 6/10 because of its romanticized depiction of the era, and my personal nostalgia.

I first watched this as a teenager and I just thought Tony was a cool guy doing cool things, Annette was a stupid piece of ass and Stephanie was classy. I realized there were subplots like Frank and Bobby C's story but most of that went over my head.

As I've been rewatching this from time to time over the decades, I now see there is a lot more there. It's actually pretty nihilistic, the family drama is reasonably intricate, as is the love story. On top of that, it's an interesting view on 1970's NYC, perhaps not in the same league as Midnight Cowboy or Taxi Driver, but nevertheless sharing an origin. At times, it's as gritty and dark as these two films.

The music is stellar and the disco scenes are iconic. Not a masterpiece as it sometimes is cringeworthy and shallow, but on the whole it's a culturally important piece of film history.

This is done really well. The animation is at Aardman level, good voice acting and a very enjoyable story. Smiles all around. Some very mild suspense for a few moments, suitable for the youngest audience.

The sets hit the mark, being Dutch myself I found them totally relatable because of the attention to detail. The kids enjoyed the cinematic experience too. I sincerely hope this gets picked up internationally, it deserves it.

When watching this, a few things struck me.

I could not help noticing that a lot of the shots were wildly out of focus, so some bad cinematography there, even for its time. At the same time, some of the exterior shots reminded me of Ozu or Naruse in their composition.

Ultimately though, films are about stories and the characters that play a role in them. This movie offers a simple but effective story and complicated characters, which makes for great viewing. Nothing is black and white for the main characters and some supporting characters are also fleshed out in a true-to-life manner.

At well over 2 hours it felt somewhat lacking in pace at times, but wait a second, this movie is almost 80 years old! Taking this into consideration I can only say it's absolutely masterful.

Effective in depicting a mental breakdown. The shallow depth of field close-ups with only the protagonist in focus show his isolation, it reminded me of Da xiang xidi erzuo (2018).

Unfortunately the extreme shaky cam made me feel queasy so I left the cinema after about half an hour. I can see why the artistic decision was made but I just couldn't handle it.

No big story here, just life-like drama. Good direction and some superb acting. Doesn't have or need a lot of overt art direction, the matter-of-fact visuals perfectly fit the mood. Not particularly pleasant in its social commentary, but as said in the film, "it is what it is".

Tsai's films have been becoming more and more minimalist over time. Yet while his stories have always been very implicit, films such as Ai qing wan sui (1994), Bu san (2003) and the masterful Jiao you (2013) all have a message, a concept, a central idea. Even a extremely minimalist piece such as Xi you (2014) is very conceptual.

Rizi lacks in that regard, in my opinion. I can see how Tsai wanted to strip down a film even more than some of his other work, to get even closer to the essence, and this is to be applauded. At the same time it seems to me the film is an afterthought and not a premeditated work. From what I gather, Tsai had been shooting Kang-sheng Lee and Anong Houngheuangsy separately, without the goal of making a film.

Apparently he was then compelled to create a feature film after all and decided the center piece would be an encounter between the two men. Now, that encounter is filmed beautifully and while it has been described as erotic, I'd say above all it is a human encounter.

However the material before and after this central event is disconnected and does not have the same weight as provided by the performances in some Tsai's earlier films. One could argue that this disconnection is on purpose, but it just did not feel that way to me. It felt somewhat artificial.

Still, the two hours were a nice meditative experience, so if you are a slow cinema afficionado it's worth seeing. But it's no Stray Dogs or Goodbye Dragon Inn.

This is a film worth watching. The story has suspense even though at times it's a bit all over the place, which makes the relatively short runtime seem longer than it actually is. Some of it is harder to believe, such as the angry mob towards the end of the film.

It has interesting cinematography, obviously influenced by expressionism. The underwater shots are haunting and very beautiful. The shots of animals have an alienating effect that fits the atmosphere.

The acting isn't even that great, although Mitchum is charming in an evil way and does carry the film. The rest of the cast does allright although you do get the feeling sometimes that they didn't really know how to get a handle on what was asked of them.

