Guratza Reviews

De Palma (2015)

Great films. Good documentary. Bloated ego.

[7/10 · 19 February 2024]

I have been a big fan of Brian De Palma's films throughout my life and I sincerely believe that he (as he proclaims himself) has at times touched immaculate and undescribable cinematic perfection. To be specific, The Untouchables is one of the most magically perfect films of all time, on of those rare occasions where all parts of a puzzle fit together and the viewer indulges themselves into cinematic bliss.

However, I had never seen any interviews of his, and had little to zero interest in his personality. That being said, making someone who loves your films that much feel put off by your personality, would take a lot of effort - and he definitely puts it in. This whole film is just one huge "I", capital, bold, Omnipresent. It's no secret that every big auteur, even every artist to an extent has, or even needs to have, a narcissistic vein in their character, no problem with that. However, going out on such a blatant semi-rant on yourself for 2 hours doesn't do you any favours. Funilly enough, I find the most annoying thing to be his use of language. Apart from the casual "like" bombing (didn't expect a 70 year old film maker to speak like an influencer to be honest) his choice of words is extremely vain, and in particular his habit of "casual" name-dropping. Bobby, Marty etc. You were friends, we get it. Shut up already and make a film that is actually worth watching - it's been almost 30 years since your last one.

Fallen Leaves (2023)

Misery. Poverty. Awkwardness.

[4/10 · 14 February 2024]

This film is set in a fantasy world Finland, where the year is 2024, but at the same time it is 1976 and 1945 simultaneously. A modern day world without social media, with juke boxes, where your average Finnish equivalent of "white trash" goes to art house cinemas to discuss Godad and watch fat city, and the local pub has posters of cinephile films on the wall.

The direction and cinematography reflect a similar aesthetic, incorporating shots shots and lighting from other cinematic eras. The film looks beautiful, but equally pretentious unfortunately. It is a fantasy, what you would call "a love letter to cinema".

I wonder why a love letter to cinema would have two empty shells for main characters. We hardly know their names, personalities or aspirations (if any). We are just bombarded with the constant misery of their day to day life in harsh working environments, and get some scarce glimpses on their equally miserable past. Also, they happen to be the last people in the world that still listen to the radio, which keeps talking on, and on, and on about the war in Ukraine.

Cinematic aesthetics are there to support the narrative and characters. Not the other way round.

Steel Toes (2006)

Tommy Wiseau-esque

[2/10 · 10 February 2024]

We tend to take for granted, nowadays, the average production value of most films, which is, as a matter of fact very, very high (even for television series).

This film is a throwback to the yesteryear of b-movies, a reminder of the uncanny feeling that a quasi-professional can evoke. Even during the opening credits, it was pretty obvious. So much so, that when the name of the director of photography appeared on screen I wondered to myself : "there was a dop in this?".

All in all, there is an overall Tommy Wiseau-esque quality running every aspect of the film (apart from framed pictures of spoons maybe). The plot, timing, character arcs and most components that make a story coherent and conventionally structured leave a lot to be desired from the writing, and the poor artistic choices, such as slow motion shots without the proper equipment complement visually in an equally incompetent manner.

The only saving grace is the actors' genuine attempts to save this mess. There are countless better films both in the skinhead and courtroom drama subgenres. When you have seen all of them, and really have nothing to do with your time, then watch this. Otherwise, skip and don't look back.

Us (II) (2019)

Infantile Social Commentary

[2/10 · 15 January 2024]

Talking about this movie is a waste of words, and I'm just writing this to fill the required 600 character minimum for a review to be submitted.

I guess that this movie is supposed to be scary, but it isn't.

It's supposed to be funny, but it isn't.

It's supposed to be social commentary on the nature vs nurture question, and it is, just made by (and addressed to) people with the awareness of an infant or a pubescent child.

I guess it is supposed to be allegorical, and full of symbolism, and very rewatchabel, but who cares when the bottom line is paper thin?

