Reviews

Stylistically fun, as others have noted... the "1970s era found footage" conceit works well enough, although the explanatory intro at the beginning maybe goes on a little too long. I wonder if the movie would have carried more power without that intro at all, just launching into the found footage. Dastmalchian is good, as is Laura Gordon (very attractive) and others in the cast.

But as a screenplay, this just lacks coherence in the end. I don't think the movie is clear on what it really wants to say, and I don't mind a bit of ambiguity in cinema, but there's a fine line between ambiguity and incoherence. The final act of the movie leans more toward incoherence, I would say. There are certain interesting tidbits in the plot that are never explained, that I figured would eventually be explained; e.g., the "under the tall trees" thing. The story explanations that I read on the movie's Wiki page simply aren't clear in the movie itself. Also, the portrayal of the cult element here felt a little cartoonish and exaggerated, depicting the most ridiculous and stereotypical version of a cult (big hoods, Satan worship, rituals in the woods, running daggers through hands, etc.) one could imagine, and that also detracted from my ability to take the movie seriously. This is always challenging when mixing comedy with serious subject matter, but when viewed as a "seriocomedy", and only that, this is an amusing enough watch, and not overlong.

Although uncomfortable to watch and harrowing at times, yes, this is just a pretty boring movie overall. There is no real narrative here, no story. It is a window onto a Nazi family during WW2, showing their life, showing their interactions, showing their meals, showing them as they're out for a stroll, etc. That doesn't a movie make. Movies are ALSO supposed to be entertainment, not merely portraits.

Glazer takes an Eric Rohmer static shots approach to the majority of the film. That can be fine when the STORY is compelling but, again, there is no real story here. It is static depiction, not narrative.

Yes, the final sequence, going forward time to a modern museum and then back to the past, carries power, and that is probably the strongest part of the movie. The sound design is pretty good too.

Does this offer anything new to the WW2 conversation? I think not. Yes, it shows what was going on behind the scenes and the "banality of evil" blah blah blah, but that's NOT a story.

I think the blank shot at the beginning of the movie lasts about 5 minutes. Was that really necessary? I think not. It was just strange and art school-ish.

Visually it's impressive and has some highly cinematic sequences. The initial Radiohead sequence was particularly well done. This director has an eye, that's for sure. And the movie is never boring, but the script is definitely overcooked. Unchecked progress of AI is definitely cause for concern and smart people are already working on necessary regulations there. In this regard, this movie is a cautionary tale, but it also goes beyond the realm of believability multiple times.

I won't get into describing all the questionable plot points--but there are many times where you can legitimately ask, "But why?" The ending is also a bit trite and too conveniently "wrapped up", and in a rather corny manner to boot. Too much is crammed in at the end to the point of verging on ridiculousness.

Nonetheless, the movie is tackling a serious issue that faces us, the unchecked progress of AI, in a fairly entertaining and at times visually stunning way, so it's worthier than most movies on that basis alone.

I wouldn't say that John David Washington is a particularly charismatic leading man. Compared to his father, he lacks in that department, but overall I thought he was fine. Gemma Chan is a very attractive woman and I'd like to see more of her.

I don't think this film works particularly well as a commentary on society, beauty standards, media, fame, etc., as some reviewers have noted. I think the film works better as a commentary on extreme mental illness: specifically, extreme selfishness, jealousy and narcissism. I couldn't buy it as a satire because I constantly found it so unbelievable what this woman would do to herself for the sake of fame and attention from her boyfriend: brutally disfiguring herself and potentially ruining her health. As if she didn't think that her boyfriend would probably leave her after disfiguring herself so badly: which, let's be honest, that is the most likely outcome here, like it or not.

I think we have all wanted fame at some point or another; it's a common desire. Everybody can relate to that on some ego level. But I couldn't relate to the over-the-top extremity that this chick resorts to. Yes, all satire involves some exaggeration, but to a point. It should still be believable.

The film certainly has some strong points. Specifically, the photo shoot sequence in the museum is quite well done and creates a lot of tension. There is a certain style to the editing that reminded me of "The Limey" (1999); it's a bit unusual but works well overall. I wouldn't say this movie is a comedy; I chuckled at maybe one or two scenes. I found it to be more of a psychodrama that was, often, quite uncomfortable to watch, and I suppose the film succeeds on that level.

