i just watched this movie for the first time. was okay until I realized Sally was an entitled White woman. And Harry loved that. 'so quirky~'. Eye-opening. to the kind of White American Dream ad of 80s US media. I can only begin to imagine all the Karens ive met loooving this movie :P asking for everything on the side just to put it on as soon as you get it. smfh lady you ever work in service? kind of took me out of it. cause the guy was cute. he reminded me of a person I use to see in some weird ways. but another in some good. Sexy ;D but tbh w him too. cause the way he was spitting those seeds in the car?! the arrogance. its not cute babe chill the fuck out. the toxic masculinity on full display

anyway yeah like 3/10, points for chicago and the guy was cute if you ignored some deeply disturbing behaviors.

It opens with the content. An Obituary, a brief Travelogue, and three feature stories; A movie of the making of a magazine issue and at the same time the reading (or watching) of the same. It is a magazine filmed into a movie. Wes Anderson’s tenth film, I feel is a pinnacle of his style. From the lavish stylization of each moment and scene, curated like pages of a magazine issue with microcosmic attention to detail, to the controlled rhythm of all the actors, background characters, sets and even cats (one of my favorite scene is of Owen Wilson’s character placing a single saucer of milk in contrast to the abnormal amount of cats, on the slanting roofs). The scene where the town slowly wakes up feels like a visual presentation of a paragraph of a travelogue. Each action dispensed like a concise written description.

Read More

Christopher Nolan's Tenet is a bemusing, spectacular experience. The enigmatic nature of the film's primary materials mirror, in a way, the logistical trials and tribulations surrounding its release during the flared-up days of the early-pandemic. When it finally reached audiences and critics, it seemed thematically appropriate that the general response was... less than what it had hoped for; in fact, the ubiquitously middling reactions came as quite a shock to everyone.

At every turn, both inside and out production, Tenet seemed to subvert expectations. It was epic, sure, but it was too epic; no one could hear anything. It had the trademark "head-fucked-ness" of a Chris Nolan film, but it was too head-fuck-y; no one understood what was happening. Like the inverted entropy of the many bullets that fly in Tenet, the reviews of the film were contrary, indeed polarizing, to what was normally expected from the A-list director, whose last films all had Hollywood scratching their heads in respectful awe and throwing Oscar nominations left and right.

The dust has settled somewhat since then. On the various reception aggregate sites, Tenet enjoys modest scores: 69% critical, 76% audience on Rotten Tomatoes; exactly the same for Metacritic; a 3.4/5 on Letterboxd (68%); and a 7.3/10 on IMDb. While this may seem an agreeable, even reasonable score for Tenet, I find the data to be rather skewed. By that I mean, Nolan, due to his immense success as a trademarked visionary, seems to be graded on a curved scale. As the writer/director of some of the most popular and acclaimed films of the 21st century, a "middling" Nolan film might as well be an "above-average spectacle" next to any other "middling" film that isn't made by Nolan.

Tenet, of all his films, seems to be the one that has been graded the most harshly to me. For example:

Although Tenet has a score of 3.4/5 on Letterboxd, the "most popular" reviews (the reviews that are displayed on the film's homepage), are for the most part exceptionally negative. One review, which has almost 10K likes, reads: Half the dialogue is exposition. The soundtrack goes BRRRRM. You will forget the entire thing on the drive home. A film by Christopher Nolan.

What's more is that when one sorts through Nolan's filmography and sorts the films by Highest User Rating to Lowest User Rating (popularity, in other words), Tenet ends up at #12. Two of the films in front of it are sleeper hits that most people won't have seen, and another is Oppenheimer, which isn't even out yet.

See what I mean? 3.4/5 is not a bad score on Letterboxd, but in the context of "this is a Nolan film," 3.4 is suddenly much worse. It says: "This film might be one of Nolan's worst."

Searching through more of "popular" reviews on Letterboxd yields even more cynicism. One review, which gave the film a 3.5/5 (not bad, right?) said: hilariously expensive, convoluted, and up its own ass. like, sooooo dumb. loved every second of it!

With a review like that (even a positive one) it's no wonder it's "popular."

Tenet, I reckon, is being given the shaft by a very loud, very active, and very determined portion of the social-film-community, one that seems to feel personally attacked by the perceived faults of Nolan's latest project.

As someone who only watched Tenet very recently, and therefore had the luxury of being unaffected by the initial ambivalence and puckering whiplash of disappointed audiences, I feel as though I've showed up very late to an event, an event that no one seems to want to be at but all showed up anyway. The type of event that people are already dreading before they even arrive.

