danielnikrasov Reviews

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

2001st review- a celebration of cinematic experience by Master Kubrick

[10/10 · 19 September 2019]

Imagine yourself a 60s fella walking to the theater, buying a ticket directly at the box office, sitting in hall and right in front of you a big friendly giant 70mm screen. Once the lights start to go out, the film starts from this moment to predict your future. How'd you respond? That's how I imagined this piece of masterpiece all along, and I loved it. Do you get me? Let me spell it for y'all: L.O.V.E.D. I.T. , period. Let me confess something before I start. When I first saw 2001: A Space Odyssey I was 14 years old or even 13, I don't clearly recall. Anyway, I begun to watch this and 30 minutes later, I turned out the TV. Want to know why? Brace yourselves: It was boring. I don't even remember if watched this film at all. Btw, I was a stupid teenager at this age despite of me being smart in studies, but still I didn't understand a thing in this movie. I was wrong. On my second viewing, which occurred on 28th August, it was a completely different experience. The moment I got finished watching this film, I exhaled. This is the moment I realized I was wrong. Stanley Kubrick created something different than his other pieces. Not ordinary, but something revolutionary.

2001: A Space Odyssey is a splendid work of art that's put science to science fiction and consider to one of the most influential films and genres in the eternal cinema industry for generations to come. It deals with the elements of human evolution, technology and artificial intelligence and terrestrial life. I might even say that it's a spiritual film in the way that represents man's relationship with the God or even higher. It's divided into 4 segments, and connected with each terrestrial reference. Kubrick's first project into Sci-Fi features all of his usual brands but its treatment different from his other pieces.

Although my thought is 2001: A Space Odyssey isn't going to be appreciated by everyone. It's a visual ride of stupendous art, attracting viewers to get sucked into a slow pace of metaphysically technical journey and raises some thought-irritating questions with allegorical meanings. What Kubrick fascinated me is the fact he left the ending open so the audience can draw their conclusions. Of course, 2001 inspired almost every film by far and will continue to do so as long as cinema still exists.

Stanley Kubrick's filmaking breaks almost every rule starting the appearance of human apes to the birth of Space Baby. No one can deny that the viewers are proposed by Kubrick's filmaking-magic. By doing so, he doesn't dare to simplify any detail, but to let the audience be involved around the film atmosphere and to solve puzzles.

Kubrick did a really good job on communicating with technical department. Speaking of tech, this what also made the film so successful and memorable. The cinematography is a a treat to anyone who appreciates photography, editing is correctly done, and visual and sound effects are innovative ahead its movies, in which using CGI nowadays are far from matching this. Even before the landing of Apollo, Kubrick never fails to impress where the moon sequence shot with such detail level. By the way, the screenwriter, Arthur C. Clarke, the author who wrote short story "The Sentinel" based on the film, claims that Apollo 13's critical line "Houston, we have a problem" was influenced by HAL-9000's line "Sorry to interrupt the festivities, but we have a problem", even the commander's ship was called "Odyssey".

The score by Alex North was absolutely captivating. Kubrick had also a bright idea to add respite for scores like "Requiem", "Atmospheres", "Lux Aeterna", "The Blue Danube" and more in the spacecraft and outside of it. Start from the overture, The marvelously main title "Also Sprach Zarathustra" combining with moon in the shadows implies great revelation, standing on the cusp of universal breakthrough. The bright blue orb of the Earth rose with the sun and left the moon out of frame. The music peaked, the title appeared and from here, everybody's life including me changed forever! The brilliance of "The Blue Danube" is how Kubrick managed to capture the dance, like coordinated movements of objects in space. Another score I adored was "Requiem". The use of György Ligeti's haunting "Requiem" inspired lots of film even trailers (for instance in teaser trailer of Godzilla 2014) and put on the first scene where apes first discovered of tools. Much like, the astronauts discovered a second Monolith on the moon and Dave discovered a third Monolith on Jupiter.

Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke imagined futuristic world that still rings true all these years with an intense and attractive screenplay. They're making a good example of "show, don't tell". They made sure to limit the dialogues, making room for plenty of subtext. Another thing that attracted me the most was the human voice, by Douglas Rein, of HAL-9000. Many people think HAL shows more emotion than any human character. This is a smart choice to opposite this because it takes away the cold mechanical nature of robot, and instead it gives you, the way I put it, WALL E. Stanley and Arthur manage to visually represent the mystery of the universe by monoliths, forcing the audience to draw their own conclusions.

