Change Your Image
LeonvanKamp
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Andor (2022)
What does it sacrifice? Everything.
Andor is essentially a riveting, complex thriller, wrapped in the totality of the pre-rebellion Star Wars setting, in a way that it is both superficially satisfying while fleshing out the fictional universe we all know so well (whether we want to or not) in ways simply not attempted before.
Andor is of course, at its premise a prelude to Rogue One, pitching the enigmatic Cassian Andor as the main lead, and walking us up to the point he walks into that film. But this show leans much further than Rogue One into the gritty realism and the murky morality at play that any rebellion is actually fueled by.
And this show achieves that level of maturity and complexity while delivering genuine drama and high-pitched, well-earned spectacle in a manner that far exceeds the film and the franchise that it lives in. Andor isn't like anything else in the Star Wars box, and yet it wears the aesthetics, the tone and the epic galactic scale perfectly.
The quality of writing, and the deliberate and careful pacing is of such quality that Andor didn't need to be a Star Wars show to work, but the fact that it is, actually elevates what it has to offer.
To cannibalize one of the best lines of the show (from a whole host of great line deliveries), Andor has sacrificed everything Star Wars to brew this potion of suspense, character drama and visual beauty. And in doing so, it actually saves Star Wars from its own cliches and dead ends, while opening whole new vistas for Science fiction specifically and the darker, more complex-toned drama more generally.
Andor is not an action-packed, mostly wholesome, fantasy adventure along the lines of the Mandalorian, nor does it require a deep knowledge of the extended cannon to fully immersive one's self like the more recent show Ahsoka. What it does is offer a story that trails, but does not singularly follow the path of figure deemed wholly expendable, a character we know almost nothing about (Andor himself), and uses him to plunge us into a captivating fiction that mirrors our reality while simultaneously providing escapism.
And on top of all that meta quality of the writing and and the prestige it offers, the show also brings acting of the highest quality, stunning visuals and filmography, and one of the most impactful and haunting soundtracks Star Wars has had to offer since the Original Trilogy.
Andor is a quality show, as good as the rebooted Battlestar Galatica or the Wire (if not better), and fuses elements of both. And for those who demand ever more from TV series as a storytelling medium, it is simply a must-watch.
Oppenheimer (2023)
Designed for a narrow audience, with a wide blast area.
'Oppenheimer', like the historical figure it places on center stage; is complex, cerebral, obsessed with its own brilliance, disjointed and awe inspiring.
Like any great film, it shows mastery of film conventions, while challenging and pushing the boundaries. It is both entertaining and insightful. It provides moments of acting excellence through subtle drama (the quality of acting chops on display is of the highest order) and is flat out bombastic when appropriate.
It is the culmination of the director's, Christopher Nolan, decades of experience, natural talent and commercial success. And yet, in my view it is not his best film ('The Prestige', just there is no ambiguity). For a simple reason, that there is no need to rewatch it (although I most certainly will).
Unlike the best of Nolan's films, there is no effective twist, no real emotionally impactful moment of revelation, no need to piece together the subtle cues left like breadcrumbs that Nolan is such a master of.
Instead this film demonstrates a deep understanding of the subject mater; quantum and atomic science, political nuance and trickery, the mechanics and embedded suspicion of the US security apparatus, and the pre and post-war political reality that the modern citizen is only vaguely aware of.
For example, the portrayal of the Trinity test itself, did not use CGI but instead is the filming of a miniature petrol bomb layered over itself to give the effect of an atomic explosion. Which is itself a clever bit of filmmaking. But does little to add to the resonance of the moment (especially if you are unaware of the fact as I was when I watched the film). In fact, I would argue that given the many CGI atomic explosions filmgoers have seen over the years, it almost looks and feels strange in comparison.
These types of meticulous demonstration of the film makers knowledge and expertise is surely something only a handful of moviegoers will genuinely care about. And at times even comes at the expense of clarity, character familiarity (there are a myriad of characters who only appear briefly despite being portrayed by big-ticket actors), pacing and scene transition. While at other times becomes the only thread that actually carries the momentum and convoluted plot.
