Danielpotato

Let me make one thing clear, at the beginning of the film is narrated a Japanese legend about a samurai who has helped a bunch of dogs in the past. Yes the hero of this story is not the little Atari Kobayashi, but the white American student with Afro hair, named Tracy Walker. Of course you could not make a movie with American money, without appearing certain mannerisms or mechanisms. The dumbest minds will say that it is to lure people to the box office, but why the Japanese people, who are hustling in the history of this movie are idiots who can not communicate without screaming, and schizophrenics that can not socialize with other individuals from other countries. The clearest example is when Tracy Walker tries to "pull" a information from a japanese scientist over a sore to heal dogs. Seriously, Hollywood, why the filmmakers do not try to first change their mentality, before writing these scripts for these films.

Yes, this movie has the same stereotype ideas about Japanese people that Hollywood thinks that is true, but I doubt many Hollywood guys had left their jobs or homes to live in Japan, and they would see a totally different life and people.

Not to mention that the story of the film is totally chiché and predictable, despite the excellent animation (stop animation animated movie) out of ordinary. But good animation is not enough to save a movie. A good script, story and characters are the main reason, because when the animation effect passed away (the Wow reaction of the audience), it is the story that stays in the memory.

The Wow effect on the audience due to the excellent animation only lasts the first 10 minutes of the movie, after this the audience becomes more interested about the story and characters rather the beautiful animation. The most important thing is how the story of the movie is told, not in what way it is told (special effects, animation or music, etc...).

Phantom Thread is one of those movies that has great acting, a solid direction, but nothing goes beyond the conventional of making a movie.

The acting is solid and well-crafted by Daniel Day-Lewis and Lesley Manville, both look great. However, Vicky Krieps as Alma leaves holes lower than I expected. I was going to scream in pain as I heard her say to another character the following phrase: She does not deserve this dress. The acting of this actress is too rudimentary to be taken seriously. Her character is your generic love interest who tries to dissolve the love in the character with the stone heart. But the biggest sin of Phantom Thread is that the story is too commonplace, everything here has been shown a thousand times in the past, with better results and better worked in other films. The script of the film only follows as if it was a recipe to make a cake, the movie does not give you space for acuteness nor seek to invest more in the film itself than what was presented.

In other words, nothing original, except for the amazing acting. What a pity, on the part of Paul Thomas Anderson as a scriptwriter, after the excellent and stupendous Magnolia (film in which he exceeded the expectations as scriptwriter and director alike).

Of course, the Costume Design is excellent and beautifully crafted. A good movie, but nothing amazing and out of the ordinary. Like making a dress, you must following the steps one-by-one, and you can not escape the traditional method of making a dress. So this is Phantom Thread what is, this film lacked a little more special, something out of ordinary that would not hurt Paul Thomas Anderson ambitions as director and screenwriter. A good movie, but nothing beyond that. At the end of the day, Phantom Thread is just a good movie.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, should be a good movie, but the fact that the characters are too cartoonish and consequently these same characters become too unrealistic to be taken seriously. Of course Frances McDormand, did a good job as a violent mother. But Sam Rockwell and Woody Harrelson just did a nice job. Martin McDonagh is trying to impress the audience with fierce mannerisms, showing violence only by showing, and as a result he is trying to impress the male audience (audience is only interested in violence, instead of seeing a good story). In other words, the director was more interesting to create a movie full of violence, instead of creating a real drama with real characters and real and interesting conflicts, and an interesting film to see.

So, in the end, this movie is your typical movie to please a certain group, in this case police haters (that is to say), many movies are in the top of the IMDb, only because in the same movies there are scenes in which the characters can deceive the police or there are scenes in which a large number of policemen are killed - the scene of the mother setting fire to the police station, in this film will be a future classic, in the minds of many people, mark my words.

We are not going to fool ourselves, a large number of the population hate the police and rightly so, many policemen abuse their position. But traumatized idiots, instead of getting over the traumas, they come here to give big scores to films like these, just to satisfy the vengeful wishes they have against the police.

If this is not enough, director Martin McDonagh only puts scenes of violence just to generate more violence, and with that these scenes become unnecessary violence scenes, scenes of the dentist and the mother hitting teenagers in the genital organs. A police officer throws a citizen from the window of a building, the police chief sees this and only fires him. Seriously.

What's the point of director Martin McDonagh? To prove that anger generates more anger, or violence generates more violence. At least he could put it in a more discreet way without the need for violent scenes. The effect he made was the opposite, because scenes of gratuitous violence only generate more violence in the streets. Amateur.

Even, the humor element becomes too obvious that borders the ridiculous, the scene in which a police officer, talks to the violent mother after the accident at the dentist. The scenes of black comedy border on the stupid and tasteless aspect and completely misplaced. The midget scene is completely misplaced too and overly obvious (putting a black comedy scene between before a dramatic scene, really!!). And of course, the annoying monologue of Frances McDormand's character with the deer, about reincarnation. Predictable and too obvious. Or dog-shaped slippers scene is obviously, also annoying to see.

Not to mention that the movie script is full of ridiculous situations, bordering on the absurd. The mother in principle hates the police, because (stupid reason) is taking too long to find the culprit of rape and death of the daughter, then the mother becomes friends with a police officer, after she has seen that the same police officer (the same idiot, who throws a citizen from the window) risked his live to go get the paper process of the daughter in the back of the police station that was burning (fire put by the mother herself). Stupid and juvenile.

This is the typical movie that ends where it started. In the end, the culprit of the crime was not caught, the mother is still violent (the mother was always violent, just see in the flashbacks, the discussions she had with her daughter) and she embarks on a journey to go hunting down a "supposed" rapist, with the police officer than threw the man out the window. Idiot, I know. I only give 2 stars, for the good performance of Frances McDormand, because she convinces me as a violent mother.