Rate the last movie you've seen

[G-Man]

I'll drop this here just for Rico:

Fifty Shades Darker? More like fifty shades less plot development.

Why for me? I skipped past all the, ahem, plot development, anyway.

Because you griped about me not sharing my thoughts on movies I've been watching in Discord last week.

[Ricochet]

Was gonna rant about the Netflix Death Note, but then I suddenly found no energy whatsoever to pursue this in serious fashion. D for dumb. Not a travesty, still dumb.

...

Actually, I changed my mind. Get mildly spoiled below only if you've seen it or do not care about seeing it (which is the better mindset of the two, fwiw).

Spoiler: show

"Remember the cat 'n' mouse chase and mindgames between L and Light in the anime? The twisted elements of bonding and playing each other? The, all hyperbolic characterisation aside, chess play between two hyper-intelligent minds? Well let's have none of that. None. In fact, let's have this Light make so blatant of a wrong, thoughtless, impulsive move within his first two kills, after the which the movie should continue for another hour simply because L doesn't go deep enough (or, y'kno, actually smart enough) to figure it out."

Every throwback to the anime is just treated like a meme. Remember apples, people? Remember those apples? Well let's have Ryuk munch them off-screen, plus not even express delight at the taste of them. Remember squating and eating sweet, people? Well let's have L stuff himself with Haribos and squat on a chair, like, two times in the movie, and otherwise just let the actor act as spastic as he can improvise, plus act a zillion times more nervous and twitchy than L's whole composure and range throughout the entire anime.

The CGI on Ryuk is a complete joke. Somewhere stuck in midprocess between trying to animate a doll and going all murky grey dark to hide the imperfections of the CGI shitjob. Remember any moment in the anime where Ryuk was not shown in his glorious full detail? Me neither.

Watari is "Watari"'s real name in this movie. His. Real. Name. And he's called just Watari, a human being legally named just... Watari. Light writing his name in the DN literally works. Writing just Watari in the DN... literally... works*screeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmm-*

[Ricochet]

I'll drop this here just for Rico:

Fifty Shades Darker? More like fifty shades less plot development.

Why for me? I skipped past all the, ahem, plot development, anyway.

Because you griped about me not sharing my thoughts on movies I've been watching in Discord last week.

Ah. Well, that does remain a valid complaint.

[Epignosis]

Was gonna rant about the Netflix Death Note, but then I suddenly found no energy whatsoever to pursue this in serious fashion. D for dumb. Not a travesty, still dumb.

...

Actually, I changed my mind. Get mildly spoiled below only if you've seen it or do not care about seeing it (which is the better mindset of the two, fwiw).

Spoiler: show

"Remember the cat 'n' mouse chase and mindgames between L and Light in the anime? The twisted elements of bonding and playing each other? The, all hyperbolic characterisation aside, chess play between two hyper-intelligent minds? Well let's have none of that. None. In fact, let's have this Light make so blatant of a wrong, thoughtless, impulsive move within his first two kills, after the which the movie should continue for another hour simply because L doesn't go deep enough (or, y'kno, actually smart enough) to figure it out."

Every throwback to the anime is just treated like a meme. Remember apples, people? Remember those apples? Well let's have Ryuk munch them off-screen, plus not even express delight at the taste of them. Remember squating and eating sweet, people? Well let's have L stuff himself with Haribos and squat on a chair, like, two times in the movie, and otherwise just let the actor act as spastic as he can improvise, plus act a zillion times more nervous and twitchy than L's whole composure and range throughout the entire anime.

The CGI on Ryuk is a complete joke. Somewhere stuck in midprocess between trying to animate a doll and going all murky grey dark to hide the imperfections of the CGI shitjob. Remember any moment in the anime where Ryuk was not shown in his glorious full detail? Me neither.

Watari is "Watari"'s real name in this movie. His. Real. Name. And he's called just Watari, a human being legally named just... Watari. Light writing his name in the DN literally works. Writing just Watari in the DN... literally... works*screeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmm-*

I have some thoughts. I'll get to them after I get SF2 Mafia rolling.

[Epignosis]

Was gonna rant about the Netflix Death Note, but then I suddenly found no energy whatsoever to pursue this in serious fashion. D for dumb. Not a travesty, still dumb.

...

Actually, I changed my mind. Get mildly spoiled below only if you've seen it or do not care about seeing it (which is the better mindset of the two, fwiw).

Spoiler: show

"Remember the cat 'n' mouse chase and mindgames between L and Light in the anime? The twisted elements of bonding and playing each other? The, all hyperbolic characterisation aside, chess play between two hyper-intelligent minds? Well let's have none of that. None. In fact, let's have this Light make so blatant of a wrong, thoughtless, impulsive move within his first two kills, after the which the movie should continue for another hour simply because L doesn't go deep enough (or, y'kno, actually smart enough) to figure it out."

Every throwback to the anime is just treated like a meme. Remember apples, people? Remember those apples? Well let's have Ryuk munch them off-screen, plus not even express delight at the taste of them. Remember squating and eating sweet, people? Well let's have L stuff himself with Haribos and squat on a chair, like, two times in the movie, and otherwise just let the actor act as spastic as he can improvise, plus act a zillion times more nervous and twitchy than L's whole composure and range throughout the entire anime.

The CGI on Ryuk is a complete joke. Somewhere stuck in midprocess between trying to animate a doll and going all murky grey dark to hide the imperfections of the CGI shitjob. Remember any moment in the anime where Ryuk was not shown in his glorious full detail? Me neither.

Watari is "Watari"'s real name in this movie. His. Real. Name. And he's called just Watari, a human being legally named just... Watari. Light writing his name in the DN literally works. Writing just Watari in the DN... literally... works*screeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmm-*

Spoiler: show

I believe with all my heart that people suffer from "The previous version is better than this one" sickness.

While I do believe the anime was superior to the Netflix film, I think the Netflix film did a lot of things right. For one, they showed Light as a self-centered KID. Yes, a kid who "makes so blatant of a wrong, thoughtless move within his first two kills." To me, that makes sense. He's a smart math kid, but stupid when it comes to the Death Note. That said, I liked his first few kills. They made sense within the framework of American culture.

I don't understand your complaints about apples or candy. How are they "treated like a meme?" How would you do them differently as a filmmaker? The apples and candy shots, in my opinion, were better than the anime. I don't need to see Ryuk sucking apple cores to get that he likes apples. This movie did it with fun and a nod. That's all you need.

The CGI on Ryuk was fine and I liked how he wasn't the center of attention with his "glorious full detail." This isn't a cartoon. He was also an asshole instead of a friendly character. I liked that too.

My disagreements end there.

I loved "Dr. Strange" from Gotham playing Watari, but I agree with Rico here: Watari isn't his real name, so what the hell?

Yes, this is inferior to the anime, but I believe if this movie had come out first, a lot of people would call the anime garbage. That's how we are a lot of the times. I felt this was a good movie with a few distinct weaknesses.

[Ricochet]

Was gonna rant about the Netflix Death Note, but then I suddenly found no energy whatsoever to pursue this in serious fashion. D for dumb. Not a travesty, still dumb.

...

Actually, I changed my mind. Get mildly spoiled below only if you've seen it or do not care about seeing it (which is the better mindset of the two, fwiw).

Spoiler: show

"Remember the cat 'n' mouse chase and mindgames between L and Light in the anime? The twisted elements of bonding and playing each other? The, all hyperbolic characterisation aside, chess play between two hyper-intelligent minds? Well let's have none of that. None. In fact, let's have this Light make so blatant of a wrong, thoughtless, impulsive move within his first two kills, after the which the movie should continue for another hour simply because L doesn't go deep enough (or, y'kno, actually smart enough) to figure it out."

Every throwback to the anime is just treated like a meme. Remember apples, people? Remember those apples? Well let's have Ryuk munch them off-screen, plus not even express delight at the taste of them. Remember squating and eating sweet, people? Well let's have L stuff himself with Haribos and squat on a chair, like, two times in the movie, and otherwise just let the actor act as spastic as he can improvise, plus act a zillion times more nervous and twitchy than L's whole composure and range throughout the entire anime.

The CGI on Ryuk is a complete joke. Somewhere stuck in midprocess between trying to animate a doll and going all murky grey dark to hide the imperfections of the CGI shitjob. Remember any moment in the anime where Ryuk was not shown in his glorious full detail? Me neither.

Watari is "Watari"'s real name in this movie. His. Real. Name. And he's called just Watari, a human being legally named just... Watari. Light writing his name in the DN literally works. Writing just Watari in the DN... literally... works*screeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmm-*

Spoiler: show

I believe with all my heart that people suffer from "The previous version is better than this one" sickness.

While I do believe the anime was superior to the Netflix film, I think the Netflix film did a lot of things right. For one, they showed Light as a self-centered KID. Yes, a kid who "makes so blatant of a wrong, thoughtless move within his first two kills." To me, that makes sense. He's a smart math kid, but stupid when it comes to the Death Note. That said, I liked his first few kills. They made sense within the framework of American culture.

I don't understand your complaints about apples or candy. How are they "treated like a meme?" How would you do them differently as a filmmaker? The apples and candy shots, in my opinion, were better than the anime. I don't need to see Ryuk sucking apple cores to get that he likes apples. This movie did it with fun and a nod. That's all you need.

The CGI on Ryuk was fine and I liked how he wasn't the center of attention with his "glorious full detail." This isn't a cartoon. He was also an asshole instead of a friendly character. I liked that too.

My disagreements end there.

I loved "Dr. Strange" from Gotham playing Watari, but I agree with Rico here: Watari isn't his real name, so what the hell?

Yes, this is inferior to the anime, but I believe if this movie had come out first, a lot of people would call the anime garbage. That's how we are a lot of the times. I felt this was a good movie with a few distinct weaknesses.

Well that was me in simple fanboy rant mode more than pertinent criticism, but I can go more in depth, I suppose.

Spoiler: show

Well, I believe with all my heart that the American film industry suffers from the "let's crap out a movie (or adaptation) out of everything popular, with half-assed effort put into it" syndrome.

Among the things that I can mention to have actually liked would me Mia. Faint praise in the overall context, but I feel she struck the right note of crazy-eyed, psychotic, overly attached and yet even potentially duplicitous character. Plus, while I'm sure the actress was overall selected for her natural mix (at least from the previous shows I've seen her in) of cheerleader looks, sass and sarcasm, the other stuff wasn't quite in her usual range, so that's already someone who visibly went into her character.

