siderite Reviews

Bad Boys: Ride or Die (2024)

Bad move: avoid or die

[5/10 · 24 July 2024]

I am going to go ahead and call this is really bad movie. The jokes fell flat, the action needed ten camera switches per scene to make them not look stupid, the story was dumb. But what really hurt is that the actors were either playing poorly or were completely underused. Will Smith phoned it in, Martin Lawrence was talking and moving slowly like he had dementia, Alexander Ludwig and Eric Dane were completely underused, even Ioan Gruffudd.

The same kind of people that thought a sequel to Beverly Hills Cop was a good idea made this movie. And it is worse! At first I saw some kind of character development, acknowledging the same two heroes cannot go through life behaving the same way at their age. They stopped doing that in about ten minutes and proceeded to make something that absolutely no one seemed to be having fun in. It was plain terrible.

Bottom line: avoid this film.

Bad Words (2013)

Entertaining, but ultimately pointless

[6/10 · 22 July 2024]

Why did I watch this? That was the feeling that I had when the movie ended. It wasn't that I was not entertained, it's that I felt I had learnt nothing. There is a pointlessness in the story of the film what can be both strength and weakness, but I felt it was a weakness.

The story is that of an adult who manages to enlist in the national children's spelling bee contest on a technicality, for reasons unfathomable, to the ire and disgust of every adult he meets. He is sponsored by a reporter who wants to get the story, but our hero is keeping his cards close to the chest and not explaining his motivations. But even as the script sets this mystery up, you know it's going to be a simple answer. There will be no heist of the crown diamond here. And then there is a sweet Indian child who is also a competitor in the spelling bee. That's about it. There are some other characters, but the main main ones are Jason Bateman's character and the Indian kid.

And perhaps here lies the problem. While their interaction is funny and heartwarming, these characters are not actually doing anything. There is an attempt of showing growth on both sides, but what comes off is two dudes hanging out until the story gets to its finale. So many other scenes in the film feel the same way, like they are there only to prolong the run time. And there is a lot of potential here: the parents angry of this grown man smashing their kids' dreams, the contest officials threatened by this man stepping all over their authority, the rivalry between the man and the kids, the weird romantic vibe that comes off as creepy between him and the reporter woman. Things could have been done here!

Instead, characters are barely sketched, including the main ones, to the point that you don't care about them, regardless of the good acting that goes on. Even playing an insignificant role, Allison Janney steals a lot of the show, for example.

Bottom line: an intriguing premise written poorly, acted well, maybe even directed well, but ultimately without meaning.

Mars Express (2023)

Interesting sci-fi story done in the only medium sci-fi can be safely done today: animation

[8/10 · 18 July 2024]

Animation has several great advantages that live action movies will never have, like creative freedom, lower costs, less studio interference in some cases, but I suspect the greatest of them all is that there are no prima donnas to show their faces for millions of dollars.

Anyway, this is a very cool sci-fi film, a combination of Asimov's robots and Blade Runner. Most of the ideas in it are not very subtle, but the story and world building are solid. The animation is pretty basic, European style, and I believe if this would have been animated by the Japanese or even by the Americans it would have had a greater impact.

I am glad to have watched it and recommend it warmly. It's not like a masterpiece or anything, but it's good sci-fi, focused on story, world building and characters. Refreshing nowadays.

Monkey Man (2024)

A strong critique of Indian society intertwined with good action scenes, good direction and acting

[9/10 · 15 July 2024]

The "Indian John Wick" moniker does not help this movie. First of all, this is an American movie, written by, directed by and starring Dev Patel, who was born in London. Second of all, this is at once more and less than John Wick, being an action movie only for having action scenes in it. In fact, this is a journey movie, possibly more akin to Green Knight than to John Wick.

That being said, the action scenes were almost perfect. It's kind of obvious when Dev is fighting and when his double does, but everything is filmed with a purpose, both story-wise and in visual language. Maybe Patel will never become an action star, but I think he already proved he can be a great director.

