slzoras

Saltburn (2023)

A bit perplexing

This story is basically: Mr. Ripley meets Parasite meets Call Me By Your Name. The main character is Oliver, a shy young man that begins a friendship with the coolest guy in his college, Felix, handsome, rich, sociable, lovable. Felix invites him into his home and then a lot of bad things happen as Oliver becomes more and more obsessed with him.

Mr. Ripley is the closest comparison. The story of the movie basically follows a nobody and his love/hate towards this perfect guy. This is the second Emerald Fennell movie and... well... overall it's not a step down or a step up from Promising Young Woman. It definitely looks really good, has good pacing and it keeps you entertained. The performances are all good, but the best one is probably Jacob Elordi, who turns his character surprisingly likable. The reason why I don't think Keoghan is the best is because, while he definitely does a lot of different things acting-wise, his character is too indecipherable overall. And that's a problem with the writing.

Fennell has a problem with self-indulging in her own coolness and her own ideas, and ultimately tries to pull off a movie that is very undecided in what it wants to be. It's not a homoerotic story all that much, because the homoerotic attraction only exists one way and sometimes doesn't even feel important. It wants to be a super evil noir where the main character does awful things to get what he wants, but his motivations are not well defined, cause it's neither pure love/hate nor desire for money. Oliver is stumbling on his own words to get his story straight in one scene, and in the other he is a calm and collected psycho. The fact that we don't get to see the wheels spinning in the main character's head, that we don't really know him, is the movie's worst flaw. We know he's doing all of these things because it's obvious, but we don't see him arrive at that point psychologically. He just does them off-screen, and at one point I thought there would be a total unresolved ambiguity (did he do it? Did he really do it?), but then the twist reveal at the end basically explains it to death. It was probably one of the worst twist-explanation I've seen. It's completely unnecessary, and the way it happens is so cartoon-villain-y for no reason. And the ending scene - well, there was a lot to see, I can't complain - but it's also a really strange scene that really clashes with the tone and flattens everything. So what I'm saying is that Emerald Fennell needs to write better characters, and MOST IMPORTANTLY better endings.

A Haunting in Venice (2023)

Yawning in Mehnice

Why are these movies made? I'm seriously asking. Who are these for? These movies do nothing for me. At least the other movies were interesting because they were based on classic stories. This one is very loosely based on a less known story, and a lot of stuff (like the setting, first of all) were added for the movie. The setting is actually the best part of this movie: the atmosphere of this creepy palace surrounded by water is interesting, eerie. I wish they utilized the actual city of Venice a bit more. But no, it's not a haunting in Venice, it's a haunting in a palace of Venice that could easily be anywhere else with water around. Also like... this doesn't feel like a Poirot story: the setting feels like a haunted house from an amusement park, or an escape room. There's horror, vision of ghosts, and from the first moments the movie asks Poirot and us "wait... wait... is there ACTUALLY a ghost?". And the answer is no. It's never been yes, and we've seen a "oooh ghosts" episode in every police procedural since the beginning of the genre. The answer is always no. These movies are too spineless to actually dare and insert supernatural elements, but also they want to revisit the story and give them some... twists. So yeah, Poirot actually believes for a moment in ghosts, but then he gets proven right. And then, the most predictable thing: the movie winks at us in the end vaguely suggesting the possible existence of ghosts. And that's it. Nothing. Just nothing.

Branagh's Poirot is ok, not great, not bad. Tina Fey is ok up until she has to match the dramatic tone of a triple-murder story. The other cast members were just doing the job. Michelle Yeoh's acting is very stilted, which worked in EEOAO but not here. She doesn't seem to take it seriously enough, but also tries a little bit. So it ends up falling flat, and that was supposed to be the most iconic character in the movie.

The cinematography was very exaggerated, really pushing to sell you the HORROR, which is not great, cause there's not enough horror. The whole thing feels forced and artificial. And yeah, the rest of the story plays out like a regular mystery story. There's suspects in a house, a murderer, multiple levels of deceit, clocks being moved, secret doors, and a grand finale with all suspects gathered and Poirot explaining the plot to everyone. It's ok, it's very mid. But you can clearly see that this story is not fun enough to turn into a movie, not meaningful enough, not exciting enough. There's not even the excuse of "oh! This is a classic!". This is like a B-tier episode of Murder She Wrote or something, but Branagh, Tina Fey, Yeoh and Cavill are enough star power to convince you that this a movie worth watching, when in reality it's just pathologically forgettable.

Dream Scenario (2023)

Weird but good

This is the story of a very average and forgettable man who enters into people's dreams without meaning to. With a premise like that, as an audience member you know what you're about to experience is either science fiction or surreal existentialism. Borgli takes the second route, with some overall positive results. The story satirizes celebrity culture, and that's something you really start to notice. The director clearly pays attention to some aspects of society and culture, and it's undeniable that it pays off. As an allegory, seeing a celebrity as just a random guy that exists in your unconscious without your consent is brilliant. It reminds me of the line in "Paprika", where she says that internet and dreams are kind of the same. Movies, social media, celebrity tabloids, they all create alternative realities to our own. And celebrities are like the Nic-Cage-in-a-Bald-Cap wondering randomly in our thoughts, doing nothing, not intervening (because of course we don't know them, we don't matter to them). It's a very successful allegory that will stick with me for some time. Stuff like parasocial relationships, cancel culture are also explored. It's a fascinating allegory. But. BUT... The movie is too much allegory, to the point where 3/4 of the way through I just stopped caring about the character and I just started to try guessing where the plot is gonna go based on the real life equivalent of the story. A movie should not be a clear code for something else. This is when the satire becomes excess. You wanna transport this idea into the real world and give it a grounded spin, but you also don't even try and makes the fantasy aspect internally logic - not that you have to, but if your story brings a fantasy element into the real world we expect to understand that element better. How did the evil CEO of that weirdly out-of-place ad down the end master this technology? What did Matthews do that allowed it to happen for him? You're not meant to ask this, you're just meant to think "yeah bro that's so true. Capitalism sells things. Really makes you think about society". And that's kind of annoying, it felt like the movie just gave up subtlety entirely. Why even is there a second tech CEO parody other than Michael Cera? You could have made the existence of the product a bit more subtle, a little more in the background, instead of just stopping the movie to play a piece of *satire*. My honest frustration is that there was a simple remedy to this: make the product exist and make it be the cause of the whole thing (like Cage accidentally activated it or something, and that was the moment where the CEO discovered you can influence people's dreams). I know that the lack of agency of the character is the point, but you get this frustrating feeling that you are not watching a story, you're being subjected to an allegory that moves according to the rules of the socially conscious director. It's an issue I have with recent Scandinavian satire. Sick of Myself works better because it's simpler and actually real in every aspect. Here you have a fantasy element that clearly exists to deliver a theme and doesn't answer to any rules. Which makes this movie... kind of preachy in the end. Sadly.

