I confess that I fell for the hype. With that cast—Dakota Johnson, Pedro Pascal, and Chris Evans—and the chemistry they displayed in every interview, Materialists earned a spot on my “must-see” list. And yes, at first it entertained me... but it wasn't what I expected. It tries to talk about relationships, how we connect with money, power, or the need for stability, but it falls short. Still, there was something that kept me watching: the sincerity with which the characters show their desires (no matter how absurd or questionable they may be). Although, in the end... I could only say: “What was that?” and move on.

So, here I share my honest opinion about Materialists 🍂. It contains some SPOILERS, as they are necessary to develop accurate criticism. And, I warn you, that beautiful cast was not enough to make the movie to my liking ☹️🥀.

«¿Amor o dinero? ¿Dinero o amor?»

Confieso que caí en el hype😬 Con ese elenco -Dakota Johnson, Pedro Pascal y Chris Evans- y la química que mostraban en cada entrevista, Materialists se ganó un lugar en mi lista de "tengo que verla ya". Y sí, al principio me entretuvo... pero no fue lo que esperaba. Intenta hablar de relaciones, de cómo nos vinculamos con el dinero, el poder o la necesidad de estabilidad, pero se queda corta. Aun así, hubo algo que me mantuvo viéndola: la sinceridad con la que los personajes muestran sus deseos (por más absurdos o cuestionables que sean). Aunque, al final... solo pude decir: "¿Qué fue esto?", y pasar la página.

Así que, aquí les comparto mi sincera opinión acerca de Materialists 🍂 contiene algunos SPOILERS, dado que son necesarios para desarrollar críticas precisas. Y, les aviso, que ese bello cast no fue suficiente para que la película fuera de mi agrado☹️🥀

What is it about?

The story revolves around Lucy, a matchmaker in New York who works to pair people who have grown tired of the endless cycle of failed dates, taking it upon herself to find them the “perfect match” they so desire. During one of her clients' weddings, she meets Harry (Pedro Pascal), a cultured and wealthy man who is looking for a wife and sees Lucy as a good match. However, at that same party, she reunites with John (Chris Evans), an old love that didn't work out due to financial differences. From there, a story unfolds that is neither a traditional romantic comedy nor a love triangle as such, but rather a... reflection?—or at least an attempt at one—on love, money, appearances, and what we really seek in a relationship.

¿De qué trata?

La historia gira en torno a Lucy, una casamentera de New York que trabaja emparejando a personas que ya se cansaron del eterno ciclo de citas fallidas, encargándose de encontrarles ese "match perfecto" que tanto desean. Durante la boda de una de sus clientas, conoce a Harry (Pedro Pascal), un hombre culto y adinerado que busca una esposa y ve en Lucy un buen partido. Sin embargo, justo en esa misma fiesta, se reencuentra con John (Chris Evans), un viejo amor que no prosperó por diferencias económicas. A partir de ahí se teje una historia que no llega a ser una comedia romántica tradicional, ni un triángulo amoroso como tal, sino más bien una ¿reflexión? -o, al menos, buscar ser eso- sobre el amor, el dinero, las apariencias y lo que realmente buscamos en una relación.

I completely understand the main criticism this film has received. I don't know if it was the fault of the publicity or simply the general expectations conveyed through social media, but everyone —including me— thought Materialists was a romantic comedy. And it's not. There's much more drama than comedy. So it was a bit disappointing for me, as I love a good romcom. But... Pedro Pascal and Chris Evans sharing the screen, how could I not give it a chance?🫢 And, honestly, I don't like drama movies, I really only finished watching it for the sake of the actors. However, I wouldn't consider it a terrible movie (there are much worse ones out there); I wouldn't watch it again, and I wouldn't recommend it to everyone. It's more of what I would call a “situational” movie, meaning it's ideal for certain situations in life.

