Change Your Image
zenmilos
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Civil War (2024)
Patch up enough frames for an attractive trailer
If movies have started to be shot in such a way as to patch up enough frames for an attractive trailer that will attract the audience to the cinemas, but there is nothing to see in the movie itself, then we have really hit rock bottom. From Alex Garland, author of the interesting "Ex-Machina" from 2014 and the rather disappointing "Annihilation" from 2018, we get a work that tries to give the impression of spectacle at the expense of any meaningful story. Really superficial, above all boring and unworthy of films that in the past had as their theme the role of the media in reporting from the battlefields.
First, the so-called photographers and media are presented as innocent victims of war events, as if we do not know that corporate journalism has long since destroyed objectivity in every respect. The only message that the film sends us is also problematic, and that is, I guess, that everything can and is worth sacrificing for the sake of a single photo taken, with which we will be famous.
It must be admitted that the film has some well-directed shots and interesting fight scenes, but nothing more than that. The lack of backstory, the absence of any reasonable motivation for the faceless generic characters, the bad dialogue and the desperate acting make this movie unwatchable. Kirsten Dunst has disappointed, both with her appearance and acting. Her successor in the film looks and acts like a girl on the verge of puberty, instead of in her twenties, as she is supposedly presented. The colleague who follows them, as someone has already noticed, most resembles Pedro Pascal from Ali-Express.
I wouldn't talk about comparisons with "Apocalpse Now" at this point, because it really isn't even close to be appropriate.
The only reality in the completely nonsensical events that are shown is the fact that, with a hand-winding analog camera and a single lens that the main character uses, she can't shoot anything other than from the front line, as the film imagines is possible in wartime conditions.
Basically a good idea, intended to be shown in the year of the presidential elections in the US, unfortunately disastrously realized.
Dune: Part Two (2024)
Compared to this poor extension, the first part now looks like a masterpiece
Compared to this poor extension, the first part now looks like a masterpiece. Nothing left from the Frank Herbert novel, nor the earlier screenings of this story. If writing the scenarios is considered the destruction of genuine ideas and changing content for some other totally non-inspiring one, and acting is plain posing and murmuring yourself in a chin, then underestimating the unfortunate audience really went too far, even according to the today's measures. This kind of film can only be seen as an example of how they should not be recorded. In my case, at least I know that I will no longer look from this director any future achievement.
It's best to try to forget this experience as soon as possible. I don't know how to help it, re-reading the original novels is a process too long, but maybe it's the only way. It is obvious that none of the participants in this non-work found it necessary to spend time to read the mentioned.
As for Christopher Walken, it's always nice to see him on the screen, but maybe it's time for him to, at least at the end of his career, starts choosing roles. In this company he really has nothing to seek.
Avatar: The Last Airbender (2024)
Like everything it touches, Netflix has ruined another good story
Like everything it touches, Netflix has ruined another good story. The animation is so-so, while beteween the acting and the script, you don't know which is worse. There's nothing left of the original, even the ill-fated "The Last Airbender" from 2010 was better than this. Everything that has changed has changed for the worse. Among other things, it is now clear to us why the authors of the cartoon series left the project at the very beginning. No need to waste your time, better watch any original episode from 2005-2008 again if you want to preserve any good taste at all.
It is hard to understand the need to change everything that was good to the point of boredom and meaninglessness, to recruit so-called screenwriters who miraculously choose the most uninspiring and worst from the abundance of already shown material, to hire actors who actually are not, all for the sake of an extra dollar earned. The long-established underestimation of the audience has now gained new dimensions.
It remains unclear who this series is actually intended for. It certainly isn't for the fans of the original series, and there is really nothing to attract a new audience.
American Fiction (2023)
Excellent satire in the truest sense of the word
Cord Jefferson's debut film is an excellent satire, in the truest sense of the word. Everything is in its place, measured and challenging, and above all, fun to watch. If only these kinds of achievements would appear more often in cinema repertoires. Absolutely recommended for viewing.
The film should be watched, and not spoiled by retelling. The plot, direction and acting are at an appropriate level. If the topic is not overly original, the fresh and new way in which the story is built is enough, leading to a twist and a final resolution. References to the characters who play individual members of the family are not a burden for the film, and only complete the general tone and impression. With a comment, as someone has already noticed, that the most likable character in the film is still the woman housekeeper.
