aaskillz69
Joined Jul 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.
Reviews22
aaskillz69's rating
Rigby: "We will never get to where we were" Conor: "Where was that?" Rigby: "Some place good"
Lisbon & Estoril Film Festival #5
Man I can't believe for how long I've been hearing about this film, probably since early 2013. It's been well over a year since it premiered at Toronto with glaring reviews, with Oscar buzz surrounding it, and it seemed like a winner since it was in the hands of someone like Harvey Weinstein. The version I saw though was not the version that was applauded at TIFF, but the shorter version that was shown up at Cannes. This version did not raise that many eyebrows and many called it useless. I was reluctant to see this version (Them) first than to see (Him and Her) like I wanted to, but it was the only option I had so I took it.
The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Them is Directed by Ned Benson and it stars James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain, Ciarán Hinds, Bill Hader, Viola Davis, Isabelle Huppert, Nina Arianda, Jess Weixler and William Hurt.
The picture starts with what is one of the film's best scenes. Conor and Rigby run away from a restaurant after realizing that they had no money to pay the bill. The cinematography, the acting, the whole environment created around this scene is something extraordinary, as the whole theater was immediately sucked into the picture, everyone must have been smiling. The sense of joy, excitement and love is tangible. The next time we see our characters though, they are not in the same mood, there's a 360º turn. A bold narrative twist that left the audience a bit surprised. What happened? What happened to the couple that we had just seen on screen? These are the questions that we ask ourselves and these are the questions that the film and its characters tries to hide. Why? Maybe because answering them would be too painful. Because not confronting the "situation" might be easier and less agonizing.
We keep trying to understand what happened, trying to find an answer to those questions through most of the film. Ultimately that's what our characters Conor and Eleanor are doing themselves, trying to deal and coupe with what happened, trying to figure out what happened to those two people that they once were. They are left trying to find that place good. I really liked that the film never threw the answers to our faces, in a big climax where everybody ends up happy and all the questions are answered. Ned Besson gives us enough to keep us engaged, to keep focused and sharp but he never takes the easy paths. His narrative construction was intriguing, the editing of this version was sharp and in the end he didn't have to spell everything out to make a satisfactory, rich and overall engaging (on an emotional and entertainment level) film.
Conor and Rigby, they do live for a little while off the screen. The strong screenplay and natural, fabulous performances by both Chastain and McAvoy make the film shine at times. The supporting characters are more than just background but they are not nearly as established. Some of them still manage to shine, William Hurt as a great scene (the only worth mentioning) where he tells a story, a terrifying memory of his that he hadn't ever told to nobody. Even though we are looking at Hurt, we are indeed transported into his memory in a way. The still sexy Isabelle Huppert also appears (with little to do) and Viola Davis and Bill Hader also show up with funny roles (even though with little meaning or depth)
When the film ended I was left satisfied, but I felt as though there was something missing, maybe that was lost in the cut of this version or maybe it wasn't there in the first place. I will definitely see the three hour two part version (at home or in the theaters in a few weeks). It does have its ups and downs but it's undeniably compelling and I was always involved with these two characters and their story. A story that's smartly built up, that does have its clichés and familiar moments but that in the end raises above the generic, poor romantic films (this one isn't even one of those) because of its strong performance, good direction (from first timer Ned Besson) and moments that capture something true. See it.
Rating:B-
Lisbon & Estoril Film Festival #5
Man I can't believe for how long I've been hearing about this film, probably since early 2013. It's been well over a year since it premiered at Toronto with glaring reviews, with Oscar buzz surrounding it, and it seemed like a winner since it was in the hands of someone like Harvey Weinstein. The version I saw though was not the version that was applauded at TIFF, but the shorter version that was shown up at Cannes. This version did not raise that many eyebrows and many called it useless. I was reluctant to see this version (Them) first than to see (Him and Her) like I wanted to, but it was the only option I had so I took it.
The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Them is Directed by Ned Benson and it stars James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain, Ciarán Hinds, Bill Hader, Viola Davis, Isabelle Huppert, Nina Arianda, Jess Weixler and William Hurt.
