Commentaires de tylerkom

Monty Python, for all the naysaying that this review will proceed to do is fabulously influential and deserves most of the praise lavished upon it. For the price of a movie ticket (or your streaming service of choice), you are provided a torrent of jokes per minute for its 91 minute runtime. As far as sketch comedy goes, a classic criticism is that that jokes are not that nuanced or layered, so The Holy Grail makes sure to not overstay its welcome with its runtime. Very punchy. I commend that huge commitment to the bit, between the low budget looking cinematography, to costumes, and even writing, it's all very thematic and works synergistically with each other. It's truly one of a kind, often mimicked but never equaled. You can see much of the absurdist and fourth wall breaking comedy writing in today's entertainment has deep roots in this comedy troop.

With as much respect as I can give it, the film doesn't work for me. It's entertaining in a blow-air-out-of-your-nose type of way, but hardly laugh out loud funny for me. The deeply British, fourth wall breaking, absurdist surrealist humor can be super hit or miss. There is little set-up for jokes and, for me, there is no cadence of setting then breaking the pattern as in classic comic theory because the jokes are all over the place. I'll also criticize the film for beating, dragging, and beheading all of the dead, rotting corpses of their jokes. They commit hard to their jokes, but it's the epitome of beating a dead horse. I understand that this is a very sketch-comedy coded idea, but history has shown that it's an idea that rarely works. My last complaint is hardly a criticism, but I'll just throw out there that this film is all jokes, no content. Which I think is completely fine as a concept, but there's no real lasting arc, character development, or takeaways. It's something comedy films rarely do nowadays for good reason: it's not a satisfying way to write a film. Clearly, not many people are bothered by it here, but even other works with the same type of humor (Hitchhiker's Guide or Rick and Morty, anyone?) have a more satisfying arc than this film.

The film knows what it is and never strays from it. I respect the film but it just doesn't really work for me. Give it a try.

The Sting is the legendary 1976 reinterpretation of a 1930s caper film. And its legendary reputation is quite earned as it deftly takes us from sequence to sequence, tightly keeping what needs to be in, and what doesn't, out. The performances from our leads in Robert Redford and Paul Newman are constantly fun and believable. They are truly one of the great cinema mentor-mentee duos. I also love that the film treats the audience with much respect, such that the discerning viewer understands the whole con, the whole time without spoon feeding. Also a nice storytelling tool. The winks and nods to an earlier form of filmmaking were nice and occasionally funny, although I think there are clearly techniques and motifs that we have rightfully left in the past. That said, there is a great understanding of the same visual storytelling prowess that Chaplin and Keaton utilized. The music is excellently placed, although as previously mentioned, they use an old fashioned style of sound engineering that leaves backgrounds almost completely silent at times which is quite disturbing. I think more use could have been made of music and general background noise without giving up the old timey charm.

Despite those little reservations, there's not much to dislike in such a simple but wonderfully executed film. As mentioned, some old timey "authenticity" flavored filmmaking are a bit jarring and the story is quite predictable, including the twist. That doesn't mean it doesn't bring it home though. If there's anything more damning, perhaps it's the unfocused secondary plot of revenge or greed. Despite how little attention was given to these things, I can appreciate that they had a winning, entertaining piece of film here that didn't have much need to delve into the human condition.

It's not a trick! One of the preeminent capers in history earns its title.

Casablanca is considered one of the triumphs of American cinema. And it is. Let's get the basics out of the way first. The dialogue is sharp and hilarious even in 2025, some mix of quips and adult world commentary. The pacing is essentially perfect, following a clear rising action in the build up of little ethical dilemmas and events in Rick's life, a climax in Ilsa's last visit, and some of the most iconic lines in film history in the final, thrilling closing act. The acting performances are so clean, although, of course, dated. They are theatrical and engaging, and each actor of this cast is fully committed to their parts. The blockbuster vibes are very strong with this film in classic American fashion with plentiful comedy, musical events, love, loss, and a triumphant victory. The worldbuilding is so colorful in a film that is purely black and white. One truly feels as if he is in the exotic desert oasis of Casablanca. It's a small story, a human story, and one so many of us has faced. It does everything right, almost to the point where you can roll your eyes at how pure and linear the plot is. But that isn't it's failure, but its virtue. It is as engaging as film gets, slickly moving us from scene to scene, giving us a reason to care. And if you want another excuse for its textbook execution? It's probably because Casablanca is the definitive textbook example of American cinema in film schools and circles all around the world.

