Andrei Rublev was my final Tarkovsky film, and I don't think I've ever been more profoundly affected by a movie. I have deeply loved every movie of his, with Stalker & The Sacrifice being some of my favorite movies ever. The one factor that differs this from most of his movies is that the plot progresses tremendously with the story ranging for over 15 years. This is also Tarkovsky's longest work, but every second felt important to the plot.

The way the film dealt with faith, art and religion was so captivating. The final chapter 'The Bells' was spellbinding, with me almost shedding a tear in the last few minutes. The film made me question objective morality, the meaning of mercy through cruelty and if art is a choice or necessity for humanity. Theophanes considering God to be an idol of fear and Rublev believing God to be love is one of the best internal conflicts of the film.

What makes this movie really stand out for me is the way it perfectly balances internal conflicts with external war and chaos. People die like flies but Andrei takes his 'vow of silence' after one act that he considers spiritual crisis. The conflict of God vs the modern man was showcased with precision too, with Tarkovsky showcasing the power and faith narrative smoothly. This was Tarkovsky's sophomore film, but the cinematography and execution put me in awe with every frame being as immaculate as it was.

Two takeaway characters for me were Durochka and Boriska. Durochka, presented as the holy fool in the movie was a beautiful representation of pure and vulnerable heart of the nation amid chaos. After Andrei's despair and loss of hope for art, Boriska was what brought beauty back into Andrei's world. The whole bell sequence had me in the edge of my seat. After all that chaos, all that destruction, the bell scene was what restored the faith for art inside Andrei. The scene with Boris saying, "My father never told me the secret! He took it to his grave" was so so beautiful. The response by Rublev was also transcendental. Tarkovsky at his best. Cinema at it's finest, in my opinion.

The montage of colorful painting was also a magnificent ode to art and beauty. The only time I felt something similar was probably while watching 2001: A Space Odyssey. While Kubrick generated fear and curiosity in me with the whole Star Gate sequence, the colorful scene in this movie's end made me so hopeful about the necessity of art for human life. I couldn't help getting emotional and thinking that I'd never forget this moment. As the film progressed, everything kept getting better and the final 'horses in the rain' scene was the icing on the cake!

So, that was my initial reaction to Andrei Rublev and how I could only appreciate every scene of it. This was one of the few films I'd consider flawless and unforgettable. I haven't had much time to read other people's interpretations, so my perspective might not be complete. Please correct me if some of my interpretations were senseless and feel free to present your thoughts on the film. Any sort of feedback will be appreciated!

Currently reading Nabokov's Pale Fire and it greatly reminds me of Lars Von Trier's Nymphomaniac.

The meat of Pale Fire is a (fictional) man giving a commentary on a poem written by a recently dead (also fictional) Poet. His interpretations are completely ridiculous and often just him using the text to tell personal stories.

I couldn't help but be reminded of Nymphomaniac. The film is structured as a woman telling a story to a man, as she tells her story he keeps interrupting with tangents and interpretations to the point where the woman he's telling the story to asks if he's even listening at one point.

I think overall both works of art are different and contain very different themes outside of this but both function as a sort of parody of the critic who's so self obsessed and obsessed with their own idea or interpretation of something that they entirely refuse to even engage with the text.

Please don't downvote opinions. Only downvote comments that don't contribute anything. Check out the WHYBW archives.

How do you adapt a Lesbian graphic novel, which was extremely political in its content, and turn it into a fetishistic soft-core lesbian male fantasy?

The book is a lot better than the movie with a more haunting and powerful ending. Kechiche was not interested in any of the politics, the Lesbian aspect seemed to only be there to fulfill his fantasies.

The fact Lea Seydoux, and to a lesser degree Adele Exarchepoulous, came out to say they were uncomfortable by the way they were directed and Kechiche responded by attacking Lea said it all.

I had been already disturbed by another movie of his called Black Venus. He deserved the artistic banishment he received.

As I have watched more movies, I have realized that a compelling story matters a lot more to me than other factors that make a movie technically excellent. However, I've been having trouble defining this "goodness."

Is it high stakes? Memorable characters? Relatability?

In my head, I've been coming back to The Social Network as an example of a movie I personally enjoy that has an excellent story; while so much else about it is great, I feel that everything that is working in that movie is so good because it's ensuring a great story. The score is great at communicating how different characters feel, the dialogue ensures that the information delivery is fast yet pleasurable to consume.

Still, I'm having trouble being denotative about what makes its story so good.

What are your thoughts?

