rafaelcr44 Reviews

Napoleon (2023)

What is a kilometer?

[4/10 · 8 December 2023]

Man, man, man... what a year for Joaquin Phoenix... "Beau is Afraid", despite him doing a great performance, is the most disappointing movie of the year for me, and Napoleon managed to be worse. As I'm not a historian, I won't analyze or criticize any historical inaccuracies here, only the film on its own.

The beginning, where the film fastly tells the audience about the years of horror and the guillotine are genuinely good, the sound job is astonishing, and the battle scenes, from the start to the end, are absolutely epic. But unfortunately my praises about the movie end right now.

Joaquin Phoenix is my favourite actor nowadays, but he's not good as Napoleon. I never saw a great leader on his performance, but a child in a soldier's body. He never passed any sense of grandiosity and leadership that his role requires. And Vanessa Kirby as Empress Josephine is disappointingly uninteresting. Napoleon's second wife (whose name I genuinely forgot) has only one scene and her only functions are marry him and give him his child. The main focus of the film is the romance between Napoleon and Josephine, and it's probably the most boring romance of the year, alongside with Foe.

Ridley Scott's direction here is as childish as Joaquin's performance. The sex scenes are hilarious, this film has the stupid redemption scene I've ever seen in my life, and he seems to treat Napoleon's life like a big theater, like a big circus, where his protagonist is the clown. The cinematography is not bad essentially, but some filter choices would fit a lot better if the director was Wes Anderson. Actually, if the frames were more symmetrical, I could easily say that this was a Napoleon Bonapart satire directed by Wes Anderson, but it's not.

Some people said this film is anti-France, which I strongly disagree, but a movie critic I watch said "probably Ridley Scott used as the base for this story the kids version of the British Encyclopedia articles about Napoleon Bonaparte". And honestly, it's hard to not believe. There are few things as disappointing as watching a 2h40min long biography about someone and feel you learned nothing about the person portrayed. I learned a lot about William Wallace watching Braveheart, I learned a lot about J. Robert Oppenheimer watching Oppenheimer, I even learned about Barbie watching Barbie!

And to finish this review and completely bury this film, were we really in France? I watched Napoleon in a cinema with my uncle, and when we were leaving the session, a man in front of us said "this movie could be in French". He was absolutely correct, this was the most american France I've ever seen. France uses the metric system, nobody adopts a French accent, Napoleon is American and Josephine is British! And it's strange saying this as Ridley Scott 2 years ago directed a masterpiece called The Last Duel, that also takes place in France, but I never felt I was in America. Maybe these feelings in Napoleon happened because Great Britain is a character in the movie as well.

I can't remember when was the last time a movie made me this sad. I think it was when I watched the previously mentioned "Beau is Afraid".

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (2023)

The perfect portrait of Disney's laziness

[5/10 · 10 May 2023]

I must admit, I think I'm one of the few Marvel non-fans who didn't attach to the hate chain that "contaminated" the studio after "Avengers: Endgame". I didn't watch all the series but, at least in cinema, I don't think the phase 4 was the tragedy that everyone says it was. But now it's in the past, and Quantumania is the film that opens the phase 5. And I have to agree that it was not the best of the beginnings.

Quantumania should be used as an example of what not to do in the process of world-building. In the first Ant-Man movies, which explored the quantum world superficially, it looked so much more interesting, so much more expandable, so much more alive. But here, besides the terrible visual effects, there's a lack of colour. The film is dark, apathetic, lifeless, and it's possible do make a film that's at the same time dark and vivid, just look at what Jordan Cronenweth did in Blade Runner (and Roger Deakins in the sequel), what Greig Fraser did in Dune and The Batman, and et cetera. And there's a narrative resource that was so dumb that I had no choice but to laugh.

And not only that. With one exception, the new characters are far from being interesting. Katy M. O'Brien's character is a copy-n-paste of Tessa Thompson from Thor: Ragnarok, Bill Murray looks extremely uncomfortable, and Kathryn Newton has nothing to do with Cassie Lang. It's not a problem that she's intelligent, but she almost rebooted her character, she makes no use of anything that Abby Ryder Fortson previously did.

And why this film is called "Ant-Man AND THE WASP: Quantumania"? Evangeline Lilly is even more secondary than she was in the first film (which was only called "Ant-Man"), and so does Michael Douglas. In contrast, Michelle Pfeiffer grows. She is genuinely interesting and it was good to see more of her.

And finally this saga has a good villain. It was not Corey Stoll, who was impossible to take seriously, as he constantly reminded me of Humpty Dumpty. It's Kang the Conqueror, made by Jonathan Majors. He's imposing, he's an excellent actor, and his character has a lot of potential for the future.

I must admit that, despite having plenty of issues, I had a fun time with this film, due to my previous appreciation for these characters, especially Scott Lang (Paul Rudd), but unlike the two other films, I think I'll forget it in one week. And someone who was definitely missed was Michael Peña.

Southern Gospel (2023)

Almost a religious movie done right. Almost.

[7/10 · 17 April 2023]

I was raised in a catholic family. I was baptized when I was almost three months old, I did my First Holy Communion when I was 11, but I grew up and paved my own path. Today I consider myself an atheist. My father was a Minister of the God's Word for years, and his "masses" (he wasn't a priest, if he was I wouldn't be even born) were the only ones where I felt something. But this something was not connection to God, it was pride of my dad. He loved doing that and maybe he still loves, and THAT was one of the points that strongly connected me to this film.

There are a lot of religion films that are absolutely restricted to people of that specific religion, and not all of them, but the most practitioners; and when they are aiming on people outside of that religion, it's a movie that usually tries to unnaturally convert its audience. "Southern Gospel" doesn't do that.

From the first scene, it criticizes the structure of the Church and the people who are in it. The movie clearly says "cathechesis is useless" (I wanted to use another word but it would not be appropriate here), it's something that draws you away from God more than it brings you closer. Another crucial thing here is the Holy Bible. The way it's used, interpreted in different manners by different characters, maintains the millenary debate about it open, allows the audience to interprete it freely, and for non-religious people, reinforces that "it's just a book".

In a nutshell, the religion here is, more than anything, the character's background. The story is not about religion, it's about a man trying to achieve his dreams. Max Ehrich (who reminded me of Andrew Garfield all the time) surprised me a lot, he seems to believe in every single word of what he's saying, and these compliments can be extended to J. Alphone Nicholson (who reminded me of Jonathan Majors all the time). The friendship between them seems genuine, and is the heart of this project. The rest of the cast is operant, except for Emma Myers. She is not a bad actress, but number one: Enid Sinclair, her character on "Wednesday", is too fresh in my head and she has the same posturing here; and numer two: Emma was definitely the wrong actress to that role, it was a grosser casting error than Sadie Sink in "The Whale", and what was that wig?

