Change Your Image
RCBP_Collection
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
God's Country (2022)
What you think of this film says more about you than about the film
A country without God is a scary place! That was my thought on reaching the last scene - and I'm an atheist!
Judging from other reviews, both expert and not, emotional and conflicted responses are quite common. Maybe that's what the director, Julian Higgins, was after. His film seems intentionally ambiguous, engaging us emotionally without giving us any comfortable answers, leaving a lot of room for individual interpretation.
What most people seem to agree on is praise for Thandiwe Newton's finely controlled acting, and the cinematography, which is beautiful and eerie.
However, on whether to feel sympathy or disgust for the characters, or how we should interpret the many social issues that are brought up and how we feel about what that says about the current condition of our country - the reactions seem as wide-ranging as our polarized society is nowadays.
Which proves the point of the film (or what I think the point of the film is): without some common ground on which to agree, without common beliefs and values, without God, we are in trouble.
Annette (2021)
But is this art?
How much honesty do we really want to see in art? How can a fiction tell the truth?
Pondering these questions intellectually is probably too much for a movie audience, so "Annette" does it by showing you. In fact, it might have succeeded too well, judging by the extreme reactions between those who loved it and those who hated it. Maybe we don't really want too much honesty in our art.
Take Anne and Henry's love song with its simple repeating refrain: "We love each other so much". That is what love songs are all saying, isn't it? But does merely repeating this simple truth in song make your heart soar, the way it does when watching a beautiful tragic opera, the way it does when you are really in love? No! And that's the point this film is making: By stating everything in very plain words, truly honestly, without dressing it up in exaggerated poetry, without any fiction, the song falls flat. This is not art!
This is even more clearly displayed in Henry's performances on stage. They are not a real comedic performance, but a cynical description of the actual dynamics between a comedian and his audience. It's not funny, at all. But that is also the point. I couldn't help but be reminded of Dave Chappelle, once one of my favorite comedians, but who recently seems to have lost his way. He is now being totally honest on stage, telling us his truth, revealing the truth of the comedy business, but is that what we really want from him? Turns out, no it isn't. In "Annette", the audience demands Henry get off the stage, declaring him not a comedian anymore. I'm sadly feeling the same towards Dave Chappelle, and am now averting my eyes in embarrassment from the open display of his angst.
Anne's operatic performances, adored yet despised by Henry, are the opposite. After both have performed one night, she asks him how his show went. "I killed them," he replies. When he asks her in return how her show went, Anne replies, "I saved them!" This is the difference between her art and his, between traditional arts and sadly, the direction in which we seem to be going now, in which nothing is taboo anymore, but also, nothing is sacred.
Today's art, at best, forces us to stare into the dark abyss of "truth", or at its worse, feeds us fictions that merely numb us with cheap thrills. It has destroyed what art once was: a shared ritual that elevates us, one where we agree to suspend disbelief, and find a greater truth through fiction.
The last scene with Annette is shocking and moving; its beauty saves us by offering us some hope. Perhaps in the future, a new kind of art will find its own way, having learned from the mistakes of the past. We do hope she will be more like her mother than her father!
Together (2021)
An ugly film about petty people, and worst of all, not funny
I couldn't watch more than 5 minutes of this film. Some people may think it unfair of me to leave a rating.
However, I think people should be warned that this is not just a waste of time, but leaves a nasty taste in your mouth. I only gave it 3 stars out of pity, for the good acting, acting that all went for nothing.
Would you willingly spend an hour and a half listening to someone rant and whine in a loud forced voice, not about anything really heartrending, just petty stuff, someone who lacks generosity and empathy, and cares only about their only selfish needs? Would you choose to listen to two such narcissists ranting about each other in this nasty manner? Never stopping to consider how the other might feel (let alone consider you, the poor observer), making it obvious why their marriage is in trouble?
I suppose there may be a few gluttons for punishment out there who might enjoy this kind of thing. If so, go ahead, knock yourself out.
As a result of my own negative answers to these questions, I did not find this film funny. At all. And I was not going to subject myself to its full length before giving it a rating and warning others: this is a shallow film about nasty, petty people.
First Man (2018)
One small-minded movie, missing the giant leap
This claustrophobic film takes one of the greatest human feats and trivializes it into the experience of one lonely mind. This is self-absorption taken to its nauseating extreme, and ultimately demeans even that one man himself.
Watching this film, it is as though poor suffering Neil Armstrong went to the moon all by himself, without the trust and camaraderie of his fellow astronauts, without the work of thousands of engineers, mechanics, administrators, and other support workers; without the political impetus of the Cold War, without the brilliance of hundreds of years of scientific study; in other words, without the help of the rest of humanity.
Really, who CARES what Neil Armstrong was "feeling" as he landed on the moon? Apparently, not even himself, if you believe Buzz Aldrin: "We're not aware of our feelings; we're so focused on what is in front of us... Doing a survey of our feelings is totally foreign to the activities of being a sharp, aware test pilot or astronaut trying to anticipate what's coming next."