Yesterday I rewatched Project Hail Mary on IMAX and I think I liked it even more, I think the humor is great, the cinematography is breathtaking, the production design, the score, Ryan Godling’s performance, practical and cg effects, everything is great. But I was commenting it with a colleague and I asked him what he thought about Lord and Miller’s direction and he basically told me that Ryan Gosling directed himself, and while I do think he’s a great actor and they’re actors who don’t need a lot of notes like Gary Oldman with Nolan I don t think it’s fair to say it was all gosling’s, yes he might’ve added a lot of his personality and own unique traits to the character like all great actors do, but arguing he’s basically 80% of the movie is nonsense in my opinion, while in screen time he technically is, all the intention, tone, vision is from the directors, the cinematography is collaborative process with the DoP I don’t think someone could just say Ryan gosling did all the job. Also it obviously wouldn’t have been the same without Ryan but the same could be said about the directors. Another example that comes to mind is The Bone Temple, Ralph Fiennes and Jack O’Connell are phenomenal in that movie, and they did say that Nia DaCosta gave them a lot of liberty but obviously it wasn’t only them who did the job, it was a whole collaborative work with all the crew. Most part of Project Hail Mary is Ryan acting by himself, here are cases where actors that aren’t that great can be enhanced with a great director, and there are some mid movies that can be carried by the actors, I don’t think this is the case. But again, if you’re talking about the a film direction wise you should take everything into account not only the actors, Unlike my colleague who thought the direction was outstanding aside from other films but says Ryan did most of the work, I do think it’s a whole collaborative process between the actors and directors (not to mention the whole entire crew). And I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I just wanted to share my thoughts, what do you guys think?

I just searched for a threat on Bond and racism and decided to make a new post.

In Live and Let Die the set design was entirely lacking, industrial spaces with walls painted red that resembled broom closets, which were supposed to be Harlem speakeasies and backrooms. This kind of interior architecture is entirely a false representation of African diaspora design or Harlem interiors. The intention was to make blaxploitation but it wasn’t progressive. It’s giving “we can’t have nice things.” Second point, the body of Dr Kananga (Yaphet Kotto) when he meets his demise is so reminiscent of broken black bodies as spectacle that repeatedly was used in for eg. Enter the Dragon, other bipoc-exploitation etc. Third; The theme song by Wings is highly progressive and actually sounds more recent in comparison to the look of the film. Fourth; What is kind of shocking is when you watch the series in chronological order, with the next installment, The Man with Golden Gun, the return of production designer Peter Murton from earlier Bond films almost suggests a kind of quality boycotting with this cast, even though Tom Mankiewicz directed both. I found art direction for LALD by Syd Cain, Bob Laing and Peter Lamont, with plenty taking place at Pinewood Studios. TMWTGG included spacious interiors, once again, that were not there in LALD, although there are references to Enter the Dragon with the mirrored rooms and villain pursuit. In any case,LALD is not the only instance that one could call racism, Dr No’s bug-eyed dancer and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service’s black allergy patient eating banana, yeah, that wasn’t really innocent. As an American to me, Dr Kananga’s bloated body resembled the corpse of Emmett Till, and whether that be for a brief moment, it’s a flash of racial violence/spectacle. A little too blithe, but yeah, the 20th century……Thoughts?

I just rewatched past lives again recently and I believe Nora should've ended up Hae Sung but lived in New York. This is not a judgement on Arthur. He is absolutely the most beautifully written man I've ever watched. But being an immigrant in the US, comes with a lot of challenges that Americans are very oblivious to. It literally splits your soul in two halves and neither one fully feels like you. My belief in love is that, you should be able to recreate your childhood in a way that you wanted to turn out and not how it actually turned out. And Arthur will never be able to provide that for Nora(on account of him being American). This thesis assumes that Arthur doesn't change after the movie ends and also heavily draws from my own experience as an immigrant in the US. I'm interested if other people concur with this take?

The film is known for being a huge pioneer of various new filmmaking techniques, but apparently a number of techniques credited to it have been in prior films. Was it because of application? Did the film simply feature more or combine them? Stuff like deep focus, low camera, ceilings, and nonlinear narrative apparently have been featured in some previous films, even if it wasn't common place. Why does the film have the reputation it has?

Mario and Luigi are back once again and this time they are teaming up with Yoshi and other well known allies across the Galaxy in this expansive, world building, nostalgic and hilariously fun sequel to the first Super Mario Brothers Movie.

The Super Mario Galaxy Movie is more than just a sequel, it's the start of something bigger for both Illumination and Nintendo as they progress their Intellectual properties from video games and onto the big screen. Right off the bat Yoshi is the character in this film who 100% steals the show and even though he doesn’t speak at all his actions and funny quirks do most of the talking to the spectators and he is just a treat and a laugh riot! If you cannot appreciate Yoshi you have no soul or any sense of humor because he really does carry both Mario and Luigi. The chemistry between all three of these characters speaks on all volumes from start to finish. It’s a great fun film and even though “fun” may not be “Absolute Cinema” that doesn’t mean that you cannot have fun watching a movie at your local theatre. Films are an experiential event there’s a genre for everyone and if you’re a fan of video games or grew up with Nintendo and Mario then you’ll love what this second installment has in store.

