MetalNickM Reviews

The Devil's Miner (2005)

Basilio - Protagonist Behind Film - Suffered Accident And There Is A Fundraiser To Help Him (Please Read)

[8/10 · 5 January 2024]

I wanted to use this review space as an opportunity to inform people about what is currently going on with this documentary's protagonist, Basilio Vargas, and the fundraiser I have going for him right now. I have become friends with Basilio Vargas through social media and he is actually quite a lovely human being. Unfortunately, Basilio suffered a major accident this past November (2023) on his birthday and fell 170 feet (50 meters) down a mineshaft. He fractured his skull, clavicle, and knee; as a result, he will not be able to work for the next six months. This will result in Basilio not being able to have any income to support his wife and three year old daughter. I have started raising money through GoFundMe and sending it to Basilio:. Please look it up on Google "Rising from the Fall Basilio Vargas GoFundMe". I hope you will all join in helping Basilio with a donation and/or spreading the word about this GoFundMe!

Other than that, I can note that the mother is still alive and that both brothers are still miners. Basilio unfortunately struggles with silicosis. Basilio is also 18 months away from being able to complete a university education he had to put on hold during COVID.

Women Talking (2022)

If You're Going To Preach To The Choir, You Must Also Seek To Surprise Them -- Predictable And Ultimately Boring Even For Sympathetic Viewers

[4/10 · 19 February 2023]

I feel that this movie has many incredibly valid points that needs to be heard, but I feel that it is preaching to the choir of people who are in alignment with the current zeitgeist about the liberation of women from oppressive structures. This majority of this movie are women living in a religious community in isolation engaging in a serious discussion about if they should upend their lives to resist injustice. While in their discussions, there are many difficulties that range from the personal to the religious that prevents the women from coming to a consensus as fast. However, a huge part of the problem is that the entire discussion seems rather didactic and almost in a way insulting to the audience's intelligence as it has one character conveniently creating charts of pros and cons for each choice. To explicitly list the pros and cons comes off like you are sitting in high school English class and thus it feels didactic. These women are in a discussion, but you feel that due to the current zeitgeist, this movie was eventually going to have a predictable resolution of these women agreeing to leave. For those who were in university, it feels like this is trying to take the form of an interesting Socratic seminar, but the problem is that the women are circling around the surface rather than digging deeper and becoming truly enlightening. The community of inquiry ultimately becomes an act of eventual affirmation.

When the women do leave, there is a sense of relief because this film does position you from the onset to want them to leave and you do feel relief that they agree with you. Yet, this does not feel it is surprising. In a way, the film guides the viewer from the onset into projecting their desires for the women to leave and the film ultimately affirms the projections. I think that this film says more about the writer and directors' feminist ideas that they project onto the characters than it does about what those women might actually feel as feminism in that period and context. While we are certainly quick to judge these women, it is sort of disturbing in a way because when one thinks about the scope of the cinema, it is the writers who ultimately decide these womens' fates We must quick to acknowledge the automaticity of our own feelings as hegemonic because the kind of feminism that we desire for the characters of this film might actually not be the one they want since these women do not reach a truly sublime context where they realize that their religion is actually an apparatus for oppression. For instance, many liberal feminists want to "liberate" the women of the Middle East by telling them to be radical and remove their burkas, but the reality is much different as they actually enjoy them and do not feel them as oppressive. This film does not even try to remotely challenge that we sleepwalk with our ideas about liberation that we project as the spectator who is far removed from the situation and the implications of its identities and ideologies. The way in how we as the spectators want the women to perform the "body politic" ultimately becomes as fascist as the oppression they seek to run away from. This film presents itself as a radical cinematic text, but in reality, the internal contradictions lead to an inherently reactionary cinematic text. In a way, I respect the ambiguous ending because it does not inform you if the women are going to have a better future and declines to be optimistic or pessimistic, but they are ultimately in charge of their own destiny in a very existentialist way where your actions from free will borne your fate. Yet, the ambiguity of the ending seems as if it was an easy way to wash the writers' hands of the complications that will arise from their decisions, which is also a very existentialist notion.

