Reviews

This is the kind of movie that leaves you with a bitter aftertaste, because all the right elements seem to be there: an interesting premise, attracting visuals, good actors, decent technical command and good locations and scenery. All is there, but those elements are ruined by the lack of a coherent theme or story and insufficient character development, leaving us with a film that fails to live up to its premises.

The story's setup is pretty thin and confusing, a sensation that carries on through the whole movie. Character motivation is not properly established or explored often, and, while the acting is fairly good (save for the lead actor in the beginning, who acts all suspicious and like he's hung for some reason) the uncoherent and sometimes unexplained actions of the characters ruin all credibility. Plot and coherence progressively fade away as the movie goes on, and by the end all there is leave is deeply unsatisfactory symbolism that isn't properly explored and a very anticlimactic ending. Tension and thrills are mainly absent due to the very thin thread that carries on the plot. I am giving the movie 5 stars because of the positive aspects liste above, but the ending result is sorely lacking, a sad shadow of what it could have been. Disappointing, overall.

This was a good thriller to watch. Fust paced, full of tense and action-packed scenes, while it also took time to explore the main characters and their motivations, giving us a pretty complete picture. I didn't quite like the narrated-speculated intro, were Hugh Grant narrates the story and the action keeps cutting back and forth from the events to the conversation he is having with Charlie Hunnan's character, but it does give some comedic interaction and character development to the film, so it is still watchable (though I think it would have been best done in some other way), and once it gets past that point the twists and turns get only better. The ending is satisfatory and well crafted, so, if you love gangster-like thriller, this is a movie you will like.

While I usually don't like time travel movies because of the plot intricacies that inevitably run into paradoxes, this one was pretty good and held up well upon first view. The techinal aspects of it were really good, particulary the action and the effects, and the acting was, albeit not something stellar, was a more than decent one. I liked the characters, for the most part, even if they are a little sketchy, and stereotypical at times (particularly the evil russian TM). The first half and hour of the movie felt a little rush, but I don't complain, since the plot is already pretty complex for a 2 hour and a half movie, but they managed to get it right and never make it seem to long in the end. About the time travel aspect, as I said, it is well crafted, although it may have it's flaws. Overall, a pretty decent blockbuster to enjoy. Not outlandish, but solid and thoroughly enjoyable. An 8 is well deserved.

Little more to add. The satire of both supposed "liberal elites" and "working-class conservative conspiranoics" is really bad, and the humour is mostly flat. The plot is pretty nonsensical as well. Only a Usonian would enjoy this, I suppose, since it employs tropes and stereotypes no one else shares. Good luck with it.

Short runtime brings about some plot contrivances, but, overall, this short is pretty good: the story is interesting and compelling, worth expanding, and I would love to see the two main characters more developed. The monster is just awesome: really well done and disgusting, as a monster should be. Hope Oats Studio makes features films some day.

A pretty mediocre slasher for my taste: the killings are really artificial and lacking suspense, and the identity of the killer is wholly clear from the start, so I can't see the point of the mentally unstable suspect. The buildup takes too long as well (we don't witness the first killing until and hour into the movie) and the payoff is scarce. Interesting, but not much fun.

Low budget, a subway, murderous cultists and demons? Seems like the right mix, doesn't it? As outlandish as it may seem, there is a lot of enjoyment to be derived from this film, as Devereux manages to do a competent horror flick which leaves enough clues for the audience to wonder without getting lost. The horror aspect comes mainly from the cultists, which are very well portrayed as creepy and all fake-smiles, while the negative impact the small budget could have in the special effects is repaired by saving the big monsters for the dramatic and open ending. Overall, while there are many negative aspects to be criticized, like some cuestionable camera manegement at certain points, same cuestionable acting (I'm looking at you, bald subway worker), and some seemingly hanging plot points, the film is still very much enjoyable and goes far beyond the standard horror movie. Give a try to this, though amateurish, interesting Canadian film.

Julia Ducournau did a surprisingly good job on this one. It's not simply a cannibalistic body-horror movie (in that regard, one could argue it's somewhat soft for the genre, but it will still be disturbing for people who are not familiar with this kind of films), but a well-crafted coming-of-age, dramatic movie, were the main character, masterfully played by a really young Garance Marillier, has to battle her instincts. It also incorporates witty bits of social commentary and sarcastic and acid humour, and some of the scenes, albeit gory, are simply hilarious (I was equally amused and grossed out by most of them). If you already are familiar with this type of movies, or if you have an open mind and a strong digestive track, I would definitely recommend this movie. If you are someone really sensitive to blood or gory imagery, then this is not your film.

