Reviews

Imagine making All About Eve but its war, but without any war, any repercussion, or anything remotely war-rish.

Jesus, this is the least political anti-war film I watched. It literally just want to say to you that a war kind of does a number to a photographer's psyche. It is a WAR. The lack of desperation and ultimately chaos is such a choice.

Alex Garland's brilliant mind went to how he can frame it towards a photographer psyche. ITS a weird bent that he ultimately (and expectedly) could not make do. He went to his Annihilation mode AND made an empty narrative about ambiguous factions AND almost a bunch of characters that is to gung ho. This is were the ambiguity makes the film to falls apart.

The film felt like an empty march for nothing. You could not frame that even if your film is thematically about the 'different shades of grey' WHEN there is nothing beyond it. This also confuses during one of the more heated moments in the film - the racist officer. Where they disgusted since they killed their friends ONLY. Do they have any input against the officer? Its disgusting BUT it removes any kind of implications that really dulls the narrative.

Then the Eve storyline.

This is expected AND would have worked better if we at least know what kind of loyalty does each of them has. Clearly, if you know Photojournalism - it is nothing but apolitical. Even being allowed to be 'photographing' alternative groups, is very politically motivated.

The younger photographer getting the 'killer' instinct after all the violence is beyond the point if you are unable to provide any context. It so weird. So when Dunst's character dies 'in veteran' expectedly, so what's the point? She can now press her camera when there is someone gunning her AND make her photos. It just happen. What was even her arch about? It posits that a photographer is just a interested in taking the little photo. Ok, but why?

Again EMPTY Platitudes.

Not recommended.

Challengers is a non-linear sports film about how three people once met way back AND met again in a Challenger Series before the US Open Tennis Competition AND how their life intertwine between the years.

Hated the first third of this film. The ADHD Luhrmann edit and annoyingly overlong setup that they were actually a threesome. That third could have been halved to be honest. It did drag a bit. This could have been a shorter glimpse of the past to be honest. I also felt that stylistically, it was sort of a weird outlier to the overall film. I think Luca decided to switch it up mid-shoot AND it shows. It such a left field compared to most of the film.

But it picks up when it realized that it is about jealousy, bitterness and desperation. The last two thirds definitely is great film. Everything was starting to fall to its place AND the setups smoothly falls to pieces (though definitely easy to catch). I think it really drives well the intention of each character (much better than the initial scenes). The director also found footing on the style he wants to take with the film, though I have a major concern with the ending. A weird demonization of Tashi towards the end leaves a weird taste in my mouth. Its particularly weirder given the widely homoerotic tone of the film. Its too forthright with the 'homie'-sexuality that I think the way the it push that Tashi's machination is extremely selfish and self-serving can border to icky. In comparison, the boys are characterized as changed, loyal and is doing it for her. I think it can be interpreted as that she is awful AND is shown to be the only person being deceitful during both of her relationship with the man. Wished they handled it in a better way that gave her at least a redeeming quality. I think that was the downer of the film.

Otherwise, the soundtrack is really good but weirdly mixed. This might be a case of a bad cinema but there where moments that the soundtrack is suddenly so loud that you could barely hear the dialogue. I do not know if that is a stylistic choice BUT its just bizarrely rises and loses steam mid scenes AND I found it infuriating at times.

Acting-wise, Josh O'Connor. He was running in circles against Zendaya and Faist in this film. He knows how to be mischievous and mysterious. I even think that had he took Faist role, he can improve the role even. He was so good, given that he is dorky in real life. You could see someone who can inhibit character. Large kudos to that. Zendaya is a somewhat distant second. Again, not the biggest fan of Tashi's characterization BUT this is her most 'adult' role in terms of both sexuality AND just showing personality. Wished she pursue this kind of role that show her as a more complicated person that exist in a realistic world. Faist was fine BUT his acting really leaves much to be desired.

I will definitely watch again if given a chance. Personally, Guadagnino's most realized effort yet.

A lesser known Lino Brocka's work - Stardoom is not your a typical Star is Born Narrative. In here, everything is drab.

Stardoom centers around a young star who probably has what it takes be a star BUT with the people around him and his position below the rich, he had to give a little more to move ahead (ie sleeping his way around to get favors AND find a step up close to fame).

The structure is divided into two. The Lolita Rodriguez subplot which I found quite long AND while the more dramatic portion, is actually the less interesting part. Its practically tells why she would want her son to be famous AND be rich. Its the same old melodrama trope that I felt did not add much to the 'stardoom' of it all.