Remember that time in your life, when you where 10-15 years old, sitting by the fire, with a couple of friends, maybe had your first beers, and someone asked "Is there a god?" Only to get the reply "Well, if there's a god, who made god?"

Well, the fact that you asked these questions doesn't make you a philosopher neither a theologian.

Replace the question with "what if there were people who were perfectly identical to us?" And you have this movie - and the philosophical depth is exactly that - one of a bunch of kids by a campfire.

A bunch of kids by a fire are neithere Plato, nor Nietzsche, not Augustine of Hippo, and Jordan Peele is by no stretch of imagination Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Just on top of that, add every silly acting cliche of every modern American Horror movie (Masks, Spasmodic Movement, Silent Schizophrenic stares - A subpar immitation of Heath Ledger's joker, in a nutshell) and you've got a movie that has nothing going for it but an insane premise full of plotholes and predictability.

At least it wasn't boring, so +1 star for that.

Censor (2021)

Tommy Wiseau-esque

[1/10 · 8 December 2023]

As most people have pointed out this movie is extremely silly and tedious. And of course, not in the least scary.

I just want to point out that the films modern "sensibilities" can be only interpreted as Tommy Wiseau takes on feminism etc. The film is trying to ride the wave of stranger things 80s revival trend, choosing Thacher-era Britain as the backdrop. A fictional version of the period of course, were single women pressured by their parents to get married and men of color are working in the notoriously conservative comittee of video censorship, where people are using they/them pronouns. Put the cherry on top by having a pervy film producer attempt sexual assault and... Voila!

You've just made a trainwreck of a film. Not a horror film, not a drama, not a female perspective critique of any accuracy due to anachronisms, a film with zero character depth, lit like a modern day music video.

I'd rather watch "The Room" for the hundredth time.

Host (II) (2020)

Boring, predictable, formulaic, a waste of time.

[1/10 · 17 December 2020]

The protagonists are all annoying. Also they carry their laptops all around the house for no reason. Jump scares that are never scary, loads of fake jump scares which are also not scary, stupid dialogue, every cliche you can think of, and most annoyingly of all: a spooky music box. Yeah, right.

The idea could have been super scary though.

Give me back every minute spent!

Hush (I) (2016)

What a piece of crap

[1/10 · 9 October 2017]

So, a deaf mute writer lives alone in the woods, writing her novel because... hey, don't all people do that? So, somebody decides to invade her house and kills her neighbors because... hey don't these things happen? So, the invader is wearing a mask and gives emotionless gestures because... John Carpenter's Halloween was a very successful film? So... He can kill her at any point, can enter the house at any point, but doesn't do it because... IT'S A FILM. And there's no way to get scared or give a damn about what happens on screen because you know from the first five seconds what's gonna happen to the end. No need to mention acting (Could the invader's performance be any more cliché?? And no, that guys looks don't qualify for a killer, nor for a psychopath), no need to pay attention to photography or cinematography when the main idea of a film is purely retarded. How can anybody be scared when in every second of this movie it SCREAMS that "it's just a movie". No thanks.

The Piano (1993)

A glorification of passiveness and weakness

[1/10 · 11 January 2017]

With Sam Neill and Harvey Keitel, I was expecting to see one of the best movies ever. Each of them, alone, are reasons to see a movie, as they are amazing actors, usually involved with interesting if not thrilling films.

This was not the case.

The lead Character, Ada, is an annoying, weak creature, with almost no will of her own. Her life is left adrift to the wind, like a feather carried away. She stopped speaking, she had a child, now she is force-wed to a rich man, and none of these was her own choice. Throughout the film, almost nothing she does is her own choice. She can't speak, because she has nothing to say. She is an empty vessel, that happens to be a very good piano player, but by no means she could ever be considered an artist. There is nothing artistic in her lack of personality, her lack of character and her lack of strength. Art is all about the opposite, a triumph of will, expression and attitude, over the meaninglessness of human existence. The only thing that Ada shows is denial and refusal. She wouldn't even give in to Harvey Keitel's desire, but not because she doesn't want to. "Want" is an unknown word for her. That is, because all she can do is deny. She is driven to him by instinct, not by conscious decision. She is a weak, pathetic human being, that also stands against all values of female empowerment, and not only should she have drowned with her piano, but not have existed in the first place. Such characters are a disgrace for the human race, and only can be used as stepping stones for the forces of tyranny. On top of all that, she is accompanied by her even-more annoying, obnoxious daughter (although, a great performance by Anna Pacquin).

