Tag: DRAMA

SUNTAN (2016)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Argyris Papadimitropoulos 

Written By: Argyris Papadimitropoulos and Syllas Tzoumerkas

Cinematography: Hristos Karamanis

Editor: Napoleon Stratogiannakis

Cast: Makis Papadimitriou, Elli Tringou, Dimi Hart, Marcus Collen, Giannis Tsortekis, Pavlos Orkopoulos, Yannis Economidas, Milou Vancroesen, Hera Katseeli 

Kostis is a 40-year-old doctor that finds himself in the small island of Antiparos, in order to take over the local clinic. His whole life and routine will turn upside down and fall apart when he meets an international group of young and beautiful tourists and he falls in love with Anna, a 19-year-old goddess.

————————————————————————

This film is truly disturbing. This is one of those films you watch and observe  rather than watch for entertainment. As this starts off simple and then becomes a nightmare.

As it seems to be almost a middle aged fantasy that takes a wrong turn. Simply as the character takes it too far and instead of being loose and treating it as flirtation. He expects real results and lifetime commitment. Even as he should know better.

It can look like the you get characters are evil, but while annoying they are more innocent. As they Don’t know their own strength and whip at times taking advantage of the main character. They Don’t know that they are building a monster or playing with a bear so to speak.

As they take advantage of his vulnerability at first.

On one level it be can see hey he falls or is seduced by the 21 year old Anna who is gorgeous and practically a goddess to him actually is willing to show him attention. Who treats him nicer then any of her friends, but it soon becomes evident he is more only being nice to them to get closer to her. She even gives him a chance and he blows it a bit and treats it too nonchalant for him. That is when he b owns territorial 

Though we see him as lonely and the island he works for doesn’t offer many singles of any age. Though in the summer season there are mroe age appropriate women for him to pursue. He becomes obsessed with the one. Even as he manages to get with someone else physically. He fixates on Anna 

The film seems to set out to make the audience uncomfortable. As it increasingly becomes more cringe worthy, awkward and volatile as to goes along. Especially in the second half. 

Everytime you think you know what’s going to happen. The film throws a realistic twist. At first everything seems a bit awkward more because he is a shy introvert. So the first half of the film you feel a bit embarrassed for the main character.

Then the second half becomes a full psychological thriller horror film for him. A she breaks down and seems to become an alcoholic and lose touch with his responsibilities and sanity.

At first you have some sympathy for him, but soon he bypasses all of that. Not even listening when others warn him. Like the townfolk.

Now the kids aren’t innocent, but Don’t deserve their fates. As after all they are young and Don’t necessarily know any better nor the power they have over him. As it seems they were using him. But also maybe Had some kind of feelings for him no, never any loyalty.

As One can admit. You can see why he becomes obsessed with the young lady, but also he should know better and practice better judgement. As even when he gets his chance his fantasy he blows it. So to speak, though that seems to be the point of momentum as he has gotten a taste and wants more chances to partake like an addict.

Though obviously he takes it too far

You have hope, but a single action ruins, everything, and in the middle of his downfall he doesn’t quite realize it’s happening to him.

The film has the character start out innocently and then ruining everything Essentially for a fling with a Tourist, and turning his back on the town people, he knows, and is surrounded by an actually support him. That is the depth of his loneliness. We do get hints of a dark past. When he runs into an old colleague. which should be a kind of warning that he has serious issues that are not being talked about or shown, but he still should know better.

The last scenes are especially disturbing where he finally seems to remeber who he is.

Hated the ending. Though it seems to bring him back to reality of what his oath is supposed to be, helping people and trying to heal their wounds. 

The film becomes a character study as the nice guy character who he should be rooting for, becomes the villain of the film, which makes it all the more shocking and scary.

The title of the film can be taken as a metaphor since they are on a tropical island in the summer or you go to the beach you wanna get a nice tan, but you have to be careful when it comes to tanning to little no one sees any difference too much end up getting burned. So you have to find that right balance in between and unfortunately for the main character, he doesn’t maintain that balance

This is definitely a conversation starter and a film her to dissect and talk about with others but it’s also a cruel movie and what some might call. A feel bad film.

Grade: B+

BREAKING GLASS (1980)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Written & Directed By: Brian Gibson 

Cinematography: Stephen Goldblatt 

Editor: Michael Bradsell

Cast: Hazel O’Connor, Phil Daniels, Jon Finch, Jonathan Pryce, Peter-Hugo Daly, Mark Wingett, Nigel Humphreys, Gary Tibbs, Charles Wegner 

A rock singer is determined to rise to the top of the profession, letting nothing stand in the way of that goal.