The picture starts with what is one of the film's best scenes. Conor and Rigby run away from a restaurant after realizing that they had no money to pay the bill. The cinematography, the acting, the whole environment created around this scene is something extraordinary, as the whole theater was immediately sucked into the picture, everyone must have been smiling. The sense of joy, excitement and love is tangible. The next time we see our characters though, they are not in the same mood, there's a 360º turn. A bold narrative twist that left the audience a bit surprised. What happened? What happened to the couple that we had just seen on screen? These are the questions that we ask ourselves and these are the questions that the film and its characters tries to hide. Why? Maybe because answering them would be too painful. Because not confronting the "situation" might be easier and less agonizing.
We keep trying to understand what happened, trying to find an answer to those questions through most of the film. Ultimately that's what our characters Conor and Eleanor are doing themselves, trying to deal and coupe with what happened, trying to figure out what happened to those two people that they once were. They are left trying to find that place good. I really liked that the film never threw the answers to our faces, in a big climax where everybody ends up happy and all the questions are answered. Ned Besson gives us enough to keep us engaged, to keep focused and sharp but he never takes the easy paths. His narrative construction was intriguing, the editing of this version was sharp and in the end he didn't have to spell everything out to make a satisfactory, rich and overall engaging (on an emotional and entertainment level) film.
Conor and Rigby, they do live for a little while off the screen. The strong screenplay and natural, fabulous performances by both Chastain and McAvoy make the film shine at times. The supporting characters are more than just background but they are not nearly as established. Some of them still manage to shine, William Hurt as a great scene (the only worth mentioning) where he tells a story, a terrifying memory of his that he hadn't ever told to nobody. Even though we are looking at Hurt, we are indeed transported into his memory in a way. The still sexy Isabelle Huppert also appears (with little to do) and Viola Davis and Bill Hader also show up with funny roles (even though with little meaning or depth)
When the film ended I was left satisfied, but I felt as though there was something missing, maybe that was lost in the cut of this version or maybe it wasn't there in the first place. I will definitely see the three hour two part version (at home or in the theaters in a few weeks). It does have its ups and downs but it's undeniably compelling and I was always involved with these two characters and their story. A story that's smartly built up, that does have its clichés and familiar moments but that in the end raises above the generic, poor romantic films (this one isn't even one of those) because of its strong performance, good direction (from first timer Ned Besson) and moments that capture something true. See it.
Rating:B-
"To scandalize is a right to be scandalized is a pleasure" -Pier Paolo Pasolini
Lisbon & Estoril Film Festival #4
Pasolini was undeniably one the Festival's highlights, I considered it a must see and so did many because the theater was packed. Not only we were going to see the picture but we were also have the opportunity of hearing Maria de Medeiros (who's in the picture) reading some of Pier Paolo's poems and then after words of having a talk with Abel Ferrara. I was pretty excited, but I really just hoped for a decent movie.
Pasolini is Directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini and it stars Willem Dafoe, Maria de Medeiros, Riccardo Scamarcio, Giada Colagrande, Adriana Asti and Tatiana Luter.
To be sincere I left disappointed, I mean this is just not a good movie. Still though I'm glad I saw it and I'm glad I had this experience, it was worth it even if just to see Abel Ferrara. I'm a fan of the man, I have seen very little of his filmography but he certainly made an impression on me and on the rest of the audience that stayed. The highlight was the interview bit, Ferrara was a bit off the hook, very loose, feeling at home, cursing and being super sarcastic and honest at the same time. It's sad but yeah, I think Ferrara himself had more energy and life than the picture. Even sadder because you could see that Ferrera was an admirer of Pier Paolo's work.
In Pasolini we follow the last few hours of Pier Paolo's life, as we follow him through his lunch with his family, through an interview, through his memories and ultimately his death. This kind of narrative can work, this idea has definitely worked out in the past but it doesn't here. It's incredible to see how the film lost focus and control of it's narrative, even though it was only 80 minutes long and even though the concept is so simple. I felt lost and emotionally unmoved by it all. Sequences like the "film sequence" of the picture are scenes that ruined the movie.
