Change Your Image
ConditionsOfUse
Reviews
Asteroid City (2023)
Asteroid City: A Cinematic Odyssey Stalled in Orbit
Steroid City: Navigating Familiar Orbits in Wes Anderson's Cinematic Universe"
In "Asteroid City," Wes Anderson embarks on another whimsical journey through his meticulously crafted universe, replete with his trademark symmetry, tableau-style compositions, and a color palette so sparse and deliberate it could be considered an additional character. As a longtime admirer of Anderson's work, from the early days of "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou" to the elaborate tapestry of "The Grand Budapest Hotel," I've witnessed the evolution of his storytelling and visual style.
Anderson's journey from "The Life Aquatic" to "The Grand Budapest Hotel" represents a zenith in his artistic expression, marked by a discernible growth in his cinematic language and thematic depth. However, in recent years, with films like "Moonrise Kingdom" and "Isle of Dogs," there's a sense that Anderson may have become ensnared in the intricacies of his own universe, traversing familiar paths without venturing into uncharted territories.
With "Asteroid City," Anderson continues to indulge in his penchant for nostalgic settings, quirky characters, and meticulously designed sets. The film boasts an impressive ensemble cast, each member contributing to the quirky tapestry of Anderson's world. Yet, for all its visual splendor and whimsical charm, "Asteroid City" struggles to escape the gravitational pull of Anderson's established aesthetic.
While Anderson's dedication to his craft is admirable, one can't help but yearn for the innovation and narrative depth that once defined his work. "Asteroid City" feels like a high-budget high school play, with repeating motifs and visual flourishes that, while undeniably charming, fail to elicit the same sense of wonder and awe as Anderson's earlier masterpieces.
As an admirer of Anderson's work, I find myself torn between admiration for his artistic vision and a desire for something more. "Asteroid City" is a testament to Anderson's unparalleled talent as a visual storyteller, but it also serves as a reminder of the dangers of artistic complacency. In an industry that thrives on innovation and risk-taking, Anderson's reluctance to push the boundaries of his artistry may ultimately prove to be his greatest obstacle.
Final thoughts, "Asteroid City" is a visually stunning and thematically rich addition to Wes Anderson's cinematic universe. However, it also highlights the need for Anderson to break free from the constraints of his own aesthetic and venture into uncharted territory. As Anderson continues to navigate the complexities of his craft, one can only hope that he finds the courage to embark on new creative adventures and push the boundaries of his artistry once more.
Raël: The Last Prophet (2024)
Netflix, aim higher than this
This is just another generic story about a somewhat charismatic cult leader and a bunch of lost people who followed him, willing to accept any kind of nonsense to find structure and direction in their lives. However, this case isn't particularly interesting, and as a documentary, it feels lazy, much like many Netflix documentaries that prioritize viewer engagement over meaningful storytelling or observation of phenomena. Instead of creating yet another mediocre drama with a straightforward narrative, relying on testimonials and archive footage as supporting arguments for whatever predetermined story they want to tell, the documentary could have explored broader themes, such as the phenomenon of cults and their similarities to religions. It could have delved deeper into the emergence and practice of monotheistic religions over the past 3000 years, examining the differences between this cult leader and historical figures from Judea, Mecca, or Vermont. Alternatively, the documentary could have focused on Scientology and confronted the influence of Hollywood head-on.
I understand Netflix's business model; these documentaries are cost-effective to produce, add fresh content to the catalog, and keep viewers engaged for longer periods. However, they often lack cinematic or social value. While Netflix's documentary production budget may be small compared to their fiction projects, it still surpasses that of traditional non-streaming documentary projects. It's disappointing that Netflix doesn't aim higher and instead serves up the same content we've seen on cable TV for years, albeit with the Netflix brand attached.
Sly (2023)
Some new anecdotes but we already heard most of it, and he deserve more
This is Sylvester Stallone's story, as he would like to tell it. For a little over 90 minutes, we see and hear Stallone reminisce about his life, the highlights of his career, with a few handpicked A-listers and has-beens adding anecdotes along the way. On paper, it sounds like an interesting movie, at least that's what the trailer made it look like.
However, with a career spanning over six decades, it feels like a lot of ground wasn't covered, and many rocks remained untouched. Perhaps the film wouldn't have been that different if it were a three-hour film, but in a biopic, it's not only about the conclusion but also about the journey.
For instance, there's a thorough exposition about his early life and his rise to fame, trying to lay a foundation for repeating themes in his life, like the relationship with his dad and his need to rebound again and again after listening to the wrong people. But we never deep dive into what really happened there.
All the interviews were done separately, and I think having Stallone and Talia Shire in the same room, speaking about their on-screen and maybe off-screen relationship, bringing up memories from 50 years ago and so on, could have brought much more significance and depth to this documentary.
The movie rushes over the late '80s part of his career, and besides "Rocky V," the '90s and early '00s are ignored. There's no word about "Creed" nor the '00s and the '10s. Stallone, unlike his on-screen persona, is a very articulate person. However, it is disappointing that Netflix, Thom Zimny, the director, or Stallone himself decided to commemorate Stallone's selected cinematic legacy over making a brave decision to ask more difficult questions.
