Category: *.AVI

After Outlaws remake I suddenly understood I actually haven’t watched any of the classical Westerns as an adult: no Sergio Leone trilogy, no “Once Upon a Time” or “Magnificent Seven”. So I decided to start with Fistful of Dollars.

From the outset, I understood that I’ve seen the Eastern version, Yojimbo, and the version with Bruce Willis, “Last Man Standing”. All the key plots are there: Outsider pitting two rival gangs against each other, moral turning point with Mirasol’s rescue, the recovery in a mine, secret technique (in form of a steel bullet vest) and the final duel.

The dialogue works, because the characters don’t say much. Also, the camera work is interesting, although I’m not sure if it was innovative at the time. What don’t work are the shooting scenes: there’s no blood (cost and censorship), so people just fall akwardly. And those are very, very long. Like I get the soldiers were shot from a gatling gun, no need to spend minutes on that.
Also, the lipsync is completely off, because only Clint Eastwood was speaking English. Everyone else was speaking Italian or German, and later dubbed.

This isn’t what I expected, as most of the movie isn’t actually dedicated to capturing Eichmann or to dramatising the escape. Instead, it’s a dialogue between Oscar Isaac and Ben Kingsley.
Melanie Laurent is best known for Shoshanna in Inglorious Bastards. So seing her play another Jewish lady hero is nice.
But I’m not sure what point this movie was trying to make, unlike “Munich” or even “Golda”.
Which is strange, because Oscar’s character arc is solid: he’s this egoistic, rash and haunted by his past failures agent, not the first to be picked, and not the one expect to handle interrogations. And in the end he fights to keep Eichman alive, and almost sacrifices himself in order to let others escape Argentina.
I think I mostly don’t understand Kingsley’s Eichmann. Is he a calculated and violet wolf hiding among sheep? Is he just a German bueracrat judged for crimes of the entire nation? It feels like instead of being ambigous, he’s just confusing.

The cigarettes are a common motive. Golda smokes all the time, and so is her cabinet.
The meeting of the cabinet is almost comical. No, it actually is comical, as Ariel Sharon steals two pieces of cake on his way out.
This is all filmed within just a few rooms: Golda’s apartment, the cabinet, courtroom and hospital, with Golda’s visit to the frontlines being played alongside real historical footage of her, and all the action replaced by real historical footage as well.
Despite a couple over dramatic cancer scenes, I really liked the dialogue. It does gives an impression of a chess game, where one side not understanding it mahave won if only just.
Lev is too handsome to play such a slug as Kissinger was, but I still liked the “torture by borscht” scene.

All I knew about this movie is that fight scene on a bus. It is amazing, though. In the way it tells a character story without many words, and with “burglary gone south” trope made fun of.
Strangely, it reminded me of Hurtlocker, the same theme of a veteran trying to live a regular 9to5 life.
Of course it turns into RED, although I’m not sure how many people even remember this Bruce Willis movie.
I talked about picture quality over the last year (although it hardly says anything, as I don’t watch movies in the order of their release), but this one surprised me with the audio quality. They really make the point in the veteran tattoo salon, when the sound of the tattoo machine follows the camera, but it’s just great overall.

Most people don’t understand what “informant” means. This is probably the best depiction, how working with FBI allowed a small time Irish criminal become Boston kingpin, killing tens of people in the process.
I don’t remember why I wanted to watch it, maybe because I watched “Legend” or maybe was impressed by Joel Edgerton from “The King” (here it’s much weaker role).
After doing some reading, the bit that surprised me the most is not Bulger (although going for Johnny Depp was an overkill, he’s nothing special), but how sympathethic Flemmi is depicted. In reality, he strangled not one, but two of his girlfriends, then dismembered them. Also, the fact that Flemmi was an informant before Bulger is completely reversed.

It’s amazing, and obviously very sad. It is funny, the writing is great, and over the top acting fits the atmosphere well.

