Change Your Image
m1_pierogi
Reviews
Nuovo Cinema Paradiso (1988)
Truly cinema paradise
I will start by saying that this is now one of my favourite films, and you will quickly find out why.
Before I say anything: do not be deterred by the long runtime. The pacing is done so well that you will not feel it at all.
It isn't as much how the film is made (even though that is still amazing), but what it is about, which I'd say is especially these things: life in general, how a love for something can bring about great dedication, and of course, traditional cinema. While this might be quite cliché, it does bring about a feeling for 'simpler' times, although only really at the start when Toto is a young boy and a little less when he is a teenager. In fact, this illusion is shattered when Toto returns for Alfredo's funeral - he says that he doesn't recognise anyone or anything and has experienced life to be hard and complicated, like Alfredo told him. His initial dream as a boy was to work the projector, but as he grows up, he realises he can do a lot more - and he does.
Even the most minor of characters are well written. Each scene with the cinema is amazingly lively, punctuated by an interesting action done by some unnamed member of the village: the man who falls asleep with his mouth agape, the man who spits onto the people below him from the balcony, the man who went to see the film while leaving his sick wife in bed. With just one simple action, they are each given more life than if the camera were to pan to a variety of people simply watching the films, even if they were to each have a unique look on their faces. These scenes also add some excellent comedy that even seems realistic. No doubt, after years of being spat on, the men below would retort with what is at its nicest a chocolate mousse to the face. Of course, these kinds of action would be viewed as hooliganism if done in a cinema today, but this liveliness from all of the audience makes every one of these scenes enjoyable. The two biggest characters are Toto and his mentor Alfredo. Even though we know Alfredo isn't the smartest of people, he is kind and passionate when teaching Toto how to operate the projector. This is returned by Toto when he helps Alfredo as a teenager, but now he has also outgrown his status as a student, and is now more like a friend, while Alfredo is more like a father too.
This film is also emotionally moving. You could go from scenes of deep sadness to intense comedy and your facial muscles feel compelled to move as if controlled by external strings. This is done throughout, although near the end there is more of a melancholy feeling, with nostalgia scattered in.
Just to make this a fair review, I will include some things that were flaws. The clearest of these is the differences between the actors/actresses playing Toto and his mother. I'd say the best of the ones playing Toto was Salvatore Cascio as child Toto, he was incredibly skilled for his age. Another is a lack of focus on Toto's sister, who doesn't do much except hang around in a few frames and speak a few words even though she should have been much more influential in Toto's life. Arguably, this would have added extra runtime and maybe thrown off the pacing, but that's just something I noticed.
Overall, this is a wonderful film that is emotionally moving, well made and certainly makes you think about life, and what you want to dedicate yourself to. I'm sure plenty of us could do with someone like Alfredo, or even just his advice.
Soleil rouge (1971)
East meets West in multinational production
If this film were made without the samurai Kuroda Jubei played by Toshiro Mifune, it would be just another fairly forgettable western made with the same cookie-cutter that produced many others. It would still retain some good elements: the character development of Link (Charles Bronson) was especially good along with the characterisation of the antagonist Gauche (Alain Delon). I'd also say the dialogue was fairly good.
But it is the eastern element that makes this film unique (until Shanghai Noon apparently). Link's unwilling alliance could have just been made with some sheriff or a rival gang, but making him have to team up with part of the Japanese ambassador's escort adds an extra, much welcome layer. Not only the differing objectives, but also the culture clash leads us to be constantly expecting Link to try to get away from Kuroda to pursue the valuable stash of gold. Although Kuroda is clearly a skilled warrior, he soon finds himself having to adapt to the dishonourable desperados of the American west, each of whom carry a revolver or two. Meanwhile, Link also adapts to the concept of honour. At the beginning, he is a murderer and a thief who only really cares about how much money he can get for himself. Throughout almost the whole film he uses every method he can to coerce Kuroda into allowing Gauche to live long enough so he can get the gold. However, he later changes his mind and chooses the honourable decision. Neither character is perfect at any point in the story, making their development even better.
Now onto some of the negative parts. The music is a little all over the place - maybe trying too hard to emulate some of the success of The Good the Bad and the Ugly. There are also many stereotypes that are difficult to not see. This especially befalls the Comanche, who seem your typical Red Indians meant to be used as nameless, easy targets for the heroes and to prevent the audience from falling asleep, because, y'know, there's a battle sequence. Do they add something to the plot? I'd argue yes. Were they portrayed poorly? For sure. The other characters (in fact all of the main ones) are also if not stereotypes then clichés. The outlaw who's clever and an expert with a gun, the antagonist who is just as good with a gun but also cunning has a gang to call upon, the stoic and honourable samurai stuck in his ways. I'd also say there's some general inattention to smaller details - most notably the power lines visible right at the end, and choosing to shoot the rope instead of cutting it.
Overall, this is a fun film with a cool concept that hits most of the right notes. Don't expect to get anything too deep out of it though, it's still a fairly normal western.
Masters of the Air (2024)
Band of Brothers... in the sky?
