Change Your Image
ao590
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Old Dads (2023)
Bill Burr's Pootie Tang (but less original)
Here are the caveats to this lukewarm review: one, there's no harder genre than comedy, and making a funny film is exceptionally difficult. Two, I'm a big Bill Burr fan, I've seen him live several times, and in more than one country. So I'm willing to be generous here, perhaps more than some others.
So the film plays a lot of the same tunes that Billy Billy Burr's standup does, but on a less finely tuned instrument. If you're interested in his musings on being an old dad I'd recommend watching him talk about it with Conan. That is a hilarious conversation. If you want to hear his controversial views that he perhaps wouldn't voice in front of a nursery full of kids then watch one of his specials, or better yet go see him live! He's a master. If you're interested in his thoughts about the men v women dynamic then listen to one of his podcasts with the lovely Nia. There's lots to enjoy there. BUT if you on the other hand want to see watered down adam-sandlerised version of those same thoughts and jokes, playing to stereotypes in a frankly rather disjointed film that occasionally feels like a realisation of an unfinished shooting draft; then this film is for you/
As a directorial debut this is reminiscent of Louis CK's Pootie Tang - it's the awkward first steps of someone who's already a master of their craft in another arena. While easier to stomach it's a LOT less original. And it comes at a much better point in Burr's career - commercially at least. Had it not come at the height of the first-time director's fame and popularity I have little doubt it would get panned and quickly forgotten. As it stands it's an acceptable first effort, but hopefully nothing more than that.
Cliffnotes:
Is the film funny? At times. Occasionally.
Does it work? Sort of. Sometimes.
Is it well written, well acted, well directed? Not really. The cast and especially Burr is likable.
Is it divisive? I seriously doubt it.
The Matrix Resurrections (2021)
Not sure what it is, but it isn't good
We all knew the transformative era-defining magic of the first Matrix movie couldn't be repeated. We knew this in part because the Wachowskis tried, and failed with the 2nd and 3rd instalments respectively. 'Fun' as they were they weren't anywhere near the level of the first one - a film so iconic and so embedded in our popculture that rewatching it more than 20 years later during quarantine me and my friends were compelled to scream out at the sheer coolness of almost every scene. But this review isn't about the original Matrix. This is about the reheated, reanimated corpse of a once original idea.
To be fair with everyone getting older, Lilly dropping out mid-production, and pandemic forced delays expectations had to be railed in as it was. I've seen the trailer; I knew this would look different and was still looking forward to it.
Alas, it was not be. Resurrections starts out bland, peaks twenty minutes in with a fairly promising montage and then falls into complete incoherency as the movie progresses. Although not earth shattering or conceptually nearly as grandiose as the first film, the meta sendup of corporate media culture Lana flirts with in the first quarter could've been a very interesting angle and could've justified the sequel's existence. It is after all the doubts that first arise when a studio returns to a wildly successful idea decades later. Is there any new thought here? Can you manufacture creativity? Can a profit driven sequel retain any of the soul of the original? How interesting it would've been to take this contradiction apart within the multi-dimensions of the Matrix where nothing is ever real and when life feels too fake to be benign it actually turns out to be so! One wonders where along the film's development was this effort squashed? Because Resurrections if nothing else, is a film that prophesies its own demise - the first quarter portending seemingly without a modicum of irony or self-awareness what happens in the remaining three fourths of the runtime. Too much focus on the action? Check. Overusing once-cool ideas, like bullet-time? Check. Incomprehensible, but complex sounding plotlines explained during tedious and overlong exposition monologues? Check.
As it stands an investigative documentary about what went wrong during development sounds far more enticing than anything this film could offer. When did the suits take over? Who decided to deliver the bare minimum and hope the masses whose palettes have been sufficiently dulled by the franchise factory would pretend not to notice? And mid-film at that! Was Lilly perhaps not party to this watering down of the original idea. Or was the media criticism merely added after development started as a cynical attempt to bring overly critical audience members on board? Whatever it was, we're left with one cool sequence in an otherwise completely blend film featuring some great actors, and the task of trying to erase another Matrix film from our memory to preserve the heritage of the original. At least this last part shouldn't present an issue; with Reloaded and Revolutions we already have some experience there.
War on Everyone (2016)
Never really comes together
Let me start out by saying I'm a huge fan of John Michael McDonagh's work, especially The Guard. That being said this movie was a miss in my opinion.
All the elements are there for a quirky send up of a genre movie; the strange broken characters, the thuggish cops that have their hearts in the right place, the out of place philosophical quotes etc. It's all there, but it never really gels. All the building blocks remain building blocks, the characters remain strangely stereotypical, despite trying to break most stereotypes. Their backstories are never developed and never explained, even though their erratic behaviour would do well with some sort of explanation. We're not in a small town in Ireland here, these are young, 'hip' characters that act very unlike their peers for no apparent reason. This is even voiced by Skarsgard's character when he asks Pena why he sticks with him only to receive the wholly unsatisfying answer of 'because you're a good friend of mine'. This is where camaraderie could explain away plot holes, but the chemistry just isn't there, imho largely thanks to Skarsgard*. The result is that at the end of the film you can still taste each ingredient in the final dish, instead of them blending together and forming a whole.