As usual, director Alex de la Iglesia brings us a horror and suspense film plaged by comedic moments, were the surreal humor, supernatural horror (altough the special effects are somewhat cheap due to the low budget of this film, they still do a pretty good work in that regard by mostly suggesting those elements instead of showing them) and cynical social commentary intertwine.

The plot follows Ángel (Alex Angulo, who nails the role), a Basque priest and theologian who believes thas he has deciphered the meaning of the Apocalypse, Saint John's esoteric book. The result is a date: the night of the 24th of December, 1995, merely a couple of days away. The priest is convinced that the Antichrist will be born that day in the Spanish capital, Madrid, were a wave of crime and vandalism has been taking place. To stop the end of the world, he must become a sinner and contact the devil. He moves to Madrid, where he commits all kind of hilarious sins and tries to find a satanic message listening to Heavy Metal in a store, where he befriends the employee, José María, a metal fan. Together, with the help of the pseudo-esoteric TV host professor Cavan, they will try to stop the end of the world.

The film is hilarious and suspenseful at times. Although it was never really scary to me, they succed in staging a grim and ominous atmosphere that gives a unique touch to the whole picture. The actors are generally good. Even Santiago Segura, an actor I usually despise, manages to do a decent work portraying José María. I would say its an unsual horror-comedy that goes far beyond what we usually see in a commercial level, so I would recommed it to any horror fan. It hasn't got any gory scenes either, so it shouldn't displease the most sensitive viewers. Give it a try.

I don't understand so many negative reviews on this one: sure, it incorporates many clichés and tropes usual in the horror genre, but it has got a cool and interesting monster/villain, a suspenseful first half and a gory and creepy second half that conveys a really nauseating feeling (that might of course be disgusting to some viewers, but I would tell this is not your genre, if that's the case). I will argue that it is far better than some of the cheap, commercial horror thrillers that hollywood usually throws at the viewers. If you aren't scared by it (I wasn't, really), the suspense and the mistery will still make you watch it until the end.

I didn't understand either the complaints about the "weak" plot or "not enough" explanations for the monster's origins: the film hints very enfatically towards it, and leaves enough clues for us viewers to satisfactorily especulate. As for the plot, I think its clear: something horrible lurks on the underground, and our characters must run from it. Simple, yet effective, in this case. It also evolves organically most of the times, and the stupid decisions of the character are limited enough that I can believe without much effort put into it. All in all, I would say it is a successful horror film that delivers on its promise, granting a gory experience and a mildly interesting monster (which is technically well characterized, taking into account the minimal budget this surely got). So, if you are a fan of horror movies, go and watch it, it will surely entertain for an evening.

Another one I loved. It was a really refreshing experience, as the director was brave enough to make choices, both in the story-telling and technical field, that positively impacted the film and made it stand on its own. I won't comment further, since this is one you have to watch yourself, yet I will add that the narrative device used really fleshes out the characters and makes for a visually awesome piece. I recommend watching the German version, since its the most convincing one (they didn't do a very good job with the English dubbing).

This is the first movie of Kaurismäki I saw (I watched it without even knowing who he was) and it was one I particulary liked: this is a character driven, mostly dramatic but at times funny films, which portarys the everyday lives and struggles of the middle-lower class Finnish people in a crisis-struck country. The film's weight is carried by the excellent (and minimalistic) script and direction, but, mainly, by the awesome interpretations of the main actors. Both Kati Outinen and Kari Väänänen give a very convincing portrayal of a loving, yet somewhat reclusive, couple. The director shows off again with is mastery of the visual art of cinema, conveying feelings and plot points with minimal dialogue and a lot of visual cues. In the end, the film ends up being a very pleasant and smooth experience to watch: you will certainly empathize with the characters (including the seconday ones) and you will we really happy with the ending, if you make it there. A calm film you would like to watch alone in a winter evening.

This is one absurd and bizarre comedy full of extravagance, but a really funny one, as many Kaurismäki films are. It's not the kind of movie that will make you burst in laugther in every scene, but of the kind that will make you permanently giggle and, once in a while, all out laugh. The original aesthetics they chose for the starring band really helps to build the atmosphere of absurdity, accompanied with some social critique, which, coupled with the cinematographic aspects of it (the director really knows how to apply the rule "show, not tell" the appropriate way) make for a very interesting wath, although it may feel slow at times for people who aren't used to this kind of films. If you usually don't like absurdist humour, I wouldn't recommend this one to you, but, if you like Kaurismäki already or you are into that kind of humour, you should definetely watch it. By the way, I really loved that the fictional band ended up being a real one, since I strangely enjoyed the music they played during the film.