All in all, 2001: A Space Odyssey is a big joke at any negative critic/member review, it's a big landmark in a cinematic history. No film can nail this masterpiece, made by a craft master filmmaker who made a career one brilliance after another. This film will be discussed forever and I mean forever, not a small detail will be missed. 2001 requires multiple viewings in the ultimate visually journey. Definitely recommend!

Score: (10/10)

Joker (I) (2019)

Masterpiece

[5 September 2019]

Joaquin Phoenix is a masterpiece! I haven't seen this film yet, but he's just a massive actor!

Pain and Glory (2019)

Antonio Banderas is on his way to Oscar ceremony

[8/10 · 19 August 2019]

(Antonio Banderas won Best Actor award at the Cannes festival because he played Almodóvar).

I know there are tons of autobiographical films about a painful past and unfinished business (in Hollywood), but Almodóvar reflects his own past very well.

Almodóvar's "Pain and Glory" is very beautifully shot and well-described autobiographical film about emptiness, recollection of the past and most importantly, about salvation. The film also describes well pain, sadness, self discovery, forgiveness, regret, all these feelings that the director is going through.

Without spoiling anything, the story is about a known Spanish director, Salvador Mallo, who reflects his choices made in his life (from his childhood to his cinema career) as past and present come crashing around him.

Almodóvar wanted to represent his life and memories from his life, bathred boundless desire to live and love that guide us to forgiveness with oneself and others. He's entering the stage where he's no longer have inspiration, but he uses his life as a cinema fiction. Almodóvar reflects mostly to his past as something painful and unfinished. Only with the return of ourselves, with coping with the painful past, we have the possibility to rehabilitate ourselves. As I mentioned, Antonio gives a great performance as a reconstructed fella with a passion.

I think whoever watched Almodóvar's previous pieces would enjoy from his new personal film about a person's valuable soul.

Wild Rose (2018)

Wild Jessie

[7/10 · 18 August 2019]

This whole movie was typical to Jessie Buckley's genesis of her career, even proved herself she was worthy for a Rising Star nomination in BAFTA this year (no wonder why). Clearly, I don't understand why Letitia Wright took her place instead (I assumed it's because Black Panther). Jessie was received an award if I were BAFTA, but I guess it won't happen anymore. She genuinely deserves it at all cost while proving why:

Jessie plays as Rose-Lynn, a wildly lady tagged and released from prison but straight goes down to public cowgirl sex with her ex-boyfriend. Only then afterthought of going to her mom house where her two kids live, and the emotional damage is metered out to the two kids from her insubordinate life. Her desire is reaching to Nashville, but no one- including mom and two kids- will stand her way.

She isn't really easy character to admire. She is self-centered selfish as she tramples all over her kids lives, breaking each and every promise, and it just makes you want to shout at her. It's a difficult situation to walk and it barely walks unscathed. She does anything to reach her destination, including neglecting her family. The scene where Susannah hears Rose's favorite song, reveals hope is not yet shattered and she still has a chance to rise.

The camera just adore Jessie Buckey. You can sense her real energy in good times and real pathos and also has a real talent to sing. After the film finished, I couldn't resist to keep listening her songs, which are manage to correspond with the narrative of the film. The director Tom Harper and the cinematographer George Steel simply did a good job of supporting the atmosphere of the film. Some framed shots done effectively and nicely: the shot where she leaves the party is very splendid. She certainly delivers her best performance on the acting stage. She is really a star is born.

The supporting cast beside Buckley is national treasure by Julie Walters, as her mom trying to discuss with her face-to-face about living her life without losing hope.

There were some layers that bothered during the movie, but I would like more depth on the scenes between the characters, as well as the supporting characters: as for her ex-boyfriend's past, the contrasting relationship between Rose and her mother and etc...

Wild-Rose is far from surprised that his narrative is familiar, but it gives a lesson on life about trying not to be hopeless (... because Jessie Buckey will be always beside you).

The Hateful Eight (2015)

The Magnificent Eight- Credit should be given to maestro Ennio Morricone

[10/10 · 18 August 2019]

"The Hateful Eight" always been my Tarantino's favorite film since my first viewing (at home). The atmosphere, the acting, the production design, and most of all is the score by Maestro himself Ennio Morricone. This is kind of (western) noir film you shouldn't miss.