—————————————————————————

Don’t know how I never heard of this film before recently. As for me, this is an instant classic. The storyline resembles a star is born and even the rose no, it’s different elements, one would say more of THE ROSE, for its lead character kind of achieving theme and going a bit crazy because of it.

What makes this film so different is that it was found during the upheaval in England, so it makes it a time capsule as to the politics, and what was going on in the streets at the time, even if Over the storyline.

The other quality, and that puts it in a herd of other films of its elk is that it doesn’t really feel like there’s too much acting in this room. It almost feels like a documentary, or Lisa docudrama, as everyone is so believable and committed in their performance that it never feels fake. 

It’s one of those dark 1980s movie about the music industry and how you start out, Ernest and all the little compromise. You have to make to achieve popularity and fame while still trying to stay true to yourself and as creative as you once were but also how it’s not only changes you, but it changes the people around you.

As there is a love story of source of her falling for her manager, who believes in her and comes with her to the Fame, but he becomes too controlling, and once he’s lost control of everything, he’d rather quit, then compromise, whereas the female lead falls for more the polished producer who see something in her, but it might be more for his a claim in again to be in control over her

So the film presents an interesting conundrum, where neither of these so-called love interests or people who are supposed to care about her have really her best interest at heart they’re more interested in controlling her and the film seems like she needs that has her energy is all over the place but when she’s being controlled, at least she has direction.

As much as I enjoyed this film, I found out that I saw the American version which is a slightly different cut, whereas in the original version it shows more of her mental breakdown along the way, and in the end, spoiler alert, she ends up in an asylum here the film ends with her, giving her all during a performance in the film ends anonymously, where we don’t know what’s going to happen, or what’s next it just ends.

The songs are catchy and well written, and Hazel O’connor gives an absolute stunning performance in each, and every time she performs in the musical scenes songs in which she wrote. They are just so stellar in iconic that it’s a shock. This film didn’t do more business or is it more popular, even in cult film circles?

As it is a once in a lifetime performance, she appeared and other films and television, but nothing as strong or as big as her starring role here in which you audition, for it was chosen over 3000 others and never expected to have the League she would’ve been happy with just a smaller or supporting role in here. She ended up the lead and she gives her all dressed as a character does.

One believes that once this film is seen by more people, she will enter the lexicon of memorable, female singers in movies wAHO become disillusioned or become legends and inspirations, such as the characters in the films TIMES SQUARE played by Robin Johnson and LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THE FABULOUS STAINS played by Diane Lane and STARSTRUCK 

As with any older films, it’s fun to see certain known character actors of today play smaller, supporting roles in this film, though luckily, it doesn’t take you out of the phone, and still stays as gritty and hard hitting. Truly nihilistic to a certain degree. Though it gives off so much energy that you can’t help but have a reaction to it. It’s a musical about a band trying to make it in the 1980’s 

Surprised to find out Brian Gibson Directed this who directed musical biographies such as WHAT’S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT, THE JOSEPHINE BAKER STORY as well as the music comedy STILL CRAZY (My first known Bill Nighy film appearance) as well as the thriller THE JUROR. So while his other films were more well known. His best film is the one that seems to be the least known. 

Grace: B+

ETERNAL BEAUTY (2019)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Written & Directed By: Craig Roberts 

Cinematography: Kit Fraser 

Editor: Stephen Haren 

Cast: Sally Hawkins, David Thewlis, Billie Piper, Alice Lowe, Myfford Clark, Rita Bernard-Shaw, Robert Pugh, Paul Hilton, Penelope Wilton

This movie follows Jane who, after being left at the altar, had a breakdown spiraled into a chaotic episode of schizophrenia lasting 20 years, in which love (both real and imagined) and family relationships collide. Things change when she begins a darkly-comic romance with Mike, a failed musician and fellow lost soul.

————————————————————————

Though it got no major release. Sally Hawkins’s performance in ETERNAL BEAUTY is amazing. Better & bigger than the movie, but the movie is what she needed to truly show her talents and as a showcase. Give the movie a chance. A deep look at mental illness.

The film isn’t bad but it feels like the runway for her character and performance to launch off. It works as a kind of case study file but where we get to see the outside influences that have helped to contribute to her mental illnesses. 

