Edward Micu

The Queen’s Gambit is one of the most perfectly crafted shows I’ve seen in a very long time. Everything is so meticulously detailed and dripping with attention, and it’s hard not to fall in love: the set design, the wardrobe, cinematography, dialogue, music, etc — everything is so fine-tuned and designed with such specific purpose and intention; it truly does feel like somebody’s vision being brought to life. Beyond that, the themes attached are outstanding. The Queen’s Gambit is a beautiful exploration of the splendors of obsession, and the pitfalls of addiction that inevitably follow. It’s about what it means to be born with greatness versus what it means to earn it, and how the two coincide. It’s about pain and love and evolution and learning to become who you were always meant to be. It’s about breaking and healing and so much more — it really is a wonderful story. The performances, too, are near-perfect. No one falls flat — especially that of Anya Taylor-Joy. She’s absolutely incredible in her role, never missing a beat and truly delivering one of the best performances of the year. This show is just about perfect. The only problem I have with it is that it can become a bit too cheesy in certain parts — particularly near the end. But even with that, this is a spectacular show that I recommend to EVERYONE. You don’t need to love chess in order to love The Queen’s Gambit. It’s one of the best shows of the year, and I recommend that everyone check it out.

Borat 2 is basically one running gag for 90 minutes straight. I’m not quite sure why this film received so much critical-acclamation and award-recognition. The first 70 minutes feel like a bad Adam Sandler movie, and the last 10 feel like a YouTube prank gone wrong (or gone right, depending on who you ask). The only conclusion I came to (from reading massive amounts of Rotten Tomato/Letterboxd reviews) is the favorable political stance of its message. Beyond that, I couldn’t actually find anything else being praised of the film. I strongly believe that if Borat 2 subscribed to the complete opposite side of the political spectrum, then it would’ve gotten absolutely demolished by both critics and audiences alike. No matter which side of the political banner you fall under, if a political stance is the only thing a film has to offer, then there’s a major problem. In conclusion, Borat 2 isn’t good. I wouldn’t call it terrible, but I also can’t think of anything good it had to offer. I never once laughed during its duration, and I was constantly on the verge of simply changing the channel. It’s dull, boring, hallow, and ultimately felt like a waste of time.

Four out of five stars. Great acting and story, but it's also a very hard movie to watch. People considering The Grizzlies will be less likely to complain about criticisms and more prone to object to some of the negative content in the movie. The first issue of concern will be suicide, with three occurring in the film. It is worth pointing out that the suicides are critical to the story and are not portrayed in graphic detail; in fact, the deaths occur off screen. There are also frequent scenes of domestic assault and references to the traumatic legacy of residential schools. The violence in the film feeds a vicious cycle of substance abuse and both teens and adults are frequently seen very drunk. There is also significant profanity, including a half dozen sexual expletives. Negative content aside, The Grizzlies is well worth viewing for teens and their parents. It educates audiences about the harsh living conditions in the far North and about the tortured legacy of residential schools. The film exposes the long-term difficulties of the community including not only the suicide rates mentioned but addiction, domestic violence, school truancy, and the legacy of the egregious residential school system. These other stories make the film gripping and moving with many emotions coming to the surface. It also provides hope in a sincere way that does not gloss over the long-term history of great struggle. Unlike what a review posted here claims, this is not a white saviour film. According to producers Alethea Arnaquq-Baril and Stacey Aglok MacDonald, de Pencier was conscious of the potentially problematic racial aspect to the story, and worked with them to ensure that the screenplay centred the perspectives of Inuit youth and did not fall into white savior tropes.

An inspiring, endearing & emotionally stimulating tale that's further strengthened by a surprisingly down-to-earth performance from Robin Williams in addition to the spot-on chemistry between its young cast, Dead Poets Society is an affectionately crafted, skilfully directed & smartly scripted work that only asks its viewers to dream more urgently & live more fervently. The story takes place at an all-male prep school during 1959 and follows a group of students who are encouraged to unleash their creative side by their new English teacher, a former alumni of the school. As he inspires them to look at poetry & life with a different perspective, his students restart the unsanctioned titular club and begin challenging the status quo. Directed by Peter Weir, the film introduces all the relevant characters in the opening scene but it takes a while to get acquainted with most of them and separate one from another. However, once their English class begins, and their new teacher's unorthodox methods unlock their true potential, it turns into an enjoyable, entertaining & thoroughly nostalgic drama that's as heartwarming as it is amusing. The atmosphere, for the most part, is infused with a positive, creative & optimistic vibe and all the moments featuring Robin Williams is a delight to watch. The fine dynamic between its young actors makes them convincing as a group, and their individual contribution is no slouch either. Camera is operated in a smooth, static fashion. Editing is controlled, unfolding the narrative at a steady pace, while its score adds flavours of its own into the final print. Coming to the performances, Dead Poets Society features a wonderful cast in Robin Williams, Josh Charles, Ethan Hawke, Robert Sean Leonard, Norman Lloyd & others, with Williams impressing the most. It's a finely measured & highly grounded effort from Williams who as John Keating delivers a performance that arguably his best. And he is brilliantly supported by the rest of the cast who all play their part with flair, both individually and as a group. On an overall scale, Dead Poets Society is a wonderfully evocative coming-of-age drama that tries to illustrate the importance of finding one's true passion in life and embracing it wholeheartedly. It packs plenty of laughs over the course of its runtime, and fine dose of tears as well but at its heart, Dead Poets Society is all about making your lives extraordinary. And the only way to live that life is by following your heart, pursuing your dreams & seizing every day that comes. Delightfully recommended.

