lamps

Although it was expected this time, it’s never been more painful to see the way creators are forced to compromise. The purely adult material is diluted by a child’s perspective that doesn’t fit the coherence of the story as smoothly as in the past. Think about this: Coco sent a normal young boy into a symbolic world of existential ideas, taking him through a visually captivating environment where he learnt through his own childish perspective, all lead by funny fictional protagonists who told an intellectually dense story in the style of a circus attraction. Soul, in contrast, has an adult protagonist who envisages a more mature view of the world and who remains an adult even while his soul is in a symbolic environment. It’s therefore clear that this film is meant mostly for adults, and it’s naturally hurt by the fact that the story follows pretty much expected paths and ends so contrived and lacking conflict. The world-building is great and the story is nice to watch, but it can never be fun, silly, or inspiring enough when everything is so broadly aimed at solid family well-being. It’s not a bad movie, it’s just lacklustre and rather rushed, which is quite surprising for Pixar. 70%

Proper B-movie that doesn’t pretend to be anything else, but that still fails with the inconsistent action and the transformations of the heroine. I don’t think it’s Geena’s fault, she’s quite alright, but her character is not very interesting and, next to Jackson (the best and funniest character), she can never become an action icon. But it’s no dud, it has a solid pace, frequent twists and a couple of funny jokes. 65%

Together with the first two parts of Nolan’s trilogy, this is the best cinematic Batman. Burton’s visual style works better than in the previous one – probably it’s really fitting for the Christmas period, Burton has always been good at finding moral filth and darkness behind a snowy facade. DeVito is great as The Penguin, delivering a solid balance between caricature and a real threat hiding in the sewers and wearing bizarre costumes, and the story also has room for another (semi-)antagonist, the splendid Catwoman (with the magical face of the most beautiful actress of her generation). Batman is only one part of a balanced triangle of characters, he only reacts to the actions of the other two (and it’s the only one with pure intentions). The character of Christopher Walken is also important and brilliant, he’s the one who brings everyone together. The final confrontation was bit a silly and the drama is not very effective, but everything is compensated by the clever relationship structure and an inimitably morbid comic-book style accompanied by Elfman’s music score, a joy to watch. 85%

A hallucinogenic satire of 1984 meets the biggest middle finger to the Christmas spirit in the history of cinema. And it’s fun, but also has interpretive challenges, especially in the depressive ending. So many ideas in one film – whether purely visual, the staging (sci-fi like Metropolis + grotesque irony in the style of Monty Python) or themes - is not something we see very often. I should give it 5*, but at times that frantic movement didn’t feel fully organised and meaningful. 85%

The story is great, the new characters are good, the monkey language was fun and the beginnings of television have never been portrayed so funny. If the story didn’t stumble so much in the second half and they didn’t repeat the same morals over and over again, it could have been better than excellent. And Cage’s unhinged voice acting is awesome.

It’s very inconsistent, I was a bit disappointed immediately after the screening, then I was writing a more extensive review, during which the film matured in me and, probably too naively, I started looking for cinephile themes and similarities or variations of Citizen Kane, only for Mank to vanish from my mind suspiciously fast a day later. I don’t mind the mythologisation of Orson Wells’s sparse participation in the screenwriting process of Citizen Kane, because I don’t take historical accuracy very much into account when evaluating a film, but it still affected my original idea regarding the coherence of the narration – though I think Fincher develops well the titular character, who in many aspects is a contrast of Charles Foster Kane (which is actually highlighted several times by the style and staging of some scenes), and provides a focused image of the time, but the individual segments feel a little haphazardly put together and don’t move the story forward much. The secondary characters are very numerous and at times it’s not clear what the author wants to say with this or that memory. Also, unlike his other films, Fincher doesn’t deliver any surprises, nor does he pull the viewer into a whirl of psychological motifs. Mank is a nostalgic retro painting that should hang at an art gallery attended only by very specific fans of period films, but it’s hanging between other new releases on Netflix, the brush strokes are clearly contemporaneous and evoke the style of the time only because they are in black and white. I respect Mank as something that brings diversity and a magical recreation of its time that irradiates love for filmmaking, and I must also admit that it didn’t bore me even for a second. I will gladly go back to it, but next time without expecting to find SOMETHING at any cost in this anticipated tribute to a great film and a difficult era (and I really tried and lied myself that that SOMETHING is there), and maybe I will be able to appreciate it from a different perspective. For the time being, though, I have to say that a couple of days ago I wouldn’t have believed that David Fincher could feel so impersonal (though still strong and beautiful to look at).

