Change Your Image
bad_rino
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Der Bräutigam, die Komödiantin und der Zuhälter (1968)
Wow
It's difficult to know where to start when reviewing such a film.
There are three parts in the film and the third is the only one where there seems to be some effort in conveying something to the audience.
The first is a travelling shot from a car in a street so poorly lit it is impossible to understand what the filmmaker's point is. I am a big fan of such shots and I would have immediately discarded this shot as it's just to dark. I understood after reading a critic's review that it is the red light district in Munich and that there are prostitutes on the street. There were maybe two ladies that might give that idea to the audience and they only appeared ten seconds out of the 4 minutes the shot takes.
The second is a casserole of antiquated far-left shananigans with unrelatable characters served through a single fixed camera angle of a poorly designed theater scene meant to be a lobby in a brothel (supposedly). Ideals, principles,quotes about life are mixed with dry dialogues where women are objectified. The brechtian apartés highlight the distance from which the filmmaker is treating his subject. How did this filmmaker gather the guts to make a film about such a serious thing without being concerned of showing any element of truth of their lives? What is most mind-boggling to me is that Straub and Huillet are meant to be communists or leftists but one just needs to watch five minutes of their films to be slapped in the face by unabashed elitist tendencies: obscure references, unjustified technical whims, plain lazy attitude toward driving a point home. The film reeks of arrogance and pretention from start to finish. I know they liked Bresson and I really do wonder what they copied from him apart from his courage. Also I have given myself the task of watching Pedro Costa's documentary on this couple filmmaker as there must be something that I am missing if Pedro Costa is so in awe of these two. It's just that every five years I try watching a film of theirs and I get really upset with the way they treat the medium.
Triangle of Sadness (2022)
Entertaining but very obvious
It is sad to see such visually creative efforts be used for such shallow scripts. Everything is way too obvious, there is a huge lack of nuance. Painting everything black or white is indeed the trend nowadays but people aren't like that. That is why art is beautiful. Because it is generally full of nuances.
Now don't get me wrong, I wasn't bored during the film, but it kind of passes by like a cartoon. There isn't any depth. And I gotta say, even if it feels good to have someone gather the troops on the men's end it felt kind of misogynistic after all. The women are power-hungry and have no morals, men are simple and have a clean heart. I feel sorry to have to put it this way but if you watch the film you will see, there isn't any sublety. Nothing is grey and that is what makes the film mediocre at best.
The palm d'or is a truly strange prize, scrap that, all prizes are strange. There are films that crtiticize shallowness by giving more of exactly the same thing they are criticizing (cf Adam Mckay's junk) and ironically they get rewarded for this. These films need to dive a layer deeper. Show these festivals congratulating you for stepping up and giving obvious critiques of clearly wrong things. Explain how they try to clean their dirt by giving support to superficial ear-pulls.
If I had money and power I'd probably enjoy being fined a ticket now and then for not picking up my dog's poop, it would remind me of how equal we are in this society and how better I am. I'd be reminded of how I'm not above the law, and I'd feel adequately punished for smuggling all my money out of the country through tax havens. Cannes satisfies its perverse power games in the same way.
This film is truly representative of our times: you can show it all as long as nobody thinks about it.
Inside Llewyn Davis (2013)
What happens when events dictate one's life rather than the other way around
This is a movie about a man unable to make any calculated decisions regarding his life.
The plot thread doesn't progress as the protagonist makes decisions. On the contrary, Llewyn reacts to his surroundings from start to finish. His path crosses multiple opportunities to change his faith, but he never seems to see them, and when he does, he is unable to grab them.
The structure of the script is very telling in this aspect. Since the protagonist never makes decisions to give a satisfactory turn to his life, it makes sense to have an artificially concocted end at the beginning of the film: a passive life just ends somewhere.
But just how random is the end of the story? It marks the culmination of disappointment. Also, it reveals what truly matters for Llewyn. Llewyn is a failing artist from start to finish but let's not forget that the storyline does make him special for a while.
In the treacherous world that surrounds him he is the only one that got Jean pregnant. Even if he tries to dissociate himself from the feelings he has for her, in such a bleak setting, she seems to represent the one important thing in his life, even if they only fight.
He has indeed learned how to live with the disappointment of being a failed musician - the cold universe of music production where money and success are given as a formula seem to be beneath him. He has contempt for it and believes he is misunderstood.
But now, Pappi has slept with Jean as well. He is not special in this aspect either. The women of his life have no respect for him. Like his music, Llewyn must accept that he might not be able to touch the souls of the people as he thought he once could. His essence is dying too.
Delbonnel's lighting is a masterpiece. The pathetic comedic elements of Llewyn's life adopt an austere shape through it and as such the Coen Brothers' touching script unravels with ease and poise. No wonder each actor finds the space to deliver a great performance.