Entiendo perfectamente la principal crítica que ha recibido esta película. No sé si fue culpa de la propaganda o simplemente de las expectativas general que se transmitió a través de redes, pero todo el mundo -incluyéndome- creyó que Materialists era una comedia romántica. Y no lo es. Hay mucho más drama, que comedia. Así que fue un poco decepcionante para mí, que amo una buena romcom. Pero... Pedro Pascal y Chris Evans compartiendo pantalla, ¿cómo no darle una oportunidad?🫢 Y, sinceramente, no me gustan las películas de drama, realmente terminé de verla por amor a los actores. Sin embargo, tampoco la consideraría una película pésima (hay muchas peores por ahí); tampoco la volvería a ver, y no la recomendaría a todos. Es más de ese tipo de película que denominaría "situacional", es decir, ideal para ciertas situaciones de la vida.

Interestingly, I liked the characters... but separately. Lucy was interesting, I liked her honesty with herself —at least in the first part of the film— she doesn't hide behind a facade, she knows she's materialistic and says so openly. But her romantic decisions left me with a strange feeling. Both men who orbit her life —John and Harry— are valuable characters, each in their own way, and I feel that she doesn't really love either of them. They represent different desires: one is the excitement of a dream, and the other is the promise of stability. And although that logic fits with the title of the film, I didn't feel a connection between the characters. In fact, there was more chemistry between the actors in promotional interviews than on screen. And something that bothered me was that it's never explained why Lucy is so radical about money. It's not about justifying her position, but about understanding what led her to be so calculating about everything.

Los personajes, curiosamente, me gustaron... pero por separado. Lucy fue interesante, me gustó su honestidad consigo misma -al menos la primera parte de la película-: no se esconde tras una fachada, sabe que es una materialista y lo dice sin tapujos. Pero sus decisiones amorosas me dejaron con una sensación rara. Ambos hombres que orbitan su vida -John y Harry- son personajes valiosos, cada uno a su manera, y siento que ella no llega a amar realmente a ninguno. Son representaciones de deseos distintos: uno es la emoción de un sueño, y el otro la promesa de estabilidad. Y aunque esa lógica cuadra con el título de la película, no sentí conexión entre los personajes. De hecho, hubo más química entre los actores en entrevistas promocionales que dentro de la pantalla. Y algo que me hizo ruido fue que nunca se explica por qué Lucy es tan radical con el tema del dinero. No se trata de justificar su postura, sino de entender qué la llevó a ser tan calculadora con todo.

On the other hand, John (Chris Evans), that childhood sweetheart who refuses to give up his dream of becoming an actor, represents a nostalgia that never quite matures. It's okay to dream, but at 37, it's also important to have some direction in your life. His relationship with Lucy ended for real reasons —a lack of financial stability that she didn't want to repeat— and yet, after they reunite, he hopes to return to the relationship. And she also does several things that fuel that hope (even though she still doesn't like his lifestyle). Has anything changed? Not really. Returning to the relationship meant going back to the same place they were years ago. So I couldn't empathize with this love interest, even though I liked John's character.

And with Harry (Pedro Pascal), he was John's counterpart, representing that ideal of the «perfect man». But I had a hard time connecting with him. Lucy says, “You're too good to be true,” to which he replies, “I must have something bad about me.” But the film never delves into that. He's a flat character with no arc, no development, and no conflict. He's charming, yes, but he needed more depth to make sense within the story. I don't like it when a person is idealized.

Por otro lado, John (Chris Evans), ese amor de juventud que se rehúsa a dejar el sueño de ser actor, representa una nostalgia que no termina de madurar. Está bien soñar, pero a los 37 años también es importante tener algo de rumbo con respecto a tu vida. Su historia con Lucy terminó por razones reales -una falta de estabilidad económica que ella no quería repetir- y sin embargo, después de que se reencuentran, él tiene esperanzas de regresar a la relación. Y ella también realiza varias acciones que le alimentan dicha esperanza (a pesar de que no le sigue gustando el estilo de vida de él). ¿Hay algo que cambió? Realmente no. Volver a la relación, era volver al mismo lugar en que estaban años atrás. Entonces no pude empatizar con este interés amoroso, a pesar de que el personaje de John me cayó bien.

