Too sweeping a condemnation of Ozon's more recent movies. While I actively hated Potiche and A New Friend and felt middle-of-the-road about In the House, I think Young & Beautiful and Frantz are really good movies. I sometimes think his movies are so French that they just don't travel that well, but he remains a director of consequence as far as I am concerned.
Haven't seen Frantz, but Young and Beautiful was a 4/10 to me, really miles and miles and miles away from the brilliance of Sous le sable or Gouttes d'eau sur pierres brûlantes. Potiche and (to as lesser extent) Une nouvelle amie were indeed terrible, while Dans la maison stood mostly on Luchini doing Luchini stuff, and was by far his best recent film IMO (7/10) - but still cannot be held to his earlier standards.
Saw The Lighthouse last night. This is essentially everything I was hoping it would be. My only real "detractor" is that I don't see it as a deep movie on any level. Like a lot of the best movies usually work on a level where they're trying to say something, but outside of some parallels to Greek Mythology, I didn't really see this movie as trying to be about anything more than it was on a pretty basic level, if that makes sense. That personally doesn't matter to me but I can see some people using that against it in a way in terms of not holding it in as high regard as others do. In a general sense I think for sure a lot of general audiences won't like it. I don't think it's like completely inaccessible as most people will understand what's going on (even if you struggle through the accents), but it's just a super weird movie.
I think you kind of have to start on a technical level. This movie simply could not have been done in any other way than black & white, it just would not have worked. The way it was shot with camera lenses as old as 1918 shows, compared to how a lot of other B&W movies look. I can't tell you how or why, but you'll just know it to be different when you watch it, the B&W just feels so heavily ingrained into the movie. There are so many shots blended with the natural candlelight in evening scenes where the shadows look absolutely gorgeous or chilling. As @kihei hinted at, they were using camera technology literally cobbled together from 3 different eras in the stormy weather on sets built from the ground up (tough to think of it as a classical set when they're literally just building real structures to film in), so the degree of difficulty for the cinematography let alone the end result of how it looked should be considered a front-runner for any type of awards. In terms of the aspect ratio, I also think it's necessary just to create that claustrophobic and isolated feel.
Sound design was absolutely superb. The wind howling and rain pounding when they're indoors does so much for building up the atmosphere. The horn sound throughout and how they play with it depending on where the characters are on the island is so effective and plays unbelievably well in a theater. They also do a couple things with vocal distortion effects that are just straight up chilling. Interestingly enough the score was a lot more subdued than I thought it would be. There's some stuff in the trailer that you immediately identify with when you hear it in the movie but for the most part it kind of just blends in naturally.
When I saw the trailers I thought the general nature of Dafoe's character would just completely outshine a much more subdued Pattinson, but I didn't see it that way at all. I think Dafoe has most of the memorable moments, but Pattinson is excellent in this as well and goes toe to toe. For mild spoilers
the character dynamics reminded me a lot of The Favourite. You feel a genuine connection between the characters and your allegiances shift and blur all the way through, sometimes going to complete apathy for either. I thought Dafoe in particular did an amazing job garnering sympathy from the audience considering how disgusting and despicable of a person he is. There's a part where Pattinson criticizes his cooking and he goes into this sad, pathetic kind of puppy dog hurt from it and you believe it, and then he follows it up with this absolutely insane biblical tirade.
.
Comedically, I thought it was fantastic. Almost all the comedy derives from the relationship dynamics between the two. Honestly, I don't think you have to be able to fully understand the thick accents to get most of it, whether it's comedically or just overall for the narrative. It's one of those things where you pick up on certain words, understand the tone the characters are speaking in, and of course rely on visual cues as well. I watched the movie with my dad, who really isn't an "art house" movie watcher at all, and the humor still translated to him. There was one thing that I think would have been more of a throwaway line for most that had us howling well after the movie:
After subjecting him to literally doing all the work in horrible conditions and being an awful person doing f***-all himself, despite connecting with him in ways where they sort of build up a friendship when they're drinking together, Pattinson finds the journal where Dafoe just absolutely shamelessly recommends him for "severance without pay" and saw no need to address it to Pattinson directly.
