Change Your Image
zuzmara
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Senna (2010)
Feels a lot like a hagiography
I missed this "Senna" doc earlier when it was the hype and I caught up with it this week after having also watched "Schumacher" on Netflix. So I'm fresh from both and I inevitably compare them in my mind. To me "Schumacher" was better, alone for the fact that it is more balanced and fair to his opponents. In comparison "Senna" feels a lot like a hagiography to me. Sure any documentary focused on an athlete is going to give his POV, and I don't think that's a bad thing, but "Senna" is more than just a little biased for its hero IMO. At times it even rewrites history a bit and is VERY one-sided, and I think for a documentary that's a major flaw.
Overall, in "Senna" to me it was really annoying how cartoonishly one-sided the Senna-Prost duel was portrayed. In it Senna is the great and very principled hero, who's always in the right, always on his moral high ground, while Prost the big, bad villain who is the only one playing politics and always on the wrong side of history and only can beat the grand hero Senna by scheming. No mention of Senna playing politics just as much. Prost might have had Balestre in his corner, but Senna had Honda in his corner. Absolutely no mention of that. This might serve the regular Hollywood movie consumer with the easily digestible narrative of "the clearly good guy" v. "the clearly bad guy" but we all know that real life characters, including Senna and Prost, are more complex than this.
It would have served the film well, to even out the blatantly one-sided narrative a bit, if they had given a platform to Prost (just like the "Schumacher" film interviewed his rivals to reflect - and even if certain rivals, such as Villeneuve, don't show up in the "Schumacher" film, it is never unfair to them). But instead "Senna" just uses archive footage of Prost to frame the narrative whichever way they like. But then if they had given Prost a platform to tell his side of the story, it might have been more difficult to portray the whole Senna-Prost duel the cartoonishly one-sided way as they did.
So much for my complaints.
The plus side is that it does give an insight into the character of an extremely charismatic man. I guess, the movie star level charisma of Senna is what mostly carries this film. You can tell how his character is related to his attitude to racing and what personality traits contributed to him becoming such a great driver.
Schumacher (2021)
Great, but maybe they should have made this a mini-series
Let me start by saying that this week I have watched both the "Schumacher" and the "Senna" documentaries (I haven't watched "Senna" so far), so I am fresh from both and I am going to sometimes compare the two.
I used to be a huge Formula One fan (I follow it less recently), so "Schumacher" brought back a lot of great memories to me. The film's focus is not Schumacher's dominant seasons between 2001-04, in fact they remain rather an afterthought, just fleetingly mentioned. The film rather focuses on his first years in F1, his rise to superstardom, his taking on the Ferrari challenge, and, after several ups and downs, successfully fulfilling it.
I think every truly inspiring racing career needs to have some sort of arch, struggles, ups and downs (just having the best car and winning all the time in it makes a boring story) - and Schumacher's had all that with the challenge he took on with Ferrari. So I understand this choice as I agree that 1996-2000, his path to Ferrari's first WDC since 1979 was the highlight of his career and his greatest legacy. I think most Schumacher fans (like myself) would agree that this period is what made us so love this guy and consider him one of the all time greats, not his dominant seasons and records. So I agreed with the focus on that period, but even in this "focus period" the racing angle felt a bit rushed. So much more could have been said about those seasons and many great drives Schumcher had at the time. For example, talk about the 1998 Hungarian Grand Prix and show through that the unique professional bond between the master strategist, Ross Brawn and master racer, Michael Schumacher. Or Malaysia '99 when he came back from a break after an accident in which he broke his leg, and how then he helped Irvine to win that race with a fantastic drive. Or races where he won against the odds, or his magical drives on a wet track (although they did show Barcelona '96 on that front) etc.
Rather than just talking about the Jerez end game of the '97 season (not Schumacher's finest hour and this is well admitted in the film) they could have also talked more about how we got to the point at all that he was in contention for the title that year against the superior Williams-Renault. Similarly, they could have talked bit more about the whole dynamics of the 1998 season, the ups and downs, and how he played catch-up against McLaren-Mercedes all year. It was such a great, exciting season - and a big thanks to Schumacher for making it exciting and to Mika Häkkinen for being a great rival! Then they could have talked more about 2001-04 (or 1995, for that matter) too, because this way 5 of his 7 titles were basically just glossed over! But I guess you can fit in only that much in 1.5 hours. As I said, I watched "Senna" too and that too skipped over certain seasons, although in that case it might have felt less like we are missing something, because Senna's career was shorter and all his championship years were talked about, unlike Schumacher's in his film. Maybe the "Schumacher" film should have been a mini-series.
