Kocix12

I'm back from a two-week film break with this fun, campy little horror/comedy. If you hate spiders and are afraid of them, steer clear; this film will only further enhance your Arachnophobia. I quite enjoyed this simple story where the special venomous spider species gets accidentally transported from South America to a small American town, soon mating and creating a deadly group of offspring that cause havoc. Film is very self-aware; it knows that the narrative is a bit ridiculous, but plays with it delightfully, creating comedic bits when needed, combining them with a lot more tension than I would expect. It's a very well-produced, directed, and edited effort. Jeff Daniels does a fine job as a lead, and John Goodman is memorable as a crazy side character, the type that pretty much defined his career. Film also doesn't overstay its welcome, and wraps the story interestingly and satisfyingly. The negatives come from the script that unfortunately doesn't do a great job at developing any of the characters except for the lead. Most of them are just prey for the spiders to feast on. That's unfortunate because we don't care that they are gone nearly as much as we would if we got more out of them in the early scenes. Overall, it's a better-than-expected creature feature, making sure to leave you searching for a spider in your bedroom.

It was so great to see this in the local cinema. I remember watching it way back when I was a kid in a music class, but only bits and pieces of it. They served as an extended director's cut, which is about 20 minutes longer than the theatrical. Some things probably could have been cut out, but I enjoyed the film so much that I didn't mind them nearly as much as I would have expected before the screening. The main strength of this film lies in its most bold choice. To put Salieri as the protagonist of the story, and one who looks at the life of Mozart through his eyes. He loves Mozart's music, he understands its brilliance better than anyone else, but it's eating him alive, the fact that he is not as talented, or can create something so wonderful that it will live in the minds of people forever. His story, his frustrations, and most importantly, his jealousy are far more relatable than the blatant brilliance of a carefree boy that is Mozart. We all have felt passion for something in life, then tried to be good at it, great at it, but while trying understood that someone else is just flat out better. It often bothers us, it often leaves us feeling less worthy. Saliery didn't want to take the credit for Mozart's work; he just wanted to reach or surpass his level of brilliance, but he never could. When he realized that, the only thing left was to destroy him, but as he did, he was still forced to live, growing old in anonymity, while Mozart will stay alive forever through his music. Performance by F. Murray Abraham as Saliery was brilliant, one of the best ones ever on the big screen. Costume design was great, the sets, the music, of course, I don't need to mention that. Comedic elements helped it not to feel stale, while the drama flowed ever so seamlessly. A classic worth seeing.

What an experience. My fault that I took myself a while to write a review, but great films stay with you for much longer than a week or two that past since I saw Sinners, so let's finally get to it. Ryan Coogler has been one of my favourite directors in the past years, so after a great indie film, a sports drama, and a superhero genre piece, I was excited to check out his horror/drama, and what an experience it was. The setup, the village, the times, life on those farms. Then the protagonists, both played by the amazing Michael B. Jordan. They play those guys in films that come back to a place after a long time, and their history to the place and people there is so palpable you can smell it. Then the music, wonderful blues, nicely complemented the story. The horror is there, but first and foremost, this is drama, and there is a lot of time allocated to setting up the characters, their world, their motivations, and goals. The story is rather simple, they come back to open a tavern of sorts with goods they imported from Chicago. The way they do it is slick, it's gangsta, and it sets us up to a colorful supporting cast that adds so much meat to the bone of this film. Especially great is Delroy Lindo, as he plays a drunken musician in a small town perfectly. I'm not always the greatest fan of supernatural horror, but here it worked extremely well. It provided a social commentary without being super preachy about it, and while also having very flawed, and sort of asholish black characters that weren't necessarily the heroes of the story in all regards. If it were fresher in my mind, I would go on and on. I guess the negatives for me were the lack of development of the Indians as characters in the story, they had a scene and felt a bit out of place, and the ending, while enjoyable, is a bit hat on hat style ending, where they ended a story multiple times but it just kept going. A must-see for sure, best of the year so far, even though I haven't had the time yet to see much.

