massimilianofoschi Reviews

Man (2012 Video)

Pretentious

[5/10 · 11 August 2023]

I can already imagine, in my mind, the average self-important middle school teacher who has to discuss environmental issues in class and, instead of preparing a lesson, decides to show the class this short movie and invites the students to debate on how profound it supposedly is.

I wouldn't mind too much an obvious message and a relatively superficial degree of understanding of the world, if at least the plot devices used to convey it were vaguely original. Instead, we get a plot essentially recycled from the beginning of Douglas Adams's "A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (even though I wouldn't be surprised if it had been done earlier).

Stylistically well-done, though.

The Sixth Sense (1999)

Baffling

[9/10 · 23 December 2022]

It's extremely hard to review, or even say anything about the film without spoiling any substantial aspect, because, apart from the shocking ending twist, this movie repeatedly changes genres throughout the running time. At first it looks like a drama about a psychologist's guilt for failing one of his patients. Then it's a mystery about the troubles of the young boy. Then a ghost story, a horror.

What makes the ending twist especially good is that the audience does not expect even the existence of such a twist: the "I see dead people" reveal seems to resolve anything that needs to be resolved. When Cole talks with his mother in the car, there seem to be virtually no stakes at all. Malcolm is just going to speak with his wife, we think, and she will understand why he was absent in the last weeks.

The twist is shocking and unexpected, but after the "They don't know they're dead" flashback, we agree that we could have seen it coming. The movie is full of hints, starting from the opening murder-suicide, and herein lies the brilliance of this film. It's easy to create a shocking reveal, but it's incredibly hard for it to make logical and thematical sense at the same time.

Good Will Hunting (1997)

Thematically original, with some great moments

[9/10 · 6 December 2022]

"Good Will Hunting" has often been unjustly accused of being predictable: after all, the ultimate ending is not surprising at all. But to praise a film's originality by only judging whether one can guess the ultimate ending is reductive. There are many elements of originality sprinkled throughout the film which don't consist of an unexpected ending.

Firstly, we have the depiction of Will Hunting's genius. He's not "born like that": surely he has an innate talent, but the film repeatedly establishes that he studied to better himself. Even the problems he solves (which are, by the way, correctly formulated - not a given in most films about Mathematics) are something one could realistically expect a gifted twenty-two-year-old to solve: Will doesn't just solve the Riemann Hypothesis out of nowhere. Another aspect that should be appreciated is the avoidance of the envy-fuelled stereotype of the asocial genius.

Secondly, the film is extremely good at creating conflict in a situation where all the supporting characters (Sean, Lambeau, Will's friends and Skylar) all want Will's success, but they all have different views on how Will should succeed (and all of them are, at least in part, wrong). Lambeau, for example, wants to push Will to quickly achieve something with his talent, while Sean understands that he needs time. At the same time, Sean believes that Will's friends don't challenge his convictions, but ultimately it's Chuckie that tells Will that he wants him to succeed, even if that means abandoning South Boston.

The film is also particularly brilliant in some moments, from "How do you like them apples?" to "The best part of my day", which are able of fusing drama and entertainment, without harming either of them.

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)

Laudable, yet somewhat too familiar and self-important

[8/10 · 6 December 2022]

Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton), an aging movie star best known for his role as the superhero Birdman, tries to restart his career with a Broadway adaptation of Raymond Carver's "What we talk about when we talk about love". Story-wise, there isn't much novelty, but where the movie most excels is in the narrative medium: the (illusory) single shot, which is intertwined with the stylistic choice of presenting real events and Thomson's thoughts (or hallucinations) in a continuum. There are some clichés, such as Thomson's relationship with his daughter (Emma Stone) or the character of critic Tabitha Dickinson (Linsday Duncan), but the movie puts an original enough spin on them.

The performances are generally pretty good, with Edward Norton standing out as self-absorbed method actor Mike Shiner. Nevertheless, the movie suffers from the same general sense of self-importance that characterises Shiner: while rightfully antagonising the world of mindless action movies and that of obnoxious and self-righteous critics, it somewhat too explicitly presents itself as what "real" cinematic art should look like.