Little Women (2019)
Saoirse Ronan ruins the movie
Despite some good acting by others, especially the marvellous Laura Dern, the core of Little Women is the character Jo, and Saoirse Ronan is the wrong actress for this part. She is too noisy, and bounces around too much, in an overzealous attempt to portray quirkiness and stubbornness. But she is completely incapable of carrying off the inner strength that was essential to Jo's independence in defiance of social norms. Ronan's Jo made me feel concern about her emotional and perhaps even mental stability.
Da xiang xidi erzuo (2018)
Boring, Long, and Miserable
I had jokingly messaged a friend, in between watching the first and second halves, that the film made me want to either fall asleep or kill myself. The characters are not only miserable, but pathetic, self-involved, and lack any sense of joy, passion, wonder or love. The pace is excruciatingly slow, and at almost 4 hours, unreasonably long. I thought it was pretentiously depressing. On this last point, I guess I was wrong.
I was very sorry to find the dedication at the end of this film to the young writer/director Hu Bo, and to read later that he had committed suicide. But I cannot say I was surprised. In retrospect, I realized that the misery he depicted in this film reflects how he truly viewed the world. Poor man.
This might explain the awards and rave reviews, as Hu Bo's suicide makes people unable to judge the film dispassionately. It makes us realize that we are getting a sincere message from the mind of a clinically depressed man.
However, judging the film entirely on its own merits, I stand by my one star rating. It is excruciating to watch, and lacks any engaging character, or moments of entertainment, enlightenment, pleasure, or inspiration. Instead, it does the opposite, saying over and over that life is just agony, nothing else. Though it may have been his honest view, it is the very limited view of a sadly twisted mind. It is worse than nothing, it is harmful and untrue. People are not just wretched, selfish and nothing else, even if Hu Bo couldn't see it.
I am sorry I wasted 4 hours of my life on this, and I would never recommend this movie to anyone else.
Judy (2019)
Please don't sing another song
I cringed through the entire movie, thanks to Renee Zellweger's horrible acting and her even worse singing, digitally manipulated to approach the full timbre of the real Judy Garland's voice. It doesn't work. Instead, it feels like a mockery. Renee Zellweger does not have an ounce of the stage presence, the dancing style, and powerful presence, let alone the voice, of the original Judy. Why bother? Why not just watch the real Judy Garland on YouTube, or in one of her old movies?
The only reason to give this movie any stars is the story itself, which tries to show how difficult her life was as a result of being such a huge star, starting from such an early age. But Renee Zellweger's acting ruins even the feeling of sympathy I should be feeling. Just awful.
Love, Death & Robots: Zima Blue (2019)
Tried to be deep but failed
The fundamental message the story conveys is questionable: a vacuum cleaner became "conscious" and mastered art, the highest of all human activity, but it never satisfied of being a human; in the end, it returned to be a vacuum cleaner again. There is no problem for returning simplicity away from vanity, but to be a vacuum cleaner is hardly the best way doing it. In the end, why would the state of elegantly simple even need all that glamorous audiences? Secondly, the writer use arts to tell a story, but zima's art works were too obviously shallow. (The second point is asking too much for an entertainment TV show, I know.)
Hostiles (2017)
Racist and annoyingly P.C. at the same time!
My 2 stars are for the good performances and the cinematography, the only good things I have to say about this morally confused, ultimately racist, yet self-important film about one of the most horrific historic truths of the American story.
The director/writer gets 0 stars, and if it were possible, I would give him negative stars.
Goddam, it's the 21st century, and we STILL have to watch a murdering WHITE MAN's redemption story as a way to address the genocide of two whole continents of native peoples?! The film's pretence of empathising with the natives is totally undermined by giving the great actors who play the natives almost no dialogue, and their characters no development at all, while all the plodding screen time is taken up dwelling silently on the inner sufferings of the two main white characters. This is a disgrace and a horror, and a total FAIL on the most important scale of all: the message of this tale.
The director didn't seem to know WHAT he was saying: the subtitle seems to imply that we are all hostile? Is he kidding me? He is equating the state-sponsored slaughter and rounding up of the native populations after stealing their lands, with the violence that the natives committed against the white people in desperate self defence? No wonder the supposed awakening of the white main character, who is just about to retire from a rip-roaring career of state-sponsored mass murdering of natives (which he calls "the good days") is impossible to understand. Is he supposed to be the "hero" of this story? I'm confused because the write himself was clearly confused. Even an actor the likes of Christian Bale couldn't convince me there was a believable character here. It does make me think less of him, that he took on this role at all.
The movie did remind me of the horror of this genocide, I must give it credit for that; but it did no justice to it at all. Instead, you get the annoying feeling of the writer/director congratulating himself for being all P.C. while appropriating the suffering of a people he clearly has no interest in understanding at all. What little progress we have made since 1892!
I'm really pissed off that I was tricked into watching this movie to the end, because at first I thought he was kidding, and I kept waiting for the twist that would reveal the irony. I just couldn't believe that in this day and age, someone would still make a movie like this in all seriousness. Were Wes Studi and the other native actors likewise tricked into participating? Or is this the only work they can get? If the latter, it's another sad truth that shows how far we still have to go.