As a huge fan of Paul Schrader, who I think is one of the best screenwriters of all time, this film was, unfortunately, a letdown. It was the weakest one I saw from him, and I saw a lot. Why is that? While the premise of Oh, Canada, which is that of an old man recording a final interview in which he debunks the myths of his life, and sets the record straight of what actually happened is extremely intriguing, its execution quickly lost me. Yes, he is close to death, and his memory is getting lost in front of his, and our eyes, I understand that it's sort of the point of the film, but the telling was just all over the place. The second we get invested in a part of his life we track back to those that conduct the interview, demanding that he needs a break, to him jumping up and down the timeline of his life. It becomes way too messy, way too soon, and by the end of its short runtime, I was exhausted and didn't care much for a man who apparently was telling us all along he never loved anyone, and wasn't an antiwar hero as many described him to be. Let's get to the positives. Individual scenes are well written, and directed, as you would expect from Schrader, but as a unit, they didn't offer me enough. Acting is great, especially from Gene. He is maybe the best I have seen him on film. He makes the film more than watchable and intrigues you enough to stay with it. His drifter character reminded me a bit of the Jack Nicolson one in the Five Easy Pieces. Still, I think it's not a must-watch unless you are a die-hard Gere, Schrader, or Thurman fan.

I will be brief with this one. It's a watchable kids' film with some nice effects. With that being said, it's extremely corny and predictable. The characters are at best mildly entertaining, at worst, incredibly stupid. It's never tense, and high stakes never feel that high or that any of the main cast members are at risk. It's just a fast food type of film, ok to consume it once in a while, even though you know it's not good for you. Pass, unless you have a kid, and he/she really loves Minecraft.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

It's always better to have a weaker start and stronger finish than the other way around. Even though The Wife doesn't excite for much of its story, its third act almost makes up for it as all the secrets come to the surface in an explosive, thought-provoking finale. Why The Wife didn't excite me up until the third act? Maybe it's because I knew what the story was about, which is partially my fault, but the buildup to the big reveal was just very obvious and plain. It's clear from the start that The Wife hides something, and the moment we are in the first flashback it's clear what, yet we have to pretend as an audience for quite a while that it's not the case. It's one of those films where you realize early on that this relationship has to boil over, something has to culminate, secrets have to be revealed, and then you wait, and you wait for most of the film to get there. You do get there, and it's excellent, but most of the things in the middle, preparation for the Nobel prize, the flashbacks, the potential affair, and the relationship with children is just fine, but nothing more. Holds you just engaged enough that you are never bored, especially because Glen Close and Jonathan Pryce bring it on acting-wise, but it's never all that exciting. The only part that worked better than fine for me is the role of Cristian Slater, who is sort of an instigator of the conflict brewing under the surface that we feel from the start to the film's climax. Now on to the third act. Nobel prize acceptance speech is a final drop into the glass already filled with sorrow and regret. Close's character opens up, completely vulnerable, like characters in all those books, and you can feel her pain. You understand why she did what she did, but you also sense together with her that it was all a huge mistake. That she gave too much for a man that probably deserved very little. The most tragic thing is the fact that her actions were her own free will, and as much as he can be blamed for not being the best husband, the best person, she is the one who willingly sold her soul, and betrayed herself. It took a lifelong of her slowly and slowly loathing her husband, and his status in the literary world for her to finally acknowledge that. Her life was a lie, and it always will be a lie, and she is the one most responsible for that. The Wife is a true cautionary tale about the consequences of not giving away your intellectual properties to someone else without the possibility of ever being recognized. It reminded me a lot of The Big Eyes which deals with a similar topic, but in a bit more colorful way. It's a recommendation mostly for great performances and amazing third act. Having said that, I don't think that Colman's Oscar win was undeserving in front of Close, it's just a shame that after such a strong career Close still doesn't have one.

Riff Raff is one of those perfectly solid crime comedy flicks that is very watchable, reasonably entertaining, and ultimately forgettable. The star-studded cast clearly has fun with the material, and works well with each other, offering just enough color to the picture, that the final act standoff creates a bit of solid tension. Up to that point though the tension was mostly missing, as the film frequently cuts to flashbacks to tell the story, and disregards the main plot by telling a bunch of B stories about the relationships these characters have with each other. The script is the single weakest aspect of the film. Son runs back to his father to hide from assassins who are out for revenge, and one of them used to work with his father is as familiar of a crime plot as it exists. Then the surprises are very obvious. Comedy is again a try-hard version of Tarantino and Richie style. There are funny bits, but not as many as they were intended to have. And then you just have silly, over-the-top parts that are out of the realm of believability. If you want to relax and watch something kind of stupid, but kinda fun in a crime comedy genre, this fits the bill. For anything more, it's a no.