It's all so sweet but only in the most American-optimism type of way. Perhaps this is the most damning way in which it has lost some of its opal luster throughout the years. They really don't make films like this anymore. I was once told that after 9/11, the American malaise in cinema was finally eradicated, and I tend to agree (with exception only to Top Gun: Maverick). Nevertheless, a little sugar never hurt anyone, even if the ending would never be written as sweetly in the 21st century.

The foresight and cultural legacy is unmatched: the one liners keep coming and DO NOT stop. It's like hearing "Luke, I am your father" for 30 minutes straight at some points. And each line earns its place in history. The obviously anti-nazi film was made before it was even obvious the Allies would win WWII: insane. The deep friendship and respect Rick has with characters of all kinds of races and backgrounds: shocking. The blockbuster-esque writing: brilliant.

If there is any film to represent the best of America, it is Casablanca. It's a masterpiece.

El Secreto de sus Ojos is a moody, sexy, competently crafted noir film. Reminiscent of the great Hitchcock masterpieces of days past, actors and directors hit their marks and come up with something genuinely moving. As for the good, there's a lot to praise. The leads are very good in the film, the chemistry is evident, and Villamil's eyes really tell a lot of story. The writing is well paced with sensible story pivots. There are more or less 2 main arcs in the film, and they are joined in a clean, if not a little basic, way. The CG shots actually look great for a film that came out in an era of notoriously badly aging CGI and there are plenty of seamless shots in the film that made me say 'wow'. Whether they are one shot wides to close ups or one shot action sequences, there is an impressive amount of cinematography going on in a film that didn't even really need it.

Not a lot bad to say about the film. The bad may just be the same as the good, which is that the story beats are somewhat predictable, especially if you're familiar with the noir genre. But that doesn't mean that it's not enjoyable! Even the suspenseful reveal moments that we can see from a mile away are expertly crafted, edging my emotions to that final point of cathartic release.

I can see why it won the Oscar for its year -- it's technically almost flawless. But also, it doesn't reinvent the wheel.

The most mediocre of mediocre whodunnit films possible. I enjoyed watching it as it's a very enjoyable popcorn film but has extremely predictable characters and story beats.

Not the worst thing! But this is no Knives Out, which I get the sense that Netflix wants it to be. Good performances and a shiny coat of paint makes it nice on the eyes too. Really hoping they don't try to make this a franchise.

Emilia Perez is a shockingly flawed film that is so weird that it almost dips into territory of art house. The life and times of a trans cartel boss is depicted through the eyes of a resourceful lawyer that helps her transition. But really, the film is more about cartel drama can any trans narrative. Not a good or bad thing, perhaps mismarketing on Netflix's part for a film that has drummed up so much drama.

The things that work in the film are very puzzling. The abrupt editing cadence is jilted and flows and stops on a dime. Storylines and subplots begin and end on a whim. The overall narrative is kept together with spit and bubblegum -- a common issue with these 'life and times of x' type films. But somehow, it kind of works? It's hard to explain but we're thrown very much into this fever dream that has train stops that slow down every now and then just to catch our breath before completely forgetting where we once were. Say what you want about the writing, the acting performances by Saldana and Gascon respectively were outstanding. A final thing I'll give kudos for is the cinematography. It's not beautiful per se, but it's experimental and energetic and brings a lot of visual interest.

However, for every weird thing that works, there are 3 more oddities that absolutely flounder. The odd sexual non-sequiturs, the loose (and I mean loose) narrative arc, the musical sequences that add little to the narrative or emotion. It's not so much that I should sit here and tell you what doesn't work with these decisions, but Audiard should really be explaining what the purpose of these idiosyncrasies are. The songs are peculiar and make no attempt to get the audience grooving. The fourth wall breaks are unexplainable. The temporal and spatial transition slides are ham-fisted.

