Shaban_Avdulaj Reviews

Thirst (2009)

Perplexing. It's a weird movie, and that says something when talking about a Chan-wook film.

[7/10 · 30 May 2022]

One of the things I like the most about Park's style is how he takes his time establishing character and story without boring the viewer. The pace in his films is slow but never tiring. In 'Thirst' also, he moves in a sluggish rhythm throughout and still manages to not lose you, not even for a second. Park's subtle direction, at least for the most part, because there were moments where I thought it was a bit off, and the quirky writing, which generates some excellent bits of humor, especially when you're less expecting it, creates a captivating atmosphere.

Though highly bizarre, the film works excellently in keeping your attention away from the time passing. And that's a win on its own. Yet, you don't get immediately aboard this film. I found the editing slightly distracting in the first couple of scenes until I "got used" to it. And that's why I started this review with the word "perplexing." See, in the beginning, the editing feels wrong. They jump from the middle of a scene to another one, and without wrapping this second scene, they go back to the first one, making it look like amateurish work. Because it doesn't work for any purpose, it's just an inadequate transition of scenes. But then, later in the film, they'd use this type of editing again, and this time around, it'll work remarkably well in linking the spread-out plot and moving it forward. It fits so well it makes you doubt your judgment on how they used it in those first few scenes. Yet again, it's just a minor distraction that would've probably gone unnoticed if I would've embraced the odd nature of the film from the get-go.

'Thirst' is worth watching if only for the freshness it brings to the "vampire films" catalog and, being such a different endeavor for Chan-wook, it's also a must-watch for all his fans. Although, compared to Park's bests, 'The Handmaiden' or even to what I consider his slightly overrated work, and to what its most dedicated fans will tell you is his masterpiece, 'Oldboy,' 'Thirst' is somewhat inferior.

Carandiru (2003)

Part entertaining, part meandering, as a whole, wanting!

[7/10 · 26 May 2022]

I'm under the impression that, unlike its subject matter, being part of this film has to have been a lot of fun, especially for the actors. There are moments here as you're watching the movie where you can tell the cast is having a great time on set, and although that doesn't speak well regarding how they're doing their job, it creates this "buddy atmosphere" and, weirdly, makes everything more welcoming, and delightful.

It's fascinating how similar this movie is to its "big brother," the undeniably best Brasilian film of the 2000s, 'City of God.' You'd find similarities between the two films story-wise, character-wise (though that's a given since both films revolve around the same culture), and also, the way the films are shot it's very similar too. Yet, unlike 'City of God,' 'Carandiru' leaves you wanting.

If it weren't for the last fifteen minutes, more or less, you'd think this film has nothing to do with any massacre. 'Carandiru' feels like an anthology film where it'd talk episodically about a few stand-out characters: the prison's most intriguing inmates. The characters are everything here, and the cast does a great job constantly keeping you engaged with them. Wagner Moura especially gives an enjoyable early performance in his career. Quick confession: for me, a massive fan of Moura's performance on 'Narcos,' seeing him here say, "Filho da puta," was a peculiar, most welcomed treat. I can see how part of this performance could've worked as the perfect audition for his role in 'Narcos.'

As I already mentioned, the film is shot very similarly to 'City of God.' There's a lot of hand-held camerawork here, which it's very fitting and effective in bringing the messy, flesh-and-blood intensity of prison life compellingly to our eyes. Alongside the hand-held camerawork, there's also the use steady camera here and there, which, again, it's effective but nothing worth noting. Visually, the film felt a bit bland - 101, basic stuff. And, I'm afraid that goes for the film overall if it weren't for the entertaining characters. 'Carandiru' is social realism seen with the utmost heartfelt eyes, but as a film, it's too episodic, often meandering, and that ending makes it all look like a numb mashup of a few short stories.

Stray Dog (1949)

Respectful early Kurosawa!