Also, another small issue I have is with Nic Cage. He is not really believable as a nobody. He is too charismatic and too commanding. He tries so hard in this role, and he partially succeeds. But also sometimes he behaves like those exaggerated caricatures of the "losers" in high school that movies sometimes do, when they give them these cartoonishly ugly looks and they are so socially inept it gets straight up unrealistic.

So yeah, those are the flaws. Other than that, the movie is very well directed. Good atmosphere, good dark/fun balance (like Sick of Myself), good acting from the rest of the cast, realistic dialogue. If you like satirical movies about society and wanna have a good time watching something weird and undeniably iconic then you should watch this.

La chimera (2023)

A tale of two worlds

Alice Rorhwacher does it again, another success after Lazarus, which I very much enjoy and remember (especially the ending). In this movie surprisingly, the ending is the least memorable part of the movie. The story follows an English archaeologist who dedicated his life to tomb raiding ancient Etrurian graves in an unspecified area of Italy in an unspecified period of the 20th century. He has a gift, a sixth sense that allows him to "sense" the presence of treasures. We follow his story as a gentle and quiet fish out of water in this country of poor farmers, criminals, art merchants, musicians, powerful matriarchs and fools. It's a weird fable about desecration, family, finding your roots, tradition.

It captures a feeling of "nowhere-ness" that really expresses the state of Italy as a country, with its rich history that is ultimately buried, forgotten, left at the behest of rich egotists and poor vandals. The juxtaposition of aesthetics is striking: the falling ruins of old houses and abandoned buildings with the sprawling but subdued rise of urban modernity (just Happy as Lazarus). The agonizing destruction of the past, the uncertainty and the greed of the future, and how the two don't even recognize each other in any way. A tale of unseen-ness. And at the center, Arthur, a man who doesn't belong in either of those, and doesn't know the point of his own existence.

So yeah, really good movie. There are a few flaws, though: Alba Rohrwacher's character feels like a very clear (too clear) personification of a concept, an idea, a satire, and she plays her like a Bond villain, which is strange and distracting. There are some moments (like the ending) where the metaphorical aspects of the film are more pronounced and less hidden, which is also distracting, and subtract meaning to the whole story. And finally, the ending could have been cut a little short; it's never pleasant when you stay seated and you feel like the movie should end at any time but it refuses and continuous.

Other than that, great movie. Slow, atmospheric, dreamy, makes you feel lost in time.

The Killer (2023)

Subversively basic

This is the story of a killer who fails a hit job, hides out, becomes the target of a failed hit job himself by the disappointed client who hired him, and then sets out to take revenge on the attempted killers and the client. It's a surprisingly linear story, almost comedic in how devoid of plot twists it is. And I think it's basically the point that Fincher wanted to make: this guy is a killer, not a particularly sociopathic killer, not a supernaturally efficient killer. Just a killer. One of the many, as he himself says. The summation of the movie is that there's Nothing personal. The failed hit job failed because of a random, understandable mistame. Fassbender's killer (we don't get his real name) is indecipherable and doesn't regret his choices. He is cold, relentlessly talks to himself in weird rambling monologues that impart a sense of chronic loneliness and isolation. But it's a kind of loneliness that feels part of the job. He never questions himself, there's no "character arc". This whole movie is him, the Killer, professionally doing killings. There are also NO villains: there is no satisfaction or payoff in murdering his attempted murderers; all of them are just professionals, cogs in a machine just like him. Nothing personal. Just an unnerving, unnatural pervasive neutrality. There is a deep sense of alienation from society. We see these constant shots of crowded airports and roads and different places, so that we can actually perceive how small and unnoticeable the main character appears. We see product placements of brands we see every day that actually have a role in the story, that communicate to us something along the lines of "This isn't what you expect it to be. It's not exceptional: it's the REAL world". It's a movie that reflects and subverts and almost parodies action movies and revenge based stories. And despite everything I said, despite the neutrality and simplicity, Fincher manages to NEVER lose our attention. That might be because he is a seasoned thriller director. It might also be because Fassbender is a really great actor that can incarnate this apparent apathy and really keep you guessing what's behind it. It might also be because... well, he tricked you. I've only seen the movie once, and my expectations for a Gone Girl/Seven style twist were there. What happens now that you've witnessed the anti-climactic nature of the movie? Are we gonna watch it again? There are some pretty cool action scenes, some pretty fun moment of "oh wow! How is he gonna get out of this one?". But... that's it. As subversive and iconic this movie is, I'll probably never watch it again. It's a movie that was a fun directorial challenge for Fincher and a fun acting challenge for Michael Fassbender. But for a basic audience it's just a disappointment. And it doesn't matter all that much that the disappointment was intentional. It still is a disappointment.

To close this off, some complaints. Tilda Swinton is a great actress, but she is way too iconic and way too theatrical to be in a toned-down intentionally neutral movie like this, so her presence kind of takes you out (she even does a weird bond-villain monologue that just... really really takes you out). The title cards of the chapters are very bad, they look like basic templates from iMovie, and I don't know why.