Still, the result is mostly entertaining and quite thought-provoking, resulting in a wholly satisfying picture.

Tenet (2020)

Headache-inducing, not always in a good way

[7/10 · 30 October 2022]

Christopher Nolan is often rightfully appreciated for creating complex movies with skillful exposition such that the audience understands enough to be thrilled, but is still left with the desire to rewatch the flick to comprehend all the intricacies. With Inception and Interstellar, he succeeded admirably. In Tenet, on the other hand, he left a lot to be desired.

Tenet's main sin is that the root of the confusion it induces in the viewer is in how the underlying symmetrical harmony of the story is covered by what is essentially smoke. The issue is not a lack of logic, an emotional core or whatever, it's that it struggles to convey the central themes effectively. Nevertheless, if you're willing to the work yourself, there is some reward at the end, so it's generally worth seeing.

Bruce Almighty (2003)

Original, but acceptable overall

[7/10 · 10 October 2022]

The premise of the movie is amazing, but not all jokes are too original. Some scenes, from Bruce's meeting with God (played by a particularly apt Morgan Freeman), to him ridiculing his colleague, played by Steve Carell, are quite funny, while others are more typical.

The movie is also quite interesting to analyse on a philosophical basis. If, to quote "Spider-Man", "With great power comes great responsibility", what would one do if given the power to be God for a week? Would one be irresponsible, and satisfy every prayer or wisely acknowledge the extent of the powers?

As a comedy, the movie is fine and its originality makes it worth watching.

Ghostbusters (1984)

Uneven

[6/10 · 9 October 2022]

Most of the jokes in "Ghostbusters" work decently, but they don't have the hilarious absurdity of "Airplane!", nor the clever screenwriting of "Some like it hot". Some jokes will make the audience laugh, some won't, but they're never sublime, not even close.

The thriller/horror aspect, also, doesn't work particularly well, which is acceptable in a comedy, but in moments where nothing particularly funny happens, the viewer is left with boredom.

To be completely fair, the acting is good enough and the movie manages to save itself with a particularly hilarious scene near the end, but the overall risult is just decent.

Good Morning, Vietnam (1987)

Two different movies

[6/10 · 9 October 2022]

Creating a movie with a duplicitous thematic and emotional nature is a commendable feat, as it is very hard to, for example, be funny while discussing war without coming across as disrespectful. This film managed to stay within this line, but failed to connect its two parts.

The radio sequences are mostly fine, but not amazingly funny and the war story is decent in itself, but there was little thematical relationship between the two stories. There was no "dark humor", but merely humor in a dark situation, which leaves much to be desired. Ultimately, no part of this movie is badly done, but the whole picture feels inconsistent.

Suicide Squad (2016)

A hot mess

[4/10 · 9 October 2022]

After finishing watching this movie I found myself asking: "What have I just watched?". Genuinely, is there anything memorable? The premise of assembling a team of criminals who agree to help the government in exchange for a shorter prison sentence is compelling enough, but there's really nothing noteworthy that happens throughout the movie.

The analysis of characters is entirely absent. We're just introduced to them but nothing that carries any substantial emotional weight is shown in the movie. We just see them do stuff, essentially, and when one does not care about them (and is not even perversely fascinating by their evil nature), there is little left.

The plot is incredibly generic, while the acting is good enough, even though the cast was not given much to work with. I've seen worse movies, but as far as this one is concerned, there is virtually no reason to watch it.

Citizen Kane (1941)

What defines a man?

[9/10 · 8 October 2022]

In his mansion called Xanadu, journalism tycoon Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles) dies, uttering only the word "Rosebud". A reporter, played by William Alland, embarks on a journey to discover the meaning of this word and interviews people who were, at different points in time, close to him.