The length of the film is not entirely justified by the arch of the story and the structure feels unnecessarily unwieldy, I wasn't bored, but I did feel the third act did fall flat, as very little else was setup for the last key lines of dialogue of the film. As such while I truly enjoyed the film and relish that this subject matter had its moment in the radiated light of the modern cinema experience, it falls short of being a masterpiece for being more bloated than it needed to be.
Ad Astra (2019)
Visually stunning, emotionally cold, utterly polarizing.
The protagonist of the film (masterfully played a Brad Pitt who at this point in his career really has nothing to prove), is one who is focused and committed to interstellar exploration. And like many of his real life counterparts, has sacrificed all else (namely meaningful human interaction) for that goal.
It is the type of focus that made men like Neil Armstrong living legends (I would highly recommend last years' 'First Man' on that note), and it is the type of focus that makes Elon Musk's and Jeff Bezos' investments over the last few years somewhat baffling to most of the world and wholly relevant to the themes focused on in this film.
The film plays on the dual edged blade of outer space; in that it has great allure and yet is wholly terrifying. It spell binds us in part because of the space race of the cold war (and the iconic mood landing), and in part because of science fiction (hard and soft) that have captured the imaginations of people for decades.Yet conversely, by the actual act of reaching into the void and by imagining of doing so, we have become more aware then ever just how lethal that allure can be.
Ad Astra as a film understands all that, and delivers a thoughtful exploration of it's consequences. It deals with the psychological stress of being unfathomable distances away from home, from Earth. It deals with the very real fact that few are suited to it, and that those who are, often are trying to escape something of the typical Earth bound life.
Ad Astra harkens to '2001 A Space Odessy', to Tarkovsky's 'Solaris', and 'Blade Runner' (particularly in relation to psychological testing). This is not 'Aliens' and it's certainly not 'Star Wars'. This is not an action film, it's slowly paced, it's intentionally confusing and detached, and it is certainly not trying to elicit that godawful tendency of applause in cinema. Like it's main character, it's desire for validation is highly repressed and complicated...
It's a lonely film and suitably so, because it's dealing with the loneliest of all topics. For those of us who are bored to death of films with teams of heroes overcoming the odds and defeating exotically clad bad-guys with wildly predictable story arches, Ad Astra is a breath of fresh air. What cliches it does offer build towards and add to the emotional arch the main character reaches at the end, and it leaves just enough open to interpretation to allow the most optimistic and the most cynical of us to come away with feeling we have been on journey that mattered.
In terms of realism, there are questions to be asked, and no one should be using to film to build on their knowledge or justify their actions in space (seriously, do not take cues here as to how to deal certain planet ring related activities). Yet no Sci-Fi film has ever been wholly realistic, and where physics do go out the window, the visuals do compensate. Then there's the action set piece with rovers on the moon, and whatever you may think of moon pirates (fits my perception of what colonising the moon will look like), car crash debris has never looked as fascinating.
In terms of plot, it won't work for everyone (as no film does). And it definitely overreaches in terms of building up that classic 'save the world' plot, which is a shame because it's not the actual meat of the movie. However the midway excursions the film took are like weird overthought homages that were simultaneously brilliant (despite most critics vocal disagreement). Especially in terms of how it reshapes and reinforces the main characters' motivations. Ultimately, it is how the character deals with everything that happens in the film that gives it's ending meaning, not that some disaster has been saved by flawless heroes.
Every detail of Ad Astra has clearly been lovingly and meticulously made, from the filmography, to the voice work, to the score (the soundtrack creates half the film's atmosphere), to the acting. It delivers on everything it promised in the build up preceded it, and for those that weren't paying attention to the type of film they were about to watch, I have no sympathy for the ultimately meaningless pocket change you spent on it (plus it's damn relevant, we are after all on the verge of this sort of space exploration being a big part of our reality).
It's an intentionally polarizing and uncomfortable film. A film that clearly postulates all we have as humanity is each other, then shows you as that truth tears it's characters apart and remakes them. Something that is not original granted, but if we're truly honest with ourselves, is a type of emotional rebirth we all could do a bit more of in a world obnoxiously coming to terms with it's own immaturity. We might just be alone in this thing called existence, and given that, it can be hard to see space exploration as worth the effort. Nevertheless, it is what the film ultimately leaves the audience with, and it tries to convey that as a positive.