I was so utterly impressed with Memoir of a Snail that I had to return to the author's previously praised work and see Mary and Max. Darker, less humorous, and equally deep-cutting, but working slightly less interestingly as a story, I liked the film, but not nearly as much as his previous work. The narration here is again strong, but when it meanders to the smaller and quirkier habits of characters that have less to do with the plot it's not always equality fun, occasionally dragging the pace of the picture. Philip Seymour Hoffman, as always, does a great job of bringing Max to life by offering his voice. You truly feel for Max and his difficult life. The contrast between brown Australia, and dark mostly black and white New York also works very well. Mary's life still has ways of going in the right direction, even though her childhood is super far from ideal, while Max is trapped in a world that offers very little joy for a person like him. A small girl being a pen pal with an older obese man is something that takes time for you to accept, as off the bat it sounds disturbing. And it is disturbing, but not for the reason one might think by just reading the film's synopsis. Both of the characters are lost in their lives, and in desperate need of connection, and warmth from other human beings. Max's condition explains many things about his character, and life, and only makes the story darker and more depressing, as he is a human being whose condition enables him to fully function by himself, left alone from a very early point in his life. Music works every single time. The rendition of Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be) is just perfect, as it compliments the best scene in the film that illustrates the importance of self-love, and understanding self-worth which helps us navigate through the dark times, and dark times are present for everyone. Overall, it's a hard film to recommend, but at the same time, it's a very strong, important watch. I think Memoir of a Snail from the same creator works just a bit better both in its darkness and light, and made me more emotional, while this piece just made me numb. It's equally as though-provoking, and a piece of animation unlike anything mainstream.

I was left stunned. I don't remember the last time I cried, and laughed so much at the film. Memoir of a Snail is quite possibly my new favorite animated film, and there are several reasons why. First of all the stock animation is very bleak, brown, and grey in the best possible sense. It's pretty in an unconventional way, and for the story, it is telling it works flawlessly. The usage of narration is the best I have seen in a film. The entire story is narrated with such care and precision. It's a mix of tragedy, and humor works every time. You could be crying in one scene, and laughing in the other. That is so hard to do, trust me, I have seen many films, and I rarely have that experience. The story is so rich with themes such as loneliness, loss, grief, trauma, cults, fetishes, homosexuality, etc... All of them are explored poignantly, feeling very personal, and lived through. It's at times an extremely depressing film, but behind the depression of it, the film is succeeding to be hopeful, and have an ultimately very positive outlook on life. I love some of the final lines of dialog that perfectly encapsulate this piece of work. I mean I could go on on and on about this film. Let's talk about the characters. Each of them felt so authentic, had its time to shine, and its place in the story. Even the moments that technically didn't add that much to the story were so charming and clever that you couldn't help but feel like they were needed. Like all the life adventures of an old lady, you could cut some things out and have more or less the same story, but why would you, when it's so good, so fun. Snails and their shell. It's a very modern problem for people to bubble themselves away from everyone else, to the point where there is nobody else around. I empathize with that problem myself, hence why this film was a very emotional journey for me. The film doesn't offer a simple solution, as great films usually don't, it rather shows you the life of a closed person, and her gradual, and slow-moving need to break from the shell. In the end, when that moment finally arrives, it's not all sunshine and rainbows, but it's a start. Honest, raw, emotionally truthful, funny, and empathetic, this film is a hidden gem of 2024. The best thing produced in it by a fine margin.

Mastery in slow-burn drama/thriller filmmaking. Michael Clayton is never interested in cliche shootouts, shallow sex scenes, or over-the-top Hollywood dialogue. It's always interested in sharp dialogue, character development, and precise plot progression where eventually all the puzzle pieces come together in a wonderfully set-up climax. The moral grey area the film finds is as complex as they come. Characters here, especially our titular lead, in maybe the best performance of Clooney's career is a man who is very good at his job. Unlike in Up in the Air, Clooney here doesn't enjoy his job, and while he is good news to his clients, he falls deeper and deeper into the depravity of his moral codex as cases mount. He is a man hardened by work, disconnected from his family, life's joys or pleasures. The character of Tom Wilkinson in quite possibly his greatest role as well can't handle it anymore. He loses is it in a similar fashion as the lead of the hit film Network. Under the pressures of a failed family life and depression, having a job where he clearly understands that he is protecting bad people takes a tool. As he demises, Clooney awakens, and it's beautiful to watch. On the other side, we have Tilda Swinton who won an Oscar for her performance, even though in my opinion she is the third best in the film. She is also not this bloated mega villain, but rather another lady good at her job, and dedicated to her career to the point where moral codex is less important than the company's interests. Most of the people work for someone else. This film asks the question of if we are willing to be great at our job, for the benefit of the company, no matter how morally incorrect it is, and how much it negatively affects the lives of innocent people. If I have to state some minor negatives, the film did lose me a tad bit in the middle, as it could have been slightly tighter, and the look of it didn't stand out from other office-based films. With that being said, this is a great, deep watch, that will stay with me long after I have seen it. They don't make many films like this anymore unfortunately for all of us.