And... that's it. Nothing much to complain because... well, there's nothing much there. As a person who likes to think about movies, it was an interesting experience. But as an audience member who expects a journey, well... I have bad news for you.

C'è ancora domani (2023)

A debut with ok concept and great execution

Paola Cortellesi is extremely talented, both as an actress and a comedian. Now we can also add directing to her resume. This movie has issues, but the undeniable truth is that it's very lovable. The main character is very sympathetic, simple on a psychological level but nonetheless believable. The other standout of the movie is Emanuela Fanelli, who could probably improve every movie she's in at this point. The movie succeeds in creating a lot of tension. There's a specific control of space (the main character moving through the same places every day) that adds a sense of intimacy, of smallness of the world, and at the same time of claustrophobia when Delia (the protagonist) feels trapped in it. An excellent control of tension. Conflicts that would seem small actually appear big and important because of it. The way things all of a sudden become surreal and movie-like help us enter the mind of the character. The best scene in the movie incorporates a weird mix of lighting, camera, choreography and anachronistic in a weird creepy way that I never really see in Italian cinema these days. I would call this movie quirky, nostalgic and heartfelt. An impressive directorial feat.

Now the issues: the concept of the story is not bad, but it's also a bit superficial in tying the personal with the political. The character of the young son-in-law takes a weird behavioral shift that doesn't feel natural. The movie can't fully decide whether to be psychological (where the reality is a grotesque reflection of Delia's psyche) or realistic (where other non-main characters, even villains, actually have depth and believability). The Vinicio Marchioni character is pointless and honestly feels like a mere plot device, a misdirect. There's a moment where two characters who speak different languages all of a sudden understand each other for no reason other than to move the plot. Also the bait-n-switch at the end is weird for a number of reasons, and goes in an unforeseeable direction that feels more like Cortellesi preaching at the audience directly than anything character related. And lastly, the music: some songs worked, but the choice to incorporate music with various degrees of anachronism makes the movie feel fake, like we're not actually watching a period piece but a director toying with an aesthetic to make a point. And that undermines the sincerity of the whole thing.

That's it, that's all I have to say. Movie is good, it's fun, it's tense, it's sad, it's creepy. An outlier in the current Italian cinema landscape.

Syk pike (2022)

Sickening and funny and real

The way I would describe this movie is "a body horror comedy". Signe, a norwegian 30-something-year-old woman, buys illegal defective medicines and gives herself a gross skin disease so that people would pay attention to her, and care for her. A very Palahniuk-esque modern tale about the horrors of self-perception. The easy word to describe her character is "narcissism". And that wouldn't be a wrong description. But luckily the movie pulls away from the risk of making a movie "about" a psychological disorder, and instead makes her character nuanced, her actual mental illness undefined; a very good equilibrium of believability and open-endedness, like most character studies should be written. The performances all work really well for the characters, as to not distinguish between healthy background characters and mentally dysfunctional protagonists. I would reasonably compare Sick of Myself to Triangle of Sadness, but even better, cause this movie has a lot more focus and cohesion, and the satire element is better hidden behind the individual characters. It's not a heavy handed allegory of "society", it does what a good satire does: address specific points of our modern world while also making them seem (as they are) born of a universal and timeless human condition. It gives you a lot to chew on (pun intended), it's very gross and unsettling at time, the horror of medical self-harm is nested inside a realistic setting, which makes it even more effective. It's pretty funny at times and nauseating at other times. Twisted in just the right ways. Other than a strangely abrupt ending and some cheesiness and repetitiveness here and there, a very good story.

Talk to Me (2022)

Best way to write a story like this

We've seen horror movies with spirits, we've seen possessions, we've seen the gore and the psychological allegories of grief that ghosts and spirits bring to a movie. Talk to me doesn't really break from the rules of the genre, but modernizes them and works them perfectly.

I'm not a fan of jumpscary movies with loud noises and ghosts appearing and reappearing to go "BOOH!" in your face. So imagine how grateful I was to see that the scares in this movie are actually mostly well earned and tense and meaningful. This movie is a horror drama, with the horror and the drama blended together in such a way where you don't really know which is the main genre of this story. It scares you (yes it does) but it's also so rich of meaning, of emotions. It uses horror tropes to describe real aspects of depression, and loneliness, and clinging to the past, and wanting an artificial relief from your pain (like drugs, for example, which are very much part of the theme). You wanna look away but you also really care about the characters. The performances were amazing, and I'm not talking about the screaming and the possessions and the body convulsions: there is a lot of details and nuances and little things that help you get into their minds and what they feel and do. The ending is bone-chilling and surprising but also simple and understandable. The only bad parts of the movie were probably the horror cliché soundtrack and some unsatisfying character moments with the boyfriend. But overall very elegant and dynamic and effective and honest, really scary. Recommended for the fans of the genre especially.

Babylon (2022)

Megalomania - the movie

Damien, I like you, but this movie is way too long. I appreciated a lot about Babylon: the music is the best thing about it, the way that every scene has a melody, a specific soundtrack, the hyped-up almost electroswing-y score during the parties, the way the music stops and resumes suddenly in transition with the different plots and characters. I also loved a lot of the visuals. The editing for the most part is very energetic and engaging, although it becomes kind of nauseating especially past the 2:30h mark. The visual aspect is very artificial but well crafted. Now the performances: Margot steals the show, not necessarily because of the quality of the performance but because of how much exhausting things she had to do (this movie is her Revenant). Pitt plays the same character DiCaprio plays in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, so he's good but kind of unremarkable. The main character of the story, Manny, is backed up by a good performance but he's also extremely bland and uninteresting as a protagonist. McGuire did pretty good, his role was sort of "easy" to pull off, considering how off putting and well done his scenes were. All in all, the biggest issue in the film is the writing behind it, which felt very unmemorable. We've all seen like 1000 movies about how Hollywood is messy and corrupted but also movies are great. We've seen movies about parties and cocaine and sex scenes. This movie wants to be a movie about Hollywood's chaos and evil but also about these three characters and their lives, and it ends short for both ideas. The characters are underdeveloped, their story feels like it's been going on too long. The pacing of the story, that sometimes stops for half an hour on a specific event and then does time skips to tell the tragic decline of these characters, is very disorienting and inconsistent. And last but not least, the ending sort of pissed me off: that sequence went on for way too long, it was so pretentious and self serving and vane, and one of the biggest examples of how tiresome it is to watch hollywood movies that glorify themselves by virtue of being movies. It also was extremely inconsistent with the rest of the film, it felt like a cheeky attempt to win over a nostalgic audience and to wake people up after a long and boring ending to the boring character stories. So yeah. It's not poorly made, but it felt like 3 hours of spectacle and self-aggrandizing hype with no soul, and nothing new to say.