Also, despite the script hitting the bullseye on how it treats the audience on the religious aspect, it fails on telling its story properly, especially on the second half of the second act and the first half of the third act. Two essential informations are not well treated. I'm not talking about disrespect, it's far from the case, but about superficiality. Nicholson and Katelyn Nacon's characters deserved a bit more of attention (20 more minutes would help a lot). But I must be honest, I liked the ending. It's kind of a strange comparison, but it reminded me of "Mrs. Harris Goes to Paris". It almost had the intention of being "inspirational", so it was not surprising that it took this way. And predictable is quite different from bad.

I came from this film skeptical, but even being far from the target audience (yes, even being more accessible, it's still aiming on religious people), the film conquered me, dissolved my cinism and proved that not all religious movies are bad.

Trolls World Tour (2020)

Why Branch's hair is black?

[7/10 · 29 March 2023]

Gonna be honest, this is the franchise I was most prejudiced against. I only have watched the first film before, and its overcoloured palette and the torturing (at the time) musical numbers made me hate it with all my forces. It's still not a GOOD movie, but it has its value, there are some good stuff (like how they used Sound of Silence and Clint Eastwood).

The second movie, on the other hand, I watched today for the first time. I still don't like Poppy and there's a mistake on Branch's design that I couldn't stop paying attention at (it's the one on the title, I made this question myself the whole film), but the story here is richer (even without the Bergens), the world-building is incredible (it reminded me of "Kirby's Epic Yarn" and "Yoshi's Woolly World"), and Sam Rockwell is incredible as a country centaur.

The villain's motivation is undeniably ripped-off from "Avengers, Infinity War", and the vilanization and stereotyping of rock bothered me a little bit, but I would be lying if I say Barb isn't cool. And there is one moment that rock is used that was stupendous. Like the best of the first one, the humour here sometimes is brilliant (without glitter), and even I don't like Poppy, she has great chemistry with Branch and their relationship is kind of cute.

I don't know if I can say that the writing has improved, but there is a subplot involving Cooper (the "girraffe troll") that I thought it would be only an isolated subplot (like Scrat's eternal pursuit for his beloved hazelnut on the Ice Age franchise), and a plot twist that genuinely caught me. The ending... I can't say the same. I found it... hypocrite, or something near to it.

Revisiting this franchise was so less painful than I thought it would be, and I don't know why I had the idea to do this after the announcement of the third film's trailer, but... here I am. They're both nice films to watch mindlessly and in a good day.

Pi (1998)

Why this is still the best Darren Aronofsky movie

[10/10 · 15 March 2023]

People can say that I'm a bit suspect to talk about this film so passionately, as I do Mathematics at the University, but I promise this is just the top of the iceberg.

First things first, Darren Aronofsky is my second favourite director. Even his weakest movie, which for me is "The Fountain", is actually okay. I discovered him by this film in 2020, when I was looking for movies about mathematics, as my university was closed due to everything that happened that year.

Also, I love independent horror, as it's the kind of horror that you can see it was made from the heart of everyone involved. Darren could make "Pi" after collecting 60 thousand dollars on donations from family and friends, and the protagonist himself, Sean Gullette, is a friend of Darren from the university times.

Today, March 14th, the "Pi day", was the 4th time I saw this film, and it only gets better, even with the outdated cameras (by the way, they're one of the charms, but I still want to see the remasterization made by A24). The black-and-white photography and Darren's insistence on filming Max (Sean Gullette's amazing character) so closely make an incredibly built sensation of claustrophobia, even in open places like a subway station. All Max's psychological, mental and healthy troubles are very well worked, and there is where the film is triumphant on being the most disturbing I've ever seen. Yes, even more than things like "Midsommar" and the "Terrifier" franchise. Why? Simple, because as the protagonist, I love maths. I could identify myself with him, and since the first time I watched this film I said to myself "I can't let me reach Max's mental state".

This film is not only about the danger of being a work-a-holic, it's also, if it's not clear already, about numbers, and what do they mean to different people. To a corporation CEO (made by Pamela Hart), to a little kid (made by Kirstyn Mae-Anne Lao), to a retired professor (made by Mark Margolis) or even to a religion (the main jewish guy here is made by Ben Shenkman). By the way, Aronofsky is really talking about religion since the first day of his career, huh?

Yes, mathematics are the language of nature, and yes, everything can be expressed and demonstrated by numbers (these are Max's two axioms), but, surprisingly, it doesn't make mathematics an universal language. And yes, this film is also about this. Max seems to have "unfinished business with almost everyone, and we can have some drops of his past (as a former relationship with Samia Shoaib's character), but he's still a "low-profile".

The ending is absolutely perfect. It's Darren Aronofsky proving from his first movie that he, even being an atheist, works with religion in cinema like few others. The same image can have a big meaning and no meaning at all. This guy is brilliant, with capital B. There is only one better film with mathematics involved, but "Pi" is the one that makes the best use of them.

Women Talking (2022)

"Asgard is not a place"

[9/10 · 3 March 2023]

No, I didn't go wrong, I know I'm not writing about "Thor: Ragnarok", but this sentence from that film describes perfectly what this movie is. Sarah Polley deserves some applause for this script. Someone who doesn't deserve is the responsible for the trailer. Like "The Woman King", the "based on real facts" here is only the context. Both Gina Prince-Bythewood and Sarah Polley's films are revisionist movies, and should be treated as such.

Justifying why I think Sarah deserves some applause for this script: first things first, this film, contrary to what the trailer makes it look like (my brother remembered of "Chicken Run" for some reason), is not blindly feminist or something like that. It doesn't generalize all the men as criminals, and in fact, this is one of the points of discussion, which is portrayed by the presence of Ben Whishaw and the character made by Jessie Buckley, who, for me, is by far the best character. Rooney Mara represents the innocent girl thirsty for freedom who relies on speeches that, during the film, are going to prove themselves shallow, and Claire Foy is the most conflicting one, but her arc is the most subjective, but it's by far from being a problem. All characters are fighting, essentially, for the same thing, but they have different visions they are all heard.