What a disappointing sequel. I have to side with Ebert on this one. While it starts off promising, as our final girl from the first film ends up in a mental institution dealing with the consequences of her nightmarish experience, soon enough the film goes off the rails. Once they are in hell, the plot completely loses itself, and it's just a series of scenes that on its own at times work, but don't connect to the story. It feels like we as an audience are in hell as well, and we can't get out of this film. Unique, imaginative visuals save this from not being a complete disaster, as it's always cool to look at what is happening on the screen, even if no substance is there. Centurions have a weak role here, and that might be the most disappointing thing about it. They are not menacing and are all too vulnerable. In the first film, there was a central story to hold on to, which was compelling, and then the box and the characters from hell enhanced it. Here the story gets abandoned halfway through, and it's just that other thing, repeatedly, with many different twists and turns of power. By the time it ended, I couldn't care less. Even if you are a fan of the first one, I would skip this film. It will take me quite a while to pick up back with more sequels of this franchise.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

A film that kicked off an entire zombie subgenre, now having a legendary status in horror history. I enjoyed it in moderation, a bit less than the Dawn of the Dead, which I think goes deeper with survivalist themes. This film first and foremost reminded me of my childhood, playing Call of Duty with friends, defending an abandoned house from a zombie invasion. It is basically what the film is. It takes a while for more characters to get introduced, and one of our leads barely speaks, which then makes us have to patiently wait for more action, and character conflicts to kick in. I think that part of the film could have been trimmed down, allowing the cast to grow quicker. Once it does we have a nice tension between two male characters. One is a black leader survivalist, and the other is a white coward, who only wants to hide, not willing to deal with an emerging problem. I mentioned black, and white specifically because there are certain racial overtones this film explores. It's subtle enough that you don't even have to react to it but visible enough that you can understand that's what the director was going for. This is a very old low-budget film, and viewing it in 2025, it of course suffers from some sub-par acting and unconvincing zombies. The practical effects are surprisingly good, and the black and white cinematography helps them retain their solid look, but the undead, or as the film calls them ghouls are unfortunately never scary. Romero is not afraid to show violence and be brutal to its main characters, and I commend him for that. By doing so he is able to have surprising death scenes that elevate the material. It's a film ahead of its time, that would be recommended for cinema buffs. I'm glad I saw it, even though I don't see myself rewatching it.

Cats die, music fades, but art is for keeps. Is it though? Inside doesn't truly explore that, it instead meanders around as a man played to perfection by William Dafoe tries to get out of the luxury penthouse he found himself in when a security system malfunctioned during his theft. There is a severe lack of logic right from the get-go as to why nobody would come to check out what is happening as the security alarm goes off, or why Dafoe doesn't carry a phone to call for help. But ok, you disregard it because the concept is interesting and you go with it. And you go and go into about 40-50 minutes of almost nothing. Regular survival stuff just in a fancy place surrounded by expensive art which is of course worthless to Dafoe while trapped inside. Then in the second half, Dafoe starts going a bit crazier, his survival is more extreme, and there are some hallucinations and discoveries. All to ask the question of the importance of art, and its power to transcend human life. To consume one's space/life so much that it becomes too isolating, and infuriating to even be around it. There was a good idea here somewhere, but execution for the most part was not up to the part as the film felt at times boring, and overlong, and most importantly like it didn't go anywhere. It doesn't help that the ending is very anticlimactic. The set of this penthouse is amazing, together with art pieces, and Dafoe shines. Talk about how an actor can save a film, and take something out of a script that is mediocre at best. See only if you are a die-hard Dafoe fan.

Start had me giggling more than it made me scared, but the more the film went along the better it got, and while the horror never became particularly scary, the actual subtext did. The sheer chaos and lack of control sets up the film, as our four main characters get together by chance. All the commotion mixed with zombies that might have looked good in 78, but now look very dated, with the extremely blue makeup that actually makes them quite funny didn't hook me at all. Once the plot comes around to the shopping mall this is where the film truly starts for me. Zombies walk around there, subconsciously remembering the malls as the places where they loved to spend time, that offered them joy. They are clearly a reflection of us, as consumers mindlessly walking around, buying material items we worked our ass the whole week to get. Being so invested in material, that even after our death we can't fully let go of it. As the characters spend more time in the mall, they become more like zombies themselves, using the resources to live seemingly carefree, but the more they use, the less satisfied they become, coming to question if there is any point to any of this. Of course, that material is a source for fighting for humans, and even though there is a zombie apocalypse, humans are still each other's bigger enemies. Greed has no boundaries, it only grows in the face of crises. At a certain point, zombies became heroes, bringing to death those poisoned by greed and unwillingness to share the resources. By the end of it, the film leaves you with a lot to think about on how humans react faced with crises, and what we actually value in life. Some campy performances, outdated makeup, and the lack of scary zombies make this not rise to the ranks as well as it could. Still, for its time, it's an impressive effort and one that has a strong subtext working under all the zombie killing.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