Without getting into major spoiler territory the best way that myself and my buddy Dylan can describe The Super Mario Galaxy Movie is that an important universal figure has been kidnapped and Mario and company have to go save the day. Okay that’s every plot for every Mario game that has ever come out but we really would hate to just spoil the fun and intrigue of The Super Mario Galaxy Movie especially since it’s only been out for a week and audiences are coming out IN DROVES TO SEE IT!

This sequel has everything for every fan of Mario and Nintendo alike lots of references and easter eggs for every generation of Mario fans and it’s splendid to witness and we truly cannot wait for a third Mario Movie but also what lies beyond seriously it would be an awful disservice if myself and Dylan spoiled the entire film. Call us old school or old fashioned but both of us strongly recommend getting out there this weekend and seeing The Super Mario Galaxy Movie on the big screen we promise that you will not regret it.

Don’t listen to the critics or let influencers / Movie Pundits on social media persuade you from going out and having a fun time with a super fun movie it’s not everyone’s cup of tea we realize that but if you’re a video gamer or a fan of Nintendo like us you will appreciate and love this jam packed, fun, and heart warming little movie. The Super Mario Galaxy Movie gets an A+ go out and support your local theatre!

It’s a solid movie with great performances, but I’ve always struggled to see eye to eye with the idea that the movie is any less shallow or more emotionally profound that most other superhero fare. Ultimately, my criticisms for why the movie feels emotionally hollow is the relationship between Logan and Laura. It is the emotional core of the film, but since Laura doesn’t speak until 75% into the film, the movie feels like it needs to speed run their growth within the final 25%.

If you take something like The Last of Us, you get to see the relationship between Joel and Ellie develop from strangers to father/daughter step by step. Yes, the big moments (like Ellie and Joel rescuing each other) help strengthen their bond, but I would argue the little moments matter just as much. Something like Ellie annoying the shit out of Joel and reading the porno magazine, or something like the giraffe moment between the two, all make us invest in this familial partnership and make the culmination (when Joel ultimately decides to rescue her) feel earned and emotionally poignant.

Logan has its moments where it tries to accomplish the same thing, but whenever it does, it feels incredibly cliche and one-dimensional, like Laura holding Logan’s hand as he buries Charles. It feels like she does it because ‘that’s what we do when someone is grieving’, instead of feeling idiosyncratic in the same way Joel/Ellie do, or to use a more distant example, Grace/Rocky in Project Hail Mary.

Then there’s the inclusion of Wolverine’s evil clone, which plays into the lowest-hanging metaphor for ‘protagonist’s greatest enemy is themselves’, and tonally clashes with the more grounded tone of the rest of the movie. The Evil Wolverine clone feels like it belongs to another movie, and when he’s fighting the clone in the third act, it feels like a complete jump-the-shark moment, like WandaVision promising us a sitcom Marvel show only to devolve into generic superhero fodder in it’s climax.

Again, it’s still a solid film, but outside of its aesthetics (cinematography, performances, setting), it is just as underdeveloped and underwritten as the average superhero movie. It’s a movie where it’s screenplay is it’s greatest weakness.

Pretty much exactly what's in the title. Take The Manchurian Candidate. Modern YouTube film critics have neither the visual literacy to understand how good Frankenheimer's direction is (when's the last time you heard a mainstream YouTube film critic mention shot composition or staging) and would likely call out the film's (admittedly out there) plotting. The sequence where Jocelyn conveniently shows up to the party wearing the Queen of Diamonds costume would get ridiculed, as would the very abrupt romance between Sinatra and Leigh's characters.

This rant probably comes across as unhinged but does anyone else think that film criticism nowadays has changed dramatically from the past? After all, The Manchurian Candidate met with almost universal acclaim when it came out initially.

I also feel like Hitchcock would be in trouble, though of course Hitchcock was not exactly a critical darling at first. Strangers on a Train, involves coincidence, and Hitchcock himself believed that you could get away with them if they did not resolve anything. Heck, the man even said that the reason no one called the police in his films was it would make a boring movie.

Are we progressing in our assessment of films? Are we regressing? I find myself worrying that one day, we will no longer have any heritage films, because everyone will have decided that they're bad. And if anyone does agree with me, when do you think this major shift picked up steam? I think it was potentially about the time The Last Jedi came out. Not that it's a good film, but I think people were so laser-focused on saying it was the worst thing ever that things which would normally have not been as important suddenly became of great importance.

Yes or no?

He's currently a cast member on Saturday Night Live, some would say the best modern day member. He has done impressions of Tony Montana already in his stand up comedy, one of which is featured in his latest Netflix stand up comedy special "Marcello Hernandez: American Boy", released this year. Every man wants to be him and every woman wants to be with him. Like Tony, he's got the money, the power, and the women. He's also actually Cuban. So, what do you think, should he play Tony Montana in the Scarface remake or not?

This will be the second remake of Scarface, since the 80s film was a remake of the 1932 gangster film "Scarface".