Change Your Image
lalybehappy
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Rise of the Guardians (2012)
Fun fact, it doesn't pass the Bechdel test. But still an amazing movie.
I recently rewatched this movie as I had fond memories of it and at the second watch it did not disappoint. However, although it's not misogynistic and they tried to show female children with "traits that break stereoptypes" (Cupcake), I noticed how superficial, vague and few the female characters (Toothfairy, Jamie's sister Sophie) were, so I went to check if it would pass the Bechdel test and, alas! It did not pass! I can't believe it ahahah.
But other than that I stand by my first sentence, this movie is preciously animated and filled with wonder and marvel. Visually striking in so many scenes, you can tell they put a lot of effort in and that there were some high quality creatives in the production.
Crazy, Stupid, Love. (2011)
Feel-good sexist movie, no surprise: Written and directed by men only.
What's going on with the men in this movie? Relentless and pushy. And what's going on with the women in this movie? Mindless and pushovers, like dolls.
All along I was missing just one scene where any character would act like a normal person. Examples of this all only in the first introductory 20 min: Cal's son Robbie keeps on pushing to get Jessica to love him back when she has told him clearly and directly that she isn't interested in him and is even uncomfortable with him continuing. The same thing happening with Jacob and Hanna. And on the other side you have Jessica crushing on Cal, who doesn't acknowledge her advances as inappropriate at all. Then you have Jacob who is just a copy of Barney Stinson and Charly Sheen, culminating in teaching Cal sexist ways of thinking of women. Not no mention the lack of communication between Cal and his soon to be ex-wife Emily, where does the divorce come from? Why is Cal just accepting to leave his wife from one day to the next without barely acknowledging it?
I tried to go through with the movie by thinking about those highly incoherent decisions as plot-tools to arrive at the improbable situations that make up interesting stories, but scene after scene the movie wasn't improving. I also tried getting in the mindset of each character, but no matter what, the scenes with cringy unrealistic reactions and sexism were one too many and unbearable, and neither the story nor the acting were enough to get me to continue watching.
It looked like the movie was made to fulfill male pipe dreams and no one checked in to make sure it could get in touch with how relationships actually work or how women think and act. I went to see who was in charge of the development, and there's the explanation: no woman in directing or writing position to balance it out!
This movie is saved from having a rating that is close to 1 out of 10 stars because of the occasional quality humor. However it get's a non passing rating of less than 5 out of 10 stars for being a movie that's not bearable.
The Double (2013)
Beautiful movie, perfectly made
Engaging, witty, whimsical, has a melange of all tones in the right measure (sad, cheery, humorous, dramatic, romantic (but not corny), noir). It has a similar visual style to the series "Pushing Daisies" and shares connections with Wes Anderson's cinematography, but with a sad tone lining the film, the director maintians his own style. Just as a great horror film director manifests with characters on screen that embody our incomplete fears from nighmares, Richard Ayoade captures what we romanticise when we have a feeling of longing, joy or admiration but don't directly think about it.
The actors are lovely and gave a great performance, they achieve the aforementioned Wes Anderson style, fairytale-like yet stil natural. It's incredible how well performed Simon (main charater) is and how it's possible that Jason ("the double") is coming from the same body/person.
The film does not have a cheap feeling, nor that of a grand hollywood production, but that's exactly what makes it perfect, it adds to the setting.
I was supprised at how well mended the plot was, I thought it would only be possible to live up to the synopsis if it had constant supernatural fenomena but it doesn't, you have to watch it to see the beautiful story they weave.
Personal note: This film made me feel inspired because it was so well made, very aspect of it touched me. The characters and actors, especially the mimetisation of Jesse's and Mia's performance, and the character growth of Simon made me admire them and think about personalities and actions outside of the story, in this world and in my life. I haven't watched the director's other films yet but I expect to have the same feeling with them (I already get the same feeling of cheerful wistfulness simply with Submarine's trailers!, which has been on my list for quite a while now).
The Good Dinosaur (2015)
A movie to spend free time, but not one that will stay with you.
This movie is about visuals. They put a lot of effort into showing the beauty of nature. They did a great job in that, the landscapes looked real, as though they went out into the fields and filmed it directly. But it's a flat story. I was unsatisfied by many of the interactions, especially at the end: the reactions were not natural, as though they didn't have time to add some feeling and movement to it other than smiling faces. Except there was actually plenty of space for it, they just didn't use it.
