Reviews

28/100

And to think that I did not know about the existence of this film until a few days ago and was still left disappointed...

The Bubble, in fact, has quite a few things in common with another recently produced Netflix comedy, Don't Look Up: both movies are meta commentaries on society and its perpetuated habits, its ignorance and lack of knowledge of how to act in a given situation out of our control. But they also allege that, in order to highlight these same ones, they have to, by force, use them in their premises? A bit contradictory, isn't it?

The Bubble feels like that little lie you gave to escape an awkward situation, but very quickly had to expand until it ended up sounding completely dissimilar to how it started. It's a film that tries, I suppose, to reflect the uncertainty that the whole world went through two years ago, when we even got to wonder if we would eventually find a way out of trouble. For the movie industry, it was one of its worst years financially as well.

Trying to reflect this problem is a considerable risk to conquer taking into account the fact that people normally watch a movie looking for an escape from their realities yet, at the same time, it was necessary. To the film's own misfortune, trying to make a joke out of such a specific situation completely took away the possibility for people to identify with it and, at the same time, make two years seem like an eternity ago.

Lately, Hollywood has been revealing itself to itself. More and more filmmakers with incredible careers have been forced by big studios to continue the franchises they have painstakingly built. More and more production house executives decide to ignore the importance of a meaningful premise and push, as much as possible, a story that will generate millions based on consumer nostalgia. However, it is difficult to find a way to reveal yourself to them in this very industry. For this reason, it's refreshing to find films like The Bubble, which are not afraid to shout directly at the audience about their lack of comfort so that they open their eyes and stop financing the vicious circle in which we are all part of. However, contrary to the other movies that have done the same thing, The Bubble completely failed during the process.

30/100

The mere thought of finding a single person who had hopes on Ambulance is just delusional. With only 40 million dollars as a budget, the film does not hesitate to show its great lack of resources, which was even more sacrificed by the inclusion of Jake Gyllenhaal. Without a doubt, the worst way to spend your money...

However, this same lack of budget presented the director of the Transformers saga with a new challenge: the use of CGI.

Limited scenes used this treatment, which has been fully exploited by movies within the same tone lately. I guess in that sense, it was refreshing to represent practical effects.

This must be one of the few times in which, in the case of a film of this genre, the art direction, performances and script are not the most declining -however, they continue to be-. Instead, the technical aspects show the most flaws.

On the one hand, the lurid cinematography has the sole purpose of attracting the viewer enough at the beginning of the film to later try to fit into the context of an action one. Combine this with the editing work, which was missing shots - some are repeated in the film and others are missing entirely in support of the narrative - and you have a film that is not afraid to make technical decisions that, ultimately, put it in a somewhat awkward position.

To be honest, I don't understand why pay so much attention to a film that clearly doesn't lend itself to much, even its poster seems to be made in 5 minutes. A thought which I think fits my feelings towards the film quite adequately.

88/100

Almost 40 minutes after it starts, the movie finally shows its credits, thus giving you the understanding that everything you saw before was only the prologue.

This, to anyone who hasn't seen Drive My Car, might sound like an intimidating threat in the face of the outgoing runtime. From my part, I saw it as an opportunity given by witer/director Ryûsuke Hamaguchi to understand the complexity of a story that was just beginning.

Three hours that are fully asserted through its script, which understands the importance of each line of dialogue that comes out, or does not come out, of the actor in question. For a moment, the film seems to touch too many themes that, until the last moments of the second act, are not fully related. But, to witness the feelings of guilt and trauma imposed align with the main premise... is to see a painting being created before you.

It probably feels like a burden to many for the first twenty minutes because, again, the film seems to have no intention of revealing to you what it meticulously builds in the background. However, those same intentions have another purpose: to invoke your patience. The film recognizes that it's not conventional and takes full advantage of it. Truly, it's one of the few films where its impact is greater than the words I have to describe it.

32/100

What would it feel like to have a pre-teen be better at acting than a guy with 55 movies?

