Filip_Pruncu

Great acting, great cinematography, great everything. However, there are some scenes that seem too exaggerated for the sake of being peculiar. Yes, Eggers tries to bring this (as well as his other films) closer to the arthouse film genre, which is definitely not for everyone. This movie has lots of symbolism, probably a reason for which it's put in the folk horror genre, but I'd rather put it in arthouse. For example, there's a scene reproduction of Sascha Schneider's "Hypnosis" artwork from 1904. And, as most of Schneider's works who depict homosexuality, we get a homosexual scene near the end of the movie, that turns into other symbolic scenes of eroticism, not just homo-eroticism.

There's symbolism and psychological play at every corner. Some will be confused, some will be aroused intellectually. I found many interesting things and I will need to see this movie again and take notes for a more in depth understanding. I wonder what at psychoanalyst or analytical psychologist could take out of this.

The historic authenticity of the movie is great, depicting the harsh times of the 19th century sailors and "wickies" (lighthouse keepers) as well as dialect and fashion. You can tell there's been some real homework done on this segment. The accent of Dafoe and his expressions are Oscar worthy! He has four Academy Award nominations (for other movies, not this one) but not a single Oscar won. This man is a living legend, yet stays humble and close to his fans. Now I'm digressing from the subject.

The play between historical accuracy and myth, the play between sanity and insanity, the play between boredom and absolute chaos... this is done so well! The oppositions are intelligent, well put into play, touching so many intellectual stages. Not to mention to distortion of time! I forgot to mention the superstitions! Oh, the superstitions!

Even with all this praise, I still get to say there are some times where it is exaggerated for the sake of art. And as the title of this review says, can a masterpiece have flaws? You be the judge of that. But I personally consider it a masterpiece, probably the best 2019 film and one of the best films we've had in the last 10 years.

But this is not a movie you should see randomly. This film requires your whole attention, your concentration. You must give yourself to it fully in order to truly experience what it has to offer. It's not a popcorn movie.

You can find the documentary on Youtube, it's been published by Havana Club.

I want to say that this is not just a documentary on rum, it's about the whole Cuban experience! Rum, cigars, traditions, history, politics, religion, everything you want!

On the rum side, we have drinks expert Dave Broom who is the author of several books on rum, whisky and gin and he's well respected worldwide.

A must-see in my opinion.

As the title of the review says, this is your basic dose of entertainment. It's the one that doesn't require any attention, thought or whatever, it just 'happens'. Of course, this is a crime/action movie, it isn't necessarily supposed to be deep. It's ok, it's entertaining when you're bored and have nothing to do. BUT!

The show is highly exaggerated and predictable. This follows the same pattern we've already seen in many movies, and it has become a bore. Yes, Tom Hardy does a great job. That's not enough. Pierce Brosnan doesn't fit the type of a psychopathic crime lord. Helen Mirren, a great actress, has her character way over the limits, that makes the character too unreal. I understand she was supposed to be like this, but it's been done too much. The rest of the cast is ok, I like Paddy Considine in his role and Anson Boon makes you hate Eddie Harrigan, which is great since that's his job and he does it well.

Other than that, it's just too far off. I knew many of the things that were to happen before they happened, it's too predictable. The lines aren't the smartest ones either, just plain dialogue.

Don't get me wrong, the show is ok, but just that. I'm still thinking if I will give it another chance with season 2.