It's as if they struck gold with The Guard and didn't want to veer too far off the beaten track. Or worse, as if some American producers saw that film and went 'we want that, but set in America'. Well you can't capture lightning in a bottle, and you especially can't capture it in America, so all the charm and humour of the original falls flat here.
*Oh and I must make a special note for how bad of a choice Skarsgard was for this role. His accent is simply terrible, I actually had to look him up to see what his native language was, because he kept slipping into some strange amalgamation of an American Swedish accent. He was audibly influenced by David Wilmot's Irish accent in their scenes together, so he comes out with some odd mock-Irish twang which really takes you out of the scene. All this would have been mildly annoying if they left his origin uncertain, but he makes jokes about Europeans very clearly implying the character is meant to be from the US. In addition to his accent troubles he also clearly had trouble keeping up with Michael Pena's quick patter, which was also detrimental to the development of their on screen chemistry and my immersion as a viewer.
All in all I must say this one was a miss, but I'm still looking forward to the next one.
Creed (2015)
the true successor to Rocky
I think it's fair to say this film is an instant classic. It's a bit of a genre movie, but for what it is it's very very solid.
I deducted two points from the score, 1 because there are only a handful of perfect 10 films and another one because Creed follows a proved formula. But it follows that formula exceptionally well. We only have to look at some of the latter Rocky films to see how hard it is to do justice to the original. Unlike other follow-ups to long-dormant franchises (cough*starwars*) Creed has enough originality to earn it's own place and not become an empty money-grab, disguised as an homage. You can truly feel how Stalone's life has become intertwined with 'Rocky Balboa's' and the nods to the original movie are moving and self-reflective in the way that there's the right combination of what one might call nostalgia and acceptance. This aspect also makes the film larger than it is at times. The older, wiser Rocky is an immensely likable character, with just enough mistakes to make him feel vaguely realistic. The parallel between Adonis' and Rocky's fight is tastefully done; there's enough humanity and wisdom there, that even though the outcome is somewhat ambiguous in the latter's case at least, the suggestion that it's not really about winning or losing is well communicated.While this is not a Rocky film per the title, it's really not about Adonis either. Michael B Jordan (come on, that's a terrible name...although on reflection he's the perfect guy for the 'man trying to live up to his name' role) does a decent job, but Stalone and Tessa Thompson steal the show. They're both very well written characters, and I very much welcome the film not focusing so much on one character. Oh and just so I don't forget, the soundtrack here is great, although I missed the Lupe track used in the trailer from the actual film.
Overall, very solid film. Stalone finally made a true successor to the original movie with this one.
Cassandra's Dream (2007)
I'm starting to see a pattern here
So I've been on a binge of less than amazing Woody Allen films in the past few days. You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, Scoop and finally Cassandra's Dream. All set in London, they all suffer from essentially the same issues, but I'll focus on the last one here.
The single biggest problem here is Woody Allen's most unique feature; his incredible speed. Reading the book 'Conversations with Woody Allen' confirms that most of these films were written in a rush based on a selection of single ideas, I think Cassandra's Dream in particular was written in 8-10 weeks or something. Which, of course, is incredibly impressive, but also painfully obvious after watching the film.
Woody Allen is an ideas man; Cassandra's Dream is full of fantastic thoughts, plot details and nuances, but the problem is that hardly any of them are properly developed! The storyline is simply all over the place, there's so much information squeezed into this 108 minutes that you would think there wasn't a dull moment. Yet the first 20-30 establishing minutes are the furthest thing from captivating. We meet the two brothers, one too ambitious for his own good, the other a gambling addict, existing in a sort of idyllic pre-Event (in the psychoanalytical sense) bliss. But why waste so much of the film on this when we're dealing with archetypes anyway?
There's so much superfluous information that adds nothing to the story that I honestly wish Allen would decrease his rate of productivity and spend more time in the writing process. Take for example the boat; a criminally under-utilised plot-detail that I would wager was kept in the script mainly for the title's sake. Then there's the story of Ian (to me, an awfully artificial Ewen McGregor) meeting his girlfriend while out on a country drive with a previous girl; again, adds nothing to the story and could've easily been hinted at without wasting screen-time. Or the backdrop of the struggling family restaurant business; I suspect this was meant to heighten the pressure on our characters, but Ian keeps repeating he doesn't care about it and his father seems understanding over his long-term plan of abandoning it; so why complicate the plot with it in the first place?
Overall, all three films feel more like plays than movies; every set could've been represented on stage easily. In fact this was something I was constantly conscious of during the film, which suggests to me that it really would be a more natural fit. Unfortunately, this being a film, the character's insistence to verbalise emotions that should honestly be beyond their scope often completely shatters the illusion. Speaking of illusion, I haven't even talked about the choice of words / accents yet (I'm not a stickler for such a thing, but I have to mention Collin Farrell slips up on the accent once in an almost comical way in a supposedly dramatic scene. Then there's the 1950s vocabulary of the apparently 20 year old girl played by Scarlet Johansson in Scoop).
