Change Your Image
EnenArus
Eventually I'll go back and rerate those movies, but for now I'm just trying to write my ratings down so I'm able to understand what I really like about the movie and why I think it's good.
Also, looking at some of my reviews and comparing them to other peoples, I don't think think my review writing is very good. Need to work on that for sure.
Reviews
The Conversation (1974)
Great Character Development and Heavy Rewatchability
Firstly, this is a great movie. Hackman is haunting himself tangling with his own moral compass this entire movie and it's great. There's a sort of righteous paranoia that I developed while watching, where I feel like Hackman shouldn't trust anyone I'm at least partially right, which is fun to play with. Also, I noticed that many of the characters were actually talking to themselves and trying to convince themselves of their motives in their scenes with Hackman, which was creative and it worked well (obvious example is the second love interest, slipping by saying: "It's only a trick"). The best part of this movie by far, is the development of Hackman's character, where he very quickly shifts his priorities in a way that makes sense (usually such quick character development doesn't feel natural, but here it works).
Below is spoilers, and why I gave the movie a 7 instead of an 8.
This movie uses a lot of recordings, and it's the essential way for our protagonist to learn information. At 39:04, we first hear the phrase, "he'd kill us if he got the chance," for the first time. The second and third times we hear it, 1:15:51 and 1:28:52 respectively. However, this recording is a markedly different recording from the recording heard at the end of the movie, at 1:45:48. The intonation this time is on "us," which is a completely different sentence. This is the only time that the sentence is heard first-hand for the audience (without being heard through a recording), but I don't really buy that the recording was faulty in that perfect way. You could claim that we were simply viewing the recording through Hackman's perspective, and that Coppola was using the unreliable narrator to mislead us (I think doing so with a recording device though, which seems more objective, is cheap and a small miss). Better would have been to leave the ambiguity with a less forceful, "he'd kill us if the got the chance", yet still try to convince the audience using Hackman's own perspective and framing and then reuse that recording once we've seen the murder to reframe that initial conversation again. Maybe it's harder, maybe it's impossible, but it spoils the movie just a tad or me.
Even so, the conversation played throughout the movie very clearly foreshadows the events that end the movie, and the fact that we are so blind on first viewing is what makes this movie so great. The movie abuses our priors in just the right way, and it really works. Hackman is terrified for the two people having the conversation, and so very quickly so are we, because he's pointing out all those warning signs which point to his pre-established conclusion. And he's close.
1917 (2019)
Easily Overrated
Has the most upsettingly bad dialogue in a movie I have ever seen. People don't talk like this, and the way characters act in the movie also aren't consistent. This movie would improve by removing it's voice-lines, and keeping the atmospheric audio and music. That's how bad the lines are. You could probably also add some subtitles to change the lines. The reason it's so upsetting is because the rest of the movie is actually good, but when it comes to the lines it's like they just made the movie off the first draft. These are all initial ideas, not what should get into the movie. About 30 minutes into the movie they inject some humanity which is good, and that 20 minute sequence after is really nice. I think that the way they play with the camera not including important information into the shot is interesting, but I'm not sure if it's good. Seems more gimicky than cool, but I'm not 100% settled on it yet.
Also there are multiple hidden cuts in the movie, which could be fine if they weren't so noticeable. For example, there's one at 1:22:30 which is very annoying because if there really were one camera continuing the shot (which is what the director wants you to believe), then it looks like the character just ran 100 yards in one direction, turned 180 degrees and continued running. Knowing it's a cut means you can understand he only turned right, but why make it seems like you aren't cutting if the splicing is confusing.
The environment and set pieces of the movie are by far its strong points. The amount of famous actors in this movie in cameo roles is also annoys me, but that's probably just me. Also, the f-words seem more obligatory than worthy in this movie. Especially the last one.
Last thing, the lack of chaos and voice lines from random characters seems annoying to me. In the end of the movie when he's running between the trenches looking for his friend's brother, the footsteps are loudest by far, then the intense music (arguably overpowering throughout the movie, but I thought it was fine) and then some voices. It's really really quiet. Last last thing, I really didn't like Dean-Charles Chapman in this movie. Also, the final shot mirroring the initial minus a friend, is a very well done concept, and executed really well.
