A friend of mine told me this movie was awful. He was wrong. It would have to improve to be awful. Before I saw this a herd of people told me it was great or it was hot garbage but ALL of these "reviews" did not prepare me for what this movie is.
I kept hearing about all the "horrific violence" and while there is violence? It is pretty run of the mill by movie standards (Dead Pool anyone?). Every character who meets their end in this movie? You know it is coming the moment you see them and you should be able, in all but one case, to guess the MANNER of that death. For all the talk of how over the top it is? This movie's main failing is that it DOESN'T get anywhere near the "top", let alone go over it. I wonder if stuff wound up on the cutting room floor.
Then there is the rancid ideology. The rich are bad and indifferent and the poor are violent marauders (there are rioters carrying "Resist" signs). Also? Bruce Wayne's dad is now a dick. If this wasn't enough? The film tosses in some "this film is about access to mental health" crap. As if this movie really has something to stay. Id respect it more if it was all bloody mayhem with less whining. Therd are, however, lots of shout outs that will make wanna-be school shooters feel warm and fuzzy.
And stop telling me the acting is great. Joaquin Phoenix giggles and struts through this dull witted, lunk headed movie. How anyone found this half.assed cross between Death Wish, The King of Comedy and a comic book origin story to be interesting is a mystery for our times.
I've hated movies before and changed my mind. I am not betting on it here.
Ford vs Ferrari
Personally I care more about someone else's toe jam than any kind of car racing. And yet, somehow, I was interested in this movie from start to finish and there is a LOT of car racing going on here.
Christian Bale delivers his usual stellar performance and Matt Damon is supremely likeable (even if his accent changes here and there). The interaction between Bale's character and his son are brief but supremely memorable. It is a long movie but I never noticed the time. Ford Vs. Ferrari keeps the plot fairly simple but manages to give us enough detail that friends who ARE racing nerds also liked the film.
And they make everyone at Ford, especially Henry Ford II, look like assholes.
When you make a black comedy about Hitler Youth, it had better be funny and it had better be dark, not cute.
I didn't laugh once in this movie. I didn't even chuckle.
"Aren't those little Nazis A-DORRRRABLE!!" is simply not something anyone should ever think. Somehow, the film manages to not seem offensive. It is well put together and the actors do a great job making this thing palatable. What the point someone thought this was making is terrifying though. If you make a Nazi gay is he then sympathetic? Is a chubby child hauling a tank killer into battle cute? Fun? Ironic? Because it happened and the ending wasn't happy.
This movie should have ended with all the kinds blown to bits by a Russian tank. Then I would have had some respect because it would have woken the audience up.
I have no interest in a Hitler Youth feel good movie where the protagonist's imaginary friend is Adolph Hitler. I have no use for making Nazi Germany seem quaint.
A movie like this should make you uneasy but it doesn't.
I tried to watch this three times. I'm sick of the style. I'm sick of the actors in roles that seem super familiar. I'm sick of the subject matter.
I might have gotten through it in the theater.
I did get through Marriage Story.
I had a lot of hope after the beginning and this is a good movie. It paces a situation spiraling out of control withngreat skill. But the "crazy Los Angeles" stuff was sort of forced or at least it seemed like I'd seen it in half a dozen movies (or in every movie) about Los Angeles. Not bad, just familiar. Likewise the New York theater stuff.
But whenever it gets away from pouring that stuff on and into the characters it sucks you in. You get the characters even if you may not like them (personally if I met any of them Id say "I have to go to the restroom" and they'd never see me again). But that isn't a KNOCK, it illustrates that they really succeeded at creating these characters.
I kept thinking "Woody Allen" but not in the usual way we think of him these days. I also don't mean his older, funny movies. I mean the mean, ugly ones (although there is humor in this to be sure but it is super dark).
It seems to work best when fewer characters are on screen. I wrote "on the stage" initially which may be Freudian. Is it stagey or is it that it starts of in New York with a theater company?
I keep circling over this movie like a vulture trying to make out its meal. Is this an old tire? Or a dead dog (from a vulture's perspective the latter is preferable). It is an uncomfortable movie and it is really good at being that.
I stopped writing more because it gave things away but let's just say after this movie I felt like I'd gone through an ugly divorce.
The best thing about this movie for me was that I saw it in a theater full of people who had not seen (I'm guessing) any films directed or written by Bong Joon Ho or any Korean movies in general.
This film is pretty funny....until it suddenly is not funny at all. Hearing the audience fail to make the transition with the movie was fascinating.
But enough amateur psychology.
This is a movie that really looks at the relationship between rich and poor. While it is specific to Korean the examination crosses cultural boundaries. The acting is outstanding, the pacing is perfect and the film is a marvel of cinematography.
You laugh at something, then later, when the implications become clear? You are ashamed of yourself. The film paints an oddly sympathetic portrait of all the characters, even the rather disreputable main characters and it BEGS you to try and decide who is (or are) the parasites.
I really want to find a glaring flaw in this movie but I cannot. Like most of the male gender I really didn't want to see this movie. I've seen two previous adaptations and while they didn't make me want to poke my eyes out? I wasn't itching to relive them
The casting is so perfect here, the acting so touching and the pacing so well thought out that when I walked out of the theater I thought "I would go see this again tomorrow."
Saoirse Ronan never seems to be acting in any of her movies. I forget her and only see her character and she is joined in that here especially by Timothée Chalamet and Florence Pugh. The film is funny, sad, romantic and perfectly put together.
Sure you know who will wind up with whom out of the gate but that is almost comforting. I honestly kept thinking of all the shitty romcoms of the past 20 years and how they should up their game in the next 20 years be forgetting "When Harry Met Sally" and stealing from this. They won't succeed but the product would improve.
Men, I know that you might not like the title but go. Bring a date, she will realize how sensitive you are whe she sees you getting teary eyed.
Two soldiers are sent out to warn a commander that he is leading 1500 men to their certain deaths.
And OFF they go.
You do not need much more plot than that in this movie that uses camera work and especially exceptionally long shots to follow the characters on this fast paced journey. There is something mythical about it, almost like some ancient Greek story. They interact with various characters briefly as time flies past.
Some actors here make an impression with barely five minutes of screen time. It isn't all about the camera. The film also does nothing to glamorize war which is the failing of the vast majority of war movies.
No sane person would want to be in this movie.
This isn't Dunkirk, which looked at individuals from almost on high, on a grand, sweeping scale. This is all down in the muck and is a memorable film.
Once Upon a Time in America
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is Quentin Tarantino's latest "this should have happened THIS WAY" movies that rewrite history with fictional characters.
I wish this was real.
Brad Pitt is the handsomest character actor in film history. That really seems to be what he does best, not leading man roles. Someone mentioned this to me and I went back through his movies and damned if it isn't true (not that he doesn't have fine lead roles, he just excels at the supporting ones). I honestly think us film fans do not give him the credit he deserves because he is so damned good looking.
He should win the Oscar.
Leonardo di Caprio is solid as are all the smaller performances but the other standout, aside from Pitt, is Margot Robbie. She exudes sweetness and humanity as Sharon Tate. And really to move from this role to that of a violent cartoon character that will shortly take up a lot of her career speaks to her range. Her performance, low key though it is, is a marvel.
Tarantino makes movies that are unmistakable, that are impossible to rip off of copy (although folks sure try). This does not mean every single effort is GOOD. But they are always aiming high. You just feel as an audience member, that the people making the movie CARED. It wasn;t just a paycheck.