So much for my complaints.
Otherwise the 1.5 hours flew by. I didn't feel bored at any point. I think the film did a great job at showing us Schumacher's character, what made him tick both as a private person and as a racer and how this character coupled with his great driving talent were what was just needed by Ferrari to get back to top. This is what made Schumacher's legacy stand out and why he is one of the all time greats regardless if his records get broken.
The film made me emotional and nostalgic for F1 again and I ended up looking up old racing footage of Schumacher ever since. The film really had an emotional impact on me, so in that regard it worked.
I saw some complaints saying that why it doesn't mention controversies like Austria'02 or Monaco'06, but I think those critics might have forgot that the film didn't get into ANY in-depth discussions about those seasons (see my criticism above), not even about his great triumphs, so why pick out just the controversies from them then? The film actually doesn't shy away from addressing Schumacher's "dark side". It discusses Adelaide '94, with Damon Hill commenting on it. It discusses Spa '98 with David Coulthard commenting on it. And although Jacques Villeneuve doesn't make an appearance, the film doesn't have a problem with admitting that it was completely Schumacher's fault. And this is IMO why this film is a lot better than "Senna". "Senna" is more of a hagiography, that doesn't really admit any flaws or shortcomings of Senna. He is made out to be a demigod who is always right and it is utterly unfair to Prost. Even when Senna does blatantly unsporting things (eg. Suzuka '90) he is excused and eventually made out to be a "victim" - even if the film has to slightly rewrite history for it. Overall, in "Senna" to me it was really annoying how cartoonishly one-sided the Senna-Prost duel was portrayed. Senna the great and very principled hero, who's always in the right, always on his moral high ground, while Prost the big, bad villain who is the only one playing politics and always on the wrong side of history and only can beat the grand hero Senna by scheming. No mention of Senna playing politics just as much. Prost might have had Balestre in his corner, but Senna had Honda in his corner. Absolutely no mention of that. This might serve the regular Hollywood movie consumer with the easily digestible narrative of "the clearly good guy" v. "the clearly bad guy" but we all know that real life characters, including Senna and Prost, are more complex than this. And Schumacher is too, of course.
In "Schumacher" his opponents were treated with respect. Among others Hill, Häkkinen, Coulthard were interviewed in it. I missed interviews with some of his teammates though, like Barrichello or Massa. Irvine was interviewed. I also missed some of his opponents not even being mentioned like Räikkonen, Montoya (2003 - let's not forget it was a season with a three-way fight until the last race, which is very rare in F1 these days!) or Alonso (2006). But then the 2001-2006 period is altogether just fleetingly mentioned, which I already complained about.
Despite of this the "Schumacher" film at least interviews former opponents from the focus period, and this too makes it better and more fair and balanced than "Senna" IMO. With all the Prost bashing in "Senna" they at least should have given him the chance to reflect. But they only used archive footage of him. But then if they had given him a platform to tell his side of the story, it might have been more difficult to portray the whole Senna-Prost duel the cartoonishly one-sided way as they did. "Schumacher" thankfully avoids this trap of one-sidedness. I think overall the "Schumacher" doc did more for addressing Schumacher's "dark side" and human complexities than "Senna" did addressing its hero's.
As for the last 10 minutes, it was really emotional, and I think it gave just enough information without being too invasive or disrespectful. I really don't think we need more information than what we were given. I think anyone with an average IQ can read between the lines as to what state he is in. That's enough.
Overall, despite of the complaints I detailed above, it worked for me, I loved it, so I rate it 9/10.
Square One (2019)
Finally details about the 1993 case that the media never told you
I wonder if those leaving negative reviews to this even watched it, because they talk about Leaving Neverland and how a look in the LN accusers' eyes will tell you they were really abused (a ridiculously fallacious argument, no better than when Jackson fans argue by saying he was an angel).
Square One has hardly anything to do with the LN accusers, although the conclusion of the film has consequences to the LN allegations as well as the LN accusers heavily build on the first allegation against MJ. But this film is largely about the 1993 Jordan Chandler allegations. For many years, most of what we heard about this case in the mainstream media are bits and pieces like the settlement between Jackson and the accuser is evidence that he was guilty (another fallacy in itself, as anyone who is well versed in legal proceedings will be able to tell you), or the claim that Jordan Chandler accurately described Jackson's genitalia, which seems to be a myth perpetuated by the prosecution in the media.