The other thing would probably be the gore. Not something the anime had full liberty to do, up to a point, but here at least it had a splashy, trashy, Final Destination-like quality. I'm convinced the budget went more into the blood splatters, while the Ryuk one stopped at making him look like a Gremlin.

"Self-centered" is a fairly weak descriptor to want or applaud for being achieved, because to an extent, absolutely every main character in this story is "self-centered". One big theme proposed by Death Note is that there is less heroism to talk about and more what means people will take to have it their way on the grand chessboard of life and morality; that there is no big-lettered one Justice, only justice seen through the eyes of many, who want to impose it as the right one.

Digression-aside, while I understand that Yagami Light is a Japanese anime version of a "genius kid developing a God complex", an avatar that tests plausibility plenty of times, Light Turner is just... idk, geek emo? I think Light Turner being "stupid when it comes to the Death Note" is deeply problematic instead of anything close to satisfying. Why would anyone want a Light who's bad at using the Death Note?! At a basic level, Yagami Light being competent, skillful, intelligent and focused with his actions surrounding the Death Note should be a desirable element of the show. I do not for a second believe that the expectation for this movie from any Death Note fan should be for Light to do something that could, under normal circumstances, lead back to him in two-three moves. Yagami Light being tested and put under great pressure time and again was immense fun in the anime. Light Turner having his dad come up to him after it's time for the movie to end and say "hey kid I just realized you went through my stuff to get your mother's murderer killed under strange, comical circumstances"? Ech.

I can also agree in principle with what you've said about part of the narrative fitting the American cultural frame, but I think that's also a problem in itself. Yagami Light required no major premise to set the events in motion. For all we know, he was a prodigious student and handsome, popular kid in the public eye that nevertheless felt empty, lonely and... "bored" inside. Roll things from there. I think the "American" mindset took that last part and developed it into "oh, Light Turner has to be a high-school loner, doesn't he? There just has to be a bully somewhere to fuel his rage, doesn't it? We just have to make him a half-orphan, to establish clear motive for one of his early kills, right?". Ech.

By "treating things like a meme", I meant treating any clear throwback or token from the lore as just that. "Showing the lightsaber just because." There is no real depth in showing an apple being snatched somewhere from darkness and then spit out half-chomped, only evasiveness (perhaps from technical shortcomings, which I believe in since I find Ryuk's aspect to be so half-assed) and shallowness in style. It's like that "jump scares in horrors need to come from seconds of silence and uncertainty, followed by a loud bang and jump" trope used 99% of times. Ryuk eating apples meant, in itself, nothing. Ryuk loving apples meant a lot. This is used in the movie with about as much depth as you having posted an image of apples and then a sketch of Ryuk in the Birthday thread.

Furthermore, my point was not about Ryuk being center of attention, but of there being no need to mask, blur his appearance or use the shallow "spooky" method in portraying him. It's just a cheap effect pertaining to American cinema's understanding of introducing a monster or weird character. I also get the idea of shaking things up and having Ryuk as an asshole rather than a sidekick, but I feel that's just moving from one wrong extreme to the next. There were layers upon layers into Ryuk's alien, neutral-stanced, yet humanised character. Netflix's Ryuk is just... "cackling asshole". Ech.

Look, I obviously don't mean to imply that I wanted or expected 37 episodes of mindgames, procedurals and slow-burning developments to be crammed into a 90-minute adaptation. There's a clear cartoon side of Death Note that does not need to be reflected in a live-action version, but there are also very potent themes and delectable stand offs between its iconic characters that I would have liked to get at least a whiff of in here as well. Did any of the "confrontations" between L and Light feel exciting? The one in the bar, at least, ended up giving me a headache.

I think all the "right things", the "vibes gotten right" from the movie can be mostly attributed to being taken from the anime source itself. Take the "had the movie come out first" idea and, as a standalone movie, this Death Note would have nearly no plausible, well-paced character development for anyone. L least of all. All his right, slick detective moves are borrowed directly from the anime - no standalone creative effort from the moviemakers there - while the rest is superficial and, in the end, he also mentally caves at the first sign of great stress (which is furthermore developed based on / fueled by a completely NONsensical premise of Watari being compromisable via the Death Note). Is that a more human characterisation than an anime-avatar one? Sure. But it's wrong, since in this instance, it doesn't stand for who or what L should represent. L in this movie is the very definition of adaptation by pandering to the memetic traits that stem from a well-known source. "Have him squat on a chair a bit, munch candy, talk about how sleep is overrated, hold a paper by the tip of fingers, mumble and twerk with his lips aaaaaand that's a wrap. Great job everybody, coffee break!" There's nothing that feels natural about this adaptation of L.

Finally, I'd like to disagree with your final supposition on anime vs movie because A) let's be real, there are less notable instances of anime adaptations of cult live action products, while the other way around, you have an movie industry beyond gluttonous for such pandering take-overs and B) had these two products come out in reverse order, but with the same content and quality in them, the anime would still be a deep(er), thoughtfully made show, making me doubt it would have been shot down simply because "oh mah god, it's nothing alike the movie, reeeeeee-".

Is it wrong for this movie to have gone for a "moody kids fool around as demi-gods of death, while chased by a weird-ass edgy (if sloppy at times) detective" approach? Of course not. It's why I didn't say it was a "travesty" in its treatment of the source. Still, doesn't mean I like it.

[Ricochet]

Well, while at it, I might as well write an update on my last sequence of viewings (sometime after returning from Amsterdam, two weeks ago, till present day), which was mostly... ech, rough.

A (10)/A- (9) / B+ (8) / B (7) / B- (6) / C (5) / D (3-4) / F (1-2) / No rating

War Machine (link) - also of Netflix distribution, something apparently timed as "we haven't had another war satire in a while", although it sure ain't no Dr. Strangelove. It adaptes the nonfiction book The Operators and fictionalizes the activities of former US Army General, ISAF and Afghanistan Forces Commander Stanley McChrystal; Brad Pitt portrays his film version, as a competent General, strong willed and dedicated to taking more decisive steps in gathering more troops and securing victory in the conflict, while also getting carried away by his resolute vision and having his patience tested by the bureaucratic strings necessary to be pulled to gain allied support or wishy-washy stances of other officials. Or... something in that vein. Anyway, problem is the movie is kind of a two-hour uneven slug and whatever satirical effect it aimed for (apart from more or less veiled anti-war criticism and stab at McChrystal's missteps and undoing), it felt neither witty or smirk-inducing enough. Pitt carries the movie with some mimic- and discourse-virtuous acting, while most of the ensemble cast is completely non-descript, save for maybe Ben Kingsley playing a buffoon of an Afghan leader and Tilda Swinton doing a German accent as a meddling reporter. I don't see why this subject couldn't have been approached via a more straightforward documentary, but that's how it is. Entertaining, this was not.

Wiener-Dog (link) - something that must have landed on someone's end-of-year lists, otherwise there'd be no real explanation why I picked this up. Don't remember having watched any of this director's - Todd Solondz - previous stuff, either. The simplest way to summarize it is also the easiest way to make it sound utterly silly, as it's basically about a dachshund ending up with various owners, which establishes the frame for a cycle of vignettes around different people with different woes. The overall tone of the movie is a blend of dark or absurd comedy, indie and mumblecore, dysfunctional drama, stuff that may seem taken at times from a Wes Anderson or Coens' scrapbook, yet I kinda cringed at the whole thing. If you haven't seen Danny DeVito in a while (in movies at least), I guess it may be worth briefly seeing him as a mopey disillusioned writer, but the rest of the ensemble cast (Julie Delpy, Greta Gerwig, Kieran Culkin) has been more frequent on screen and this isn't significant stuff from any of them.

Bad Boy Bubby (link) - what proved the most testing thing to sit through, however, was this Rolf de Heer movie, something I had prepared for my Amsterdam trip but never found the time to watch - I was familiar already with his way more delightful Ten Canoes aboriginal docu-film or docu-drama. This one, however, concerns a 35-year-old manchild, confined by his mother all his life in a small, filthy apartment until circumstances make it that he finally steps outside and, even more audaciously, despite his social inexperience and mentally unstable character, somehow connects with the people he meets and converts them to be in sync with his theatrics. Anyway, while the movie deliberately experimented with the sound design (everything manipulated to seem like it's from the perspective of what the main character is hearing) and switching between dozens of director of photography styles to reference the kaleidoscopic, hectic outside world the character encounters, it's still drenched in so black, scabrous and unpalatable of a humor, visuals and storytelling, it's hard to defend even in the name of ugly aestheticism. I asked a Dutch friend why I found de Heer's movie so atrocious and he simply replied "because it's Dutch".

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (link) - *sigh*... well, they tried at least, I guess? or did they? Thing is, my most prevalent feeling after watching this was that, in a clear attempt to cash in on the first movie's wild, smart success, they tried to stay smart and not botch a sequel out of this recipe - and yet they kinda botched it, anyway, as it feels like an overdose on everything: the quipkino, the mindless galactic adventures, the jukebox cues, the spacenova visuals, the tension-less bulletproof superpowers of the characters. What they did strive and somewhat achieved to do was finding some pace and disposition to outline more character development (it's at least what every critic has been praising, so who am I to disagree) - though even here it's uneven, it's mostly about Starlord or Rocket or Yondu stealing the show at times - while toning down the same Marvellian variation on a "save the world/galaxy" situation and flimsy, unmemorable antagonists (who in turn become either comic relief or aid in a main character's further development). Still, it felt like a cheesy exaggeration of the first movie's swag. The plot could have filled the length of a Star Trek episodic adventure rather than another capekino bucket-of-money-making chapter. I laughed or chuckled zero times. All the Guardians felt like growing into a caricature of themselves.

Keetje (Katie) Tippel (link) - a more agreeable Dutch movie this time, also something prepared for my Amsterdam trip but never watched during it, one of Paul Verhoeven's early movies, though slightly flourishing the touches of explicit, loose style and sleazy drama he'd fully affirm himself with later on (RoboCop, Starship Troopers, Showgirls, Black Book, last year's Elle). The story follows a young woman, relocating to Amsterdam with her poverty-stricken family, after which she's tempted into everything ranging from doing manual labor, prostitution, being the concubine of artists and climbing the social ladder towards couture bourgeoisie. As stated, there's room for some Verhoevean drops of explicit, libertine content, but the overall style is nevertheless solid enough to make for an enjoyable, soapy, syrupy 70s melodrama.