About Frances McDormand, I understand people claiming for her to get more screen time, as she is Frances McDormand, but I really think her character would not let the narrative flow. The entire cast is excellent. The script also develops a great romance subplot that's not in the film for nothing. There's even another discussion, this one more actual, which I won't go deeper to avoid spoilers.

The film has only one simple issue: the cinematography. It's far from being bad, and honestly, speaking isolatedly is maybe the best one of 2022, but it doesn't attend it's purpose. The movie takes place in 2010, but the colour palette makes the film looking like it takes place on the 17th Century, making me think on "The Northman". This is not a spoiler, but I sometimes got distracted when I realized that Ben Whishaw's character was writing things with a BIC ballpoint pen.

But again, this is a minor issue. I laughed some times with the ballpoint pen, but I never stopped paying attention on the dialogues, on the different points of view of these women, on the girls trying to participate on the discussion (did I already say that the screenplay is brilliant?), and et cetera. This film must be watched and must be discussed. Its subject is important and the movie itself is excellent.

Babylon (I) (2022)

The most magical place in the world!

[8/10 · 26 January 2023]

I saw that American people on another website reviewed badly this movie, and I can understand why. This is, by far, Damien Chazelle's most exaggerated direction, it's something that I could wait from Baz Luhrmann from the "Moulin Rouge!" times. It didn't bother me at all, I like Baz. He goes too far sometimes, true, but, at least for me, 70 to 80% of the humour worked.

The soundtrack is "spectacular, spectacular" (I promise, no Moulin Rouge references from now on), the best of 2022, and by far. The period reconstruction is perfect, and the film sucessfully surpassed my worst fear: that it could potentially be a "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" rip-off.

Quentin Tarantino is my favourite director, and an unpopular opinion here, "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" is his weakest film. Due to the production design, the tone of the trailer, especially one sentence, and the presence of Brad Pitt and Margot Robbie in both productions, the comparisons are inevitable. The only one I can really do is the narrative structure.

The cast is excellent, the SAG nomination was fully deserved. Diego Calva, who I met here, is one of the most charismatic protagonists of 2022, he has the biggest arc of the entire film. Margot Robbie here is the complete opposite of her character in Tarantino's movie, she is the only actress who could do this character. Li Jun Li is great, but she always remembered me of Jessica Rabbit, but less femme fatale. Jovan Adepo is cool, even passing 70% of the film only playing trumpet (that trumpet was so hypnotizing, maybe the most hypnotizing one for me since "Pinky Dinky Doo") And Brad Pitt has the star power that no one else has in the entire Hollywood. I won't say anything, but alongside the protagonist, the best character is Tobey Maguire.

I hope Chazelle do the same that Tarantino did with "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood": take this script, expand it and adapt it for a book. I would be the first to buy. Despite having 3 hours, this film begs for more content, and sometimes it can feel insufficient. I would love to spend a lot more hours in this universe, even not being a big fan of the old cinema.

The epilogue is undeniably Oscar-bait, but I loved it, it was an ode to cinema. There are even some sentences that reminded me of another movies, including some from this century. I can bet that "Babylon" will age extremely well, even with its fouls.

Puss in Boots: The Last Wish (2022)

La leyenda jamás morirá!

[10/10 · 16 January 2023]

"Puss in Boots: the Last Wish" definitely didn't have the right to be this good. This is, by far, my favourite animated film of 2022! I like the first film. It's completely independent from the Shrek movies, Antonio Banderas is a charismatic protagonist and Humpty Dumpty is a great anti-anti-hero. That film wasn't perfect, it had some issues, and these issues are fixed here, and the positive stuff are almost squared.

This is the true epic that our little Gato deserved. The first film has too little expedition and action, it was a lot more focused on universe and character building, so, despite disagreeing, I can understand some people's disappointment. But now, we are in a sequel, and being a sequel for an origin story, there is a lot more creative freedom. The amazing animation style says it all!

The adventure is bigger, more brutal, more romantic, and taken more seriously, though more comically. The only forced moment here was made to be forced. From the previous film, Puss (Antonio Banderas) and Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek) are the only reminiscent ones, and they're even better than they were in 2011. The new supporting cast is more numerous and does an extraordinary job.

Perrito (Harvey Guillén) is one of the best comic DreamWorks has ever made, Florence Pugh's voice fitted Goldilocks perfectly, she and the three bears make a dangerous quartet, and Big Jack Horner (John Mulaney) represents well the unstoppable hunger for power, and there's a famous character interacting with him that's hilarious.

But the real showman here is my fellow countryman, Wagner Moura. The Big Bad Wolf is S tier villain. His presence is threatening, his whistle is chilling, and he has the best villain introduction I saw in a movie since "Inglorious Basterds". The best camera placing of 2022 is not in a live action. Curiously, the two best DreamWorks characters of the last year were wolves. Wagner and Sam Rockwell rocked!

The story is original, but far from being unpredictable. However, like a lot of universally acclaimed Pixar movies (which some of them are deservelly acclaimed), it's not what story is being told, but how it's being told. Basic but complex, small but huge, ordinary but legendary! Esta es una aventura digna para el Gato con Botas.

Violent Night (2022)

Now THIS is Christmas spirit!

[9/10 · 9 January 2023]

I'm not a fan of Christmas movies, I think I saw only one or two in my entire life, and as I grow up, my connection with this date decreases more and more. The "Christmas magic" is something that you can naturally feel only at the childhood, and as I'm not a religious person, this other type of connection is gone as well. And watching a Christmas movie in January endorses everything I've said so far.

But, like "Klaus", there was something special in "Violent Night". All Christmas clichés are present in both films, but what fills the rest of them, the premise, is what truly called my attention. David Harbour's Santa Claus is practically Oh Dae-Su from 2003's "Oldboy", and the base of the story is something that we also already saw before, but for something be good, it does not need to be original.

Like Damien Leone's "Terrifier" trilogy, Tommy Wirkola works perfectly with violence. As it's not overused and vulgarized, it becomes exciting, electrifying, and, why not, grateful. My smile was big in every single battle scene, not only because of their timing, but also due to their creativity. They weren't repetitive, which is another thing essential to make the graphic violence work.

And not only that, the film is hilarious. Harbour, besides imposing at the action sequences, has a perfect comic timing (he comes from comedy/comedic roles, so the direction used this very well). Furthermore, it's an excellent satire. Satire about rich people, about how Christmas means to different generations, about influencers, et cetera. And unlike "Don't Look Up", the cast is not forced, they fit their roles naturally.