The Adam Project is anew movie, now part of an acting trilogy by Ryan Reynolds, from director Shawn Levy and, to be honest, I wish it was the last one.

For all its glaring flaws, the first 30 minutes of the movie aren't as bad as one would think they would be. For a moment, I completely forgot what the real purpose of the film was and focused on its potential; this may have been a study of the main character's traumas in confronting an older, experienced version of himself. See the contrasts that this age difference brings and, above all, the healing process which the two could have faced together... but, I suppose that was too much to ask for a popcorn movie since, from those 30 minutes, the movie becomes what Back To The Future would be in a current context.

The Adam Project becomes a movie like any other that is part of the action genre. She quickly loses coherence and her greatest quality begins to relate directly to how disconnected she feels. Especially, during his action scenes, which try too hard to resemble those of a Kingsman movie.

However, where it lacks quality most is in its technical aspects. The color-coding looks like something out of a YouTube video, the editing work feels truly forgotten in the background, especially in the last 20 minutes, and, in particular, there's a deepfaked character, which I can't believe was approved in first place.

Literally what else is there to say?

74/100 It only took 25 films from the Pixar family for only ONE of them to be directed entirely by a woman. Surprisingly, that's not the only first that Turning Red has to offer.

For instance, this is the first time that a Pixar film has an Asian lead, it's one of the few films from the studio to pass the bechdel test and, probably most notable to all, it's the first time that the tone of a Pixar movie feels heterogeneous, separate from the others.

It hasn't been until very recently that Pixar's movie allegories feel truly explicit in their subtlety. First Soul, then Luca and now, Turning Red, who isn't afraid to tackle issues never seen before in a children's film, with menstruation, puberty and even sexuality being the most recurrent. Even when it wasn't nearly as inventive in trying to preserve a balance between the "Pixar" look and a Pixar rationale - which, really, it didn't need. In my opinion, this movie could treat the giant red panda without much justification and I would have bought it outright - just recognizing what this movie represents is enough to watch and admire it.

The Coen brothers have always been so full of surprises. It is not astonsihing how contrasting a comparison of one of their films with another can be, and despite that, you can always identify their influence behind the camera. Inside Llewyn Davis is the biggest example of this so far.

This fictional story takes place during the revival of the folk genre in the 1960s, honoring all the voices that made the era stand out through the eyes of Davis, a young musician struggling to balance his money problems and an uncertain future, all while trying to make a name for himself in what eventually ends up as a vicious cycle. Many times, we get stuck in an automatism without realizing, not because it suits us, but because it is what remains, along with the hope that, at some point, something will interrupt that cycle.

Probably, there will be no intrinsic opinion of this particular film. However, the effectiveness of its theme cannot be denied, which it would be almost impossible not to feel a minimal identification with. Also, the soundtrack is a gem.

Normally, I differ taking notes while watching a movie since I prefer to analyze them from a fresh point of view, remembering only what comes to mind at the moment. It's an exercise in which I've gotten used to remembering more of a movie everytime, which is why it felt quite exotic to do it in this one. A part of me feels glad I did it, because I feel like it analyzes the way I was processing the film quite well:

1. Joanna Hogg is pretty good at directing, but always, in all her scenes, something seems to need polishing (sound, lighting, even certain frames are missing).

2. The trailer is SO misleading.

3. It's up to the first 30 minutes that they show us a plot point that doesn't relate to the first installment. Until those 30 minutes, the plot remains STATIC.

From this moment on, I begin to remember that the purpose of cinema is not to be pleasant. In fact, many times, it is anything but.

4. The quite meta aspect of the film I think perfectly conveys the intentions of the first part. It makes me think that everything I'm writing in here is part of what is being criticized.

Spoiler alert: yes it was.

5. It just takes too long to develop that idea. Enough to make you wonder why it's divided into 2 parts, when it couldn't have possibly had the same impact if it wasn't.