Death Note (link) - and lastly, whether you've read the stuff above in spoilers or not, I'll recap that this, for me, proved an insubstantial and hardly worthwhile adaptation of a cult manga/anime, pinning down some of the original's iconic lore and elements (resorting moreover to cues rather than working with them), while not bothering too much with the deeper ethical and moral themes. There is visual gore that may satisfy the way watching a supercut of Final Destination death scenes might, yet there is little development that sticks and isn't superficial and the story turns into half-nonsensical, painful chaos halfway through. It's a sloppy, low on quality result to validate the pursuit to adapt Death Note into an American version of mope, teenage edge and playing God.

[Ricochet]

Wrapped up my August with both a few revisits and a couple new movies

A (10)/A- (9) / B+ (8) / B (7) / B- (6) / C (5) / D (3-4) / F (1-2) / No rating

Wanted to give both Kaili Blues and Notes on Blindness the viewing they deserved, after I had flimsily watched and reviewed them here a while ago. Given this debut of his, Chinese director Bi Gan should be worth keeping an eye out, even if, as I've said the first time, he's moving thus far within an arthouse, rural-picturesque, minimalist range rather than anything more plot-heavy or exciting. The most I got, for now, was from his skillful aesthetics and technical ambition (a 30-minute-plus one-shot sequence choreographing several characters travelling by bike, car or boat at various times or intermingling on labyrinthine streets) and the touch of poetic storytelling. Didn't get much more out of Notes on Blindness than the first time, but again, if you want to see something that could have been a straightforward slideshow & interview documetary, yet was instead beautifully stylised and crafted with voice acting, or in the mood for something meditative and profound given theologian John Hull's musings on his condition and life, then you should give this a try.

Also wanted to enjoy Jarmusch's Paterson one more time - and it's definitely going in the shelves and staying up there as one of my faves from last year.

On to the new, two movies provided bizarre, if mostly rewarding experiences (unlike the last batch of Dutch-libertine bawdiness or indie edginess...)

Picked up Raw (link) as a fairly hyped French horror film from last year. The trailer and the IMDb page seem to go subtle on what the main ingredient of horror here is, but plenty other sites, uhm, sink right into it (pun intended), so not sure how one can avoid not being spoiled in this aspect prior to seeing it (as was my case). The thinnest possible synopsis is that it's about a young student following in her parents' and sister's footsteps by going at vet school; the entire family is established as strictly vegetarian, but then the initial phase of the school's crazy, campy, frat-like initiation rituals push the protagonist past her limits, (spoiler)

Spoiler: show

discovering her craving for meat that goes as far as turning her predatorily cannibalistic.

This being a French movie, viewers should probably know what they're getting into in terms of shock value and wild cinematic fantasy, as the movie nonchalantly hits no breaks on its doses of gore and debauchery, the protagonist both seemingly corrupted by and willfully losing herself into crazed behaviour. There are also thick enough undertones on themes of coming-of-age, self-discovery, social inclusion, sisterhood and such, that add value past the queasiness. There are a few spots of predictability, nevertheless with some decent twists and quick stuns along the way. I'd be lying if I'd say this wasn't entertaining: there's a slick, Refn-esque style to the visuals and a giallo tinge to an uninvasive yet loud when it matters score, plus the story and tension ramped up very well without tipping over.

Also, To the Bone (link), an equally discomforting topical movie, this time on the opposite extreme - eating disorders. For me, it felt a bit weird to get back into this subject, after just having read this year a book by Sofi Oksanen that mostly builds on such a theme, but at least with the little knowledge I have following this, I'd imagine this movie did hit some right notes on depicting the struggles with such disorders, therapies and their limitations when it all boils down to the battle with your self, stigmas and social or parental difficulties and so on. There's a sense of honest research put into the depiction, plus of transposing personal experiences, coming both from the director, Marti Noxon (formerly a writer and producer on shows such as Buffy or Glee) and the main actress, Lily Collins - doing her most significant role to date as far as I can recall, at times so focused and hard to fathom she went this deep into her role, especially considering her own prior experiences. Anyway, while the subject and the considerate treatment of it make the most impression, I couldn't help feeling the movie, in its style, is nonetheless fairly lightweight. Maybe there's something to the Netflix recipe that makes them pick up bold subjects, but either crank them up to eleventy stupid (Ojka, Death Note) or play it safe. Past the acting, the thematic hard facts and the unsettling tensity of the story, there was nothing too transformative, transcendent, which is a shame.

[G-Man]

Hidden Figures- It was good but felt like it was playing it safe.

[Ricochet]

So I know it's cheesy RIP-ing, at least to my standards - plus, one can certainly go way deeper into Harry Dean Stanton's filmography - but I've rewatched Paris, Texas yesterday (third time, which is already special territory for me) and I'll be bumping it to a full 10. No clue why I had it at 9 thus far, the open space cinematography and color scheme is superb, the acting is contained and great (save perhaps for Aurore Clement's English that never manages to connect me to a veritable character), the opening and closing 30 minutes mirror each other in having me hooked on, watching every detail, every gesture, every word (if any, that is), the story is so simple, yet unfolds in a way that feels more epic.

[G-Man]

Wayne's World

Party time? Yes.

Excellent? Not exactly.

[insertnamehere]

how bout that blade runner, eh?

i ranked it 4/5 stars, but still think it's merely the fourth best Denis Villeneuve film

[DharmaHelper]

Baby Driver 5/5
War for the Planet of the Apes 3-4/5

[DharmaHelper]

Baby Driver as a matter of fact might be my second (very close second) favorite film of all time. My favorite certainly in terms of cinematography, editing, soundtrack, etc.

[Ricochet]

What's your favorite film of all time?

===

Preemptive question: would the readers (assuming there are any) of my usual ramblings here be interested in listening 10 minutes to me speak about movies or, as before, in 10 minutes of reading my scribblings - assuming, again, that you'd normally spend any such amount of time on this. In light of some minor tech upgrades in my shed, I could switch to audio (but not full video, the way I'm doing SAWs - that's beyond exhausting).

[G-Man]

I don't have a true favorite anymore. I have given six films my highest possible rating and I could watch any of them again, though not with obsessive regularity.

===

No.

[insertnamehere]

I have a hastily assembled top four movies on Letterboxd made up of Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, F For Fake, Barton Fink, and L'avventura.

===

Very much so, and I've really appreciated your regular movie ramblings. Somehow, the small island of Nauru has more access to the latest Cannes contenders than where I live, so I like using your posts to try and figure out what's worth watching for myself, whenever I can get around to seeing them, of course. Screw G-Man's negativity, I'm here for whatever pretentious film talk you want to lay down.

Still not willing to watch Satantango. I have principles, y'know.

[G-Man]

I've watched every single one of Rico's SAW reviews, so I don't mind hearing his musings but I take movies more seriously than music. I want to avoid getting in a flame war with a fellow film snob. #KeepThePeace

[Ricochet]

I'm glad my question to Dharma invited answers from other people not Dharma.
What's F for Fake? :o

lol @ Gman. We don't have to fight it out. Just take it with a grain (or, if you want, a box in my case) of salt, much like you'd watch or read any other vlogger / YT reviewer / newspaper article / gossip commenter.

Plus, you've said you hardly manage to watch a movie on an occasion, so I don't think you'll be in tune with 90% of my updates.

[DharmaHelper]

What's your favorite film of all time?

===

Preemptive question: would the readers (assuming there are any) of my usual ramblings here be interested in listening 10 minutes to me speak about movies or, as before, in 10 minutes of reading my scribblings - assuming, again, that you'd normally spend any such amount of time on this. In light of some minor tech upgrades in my shed, I could switch to audio (but not full video, the way I'm doing SAWs - that's beyond exhausting).

My favorite film of all time is Hook.

[insertnamehere]

i think we should just do the logical thing and lock Ricochet and G-Man in a thunderdome, watch them fight to the death, and the winner gets to have their movie opinions be the objectively right ones.

F For Fake is an Orson Welles quasi-documentary about art forgery that turns into giddy postmodern fuckery, which is something I have a taste for. *casts sideways glance at the copy of Infinite Jest sitting on his desk*

[Ricochet]

What's your favorite film of all time?

===

Preemptive question: would the readers (assuming there are any) of my usual ramblings here be interested in listening 10 minutes to me speak about movies or, as before, in 10 minutes of reading my scribblings - assuming, again, that you'd normally spend any such amount of time on this. In light of some minor tech upgrades in my shed, I could switch to audio (but not full video, the way I'm doing SAWs - that's beyond exhausting).

My favorite film of all time is Hook.

For realz, tho

[DharmaHelper]

I think my favorite movie of all time is Hook and my favorite film of all time is Baby Driver. I love Hook because of Peter Pan, Robin Williams, the time in my life that I saw the movie and all that gushy stuff.

I like Baby Driver on a more technical, official level. Seriously if you haven't seen it the fucking editing and music and all that shit is so next level.

[Ricochet]

Speaking of Cannes, it's time for a new edition of hot screenings, next weekend. They're doing a much ampler "Les films de Cannes" in the capital, yet we'll also be blessed with three days and seven movies. Thankfully, I won't have to sit in the Philharmonic hall until six in the morning this time.

I'll be seeing the 2016 Palme d'Or, the Grand Prix, Haneke's Happy End, the Safdie Brothers' Good Time and, should I truly wish to rewatch, Jarmusch's Paterson, which was one of my faves from last year.

*assumes fetal position*

[nutella]

I like Baby Driver on a more technical, official level. Seriously if you haven't seen it the fucking editing and music and all that shit is so next level.

Just watched it and yeah, it was pretty fun. Very enjoyable and definitely lots of really cool stuff they did with sound synchronization etc. Wouldn't say it totally blew me away as much as it apparently did to you, I could name plenty of other films with just as impressive or more impressive cinematographic flourishes. But it totally made me want to do cool shit in time with music, lol.

[DharmaHelper]

I guess I just usually watch shit movies :P

[Ricochet]

Decided to stick to this format, after all. Too much of a hassle to record myself and I'm supposed to have less free time for such things - *cough* phdhell *cough*.

