HotTubPoolParty

I review movies

[hottubpoolparty]

Film Review: The Circle by Jafar Panahi

Today we are going to discuss a great movie, that came out around the Iranian new wave. This movie accurately shows us the injustices faced by women in Middle Eastern areas. The plot is about three women. Two of whom have escaped jail, and try to flee to one of the woman's hometown. And the third woman who has also escape prison, and tries to get an abortion, which becomes an incredibly tough task for her. Lets get to it.

What did I feel about the film?

I felt bad for the women who had to deal with the derogatory acts like catcalling, and mistreatments. The three women in the film, sure did try to do something about it, yet they weren't ever helped by the public, when they voiced themselves. Considering that the public did not know that they were criminals, it shows that it could happen to any female out there. So, what did I feel about the film? In a word: Enraged.

What were my after thoughts?

The ending was portrayed well. I guess until the last scene, I didn't know why the film was called The Circle, and then I heard Solmaz Gohlami's name. I wish the Nargess and Arezou, would have gone to the hometown, but there are so many obstacles for them to go over. I felt horrible for Pari, as she tried to get that abortion, but this shows us how in the Middle Eastern states, the woman are forced to stay dependent to their families, or husband.

On a mental level, how do I process the film?

I liked seeing how, through all adversities, the women tried to help each other and supported each other, but unfortunately, it was in vain. Jafar has successfully captured the treatment of women, that we casually overlook and pass off as a rare occurrence.

What film grammar did I notice?

Well the title has the answer for this question.

What film theory can I put to use here?

I did not notice any diegetic sound at all. It gave me a better feel of the streets the women had to constantly be in. I did notice a better usage of wide shots and longer scenes.

What similarities can I draw from other films if any?

Actually, the only similarity I can draw is from another Jafar Panahi film, called Offside. It was again about women. This time it involved them going to see a football match.

And that brings me to the end of yet another film review. If you pay attention, you may notice that I am getting lazier through the days. Hopefully that changes soon.

[hottubpoolparty]

Film Review: Tokyo Story by Yasujiro Ozu

This time we are going to review a film from Japan. And this one is not going to be anime because it is from 1953. This is from the Japanese new wave of cinema, so get ready for complex movie breakdown time. Allow me to get my working hat on.

What did I feel about the film?

I felt like the film was a very simple film. It certainly felt so with the shots used by Yasujiro. The story was effective with the actors conveying it to us with excellence.

What were my after thoughts?

I liked how the film talked about issues that apply to todays world as well. Humans are no strangers to leaving parents and going about with their busy lives. Perhaps, I am too young to comprehend what he truly meant, but I do love how it still does not blame the younger generation. He just shows us as it is. I do try to make my parents happy, but we all just lose that objective somewhere in the mix.

On a mental level, how do I process this film?

Sometimes, I do not know the difference between this question and the last two questions. (I did not assign these questions for myself by the way). Refer to the first and second question for the answer.

What film grammar do I notice?

I like how the film held back on background music to emphasis on the emotions. He lets the audience interpret the intensity of the scene in our own way. He also never focuses on one emotion does he? I like that.

What film theory can I put to use here?

I see that this film does one thing Bollywood needs to take notes from. This film does not use any dramatic music. Just music for scene transitions. I really liked that.

He shows all the characters together, never focusing on one emotion. Which I also like. We are allowed to interpret the intensity.

Ozu exploits that rule of third, but it goes well with his style, so can we really complain?

Ozu, also uses mundane shots like the environment or a lantern, like Tarkovsky.

What similarities can I draw to other films, if any?

This just reminds me more of Hiroshima mon amour because of some of the aspects of this film. I enjoyed this film, just to let you know.

And that brings me to the end of yet another film review. I usually think critiquing is a weird thing, because we never know what could have been until we get involved. But, hey, that is just my take.

[hottubpoolparty]

Film Review: Hiroshima Mon Amour by Alain Resnais

Welcome back to yet another film review done on perhaps YET another great film. This one is considered to be a important film during the French New Wave films, and it truly belongs in this category. Lets get to the questions, so that I can elaborate on what I mean.

What do I feel about the film?

I felt like this film had an very interesting approach to time. the way it was portrayed, so me being a time nerd, obviously was intrigued by it. Not that, that's what kept my attention through the film.

What were my after thoughts?

I felt like this was more than just a romantic film. It felt like the shared suffering of two individuals with two different perspectives on the same situation. The movie shows us the intersecting of their timelines, and I was there for it.

On a mental level, how do I process the film?

I find it hard to put in words Elle and Luis' relationship. The movie shows us the extremes of human pleasures, and pain, and for me, it was kind of tough to digest.

What film grammar do I notice here?

I think most of us noticed this, but I noticed the "crossing of the timeline" the director keeps referencing throughout the film.

