4v291o

A cautionary tale about overextending your advantage... and nothing else...

Better John Wick

Pretty mid, wants the genuine heartfelt moments and the ridiculous gory comedy too. The result is pretty Marvel-coded. Great kills weighed down by an attempt of a simultaneously self-mocking and self-serious story.

Watched on Saturday February 22, 2025.

The tragedy of knowing you can't decouple ourselves from our memories

So, do you guys know the Family Guy meme of "It insists upon itself"? A quip originally targetted at the Godfather, it also applies perfectly to this film. It's always extremely confident in its stylistic choices, no matter how outlandish they are. And, under its stylistic veneer, there still lies a good story, with plenty of good moments, even outside of the batshit crazy action scenes.

Great stuff all-around!

Something is weird in piss city! A piss man finds out another piss man who looks just like him! Hijinx insues

Whilst scrolling mindlessly through Reels, I came across a true genius. A young brazilian kid, must have been 17 or something, opened this video with the following line:

"Miyazaki only made three movies"

I jolted out of bed, my eyes glued to the screen. In a way, I could already predict the next words that would be said. The words that are now scorched in my psyche:

"Girls growing up, war sucks & planes fucking rule"

The truth, distilled to its purest essence.
He then explains how each film tackles the three themes. He explained it with a simplicity that reminded me of how the master himself does his movies.

It reminded me that I needed to watch this movie again. It's even better than what I ed.

Now, real Miyazaki-heads know where these three main themes come from: his mom was always a strong influence on him, equal parts kind and strong. His dad worked on aircraft part manufacturing, and he witnessed first-hand what horrors aircrafts were capable of in the theatre of war, a sight which lead him towards his pacifism.

Porco Rosso is a "war sucks planes rule" type movie. The paradox is not lost on the guy, and I think Porco Rosso is where he explores it most authentically. The seaplane here is the symbol of ultimate freedom, but also a weapon of oppression. At the end of the day, it's only a machine.

Miyazaki seems to think there existed some kind of purity of intention back in the day, as shown by Marco's flashback sequence with Gina and Marco's quip when he brings the plane for fixing: "They don't make them like this anymore".
Diving deeper, the iconic plane Marco flies in the movie, a Macchi M.33, in real life, was just a racing flying boat, no weapons inside. Fun fact: it also competed in a Schneider trophy in 1925. Also fun fact, only TWO were ever built, which leads me to one of those points where your respect for this movie should skyrocket:

Miyazaki's ion for preserving engineering history in his films (shoutouts to Breadsword for making me realize this).
Most of the planes in this movie are either faithful recreations of historic planes or are delightful "kit-bashes", as seen in the sea pirates' ships. I like to think that, in some way, it's an homage to his father, the man who taught him to embrace the contradictions that would make the director he is.

So why does this film carry with it such a melancholic tone? Let's start where the movie ends, with Gina.
Gina is a tragic figure, a beautiful women able to swoon every man, but forever lovingly tied to just one, Marco, and his dream of flight. That's why she married THREE pilots, that's why she has a hidden radio to possibly hear news from him (also, great post-war world building). That's why we don't know if he comes back or not. It's her fate as a pilot's wive, as set in stone as is Marco's fate of flying.
The fatalism in their relationship carries most of the emotional weight in the screenplay side, but the noir stylings carries it cinematographically. Miyazaki never gives them enough time to fully settle however. He always undercuts them with moments of comedy, wit or pure levity. Beyond acting as a natural cycle of tension and release, it plays to the film's humanist message: people LIVE, in spite of the most dire circumstances. Opression can be subverted.

Visual feast for the eyes, masterful soundtrack by Hisaishi yadda yadda you know the drill. Go watch it if you haven't.

Classic!

This review may contain spoilers.

"Oh, but would you think of the children?": The Movie

Watched on Sunday February 2, 2025.

Even though "The World is Yours" is plastered all over this film, "Stakes is High" is the better choice of song for this movie.

