Reviews by
Misunderstood Things
I feel like this will need a 2nd watch in order for me to get my thoughts fully sorted, but I will write a short little review for this 1st watch, for now. This is my second Yorgos film, the first being Bugonia, and right off the bat, I can say that I enjoyed this film much more overall compared to Bugonia, whose ending tarnished the entire film for me. I'll admit that I kept putting this film off due to the mainstream internet's reaction to it; I'll make to not make that same mistake again because holy shit, people can be prudes sometimes lmao. Emma Stone is incredible in this film as Bella Baxter, no fucking notes. Her acting, her movements, her speech, and her way of carrying herself are nothing short of remarkable . It truly comes off as her really having the brain of a baby in her mind. I cannot imagine her process in preparing for this role. She deserved that Best Actress Oscar, hands down. It was a perfect performance for such a uniquely challenging role. The interior shots were excellent, intriguing to examine, and very well-decorated, but dear lord, the exterior shots were so hard to look at. I am unsure if the CGI for some parts looked bad on purpose? Or if Tubi decided to flip me off and just made it look like shit, but it just looks cheap and gaudy for the most part. At least the Paris section didn't have this problem (or at the very least, I simply did not notice if it did or not), I think I would have gone insane if it did. Now to address the most controversial parts of this film: the various graphic sex scenes throughout it. In my opinion, I think people are overreacting to them being present and are confusing their personal dislike of watching sexual content as moral reasoning used to discourage others from watching the film. As someone who was very critical of Yorgos with Bugonia, I do not see any ill intent with the sex scenes, as they are not romanticized or glamourized (which is important considering her brain being that of an infant), they are shown in a realistic light. What I do think is reasonable to criticize is the framing of sex work being moreso portrayed as a liberating act for women. Don't get me wrong, the film does show it in a negative light, with Bella practically having little choice otherwise to earn money and her questioning why she and the other workers must have sex with men they do not find appealing just because the men want to, but it has more of a "two sides of the argument" approach rather than a firm pro-sex work or anti-sex work stance. I think how people view this depends on their own mindset, as the film holds space for both sides. Considering the entire film, it's worth seeing just for Emma Stone's performance alone, but also for the artistic direction and to open your mind to more unconventional films not interested in appealing to mainline audiences. I do not think making your mind up from reviews alone is a good tell for your enjoyment of the film or not. TLDR: If you're unsure about watching the film or not, just watch the damn film!
More like "Midlania"
After watching the documentary, I can say for certain that I learned nothing that I already knew about Melania Trump The title is Melania, but the documentary doesn't really focus on her. It's more-so about her duties as First Lady, specifically about planning the presidential inauguration. We learn nothing about her younger years, almost nothing about her first term as First Lady, or how she felt leaving the position after her first term. I'd say the deepest thing we learn about her is how the loss of her mother affected her, but even then, her true feelings still seem guarded. Even in a documentary entirely narrated by her, she still appears distant from the viewer. There is no attempt of connecting through the screen, which just leaves you feeling nothing by the end. She really likes fashion too, I guess; There was a lot of time dedicated to explaining her outfit choices and how she's meticulous in her language used when providing criticism for the designers The song choices were simply bizarre and seem to hold no deeper meaning except for "the First Lady likes these songs, so we're going to play them". The song lyrics are also aging like milk, with themes that only work to worsen Trump's involvement in various scandals and ultimately implicating him in a worse light, Allegedly During a certain point, the focus shifts away from her to focus more on Trump, which further worsens the distant feeling the documentary already had. We are not seeing Trump from Melania's point of view, instead we are placed in the point of view of the audience, the general public. This could have been used as a way to finally have some introspective on how Melania is feeling at the moment of Trump being sworn into the presidency, but instead that is all lost. The footage shown is identical to what was presented on news stations to the point where turning on Fox News might have been considered a documentary footage leak. Sure, there are some behind-the-scenes shots edited in between, but there is no underlying message or thoughts from Melania or anyone. It stops being a documentary centered around Melania and turns into yet another boast from Trump, loud and the center of attention without actually having anything meaningful to say The documentary could have been called "Planning the Inauguration" and very little would change. There is just nothing of meaning here, nothing exclusive that could have just been learned elsewhere. In refusing to be vulnerable, you isolate your audience further. In bragging about opulence, you lose relatability with an audience who will never be able to reach it in their lives. This documentary is devoid of feelings and is simply a bad attempt of making a propaganda piece for the average consumer, failing because the people who made it have no idea what the average consumer wants because they have never had to stoop down to that level. I'm sure MAGA will enjoy this because they already like Melania, not because it's actually a well-thought-through documentary