Square One addresses these issues and does a lot more. It presents the whole case as it unfolded, which, among other things, puts things like the settlement into proper context - why it came about, how it came about and which side really pushed for it. The mainstream media failed us by not telling us the whole story about this case, they only cherry-picked salacious soundbites. And the amazing thing is that the information in the film is readily available in court documents or even documents like the book of Jordan Chandler's uncle - which cannot be accused of bias for Jackson.
You have to feel sorry for Jordan Chandler to an extent. Not because he was abused by Michael Jackson (by all signs he was not), but because he was used by a greedy, antisocial father. I have no doubt of Josie Zohny's account of him, because it is consistent with what I learnt about him independently. I suspect he just hoped the world would forget about him ever accusing Jackson and he could go back dancing to his music and "stanning" him. Unfortunately, for the falsely accused a case like this never ends until his name is completely cleared. The 2005 allegations would have never happened if Jordan had come clean publicly (not just privately) earlier. The posthumus allegations by Wade Robson and James Safechuck also heavily build on his case - at times in ways that cannot be explained by anything else than these accusers copying him. Which in turn means if Jordan Chandlers allegations are not true, then Robson and Safechuck's aren't either. At the very least Jordan should be aware that his own allegations started it all and if they are false then by all likelihood they are all false (for reasons that are too detailed to explain here). For this reason the clearing of Jackson's name is in his hands. He started it and he is the one who could put it right. It is never too late.
Ghosts (1996)
NOT a re-cycled Thriller! Much more profound than that!
Those who says it's a re-cycled Thriller obviously didn't understand much of this film. Which is a shame because by some of the hateful comments it's exactly them who have something to learn from this message.
I consider this film a masterpiece and unlike Thriller it's not just an entertaining horror story. It's a lesson about how we, as a society tend to treat people who are different. We lynch them, want to drive them away, want to ostracize them. We hate them. And that all just because they are is different.
In real life Michael Jackson was at the receiving end of this kind of hatred (as demonstrated even in some comments here), so he knows exactly what he is talking about. It's also important to listen to his lyrics. The song "Is it Scary" says it all about how we project OUR OWN dark thoughts onto others and how we should be careful because the evil we assume in others might actually come from our own mind!
Masquerade the heart Is the height of haunting souls Just not what you seek of me Can the heart reveal the proof Like a mirror reveals the truth See the evil one is you
I also have to say the acting on Michael Jackson's part in this short film is fantastic! He doesn't only play the protagonist, the Maestro, but also the Mayor whose character was probably inspired by Tom Sneddon (the bigoted, judgmental, hateful right winger). Not to mention the crazy and unique dance routines where MJ never disappoints.
When this piece came out the media (especially in the US) already decided that no matter what MJ does they will trash it. From some of the criticism directed at this film it is painfully obvious that they didn't even intend to give it (and MJ in general) a chance. Criticism was often directed not at the art piece itself but at Jackson's looks or tabloid gossip. Is that serious criticism of art? But ironically exactly this phenomenon is what proves Jackson's point that he presents in this film! It seems like the people who should look into Jackson's mirror try to avoid this mirror he holds up in front of them. He certainly hit a nerve!
So the film remains very, very underrated. I don't think it will stay this way for ever. The film is too good and too profound for that. Perhaps the society which is criticized in it has to pass before a new generation comes along and will analyze Jackson's art with an open mind, without the decades long media brainwash influencing them.
I ragazzi della via Pál (2003)
Bad interpretation of a great story
I agree with those who say this film is unworthy to the original novel. Everybody who found "Il Ragazzi della via Pál" good should read the book of Ferenc Molnar or watch the 1969 US interpretation of it (The Boys of Pal Street) which was quiet faithful to the book. I found it utterly disturbing how the parents of Boka or Nemecsek were portrayed (Boka's father as as alcohol-addict and Nemecsek's mother cheating on his husband) while there's absolutely no basis of that in the book! Janó in "Il Ragazzi" is totally out of the original character too. I have no problem with films changing the original story of a book on that the film is based on IF that makes the film better. But it's not the case here - on the contrary! These added stories only weaken the original message of the story. And BTW, I found the casting and the acting lame too compared to the 1969 American version.