Disney, presently

This next one is a real doozy. One of us had seen it before, but forgot it almost immediately after and the other one was less than enthusiastic to watch the animation. It could be said that Disney's offerings for most of the 2000's tried to copy Pixar, which itself copied anime and especially Miayazaki. Atlantis: The Lost Empire is no exception. 

 

Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)

 

Painfully directionless and the paper thin characters didn't help. But we'll delve more into those aspects down below.

 

 

 

Characters

It is nigh impossible to make this, because none of the characters differ from each other significantly. They try to establish the base line for the characters but you come out of this movie remembering absolutely nothing of the people in the film. So this'll be very "bare bones" character outlines.

Milo: He's an explorer. They hired Michael J. Fox as his voioce, so that we'd automatically connect the character with sense of adventure, naivety and youthful curiosity. The problem is, the voice alone does not a character make - you actually have to write one. The dude also has no character arc to speak of, so for once Disney did to a male main character what they've always done to their female characters. Progress?

Kida: She's even worse than the main character, so we guess the progress is thus nullified. Kida is there to be the dark-skinned excotic object of romance. Her role as the saviour of her people is also basically anime's "magical girl" powers, except it isn't even her but a blob of power she has morphed into that does all the saving. There is no evidence that she was ever concious while the blob did the whole saviour stuff. Also, Kida is probably the most egregious example of Disney sexualizing their women, she doesn't even get pants like Jasmine, a long skirt like Esmeralda or a one-piece like Pocahontas. All she gets is shreds of clothes to show as much skin as possible.

The crew: They're pretty forgettable but also they're the only ones with any kind of character arc and purpose when they turn against their villainous leader. Other than that, they're basically indistinguishable and they've clearly been modeled after Miyazaki's pirates but without their humour and hearts of gold. And the villain is a ridiculously bland "surprise baddie", he doesn't even get Clayton's obvious villain vibes that make him somewhat entertaining. This film basically started Disney's villainous characters' downfall  - as in they become bland as fuck, there is no pizzazz, charisma, entertainment or humour in any of them.

 

 

Story

Atlantis: The Lost Empire has somewhat similar themes to Pocahontas - discovering a new world, greedy mercenary wants to take advantage of the culture's technology and the main character is fascinated by the new culture and it's female member. Except this movie manages to be even more offensive than Pochahontas - it's the white main character who teaches Atlantis' natives how to read their own language and use their technology. You couldn't be more white saviour if you tried. We suppose that's why the filmmakers had Kida save the city in the end, but as said previously, it wasn't really her who saved the people, it was an unconcious mass of power. Since we do not care one iota of the characters, the plot feels incredibly draggy and the finale's deus ex machina does not make the story any better - at least anime's magical girl's usually use their powers of their own will and are concious when doing it and if not, that usually means something is terribly wrong which the story then explores. None of that here, Kida is just a vessel and nothing more. Also, the fact that the main character has more chemistry with a damn teenager tells how half-assed the romance really is.

 

Miscellanous

The CGI is incredibly distracting. A lot of the designs are cool and quite unique but the horrible hamfisted CGI either distracts you from them or outright blots them out. Music is also rather forgettable. There is a reason Disney movies are remembered for their music - it is a way to tell a story without dialogue and memorable songs that are used in the background as themes was the longest time Disney's bread and butter. Once you take the songs away there is only a skeleton left. The colours still look great and yes, we prefer 2D animation infinitely more than CGI, even when it is an abject failure like this one.   

                                                                                                       

 

 

 

Losing our religion

This is a list for all the atheists and agnostics (and maybe even for nuanced belivers as well) out there to celebrate the Easter holidays. Leaving religion behind can be painful, hard and scary, especially so for high-demand religion. These films and tv-shows have helped us process some of the trauma we have from religious dogma, even if some of these movies might not have anything to do with organized religion at first glance.

 

1. Dogtooth (2009). This film is a perfect example of the infantilization many high-demand religions inflict on their followers. It's got everything one might face in a cult- childhood indoctrination, patriarchal figure you must obey, boys are valued more than girls, women exist for the sexual gratification of men, gaslighting and straight up lying and distortion of reality. Is it any wonder it made the top of our list? Also, it is Lanthismos, so the whole movie is just weirdness incarnate.  