Sam Neill's character makes no sense also. His attitude towards life is equally a submission to the slavery of non-free will. He marries a woman he doesn't know, and believes he is gonna love her, and she will love him back, and even though these could've been customs of those times - this suggestion doesn't make sense, even by neolithic standards. We are humans, and deep inside we all know what love is, no matter what social standards and fads of a certain era may try to force into us.

So we're left with our "hero" being George Baines, a potential rapist. If I was a woman I'd be even more angry with this sexist, sentimental piece of garbage that tries to glorify victims, weakness and passiveness.

Don't fall far this movie. We've grown out of this stuff as a species.

The Quiet American (2002)

Shallow and boring

[3/10 · 20 December 2016]

I'd never expect myself to hate a Michael Caine movie, but it's not his fault. Damn, even Frazer isn't half as bad as expected (though his goofy face can hardly pass for a CIA officer).

This movie insults our basic intelligence presenting us with a boring love story, for which, frankly nobody cared, set in a time of events that triggered what would stigmatize the next decades for USA and Vietnam (and the rest of the world). Even if (supposedly) we cared about the girl, no information is given on here background, or, for the question why she loves Michael Caine.

Gimme a break!

Flight (I) (2012)

Pure Entertainment

[9/10 · 20 December 2016]

It might not be the smartest movie ever. It might not be the most realistic movie ever. It might not be Denzel's best performance.

But I'll be damned if someone didn't have a good time watching this movie. Not too many clichés (except for the bloody Rolling Stones soundtrack), a seriously involving personal struggle, a truly unheroic (and how many times do you see that in American movies anymore) depiction of a man losing grip with his self and reality. And of course John Goodman, no need to justify this.

When it comes to rating a movie, there's a question to be asked: "would you see it again?"

Any time, I answer.

The Man Who Would Be King (1975)

Quintessence of Cinema

[10/10 · 20 December 2016]

Films are meant to entertain. Not in a cheap sense, not in a higher sense. Everything else is welcomed, but that's what they should do first and foremost.

And I can't really thing of a more entertaining film than this. I can't even think for the slightest of reasons why someone would walk out of a theater without satisfaction after watching this movie.

An absolute 10/10. Both actors are excellent, John Houston is a legend, there's not even the slightest milli-second of tediousness in this film.

Watching it, I was wishing it would never end.

Sophie's Choice (1982)

Good Actors, Bad Film

[5/10 · 20 December 2016]

Yes, Meryl Streep can even play a transsexual-nigerian-goat. We get it. Yes Kevin Klein has got all the charm in the world, and deserved his Oscar for (The same role-pretty much) in "A Fish Called Wanda"

Yes, the holocaust timeline is gripping.

BUT WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH THE REST OF THE MOVIE? It reminds me of "The Room" (Tommy Wiseau)

Who let's a semi-retarded southern boy sleep in the same room with them from the first week they meet them?"

Where do these stuff happen?

No reality whatsoever. Oh, and pretty boring, tedious pace.

Blue Is the Warmest Colour (2013)

Everything I hate about France

[1/10 · 20 December 2016]

In a parallel universe where 18 year old girls have literary struggles about deciphering writer's messages and 23 year old painters can afford to rent mansions with their lesbian lovers, where even working class parents have artistic flair, Adele falls in love with Emma. Though, there is absolutely nothing erotic about this film. The lighting, the lack of make up, the close shots of mouths while devouring pasta, all is shot and set in such an unpoetic fashion, that you can see all the flaws, birthmarks and imperfections of bodies. Actually the way the movie is lit the girls both look like prepubescent boys with breasts. Dissect a human body next time, it would be great! This film could only have been French, since only there you can find such pretentiousness.

