Reviews

55 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Very coherent and partially successful attempt at very high level of storytelling
15 April 2024
This film is conducted with a very, very steady hand. There is nothing to complain about in terms of direction - the narrative progresses slowly, but the tension is built very efficiently. The superbly led actors do not disappoint - the characters are very well constructed and portrayed not only plausibly, but even endearingly. There is a lot of looseness and humanity in them, but also the right dose of consistency. The only thing I missed a tad was the lack of clearer character transformation arcs. In the case of Eleonor, one can, shall we say, oobserve such a transformation, but not necessarily in the case of Lemmark, and it is not there at all when it comes to Jack McKenzie, who remains throughout the story a bit of a "space filler" - as if the juxtaposition of Lemmark and Eleonor required the addition of some third element. So this element was added, Jack McKenzie is Lemmark's second mainstay next to Eleonor, but his role in the story is almost no different from the side characters, i.e. The other members of the investigative team, and yet - for unexplained reasons - the film places him higher relative to them in the hierarchy. The camera willingly and often portrays the three of them together - Lemmark, Eleonor and McKenzie are clearly fashioned as a trio. But only the first two play a significant role in the investigation.

However, the main flaw of this production - making it impossible to call the film great and defending its entry into the narrow circle of films to which one wants to return - is, unfortunately, the script. However the idea itself, the concept itself is, in my opinion, very good, its implementation in written form seems to be a bit limp. This is felt mainly in the third act, where the promises made earlier by the text should be kept. They aren't. It's also possible that the direction is limping a bit here, but nevertheless the main culprit is the script itself. Towards the end it lacks.... the spark. The finale then comes off as rather trivial - despite the fairly sensible and relatively unique concepts assumed in the very idea of the script, in its backbone. It's as if all the steam went into building the world, the characters, draping the aforementioned backbone with flesh, while the core remains described - and then realized - rather vaguely, with the omission of a believable psychology of the characters, a bit fast, perfunctory.

On the other hand, the cinematography, reminiscent of Darius Khondji's work in Se7en, deserves attention - there is a lot of dark elegance in it, and at the same time striking stylization, from which mixture we get a visual language that fits the mood of the story quite snugly. Camera works well together with dynamic but "honest" editing and the result is a very imersive, suggestive, if somewhat distorted, a bit unreal visual convention.

Overall, the entire movie is definitely noteworthy and above avarage. It lacks a little strength to break the glass ceiling and - like Se7en or the first season of True Detective - become a modern classic. But Damián Szifron's sense of style, strenght of direction are, in my opinion, at a high level, and I patiently await his next movie.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unforgiven (1992)
5/10
32 years since the premiere it feels a bit... moldy.
29 March 2024
Yup, 32 years after the premiere, I have watched it, being myself 43 years old - still younger than 62 years old then Eastwood :) And I gotta tell you... I suspect this movie felt a bit oldish even at the premiere. I appreciate the script being constructed quite widely across so many quite deeply described characters' stories. I appreciate the acting from Eastwood, Freeman and Hackman (but, to be honest, they 'just' deliver their defaults - a prime ones, of course, but there's nothing in those roles different from other great appearances in their careers). I appreciate even the slow burning flow of the story - I don't mind a bit of air in the movie...

BUT...

For the most part of the movie dialogues are very clumsy, openly descriptive, even childish, very often not necessary at all. And this bloody tendency to... repeat the lines, the jokes, the substories even a few times throughout the movie feels like director's/screenwriter's dementia hitting in.

Editing from scene to scene is... weird here and there. Within the scenes everything seems flawless and the edits are 'invisible', as they should, but when the story jumps in time and/or place... strange things happen in the cuts. I mean, don't get me wrong, cuts between the scenes actually almost CAN'T be 'invisible', so I don't expect what is impossible, but in this movie those cuts often let go of the scene a few seconds too early, or they miss fade out - somehow expected basing on the rhythm of earlier stages of the story. Those moments in editing feel 'broken', 'abandoned' somehow and - sadly - painful because they contrast with the sublime and precise cuts which we can (not) feel inside a scene. That spoils the flow of the story and gets you out of it right away, so the next scene has to bring you back in the saddle (pardon, couldn't help myself).

In some way above paragraph could also be... a praise of a superb within the scene editing - oh, it shine, believe me, like good old classy, timeless shine - but overall, the magic-spoiling effect of those broken between-the-scenes cuts cast a shadow which, being more closely related to the tone of the film, is bigger.

Directing of all that wide, ambitious many characters driven fresk... seems a bit messy nowadays. I think I KNOW what the the director wanted to achieve, and it IS achieved on the intellectual level - I get the message, I receive the dual morality concept spreaded across almost all characters here, I even comprehend the antihero hero final scene. It is all here as it should. But the WAY it is all combined in the whole fails to be considered sharp, coherent, poetic, impactful nowadays. This movie got old much, much worse, than only two years younger 'The Shawshank Redemption', which still holds the line in 2024 in my opinion. And that comes, I think, from the director's intelligence and sensitivity (and luck, I guess).