Y con Harry (Pedro Pascal), fue una contraparte de John, él representaba ese ideal de «hombre perfecto». Pero a mí me costó conectar con él. Lucy lo dice: "eres muy bueno para ser verdad", a lo que él responde: "algo malo debo tener". Pero la película nunca ahonda en eso. Es un personaje plano, que no tiene arco, ni desarrollo, ni conflicto. Es encantador, sí, pero necesitaba más profundidad para tener sentido dentro de la historia. No me agrada cuando se idealiza a una persona.

What I found least convincing about this story was the lack of internal consistency in the plot development.

Lucy spends the entire film proudly and loudly proclaiming that she wants to marry a rich man. She doesn't hide it or disguise it: she says it, repeats it, argues it. But when that man finally appears —Harry, who has it all— she doesn't choose him. Because now it turns out that no, what she always wanted was love. At what point is it even hinted that she is a romantic? Never. So why such a drastic change? I feel like they forced the cliché of «love conquers all» without really building it up. And it's not that it's wrong to change your mind, it's just that narratively, her decisions don't hold up.

This protagonist repeats that marriage is a contract, a business deal. But in the end, her big justification was: “Marriage is a business, but love must be part of the equation.” At what point did she show that she was genuinely in love with John? Throughout the story, neither of them grew, and she even rejected him when he had nothing, rejected him when she found him again, and suddenly... she always loved him. Sorry, but for me, that doesn't work. And I repeat: we all deserve a balance between love and economics, not to settle, but you can't build a story where the filters are supposedly “clear” from the start, and then destroy them without a logical evolution. I found it a rushed and dishonest ending for the plot itself.

Lo que menos me convenció de esta historia fue la falta de coherencia interna en el desarrollo de la trama.

Lucy pasa toda la película defendiendo, con orgullo y voz alta, que quiere casarse con un hombre rico. No lo esconde ni lo disfraza: lo dice, lo repite, lo argumenta. Pero cuando, finalmente, aparece ese hombre -Harry, que lo tiene todo-, no lo elige. Porque ahora resulta que no, que lo que siempre quiso era el amor. ¿En qué momento se insinúa siquiera que ella es una romántica? Nunca. Entonces, ¿a qué se debe ese cambio tan drástico? Siento que forzaron el cliché de «el amor lo puede todo» sin realmente haberlo construido. Y no es que esté mal cambiar de opinión, es que narrativamente sus decisiones no se sostiene.

Esta protagonista repite que el matrimonio es un contrato, un negocio. Pero al final, su gran justificación fue: "el matrimonio es un negocio, pero el amor debe estar en la ecuación". ¿En qué momento mostró estar genuinamente enamorada de John? Durante toda la historia no hubo crecimiento en ninguno de los dos, e incluso, ella lo rechaza cuando no tiene nada, lo rechaza cuando lo vuelve a encontrar, y de repente... siempre lo amó. Sorry, pero para mí, eso no funciona. Y repito: todos merecemos un equilibrio entre amor y economía, no conformarse, pero tampoco puedes construir una historia donde supuestamente los filtros son "claros" desde el inicio, y luego destruirlos sin una evolución lógica. Me pareció un cierre apresurado y poco honesto para la propia trama.

To conclude, I sincerely believe that this was the kind of story in which the protagonist should have ended up alone😬 Not because she doesn't deserve love, but because none of her romantic interests truly represented what she was looking for. And she wasn't what they needed either. But I'll share my thoughts on the film anyway, since the film itself didn't give us any:

With John, what remains is the classic saying «love doesn't last on an empty stomach»: you can love someone very much, but if you don't share a compatible vision of life—in terms of goals, stability, pace—love alone is not enough. And yes, that also includes money. It doesn't represent “everything,” but it is an important part. With Harry, on the other hand, we have the reflection that love is necessary, another important part of that “everything.” A relationship needs emotion, connection, a desire to share everyday life. It's no use having a lot of money if you feel trapped in a cage.

