Change Your Image
astridgelmini
Reviews
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
a terrible blockbuster
Today I'm going to talk about Marvel's latest effort, the latest film from the MCU Spiderman: No Way Home, for the direction of John Watts.
This film was a mediatic phenomenon, as we all know, there were high expectations and have been made a lot of assumptions by Marvel fans and not only. I think this hype is good for cinema in general but a terrible film like this isn't worth for all this hype, the others lose something because everyone have been to the cinema only for a film that I don't feel like call as such.
The direction seems not to exist and unfortunately, I'm not kidding, everything is made by the computer and you don't understand anything. There isn't photography or cinematography, anything, not even a shot that you could remind, nothing remains in mind except the thought about the money you have spent for buying a ticket and watching this total idiocy.
The previable plot has a lot of plot twist that do not add anything to the plot which is predictable, like the 90% of the events, so the story is a total idiocy.
It seems like the people who written this film, which is not a real film, did not have any ideas and invented a mess for end in something obvious. The concept in the beginning is useless, so if I want to remove what is useless this film would last for like 15 mins.
The screenwriting isn't decent, to add, with a lot of mandatory rules broken with narrative elements that are equal to all and not innovative, and all this fix me a question in mind: How did they write this film?
The principal character are: Tom Holland's Peter Parker/Spiderman, Benedict Cumberbatch's Doctor Strange and the ones from the old Spiderman's films.
Tom Holland's Spiderman isn't interesting because is like a dumb boy with stupid ideas that don't make sense, he wants to be a hero but he is incapable, it comes out badly. He is kid that acts in an unwatchable way, in fact he has two expressions; one when he's happy and the other one when he is sad, when he cries, he is ridicules and not credible.
In conclusion his acting was cringe.
Moreover, this Doctor Strange of Benedict Cumberbatch is like a child in fact he has behaviors truly questionable; he is stupid and the symbol of the terrible fanservice, he made thing that the old Doctor Strange would never do, he can't even do spells in the right way, c'mon. So, for resume everything in one word, he is an idiot.
Thanks, this film, they demonstrated that the actors of the Sam Raimi's trilogy are the best, because they are such great actors and they work perfectly, from fantastic William Dafoe's Goblin to wonderful Otto Octavius of Alfred Molina.
When I think that I spent my time in 2 hours and 30 min of vision, which are super long, for this terrible film, I feel sick, I wasted my time and everyone who watched it, because there isn't something new, it isn't cinema, only a product of marketing, only for sell tickets and so and so forth.
Having seen this film, I'm really scared for upcoming new MCU movies, if this is the type there will be in the future I recommend Marvel to do a pleasure for itself and everyone else and close the doors and say goodbye to everyone.
In conclusion, with all the hype there was for this terrible film, they could done it better, and it didn't take much in hindsight. They must not have the objective of satisfying the fans but only do something new that could be called entertainment and not repugnance in the vision, something that could not be called only fanservice but also cinema.
The Matrix Resurrections (2021)
I want to forgive the existence of this movie.
Here I am, to talk about a resounding flop, in all respects, and I'm not kidding.
Matrix Resurrection is the fourth chapter in the Matrix franchise, it is pathetic and not epic, not like those of the original trilogy, which are fantastic and wonderful, while this film is very ugly
By the direction of only Lana from The Wachowski, thinking about it, it was as if the director knew that this film was useless, but she did not want to finish a story that is like a perfect cycle.
It's very sad how the audience associates the name "Wachowski" only with Matrix, every time the sisters want to do a new film, it reveals as a flop because "Wachowski" is only Matrix.
It is like a fanfiction, everything is explained, how but don't why, there isn't space for the interpretation or for the philosophical concepts. When you go to the cinema and you know you're going to watch Matrix, you expect, from this film, to deal with important themes with deep and complicated philosophical meanings, you certainly don't expect to watch a film that seems to be written on Wattpad.
For instance, it is like a Disney film, yeah for kids, as if the director took the old trilogy, mixed it with a children's film and here we are, Matrix Resurrections. In addition, all the irony moments seems like for the children, but, obvious, the children don't watch this film because the Matrix Franchise (I mean only the old ones) isn't for kids.
In support of this, some dialogues are put into the mouths of adults who would never use that kind of expression, that kind of slang, only for pleasing the public,
This film's very didactic and simple, it shows everything to the viewer who already knows what he is going to watch. The film is mediocre, only for give the audience what it want and not for be original and surprise it, in substance, the film is a modern version that fits in with today's standards like a piece of a jigsaw puzzle, in summary, a fanservice.
Changing argument, there isn't significance over the characters, there isn't interests over what they do, in particular the new ones.
The characters have aged and when they move to fight, they are floppy and not as agile as they used to be, you look at them and think: what are they doing there?
