Change Your Image
grayner-2
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Regime (2024)
Great acting and performances but few surprises
So we are to imagine this place is something like Belarus. It would seem the new government has become totalitarian in recent years as the previous prime minister was ousted and jailed. Winslet pulls out all of the stops as the super-neurotic dictator obsessed with image and the affection of her people, She reminds you what Eva Peron might be like if she were leading a country today: All image, everything to boost one's power and image, rarely actually acting in the interests of the people. Matthias Schoenaerts also puts in a very solid performance as the military man who becomes the dictator's confidant and then lover.
My issue is that there are very few surprises in the series. If I were to draft a black comedy about a central European dictatorship, this is about how I'd do it. You didn't know if she'd get shot by a firing squad or remain in power. But beyond that, I was surprised by very little.
Still, worth a look for Winslet's intriguing performance and how many dictators have really very few principles at - everything is a slogan, a PR move. Vernham is ultimately fine with making her country a puppet state - either to China or the US, and the men in her life and her "child" become expendable as she tries to achieve her goals.
Berlín (2023)
Junior-league Money Heist Lite
I really wanted to like this show. I understand there are some differences between the original and this show: They are out in the world, not sequestered in one location. They cannot make as much use of flash-backs. They are in another country etc.
Having said that, everything kind of falls flat. Money Heist played off the anger many people feel in their countries about government incompetence and the inequality it promotes. You definitely felt for the criminals and were vested in them escaping.
That is all kind of lacking here. We get a bunch of people who are just there for a robbery. No particular reason, not a lot to make you particularly care about the characters.
In the original too, the mission was always prominent. Yes, it was lost out of sight sometimes, but always there, Here, it was as if the mission were a big afterthought. Pretty much time is spent on 3 sets of characters hooking up. There is a whole ridiculous story arc about one of the characters being bitten by a snake. And we see Berlin spending more time trying to seduce a woman than really caring about the mission or the team. They are incredibly sloppy about so many aspects - like Berlin staying in the same hotel with all of the compromising equipment days after the heist.
There were some fun moments but sadly it was more about 6 people trying to hook up.
It was nice seeing 2 Money Heist alumna on but they too were duped.
Pedro Alonso was delightful as the extremely selfish, egotistical Berlin but that, IMO, was not enough to carry the show,
Tár (2022)
Brilliant Acting and Thought-Provoking Themes
This film will not be for everyone. It is long, there is pretty much a single plot line, much is played out on an emotional level. It is very much about the worldview and fate of the protagonist/anti-heroine Cate Blanchett and she is in every scene. It addresses issues such as power, the price of fame, "cancel culture" etc. But for those who can look deeper, there is a whole lot more to discover.
In terms of its themes: Lydia Tar is a bit of a paradox. She is one of the most renowned conductors who has reached worldwide fame, a rare achievement in this field for a woman and a lesbian. But yet Lydia actively rejects the idea of gender roles and claims that she has not personally experienced discrimination in her career. The fact that she is an astounding genius clearly helped her to reach these heights. But she was also a bit of an iconoclast - having studied tribal music and culture in Peru.
Slowly, the veneer of her perfect life starts to peel off. We learn that Lydia is very much about wielding power and having control. Her professional relationships are more about jockeying for position, politicking and conniving than ones based on respect, the fostering of talent and the creation of art. To an extent, one can argue that that is the price of such a level of fame.
But slowly it is revealed that she has been toxic to many people. She essentially destroyed the career of a young woman with whom she had an affair in a vicious manner, leading to the latter's suicide. She breaks many rules to give a new celloist to whom she is attracted a solo in the companion piece. Her home life is secondary and she mainly plays the role of traffic cop there. Her wife, who must abide by her affairs and other misconduct, is part of the orchestra, thereby experiencing the toxic work environment.
Eventually, everything comes crashing down and Lydia Tarr loses essentially everything, travelling to the Philippines to reinvent herself by conducting the score to a video game.
But Lydia's decent and loss are also accompanied by ghosts of her past - her visions and dreams of the Krista, the young woman whose life she destroyed, many indigenous signs and symbols, the "primal" nature of music and it's beauty, which seems to have been forgotten. We see just how separated Lydia has become from the real world, her own family and the joy of what got her to where she is. It is a hard fall for her but we are reminded: music is different for everyone - and this brings joy to people in the way Bach brings it to others.
Much is made of the famous Julliard scene and it has evoked a lot of debates on separating the art from the artist etc. No clear side is taken but the aggressiveness of Tarr toward the student is striking: She is VERY interested in separating the art from the artist because she herself is being haunted by her own sins. A more productive approach would be to have told the student that one must be at least AWARE of these predecessors like Bach (cis, straight, white, Protestant etc. With negative histories) to study musicology/be a professional musicians and completing ignoring them could be difficult in a career as a professional musician. But the iconoclast in her should have also explained that it is good and laudable to pursue diversity and explore different forms of their art, much as she did in Peru. Instead, she comes off as condescending, mocking and dismissive. Let us remember two points here: 1) Lydia is inconsistent. At the beginning, she said we needed to know the dynamics of Mahler's marriage but she tells the student it should be irrelevant what happened in Bach's marital bed 2) By making selections and decisions based on sexual and emotional attraction, Tarr is indeed basing her actions on the PERSONAL, not her best assessment of the art or the artistic ability of the person. It is indeed hypocritical.
In terms of the "cancel culture" question - the movie does not make judgements one way or another - but it does show that Tarr's actions are destructive in the very field that is supposed to promote art, talent and beauty. Careers and lives are destroyed, integrity is lost and she herself brings her own self down. She is forced to start again, hopefully finding her love for the art again, not the fame, notoriety and business aspect.
In terms of the structure - the films STARTS with the credits - as if to say: Reflect on the people who sweat to create a work of art for you, they are real people and many are unsung heroes. A lot of human blood sweat and tears goes into that art and most are never seen.
The linear narrative is interspersed with dreams and visions that mark Lydia's guilt and gradual loss of control. More and more, real life starts breaking into her perfect little world. The film reminds us again and again of the "primal", the basic beauty and simplicity behind art - that got lost in the business of selling and producing art and in the creation of its icons.
Well worth the watch and always new layers to discover.
Fleishman Is in Trouble: The Liver (2022)
Great show, NOT a great finale
Let's just say I was a bit disappointed. The scenes between Toby and Lizzy were great. So profoundly touching - they did a great job of getting to the heart of both of their problems. I thought the Seth stuff was dealt with a bit abruptly. But the issue is, this whole series focused on the breakdown of Toby's marriage and then they magnificently shifted the perspective to Rachel's viewpoint and you see the reasons behind many of her poor choices. But this is left as just a cliffhanger. I certainly didn't expect everything to be magically resolved in this series in the season finale episode but I did hope to get a little bit of closure leading into season 2. There is a difference between creating a cliffhanger and leaving someone dissatisfied for the season. I'm sure season 2 will be amazing but still I would have preferred a bit more meat on the bone to end this season. Otherwise, a brilliant show I loved.
Madres paralelas (2021)
One of the best Almodovar films in my opinion
I didn't bother to read the reviews as I have watched every film Almodovar has made during his career. Some I loved, some I strongly disliked, but it's been a constant through my adult life.