Go roast a film that the mainstream audience adores if you feel the need to readdress what the film industry makes. Because I like millions of others will cherish this film for decades and hope the director James Gray, the entire team who made this film and anyone in the film industry with a similar outlook and attention to detail, continue to make films of this breath, scope and intelligence.
Sicario (2015)
'Sicario' comes from the Roman term for zealot...
Sicario is technically speaking a great film; it looks beautiful, the score is suitably daunting and the acting of the highest order. But what makes Sicario a timeless film is the message it subtly delivers.
There are those who criticize both the role of Emily Blunt's character (Kate Mercer) and the plot as being overly simplistic. And while I see their point of view, I suspect that these critics, much like those who praise the film as being a vindication of the idea that the 'means justify the ends', are both missing the actual point of this film.
Sicario should not be seen as movie that argues for brutal measures against brutal forces. Although that is what the actual plot delivers, the plot is merely a vessel to deliver a much more important, and more difficult message to swallow; That the USA's and global posture of the war on drugs since the late 1980's has only made the situation worse for all in involved (especially those who live in countries where the production and mass distribution occur).
Brolin's character (Matt Graver) essentially plays the voice of the devil's advocate and Del Toro's character (Alejandro) acts as the devil's hand. Both of them believe that the only solution is to create some semblance of order. Even going so far as aiming to replicate the 'Medellin' period, when Pablo Escobar almost single handedly controlled the global drug trade (for those interested, I highly recommend Netflix's 'Narcos').
Anyone with some idea of that period will know that any semblance of order that existed under the Medellin cartel, was just as brutal and violent, only it primarily cost the lives of Colombians rather than allowing the violence to spill over into the USA itself.
This film should be seen as an argument, a powerful one at that, of just what our global hypocrisy towards drugs is costing us. That the people of Mexico, Central and South America (and a whole host of others who find themselves in the ever expanding network of the drug trade) are soaking up most of the brutality so that the rest of the world can pretend our legislation and our redundant conservative stance against legalizing drugs of any form is working (for those who have watched the film, think of the end scene).
We do not need to "figure out how to get 20% of Americans to stop snorting and smoking s***". We need to come to terms with the fact that as long as any substance is illegal, there will always be those ready to take the risks and be as ruthless as necessary, to benefit from the absurd margins our legislation creates.
The world has created an artificial and highly profitable supply problem for drugs and it is becoming more difficult with each passing year, to wrest control away from those who profit of it, and I'm not just talking about drug-lords here.
The events in Sicario are still possibly fictional (in terms of the how the drug trade is being combated), but unless we take its actual message to heart, it will, sooner that we would like to believe, become an ever present reality. A reality where violence becomes the default solution, a reality where the 'lobos' and 'Sicarios' roam free and make dens from Juarez all the way to the national capitals of every nation on Earth.
Manhattan (2014)
A bomb that burns slow, and radiates with relevance and meaning.
'Manhattan' is the sort of show, actually scratch that, there is no show truly like Manhattan out there. This is a show that is attempting to say something deeply profound about the most important, most dangerous bit of technology that mankind has ever produced and (given incremental improvements over the last 70 odd years) will likely not be surpassed for centuries.
And that profound message is this, any argument of the necessity of the creation of the A-bomb, was just that, merely an argument. The bomb was created by scientists who felt they were doing their part to end the war, doing their part to save lives, but it was funded by a military and government that believed itself to be "the most noble civilization in human history", a government that sought to bring peace, justice and democracy to the world through fear. Make no mistake, the network may have 'America' in its label, but this is no patriotic propaganda piece.
The shows starts off bombarding the audience with the depth of the secrecy surrounding the Manhattan project, then demonstrates (albeit in a largely fictional manner) the cost of that secrecy in both human sanity and actual lives. Each scene, each character is as complex as the 'gadget' they are all part of constructing, this show is a total mess, but in a good way.
Its a TV show with completely unpredictable story lines, with characters who jump back and forth between ideals, motivations and needs. It beautifully catalogs what it means to be human, to live in a complex world packed full of both sympathy and ruthlessness. Where conflicting emotional and rational forces comes at odds with each other, sometimes for better, sometimes for the worst.
