4v291o

Worse than suffering from a loss is waiting for an inevitably cruel truth.

“Ainda Estou Aqui” portrays the terror of the Brazilian dictatorship through the perspective of the Paiva family, composed of father Rubens (Selton Mello), mother Eunice (Fernanda Torres) and their four children.

The film begins by showing their good life and how united they all are.

Amidst the extreme political climate of the time, Rubens, the father, is taken by the dictatorship’s military for having been a deputy of an opposition party.

From that moment on, Eunice’s life changes completely. She finds herself trapped in torturous doubt and must become the foundation for her family, now lost in uncertainty.

Days go by. She and her daughter are interrogated, and Eunice spends a few days in prison. After being released, she continues waiting for her husband, who seems never to return.

Everything was already clear. Rubens had died, or rather, he had been murdered. But the worst part wasn’t even that. It was the impunity and the cruelty of the government’s silence.

From the 1970s we jump to the 1990s, when Eunice finally receives Rubens’ death certificate. It feels like she is experiencing grief for a second time, but now she has peace.

In 2014 her family gathers. Eunice now seems lost in her mind, possibly suffering from Alzheimer’s.

But something in her expression changes when she hears a news report on TV, something about a forgotten memory of a terrible cruelty. Her lost gaze suddenly regains focus.

Eunice and her family didn’t realize it, but she had never truly lived through the ing years. She was still in the past. Time had masked the horror, but her eyes were still in the past.

What can be said about this film? Simply put, it is a memory translated into a work that is both subtle and powerful.

Many films have a purpose, whether to entertain, uplift, scare, provoke thought or, in this case, to .

“Ainda Estou Aqui”, directed by Walter Salles, is one of those films meant to be experienced and reflected upon.

The direction overall is solid, especially the art direction. But without a doubt, the film’s greatest strength lies in its performances and dialogues.

Before highlighting Fernanda Torres, I must acknowledge Selton Mello, who portrays this loving and serene father with incredible authenticity in both his actions and words.

The rest of the cast also delivers astonishingly natural performances. And now, Fernanda Torres. She is simply perfect in this role.

This is yet another example of how subtle performances can be far more complex than they seem, much like Cillian Murphy’s portrayal in Oppenheimer.

Fernanda masterfully conveys the inner conflict of a mother torn apart, trying to balance her emotions while holding together an unsustainable situation.

Her eyes reveal everything she thinks, and when she finally breaks, it feels completely real.

And of course, the dialogues are brilliantly written. Combined with this incredible cast, every conversation flows with remarkable spontaneity.

The emotional impact is heightened precisely because of this. The film’s beginning is carefully crafted, drawing the audience in with a genuine sense of family, one that is ultimately shattered.

Several scenes contribute to these layers of performance.

Take the photo scene, for example. A sad expression would have been the expected choice, but Eunice expresses her strength through a smile.

Or the moment when her dog dies. Her suppressed rage erupts, making her yell at dangerous men without even thinking of the consequences.

For a brief moment, this scene reveals how she would act if she had no family to protect, but she quickly regains control.

And of course, there are other scenes, as mentioned in the summary.

“Ainda Estou Aqui” is undoubtedly Oscar-worthy this year, and so is Fernanda Torres.

More than just a cinematic work, it is a memory, one that sometimes tries to escape our minds.

But it is still here.

Eggers once again manages to maintain his flawless record of quality. Just as Pixar used to be, we can still go to the movies without fear when we know he is involved.

The 1920 Nosferatu would be nearly impossible for any other filmmaker to adapt. Now, after watching this achievement, it’s almost inconceivable to think of another director capable of orchestrating it.

Eggers brings back the classic Nosferatu storyline, centered on the young real estate agent Thomas, who is tasked by his boss to travel and finalize the sale of a house with Count Orlok, a dark figure who lives in an isolated castle.

Thomas leaves his wife Ellen behind in Wisborg. Ellen, who has a past connection with Nosferatu, begins experiencing sleepwalking episodes and nightmares about him.

Thomas meets the Count in a grand sequence as he enters the castle. There, he is repeatedly attacked and practically forced to sign the sales document.

Count Orlok traps Thomas in the castle and heads to Wisborg in pursuit of Ellen. Desperate, Thomas escapes and rushes back to the city.

Nosferatu confronts the young woman and gives her three days to surrender herself to him. If she refuses, he threatens to kill their friends, who had offered them shelter, and her husband, Thomas.

During this turmoil, they meet Dr. Albin Eberhart, who begins investigating Ellen’s sleepwalking episodes and discovers how to defeat the monster.

To vanquish Nosferatu, Ellen must sacrifice herself. She allows him to attack her during the night, keeping him feeding on her blood until sunrise, when the monster is destroyed by the sunlight.

I’ve summarized briefly because, in essence, Eggers closely follows the original film. Here, nothing was removed, only additions were made to the plot, and I must say, they are effective.

The first act of the film is undoubtedly where we find Eggers’ greatest triumph. I dare say Thomas’s journey to the Count’s castle may represent the visual peak of the filmmaker’s career.

He masterfully portrays the iconic scenes of the classic in a contemporary way while infusing his signature touch in a perfectly balanced and atmospheric manner.

Not only that, but the contrast with the sound design makes it even better. In of “horror,” this is the pinnacle of the film.

However, analyzing the work as a whole, I still find it highly effective. Certain elements slightly disrupt the narrative flow, such as the extensive exposition brought mainly by Willem Dafoe’s character, Dr. Albin Eberhart.

This character gave me mixed feelings because, while he exposes much of the universe, he also manages to anchor our attention, drawing us into his investigation.

I also understand that since this is a reinterpretation of a great silent classic, but this time with dialogue, what was once left unsaid or at most briefly written now needs to be explicitly addressed, given the evolution of cinema.

The inclusion of Thomas’s friends, who appear only briefly in the original work but are given more prominence here, was a good choice. They help to amplify the magnitude of Nosferatu’s malevolence.

Speaking of them, the screenplay finds a solution that sures the original film. In fact, it makes the entire conclusion more impactful and meaningful.

The agreement Nosferatu makes with Ellen, which is essentially a threat, creates a believable situation that leads the young woman to choose sacrifice. None of this would make sense without first delving into the lives of her friends.

Moreover, the direction of the final act is impeccable, featuring what might be one of the greatest modern horror endings. The young lady wrapped in the monster’s arms, utterly raw, and in the end, devoid of shadows.

Eggers once again demonstrates his ability to meet and exceed our expectations.

By respecting the roots from which he drew his project while pruning its branches, he has made this work even more iconic.

Just like one of the characters here says, when you encounter a wolf, don’t run away, discover what it wants to show you.

This might describe the feeling of the viewer watching this film. You decide to dive into this journey and are constantly surprised at where it leads.

I’ll even skip a summary, because trying to summarize so much craziness packed into this work is a challenge in itself.

Overall, in my view, it’s a critique of conspiracy theorists who try to find meaning in everything because they can’t cope with the boredom of their lives.

And yes, this satire is brilliantly crafted and incredibly well directed.

The sensation the director (David Robert Mitchell) creates with his angles, camera movements, and transitions from real to whimsical settings is enchantingly strange.

The subtle yet effective doubt surrounding the killer’s identity and the possibility that it could be the protagonist himself is a clever touch.

Undoubtedly, one of the most intriguing films of recent years. Often, when certain elements are exaggerated without a fitting purpose, like in The Big Lebowski, I tend to feel annoyed.

But here, by the end of this entire adventure, everything seems to make sense, even amidst the madness.

On the other hand, there will be those who interpret this movie as a message, a fragment of truth blended with a critique that reveals, in some way, how things work.

The figure of the composer, without a doubt, delivers a jab at us, lovers of pop culture.

Are we beings entirely shaped and influenced by entertainment deliberately orchestrated to manipulate us?

Certainly yes, but you don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to it that.

So, even from this perspective, the film succeeds, pleasing both sides in its own way.

However, I feel the work tries to be overly contemplative and could have the same impact with less screen time.

They also could have invested more in the psychological horror, which worked at times, like in the scene with the Owl Woman.

And, of course, the ending could have been more memorable than that last scene.

They could have added something to leave the viewer more intrigued, especially since that seemed to be the overall goal of the entire production.

An intelligent critique, disguised as a mystery thriller, but in a way I’ve honestly never seen before.

Either way, Los Angeles truly is a suspicious place…

A work much more fueled by controversies than truly well executed.

“The Interview” tells the story of Davy Skylark, the host of a talk show entirely focused on entertainment, and Aaron, his producer.

In short, their work is going well, but Aaron wants a more serious and journalistic tone for the show, unlike the crude humor and trivial everyday topics it usually covers.

Skylark agrees, and before long, the opportunity arises to interview the dictator Kim Jong-un in North Korea. Curiously, Kim is a fan of the show.

Soon after, the CIA s the duo, proposing to assassinate the dictator through poisoning during a handshake.

As events progress, they eventually arrive in North Korea. Surprisingly, Skylark gets along well with the dictator, and they become close friends.

He begins to think it would be wrong to kill him and starts believing that everything he’d heard about the country was untrue.

However, it doesn’t take long for him to realize that everything was a façade and that the dictator was attempting to manipulate him.

Everyone teams up, including a North Korean official who dislikes the dictator, and they plan to expose him as weak during the interview.

After Skylark makes him cry and soil himself live on air, the dictator decides to launch nuclear missiles at the United States. But before the red button can be pressed, Skylark uses a tank explosive to kill him.

It’s impossible not to recall the controversies surrounding this film at the time of its release, even leading to a cyberattack on the production company by North Korea.

However, focusing solely on the movie itself, I saw many issues.

Starting with the technical aspects, Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg’s direction is not particularly noteworthy.

It’s simple, with only a few interesting moments, such as the dictator’s death scene, but nothing that could be described as distinct or signature.

On the other hand, when considering post-production elements like editing and scene composition, things become more complicated.

The visual effects are excellent, given the large budget, but the scene transitions are, for the most part, poorly executed.

There are also editing choices that result in abrupt, unbalanced shifts between acts.

The screenplay might be the biggest problem. There are plot holes and conveniences taken too seriously, which end up being a weakness even for a film like this.

For a comedy, these issues could be overlooked. However, one thing that cannot be ignored is the humor itself.

Without a doubt, the funniest moments involve the dictator (Randall Park) and Skylark (James Franco). However, particularly in the first half, when the plot focuses on the two friends, little of it worked for me.

James Franco’s performance is overly exaggerated, even for a comedy, and stands out in a way that feels more like a slapstick farce than the humor they seem to be aiming for.

Overall, it’s a work with a highly intriguing premise, especially given the controversies. But it could have made much better use of its runtime to build a sharper satire.

Don’t get me wrong; there are comedies that don’t spend time on character or scene development but are still excellent, like Airplane!.

However, a film needs to commit to its intention, just as Airplane! fully embraces its nonsensical style.

Here, I feel the lack of such a clear definition hindered the investment in the script and scenes.

An engaging piece of entertainment that sparks curiosity, especially due to the real-life dictator and his portrayal in the movie.

Unfortunately, it will likely be ed more for the controversies and memes than for its quality.

Our bodies are ravaged by time; our minds, by the perception of it.

The story introduces Elisabeth, a once-successful actress who now finds herself outdated and aging.

After being fired from her television job, her existential crisis deepens. Following an accident, she meets a young nurse in the hospital who sees her as the perfect candidate for “The Substance” and hands her a flash drive with all the information.

After much deliberation, she agrees and receives the equipment to inject herself. This creates an enhanced version of herself. The rule is simple: while one version lives for seven days, the other remains dormant, and then they switch. In theory, they share the same mind, minimizing conflicts.

Over time, Sue (the new version) becomes enamored with her new life and begins overstaying her time in the body, leaving the original Elisabeth with severe consequences.

Ironically, every time the original regains consciousness, she is enraged by the damage Sue’s extended use causes, resulting in rapid aging and deformities.

Sue eventually spends three whole months in the body, drastically aging the original Elisabeth. When the first Elisabeth awakens, she becomes furious and attempts to eliminate Sue.

However, driven by her obsession with success, she hesitates and ends up reviving Sue, leading to a violent confrontation in which Sue kills the original Elisabeth.

Sue then heads to host a New Year’s event, but due to the partially istered lethal injection or the death of the original, she begins to experience physical problems and rushes home in desperation.

Breaking a fundamental rule, she reinjects the substance into herself, attempting to create an improved version of her already enhanced self.

This results in a monstrous, grotesque entity that disrupts the event and ultimately dies atop Elisabeth’s star.

What a phenomenal achievement. It has been a long time since I’ve experienced such an intense and visceral horror film. Clearly inspired by The Fly and The Thing, it still maintains its own originality.

Coralie Fargeat delivers outstanding direction. Her framing emphasizes the characters’ skin and imperfections, while her use of angles evokes Elisabeth’s growing restlessness. Her control over the cast is evident throughout.

Speaking of the cast, Demi Moore is the highlight here. She brings layers to her performance, excelling not only in delivering her lines but also in her nuanced expressions. It’s the kind of performance that the Oscars favor, and rightly so.

Margaret Qualley is also impeccable, but Moore manages to convey a broader range of emotions and scenarios.

Thematically, the film’s first layer focuses on “time” and “vanity.” Elisabeth’s yearning for recognition grows so intense that she cannot bring herself to kill Sue, seeing in her the possibility of receiving the applause she craves.

This mirrors parents who project their unfulfilled dreams onto their children at any cost. Details like clean, polished settings and vibrant costumes highlight the false ideals that the protagonist and her world strive for—living for appearances.

Yet, there’s a deeper layer here.

Though the two versions are ostensibly the same, they diverge after being split. Every time Elisabeth awakens in the enhanced body, she feels comfortable and enjoys everything.

But when she returns to the original body, she suffers the consequences of Sue’s excesses and injustice.

This divergence creates two distinct minds. While both share “equality,” they lack equity. Both have the opportunity to live 50/50, but only one truly benefits, while the other, though the original, bears all the burdens.

In the end, we see that Elisabeth’s star, despite its cracks, endures and retains its shape and beauty. By respecting time and accepting changes, wear, and challenges, it becomes something old yet respected.

Time affects everyone, but people waste much of it trying to outrun it.

A classic of horror that innovated in various technical and cultural aspects, bringing new ideas to the horror genre and ensuring it remains timeless. Conceptually, of course.

Nosferatu tells the story of Hutter, a real estate agent tasked with traveling to Transylvania to sell a mansion near his home to a certain Count Orlok (Nosferatu).

Hutter leaves his wife behind and sets off to meet the count. Upon arrival, he encounters several warnings from locals about Orlok but continues on his journey.

When he reaches the count’s castle, Hutter meets Orlok, a peculiar and sinister-looking frail man.

He spends several uncomfortable nights there, imagining he’s being bitten by mosquitoes, though something far worse is likely happening.

The count sees a picture of Hutter’s wife and falls in love with her, though Hutter seems oblivious to his intentions.

On the second night, Orlok famously appears in his classic scene, opening the door and revealing himself as Nosferatu, attacking Hutter again.

At dawn, Nosferatu boards a ship, hidden in coffins, bound for Hutter’s town with the intention of finding his wife.

Hutter, waking in despair, also rushes back to his town.

There, amidst numerous deaths from the plague and other suspicious fatalities, Hutter’s wife reads a book about Nosferatu and decides to sacrifice herself by allowing him to drink her blood.

She lets this happen, and Nosferatu loses track of time, draining her blood until dawn. At sunrise, he is suddenly destroyed by sunlight.

With the recent release of a new Nosferatu, revisiting this ancient masterpiece is fascinating in many ways.

First, this production brought significant concepts to life even back then. Obviously inspired by Bram Stoker’s Dracula, the film faced several legal issues upon release due to allegations of “plagiarism.”

However, this inspiration feels somewhat secondary when considering the sheer number of innovations present here.

For example, the introduction of sunlight as a weakness or Nosferatu’s monstrous appearance is unique.

Beyond the narrative aspects, the direction also stands out, particularly in its use of shadows, lighting, and even negative imagery.

The Gothic setting and the characteristic soundtrack of German Expressionism only enhance the film.

A cinematic treasure that continues to inspire new works to this day. Perhaps, apart from some authorial elements, what truly bothers me here is the arc of the character Knock.