6. It's criticizing the way filmmakers, especially aspiring ones, don't have that freedom to tell a story like people would think they do. And the lack of support to be able to land their ideas, due to the fact that they have a great lack of experience.

Even if there is initiative from people to understand the story they want to tell, this film shows that we will never get the true feeling that it evokes from the director as long as we are third parties.

7. The first film shows the lack of understanding of the people towards the story, this part tells that same lack of understanding, but at the moment of telling it.

8. Leads me to believe that it bends the rules in the beginning to make that point of view known. I don't fully understand if that decision works for me per se, but at least I can say I do understand it.

Second spoiler alert: it ended up working almost perfectly.

It's funny to think that both installments of The Souvenir opened my eyes in such different ways about the form and narratives you want to tell when making films. This itself just goes to show how detailed Joanna Hogg's direction is. You understand why there are two films, the reason behind the lines of entire scenes that seem to deliver nothing. These are things that, when you see them unfold on screen, do not stop conjuring rejection, for the same aspect of which we have cataloged films as "bad" or "good". When it comes to telling why, we have created an automated and repetitive mechanism that is only called to action when criticizing something. This film is an attempt, one of the most successful I've seen lately, to make us open our eyes.

The truth is, I needed this. I needed a movie to silence my criticism and make me reconsider. It is an extremely particular feeling that I think I will never neglect.

I'm not going to lie, I had some concerns about the final result of The Batman. Especially considering my love/hate relationship with director Matt Reeves' filmography. Fortunately, the problems ended up being minimal.

First of all, it's complicated for a superhero movie to stand out these days, not to mention a film based on Batman. In the context surrounding this film, the other interpretations of the character have been altered to appeal to more audiences. It's not necessarily a negative thing, it just created a misconception of what he stood for. To see such a clear description of both Bruce Wayne and Batman; being a detective, dealing with his true identity, representing the dynamisms between both alter-egos and not painting them as heroes was exactly what was needed for a narrative surrounding this character to feel fresh, even though THIS is the Batman that has existed since its foundations.

Now, entering the film completely; These same factors that make up Batman's portrayal on the big screen work, their execution feels heavily inspired by movies like Zodiac and even Saw. Reaching the point where scenes inspired by these two could've very well been part of them. It is as if we had to pay for that facade with a lack of originality hiding in the background.

Part of the reason I didn't feel very confident about this movie was because of the script. At this point, I consider it forgivable to worry about a bad script in a superhero movie. In the case of this film, it has a tendency to overexpose, which becomes extremely annoying in the first 15 minutes.

Additionally, the final act could have worked, but it doesn't feel established enough for a nearly 3-hour movie. Part of my problem with the film stems from that.

However, apart from those negative aspects, the rest was a pleasant surprise. The editing doesn't feel rough at all, especially in action scenes -which happens very frequently in films of this genre-, Greig Fraiser's cinematography, as usual, takes full advantage of the narrative, making almost every shot feel remarkable.

Robert Pattinson is impeccable as Batman, but exceptional as Bruce Wayne. However, I especially highlight Zoë Kravitz who, with this role, truly shows her versatility as an actress.

Although many people think otherwise, it's difficult to specify a character study towards Batman. Many times, it's necessary to use second or third installments as an additional resource. However, The Batman managed to get the closest in contrast to any of these previous attempts. That, by itself, is already an achievement.

85/100

We live in an era where a Steven Spielberg movie is a box office flop, where an adaptation of what is considered the epitome of musicals is completely ignored by people. Unfortunately, the 2021 version of West Side Story is not without a few valid arguments against it that directly affected its reception.

For instance, it's more than obvious that Ansel, not only taking into account his controversies but also his history as an actor, should not be here at all. His performance on this film, compared to the other actors who have played Tony in the past, just doesn't compare. Which, arguably, doesn't happen with almost any other performance in the film. For the most part, they feel like a lift in the depth of characters.

Speaking of the other performances, the sheer mediocrity of one of the lead actors provided the opportunity to deepen the breakdown of supporting roles, which I can confidently say fully carried the film.