Overall this is not a bad movie by any means, it keeps you thinking, asking questions - which, surprisingly, remain actual today as they were in 1992 and 1830 - but the WAY it makes you ask those questions feel a bit forced, a bit stiff, a bit grumpy and outdated. Eastwood always treated the audience a bit like morons - his cinema always had this narrow, shallow sensitivity, spreading a kinda dry worldview, I guess. But nowadays (and I mean according to modern cinema's language, not to modern social policies) - while dealing with such sophisticated theme and the potential seeded in the script - that kind of clumsiness is... unforgivable ;)

I'm curious how 'The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford' - which is another take on anti-western - made 15 years after 'Unforgiven' will stand up to the trial of time in 2039. I will be then quite old, 58, but still younger than Eastwood in 1992 ;)
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Creator (2023)
3/10
Technically superb empty shell of a story.
27 March 2024
That could be a solid 8 or even 9/10 if the script and/or direction haven't put it back to a lower than mediocre visual feast category. Great production value wasted on convoluted yet predictable script, blatant, over-the-place direction mixing vibes from Tarantino, Ridley Scott, Steven Spielberg, Neill Blomkamp, and others with addition of slapstick comedy and manga flavor here and there. We end up with a story which lacks believability from the first minutes. The scene of military raid in the exposition feels so god damn forced and soulless - yet to mention its pure logic issues - that you almost pray for this thing to get up from nonsense in next scenes. Unfortunately it stays in the same bizzare spot - somewhere between maturely and boldly approaching the complex subject and teenage-like execution. From scene to scene plot holes pop up like chewing gum balloons and after 20 minutes or so... you just don't even WANT to care anymore (you actually don't care for some time now).

Acting makes it somewhat watchable, but - again - feels like wasted casting potential. Psychologically speaking - this is all pure adolescent understanding of some character clichés, nothing mature emerges from those mannequins. You observe 'some actions' of 'some people'. Nothing lands in you and nothing will stay with you longer than seconds you are exposed to that on screen. The whole story could get away with such flat psychology if it was a comic book, where you, the reader, could 'fill-up the gaps' basing on simplified convention of this artform - you have 'agreed' for that convention on the get-go and your brain just follows this concept, this path, way of capturing and conveying motions. But a movie needs some more grounding in human psychology to pass as believable. And I know that I demand much, but.. this is partly because of the dissonance which I picked up comparing - almost unconsciously - the set design, the tone, the complex subject, with amateurish execution in the matter of soul, humane element, psychology. In other words - I was PROMISED much and I felt that this promise proved to be empty quite early into the movie.

Even the action sequences lack the REAL, strong rhythm and are composed in a rather directionless manner, without a spark of vision. They just... unfold under my eyes, leaving me completely not thrilled at all. As if they would be a perfectly perfect resolution of a precise sterile planning in which a thrive for suspense, logic, substance was just forgotten to be included. For example sound design here is awesome, but to hear those marvelous laser shots again and again - the fact that apparently NO ONE can aim in that world should NOT be the reason.

Someone has watched too many Star Wars.

Overall - it can be watched purely for technical aspects: CGI, set design and sound. If you want to FEEL anything - better rewatch Chappie.

I only wonder if this could be better if it was prepared as a trilogy or two part endeavor - I believe the amateurish vibe it all has here and there can be a result of forcefully pressing the ambitious, potentially wide and rich story into a narrow format of two hour long feature movie. But it's a faint faith.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Beekeeper (2024)
2/10
What the hell Jeremy Irons???
6 February 2024
This such a disastrous piece of crap, that it is hard for me to comprehend how on earth somebody could willingly put their names on the posters. Jeremy Irons is - sadly - one of those people. But, at the same time he is the only reason to stay till the end of the screening. Lousy writing, awful acting (especially "female lead" who should rather stay at doing commercial or soap operas if she cannot deliver solid performance in such an easy role in such a low aspiring movie - every time she is on the screen I cringe like an old avocado), even the lighting feels cheap and color correction looks like straight out from After Effects.