A (10)/A- (9) / B+ (8) / B (7) / B- (6) / C (5) / D (3-4) / F (1-2) / No rating

Wonder Woman (link) - surprised director Patti Jenkins hasn't done any other feature film in between this one and Monster (with that Oscar-grabbing performance from Charlize Theron), alllll the way back in 2003; she only directed a few TV series' episodes instead. Anyway, this serves as a pre-Justice League standalone origin story, going back to Wonder Woman's (Gal Gadot) childhood on the island of... whatever, revealing what makes her so demi-godly powerful and all that, plus building a sort of power fantasy around her aiding a British intelligence spy, played by Chris Pine, and thus getting involved in defeating some baddies during the Great War, or as we know it now, World War I.

To cut to the chase, it pains me to say that, with all its relevancy - not only counting as a first female lead superhero movie, but also a first DCU movie not to suck - I still found it incredibly boring and by-the-numbers altogether, even for capemovies' standards. There was not an ounce of filmmaking or writing to strike me as special, original - or, to put it another way, not tailored for the masses. The visual palette was either brightened for some paradisiac island scenes or set on dusky for the war scenes - most likely a marketable move, to take the DCU franchise out of the murky hellhole of Batman v Superman or the spasmodic joke that was Suicide Squad; it's more than decent and adequate, but nothing else. More strong female actresses (Connie Nielsen, Robin Wright) are brought in, yet then wasted on screen time and script. Elena Ayana's villainess role takes a backseat to, well, more of the same forgettable (male) villains (the war was lead by generals and freaks, after all). Its first, expository act was crafted about as poorly as it can be imagined, in a cram-it-all-in-there style, and the final fight arc breaks all illusion of superior quality by deploying all the FX chaos and maddening pyrotechny Man of Steel or BvS thsemvles had. Plus the DCU style of action coreography continues to irk me to no end, cutting in between punches to WW flinging her hair back, smirking, throwing a line, doing something else in slo-mo. By all means, no different than Marvel's halt action to deliver quips and punchlines MO, still it feels like a bloody video game. All this leaves a mid act in which the chemistry and banter between Gadot and Pine was praised, as was a sort of "fish out of water" trope of humour and coated jab at women's place in past societies, yet the former was just regular quips and the latter was one "oh wow WW discovers male chauvinism, who would have thunk it" scene after the next.

Again, this was beyond decent compared to anything DCU-related thus far and I get it the world was in need of a fun fantasy of emancipation, but the end result still felt to me head-numbing and banal.

I myself have finally seen Baby Driver (link) and it was pree fun. What I have yet to see is anything else by Edgar Wright, besides Scott Pilgrim, which at least evolved throughout time from a "I hate this adaptation so much" to "I'm still hissy at it overall" - yet even it had that glimmer of Wright's ingenuity to do something creative, or at least flashy and gimmicky. Which at least happens here as well, in a movie that could have otherwise be plainly tagged #heist, #hipster and #mixtape. It's the story of me, constantly listening to music on the streets and trying to match it with daily activities, except for the part where I'm not a mad-skilled driver, involved (or hired) in criminal activities, nor do I have auditory issues - or a cute girlfriend... But for real, it like takes most of Drive's concept (the silentious skilled protagonist, the ramp up in shit-going-wrong action style), drops the batshitness from it, and add instead teen romance, thug banter and two gigabytes of musical cues, all walking a fine line between diegetic and non-diegetic, used in sync with the situation, action and pacing in the movie (with the gimmick that our hero does that on purpose). The director and cast didn't even tiptoe around the fact that most of the scenes were shot to intentionally fit the soundtrack. I'm both cheerful and fearful to report that Focus' Hocus Pocus is used in a grand way. The selection is half pleb, half hipster, half decent, it's really up to anyone's tastes - just like the movie itself might prove, either candy bait or something fun to make your day. What I will say is that the pacing is particularly on point, the performances are sharp, the story is delectable even if with a healthy injection of belief suspension, much zaniness towards its end and a rather corny finale. There was talk that the romance / teen chemistry in the plot doesn't hold water, but I was actually fine with it. There was even more talk about Jamie Foxx hamming it hard, yet I also found him doing this thing and just that. Anyway, exciting personal, whimsical if also head-on gimmicky experiment from Wright and I'd rate this as super enjoyable above anything else.

A Ghost Story (link) - a movie with Sundance rave this year, that extended into being a sweet spot for many critics thus far; a light, twee concept from David Lowery (Pete's Dragon), starring Rooney Mara and Casey Affleck (recast by Lowery from a previous film of his, Ain't Them Bodies Saints), that I haven't seen) as a couple whose home seems disturbed by an unseen presence. Horror simple premise thus far, except what it turns into - without revealing any other major context - is an actual story told from the POV of a ghostly presence... complete with using a "traditional" bedsheet representation of said presence. This could invite hilarity, yet the stakes set are emotional and meditational with a very delicate directorial hand. The whole movie is shot in academic ratio, with the corners bent a bit to make it seem like a slideshow or something and there are slow takes up to and including a one shot of eating half of a pie that would make new wave minimalists fawn, visuals are soft and pastoral and then ghost design took some careful manipulation, from what I've read. It kinda spells out big-lettered messages on themes such as loss, grief, yearning, coping, remembrance, represented from intimate to time-traversing broad. Its final stretch almost had some "holy what" turns, but then it's wrapped up with such a bow tie, that it almost makes sense and pays off. It didn't have me hooked on all the time, yet as far as indie artsy curios go this year, this might be on the right lane.

First They Killed My Father: A Daughter of Cambodia Remembers (link) - a biographical story, directed by Angelina Jolie, inspired by Cambodian activist Loung Ung's memoir on her family and life being torn apart by the coming of the Khmer Rouge regime and her time spent in labor camps - literally the killing fields. Shot and told mostly from the reflections and perspective of her 7-year-old self, there is material to be empathetic towards, the depiction of blind propaganda and regime enforcement can be bone-chilling at times and it doesn't shy away from some gritty depictions, yet with an emphasis put more on sentimental depiction rather than documentary distance, there are limitation to Jolie's style.

Roight... with that out of the way, let's touch upon you-know-which-movie.

I rewatched Blade Runner (link) a day ahead of the main event, like the nerd that I am - The Final Cut, I should specify (and thank god I didn't mindlessly picked the theatrical version, with Ford's killjoy voiceover - though this one still retains that headscratching unicorn insert, but hey, #Ridley-is-pretty-dumb-nowadays-anyway). I remember having openly disliked this one the first time - yet I don't have it written down on my logs, which date back to 2012, so I must have been even younger, hence stupider; I certainly recall having openly disliked Vangelis' OST in context of his entire discography (and I still maintain it's not too much of a big deal, overall). But y'kno, this time around, I enjoyed most of it. I still have the urge to describe some set pieces as... "uninteresting" - and that's despite understanding what they goe for. I probably like most of all the flow of it, every scene feels fat free and serving its purpose; the movie is two hours, yet gets down to business almost right away and feels like it's wrapped up in an hour. The visuals and production design are obviously cinematic bookmarks, although even here I feel most of those shots only had an "establishing shot" quality; I can totally see how it influenced something like Ghost in the Shell's cityscapes, but I don't feel out of breath seeing them here. I can see its worthy elements that make it cult and deep, although one has to wonder how fortuitously Scott ended up creating them - plus its ultimate, most popular riddle is something for which "let the mystery be" is the only right answer. Sorry, Scott, but you're an ass for having tried to push things in a particular direction.

Now, Blade Runner 2049 (link) was taken over by Denis Villeneuve, a director who artistically earned a carte blanche with anything he's done thus far, even as he visibly moved towards the Hollywoodian commercial epicentrum (Incendies, Enemy, Sicario, Arrival - eff Prisoners, tho) - although Ridley Scott retained producer rights and sometimes you can almost sense his presence, especially knowing how [poorly] invested he's been lately in blowing up his own cult standalone movies into mythology-jacked sequels or prequels. Cells. For better or worse, there is both stuff that is recognizably Villeneuve's vision and stuff that inadvertedly links back to the source movie, whether in tributary or plain sequel fashion, and stuff demanded by its blockbuster / action format. Interlinked. For better or worse, there is a grandiose approach taken in this movie, from the technically modernized aspects to everything set in motion to push a story of old and new forward. Cells. If the original could be described as succintly as "neon noir in pissing rain with a subtle existential thematic core", this new one is in no way minimal anything, transporting you from the same-old-rainy LA to other dusky, toxic, wintery landscapes, all seemingly fitted in their own globe, plus picking that existential core to weave further synapses out of it. Cells. Without actually spoiling anything, it can be safely said this movie is has neo-neon-noir, cyber romance, tech and existential dystopia with a Chosen-One / Great-Things-Destined narrative, all in the same bowl. Interlinked.

I went to see this movie in theaters twice, which is quite a rare thing in my practice, but I feel I did it for the sake of more clarity rather than anything else. Cells. There are things in it that work (and many such things, in fact), but also things I came out of internally battling with how I felt about them. Cells. It is done with a superior sense of vision, skill, detail (Villeneuve, Roger Deakins - I mean, com'on), with a patience and pace uncommon to contemporary demands and standards - for which the movie will no doubt tank, because of how putridly low and spectacle-avid the world has set the bar for its blockbusters these days - but I also won't be the person to say that it is perfect in every way. Cells. It can earn its right to be called a superior sequel - especially in, again, this hellish climate of sequels and reboots and remakes - but it doesn't entirely purify its sequel code from specific nostalgic-driven or throwback-oriented traits. Cells. Blade Runner was, either consciously or unknowingly, influential to a lot of other movies, set on their own path. Cells. Art is rightly influential when it pushes new artists to create something themselves out of an idea they're influenced by, not just try to achieve a similar with that idea. Cells. Modern popular cinema has gone far too deep into sequel- and remake-mania. Cells. And while Villeneuve is unquestionably smarter than the average bear, Blade Runner 2049 is not profoundly something new and it has that drive not to trascend its source material, but to get interlinked with it. Interlinked. Within cells interlinked. Within cells interlinked. Within cells interlinked.

While I don't consider that I'll be using anything but minor hints and cues from the movie, I'll nevertheless honor the rule and put the following few more thoughts under the spoiler tab.