This is Clint Eastwood's best war movie. Letters from Iwo Jima is a unique American-made war movie for at least two reasons: it depicts the battle from the perspective of the losers and it represents the United States as the "enemy." Coupled with Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima provides director Clint Eastwood's complete statement about the 1945 Battle of Iwo Jima. ' Although Flags of Our Fathers deals as much with how a photograph from the battle was used as propaganda on the home front as it does with the actual combat, Letters from Iwo Jima remains entrenched upon the island from start to finish (except for a few character-building flashbacks). In terms of its structure, this is more what we expect from a war movie than what Flags of Our Fathers offers. The only character common to both films is the island's rough terrain. With his two 2006 movies, Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima, Eastwood has stripped away some of the misconceptions about the battle and provided new perspectives. Taken together, the films offer an imperfect but interesting interpretation of history. Of the two, the more straightforward and better focused Letters from Iwo Jima is the stronger movie. Oh, and Ken Watanabe was snubbed by the Oscars for an award for Best Actor.

Loosely based on the life of the titular 15th Century iconographer, and starring Anatoliy Solonitsyn, this complex film is far more than a historical biography. With its medieval setting and complicated religious and political themes, Andrei Rublev takes place during a turbulent time in Russia, where Christianity and authoritarianism collided. Why would a icon painter have an important place in this particular time? Perhaps because the position of art in conflicting times can reflect much in a society: artistic freedom, government sponsorship, and intellectual curiosity are certainly themes worth analyzing in 1400s pre-Tsarist Russia. In Andrei Tarkovsky's second feature film, this man's art and emotional connection to his homeland, religion, and culture is brought to audiences in a historical epic not seen in Russia since Sergei Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible. We don't even know the exact date of Rublev's birth or death, but 1360 to 1430 is as good of a guess as any. The movie presents eight episodes, some directly and others only tangentially related to the titular artist; the segments are linear only in the strictest definition of the term, and take place over roughly a quarter century. Tarkovsky co-wrote the screenplay along with Andrei Konchalovsky, still writing for films today; cinematography would be done by Vadim Yusov, known for Solaris among other Tarkovsky works. As opposed to the Eastern Orthodox faith that many know from Russian history, Russia of the early 1400s was one of transition religiously, where many of its people had no singular or defined faith -- paganism, perhaps, would have been the prevailing one. The Christianity that iconographers like Rublev espoused an embodiment of the spirit of God, and Christ the man in particular, was still taking root in this land. Contrary to Renaissance artists and societies of Western Europe, the East with its veneration of icons in no secular sense whatsoever distinguished Russian art from its rivals'. Indeed, Western Christianity considered these icons as heretical as they believed the Russians worshipped them as well. This artistic appreciation -- one that required a defiant Christian view -- found itself emanating among the Rus, Slavic, and Tatar people in this century. Still, Rublev through these vignettes of sorts (Tarkovsky called them "several novellas") comes to see the various cultural practices of Russia as he travels through the land, not necessarily on missionary work but surely not avoiding proselytizing either. Soon, his art is his focus along with his journey of faith. The cinematography of Tarkovsky is of course brilliant, sensuous at times in its dreamlike portrait of the man and his people during chaotic times where the only united force apart from the impending tsar was orthodoxy itself -- sharp black and white, panoramic landscapes, angelic elevation of camera angles then swooping down literally to the snow and horse hooves. The score, interspersed through the film, unites these "novellas," and a naturalistic sound mixing with light breezes rustling the leaves and birdsong in the distance is almost ever-present, even among the violent and terrible events that Rublev witnesses including the brutal Tatar invasion, and ultimately in which he takes part. Ever purposeful yet enigmatic like Rublev himself, Tarkovsky's "film of the earth" is surely one more of a faith, a time, or a rumination on purpose and place. This historical epic of forlorn splendor, difficult to view or simplify, ultimately can be appreciated as a profound meditation on integrity and dedicated perseverance amidst a world of doubt.