You know those Heritage Minutes about Canadian history? This felt like that but drawn out over a feature length documentary. Talking heads, over and over, about how Lightfoot was great. Yes, he was a great songwriter and musician. I think you can understand that by listening to a couple of his best songs. You don't need that over and over again from different people in a feature length documentary, though. It was cool to see Rush come in, and also Neil Young, but WHY was Alec Baldwin in this so much? He just seemed a bit random and out of place. Is he just a Lightfoot fan? OK, but that could have been explained somehow. Context is good.

Look, a great documentary should have some drama to it, some mystery, some narrative drive. This doc is more of a straightforward retelling of Lightfoot's career, song by song, and talking about the mechanics of the songwriting. This could be of interest to musicians, perhaps, but not most moviegoers. There isn't enough intrigue here.

Some important concepts are covered in this movie that apply to marketing broadly, not just sports marketing. Notably, you need an adequate budget. Marketing costs money to do well. Also, how effective storytelling can be when combined with a solid product. Jordan's story (humble beginnings, being doubted, overcoming adversity, etc.) was leveraged effectively to connect to the target market, thus leading to selling a ton of shoes.

It's a straightforward, workmanlike docudrama movie with some comedic touches thrown in--it portrays the story in a competent way but it doesn't have any particular art or visual style to it. And that's the kind of movie Affleck does, and it's fine, just not particularly cinematic or inventive. It has a TV movie feel.

As others have noted, it just comes across as an odd choice to keep Jordan mysterious throughout the movie. Hiding his face, voice, etc. That just seemed unnecessary and weird to me. Some of the editing and camerawork is also a bit weird, notably in the conversation between Damon and Wayans at the bar. The editing choices there seemed off somehow and were therefore distracting.

Hmm. This movie aims high, and looks to address serious issues and concerns that haunt many of us: guilt, specifically with regard to family relations, the "could have been/should have been" questions with regard to obsessing over the past, sex, relationships, etc. It also contains one of the most inventive cinematic sequences I've seen in years: the one that starts at the stageplay and transitions into animation. That entire sequence alone is brilliant and cinematic.

The movie falters with regard to tone. The tone of this thing is just all over the place. It's trying to say serious things, and yet the ridiculousness of it all is just too much at times (and not particularly funny. There are some funny moments, sure, but the ridiculousness often is not particularly funny. It's just ridiculous) An example is the paint drinking scene that involves the Christian woman turning on Beau. It's just so campy and over the top that it takes you out of the film. There are other over the top moments like this, such as the attic scene with the sudden introduction of a literal monster. The movie doesn't seem to know what it wants to be sometimes.

The film did a good job of portraying issues re: drug use. Almost every character is on some sort of meds (in Beau's case, over-prescribed by his "psychiatrist"). Much of the film obviously takes place in Beau's head--and that isn't a pleasant place to be, though I could relate to him on some level. In the end, the film seems to be about the dangers of not overcoming one's anxieties and not being able to get out of one's own head. Even if these anxieties are caused by others, it is useless to point fingers and blame. But how do we conquer those anxieties? Aster doesn't seem to offer much hope, in the end. It is a dismal ending but perhaps also a merciful release.

This movie is a bit one note altogether. For example, why is the Simon character so angry? It would have been more interesting if the roots of his anger were explored and perhaps he could have been made a more sympathetic character, or at least more human. Instead, he's just an angry guy and portrayed as a villain. But anger comes from somewhere. Sure, some people in this world are just straight out evil, I can buy that. But more often than not, everyone has some humanity in them, don't you think?

Even though the movie is fairly short, the pacing seems off somehow. For example, did we really need all the scenes of the girls partying in the car and at the bar? Maybe something more interesting could have been done with that screen time. From a formal standpoint, the movie doesn't have much style. I believe this is a first-time director, so that can be forgiven somewhat, but I like to see more done with the visual/aural language of cinema.

There is a side plot (involving a girl) that remains entirely unresolved by the end of the film. I don't mind some ambiguity in filmmaking but that just seemed pointless to me.

It was cool to see some shots of Toronto (not trying to disguise itself as a different city for once). The water cinematography was well done. And Kendrick is certainly talented; too bad she didn't have a deeper script to work with in this case.

There is very little context offered in this doc, so one should come into it with a decent understanding of Russian history already -- or, at least, modern Russian history. Many questions are left unanswered. For example: HOW, exactly, did Putin come to power? It is amazing when one considers that he grew up poor in Leningrad. This is only briefly mentioned but never expanded upon in terms of his path to President. WHY, exactly, did Yeltsin choose him over his other options? Etc.