But in the end, it's not their fault, it's just life cycle.
The characters from this film are like a parody of themselves, and talking about parodies, the parody of excellence, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II's Morpheus.
What is he doing there? Why did they do that?
Because in the end there was no need for this character, just with his presence he ruins the existence of the original Morpheus, the god of dreams, I feel bad just thinking about it. But for heaven's sake the actor is good, but I just don't understand the need for a new Morpheus who moreover keeps saying he's a sort of copy of the original, who just tries to imitate him as best as possible, like I said, it's a parody.
But we want to talk about Neo, alias of Thomas Anderson?
Keanu Reeves is a fantastic actor and there is no need that I say that, but in this film, he is floppy and transmits depression, you just have to look at he to feel sad. In addiction his presence isn't justified, or better, they explain "how" but not "why" he is what he's.
Somewhat like the presence of Trinity, interpreted, as always, by Carrie-Anne Moss.
One of the biggest problems of this film is the fact that they use the concept of girl power too much, let me explain, they give Trinity play the role of the woman in love who defeats everything, there was no need for that, Trinity doesn't need " the girl power" because she's been like that since the beginning, even before they invented it. She's been a very strong woman who, let's say, didn't meet the standards of the time, she had, and still has, short hair with lots of gel, leather suits, motorbikes, and guns.
It is a nonsensical concept for Trinity because her DNA has always been that of a warrior woman and not that of a damsel to be rescued who surprises everyone with a bit of luck.
Let's talk about the enemies of Neo, the Agent Smith, in the original trilogy he had a very important role for the film, he was a character well done. There isn't a logical reason for his existence, he doesn't have sense and is practically useless, in fact, without him the story would have been the same, but this reflection, it wouldn't apply to the first three films, because as already mentioned, Agent Smith plays a really important role, particularly in the second and third film.
The plot is practically copied, full of reshooting, for example; the white rabbit that reminds "Alice in Wonderland", the black cat, the red and blue pill, and EVEN the bullet time. All the things I've just enumerated, they take away all the mysteries and questions that were in the first films.
As I said before, the plot is practically the same at the first film (the one from 1999), it's like when you give a classmate something to copy at school and he changes something to avoid making it too obvious, in short, the key word is "parallelism".
The moments that should be funny interrupt the audience's immersion in the important moments and they detach it from the film, by consolidating the fourth wall and not trying to demolish it. In general, the audience wants to immerse themselves in the film, feel a multitude of emotions and have new experiences. In this, the audience knows they are watching it from a screen and not as part of it, they are not taken in. As if that were not enough, there're a lot of combatants that don't have an impact in the story, they don't have a sense and add nothing to the film, unlike those in the first three films, because there is always justified, and let me say it, all the choreography and pits are terrible.
Moreover, this film is too much nostalgic over the others before, there are a lot of flashback and references really useless, precisely for remind you it is a reboot.
Changing subject and going more technical, aesthetics, photography and cinematography, original are ruined. Before there was this strong green filter that made almost all the colors inside the Matrix, green or black, moreover, you could understand if the characters are inside the Matrix or not, thanks to the colors, in fact when they were in the real world the dominating colors were blue and grey, colors often associated with technology and the future, while inside the Matrix, precisely, this scale of green and black gave a feeling of unreality and unease.
In the fourth film this important play of colors is lost, and the latter tend to be those of a blockbuster, moreover, it is no longer clear when the characters are actually inside the Matrix.
Additionally, the bullet time. When the people think at Matrix, they think at Neo dodging bullets while is bent over in an unnatural position, the bullet time is nearly a trademark of Matrix, also this thing is lost in the fourth chapiter. The effects in general aren't very beautiful, with the modern conception of the world we have today, it is unthinkable that a film of 99 has more beautiful effects than one of 2021, that is, 21 years have passed, the situation should be improved, with this I say that if we compare the different films, the CGI in the former is much higher than that of this hideous film.
Summarized, Matrix Resurrections doesn't have a reason to exist because it has a narrative power inexistent, it doesn't add anything and is useless. This movie is a horrible version of the original trilogy, a forgone movie, only with its presence, it ruins the first three movie.
The only reason to watch it, is for making your opinion about it.
Thanks for reading until this point :)
The Power of the Dog (2021)
A good film
The 12 Oscars nominee, for this year, is a film about a family dynamic a little distorted, two-family core that became one with a lot of difference.
It talks about two brothers who are completely different, one is cultivated but very rude, some one that you would not call himself a good person, the most cultivated is also the rudest, a man who is trapped in a society that he hates but is forced to be so. The second one, named George, is a gentleman a little sucker, that is hated by his parents, unlike his brother Phil.
George marries a widow with a son that is an effeminate, Phil hates his brother's wife and begins to behave is a such terrible way with her, but with her son, Peter, born a particular relationship, because appears the possibility of love.
