helgis-63120

While the movie for the long periods plays out as another "dark comedy", very trendy in this season (Fincher's "The Killer", Allen's "Coup de Chance", apparently Ridley Scott's "Napoleon") when we are heading towards the dark and emotionally intense interrogation/prison/courtroom scenes, the viewer becomes gradually more and more uncomfortable... because of natural causes. Yes, I've taken the challenge to watch this long "for streaming" movie intended to be enjoyed at our home screens, in a cinema and I must honestly say that quite a lot of people were leaving but everyone always came back to continue watching. It obviously speaks to the power of filmmaking, especially screenplay and editing imho. Acting ranks from deliberately theatralic ups-and-downs of Brendan Fraser to the real killer's performance of Jesse Plemons (the movie's male MVP for me) - disciplined, concentrated, intense and... chilling. I have a feeling J. Edgar Hoover's FBI doesn't have the best reputation in the USA nowadays, hence these dark undertones. The female MVP is obviously Lily Gladstone, totally unknown to me prior today. The two Scorsese's most favorite actors (their pairing is a fine subtle shoutout to "This Boy's Life", the onscreen abusive relationship being very similar) place themselves somehow in the middle of this acting range. De Niro gives one of his most understated performances in years, but for what it's worth it's still "De Niro's performance", I'm a fan btw. DiCaprio gives us an impressive older and smarter version of Arnie Grape including powerful acting autoquotations, since now, a year shy of 50, he is in the well-deserved position for acting autoquotations. I encourage everyone to take the risk and enjoy the cinematic experience with this one, because the soundtrack and cinematography are also worth it.

I don't think HoC started with two "genius" seasons to end with the "abysmal" last season. For me HoC was a slow burner. Two first season were very good - the first one with the most standout episodes, the second one somehow dull but with the best acting. Then the series came crushing down with quite weak third season only to be resurrected in the genius fourth one when all the elements of the "Shakespearian soap opera" finally clicked - theatralic acting, over the top writing, symetric visuals, dim lightning etc. The fifth one with all his shortcomings was insanely brilliantly prophetic - it would be the most remembered and analyzed in the future IMO. The sixth one was a depressive, akward mixbag of good intentions and misguided concepts with the worst acting overall. And then we have a certain production assistant whose name once known to the world will stand for the most bizzare autodestruction of a legacy household brand in the history of Hollywood...

The director's intentions were quite clear and he didn't even try to hide them in the marketing of his second feature, but the very young age of his actors, I think, did not allow him to make another "typical" movie with LGBTQ label. Hence much wider appeal, bigger success, all the deserved awards and finally an Oscar nomination. You can read the story as you want really regardless of your own sexual orientation - as the story of two queer kids whose still innocent first love is crashed under the hostile pressure of the outside world, as the story of a platonic childhood bromance hunted, bullied and destroyed by homophobia or you may assume that one of them is straight and the other one not. Simply put, you may try to answer the question who was the chicken and who was the lizard at the end... Everybody praises Eden Dambrine, but I must say that the moment when Gustav De Waele disappeared from the screen for good was the moment when the film lost all his magic for me. The second half as already mentioned is really much worse, not only because it's depressive, rainy and less colorful. It's also indeed quite manipulative. I didn't shed a tear at the end, in fact I think the scene in the forest is the reason Eden lost his Best Actor slot at the Oscar Awards. Beautiful performance, though, coming from the heart, completely uncalculated. "Close" will be discussed for years to come, I think.

I've expected the worst after enjoying the original, but it's actually very well made and I want to congratulate among others Dana Brunetti, because his influence as executive producer is quite obvious... Acting is very good , but Diane Kruger stands out for me channeling Spacey's style to perfection. And when you see some of his mannerisms on a female... It's actually hilarious and quite charming. The original has been changed drastically and yet it's somehow more original than the cult 1994 film.

You don't need a great script. The script written by a man with an obviously dirty mind is the weakest part about "American Beauty". The young director didn't know what he was doing as he admitted recently... Every cast member beside Annette Bening is miscast. And yet the film is really more than the sum of its flawed parts by some cinematic alchemy. It's truly a fascinating creation, almost a cinematic masterpiece every critic then, now or in the future is unable to trash with his words.