Spoiler: show

So one of the things I'm grappling with are stuff that walk a very fine line between being at odds with and understanding what Villeneuve went for. This is easily his first film with questionable pacing and amount of material thrown in. It felt better with a second viewing, but the first time around, I became at times borderline panicked with how slow and long things took place. Stuff like "walking from point A to B", for christ's sake. Thing is, he's done slow and meticulous before (set pieces in Sicario come to mind), but also managed to have some tense or emotional value to them. I understand he may have tried to equate it with the slow rhythms from the original movie, but honestly, there was drag in these 163 minutes. I heard Adam from YMS state in his review that he felt the movie lasted an hour and that is incomprehensible to me.

The narrative going for that Chosen One and choosing to have Deckard and Rachael resurface as pivotal characters in a Grander Scheme of Things is obviously a perilous path to take; I thought the detective side of searching for answers supported enough of the story and its twists were as decent as they could have been conceived, but I don't feel there's much else to note. This rejuvenated sequel direction of the script was not the greatest aspect of them all.

I felt some of the set pieces were too vignette-like - I personally feel the cyber-love stuff could have been trimmed. I understand any underlying theme in it - on humanizing characters in spite of their humanity or non-humanity, of what is real and not in connections - but it went too back and forth with all its stuff.

I won't go into overpraise with the acting. In fact, I almost feel this was Villeneuve's weakest signature in focusing on the cast ticking the best way - though there was no doubt a solid grip and good results, overall. Gosling was given a character to fully fit his precariously dry style. Ford was clearly given some incentive to give more of a crap in this role-reprising instance - though, at the same time, he also pulled a meme-worthy "show up in grandpa t-shirt" routine. I enjoyed Sylvia Hoeks' spiel, though at times it bordered into over-confident hokey (like that "nuke" sequence) and I don't feel I understood entirely where her zealotry in accomplishing her mission stemmed from; again, the clues are in there, at various times, making her "feel" something with powerful conviction, but I just don't know if its presentation was convincing. And Leto... *sigh*... he's thankfully not used much and I un-der-stand why a character such as Wallace would take over the reins and develop some sort of hollier-than-thou creator complex, but I feel Leto was given some pretty garbage, be-vague-and-hyperbolic-in-anything-you-utter lines; during the first viewing, I literally thought I was tripping from the nachos.

The music was pretty good; some choices of silence were even better. Would have been interested in what Johansson could have created, had he not dropped out; I attribute some of the more WHAAAA moments to Zimmer's indefatigably loud tastes, but I think it's good he wasn't all alone in this. The visuals were supreme candy, but while I'm in no mood to jump on the 10/10 wagon just for this cinematic aspect alone, there were ideas of visual ambiguity and "clair-obscurity" that were beyond fascinating.

To end with entirely positive remarks, the intro scene for me was excellent, the final fight scene was shot in such a (hopefully mostly practical!) design that I still have goosebumps remembering it. Plus, I personally found a scene between Gosling and a minor character played by Carla Juri to be exquisite in dialogue and atmosphere, save perhaps for a certain reaction from the former towards the end.

To give this movie a B- (6) would be an asshole move from me, considering how many things in it are done right, so a tentative B (7) for now, with no certainty if or when I may upgrade it to B+ (8). Third watch's the charm?

[Ricochet]

Dropping a few more until I dive into my Cannes screenings' weekend overdose. Although, ugh, I think I've spent this whole week writing about goddamn movies and TV.

A (10)/A- (9) / B+ (8) / B (7) / B- (6) / C (5) / D (3-4) / F (1-2) / No rating

Killer of Sheep (link) - one of two older movies (see following one as the second) that I picked up as African American Cinema recommendations on The New Yorker FB Movie Group by the publication's chief critic Richard Brody. A 1978 obscure one directed by Charles Burnett, with a pocket-sized budget, that even failed to get released back then because it couldn't pay royalties for a quite insane number of songs used. It's been described as non-narrative and structureless, whilst stylistically likened to neo-realism, as it solemnly presents scattered and bluesy moments from the life of a working man, dealing with his dissatisfaction, woes and pains of being at work, at home, in his collective and all that. It's the kind that takes a mood to be in no particular mood to see it, still it has some degree of verité, loose and intimate filming.

Nothing But a Man (link) - an earlier movie this one, from 1964; not directed by an African American, but Michael Roemer took apparently inspiration not only from experiencing persecution himself in Germany and the Southern States as a Jew, but also from spending extensive research time within black communities. Has a more traditional storyline, but still packs a pretty tense and potent drama (although I'm chuckling a bit at giving such a verdict, considering I was in an imperfect disposition that led me to dose off a bit during some of its fragments). May also seem relevant in historical context of those years of rights and racial emancipation.

Spider-Man: Homecoming (link) - well I ain't gonna rant about a second capemovie twice in a week. The main ideas it tries to act smart with include scrapping a lot of the usual origin story melodrama, grounding the action from its "save the world" usual sternness (even the villain-of-the-movie having a decent backstory that merely makes him an anti-Avengers vigilante at best) and partying hard with its "schoolboy x superhero" thematic. Out of everything scheduled in between the previous and upcoming garguantuan and hyper-pretentious Avengers chapters, this is likely to remain the one that takes itself the least seriously - including Spidey acting his age and being on actual path of discovery, instead of an established, accomplished caper who just has to face some new obstacles. Alas, its Marvelian moviemaking signature is reaching beyond peak "flatitude" and a lot of it felt like one "gotta solve smth / fight smb, but also make it in time for chem class" scene after the next. I also cannot even express how little I care about this redeeming the Spiderman series and such (the first Reimi was the only good one, anyway... *runs*). I put this on precisely to simply have something on screen and in that regard it was an exemplary background movie.

Panic in the Needle Park (link) - ill-fated romance during the hazy days and in the heart of New York's drug dealing and needle sticking quartier between junkies played with feral range by Al Pacino and Kitty Winn (awarded as Best Actress at Cannes for this). The drama unfolds with all the fleeting highs and severe lows one can expect, plus with a veridic vibe that could have equally spun out of Burroughs's novels, quickies by Fante or the Beat writers or Patti Smith's memoirs. The performances are mercurial (especially with Pacino at the beginning of his imposing, blustery methods), with a whole repertoire from street-smart adrenaline to vegetative tripping. Really the kind of movie that goes on and on (especially considering its two-hour running time), without any real resolution, its characters just stuck spinning in circles in their addiction and misery.

The Beguiled (link) - technically a Cannes movie, since it saw Sofia Coppola making a return, incite critical attention once more and get a Best Director award in the process. Her latest counts as a remake of Don Siegel's 1971 movie starring Clint Eastwood, if not an actual reinterpretation, since if the original is considered (have not seen it [yet]) a crossbreed of Peckinpah pulp, gothic drama and mysogynistic undertones, Coppola reformulates the story in her own tactful, tiffany ways, turning it to eleventy feminist. Nothing surprising in this, since at least four of her movies focus on girl power, with just two others dealing with deeper human interactions (LiT) or utter detachment from (Somewhere). Not without its own controversy, Coppola apparently removed (and thus whitewashed, considering the cast) a slave girl from the original story, to which reading her rebuttal was either totally confusing or a bit befuddling. Anyway, basic synopsis still frames this as a period piece back in the Civil War, when a wounded Union soldier is sheltered at an all-women boarding school, which destabilizes their inner sanctum as well as their emotional grip. From what I understand, Coppola dispels much of the manipulative and exploitative tone of the original source, prefering gallantry and shades of duplicity in the dialogues and minute character developments. This has screened in my capital's Cannesfest and I've already read a couple of local minds dissing it as yet another shallow exercise from Coppola - and while the visuals are all in pristine shape (the sound design even going as far as to have outdoor ambiental sounds - such as crickets - constantly in the back of your ear) and the performances show control, restraint and tenuity, one could also wonder if Coppola hasn't encassed it all into a mere globe of a fantasy piece. Personally, not ready to say how great of a movie this is or not, but I can honestly say it was one after a very long time that didn't wholly feel like her fooling around and wasting her talent. It invites a great amount of interpretation, for sure, as to the extent of what she accomplishes or does right here.

[DharmaHelper]

1. Its Themyscira

2. Homecoming was better than Raimi 1.

[speedchuck]

2. Homecoming was better than Raimi 1.

Easily.

But was it better than Raimi 2?

[DharmaHelper]

Its been a while since I've seen the Raimi Spider-Men, but probably.

[insertnamehere]

if Spiderman Homecoming was entirely about Hannibal Burress' gym teacher character, it would have been the best superhero movie ever made

[Ricochet]

Ah. I always try to remember that island's name as The Mascara.

[Epignosis]

Watched the live action Beauty and the Beast last night.

Spoiler: show

The characters are French, but 98% of them speak with a British accent.

That is all.

[Ricochet]

Watched the live action Beauty and the Beast last night.

Spoiler: show

The characters are French, but 98% of them speak with a British accent.

That is all.

I never imagined Hollywood could do such a thing.

[Ricochet]

So as mentioned a couple of times, last weekend I went to a three-day screening fest of recent Cannes movies, but I guess I didn't find the time nor the mood to report on them until now. Considering I've now seen 9 out of the 19 movies that competed for the Palme - as well as half of those that did end up receiving official awards - and that most of the remaining 10 were uniformly rated at the low end, I think I can say we're looking at a shaky year. Still holding some hope for the new Lanthimos (The Lobster, Dogtooth) and for Lynne Ramsay's (We Need to Talk About Kevin) You Were Never Really Here (even if this last one was seen already in my capital by critics and movie-goers I follow and was deemed the epitomy of style-over-substance), plus Zvyagintsev's Loveless will probably be the usual dose of chest-emptying dread - but otherwise... myeah.

As far as tendencies go, I sensed too much of a "going in the same direction previous Festival award-grabbers did" vibe, which is less than ideal, of course, in terms of actually promoting original, cutting edge or forward-thinking works. Oh look, auteurs who are sticking to their tropes and thus repeating themselves (Haneke, Baumbach, presumably Zvyagintsev as well)! Oh look, a liberal gay drama (Blue is the Warmest Color was only four years ago winkwinkwinkwink)! Oh look, a refugees drama! Oh look, self-congratulatory arthouse pretentiousness! Oui, ouiii, oh là là, c'est Cannes! I must be coming off strong by the tone of this, but this is probably the first year I've grown wary of these movies being more about pushing a certain agenda in search for laurels rather than crafting a potent message.

