vasco_cid Reviews

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

A game changer.

[9/10 · 9 October 2017]

Everything the original Blade Runner did and everything the original Blade Runner touched upon, Blade Runner 2049 multiplies.

Plus, just as the original Blade Runner (and whichever of its versions), 2049: 1) is infinitely more complex than its first viewing lets you to process; 2) it is revolutionary both thematically and stylistically and 3) it is a film for the ages.

1) When watching 2049 for the first time, it is impossible to grasp every single of its themes to the extent that material requires the viewer to. It is illustrated through (at least) temporal far-fetched settings and concepts that brazenly delve into an anthropological and sentimental exercise of human nature, solitude, feelings, discrimination and perseverance.

2) It is virtually impossible not to feel completely overwhelmed and positively oppressed by the opulence of the settings, the inexplicable beautiful and haunting cinematography of the ever genius, ever graceful and ever superior Roger Deakins and the bleak, heavy and complex eye of Denis Villeneuve.

3) This is a film for the ages, the same way as the original Blade Runner was in the sense that all the aspects pointed out in 1) and 2) are mere allusions of how truly poignant 2049 is.

Despite having its faults (the pacing is, at times, stale and some scenes and plot points are either redundant or unnecessarily overlong) it is a film that defies definitions; that does not invite convincing into liking; that is greater than the sum of its parts. It is a work of art that invites repeated discovery and constant debate and transcends the mere purpose of entertainment and escapism that cinema offers.

The Beguiled (2017)

Coppola beguiles once again

[7/10 · 9 October 2017]

To Beguile: "to lead by deception"; "to engage the interest of by or as if by guile"; "to deprive (someone) of something by guile or deceit".

While conjecturing a position and a review for this film I realised that he Beguiled is more than a moniker for its characters: it is one for the film itself. You will find yourself simultaneously marveled by the ravishing cinematography and production design, seduced by its contained and bewildering performances and puzzled by its apparent dull and stale pacing. True to form, Coppola once again deceits the viewers into believing they've watched something rather stale and uneventful, when in fact the unsaid and the hinted upon is more powerful, substantial and engaging than you were aware.

A circumspect approach to a contained setting and a suggestion to a wider reality, for both the historic background and for the characters themselves, the Beguiled urges the viewer not to immediately praise or dismiss it, but rather to delve on it(s) subject matter(s), digest them and talk about them. That is why once again Coppola proves herself to be a singular auteur.

Mother! (2017)

mother-load!

[8/10 · 22 September 2017]

I felt as lost, baffled, confused and astonished as Lawrence's nominal character throughout the film. I tried to hold on to any kind of narrative sense or to any parallelism to previous films in an attempt to get a hint of where this was going. It is by the time the film enters its overblown third and final act where all logic, common sense and rationality seem to go out the window, that I realized that this is a) no ordinary film b) no ordinary narrative and c) its divisive reception is being supported by all the wrong reasons.

I've heard and read the words pompous, pretentious and conceited thrown around senselessly. I don't think mother! is any. The fact that this film is headlined by Lawrence pulls perhaps the wrong audience for this particular piece; but if an audience is pulled to a film expecting a product more akin to the star(s)'s previous work is an error that is all but uncontrollable, the finger of blame though should be pointed at the studio itself for selling a film for something it is not. Make no mistake, mother! is not the traditional horror film nor a suspenseful film. It is yes a scary allegorical and metaphorical film, in a genre of its own that entices - as it well should - split reactions and discussions. It is perhaps more of a discussion piece rather than a wide release audience appealing film. As thought provoking, visual and emotionally violent as it is, the film is a brutal exercise that is getting the attention for that misguidance. I truly hope that Aronofsky's latest gets all the attention, discussion and care it deserves, perhaps in time with a cult following an audience that wants to watch it, debate it and either praise or diminish it with substantiated arguments.

The Mummy (2017)

Ethan Hunt went to Iraq and all he got was a lousy mummy.