 

 

2. Spotlight (2015). Our righteous fury movie. This is the one you watch when you wanna have some catharsis over the fact how many religious organizations simply just allow child sexual abuse to happen and even go so far as to cover it up, and do absolutely nothing to bring the culprits to justice. The scene with Mark Ruffalo's character exploding over the church hiding the abuse is the definitive point for us in the film - what happens when a religion that you have always thought was a force for good is actually commiting atrocities and trying to actively hide them from not just their members but the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Holy Spider (2022). Women's oppression by fundamentalist religious doctrine is something that many religious organizations take part in - we come from one as well. This film depicts the violence that women face in high-demand religions - how strict rules of dress, behaviour and women's role in the religion (mainly only allowing women to have certain jobs or staying at home) are forced on women and girls. Neither do women have any kind of power in these kinds of religions - their only status is to be a wife and a mother.

 

 

3. Silence (2016). Scorsese has some real philosophical ponderings about God, faith and doubt. He wonders what does it mean to have faith, how does one cope when it seems God is not answering in your greatest hour of need, are you still a believer if you are forced to renounce your faith publicly but still believe in your heart? This is a movie that would still allow those, who have left religion, to have some belief in higher power and also makes the case that there can be no faith without doubt.

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Through a Glass Darkly (1961). One cannot have a list about films to do with religion without Ingmar Bergman. The man has always been interested studying religious philosophy through the medium of cinema. We truly appreciate the way Bergman looks at religion - not as something sacred but neither something evil. He sees religions more as philosophy, something that tries to give answers to the meaning and purpose of human life and death. He can also be critical of especially Christian ideas of knowing God is real and how God allowing suffering is good - Bergman himself is very conflicted about these things. In this film particularly one could argue Bergman connects the main character's religious fervour to worsening her mental illness that prevents the main character from healing. 

 

 

6. Malcolm X (1992). His relationship with Nation of Islam in the movie is the most relevant part for this list. The fact that Malcolm X actually believed the women and his wife about the abuse his religious leader was perpetrating and that started his journey out of the cult, is something that many ex-religious people can relate to. Because if you close your eyes from the wrongdoings your religious organization is commiting, how religious can you really claim to be? The film also expertly portrays the hero worship that exists in cults in general.

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

7. The Handmaiden (2016). Leaving a cult can be such a freeing experience and here especially throwing away restricting gender norms bring actual freedom - you don't have to hide who you are or who you love (true for every queer person ever). This has another rage catharsis moment of the two women destroying the porn library of the perverted owner dude. Seeing yourself as a human being who has worth purely just as a human instead of a sex object for men is one of the major themes we love about this story. Since religions so often see women as lesser than men and heavily repress any kind of different expressions of sexuality, that leads to women being turned into "guardians of virtue" for men - women are culpabale of men's sexual desire and must always be available for men sexually. Something that this movie completely rejects and is one of the reasons we adore it.

 

 

8. Neon Genesis Evangelion (1995). The only series on this list. We've got an emotionally abusive father who only cares what his son can give him, children being indoctrinated into soldiers, adults constantly demanding emotional labour from children they're not equipped with, massive depression from the pressure to be perfect, identity crisis and crashing of your worldview. Quite accurate summary of plethora of high-demand religions. This is almost like a companion to Dogtooth, where the adult children are infantalized, whereas in Evangelion the actual children are forced into an adult world. There's plenty of religious imagery to boot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. Jojo Rabbit (2019). Extreme political ideology and extreme religious dogma are not that far from each other. In fact, they often merge. In this film the whole idea is that you are confronted with a person from a group your leaders have demonised and you start to realise that maybe they not only lied about this but also other things. Thus, the questioning of your own beliefs starts - the process of starting to think about things on your own instead of following what somebody else is telling you.