In short: this is just yet another John Wick clone and let us remember that John Wick itself is at most mediocre level of entertainment.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Terminal List (2022– )
2/10
The Equalizer vibes all over... and nothing more. For teen-agers.
20 January 2024
This is a teen show. Psychologically speaking, there is not a single real character in it. They are all clichés, tracings, comic book clowns, performing completely childish theaters of decision-making. It can even be said that the characters constantly outdo each other in terms of the depth to which their flatness reaches. We have a God-fearing, extremely rich, and somehow noble-hearted old Mexican who quotes the Bible and likes to hunt. We have his wife - simple and shapeless, behaving towards the main character like a good-bad aunt. We also have the main character's "brother" - an ex-commando, currently a CIA agent, who talks non-stop about getting drunk and leads the life of a teenager. We also have a "sister" - an airplane pilot (how convenient) with a cheeky-redneck sense of humor, who watches football matches to her enormous excitement. We have the good lady Secretary of Defense. We have evil corporations taken over by money-hungry unethical billionaires. Finally, we have the main character's daughter, stylized as some plastic child "mold" taken from guides for American families. There is also a good cop with principles... Oh, and there is a journalist - so... smart... so naive... And those are only few examples - I could point out these rubbish clichés, seen a million times in similar productions, aimed - no offense - at the less demanding part of the audience.

The only thing that compels me to write this review is the feeling that a lot of potential was wasted here - the story of revenge could have been much more interesting and fuller if the typical tricks of a classic "American production for a mass audience" had been abandoned.

It all reminds me of the "Equalizer" series with Denzel Washington - similarly full of simplifications, cheap psychology (and lack of the real one), effective in building tension in action scenes describing a complex and varied range of methodical killings. Here - as in Denzel's flicks - it is also hard to bear the director's recurring attempts at viewer's conversions to the Catholic religion. As the the emphasis on typically American traditions (such as the frequently recurring theme of hunting), the absolute overload of 4x4 cars, all kinds of weapons and heroic military-brotherly pathos. And charry on top - toasts "to the family". Plus redneck jokes, lack of logic in many, many, many events and Chris Pratt's ongoing on-screen decision making whether to play his character seriously or turn him into a caricature.

The first episode was somewhat interesting, the second one was okay, and then it just got worse and worse - to become finally something strangely similar to mediocre at best gamedev storytelling (the all-around-wide-target Ubisoft's approach).

You can somehow bear "Equalizer", because firstly, Denzel squeezes everything he can out of his character, and secondly... film lasts only 2 hours. Here, at the fourth episode - I no longer believe that something meaningful will happen in this production. There have already been too many poor moves - both in terms of script and direction - to estimate quality. I lost hope.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
This is just rubbish, sorry.
21 December 2023
Hugh Grant's character - played on the border between funny and scary - is the only thing making this movie somehow entertaining. His presence makes you stick to the screen - just to investigate his intentions and maybe be surprised by his methods of dealing with friends and/or enemies. The rest of the 'pack' is just absolutely below my expectations - even Audrey Plaza's unbelievable comedy talent was wasted here by not creating contexts in the story suitable enough for her to shine in. Jason Statham is Jason Statham. Period. JJ guy is completely forgettable as a character.

And all this mess looks like a cheap knock-off/hybrid of Kingsman, Mission Impossible, Tarantino and others. Full of so called 'nods' or 'tribute scenes' which does not bring anything to the table in terms of story, narrative, climate. Packed with forced unnatural dialogues, sticked to the characters almost as a result of a lottery. If I didn't knew it was Guy Ritchie's movie, I would not even guess in that direction - that's how bloody amateur attempt at entertainment it is.

Avoid paying for seeing this..
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
65 (2023)
2/10
Good CGI + Adam Driver. The rest just sucks
30 November 2023
Besides Adam Driver's face and remarkably good CGI this is quite annoyoing piece of crap. And I kinda knew that from first seconds of the movie which are accompanied by a cheap, pseudo-emotional music score (btw, the music is ALL OVER this flick and its character reminds amateur attempts at scoring computer games to sound 'like movies'). Generally speaking it is composed out of cliches, borrows quite a lot of shots from Jurrasic Park (staging, visual storytelling, visual suspense), but lacks the narrative substance of Spielberg's classic. And those borrowed shots feel 'pinned-down' on the story, like on the corck board - they not fit INTO the story, they seem forced ON TOP of it. And the reason for that could lay in the fact that there's no real character developement here, no mystery in the plot (in terms of the action, and psychologicaly in the area of both protagonists' dynamic), no immersive exposition. We just observe some people doing some stuff. No real life in those characters. At all. It feels like a commercial rather then a movie.

Also editing feels a bit apparent and forced - like there were some reedits done, maybe some cut-outs, or producer's intervention driven by the 'sell-better' factor? Or like there was no vision for the movie's rythm? Don't know, but it feels off. Lots of times.

And what's a bit sad that all that could have been done better, I suppose. The premise of the story, its basic core concept - even with this bit cheesy tear-erupting father-daughter relation - seems legit as for a good sci-fi movie, seems doable more elegantly.

Bottom line: boring, predictable, annoyingly commercial-like emotional soap opera with dinosaurs and Adam Driver.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cocaine Bear (2023)
1/10
Disgustingly stupid and proud of it
30 March 2023
It's s just plainly BAD movie with a lot of basic craft mistakes all over. And apart of that - it is just disgustingly stupid attempt at making a 'funny slasher'. It is not funny, it is not scary. At. All.

