Movie Log

'Mean Streets' was very underwhelming. Going into the move, I had high hopes. I felt that the movie started off very slow, with quite uninteresting characters. While Charlie is charismatic, and I believe I understand what the film is getting at by putting him in moral dilemmas, I just do not feel he is a significantly compelling character. I feel his annoyances towards Johnny. I also think the complexities of navigating his relationships with John, Teresa, and Uncle Giovanni are apparent. However, I do not feel this movie stands out based on this plot.

I believe the theme of being torn between religion (in this case Catholicism) and crime can be incredibly fruitful in a film. Here, it displays itself in a self-sabotaging way through Charlie through his forgiveness and good will towards Johnny. However, I feel like this substitute is not necessarily strong or realistic.

'Bugonia' was an incredibly fascinating film. This is the first Lanthimos film I have watched, but all I could think was "how was this storyline even conceived?" The acting was incredible. Stone did her thing (as usual, I don't think I've ever seen a bad Emma Stone acting performance *ever*). And wow, Plemons was outstanding as well. His melancholic demeanor was almost Hoffman-esque, and his character was so, so, so intricately devised. And of course, Delbis was oustanding too.

To me, this definitely didn't feel like the comedy it was branded as. Thematically, I feel the film was so variegated and it felt slightly political(?). Throughout the movie it seems the characteristic "CEO" focusing on health longevity and using corporate-speak seemed to serve as a caricature of the (and I don't agree or disagree with this claim, it is just an observation) "politically-conscious" CEO who ostensibly cares but also perpetuates an extent of suffering (with or without bad intention). Plemons' character seemed to illustrate the "conspiratorial" and "distrustful towards government/established institutions" kind of person that has become apparent specifically after the COVID-19 pandemic (distrust in vaccines, etc.). This use of tropes was incredibly interesting, especially in terms of how they intertwine, and calls for some outstanding dialogue and writing.

In terms of not feeling like a comedy, to me this basically felt like a horror film. The booming soundtrack when there were scene changes, or even just important perspective changes during a scene created a tenseness as I watched. The calmness of Michelle Fuller, and in a way her development of Stockholm syndrome was horrifying, especially the scenes of her kidnapping, torture, and overall situation. Teddy, specifically his mood swings during his interaction with Fuller were terrifying.

Regarding Teddy's relationship with Don, it is incredibly difficult to frame as the movie progresses. His actions seem quite manipulative, specifically regarding the things he asks Don to do. It is overtly shown that his character has underwent significant trauma from his childhood onwards, and we are not introduced to his father. His mother, Sandy, and her relationship with Auxolith play an incredibly important part in the story, and are a mystery that is elaborated however I will not delve into detail here.

I feel like this movie was great. I am unable to come up with any hinderances towards a perfect review as of yet. The acting, writing, cinematography, soundtrack, and dialogue, were all spectacular. While I cannot decipher Lanthimos' thesis (is it to be deciphered?), the movie does illustrate elements of horror, black comedy, and thriller, and does very deep character dives without "telling". Overall, this movie was fantastic.

'City of God' is a film that could be great. And I *really* had high hopes and wanted the film to be great. Generally, the storyline was quite predictable. As time passes, there is a cyclical nature towards the violence in the favela. We see Rocket's perspective as this happens in regards to his circle, and how he copes and processes the events in a "coming of age" manner (I think one could also denote this a coming of age film).

In terms of what this movie does right, the cinematography and how it was shot was outstanding. I have never, and I mean never, seen films utilize certain camera angles/visual tricks in terms of fading in and out like City of God. The one scene that captures Zé Pequeno's apartment and how it passes hands was outstanding. The nightclub scene with Zé Pequeno and Benny was amazingly shot as well (with the flickering lights as they argue). The fluidity and pacing of the movie were rapid, yet not rapid to where you lose the story or are overwhelmed (to an extent).