At a time when a new world war may be knocking at our door, when the countries on the fringes of Western democracy are faced with all kinds of human rights violations, the problems in the movie may seem trivial to us, but part of the problem is the fact about what kind of societies we became - dependent on stereotypes, overwhelmed by the erosion of morals, corrupted taste and outlook on the world, prone to sensationalism of all kinds.
This is something that this film talks about, in an extremely clear and comprehensible way.
Poor Things (2023)
Colorful mess without any head and tail
What to say about Yorgos Lanthimos' latest creation? Apart from being visually superior, masterfully directed, with all excellent actors, the film failed in one single thing, pretentiously thinking that it is different from most modern Hollywood productions, and that is what should be the only important thing for us - the story itself.
Just as in the movie domestic animals walk around the yard in a Frankensteinian way, joined together from the bodies of some and the heads of other species, this film is also joined together by motifs that were probably inserted to try to shock us - unequivocal pedophilia, cheap profanity, scenes of wild sex, quasi-feminism, with some really interesting details, but without any head and tail. The view that a female person can truly emancipate herself through prostitution is also a very problematic stereotype.
If the film was supposed to be an analysis of some philosophical questions about human morality, fate and life in general, it should have offered much more than this. As it is, we only got one more colorful mess to occupy our attention in the prescribed movie time, in a little over 2 hours, and really nothing more than that.
The movie will certainly receive some awards for cinematography and out-of-series acting, but it is far from deserving of praise, as it is almost at the very limit of watchability. Watch it if you absolutely must, just don't expect too much.
Anatomie d'une chute (2023)
"Anatomy of a Fail"
The only positive thing that can be said about this product, already called "Anatomy of a Fail" by the audience, is that for some residents of countries with a different legal system, it can be an interesting presentation of the trial according to the so-called continental law, unlike precedent. If the film is a criticism of one at the expense of the other, I'm not sure how much it is in favor of either, but maybe someone more expert could elaborate on that. In any case, by my standards, not interesting enough as a topic for a whole movie.
For the average viewer, I think it's more important that the film is god-da*n boring, starting with the irritating music at the beginning, through the uninteresting dialogues with impossible accents in the middle, to the completely vague ending. By all accounts, truly a flop that doesn't even deserve to be watched, let alone be in contention for the Oscars in 2024.
The plot and acting are, to put it mildly, weak. As someone already noted, the best actor in the film is the dog, who is poisoned in order to see if some pills can kill him. So, you poison the dog you supposedly love, as a personal experiment. I don't know how realistic this detail is, and how much the audience can identify with the motivation of such characters, because I know many dog owners who would rather poison themselves, but let it be that such behavior is purely subjective.
In modern manner, it was left to never know whether the unfortunate husband was killed, or whether it was an accident, or perhaps a suicide. One would think that after the excruciating 2 and a half hours that this torture lasts, the audience would deserve to at least be offered some meaningful resolution, but no, then it would not be "artistic", according to some artificially invented Hollywood standards, as they seem to be still in fashion.
The Holdovers (2023)
A nice achievement in which more or less everything is right
A nice achievement in which more or less everything is right - a clear story, measured direction, excellent acting, a couple of extraordinary winter shots, and with a clear message of hope at the end, suitable for the so-called "Christmas" movie. The action is interestingly set in the 70's of the last century, which makes it very retro, but for this reason it evokes associations with much better movies with similar themes, shot in that golden period of auteur films.
There's not much else to say, other than a few really spiteful comments about an overaged actor playing a teenager, and the unnecessary investment of time in a couple of side characters at the beginning, from which the story takes an abrupt turn after the first half hour. Still, highly recommended for viewing.
But, is it for the Oscar award? Well, it's really not, unless you keep in mind this year's competition, which in most cases is hardly worth a review. Hollywood has fell to its lowest branches, a claim that the future can easily disprove, as it has proven that no matter what, it can always get worse.
A Disturbance in the Force (2023)
You're not a real Star Wars fan if you haven't seen the 1978 Holiday Special
You're not a real Star Wars fan if you haven't seen the 1978 Holiday Special. Although, honestly, if you had seen it back in the day, it's more likely that you wouldn't have stayed a fan. A nice documentary film about the so-called worst TV show ever, if we exclude the fact that television in the 70s of the last century was mostly at the level of such and similar achievements.