I went into this knowing it had a theme about the murders of Spanish citizens during the Spanish civil war. It has that but it is nicely interwoven into the current plot: We see two women who became mothers unexpectedly, at different stages in life. They bond in the hospital. We soon see that the babies' fathers won't be playing a role in their lives and soon discover that the two mothers themselves came from fractured homes. This is all against the backdrop of excavating a mass grave of the relatives of the Cruz character - so it is about lineage, forging a family in different ways than one would expect and finding joy in that.
Some may find the film "boring" - indeed, once the big plot point is revealed, the 2 babies were switched at birth, nothing else truly dramatic happens, aside from Janis finally getting to the remains of her murdered relatives. But Almodovar takes a classic soap trope - babies switched at birth - and carefully focuses on the emotional aspect of the whole thing - What would you do in this case? In an American film, the parties would go to court. Here, there is even very little shouting. The characters become their own family and we are spared the cheaper drama of jealousy, custody battles etc. Families destroyed in the Civil War, families created by circumstance. I personally love it when Almodovar shows a softer touch in his films.
Yellowstone: Keep the Wolves Close (2021)
Liking this show less and less
I have really liked the show in previous seasons but it seems to be running out of steam or something.
- It seems Jimmy may be out of the show to go to 6666. But until this happens, we have boring stories of him learning to be a cowboy. As others have said, they couldn't teach him basic roping and other things at the Yellowstone
- The constant story of the land developers never ends. We've seen very little happening all season.
- Same story points that don't really do anywhere. Yes, some fun at the bunkhouse is good but this has been long and boring.
- Beth is now a certifiable lunatic. She used to fight just the bad people but now she is rude to almost everyone. I think they think the scenes with Rip and the kid show her softer side but it does not make her less appealing. She really could use therapy
- HATE the story arc with Jamie. Yes, some will say he is a dweeb. But the fact is, he went to Harvard and did everything else to be the legislative/political power arm of the family. He really only told John "no" when he wanted to run for AG, something John ultimately wanted anyway. Kasey has said "No" even more to John but somehow that is not a big betrayal. And, yes, he made a horrible mistake with Beth when he was young - but Beth feels she can threaten to murder him all of the time. John allows the constant abuse. The family is being so cartoonishly ugly to Jamie now that he likely will go to be with his father, better than being the constant whipping boy for John/Beth. So chances are good the character will be killed off - sad because Kelly Reilly enjoys working with Wes very much.
- The whole season has not added up to much. I guess Kasey is now suddenly gonna have an affair or this woman has a secret kid?
- The John as governor plot is also stupid, He will have to be in Helena at least part of the time if he wins and his conflicts of interest are so huge that it is criminal.
I honestly think - unless the finale is amazing and they can really get their groove back, season 5 should be the final season. I'm starting to think the show has run its course.
The White Lotus: The Lotus-Eaters (2021)
A bit boring in terms of action, but many interesting themes.
I thought this episode was a bit slow in terms of plot development, especially for a penultimate episode. But the more I thought about it, the more I wanted to talk about the interesting themes addressed here.
In general, we understand that this series is about a group of very wealthy people who are kind of oblivious to the problems of those who they might consider "below" them in the hierarchy - economically, racially, sexually etc. They live with these power structures and often suffer from them as well.
I think this episode really drives home these points, the title of course being from Greek mythology about those who eat a white lotus and live their lives in a hedonistic stupor, unaware of the real problems in the world around them.
As we look at the individual character scenarios, we can see how this plays out. Let's take the Tanya/Belinda relationship. Obviously, Tanya clearly violates the boundaries between client and service provider. Tanya wants to bring the energy felt in a spa session into real life, partly because she is in desperate need of someone to validate her. But essentially, she quickly starts taking advantage of the power relationship between her and Belinda - takes her to an expensive restaurant that Belinda likely can't afford. Knowing or asking nothing about Belinda's life or family. And then she dangles the possibility of opening a business in front of Belinda's nose - a real chance for her to rise professionally. But this is obviously not a serious offer, nor should one really consider going into business with someone one meets on a 1-week vacation. Belinda is passionate about what she does and envisions services that can help all women, of different classes and races. Tanya is not really phased by any of it. In fact, it's hardly just a simple mistake that Tanya thinks BLM stands for Black Lives Matter and NOT Bureau of Land Management - because to Tanya, she understands the basic concept - but not how it plays out in real life - in the sense of she has little interest in Belinda accept for momentary gratification. During the first dinner, Belinda expands a little about this - about racial inequality etc. But this is all lost on Tanya, who at one point says, "I want to use you!" Belinda, for her part, seems to be trying to feed Tanya the buzzwords she wants to hear and ensures a lot of really cringe-worthy behavior to achieve her goals. She understands Tanya is an emotional, selfish wreck, but swallows it all for the career prospects.
Or if we look at the Moosebachers: You have Nicole who has had to fight her way to the top in a male-dominated world but yet lets so many injustices slide right in front of her. She worries that the straight, white male can have hardships these days, but fails to insist that her own son be able to sleep in the hotel room (or at least get him his own room). Her husband also laments about the privilege of straight, rich, white males and wonders if they should suffer, not enjoy vacations etc. But he truly lacks empathy for those not in that position and resents being in the shadow of his wife, while really benefitting from the life style. As much as Nicole speculates that the straight, white man should not be left out and should not be discriminated against, she makes life mainly about herself and her career, not even sure if we know much about what Mark even does.
Then we have Paula. Yes, on the surface, she is one of the have-nots. Not white, not nearly as rich, resentful about being second in a world controlled by the patriarchy but yet she lacks the empathy to see the practical implications of her philosophy: She resents the Moosebacher's power yet was delighted about being one of the cool folks who can be nasty to everyone else, gleefully makes Rachel feel bad about her status and role in her marriage. She buys drugs which are, on their face, an exploitive industry and she takes a plane to a rich and extravagant resort, Worse, she tries to "help" Kai by explaining he is taking away from the rich, but not understanding she can saddle him with a criminal record, hurt his ability to make a living and put stigma on his people that they steal etc. Etc. She is so concerned about cultural appropriation yet lacks the empathy to understand that these people still need to make a living. Ultimately, she is just the other side of the same coin: a lot of ideology, not a lot of practical empathy for others.
The Shane/Rachel dynamic is pretty clear but I wanted to talk about the Shane/Armond feud. It becomes clear early that this is more about power for Shane than a room. He is very angry because Armond does not immediately acknowledge him or he feels he's been victimized by people he's been an a**hole to before. But what is interesting is the weapon he finally feels he has against Armond: sex. Yes, from what we know, what Armond did was a very, very inappropriate thing, having sex with an employee. But from Shane's perspective, he might not even have recognized Dillon as a staff member, it could have been a consensual relationship, it was after business hours etc. Curious that Shane has so many legitimate gripes against Armond but he is downright giddy about this - it is sexual shaming. Remember, Shane is someone who breaks rules all of the time - throw the German couple out! Has no problem barging into an unanswered door after business hours. The sex shaming is an unfortunate way for him to use his power, especially since a Google search would have likely gotten him to the corporate office. We also see a bit of sex shaming with Paula - Olivia's comments become more and more like an interrogation, "Who is this guy you're having sex with?" - She's an adult and people hook up on vacation all of the time, also with staff. But Olivia tries to make it sound almost derogatory, in part because it is something she Can't have.
