John935

I am writing this 10 years after Melancholia was released and I´m competing with more than 100 amateur reviews but I´m in the middle of revisiting Melancholia and can say confidently it ´holds up well´, i.e., it´s still worth seeing, and pondering. Of course it´s audacious and a bit nuts but it wants to be both so it succeeds in that regard. Simultaneously funny and uncomfortable. It´s von Trier´s vision of, well, a bunch of things. And we don´t have to ´like´ it. But you might.

Rating 7.5 This film benefits from repeat viewings. Anyone interested in Northern European art is likely to become more interested upon seeing this movie. The photography is sublime. One could say that's to be expected, but it literally embodies the aesthetic charge that Girl w/ a PE is essentially about. It's practically all that matters. Some critics have carped about the dramatic elements and arguably they might have a point. But Johanssen and Firth and supporting cast are marvelous and this is a period film to die for. And remember.

Second half of this movie has a lot of brawling which I found tiresome. But, this is the type of movie that rewards viewers who pay close attention. While it is sympathetic towards the poor family, it doesn't get into what would happen if the tables were turned. Would the formerly poor family behave like the rich family in the film? Parasite goes only so far as to suggest Maybe. It's a rambunctious movie with considerable underlying subtlety. Remarkable.

I tend to like movies that are mindbangs and this is definitely that. The apocalyptic/sci-fi angle is not terribly important, it's just a fait accompli. But every banging other thing is (important). Moodier than Antonibangingoni. Director/DP Morano is one to watch out for, keep an eye on, etc. I Think We're Alone Now (ITWAN) is as if Bergman made a movie NOW in N. America with only 4 actors and just kind of let it bang people's minds.

This little indie film surprised me in a good way. I like to be surprised in a good way! It's low-key. There is drama but that's kind of subdued. Julia Garner is wonderful. No guarantee but put on your thinking cap and you just might find it interesting and different.

In 2020 I finally saw this picture for my second time. It is an immaculate production and there is much that is praiseworthy, particularly the acting. However, for me, there remains a coldness at its core which is in some ways consistent with the narrative but it deprives the film of resonance. The political issue is also kept distant. Does the film hew too closely to the novel? Not having read it I can't say. It is a pleasure to watch but this viewer waited in vain for some emotional power.

First-rate showbiz biopic that gets the tone uncannily right. Zellweger is amazing. What I liked most about it is it dares to be serious and intense, and it sustains that. Could have easily slipped off those rails but never does. Pretty much tells it like it was. And of course the real Judy was amazing too.

5 months after WWII officially ended, we have here a love triangle, starring Keira, Aleksander and Jason Clarke. I watched this drama admittedly for a little escape. Is it the greatest thing since French toast? No. Was it an effective brief escape for yours truly? Yes. The triangle people are attractive, Keira lusciously costumed and the visuals are, in a word, fabulous. For me, it begged the question: What's not to like? But does it usher in World Peace? Alas! It does not.

While I liked Gloria Bell, the (current) aggregate rating of 80 seems rather high. I'm a Julianne Moore fan (of course) and Turturro is excellent. There are surprising cameos but they are brief. The LA photography is bland. Director and photographer probably wanted to avoid 'iconic' LA locations, but until a third of the way thru I wasn't sure where it was. There's a valid feminist angle in main character being a 50-something woman. I just think this is not a film I'll remember....

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I have mixed feelings about this. Wanted to like it more than I did. It's long: Clocks in at 2 hours and 10 minutes. Did I learn from it? Not much, altho I remembered quite a bit. Bale's performance is wonderful (but isn't he always?). Yes, it's angry. Yes, it has funny bits. But for me it was LONG...

Hmmmm. I'm writing this in 2019, ok?, so it's an old movie, but probably my favorite Paul Schrader, and, let's be honest, Nastassia has a few fans and she's a Hot Potato in this. Visually it tells you practically all you need to know about the early 1980s. Weird? Yes. Great? That's debatable. But I still remember it, fondly. Prrrr.

