lamps

The female lead, fantastically portrayed by raising star Awkwafina, is essentially a reflection of the director’s character and remembrances through whom we perceive the central emotional tension arising from the unfolding of a dual approach to the concepts family and human life – on the one hand, we have the concern for a loved one and the need to remain honest and say goodbye, and on other, the Eastern traditions that put further emphasis on the sense of belonging to a family and push honestly aside for the benefit of a loved one. The narrative, however, does not push a one-sided perspective or obvious interpretations, but leaves several motifs loose and relies on the strength of the interactions. Thanks to the typologically well cast actors, the viewer can get their bearings among the characters, while the dialogues remain attractive thanks to their ubiquitous emotional dilemmas, together with the subtle humour that wittily takes jabs at Chinese traditions and the dogmatised idea of America. The perspective of the female lead, of course, holds everything together, being the most universal and understandable, leading to an extremely moving farewell scene. The film is only 90 minutes long and goes by pretty quickly thanks the longer dialogue sequences often being interspersed with funny confrontations at the narrative and style levels – and it’s not only about the conflict of East and West in terms of the emotions and the behaviour of the characters (and the language, like in that excellent scene of the conversation in English with the doctor before the grandmother who can’t understand it), but also about the intertwining of Hollywood and Asian genre traditions. It’s a film with subtle editing and easy to digest for the mainstream audience, but it embraces its Eastern influences with long conversations over traditional food or compositionally extravagant scenes with a distinctive music score and staging in the form of images or photos (the opening scene and the wedding photo shoot). Intimate and viewer-friendly, but also a very nice, reflective and smartly conceived movie that borders two different perspectives and traditions, which perhaps won’t say anything to some people, but to those willing to listen and accept the message hidden between the lines, it will offer some welcome diversity and food for thought. You shouldn’t lie, but in this style a few little lies are OK. 80%

The film’s name symbolises not only the main character’s fondness for racing on slippery roads, but also the life of anyone who’s unpredictable and full of uncertainties – it’s a pity that they failed to impress that into the story itself, which, from a certain early moment on becomes awfully predictable. That wouldn’t be much of a problem if the film didn’t blatantly convince the viewer that it would be different and original. The look into Enzo’s head is great, Kevin Costner’s rascal gives an almost contemplative insight through retrospective memories, while Denny’s relationship with his smart hairy friend, spiced by their shared passion for racing, develops in a very promising and interesting way. But then come the mandatory family twists, of which at least one is interesting, and the narration starts to devolve into emotional statements that feel very contrived. Besides, since we can’t expect anything very original or surprising from the human characters, the story as a whole becomes like an artificial backstage for an otherwise nice chat with the viewer. But it’s far from a bad or sloppy film, it’s one that remains on safe ground, but the pandering and cuteness is delivered too expertly and deliberately for it not to win you over, at least partially. A proper cliché served with iron-clad confidence and with a certain captivating eloquence that in the end leads us, though in a rather tortuous and tedious way, to a pleasant catharsis underlined by a Creedence Clearwater Revival song and the reflection on Amanda Seyfried’s eyes, and accompanied by the questionable realisation that getting a devoted dog on a whim is not a very bad idea at all… Marley & Me has a solid competitor, though Enzo runs out of gas soon after the starting line. 65%

As expected, a typically tarted-up big movie in the Marvel style – it has the frantic editing, the flowery camera rides and lots of slow motion that is supposed to highlight some of the early action sequences. The directors try to keep the viewer entertained and, especially at the beginning, push the story forward quickly, but the uninteresting script makes their efforts increasingly counterproductive. We look forward in anticipation to a playful reveal of all the possibilities offered by the illegal super-hero pills, but in the end we don’t get much. After the first two scenes that show the positive and negative effects of the “drug”, and once the three main characters have been placed on the motivational chessboard, we get a very sloppy fairytale packed with clichés that fully forgets about working with the curiosity of the viewer and only relies on fairground attractions. Those attractions, by the way, aren’t even that impressive (the budget was 85 million, which is not a lot today) and the execution is so boring that it’s almost annoying – I get the blandness of the violence that many of the confrontations and physical transformations would warrant if this wasn’t a Marvel-like, mass-appeal thing for Netflix, but I don’t like the chaotic edition, the dark staging and the numbingly repetitive montage of the internal effects of the pill, which were a little annoying already in Requiem for a Dream. The actors are fine, of course, Foxx and Levitt have enough charisma to hold their not very interesting characters above water, but despite the nicely drawn lines in the style of a buddy movie, they never manage to generate a sincere interest in their fates – you can safely predict how the story will end, while the climax in the style of your average action flick with a clear absence of the “super” before the “hero” is a huge disappointment. Not to mention that the biggest MacGuffin of the story remains pretty unexplained overall and feels only forced… It will certainly fulfil its purpose as a successful snack on Netflix – the popularity of super-heroes is still high – but in this case the expectations where more than a derivative consumer product to fill the grid. If the creators had made a ten minute short instead, it would have been a lot better. 45%