It's not a question of whether the "Star Wars Holiday Special" was a failure, it certainly was, when George Lucas himself disowned it. After all, the whole franchise has always been more of an industry for the sale of children's toys, than a serious sci-fi, driven by an idea, unlike some other series. But as bad as this incriminated special was by all parameters, it is not worse than the Disney sequels that we got this century.
On the other hand, this year we received an interesting documentary film, decently directed, fairly measured, with interviews and TV clips quite tailored, with the aim of a very realistic description of this kind of disaster. There are also reviews of the animated short and the Jefferson Starship performance, which we may or may not like. It is interesting to mention the missed opportunities for Cher, Robin Williams, and even Raquel Welch(?) to appear in the special.
It is also interesting that the question of the importance of editing was raised, which certainly contributed to the debacle of the special. Allegedly, the original film "Star Wars" was also saved in the edit, about which you can find more information on the subject on blogs and YouTube.
Will such documentaries be made and about all the failures of this serial in Disney's production in the future, I really don't believe, because they are not even worth this much mention.
Napoleon (2023)
We didn't even expect Riddley Scott to make a movie based on historical facts
We didn't even expect Riddley Scott to make a movie based on historical facts. However, if at one time we were able to turn a blind eye on the romanced "Gladiator" from 2000 because of the dramatic moments, interesting story, solid actors and good entertainment, that can hardly be the case here. Good direction and acting by Joaquin Phoenix cannot substitute for a truly unconvincing story, lackluster characters and a mediocre script.
It would have been more honest if the film had simply been called "Josephine and Napoleon", or just "Josephine", in keeping with the inappropriately large role given to the otherwise likable actress Vanessa Kirby. Napoleon stopped campaigning in Egypt and returned from exile on the island of Elba, both times because of jealousy? If we wanted to watch a fictional drama about Napoleon's love life, we already had Henry Koster's "Desiree" from 1954, with the excellent Marlon Brando and Jean Simmons, who are still slightly higher caliber actors.
Napoleon's role as the greatest military leader in history, and no less able statesman, can only be guessed a little. The Battle of Austerlitz was not won, as it could be misinterpreted from the film, thanks to the broken ice on which the Russian soldiers were treading, because it happened after the battle had already been lost. The conquest of Moscow is shown in a few really poor frames. The Battle of Waterloo could still be said to have been shown correctly, if it weren't for Sergey Bondarchuk's masterpiece "Waterloo" from 1970, which is still unsurpassed by all accounts, so this film's finale only vaguely evokes associations with it.
Such a weak movie can not be justified by the fact that it was originally recorded for streaming on Apple TV in almost twice as long time, then shortened to be shown in cinemas, so that it could compete for the Oscar next year. I don't know why we would even watch the integral version, about a topic that is not a topic at all.
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)
from "iQ-filmovi" at blogspot
We got the continuation, in this case I really hope the final one, of the franchise that amused us in the 80's of the last century. Like everything that modern Hollywood, and most of all Disney, has touched in this century, only confirms that all we can expect is that everything new will only be worse than the previous one. Of course, no one still thinks of investing in original stories and some new heroes, it is enough to grab a few more dollars on nostalgia for some better, past times.
Hand on heart, it should be said that the beginning of the first 15 minutes of the movie is somewhat reminiscent of the original sequels. Unfortunately, then the "real" Indian Jones appears, who represents everything so-called-feminist Hollywood considers a modern female character - an unsympathetic, arrogant person without any character, who never needs any help, with a solution for every situation, without even any trace of humor or sex appeal, with such acting skills that she can't even serve as "comic relief" in any movie.
Averagely directed, without any meaningful plot, with characters and villains that appear without any logic every time we should expect it. The scenes of time travel and the siege of Syracuse 212-211 BCE I don't know what could be compared to, except with the worst episodes of the Doctor Who series. It's a good thing that the screenwriters didn't think of including, in the already unoriginal and non-imaginitive story, for eg. Parallel universes, although, allegedly, in the original version, Indiana Jones was supposed to be replaced by a female counterpart, but after test screenings, the ending was reshot and changed.
The recommendation is, of course, that if you can at all, skip this movie, which according to reports has already failed miserably at the box office. If you watch it anyway, at least the hated 4th sequel will seem like a perfectly acceptable achievement after this misdeed.