It's just stupid, amateurly directed, heavily overacted, badly edited and badly written (but actually in the concept itself, and in some PARTS of the script - and only in that - I could find some potential for that movie to be a little gem... somewhere in parallell universe, where somebody SMART would have taken that bizzare opportunity). And it is stupid.

Disclaimer: I KNOW that it was meant to be THIS kind of movie. But it's bad at it. Period. When I watched it I felt only embarrased for the whole 'proud' attempt at making a 'crazy ride'. It reminded me 'Dumb and Dumber' or other similarly low level comedy, and I have managed to keep watching for about 30-40 minutes, till I just couldn't stand any longer this piece of crap. A-V-O-I-D!
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Great premise, not so great execution
20 March 2023
It reminds me of Les rivières pourpres (2000), Der Name der Rose (1986), The Ninth Gate (1999), Sleepy Hollow (1999) or even The Silence of the Lambs (1991) (especially when it comes to the soundtrack, which is written - surprise, surprise - by the same Howard Shore), but all these similarities are only the effect of the 'wanna-be' factor that dominates this production as its heart. The Pale Blue Eye doesn't even come close to the aforementioned titles - it only wishes it has. And this is probably mainly due to the simply dull and boring direction - a rather uninspiring presentation of all the scenes, prepared as it should be, following the shooting-board, and finally presented in accordance with the order and duration suggested by logic. Were it not for the excellent acting by Christian Bale and Harry Melling, the music almost copied from The Silence of the Lambs and quite honest, rough cinematography - this movie would not be watchable. The screen exudes boredom and a strong stylization of the staging, reminiscent of a theatrical performance. Boredom, however, does not result from the lengthiness and slow pace of the narrative - because in my opinion slowness fits perfectly into the atmosphere and theme of the story - but from the lack of LIFE, SPARK, FEEL. While Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow could afford strong styling because he wandered deeper into the 'comics' realm, here the styling moves the story away from much intender realism (or maybe romantisised version of realism). For however pleasant it is to watch Mr. Bale and Mr. Melling eloquently discuss this and that, it is merely a formalism, for there is no real life in the story underneath.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let Him Go (2020)
4/10
Great acting from Costner, lousy from Lane, good direction, a bit stupid script
14 March 2023
It is uneven experience. The first half is a great slow-burner with emphasis on strong minimalistic dialogues, setting the mood for a ride that is darker then even Costner's character predicts. But then the movie starts to be about completely unreasonable grandmother and her husband who is stupidly in love with her and... with all her bad ideas. So the main villain here is... the script - full of stupid people doing stupid things in the name of stupid assumptions. In fact the only reasonable human being here is Costner's character - all others (especially women, sorry) are plainly stupid to the extent of being a parody of a human being. And therefore while watching this, scene after scene I was repeating in my head "noooo, she didn't do it... no way, so f.... stupid, how he will handle this, when he will snap?!". The ending is the peak of this allaround stupidity...

It's a movie for a bedtime - you can start to watch it, and fall asleep without regrets.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Annoying (also because it could have been good)
9 February 2023
It's rather common nowadays, that movies are made with this sort of absolutely not humble attitude of the creators, about the REASON for making it. It looks like a sort of WISDOM - needed earlier in the industry to take part in creating process of such a complex thing as a movie - is being right now nonchalantly neglected as a necessity. Nope. You don't have to explain anybody anything. You just make a movie and.. . There, that's it. I made a movie. About anything.

And it almost feels like there is no place for the viewers to say "ah, excuse me, what particularity is this movie made for?"
  • Is it a silly B-class attempt?


  • Pfff, sure no! It looks like it, but deliberately. It is avangarde. It's a movie. It's a statement. It's a portrait of this and that. It is a form of expression, real deal, important stuff.


  • But it came out sort of ...unnecesary. Is it made for fun?


  • Pfff, of course it is for fun, what are you - a boring person? But also it is very fresh take on subject X, you know. It matters.


  • ...OK, yeah, but... why? What is the reason? What's the message?


  • Pfffff, you know, it depends on how much are you ready to dive into hard questions, you know...
  • Ummm, OK.


  • Yeah, whatever. Here , there is my new movie.


It feels like responsibility for the creation becomes sort of ...third-ish thing to bother. More important is "that we try", and "that we learn" (btw, no, you are not).