[7/10 · 23 May 2022]

Out of the six Kurosawa films I've seen, this one is the only film I've rated lower than 4.5/5. This review is the first time I talk about a Kurosawa film, and while I'd have liked to talk about one of his better works first, a rec is a rec, and you have to respect it.

First of all, I'm not sure if you can find this film in a more curated video quality than the one I watched, but the video file I saw it from needed a restoration. The images were badly washed-out throughout, and that, I think, dragged down to a great extent my experience with the movie. I'd have enjoyed the film more if the frames had a proper, more dynamic lighting contrast.

All Kurosawa films I've watched until now have never bored me. Akira knows how to find the right rhythm for his pictures, and no matter how long their running time is (even 'Seven Samurai'), they flow effortlessly, and you don't feel the time passing. 'Stray Dog,' though, got me a bit tired. Unlike in his other films, Kurosawa hadn't yet developed his mathematical pacing precision here. The film starts a bit slow, then it quickens a bit, then back to running slow, and all that inconsistency in the pacing didn't sit well with me. On top of all that, the transition of some of the scenes it's slightly off-putting. It almost looks amateurish, where they'd hasten the cuts without the scene fully encased and jump to the next one like that. It's weird. I thought they could've managed much better the overall editing here. I was expecting more because, even though this is an "early Kurosawa," and you'll find issues in it, I checked, and this is his ninth film (though they were all made in less than a decade). Apparently, Kurosawa had a slow start evolving in the film giant he'd later become.

Anyway, other than the pace, I can't find any other problem with the film. I liked how skillfully Kurosawa managed to create a mysterious atmosphere and how easily it immerses you in it. The writing here is subtle throughout, and it's the main "ingredient" keeping you glued to what you're watching. Kurosawa's patient but sumptuous police procedural narrative it's bold all the way through.

Though sometimes a little over the top, Mifune's acting performances are always a pleasure to see, and here, together with Shimura, another Kurosawa regular, they deliver magnetic acting performances. 'Stray Dog' is far from the bests of Kurosawa, but still, it's a respectful effort, and, regardless of my issues with it, it's a quality addition to his filmography.

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)

In the minority, obviously, but I really found it bland.

[5/10 · 17 May 2022]

Many films, most of them really, tell the same stories. It's just the approach, the style that differs (in some of them, even the style is the same). Daniel Scheinert and his filmmaking partner made it clear in their debut film, 'Swiss Army Man,' what kind of style they were going for: a quirky, absurdist style, and even though I didn't like it, I don't like it, I respected it for its newness. In this film, Daniel takes the story of 'The Matrix' and tells it in his fashion. He makes it seem fresh and original, but the bore I got from watching this was of Olympic proportions.

Dense! You think 'Tenet' was convoluted - buries that! But, if the things in 'Tenet' do start to make sense if you stop to think about them, here, I'm not sure they do. There's so much information coming from everywhere, suffocating you. The film takes you down and then starts beating you to a pulp. But I'm not sure. Maybe I couldn't keep up with it. The whole story felt like it had so many plot holes. Like, a lot of the stuff that happened didn't make any sense. It's weird because the film sells itself as a very grounded movie, regardless of the premise, which it isn't - I'm talking about the filmmakers' approach - but then it switches in the absurdist elements, and it just didn't feel like it all fit nicely. It didn't fit at all.

Most of the films that leave me convoluted also leave me with the urge to rewatch them, but this one doesn't. I didn't appreciate this film, and I don't think I'll ever touch it again. But, who knows? Maybe I'll find myself in the right circumstances - I'll lose a bet or a dare or something, else, there's no way - and I'll watch it again, love it, and think of how wrong I'm being right now. But as of now, as of this first watch, I think 'Everything Everywhere All at Once' is one of the most tedious and tasteless pieces of film I've come across recently. And, to think I've had some bland and distasteful film experiences lately.

Woman in the Dunes (1964)

Unconventional, meandering at times, yet effective and poignant!