In my opinion, the film doesn't have an honest conclusion. We were given a supposed romantic comedy, which has no comedy, let alone romance. It's not a bad movie—I've seen worse—but the problem is that it was overly idealized and didn't meet the standards. It stays the same throughout, without emotion or reflection. Flat. And I consider that one of the most disappointing things in a movie: that it leaves you with nothing.

P.S.: I still love the three actors, they just didn't have a good script✨

Para concluir, les digo sinceramente que esta era el tipo de historia en la que la protagonista debió quedarse sola😬 No porque no merezca el amor, sino porque ninguno de los intereses románticos representaba realmente lo que ella buscaba. Y ella no era lo que ellos necesitaban. Pero igual les comparto mi reflexión de la película, dado que la película en sí no nos dio ninguna:

Con John, lo que queda es el dicho clásico de «amor con hambre no dura»: puedes querer mucho a alguien, pero si no comparten una visión de vida compatible -en metas, estabilidad, ritmo-, el amor por sí solo no basta. Y sí, eso también incluye el dinero. No representa el "todo", pero sí una parte importante. Con Harry, en cambio, tenemos la reflexión de que el amor es necesario, otra parte importante de ese "todo". Una relación necesita emoción, conexión, ganas de compartir el día a día. De nada sirve tener un montón de dinero, si te sientes atrapada en una jaula.

La película, a mi parecer, no tiene una conclusión honesta. Nos regalaron una supuesta comedia romántica, que no tiene comedia, y mucho menos romance. No es una mala película, he visto peores, el problema es que fue muy idealizada y no cubrió los estándares. Se mantiene siempre igual, sin emoción, sin reflexión. Plana. Y eso lo considero como una de las cosas más decepcionantes en una película: que no te deje nada.

PD: Sigo amando a los tres actores, simplemente no tuvieron un buen guión✨

I stared into space long after watching this film as I needed to process what I had just watched. I feel this is one of those movies put out there to deliberately enrage viewers. I’m not vegan but the animal cruelty in this film was really unnecessary. It would have done very fine without that scene.

Well, this is a slow burn horror film, one which I had to watch at 2x speed. It’s one of those films that left a chill in my chest. It’s actually not the kind of horror that screams or jumps at you. It’s the kind that sits you, makes you grit your teeth, the kind that enrages you.

It’s Original title is De uskyldige. It's set in a sleepy Norwegian apartment complex probably during the long days of summer.

The film follows a group of kids, Ida, Ben, Anna and Aisha who begin discovering strange powers among themselves. There’s telekinesis. Mind control. Emotional transfer. But I thought it was going to be fun and all until Ben made it sour and extremely disturbing.

This isn’t Stranger Things or Chronicle with its flashy suspense and big showdowns. This one is quieter, more psychological, and honestly more unsettling. The horror creeps in through moral ambiguity, casual violence and that eerie contrast between childish innocence and supernatural malice.

I would say the director did a decent job by lingering on silences, shadows, and long takes. There’s no background music that tries to manipulate or guide your emotional response. Just the natural sounds of kids playing, wind in the trees, distant traffic. That realism makes the moments of violence feel even more jarring.

It’s not a film that will linger long with you. The pacing is also too slow and demands patience. And it doesn’t explain everything. I found myself craving more clarity on why the kids had the powers they did and what it all meant. But honestly, I think the ambiguity makes it scarier. The unknown is part of the unease.

Would I recommend it? If you’re into subtle, disturbing, and psychologically sharp horror, absolutely yes. Just know what you’re getting into. It’s not about monsters. It’s about what children are capable of when no one’s really watching.

