Written By: Eduardo Manzanos, Ernesto Gastaldi and Vittorio Caronia
Cinematography: Emilio Foriscot and Floriano Trenker
Editor: Eugenio Alabiso
Cast: Edwige French, George Hilton, Cristina Airoldi, Manuel Gill, Alberto De Mendoza, Bruno Corazzari, Carlo Alighiero, Ivan Rassimov
After arriving in Vienna with her diplomat husband, a woman is stalked by a mysterious, razor-wielding maniac, with people around her getting killed one by one.
Right now, I am truly immersing myself and the Gallo genre or at least catching up on many that I have never seen and truly never heard of when is thankful for Tubi for actually having a lot of these films to offer finding out about these films from various box sets devoted to lesser known examples of the genre. vinegar syndrome in particularly has a bunch of these in box sets that help me just discover titles to try to find and see for myself
There is a certain grace in Giallo films
And it fees like the story telling is on a rhythm almost like liquid as it flows. This film feels more rough around the edges att times. Which adds to it’s Charms.
Though they started in these films and the women sometimes are treated horribly in them. Though the Film and filmmaker seems devoted to showcasing the actresses as unearthly beautiful but makes their behavior all the more human. That either you root for them in their indiscretions as their partners treat them horribly. So that you feel a certain sympathy for them. It is also the filmmakers putting you on yheornside as the men dominate the women to make them seem all the more human and weak to a certain extent. that way each film seems like a testament to the actress or the lead character and the actress just encases the role.
story wise this film is pretty typical of Giallos. There’s always a murder mystery at hand and the film offers. You many suspects as well as grand death scenes scenes were the lead female character is almost a victim, but it saved last minute or manages to escape.
it tries to make you believe that anyone could be the killer offering, red herrings, and plenty of motives for different characters who are close to the main character to do it as well as scenes that try to provide alibis or reasons as to why we might suspect cannot be the killer.
While also providing plenty of intrigue, seduction, glamour, international landscapes, sex scenes, nudity and graphic violence that the directors usually try to make seem brutal, yet artistic in the aftermath.
Even though a little more predictable than usual, this film is truly an undiscovered gem as again it’s imperfections or set it apart from the typical Giallo, which can be original sometimes are so stylistic that it’s too much for their own good.
Edwige French captivtes the screen. As you want to see more of her or for her to do more. One can’t take their eyes off of her. Conchita Airoldi does the same in a more supporting role. Which has her leavi g the film before she can truly make too much of an impression, but while she is there. She works as a distraction at times though one with a great smile.
By the end the puzzle isn’t too hard to figure out but the end packs a hell of a punch.
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.
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
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.
Cast: Danilo Micheli, Andrea Massarelli, Anna Bruna Cazzato, Mirella Venturini, Valerio Isidori, Antonio Mea, Alea Armani
Stefano Vicinelli and his girlfriend Diana fall two weeks behind on their hotel rent and face having their luggage and car impounded until they can pay the bill. Conveniently for them, a distraught woman in the room right above theirs leaps to her death from the window. Using that as a distraction, the lovebirds sneak out and take off. Running low on money, they pool what little cash they do have and go to the racetrack. Stefano encounters a crazed woman wearing sunglasses who demands he give her a key so she can unlock a door. After she calms down, she proposes a deal with him: She’ll help him win money in the horse race if he’ll help her “get past the gate.” Having no clue what she’s even talking about, Stefano reluctantly agrees and bets on her suggestion. After the horse wins and he collects, he feels obliged to accompany the strange woman – who introduces herself as Countess Angela – back to her home.
The film has a misleading title that seems used to get an audience interested. Sure, it’s an erotic movie that doesn’t actually show or revolve around the sexual act in particular. It hints at the act once.
Though it is more like a softcore erotic movie with a supernatural plot that isn’t too convoluted but leads to erotic interludes. So that it literally feels like a porno with a plot and professional production values. That never goes in the direction of being a full hardcore adult film, but also barely has any direction.
As it never quite comes across as a believable supernatural thriller either. Though the eroticism is the only thing that makes the film entertaining
Strangely enough, the film takes itself too seriously instead of going full steam into a more cultural exploitation experience.
There is of course plenty of nudity as well as softcore sex of all kinds, with a love story thrown in. The film feels heavily edited to make sure the action doesn’t go too far into more hardcore territory.