Yet the story of societal corruption, of systemic oppression and demagogical inciting of hate and fear for political and financial reasons is strong in this film. It's about India, but in truth it can be extended to any of the countries proudly declaring themselves democracies while crushing the weakest amongst them into ground. Where John Wick was all about form, this is a lot more about substance, rooted in culture, personal motivation, mythical symbolism.

Bottom line: while one can easily tuck this under "revenge action movie" it is one of the better ones, a fully fledged film scoring very well in the categories of production values, directing, acting, story, special effects, action scenes and message. Bravo, Dev Patel!

The Bikeriders (2023)

A modern Easy Rider

[8/10 · 14 July 2024]

Good acting and a raw approach to what is essentially a photo album with attached interviews save this film from being average. Although studded with a stellar cast, none of the actors are playing it to shine above others, they just tell the story, with great yet subdued performances. The story is important to know, to not forget the past, what it held, how we grew, but also what we lost in the process.

The film follows a journalist taking a series of interviews from the wife of a biker in a gang. Through her eyes we see how the biker culture got started, what it meant, how it took a life of it own and did its own thing. While having some violent scenes in it, the film is not really a violent one, just a bit punk. There are a lot of similarities between the people finding a family in their chopper riding friends and the hippies, all disconnected people who yearn for community in a world that is moving away from them and actively works to stifle their passion.

It was interesting to see how my wife took it. She is smart and she studies psychology and stuff, much better than me at understanding people, but I could see that the visceral feeling of the ideas in the film made her feel threatened. I don't think she realized it. She perceived the sadness of the people in the film, but also was very glad with the way it ended, becoming a true avatar of the female character in the film. How did I take it? I understood that need for brotherhood, the strong connections between men being men together, the loss of meaning and meaning of loss for people the world arbitrarily chose to reject. Yet I am too domesticated to see it as more than a curiosity, a way of being that ceased to be viable in the modern era. How could one sit all day on a bike without listening to a podcast, at least? They had no wi-fi!

Bottom line: it gave me feelings similar to Easy Rider and On The Road. It's one of those stories that ignites parts of us we forgot could be there. I think it's necessary to feel all this, perhaps without the overwhelming hopeless feeling that it is a part of us that can never be healed :) Perhaps not the most entertaining of films, but a good one.

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024)

Afterlife was a fluke, apparently

[6/10 · 12 July 2024]

I was so excited after Ghostbusters: Afterlife , that the original people are involved in it, that the story was good, that that characters had potential, it was a Ghostbuster renaissance! So imagine my frustration to watch this sequel fall into all the traps a sequel can fall into.

First of all: the story. It made no sense. It felt like the regurgitated ectoplasm of Slimer after eating the previous 4 movies (we will not consider THAT one). Random ancient evil, some new gadgets, some new characters, but it really really felt like they were just dropping them from somewhere. I like both Kumail Nanjiani and Patton Oswalt, but they were not needed in this film. I love the original cast, but they were shoehorned in without any relevance to the plot. And they were putting more and more stuff in, hoping against hope that we would connect with at least one: Slimer, the fire poles, the EPA inspector now made mayor, the secretary, more and more people that did nothing and meant nothing. They added teenage angst, step parent desperation, all the characters they could think of. In the end it was a bloated mess generating no empathy and no thrills. And so many of the ideas they added... they did NOTHING with them.

Second of all: the characters. After they added them, they did NOTHING with them. The only one that had any impact on me was Emily Alyn Lind's character. Don't get me wrong, they did nothing with her either, but at least she made some kind of sense.

Final nail in the coffin: the special effects. Oh, they were not bad, I bet the SFX team was pretty proud of themselves, but almost none of the effects were serving the story one bit. The things that should have been terrifying were not. The things that were supposed to be funny were! They presented several interesting ghosts, but the only ones who did anything were either the red shiny dot Possessor or the one that finally did something and the effect of it was left off screen. A lot of them did absolutely NOTHING. It had the effect of a Matrix level of Chekhov's guns in a romantic comedy where none of them get fired.

