Change Your Image
larrynabilfathy
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019)
How anger was different this time?
Tarantino is angry, very angry.
Tarantino can easily take you on a journey of anger. He can offer you a shocking scene at the beginning of the film as usual in his previous works. However, this time Tarantino is angry at the stagnation, slowness, stereotyping, and the change in the American cinema and the American society that happened in the 60s.
In "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" Tarantino presents 190 minutes of a stagnant, negative, and slow story, to put us in the psychological state that would make the anger and violence at the end of the film have a different impact on us.
My first impression of the movie was disappointment. I couldn't find the usual Tarantino I am used to. However, after re-reading it, I got a different idea about what was Tarantino trying to communicate.
When you choose to watch a movie by Robin Williams, you expect and wait to laugh while watching the movie. When you choose to watch a Wes Anderson movie you expect to be impressed by the cemetery of the cadres and genuine composition of the image. When you choose to watch a movie by Tarantino, you are undoubtedly expecting a film with a special taste of a director whose films are based on several distinctive themes that have made his films taste different.
For example, all of Tarantino's films are based mainly on the idea of revenge. All of his characters in the films have Nicknames, and he is generally fond of low angle shots, and it is also his habit to appear as an actor in most of his films.
This is his special recipe. Therefore, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is different as it does not contain those elements as clearly as the rest of his films. But despite this, the film is not bad at all, it's just different.
Tarantino loves breaking the rules, he rebels on everything that makes sense and expected. In this film, I think he is rebelling against himself and our "expectation" of his style.
So, what is Tarantino trying to say? And what makes him angry this time?
I think that Tarantino presents to us the changes that dominated the end of the 1960s in American cinema, and the society as well. There was a huge movement of replacement, a new wave of European filmmakers came with their style and images and replaced some genuine cinematic forms. The American society as a whole was witnessing the rise of Hippies, and their domination of many things that has been possessed by the previous generation. Tarantino made that very clear in the sequence of Spahn farm. (I personally didn't like the way Hippies were portrayed in the movie).
This is evident in several scenes as the film tells the story of a famous American actor "Rick Dalton", who was about to lose his glamor and become forgotten. He is always accompanied by his friend, the stuntman, "Cliff Booth".
At the beginning of the film, Rick faces the problem. Al Pacino, who plays a role as producer explicitly says to him: "Your fame is on the verge of danger, try to go elsewhere where you could still shine, try Italian movies."
Rick becomes very angry at this suggestion and strongly rejects it, but at the end of the film, we find him coming back from Italy after making four films there and even married an Italian woman who accompanied him to his home in Hollywood.
Also at the beginning of the first chapter, we find Rick Dalton surprised by the residence of Roman Polanski, the Polish director next to him.
Ironically, Polanski at this time had made several great works in Poland such as Knife in the Water but had not done anything in American cinema, he had not yet presented his masterpiece Chinatown. Despite this, Rick is desperately eager to work with him. However, at the end of the film, we discover that Polanski and his friends were passionate about getting to know Rick and wishing to be with him.
Tarantino then presents this to us in Steve McQueen's comment on Sharon Tate during the pool party. He comments on the absurdity of her emotional relationships as she rejected her American fiancé and traveled to Europe and got in touch with Polanski and came with him to America while her former fiancé was still waiting desperately for the moment she separates from Polanski and gets back to him.
It appears that it makes sense that Tarantino pours his anger on that group of Europeans who broke into that Hollywood composition and led to this chaos. Surprisingly, it explodes in ten minutes of violence against three Hippies teenagers who broke into Rick Dalton's house.
Those last 10 minutes of "Tarantino violence" were a vent for what was kept pressured for two and a half hours. The Hippies have been severely beaten with the distinctive Tarantino imprint when the violence blends with comedy as you watch a fierce street fight between three Hippies in one hand, a man and his dog and a half-naked woman speaking only Italian.
But was it the Hippies who deserved anger and punishment in this film? Was Tarantino trying to say that America was punishing the wrong party? Or did he want to say something else?
Additionally, the film recalled some of Tarantino's other works, such as burning out the Nazis, the bar scene and the hostages.
The film also presents Leonardo DiCaprio in a superbly complex role, provoking compassion and laughter.
Brad Pitt, too, despite the tiredness and exhaustion that appeared clearly on him - perhaps because of his 50-year-old age while presenting a character in the mid-30s - played a distinctive role with a wonderful comedic glimpse, manifested in most scenes including his fight with Bruce Lee.
The film is so good, different, and interesting.
I am not an expert of the history of the Hippies in America, but I think they have been unfairly portrayed and stereotyped in the film.