The problem is that it seems to go tackling many of the issues between the binaries that dictate western culture (Violence vs pacifism, leaving vs staying, acceptance vs ostracization, freedom vs oppression, and religious morality vs secular morality), but it does not attempt to show their contradictions in a radical way that deconstructs them. This is not a radical text when it truly needs to be in order to transcend its ordinary and trite themes. Instead, the women work toward typical solutions that will still place them in a recirculated position within the power structures. The tension between religion and the tolerance of suffering is not fully explored like it could be because despite the fact that they have to overcome their religious objections for their radical act of leaving, religion will still oppress them in other ways in the future as they submit to an obviously patriarchal society. While there is a male character that is entirely sympathetic to their plight, he is almost emasculated by the women and at points forced to be silent. If you are somebody who is trying to fight for true equality, you want there to be an equality of the genders. While women should be the only one who get to talk about their pain, there ultimately needs to be a dialogue. The women putting themselves in a position of authority over the lone male reinforces the same power structures that the women claim they are trying to avoid. We see the males exclusively through the dialogue that puts us through seeing men through the female gaze rejecting the male gaze, but I would be more interested in seeing if there was a little bit more of an obstacle in the resistance. They were so scared of one of the men seeing them, but this threat is not fully realized and it would have been interesting to see the male vs. Female dynamics. Also, in the post-structuralist sense, when these women talk about words such as "freedom", one must realize that this comes from uneducated women who do not realize that the parameters of their conversations come from beliefs about the definitions of the words that come from common consensus from the power structures. Thus, the women can only be guided insofar as they understand these words in their narrow world view that men have allowed; thus, the ability to define words through negotiating their differences to other idealized states becomes incredibly difficult and thus limiting since everything is "Other". As I stated, when these women talk about "freedom" that they will receive from leaving, there will be no freedom from oppressive patriarchy or perhaps poverty. By the ending being so ambiguous, the writers can conveniently ignore these complicated realities that would have given the film the emotional charge that it required to become decent. A subtext that teases itself does not automatically lead to a good movie. The limitations of the language that the women use in order to explore their options is truly a missed opportunity because their reality is truly filtered. It is these precise missed opportunities that prevent the movie from being interesting and thus procuring a higher rating.

The movie so so short, but it feels long; yet, the movie being short forces a cursory look over complex issues that would be more interesting if explored in depth. By doing so, this movie is not going to challenge any of the people who are going to watch this film. I say this because this an arthouse film that is not going to be viewed by the mainstream, so the majority of the people who watch it are going to most likely be in line with the film's vision. While these people are in the audience, I believe that it should be the film's obligation to challenge their beliefs rather than affirming them. The ending indicates that the path to liberation is a "path" and that there is no end point, but the points of the movie do not have the same ambiguity. The acting is great. However, throughout the endless weeds in the beautiful cinematography of the location, you are struggling to find any ability to get through the movie as I feel that everything I believe has not been thoroughly uprooted and challenged. Yet, in this day and age, the act of leaving does not feel entirely radical as it might have in the 1950s, which is a truly uphill battle since movies are a historic medium where we feel most innovations have already been made. This is what ultimately makes the film a boring watch. Also, the setting and the identity of the women will also make it difficult for most people to truly connect with these women because while it does show that feminist issues can transcend space and time, using historical religious settings that seem so different is not the best way to preach the message that this film is trying to preach. As I noted earlier, it also leads us to generalized conclusions as if the prescription for the ills of women is somehow universal and immediately good. If you preach to the choir, you must seek to surprise and displace that choir or otherwise you will become a forgettable blip in movie history. You can tell this film has a great purpose that should be lauded, but I think there are just so much failures in the execution that it muddies the message. This is coming from someone who agrees with the messaging of the film.

Elvis (2022)

Only Okay - Thank You Very Much

[6/10 · 11 February 2023]

I think that this is a good film that was gliding on the precipice of being a great film, but it never quite manages to surpass its own limitations. Narratively speaking, I found the first third of the film and the last third of the film to be the most impactful. However, toward the middle, it begins to lose its momentum and lose its meaningful nexus.