Religion is a very strong theme and it is played out explicitely, which you could do in 1950's America. The theme of repressed sexuality is perhaps even more present but it is implicit, and only comes to light in a few key scenes. But key scenes they are.

Frank Zappa was a unique and extremely talented composer and producer, with a sharp mind and a lovely dark sense of humour. I was quite the fan as a young man and have seen him in concert on several occasions. His death at only 52 came too soon, the body of work he managed to produce in such a short life defies belief.

However this documentary falls flat in showing this brilliance. Most of the material showing Frank is not new, the added interviews don't add much as everything has basically been said before. The editing is messy, jumping around timeperiods without a rhythm or arc. It struck me that Moon and Dweezil weren't interviewed, but when I saw that Ahmet was a producer it made sense; unfortunately Zappa's children have fallen out so they probably weren't asked or interested.

Zappa was great, but most of the stuff that came out after his death, including documentaries, is missing the quality that made his work so special. If you like FZ, listen to his music. I you want visual stimulation, just watch the things he made himself, it will tell you al you need to know about the man. Or read The Real Frank Zappa Book.

Female protagonist (Rashida Jones) is a writer with first-world problems who has boring, shallow friends. She's trying to write a book but apparently does not have any idea what to write about or why. Hubby (Marlon Wayans) does something in social media, meaning he started a company that seems to be mainly about getting followers and/or likes, no mention of any relevant product or service. Daddy (Bill Murray) is a rich art dealer who, while travelling across and being acquainted to half the planet, has a life void of meaning and therefore meddles with his daughter's. Even though no-one is producing anything tangible or worthwhile, they're all loaded. There's some children too but they are basically extras.

There is hardly a story arc and no character development to speak of. There was one moment where I expected some drama to enfold at last, but that fell completely flat. Each and every character is a cardboard cutout, disengaging, entitled and ultimately boring. The cinematography is only so-so, there is no sound design that I could discern.

I went to see this mainly because of Bill Murray, but his natural charm and screen presence do not even come close to saving this dud. Most of his acting in this is pretty pedestrian, it did not feel like he had his heart in it. I'm sorry to say it, but it appears he went for the pay check above all else. The dialog is so cringeworthy, it would have been hard to deliver it though.

Just like with Song to Song (2017), I did wonder if the shallowness of the whole affair is a statement it itself, a comment on the navel-gazing self-absorbedness of modern urban life. Alas, I fear that with both films that is not the case, the lack of substance is not meaningful, it's simply the absence of a good story.

Bottom line, it has a few good moments but is like a fast-food snack, quickly digested and providing zero sustenance.

This crisp-looking black and white flick has some things going for it, it is a good watch. You need to place it in the context of its time, a time where paranoia was rife in the United States. Most of the characters are cardboard cutouts, and before this many movies had been made with much, much greater depth.

The cinematography is run of the mill, with the exception of a couple of close-ups, some beautiful, some haunting. It's a B-movie that transcends itself in a way, and it's easy to see why it has cult status.

The rushed ending does not work though, and there are some problematic plot holes. Supposedly falling asleep would be enough for the mind transfer to take place, apparently even over some distance, as seen with Becky. Even now that Miles is suddenly and incredulously believed, won't he still be transferred when he falls asleep? What happened to the bodies of the 'real' people anyway?

But in a 1950's drive-in, with a box of popcorn and your squeeze next to you in the front seat of your Studebaker, I'm sure it must have been a great time.

I witnessed the battle between Prost and Senna when it took place. Yes, this film has its merits, it paints an interesting portrait of Ayrton Senna. But the way it portrays Alain Prost, a great champion in his own right, is just appalling.

The Deserted was shown in the Eye film museum in Amsterdam. I am quite a fan of Ming-liang Tsai so of course I did not pass up the opportunity to experience this, as I like his slow style in filming very much.

As with most of his work, this is very much a personal document. It is shot near the house he lives in with Kang-sheng Lee. And like in a lot of his films, not very much 'happens', the action is implied or takes place in the viewers' mind. So it is fairly static and dreamlike, a collection of scenes that is more like a situation than a narration.

Without going into too much detail, I don't think Tsai's style translates that well to this format. The viewer is placed on a fixed location in a 3D environment. You can look around, but not move around. Interesting at first, but I did become aware of some drawbacks.

