Jordy

VIP

8

I watched this one a couple of times when I was college, it's pretty useful for any econ student. It's certainly more informative and useful than The Big Short, that's for sure. However, you can feel there's this awkward tension between the informative documentary on the one hand and the angry hit piece towards the power of Wall Street on the other. The latter might be more artistically interesting, but it's not hard to pick up on instances where the editing is manipulative or falls short (cutting away before people provide a proper answer; the constant '... refused to answer' title cards; cheap shots towards Wall Street culture). If I wanted to see a film about the infamous use of cocaine and strippers, I'd much rather watch The Wolf of Wallstreet. On top of that, the presentation is noticeably weak. Visually it's one of the most uninspired documentaries I've seen, the narration is constantly holding your hand as a viewer (which I understand when it comes to the more technical stuff, but it gets a little ridiculous) and the use of the score feels cheap and obvious. It clearly wants to shock you, but because it tries too hard the achieved effect feels like less than what it could've been.

4.5/10

Captures the vibe of the artist really well and it paints an effective picture of what drove him to make his art. However, I think it’s kind of a mess. It can’t seem to stay and focus on a topic, the editing of this thing is all over the place. There’s a general chronological structure but it deviates with interludes, performances, experimental passages or side topics whenever it feels like it. On top of that I have no idea what it’s trying to communicate visually half of the time, Morgen did a much better job with that during Cobain: Montage of Heck. For a movie about his artistry, its exploration of the concepts and alter egos found in his music is a bit thin. There’s also not nearly enough attention paid to his career resurgence in the 90s (or his final album, for that matter). So, I guess it works decently as a celebration of Bowie, but the way it’s handled here feels shallow and incomplete. It’s more experimental than a typical rockstar biopic but it falls into the same traps of what makes a lot of those films uninteresting. Give me a critical perspective on his music/career, an in-depth, emotional look into his personal life, some thoughts about his musical/intellectual contributions, etc.. With all of its flashy, kaleidoscopic imagery and music it certainly feels like I’ve been on a journey, but nothing about it registered to me as memorable.

4.5/10

Good to see De Niro have fun, it probably felt refreshing back in the 80s. The problem is that nothing else about this stands out to me. The concept is watered down and derivative, the characters and performances are decent but the script doesn’t fully capitalize on it by not putting these people in the most interesting situations, lots of milquetoast comedy, visually it’s completely run of the mill and the score is straight up bad (incredibly corny use of instrumentation that’s constantly telling viewers how to feel in the cheapest way). The experience of watching it felt so passive to me; it’s watchable but it seems so afraid to push any buttons. There are so many buddy cop films from around this time period which I find more exciting (Lethal Weapon, Die Hard 3), by comparison this one seems like one of those movies that should’ve been forgotten by now. I didn’t care much for Planes, Trains and Automobiles either, so maybe I just stop caring whenever the focus is supposed to be on the comedy. I tend to struggle with mainstream comedies regardless, or maybe I’m really missing something here because it seems overrated as hell to me.

4.5/10

This is at its best when Morgen puts the viewer in Cobain's shoes. The second half of this documentary is excellent, there's very little handholding and I love how impressionistic/experimental it gets at points. It's so interesting to see the contrast between the biggest rockstar in the world who just released Nevermind and the shitty, depressing apartment he lived in. It certainly doesn't hold back either, you'll get to see his problematic side during that time. The home videos with Courtney, heroin use and death threats made to a music journalist are tough to watch. The presentation is fantastic; I loved the use of atmospheric animation, journal entries, magazine entries and Nirvana songs throughout the film (little odd to leave out his suicide note, however). You can tell they put a lot of thought into the visuals, even the footage recorded with 80s home recorders looks surprisingly polished. I wasn't as much into the first half, mostly because it's not as focussed on Kurt's perspective and therefore less interesting. I honestly could've done without most of the interviews, some of that stuff feels too sanitized. The picture that's painted of Nirvana's come-up in the music industry can come across as a little generic, it's the type of story we've seen in so many rock biopics. You need some of that in order to understand Kurt's character, but much like Nirvana's career, it only really gets going once Nevermind is released.

