Reviews

This movie gives the illusion that the two sides of a complex situation are taken into account, with Autumn, the main character, taking a firm, reasoned decision about her life and her body, while the rest of the world is just there to support her, whatever the decision is. Did I say the rest of the world? Well for a start we never know who the father is, we just have some clues that he is probably a selfish, abusive boy that forced her into pregnancy and then discarded her. We also have some hints that her father doesn't care about her too. But what about her mother? We don't understand why Autumn never talks to her about her problem. As far as the movie tells, the mother is understanding, caring and supportive. Was she just portrayed this way so that no female character is demonized (and all the blame can fall into the men involved)? We never know. Then we have this boy they met on the bus who leads the cousin into (shame!) illegal drinking (she's 20) and then "forces" her to kissing and possibly something else if not for Autumn who was there to rescue her. What was the purpose of this? Was this to show how selfish the cousin was in taking Autumn out while she was in considerate pain and discomfort? Or was this to support the narrative that "men only want one thing and it's disgusting"? After kissing the cousin, the boy gets some cash from the ATM and pays for their train, suggesting that he was "used" for the money. Everyone in the abortion clinic seem very nice and empathetic, but i still struggled to understand why the family was never brought into discussion. Even the questionnaire from which the movie borrows its name doesn't ask questions about the family.

I think this movie is not bad, hence the 4 stars. It is emotionally engaging, the acting is allright and the cinematography is good. However, it fails in its claim of addressing a complicate issue in a fair way.

I get the point: as a teenage you feel the pressure to conform to the norms of the ones surrounding you, specially in an extreme situation of a boys boarding school in Ireland. However, this film shorthanded misfit for being gay in a contrived way, almost with a purpose of fitting a narrative. Like, suddenly, the creep ginger boy, the rugby star and the charismatic English teacher are all different... and gay? And like, if you feel weird you should come out because "if you don't live your life no one will live it for you"? As if you can't be different and still being hetero. I went to a boys school myself and I appreciated some parts of this movie as it brought me back some good memories, however I don't think it tells an accurate story about what is like to be different, actually as in any other school, teenagers end up grouping together on their clusters, the football guys, the gamers, the smokers, the bullies, the nerds, the loners... The movie is enjoyable to watch though, I gave 4 stars for good directing and decent acting.

I started watching El Ángel not knowing it was based on a real story, and only halfway through the film I reckoned it could be the case. Generally there is too much detail and context on "base in a true story" movies, which make them boring. This one is different and I appreciated that the director/writer took the liberty to explore his own view and focus on the artistic aspects. I think that Carlito's sexual ambiguity and tension with Ramón was smartly portrayed, without getting too explicit. Good camerawork, decent acting and accurate characterization of the 70s. Truly one of the best Argentinean pictures of the decade.

This movie falls into the category of forgettable Woody Allen fails. I don't know if it was the dull, unoriginal plot, the overacting, or maybe the rain, it just looked boring, artificial and depressing. I felt sorry for Jude Law, I didn't even recognize him at first, he was so misplaced and his character seemed unworthy of him.

Many reviews here already pointed out some major flaws about this movie, from the absolute lack of chemistry and disturbing age gap between the two main characters, to the general bad acting, bad directing, bad script (Oscar? Are you serious?), bad editing, and so on. I also agree that It was too long, as there were too many inconsequential shots instead of a focus on explaining the summer romance (which felt contrived and unbelievable). Despite the obvious manipulation of the viewers' emotions in the final scene by the fireplace, one can't help but wonder whether this "promiscuous" teenager (who has sex in the afternoon with his girlfriend and that same night with a grown up man) is worth our sympathy. I am perplexed by the almost unanimous praise received and the high rating here on IMDB.

I enjoyed watching Chamboultout and there are fine moments of comedy that only the French people are capable of. But that is the full extent of what the movie has to offer. The plot could have been more interesting and less shallow. In the end, you don't know what to feel about a woman who's clearly having a hard time taking care of her handicapped husband, but cheats on him with the Portuguese guy she met at Burger King.

This movie is worth by its ultra-realistic shot of Martha giving birth at the beginning of the film. Performances by Vanessa Kirby and Molly Parker are impeccable, transmitting a whirlwind of emotions. However, the rest of the film seems contrived and awkward - I ended up losing interest in the characters. I know this is supposed to portray what a marriage in dire straits is, but the main characters' implosive grieving felt a bit too apathetic, and I wasn't able to understand Martha's nor Sean's pain. Also, I was expecting a more elaborated explanation for why Martha wanted a home-birth