Change Your Image
sean3240
Reviews
Eighth Grade (2018)
An incredible directorial debut from Bo Burnham
I'm watching this for the first time after having read a couple drafts of the screenplay, which only helps to show how well crafted this film is and how the vision from the initial screenplay developed into what we now get to see.
It goes without saying at this point that despite only having one feature to his name, Bo Burnham has established himself as an incredible director in any medium he has put his talent to thus far. From the unique and personal way he directed both Jerrod Carmichael's and Chris Rock's most recent comedy specials, to 3 of his own specials, all with a unique feel while also developing the stage persona character he has created through the meta-performance style of show.
Transitioning to film adds so much more layers of complexity to getting your vision across, which is why it's incredible that he has managed to triumph in this medium aswell. Everything is pretty much perfect, not just on a technical level, but by overall just having the right feel. The cinematography is a huge stand out, it's nice, it's subtle and doesn't draw an excessive amount of attention to itself like a-lot of other A24 films, where it almost distracts from the work. In this, it compliments it.
The score is great too and fits perfectly into the film, it was particularly well used through a couple of sequences where the music plays along with a voiceover. At times this would create an uplifting feeling, and other times a more chaotic feeling, but always fitting the tone of the scene. It's also a nice touch that all the music is electronically produced, which fits in well with the overall digital feel of the film, specifically as a result of the internet playing a huge role in it.
There's a lot of ideas this film tackles, but not directly, everything is resultant of who our lead character is.
It's a film about Kayla, and what this film really does best is stay true to that character and making everything feel as real as possible.
It'd be pretty easy to just watch this film on the surface and not take much away from it, as on a narrative level not much happens so you're not exactly going to struggle following it. It could be an enjoyable surface level watch, but just digging a little deeper leaves you open to be completely immersed by this world, which we are really seeing through Kayla's eyes.
With that, we can see what's really important to her, what she's focusing on at any moment, what she's worried about, how she feels about anything that happens to her. And even though our feelings often line up with Kayla's own, there are times we will deviate slightly. For example, she'll be sad in a scene because she's worried about something, which will make the audience sad, but not for the same reason. The audience instead sees her as a victim of her own naivety and feel bad she is worrying about something she doesn't need to be. Other times however we are right there with her in all the awkwardness and stress and situations she faces.
A whole range of ideas unveil as we discover more about her character, we see themes of self image, loneliness, self consciousness, performance, expressing yourself.
This is something I find really interesting as many of those themes aren't something Bo Burnham is a stranger to, most prominently as seen through his stand up specials. Yet he manages to have a fresh take on these ideas as he takes the approach instead of conveying these feelings through realism, as opposed to through the 'aware-of-self-awareness' performances that we all know and love.
Can't really reference any conclusions without spoilers so I'm just gonna end this by saying that this is a good movie and you should watch it.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
Wow
I just love so much of this. It was thoroughly engaging throughout and manages to balance it's heart and humanity with coldness and darkness really beautifully. Lots of great moments have such specific feelings executed so precisely. It's incredible how well the film does at building this world too, which allows it to get into the human story so easily. A lot of the more significant world building doesn't even happen until around an hour in, and surprisingly that works a lot in its favour.
The introduction of David was absolutely perfect. I had no idea what this film was about going in (other that AI... duh), so all the different ideas it was presenting makes you think a lot about the direction the story is going to take, and more specifically how you feel about his character. I hated him at first, I thought it was gonna go full-horror-movie with him and he was gonna kill his family. I was then surprised when within 30 minutes I was feeling heartbroken for him, everyone around him seemed to start feeling this way I felt about him at first, and you see that this poor AI just wants to be a real boy. The film handled this all extremely well, while making you ask yourself what it even means to be human.
I thought the first 50 mins were perfect and after that there's a dramatic change in the story. It managed to win me back over after around 15 minutes or so but even after watching it all I'm still really confused at the relevance of all the Jude Law stuff. His character was pretty interesting but it just kind of felt like an unrelated subplot that just happened to overlap with the main one for a while. Not much of a complaint though as it wasn't not interesting, it just didn't feel like it fit.