We discover that, when Kane was only eight, after his parents discovered that they owned gold, they authorised a banker to become his guardian. At twenty-five, he gained control of his possessions and started investing in journalism. After decades of successes came decades of failures, both public and private. In his final years, he was alone, without deep human connections.

The different characters we meet throughout the film reveal their starkly opposing views of the protagonist. For some, he was a saint, for others, a devil. Everyone had an opinion of him, but no one agreed on how to define him. Was he just a cynical newspaper-owner or did he have the people's interests in mind? Did he love his two wives or were his actions mostly selfish? The film does not give any answer and while we, as the audience, will love to discuss Kane's personality, deep down we know there is no definitive answer.

Even the reporter we're following throughout the story, after being given only very little information about Rosebud, understands that a single word cannot explain a man's whole life. The mystery is irresolved and the reporters leave. While the camera pans over the hundreds of objects he owned, the sled with which Kane was playing when he was taken away from his home is thrown in the fire. Through the flames, its name becomes visible: "Rosebud".

With his sled burnt, no one will ever be able to discover this side of Charles Foster Kane, as the penultimate shots (which references one of the first ones in the film) tells us: "No trespassing".

Lead actor and director Orson Welles is incredibly capable, at only twenty-five years old, of portraying different versions of our protagonist: the somewhat self-satisfied smug millionaire, the heartbroken husband and the melancholic old man.

It's hard to judge a film like "Citizen Kane", one that is regarded by many as the best film in history. On one hand, it was a revolutionary feat in storytelling, which synthesised all advancement in filmmaking in the previous fifty years, while influencing cinema even today. On the other, eighty years have passed and cinematic technique has inevitably evolved over time. Still, it would be unfair to judge it as "good for its time", as there was no single point in which I found myself forgiving some aspects of the film because of the period in which it was produced.

Ultimately, it was a fascinating, mostly entertaining experience, which should be appreciated both as such and for its huge impact. If you want to know more about the history of cinema, this is a must-watch (but, to be fair, you probably have already watched it). If, on the other hand, you're just interested in watching something good, this is still a good choice. You don't need to know about the role this movie played in history to appreciate its compelling story, but if you do, that's better for you.

The Hangover (2009)

Silly, but genuinely funny

[7/10 · 30 September 2022]

Writing a comedy is surprisingly difficult; in a way, it's easier to know why something is tragic or worrisome, but what makes a movie funny is generally regarded as some kind of mystery. I believe that a valid approach is to construct a movie with a Chinese-box structure.

At the first level is the overall premise of the movie: in this case, three friends wake up after a particularly irresponsible bachelor party and discover that they've lost the groom. At the second level are the jokes which set up a punchline for later, like the reference to "Rain Man". At the third level are the funny dialogues and at the fourth level we find one-liners.

In order to make a comedy work, all those four aspects should be well-made and that's the case with "The Hangover". Simpler jokes make for immediate laughs, while references to previous events in the movie give a sense of overall coherence and satisfaction. Furthermore, the question of "What ever happened during that night?" adds some mild mystery to the flick. To be fair, not all the jokes work and some come across as needlessly vulgar, but overall there are more hits than misses.

In conclusion, this is a silly and somewhat shallow film which refuses to make any statement, but if it manages to be entertaining for an hour and forty minutes, it did its job.

The Imitation Game (2014)

Well-made, but enragingly inaccurate

[6/10 · 30 September 2022]

Let me start this review off by saying that the movie is mostly good. Cumberbatch has been able to show his acting skills and Knightley is great in her supporting role. The historical inaccuracies, however, are unforgivable.

It is completely understandable that a movie based on a true story has to, in part, fictionalise some events, in order to be more exciting or moving. But what the filmmakers failed to understand, in this case, is just how extraordinary Turing's life was. Does one really need to distort the life of the man who created modern computer science as we know it and who was one of the most impactful people in the second world war?

