IviDvo

Banel & Adama is the story of a couple trying to build a future together, but one that is at odds with their socially predetermined destiny. While Banel rejects her stereotypical female role and is authentic in every situation, fighting for the right to be herself, Adama tries to do what is right, even if it is not in line with his own wishes. Adama is the center of Banel's universe, and her uncompromising pursuit of her dreams is sympathetic only up to a point. She is possessive, she goes very hard after her own and is capable of anything to achieve her goal. I'll admit that I didn't find the characters very likeable, and Banel not at all, despite being able to fully understand her in some situations. Visually the film is gorgeous, with a very nice soundtrack, and the story itself is not bad at all, but I can't give it a higher rating, something was missing. [Festival de Cannes 2023]

The new Indiana Jones left me with very similar feelings to the previous outing, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I love seeing this iconic character on the big screen again, but you live mostly on nostalgia. It's not what it used to be anymore. Not because Indy is getting wrinkles and losing muscle, the new sequels just don't have the same charm. But Indiana Jones still remains popular and in my opinion the filmmakers are pretty cynical with it. And they also count on the fact that the viewer will forgive a lot of stupid things and will turn a blind eye to crazy action scenes that defy the laws of physics, because it's Indiana Jones. The characters are otherwise likeable, and I always welcome Mads Mikkelsen as a bad guy, but it's a long way from Cipher 😊 It was also nice to see Thomas Kretschmann as a Nazi again, how else could it be? To sum up, for me it was a nostalgic respite where I appreciated a few references to past films, but otherwise it's all so B-ish and forgettable, it doesn't offend, but it doesn't excite either. The glory days of Indiana Jones are long gone, and the last two films have only benefited from that popularity, something that is unfortunately quite common nowadays... [Festival de Cannes 2023]

This tragicomic tale of the end of a friendship is set in the early twentieth century, in the beautiful wild Irish countryside, in a small village where people have simple lives and spend most of their days in the local pub. But one day Colm no longer wants to be friends with Padraic. As humans, we are obsessed with the question WHY? Why do two people stop liking each other, why do they stop understanding each other, why do they start hating each other? Does there always have to be a specific reason for this? Colm reaches a stage in his life where he simply doesn't want to waste his precious time chatting shallowly with a man who doesn't enrich him in any way and whom he finds boring and crude. And Padraic takes it hard, he actually wants to keep fighting for his friendship, which leads them to completely unpredictable events. At first, their conflict seems a bit ridiculous, like the bickering of two twelve-year-old boys, but it gradually turns into a heated exchange of opinions and harsh reckoning. The narrative has a very intimate, theatrical feel and is accompanied by Carter Burwell's atmospheric and haunting music. This is a very entertaining reunion of Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson in front of the camera, it made me very happy.

Louis and Alice are brother and sister, they haven't seen each other for many years, but can't avoid meeting when their parents are on their deathbeds. The emotionally charged, tense beginning lures the viewer in, making them want to get deep inside the two characters to find out what happened to them, what they did to each other that Alice hates her brother so much that she can't be in the same room with him, and the entire film stands on this mystery. Both are artists, both have strong egos, both are emotional, a little hysterical, their characters and the story itself directly invite escalated conflict, heated dialogue and cathartic explanations. Unfortunately, this does not happen and it is a great shame. In the end, the behaviour of the protagonists seems a bit illogical and unbelievable. Paradoxically, I myself wonder if we as viewers are too spoiled. We have high expectations, we demand explanations, but sometimes, as it happens in life, we don't get the explanations we want.