The film’s plot really makes no sense. Though the movie tries to hypnotize the audience with surreal imagery. That feels more like arthouse pretensions with hippie philosophy and astrology thrown in for plenty of ceremonies.
No, the grade isn’t because it doesn’t live up to the title, but at least if the filmmakers had just decided to go with a more out-and-out pornographic movie. Maybe the audience wouldn’t;t have been so let down by a title that seems more meant to shock, but ultimately becomes more a gimmick
Cast: Vincent Cassel, Olivier Barthelemy, Justine Lerooy, Vanessa Decat, Boris Gamthety, Randolphe Blanchet, Camille Rowe, Josephine De La Baume, Jacques Herlin, Pierre Boulanger
The outcast red-haired teenager Rémy is bullied at school and lives with his estranged mother and sister in France. The also red-haired psychiatrist Patrick befriends Rémy and helps him to release his repressed hatred and sexuality. When Rémy sees a picture of red-haired people in Ireland, he forces Patrick to travel with him to his dreamland.
I am a fan of Director Romain Gavras. His music video work has always been wonderful and arresting and always seems to have deeper meanings than what was natural to make movies and he has made quite a few. Some have been better than others, but none seem to have the strength of his music video worked, even though visually they are all strong. Unfortunately, this film is part of that trend.
This film Is an extension of the music video free for the artist, MIA the Director Romain Garvas directed.
Where redheads are treated as second-class citizens the video was meant to be a commentary on illegal immigration and was much more violent with you and putting them in internment camps.
The film is a bit more dramatic and is a tale of a disaffected boy who is bullied and finds a companion in a social worker who is also tired of being treated as lower class in his days he sees others who are considered better or above him who act worse, so the two of them team up on a kind of crime spree him as the mentor Trying to make the young man violent and actually live and stick up for himself.
The film seems to say something about national pride and natural-born citizens because of their heritage being treated like they don’t belong and in effect, immigrants in their own country, only raised to a little more ridiculous level and still having a tinge of white rage and supremacist feelings.
These escapades include trying to make the boy realize which sexuality he identifies with getting into numerous physical fights, and not being afraid of violence, seems to get depressed at a certain point just as the boy hits his stride and vice versa at times.
Wow, this is certainly a visible film there are many times during the film that one wishes that it was a bit more like the music video a bit more exciting, and maybe something has a bit more of something to say rather than just feeling like an excuse for these scenes and certain characters Just to behave reprehensibly but have meaning behind them.
It’s a film I wish brought the audience in more but seems to go off on its own path and on whims that I’m not sure it’s quite what the audience is looking for. It never offers easy answers and a few that it does offer seem a bit confusing or questionable.
Though maybe in the end, that is what the film always wanted for an audience that was looking for rage to be expressed through violence or some kind of shooting spree or thinking this film was just gonna be 90 minutes of pure anger and finding that the characters for all their anger for the most part while brave are mostly cowards And still have some of their humanity, no matter the indignities put upon them.
Cast: Desiree Nosbusch, Bodo Staiger, Simone Brahmann, Jonas Vischer, Helga Tolle, Klaus Munster, Ian Moorse, Wilfried Blasberg
The hero-worship that Simone has for a pop singer is built to a crescendo until she passes out when she finally sees him up-close in a crowd of fans pushing him for autographs. She is later shocked when he lets her know that he does not love her. In an instant, she is caught “in a trance” and feels a murderous urge that is bigger than the both of them.
This review is spoiler-heavy. it’s advisable to watch the film first as this is more a discussion than a review.
This is a film one has waited quite some time to find and finally watch. It’s a film that it heard about over the years and looked forward to then saw a very, simply not as some cinematic lost Grail.
It’s a nice switch from the usual fan films where it’s usually a male stalking a female or stalking another male making it more homoerotic for the ladder, but in the former and obsession that they try to turn erotic or romantic.
A story that works like a mixtape has a different cut or see as time goes by. It’s also set at a time place and culture around a music scene that was modern at the time and very specific.
This film deals with the same only from a female fan stalking a male rockstar. The girl is a teenager, and by far is the more gruesome of any star obsession film, as this is more a psychological drama rather than an action thriller.
It can also be seen at first as a coming of age story that Can be seen as a rite of passage a crush on a superstar that gets to be an obsession as a fan for a teenage girl.