Basically no one comes off as blameless in this show. I'd say Quinn is perhaps looked on most positively - he gets aware from the family who ignores him and takes a genuine interest in what is happening to real people in their real lives. Rachel is also a "good" character but one who realizes too late that a marriage can be a huge study on a power structure, the role of a woman in modern society who is expected to be a trophy wife etc.
The series does an excellent job at demonstrating that the personal is also the cultural and the political. So, while I rate this episode lower for action, I rate it quite high in terms of the complex social issues it addresses in its story-telling and character development. I look forward to the final episode and season 2, with a new cast and location.
In the Heights (2021)
I really wanted to love this film
So, like many people who loved the musical, I was very eager to see this film, which I watched on HBO because I'm not yet cool with going to a movie theater.
Anyway, the first minutes of the opening number were spectacular. Bright and vibrant, a celebration of Washington Heights and Hispanic lives and a community. The characters really make the connection with you in those first minutes and I quickly went from comparing Anthony Ramos to Lin Manuel to accepting AR as Usnavi.
But sadly, many things started going downhill from there. Full disclosure - I stopped watching at about the 1 hour mark as I was growing increasingly pissed off at certain things and feared I would give this movie a lower rating. I deserves at least this for its ambition, its passion and its celebration of the lives of people whom you do not see depicted in films often.
The good: The musical numbers are amazing and memorable. The characters are sympathetic and the roles are well-acted. There is clear devotion and reverence for the Hispanic community, including shout-outs to Rita, Chita, Sonia Sottomayor and others. The film is visually stunning and you find yourself just mesmerizing by the energy and the movement. The singing is great. And it truly inspires love, admiration and sympathy of this community, most Hispanics from numerous nations or US born and others who are not.
The bad: It seems that while so much was put into the musical numbers and an effort to fill up the 2.5 hours of run time, some of the heart of the original musical show was cut out. For example: One of the great relationships in the film is Camila and Kevin. They keep each other in check and have great love for each other, even when things get really bad. One of my favorite songs in the musical is "Enough" where Camila chews out both her husband and her daughter for how they handled the college situation and Kevin's treatment of Benny. Now, voila, Kevin is a widower, that relationship and number are gone - From that perspective, I could do without the extended swimming pool scenes if something this important is cut out.
More importantly: the Kevin/Benny relationship. In the B-way Musical, it is suggested that K doesn't like B because he is black not brown, not Hispanic and not Spanish-speaking and below the status of the daughter. Most of that is erased from the film - it is just gone. Curious that there are now accusations of colorism in the film - that only light-skinned Latinos were used in the movie. So it's like they wanted to erase the racial element in the show but then were blind to equally big racial elements in the making of the film. The director had the same accusations when making Crazy Rich Asians but apparently didn't get the message.
Then we have Nina's Stanford studies. In the original, she is overwhelmed, loses her scholarship, starts working too much and flunks out. Here: they add in an element of racial profiling and that she was searched. Yes, these are important issues to be explored but it seems to me that there were so many important racial elements in the musical that were sanitized and then they blindly just ignore some in making the movie.
Or let's take Abuela: One of the highlights of the musical is when she sings Paciencia y Fe - but, at least in the production I saw in Westport CT - She sings the song TO the community and they even act out her words in dance. In the film, it's all in her head. Yes, they have a lovely montage of her experience but it is not connecting with the other younger members of the community. Yes, they all love Abuelita, but the fact this song is sung in isolation further emphasizes the style over substance approach to this movie.
And then we have the Dominican Republican. The point of the musical is that Usnavi wants to move to the DR but, at the end, discovers he loves his community in Washington Heights and will stay there - and Nina goes to college, they move the salon a bit further away but we understand the community will continue to exist, albeit at times a bit further apart. Maybe this is resolved later in the film but it seems the major plot thrust is getting Usnavi there and narrating this story to Dominican kids, thereby losing the message of the original. And the Dominican kids all speak flawless English. Do you think in a movie that celebrates Hispanic culture, you could show kids speaking Spanish at least somewhat? In WH, I get it, everybody speaks English, but in the DR?
Lottery ticket? So far Abuelita did not win it. In the musical, she wanted to start a new life with Usnavi and his cousin there - but Usnavi changes his mind. All that seems to be gone.
Conclusion: Stunning, joyous, with brilliant acts and some magical moments. But they seems to have cut some of the most salient moments for the movie. One feels that they are in some dialogue with West Side Story. The run-time is not justified - after a while, the music and visual splendor start feeling fatiguing and you want things to get real. They do sometimes, but others it feels like filler. It's like a "death by committee" thing - let's do numbers ABC but let's cut out key plot elements and characters that made the show so special. I hope it inspires more movies about Hispanic life and cultures but ultimately it feels kind of like a sanitized feel-good film, Maybe Lin has spent too much time over at Disney.
Joker (2019)
Somewhere between Masterpiece and Oscarbait
I was reluctant to watch this. I really am not into the typical superhero movie with tons of fight scenes and special effects, but I ultimately rented it on Amazon because so many people raved about it. So let's go step by step:
Joaquin Phoenix: Gives the performance of his career. The physicality, the desperation of the character, his instability, his erratic nature, his fraility. I find the descend into madness to be very compelling and like Natalie Portman in Black Swan, I think this portrayal is the strong aspect in what would have been a so-so film.
People harshly judge this film as simplifying issues such as class, a lack of civility in society, alienation of the underpriledged etc. True, if this movie were a straight-out analysis of what was going on in New York City in the early 1980's, Reaganism etc., it would fail. Yes, NYC was in a pretty dark place in the early 1980's. Crime was up, discontentment was high, people felt alienated and angry. But here we see everything through the lens of a seriously deranged individual who is an unreliable narrator. For him, the world is increasingly dark and the instances of abuse only multiply. He does not have the sophistication of being political or even being able to fully articulate his rage for being mocked and for being overlooked as a member of society and he very accidentally becomes a folk hero as his acts happened to coincide with a period in which the population was greatly angered and enraged. It is not even truly clear how much of this adulation is real or even, indeed, how many of the acts in this film really are real.
The film does play a theme reflected in other works, also in the film Parasite, this class rage and the desire to strike back at real and perceived oppressors. The increasingly hostile environment of the city adds to Arthur's malaise and contributes to his total breakdown.
Many Batman franchise fans will not like this. Where is Batman? I think the point of this film is that this villain is very far from the criminal mastermind that Joker was in other versions, this guy can barely get up and function, let alone run a major criminal enterprise. He is pityable, sad, pathetic. ironically it is one of the enraged protesters, not Arthur, who killed Thomas Wayne and thereby created Batman, if this too even happened. Yes, they did a new take on the comic version but I feel it had some valuable points to make.
Was the film Oscar-baity? Yes. The quirky anti-hero, many scenes created for shock value. A pretty thin plot. Another plot device of "How much of this was only in his mind." Having said this, I really enjoyed it but have no real desire to see it again. I think Phoenix as a lot on Joker but the film without him would be mediocre.
Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019)
Great acting, style, cinematography...very lacking in other areas
I really wanted to like this more. Beautful photography! Mixing and matching genres: comedy, western, spaghetti western, thriller etc. Fun story set-ups. Great acting!
But then the problems starts. I saw another review that would describe Tarantino's "hubris" when writing this. For many die-hard Tarantino fans, everything he does is ballsy and edgy. But to me, as the minutes became hours, I felt that this was just an ensemble cast gathered to "subvert...subervert...subvert". Yes, he plays with genres but that has been done elsewhere, such as Westworld. Ultimately Tarantono just strings together several stories, leading up to the requisite bloodbath at the end. The Dicaprio story was interesting, the rest kind of went nowhere. Cliff does this contrived trip to the ranch to come upon Manson's minions, pokes the bear for no particular reason, even when it is clear the old man basically knows what's happening. This then leads to the randon encounter next door, where history can be rewritten to erase the Manson family's major murder spree. First, younger audiences won't get it, second what is the point of undoing this Hollywood event that sort of redefined us as a nation and how we see the modern age. Let's throw that out the window so we can have a big violent brawl! Maybe in part II the friends can travel back in time to get Hitler!
Beyond this, there really is a lot of establishment anger to 60's/70's counterculture here. The "old timey" folks who act in the traditional shows are the "good guys" but the counter-culture "hippies" are treated with contempt throughout the film. And then the "good guys" change history by a random event just thrown in their laps - as Cliff conveniently runs into this girl numerous times and she happens to be Manson family. No particularly positive examples of the hippie movement, just right to the murderers who are disdained before they even commit a murder. For someone wo so likes subverting genres and expectations, why does Tarantino have such rage against a group that was 99% peaceful.
So much of the film is built on contrived circumstance. The one character is called pussycat and Brad Pitt is given the easy set up: We all love p*ssy...yes we do. So, so classy.
To me this was a macho film that dabbled in different genres.
However, the film is redeemed somewhat by the very good acting of Dicaprio, Pitt seemed a bit incidental. Style was amazing. Sadly, it lacked the substance.
Mr. Robot: Hello, Elliot (2019)
A nearly perfect ending, in keeping with the show's message
I was truly awe-struck by the finale of Mr. Robot. I've said this whole season that the focus was shifting gradually to the big worldwide events to the intensely personal and that is what happened. Yes, they didn't do us the disservice of stripping away the past 4 years, all of that happened, and Elliot or Mastermind did save the world, but in the end, all of the other side characters just kind of faded into the background and it became about Elliot, his massive struggles, his road to self-acceptance and self-love and the real bond between him and Darlene that was everything.
I've heard a lot of complaints and you won't please everybody. Why the fake-out? Well, because it's about a journey, not just the destination. For 5 years, we have lived in Elliot's head and also peaked into the lives of the other characters. Yes, it was a twist that the world we were seeing was not White Rose's and people will analyze every second as to why it doesn't fit perfectly. But at the end of the day, this show has always been about Elliot's world and the message of the show is really that if you change your inner world, the outer world changes as well.
But, but! the naysayers will say - What about the plotholes? I don't know that there are plotholes as much as just stuff left open. Could Sam have added another episode to tie everything up with a bow? Maybe. But I think he respects his intelligent audience too much. What about White Rose - when understand the main parts, she has a duality about her, like Elliot did for so long. Her deep personal trauma let to her initiating these big events in the real world. But what about the machine? Does it really matter? Whether she was insane or it did do some sort of simulation or even access another dimension, the point driven home here is that these are not the real people. There are shadows or at best the products of another world. While interesting to visit, in the long run these people are not the real things. Maybe White Rose would have lapsed into some simulation and loved it but "Elliot" was tormented by his own consciousness, this was not his real world. He even said that if he could do it all over, he'd never have Mr. Robot. And in this "perfect" world, he'd not have Darlene, the person who means the most to him. So whether White Rose had a real machine or was just crazy, the images are not the same as the real person lost, they are just the shadows seen from the cave.
What about Tyrell? Elliot said early in the season, that Tyrell didn't really mean that much to him. People built up this thing that wasn't there for Elliot. His fate remains tragic - He lost his family, he worked as a tool of this purely evil company. It is not clear whether he is alive or dead because, in the end, his life was a horrible loop too. Caught up doing so much that he despised but was locked in. In terms of the blue light people talk about, perhaps it is like a Matrix thing. Elliot has the RED pill - the hard journey to self-acceptance. Tyrell got BLUE - so maybe he either just went to sleep in the snow or maybe he recovered and lived a thankless life at E-Corp, his life ended up being not what he wanted.
We then have Dom and others. Again, they are supporting characters. We got a bit of closure for Dom because she meant a lot for Darlene. And her closure was simply REST. Go out and rediscover herself, take time to breathe - the best ending possible. The Reddit folks are just mad there was no plane crash. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Also, so many story lines didn't have to do directly with Elliot-hacking Krista, Darlene's boyfriend, early Vera, Joanna Wellick etc. All of them became pale shadows when it all came down to Elliot's intensively personal crisis.
And the ending was superb: We have someone basically starting on day 1 from the first time since childhood. He has his crimes to handle, he has his guilt and his shame, his life is a shambles. But he has wonderful Darlene, so I feel it will ultimately work out all right, even though it is just the beginning of a very hard road.
The purists will hate that not everything is tied up with a bow. But most of this is just background to the much bigger drama that Sam planned from day 1. I found this series transformational.
Mr. Robot: 410 Gone (2019)
It's as if some people don't understand the show
Look, I get it, some people like faster paced episodes and do not care as much for the slow-paced, more emotion-driven episodes. That's fine. But it seems as if certain people are forgetting what some of the basic concepts of this show are.
A typical network show might have, say, a wunderkind with some sort of disorder (see Good Doctor). Here we have: a world-class hacker, probably on the spectrum, with a serious personality disorder and a very troubled past including sexual abuse. We had the manifestation of the disorder playing a full character role You have the opponents being a massive evil corporation and an international group of the top 1% of the 1% and their killing/influencing apparatus. We have actions taken that affect the entire world. We have a gender-fluid/villain(ess). We have the possibility of virtual reality/time travel. We have a whole group of characters made interesting in their own rights. That is a whole lot to unpack.
Now, economically, their high-action shows have cost huge $$$ with shooting locations, hundreds of extras, special effects etc. So to counter this, he could have a) gone the Game of Thrones route - cutting the number of episodes or spreading it all out to yet another season with much more filler, rushing through the emotional/deeply personal aspects of the show and personal development or b) Do what Sam did - EXPAND the show from 10 to 13 episodes. It seems that exactly 3 episodes will be low-key and lower budget, they fill in much of the emotional details/character development stuff and yet you have not lost a SINGLE action-based episode. It seems like a winning combination to me.
Also, so many things in previous seasons were about non-hack-related issues. Hacking Krista and her former boyfriend, the whole jail stay, the extended scenes with Trenton and Mobley. This show has never failed to stop, slow down and look at motivations and character development.