From a technical standpoint, West Side Story couldn't be any more flawless. It's one of the first times in years that Spielberg's direction feels as groundbreaking as it did in its past. From the first shot to the last, it is almost impossible to point out flaws in his filmmaking.

Additionally, it has the charm of the original musical; the almost meta aspect when executing the musical numbers so that they are not only contextualized as "actors dancing and singing from one moment to another", their efficiency in using a large runtime when presenting the main conflict which, especially in this version, feels more complete and, of course, I Feel Pretty, which is definitely the best song in the entire play. No, it is NOT debatable.

It's a shame that the controversies were coupled with the true purposes of the film, which were Spielberg taking the liberty of telling a story he was truly passionate about. However, in any case, West Side Story became, unintentionally, one of the most recent examples of the negative impact of an actor on film. It can give the film a radically different meaning than was intended. Luckily, what I take away from this film the most is a great anticipation of seeing the future of the artists in this film; Rachel Ziegler in Snow White and Ansel Elgort in jail.

66/100

To say that I had high expectations would be an understatement to the anticipation I truly felt for this film. A coming-of-age of a woman in her 30s sounded like that breath of fresh air that a character study needed. That must have been my warning that even if I tried my best, I wouldn't be able to connect with the film.

Now, I'm not 30. In fact, I like to think that I'm too distant from that age and, although I was able to share many of the uncertainties that the protagonist experienced despite the age difference, if anything, those same concerns made me feel that my experiences could not be related to those of an older person who, perhaps, shares those same discomforts.

The fact that the film doesn't prioritize those same themes doesn't help. There's a sub-plot that hints that the starkly contrasting and instantaneous decisions coming out of the protagonist would eventually lead to what she was running away from in the first place.

It came out at a point where this very character needed something new to provide the audience. But it was only mentioned in an overly perfunctory way, leaving me wondering how it could've possibly tied to the film for his own benefit.

At first, our protagonist feels the way she should've felt by the end of the film. Making her, well, not to my liking, at least not in the way that a movie called "The Worst Person in the World" would pretend. The same film that, above all, invites me to give it another chance in the future and, probably, by that point in my life, I will have a little more to say.

36/100

Uncharted is Sony's latest attempt to fit an acclaimed franchise with 42 hours of content and story into just 2... Make your own judgment from that.

It's funny to think that, no matter how hard you try, these days you cannot adapt a video game into a film, and vice versa. While one tries to be as efficient as possible with his limited time, the other can pack as much information as it can in order to become more extensive or ambitious.

This indicates that, even if someone has the courage to adapt something like the Uncharted series to the big screen, whether they wanted to or not, they must summarize, or flatly ignore, certain plot points to prioritize others. The problem is that this selection process has such a complex naturalness that, with a single mistake, it can feel like the film is trying to contextualize as much as it can, ignoring not to feel overwhelming.

Even if that is your purpose, you have to be subtle. Uncharted binned that advice completely.

From European villains to straight up pirate ships, Uncharted feels like one of the least ambitious popcorn flicks I've come across in quite some time.

The plot seems to have been invented while the filming process of the film was being executed, which would not surprise me at this point if it were true, while clinging to the mediocrity of the actors' work. The same ones who clearly did not want to be part of the film in the first place.

93/100

I... quite liked this movie. For the first time in a minute I can say I had a quite pleasant experience going to the movies. It was really as if a sense of togetherness had taken over all of us in the screening room.

One of my biggest concerns was, obviously, the age gap since I heard many people criticize it based on how uncomfortable they felt watching it, not only because of the age factor, but because of the various aspects that the film seems to be normalizing. Although I can be agreeing with the fact that some of those things really leave me questioning the film, I think that was the very purpose of it, to make us question it.

There are definitely reasons why things in the movie, along with some of its commentary, are the way they are. Each scene is subtly stating something in a way that would seem explicit, but that you need to analyze in order to fully understand; the age difference, for example, is purposely managed in a humorous way for the purpose of being more digestible.