I never find movies scary, but it did still work on horror levels as well. Not really something you can specifically call a horror, but they blended the comedy in with the more serious elements so well. Just that kind of escalation of paranoia, absurdity and madness are so well captured.
Definitely not for everyone, but if you like movies that are more on the offbeat side, definitely check it out.
Edit: For anyone that liked The Witch and that Black Phillip character, I don't think anything can match that but they had something in here that was close IMO.
I haven't had a theater experience like that in a while, like in terms of the crowd. It was really nice. A24 has a tendency to market their movies in a bit of a misleading way to bring in more general audiences (Hereditary was the opposite theater experience for me) but I don't think anything about the marketing for The Lighthouse misled anyone in any way. If you went to see it I think you knew what you were getting to some degree. I dunno, maybe around Halloween time people see "horror movie" and go in knowing nothing about it. It was the first showing at the theater near me, and while it was in one of the smaller theaters in the complex, it was still completely sold out. Just felt like a really appropriate response to the movie in terms of people laughing and stuff, just the general vibe in the room.
Last time I had that was probably seeing Annihilation first night, which is weird to me because despite the controversial rolling out of that movie, I think a lot of people probably went to it expecting like a big action Sci-Fi.
Wow, I think that is really, really underrating Pattinson here. Like many basically two-actor movies, for the film to work both actors need to be strong so they can actively play off one another. I think that is definitely the case here. The Lighthouse would not be so effective, to me anyway, if both actors weren't each pulling their share of the load. I think Pattinson did a really good job of playing off the ambiguity of his character--sometimes seeming relatively normal, though tortured about something; sometimes seeming a psychotic waiting for an opportunity. His character and the movie are dependent upon Pattinson's ability to communicate the corrosive nature of his sense of guilt and on that score I thought Pattinson was borderline brilliant.
I honestly do not see the depth that you see in Pattinson's performance. He is definitely tortured, but I feel no guilt.
For full disclosure, I have seen enough of Pattinson's work, that I do not think he is anything special. To me, he is rather one-note, as he is good at being a tortured soul, but there is no depth in his pain. That is why I never understand why he is praised for Good Times, and this one. Both performances are just more of the same.
That said, I am curious about his role as the new Batman though. I see a lot of potential, because it is right up his alley, and there is so much depth inherit in the character, that it may very well be the breakthrough that he needs.
I honestly do not the depth that you see in Pattinson's performance. He is definitely tortured, but I see no guilt.
For full disclosure, I have seen enough of Pattinson's work, that I do not think he is anything special. To me, he is rather one-note, as he is good at being a tortured soul, but there is no depth in his pain. That is why I never understand why he is praised for Good Times, and this one. Both performances are just more of the same.
Pattinson had to cover a lot more of a range of emotion in this than Dafoe did, I think. It was arguably a more difficult role. I think the only time I was iffy on his performance was when
he gained control over Dafoe and was treating him like a dog. It may have been just the absurdity of the scene but I didn't completely buy that power shift from him.
. In terms of depth of pain, there's a scene where
Dafoe calls him out as a phony in a way. It's when he's standing in that doorway and saying that Pattinson wants to see himself as some kind of tortured soul or mysterious figure when he's really not. I think some of what you're saying may have been intentional by Eggers. Still though, I thought the confession scene from him was excellent.
. I also thought Pattinson conveyed the
descent to madness amazingly. That one scene where he's dancing with Dafoe around the table (the upbeat dance, not the slow-dance), and he's like spinning around singing the song and then basically just starts foaming at the mouth spouting gibberish was nuts.
Saw The Lighthouse last night. This is essentially everything I was hoping it would be. My only real "detractor" is that I don't see it as a deep movie on any level. Like a lot of the best movies usually work on a level where they're trying to say something, but outside of some parallels to Greek Mythology, I didn't really see this movie as trying to be about anything more than it was on a pretty basic level, if that makes sense. That personally doesn't matter to me but I can see some people using that against it in a way in terms of not holding it in as high regard as others do. In a general sense I think for sure a lot of general audiences won't like it. I don't think it's like completely inaccessible as most people will understand what's going on (even if you struggle through the accents), but it's just a super weird movie.
