Les amants criminels (1999) - François Ozon

Serioulsy can't really relate François Ozon to New French Extremity apart from Les amants criminels. This film is distinctively different from his more recent works. Ozon is the first french directors whom I admire but Les amants criminels is not the Ozon that I have always known. Maybe it's at that period of time it was a trend to make (a bit more) provocative films. Or people changed?

A Escondidas [en: Hidden Away fr: Fronteras] (2014) - Mikel Rueda

A escondidas did a really good job in conveying one single feeling and it succeeded in making us on edge, deliberately denying what we want to happen or see. Somewhat somehow we have all been there, right?

The last scene, it’s simple but extremely emotional. It contains hope but we could have guessed what happened. It’s not personal, the director uses that scene on propose and there isn’t a hundred ways to interpret it. I like it, because it represents life. Life is unpredictable and the only thing we could do is to be prepared and hope for the best.

Divines (2016) - Houda Benyamina

I guess films about the suburb (banlieue) population is a legit genre. People who are from the lowest social ladder try really hard everyday to strive or simply just to survive, most of them have one thing in common, anger. People who are just like us but not really. It’s hard to admit and nothing derogate. Some people just struggle to put food on the table. 

What makes Divines different from it’s genre? It’s funny, it’s light but it’s also hard to watch at times and it definitely doesn’t sugarcoat anything. There is this incredible friendship between the two young actresses which is something rare to see in this kind of genre. It’s interesting how they play with gender roles in the film, they put the female lead into dealing and the male into dancing. When he asked: “do you know how much my life would change right now?” There is a sense of irony, viewing that she was making fun of him working in security for a supermarket on the side while he was auditioning for a dancing company. Obviously she thinks she makes a better choice than he does but does she?

A little side note, the male lead… you will know what i mean when you watch it. Maybe it’s just me but I don’t think so.

Nocturnal Animals (2016) - Tom Ford

I was way too hyped about Ford’s new movie that I looked up his inspiration and started reading it (Tony & Susan). When I was reading it, a lot of questions came through my mind. Most importantly how he was going to adapt it onto the the big screen. To my surprise the changes he made actually give it an edge or a twist. Making Susan (Amy Adams) a contemporary artist and a curator allows him to play with visual cues, considering the limited screen time, this particular decision helps building up the story and even elevated it. 

Nocturnal Animals is extremely brutal and a bit sick in some way. Imagine someone writes a novel just to make you feel bad like really bad. Providing that it could only work if the other end still has feeling for the former of course. It is also about how we perceive ourselves and who we aspire to be. In the case of Susan, she is trying to run away from the shadow of her parents, she doesn’t agree on how they (stereotyped Texans) interpret the world and especially doesn’t want to “become” her mother. She doesn’t want to live in someone else’s expectation but at the same time she is afraid that her mother could be right which eventually leads to her fallout with Edward (Jake Gyllenhall).

The smart part about Nocturnal Animals is the script. The novel Susan is reading, is a guiding tool. The paper cut is the first warning about the true nature of the novel. The story within the story is compelling enough as a thriller but where does it stand between the two worlds. To most of the readers it is just a normal thriller but for Susan it is more than just that. As she says earlier in the film that she did something terrible to Edward thus the novel is the "revenge", how? I guess you have to watch it yourself and find out. Some would say the title Nocturnal Animals give away a little since Susan is basically Tony in the novel. The suspense and the anticipation serve for both Tony and Susan (the original book title), even if you don’t get the point where they are the same person you will still be affected at the vey last scene. 

Ford opts to use Nocturnal Animals as the movie title for obvious reason, to tone down the complexity of the story or simply for better understanding. I personally enjoyed a lot watching the Nocturnal Animals, ever since Ford’s debut, he is one of my favourite directors. Nocturnal Animals just solidifies a place for Tom Ford in the movie industry. 

Eyes Wide Shut (1999) - Stanley Kubrick

Do you know why woman were used to get married? it’s because they could lose they virginity and be opened to freedom and the things that they wanted to do. A stranger told Alice at the party. 