Nothing more to add to what has been already said: acting is perfect, cinematography and music are wonderful... but what I clearly liked about this movie are its plot and its characters. Both have multiple layers and many aspects to uncover that require a little thought. In short, a film that will make you laugh and despise life alternatively, and will leave you wondering for a long time once you have finished it.

Another movie I loved. It is a great adapatation of the source material to a modern context, and the characters and the setting touch both social and human problematics alike, with equal nuance and good narrative. The characters are beautifully written, and although you may not love them (they all are deeply flawed human beings) you will certainly care deeply and root for them for the end of the film. Shortly put, another great film by Kon. Grab some popcorns (and handkerchiefs, if you happen to be sensitive) and enjoy.

I must admit I was gladly surprised by this one: I came up to it expecting a regular horror movie that would make me laugh with cheap scares and bad effects (La Llorona's) style, but instead I got a chilling movie with an amazing premise that clearly delivers at the end. I won't reveal any plot points, since I do think one should confront this movie without knowing the details for better pleasure, but I will say that the more horror-like first half masterfully paved the way for the mystery unwrapping finale. The ending is overall satisfying, though the script has some minor holes due to the complexity of the plot device if chooses, but I'm willing to forgive writer and director Alejandro Hidalgo for it, since it was is first movie, and a really acomplished one, for that matter. The acting was also on point (it was particularly surprising to watch child actors doing a decent job) and the lighting and aesthetic choices, all of which are organically backed up by the plot of the movie (like the use of candlelight) are also good. An interesting movie to watch, and an impressive one, taking into account that they were working with a very limited budget.

I won't extend too much on this one, since I think it is better for anyone that is interested in the movie to go and watch it themselves, but I will say that Ghost in the Shell lives up to the expectatives and ends up being a very solid science-fiction movies. I am not familiar with the manga or the anime series, but I hadn't any problem with following up the story, so the writers did a pretty good job and achieved a movie that stand on its on feet. The film presents us with a grim, somber future, which doesn't seem so far from ours anymore: massive industralisation and technological developments, AI and climate change have driven civilization to a future that isn't overtly distopical, but it ends up being an scenario that leaves the viewer with an uneasy sensation of incertitude (the music really helps out hear, and the panoramic shoot work perfectly for setting the mood and expanding world and atmosphere alike), and sucessfully rises many questions.

The open ending and the nuanced and ambigous approach the movie takes towards the themes it chooses to tackle (which contrasts with the more conventionally explotational elements like nudity and violence, that, even if may be out of place sometimes, don't end up tainting the movie as a whole and adequeately integrate in the general picture) leaves everyone wondering about the consquences the future the movie presents has for humanity as a whole, for life, death, identity, and a long etc. Many viewers would probably relate to the protagonist's feelings of lack of identity and emptiness, setting aside the fact that she is a superhuman cyborg. Overall, a good example of how you should present a sci-fi, gradually revealing plot elements to keep the reviewer interested, slowly expanding on its premises, hinting at ideas but with rubbing them on one's nose (which many animes do in the form of exposition) and leaving room up for reflection and intepretation. Would certainly reccomend. I was doubting between a 9 and a 10, but I must hand it to the film creators here, they did a pretty good job.

Let's start with the positive aspects: the soundtrack is of course beautiful (altough it can get overbearing sometimes), and one can hear 17th century music at its finest, but to those who are drawn to the film for this aspect, I would rather tell them to hear it independently of the accompanying visuals, since those don't do it any favours. The cinematography and visuals are also gorgeus: some shots look like flemish paintings in their own right, and the costums and locations are well put together and chosen. Overall, coupled with the narration at the very beginning, one tends to thing that this will be a very Barry Lyndon-like movie, as some other reviewer already stated, but it fails miserably along the way. Let me try to explain this.

First of all, the narrative structure of the film. Narration is a very dangerous tool for filmaking, a double edged knife that may aswell end up cutting the rope the films hang on. As I see, it should work as a narrative thread that helps the movie move along, but doesn't overpower the scenes as a narrative device. To sum it up, it should act as an arrow that points the right way, but everything that the narrator states should be backed up (or contested, if we are talking about an unreliable one) by visual evidence, or should be somehow shown in the film. Following up with the previous examples, Barry Lyndon is a film that does this really well, keeping up with the previous example. With Tous les Matins du Monde, however, the opposite happens: a lot of vital information is delivered through narration (which becames exposition, and a really tedious one, by the end of the film), and often it's not backed up by any kind of visual evidence or scene.

