sifucrockett Reviews

Always Shine (2016)

A film unjustifiably earning praise

[1/10 · 24 February 2017]

Always Shine is in the ilk of Certain Women. Meaning that because its leads are women, it's about women, and its director is a woman (Sophia Takal)... it must, by default, be spectacular.

Well, sorry to say, it most definitely is not!

Not a single review here to-date touches on the fact that this film borrows — LIFTS — heavily (and poorly) from Ingmar Bergman's 'Persona'.

Nor do any of this film's fawning fans notice how it is over-dabbling with the currently overused device of Multiple Personality Disorder (now known as D.I.D.).

This is an appallingly bad film.

There are enough hints dropped to suggest these girls ARE split personalities of the one character, however... there is also either an abundant LACK of evidence to confirm it, or CONTRADICTORY evidence to refute it.

Make up your friggen mind!

Seriously, nothing makes sufficient sense here. And because this film is going out of its way to raise questions, but does it so illogically, I will not waste my time rifling thru the trash to unveil the hidden truths. This film does not deserve that sort of rigour. That sort of introspection.

Always Shine also bears no capacity for concealing its feminist agenda. Shame on you for being so blatant. There also exists no intelligence in this script to neither do that sublimely nor tell a coherent story.

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself what the point was? What was really worth telling here? And why tell it in such an intentionally obscure way? Could it be because they thought that being obscure meant being smart? Clever? Original?

Then we have the typical indie ending. A useless long shot of nothing (this time, our lead walking up a hill in a forest); then the moment of long staring; then... the notorious abrupt cut to black.

Praising the acting, which is indeed excellent, makes up for none of the poor choices made repeatedly in both the writing and the directing. To think that investors were talked into throwing money at this concept. What a waste.

See it only if you have an old TV you're looking to toss out, so you can throw things at the screen, then put your foot thru it at the end.

I, Daniel Blake (2016)

This Is Why We Need Quality Independent Films.

[10/10 · 15 January 2017]

If you can get thru not wanting to put your fist thru the faces of most of the characters that Daniel comes up against, then good for you.

You may, however, still find yourself pausing the film from time-to-time to give yourself a breather from the dead-shits he's confronted with.

This, like all good indie films, is little. But, as it should be, it's big for those involved.

This is a hard-luck story of decent, hard-working people butting heads with the non-caring system.

Both Daniel and Katie (the single-mother he somewhat adopts; at least in a protective sense) face the frustrations and degradation of a typical bureaucratic system that sees people as numbers and nothing else.

From start to finish, 'I, Daniel Blake' is riddled with conflict. And not the typical contrived conflict often found in indie films. This stuff is real and believable. The story is simple, and all this film does is move that story forward, while revealing more and more of the central characters.

Films like 'Certain Women' and 'American Honey' cannot for the life of their directors hold a candle to this film. But they should take note of this differing fact: Here, there's a story worth telling; that's told as if the story matters.

My Recommendation: See it, and tell everyone you know to do the same.

Certain Women (2016)

How Is this a Film?

[1/10 · 12 October 2016]

Kelly Reichardt knows how to use a camera. Problem is, she only uses it for filming, not for telling a story. Doesn't help that she chooses non stories to tell. Or is that not to tell?

My wife and I have tried hard with her films, but after this dismal effort we've placed an embargo upon all her future work. Enough's enough.

The long, dull, opening scenic shot of barren land and a train rolling in sets the dross tone of the film and everything in it.

Ironically, despite the title, the only interesting character and trace of story is in Jared Harris' character.

The episodes/vignettes that comprise this film aren't enough to fill a bad 30 minute TV slot. There's simply nothing there, and nothing told.

What you do get, are endless scenes watching people doing nothing: Like someone driving, or feeding animals, or just looking at nothing. Scenes that have simply nothing to say — at least not of any interest.

But you'll also get what are nothing more than 'stills': Like a shot of an empty room AFTER someone's left.

Anyone can point a camera and press record. And that's all you get with this piece from Reichardt. No story. There's nothing special or particular about how she films. It's very much just point and shoot, usually with boring subject matter, and next to no movement.

As writers, we learn that every scene must reveal character and move the story forward. You will see in this film exactly what happens when you don't do that.

Somebody had the poor taste to compare this film to I'm Not a Serial Killer. Absolutely not. And let's not get started on assertions that it's "required viewing."

And like all independent films that are directed by people so entranced by their own sense of magnificence, this film ends abruptly with an unprompted, unmotivated CUT to black in the middle of yet another meaningless scene.

Reichardt's choice of when to end raises the burning question: Why wait for this dull, repetitive, meaningless scene when virtually every scene before it would have served the same point?

What disturbs me most, is that someone thought this was worth funding.