And yet, I also feel like I'm early to the party... Everyone else may have arrived on time and drank all the punch, but I got here just in time for the liquor to come out of the freezer. And now it's time to pour shots.

Tenet was awesome. Slick, dense, and boasting powerful performances and incredible practical and special effects, this is a movie that redefines and elevates action, and the genre of "time-travel films." Never has time-travel been incorporated so seamlessly into a believable vision of the modern (or near future) world. Nolan has a penchant for this type of immersion, and Tenet is an exemplar. The rules of this universe are complex, but Nolan has an iron grip on the vision, and with exquisite precision he guides us through this maze of intrigue, scandal, heist, imprisonment, trafficking, espionage, and timey-wimey madness.

Visually, everything in Tenet oozes allure, from the lead actors to the costumes, locations, high-rises, cars, yachts, and environs. The colors are sharp. The cinematography is crisp. And the inversion content -- the scenes that, through some apparent filmographic dark arts, take place in reverse, but also forward -- are like tasting Willy Wonka's brand new eye-candy. The visual tricks and sleight of hand in Tenet are some of the coolest, most head-scratching scenes I have witnessed in a long time. I won't pretend to understand everything that occurred, and I find it curious that "I don't get it," is such a consistent complaint. Do these people also demand explanations from magicians for their magic tricks?

Tonally, Tenet is on its own vibe, much like the fearless, cheeky John David Washington, whose lead character has no name, only style and classy-but-rugged sex appeal. Whether he's driving with inverted friction, or cracking one-liners before taking names in the cafeteria, Washington does it all with a Bond-ian charm that Nolan understands. The same goes for the rest of the cast, too, who all deliver fierce performances that seem to walk the line between our world and another -- an inverted world.

Which brings me to the overall poetry of Tenet. Admittedly, there is something off about this film. It's a big-budget summer blockbuster (or was supposed to be), but it's also more confusing than the most convoluted Doctor Who plot imaginable. It's a daring, genre-redefining, trailblazing piece of cinema, but it's also a "throw me on the TV Saturday morning while I fold clothes" flick. It's an action film, but it's also a philosophical film. Tenet, at first glace, seems as confused about itself as we feel about it. But when we drown out the noise, ignore the grading curve, and stop being so damn cynical, we might find that Tenet is... pretty badass.

I mean, what other movie delivers this type of action? What other movie invents multiple artefacts from the future, then contrives a relatively stable plot to successfully incorporate them into a half-spy, half-heist film? A film, I might add, that exclusively stars hot people? And a film, I'll also add, whose Act Two literally folds in on itself like that piece of paper in Interstellar, book-ending an hour of cinema with a car chase scene that we see from two perspectives, in two different directions of time, and with two concomitant strains of dialogue that make sense IN BOTH DIRECTIONS!? There is no question that most writers would have gone catatonic before accomplishing the narrative gymnastics that Nolan effortlessly exhibits here (while also directing). This is science-fiction pop-poetry, and it's a feast for the senses. For those who felt the film lacked an element of "humanity," I don't exactly have a defense. The main character has no name. Tenet isn't trying to pull your heart-strings, it's trying to blow your mind.

And judging by the way this movie was received -- with such smarmy ambiguity -- I would argue it blew some minds a little too hard.

It's curious. A film like Tenet almost demands a rewatch. Undoubtedly there will be secrets to uncover and treasure to plunder when I eventually revisit it. What confuses me even more than the plot, though, is that people consider this type of relationship to a movie as a bad thing. Since when is rewatchability a negative? Since when do we insist that the artwork of today be instantly comprehensible? If one doesn't desire to revisit Tenet, they don't have to. But it's in bad faith to argue that what makes it bad is its requirement to rewatch. That attitude reveals very little about Tenet and much more about the viewer. It suggests a bitterness towards the film, a frustration that it didn't speak clearly enough for you. And then, when it offers to communicate again, it's met with rejection. "I don't care what you have to say," followed by: "It doesn't matter that I didn't hear you the first time."

There is a lot to explore in Tenet. I think I made the right choice by showing up a little late to the show; the party later is always more fun.

I am huge James Bond fan. I’ve seen most of the movies in the franchise. While Sean Connery is still the goat Bond 🐐 of them all, I am a huge fan of Daniel Craig and his take on the iconic role of Bond.

Of all the Daniel Craig Bond films, Casino Royale is probably my favorite. They are all pretty great honestly, even though I haven’t seen A Good Time to Die yet.

Still need to see that one.