7/10

The MPAA is an interesting microcosm of the endless hypocrisy that can be found in American culture, and this documentary takes a radical stance against that. It's very thorough about the highly problematic -arguably fascist- antics of this organization, commenting on a variety of topics (sex vs violence; straight vs lgbt sex scenes; studio films being favoured over indies; a lack of media literacy and progressive values from its raters; the influence of special interest groups; the ridiculous appeal process; a total lack of critical self-reflection within the organization). Very informative and still relevant to this day, especially with American films becoming more edgeless and devoid of sex since the release of this documentary (which is not just due to the MPAA, but the film points out effectively how ratings used to be more lenient in the 70s compared to the 00s). Like Kirby Dick says at one point: judgement about edgy subject matter should be passed down to the parents, as the current MPAA system of indirect censorship coming from an anonymous board is completely irresponsible. This does lead to the biggest weak spot about this documentary, however, which are the interstitial bits about a P.I. firm exposing the people on the MPAA board in 2005. It wasn't nearly as interesting to watch and some of the editing felt petty, almost revealing these people as if they're exposing secret criminals. I also think there could've been more creativity in the filmmaking, as most of the presentation is fairly predictable (interviews; film clips; stock music). Overall, I'd recommend it. In my opinion this should be at the forefront of the censorship debate, instead of the ignorant complaining about 'wokeness' on social media.

6.5/10

Well, this sure tickled my interest. This investigative journalism doc plays out a lot like David Fincher-esque thriller, but it also finds the absurdity and humour in its own subject matter. The unfolding of new events is handled really well, much like the journalists you’re constantly guessing what’s going on. The answers that we get during the third act are very satisfying; when reading between the lines I think that the final conversation between David and the grandmother connects all of the dots that have been laid down in front of us. I also like that it takes its time to explore and inform about this fetish and the business behind it. It’s weird and bizarre, but pretty harmless all things considered. Technically, it’s well paced and shot, though on a few occasions I found the editing to be overdramatic. There are also some moments where the editing seems unsure what to show, so you get a few too many generic cityscape shots. These are minor complaints though, this is a memorable documentary with a unique tone that’s sure to shock, inform, entertain and horrify. Don’t look up too much before seeing it.

8/10

P.s.: There's a fascinating 20 minute follow-up to this documentary which can be found here: https://youtu.be/K88xF9mOUjc?si=F1VSvmwJKlje2zVe

For something that tries to be as dumb and meatheaded as possible, this is quite boring. There’s an art to making a good bad movie and filmmakers seem so clueless whenever these are attempted nowadays. Most of the people involved probably weren’t coked-up enough to make the end result entertaining, unlike when these were made in the 80s. Take Jake Gyllenhaal, he’s obviously a great actor but someone who’s way too introverted for this type of material. By comparison, Conor McGregor fits this movie like a glove and he’s easily the most entertaining part by playing the same persona we’ve become accustomed to over the years (even if the performance is obviously quite terrible). As far as I’m concerned, his introduction scene is the only memorable thing about the movie, it’s this moment where the movie very briefly finds the right tone. The rest of the film is surprisingly bland and tame. Sure, the throwaway characters, simple story and terrible dialogue were all a given, but even the set pieces aren’t memorable as they’re often poorly staged and lacking in viscera. Someone gets eaten by a crocodile and we don’t even get to see it, the background extras during the big bar fights look amateurish and the choreography/stuntwork (besides a decent final fight) is often way too dull. The 80s, GTA Vice City aesthetic that’s promised by the poster doesn’t show up, most of this film has no visual personality. Then there’s the music, which might just be the worst thing about all of this. Right from the opening scene we’re met with auditory vomit courtesy of a cameoing Post Malone, following that there are occasional musical interludes that don’t complement the vibe of the film and on top of that score is filled with the type of ‘badass’ guitar riffing found in car commercials. None of it works in harmony, and I don’t get who it’s targeting. Much like the rest of the film I needed more wild energy for it to work, as the overall experience feels too much like camp by committee.