These moments feel dispensable and irrelevant, serving only to establish Nosferatu’s “minion,” offering nothing but expositional and unnecessary scenes.

Overall, an absolute classic, with its flaws, but one that remains striking even today.

“The Secret in Your Eyes” portrays a gripping investigative suspense while also presenting a well-constructed romance.

The plot takes us into the life of a retired judicial employee (Ricardo Darín) who, at a certain point in his life, encounters a case of femicide.

As he delves into the case, Benjamín becomes obsessed, and with the help of his friend Pablo and his colleague Irene (whom he is in love with), they manage to find the culprit, who is sentenced to life imprisonment.

The widower Morales also plays a part in the story, showing that he loved Liliana (the victim) more than anything in his life.

Unfortunately, the killer doesn’t stay in prison for long due to government schemes.

Out of jail, the criminal becomes a threat to everyone’s lives, killing Pablo and forcing Benjamín to flee.

Many years . Benjamín reconnects with Irene and begins to rekindle his feelings for her. But the question lingering in his mind is: How can someone who lost everything they loved start over?

With this, he seeks out the widower Morales, and in this final turn of events, he discovers that the murderer who had been released was captured by Morales and now lives in solitary confinement.

Benjamín returns to Irene and finally decides to pursue his feelings for her, embracing the theme of the work—ion.

Another achievement of Argentine cinema, which manages to blend two genres into a single story, but in a natural, non-imposing way.

The plot is intriguing, and along with a stellar cast, it further enhances our immersion in the story.

I appreciate the art direction; the close-up angles align well with the movie’s title. Through the characters’ eyes, we can see their uncertainties, desires, fears, and sorrows.

Certainly intentional, but something that could only be executed masterfully with a talented group of actors, which is fortunately the case here.

As for the message, “ion” is depicted as something inevitable. It even leads the protagonist to find the killer at a soccer game (as the murderer is a fanatic Racing fan).

This ion is described as something that blinds even the most calculating person in moments requiring extreme attention.

In a way, all the characters throughout the story suffer because of this feeling. Pablo, for example, is ionate about the moment, about feeling good while drinking, and trades this brief period for a life with his wife.

Irene is ionate about her position, investing all her energy into her social status. Even though deep down she wants something more real, she can’t follow the path she truly desires.

Morales was ionate about Liliana, but after her death, he seems to replace that feeling with a ion for revenge, even though in the end, as he himself its, it’s not worth ing the past, ironically.

And of course, Benjamín develops a ion for the investigation. Even though it’s for noble reasons, he is so ionate about understanding the “whys” of other people’s cases that he forgets to create resolutions for his own life.

Just as ion was used as a trap to catch the killer initially, it can be seen as an obstacle for everyone.

The typewriter without the letter “A,” for example, may complement this view.

What good is a typewriter without a vowel? What good is life without ion?

In a way, the fear of losing what one loves ends up making everyone’s lives disposable, just like the typewriter without the letter “A.” They are eternally dependent on what they deem essential.

A job can be lost, drunkenness fades after a while, a loved one dies, an investigation comes to an end.

Perhaps the problem isn’t ion itself; perhaps it’s where it is directed, perhaps it’s depositing it in a plastic key.

It’s hard not to impulsive moments we’ve committed or witnessed. In this work by Damián Szifron, we get to know a bit more about these instincts that constantly possess us.

In a way, summarizing six stories in a single review would be a challenge. I recommend anyone who hasn’t watched it yet to take some time to laugh or analyze these plots.

And yes, this production entertains both the superficial audience and those who seek deeper reflection.

That’s why I’ll adapt my summary into snapshots of the central theme: Savagery.

In the introduction/first story, we get a glimpse of the savagery of revenge.

In the second, the savagery of intrusion. Moments when we meddle, seeking conflict, but sometimes it only reflects our self-destruction.

In the third story, we better understand the savagery of pride. Anyone who drives knows very well how we grow behind the wheel and the consequences that this feeling of superiority can cause.

In the fourth plot, we understand the savagery of frustration. And how sometimes our personal problems affect our overall outlook on life.

The protagonist who blamed a system so much now finds himself “happy” in a new “system” that doesn’t put him in a vulnerable position.

In the fifth and perhaps my favorite story, we grasp the savagery of power. How malleable the lives of those with the means to control even “justice” can be.

And finally, in the sixth and last story, at first we think it’s about sexual savagery.

However, in the end, we realize through forgiveness that it’s about the most devastating instinct of all, love.

Excellent compilations that brilliantly address the layers of this central theme. Notably, the last two stories narratively and the third for the direction, which conveys the tension just right.

Perhaps the two opening stories are the weakest, but overall, they all contribute to the work.

A fun piece of entertainment that manages to go beyond that for more attentive eyes.

The animal instinct can be frightening but at least it’s honest. Wildlife always comes down to survival, not to living.

What caused so many problems and set Mr. Fox apart from other animals was, surprisingly enough, the fragments of humanity in his life.

The fox’s instinct to ‘steal’ combined with human ambition defined his destiny, which, fortunately, did not end badly.

Clearly, other themes, such as the differences between each living being, are addressed here, but as a secondary focus.

While in our lives we often create problems by succumbing to the more animalistic and irrational part of our minds, Mr. Fox was affected by the opposite.

After some reflection, we can conclude that we spend a lot of time denying our most primitive instincts, avoiding the other extreme to which we are driving our lives.

It would be wise to avoid getting too close to the ‘human feeling’ just as we avoid our wild side.

Envy, egotistical ambition, corruption, hatred—all of these are products of rationality, even though many believe they stem from the emotional side.

That’s a misconception; emotion without reason is instinct, but the characteristics mentioned above are 100% reflections of human rationality.

This work manages to blend human and animal aspects well while presenting good entertainment.

Wes Anderson, with his uniquely artistic style, has always known how to perfectly combine the tone of the movie with the story presented.

Perhaps some conclusions about the characters were exposed unnecessarily during the film, instead of allowing room for interpretation. Honestly, this didn’t bother me much.

The sound composition, both effects and music, fits well, and overall the technical quality is almost unquestionable.

Regardless of the protagonist’s mistakes, something should be taken into consideration: his honesty. Even sadder than suffering from reckless mistakes is being affected by the pursuit of something you’re not.

His son, for instance, was heading in that direction but fortunately understood his individuality and changed course in time.

Among all possible human traits, perhaps the worst is living based on comparison.

In the end, Mr. Fox realized that following his instincts made sense in his reality.

However, the human side of those instincts, ‘ambition,’ even though it was part of him, needed to be sacrificed as it harmed those around him.

When in doubt between animalistic and human thinking, choose the honesty that aligns with your reality. Adapt those desires which, although honest, harm those you love.

Plan for the future, live in the present, but respect the past. In this Studio Ghibli animation, Goro Miyazaki proves he is capable of telling a good story.

The story begins by introducing us to Umi Matsuzaki, a young girl who lives with her siblings, mother, and grandmother. From the start, it is revealed that her father was a sailor who died in the war.

Because of this, Umi always raises her father’s flags on a mast in the garden, as if seeking to reconnect with him.

One day at school, she meets a boy named Shun. From the beginning, it's clear they like each other.

Shun and his friends are trying to prevent the demolition of the building that houses the student club. Because of this, the group is constantly protesting around the school.

Umi becomes interested in helping, contributing to writing the club’s newspapers and suggesting they invite the girls from the school to help with cleaning and renovating the building.

Although hesitant at first, Shun understands that cleaning wouldn’t take away the essence of the place. So, everyone makes plans and sets the project into motion.

Days , and Umi and Shun have already met a few times outside of school. But one day, during lunch at Umi’s grandmother’s house, Shun discovers something that troubles him.

Through a picture of Umi’s late father, Shun realizes that her father was probably the same as his.

Deeply distressed, Shun begins to avoid Umi, trying to distance himself. But they continue to have feelings for each other, even when they believe they are siblings.

After persistently asking the school owner to visit the building and approve its preservation, everything works out, and the owner loves the renovation results.

At the same time, Shun and Umi meet a sailor who claims to be the third man in the photo they have. This man explains that Shun’s father was the other man in the picture.

Both of them understand the situation and are somewhat relieved to learn that they don’t share the same father.

The story ends with the two returning to the city by boat.

Once again, I see this as an exception among Studio Ghibli’s films. There are few "real" stories told, but this doesn’t necessarily make them any less amazing than the fantasy ones.

“Grave of the Fireflies” and “Whisper of the Heart” are great examples of this. Simple but well-crafted stories create a huge narrative impact.

However, I still can’t compare “From Up on Poppy Hill” to the previously mentioned works, though I appreciate several aspects of it.

Technically, I think it’s very well done, with great sound effects and visuals, but especially the soundtrack, which is incredible.

But narratively, I felt like something was missing. What stands out in Studio Ghibli's films is their ability to deliver a powerful subliminal message.

Here, I see a clear reference to attachment to the past and rejection of the future, as well as reflections on grief, unity, and rebuilding.

Yet, in a way, neither the main theme nor a subplot is deeply explored.

Regardless, I still like this animation, and overall, my view of it is positive.

I particularly like the moment when Shun is questioned about cleaning the school club building. He mentions that its consider the dirt part of its history.

This can symbolize that sometimes we need to reevaluate our concepts of the past.

Or sometimes, we need to allow new people, like the girls did, to access areas of our lives that need a fresh perspective, a new touch.

We shouldn’t abandon the past, but certainly, we should reshape it.

The reprogrammed creation to create.

From nature to human inventions, everything has a certain instinct or programming. *The Wild Robot* broadly addresses this theme but with layers.

In short, the story portrays the life of a robot that gets lost on a deserted island. There, it struggles to adapt to nature, precisely because it was made to serve humans.

After finding a goose egg, the robot begins to raise it as if it were a delegated task. Along with them, a fox also learns to control its instincts, and they live together.

The task of teaching the goose to fly before winter is successful, and the two part ways. After returning from migration, they reunite, but the robot is captured by the company that created it.

The entire island's nature fights to recover it and succeeds. In the end, the robot sacrifices itself to save Fink.

Roz returns to the human city, and in the conclusion, reunites with Fink.

Firstly, this type of animation deserves praise. Since *Puss in Boots 2*, these visual styles have captivated me.

Moving on to the technical aspects, the soundtrack only enhances the grandeur of various moments.

Regarding the plot, I find the premise and theme interesting. My issue lies with the approach.

We must first think that narrative choices should have two goals: First, to clearly convey the message of the work without being overly expositional, and second, to align with the plot.

Here, in my view, silence would have been far more powerful than excessive dialogue and unnecessary exposition.

*WALL-E* is a great example of this. We understand the entire plot without overwhelming exposition, precisely because the direction aligns our perspective through well-conducted actions.

The moment Roz partially breaks down would have been the perfect time to justify its loss of voice.

However, instead of reducing the excessive dialogue, the choice to translate the animals' language only worsened this aspect.

Another misguided decision, in my opinion, was focusing so heavily on the maternal theme. I feel the message could have been more encoming but ended up divided at various points.

Not to mention the classic moments of children's cartoons where the protagonist is excluded and has to overcome obstacles to earn everyone's respect. It's literally the story of the ugly duckling.

Additionally, the sudden creation of a villain at the end, a consequence of showing more of the human world, which, upon reflection, was unnecessary.

The entire plot could have been deeper, while also simpler.

Still, it's good entertainment, capable of moving those who overlook these aspects, but for me, it could have gone much further.

A free slave tends to serve what they freely choose to love.

Another Argentine film that stands out for its execution and captivating plot.

Even for a theme often used in movie scripts, here Marcos and Juan (Ricardo Darín and Gastón Pauls) are protagonists in an intriguing story of a con.

In short, the plot revolves around Juan's life, a young "trickster" trying to make money to get his father out of jail.

The veteran Marcos finds him and entices the young man to his life full of thefts.

Then, an opportunity arises that seems too good to be true, involving a stamp called "Nine Queens." Marcos insists on having Juan help him and constantly tries to deceive him in the process.

In the end, they manage to sell it, but the check they receive is worthless because the buyer scammed the very bank where they would cash it.

With a great plot twist, the viewer discovers that Juan had planned everything all along, and almost all the characters in the story, including Marcos’ sister, were part of the con and made a fortune from it.

Overall, I liked this movie. Not enough to give it 5 stars due to details in the direction. But as a whole, it’s very good.

I enjoy surprises when the clues are fragmented throughout the story. A plot twist becomes even more powerful when you didn’t notice the hints in the script as the movie unfolded.

We get that here. The change is abrupt, but at least honest. If we revisit various scenes, like Marcos’ sister talking about her “fiancé” or the elderly man at the beginning bringing a great opportunity, coincidentally right after Marcos meets Juan.

Above all, I like the reflection that can be drawn from the conversation the “buyer” had with the two of them.

He mentions that Marcos should have been more subtle in trying to make him unconsciously chase after the seller, as seen in the bathroom scene.

After the ending, we realize that this is exactly what Juan did. The young man was indeed looking for Marcos, but it was the veteran who pursued him. The biggest con of all was this, in reality.

As for the direction, I find it reasonable; there are moments that bothered me, like when the camera spins excessively. These are mannerisms that add nothing to the creativity of the scenes.

It’s not bad, but it lacks something extra. The scene transitions, for example, could have been done with more creativity.

At least the direction of the actors and characters is well done overall, and this is a big positive. The setting and art direction also please me and fit well with the tone of the movie and the city.

Obviously, Darín needs no praise, but once again, he delivers a great performance in this work.

Before the twist, the theme could have been about "honesty" and the inevitability of a bad ending for those who try to take advantage of others.

However, in its conclusion, we can take away that in this life, the winner is the one who deceives the other the best.

As they say, you may be crazy, until you meet someone crazier than you…

Nicolas Cage sometimes hits the mark, but here, he manages to do incredibly well by being “himself.”

Perhaps the best horror direction of the year, but narratively, it irritates me in some aspects.

The plot begins by showing the encounter of a girl with the killer who gives the movie its name.

It then cuts to part one of the movie, introducing us to Lee Harker, an FBI agent assigned to investigate the Longlegs case.

From the start, the young agent seems to have an uncanny sense for investigations, something almost supernatural. As the plot unfolds, we discover that she seems to be more involved in the case than we initially imagined.

I won't summarize it all, but after much investigation, Harker discovers that her mother is involved with the killer and that, in fact, she was the child at the beginning of the movie.

To save her daughter, Harker’s mother helped the killer by bringing a possessed doll to the houses of those who would die.

First of all, I need to talk about the overall direction. Even without a notable résumé, Osgood Perkins manages to deliver great moments through his angles and movements.

Scenes angled below the main character, demonstrating her discomfort and, at the same time, her turmoil with the case are sharp.

Also, during the investigations, the camera movements that put us in Harker’s shoes, along with her notes, are essential for the investigative plot.

Not to mention the 80s/90s atmosphere accompanied by an excellent soundtrack. Almost everything on the technical side pleases me.

As for the performances, Nicolas Cage brings forth a controversial character that many may not like due to his “exaggeration.”

Personally, I like it. I think the choice of these psychopathic traits, combined with Cage’s delivery, makes the plot shine a bit more.

Not to mention Maika Monroe, who carries much of the story and manages to convey her unease and turmoil about her past, even though she doesn’t fully know it.

That said, some narrative choices bother me, like the decision to use the protagonist’s “intuition” as a device that moves the plot at various moments.

It felt like too simple an escape for a script that aims to orchestrate something grand.

Moreover, something that bothers many is present here: the excessive exposition.

Undoubtedly, throughout the film, there are several moments that could have been more elucidated to avoid forced and expository dialogue, but this ending, my goodness...

A typical “Psycho” ending is present here, but almost in a literary way.

What could have made this execution truly different would have been choosing a more fitting resolution.

For example, “Hereditary” isn’t confusing, but it also doesn’t over-explain. The plot clarifies what is necessary on its own, but leaves a backdrop for things to be discussed later. That’s why it’s so good.

I sense an attempt in “Longlegs” to create similar layers, but by explaining them in such detail, the magic fades.

Instead, they could have focused on exposing issues more visually without necessarily needing to explain everything at the end.