The color gradient was also very nice, in that most things are in quite dreary either warm or cool tones rather than sharper/vivid/fluorescent colors. I think this serves a purpose in terms of the environment, and sets the stage for the "banality" and the dreariness of the difficulties faced at the favela. I think the soundtrack also matched the movie very well, with quick drums moving with the scenes as we watch Rocket grow up. I also thought the different "stories" as we follow different characters (Knockout Ned, The Tender Trio, etc.) was fantastic and a very cool way of setting the scene.

However, I do not think some of the characters were realistic at all. I don't think they were dimensional or necessarily believable. While I have not grown up in a favela, I think Zé Pequeno is an incredibly poorly written villain and an incredibly fragile caricature of a gang leader. He represents the influence on and of The Tender Trio's petty crime evolving towards larger sprees toward a younger generation, him and Benny. He eventually turns into a ruthless, and completely stone-hearted killer with no empathy or sympathy for anyone around him, besides maybe Benny who he shows mercy too and does not bother/mess with. However, I just don't think how he came about to control the favela is realistic. In a two day span, with a small posse he wipes out all leaders of the illicit trades and takes over most of the favela. All while treating his own group without respect. I just do not think this is an accurate representation of how these groups work or the dynamics between them. He is a character who performs horrific actions, however I do not believe he is dimensional. He is someone who just commits crimes without remorse. I also don't feel much like Carrot had much depth either. I do think Rocket was well-written and had a level of depth, along with Benny, and The Tender Trio.

In terms of the plot itself, I was not impressed. I feel like it was quite simple and predictable. I do know I am oversimplifying heavily but it felt like: Rocket grows up and witnesses a war. I don't feel like themes of gang indoctrination and the reason people join gangs were mentioned except in pretty poor ways. This was evident in a few scenes, like when people join Zé Pequeno and Carrot for "respect", and when Zé Pequeno makes Steak n' Fries join his gang, however I feel like these scenes were shocking and strong, but I think there should of been more relating to this. I do feel like this is a movie where every scene held weight, however I also felt that sometimes the scenes weren't done well in the terms that there could have better ways to express a message that was trying to be expressed. I think an example of this is that a lot of The Tender Trio's escapades could have been shortened, along with a lot of the war scenes near the end of the film to incorporate more scenes with emotional/thematic impact.

Overall, I feel like this was a very good movie. I feel like in terms of its "film school" use relating to directing, camera work, and pacing, this was excellent. In fact, probably one of the best and most unique films I've seen in terms of the techniques that it uses. However, I feel like in terms of plot, character development, and straight thematic substance I feel like it wasn't as strong as it could've been.

This was an outstanding film. Anderson truly outdid himself in this adaptation. I've read Pynchon's 'The Crying of Lot 49', but not 'Inherent Vice'. However, this movie captures the Pynchon-esque elements of eccentric characters, "conspiratorial" elements, and a mysteriousness that were characteristic of what I am familiar with in his work. This movie is very complex, winding and turning around corners and looping back to the origin. Its characters fade away, recur, and disappear in a seemingly random fashion, however it works so well to drive the development of the plot and the reactions and motivations of Sportello.

While many films (due to Hollywood of course) use Los Angeles as a setting, few raise the city to such a sublime and detailed point as to make it a character itself. This film does an outstanding job of this. Not just the city itself, but the aspects and culture of 1970's Los Angeles with the Nixonian crowd (of course Nixon being from Southern California) incorporating the cops, the counterculture movement incorporating Sporello. Anderson weaves these together so intricately. They clash, change, ebb and flow into one another as the mystery unfolds (or tightens? which one?).

Every character in this film is an interesting one, and while some are one dimensional, they captivates when on the screen. Phoenix's performance was of course outstanding, along with Brolin's (this movie proved to me his range. wow!). Waterston's performance was awesome as well. This cast was so expansive and notable it felt like a Wes Anderson film at times (who I may also denote as Pynchon-esque). This movie will require amounts of reading (of criticism, theories, etc.) and thinking on my part to understand its thesis (and possible a reading of Pynchon's Inherent Vice). The organizations involved and the mystery itself, and the narration of Sportello are quite nebulous in how they are depicted, so this movie, despite answering many questions, leaves many questions open as well.