[9/10 · 16 May 2022]

"Are we shoveling sand to live, or are we living to shovel sand?"

The movie is my second Teshigahara film, and, together with the first one, 'The Face of Another,' his work seems to be some of the most thought-provoking pieces of cinema I've ever seen. Teshigahara's work reminds me of Bergman's during the fifties. Bergman's cinema has evolved a lot throughout the years, but he had an acutely philosophical approach to his work early in his career during the fifties. And that is what I see in these two Teshigahara films I've seen.

Nasty! Heat, sweat, and sand. The film makes the idea of summer beaches and anything else sand-related look like a nightmare. Sand is a character here. Teshigahara films it like a character. He's so intimate with it. He makes sure to show the sand everywhere, but when he shoots it with those intense, almost passionate close-ups while it's glued to the characters' skin, he truly brings it to life. It's as if the sand is alive and is spreading and consuming everything near it. You feel bugged/uncomfortable by how the sand manifests itself, and you effortlessly get into the characters' shoes. But it's all due to the way it's shot. Haunting sand photography!

The editing could have been more to the point. There are moments here and there where, IMO, Teshigahara meanders more than he needs to, but those are minor issues that don't take away much from the film. Now, again, like early Bergman, Teshigahara's dialogue is very symbolic in lines. I quoted one at the beginning of this review. There's a lot of connotation to the writing here; subtexts, granted, it's not the wittiest or the sharpest, and most definitely consumed to this point, yet, compelling and poignant. 'Woman in the Dunes' makes for an intellectually intriguing take with its existential themes and challenging experience with the relatively avant-garde approach from a filmmaking standpoint.

The Northman (2022)

Beastial, but emotionally corrupt!

[7/10 · 12 May 2022]

I was eagerly waiting to watch this as I think Eggers is one of the most (if not THE most) unique voices in Hollywood right now. However, although I liked the movie - I think a lot of care and attention went into making it - it felt like it didn't quite deliver to the level I was expecting. Visually commandable yet emotionally distant, 'The Northman' is one of those films that leaves you satisfied up to a certain point, and again, with the grieving over, "It could have been better."

One of my problems with the film is that, despite Eggers' tremendous efforts for it not to, the movie feels like a straight medieval flick decored with these weird Lynchian-like moments. They often don't fit as naturally as Robert was hopping, and you get the impression he put them only to show, "I'm Robert Eggers. I make weird high art stuff." And this is not the case of me not liking the weird and not lucid moments in films in general - I think 'The Green Knight' is the best film of the decade so far -, it's just that this particular film doesn't wear well the hallucinogenic flare with which Eggers adorns it. Yet, this isn't a ruins-the-film problem. It's just that it could've done better without a few of those or if it would've approached them differently.

Another thing I didn't like was the acting. Well, not that I didn't like it more than I thought it wasn't extraordinary or even impressive. The thing is, I had heard so much about Skarsgård's physical performance, but I thought it wasn't anything remarkable, and I'm reducing all the hype I've heard about it to just an "OK performance." But my real disappointment came from Kidman and Taylor-Joy. Because, yes, I had heard Alexander does excellently in this film, but I had also heard he gets overshadowed by the actresses in the scenes opposite them. I failed to see that. I think the entire cast does a fine job in their given roles, but there's nothing memorable here regarding the performances.

I realize this is coming off as a highly critical review, and it's giving the impression of me not liking the movie, but that's not the case. So I'm going to change tones and talk about what I thought Eggers gets and does admirably here. I want to praise Robert's ability to conjure frames. He is such a virtuoso when it comes to constructing shots. If you've seen 'The Lighthouse,' you know what I'm talking about for that film is a masterpiece if we're talking camera-work and lighting. And Eggers approaches 'The Northman' with the same amount of rigidness when it comes to the way he shoots it. Some of the shots here look like shots taken out of storyboards, and they look like art pieces on their own. That shows how well-realized Eggers' idea for the film is in his head from a visual standpoint. I'm in love with some of the shots here.