Scarlett Johanson really surprised me, as I was sure she would be just a prop, but she actually steals the show. How she delivers “you don’t know him, he’s a fanatic” speaking of her 10 years old son is incredible. Or how she plays the missing father. There is so many levels to that single episode.

Everyone always mentions the double shoes scene. But frankly, almost every scene is amazing with it’s asymmetry.

Strangely, or maybe not, the scene that hit me the most was the Russians executing the Nazis, and how that goofy, over the top German soldier sacrifices his life to save JoJo.

And maybe the subtleness of the rabbit in the winter scene. Since we see JoJo scrapping garbage bins for food we expect that the next scene he’d be eating the rabbit. But this isn’t about it. It’s about holding long enough to survive.
And yeah, maybe the movie was about surviving the “Nazi Trump” first term for some. I don’t care. I think that’s what makes a great art, when you can find something for yourself.

Finished watching Gentlemen.
Probably the best Ritchie ever created, simply because the format of the miniseries let him explore a lot of different British subcultures. You get the Scouse, Brummies, gypsies, Albanians, and probably more which I forgot.
Ending is a bit weak. I expected something with more punch, like Penguin did.

I haven’t seen anything as visually impeccable since forever. Or at least since Ripley.

Almost every frame is like a wallpaper. Partially due to very classical approach: perfect symmetry, frame-within-frame, linear camera movement, 180 degree turns and L-shaped pans. It’s like a forgotten art.

I can’t say I managed to watch the original Nosferatu from 1922. It’s a silent film, after all. But I skimmed through it to understand were the 2024 story and tone comes from. And it is pretty accurate, taking into account 100 years difference. The trip to Transilvania, the escape, the ship and the plague. My impression is that the Madman had an even larger role in the original film. And there was no Hardings hosting family storyline, which means no necrophilia either.

I’m not sure what to make of the sexual scenes, the ecstacy of your blood being sucked. Maybe it is just for the shock value.
If Witch had The Goat and Lighthouse The Seagulls, Nosferatu has The Rats. I had to check that those were real, and not some very impressive CGI. And no, they had 2000-5000 rat actors.

I’ve been meaning to watch this movie after Queen’s Gambit, but like always, everything takes me ages.
They didn’t exactly go for physical resemblance. But Tobey Maguire unhinge game is brilliant.

So is Peter Sarsgaard as candy crushing priest.
There’s a lot of russian language in the movie. The bookstore keeper talks just russian, without subtitles. And so are russian chessplayers. Some are better, some, like Liev Schreiber playing Spassky, worse. Spassky is such a fun character, though, as he’s depicted as this superstar macho.

The Game 3 and Game 6 aren’t explained very well. So I’ll need to find a separate video on them.

And it’s interesting that they tried to attribute Spassky same obsessive behaviors, like Xraying the chair because it made strange sounds or talking to the lightbulb, because KGB is listening.

Visually very impressive, and not pulling punches until the last half, at least.
It’s not a movie about church, though. Or, putting it another way, it’s the worst when it tries to be about church. But it’s a brilliant movie about management. How your organisation starts crumbling once you rely on a combination of verbal agreements and informal decisions most people are either unaware of or don’t see the sense behind.

Not the movie I expected. It is confusing at first, with sudden time jumps that are hard to follow, and the storytelling feels rushed, despite the movie is some 2:30 hours long. But it becomes more interesting as you begin to notice discrepancies between depictions of same events from different character perspective.

The movie dedicates a lot of attention to the role of woman in the 14th century. A woman cannot appeal to court without her husband’s approval. Rape is not offence against the woman, but agains her husband. And, of course, sentence for a woman who wrongly accuses someone of rape is to be burned at a stake.
The duel is indeed impressive. It’s chaotic and brutal. A horse can run into a wall or trample a squire or hit you with its hoove. And they use “halfsword” grip a lot, because they are so close. All this from almost static camera.

And it surprised me that they didn’t chew on the implications of mother’s role in the events at all, leaving it all to be deduced.