Alana Haim in this movie was spectacular. I can't believe it's her acting debut, it feels extremely personal to both her and Paul Thomas Anderson, the director. On a technical side, Licorice Pizza is almost flawless, certain filmmaking decisions feel extremely calculated in their simplistic nature, genius.

In the end, all opinions on Licorice Pizza are valid. Eventually you realize the film wants to imply one of the beauties of cinema; seeing the different perspectives from people towards something.

68/100

I finally decided to finishe this show after being on my list for months. I don't have much to say other than to highlight the inconsistency of the script of its episodes, which became extremely annoying after a few chapters.

For instance, episode 6 is easily the best episode of the entire series. Right after, you are introduced to one of the worst; it's almost as if you have to reward those moments when Squid Game truly shows its innovation. That's why the ending, although disappointing, I can't be surprised at the fact that it was executed in such a way.

Speaking of whether or not this series is truly innovative, it definitely has its own quirky streak, one that the series isn't afraid to exploit almost 100%. Many times these moments may not work for me taking into account the contrasting contextualization that the program possesses but, one way or another, it's still appreciated.

Impressive performances by the cast but that can be affected once certain new characters enter.

The only thing that really remained throughout the program was its technical aspects. It got to a point where I was blown away by some of the editing decisions the series would make. They would seem simple, but they are refreshing to see for a series with so many "action" scenes.

Squid Game fully understood how to stand out, which is why it will become one of the most remembered shows in the coming years. However, popularity never meant quality, and this might be the best example of that saying yet.

51/100

For a good moment, I didn't feel like the film itself was bad, it just needed ambition, more experimentalism that could make a thriller like this feel even more exhilarating. It seems crazy considering all the factors that this movie presents and that have the potential to give me a bad reception of it -yes, among those factors is Jake Gyllenhaal-, but I recognized that most of its problems were minor ... Until I I realized it was a remake.

It seems silly, but the simple fact of being a remake gives me everything I need to know about the production of this film, even without having seen the original.

It just feels like a strategy to appeal to American audiences with a famous star who happens to be a good actor, but whose purposes and intentions automatically diminish his role. Such a disappointment.

44/100

Texas Chainsaw Massacre fails at virtually everything. Every aspect that I expected this movie would deliver happened exactly as one would think. At this point, it's no surprise to say that the film only exists as the one that snucked in at the slasher comeback party.

I guess it's not surprising to say that the question we all have to ask ourselves when we see this is... Why? The plot merely exists to get to the action as quickly as possible while trying to have minimal coherence, making its social commentary feel superficial. They are a complete mockery of people with the ideologies that the film portrays. That's why the plot, precisely what matters most, especially in a slasher, takes the backseat in record time.

In the end, we all recognize that, from this film, there is no turning back. The people behind it will not find coherent ways to continue the story, but the ones that provide the most money. All in a genre which, since its inception, has gained that same fame, only finding new ways to evolve that way of thinking over time.

Is it a bad idea to share that it took me 40 minutes to understand what this movie was doing?

Dunkirk begins by manipulating the viewer to wait for Nolan's orders. You fully understand that you cannot make any conclusions, only trust. Those moments of complete silence in the first act were as intentional as Harry Styles being casted. The film reclines in those moments not so that you, the person watching, starts idealizing potential plot points in your head, but rather to summon your patience and make you understand what you will get in the future.

Curiously, the way the film both begins and ends was unnecessary. Those two different shots may make me scratch my head, but at the same time, they are a demonstration of the influence behind the camera, for Christopher Nolan everything is intentional.

Even when Dunkirk doesn't even try to hide its convenience, you can't deny the logic behind the script itself. It may seem like a simple concept, especially for the filmmaker at the helm, but this film demonstrates the beautiful complexity of a plot that, on the surface, feels simplistic.