As the film opens, my favorite first scene already gives me creeps. Not gonna lie, Ennio's score at the beginning is the best thing that happened and I'm addicted so bad to "L'Ultima Diligenza di Red Rock", a threatening crescendo that is reminiscent of horror movies, and in best Morricone style, towards the middle, it explodes, and transports the central theme he suggested to Tarantino: the ride of a carriage towards an uncertain future, in an atmosphere of menace. The oboes play joyously and add to the creeping up of the coming mayhem. A real Morricone thriller, but not so much in spaghetti western tradition.

This is a thrilling, bloody and brutal film that is a blast from start to finish mixing together genres Western, Mystery and Action. With The Hateful Eight, Tarantino made a film that is a companion piece to his previous films like Inglorious Bas. and Django which are very much alike in scope, tone and look and if you seen all QT's pieces, it has all of the known elements: rich dialogues, the top of brutality and memorable characters that will stay with you for the rest of your life. It has also a great companion to Reservoir Dogs in terms of structure to this film, in which a bunch of strangers are together in one place where there is distruct and controversies between the characters but this time take place in the 19th century.

The screenplay and direction by Tarantino is strong and fantastic with bringing his own usual flair, look and atmosphere to the film like his previous.

The cast is magnificent starring: Sam Jackson is excellent as always as Marquis Warren, Kurt Russell, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Walton Goggins are terrific. Roth, Maddsen, Bichir, Tatum and Dern as a cast ensemble are great in one film.

Overall, I give this film 10 out'a 10 because Tarantino hasn't done something like this before (except his style stays the same). Bravo!

The Great Escape (1963)

A Great Prison-Break film leading by McQueen

[10/10 · 18 August 2019]

Didn't see Shawshank Redemption yet, so it was perfect timing to watch it before the film you call it "masterpiece". First, I'll start judging this:

The Great Escape based on a true story by Paul Brickhill, about a group of prisoners of war capturing by Nazis in one camp called POW, and they've put people who are the best what they do in one place by giving them the ability to escape the prison behind German lines. By doing so, the escape plan they initiate requires number of people to escape, forcing the Germans to look away from their lines to recatch the prisoners.

First thing this film commits is both human and realism. Throughout the film, you can absorb the humanity level of every character personality in difficult and stressful situations, which is absolutely splended. It shows all the humanity individuals each character: you how cruel the person can be, how afraid the person can be and how human the person can be. It also shows the proper relationships between the people of different origins. I mean, normally, the prisoners would've fight each other to have their freedom but here, it's totally different: the British and Scottish are celebrating with Americans the 4th of July and Christmas, it's really fun to watch how the Americans the British initiating to escape the prison with hilarious and memorable moments and etc... It's also great to see the relationship between Hendley (Garner) and Blythe (Pleasence) and the relationship between Wille (Leyton) and Danny (Bronson) who struggle to survive in the oblivion as they represent their fear in the eyes of viewers.

The cast ensemble was solid and each actor delivers his own performance. Steve McQueen (as Hilts "The Cooler King") delivers coolest and terrific performance as American pilot who messes up with the Germans authorities. The final act is masterfully piece of action as the various escapees struggle for their freedom; I think it mainly refers to the motorcycle chase scene by McQueen, of which he's trying to jump the barb fence to get to Switzerland is memorable and symbolizes tension and hope for freedom (Bravo Steve!). James Garner (as Hendley "The Scrounger") was excellent as a supporting member of the escape plan. The rest of the cast was spectacular: Richard Attenborough (as Barlett "Big X"), Charles Bronson (as Danny "Tunnel King"), James Donald (as Ramsay "The SBO"), Donald Pleasence (as Blythe "The Forget"), James Corbon (as Sedgwick "Manufacture"), Hannes Messemer (as Von Luger "The Kommandant"), David McCallum (as Ashley-Pitt "Dispersal"), Gordon Jackson (as MacDonald "Intelligence"), John Leyton (as Wille "Tunnel King"), Angus Lennie (as Ives "The Mole") and Nigel Stock (as Cavendish "The Surveyor"). Tbh, I stopped the film more than 5 times to get to know the movie characters better and believe me, it was not easy.