Not that Ms. Hawkins hasn’t Had plenty of great roles and performances since seemingly being introduced with the film HAPPY GO LUCKY. Thougbbshe had been in plenty of movies, television and theatrical productions prior. That film seemed to be her breakout role 

The film takes a Look at her paranoid schizophrenic character with a horrible family who only seems to inspire her condition to make it worse with their indifference or Using her  Where only one Family Member truly seems concerned but that character is influenced more by the rest of the family. To look the other way. Which also causes problems within her marriage. 

The first half plays out like a tragedy and the second act is more of a romance where the colors get richer and the style of the film becomes a little more surrealistic. It also becomes a bit happier though still downtrodden but hopeful 

It helps if the material is strong enough for them to base a performance on mention as they get older more is expected of them or a certain legacy is on them, and it is hard to live up to especially when you were just trying to do the work and work and more and more you’re not getting the roles you used to and the writing isn’t as strong. 

As the film goes along we learn that each of her family members has their drama  And dysfunctions as the film doesn’t  Seek to villainize any characters but shows them as human beings fallible 

The film is Advertised more as a romantic comedy between two people with mental illnesses it is deeper than that as it was kind of bait to hook More mainstream tastes seem more conventional for audiences. 

Grade: B

BLACK BAG (2025)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Steven Soderbergh 

Written By: David Koepp

Cinematography: Peter Andrews

Editor: Mary Ann Bernard 

Cast: Michael Fassbender, Cate Blanchett, Naomie Harris, Marisa Abela, Tom Burke, Rege-Jean Page, Pierce Brosnan, 

When intelligence agent Kathryn Woodhouse is suspected of betraying the nation, her husband – also a legendary agent – faces the ultimate test of whether to be loyal to his marriage, or his country.

————————————————————————

One can admit when it comes to spy and espionage movies sometimes I don’t get everything the first time through so that one need to watch it a second time to fully understand or maybe go back through it to see the things I might’ve missed .

This is one of those films, It’s truly admirable with this film for how it relates espionage and spying with a relationship more importantly a marriage at first it seems like the main theme of it is how you do it simultaneously like MR. & MRS. SMITH only with veterans and less action.

This film tries to tell, not only an espionage story but also shows how marriages can work in the same way. Because being a spy is all about relationships and networking and identities, false and real. It’s all about gaining and selling information and using it to your advantage. This film seeks to portray how in a marriage you have your coworkers, your friends, you have your little secrets, and Devotions that mix, measure, and influence. Almost like you must perform and present.

 How sometimes there’s information that you must keep to yourself for the safety of all or just your partner and if there is a betrayal, it hurts the whole system and creates little holes that could gather and rock the foundation. It also focuses on who you can trust, betrayals, and in the end true love 

I will admit, when I first watched this film, sitting through it at first I thought it was good, but nothing spectacular, but after the film and thinking about the film, that is when it started getting to me and laying down its bones in my mind. It’s a beautiful film to look at the costumes stylish, as well as the location,  filmmaking, and mood. It comes off as very cold and non-erotic but exciting and it is way old school it does it tightly in under 100 minutes giving you enough details for you to follow and keep continuing the story.

No, truthfully wouldn’t expect any less from Director Steven Soderberg, especially as he stays being his cinematographer and editor as well as being the Director, of course.

As once again, he dismantles the genre and filmmaking and then put it back together. Minus a few parts but make it efficiently and put the focus on aspects most studios or filmmakers wouldn’t. They do it with a story that has mass appeal, or might be recognizable becoming at it in a different way. Luckily, this isn’t one of his more experimental films

The actors are all marvelous, Convincing, and concocting, As at times it does play off like WHO’S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOLFE in spies clothing and with a larger cast 

It’s not a film that everyone is going to love or

like. If you’re looking for action scenes and sequences and a lot of violence. This is probably not your film. The little that is shown in the trailer is more meant to entice. It’s not a major part of the film just goes to show consequences.

If you want something that is an adult drama that keeps you intrigued and stays a little playful. I would recommend this film. Unfortunately, they rarely make films like this anymore.

In the end, I will say that if this has been a spy novel, it feels like this might’ve been one of the side stories and another factor of the things that is truly enjoyable about the film is that you’re never quite given 100% details of anything so what you think you know You might be surprised to find out you don’t know or only got part of the story.