I think you kind of have to start on a technical level. This movie simply could not have been done in any other way than black & white, it just would not have worked. The way it was shot with camera lenses as old as 1918 shows, compared to how a lot of other B&W movies look. I can't tell you how or why, but you'll just know it to be different when you watch it, the B&W just feels so heavily ingrained into the movie. There are so many shots blended with the natural candlelight in evening scenes where the shadows look absolutely gorgeous or chilling. As @kihei hinted at, they were using camera technology literally cobbled together from 3 different eras in the stormy weather on sets built from the ground up (tough to think of it as a classical set when they're literally just building real structures to film in), so the degree of difficulty for the cinematography let alone the end result of how it looked should be considered a front-runner for any type of awards. In terms of the aspect ratio, I also think it's necessary just to create that claustrophobic and isolated feel.
Sound design was absolutely superb. The wind howling and rain pounding when they're indoors does so much for building up the atmosphere. The horn sound throughout and how they play with it depending on where the characters are on the island is so effective and plays unbelievably well in a theater. They also do a couple things with vocal distortion effects that are just straight up chilling. Interestingly enough the score was a lot more subdued than I thought it would be. There's some stuff in the trailer that you immediately identify with when you hear it in the movie but for the most part it kind of just blends in naturally.
When I saw the trailers I thought the general nature of Dafoe's character would just completely outshine a much more subdued Pattinson, but I didn't see it that way at all. I think Dafoe has most of the memorable moments, but Pattinson is excellent in this as well and goes toe to toe. For mild spoilers
the character dynamics reminded me a lot of The Favourite. You feel a genuine connection between the characters and your allegiances shift and blur all the way through, sometimes going to complete apathy for either. I thought Dafoe in particular did an amazing job garnering sympathy from the audience considering how disgusting and despicable of a person he is. There's a part where Pattinson criticizes his cooking and he goes into this sad, pathetic kind of puppy dog hurt from it and you believe it, and then he follows it up with this absolutely insane biblical tirade.
.
Comedically, I thought it was fantastic. Almost all the comedy derives from the relationship dynamics between the two. Honestly, I don't think you have to be able to fully understand the thick accents to get most of it, whether it's comedically or just overall for the narrative. It's one of those things where you pick up on certain words, understand the tone the characters are speaking in, and of course rely on visual cues as well. I watched the movie with my dad, who really isn't an "art house" movie watcher at all, and the humor still translated to him. There was one thing that I think would have been more of a throwaway line for most that had us howling well after the movie:
After subjecting him to literally doing all the work in horrible conditions and being an awful person doing ****-all himself, despite connecting with him in ways where they sort of build up a friendship when they're drinking together, Pattinson finds the journal where Dafoe just absolutely shamelessly recommends him for "severance without pay" and saw no need to address it to Pattinson directly.
I never find movies scary, but it did still work on horror levels as well. Not really something you can specifically call a horror, but they blended the comedy in with the more serious elements so well. Just that kind of escalation of paranoia, absurdity and madness are so well captured.
Definitely not for everyone, but if you like movies that are more on the offbeat side, definitely check it out.
Edit: For anyone that liked The Witch and that Black Phillip character, I don't think anything can match that but they had something in here that was close IMO.
Ashes & Diamonds (1958) - 7/10
Grim post-war cinema but with some decent dialogue. Probably appeals more to Poles than foreigners because you seem to need a bit of inside knowledge and historical context from the time.
The Art of Self Defense (2019) - 8/10
Hilarious well-paced Yorgos Lanthimos-like black comedy. Jesse Eisenberg is like a meaner Michael Cera from what I've noticed.
Shazam! (2019) - 6/10
Probably a good kids movie but a bit corny though better than most DC stuff. Also, it is fun to yell Shazam!
Thanks. My GF and I have a horror movie list on the go for October and I made sure to get that on there, even though it's not technically a horror I don't think haha. I'll be checking it out soon.