Another blame is on Netflix, which has the means but prefers to play it safe when it comes to documentaries. I guess nobody wants to upset an actor or producer and ruin a potential collaboration in the future. That's one of the main reasons why cinema is still superior to streaming. It's not about the size of the screen or your sound system; it's about being able to tell a story without being chained to multiple business considerations that hold you back from punching hard at your subject and telling the best story.
An independent documentary production about the 1987 film "Robocop" was released earlier this year. It's a five-hour mini-series about one sci-fi movie. It sounds like a lot, but it's fascinating. At this time and day, where we are finally starting to summarize and bid farewell to the '70s and '80s generation of stars, I believe that certain biopic documentaries deserve a longer format, taking advantage of every living persona who is still out there and archiving in order to create a detailed and complete portrait of someone who was part of a generational pantheon.
Stallone mentions over and over again in the movie how our lifetime flies in a blink of an eye. He should also have in mind that no life story is perfect, and for those who choose fame and the public eye, life is even more complicated, full of obstacles, temptations, ego, and rivalries. Our failures go hand in hand with our triumphs, and that's what makes us human and interesting.
I hope Stallone will be able to open up again in the future. I will be interested to watch it.
Ahsoka (2023)
Rosario is great the rest is Disney
"Ahsoka" represents another chapter in Disney's foray into the Star Wars universe, a franchise that has seen its ups and downs under new ownership. The struggle to find the right balance between respecting the legacy and introducing fresh ideas has been evident.
The casting of Rosario Dawson as Ahsoka Tano is undoubtedly a highlight, capturing the essence of the character well. The show's design, blending the original trilogy with contemporary aesthetics, is commendable.
However, it's clear that "Ahsoka" falls victim to the money-making approach of Disney. It caters heavily to fans who know the character's backstory from animated shows, filling episodes with Easter eggs that hint at potential spin-offs.
Diversity is an issue, with a predominantly white cast that might have garnered more attention if it were a male-centric series.
The pacing of the show is slow, and the acting and plot are often generic. While there may be strong moments and cliffhangers in store for the season's end, it's a challenge to stay engaged with a series that doesn't fully live up to its potential.
Disney and Lucasfilm have faced criticism for mishandling characters like Boba Fett, and the hope is that they won't repeat the same mistakes with Ahsoka. Time will tell if this series can find its footing and deliver a more satisfying Star Wars experience.
Athena (2022)
A nepo baby tried to recreate the of Les Misérables
Romain Gavras, son of the renowned Costa-Gavras, a person who grew up privileged in Paris without firsthand experience of racism or life in socio-economic despair, must have been inspired by Ladj Ly's remarkable film 'Les Misérables,' prompting him to explore the depths of the French slums.
Collaborating with Ladj Ly himself, Gavras aimed to lend the film a quality stamp, alongside Elias Belkeddar, whose diverse writing career made this particular movie an intriguing addition to his resumé.
The film impressed with its visuals and takes the story into wild speculation, provoking thought on "what if" scenarios. However, there is a sense that Gavras may not fully grasp his characters or their experiences. It's possible that his privileged upbringing in Paris and lack of personal familiarity with their world hindered the development of the characters.
Perhaps due to his limited personal familiarity with this world or his reliance on the audience's recognition of the character's presented image, the film comes across as superficial and detached.
We never truly immerse ourselves in the characters' personal worlds and emotions; instead, we witness their reactions against impressive Mise-en-scènes.
In contrast, 'Les Misérables' demonstrated equal suffering and provided insight into the motivations of all sides involved.
Athena presumably present a consequence to a tragedy, but in fact it feels like pure hate takes center stage, exploiting tragedy as an excuse for chaos.
The story held immense potential, especially considering recent real-life events in France. Tragic incidents, such as the killing of a 17-year-old by a police officer, have led to riots and social media narratives that justify violence. The film reflects the unsettling reality that such events are no longer unimaginable.
Nevertheless, having already seen 'Les Misérables,' 'BAC Nord,' and even the now aging 'La Haine,' one might question what unique perspective Gavras brings to the table.
If the film had been entrusted to someone with a firsthand understanding of poverty and the ghetto, it could have been a more impactful work, despite the overshadowing presence of 'Les Misérables.'
Those French films of the genre often portray an impending civil urban war, and it's intriguing to contemplate how they will be perceived in the future, thirty years from now.
House of Gucci (2021)
An emotionless soap opera
I didn't know the story of the Gucci family before watching this movie, but in a certain point I decided that I will not make it all the way through and read the Wikipedia article instead.
I wonder how in the midst of a social-cultural revolution, someone thought that it was a good ideas to portray a prominent Italian family with American and British cast using a fake Italian accent.
Whether the cast are talented or not, whether making the story in English with international starts is a safer way to ensure profitability in the box office, I am certain that there are enough Italian actors and actresses who could give a better performance in Italian.
While the the visuals in this movie are beautiful as expected from a movie about Gucci, it's emotionless from the first scene.