Without spoiling anything, the last half hour takes another deeply surprising turn. At first again I was really worried with the direction it was talking but then it became kinda touching, so it won me over once again.
It would've been really interesting to see what Stanley Kubrick would've done with this story but I've gotta say, huge props to Stephen Spielberg for really making this his own.
Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)
A bad adaptation that looks pretty nice
Admittedly, going straight into this after reading the book was probably not the best idea because the story is so fresh in my mind already. That could be a reason I found most of this to be pretty damn boring, but I also think the lack of care put into this might make others feel the same. I especially think it'll be a slog for you if you haven't read the book, as the film doesn't do much for you in establishing reasons for you to care about any of it really.
There's such a lack of craft here, particularly in the writing and directing of it. When you adapt a book you can't just scene for scene copy everything over, you need to put stronger emphasis on things and tell your story more visually because of all everything you lose out on from the lack of narration. There's a whole lot that won't stand out as important or entertaining when it should, as you aren't getting the pages and pages of writing that gives events/objects/people significance in the book.
The only real purpose I can think of for this film is really for someone that read the book years ago and wants to be taken through the story again without needing to read the whole thing. I don't even think that's an awful thing, but I also don't think something that does that is worthy of any level of praise.
I'd say it's probably most comparable to Gary Sinise's 'Of Mice and Men' film, which I did watch recently after having read the book years ago and I really enjoyed it.
There were a couple aspects of this film though that I think were pretty good.
One is Roger Deakin's cinematography which never fails to disappoint. The look of this film is arguably the most important thing it has in terms of bringing something new to the table. While every other aspect of the film feel like it's doing the bare minimum to fumble it's way into bringing the book to life, the visuals and colours and blocking of scenes create a tone which admirably remains consistent throughout and just looks really damn nice. If the film did anything, it created the incredible potential for a 1984 picture book!
The other thing that I thought was very good in this was the casting of John Hurt. I had no idea he was in this prior to watching and when I found out he was playing Winston I was absolutely delighted. Something about the weird yet formal way he plays a lot of his characters manages to fit perfectly into how I imagined the character of Winston to be when reading the book. There really wasn't anyone I could think of when reading the book who I thought could play that character well, but as soon as I saw it was him in this movie I knew he'd be perfect. And of course he was as he always is.
The Shining (1980)
Comparison of the UK cut versus the extended version
I finally got around to watching the full version of this movie, which I believe is only available in the US, and is about 20 minutes longer than the version I've been watching. I have been stuck with the UK version of this film for years and have always been curious to see what the longer cut would be like.
Thankfully I was not at all disappointed by this. The UK cut I still consider to be a masterpiece and I don't think anything is lost from what is cut out in terms of removing coherency from the story. All that said, I think I actually prefer this version even more than the already perfect one I've been watching for years.
While not essential to the film, the extra footage certainly isn't adding nothing to the plate. Part of the draw of 'The Shining' is that mystery, and lack of answers you have, you keep going back for more, and getting more answers for yourself each time you watch. While I was worried watching this might add too much context to these questions, I was happy to find out it instead poses a whole set of different questions. Through watching films like 'Doctor Sleep' and also just from general discussions about 'The Shining', I've always been aware that Jack was recovering from alcoholism, and had a history of abusing Danny. This isn't directly addressed in the UK version of the film, but here it is, and it adds a whole new level of things to interpret. It's a more prominent question now of "Was this darkness already within Jack?", which could always have been asked in the UK cut, but it wasn't as big a question as maybe it should be.
It also didn't click until watching this longer cut, but Lloyd is clearly a symbol of Jack's alcohol dependency, which makes complete sense now. Without that backstory of Jack's struggles and more knowledge of the tensions within his family, all this room for thought is just left out.
Under the Silver Lake (2018)
This really surprised me
I have been disappointed both times I watched 'It Follows' and didn't think I'd be able to get into other stuff by this director. I was absolutely wrong.