It's interesting how all principal actors are nominated for a statuette from the Academy Awards,
Phil's Benedict Cumberbatch for best actor, in my opinion he was wonderful and as always, a such a great actor, in general all of them are great: Kristen Dunst, Jesse Plemons, and Kodi Smit-McPhee.
There is an ambiguous character, that never appears physically but is nominated a lot of times called Bronco Henry, he changed the life of Phil, he was his mentor at first.
This film a little boring the first 30 minutes, but later the plot is braided like the intertwining of relationships that depends on a braided rope, fundamental to the story.
All characters are tormented and must have at least a relationship with someone else with the aim of not to feel more alone than they already are, even they are surrounded by laborers and maids, they need a sociality which is toxic.
The direction is excellent, with incredible shots that show the boundlessness of the world in which the film is set, how we are small confronted with the big mountains, as if that weren't enough, the shots adapt to what the characters are feeling.
I think this is a film for the people who wants to understand the concepts and what they want you to tell, for concluding, everyone can like it.
Thanks for reading until this point.
The French Dispatch of the Liberty, Kansas Evening Sun (2021)
Neither ugly nor beautiful, a middle way
Here is the new film by the great Wes Anderson, simply: "The French Dispatch" or "The French Dispatch of the Liberty, Kansas Evening Sun".
From the beginning, the film is about "The French Dispatch", which is a French magazine that talks about a bit of everything.
When the editor-in-chief dies, the staff takes the decision to republish some old stories from the newspaper, three in total.
The first one is set in a prison and deals with a much-debated topic: what is art? The next one is about a student revolt and how an ideology develops and how far one can go to defend it.
While the last one, honestly, is a bit confusing, it's about this guy telling the story of a chef, dealing with racism, integration and the father-son relationship, that's why I think it's confusing, it deals with too many topics.
I would call this film a bizarre continuation, this is a different way of making films, which doesn't have to be a bad thing especially if we consider that it is one of the few decent films of the moment.
The various stories are very interesting and deal with very nice topics but the use of black and white, the theatrical installations and the theatrical style sets, does not seem to be made to convey anything but only to unnecessarily disorientate the audience, making them look for a meaning and a reason, which there is not, or at least, that I did not notice.
Then, the almost omnipresent narration is heavy, i.e., there is too much of it and because of this the dialogues are too short, plus the narration is made with a too highbrow journalistic lexicon, all in all, after a while it gets boring.
The acting is a thing of beauty, beautifully done, with a wow cast, including Benicio del Toro, Adrien Brody, Tilda Swinton and Timothée Chalamet.
In fact, Timothée Chalamet looks just like a hipster, but in 1940s style, because of the shaggy hair and the sort of cigarette almost always in his mouth.
This is just a particular film, despite all the "defects" listed before, in this film the director has experienced new things but has left his stylistic brand.
Already from the first shot you notice the incongruous style of Wes Anderson, every single shot is something really special, its characteristic static and the characters placed in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable, the extras are just watching you, literally and not talking about the settings, which are really fantastic and unique,
Each shot is full of subjects that have their own history and colors, as always, a distinctive brand of the director, which are all very pastel, lively and colorful.
It is well known that Wes Anderson has this almost poetic way of shooting, in fact, his films speak through images rich in pastel colors, bizarre music, fantastic photography and narrative rich in meanings.
Here in this film, there are all the elements except the beautiful narrative that I could, sadly, summarize in a word: "meh", just because the techniques were used that did not have a why and a precise purpose.
In conclusion, I think this film should be seen, at least to form its own opinion and to support such films.
Plus I don't feel like calling it, ugly but not even beautiful, all in all it's a good movie, a middle way, just for the beautiful and original style of Wes Anderson.
Thanks for reading until this point :)
Free Guy (2021)
Free Guy, hero for a game
The film is set mostly inside a videogame where a guy called "Guy" become a hero.
To be honest, I didn't have a great expectation, so I watched this film only for see the performance of Ryan Reynolds, because if you watch with him, you know that you'll laugh.
The plot is simple, I think because is destinated for kids, it is basic, you can foresee what is going to happen, it does not convey any deep emotion, but all thing considered, it is a good commercial packet.
The specials effects are okay, they must be okay since it is a film about videogames. I noticed that the videogame in the film ("Free City") is inspired by a lot of videogames that really excited, contrary to "Free City", as Fortnite, GTA, or Call of Duty, et cetera, that means the people who created the film know something about videogames, the know something about the central topi of the film, nowadays it's rare to see.
Towards the end the film is made like "it must finish as soon as possible", so I think that they had cut a lot of scenes and shortened many scenes that needed to be developed more, like they realized the film was too long.
