Dello_

"Juror #2" has a very interesting premise: a man is called to be a juror in a murder process. When the details are explained to him (and the rest of the jury) he finds out that what he thought to be a crash with a deer that he had a year before maybe was not just that. Indeed he can be highly involved in this case... Surely the movie has some tricks that can be not appreciated by everyone and it also has some plot issues, or to formulate better some important plot points cunningly avoided. Furthermore the film is more concerned about the main character's struggle than the actual criminal facts so the real events are revealed quickly. So I get that it could be disliked by someone.

However the think I loved and the reason why I was able not to be affected much by the previous points is that all the construction felt to me as a big setup for a moral dilemma the movie gives to the viewer and the finale is there to force you to decide what is your view. In addition many discussions about justice and the juridical systems are made.

In conclusion I really liked "Juror #2". It has a slow pace and it's heavy in dialogues but it was able to leave me with something to think and to be memorable.

I was very curious to watch "Puss in Boots: The Last Wish" because of the fantastic reviews I read. From what I read I was expecting something in the lines of a Pixar movie but it is not. If you see yourselves in this description you may be left disappointed. Indeed I found "Puss in Boots: The Last Wish" to have a much younger target audience with respect to Pixar movies or also Into/Across The Spider-verse and so on.

The animation and the art style are actually fantastic and they are clearly influenced by the animated Spider-man movies. "Puss in Boots: The Last Wish" is marvelous to look at, but unfortunately I didn't like at all the narration and the pace.

As far as the narration and characters I found everything particularly shallow. This is because there are too many secondary characters that are totally useless and redundant. For instance the bears family has nothing special to add, their moral could have been integrated into the one of the protagonists (since it's not that different) and they only add confusion.

This is a pity because the main conflict that the Puss in Boots has to confront is super interesting on paper and the Wolf is terrifying. I almost had chills every time I heard the whistle. By far this is the best part of the movie but it isn't explored much due to the added confusion. Also the relationships between the members of the main trio are intriguing but, once again, not explored and rapidly solved out of nowhere. In fact, another issue of the film is the super fast pace and the huge runtime reserved to action and chasing scenes. At a certain point they became so boring and repetitive. I get that children love kinetic and chaotic scenes but a balance can be found.

This movie is a perfect example of an interesting potential wasted due to having to introduce too many characters, storylines and fast pace. The introduction to the Puss in Boots was hilarious, the Wolf was phenomenal, the animation superb and the main trio was a strong set of character. Why the need to overly complicate?

In conclusion, "Puss in Boots: The Last Wish" has some merits and it can be appreciated (especially by children). If however you like a more well-thought story in which the conflicts (personal and between characters) are not solved with one or two lines be aware that you can be left disappointed.

"Anatomy of a fall" is a great movie that I think should be watched by everyone because it is able to generate thoughts and a discussion about many topics.

The film starts in a village located in the mountains in France. Here a family (composed by the father, the mother and a child) lives but one day a tragedy happens. The child goes out for a walk but once he comes back he finds his dad dead on the ground. The only person present at home is the mother: what happened? These are like the first 10 minutes of the film and are a strong basis to start it.

Indeed "Anatomy of a fall" is centered around the following process and the attempt to reconstruct the dynamic of the tragedy but I will not elaborate on how this goes since I don't want to spoil. The great merit of the film is that it presents a complex and structured case and a series of events that will force you to elaborate and think about the topic. For instance I watched this movie with a friend and we found ourselves into deep discussions about the justice system after the conclusion. The reality is in fact often ambiguous and it is not a Poirot or Sherlock Holmes novel since it is not always possible to perfectly reconstruct the exact events. There isn't a super clever detective that can explain to us everything and we often have to believe something by making assumptions. Furthermore us as the public opinion are interested in a story always judging situations and there are tv programs covering criminal cases all for "entertainment". At the same time there are people which lives are on the line. These are only some of the themes touched by "Anatomy of a fall" but a lot of things can be seen in this rich movie.

I also wanted to cite the exceptional performance by Sandra Huller, but even more congratulations to the person that cast her because she is perfect for the role. She has this mysterious and cold face which is able to reinforce all the doubts that her character should express. And in some cases I found myself judging her by the fact that she seemed not transparent only due to her face and expressions. And this is exactly another point of the movie since the public opinion often judges people in criminal cases based on the empathy that a person is able to convey or because "that face is suspicious". So phenomenal casting.

In the end I think "Anatomy of a fall" is a great movie and I suggest everyone to watch it and talk about it.