John Leguizamo is, surprisingly, a great villain; Leah Brady is, alongside David, the soul of the project; Alex Hassell and Alexis Louder, who do Leah Brady's character's parents, have great chemistry; I loved Alexander Elliot (a genius idea); and Beverly D'Angelo is great as the cliché of a rich matriarch.

One of my favourite critics on his review about this movie criticized the use of a walkie-talkie in a film that takes place in 2022, but I totally disagree with him. Trudy is 9 years old (too young to have a cellphone), and there are people, like security guards, who use walkie-talkies until these days. It's not an absurd to use that mean of communication.

I don't know if it's too late or too early to say "Merry Christmas", but... Merry Christmas! The movie industry should bet more in this type of production. December is a month that streamings are cluttered with Christmas productions that are all the same. This holiday is far from being empty in content, there are lots of ways to talk about it outside the bubble of family movies and rom-coms. Christmas is a time for renovation, and this is what cinema needs.

Holy Spider (2022)

No Country for Old Spider

[5/10 · 5 January 2023]

What made me interested in Holy Spider is the fact that this film is multinational: the director and the actors are Iranian, the film is produced by a French, a German and two Danish companies, it's in Persian language, and the film is Denmark's candidate to the Best International Feature Film category on the Academy Awards.

I didn't have knowledge of the plot or the story behind the film, I was completely blind (something that's more and more common and I'm proud of). And, unfortunately, I felt the one thing that I shouldn't feel: indifference. And that's because of a creative decision that I will talk deeply from now.

The movie alternates between two plots: the journalist's one (the protagonist, Zar Amir-Ebrahimi) and the killer's one (Mehdi Bajestani). While the investigative one (the journalist) is uninteresting, the characters are not charismatic, the killer's one has the worst approach possible: it's treated almost like a slasher movie.

In a slasher movie, like Friday the 13th, Scream and Bodies Bodies Bodies, it's impossible not to root for at least one character to die. This approach takes the burden of all deaths, and due to what I said on the last sentence, it's not possible to root against Saeed. So, as it's not possible to root against him and it's not possible to root for him either, for obvious reasons, the only feeling left is the already said indifference.

And how Rahimi figures out that Saeed is the killer is something terribly written. Terribly. Maybe 2022's biggest example of narrative convenience. I would delete the whole Saeed's plot and focus entirely on the investigation. It's uninteresting because it's rushed, and focus more on the relationship between Rahimi, the journal and the police than on the investigation itself.

It's a technically good film, the message is fundamental (and made me understand why this movie is competing for an Oscar under the Denmark flag) and the cast is great, but the structural choice, for me, was unforgivable.

Scream (I) (2022)

A great revival, but... did someone forget to pay the phone bill?

[7/10 · 1 January 2023]

I honestly love the self-consciousness of the Scream franchise. This is not a horror saga. At least not properly. It's a satire of horror films, and I always loved the tone of the humour. And about Ghostface? That figure was and still is always a spectacle apart, "he's" the perfect example that it's possible to root for the bad guy and at the same time, want to see how he's going to be defeated.

We are in 2020s here, the technology evolved, and almost nobody uses landline anymore, and the directors, unfortunately, didn't use the full potential of the technology here, Wes Craven (RIP) used the mobile phones a lot better in Scream 4. There are three or four relevant times that Ghostface is almost a generic slasher (I had 2021 Candyman vibes), moments when I said to myself "this is not Ghostface".

This movie is kind of a Jurassic World inside of the Scream universe. It considers all the events occurred in the past films, the classic characters are present, but in secondary roles, the main cast is new. Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega are excellent, and these two are the only new characters who I can talk about without spoilers, but the entire new cast is full of charisma.

Movie after movie, the "whodunit" part of the franchise is becoming easier and easier, the mystery can be solved in less than half than an hour (Scream 4 has a better plot twist), but man, the motivations here are amazing. The film uses perfectly a screenplay gimmick that can ruin a production entirely if badly used (which is, at least, 90% of the cases). Watching "Sream 5" at the cinema must have been a tremendous event, I can imagine the audience screaming of excitement at the third act and in some isolated moments.

The Secret Life of Pets 2 (2019)

Max, Max, Max, Super Max!!

[8/10 · 17 December 2022]

The biggest triumph of "The Secret Life of Pets 2" is adopting a totally different narrative structure compared to the first film. The fact that this film is not a Toy Story rip-off anymore is relieving. Some people still criticized this new format, as it looks like more isolated TV episodes than properly a feature film (it has the same length as the 2016 movie). Maybe it's true, but, first, this structure allows to work more with the film's own title (the pets seem to have more of a secret life this time), and secondly, it has the same structure as Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Quentin Tarantino's film that was, coincidentally, released 2 months later.

I don't know which presence is more unimaginable in this franchise, if it's Alexandre Desplat, who composes the soundtrack again, but not with the same inspiration of the first movie, or if it's Harrison Ford, who never did a voice job before Rooster. Rooster, by the way, is the second best character here. I saw a review that problematized what he told to Max in some moments, that it's an outdated alpha male message, but no. People nitpick a lot.

I said Rooster was the second best character. The first one is, surprisingly, Max. Besides Patton Oswalt's voice fitting the character better than Louis CK, the Jack Russell here is the protagonist with capital P. He has the deepest arc, he's the guy who receives more attention from the script, and he's the main motivation for two of the three plotlines.

The first plotline is about Max wearing a cone due to constant stress and going to a farm where he meets Rooster, the second one is about Gidget and cats, and the third one (which is by far the weakest), is about Snowball and a Shih-tzu named Daisy rescuing a tiger (a giant cat, actually) from a circus, which owner visually reminds of Gargamel from The Smurfs (and "scriptly", it's the worst-written Illumination's character, I'm not joking).

I said enough about Max and Rooster. Duke is more coadjuvant this time, but it's not actually a problem, Gidget (Jenny Slate) is at her best, and so is Chloe (Lake Bell); Hannibal Buress and Bobby Moynihan are more fillers this time, and they had to give space to Daisy, Norman (the Guinea Pig), and Max and Duke's owner (I hate this word).

The jokes here are at the same level of the first film (in my head the 2016 ones were better, but rewatching it today I changed my mind), but even with all the absurdism, that's still present here, I prefer the other movie's final act. The ending of this film is too "wide". I think the producers were already thinking that a sequel could be made, but I don't think it'll happen, as this one has failed at the box office.

The Secret Life of Pets (2016)

One of the most overhated films ever!