Sean Baker controls the tone of this movie like a fucking maestro, driving us from the highest peaks to the lowest valleys with incredible finesse and tact, wrapping it up in one of the best finales of the year.

Yup yup, still good, maybe even better after a rewatch

They cooked in this one!

This review may contain spoilers.

The only heist film where it was, in fact, their last job.

Fuck, this is literally Yojimbo, it's not even funny. Throughout the entire runtime, I couldn't resist doing the rueful act of comparing the two. The screenplay certainly BEGS you to do it, every single beat is copied, with some minor changes, some for the better, some for the worse. I thought: the guy who coined "comparison is the thief of joy" was talking about these two movies. And then, from the depth of my speakers, a buzz could be heard. A buzz that turned into a swell. A swell which gives place to a iconic whistle. Every other thought of comparison evaporated from my mind. Morricone saved me from cynicism yet again.

It's so hard to make parody movies with heart.

Above every guy who decided, in a fit of mania, to dedicate the time and effort to make a feature-length SKIT looms the sword of the cynicist.

The characters probably started tame, the parodied subject matter poked only slightly. Then the guy read and re-read and iterated and decided to be a bit more daring, a little more inflamatory.

The subject matter now shows some bruisers, the sword looms closer.

Still the characters are too human, they can't say the jokes the guy has written, so the guy decides to chip at their believability as human beings to represent the worst sides of the parodied subject matter. By the end of this process, the guy rests thinking he has done a scathing critique of the subject matter, completely forgetting that this whole thing started as a fun parody.

By getting on his high horse, he impaled himself with the sword, with the corpse of the subject matter, irrecognizable, sitting close by.

Tropic Thunder solves this by NEVER getting on the high horse. It's raw and unapologetic, yes, but it never feels like it's kicking down. It has unquestionable love for all things it's critiquing, parading this love in its many scenes of cinema referential humor, my favorites being when Starkussy is just yapping about movies on some letterboxd essay shit (no, the irony is not lost on me). Also, the Al Pacino joke hit me like a ton of bricks because I miraculously missed the joke in the character's name during the entire runtime (also, was it a jab at Scarface? Because that's not cool, guy's one of the GOATs).

Every line delivered by RDJ and Tom Cruise is pure gold. Low brow done with ion!

This review may contain spoilers.

Matthew McConaughey has the craziest last minute pull-out game

Kind of soulless ngl

Watched on Saturday January 11, 2025.

Unorganized remarks on a great movie:
- So many spetacular quotables from Al Pacino.
- Final scene probably inspired every tactical shooter ever.
- The scene on the way to the airport gave me chills, the acting and the cinematography were masterful.

Good shit!

A contemplation of reality vs. the aesthetics of reality and how the screen facilitates tackling reality with apathetic abstraction. Surprisingly, this feels like the right amount of freaky for a film of this topic.

This review may contain spoilers.

Brother really thought he could get some bed AND breakfast...

My memories of this movie were... deceiving.

Like many here apparently, I watched this movie in Bio, some many years ago. I ed a heightened version of this movie, where a really strong, almost arthouse art direction complemented a tight plot that had a really believable premise.
What a pair of rose tinted glasses.

Now, let me be clear, I still believe the premise is conceptually strong, but the world they built from it is, sometimes, very goofy. Come on, "de-gene-rate" as slang for someone who usurps the genetic identity of a more genetically able person? Really? The problem is they hit the nail in the head with "Borrowed ladder", but these are used interchangeably. For me, it's like someone in the Star Trek universe referring to the Transporter as the "Mover O' Atoms 9000" without a hint of irony or sarcasm.

One of the aspects of the film that really appealed to me back in Bio was the games of chicken the protagonist and his brother play. I thought they were very deep. Of course, it was the kind of deep that I couldn't understand, so I immediately thought that there was something of substance. Alas, rose tinted glasses strike again. These sequences are brilliantly filmed, and convey the main theme of the film, but they do it with such a heavy hand that I questioned myself if I was really paying attention back in the day to have missed the part when the protagonist literally spells it all out.