I was actually extremely surprised to see how little Pasolini (Willem Dafoe) there actually was in the picture, it was almost as though he's a supporting character in his own picture. It's as though there is no lead actor. Some people say that that was a good thing, that less is more and I agree to some extent, I admire the unsentimentally with which the story is told but that ultimately led into becoming a cold picture. Pasolini, a man whose life was so fascinating since he was revolutionary figure with his ideas and his approach to art plus the controversy and talk that he brought with him. I wanted to take a look into the man's thoughts, ideas, I wanted insight, I guess that was what I was looking for and that I did not get.
Before seeing the film, I was so excited to see Willem Dafoe impersonating Pier Paolo, in the end though, we don't even see that much from him. When he's on screen he's able to capture something true and he grabs the screen, however his performance is far from memorable which is disappointing. There's not enough of him. Dafoe is good while on screen and one example is the interview scene, which is the highlight of the picture. The mood and tension are palpable and Dafoe owns it.
The audience and I were left disappointed, as I could hear whispers saying "I didn't like it". Many immediately left the theater and didn't wait for the highlight which was Ferrara's presence. He was more entertaining and had more life than the film itself. A film that feels awfully pale, with little to say. It's a little bit of a mess, from underdeveloped characters and plot, to bad narrative construction choices. Dafoe's performance and Ferrara's love for the picture were not enough to save the film.
Rating:C-
Lisbon & Estoril Film Festival #4
Pasolini was undeniably one the Festival's highlights, I considered it a must see and so did many because the theater was packed. Not only we were going to see the picture but we were also have the opportunity of hearing Maria de Medeiros (who's in the picture) reading some of Pier Paolo's poems and then after words of having a talk with Abel Ferrara. I was pretty excited, but I really just hoped for a decent movie.
Pasolini is Directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini and it stars Willem Dafoe, Maria de Medeiros, Riccardo Scamarcio, Giada Colagrande, Adriana Asti and Tatiana Luter.
To be sincere I left disappointed, I mean this is just not a good movie. Still though I'm glad I saw it and I'm glad I had this experience, it was worth it even if just to see Abel Ferrara. I'm a fan of the man, I have seen very little of his filmography but he certainly made an impression on me and on the rest of the audience that stayed. The highlight was the interview bit, Ferrara was a bit off the hook, very loose, feeling at home, cursing and being super sarcastic and honest at the same time. It's sad but yeah, I think Ferrara himself had more energy and life than the picture. Even sadder because you could see that Ferrera was an admirer of Pier Paolo's work.
In Pasolini we follow the last few hours of Pier Paolo's life, as we follow him through his lunch with his family, through an interview, through his memories and ultimately his death. This kind of narrative can work, this idea has definitely worked out in the past but it doesn't here. It's incredible to see how the film lost focus and control of it's narrative, even though it was only 80 minutes long and even though the concept is so simple. I felt lost and emotionally unmoved by it all. Sequences like the "film sequence" of the picture are scenes that ruined the movie.
I was actually extremely surprised to see how little Pasolini (Willem Dafoe) there actually was in the picture, it was almost as though he's a supporting character in his own picture. It's as though there is no lead actor. Some people say that that was a good thing, that less is more and I agree to some extent, I admire the unsentimentally with which the story is told but that ultimately led into becoming a cold picture. Pasolini, a man whose life was so fascinating since he was revolutionary figure with his ideas and his approach to art plus the controversy and talk that he brought with him. I wanted to take a look into the man's thoughts, ideas, I wanted insight, I guess that was what I was looking for and that I did not get.
Before seeing the film, I was so excited to see Willem Dafoe impersonating Pier Paolo, in the end though, we don't even see that much from him. When he's on screen he's able to capture something true and he grabs the screen, however his performance is far from memorable which is disappointing. There's not enough of him. Dafoe is good while on screen and one example is the interview scene, which is the highlight of the picture. The mood and tension are palpable and Dafoe owns it.
The audience and I were left disappointed, as I could hear whispers saying "I didn't like it". Many immediately left the theater and didn't wait for the highlight which was Ferrara's presence. He was more entertaining and had more life than the film itself. A film that feels awfully pale, with little to say. It's a little bit of a mess, from underdeveloped characters and plot, to bad narrative construction choices. Dafoe's performance and Ferrara's love for the picture were not enough to save the film.