I was hoping for Eggers to deliver better than in his other films with this one, but I think 'The Northman' is the worst out of his filmography. That's not saying that this is a bad film because it's not, and that should say a lot about what a great filmmaker Eggers is. But he's not in a progressive strike with this last. I'm left a little wanting. Anyway, Eggers has a long way to go, and he's on the right path to, at least, being distinct and original in the current climate of American movie-making, and I believe his pictures will soon hit the register they should.

This Transient Life (1970)

Cutting-edge cinema!

[10/10 · 2 May 2022]

But, to be fair, though, the experience and the opinion on any decent film watched immediately after seeing Star Wars Episodes 7 & 8 would get a significant bump by default. And yet, saying 'This Transient Life' is "decent" filmmaking would be offending it because the film is one of the most assured works I've ever seen, so good so to feel like a response to Tarko's 'Stalker' (even though 'Stalker' came out almost a decade later). But it's even better than that, for the setting and camera here are Japanese, and these guys don't care to fool around, not even slightly in self-indulgent stuff - straight to business.

I was constantly thinking of 'Stalker' during the second half of the movie, and now I fear I can't avoid making some parallelizations between the two films. If in Tarko's masterpiece, we see what it means to always hold on to your faith, in Jissôji's highly controversial but commanding cinematics, we witness a man act with no beliefs. And I love talking about this kind of stuff, but, as always, I'm not going to get into intimate interpretations regarding the plot and themes. I'm just going to talk about how Jissôji wears his "discourse" - this is cinema for the thinking - making perfect use of the medium's tools.

Just like in 'Stalker' where Tarko uses the environment he's shooting excellently to convey motifs of uncertainty, sorrow, and disbelief, showcasing the internal emotional spectrum of his characters perfectly, Jissôji does that with the same efficiency. And I'd argue it must have been even harder than it was for Andrei for Akio to work with his settings in achieving that. Yet he nails it. From the beginning, where we see the protagonist for the first time, we see him alone in this broad landscape showing his disconnection from everything, immediately letting us know there's a conflict in him. Later we see him walk alone in these tight corridors formed in between buildings while the camera is shooting from a low angle in front of him, and we see the edges of the buildings almost touch his head. You can interpret that as the thoughts revolving inside his head suffocating him, making it apparent that there's something that's bugging him. And Jissôji works with his settings beautifully throughout. The last time I noticed this level of proficiency in using the environment to tell the story, it'd be Antonioni's 'La Notte.'

Where 'This Transient Life' seems to have nothing in common with 'Stalker' is how it's shot and edited. If in 'Stalker' though the shots are tonally perfect - Tarko's visual prowess in that film is impeccable - Andrei meanders a lot (the self-indulgent stuff I mentioned earlier), making it exhausting to get through some of the shots, here you get nothing like that. Akio cuts quicker and to the point. And the overall camera-work is much more lively than that in 'Stalker.' Jissôji's shooting seems to lean more on the likes of Kalatozov (keeping it Japan v. Russia). And whenever I see "Kalatozov," I think of passion. Immense passion for the camera. And that's what I felt watching 'This Transient Life.' But if, in Kalatozov's case, you get the intense, grab-me-by-the-throat - I'm talking camera - kind of passion, when it comes to Jissôji, that passion is delicate. The camera moves gentler, and it's not as extravagant as Kalatozov's, but it carries almost the same ingenuity. There's a particular moment in this film where I thought the camera movement was so symbolic, and that's the pendulum-swinging camera scene. The camera moves from one side to the other, right and left, as the main character talks about hell and heaven. I thought that was a beautiful, creative choice that works great as an emphasis on the conversation.

I'm not going to go on any longer. I loved the movie. I didn't watch any Japanese films during April, and that hadn't happened in a while. Japanese cinema rules! And just noticed it, these Japanese filmmakers' names sound so badass.