[6/10 · 9 June 2017]

Not so much lousy but maybe as forgetful and unnecessary as the T- Shirts that inspired that pun. Truth be told, 2017's The Mummy is the annual Tom Cruise-led action entertainment vehicle, not offering much (if anything) in the way of originality or creativity (the amount of direct reproductions of Brendan Fraser's 1999 flick is staggering). The key difference here is that even Cruise himself, normally competent and adequate in other similar vehicles cannot hide his displacement - it is not (only) even a matter of bad and inconsequential writing, the actor himself doesn't even make much out of a clichéd character. Yet Cruise is supported on one hand by an array of forgetful, serviceable and clumsy supporting male characters (most prominently Jake Johnson's bothersome side-kick) and on the other by two competent and likable female presences in Annabelle Wallis and Sofia Boutella.

With as many negatives, you would think that perhaps I disliked The Mummy more than I actually have. The truth is that despite its many shortcomings and linearities, the film is harmless mindless fun; 110 minutes that fly by as easily as a serviceable pilot episode of a B type show - the type you enjoyed yourself while watching but don't quite feel compelled to follow up on.

If the planned Dark Universe franchise does kick off, its appeal is now riding on the other classical monsters and, more importantly, on who Universal chooses to helm the respective films, seen as Kurtzman is actually the main responsible for this classical monster's less than adequate revival.

A Cure for Wellness (2016)

Singular

[7/10 · 6 June 2017]

One thing you absolutely cannot blame on A Cure For Wellness is lack of singularity. Everything from its promotional material, its visual flare, the themes and story are anything but common.

From its initial haunting and gloomy initial credits to its very last unique and disturbing frame, the film pulls you win and puzzles you with a serious of confusing, dark and sometimes downright macabre plot points and images that very few other directors other than Verbinski could convey. Even if more time might have been spent on the visually chilling spectacle rather than on its linear and schematic story development, Gore Verbinski is so apt at carrying a truly terrifying and engaging atmosphere that we recognize that some of its narrative shortcomings are not detrimental at all.

A Cure For Wellness is paradoxically one of the most visually beautiful films in recent memory; shot by the director's regular collaborator Bojan Bazelli, this film is as much his to revere as it is Verbinski's.

Alien: Covenant (2017)

How Many Times Can a Film be Done Over and Over?

[6/10 · 29 May 2017]

The devotees of Scott's 1978 and Cameron's 1986 masterpieces craved for adequate return to the beloved franchise following less than stellar further sequels and unnecessary crossovers.

Prometheus promised that and ended up delivering a puzzling yet interesting prequel to the franchise that most found outright outrageous or just plainly disappointing. As much as such criticism, to some extent, might be understandable it is ultimately unfair: Prometheus was dazzling-looking origin story that raised more questions than answers, which left us (me at least) anxiously waiting for expansion/ explanations.

What is more baffling is that Covenant lazily and inexplicably takes the very same premise and motivations - and character stereotypes, added a little Passengers (2016) plot points with Alien and Aliens stylistic choices and delivered a shameless formulaic, predictable, overdone and lazy sequel that could very well not be part of the cannon. Somehow, Scott's usual mastery made me not care one bit about that. I was entertained, interested and marveled at its sheer autopilot storyline. If that was Scott's plan all along, bravo. If the idea was to try and expand the mythology I'm fearful for eventual further installments.

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)

The Legend of Arthur through Ritchie's eyes.

[7/10 · 17 May 2017]

Exaggerated, overblown and ridiculous yet charming, fun and harmless in equal measure, King Arthur: Legend of The Sword is as of yet the first 2017 guilty pleasure whose dismal box office performance is entirely unjustified.

The source material is fatigued, the film was unnecessary, the mish- mash of genres kind of approach is a yawn, but Ritchie's signature and top billing should thrust haters away. No miracles were expected, no surprises were projected so why go see it? Maybe for all of the above.

Love him or hate him, Ritchie is an auteur in his own right, shepherding a whole sub-genre in his trail that never disappoints those who want to follow. The Legend of the Sword stampedes in with creative liberties, raping the IP left and right with anachronisms, implausibilities and gaping plot holes but it does so with shameless bravery, blatant recycled humour and undeniable charisma. Maybe Arthur was not the trailblazer in changing Hollywood's current formula or obsession with superhero crossover exhaustion. Maybe it is just this year's bombastic financial dud that makes its niche and tongue-in-cheek enjoyment all the more justified.

