Hippo_on_trial

I did enjoyed this movie specially the singing. I'm not a transgender hater. No matter what I might think of transgender inappropriately stealing women prices in sport and movies, this is a group of people that exist, even when they are highly manufactured and surgically done. Nevertheless their stories matters and shape society for good and bad. The problem with this movie is the lack of credibility of the story. Transgender woman don't usually are gangsters or murderers in their previous lives but the victims of what the underworld has to offer. They are outcast both before and after transitioning. Nor are they attracted to women both before and after the transition, specially not in cultures like the Mexican or Latino where most transgender don't like their sex because they are homosexuals and don't feel normal or socially approved because of that. Despite of this the movie is funny and entertaining with very compelling acting. Don't hate it for that, just enjoy the ride.

My expectations before seeing this movie were sky high but I left the theater loving the original even more. Happily, for me I do love silent movies specially in the horror genre and I do believe that this remake could have accomplished more if they done the movie as silent as the original was, relaying exclusive on subtitles, music and imagery. You can't give a silent movie a voice and expect that it wouldn't demand rights. The perks of doing remakes of legendary movies like the many "King Kong" remakes are as follows. The film must feel accurate to a certain period of time, the manus must be carefully rehearsed and finally, the movie must relay on the original storyline and imagery. This remake follows its period of time to a certain degree and follows the original movie in a way that makes the film instantly forgettable. The manus inaccuracy is a conversation that must take place. In this remake the female roles are more prominent with the main change that they are, let's say, less eager to comply to the wishes of their husbands. The manus has many flaws. If the goal was to scare the audience, its fails mostly because it never really follows the visuals with accuracy and can be monotonous and tedious at time. The visuals look like paintings in a way that makes the movie feels AI, resting authenticity and casting a veil of stiffness over the final cut that takes the attention away from the original story instead of improving or resuscitating it. This movie wasn't the horror roller coaster I was expecting. It was darker than a cave but only with one blood thirsty monster lurking in the dark and he is taking Ozempic. The problem is that Nosferatu was too afraid of coming out to scare the audience. Giving a silent movie a voice challenges risking the soul of the tale. It's difficult to replicate old things. The art of film making changes constantly over time. Directors don't always have the luxury of adjusting to the tools of the past. That has a devastating impact on the dramaturgy of the remakes of silent movies. By giving Nosferatu a voice, Robert Egger, the director, made him unnecessarily human, relatable, vulnerable, less scary and even leaving the audience feeling sorry for him at the very end. We don't want vampires to die that easily we want them to hunt us in our dreams. That wasn't though the biggest problem this movie's main character has. Let's address the elephant in the room, Bill Skarsgård. If Bill Skarsgård was the right cast for this movie they just misused his undeniable talent. Let's be clear his physical features weren't the right ones for the bat-like Nosferatu of the original movie. Why cast a hunk as an actor to have him constantly hidden in the darkness making the worst horror version of himself. The makeup artist tried very hard to make him look like "Nosferatu" but they didn't succeed with it. If you wanted to know why you see so little of him during the movie or why every scene with him was so dark, here is the answer. The director wasn't thrilled with the results of how he looked. Why not casting someone perhaps less famous like Quinton Boisclair who played "The Angel" in the tv-series "Midnight Mass" or Jarred Germaine initially casted on "Alien Romulus"? Actors that might be not as skilled and accomplished as Bill Skarsgård indeed is but with they have the right features, the right proportions and complexion, the right eyes and the undeniable monstrousness of the original Nosferatu. Instead of those they casted the famous Bill Skarsgård and even dubbed and manipulated his voice so why misuse him that way when they couldn't even use his voice. Why not cast another actor with the right features? It's always harder to destroy a beautiful canvas like Bill Skarsgård to create a disfigured and disproportionate monster like Nosferatu.

Another mistake was the casting of Willem Dafoe. His character was like cut and pasted from one of Egger's previous movies. His acting was too predictable and even his makeup as a now older man felts too familiar for the storyline. Willem Dafoe is the kind of actors you really need to transform with makeup to make it work, otherwise his appearance will destroy the movie putting the audience to think about his other iconic rolls. His roles are as predictable as Marilyn Monroe roles were during her whole career and Ann Dowd still are in every movie she is on. Another issue with the movie was relaying too much on candlelights. The imagery was darker and less visible than the original movie. To make this kind of lightning effective you need to use another lightning and special effects. Audiences can't relate to candlelight as a source of illumination or element of horror anymore. This is something the majority of the world's population seldom use nowadays. But the worst scenes of the movie were the ones portraying the voyage of Nosferatu. Imagine how this movie could have improved with some of the scenes of Andre Övredal's "The last voyage of the Deméter"? Any how, I'm very disappointed with this remake, so much room for improvement. Robert Egger despite of doing brutal masterpieces like "The Northman" and "The Witch" made this vampire movie feel like Disney for adults and a horror fairytale where the female victim feels indeed like the real villain of the movie. This is a movie as expensive as "gone with the wind" but it's screaming desperately for a soul. This is definitely not the best gothic vampire movie ever done, nor is this better that the original or any of Robert Egger previous work. If you want to se a romantic gothic vampire movie, see Coppola's masterpiece "Dracula".

This was an easy watch. The acting was good and surprisingly poor on clichés after cliches after cliches as AfroAmerican movies usually tend to be. Is beyond comprehension the racism and the misogyny that soldiers on the right side of history were putted through due to their skin color, sex and range. The military tends to cultivate the worst of the prejudices where everything bad in society is encouraged, allowed, accepted and therefore never held accountable. It always harder to belong to a minority group in the military. Those are indeed easy targeted and forced to do the heavy work. I did enjoy this movie specially the end. It was heartwarming to see the real heroes behind this historical movie.