Overall, this series is good. Certainly not the best the Spielberg/Hanks duo have made, but in general it is good. You can easily watch it and enjoy it - be shocked and horrified at the terrible brutality of war, but from a new angle (although occasionally the familiar one of the ground).
Sadly, scrutinising it quickly reveals some problems. Apart from Buck, Bucky, Crosby, and Rosenthal I didn't really find myself able to care much for any of the other characters. Their arcs simply weren't fleshed out enough, even if they died early on. Two come to mind: the other navigator Crosby was friends with and the pilot Buck was friends with, but I cannot remember their names. Is that the nature of war at play or poor character development?
There are also several subplots that are left loose, which isn't something that should be happening in a big budget series (writers' strike must have hit hard). Crosby's relationship with the... Subaltern (can't remember her name either!) which ends because she is part of SOE and is sent to France to help the resistance. We know this because we are shown a scene where she is in France helping the resistance, but then nothing else. It is the same on Crosby's side. Every time Rosenthal brought up his wife, Crosby would attribute his lack joy of seeing her to how the war has affected him, but apparently his affair hasn't. Another concerns the Tuskegee airmen, who seem inserted into the series to hit the diversity quota, because their subplot is left hanging as well. Sure they get rescued with all the other POWs, but then we don't hear from them until we are told about what happened to them after the war. The series could have benefitted from expanding on their story, but it wouldn't have really suffered from a lack of it, allowing more screentime to characters we already know a bit.
There is also the problem of how the British airmen are portrayed, but other reviews have already pointed this out. However, I would also like to point out that the Poles could have been better portrayed too. Despite being some of the best pilots, all we get is one person from the government in exile who is a bit sad (at least that's the impression I got) her pilot husband died. As you might have gathered, this series was made with an American audience heavily in mind.
Finally, the end. Comparing this to Band of Brothers is like trying to compare the achievements of a great king's heir to the king. And this is most evident in the end. The end of Band of Brothers felt much more cathartic and you were able to revel in it. In Masters of the Air, it seems over too quickly. War's over, let's show some partying because the people are happy, and then it ends. We don't get a view from the Eagle's Nest onto the beautiful hillsides of the Alps, it just ends.
Now before you think I have tried to pick every bone I could with this series, let me assure you that I enjoyed it, and you will probably enjoy it too. The crew simply dropped the ball on a fair few occasions which slightly worsens the viewing experience. However, there is some excellent acting and visuals, and it generally feels authentic. They also managed to prevent the bombing missions from feeling repetitive, which was something I feared would happen. Much like I said at the start, good, but certainly could be improved.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
I seem to have too many questions about this film
I must be among the many unintellectuals who can't appreciate the "genius" of this "masterpiece" of a film (like many other people). Despite science-fiction being one of my favourite genres and me enjoying science in general, this film left me puzzled, slightly dazed, and for sure confused.
I will say that I probably went into this film wrong. The day I saw it I wasn't feeling very well, and honestly I expected something different. For the most part I had avoided spoilers (not that you need to worry about that) but I assumed it would be a story highlighting the dangers of AI (very relevant in the mid-2020s) where the humans overcome the computer's superior logic while in one of the most hostile of environments where help is, at best, months away and the vulnerable meatbags are stuck inside a small metal tube: outer space. In fact, 2001 is the opposite. The plot is minimal - merely enough to serve as a vehicle for its true purpose: exploring human evolution, whether God exists, what form He might take and how He would communicate with us (other than the prophets apparently). At least, this is what I think it is. Maybe the intellectuals will correct me.
There are, of course, of few issues with this film (if that hasn't been clear already). Like I said before, the plot is lighter than a feather, and the most interesting character is HAL, who is actually quite interesting, but, alas, the films does not explore him in desirable detail. No other character has an arc or really any progression. They give some actors salaries and the audience something more familiar than apes. There are also a few (potentially glaring) plot holes. Firstly, while the symbolism of the first weapon (the bone club) becoming the ultimate weapon (the nuclear missile launcher parked in orbit) is excellent, I had to read this IMDb page to find that out. Also, if the Americans and Soviets are cooperating in space, and corporations feel comfortable enough to offer civilian travel to the Moon and back, why do they have weapons of mass destruction pointed at each other when space is considered off-limits for combat? Another (or rather several) surround HAL. Who decided he was allowed to be omnipresent and essentially omnipotent on a spaceship where human lives could be at stake? How come he had the capability to even consider, let alone, go through with murder? Why is he considered infallible when decades of human experience with machines tells us that any machine can fail? Although, perhaps, I am walking straight when the path is crooked.
Overall, I think this film is an interesting concept and there is no denying that it was revolutionary and defining. Its visual effects were ahead of its time and it introduced a new way of considering what cinema could be capable of. However, I must simply not
be the target audience. Dune (2021) awed me more (some might say this is an unfair comparison), and films like The Pianist (2002) and Interstellar (2014) gave me more food for thought on the human condition. I'll try not to argue with people who acclaim this as the best work of science-fiction ever, but please don't be so snobbish about it.