2/10

Very Yorgos, he’s still flipping the rules of society on its head. Compared to his other films this one’s more focussed on sex and femininity, it’s almost like Barbie with a high arts degree. The plot even has this similar ‘discovering the horrors of the real world’ element to it, but with Lanthimos at the helm this obviously goes to more challenging, boundary pushing places than Barbie ever could. For me this is easily the funniest film of 2023, there are so many incredible zingers and moments of physical comedy that contrast very well with the dark subject matter. Its sense of humour is complemented by sharp editing and some exceptional performances. I’ve been critical of some of Ruffalo’s acting in the past (his MCU work tends to feel really phoned in to me), however this time he turns in some of his best work. Emma Stone, stripped from most of her natural charisma here, continuously finds ways to make you laugh through a look, the cadence in her voice or her posture. Bella’s arc throughout this film is massive and every beat felt earned to me. Visually I found this extremely inspired; the sets are so detailed, colourful and contain references to filmmakers such as Fritz Lang, Tim Burton and Wes Anderson. Stanley Kubrick is another filmmaker that keeps popping up as an influence throughout Yorgos’ filmography, and that’s no different here. The fish eye lenses, which to me stood out a little awkwardly during The Favourite, completely work for the wacky, fantastical world that Poor Things presents to us. The score still contains that off-kilter, oblique sound from Lanthimos’ previous work, but the instrumentation is much more distinct and unique this time around. Overall, it’s just a very complete, well realized vision that builds and even improves on the style of the filmmaker. Can’t wait to see where he goes next.

9/10

This will probably become more beloved than Dune for being a bigger, more action driven film. Personally I prefer the first film by a long shot, but there's a lot to like here. I loved Paul's new journey for this installment as it doesn't develop in the way you'd expect based on the ending of the first film. The themes of colonialism, false prophecies and religion reach a level of depth that cannot be found in other sci-fi/fantasy contemporaries like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars; this film certainly made me understand why this story is taken so seriously as a piece of literature. Despite the source material being so old, there's still something new and refreshing about it. You don't often see major Hollywood productions calling out religion as a manipulative force helping the people in power. On top of that this brilliantly subverts the concept of the hero's journey we've become accustomed to by everything that was in one way or another inspired by Dune. The acting is pretty great, Timothée does a great job at playing the transition Paul goes through. Despite his boyish looks I was sold on his performance as the leader of the Fremen. Rebecca Ferguson and Javier Bardem are also scene stealers. The visuals are once again mindblowing, in terms of set/costume design, cinematography and CGI this is as close to perfection as you could get to right now. The vision and scope of this movie are truly unmatched, which leads to some breathtaking sequences that I'll remember for a while (sandworm ride; the black/white arena fight; knife fight during the third act).

However, for all the praise I have for Dune: Part 2, I think Denis is being uncharacteristically sloppy with this film. First of all, Bautista and Butler feel like they're ripped from a different franchise altogether. Their over the top, cartoonish performances are more suited for something like Mad Max than the nuanced world of Dune. The bigger cracks start to appear when you look at the writing. The brief moments where the movie pokes fun at religious zealots through Javier Bardem's character, while funny, probably won't age very well. Like the first movie, it has a tendency to rely too much on exposition and handholding, a problem which might be worse here. I feel like a lot of the subtlety is lost in order to make the movie more normie proof, and that's quite annoying for a movie with artistic ambitions like this one. For example, there's this scene where Léa Seydoux seduces Austin Butler's character, and everything you need to know as a viewer is communicated through Butler's performance. Cut to the next scene, where Seydoux is all but looking at the camera saying "he's a psychopath, he's violent, he wants power, etc.". I just feel like compared to Villeneuve's precise work on Blade Runner 2049, he's consciously dumbing it down here. It's understandable and somewhat excusable for a complex story like Dune, but he occasionally takes it too far for my liking. Then there's the love story subplot between Chani and Paul, which almost entirely misses the mark for me. It feels rushed, there's no chemistry between the actors and some of the lines are painfully cheesy. Because of that, the emotional gutpunch their story eventually reaches during the third act did little for me. Finally, I'm a little dissatisfied with the use of sound. I loved the otherworldly score Zimmer came up with for the first Dune, however this film is so ridiculously bombastic and low-end heavy that it starts to feel like a parody of his work with Christopher Nolan. For the final action beat of the film Villeneuve cuts out the film's score, and it becomes all the more satisfying for it.

Overall, I recommend this film, however maybe temper those expectations if you're expecting a masterpiece. There's a lot to admire, but it's flawed.