This is slow painful television, like 'Breaking Bad', 'The Wire' or the 'Sopranos', but where as those shows avoided the actual (or official) politics of the world around them, Manhattan thrives off its context. And that is not to say there are much scenes depicting the war itself, but rather the dirty, gritty, morally questionable side to keeping a nation and its individual citizens motivated in a time of all out war (there is heaps of spy-craft to be encountered here).
A patient watcher of this show will learn a lot, not about the history or science that this show is steeped in (although I imagine those interested in the history of Physics will relish much offered here), but rather that that our greatest enemies aren't the monsters abroad, but those we create in our own backyards, in our own minds, in our own hearts to cope with the fear, the guilt, the crumbling pride. I hope that the lessons this show has to offer will never need be used in your life, but if you are to find yourself in a situation where manipulation, threat of force and the illusion of duty and righteousness are used as a regular means to get people to dismiss the moral objection to killing, this show may just help you avoid the same mistakes the flawed and believable characters of this show so readily make.
One last point, if the visuals and soundtrack of the opening sequence doesn't work for you (as it pretty much encapsulates how the show feels), or if the endpoint of the series being a very well known historical event is some sort of plot spoiler, then perhaps you should rightly move on. Im not saying there aren't any jaw dropping surprises, the first few episodes of season 2 are wondrously packed with them, its only that's not the point of this majestic drama.
Game of Thrones: The Dance of Dragons (2015)
The Disappointing Fall of Thrones.......
This latest episode will doubtless cause polarization among GOT viewers. On the one hand, the final outcome of the story, or rather guessing which characters will and won't survive, has become ever more defined (one could read predictable), and like the previous episode 'Hardhome' was packed with drawn out, epic-ish action sequences (they came off as Ridley Scott rip off moments). However for those who count themselves fans of tension, suspense and clever plot lines, 'The Dance of Dragons' has fallen miserably short of the show's standard.
As pointed out in other negative reviews, there are some serious continuity issues in the way the story is unfolding. The wildling party were traveling by ship, not by foot. The ease of the raid on Stannis's camp cannot be explained away by "either the guards were asleep or complicit", the sacrifice comes out of nowhere, with no buildup or rationale whatsoever, and the events at the arena of Meereen are largely both laughable and cringe worthy at the same time. For instance; that no one notices that half the audience has smuggled weapons and clearly identifiable masks, that the sons of the harpy not once press their advantage despite clearly outnumbering their prey by a wide margin, and that on every possible occasion they simply forget to target the Queen... As if you'd chuck the spear at the dragon if you could instead pierce your unarmoured, unprotected mortal enemy as she's starstruck not more than a few meters away (or that you let her climb on top of the beast, of course she's going to fly away!).
Not to mention Sir Jorah's incredibly illogical survival (why dishonorably kill one rival only to let the other one get up and pick up his sword? Either he should of ruthlessly killed both of them there and then or let them finish each other off and take on the victor for the sake of grandstanding).
I have to make this clear, Its not that I disagree with the outcomes of this episode, but the manner in which GOT has set itself up for the last episode of the season simply comes off as rushed, and robbed the audience of some great moments; such as a debate among the nightwatch pertaining to admitting the wildlings within the wall, a medieval black ops moment in the form of a menacing and cunning character we all love to hate (Ramsay Bolton) laying waste to the Barrathon camp, Stannis explaining to his men why he need burn his daughter, Sir Jorah proving his mettle rather than getting lucky and a moment where Daenerys actually has to make a choice to overcome her fear of her dragons or abandon her friends and loved ones, rather than being stupidly star struck and then deciding to take a fanciful flight in the middle of a blood bath.
All in all, the episode choose thrills over sense, and even though I suspect the final installment of the season will attempt and may even succeed in explaining away some of the issues I and others have raised in objection, Im left with a bitter taste in the back of my throat. What's more the only acting to be celebrated in the entirety of the episode, is the absolute shock displayed by Stannis's daughter at her father's betrayal, in a moving, yet totally misplaced scene.
GOT rose through the rankings of shows because, it was not a conventional crowd pleaser, it didn't offer un-original moments based on CGI, but rather it made the hard decisions and planned it shocks and thrills. To use a metaphor as a final statement; over the last two episodes, it is as if we have watched a genuine master swordsman with honor and flair, suddenly become a drunken, purposeless pub brawler in a shiny new outfit, cheap silicon sparkles and all.