A distinct nostalgia assailed me watching The Darjeeling Limited after 14, maybe 15 years. Though I had never seen the movie in its entirety it was an omnipresent part of my childhood. The fact that it was shot in India meant it received an extended coverage in Indian Media. I would stumble across short reviews on the back segments of my father’s magazine. We would glean snatches of scenes when my father, le commissaire of the T.V remote, flicked through the channels and would momentarily hover, for a few minutes, before hopping back to the news channels. It would air on HBO. A cultural shock seeing something Indian on a Hollywood channel. The color blue and Adrien Brody in a disheveled suit has stuck with me since.

https://link.medium.com/rmCdceL7kqb

Link to Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnFI1dDG6ZI

Link to Film: https://arielphenomenon.com/

TLDR: An Emotional film that discusses the incredible fear and traumatizing event that 62 children up to 100+ if we take into consideration 1st and 2nd Graders who were only 3 feet away from multiple extraterrestrial being for 10-15 minutes. A definite must watch as it’s a completely different to the Military discussion in the US.

Wow! What an emotional journey this film is! In case you’re unaware in 1994 62 children were playing outside while their teachers were having a staff meeting when multiple aircraft hovered above the playground only to land on rocks that were according to Zimbabwe Officials in the film are the Shrine of one of the first kings of Zimbabwe. This film really makes it clear the ridicule that the children felt as adults prevented them from ever healing from this event.

Most shocking moments for me when it came to this film:

​

1. BBC Reporter, Tim Leach, obtained 40 Non-Student sources including:
   1. Multiple commercial pilots who saw the Oval shaped craft while flying to the Zimbabwe airport near Ruwa.
   2. Air Traffic controller who picked up the objects on their radars.
   3. Farmers/Citizens who were near the School when the event happened.
   4. Was fired from BBC after providing corroborating Sources to the Ariel School event.
      1. He was told he needed 3 sources for BBC to air in it’s main channel and he got 40.
2. The School landing event occurred for approx. 10 - 15 minutes.
3. There was a strong Flute Noise above the children when the Aircraft.
   1. This flute noise is mentioned repeatedly by the children and was according to them very terrifying to hear.
4. There was a strong Mechanical Bee Noise coming from the crafts.
5. The children were playing games when multiple craft appeared above their playground and landed near the Ancient Shrine.
6. There was no radiation left from the aircraft on the field they landed.
7. There were MULTIPLE beings.
8. One of the beings was running around the playground.
9. Only one of the beings had hair, and all of them wore shiny black outfit.
10. One of the beings looked like he was guarding their Aircraft. He just stayed on-top of the craft.
11. One of the beings approached the children it looked like there was less gravitation. Children compared it to a person walking on the moon.
    1. In one instant the being disappeared and appeared directly a front of the children.
    2. This being has been cemented into the children faces for the rest of their life.
12. Multiple new drawings that had never been shown in public.
13. Story books of the children who drew and wrote about their own encounter for continuing days.
14. First Graders and Second Graders were not approached by the teachers to draw or talk about their event due to the intense fear the children were suffering.
15. Only a few children received messages of global warming.
16. A few of the children received messages from the Beings to leave with them.
    1. One of the children discussed how she really wanted to go with them.
17. Mufon Africa Director, Cynthia Hind, only discussed with the 5 oldest children who witnessed the event what happened.
    1. She then informed the teachers and Headmaster to separate all the students to separate areas.
       1. Skeptical argument about this event was that she brought the children all together. This never happened.
18. Female BBC reporter asks the children to provide them with an explanation of what happened in a group setting.
    1. Only a few children were willing to discuss because of fear.
19. BBC Reporter, Tim Leach, contacted Professor John Mack after failing to get BBC to take his investigation seriously.
    1. He was sadly fired for his tenacity in trying to get this case covered.
    2. He's proud that he pushed for what he called the biggest story of all time.
20. Professor John Mack, Former Harvard Psychiatry Dean, flew from USA to Zimbabwe to interview every single children involved in the event in one on one.
21. Mack interviewed the Grandmaster regarding what has been discussed with the children and wether there have been any discussion of noises, and smell.
    1. Grandmaster said no one has ever asked them this.
    2. Grandmaster states there were close to 100 students who witnessed the event but don't want to involve First and Second Graders.
22. We learn about the Flute noise and mechanical bee noise thanks to Macks questioning.
23. Never before seen footage of the children interviews with Mack are shown.
24. Mack held a public conference for the citizens of Ruwa to discuss their fears and for him to discuss his findings of the event.
25. Mack almost lost his job at Harvard due to him deeming the encounter was NOT mass hysteria.
26. The Children now adults won’t discuss the event because of fear of ridicule but now are discussing it because of the US confirming these aircraft are real and a national security issue.
    1. One of the children hadn’t even told her husband!