You Won't Be Alone (2022)

There's much more then what meets the eye in this film.

[9/10 · 24 April 2022]

I was watching and bearly believing it. It's like Bela Tarr, Robert Eggers, and Terrence Malik decided to make a film together, and this is the product. A living, moving poem! A fearless work of uncompromised vision! It's Art at its purest!

It's a small film in terms of production value, but with its humble means of making a movie, it can awaken some of the most powerful emotions you'll ever experience watching a film. The film examines human nature; what it means to be human in an original, elevated cinematic language. Sure, the cinematography and the camera-work in its entirety may come off as a bit hurriedly, not very well thought out. But what it lacks in visuals, the film makes up for it with its tender score, raw acting performances, and unflinching direction.

'You Won't Be Alone is a film you can't talk much about without interpreting it. I think people will come out of the movie with different interpretations of it, and as far as I am concerned, that's one of the most luxurious qualities of a film as long as that's the filmmaker's goal with it. And that's what this film implied to me. Goran Stolevski embraces one of the most daring storytelling techniques, "don't tell, show," and navigates through this bizarre endeavor not like it's his debut film but a career-peek masterpiece. It's a challenging film. The slow pace, the unwarned jumps in time, and characters showing up without introductions would all present limited appeal to the masses. But to those in the right frame of mind to delve fully into it, the film it'll be a satisfying encounter. It's cinema for the feeling, not for the superficial intellect. The film feels designed to be an experience for the soul. And to think, cinema of these proportions is being made so close to me - it's a Macedonian film, set in the 19th or 20th century Macedonia, and it stays so close to the Albanian-similar Macedonian folklore - thrills me.

The Batman (2022)

Finally, Batman: Detective Style!

[7/10 · 18 April 2022]

It's never too late for dignity! After a few shaming show-ups during the last couple of years, Batman returns with a vengeance!

A respectful effort, and even more so compared to the other superhero movies out there. You can say that the film benefits, in a way, as the competition (Marvel movies) is not even trying. I won't argue against that. As a reserved superhero film fan, I was somewhat excited about this one. - Gotta give it to them: they sold it well. But, even though I think this is a sincere try at creating something special, it didn't deliver to meet my aggressive expectations.

While I think the film does well on so many levels, something was bugging me constantly while watching it, and that was the highly convenient writing. It's difficult to explain it perfectly without bringing examples from the film and spoiling it, but what I mean by that is things coming together nicely in the story, thus, conveniently, but without feeling earned and genuine. It's so annoying. It takes away so much from the film.

Then again, sporadical glitches with the writing are my only problem with the film. I liked the way Reeves approached the story. His vision is bold throughout. 'The Batman' doesn't feel like your typical superhero movie. Reeves avoids any comic-book movie trope and fully leans on the mystery-thriller elements, executing them expertly. You can feel the moody atmosphere of the film drew you in. You get involved and have an intimate interaction with what you're watching. But that's not only due to Reeves' assured direction. Now Oscar-winner cinematographer Fraser gets to display his skills behind the camera in his most challenging film yet, and delivers in high fashion. 'The Batman' looks gorgeous in its grimness. Greig manages to maintain shadow-ish tonal lighting throughout, complementing the theme, and yet, in the mids of all that dark, he also finds room to parade these intense colors of orange, red and blue. Beautiful color palettes!

I have no problem with long movies as long as everything shown in the film comes together nicely. It's all about the pace. If the film maintains the same rhythm throughout, it doesn't matter how long it is. 'The Batman' might drag a bit here and there, especially during the third act, but for the most part, it runs smoothly, and it competently justifies its almost three-hour-long running time.

Now, a word about Rob. I remember fuzz going on when they announced Pattinson would be playing Batman. People didn't like the choice. I'd be reading up and down the internet comments like, "the guy from 'Twilight,'" and such. Stupid people! Robert Pattinson is the living proof of the evolution theory. He went from being a daddy's princess favorite to now being the idol of the cult crowds ('The Lighthouse,' 'High Life,' and more). Now that's what I call true Darwinism. On a serious note, I think Pattinson truly embraced the role, and to me, he's the best Batman ever. Chapeau!