 

 

10. Music Box (1989). This film is here for the realization that your religious leaders weren't the actual saints they were painted as. Nay, not even saints, but truly human monsters in some sense. And the religion we come from, we were taught from a small age that the leaders of the church are like family - they're your fathers and grandfathers. So yeah, a movie that shows how your own father that you have loved and respected your whole life, turns out to be a war criminal, is something that really hit us hard. In a lot of high-demand religions it is quite often taught that your family is everything - so what does one do when it is one's own family that is the abuser, the criminal, the oppressor? Religions also teach the principle of forgiveness, but this can unfortunately lead to toxic family members or perpetrators thinking that they can just continue their abuse.

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honourable mentions: Any Ingmar Bergman (The Sevent Seal and The Virgin Spring, for example), Under the Banner of Heaven (for its obvious Mormon connections), The Truman Show (for the American ex-religious especially), Hinterland (corruption of leaders and thus the entire organization), Barbie (you wake up and realise you're not the same as everyone else) and Thirst (religion and the suppression of sexuality).

Pick of the month

 

 Aftersun (2022)

 

 This is one of the best directorial debut films we've ever seen. The directing is so damn subtle that you would never think this was done by a first timer in full-length feature film category. The movie uses visual cues expertly to build up to the finale of the main character girl's relationship with her dad. The music plays a huge part in the climax of the film and even though it's a very popular song, the movie edited it in a way that brought out the bittersweetness residing in the music to the surface and related it to the characters' struggles. The focus on water and reflective surfaces highlight the themes of recollection, memories and introversion. All in all, the film is a visual feast, one of the best dramas in a long time and surprisingly short in its runtime.

 

 

The actors are also absolute top notch. If we had seen this one sooner, Paul Mescal would have definitely gone to win a best actor in our award list. The girl, Frankie Corio playing Sophie, was phenomenal. Not since The Impossible have we seen more natural and convincing child acting in a dramatic role. The father-daughter chemistry is palpable and no doubt part of it is inspired from the director's own experiences with her father. This movie deserves everything possible, so please rent it or buy it to at least signal that films like this are popular and worth being made.    

The Barbenheimer

We're shamelessly taking advantage of the event called Barbenheimer. These two movies we were interested in from the start, since it's been forever that a decent comedy has seen the light of day in Hollywood and Nolan's film interested us because of the source material and actors.  We also want to support the artists involved in the filmmaking process, so that more movies with actual quality get made. And to show a middlefinger to the greedy exces who care not a whit about the artists' and workers' wellbeing and the art's quality, but more about their bottom line. Fuck those guys and their evil ways.  On to the comparison of these two films.

 

Oppenheimer

 

 

Pros: Casting. Cillian Murphy is just chef's kiss. Really stellar casting otherwise too. Technical aspects are brilliant as usual and we especially commend Nolan for not using a speck of CGI in this film. Costumes, cinematography and editing are top notch as well. It's surprisingly pretty accurate to the source material and thankfully frames "the red scare" as the political persecution it was. There's not as much ambiguity about the devastation of  the atomic bomb as we thought there was gonna be. Nolan's obsession with time gimmicks also works in this case much better, since many biographies use this trick too. 

 

Cons: The man cannot write a personal narrative to save his life. Or female characters. Or any kind of romantic relationship. These were all absolutely crucial parts of Oppenheimer's life and work. Thus, they needed a writer who actually knows HOW to write these aspects compelling. Nolan is all about the tell, don't show, so all the boring technical jargon about the bomb gets a front seat and the emotional consequences that making the bomb caused to the main character gets left to the wayside. It sucks and we hate it, because for once Nolan actually seemed to want to do a personal story. Cillian Murphy has to do the heavy lifting, since the writing does not match the emotional weight of the story. It would have been incredibly important for the main character's progress to show the devastating human cost that these weapons of mass destruction caused but the film chose otherwise. You had your R-rating, why use it for a woman's titties instead of melting and charred human bodies. Also, as per usual, the music stinks.

Barbie

 

 

Pros: Funny as hell. Ryan Gosling as Ken is a revelation. Gosling in general has great comedic timing (just watch The Nice Guys and you'll get what we mean). The story is simple and characters have actual narratives. The colours are a great combo of different pastel palettes and the plasticness really shines through the sets. Costumes are great too and it's well directed. The depression Barbie was amazing and reminded us of our own Barbie plays as kids. Also, it's not too long. We have gotten pretty sick of every Hollywood movie lasting for over two hours, so this one gets points for its less than two hour runtime. The film doesn' take itself too seriously and knows what it is. Plusses for the aromantic rep, whether intentional or not.