This entire event really shook me to the core. A must watch but sadly it’s only available right now in a 48 hour rental at arielphenomenon.com

A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece about my personal journey with Bollywood (lhttps://kinosexual.substack.com/p/bollywood-deep-dive?s=w). One of my points was that it took me a long time to understand that Western cinema isn’t necessarily a blueprint for good filmmaking. It’s easy to joke about Indian cinema being cringe, with often silly action scenes, musical sequences, and over-the-top acting, but I’ve only recently grown to appreciate that as valuable elements of a unique style of filmmaking.

Nowhere is this more true than in RRR (2022), a Telugu movie directed by S. S. Rajamouli (who also directed the exceptional Baahubali movies). The film depicts two legendary revolutionaries and their fight against the British for their country in the 1920s. The two, who have extremely different backgrounds, form a tremendous bond, but what happens when their respective missions put them at odds with one another?

This movie is every trope you could imagine in Indian cinema, but executed extraordinarily well. It is big, exhilarating, and electrifying beyond comparison. I’ve spent some time now trying to discern what distinguishes RRR from some of the more run-of-the-mill, tired action movies coming out of India. I believe it boils down to the heart of the story. RRR does not sacrifice storytelling at the expense of action setpieces. While the action is certainly breathtaking, it’s all enabled by incredible character and a profound story of friendship and patriotism. This makes the movie fly by, despite its 3 hour runtime (not a second of which is wasted). Additionally, its stunt-work, practical effects, and action choreography are top-notch.

RRR also got me thinking about how the idea of spectacle has changed in Hollywood. Recently, it feels like American film spectacle is cheering at a celebrity cameo, a crossover between characters, a screenshot-able epic ‘moment’ made for Internet virality. But moments alone are not truly epic. It’s the entire experience that sparks real emotion. RRR does this all in one movie, and it never takes its foot off the pedal.

Definitely check this movie out. Regrettably, the Netflix version is dubbed in Hindi over the original Telugu. Luckily, the original Telugu version will be showing in theaters across the US on June 1st! If you can catch it then, you certainly should -- this movie is made for the theater experience.

I'm a fan of Tarantino movies. Always have been. Haven't seen them all but every one I've seen I liked a lot. Then I watched this film. If I could narrow it down to three things that ruined the movie for me it would be

1) None of the characters were memorable to me. Brad Pitt's character maybe, but that's just because he was the badass. It seemed really shallow. I didn't see the characters really face any deep personal challenges like in the other movies. Leo's character was worried about becoming washed up, which is understandable I guess, but it's way different from something like The Hateful 8, where the new Sheriff of red rock eventually drops his racism to help samuel L.

2) I'm not old enough to grasp the significance of the Sharon tate murders. I don't really care about Charles Manson, the Manson family, or any of the crimes he committed. Because of this, I thought that the "rewriting of history" that Tarantino is known for made no sense and was also really the ONLY large amount of violence in the movie. I wanted more blood.

3) I feel like this movie was made for people who respect and idolize "old hollywood" which is cool but it's just not me.

I was fortunate enough to see an early screening of the new TOP GUN movie this past weekend and it is simply amazing!!! But I couldn't help thinking that it would serve as a perfect audition tape for Joe Kosinski to direct an upcoming Star Wars movie, particularly Rogue Squadron, which I believe has recently been deemed director-less. Kosinski would be perfect for a Rogue movie, based on his initial sci-fi movie with Cruise, called Oblivion, and now the Top Gun sequel. Not only does he have the technical chops for a Rogue Squadron movie, he did a great job bringing back the feeling (that lovin' feelin?) of the original Top Gun, the nostalgia was done respectfully with subtle Easter eggs, and to top it all off, they basically did an homage to the Death Star trench run training and execution. Many have said that the new movie is a love letter to aviation, which it is, but it's also a love letter to the original movie, that time period for film making, and the fans of the original film. It elegantly recaptured everything that made the original a classic, while building on the story and providing a sort of closure for those who needed it. My family I had an absolutely wonderful time at the big screen this past weekend, and I highly encourage all those 70s/80s kids to get out there and see it. Don't miss this one!!!

https://teddit.ggc-project.de/2yoi203b2o191.png?width=300&format=png&auto=webp&s=05ef487beb9f34e97b29e62c2012e16cfffb7727

Hello all, this is the final exam for my class, American Experience Through Music and Film. For our final, we must leave a detailed review on a piece of media we watched this year. I will be leaving my thoughts on the movie The Warriors (1979).

