| Writings | Poetry | Filmpage |
| Old Net Stories | Sozai Exhibition | About |
| Neo-Neighbours | Links | Update Log |
I had my doubts about this film when I saw the trailer, because it looked like a typical romance drama with elements of Pretty Woman and Romeo & Juliet written all over it. However, With Sean Baker (the Florida Project) as the writer, director and editor of the film, I was confident that Anora was going to be something special. Anora's strength lies in it's humanist, realist approach of a story that could have easily fallen into tons of Hollywood clichés. Watching this film is like starting out in Disneyland, where everything feels like magic, but then slowly walking your way back into the real world. Here class differences are abundant and 'Pretty Woman' fairytales usually don't happen. Mikey Madison did a tremendous job here. At times incredibly fierce but also convincingly vulnerable when she needs to be. An Oscar-worthy performance without a doubt. What really shines through in this film is Sean Baker's humanist approach. Most of his characters have depth and as the story progresses, initial antagonists become vulnerable and even lovable. In the end most people working against Anora and Vanya's relationship are just cogs in the machine of a billionaire, afraid to bite the hand that feeds them. What was suprising is how much Anora is actually a comedy when the trailer sells it more as a romantic drama. During the second act the film goes all in on the comedy, sometimes bordering on slapstick. This is probably also the weakest act of the film. Where the slapstick initially comes as a refreshing suprise, it drags on for at least 10 minutes too long and had me longing for a more mature, cathartic third act. Fortunately the third act delivers with final scene that hit me like a suckerpunch and really shows Baker's talent as a writer and filmmaker. With Anora he has delivered a work that will do well both in mainstream and arthouse theaters. His growth as a filmmaker is notable. I also hope to see a lot more of Mikey Madison who made her Hollywood breakthrough with this unforgettable performance.
Lawrence of Arabia is one of the greatest achievements in the history of cinema. Watching this film in 2024 it is notable how very well this work has stood the test of time. Even with it's runtime of over three hours, the film is able to capture its audience's attention from the beginning and doesn't let go. Director David Lean fell in love with the desert while he was shooting Lawrence of Arabia and his love is enshrined in the wonderful shots you find throughout the film, making the desert feel like an unforgiving, yet magical place. Shooting the film in 70mm helps the audience keep track of the smallest details happening during the grand scenes aginst the backdrop of endless sand dunes. One of the biggest strengths is in the screenplay though. Lawrence of Arabia succeeds in combining a grand story of how the Arabs were tricked by the British into revolting against the Ottoman Empire, with the personal story of Lawrence's transformation and internal struggles as he slowly realises that he is being played by two sides. Now, there are historians who doubt this portrayal of Lawrence and argue that he knew very well that the Arabs would not be getting their independent state, but for the dramatic purposes of this film, a more naive, ideological version of Lawrence helps to make him more likable. Strong, memorable characters can be found throughout the film and the formation of a 'band of brothers' around Lawrence is reminiscent of adventure stories like Seven Samurai and Star Wars. The film goes on to spoil its audience with excellent battle scenes, a majestic score and even a hint at queer love which is probably as far as film studios dared to go in the 60's. Watching this film today, with the ongoing massacre in Palestine, is a stark reminder of the roots of the ongoing instability in the Middle-East. Everything that has happened here in the last century, from the creation of an Arabic national identity, to the crude divisions of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, to the creation of a Jewish State and the ongoing wars over oil have been decisions made by the leaders of Western nations to ultimately protect their own interests at the costs of peace and stability in the Middle-East.
After having finally watched the Indiana Jones trilogy it is time to give my two cents on which installment is the best one. With all three films fresh in mind I can confidently declare that Raiders of the Lost Ark takes the cake. While Temple of Doom distinguishes itself by being the darker, edgier sequel, seeping into horror at times and the Last Crusade is the most complete, mature Indy film, they are both a step down from Raiders in my opinion.
Raiders just rocks in terms of overall atmosphere and the build-up of tension towards the end is very well done. I also liked that Indy is a lot more vulnerable in this film. He really needs his companions Marion and Sallah several times to save his ass. In later films Indy becomes this unbeatable action hero who doesn’t really need the people around him to complete his mission. It’s so disappointing to watch the female lead in Temple of Doom after having enjoyed Marion in Raiders, who is quite empowered. In the making-of documentary Spielberg explains that they wanted a different female lead for each film, but I think they should have just stuck with Marion as she brings a lot of heart to the screen and she wasn’t afraid to call out Indy for his bullshit. I also liked that in Raiders, Indy has a clear nemesis in Belloq, who seems to be one step ahead of him every time.
In the making-of, Spielberg explains that for Temple of Doom they used a lot of leftover storyboards from Raiders and developed a story around that. This makes Temple of Doom like a B-side album and it certainly feels that way. A lot of cool sequences like the mine cart chase, but the story lacks coherence. The Last Crusade felt like a very safe film that is almost a copy-paste of Raiders. If it wasn’t for the father-son dynamic, this movie would have nothing to show for itself.