Punk Rock Vegan Movie (2023)
from "iQ-filmovi" at blogspot
Moby is a likeable music author who had his shining moments in popular music at the end of the 90s of the last century (the album "Play" from 1999). Unfortunately, he decided to stake his long-gone musical credibility on incompatible things, which simply do not stand, except that they are currently suitable for modern times, which have become fertile ground for all kinds of brainwashing, twisting of facts and replacement of theses.
The film is technically correct, from the material that I assume was available. It was published on YouTube, which is an intelligent move, because it is truly unbelievable that anyone would waste time and money watching something like this in commercial exploitation. Unfortunately, it is hardly worth watching even in the home version. It is irritating that nihilism in rock music from the second half of the 70s is linked to some kind of veganism, aside from whether, and to what extent, both initiatives were, or were not, correct views of the world. The music, as revolutionary as it was in that period, brought both positive and negative influences in the musical styles that followed. In any case, Punk movement was a consequence of the postmodernism of the second half of the twentieth century, and veganism and the so-called "animal rights" are terms more appropriate to the metamodernism that followed as a reaction to the mentioned period. So, by definition, really incompatible.
In addition to such a bad setting, in the movie it can also be seen a handful of infantile shots, when the author talks to an imaginary interlocutor, at the same level as the entire film, as well as provisional interviews with members of third-grade bands from the musical margins with whom Moby allegedly had common beginnings (which is far from being something positive, and which we didn't even have to find out). All in all, an hour and a half of wasted time, which everyone could use much better.
At this point I would add, although no one expects the depth of thought, e.g. A much better musician, Roger Waters, nor the level of his addressing to the UN the other day, at least we should not deal with attempts of falsifying of the history of the music scene from more than 40 years ago. Or perhaps that's exactly why we should?
If you happen to be interested in music, spend time listening (and/or watching) it in the original, you don't need bad interpretations of something that has been recorded on various sound carriers and on the Internet. If you happen to be a vegan and a fighter for animal rights, I don't know what you should do, but definitely don't waste your time watching this failed attempt to rewrite history, use it better for your activism, or something else that interests you.
Im Westen nichts Neues (2022)
from "iQ-filmovi" at blogspot
What would be the purpose of such a version of the film, I think that, in fact, it will never be completely clear to me. We all know that war is a terrible thing, but there is no reason that, for the sake of a few good shots, someone's bad interpretations of something are named after famous titles and pushed as something that has nothing to do with the original.
The film reflects the sad state of Hollywood cinema today. The invasion of untalented directors, even worse screenwriters and so-call-the-actors, who, even when something is not Woke propaganda, still deliver brainless, too shallow and, above all, boring creations. If it was not named after a famous book, and if the main "actors" were not assigned the names of characters from the book, most likely no one would ever bother to watch it. That's why, made like this, this film doesn't even deserve to be explained in detail, it should simply be forgotten as soon as possible.
On the other hand, the book is very good, although I have never counted Remarque as one of God-knows-what writers, and Delbert Mann's version from 1979 is an example, so rare in the history of cinema, of how a movie can be a masterpiece, and even better than the original. This so-called "version", unfortunately, has nothing to do with either.
Blonde (2022)
from "iQ-filmovi" at blogspot
An nicely shot film by director Andrew Dominik, that missed only one thing - to be interesting. What was tried to be said with this film, all in all, could be done in 15 minutes, instead of almost 3 hours. Too much is just too much.
The only praise goes to the actress Ana de Armas, who, of course, does not even have an approximate sex appeal of Marilyn Monroe, which would certainly be excessive to expect. But given the circumstances, quite decent acting. And one more thing must be admitted, a technically very well executed work.
On the other hand, the biggest irony is that exactly what the film insists on, which is that Marilyn was exploited by everyone and everything, above all by the film industry, and this is repeated in every godly frame from beginning to end, without moving content beyond that, is the fact that the film itself does not represent anything else, except exactly the same - the merciless mutilation of another corpse in order to push someone's own ideas, without paying too much attention to biographical facts, nor with a feeling for a good story, or, god-forbid, some kind of message, as we would naively expect it to have.
Unfortunately, it all boils down to just another god-da*n boring movie made solely for the sake of the personal promotion of the author, and not a particularly interesting one.
