Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings72
scaryjase-06161's rating
Reviews61
scaryjase-06161's rating
The films follows Rose, a single mother and her two sons, Jean and Ernest, who have recently moved to France. The first third of the film focuses on Rose, the middle third skips forward 5(?) years and focuses on Jean, the elder boy, and the final year focuses on Ernest, the younger boy, first 3(?) years in the future and then a further 15(?) to see how things all turned out. But, whilst quite a lot happens to the family over the 20 years, the vast majority of it happens off screen which doesn't make for the most fascinating of viewing. It tends to focus more on the humdrum and mundane - cooking, cleaning and TERRIBLE dancing are all featured way more than is strictly necessary.
To be fair, it does have a powerful final scene which did engage me, but not nearly as much as the film-makers would have wanted me to because they'd really burned up a lot of my goodwill by this point. Under normal circumstances I would have given up way before the end and the fact that it was subtitled, so I could watch it at double speed, was very much appreciated. It also, to its credit, does not feature an abortion.
I can't fault the acting though - Annabelle Lengronne as Rose does a great job (it's not her fault that her character is so annoying) and the various incarnations of Jean and Ernest are also well done, particularly Kenzo Sambin and Ahmed Sylla as the oldest versions of those characters.
The general film style is interesting with the camera and the actors acting very naturally - it's like you're looking around a room and people walk into and disappear from view somewhat randomly. I'm not sure it fully worked for me, but I guess it's what the director Léonor Serraille was looking for and I can't fault her for trying something slightly different. There are also plenty of the obligatory shots of the Paris rooftops.
The film has a lot to recommend it but, unfortunately, plot was not one of those things and, for me, that lets it down badly. Yes, there's an argument that it's an understated and sympathetic portrayal of a lifestyle I don't understand and/or can't relate to and I'm prepared to accept that, but that didn't stop me being thoroughly bored by the whole thing. And if after that massive recommendation you fancy catching up with it, it's available to watch in a surprising number of places.
To be fair, it does have a powerful final scene which did engage me, but not nearly as much as the film-makers would have wanted me to because they'd really burned up a lot of my goodwill by this point. Under normal circumstances I would have given up way before the end and the fact that it was subtitled, so I could watch it at double speed, was very much appreciated. It also, to its credit, does not feature an abortion.
I can't fault the acting though - Annabelle Lengronne as Rose does a great job (it's not her fault that her character is so annoying) and the various incarnations of Jean and Ernest are also well done, particularly Kenzo Sambin and Ahmed Sylla as the oldest versions of those characters.
The general film style is interesting with the camera and the actors acting very naturally - it's like you're looking around a room and people walk into and disappear from view somewhat randomly. I'm not sure it fully worked for me, but I guess it's what the director Léonor Serraille was looking for and I can't fault her for trying something slightly different. There are also plenty of the obligatory shots of the Paris rooftops.
The film has a lot to recommend it but, unfortunately, plot was not one of those things and, for me, that lets it down badly. Yes, there's an argument that it's an understated and sympathetic portrayal of a lifestyle I don't understand and/or can't relate to and I'm prepared to accept that, but that didn't stop me being thoroughly bored by the whole thing. And if after that massive recommendation you fancy catching up with it, it's available to watch in a surprising number of places.
The film follows Bill (Jojo Bapteise Whiting) in his early 20s and Matho (LaDainian Crazy Thunder) in his early teens as they try to hustle their way to success/maturity/whatever their latest goal is. And so, like hustling often involves, various different strands are followed throughout the film - some of which progress the "story" along more than others. A sense of foreboding builds at the end, partly because the score starts sounding more like Jaws and partly because a review has told me that the boys lives are somehow interlinked so I was expecting a coming together to give the whole thing some meaning. And they do meet, but I don't think anyone could particularly describe it as revelatory - however, the film does give us some moments of tenderness and emotion that are really well conveyed, particularly around Matho, who could REALLY do with a bit more adult guidance from those around him.
The film is full of very natural performances - most of the actors in the film are first time actors and they all give a good account of themselves. Jojo and LaDainian do a lot of work throughout the film and they've both very expressive and easy to hang out with, although most of their behaviour would probably be described as sketchy at best.