In conclusion:
1. Raiders of the Lost Ark
2. Temple of Doom (Points for the opening sequence in Shanghai, the darker themes and at least the attempt of making something new)
3. Last Crusade (Really just a box office friendly film that hardly adds any new elements to the Indiana Jones universe)
What is the difference between art and craftsmanship? Can one exist without the other? Casablanca is one of those movies that feature on all time best movie lists. That film you have to confess you haven't seen yet with the disclaimer that you do have the vague intention of doing so one day. Last night I finally watched Casablanca after picking it up from a thrift store last week. Casablanca was produced in the middle of World War II. Like so many films in those days it was based on a play and the title was an imitation from the 1938 film Algiers. The director is not one known for it's great artistic vision but rather a studio man. The film, in all honesty, was made because audiences wanted a story about the war and Warner Brothers wanted to cash in on that. Nothing about this film screams art. The film's qualities can mostly be found in how well crafted it is. From the solid acting performances, Ingrid Bergman literally sparkles in this film, to the wonderful set of Rick's Cafe Americain that is so full of life, through to the exceptional use of lighting. The soundtrack with the recurring theme "As Time Goes By" is memorable, as are the many iconic phrases like "Here's looking at you, kid", that left their impact on pop-culture to this day. I believe that art can not exist without craftmanship. Any artist needs to master the craft before they can properly express themselves in it's language. At the same time craftsmanship can elevate a product to artistic heights. I think Casablanca is loved because it falls in this category. A film that stands the test of time because all the people working on the film delivered excellent work, creating a whole that is greater than the sum of it's parts.
Bong Joon Ho has a reputation for creating genre movies that follow common structures and tropes of the genre, but then deviating from it, breaking the rules and confusing his audience. Memories of Murder was Bong's second feature film and the first to get international recognition. The story is based on the Hwaseong murders, the first known case of a serial killer in South-Korea. A case that remained unsolved and puzzled a nation for decades (although the killer was finally identified in 2019 through DNA research). What I liked about Memories of Murder is that Bong's genre subversion is more than a gimmick. It serves a purpose for the story he is telling. The detectives being corrupt and incompetent fit within the narrative of the unsolved mystery. Bong's implication being that it may not have been the exceptional skill of the murderer, but rather the incompetence of the protagonists, as the main reason why the killer was never caught. The movie's setting in the 1980's, when South-Korea was a military dictatorship, is also implied as a reason why the case remained unsoled. The police was too busy supressing riots elsewhere in the province to put more people on the case. Meanwhile, the lead detective of the story actively participates in corruption, faking evidence and torturing suspects to get a confession out of them. These detectives do not deserve their happy ending. Although there really is no winner in this case, the detectives inability to solve the case, can be considered justice in the eye of the audience. Memories of Murder is a fascinating work. More rough around the edges than later films like Mother, Snowpiercer and Parasite, but this makes it easier to observe how Bong plays with and defies Hollywood conventions to tell an essentially Korean story.
I can not believe that this movie is struggling to make some decent revenue at the box office. Well, actually I can believe it. Most people would rather waste their money on another generic superhero movie. Mad Max has always been kind of a weird niche franchise. Fury Road was a suprise hit 9 years ago, but has reached modern-classic status in just a few years and is considered by many to be one of the greatest action films of all time. I will give you three good reasons why you need to watch this movie before it leaves the theaters.
1. Nobody does action scenes in the 21st century like George Miller. What is especially strong about Furiosa is how he manages to make action scenes feel grand without losing focus. Modern action movies tend to be an overkill of everything, with complex mission objectives making it hard to follow what is going on. Miller always keeps the story simple. For example: A truck loaded with food is being attacked before it can arrive to it's desination. Audiences need a story to hold on to during an action scene, but that story should extremely simple. George Miller understands this and that is why Mad Max's action scenes are leagues better than what you get in most Marvel or DC movies.
2. This may very well be the last Mad Max for the forseeable future. Now that Furiosa looks to be a box office bomb, it is highly unlikely that we're going to see another sequel any time soon. Meanwhile George Miller will turn 80 soon. I think it's not a stretch to assume that Furiosa is going to be the last Mad Max film from the mind of George Miller. Without the creative father of the series I have little hope for anything meaningful being released in the next decades.
3. This movie is a rare breed of a big budget blockbuster film that is actually good. It has a strong creative vision from it's director, lots of memorable characters and great acting performances, some excellent world building and amazing setpieces. CGI is used functionally to enhance scenes and certain moments, but is not over relied upon. The sound effects are powerful and you really need to hear the roaring of the engines with a proper sound system to understand why I'm raving about this picture.