In summary, the cinematography and set pieces are amazing in this movie, and there's a decent throughline of a story. Ultimately though, the environment is what makes the movie (often the audio helps with that), but the writing and numerous celeb cameos seem out of place and are irritating to say the least.
Still Alice (2014)
Interesting, first 25 minutes are great, the rest is okay
I really enjoyed the first 25 minutes of this movie, and up to that first climactic crying scene (you'll know it when you see it) it's amazing. The subtle building up of emotions and false assuredness that's slowly coming down is excellently done. And Julianne Moore's acting is amazing, especially in that one scene is perfect (and the small changes throughout the movie really hold it together).
But after that the movie starts to droop. I always love the unreliable narrator, and hoped for more, but we only got one scene and I'm not sure it even classifies. I feel like the movie shifted into a very depressed state towards the end, both in the fact that that it got into a slow sad rhythm (rather than a harsh sadness) but also that it started to lose focus. I do think there was some intention there, and there's a scene where Moore can't do something that it seems she absolutely was going to. And here I think the movie is trying to emphasize how pathetic she has become, and how dissatisfyingly sad that is. And it does that well.
But the movie seems to lose it's significance as it goes on, and uses time badly. Spoilers here, but the speech scene felt wrong and interrupted by some of the cuts, and similarly some of the family scenes were weak (not terrible, just nothing special).
I love the first 25 minutes, the rest averages out to okay. You could legitimately watch the first 25 minutes and stop and be happy with your experience though.
The Bodyguard (1992)
Movie that spiraled out of control
The movie started going wrong with Costner punching some random guy who was just sitting down. Even if he was upset, his character wouldn't do something like that, he'd just leave in a fit of rage or something. It makes more sense for him to abandon the person he's protecting, then realize his mistake and come back that way or something.
In general, the latter half of the movie is less inspired than the first half. I had guessed the sister was part of it somehow (but I did initially assume she'd be a diversion, not the actual funder), but the resolution of the that story arc is very weak. Also, in one scene he points a gun straight into the face of someone he's trying to protect for around a second. It's laughably bad.
The boat thing is terrible too, why would you assume the kid is that stupid that he can't operate the boat, he seems to handle himself, just tell him to chill and slow down, don't tackle him. Also, what kind of bomb could you hide on a boat like that. Also, why have a timer boat bomb when you can just shoot them with the element of surprise, they're sitting ducks already with no back up. And the kid, who in the first scene seems insightful and aware, never shows any of those traits through the rest of the movie. Also, the blind shooting thing is probably the stupidest thing in this movie. He's not a bat.
Also if someone writes death threats, you can arrest them and hold them in jail for more than 48 hours. C'mon. Also also, how can you bet someone you'll win an Oscar. If I make that bet, how do I lose? AND HOW DOES HE GIVE AWAY HIS RADIO WHEN TRYING TO FIND A WOULD BE ASSASSIN.
The writing went off the rails and lost all of it's important aspects. Super disappointing after the first half.
25th Hour (2002)
Ending increased my rating by 1
I don't think this movie is that good. It tries really hard to connect and make some deeper point many many times, but it just doesn't do it for me. And I can appreciate the weird editing style which splices between takes, but the movie just doesn't do it for me. It just feels meh.
The ending is a good one, but this movie didn't surprise me at all. The rant about hating everyone and then then the conclusion with loving everyone seemed so lazy and uninteresting and the dialogue felt similar.
It just felt like there was no reason for anything that happened in the movie (which is fine, or even good if it still elicits an emotional response, but it absolutely did not).
Be Kind Rewind (2008)
Very Strange and Overall Weak Movie
This is at least top 5 strangest movies I've ever seen. So many weird things happen, and there's not even a great reason for most of it. And it has Mos Def. And it was directed by Michel Gondry, who made Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which is a wonderful movie.