Moreover, its inspiration from “Zodiac” and “Seven” could have been better filtered. I feel that at certain moments the plot can’t decide.

At times, we feel a more realistic tone, but then the horror moments come, and yet the movie doesn’t seem to want to take a risk and choose a side. This, in fact, makes everything feel lukewarm.

A great achievement technically and in the performances of the leads, but it awkwardly blends its genre, and when it decides to take a path, it reveals everything in the clearest way possible.

Just like the eclectic buildings in Buenos Aires, the strangeness and rawness of this movie perfectly capture the social transition the world went through after global connectivity.

The work begins with the main characters narrating and describing the buildings of Buenos Aires.

With curiosity and analysis, they both mention how, while the city features classic architecture, it sometimes shares this style with dirty, modern, or poorly planned buildings.

At the same time, the differences between social classes are mentioned, also through this analogy with housing.

We reflect on the weeds that grow anywhere among these constructions, unstoppable and improbable. Soon after, we understand how this connects with the movie itself.

We then meet Martín, a young man living in his small apartment. He works creating websites and, after a long time dealing with social anxiety, he starts going out again.

Mariana, on the other hand, is an architect who lives in another apartment and works adjusting mannequins.

Both live solitary lives, disenchanted with love, and seem ill-adapted to society’s lifestyle.

Martín meets a girl, who, by the way, has a boyfriend. She gets involved with him but later leaves him, just like his former girlfriend.

Meanwhile, Mariana tries to go out with other men, but, like Martín, she is not ready or sabotages these encounters.

Life becomes sadder until they decide to break the wall of their apartments and open a window.

Once again, they mention those typical buildings that have an empty side, but sometimes, illegally, a resident opens a window where it’s not allowed, creating a completely disordered visual.

Ironically, their lives improve through this beam of light, and they meet online, exchanging messages until one day they meet in the middle of the street.

I find this portrayal of human relationships post-internet interesting. As soon as the movie ended, I grasped the analogy with architecture.

Just as in Buenos Aires, where buildings and constructions weren’t planned, creating this contrasting visual of classic and modern, the same happened in contemporary life.

The world was used to classic relationships, simple conversations, and physical touch.

When communication technology arrived, just like a city unprepared for new projects, humanity was not ready for this psychosocial change.

As a result, emotional disorder and confusion arose for those who went through this transition or were even born into it.

The protagonist couple experiences this. They live isolated lives, especially Martín, and don’t understand why they have so many problems.

They don’t even realize it, because this global "project" wasn’t signed by them. They are just "weeds" growing where they find space, trying not to suffocate, not to die.

The windows portrayed here, in turn, are acts of desperation born from suffocating loneliness.

By opening a window, we receive the force of what is real, not built by humans.

Through this opening, loneliness turns into solitude. We can contemplate a world beyond what is limited to us.

I like the direction and editing of this film, especially in capturing such a specific moment like 2010 (around that time).

But incredibly, this realization manages to be current and profound, especially in the time we’re living in now.

The pair of actors play their roles well, even if not overly challenged due to their characters' apathetic personalities—intentionally so, of course.

Perhaps the ending unsettled me a bit, due to improbable actions taken by the established characters, particularly the final scene. But I understand it can be seen from another perspective.

And around the middle of the story, the direction seems to lose focus a bit, creating unnecessary space that should have been better utilized, especially for such a short film.

Even though you can't choose where you're born or the world you find yourself in, you can plan your home, open a window, and disconnect from what society demands of you.

Don’t be a weed stuck to a classic building or a contemporary skyscraper.

Be in the garden, where you're not limited by suffocating walls or poorly planned constructions.

The belief in obtaining a precious stone before it is extracted from a rock can lead someone to profound sadness.

“Whisper of the Heart” presents us with a beautiful story about this.

Shizuku is a young girl who loves reading books from the library where her father works. She lives with her mother, father, and sister, always helping out where she can.

During the holiday period, she decides to read 20 books from the library, becoming curious because a person named "Amasawa" is always in the records of the books she borrows.

Meanwhile, as school resumes, Shizuku and her friend experience teenage romances. While her friend has a crush on a certain boy in their class, Shizuku feels conflicting emotions about another boy named Seiji.

One day, Shizuku needs to take a meal to her father at work, but while on the train, she notices a cat that curiously boarded. 

Driven by her adventurous spirit, she follows the cat and discovers a part of the city she didn’t know. There, Shizuku finds an antique shop.

When she enters the shop, she is mesmerized by the many beautiful and hypnotizing items. In particular, a statue of a well-dressed cat with a cane catches her eye.

Shortly after, she meets the shop's owner, a very kind old man who tells her the story of some items and mentions that the cat statue is the most valuable and non-negotiable item in the shop.

As days go by, Shizuku, always creative, writes songs and continues to wonder who the fervent reader she sees in the library records is.

As she gets to know Seiji better, whom she initially disliked, her perception changes. Shizuku then discovers that he is the reader she had noticed repeatedly in the book records.

The surprises continue as she learns that Seiji Amasawa lives in the antique shop and that the owner is his grandfather.

The two grow closer and start to develop feelings for each other. Seiji shows her his work crafting violins and tells her that he plans to study in Italy in a few months.

Although Shizuku is happy for him, she also feels sad and contemplative, both because she might be separated from him and because she doesn't know what she wants for her own future.

Time es, and Seiji goes to Italy. During this period, Shizuku goes through an existential and creative crisis, afraid to take risks and pursue what she loves.

However, at a certain point, she decides to write, and with the shop owner's permission, she creates a story about the "Baron," the cat statue mentioned earlier.

When she gives the manuscript to the old man, he praises it and makes an analogy to a stone that still needs to be polished but gives hope for the girl's future.

The animation ends with Seiji returning from his trip, planning a future alongside Shizuku, and both of them trying to pursue what they truly love.

First of all, it’s worth ing that we rarely see a purely realistic story from Studio Ghibli.

Coincidentally or not, just as “Grave of the Fireflies” portrays a real-life scenario, we also see this here.

Another similarity is the director, Isao Takahata, who orchestrated both productions. And I must say, he succeeds in both.

The main theme here is the perspective on life. Shizuku shows herself to be a girl full of talents but lacking direction.

In contrast, upon meeting Seiji, even though she likes him, she becomes depressed knowing that he is on a path towards what he wants in life while she is not.

Today, we can contrast this with social media. Often, we have various skills but see so many others realizing their dreams, generating despair in us instead of motivation.

Fortunately, it doesn’t take her long to realize that all she needs to do is try. As Seiji himself said, he would try, and if he wasn’t good enough, he would return.

This kind of mindset is often confused with pessimism, but certainly, this well-measured realism prevents frustrations or mistakes from catching us off guard.

The “Baron,” in turn, tells us a lot. He might have been just a simple piece, something that could be sold, but because there’s something more in his story, his value is inestimable.

Behind that object lies much sadness and broken hearts, but it’s precisely because of this that he is unique.

In a way, we can compare ourselves to this object. Frustrations, changes, and conflicts make us valuable.

If that piece had been newly created or kept in a box for decades, what symbolic value would it have?

Certainly, just as in the fantastical animations of the Studio, the more realistic creations also have their value.

A beautiful piece of art, with careful strokes and excellent direction. As in “Kiki’s Delivery Service” and “Spirited Away,” the “slow” scenes hold great importance.

Through simple moments, we understand how the character sees the world and immerse ourselves in the story.

The script and dialogues are very good, combined with a well-done soundtrack. Honorable mentions to “Take Me Home, Country Roads,” adapted by the creative Shizuku.

What distances me a little from this work compared to my favorites is perhaps the dosage of this “slowness” in some moments.

Moreover, I feel that given the runtime, the production could have invested in more layers for the secondary characters beyond the protagonist.

These are specific points, and watching it again, I might see things differently.

Live a life beyond the shelf, step out of the box, and allow yourself to go through situations and try new things that will make you a valuable and non-negotiable being.

Perhaps the worst, but necessary, feeling that exists, grief, is masterfully orchestrated in a grand portrait, with a standout performance and a powerful message.

"Manchester by the Sea" tells the story of Lee, a seemingly very bad-tempered condominium janitor. One day, he receives a call with the tragic news of his brother's death.

After that, Lee goes to his deceased brother’s town to identify the body. Always very apathetic, he shows an internal suffering that doesn’t come across at all.

His brother Joe had a son, Patrick, Lee’s nephew. Through flashbacks, we see that the three of them once had a good relationship. Today, Patrick is almost an adult but still needs a guardian.

Through the will, Lee is given the role of Patrick’s guardian, and with great hesitation, he begins living with his nephew. As the story unfolds, we learn that the protagonist had a wife and three children.

As the movie progresses, we discover that in a tragic accident in the past, Lee’s house caught fire due to his own mistake. Tragically, all of his children died, but his wife survived. They separated some time later.

At the police station, he attempts to shoot himself but is stopped by the officers. From that moment on, it seems that he lost a large part of his heart, and in a way, his life.

It is also evident that his nephew Patrick’s mother was never present and always had problems with alcoholism. At one point, she even tries to reconnect with the boy but is unsuccessful.

As in any real-life situation of death, the film does not shy away from showing the various bureaucracies and the harsh reality of planning the funeral.

Now, I understand why Lee is so insensitive; we begin to notice his effort to forget or push his emotions to the future.

At a certain moment, he meets his ex-wife again, who is now pregnant by another man.

Unlike him, she cries and pleads for his forgiveness for all the offenses and blame she placed on him after the incident. We can see that she still loves him, but he says he just doesn’t feel anything anymore.

The story unfolds showing that Lee’s wounds were only covered, not healed. With these dilemmas and still the responsibility of taking care of Patrick, he feels compelled to his role as guardian to his deceased brother’s friend.

Even though he disagrees, Patrick understands that his uncle is still not ready to take care of someone, as his heart is still unsettled.

The conclusion comes after Joe’s funeral. In the middle of the sea, Lee and Patrick are fishing, representing their shared grief and a new stage in their lives.

The direction overall is good, and when we talk about cinematography, it’s even better. The cold atmosphere perfectly contrasts with the protagonist’s troubled life, and the soundtrack knows when to appear, leaving necessary silent moments.

Casey Affleck’s performance is sensational, the highlight of the movie; he manages to convey Lee’s understandable melancholy, but not in an apathetic way (there’s a difference).

In fact, I think it’s much harder to act well in a melancholic role than in an extravagant one, because the great acting lies in the details, in the eyes.

The reality and rawness of grief are masterfully portrayed here, and we understand how each character deals with this feeling.

Lee’s choice to lock away his emotions only made the grief more prolonged. But given everything he went through in his past, perhaps locking away that emotion prevented him from harming himself.

The last scene of the movie isn’t what most people expect; it doesn’t bring a satisfying feeling. However, considering everything that happened, it would be almost fanciful if it ended happily. Here in its conclusion, we have something more resilient than momentary joy: acceptance.

Perhaps some may have difficulty digesting the pace and especially the conclusion of this work. But if you’re willing to immerse yourself in Lee’s life, I’m sure you’ll capture unique feelings.

For those who have experienced great grief, this might be an emotional trigger, so be careful. But for those like me who haven’t gone through something similar, it emulates such a moment with reality.

I feel that I now understand a bit more about this devastating feeling.

The somnambulism of a destroyed society. "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" portrays German Expressionism exemplarily, bringing a new authorial trait to cinema.

Francis is a young man who begins telling a stranger a story about the terrible Dr. Caligari and how this man devastated his village/town.

We then flashback to the moment when a fair was beginning in his village. During this period, Dr. Caligari appears for the first time alongside his somnambulist, Cesare.

After entering the fair, Caligari begins the spectacle, bringing the somnambulist back to reality. Besides this feat, Cesare could predict the past and future of anyone who asked.

A friend of Francis asks about the day of his death and unfortunately discovers it would be that very night.

A wave of murders coincidentally begins in the city, and the next day, Francis discovers that his friend was killed.

Many suspect Dr. Caligari, so they decide to spy on him the following night. The next day, the officials manage to capture the killer, thereby proving Caligari's innocence.

Moments , and the woman Francis loves is attacked by Cesare during the night. Everyone wonders how this is possible since they were spying on Dr. Caligari.

Later, they discover that the Cesare they saw with Caligari was just a dummy, while the real one was committing the murders.

The hypnotist flees after the discovery, and Francis follows him, arriving at the psychiatric hospital.

There, Francis realizes that Caligari is pretending to be the hospital director and soon finds books that reveal the inspiration for this criminal practice and for somnambulism.

Everyone captures Dr. Caligari and locks him up after gathering all the evidence.

Surprisingly, after this, we discover that everything was (perhaps) just a distorted vision of a patient.

In reality, Francis and his beloved were patients in the psychiatric ward, and the protagonist's madness was precisely thinking that the director was Dr. Caligari.

More than 100 years have ed since this masterpiece. It's impressive to realize the level of uniqueness and mastery in its overall composition.

The characterization marked by geometric shapes, shadows, sound effects, expressions, and everything that comes from German Expressionism fits perfectly here.

In a post-war period, these feelings of confusion, fear, and alienation are very present.

The anguish often present makes us hesitate about what we are seeing. But when we reach the end, we realize that these emotions transport us into the lives of those "asylum" patients.

Moreover, as I recently rewatched "Shutter Island," it’s impossible not to notice the inspiration for the final twist.

A great achievement by Robert Wiene that I can't give a perfect score because it suffers from an excess of information for the viewer, especially in the final acts.

Something that, for example, saddens me when I "Psycho."

Certainly, for those unaccustomed to films of this era, many might find it tedious and excessively slow.

I think the opposite. The movie has an ideal duration, and even though it is slow, there is no scene without some kind of action or event.

When the pacing bothers me, it's usually due to the inclusion of irrelevant or literally empty moments.

An essential classic that changed art overall and depicts one of the great eras of cinema.

Now reflect: What is worse? 

Living a life of somnambulism, being manipulated like Cesare? 

Or living awake a life of deception, blindly believing in something?

Sometimes it’s better not to think about it...

For a romance movie, a genre I rarely enjoy, I think it's average in a good way.

The plot is nice, with a very realistic and believable theme.

I like how they address the issue of domestic violence, especially the clever approach of confusing the viewer with the victim's perspective.

Just as in real life, victims often force themselves to believe they are not suffering abuse, and when we finally see how it truly happened, it makes an impact.

The emotional moments are well executed, and overall, the direction does a good job. I don't see anything particularly unique in the technical aspects, nor anything standout, but it's well done.

An average piece of work that, despite having a very specific audience, manages to be at least somewhat interesting.

On the other hand, it has weaker dialogues and misses the opportunity to explore good discussions in moments of conflict.

A nice pastime to watch in company, but nothing memorable.

Like many surrealist films of the era, "Un Chien Andalou" is an invitation to a strange, disturbing, and singular dream.

Obviously, it was not made to have a linear narrative interpretation and an explicit context or theme, but in my view, it reflects the subconscious alongside human malice.

As the main point of the work for me, the ants coming out of the "evil man's" hand may reflect such deep desires that break out in an inevitable and uncontrollable way, just like what happens when an anthill is exposed. Contemplations of death through the moth and internal conflicts bring even more anguish.

As director Luis Buñuel himself said, this film does not intend to bring any meaning, precisely because it is based on a dream. But just as we do not understand it, it is difficult not to be intrigued and feel emotions that have no basis but are real.

Indeed, this movement in cinema was quite courageous, and even though it is confusing, everything is well executed, considering the period it was made.

I read a comment about this film and wondered how it would be if such a movement returned to cinema today with more investment and production capacity.

A great achievement that does not drag on to the point of being unbearable (in of madness) but allows us to try to expose its "real" meaning. Which, in fact, does not exist.

For those used to terrible 'sequels' of horror classics, this work manages to bring an identity while respecting the foundation of the first movie.

I like Arkasha Stevenson's direction here. It pays homage to many of the framings and moments from the '76 classic but manages to be original.

Actress Nell Tiger Free is undoubtedly the standout here. She manages to convey conflicting and extreme emotions without being caricatured.

When required, she brings out her deepest and most radical emotions, especially in one of the final scenes after the car crash. That was her peak.

At the same time, her ability to convey her thoughts through small expressions is what maintains her consistency.