There's an obvious point to be made regarding the decadence of folk songs and Llewyn's woeful prospects in life. It serves as a pertinent symbol of consumerism in the USA in the 60s. It helps one realize the sorry state we are in today.
Boatman (1993)
Rosi's spiritual debut
It's nice to see this film after having seen other of Rosi's films. You get a sense of what strikes him as important in storytelling. This film came out in 1993, his next one came out in 2008! Rosi spends a lot of time with the subjects of his films and you can feel it gave rise to an intimate relationship with the boatman.
The idea of the film is brilliant: Rosi has a direct cinema approach to the Ganges river and discovers it rowing around in a small boat, guided by the funny and heart-warming boatman. Combined with great black and white photography, it is difficult not to be amazed by Rosi's skill in capturing such beautiful images together with the sound and still be directly involved with the surroundings.
Interesting characters are everywhere but the most intriguing are the foreigners who came here. Some are tourists and are just amazed by what they are seeing (no spoilers here but the list is huge) and some have moved there and are happy with the spiritual life they are leading. The main aspect that Rosi seems keen to emphasize is the contradiction between a less than satisfactory sanitary life-style and a wholesome spiritual life-style that is combined in the Ganges. People seem happy, happier than in any European or American country, but they have very little, at least compared to their occidental counterpart.
If you've grown up in a catholic country, this film will make you question everything that has been taught to you (even if you're not religious), if you're a hindou, well, you might just be surprised that such a film was even made and wonder, just like the boatman, what all the fuss is about.
The Big Sick (2017)
A Pakistani cocktail best served on ice
What The Big Sick says about American society is not fun, but the film is.
The film starts with Kumail Nanjiani explaining in voice-off that he is from Pakistan and how similar his country is to the United States while documentary images of Pakistan showing a covered women, some chaotic cheap roads and other details that are meant to convince us of how far from the truth the protagonist's words really are reel away as we try to make sense of the whole situation. Finally, the laughs we hear in the background gives us some context and we understand this is a stand-up comedy show, even though the images say otherwise. This dichotomy is a wonderful glimpse into the subject matter of the film. Not only are we wonderfully introduced to Kumail whose main weakness is to lie in order to survive as a "normal" being in the USA, but we are also immediately forced to confront our own inner demons as an American society. Why do we feel like laughing when nothing we see is funny? This actually makes for an important point as it sums up the message that is conveyed in the film. We want to laugh when witnessing how other cultures aren't as great as Occidental ones, but we're soft on tears when this funny Pakistani non-Muslim fellow unable to free himself from his cultural shackles in order to pursue his love for his American partner finds himself utterly heart-broken. The obvious statement is this: We only care about those that are like us, in other words Occidental society has lost all empathy for those who do not share the same values. Truth comes under many forms and this must be one of the most surprising manners for it to reveal itself.
Contrary to lots of comedies, this film has something to say and it doesn't wonder around as in a typical feel-good movie, it does right from the start. This being said the film isn't a cinematic masterpiece even though the thorough writing (which by the way was done by the real couple which are portrayed in the movie, Emily V. Gordon and Kumail Nanjiani) combines off-beat jokes with subtle humor in order to balance the sometimes over-dramatic, over-romantic, and occasionally tragedy-loaded aspect of the film. The director's effort in bringing sobriety is really a plus for such a rich script. There are some very interesting directorial choices that stand out and work very well for the film-goer's experience even though the repeated soft emotional tunes that kick in way too often betray its originality.
All in all this is a film that gets high marks for sticking with a powerful idea and sharing it subtly in the form of a pill that once swallowed isn't ready to let you forget it.
Lal Gece (2012)
Wow! Blown away!
First off it must be said that almost the whole film takes place in one room, and the pace is rather slow, but this is all the better for character-driven film lovers.
The script is a masterpiece, not only for its lightness while tackling a very deep and controversial subject in Turkish tradition but above all for its capacity to transform a ready-given seemingly complex situation into an obvious and simple one: an old man is trying to have sex with a child. Period. Reis Çelik cleverly brings out this simple fact through the successive games the groom has to partake in order to convince the bride. A child remains a child and an old man is still an old man, mustache or no mustache. By the way both the groom and the bride are wonderfully interpreted and we really feel for them.
I don't give it a higher note because of some weird choices that throw the film down a notch: one which I really can't understand is the groom's POV when entering the room, sweeping away all the power that laid in the brides POV during the ceremony etc...
But all in all I was surprised by how good this film was and feel lucky I was able to see it even though almost four years have passed since its release.
And for all the "ordinary film-goer" crap I read in the other comments I think you're misusing the term. You mean the "ordinary film-consumer". What you're saying is that if you're seeking to be entertained and have difficulty remaining seated if major events don't happen every ten minutes, then yes, I agree, this film is not for you.