Reviews

One of the few comedies out there that's actually worth your time. It's solid, and you can really see the cast's chemistry getting better. I’m so rooting for Janine and Gregory—this relationship needs to keep rolling!

Pablo Picasso once said that even he could create a forgery of his own work. This idea stuck with me after watching this film. It felt like a Mike Leigh imitation, paradoxically crafted by Leigh himself. While it brilliantly captures the claustrophobic tension of an emotional dilemma occurring in a closed space, it stumbles over the deeper questions: Can we truly connect with Pansy? Should we attempt to connect with someone who doesn't know how to love? And, crucially, how do we avoid turning the narrative into a freak show when emotional resonance is missing?

This script was developed over 14 weeks of rehearsals with the cast. Each actor came with a list, selecting traits for their characters and drawing stories from the people around them. Mike Leigh, true to form, avoids explaining what his movies are about—before or after the screening. When asked about the ending, his response was classic Leigh: “Will she? Will he? Won’t she? Won’t he? Won’t they?” He dodged every question, leaving the story unresolved at its climax and trusting the audience to interpret it on their own. I absolutely adore this filmmaker who chooses not to write conventional scripts.

This is a story about a middle-aged man overcoming the lowest point in his life, yet it has a surprisingly lighthearted and funny tone. I was initially hesitant to watch it because it revolves around Judaism, and I worried I might not grasp everything. However, what really stood out to me was how authentic it felt. The characters aren’t perfect; they have flaws and make mistakes, just like in real life. I found the relationship between Ben and Carla particularly moving. It’s not a typical love story; instead, it focuses on deep understanding and support. I think everyone should give this movie a chance—it offers a fresh perspective on life that’s truly worth experiencing.

Wouldn’t it have been better without the romantic subplot? I would have liked it more.

I left the theater deeply satisfied. This is the simplest yet most brilliant fairy tale, a masterful example of weaving heavy themes into a gentle narrative. It beautifully captures the bittersweet moments from the grind of reality. The film is a visually intuitive and meticulously crafted experience.

This film highlights India's social issues, including the struggles of women, the vast urban-rural divide, a lagging healthcare system, and interfaith conflicts. The director doesn’t really dive deep into these problems but instead lets them linger in the background. However, the director’s calm and poetic style provides a new perspective on India. If Cannes aims to reestablish India on the global cinema map after nearly 30 years, this film feels like a fitting and thoughtful choice.

The film accurately depicts life, capturing the struggles of Mumbai’s laborers, class divides, and the challenges faced by women. But it doesn’t wallow in sorrow, cry out for help, or demand pity. Instead, it resonates quietly, like a mist over a forest. A sense of solidarity and sisterhood gently weaves through the story, beautifully complemented by its delicate and unique soundtrack.

A first-person perspective that offers no immersion, only a sense of alienation.

This was the opening film at the New York Film Festival. Dennis Lim mentioned that people often ask him what makes a great opening film, and this year, the answer was crystal clear. It’s a bold, forward-thinking, and innovative contemporary piece. The audiovisuals are absolutely stunning, though I have to admit, much of the dialogue went over my head. Still, it’s a film that leaves a strong impression.

The use of first-person perspective throughout the film fails to enhance immersion. While the camera mimics human vision, it doesn't achieve the same effect, and the excessive usage backfires. This technique isn’t groundbreaking—films like Lady in the Lake and Dark Passage experimented with it back in 1947, and more recently, Hardcore Henry. No doubt, new attempts will follow, but in the end, cinematography alone is just a gimmick. True emotional resonance requires much more than that.

What stands out most in this film is the constant shock and contrast. The shifts between calm and playful shots, the brainless abusers and the cunning victims, the outward restraint and inner rage, the physical imperfections and spiritual wholeness—all these elements effectively depict how the Americans oppressed the Jews. But what truly ties it all together is Adrien Brody’s phenomenal performance, which elevates the entire experience.

After watching the film, I couldn’t help but feel that Adrien Brody deserves an Oscar. While the story and cinematography are solid, it’s the sound design that truly stands out—novel, avant-garde, and undeniably captivating.

The film takes a clear approach by amplifying its supernatural elements. The appearance of ghosts and other mysterious phenomena adds an intriguing layer of mystery and fantasy. These moments, especially when they emerge at key points, serve as poignant reminders of how the past continues to shape the present for the family. However, by the end, the supernatural elements become overly frequent, pulling the story away from its grounded, reality-based approach. This shift undermines the sense of realism built earlier in the film, leaving the audience confused and disconnected.

I was completely lost. I went in expecting to hear some piano, but nope, none of that. I thought it was going to be a serious historical film about slavery, but somehow it turned into a supernatural exorcism movie??? It started off confusing and just got even more confusing by the end.

The film opens with intriguing hints—the piano, the land, the family, and the ghosts—but their deeper meanings are left unexplored, leaving the audience in the dark. The lengthy dialogues might lose some viewers along the way. While the main narrative sticks to the familiar formula of exorcism movies, it stands out as a unique attempt within the genre to tackle the subject of racism.

This film gave us a glimpse of light in the broken system, as it is very genuine and beautiful in every way. Let us envision a world where art is not a subject of consumption but a means for healing and liberation. I cried again when the end credits started rolling.

Prison stories are typically heavy, but this film takes a unique, artistic approach to showcasing the struggle of human nature within that context. What stands out is the cast—while the leads are professional actors, the supporting roles are played by real ex-convicts. The film also pioneered an equity model, sharing box office profits with both actors and supporting cast members. For all these reasons, no matter how the movie turns out, I am willing to support it.

This is a film that never feels preachy. Presenting the prison performance workshop through a realistic approach is a clever and thoughtful choice. Plus, the 16mm lens and Bryce Dessner’s soundtrack are absolutely stellar!

This film blends horror, dark humor, and sharp satire to ask a question that’s hard to ignore: Does becoming more attractive lead to a better life? Using an extreme example, it explores whether appearance or personality determines our destinies. In the end, we realize that the true heroes are those who can truly find themselves and refuse to be defeated by reality, like Oswald.