Within probably 20 minutes of watching the movie I knew I was in good hands. The weird tone and performances which matched it were done so tastefully. This is an area which many movies can easily go wrong in for me because they just try to be as "WTF" as possible and just lose you all together. 'Weird for the sake of weird' is often a problem for me and I find this movie fully justified in it's weirdness. After the set up had shown me what this movie was gonna be like, I was able to relax and take in these crazy ideas the story presents and the wonderfully abstract ways in which it shows us them.
The cinematography is really prominent in this, colours really pop and there's some really beautiful shots. It is however almost good to a fault, it feels really polished, it starts to take away from any authenticity of it when you're so aware of what they're doing with the visuals all the time. Also, there's quite a darkness to the film and that character, and I don't feel the cinematography reflects that enough considering how reflective everything else is of how he's thinking.
Andrew Garfields performance is fantastic in this. He's always great in anything I've see him in, but in this I was really blown away. He manages to blend the lines between cool and creepy for this character, while also being really funny at times. The whole movie is really from that characters perspective, and so fittingly the movies tone fits that description of the character (cool, creepy and kinda funny). Because of how perfectly he fits into the film I can only imagine Garfield is playing this character exactly as the director envisioned, which I'm sure not only made the directors job easier, but also helps him to further develop the very specific tone of this movie as he sees the character played out.
Even at its most convoluted, the story has every excuse to be, because searching for some sort of hidden meaning in the film fits exactly into the themes it was already putting forward, as this search for meaning is exactly what the main character is going through. I really think this is what 'Inherent Vice' should've been.
I only really wanted to talk about the technical aspects of the film in this review. Talking about what it meant for me will just remove an aspect of enjoyment I got out of it, and will hopefully get on rewatches or even just from reflecting on the film. The dream-like nature of it doesn't try to imply a concrete meaning, and so it would just be ruining the fun to boil it down to a couple of ideas.
Maybe what's really under the silver lake is the friends we made along the way.
Tenet (2020)
Christopher Nolan just keeps getting worse
This film distracts the audience by making them try to work out it's literal events. And when they get satisfaction from that, they forget to think about the fact the plot has no purpose or deeper meaning.
Although it's not new to Nolan movies, the amount of exposition had gone completely over the top. Most conversations were clearly only there to propel the plot forward and didn't make sense coming from those characters.
I found it to be technically perfect, but everything else (structure, pacing, characters, story engagement, dialogue, meaning) was done so poorly. This diminishes the effect the quality of these technical achievements have because they then feel completely meaningless.
While I still paid attention, I lost any small amount of interest I had in the story around the end of the second act, this was where my lack of care for direction of plot and characters was cemented, as I was watching what should've been an amazing and technically brilliant action sequence that I was just waiting for to be over.
So many underdeveloped plot points and character moments were presented as significant despite the lack of impact they have. This is the worst thing I think a movie can do as it's blatant what it wants you to feel and you are absolutely not feeling it. This especially included some scenes with Kenneth Branagh which I couldn't help but laugh at.
What were clearly supposed to be high tension scenes to be taken seriously played out comedically as I simply did not care about Russian Kenneth Branagh or his wife, nor did the movie attempt to make me care prior to these scenes which could've greatly benefited from more feel of character.
Characters motivations and a care for consequences of risks were lost. It's something I find Inception did a lot better in still having the puzzle of its plot, but there was care for the characters, reasons for their actions and still something to connect with emotionally afterwards.
The best thing this movie does is trick idiots into thinking it's smart.
"Starbucks is the smart coffee for dumb people. It's the Christopher Nolan of coffee."
~Charlie Kaufman - AntKind(2020)
Jerrod Carmichael: 8 (2017)
I would really like to see more stand up specials directed by Bo Burnham.
He has a really good idea of how we should be presented a show on screen. You can see that he's acknowledged this is obviously going to be a different experience from watching it in person.
Too many specials just put you in the seat of the audience while you watch what happens on stage, cut to audience laughing, back to stage etc.
While still looking similar to these other, more traditional, stand-up shows, Burnham manages to add something new to the visual experience. I feel a greater sense of humanity and meaning behind the specials he directs. These are feelings which I think exist when watching a show like this in person, but fail to translate to screen under poor direction.