Bottom line: an astonishing level of wasted potential! It's the equivalent of leaving a small child in a room full of toys and him playing with the ambulance siren the whole time. This movie felt like an object from which all psychic energy was extracted: it had no soul.

The Primevals (2023)

Was it a tribute or a joke?

[5/10 · 11 July 2024]

This is a film made from a sci-fi story of the '50s, started in the '70s, finished in the '90s and released in 2023, 25 years after the death of the writer/director who was in fact a stop motion animation guy. The only real actor in the film is Juliet Mills, the script is bad, the story laughable, everything is really ridiculous.

As one other reviewer noticed, my brain couldn't understand how was this was not in black and white. But at the same moment, I had these flashes of recognition: the low tech, the stop motion, the particular type of dialog, the obsolete scientific ideas and so on. I can't imagine someone work 50 years on this film and not realize how ridiculous it was. So I choose to believe it was a throwback satire thing, a set up for Mist3k, a loving reminder of the ways old cinema was.

Unfortunately. The film seems to take itself seriously, so I can't really recommend it even for the drunken fun nights with your mates. It was a surreal experience for sure.

Isolation (2005)

Decent for its budget

[7/10 · 11 July 2024]

The budget for this is really small. They got whatever few actors they could find and filmed this "isolated" movie on a farm. The main points of the film are disgusting entrail action and bloody births in a dirty Irish farm. The actors did a good job, the film is really creepy, but again, it's only average for its budget, otherwise I would not recommend it.

Probably something that goes against it is the creature design. It was made with the idea of making it cheap to make and viscerally repulsive to see, but it doesn't make any functional sense, therefore it breaks suspension of disbelief. Then the actual threat of the thing is double: one that only makes sense in the here and now and one that is long term. Either of them would have been fine, but together they don't really mix.

Bottom line: creepy, yes, disgusting, yes, but also slow and featuring characters that are never developed further than their role. Any of the ideas in the movie could have been expanded into an interesting story, but here they are just mashed together without actually creating a whole.

Sting (2024)

Predictable spider movie, interesting characters, could have been shorter

[7/10 · 10 July 2024]

The second movie in as many days where a bunch of people are locked in a cheap building no one gives a damn about with killer spiders running around. The first one was Vermines, but this is slightly better, mostly because characters are more fleshed out, their motivations a bit more credible.

The pacing is what I thought was the problem with the movie. Short predictable scenes of spider mayhem interspersed with rather boring scenes of personal and familial feelings. Once the characters were defined, which was good, these scenes continued, making things drag too long.

The spider biology problem (how are spiders doing those incredible things) was neatly solved by having it come from space or something like that. But then the monster behaved exactly like a spider. There was no subtlety there, no dynamic between the alien creature and the human feeding it while it was tiny, and so on. I felt it was a missed opportunity, especially since the spider could copy some sounds it would hear. Was it a larger story, simplified later for a script? Perhaps.

Bottom line: it's a typical horror film, nothing special, following the same "monster bad, family good, random people food" pattern, complete with a final scene teasing a possible sequel. It's not bad and it's partially entertaining, but nothing to write home about.

Infested (2023)

Derivative, but good effort. A bit stupid.

[6/10 · 9 July 2024]

The dismissed and discriminated poor, but courageous French youth battling insanely poisonous and fast replicating spiders in one of the buildings at some city periphery is a clear mashup between two well established genres. The result is mediocre, with a slow setup that makes little sense, a lot of characters that had no reason to exist and others that were ignored - hah, ironic! - too much and a plot that is as full of holes as a burst spider eggs sac. The special effects were good, the acting was decent. It was the script that was the problem, especially the ending.