We can still say it’s terrific and original entertainment that you can easily shake-off in the morning (as it’s my case), but there’s less of the humour that can be called genious. At first sight you won’t notice any difference in the formal conception of the first and second seasons, and the creators keep on thinking new ways to develop the motifs surrounding the now fully profiled vampires at a very high tempo – after the werewolves, we get to meet for instance the spirits of human ancestors, witches, and trolls –, without that world ever feeling overstuffed, while the events retain their proven controversy and comedic timing. But this time the episodicism is considerably more noticeable and the closed plots are missing some lightness and punch. Thus, the second season is not as effective, but, given the great feature film and one ten-episode season of a high-octane series on the same theme, it’s not that dramatic. The characters are still great and the creators have tried new stuff – the season finale and the evolution of Guillermo prove that many new interesting things can still happen. 75%

First of all, in terms of character, this untraditional sitcom shot in the mockumentary style of the original film, where the characters are aware of the presence of the documentarists and speak to the camera, is very diverse and sophisticated – something you notice from the get go. The first season is basically a relentless deluge of insane humour, which, with the exception of a couple of arguable sexual innuendos, doesn’t have any dead spots and fully exploits the simple but great concept of vampires with antiquated minds and clothes in today’s society. We learn all that we need to know about the past of the characters through short and mostly photographic flashbacks, but the episodic plots unfold before our eyes at a fast pace, while many of the storylines extend through the episodes thanks to the semi-consecutive serialised narration. Our main guide is the adorably obstinate and stressed out Guillermo, who’s basically a slave to his nonchalant and historically unadaptable masters, and is also the only character who goes through a significant development – the vampires themselves rely on a clear typology and you soon know what you can expect from them, but it doesn’t matter. The showrunners have done an amazing job, literally burying the viewer in a barrage of unexpected jokes, while happily parodying the common ideas about the nature of vampires, amusingly contrasting their ridiculous requirements and traditions with the current culture and politics, or expanding the supernatural community, often from classical myths and fairytales. There are a couple of lukewarm episodes in terms of story (the visit to the club and the preparations for the orgy), but they are very well compensated by the funny and amazingly cast characters, cameos by the original film’s cast or Danny Trejo, innumerable brilliant ideas (drunk vampires after drinking the blood of a drunkard) and the awesome energy vampire Colin Robinson, who will make you smile whenever he shows up. If you want to get to know this eccentric gang, book an entire evening for yourselves – most likely, you won’t be able to leave your seat after putting on the first episode.

While watching this Pickle I was reminded of two different films: Ted (yes, that Ted with Mark Wahlberg) and the German satire Look Who's Back, where Hitler wakes up in the present. American Pickle is reminiscent of the former in the way it approaches its world and the main character, who shouldn’t be alive – after he awakes, they give a scientific explanation, which the viewer gets to hear, and everyone is satisfied and stops thinking about it (as they say in Ted, “Nobody gives a f*ck”). The similarities with the second film can be found in the feelings of the “dead” protagonist in the new era and also in his learning about the social and economic system and the politically and religiously shaped environment. Thus, overlapping several genres, the film establishes a conflict that on the external level develops between the two main characters and their respective approaches to modern society, while on the inner level, and within the structure of the work, it relies on the oscillation between the historical context of Jewish traditions and a social dramedy about a man whose ignorance gives an impression of elusive genius. In this sense, the film is not at all badly put together and both levels fall perfectly into place in their wholesome frame, unfortunately, though, they are not sufficiently elaborate and coherent on their own. After the peculiar establishment and encounter of the two protagonists, the story goes on to alternate between both planes in a pretty manipulative fashion, and though Hershel’s journey towards fame and controversy is entertaining and original, the conflict with his descendant lacks depth, and all the dramatic moments are overwhelmed by the comedic bits. Inevitably, the film leaves the strong aftertaste of the unfulfilled potential of its interesting premise – the humorous musings over the persistent social segregation and the influence of the internet are good, but they are quite quickly exhausted and lack a more solid line of argument. In short, it’s an effective comedy with dramatic tones that inevitably suffers from simplification. Thumbs up, but only for a new take on time travel of the kind a would have only expected from Rick and Morty. 65%