I thought the premise was interesting, but the movie was pretty messy overall. The idea itself is strong enough, and I can see why the concept would be compelling, but the execution never really felt as coherent as it needed to be. A big issue for me was that the characters did not feel especially real or grounded. They were not exactly shallow or one-dimensional, but their motivations felt odd and not fully believable, so I had a hard time feeling invested in what was happening to them.

I also do not feel like the movie did a very good job respecting the logic of its own time-travel setup. I am not saying every sci-fi film needs to explain everything perfectly, but here it felt like the rules were loose in a way that made the story harder to trust. That made the movie feel less clean than it wanted to be, and the result was that the whole thing came across as more confusing than compelling.

I also did not think any of the performances were especially great, which made the weaker parts of the movie stand out even more. There is a decent idea at the center of it, but I do not think the film really managed to turn that idea into something that felt fully convincing.

It is one of those movies that should not work as well as it does, but it ends up being really compelling because of how completely it commits to what it is doing. The language, the atmosphere, and the way the movie frames the mystery all make it feel like its own little world rather than a copy of anything else. I especially liked how deliberate it was. Even when the characters are speaking in a way that feels strange, it does not feel random. It feels designed.

What made it work for me is that the style is not just style for its own sake. It actually gives the movie shape. The characters feel contained by the world they are in, and the strange dialogue becomes part of the experience instead of a distraction. I thought the movie had a very strong sense of control, and that is what made it so effective.

It is the kind of movie that feels like it is operating on several levels at once, and I found that very compelling. I do not think the mystery itself needs to be solved in any neat way for the movie to work, because the real strength is in the atmosphere and the way it keeps expanding outward. It feels restless, skeptical, and a little obsessive, which fits the character and the world around him.

I also liked how the movie kept making me pay attention to details without ever making the details feel decorative. It is not just filling the frame with references; it is using that density to create a specific mood. I think the movie works best when you treat it as a long drift through obsession rather than as a puzzle with one answer. That is what makes it interesting to me.

It is the weakest of the Creed films for me because it feels like it has the right ingredients without fully developing them. I could see what it wanted to do with the personal conflict, and I thought the movie had some decent energy, but I never felt like the emotional center was as strong as it needed to be. The story kept moving, but not always in a way that made the drama feel especially deep or convincing.

I also think the movie is less interesting when it leans on the idea of rivalry without giving the characters enough complexity around it. There are parts of it that work, and I do think some of the performances carry more weight than the script does, but overall it felt thinner than the earlier films. I did not think it was bad, just not as substantial as it should have been.

I respect it more than I love it. I think it has enough emotional continuity with the first film to justify itself, and I do think the family material gives it some weight. The problem is that it sometimes feels like it is borrowing too much from a familiar structure instead of finding a sharper identity of its own. As a result, some of the drama feels effective in the moment but less memorable once the movie is over.

That said, I still thought there was a lot in it that worked. The central relationships matter, and the movie understands that this kind of story depends on more than just the fights. It is at its best when it is thinking about inheritance, pressure, and the feeling of trying to live inside someone else's legacy. I do not think it reaches the level of the first Creed, but it is still a good movie.

It works because it understands that the movie is not really about copying the Rocky formula so much as revisiting it from a different place. The film gives Adonis his own energy and his own pressures, and that makes it feel like more than a continuation. I thought the character work was strong, and I also thought the movie did a very good job balancing the emotional inheritance of the franchise with something that felt fresh.

What stood out to me most was that the movie actually cares about how people carry themselves and what they are trying to prove. It does not just treat boxing as spectacle; it treats it as a way of making internal conflict visible. That is what gives it weight. I think it is a very good sports movie, and more importantly, a movie that knows why the sports part matters.

It is a very effective movie because it understands exactly what kind of pressure it wants to create and then keeps applying it. The whole film depends on tension, charisma, and the feeling that the situation could tip at any moment, and I thought it handled that well. The performances are a big part of that, obviously, but the movie also knows how to keep the momentum tight so that the story never really relaxes.