The story of the genocide of the native peoples of the new world has yet to be properly told in a film. I hope some day someone will do that. I don't think that someone should be another white dude.
Ying xiong (2002)
`Hero' fails to deliver on almost every level that really matters
It is impossible to avoid comparing Zhang Yimou's `Hero' to Ang Lee's `Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.' They were both big-budget Chinese kung-fu films with breathtaking cinematography of Chinese landscape and a cast of super-stars. But aside from the obvious, there is in fact nothing else to compare. `Hero' fails to deliver on almost every level that really matters, proving that big-name stars, beautiful scenery, and action effects are no replacement for a director's artistry and vision.
All the marketing hype preceding the premier of `Hero' has done nothing more than make its failure a spectacular one. Much anticipated, `Hero' drew movie-goers in throngs when it first opened at theaters in mainland China and Hong Kong, making it an instant box-office success. However, though the script pleased government censors, Chinese audiences went to newfound heights of caustic criticism and sarcastic wit to express their disdain. On-line critics, both professional and amateur, proclaimed the film `ideologically disturbing,' `from the viewpoint of deep servitude,' written `either by an amateur historian, or someone with ulterior motives.' One article was simply titled, `Hero, you make me sick!'
The deepest failing of the film is in its plot, which is not only morally reprehensible, and based on unforgivable historic fallacy but - worst of all for a film - is boring! All blockbuster epic films are known to take some liberties with the facts of history, but `Hero' goes beyond artistic license into unforgivable ignorance when it attempts to glorify an emperor that was as brutal as Stalin or Hitler. `Hero' does not make up for this lack of moral compass by being entertaining or fun. Instead, it is makes a woefully poor attempt at being `deep' and merely manages to be pretentious and preachy.
Though historians agree that the First Emperor of China was ruthlessly violent, Mao Zedong was known to have admired this ruler - no surprise, given Mao's own tyrannical rule. Likewise, the Communist government in Beijing sees the allegory that can easily be drawn between the First Emperor and its own iron-fist methods, so they were particularly pleased with this latest work by Zhang Yimou. Tony Leung, one of the stars of `Hero' remarked during an interview to promote the film that the Beijing government had done the right thing in 1989 by crushing the student demonstrations, because it was needed to maintain `stability' in China. For these remarks, Tony Leung received shocked criticisms in his home city of Hong Kong, but he merely stated out loud the underlying message of the movie.
Director Zhang Yimou has stated that his goal was to surpass the values of loyalty and revenge that are traditional in kung-fu novels and movies, to reveal a higher wisdom. Unfortunately, his version of `wisdom' turns out to be: THE OPPRESSOR IS RIGHT. In China, where thousands of years of historical reality have rammed this message through, art was the last sanctuary where the individual could actually find freedom from such tyranny. The great popularity of the kung-fu novel can be explained by its ability to provide an escape into an alternate world: one where kung-fu warriors roamed the country seeking adventure and fighting for justice, free from fear and winning against all odds with their super-human skills. Only in the novel did the individual ever win over institutionalized power in China, and only in the novel did the oppressed find their champions. Going against this tradition of the kung-fu hero, Zhang Yimou has not gone upwards towards a higher truth, as he had hoped, but downwards, to the level of government propaganda. It's no wonder the government was so pleased.
Some film lovers may secretly wonder, `All moralistic judgments aside, is it at least entertaining?' Fortunately, the answer is a resounding `No!' Because the same tale is told over and over with only slight variations, it becomes tedious to watch. Moreover, the three conflicting versions of the same story serves only to confuse the character development, since it leaves precious little time for the viewer to feel any sympathy for any of them once the `real' version emerges.
The film is not without its beautiful images. However, all the scenes fall flat because they do not connect to or enhance the storyline. The use of different colors to distinguish the separate versions of the tale comes across as simplistic and contrived, and the cinematography appears self-consciously rather than truly beautiful. Great for a trailer, but a disappointment once you are there to watch the entire film.
For those in China who showed disdain for `Crouching Tiger's' unrealistic kung-fu, much was expected from `Hero.' Jet Li, who plays the title role, is a real kung-fu artist who held national titles before beginning his career as an actor. His previous movies have revealed limited acting abilities, but many hoped that Zhang Yimou could use Li's lithe body movements to full effect while casting him properly in a role that would not task his acting abilities. But it was not to be. `Hero' attempts to go beyond the kung-fu genre, so there are not many fighting scenes, and Jet Li is expected to perform a difficult piece of acting: an inner transformation leading to profound wisdom and self-sacrifice. As the casting director ought to have expected, Li fails miserably. Meanwhile, the only fighting scene that reveals any true kung-fu skill is the first one of the film, between Li and and Donnie Yen. All the scenes that follow are a disappointment, so `Hero' fails to satisfy, even on that level.
Though most audiences outside China are unlikely to be aware of the historical mangling of the story of the cruel First Emperor, it seems even more unlikely that they would accept Zhang's version of `Chinese wisdom,' which is anything but. Perhaps the only time an audience coming out of a screening of `Hero' was seen smiling - instead of yawning or frowning - was at the special screening for Chinese government officials.