Ultimobeaker

Do you know how you can tell a film is a masterpiece? You might find someone who takes exception to putting The Fifth Element in the same cohort as the Shawshank Redemption, but basically no real human beings dislike this film. It is just so much fun and proof that you don't need a film that takes itself seriously to reach the highest levels of the art. I'm perplexed that they never followed this magnificent world-building effort up, but then again lets not ruin a good thing. Bonus: you get to see the one time Milla's ridiculous overacting made sense.

This movie was an accident. How a film with basically no plot, that was shot as an afterthought, and starring two actors with no prior dramatic roles, became one of the defining films of the modern era is beyond my ability to explain. Sofia Coppola has certainly tried and failed to reproduce anything like it in the last 20 years, despite revisiting the "existential crisis" theme over and over. Maybe less is more and simplicity is beauty. Maybe I just saw this at a time in my life where I really resonated with needing to be culturally lost in order to find yourself. Maybe I just really liked traveling to Tokyo. Whatever special sauce made this film good has itself been lost in translation. I just know that if this film is viewed through the lens of 2021, it would certainly not have had a fraction of the impact(I'm looking at you dated Engrish jokes).

There are few movies that take risks these days. Joker takes about 30 different ones when it tries to be part 70s NYC homage, part mental health character study, and part comic book tie-in. It deftly navigates the minefield to make a film that is captivating and thought provoking. The acting and the music were definitely both oscar-worthy. Arthur's transformation is a sight to behold. Despite the controversy of this being a "bro" movie, there really isn't a hint of toxic masculinity except possibly a contrived circumstance or two. Overall, Joker is respectful in tackling the mental health issues.

In an era where 35-year sequels and remakes are merely vehicles for a quick cash grab, Blade Runner 2049 is perhaps the only example that lives up to the original. I'd dare to say that this even surpasses the original Blade Runner in many ways, particularly in the plot, score, and moral implications. It also defines its own aesthetic, which while not as groundbreaking, is equally meticulous. What it doesn't do as well as the original is in the overacted, unmotivated villains and a bit of the deus ex machina ending... but we're just nitpicking here. Denis Villeneuve has proven that he can just about handle any subject matter with the attention to detail and care that the fans deserve. Its a tragedy that BR2049 did not get the financial success needed for Hollywood to explore this world further. Perhaps in another 35 years.

The Tomorrow War is so dumb that there should be a warning label on it for pregnant mothers and operating heavy machinery after consumption. Turn off those brain cells at your own risk, because they might not come back on. You know how when a child tells a story, its just a jumble of incoherent statements like: "and then he did this, and then he did that, and then there was this thing... the end?" This movie is that, in movie form. Surprisingly, the film doesn't quite reach the absolute dregs thanks to the saving grace of a few fun characters. But by 120 minutes in, even those become a slog. The end.

Polar is a snuff film that wears the veneer of a Hollywood release like a bad mustache.

A great aesthetic coupled with excellent acting in this two-man character study. So, why the B+ review? The plot is pretty simple and places you in a series of disjoint vignettes that are weird for weirdness's sake. Yes, its a great reflection on the mindset of the characters, but do we really need that scrimshaw scene(you'll know what I mean)? Does that really add to the movie? I'm glad they took risks in making something different, but there is some room for polish.

What a stinking turd of a movie that has been unleashed upon us all. Poor dialog, uneven pacing, nonsensical plot, and two dimensional characters... just when it seems impossible to cram more rotting offal into 2+hrs, Snyder drops a load of purposefully poor cinematography right into our gullets. If you make it to the end, get ready for a serious reflection on your life choices. The one saving grace is that this film doesn't appear bad enough to ruin Bautista's career, as he is otherwise a decent actor. Army of the Dead has problems that not even a double tap to the cranium can solve. Run, don't walk away.

Who knew that moving pictures set to music could be so deep? To quote Depeche Mode, sometimes words are very unnecessary and they can only do harm. As someone who watched Baraka (1992) as a child and largely didn't care, Samsara was my first real introduction to the work of Ron Fricke. It had such an impact that it made me rewatch Baraka as an adult, so I have a different perspective when making the inevitable comparison between the two films. Samsara is the film you'd have wanted to make in 1992 if you had drone technology, dual-mode image stabilization, and nonlinear video editing software. If you've only seen Samsara, its perfectly OK to stop right there. Baraka is interesting context, but it is a "work in progress" compared to the masterpiece here. The cinematography is of course front and center in Samsara, but the music is also a notably excellent fit that magnifies the artistic impact. The theme of eternal cycle and cultural juxtapositions are expertly woven in each of the vignettes, where the whole circle is much greater than the sum of the individual arcs. A timelapse of a particular circular religious event is the highlight of the movie and is pure genius. Most of the negative reviews are about the social commentary of the film. Art *is* social commentary, and for a film without words, it says more about the viewer than the filmmaker. Watch this film and open your mind.

Beautifully shot, with on-location set pieces in the style of Baraka (1992). A feast of vivid colors and showy costumes. Incredible acting from the little girl supplemented by decent acting from Lee Pace. Unfortunately, the story is difficult to comprehend when formatted as a 100-minute feature film. By forcing you to focus on understanding what is going on, you start to miss the impact of the story being told. I get what the film is trying to do - the fractured, nonsensical plot reflects the state of the characters in weaving a combined narrative, highlighting a difference in language and mindset. Yet, one could argue that the content of the dream sequences doesn't matter all that much to the take home message, in which case the director should be a better shepherd of the viewer's time. Roy's motivation could be improved as well. We are shown the heavy impact of love lost, without context for why it was such a powerful motivator. Its one of those movies that gets better with multiple viewings when you can pick out all the details you missed the first time.

A way more traditional documentary (perspective piece) film than its sister film The Act of Killing. Whereas AoK was grand in scope and consequence, The Look of Silence is a narrower, personal take on the same Indonesian genocide. Though this film definitely succeeds in tugging on the heartstrings (more of a yank), it does not quite reach the heights of its predecessor in terms of originality, artistic achievement, or self-reflective impact. Regardless, its a story that should be told and a film worthy of that story.

This film is what you would get if the creators of MTV's Punk'd studied surrealist filmmaking and decided to make a sincere genocide documentary. One might think these things to be wholly incompatible, but it works. By presenting the absurdity of mass murderers acting in a fake Hollywood flick, this film asks you to reflect on the absurdity of real life where the horrific crimes of the victors are normalized. The Act of Killing is a transcendent masterpiece and we will likely never see anything like this again.

At once grandiose, horrific, suffocating, and memetastic, but most importantly perpetually relevant. This film is perhaps the most significant war film of all time and one of the few that explores the full breadth of a nation forced to face the consequences of its choices. Some claim it humanizes atrocity, but the fact remains that it was all driven by human motivations and actions, from table top strategy to the decision to murder kids. Superbly acted (Bruno Ganz *is* ****), with great support casting, and immaculate attention to detail. If nothing else, see this film for an important history lesson.