Ryan Reynolds's Guy is in evolution in the whole film, he evolved himself for somebody, to like to someone, but he understands what is better for him.
The character of Taika Waititi, Antwan, is the classic villain, the person you must hate and the one that the hero must overcome for achieving the final goal.
All this discourse is okay if you keep in your mind that it is a film for kids.
For concluding, I appreciate the many cameos in the film, starting from the many streamers to Marvel and Star Wars quotations.
Thanks for reading ;)
Belfast (2021)
A great child performance
The new film of Kenneth Branagh, maybe you know him for "Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets", or for "Murder of the Orient Express", talks about a young boy and his family lives in the tumultuous late 1960s during the Northern Ireland conflict.
I think this film is worth to watch for those who adore the stories of formation and for those who like good film with good stories.
It's interesting how every single shot tells a story, they are different layers that have stories in the foreground, midground and the background. It creates the atmosphere that make you feel like you are in Belfast in the 60s.
It's curious how the story is told, because it is told through the eyes of the child, performed by Jude Hill, who make a fantastic and phenomenal performance, one of the best I've ever seen.
To support this narrative method, we didn't know the real name of the characters, we know their aliases which are: "ma", "pa", "granny".
The political-social-religious themes aren't exposed and tackle, because when you are a child, you don't know something about them. They aren't your interest; your only interest is to sit next to the beautiful girl at school.
For ending, this film leaves an important message about "what is home?"
The place where you know everything: the people, the culture, the location, and if you'd be willing to drop everything to go somewhere completely unknown.
Thank for reading until this point :)
Don't Look Up (2021)
Don't look up - Adam McKay, 2021
This political and comedy satire is available in theaters and on Netflix, this is film is known in particular thanks his stellar cast with: Leonardo di Caprio, Jennifer Lawrence as main characters and with Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett, Jonah Hill, Tyler Perry, Timothée Chalamet and even Ron Perlman and Ariana Grande
To the direction you have Adam McKay, maybe you know him for film "The big short".
This film talks about two scientists (di Caprio and Lawrence) that discovered a comet which is going to destroy the planet Earth and they depart for a big mediatic tour for the diffusion of the news.
In general, this is a good production, the cinematography is curated, the screenplay and the direction the same, the acting is very good. In fact, Leo is good, as always, and he plays a character that is a professor who must contend with an ailing society and who, at heart, is a good person and cares about humanity. Jennifer Lawrence is divine; she plays the role of a doctoral student that doesn't agree with the behavior of the society.
The same good job for Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett and Jonah Hill who are perfect.
The role of Timothée Chalamet is the role of a skater boy and Ariana Grande is the stereotype of herself, therefore a pop star.
I like how the director and the writer, Adam McKay, uses this comet as a pretext to talk about something else, this film is a scathing critique of today's society, particularly that of the United States. The director reflects a bitter and unrecoverable society, full of stupidity.
He puts in front of the audience something that is below the eyes of everyone, but no one wants to see it: the extreme fact that the society is completely lost, a society who gives weight to useless things, such as pop star gossip, rather than what really matters, namely the destruction of the planet.
It's interesting how much true is in this film, the important message it wants to get across to viewers.
The, I don't know how I can call it, maybe, "slogan", of this film is "based of truly possible events", this because they are facts that could happen with effects that could really happened, with the people caught up in the nonsense and social networks, full of conspiracy, in front of a catastrophe.
(if I may say so, it is a bit like the behavior of society in the face of our real catastrophe: the pandemic.)
They are behaviors that are inside the society, people behave in a stupid and foolish way and are faced with choosing priorities and choose to behave irresponsibly.
I like these reflections in the film, the director has felt me this message, the stupid behavior of the society, in this case that of the USA, the only thing is the running time, a bit long, when I watched the film, I couldn't wait to finish it.
It is very beautiful but a bit too much longer.
On 10 stars I think I will give 8.
Thanks for reading so far! :)
Don't Look Up (2021)
Don't look up - Adam McKay, 2021
This political and comedy satire is available in theaters and on Netflix, this is film is known in particular thanks his stellar cast with: Leonardo di Caprio, Jennifer Lawrence as main characters and with Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett, Jonah Hill, Tyler Perry, Timothée Chalamet and even Ron Perlman and Ariana Grande
To the direction you have Adam McKay, maybe you know him for film "The big short".
This film talks about two scientists (di Caprio and Lawrence) that discovered a comet which is going to destroy the planet Earth and they depart for a big mediatic tour for the diffusion of the news.
In general, this is a good production, the cinematography is curated, the screenplay and the direction the same, the acting is very good. In fact, Leo is good, as always, and he plays a character that is a professor who must contend with an ailing society and who, at heart, is a good person and cares about humanity. Jennifer Lawrence is divine; she plays the role of a doctoral student that doesn't agree with the behavior of the society.