The Menu (2022)

A movie about one idea

The idea of the movie is to reveal the pretentious and empty elegance of a high end restaurant into an actually inhuman and unnerving experience. The story is about a group of rich people going to a private island to eat the exclusive menu of a highly regarded chef, only to discover that they themselves being tortured and punished and killed are part of the menu. The menu is literally the film, where every step of the story, every chapter is titled after each meal. There's a refined and sophisticated feel and aesthetic to this movie that I quite liked. Ralph Fiennes is by far the best thing about it: he's sinister and captivating and psychotic just like we imagine the greatest and most obsessed artists are. Anya Taylor Joy works as usual, she does pull off the self-possessed and mysterious girl. All the other characters unfortunately are really thin. The movie is also pretty thin, and it's unfortunately very limited. It orbits around this one concept, never letting it go. If you hear my description, if you look at the first part of the story, you know the story. There's no evolution in the evil plan of the chef, except that at some point Anya discovers the exact thing she has to say to save her own life. It's a satire about rich people being superficial and pretentiousness always hiding emptiness, but it doesn't really go anywhere. Again, the idea of the movie can be understood fully from minute 0. There's no substantial surprise. There's also not really a climax, bad things start happening in a way that lets you immediately know what's going on. The ending is very predictable. The body horror/slasher we were promised by the premise is underwhelming and tame. It feels like the authors really believed in the general satire and the overall presentation, but there's no further exploration in that direction either, it's just "rich things are pointless". So, overall, not a disgraceful movie, it's an ok movie to watch in a disengaged way, like an extended (slightly subpar) Black Mirror episode, except with stellar casting.

The Fabelmans (2022)

A comforting and unchallenging watch

There is a tendency these last years for directors to create movies about their love of movies. This movie is Spielberg's attempt, and I can confirm that it's pretty well achieved. You can feel the "true story" in the ways in which this coming-of-age story avoids melodramatic teenage cliches and tropes. The protagonist is simply a good guy. There are no real antagonists except... I guess a couple of bullies...? It's a story that simply proves Spielberg's unmatched proficiency in the language of cinema: the pacing, the directing, is very refined and well-crafted, there's a lot of sentimentality that is efficiently conveyed and the visuals are always engaging in one way or another.

Spielberg is a weird director, one that basically is simply very good at doing what he does, he talks the language of movies, Hollywood movies. He's one of those producers that turns every pop song into a hit. He doesn't have a strong sense of story, he lives and breaths in the Hollywood mainstream, and the movie portrays this very well, it shows how he is inspired by action movies, or epic movies, any entertaining story. His alter ego in the film is a very normal lead character, a very Hollywood-type of character. The best moments in the story are the interaction with his family, his complex relationship with his mother (really beautifully performed). I don't find a lot else to say, really. The only nitpick I have to offer is that the main character wears these extremely distracting brown contact lenses (I suppose to make his eyes look "genetically accurate) and I don't understand how necessary that was. The movie is simply a very conventionally well told story. Also the Lynch cameo is admittedly a moving tribute both to him and to his character of John Ford. It's slow in parts but not grating, some moments are chuckle-worthy, some are moving. It's a testament to Spielberg's insane versatility and his ability to just serve the medium of Hollywood films. I'm probably going to forget this movie in a while, but I will gladly revisit it. It's a cute movie, very cozy and feel-good, a nice Christmas family watch.

Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio (2022)

A retelling of Pinocchio that actually has a point

Pinocchio is a story that lately hasn't been left alone too much. We got something like 4 different remakes of the story in a few years. Of those, the Garrone remake was pretty much a faithful and not really surprising adaptation of the initial whimsical fairytale, the Disney remake is (surprise!) a cashgrabby remake that adds nothing to the original movie with Tom Hanks that by now basically plays every role that needs to be filled in Hollywood, and then this one. Now in this case, we could say that Del Toro took the original story and basically subverted the premise of the original. In the original story, you have a very clear idea: Pinocchio is a puppet, he does whatever he wants, he skips school, he chases unruliness and fun and doesn't show respect to authorities, and his lack of boundaries and good behavior confines him paradoxically in a state of puppet-ness, of being a fake and manipulable human, because there's no real freedom and adulthood in chasing your own desires and your own whims endlessly. In this movie however, the idea is completely shifted: Pinocchio never becomes a real boy, he stays a puppet, and the idea is that there's nothing that would make him truly "complete" because he already is. It's a statement that contradicts the pedagogical meaning of the original story; whereas before Pinocchio was pure childish potential needing to be tamed, in this movie Pinocchio is pure childish potential needing to be loved and appreciated for what it is. The benevolent fairy, sort of the guardian angel of the original story, is transposed through this creepy exoteric metaphysical lens and becomes two separate creatures, one being a mystical bible-accurate angel that bargains and works in mysterious ways and the other being a sinister guardian of the underworld. This is the most intriguing change in the story, and I personally loved the second characters and felt a bit underwhelmed by the brief presence of the first. Another element of subversion is the cricket, previously the representation of conscience and good morals and (emotional) intelligence, now becomes a sort of third party, an independent character that sort of "uses" Pinocchio in his own way. The idea of "being his conscience" is turned on its head and the Cricket's intelligence is framed as snobbish, bourgeois, almost narcissistical in nature. Also our Geppetto gives us a very clear perspective of the idea of Pinocchio being a "real boy": he lost his own son, a very good boy who chased the idea of perfection almost to his death, prompting the dad to desire that very same thing, and so we can see that fundamentally the expectation that Pinocchio should become more real is something born out of societal and familial expectation, of him having to be like the others that came before him.