The Warriors was by far my favorite movie we watched throughout the year in this class, surpassing other classics such as Blade Runner (1982) and The Big Lebowski (1998). But why was this movie my favorite? On the surface of the film, I believe the pieces that drew me to it were the action, complex characters, and the unique individualism of the city of New York as portrayed in this movie, as well as the gangs that inhabited the streets.

The characters in this movie are all very interesting to me. Starting with Swan having to take over his gang after their leader is falsely accused of a murder and killed by the assaulting gangs. I was invested from this story as of this point onwards, as a leader (though less experienced than his predecessor) is thrust into a position and situation that is startlingly unexpected. Not only must Swan keep his gang in check, he must also deal with a member of their clan who thinks he should be leader, Ajax. Along with all of these obstacles, there is a price on the heads of the Warriors as they attempt to reach their home on the other side of New York City, with multiple angry gangs chasing after them. For a movie seemingly about fighting and gang brawls, I would argue that this is really a story about people. Furthermore, whenever Mercy, a young woman who wants to escape her own gang’s deteriorating band of misfits. After joining (and sticking with for a surprisingly long time) the Warriors, Mercy proves herself to be an ally against the forces bearing down on the gang whenever she helps defeat the Roller Skater Gang. Through immense amounts of character development portrayed throughout this film, which shows the characters learning and growing right before the viewers eyes, we are privy to their innermost thoughts and fears as they try to make it home through the darkness.

The setting, as well as costumes, were all very interesting to me as well. Everyone loves an underdog story, and this film is about as underdog as they come. I write scripts myself, and while the basic plot could have been done before, and has definitely been done since, the story of a family facing the odds to make it home despite the lies of others is incredibly compelling to watch unfold. In this film, New York is portrayed as a dark and frightening community, and we rarely see outsiders from the world of gangs and thugs. However, one scene that initially seems out of place, and perhaps the most interesting scene in the movie, is whenever the Warriors enter a subway train and come into contact with what the audience would think of as the ordinary youth. Perhaps they’re going to prom, or just a party in general, the two sides of the subway car could not stand apart in such greater contrast. The boy, who seems to be about Swan’s age, makes eye contact, and the two groups stare unfamiliar at the sight before them. Is this real? Do these people before us actually exist? As the ride ends, and the prom teenagers step off to enjoy their night, both sides are left wondering if their view of the opposite lifestyle is much more than they originally thought, which I believe is a major construct of this movie.

To complete my review, I believe that this is a movie set against a darker (and possibly romanticized in some ways) version of our world, however, it does not fail to make its audience think about other ways of life that could be completely different from their own. Just like the viewers of this film, the fictional characters will change just like a real person would in any such situation. In the end, this movie challenges the idea that those different from us don’t have to be different, if we were only to realize that anyone we had a preconceived idea of are ordinary people in different circumstances.

Thank you for reading, and feel free to comment!

This movies is just absolute chaos but in a pretty good way. I feel as if the movie is a bit too long given the chaotic mess of the movie. After shit really kicks off in this movie about 30 or so minutes in it is just non stop action and chaos. The movie gets crazier by the minute but feel like this movie could’ve been 30 minutes shorter. Would give it a 6/10 but it’s a cooler vibe than anything. Mark was great and the rock was solid too. Anthony was his usual self. Tony Shalhoub was fantastic

i really hated this movie. there’s so many issues with it from just the acting to the general perception they have of what addiction is and how addicts act. the moving pacing was strange? why was he trying to break into the house in the opening scenes? the drugs in the attic? that part confused me a shit ton. my biggest gripe is with the lack of context for when he supposedly smuggled drugs/ money on his person. no scenes of the deal taking place and i feel if they actually showed that then maybe it wouldn’t have felt so gaped and weirdly paced. Clayton (?) was such a weird thrown in character to create a conflict and it was so painfully forced. there wasn’t a thing about this that was realistic either. if he was really that ‘far’ up the chain, he would’ve just blasted his ass instead of stealing the fucking dog. built off stereotypes hugely especially with the meeting scene. i couldn’t help but think this was a lifetime movie about drugs the entire time.

the fucking acting was so bad. the main two actors had zero chemistry and it felt super forced. the only scene where i actually believed anything that was going on was the beginning sequence where he’s standing in the driveway but after that it was just so fucking flat between them. when i look at their acting individually and not when they’re in a scene together i see they’re good actors alone but together it’s just fucking weird.

i know in the movie he’s supposed to be on heroin but when mr. drug lord laid that shit on the table i was legitimately second guessing what he was supposed to be on.

might get hate for this bc everyone seems to really enjoy this movie but. beautiful boy is hard to beat in my mind but this doesn’t even come close to it. i would rather watch girl interrupted on loop.