Ghost in the Shell (2017)

Visual Porn Not Prone to Repeated Returns

[3/10 · 10 April 2017]

The source material and the amount of money thrown into this high tech visual porn of a movie had all the ingredients for one of two outcomes: it could either be (a) a relevant, intelligent, thought provoking, deep and artsy addition to the futuristic genre or (b) a purposely tongue-in-cheek yet rich guilty pleasure prone to repeated viewings.

Unfortunately, this Ghost in the Shell is (c) - and no, the option is not all the above, but rather neither of the above. The first minutes are gobsmackingly beautiful and captivating; pulling the viewer to a fascinating weird world, a dystopian reality of captivating extravagance much in the vein of the landmarks like Blade Runner and Total Recall. As soon as the first action scene comes to a close, the film starts falling apart slowly, never quite recuperating any of its initial bravado, shamelessly freefalling into a pool of clichés (the eye-roll-inducing-kind) that ultimately make you stop caring for the characters, the action or even the setting. Yes, even all the praiseworthy designs and atmosphere become tiresomely repetitive. As for the much publicised whitewashing of the central characters, I'm not one to embark into absurd politic discussions; for a source material that is not necessarily ethnic-centric, it's not the whitewashing that's worrying, but how blandly and cringing it is delivered.

Power Rangers (2017)

How to fully satisfy a fan 101.

[10/10 · 24 March 2017]

High on the heels of frantic superhero revivals of past, Lionsgate acquired another niche property of the 90's in hopes of launching another multi-million dollar franchise. Luckily enough for me, being a long time hardcore fan, Power Rangers was the chosen product. I realise the cynicism of my over excitement for this film and my overwhelming praise for it, being a detractor of the Marvel cinematic universe, but subjectivism and personal nostalgia end up playing a big part in relating to these films, so... tough luck.

Power Rangers is not and was never a franchise for everyone. Its sole selling point was a very childish one, that you either related to or not. The story lines and plots were recycled, thin and repetitive and it's very cheesy and campy nature was never shed under a rug; it was always thrown directly into our faces. Nevertheless, the "narrative" potential of the series was hinted on some occasions and was only sporadically developed either because budget constraints held it back or because it never HAD to.

What Dean Israelite did here was nevertheless smart, sensible and necessary: adapting the property into the 21st century, focusing and developing characters (that were never), taking creating liberties that were harmless and present us a full-fledged nostalgia punch, armed with heart, humour and excitement. The same as the original series, the film knows it's cheesy. It knows the premise is far-fetched. But the source material asks that of you; and the reason why we escape to movies (these genre specifically) is not to find some way to fit the story into our world. It is to find escapism, fun and entertainment - and this Power Rangers (film) delivers just that and then some.

Power Rangers is not a perfect film. It will not please everyone, it will (sadly) not gross obscene amounts of money to launch the very optimistic plans for multiple sequels; but today I woke up with a wide grin knowing that this property was adapted and honoured so well despite its shortcomings, so sensibly to its publicised characters backgrounds and, most importantly, so respectfully to its legacy and fanbase.

Kong: Skull Island (2017)

Kong is not King anymore.

[4/10 · 23 March 2017]

Whether the world was in a desperate need for another King Kong or not seems immaterial after watching this. The underlying and rather obvious justification is to make way for a future crossover with another tired franchise (hello Godzilla) as money-making scheme - the same way Marvel has been doing for the past decade, revisiting, rebooting and ultimately exhausting Spider Man's and Hulk's properties.

On paper I blamed this reboot, seeing as Peter Jackson's 2005 passion project was both overlong and over-the-top but fun and engaging in equal measure. He provided an ambitious scope, not only on a technical level, to an iconic property rendering a product that is proud and respectful of its legacy but also autonomous on its own.

This 2017's outing however lacks both the same comprehensive talent and commitment and, just 12 years after that last successful adaptation, feels rather soon and unnecessary. For entertainment purposes though, all this reasoning and opposition could be waived if done right - and for a moment, as the first promotional materials started emerging (specially an astounding first trailer), it seem like it was. Nevertheless, Kong: Skull Island is guilty of not only proving those initial fears right, as it is of being utterly pedestrian and cheesy to an annoying degree.