But anyway, let me now be even more verbose by going into the actual individual reviews.

A (10)/A- (9) / B+ (8) / B (7) / B- (6) / C (5) / D (3-4) / F (1-2) / No rating

Day One

The Square (link) - Palme d'Or 2017 - this movie is in a really weird spot, I'd say, since it's neither a top notch work to remember in five years' time as a Palme winner, but seeing its competition thus far, you could very well scratch your head in trying to answer "what else could / would / should have..." If some of you may be well familiar with the term "Oscarbait" and with the type of movies that may attain such a derogatory tag each year, well, this one may well be considered proper Cannesbait. I mean, it's not awful by any means and pulls off some absurd, cringe comedic stunts, but upon drawing the line, it also felt comprehensively shallow and insignificant.
Oh right, context. This was by Swedish director Robin Östlund, whose previous big work, Force Majeure, was also a critical hit (taking Cannes' Jury Prize in the Un Certain Regard - the small league - category). I appreciated that one to a certain degree, especially for creating a total potboiler of a psychological family drama out of a very small, triggering event, whilst also coating it with some alpine scenery, musical cues that are cheeky by default (Vivaldi's Seasons) and a merry dose of satirizing humor. Östlund's taste for satire carries over in full swing on this new movie, centered on a contemporary museum curator who sort of lives in his own bubble, both trying to organize an exhibition that's as elementary in its presentation as it is highfaluting in its message and experiencing within this line of work and prestige a high-bourgeois disconnection from real, pedestrian human living, only to then be shaken up by a real, pedestrian event that sends him into doing the stupidest shit, worthy of a Mr. Bean episode. This movie seriously throws its satirical themes right at you - art as a medium for snotty, vainglorious pomposity; social media appetite for shocking value and controversy; increasingly prefunctory human connections; yadda yadda - but also executes everything in a way that, with each step, it wants to scream "that's the joke". Hence turning into a movie holding the mirror to high art pretentiousness, whilst also proving itself high-art pretentiousness - cause "that's the point tee hee". Again, this had some decent levels of absurd comedy - with some bits reminiscent of Roy Andersson's own gaga works - and a delirious party scene (hinted at in the trailer) that invites cult delight, and yet it makes you none the wiser, nor does it fully earn an acknowledgement towards being something truly serious.

Day Two

Good Time (link) - competing 2017 - the only thing I could say against this movie is that it failed to knock my socks off or anything. Otherwise, this created some rave at the festival and outside it, not being hard to see why. This is a new work by indie newcomers Safdie Brothers (Heaven Knows What, which I've yet to actually see) who don't shy away or sugarcoat anything in the process of bringing some grimy, suburban stories on the screen, as verité as possible, but also with some cinematic flair. This one's premise is as mild as a heist-gone-wrong for two brothers, one of them being mentally challenged and ending up imprisoned (Ben Safdie, interestingly casting himself in the role), while the other (Robert Pattison) goes then a limb to try everything in his powers (outside the law, biensur) to snatch his brother back. This caper is then delivered in an edgy fashion - extreme close-ups; joyless situations and cynical human interactions; rugged characters that give less the impression of actors playing roles than real life people. Slight adornment comes with a retro synth soundtrack offered by Oneohtrix Point Never and with different locations shot at their distinct visual potential - from the squalor of darkly lit households to wide-shot drone flybys of cars speeding on highways to the nocturnal neons in an amusement park. Pattison's acting was praised as growing into full method and, sure, he does a tight, fully invested job. This movie doesn't try by any means to be shocking or unsettling, but it does depict with subtle trepidation and dizziness someone's obsessive goals and trials in the name of brotherhood.

Jupiter's Moon (link) - competing 2017 - didn't go into this one with much expectations, because during the festival I had read mostly deriding reactions towards it. Just like Östlund above, Hungarian director Kornél Mundruczó stepped up to Palme competition tier after winning the Un Certain Regard with his previous movie, White God, one hard to explain (or even remember nowadays) except for the narrative and technical audacity of stray dogs storming through and wrecking havoc on the streets of Budapest. A clear element of technical wizardry from Mundruczó persists, as this new movie can at least treat you with a dazzling one shot intro of immigrants fleeing arrest through plains, swamps and forests, a 360°spin and destruction of an apartment chamber, a dizzy chase scene through a crowded subway station and, of course, magical scenes of human flight - as the premise is about a young Syrian refugee who gets mercilessly shot at the border only to awaken levitation abilities. Thereafter, a disgraced doctor tries to both protect him and take advantage of his powers, whilst the border police force embark themselves on a good old manhunt. Unfortunately, the movie otherwise dives into convoluted, multi-genred messiness - aiming to be a sympathetic refugee drama, a potential dissent towards the Hungarian government's border enforcement and alarming authoritarian undertones, a downcast dystopian brew strongly emulating Children of Men, a murky character study of empathy, solidarity or malevolence and some kind of "magic-realistic" superhero bolt. I even watched afterwards the press conference with this movie's crew and didn't get the sense Mundruczó can send a focused, rigurous message across; nor is he a polished stylist through and through. I even had some issues with the dialogues, as they seemed eerily and heavily overdubbed. This movie had perhaps the spark, even for such an audacious, mesmerizing concept, yet got bogged down by hardboiled cliches and weak narrative flows. This was Will Smith's favorite movie from the jury, so there you go.

BPM / 120 Battements par minute / 120 Beats per minute - Grand Prix (runner-up) 2017, but for a while the hot favorite, especially considering LGBT-favoring Almodovar was chairman of the jury - directed by Robin Campillo, who wrote the screenplay of a previous Palme d'Or winner Entre les murs / The Class (I've seen some confuse him as having also directed that one). Now, The Class was a fairly atypical Palme winner itself, yet, if it didn't reveal any special cinematic qualities, it still had great flow, dynamic and tension in its dialogues between a large group of actors - which is a direct nod to the screenplay. Well then, this one chronicles the French branch of the advocacy group ACT UP and its activity during the early 90s to get proper legal policies, medical transparency and better social awareness about the AIDS pandemic, and the movie's best parts rely, once more, in the screenwriter's virtue to create collective dialogues, debates, confrontations etc. that feel genuine, alert, emotional and interesting. Less fortunately, Campillo also decided to build a proper drama around a standout person from this group (the one in the poster, played by Nahuel Pérez Biscayart) and his life putting his heart out with the group, whilst struggling with the disease, something that's shown, in great lengths, through all its predictable phases - and it sure takes its sweet ass time; the last 30 minutes felt interminable. There is also explicit gay romance (well, maybe not entirely explicit; showing female genitalia is ok, but showing dongs is still a no-no, apparently) that, honestly, as I've hinted, rivaled with Blue Is the Warmest Color in terms of pure buzz value - though one scene in particular was of such unerotic context, it came off impressive in its depiction; there is also a penchant for a lot of discotheque transitioning scenes in which the character would kinetically purge their bodies; there were also CGI scenes of molecules and cells, meant to come off poetic and Mallickian, but which served little purpose. Overall, I would say that the lack of "any special cinematic qualities" surfaced in the drama chapters, as it aimed for more outside its socio-politically charged scenes of collective campaigning and debate. Not a bad movie by any means, if you want an emotional melodrama, but it's hard not think of it as by the book, in that regard.

Day Three

Jim Jarmusch's Paterson - competing 2016 - was also screened, but I didn't go see it a third time, except for getting there on time to rewatch my favorite scene from it, towards the end. I've written about it twice here, I don't need to expand upon what a subtle, humble gen I found it to be.

Happy End (link) - competing 2017 - this was... frustrating; it had what felt like a perfect finish during its last 15 minutes, but before that, for roughly an hour, I could almost feel my skin peel off. And I'm not saying this out of any naïveté of not being aware how much Michael Haneke can suck the soul out of you with his movies. In a way, everything he does here is as clinical, formalist and so-alike-him as in the past: the ensemble acting is great (including a 12-year old Fantine Harduin acting well beyond her age), although at the same time all the storylines were hella fragmented (purposefully so, one could say, but still); the realism is classy as always; he even incorporates Snapchat or Messaging in a way that's resourceful, plot relevant and sardonically delivered - yet it also felt like a minor chamber piece, with a lot of rehashed ideas of his, bafflingly so on occasion - I mean Jean-Louis Trintignant plays again an old widower who went through a certain experience with his wife that seems copy-effing-pasted out of Amour! So, really, there is nothing surprising in Haneke putting you through another story with a rich-people-are-awful moral of a rotten-to-its-core, big high-class family in which everyone's messed up in some way and, gradually, you'll find less motive to root for anyone in particular; but there was also little of great vision, this time around - or at least so it felt. I see that we're also supposed to believe this movie addresses in some way the refugee crisis, since it's shot at Calais and features some African refugees, even though those additions felt hamfisted in a "gee, rich white priviledge, shocker" way, plus Haneke downplayed it as Calais having been a mere pleasant or convenient location choice. Like, huh...?

Krotkaya / A Gentle Creature - competing 2017 - fatigue probably got to me with this last full-length feature of the festival, which required another two hours and a half to sit through. Directed by Sergei Loznitsa, with whom I was unfamiliar, and loosely adapted from an eponymous short by Dostoyevsky, this proved that, in stark contrast to Western cineasts mentioned above, self-absorbed in creating realism that's mostly just in their head, Eastern cinema (as I'm sure Zvyaginstev himself will prove once more) is absorbed in realism that still hits so bitterly close to home. Story is about a married woman with a faceless, nameless and ultimately "seen-less" husband serving time, who one day finds out the packages she's been sending to him were rejected and returned, with no official explanation. She then embarks on a journey to see his husband in prison, only to face the same bureaucratic and inhumane wall, not to mention expose herself to the dangers of a remote village with no real friendly face in sight. The woman's uncanny stoicism only deepens the miserable, vile world surrounding her, aching to be described as kafkaesque or to be seen as... well, y'know... Russia. Anyway, gossip I picked at the venue, plus a few local critics I read reacted positively to this woeful rural tale, that's so hyperrealistic in its ugly, depressing depiction of what seems like a genuine circle of hell, but I have to say I found it tough to endure. And for an hour and 45 minutes, it was purely that - but then, the director considered one final trick and pushed the narrative into the realm of magic realism, including a long-winded scene that seemed to satirize old communist congressional speeches, only to finally crash this fantasy itself into more dreariness. This was not really miserabilist cinema, but more like a morose, desolate fable. I just couldn't or didn't have energy left to resonate with it.