Elvis (2022)
from "iQ-filmovi" at blogspot
In the era of Hollywood's recycling and rehashing of old topics, in order to squeeze a few dollars out of the gullible audience, it was only a matter of time before we got a new movie about Elvis. Unfortunately, this time too we were served, in addition to the somewhat above average acting of Austin Butler, who allegedly also sang a few lines from the beginning of the film (any average Elvis impersonator would serve better), a superficial portrayal of something that is difficult to describe other than as over two and a half hours of throwaway scenes and flashbacks, which could have been an announcement/trailer for a movie that could have been made, rather than the movie itself. It's a lot, even if it's meant for today's Tik-Tok audience with a diagnosed attention disorder, because it's just too long.
Of course, this is not a movie about Elvis, or even about Colonel Tom Parker, regarding whom it will probably go down in film history as Tom Hanks' first really bad role. This is a film about Bazz Luhrmann, a director who, as someone already said, managed to ruin even Shakespeare ("Romeo + Juliet" from 1996), so why not this film as well.
As with most recent films, the question remains as to who this one was made for. For Elvis fans, it is certainly not, considering the distorted facts, inserted trip-hop music and heavy metal riffs that serve nothing but to distract the even slightly musically educated audience, the avoidance of an entire decade of not-so-famous film career, as well as relations with e.g. Ann-Margret in the same period, and most of the musical hits which at least for this film were in abundance. The only conclusion left is that it is intended for fans of the director, who may be able to swallow such nonsenses as, for example, that Elvis was, for example, a fighter for black rights, a rebel with or without a cause and a forerunner of the punk movement, and that events such as the murders of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy had some influence on Elvis' (non-existent) political activism. The invasion of Cuba or the Apollo 11 moon landing could also have been shown, with the same weight. On the other hand, there was certainly no place for implications in relation to Nixon's policy in the early 70s in terms of turning the establishment away from the prevailing trends and movements in culture in America at the time.
It's hard to admit, but against this achievement, 2018's "Bohemian Rhapsody" looks like a masterpiece, and Carpenter's 1979 version with Kurt Russell feels like a perfectly decent biopic.
Belfast (2021)
from "iQ-filmovi" at blogspot
I'm not a fan of Kenneth Branagh's films. The statement also refers to the latest achievement nominated for an Oscar in 2022, which would be an interesting review of the events in Northern Ireland in the 60's of the last century, if only not suffering from too many shortcomings. But as the selection of nominee candidates consists of completely uninteresting, uninspiring and monotonous last year's films, perhaps it deserves nothing less to be found in this race.
In short, superior photography, great transitions and playing with color shots and black and white footage, a nice evocation of TV programs from the 60's. On the other hand, bad casting, amateur acting, uninteresting plot, really pale shots of scenes of violence that I guess were supposed to be key to the film, an inappropriate comparison with Fred Zinnemann's 1952 classic "High Noon". Not even Van Morrison's music works in this context.
Potential Oscar for Best Picture or Best Director in 2022? In this year's competition, in which the most famous candidate is the so-called-western "The Power of the Dog", in which, as someone said, there is nothing to see, unless you wanted to know how to make a rope, yes, of course, why not?
Don't Look Up (2021)
from "iQ-filmovi" at blogspot
Towards the end of the year, we were honored by this interesting satire by director Adam McKey, greeted with not very favorable criticism in the media, probably because of the way in which the media, quite justifiably and proportionately, was presented in the movie on this occasion. The association is, of course, on climate change and Trump's rule, topics that are skillfully simplified, for the sake of symbolism, easier communication with the audience, and conveying a clearer message.
Let's face it, the film is not the new "Dr. Strangelove", but the times are not like that for a long time, nor, hand on heart, we as a modern audience probably deserve a better film than this.
As far as the cast is concerned, DiCaprio is the caliber of an actor who can obviously play any role, even this one, a scientist-intellectual, as it was designed. The rest of the team was up to the task, even much less talented, like Timothee Chalamet and a few others. On top of all that, even Jennifer Lawrence is pretty likeable in the intended role. There is nothing else to be said about Meryl Streep, except that the sight of her naked back at the very end of the film is not something we would like to remember.
The film is undeniably entertaining and watchable to the end. As for the viewers in Serbia, we have no reason to laugh here, because we live a cheap version of all this, only much worse directed, and with much worse actors. And for how long? Well, until we look up.