That's basically my gripe with the film, the delivery of the themes is very heavy-handed. A part that I didn't being in the movie but had to sit through regardless was the narration in the first half of the film. It irritates me to no end because the action ALREADY perfectly conveys the natural progression from our world to the dystopia, without ANY narration. The same goes for the character's motivations. I have a scene where a kid is building a replica of the solar system, why does he need to tell me that he was always enthralled with going to space? You know, show don't tell.

Still, if you couldn't tell from the score, I still like this movie very much.

The cinematography, although certainly not "arthousey", still has its highlights. One being Jerome's preparation "rituals", tedious and repetitive in nature, which are depicted with a surgical level of detail. They also lead to one of my favorite subversions of the film, where he has to do the "rituals" after sleeping at Irene's house.

Overall, great science fiction to think about!

People talk about Hollywood's self-obsession like it's a bad thing, but it produced banger movies like this since the 50s so...

Some media feels weird to consume...

Not because of any inherent qualities of the piece, at least ones that I can point out, but due to the intense personal traits it carries through context. Experiencing this type of art feels like a watching the artists' worst moments through the keyhole.

Of course, this feeling only manifests itself once the context of the piece is known. Watching this film without knowing it's a complex metaphor for grief in divorce that, very aptly, uses Berlin, a separated city, as a backdrop, can prove entertaining, if it didn't feel somewhat empty.

Unfortunately, this movie was, for a time, deprived of its context by design. The film was released in the US with around 40 minutes of footage cut! This shorter cut stripped a lot of the psychological aspects and emphasized the body horror. Of course, in an ironic twist, the body horror, now separated from its meaning, feels hollow and overall lacks any punch.

I will speculate for a bit on the reasons for this reduced, decontextualized cut. In many similar situations, distributors quote "safety" as the main reason for these cuts. "Safety", as in safe for the market, or marketable. Of course, Possession would never be traditionally marketable, even with the most extreme re-editing. So, they essentially marketed it as a dare, as one of the "video nasties", the list of which was released just some months prior to the first US release.

This reinterpretation, in my eyes, reinforces the idea of a cowardice that influenced the distributors, a cowardice so great that they decided that the only way to experience this movie was through a safety glass that shielded any introspection, any vulnerability, any thought that wasn't "Yo, that movie was fucking crazy, when the demon fucked the girl?". Here's the kicker: the distributors and I probably felt exactly the same feeling of uncanyness and voyeurism watching this. The only difference being that I'm probably more curious than the average person and have unrestricted internet access.

For me, Possession begs for dissection, it wants to pull you deeper into its private story, and by extension, the life of its director, heightening the feeling of voyeurism. Like Mulholland Drive, the explanation of the mystery seems to be just below the surface of your comprehension, but the answer feels wholly coherent, even if you can't grasp it yet.

I would be remiss not to mention the quality of the performances from EVERYONE. Of course, Isabelle Adjani takes the spotlight, providing us a series of iconic scenes. The highlight is the subway scene, which I would describe as the perfect music video for a Lingua Ignota track.

Overall, a movie which feels endlessly personal and is able to leverage that aspect to tackle themes which feel universal.

Yep this guy is good. Like, people should probably study this guy if they want to make better movies, I don't know.

My first Kurosawa.
Definitely worth the watch, even if it is just to behold the inception of one of the most enduring character archetypes of the medium.

This review may contain spoilers.

He should've expanded on the Jar Jar Binks theory, shit was just getting interesting

This came out in 2007? Really?

Some of the best VFX and sound design ever put to film. Shit's beautiful!

This review may contain spoilers.

The 13th Angry Men

This will not be a review. This is one of the greats FOR A REASON, you just need to watch it.

With that out of the way, here's an essay about the positives of shame, relating this movie with the modern western political climate.