I also noticed how the film keeps showing us and Elle that the souvenirs and artefacts that she sees or gets are pretty much nothing compared to the living the experience, as so stated, by Lui.

What Film Theory did I notice here?

A lot of slow scene transitions. I learnt in film course that it signifies the passing of time, but I feel like this movie used it, just as well to show us the memories lived by Elle and Lui.

We can also hear the whimsical diegetic sound, but I am not sure why its set to that tone. Perhaps, I need to do a little bit of research and find out after this.

Any similarities to other movies, that I can draw?

As it is for any movie from the French New Wave, I simply cannot draw out a similarity for this movie. Maybe there is a few, and you could let me know down in the comments. This is not a genre I would mind watching again.

Anyhoo, that brings me to the end of another great review, for a great movie. Yup, you heard me right. I said "Great." My confidence is starting to flare fellas, so you best believe I'm gonna be a wreck while writing my next review, hope you guys enjoyed this one. Good day, ladies and gentlemen.

[hottubpoolparty]

Film Review: Jules and Jim by Francois Truffaut

Welcome back to another mediocre film review. Today, I will be reviewing the age old Jules and Jim: The story of three light-hearted friends forced to move on from their playful, carefree days to the responsibilities of the adult life and the accountability that comes with it. Jules and Jim are two best friends until they meet another character called Catherine. They instantly connect with her as she behaves like one of the "boys". They spend their time engaging in fun activities, until Jules decides to marry Catherine. Then comes the war, which forces the three of them to grow up and leave their childish behavior behind.

What do I feel about the film?

Incredible film from Francois Truffaut. It was very unfortunate to see how the three friends had to give up their fun to blend in with the real world. I felt mixed about Catherine. I may be wrong but I feel like she was the down fall of these two good friends. Of course you can never convince your mind that you're not in love with someone, but this love, while it may not have destroyed their friendship, surely did destroy them individually.

What were my after thoughts?

I relate to them a little bit. I am not too old, but I do sometimes also reminisce about the days when all I cared about was scoring a goal against the other kids in the apartment in a friendly football match, rather than deal with real world problems, or even love for that matter. Unfortunately, time moves on and we have no choice but too mature up, and take on our responsibilities.

On a mental level, how do I process this film?

Its not just a story about love. It can't be that straightforward. This movie is about two friends who find each other through the highs and the lows.

What film grammar did I notice?

I noticed how this movie purposely tried to come off as though it was improvised on the spot. It had a lot of those elements in it.

What film theory can I put to use here?

I'm pretty sure the first thing we both would say is that it was black and white, but I doubt they had a choice back then. Funnily, the director of this movie created the film theory, we today know as: Auteur Theory. It talks about how the director, not the screenwriter, is the films final author. Other than that, I liked the cinematography.

Similarities to other films, if any?

Considering the story line, you could say this is what This Means War was based on hahaha heh.

Well thats the end of another film review. Just watched Suicide Squad 2 today as well, so lemme give a review on that real quick. Messed up.

[hottubpoolparty]

Movie Review: Amelie by Jean-Pierre Jeunet

This is the type of movie you watch when there's a sunny weather outside, its the weekend and you and your friends just want to watch a good rom-com to get time moving. In other words, this is a great feel-good movie. I loved it! Credits to our professor for assigning this one for us. I personally live my life with special consideration to other people's feelings. So I really liked this movie. Anyhoo, lets jump into it.

What do I feel about the film?

Easy questions. Great film. Feel-good films for me always a win. I guess that is me being biased, but I am only human guys. I felt like making someone's day after watching this film.

What were my after thoughts?

Jean-Pierre really nailed the tone of the film. Its a tough thing to make a whimsical film and even tougher to get away with it. He added the right tone and atmosphere to this, making it even more enjoyable.

What film grammar did I notice?

I noticed the symmetry in the film shots and the camera movements used by the director. Kind of like Wes Anderson films.

What film theory can I put to use here?

Off the top of my head: The lighting. I read somewhere that comedy films have much better lighting, highlighting the colors in the scene, and this is something I noticed in Amelie. Lot of non-diegetic, whimsical music as well, but that only adds to the magic in the scenes.

What similarities can I draw from other films, if any?

For the feel-good aspect, I yet again recall The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. Always love watching that.

For the cinematic aspect, I'd say pretty much any Wes Anderson film, but with a different sense of humor.

And yet again we come to the end of another film review. I got no idea how many people read these things, so today I've decided to just drop a random word into this review: Scrumptious. Thanks for reading by the way.

[hottubpoolparty]

Film Review: Call Me By Your Name by Luca Guadanino

Hello guys! Today we're gonna do a film I've been ignoring for FAR TOO LONG. I don't know why I ignored it and I don't know what I was so busy with to not eventually get to the movie. It is a terribly good film. but these details are for the questions we'll answer soon enough. Before we begin. I gotta say: I am a straight guy, but Timothee is REALLY good looking.