The cinematography is quite frenetic and there is just such a dizzying feeling to the film. It is very fast paced and it feels like there is something going on when nothing is going on. You also have the constant voiceover narration of Colonel Tom Parker, which I think was masterfully played by Tom Hanks as this egomaniacal psychopath who basically pushes Elvis's death drive. You kind of explore that complex relationship in art between the actual artist and the man behind the business. Clearly, the man behind the business, Colonel Tom Parker, has some clear self esteem-issues and lives vicariously through Elvis Presley. When Elvis has success, clearly this man feels that he is a very successful man. It's a film about the excesses of fame and how Colonel Tom Parker keeps pushing Elvis Presley beyond the human limits in order to keep feeling that thrill. Colonel Tom Parker, is he really a talented man? He does not get the same thrill that Elvis gets from the stage and there is maybe some sort of secret resentment. I think there is a lot you can explore from this angle.

The historical aspect about how Elvis is a cultural icon who revolutionized American culture is also done quite masterfully. You see those shaking hips and the conservative rage that boils. It all leads to that chaotic confrontational scene in the stadium. It really provides an interesting window into American culture. In fact, I was speaking with one of my friends who lives in Bolivia who just so happened to see the first third of the film and he even said he learned a lot about the way America used to be in the mid 20th century. I certainly have to say that is very educational even if things might have been a little exaggerated for theatrical effect. Clearly, this film was created for a 21st century artist. Elvis has been dead for 50 years at this point and a lot of the younger audience might not understand how revolutionary he was. How could Elvis be made to become interesting for a young 21st century audience? With this filmmaking style. While it might sacrifice the truth for theatricality, it might make Elvis interesting to a bunch of people who might have not have been able to connect with him otherwise.

The cinematography while quite artsy and innovative is a double edged sword. I can honestly respect the artistic intent of the beginning sequence where Elvis discovers his musical influences, but the shot rhythm is a little bit too fast-paced because it's essentially a new shot every second. On top of that, the audio from the club and the church begin to overlap with each other and then you get split screen shots. It helps to put you in a young Elvis's mind, but at the same time, it can give you a bit of a headache. You cannot firmly stay grounded in each scene's settings because you never get the opportunity to be comfortable enough to know the environment.

I also feel that with regard to the romance arc, it was handled a bit sloppily. In the last third of the film, we see the decline of Elvis as he begins to slip into drug use and lose his family. However, we do not really see any development of Elvis's relationship with his family, so we do not get the impact of what losing them really means. He appears to love them very much, but it's superficial. I suppose the argument can be made that the directorial intent was to limit his scenes with the family in order to show how alienated he truly is; however, I still think there would have been a better emotive impact. I feel that the courtship of Elvis and Priscilla was a bit rushed in order to force it into the film, but they really do not explore this enough. While Elvis as a cultural icon who changes American culture and his decline is fully explore, his romance life does not get skillfully explained as such at the same level. Furthermore, how does the army change Elvis? Being in a two year experience overseas in the army is going to definitely be a life changer, but that is not fully explored in this film either. There's some things missing or not fully explored that I think could have had this be a better film. Without these, it has certain parts feel a bit hollow. Even though there's hollowness, I did have fun watching the film. I was entertained. Isn't that what movies are all about in the first place anyway?

Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)

The Ways of Water Drowns the Viewer in the Shallow End

[6/10 · 4 February 2023]

This movie had such potential, but at several points, there was just such an incredibly flawed execution. I am a huge fan of James Cameron's earlier work and I enjoyed the first Avatar movie. For years leading up to this movie, James Cameron stated that he needed to wait several years before the release of Avatar's sequel because he needed for technology to be able to be up to par with his vision. While we have waited so many years for this and have came into this movie with a hunger and we were fed to a degree, we still feel a little bit hungry. For the fact is, we were entertained, but deep down we were not fulfilled. There was so much ideas with great potential, but they are not fully explored. The movie is a bit strange for me because there was such a long running time, but many of the thematic elements felt rushed and unfinished. It's almost as if he had too much to say.

I think that in comparison to Avatar 1, the character development was on the weaker side. The personal transformation of Jake Sully was much more interesting to watch. We have watched several characters in the film be more round, dynamic characters that change. We grow to like these people and grow invested in the personal growth that they make. There is a part of us that enjoys that someone who is a part of the system realizes the terrible nature of it and rebels against it. However, a part of the problem with this movie is that there is no real character development and the characters are much more flat. There is a bit more of a focus on the coming-of-age element, but there is no growth for these characters. From the onset, the son who dies at the end is seen a risk taker who rebels, but he ultimately has a very good heart. It is not surprising that he has come to sacrifice himself for others. There is no real growth that comes that brings him to his death. Furthermore, you do not feel a true sense of tragedy in the classical sense when the son dies. For in the greatest of tragedies, there was a great tragic flaw that managed to bring this person down and bring a profound sense of loss. The only real sense of loss I felt was the loss of young potential since he seemed like a young person with potential; however, this is not a wholly original theme. You must juxtapose this with the fact that Cameron's ego seems to make us suggest that this cinematic experience was supposed to be transformative.