Not to be taken seriously by people over the age of... roughly 20-25.

There Will Be Blood (2007)

An Acting Tour-de-force

[10/10 · 20 December 2016]

P.T. Anderson is a brave film maker, and everybody has known it since his first endeavors in the 1990s. He isn't afraid to get trapped in his own style, taking the risk of treading a thin line of what could be called "tedious" or "pointless" film making.

Obviously, this film has won its accolades and deserving place in "best of lists", as it ultimately is a tour de force both in directing and in acting. The two leads are astonishing, and Day Lewis is exceptional, as his descent into paranoia is a performance of an archetypical character, much attempted by lesser actors, but only equaled by few (Al Pacino in Scarface is a prime example). The climax is nothing less but excellent.

But on the other hand, the film could have had a better pace, as it can't be described exactly as "gripping". It definitely gets better with multiple viewings, but the entertainment value could be a little higher.

Glory (1989)

Brilliant Cast

[9/10 · 20 December 2016]

Although at the time of release, initial criticism had been made for the leading role casting, time proves that this film deserves the success it has made. Direction is excellent and the depiction of the civil war era is marvelous. It reminded me of "Barry Lyndon"'s accurate depiction of it's own respective era.

So, why not a ten? Well... Clichés... Why does every movie have to resort to them? Emotion is to be portrayed as is, doesn't need all this theatrical nonsense. 12 years a slave is a prime example of that. No need for it. It's there, you can feel it. Rough and real, as it is when we experience it as people.

Fish Tank (2009)

Raw, Rough, Awesome

[8/10 · 20 December 2016]

It's so nice to watch a film like this. No BS, gets you straight to the reality the characters are facing, no need for clichés and over the top production, just straight, grim realism. It's so nice not to know what's gonna happen next, it's so nice not to have "black and white" force fed perception of morality, and it's always nice to have Michael Fassbender in a lead. In a movie world dominated by blatant sexuality and exposure, making us indifferent to the view of sexual acts, this film succeeds in depicting one of the most truly erotic scenes at least of recent years. Not your typical "three-act" piece, this movie offers nothing of didactic nature. Just an imprint of what is happening all around us. Most of the times nothing gets better, people stay the same, and hope is just little people making their little plans.

Rain Man (1988)

There was a time when Tom Cruise was an actual actor.

[4/10 · 20 December 2016]

Yeap, Tom Cruise is very good in this movie. And Dustin Hoffman is... Dustin Hoffman, excellent as always, in one of the most difficult roles ever. So, why 4 stars? Well as usual, the same clichés, the same American republican attitude (Over-ride the system, we'll take care of our own family/property, Don't tread on me, etc) given in a very very awkward way. Raymond is annoying as HELL, but miraculously, Tom Cruise's character decides to take care of him (after exploiting his abilities unapollogetically). Why? Why such unrealistic reactions. Well you GOTTA HAVE A HAPPY END TO SATISFY THE PUBLIC DON'T YA?

Add on top some of the most terrible, pointless, blatant, generic soundtracks EVER.

Iris (I) (2001)

What A Bore

[3/10 · 20 December 2016]

Without reflecting any of the writers literary output and contemplation, this film roams aimlessly into sentimentalism of an aging couple, which, the viewer doesn't have particular reasons to relate to or care for. Iris Murdoch is striped off her artistic existence, and is treated as any ordinary human being struggling with dementia. So, why make it a movie about her, than any other person in the world, if we're not going to fully understand why it was such a tragic loss for her particularly? Too much ordinary human story, too little information, and an obnoxious performance by the otherwise lovable Kate Winslet.