The start of the show, the point where the show ends, the camera angles and especially some great closeups make together the core reasons, for me, that this will be a unique (and better) experience to a viewer at home.
I enjoyed the writing of the show as well, some parts I related with a lot, and there was a few good laughs.
The only problem I had was a couple times he would say something that doesn't apply to me/I don't agree with, which would be fine usually, but the whole point in these jokes is that we're supposed to be on the same page as him. This made for a couple chunks of the show with less laughs than I would have liked.
28 Days Later... (2002)
Surprisingly good
I streamed this movie years ago and watched maybe the first 20 minutes before I turned it off because the version I saw was very low resolution and had awful sound, I had assumed it was just a bad standard definition version of the film and decided to just wait till I found a better version.
It wasn't till now years later that I got the film on blu ray and to my disappointment it's just as bad looking and sounding as it was the first time I saw it. Framing of high-action sequences was pretty bad, particularly early on in the film, they mainly consisted of unclear shots, quick cuts and shaky cam, meaning you can barely see what's going on. This was most likely to hide a lack of blocking and choreographing for the scenes.
The film is in dire need of a remaster, if it's even possible to improve the quality of what was shot.
But enough of that complaining.
If your film is well written, with good characters and directed well in places that it matters, then I don't care how bad your film looks. And this film was all those things.
Directing was great in terms of keeping the tone consistent, pacing the movie well, keeping things engaging and building tension slowly and effectively. Even though the cameras were awful, the cinematography still managed to be pretty great, that ominous feeling of an empty London was conveyed perfectly.
Performances were great all round, I was really invested in each of these characters, Brendan Gleeson did particularly well.
I wasn't expecting for it to wrap up its themes, characters and story so well at the end. But the ending was really shocking, effective, immersive and great.
Ed Wood (1994)
Optimism in the real world
Ed Wood is an incredibly optimistic guy throughout this entire movie, following his character almost makes it feel like we're in some sort of fantasy world with how eccentric and over the top everything is. However, it's when the real world starts creeping in that things get very interesting.
There are realistic problems Ed faces throughout the film that he appears to almost just brush off, this includes everything from the hurdles he has in making his movies, Bela's drug addiction and the reception of his finished films. This way of brushing off problems may work in his favour in the short term, but the real world always catches up with him.
The ending is bittersweet as we know his film was a failure, and this should be a bad moment for him, but Ed is at his highest point in the film as he has made the movie he wanted to make, purely conceived from his vision.
The scene with Orson Welles perfectly captures why Ed's movie should be a success for him, as Orson describes how making 'Citizen Kane' was a great achievement because he got to make what he wanted to make, what people thought of it wasn't as relevant for his sense of achievement.
On the surface 'Citizen Kane' and 'Plan 9 from Outer Space' couldn't be more different. But when shown how this movie presents them, you see a beautiful similarity.
Crimewave (1985)
Fun and decently executed but didn't live up to what it could've been
A really interesting style, great visual gags and a tone that's kept nicely consistent throughout go together to form a movie which has great individual moments, but never comes together to form anything more than that.
There's a real lack of care for plot or characters which is disappointing coming from the Coen brothers. Fortunately, their sub par script was executed as best was possible and fit the tone of what they had written. Their film 'Raising Arizona' I think shows a huge improvement in their writing as it shares a similar style with 'Crimewave', however in 'Raising Arizona' they managed to make story and characters far more compelling.
Raimi is great as always in keeping the audience constantly entertained, and I'm thankful that he could practice some great over the top gags on this movie before going all out on films like 'Evil Dead II' and 'Army of Darkness'.
I feel a Coen Brothers and Sam Raimi collaboration really could've been great, it's unfortunate they did it so early in their careers at a time I don't think they'd fully found themselves as filmmakers.
I'm Thinking of Ending Things (2020)
My Interpretation of the Film
Just for the sake of ease I'll be referring to:
-The Girlfriend as: Lucy
-Younger Jake as: Jake
-Older Jake as: The Janitor
I love the atmosphere created in the film, the cinematography is a big part of this, there are some really nice shots and the colours and isolated aspect ratio really help in creating the feel of this film. There is a sort of unease throughout, it never feels like this film is taking place in reality, it's very dream-like, and this feel only escalates as the film goes on.