In Tsai's films, he frames the characters, very often in a static shot. He chooses the shot and its composition. He uses close-ups a lot, allowing you to study the actor's faces and pick up on very subtly acted-out emotions. In The Deserted, there is no fixed frame, so while the locations are intriguing in themselves, there is no composition in what you see. The actors are are least several feet away from the camera, and combined with the relatively low resolution of the VR headset, there is little or none of that subtlety going on.

Watching his films in a darkened cinema you can sit back, become disembodied and go with the flow. Sitting in a rotating chair with a fairly heavy headset did not bring me in that relaxed state of mind, something I heard from other visitors as well. I was too aware of my environment, even though I tried to immerse myself.

It was an interesting experience but the VR did not add much, in my opinion most of the material would have worked better in a traditional format.

I saw this film during a festival in which all of Ming-liang Tsai's feature films were shown over a two-week period. Tsai and Kang-shen Lee were in town for some of the time, and came to the showing to give an introduction, through a translator of course. They spoke for a few minutes about themselves and their relation to the film. Perhaps indicative of Tsai's small fanbase, only 40 people attended even though the room could easily hold 150. It felt quite special to see the two together on stage in such an intimate setting.

Kang-shen Lee started off, recalling that Paris was very cold when they were filming there, and that they ate really good food every night. Each course might take half an hour, whereas when filming in Taiwan they would just chow down a bento box. He also fondly remembered having his picture taken with the Mona Lisa without other visitors around, a perk of filming in the Louvre. He explained that in the film, he played Ming-liang Tsai.

Ming-liang Tsai's remarks went deeper. He said that when he saw Truffaut's 'Les quatre cents coups', just after he moved from Malaysia to Taiwan, it really opened his eyes. When he was in Paris filming 'What time is it there' he contacted some of Truffaut's actors, which is how Jean-Pierre Léaud got to play a small role in that film. As a young man, Tsai had never imagined one day working with Léaud. For 'What time is it there', Tsai had Kang in Taiwan, and Léaud in Paris. For his film he got the two actors together. He also said filming was a very happy time for him, feeling the close proximity to the Louvre.

Tsai went on to explain that 'Visage' is really a self-portrait, a film about his innermost emotions. Almost apologetically, he said it would be a difficult movie to understand because of that. But, he said, he realizes most of his films are hard to understand.

Knowing that the film is essentially a self-portrait gave it a lot of context. It is indeed a film that is hard to grasp. Yes, there is a story, but more than that is it a collection of imagery and symbolism that is very meaningful to Tsai himself. He probably made the film much more for himself than for any audience. Armed with this knowledge, I could easily give up trying to understand the film, and just experience it as a view into the man.

The film contains themes, symbols and imagery that I have seen across his body of work. To name a few: Water running, leaking, dripping. Tape to shut out light. The death of a parent. Sex, implied incest. A fishtank. A cooking pot. Very specific shots of a typical high-rise apartment in Taiwan. There were other free-form scenes that no doubt are very personal to Tsai.

Also, there was a very interesting moment during the showing. At a point, there is a tracking shot of an actor, who is half submerged in water in an underground tunnel. The shot is in black and white, there is no sound. As the camera tracks, it stays trained on the actor. The camera rig moves sideways, in between the light source and the actor, so the cameraman becomes visible as a shadow superimposed over the actor and the wall behind. It felt like being pulled backwards, away from the action, towards the cameraman. At this moment, a spotlight was illuminated in the back of the theatre, in the same line as the camera and actor. It felt like being pulled further backwards, out of the film and into the theatre. It was amazing how the focus of my attention was shifted from the actor, to the camera, to the audience, because it was so unexpected. After a few seconds the light dimmed again and the film continued normally.

I don't know if I would recommend this film to anyone, unless they want to get a look into the maker's head. I think films such as 'Stray Dogs' or 'Vive l'Amour' are more enjoyable, but as with all of his work, you really have to be into slow cinema to enjoy them.

