Change Your Image
pearlyguillotine
Reviews
Big Fish (2003)
Invitation to a meandering and ultimately fruitless discussion about themes of ambition, loyalty, and father-son relationship.
I am happy to plunge deeper into such a discussion; feel for the characters or analyze the themes, but "Big Fish" just knocks and runs away, giving me only an aesthetic of a narrative without the contents. The stories of the main protagonist (Edward Bloom) are desperately sad and craving (on paper), but the film's atmosphere, music, decorations; almost everything visual-wise give them a comedic light, which goes against the main father-son drama and softens the impact any interesting conflict in this film.
Other explanation for the rose-tinted colors - we learn about these stories from the conversations between Edward and his son (Will Bloom). Edward softens the brutality of the real-life events for his young boy, but to the point where they apparently lose their reality roots (circus manager is a were-bear for some reason, kidnapped a Siamese twin from a theatre in north korea attended by hundreds of enemy soldiers). These stories feel poetic and have hints of symbolism about Edward's colorful perception of the world vs the boring material description, which he must've thought were less persuasive and would ruin the complexity of his past-life.
Edward takes to heart Emily Dickinson's advice of telling a dazzling truth of the real-world, but doing it in a slant language and gradually, not blinding us with his life's tragedies all at once.
However, Will grows up, and now is ready to learn what was really happening to dad, at least using a little bit more substantial words and less abstract symbolism. But Edward doesn't add anything new and doesn't event want to explain his reason behind the symbolism or doesn't have enough self-awareness to realize how vague his stories are. It leads to the worst trope in fiction - miscommunication. They become estranged, Will begs his father to have a sincere conversation and solve their strain, but to no avail. Father thinks he told everything absolutely and unboundly clear. The story doesn't explain the reason for this miscommunication either and focus more on the aesthetics of the sparkly tall tales, giving little time to the most promising father-son arc.
Paraphrasing Roger Ebert in his review of the "Big Fish", Edward is someone who tells the same worn off jokes, but doesn't have enough awareness to tell them quick.
The ending feels forced. Edward doesn't provide any more evidence that his stories are true or his way of telling them was justified (his son finds two small clues), but Will suddenly realized how he loves him and what a great storyteller he is. The quasi-comedy ends with a cringy tale (now told by Will) of an alternative reality, where Edward meets his every acquaintance by a lake and jumps into the waters as the titular "Big Fish", accompanied by a cheesy music. In an epilogue Will continues his dad's legacy telling ornate stories, which probably will sprang into a generational trauma of their own.
Brief Interviews with Hideous Men (2009)
Enjoyable outcome of low expectations and overflowing enjoyment of the source material. Nice, well-intentioned shot at adapting the radically verbal book into a movie
The source material for this film, "Brief Interviews with Hideous Men" by David Foster Wallace (DFW), is a compilation of unrelated stories tied together thematicaly. These stories are verbose, precise in the their language, concise, and morally ambiguous.
The are the direct translation of their book equivalents. It seems, when creating the scrip John Krasinski didn't want to compromise the character richness and straightforwardly quoted them throughout the film. Which is great, because I simply love the way they are written in the book. Now it's just a club of expressive reading, where actors animate the characters into the real world.
However, the film suffers from the interdependent decisions of John Krasinski that diluted the complicated brilliance of the book (the compromise which, it seems ought to be payed in a film adaptation). Conceptually, I like that John K went toward knitting this compilation of male characters together through expanding on the life of the woman interviewer, which as the book author himself explained was the silent, but major, part of his book. In isolation it sounds like a wonderful plan. However, it doesn't seem to work/the execution wasn't persuasive enough.
The woman interviewer is haunted by manly, selfish, self-consciously serene, and unapologetic stories, which despite their disturbing nature earn sympathy. At least in the book they do. The movie makes it seem like every men the interviewer meets is a cartoon cut-out of a male stereotype, despairing her. In the book these stories are meant to be terrible, but human. In the movie, when contextualised by the interviewer, all of them become alien and cold (except the story of the towel boy).
Still, wonderful visualization of the book, withstanding only as its companion. Without the book and the enjoyment of the book, the film is probably somewhere around 4/10.
Swiss Army Man (2016)
Touching exestial film film with random comical bits that bended and pushed on my 4th wall, almost making me hate it
I don't want to be moral saying, "if want make serious art Mr directors, you can't have fart jokes and erections jokes". BUT, in this particular instance they greatly strained my 4th wall. I assume they can provide a comical effect of shock in the context of the existential dread and tension, breaking with absurdism laughter. But the circumstances didn't seem comical at all. Maybe because they somewhat get me on a personal level. OR because the very first scene shows a person that almost hangs himself.
I got deeply invested in this story of isolation, think border between madness/enlightenment, and double-bind loneliness (Hank, the protagonist, both loves people and wants to reunite with them to kill hi loneliness, but then his legs take him away from society he simultaneously deeply fears).
It was a beautiful film. The fart jokes take a break closer to the movie's end, but return at the most touching moment at the very end. Now Daniel Radcliffe can write in his resume: "Once played an emotional talisman taking form of a farting dead body". And Paul Dano can write: "Played suicidal necrophil."