Pain & Glory (2019) Directed by Pedro Almodovar 8A
I associate Pedro Almodovar films with visual flair, bright colours, gay themes, a certain exuberance even when dealing with hot button topics, and influences that stretch from Douglas Sirk to Alfred Hitchcock. Pain and Glory is a surprise in that the mood is decidedly muted, not quite somber but not far removed from that emotion either. The story focuses on an aging movie director (Antonio Banderas), who is beset by a variety of physical ailments including some serious ones. He has basically retired from public life but hasn't yet found much that is meaningful to do with his days other than to dull his pain with heroin, a drug with which he has just begin to dabble. More by happenstance rather than design, he begins to meet again some people who once were important to him which initiates a quiet review of his own life. Nothing earthshaking occurs, some disappointments still nettle but others seem to settle into acceptance. This self-examination is beautifully observed, especially his relationship with his mother (Penelope Cruz in the early scenes). Banderas does a superb job of creating a likable, complex, sometimes lonely but never self-pitying character in late middle-age on the cusp of old age. Before he can move forward, he must account for where he has been--places of deep melancholy and regret, but of joy, too. Pain and Glory generates a very pleasing, though understated warmth, the kind of movie that only a great director could make and pull off with the elan on evidence here.
subtitles
Best of '19 so far
1) Parasite, Bong, South Korea
2) Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Sciamma, France
3) An Elephant Sitting Still, Hu, China
4) Hope, Sodahl, Norway
5) Pain & Glory, Almodovar, Spain
6) The Lighthouse, Eggers, United States
7) It Must Be Heaven, Suleiman, Palestine
8) Vitalina Varela, Costa, Portugal
9) The Two Popes, Mirelles, Brazil/UK
10) Ema, Larrain, Chile
Pain and Glory (2019) Directed by Pedro Almodovar 8A
I associate Pedro Almodovar films with visual flair, bright colours, gay themes, a certain exuberance even when dealing with hot button topics, and influences that stretch from Douglas Sirk to Alfred Hitchcock. Pain and Glory is a surprise in that the mood is decidedly muted, not quite somber but not far removed from that emotion either. The story focuses on an aging movie director (Antonio Banderas), who is beset by a variety of physical ailments including some serious ones. He has basically retired from public life but hasn't yet found much that is meaningful to do with his days other than to dull his pain with heroin, a drug with which he has just begin to dabble. More by happenstance rather than design, he begins to meet again some people who once were important to him which initiates a quiet review of his own life. Nothing earthshaking occurs, some disappointments still nettle but others seem to settle into acceptance. This self-examination is beautifully observed, especially his relationship with his mother (Penelope Cruz in the early scenes). Banderas does a superb job of creating a likable, complex, sometimes lonely but never self-pitying character in late middle-age on the cusp of old age. Before he can move forward, he must account for where he has been--places of deep melancholy and regret, but of joy, too. Pain and Glory generates a very pleasing, though understated warmth, the kind of movie that only a great director could make and pull off with the elan on evidence here.
subtitles
Best of '19 so far
1) Parasite, Bong, South Korea
2) Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Sciamma, France
3) An Elephant Sitting Still, Hu, China
4) Hope, Sodahl, Norway
5) Pain and Glory, Almodovar, Spain
6) The Lighthouse, Eggers, United States
7) It Must Be Heaven, Suleiman, Palestine
8) Vitalina Varela, Costa, Portugal
9) The Two Popes, Mirelles, Brazil/UK
10) Ema, Larrain, Chile
After your review, I am led to believe that this one might resonate more with people who are at the age of the protagonist, or have already experienced it. I see what you described on screen, but that sense of nostalgia, reflection and warmth completely escapes me.
As a result, I classify it as one of his minor works. It is still a high quality work, but it is not at the standard of his other masterpieces.
Pattinson had to cover a lot more of a range of emotion in this than Dafoe did, I think. It was arguably a more difficult role. I think the only time I was iffy on his performance was when
he gained control over Dafoe and was treating him like a dog. It may have been just the absurdity of the scene but I didn't completely buy that power shift from him.