Burning (2018)

Criminally underrated!

[10/10 · 12 April 2022]

The gravitational pull this film applies on me is proving to be unmatched. It's proving so even compared to the movies that first introduced me and made me fall in love with this art form. Since this film came out, it's been the one I've watched the most (fourth time watching it).

South Korean cinema has always provided exceptional products, but it sure raised its game this past 10-year with Bong and Chan-Wook, among others, delivering some of the better films of the decade. Yet I think that Lee Chang-dong's highly visceral mystery-thriller surpasses them all, and after this last watch, I can confidently say the film fits among my five best of the last decade with no squeeze at all.

'Burning' is the type of film the more you watch, the more you understand and like. It requires multiple viewings to delve wholly into it (at least, that was the case with me). Regardless, since the first watch, although I didn't immediately acknowledge what a beast of filmmaking this is, the film stayed with me and stimulated me to think about it. I had a weird fascination with it. And that's what brought me back to it again and again. - It won't burn out. It's so rich and original. I believe it's one of the films people will refer to as a classic in the future.

'Burning' is a genre film. It's essentially a thriller. But the director here plays it so small in tone - you could easily mistake it for a smoldering drama. So from the beginning, the film starts a bit different, odd in terms of not letting us know what type of movie we're watching. The filmmaker longs a bit in setting up the premise, but that build-up is pivotal for the film to work so well. Every moment in this movie earns its place. Chang-dong is so well aware of what he's doing - it's unbelievable how well-measured this film is. Even when he introduced us to all the characters and set the film "in-motion," he doesn't rush to meet the exclamation point, the genre's typical way-go. Instead, he continues in high fashion, operating colder than a bomb disposal expert on the run throughout. And, absorbing from his confidence is the cast. The three main actors perform admirably, but I'd like to call attention to the actor playing the protagonist in particular. I usually have a hard time understanding and getting enjoyment out of Asian acting, and that's maybe because of my ignorance towards their culture; their "style" of talking and doing things, but I struggle a great deal with that. Here though, I had no problem getting into the protagonist's shoes. The guy plays it so well, giving an honest and vulnerable performance, making it easy for you to relate to his character.

But what's impressive, and IMO, the eminent "asset" of the film, is how Chang-dong flirts with us, the viewer, using subtext exquisitely well. There's a scene here where the two male protagonists have a conversation about greenhouses. They're talking about greenhouses, but actually, greenhouses have nothing to do with their talk. I can't explain the ingenuity of the scene without spoiling it, but that moment is so poignant, it's so sharp and visceral, it's incredible. It makes my skin crawl every time I see it. It's one of the best scenes I've seen.

Off-topic: There's a similar scene with the upper mentioned in last year's 'Drive My Car:' the moment where the protagonist is in the backseat of his car with his dead wife's lover having a conversation with almost the same level of subtext as in 'Burning's greenhouse moment. I wanted to mention it somewhere since I didn't talk about 'Drive My Car,' and I think there's no better occasion for that.

One of the things I like the most here is the way the film's shot and all its aesthetics. Excellent camera work throughout, but two are the moments that I thought were worth mentioning concerning camera movements. The first is at the club - this is also one of my favorite dance scenes ever - where the camera shows all the people dancing while it moves across the club 'till it finds our protagonists, and then it moves back in the same pattern as it follows the lead character leaving the club. I loved it! The other moment goes down at the end of the film, and I noticed it only after this last viewing: The entire final scene is one continuous take. I was like, "wow." That felt like a response to the extraordinary long take in the car from Cuaron's 'Children of Men.' Pure mastery!

To wrap it up, I think this is one of the best films I've ever seen, and apparently, it's also one of the most rewatchable ones.