Now it's just a "flop" because of the pandemic. I was watching it in almost empty cinema with only two other people present and I've watched films with all 50 % of seats occupied in this era already. The reversed or rewinded scenes make some impression at first, but after a while it just seems like they were running out of the film tape. The violance on screen is very naturalistic and graphic and there is just too much of it. The cinematography is unimpressive, the acting is average at best, the soundtrack is tiresome. The plot is all over the place, bad editing doesn't help. The dialogue is unintentionally hilarious sometimes. Branagh's performance is Razzie Award worthy and I hope he will be not overlooked at the nominations. Only the generally interesting, if not fascinating idea for a movie shows that Nolan may still have it in him after all.

It helped the filmmakers that the book itself is somehow subpar in the Grisham catalogue. It's hard to believe that Gene Hackman was on the edge of retirement in that period. His performance was flawless and very relaxed, totally unforced at the same time. He even completely dominated Dustin Hoffman in their brief scene together and in my eyes that's an accomplishment. Maybe he was in the right mindset already to deliver such a perfect performance but then... as an actor you just retire very soon.

I wonder why the defendants in this story were changed so drastically. Maybe it was not only an artistic choice but also a moral one. The guns problem still doesn't seem to be resolved in the United States. In this case we are dealing here with a quite underrated Hollywood movie with an important message, ladies and gentlemen.

There will be no sequel. This kind of indie filmaking is gone now in Hollywood. I mean who should make it? Dana Brunetti and Bob Weinstein? With all due respect it's pretty clear by now what pair from the producing quartet had something creative to say... It's a fine film with its ups and downs. Humour ranks from really funny and sophisticated to the toilet level (quite literally). It was a chance for the young director, writers and relative unknown cast to show their potential with no pressure of an Oscar material. Almost a charity work in the industry, killed and dead nowadays. Cancer subplot was needed but in the background. The final solution was subtle, sweet and poignant. Perfect in my opinion. Whatever fight has led to it... it was worth it.

Atom Egoyan can't seem to decide whether he wants to make a para documentary or a "Twin Peaks" rip off, which distracts the viewers like me (unfamiliar with the West Memphis Three case) and clearly confuses his cast. The best of the bunch were the child actors and Dane DeHaan. Although I must point out that only the little boy playing Aaron was able to master the para docu "Twin Peaks" style his director was desperate to create on screen... Incredibly memorable performance. But the movie itself is just OK if not just meh. And considering the fascinating story based on true events and the talents involved this should have been a great movie.

You could call this film a total cinematic antithesis to "To Kill a Mockingbird" if not for its fine cast, good acting, directing and great production values. Unlike the 1962 classic it's not about an innocent black man in the South convicted because of his skin colour. As absurd as it may sound it's actually about a guilty black man in the South set free because of his... skin colour. Incredibly manipulative piece of celluloid garbage. But in the end I tend to agree with the cynical and "retarded" D.A. Rufus Buckley and I'm not the only one probably. It's the irony of our times that this movie is much more political correct now than Gregory Peck in his Oscar winning performance with his "n*gro" word... Yes, he really says it as Atticus a couple of times in the courtroom.

I've never thought this movie was about death penalty; you should watch Kieslowski instead. The main theme here is the false accusation of sexual assault and its devastating effects. Gale's whole life as he knew it has been ruined by one short impulse of revenge (for being rejected and humilated) by a girl named Berlin. I think declaring Berlin "one of the coolest supporting female characters in the movies" shouldn't be the wokest thing to do right now. The "absurdity" of Gale's final sacrifice is absolutely delibarate IMO to show just how hard has he fallen and how much has he lost in his life he chooses to give away.

You can surely call it one of the biggest cinematic "ironies" of all time that no other than Kevin Spacey portrays David Gale...

The movie grows on you and you have to grow up to it, I think. I've watched it for the first time when I was like eleven years old and I've memorised the line "you don't have to do anything" the best. Hopefully it hasn't become my life credo ;) But the film shows it's actually better to do something, to believe in something (wheter it's Marx or God) than not want to get involved at all. And obviously to some crosspoints in your life you'll get for sure, one way or another... Please pay attention to details to fully appreciate the ending.