It’s a star story but it’s also for all that’s at stake,  a small story.  not a blockbuster, but found like one

Grade: B

PERFECT (1985)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: James Bridges

Written By: James Bridges and Aaron Latham

Based on Articles By: Aaron Latham 

Cinematography: Gordon Willis 

Editor: Jeff Gourson 

Cast: John Travolta, Jamie Lee Curtis, Marilu Henner, Jann Wenner, Laraine Newman, Anne De Salvo, Kenneth Welsh, Chelsea Field, David Paymer

Fed up with writing obituaries for a local New Jersey newspaper, the inquisitive and ambitious journalist, Adam Lawrence, finally gets his big break, when–as a Rolling Stone reporter–gets to interview a well-off entrepreneur accused of drug-dealing. However, one brief look at the tight-bodied members of a modern gym will have Adam itching to write an exposé on the latest craze of fitness and health centres, where aerobics instructors like the ferociously-astonishing, Jessie, are the absolute stars. But, Jessie, really despises interviewers. Will she ever let him into her sultry world of cool music, high-energy exercise, and perfection?

————————————————————————

One could see the appeal of this movie at the time. as more revolving around the romance between the two leads played by John Travolta and Jamie Lee Curtis. You need to fill the time of this movie that is way too long.

This film is over two hours long and the tale could’ve been told and 90 minutes. so instead of just a romance, the film also wants to talk about journalistic responsibility not only that but how to build a story.

As the film tries to show, yes there is a reporter trying to get the truth out to the people and tell a story, but also how the story is only the view of the reporter and might not tell the full story or is edited so that details are left out, and also the aftermath that the story can do two people who never intended originally to be victims.

One can see why John Travolta chose this movie as it’s by James Bridges, who also directed him in his head urban cowboy so this is another kind of down and dirty romance. Only this is given more of a flashy treatment as it is tying for rolling stone magazine, for which John Travolta is a reporter of and , the editor and chief of the magazine at the time Jan wiener even plays himself a version of himself under a different name.

The script was also written by written by the actual writer that John Travolta character is based on who wrote a story about sports clubs or aerobics clubs being the new singles club so it all feels like an in-house production.

I will say that Jamie Lee Curtis looks fantastic in the movie and her character is so cool and has such a fashionable look that you just wish her character was in a different and better film. 

John Travolta tries his best and makes his character charismatic and dramatic, but he doesn’t make him interesting.

That is the problem with this film at first, watching this film as a look back at the fashions and mentality of the times, but it moves along so slowly that even any campiness factor within the film slowly drains away until your hit with what is supposed to be drama but he just doesn’t seem in the right way that the film is hoping it will just want resolution as you’re wondering where is this movie going to go?

Seem to have a lot going for at first it has some unbilled cameos by Lauren Hutton and Carly Simon and it seems like a typically streamline film that was made to be tied into a fan, but then also tried to have some substance and that might be the problem is that that substance dragged down the film that not that it wouldn’t necessarily have been good Even without the substance, but it could be forgiven for naïveness

So give credit for at least trying to be worth something.

The film is fascinating to watch though after a while it’s feels a little monotonous, almost like a sitcom where you wait for the two leads to finally get together and then they do and then the show kind of runs out of steam as it doesn’t know what else to do or focus on , watching just to see where it’s going to go if you’re a Die Hard that’s what it feels like watching this film. It goes on for way too long and so many characters consequences and plots that don’t seem to go anywhere or are introduced but not more depth.

For instance, the Lorraine Newman character seems like the one chance for the film to actually have a character of death who has tragic ramifications around her and offers some traumatic consequences, but the film seems to hint at these prospects and then totally drops them so that just becomes another background character that we do with.

It’s not exactly the same with Mary Lou character who is Bill heavily but is given very little to do more than maybe be in the background of scenes even though she looks great too in this film as much as Jamie Lee Curtis, but other than just being another body in the background She doesn’t have much to do.

I’m sure this film has its fans and Jamie Lee Curtis and John Travolta still defended though this was a flop a big one for the studio and John Travolta who seem to not start another film for another four years after this film so he did kind of a hit though again I think everyone is proud of the film, at least attempted to even if it didn’t do it successfully.

I would say the warnings but watch at your own risk. It’s not the worst thing in the world, but it’s reputation proceeds and there is a reason for that there is some decent stuff in here, but you have to get through so much bad stuff just to get to it, including a ridiculously long aerobics scene where John Travolta just keeps thrusting his hips endlessly.

The one aspect of the film is that it has so many aerobics and workout scenes that this film under normal circumstances could’ve been a musical if you just take all the aerobic scenes and made them into song and dance productions it seems it wants to be a musical, but physically, it’s a romantic drama about reporting and aerobics.