[7/10 · 17 December 2022]

Fun fact: I met the universe of movie critics with The Secret Life of Pets. It was 2018, I was on holidays, my dog was hospitalised (she has been neutered), and I had nothing to do. So, I logged in Netflix, and watched this film. After that, "coincidentally", YouTube recommended me a review of this film. The guy was charismatic, and coincidentally, I went to the theatre to watch Aquaman on that same weekend. And obviously, after the session. I went back to that guy's channel (Otávio Ugá, from Super Oito, who's my favourite movie critic until today). After that, I started to follow cinema tirelessly.

Okay, this is a movie review, not a life story. And writing this text is something similar with what I did when I wrote my review of Interstellar. No influence of great memories or movie critics. And surprisingly, my opinion here didn't go as down as Nolan's film. I honestly think this movie is still good.

Yes, it's a Toy Story "rip-off"; yes, some of the jokes have aged badly; and yes, the screenplay is generic and lacks polish; but the characters are still charismatic, 70 to 80% of the jokes still work, and the soundtrack is spectacular (Alexandre Desplat, I can't expect less from a two-time Academy Award winner).

It's a simplistic argument, I know that, but I can't disagree, and I used it to talk about MicMacs, Jackass, and even Thor: Ragnarok; as The Secret Life of Pets is a comedy, its primary objective is being funny, and WOW, it's hilarious. Jenny Slate is an incredible voice actress, as I said before, I can't imagine another actor but Eric Stonestreet as Duke, Albert Brooks, Dana Carvey, Lake Bell and Hannibal Buress (Chloe and Buddy are fantastic) are also excellent, and I changed my mind about Louis CK. I used to not like his job as Max, as I still prefer the voice from the second film, but he fits the Jack Russell more than I thought (also, I don't see him anymore as a coadjuvant of his own story).

And now, an opinion that goes against the majority. All non-Brazilian reviews I've seen have slammed Kevin Hart's job as Snowball, the psycho bunny. To my mind, he's by far the best character. He has the best arc, the script knows exactly how to work with him, Kevin Hart's performance is passionate, and I still think he deserves a solo film.

I can't not recommend this movie. It's far from perfect, it's even far from great, but if you don't have anything to do and need a comedy of quality to pass the time, The Secret Life of Pets is a nice afternoon session, and it's another movie that I'm finally in peace with.

Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (2022)

Strong and powerful like Vibranium

[9/10 · 13 December 2022]

The first Black Panther is my second favourite movie of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, beat it was almost impossible, especially considering that we're in the phase four, a phase considered by both critics and fans the worst until today. And as almost everyone is tired of superhero movies being released almost monthly, my expectations were kind of low, I think I wouldn't watch this film in a theatre if Angela Bassett was not at the predictions for best supporting actress. And if she's nominated it won't be an absurd.

But the main girl here is Letitia Wright. I disagree with her thoughts, but I have no antipathy for here due to them. She's incredible here, I felt all her emotions, her self-guilt, her constant mourn, she is devasted. Her arc is incredible, and she is, BY FAR, the best female protagonist in the MCU. I liked Dominique Thorne but her best is still to come; Danai Gurira and Lupita Nyong'o are back again, both as imposing as usual; and Winston Duke is, again, as funny as usual.

Duke is funny, but the film in general is not, and this is not a critic. I loved to see a more serious film in a universe where some movies have drowned in jokes badly placed. Ryan Coogler, as Jon Watts did in "Spider-Man: No Way Home", allows the sad moments to breathe, they're never interrupted by a joke or something, the audience can feel the importance of those moments.

Tenoch Huerta is excellent, not at the same level as Michael B. Jordan in the first movie (again, it's quite impossible), but threatening. His people, Talokan, in a first moment reminded me of Avatar, but they have their own design, they're not generic, Marvel is not trying to copy James Cameron or Aquaman. Namor's motivations and decisions, both make sense, he's by far MCU's best villain since Thanos.

The only problem I had was the notorious use of the chroma key, because there's a considerable number of times when the characters are on the first plan and the second plan is totally unfocused, accusing the use of the green screen. That's when you see how much this project was affected by the pandemic.

Not only by the pandemic, but mainly by the loss of its star. Chadwick Boseman would be proud of what his fellow colleagues did to him here. They knew the strength of his character, they were respectful with him the whole time, and they knew exactly how to move on. Every time he's mentioned I had goosebumps, and there's a specific moment that can be top 5 of the entire Marvel history (if you watch you'll know).

"Black Panther: Wakanda Forever" should be taken as an example on how to make a tribute film. It celebrates the person who has gone but doesn't anchor itself to her. It's courageous, ambitious, and made with heart.

Skinamarink (2022)

One of the most different experiences I've ever had with a movie!

[10/10 · 3 December 2022]

"Skinamarink" is the scariest horror film I've seen in a long time. By the use of a traditional filming camera (the film takes place in 1995), my first thought was "omg, another rip-off of 'Paranormal Activity'". Man, I was completely wrong, this is one of the most authorial films I watched in years.

First of all, a decision that can be a red flag for some people but in my opinion, it was a crazy idea: the film is 100% suggestive. A HUNDRED PERCENT! The camera always focuses on the ceiling, on the floor, on furniture, but never on the cast. You never see the faces of anybody.

I never saw a film following this path before, and the thriller atmosphere is extraordinary since the first minute. The director invites you to mount the scenes in your head, with few visual resources, and as a person who loves puzzles, I was completely involved, like in "Incantation".

The movie's pace is questionable, but honestly, I think it wouldn't have half the impact if it was faster. And there are two extraordinarily built "jumpscare" moments that gave me goosebumps. What an experience, and this is a movie that's quite easy to write a review without spoilers because any deep information would not make sense!

If you want to know about the movie, you must watch the movie. And it's worth every second! It may be divisible, but for me, is one of the best films of the year.

Triangle of Sadness (2022)

Parabola of Sadness

[6/10 · 28 November 2022]

First of all, this is strangely the second film that has "triangle" in the title and takes place in a cruise ship (the other one was the excellent "Triangle"). This is, for sure, the strangest coincidence I've witnessed in cinema.

A quadratic function has the format f(x) = ax²+bx+c, with a different from zero, and its graphic is a parabola. When a is negative, the parabola has a downward concavity, that visually, for childish eyes like mine, looks like a sad face. And that graphic represents perfectly my feelings with this film.