Anyway, this is an interesting and worthy retelling of an old story that poses the idea that Pinocchio, as flawed and defective and monstrous as he is, is already complete and just needs someone to accept him. I have some gripes with this philosophy but it's worth hearing nonetheless. The fascist part is very one note and doesn't really go sufficiently deep, so it was sort of pointless imo. It's ultimately a movie that works for a young audience, full of whimsical and disquieting imagery, a dark but uplifting fairytale. Oh and also the scene with the dogfish looks kinda bad: you don't perceive danger, the ocean and the setting and the atmosphere and the pacing of the action makes it look extremely fake. I don't know why that is, considering that the other parts, the stop motion in the first Pinocchio scenes, the underworld with the crow-like creatures, all looks extremely good. There's a lot to say about this movie, but as a cinematic effort it's definitely worthwhile.

The Graduate (1967)

A classic (but kind of aged poorly)

Not much to say about the good things in this movie: it's a classic story about rebelliousness and lost young people, but also about the ways in which being rebellious is pointless in the face of the actual tribulations of adulthood. The main character, an obsessively well behaved graduate, straight-A student with no social skills that bears all the expectations of his parents to simultaneously be the best and also to be loose and fun, loses his mind after an older woman seduces him and gives him a taste of the spirit of transgression he ultimately always wanted. That's the story. The movie is of course very well shot, well paced, the characters and their misadventures are entertaining, there are some really clever shots (like the POV of main character being put into a soundproof scuba suit and being pushed to dive into a swimming pool and stay underwater by his smiling parents) and transitions. Mrs. Robinson is an extremely charming and captivating character. The story has a couple of flaws imo: the first is that the choice of songs is weirdly repetitive, and I guess the repetition does hold meaning overall, but I didn't like it. The second thing, the most obvious, is that the movie has a pretty weird bias towards the main character, and you realize suddenly at the end of the movie that he's basically the one you should root for. I personally, as a 21st century viewer, was kind of creeped out by him, I viewed him from the beginning as a sort of "nice guy" (in the internet's meaning), a seemingly kind but ultimately sexist loser. I was puzzled in the exact moment when Elaine comes in and their "love story" begins, because I don't understand her reasoning. It's ultimately my issue with the old Hollywood female characters being basically just walking trophies with no agency that *just need to be pursued enough* and they will sleep with you. This aspect of the story doesn't hold up well, the way in which she instantly capitulates to the man who raped her mother (untrue but also never disproven by Ben), and the way he's unable to understand the disgustingness of what he did. Females fall for whoever kisses them suddenly, that's the Hollywood lesson, and it's kind of gross. The weird thing is that the movie works better when you see it as an anti-hero character study of a spoiled nerdy misogynist. The ending is also kind of fitting, a sort of inversion of the happy ending of a typical romcom. Anyway, these are my thoughts.

Bodies Bodies Bodies (2022)

The definition of "guilty pleasure"

Pleasantly surprised by this one. My rating of this movie is not based on the overall artistic message of it, the sophistication, but rather on the way that it sets up something and manages to succeed in that. The movie is a black comedy, not more, not less. A24 as usual brings in the "indie-ness": the shaky camera movements, the pacing, the feeling of something atypical and slightly sinister unfolding in front of you, the use of silence, the gritty and contemporary dialogues. As for everything else, the movie is surprisingly good: the plot works, it's well set up (although in a conventional murder party way), you can feel the emotions of the characters which manage to come off as genuine even through the ridiculous series of events. I wasn't super into the social satire, because in these movies it always feels like they are put into the story by the writers themselves to say their own opinions in a smart and quotable way, but this satire doesn't really have to do with the movie's theme, it's just an accompaniment (which is not bad, just noticeable). Bea (the girl from the Borat Sequel) did great, Alice (from Shiva Baby) was also the highlight of the movie. Pete Davidson is pretty ok, he manages to do more than just "being the goofy guy" (at least at the beginning). All the other actors also were pretty impeccable in their roles, their interactions seemed natural. It's not a scary movie, it's just a murder mystery movie with some slasher-type influence. It's also pretty funny, which is a very welcome characteristic for a movie like this, because it doesn't really count on absurdist horror humor like Scary Movie but it brings you to laugh. The sequence of events is kind of predictable, but overall it works. It's a fun and enjoyable movie that you can watch with friends. It doesn't really want to be more than a cheeky, Euphoria-esque, self-aware, short, well-paced, well-acted slasher comedy.

The Usual Suspects (1995)

Definitely worth watching

This crime drama/thriller has a lot going for it. I loved the pacing, the editing, the time jumps. It's one of those movies that behaves like a puzzle while also not trying desperately to bend the logic of the world into something that can constitute a "twist ending". It definitely works on a lot of levels, it sets up and pays off in general. Very entertaining, not much to say about anything specific. The reason why my score is not higher is because:

A) the ending felt a little rush. The cop convincing Kint that it was Keaton was a very strangely paced interaction that felt kind of rushed. I didn't have a lot of investment in it, so the shock of the twist ending came and went without making me feel a lot. Basically the entire last sequence in the interrogation room felt too fast, and it doesn't allow the first twist to be chewed on enough so that you can be punched in the face by the second twist.