This movie COULD have been a good one, actually. It is based, I think around somehow important concept of addressing few of problems growing on Gen Z's messed up grounds, and it has some potential in the genre-specific realm also (as a horror/slasher). But it fails in my opinion, because it is not FOCUSED, and RESPONSIBLE in both of those areas. Which is being clumsily (but also with *THAT* attitude) covered up by some "rough", "bold", "nonchalant", "grungy harsh", "visceral" look and feel. Sadly it came out rather as a triumph of free will's chaos, glued together into... sumfin'.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Poker Face (2022)
1/10
Absolute bonkers
9 December 2022
Nothing makes sense in this movie. Starting with the plot itself, then there's ridiculous overacting, even choice of music is beyond comprehension. I feel like Russell Crowe reading the script, and then writing the screenplay was intrigued by this concept of tense claustrophobic drama taking place in linear fashion told by a strong lead ultra-wise character which holds the mystery by its balls all the time, just to reveal it to the viewers by the end of the movie... And guess what - it all remained only a concept.

This is a bad movie with lots of very basic storytelling mistakes, bad editing, bad direction, bad screenplay, bad acting, and bad ending. It feels like an ego-boosting manouver for Mr. Crowe himself, sorry.
17 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Gray Man (2022)
5/10
Stupid. But entertaining. But stupid.
6 November 2022
It's complete nonsense in terms of the "thriller" aspect of the story. Forget about reality needed for this genre to be suitable here. The same nonsense though, lifts this movie above avarege (in a good way) when it comes to the "action" part - as an action movie this one is better than most. Quite good, sharp dialogues, likable and quite interesting characters (as for the action movie, remember) brought to some life by Gosling, Evans, and de Armas, light and fun direction, nice locations, mediocre but passable CGI, bit of humour, quite intense editing, meticulous action inscenisation bringing to mind a bit gamedev way of thinking about camera movement.... aaaand completely absurd story (which, to be honest, COULD HAVE BEEN not so absurd, if done more seriously in the tone, without so much of the "action" ingredient).

One thing I don't get though: who the hell green-lited the outro pre end credits animation stylised as a stillframe fly-trough between some kind of iron sculptures, statues of main characters. I mean... this is so horribly ugly - as for the concept itself (lame as lamest dumb moronic piece of crap) and for the realisation (vomit-provoking aesthetics here are quite frankly unprecedented even on the level of medicine simulation animations from the ugliest tv commercials) - that it just blows my mind how on earth somebody in production could have watched it and say "yeah, I like it, done, thank you." This. Is. Just. Unbelievably. Ugly. And nothing, I mean nothing can possibly explain the reason for choosing this garbage to be aired, while in reality it should not be shown to anybody besides mom of this 14 year old boy who must have made that. And if it's done not by him, but by a group of adults - welll... in that case their permission to TOUCH a computer should be revoked for life under the treath of instant death by a shark attack, detonation and hanging. It left me speachless, really.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
One question: what for?
21 October 2022
I have one question about that movie: what it was created for? Why? What is the reason, the message?

I admire the way this story was written, and the way it was executed - very precisely, consequently, creatively, with high standards in terms of visual, narrative and sound style. It is for sure an achievement not so often present in mainstream cinema or even in cinema in general. Or maybe, I should rather say - not so often you can watch a movie so focused, so well done, so precise, and so impactful... while in the same time - so lacking a relatively accessible cause. I think that watching a movie crafted excelently, cratively, powerfully, usually rather comes together with the baseline understanding of the underlying message the director hopes to deliver. Here, this whole so eleganly prepared experience seems to be dettached from this "ethical spine", from this "creator's mission". In my book - as a creator you should have very precise reason for creating any form of art, especially so complicated and multilayered as a film. Of course, there are some experiments in the history of cinema, some pieces of art breaking the rules and coming from not so reasonable background - for example, David Lynch comes to mind as a director who would rather die than reasonably establish what and why he would like to convey to the viewer with his film - but those brave ones, who choose this path should be far more better magicians than their "conservative" collegues. In my opinion Yorgos Lanthimos is not so magically gifted as Lynch.

And not so "conservatively" grounded as Michael Haneke for example, whose "Funny Games" from 1997 (remade almost shot-to-shot in US in 2007) are, I think, more convincing in terms of using this tempting method of dragging viewer trough the hell's floor... actually for a reason. Haneke's effort at making viewer feel extremely uncomfortable thorough the whole movie, was very similar as Lanthimos' cold manner of dealing with our souls in "Deer", but I was able to understand and to feel the reason why he have chosen to tell that story in such way, and therefore to justify this "cruelty" towards my, the viewer's heart. I felt and understood that "Funny Games" were concieved as a form of study on the roots of pure evil in human soul. A study which concluded - with brutal honesty - that pure evil, pure violence is, indeed, completely absurd, and completely unstoppable... yet, in the same time, nests itself inside our not so absurd, and not so unstoppable human body. I found "Funny Games" disturbing as f..., but also I knew, I felt why I was confronted by the director with such amounts of the darkness. In case of the "Deer"... I'm not so sure the director knew what he was trying to convey. To be honest - I'm also not so sure I was properly prepared for receiving the message, since it could have required for me to be more broadly educated in the field of greek mythology (as I read here - refferences in the movie are strong in that matter) or in some other aspect of culture or psychology which I'm not aware of. But if so - again, I blame rather the creator, for delivering message so hermetic that you need prior not so small education to understand what you are dealing with.