The same good job for Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett and Jonah Hill who are perfect.
The role of Timothée Chalamet is the role of a skater boy and Ariana Grande is the stereotype of herself, therefore a pop star.
I like how the director and the writer, Adam McKay, uses this comet as a pretext to talk about something else, this film is a scathing critique of today's society, particularly that of the United States. The director reflects a bitter and unrecoverable society, full of stupidity.
He puts in front of the audience something that is below the eyes of everyone, but no one wants to see it: the extreme fact that the society is completely lost, a society who gives weight to useless things, such as pop star gossip, rather than what really matters, namely the destruction of the planet.
It's interesting how much true is in this film, the important message it wants to get across to viewers.
The, I don't know how I can call it, maybe, "slogan", of this film is "based of truly possible events", this because they are facts that could happen with effects that could really happened, with the people caught up in the nonsense and social networks, full of conspiracy, in front of a catastrophe.
(if I may say so, it is a bit like the behavior of society in the face of our real catastrophe: the pandemic.)
They are behaviors that are inside the society, people behave in a stupid and foolish way and are faced with choosing priorities and choose to behave irresponsibly.
I like these reflections in the film, the director has felt me this message, the stupid behavior of the society, in this case that of the USA, the only thing is the running time, a bit long, when I watched the film, I couldn't wait to finish it.
It is very beautiful but a bit too much longer.
On 10 stars I think I will give 8.
Thanks for reading so far! :)
tick, tick...BOOM! (2021)
Tick, Tick... BOOM -2021
This beautiful film, "Tick, Tick... BOOM", from 2021 is available on Netflix, with this Lin-Manuel Mirada, author of "Hamilton" and the new "Mary Poppins", makes his directorial debut.
The film talks about a guy called Johnathan Larson, who is about to turn 30 years old, during the moment in his life, when he was without money. He lives in 90s New York and in a week he has the has the possibility to stage, and so to sell, his musical "Superbia", a musical he has been working on for eight years.
In primes, I didn't want to watch this film because it's a musical and I hate musical in general, but I read some reviews that intrigued me, additionally, I covered that Johnathan Larson really existed (he is the author of "rent"), after I wanted to watch it.
Talking about musicals, in this film the songs are justified not by chance, being a film adaptation of one of his plays, not as the other musicals. So, film is divided in two parts, the first part, in which there are his's life scenes (normal scenes, with normal dialogues) and the second one, in which he interprets his plays, in conclusion the music in general suits good for it.
After those considerations, I think that narrative technique is very original and less annoying than other musicals, the film transports and involves.
In fact, the fusion between real life and art is very good, because reflects the vision of life of Johnathan Larson, who was the person that created songs for E V E R Y T H I N G, fun fact: in one scene he says that he created a song about sugar.
And now the highlight: the fantastic performance of Andrew Garfield, who is a great actor, and he made a lot of very good film.
Since I haven't said it so far, Andrew Garfield interprets Johnathan Larson that makes a very good job, additionally he sings well.
To finish, I think this film I think you have to watch it sooner or later and it's not heavy, so it's suitable a bit for everyone.
Thank you reading so far :)
È stata la mano di Dio (2021)
È stata la mano di Dio - 2021, Paolo Sorrentino
My opinion, about this film, differs than others, in fact I think this film is not so good.
During the runtime, I thought all the time: "when this will end? I can't take it anymore"
"Others" say this film is wonderful and deep, but I say that it is boring and discounted.
The film is set in Naples in the 1980s and tells the story of a lonely boy named Fabietto who lives a life full of ups and downs, disappointments and satisfactions (including the arrival of Maradona in Naples).
The director is Paolo Sorrentino, also from Naples, and it is from 2021.
The principal actors are Luisa Ranieri (Patrizia in the movie), Filippo Scotti, who is Fabietto Schisa, Teresa Saponangelo and Toni Servilli, who are Maria e Saverio Schisa.
My thesis is: this film is good but not so good.
It is done well but does not transmit anything, the events are basic, and they don't have any suspense or twists and turns, for example the family lunch, there is a good 10-15 minutes in which they eat and interact with each other, admittedly a very intimate and beautiful moment, but its flaw is that it conveys no desire to go on to find out what is going to happen. This feeling, "to find out what is going to happen" I felt at the begin, the first shot which is composed of almost 2 min of sea and silence and then immediately, out of the blue, after this feeling of peace, the director decides to throw us into the middle of the city center full of noise and honking horns.
It must be said, however, that the photography and acting in this film is not bad at all, and the meanings and teachings are very beautiful, but perhaps they should have been developed more. There are two hours in which nothing exciting happens, and in these two hours I think that Fabietto's feelings and desires should have been developed better.