I like the plot overall. It could easily have been a copy of the classic story, but they manage to bring additional elements. Besides having plausible plot twists, even if easily deduced.

The soundtrack undoubtedly pays homage to the 'franchise' and manages to be unsettling in just the right measure.

Moreover, discomfort is not lacking here. The anguish brought out especially in the childbirth scenes adds an extra layer of horror and is certainly well-produced.

I missed only a greater development of the secondary characters. For example, the duality that could exist among those who were part of the ritualistic group.

Some scenes also lose some of their surprise factor due to the clear change in framing and soundtrack. As seen right from the first death in the film.

Perhaps if they had brought some new element they could have not only equaled but even sured expectations.

Nevertheless, for me, this achievement manages to maintain the quality of the first film.

Since I'm not overly fond of the original work, in a way I found it as good as the classic.

And certainly, the inspiration from 'Rosemary's Baby' for various scenes pleased me.

Perhaps the best place to hide the tree that will bear the fruit of evil was in the purest garden.

"Bullet Train" can entertain a casual viewer, but with due attention, its errors and execution can be bothersome.

As mentioned earlier, this movie is very easy to digest. It seems made exclusively for the general public.

In some aspects, I see a good side to this, as the direction does not prolong moments and manages to be quite fluid.

However, just as the direction goes well in certain aspects, the choice and editing are often disconnected and throw scenes on the screen that seem to underestimate the viewer's intelligence.

In fact, this "offense" to the viewer is what happens most here.

As for the characters in general, they are underdeveloped. Brad Pitt manages to do the best he can here, even with the superficiality of his character.

Perhaps the most development we see is with the antagonist "White Death," but even then, it is very little.

Speaking of the script in general, I can only add more flaws. Zak Olkewicz, the screenwriter, chooses the worst plot exposition devices.

What bothered me the most was Sandra Bullock talking all the time on that phone. One blatant exposition after another, and the script seems to want to chew what's already soft.

There are also many conveniences. And when this becomes a negative point, it is because they really abused it.

With all this stated, it might seem the rating should be lower. However, I think all these script points take away half of what could have been a perfect experience.

The other half, mainly composed of the proposal, fun, and scene direction, pleases me.

A movie to leave your brain aside and enjoy the moment.

Amidst the many lackluster Marvel movies, Deadpool & Wolverine manages to ride the genre's frailty and bring a genuine smile back to fans.

The plot itself is weak and would be subject to harsh criticism, but we are talking about Deadpool.

The film is honest in making it clear that this story only happened because the two friends and protagonists had the dream of bringing this work to life.

The chemistry between the characters is very good, the jokes as well, and the soundtrack is timely.

What always brings down the Mercenary's movies, however, is present here for me.

The lack of a high-level antagonist and his caricatured composition detract somewhat from the narrative's importance.

Even though in the end, one could say it's all intentional, in certain parts, especially involving the Logan, the execution takes itself seriously.

In light of this, some things could have been less sloppy.

Apart from that, I like the direction, and certainly, the return of this character has somewhat appeased the most avid nerds.

Ironically, I imagine the immortality of these heroes will continue on screen, given the financial returns.

A classic highly valued for its cinematography, iconic moments, and performances, but in my view, it lacks a bit of narrative depth.

A European princess named Ann (Audrey Hepburn), accustomed to a life of class and bourgeois bureaucracies, begins to long for life outside the palaces.

During a political visit to Rome, Ann decides to escape one night. Even though she is medicated, she manages to hide behind a cart and makes her way into the city.

Amidst this, we meet Joe (Gregory Peck), a journalist finishing his shift and playing with his colleagues. As he leaves, he encounters Ann, who is visibly affected by the medication she had taken.

He then, fearing to leave her alone, takes her to his apartment and lets her sleep there, unaware that she is a princess.

The next day, late for an interview with the very princess, Joe discovers from a newspaper photo that the woman in his room is actually Princess Ann.

He sees this coincidence as an opportunity and, hoping to earn a lot of money, plans to write a story about the princess's personal life and rare moments.

After returning to the apartment, Joe wakes Ann and decides to take her out in Rome, showing her the city's life and, with the help of his photographer friend, capturing unusual moments of her.

Many things happen, such as being caught by the police, visiting various tourist spots, Ann cutting her hair, and ending the day in a fight at a party.

Returning from this unforgettable day, Ann asks Joe to take her back home, still unaware that he knows her true identity. Joe obliges and takes her back to the palace.

The next day, Joe's interview with the princess is rescheduled, and she recognizes him and discovers his true profession.

Even with all the photographic material that could make him a lot of money, Joe honorably decides to forgo the story, understanding that what they experienced together was more than just news.

I appreciate the technical aspects and direction of this work. William Wyler manages to capture beautiful scenes of Rome and the day's composition experienced by the characters.

The acting is excellent, with honorable mentions to Audrey Hepburn, who brings life to this innocent character with a magical gaze, even at the simplest things she has never encountered in her wealth.

The editing does not please me as much, and some poorly adjusted sound effects become apparent, though this is a recurring issue in films from this era.

As for the plot, being original, I felt a bit of a lack in character development and situations. I feel they could have depicted more than just one day in the life of the princess and shown more of the impact of her lifestyle with reality.

As for the ending, I like it. That experience between the couple wouldn't be strong enough to make Ann choose a new lifestyle, but it was enough to mark that day for her. A realistic ending.

A beautiful movie, with great moments of Rome for cinema, certainly memorable.

The duality of war in pursuit of peace is a great irony. Stanley Kubrick's critical approach to this vision is as well elucidated as it is executed here.

The movie begins by introducing us to a group of men being prepared for the Vietnam War, all led by the rigid Sergeant Hartman.

The narration focuses on Davis, one of these soldiers, who is nicknamed “Joker.” In the first half-hour of the plot, we see his and his comrades’ arduous training.

In particular, we get to know Lawrence, a young man with a certain cognitive delay. Because of this, he becomes a target for Hartman, who torments him for not fitting into the training.

Joker is assigned to look after Lawrence and ends up sympathizing with him. He teaches him almost everything about becoming a good soldier, and in a way, he improves.

However, after another mistake, Hartman, in a cunning manner, starts to discipline the whole platoon whenever Lawrence makes a mistake.

This generates revolt within the group until one night they all come together to beat him, including Joker, who, although reluctant, commits the act.

After that, Lawrence changes, becoming cold and strange. He develops a lot of skill as a shooter, and they all finally head toward graduation.

On their last night in the barracks, Joker is on guard but feels something is off. When he enters the bathroom, he finds Lawrence armed.

Totally destabilized, the young man begins to load the weapon. Amid this, Sergeant Hartman arrives and tries to take the weapon from him.

Lawrence then shoots the sergeant, hesitates to kill Joker, but shortly after turns the weapon on himself and commits suicide.

After the incident, the story jumps forward in time. In Vietnam, we find Joker again, now as an official war reporter.

While at one of the bases, some conflicts start, and his job is to record the events and manipulate the news for the mainstream media in favor of the American government.

One day, he is sent to a conflict between control points, coincidentally where he meets a friend from training.

They then begin a long walk between villages with armed Vietnamese and capture some of these places.

However, they realize they are following the wrong path on the map and need to through an unknown location.

After one of the soldiers checks this place, he is shot by a sniper. Everyone then starts searching for this sniper but does not find him.

Over time, this sniper kills two more soldiers, including Joker's friend. Tired of this, they find his location and go to kill him.

Joker's gun jams, and he is almost killed, but luckily his partner takes out the sniper. It is then revealed that the sniper was just a young Vietnamese girl.

This masterpiece ends by showing them returning home, reflecting on how rotten this world is but happy to be alive.

In my view, the critique that speaks most to me in this work concerns the illusory image of a club.

The way they reduce the people of Vietnam to monsters and commodities is similar to how the Nazis depicted the Jewish people to their army.

Obviously, the marketing of war has always been well-planned by the government. But this doesn’t only happen in war.

Humans always seem to seek a tribe, a restricted organization, or a club. Within this place, their greatest perversities and assorted desires become objects of iration.

Of course, sometimes we are forced to a movement we don't agree with. The worst thing is when we seek out this club ourselves.

The sad thing is when we feel we need an organization to complete what we lack.

When “Joker” sees the young girl dead at the end of the movie, he seems to realize that, like her, they were both placed there to die.

Meanwhile, his friend celebrates having killed her. He seems blinded, more eager to be part of the story than to be human.

Certainly one of the best portrayals and audiovisual achievements ever made on the subject.

Kubrick adapts the work "The Short-Timers" so well that in simple scenes without dialogue, much is conveyed.

Technically very well done and, above all, timely. The cast works very well, with an honorable mention to Vincent D'Onofrio.

In our lives, there will always be something missing. The world will try to touch your weak point and turn you into something soulless.

It's up to us, even when placed in a cruel situation, not to abandon our badge. To always the duality we must have.

To thus become "born to choose."

Amidst so many expectations, *Inside Out 2* manages to maintain good animation quality and plot, but it lacks depth compared to its predecessor.

I liked how the work included the new emotions consistent with the character's new phase of life.

But unfortunately, I felt they missed the chance to embrace a bigger storyline. Basing the entire plot of the animation on a sports game is clichéd and limiting.

Kelsey Mann directs well; he doesn't compare to Pete Docter, but he's good. The editing and overall composition are equally well done.

In the first third of the movie, I saw great potential but was disappointed to see how limited it would be.

Additionally, the journey is very similar to the first movie. They get lost and have to find their way back while an emotion dominates Riley.

However, “anxiety” is the highlight here. It stands out among the new emotions, and the script develops it well.

In some moments, without needing to explain anything, we see the positive side of this emotion, especially in practice and focus during training.

The negative side of this emotion is brilliantly elucidated when Riley visibly has a panic attack.

This is truly the high point of *Inside Out 2*.

Among other characters, few additions were made among the humans, but they were well integrated.

Far from being a bad sequel, but it unfortunately missed the chance to match the first.

Let each emotion play its part, so that when unfamiliar feelings arise, none takes the place of the other.

A class on how to make a great film visually while spending little money. Even though the proposal is to show Godzilla, the production does not abandon a good script and direction.

Koichi is a World War II kamikaze pilot who runs away from his task for the love of life. During his escape, upon landing on an isolated island, he lies to the island's mechanics that he had problems with the plane's engine.

Before long he is unmasked and seen as a coward by those who were there. At nightfall, everyone on the island is surprised by Godzilla.

The creature kills almost everyone except Koichi and the head mechanic. The next day the pilot is blamed by the other survivor and returns to Tokyo.

In his city he discovers that he lost his parents in the war. At one point, his life collides with the lives of a woman named Noriko and a baby named Akiko, who later turns out to be an orphan child.

Koichi ends up taking care of them and becoming, in a way, family, but avoids having feelings for the woman because he still seems to be affected by her past.

He gets a new job, risky because it involves removing marine explosives from the war, but with a good salary.

In this job, Koichi meets new friends and the two work removing and blowing up these explosive mines.

One day, Godzilla returns and attacks a Japanese military boat. After the destruction, Koichi and his team are unable to stop him.

Days after the incident, the creature heads towards the city where Noriko worked. Her life is in danger, but Koichi arrives in time to rescue her.

Unfortunately, after a mega explosion caused by the monster, she apparently dies.

Koichi is devastated. Days , your team and former soldiers plan an ambush for the creature.

When the moment arrives, everything goes wrong, but Koichi, after catching a plane, heads towards the monster's mouth.

Loaded with several bombs, the aircraft explodes and destroys Godzilla. Koichi, contrary to what he believed to be honorable, survives by ejecting from the plane.

Upon returning to the city, everyone celebrates and the young pilot is thrilled to discover that Koriko survived and is hospitalized.

I can say that the first two thirds of the film really captivate me.

The production is very well done and intelligent in knowing how to invest its budget in the right moments in which Godzilla appears.

The plot ends up differentiating itself by showing something beyond a monster movie, and presents us with some additional layers related to war and trauma.

In a way, Koichi's phrase, “my war is not over yet”, demonstrates his suffering for believing a lie.

The distortion made by the government by creating a false honor by exchanging life for an honorable death caused Koichi to die mentally.

By choosing to live rather than sacrifice himself, he in fact died. Because culture and alienation made him hostage to the burden that war and defeat brought.

Godzilla's analogy to nuclear bombs and war is also notable here and easily observed. For example, in the detail of the “black rain” after the creature blows up part of the city.

I like the direction, the actors who deliver what is proposed well. I'm a little bothered by the plot, which ends up bringing too many conveniences to go unnoticed.

As in the several scenes in which the main characters seem to have a tracker that makes Godzilla reach them, or in the moments in which they both escape clearly fatal situations.

In addition to the ending, which, even understanding the story of the “G cells”, for me makes the entire emotional climax and mourning a trick in the script.

Even with these details, overall it is a good film, and certainly stands out from its American-produced competitors.

If you are going to sacrifice yourself, sacrifice your arrogance and desire to be part of some movement that does not represent you.

Living by the conviction of others is a choice.

A delicate portrait of the autism spectrum even at a time when little was known about it. A great drama without emotional appeal and with outstanding performances.

Tom Cruise lives the life of Charlie, a car salesman who receives news of his father's death.

He then goes to the wake with his girlfriend Susanna. We discovered that his past with his father was troubled, especially after his mother's death and he hadn't seen him for a long time.

After the ceremony, Charlie receives the will, but is surprised to learn that three million dollars are in someone else's name.

Taken to an institution that cares for people with mental disorders, he discovers the existence of his brother Raymond (Dustin Hoffman), whose will received a large part of the inheritance.

Unhappy with the fact that his father has given so much money to someone who has no idea how to spend it, Charlie picks up his brother and takes him away, intending to take custody of his assets.

During the trip we have several comical and sad scenes, especially in relation to Charlie's relationship, who doesn't know how to deal with his brother's autistic disorder.

Amidst several problems, he realizes that Raymond is excellent at difficult calculations. Charlie takes advantage and takes his brother to win money at a casino during the trip.

Some more problems happen, but the day of Raymond's custody meeting finally arrives. At this point, Charlie no longer seeks money, but rather takes care of his brother who now has a sentimental bond with him.

Unfortunately for him, Raymond's care remains with the institution and the film ends with the two saying goodbye as they board the train.

Firstly, it is impossible to mention this work without praising Dustin Hoffman's incredible performance.

He manages to demonstrate, without exaggeration or offense, a real situation of someone with a degree of autism like Raymond.

Tom Cruise, even though he is not the prominent actor here, manages to masterfully present Charlie's evolution. From your incomprehension and selfishness to your redemption and love.

Filmmaker Barry Levinson orchestrates the film well, but the direction is perhaps not the highlight here.

He uses many mannerisms of the time, such as long cuts with melancholic 90s-style melodies and his way of directing scenes is not that innovative.

The transitions and montages also don't bring much new, but, again, that's not the point of this achievement. The difference, without a doubt, is in the acting, the script and the plot (with the exception of the ending, which left something to be desired for me).

Affective responsibility and patience when dealing with someone different is not easy, especially when the other person does not control their actions.

Fortunately, we see Charlie mature throughout the film. Even if he didn't realize it, he had his mannerisms and quirks. He always wanted everything at the same time, he was extremely impulsive and impatient.

Raymond, on the other hand, had his quirks tied to habit, obviously elevated by his condition.

The understanding and love Charlie found was giving up his impulsive/controlling habits to find the patience and kindness he needs to have with his brother.

Raymond was not “cured” as his brother tried a few times, but on the contrary, Charlie was humanized by him.

We've already seen Studio Ghibli portray different feelings in their animations through Hayao Miyazaki. Here, without a doubt, it is about love and its facets.

Sophie is a young seamstress who has self-esteem issues but loves her work. One day, while walking down the street, she is harassed by soldiers from the town, but is fortunately rescued by Howl, a wizard.

Upon returning to work, she is surprised by the most dangerous witch in the region. Motivated by jealousy over Sophie's involvement with Howl, the witch bewitches her, transforming her into an elderly woman.

Sophie, seeing her current state, seems sad, but doesn't feel much difference, as she previously saw herself as ugly. Soon, she runs away from work and goes in search of a new home.

On the way she encounters a cursed scarecrow, who helps her find a place to sleep in the lively castle.