Gender roles play a big part in Eyes Wide Shut. What man think woman are capable of hence leading Alice (Nicole Kidman) confesses what could have happened, the big “if” which leads Dr William Harford ventures off to a sexual adventure.

Is it unfaithful having a dream about having an orgy in front your husband? Or is it more unacceptable telling your husband you are willing to risk your marriage for one night with a stranger you’ve just seen?

The confession scene is so powerful, the tension between the two leads is unbearable. Seriously, what are people thinking during the day? What is your thought when your genital are being examined. Any fantasy? Yes, the patient might got carried away by the possible “bad news” but what if everything is fine? To man (or Dr Harford) woman are not capable of being sexual, the mother instinct will keep them in line. What happened between Dr. Harford patient’s daughter amplifies his insecurity which made him doubt the reason why he is being “good”. Maybe it is a bit over exaggerated comparing being promiscuous to going to a high end sex club.

We couldn’t judge one person by one night or a dream against the rest of their life. Alice said to Will.

I think Eyes Wide Shut is a bit underrated. Psychologically it is a mind blowing experience.

Westword (1973) - Michael Crichton

Out of curiosity I watched the original Westword, to sum up the movie in a sentence: it is a crossover between Jurassic Park and Terminator. The attraction park has gone wrong and a robot tries to kill you no matter what. 

Honestly I am really disappointed (story wise). Even Westword has seemingly touched the subject of morality, sadly it didn’t translate as much as it was expected. Since when did we set rules on how we treat robots or machines? The main protagonist questions his behaviour in the park, maybe it has something to do with how immoral to hurt and kill the robots but I think it is more about self assuring. Killing machines which basically act and even die like a human can be read as human wanted what they were forbidden. The need of breaking rules excites them. 

It is a bit degrading how they depict woman. Man wants to kill and shoot things and woman just want to get laid by hot guys?! The social stereotype in the 70s was really something. And there is a big plot hole, if all the guns were programmed to which they couldn’t fire while aiming at something thermal then how on earth the Gunslinger could even kill anyone? (please correct me if I’m wrong.)

One thing admirable about Westword is the fact that it is a thriller. There is no doubt that the Terminator was based on the Gunslinger. Westword paved the way of this new genre (sic-fi thriller, the battles with the  A.I.s). It was pretty forward in it’s time.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) - David Yates

If Harry Potter is about minorities then Fantastic Beasts expands on this idea which J.K Rowling has been trying to convey for years. 

It is not a coincident Rowling wrote the Fantastic Beasts, if the world of magic is a metaphor of homosexuality (or any minority) then the beasts in the Fantastic Beasts are the outcasts within the outcasts. From the beginning of the film, they make it clear that the magical world/ culture is different between England and the States where they are not supposed to make any contact with no-maj’. The premise of the film is about Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), who is on a journey to write a book about the Fantastic Beasts and try to get people to understand them instead of killing them, travels to New York and accidentally his pets run away. Scamander represents an utopia for the mythical creatures, a sanctuary where they shouldn’t  be needing it in the first place. It is just like any fights on equal rights, we should even need to flight for them in the first place.

The concept of “Obscurus” is somehow literate and interesting. It refers to people, mainly kids, who are oppressed/ denied their ability in magic and for some reasons  they become the prefect host for the “virus” obscurus where dark magic takes over and they could no longer control their power and could even be consumed by the virus. Doesn’t it ring a bell? Orlando shooting, the shooter was raised in a conservative background where he was told being gay was not normal to a point he even believed it and took action on it (of course it was just a hypothesis) but it fits perfectly here. 

The idea of outcast is amplified with the characters, Scamander was expelled from school and have no friends, Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston) was reassigned to a different department in MACUSA (Magical Congress of the United States of America) and Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) was an outcast of the working class, and we have Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller), Langdon Shaw (Ronan Raftery) just to name a few. The Fantastic Beasts is basically a propaganda for the minorities, stop fighting within ourselves, we should get together and fight for a better life. 

The message behind was overshadowed for years but the Fantastic Beasts brought it back to the limelight. The special effects are as good as usual. It was really a delight watching it.