It also dives more into the psychology of the obsession as since it’s an underage girl it is mostly thought that it’s puberty and emotions taking over but soon realizes that it’s nothing more than a crush and that it should be rather harmless this film and the character takes it more to an extreme.
The film shows the depth of fandom, but also obsession. Believing that she is the only one who knows and understands him and that all the others are just there more for the money and Fame.
The film is more psychological than physical love it or hate it. It’s a conversation starter.
The main character doesn’t speak much, except in her letters to the star and in monologues. Desiree Nosbusch Gives an unforgettable performance as Simone.
The audience witnesses how unstable she is to a degree in her day-to-day life as her obsession takes over all of her thoughts and actions and she cares little about anything else.
The audience suspects where it will mostly go or what will happen as the film takes its time with the situation, especially once she finally gets to meet him.
We watch as she runs away into Wonderland and finds a monster of sorts and sheep’s clothing that she believes to be her prince.
We watch as she somehow Wills her fantasy to come true with interest, and then practically the unraveling of what she sees as a romance, and what he sees as a hook-up.
Which is like an artistic love scene presenting themselves to one another before it seems to take a turn, and after he gets what he wants and is ready to throw her away or dispose of her. It is in close-up as we are now in her fantasy or viewing it through that lens once the camera pulls back after we are brought into reality just as she is.
We know something will happen, but can’t predict how severe, especially without the innocent and clean or at least non-exploit of the movie has been up to this point. It’s had its rough edges, but it’s practically been more passive, which makes it all the more upsetting.
This is not the type of film where you are waiting for a demise or where the film gets you excited or expecting any sort of violence. The film seems a bit off at first, then gets disturbing and gruesome.
The film even early on makes a point of presenting Hand-holding as a sign of who cares and who doesn’t.
Nothing that happens seems to be premeditated. Some could argue. The actions are to happen in the heat of the moment or being so young and emotionally out of control.
It seems to go way too far though we might understand her initial act, becomes a mix of saving herself, but also still having a sick obsession and sickness with this rockstar.
The film is not as violent or as expected, though it might be the cut I viewed.
There is only one part that is not that believable as it is too clean and too fast, which is devouring him a bit cannibalizing him or at least pieces of him or at least the essence of him as a goodbye or farewell. That’s where it goes overboard but smart and getting away with fashion. Even though that is probably one of the more memorable parts of the film.
She doesn’t seem to learn her lesson as she is still delusional by the end and blocking out her act and now might be delivering his child who she believes will be reborn.
The film also has long drawn shots, but little dialogue, a synth-pop score that gets into your head. that goes well with the action and ending as once you step away from this film it is certainly one that you won’t forget easily.
Cast: Laura Calamy, Anne Suarez, Genevive Mnich, Nolan Arizmendi, Sasha Lamaitre Cremaschi, Cyril Guei, Lucie Gallo, Agathe Dronne, Mathilde Weil, Dana Fiaque
Just when Julie finally gets an interview for a job that will let her raise her children better, she runs into a national transportation strike.
This film seems to have the mentality that when it rains it pours.
It seems the first to be such a simple film. You know a single mother trying to do better for her kids and her life by trying to get a better job you know pays more maybe a little closer to home better hours.
Then it turns it into a thrill a minute story of tension as she has to deal with bringing the kids to this babysitter, then trying to get to work on time where you know either trains are off schedule or late or you know the workers are having a strike, and She has to take a different route or find a totally different way to go to work
Even you know, kind of flirting with someone who she’s not necessarily really attracted to, but she knows it suite on her just so she can get a ride and then shockingly him rebuffing her. so that even her sideline romance seems to fail in the middle of all her other hardships you rule for her throughout, but feel the loss.
And then not only that struggling to get to work late with her supervisor notices and penalizing her for but then also trying to get back home on time to pick up her kids on time you know it’s not quite run Lola run or that was it character dealing with all these different fates and felt kind of mystical this is just hard-core reality.
Justice things seem to go positive for this character they always seem to be a curveball throw as we watch in the way that she has to maneuver for survival as she faces one challenge or dilemma at a time, and usually after another close together.
It’s a portrait of one single mother that speaks for a number of them out there as they try to do their best for themselves, and most importantly, their families, and the seemingly increasing levels of difficulty and challenges they must face it seems even just to break even.
