Change Your Image
Lord-Kerff
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
Less is sometimes more Mr. Miller
In a postapocalyptic world where everyone lives in a barren dessert, the powerful tyrant Immortan Joe controls the people with an iron fist. Of course, as we've seen multiple times in history, repression leads to rebellion.
Mad Max: Fury Road is super ambitious in its cinematography. Brave editing at a pace I personally haven't seen elsewhere. The pacing of the plot is also kept at a high tempo - requiring the full attention of the viewer. (Which I absolutely love to see in a time, where most films count audiences for nothing by stuffing every detail down their throats). The directing holds for a lot of beautiful shots; mostly done in battle and by CGI, which therefore loses some of its grace.
Musically, the film does a good job - both in terms of the rock music and the composed music.
And then to the films biggest strength and weakness: Action. It probably has got the most action you're ever going to witness in a single film. Jesus. Some people praise the movie for this. Personally, I think it comes with a heavy price. Action is great, but not at the expense of core storytelling; which undeniably happens in Mad Max.
Character development is as well nonexistent. Solely reading the script must feel like some of the laziest writing out there. The acting performances are legit being decimated to pieces with this writing - I've got nothing against the individual actors/actresses, but Tom Hardy seriously had nothing besides grunts to work with.
Ultimately, the lack of these basal filmic values, easily overshadows the pros.
Still though, the film earns a 6/10 because of a good score, beautiful still images and brave cinematography.
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)
A much needed fresh breath of air in moderne cinema
Yesterday I bumped onto "Three billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri" on Disney Plus. I had zero expectations - which probably heightened my experience, but nevertheless did this masterpiece blow my mind away. What a film!
First of all, flawless acting! From every single one of these superb-written characters. I don't think we have a single flat person in this gem of a movie. Despite the radical and absurd characteristics of some characters we still consider them realistic. ESPECIALLY because of their flawed ambiguous personalities (which is the real beauty of the film)
Mildred, comes off rather careless at times; yet we still sympathize with her grief and raw emotions.
Willoughby, seems somewhat selfish by committing suicide; yet he's still caring and kindhearted.
Dixon, seems like a stereotypical southern jerk; yet audiences end up liking him due to his ability to change.
It's rare to have a plot filled with these complex characters. It contradicts the sloppy 'good vs. Bad' films which unfortunately grow in quantity by the year. With these realistic characters, we're reminded that all conflicts have two sides. Even though that we want to blame someone for our misery, it's simply not always possible. Instead, we need to give forgiveness a chance. "Anger begets anger" as said by the 'young dumb naive girl' whom apparently isn't as one-dimensional as we all think. Right when she pinpoints the films whole moral, we see a change in our characters. Mildred puts down the bottle, showing forgiveness and thereby ending the nonstop revenge-cycle. (Israel-Palestine are you watching?!)
But it gets even better. McDonagh gives us these dynamic characters who indeed change to the better, but are they perfect? OF COURSE NOT. THEY'RE HUMAN! Despite learning that only forgiveness can stop the anger-spiral, they still go out to avenge a rape victim. Do they kill the rapist and thereby cancel out what they've learned? Or do they actually improve themselves? Who can tell? McDonagh knows that his greatest tool as a director is vagueness; let the viewer interpret with an open-ending! This is much needed in today's cinema, where every little detail is stuffed down the audiences' throat.
A near-perfect script with a bit absurdity, which helps to remind us, that we're watching a film; very Coen-like actually. "Three billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri" was my first film by Martin McDonagh, but definitely not my last!
Sam Rockwell and Francis McDormand deserved their Oscars for portraying such dynamic 3-dimensional characters! Overall a memorable 9/10 which will be revisited.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
Who you are speaks so loudly, I can't hear what you're saying
Why is it, that the relevance of some movies seems indestructible despite the time of watching?
Out of all the movies in the IMDB Top 20, the Cuckoo's Nest is for me by far the most unique. Sure, the Godfather 1 does something to the viewer, that I'm still yet to experience elsewhere; but it is a fact that several epic 'Gangster-Films' have been made before and after Godfather. The same goes for almost every other Top-ranking film - except... well you've probably guessed it already: One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest is WITHOUT any real contenders the most ambitious well-made movie about the psychiatric system. We have outstanding examples of mentally-ill characters in other films; but I seriously cannot think of another film which revolves around the actual treating-institutions.
Okay, so it has a special theme - so what?
Oh well dear MCU-fanatic, this film actually has EVERYTHING. Allow me to walk you through it.
Music: great score by Nitzsche (no not that German guy, who your philosophy friend talks about). But Jack Nitzsche, who composed the beautiful music, which really gets its deserved attention towards the end of the movie. Unfortunately, the Oscar-darling John Williams took the award for his work in Jaws - fair enough, I guess for making one of the most iconic blockbuster-scores.
Cinematography: As one who have read (to much enjoyment) the book, trust me - the guys on set gets it right. The most well-orchestrated and rememberable scenes are: the group-therapy scenes, the 'party-scene' (including the morning after) and the very last scene, which I for obvious reasons won't spoil. This time, the Academy-award was given to Barry Lyndon - fair enough once again, but it surely could have gone both ways.