After entering, Sophie meets Calcifer, a demon who says that her heart is linked to Howl and proposes to take her out of her old woman form if she can free him.

The protagonist also meets Markl, a boy without parents who lives there to help the wizard.

From this moment on, Sophie begins to clean the castle and spend time with the three, but at a certain point Howl, who is used in the kingdom's wars, asks her to convince the wizard Suliman to free him.

Arriving at the kingdom, she meets Suliman, who has a lot of magical power. Sophie is unable to convince Howl to take him out of the war, but manages to escape with Howl's help. 

She even takes the witch who bewitched her, but now without her powers.

Days and all six of them, including the dog, live as a family, but one day Howl disappears.

Sophie goes in search of him and finds him injured, and when she least realizes the witch who was without powers stole Howl's heart. 

With a hug and asking her to give it back, the witch frees herself from her unhealthy attachment and gives it back. Howl then receives his heart and is freed, as is Calcifer.

Even though he manages to free himself and escape, Calcifer decides to stay with them, seeing a family there. And with his power, he rekindles the castle's flame and everyone establishes a new home.

It is impressive to note how subtle the plot is, but at the same time revealing in bringing to light the love problems of each character in the relationship.

Sophie, suffers from not having self-love, sees herself as less beautiful than any woman. This contempt for herself is so evident that after the witch's curse and she grows old, she barely cares, as if nothing had changed.

Howl has an excess of self-love, but something totally superficial linked to his physical beauty. He can't love other people or anything other than his appearance, not even his insides.

The witch is completely jealous and has an unhealthy love for Howl, just like Sophie, she doesn't value herself, but turns this problem into evil. 

Calcifer, finally, has his life tied to another person, and has no freedom to love or make his own decisions.

But, in addition to the developments of these characters being well done, their conclusions are also well done. Calcifer, after being freed, decides to stay with them, now free, he can choose and truly love.

The witch at the end of the animation decides to return Howl's heart, putting aside this jealous love to truly want what is best for him. 

Howl, a being totally focused on appearances, learned to love Sophie even when she was old and managed to start a family. Now he has a reason to live and share affection.

Finally, Sophie gets rid of the curse not through a cure, but by knowing how to value herself and live without futile worries. Proof of this, it was in the moments when she slept, away from worries, that she became young again.

Even though she is young, her still gray hair can represent her maturity and detachment, revealing in this “old” detail something that highlights her beauty. Her insecurity no longer exists.

At one point she says, “The good thing about being old is that you have nothing to lose.” Perhaps from a young age she learned to see life as if others didn't notice her, in a lighter and less demanding way.

I can talk here about more characters and their developments in this plot. It's simply a beautiful message, one that could only be adapted by Miyazaki.

I just don't give it full marks because I still feel like it's a little below my favorites, and at a certain point in the work I felt like there were unnecessary extensions.

But without a doubt, a beautiful animation, technically and scriptically.

“The heart is a heavy burden”, precisely because it is responsible for bringing out the best feelings, but when poorly cared for it becomes a place of darkness and collapses.

Apparently a typical comedy about a failed trip, but it becomes something more than that.

Olive is a little girl who dreams of being Little Miss Sunshine at all costs. The work then introduces her uncle Frank (Steve Carell), who is rescued by his sister Sheryl (Toni Collette) in the hospital after attempting suicide due to a broken heart.

Sheryl takes him to her house, where the complete family is, Olive who we had already seen, her father Richard, a motivational speaker full of positive phrases.

We also meet grandfather Edwin, an elderly drug who constantly helps Olive with dance rehearsals for her performance, and Dwayne (Paul Dano), her brother who hates everyone and takes a vow of silence.

As the family forms a relationship, the humor is spot-on in dealing with their differences, from Frank's trauma, Richard's motivational annoyance, and Dwayne's disgust with everything.

At one point, Olive receives a call and has the opportunity to participate in the Miss pageant. Even though the family man initially doesn't want to, Sheryl convinces him and they all get in the car for a long trip.

While they are on the road, problems happen, such as a clutch problem that forces them to push the vehicle to start it.

But among all the incidents, in the middle of a night's rest, Grandpa Edwin overdosed and died. The family then needs to hold the wake, but gives up on their daughter's competition.

Understanding that Olive needed to honor what her grandfather wanted, they took the elderly man's body and put it in the car, heading straight to the competition.

Getting there, at the beginning of Little Miss Sunshine, we realize that all children have an exaggerated standard of beauty and Olive begins to feel intimidated by this.

Even with her father trying to prevent her from entering and embarrassing herself during the final performance, the girl decides to go anyway.

Her performance is extravagant and what would be an embarrassment just for her, becomes an embarrassment for the whole family when everyone shows up to dance with her.

The film ends with everyone leaving happy and cured of their problems, at least for that moment.

Technically, we have an emotional soundtrack that appears at the right moments and high contrast colors that convey the discomfort experienced by the family at times.

Apart from the death scene, the cast largely conveys the truth and their dialogues have a comical character that we would easily hear in real life.

Analyzing it carefully, we have a boring father full of motivational messages, an addicted grandfather, a depressed uncle, a rebellious teenage brother and an ordinary mother.

After all, the family is often made up of individuals who would never like each other, but surrounded by a greater bond, find comfort in the midst of differences.

A great trauma that could have been generated in Olive's presentation is alleviated and even nullified by sharing the “embarrassment” in a group, transforming a possible trauma into a happy memory.

Olive might be prevented from going on stage, but sooner or later she would experience situations like this in her life. So, instead of being alone, she had to overcome that discomfort.

How much simpler would life be if we let go of pride and allowed ourselves to share our pain or if we had someone to “suffer” with us?

The reflection remains.

For all the dreamers who never achieved what they wanted, here is a definitive work about the frustrations and injustices of life, which can sometimes camouflage the best in life.

The story begins by introducing us to several people praying for the life of a man, George Bailey.

We are then guided to the stars, in a kind of heaven, where “God” hears the prayers of George's family and calls a low-ranking angel to rescue him.

However, before saving him, the angel needs to know everything about his life, which is why the work goes back to that man's childhood.

Important moments in George's life are portrayed, such as the day he lost hearing in one of his ears after saving his brother from freezing water.

We go through his first job where he stops his boss from accidentally poisoning a customer. At the same time, as a teenager, he meets Mr. Potter, the richest man in his town.

This man tried to buy everything and everyone, but the only thing he couldn't do was the bank where George's father worked. Because of this, Potter tried several times to sabotage that place.

George Bailey, in particular, grew up to be a dreamy man. He didn't want to follow in his father's footsteps at the bank, but he wanted to travel the world and live the best life possible.

Unfortunately, his father didn't live long, ing away during a difficult period for the corporation. In short, if George didn't agree to take his father's place, the bank would go bankrupt.

So he chose to stay, knowing that choice meant postponing or burying his dreams of freedom from that city.

After this decision, George meets Mary again, a woman he had liked at another time but who didn't have the same dream as him, she loved that city.

They come together and form a couple, get married and save two thousand dollars for their honeymoon.

But unexpectedly after the wedding, the bank was going through a crisis and people wanted all their money even though there was no money in the vaults.

Mary then has the idea of handing over all the honeymoon money and sharing it with whoever she needed to get the money from, once again avoiding bankruptcy.

George and his wife, now broke, spend their first night as a married couple in an old house in the city that Mary liked. The friends prepare the night and make the place welcoming for the young couple.

The years , the family grows with four children but because of the war the bank is not doing well. Almost on the verge of bankruptcy, George receives a job offer from Mr. Potter.

At that moment, he vents all his anger at Potter's actions and denies the proposal.

Days later, George's uncle took the money to pay the bank debt, eight thousand dollars. This ensured that the corporation remained open, but at one point all the money was lost.

Unfortunately, Potter finds everything and keeps it to himself, waiting for the worst to happen to his rival's bank.

Unable to pay the debt, with the corporation almost closing and facing possible arrest, George returns home defeated.

At that moment he takes out all his fear and frustration on his children and wife. Leaving the house, he goes to the bridge, about to jump…

Just then, Clarence, the angel arrives and jumps into the sea before him. George saves him, but thinks he's crazy for calling himself an angel, rebelling, and even says he didn't even want to be born.

Clarence fulfills his request and shows what that city and its people would be like without his birth. From his brother's death to the structure of the city itself, everything changes without George.

No one recognizes him anymore, not even his wife. After spending time in this universe, he returns to the bridge and shouts to come back, being answered by the angel.

Overwhelmed by a previously impossible happiness, George goes screaming through the streets and celebrates. Arriving home he hugs his children, but he still has a debt to the government.

Miraculously, Mary returns home accompanied by all of George's friends. They each give a little of the money they have to help you pay off the debt.

The film ends, with our protagonist understanding where his wealth has been this whole time.

What can we say about such an impactful work? Straight from 1946, this achievement simply doesn't get old.

Frank Capra writes as well as he directs, and here his creativity is perfectly portrayed on screen.

From the angles to scenes like introducing George as an adult for the first time, they feel very contemporary and ahead of the times.

The narrative choice and editing are very well aligned and manage to attract the viewer's interest from the beginning.

The performances are very good overall, but without a doubt James Stewart gives a masterclass here. His transition from a dreamy, kind man to someone traumatized at the end and possessed by fear is surreal.

And finishing this technical analysis, with everything I mentioned lined up, the charisma and transmission of emotions that this work generates should always be an example for current films.

As for the message, something simple, nothing more than a portrait of the lives of all of us. I say “all” because even those who can choose whatever they want, who knows, might see themselves in Potter.

The surface message here is clear: no amount of money can buy life's true riches. Family, friends and character.

But looking deeper, for me the real message is this:

The world is difficult, it can even change your plans, it can corner you in all the ways that make you make sacrifices. But whoever you are, the world can never change, only you.

George had his world crumbling around him, but he was still that dreamer and fighter. However, from the moment he allowed himself to be changed by the situation, everything ended.

To paraphrase Nietzsche, our protagonist at one point looked into the abyss, and the abyss looked back at him.

Fortunately, just as the world and situations have no power to change who you are (only you), both cannot prevent the return of your essence.

I don't know if life is wonderful, but it certainly will be when each of us finds our wealth.

Labeling someone with something is much easier than trying to see the world through who you label.

“Good Will Hunting” introduces us to the life of Will (Matt Damon), a young man who works as a janitor at MIT.

One day, math teacher Gerald Lambeau challenges his class to solve a difficult calculation by the end of the semester.

The first to solve it would receive a prize. After that, not many days until Will solves this calculation even without being a student in his class.

Surprised to learn that they solved the calculation, Gerald tries to find the winner. After a few days, he is shocked to learn it was Will.

In the meantime, Will gets involved in a fight with his friends and ends up being arrested. Gerald, upon meeting him, offers him the opportunity to leave.

His agreement with the boy was that he would help him with the calculations and would start seeing a therapist recommended by the teacher himself.

After many attempts, Will always ended up sabotaging and driving crazy anyone who tried to start therapy with him.

After Gerald has had enough, he makes his last attempt with Sean Maguire (Robin Williams).

From the first with the new therapist, Will tries to make him give up, insulting his personal life, but is unable to intimidate him.

Sean starts to treat him the same way he was used to in his life and talks about his habit of labeling people and situations, but never experiencing them.

Will continues to demonstrate that he is capable of solving almost anything, but not of changing his life. One night, he meets Skylar, a medical student, and falls in love.

Due to his troubled past as an orphan and domestic violence, Will is always afraid of evolving in his relationships and this affects his evolution with Skylar.

At the same time, Gerald begins to worry, as Will appears to have no interest in working in the government or in a company that extracts his potential.

However, unlike the teacher, Sean tries to make Will make his choices naturally, but with his advice.

Both begin to build intimacy and Will finally exposes what he feels.

After many sessions, the young genius seems to be cured of the memories of his past that served as reins in his current life.

Finally he is approved in an interview to work in a company with his intelligence.

But soon after, he changes his mind and goes in search of his true love, Skylar, deciding on his own what his priority is at the moment.

Sean is happy to know that he was not a manipulator, but rather an influencer in his life.

It is difficult to describe just a few powerful messages that this work brings us. But arguably the main message here is about expectations.

Will grew up in a destroyed house, in a traumatic and chaotic life, his expectations regarding his future practically did not exist.

However, we know that he was a genius, and that at some point someone would realize this, as happened.

From that moment on, there was a shock of reality, where Will's personal expectations clashed with the expectations of those who knew his intellect.

Being good at something doesn't necessarily mean you have to make a living from it. Will felt this, and even when confronted about how much he could help the world, he was indifferent.

This indifference is generated by a lack of love and never having felt or received a feeling like this.

Little by little, with the help of his therapist, he discovers that his genius has generated a superficial view of everything.

Knowing is one thing, feeling is completely different.

The expectations generated in his mind prevented him from acting. His certainty about everything worked like a brake on his life.

Gus Van Sant directs everything very well here. But without a doubt the highlight goes to the duo of screenwriters and actors in this film, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.

Besides the captivating plot, what surprises me most here is the quality of the dialogue. I believe that because they were young people writing such a work, they brought even more naturalness to their speeches.

Comparing the dialogues here with other typical films of the time is almost cowardly. While in some we see completely theatrical narrative lines, here we can feel veracity.

This only improves when they decide to create a problematic protagonist, who doesn't change from water to wine abruptly. There is a natural construction to this character.

It's impossible not to mention Robin Williams, who once again delivers an impeccable performance here. Growing even further through the script, which builds an atypical counselor who is as problematic as his patient.

Everything here is expressed in a delicate and real way, very well executed and with a dense depth to this day.

Just like Sean said about his wife, really knowing something or someone isn't just about knowing what's most important. 

But yes, knowing the flaws and the irrelevant things is what really connects you to something.

Don't live up to your unrealistic expectations or expectations based on what others expect of you. Allow yourself to experience things before living in search of an unknown desire.

“Past Lives” go beyond a simple love story. This masterpiece encomes the return of a forgotten culture through a memory in the form of a man.

Nora is a Korean girl who, in her childhood in South Korea, had a friendship and a crush on her friend Hae Sung.

However, her parents decide to move to Canada and she is forced to break ties with Hae and leave.

Twelve years and the two have never forgotten each other. Even though they live completely different lives, Nora as a writer and Hae in the army, they manage to meet again on the internet.

The days while they talk via video call but when Nora starts to think about the future of this relationship, realizing that there is no perspective due to the distance, she stops talking to him.

Everyone moves on with their lives, Nora meets a writer named Arthur and marries him, while Hae starts dating another woman.

Twelve more years and Hae finally decides to visit New York and warns Nora. Upon arriving there, the two meet again and feel emotional confusion again.

Through so many walks, they realize how different they are from the children they were. Finally, on the last day of this visit, Nora, Hae and Arthur go out to dinner.

Arthur is practically excluded from the conversation because of the language and lets the two understand each other.

In this conversation, Hae realizes that her relationship with Nora is destined to “say goodbye”, while with Arthur it is destined to “stay”.

Both debate about other lives, considering situations that would never be possible in the current present. In a sad and mature, but realistic way, the two say goodbye, this time for good.

They understand that in this life differences count and that the weight of the consequences they now carry is greater than when they were children.

When I finished watching it, I realized why it was nominated for so many awards. It is not a simple romance, but an unfiltered portrait of difficult and cruel situations generated by love.

Nora was always very attached to her plans and goals, she always had a different target to pursue. Because of this, she didn't care so much about what she gave up to reach this destination.

Hae, after a terrible goodbye in childhood, created an emptiness within herself, which constantly searched for a solution.

The memories he had created a kind of platonic love that affected his life over the years because he was never able to resolve this conflict.

While Nora was looking for a life in New York, she ended up meeting Arthur and rushing her decisions due to her documents to stay there.

She liked her husband, but her love was always put in the background. Her life has always been more dictated by occasion than by emotions.

When she meets Hae again, she comes across not just a childhood ion, but a portrait of the life she left behind. She is faced with perhaps the last link she has with her culture.

However, we see the husband, who is wisely not portrayed as a bad man, on the contrary, he is a good person.

He notices, for example, in the moments when she sleeps, that Nora dreams in Korean. This creates in him the fear of knowing that there will always be a place in her mind that he cannot access.