So to conclude in brief,
Acting: 6,5
Characters: 6
Cinematography: 8
Plot: 4
Ending: 5
But this is my opinion :)
Thank for reding so far.
Dune (2021)
The film of the year
I think Denis Villeneuve's Dune is a great gift to cinema in general, there haven't been films like this in a long time.
To put it bluntly, this film is epic with an epic cast.
The director outdid himself and impressed the audience in an incredible way: the drama, the emotions and the effects, he completed the sci-fi genre.
This ambitious director, screenwriter and producer amazed me like few others.
Villeneuve did not create a film where you have to follow the dialogues but rather one where you have to follow the images, he expresses himself and presents a film based on beautiful shots.
When I came out of the cinema my thought was: OMG what have I seen!
I felt excited and at the same time confused.
Confused because the plot is not very clear, maybe because of the many characters and the fact that each of them has their own story, but in the end that is also why it is beautiful.
There are two ways to understand it: read the book and pay attention when watching it. I say the same when I hear criticism about it or when I hear people thinking that there was absolutely a need for an opening scene to explain the setting of the film.
In short, document yourselves!
The events take place in the future in the year 10'191, most of the film,
on a planet called Arrakis. It's interesting how people are ahead of technology, but society not. They are inside a feudal society, similar to medieval Europe, I think this because the feelings of human beings are the same, the kind of conflicts and the family is above everything.
I also find this modernity-antiquity conflict interesting.
The author of the book, Frank Herbert, was a bomb of imagination and a genius, and Denis Villeneuve the same.
Now let's talk about the music, it must be said, the composer, Hans Zimmer amazed again, every time you heard his fantastic melody, you got goosebumps. Luckily, I had the chance to see it at the cinema, and thanks to that the emotions I felt were impressive and almost indescribable.
Music is POETRY, it's an important piece to complete the puzzle of the film and impressive.
It's fascinating how music can make everything more complete, without it the film would have been completely different.
Now, the special effects, they are impressive and fantastic.
They are so realistic that the audience feels like they are on Arrakis. And, speaking of Arrakis,
the poetry of the desert is well placed and takes its necessary part.
I also find the colour palette appropriate,
with tones ranging from grey-blue to yellow-orange, these colours are perfect to describe the surroundings, the buildings made by humans and the great expanse of desert that characterises the planet.
When you are in the Harkonnen house the colours change to black-grey, so it is inevitable that the Harkonnen are associated with the colour black.
Turning now to the acting which I think is excellent, at a high level, the kind of acting that makes the audience feel the emotions felt by the characters.
Timothée Chalamet played Paul Atreides fantastically, making it clear that he is an admirable actor.
Likewise Oscar Isaac's Duke Leto.
Against that, I think Rebecca Ferguson's character could be less psychopathic and paranoid.
In the book she's portrayed as thoughtful and cautious while in the film it's as if she's insane. At least that's my impression, maybe I played Lady Jessica differently than DV.
I also think Zendaya could have done more in this movie, the scenes where she talks are very few, she could have integrated more, against my argument though, it has to be said that this is only the first movie and another one is to come out.
Finally, I think this film is not just for sci-fi fans but for anyone who likes to get to the end and not have everything clear in their mind.
I recommend it to those who like art within a film and those who like beautiful cinematography and epic shots in general, instead I don't recommend it to those who like "simple" films.
Thanks for reading this far :)
I Care a Lot (2020)
Mmmeh, nothing special
Actually I watched the movie for the Rosamund Pike's main character.
Conclusion? This movie is SO BORING, all the time I was asking me: "when this finish?"
Reservoir Dogs (1992)
Are you gonna bark all day, lil' doggie, or are you gonna bite? No, Mr.blonde, I'm gonna explain why this movie is a masterpiece.
From the beginning, Reservoir Dogs is a violent and bloody thriller directed and written by Quentin Tarantino in 1992. This film includes funny and brilliant dialogues, a powerful cast (the strong performances by Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, and Michael Madesen), the most sadistic scene of torture I ever seen, a director's cameo in a minor role, beautiful music and a WTF final.
Although the low budget, the simple location and the simple story, this film is an extraordinary debut, I mean, he made himself remembered.
The style of the director is full of inspiration for me, how he moves the camera, how he put the music and the effects, everything.
The feeling you get when you watch the debut of a great director, knowing how far he has gone, is WOW, I mean, the first film from QT is something important.
So, the story is simple to understand, it is about another robbery gone wrong because of a cop infiltrated in the gang.
We don't see the robbery, but we know the most important information listening to the characters talking and screaming panicked to each other.
In this movie the intro-scene in a restaurant is in contrast with the absurd final.
To add this, the plot isn't chronological, the facts about the gang (how the members are inside it and their story) are told after the robbery. You can think it's a confused film, but it isn't.