An extremely seductive and satirical neo-noir and probably the most honest mirror Hollywood has ever put in front of itself. The opening eight minute sequence in a single take is amazing, it materialises before our eyes a film studio with a focus on how new scripts are presented to a producer, and the story slowly begins to unfold around threatening letters, while clearly referencing famous long shots in the history of cinema; it immediately sets the tempo and the thematic scope of the film as a whole. It’s a typical non-Hollywood story that wonders through seemingly unrelated alleys, flaunting its own self-awareness, but also a classic love letter to the film industry, whose hypocrisy hides an inexplicable passion. The ending can be interpreted in several ways, and it’s certainly far from standard, but it fully fulfils the intentions of Altman and Tolkin and, what’s more important, offers cinephiles a similarly ironic satisfaction as Wilder did in Sunset Boulevard but in an emotional package. 90%

A film full of nonsense and gratuitous manipulation. I won’t question the fact that there are young girls (and not only girls) who in this online age unknowingly fall in the hands of masochistic assholes, but I seriously doubt the way this naive attempt wants to tell us about it –  the whole thing looks as unconvincing as Trump’s comb-over. The way it pushes Amy, the only normal character, into the position of a looser is a clear prototype of mechanical cynicism, and the found-footage format is just stupid – really, would a killer film the last hours of their victim with a camera belonging to said victim, only to throw it in a public bin? It talks about a tragedy, but that tragedy is not only awfully exploited, but it doesn’t say anything. And it’s also lethally boring, even in the “shocking” twist.

A film as morally complex as the provocative figure of its creator. It can easily be dismissed as cheap controversy and the portrayal of social taboos, but it’s harder to accept it as an undisguised satire that ridicules far more often than it shocks gratuitously. It’s not easy to watch, and Pasolini clearly aims at the lowest human instincts, but he does it with unquestionable awareness, constantly undermining the initial interpretations – in their exercise of absolute power, four assholes transform their prisoners into animals. The premise, straddling the border between Renaissance (Dante’s concept of hell, the architecture of the villa) and the modern threats of Fascism and consumerism, also turns those powerful people themselves into animals that are never satisfied and act ridiculously towards each other, while the mostly anonymous victims are obedient consumables and the threatened future of humanity. This also relates to the fact that Saló is not psychological at all, we can keep our distance from all the characters and the final stage of reconciliation makes clear to the viewer that they are unknowingly engaging in voyeurism and, maybe unconsciously, getting pleasure from the shocking and symbolic scenes. It’s a perfect “puppet” film where everything is built for the benefit of the message itself, which should never be taken too seriously. But I don’t think I would like to watch it again, the format becomes too mechanic at times, but from the perspective of the pressure on the viewer and the opinionated responses it generates, this controversial film doesn’t have much of a competition.

Goggins plays a killer who’s after Mel Gibson’s Santa, and it’s not fun? Fatman has a premise that could be taken in a lot of different funny directions, but it flounders in a boring genre mix that lacks detachment and charisma. There isn’t a single good joke and the potential doesn’t go any further than the interesting idea. The only thing that saves it are the two cool actors (even though I think one of them doesn’t know whether he’s in a comedy or a drama). I demand right now a remake with Bruce Willis as Santa and Nic Cage as a crazy naughty boy.