It's an overly quirky film style at times - the buffalos and turkeys randomly appearing do get a little unsettling, but I'm sure they mean something to someone. It's generally nicely filmed - nice use of the scenery and light and shade (although possibly a little too much shade at times). I think it manages to stay the right side of "documenting a lifestyle away from the mainstream" without straying into the "overly worthy/patronising" but I'm really not the best placed person to comment on such matters. I also think that for two white women (Riley and Gina Gammell) to create this, no matter how many Native Americans they consulted with, they are opening themselves up to comments along the "poverty tourism" lines (particularly since Riley cannot be lacking a dollar or two) - critical comment has generally been positive though.
And there's no doubt that poverty is very much on display - these people do not lead glamorous lives and the struggle to exist day-to-day feels very real. Grindingly so, which I'm sure it is, but I do feel the film could have benefited from a little more light to contrast the shade. There's also not enough plot for the length of the film and some of the stories involved go on waaaay longer than they need to - however, I never felt like giving up on it (although it did take me several attempts to get through it).
One other quibble that may be entirely down to me - I found a lot of the dialogue tricky to understand. I think it was a combination of the accents, the language and the sound levels (there's often a large amount of "background" noise, which must be a deliberate choice but not one I appreciated) but at times I really had to pay attention to get some idea what was going on.
Overall, I think there's plenty of promise and some great filmmaking on display here from Riley and Gina - for me it has not, however, resulted in a great film but it's certainly interesting and beautiful in places. If you fancy checking it out, then it's available to rent in all the usual places (and a bargain £1.99 on Apple+) - it's worth a look, but won't be for everyone.
The film is full of very natural performances - most of the actors in the film are first time actors and they all give a good account of themselves. Jojo and LaDainian do a lot of work throughout the film and they've both very expressive and easy to hang out with, although most of their behaviour would probably be described as sketchy at best.
It's an overly quirky film style at times - the buffalos and turkeys randomly appearing do get a little unsettling, but I'm sure they mean something to someone. It's generally nicely filmed - nice use of the scenery and light and shade (although possibly a little too much shade at times). I think it manages to stay the right side of "documenting a lifestyle away from the mainstream" without straying into the "overly worthy/patronising" but I'm really not the best placed person to comment on such matters. I also think that for two white women (Riley and Gina Gammell) to create this, no matter how many Native Americans they consulted with, they are opening themselves up to comments along the "poverty tourism" lines (particularly since Riley cannot be lacking a dollar or two) - critical comment has generally been positive though.
And there's no doubt that poverty is very much on display - these people do not lead glamorous lives and the struggle to exist day-to-day feels very real. Grindingly so, which I'm sure it is, but I do feel the film could have benefited from a little more light to contrast the shade. There's also not enough plot for the length of the film and some of the stories involved go on waaaay longer than they need to - however, I never felt like giving up on it (although it did take me several attempts to get through it).
One other quibble that may be entirely down to me - I found a lot of the dialogue tricky to understand. I think it was a combination of the accents, the language and the sound levels (there's often a large amount of "background" noise, which must be a deliberate choice but not one I appreciated) but at times I really had to pay attention to get some idea what was going on.
Overall, I think there's plenty of promise and some great filmmaking on display here from Riley and Gina - for me it has not, however, resulted in a great film but it's certainly interesting and beautiful in places. If you fancy checking it out, then it's available to rent in all the usual places (and a bargain £1.99 on Apple+) - it's worth a look, but won't be for everyone.
I recognise the name, but that's about it and I do like a good documentary, so I'm looking forward to this - although I'm expecting to be thoroughly confused by it all.
Well, what we have here is a pretty straightforward telling of a pretty unstraightforward life. Nam June was born in South Korea to a wealthy family and he trained as a classical pianist and found himself in Berlin to continue his studies. At which point, he fell in with an experimental art collective and his life took a bit of a left turn from that point onwards, with him ending up in New York doing a very bizarre selection of things, often with very little money to support himself.
The film is full of very earnest arty types who seem very close to parody these days, but I imagine were pretty shocking in Berlin in the late 50s and New York in the 60s. We have John Cage playing a manual typewriter accompanied by Karlheinz Stockhausen with some weird electronic keyboard, Charlotte Moorman submerging herself in an oil drum full of water before playing the cello whilst sitting on Nam June, Charlotte again getting arrested for playing the cello naked - I could go on and on.