There are many instances in the film where this happens, but I will remark the most blatant and significant one: Sainte-Colombe's. Why is this a problem? Well, because she's already dead by the beginning of the film. Thus, we are deprived of a very important component of the viola player's life: his relationship with his wife (the only aspect that defines his character, along with his relationship with his music). And this relaionship is central to the plot, for Sainte-Colombe was purportedly very fond of his wife, and its implied that he had a better self, prior to his old, bitter and maniac one, when his wife was alive. By not showing us this previous life and happy relation with his wife (which her ghostly apparitions fail to tackle) and having the narrator, Marais, explain it to us, it turns out that we, us viewers, haven't got the chance to see the supposed better Sainte-Colombe. Instead, we only see and emotionally impaired and egotistical man, who fails to take care of his daughters and cultivate any human relation and refuses to get over the death of his wife.

And this takes us to the second aspect of this film that I must criticize: the character. Sainte-Colombe comes across as a total douche. He is cruel towards his daughter, towards his disciple and towards his sourroundings in general, charching his family with the maintenance of his property. Instead of a tormented artist, which is what the directors where going for, I assume, we get a rude and unsympathetic man, whose only redeeming trait is that he plays the viola well, which, ultimately, fails to excuse his harmful behaviour or making up for it any way (and no, letting Marais talk to him doesn't count. Basic civility isn't redemption). As for their daughters, which are consistently mistreated by their male counterparts, first their father and then, in the case of poor Madeleine, by his lover, Marais, we never see them have any significant agency or stand up for themselves (except when child Toinette confronts her father with her infantile tantrums). We know they are skilled players and that they lead a restrictive and secluded live, and are in desperate need for same human interaction, but Corneau doesn't seem to care too much about their character or personal growth. Had we seen a movie were one of the daughters, maybe, stood up to him and tried to pursue a music career without the approval of their father, or where Madeleine found solace in music after she was left by Marais, this movie could have been a lot more interesting. I want to make clear these comments don't apply to the actors: I think they did a god job with the material they were given, and Anne Brochet's Madeleine and Dépardieu junior's Marais (who turns out to be the most relatable character in the whole movie) are pretty solid.

And this leads me to the last part of the movie: the script and the pacing. Since part of the narrative weight is carried by the narration, and part of it by the music (which, again, does a god joob but ends up being overbearing at times, and doesn't keep a tangible structure while the movie goes on), the dialogue is much more reduced and most of the spoken text is narrated. Both, however, are really poor. The philosopical excerpts of it are substanceless: the reflections upon the nature of music are too poetic and vague, and the conclusion the movie ends up giving (music, and maybe any form of art, is the result of loss and suffering) is questionable at best. I do not agree with the stance that music is something that is only achieved through loss or "genius", and that the music that Sainte-Colombe plays is somehow better that what his disciple plays, simply because one is trying to express is unfathomable grief and the other tries to express love or be a better musician for the sake of social success, and the movie doens't give any consistent or grounded answer for this, beyond the consistent negative of Sainte-Colombe to talk about it. And, since the movie is trying really hard to sell us this "tormented artist" and "music comes through grief" narrative, many of the scenes end up being supposedly intense scenes of Sainte-Colombe playing is viola or an emotional scene that doesn't hold much narrative weight and goes on much too long (like the one shot of Depardieu's face, right from the start). Thus, the narrative pace is ruined, and a film that otherwise could have been a pleasure to watch ends up being really tortuous. I generally like slow-paced films, but every film needs a narrative thread that carries it along. Here they tried to do it with the music, but it wasn't nearly enough.

Summing up, look it up if you really are into the music or the visuals and have some patience, what I wouldn't reccomend it do to the bad work the film does story and character-wise. I understand why some people liked it and glossed over the negative aspects I mentioned, but I wasn't able to. It's a shame, though, that it turned out like this, since it could really have been a much greater film.

Overall, Far did a pretty good job expanding his creation. Season 1 does an excellent job in recreating and expanding the original story, balancing action and chills with greatly gratifying character development, that ends with an impressive (altough stormtrooper-aim-ish) action packed chapter. Season 2 only gets better, slowly building up character and plot until it reaches a really satisfactory finale, if you got invested in the characters (I may understand that people who came for the explosive action might not like the slower, character building chapters, but I can only find them awesome from an history telling standpoint, and everyone who hasn't got the attention span of a jellyfish between action sequences will surely do)

The cast is also superb: Esmé gives a very convincing portrayal of the leading role, which seems to fit her perfectly, and Mireille Enos (Marissa Wigler) and Aine Rose Daily (Sandy) make two of the best antagonistic figures I have seen lately. Joel Kinnaman (Erik) altough a little wooden, seems to be recovering the talent of yore. The cinematography is also on point, with the photography and the locations giving a really aesthetically pleasing feel. Minor plot contrivances and character inconsistences deprive the series of a whole 10, but its nonetheless one I would eagerly recommend.