Chris_Docker
ago 1999 se unió
Te damos la bienvenida a nuevo perfil
Seguimos trabajando en la actualización de algunas funciones del perfil. Para ver los distintivos, los desgloses de calificaciones y las encuestas para este perfil, visita versión anterior.
Calificaciones1.3 k
Clasificación de Chris_Docker
Reseñas965
Clasificación de Chris_Docker
If Tom Cruise were to retire tomorrow, he could be proud of his legacy in this movie.
I debated whether to see it in 4DX or IMAX, and I think what persuaded me was Tom Cruise's reputation for controlling all aspects of his movies. 4DX can be fun, well-done, or downright annoying. Badly-done 4DX detracts from a film. Yet a lot was riding on this movie. It's suggested that it might be the last in the M. I. series. There's only so much stuntwork that Cruise can execute and claim as he punches into his sixties. And a weak M. I. would really look like milking the can. So basically I chose 4DX on trust.
Before the film started there was a message from Cruise thanking the audience for coming to see the film in the way it was intended to be seen - in the cinema. I was feeling slightly rattled by the profligate 4DX effects in preceding trailers. So you'll be happy to know that 4DX was used in the way it must have originally been intended - with a certain discretion so that it adds to the atmosphere of a movie rather than constant jumps and jolts drawing attention to themselves. I remember thinking in the underwater scenes, "people would be missing something without 4DX".
There is more to it than that of course. The triumphant culmination of the series that has more "wow" factor than the rest of them. The emotional tension, the communication between the players, alignment with the current zeitgeist and concerns about AI, and the rush of knowing that Cruise is really jumping off planes and doing stunts for which many future filmmakers would just use CGI. If you watch the "making of" clips, yes, the safety rope and headcam have been digitally removed, but it's still Cruise up there on the wing of a propeller plane and then acting his heart out as he freefalls from a great height.
What can equal the macho sexiness of great filmstars of old like Sean Connery when we live an age where such dynamics are no longer really acceptable? I think that it's maybe characters that care deeply about each other and in an unspoken way. We have remarkable male-female bonding with the amazing Hayley Attwell - and also the deep male camaradie between the Cruise and Simon Pegg characters. Bonds built on values. Where people go beyond what is just expected of themselves and each other.
The cast and crew had a four-year mission to achieve things that would have been thought 'impossible'. To entertain us in new ways. And above, make us feel good. The final reckoning? Mission achieved.
I debated whether to see it in 4DX or IMAX, and I think what persuaded me was Tom Cruise's reputation for controlling all aspects of his movies. 4DX can be fun, well-done, or downright annoying. Badly-done 4DX detracts from a film. Yet a lot was riding on this movie. It's suggested that it might be the last in the M. I. series. There's only so much stuntwork that Cruise can execute and claim as he punches into his sixties. And a weak M. I. would really look like milking the can. So basically I chose 4DX on trust.
Before the film started there was a message from Cruise thanking the audience for coming to see the film in the way it was intended to be seen - in the cinema. I was feeling slightly rattled by the profligate 4DX effects in preceding trailers. So you'll be happy to know that 4DX was used in the way it must have originally been intended - with a certain discretion so that it adds to the atmosphere of a movie rather than constant jumps and jolts drawing attention to themselves. I remember thinking in the underwater scenes, "people would be missing something without 4DX".
There is more to it than that of course. The triumphant culmination of the series that has more "wow" factor than the rest of them. The emotional tension, the communication between the players, alignment with the current zeitgeist and concerns about AI, and the rush of knowing that Cruise is really jumping off planes and doing stunts for which many future filmmakers would just use CGI. If you watch the "making of" clips, yes, the safety rope and headcam have been digitally removed, but it's still Cruise up there on the wing of a propeller plane and then acting his heart out as he freefalls from a great height.
What can equal the macho sexiness of great filmstars of old like Sean Connery when we live an age where such dynamics are no longer really acceptable? I think that it's maybe characters that care deeply about each other and in an unspoken way. We have remarkable male-female bonding with the amazing Hayley Attwell - and also the deep male camaradie between the Cruise and Simon Pegg characters. Bonds built on values. Where people go beyond what is just expected of themselves and each other.
The cast and crew had a four-year mission to achieve things that would have been thought 'impossible'. To entertain us in new ways. And above, make us feel good. The final reckoning? Mission achieved.
Don't be put off by the obscure-sounding title. Or the fact that it is one of those "subtitled films from another country. When we look at the world today, this is a film that, once seen cannot be unseen.
There is a reason why it was Oscar-nominated and won multiple awards at Cannes.
The plot centres around a newly appointed investigating judge in the Revolutionary Court of Tehran and his middle class family. There are echoes of The Zone of Interest (set in the early days of the Nazi Holocaust) and I'm Still Here (set in the early days of Brazil's brutal Military Regime, 1964-85). Unlike those films, Seed of the Sacred Fig is set in a modern-day theocratic regime and mixes secretly filmed footage of live events with a thriller mix of suspense and top acting.
The lead character, Iman, after working on his law career for twenty years and with a stellar reputation for integrity finds (with his new promotion) that he is expected to sign documents authorising a death sentence and without time to review the case.
His wife tells him that, if his superior tells him he has to sign, then it is out of his hands. This raises a similar ethical dilemma as asking if someone in Nazi Germany was guilty when they were 'only following orders'. But in a theocracy, he becomes persuaded that the orders 'come from God'.
His teenage daughters rail against his regime obedience, righteous anger oblivious to family tradition and the danger in which such opposition puts them all.
This is a tense film. You are unlikely to want to miss a second of it to draw breath. What seems distant to the outside world is brought home with horrendous impact. As in I'm Still Here, deep friendships are caught up in the web of good intentions, yet here with added ambivalence of religious observance and a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you don't position of Iman's wife, movingly portrayed by Soheila Golestani. The first half is psychological terror, realistically portraying a hidden world with hard-hitting docudrama-style intensity. The second part is unexpected cinematic action, believably segued into the complex character development and a stunning backdrop of middle-eastern landscapes.
Before the film was released, we learn acclaimed Director Mohammad Rasoulof narrowly escaped to Europe with the footage after being sentenced to eight years in prison as well as flogging, a fine and confiscation of his property. Soheila Golestani, left behind due to an emergency surgery, faced 74 lashes, interrogations, house arrest and a year in prison for her lead role.
The title refers to a species of fig that spreads by wrapping itself around another tree and eventually strangling it.
There is a reason why it was Oscar-nominated and won multiple awards at Cannes.
The plot centres around a newly appointed investigating judge in the Revolutionary Court of Tehran and his middle class family. There are echoes of The Zone of Interest (set in the early days of the Nazi Holocaust) and I'm Still Here (set in the early days of Brazil's brutal Military Regime, 1964-85). Unlike those films, Seed of the Sacred Fig is set in a modern-day theocratic regime and mixes secretly filmed footage of live events with a thriller mix of suspense and top acting.
The lead character, Iman, after working on his law career for twenty years and with a stellar reputation for integrity finds (with his new promotion) that he is expected to sign documents authorising a death sentence and without time to review the case.
His wife tells him that, if his superior tells him he has to sign, then it is out of his hands. This raises a similar ethical dilemma as asking if someone in Nazi Germany was guilty when they were 'only following orders'. But in a theocracy, he becomes persuaded that the orders 'come from God'.
His teenage daughters rail against his regime obedience, righteous anger oblivious to family tradition and the danger in which such opposition puts them all.
This is a tense film. You are unlikely to want to miss a second of it to draw breath. What seems distant to the outside world is brought home with horrendous impact. As in I'm Still Here, deep friendships are caught up in the web of good intentions, yet here with added ambivalence of religious observance and a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you don't position of Iman's wife, movingly portrayed by Soheila Golestani. The first half is psychological terror, realistically portraying a hidden world with hard-hitting docudrama-style intensity. The second part is unexpected cinematic action, believably segued into the complex character development and a stunning backdrop of middle-eastern landscapes.
Before the film was released, we learn acclaimed Director Mohammad Rasoulof narrowly escaped to Europe with the footage after being sentenced to eight years in prison as well as flogging, a fine and confiscation of his property. Soheila Golestani, left behind due to an emergency surgery, faced 74 lashes, interrogations, house arrest and a year in prison for her lead role.
The title refers to a species of fig that spreads by wrapping itself around another tree and eventually strangling it.
Director Luca Guadagnino cannot be faulted for trying to bring some innovative tinsel to the story of a love triangle of tennis players. Whether it comes off is a matter of opinion. Guadagnino describes his directorial technique as that of a voyeur, and sympathising with such a position, like an onlooker, is perhaps the best way to enjoy the film.
Two young tennis players, best friends since adolescence share an obsession for Zendaya, a girl whose only obsession is tennis itself. The story jockeys between timelines, gradually filling in some of the back story. Apart from the good looks of all three, some LGB dialogue sparks up some interest for fans who are not quite so addicted to the process of hitting a ball with a racket. But tennis fan or not, we will need to pay close attention to the young men's style peculiarities if we want to make some sort of sense of the finale.
Without giving anything away, there are two Haneke-like conundrums in final tennis match. I say 'Haneke-like' in reverence to that great and very idiosyncratic film-maker. - and I'm thinking of Caché where one practically needs to be psychic to work out the ending first time round. But Guadagnino, although has turned out some reasonable movies, like the re-make of Suspira or the acclaimed gay romance Call Me By Your Name, is no Haneke. But earlier drama Melissa P fell rather short in its adaptation of a book, and Challengers similarly seems unsatisfying in its lack of substance. The confusing ending (which even experts seem unable to agree on) made me wonder what was the point of sitting through more than two hours of so-so cinema. Guadagnino claims it is not about tennis but about relationships, and the relationships in the film are immature at best. It's nice to see clever technique and hidden clues: but a film for me has to do something, such as entertain or inspire. Sadly, Challengers did neither.
Two young tennis players, best friends since adolescence share an obsession for Zendaya, a girl whose only obsession is tennis itself. The story jockeys between timelines, gradually filling in some of the back story. Apart from the good looks of all three, some LGB dialogue sparks up some interest for fans who are not quite so addicted to the process of hitting a ball with a racket. But tennis fan or not, we will need to pay close attention to the young men's style peculiarities if we want to make some sort of sense of the finale.
Without giving anything away, there are two Haneke-like conundrums in final tennis match. I say 'Haneke-like' in reverence to that great and very idiosyncratic film-maker. - and I'm thinking of Caché where one practically needs to be psychic to work out the ending first time round. But Guadagnino, although has turned out some reasonable movies, like the re-make of Suspira or the acclaimed gay romance Call Me By Your Name, is no Haneke. But earlier drama Melissa P fell rather short in its adaptation of a book, and Challengers similarly seems unsatisfying in its lack of substance. The confusing ending (which even experts seem unable to agree on) made me wonder what was the point of sitting through more than two hours of so-so cinema. Guadagnino claims it is not about tennis but about relationships, and the relationships in the film are immature at best. It's nice to see clever technique and hidden clues: but a film for me has to do something, such as entertain or inspire. Sadly, Challengers did neither.