Unrelated to Cannes, but in connection with Loznitsa's movie, we were also treated with a Moldavian short film, Chers amis (this doesn't even have an IMDb page), directed by one of the actors from A Gentle Creature, Valeriu Andriuță. Running for 20 minutes, it's shot like a bottle episode of a TV drama, in which the teachers of a derelict school sit in the staffroom, each one invested with some stereotypical traits, sharing their woes as they face bitter winter and little resources, only to shortly be emboldened by an implausible donation/charity letter received all the way from France. The movie is meant as a bittersweet comedy, with its harsh reality sure to resonate deep not only in Moldova, but Romania as well, plus its humor translated well, too, at least for us, since at least half of the audience cracked up big time.

Addendum

Lastly, I could add to this bunch the fact that I've watched The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected) (link) in private - it got released on Netflix, afaik, if not also in theaters - which is the new Noah Baumbach movie. Personally, I'm not a Baumbach devotee by any means; each new movie of his either resonates with me to some degree or flies by. Whenever it's not mumblecore or hipster-esque, it's sure to still come off as something of a bittersweet, dysfunctional drama, which is the case here as well. I'm going to leave this one unrated for now, but sure, this is like a better Woodyallen-esque story than Woody Allen cares to conceive anymore these days and I could acknowledge that both Ben Stiller and Adam Sandler are steered into giving solid, quality performances as sons in a not-very-rewarding relationship with their loony, self-centered and difficult father, played by Dustin Hoffman. This was also referenced as a spiritual sequel to The Squid and the Whale, since it deals with pressuring relationships within a family of artists, bound to think too highly of themselves - but I remember not having enjoyed that movie one bit, and that must have been at an age in which I was still too young to even develop critical thinking, that's how little I must have enjoyed it. Also reminded me of The Savages for a good stretch of it. It was ok, savorful and maddening in its father-sons interactions, but again, you'll mostly get a shrug from me at the end of any Baumbach viewing.

[juliets]

Has anyone seen La La Land? What did you think? I had no desire to see it yet we ended up watching it last night and though I didn't really know how I felt last night, this morning I can't get it off my mind. It was like one of those old fashioned love story movies in black and white only it was now and in color. I'm curious as to whether anyone else saw it and loved it or hated it.

[insertnamehere]

[mention]Ricochet[/mention]

https://www.avclub.com/cat-lovers-bewar ... 1822214041

[Ricochet]

I rewatch it every three years on Easter, so the timing seems perfect.

[lapluie]

"The open house" netflix original movie 1/10
Pretty lame, the storyline was v mediocre, typial horror movie where killer breaks in house & attempts murder.
Do not recommend to watch, the ending was a failure to all horror movies, there was no answer to why the killer was in the house. Didn't show his face. Acting was bad. & so was the jumpscares. Meh

[G-Man]

My wife and I watched La La Land recently. I can see why Hollywood and certain demographics gushed over it but I only gave it a 3.25 out of 5. I’m not anti-follow-your-dreams but the wannabe actress and all-but-bohemian jazz bum pairing was never going to grip me.

I appreciate the ending though. At least they had the guts to go the realistic route.

[LoRab]

"The open house" netflix original movie 1/10
Pretty lame, the storyline was v mediocre, typial horror movie where killer breaks in house & attempts murder.
Do not recommend to watch, the ending was a failure to all horror movies, there was no answer to why the killer was in the house. Didn't show his face. Acting was bad. & so was the jumpscares. Meh

I feel like the netflix original series are by and large really good--but the movies no so much. Maybe they should stick to series...

[insertnamehere]

Okja and Mudbound were both pretty fantastic, and I’m hesitantly hyped for Duncan Jones’ Mute.

But there’s certainly a whooole lotta meh in there.

[Ricochet]

Okja was absolute cringe and Mudbound was wasted by banal, sprawling epic narrative flavor.

[timmer]

Movies I watched this month:

La Collectionneuse (Rohmer, '67) - Brilliant. Fun to watch with the uber-sexy Haydee, but more enjoyable to listen to as the narrator is so clueless about his own motivations that listening/watching him disintegrate becomes a total joy. Only flaw is that the male friend character was inferior to the other two.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (Nichols, '66) - I almost turned this off after 15 minutes because Elizabeth Taylor was JUST ACTING SO MUCH, but man, once the film settles in it's fucking devastating. Too few films deal with and humanize the unhappy, the damaged, and the fucked up among us, or if they do, it's to get those characters to a point where they change, become "better". This film simply lets its characters be who they are and leaves the judging to us, if we so choose. And by film's end, Taylor was incredible, in fact all four actors inhabited their roles perfectly.

Journey to the West (Tsai, '14) - I can't honestly put into words why I loved this. but it could have gone on another hour and I'd have happily watched it. I love films that just let you absorb life.

A Quiet Passion (Davies, '16) - A bit stiff at times, but Cynthia Nixon is incredible as the poet who simply does not want what she does not want, society and convention be damned.

the Gleaners & I (Varda, '00) - Agnes Varda is love.

Cluny Brown (Lubitsch, '46) - A nice late-career effort by Lubitsch where no one really tries too hard and the vibe is actually pretty chill. I like that Charles Boyer's character seemed unsure of himself and like he was following instinct without knowing where it would go, a welcome reprieve from the Maurice Chevalier years where his character was so damn smarmy (and rape-y).

The Viking (Neill, '28) - a silent film in glorious Technicolor? Yup. They had color tech figured out before sound, but never bothered to use it for decades. Wut.

[Ricochet]

I should resume watching Rohmers. Started them in chronological order years ago, but only kept the pace with the first ten or so.

[Ricochet]

I've transitioned to Letterboxd for the past month and a half to rate and write diary entries, notes, ramblings, mini-reviews, but I suppose I could keep posting some roundups in here as well, even though it's a thread used by only one other member (and occasionally timmer). The star and half-star rating on Letterboxd match a 1 to 10 scale (for instance, ⋆⋆1/2 being 5 and ⋆⋆⋆ being 6).

mother! (Darren Aronofsky) (2017) ⋆⋆1/2
To watch this and then just put it away would be the best action I could think of, because otherwise I, for one, don't get why Aronofsky's works should keep getting validation, when they're not even the right kind of edgy and twisted. Certainly not here, where his ain't-them-clever allegories couldn't be lazier and about as cheeky as me having put this on during Christmas Eve. I mean, is this less daft than Noah? Sure. Is it a better dark fantasy than his last I truly bothered with, Black Swan? I'd say it isn't. I found both Bardem's and Lawrence's performances pretty subdued, intentionally or not - definitely no giant arthouse leap for Lawrence, compared to all the diva acting in O'Russell's movies; meanwhile, Harris and Pfeiffer score looser, more middling, menacing performances, but of course they're in no way relatable, since they're purely designed as agents of chaos. Is there virtuosity in this big unfold of madness? Sure - its big babel-esque act feeling, in fact, just short in ambition of having been accomplished all in one-shot - yet, for all its praised dementedness, I felt more quease out of two short shots of a toilet and a bloodied hole in a floor than during the whole pandemoniacal culmination. Madman filmmaking aside, this movie simply can't register when so hamfisted and banal in its intended higher purport.

Mamma Roma (Pier Paolo Pasolini) (1962) ⋆⋆⋆1/2
Complete Pasolini neophyte without any notion of how this stacks up compared to his others, still at first viewing there were a handful of enthralling scenes, most if not all due to Anna Magnani's puissant performance, interpreting her struggles with a mix of emotion and chilling hysteria. Also at first reaction, an opening scene for the books. Story also evolves into a tale of motherhood, as Magnani's character tries to (re)connect with her son and ward him off the dangers of gang life or the temptations of facile affairs of the heart. Only drawback for the time being I could note would be that I felt the mother's story to be more compelling than the son's own coming-of-age-like side.

Mudbound (Dee Rees) (2017) ⋆⋆1/2
Hardly a bad drama to watch, but its overstretched narrative and spelled-out, mirror-holding thematic delivery make it more difficult to boost it with praise. By the half point, it's made clear who you're supposed to be rooting for (i.e. every underpriviledged character not qualifying as "white male"), yet that's preceded by a novellistic desire to create an overarching convergence of multiple backstories, dramas and fates. Harshly historical and realistic as it may be - plus with intent to signal racial realities of the present - sitting through the movie becomes - due to a rather uninspired intro sequence triggering a flashback device for the rest of the movie - a mere exercise of embracing the tragedy to unfold and even at that taking quite some time. Overall, it's quite telling when the heavy use of multiple voiceovers (feeding off a mix of faulknerian stream-of-consciousness and morrisonian knifelike frankness) counts as the least of this movie's problems.

Les deux amis (Two Friends) (Louis Garrell) (2015) ⋆⋆⋆
A tale of crazed, infelicitous, toxic romance and even friendship, despite what the title may allude to, its progression into a messy love triangle being likely the most commonplace aspect of the story. Interestingly we are drive right into the agitation, with little amount of backstory, certainly not for how Farahani's and Macaigne's characters ever got so entangled in the first place (a few quick scenes between them early on make it unclear whether they're flashbacks or current - though in the end I'd think it's the former case). Rather liked what the two of them attempted in terms of unhinged performing (standout weird, loose dance scene in her case, incessant display of miserable lovesickness in his); less to note about Garrel's presence, who, even as a director and writer, seems to constantly push himself into a corner of rigid portrayal of a mumbling, somber, mopey and (in this case; or is it always the case?) arrogantly promiscuous as well lover. Pretty flat moviemaking in addition, but overall I'll give it an extra half star for its inexplicable "folie".

