Change Your Image
james_sex09
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againThese are pure ART:
Reviews
Tenet (2020)
People just lack the intellectual depth to understand it in one go
Nolan once said in an interview that he was jealous of the freedom that those in the fields of literature have enjoyed in the past and 'we do not have those freedoms as a filmmaker'. This film does more than what any literature could have ever done. Rating this 7.7 and Inception 8.8 just shows how convinient it is to accept a simple but innvoative story such as Inception to be great, but not Tenet which challenges your intellectual capability.
Never heard before concepts that Nolan introduces in the film are Inversion of objects and people, temporal pincer movement, shooting fighting sequences from two different perspectives of time - one in reverse and one linear. Nolan uses every trick of filmmaking to give himeself the freedom that the literary folks enjoy without having to execute their ideas in reality.
Someone wrote that this film would have been thrown away after 10 pages by any producer if it was not Nolan's. He is probably right but it is just because you cannot see this film in a script. It is one of those films that can only be expressed in the form of a film, not a novel or a comic,
Now coming to the cast of the film, it was such a brave move to cast John David Washington in a seemingly Bond-type movie, when the Bond franchisee itself has been reluctant to cast any African American. He conviniently didn't use any of his past characters except for Sir Michael Caine who is basically a totem of Nolan's world. Even the antagonist, who is not like the Joker or Bane, has acted well enough as a misogynistic vengeful chap.
Overall, if you think this film needs a one more go or some reading on it, then do it. I am pretty sure even though Prestige looked pretty simple to you, if you haven't watched it more than once, you haven't got it yet.
Capital I (2015)
The whimsical phrases of 'Capital I'
10 years from now, this film would be remade and probably then the original would be looked upon. There hasn't been a cinematic piece in a long time which was driven solely by individualistic expression. Be it the philosophical discussion or contemplative imagery, everything screams of the psyche of one individual - 'Capital I'.
**Read this after watching the film once**
Visually profound and intelligently crafted, at the core of this film you can find an identity and a story embedded in each other. The story of a girl struggling to identify herself with a strict sexual orientation and resorts to 'something' to escape her reality, while a physics professor helps her resolve the conflict in her mind.
The identity of a mysterious character named Capital I is presented through its work - visuals and poetry, driven by curiosity among various characters in the film about it. The film portrays the two themes uniquely, bravely. However a harmonic fusion between the two - so that the one doesn't seem separate from another - has been achieved or not is for you to judge!
Cleverly, as the film begins, a discussion between the two kinds - the rational and the curious - is a perfect portrayal of the two classification of audiences. Those who care about the realistic issues or wouldn't prefer to loose their grip on reality would jump off their seat real soon (like the man of law). The revelation then could be experienced only by the 'curious', who is ready to witness the honest reflection of someone's psyche. Yes, someone. It doesn't matter who is that someone. What matters is where do you find yourself in that someone.
Compelled by curiosity the two characters come close to each other (or themselves) - one who is curious by choice, the physics professor who wants to decipher the mystery of Capital I; and the one who is curious about something else to escape itself. Piyali, who needs to instruct his boyfriend even to buy a condom, has found ways to satisfy her sexual expectations. What still needs some tingling is probably her intellectual expectations. 'You don't excite my mind anymore.'
Extreme close ups, chameleon scenes, long blurred shots, bokehs and swift transitions between visuals will disturb you, mesmerize you and haunt you at times. The glitches in acting is unconsciously an added advantage to the film as it doesn't let the actor supersede the identity of Capital I in the film. The sound, however, could have been crafted in a surreal fashion and not too consciously.
On the down side of the film, the audience is not driven by curiosity as the characters of the film. They would inevitably focus on the directionless life of the girl and witness the mystery of Capital I through the transformation in her. However, the cause of transformation in the girl can be attributed more to the physics professor than Capital I. Does this separate the two ideas from each other? Or is it a conscious choice of the maker to let you experience the part you feel more comfortable with?
Who is Capital I? ... the character is for you to unravel.
The craftsmanship screams out at many scenes of the films, the timing of intervening yet relevant imagery in the film and usage of sounds, at times, taking the feelings (of arousal) to zenith.
An honest portrayal of psyche with elements of drama - a psychodrama.
The creator too hopes through a dream (or reality) when physics professor gets another visit by the lawman towards the end. Possibly symbolizing the audience who were not ready to loose their grip of reality would come back, someday.
A film that matters!
Short Term 12 (2013)
A good film after a Long Term
A modernistic cinema, which bases its grounds on simple human problems while the background is quite unique and real. It is a film of our time and era, having the intricacies of any great film attached to it.
The film opens up with a scene having really high imaginative impact where Mason is describing an incident of how he shitted in his pants. Then, you are hit with another surprise element about where are they and what they do. This a language of filmmaking which has been long forgotten.
Though it is not a mystery or suspense thriller, the lesser you know about the plot, the more chance you give the director to achieve what he wants to, with the audience. The thing I loved the most about the film is that it isn't centered around only one character. Because of this, you can feel why Grace is doing what she is doing and how Mason feels hurt or what the story of Octopus of Jayden means.
The only downfall I felt in the film was absence of deep characterization. Of course, the character didn't do anything that was illogical or seemed pretentious (they behaved like real people would in circumstances like that), but the 'deep characterization' like in Jagten (The Hunt) could have set it apart.
It was lovely film to enjoy and engage you throughout its running time, however, it gives you nothing to think about after it is over (you can say it loses you after the ending).
Thank you for reading.
Dead Man Walking (1995)
Unmotivated Script - Job Not Well Done!
"Dead Man Walking", the guard says before an execution, when the accused in a death row walks towards the electric chair or lethal injection.
A man, who has been sentenced to death, living a kind of a borrowed life is very close to his death and in his desperation tries to plead mercy before a jury to spare his life. This film, intentionally or unintentionally, is about acceptance of death. A real intense feeling which directors like Kurosawa, Bergman, Wenders and Kiarostami have beautifully explored. But, has "Dead Man Walking" done justice to it? Honestly, I feel if it wasn't for Tim Robbins, this film would never have been made. The content lacked, so did the motivation. The music irrelevant and so was the editing - haphazard.
Most people appreciated Sean's acting to a great extent which was not at all visible to me. He bursting into tear, or trying to flirt with the Nun(Susan) was superficial (But not for Tim, he decided to take a close up on that).
Anyway, keeping aside the not-so-great acting, un-thoughtful music and too dramatic editing, the film fails at the basic level of content or 'Script'.
It wasn't a man's journey to acceptance of death as it is never shown why, in his desperation, when he turns to religion, what peace does he find. What is it that matters even more than life? Does he really believe, under such stress, that there is a heaven where he might go and be away from all this? Some people might say it is just an assumption to think that it was a man's journey to accept death. It might be a love story between the two. Sounds right too. Both of them had similar incident in their past and they could relate to each other and felt the need. Perhaps. But where is the feeling? What am I feeling in the middle of all this? Am I not a part of this film? This goes for most of the films and this being my first review, I wish to judge it in this scale too.