Bottom line: this film could have achieved much more with much less. As such we got way too many spiders and way too little character development. The ending was atrocious, pretty much invalidating a lot of the good stuff that happened before (or validating the bad stuff), then veering in a nonsensical feel good ending. Decent effort, but ultimately failed.

IF (I) (2024)

Condescending AF (see what I did there?)

[4/10 · 9 July 2024]

There is a saying writers have: show, don't tell. However, I am sure you're been in the situation of being shown something so bluntly, with the accompanying soundtrack that tells you EXACTLY how you're supposed to feel, with the talented actors making amazing emoting faces that take enormous skill and yet look like a clown trying to please a three year old, that you understand there is showing and then there's showing. IF is a mechanical thing, lacking anything that might make it beautiful or artistic, except perhaps the special effects. Personally, though, I feel that without a story and true characterization SFX don't amount to anything.

Unfortunately, IF assumes that this film will be watched by brain dead kids who will just enjoy whatever the computer generates for them. It's the expensive version of that YouTube video of creepy colorful blobby thing with big eyes singing a repetitive song that keeps children under 5 in check at restaurant tables. It doesn't need a good actor as the lead, it can feature whatever it wants, because the soundtrack is going to tell you how to feel and the pastel imaginary creatures (that somehow still manage to come off condescending) are going to be cute. And their hapless parents are going to pay for this IQ lowering exercise because, well, they don't have a choice.

This is the story of [character played by (Cailey Fleming who played in the millionth Walking Dead spinoff and some Star Wars) who sees the forgotten imaginary friends of children who grew up and, helped by Ryan Reynolds, tries to match them up with other kids. This fails, only on a level that the writers probably never noticed it was ironic as hell: if new kids would somehow adopt the imaginary friends of previous kids, then there would be less new imaginary friends. It would be just an endless recycling of old content without any creativity. How is that for unintentionally funny? Also inconsistent, because the film says every kid has an IF (ugh!) so trying to match all the forgotten ones with the psychotic kids that never had one would have been pointless to begin with.

Then there is a twist, but one that makes little sense, and an ending that makes even less sense.

Bottom line: Condescending to the point of being insulting, using great talent for atrocious work, a downright bad movie that wouldn't be funny even when drunk or stoned. And one that I am sure will be a hit. Because parents don't need their imaginary friends back, they need a choice in the matter.

Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F (2024)

A solid block of nostalgia

[7/10 · 9 July 2024]

I was actually thinking of a comedy routine involving the Beverly Hills Cop theme song and wondering if any of the people in the audience would even know what I am talking about. Next week, bam! I find out that a new Beverly Hills Cop movie came out. Is it good? It's not bad. And it hits the right spot for 80's nostalgia, while also looking like another cash grab using the last ounce of recognizability of washed out actors.

The original cast is made out of people over 60, with John Ashton being 76. Add in two young-er people and Kevin Bacon (to cut out the middlemen) and hit all the chords of the original and you've got yourself a movie. Someone probably fleshed out the script in 30 minutes while sitting on the toilet. Soundtrack? Check. Original cast? Check. Same jokes, slightly updated? Check. Beverly Hills rich weirdos and mansions? Check. Police car chasing big trucks that smash everything but hit no one? Double check.

While it is not a bad movie, it is pretty much a by the numbers script, lacking any sort of original thought or attempt at innovation or evolution. The characters are doing the same things and saying and acting the same as 40 years ago, which is enjoyable for us old farts, but a pretty sad state of affairs for the characters and their actors. Can you imagine just getting older while never changing in any other meaningful way? Ugh.

Bottom line: a meaningless yet pleasant stroll on memory lane.

It Follows (2014)

Nice idea, but totally overhyped

[5/10 · 28 June 2024]

It Follows is about an it that follows. Someone thought sexualizing and weaponizing a childhood game was a good idea. Well, not bad, but the problem with this film is that this idea is the only thing going for it. Inspired by 80's horror movies, but very low budget, it features the usual ragtag group of teens who would never be believed by adults while fighting a supernatural evil. This terrible thing is sexually transmitted and all it does (until the end of the film) is walk. Really really slowly. While the kids are really really dumb.