Battle of the Sexes (Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris) (2017) ⋆⋆1/2
Light, conventional, timely done and marketed (in light of the new wave of struggles against male chauvinism and abuse, a certain presidential stand-off, plus I can assure you internet troll talks about why female tennis players should get the same prize money as male ones are still going strong, especially when Grand Slam matches end with a whitewash on the ladies' side, while the men carry five-hour classic battles). You can sense that it's a 2-hour stretch of its subject, every bit of it an orderly yet (again) conventional build up to a main event, while other plots are crammed in but ultimately half-assed (King's affair and its impact, the King-Court feud extending beyond on-court rivalry or any other female athletes not-named-King ever fitting into the picture). Certain token characters tie up with Mudbound's Pappy for chewing discriminatory, written-so-hard-the-pencil-snapped lines, just to get the message across. This movie is political and feminist first, sporting third, to which end I was mixed on its match scenes, sort of capturing the sense of a real broadcast, still filmed from such distance and little focus, that it never felt immersive, nor did I believe much Stone and Carell to have filmed anything besides reaction shots in between points. Don't sense either of them put too much method into their portrayals, but mostly enjoyed Stone's performance nevertheless.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (Martin McDonagh) (2017) ⋆⋆⋆1/2
An overall welcomed return to form (and to his strengths) for McDonagh (not necessarily a given for me, considering his purposelessly slapstick previous Seven Psychopaths). Stark drama, gushing violence, crude cussing and neurotic comedy were never too strong of a cup (In Bruges), but as the scale tips towards moral over drollery this time, the humor here might prove too uncomfortable at times, just like certain scenes made me question, mid-watch, whether it wasn't all becoming increasingly sadistical. Otherwise, what looks on paper (and at least during the first act) to be a movie about revenge, police inefficiency or social rancor with a certain zeitgeist vibe to it might not prove so straightforward in terms of situation, characters and our perceiving of them (particularly challenging a narrative and empathetic flip-flop on a certain character's own turnaround - which fwiw I think it kiiiiinda works, given certain factors). Make no mistake, the lecturing tone is present, but isn't quite the movie's forte (take for instance the heavy brushstrokes on racism backfiring due to directorial deafness). That rather leaves us with a more universal kind of message on hatred begetting hatred, delivered in sheer ignitable cinematic form.

I, Tonya (Craig Gillespie) (2017) ⋆⋆⋆
As far as Oscarbait goes, wouldn't deny it had a pretty solid first half for its sharp exercise in watching human awfulness, plus with a not-too-unfamiliar manic paced, zippy, metanarrative, mockdrama style in case you've seen stuff previous years like American Hustle, The Big Short or this moviemaker called Scorsese. Sadly the second hour slogs once becoming absorbed in its assiduous recreation of "the incident". Other turnoffs included the overdose jukebox score or Bobby Cannavale's entire plot unimportance. Peculiar but honest approach on a life story in which turmoil and controversy trumped every other detail, at the same time orbiting around the source interviews and leaving you to decide what to believe or emphatize with (if, at times, anything at all), while still carving a portrait out of Harding herself and her trials. If controversies and hard life stories sell, this movie is no less gainful from it. With so much style, montage gloss and brash, sensationalist tone put into it, the movie's heavier topics might end up skated over (pun intended), such as trauma, the issue of beating talent into top-class performance or the sports industry itself (as someone mixed on judge-ruled sports in general, one parking lot scene almost made me think the movie would tackle the biased, image-oriented side of figure skating competitions, but then nope). As mentioned early on, the least you could get out of this movie is two hours' worth of watching (mostly) truly shitty people, the great level of performances (mostly) across the board certainly of help in that regard.

Lady Bird (Greta Gerwig) (2017) ⋆⋆⋆1/2
Wondrously enough, I thought this movie matured alongside its protagonist's coming-of-(or rather snapping-out-of)-age, past a first 15-minute or so stretch that risked being frown-inducing and an all too familiar Juno-like brand of mumblesmug. Probably the best, most grounded, relatable and endearing mother character in Metcalf since Boyhood's Arquette and best, most grounded, relatable mother-daughter rocky relationship since I don't even know; would have rather liked Tracy Letts' character to be less one note as Mr. Fatherly Fathersome Father, but enjoyed him a bit all the same. Some plotlines are pushed to no real surprise, but such is life, one could say, and "such was my life", the author wants to say, and "such could be / have been yours", the movie could say. Really the surprise is how little overdone and pretentious the drama pans out. Some rightful recognition for Gerwig for the retro vibe of the visuals and just helming something out of experience and turning it into an endearing project. Does this comprehensively need to be pitched as the most lauded, awardable and perfect movie of 2017? Likely not, but such types of movies won't ever not beguile this industry.

The Shape of Water (Guillermo del Toro) (2017) ⋆⋆
Inclined, oddly enough, to draw connection between Aronofsky and del Toro, both of whom desired this year to prove they can still come up with a great one (and both, at least critically, seem to have mostly pulled it off). Yet if a new egomaniacal trip from the former was not something I had ever set my hopes up for, I did still long, deep down, for another dark fantasy epic to come del Toro's way. It's beginning to look past any hope, though, since this was absolute corn and the most I've squirmed at a movie from the 2017 season (thus far). Monsters and effects were never going to be lacking, but by God was I stunned by this banal alembication of retrofitted period piece, old cinema nostalgia and poorly inserted themes of Cold War drama, transcending romance and whatnot. Sally Hawkins can't elevate it that much (and even one particular scene with her did throw me into despair), when every other character is more of a cartoon than fish lad. One of the most cheesily and thinly written and envisioned movies of the year, of those taking themselves artistically serious. I'm even more hateful at it having made the "at least Crimson Peak's goth schlock was passable" thought ever come to my mind, during this watch.

The Disaster Artist (James Franco) (2017) ⋆⋆1/2
Truly the most benign movie from this year's (American, at the very least) awards rosters - nothing to get up in arms about (particularly if aware of Franco's modest, unnoteworthy directorial skills), but neither an experience you couldn't get some hearty chuckles out of. Franco's performance, evocation and engrossment is, for what it's worth, a bit impressive (the "ha ha ha"s especially catching me off guard each time and proving frolicsome), but sure, there is also narcissism and a sense of pet project in (t)his approach, with faux pas when giving weight to mere reenactments or a groundless window dressing of its final act. I just don't see the worth of exploring it critically, once I've had my fun watching it. It has already and will eventually fade away past this movie season as something Franco, perhaps of all people, couldn't have passed up the chance on making. It could have been improved, but I do not feel invested in the discussion on how exactly.

Call Me By Your Name (Luca Guadagnino) (2017) ⋆⋆⋆ / ⋆⋆⋆1/2
Constantly improving since 2009's Io sono l'amore, which I still dread recalling in its pretentious and overblown dramatics (2015's A Bigger Splash having been a boisterous bourgeois spectacle - with ripples of that perhaps only in Armie Hammer's two dance scenes and assured vitality - though still short on relatable hollow characters), Call Me by Your Name would easily stand as Guadagnino's most pleasant movie I've seen thus far (if ever so slightly taxing in its two-hour-plus pace), plus more than likely ranking among (or as) the most pristinely styled, well-sculpted, well-acted out of all the main lauded, awarded movies this season. No real change of habit in Guadagnino shaping up well-off, sans souci characters, brimming of shapeliness and wisdom (the line "Is there anything you don't know" might count not only as banter, but as a tongue-in-cheek nod to potential viewer frustrations, having to digest casually flown parlances on architecture, history, philosophy, etymons and Busoni-on-Liszt-on-Bach improvisations), but even that might prove marginally persuasive, given the paradisiacal Italian settings. Of course, though, one might argue that within this gorgeous, polished sculpture may lie its inherent hollowness. I would by no means demand mundane tropes of romantic, sexual or familiar conflicts, as opposed to the elegant, natural and emotional presentation Guadagnino seems to be going for, yet, if the young protagonist's only worries lie in making sense of his desire or the inevitable dissipation of an idyll, in an otherwise fully sheltered, adonisian, benevolent environment, you might just sense a bit of vacuity. I intentionally postponed the writing for a few weeks to ponder whether the movie would stick with me and, apart from making me practice my Ravel once more, it has not.

All These Sleepless Nights (Michal Marczak) (2015) ⋆⋆1/2
Rather more impressionistic in its execution than meant to mirror the troubles, inertia and loss of bearing of the (Polish) youth, this provides scenes of music and dance that made me reminisce about Mia Hansen-Løve's Eden and stuff taken almost out of the Terence Malick style glossary of daze, aimlessness and spleen, yet I must confess having drifted out of this movie way more often than in sync with it.

Beach Rats (Eliza Hittman) (2017) ⋆⋆⋆
I realize Call Me by Your Name is supposed to be our benchmark this year in terms of gay romance (well, certainly not much of romance here) and sexual discovery, yet I honestly found more conflict, anxiety, maroon and real life issues on display than in whatever bohemian, desirous depiction the former set out for. May not strive for big drama (have a hard time, in fact, recalling in great detail how it concluded, apart from the fact that it simply did at a certain point) and everything and everyone apart from a mum, but understated main performance tends to fade out in memorability, nevertheless I enjoyed some of its set pieces and small urban scope.

The Darkest Hour (Joe Wright) (2017) ⋆⋆
Part of a neverending yearly cycle of works intent to cash in, with a serious historical or biographical topic, both as significant masterworks and having transformative, "Oscarworthy" major performances, Darkest Hour is the type of movie I've long grown tired of and disinclined to appreciate in the slightest. Not much against Oldman's well done, effortful evocation, though even here I'm feeling less animated than I would have liked him to win six years ago for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. The rest, however, is so crass and unremarkable, not in the least skidding off into fantasy for cheap emotional punches. It might just attempt to nuance Churchill's portrayal so that it's not just sheer flattery, but also shows his many flaws, while his adamancy in the war paid off, still the tone varies so wildly between comedic, buffoonish and line-chewingly oratorical, the visuals looked odd and mucky (even considering that the quality of my ahem "screener" might have something to do with it) and the whole thing felt like a(nother) checkmark of a biopic, wasted in tedious fashion.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I’m not surprised by your reception of The Shape of Water. While I didn’t outright dislike it, I didn’t find it particularly interesting either. When my friends eagerly sought my perspective after we all saw it, the most I could appease them with was, “well it was certainly something different”. The cheese was laid on thick, and it was hard to take it as seriously as it appears the writer(s) took it.

[DharmaHelper]

The Cloverfield Paradox - 3/5... B+ Good solid stuff.

Difficult to talk about it without spoilers, so I will say this: Lovely cast, solid tension throughout, neat twists. Fairly easy to follow while also managing to try something ambitious. Its an enjoyable film that isn't perfect. Some of its punchier moments whiff, but when it hits, it hits big.

[DharmaHelper]

The Shape of Water - 8(?)/10

A beautiful movie with a touching, heartfelt message. Maybe not my usual speed but a fun watch and certainly deserving of the praise it's been getting.