Here we are seeing that. Sam is so far giving a great ending to each of the principle characters. In this episode, we have Dom and Darlene being told what they really need and they ultimately get it: Dom needs to let go of things, find a new place in the world and take a timeout to refind herself. Darlene needs to understand that she can function alone, she is strong and capable, she just needs the push to discover she can control her own destiny and does not walk in anybody's shadow. Their wishes just do not coincide. I expect this is the last we will see of Dom unless their is an epilogue, maybe of her and Darlene relaxing in Budapest. We will see.
This is also a show that has challenged TV genres from the start: the 80's sit-com, the theater play, the silent episode etc. Here we had a play on the sit-com. It was the typical "racing through the airport" bit, but with a twist. I also think it was a small poke in the eye to the folks who predicted a plane crash all along. I see zero payoof or plot development in something happening to Dom - the Dark Army could have followed her home etc. Or they could have called in a bomb threat to shut down the airport. I think the point here was just for Darlene and Dom to get where they need to go, just not the same way, literally and metaphroically.
I think the Leon and Irving scenes were sublime, Irving is basically a used car salesman. He clearly is happy just being on his cheesy book tour and scoping out airports. Maybe it will be something bigger but I doubt it - this was the perfect ending - he is happy with selling books at some Barnes and Noble instead of killing. And Leon is much the same - really a smart operator, well-read and educated, for whom the killing was just an occupation.
For those who complain, I ask if the show would have been better had they skipped these character development issues. I don't think so. The personal side has always been as important as the hack/Dark Army and I'd argue in this season they are given at least equal weight. As in real life, huge changes in the world are often directly linked to the dramas in an individual life, Ellliot and White Rose had traumatic personal experiences that shaped their worldwiews and led to these events. And again you are losing NOTHING by having some episodes focusing on the emotional/personal underpinnings of the characters.
Knives Out (2019)
Kind of overrated to me
I have read the many glowing reviews for this film and I honestly don't get it. Yes, there were some very funny and entertaining parts. It was a very good ensemble cast. Daneil Craig does his best Kevin Spacey as Frank Underwood impression. But beyond that, I found the cast woefully underused. Jamie Lee Curtis, Don Johnson etc. I expected Jamie Lee to play a major role but she seemed more like window dressing. She also, as the daughter, appeared to have no real motive for the murder. So the real crime here was her underuse. 1/2 of the members of the family had no motive mentioned. Then, when the "murder" was revealed at the half way point, it was clear Martha did not really do it and was being set up. Chris Evans conveniently shows up at the halfway point with lines, so the reveal, for the most part is painfuly obvious, or at least most of it. The give-aways were pretty obvious, like granny saying "Random, you're back AGAIN" or the comment on how the dogs barked only with certain people. The mention of the "slayer" law was very, very obvious. I understand this is a parody of the sleuth genre but shouldn't there be at least some surprises?
Nor do I believe this is a "commentary" on our situation today. Yes, there was a dialogue thrown in on immigration but nothing new was covered here.
That is not to say it is a bad film. Daniel Craig and the cast seemed to be having a ball. Lots of kooky things happened. But I think this is better for a late-nite Netflix watch.
I certainly don't see it as being "best of the year."
Transparent: Transparent Musicale Finale (2019)
Better than it was made out to be
I have read the reviews here, mainly negative, but my reaction, ultimately, was not that bad. I didn't absolutely love it but I thought it was well done, poignant and a good ending to this very quirky show.
Had this been the pilot episode to the series, everyone should justifiably hate it. But what has this show been about for 4 years: We have Maura and her struggles, the relationship with the family, the intersection of gender norms versus religious faith, tangential stories with the other family members loosely related to family/expected roles/gender etc. It was never a show about big plot developments. Some shows focused solely on emotions or memories. There were never 45 plot developments to tie up like more action-related shows. This show was always about tearing down conventions, people redefining themselves and rediscovering themselves. It was about how family always prevailed despite many conflicts.
Of course, when Jeffrey Tambor was fired, this brought in new problems. Whatever your take on the firing, this show faced the same issues as House of Cards - Much of your audience will be upset the lead is not there. The issue will arise at how to handle the show content - is it better to just stop? DO a whole season? Bring on Maura as a trans actress post-transition? Everybody would have been dissatisfied in some way. Add to that - in my opinion, they were basically running out of ways to find that intersection of faith, gender and sexuality. Even if Tambor hadn't left, there was increasing scrutiny on why a CIS male was playing a trans woman. I think that this quick end was the best way to address these issues, although people still will not be satisfied.
One thing I liked was the doppelganger concept. They referenced Maura but in the form of a dreamlike play. This also made it possible to have the 3 kid doppelgangers - a symbol for Shelly's endless expections of her children. In the end, she gives up her expectations and sees her family for what it is.
The songs and musical format? 50/50. Some songs were catchy, others I didn't get. But even the worse songs were nicely tailored to the quriky personality of the character in question. Can anyone doubt that Shelly would try to mount a play about her family in the days following her former husband's death? And the final number joy-o-caust was downright ballsy.
Josh got his share of redemption while the rest just kind of settled in to being themselves. They even nicely tied together the idea of the holocaust versus being burnt in an oven for cremation. For a show that said, "Screw convention" for its entire run, I don't think this "screw convention" ending was so bad. This was much more in keeping of the general theme of the show than, say, Game of Thrones, no?
Veep: Veep (2019)
A good and solid finale but tone not my cup of tea
Yes, I get it. This show was pretty much about awful people and the people who try to be decent (like Catherine) usually lose out. I get that this is an unfliching look at the inner workings of politics, much of which is absolutely true. I get that current political realities have shaped the tone and intensity of the show. Most of all, I understand Selena Myer is a horrible person and, given the chance, her awfulness could come fully to fruition.
Having said all of this, I freakly found the tone of the final episode to be so dark and cynical that I found it more disturbing than funny. Yes, Selena cheats literally everyone, puts idiot Jonah a hear beat away from the presidency, even screws over her own daughter and sells out on her one accomplishment - freeing Tibet - all to have power. But the show always had a bit of light and optimism about it - that somehow things would be ok despite the efforts of the idiots and the ruthless. Here, the picture painted is pretty bleak about the future. However, it does seem that 5 presidential terms later, the good (or better) people seem to have won - Kemi serves 2 terms, Richard Splett, perhaps not the smartest but with principles, solves the Middle East crisis. Selena gets the punishments she so justly deserves - a presidency devoid of substance because she has sold her soul and a death and presidency that are a footnote in history, mainly for the horrible things she did.
Maybe it's just me but it seemed that the last episode of Veep became like a non-violent Breaking Bad. That's not to say it wasn't good or the acting wasn't great but to me it just left a bitter taste in my mouth. I'm not naive to have expected a happy ending and everyone suddenly becoming super nice but maybe a bright moment or two? It just ended so dark.
Zimna wojna (2018)
A bit of a disappointment to me
I should start off by saying I am a fan of Polish cinema, have even studied it in the past. This movie was a typical Polish intellectual movie: focus on emotion, scene development and the characters' emotional journey over huge plot developments. I can't fault this film for any of that. I also loved Pawlikowski's last work, Ida, with the two principal women in this film, but found it much superior,
There is a lot to like in the film. Excellent acting, gorgeous cinematography, a careful attention to sounds and scope. Pawlikowski is an expert at evoking strong emotions when you view a scene, he can make all people and items on the set work in concord to convey the overall feeling he wants. So far, so good!
