alexf-25-270614 Reviews

The Wolf's Call (2019)

Not great, but not terrible either

[5/10 · 23 February 2022]

Le chant du loup certainly is an unusual film, in that the global-warfare-french-cinema is certainly a very rarefied genre. Which meant it came with expectations.

The opening sequence is certainly the highlight of the movie, as it carries a sense of tension without being overblown. Sadly, it's all downhill from there. From overly obvious exposition to deus-ex machina and complete disregard to what the Rules of Engagement in the movie's setting would be. And the film crew might gain insights in the submariner's life by visiting an actual one. No, the commander's crew are not a 1000sq. Ft. Apartment *wink wink*.

The film shines when it doesn't try to be a big submarine action flick, but when it does try, it falls short of the many great movies in the genre (The Hunt for Red October or Das Boot, for example).

The Night Eats the World (2018)

An unusual approach to a worn genre

[9/10 · 1 November 2021]

Since the 60's, the zombie genre has been used and abused in many ways, some successful (28 Days Later, Planet Terror), some not so much (Army of the Dead, for one).

Where NETW distinguishes itself is in the rather bold choice to make this zombie flick human-sized and logic-based. You won't see Brad Pitt fly halfway across the world to save the day, but instead, you'll follow a rather regular guy using his wits to react to a "zombie event", something most of us made imaginary plans for at one point or another.

NETW remains very faithful to this approach throughout its runtime, whilst also integrating the mental health impact such solitude and violence will have on a human being. As a result, I consider it a great success.

However, this writing choice creates the movie's -I would say unavoidable- shortcomings: it's lonely, it's slow, and it sometimes borders on boring. I'd expect nothing less of the zombie apocalypse.

Man on Fire (2004)

A paleological case study for 2000s editing

[7/10 · 3 October 2021]

Man on Fire is a movie I saw quickly following its release, close to 20 years ago. Its recent availability on Netflix prompted me to rewatch what my late-teenager self then thought was a decent action flick.

... and this was yet another proof that today's fashion is tomorrow's cringe.

This one's a weird action flick. The viewer is served a lengthy introduction that does a surprisingly good job at building tension and establishing the Creasy - Pita relationship. Washington's display of restraint is as pleasing to watch as Fanning's -surprisingly believable- mix of young eagerness and maturity, and the length of the sequence helps build anticipation for what will surely be an incredible action set...

... except that after Pita's -predictable- abduction, the movie never really delivers. Of course, it displays a number of creative ways to dispose of whoever irritates you, but the experience fails to involve the viewer because of a directing and writing shallowness that cannot be overcome. The gang Washington goes against is some sort of lambda bad-guys-bunch, nothing unexpected happens, and the horrible 2000s editing gets in the way of the viewing experience at every opportunity (you'll realize that when a 20s scene between two characters involving no fancy editing shenanigans has you feeling like you're taking a breather). Shaky camera, overlaid shots, ethereal female voices, bloody flashbacks, this movie has them all, to the point that when the finale unfolds, the storyline has seemingly lost all importance.

In the end, Man on Fire is an action flick whose best part is everything before the action happens. Or an archeological piece, if you're into that sort of thing :-).

IO (2019)

There just isn't much to say

[4/10 · 5 January 2021]

Perhaps Io's greatest achievement was to have a slick-looking trailer. That, and Netflix's lack of displayed movie rating.

I would try to explain the failings in Io's storyline, but that would imply it has one. Instead, it feels incredibly stretched. There is no character arc, no background, nothing. The actors have proven they can do a great job (especially Margaret Qualley in The Leftovers), but the movie, for reasons I won't venture to guess, is simply unable to harness any of it.

I like a simple, brain-off movie as much as the next guy, but cannot find a single scenario where I'd recommend this to anybody.

Another proof Netflix has much to learn when it comes to making movies.

Focus (II) (2015)

An average con, an average movie

[5/10 · 5 January 2021]

Focus is your typical transcontinental-flight-movie. A decent time-waster, provided you don't look too close or think too much.

Like many of these movies, it starts off well enough to hook an unknowing viewer, and after a lengthy introduction (40% of the runtime), runs out of steam. The viewer is then left with typical he-knew-all-along cons, mixed with random shots of luck that could have been planned out, leaving everyone with events that don't match the characters' pretended omniscience.

If the movie doesn't believe in its own tricks, neither can the audience. Good thing is, the in-flight drinks will have knocked most of out it long before the movie ends.

Ford v Ferrari (2019)

A good movie, just not a great car movie

[7/10 · 25 November 2019]

Let me preface this by saying that I am quite a car guy. Not the type whose entire life revolves around cars, but I own a sports car and enjoy the odd track day. This means suspending my disbelief in a car movie is always a hard thing...

... but this movie certainly doesn't make it easy! For a car-movie aimed at car people, it was strange to find it packed with inaccuracies and car cliches. The idea that a car explodes whenever it rolls or makes contact with a hard object had finally died in most of Hollywood's mainstream products. Why bring it back in a car-movie?

Here are a few others: -Ken's car seems to be so fast that he can catch up from with everybody whenever he decides to. Why isn't he winning in the first place? -There's this cliche that racers can overtake each other in a straight line by deciding to press the throttle harder. Again, why aren't they already doing that? -Brake fade and braking points obviously don't happen that way, and swapping out a knuckle assembly to cool the brakes is like buying a new phone because the home button is dead (oh wait...). Ford did come up with a quick brake-change solution (which almost every new car uses), but it looked nothing like this. -the 7000rpm ramble present from the opening lines of the movie (and the movie's overall interpretation of RPM) is rather detached from reality. Different engine architectures behave differently at different RPMs, trying to pin that on a single value is strange and unneeded -Sorry but car guys would never use "her" to refer to their automobile! It's not a ship!

With that out of the way, on to the movie stuff: -the writing team tries very hard to make the story overly dramatic, by utilizing lazy writing tricks (the Daytona bet, for example), which really shouldn't be necessary considering how fascinating the base story already is -Christian Bale is a very good actor, but he really overdoes the Ken Miles character. There is close to no footage of the actual guy, so he had the opportunity to build whatever character and mimics he felt like. Why he chose to go so incredibly over the top (both in accentuation and behavior) is beyond me -There's a lot of CG going on during the races. Quite a lot. It is not badly executed, but was it really necessary? There are historic races at Le Mans they could have taken footage from rather than leave us in the uncanny valley

It's not all bad though. The story's a highly interesting one, and Matt Damon's performance is very good. His relationship with Ken Miles is touching, and having them compete against their own headquarters makes for a great double-sided challenge. And while the production's runtime is on the longer side of things, it never feels so.

To sum things up, it is a more than decent movie (hence the 7/10 rating), and probably does a great job at translating what car racing feels like to people who aren't into it or know little about it (my wife had a really good time and enjoyed the movie's constant suspense, as well as its visuals and performances, so it's got to be doing something right!). However, it's neither Oscar-Winning, nor even remotely accurate when it comes to car stuff.

Daybreak (I) (2019)

Average at best - and who is it for?

[5/10 · 6 November 2019]

Daybreak's premise (that of a guy actually kind of enjoying the apocalypse) is interesting, but the show quickly veers away from it and towards a sub-par YA plot with holes big enough to drive through.

Daybreak is poorly written at best and tries oh-so-very-hard to include as many diversity references as possible, in a way that couldn't feel more forced. The acting is mostly average with a hint of shallowness (some characters like principal Burr and Wesley do a decent job but are let down by how their characters are written), and the direction and photography do nothing more than transfer said averageness on screen.

On a positive note, there's a lot of well-managed 4th wall breaking, but nothing that elevates this show above the level of an average exercise in TV. Which was probably Netflix's goal from the onset.

Top Gear: Botswana Special (2007) Season 10, Episode 4

Simply the best top gear episode

[10/10 · 11 January 2016]

I really starting following top gear during the 10th season, and this episode was my absolute favorite. I've followed the show to the end, and watched all the previous seasons as well, and can say no other episodes reached the level of quality this one has.