The story (save for the time setting), the functional autopilot characters and the motivations are the same and nothing shows a glimmer of originality or audacity. Don't get me wrong, that is not necessarily a bad thing - some summer blockbusters and recent entertainment tent poles have had the same approach with very enjoying results (Prometheus did that for me, for instance).

I found myself continuously trying to find a saving grace for Kong: Skull Island, because the seamlessly magnificent cinematography and direction (of the action scenes particularly) kept me interested, kept me awed, kept me rooting - all to the point where the film had spiraled out of control into pure formulaic tawdry formula beyond redemption. The film knows it is cheesy and Vogt knows that's its selling point and that's what we came for but the forceful toleration of suspension of disbelief and exaggeration beyond reason implies we have ever cared for any of the human characters or for the central Kong, a misunderstood hero and protector. But no, we have never cared.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

Another 200 plus million Whedon Self Indulgence porn fest.

[2/10 · 8 March 2017]

The assembled Avengers cinematic universe, as well as each character's standalone film(s) is intended as an homage to a long standing property, fore fronting entertainment and nostalgia above substance and development. That is not detrimental by any means, some of the best products of entertainment have followed the same formula and found incredible and justified success. What Whedon has done with both of the assembled outings though did not qualify in this category at all. I am aware that he has achieved that untouchable-nerdy godlike status that allows him the "creative" liberties to now assemble juggernaut films like Avengers Assemble and Age of Ultron, where the eye-candy mind-numbing loud-chaos inter-cut with snide comments, punchlines and one-liners aiming at posterity are force fed on audiences. Considering then that we're not expected to be watching a film with the narrative complexity that Nolan has granted Batman trilogy, we wouldn't have expected such thin, lazy and pedestrian treatment. The characters that previously were given little to no room to develop are now treated to clichéd and forced subplots, the setup and motivations are as tired and laughable as it goes and the required comedic relief is so forced and bland that it is widely cringing. Even so, Whedon somehow manages to go through the motions requiring an almost impossible sense of suspension of disbelief, even for comic book standards and plot holes you could walk an elephant through.

All his might seem a contradictory coming from a self-proclaimed summer blockbuster superhero film fan. It might even seem more contradictory review coming from a huge X-Men, a fan that manages to somehow find redeeming qualities and saving graces in the weakest entries (and there are nine of them). The case with The Avengers franchise though is that an already overcrowded ensemble unites for sequels upon sequels, not to mention their own parallel trilogies that also include mini reunions of sorts, with absolutely no originality or saving grace other than the massive wide spectacle of worldwide destruction. Call it cynicism, call it incoherence. I call it overgrowing exhaustion with this franchise.

Allied (2016)

A classic example of the wayward opportunity

[6/10 · 7 March 2017]

As Brad Pitt's character parachutes down towards the Moroccan sand dunes in a sweepingly beautiful track shot as the movie opens, Zemeckis teases you yet again. He gives you a promisingly beautiful, cinematic and engaging setup that he never carries through.

It is a shame. That opening promised a great film considering the talent involved. The inspiration and the homages the film intends to pay are justified and handled with care and taste, yet the story itself doesn't seem to take a clear stand on whether this is a romantic drama set in the backdrop of WW2 or a gripping WW2 drama with a romantic story at its centre. This might seem like a play on words, but its rather not; whatever the approach Knight and Zemeckis should have spent more time delving into the plot, giving each character more room to grow and the audience more time or better setup to care for them. Pitt and Cotillard don't seem to know which part to play either, as their delivery never really gives us any empathy for the characters to make the finale poignant.

Allied is sadly just that, an amalgam of great condiments that somehow don't go together leading to a bittersweet final product that leaves you scratching your head wondering what could have been.

Logan (2017)

No comprende

[6/10 · 3 March 2017]

Wolverine has had quite a bumpy and uneven ride since Jackman took on the role back in 2000. He's been in the main trilogy, he's made appearances in the prequel-trilogy and has had also three spin-offs of his own. As charismatic as the character and the actor playing him are, all of his stand alone outings ended up lacking just that: charisma.