This movie doesn't feel dated. None of the plot points are exclusive to its time and no characters would feel extremely out of place roaming our modern world. But there's one scene that feels out-of-place today, one moment which probably felt magical when you watched it, not just because of its theatrical acting and amazing cinematography, but because of its content. It's the scene where one of the jurors argues about the guiltyness of the man on trial exclusively through the lens of his own prejudice. The speech starts with the usual euphemisms, and as each man steps away from the table in utter disgust, the juror increases the intensity, both in choice of words and tone of voice. After each men steps away, a little bit of his confidence is drained, the proverbial rock and a hard place closing in on him. What started as a self-assured condemnation of the man on trial and all that he stands for, ended as a failed whimpered plea. The juror was shamed by his peers. That is what it felt like to him, probably. An utter embarassment. Later, he changes the vote to not guilty. I like to believe in the happy ending: that the man who entered that room and the one who left it weren't the same. In today's political climate, this sounds like fantasy. A mind, changed? To maybe modernize the situation a bit, imagine now an alternative universe where instead of 12, there are 13 angry men. The one small addition to the cast being Trump. Would that juror have felt so powerless and embarassed thinking that there was one man who would continue on the table with him, listening to his every word? Well, no. Every other juror would still have the same outlook of the case, but these two men would have singlehandedly lead to a hanged jury. This aspect of Trump's persona is not fantasy, he has successfulyy removed shame as a tool for enforcing the social contract, and as such, frontmanned the divided political climate of the United States and emboldened every failing populist in Europe to do the same.

Now the question is, do we hang this jury or talk it out?

That was a good fucking movie

This review may contain spoilers.

Multiplayer dreams!

I believe dream philosphy/interpretation in its most mainstream form (if x appears then y is true) to be bogus, extremely atractive to snake oil salesmen and the unlucky lot that fall for them.

The reason I think this is because our dreams are so personal that their interpretation cannot be done by matching their imagery with a set of common symbols. Some common symbols can be found across individuals and even cultures (according to the Jungian perspective at least), but they are 1% of the puzzle effectively.

So, what is the other 99%? I believe they originate from our personal experiences (shocker, I know). But to say they are original would be wrong, dreams fetch from everything a person has witnessed to tell a story, cinema included. But cinema and dreams do not have a one-way relation: dreams also influence our cinema, they have done since the dawn of the medium.

"Paprika" is, then, the meta-dream. A film about dreams about films about dreams.

It's brilliantly feverish and abstract, but coherent, because it provides us the thesaurus for our cast's dreams. We have been given the tools to decipher them, the tools being them, quite literally.
This beatifully constrasts with the "collective dream", a horrifying hodge-podge of imagery, symbols isolated from their meaning strung together by a vague desire to move forward no matter what, a story with no narrative, a dream without self. The horror comes in two parts:

-from the isolation of the individual dreamer, unable to understand or to be understood, causing the dreamer to this frantic march towards nothing, just to be apart of something bigger (the loss of self)

-from the complete powerlessness that comes from YOUR dream, your domain being manipulated by outside forces (the loss of agency)

The loss of agency as a theme plays a large part in the ending, where the selfish desire of an old man leads him to elect himself tyrant of the realm of dreams, which has now merged with reality. A futile display of power only for the sake of itself. His dreams are then eaten by a little girl. Piece of cake really, there wasn't really anything of substance there.

I don't think this film could have been made without another soundtrack, equal parts uplifting and uncanny. It completely subverts the norm of "dreamy" music to delivers us something that sounds like an actual dream.

A great movie to watch and rewatch, wouldn't recommend to dream about it though

hihihihi coelhinhos

Yakuza meets Kung-fu Panda meets the best romantic comedy subplot!

One of them nights, uh?

So... Lynch made a children's movie!

It's still crazy to me that Lynch has the ability to make a straight forward film in him. Of course, he still partakes in his usual arthouse musings. Transitions, dream sequences, visual metaphors... but they aren't self-serving, they don't pull the attention away from the film's story, which is the strongest aspect of "The Elephant Man". It is concrete, focused, equally tragic and hopeful. For each moment of brooding sadness, one of spirit-pumping humanity follows suit.

It is also crazy that this movie inspired every fucking highschool bully story I seeing when I was a wee lad. If you know you know.