I don't understand how this movie exists. It's so deeply strange. The comedy isn't funny usually, and sometimes gets weird. The special effects are bafflingly bad. I can't hate the movie but it's so ridiculous. You could probably make the argument that it's parodying itself, but that's definitely reaching. It's just a bad movie that doesn't succeed in what it's trying to do. I wouldn't even recommend this movie to someone else.
The most cool thing about this movie is the Driving Ms. Daisy image with Mos Def driving and Jack Black in the back. That's just a funny thought. And the compilations recreating other movies is fun sometimes, but it's not even close to enough.
This is maybe unfair to both movies, but I'd compare this movie to Dr. Strange Multiverse of Madness.
Batman Begins (2005)
First Half is Excellent, Second Half is Chaotic and Lacking
The first half of this movie is so good. It's probably a 10/10. It defines who batman is so well, and so seemingly effortlessly. The dialogue is wonderful and everything flows perfectly.
The second half is much more chaotic, has misplaced comedic gags and is just generally less thematically certain, at least as far as I can tell. Coherence is barely maintained here, and I think it really takes away from the second half (If you are barely maintaining coherence, you've already lost a lot of value). Also, the main plot points in the second half are pretty disappointing too, especially on closer inspection.
Even so, this movie is wonderful, and easily the best origin story for a super hero, anywhere. We can see his moral grounding play out, and see him find himself.
Rendition (2007)
Scary, Plausible and Interpretable
The entire movie gives off a claustrophobic feeling, even when you're outside in the open. I really liked how in shot there was just an open road, but because of the scene just before, that open road somehow felt unsafe and deeply claustrophobic. I really liked the choices in this movie, and it pleasantly surprised me towards the end. Overall, it's still pretty predictable, but the movie is also sort of making fun of how stupid the situation is.
Obviously the topic is incredibly scary to think about and compelling on its own, but many movies with good source material or ideas miss the mark pretty hard. I'd say this movie does pretty well for itself.
Blue Jasmine (2013)
It's a great movie but I didn't connect with it well.
It's a great movie but I didn't really connect with it well. All the choices seem good, and I like some of the ideas. A person who can't even consider being motivated in and of themselves is an interesting concept. And the fact that everyone is their own person, and the more you know about people the less great you realize they are. There's a lot of goodness in this movie. I think the only reason I didn't love it was because I'd already thought of these motifs before, and they weren't new to me. Also, I think the movie hits the same beats over and over again.
Still, this movie seemed good all around, and I don't really have anything specifically bad to say about it. I'm not sure exactly why I'm giving it a 6. Maybe I'm just in a bad mood.
Notting Hill (1999)
First 3/4s of the film is terrible compared to the end
The first hour and a half are surprisingly terrible compared to the last 25 minutes. Until 1:28:00, I would say the film is exceedingly bad. There's very little successful comedy and the romance is unearned and bad. The tone is also very out of touch with itself at points. The particular writing style also doesn't work for me.
At 1:28:00, there's one long shot where he is walking through different seasons in the market, and I loved that shot, even with the obvious cut. And that's the turning point in the movie for me. The last 25 minutes seem like the ending of a great movie, and almost made me forget how much I truly hated the first hour and a half. The first hour and a half are probably worth a 2/10, but after that the film is at least a 7/10, probably a 8/10. It reminded me of my experience with La La Land, although that movie was much better than this one in every way. And I will say, coming away from the film, I didn't mind the beginning so much, so maybe you'll have a similar experience. So overall I'd give the film a 5/10, but there's a big asterisk there (it might even feel like a 6/10).
Eye in the Sky (2015)
Disappointing Movie
Felt pretentious and righteous, but also the film was very exaggerated and fake feeling at weird times. Each moment was over-emphasized, and they hit the same beats multiple times, almost as though they didn't believe in them. The amount of reaction shots really hurts the film in my opinion. The film was taking itself fully seriously, but certain aspects broke my suspension of disbelief throughout the film, and I could never believe it. The acting was good, and I love the cast, but I feel like the plot was lacking. Each character for instance was extremely simplified in my opinion, and the only times that they broke that pattern didn't feel earned.