Tsai Ming-liang has made narrative films, but this is not one of them. Here he and Kang-sheng Lee try to capture the essence of Zen on film. No beginning, no end, no story, no meaning. Just being, and awareness. Total awareness of every step you take on your path. I left the theatre calm and soothed, and carried the feeling with me.

I admire Lee for his devotion and vulnerability. His slow walk must have required rigorous training and discipline, and application. Only by reaching that Zen state of mind could he descend those stairs the way he did. And walking through the crowded streets of Marseille like that, even though there must have been some security around, took courage.

This is not a narrative film to consume as entertainment. It is the registration of an event, and it reaches out on a much deeper level.

No spoilers here. If you read the synopsis you know pretty much everything there is to know about the plot, or the absence thereof.

Rather than seeing a story played out to entertain you, watching this film is more like meditating. If you wait for something to happen, you will become frustrated. But if you allow yourself to be carried by the flow of the film, you will become utterly relaxed and aware of the passing of time, in a Zen sense.

If you like slow movies, long shots and melancholy, and you get the chance to watch this in a cinema, I highly recommend you do so. It is quite the experience.

Maybe my expectations were a bit too high after seeing Kawase's excellent An, but somehow this did not grip me as much. The story is decent, and the cinematography is good. The shots are pleasing, I would go so far as to call them loving. The music is not bad although a little melodramatic.

However the characters and story did not really pull me in, I did not get attached. It's not that I don't understand the minimalistic Asian approach, it's that I felt the performances were lacking, or the direction, or the editting... The whole thing just did not really gel for me.

A recurring theme in Naruse's films is how people are driven by circumstance rather than will. Several of his stories are about single women trying to get by in patriarchal postwar Japan, and the choices they have to make to survive. This movie focuses on those who are even less powerful to determine their own fate; the children of these women.

The main protagonist is a boy of around 12 years old who is moved to the city to stay with family while his widowed mother gets a job as a hostess. The mother seems to shun the boy and initially doesn't even mention him to her employer, who herself is the single mother of an illegitimate daughter, a sweet but somewhat spoilt girl of about 10. The two children meet and befriend each other.

The film offers a simple and childlike perspective, which is incredibly effective in conveying the experiences and feelings of the children; it is at times very emotional but it never gets melodramatic. At the same time, the adult world and its complications are presented to the viewer, providing another layer to the film.

The story, while beautiful, is quite sad and has a very unsatisfactory ending. But this ending is perfect for the film, it filled me with great yearning and a feeling of powerlessness, and of humanity.

This film is very effective in conveying the harsh beauty of Afghanistan, using sweeping or time-lapsed shots of the barren landscape and mountain ranges. It also shows the people of these remote regions and some of their daily activities, and it paints a powerful picture of a country scarred by war.

The narrative, if you would call it that, is about a few groups of children who live as bands of robbers and miners. Their stories are obviously fictional and fantastic. Interspersed with scenes with the children is footage of US and Afghan soldiers, some of it actual combat footage. The scenes with military personnel are undoubtedly not staged, but cut in a way that they loosely fit the film. A few scenes are played by actors portraying soldiers.

Initially, I was mesmerized by the images of the landscape and people. But as the movie dragged on, there was very little I could relate to story-wise. It all seemed very random to me, a collection of scenes with no real direction or cohesion. Sure, one of the children has a dream he is pursuing, but to me that was not enough to carry the film.

I should think that the real stories of the people in the film are probably much more interesting and worth telling. The kids looked like they had fun acting though.

Apparently this took seven years to make. Since the actors did not age at all during the story, I would say six years worth of collected footage was combined with a weak narrative shot in a few months, to warrant a theatrical release. Interesting but it lacked substance.

This early film by Hou Hsiao-hsien is a light-hearted feel-good movie. It is a very endearing story of goings-on in a small village, a lot of it seen through the eyes of children, and as such it is quite pure and somewhat naive.

I was smiling constantly for the first third of the film, because it so warmly and lovingly portrays its characters, particularly the schoolchildren. There is some drama as the film progresses but while it is genuinely touching it is not major and everything is resolved before the movie is over. The final act is yet again light-hearted although now we know that there is a little more than meets the eye. The film has a happy end and I left the theater with a lifted spirit.