g_imdb-43
Joined Jun 2004
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews20
g_imdb-43's rating
After seemingly waiting years for Amazon to drop the prices of this movie, I'm totally disappointed in the first (and hopefully last) Wolfhard/Eisenberg collaboration. I thought it was going to be about a bright kid who was actually "trying to save the world." In fact, Wolfhard's Ziggy is anything but - "stupid" might not be PC but that's how I'd describe him.
The music Ziggy performs to "20,000 followers" is so awful it's hard to imagine anyone would follow him except to laugh behind his back. Making money from it? Again, make me laugh!
His interest in the "political girl" is never explained, so her disinterest in him is the most credible part of the story.
I think most of us are most interested in Ziggy's story, yet his mother's story actually dominates the movie. People say she's trying to "mother" the teen boy she meets in her shelter (if the boy has a good relationship with his father, why is he living in a shelter?), but honestly it seemed to me she wanted to MILF him. Speaking of - anyone hoping to see "more" of Finn Wolfhard in this movie will be disappointed. There is a shower scene, but it's his mother!
French Canadian teen writer/director/actor Xavier Dolan made a brilliant movie on a similar son-mother relationship ("I Killed my Mother") and Ziggy's awkward ambition occasionally reminded me of "Scott Pilgrim." But apparently, an "original audio book" is even lower than a comic book as inspiration for a movie, and at 87 minutes, "When You Finish Saving the World" is still 86 minutes too long.
The music Ziggy performs to "20,000 followers" is so awful it's hard to imagine anyone would follow him except to laugh behind his back. Making money from it? Again, make me laugh!
His interest in the "political girl" is never explained, so her disinterest in him is the most credible part of the story.
I think most of us are most interested in Ziggy's story, yet his mother's story actually dominates the movie. People say she's trying to "mother" the teen boy she meets in her shelter (if the boy has a good relationship with his father, why is he living in a shelter?), but honestly it seemed to me she wanted to MILF him. Speaking of - anyone hoping to see "more" of Finn Wolfhard in this movie will be disappointed. There is a shower scene, but it's his mother!
French Canadian teen writer/director/actor Xavier Dolan made a brilliant movie on a similar son-mother relationship ("I Killed my Mother") and Ziggy's awkward ambition occasionally reminded me of "Scott Pilgrim." But apparently, an "original audio book" is even lower than a comic book as inspiration for a movie, and at 87 minutes, "When You Finish Saving the World" is still 86 minutes too long.
Watching "Persona" for the first time tonight, I was certainly struck by the power and beauty of the film. Or perhaps, two different films, as there was the main story of two women, and seemingly unrelated "shocks and tricks of cinema" at the beginning, middle, and end - accompanied by music that seemed more from "2001" than a Bergman classic - although in truth these films were only two years apart.
But I wanted to mention one disturbing implication that is not often discussed: the inclusion of images from the atrocities of two wars; one generally associated with Nazis and the other with America. Neither image told the whole story, but the image from the American war (in Vietnam) was far more horrible.
I don't think there's an American alive today, or then, who would equate the war atrocities of Americans with Nazis, but here it is, on the screen, with real pictures. (True, Americans did not set those monks on fire, but it can be assumed that our Napalm did in scenes that were not filmed). Also several future American wars that Bergman could not have imagined. Of course, our goal seems noble: to liberate people and give them Democracy. How many people did we kill to give the survivors Democracy? (And what does this have to do with the story of "Persona"? I have no idea. But Bergman put these images in the film, not a server glitch).
A final, unrelated comment: I've never objected to subtitled movies, but when the movie is very talky, and also very visual, there is some difficulty giving the both the titles and the picture your full attention. And, with Swedish not a world language (no offense), it seems the vast majority of the word's viewers who've seen this film, have coped with the same limitation... very few of us have been able to actually WATCH the film.
Highly recommended for people who are already very confused about life, and wish to be further confused.
But I wanted to mention one disturbing implication that is not often discussed: the inclusion of images from the atrocities of two wars; one generally associated with Nazis and the other with America. Neither image told the whole story, but the image from the American war (in Vietnam) was far more horrible.
I don't think there's an American alive today, or then, who would equate the war atrocities of Americans with Nazis, but here it is, on the screen, with real pictures. (True, Americans did not set those monks on fire, but it can be assumed that our Napalm did in scenes that were not filmed). Also several future American wars that Bergman could not have imagined. Of course, our goal seems noble: to liberate people and give them Democracy. How many people did we kill to give the survivors Democracy? (And what does this have to do with the story of "Persona"? I have no idea. But Bergman put these images in the film, not a server glitch).
