3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Creed (II) (2015)
6/10
Not bad, but not great. Some great stuff, but overall, some empty parts
10 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Michael B Jordan did a great job acting in this. I thought Stallone did as well, and overall, the supporting cast was fine. Beginning made it hard to get into, as the opening scenes seemed hard to understand and either not well written, not well directed, or not well acted (when creed was a child meeting his stepmom).

It is missing a kind of zeitgeist identity, a presence of authentic passion in some of the filmmaking choices. For example, the juxtaposition between the wealth of Creed's family mansion and the working class environment of philly never felt rich. When Creed and Bianca meet at a restaurant, there is no identity of the restaurant, it's just a normal restaurant, for example. We dont feel that the environment of LA is one of spoiled behavior, instead, we are told Creed just doesnt want it. And so on.

Would have been a very interesting storytelling hook if, instead of Rocky telling Creed in the middle of his first fight how Apollo beat him if he had been working on a "hook" or a secret weapon to develop, a secret insight all along. After I saw it transpire in the way it did, I couldnt help thinking how amazing the story points would have shifted if, earlier in the training, Rocky said let me show you a technique. "work on this move. When the fighter does this, do this. And trust me, he will." And upon Creed resisiting it Rocky saying "you asked me who won the third fight between me and your father, this is how he won."

And then, during his first fight, the whole time, Creed is doing as he did, showing his hard work, but always looking for that secret insight into overvcoming his opponent. And then, when he finally wins, it is because Rocky has actually connected him to the string that binds him to his father.

I couldnt help thinking this. And although I would agree I shouldnt write the movie that someone else wrote, as they had their own intentions, the point being that there was something missing from this being an original and really grabbing story. We are supposed to somehow rely on the previous rocky movies too much, instead of this story doing the work for us.

I just find that movies have lost a lot of the magic they once had because the art of storytelling is being lost along the way.

Overall, not bad, but I wish for something even just a bit more. I recommend it if you want something to watch, but not for something beyond just a date night or general entertainment,
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Suspiria (I) (2018)
1/10
Guardadingno Pretends a Pretentious Play, it's Pretty Pathetic
8 November 2018
I had to find excuses to leave the cinema. Get a popcorn, go to the bathroom, make a phone call. This movie had me so fidgety with boredom and aggravation that the director's arrogance to force audiences to sit through 2.5 hours of drivel is apparent so much on every scene in this movie.

Luca Guardadingno seems to want to be like other great directors, so he just borrows their look and their technique and throws a bunch of loosely connected ideas to the wall and hopes they stick. He brags a knowledge of cinema as if that will save his own messy undisciplined approach to storytelling.

There's a very real kind of pretentiousness permeating everything in this movie. None of it seems to be for the audience enjoyment. Confident filmmaking would be something, and there's plenty of that in most movies, but you get the sense that the surefire vision of most filmmakers is backed up by some kind of discipline and mastery and a respect for the audience experience. Crack the whip, bring the best out of the story, the crew, drive your compulsion to a near perfectionism and you end up with something great. That would have been great.

Because audiences tend to sense the passion within a project.

This is something else entirely. One imagines Guardadingo cracking a whip at his crew while playing on his iphone.

It's just a mess. A messy messy mess. A slow, painful mess. Expect to at least have some unintended laughs at the end. The ending is so so dumb, like a school play made by teenagers.
178 out of 379 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Suspiria (I) (2018)
1/10
Unintentional Comedy - but not as funny as calling it a masterpiece...
6 November 2018
The funniest thing I've seen in awhile. The last 2o minutes of the movie I heard more laughs in the theatre than I do at any seth rogen "comedy." I give it a point for trying, but it's just trying very hard to seem smart, while leaving no substance until only the thing left to fight any breath for is the vapor of "you just dont understand art."

Kitsch.

*Before i go any further, I've seen 6 or 7 bad reviews get removed from here in the week or so beforehand. There's a lot more people out there who dont like this movie than is allowed to say it, apparently. Be wary of the campaigning.

A perfect 10? No way.

I'd like it more if it didnt seem so pretentious, self important (rather than telling us a story), and arrogant.. Why couldnt it be like any good art form and just actually in any kind of service to the audience's enjoyment? "Six acts and an epilogue?" For 2.5 hours? REally? Ok. I will take the ticket, but I'm expecting to be really moved and really absorbed in the journey. Forget it. This movie is like watching paint dry. I was invited on a six act, plus epilogue, 2.5 hour journey and then forced to watch a mess. Irritated, I'd have given it more points for effort if it hadnt seemed so lazy and arrogant.

Ok, 2.5 hours, very bold of you, so take me on that journey then, but in order to be that bold, indeed, it better be a masterpiece. A masterpiece has to be an actual master of form, master of storytelling, master of character direction, master of dealing with the team's talents, etc before you force others to watch whatever you dictate they should. This requires a level of meticulous detail and effort that goes far beyond ordinary thresholds. It requires much more care for the work that is being put into it and the people you invite to it. They dont have to like it, or want to go, you know. So you better care about them.

This movie is NOT Dr. Zhivago. It is not an "epic." Publicity like that is also why the word "genius" doesnt mean a hill of beans anymore. Lawrence of Arabia is an "epic," homies. This is just long. And it's long because it is lazy. Zhivago, Lawrence are epic weavings of tremendous character arcs.

This is faux and shallow passing itself off as value; it's like Slavoj Zizek on celluloid, and just as incomprehensible as his blabbery tongue. Russell Brand type "knowsomethingish" superficial nothingness.

It's wayyyy too lazy and self important to pull together a mastery of the creative team and medium. You get the sense of a tyrant yelling at the editor or the team: "NO- it's my movie and it has to have all those pointless things in it, because i said so. Put more stuff in it or you're fired!"

How is it mastery if it seems like no one was editing it? I'm sure there was someone saying we should edit more, but I cant help imagine it going like "no, it's perfect, i am genius. " :-D This suffers the same way a lot of Christopher Nolan's movies suffer from = a real lack of self editing or listening to what doesnt work.

ugh.

People putting this movie on a pedastal either aren't really expressing why it is even good. It seems like either they are paid to write good reviews for PR purposes, havent seen a lot of movies, or they just like something because it seems artsy fartsy. I'm the first to be thirsty for more independent cinema, less super hero stories, but this movie is not really helping us get there.

This movie has no plot points or unifying structure - these are elements of mastery in storytelling. Even most of David Lynch's movies have an inner logic that runs like a thread through all the quirkiness, maintains tone, and sticks to a language that piques interest in the characters. This movie just borrows from other directors.

Being able to direct and weave a story together requires an extraordinary amount of development and work, and this movie has no hint of that. i'm sure the writer had a good script at some time, but it seems like someone wanted to just throw anything and everything at it in hopes someone would like them. Cheesy 70s camera tricks and bad frame rate changes mix in strangely with bad cgi, poor costumes and "avant garde dance theory" choreograhy. It seems to want to make a point on feminism (spare us the politics please), be a horror movie, be an homage to other great filmmakers, and be an arty "epic" all in one. I do remember good cinema, and all of those movies knew what they wanted to be and say. Remember the nineties? Sigh...

Subplots wander as aimlessly as tilda Swinton in a fake looking man costume, and just like the conundrum of why she is even in that costume instead of a man, also these subplots never get resolved or have any clearer of an aim. How is that mastery?

I went home and binge watched some great movies just to get the bad taste out of my mouth.

*I wrote 2 reviews here because my first one didnt seem to be published.
171 out of 360 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed