Change Your Image
starimomak
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Nocturama (2016)
Nocturama - film review
"Nocturama" is a French film written and directed by Bertrand Bonello. Bertrand Bonello is an acclaimed French director most notably known for being a part of the "New French Extremism" film movement. Unlike his earlier films, "The Pornographer" and "Tiresia", "Nocturama" deviates from conventions of the French Extremism movement and delivers a fresh and authentic vision. "Nocturama" is set in Paris and is about a diverse group of 10 young people ranging from 16 to 30 years, all of whom are from different social and racial backgrounds, yet they are all united under the same goal: to commit bomb attacks on 4 different locations in Paris. Once they've executed the plan they hide in an closed shopping mall for the night. This is where the second half of the film takes place.
Upon hearing the plot this film may seen like an ordinary thriller. But, although it has elements of the thriller genre, its focus is not on the plot but rather on the atmosphere and the state of mind of the characters. The film bends the norms of film language, and tells this type of story in a different manner then it usually would've been told.
The film opens up with different young characters roaming the streets of Paris and riding the subway. Their paths cross but they only exchange glances. For the first seven minutes of film there is no dialog, which is a great example of show don't tell style. Even though they don't say anything we know they are up to something, and we feel that something big is about to happen. The story is told non linearly, not only does the film jump form the past to present but we also see the same moments from different points of view. This style is especially reminiscent of the film "Elephant" by Gus Van Sant, a film about a high school shooting based on Columbine High School Massacre. Like "Elephant", "Nocturama" is also filled with shots of characters walking with the camera following them from behind their back. This style of shooting a character evokes a feeling of participation in the viewer which heightens the tension. Another interesting aspect of the film is that there is no main character, but all members of the group are treated equally. We observe them as a collective. Unlike an average thriller this film is not burdened by the need to tie all loose ends. It does not explain how the group came together nor how they came to the idea to commit a terrorist act. We are only given glimpses and hints about these elements of the narrative. The manner of withholding information in telling a story usually leaves the viewer unsatisfied, because he is not given the whole picture. But I personally like that style, for it is expected of the viewer to put all the pieces together and understand how and why it all happened. Once they executed the plan, and the bombs go off, they hide in a closed shopping mall. Here they anxiously wait for the danger to blow off, even though they believe their plan was flawless. Hiding in the hallmark of capitalist consumer society our rebels slowly relax and spend the night trying out new clothes, eating, drinking, playing music, goofing around and following the aftermath of their act on many television sets. Yet even though there seems to be nothing to worry about, we are constantly given the feeling that they are not going to get away with it.
In the end the police find out where they are, and even though our characters are unarmed, the police kills them off one by one. How the police tracked them down is left unknown. The idea of "Nocturama" is obscure. The film asks many questions yet doesn't bother to give any answers. It shows the general discontentment that young people have with the government and social conditions. It portrays them as unified even though there are racial and class differences between them. Their attack was not aimed to kill any civilians, rather to damaged certain government buildings and certain corporation headquarters. Therefore, was their act morally unjust? Or is the question of moral in todays society relevant? At the end when the police arrive they are portrayed as merciless, yet clean and very professional, almost non human. The ending gives out a nihilistic vibe, and leaves the viewer wondering whether any form of rebellion against the government is possible.
Ubice mog oca (2016)
I don't care who done it..
The first Serbian "thriller/crime/who done it" series is here! I guess the guys at RTS (Radio and television of Serbia) wanted to make something that resembles shows like True Detective, The Bridge, The Killing and so on, but also wanted to make a very simple story which would appeal to wider masses. This is after all produced by national television, and they have failed in all aspects.
The lead detective is hopelessly played by Vuk Kostic who, since the movie "Mala nocna muzika", hasn't had a successful or a memorable movie role. All of the characters seem shallow or generic.
Nebojsa Glogovac, one of the greatest Serbian actors is playing a character so passive and boring that even he can't do anything with it.