While Origins is often pinned down as a disaster, The Wolverine follow up ended up being a truly catastrophic mess; and despite Mangold's efforts to make amends in this final outing, "Logan" is not as strong as it should have been and also isn't the proper conclusion the character needed. The whole selling point was to adapt the Old Man Logan comic as the send-off to the iconic mutant with an R-Rating, an approach the character was craving for since 2000. The gripping action is there, the acting is unexpectedly superior for comic-book films' standards and there's enough character development to elevate the film. Nevertheless, Mangold somehow manages to have the film feel uncomfortably familiar, predictable and deficient denoting a weak directing pulse and sense of conclusion urgency.

As an avid X-Men fan and Jackman's interpretation of Wolverine, I ended up finding all three of the solo outings lacking in a way the ensemble ones (even the weaker ones) never did; he has inhabited Wolverine from day one and it is quite astonishing how he's made 9 appearances in the franchise and none of those felt flat, phoned-in or tired. It was a fully physical and emotional commitment to the mythos that honestly doesn't leave much space left for anyone else to take on or reinterpret(although sadly, we know it's bound to happen).

20th Century Women (2016)

Underrated, uplifting, harmless and revivalist

[7/10 · 1 March 2017]

Underrated, uplifting, harmless and revivalist, Women is a film that somehow slipped under the radar not quite getting the attention it undeniably deserves. Mills's prowess here to manage to make a completely uneventful story feel convoluted, nuanced and relevant.

20th Century Women is carried heavily on the shoulders of its actors, impeccably led by the always spotless Bening, rising Fanning and omnipresent Gerwig. Paradoxically though Mills doesn't manage to aptly translate to the screen his own sharp and charming script; as whole the film works - and gets its message across (even if it doesn't have to) - but as we're sitting through the film, it feels slightly rusty and slow, almost craving for a bump or a twist. The staleness is harmless though as the characters' likability is palpable and the charm overabundant, rendering those small flaws feel non-existent in hindsight.

Jurassic World (2015)

We will always have Jurassic Park.

[2/10 · 21 February 2017]

Jurassic Park was not only a decade defining film, it was a technical wonder, wisely balancing fun, spectacle, adventure, horror and comedy in a sharp and sensible way. The sequels that followed paled in comparison to the original, but still retained a sense of fun and understanding. Cut to 2015. Thank you Colin Trevorrow. Thank you for uninspiringly and atrociously murdering an already quality declining franchise that land-marked my childhood.

Jurassic World went through development hell, a roulette of screenwriters and directors that at one point or another were deemed unfit or felt the story needed betterment. It's all the more revolting that the final product we were given is such a lazy, blunt and appalling rehash or update of the original entry. Every plot point is uninspired, every single idea is pedestrianly realised and every look overly stylized and saturated.

As a devout film fan myself, whose list of guilty pleasure or so-bad- that's-so-good films is almost embarrassing to admit, I found(ind) that Jurassic World cannot in anyway qualify to any of such categories. This is a franchise that I followed as I grew up, spawned by one of the most marvelous films ever made; this fourth entry though managed to shamelessly spit on its legacy, reduce it to laziness and banality, to a level of insulting dullness. Once more, let us thank and grant Trevorrow such honour.

Jackie (V) (2016)

It's not a one woman show; it's a triumph on all counts.

[8/10 · 17 February 2017]

Biopics are a thorny undertaking. The usual old-school and conventional films attempted to re-count the subject's whole life ticking every required box both narratively and artistically. The proliferation of biopics or TV series, despite making the genre and the approach tiresome and unimaginative never really determined its disappearance or decline. In recent years however biopics are offered in different clothing, a characterization of the figure, focusing on a single defining event.

The film depicts Jackie Kennedy's four days following husband and then President John F. Kennedy's assassination in Dallas in 1963. The film's biggest strength is however what might pull away most: it's very personal, circumspect, sombre and emotionally violent approach. As the film unfolds, you realise that there would be no better way of telling this story, of defining this figure and this event. Larraín's firm, precise and artistic lens doesn't leave Portman for a minute, catching Jackie's every emotion, from the most contained glare to every discomposure. Despite being an almost one-woman-show it is not Portman's competent yet slightly caricatural performance that defines Jackie; it's the amalgamation of comprehensive talent, from the spotless art direction and costume design, to the elegant cinematography and overbearing yet appropriate score that altogether elevate the work.