72/100

We live in a world that almost feels like doesn't mind being spied on or controlled. In fact,some people could argue that, since we're aware of this and do nothing to cope with it, it's almost as if we like it. However, we have never really appreciated fully how this regime-like system giant corporations have put forward can turn its back against us. It isn't our fault, though. They know everything about us, we know nothing of them.

Soderbergh tries to give his best at providing us that perspective in Kimi, a movie that could have the potential of becoming one of the most divisive movies from 2022 so far, but that understands that what it has to say cannot be ignored any longer.

Kimi contains a lot of things that put it in somewhat of an advantage; it's runtime, pace and dynamicness are straightforward, but effective. The writing, however, not so much. If it had cared about providing enough establishment for aspects that needed more set up in contrast to other plot-points, even the ludicrous convenience it pulls out in the second and third act could've been more venial but, for a movie that relies on that realism -from aspects like the pandemic or the use of voice assistants- to associate this film as our reality, it feels out of place.

Kimi questions the cost for our constant seekingness for the support of these devices that, not only have these substantial companies have created, but they're now profiting off of. Even when it just limits itself and settles to be an in-between movie that demonstrates what Zoë Kravitz can offer as Catwoman in the new Batman film. For what is worth, though, it will be hard for it to be overlooked.

53/100

Yeah, this might not be Coppola's best but, somehow, it still earns the charm some of her best movies weren't even skilled enough to attain. That, unironically, tells you who's behind the camera.

Still, this execution could've made sense if it was her debut. But the mayority of the shots, editing, cuts and even color-correcting aren't up-to-the-mark for her 6TH FILM.

The Bling Ring could've very well been a critic towards celebrity culture and the idea of over-idolization. Coppola could've taken more of the creative choices she's been known for in her entire directorial career. Some that could've enhanced this movie even further and not make it seem old as hell when it isn't.

60/100

Much in The Summit of the Gods doesn't feel planned... enough. It seems as if it only knew so much to include in an already short-timed feature and, one of those things was likeability, or a lack of it thereof.

The medium of animation resided much more as a budget limitation than a way to pay homage to the original manga. That's also why it only feels like it's trying its darnest to make a statement all the way towards the end. It only lets the potential of an inspiring story shine through during insipid amounts of time, you just don't end up caring, the movie doesn't matter in the long run.

63/100

Guillermo Del Toro's Nightmare Alley pits into an eventual blank wall. For the first time in a while, even when you detect his influence behind the camera, it didn't feel like enough.

What I find insanely diverting was the intentional decision behind the directing to have the screenplay be as inconsistent as it could possibly get with its exposition. It displays clearly that Del Toro rushes at giving us points of information, but takes its time in others. He wants us to feel that contrast. The decision itself, I'm grateful for -I think-, I just don't feel sure this was the right movie for that to happen.

For instance, it was almost as if Guillermo had set himself the goal of mentioning only a few details for no more than 5 minutes, but then at a completely different point in the movie, he wants us to not only reference and spend more time processing that same information, more time than he himself put into it, but he also wants us to have a big emotional charge towards that plot point in an effort to have some impact. And, at the same time, he's patient. He moves slowly -not enough to drag one's feet, though- before dropping a direction we can look at. The thing is, I'm sure these two contrasting decisions look the exact same on paper, he willingly made the choice to have the screenplay's own pace feel conflicting, when it wasn't necessary.

A lot of people reference the end as this big, revealing moment where the whole plot, which seemed all over the place for a movie this long up until that point, comes together fancily. But, for me, the timing of it didn't feel right. The filmmaking language of it makes it abundantly clear, it already feels established but, for some reason, you have to watch 5 more minutes of Guillermo reiterating to the audience what he was trying to say, when it just isn't necessary. You might think that 5 minutes couldn't possibly make that much of a difference but, for me, it killed the entire purpose of the scene. Hell, the entire purpose of the film. Leaving me questioning wether if me watching the movie was even relevant in the first place. For now, I think I'm leaning more towards a "no".

