No, but it will have to stop the consensus and the celebration of mediocrity. The cinema is great art, it is judged in the light of the large products, we continue to see films in seeking great works. And there, that is what is beautiful, true, authentic, unique?
Then agree, support the original: a part of the history of the Black Panther Party. But the genre of the biopic is by far the worst kind of Hollywood, the more difficult given that it has not given rise to no or very few masterpieces. Unfortunately, for this movie, you soak in the false, command of Uber.
First of all, the realization is non-existent. I was extremely shocked at the lack of style of the film. Everything is filmed with the same intensity: whether it be shooting, a reunion, a building burnt down, or dialogue, there is no relief. The mount is on-cuté for scenes or the sequence would have been, everything follows with the fader. But to the limit, to this, if it’s fishing, and that the rest is catching up… But then here, it was a really strange movie. Even the cause of it (the civil rights of African-Americans) is badly served. It is interchangeable. It could be another cause, other people who defend it, the same configuration elsewhere in the world it would have changed nothing to the story. Nothing is unique to share the real original.
And then why choose Judas as the main character? It is only used to bring an image archive and an end panel (it also, ever seen a biopic whouaouuuuu) who wants to give a moral to the film so that it never leads to anything really. Especially that Fred Hampton is much more interesting. So if one chooses to focus the story on the whistleblower, we ensure that the film reflects really the condition of this character, why he comes to work as long with the FBI, beyond the blackmail. And there, on one side, it speaks in the language of revolutionary, you want to learn more about the BPP, and on the other, it was the Judas who serves as the link between the scenes in the afros and the FBI. We never see his turmoil, his division, except for one where two scenes exist first to advance the narrative and then to develop a character trait.
But, once again, it is this invisibility that is the mother of all evils. What do we see in this film? At what point do we see life on the screen? The greatest example of this argument is the character played by Plemons (the guy from the FBI). He drools like how the BPP this is the bad guys, terrorists, etc., But if, as a viewer, I asked him to explain why they are bad guys, this character could not answer. They lack too much development, it is awful. Suddenly, the girlfriend of Hampton falls pregnant, we had a max of 5 minutes of scenes of couples. If the subject is too large to be filmed, focus on something smaller and made of a nice time, which is not only about the game of actors.
Ah yes, and the scene where the federal government told the employees that he has seen and that he could win an Oscar… Oh yes, dear ceremony… look at that I quote you! looks like I will tickle! Then!!? Oscar or no Oscar? I don’t know, use a BlaKKKlansman! It was out of the mouth and it is the film of our time! The realization gave dynamism, it had the originality to interfere in the bed of the white supremacist! It came out three years ago and I still have some scenes in mind! I do not see anything of this movie, I’ll forget even that I’ve seen in 10, 15 years ago, when I retomberai on this criticism. In any case, you have rewarded a command Uber that tick all the boxes (biopic, the time in American history, because -unfortunately – news, acting, its own but flat, realization pretty but non-existent) except those of cinema.
Leave a Reply