For me, where the film falls short is in giving these characters a real direction or, in the case of Zula, making her likable. Also, frankly, despite the very good acting, I could not feel a strong chemistry between the two leads.
Beyond this: We get it - life in Post-war Poland was very hard, being freshly annexed and essentially made a Societ puppet state. Pawlikowski conveys so much meaning in the choice to add Russian folk songs to the Polish repertoire, resulting in the resignation of the conductor after a short while. Yes, the protagonist is imprisoned and Zula does basically marry someone she doesn't love to get him out of jail.But that is pretty much the end of the analysis of the massive scope of becoming part of the Soviet block, Beyond this, it is first a visit to favorite eastern block countries, then a long stay in Paris, followed by the return to Poland.
But where the movie loses me is in the character of Zula and their relationship. It is established she had a hard life. She becomes part of the choir because it is prestigious, she does what she has to do. But later, she basically devolves into this pouty hussy. Instead of looking at the real difficulties of immigration, we are brought to a huge apartment and glitzy nightclubs. She pouts over the repetoire she is to sing, is rude to her partner's previous partner. She marries an Italian just to immigrate and never even gives him a second thought. We understand things are dog eat dog in an Eastern block country but she is immediately painted in such a bad light, it's hard to root for her. She gets drunk, cheats on her boyfriend, evoking a slap, and then returns to Poland, apparently leaving the love of her life behind. Could their not be 10 mintues when she is generally happy they got out? This is due to 2 things: 1) She is supposed to be this incredible free spirit and Bohemian. But why then not establish this resistance, at least to a degree, within Poland? Their she was the great little soldier, even spying on her boyfriend to the higher-up's. 2) She is to have this incredible yearning to return to Poland - despite all of her "faults", her love for the fatherland is strong in her. But instead of exploring this in a deeper way, Zula's return to Poland is presented as a rash, impulse thing.
Yes, the couple redeem themselves a bit. he gives up his life in Paris to return to Poland, gets the anticipated prison punishment and she marries a jerk so that they can be together - ultimately leading to their own suicide pact, as living in their native country has become impossible. But, sadly, all of this is presented as a couple unable to decide what is what and what the reality is until it is too late. Instead of an intelligent discussion of why being in Poland means so much to them, it ultimately boils down to, "Oopsie, we really screwed up."
Finally, and this is just speculation - When Ida won the Oscar a few years ago, the Polish rightwing was outraged - How can this film smear the image of Poland? I'll leave it to others to discuss the veracity of some of the claims presented in the film. The point is, legislation was discussed to demand only positive portrayals of Poland in film, TV and other media. This film seems like something that would please the right-wing government: Most of what was bad is the fault of the Soviets. And we have this flighty, flawed couple who, despite their faults, make it back home to Poland out of love for country and/or each other. Perfectly pleasing for the rightwing audience. Not saying that most of this was not true but this film greatly lacks the moral ambiguities and personal contradictions found in Ida.
House of Cards (2013)
People really need to chill out
I understand some are disappointed Kevin Spacey is not back for the final season of HOC but the barrage of very nasty reviews is kind of unwarrranted. No matter what people feel about how the Kevin Spacey situation was handled, TV and the movies are full of instances when the lead was removed or quit, very often signalling the end of the show soon or a season or so thereafter. I think this season of House of Cards has been very good and Robin Wright has been amazing. The fact is, the trajectory of the show was always for Claire to take over power, for Francis to get his due and it was pretty clear the show has run its course anyway. Wright could have easily just let the whole thing die but she really stood up to give a satisying ending to the fans without having a magic wand to fix the unfixable. They are presenting a multi-layered show, the usual strong acting, great drama etc. Also, Francis is still deeply ingrained in the show. We see his effect on all of the major characters and I am eager to see how his crimes have repercussions for Claire this season. Is it the best show ever? No. But is it a very solid and dignified ending to a ground-breaking show? Yes. Wright and cast are giving it all to bring the show to a close. And while it would be nice for Kevin to have been there, to me they have taken much care to close out the show on a high note.
Heathers (1988)
A funny, genre-busting movie with some flaws
I finally got around to seeing Heathers after all of these years. It is kind of funny seeing the parallels between Chrstian Slater's J.D. and his character on Mr. Robot.
The good: It very much captures the teenage angst of the late 80's in pre-Internet world. Slater and Ryder do excellent jobs with their characters. There are many quotable lines and funny moments. This is a very dark comedy and you can tell that tongues or often planted firmly in cheek.
The bad: This movie could never be made today with the epidemic of school schootings and teen suicides etc. Slater's character was very prescient in forseeings what would be coming a decade later. One can even argue that poplularization of a film like this spread the message of the anguished, outsider teen who gets glory by attacking a school and killing people. but obviously the filmmakers cannot be held responsible for what happens later.
The other thing that bothers me about the film is that it often falls into as many cliches as it avoids. 80's teen films were very homophobic. Here we see the typical set-up: Football players call the protagonist/villain a f*g, he then reciprocates in framing this elaborate scheme in which the boys die allegedly as gay lovers. It is often not clear where the satire ends and genuine homophobia so prevalent in the 1980's comes into play. Yes, it is clearly a joke that the fact they have mineral water, a Joan Crawford postcard etc., which they just carry around, is a sure sign they are gay. It is less clear that the way their day is presented is supposed to be a joke - the town seems to all ridicule the dead boys for being gay and share a common disgust and the audience gets the impression that the gay frame-up is the just reward for having called Slater a f*g in the beginning.
Moreover, the film really ends on a bit of a cliched note. Ryder has participated in several murders but just walks away from the attempted mass-murder of the school like nothing happened. This time, she will be nice to the overweight student with zero social life - who was really just a prop for ridicule in this world, so that makes it all ok. Again, this is a black comedy and parody but, again, it is not always clear what cliches of the teen genre they are avoiding and which ones, some greatly unacceptable by today's standards, they fall right into.
Westworld (2016)
Great, innovative series but some big potholes
This is a great show and very much worth watching. It expertly combines the genres of western and sci-fi, has amazing acting and dialogue and writing, scenery, production values. The episodes deal with some very complex topics and the season is revealed on 2 (some argue 3) timelines. It is intriguing, entertaining and pioneering television.