Like all these things it's easy to scoff and say "anyone could do that" but I find the thought processes involved interesting, even if I find the outcome ridiculous - although that certainly (for me) wasn't always the case here. There are some interesting "before their time" concepts about personalised TV channels with a global reach and the "electronic superhighway" - his video art also felt way ahead of its time, but I can't claim enough knowledge on the subject to speak confidently on the matter! There's also a fascinating short section showing the influence that Global Groove, his 1973 video work had on various pop videos - they were very influenced indeed. He seemed like a nice guy and he certainly had some fascinating ideas (and some mad ones) and it was quite interesting to learn more about both him and them.
What it didn't make for though, was a great film. It's a perfectly passable film, but it's nearly all archive footage run through some video editing software to play it simultaneously, move it all around the screen or obscure it in an arty fashion. It also had weird sound mixing whereby voices are set to a much lower volume than the accompanying noises - luckily I had access to subtitles, otherwise I think I'd have really struggled to find a bearable volume for it.
As I said, most of the film is archive footage but Steven Yeun does pop up as the narrator - his fourth appearance in some capacity here (and I've got another one on the go at the minute). They also manage to catch up with quite a few of his contemporaries, all of whom have nothing but nice words to say about the man so it doesn't exact make for much controversy!
All in all, I enjoyed this but don't really see what warrants it for inclusion in the list of the best films of 2023 - it was a perfectly serviceable film about an interesting character who it's probably fair to say isn't massively going to chime with the mainstream. If you have any interest in the art scene and aren't massively au fait with Nam June then I think it's worth a watch and it's available to rent in all the usual locations - but otherwise you're probably perfectly fine without this in your lives.
Well, what we have here is a pretty straightforward telling of a pretty unstraightforward life. Nam June was born in South Korea to a wealthy family and he trained as a classical pianist and found himself in Berlin to continue his studies. At which point, he fell in with an experimental art collective and his life took a bit of a left turn from that point onwards, with him ending up in New York doing a very bizarre selection of things, often with very little money to support himself.
The film is full of very earnest arty types who seem very close to parody these days, but I imagine were pretty shocking in Berlin in the late 50s and New York in the 60s. We have John Cage playing a manual typewriter accompanied by Karlheinz Stockhausen with some weird electronic keyboard, Charlotte Moorman submerging herself in an oil drum full of water before playing the cello whilst sitting on Nam June, Charlotte again getting arrested for playing the cello naked - I could go on and on.
Like all these things it's easy to scoff and say "anyone could do that" but I find the thought processes involved interesting, even if I find the outcome ridiculous - although that certainly (for me) wasn't always the case here. There are some interesting "before their time" concepts about personalised TV channels with a global reach and the "electronic superhighway" - his video art also felt way ahead of its time, but I can't claim enough knowledge on the subject to speak confidently on the matter! There's also a fascinating short section showing the influence that Global Groove, his 1973 video work had on various pop videos - they were very influenced indeed. He seemed like a nice guy and he certainly had some fascinating ideas (and some mad ones) and it was quite interesting to learn more about both him and them.
What it didn't make for though, was a great film. It's a perfectly passable film, but it's nearly all archive footage run through some video editing software to play it simultaneously, move it all around the screen or obscure it in an arty fashion. It also had weird sound mixing whereby voices are set to a much lower volume than the accompanying noises - luckily I had access to subtitles, otherwise I think I'd have really struggled to find a bearable volume for it.
As I said, most of the film is archive footage but Steven Yeun does pop up as the narrator - his fourth appearance in some capacity here (and I've got another one on the go at the minute). They also manage to catch up with quite a few of his contemporaries, all of whom have nothing but nice words to say about the man so it doesn't exact make for much controversy!
All in all, I enjoyed this but don't really see what warrants it for inclusion in the list of the best films of 2023 - it was a perfectly serviceable film about an interesting character who it's probably fair to say isn't massively going to chime with the mainstream. If you have any interest in the art scene and aren't massively au fait with Nam June then I think it's worth a watch and it's available to rent in all the usual locations - but otherwise you're probably perfectly fine without this in your lives.