It's the best top gear travel episode, and the best top gear episode ever made.

What makes it so? Well first there's the setting, which is nothing short of breathtaking. Botswana's landscapes are unique, and well highlighted by the episode's direction. Then there's the cars. They're a combination of weird, fun and enthusiastic. They will go through a lot and not come out unscathed (this is Top Gear after all), but all along the show, they're made "special". You end up caring about those beat up £1500 lumps of steel more than you ever do in other travel specials. And last but not least, there's the production. Yes, it's scripted. Of course it is. But the script is here to carry the show, not force it into obvious jokes like it does in the later seasons. It's lighthearted, fun, and somehow never breaks suspension of disbelief too much. The visuals are greats, the jokes are fun, and at times, you truly find yourself wondering what will happen next.

Just watch it.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Nice aesthetics, not much else

[5/10 · 23 December 2014]

After a disappointing first installment, and a much better second one, I was hoping this last middle-earth voyage would at least be average.

Sadly, it didn't deliver.

First of all, while I understand that the book needed some plot "adjustments", this really goes way too far. There are moments when Jackson seems to have completely forgotten Tolkien's work.

But my main concern isn't the story itself. It's the overwhelming feeling of cheesiness one can feel throughout most of the film's runtime. Everything just feels goofy, like trying to shove standard spec go-to movie feelings and clichés into an average film. The dream sequences are awful and seem to be straight out of an 80's horror flicks. The dwarf-elf love story would make a 12 years old girl want to hurl. Some shots would make a 90's remake of the ten commandments look classy and polished.

The only things left to save this movie are New Zealand's landscapes (already seen a million times), and some OK fights.

Ultimately, that's just not enough.

Jimmy's Hall (2014)

Starts off well, loses pace, but a good overall movie

[8/10 · 1 September 2014]

This is the first time I see a Ken Loach a movie, and I was not disappointed.

All characters deliver solid to very good performances, the scenario is both subtle and not over- complicated, and the setting is enjoyable, as it offers a unique perspective on the 30's, seen from an agrarian Ireland.

It does have its weaknesses though. The movie starts with a good rhythm, a pace it sadly does not manage to keep. The last third of the movie feels needlessly slow and long.

Another problem is the way this movie seems to deliver a very subjective view of the opposition between the working class and politics.

Still very enjoyable and highly recommended.

Now You See Me (I) (2013)

Surprisingly disappointing

[5/10 · 20 June 2014]

I had really big expectations for this movie. A number of good (if not very good) actors, a plot revolving around a series of heists, and an impressive trailer meant that I started watching it knowing that no matter what, I wouldn't leave disappointed...

... and I was wrong. I won't get too far into details, but this movie has many wrongs.

First of all, though the actors are all pretty good (I liked Zombieland and The Social Network a lot, and am usually not disappointed by Morgan Freeman), they only play themselves. Jesse Eisenberg is a stereotypical pretentious-yet-unsure genius, Melanie Laurent a Frenchwoman with secrets, Morgan Freeman is the old-wise-dog, you get the idea. This creates two problems. The first is that this make it very hard to bond with the characters, but the biggest problem is the other one: the actors never actually play together. It's like seeing several one-man-shows mixed together.

Then there's the plot. I promised IMDb I wouldn't include spoilers, and I won't, but let's say that in addition to chasm-sized plot holes, it appears that whenever the storyline seems stuck, we get a one-liner from an actor, dramatic music, and suddenly the plot has changed and the intrigue is back on the move. This would be disappointing if used once, and it just gets annoying when used multiple times. Probably to cover the fact that the plot is indeed not very good.

I can see what Leterrier was trying to achieve by giving the movie its fast pace, but this also just leaves the impression that he's actually trying to confuse us so we don't see the movie's lack of actual interest.

I'll give it 5/10 stars for its overall slick visuals and because it still didn't bore me enough that I wouldn't get to the -below average- ending. But you should use your time on something better than this, and keep it for that winter afternoon when you'll be home, sick, and won't know what do to.