Spoilers:
Also, this is a problem as a huge plot point, but I can't imagine that they'd run in circles for hours on the drone strike, especially once they lose sight of the targets. Everything in this movie is too structured and simplified.
Also, how does the person inside the house live. And how is no one able to make these decisions. Everyone keeps passing on blame to other people, and that one line where the Helen Mirren character says to the % calculator that he's not culpable felt so on the nose and ridiculous.
I think this film could have been handled a lot better.
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022)
So Bad It's Good
Every decision is wrong. This film is probably the first so bad it's good movie in the marvel franchise. None of the characters have any charm or chemistry with each other, most of the dialogue is dull, and the movie just flings a bunch of things into your face. The tone of the movie is also very sporadic. As long as you don't take it seriously, you could probably enjoy the film.
But every decision is bad. The powers of each character are used in boring or non-sensical ways, and the characters introduced are seemingly made just for the surprise factor, as if there's nothing past that. And the power level of each character is so obviously wrong (way more than even Avengers: Endgame). Even the characters central to the story have motivations which don't make sense.
More than anything though, the reaction shots in this movie are incredible, and there are a lot of them. Also, in each scene, there are themes of different types of camera movements, and that also adds to the comedic element of the film. Noticing how bad the movie is on each level makes it even funnier. The raw strength of the cast adds to the comedy.
As an aside, paying attention to how the camera moves was funny for me. There's one scene in particular, where the camera pushed in on characters at least 5 times in a minute. Golden.
Also, despite spending 200 million in the budget, some of the CGI in this movie just looks bad. Especially when it intersects with real people, it really just looks terrible (when the shot is just CGI it looks fine though).
In summation, the directing is boring and obvious, the ideas are stale, the budget is huge (lots of well-known actors), the dialogue is comical (hopefully), and the characters' decisions make no sense. But if you're ready for that experience, you'll enjoy the movie.
Tenet (2020)
Movie is all concepts, no soul.
This movie is interesting, and focuses exclusively on events in a unique way. Most movies care about their characters, and at least partially use them as ways for the audience to enjoy the movie. Tenet doesn't care about the characters at all, and it makes the film weird.
Most of the film is dialogue, but none of the dialogue is for developing the characters, all of it is for context. There are some ideas that Tenet really wanted to work, and some of them are cool to think about, but none of them are solid enough to completely hold up the movie in my opinion, and not creatively or excitingly presented enough to be justified.
In its current state, Tenet would actually have been better as a book that you read, or even a conversation of someone explaining the concept of the movie to you. That's how little soul the movie has.
Ad Astra (2019)
Worth watching but a conflicted movie.
The movie's focus is absolutely not on science. There are several inaccuracies or ridiculous events that will annoy you if you pay too much attention (even if you're actively trying not to notice these you'll still be annoyed). Some of the actions that the characters make are either uninteresting or not believable. In fact, I would say that a huge portion of this movie sucked really badly, and probably deserves something like a 2 or a 3.
But Brad Pitt's character is compelling, and following him through his emotional journey is satisfying. This movie also feels very different from other movies, and I think if you watch it you'll remember it for some time.
Overall, I think the movie isn't good, and there's a lot of junk, but it still might be worth watching because how unique it is. That sounds ridiculous, and it probably is.
La La Land (2016)
Ended Strong
I really loved the ending of this movie, and the way that it built itself up was effective. The obvious use of lighting held the film together really well, and I think there's a lot of good stuff here. As long as you finish the movie, I can say that I think you'll enjoy the experience.
The beginning of the movie though, I did not like at all. The first scene felt weak to me (most of that feeling probably comes from how I feel about musicals in general, but that opening scene also felt like it had no purpose, since there were no characters behind it, so it felt pointless to me).
I think the stylistic choices enhanced the film though, specifically the lighting which made the scenes more personalized and isolating, and the montages --- especially in the final scene --- were wonderful. But I still think there was a lot of waste in this film throughout. I really held onto that feeling until the final act, and I suspect I'd be less forgiving about it on second watch, but the ending really makes the movie.
And the moral of the story (if you can call it that), that the timing doesn't always work out, and that's okay, is a good one.
A good watch.