Grade: D+

SUGAR BABY (1985)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Percy Adlon 

Written By: Percy Adlon and Gwendolyn Von Ambasser

Cinematography: Johanna Heer

Editor: Jean-Claude Piroue

Cast: Marianne Sagebrecht, Elsi Gulp, Toni Berger, Manuela Denz, Will Spindler, Hans Stadlbauer, Meret Burger 

An asocial, obese German woman lives in a large city. Unfortunately, despite her kind and intelligent personality, she has had a lot of trouble making a connection with people, until she gets a crush on a handsome subway conductor.

Though this film sounds more modern about an older person taking care of a beautiful younger person financially and them doing the ssmenin return socially and physically. The same happens here but it is more romantic and emotional. Same title different meaning. Oh how the times have changed 

Throughout this film I had the feeling that I had seen this film before. As it constantly felt familiar though I I had only learned of this film in the previous weeks. Then by the end a particular scene jogged my memory. I didn’t see this film exactly, but a televison movie name BABYCAKES starring Ricki Lake and Craig Sheffer. Which o found out was a remake of this film.

Only with a happier and less ambiguous ending. As this original is definitely more sexual and a bit more twisted, but still sweet and more direct. 

As this film goes the artistic route in It’s stark lighting and camera work that seems to go a bit haywire at times in romantic scenes. I am shocked this film hasn’t become a cult film with a following. 

The lead played by Marianne Sagebrecht comes off as lonely and sad but also smart and determined. As we watch in her determined pursuit of her crush. Who seems like an epiphany to her one day.

Their romance takes up most of the film. As they find salvation in one another. Even though he is married. Most of the scenes are of their courtship and romance and some sex. The main difference between the movies other than country of origin is in the remake she has a best friend who is jealous and kind of pulls the rug out from under the romance.

The main attraction of this film is that the female is older and overweight. Making her seem all the more desperate and like her pursuit is more of a dream of fairytale. As the guy is considered think or in this original rather average but skinny. So when she manages to get him it is joyous and a wish come true. So it truly feels like the underdog finding victory. Only unlike most romances we stay way past the victory lap and watch as they deal with reality and the world. Remeber You have to defend your title at times. 

As I saw the remake first I have to side with it as far as presentation of the story and offering up a happy ending. Even though the original is more truthful, artistic and focused. 

Grade: C 

LOVE IN THE AFTERNOON (1972)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Written & Directed by: Eric Rohmer 

Cinematography: Nestor Almendros

Editor: Cecile DeCugis

Cast: Bernard Verley, Zouzou, Francoise Verley, Daniel Ceccaldi, Malvina Penne, Babette Ferrier

The last of Rohmer’s Six Moral Tales. Frederic leads a bourgeois life; he is a partner in a small Paris office and is happily married to Helene, a teacher expecting her second child. In the afternoons, Frederic daydreams about other women, but has no intention of taking any action. One day, Chloe, who had been a mistress of an old friend, begins dropping by his office. They meet as friends, irregularly in the afternoons, till eventually Chloe decides to seduce Frederic, causing him a moral dilemma.

Though I knew most of the story beats, the film actually still lives up to the hype and still feels like a revelation as it is one of Eric Rohmer’s six Moral tales and I’ve only seen one previously. This definitely fits alongside it and is memorable.

Chris Rock’s version Is more gag-filled. You could see where there could be room for a bit more humor while trying to take a realistic look at a man in midlife crisis, not in a bad marriage but in a marriage where he’s standing bored and here comes temptation. Both versions are focused on a single narrative where things happen to shape the films and have a full cast. Though what allows the films to prosper is that no certain story ever rears its head, allowing the film to seem more random 

Zazou is perfectly cast as she appeared throughout the 60s and 70s and in many films. This seems to be the one that is the classic that she is remembered for so she does have that bit of a one and done screen present square she is just a goddess in this film, but not, like a I can if anything he is more the tease in there bombshell, but someone beautiful, but you could also see her as normal and it’s not only about. It’s the way her character comes across with her personality and her matter at first it seems more like she’s playing and then she actually does have a plan and admit to her feelings so it doesn’t always feel like she’s trying to con him and he is more the tease in their relationship and intimacy as she seems usually willing and he’s the one who’s always backing away in the moment or at the last minute

The film does offer some genuine, sexy scenes without actually showing any physical sexual scenes, but just the intimacy, the longing, the heat, the sexual energy, sometimes the blocking angles imposing, just add up to making this film, somewhat erotic even when it’s not trying to

Though through all of this, the film never feels quite horny. It has a sophistication, even though it’s clearly identifiable mainly Moore bourgeois and also offers the difference between being free spirited and responsible, running away in a fantasy and dream, but I also having to wake up to reality and responsibilities, the difference between what we’d like to do but in the end might be best for you. 