The script does not facilitate her decisions about Arthur. After all, if he was a terrible husband, like in cliché romances, it would be very easy to abandon him.

In the last meeting, Hae's enchantment seems to give way to sad reality. He understands that it is no longer possible to live with her in this life, and realizes that it was her memories of this distant love that kept this flame alive.

When they say goodbye on a long, silent walk, like twenty-four years ago, they can't even kiss.

Life doesn't give time or space for the two, both are destined not to have a destiny together.

As for the technical part, I'm surprised by the quality of the photography direction here. The choice for general shots of landscapes or silence is not by chance.

This decision to prolong the moments brings us an even greater sense of reality and demonstrates how irrelevant this drama is to the world around it.

They are just two more human beings with problems and conflicts among many. But here we are invited to participate in these specific lives.

The direction in general is well done and the performance of Greta Lee and Teo Yoo carries this story and brings even more veracity.

Honorable mentions to John Magaro as Arthur who very well portrays a man with low self-esteem in this situation.

Therefore, nothing is free, we will always have to sacrifice something in our lives.

The sad thing will be if regret comes in the future and there is no way to change course.

Make your choices, whether rational or emotional, but be sure to prepare yourself to see the reflection of your past and your decisions at some point in your lives.

Full of an atmospheric and very well directed thriller, “Barbarian” delivers to lovers of the genre, the combination of a good rhythm but without resorting to cheap scares. Which is good, of course.

Tess, a young woman going for a job interview, arrives in Detroit. She rented a house online in a practically abandoned neighborhood and when she tries to sleep she can't.

After many attempts, the door opens. Inside the house is Keith, a man who, like her, rented the place. After understanding the responsible person's error, Keith offers the woman accommodation, and when she enters she is constantly suspicious of him.

After talking better, Tess decides to sleep that night, and in a way she even starts to like him. However, in the middle of the night she wakes up to the bedroom door opening, but strangely it wasn't Keith.

The day arrives, she goes to the job interview and everything goes well. Returning home, due to the need to use toilet paper, Tess goes to the basement to get the package. At that moment she comes across something scary.

In the middle of the basement, Tess practically finds tunnels under the house, with a specific macabre room. Desperate after locking herself in this basement, she asks for help and luckily Keith arrives to save her.

However, after Keith wants to see what was in that place, he disappears. Tess then goes in search of him and finds increasingly deeper and darker tunnels, until she comes across the terrible woman/creature, in which she kills Keith in a very brutal way.

The film now transitions to AJ Gilbride, the owner of that house, who after getting involved in legal problems decides to sell it to generate income.

AJ goes to the residence and after searching the entire place he finds the tunnels, being captured by the creature along with Tess. The work then shows us a flash into the past of the first owner and his sexual crimes.

After much suffering, Tess runs away but AJ ends up staying. She tries to call the police, but unfortunately decides to go back to rescue him.

She manages to get him out, but is accidentally shot by himself. In the middle of their nighttime escape through the streets, the creature surrounds the two and AJ cowardly throws Tess from a high place, knowing that the creature would jump with her.

Surprisingly, they both live, and after that the woman/monster kills AJ, finally being killed by Tess.

Initially, the work directed by Zach Cregger involves extremely tense angles and an atmosphere that grows throughout the film.

The way we are led to insecurity and fear is very well orchestrated through the good performances of Georgina Campbell and Bill Skarsgard.

In fact, the idea of generating doubts in the viewer through Keith's character and Tess's insecurity is very well thought out, which generates even more involvement with the girl and keeps us hooked on this great introduction.

My problem here is from the scene that takes us into the first owner's past, I feel that if they hadn't shown too much it could have been something more thought-provoking and created a stage for discussions.

Deciding to show everything isn't a problem, but I feel like it didn't add enough to the story to make it worthwhile.

In a way, it even cuts the pace a little precisely because it happens amidst the characters' imprisonment.

The ending is also exaggerated for me, we know that the creature has inhuman strength but the two surviving that fall is too much to believe.

However, the subtle relationship Tess creates with the creature is well-realized and works. To the point that we understand the final plan as the liberation of that woman who suffered so much.

The sound composition is excellent, as are the sound effects in general, highlighting the feeling of immensity that that basement has.

An important achievement for the genre, which highlights the good direction and atmosphere.

For anyone who ever told me that 60s cinema was not very expressive, but very melodramatic, this film is a slap in the face. Billy Wilder through Jack Lemmon delivers here one of the best comedies/dramas in cinema in my opinion.

Bud Baxter (Wilder) is an insurance company employee looking to gain an advantage within the company. With that, he starts lending his apartment to his superiors so they can take their lovers.

His life starts to get complicated, to the point that he can barely sleep in his own house and his neighbors consider him a freeloader of women.

One day, Baxter is called by the company president, who knows everything he has been doing to get promoted.

Surprisingly, instead of firing him, his boss, Jeff Sheldrake, takes advantage of him and asks to use his apartment with a mistress as well.

Baxter starts to get ahead at work because of this. Very lonely, unlike his “tenants”, he meets Kubelik, an employee desired by everyone at the company and invites her out.

As fate would have it, she was her boss's lover, and one night at Baxter's apartment, Kubelik overdosed after being abandoned by Sheldrake.

Our protagonist then saves her with the help of his neighbor, and takes care of her health at all times. After returning to work, Baxter becomes Sheldrake's right-hand man, but when persuaded to give him the apartment again, he resigns and is free from blackmail.

This masterpiece ends with Kubelik staying with Baxter in her apartment and choosing to live next door to the man who would give him his due.

We can take from this great film a portrait of the lives of many people. At first, when watching, we feel sorry for the women who are taken advantage of by these executives, but we soon realize that some are emotionally dependent on these men.

Baxter, although a good man, is in some ways as psychologically used as the wives of his colleagues.

In fact, almost like in a brothel, our protagonist becomes a prostitute in his own home, exchanging his health and dignity for money and promotions at work.

When Kubelik, disillusioned with the men she has known, meets Baxter, she rejects him because she does not consider herself a woman worthy enough for that noble man. Sheldrake's mental manipulation was so great that she confused her wrong actions with who she really is.

Fortunately, she and Baxter discover who they really are and begin to free themselves from the emotional and material prostitution on which they both depended.

An exquisite movie, way ahead of its time that brings a lot of humor at the same time that its dramatic charge hits the nail on the head.

Great direction, plot and dialogues. And as for the performances, even better. In the third act after the overdose, the film loses its pace a little, but it doesn't last long enough to take away any merit.

“The Apartment” is not just a silly novel, it is a portrait of dependence and addictions, not of drugs, but of people, positions and money.

I value the legion of fans that this work has captivated and the various theories outside the film that have been created. But the truth for me is that Donnie Darko seems overrated.

Donnie, a boy with schizophrenic problems, lives a normal life with his family. One day, he wakes up in the middle of the night in his room by a dark voice, which calls him out of the house and tells him that in 28 days the world will end.

Moments later, his family is surprised by a noise. A plane engine crashed into Donnie's room, but he was outside, sleeping on the floor.

After this event, her visions of the man dressed as a rabbit, Frank, become more frequent. He then begins committing acts of vandalism under his influence.

In the midst of all his problems, he meets a girl named Gretchen, who becomes his crush.

Donnie also begins to premeditate the movements of the people around him, and after receiving a time travel book written by an elderly neighbor, he seems to better understand what such events are about.

When the day of the end of the world arrives, Doonie leaves a Halloween party with Gretchen to deliver a letter to the elderly woman who wrote the book.

Unexpectedly, the two are caught by students who hated Donnie. But while the young men threaten the couple, a car appears that accidentally runs over and kills Gretchen.

It is then revealed that the driver was Frank, the rabbit-man from Donnie's visions. Out of control, the protagonist takes his gun and shoots him in the eye.

After fleeing the scene, the world appears to be starting to deteriorate. In the midst of all the chaos, Donnie sees a plane crashing and its engine breaking loose.

After that, he manages to travel back in time to the night when the fateful turbine would fall into his room. But this time, with a smile on his face as if he knew he was saving the world, he decides to stay.

Donnie dies in the fatality and moments later we see Gretchen, who in the past didn't know him, but strangely feels like she recognizes him.

Overall, the film directed by Richard Kelly fulfills its task of captivating the viewer. The editing and direction, along with the good framing and soundtrack are very well put together here.

The atmosphere of tension created by the filmmaker's promising script, combined with Jake Gyllenhaal's great performance, connects us to the protagonist.

I will avoid writing about explanations or facts that are not in the film. But these external explanations are certainly essential to make it “complete”.

Superficially, the feature film presents us with a duality between Donnie's schizophrenia or his possible temporal power. But soon such doubt is discarded because in the end we understand that everything was real.

I called the work overrated initially because I only analyze the film itself, because the theories or what is added after the end, for me, don't value it. In short, he creates many narratives and does not develop them.

They could even say that the facts retained in the original script (later released in book format) explain this. There is a lot in this universe and the grace/genius is precisely in creating theories.

I'm sorry, but this “JJ Abrams Mystery Box” fallacy sometimes seems lazy to me, yes.

If we analyze the film and the book together, it is certainly brilliant, but unfortunately the audiovisual production of this universe is 50% of the total.

Even with that detail, I like the mystery. Even with some criticisms regarding the conclusion of the ideas, the rhythm works and makes us create a real curiosity about everything.

Not surprisingly, most who saw it sought out information to better understand it.

Thought-provoking, mysterious and innovative, but needed more narrative exposition. Which is funny, because we tend to complain otherwise.

For me, a production should not be so expository to the point of revealing everything and not generating reflections, but also avoid being closed to the point of hiding everything and not functioning as a unique work.

The tower of the universe around you can be firm or unstable, but what defines us is whether we run away or stay to adjust it.

Mahito, a boy who lost his mother in a fire, after a while moves to a rural area with his father, to live more peacefully in the midst of war.

In this place he meets his stepmother Natsuko (his aunt coincidentally) and her new home, which although it seems peaceful, generates a strange impression.

From the beginning, he sees a peculiar heron in the yard several times, but he doesn't pay much attention to it. The boy also comes across several elderly women who serve the family there, all of whom are very curious.

One day, his father takes him to school, but on the same day Mahito fights with his classmates and deliberately hurts himself in the head to stop going to class.

Now, at rest, he notices that the heron is calling to him, saying that his mother needs help.

He knows this is very strange, but he still prepares by creating a bow and arrow from the heron's feather.

After seeing that Natsuko was taken to the forest, he decides to go after her even though he knew it would be an ambush by the heron.

Arriving at the library of Natsuko's great-uncle (mentioned previously as a great sage who went mad after so much knowledge), he is called by the crane.

There, after a fight with the bird, Mahito discovers that it was a heron-man, and at that moment he sees the wise old man I mentioned at the top of the tower.

After one movement, this man throws Mahito to the ground with the heron, both are taken to a world completely different from the real one.

This universe that the boy now knows seems very much like a dream, but his journey leads him to meet Lady Himi, a fire controller who helps him in the most critical moments of the journey.

After many challenges he finally finds Natsuko, but she apparently wants to stay in this world.

Mahito then personally meets that old and wise great-uncle of Natsuko and owner of this world. The lord offers the boy the succession of his kingdom.

He shows Mahito the tower of stones that balances that place and says that the boy could build the world he wanted, without injustice and pain like the life he knows.

Mahito denies the proposal and soon afterwards a parakeet king that had been seen previously arrives and breaks the stones of the tower, ruining that world.

Escaping from there, Mahito returns to his world and discovers that Lady Himi would actually be his mother in the future.

Back, the heron says that the boy will forget this trip in the future, but Mahito takes amulets from the other world with him so that this doesn't happen.

I hope not, but perhaps this will be Hayao Miyazaki's last animation.

As we always receive something beyond simple work, especially in the technical part, Studio Ghibli creates an impactful visual atmosphere.

The visual resources and compositions combined with a beautiful soundtrack make it even more beautiful.

Miyazaki's biggest difference for me here is precisely in the plot and message of the film, even though it is based on a book.

I feel like in most of your other works we can always clearly define them by themes, for example “identity” in “Spirited Away” or “persistence” in “Kiki’s Selivery Service”.

However, here he gives us only part of the message, the full meaning seems to be in our hands. Honestly, I like it.

In my opinion, the theme of this work is: Escaping a devastated world.

For Mahito, his world was devastated after losing his mother like that, he no longer had pleasure and peace inside.

The moment he enters the heron's castle we have a clear example of this.

He knew it was a trap, but he still needed to check if his mother was there, even if it cost him his life. Nothing else mattered to him.

Coincidentally, Natsuko's great uncle, creator of that world, probably by studying and acquiring knowledge, escaped his reality and succumbed to an illusory “perfect” world.

But throughout Mahito's journey, we realized that this perfection only existed in the mind of the creator of that “dream”.

An example of this are pelicans. One of them in particular says that everyone tried to fly higher to get away from there, but they couldn't. As a result, the fish disappeared and now they need to eat even the purest beings (those “souls”).

This reflects how the mind of the creator of that place became, always in search of something beyond, he exhausted his strength and consumed himself until there was nothing left. He only had his own soul to be corroded.

Escaping a devastated world can lead to false ideas, hypocritical ideals, and consume our minds.

Mahito's decision will make him understand that facing this devastation in real life can make him stronger, so he can help other people and stop investing in illusory emotions.

The only negative point for me that I can mention here is perhaps the abrupt ending of the animation, I feel like it could have been a little more clarified.

Overall, this work may be affected by the choice I mentioned because it is very interpretive and not a complete message like Miyasaki's other animations.

I hope to never be so ignorant that I ignore the devastation that surrounds me, but also not become obsessed with knowledge to escape what I think I understand.

The act of mastering time will always be the most addictive desire of human beings. The way “Tár” demonstrates this with Cate Blanchett’s great performance was spot on.

Lydia Tár is a success in everything she does in her profession as a musical conductor. The film begins while she is being interviewed and from the beginning we see the respect everyone has for her.

In her words, her role in a song is the primary control of the tempo and with her ease in front of the interviewer she really enhances her vocation.

Throughout the days, we follow her life while she is with her family, with her fellow musicians, in public but especially when she is alone.

Lydia, in one of her classes, even argues with one of her students about confusing a composer's personal life with his work, using the boy's own argument against himself.

As she works on her new project, some decisions come to a head. The main one is who could take the place of a well-known regent of it.

Her main assistant, sca, has to deal with her demands, seeking promotion to the position of regent.

As various rehearsals, classes, and appointments take place, Lydia feels watched and re students from her past who were obsessed with her, especially Krista.

We don't know if Lydia really took advantage of this woman, but we understand that she cut off all s this young woman had with the musical world.

While she worries about her daughter, her relationship with her wife Sharon deteriorates due to a lack of communication. Along with this, Lydia appears to fall for the charms of a new woman in her orchestra, which makes everything worse.

Until one day the news arrives that Krista committed suicide. Among several problems, Lydia continues with her unbeatable posture, but her wear and tear is noticeable.

After the incident, she becomes the target of criticism and begins to lose the control she once had over things. The culmination of this occurs when she attacks a conductor who was using her notes.

Even so, after everything she's been through, Lydia decides to look for new places to act.

Ironically, something she probably despised becomes her new job: video game soundtrack conductor.

Between the two works I saw on this topic in recent months, “Maestro” and “Tár”, this one undoubtedly captivated me more.

In direct comparison, both are very competent in technical direction, but it is impossible not to notice how well Todd Field chose Cate Blanchett for this role.

And this performance inevitably enhances the achievement as a whole. Where “Maestro” failed for me, here he succeeds.

We can feel the honest evolution of the character and at the same time the narrative builds great moments and circumstances for her.

I know that because it is a work of fiction and not a biography, naturally this freedom is greater, but it does not take away the merit of this achievement.

Just like a sheet of music, Lydia's life is directed to sound as pleasurable as possible to her ears.

However, at the same time that we notice the differences in her life, perhaps due to her own visibility, we see her mental capabilities to “deal” with everything.

The character Olga, about whom I did not go into greater detail above, clearly exemplifies one of her refuges. Used to pretending all the time, Lydia finds herself seduced by a simple human who is faithful to what she feels.

Sharon already shows that she has given up on this love, not even caring about a possible betrayal. Knowing Lydia, she clearly accepted her ing role in her life.