Memento (2000)
Long-winded, emotionless prelude to an almost satisfying ending, but initially an entertaining detective quest
For myself, I separated Memento into two parts. The first hour and 20 min, which were at first interesting mix of us following the memory steps of Lenny (the main protagonist) as if we remembering it with him. Gather information, figure out links, and seeking rational explain his circumstances, but I got closer to the end and everything was still uncertain. Nothing particularly clever or insightful or emotional to set foot on and think about, because it wasn't yet explained enough to my ideas settle upon (except that the manager of the motel was ripping off the protagonist renting him two rooms at a time).
The second part is the ending; rapid fire resolution under the main idea - Lenny wasn't necessarily a victim of his circumstances that included Natalie and Teddy, but a killer with supressed memories who intentionally made himself forget the painful past and killed random people to satisfy his ignorance (I didn't get an impression that Lenny is complicated enough character to get human empathy, expecially because we know very little of his emotion after his wife was raped - or any emotions at all, which is intention, but still would've been very welcomed). Still, sonds like nice premise, huh? I burned to know about this inner conflict. What he really felt after his wife into coma? We don't know.
I think would've enjoyed the film if it was edited in the chronological order and I knew the premise from the start. Probably, Memento would've been a less impressive quest to follow if we knew the twist from the beginning, but the story would have a more overall over the course of the film. The chaotic order also doesn't gove a salvation with an an emotional impact; Lenny doesn't seem saddened by his condition, but mindless determined and optimistic that everything will be alright after he kills the right guy. This movie feels rational, confident that it can impact an audience with an intelligent description of Lenny's condition, but the film doesn't confirm or deny anything until the end of the movie. Thus, the character didn't have an impression until the end of the movie when it resolves, because they distorted by Lenny's obscured memories.
I had suspicious from the start that it is one of these movies that pack its punchline in the last 10-15 minutes (starting with black-white sequence), but gave it a shot with lowered expectations, enjoying the beginning and my theories that Natalie can be his "dead wife" who is tired to explain that she is alive.
The movie isn't bad or disappointing. Just underwhelming and deceiving. Aesthetically promising and thoughtful, but the last minutes are a separate film that finally tells us anything about its characters.
Beetlejuice (1988)
Awkwardly comical, mindlessly funny
I don't if this this movie caught me with the right timing in the period of existentially dramatic movies, uncomfortable movies. Or, simply, this is just a great movie with impressive comedy.
There are two option, two ways for watching Beetlejuice. 1) Expectation for shivering drama of people caught in the afterlife: What they will do? Why they want new neighbours? Will they will be satisfied with relatively goods neighbours, even through they walking corpses? What are the feelings of the living who learned (I think yo the unfortunate) that there is an endless afterlife of incorporeal longing?
This are the questions that would've bothered me, if Beetlejuice was a self-serious drama (How did they even managed to drown in shallow creek?), but the movie is a simple, chaotic fun with no expectations for the following analyze. At the end I didn't even realized Beetlejuice was defeated. The plot moved so quickly.
I realize my above analyze feels somewhat regretful, but it's only in words. Watching the film is pure fun!
Beau Is Afraid (2023)
Dazzled by the brilliance of this movie, which is too real to comfort the bothered folk and too bothersome to the comfortable
It was the most wild Kurt Vonnegut-esque story of sometimes random and cynical suffering brought down on our little boy Beau. If we take everything
in this film literally, Beau suffers more in one week than Kenny in months in South Park.
It is for not the right kind of movie to watch in dreadful days. The movie not only brings up uncontrollable feelings, but agitates them. But it was the right kind of discomfort for me. I personally relate to Beau's compassion and inability to hurt people, thus inability to make decisions, which inevitably will have sometimes terrible repercussions.
More than ever I understand people hating my favorite movie. It is brilliant in every way, everything we ever wanted from a movie, but sometimes it's too real ----> breaking us out safety ----> bringing boredom ----> bringing negative towards the movie for not fulfilling it's main function of escapism and distraction from existential dread.
This movie fulfills the banal promis of every movie: "show, don't tell". The reality shifts and changes depending the people's perspective. The realities of the characters shown in the film are puzzling and valid, but we'll never what was *really* real and what wasn't, because the people themselves will. Why would we have that privilege? Even through I wouldn't mind if they revealed some more abstract details :). What Beau discovered in the attic?
I'm also, as it turns out, blinded by the sheer brilliance of the movie, still loved it. It was emotional most importantly. But now I want something more warm and hugging.
The Menu (2022)
Conceptually promising, aesthetically beautiful, but hollow it's irony that isn't even that clever
"The Menu" has a dystopian, "Black Mirror-esque"/films by Yorgos Lanthimos vibe. At first, the film creates a special atmosphere: unnaturally symmetrical shots, over-the-top farce, creative decorations, inventive food menu, and eerie atmosphere (both prestigiously elevated inviting the characters to savor this special experience and strictly orderly, totalitarian giving them and myself suspicions whether they proceed with this whole endeavor). The start has other small bumps and pits mostly affecting me personally, but otherwise it's great.