12 Angry Men (1957)

100% deservingly to be on an all time top-10 list

[10/10 · 20 December 2016]

The only bad thing about this movie is that it ends, leaving the viewer with a bitter question : "why aren't there movies like this anymore?" No need for extravagant sets, no need for more than one room for the entire history of human race to unfold before our eyes. Looking inside of us, personally and as a species, we can all identify each and every one of the jurors. We all have acted indifferently, got carried away with anger, or with prejudice. We all are (or should be) capable of standing out for just causes like Henry Fonda's character. It's a question of choice, ethic and circumstance. Sidney Lumet, does an excellent job of subtle direction, delving into the very depths of human existence and civilization, keeping the highest entertainment value, succeeding where all the Bergmans and Tarkovskis have failed miserably. A triumph of American cinema, a movie that everyone must see before they die.

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

The best zombie-less zombie film.

[10/10 · 20 December 2016]

I have always considered the Zombie genre to be deeply existential, and have always been disappointed with people who approach it as pure gore and cheap entertainment.

In this film, director John Carpenter, establishes many of his future motifs (Isolation, Claustrophobia, Suburban environments) but also confirms the statement above. Who cares if it is a supernatural or everyday cause? Entrapment, mindless violence, hopelessness and ultimately devastation are the same, triggered by living or living-dead creatures.

On top of that, add one of the absolutely coolest soundtracks ever, composed by the master himself.

The Martian (2015)

American Trash

[2/10 · 20 December 2016]

Oh, the glorious USA... They've been everywhere... They've filmed everything, and they love their clichés more than they like their coca-cola.

What a piece of trash this movie is. Unlike guilty pleasures like "independence day", who are what they are, unapologetically, this film attempts to take it self a little seriously, starting with a good idea, ending with nothing but over the top NONSENSE. A man? Alone? In an entire planet? And his main concern is being a smartass on camera like a youtube comedian?

Wanna see a real movie about what the word alone means? Check "Sunshine" by Danny Boyle. That's a real film. This is fast food filming. A disappointment, by none other than Ridley Scott.

Exorcism: Haunted Child (2015)

Possibly the worst movie I've ever seen

[1/10 · 23 May 2016]

This movie is so bad, it's a waste of time talking about it. Although the production value is very good, the lack of scares, script coherence and overall purpose, makes this movie a harakiri experience. It starts of as a ghost story, which turns out to be a prank, that causes a real haunting and then, in the middle of the film, a completely different story starts. Yeah, WTF. Of course, you get your typical long haired-Asian-scary woman trying to scare you, you get your typical ju-on type child and a bunch of "jokes" that would make sense only to mentally challenged 5 year olds from Mars.

To top all the above, there is absolutely no exorcism carried on.

I'd rather watch flies have sex for two hours than watch it again.

Persona (1966)

Lack of talent mistaken for genius

[1/10 · 12 April 2016]

Having seen about 5 of Ingmar Bergman's films throughout the years I always end up extremely angry, literally FURIOUS, after suffering the man's boring, pretentious, inhuman stories and point of view. Why am I subjecting my self to this torture? Why? Because for some reason, all the great directors (and my favorite directors) admire him.

I don't believe that his movies were made by a human being. They feel like they were made by sociopaths, or even aliens, trying to emulate human emotions and behaviors. No, nobody speaks that way, nobody reacts that way, nobody thinks that way. Nobody would confess their deepest secrets to a mute patient. Nobody would ever care so much (to the point of madness) about what a mute patient thinks about them... But, wait a minute.... A MUTE PATIENT? What ???? An actress who stopped talking?? Oh, boy, are the Swedes having a hard time or what? People survived the holocaust and kept on leading normal lives, but "Ingmar Bergman" characters are such sensitive existentialist geniuses (even when they are nurses...) that they are so deeply traumatized by an abortion or marrying the wrong man that they decide to go mute, or develop an alter-ego in their heads... Yeah, sure, one can definitely relate to that (NOT!).