I'm an old white guy (but not especially angry), not the target demographic for this movie, and it's not the greatest I've ever seen, but there are some things I like about it. The tone and energy are clearly above average. Quite an auspicious debut for the lead actors and director. Critical of Oakland but affectionate, their film manages to be both bold and nuanced. And that, dear reader, is unusual.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

One of the most important American films of the Seventies, Network is messy and takes on more than it can properly chew, but the writing, directing and cast are top notch. The reason it's so good may well be its willingness to take risks. They don't always work but the net effect, sustained in this film, is it's got something to say that's worth thinking about. Flashes of humor with characters and situations that are vividly recognizable. Of its time and --40 years later-- timeless?...

Pleasantly surprised by this. I was alive in 1970s but paid little attention to the big event, so the film was informative for me. Movies w/ a political theme are often smug or self-important but this is not. Both sides are treated fairly and the tone is entertaining, not heavy. My only quibble: Ideally it could have been 10 minutes shorter (altho I can't think of any particular scene I'd cut.) Emma and Steve are great.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

You might not like this film. You probably won't. The story won't unfold the way you want it to. You probably shouldn't see it. The score is dissonant. The photography's unnerving. Definitely you shouldn't watch this movie. I liked it but what do I know?

A bourgeois Mexican film about Mexican bourgeoisie, playing at boho. It is cliché-ridden and self-consciously politically correct but the cast is fine and somehow it all manages to be quite engaging. San Miguel looks beautiful!

I've seen all of Sofia Coppola's films and she is very good at not saying whatever it is she may be saying. Since Somewhere, the influence of Antonioni continues and she's willing to hold a shot/scene for longer than most directors nowadays would dare. I have not seen the Don Siegal version so cannot compare it. Colin Farrell looks well-preserved, until.... Everyone else --the distaff members of the cast-- take part in the funny games exactly the way Sofia C wanted them to and the effect is ultimately and purposefully stylishly vague. Love it or leave it, that is the Sofia C brand.

Easy 8 for this film which takes place in Santa Barbara in 1979. Marvelous ensemble cast headed by Benning. Funny and serious in unpredictable ways. Written and directed by a guy it's unapologetically feminist. Frankly I'm not often keen on indie films but mostly I loved how this one surprised me. And the music is great.

All Hail, Our First Great Transgender Film Director. Almodovar is a woman trapped in a man's body and this is irrefutable proof thereof. Pay no attention to the naysayers: He is in FINE form with this gorgeous film and you'll need at least 1 box of tissues. One of the best films I've seen in years. The incomparable Almodovar is BACK!!!

A knockout. Not an easy film, it's adapted from a stage play and spans a period of about 10 years from the late 50s through the mid 60s. (I'm white and this film should certainly resonate w/ viewers who are not black.) I am still trying to wrap my mind around the vivid and detailed portrait of a family with all its flaws and strengths. Actor/director Washington is great and Viola Davis's Oscar winning performance is surprisingly restrained and marvelous. EASILY one of the best films of 2016. I know I will remember it for a long time.

The good news is it's very watchable. The not-so-good news: it's silly and doesn't make much sense. But, again, to accentuate the positive: I really liked the casting, especially of minor characters. Surprising and great to see Lisa Kudrow, Allison Janney, Edgar Ramirez, Laura Prepon even if they don't get much screen time. Actors like these add value. A fun enough movie. Dumb but fun.

Pacing is slow, so you should expect that. Star-making for Ruth Negga; Edgerton's already a star. I don't know if I've ever seen an 'issue' movie filmed with such unaffected tenderness. Almost shockingly beautiful. The subject matter is still important. A homerun for director Nichols.

I mostly liked this movie which is lesser than Scorsese and Coppola but determined to carve out its own terms. I've never been a Depp fan and he's no Nicholson but, again, I can't dismiss his performance. (It helps that the whole cast is very good.) The great organized crime flicks tend to be operatic; this, deliberately, is not. Is it therefore not great? Maybe, but it's an exceptionally watchable 2 hours. And the morning after I'm still thinking about it.