. In terms of depth of pain, there's a scene where
Dafoe calls him out as a phony in a way. It's when he's standing in that doorway and saying that Pattinson wants to see himself as some kind of tortured soul or mysterious figure when he's really not. I think some of what you're saying may have been intentional by Eggers. Still though, I thought the confession scene from him was excellent.
. I also thought Pattinson conveyed the
descent to madness amazingly. That one scene where he's dancing with Dafoe around the table (the upbeat dance, not the slow-dance), and he's like spinning around singing the song and then basically just starts foaming at the mouth spouting gibberish was nuts.
That is a fair assessment on the difficulty of the role. Everything is more internal with him, and that is harder to pull off.
I am still not convinced that there is that much depth, but I am glad it worked for you and kihei, and you guys enjoyed it. A lot of people I talked to liked the movie too, and I am probably the only one that thought it was nothing special. The difficulty of the language probably contributed to my rather tepid reception, because I likely missed quite a lot.
I had been really looking forward to The Lighthouse, it was my second most anticipated movie of the year after Midsommar. I enjoyed it a lot, as some others have said before- the sound design is amazing, I didn't even realize how much background horns and sounds of waves crashing and wind howling we were being exposed to throughout the movie until we get our first minute of pure silence and it's haunting.
I was slightly disappointed in the beginning that the entire movie was going to be in a 4:3ish aspect ratio, esp since the screen I was watching on wasn't that big to begin with (I can see this happening for most people as a movie like this is not going to get the best screen at your local theatre chain so if you can watch it at an indie theatre over a chain, please do so). That said, I was surprised how quickly aspect ratio just became a part of the movie and I almost stopped noticing it.
While there are many theories about the movie... for me it is best viewed as one guy's descent into madness while dealing with another half-mad individual.
I had read earlier in the year about Pattinson being pissed at Eggers and feeling miserable on the set due to how hard some of the scenes were both physically and from an acting perspective and honestly now watching the movie I can see why that would be. The setting of the movie is absolutely miserable and makes you understand how people might do crazy things when faced with those elements.
My only criticism is that I was hoping for more from the last 10 minutes, I feel like I wanted one more batshit thing to top all the batshit in the movie before the credits rolled but didn't get that.
After your review, I am led to believe that this one might resonate more with people who are at the age of the protagonist, or have already experienced it. I see what you described on screen, but that sense of nostalgia, reflection and warmth completely escapes me.
As a result, I classify it as one of his minor works. It is still a high quality work, but it is not at the standard of his other masterpieces.
Oh, I think Pain & Glory has far greater generational resonance than that--as any movie of excellence does. Sure, the film certainly has direct appeal to people who are around the same age or older, but I think as a character study as well as a movie about looking back on life, this film has broad appeal to anyone, regardless of age, who is curious about this aspect of the human condition. Like other movies before Pain & Glory--Ikiru, Wild Strawberries, Providence, Away from Her, Amour and so on--these movies' near universal respect has more to do with the insights about people that they present and the quality of character development that they provide than just their appeal to an older age group. Works the other way around, too. Just because children love Ghibli Studio films doesn't mean that adults are incapable of recognizing their charms as well.
That is a fair assessment on the difficulty of the role. Everything is more internal with him, and that is harder to pull off.
I am still not convinced that there is that much depth, but I am glad it worked for you and kihei, and you guys enjoyed it. A lot of people I talked to liked the movie too, and I am probably the only one that thought it was nothing special. The difficulty of the language probably contributed to my rather tepid reception, because I likely missed quite a lot.
Yeah, I mean the entire first half of the movie was him being guarded and withdrawn so I don't know how he could have played that any better.
I think he's a seriously talented actor, although so much is about the roles he's choosing. He's just been really smart about what he's done since Twilight. Honestly, even Twilight was smart in a way because it at least got him notoriety. And now he's going back to a big franchise like Batman after all these years, it's just a really calculated approach that he's taking. If you listen to him in interviews, he's really conscious about his perception as an actor. He said he wanted to work with Eggers on whatever the weirdest thing he had was, but at the same time didn't want a period piece because he thought it pigeon-holes actors to do that (upon reading the script he said The Lighthouse didn't even really count as a period piece to him though because it was using the period to create an alien setting rather than checking off boxes that period pieces usually do). In ways it can seem gimmicky to think that way about your own career, but at the same time it's interesting that he's already trying to shape his legacy and take on roles that are different and challenging.