I would have rated it high if the group of friends would have tried various obvious methods to determine the limitations and weaknesses of the evil entity, failed, thus making it truly terrifying. But they did not. Even when clues were coming towards them accidentally, they ignored them in favor of a much more effective running scared crying. Thus, the entity remains just a poor metaphor and a mostly mysterious thing, giving the viewer no resolution, but also no real terror.

There was so much hype about this film, probably because it made so much more money than went into it, a new Blair Witch thing, perhaps. And obviously there will be a sequel. Let's see if more money and attention will make this a better film, because the original is not really good.

Bottom line: the only thing slower than the walking entity is the pacing of the film. An idea that gets explained in 10 minutes of exposition from a random character we then almost never see again is stretched into an hour and a half of people not even trying to understand the deadly threat following them. The more I think about it the lower I rate it, so I'd better stop here.

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024)

I can find no fault with it

[10/10 · 27 June 2024]

This is an action movie, and it's filled with action. This is a Mad Max movie, and it has the style of the original Mad Max movies as well as a dash of Fury Road. It is a prequel to Fury Road, and its ending fits right in the beginning of that film. The cast is great. The story is great. The acting is great. It is female lead, not that it matters, but it's still very very good. I am trying to find some fault with this film and I cannot.

I liked Anya Taylor-Joy in this film a lot as I liked her in many of her other movies, she is a wonderful actress and perfect for the role, but the crown has to go to Chris Hemsworth. He was a completely different person, like a mash between Guy Pearce and John Travolta, but in a deliciously good way. He stole the stage. He was just amazing! When I first saw Tom Burke I thought he didn't fit the movie; instead he shone bright, which is hard for his style of acting. Even the actors for the little roles did great.

The story seamlessly combines its own style, with more story and less action - although there's plenty of it, with the beginning of Mad Max: Fury Road. No wonder, since Miller actually wrote the plot as a background story to Fury Road when he made the film. The guy had almost ten years to think this through and make it perfect and it shows. What a difference between this and the conveyor belt scripts cocaine addled hacks bring forth these days.

I just watched the film and I am still a little bit in shock. I hardly expected a great movie, but I got one. And it felt like the people working on this had FUN! I don't know, do you have to be Australian to bring this energy to the screens?

Anyway, watch it. Even my wife loved it. She didn't get it, but she loved it.

The Promised Neverland (2020)

What the hell were those wigs?! :D

[6/10 · 27 June 2024]

After watching the anime, I can say that the film is pretty much scene for scene taken from the first season. Some details were slightly changed, some scenes removed, which kind of takes away from the smartness of the story, but what can you do in just two hours. And it feels like it was actually adapted from the anime, not the manga, even if it adds some elements that are relevant only to the rest of the story.

That being said, what the hell were those wigs?! All the "children" were wearing wigs that just looked plastered on their heads. You could have just used normal hair, ffs! There is nothing wrong with "recasting" the hair.

Bottom line: same story, but a bit lackluster. I recommend just watching the first season of the anime and stop there.

Persona (1966)

Women are crazy, but trying to review this is crazier

[9/10 · 25 June 2024]

The second experimental psychological film I see in as many days, both intentionally obtuse and letting the viewer "come with their own interpretation", but this one felt good. The sharpness, the closeups, the acting, the Jungian symbolism... you just know that, even if it is hopeless trying to determine what the film is about, at least it's a good one. Bergman said as much, when he said he wants the film to be felt rather than understood. There is something in the quality of the film that makes you feel something ineffable, something that is not just pure confusion. I did not have the impression that the director had nothing in particular to say, as with the other one.