What a devastating film. Right from the start you get a sense that something will soon go very wrong. Our main character beautifully played by Oscar-nominated for the role Don Chetle is keeping his cool while striking different deals to keep important people around him happy. He is the voice of reason between mad dictatorship rhetoric, and the panic of those fighting for their lives. The reason can only go so far, as at a certain point his character is losing control, of his emotions, and a hotel he is desperately trying to save along with refuges in it from the approaching violence. The hotel acts as a character here, as all the actions happen in it or around it. It reminded me of a Bosnian film Quo Vadis, Aida, where people are being guarded in a special UN safe zone, only to discover that the UN abandoned them and they are not safe at all. It's another sign that big powerful organizations don't care about countries and places they find insignificant. I didn't know much about what happened in Rwanda before, and the film urged me to research it. I wish that at the beginning of the story, the conflict was a bit more clear for people unfamiliar with it. Another minor complaint is that the film is very PG, and for such a topic, with such atrocities, I really think that the film needs to use its power of visual medium to show the horrors. Everything else worked perfectly, stakes were constantly high, the story was moving, and we felt the frustration that our character felt, wondering how he could keep himself in such a calm matter. The performances were great across the board, the wife played by Sophie Okonedo was phenomenal, also deservedly nominated for an Oscar. It's one of those films that you would rather just show to people than describe it. It's very very sad, but somehow also hopeful, and that hopefulness carries you through the entire runtime, investing you into the lives of those individuals. There is a saying that in war bad people become worse and good people become better, and this film is a true example of that. Recommendation. It's not an easy watch though, even if it's not that graphic.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Perhaps remembered mainly for the Jennifer Lopez Oscar nomination snub Hustlers is a shallow film that never dares to explore anything on the deeper level, and instead stays buried in the boring sequences of stripers trying to get money from men in any way possible. I don't subscribe to the notion that this is a female Wolf of Wall Street. In fact, I think to say that would be an insult to females, as in Wolf of Wall Street there is plenty of character development, while here characters are paper thin. Money seems to be the only major motivating factor. That, and maybe the humiliation of men. I'm struggling to even continue writing this, as it's been a few days, and the film was so flat, and boring to me, that it is already out of my mind. It's very watchable, the performances are mostly good, and Jennifer Lopez is by far the best thing about the film, although I don't think Oscar-worthy. I would skip it, perfect for a background watch though.

Five films of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre deep, this is the only one that comes even close to the greatness of the original. Remakes usually fail, not being nearly as good as the original. This is not the case here, as this remake is fresh, and interesting enough that it can nowadays be seen as a great complementary piece to the original. In fact, I would go as far as to say that this film even though it's technically a remake is more original and interesting than the second, third, and fourth films combined. Why is that? Well even though there are a few dumb decisions that characters make as it tends to always happen in this kind of film, for the most part, they make logical decisions, and you can understand them. There is plenty of time left for their development through dialogue. Not that they are super interesting three-dimensional characters, but they are more than just a pound of flesh to be killed by Leatherface. Family is creepy, and some of the new members elevate the film, especially the sheriff played by legendary R. Lee Ermey best known for the role of the leader of the military camp in Kuberick's Full Metal Jacket. Visually the film looks very good, not as griddy as the original, but a modern type of griddy which worked very well for me. The pace is good, there is enough time to build tension through characters, and then have a long big bloody finale. Standards for the franchise were admittedly low at this point, as the second film is a very dumb horror parody (nowadays having a cult following, which I can understand), the third is just boring, and the fourth is a complete weird hot mess, so for this film to work as well as it did, I commend it for it. It's far from being great though, as the direction is very familiar, gore could have been turned up a notch, and there is no dinner sequence, which for me is a quensistential Texas Chainsaw Massacre thing. That dinner sequence in the original for me is one of the creepiest, most disgusting, and most amazing horror sequences ever created. Probably it will forever be what defines this franchise the most when it's all set and done, and I have plenty more films on my journey. This one I would recommend, and even though for me original is still by far the best, I can see why for some, especially the younger generation this is their favorite Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