6.5/10

This could've potentially been a really interesting drama, but the end result feels more like Terrence Malick worship made by someone who doesn't quite understand why those movies work. Throughout the film I get the feeling that Penn wants us to be on the side of the protagonist, which doesn't quite work when the character is written like a conceited undergrad stoner who just read some Karl Marx for the first time. We don't get a sense of the mental/physical struggle the character goes through, instead the tone has this feel-good, folksy quality showing some of the most beautiful landscapes that can be found in the US. His illegal actions are quickly brushed over, it doesn't delve into the sacrifices he's made, nor do I get enough of a sense about the psychological effect his decisions have on his family (every time it cuts back to his family with the narration by Jena Malone it feels quite pointless). The movie looks gorgeous, the grain and colour grade have a strong 70s feel to it. The songs by Eddie Vedder are also brilliant, I prefer this to a lot of his work with Pearl Jam. The problem is that every time Penn wants to blow our mind with the visuals or sonics, it misses the mark for me as there's no emotional weight coming from the film. Is it just meant to be a piece of adventure pulp, then? I don't think so, not with the 'happiness is only real when shared' note that Penn decides to leave the film on; a note that doesn't support much of the movie preceding it. The end result is this awkward, manipulative piece of cinema that at best could be described as a middlebrow crowdpleaser, but occasionaly pretends to be something more. No wonder IMDB loves it so much.

4/10

My girlfriend's a Taylor fan, she enjoyed this a little more than me. For a little bit of background: I've never been that into her music until she released the Folkmore and Evermore records during quarantine. Since then I've gone back into her catalogue and found some other material I liked. The problem for me is that growing up I found a lot of her bigger radio singles excruciatingly bland or even annoying, an opinion that hasn't changed all that much over the years. Obviously she can't omit those songs during a concert like this, so the quality here ranges from excellent to Look What You Made Me Do. I'd say I enjoyed about 1/3rd of the songs, with the segments from the aforementioned albums easily being the strongest. It's also the only parts where I found the staging and visuals artistically compelling, because despite having seemingly unlimited resources at her disposal, I found the other choices of decor too bland. She often relies on what I assume are recreations of her most famous music videos, which doesn't quite speak to the imagination. Unfortunately that means I got bored through a lot of the more mediocre songs, even despite the genuine joy and relatability Swift has a performer. Technically, I have no complaints. The cinematography and editing are great (despite some occasional reaction shots from the audience, which always tends to feel phony to me) and the sound mix is very well balanced. Still, I wouldn't recommend this to anyone besides the hardcore Swifties, because a casual listener is unlikely to find a newfound appreciation of her music here.

4.5/10

There’s this conversation about how the food they serve in this restaurant is simple, unpretentious yet tasteful. This film has a similar punk ethos. It’s a very simple exploration of why working in the hospitality industry is a nightmare, a pressure cooker thriller in the same vein as a film like Uncut Gems (or The Bear, who took this idea for their tv show). For a film that’s only 94 minutes we get a pretty detailed picture. Dumb customers, colleagues who get on each other’s nerves, unexpected guests & orders, flawed characters; it’s all in here and not always executed in the most expected way. With the note it decides to leave on I interpret the film as being a critique of how the industry currently operates, which the rest of the film builds a solid argument for. The third act in particular is some of the finest drama I’ve seen in a while (great acting from everyone involved). Sometimes, however, the portrayal of characters (e.g. the influencers) or dramatic escalation leading up to that point can feel a little forced or inauthentic. There’s obviously meant to be a history between these characters we never got to see, so I can look past some of it. Stylistically, I think it pulls off the illusion of using a single take perfectly. I also liked the subtle use of Dutch angles and shaky cam as things got more stressful. Maybe they could’ve also played around more with making the lighting harsher as the film went along, though that might be impossible given how much the camera moves around. Overall, I really enjoyed this and I’d recommend it to fans of the aforementioned film and tv show.