The musical is itself a genre that divides audiences, and I think this film will divide its fans into two camps: either you'll be excited by this rock opera or you'll be perplexed by it. Personally, I am in the latter category. Annette is a poetic story about love, professional jealousy, the flip side of popularity, and also about fatherhood and forgiveness. Already in the first minute, I got the impression that this was going to be a very weird film. The music by the Mael brothers, aka The Sparks, was catchy and I don't have a single complaint in that regard, but at times I found the lyrics a bit repetitive, and "We love each other so much" was still ringing in my head a few days after the film. I certainly appreciate that the story itself is quite simple, but it is presented in a very unpredictable way. Most of the time I had no idea where the film was heading, which meant I was in for a lot of surprises. For example, a newborn puppet child who clearly inherited Adam Driver's ears. I can understand this decision from a creative point of view, because metaphorically Annette does become a puppet of her parents who use her for their own purposes, but I found it very distracting, even comical. But maybe that's what made the final scene with "Pinocchio's transformation" all the more impressive and emotional. Marion Cotillard was a bit bland alongside her fellow actors this time. Adam Driver gives another riveting performance, and his friend Simon Helberg, the conductor, charmed me with his performance; I would have liked more space for him, because dramatic roles suit him, and I hope to see him more often in them. So what is the source of the perplexed feeling about this film? The singing of Marillon and Adam did not please my ears and their daughter Annette reminded me more of a Chucky doll. Finally, the fact that this film is such a dreamy mix of genres full of surprises that feels a bit cluttered, but at the same time paradoxically very ordinary, which can be just a bit confusing in the end.

Little Joe is a laboratory engineered flower that, with a little loving and care, is meant to ensure your happiness. It is a very original and ambitious premise that unfortunately squandered its potential. The overall effect of the film is bland, dull, and yet the plot invites so much escalation, chilliness and paranoia. This is probably what the "musical" score of the film is trying to do, which is at times almost horrific, but it’s more like a random mix of chimes, flutes and whistling that feels more tinnitus than music. The acting is a bit cold overall, which would have been useful in the context of the story in the second half of the film, but the visuals succeed where the script and the soundtrack fail. The film thrives on pastel colours, the light green, rust and white creates a perfect contrast to the deep red of the dangerous flower. Unfortunately, nice visuals are not enough for a full-fledged experience.

In order to return to writing, which she gave up ten years ago for a career as a psychologist, Sibyl radically reduces her number of patients. She retains, among others, a young and somewhat invasive aspiring actress, Margot, who requires help with a very fundamental life decision. Her inability to act independently leads Sibyl to the film set, where she plays the role of Margot's psychological support and at the same time a communicator in a love triangle between Margot, her acting colleague and the director of the film. But Sibyl herself has to deal with her own demons from the past, which gradually come to the surface through flashbacks. The film is set on the beautiful island of Stromboli, whose smoking volcano is a symbolic harbinger of a possible eruption. The performances of both Virginie Efira and Adèle Exarchopoulos are solid, convincing and moving, but arguably the best tragic-comic outburst of emotion worth seeing comes from Sandra Hüller as the director. Her momentary loss of nerve is one of the few proper comedy scenes a film that is rather dark in its entirety.

Deerskin is one of the most unpredictable and wrenching comedies of the year. At first, it looks very understated and chooses a slower pace. The decoration is thoughtfully set in lighter tones of brown, grey and beige, which can look a little bland, but it works perfectly with Dujardin's outfit; we must not forget it, because his jacket is the second main "character" of the film. Their common dream is to be unique, and that's when this supple comedy turns into a chilling and absurdly frantic ride. Gradually a hat, shoes, trousers and gloves join the jacket, and suddenly Dujardin's outfit is downright murderous. Not even Carrie Bradshaw has this much style. Finally, I must not forget to say that I promise never to wear a jacket again in my life...

Tinder, the doom and salvation of contemporary dating. Ben and Marion have an ideal first date, so ideal that Ben immediately decides to invite Marion on holiday and she agrees. The first half of the film is a lot of fun, but then it starts to drag a bit, the humour dwindles and it leads to a clichéd ending. On the other hand, I don't think I've ever found myself so much in a movie character. I am Ben :) :) some info for potential candidates :) :) Certainly not that extreme (performing a need in the garden among the flowers :D ), but I really found myself in some situations, which is probably why I enjoyed the film.

A pretty original and fun premise from the world of science that entertained me a lot for two thirds of the film. It has plenty of wit and a bit of cute romance, but I'm somewhat uneasy about the ending. I understand that you have to take it with a grain of salt, but I guess I wasn't in the mood for something like that. And yet, it’s such a happy ending – long live the penguins :)