Change Your Image
TomCruisin4Pssy
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Byzantium (2012)
Wish it had been either a bit smarter or a bit dumber
Caught a screening of this on a whim, mainly because Neil Jordan's Mona Lisa is one of my favorite films. I knew nothing about it beforehand, but I soon realized it was a "serious" vampire movie- I've never seen a serious vampire movie before, but I quickly felt it had the same problems as the serious superhero movie: It establishes moral concern without knowing how to develop it. There's a dilemma at its center: Our two leads can only survive through bloodshed. However, it sidesteps this dilemma by having Arterton only kill the nasty, and Ronan only kill those who are already dying. I found it thematically dissatisfying, as though it had no idea what its purpose was. Atmospherically, it's part of the same world as Mona Lisa: A damp, seedy locale. But aside from atmosphere and a fantastic image of a bloody waterfall (and Arterton's boobs) this doesn't have much going for it.
Wo hu cang long (2000)
Didn't like this as much as I'd hoped to
I was brought to this by Ang Lee's Hulk, which I feel is the most "artistic" big-budget genre movie since 2001 (the film, not the year) and one of the very few superhero movies worth watching. And with this, another blockbuster genre movie from Lee, I suppose what I was hoping for was something whose language barrier helped it avoid the scrutiny Hulk faced for unfashionable melodramatic tendencies. I wouldn't say I outright dislike it, but what I got wasn't what I'd hoped for- I have the same problem with it that I have with many other genre movies of the time (especially the Star Wars prequels): It's action sequences separated by people standing around explaining things (unlike Hulk, this is a film about its events more than its characters); the former is wonderful, the latter I find very dull. Most of what I watch these days isn't from Hollywood but my taste is for quite slow stuff, so this is the first time my experience with a movie has been hindered by having to read subtitles; there is just so much plot here, and it's made especially hard to keep straight with so many names that sound similar to me and my Asian face blindness. That I couldn't keep up with it is on me, I've enjoyed similar American films in the past. I will seek out another Lee film in the future on the strength of Hulk alone; I feel that if I found merit in a filmmaker's most infamous film, there'll probably be something for me in their more universally accepted films.
Gone Girl (2014)
Another thriller from Fincher
I don't have an opinion on David Fincher- I don't see what opinion there is to have on him. The quality of his films seems entirely dependent on their scripts (which can be good); the only recurring affinity of his I can identify is a liking for drab tones. Gone Girl is a drab movie. Its characters are wholly unlikable- though I don't demand that they be otherwise- and their purpose is above all else to be plot devices for a twisting and turning narrative. Nothing here feels valid or like its events were brought on by consistent characterization, it feels like an empty chain of events, one suspenseful scene to the next. Its use of flashbacks could've brought interest, conflicting our rooting interests as it reveals more unsavory details about both of its central characters- problem is that I was never interested in either of them in the first place. The score from Reznor and Ross is strong however; fittingly nondescript with occasional flourishes.
Shutter Island (2010)
One of Scorsese's weakest
A movie renowned for its twist, but I'd already guessed it during the first scene- this isn't at all a problem if a movie has depth beyond (or because of) its twist, and I certainly expect such depth from a Scorsese movie. And I like movies that deal with themes of guilt, trauma and repression, all of which work well with this movie's twist. Many of the complaints against it- choppy editing, continuity errors, obvious green screens- I actually liked, as I felt they added to the movie's dreamlike ambitions.
Unfortunately, figuring the twist so early made me overly aware of the "clever" hints throughout that can feel more like awkward exposition than a natural part of the unfolding story, and I find the premise a bit absurd for a movie with a presentation so gritty and (ironically) literal- I love Scorsese more than just about any other filmmaker, but Lynch he is not. (If anything, indulging the protagonist's delusions would make them worse)
Scorsese has gone from raw and resonant psychological films to operatic and formulaic tragedies; I've no inherent objection to the latter, as it's an approach that can work wonders on material it suits like The Wolf of Wall Street, but with the more intimate potential here, I feel modern Scorsese lets it down a bit; it winds up a bit sterile.
Forooshande (2016)
One of my favorite movies of the past decade
From the moment of the inciting incident, it's obvious where this movie's going: The protagonist feels he's been made less of a man by his wife's assailant so he seeks vengeance against his wife's wishes (she would like to forget the whole thing), not for her, but for himself, in an effort to reclaim his masculinity. However, its execution of an obvious parable is masterful.
The anti-revenge film is often hypocritical in a way similar to the anti-war film: war is inherently exciting and revenge is inherently satisfying- though not here. Both men become sad and pathetic as the movie goes on, leading to increasing discomfort instead of a sense of bittersweet satisfaction. It's a very emotionally powerful movie and one of the best in recent years.
La flor de mi secreto (1995)
A style Almodóvar would improve upon
This feels like a transitional film from Almodóvar; his earlier films played their melodramatic plot-lines humorously with underlying satire and his later films played things straight (I often love both). I don't feel this succeeded as a "later" Almodóvar film in nearly the way his subsequent films did; I find it a bit dull and repetitive; it feels like he made the leap into more serious territory before he'd found more compelling material to work with. It is affecting at times but not enough to evade an unfortunate sense of banality- which is not how I'd describe anything else I've seen from Almodóvar. Cool poster though.