7.5/10

Obviously a lot better than most music biopics because of the arthouse approach. The film leaves much more room to interpret for the viewer (having some prior knowledge of artists like The Velvet Underground, David Bowie and the punk scene certainly helps) and its main characters can be challenging to relate to. It thankfully doesn't try to glamorize the protagonist, it would've been the wrong choice for someone like Ian Curtis. I've always been drawn to Joy Division's music because of his poetry, and the character portrait we get here re-contextualizes a lot of their music for me. The film's ability to place the viewer in his head is easily the best thing about it. Corbijn's background in photography helps with capturing an isolating, grey atmosphere, he's very aware of how to place elements within the frame. Sam Riley's performance contains all the right elements (the youthful innocent look; the alienlike dancing; the voice; the depressing attitude without going overboard) and because of all those aspects the film packs a serious punch during the third act, even if you know what's coming. It's not perfect, you'll still find a couple of those typical music biopic tropes here (cheating plotline; 'event X in the singer's life leads to song Y' is used multiple times) and occasionally the introduction of new plot elements can feel somewhat haphazard, but I do recommend it for sure. Would it stand out as much if you'd remove the context of the music? I'm honestly not sure. I think there are more compelling cinematic portraits of men dealing with similar issues as Ian Curtis, so maybe don't watch it if you don't care about Joy Division as a band.

7/10

Before my screening there was a special message from Ziggy Marley ensuring the movie would be true to life because he attached himself as a producer to this project. If that's true, then Bob Marley probably doesn't deserve his own film. What I see here is another sanitized, bland Hollywood biopic, it's basically Walk Hard Part 7 at this point. I think we have to come to terms with Straight Outta Compton being the last great music biopic for a while, because the success of Bohemian Rhapsody has been an absolute travesty for this genre. This is another case of a movie that's strongly lacking in focus, character development, structure and above all authenticity. Where to even begin? The pathetic attempts at abstract imagery, the comical depiction of the UK punk scene, the obligatory success montage, the usual 'we improvised this song on the spot and it turned out to be a classic' scene, the way it quickly brushes over the more complicated aspects of Marley's personality; it's all so phony. I couldn't even tell you what the movie is about as a whole. New plot developments are introduced very awkwardly (political situation in Jamaica; shooting; cancer) only to be pushed to the side five minutes later. Because of that there's no real climax, dramatic build or pay-off. Still, there are a couple of positives. It's passable from a technical perspective, however for a movie about Jamaican reggae it should've been stronger on psychedelic vibes. The music is obviously a major highlight, and I thought Ben-Adir's vocals blended very seamlessly with Marley's. It's his performance combined with the scene stealing Lashana Lynch that keep the movie watchable, but none of that changes I think this is a massive waste of time.

3.5/10

This is continuously fighting to not pigeonhole itself into the tropes of Hollywood biopics and sports movies. It often doesn't succeed, but the movie still somehow really works. You can tell Zac Efron's very eager to prove himself as a dramatic actor, and he delivers some of his finest work here. Jeremy Allen White and Holt McCallany are also excellent, a lot of the heavy dramatic weight feels earned because all of the characters and performances are so good. It's a tough watch, but one that's sure to resonate. The movie is at its best when focussing on the personal lives of these characters, with the parental relationship often reminding me of King Richard. This movie pushes that dynamic to a far more challenging and emotional place than that film was willing to go, so that's great. The technical filmmaking is pretty decent. I liked the cinematography choices but due to the lack of a refreshing vision it doesn't breathe new life into the more formulaic aspects of the film. The uninspired score doesn't help either, all of the dramatic cues have those typical sad piano chords and generic strings. Overall, this easily clears a lot of the Best Picture nominees thanks to making a stronger emotional impact, but there's a lot of stuff that could've been better.

6.5/10

Awful, another overrated pop culture artifact from the 80s. Sometimes I appreciate simplicity in movies, but this is so watered down and basic that I can’t imagine getting a lot out this even if I were the target demographic. Honestly, how did this leave such a long lasting cultural mark? It’s predictable fluff without any visual creativity or genuine artistry. I grew up with some of Pixar’s best stuff, the 90s Disney renaissance and Harry Potter, next to those this feels like it was written by a child. There’s zero complexity allowed with the story or characters (literally everyone is written like a stereotype), which to me feels phony and makes it impossible to connect in any significant way (though I understand why someone else might find it pure instead). The cheesy 80s production style certainly doesn’t help either, for example the AOR soundtrack does this movie no favors as the genre has fallen out of favor over the years. Nevertheless, I enjoyed some of the charming interactions between Daniel and Mr. Miyagi, and it’s certainly impressive that Ralph Macchio continuously holds his own as an actor throughout. It’s just not enough to make me ever want to see this again, because everything this tries to do is done more interestingly by other 80s films. Give me John Hughes over this any day of the week.

3/10