However, for me personally, this should have been a limited series. I think the objectives and general theme - the AI revolt and take over, the different views of what makes consciousness and humanity - have been played out. I think this will be difficult to sustain over multiple seasons. Beyond this, despite the fact that we are to suspend our disbelief about the subject matter, I find some of the plot holes in the sow very daunting. These include: 1) Apparently, much of the park runs 24/7 with all of the AI playing out their loops at the cost of millions and millions, even though a guest may not even be there. In the case of Logan and William, we see literally a cast of hundreds and hundreds, plus tons of infrastructure and AI horses etc., for just 2 people. One wonders what happens if there are 1400 guests in the park. Do they all get hundreds of hosts? $40,000 a day would not nearly cover this. There are also vast areas of the park where guests rarely go but the AI are running their loops endlessly anyway. 2) Hosts can interact, have sex even kill each other without any guest being present. 3) So sometimes they can pinpoint when a host glitches, like Abernathy. Other times, Maeve can drag a safe down the street, be somewhere completely different, be 1000% off script and it is not noticed. Even if you argue Ford manipulated things to block her from the system, would they not notice she is not physically in the saloon where she is supposed to be? 4) Hosts can also be up top for hours at a time at the lab. So what happens to the other people they are interacting with? If Maeve is gone for hours in the lab, wouldn't that seriously affect the whole saloon scene? 5) The whole Felix/Sylvester/Maeve storyline is silly. Maeve can intimidate them but, you know, instead of turning her off immediately or turning her intelligence to 1, she talks them into giving her more and more rights and more intelligence. 6) These simple lab guys have the power to radically change Maeve, even give her increased intelligence. And then Behavior can make her have rights to control Bernard? Even if you argue Ford was behind all of this, why not just give Maeve these capabilities and avoid the whole Felix/Sylvester thing where she, you know, essentially murders Sylvester, jeopardizing the plan or where she depends on a couple feckless lab guys to get the job done? 7) To me, there is way too little focus on guests. We see a few random guests, mainly William and Logan in the early years, otherwise mainly patrons at the saloon. This series is less gripping to me knowing it is mainly a war between the hosts and the techs. This park needs more actual guests interacting more with the hosts. 8) MIB is a majority shareholder but can walk around apparently unnoticed, create whatever millions in damages he wants, and no one ever sees him except Ford?
Despite these and other issues, it is still a very gripping series worth watching.
Bloodline (2015)
A really good show marred by plot holes and 3rd season
Bloodline is kind of an acquired taste. It starts out like a typical family drama, each of the kids with their own stories but quickly picks up steam as the family's horrible history catches up to them and the 3 living Rayburn children participate in the murder of their eldest brother, Danny. Those familiar with Damages will recognize some typical signature moves of Kessler shows: playing with time frames and flash backs, fantasies. The idea of one of the main character's being murdered in season 1 and still having a strong presence in the show is a good one. It also puts strong emphasis on the multi-generational issues of a family in chaos and how secrets and tragedies from long ago can become new tragedies.
Basically, the family has wracked up 2 murders by the final season and the creators do the smart thing of NOT having it neatly wrapped up with the cases being cracked. Instead their punishments are meted out through karma and they get their just desserts in other ways.
Less forgivable are the humongous plot holes in season 3. The team had around 5-6 years of story ideas and was forced to compress these ideas into one final season. But to accommodate the plot, they just have to ignore major issues of the plot. For example, Kevin ends up killing the police detective who has found out the truth on the family. But the cover-up is so ridiculous - the police chief who is 99% sure John had killed his brother in season 2 turns around and lets him run investigations on his own brother and a man is obviously and clearly railroaded, including police abuse for killing a cop he did not kill, and the police chief seems okay with this. Even when John confesses at the end, the chief basically says, "Nah, I'm going to a better job in Boston." What? Then later, Kevin is supposed to make a deal with the feds re Roy, the big kingpin, yet even after he dies, they ask him is he is going to testify. Against whom? The guy is dead. Chelsea seems way too friendly with the Rayburns move longer than it would take her to figure out her brother was screwed over by them. The John Leguizamo role seems kind of aimless, he basically kind of goes bananas. And there were many other things which seemed rushed and not well thought through.
Having said all of this, the acting is stellar and the gut-wrenching dynamic of this family is really entertaining. Spacek, Chandler, Norbert Butz, Mendelson and others give amazing performances. All in all a very good show, just wish they could have thought through season 3 a bit more. However, the collective punishment on the family does ultimately seem appropriate.
Une nouvelle amie (2014)
A great film but there are some issues
This is one of the best works by Ozon. He does a brilliant job in showing the process of a person in transition, the gradual changes, the high points and key moments. Romain Duris (David/Virginia) gives a stunning and nuanced performance of a man in grief after the death of his wife at a young age. In mourning and in taking care of his 6-month-old daughter Laura, he finds a part of himself awakened and he begins to express his desire to identify as a woman. He goes through many of the usual stages - dressing at home, going out for shopping, the exhilaration of being first identified as a woman etc. Before a culminating moment in the film, Virginia texts to friend Claire "Je suis une femme" (I am a woman)- meaning that the transformation in her mind is complete. We also can fully understand the ups and downs Claire goes through in being in this fully new situation. These aspects of the film are great.
Ozon then goes a bit off of the established path. He makes it important to understand that David does not identify as gay, a point often lost in portrayals of transgender individuals (sexual identity does not equal sexual orientation). We then see that there is a dimension for both Romain/Claire of creating a type of ersatz-Laura. Through Virginia, that deep friendship and perhaps even latent sexual desire can be acted upon. Again, so far so good.
I have 2 problems with the film. First, this is a portrayal of a transgender person in a very rarified environment, a bit like The Danish Girl. Sure, you don't need every film about a trans person to be beaten and constantly tormented to illustrate the hardships which trans people have to endure but this film is almost devoid of all of this. Virginia can go out to the family manner house and to the near-by accepting LGBT nightclub. Aside from some odd looks, we see nothing of issues with the outside world. What happens when David goes back to work? In the beginning of the film, he argues that his in-laws could take his daughter away. Yet we do not even see a conversation with them about this.
My biggest problem lies with the character of Claire. It becomes clear that she sees some form of emotional replacement of Laura in Virginia, which is fine. But she seems to neglect her own husband and family in the process. Her husband Gilles is amazingly understanding given everything that happens and is always shown to be supportive to whatever Claire wants. Yet Claire entertains the idea of a sexual relationship with Virginia. Worse than that, she and her husband are considering having a baby, an idea somehow abandoned. At the end of the film, we see Lucie, Virginia's daughter, picked up at school 7 years later by Virginia and Claire. We see no trace or evidence that Claire has had her own child, instead seemingly being a new ersatz parent for little Lucie. For me personally, the ending would have been more gratifying if they showed Claire with her own daughter and the 2 daughters could continue on a friendship. Instead, it seems from this brief scene that Claire has given up on her own family or perhaps has even left her husband. Either way, she seems to have neglected her caring husband and the audience were due at least a scene in which she informs him of her choices, particularly if she left the marriage.
Man of Steel (2013)
Meh! Another film which uses CGI instead of plot
Saw this movie on a plane. It started out well. We get the basic point: They wanted a grittier and more flawed Superman. Now cutesy scenes like in the Christopher Reeves Superman films where Clark Kent would save Lois Lane as she fell down a waterfall. The start of the movie was great. They really try to avoid the pat scenes of Superman we have engraved in our minds. But then, things go terribly wrong. There is nothing but constant, relentless CGI. The character and story development are minimal. Yes, we want a grittier Superman but this is so far removed that you could put Will Smith in the film fighting these evil doers and it would make no difference. There is way, way, way too much backstory. Yes, they didn't want geeky Clark Kent running around so instead they hit you again and again with the theme: He wants to use his power but he can't because people won't understand, blah blah blah. Then we have the fact that everything happens directly to the folks Superman/Clark is supposed to be involved with - Bam, Lois meets Chris Meloni, bam they are at center. Bam, over with Martha Kent, bam attack at Daily Planet. It's the kind of "coincidence" central to ridiculous action movies. The Russell Crowe role as Jor El is beyond cheesy. Yes, he is supposed to be a spiritual adviser to Kal El but he appears and even tells Lois where to fire her gun. Then he engages in this long and ridiculous conversation with General Zod. Then, Jor El and Zod make countless bombastic speeches about the future of our people blah blah blah. You will feel bored instead of inspired. The central conceipt of the film is bizarre too. Zod wants the Kryptonians to move to earth but they can't with the same atmosphere - apparently. Not sure if Jor El wants this or not. Much of Metropolis is ground to dust, apparently with many thousands of casualties. Also, apparently, Daily Planet Building - but no biggie - Superman just puts on his glasses and settles in at the Daily Planet moments after the conflict and all is peachy. Let's not and say we did.