It’s been long since a Hollywood project captured the meaning of “love it or hate it”. Kaufman rejects the typical linear narrative, focusing instead on characters having an intellectual debate in a car, while holding the attention through the dream-like association of various images, and, in its own weird way, he manages to stimulate curiosity about how things will turn out. At the same time, he makes increasingly clear that this won’t be primarily a complex romance and embarks into an impressive spatio-temporal delusion that poses strong interpretive questions, the answers to which are postponed and will actually never satisfy the viewers longing for an explanation. In addition to the philosophical or self-aware debates of the loving couple, what comes to the fore is a play with film genres that help clarify and define each of the story blocks – the visit to the parents is basically an attempt at Forman-like discomposure and horror paranoia, the conversations in the car lean more towards short-story parable, and by the end it even uses musical as a form of pure cinematic expression where the realistic perspective fully falls apart. The ending, meanwhile, offers an almost surrealistic grasp on the ideas and openly tells the viewer that it is up to them to get their head in order and decipher the previous events. In view that a simple interpretation is out of the question and that this emotional rather than narrative movie will anger many viewers, I have to tip my hat in respect to Kaufman. I’m not among the enthusiastic crowd, I didn’t always feel interest in what the characters were saying and I didn’t grasp the formal concept of the final key minutes, but overall, I felt great and sincere respect for filmmakers unafraid of going against the flow and make movies with a confusing and intentionally viewer-unfriendly arrangement, like those created during the era of artistic auteurs. I think the ending appeals to your innermost cinephilic and sensual cells and, even though it’s not always easy to watch and it laughs rather derisively at the viewer, the keys to understanding it are pretty much everywhere and it certainly can not be excluded that the average viewer won’t able to fully get into this intimate experience of identity, ageing and inner psychical conflict. I quite managed it and I won’t mind another meeting, which could be a completely different film. 75%

Tenet is a film about which I would love to write a lot, but in my current lack of time I can only be succinct: go to the cinema and don’t bother looking for pseudo-intellectual poses, let yourselves be drawn into a world whose presentation and development within narrative cinema haven’t been so impressive and satisfying in their own processes for a long time. I will write more after further mandatory screenings… It’s a pity that trolls will fuck up the rating, but that’s also part of Filmbooster – and actually it points to an all the greater movie.

Clean work. A family oriented, dynamic blockbuster blending self-awareness and the enticing arrangement of a world in such a balanced way is not something we get every year. The wave of nostalgia from the beloved original movie brings a tsunami of new ideas and a story that holds itself together logically and motivationally; it has a perfectly balanced rhythm in the way it separates and brings together the characters (not including the three main dinosaur species), culminating in a climax where I felt several chills on my back caused by the tunes of John Williams’s soundtrack. Trevorrow handled it with grace, showing great confidence as a director and I’m still curious to see how the trilogy will be completed under his hand. Though Jurassic World does not surpass it, it did remind me very well why I love the original Jurassic Park so much, while also having a personality on its own, working with the main attractions in a systematic, viewer-friendly way – from the blindly admired attractions, often hidden by a crowd of curious spectators, to the uncontrollable forces of nature that humans simply are unable to put on a leash (which are viewed from a timid perspective). Also, Pratt as a more active Alan Grant is great. 90%

Beautifully made borefest. The visuals are gorgeous, with an enchanting and captivating atmosphere, but the story is uninteresting and quite incoherent. Sure, Takrovsky has never told complex closed stories, but he usually didn’t have trouble working with the curiosity of the viewer and leading the attention of the audience, but in his debut he only works visually, stumbling into boring detours. And I had faith in it. 60%