What do I feel about the film?

I felt more appreciative towards nature. I really liked the way Guadanino portrayed nature in the film. It's the summer of 1983 in Italy and life is an easy going breeze. We can take time to read, learn about Greco-Roman culture and relax by the pool. And this is exactly what I felt while watching this.

What were my after thoughts?

I was amazed by the way Guadanino portrayed the relationship between Elio and Oliver. The way both of them tested each other. Timothee was both amazing and incredibly mature for the role of Elio. He perfectly showed us the prickly but slowly smoothening relationship of Elio and Oliver. Ending had me weak:( (If I hadn't said it before, let me remind you, I am straight)

What film grammar do I notice?

Ooh boy. For this film, there was a lot I noticed. The lush countryside of Italy in the early 80s, the relaxed summer feel, the abundance of time in everyone's lives. This movie makes me want to go to Italy and just lounge.

What film theory can you put to use here?

No use of special effects, so I'd say somewhat realistic. Saw a lot of those apricots, which held some form of significance I am too dumb to know. Beautiful natural lighting and non-diegetic sound. Pretty much thats it.

What similarities can I draw from other films?

This movie is somewhat similar to 500 Days of Summer, for me. Of course, now I prefer this movie to any other romantic movie I have seen so far (I'm straight pls believe me ;-;).

And that was the review for Call Me By Your Name. If you excuse me, I have to go finish Resident Evil 7 now.

[hottubpoolparty]

Film Review: Song To Song by Terrence Malick

Hello to the four people who read these blogs :) Just kidding, my mom said I'm gonna make it big as a critic, so, hello to all my fans as well. I believe my mother because she said I would grow up to be so handsome, and she nailed that prediction. Today I am going to do the review of a film by Terrence Malick. You may have heard of him or maybe even seen one of his films. He's got such a way with filling each scene with raw emotions. Anyway, here we go!

Quick summary (from Wikipedia): Set against the Austin, Texas, music scene, two entangled couples -- struggling songwriters Faye (Rooney Mara) and BV (Ryan Gosling), and music mogul Cook (Michael Fassbender) and the waitress (Natalie Portman) whom he ensnares -- chase success through a rock 'n' roll landscape of seduction and betrayal.

What did I feel about the film?

For the first time, I actually felt something different watching this film. I felt myself connect to the emotions in each shot. The movie may not have aced every "check-box" in a commercial-film sense, but you got to give it to the musical score. I was in love with it. I felt myself grow a little naïve towards the ending of the film. Perhaps a part of me wishes to have what Ryan Gosling and Rooney Mara did, but for the sake of this review I shall try to remain professional. *sniff*

What were my after thoughts?

I felt happy, emotional and conflicted. yeah, I had all those emotions in THAT specific order. No, I am still somewhat qualified to keep this review going. I feel like Cook got what he deserved. I felt a tad bit upset, because Rhonda's mom sacrificed so much for her, yet Rhonda (Natalie Portman) just gave in and took her own life. I suppose I can't judge her decision because I've never been in such a situation. Though eventually, I did like the ending, as Kaye and BV ended up together. They did seem like they were meant for each other.

On a mental level, how do I process this film?

There were moments where I was lost. I didn't know where the story was going, luckily the narrations kept me in the loop. I felt a connect to the characters in the film. Most of all to BV. I haven't completely finished a Terrence Malick film, but after this, I was glad I did. I think I mentioned it before, but I'm glad my professor makes us watch these films, because there is so much for all of us to explore. And today I got to explore the world of Terrence Malick. The presence of nature in our increasingly urban lives, the poetic approach to the story lines, and the thought-provoking questions being laid out, I enjoyed it all.

What film grammar did I notice?

Just like any other Terrence Malick film, this film flowed like water for me. Crystal clear, cool blue water. The narrations of each character helps us understand their true wants and needs. I noticed how certain shots focused on a particular sound in the shot more than any other sound that may have had been occuring. I felt like this was a way of communicating the message in the particular scene. Like how you can here the interstate highway, while BV(Ryan Gosling) was in the country side. Or how you could only hear the water splashes when Kaye and BV were hiking on the small hill, towards the end.

What film theory can you put down here?

Very often we can see the close up of our main character mostly when they cry. I also saw a lot of close ups of flowers and other nature related references. This film felt more like a realism based one to me. LOTS and LOTS of non-diegetic sound, which I really liked.

What similarities can I draw from other films, if any?

*inhale*......... None. No, I seriously cannot relate this film to any other kind of film. Films not made by Terrence Malick, that is. Its a unique method and I am glad to say that I like it.