I had higher expectations considering everyone involved in this. It's a meh film that severely lacks a goal and direction from the story as it constantly meanders between different subject matters. It also tonally mixes funny and serious, often in a fairly clumsy matter. The film introduces the world, and our protagonist by using narration, which is fine. I used to enjoy narrated films a lot more than I do nowadays, but that narration drags on for surely 30-40 minutes, possibly surprising Scorses's Casino in that category, which is wild. A lot of it is not needed, spoon-feeding us information we could have gotten in more interesting ways. Once it's done we start to get hammered down with messages, about the ethicality of using a person solely to do experiments for the betterment of humankind, the dangers of dumb, egocentric leaders we blindly follow, colonizers' greed, and the inability to even try to understand other species, dangers of capitalism, and fascism... There are plenty, and honestly, all of them are transferred to us with other films much better. None of them are new, or unfamiliar. Mark Ruffalo is clearly playing a character as an over-the-top Trump impersonation, which at first is funny, but quickly loses its quirk, and just becomes obnoxious by the end of it. As a big fan of his, this might be one performance where I did not enjoy his presence. Pattison is pretty good, the balancing act between the two characters he plays is fun, but again his character is passive for a lot of the film, just following instructions, and he narrates that to us, which makes him not super interesting, finally becoming active far too late into the story. The film as I said was about many things, but ultimately wasn't really about anything. Just so many ideas thrown together in the mix, with a bunch of talented actors, like Toni Colette, who worked a lot better for me than Ruffalo, in a script that could have used at least a few more rewrites. On a runtime of 137 minutes, the film is enjoyable enough that it's never boring, and it's fairly unpredictable, which is often good, but here indicates a lack of direction for the story. Visually it looks good, but again there are more impressive si-fis out there. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are elements that are good, fun, or at least interesting in Mickey 17, but there is nothing particularly unique, or exceptional about it that hasn't been already done better in other films. Crime, and drama Boon Jun Hoo with films such as Memories of Murder, and Parasite is my jam, Host, and Mickey 17 si-fi, political Boon Jun Hoo, is not my jam. This one can be skipped, but hey, there are plenty of worst films to watch out there.

Sparkled with great energy, Birdcage was a mixed-bag comedy that at times delivered the goods, while at times felt stale. Directed as a stage play farse that moves between only a couple of rooms through most of the runtime Birdcage offers a great premise. A gay couple's young son, from the affair of the "father" that happened before he met his "wife" Albert, is marrying a girl from a very conservative family, whose father is a republican senator. Right from the get-go you know that those families meeting will spell trouble. When they do meet it's hilarious and inventive, and you are kept on the edge as when the curtains will fall, and all will break lose. The problem is that they meet rather late, deep into the second hour of the film. The wait, and the preparation, mostly with Robin Williams's character chasing Nathan Lane's fantastically portrait, and at times a tad bit annoying Albert that continues to have his drama queen outbursts, and Gene Hackman's character escaping cameras amid the controversy brought on by his dead friend is by far less interesting. It's one of those films where you know what is going to be the best part, it's clear from very early on, but you are just kept waiting for unfortunately far too long. Thankfully great actors all around make it engaging enough through that first half, that you are still excited for the film's premise to finally fulfill itself. At the end of the day, it's a film that celebrates diversity, and different people uniting together over the love of their children. You can't fault it for that. If the premise intrigues you, it's surely not a waste of time, in fact mostly it's a good time.