B) Spacey was the obvious villain all along. I know it's unfair to call it a flaw if you guess the villain of a story, but in a movie that is so based on mystery the fact that it's so transparent from the beginning (the insistence on the lighter, on the apparent physical weakness of Kint) made it too obvious. Kint was also the character with the least investment and also... well, he looks creepy and unsettling from the beginning. Maybe that's just me in hindsight remembering about Spacey's irl situation.

C) the fact that Kint invented the entire movie, although it makes you rethink the story, also undermines the entire journey. It's a cheap rug pull that doesn't do much other than making you go "oh cool". This type of twist basically amount to selling out the entire runtime of the movie just for a cool shift at the end. It's not a good bargain, especially for a movie.

The Wolf of Snow Hollow (2020)

A movie

It's a movie.

The story is a mildly fun entertaining thriller that could be any episode of a serial. The theme of egotistical men wanting to protect and kill women (the unwilling victims/protectee) is compelling but also not really...? The performances all work, especially Forster's performance is pretty impeccable. Jim Cummings is fine, he plays the same character he played in the previous movie, the pathetic and slightly toxic nevrotic emasculated man, father of a daughter. He does sometimes fall into comedic territory inadvertently, but overall he works. The murder story is ok, but very lean and overall forgettable. I really hoped for something more compelling. Every element of this movie works, but only ok enough. Nothing really stands out. The cinematography is the only notable element. Plot and pacing are decent, but the movie doesn't really reach for anything more or deeper than a thriller tv serial episode with a deranged and slightly endearing lead. It's not a bad movie, but it's ultimately devoid of significance.

Bones and All (2022)

A gimmicky and poetic horror/drama

The story of this movie is very much based around the "gimmick" of cannibalism. It's the foundation of the story, the thing that defines the other characters' "otherness". Overall I'm not too scared of cannibalism as a concept, it feels very grotesque and so barbaric and far from our collective awareness that it serves more as a metaphor for gruesome vicious violence than an actually real thing. Luckily Guadagnino sticks the landing on that, being really careful at pressing the right buttons and alternating between showing and not showing the actual violent parts. Cannibalism functions as something unseen, an intimate gross part of the character that forces them either to endure or to enact violence to survive. It's not about the blood, it's more about how other characters (and the framing itself) reacts to it. One thing I will commend is the music: this unnerving but calming soundscape of delicate guitars and pianos playing slightly dissonant harmonies. The actual violent scenes still retain a classic horror-esque soundtrack, but the rest of the movie balances the horror out. The cinematography and visuals are stunning, there's a nice equilibrium where the convincing-ness of the horror effects is obfuscated and facilitated by practical effects and very specific lighting. It's definitely clever, and it pulls off a very disturbing but strangely relatable film. It's also one of those great road movies where the road is actually the main character: you can feel the distance between places, the endless driving, the complicated characters you meet and then never see again. It juxtaposes the endless and inexplicable horror of the main characters with the inexplicable world outside. It delivers a great and somehow sensual experience of midwest America. All the actors are really good, especially Marin and Sully. Timothy/Lee also gives a good performance, very by-the-numbers mysterious-edgy-soft-boy at the beginning but more convincing and complex by the end. The only flaws this movie has is the ending, which to me felt a bit overly simplistic and predictable (but not much though, still pretty good), and also the fact that the story doesn't stray away much from the gimmick, it doesn't present the detailed inner life of Elio and Oliver in Call Me By Your Name, their passions and hobbies. It's a movie very much defined by its own goals and themes, and it very much hits its mark. Check it out if you like disturbing horror and also A24-type dramas.

Boris - Il film (2011)

Pretty great movie for a pretty great show

This review is biased, cause I love the show, it's my favorite italian series. It's timeless and hilarious and tragic, and its success can be attributed both to witty and comically sharp writing and to how much the bleak absurdity resonates with people that watch it. Now the movie is basically an entire season compressed in 100 minutes, and the theme is movies instead of tv, so the meta narrative keeps going. Italian cinema suffers just as much as tv for its dry and unappealing offerings. It's not a movie that can be watch separately from the show, which is maybe a waste of opportunity. The story is basically the continuation of the series, and it doesn't waste any time putting you up to speed. The pacing of the story is a little strange, might have been better structured. The plot itself is very much a repetition of the plot of the last season, but with enough different ideas to justify its existence. Not much to say, really: it's very much part of the Boris canon, and if you liked the show you'd like this movie, if you hated the show stay away from this movie at all costs. The cinematography is more sophisticated than the show, the actors are still on their A game, there are a lot of jokes and memes and creativity. All in all a very good movie, and the best conclusion of the show. No, season 4 doesn't exist, I reject it, sorry.

La stranezza (2022)

Pretty ok

Not a lot to say about this movie. It's a fictionalized biopic about Pirandello, a famous writer and playwright, coming back to Sicily to meet with another famous writer and meanwhile having to deal with a creative block. He's helped by two strange but endearing funeral home workers/aspiring artists. The story on the surface contains a lot of Pirandello's core themes, like the idea of madness hiding under the surface of normalcy, of masks and lack of identity, of "strangeness". Pirandello went on to write (in this movie and in real life) Six Characters in Search of an Author, a meta-play about actors rehearsing a play and being interrupted by six characters without a writer that enter the theater and ask the guy in charge of rehearsal to write their stories, and then the story continues into this one arc structure for the entire play. The movie successfully depicts a story that, in itself, could have been written by Pirandello, if he ever did movies. The cinematography is pretty good although a bit standard, the editing is fast paced and makes for an entertaining watch. Toni Servillo basically plays the same character he plays always: the classy, reserved and troubled yet sentimental intellectual. But he does so pretty well so what's there to say? Ficarra & Picone work decently, but I personally don't really like how repetitive and predictable their screen presence and dynamics and deliveries are: they also play the same characters in every movie, Ficarra is the more crass, materialistic, sarcastic, "patriarchal" italian guy, Picone is the (too) sensitive and compliant one (and for some reason always ends up having an affair with Ficarra's sister in every movie). They work way less than Servillo because their characters only serve the purpose to be "fascinating" to Pirandello, that sees their weirdness and stupidity and finds it cute and charming. There's not a lot of depth, not a lot of meaning to their existence. Moreover, this movie suffers from the same affliction of every biopic about creative people, which is: "I don't know how I show the main character having an idea". In this case they work around it by playing on the idea that some of the stuff we see is not strictly real but imagined. It sort of works, but it just ends up being one of those movies where you can fill in the gap only knowing the real story of the real character. You don't get a lot of enjoyment if you don't know who Pirandello is, you don't really feel for his character all that much. The "weirdness" in the title that connects the strange slice of humanity in the film is never really explained, it's just left at the level of "people are weird and funny to look at sometimes". And again, you can understand by knowing Italian literature beforehand, but I personally think a movie should not take the audience's cultural knowledge as a basis. It's definitely a more clever example of biopic, because it integrates a core theme of the author's work into the story with intelligence, making the entire plot basically revolve around it, but it still leaves you a bit unsatisfied. I guess that nobody really cares, and the people that go and watch the movie know exactly what to expect and what ideas are celebrated (because they know the author). So if you just want a movie that reminds you of why this author is great, then this movie is for you: it's well made, competently directed and comfortably unchallenging.