In the end, it is one of Tarantino's best feature films, and I hope he doesn't quit directing after his next film as he said.
The Angel (2018)
Failed to deliver.
As an Egyptian, It's a bit difficult for me to stop analysing the movie from a historical perspective since I am aware of the history of this era. However, I'll do my best to tackle the movie from a cinematic pov. As much as I could.
The movie succeeded to drag me back to the 70s, it was well crafted cinematography wise. Although it is as spy thriller movie, it didn't include much of the usual action/ fire/ chasing scenes, which isn't bad at all since the pace was well crafted enough to keep me at my toes. In comparison to a similar spy thriller (Argo - 44m$) I consider (The Angel - 12m$) made a big success for low budget movie.
However, in terms of presenting a convincing motives for the main character, build up, and plot, the movie failed to deliver.
One of the BIGGEST flaws is the language of the dialogue. For a non-Arabic speaker, you wouldn't notice the difference. However, for an Egyptian, I laughed every single time an actor opened his mouth to speak in Arabic. It's ridiculous, not authentic, and totally made up.
Even the composition of each sentence wasn't authentic at all. If you can speak both languages, Arabic and English, you'd easily notice that the Arabic dialogue was written in English and they just translated it into Arabic. It should have been done by Egyptian speaker at least to adapt the dialogue into more believable one.
But the bigger flaw is the main character, it wasn't convincing AT ALL. The hero's journey was full of gaps and weak motivations that ended up with drawing a hesitant, weak, un convincing character!
Marwan is one of the most complexed and mysterious characters in the Egyptian modern history. His true story hasn't been told yet due to the complications around it. There are many unveiled secrets around his character and many unsolved matters about his true loyalty. Marwan, himself was assassinated in London, 2007 before he publish his diaries and the diaries disappeared since then. Each of the two parties, Egypt and Israel claim that Marwan was working for them however, no one has the key to his secret.
A man like Marwan, who played such an important role and reached that ranking in a very sensitive period of the Egyptian history and was capable of keeping his secrets unveiled till the moment he was assassinated couldn't be less than a shrewd. Otherwise, he coludn't have married Nasser's eldest daughter and became very close to decision makers circle, and later occupied a very sensitive position during Sadat era as his personal ambassador and chief of information. A man in such position can't be that emotionally driven, sensitive, hesitant, and weak as the movie presented him.
The movie tried to justify Marwan's motive to approach Israel and offer to work for them against Egypt, due to the argument Marwan had with Nasser over the dinner when Marwan proposed that Egypt should let go of depending on Russia as an ally and seek alliance with the USA instead. The movie followed that scene with another, in which Marawan overheard Nasser speaking to his daughter (Marwan's wife) and telling her that he will force Marwan to divorce her since he has shown a hateful attitude.
It's not convincing at all that these two reasons could make a man sell his country. Not even for money. Subsequently, the motives wasn't enough to justify Marwan's actions. The movie failed to answer that question in a satisfying way.
However, neither history, nor the movie denied the fact that Marwan lived a very luxurious lustful life between, women, gambling, and drinking in London, the movie insisted on presenting Marwan in an angelic frame. The movie starts with Marwan's voice saying "This is a story about love"! The character was very pure at heart, lovable, kind, and even faithful. He refused the mistresses president Kaddafi offered him in Libya and answered "I am a married man". He even resisted the continuous sexual temptations from Diana Davis who helped him in the espionage operations later. The movie insisted on drawing a flawless ideal character who cared for people on both sides, Egyptians and Israelis. However, this contradiction resulted in an unrealistic fake character.
The movie was generous in presenting a number of factual errors, continuity errors, and anachronisms.
1- Ashraf Marwan got his degree in 1965. Gamal Abdel Nasser Died in 1970. In the movie, Ashraf receives the bad news about Nasser's death during a lecture at the university.
2- Ashraf Marwan left the funeral ceremonies (Gamal Abdel Nasser's) and broke into Gamal's office to search for any important document hoping he'd be able to use them later. Minutes later, Samy Sharaf, suspiciously enters the same office. Before he finds out about Ashraf who's hiding under the president's desk, an officer enter the office and calls Samy Sharaf and asks him to come as Gamal Abdel Nasser wants to see him immediately!!
3- According to the movie, Ashraf Marwan got the idea of being a double agent when he heard about the famous double agent GARBO. How are the odds of learning about politics and spies in the faculty of sciences?!
4- Later, in another lecture, especially the one in which he gets the news of Nasser's death guess what was the professor of sciences trying to teach his students? It was the right spelling of Potassium!!