Controversy and offended audiences aside, Emilia Perez is a fundamentally flawed film that experiments a lot, although it's not clear to what end. Extremely difficult to rate this film. It's not genius, and it plays like something outright *bad*, but somehow many beats work.

The Order is a mostly paint-by-numbers crime drama with some solid execution.

I don't have too much to say about this film since it's actually not really stand-out in any way. It's at its best when focused on the life and times of members in The Order and fleshing out this world of the rural pacific northwest. Nicholas Hoult is having a hell of a year and this is another great performance to add to the resume for the year. Everyone is was just okay performance-wise but there has to be some blame on the writers for leaning so deeply into the hard-boiled detective tropes. Sometimes the FBI officers just act way too-cool-for-school and it shows some laziness on the writers' part. A nice foil to that is Jamie (Tye Sheridan) who does a fantastically accurate impression of a small town cop. I'll be a defector and say that I actually enjoyed the action sequences, and I like that details within action plot points have actual effect later in the story. I'm getting a lot of No Country For Old Men influence, and that's a good thing.

The film has a really good handle on itself with a steady mix of tension building and discovery until the third act in which themes muddy significantly. There was some kind of two-sides-of-the-same-coin subtheme being attempted in the end between Terry and Bob that didn't really work for me, and cops suddenly lose all the discipline they had earlier in the film to do action hero things. There is a whole lot of world building in the film that adds to the whole rural aesthetic but I wonder if it contributed to its slow pacing. The film certainly felt long for a less than 2 hour movie.

Enjoyable crime thriller with some salient themes of racism and uprising to think about.

Flow is a wordless and surprisingly complete story of animal strangers becoming friends, becoming family after natural disaster strikes.

Like its namesake, the story flows naturally from one scene to the next, almost with the feel of a one-take film. The encounters are whimsical and can't help but bring a smile to your face as the idiosyncrasies of each character are brought out through strife. The action comedy is tasteful and funny in a way that doesn't betray the actual animal performances. It should be commended how much emotion and performance Zilbalodis got out of the animals without turning them into bonafide human performances. There is so much exposition, not said but discovered that give a mysterious and somewhat intellectual tone. The art direction is great with plenty of saturated colors and detailed backgrounds.

It's a small wonder a film like this can get made on a shoestring budget of 3.5m euro. I'd like to say that I didn't notice, but this lack of funds really shows itself in the faster moving action sequences. The animation can be a little choppy during these, and the gravity physics looks a bit odd at times when various characters jump. Moreover, the forest backgrounds are rendered on a 2D plane like a video game from the 2000s adding to the somewhat cheap feel.

Despite a somewhat slow start, Flow completes itself in a satisfying and whole way.

I really didn't like this film. Fundamentally, almost nothing here worked for me. The satire can be summed up as 'politicians dumb', the photography is super weird and cheap looking, and the surrealist scenes are done without artistic reason. I have so much to say, and somehow this film has left me speechless.

Perhaps we can talk about some of the good? Cate Blanchett is okay in the lead role, but the material is so weak that it's hard to make heads or tails out of her actual performance. There are actually a couple good jokes sprinkled about its runtime. The jokes about trapping pedophiles and protestors attacking the leaders were pretty good, but only ephemeral glimmers of escape in the time warp that was this film. Perhaps another positive is that the characters in the group are all very distinctive, albeit mostly one dimensional.

On the whole, you can tell that this film is drawing from that Monty-Python-esque tradition of dry British satire, but there is so little endearing about the film. The characters are not particularly likeable, and the film makes no effort to make us want to root for the protagonists. The plot should be a straightforward zombie survival plot, but somehow we meander around with few goals or progress through the entire runtime. I'm sorry to say that the photography is awful. In day scenes, there is an ever present, odd cheesy glow. For the rest of the film, all shots are tight, despite being outdoors for virtually the whole film. It seems like just out of frame are the warehouse lights and HVAC system for the cheap and repetitive looking set. Nikki Amuka-Bird had a very poor showing in performance. Truly YouTube level acting.

Shockingly cheap film for a movie with real Hollywood actors in it.