Rating:C-
"When I experience a masterpiece such as yours, I'm struck by the clarity with which you have captured the moment" -CR Leslie
Lisbon & Estoril Film Festival #3
This was one of my most anticipated films not only for the festival but of the year itself. Mike Leigh probably is one of the most unappreciated directors out there, he ranks amidst the best film- makers of the last thirty years and he's undeniably one of the best British directors to ever be. His style is not for everyone, usually making raw, human dramas that have at least won the critics heart, being highly regarded and even having 7 Academy Award nominations.
Mr. Turner is Directed by Mike Leigh and it stars Timothy Spall, Lesley Manville, Richard Bremmer, Ruth Sheen, Martin Savage, Marion Bailey, Dorothy Atkinson and Paul Jesson. "Mr. Turner explores the last quarter century of the great if eccentric British painter J.M.W. Turner (1775-1851). Profoundly affected by the death of his father, loved by a housekeeper he takes for granted and occasionally exploits sexually, he forms a close relationship with a seaside landlady with whom he eventually lives incognito in Chelsea, where he dies. Throughout this, he travels, paints, stays with the country aristocracy, visits brothels, is a popular if anarchic member of the Royal Academy of Arts, has himself strapped to the mast of a ship so that he can paint a snowstorm, and is both celebrated and reviled by the public and by royalty."
Unfortunately I got to say that I am slightly disappointed with the film. I'm an admirer of Mike Leigh's work, he's been in a long streak of good movies and I don't necessarily think that that streak ended here but I do have to say that I believe this to be his weakest effort in over ten years. It makes me a bit sad to say this because the film has so much of good in it, it has a brilliant central performance, the management of the craft is unbelievable and even the personality that we follow is interesting but all of that didn't add up to much. I left disappointed and I think the audience left too, this was the first film of the festival that wasn't applauded at its end. Like all Mike Leigh's pictures, this is far from being a crowd pleaser, but this time I found myself rather unmoved by the story.
The film like the title says follows Mr. Tuner's journey in his professional and personal life. J.M.W. Turner was one of Britain's biggest names in the art world in the 19th century. He's skill, boldness and inventiveness awed many as he shook the art world to their knees. At the peak of his career he was seen as a genius, as a god when it came to the art of painting but has he got older, his fame and respect started to fade and so did his mental health. He was a lonely man, like many of the world's greatest artists. He was kind and delicate with the brush and the canvas but he was cold and distant in his personal life, never being able to have true relationships with anyone.
Turner's talent was undeniable and I think that much of the story is intriguing and I'm glad that this personality has now a legacy on film and not only on his paintings. I'm glad it was someone as passionate as Mike Leigh is with the project to write and direct. This is the film that took Leigh the most money and the most time to make, still there's something missing. Much of the reason why the film doesn't work is because of the way it is put together. I don't know if it was Leigh's screenplay that was like this or if the film got lost in the editing room because I think the picture is badly put together. There are huge jumps in time, there are jumps from his professional life to his most reserved personal life, these shifts are abrupt and it left me confused and unengaged. I wasn't able to either connect with his artist side or his private life because of those rude twists in the narrative of the film. There's a total lack of focus and this undeniably the film's biggest lose.
This is really upsetting because you can feel the love that Leigh and his crew have for the project, at times the film itself becomes a beautiful painting, as the audience's breath was taken away with some of the shots but the truth is that due to its challenging and out of focus narrative, the story gets lost too many times and so do we and I'm going to remind you that this is a 150 minute picture and you can, to an extent, feel those weighing on you.
Mr. Turner is a film that I appreciate and I'm glad I saw it, but I can't say that I necessarily enjoyed it, which is disappointing. All the more because the film is brilliant in many ways, from the astonishing cinematography by Dick Pope to the Costumes and Set- Design which will probably be nominated for Academy Awards. On the race for best actor is Timothy Spall who's marvelous in movie, this is at awards level no doubt about, I can see why it took the prize at Cannes. His grunts say more than one thousand words, unbelievable how he was able to create such a unique persona on screen. Mike Leigh throws you back in time in an effortless way, the film never feels like one of those clichéd historical pieces, you breath the air that the characters are breathing. The thing is that Leigh forgets about us and leaves us there in the past, with little to grab on when it comes to narrative. I felt emotionally disconnected and wasn't able to take much out of this experience.