The first act is uncomfortable. Every dialogue about gender privileges seems forced, despite the idea of inverting the papers I must admit it's very good. Charlbi Dean (rest in peace) is excellent as a character who as built to be hated by the audience, but her chemistry with Harris Dickinson constantly bothered me, and their characters do a horrible couple. I started thinking "she's bad for him", but both are bad for each other. And the conclusion about them is obvious, but I think it would be a spoiler to say it here.

The second act, "the yatch" is stupendous. The ship is captivating, the new characters are interesting, the captain is WOODY HARRELSON (I honestly defy everyone who's reading this to say 5 actors who are more charismatic than Woody Harrelson), the sound mixing is incredible (that fly seemed to be on my side), and the mystery aura is excellent. The dynamic between Woody and Zlatko Buric is by far the best part. It was the vertex of the parabola.

And like the transiton from the yatch to the island, the third act is again, bad. Dragged, uninteresting, and with some sparks of shining by Dolly De Leon, but everything that I praised on the cruiser arc is lost here. The character dynamics become dull, and the film seems to end without a conclusion!

French people, I mean, the Cannes Festival committee have special tastes, because the two last Palm d'Or winners are, at least, discussable. I know I'm minority, but I don't like Titane, it was excellent on the first 35 minutes and, after that, the movie was progressively losing me, and now, I wrote a whole text expressing my thoughts about "Triangle of Sadness". I sincerely can't wait to see which unusual production is going to win the prize next year!

Thomas and the Magic Railroad (2000)

Actually not a really useful movie...

[3/10 · 27 November 2022]

Thanks to Brian Tyree Henry's character in the amusing "Bullet Train", the "Thomas the Tank Engine" franchise resurrected in my memory, I rediscovered my appreciation for the series, and also found out that this franchise has a huge fanbase. It's a trademark that has almost 40 years only on screen (The Railway Series' first book is from 1945), and it's impressive how oscilating it is, just like James Bond. We had excellent moments intercalated with some terrible ones.

This film was made in 2000, when Thomas and his friends were still train models filmed, and unfortunately, it showed that Britt Alcroft's ability on writing and directing cannot leave the Island of Sodor. For the engines, the voice cast is okay, except for James, whose voice would fit Percy better. Visually, Diesel 10 is an imposing villain, especially with that claw, but his dialogues are terrible and his sidekicks are useless. And the film spends very little time on the Island of Sodor, the real plot here is the live action one.

And the live action plot is the main reason that why Britt should never leave that fictitious world of talking engines. Alec Baldwin seems at the same time to having fun and being embarrassed, the green screen here is one of the worst I've ever seen, and his relationship with Michael E. Rodgers is bizarre. Also, Peter Fonda is completely lost, Robert Tinkler does not have charisma, Didi Conn looks like a version of Shelley Duvall from The Asylum, and Mara Wilson is probably the most "nothing" of everyone.

There are three really funny jokes here, but in general, watching this film in 2022 is a little cringy. I honestly think this is the Thomas & Friends franchise product that aged worst. Even the model era of the show looks visually better. Here we see a CGI Thomas for the first time, 8 years before the conversion of the main series from model to CGI, and... wow... I have no more words.

And another thing: the film completely distorts how the engines work! As they were using real people, the engines' drivers and fellas who put coal in the train's boiler don't appear, as they're wooden dolls (and what a lazy excuse to write off the Fat Controller), and consequently, it looks like the engines and Bertie (the bus) are moving by themselves!

Oh, and a final question: Where's Edward? Were the production of the show already studying how to write off Edward years before Mattel bought Thomas? Everybody else on the steam team has a minor participation, even Toby!

The Good Nurse (2022)

Eddie deserves a second Oscar!

[10/10 · 16 November 2022]

I think I'm finally going to embark on a trip of good movies again. To be honest, this was only the 10th movie of 2022 I liked which I watched after Top Gun: Maverick, and maybe the seconde one since... September? I was not a big fan of some praised films like "Pearl", "All Quiet on the Western Front" and "Wendell & Wild", and this wave of "bad" films only ended with "Terrifier 2". And I liked every single second of "The Good Nurse".

Jessica Chastain is functional as always, she's an excellent actress, she convinces as a nurse, I cared a lot about her children and her personal problems; briefly, she knows how to lead a film. But the main star here, and that it would be a great injustice for him not to receive at least a nomination for best supporting actor, is Eddie Redmayne. On the surface, he's a gentleman, a friend who always wants to be around, but at the same time, with reserved emotions and a possible secret; in another words, he reminded me of Joel Edgerton's character in "The Gift" (another movie that everybody should watch). The difference here is: Edw... I mean, Charlie Cullen (honestly, it was hard for me to take this surname seriously) was a real person, and fortunately, Netflix never romanticizes his persona, a thought that was constant in a series they released recently, which I can't talk deeply about because I haven't seen.

The investigation plot is also interesting. The film makes the precise decision of maintaining the tone constant, only with occasional increases on the drama, never being too appelative or melodramatic. And even with some moments of humour (again, thanks to Eddie's performance), the story is always taken seriously.

Another accurate decision, which was kind of a consequence of the one I said on the last paragraph, is the film's pace. I said (not here, only on Twitter) that I felt the time a little bit in the third act of "Terrifier 2", but here the 2 hours flew by. It happens also because I was totally immersed.

And the immersion was caused by everything I wrote before: two excellent lead characters, supporting ones that are not empty (I wish I could talk about one specific scene here but it would be a spoiler), both hospital and investigation plots are interesting, the screenplay in general is well-written and the direction is precise. I'm happy.

My Policeman (2022)

This will be the hardest review I've ever written!

[6/10 · 7 November 2022]

"My Policeman" is definitely one of the films that I had more mixed feelings for. I must admit that the premise is good and the story is not badly written. I would lie to myself if I say that I didn't like it, but at the same time I would feel guilty if I say I liked.

Let's start with Harry Styles. Again, I don't think he's a bad actor, I don't think he's a lost case in Hollywood, and I don't think he was a disaster in "Don't Worry, Darling". But unfortunately, he has a problem that he'll have to deal during his entire career: HE IS HARRY STYLES! His persona impedes me from taking his acting career seriously. I honestly think he can do a good job if the screenplay or the direction betreat him like a normal person, not like a superstar. Christopher Nolan did this at "Dunkirk", but coincidentally, this was one of the most boring films I've ever watched. And again, he is not that bad here, but romance/drama is not his genre.

