DinosaurAct86
Joined Nov 2008
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings1.4K
DinosaurAct86's rating
Reviews16
DinosaurAct86's rating
The Boy and the Heron is worth your time. As a matter of fact, it is worth at least one more viewing if not more. If you enjoy multifaceted dream worlds from which the viewer gets the sense there's more "behind the curtain," then this is your movie.
Yes, the animation is astounding. It brings a tear of joy to my eye to think Ghibli can still do hand-drawn animation at this point in film history and have a hit film. I also know Miyazaki would have it no other way. However, let us not ignore the beautiful score of this film. Joe Hisaishi is an already established master film composer, but I think the score here elevates the film because it is doing what I think the film is doing-that is, it's built around simple ideas that are actually not that simple at all because there are other layers at work behind the scenes. I cannot say more or I'll spoil the film.
Finally, I do not believe it is a "jumbled mess of ideas" as I saw one reviewer say. This film is a slow-burn experience, and it can be overwhelming, but I was never under the impression that it was thrown together. I felt I was being led by masterful hands.
See it, get moved, get confused, get lost in it, and then see it again and start to understand it. Don't miss real artistic brilliance when it appears.
Yes, the animation is astounding. It brings a tear of joy to my eye to think Ghibli can still do hand-drawn animation at this point in film history and have a hit film. I also know Miyazaki would have it no other way. However, let us not ignore the beautiful score of this film. Joe Hisaishi is an already established master film composer, but I think the score here elevates the film because it is doing what I think the film is doing-that is, it's built around simple ideas that are actually not that simple at all because there are other layers at work behind the scenes. I cannot say more or I'll spoil the film.
Finally, I do not believe it is a "jumbled mess of ideas" as I saw one reviewer say. This film is a slow-burn experience, and it can be overwhelming, but I was never under the impression that it was thrown together. I felt I was being led by masterful hands.
See it, get moved, get confused, get lost in it, and then see it again and start to understand it. Don't miss real artistic brilliance when it appears.
This film is a disappointing example of an intriguing premise, good acting, good cinematography, and strong sound design and score not adding up to anything worthwhile. The sum is much lesser than its parts.
I am also disappointed in the writing, as Giacabone penned both Birdman and Biutiful, two astoundingly original film concepts. I suppose the difference here is that, instead of a master like Innaritu at the helm, we have first-timer Pascual Sisto who is more interested in mood and pastiche than creating a cohesive experience. Haneke or Lanthimos this ain't, and it's heavy borrowing from each winds up getting in the way of what could have been a more interesting film.
I am sure that on second viewing, one might peel back another layer or two, but I don't feel the desire. I may check out Sisto's next project, but this one was kind of a bust for all of its technical achievement.
I am also disappointed in the writing, as Giacabone penned both Birdman and Biutiful, two astoundingly original film concepts. I suppose the difference here is that, instead of a master like Innaritu at the helm, we have first-timer Pascual Sisto who is more interested in mood and pastiche than creating a cohesive experience. Haneke or Lanthimos this ain't, and it's heavy borrowing from each winds up getting in the way of what could have been a more interesting film.
I am sure that on second viewing, one might peel back another layer or two, but I don't feel the desire. I may check out Sisto's next project, but this one was kind of a bust for all of its technical achievement.