The choice of black and white contributes very favorably to the highs and lows of the movie. The deep crevices of black meld well with the black beady eyes of the mob and the light airy whites really paint really John's purity. Also, it completely flips the visual language of earlier classic monster movies.

Lebron stole his whole flow with the chalk that's crazy

The most Balkan movie I've ever seen!

As a Counter-Strike player, I had the privilege of experiencing the Balkan spirit at its best and at its worst (mostly at its worst), and there are some things you pick up in the way Balkan people jeer and cheer that points to a type of shared cultural identity, independent of nationality in the traditional sense.

I could never put it into words, after all, it's an entire storied culture being experienced by me, a complete outsider, through a very narrow lens. Thankfully, I don't need to put it into words, because someone has already put it into film.

Kusturica, a yugoslav in heart, presents an absurdist tragic comedy with such love for its people, such a understanding of what makes their hearts tick, that it feels, paradoxically, like an universal story, a maximalist epic of struggle, violence, politics, love and ultimately, life. Of course, it can be universal only through its particularities, only once you understand them can this movie's values be extrapolated to the global "us".

Oh, and what a maximalist film this is. Every scene carries with it an infectious energy through the sheer amount of shit that's happening and the marching band LITERALLY following the main cast everywhere, blaring their horns harmoniously to the beat of the action. They soundtrack over the funniest moments in the film, which makes the sad moments in which their music can still be heard darkly comedic, "kafkaesque" as the kids call it, and the tragic moments when they are entirely missing hit even harder.

A bit on the longer side, which makes sense from a story perspective. If one would like to tackle three distinct time periods and give some room to breathe to each one, could one do it under the 2 hour mark? Most likely not, but there are still scenes in here with a bit of fat that could have been trimmed.

Great cinematography all around, and truly an all-time comedic performance from all the cast.

This review may contain spoilers.

Kore-eda, you can't keep getting away with this.

There's only a word to describe this film: sober

It's somber sometimes, but more times than not it's hopeful, because that's the truth of the situation. The kids will comtinue being, without any help from any adults. The adults in the story each have a way of keeping the kids at an arm's length, to try and shield them from any real responsibility: the mom just dips but leaves them money, in the delusion that somehow they'll make it with just that. The alleged dads give them money as a way of feeling like they are doing their due dilligence, without really tending to the needs of the kids. The store clerks help them out with food, but aren't willing to step up in any other way. The landlord witnesses the worst of this "family" and still, doesn't do anything. The tragedy of Nobody Knows is that Everybody Knows, yet chooses not to act, under the simultaneous pressure and relief that "the kids will be alright", somehow...

I think it's wrong for me to call this movie realistic, I haven't studied nor experienced any situation quite like this, but it feels real. Every one of the kids' reactions to the situation is perfectly justified, which only heightens the tension when you understand that they will not do anything to get out of the situation they are in, not that they should be responsible, they're just kids.

The movie doens't give the viewer any respite from the tragedy, no cathartic moment is provided, there's no kids crying at the top of their lungs followed by the string section swelling to signal the climax, because that would not be real. The reality is kids quietly mourning the loss of their childhood, whether they know it or don't

Cosmic horror at its most spetacular and campy. Great pratical effect sequences, ass characters, but you're not really here for that

This review may contain spoilers.

We are the new flesh...

It's the conclusion I've come to after digesting this movie for a couple of days.

The film explores the brutal transitional phase when broadcast was becoming more liberal and the equipment needed to record programs was becoming more accessible to a general audience.
Like the videogames of the 90s, the "video nasties" of the 80s mark a point in history where a new medium scares society. But why, exactly?

Where does this fear come from?

The fear of being influenced, the fear of falling prey to propaganda toys with the idea that we are not fully free, that we are subconsciously aiding the agenda of something.
Of course, when a new medium appears, the old tries to shut it down, for the fear of it superseeding the old, "Video Killed the Radio Star", after all. This leads to a war of mediums, where the final prize is the attention and control of the masses.

