“Fargo” without the humour makes a pretty heavy watch. Not that there is nothing to laugh in “Wind River”, but this film is mostly a gloomy thriller with quite some drama.
Both “Fargo” and “Wind River” are based on true events and play in the icy lands of North America.
A native American girl is found frozen on a hill. The local police calls in the FBI and a somewhat green FBI agent arrives unprepared for the harsh climate and for the local people.
The story unfolds slowly which is well done. The film also features some great music that goes well with the long shots of snowy mountains. The director manages to show the hard life in an extremely cold climate.
A good film indeed.
An elderly man living in an extremely modern house has his wife’s lover as a guest. He decides to play a game with him.
What unfolds is a minimalistic film that plays mostly in one house and has only two actors: Michael Caine and Jude Law, whose characters try to outwit the other. This makes an alright film.
What makes the film somewhat better is that it is a remake of a film from 1972 in which Michael Caine played the wife’s lover. Caine certainly has a sense of humor.
There was so much attention for this film, that I did not think it would be so strange.
Aronofsky made a couple of great films in a variety of genres. “Mother!” is hard to put a genre on though. It starts as a drama with slightly weird elements, but it slowly becomes a thriller or maybe even horror and the story gets stranger and stranger too. Where some other Aronofskys are very strong emotionally, “Mother!” did not work for my like that. It is entertaining though. The film gets so weird that I need to watch it again some time to figure out what the director actually wanted with it.
The story in short. A young woman lives together with a much older man in a gigantic and remote house that she is refurbishing while he is trying to revive his career as a writer. He is a very social person, continuously inviting people to the house, much to the demise of his wife. This inviting of people runs out of hand and then Aronofsky comes with a strange twist at the end.
Certainly not bad. Perhaps a bit too odd to already say if it is really good or not.
This film takes the time-travelling concept to an extreme, but the result can be rather described as ‘annoying’ than ‘interesting’.
We follow agents who are sent back and forth in time to fight crime. We follow the recruitment of new agents whose stories are told throughout the film. Every time a new ‘circle’ is added to the film with a new explanation. Towards the end this gets pretty tiring.
An early take on the time travelling genre.
In this very 1980’ies looking film, the single parent Ben takes a few weird people into his house. The group says to be tourists and as the story unfolds, they are not from another place but of another time.
The fairly descent story gets somewhat weird in the second half, but of course ends with Ben doing the obvious and becoming the hero.
Not bad, but also not a must-see.
Frances McDormand is superb as Mildred, the mother of a teenager that has been killed seven months prior. The investigation seems to have gotten stuck and Louise rents three billboards to ask the police about the state of affairs. The local chief is Willoughby (an also great Woody Harrelson) who has his own problems.
The film is presented as a dark comedy, but in my opinion it is a heavy drama with some dark humor. The film shows how Louise’s actions divide a small community. Both ‘sides’ have their points and both ‘sides’ have their drama. The situation derails quite a bit leading to interesting scenes and more drama.
A very good film with great acting.
Van Dormael made one of these Hollywood ‘new vague’ films. Think of a pretentious and strange, cut up story like that of “Interstellar” but with the soap of a film like “Magnolia“.
Mr. Nobody is an old man looking back at his life. This is shown in confusing montage. The same (young) man keeps dying and does not. It appears that the (senile?) old man tells different versions of his life, versions how things would have been, would he have made other choices.
The film contains well done adolescent (failed) romance, scifi, pompous philosophy and, like I said, confusing montage. Do not expect an easy film, but an ununderstandable clutter memories. This is done with a more than descent atmosphere.
Indeed, a ‘difficult film’. Not a bad one either.
What a ‘normal’ and dull film. I suppose I read something good about it…
Holmes is an old man who has retired 35 years ago after a particular case. Now that his memory slowly fades away, he decides to reconstruct the story of that last case that caused him to retire.
This results in flashbacks and two interlacing stories. It is not badly done, but very drowsy. Perhaps the director wanted to keep the atmosphere of the Sherlock Holmes books.
Eastwood has created a descent drama which plays in the 1950’ies USA. An Italian (?) (maffia) family is shook up when the eldest daughter is found dead. A policeman with close connections to the family investigates the murder and the father uses his own network to find the killer.
“Mystic River” shows how old structures collide with new and has a few twists to prove that not everything is what is seems to be.
This not too convincing film contains two stories. In the ‘real world’ we follow a rich art-lady whose life does not go exactly as she hoped. She receives the manuscript of a book of her ex and that story is the other half of “Nocturnal Animals”.
In the book a family is driven off an abandoned road. The man is dropped out of a car, the wife and daughter are later found dead. With the help of a policeman, the man tries to find the men responsible.
Both stories start to run through each other. This results in a few descent scenes, but overall the film is a not too good drama with thriller elements.