That being said, WTF?! At the end of the film you don't even know which of the characters of this play-like movie even existed! The tension and attraction between the two main characters can be interpreted as absolutely anything. Conflict between base personality and mask? Check. People going nuts when not provided with feedback and only treated with obscure symbolism and vague facial expressions? Double check: one for the audience. The unravelling of one's identity in isolation? Check. The unravelling of one's identity when juxtaposed with a vastly stronger personality. Check again. Schizophrenia? Why not?

People have been scrambling their brains to come up with a definitive analysis of this film, to no avail. Two months of filming and then 60 years of disappointingly unhelpful analysis. This beats the fool throwing a stone in the lake and 100 wise men not being able to get it out.

Evil Does Not Exist (2023)

An intriguing start with a pretentious and disappointing finale

[6/10 · 24 June 2024]

This film was supposed to be a 30 minute cinematic accompaniment to a score that the director's friend made, only that during the collection of video material Hamaguchi had this story idea and made a full feature film instead. The story starts off intriguing: a small Japanese community in the mountains is slightly challenged by the arrival of a company that wants to build a camping resort in their area without any knowledge of or interest in local issues or the damage they would do. There is even a long town hall discussion between the company representatives and the townsfolk which was truly inspiring. I mean, I can't imagine a European or American community reacting in such a measured, well mannered, well thought out and informed manner.

But this is where the movie veers into the absurd. People make life changing decisions in seconds, without being challenged by the ones around them - kind of like Hamaguchi's decision to finish the film the way he did, musical score and nature scenes take the place of plot and then it's one of those WTF endings. Presumably, the author wanted us to make our own mind about what the movie is about. Well, director-sama, that's the same thing as having nothing in particular to say.

The cinematography was good, the music excellent, the interactions between people natural, authentic, deep. The story was absolute rubbish.

Bottom line: in the end, a short cinematic companion to a music score became a very long and obtuse cinematic companion to a music score. Top marks for the music!

Oppenheimer (I) (2023)

Formulaic to the extreme

[6/10 · 21 June 2024]

This is a film that you've already seen. I don't know exactly when, but it was an American movie about a historical figure, presented almost as a documentary, but with very dramatic scenes, played by a plethora of immensely talented actors which play even simple 5 minute roles, carefully curated so that the good characters look good and the bad nasty, with an extreme certainty in every scene, played seriously and reverently so that you instantly believe that is the actual truth, Wikipedia be damned. Tell me you have not seen this movie before! I will call your lie.

Every time the story nears a part of the history of science, some special effects or visual metaphors are inserted, voices fade into inspiring music, Albert Einstein pops up or Niels Bohr and they all talk in riddles and similes and generic language that anyone can understand. Every little thing is enhanced with personal emotion and/or very smart dialogue that has nothing to do with real life. People look at a piece of paper with some calculations and immediately understand it without needing explanations or thinking too much about it, then emote about it before sharing a serious opinion.

But it's Nolan! You will scream. Yes. It doesn't change one thing. Every scene is crafted to perfection, but you already knew this, because that's what a good director does, but also what happens in these kinds of movies. I have no complaint about the direction, acting, sets, budget, special effects. They were all spot on. Was it a good movie? Hell no. It was such an obvious construction that it felt mechanical, not artistic. There was no soul in it, not because actors didn't pour theirs in the film, not because the director wasn't careful with its making, I don't even know why, it was just bland and formulaic and predictable, even if you didn't know Oppenheimer's story.

Bottom line: I liked watching it, but I knew where it was going from the very start. It was brilliant in the way a highway is brilliant because it saves time and it's so smooth, not because it takes you anywhere interesting. And it was three hours of this.

Nekrotronic (2018)

I am a fan of low budget, gory and surprisingly funny movies. This ain't one.

[5/10 · 21 June 2024]

I am a fan of wacky Kiwi or Aussie films, I don't care about the budget, sometimes not even the quality of acting, but I do expect the thing to be original in some way and, above all, entertaining. I really hoped Nekrotonic was like that, but unfortunately it was not. Derivative ideas, predictable plot, not one moment when I thought tables were going to turn one way or another. The acting was decent, I liked the main guy and the girls, but the script was just plain... plain. It wasn't even awful, it was just the same thing I've seen several times before, asking myself every time why would anyone do that film.