Although, in some strange way, in the beginning, the characters are close to each other maybe as a group of friends, for feel this, helps a lot the master shot in this scene the camera movement around their table. But after no, they suspect between themselves.
The relationship between the characters is simple, only for work even if sometimes they talk and act like friends.
After all, I think they are good persons, in particular Mr. White in contrast with Mr. Pink who is egoistic and thinks only how to save his skin and how to earn. My favorite is Mr. Blonde, I like how he talks, how he is sarcastic and psycho.
Changing argument, I LOVE the music in this film, everything is connected by the radio program K-Billy's Super sound from the 70s.
For example: how Quentin Tarantino presents the characters is something special, I mean, I watched that scene like a hundred times (and I'm not kidding).
They walk in slow motion towards the robbery (but only after you realized towards what) on the notes the song Little green bag.
If we analyze this, we have first the screen all black with some credits and in the background the voice of K-Billy, then a wide shot where the gang walks from right to left of the frame. Later every character framed in a close-up and below the actor's name.
First Harvey Keitel's Mr. White, second Michael Madsen's Mr. Blonde, then Chris Penn's Nice Guy Eddie, Steve Buscemi's Mr. Pink, Lawrence Tierney's Joe, Eddie Bunker's Blue, Quentin Tarantino's Brown and finally Tim Roth's Mr. Orange.
After this we have another wide shot which in this appears the title of the film, then credits later interrupted by the Mr. Orange's screams.
I love a lot the fact that Tarantino does this effects also in Pulp Fiction, he begins immediately the film with the dialogues and then he interrupted it with the credits paired the music, the music..., I don't know how to describe it, maybe "strange" or "exotic".
Another example is when Blonde is going to torture a cop, Blonde put on the K-Billy's program and then begins the song Stuck in the middle with you. The character interacts with the music, he dances, he sings, and we feel fascinated by the power of music.
For finish the talk about music, even sometimes it fit "wrong" with the scene, the director makes it, in a word, perfect.
I admit, before watching this movie I was skeptical about it but now I totally changed my mind and I love it, especially for the confused and intense final and why not, also the plot.
For concluding, I like this movie a lot and on 10 stars I would give 9.
Thanks for reading until this point :D
"You know what this is? It's the world's smallest violin playing just for the waitresses"
-Mr. Pink.
Jaws (1975)
My Jaws review :)
For the year this film is made very good, the effects are so realistic, very good job Spielberg.
When I watched this film all the time I thought "it's so in the style of Spielberg" (I like Spielberg's films) but in the end this is the same stuff, maybe I didn't like it very much because it isn't my genre, but I'm not saying it's a bad movie.
Also, the shark's imagines are so pretty good, it's like the audience was there with the shark.
The introduction is so particular, maybe innovative. The audience is seeing like the shark and together with the music (the soundtrack of the film) puts a kind of anxiety of the type "the shark is going to kill anybody?". But later all this feeling disappears with the coldness of the image change.
At minute 15 there is a tranquility which puts anxiety, the people were swimming with a probably shark? But why? This people are so dumb, and when the police want to close the beaches they come angry. Ohh, it was for your security.
The people are a kind of sheep because when the shark attacks, EVERYTIME, all of these go for see the shark, sometimes risking their lives, so no comment.
Speaking of "risking their life", all people know the shark's attacks, but they go swim anyway, what is in their mind? Ash?
In conclusion I liked the word used by Hooper "eating machine" because I think it describes in excellent manners the shark and the story which revolves around him.
Thank you for reading so far :)
Donnie Darko (2001)
My Donnie Darko review
Donnie Darko, even the name is suggestive, it seems to have been made on purpose, it sounds so good.
This film is an absolute masterpiece, at least for those who, like me, love this kind of film. It doesn't make sense, what does it mean, what lessons does it want to convey? These are questions that we can never answer.
With this I learned to love Jake Gyllenhaal and now he is of my favourites actors.
Of course we can theorize, try to explain it all, but watching it again will completely displace our theory.
Yeah, exactly, that's what watching Donnie Darko means.
At first I thought the most logical explanation was that Donnie lived in a time loop, in fact the "end of the world" meant the end of the loop, 28 days 6 hours 42 minutes and 12 seconds.
But looking at it again I lost my theory, what does it really mean? Was Donnie living in a loop or not, and if so, does he want to break it at the end? Or the simplest hypothesis, it's all the result of some kind of premonitory dream, he dreams about the fact if he wasn't dead, because yes, the plane falls on him and actually Frank doesn't save him. The ending of this film is very disorienting, the spectator watches the film formulating theory after theory, explanation after explanation, only to have it all thrown out.