The Matrix Resurrections (2021)
from "iQ-filmovi" at blogspot
The 1999 "Matrix" was not a good film, it was the standard for a good film. The original idea was so good that it held on two sequels that, with all their imperfections, together form a unique trilogy. Unfortunately, we also received the fourth half-sequel, half-remake of the mentioned movie, which, if it had any spirit, could be called a parody rather than a serious film. But, we have what we have, now at least we got a standard for a bad movie, and an example of what kind of movies should not be made. It has already become proverbial for Hollywood to record "woke" propaganda, instead of slightly watchable and entertaining achievements.
To paraphrase a line from the film that best describes the reason for this misdeed itself: "Warner Brothers decided to shoot a sequel to the Matrix trilogy, with or without us." Surprisingly honest, nothing else to say. Apart from the original John Wick, pardon, Neo and Trinity, the rest of the cast consists of comic characters who, all together, can hardly bear the epithet of actors. The script and dialogues, on the other hand, are written in such a way that no serious acting would help.
The vain repetition of scenes already seen (and literally), a patched plot full of holes without any meaning, rather bad effects and a change of the original coloring are just some of the troubles this film is dealing with. It was also expected that the original story will be altered, so we find out that Neo is actually not the only "One", but that they are, in fact, Neo and Trinity, but, above all, Trinity. Everything in this film goes downhill, from the very beginning to the uninspiring ending. Cheap, just as check-out music is cheap compared to the original by RATM.
If you only can, don't waste time with this movie. It is better to spend it, for example on "Spiderman: No Way Home," and see how a fun sequel to a franchise can be recorded, with an original approach and a real look back at previous sequels. I am far from favoring so-called actors like Tom Holland or Zendaya, but the film is at least craftily done properly.
The only sympathies for this film are for reminding us how good the first "Matrix" was, by showing scenes from the original realization about every five minutes. And that's probably because there is nothing better to see here anyway.
Dune (2021)
from "iQ-filmovi" at blogspot
It is a movie that would not deserve any comment, if it did not reflect all the vanity and downturn in which today's film industry has gone. From the director of the interesting "Arrival" (2016), through the failed "Blade Runner 2049" (2017), Denis Villeneuve, we came to an impersonal remake of a much better achievement from 1984.
No need to spend too much words on the analysis of this work, because it seems that the story itself did not even interest the authors much. A simple recipe, copy everything that has already been filmed, stretch the already maximally compressed script to two or three potential sequels, pump in as large a budget as possible for CGI effects, insert a few actors (Jason Momoa, Dave Bautista and Josh Brolin), who would otherwise be ok, if they weren't here only just for decoration, in order to push up the ratings a little more, with the antipathetic and completely wrongly chosen main protagonists, who all together sadly failed.
The individual reassignment of gender/ethnicity of the minor characters from the book is not too irritating, although such choices are, for some strange (or perhaps not) reason, somehow always at the expense of quality. So, they are still irritating, because they are imposed. By the way, if the so-called gender (and any other) equality in cinema has already become the manner of the new age, it is interesting that no one ever replaces any original female character for a male one, if only as an experiment. I guess that would require a certain amount of originality and courage, qualities that are no longer appreciated by modern directors.
After watching this adaptation, it is only possible to love more the controversial 1984 Lynch's version, which, despite all the imperfections, still remains superior in every sense (I mean, of course, the shorter, original version, not the integral, which is much weaker).
The only positive thing that can be said about this film is that, unlike eg. The long-announced "Foundation" series, which is a much bigger disaster in itself, at least holds the original story. And in any case, at least it doesn't come down to purchase of the title of some famous work in order to push someone's other untalented generic script for a story that no one else would ever look at.
All in all, a small consolation.
Mank (2020)
from "iQ-filmovi" at blogspot
A little review of tomorrow's Oscar nominee 2021, movie about Orson Welles' 1941 movie "Citizen Kane", that will undoubtedly win some awards, because Hollywood traditionally likes to award second-rate films about some other good films, which is in due time failed to reward, with excellent Gary Oldman as Herman Mankiewicz, screenwriter of "Citizen Kane".
In short, to make a film, how different than of course black & white, because it talks about the period in which only such existed (luckily at that time at least they were tonal, because otherwise, according to such logic, we would probably get a silent one?), with copying each a shot that Welles ever shot (but with occasional insertions of totally inappropriate ones, with a counter-light, because it's so modern nowadays), about a character who was really fantastically played by Oldman, who only gets all the praise for this average achievement. Unfortunately, the character he interprets in some Golden Age movies could at best be only supporting one, if at all interesting enough to be immortalized on the movie screen. But, oh-my-god, those are the times.