The rest of the cast: it's incredible how nobody seems to have chemistry with the ex-1D. Emma Corrin tries to give pulse to some dramatic scenes but again, she's acting alongside Harry Styles. David Dawson here is as cold as a Peaky Blinder (for this production, this is not a compliment), and the old versions of the trio are mis-scaled.

Linus Roache convinces as an old Harry Styles, but he doesn't have more than 10 dialogue lines. Gina McKee is too different from Emma Corrin to work, and the same can be said about Ruper Everett as an older David Dawson. What did Patrick do, a hair implant?

Also, the story tested my prejudice levels because first, as nobody has chemistry with nobody, it was generally impossible to root for any couple, and as Tom (Harry Styles) was a policeman, it was impossible to root for him and Patrick because he was breaking the law (homosexuality was illegal at the UK until 1968, the story takes place in 1957). And as their relationship started first than the one between Tom and Marion (Emma Corrin), it would configure a betrayal.

And the sex scenes... wow, how can the actors be so cold in that type of scenario? There was not a single reaction that felt genuine, all actors were clearly pretending to be "excited" (I don't know the word here). I normally already feel embarrassed watching sex scenes, but the ones from this movie were on another level, and not due to the right reason.

The ending surprisingly manages to be more emotional than it was allowed to be, despite portraying the most obvious fact of the entire plot as a plot twist, and I must admit that it only works due to the manipulative soundtrack and the plot of the oldies is specialist on padding things out.

With everything said, it's hard for me to admit that my experience was not bad. The base is good, the people behind the cameras are competent, and despite not quite good, the cast is diligent.

Barbarian (2022)

Downhill

[5/10 · 5 November 2022]

"Barbarian" was PERFECT at the first 44 minutes. It was well-written, the horror atmosphere was excellently built, Georgina Campbell and Bill Skarsgard are great actors with great chemistry, and despite their meeting is not original at all (a Netflix rom-com released this year already worked with this base of "two unknown people are forced to share an airbnb"), it's well executed. But unfortunately, I think my praises stop right there.

At this mark of 44 minutes, the film suddenly changes its tone and protagonist, almost unintentionally following the "Relatos Salvajes" formula (I love that film, but that structure doesn't work here). Justin Long is far from being a bad actor, but he is also far from being as interesting as Georgina or Bill. And consequently, the story loses almost all of its strength as we're following him now.

The story progresses, and there's nothing more to save from this point and beyond. Jaymes Butler is a wasted character, the idea of the "scary thing" is far from being as innovative and original as people talk it is, the police here is brainless and there's a gratuitious flashback involving Richard Brake. I think it was one of the most empty flashbacks I've ever seen.

Oh, and the ending... wow! It starts ridiculous, appeals to a disturbing scene to create more impact (the film does it a lot, it's made of isolated disturbing moments filled with a boring plot with an obvious soundtrack), a character takes the most stupid decision of the year, and when the screenplay had the opportunity to fix that mess, it takes the exact opposite way; I think this was the most revolting ending of 2022.

I'm not giving spoilers here because I know I'm part of the minority here, and even I didn't like the film, I still recommend it, I think everyone should have their own experience. Mine was not good (actually, I think I only had 8 good experiences with 2022 films after "Top Gun: Maverick"), but it doesn't mean that yours will be.

Lights Out (II) (2016)

It's lights out and away we go!

[7/10 · 2 November 2022]

"Lights Out" is a bit generic, the idea of the entity here is far from be as original as "It Follows" or "Smile", and it's definitely not scary (okay, there are two or three functional jumpscares). So why I give the movie a high grade like 7 to a non-scary horror movie? The reason has a name and surname: David F Sandberg.

What a talented fella. This was his first feature film, and he already shows that he knows how to build an atmosphere. Despite the story being predictable (curiously, the film is based in a short film made by Sandberg but he didn't write the long version, he only directed), which is something that ruined my experience in past movies, here the well-built ambience, and the charismatic actors who were made by an excellent cast, were enough to keep me interested until the end.

Teresa Palmer is competent here (and I think I saw her somewhere else but I can't remember where), she convinces as someone who suddenly has to face her past; Gabriel Bateman is a good horror child, his feelings seem genuine, so does his brother and sister relationship with Teresa Palmer's character; Maria Bello convinces as a person with mental problems; and I like that they didn't do Alexander DiPersia as the "blind unsupportive boyfriend" cliché.

My brother watched this film at school yesterday, and I wanted to see this film since 2020 and always postponed my "session", his session was the trigger to mine, and he told me that "the film was good for the first 50 minutes". TBH, I think the third act (which comes after a terribly written table discussion) is by far the best. It's when Sandberg better works his thriller/horror atmosphere, and despite obvious, I loved the resolution.

Like Mike Flanagan's "Hush", "Lights Out" is not that memorable, but it still worths the watch in a casual day or something. It fits perfectly what a movie critic that I watch calls "shopping mall horror".

Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018)

Ralph Breaks the Movie, actually

[5/10 · 28 October 2022]

Wreck-it Ralph is my third favourite Disney 3D animated feature (P2 for Tangled and P1 for Zootopia; yes, it's a strange podium), and making a sequel talking about the Internet is a genius idea, as the retro is "replaced" by the new, it's kind of a generation conflict, as arcades were popular 40 years ago.

The Internet world-building is nothing but fabulous. It's gigantic, imposing, with funny gags and great new characters (Spamley and KnowsMore are definitely my favourites), but an impeccable "production design" (i'll consider this as a misclassification, as it's very weird to use this term to talk about an animation) is nothing without a good story, and the story here made me make several questions.

Firstly, why they have destroyed Ralph's personality? To pass the most generic message Disney has ever passed, and a message that is incongruous with the character? Seriously, that is not Ralph, he's not a sticky, childish and abusive fella. His relationship with Vanellope went from one of the cutest of the last decade to the unhealthiest one in the studio's history.

Secondly, isn't Vanellope's journey against all of the rules stablished in the first film? This movie supports the duck-voiced girl to "become Turbo"? Oh, and still about "becoming Turbo", isn't too convenient to the plot that no one played "Fix it, Felix Jr" that day? Because as Ralph was out of his game AGAIN, the rest of the characters could not do their work.

And thirdly, as Vanellope was discovering herself as a Turbo, why the journey to collect a steering wheel? She used to rule that place, the players always choose her. I know Sugar Rush has 15 more racers, but they have nothing as special as V (it's how Shank calls Vanellope) does (okay, maybe Candlehead, but I can't imagine people choosing Taffyta, for example).