Finally, the discussion that the protagonist had with her student at the beginning of the work, coincidentally, raises a question.

Although the vast majority of us agree with her points against her student, is it really possible to separate the work from the author? If one generates the other, aren't they both one?

Perhaps Lydia became who she is much more through the influence of her achievements and work, rather than her own achievements being dependent on her.

Before finishing, my only problem here may be the lack of objectivity and narrative connection with the plot and direction. Some moments on screen could be more revealed and constructed, as is the case with the “chase”, which consequently affects the pace.

In any case, “Tár” portrays a human being on the rise, professionally and mentally. Yet he manages to delicately reveal his fragility and humanity as he loses control of the musical score of his life.

What if your life depended on a case without concrete evidence? Or worse, what if you were the victim and there was nothing to prove who took your life? “Anatomy of a Fall” deals with exactly this case.

The work begins by introducing us to Sandra Voyter (Sandra Hüller), a writer who lives in a cold city in with her husband Samuel and son Daniel.

Initially, the writer receives a journalist at her home who tries to interview her, but without success. Sandra seems to care more about this young woman's life than about the interview itself.

The interview situation only gets worse when Samuel turns on the music at a very high volume and completely disturbs the journalist. Sandra then decides to reschedule for another day.

While this is happening, Daniel, the couple's blind son, gets ready and goes out with his guide dog for a walk. Upon returning from the walk, he feels his father Samuel with his touch and desperately screams for his mother.

His father had died after falling from the second floor of the house and Sandra promptly called the emergency services.

From that moment on, Sandra's life turns upside down. Due to the trauma and the situation in which her husband's body was found, she became the biggest suspect.

With the help of an old acquaintance and lawyer Renzi, he helps her reconstruct the facts and make the suicide hypothesis the most plausible explanation.

Throughout the film we see different audiences and each one of them reveals the couple's relationship even more. It is revealed that Samuel recorded constant fights between the two and believed that Sandra had stolen ideas from his book, in addition to controlling her entire life.

On the other hand, it is also revealed that it was Samuel who indirectly caused Daniel's blindness in childhood, simply by not picking him up from school. This created emotional wounds in him and apparently Sandra blamed him for a long time.

Renzi tries to defend Sandra with all the facts she has, while blood experts and the prosecution lawyers fight to try to get a confession out of her due to lack of evidence.

In the middle of all this, Daniel decides to testify, and that could define everything. Without counting on her son, Sandra is worried about what the boy will say.

When the day arrives, Daniel confirms what his mother said about his father having already tried to kill himself because of too much aspirin. And its biggest story is exposed:

One day, when his dog almost died after ingesting his father's medicine while going to the vet, Samuel hinted that Daniel needed to prepare for his departure.

At that moment before the jury, the boy reveals that he understands his father's speech as a warning of what he was going to do.

After giving testimony, Sandra is acquitted and returns home with Daniel. Even so, they both seem stunned by everything, and uncertain, each in a different way.

The trial ends, but doubt and inconclusiveness seem to be written ironically in the blind boy's eyes.

It is worth mentioning that Sandra Hüller is certainly my favorite for the Oscar for best actress, she carries this achievement with a brutally subtle performance.

She manages to reveal her character's emotions while also demonstrating ambiguous feelings.

We see fear and despair in her eyes, but we don't know exactly why she is like that, which is essential to the investigative plot.

In a way, I compare this subtlety to what Cillian Murphy did in Oppenheimer.

The rest of the cast also does well, Milo Machado-Graner as Daniel does very well and delivers a great performance whenever requested.

As for Justine Triet's direction, it is masterful. The camera angles and choices remind us how dark this situation is and certainly the way they direct the scenes favors the cast's great performance.

In addition to her role as screenwriter, Justine certainly had a great role and influence on Sandra Hüller's great resourcefulness.

I also like the sound part, the soundtrack is minimal and not at all invasive, which favors dialogue and does not make moments unnecessarily dramatic.

In short, technically and narratively I see great moments in this achievement. For me, it just needed a little more layers and a little more memorable details when it came to something original.

The conclusion doesn't bother me, even though I know that many prefer a solution, I see here the perfect result to create debates and reflections.

Justice is blind, just like Daniel, but we will never know how good that is.

Certainly, false conviction is a theater for the peace and morals of society.

One of the biggest highlights of Christopher Notam's script in my opinion, but when it became a film proper, it was lost in some aspects.

Leonard (Guy Pearce) is an insurance investigator who suffers trauma after someone breaks into his home, kills his wife and injures her head.

After the incident, he develops a problem with momentary memory loss. Every few minutes, his memories disappear, except for those he had before the incident.

Driven by a feeling of revenge, Leonard seeks to kill whoever took his wife's life. With the help of writing, he writes down clues on papers, photos and on his skin as to who this killer could be.

In the midst of this, in the opening minutes, we come across Leonard killing a man named Teddy, who was apparently his target.

After what happened, the direction plays with the viewer, bringing memories back to the screen and slowly returning to the beginning of their investigations.

We then meet Natalie, a woman who initially helps our protagonist and informs him about the suspect in his wife's death.

Teddy also appears, a corrupt police officer who we saw dead at the beginning, but strangely seems to know Leonard and is helping him find his killer.

In a way that is difficult to write in a few lines, the work develops and we finally understand that Leonard is being used by both Natalie and Teddy.

In the end, Teddy influences Leonard to kill a drug dealer, insinuating that he was the right guy. Then, after the protagonist understands that he was used, Teddy tells him the “truth”:

In the incident in question, Leonard's wife had not died, but she had to live with his condition for a long time to the point of testing him, imagining that it was something fake. After this test, Leonard himself, due to amnesia, killed her with an overdose of insulin.

Leonard doesn't believe it, as this was the story of one of his clients investigated in the insurance company's work.

Teddy then reveals another story, that they had both killed the person responsible a long time ago, but Leonard always looked for someone else due to forgetfulness.

In the last scene, it is revealed that Leonard was the one who decided to kill Teddy, leaving a false memory in a photo of himself with the intention of making him the target he was looking for.

Technically, the film irritates me a lot with the soundtrack all the time, something usual for the time but which is annoying and ages very badly.

Along with this, the narrative choice ends up being irritating, as there are no moments of space to pause Leonard's thoughts, often unnecessarily, making it quite expository.

In of acting, I find almost the entire cast here to be quite apathetic. I don't know if it was due to a lack of guidance from the direction, the actors themselves or both.

I know Leonard's problem affects his emotions, but was it contagious enough to infect the other characters? haha

The confusing editing somehow fits the film's proposal and we feel lost as protagonists.

Nolan's takes are good but nothing very original, in short, we feel more of his signature in the script than in the recordings here.

In the end, we managed to capture much of what we saw and the resolution of the truth remains open to whatever we want to believe, just as Leonard did.

Sometimes we fight so hard for a truth that when we conquer it we choose to live in a lie. Maybe an inspiration from “The Matrix” in this achievement, who knows.

A truly unique work, in a guessing game with two clues we can guess which film it is.

However, it's worth ing cases like "In time", which was also very unique but average.

I know that many even say that it is the filmmaker's best work, but for me it is far from that, even though the script is brilliant.

It's rare that I finish a movie and feel like I've watched something epic and the more I think about it, the better it becomes. Casablanca is undoubtedly a landmark in cinema and a must-see for all lovers of the seventh art.

As the Second World War unfolds, we meet Rick, an American bar owner who now lives in Casablanca, a French republic not occupied by the Germans.

Casablanca is described as a transition region for refugees seeking age to America, but many wait years to get their visas and many do not.

Rick has a patriotic past but at the moment he proves to be a completely cold and sinical man. One night, after a conflict, he obtains a release document to escape, which would be given to an unknown leader of the allies.

At one point, Rick meets IIsa, a lover from the past who is now seeking to escape German rule, but this time with her husband, leader of the rebellion.

Confronted by his feelings, Rick repeatedly denies helping, but his heart seems to speak louder. After several conflicts, he takes a noble attitude, contrary to his feelings and even IIsa's, he sacrifices himself and allows them both to escape while he remains in Casablanca.

When I stop to think about this masterpiece, several things catch my attention, firstly, the narrative and dialogues. I see a convincing story here, which perfectly mixes a romance between a love triangle and political issues.

Rick is a very well directed character, we feel his conflict with himself between his ideals and feelings. His own imposing figure is justified by the charisma that his manner conveys.

Meanwhile, we premeditatedly judge IIsa as we watch, for “cheating” on her husband Victor while suffering and having a romance with Rick. But as things progressed, we learned about their reasons and realized that the situation was not favorable.

Victor, despite giving his life for the political and ally cause, is also an honorable man who truly loves Issa. We see here two men with genuine love for the same woman, willing to prove that love, but who would be the first willing to do so?

I must mention the participation of Captain Louis Renault who represents this ambiguity of a “free” government that at the same time must dance according to the music of the Nazis and their wishes.

Its ending ends perfectly and answers what the audience would like to know. Victor had already proven his love for IIsa, but Rick did something more.

He proved his love for her by sacrificing himself for a greater cause. After so much pride and a certain arrogance shown by him, in the end what defined him was his true attitude.

Technically it's surreal. It's incredible to imagine how good it was back then and continues to be today. Michael Curtiz with his montages, angles and scenarios are magnificent. The soundtrack, while bringing melancholy, recalls good times and gives weight to the narrative.

Based on an unfinished book, but which received its best audiovisual conclusion.

Let's be like Rick, at least in some important decision in our lives...

Without a doubt one of the most generic romantic comedies I've ever seen. Even considering that the movie's proposal is not to be of quality, but rather entertainment, it fails even in that.

Bea, a young law student, meets Ben, a man who wins her over in a coffee shop and takes her to his house. They spend the night together and she finds herself in love.

But after running away the other day, Bea overhears Ben telling a friend that she was nobody to him, thus harboring anger towards that man.

After a while, the two met again at a party, and discovered that “coincidentally”, you see, Bea's sister is engaged to one of Ben's friends, and the two are soon going to get married.

Everyone then embarks on a trip to Sydney, where Bea's sister is getting married. There, the former couple who now hate each other goes through several “comical” situations involving their feelings and their family.

Between many fights, pretenses and disasters, Ben and Bea love each other again, but on their wedding day she sees him kissing another woman.

Regretful, he runs after her and jumps into the sea to enjoy a ride with the coast guard. He reaches her and they both declare their love.

Well, I summarized a lot by taking out some of the characters' personal dilemmas and certain moments, but honestly, none of them have any purpose in the plot.

Nothing, absolutely nothing develops here, not the characters or the work in general. Again, I didn't expect this from a romantic comedy, but the comedy itself didn't work at all for me.

With the exception of the scene where the fake Thor asks if the couple who just fell into the sea were reenacting another scene from Titanic. It was so stupid that it worked.

Technically, it's a dull direction, totally without personality and the editing is super accelerated.

The moments that should have weight are completely superficial, largely due to the characters who do not generate a connection with those watching.

Anyone who likes this type of movie “Enemies to Lovers” and just something generic, forced and cheesy, might like it. But I believe that even those who just want something for entertainment will find it weak.

A completely forgettable work, with a poorly developed story and characters that will be lost in the ocean of this repetitive genre.

Another work directed by Bradley Cooper that stands out in a certain way, but for me with more demerits than merits, mainly narrative.

The film is a biography of Leonard Bernstein, a renowned orchestra conductor in New York who became famous with his compositions from the 1950s onwards.

The feature film begins in the future, representing in a colorful way and with a more rectangular angle, showing Leonard (Bradley) in his old age serving the media interested in his life story.

Later on, through a black and white square format, we are taken to his past, where he receives his first opportunity to conduct an orchestra.

After that, he meets Felicia Montealegre (Carey Mulligan), falls in love and they both begin a relationship.

It doesn't take long for her to notice her husband's sexual attraction to men, and unusually, she initially accepts it, but over time their relationship deteriorates.

As Felicia sacrifices herself for Leonard's career, their fights become more constant and so do his betrayals.

After much stress, they separate, but after a while they return when she sees a change in her husband.

Their work of composing never stops, but one day they are both surprised by the news of Felicia's cancer. Some time later, she es away.

The movie ends with Leonard, now in the present day, finishing quoting his story to the camera at the beginning.

Just by writing what I saw, I already feel that a lot was lost, and even in two hours, little was said, not only in sentences but in expressions as well.

The beginning of the work bothers me a lot here, we have scenes that bring a strange feeling of emulation of the 40s, humor and random sketches at times, along with an invasive soundtrack.

It seems that the plot doesn't take itself that seriously until the first hour, but then it changes from water to wine. But not necessarily for the better.

At the same time that some moments go on too long, others that would require better construction simply happen suddenly, such as the couple's own romance.

Because of this, the frustrations and crises in their relationship become artificial, precisely because there is no solid basis that should have been better clarified between the two.

Something important for a biographical film is to bring duality to the character, as seen in the recent “Oppenheimer”.

Here we don't have that balance about how we feel about Leonard. It is constructed in a superficial way that only makes us feel discontent, or worse, apathy towards its image.

What only makes this more visible is the fact that they chose a narrative much more focused on their love life and sexuality, which wouldn't be a mistake, if done well. The musical composition here is almost a subplot.

Even though the overall plot is a disaster in my opinion, some things stand out positively.

Bradley Cooper directed the scenes technically well, although the editing was sometimes confusing. The art direction is very well done and the choice of color palettes is punctual and interesting so as not to become visually tiring.

In some ways, he delivered what Hollywood critics love in one direction.

When it comes to acting, Carey Mulligan is the highlight here, even if the construction of the character doesn't help, when expressing her thoughts through speech, the actress delivers a lot of truth.

Bradley is already more restrained, ironically due to the direction itself and the choice to characterize Leonard in a one-dimensional way.

In short, a complicated work to watch, with a lot of potential, but with many empty spaces and a weak narrative.

I feel like Bradley Cooper got stuck trying to take on the character and direction.

If anyone asks me for a recommendation for biting religious satire, here's the definition of it for sure.

The film tells the life of Brian, a boy who was born practically next to Jesus but who followed a normal path without many repercussions.

At a certain point in his life, out of a platonic ion, he ed a Jewish group against the government. Here we have great humorous scenes like their meetings without knowing why they hate the Romans and the criticism of their own environment.

Brian then, after breaking into Pilate's palace, is arrested, but escapes. While escaping, he somehow falls into an alien ship and at that moment I only felt a clear reference to Star Wars and a crude way to save him.

Then begins the biggest criticism of the work, we see him clearly becoming an involuntary messiah. Brian now creates a legion of followers and even though he makes his thoughts clear, he can't keep them away. They convince themselves and create situations to adore him, in the most fun way possible.

Once again, captured by Pilate and the Roman army, he is sentenced to crucifixion and even though he is chosen to be released, the guards remove the wrong man and everyone abandons Brian. Clearly due to political interests in making him a martyr.

The final scene is a quirky and very ironic musical. In my opinion, even a man as naive and well-intentioned as Brian suffered from the alienation of the vast majority.

“The Life of Brian” is not just another comedy from this brilliant group, but it manages to be as good, perhaps even better in my opinion, than their most acclaimed work “Holy Grail”.

I say this because the quick-witted humor seems to work even more here due to the well-developed characters. Brian, so close to Jesus but at the same time so distant, is portrayed masterfully and his transition to accidental master is very well orchestrated.

The exposed relationships of manipulation with the people, of ready-made archetypes like in the scene where he needs to imitate other prophets and alternative groups who don't even know what they're fighting for, is done in a comical but real way.

Pilate, Brian's mother, the leaders of the rebel group and the crowd of faithful bring great scenes of ironic humor with a lot of content and depth.

Something interesting to say is that coincidentally, the scenes that I liked the most in of humor are also the ones that include the greatest reflections and analogies.

I highlight great moments like Brian explaining to people the importance of having their own thoughts, but even with so much effort in explaining, people interpret everything wrong and think as if they were one head. Funny but sad haha.

Initial moments, such as in the battle arena and in the Jewish group's discussion of other Jewish groups with the same purposes, but as hated by them as their own common enemy.

The final moment of the crucifixion and the contempt for this punishment on the part of the condemned are also very hilarious. These are simple points, but very unpredictable, that break a little what we imagine will happen.