The highlight of the movie for me was the portrayal of little critters, the worms, the bugs, and the dog-like behavior of the kid, those were done adorably! (Aka, the highlight was a side aspect of the movie.)
The next best part were the lessons they made. Face your fears instead of running away from them. Work to earn your mark. Help others as others have helped you like a good Samaritan. Value your nuclear family. (But that's about it.)
It felt as though the movie was mostly centered on the dangers of the moment. You can learn the lesson of facing your fears in their short "Piper" much better and in much less time than in this movie.
All in all, it's not a bad movie, especially because it's aimed at kids, but I think kids are smart enough and strong enough that they can take Wall-E or even Leon the Professional, without a problem, those are nourishing films; basically, don't expect this to be anything more than something to pass time.
I'm sad to give a mediocre review of a Pixar movie (also was skeptical about them joining Disney) but I'm hoping it's just the result of it being more of a Disney production than a Disney-Pixar one.
Street of Crocodiles (1986)
Unsettling
This short made me uncomfortable, and that's exactly what they were going for with this film. In that sense they have skillfully captured the nightmarish atmosphere they aimed to project. It's a little maze, bringing you from one corner of the box to the next and from one perspective of a character to another, changing what you think about the movie and the plot constantly.
The beginning sets you in a mood of defying what you see, what you are made to see, I kept my eyes open to see what aspect they were trying to make me challenge, but it's not an ordinary film, the authorities are not clear figures as I had expected at first, instead it's a box with puppets owning bizarre desires. At first, I thought the puppet with the babyface would be the one to explore and rebel against the system, represented by the puppet in the suit, but then it shifted to the baby-faced and the other similar puppets being "the system", the authorities. They were deconstructing the liberated puppet-man, but I didn't know why; suddenly one of the puppets makes out with him, showing that all along there was sexual tension, supported by the scenes with unsettling sexual innuendos.
The ending quote changed my view of the movie again, saying that in such a constructed life one wasn't permitted to develop dark desires, but does that mean that I'm supposed to accept those desires? Should I find it acceptable outside of this film? Gut reactions are there for a reason, they are backed by something, some good reason that isn't clear at first (when they aren't created by exposure to media). So should I update my moral sensor? I'm confused... Growing up is confusing because you're confronted with things like these that just mess you up.
Comet (2014)
Cringy execution, pleasant content, overall: skippable.
For starters, I was let down 15min into the movie because I found out that the main actor wasn't Keanu Reeves (ok, maybe that's just an emotional argument). Before that, I was wondering why Reeves' character wasn't as good as I expected from him and how he could've fallen into such a lame role.
But continuing with the rest of the movie: Photography sucks, everything is on the two bottom thirds of the screen, almost out of frame, which is terribly irritating. They were trying to be artsy, but it wasn't well executed (unlike "Her", which's Photography is also artsy, "hipster", but successfully centers on the appreciation of "the aesthetic"). Some effects were quite fake. Most of the effects were acceptable because that can happen when you lack a large budget or strong CGI tools, however, at some moments I don't know if they were going for "magical"? but it stopped at tacky, like it was edited by a 10-year-old. I saw it as unprofessional. User "Jody Bruchon" covers my points pretty well: "A story should work BECAUSE of the camera work, not IN SPITE of it."
Acting and script are unnatural as well: Transitions between ideas in the conversations are totally unnatural and fake. Half of the time Justin Long's acting was —as user "Grasswerks" states it— "garbage", and Emmy Rossum's was "as cute as her face = barely."
Hard to enjoy the potential and ideas of the movie when you're cringing because of all of these things.
But there are also good things this work: I like some dialogues, the concepts behind it are very well stated, quotable, which is the reason this movie is saved from being reviewed less than 5 stars. The plot and concept of it being "like a painting, without a beginning or an end" are pleasant. I don't think the ending should be taken that seriously, else you're stuck with that unsatisfying "what type of ambiguity is this?" I didn't have a problem with it and even thought the last 20 min were the most enjoyable of the whole piece.
It's a good movie to watch when you have some spare time and you're doing something parallel to watching it (i.e. it doesn't need your full attention; unless you want to suffer from the photography and acting).