Dull, tedious & overlong isn't what one expects when diving into a fable about the greatest & most fearsome conqueror to have ever lived but Mongol is exactly that. More a prequel than a full-fledged account of Genghis Khan & his conquests, this historical epic comes rife with myriads of issues and is disappointing by all means. Mongol narrates the early life of Genghis Khan, then known as Temüjin, and covers a series of events during his formative years that lead him to become the legendary conqueror. The plot covers his childhood, abductions, marriage & relationship with a blood brother who would ultimately become his chief rival & final hurdle to his rise to the top. Co-written & directed by Sergei Bodrov, the film is shot in truly exotic locations and is gorgeously photographed but no amount of fleeting imagery can make up for the shortcomings in the storytelling department as the plot exhibits many timeline gaps & narrative voids that are left unresolved, and the slow pace & repetitive nature do not help either. Bordov neither provides enough material to help us connect the dots ourselves nor does he fills the time skips in a way that would provide proper explanation to a few events and because of that, plenty of outcomes make little to no sense whatsoever. The film doesn't delve deep into the characters' psyche either, resulting in moments that seem trivial. Nevertheless, the performances are good. On an overall scale, Mongol is visually appealing yet emotionally unstimulating, thus finishing as a highly underwhelming historical epic that's neither historic nor epic, all coz of the questionable & nonsensical choices the director keeps making from start to finish. Even the battles it has in store aren't entirely engaging. In short, Mongol is a lifeless, soulless & eventless account of the life of one of the greatest conquerors the world has ever known.

Perfectly capturing the magical vibe of the 1970s, featuring an ensemble cast of future Hollywood big names & celebrating the restless spirit of high-school life in an unapologetic manner, Dazed and Confused is a funny, affectionate & expertly crafted coming-of-age drama that covers the adventures of various groups of teenagers during their last day of school in the summer of 1976. Written & directed by Richard Linklater, the film doesn't have any plot but is simply a reflection of the time & era this talented director himself grew up in and is his ode to those unforgettable years most people end up cherishing all their lives. The script itself is full of memorable quotes, interesting characters & pop culture references and the drama is captivating enough to keep the viewers glued to the screen from start to finish. Be it the depiction of hazing, driving around, acts of vandalism, smoking weed, enjoying beers, philosophical ramblings or making out, every moment is meticulously captured, thanks to its fluid camera-work and it's all edited too well to keep the premise alive & kicking all the time. Even more admirable is Linklater's choice of music to go with the accompanying scenes and amongst its rich cast, it's Matthew McConaughey & Jason London who end up impressing the most. On an overall scale, Dazed and Confused is a precise observation of 1970s American culture whose contribution to its genre as well as independent cinema cannot be understated. It shows life in high-school for what it is & even the devil-may-care attitude of its characters has a genuine touch to it. Instantly gripping, wildly entertaining & exhibiting no loss in quality, Dazed and Confused is one of the coolest films ever made.

This movie, alongside Darkest Hour and Leon: The Professional are my 3 favourite Gary Oldman movies. The late 1980s gave us "Amadeus," a wildly successful biopic of Mozart that turned the greatest composer the world has ever known into a braying, smutty caricature whose demise was engineered by his jealous rival, Antonio Salieri. In the 1990s, Bernard Rose made a similarly reductive film about Ludwig van Beethoven, "Immortal Beloved," starring Gary Oldman as the tormented German composer. Rose takes essentially the same tack director Milos Forman did in "Amadeus": The secrets in a great man's life are disclosed through the fissures of genius. Immortal Beloved has clearly been made by people who feel Beethoven directly in their hearts. If the accomplishments that inspire awe here are Beethoven's rather than Mr. Rose's, that's not surprising. Nor is it accidental: this film maker is so well attuned to his subject that he deliberately subjugates his imagery to the film's soundtrack. But Mr. Rose contributes a passionate enthusiasm for the music and an eagerness to fathom the forces that brought about its creation. At its best, his film almost brings those forces to life.

Set in 19th century Japan, Yojimbo tells the tale of a wandering samurai who arrives at a rural town that's been torn apart by daily massacres carried out by the two criminal gangs living on opposite sides. Sensing an opportunity to make some money as well as to free the town from daily oppression, he decides to play one side off against the other while the two rival bosses try to hire him as their bodyguard but his plan is soon complicated by the arrival of one of the gangsters' son, who wields a revolver. Directed by the legendary filmmaker, Akira Kurosawa, Yojimbo still hasn't aged a day & remains one of the most influential treasures of world cinema. Kurosawa's direction is absolutely top-notch, cinematography captures the plot events in sharp focus, editing paces the story excellently but it's Toshirô Mifune's bravura performance that makes this film such an emotionally-charged ride. There are also moments of well-timed humour plus the music makes its presence felt at the right moments too. On an overall scale, Yojimbo is a wonderfully crafted period drama that further elevates the craftsmanship of a master storyteller & benefits greatly from a strong, disciplined & impressive lead performance. It being still able to amaze & entertain even after having been imitated so many times is a testament to its greatness & ageless appeal and for the fine balance it presents over its drama, action & entertainment, Yojimbo is a must for cinema lovers around the world