Shot by legendary Nestor Almendros, one can understand why, though at times the film takes place in closed-off, tight spaces. It still feels vivid and quite visual, especially when it comes to the angles.

This film more or less feels like a lighthearted, sometimes funny look at a midlife crisis of a man dealing with fantasy, desire, love and responsibility. It feels like a more serious, but not as overwrought Woody Allen film in the early stages of his career, as this film came along around the same time, so deals with a neurotic main character who seems more laid-back and tries to play it a little more cool when it comes to life in his decisions, 

after all he is and this film has more of European sensibilities of having emotions, but not being as hung up at least noticeably or visibly dealing with things as they come. Not treating life and people as something of pure fantasy. At least that is what the audience is led to believe by the cinema and on-screen pictures.

It’s much more formal and nuanced than most films with the same situations. Thigh, then again to heighten as a thriller or comedy, and here it is more or less presented for the characters and audience to decide where their loyalties lie.

It’s another film that seems more a study or a discussion piece while having full characters and not so much on action. 

When it comes to the character of Chloe, you can understand the temptation, but she is a bit weird as she is obviously beautiful, but at times or angles, looks more basic or normal. I guess it’s her personality, attitude and demeanor more than anything. Even though she is obviously attractive in her own way. As she is like a Monet, looks better far away, up close you see more of the cracks or the resentment.

In certain scenes, the film offers a hint of skin, touching, and flirting as the character slowly gets closer, she even declares to be in love with him as she can have him at any time, but she wants. He obviously wants her but resists. So that it is a constant tango between the two of them is sexy and sensual simply, but not gratuitous

The film is a middle-aged male fantasy that is granted and presented with the drama of the reality of it, especially when having second thoughts.

The film was remade. I THINK I LOVE MY WIFE, which was more comedic, but I liked when I saw it in theaters. I saw that film first before I saw this one, so this film feels quite familiar. Where is that film feels more like a crowd pleaser, both films, the main character, the main character comes across as a tease. 

The film is like a Woody Allen film without so much of the comedy and a much smaller cast. We’re only the leads are allowed to make moments.

PERSONEA (1966)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment


Written & Directed: Ingmar Bergman

Cinematography: Sven Nykvist

Editor: Ulla Ryghe 

Cast: Bibi Andersson, Liv Ullman, Margaretha Krook, Gunnar Bjornstrand 

A young nurse, Alma, is put in charge of Elisabeth Vogler: an actress who is seemingly healthy in all respects, but will not talk. As they spend time together, Alma speaks to Elisabeth constantly, never receiving any answer. Alma eventually confesses her secrets to a seemingly sympathetic Elisabeth and finds that her own personality is being submerged into Elisabeth’s persona.

A recent watch for the first time and out of the 3 I have seen, my Favorite Ingmar Bergman film.. So far. 

For me a truly perfect film. Believe the hype. Even though it surpasses it. 

A movie I probably would not have even given a second to watching what I was younger I like line I like to think that my Taste has matured overtime, truly appreciate films such as these and discovering them so later in life allows to look a bit deeper into the film and notice as well as study different aspects of the film and the film making as well as a bit of the filmmaker too

Plus, for such a legendary epic film, it’s kind of short by today’s standards, which I’m finding happens with quite a few foreign classic films. Maybe that should be a lesson to some filmmakers that you can say all you need to say and don’t need a three-hour running time, the irony here is that I am long-winded usually myself, and most things

It’s a film taught and shown in film schools and art appreciation courses. Some Look at it as an achievement, Some look at it as work. few have the same Opinion of what it is truly about 

Made to seem so easy and seamless, no one really knows the work that went into it 

this is one of those striking films where it’s been analyzed numerous times, and you can’t help but try to make sense of it once you finally see it 

That’s hard to give a proper review without putting a little bit of your own mindset or interpretation into it. You can tell people the basics, but it doesn’t do the film justice. 

as it’s a film, some people might find boring pretensions or too Artsy, but watch it. It’s revolutionary and revelatory to the senses just the way the stories told and filmed and acted that have one meaning as a viewer, but also another meaning, watching the characters and the performances.