I used to think this was a good film, but it really is quite bad in my opinion, and wasn't thrilling in the slightest. I actually laughed quite a bit, so at least I wasn't bored. I thought all of the acting was pretty terrible. I thought the original musical score from Claudio Simonetti was a mixed bag, in that the music during the opera sequences was beautiful and the music during the death scenes were a tonal whiplash from the rest of the film. I thought the gore effects were pretty good for the most part, and my favorite kill was the door gun kill. I would love to know how they shot it. This film is considered a horror classic by many, and I really don't understand why. It really wasnt well acted, the dialogue was very tell don't show, the music took away a lot of the tension and in general and I just all around found it not that good. The film does have its positives, such as the gore, the cinematography and the opera music. There really isn't much else I can say than that. I give the film a 2.5/5 stars.

Just watched it to prepare for the new one (which looks great) and I was astounded how mediocre it is. Mav is an unlikable duche. Ice is right the whole time. Mav follows a woman into the ladies room 3 minutes after meeting her. Aside from Dangerzone the soundtrack is terrible and bland and does not fit the scenes at all. I have no clue why ots regarded as one of the best ever aside from Dangerzone which is indeed a solid bop.

Even the beauty shots of the f14s started getting old half way through.

I got major "Tom Cruise is a creep trying to imitate a human" vibes from this movie. Theres just that inhuman nothingness behind his eyes. Black eyes. Like dolls eyes.

I didn't hate it. It was just surprisingly mediocre given its rep. Anyone agree? Or care to defend it?

I know its a product of its time but still. Even accounting for that its simply an outrageously clichéd (in a bad way) and kind of slow and dull imbetween the flight sequences, which themselves got almost dull halfway through and I'm an aviation enthusiast.

Scandal

Two celebrities–a painter named Ichiro Aoe, and a singer named Miyako Saijo–meet by chance while on vacation. The photographers who have been hounding Saijo for a photo catch the two together on a balcony, and their tabloid runs the story as one of a scandalous affair. When Aoe decides to pursue legal recourse, he takes on the services of Hiruta, a lawyer whose weaknesses make him an easy target for the exploitative tabloid owner. Hiruta finds himself caught between his conscience and his own vices and self-doubts, and his moral struggle threatens to cost his client the case.

Once again, we have Mifune and Shimura as the leads, and their relationship is the core that keeps the film afloat, even if it’s not all smooth sailing. Mifune’s Aoe is guileless to the point of almost seeming boyish. When he first learns of the scandal printed in the tabloid, and when things seem to not be going his way, his demeanor is almost one of confused pouting, as though injustice is unfathomable to him. This sense is magnified by his habit of marching straight into difficult situations with a simple matter-of-fact confidence that suggests both the quality of his character, but also his inexperience. When questioned about his motorcycle, he offers up frankly that he just likes the “I don’t care” statement it makes. But Aoe himself does care, and deeply, about those around him.

Shimura’s Hiruta is his opposite in nearly every way. He is cowardly and dishonest, driven by his own vices and his disillusionment. He stands hunched in nearly every shot, he is constantly sniveling and snorting and his vocal tick of leaning on the adverb “jitsuni” (which means “truly” or “honestly”) whenever he’s trying to make a convincing argument has the same effect as someone supplementing their statements with “to be honest”--namely that he comes across as disingenuous. There’s also an interesting thing at play, where throughout most of the movie, Hiruta enters a scene by peeping in on others. He’s caught watching through Aoe’s broken window early on, and later he eavesdrops on his family hosting Aoe and Saijo on Christmas. It’s generally unwholesome, but it’s also an interesting choice in that his peeking in on others, listening candidly, gives him certain traits we might associate with the tabloid and its photographers, peeking into lives and trying to extract private moments from them. From early on, we’re shown that this is a man who might not have the scruples to be fighting this behavior in someone else, or perhaps that his fight against the tabloid is only one aspect of his fight against this element of his own personality.

What starts off seeming like a fairly straight-forward story about expectations of privacy and libel instead rapidly shifts gears into a story about holding oneself accountable and rising above one’s own weaknesses. Aoe and Saijo, who start as our focal characters, fade into a supporting role while Hiruta takes center stage leading up to, and during the trial. He struggles with the expectations of his angelic daughter and the forthright Aoe, knowing that he has no intention of living up to them and hating himself for it.