Overall, not a great effort. I would be more understanding if I thought Allen didn't care, but it's clear he was very proud of Match Point, so I wonder why he would not invest the time into perfecting these otherwise promising scripts. The ideas are there; it's the polish that's missing.
Being There (1979)
sad, funny, tremendously acted and many layered - the original forrest gump
What a fantastic piece of film making.
I have to admit I very nearly turned 'Being There' off within the first 10 minutes. The desolate setting of 1970s America always makes it near impossible for me to relate to any of the characters in a film. Add to that the presence of 'Louise' (the maid), whom I strongly suspect must be a blood relative of Willem Dafoe's (she's the black female version of the green goblin Dafoe at any rate), and the mistaken comedy-categorisation on this site and you have a challenging beginning.
Well I'm glad I stuck it out.
This is the original Forrest Gump story, at least on the big screen. Not to disparage the Tom Hanks flick which I also enjoy, but I must say 'Being There' is a much more nuanced film. It's more layered, more human, and consequently humorous in a way that feels more familiar and lifelike. It's funny in a melancholy way with scenes that made me chuckle even after I'd given up on the film being outright funny. The soundtrack is excellent and understated throughout.
However. What really made me want to write this review in the first place were the performances. Peter Sellers is stupendous. The mere tone of his voice invites the characterisations that 'Chance Gardener' receives; it's calm and calming, down to earth, honest, understanding and a unique presence. He isn't just being described that way as an overt prompt for the viewer to know how to relate to his character; he inhabits those attributes by his voice alone! We are constantly aware and entertained by his lack of understanding of innuendo; but its the perfect deadpan voice, not in the slightest self-aware. Yet it isn't a one man show either, Melvyn Douglas is an absolute pleasure to watch. He's every bit the stereotypical 1970s capitalist. His policies are despicable, his way of life an affront to any sort of concept of a decent society; yet you can't help but like him because he's so charismatic, so opinionated. Shirley Maclaine does a fantastic job as well; her performance is equal parts touching, sexy, and completely ridiculous, which accentuates the blankness of 'Chance' opposite her. All in all a great film that I'm sure I will keep thinking back to in the next few days trying to uncover further meaning in it's version of (American) life.
(I must mention the one grave mistake they make though, is going straight to bloopers as the credits start rolling. it's a very jarring switch of mood that is completely unnecessary (edit: and apparently from reading the trivia page even Sellers was miffed with this decision))
Le Havre (2011)
a stunning little tale
This was one of the most visually stunning films I've ever seen. You could pause very nearly every shot and use it as screensaver or make a large print of it; that's how beautiful and well thought out they are.
Aki Kaurismäki evokes a sense of times past. He embraces the 'unreality' of his film, and the genre as a whole, and plays it up with great wit and art. As mentioned by previous reviews, he combines tragedy and comedy seamlessly into an extremely enjoyable and engaging film that doesn't try to pass itself off as life and as such engages on much deeper levels than its straightforward message or story would perhaps imply.
There are so many small details and well-thought out quirks here that keep your attention that it easily accommodates for my internet fried attention span, even while the director chooses not to openly deal with the electronic world. It's a decision indicative of the thoughtful and unique approach to the film; it aids both the storyline and the viewer's experience immensely. I was grateful and relieved to be taken away into a simpler and more honest world; both in the film's outward image, and within the story's universe. Its worth emphasising; this film doesn't try to masquerade as real life and as such allows for a much purer enjoyment. You don't have to worry about checking your expectations once the end credits roll.
Being beautifully shot may not have kept my attention for an hour and half, but the storyline and Kaurismäki's wit certainly did.
Sunshine (2007)
Begins as a smart movie about dumb people, but ends simply as a dumb movie
This is a film that doesn't credit its audience with any sort of intelligence. The crew is almost exclusively compromised of attractive psychological time bombs that for the sake of the plot all have their "specialty" like an ill-fitted group of superheroes. So as it goes in this future spaceship there's only one "physicist"! That's right; aboard a spaceship that the entire existence of the human race depends upon there is a single guy who goes by the title "physicist" and happens to be the only person that can actually detonate the bomb they set out to deliver to the Sun... seriously??? this should've set off alarms immediately but I thought it my duty as a member of the audience to exert an effort in suspending disbelief at this point...a bit of effort turned into a LOT of effort. Eventually, after numerous instances of people failing to be harmed by the lack of pressure in space, or by radiation, or there being any sort of consequent application of gravity inside and outside of the ship etc. etc. one begins to wish the character drama would make up for it being a poor science film. No such luck. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in the beginning, not only are these people psychologically and educationally unfit compared to current astronauts, but I'd wager they'd fare badly against a group of 13 year old in an aptitude test.
I suppose the storyline HAD to be supplemented with characters acting immaturely and on first instinct without any sort of deliberation; after all a last chance mission to kickstart the Sun and save humanity aboard an 8 member ship couldn't supply its own drama without additional emotional triggers! RIGHT?! ...right?
the only thing i regret wasting more than my time here is the incredible potential this storyline had. With smarter execution and proper characters instead of the badly sketched out 5 year olds that manned this disastrous mission it truly could've been an incredibly scifi film