The lead actor is the only reason why this film is worth watching. In this it bears a resemblance to its competitor "The Father," with Anthony Hopkins, also in the lead role. From an interesting idea, but extremely unsuccessfully realized, we can only admire, or not, the proven actors.
Honestly, I regret that such an achievement comes from David Fincher, director of such movies as eg. Was (with all its flaws) the cult "Fight Club," but apparently the prevailing idea was that the line of least resistance was the shortest shortcut for Hollywood. We'll see soon enough.
Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (2020)
from "iQ-filmovi" at blogspot
An example of how a real little masterpiece can be shot with a modest budget is this year's Oscar nominee George Wolf's movie with Viola Davis and Chadwick Boseman. Everything is there, from the choice of an always current topic, through masterful directing, to extraordinary acting.
Unfortunately, the film is at least about Ma Rainey's music, as the title might interpret. But who cares about music, can watch "The United States vs. Billie Holiday" from February this year, which, on the other hand, has nothing else to offer but an interesting interpretation of songs and decent acting by Andra Day. Lady Day as the "leader of the civil movement"? No, thanks.
"Ma Rainey's..." is a brilliant film that will be remembered primarily by the bitter story, which you have to see instead of being told, but also by the extraordinary acting of Viola Davis, as well as the fact that this is the last role of Chadwick Boseman, who, unlike the role in the greatly overestimated "Black Panther" from 2018, shows all his lavish acting talent here.
An interesting note is that in the original play, Levee never breaks down the closed door in the rehearsal space.
Sound of Metal (2019)
from "iQ-filmovi" at blogspot
Another film in competition for the Oscars 2021 with a great theme, but rather poorly realized, by an author completely unknown to me, Darius Marder.
First of all, let's clear up a few untruths that are presented in the movie, namely, most medical insurances, even in the US, cover operations in cases of hearing loss. Then, the implant placement operation is always performed first on one side, never on both at the same time. And most importantly, couples in such situations are most often encouraged to go through together e.g. Learning sign language, and not being forbidden to do so for some mysterious reason.
On the other hand, criticism of the plot, according to which it is illogical for the main actor Riz Ahmed to continue making noise immediately after receiving the diagnosis (a couple of months of rehearsal is not enough to call even the most talented actors drummers), really doesn't stand, because it is natural for each of us, and especially the character as presented in the film, to need time to accept and face the new facts in our lives. It is these moments that are, in my humble opinion, the greatest value of the story. Unfortunately, the film did not go any further than that, and that is also the biggest complaint, because it has obviously long ago become a trend to shoot stories without any messages and conclusions.
The biggest praise goes for the supporting female role of Olivia Cooke, who, in addition to inspiring acting, allegedly performed all the music scenes live on her own.
In any case, the film deserves a passing grade, unlike some other nominated works, which did not manage to come up with the topics they set out to do. Sometimes it is better no ending at all, than one indulging in the mere commercial taste of the audience, with an extremely illogical plot and maximally stereotypical male characters, using "subverted expectations", as in the so-called revenge-feminist "Promising Young Woman", which is also in competition. We will see who will do better at the awards ceremony in April.
Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021)
from "iQ-filmovi" at blogspot
From the initial dilemma of whether to comment on this upgraded achievement by director Zack Snyder at all, I think it still deserves a few remarks, at least for the sake of summarizing the situation with the latest superhero movies recorded so far.
The film is, despite the problematic CGI effects and questionable musical background of Junkie XL, undeniably better than the original from 2017. Why the format was changed to 4:3, there is no reasonable explanation, except perhaps to draw a time parallel with "Wonder Women 1984", which is not really an explanation, because it can only carry a negative connotation.
Is it better than Marvel's 2018 "Infinity Wars"? Of course not. Is it less disappointing than the sequel "Endgame" from 2019? Certainly it is. Does it fix the bitter taste in the mouth after watching "Wonder Woman 1984" from last year? Well, maybe, for a nuance.
The recommendation is, if you liked the original version at all, you should take a look at it. After all, the announced black-and-white version is yet to come, with an alternative ending.