At least V's personality still fits how she ended the previous film. Her arc, despite wrong, is crescent. Theoretically, it's a more existentialist movie. Her first meeting with the princesses, her relationship with Shank and her musical number (even with that voice, Sarah Silverman rocked) are excellent. But this excellent musical number is the trigger to the worst third act in recent cinema. Yes, even worse than Interstellar. It looks like that someone had this idea already at the post-production.

Ralph takes an attitude that is totally incoherent with his both personalities (from the first and from this movie). He deliberatedly acts like a bad guy, something that himself from the first film would freak out if he sees. Okay, the threat here is really threatening, but the resolution is pathetic. The film could have 20 minutes less, it pads things out the whole third act, and when it hadn't to be, it's rushed. 2018/2019 Disney/Pixar films gave us three polemic farewell endings, and one of them is defendable. It's not this one.

Zootopia (2016)

Ladies and "Gentlemammals", here we have an instantaneous classic!

[10/10 · 25 October 2022]

I'm speechless! "Zootopia" is one of the most extraordinary films Disney have ever made. It's almost unbelievable that this movie is from Disney! It flees from everything that made Disney become Disney. Okay, in terms of how the song is used in the narrative, "Try Everything" can be compared with "Circle of Life", but it's the maximum I can compare with another production of the Mickey Mouse studio. We have no princess, no love interest, no musical numbers, what we actually have is a police investigation.

I love Judy Hopps. Okay, she's in a world that all possibilities are against her, but the film never makes us root for her because we feel sorry for her, everything she accomplished during the movie was with merits. A real clever bunny. And her partner in (solving a) crime manages to be even better. Nick Wilde is funny, mischievous, a bit narcisist, and more intelligent than Judy.

Thematically the film is Disney's richest, and the main message, especially in a world that becomes more and more hostile, mainly due to the illusion of freedom that the media can provide, could not be conveyed in any other way. It doesn't give a pass to anybody, not even to the protagonist.

I already loved the film the first time I watched, but I thought it passes a fundamental message, in an incredibly rich environment, but it was a film without entertainment value. What an absurd this last sentence is. The comic timing here is the most precise from the studio's 3D era. The visual jokes, the references, the perfect use of some catchphrases... Wow, this film does absolutely nothing wrong.

And not only Zootopia is a rich universe (man, I want to visit all the Districts myself), but the supporting characters are also amazing. They not only have a narrative function, they have personalities, thoughts, ideals, and no one is left here. Every single character is important to the plot during some moment, even the most forgotten ones.

Oh, and I still want a gadget that's used here, if you watch the film you'll see what I'm talking about.

Meet the Robinsons (2007)

The future has arrived!

[9/10 · 24 October 2022]

I never watched "Meet the Robinsons" in a movie theatre (I was already born, this movie is six years younger than me), but it became a childhood passion when my parents bought the DVD of this film. Through my final years as a child, I watched it hundreds, repeatedly. But today was different.

As I was a Brazilian child, I always watched this movie dubbed in Brazilian Portuguese, and today, at the age of 21, was the first time that I watched it in its original language. And like Ice Age, the voices fit the characters perfectly, with one little exception. And the characters still have the same charisma as they used to have when I was a kid.

Lewis, even more than Rodney Copperbottom (the protagonist from "Robots", another underrated and forgotten animation), grew up on me the childish dream of being an inventor (times changed), he's sympathetic, he has an incredible arc, he's not moved by luck like Z (from "Antz") and he behaves like a 12-year-old child. Wilbur is also incredible, I still can see him with my age and being my best friend. The Bowler Hat Guy is one of the best Disney villains, and he's involved in the first plot twist of my life. The film intelligently inverts the archetype of a smart bad guy with a not-so-smart sidekick.

Disney here tried something that I liked, but unfortunately never saw again (actually, this was the second time I saw this, the other time was at "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron"): instead of musical numbers, they use background sang songs to "accelerate" the passage of time. Oh, and the humour here is precise. This film should not be forgotten.

Argentina, 1985 (2022)

Sin palabras, hermanos! Sin palabras!

[10/10 · 22 October 2022]

My review won't be in Spanish. One of the most famous lies people say here in Brazil is that Spanish can be easier to learn than English, as Portuguese and Spanish have the same mother language, Latin. If you want to learn a foreign language, you need to study, the last time I studied Spanish was in my 8th grade, eight years ago.

Okay, about the film now. "Argentina, 1985" is the best court drama I've ever watched. I didn't watch too much, it's true, but it doesn't nullify the quality of this production. It's an Argentinian film made for Argentinians, but it can talk a lot not only with Brazil, but also with almost the entire South America. Brazil, Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay were also under military dictatorships between the 1960s and 1980s. Here the focus is the Trial of the Juntas, after the "second Argentinian dictatorship", called by its rulers as "National Reorganization Process" (1976-1983).

Two court film I watched recently were "Philadelphia" and "Where the Crawdads Sing", and in the first one, I liked the arc outside the court but the judgement itself was boring, while in the second, I felt the exact opposite. In "Argentina, 1985" I experienced the best of these two productions, and two names are responsible: Santiago Mitre and Ricardo Darín.

Mitre's direction is extraordinary, it's never manipulative, the entire atmosphere of the movie is brilliantly constructed, and he extracts the best of the most important actor in Argentina. Darín is superb, the audience can feel that he's carrying possibly the heaviest burden in Argentina's history. He's doing an honest job and his dynamic with Peter Lanzani is marvelous. Julio Strassera and Luis Moreno Ocampo are not only promoters, the film explores them as humans, and the supporting cast is perfect at this function. There are no archetypes here, all characters are humans.

Another thing that surprised me is the film's pace and tone. Sometimes funny, mostly tense and integrally immersive, it's fast when it needs and slow when it needs. I always used to be bored watching scenes in a courtroom.

Una producción extraordinaria y yo creo que "nunca más" volvamos a tener otra película con ese nível de valor. Muchas veces los nombres de las personas envolvidas son cambiados para evitar acciones judiciales, pero el coraje del equipo y el tono adoptado por Mitre hacen que esta historia sea acessible al público en general y permiten contarla en un film que no es un documental, algo que difícilmente ocurriería en Estados Unidos.

This last paragraph needed to be in Spanish, I needed to make reference to the words most spoken by the Argentine people in that time. Amazon, please, make campaign for this film. It's powerful, it's strong, it's necessary. Brazil and Argentina are rivals only in football, I'm rooting for South America to have an Oscar again!