Maybe the most memorable part of the doc comes when Yeltsin sits patiently for Putin to call, after Putin has won the election. Of course, Putin never calls. It seems that Yeltsin really did believe in freedom and democracy, and Putin managed to trick Yeltsin. Sad.

That said, there is certainly historical value in much of this footage, although it is often shaky, dark, and hard to watch. I'm not sure the orchestra section was necessary; don't think it added much value. Nonetheless, it is rare--unrehearsed footage of Yeltsin with his family and Putin around the time of his initial "election". Putin waxes poetic on the effectiveness of democracy and one actually wonders if he believes his own BS here. Of course, even at this time, he likely already didn't believe in democracy. It was all a show for the camera and Putin's little speech in the car at the end shows that he can be a pretty good actor.

As you may have heard by now, this doc contains no Oasis songs even though they were apparently performed at the Knebworth 22 shows. Surprised they weren't able to work something out with royalties or whatever. As half decent as Liam's songs are, I think we can all acknowledge the obvious: the Oasis songs are better. The doc would have been better with them. Why do you have to be so petty, Noel? That's not very rock and roll of you now is it?

But this is still a fun rock doc and especially if you're able to watch it in a cinema, you do get a good sense of the massive scale of Knebworth. The director makes the good decision to focus on some individual fans (some more interesting than others) and their stories before moving out to show the wider scale of the festival. Liam's helicopter entrance is fun even if perhaps a tad overdone. The songs aren't presented in full; they seem to be truncated, I suppose for the obvious reason to keep the doc to a reasonable length, although some full versions would have been nice.

Overall, pretty cool but could have been better for obvious reasons.

Some fun scenes, some good dark humour throughout certainly, and a great performance by Farrell, but the ending was deeply unsatisfying somehow. This ending was so unsatisfying that it took the steam out of the rest of the movie, for me. I do generally like movies that find a kind of black humour in the sad absurdity that is this life, this world, but it just doesn't come together into a strong ending, which is a shame. The ending of a movie is important--it is what people remember most, often, and this falls flat.

As others have mentioned, the scenery is beautiful (hard not to be, shooting in rural Ireland), and the dialogue is fun and lively.

It's more of a series of musical montages than a biopic, really. This seems to be Morgen's shtick at this point. Some montages work better than others and while I didn't find the movie that pretentious, as others have said, some montages were just drawn out too long even if they were pretty cool.

It might have been better to take a more balanced approach where there is more actual information presented about Bowie's life and career (there was some but not enough, IMO). This movie is short on details in that regard; it paints over everything in Bowie's career with a broad brush and goes into very little detail re: how, exactly, his career progressed. The overarching message presented is nice but fairly cliche: embrace life, appreciate each day, live in the present moment, etc. Nevertheless, it will still be enjoyable for those who like Bowie's music.

As mankind develops more and more technology, there will likely be more and more of an interest in the quest for immortality. And that brings various ramifications, some not so positive perhaps. It might be better to just accept the natural cycles, accept natural death rather than trying to fight against it so much with these man-made, unnatural processes. This seems to be the overarching statement of the movie. It is an important topic that deserves exploration and discussion, certainly.

But getting to this statement is certainly a bit of a slog. The mechanical dialogue and characters' robotic mannerisms become tiresome. The whole thing feels cold, detached and hard to connect to. Sure, this is a cold and detached dystopic world, but there isn't a counterbalancing element which is needed to build empathy in such a world.

I get why Mortensen would make the actorly "choice" to be almost constantly throat clearing. The character has internal organ issues, I get that. But that doesn't make the choice any less annoying. It just becomes excessive and annoying.

As usual, Seydoux is sexy and talented and probably the best thing about the movie.

Relatively formulaic crime caper. The best thing the movie has going for it is the setting; PEI certainly lends itself to some beautiful cinematography. The story has some interesting elements but overall it doesn't rise above a made-for-TV cheap production feel.

The dialogue is a bit ham-fisted at times and you've got some overly stereotypical characters: the disgruntled old cop, the bad guy with tattoos, etc.

"Deus ex machina" I think is the term for the introduction of a major new character toward the end of the movie. Well, it happens here and is a tad annoying. There are various "convenient coincidences" that happen such as a character finding an important bag at a rock that he just happened to randomly crouch down near. Some suspension of disbelief is OK but a few too many of them here.

The "wrap things up nicely" monologue at the end was a bit too pat while leaving various things unexplained.