A final, unrelated comment: I've never objected to subtitled movies, but when the movie is very talky, and also very visual, there is some difficulty giving the both the titles and the picture your full attention. And, with Swedish not a world language (no offense), it seems the vast majority of the word's viewers who've seen this film, have coped with the same limitation... very few of us have been able to actually WATCH the film.
Highly recommended for people who are already very confused about life, and wish to be further confused.
I've now seen four Xavier Dolan films; "I Killed my Mother" was my first (his too ;), and I thought it was a much better film. Although there are great similarities in the characters' dynamics, the characters in "I Killed my Mother" were simply more believable, and that made their plight - and the story - more interesting.
"Steve" in this movie has such a weird mania: he seems to know when he's being super-anti-social but simply doesn't care. (Is it possible he's named after "Steve-O"?)
I was surprised, in "I Killed...," how unlikable Dolan made his own character, but that story - about two people who had absolutely nothing in common but were forced to love each other anyway - seemed like a much truer story, and that movie also had genuine emotional moments - particularly the line "I would die tomorrow" (if you've seen it, you know). Where that movie was emotional, this movie is merely cringeworthy.
I've seen 4 Dolan features so far (not in the order he made them), and this is the first one for me that didn't (a) feature Dolan himself in a staring roll, and (b) have a gay sub-plot in the story. Both of these were disappointing to me, although he does replace himself with a young actor who would be simply stunning, if he wasn't constantly mugging for the camera - which is still fine for the movie, since we see it as part of his mental disorder.
Having seen previous Dolan movies, I've come to believe he "widens" the screen for fantasy scenes - this is clearly shown the second time in "Mommy" that he widens the screen, but I mention this to suggest that the mid-movie "Wonderwall" montage, which others have suggested was showing progress, is actually a fantasy.
Speaking of screen shape - this movie may be square, but on a wide screen, it appears vertical. Obviously, Dolan was trying make us feel visually "trapped" in the story, the same as his characters. Like wiring theater seats for an electric shock, this technique does work, but whether it makes this a better "movie" is debatable. It's not a deal-killer, but I think it honestly makes the movie less-fun to watch, and what do we watch movies for, if not to have fun?
Final comments on the beginning and ending (not really spoilers): The "alternative Canadian law" thing in the opening titles seems completely unnecessary, as "Steve" was more than dangerous enough for involuntary psychiatric commitment with or without an alternate universe. And the ending! Well... it seemed inevitable through the whole movie that it would end this way, because it really didn't have anywhere else to go. Even the final shot: seems it's been the final shot in many other movies with a similar subject. MANY other movies.
So, not a bad art film, to be sure, but in my opinion, it's hardly Dolan's best movie, and certainly not his most accessible... I would NOT recommend it to anyone who's not already a fan.
"Steve" in this movie has such a weird mania: he seems to know when he's being super-anti-social but simply doesn't care. (Is it possible he's named after "Steve-O"?)
I was surprised, in "I Killed...," how unlikable Dolan made his own character, but that story - about two people who had absolutely nothing in common but were forced to love each other anyway - seemed like a much truer story, and that movie also had genuine emotional moments - particularly the line "I would die tomorrow" (if you've seen it, you know). Where that movie was emotional, this movie is merely cringeworthy.
I've seen 4 Dolan features so far (not in the order he made them), and this is the first one for me that didn't (a) feature Dolan himself in a staring roll, and (b) have a gay sub-plot in the story. Both of these were disappointing to me, although he does replace himself with a young actor who would be simply stunning, if he wasn't constantly mugging for the camera - which is still fine for the movie, since we see it as part of his mental disorder.
Having seen previous Dolan movies, I've come to believe he "widens" the screen for fantasy scenes - this is clearly shown the second time in "Mommy" that he widens the screen, but I mention this to suggest that the mid-movie "Wonderwall" montage, which others have suggested was showing progress, is actually a fantasy.
Speaking of screen shape - this movie may be square, but on a wide screen, it appears vertical. Obviously, Dolan was trying make us feel visually "trapped" in the story, the same as his characters. Like wiring theater seats for an electric shock, this technique does work, but whether it makes this a better "movie" is debatable. It's not a deal-killer, but I think it honestly makes the movie less-fun to watch, and what do we watch movies for, if not to have fun?
Final comments on the beginning and ending (not really spoilers): The "alternative Canadian law" thing in the opening titles seems completely unnecessary, as "Steve" was more than dangerous enough for involuntary psychiatric commitment with or without an alternate universe. And the ending! Well... it seemed inevitable through the whole movie that it would end this way, because it really didn't have anywhere else to go. Even the final shot: seems it's been the final shot in many other movies with a similar subject. MANY other movies.
So, not a bad art film, to be sure, but in my opinion, it's hardly Dolan's best movie, and certainly not his most accessible... I would NOT recommend it to anyone who's not already a fan.