Triangle of Sadness (2022)

A long mixed bag of satire

This movie achieves a lot technically, from the cinematography to the sound, the performances are all very good. The story combines humor and very cynical bitterness, and definitely desires to shock, and to provoke thoughts. The problem I had with the movie is that I found it a little disjointed. It felt like the authorial intent behind all of this was just to vent some feelings about society and economic classes into a long winded and chaotic allegory. Which is fine, but it's also a bit disorganized, and in the end it felt like there were no central theme to hinge on to. The film doesn't really offer any glimpses of relief, it blends the existential with the societal by first introducing the human drama of two shallow young models and then creating this Lord of the Flies style scenario with multiple characters each developing in their own way. In the movie there's a clear emphasis on the theme of material benefits, of money and luxury and the ultimate pointlessness of power and beauty in the face of catastrophes, but also the endurance of power struggles in any human situation. Basically, classism is bad but also everyone is irredeemable anyway so I guess... whatever? It's a cynical movie in a way in which it doesn't outsmart you, it doesn't offer you a new, cold but thoughtful view on things, it just employs very shallow and predictable means to make very shallow observations about men and women and rich and poor people. It wants to be edgy, but it doesn't earn its edginess by tapping into something real and heartfelt, so it just comes off as a movie that wants to provoke you and to slap you in the face. As Parasite showed us, there are ways to satirize and make comedy of a cynical world without losing attachment to the characters, but here it feels like nothing means anything outside of "this says a lot about our society". And personally I'm a bit detached from this type of gloomy satire, cause it's a bit unnecessary and doesn't add anything of value to our understanding of the world. But if you like black comedies and "rich people bad" and also "all people bad regardless of money" you might enjoy this film. It's entertaining, but for me personally the entertainment value fades away as the self-important social critique becomes the only selling point of a story.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

Bland, overloaded and tonally inconsistent

If I saw this as a pre-teen, back when HP ended and we were all starving for new content, I would have really loved this movie. JKR has a lot of flaws, but I think this movie shows her very specific talent, which is in creating details. Details like weird magical inventions, charming and memorable names and peculiar and endearing visual gags and tricks. She's really not a big picture writer, but she does do good in enriching the magical world and making it feel alive. I liked the new setting of the American ministry of magic, I liked the prohibitionism-era magical settings, I like the idea of seeing actual adults exist and live as wizards instead of kids, cause it can give us new perspectives. This movie had potential, and it irritates me how much of that potential is wasted.

Now, to the bad things:

• Fanservice: this is easy. For example, the references to Hogwarts and Dumbledore that are far too coincidental, the hippogriff-type creature, the newspaper title sequence basically copied from HP5, even the original theme, a piece of music literally titled after a character that doesn't exist yet.

• Overrelying on CGI: the movie has an aesthetics problem. The sets of the city, as vast as they are, look kind of fake. There's a lot of teleports, of scenes of destruction that don't look as impactful as they should. It feels like a movie set, or worst a huge green-screen room. The creatures look good but still artificial, and there are way too many creatures. The scenes inside the suitcase-zoo are completely CG and so visually messy, I don't understand where the characters are, it doesn't feel real.

• Too much magic: as weird as it sounds, I think that the HP stories were really mostly mystery stories based in a slight fantasy setting. This movie has a mystery, but it focuses more on action. There are teleportations happening every minute. Teleporting is a pretty cheap visual trick to make the fights feel more active, when in the HP books it was used sparingly, for long-distance movements. Also, again, buildings are destroyed every second with no casualties. But also Newt uses Reparo on a BUILDING by himself and fixes it. He uses Accio on living creatures (plot hole).

• Tonal inconsistency: the story follows a quirky zookeeper that tries to recover his magical zoo. But also: the story follows an abused 20-something-yo man that lives in a repressive household, being manipulated by someone that wants to weaponize the dark power of his trauma. The scenes will literally go from cute platypus stealing gold to death penalty to queenie flirting awkwardly with Jacob to abuse victim killing his own abuser and having basically a psychotic breakdown only to be tragically killed by the authorities. This is what happens when you take what should have been a single episodic story and you try to make it feel important. We have the Witch Hunters, a clear metaphor for repressive religious freaks, but also wizards have anti-reproduction laws to segregate wizards and humans, so basically both factions are nazi satire. Pretty weird considering how little JK tries to solve her Jew-Goblin problem in this film (literally the only Goblin we get to know is a sleazy animal trafficker that calls the cops on Newt to have the gold bounty). There's a lot of superficiality and shallow social commentary that doesn't go anywhere. It's all very jumbled and messy. Too many characters, too many self-important stories to follow. This movie is a case of franchise hubris, and there's nothing else to say really.

