RealDuality
Joined Jun 2012
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.
Ratings3K
RealDuality's rating
Reviews10
RealDuality's rating
Phoenix is a movie with a simple yet exquisite plot-perfect for storytelling. A Holocaust survivor named Nelly, who was so disfigured that she had to have facial reconstruction surgery, returns to Berlin in the aftermath of the war. She doesn't recognize herself, and designs to find out if others have the same predicament. Nelly's desire is to find her husband Johnny, who may have betrayed her to the Nazis; but, it is more than just a detective story. It tactfully makes grand statements about what occurs in a society post-tragedy.
Phoenix is the name of a club where she happens upon her former lover. If there romance had been uninterrupted, it could be a place where she sang while he played the piano. Now, when she approaches him, Johnny appears to not recognize Nelly, yet he comes up with a use for her. He makes a deal with his "newfound" acquaintance to obtain his wife's sizable inheritance. He will teach her to impersonate his wife, and they will split the money. Nelly agrees to the plan.
When Nelly tells her survivor friend, Lene, what she has been up to, she is understandably horrified. She had no such reaction to Nelly's physical appearance at any time, but the idea to her that she is in a way back with her husband greatly upsets her. As the audience, our immediate reaction is to side with Lene, and see Nelly as the fragile one; however, the movie brilliantly turns preconceived notions we would have on its head.
The central question is not did Johnny do it, but can love survive such tragic circumstances. When he talks about his former wife in instructing his new partner, it is evident that he stills feels for her; and, by the turmoil Nelly puts herself through, it is evident that she still feels for him. But, can such feelings overcome what one lover has possibly done to another? Can love exist in a world shaped by the Nazis?
At one point, Nelly says, "I no longer exist." It is this concept she expresses that permeates the movie. We think of the victims of tragedy as having been shaped most by it, but the movie argues that it is not them that are principally changed so much as those who were "forced" to participate in crime. Nelly does exist, but it is a truth that society refuses to face. Johnny, and others we come across, have been transformed by their participation. He is more of a tragic character than she is.
Lene is actually less strong than Nelly. Nelly searches for what still is, while she is stuck in the past. We come to learn that Nelly is the truly fearless person. She seeks to go on, but before she does that, she must find out where she fits.
Phoenix not only works because it's carefully constructed, but also because the two central actors are great, which it requires. Nina Hoss as Nelly and Ronan Zehrfeld as Johnny deliver two of the best performances of the year. Without them, the story would seem like a fantasy.
Nelly reminds me of Holocaust victims I have seen speak. She is not hateful; she is simply incessant that we come to the truth. Survivors are very grateful for the attention, and desire more than anything to have their story exist in our world. They want us to not turn our heads away, but to learn, so that such horrors do not reoccur. Our realization is how they can heal.
Phoenix is the name of a club where she happens upon her former lover. If there romance had been uninterrupted, it could be a place where she sang while he played the piano. Now, when she approaches him, Johnny appears to not recognize Nelly, yet he comes up with a use for her. He makes a deal with his "newfound" acquaintance to obtain his wife's sizable inheritance. He will teach her to impersonate his wife, and they will split the money. Nelly agrees to the plan.
When Nelly tells her survivor friend, Lene, what she has been up to, she is understandably horrified. She had no such reaction to Nelly's physical appearance at any time, but the idea to her that she is in a way back with her husband greatly upsets her. As the audience, our immediate reaction is to side with Lene, and see Nelly as the fragile one; however, the movie brilliantly turns preconceived notions we would have on its head.
The central question is not did Johnny do it, but can love survive such tragic circumstances. When he talks about his former wife in instructing his new partner, it is evident that he stills feels for her; and, by the turmoil Nelly puts herself through, it is evident that she still feels for him. But, can such feelings overcome what one lover has possibly done to another? Can love exist in a world shaped by the Nazis?
At one point, Nelly says, "I no longer exist." It is this concept she expresses that permeates the movie. We think of the victims of tragedy as having been shaped most by it, but the movie argues that it is not them that are principally changed so much as those who were "forced" to participate in crime. Nelly does exist, but it is a truth that society refuses to face. Johnny, and others we come across, have been transformed by their participation. He is more of a tragic character than she is.
Lene is actually less strong than Nelly. Nelly searches for what still is, while she is stuck in the past. We come to learn that Nelly is the truly fearless person. She seeks to go on, but before she does that, she must find out where she fits.
Phoenix not only works because it's carefully constructed, but also because the two central actors are great, which it requires. Nina Hoss as Nelly and Ronan Zehrfeld as Johnny deliver two of the best performances of the year. Without them, the story would seem like a fantasy.
Nelly reminds me of Holocaust victims I have seen speak. She is not hateful; she is simply incessant that we come to the truth. Survivors are very grateful for the attention, and desire more than anything to have their story exist in our world. They want us to not turn our heads away, but to learn, so that such horrors do not reoccur. Our realization is how they can heal.