Surprisingly low rating for this film (3,7 as of this date) somehow mirrors current people's emotions in Poland and our election polls. Still it's a very good and daring film in my opinion, brilliantly although not super accuretely portraying Polish politics, media landscape and country's dominant rhetorical mode. The acting is top-notch. I was especially impressed by Antoni Królikowski, Zbigniew Zamachowski and Marcin Bosak in a smaller role playing someone who resembles todays Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki.

I think in the not so distant future the film will be either "blacklisted" and forgotten or it'll become a cult classic.

Any "backlash" against #MeToo is difficult because unlike chasing Soviet spies among Hollywood's greatest talents during McCarthyism or burning witches the purpose of it is surely not absurd and wrong. But this film shows quite a few problematic things with the movement born as a hashtag. The biggest problem I see is the conscious choice of bypassing the official justice system. I mean Weinstein is awaiting a trial now and he surely hopes for a fair one. Only Paz de la Huerta seemed to understand that if you were ready to go on Twitter or before cameras with your accusations, you should make at least a symbolic attempt at approaching the prosecutors to simply maintain some credibility. Other big problems are gossips and inside jokes treated as evidences of guilt. I think the film is premature to put it gently and quite morally questionable despite its noble intentions. "Leaving Neverland" comes to mind, although surely not a premature film - quite the opposite.

The movie has quite a strange period feeling and maybe this artistic tool was intentional. Everybody uses smartphones already, but for conversations only. No Twitter, no other social media... Some jokes were actually a bit tasteless, very atypical for Woody Allen. A couple of chuckles throughout the movie, typical Woody Allen. Ellen Fanning had the best lines and she was the best overall. Liev Schreiber was very good also with the material he was given. Cinematography is beautiful and perfect for a rom-com - warm, bright, sparkling and full of colours. Chalamet was just wooden and dull. That was the first performance by him I've seen and I don't want to judge him too early or too harsh but he seems to be extremely overrated. Maybe the right lead for a late Woody Allen film.

I don't know what I've found more ridiculous in the script - Russian President "on his knees" afraid of thousands of Russians protesting on the Red Square or POTUS Underwood, Kennedy or whoever not being on the top of the list for the liver transplant... But the scenes with the ghosts of Zoe and Russo rank among the very best in the history of American television, I dare say. The whole ghosts sequence was artsy, poetic and poignant, truly fascinating to watch. And you get the bonus of seeing Kate Mara and Corey Stoll in the series again.

The controversial screenplay by Manuela Gretkowska became unwatchable when transferred to the big screen. In 2004 the film was voted the worst Polish movie of all time although the competition grew a little stronger since then, of course ;) Iwona Petry instead of becoming a famous actress needed therapy to recover from "the experience". I wouldn't say - avoid at all cost, but please don't start your viewing adventure with the late Polish master's movies with this... work.

The video may not save Spacey. It was all too little, too unclear and above all... too late. But it might have helped Woody Allen, Michael Jackson, Geoffrey Rush and who knows whom else ;) The idea is ballsy and the writing is brilliant. The infamous ending of HOC is cancelled to make the series rewatchable again. On the other hand acting like playing a musical instrument needs practice and that's something Kevin was/is clearly lacking ;)

The movie is bad, really bad unfortunetly... And I wasn't biased, I really wanted to like it. But I got so bored I couldn't finish it in one viewing. I have to watch the last thirtysomething minutes the next day. I got bored because I couldn't get emotionally involved. And I couldn't get involved cause the lead actresses weren't able to play the real love between the two women. Well, I guess it's hard to play something you have no idea about but the Oscar nominated performances are beyond belief weak actually. My favourite Cate Blanchett appears to be plain creepy and the talented Rooney Mara pretentious and silly. Only the love scene was surprisingly convinsing and really hot. Kudos to the ladies for that ;) But in the end it seems the whole relationship is based on sexual desire only which is... tasteless. Even the music and the praised cinematography weren't really there to save the day. I give one star for the sex scene, the second one for costumes and the third one to the actor who played Carol's husband displaying great range of emotions in the supporting role.