Reviews

아무리 홍상수의 작품임을 감안하고 보더라도, 같은 말을 하고 또 하고, 무의미함이 반복되어 답답했다.
배우들의 연기가 문제인지 시나리오의 문제인지 너무 심한 쪼가 아웃포커스를 뚫고 나와 나를 고문했다.
그게 의도적이었더라면 성공. 그러나 나에게는 그냥 시간이 아까웠다... 내가 이렇게 긴 평을 쓰면서까지 열정적으로 별로라고 했던 영화가 있었나 싶다

모두가 낮은 평점을 줄때 여전히 기대를 하며 본 의미가 충분했던 영화였다. 왜 뮤지컬 영화라는 형식을 택해야 했었는지 가치가 있었다. 조커의 머릿속이 그리고 인생이 얼마나 혼돈으로 가득차있고 그가 상상 속에 사는 인물인지를 음악과 캐릭터들의 퍼포먼스를 통해 정확하게 파악 할 수 있었다.
또한 단면적으로 조커의 인생을 바라봤을때 그에게 예술이란 재미없고 공감되지 않은 농담과 텔레비전 속 코미디쇼가 다 이었기에 오히려 아서도 알고 관객 모두도 아는 음악들이 깔림으로써 영화를 더 즐길 수 있었다.
그러나 사람들이 왜 좋지 않은 평점을 주었는지도 한편으로는 이해가 간다. 전작에 비해 비약한 내용, 주인공이 조커/아서가 아닌 할리/리의 주도에 따라 영화가 전개되는 느낌이었고, 그녀의 서사에 의미가 충분하지 않았던 부분이 있음에 따라 안그래도 혼란스러운 주인공을 다루는 이야기에 더불어 영화의 전체적인 흐름까지 혼동스러웠던 것은 확실하다.
그럼에도 불구하고 나는 내가 이 영화에 소비한 시간이 헛되지 않았었다고 생각한다.

There is one movie that I’ve been super excited to see since I saw the trailer, and every time since. I’m happy to report that what I felt watching the trailer, I felt even more during WE LIVE IN TIME, the realistic romance story. This movie focuses on the relationship between Tobias (Andrew Garfield) and Almut (Florence Pugh). It’s told out of order, starting with Almut’s diagnosis. I think it was smart to start the story here because it hammers home the idea that life can be fleeting, so you have to make every day count. This is in the back of your mind as you’re watching these people fall in love with each other and build a life of their own. I’m a huge fan of seeing more realistic relationships on screen. Every relationship has problems, it’s if you can come together to communicate and problem solve your way through them that determines if you keep at it or walk away. I can see how some people might not like how the story unfolds here, but I think it flows, like looking back at the special memories of your relationship. The best part about this movie by far is the acting performances from our two Academy Award nominees. The onscreen chemistry between them is frankly ridiculous. I believed every second of it, from Garfield’s expressive face to Pugh’s dialogue delivery. This movie is rated PG, but there are a few scenes where I would question that. WE LIVE IN TIME has a lot in it that could feel like it’s manipulating your emotions and pulling your heartstrings, but I live for that. Being in a relationship can be trying at times, but this movie reminds us that it’s more than worth it in the end.

The film takes a magical realist approach to telling the story of a young African man's dangerous journey to Europe. Unlike traditional migration narratives driven by war or oppression, his departure stems from a mix of idealism and the alluring promise of globalization. While the script effectively charts his transformation from a timid youth to a captain responsible for countless lives, the brutal realities of the journey feel superficially portrayed, failing to spark meaningful dialogue about Europe's illegal immigration crisis.

Haven't yet

Gh

keep it up

The leads have such vastly different personalities and interests, yet the film doesn’t convincingly explain their attraction. The adorable beagle steals the show, though, staying perfectly quiet throughout; it’s almost like watching a toy dog!

The story could have been told through a straightforward timeline, given its relatively simple plot and minimal connections between segments. The jarring jumps in the narrative undermine each story's impact, and with the ending practically spoiled in the first scene, the non-linear editing feels unnecessary. As her directorial debut, Anna's work comes across as inexperienced and somewhat mediocre.

writing a travel literature about Siena, Tuscany, then recall this film again. Much of the film was actually shot in Bagno Vignoni, a spa village closer to San Quirico d’Orcia. The most famous is a long shot in which a man tries to carry a candle from one end of an empty pool to the other. He tries repeatedly to keep the flame burning until he finally succeeds, but dies in the process.

Exceeds expectations, avoiding the awkwardness typical of co-productions. It clearly invested in showcasing Chinese culture with local landmarks and humor. However, the storyline is quite simple, and the relationship between Yi and the yeti could’ve been explored more. Overall, it’s worth watching.

A complete disaster indeed, with poorly-written lines, actors lacking comedic timing, and college students who look like adults. The romantic tension between the leads is poorly developed—I couldn't even tell how they got close.

While Sean Baker's commitment to portraying marginalized communities is admirable, the final product leaves an uncomfortable aftertaste. The opening romance shows promise with its charm and wit, but once the lead's family enters the picture - with the heavy-handed emphasis on Russian identity and the climactic clash between his mother and the protagonist - the narrative descends into chaotic farce.

At its core, this is a story about a man searching for his wife across parallel worlds. While it attempts to deliver an inspirational message about doing good deeds, its moral arguments fall flat. It doesn't quite qualify as religious propaganda, but it's not far off.

Some landscapes are rendered nicely, but the rest feels overly procedural. Apart from the costumes, there’s little distinctively Ukrainian. The story is childish, with an overdone theme that lacks sincerity, and even the characters’ mannerisms feel unnatural.

The film refreshingly breaks from the typically grim migration narrative, opting instead for an optimistic conclusion - a bold innovation for the genre. Following a 16-year-old's journey, carried forward by dreams, loyalty, courage, and perseverance, it delivers a genuinely moving experience.

The cinematography is masterful, perfectly conveying feelings of isolation and repression, at times reminiscent of early David Lynch and David Cronenberg. While the film works as a parable, it tends to meander and could benefit from tighter storytelling.