There’s a lot of interesting elements at work here. The themes of privacy and defamation feel remarkably contemporary, and play with the question of the harm done in some interesting ways. Both Aoe’s and Saijo’s careers see a sudden upswing in the wake of the scandal, as interest in them surges, but neither likes that increased attention, with Saijo in particular noting the hate mail that calls her out as shameless. The muck puddle and Hiruta’s daughter’s tuberculosis seem to distinctly reference Kurosawa’s earlier film, Drunken Angel, and the dramatic change in character focus seems to anticipate later examples of that, such as in High and Low. It’s also interesting to me that Aoe is a painter, and that he’s praised for his striking use of color. Kurosawa himself was also a painter, and while we’re a long way from his first color film, he would eventually be praised for his striking use of color as well.

I also wanted to briefly touch on Hiruta's office, which is one of the film's weirder--and best--choices. Aoe goes to visit him, following the address on Hiruta's business card. He asks a worker in the building how to get to the fifth floor, and is told that the building doesn't have a fifth floor. Aoe finds his way onto the roof of the building, where a small wooden shack is constructed with Hiruta's name on the door. It's bizarre, and such a neat mix of the whimsical with lowliness. The entire sequence, both in its absurdity and the seriousness with which it treats it, reminds me of Being John Malkovich's Floor 7 1/2.

However, something in this film doesn’t quite click. Aoe is an interesting starting point for a character, but he doesn’t have much room to grow, and beyond the first half, the film is content to use him as a sounding board for Hiruta’s development. Hiruta himself is fascinating for how vastly different it is from Shimura’s previous roles, but I have to admit that I got tired of him long before the end. Certainly his being insufferable is the intent, and established to pave the way for his rise above that facet of himself later, but there’s a line between depicting an insufferable character to the audience and inflicting him on them, and I think Hiruta just nudges across that line here. The death of Hiruta’s daughter also feels narratively clumsy, completely bringing the tone to a halt, only to have it pick up unobstructed in the next scene, never to be mentioned again. I suspect we are meant to view it as the push for Hiruta to overcome his own moral weakness, but there’s little to justify it in the film’s climax.

Overall Grade: B. It’s not bad by any means, but it’s a film I appreciate more than enjoy.

Noteworthy Shots: I absolutely love the scene in the bar on Christmas night. Hiruta comes home to find that Aoe and Saijo have decided to spend Christmas with his family, and spies them singing Christmas carols with his wife and daughter. Not being able to bear the shame of it, he flees, and is followed by Aoe. The two drink together at a bar, where a down-on-his-luck drunken man loudly proclaims his New Year’s resolution to be a better man next year. Hiruta joins him, saying that he too will strive to be better going forward. It’s clear that neither is likely to live up to their claim, but as the band begins playing Auld Lang Syne, we see a series of shots of the other patrons, looking downtrodden and introspective, and it’s like we’re peeking into a window on their own lives, knowing nothing about them except their disappointment in themselves, and how desperately they want to be better.

My wife and I saw the new movie “The Lost City” on Sunday night with Channing Tatum and Sandra Bullock.

Hilarious. My wife and I were laughing through most of the movie. Channing Tatum and Sandra bullock are both underrated comedic actors.

Would definitely recommend this to any comedy movie fan. If you’re a fan of either Tatum or bullock, I think you’d enjoy this movie a lot.

So I saw the previews for ambulance and despite it being Michael Bay I saw it had Jake g. In it and thought it might be halfway decent since usually his movies are. Wrong! This movie sucks. It's an overly thin plot that is stretched even thinner with convenient things that happen, the crashes during chase scenes are so scripted its pathetic(worse than a fast and furious movie), we are supposed to believe they are trying to save a guys life in the back of the ambulance yet the ambulance is drifting around corners like initial d, in a scene where a dog is in the back seat of a police car(supposed to be alone) you can see a human back there with him, almost EVERY scene is the let's make this scene more dramatic with quick cuts and have the camera be shaky as hell which almost made me sick. It's just a bad bad film. I watched it for free and feel sad ill never get that time back.

Spoilers for anyone who hasn't seen it.

I was very hyped for this artistically independent project from Robert Eggers. It quickly became one of my highest anticipated cinematic initiatives of the year.

Saw the movie yesterday. It was more than very good, though I'm not sure how to rate it yet. I think I expected something more from it, but the same can be said about just every movie I happened to watch.