Heojil kyolshim (2022)

Entertaining but underwhelming

Park Chan Wook is the director of two amazing movies, Oldboy and Handmaiden, which are adventurous and engaging and dark. This movie is his latest, and it's probably unfair to judge it on the basis of the two I mentioned, because it's fine for a director to do a movie that's more low-key than their previous ones. And "fine" is a word that perfectly describes this movie.

Positive things: the movie has a lot of energy. Rhythm in the editing, engaging flow, creative ideas for scene transitions and a lot of visuals that are pretty great and inventive. The cinematography is spotless, clean, very driven and purposeful, striking a balance between the artsy and the utilitarian. The performances of the two main actors is stellar, they both portray very effectively their muddled and enigmatic characters. In a thriller like this, the chemistry between the characters has to work, and fortunately it clearly does. There's also a lot of heart and cinematic ambition in the music choices, in the blend between comedic and absurd and tragic. This movie is definitely a full meal, it won't leave you unsatisfied.

Negative things: the story was ultimately a bit underwhelming in its simplicity. The world around the characters felt a bit underdeveloped and simple enough to carry the plot. Everything is purposeful to the main mystery, but the mystery itself is pretty skeletal and not really intriguing after a while. It reminds me of Vertigo, there are themes of double identity, cold detectives falling for mysterious and untrustworthy femme fatales, a scenery of harsh nature and dangerous edges, a tension in the tragic unfolding of lies and deception. So, it's definitely something to chew on. The main issue with the story is that ultimately it doesn't really offer that much. It kind of feels like the type of movie that a guy with the knowledge and experience of Park Chan Wook could do with his eyes closed (pun intended, for whoever saw the movie). It works, it flows, it just doesn't feel very noteworthy in general. If you don't know this director you will probably have a good experience. If you do, you'll find it probably "decent". And if you hate him, well... this movie could convince you only if you're looking for a more "normie" entertaining thriller.

The Favourite (2018)

Ingenious

This movie is one of those movies that will not ravage your soul and make you cry a sea of tears. The best way to describe it is dry, witty, humorous, dark, comedic, tragicly on point about human nature, deep, intellectually stimulating. It's a story set in an absurdist aristocratic world, where everything is intrigue and prestige and power is fought for in the subtle ways of the court. It's a perfect placement for the core of this story, which is basically the dual nature of love and power. There's a lot of hard-cutting realistic depictions of the reality of abusive relationships, of manipulation. Emma Stone/Abigail, the opportunist, the hypocritical social climber traumatized by the loss of her royal title, Rachel Weisz/Sarah, the tough-loving strict woman that acts as a selfish-ish surrogate mother to the Queen/Olivia Colman, a woman so devastated by loss and pain and isolated by her own status that she's basically a baby: moody, restless, capricious, whiny. The story unfolds to reveal the complex nature of power and weakness, of powerlessness that generates resentment and poisons the mind. Every single character, even the minor ones, is weakened by someone else, either for love or hierarchy.

It's a movie that prompts a lot of thoughts and reflections on the nature of our own human interaction. It's accessible, slow but not boring, visually stunning and unique. It achieves a balance of seriousness and goofiness without giving into any of the two specifically. The ending is also really dark and cryptic, very thematically consistent and satisfying. Would recommend.

Pink Flamingos (1972)

Rather empty

I understand what the movie was going for, and in more than one scene I definitely felt disgust, even though some of the practical effects don't hold up to today's standard. The problem is that the movie has no heart. It has a weak story, the main character has a magnetic screen presence but I didn't feel a lot of sympathy or antipathy for her. If you want to disgust your audience, you should at least explore the emotional core of "disgust". It feels like empty provocation, like a performance of "look how disgusting I can make this movie", like a flex of your ability to elicit repulsion. But it feels meaningless, unless you care about Divine as a real life person or you have an attachment to queer counterculture and drag in the 70s. It's a historically meaningful movie because it pushed boundaries at the time but, like most things that were made with an intent to provoke, it becomes simply a cultural relic, a thing that meant something in context, not really an enjoyable or interesting movie for posterity. And granted, a lot of the things that Divine says can be quoted and memed for eternity. But it feels like a movie written around a character that the director finds inspiring as it is, like a movie-fanfiction. No change, no evolution, nothing but performance. The tagline "an exercise in poor taste" also, I think, doesn't apply to the terrible acting, editing mistakes, the abundance of songs. I can't be convinced that this is also part of the artistic intent, because if you want disgust the acting of "reacting to disgust" is a huge part of it.

So it's trashy, sure, but it's trashy that's trying to be trashy, and takes a lot of the fun out of it.

I don't know, maybe I'm too strict and I'm applying too much of my contemporary framework to criticize this movie, but I feel like it's a duty for audiences to read and judge art as it is, instead of just being detached and respectfully label it a "thing that was good at the time". If you don't agree, my TLDR summary is: I get the appeal but it didn't connect with me.

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

A joy to watch

Not much to say.

This movie is short and flies by. It's amazing to watch, there's an incredible amount of visual whimsy and attention to details, the score is also great (both for original and non-original songs). The performances are pretty good, there's a lot of subtlety in the voice acting in a lot of scenes. The thing it's hard to grasp when watching this movie is the weird, unsettling mix of family comedy and slightly dark humor. It's not exactly a simple "animals vs humans" story. The main character is a predator, a thief, a mischievous creature reformed by his family life. Alongside him there's his unsatisfied teen son who envies his more likeable cousin, his patient wife, his neighbors. There's a pretty obvious social subtext about an underclass rebelling, about "selling out", the need for adventure. There's a lot of mixed emotions in the characters actions and reactions, a cheerfulness that sort of hides (or cures) a deep existential angst among all of the characters. I personally wish that these darker tones were developed a little bit more instead of being just a slight aftertaste, but otherwise this movie is a perfectly nice, fun, colorful and thoughtful adventure.