 

Cons: Since it's Barbie, the movie's message is somewhat vapid and shallow. But it's fucking Barbie, of course it's vapid and shallow! That's part of the film's charm for us but can annoy some people. The movie's feminism is very Hollywood feminism - all women work together in harmony and men's sexual violence is nonexistent. Since it's a comedy though, we get that things aren't to be taken too seriously. The occasional preachiness and obvious takes on patriarchy can get you to roll your eyes at times but the funny bits mostly make up for that. Also, Ken totally should have gotten his horse ranch. The man needed his horses.

General: Barbie wins this "match" by far for us. Nolan being Nolan, the result was almost predetermined, but we really held hope for the guy this time. Alas, it was not to be. As a companion piece for Oppenheimer we would strongly recommend watching Grave of the Fireflies, which shows the heartbreaking consequences of the atomic bomb for ordinary people. You will be shattered after seeing that film and hopefully understand that these weapons should never have been used. Hell, even your basic anime shows how these bombs have traumatised the Japanese psyche for generations. Barbie is no Bringing Up Baby, but it has enough of inventive humour, character narratives (for both Barbie and Ken) and self-awareness to make it the funniest movie we've seen since Spy. Also, every man needs the assurance that they are Kenough. If you want to see more hard hitting feminism and deeper narratives about women, we suggest The Handmaiden.

Blade II : how not to make an action movie

Blade was one of those movies we watched as kids and one of the first superhero films we saw. The cool katana - type sword immediately caught our attention and we really liked the action. We've always been into action movies even as wee children, so it's no wonder Blade, too, became part of those movies for us. It's also our second favourite superhero film. However, the same cannot be said about the sequel, though it's director is far more famous. In this post we want to highlight some of the things that the first movie does right as an action flick and why the sequel fails oh so badly at it.

 

 

The first thing to take note of in any action movie is editing. The second thing is simple character narratives and story. Editing can often make or break an action sequence and fast cuts or shaky cam are unfortunately too frequently seen as something to create an exciting action scene. Instead, these choices make action out-of-focus, hard to follow and forgettable. Blade commits none of these foibles - it keeps its cuts fairly long and focused during action scenes, so it's easy to follow who is fighting who and what's going on. Nor is there any shaky cam to distract from action choreography, so the moves look pretty cool and camera follows the action. There are no five second cuts and we actually see where the action is going. The simplistic narrative and characters also help the film to go along and get us invested in the characters quite early. There is no complicated plot or story gimmicks, it's just a story with one main character, a villain and few important minor characters. Everybody gets enough focus for their screen time and relationships that build feel believable. However, it never tries to be anything more than it is - a decent action flick. We have seen so many shitty action movies, so trust us when we say that Blade is on the way better side. There are a few examples of the first and second aspects that some films utilise, but because they won't combine the two, the movies feel half-finished. Woman King is an example of the first being a problem and Raid on the second aspect. Woman King has a good story and characters but its editing during fighting sequences leaves a lot to be desired (aaaall the five second cuts you hate) whereas Raid has some of the best action and choreography we've ever seen but it is completely shallow in the story and character department thus making it very hard to care about the cool action on display. Blade combines the two aspects and that creates a solid basis for great action scenes that make you feel something because the movie didn't forget about its story and characters.

Here you can clearly see Blade grab the sword and kill the two vampires. The editing is fast but focused.