Lost in Translation (2003)
A movie about
A movie about sadness and complacence which uses a simple metaphor about focus in a way no other movie I've seen has done. There are themes surrounding misunderstanding which pair nicely with focus too, but the film is mostly about being lost. The title is wonderfully crafted and I wouldn't be surprised if the film was made to fit the title (rather than the other way around, which is the case for most movies).
Loneliness and Aimlessness and how they go hand in hand. The glances and deliberate acting all works. And the simple metaphors are effective.
This film might be an eight and not a seven, I'm still not sure.
On an unrelated note (mostly to myself), I think the ass shot at the beginning is probably made as a contrast to the rest of the movie (there's also some naked metaphor there probably, but I personally don't think it works too well), but I think it was probably unnecessary and unhelpful. It didn't really hurt the film so maybe it's fine.
Annie Hall (1977)
I loved it all
I loved every single aspect of this movie. I loved the characters, I loved how they acted, I felt like they were real and you could see how they saw themselves. I loved the moments in each scene, the movie was funny and smart and quotable and I was laughing my ass off throughout.
It might be the most I have ever enjoyed a movie, and I was smiling for two hours afterward just thinking about it.
Every choice was deliberate and it communicated something intelligent while being funny and continuing to draw the characters fuller and fuller. And I believed the film too. The irony and ideas and perspectives were rich, and the realness of the movie worked too.
I loved it.
Sophie's Choice (1982)
Wonderfully Acted
This movie is about characters. It's really well acted and you're just observing them. I think some of the narration takes away from the experience, and the poems aren't given enough attention to be justified (both less or more attention would have been better). If someone asked me if this movie was based off a book, I would easily be able to recognize it, it's strongly influenced.
But the movie is strongly human. The acting is phenomenal and the ideas are there, but I feel like the movie should have been able to get more out of me. I'm not sure what it is exactly, but I feel like there's some essence of something that's missing. It might have to do with. It might have to do with how Nathan Landau doesn't feel like a character nearly as much as the other two, and that he's too binary in each scene he's in. He's either loving and caring or bombastic and an asshole. But he's never erratic and bouncing between the two (sometimes he shifts from one to the other, but it always seems calculated, which strikes me as wrong for the way I see the character). I wish he was more complex.
I feel like with a little more cinematography or directing or editing I could have been truly amazed. Every one of them is competent, but none feel amazing. The movie is good, I just wish there was a little more to elevate that last bit.
Anatomy of a Murder (1959)
Maintains Interest and Realism
This movie is interesting in that is focuses solely on winning the case, and it doesn't focus so much on the right or wrong surrounding the result. From beginning to end the audience is walking side by side the attorney, without any more or any less information. The use of language in the film is also worth noting, with each lawyer throwing in jabs of framing towards the jury. And the movie tries to be subtle. But I think it fails in doing so.
More than failing to be subtle, the movie is very long, and certain aspects are put there to intrigue to audience, to question the results and have us examine the morality of what's happening ourselves. But worse than anything else, I think the entire movie is predictable. Certain aspects are surprising (those surprises are impossible to have guessed, so I don't think they count) but the overarching story is obvious.
I think if this was one of the first law movies I'd ever seen I'd have enjoyed it more, but looking closer I don't think there are any unique ideas in this film, and I don't think the dialogue (which is good) makes up for it.
Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
Emotional until the end
By emotional until the end I mean that I think the end undermined the movie. It had me tearing up, and I think the relationship between Dustin Hoffman and his son was complex and personal. The entire plot worked, and I loved everything about it.
But I really disliked the ending. I feel like the ending was too kind, and too hopeful too quickly. The tone shift was too quick. It broke my suspension of disbelief. Everything but the ending was wonderful though, and I think if the ending maintained the course that it was going I would have rated it an 8/10. Sitting in sadness can be very effective.
I think a reason the choice was made that way is because a certain portion of the audience would have really hated Meryl Streep's character if the film followed through, but I felt empathy for her character as well. Her choice just felt too abrupt and wrong for me.
A very similar movie to this one which I enjoyed more was Marriage Story, although the child was less of a character in that movie.