I watched The Ritual on Netflix. If I could describe this movie in one sentence I'd say it's a completely average horror plot/premise that is elevated by good direction, but that in itself can only do so much. Overall just like a decent horror movie. Everything about this feels generic, the inciting incident that looms over the rest of the movie, the alien setting of being in a different country in the woods, the monster, the cult-ish aspect. The director finds a way to make really basic and cliche things interesting though, whether it's going into a creepy cabin, or hearing a spooky noise in the woods. I do think it falls apart on different levels in the last act, but for the most part I was kept pretty engaged throughout. I really appreciated the use of subtlety throughout even though I thought the monster design itself was interesting/cool.
In terms of plot, it is. However, I honestly have no idea what I watched, because I can not make sense of any of the actions or choices. Still, I cannot look away, and the movie lingers long after the credits end.
That is why I do not know how to react to it. I should dislike it, but because it is so memorable, and I still remember the movie vividly, that I still cannot give it a definite grade. I always feel like I should give it a second chance, even though it is not a pleasant experience the first time.
Don't Worry, He Won't Get Far On Foot - I stopped caring about Gus Van Sant when he made Good Will Hunting (I haven't seen everything he made after that, but of what I've seen, only Elephant was interesting enough to be compared to his earlier stuff). DWHWGFOF is nothing he'll be remembered for, but like most of his "weaker" stuff, it's good enough to be worth a watch. He's a very good director who can play with both narrative structures and sensibility, which is pretty rare. It still shows here. Very simple story, told with enough subtility to make it work as a film. - 5/10
Yeah, I mean the entire first half of the movie was him being guarded and withdrawn so I don't know how he could have played that any better.
I think he's a seriously talented actor, although so much is about the roles he's choosing. He's just been really smart about what he's done since Twilight. Honestly, even Twilight was smart in a way because it at least got him notoriety. And now he's going back to a big franchise like Batman after all these years, it's just a really calculated approach that he's taking. If you listen to him in interviews, he's really conscious about his perception as an actor. He said he wanted to work with Eggers on whatever the weirdest thing he had was, but at the same time didn't want a period piece because he thought it pigeon-holes actors to do that (upon reading the script he said The Lighthouse didn't even really count as a period piece to him though because it was using the period to create an alien setting rather than checking off boxes that period pieces usually do). In ways it can seem gimmicky to think that way about your own career, but at the same time it's interesting that he's already trying to shape his legacy and take on roles that are different and challenging.
Yeah, I thought it is smart of him to work with Cronenberg and Denis, and also takes roles in The Rover and Good Time. They all show off his versatility, and it makes him rather interesting. That said, I still think he is rather one-note, and even though he gives an effort, I am not that impressed with him.
I will just say that even though he is not a actor I look forward to, I do not mind his presence. At the very least, he tries, and his movies are quite varied.
Oh, I think Pain & Glory has far greater generational resonance than that--as any movie of excellence does. Sure, the film certainly has direct appeal to people who are around the same age or older, but I think as a character study as well as a movie about looking back on life, this film has broad appeal to anyone, regardless of age, who is curious about this aspect of the human condition. Like other movies before Pain & Glory--Ikiru, Wild Strawberries, Providence, Away from Her, Amour and so on--these movies' near universal respect has more to do with the insights about people that they present and the quality of character development that they provide than just their appeal to an older age group. Works the other way around, too. Just because children love Ghibli Studio films doesn't mean that adults are incapable of recognizing their charms as well.
I would not put Pain & Glory on the level of those other examples you mentioned though. I get those movies, but this one just escapes me. I really do not feel any of those feelings you wrote, and I was awake the whole time too.