 

Blade II is another matter entirely. It sucks. It's awful. The action is a blurry fast-paced CGI mess (not to mention the five second cuts) and all the characters we liked in the first film either aren't there or are really not the same characters anymore. The new characters are utterly forgettable and the plot is basically a rehash of the first one. Guillermo Del Toro is an accomplished director but hoo boy did he miss big time with this one. He clearly is not an action director but rather excels at fantasy/horror. Hence why Blade II felt like it was two different films - a Dracula type European monster film and an American superhero film. Yeah, that disparity did not end well for the finished product. The film never quite knows what it wants to be and that is a big part why the characters feel so flat. It's probably why they felt the need to bring Whistler back, since all the other characters were so one-note.  His death in the first movie actually felt meaningful but here he adds absolutely nothing to anyone's character or the story. Also, don't get us started with the so-called "female character" - she is there to die and nothing more. Karen in Blade was the main reason why we rewatch the first movie occasionally - she is awesome, quick-witted and smart even though she has no clue how to fight. She also contributes greatly to the plot. The woman in Blade II is none of those things. She is one the female character archetypes we like to call "strong independent woman" - somebody who the story claims is strong but has to be rescued constantly and ultimately makes no difference in anything. Blade himself is way too subdued compared to the first movie and the cool action that he did in the first movie is nonexistent here and makes him a duller character as well.

In this scene the stunts work well but the editing is choppy and it's hard to follow the action since the camera jumps from guy to guy way too fast nor does it focus on Blade.

 

Finally, the action. We ain't lying when we say Blade II has some of the shoddiest, choppiest and disappointing action there has been in an action movie. We know that the actors have prepared to do these action choreographies but the editing, lighting and cinematography makes all of that preparation useless. The action almost always happens in dark rooms, corners, alleys, caves, etc. You barely see anything and the editing makes it even worse. Every single fight sequence is cut in less than five second shots and since it's also dark it is nigh impossible to get what the hell is happening or who is fighting who. It is honestly frustrating how such cool stunts are wasted with the choppy editing and bad lighting. The god-awful CGI doesn't make it any better - it honestly sometimes looks worse than the primitive CGI in the first movie. All in all, if you are a fan of Guillermo Del Toro, we would advise you to skip this one and focus on his more refined projects. For action fans, just watch the first Blade and leave it at that. None of the sequels are worth your time.  

Our Oscars of 2023

We haven't seen all the movies that have come out last year (because that's impossible), but these are our picks of the ones we have seen. 

1. Picture

The Northman. It was difficult to choose between Decision to Leave and The Northman, but overall everything about the latter simply hit us harder. It's what Hollywood epics used to be like, and goddamn we miss them. Grand in scale, yet intimate in storytelling.

2. Actor

Brendan Fraser (The Whale).  A very human and nuanced performance that touched us. Fraser really brings out the empathy and emotion in his character.

 

3. Actress

Zar Amir-Ebrahimi (Holy Spider). This was a no-brainer. Watch her performance for its subtlety. It particularly speaks to those who have been under the yoke of religious repression.

4. Director

Park Chan-wook (Decision to Leave). He did the best homage to Hitchcock we've ever seen, and it's magnificent. 

5. Supporting actor

Nicholas Hoult (The Menu). This performance was surprising, because it first fooled us to think that the character was simply a buffoon so the revelation of his disturbing side was very effective.

6. Supporting actress

Jamie Lee Curtis (Everything Everywhere All at Once). It was a toss up between Curtis and Kerry Condon. We decided to go with comedy once again, especially since women are rarely cast in comedic roles and are awarded for those performances even more rarely. In addition, Jamie Lee Curtis is an underrated comedic actress.

7. Original score

Jo Yeong-wook (Decision to Leave). Anytime this dude composes a film soundtrack, he should get all the awards. Unless Joe Hisaishi has worked with Miyazaki again (and since Morricone kicked the bucket). Since we knew that Park Chan-wook would obviously have his trusted buddy compose the music, we also knew that this category would have no other contestants for us. After researching how his name is spelled though, he has way too many names!

8. Soundscape

Johnny Burns, José Antonio García & Jeff Smith (Nope). Sound is really important for horror movies because they build the atmosphere and with that comes the dread for the audience. Nope excelled.

9. Visual & special effects

Sagar Adokar & Neil Champion (Men). This is how you do body horror right. The psychological aspect of it is reminiscent of Akira and the effects themselves remind you of Carpenter's The Thing.

10. Editing

Elísabeth Ronaldsdóttir (Bullet Train). Once again, we had to choose between two movies (this and The Northman). But it's so uncommon these days to have an action flick, where the editing works 100% of the time. There are no unnecessary super fast cuts or shaky cam here. 