it’s way of telling a story, but also each character story from their own point of view in a connection is that they have that slowly comes into focus the way which story is told not to mention not expecting the way it’s filmed the way it’s edited and the way it all comes together it’s a daring experimental style that might have been imitated but been done sufficiently or clearly as it is done here

it reminds you when cinema for the most part was not only more experimental, but also more willing to challenge the audience and maybe even the artist itself like most artist Director has their own style and here you get that Egmar Bergman loves characters more than anything even stories or plots but also to a certain degree it feels like a Director analyzed like David Lynch

where people tend to put meaning onto certain things in the film that might actually not have as much significance as they think, and might have actually just been a mistake, or just how things went in there, not really meant to at least Bergman is or was, more vocal than David Lynch has been in interviews 

This is a film that, if you are a film fan, and especially if you want to get into film in any way, shape or form, you must see. I saw it recently for the first time and truly appreciate it as it is now one of my favorite films of all time, but also might be out of the previous few films of Ingmar Bergman. I’ve seen my favorite. Maybe I’m jumping on a bandwagon or just with fans

As it says so much, not only back then, but still, what film can be what cinema can be what writing can be what acting can be what characters can be so it’s very inspiring as you amazement.

there’s nothing quite like this film, except what a shock to the system or disorienting it might be at times that the beauty of it is that everything is so subtle and compose given to you in a manner and which most films try to disorient and jar you to get the same feeling here it feels a little more elegant, calm, and simple 

this is supposedly the film where Igmar Bergman fell in love with one of the stars liv Ullmann even though from the beginning, it seems like actress Bibi Andersson is doing all the work while live omen is in insane but or in the background and listening, but as the film goes on, it’s more Andersson occupies the first half of the film and Liv Ullman takes over or they switch rules and away so that then it becomes live once. Though Ullman is it quiet and still has developments in the second half of the film, she more or less shrinks so the other can grow.

The beauty of the film is that even though I was majorly hyped as a classic, it still doesn’t prepare you for how much you’re going to like the film or how good the film is. It still comes across as a surprise by the time you finish watching the film, how far you’ve come, it seems like you’re in the same place

even the camera work, lighting, editing, and film production are just so composed. It’s an art form in itself. Not to mention, of course, the acting, writing and directing. 

not to mention filming it in black-and-white, as I’ve always said if the film is truly good or great, it makes it timeless in itself, as it’s obvious around what time the film is taking place or the years that the film is taking place. A story that could still be told at any time and still have the same meaning as these characters, will always be identifiable to the audience, if not for themselves, they know somebody similar, as well as seeming like they know these characters from somewhere, might even have the same issues.

Sometimes you should believe the hype as even the hype doesn’t do it justice. It’s a film that manages to make so much out of what looks like very little.

At times we all need to take a break from the world, I watch or try to watch classic films, and classic foreign films to me. It’s the cinematic equivalent of reading the classics seeing what inspired or seeing if these films are worth the hype usually they are full of so much depth And amazed that they still hold up and are better some of the modern offerings there’s a  deep to them and it’s not only because with black-and-white they come across as timeless manages to do so much and say so much and under 90 minutes that some films can’t even muster with an over two hours of the revolutionary time, but even-still while watching it

Sometimes you want to get lost in their worlds, even if just for a few moments, not necessarily fees, but a certain beauty  and amazement

Happy I took my time and finally watched it and experienced it at the right time when I could more appreciate it as if I had seen it when I was younger. I might’ve even liked it, but it wouldn’t have made as much of an impact on me. I don’t believe, as I might not have had the patience or recognized certain identifiable aspects of the film

This is an excellent movie, another one to add to my favorites of all time, definitely a must-see for any film lover or film student, as well as a writer.

Either way you shouldn’t be reading this until after you’ve watched the film 

GRADE: A

LE BONHEUR (*HAPPINESS) (1965)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Written & Directed By: Agnes Varda 

Cinematography: Claude Beausoleil And Jean Rabier 

Editor: Janine Verneau

Cast: Jean-Claude Drouot, Claire Drouot, Marie-France Boyer, Marcelle Favre-Bertin, Manson Lanclos 

François, a young carpenter, lives a happy, uncomplicated life with his wife Thérèse, and their two small children. One day he meets Emilie, a clerk in the local post office.

There is no way I can talk about this film without spoiling it, so if you haven’t seen it, check it out first and then come back for the review.

