GIFF 2017

This movie aimed for you to feel like sh*t and I guess it succeeded. I'm not so sure if I liked it though. I definitely didn't like the titular character. Honestly she kinda f'king deserved what she got in towards the ending. I also didn't like how the film was shot at all. No stationary shots, no steadicam and I think the lens was zoomed in in every shot. The first half had me suffering headaches because of it. So probably a movie that I'll never watch again. But it did a good job on what it was trying to do.

The documentary was generally decent. Not amazing but not bad by any means. I liked the sequencing and I liked the combining with old and new footage. But I'm really unsure about what message the film was trying to convey. My initial thought is that the filmmakers love Zlatan and that it was made in tribute. But he came off as the biggest a**hole of all time. I love football but I hate players like these - selfish, arrogant divas. So like Cristiano Ronaldo, Neymar & young Zlatan. He's way more mature now but if he was that age now I would loathe him. And this aspect kind of made the documentary suffer a bit.

I liked this movie. It succeeded what it was going for in both story and tone. The characters were three-dimensional and likeable. The acting and directing were good. And I was never bored. I'm not sure it'll be that memorable though since nothing struck me as amazing. When you watch a ton of movies in a row under the span of 2 weeks the movies has to stick out with something - like last year's A Monster with a Thousand Heads - and this wasn't one of them.

It was a nice documentary. I liked that everything unfolded so seemingly naturally. The director was there so I asked her about how she filmed it. She answered that she didn't have the camera with her at all times capturing the direct aftermath of what was going on, but that things appeared to unravel when the camera was brought out anyway. Good work either way. The subject matter was also interesting and the movie was never boring.

Pointless, pretentious and boring. The movie looked as if it was made for a buck. There were so many shots in which the camera followed a character walking for several minutes and in these shots you could literally see every step the cameraman was taking, it was really distracting and became really annoying. And the only moment of artistic merit in the film was in my opinion an attempt to copy Tarkovsky. I can't say I've ever seen That being done before but the way it was presented made me feel as if it was trying to do just that - copying Tarkovsky. The whole movie surrounding that was utter pointlessness. Characters would go places, do things, watch things, or just be around. And that one scene in the first act made me think that the director only made the movie so that he would have an excuse to film guy on guy fellatio. You can claim that it's art if you want to but I'm not buying it. Don't watch this film.

A movie that was much more tame than what I'd expected. It had some good moments but overall it was the definition of average. I also didn't like the comic relief lawyers, they didn't add anything to the story at all. My favourite part was when Michael Shannon showed up and he only showed up for like 2 minutes. And talk about a underwhelming Oscar nomination for Ruth Negga. Please tell me, at what point in the film did her acting deserve a nod more than Amy Adams? I can only assume that she was nominated because "Oscars so white" - f'king cry-babies. Sh*t happens! Listen to what Ice Cube has to say about it. Going in to this film I was expecting a raw, brutal and heart-wrenching depiction of the American south in the fifties. Instead I got an Oscar bait filled to the brim with mediocracy.

Probably the best movie I've seen so far on the festival. Some scenes were a little too long but the length was mostly justified. The acting was really great and the cinematography and shot composition was fantastic. There was one shot in particular in the end that was exceptional. However for most of the film I was a bit distracted by something that happened in the theatre during the beginning of the film: So as a volunteer my job is to let people into screenings, present the film, watch the film and then let people out, and doing this I'm given certain rules such as not letting people in once the film has started. So about 20 minutes after the film has started I see a guy walking into the theatre. And because I don't want to disturb the paying customers I take him outside to ask what's up. This man tells me that he's the director of Manifesto - after looking him up I can verify that it indeed was him. Well I still have rules that I need to follow regardless of who I'm talking to - because I believe that both regular film-goers and film directors are worth the same treatment in these situations. He tells me that one of the project leaders of the festival told him to go and see this movie at this time. Okay if that was only the case then it'd be no problem. However not only are you 20 minutes late but the screening is sold out. I try to explain this to him but he's extremely persistent to a point where I believe he told me not to act so "high and mighty". I get a bit annoyed because you were also acting kind of "high and mighty" at this point telling me that a project leader told you to com here and that you know the director. And because he was being so persistent I call my supervisor to clear things up for both of us. She comes up and tells him that it's okay because there is an empty seat available. I felt a bit cheated here but after speaking to her later not so much. Because she was under the impression that you were the director of this movie. And she told me that you first told her that you were the director of Manifesto when I called her up. So far the entire core of the problem is just failure of communication, mostly from your part. The project leader telling you to just show up at a screening and you'll get in whatever the case and you interpreting this as "I can be 20 minutes late to a sold out screening and they'll still let me in even if Ill be sitting i the stairway" Yes he actually proposed this to me even though that would be a safety hazard that surely would've gotten me fired. And then you telling my supervisor that you're the director without specifying which one and her understandably interpreting this as you being the director of The Woman who Left and not some other random film. So now you've finally gotten your will through, congratulations. Let us both sit down and just enjoy the entire movie. But the guy then leaves after 1,5 hours rather than watching the entire film. What a f'king a**hole. So after basically forcing yourself into the screening so that you can talk to Lav Diaz about his film you felt it appropriate to leave after less than half of the film has passed? Later that evening two guys were late to a screening after their last screening was significantly delayed. We told these paying customers that we can't let people into a film after its start and the seats are filled. And these PAYING customers were completely understanding and reasonable and left. You abused your star power after realising I'm not going to let you in disrespecting the festivals rules and me as a person and then pretty much giving me the middle finger right to my face. I don't like you. Sorry about this rant but the happening had me distracted throughout the movie.