Of course this movie is filled with pseudo-intellectual clichés (Hallo Vietnam screening - Make our super-sensitive actress go completely insane from a TV programme) and "freudian" imagery that tries to point out hyper-OBVIOUS things about life and human psychology, in such a pretentiously artistic way that literally makes my blood seethe with anger. What? We project a different persona than our real deeper self to the outside world - IT HAD NEVER EVEN CROSSED MY MIND BEFORE THIS MOVIE, THANK YOU SO MUCH INGMAR BERGMAN! What??? People have to suppress their deeper sexual fantasies and preferences when they enter marriage??? THIS IS SO AVANT GARDE I CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO GRASP THE GENERAL PICTURE!!! I hope that one day this pretentious piece of trash will be regarded as an equivalent to Tommy Wiseau's "The Room" because that's the only other movie that I know with such annoying-logic defying characters and behaviors, such pointless scenes and such unreal dialogue.

The Untouchables (1987)

Quite possibly the greatest gangster film

[10/10 · 12 April 2016]

There are some rare moments in film history when stars collide and movies are created with the fabric of sheer brilliance. This is one of these rare occasions.

Brian De Palma is not the "star" of his film. Unlike the majority of his other work, he takes a step back and guides the "orchestra" masterfully. Every single shot of this movie is beautiful and appropriately placed. It feels like the director leaves his usual radical and personal style for a more conventional approach. The viewer is actually transported to the heart of 30s Chicago, partly of what it really was, partly of what urban lore has made us believe it was. One could say that this is the blueprint of Gotham city, in the batman mythos (1989's "Batman" by Tim Burton definitely feels like a dark spiritual cousin of this film). Anyway, to make you feel like you are actually in the heart of a city that has become legendary for its gangster activity is an incredible feat. Of course, whenever the plot delves into more "thriller-like" or suspenseful territory, De Palma grasps the opportunity and wrecks our nerves with his masterful approach. One of his most typical settings for a chase scene (in many of his movies) is a train/subway station, but the one in this film has to be one of the most gripping in the history of cinema! However, this movie would never have been what it is without its main feature: undoubtedly one of the best casting ensembles ever to grace the big screen. It feels like every actor was born to play his respective role. Obviously, Sean Connery steals the show with his Oscar winning performance. But apart from his highly praised performance, everybody else in the film fit their roles like hand in glove.

The only drawback in this movie is the generic, soulless music by, the otherwise genius of a composer, Ennio Morricone. There's not much melody going on, just some random string chord progressions backed by terrible 80s synth drums. One of the great maestro's all time lows.

Of course this is a minor detail in a movie of uncanny brilliance. If you are a casual movie-goer, this movie is guaranteed 2-hour entertainment, but if you are a longtime movie lover this movie will make you fall in love with cinema all over again. A real beauty!

Sisters (1972)

Hitchcock homage or rip-off?

[7/10 · 11 April 2016]

There's a certain extent of how much influence can one director draw from his icon, and Brian De Palma seems to stretch that extent to its very limits with "Sisters". This, along with "Dressed to Kill" are the American film maker's most Hitchcok-ian films, and a double feature screening is much suggested for a complete experience. Perhaps lacking the later films sexual emphasis (but of course not lacking sexual themes entirely-typically for De Palma) this film borderlines horror exploitation, but only in the best of ways.

The visual style is top notch, as split screen narratives serve the suspense in an excellent way and drive the story forward keeping a fast pace, saving on screen time. However, as usually commented on De Palma's work, one can truly argue that this stylization is utilized to cover up the lack of a strong story. Talking about the story, it borrows (and that is a very weak word...) elements from classic Hitchcock films, notably Rear Window. There is an abundance of clichés, which, although performed perfectly, are still, nevertheless clichés. To be honest, once you've seen psycho, this movie and its "sister feature" (no pun intended), Dressed to Kill, lose a lot of what appreciation they could have earned from the viewer.

With that being said, "Sisters" is a very entertaining movie, mainly because of its visual style and tricks, which will satisfy fans of the director but disappoint viewers looking for an original story or plot.