Some critics called Dom Hemingway "inconsequential" and I can't argue w/ that. What I can say in its favor, though, is that Jude Law is a revelation. I've never been a huge fan, found him satisfactory in The Talented Mr. Ripley but his casting often seems predictable. Dom Hemingway is, surprisingly, his vehicle par excellence, hilariously vulgar, Tarantinoesque but less violent, not Oscar bait but if you're in the mood for weird and crazy this is definitely that. (January 2017)

Home runsville, people! Fabulous! Was she an artist? No. Did she have some problems? Yes. But she was indisputably a "midwife"' of modern and contemporary art, and this documentary is vivid proof of that. Fascinating subject and the film captures her beautifully, her importance and ... her. Essential for anyone interested in 20th cenrury art. Enthusiastically recommended.

Soderbergh was onto something with this film. Most of the reviewers who panned it complained that Sasha Grey's performance is "one-note". In my opinion, that's missing the point rather seriously. It may be valid to criticize The Girlfriend Experience for not fully addressing the many things it brings up; on the other hand, it doesn't claim to fully address anything. It's about an upscale escort in 2009 Manhattan but raises a zillion questions in an hour and fifteen minutes. World's oldest profession, right? And of course the 'upscale' angle is not exactly new either. But Soderbergh and writers seem to be wondering --on film-- if something is or might be new. Clearly, they don't know, but that doesn't mean the questions aren't interesting.

The Unbearable Tension between Awful and Good. I think Hello, My Name, etc. is rated R because it's a comedy that might offend someone. Maybe even you, dear Reader. Anyway, Sally Field is ineffably great, in material that is just ... not great, definitely not great, but out there. Very self-aware, a hipster look at hipsters. It screams NEW YORK and if you hate NY you'll hate this movie. I love the energy and willingness to take risks. Which is basically what it's all about. Sharp sick and fun.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I laughed out loud watching this at home, although I wouldn't have dared to in an American art house cinema. Morbidly funny with a 'tragic' side too, it all takes place in 1811 and viewers should expect slow pacing and a theatrical style. Definitely not for everyone but watch the trailer and decide. Every bit as funny as it is arty.

JLaw is very good and no doubt most of the weirdness of Joy the film is intentional but I was left w/ a feeling of Is That All There Is? (which, come to think of it, would have been a cool addition to the soundtrack). Part of the film's problem, overall, might be unintended consequences from oversimplifying the business issues faced by Joy the character, i.e., Do the oversimplifications actually cause greater confusion? All this is especially problematic w/ the patent issues. Patent law is about as complex and tax law. The film 'wants' us viewers to understand it but doesn't really give us much help (maybe it doesn't understand it either). Also, the woman's success story is admirable but at times it feels like it is straining to be political correct. I'm not sure I'm right about most of the above. I am merely setting forth my reservations about this film by a director whose work I'm often crazy about.

Ok, so I give this a 7, meaning not the greatest thing since French toast but I like it, I really like it. I'm twice the age of Greta character and lived in NY at her age and this whole movie brought back that energy of being young-ish in NY. Also I love that this is a chick buddy flick. Movies have been aspiring to be that but this is the real deal. Greta is great (unsurprisingly) and co-star too, as young-ish and young, respectively. Everyone talks fast. Woody Allen-esque but much younger. Fast, funny and seems effortlessly ingratiating. Disclosure: I like most of Baumbach's films. They're not perfecto but even the flaws are above average.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Early Fellini masterpiece. Yes, it's old (1953), and, yes, it's all about Fellini. His films usually are and I don't consider every one a masterpiece but this is one of the best. Score by the great Nino Rota. DVD is Criterion and the supplements are good. Friends in their late 20s. Small town. Performances you will never forget. In a crazy, sad film you won't forget, either. Essential.

Evil corporations aided by evil security firm that employs star Marling who infiltrates well-intentioned but evil-prone eco-terrorists. Predictably she's attracted to star Alexsander and gets all confused about where her true loyalties lie. Basically she stays confused for The East's running length. The eco-terrorists are semi-sympathetically drawn and Julia Ormond is great in a small role as a corporate baddie who 'turns' (with good reason). The whole endeavor is semi-stimulating and I guarantee you have seen worse. But in its lame attempt to sort out ethics and morality the film feels like an opportunity mostly missed.