Aquarius (I) (2016)

Elegant, insightful and intelligent

[8/10 · 15 February 2017]

Quiet, precise and profoundly critical, Aquarius is a sharp depiction of an ever changing, ever adapting Brazilian society, increasingly subject to a disproportionate capitalism that is bulldozing over identity, history and sentiment.

Split into three chapters - one of them construed as a prologue - there would not be a better way of introducing who this(ese) character(s) is(are) and setting up what their nature is, what motivates them and what kind of culture, family values and roots they hold throughout. Led by a powerful and heartfelt performance by Sónia Braga that single-handedly carries the film, meticulously embodying all of the character's traits in her continuous struggles with motherhood, disease, change and most importantly time lapse. Her artistic preferences and passions show how a deeply and typically traditional society can still honor and maintain their culture while not being averse to technology, change and evolution.

At the end of the day, Aquarius is an elegant tale of how opinions and values change with time and how easily the current generation might be bent and influenced by money and greed and how that greed can easily stampede over traditionalism. A definite must see.

Only God Forgives (2013)

Only Gof Forgives, only Refn understands

[5/10 · 15 February 2017]

Refn is an auteur, there is no way around it. Every film he's done, from the more commercial and approachable Drive to the downright weird and dissident Neon Demon, Refn has his own personal visual trademark, edited and scored to a clinical degree that sets his filmography apart. Only God Forgives may just be, until now, his strangest and subjective film of all, veering away from every stereotypical Hollywood trademark and only a representation of Refn's creativity. Maybe because the film is so strange and subjective that is why it is certainly difficult to secure a definitive opinion on the first viewing. The plot, or simplicity thereof, is not the factor that will welcome debate, praise or dismissal, but rather Refn's unique visual approach.

Bearing in mind how head over heels I fell for both Drive and Demon, the biased preconceptions I went into this one may have hurt my discernment of it - and because of that, I had a problem ascertaining whether or not I embarked or even liked this bizarreness. I knew I was watching something that I was not grasping and delving into. What was worse was that I didn't feel the need to come back to it to assess whether or not my experience of the film was final or if I should revisit it.

Demolition (2015)

Largely uninspired and forgetful

[4/10 · 13 February 2017]

Ever reliable Jake Gyllenhall and Naomi Watts wander around a mess of a film, that is never quite sure of what it wants be or what tone to tackle, thanks to a largely uninspired script and a grossly lackluster direction by Jean-Marc Vallé.

The initial act is promising and is even carried out nicely, but as soon as the drive, or lack thereof, of Gyllenhall's character is presented and played out, the film spirals out of control checking every clichéd box and ironically becoming even more aimless as the character himself. As the story unravels and the characters arrive at the necessary catharsis, the viewer has jumped ship long ago, emotionless and indifferent, go figure.

Tron: Legacy (2010)

Escapist and perfect guilty pleasure.

[10/10 · 9 February 2017]

I was asked why I hold this film in such high regard and why I award it the highest rating. The original Tron was landmark for the 1980's; an experience that invested on style over substance in the most harmless way. It acknowledged its tongue-in-cheek nature, embraced the playfulness and revolutionarily endeavoured into the real world vs. virtual reality.

Almost 30 years later, Legacy follows up with the same attitude (perhaps a more serious one) and ends up delivering exactly what it is set up to accomplish: a well-rounded update to cannon, amazing visuals, impeccable cinematography and a memorable score by Daft Punk. As you are led along from one lush virtual environment to another you realise just how baffling, confusing, nonsensical and plain the whole story is. What's more important is that you, pardon, I, don't care. The reason why Tron Legacy works so amazingly well for me and other cult followers who have seen both films (in my case Legacy) more times than it is sane to admit is because this is the epitome of what cinema can give you in terms of subjective escapism, i.e. guilty pleasure.

I could see true passion, devotion and effort from Kosinski, as devout fanboy himself, to elaborate and deepen an iconic and far-fetched world he grew up with. He embraced its foundations and their absurdities and expanded them in a coherent and more importantly, unpretentious way. Call it a vanity fair, a playground for computer programmers and geeks, or just a hollow harmless adventure, Legacy IS a joyride, from beginning to end, and its flaws don't harm the whole. Could the flaws be corrected to amount to a better film? They most certainly could. The philosophical, esoteric and even metaphorical themes that the film touches upon, but never really develops are precisely the fine line between playfulness and pretentiousness that Kosinski thankfully never crosses. He might in an eventual sequel; if it does happen, let us hope that he, or whomever succeeds deliver such a fun, careless, exuberant and lavish experience. If it doesn't I'm incredibly satisfied with I've got.