Alright lads. This brings us to the end of our third review. I hope you guys found this to be a useful review. If you are a film enthusiast, please do like and share. I feel like with each review, I grow to understand what not to do. So stick with me fellas, I'm going to get better at this. For the sake of my grades. Have a good day, and goodbye.

[hottubpoolparty]

Film Review: Nostalghia by Andrei Tarkovsky

Welcome to yet another film review on this channel. Today we are going to the review one of Tarkovsky's best works: Nostalghia. Just like before, I am going to answer the commonly asked questions we all would have within ourselves, after we finished watching this film. So with no more further ado, lets get into it.

What do I feel about the film?

I read up a bit about Andrei Tarkovsky, and it turns out he was exiled from the Soviet Union. This piece of information helped me understand this film better. I felt like I was seeing a man struggle with his surroundings.

What were my after thoughts?

I really really appreciated the cinematography in this film. We see the protagonist in the beautiful setting of the Tuscany countryside, yet Tarkovsky was able to make it look like a haunted mansion. Like a man who is homesick or a child going to school. I had a small thought about how this film makes some of us perceive the protagonist as Jesus Christ, but maybe that is just me.

On a mental level, how do I process this film?

To be honest, I am not a very experienced reviewer, much less a great one, so when I'm asked this question, I'd just say "Yessir, It is currently being processed."

What film grammar do you notice?

My mind goes to his long shots straight away. I am not sure how people find long shots to be in films, but for me, when I see a long shot taking place, I get really into it. It makes me think about the meaning behind it. You don't "just" put a long shot into a film right?

Second, I noticed that Tarkovsky puts a lot of beautiful image like frames into his scenes. It makes me feel a certain emotion. Like a guideline to understanding what the scene means.

Tarkovsky clearly is seen to be working with his heart on his sleeve in these scenes.

What film theory can you put to use here?

The long shot, firstly: Shows us the relationship between the object and his surroundings. and he did it very well.

The recurring beauty in many shots through out the film.

The heavy influence of Tarkovskys own life in the film, hence the strangeness to the beautiful Tuscany country-side.

What similarities can I draw to other films, if any?

Well, this is weird, but the last scene reminded me of the church scene in The Kingsman. Long scenes always make me wonder how the director did it, how many takes it took, how hard it was to achieve that.

Conclusion: This film was definitely an artistic masterpiece. I'm rather glad I'm being made to watch these films. There are so many views and ideologies that we can be introduced to through these beautiful movies. This movie also gave us the most personal insight into Andrei Tarkovsky's life.

Thanks for tuning in, until next time.

[hottubpoolparty]

Film Review: Roma by Alfonso Cuaron

Welcome to my first post. I created this to primarily review movies but, who knows how these type of things pan out? Today I am going to answer a few questions we all may have asked ourselves while watching the film.

What do I feel about the film?

though the film was a slow-paced one, the beauty of the shots and the subtle hints throughout the film kept me engaged. I am aware this is not a film everyone may agree with being good, but my objective is to bring to light the small, but beautiful parts of a film. Personally, I felt rather emotionally worn out watching this film.

What were my after thoughts?

I found myself developing a soft-spot for the mother of the kids, Sofia, and her maid (the protagonist), Cleo. They were both victims to men who abandoned their duties. Antonio, ran off with a mistress and, Fermin brushed Cleo away and decided to refuse the proposal that Cleo had become pregnant because of his doing. I appreciated the way the women dealt with these adversities. In a film theory sense, there was a very artistic and intriguing way Alfonso set certain scenes to convey a message to the audience.

On a mental level, how do I process this film?

I really appreciate the cinematography and the meaning behind this film. Otherwise, there really is not much to say.

What film grammar did I notice?

There were quite a few moments, where I noticed a certain prop or object that helped explain certain scenes better:

Planes: First thing I noticed is the amount of times a plane appeared in a vital scene. I read that it symbolized how the hopes for a better world were still so far out of reach for someone like Cleo.

Men: Men were shown in a bad light in this film (I'm not mad about this, I swear).

Water: Its crazy how movies can make such ordinary resources and objects into such art pieces. Throughout the progression of the film, we see how water moves from a drop, to a stream, to a river, to an ocean.

What similarities can I draw from this film?

To be honest, I kind of related to some of the shots with ones I've seen in The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.

So, this brings me to the end of this review and to the end of my first post. Do keep in mind I am a student in college, making reviews for a project. I am not perfect in my reviews and I am definitely not someone to judge movies like these. Yet, I hope you enjoyed this review, and gained a good insight about Roma and its message to the audience. Thank you.

Written by yaboy Kevin Alexander

Credits:

https://meetinmontauk.com/2018/12/20/themes-and-symbolism-in-alfonso-cuarons-roma/