Directing: Milos Forman took some liberties from the book (be sure to check it out if you haven't already). Specifically, he changed the point of view and thus the whole story-telling. A brave choice, which made him unpopular with the author Ken Kessey; but dare I accompany brave with genius? Because the chance of narrator from book to movie is what made the movie even more meaningful. Btw watch the film, then read the book IN THAT ORDER. In the book the narrator has hallucinations/vision, which of course make him seem like a person fit for the institution. The cinematic experience does though heavily rely on the following subject: Are these people actually mentally sick? Both book and film criticizes the system and people working in it and try to 'fight' the patients' cases. Both are superb, yet the film does an even better job telling us that this is normal people whom we tell are flawed, thus making them feel less human. All they really need is a person from the outside, who sees through all these diagnoses. A person who acts as if he was talking to an equal. A person whose name is McMurphy.
Acting: Just for this one award-instance, there should have been several supporting actor awards. Danny Devito, Will Sampson, Brad Dourif (received a nomination), Christopher Loyd and a stunning WILLIAM REDFIELD. Actually, just highlighting Redfield was a crime to the others. Because WOW. If you consider "There will be blood" to have some of the best acting, try and give this film a try. Milos Forman chose to not tell the cast whether or not they were shooting or just rehearsing. He thought that this would make their acting more real - and oh boy! Every single one in the cast plays their part beyond what's expected. The cast didn't break character whilst having breaks, they also met real mental patients BECAUSE THESE WERE EXTRAS! I mean come on; everything here just screams masterpiece!
I could also spend time describing Louise Fletcher and Jack Nicholson, but if you've watched the movie you most certainly know why they won an award each. The raw unsympathetic yet sort of well-meaning portrayal of Nurse Ratched is the best female acting I've ever seen. Regarding Jack Nicholson I'm 100% sure that this is his real-life way of being - if not, then I won't hesitate to call him the second greatest actor of all time (Goat De Niro is unbeatable).
This isn't my favourite film- but it is the film that made me want to become a psychiatrist. I'm usually all in for diversity and different opinions, but I cannot grasp anything below 8/10 here. I'm sorry. The craftsmanship of this film is what cinema is all about; taking us into their world, and keeping a pace of which we can craft our own opinions and perceptions while watching.
Ratched seems to have so kind intentions, but her actions tell us who she really is. That is one great lesson in humanity right there! "Who you are speaks so loudly, I can't hear what you're saying" - Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Dune: Part Two (2024)
Worth watching, not praising
Before you call Dune Part II 'the best Sci-fi movie' or even just a 'masterpiece' try and consider the 5 bullet points I've made below - you might even end up agreeing with some of them ;)
Beforhand let me just point out that the movie was extraordinary beautifully filmed with goosebumpy music added to a dozen of memorable shots, hence the good rating. So yeah, it is a great movie with great acting. It's actually a really good movie. But that has been pointed out by a LOT of people already. Let me tell why this isn't in the 10/10 league.
1. The major problem: Pacing. 2 parts of the movie, which could have been legendary, ended up being rushed: The battle of the Sardaukar and Fremen and Paul's first time riding the Worm-metro.
You don't have to be a criticizer of the movie to admit, that the last fight with Fremen and Sardaukar was so shy of what it could have been. The fremen just sweeps away the emperor's army (I mean come on) in around 10 minutes of screentime. This is what the whole movie leads up to. 10 minutes. And not 10 nail-bittering minutes with an epic battle. Just 10 minutes of one side slaughtering the other. I get that they took them by surprise, but please. It would have added film value to get a tense fight, where you actually wonder whether or not they will succeed. Instead of getting a edge-of-your-seat moment, we got the predictable outcome. It feels like Denis was told to compress the last 1/3 of the film - making it as anticlimactic as possible.
The sandworm-ride did make a good scene, but you don't actually see any training whatsoever. So instead of getting psyched up by him succeeding, you end up thinking; could he do this all the time?
2. Paul's metamorphose to become the chosen one - or rather the absence of it. Why can't this guy admit that there might be something to the prophecy. I get that his humility is what makes him adequate for the part, but because of his continuing denial of the prophecy, we as audience too lose faith in him as the Kwisatz Haderach. Which, just like the incident of him learning to sandworm-ride, makes an unfulfilling, anticlimactic and awkward transition.
3. The weak villains. I was expecting a lot from the villain-side, after Dune 1 where the emperor and baron felt clever and sly. Feyd had a great portrayal in the movie though, but the rest of them seemed frivolous. Seriously, how did the emperor manage to keep his throne for that long, with an army, that with a little surprise, breaks like glass. And Rabban is apparently just a joke despite him actually being sort of scary in Dune 1.
In general the Harkonnens seem off by a lot! They get toyed around on multiple occasions, and we in the audience never actually see them as a threat due to their weak portrayal. (We mostly see them kill poor employees)
4. Chani and Paul had zero romance. Sorry, but it's true. I want to see them as this meant-to-be couple, but we literally only see them bonding a couple of times. I made the assumption that Chani must be bi-polar; the girl is crazy careful and suspicious of other people several times in the movie, but starts a relationship with Paul based on 2-3 scenes with interaction. People on Tinder tend to talk more with each other before jumping into bed than these two.
5. The political aspect - or once again the absence of the same. We hear about these other houses as dangerous and powerful, but where are they? As a viewer who hasn't read the books, I do not have the slightest idea of what these other houses are capable of. This is probably the main reason of the incomplexity of the plot. We don't any political reflections or responses, despite the fact that it must mean a great deal! Without the tangled political game (which I guess is pretty damn important in a world run by houses) the plot becomes predictable on a level which compares to most superhero-movies.
Imagine that we had seen the other houses and their beautiful planets. Now THAT would be sci-fi in its glory!!
Consider that I had so much against the storytelling (which is the fundamental part of a film) yet still gave it 8/10. I'm surely also going to see it in theaters at least one more time. That goes to show how brilliant the cinematography actually was! Worth watching, not praising.