87/100

For the first time in my life, I found THE movie. The one film that reminded me that I would risk ANYTHING for film. The one that reminded me to keep defending filmmaking as the ultimate artform. If you're looking for an answer as to why, this picture is the only way.

It's deranged to think that Cinema Paradiso touches an impossible-to-not-relate topic, yet the situation itself looks like the hardest thing to empathize with. A troublesome italian kid who finds himself enamoured at the craft behind screening, not watching, a movie.

An measureless amount of features touch on the filmmaking process and the beauty that lies behind it. They prompt the reminder and insinuate that life without film isn't one worth living, yet push what will just end up being a desperate dream for most of us. This movie's take to that same feeling might just have outdone all of them. Because, the truth for most is, life without WATCHING film isn't worth living.

Ennio Morricone's score allowed itself into versatility, but prioritized having the exact amount of impact in every situation. No matter how radically different the contrast between scenes, the only aspect that should unite them is the music. For that, he contributed to making the simplest -yet effective- plot ever seem in film seem like a new, ravishing artform that was being created before us.

For what is worth, even when the first 20 minutes or so are the moments in which the film shows its age the most by having entirely different ways to give out exposition -subtle in bits, completely explicit in others-, for better or worse, and when that campiness of which the first act took over never seemed to fully return, truth is, I don't care. That very last scene was enough for me to pour out a river of tears. For the first time ever, this movie isn't related to its grade at all. The purpose outdones the execution. Because this movie's purpose is my reason of keeping on. I see it clearly now.

68/100

13 Going on 30 might actually be the most genius movie ever. Even when overly cliché and oddly paced, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

The jokes hit, the costumes aged like fine wine, the soundtrack, even when it has the same depth as MTV's top songs from the 80's, that's kinda the point, and is executed perfectly.

My problem resides in the fact that, if this movie didn't have Garner as the protagonist, it would've never been as memorable. It would've just been passed on as yet another bad, y2k rom-com that not lot of people would've looked at with nostalgia. Even with such a great cast, the movie fits the description ALMOST perfectly. But I like it so much I just can't look at it differently, and I'm glad to not be able to.

34/100

"Am I watching the right movie"

Those were the words I let out the moment Belfast started. I also think that pretty much sums up my feelings towards it very well.

Kenneth Branagh tells us his point of view as a nine year-old boy of a middle-class family living in 1960s Northern Ireland. That feels as childish and contradicting as it may sound. For a movie that has the purpose of making us feel some kind of way, it never puts an ounce of effort in the long run. I've never felt more indifferent towards a story before.

The movie's only emotional moments rely on the family spying on each other -which pretty much ruins the intent from the scenes of, well, having emotion-. On a technical aspect, not only did the movie could've might as well showed a "shot on iPhone" sign when the credits rolled to have the shots make more sense, but the filmmaking decisions led by Branagh have more shifts than a job at a drive-thru McDonald's. They were so annoying to watch that at one point the hour and-a-half runtime felt like I was watching Once Upon a Time in America all over again.

All of which kinda sucks, being honest. It very clearly has a heart of its own but, when you try to appeal so much to the Oscars, everyone else gets disconnected from you and your picture. Leaving the only ones fascinated towards it to be fewer than the +9000 Academy voters. This one hurts even more since it was based off of a real experience. But, hey, happy best picture nomination, at least.

92/100

Sometimes you question the contrast between the two halves of Titane. Such radical differences in tone and feeling have you so confused, disturbed but moved at the same time. Yet that same balance in Julia Ducournau's screenplay is the very beauty of this film.

A movie that deals with self-identity, gender, and family trauma and, even when it seems as if some of the scenes in this film are just left to reiterate these themes, not a single moment in this movie was left to waste. You gaze directly at it sometimes, you look away in others. You feel disgusted by some of the character desicions, but then cry when they hand over their vulnerability to you, the person watching. A contrasted film that, even when it gave itself that limitation, there's so much more to it you cannot even comprehend it, but do at the same time.