This movie is filled with inaccuracies from beginning to end. For example, Joan Clark wasn't hired with a crossword on a newspaper, the machine was never called "Christopher", Turing never hid his sexual orientation and there never was any reciprocal love with his friend Christopher Morcom. Many others can be found on the IMDb page. Most of these mistakes are relatively minor by themselves, but the sheer number of them feels manipulative in the extreme.

The most blatant one, however, is the depiction of Turing as lacking social skills. In fact, most people who had the opportunity of working with him regarded him as a sociable man with a good sense of humour. Why did they have to portray him according to the typical Hollywoodian cliché of the mathematician? If, for any reason, a filmmaker believes that a socially inept protagonist is more compelling, then they should tell a fictional story, instead of abusing an actual lived experience to push a stereotypical image.

I will give "The Imitation Game" credit for telling an important story and, if you want to see a well-crafted drama set during the second world war, watch this movie, by all means. But if you'd like to discover more about Turing's life, please just read more about him. To think that Turing's impact hasn't been recognised for decades and what made him known to a wide audience is a woefully inaccurate movie is saddening. Sorry Alan, you deserved better.

When Harry Met Sally... (1989)

An unexpectedly original romantic comedy

[8/10 · 29 September 2022]

The romantic comedy, as a genre, is often regarded as inferior to others, sometimes rightfully. More often than not, rom-coms are full to the brim with tropes, especially the extremely irritating cliché that is "love at first sight". This movie tries to subvert this idea, by intercutting scenes with interviews of elderly couples who got married shortly after meeting each other. Harry and Sally, on the other hand, take their time and their love story spans over a decade. As they get to know and understand each other, we do the same and start to root for two realistic characters, instead of witnessing an implausible, preconceived, relationship.

As a comedy, this flick also works extremely well. There are iconic one-liners (like the classic "I'll have what she's having), but it's the witty dialogue that makes this film. In every scene, the movie amuses us and gives us some information about the characters' attitudes towards life and, more specifically, love. Furthermore, the two lead actors, especially Crystal, have great comedic timing, making the movie entertaining, heartwarming and refreshing.

Premature (2014)

Unoriginal and unfunny

[2/10 · 15 September 2022]

The central idea has been recycled a lot times before this flick, starting from comedy classic "Groundhog Day". Still, I can understand a teenage B-movie being unoriginal, but what this movie's screenwriters don't seem to comprehend is that it's extremely hard to create something funny with the time loop idea, as one must have wit to turn the whole notion of comedy on its head, by making repetition funny, instead of surprise.

This unoriginality would be mostly forgivable, though, if the jokes were funny. But since the entire movie is based on sex, what was mildly entertaining at the beginning becomes stale very quickly. Ultimately, the film tries to come up with a moral lesson, which comes across as extremely disingenuous after an hour and a half of crass jokes.

With passable acting, a cliché concept and unfunny jokes, there is really nothing that can save this movie.

Lord of the Ants (2022)

Decent, but too intellectual for its own good

[6/10 · 15 September 2022]

The issue at the center of this movie is timely and direction Gianni Amelio courageously took on the responsability to tell the story of a man who was, on one hand, unjustly persecuted and, on the other, extremely unlikable. In this regard, the film was successful, with a good performance from lead actor Luigi Lo Cascio.

Elio Germano, who played Ennio Scribani, the journalist who decided to tell Braibanti's story, was very realistic, in this relatively limited role. Leonardo Maltese, who portrayed Braibanti's lover Ettore Tagliaferri, was unexpectedly capable in his acting debut.

On the whole, though, the movie suffers from a mediocre supporting cast, who seem uncomfortable in their roles and don't show emotion in a relatable way.

My main issue with the film, nevertheless, is the extremely unnatural screenplay, which showcases how perfect is the enemy of good. References to Hamlet, Socrates, Leopardi and Nietzsche or sentences full of metaphors might be apt for Braibanti's character, but the style of the dialogue between other characters is not too different leading to the viewer being left with a decently-crafted story, but very little emotional involvement.