Bully (2011)
Generally a very engaging and balance depiction of a complex phenomenon
Many of the people who see this documentary seem to react strongly too it. In some in strikes chords about their own experiences while in many it elicits a response of "The responsibility for preventing this lies primarily within the child's (victim's) family." While that is the major factor in most cases, the first thing to keep in mind is that the film is reflecting upon and reporting on a phenomenon, is not the phenomenon itself. In general, it presents the wide gamut of responses to the problem and the different viewpoints, varying from suicide, fighting back, finding additional means of support. The film's strength lies in the fact that it provides no easy answers but instead of plethora of viewpoints and several examples of kids who dealt with the issue unsuccessfully to somewhat successfully.
The central issue of the film is of course bullying. Most have encountered it, some have even been the bully and many feel that the only real means of combating the problem is from within the victim's family and instilling in him/her the necessity to fight back. The film makes it quite clear that the institution, other children or parents or even society as a whole is not particularly able or interested in dealing with the problem. On a larger scale, we often have environments where the contempt of people who are different is actually encouraged. In some states where a teacher can now not utter the word "gay," it is really hard for a child who is gay to seek assistance. An overarching theme throughout is that society as a whole actually promotes those who are aggressive and the subtext in the film is that school officials are often tacitly behind the abuse of kids who do not fit the mold or are completely inept in dealing with the situation, they themselves just cogs in a hierarchical machine.
While it is true that the first and only real line of defense against bullying is from the victim's family, there are a few problems with the above 1) What happens if for whatever reason the parents do not provide the support that the child needs to stand up for himself? It is like the child of an alcoholic or an abused child or a child who arrives to school without being fed. Yes, it is the parent's failing. But failure to intervene can lead to grave circumstances later, including the death of the child or their inability to be a productive adult, an abuser themselves etc. 2) Bullying can be the traditional form, bigger kid beats up younger kid but these days it can take other forms, e.g. older boy attacks younger girl, institutional abuse where the teachers themselves join in the abuse, abuse by multiple attackers. In all of these scenarios, the "just smack 'em back" rule doesn't work. 3) If left unchecked, the result can be for the bullying victim to lash out and there can be real violence; many see the tragedy at Columbine as being in part due to an environment where bullying was not addressed (but this greatly simplifies the issue)
The documentary also makes clear that the system is always ready to doll out the harshest punishments to the victims themselves. In the film, an African American girl almost goes to prison for brandishing a gun on a bus as a reaction to bullying, definitely a tragic and inappropriate response. But it's interesting that the same surveillance camera which caught her with the gun on the could "not possibly" be used to see the multiple attacks on her on the bus. In other instances, the harshest talking-to is reserved for the victim.
It is also interesting to note that lip-service given by the administrators to the problem. Do they not care or are just unable to do anything? It is interesting to note, if, for example, one of the parents did a similar act to the school counselor, smashing his head against the wall etc., the police would be called and if there was physical evidence, there would be immediate arrests or sanctions. Yet when the exact same act is perpetrated on children by children, no one acts.
The film is very good because it shows several different scenarios of bullying, from kids who committed suicide to those who are dealing with it. It is also of value in that perhaps it will encourage 1) Parent's to talk to their children about seeking aid/defending themselves 2) School districts to be more aware of what is going on, several have already enacted "zero tolerance" bullying policies and c) Perhaps some parents will ask their children how they are treating other children.
Many will say, "bullying has always been there". Yes, but now it has become a social phenomenon. Is bullying worse? Is government/society emphasizing aggressiveness more through its policies? Whatever the reason, more kids are killing themselves over the issue now. As Malcolm Gladwell notes in his book The Tipping Point, certain conditions have to be present for an epidemic to occur. In the late 90's there was a rash of school shootings, including that at Colombine. In recent years, this phenomenon has occurred much less. Why? Perhaps because schools, students became aware that conditions had reached a critical level and became aware of signs. The same could be try of bullying. Perhaps the film can appeal to the one kid not getting the support from his parents or the bully or the one kid to reach out to the unpopular kid or the school administrator to change a culture of aggression that sanctions bullying. As cheesy as it sounds, even it it saves a few lives or makes it easier for a few kids, making the epidemic a non-epidemic, it will be worth it.
Le gamin au vélo (2011)
A simple, well-acted, poignant story
The story is quite simple: a 12-year-old boy abandoned by his father and the kindly woman who randomly meets him and becomes part of his life. The film is very, very good at exploring all of the sheer emotion involved in the above. You can feel the boy's unspeakable pain as he leaves no stone unturned to reconnect with his father, just to be rejected. You can see the motivations behind his horrible behavior and his despair. You see the whole spectrum here and no one is exactly as he seems. The father is a dead-beat who even briefly considers taking the stolen money from his kid. The drug dealer guy is horrible but also has a very unhappy life living with his grandparent. We see that Cyril's victims of his crime are far from perfect and even malicious. And then we have Samantha who selflessly upends her life and her relationship for this child. But instead of it being this happy-end story about the new family, we see that nothing is magical or perfect. We see a simple scene of Samantha and Cyril having a bike ride. Later he is almost killed by his own victim. The film ends with Cyril riding home broken, perhaps with a concussion. But he has matured to know that he should not fight back.
This is definitely one of those "so you think you have problems" type of films. It is a reminder to us all that sometimes we have little control over the tragic turns in life and we have to take the goodness and support where we can get it. No happy end, just a sense that things are the best they could be.
Great acting by the young actor and Cecile de France.
Le nom des gens (2010)
A lovely, poignant, original romantic comedy
This film is totally original in its approach. The characters are interesting (Baya as a caricature of a leftist), the various other characters where no one is as he or she seems. There is a lot more commonality than difference in the characters. There past traumas and origins come out through the course of the film.
The film is interspersed with characters and snippets from the past, including a young Arthur Martin and a Pere Martin who looks old even when he was young. The destinies/ambitions/mindsets of the main characters all meld in a very interesting way.
It is an unusual love story and you truly find the ways the two principle characters reach out to each other quite touching. But unlike many French romantic comedies, where people just think and feel, there are many surprising and titillating developments in the film. We can go from a naked Baya in the subway to memories of the Holocaust.
The film represents a lovely pastiche, medley and tapestry of the elements which make up modern France. It does so with very original characters and scenarios and is a real pleasure to watch. It makes some strong points about stereotypes, origins, perceptions yet presents it all in a quirky, sexy and intriguing way. Totally worth seeing!