After watching "Everything Everywhere All at Once" (2022) by The Daniels, I felt similarly cheated - some magic was for sure conducted on me, but I was not able to trust the magician and to believe that his intentions were clear and honest - I felt emotionally and intelectually abducted, like after watching the "Deer". I believed David Lynch after "Mullholand Drive", despite his magic being even more off-the-limits, out of this world. I believed Michael Haneke after "Funny Games", despite his tricks were so much more brutal and grounded in reality, therefore so much more devastating. But I just can't believe Yorgos Lanthimos and The Daniels. I'm 42. Maybe I'm too old.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Easilly passable
18 October 2022
Warning: Spoilers
First thing: this movie looks awfull. Cinematography and lighting puts it somewhere in between a soap opera, a student film, and a work of a very very very old and 'disconnected-with-the-world' cinematographer. I find it absolutely the biggest of the wasted opportunities for making this movie a decent form of art (and there are few others, sadly). It repelled me visually, it was cringy, it made me constantly roll my eyes in shame, because I felt like DP tried so hard to light and shoot the scenes in a wise and simple manner, but the final look of the movie ended up being just obvious, cheap and boring.

The second problem of the movie is the editing - there are too many shots there, which feel unneceserily long for no aesthetic or narrative reason. Again - cheap and boring.

Third major flaw is the screenplay - full of uninspired dialogues, clichés, and soap opera psychology. The real 'gem' in this cathegory is the scene in which Penelope Cruz asks Javier Bardem if he remembers their last night together many years ago. He responds that he remeber it perfectly. Yet next she tells him in detail exatly what they were doing that night, to finish it with a punch in the soul, revealing that he is the father of her daughter. The scene feels like an explainer video - conceived just for the sake of informing us, the audience, what have happened. Problem is we are talking here about a massive milestone in the story, we are dealing with a scene intended as the turning point of the narration and it falls short at this task - being boring and explanatory.

And the last thing bothering me here is the acting (or poor casting... or flawed direction) - it feels like Cruz and Bardem play in completely different movie than the rest of the cast. They are both splendid in their roles and their craft is a major reason to watch the movie anyway, but all other actors just deliver on completely different and visibly lower level of sensitivity.

Bottom line - if you decide to skip on that title, you will not miss anything particulary wise, innovative, transformative or even interesting. It is too boring to be a decent thriller, and it's told not maturely enough to be a decent drama.
1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Colony (2021)
4/10
Low budget in its "best clothes"... is still a low budget.
22 September 2022
You can feel it's a low budget movie from the first 10 minutes. Then it only assures you more and more that your feeling was right, in the same time trying its best to convince you otherwise. CGI is great... as for the low budget. Acting is good... as for the low budget movie. Cinematography is decent... as for the low budget movie. Music, loghting, editing are also not so bad... as for a low budget movie. And so on, and so on - neverending see-saw ride of intentions (high budget) vs reality (low budget). Quite nice movie... as for a low budget ;)

Which means... this is a low budget movie. Period. And you just CAN'T cover it up. Period.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A B-movie (and B is for 'Bad'). One and half darkest hour. Literally.
9 September 2022
A cringeworthy child of american-russian relationship, inheriting all the worse character flaws from both of the parents. American pathos combined with russian melodrama; absolutely ridiculous script together with porn-like acting; poor FX 'enhanced' by crappy lighting and amateur editing; primitive character psychology, decorated boldly with a complete lack of logic.... I almost feel bad writing this. But the story, direction and even casting (!) MUST BE miserable if, while wathing a scene, you find it unintentionally comical because of... differences in actors' height. It's THAT bad.

Everything here stinks for miles. I just can't say anything good about this movie. Even opening credits look like stock footage for $10. Honestly, I can't believe that such movies are released from time to time and everybody involved somehow manage with their lives afterwards. The only motivation for making that monstrocity was 'easy money', I suppose. And that - I respect ;).

I like B-movies, but I think there is a magical distinction between a B-movie, and a bad B-movie. This one is a bad B-movie. A-V-O-I-D!!!
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mr. Right (I) (2015)
6/10
It could have been an 8 or 9 for me, but...
7 September 2022
Firstly, the fundamental honours should go to Sam Rockwell. For me he is like a "Mana x 100" card in movie industry. Every movie with this guy goes immedietely few steps further in terms of dealing with humanity captured in frames. It's hard to find another so comically and dramatically tallented actor in hollywood, who can transfer such amounts of humanity to the screen on the basis of almost any script. His Mr. Right feels natural, funny, charming, and - despite complete absurd filling every scene of that movie (which is by the way not a flaw in any sense) - very believable on a psychological level (of course, mind the convention - it's not New Wave French Drama). I would risk saying that this flick could be even unwatchable if not Rockwell's charisma. In my six-star rating, two stars were earned by his talent - in my opinion without him it's only a four-star movie.