Another big gaping hole is just the logic of the ending. Think of it like this. Jake Sully has to escape from the forest clan because he needs to protect his family and knows that wherever he goes, there is going to be a definite risk. Jake Sully knowingly brought a war to the sea clan and those people were reluctant to accept him; however, those people allowed him to live there just because the leader happened to be a nice person. Allowing Jake Sully to live there did incur the death of some of their people and their fish that have been described as "soul sisters." Then, all of a sudden toward the end, there is this concept of, "Oh, your son died on our ancestors' land and was taken onto it, so you are now a part of us." This is an incredibly strange concept given the fact that much of the movie showed this almost racist tension from the sea people against the forest clan people and people who are deemed to have "demon's blood" (human) in them. Then, there is the fact that they have bullied the son that ultimately died and actually almost killed him. I think that it is interesting that he decided to transition to becoming a part of the sea clan, but it just was done so rapidly and without anything to it that would be logical.

The other thing too is that there is just a much more drastic tone taken to this. While the first Avatar movie whispered its social themes to you, this one is loudly screaming it to you as if it is a raging sermon. While I do believe that the social issues in the film are ones worth exploring, it is done in a way that is almost insulting to the viewer's intelligence because everything is broadcasted directly. The villains' motives are clearly advertised to you from the onset and the characters themselves seem almost cartoonish with no depth. The one interesting element of the metaphysical identity of the question of a clone being able to be a father was not truly explored. A lot of interesting paths are taken, but they're not brought to satisfying resolutions. James Cameron is trying to throw a bunch of things at you at a machine gun pace, but he does not truly develop and nurture these themes. I wanted to see the theme of racism and discrimination explored, but it is done on such a superficial level because James Cameron seems concerned about trying to explore the themes of family on a superficial level too. The ambition is truly admirable for such a mainstream film, but it needs to be done much smoother.

I did enjoy some of the action scenes at the end, but you meandered through a lot of scenes that could have been condensed to get there. Then, during the action scenes, there are parts where the action is broken for a little bit with unnecessary shots and exposition before returning to the stunning action. Unfortunately, it seems like the best was saved for last when the beginning and middle parts of the films could have benefited from such excitement. Then, the nature of the dialogue left a lot more to be desired because someone in the industry as seasoned as Cameron could have truly wrote better lines. The acting also just was so stiff, especially from the female general. You do not feel this aura of authority or greatness as you would expect from a general. For those who watched Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood, General Armstrong is a presence that certainly comes to mind.

The problem is that the director advertises this as a transformative experience and he clearly took great enjoy in bringing his vision to life. There are so much impressive elements to be seen here in terms of the visuals, but the thing is that it does not feel truly revolutionary. The coming of sound in cinema is revolutionary. The transition into color is revolutionary. Seeing Lawrence of Arabia is revolutionary. Nothing is a truly revolutionary experience here and does not transform us. In this day and age where we are jaded by all the media that we see, we want to be a part of something revolutionary and historical that truly disrupts our conscious. We are not given enough of these characters to be able to truly relate to them other than what we can glean from the obvious symbolic tropes they are meant to represent. There are bits and pieces of other films here; for instance, I have seen elements of Waterworld, How To Train Your Dragon, and Titanic to name a few, Many cinematic texts try to use their allegories in order to contribute to the societal conversations of how we see our world and can improve it. Is James Cameron doing anything unique with this move in that regard? No. He became so immersed in the technology of story telling that the soul of what makes a good story is missing. This is good, but not great.

Rating: 6.5/10.