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask (1972)

Maddeningly uneven, not bad as a whole

[6/10 · 14 September 2022]

The concept is original enough: there aren't many parodies of best-selling books about sexuality The single sequences, on the other hand, are hit or miss.

1. Do aphrodisiacs work? The somewhat absurd feeling of this first sequences manages to be mildly funny.

2. What is sodomy? One of the better vignettes, featuring a man who falls in love with a sheep and a doctor who tries to help him. Some jokes are just ok, but the overall unpredictability of it makes it good.

3. Why do some women have trouble reaching an orgasm? This sequence works as a homage-parody of Italian cinema, but has only limited impact as a comedy.

4. Are transvestites homosexuals? Frankly, I didn't see anything particularly entertaining about this sequences. Maybe fifty years ago the idea of cross-dressing was funnier in itself, but from today's perspective, this wasn't provocative enough to elicit laughter.

5. What are sex perverts? Very nice parody of "What's my line", which works even if one is not acquainted with the TV show.

6. Are the findings of doctors and clinics who do sexual research and experiments accurate? Very funny, if exceedingly surreal.

7. What happens during ejaculation? I won't spoil anything about this sequence because this is really just great.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

Intelligent and savagely funny

[9/10 · 14 September 2022]

What would happen if a crazy (or, to quote President Merkin Muffley, "a little funny in the head") US general single-handedly decided to attack the USSR? This picture tries to answer this question, albeit in an unconventionally humorous manner.

The film's impact is twofold: on one hand, it works incredibly well as a comedy. Even though, quantitatively, there aren't that many jokes in the movie, they are outrageously funny. On the other hand, it's effective as a harsh satire of the reality of the Cold War. The ridiculous humour succeeds in expressing the sheer madness of the whole situation, with generals who believe in conspiracy theories about fluoridation and presidents that, with the threat of a nuclear Holocaust, prefer to argue about who is more sorry for the situation, like a married couple.

The whole craze is brought to its logical conclusion: the end of the human species. There is really no alternative: the world is just going crazy and irrational fear prevents any logical reasoning. After all, to quote a more recent flick, "the only winning move is not to play".

Peter Sellers steals the show, in his three roles as exchange officer Mandrake, President Muffley and, famously, crazy nuclear war expert and former Nazi Doctor Strangelove. The supporting cast is also great, with George C. Scott portraying the over-the-top anti-communist General Buck Turgidson, Sterling Hayden in the role of the mad general Jack D. Ripper and Peter Bull, playing Soviet Ambassador Alexei de Sadeski.

One can be tempted to dismiss this movie as fantasy and say that something like this would never happen in reality. The message of this black comedy, though, is extremely frightening: after all, the final scene in the movie is real footage of nuclear tests, with which Kubrick is reminding us that what we just saw is far more real than we would like to believe.

Milk (I) (2008)

Powerful and heartfelt

[8/10 · 14 September 2022]

There are stories that need to be told. Stories of political movements, of ideas, of people who believed in something. Some of those stories are widely known, while others, like Milk's, aren't, or, at least, I didn't know it before watching the movie. Taking on such a job is, therefore, doubly commendable but, at the same time, doubly challenging. This movie did this job brilliantly.

Firstly, Sean Penn is great in his Oscar-worthy performance as politician and gay rights activist Harvey Milk. He is able to show a variety of emotion throughout the film, from delight and conviction to guilt and sorrow. He refuses to portray Milk as a hero, managing to show him as a normal human who did what he though just.

The supporting cast is good, with Brolin portraying a deeply flawed Dan White and Emile Hirsch, as well as James Franco, having their opportunities to shine as supporting characters.

What sets "Milk" apart from other movies based on true stories is its extreme effort in the pursuit of historical precision. There is no idealisation, the supporting cast is made of good, but far from perfect, people. The commitment to realism is also shown in a couple of scenes (the appearance of the opera and the climax), where Dustin Lance Black's screenplay manages to use actual events in Milk's life for dramatic purposes, without needing to come up with anything fictional for the sake of entertainment.