I agree w/ another User (love that term!) this is not as great as Blue Velvet or Mulholland but practically nothing is. WAH vacillates --wildly, ok?-- between easy and difficult, sometimes both at the same time. In the 2004 Making Of, Lynch says Laura Dern is the best actress he's worked with, and she is marvelous here. Casting her real-life mother Diane Ladd makes it not just a Sailor & Lula love story but also a mother-daughter picture. Above all, WAH feels restless and sometimes its restlessness is very disturbing. The love story may be feel-good but there's plenty here that isn't. Countless references to the Wizard of Oz create dissonant notes. To quote Rosemary, "This is no dream, it's really happening!" And we viewers have to make up our own mind: About what to make of it all. Suerte w/ that! Did we get enough parental guidance?

Very indie and sentimental, this is not usually my kind of film, but I like it. I should mention I'm very interested in Spain and this is the Spain version of indie and sentimental. Kind **** subject, the 3 main characters are a school teacher and 2 adolescents. The kids have issues but are simpatico. Yes, it's another movie cashing in on The Beatles, so many years later but somehow it works. I watched the trailer and decided to rent it. I'm glad I did and I recommended it to a friend.

This is one of those movies you either like or don't, and I hereby acknowledge there are those who don't. The songs are cringe-inducing, it would be better if it were 10 minutes shorter, and there are sappy moments, but this is a formidable feelgood picture of its time (along w/ Shakespeare In Love). A few real critics have pointed out that it's a rare for romantic comedy to be about something besides the romance. It has things to say about celebrity, and the casting plays off that quite well. It's mostly well written and funny. Supporting kudos to the guy who plays the roommate (Rhys Ifans). Attention was paid to details. The result is not perfect but not sloppy either.

Disappointing but not a disaster. Hardy is good, but we expected that. Girlfriend is boring and the whole shebang feels curiously inert. I'm noticing an odd trend, where period films of the 60s and 70s (e.g., Fargo, second season) portray the period as extremely distant. I happen to remember those periods so the extreme distancing seems dishonest. Anyway, Hardy kept me watching Legend but I was conscious of time elapsing too. It's hard to pinpoint why but the film never fully engaged.

The most shocking thing about A Wolf at the Door is that it actually won 7 major Brazilian cinema awards. It's supposedly modeled on Fatal Attraction but FA at least had style and attitude. For a cautionary tale of adultery this is most plodding. Some of the praise heaped on it notes that it's the director's first film. Ok, can't argue with that but I also can't figure out why it was made. One of the most pointless 100 minutes I've spent watching a film. This is a cautionary review if you're thinking about renting it.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Not my favorite film by director Ozon but this is an interesting story about a **** that doesn't get all preachy and politically correct. For that reason I prefer it to The Danish Girl which seemed awfully concerned about winning awards. Ozon is comfortable with the **** subject matter and that makes for a better film. Almodovar fans should see it because he is a clear influence.

My rating is not exactly a rave but the 2 things I most liked: 1. Mouglalis, 9 years younger than Cate Blanchett of whom she reminds me but w/ dark hair. Her character (in this) super-neurotic but super-irresistible (great combo, of course); and 2. the black-and-white photography, by a Belgian who is new to me but not new. The film is relentlessly low-key in a way that's bound to make some people dislike it. For me, not the greatest thing since French toast but my feellings about it are tentative but not dismissive.

Underrated. Michelle Pfeiffer is great in it. Rupert Friend is so-so. The film adapts 2 novels: Cheri and The Last of Cheri. Some have commented that the sequel gets short shrift in the film and they may have a point (I have not read the sequel). However, this is a gorgeous production and it provides a fascinating glimpse into the culture of successful but aging courtesans in late 19th century France. Not for everyone, of course, but I recommend watching the trailer and deciding for yourself.

While I give The Danish Girl credit for taking on new subject matter, 2 hours of political correctness felt strained. (BTW, I'm gay.) Also, while that subject matter requires courage we don't really learn anything new from this film. It's not really clear why it was made, other than to score those pc points, which it deserves, but it's disappointing there's not much else going on with it. Shoenaearts, in a small role, is totally buttoned up and who wants to see that?!

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Classic. The French are gaga for director Gray and Frenchies know a thing or 2 about film. Amazing cast and Caan particularly stands out. DP Harris Savides worked for the Coppolas and it shows. This is sort of Carravagio meets The Godfather. A sizable number of critics accused it of pretentiousness. Like a NY crime picture shouldn't aim too high, right? This one you need to see.