Why so harsh? Because the way this movie is directed, shot and produced leaves some space for improvement. Sadly, it feels low budget - in that not good way, when you can clearly see what the director was AIMING FOR in that particular scene and how big the gap between that and what he actually ACHIEVED is. There are many scenes here and there which feel just cheap, but would like to be percieved as an A-class hollywood material. It is very anoying especially in fighting and special effects scenes - considering low budget, the director could have made other aesthetic choices, to avoid such traps, and deliver the vibe, the soul of the scene in other form, more suitable for production's scale.

Aslo, other reasonably cheaper scenes, not demanding any special expensive "movie magic", seem for me a bit vague in terms of direction sharpness - they are ...OK rather, than extraordinary, and their potential seems to be a bit wasted. Sam Rockwell, Tim Roth and Anna Kendrick do their best and squeeze those to the last drop, but that only... increases my appetite. And it gets worse, because the movie has GREAT script (with extraordinary dialogues), so you almost feel pain when it is delivered so uninspiringly from scene to scene.

Cinematography also lacks the spark - shots are lightened in a bit TV fashion (with only few decent exeptions), and every slow-mo, or trick shot feels somehow amateur, "wanna-be" like. That spoils the fun for me. I would rather see that movie made aestetically with much... less attention to the form, or - to put it in better words - with much more storytelling visual class. "Brick" (2005) - a post noir crime story by Rian Johnson delivers much "less stylish" (in the meaning of "less is more"), yet still very attractive form, quite suitable for "Mr. Right" in my opinion. Other great example of class - and this time from the same dark comedy subgenre as "Mr. Right" - is John Dahl's "You kill me" (2007). Both of those movies share the same storytelling charms, which "Mr. Right" lacks - they seem mature, modest, accurate, wise, and STILL entertaining.

But overall "Mr. Right" is ...alright. You WILL find in it some portions of soul, humanity, humour and pure entertainment.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dune (2021)
4/10
As my 14 yo daughter put it - "Arabic Star Wars". And - as Star Wars - boring as hell..
22 August 2022
I don't get the hype. The movie is predictable as hell and just boring. Of course, aesthetically it is a gem. Beautiful, just beautiful shots - perfectly framed, filled with elegant yet superior costume and set design (and CGI) backed by absolutely great soundtrack. It is also nicely played by lead actors (besides Zandaya and Aqua Man - they are just bad actors; it's that simple, sorry). But overall it is just another monarchy-fantasy-political-fiction pretentious crap similar to Star Wars, and Lord of The Rings, and Harry Potter, and Game of Thrones and so on - completely wooden characters, lack of mature psychology in relationships between them, overcomplicated intrigue which tries to tell again and again and again the same old "truth" about "the chosen one" and does it again and again and again in the same way of mixing some almost graphomaniac mythology with tons of pathos and stretching the tell to the level of highly detaild absurdity. In polish there is a word for an empty egg - "wydmuszka" (which translates as "a blown egg" probably) - a beautifull, almost perfect shell without any substance in it. And that's Dune.

If you want see Timothée Chalamet in somehow similar story, but told much more interestingly, see The King (2019) (but it's without dragons, sorry).
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ambulance (2022)
5/10
It entertains... if you don't expect much
2 May 2022
It's tense. But stupid. Acted well (Gyllenhaal is great). But stupid. Even a bit funny from time to time. But stupid. Just be prepared for nonsense in terms of logic and psychology and you will see some good action scenes, some proper character presentation form Jake Gyllenhaal, some disturbingly fast edit, a few bit funny lines, and that's it.

Ah, please mind the oversaturation of emotional pathos in the third act - it gets ugly (as usual in Michael Bay flicks), when characters start to "feel" the "feelings", and all that overacting - completely not grounded in the script nor in common sense - kicks in. Typical Bay.

You gonna also experience a ton of product placement (I counted over 5 instances), but it comes quite elegantly - as for Bay - sewed into the "plot". And a bit low budget cinematography, which feels digital (not in a good way, sorry) overcompensated by insane amounts of drone footage. By the way - here's another warning: it CAN make you sick. Literally. The drone camera work could easily trick your labyrinth into a bit uncomfortable state.