11. Cinematography

Kim Ji-young (Decision to Leave). Perfection. Utter perfection. The aerial shots were amazing. The cinematographer is an expert in film intertextuality.

12. Costume, make up & hair

Gersha Phillips, Leslie Ann Kleinhans & Louisa V. Anthony (The Woman King). This was the best part of the movie, too bad the editing couldn't live up to the rest of it. But the costumes, different hair and make up was really memorable. The colours were stunning.

13. Stunts & choreography

Timothy Eulich, Andy Le & Brian Le. We like the action maybe better in Bullet Train, but c'mon, Michelle Yeoh kicks ass! She deserves all the accolades, especially in this department.

14. Production design

Florencia Martin (Babylon). We had to give it to Babylon. The set designs are so elaborate and over the top, but they also really pay off. 

15. Original screenplay

Martin McDonagh (The Banshees of Inisherin). The dialogue is to die for, the black humour is skillfully outrageous and McDonagh knows when silence is needed. He is the opposite to Christopher Nolan.

16. Adapted screenplay

Zak Olkewicz (Bullet Train, based on the Kôtarô Isaka book). We can't say how faithful it is to its original work, but the movie is fantastic. All the characters are really well fleshed out, and make a great ensemble. We're against elitism and the idea that only serious movies should be considered award worthy. It's really damn difficult to write an all around entertaining and fun film.

Don't Worry Darling vs. Triangle of Sadness

 So we chose these two films because we went to watch them around the same time and they are both socially conscious movies. Hence, we thought they would make a decent comparison.

Don't Worry Darling 

 

 

 Pros: Florence Pugh. Great costumes and the 1950's set designs. The concept is good and some of the visuals show artistic competence. The directing actually used visual storytelling at points which is rare in todays mainstream Hollywood stuff.  Also, Chris Pine of all people managed to be sufficiently creepy - he should really try playing more ambigious characters.

 

 

Cons: Better main male actor. He is not the worst by far but somebody more talented in the craft was definitely needed, especially opposite Pugh.  This gap in talent lead the performances to be rather uneven and is detrimental to the story and characters. We mentioned the concept being interesting but unfortunately that does not translate fully to execution - it can be sloppy at points and leave you questioning why they made certain decisions. We understand the decision to show how women are victimised by patriarchy and how important it is to show that hurt. Nor do we want to side with Peterson incels in any way - but showing maybe a little more of these men's thought process helps to bring understanding why these patriarchal settings are so hard to resist and dismantle. This is where the movie falls short and unfortunately a large part of it falls on casting a Frank Sinatra - type as the male lead when it should have been a Marlon Brando - type. 

 

Triangle of Sadness

 

 

Pros: Great directing, visually sumptious and funny. Showing the decadence of the upper echelons of society that turn into a puke fest and the communist American ship captain and a Russian capitalist arguing about class systems while the yacht is sinking is some of the film's more hilarious parts.  The movie achieves its objective of showing how hierarchies persist even in more primitive settings if the people consisting in that setting have lived in a capitalist society. Human greed will reproduce that system of hierarchy in a vicious cycle. This film is more of an ensemble piece so actors play off of each other more and work as groups (which is in a way ironic, since the movie is focused on showing the pitfalls of purely individualistic society) and this lessens the burden on just one actor doing most of the work like happened in Don't Worry Darling.

 

  

Cons: This is funny coming from us (since we are often more collectivist than individualist) but because the film focuses on in no character in particular the story feels less personal and thus less interesting to us. We like the themes of hierarchy, decadence, greed and learned helplessness of most Western people because technocapitalism makes most everything convenient (especially to upper classes), but it is harder for us to connect to the outcome of the story since we are not guided to care about any character in particular. We understand that is the whole point of the film but what can we say, personal stories are our bread and butter.

 

General:  If we had to pick one to recommend, it would be Triangle of Sadness. It is just all around the better movie both filmwise and storywise. Though Don't Worry Darling does have the more personal aspect in the story it leaves other important things needed in good storytelling halfway and is the reason why it doesn't quite fulfill its potential.