Rating:C+
Lisbon & Estoril Film Festival #3
This was one of my most anticipated films not only for the festival but of the year itself. Mike Leigh probably is one of the most unappreciated directors out there, he ranks amidst the best film- makers of the last thirty years and he's undeniably one of the best British directors to ever be. His style is not for everyone, usually making raw, human dramas that have at least won the critics heart, being highly regarded and even having 7 Academy Award nominations.
Mr. Turner is Directed by Mike Leigh and it stars Timothy Spall, Lesley Manville, Richard Bremmer, Ruth Sheen, Martin Savage, Marion Bailey, Dorothy Atkinson and Paul Jesson. "Mr. Turner explores the last quarter century of the great if eccentric British painter J.M.W. Turner (1775-1851). Profoundly affected by the death of his father, loved by a housekeeper he takes for granted and occasionally exploits sexually, he forms a close relationship with a seaside landlady with whom he eventually lives incognito in Chelsea, where he dies. Throughout this, he travels, paints, stays with the country aristocracy, visits brothels, is a popular if anarchic member of the Royal Academy of Arts, has himself strapped to the mast of a ship so that he can paint a snowstorm, and is both celebrated and reviled by the public and by royalty."
Unfortunately I got to say that I am slightly disappointed with the film. I'm an admirer of Mike Leigh's work, he's been in a long streak of good movies and I don't necessarily think that that streak ended here but I do have to say that I believe this to be his weakest effort in over ten years. It makes me a bit sad to say this because the film has so much of good in it, it has a brilliant central performance, the management of the craft is unbelievable and even the personality that we follow is interesting but all of that didn't add up to much. I left disappointed and I think the audience left too, this was the first film of the festival that wasn't applauded at its end. Like all Mike Leigh's pictures, this is far from being a crowd pleaser, but this time I found myself rather unmoved by the story.
The film like the title says follows Mr. Tuner's journey in his professional and personal life. J.M.W. Turner was one of Britain's biggest names in the art world in the 19th century. He's skill, boldness and inventiveness awed many as he shook the art world to their knees. At the peak of his career he was seen as a genius, as a god when it came to the art of painting but has he got older, his fame and respect started to fade and so did his mental health. He was a lonely man, like many of the world's greatest artists. He was kind and delicate with the brush and the canvas but he was cold and distant in his personal life, never being able to have true relationships with anyone.
Turner's talent was undeniable and I think that much of the story is intriguing and I'm glad that this personality has now a legacy on film and not only on his paintings. I'm glad it was someone as passionate as Mike Leigh is with the project to write and direct. This is the film that took Leigh the most money and the most time to make, still there's something missing. Much of the reason why the film doesn't work is because of the way it is put together. I don't know if it was Leigh's screenplay that was like this or if the film got lost in the editing room because I think the picture is badly put together. There are huge jumps in time, there are jumps from his professional life to his most reserved personal life, these shifts are abrupt and it left me confused and unengaged. I wasn't able to either connect with his artist side or his private life because of those rude twists in the narrative of the film. There's a total lack of focus and this undeniably the film's biggest lose.
This is really upsetting because you can feel the love that Leigh and his crew have for the project, at times the film itself becomes a beautiful painting, as the audience's breath was taken away with some of the shots but the truth is that due to its challenging and out of focus narrative, the story gets lost too many times and so do we and I'm going to remind you that this is a 150 minute picture and you can, to an extent, feel those weighing on you.
Mr. Turner is a film that I appreciate and I'm glad I saw it, but I can't say that I necessarily enjoyed it, which is disappointing. All the more because the film is brilliant in many ways, from the astonishing cinematography by Dick Pope to the Costumes and Set- Design which will probably be nominated for Academy Awards. On the race for best actor is Timothy Spall who's marvelous in movie, this is at awards level no doubt about, I can see why it took the prize at Cannes. His grunts say more than one thousand words, unbelievable how he was able to create such a unique persona on screen. Mike Leigh throws you back in time in an effortless way, the film never feels like one of those clichéd historical pieces, you breath the air that the characters are breathing. The thing is that Leigh forgets about us and leaves us there in the past, with little to grab on when it comes to narrative. I felt emotionally disconnected and wasn't able to take much out of this experience.
Rating:C+