There is so much stupid stuff about this show. There's this fancy bar where Vuks character meets the sexy forensic girl every time and they try to connect romantically but fail, but also he meets there a hobo played by Uliks Fehmiu who is like a mentor to our detective. What's a hobo doing sitting in a fancy bar?!
They find one leaf in the corn field that holds clues about the case, and that's only one leaf among a pile of them. Its worse then in CSI series.
Why does our detective live with his mother? Is it normal for a police detective to be a mamas boy?
Just because you put Slavko Labovic to play a bag guy it does not mean its going to make the show awesome.
The show is structured around scenes of people sitting down and talking, 90% of scenes are like this and they are all directed in the same boring manner. There is no tension, it sometimes feels like a talk show.
I'm sorry, I wanted to write a more academic text but I could not. The show is so bad.. I cant even write a good text about how bad it is.
The Twilight Zone: It's a Good Life (1961)
It's a good life: Or how I learned to stop caring and love Anthony
The Twilight Zone is know for its tackling of themes like morality, racism, egalitarianism, existentialism, meaning of life etc. But not so often has The Twilight Zone made a statement on God.
In this episode the concept of God, as an almighty being, is embodied in little Anthony. But this episode is not made to explore Gods powers through Anthony, rather to show human behavior in the "presence" of such being.
A common argument against Gods existence goes: If God is almighty, how come there is "evil" in the world, and how come horrible random events happen and God does not stop them? Therefore, since God is all-good, all-mighty and all-knowing, and has failed to stop evil, he must not exist.
But this argument also raises the question: Why do people keep believing in such being and why do they worship it and pray to it, even though this being does not "care" for them? This is what "It's a good life" sets out to explore.
Like God, Anthony will, if you don't worship him or if you brake the rules he gave, punish you. This horrible authoritative attitude Anthony holds makes everyone else fear him, obey him, but also hate him. Since Anthony reflects God, other characters reflect people with religious beliefs. They worship their God because of his powers, but this makes them fear him, for they are powerless in his presence(God is everywhere), which naturally makes them obey him. But in this process they begin to hate him, for he has taken their liberty and enslaved them to his bidding.
But wait! That's wrong! No one who is religious hates God?!
Well, obviously, because he is not a little brat... or is he?
You see the only difference between God and Anthony is that we see Anthony, and we know whats he like. We know he is intentions are selfish, and that he is egocentric and immature. But we don't know what "real" God is like, so religious people tend to believe that he is a being of infinite intelligence with best intentions and therefore we should not question his authority. This is the key point of religious belief. The lack of Gods description enables us to project our ideals of a perfect being, in whose hands we feel safe and secure. But there is no reason to believe that the "real" God is not like Anthony! It's not logically impossible that he is like Anthony at all.
So the question raised by episode is: If God existed, and he was like Anthony, would you still love him?
If you would not, then you are a hypocrite. Also, you can't say that it's probably not true that he is like Anthony because there is no more reason to believe that he is not like him, then there is to believe that he is like him.
This episode exposes the true nature of religion, its basis in irrationality and absurdness.
In the end the only solution is to stop caring and love Anthony, if you are in the Twilight Zone.
Vlaznost (2016)
A story about a man, in a city, alone..
This film reminded me of a cult classic "La notte" by Antonioni. "Vlaznost", like "La notte", portrays a high class woman that has lost her love for her husband and is seeking escape from him. But this film, on the other hand, focuses on the husband. We don't see where the wife goes, but it does not matter.
This is a story about a man, in a city, alone.
Does this gives him freedom?
It tells the universal story about capitalism, alienation, patriarchy, and false illusions about family. All through a dreamy like manner by using dissolve transitions, relative slow pace, and cuts to a car POV at a random highway at night, that keeps going and going... Not sure if the latter makes sense but you'll see. The film at moments gives out a poetic vibe, which suits it very nicely.
Its a good film from a country that does not often shine on the map in a film sense, and that's why it deserves to be viewed.
It's worth it.