The film has other moments of simpler humor, but it is still well implemented.

Even though he ages poorly in some effects, for what the film sets out to do, this aging even brings a comical charm. As for the characterization of clothing and architecture, it is of a high level.

The edits leave a little to be desired and certain transitions end up not matching, but in this case it doesn't seem intentional.

When I think about Monty Python, honestly the direction and editing are the weakest point for me, however, the plot, humor, dialogue and criticism are so good and so current that they make up for almost all of this “problem”.

Getting it right once happens, but twice in a row must be respected.

Perhaps the first thing that comes to mind for many when they think about cinema, and it is no surprise that Francis Coppola presents us with the greatest reference of the Italian mafia in the seventh art.

The film begins by introducing Don Vito Corleone in one of the most famous scenes in cinema. The self-proclaimed leader of the region's mafia receives an acquaintance who begs for justice for his daughter.

Throughout the work we note that his power and influence are gigantic, both in the casinos, in the government and in the police. When her daughter's wedding day arrives, the viewer is introduced to her entire family.

We then focus on Michael (Al Pacino), his son considered a military hero who seeks a life different from that of his father, showing contempt for his way of working.

We also meet his son Sonny, who has more interest in the family business and seems a little more energetic. And Tom, his adopted son who acts as an intermediary in his business.

We notice the family relationship and the caution in everything they do, but just as the breeze precedes the storm, this peace will not last long.

A few days later, Corleone is called to a meeting with gang leaders in New York, their proposal is to start drug trafficking, giving 30% to the family. He promptly denies and does not accept this agreement, believing it to be an unnecessary risk.

This choice does not come cheap for Corleone and, a few days later, the same people who made the offer set up an ambush and shot him, leaving him almost dead. Sonny then takes his injured father's place and seeks revenge on them.

Michael, who has recently distanced himself from Corleone's business, offers to kill whoever is responsible for shooting his father. And after a scheduled meeting, he surprises by shooting those involved and fleeing to Italy.

The work then mixes the life of the Corleone family and the recovery itself, but also the life of Michael, a refugee in Italy, who falls in love, gets married and creates a life, but is soon destroyed by enemies raised in Manhattan who arrive there. . . . . .

Michael returns, takes the place of his brother who was also killed in an ambush and his elderly father allows him to command.

In his last scene, the Don ironically suffers a heart attack, in perhaps his only worry-free moment, while playing with his grandson.

His son, now the leader of the family, goes after everyone who tries to kill him and manages to defeat his rivals. The film ends with the new “management” led by the ex-soldier and now the new Don Corleone.

Copolla gives us a cinematic lesson here, with impeccable visual and sound transitions, as well as authorial angles and majestic cast direction.

Obviously, not everything came from management. Mentioning this masterpiece without mentioning Marlon Brando and Al Pacino is impossible.

The first manages to convey his presence in a multidimensional way, we feel respect and fear in his words, generating a dubious charisma.

Al Pacino, on the other hand, benefits from the development of the story, being able to act in a transitional way between someone who wanted a different life until he became the person he was trying to get away from.

Even with many characters, the script is smart in removing Corleone's iconic presence to develop
all the other characters, creating more layers, especially for Michael. All of this is done through the film's strong point (the dialogue), which perfectly intertwines the plot.

Michael may have had a different outlook on life, but deep down he was seeking acceptance, changing after killing his first targets.

The feeling of having power and respect in his hands throughout his development seduced him. To the point of loving what he does, as seen in the meeting scene at the casino where he despises local women.

As seen in “Goodfellas”, what makes this mafia so powerful is uniting two extremely resistant things, crime and family.

Sometimes we don't notice good moments while we're living them, but what about when we miss a moment we never experienced?

“Midnight in Paris” is an original work that transports us into the lives of newlyweds Gil and Inez (Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams), on vacation in Paris, about to get married.

From the beginning we notice the difference between the two, Gil is a novelist, lover of the past and aficionado of Paris in the 1920s. Inês, in turn, already underestimates a large part of her tastes, she and her family seem to have dubious interests in this relationship .

Frustrated with the company of another couple of friends that Inez seems to be interested in, Gil goes out onto the streets of Paris at night, when he finds a car and embarks in the past.

There he met several figures of art/literature of the time and fell in love with the atmosphere that the city and that era convey. At the same time, he meets Adriana, a woman from that generation, and feels strong feelings for her.

Several times he returns and updates his romance book with the help of these historical figures. But at a certain point, Adriana and Gil get into a car that takes them to an even more distant time in Paris' past.

She, just as he enjoyed the 1920s, has a great love for the old days of Paris and decides to stay. Gil then realizes that nostalgia could be a mere illusion, and that everyone is looking for something they haven't experienced yet.

Returning to his time, he ends his relationship due to his wife's obvious betrayal and on his way out he meets a woman with similar interests, at least the ones that interest him...

I like how this film flows perfectly, the soundtrack and art direction fit together well, bringing to light the main theme of the work, nostalgia.

The performances are not the strong point here and neither are certain characterizations/dialogues when it comes to the present, sometimes it sounds very caricatured, especially when it comes to Inez's family and herself.

However, the message is conveyed and even without dealing with certain complexities that a time travel film usually deals with, we can understand what it proposes.

Sometimes we forget to value the present precisely because we think about the past, and when that present becomes the past too, we will miss it, it is cyclical.

Gil looked for people and feelings at that time that he couldn't find in the present, but it was enough to understand what he really wanted so he could see it in his own time.

It could have had more development time, but overall a beautiful, visual and atmospheric authorial work.

The best film for gossipers on duty. The immersion that Alfred Hitchcock conveys in this work through the lens is so great that we feel as if we were living in this apartment.

L.B Jefferies is a photographer who, after one of his jobs, had an accident and had to rest at home for a few weeks. Without much to do, he ends up seduced by curiosity in snooping into the lives of others in his condominium.

In the midst of this, we notice his internal crisis regarding his relationship with Lisa, a perfect woman who loves him. Your problem? She is perfect and too rich for your lifestyle.

Even after he is honest with her about their differences, Lisa doesn't give up and continues to visit him regularly.

Amid different views of his neighborhood, Jeffries begins to notice strange movements in one of his neighbors' apartments. The salesman, who always fought with his wife, starts leaving and returning in the middle of the night with a suitcase, exposing sharp objects.

The photographer then begins to investigate and notices several clues about what he imagines to be a murderer. Lisa, in turn, is just as intrigued as he is by what is happening. Both, ironically, find a common point, regardless of any social class, curiosity.

After the failed attempt with their detective friend, Jeffries and Lisa decide to take action. Lisa goes to the seller's apartment while he was away and finds evidence. However, the man returns and almost kills her, only stopped by the police.

Jefferies is seen by him in the middle of the confusion. Alone in his apartment with his leg in a cast, the killer enters and tries to kill him. Once again the police arrive in time and fortunately the case is closed.

Quickly explaining the plot, it seems like a simple story, but for anyone who has seen it, they understand how engaging this masterpiece is.

Hitchcock is in no rush to build the personalities of his characters and, even without this being the main focus, this construction solidifies naturally. Generating appreciation and empathy for the protagonist couple.

The dialogues are very well written and the times of each act of the film are very well distributed, something very important to have an ideal screen time, without shortening or exceeding too much.

Jefferies is a very well-crafted character here. Your two biggest concerns complement each other in some way. He always tries to calculate the success of his future, even in his relationship with Lisa.

His self-sabotage almost ends the romance, until the investigation brings the two together again.

On the other hand, until the end we don't feel any real danger to them, as they just observe and try to indirectly help with the case.

But when you get to the last scenes, my God, how tense it is. In the filmmaker's best style, we see the consequences of senseless and thoughtless acts, even if for “legitimate” reasons.

Even though it ends in a relieving way, we can understand the subtext of the theme and the message it conveys.

Certainly one of Hitchcock's greatest works that not everyone knows. A shame for those who didn't see it.

Curiosity, while helping our species to evolve, generates many problems. Knowing how to distinguish intrusion from necessary imposition is a very complex fine line.

Sometimes the observer thinks that observing does not make him part of what he sees, which is a mistake. From witnessing a crime to watching a movie, we are part of what we observe.

We are part of cinema.

I had already heard parts of the story of this accident and of the survivors of Flight 571, but watching a tribute done with such sensitivity and mastery was moving.

“Snow Society”, as many already know, is about the tragic flight that crashed in Argentina, occupied by players from a Uruguayan rugby team.

The film first superficially establishes the personalities of the flight's future occupants, purposefully letting them develop after the accident.

In the first half hour we already see the incident and then the story begins to be presented in a brutal way. Narrated largely by Numa Turcatti, we begin to see the immediate consequences of the snow crash and, even worse, the post-impact for those who survived.

We then feel, with each ing day, a rollercoaster of emotions, sometimes hope, other times despair. When hunger arrives, after much discussion, they begin to eat the flesh of the dead, looking to return home.

Small expeditions into the snowy mountains begin, especially after discovering that the search is over. Here, Numa Tucartti, our narrator, reveals that he was one of the victims of the snow, becoming a narrative surprise for those who didn't know the story very well like me.

Fernando and Roberto, perhaps the most physically fit, volunteer to cross the mountains. An almost impossible task then becomes hope, when after a long walk they encounter a man on horseback.

After that we have the emotional moments of the rescue and this work ends with reflections through the narration of the late Numa.

I've seen some films about tragedies like “Hotel Mumbai”, “The Impossible”, “Everest” or even “Titanic”. But I felt a more impactful depth here than those mentioned.

Firstly, the direction manages to tell this story in a narrative way but without exaggeration. Usually those who narrate something that has already happened are alive, but here we are surprised by this twist, a demonstration of the brutal reality of life.

We notice throughout the days the different views of the survivors, some see beauty in the numbness of death, others are desolate and in disbelief, and some even exercise in the morning seeking life.

Although there is a lot of basis for carrying out this project, I do not underestimate the work that was carried out, on the contrary, technically it is of excellent quality, without many explanations and appeals.

The simple reality is the appeal here, of course, there is the soundtrack, but it is well put together, as are the montages and the large technical part of the film.

It is worth highlighting the great performances by artists who are little known worldwide, but who managed to demonstrate great detail in their expressions. Mainly Enzo Vogrincic.

The ending is a beautiful message and through the narration we can understand the purpose of these survivors. Those who lived literally carry the flesh of the dead, and as long as the story of this accident is told, they live.

This film has a lot to say but few to listen to it. “Awakenings” is underrated and not as well-known as it deserves, but for me one of the best works by Robin Williams and Robert De Niro.

Dr. Sayer (Williams) is a neurologist who is fascinated by a group in a hospital ward who have total paralysis. They are alive but completely atrophied, creating a personal challenge for the doctor.

After several attempts and medications, Sayer managed to achieve results through a specific drug. During the movie we also meet Leonard Lowe and his story of paralysis in his childhood.

Coincidentally, Lowe is the first patient to have successful treatment, practically waking up overnight.

He, in turn, begins to enjoy life and do everything he wants. Sayer begins to have difficulty controlling the patients who have woken up and now need to make use of the time they lost.

However, the side effects of the treatment begin to appear and Lowe slowly returns to his dormant state.

In its conclusion, Sayer is disappointed by the result but receives perhaps the greatest lesson of his life.

The message here is a bit reminiscent of “Dead Poets Society”. Live life intensely, don't just get attached to the problems of your day.

One of the character Lowe's best phrases basically represents all of this:

“We've got to tell everybody. We've got to remind them. We've got to remind them how good it is. Read the newspaper. What does it say? All bad. It's all bad. People have forgotten what life is all about. They've forgotten what it is to be alive. They need to be reminded. They need to be reminded of what they have and what they can lose. What I feel is the joy of life, the gift of life, the freedom of life, the wonder of life! “

I think that we often live a life of paralysis even when moving, I believe that this is the greatest of tragedies.

Invest in the sensations of interest-free emotions, to paraphrase Erasmo Carlos (Brazilian composer).

Technically, Penny Marshall's direction is effective and manages to convey the melancholy of the theme addressed.

A great movie based on a book, which becomes even more essential to watch with each ing day. Especially in the times we live in.

“Pitch Perfect” is in no way intended to be a film with layers, convincing performances or even a quick-witted comedy. That's exactly why it doesn't become a hate film.

Here we see Beca's journey in her unwanted college, who, after her father's influence to fit in, s an a cappella musical group and her goal becomes to win the championship.
Along with this, the film also addresses her romance with Jesse, a guy from another group and ironically a movie buff.

Despite this, some moments stand out, such as the “dramas”, the presentations during the championship and some acidic jokes. In addition to the couple's interaction, which is good and brings references from other films.

Much of Beca's life and her dramas are covered superficially here. The acting is apathetic, the characters are caricatured, the dialogues and plots are very weak, but…

For those who like A cappella and pop music it becomes a pleasant and fun experience (maybe my girlfriend forced me to write this).

However, honestly, if you ignore most of the cinematographic aspects, and don't expect something well constructed, you might like it and it tends to be an excellent film to the time.

An example of this is “Superhero Movie” from 2008, a silly work that I'm embarrassed to like but I simply have a lot of fun every time I see it. I know it's not good, I know, but it works for me.

In this case I don't think it's good and it doesn't even work for me haha, but at least it doesn't irritate me by trying to seem like something it's not.

I think it's important to say that the musical montages and the songs themselves are the highlight here. Finally, we don't always need something deep and complex, we need to know how to differentiate and choose, but for what it proposes, this work delivers honest fun.

We know that humor is an ancient art, but it is incredible to think that in 1975 they transferred this in an incredible way to audiovisual.

“Monty Python and the Holy Grail” tells the well-known story of King Arthur and his knights in search of the Holy Grail. But here from the beginning we are faced with a comedy that breaks the 4th wall and generates both physical and ironic/British humor.

It's impossible to watch this without putting myself in the perspective of someone who saw it back then, but even today it's still very good. Of course, each individual has their own taste in comedy, I don't like physical humor so much anymore but here it's in the right spot.

Ingenious ideas such as those made in the opening credits, in the fight scenes and in moments of dialogue certainly make this work very valuable.

Honorable mentions for the bridge scene, the amputated black knight, the discussion about birds, the moment of the witch hunt and Lancelot simply killing everyone haha.

Obviously humor is personal and relative, but even analyzing technically and observing the context of the time, it would be unfair not to say that this marked the history of comedy itself.

A small group simply did something simple and funny, and almost 50 years later we are here talking about it, that says a lot in itself.

• The 40 Year Old Virgin
• The Gods Must Be Crazy
• The Apartment
• There's Something About Mary
• Rush Hour
• The Kid
• Airplane!
• Superbad
• The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!
• Shaun of the Dead

• Dead Poets Society
• Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
• Arrival
• Pan's Labyrinth
• The Thing
• The Godfather
• The Prestige
• Grave of the Fireflies
• Casablanca
• Rear Window

...plus 3 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

A snippet of the best part of contemporary thriller!

• The Departed
• Prisoners
• Se7en
• Zodiac
• Get Out
• Shutter Island
• Psycho
• Hush
• The Silence of the Lambs
• Rear Window

...plus 5 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

• Coraline
• Spirited Away
• The Iron Giant
• Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
• Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit
• Ratatouille
• Toy Story
• Soul
• Shrek
• Grave of the Fireflies

...plus 10 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

• Interstellar
• The Martian
• Her
• Planet of the Apes
• Arrival
• Star Wars
• The Terminator
• About Time
• Inception
• Alien

...plus 11 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

• The Room
• Eight Legged Freaks
• Sharknado
• Superhero Movie
• Attack of the Killer Tomatoes!
• The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl
• The Waterboy
• Freddy vs. Jason
• Shorts
• Paul Blart: Mall Cop

...plus 2 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

• The Witch
• Rosemary's Baby
• Hereditary
• The Thing
• Creep
• Psycho
• The Shining
• The Exorcist
• They Call Him Mister Babadook: The Making of The Babadook
• The Omen

One of the best in my opinion (except one of them).

• Interstellar
• Gravity
• Alien
• Star Wars
• The Martian
• Life
• Armageddon
• Aliens
• engers

  the only median in the list

• 2001: A Space Odyssey