Her ex seems to disappear, avoid, and take no responsibility or offer solutions. You admire her to a degree, and the film teaches. You have to take it day by day moment by moment, each one seems to be worse and truly a horror film of its own.
Thank you to John Waters, whose list of 2023‘s best movies listed this film as one of them, or else I probably never would’ve heard of it, or probably not for some as the film is exhilarating and exemplary
Written By: Galder Gaztelu-Urtuitia, David Desola, Egoitz Moreno and Pedro Rivera
Cinematography: Jones Sangroniz
Cast: Milena Smit, Hovik Kruchkerian, Natalia Trent, Oscar Jaenada, Ivan Massague, Zorion Eguileor, Bastien Ughetto
A thrilling physical journey that allows an approach to the darkness, where it is scary to look. It appeals to the viewer’s civil responsibility and forces them to face the limits of their own solidarity.
This is an unnecessary sequel. That is more of the same but tries to keep or Impart an anti-authority message. While also including some personal stories about sacrifice and acceptance.
The film is overblown and has the effect of feeling like we got the message the first time and now you are just pounding it into the audience’s head who Were already on board. So at times, it feels overblown and annoying. Especially including a leader who ultimately works As a physical manifestation of a villain. Who resembles a version of Jesus.
Though the film is fine and if you haven’t seen the first film it might be shocking or like something new, but if you have seen the first it’s like a procedural more of the same only different faces and new characters. Basically more of the same.
Though the film tries to add mythology to its tale it feels overblown like most sequels and a bit too much for something that should have kept it simple and not overthought it.
It will be satisfying more if you haven’t seen the first one. As this film feels unnecessary.
Cast: David Pareja, Estafina De Los Santos, Josep Maria Riera, Claudia Riera, Eduardo Antuna, Gala Flores, Cristina Dilla, Aitzair Castro
Jesus and Maria are a couple going through a difficult time in their relationship. Nevertheless, they have just become parents. To shape their new life, they decide to buy a new coffee table. A decision that will change their existence.
before I even start trying to write about this film. please know that this is a very heavy spoiler written review because it’s very hard to talk about this film without spoiling it. Don’t watch the trailer. Don’t read about it to truly experience the film. It is best to go in blind that is first.
So now here we go Secondary this film is very disturbing so if you have a light sensibility and can’t handle dark material, it is highly suggested you stay away from this movie. Especially if you are a parent.
HEAVY SPOILERS
So now here we go
The film begins like a truly dark black bleak comedy, and it gets right to the point at first I thought it was going to play out as a bunch of just bad luck and circumstances of the purchase of this coffee table. I didn’t think it would start off so quickly with the dilemma
throughout the film, there is humor and a bit of the absurd, but I think what is generally disturbing about the film is that it also plays so real. It feels like the actual reactions of a person who is in that circumstance and then panicking and figuring out how they’re going to relieve the dilemma, and also having to deal with all these characters around them.
Considering the film takes place in one location it also almost feels like this could’ve easily been a play a stage show. Throughout plays, even the minor supplies seem to be more about character than pieces or funny material.
it’s partially a character piece as we do get to know bits and pieces about the characters and their past and their relationships and really the film depends on them and their believability and emotions. while it has a sense of dread and a cloud of despair hanging through it
Luckily, the film doesn’t go for too much shock value, or show you violence or being exploitative about the situation. The filmmaking is it distracting it’s more of the dramatics of the situation and the believability of the characters that come through the most in this film. As it stays shocking yet always believable.
what I believe makes this film feel so heavy at the end is that there doesn’t seem to be any release or Relief and even with its dark humor there’s no punchline. It’s an all-out tragedy.
As there are no true villains in this film only victims. As it plays It just seems cruel to a certain extent not that it wants to be, but you do wonder why these characters have to be caught up in this and suffer. If not at the time you know it’s coming. The only question is how and why. This is a film that you can just sit back and watch you’re going to find yourself involved somehow even if it’s just in your reactions which will most likely be loud.
By the end, you’re even wondering why this film was made it’s just so heavy and sad that this is the type of film where afterward you’re gonna need something to definitely try to cheer you up whatever you can find as it leaves you in a dark place. as this is one nasty experience that you can’t help but feel something while watching.
this is one of those films that just stays with you even if you don’t like the film or aren’t impressed by the film or its filmmaking. Though I will admit with this kind of imagination, I am interested to see what the Director comes up with next.
Cut To The Chase 