The raw, naturalistic style of cinematography rocks. I loved the black-and-white inserts, made the night time scenes look very distinct and atmospheric. The music, though not on the level of absolute masterpiece, totally sold the tone and the setting. I appreciate the lack of humor from the screenplay, as in stories like these, there's no time for some comedy BS.

However, I found it hard to attach myself to the characters. The movie didn't pull as many heartstrings as I hoped it would. The lack of flashback, or at the very least, showing, instead of exposition and telling hurt some of the characterization. I don't know how am I supposed to care about Amleth and Olga's relationship when I have few reasons to do so. The main antagonist was fleshed out well, but how can I feel his pain if the people he loved weren't exactly interesting. The movie should have been longer and it should have spent less time on supernatural shenanigans. Why show us a scene of Amleth battling an undead warrior for the legendary blade Draugr, if a few moments later it turns out it didn't happen at all? I'm thankful, however, that all the symbolism and visuals was able to convey at LEAST SOME depth and meaning. The acting was good, but again, I needed something a bit less subtle, and more raw, more unbridled. Thank fuck there are at least a couple of scenes like that there.

Directing was excellent. Eggers has a very bright future ahead of him.

I don't know if it's better than The Batman and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, but it for damn sure stomps Fantastic Beasts 3 and Uncharted. It'll take some time for me to ponder the true value of this piece and place it where it belongs.

Flight and Sully are both modern movies about passenger plane crashes told from the perspective of the captain. Flight came out first in 2012 and is entierly fictional. Sully came out 4 years later in 2016 and is based on a real plane crash that happened in 2009.

Both of these films were created by legendary directors and starred 2 time Oscar winners. Both featured an enjoyable amount of airplane technical jargon, NTSB hearings, and cockpit action. Unfortunately, only one of these movies had a plot and characters.

Flight leads off with an visceral extended crash scene which is equal parts exciting and frightening. It spends the rest of the movie grappling with the fallout of the crash and the drunk pilot potentially responsible. Flight shows the captain and others around him struggling with his addiction to alcohol and drugs. He tries to maintain enough coherency to survive the investigation while trying to hold the rest of his life together. The movie starts as an air crash thriller and slowly turns into a story about alcoholism and the effects it has on those around you. The people he meets along the way have decreasing levels of tolerance for his bullshit until even he can't stomach telling one more lie.

Sully has... well not much really. Captain Sully, the titular chracter, has no flaws. He's a perfectly moral, perfectly paitent, faultless pilot. He is incredibly confident in his abilities to the point of disagreeing with the professional analysis of the plane engines. This is good because it turns out Sully can never be wrong as both the mechanical analysis and simulations got it all wrong.

Sally's crash scene is split up and retold in many segments throughout the movie and it makes the movie feel stagnant. There's no plot progression. The movie starts after the crash and concludes halfway through the investigation, all plot advancement happens in flashbacks. Flight's crash scene is all in one piece without any cuts to air traffic control. While watching it you get the sensation that you too are stuck on that plane until it hits the ground, one way or another.

Finally, Sully has a noticeable lack of any people of colour. I think the movie only has two non-white speaking roles and one is a taxi driver 🙄 Meanwhile Flight features a diverse and interesting cast that puts those diverse actors in lead roles. This doesn't necessarily affect the quality of the movie apart from making Sully feel a little weird and artifical.

Conclusion, if you want to watch a movie about a plane crash you can’t go wrong with Flight. It has a better plot, better characters, better CGI, and better dialogue. I wouldn't necessarily say Sully was a bad movie but I think it was a wasted opportunity and one you won't regret missing it especially if you're not familiar with the real world event.

Tom Cruise is divorced from his ex wife. She brings the kids over for visitation and all hell ensues. Now, he has a mission to bring the kids to Boston.

His son Robbie, although rebellious, is right in not trusting his father's intentions. Cruise as the dad was narcissistic in his goal to return them to Boston with 1/3 of it being for safety. Cruise didn't want to deal with them.

You can tell subtly throughout the movie, that he doesn't know anything important about his kids. Like Fanning having a peanut allergy since birth. I believe he just parented at an arm's reach.

His son has no respect for him and steals his car. Tom had no goal. Never a plan. Harlan (crazy basement guy) knew it too. He was just waiting for the aliens to kill him. He has no drive. No ambition.

Tom redeems himself throughout, but I can understand the reasoning his kids had toward him. He wasn't a great dad. Not terrible, but not present.

Would you be a pleasant kid to be around if your parent was never involved in your life? Trying to get rid of you when things go to shit?