The Bourne Supremacy (2004)

Delightfully escapist

[7/10 · 14 September 2022]

The second movie in this installment confirms everything that made the first one good, especially its courage to be original. Many action movies exceed in their efforts to make their protagonist look cool; Jason Bourne, on the other hand, is more intelligent than "cool" and this is a joy to witness. Bourne does not spend time with one-liners before the kill, like many action heroes do.

The movie respects the audience enough to let them draw their own conclusions and to leave enough mystery to be intrigued, but not too much so as to avoid confusion. There are at least a few instances where Bourne does something and we do not know exactly why, but we see the aftermath in a couple of minutes. These are very small details and certainly they do not make this film "intellectual", but they provide enough intellectual stimulation, as if to tell us not to turn off our brains. As a consequence, "Supremacy", similarly to "Identity", manages to appeal to a wide audience, by being creative and exciting at the same time.

To top it all off, Damon delivers a very good performance, which manages to provide the right amount of character in a mostly plot-driven flick.

Exit Strategy (II) (2019)

Refreshing take on the classic time loop

[9/10 · 11 September 2022]

The science-fiction idea of a time loop has been widely explored, from the classic "Groundhog Day" to more serious flicks. Often, this type of film is, inevitably, repetitive. This short movie, on the other hand, manages to convey the repetition with well-written narration and adequate use of flashbacks.

The story is compelling and goes beyond your typical sci-fi thriller. The screenplay is clever and manages to juggle the main story, human aspects and a bit of humour. The characters are pretty well-described, so the audience can be entertained both by the series of the events and by the relationship between the two brothers. Acting and editing are, on the whole, solid.

The Bourne Identity (2002)

A well-made twist on a classic genre

[7/10 · 10 September 2022]

Espionage is a thoroughly explored genre, from Hitchcock's classic North by Northwest, to the James Bond movies, to, more recently, the various installments in the "Mission: Impossible" series. Nevertheless, The Bourne Identity manages to subvert certain clichés, starting from the intriguing premise of an amnesiac protagonist, which causes the viewer to relate to him, as he comes across as far more human than your typical spy.

In short, The Bourne Identity is all about balance, between the protagonist's expertise and his limitations, as well as between romance and action scenes. Ultimately, this movie manages to appeal to a wide audience, by being a smart thriller, an exciting action flick, an intriguing romance and a well-crafted character study.

Maybe the personalities and motivations of the antagonists could have been explored more, but the globally solid screenplay and brilliant acting abundantly make up for it.

Idiocracy (2006)

Original and witty satire

[8/10 · 8 September 2022]

The premise of the movie is very original: Joe Bauers (Luke Wilson), a U. S. Army librarian, is accidentally hibernated for five hundred years and wakes up in an incredibly dumbed-down world, together with a prostitute (Maya Rudolph).

Chaos and absurdity arise, with Bauers experiencing virtually everything, from prison sentencing, to becoming an aide to US President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, who realises that the protagonist is the most intelligent person in the world.

The film is amazingly funny and, even though it might come across as unfairly cruel at first, one will realise that the main aim of Mike Judge's satire is not the stupid population of 2505 America, which is viewed with pity, rather than contempt. Instead, the movie attacks present culture, its lack of respect for culture and its shameless glorification of ignorance.

The movie has been accused of being scientifically inaccurate, in the sense that a dramatic reduction of the average IQ for evolutionary reasons is improbable. Yet it seems unfair to judge it for this, as the statement "Idiocracy" ultimately makes is cultural and not strictly scientific. The Darwinian premise is merely an analogy to argue that modern world favours stupidity in a way that resembles the survival of the fittest.

Clearly, "Idiocracy" is no "Godfather", but it is definitely able to entertain the viewer for just a few minutes shy of a hour and a half. It can also spur discussion of our current political and cultural situation: where are we headed? What do we value? Is there a concrete risk of transforming into a world where even lawyers have corporate sponsorships? Hopefully not, but can we be entirely sure?

American Beauty (1999)

Excellent character-driven drama

[9/10 · 31 August 2022]

What at first comes across as a particularly harsh satire of the American middle class reveals itself to be a compassionate analysis of people's ideas of beauty and searches for a compelling identity. Six main characters alternatively fight and cooperate in order to find these answers, in a movie which incorporates broad topics, from conformity to sexuality.

The narrative style is, at the same time, mostly linear and an original blend of black humour and serious drama. All six main actors manage to portray their chracters memorably and to effectively outline their changes in perspective towards life. To be completely fair, this is also in part thanks to an extremely well-written screenplay, a masterclass in the principle of "show, don't tell".

While the themes of identity, sexual frustration and conformity have been discussed in a variety of movies, the element of originality that lies in "American Beauty" is the method by which this is achieved. Lester Burnham falls in love with his daughter Jane's friend Angela Hayes, who is flattered. He also meets his new neighbour Ricky Fitts, a drug dealer who's in love with Jane and whose extremely strict ex-Colonel father Frank regularly tests him for drugs. What did Angela awake in Lester? Why does she want to have sex with him? Why is Lester so excited to get to know Ricky? Why is Frank particularly mad at the same-sex couple living next to them? The movie lets the audience ask these questions and only gradually shows us the answers. This, in a way, increases the entertainment value of the film, because while we watch it we are interested in the unfolding of the events and only after it's over do we start to think about the underlying themes.

In conclusion, this movie is much more than the story of a man's midlife crisis and holds up extremely well after more than twenty years.

12 Angry Men (1957)

Interesting and enthralling courtroom drama

[9/10 · 9 August 2022]

A lot has already been said about this masterpiece, thus it seems almost unnecessary to praise its many qualities. There two elements in particular, though, which set it apart from other classics.

One is how it showcases the sheer power of good screenplay and acting. There's no need for special effects, stunning cinematography or forced plot twists to create an intelligent and extremely entertaining film. Director Sidney Lumet only needed one room, twelve good actors and a timeless issue. With twelve distinctive characters, there are endless possibilities for interaction between them: what would happen if an extremely rigorous man had to cooperate with someone who'd rather play tic-tac-toe? Or an old man who finds himself ignored by many with a young businessman who costantly talks about his job?

The second aspect is how, despite being more than sixty years old, this movie's characters are incredibly relatable. Everyone has their biases, some are more emotional, some calmer, some more rigorous, some more chaotic. It is safe to say that we all now at least someone who resembles each of the twelve angry men. What is extraordinary is that this incredibly poignant characterisation is achieved with little more than an hour and a half for twelve distinct jurors, and all of them are memorable.

If you want to experience the power of cinema, regardless of your age, gender and cultural upbringing, watch this - you won't regret it.

Gravity (2013)

Wonderful visually, with a woefully underdeveloped plot

[4/10 · 9 August 2022]

The premise of the movie is undoubtedly interesting: two astronauts are stranded in space and are left contemplating Earth, the fate of humanity and mortality. The execution, however, is mediocre at best.

As far as the plot is concerned, many clichés are repeated throughout the movie, which is essentially a series of narrow escapes one after another. Furthermore, there is virtually no analysis of the technical aspects of the spaceships, preventing the audience from being emotionally or intellectually involved in the story. Also, the moral choices the characters have to face, especially Kowalski's decision to let himself die, are nothing novel and are presented with little pathos. Even the ending (one survives, one dies) is unsurprising - been there, done that many times before, and better.

More generally, characters are incredibly undeveloped (especially Kowalski), which is particularly disappointing when they are so few. There are some interesting moments with Stone, from her hallucinations to Aningaaq, but they are not enough to carry the film.

What is especially unforgivable, though, is the utter lack of care for any semblance of scientific accuracy. It is surely understandable that, in order to make for an exciting story, science fiction films will, to an extent, be imprecise, but when key elements, such as Kowalski's disconnection from Stone, or the orbits of debris, are inaccurate, suspension of disbelief can only do so much.