This film doesn't make sense, but after watching it I'm left wondering "does my life make sense? What if it's all a dream? What if I'm trapped in a loop?". Let's say it's a film that makes you think about yourself and your existence. A scene that really struck me was the one where Donnie is talking to his professor about time travel. At one point the professor says that everyone who knows their destiny has the power to change it and therefore it is not predetermined".
Gosh, how much does it make you think, is my destiny carved or not? Do I really have the power to change it? If so, if tomorrow instead of drinking my usual coffee I drink a cup of tea, have I changed my destiny or was it predetermined that I should change the cup of coffee for the cup of tea? Oh god, my brain is going haywire thinking about this. That's what Donnie Darko leads me to think about.
Well, now back to us, what is Donnie Darko about then? There are many themes: psychological disorders, time travel, the contrast between fear and love (we will also discuss this), bullying, vandalism, or political debates. WHAT IS IT ABOUT?
We can't know, we can only theorise.
Another interesting point is the opposition between fear and love. You will say to me, of course they are opposites, I know, but is it possible to divide everything into two categories? Every negative thing you put in the life line on the side of fear and every positive thing on the side of love. No, you can't do that for many reasons. Who establishes what is positive and what is negative, for me picking up a wallet from the ground and keeping the money in it can be a good or a bad gesture, everything is a question of ethics. Then what is meant by love and fear? Love can be the good that one wants for a person as it can be the representation of good (similar discourse for fear), this is a subjective thing, it depends on the person and the person. In conclusion, as Donnie says, you have to take into account all the other emotions, even if love and fear are the deepest.
Shall we also discuss Jake's magnificent performance? This film was very good, it hit the mark, it managed to convey many emotions, many points of view, many reflections. Is a very good actor, able to convey feeling that few succeed (we also want to talk about how he is beautiful, mamma miaaa, as I say from I come), congratulations really, it's a shame that has not yet won an Oscar, because he deserves it all.
Finally, thinking is impressive how a movie like this has been successful and also how we are people like me who continue to watch it, because in waves what movie is? Boh. Tell you what kind it is? How do you decide if you barely understand what it's about.
For the last time, this movie doesn't make sense.
Thank you for reading so far :))
Gone Girl (2014)
Gone Girl review
In a word this film is FANTASTIC. In primis I LOVE David Fincher's movie, so I decided to watch one of his best movies. I think this film is a masterpiece, the concepts are expressed in an excellent way, it has become one of my favorite films. He should have won an Oscar.
The intro is so significant and disturbing: "I'd like to split her skull"
after watching the movie trailer you already know what's going to happen, or at least you think you know, and Nick already starts to dislike you a little.
The movie starts with him going to a bar, and when he comes home, his wife is gone, so Nick calls the police. I was struck by the fact that Nick doesn't seem too upset by his wife's disappearance, I mean, he's not desperate for grief. Then, when the cops intrigue him doesn't seem to know any aspect of his wife's life, a relevant fact because thanks to this, we who look understand that they did not have a good relationship.
The police then set off to look for her; earlier she had left clues which when Nick finds them he does not show to the police. By doing this he shows the audience that he is somehow guilty, if he wasn't he would have had to give everything to the cops.
To add to the hatred we already had for Nick, we find out that he has a lover, oh God, when I found out I was shocked. I thought: "how could you do this to Amy" and as if that wasn't enough she was a little girl. From this last fact I felt a hatred towards Nick, I didn't justify him. On top of that there were the scenes of their relationship in the beginning and how they complemented each other, but then Nick ruined everything.
The director wants to make it look like Nick is the bad guy in fact who wouldn't be on Amy's side seeing those images? No one, that's who.
Amy to get revenge for his betrayal stages her own murder. She plans it in every detail. Then she runs away and takes refuge in some bad place. The feelings were almost indescribable, oh god, she didn't die, thank goodness
In the meantime Nick gets a lawyer because he is accused of his wife's murder. He also finds out what game Amy has him playing in. His sister has two very important terms: "psychopath" and "manipulator". After this scene I started to see Amy as a manipulator too, because on second thought that's what she is.
She tells the police everything and everyone believes her, except for 4 people: Nick, Margo, Nick's lawyer and the detective on duty. They don't believe her because they know what really happened. But in the end she won anyway, she fooled everyone who matters and appeared as the perfect wife who despite everything is madly in love with her husband (plus she's expecting his child without Nick touching her, now Nick is forced to stay with her forever).
The film finish with the intro scene, one things significative, now we now the meaning of that.
Now let's talk about the media, they were present throughout the film, they discredited, insulted Nick and made him hated by all (they even insinuated incest), they too were fundamental for the judgment of Nick and Amy. I think with this the director shows us how much the media can influence us and make us think as they want.
By finishing the film we all realized how powerful women are, how she is powerful, how the power of cunning beats everything and everyone. We are all astonished because we had a thought for, and another, and another. In the end she's won everything.