The showbiz section is probably one of the darker iteration of fame whoring I have seen in film. It this film, Joey knows and is willing of his power as an attractive person. Unlike most film about fame, it never demoralize the idea that Joey wants to go up the pedestal AND used his looks for it - which is unique BUT also ruthless. Its a dissection of fame is something I expected from Brocka - especially given his harsher Marcos-era movies.

Walter Navarro is a star. He looks really good. I am very shocked that he actually does feel modern and a bit foreign. I have little to no idea who he was. I guess he was a bit forgotten since he stopped working after the 80s. It might have been tough when early 70s with all the economic downturn.

Anyhow, Lolita Rodriguez was fine. I think I saw her in better parts. The backstory section is not just favorite to be honest. Though I would say, Eddie Romero was fantastic as her two faced faker husband. I found his portrayal able and lift the very cheap melodramatic material. Mario O'Hara again plays another homely person role - which is the funniest typecasting in film. A nothing role sadly. He was better in other films of the era to be honest.

Overall, a very interesting film. Brocka always surprise with all his little films.

Welfare is pretty much about a day to day life of Welfare Officers and the people who is in need of welfare.

Its the most dramatic of his films so far. With people in deep need and officers who are limited by their budgets and "laws", emotions run high as they try to meet half-way.

There are decently good material about the hyperbole of Welfare in America. Half of them are in a rut, since they are truly in need of so much information just to prove the money to go out. It is clear that some are pushed to their edge (especially the girl who was being forced to go back, or the racist welfare guy to the guard or the worker who wants to be a supervisor) BUT I do not think some are actually using the 'welfare' for good. One example is the North Carolina Mother-Daughter who are stretching their ability to get welfare AND is using it as to get more money. They were livid since no one seems to be able to just say NO to them AND are forcing them to go around to possibly get it.

I think this is a much more complex and active documentary that the 'directness' works wonder. Everyone here is naturally elevated since they are actively being judged. Their actions, their voice, their looks. Its such a rich text to watch.

PS: You kinda see how people who never worked with service or customer facing work. They are highly judgmental of the workers who was to give hard decisions. It might be unpopular but it has to happen.

Coming Home tells the story of an Army Wife and her time alone as an Army volunteer helping disabled soldiers. She meets a miserable case who she develops an intense relationship while she waits her husband's impending return.

This is made on the tail end of Ashby Great Seventies run.

I think for the most part, it is somewhat forgotten (even though Oscar-winning) since it is his most baity work. It is a straight forward Anti-War Nam movies with a great soundtrack that never really distracts away from its material. The material itself is understated yet poignant: a hallmark of his great seventies run BUT I do consider the ending rather dense.

I think it was unfair to equate the affair as because of 'the enemy'. It is not government mandated that they go at it. Additionally, I found it cheap that the writing implies that the husband's conservatism is something that can make a viewer let the 'cheating' go.

Performance wise, this was an all around great stuff. Its no wonder it got all the acting nominations and even got 2 wins. Fonda and Dern specifically had never been better to be honest.

Overall, a good film. Wished that they were able to create more dialogue about the cheating. It felt rushed and simplified in the final product.

When a young biker discovers that adulthood is more than what his small viewpoint knows, he reckoned his current relationship as a failure and developed a budding friendship with a fellow biker with a glaring secret.

Particularly known for its depiction of queerness during the 60's, it still kind of confounds me.

I remember trying to really watch this way back from a dingy copy off youtube, and I personally still think the plot of deconstructing his ideas of marriage is the film's biggest strength. Its probably the most alive and 'kitchen-sink' portion of the film. It was quite refreshing to see coming-of-age films covering this portion of adulthood when our beliefs and the life's truths just contrast. The young couple discovers that there is more in marriage than love. Rita Tushingham was marvelous as the abrasive yet naive girlfriend of the Colin Campbell, the film's lead.

Though, I still do not know how I feel about the film's ending *Spoiler's ahead* - after he tries to win back his wife, he ends up seeing her in bed with someone causing him to plan with his friend to go to America. His friend arranges work that can bring them there and while waiting in the pub nearby, he discovers that this friend is indeed queer - to his dismay. And decided to walk off.

I do not know.

I think that it was nice that it did not need to go to hysterics to say that he does not like him in THAT way BUT I felt that this ending made their friendship to be looked on a different perspective.

Did he also like his friend in a queer way and was upset that he can be reciprocated? Or does he feel betrayed that the friendship might be false - seemingly using his troubling marriage as an entry to him? The ending does not portray him particularly homophobic at all but homosexuality is yet to be decriminalized then. It would not be shocking for men of the era to be less in tune befriending gay men still. Or was it both? He fears his feelings for him AND felt that his friendship, now that he knows, might be self-serving.

The ending definitely made their friendship a piece to be dissected to be honest.

Overall recommended, an interesting film.