In the Name of the Tea, the Gossip, and the Holy Conclave
I need to make a list called "My Friends Won't Stop Recommending Me This Movie" to counteract my own on Letterboxd. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, this one was a good one. A great one even, an above average one if I may. I have never been particularly close to the Catholic church, as I was raised in a Christian household who in recent years has stopped going to church and even before, rarely went. However, this film was not only made for door-to-door knocking annoyances or your Catholic grandmother who goes to church everyday and insists everyone around her does the same, it was made with the sinner in mind, that being all of us. People who make mistakes, who doubt, whose faith wavers, whose guilt eats them up inside, and those who strive to be better despite the aforementioned. This is reflected in the Cardinals and their actions throughout the film. I will start with the positives: This film is an aesthetic masterpiece; to put it informally, it's a vibe. The color coordination, the scene framing, the setting, the Catholicistic aura of it all. As someone who has visited and toured the Vatican City, this film captured the energy of the place extremely well. All in all, the cinematography is just stellar. It is truly a mystery as to how or why Ralph Fiennes has not won an Oscar since his first nomination over 30 years ago. He was incredible in this movie and just like his previous roles, he was completely immersed into his character and the story. From his stoic nature while sequestering the Conclave to his quiet breakdown while sitting on the late Pope's bed (or rather, deathbed). It's a seemingly subtle performance that also commands the viewer's attention, giving you a character that you cannot seem to look away from. I hope that his next Oscar nomination will be the one to grant him his win. The ending reveal with the newly appointed Pope Innocent XIV, better known to us as Cardinal Benitez, may seem like a small scene to many, but it is a very powerful scene to me. As the majority knows, the Catholic church is very closely tied to tradition. Cardinal Tedesco may be framed as an extremist figure in the film, but I have met many people who share near-identical mindsets to his. The reveal of Benitez being born as an intersex man challenges the audience to rethink the ways they define sex assignment and if the innate sex of the individual really matters in the long run. Unfortunately, I do not think this is a perfect film. Following the positives with my criticisms: The overall plot of the story is fairly simple: Cardinals must vote on who will be the next Pope to lead their faith; simplicity is not necessarily a bad thing. However, the journey in-between point A and point B were not all that engaging for me. Yes, scandals were uncovered and possible Popes were removed from the candidate list, however I was not very engaged with these reveals, as I found them to be simplistic. Others will enjoy it, but it is simply not for me. Related to the previous point, the Cardinals revealed to be involved in various scandals are pretty shallow characters in the context of the film. Yes, they are shown to be controversial, but I know nothing about any of them as people in order to see their actions in a more nuanced light. For example, when Lawrence confronts Cardinal Adeyami about his previous sexual relationship with Sister Shanumi, he says "you are a good man" in order to comfort him, but the audience has no way of knowing if this is true or not. The only things we know about him are his former inappropriate relationship with a nun and that he wants to imprison homosexuals and see them in Hell afterward. I feel that an extra 30 minutes added to the film's runtime would have benefited its character exploration. This is a minor thing, but I am frustrated with the lack of explanation to explain Cardinal Lawrence's wavering in faith. Was there a specific thing that affected his commitment to God or was it something external that was affecting him? I guess we will never know because the film doesn't bother explaining it to us. Overall, Conclave is an informative, enjoyable, and thought-provoking watch to both Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Despite my issues with the films, I find that it has more to enjoy than flaws I found with it. While I wouldn't name it as one of the best films to watch from 2024 (I personally see Lisan al-Gaib as my Messiah, not Jesus), you would be better off watching it and seeing the magic of filmmaking combine with the uniqueness of Catholicism.
The Misintended Portrayal of Brent Renaud
Speaking from a technical aspect, this is a very well put-together documentary that truly shows the situations that Brent Renaud willingly experienced in order to show people the truth about what was happening. It is very clear that he was a good person with excellent character and we should recognize that, in addition to all the good he provided to humanity However, this documentary isn't about the "life and death of Brent Renaud", not really. Renaud's childhood is talked about, but overall it's more about the people and conflicts he filmed than about himself. Sure, this can be used as a way to show his selflessness and how in the end, the well-being of others mattered more to Renaud than his own, but it just gave me a bad taste in my mouth when there was so much footage of people in terrible situations: mothers grieving, child amputees, covered up corpses, orphaned children. It comes off as a braggadocious "look at how good of a person I am by showing the Real suffering on camera" statement, made worse by the fact that Renaud has the benefit of being simply a voice behind the camera. This was very much not Renaud's intention when he captured the footage, but it's how it came off to me when I watched the documentary TLDR: is it a good documentary? Yes. Could it have been a lot more sensible with the footage chosen throughout it? Also yes