But summing it all up - ...it's Michael Bay, ok. And if you know what are you dealing with here, you should not be disappointed.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
It feels... so Italian. But not in a good way.
5 January 2022
Very wanna-be-noir flick. In the core, in the essence it reminds me somehow a great example of this "secluded little town crime scene" sub genre which is Sean Penn's "The Pledge" from 2001 starring Jack Nicholson. There are some inspirations here also from Mathieu Kassovitz's "The Crimson Rivers" and from Roman Polanski's "Death and the Maiden" (1994), I think. Among few other little copies from other filmmakers, here and there. But overall, this is very pretentious attempt at making truely interesting movie. It lacks the depth, the psychological believability and all that comes from assumption that it is possible to make a decent gripping 2021 thriller using a film language a decade old (or even older). It all looks and feels so... dated - the story and its rendition, the direction, casting, staging, set design, cinematography, lighting, acting, music. It could have been better. A lot better. If it was more modern in approach. And humble towards THE STORY, instead of THE STYLE.

Bottomline - the whole twisted, sophisticated storyline (which IS a great concept by the way, it HAS a potential)... was ruined by old fashioned Italian mannerism with its strangely melancholic and clumsy way of trying to be hollywoood-like.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Complete nonsense with great cast and tons of propaganda
3 January 2022
Waste of time, waste of opportunity. In terms of logic and psychological believability - this flick is utterly immature piece of low aspiration entertainment. It has no truth in it whatsoever. Only few little, almost out of context "fragments of a scene" makes the movie watchable (barely). Those are so called "acting tasks", which actors such as Isaac and Affleck can handle with ease - tell him to be sad in that take, and he will make you cry, even if the whole scene is absurdly unbelievable. And, yeah, I know it's not Swedish contemporary psychological drama, but for the sake of the capabilities of the main actors it should have been written and directed so much better.

And this aggressive, in your face US war propaganda with all this empty pathos and massive over-emphesizing of so called camaraderie ethos. Yuk.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Blood Red Sky (2021)
1/10
Stupid beyond ANY reason. Completely wasted potential.
31 August 2021
I was hoping for a fresh view on vampire subject, but this is just low budget netflix rubbish. Sure, concept for the story is nicely unique here, it got me interested, but for god's sake the execution of this plot is completely stupid - even as for a horror movie. Characters act chaotic, no one's actions makes any sense at all not only on the basic psychology level, but even in terms of damn logic. From about one third the movie becomes just a McGuffin portfolio - almost every scene resolves itself with another nonsense staging, based on nonsense screenplay I suppose.

So, it's not a spoiler to tell you that almost ALL of the suspense in the storyline comes from all those laughable turning points generated by absurdly unbelievable actions of seems-like-plainly-stupid characters. And when we run out of those laughable turning points... No, we won't. Let's not forget about the "unexpectedly, the boy breaks free and runs away" or "unexpectedly, the boy stumbles and falls over" Golden Screenplay Wildcards which comes handy every time when the basics of McGuffin are not enough...

It's a mess! Sadly. Because the exposition actually makes some appetite. If you want something good about vampires, delivered with coherence and spark of intelligence (while still remaining sweet old horror fairy tale) - watch 30 Days of Night (2007).
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Absentia (2017–2020)
2/10
Oh my god, how ridiculous is it!!!
4 May 2021
This is almost a parody of itself. I watched first season and I merely survived. Psychologically - it's just bonkers. Characters are made of cliches and absurdly unbelievable. If not for the grose parts (lot of blood) - it would be targeted for teenage audience who possibly may buy all this nonsense. Grown-ups should avoid this title, because it offends intelligence and empathy on basic levels.

Poor, lazy out-of-the-blue writing, full of sometimes completely idiotic twists and empty explanatory dialogues. Wooden student-like overacting - especially from Patrick Heusinger (but I have to admit that his character was the most ridiculous one so he had no chance... and failed as everyone would). Cheap locations, poor lighting, boring and comic-like staging. And awful casting, with only exceptions for Stana Katic (because she is just pretty as hell and actually she did all she could to bring life into that mess), Angel Bonanni (because he seems like he just don't give a ... about that mess) and Paul Freeman (because his character is so out of date, that his acting method somehow shines with "true work" in all that mess).

Season Two? Never.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unhinged (I) (2020)
2/10
Wow, what a waste of opportunity
15 January 2021
It could have been Falling Down (1993) set in the frames of men vs women stereotypes, with a divorce as a starting metaphor, and streets of the city as a chessboard of this oldest of all the conflicts known to Earth. It could have been also a harsh look on our modern society and how it sets this aforementioned conflict up in more flames with its soulless ego boosting decay of ability to establish strong relationships... But astonishing lack of plot's believability, with tons of over-the-top violence filling all of its gaps and - apparently - no interest in psychological or sociological truth in the creators' vision, led as to THIS extremely brutal, nonsense monstrosity. It is watchable only thanks to great editing and nice female face of Caren Pistorius ('a role' is a bit to much in this case - not her fault, though).
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed