luca-settembre Reviews

The Equalizer 3 (2023)

9 seconds to decide your fate...And grab a Kebab?

[11 January 2024]

The Equalizer 3 is the last chapter of the Equalizer franchise, and is directed by Antoine Foqua, and stars, of course, Denzel Washington as Robert McCall, and Dakota Fanning as a CIA officer.

As an action movie fan, I really enjoyed the Equalizer movies, still being aware that we are not talking about masterpieces. They are fun and enjoyable vigilante movies where Denzel Washington is freaking cool and badass as he takes down, alone, large and structured criminal organizations. Without the value he brings into these movies, I don't know if they would be even worth watching. The Equalizer 3 fits perfectly into this path, with some slight changes.

The first thing to say is that this movie is very very gory and brutal, much more compared to the first two movies. Clearly it was decided to go one level up, so one needs to be prepared. The movie looks very dark, the Italian Mafia gives sort of modernized Godfather vibes, and most importantly, is beautifully shot. All of that can be appreciated since the very beginning of the movie, where fantastic camera work is done as the viewer follows a man entering a building full of dead people, brutally murdered. This very intense initial scene really sets the tone of the movie, to which the music score also fits really well.

The movie is located in a tiny Italian village, whose people are constantly threatened by the mafia, where "business" brought McCall (Denzel), too. This is the third big action movie to be shot in Italy (after Indy 5 and Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning) to come out in theaters in 2023, at least that I know of. Whether or not this decision is based on financial benefits of some sort, it provided The Equalizer 3 with beautiful and picturesque scenery.

As an Italian and fan of Denzel Washington, it was really entertaining to watch Denzel Washington sitting at the cafe, talking broken Italian, making friends, getting familiar with the people and the quiet atmosphere of the town. I found the representation of the town and of the people authentic, very well done, and not too stereotypical. The Italian language is real Italian spoken by Italian actors, the accents are real, the film is shot in different Italian towns on the Amalfi coast, and so on. One can see the great attention to detail and care that was put into the making of this movie, which I mentioned above about the directing. I did have a "what?!" moment, though, that I could not wrap my head around: Aminah (Gaia Scodellaro) takes McCall on a tour of the village, by telling him that she'll help him discover the authentic food specialties of the town. As they go on a stroll and talk, they pass by some food stands, and Aminah shows McCall different authentic Italian dishes. Then, however, she invites him to grab a Kebab (great, but not Italian at all!), which he does! Seriously, what happened there? There was all that nice fish and stuff, too-why a Kebab??

I have read a lot of criticism about the action in this movie, especially about it being too little. The problem that I see with the action is with the fact that McCall is never really challenged by any of his enemies rather than with the length of the action scenes. In other words, none of the villains or his men are even close to Robert McCall's level, so it seems quite easy for him to take them down in creatively brutal ways. This applies, unfortunately, also to the ending of the movie, which is, anyway, very very powerful. Also, the non-action parts build the tension between McCall and the villain, and they are not boring at all.

Another weak point of the movie, from my point of view, has to do with some of the supporting characters and their relationship to the hero (McCall). Dakota Fanning's character (CIA) could have been a very good helper in the fight against the mafia, but instead she ends up not doing so much at all... Along with that, one aspect of McCall being in this town is the attachments that the townspeople form with him, but we actually don't have much evidence of this beyond him eating in a cafe once in a while. We do see McCall having an emotional response when they are threatened, we do see him getting comfortable in the town, but while a deeper layer to that is mentioned, the viewer doesn't directly witness this: for example, when McCall says that the people of the town brought him peace, or that he understood that this is the place where he belongs. All these sentiments sound a bit out of place and don't match the level of interactions that we as viewers have witnessed. We expect some deeper character development to happen in the "kebab"/walks scene, but the dialogue between McCall and Aminah doesn't actually build to anything relevant.

Overall, a very good and extremely brutal vigilante movie, with some weaknesses, very well shot, with a fantastic Denzel Washington doing very badass things. Worthwhile final chapter, 7 stars!

Oppenheimer (I) (2023)

"Oppenheimer" is an excellent film worth the hype surrounding it

[9/10 · 24 September 2023]

"Oppenheimer" is a movie telling the story of Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb. It stars, among others, Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Robert Downy Jr., Florence Pugh, and is directed by Christopher Nolan.

I would like to start with a few words about my theater experience, in Munich in original language: not only the theater, not a small one, was completely full, but also the tension and the concentration were palpable in the room, which was super silent from start to end and even extra seconds after that. This is not something you see often at the theater and tells a lot about the atmosphere surrounding this film.

The movie covers, with different levels of depth, many aspects of Oppenheimer's life story: his professional career, including the project leading to the development of the atomic bomb as well as the context surrounding that, his political beliefs, the allegations related to leakage of sensitive information, his private life, the moral issues related to the application of his work. The movie covers all of that in around three hours, and in a very fast pace.

"Oppenheimer" is packed with dialogue, so one needs to be prepared for it. These dialogues are everything but superficial. In fact, they are intense and relevant to the whole story. I believe that one or more rewatches will reveal to the viewer more and more details and allow for a deeper understanding of the movie: this is very typical of Nolan's works.

As mentioned, the film deals with the moral issue related to certain technological developments, a topic of extreme importance back then as well as nowadays. While doing that, it doesn't try to pick a side, to blame, to judge, to put people in the right or wrong side of history. It tells a complex story in a complex and still realistic way and it does that exceptionally. My wife and I post-processed the movie together after watching it, and we noticed how many questions and input for deep thinking the movie gave to us. I wish this kind of experience to all of "Oppenheimer"'s viewers.

One of the aspects of the movie that made us reflect a lot is how the different people involved think in very separate boxes. Scientists think as scientists, politicians as politicians, military as military, and so on: no bigger picture, no harmony in view of the common good as the Manhattan project, leading to the first nuclear weapon, is carried out.

As this project advances over multiple years, I noticed and appreciated the absence of a breakthrough moment related to Robert Oppenheimer's scientific activities: the brilliant intuition of the genius, typical of other movies dealing with great scientific achievements, suddenly cracking the problem in a burst of energy. This choice doesn't take away any tension from the story and adds even more realism. Oppenheimer understands how necessary other scientists and brilliant minds around him are for his research, and is very good at valuing and, when possible, taking the best out of them.

One of the turning points of the project and of the sequence of events is the Trinity test, whose representation is one of the best scenes of "Oppenheimer". These are a few minutes of rare intensity and graphically stunning, in which the viewer experiences the countdown leading to the nuclear explosion in an incredible climax. It almost seems that the countdown for the bomb matches the duration of the scene, making it even more intense and suspenseful for the viewer.

Everything just clicks in this movie: the story, the casting, the graphics / visual effects, the score, etcetera. I do have to say that in several points it is quite hard to understand what the people say, because the dialogues are drown in the sound effects or in the score. This is for sure done on purpose and makes the movie very dynamic: dialogues happen in a context full of other things, or people, or events and this is well portrayed in the movie. Still, one wishes to understand better what people are saying, especially in some parts.

Fantastic movie, 9 stars!

Cast Away (2000)

The tide brought Cast Away in!

[8/10 · 9 August 2023]

Cast Away is a movie from 2000, directed by Robert Zemeckis and starring Tom Hanks and Helen Hunt. It tells the story of a manager at FedEx (Chuck, Tom Hanks) who survives a plane crash into the sea and lands on a desert island, where he tries, day by day, to stay alive, hoping to be rescued by someone, somehow, some day.

Cast Away is not only a beautifully portrayed fight-for-survival story, but also an exploration of the human feelings connected to that. Love and loss, hope and desperation, loneliness and company, sorrow and gratefulness take the central role of the movie as the events play out and the viewer stands by Chuck in his fight for survival.

To do that, the movie doesn't only focus on the story on the island, but also takes the time to explore Chuck's everyday life in the time frame before the plane crash as well as the aftermath of the disaster. This is done in a chronological order and gives the movie a well-identifiable three-act kind of structure. While the first and last parts do have important roles in the movie, the dramatic core of the movie is to be found in the central part, where Chuck is alone on the island, and no other actor except Tom Hanks appears on screen. Here, even more than in the rest, he carries the whole movie with an excellent one-man-show performance.

Time passes and Chuck starts to learn how to get food and shelter on the island, kept emotionally alive by the memory of his beloved partner. He also starts talking to Wilson, an imagined character in the form of a volleyball found among the packages which were carried in the plane before the crash that reached the island as well. The relationship with Wilson becomes an important part of his life and a way for Chuck to externalize his thoughts and emotions. Later, Wilson is dropped into the open sea on Chuck's way to freedom, and in the way in which Chuck tries to recover him, we have by far the most intense sequence of the movie. Here, the fact that the viewer is so emotionally connected with this scene, even though what we are seeing is a man trying to recover a ball, tells you about how good of a job this movie does in taking the viewer into this extremely dramatic journey.

Chuck opens all the packages that have landed on the island, looking for useful items which could help him survive and/or look for help, except one, which is left unopen. This symbolizes the hope for him to be back to mainland one day and be able to deliver the package. While this plot point is used toward the end of the movie, I don't think this symbolism worked particularly well, or at least it didn't for me. It is carried further with the logo on the package - angel wings, but this makes it both a bit too obvious and too ambiguous. Why that package in particular? And what if that package could really save his life? Would you really take that chance? It feels a bit too stretched.

The movie is almost 2 and a half hours long and has a quite slow pace. Although this gives the movie a kind of everyday life rhythm, it does get a bit too slow in some parts, where feelings and interactions among the characters (especially Chuck and Kelly) feel a bit too stretched (similarly to the unopened package deal above, in a certain way), and I wished the movie could have moved on to the next part a bit sooner, because the main message was already well delivered. The same applies to the setup, where a lot of time is taken to get to know Chuck, his family, his job and his obsession for punctuality.

Through the dramatic events of the movie, it is interesting to observe Chuck's growth and path. We meet him as a successful FedEx manager, convinced that anything can be done in 87 hours. We leave him as a fragile man, dealing with existential questions and confronting the viewer with topics like time, destiny, on one's mission in life, on the fact that "tomorrow the sun will rise. Who knows what the tide could bring?".

Great movie! 8 stars!

Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One (2023)

Hold on to your hats! MI 7 - Part I will blow you away

[8/10 · 20 July 2023]

Mission Impossible - Dead Reckoning - Part I is the seventh installment of one the most well-conceived, consistent and loved action franchises. The work done in the last years with "Ghost Protocol", "Rogue Nation" and "Fallout" is remarkable, and "Dead Reckoning" fits perfectly in this virtuous path, giving the fans a spectacular and very entertaining movie.

The prologue sets up the story very well and presents Ethan Hunt's mission to recover two halves of a key capable, when together, to unlock unknown and world-changing powers for their owners. At the same time, although being a Part I, the movie has a very good ending and is somehow complete even if the story continues in Part II. This is not obvious at all: we have many examples of annoying "to be completed" cuts placed somewhere without a meaningful closure of the movie (Matrix Reloaded is an example). Dead Reckoning does not do that mistake at all.

For the first time in the franchise, Ethan and his team are confronted not only with a human villain (Gabriel), but also with fully digital one. The basic concept of the digital forces / machines gaining self-consciousness and taking over the control has been vastly explored in literature as well as in cinematography. Nevertheless, what is quite original and interesting here is that the movie explores the events possibly leading to that dystopian reality where machines are in control, and the fight to prevent that from happening, rather than to take down an already established technological power.

The plot is solid and well thought out. The story gets complicated in the understanding of the roles, double roles, changing sides, tricks, and objectives of the different characters rather than in the overall idea and logic, described above. It builds a solid framework for the action sequences, which all the MI fans are looking forward to. These are very exciting and brilliantly made, and Tom Cruise does exceptionally in these. There is no Mission Impossible without chases and the ones of Dead Reckoning Part I through the tiny streets of Rome really deliver! There is so much tension and fun, and the little moments of humor just make everything even better.

In different scenes, for example the Venice and the train sequence, the movie makes you think of the first Mission Impossible, and there is nothing wrong with that. Kettridge is also brought back from the first installment. Compared to previous installments, though, I think that the action is lacking some of the sneakiness which is typical of the IMF missions: penetrating some kind of impenetrable maximum security building or area without anybody to notice (at least until something goes haywire) is a typical example. Too little of that happens in Dead Reckoning: too much of the action is loud and messy from the start, or from too soon.

Being this movie a part I, it does a good job in setting up the story with moments of exposition. Nevertheless, I do think there's a bit too many of these moments, so that too much is explained, sometimes in a kind of repetitive / business meeting way. Some of these breaks from the action could have been used for a deeper exploration of the characters, for example. One of the themes of the movie, even if not really new in the MI legacy, is that this mission is going to involve and put in danger the people Ethan cares the most about. "Ethan, this mission is gonna cost you...dearly" (Kettridge). Spending a bit more time on the characters and on Ethan's relationship with them would have made this theme more original and real: we could have seen how much Ethan cares about his friends, instead of just knowing it, we could have connected a bit more on an emotional level with the things at stake.

One last note. I have watched this movie one week after having watched the fifth Indiana Jones (Dial of Destiny) and I was surprised by the amount of similarities: both plots revolve around finding two pieces of an object that must not fall in the wrong hands, since it gives access to unimaginable power. One of the fights, on top of a moving train, looks very very similar. Both Indy and Ethan end up driving an Italian vintage car, in Italy...What happened there? Is it just a coincidence or were the studios talking to each other? Independently of the answer, I don't think there is one single thing that Indy 5 does better than Dead Reckoning.