I really like what this film has to say about the problem of life imitating art. The Janitor watches these cheesy romantic movies and instead of relating to them and interpreting them for himself, as you should with art, he instead desires what he watches, he escapes into their world because he doesn't get the romance he wants in his own life. This is pretty clearly shown when Lucy literally becomes a character from the movie that The Janitor was watching earlier.
The film also shows the effect our upbringing has on who we are today. As the film is technically from The Janitors perspective, every character is shown to us how he sees them, through this we can see the resentment he feels towards his mother. Whether she was truly like that or not, from his perspective, his mother is shown to be quite demeaning to him, she doesn't make many positive comments about him, and when she does they're bittersweet backhanded compliments. We see this clearly at one point when his mother says she is proud of what Jake has done considering how ungifted and untalented he is.
Another theme that is shown well in the film is the conflict we feel within ourselves. The Janitor clearly has problems with who he is now and wishes to be the younger, 'better' version of himself, however that person is him, and so is everyone else in the story. We are introduced to everyone through The Janitors memories and the narrative he's made up in his own head so the versions we see of them are The Janitor. That means when there is a conflict between any characters, that is a conflict he feels within himself. This shows us how he is not happy with who he is, he doesn't even respect the way he thinks, as at one point Lucy calls his mother 'cold' and then Jake refutes her statement, even though we know from how his mother was presented to us that he probably does think this of her. I think it's also interesting to note, that while most likely unintentional, Jake and Lucy are both played by actors named Jessie/Jesse which is very fitting.
Besides the flashbacks in the book the events of both the film and movie are very similar. The story is basically about the state of mind someone might be in when they decide to take their own life. The book and movie however tackle it in very different ways both tonally and thematically.
For me, the book felt a lot more like a fantasy to The Janitor, rather than a representation of where he is emotionally. I felt that in the book he was imaging he had a girlfriend, rather than reflecting on a past relationship, as I feel he was in the movie. I think Lucy (who isn't even named in the book) not existing plays a lot more into the creepiness which is more present in the book, and therefore I think Kaufman was absolutely right to change this aspect of it, as it wouldn't have fit into how the film was executed.
The book was creepy, it was suspenseful and verging on horror. I was scared at times while reading it and also very suspicious of Jake, who a lot of the time came across like a serial killer. It made me think a tragic end for the character of the girlfriend was coming, which is why it made it all the more surprising when the book ended with Jake killing himself and revealing that the girlfriend was non-existent.
Rather than being creepy and suspenseful, the movie was manic and hilarious in a weird and dark way. Because the suspense didn't build here the same way it did in the book, the ending to the film had to be different, it wouldn't have been as effective otherwise. While the film's ending wasn't as surprising, it was a more satisfying and effective ending to the story, while also leaving us with more questions and ways to interpret it.
I have seen people complaining about the film and that the ending of the book should've been used in the movie, but I don't really agree with this. While the movie and book have roughly the same events, they carry very different themes and are executed in vastly different ways. The conclusion to the book would've felt way off in a movie like this so I feel the ending to this film fit perfectly.
One of the greatest things about the ending was the dance scene. I saw that scene as representing how The Janitor saw things really taking over his life. In the dance, The Janitor represents what he sees as the negative aspects of himself. Unfortunately for him, he is The Janitor now, and through the dance we see he's ashamed of that, and that he ruined the life of the more hopeful, younger version of Jake, who in the dance he literally kills, showing us he feels that the person who he wishes he was, and used to be, was robbed of life by the person he is now. The Janitor took Jakes girlfriend away from the both of them and then killed him, leaving only The Janitor. He himself is the only one responsible for the person he is today and that is why he's thinking of ending things.
I'd like to note though that I don't think this film is condoning suicide, it isn't giving a justified reason for it. We're not supposed to think the person Jake is today is disgusting and deserves to die, we just need to understand this is how he sees himself.