The Matrix Resurrections (I) (2021)

A Mixed Bag Of Problems -- I Wanted To Love It

[5/10 · 28 December 2021]

After taking a few days to let everything simmer down, I realized upon further reflection that I could really only justify giving this movie a 5/10. One of the main problems is that the "meta" awareness is used to a nauseating degree. While some self-awareness often works in movies in certain contexts, the problem is that it undermines the ability to have a plot. The first half of the movie is essentially a reworking of the first movie under different circumstances. When it does this, the problem is that the plot does not become one of mystery, but of psychological conditioning. It is like when you are seeing your favorite band live and the vocalist implores the crowd to sing the chorus of their favorite song. If one sees somebody dressed as a lumberjack in front of a tree with an axe, your mind automatically assumes that the lumberjack is going to be cutting down the tree next. You will probably be right. The problem is that you see one thing in this movie and then you are automatically able to predict what will happen next with too much accuracy. A part of the genius of the trilogy preceding it was the mystery that surrounds everything. When you watch the first movie, you had no idea what it meant to swallow the red pill. You had as much knowledge as Neo and the narrative setup was almost as if you were on the adventure with him as well. Therefore, the narrative had to do a lot of the heavy lifting. Basically, behaviorism is driving a lot of the plot while adding nothing original.

One of the other problems is that it is a much more personal and selfish Matrix movie. One of the trends that I noticed with some recent Hollywood movies is that there is such a focus on the personal and it is devoid of the societal intrigue that surrounds it. One good example is comparing the new Dune from Denis Villenueve to the Dune from David Lynch that came out in the 80s. Villenueve's Dune was much more of a microstudy because it was essentially a coming of age story surrounding the prince. What it particularly lacked from David Lynch's version was the fact that societal intrigue and political context that gave relevancy and gravity to the way that the prince develops. In The Matrix, all you really get Neo's story as he comes to grasp with the truth yet again and his romance arc with Trinity as he attempts to rescue her. What is noticeably absent is a lot of the events that happened in Matrix Online (the true first sequel to Matrix 3) and some of the events referenced in the movie itself. The humans and the machines' peace did not last long and it would have been interesting to see how that has become undone. It would have been interesting to see exactly how Morpheus's idealism has lead to the downfall of Zion and lead to the need for a new city. Instead, we are subjected to this romance action thriller. The problem is that the stakes do not feel as huge as they do in the first three movies. If Neo had failed in the trilogy, humanity's remnants felt at stake. Nothing really feels at stake here. Also, nobody really dies here and we get a very Hollywood style happy ending where Neo and Trinity reunite. The romance arc felt kind of rushed because after not seeing each other for what was like 60 years, they are suddenly in love again like nothing happened. While we get to see Neo's perspective, Trinity's life throughout the time is mostly absent and we don't get to see what her struggles were in order to reach the understanding that she came to by the end of the movie. Whereas the Matrix movies from the trilogy were much more zoomed out and focused on the macro, this new one focused too much on the micro.

To an extent, I was entertained. This is certainly not the worst movie that I ever saw. It had some very good ideas, but the execution was incredibly flawed. I particularly liked the contrasts between the new main villain "The Analyst" that is in control of the "new" Matrix and "The Architect" that was in control of the "old" Matrix. They represent two very different visions of how to control humanity through The Matrix and get energy. I thought that Neil Patrick Harris was a really good villain and I like the vibe that he brought. However, that is offset by the "phone it in" Keanu Reeves performance as Neo because it does not even look like he was trying that much or seemed interested. When people say "Cash Grab", I'm sure Keanu Reeves's performance should be coming to mind. The action scenes were generic, but relatively decent. I really liked the motorcycle scene toward the end of the movie. However, it certainly pales in comparison to the highway car chase that you see in the middle of the second Matrix movie. Those action scenes are usually enough to keep you entertained.

I think that this movie potentially sets up a new trilogy where maybe these ideas can be explored and executed a lot better, but this movie ultimately falls short. When it rehashes too much of the trilogy, the problem is that the new philosophical ideas that will help to move the franchise forward as a whole are not really there. A part of the Matrix movies is to leave your mind with intense philosophical questions. In a lot of senses, this is very far removed from a Matrix movie with how the narrative and the philosophy is set up. I think that the cool action scenes are really a smokescreen to distract you from how hollow the movie is at its core and I think it deserves nothing more than 5. I think it is a well-made movie for sure, but those first 30 minutes of those "meta" jokes are truly nauseating and almost made me want to stop watching the movie. Perhaps without the first 30 minutes, I would have been able to justify giving the movie a 6. However, that is just not the reality and you have a barely watchable movie and that's about it.