Sony is the one Hollywood studio that doesn't have a mult-billion dollar contract with the NFL. This left some hope for the movie about a story the media, as business partners of the NFL, has refused to properly delve into, but there were frustrating signs all along that this wasn't going to be a serious movie about a very serious subject, and the results like the disease are upsetting.
They called the movie Concussion. A ridiculous title, but not something so harmful in and of itself. It is that its ignorant, not just that it sounds stupid. Fitting with the current cover-up tactics by the NFL and media, it makes it appear as if concussions are the issue. The truth is that the real science the movie skims over, in its focus on easy dramatization, shows that it is repetitive head trauma that is the true cause. The league and media don't want you to know about this because it means that the sport itself is fundamentally the problem. They want you to think that they can reduce big hits and everything will be solved.
The media has been extremely important in pushing this lie. The movie from the unattached studio covers the previous lie that CTE doesn't exist, but it fits in with the current false narrative. It is a great disappointment. Sony wants to tell you the current story being told by cable news and click-bait print journalism. Concussion even had Peter King, a complete lapdog of the NFL and one of the most notorious liars release their trailer for them.
Sony didn't want to make a movie about CTE, and they didn't want to tell the truth. They wanted to take advantage of a trending story, and a movie star's popularity. Concussion revolves around Will Smith's portrayal, rather than diving into a deeply interesting reality. The acting from him and the rest of the cast is pretty good, but they only have surface characters to deal with. It's all gloss without strong material. Upon reflection, it makes you nauseous.
They called the movie Concussion. A ridiculous title, but not something so harmful in and of itself. It is that its ignorant, not just that it sounds stupid. Fitting with the current cover-up tactics by the NFL and media, it makes it appear as if concussions are the issue. The truth is that the real science the movie skims over, in its focus on easy dramatization, shows that it is repetitive head trauma that is the true cause. The league and media don't want you to know about this because it means that the sport itself is fundamentally the problem. They want you to think that they can reduce big hits and everything will be solved.
The media has been extremely important in pushing this lie. The movie from the unattached studio covers the previous lie that CTE doesn't exist, but it fits in with the current false narrative. It is a great disappointment. Sony wants to tell you the current story being told by cable news and click-bait print journalism. Concussion even had Peter King, a complete lapdog of the NFL and one of the most notorious liars release their trailer for them.
Sony didn't want to make a movie about CTE, and they didn't want to tell the truth. They wanted to take advantage of a trending story, and a movie star's popularity. Concussion revolves around Will Smith's portrayal, rather than diving into a deeply interesting reality. The acting from him and the rest of the cast is pretty good, but they only have surface characters to deal with. It's all gloss without strong material. Upon reflection, it makes you nauseous.
People will have interesting reactions to this film. All of Matthew Vaughn's movies have been good, and he was able to push it further with this one. I would call it an action comedy, but there is more of an emphasis on the action than the genre usually has.
There are cool POV shots, and it gets you right into the thick of it. It mixes it up with some short moments where it doesn't cut so quickly, as well as a few long takes that are particular nice. The violence and comedy has a guttural component, which a person like me really enjoys, but it will throw some off.
The film is a throwback to old spy flicks, while at the same time being a sort of parody. It is humorous throughout. Samuel L. Jackson plays an odd megalomaniac who makes you laugh more than shiver, which goes with the tone of the movie. It is nice to see Samuel L. in the role of a bad guy. I have no doubt that many will enjoy the henchwoman, who has a different element to her. Colin Firth fits in with the particularly suave spying; and, the newcomer playing the protagonist, Taron Egerton, handles both the action and comedy well. Mark Strong is always a good actor for movies with dark humor. It is fun, however those who are sensitive may have trouble enjoying it. It is not a film for everyone, but that makes it better for others. I personally think it is Vaughn's best work.
8.75
There are cool POV shots, and it gets you right into the thick of it. It mixes it up with some short moments where it doesn't cut so quickly, as well as a few long takes that are particular nice. The violence and comedy has a guttural component, which a person like me really enjoys, but it will throw some off.
The film is a throwback to old spy flicks, while at the same time being a sort of parody. It is humorous throughout. Samuel L. Jackson plays an odd megalomaniac who makes you laugh more than shiver, which goes with the tone of the movie. It is nice to see Samuel L. in the role of a bad guy. I have no doubt that many will enjoy the henchwoman, who has a different element to her. Colin Firth fits in with the particularly suave spying; and, the newcomer playing the protagonist, Taron Egerton, handles both the action and comedy well. Mark Strong is always a good actor for movies with dark humor. It is fun, however those who are sensitive may have trouble enjoying it. It is not a film for everyone, but that makes it better for others. I personally think it is Vaughn's best work.
8.75