Also, Monica freaking Bellucci?! She was never a great actress or anything, but she was bloody awful in this one.

Bottom line: boring and uninspiring.

Memories (1995)

Scifi three story anthology

[8/10 · 21 June 2024]

So there are three stories: Magnetic Rose, Stink Bomb and Cannon Fodder.

The last one is a very direct and slap over the head story about a nation that runs for the only purpose of loading a cannon and firing at an enemy nation that supposedly does the same. Magnetic Rose is a pure sci-fi story in a space setting about the power of memories, pretty well animated and with terrific atmosphere. I would argue that, as annoying as the characters were, Stink Bomb was the best one, deliciously satirizing the Japanese social, political and military structure as a hapless idiot tries to escape the terrifying cloud of gas that he is unwittingly generating.

All in all, a wonderful and entertaining retreat into real storytelling and animation art.

Ultraman: Rising (2024)

A decent story and animation featuring cute Kaijus

[7/10 · 20 June 2024]

I am not really familiar with the Ultraman lore. I know he's a guy who can grow to the size of a monster and often fights against kaijus. There is some sort of Kaiju Defense Force that also fights kaijus. Somehow, this film becomes the story of Ultraman defending a kaiju baby from the KDF, which is ironic, but kind of fun.

However, the true strength (and weakness) of the movie is not in the monster battles, but in the story of a young man trying to juggle career, family, child raising and personal life at the same time. Did I want this in a Kaiju movie? Maybe not, but at the same time it was what gave the characters depth and the story emotional power.

Also, this is a kiddie film, designed to appeal to small children and their parents who, probably, try to juggle a lot of things too, so technically it was good product.

Spaceman (I) (2024)

A surprisingly good psychological movie (not science fiction)

[8/10 · 20 June 2024]

In Romanian the word "disappointment" literally translates to "un-deceive". I think it explains the phenomenon better than the English etymology. People see a movie starring Adam Sandler and called Spaceman and they expect a comedy, a scifi movie or both. However, you have been deceived. Instead this is a very slow, contemplative, serious movie about exploring inwards as well as outwards. The spaceship, the Chandra cloud, the alien, the weird geopolitical situation where Czechia competes in space with South Korea, all the great actors in the cast that only have a few scenes, all of these are at best tools and at worse red herrings.

I swore a long time ago that I would not watch a silly Sandler movie ever again, but I suspected this might not be as silly, and so I am glad to have watched it. It's especially telling that I liked the movie even when using the trope I may hate most in film: space missions as metaphors for alienation and apparent science fiction as a tool to explore human psychology.

The plot is this guy alone in space, while his pregnant wife goes haywire alone back on Earth. He realizes what he refused to see in himself was as important as exploring the unknowns of outer space. People might be first put off by their expectations and then by the really slow, atmospheric approach. While using extremely beautiful imagery, the story is essentially a conversation with a psychologist while on LSD. If you look at it through this perspective, it's an efficient and effective psychological movie.

Wild Eyed and Wicked (2023)

Slow paced symbolic and psychological movie, sabotaged by its own poster

[7/10 · 17 June 2024]

I think most people wanted to see a hot girl sword fighting in armor in medieval forests. That's all the poster's fault. As much as I hate formulas, movie posters are not art, they are templates designed to tell the viewer at a glance what kind of film you are giving them. In that regard, the poster was atrocious.

Instead you get a slow paced thriller about a young woman traumatized by her mother's suicide when she was a child and the subsequent estrangement of her father. The film brings in a demonic force, but it's nothing more than a symbol of the past one must overcome in order to move forward and not a horror element. The actresses are beautiful and actors (all seven of them, perhaps with the exception of the child, but you know.., child actors) do a good job. The mood is appropriate and the sets well done. The film is rich in psychological symbols and I think for someone living similar (but non supernatural) situations, this could actually be therapeutic.