Surviving Desire (1992)
Beginning to find Hal Hartley repetitive
I've found that with any director with a very unique but overtly quirky vision (Anderson, Jarmusch, and now Hartley) I'm at first immensely charmed by them but my enthusiasm wears thin with time as the quirks begin to feel less like quirks and more like cliches of the auteur's own creation; it's somewhat ironic that filmmakers who once felt so original can begin to feel more and more like caricatures as they further emphasize what made them original. The films from them that I take to most are likely to be the ones I see first, which might mean that my ambivalence towards this movie is more my problem than it is Hartley's. But I also still love Trust, so there must be something that connected with me there that's absent here- and I think this kind of auteur often forgets what it is that made their films connect with people and an over-reliance on their established style can become a copout, especially the quirky styles that have a tendency to undercut emotionally resonant moments (there are moments however where a film's quirks can allow it to express something in a purer way than a more grounded film is capable of; Jude's dance scene after he realizes he's in love was wonderful).
Rosetta (1999)
Surprisingly empty
As someone from a background similar to Rosetta's, I find the unrelenting bleakness of this movie to be banal. Sure it makes you feel something but it takes a cheap route to get there; it lacks the levity of everyday life and feels more pitying than empathetic. This isn't to say the movie's humorless (the scene where Riquet is showing her his band's tapes is quite funny), but it doesn't show Rosetta reacting to the movie's events with any emotions beyond despair, which is a pretty damning indictment of its lack of depth when so much of the movie's visual language is based around Rosetta herself (the camera is fixed on her for the entirety and the film derives its kinetic energy from her; this is interesting and should make for a more viscerally impactful film but little here feels earned). When I compare it to another film that greatly reminds me of my childhood in Paris, Texas, this doesn't feel anywhere close to being as fully realized or emotionally impactful (this isn't to say that Rosetta and Paris, Texas are aiming for the same thing, but I don't find much interest in what Rosetta is aiming for and its execution does little to change that for me). Credit to Émilie Dequenne though, if the movie was going to achieve anything at all it needed a terrific performance from her, and she delivers.
Crimes of the Future (2022)
Nothing Cronenberg hasn't done better before
I was regrettably very excited to hear that David Cronenberg was returning to his body horror roots with his more recent collaborator Viggo Mortensen. Now, I wish they'd stuck to their gangster movies- it seems Cronenberg didn't have any meaningful ideas for expanding the themes he communicated much better in Videodrome and Crash. Dialogue was never something Cronenberg was especially great at, but he was never this bad (it feels like everything here is exposition), which is especially unfortunate when the film is almost entirely dialogue, stifling any breathing room needed to create the atmosphere that made his earlier work so absorbing.
Carne trémula (1997)
Strong, despite an occasional mismatch in content and tone
At times a very impactful film about the destructive power of envy, but I find Almodóvar's more ridiculous coincidence-heavy stories from the 90s are better suited for the movies he took less seriously; here, in what's largely not a comedy, the story can sometimes remove weight from the more dramatic moments.
The opening is a fantastic, immediate scene, but its purpose puzzles me, as does the purpose of the final scene that mirrors it. Is it to say that Victor being born into an unstable and lonely world heightened his envy due to a greater need to seek approval, and the cycle won't repeated? Regardless of what it's trying to say, it's great.
The Yakuza (1974)
Almost great
I feel Sydney Pollack makes entertaining but quite unemotional movies, though my experience with him is limited. Both this and his similar thriller from the following year (Three Days of the Condor) include deaths of characters very significant to the protagonists but little impact is felt from these deaths, they only serve to drive the story into a slightly higher stakes territory. Despite its slow, atmospheric pace (which I enjoy, and it's strengthened by Pollack's first of many collaborations with the overtly '70s composer Dave Grusin) character development is largely glossed over in favor of exposition and signifiers (most of the first conversation between Mitchum and his character's former partner is signified rather than shown).
Thankfully like Three Days of the Condor, what it does well, it does very well. The cinematography is phenomenal with lots of creative overhead shots making for some very memorable action sequences, and just as the score is very early '70s, so are its visuals; the atmosphere is indeed very strong and distinct. Thematically, it's not got much to say with its honor among thieves motif, but it's the kind of dude movie that's right up my alley so its ending still moves me even if it is somewhat unearned.
Andor (2022)
Can't believe I was fooled into watching this by someone I trust
It bludgeons you over the head with every character's intent the whole time, and it does so clumsily with tedious and overwritten sentences that are much longer than they need to be. It tries so hard to tell you how to feel about everyone, but through providing minimal nuance to flesh out its characters as real people, it fails to make you feel anything at all. The prequels at least had some ambiguity surrounding the potential hypocrisy and misguided dogma of the Jedis- even if that theme was never explored in an especially insightful manner, it still shows that the prequels, which were aimed at 10-year-olds, had more trust in the intelligence of their audience than this show, which is clearly aimed at 30-year-olds who would like to indulge their infantile tendencies under the delusion of maturity. The dialogue is also much harder to reconcile because it aims for naturalism while very obviously falling short. 1-3 never aimed for that and their melodramatic tendencies suited the world they took place in.
It is also glacially paced. I don't inherently take issue with that (some of my favorite movies are "slow cinema" adjacent) but it does so little with its excessive runtime. Visually, it's dimly lit (same problem as Solo), unimaginative, and unspectacular in a world that has little merit outside of being spectacular. Compare Lucas's vision of the city (neon nightclubs, fantastical opera houses, deep colors) with this show's (muted and utilitarian). You can say that reflects the empire's reign, but 4-6 didn't feel like this.
I feel 1-3 are mediocre and Lucas fell short in many areas, but the more I see of the new Star Wars, the more obvious it becomes that he understood more than anybody what made the films exciting. I doubt 7-9 will be as remembered in 25 years as 1-3 are now- I've watched a few of the movies with my nieces and they loved TPM and were bored by TFA.