John Sturges and screenwriters, James Clavell and W.R. Burnett, adapt from the book written by Paul Brickhill, who appears to be one of those prisoners of POW camp who attempted to escape, which of course is what The Great Escape is born from. Sturges touched by his story and after trying to get it onto the screen as fictional extent without failing, his vision finally succeeded, which is still enthralling new generations with each passing year. However, John manages to present in its usual way with blending elements of suspense, action and comedy and offers many pleasures and visual issues involved in every escape thread.

Credit should be given either to Elmer Bernstein's score. If you can listen closely to it, it is a battle between Allied Prisoners and Germans. He does it brilliantly. I find his score as one of his best known of any film in cinema history.

All in all, The Great Escape by John Struges is a tribute of old-fashioned heroism and bravery, based on real events and real men, which shows what men can accomplish under the most unusual circumstances.

Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (2019)

Once Upon A Time... In Tarantino's Mind

[9/10 · 18 August 2019]

It took me for awhile thinking how much stars does this film deserve. Believe me or not, it wasn't easy at all, for me. This is the most difficult dilemma I have encountered so far. Let's talk a bit.

After the movie ended, I noticed arguments that this movie was not something. In fact, there were a bunch of Tarantino fans who "didn't fly" on it, in Israeli slang. They said and I quote: "90% of the movie was garbage except the ending which was lit." I wouldn't be surprised by that, to be honest. I understand why many people complain about this film. However, to me it just worked.

There is something great about film that worked very well and swept most of the audience (despite the problems I recognized, which I'll be discussing this later). I will nonetheless try to explain what makes it a fun experience alongside its drawbacks.

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS LITTLE SPOILERS !

Let's start with the name of the film in Hebrew (surprise, I'm from Israel 🇮🇱) not "There were times in Hollywood", but "Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood", which is a fairly-tale film and not nostalgic in itself. I don't think it will be surprising to Tarantino fans, but it still needs to be emphasized that this is Tarantino's most understated and at the same time relaxed film since the wonderful Jackie Brown, as far as Tarantino is capable of restraint, that allows the viewers to soak in the setting the film is in.

The story sets in Hollywood 1969, where a TV star, Rick Dalton (Leo), who his stage of transition to cinema was unsuccessful and he is in the crisis of his career. Throughout the film, his stunt accompanies, Cliff Booth (Pitt), who in this case is the best friend to make all his arrangements. Rick lives in a house close to one of Hollywood's hottest and famous couples - director Roman Polanski (Zawierucha) and his wife, actress Sharon Tate (Robbie). Rick belongs to Hollywood's past, and dreams of starring in Plonsky's films.

It appears Tarantino have arrived with love and compassion for this film. He loves his characters, he loves the atmosphere of Hollywood in 1969 (during his adolescence). In fact, Tarantino created a love letter to Hollywood at a time when he was growing up and the result was that he was able to drag the audience into Tarantino's personal and exciting experience of his. In the end, the story that he tells is made up of a combination of storytellings that he has told to these days, and the conclusion is that he created something new and different, that feels like he made his new film, but more innovative and upgraded.

From this it can be said that most viewers expect as much violence as in his previous films. guess what? It won't happen this time. It seems that Tarantino overcame the violence between whoever uses violence in the work also carries responsibility for how the audience responds. Does it make the movie better than its other films because of the violence? I have no clue.

The film puts us in the main character, Rick Dalton. He fails to fit into the 1960s cinema, he would love for his past to return but he knows it will never happen. Just as Tarantino used to cast past stars in his films, so now Rick is cast as a guest character in series and spaghetti westerns, in this case. And as it didn't change the life of those who cast in Tarantino's films, so it doesn't really change their life (and Rick's in that case, too). Take an example of Michael Madsen who used to play lots of Tarantino's films in the past when he was famous, during this time he is less acting and so you can see his cameo character in this film which was of no use to the content.

Leo and Brad doing such a good and hilarious performances, where they both represent doubles of each other in real life, though Rick Dalton is angry and frustrated due of his career fallings (and hippies) while his best bud Cliff Booth is perfectly happy to be his bud's handyman. Leo gives a great acting when he plays a bad cowboy in western spaghetti series and doesn't recall enough lines for his role. There is a tremendous scene between Leo/Rick and little girl playing alongside him, where he reads his "Easy Breezy" book and understands things about himself. It's a very bare scene and he is just wonderful in it. Brad's performance is perfect where he represents the power of stunt-double in cinema industry. Cliff Booth has a dark past and a likeness to a violent Tarantino character - he is also a charmer. There is a great long sequence that begins with a ride for a young girl and ends up on a farm where he once worked as a movie stuntman, and nowadays serves as the "Manson family" which they pose a threat to him, and he is simply excellent at it.

Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate gives a small performance, and yet an important one. There is a marvelous sequence where she reached to the theater to watch a new film where she stars in it (it appeared in official trailer, too). She isn't famous enough to get recognized, but it obvious she's on her way there. She enters the hall to watch the film starring her and there she sticks to the audience's delight. Therefore, her role is a symbol because she symbolizes the future and her hope, she is beautiful in purity and kindness. Pacino (as Mr. Schwarz) had a small role, and almost didn't contribute to the content. But, at least I'm glad he was involved in it.

This film filled with Easter eggs, references, cameos, and all other manner like Tarantino does it in his every picture, which I won't spoil anything (except I gave a cameo by Michael Maddsen as an example).

Now the part where I complain about multiple differences from other Tarantino's previous pictures. I felt the dialogues were the cluttered case in the movie and that is why the film became so different from all of Tarantino's films. Want to see I'm right? Take an example of a scene from Pulp Fiction where Vincent and Jules discuss about Royal with cheese or the scene where a gang of gangsters discuss the importance of tips from Reservoir Dogs or Warren's investigation scene from The Hateful Eight and so on... At the click of a finger, you already understand the problematicness of this movie. How and why does he do it? I don't know.

One of the other difficulties with the film that I actually overcame is his pace. I understand that a multitude of old classics scenes that are all filmed at 35mm are of no use to the content and thus create a boring atmosphere of the film, unlike me that I enjoyed and it enhanced my viewing experience. It's also a pretty good way to recreate the classics alongside the use of movie fiction content for the first time on the big screen. As the film progresses, the pace becomes tighter and that leads us toward the climax.

One of the highlights of the film was the ending, and it's connected to the murders that took place in the US in the 1960s led by Charles Manson, and the famous murder of the Manson Family was the murder of Sharon Tate when she was pregnant that shocked the country. Manson himself did not attend these events, but he became one of the notorious people. I have to admit, Tarantino tricked me and I didn't know the ending was based on these events on my first viewing. Because we know the murder is coming, the tension begins to build long before anything happens. The director's use of his prior knowledge before the twist is impressive. He puts clues before the climax that no one would ever surpass. From this it can be concluded that all the clues were there all along. After all, this is "Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood", and you'll understand why.

Overall, this is not his most exemplary film, but still a fascinating film by a wonderful director and sometimes a little cocky and sultry. It is a film that hardly allows for serious and deep discussion (except for the end, of course) and almost doesn't leave any material for thought to the viewer after the film. And yet, it allows the viewer to enjoy and transport him back to a crafted version of 60's Los Angeles.

Score: (8.6/10)

Portrait of a Lady on Fire (2019)

The Inception of a Genius Female

[10/10 · 7 August 2019]

I watched this film at the 36th Annual JFF (Jerusalem Film Festival) and it was worth it. First, before the review, I want to point out that the movie touched my heart very much. Every scene and scene is pure and very real. The characters in the movie were a revelation to me and I don't doubt that the cast of the two main actresses, as I will explain below, impressed me greatly. Without wasting time, we set off!

* This Review does not include spoilers *

Portrait of a Lady on Fire, directed by Céline Sciamma (Fascinating, by the way) is a period love drama that takes place in 18th century France, when Marianne (the impressive Noémie Merlant), a beautiful young painter, is hired to paint the portrait of Eloise (Adèle Haenel is a high-class revelation) for her upcoming wedding. However, Eloise is not interested in getting married, and therefore refuses to cooperate with the wedding preparations in general, and with the portrait painting in particular. Marianne decides to hide the fact that she is a painter and presents herself as a companion designed to stir Eloise's time. At the same time, she watches her day after day and paints her secretly.

The film is a visual poetry, with a feast for the ears and eyes, each richly textured frame and unique sound design, overpowering the most immersive viewing experience, and I recommend watching cinema instead of sitting in front of a small screen on the comfy couch at home. Every theme in the movie about love and self-discovery of the characters is serious and powerful, the dialogues between the characters are very interesting and very honest. The atmosphere in the film is both realistic and clearly poetic. The relationship between the two main characters is exceptional and also helps build the character of the characters. Noémie Merlant and Adèle Haenel's cast are a revelation and don't see it every day, which makes me want to see them in more movies. Claire Methon's photography was very wonderful, reflecting the historical background of 18th century France. The ending left a mark on the film and this is one of the most amazing and exciting endings I've ever seen.