This is one of those films where I could give you a simple review, but this film wasn’t made for that if you want the simple review, it’s good watching, though I’m not sure a lot of people will appreciate it or like it, but in a long-term sense.

This is one of those films that’s meant to be experienced, but also discussed as different people will see different things in it, and have different opinions about and touch subjects that most of us have experienced or have witnessed, and have definite opinions from our point of view that might not match the film’s

First off, this is my first Agnes Varda film, the celebrated late Director, so I wasn’t exactly sure what I would get. 

Most of this film is a happy-go-lucky movie, but as you get towards the end, that is when the films seem to present itself.

This is a tricky Film where everything no matter what happens seems happy though there’s a subversive current going through it as we see this man who is perfectly happy just starting fair and fall in love so easily with another woman, even though he’s in a supposedly happy marriage and we never see any signs of stress or boredom within it he is willing to give everything to his mistress who doesn’t seem upset that he’s actually married.

After we watch how he functions with his wife and his marriage, and then this affair starts and then around the end of the second act, he finally tells his questionable wife, consequences that we are never 100% sure of as it is sad that she has drowned, seems rather questionable as to maybe she decided to end her life, especially after he has informed her of his affair and then expects her to be OK with it and makes love with her and Field, like his actions were a mere Infraction that he will Keep Doing but the story goes along.

Even though he told his wife that he loved the woman and her both, he is willing to end the affair and just be with her, but if she truly loved him, she would let him continue as he can still love both of them equally as long as they love him.

This would seem like a film made by a misogynistic man who wants to come across as romantic and sympathetic, but actually made by a female Director, trying to present this with a bow, but also expose the hypocrisy involved becomes all the more disturbing and basically replaces his late white with his mistress and everything seems to go back the same, and he never pays any consequences. 

Never seems to show any sorrow and gets exactly what he wants, and there’s no confrontation. There’s no real drama, which gives the film a kind of sarcasm, as the film seems to just let this man get away with everything and never pay any consequences.

which was a reality at the time, and unfortunately might still be in most cases, but also the fact that it seems to be having a commentary on how romantic films of this type played under the male gaze, where the woman always suffers, in the man gets exactly what he wants here. It feels like you should feel outraged over this, but unfortunately, there are no real problems for the character and it feels like an injustice.

Grade: A – 

CONCLAVE (2024)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Edward Berger

Written By: Peter Straughan 

Based on the book By: Robert Harris 

Cinematography: Stephane Fontaine 

Editor: Nick Emerson 

Cast: Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, Isabella Rossellini, Brian F. O’Byrne, Sergio Castellitto, Lucian Msamati, Carlos Diehz 

When Cardinal Lawrence is tasked with leading one of the world’s most secretive and ancient events, selecting a new Pope, he finds himself at the center of a conspiracy that could shake the very foundation of the Catholic Church.

This film is continually fascinating as it should be about a simple subject, a priest trying to pick who will be the new pope. It becomes more like a political thriller, full of intrigue and double-crosses, as well as its fair share of twists and turns.

It keeps you on the edge of your seat wondering what’s going to happen next and the film manages to stay dialogue-heavy but be purely beautiful in a visual sense also.

As you watch all these men of Faith who have different ways of viewing and incorporating the religion they follow and are all supposed to be about the greater good quietly betray not only one another but seem to scheme and believe themselves to be holier than thou.

Some do actually try to keep closer to the religious tax and dogma and quarrel with their faith if anything, the film is identifiable as these men have taken a vow and spreading the word in which they believe, but acknowledge that they are only men and have Their weaknesses, fables and fails, but still try to stay as close as they do what they preach.

The film is not afraid to take on subjects that have plagued the Catholic Church and priests over the years and the way that they have tried to resolve solved deny the charges.

The film has strong and powerful moments and asks if certain things are forgivable for the greater good. It’s not a totally clean movie and has kind of a monkey wrench of an ending it shows there’s not always a clear answer. The film can be enjoyed by people of faith and those who might not.

Everything in this movie is excellent. The acting performances, script, visuals, production design, and costume design now it seem like it would of course be an Oscar because of when it came out but overall it’s just such a powerful film that seems to come out of nowhere that you wouldn’t expect that deals with religion, one of the strongest stay strong and thrilling and a PG-rated film

This is definitely a must-see film. if even you don’t like the subject matter just the masterful craft of filmmaking is something to behold.

A film is best seen on the big screen. 

Grade: A