Joker (2019) - Boy does this movie lay it on thick. Most of the film is just torture porn. At best, Todd Phillips showed that he was a little more than the guy who made The Hangover and that he can construct a movie that works well on a technical level. But whatever he is, he's no author. Certain scenes seem shoe-horned in solely for the viewer to take notice of Phoenix's weight loss. Also, while I don't think Todd Phillips was badly-intentioned with Joker's presentation/the sympathy the audience is supposed to feel for him and that there is a valid (if somewhat bland) point beneath his over-the-top narrative, I think the point is subject to ridicule when uh...Joker starts murdering people left and right. Yet just about everyone is awful and I guess...three douchebags getting killed leads to eum...NYC deciding to kill the rich through full-blown rights? Okay then. That's not to say there aren't some aspects to like about this movie. Some individual scenes are extraordinary (One particular killing was perfectly strange and in the spirit of what I think could have made a better film if Phillips wasn't trying so hard to be an intellectual author. The other is the very, very last one with a boisterous Joker.) and there are other neat little details (such as the leaking flower worn by Arthur Fleck following his tacky beating). Other scenes work because earlier scenes set-up such a ludicrous narrative. For example, the only reason I could have bought Fleck was in a relationship with his well-adjusted, pretty neighbor was because certain banal characters do such senseless things earlier, like a colleague giving Fleck a pistol, even if every person he works with believes he's unhinged and unbalanced. But that didn't stop the false relationship reveal to be well-executed and one of the more sordid/poignant scenes in the film. The musical choices were rather uneven. With some tastefully placed and others utterly corny, the worst offending moment being when Fleck goes full-blown Joker and is dancing down the steps to that stupid sports song. And Phoenix, despite being a little too loud with his performance by moments, was typical Phoenix. Which is just about perfect. Again, credit Phillips and his team for creating a very good film on a technical level, with some great sets, nice use of color and a cool wardrobe. I didn't think he even had that in him. But he should probably avoid writing his screenplays.
Nice short "eco-friendly" farm startup documentary. Beautiful visuals, heart, and some interesting teachings go on throughout this emotional roller coaster of a film.
The Adams Family (2019)
2.50 out of 4stars
Creative and pleasing short kid focused animated ode to the Adams Family's legacy. Nothing great, but definitely solid.
So what is a controversial Hitler-themed fantasy doing winning things like the People's Choice Award at TIFF? It's a pretty good question. Here is a sort of coming-of-age movie, albeit for a 10-year old, about a little kid, Jo Jo (Roman Griffin Davis), who is overjoyed to be joining a Hitler youth group. The war is nearly over but he is encouraged and mentored by his hero, Hitler (Taika Waititi) who is his imaginary friend. He wants to be a good little Nazi, but events keep tripping him up. For instance, his mother (Scarlett Johansson) is hiding a young Jewish girl (Thomasin McKenzie) in a hidden room. When Jo Jo discovers her, he is torn between exposing her or using her for research he is doing for a school project on how devious and evil Jews are. Rather than cowering in fear she plays tough and the kid begins to wonder whether his view of the world is quite as accurate as he thought it was. While most of this is played for light humour, Waititi throws in enough realistic and brutal moments to indicate that this movie isn't going soft on anything. There are a bunch of issues on this movie's mind. It stands as a parable for the state the world is currently in, but it does so in very subtle ways. There is a message of resistance to evil here, but also an acknowledgement of the importance of inclusion. There is an unspoken connection to the dangerous times that we are currently living in, a period when it pays to be on our toes and not allow ignorance and fear to guide us. The message part of the movie is subtle, and the overall execution is marvelous. Davis is terrific, a child actor capable of a performance of great depth and nuance; he absolutely carries the movie on his tiny shoulders. If essentially a crowd pleaser of a movie can walk a potentially dicey knife's edge, Jo Jo Rabbit manages the balancing act with assurance and a clear understanding of just what it's doing.
Best of '19 so far
1) Parasite, Bong, South Korea
2) Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Sciamma, France
3) An Elephant Sitting Still, Hu, China
4) Hope, Sodahl, Norway
5) Pain & Glory, Almodovar, Spain
6) The Lighthouse, Eggers, United States
7) It Must Be Heaven, Suleiman, Palestine
8) Vitalina Varela, Costa, Portugal
9) The Two Popes, Mirelles, Brazil/UK
10) Jo Jo Rabbit, Waititi, US
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