Had the film been written and directed by someone else (even if it is a man or a woman), the film would have felt fake and pathetic, and the relationship between the characters would have been unreliable. Fortunately, here comes Sciamma, whose feminine perspective and innovative demeanor transform what could have been a time-lapse into the powerful power of art, the enhancement of feminist cinema and the empowerment of modern and early audiences. There were some notable interactions in the film that one, I think, hint at the end of the film, such as a discussion of the significance of the Orpheus and Orodice Greek myth debate. From this it can be concluded that Siama's passion and humanity shows that it is the director's unflattering vision that is her most poetic.

Full of people wonder why the movie is named after that. The truth is, the movie has a lot of meaning. First and foremost, this refers to an actual portrait drawn by the main protagonist, Marianne, but he also cites the film as a cinematic study of the lady in question, Lewis, whose dress is on fire at one point, as if the love and passion she experienced towards Marianne made her shatter Spontaneously brooding.

The film won the Best Screenplay Award and the Queer Palm Award at the 2019 Cannes Film Festival and it deserved to win at all costs.

"Portrait of the Girl on Fire" is the most genuine and sincere artistic film I have seen in the past decade and in my opinion the most LBGT movie I have ever experienced. This movie is a must watch movie and not home, remember well.

Parasite (2019)

A craft masterclass by a genius

[10/10 · 4 August 2019]

I watched Parasite twice at the 36th Annual JFF (Jerusalem Film Festival) and I have to say, the film is still in my head. The genre of the film is absolutely different from other Hollywood's franchises, trust me (Bong Joon-ho was right!).

This review doesn't contain spoilers (although I do recommend to not read this before you watch the film).

"Parasite", directed by a an artist himself Bong Joon-ho, is a social satire comedy-tragedy film that, like the film "Us," tells of two families of different status, one of whom lives in the basement apartment and in unemployment condition. Each member of the poor family plans to sneak into a wealthy family's estate until they are exposed to unexpected twists.

The film won the Palme d'Or award at the Cannes Film Festival and the Sydney Film Festival at the Sydney Film Festival, and in fact, it deserved and won these awards (Eat Straw, Pulp Fiction). Why? Now comes the twist.

On the one hand, Bong uses a very creative black comedy, as I will describe below, to improve stories of inequality, economic imbalance, inherent corruption and power abuse that reflect South Korean society's view. And on the other hand, all seven Bong films cover the genres, from science fiction to police proceduralism to the small-town murder mystery, but they all have many things in common. Such as: in the films "Mother" and "Memories of Murder," Bong uses his films to reflect the problematic establishment of Korea, South Korea in particular, and the perfect results. As mentioned, this film is ignored by the genre's conventions: it's soft and cruel; Beautiful and hard; Beautiful and tragic and a masterpiece in her classroom investigation.

The screenwriters, Bong Joon-ho and Han Jin Won, use a lot of twisted sleeves in the plot to make the movie more entertaining this year. Each line is delivered smoothly, as if these characters seem to be real people living in this story, with Jung Jaeli's classic score playing tremendously in the background. The cinematography by Hong Kyung-pyo distinguishes itself from a more realistic grainy style in the basement apartment, to a smoother style when focusing on our rich characters. This point of view causes us to look at two very opposing groups of people differently to make it even clearer that they do not belong to the same world. The classroom systems did not look earthy but still perfect before.

Bong makes sure to simplify the lines between the two sides at certain points and cause your sympathy to jump back and forth with hectic consequences. It is a film that focuses on poverty, despair and what we are willing to do to take what needs to be ours. The tension between supreme elegance and underground threat has never been more in your face. Therefore, Bong likes to blur the lines of the genre and he makes sure he hits every step in the stairwell to succeed.

"Parasite" is a craft masterclass in which the power of the story lies in the way comedy and drama rub off on each other in the proper way to ignite a bit of thriller that turns into pure horror when despair and hatred meet each other. This is also not a film that built on one plot twist at the end, it's completely different from any Hollywood film that makes viewers angry at the viewer who just finished watching and suspecting him. This film will be remembered in the history books of world cinema, and foreign cinema in particular as one of the most creative films of the year in general. If not, then Hollywood is completely out of control.