What I liked most was the way the film makes the power dynamics feel unstable. It is not just about one character being good and another being bad. It is about how authority, fear, and self-interest all get mixed together until the whole thing feels morally compromised. That gives the movie more force than it would have otherwise. I think it is a strong crime film, and one that knows how to keep its edge.

It has a lot of personality, and I think that is the main reason it holds together. The movie is strongest when it is leaning on atmosphere and on the central performance, because that gives it a real sense of attitude. At the same time, I do think the film is a little looser than it wants to be. It has energy, but not always enough structure to make that energy feel fully organized.

I do not think that makes it bad. In some ways the looseness is part of its appeal, because it gives the movie a rougher and more unstable quality. But compared with the sharper crime films I like most, this one feels less controlled. I liked it, just not enough to call it one of the greats.

It is one of the best films I have ever seen. What makes it work is not just the story itself, but the way the movie treats growth as something complicated and often contradictory. It is a film about family, loyalty, resentment, and the way environment shapes what people think they are allowed to become. The character relationships are much more complex than they first appear, and I think the movie earns that complexity over time.

The thing I kept coming back to was how strongly the film understands the intertwined lives of Miklo, Paco, and Cruz. Their narratives do not just run side by side; they keep converging, diverging, and affecting each other in ways that feel meaningful. I also thought the acting was excellent, especially in those central roles, because the performances give the movie the raw emotion it needs. It is long, but I think it needs that length. The movie is doing a lot, and I think it does most of it very well.

I admire it even though I do not think it fully comes together. The plot is convoluted in a way that may be intentional, but it also makes the movie harder to follow than it needs to be. At the same time, I thought the performances were strong and the film clearly has things it wants to say, so I never felt like it was empty. If anything, it sometimes feels like it has too much on its mind at once.

What I had the hardest time with was the amount of telling versus showing. I can accept that to a point, but here it makes the movie feel more explanatory than dramatic. There are also enough unanswered questions, especially around Strike and the broader narrative logic, that the film ends up feeling somewhat unstable. Still, I think the message and the atmosphere are powerful, and that keeps it interesting even when it is frustrating.

It is technically near-perfect. It is tightly directed, sharply acted, and paced so that nearly every scene feels like it matters to Caine's progression. What I appreciated most was how little waste there is in the movie. It does not linger when it does not need to, and that gives it a very specific kind of force. The film feels serious from the beginning and stays that way.

I also think the movie is effective because it does not just rely on one dramatic moment. It builds dread through accumulation. The characters, the surroundings, and the choices they make all feel connected, and the result is a movie that feels both immediate and inevitable. It is a very strong crime film and one that handles its material with a lot of control.

It is an incredibly well-made film. What I liked most was that it gives Tre a steady perspective without turning him into a blank audience surrogate. The people around him feel specific rather than symbolic, which makes the movie feel much more alive. It is about environment and pressure, but it never loses sight of the fact that these are actual people living inside those pressures.

The film also has a real sense of control. It does not oversell itself, and that restraint helps the emotional moments land harder. I thought the movie was very good at showing how different kinds of masculinity, ambition, and instability shape the world around these characters. It feels honest without being formless, which is not easy to do.

Credit where credit is due: the cinematography, soundtrack, and performances are remarkable across the board. Nearly every scene feels deliberate, building the story's weight without wasting motion. This is not my first time watching it, and I enjoyed it much more on second watch.

There is no definite protagonist (one could argue Vito, and then Michael in the latter half), however the emotional side emits a resonance from the Corleones as their personal lives are depicted at scale, as opposed to others. That is part of what makes the movie feel so complete. It is not just telling a crime story; it is building a whole social and emotional order around that story.

This is arguably the movie that defined and inspired the gangster or broader crime drama genre, and lives up to its name. The main cast is incredibly multi-dimensional (credits of course to the actors) and you can see the range of feelings they display and how this range either widens or becomes concentrated as the movie progresses. It feels as controlled as it is expansive, which is a hard balance to strike.