For a long time, I was a huge Clint Eastwood fan, granted more familiar with his work as a director than with his early roles. I finally saw what many call his best film, at least in the category of ones he both directed and starred in. Gene Hackman's passing led me to watch some of his most acclaimed films, and there you have it, the time for the Unforgiven has come. A film that lives in the grey, even though many of the characters lean more toward darkness than light. There are those deemed as villains, but there are no real heroes, everyone has scars and is in some way responsible for the scars of others. It's very refreshing to watch a film that constantly flows in that moral ambiguity of what is right or wrong with each of the decisions the characters make. It tests us as an audience to also question it, to ask ourselves what position would we take in such a vile world, as often the Wild West is portrayed in the Westerns. Violence is a key theme of that world and one of the most explored themes on film screens in general. Here violence is always central to the plot, and the acts of violence, or lack thereof that happen tell us a lot about our characters. Gene's Billy the Kid acts violently to exude power and strike fear in individuals who lack respect for his law, and authority. He is more inclined to beat up a man who carries a weapon in his town than to punish a man who brutally scared one of the local prostitutes. He only cares about himself, and to dominate, and humiliate others while putting himself on the pedestal. Even though he can't build a fully functioning house, not for lack of trying. The main character Will, played by Clint avoids violence when possible, but is ruthless when he thinks the other people have it coming. He is a changed man, but also a man who can flip into his old self, as injustice shows up in front of his eyes. We also have Freeman's character, who can't commit any more violence, as he is also a changed man, but one that can't go back to his old ways no matter what. Harris's English Bob brags about his violent acts, trying to be tough, thinking he is better than everything else when it's actually all a fraud. He is a coward, and a liar, scared by violence, as deep down he knows he is weak compared to most of the pack. Finally, Schofield Kid played by a lesser-known actor, seeks violence and is urged to taste it for the first time by his own hand, only to regret it right after it happens. He has been delusioned by all of the others who have done it and seem cool, and badass, that it's something that makes man all of those things. Ultimately violence can, and often is the answer to a lot of the conflicts, disagreements, and misunderstandings, but at what cost? Everyone loses, some by losing their life, and others by being forced to live it knowing what happened, and what they have done. Beautifully acted, edited, and shot, Unforgiven is a worthy Best Picture winner. Underusage of Freeman's character, as well as a slight lack of world-building when it comes to our central town, holds it back for me from going 9 or 10/10. Still, it's one of the must-see films before you die!

The Last Showgirl didn't secure any Oscar nominations, but it should have. It is a wonderfully simple story of the Showgirl's show closing after 30+ years, and its aging forever dancer struggling to come to terms with the fact that she no longer has to perform. The film reminded me a lot of The Wrestler, and it's a huge compliment considering that The Wrestler is one of my all-time favorite films. It's hard to accept in life for performers that times have changed, they are older and no longer needed, or now wanted only by a few. Substance talks about a similar issue although more focused on the beauty standards, but no less existential. I started by saying that the film should have an Oscar nomination. Yes, Pamela Anderson is that good. She plays the central character with such conviction that she completely loses herself in the role, while at the same time, you can see that it is personal. It's fascinating how similar the transformation, and the role is to the one of Demi Moore in already mentioned Substance. Jamie Lee Curtis perfectly compliments her in a very interesting role, of an aging alcoholic who embraced her destiny of becoming a cocktail waitress nobody cares about. I wish I had seen more of Curtis's character as the film progressed, as she provided that comedic spark while bouncing off Pamela. Bautista is also good as a show's manager of sorts in a film where the camera flows in a way to give the main stage to those actors, and their performances. The only bigger complaint is that the story is a bit too brief, clocking in at just around 80 minutes, when we take out the credits. Maybe there could have been an extra subplot and 20 minutes more to spend with our characters. But, in an era where a lot of films are overlong, it's a fresh sight that The Last Showgirl will never waste your precious time. Recommendation to a surprisingly good film.

I was so ready to love this film, but I unfortunately ended up dreading my viewing experience. Let me explain. While the film has great cinematography, some very good acting mainly from Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor, and builds-up to a very tense conclusion, the POV way of shooting it, allowing us to see our protagonist fully only after 30 minutes of the film made it very difficult for me to get emotionally involved in any way. Not only that, but some very confusing editing choices, in the way that the film cuts action, and jumps time just made me try to catch up with the plot, and timeline, in a very consuming way that made me actively bored. It's not that the plot is necessarily difficult to follow, it is that the style gets in the way of the story being told so much, that I ended up not caring for the story that on paper is very interesting and heartfelt. I know this film got the Oscar nom for Best Picture, and Best Screenplay, and some people find it as the best of the year work, I can see it, it's not one of those where I'm like what were they thinking, but I'm just not on the same page. With its chunky runtime of 140 minutes, it was the most challenging viewing experience of the year for me, and it made me take a break from film for two days. I fully support artists being different, and making an effort to tell stories in new and unique ways, but I have to admit that for me, and I know I'm not alone here POV camera style just doesn't work. Shaky Cam is not my main issue with it, rather it's that we don't get to see our main two characters' reactions to a lot of the important events that happen, which creates a disconnect between the performer/character and me, the audience member. I don't think this film is accessible to the general public, and that they would enjoy watching it, but to artsy/indie cinema fans go for it, and see how the cookie crumbles for you. For me, it crambled in admiration for the effort, and unfortunate disappointment for the result.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