Instead of building the plot around two main characters and trying to tell the best story possible, the film jumps between scenes that function as a checklist of historical events and do it in a cartoonish way that is makes me reminds of a soap opera, a-la The Bold and the Beautiful with budget.
The director made a long movie but tried to cover so much ground that he didn't leave us enough time to breath and let the drama built itself.
For instance, on one scene a father reconcile with his son and the next scene it's the father mama funeral and we just don't feel or care for the characters and their relationships.
They didn't even try to understand or humanize Patrizia'z character and from the very beginning she is portrayed as gold-digger.
We don't care when the characters betray each other or when they are ruined or happy or dead.
The house of Gucci is a story about the supposedly sad life of the fortunate with an impressive cast who don't get to fulfill their potential because the the soul of the story was sacrificed in favor of its visuals.
Yaldei Kenyon Hazahav (1995)
What were they thinking?
I was 12 years, lived in the suburbia of Tel-Aviv and I was already a cinephile.
For some reason, my friends thought that it will be "cool" to see that movie. I asked them to reconsider because Apollo 13 just premiered that weekend and I knew it's a movie that should be watched on a big screen.
But I was 12, from a small town full with people who didn't aspire to know anything greater than their own existence.
Almost 30 years later, I quite forgot what was the story about, but I do remember I understood the meaning of the word cringe that day.
Guess that all people involved wanted to to work and that's what they managed to put their hands on at the time.
What amazed me when I googled it, that this infamous piece of mediocracy has not less than 2 directors and 3 writers.
10 years later when I produced an independent feature for the first time in Israel, and went through the production hassle and challenges, I remembering asking the director one day "how in the world, anyone ever approved such a piece of crap while we pay with blood to make something which is 100 times better".
The director became a successful director over the years, so I stand by my question.
And for the creator of this movie, even if you needed to work, you could have done theatre, commercials, kids series, a documentary about anything but this. Shame on you.
A Futile and Stupid Gesture (2018)
Great subject, but doing it for Netflix castrates it's full potential
As someone who didn't grow up in the 70s and am not America, all I know of National Lampoon was the Vacation movies and every time I tried to understand if there's any chronology or some sort of link between the movie, I got lost.
So one of the best things about this movie for me, was to understand the history of National Lampoon.
Obviously some persons and events were left out, but like they say in the movie, they needed to squeeze it in order to tell a story.
Another great thing is the casting. Either it was spot on like Forte performance or looked alike like Rick Glassman as Harold Ramis.
I think that this movie deserved more time to develop it's character, because they feeling is sort of there but it feels like much more things happened of screen than on screen.
So when some key characters split from Doug, it doesn't hurt as much as it should.
One critic said, that David Wain the director and John Aboud
Michael Colton the writer, covered more ground that they intended.
It's starts as a biopic and then turns into a periodical piece about the National Lampoon and we are not really really with Doug and not completely with the Lampoon's events.
IMO, the fact this movie was created within Netflix, held it from going through a more cinematic treatment that would have brought the movie into a higher level in terms of story.
Netflix rarely do good movies, it's just a very wet funded Hallmark production that lacks a strong dramatic engine in 99% of it's productions and this is a great examples.
Nonetheless, Doug Kenney characters is fascinating and understanding the importance of the National Lampoon, help to reclaims it's place in shaping comedy for the past 50 years.
Genius (2017)
S 1 was wonderful, S goes downhill
I liked the first season for many reasons, from right casting to great storyline.
Mileva Maric storyline was important addition because it shows that Einstein, genius as he was, didn't make many of this breakthroughs without him.
In fact, her character piqued my curiosity and I learned that up to this very day, many historians and academics underestimate Maric's contribution to Einstein's work.
It somehow shatters some of Einstein image, which was the point. But his story, personality and contribution as a while still makes him an interesting and admirable character.
Season 1 was released in the midst of Me Too movement awakening and out of all the geniuses that existed out there, it was decided to choose a great artist who was in fact a terrible person.
Again, this is part of his story but unlike the 1st season, something in this season felt forced.
Antonio Banderas wasn't the right choice to play Picasso, not by looks and not by acting.
Banderas just played himself and thought that it will be enough, but he didn't understand Picasso as a person, he just understood his megalomania.
The show tried to give much more emphasis on the female character and how they suffered while living with Piccaso and how they flourished without him.
But in the end of the day the show is about him not them.
To be honest, every appreciation that I had for Picasso disappeared after watching the show, all I could see was an adulter that looked at women as objects and was in love with himself.
Nothing new for someone who knows Picasso's story, but the way was so off-putting that made me wonder why him? Why now?
The show's decision maker tried to atone the 2nd season 'by choosing Aretha Franklin as the third genius.
While they made effort to crack Einstein's image in the first season and destroy Picasso's character in the second season, unsurprisingly they present Franklin as clean-handedand inspiring person who has nothing to regret or apologize for.
I love Franklin music and this she was a great artist but this choice was a reaction for the criticism that roused after the 2nd season and to Me Too and BLM movements.
If they will continue doing this show, I hope they will choose a person with an interesting story that stands up for itself.