But then doesn't really knows what to do, going badly south when we learn more about the chief, the sigle driving force for the plot, the plot that takes the precedent in this movie over characters who mostly react to the events around them and mostly react in the same vein (at first pretencion of having this kind of prestige experience, then suspicion, then all gasp in disbelief, then terrified, then slightly determined, then giving up). The only highlight is Anya Taylor-Joy's character who goes against the highly strict menu, most likely because of her circumstances and luck (the only uninvited guest), still maintaining the status of the better character but not at all clarifying the main focus of the film.
This film is a diluted version of "Se7en (1995)", where the chief learns all the dirty secrets about most of his guests and starts a lynching. However, instead of the high (even if delusional) ideas of "Se7ven", the chief makes it all about himself, condemning: his frequent patron who doesn't remember any of the names of his complicated dishes and the actor who, as it happened, played in a bad movie, upsetting the chief who watched it in his rare free time.
The film does two contradicting things, giving us a ridiculously personal vendetta, but it didn't supply us with enough personal information on the chief. At the same, the film wants to be conceptual, thoughtful, ironic, but the guy who runs the whole thing isn't much different from the rest: selfish, cruel, goals justify the means, etc.
Even through in retrospect the movie isn't much, I was entertained watching it. I had some beautiful shots and it moved too fast to have too much complicated thoughts during the watch.
Assassin's Creed: Odyssey (2018)
Half of the AC, or how the protagonists went murderous for the mere rumour that her mother is under threat
I have two stages of my dissatisfaction with this game (divergence between our complex world and simplified pillar ideas of AC; I have an urge to pay close attention to the strory that moderatly fullfils my expectations, but sets a pretty low bar for its quests to jump over).
The series is mostly set around two ideas "eye for eye for eye, etc"/a quest for power, which are fine, if the protagonists were callous or destructively ambitious, but they are not. If you see these ideas as a stage set for abundant gameplay possibilities (or for some people - grind), the game is finest in the series (behind Origins and including Valhalla) and, I feel like, one of the finest in the videogame industry. However, the game gives no reason to be that unempathatic:
1) A close acquaintance borrowed money. No means to repay his debt, let's still their most valued possession (obsidian eye) and kill them all
2) The protagonist needs to speak with the general of sparta, let's massacure a hundred of Athenians with no information about the conflict between two nation whatsoever
3) In one dialogue Kassandra swears, affected by momentum of emotions, that she will end lives of every cult member for planning to murder/use her mother (she has not seen for ages). Then, in the next quest, speaking to her brother, Kassandra expressed no sentiment for her mother, only rationally noting her duty as a daughter to protect her mother, even if the mother abandoned her. To communicate with the order is strictly forbidden!
Moreover, the developers don't even commit to these ideals that make the AC series. Yes, every Templar member in the past games had unlikable personality to make them a psychologically easy target to kill, many unjustified deaths of univolved individuals, and a pretentious afterlife scene, defending their unreasonably cruel intetions. In retrospect, I like these scenes that went missing in this game. In AC Odessey, Templars, initially covered by a mask that intentionally (cult dictate) strip them of their personality, get no futher development of their individual traits, when the mask is removed. Only a paragraph of information for each.
It feels like there are two storylines that disturb each other and the creation of their own separate games with no assassins or a game with assassins in the spotlight.
I cannot dismiss the characters and the void they surrounded by, because, for me, the story gives meaning to our world, the videogame world, and to "another and another, etc" camp of decoys that the protagonist must destroy for some reason. In Disco Elysium, I'm ready to crawl every location, scan every inch of the map for plastic mere plastic bottles and sell them for money that feel real as EUR or USD. Unfortunately, AC Odyssey filled with decoys in blue and red uniform (the ones you need to kill, feeling no empathy) and general population. For some reason, these groups never intercect, the protagonist cannot speak with the soldiers, and take quests from soldiers.
Inevitably craving for positive feelings, I have a soft spot for design in this game. Historical reconstriction, pretty landscape, and, especially, monumental structures (massive statues certainly were made by god, sci-fi structures felt otherworldly) buff characters.
Some Like It Hot (1959)
Gentle side
Ok, I have watched "Some Like It Hot" (1959). The film has warmed my heart by: how gentle depiction of men in this old relic of a film from the time of stifling gender expectations, 24 hour dress code, and how dexterous were the screenwriters to sneak the themes banned by Hollywood censorship (Hays_Code), partly for quite absurd reasons .
The film managed to work around the outlaw of "any inference of sex perversion", which can be loosely defined to harm LGBTQ+ community. It forced male characters to dress in the clothing made usual for an opposite sex to favor the censors. However, in a slant way, the film told a story of gradual transformation of men into more gentle and sincere versions of themselves, giving the protagonists a sneek peek into the mysterios world of the opposite sex, which, as it turned out, was not that opposite, and breaking the "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" stereotype.
To summarize, "Some Like It Hot" is frequently makes ways to empathize with female hardships burdened by the society of 1950s and not at all ridiculous attempt to tell a story about female/male cross-dressing, especially considering its date and the successors that followed the similar theme.