The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020)
from "iQ-filmovi" at blogspot
In the competition for the Oscars in 2021, among the films that could all together be described in the mildest and most benevolent way simply as a god-da*n boring, an interesting achievement by screenwriter and director Aaron Sorkin stands out, about the event that was initially known as the trial of eight, but after the dismissal of charges against Black Panthers leader Bobby Seale, became the trial of seven protest organizers in Chicago in 1968.
Aside from all the disagreements with historical facts, simplification, polishing and the usual falsification of elements of the story, ostensibly for artistic freedom and greater dramatic effects, the movie managed to convey the spirit and mood of American citizens towards the establishment from the described period, remaining dynamic and interesting for watching to the end, something in which eg. Failed a film that is describing the same time period, "Judas and Black Messiah".
For great casting and flawless acting, I have no comments. Unfortunately, there was enough time in the movie for irritating individual lines and retellings of jokes that do not belong to the plot or events that are described, and which are the so-called "seal" of the director. Some characters were invented without any real reason, such as a girl who plays an inserted FBI agent and then witnesses in the court, even though the first female agent in the FBI was employed only a decade later.
Is it a big movie? Sadly, no. Is it better than the other candidates for the Academy Award? Yes, for a length of two spears. Only, as someone has already noticed, the film did not bring us as close to the events of 5 decades ago as modern events and democracy have returned to the past for so much. When not well learned, history tends to repeat itself. For local occasions, we in Serbia now already know that very well.
Tenet (2020)
from "iQ-filmovi" at blogspot
There's nothing worse than commenting on movies we don't like. But the latest mess with palindromic title with of so-called renowned director Christopher Nolan does not deserve to be simply ignored. It deserves at least a few remarks, in order not to be forgotten.
If it took years for someone to write about such a scenario, full of inconsistencies and holes, each of which is bigger than the poorly interpreted idea, it would be wiser to ask e.g. a graduate physicist, who has not spent so many years in vain, to clarify to him the concepts of entropy, the arrow of time, the theory of cause-and-effect relations in quantum mechanics, and so on. But even if we ignore all that, every movie is a fantasy, including excellent "Inception", at least consistent, if nothing else, then to itself, unlike this one, which at the very beginning in one scene prescribes "in order to pick up a reverse entropic bullet, you must first drop it", so in the next scene it is no longer valid, and so on until the end of the film.
The acting is, sadly, also a failure, but here I don't include the main Protagonist, who didn't deserve so far at all to be called an actor. But with such an unfortunate story and such assigned stereotypical characters, there was probably no room for such a thing.
In addition to the fact that, when Hollywood no longer knows what kind of car chase to shoot, all that remains is to picture chase in reverse, this film seems to follow the latest concept according to which the most meaningless plot should be messed up, hollow dialogues should be recorded so that they are heard and understood as little as possible (including a few spoken sentences over eating a food of guest star Michael Caine), lest the gullible audience think there was something else to see (and to hear), and that some would be fooled into watching this film again, hoping in vain that something s/he may have missed.
In short, a shameful attempt to make another action James Bond film with a few sci-fi elements for the pretentious viewers who will not regret watching the film over and over again, trying to "understand" it. It's just that every James Bond's movie is far more interesting than this.
As someone has already mentioned, yes, it may be looked at once again, but backwards, if only they return the money for the ticket at the end at the box office, and no other way 👎
Da 5 Bloods (2020)
from "iQ-filmovi" at blogspot
If you want to see a really bad movie by Spike Lee, and you're not sorry to lose two and a half hours of your life, spend time on Da 5 Bloods.
But the sacrifice can pay off, it doesn't happen every day that we attend the downfall and Tarantinoization of a director, who once seemed great, but just turns out to have always been overrated. Of course, there are great reviews and ratings, completely inconsistent with what was offered.
The transitions from wide to narrow shots have already been seen (and much better used in, for ex. "Lucy in the Sky") and surprisingly poorly done, because the wide corners are visibly cropped, so there is an impression that half of each scene is simply missing ...
The director only remained consistent in delivering political messages, which are not lacking in this film either, even if they were pushed in by force, as is the case with "Black lives matter" at the end of the film, although the movie was completely shot in 2019, and additional scenes were recorded and patched afterwards.
I wouldn't talk about comparisons with "Apocalypse Now" and "The Treasure of Sierra Madre", because they really don't belong here.
Sorry, but if nothing else, at least we know now that there is no longer a need to look at the smoked joints of once interesting creator 👎