The VVitch: A New-England Folktale (2015)

Unsetteling

[7/10 · 3 February 2017]

The less you know about this film before you watch it, the better. The themes could find no better setting than the 17th century New England recluse scenery where this mythos has the precise place to exist and expand on its own.

First time writer/director Robert Eggers is given (almost) full liberty to embrace and elaborate on the weird and the hypnotic, creating an ever-growing and unsettling atmosphere of fear and discomfort. The film hearkens back to those classical psychological frightening horror movies of old, such as Rosemary's Baby or The Haunting where more is made out of less: suggestion is key, actual display is minimal (but ever present and upcoming). When the time comes, the unsettlement is so severe that the Gothic-demented folkloric horror shown grabs hold of whatever composure is left. The Witch is a superior film, masterfully shot and executed, not designed for repeated viewings but intended for a lasting imprint of fear and homage to the mythology it is inspired by.

Sully (2016)

An ironical uneventful crash landing

[4/10 · 1 February 2017]

Clint Eastwood apparently felt the need to adapt the events of the Miracle on The Hudson into a feature film. After watching it, you might just wonder if you find that need too.

Barely clocking in at 90 minutes, Eastwood prosaically rushes and stifles whatever material there is to transpose and work with, as Tom Hanks, playing another Tom Hanks' default role (who else could have played it anyway), does whatever he can with a by-the-numbers basic "script". When in such a short film a director and a screenwriter are required to repeatedly relapse into dream sequences of the could-had-been, you know you're in for a (figurative) crash landing.

In the end Sully is nothing more than harmless, forgettable and ironically uneventful. If that's a capital cinema crime, I can't decide but I do know that I'm not part of the audience Eastwood looked to appeal.

Hell or High Water (II) (2016)

Not original, but as provocative, intelligent and gripping as it has to be.

[8/10 · 31 January 2017]

An original screenplay but not an original story that proving that even the most tired genre in the most commonplace setting can be done right while entertaining without the need to check the brain at the door.

Carefully executed, with the right amount of slow pace and plot jolts to keep you interested, the build-up and the necessary "conclusion" are done just in the right way. In between, we can't help but see it through the analytic eyes of the character's decay as well as scrutinizing another American corner of Trump's overwhelming electorate.

Hell or High Water is another amazingly shot film in year of gorgeous- looking pictures, as well as expertly acted by an always reliable Jeff Bridges, a devoted Ben Foster and a much undervalued Chris Pine.

Moonlight (I) (2016)

Amazingly acted and impressively contained

[7/10 · 31 January 2017]

Tremendously wary on words and even more on emotions, Moonlight is nonetheless powerful on message - not the originality of the story in itself but rather how Jenkins chooses to shoot, photograph and score the complex story of Chiron as a youngster, a teenager and an adult.

Served by powerhouse performances of all three actors that embody Chiron - perfectly maintaining the exceptionally contained physical and emotional coherence of a character dealing with physical and emotional abuse as well as homosexual repression - as well as Harris' dysfunctional mother figure, Moonlight is the kind of film that soars not only but especially because of the total commitment and exertion of its actors.

Manchester by the Sea (2016)

It is Affleck's film to carry

[30 January 2017]

The seasons most melodramatic, gut punching and tragic story lays all its weight on Affleck's shoulders, that singlehandedly carries the film, from emotional moment to emotional moment, aptly supported by Hedges in a very promising performance. Lonergan writes and directs the nonlinear story, making use of suitable flashbacks to give insight and characterization to his characters, especially Williams in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it and frankly overrated performance.

Despite its heartbreaking and emotionally violent themes and their unravelment, Lonergan0s final catharsis is not melodrama for melodrama's sake; it is actually a quite adult message that you should go see, digest, talk about. You might just realise that there's quite a sweet message of family, loss, limits and how to overcome them (or not).