This movie takes the paranoid idea that the mere exposure to a new medium drastically influences the observer, and interprets it in the most literal way, resulting in body horror, allucinations and a plot of two factions that compete to change the entire world through video. In an ironic twist, Videodrome also feels like you shouldn't watch it, lest it influences you as well...
Now, the factions: the first one are the O' blivions, which I'll call the idealists, and the second one are the traitors.

The idealists promote a type of transhumanism where the advent of video brings in a new era of humanity, the new flesh. They welcome it, with no real resistance or question. It simply is the way forward.

The traitors also recognize the power of video, but they wish to use it as a weapon, distributing the signal to weed out the people that watch TV, which they deem to be weaker, creating a stronger nation as a result.

Both of these factions represent beliefs of the time towards any new medium: the naive belief that it would guide us to the next step of evolution, and the paranoid belief that it would provide depraved entertainment which would, in turn, make the country depraved, degenerate.

As I stated in the beggining, I believe we already stepped through to the next step of evolution that Cronenberg describes here. The real horror is that the new flesh is really dull. No cyborgs, no cancer guns, just social media addiction and social isolation.

This film was truly ahead of its time, effectively relating the themes of sexuality with technology all wrapped up with a good array of esoteric symbolism and visual methaphors, captured with a documentary-style, sober lens.

caputa

This review may contain spoilers.

"Nothing is as terrible as a pretentious movie. I mean, a movie that aspires for something really terrific and doesn't pull it off, is shit is scum, and everyone will walk on it as such and that's why poor filmmakers in a way... that's their greatest horror, is to be pretentious. So here you are on one hand you're trying to aspire to really do something on the other hand you're not allowed to be pretentious. And finally you say fuck it (...)"- Francis Ford Coppola

Well, he truly said "fuck it" on this one. This movie just dodges any attempt of mine to define it unequivocally.
Does it aspire to make something great? Well, yes.
Is it campy? Actually, yes, very much so.
Does it play everything straight? Thank God it does.

This movie is very expressionist in its presentation, I think we call all agree on that, and it's one of those things where you fuck with it or you don't, because the visuals are really easy to criticize (the vfx work can be really impressive or really shitty, and overall it feels like the visuals lack a tonal center). For me, the visuals carry this comic book adaption-y vibe that gels well with the threatical and fable-y direction of the movie in general.
The narrative is very expressionist as well, focusing more on vignettes, little snapshots of either the city, love, lust, or the creative process, than a coherent plot.

One of the main themes of this film is muses, the idea that love for something or someone can heighten the creative process, grant inspiration of the highest degree.
The culmination of this theme in the movie is one of my favorite scenes, where Caesar recognizes Julia as his future muse after she gives a beautiful speech about how artists manipulate time. This scene also serves the purpose of "explaining" Caesar's time manipulation abilities: he's an artist, as envisioned by Coppola. He's him. My only gripe with the scene in general is that it lays it all on the table, the poetry was left too literal, so it certainly can feel like Coppola rambling like an old man about art instead of an earnest reflection on the relation between art and time.

The acting, like the setting of the movie, is very much 21st century mixed with classical theatre. It is very dissonant, but also makes for the funniest scenes.

And maaaaan, is this film hilarious or not?! There's a lot of traditional jokes on this script, but what makes it funny for me is the absurd setting this movie is in. For example, one of the most funny shots for me was a really simple one, it's when Caesar is climbing up a flight of stairs to his appartment dressed in what can only be described as a portuguese university uniform ripoff. It is filmed in such a banal way that it looks like behind-the-scenes footage of Adam Driver having to return from scene in full costume because he left the stove on or something. Also, the bombastic title cards written in the fakest stone textures ever put on the big screen got a laugh out of me every time they came on.

The movie contains a lot of old man ramblings don't get me wrong. Time is an obsession of Coppola, justifiably so as someone of his age, which makes Caesar's ability to stop it feel like escapism, but in the end that plot point doesn't go anywhere, so who cares? (for me, it's the justification of why he is able to have become so skilled at what he does, but that's just headcanon)
Also, the Soviet satellite being a comment on how quickly the world moves on from world-shattering events feels a bit old man-y to me. Same thing happens with the virgin bidding and the scandal, it feels like Coppola sets up things that will not have any progression specifically to make the audience feel what he feels when he is processing the news of the real world.