Overall, the movie failed to satisfy me, nor was even close to convincing.
Paradise Now (2005)
Like father, like son?
Like father, like son?
Khaled and Saied, The Mortal and The Happy, that were their names, however, that's what they weren't.
Khaled and Saied lived, worked, and have been chosen to fulfill the same purpose, to become martyrs. They were chosen by their spiritual leader to execute a suicide mission in Tel Aviv, to avenge the assassination of a Palestinian Leader.
Khaled, played by the Palestinian director, Ali Suliman, was very excited about the operation, while Saied seemed to be a bit hesitant, especially after meeting Suha, the daughter of a famous Martyr whom all youth have been raised on his patriotic stories.
The film sheds a light on how things are in a very critical area in the middle east. It gives an insight into the nature of the Palestine - Israel conflict and how the people their deal with the daily struggle as they pass the borders, suffer from electricity problems, and water contamination.
After getting prepared for the operation, things go wrong and they both get separated before they detonate themselves. Khaled heads back directly to his leader and the rest of his group while Saied gets back to Tel Aviv and avoids detonating himself as he sees children on the bus he was intending to get on to execute the suicide mission.
Confusion engulfs Saied's mind, he walks around his hometown with a belt around his chest, he finally thinks of detonating himself in the garage he used to work in.
Khaled and Saied start different journey throughout one hour of the length of the film, Khaled in the search for Saied, and Saied for the search of himself. Eventually, Khaled and Suha find Saied hiding by Saied's father' grave.
Saied and Khaled get back to their leaders, then, later they carry on their attempt to execute the operation. Once they go back to Tel Aviv, things go the other way around, Khaled tries to persuade Saied to rethink it and conceder fixing the case by using other methods than shedding blood, while Saied seems very determined. He conceives Khaled and sends him back, and carries on executing the mission.
Suha's character forms such an interesting and important element in the course of events. She manages to change Khaled's mind about being a martyr on their way to find Saied. In the car, as Khaled drives in high speed, he repeats on her what he has been taught and learned day after another about Palestine, Jihad, the uprising, and revolution. With few nervous lines from her, we end up with a different Khaled who uses the same words as an attempt to make Saied pull back from his pursue.
The course of the events changes as we hear from Saied speaks of his personal need to send a message to Israel. It turns from being a national case to a personal one. Saied reveals his need to clear his father's name, the father who worked with the wrong side, Israel, before they get rid of him eventually.
Saied has been carrying the shame burden for years, looking for a chance to purify his name and to make something to compensate what his father did. It turns to be his admiration towards Suha was actually an admiration to what she represents, a daughter of a hero who died for Palestine, unlike his father of course.
The film bravely asks many questions in relation to the premise of the story, should the sons and daughters follow the steps of their fathers? Are they obliged to carry their legacy, Whither it was proud or shame? What is stronger, Love or avenge?
The scene in which Saied was lying in his father's grave, ready to detonate himself to erase the memory of this shame was so powerful, while the conversation between Suha and Khaled in the car was too direct and the change that occurred to Khaled was far from being smooth and convincing.
The Intern (2015)
Nice and nicely done.
A retired widower, Ben, starts a new job as an intern in an online fashion retailer company run by, Jules, the workaholic super committed young lady.
The two of them get encountered as Ben becomes Jules's personal intern. Following his looks and the way he dressed, Jules thought Ben can't offer much nether to her, nor to her company. So, she gave him the least amount of tasks.
Surprisingly he catches her attention after he managed to voluntarily arrange a disk that has been always found unarranged. Subsequently, Ben becomes her right hand who is responsible for each aspect of her life, starting from getting her daughter to and from school, to breaking into her mother's house to delete an email sent to her by mistake from Jules.
Eventually, his guidance helps her bringing her life together.
It's a nice drama/light movie about starting over, and how people could do more regardless their age or problems. However, the journey for Ben, the leading role wasn't much of a struggle. Which brings us to wonder, whose story it was? Ben, or Jules's?
Ben didn't do much to blend in, while the effort Jules had to do to amend her marriage, sort things out in her company, and bringing her life together was much in comparison to the challenges Ben went through.
He didn't fail, not even once in any of his tasks. He drew a line of wisdom, comfort, and trust through the whole movie, yet, it was a bit difficult to believe. Especially, when he mentioned at the beginning of the movie that he used to call his grandson to ask him what the heck is a USB, but we see him smoothly using a laptop, doing emails, and he even changed from an old SAMSUNG to an iPhone with no much of a struggle.
It's a nice movie indeed, that drew a smile and a relief following the happy ending.