Reviews, page 7

Verhoeven hasn’t lost his touch for twisting the knife, but I don’t see the point in this one — either I don’t like it or I just plain don’t get it. And what happened to the cat?

Feels like old memories.

I wasn’t quite expecting this to be The Post 2: Watergate, but man this was different. In a sharp contrast to Spielberg’s heavy-handedness, Pakula didn’t make an easy movie to follow. It’s incredibly dense with information, seemingly disinterested in simplifying to get to the point. Not knowing much about Watergate beforehand, I wasn’t able to follow every fizzling plot thread, but the emotional through-line was so well put together that it never lost me. I was struck by how realistic it feels — the events unfolding naturally and the camera just happening to be rolling nearby, capturing the dizziness and unease, warts and all. Loved the split diopter shots very much.

Sidenote: Now I get the final scene in The Post — it’s close to a shot-for-shot replica of this film’s opening. That only makes it more of a wink-wink tacky addition, though.

Does an amazing job at projecting emotion and conveying historical heft, knowing full well how much the present day amplifies its message. It’s just a shame that Spielberg felt the need to go “belt and suspenders” and make sure to have some characters spell out the implications of what you’re seeing, just in case the extremely powerful acting and imagery don’t do the trick.

Also: the Watergate bit at the end was just silly. It reminded me of the final warehouse shot in Raiders of the Lost Ark, except bad and tacked on.

Wow. Whenever a filmmaker can find so much beauty and excitement in being deliberately mundane I sit up and pay attention.

It’s slow. The smallest of details are just as carefully pondered as the grandiose gestures, all vividly blending together. The quiet moments compel the subjective experience of seeing rather than the objectivity of just looking, only to then make you question what you really saw. The mystery itself felt novel because it feeds off this slowness — instead of being built on plot twists or needless complexity, it’s challenging through imperfection by forcing you to see for yourself. Really great.

A powerful reminder of the absurdities of being 14, and how becoming an adult seems to rob us of the ability to understand them. How strong and valid the experiences, yet how quickly we want to forget them, and grow up, because that’s the only escape. I can’t think of any other film that captures that feeling so well, both the good and bad of it.

The insight into how kids deal with recent technology and social media was fascinating to me as well — the script seems intent on documenting what that’s like, with genuine earnestness. Parts that initially read as comedic exaggeration are, in retrospect, no stranger than reality. Things have changed a lot since I was 14, but somehow stayed the same. I think the kids will be alright.

I try to avoid schadenfreude as much as I can, but this was too good to pass up. Not a brilliant documentary, but seemingly does a good job of talking to the right people and painting a full picture of what happened.

Really great, improves on the original in every way.

Hugh Grant’s character was brilliant as the antagonist. Well written, both captivating and funny. Unlike Nicole Kidman’s character in Paddington 1, he adds to the story instead of just existing in it as an archetypal, irredeemable villain.

I like how Paddington isn’t framed as a can-do-no-wrong saint just getting caught up in bad situations. Some scenes (like the barbershop one) show him messing up and struggling to come up with excuses instead of admitting his fault. It’s subtle, but is a nice touch that makes him more sympathetic.

The writing and editing were once again economical and effective. Art direction was even sharper. The pop-up book fantasy scene that takes place early on stands out — it’s especially memorable and affecting, doing so much emotional work with so few ingredients.

I can see now why this has received such high praise. It’s well deserved.

Kind of fun, but weird. And not weird in a good way — weird in a “not sure what it wants to be” way. It tries to be a thriller, but the plot is way too messy and clichéd to be interesting. It tries to be a comedy, but there is no real intent to the humor; just a residual layer of silliness, no courage about it. I guess this tone was intentional, but it simply did not work for me. The longer it went on, the less satisfying it became.

Felt rushed and incomplete. The interview with Billy McFarland did not really add much depth, and several of the more interesting people featured in the Netflix documentary were missing altogether. The poorly-edited-in internet memes and patronizing attitude detracted from the experience and eroded the point being made. Meh.

I expected the charm and fuzzy feelings, but not the nuanced, topical take on immigration, delivered with the utmost efficacy. Bravo!

It’s all very wholesome and hard to criticize, though I think it could have benefited from some more Spirited Away-style bittersweetness, and a more complex antagonist. But hey, it works.

Sidenote: the wonderful art direction somehow reminded me of Spielberg’s Tintin and, in contrast, how much of a disappointment that was.