Interesting movie, only time will tell if it becomes a cult classic or not.

The first half of this movie really felt ball-less, it left too much idle time between scary sequences. Little did I know that the second part would more than make up for it. The jumpscares were visceral on the Dolby-equiped cinema I saw this in. Most of them were predictable. but, in the context of this movie, I don't consider this to be a detriment. They build the tension and the aura of dread this movie so carefully builds with every sequence. I know that this movie's main theme is tRauMa, but I don't see enough people talking about the insane levels of gaslighting this movie portrays, this time mainly used by the demon. This time around, the demon feels more like Descartes' evil demon than a basic metaphor for TrAuMa. Its claws are tightly clutched around the final act of the movie, where I think the film really comes together.

Great performance by Naomi, and what a fucking banger of a soundtrack!

PS: This is obviously sponsored by Voss and SPOILER AHEAD

that moment when she's in the hospital and trying to leave the room and asks for a soda was just asking for a soda ment as welll.

To understand this film, one must recognize that only half the film was watched after the credits roll. The other half is present in the source material which inspired it, Carnaval and Brazil.

Carnaval is the platonic ideal of a party, a celebration of life. One can dance all their problems away, even if they live in the slums. But they really don't go away, do they? It's escapism, shallow and harmful and ever present. But that's a purely cynical take, there's something magical in sharing the party with other people, is there not?

Well, we know Camus' answer to that question: "Black Orpheus", with all its incredible vistas, energetic choreographies and incessant music, a party with no ethos.

This movie provides the most beautiful escapade into a place that never existed I've seen in a while. When I was watching it, this etherealness washed over me, mainly due to the film's promise on the adaptation of the greek myth, granting it, in my mind, a larger-than-life characteristic.

But it really doesn't say much, does it? Now, not all movies need to make me ponder at the end of them, but in this case, it does seem like a missed opportunity in my opinion, mainly due to the myth being well know enought that it could have been subverted in a meaningful way.

Like many before him and many after him, Camus was awestruck by Brazil. This movie represents that state of emotion, a pure bliss derived from only ing knowledge of a country.

Only after putting the two halfs of the film together, the perception and the perceived, can we really appreciate the dialogue this movie still ignites to this day. For me, the movie is very close to presenting a coherent thesis on the pleasure of simple moments, of simple life, but ultimately fails. Still a recommend!

The true crime pipeline in full display

This review may contain spoilers.

Before seeing this movie, I thought it would be an introspective character study about what type of person truly ENJOYS this type of work, gore and a general sense of imorality included. But Gyllenhaal's character is a psycopathic blank slate. We get absolutely no info about him. No tragic backstory, no mom, no pops, no explanation of his prior situation, no NOTHING. We only truly know two things: he learns throught the internet, and he learns quickly. For me, this film classifies more as "extraspective" study (as in pertaining to the the examination of the contents of the world, as opposed to the contents of the inner self as it is in introspection)

A more apt metaphor for him would be a sponge, which absorbs everything. Well, everything except a moral code. You see, crime broadcast doesn't have time for pesky ethics to intervene in the way of rankings and ultimately, capital, oh no, breaking news should air when the thing happens, for the benefit of the viewers, yes yes.

I think THAT is this film's greatest achievement: to guide us to the conclusion that business favors the most hardworking and cunning, NO EXCEPTIONS, without it being an overt "cApiTaLIsT sOciETy" movie. I think the movie still has its moments of full blown parody, specially with the protagonist's ""love interest"". These moments are entertaining, but ultimately break the immersion for me. Or maybe crime reporting is really like that i don't know.

Gyllenhaal again presents a goated performance.

This review may contain spoilers.

I know it took a lot for the director to give the victory over to the german in the end but well done!