8 Stars!

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)

Enjoyable imperfection

[7/10 · 18 July 2023]

Short version: I went with my wife to watch this movie at the theater, and we enjoyed ourselves a lot! Indy 5 is a fun movie, far from being comparable with the majesty of the original trilogy, but also with the terrible fourth installment, Crystal Skull.

Long version.

Premise: Indiana Jones is one of those very few movies / franchises which are not only super famous and iconic, but also created a special emotional attachment with the viewers. When I talk to people or friends about Indiana Jones, very quickly we find ourselves talking about our childhood, the family nights, the VHS being ruined due to the amount of time it is being played. The consequence of that is that a fifth Indy movie is destined to disappoint, unless you are able to moderate your expectations and realize that this movie is not going to bring you back to your childhood.

That being said, let's talk about Indy 5.

The good things

The fantastic score. The day that John Williams will leave us is going to be a sad, sad day and a tragedy for cinema. I loved that they reused some of the themes from "Raiders of the Lost Ark".

The first 20 minutes of the movie are so enjoyable and fun, and so Indiana Jones. They are packed with action and humor as "young" Indiana Jones tries to recover the spear of Longinus (wow!) from a train full of Nazis.

The nostalgia references to the other Indiana Jones movies. There are so many of them and they are a friendly wink to Indiana Jones fans. They are not thrown into your face as happens in other franchises (e.g. The references to the first Jurassic Park in the third "Jurassic World", a real torture). They are delicate and thought out. Indy is old and this is not hidden or ignored. He carries the weight of his past adventures as well as of a troubled private life.

The action sequences are well-done and really exciting. The chases are remarkable, and both Harrison Ford and Phoebe Waller-Bridge are great in these. I have to say, some of that looks a bit more Mission Impossible than Indiana Jones...Also, isn't Ethan Hunt in MI 7 also driving an Italian vintage car, in Italy?

Some sequences work less than others. The low moments of "Dial of Destiny", though, are just OK, they don't reach even closely how bad some "Crystal Skull" moments are. So, at the end we have a fun movie with highs and lows but very enjoyable.

The bad things

Some elements of this movie build up to something that doesn't happen, like a climax that never really peaks into anything. One of the examples is the giant muscular villain guy, who makes you dream of a final epic battle with Indy (like in "Raiders" and "Temple of Doom").

I think the ideas brought into the finale are very good, but I found the result quite anticlimatic, and one would expect a more active and impactful Indiana Jones in it. One could counterargument that Indy doesn't do much in the "Raiders" finale either, "but that doesn't mean you have to like it" (cit.).

Some story parts are mentioned and not developed. For examples, Indy's friend Renaldo (Banderas) is a fun guy but, quite an underdeveloped character, so we honestly don't care so much about him.

Few lines on the ok or not great parts. I think the story definitely belongs to this category. Although being solid and much better than the "Crystal Skull" one, it is also far from the quality of any of the story plots of the original trilogy. I also think that some sequences (like the dive and the part in Syracuse) could have been compressed into something shorter, and eventually use the time (and the budget?) for a less anticlimactic finale. On the same line, I find that some of the plot points are recycled without added value. I also did not enjoy how (many!) times in the movie the villains make giant messes in public places without consequences. Not very sneaky for post-war Nazis trying to get in possession of rare artefacts!

7 stars! My final personal ranking: 1. Last Crusade 2. Raiders of the Lost Ark 3. Temple of Doom 4. Dial of Destiny 5. Crystal Skull.

Everest (2015)

"Ever-rest" is aptly named

[6/10 · 5 April 2021]

Everest is based on the story of the 1996 expedition to climb Mount Everest gone wrong, causing several casualties.

The first hour of the movie, which should have set up the story as well as a good foundation of characters' background, doesn't do any of that. It mostly consists of airport and travel scenes, goodbyes, and mini dialogues about previous mountain experiences. All of that ends up to be a very boring and shallow first part of the movie, which thus lacks intensity. This is especially important to know, because in the second half, when things become tragic, the viewer does not feel an emotional attachment to the characters, because he barely knows them.

Within that, the characters are extremely flat and none of the actors' performances stand out. For example, Jake Gyllenhaal's part could have been played by anybody else. Having stars in the movie did not contribute to its quality, only to its notoriety.

In the second part, things start to go downhill (storms, avalanches, lack of equipment resulting in deaths, etc.) and the movie changes pace. In some sequences, the movie gets more intense, like the helicopter rescue and the husband and wife farewell over the phone. However, the movie doesn't make the step from telling a very dramatic story to emotionally involving the viewer in it.

That being said, the whole movie is supported by the spectacular Everest landscaping. 6 out of 10.