My long and complicated journey through the career of the late great David Lynch led me to see this very messy, campy, romantic road thriller in the fantastically full movie theater of central Oslo. I started it with Mulholland Drive which I wasn't a fan of at the time, but now I think I should definitely revisit it. Then came The Straight Story many many years later, which I loved, but funny enough is the strangest of the bunch considering Lynch's filmography, and his sensibilities. That made me curious about what this guy is all about, so I watched the whole of Twin Peaks from the 90s, the film, Missing Pieces film, and The Return. At times I found it funny, charming, breathtakingly beautiful, interesting, and thought-provoking, but at times I was bored, confused, and not very amused. So overall experience was a challenging mixed bag. Upon learning of his death earlier this year I set myself a homework to catch up on the rest of the things he did. Elephant Man and Blue Velvet came up as a very unique double feature on one of the TV channels. I really liked his style in The Elephant Man, adding his Lynchian touches ever so slightly while honoring a very sad, moving, and heartfelt story which is led by some great performances in the first row the one of John Hurt. Blue Velvet was the film though when I finally clicked with Lynch all the way. It is the one film where his weirdness adds to the story's complexity with its themes of bloody crime underneath at first sight identical American suburbia. It's a film that requires multiple viewings as big films should but is still understandable enough to fully process the first time. It's the one where Lynch's mood shines through and has arguably his best usage of music. A couple of years back if I saw a Lynch film playing in cinemas that I still haven't seen, I probably wouldn't be too happy about it, but a few days ago I felt excited. Wild at Hearth was a better film-going experience than it was as a film. I didn't feel disappointed as much as I was urging for more knowing what Lynch is capable of and having Blue Velvet fresh in my mind. The film is full of memorable moments, and characters, like the moment when Nick Cage talks about his snakeskin jacket or the villainous character played by William Defoe. The ingredients are there, but unfortunately, the film is far too disjointed and overly long to ever fully mesh the pieces to work together for each other, and the film. We jump back and forth between the road trip filled with sex, soft life philosophy, and the countless people that are on the chase, far too many that could be memorable. If there is one thing I dislike about almost every work of Lynch, that is the excessive use of subplots, which more often times than not go nowhere. It's what dragged down Twin Peaks for me, especially during its second season. Chaotic, and messy is fun, it's life, but sometimes being too messy can hurt the main storyline a bit too much. Reading about Lynch, and watching some of his interviews I always knew he was a big Wizzard of Oz fan. That always felt strange to me considering the films he has done, but the more I sat with his filmography the more it made sense. Deep down he was an idealist, a utopist, and a dreamer in a world that became rotten to its core. Wild at Hearth epitomizes those ideas the most and goes heavy with its Wizzard of Oz references, up to the point where characters from that film become central figures in this one. It's funny to watch all that after Wicked, which also challenges our perception of who the good and the bad witches actually are. In summary, a slightly overlong narratively very straightforward Lynch story that is told more confusingly than it actually is with its creative editing style. It's the horniest, and least serious Lynch has been than in any other films I have seen, and for that alone is worth checking out. If you are not a Lynch fan, this film won't win you over that's for sure.

September 5 is a well-paced thriller that doesn't break any new ground but does what it sets out to do with quality. The film doesn't waste any time, as it puts us in the POV of TV journalists right from the start giving a brief introduction to their daily lives reporting sports before pushing us off to the chaos as they navigate the coverage of the hostage crises at the 1972 Olympics in Munich. As you would imagine it's chaotic. People running around looking for answers, to the crisis, as well as to how it should be broadcast. That chaotic energy is felt, yet the direction never feels as messy or lost as the situation at hand. The setting is believable, and so are the characters that were played more grounded as one might expect in the thriller. Their job is mostly to react to what is happening, not just for themselves, but in the name of everyone watching the broadcast. And a lot of eyeballs watched, more than when Armstrong landed on the moon. As the situation develops further, questions of how moral is to broadcast an event like that when things can go wrong in a matter of seconds, and whose story it is if that does happen come at the forefront. It's the core of what the film is about. The moral ambiguity of journalism. More than 50 years after that true life event it's still hard to give concrete answers. It's clear to see though that those behind the cameras cared a lot about being truthful and honest to viewers. The same can hardly be said for the times we live in today. It's fair to say that September 5 is not sexy, flashy, or particularly innovative, and tells a familiar tail, but with its very modest just over 90-minute runtime, it's able to trill, entertain, evoke emotion, and pose interesting questions that linger as the credits roll. That is more than enough for me to give it a recommendation!