Challengers was sexy, intense, funny and ultimately disappointing. The acting performances, particularly Zendaya, are strong. The soundtrack was cool and refreshing at first, but overdone near the end. The same goes for the abundance of tennis scenes and the main actors faces in slo-mo close-up throughout the film. That is to say that Challengers plays with a lot of creative audiovisual ideas, but fails to balance this out with a compelling story. There is not enough character development and backstory which makes all the mains look unsympathetic near the end. The film ends up being shallow and you wonder what the take home message was supposed to be. Pro tennis players are all obsessive, power abusing freaks? In spite of what I just said, Challengers was an enjoyable past-time. If only for Zendaya, who really is a shining star in the Hollywood landscape, you will probably have a good time watching this flick.
I love me some Godzilla every now and then. Nothing beats watching a giant atomic lizard pulverizing cities. Godzilla began as a metaphor for the destruction of Japan by nuclear weapons, However, most people just want to watch a great Kaiju flick once in a while. Toho studios, who owns the copyrights to Godzilla, released over 30 Godzilla films over the years. After Godzilla: Final Wars" in 2004 Toho put the franchise on an indefinite hiatus. It was Legendary Pictures with their 2014 "Godzilla" that sparked new life into the series. While we do have Legendary to thank for this, the films have mostly been a major disappointment. Legendary's movies are, even as Kaiju flicks, poorly written. All characters are bland and shallow, storylines are rushed to get to the fighting and motivations are unclear. This makes the expensive, CGI heavy fighting scenes boring to watch because we have no emotional investment in the characters. With Godzilla Minus One, Toho uses it's many years of experience to make a Godzilla film plenty of human drama. The film only cost 10-15 million dollars to make but walked away with the best VFX oscar nonetheless, putting all the major film studios to shame. The truth with any monster movie is, that less is more. We don't actually see Godzilla on screen all that much. It's the anticipation of Godzilla that is truly scary. In Godzilla Minus One, Godzilla's laser beam feels as dangerous as a nuclear weapon and everytime he was about to use it, I was at the edge of my seat. This movie to me felt like Toho saying "Thanks a lot Legendary Pictures, but we'll take it from here."
Civil War is an impressive work that confronts western audiences with what we believe could never happen here. Recent polarization in the west and the january 6th Capitol riots have somewhat woken people up. Peace can be easily disrupted under the right circumstances. The acting performances of all the mains are solid and I particularly liked Cailee Spaeny as the reckless rookie warphotographer. Jesse Plemons appears in only one scene in the movie, but his performance was hauntingly good and by far the most memorable scene. I used to call him evil Matt Damon but he has become his own phenomenon at this point. For all that I enjoyed about Civil War, I still felt slightly disappointed because this film is only a few notches away from being a classic, but the scenario and writing is a bit immature at times. I liked how this movie explores the relationship between Dunst and Spaeny, but I wish they'd focus more on this aspect. Also, the notion that war journalists are all restless adrenaline seekers sounds simplistic. In conclusion, Civil War is a wake up call and an entertaining, intelligent action movie.
Alexander Payne's latest feature film gained five Oscar nominations and won one. While it certainly had it's moments, my overall experience was somewhat disappointing. The main characters all have interesting story arcs but the overall story lacked urgency. The film is also a bit too long and feels unfocused at times. The acting performances were strong and Da'Vine Joy Randolph's performance felt sincere, but to me was not outstanding enough to be Oscar worthy. That being said The Holdovers is an enjoyable watch that is well written and Paul Giamatti is excellent as the grumpy, sadistic history teacher. Alexander Payne's films are often like that. Well written and enjoyable in the moment, but not very memorable. His storytelling is getting repetitive. In that regard the Oscar nomations perhaps elevated my expectations too high.
Villeneuve has proven to be able to create a movie that is visually breathtaking, but also stimulating intellectually. Dune's setpieces have this way of making the audience feel tiny and fragile in the unforgiving landscape of Arrakis. The cast is on fire and I was cheering for cute couple Muad'dib and Chani the entire three hours. But the greatest triumph is the soundtrack and sound effects. Sound plays an important role in the Dune films, summoning the Shai'hulud is a thrill everytime and the scene where Paul tries to ride one was amazing. Also compliments to Hans Zimmer who captures the atmosphere of Dune so well. Dune Part One and Two are easily the most impressive films I have seen in the cinema in the past ten years.
An impressive production from the director of Gomorra. Io Capitano sheds light on a world that as a European I hear about daily on the news, yet seems to be so far away from me. The journey of labour migrants seeking a better life in Europe is terrifying. What shocked me the most is how the constant flow of refugees has created systems along migration routes where people are exploited and abused systematically for profit. It is then quite impressive how Mateo Garrone is able to create a balanced film that mixes light, wholesome moments with the very likeable main characters, with tragic and shocking scenes that show the grim reality behind the refugee/labour migrant crisis we face in Europe.