All in all, for the type of movie it is, it's a pretty good movie. I agree that it could have packed more in less time, but sometimes, if you are in the mood, you can get into the atmosphere of a slow burning film and this is exactly that kind of film. If you are impatient to see sweaty chicks grunting while wielding heavy metal swords you will, of course, be disappointed. However, people that would identify with the main characters would actually benefit from the gradual exposure to possible triggers.

Another aspect of the film that unfortunately took something from the overall experience was the fight scenes in the dark. You could barely understand what was going on. It's a small point, but also a relevant one.

Addressing the lesbian elephant in the room, it was by no means woke, and it wove naturally into the plot. Did the film linger a bit too much on the personal relationships of the lead character so that absolutely nothing really happens in the first 45 minutes? Yes. But that has nothing to do with gender politics.

All in all, I think the people that would have enjoyed the film were thrown off by the poster just as the people who would not have enjoyed were lured in by it. It is a good movie that I don't regret seeing, even if it wasn't really entertaining. Good acting and directing.

American Fiction (2023)

If only they would have done the third act right...

[8/10 · 1 June 2024]

This movie is a bit meta, in the sense that it's about a writer who writes a book under a pseudonym as a joke and gets a lot of serious recognition, including film rights which in the end they turn into this movie, or something similar. I think that's the biggest problem with this story. The third act is trying too hard to be smart. My wife stopped watching way before that, because she thought it was too far fetched. Probably the sanest reaction to a film that evokes the same reactions ridiculed in it!

You already know the gist of the story, what you don't know is that most of it is not about the societal satire we've been promised but about the personal life of the main character. His family, his girlfriend, his housekeeper, and so on. The ending, therefore, leans a lot into being meta and going all into the declared story of the film. But it just feels grating, fake, something done for the millions of White watchers that expected something down that line. Wait... is my review meta, too?! NOOOO!

The point is, Jeffrey Wright was great as the main character and all the actors get kudos from me because they were really well chosen and played very well. Unfortunately, the story was too all over the place. It's unsatisfying as a societal satire, because that's way too little, even while whatever is there is pretty good stuff. It's unsatisfying as a personal drama, because to be honest, the character is not that well fleshed out. He's a Black writer. That's about all we know about him and the interactions with his family that are supposed to make him relatable feel actually more like fillers. I have no motivation to relate to him, other than the role that the description of the film assigns to him and then the movie fails to fill in.

Bottom line: I fear that without Jeffrey Wright's acting, this film would have just been meh! Something trying to hard to do too many things at once. That extra star is for casting and acting. I liked the underlying idea, too, but I feel the implementation was lacking.

To the Wonder (2012)

Beautiful cinematography, but no story

[6/10 · 28 May 2024]

This is an "experimental film", meaning you will not get it. Sorry to be blunt, but in a film in which each scene feels imbued with deeper meaning, this movie leaves you with no meaning whatsoever. If you subscribe to the theory that life is a string of consequential events separated by insignificant pauses, To the Wonder seems to try to remove the pauses and just construct a narrative from the meaningful moments, the emotional ones, not what was said, but what was felt, how the world felt and looked and maybe smelled. It is an interesting technique, but it ultimately leads nowhere. Some people derived satisfaction from watching the film mostly because they felt some reflection in characters of the movie, but it could only have been that, because the film provides almost no narrative structure, just a string of pearls from which you can understand anything.

Olga Kurylenko looked absolutely smashing in this, but the obsession of the film to show her playfully running, dancing, laughing while being drenched from a water hose, lying in the grass and lasciviously stretching like a cat in the sun felt like a tired cliché. And when Rachel McAdams' character did the same it really became one.

Bottom line: it was a decent try, but an ultimately unsatisfying one. There was almost no benefit from having celebrity actors playing in this, since there is almost no dialogue. It's a "bring your own meaning" kind of thing.