Rating? 3/5. PS: originally not in English. You’ll need subtitles to understand.

When the Nazis offered Fritz Lang the chance to direct propaganda films, he fled to the US that same night. His wife, Thea von Harbou, stayed... and joined the Nazi Party.

Metropolis, Fritz Lang's work, is a film that, almost a century after its release, continues to shock.

What makes it great?

Its dystopian vision, its social critique, and its masterful staging. That's why it's my second proposal for the series "Ten Films That Shook the World."

It's a classic not only for its influence, but also for its reflection on class struggle. When we see it for the first time, we think it's a museum piece or perhaps a gem of silent cinema. But it's much more than that, dear hivers of #cinetv.

This film has a prodigious ability to connect with today's viewers.

Fritz Lang (Vienna, 1890 – California, 1976) constructs a fascinating universe with this film. The monumental architecture, the choreography of the working masses, and the iconic figure of Maria, the automaton, are unforgettable images.

The production design, by Erich Kettelhut, Karl Vollbrecht, and Otto Hunte, is a true marvel of imagination. It masterfully combines industrial and art deco aesthetics, achieving a vision of modernity that is as fascinating as it is disturbing. Each frame becomes a work of art: impeccable geometric compositions that reinforce the atmosphere of dehumanized control and alienation.

However, where Lang's film truly reaches its full potential is in its capacity to shock. The shift change sequence, with the workers marching like automatons, or the vision of "Moloch," the machine that devours the workers, are moments of unsurpassed visual and emotional intensity. The horror of work, the dehumanization of the human being reduced to a cog, is a recurring theme in the film, and Lang addresses it with a rawness that rivals even more modern works.

The opening shot of Metropolis says it all: a succession of gigantic gears moving in unison, pistons rising and falling like hearts of steel, workers marching in perfect rows toward the factories. They are not men, they are extensions of the machine. Fritz Lang filmed this in 1927, but it could just as easily have been made today. Therein lies its greatness: Metropolis didn't predict the future, it diagnosed it. Every image, every sequence, is our own reality, and it hurts because we still haven't learned the lesson.

The film divides the world in two: above, the city of the masters, with its hanging gardens and towers that pierce the clouds. Below, the catacombs where the workers live, ghosts that keep the rich's utopia running.

Young Freder, son of the master of Metropolis, discovers this hell when he follows Maria, a woman who preaches peace to the oppressed. What he sees marks him forever: men turned into numbers, machines that devour lives, children growing up in the rusty pipes. The scene where a worker collapses from exhaustion and is sucked into the gears remains one of the most brutal ever filmed. There's no blood, but the horror is palpable.

Maria is the soul of the film. In the catacombs, surrounded by starving children, she tells the story of the Tower of Babel: how those who built it ended up not understanding each other. Her message is one of hope, but power does not tolerate dissenting voices. Joh Fredersen, Freder's father, orders the creation of a robotic copy of Maria to manipulate the masses. What follows is pure nightmare: the robot Maria dances half-naked before the rich, inciting sin, while sowing hatred in the poor neighborhoods. The scene where the robot comes to life, surrounded by electricity, its metallic body shining beneath a fake skin, is one of the most iconic moments in cinema.

Chaos erupts when the workers, tricked by the robot, destroy the machines that enslave them. But their rebellion brings them to the brink of infanticide: unwittingly, they flood the slums where their children are.

Lang films this like a biblical tragedy: the water rises, the children cry, the mothers scream. Freder and the real Maria fight against the human tide, but the damage is already done. It is here that the film reaches its emotional climax: not in the action, but in the despair of those who realize they have been manipulated into self-destruction.

The ending, with its message of reconciliation between hands and brains mediated by the heart, seems like an easy consolation. But Lang's genius lies in the ambiguity: has anything really changed? The workers return to their machines, the rich remain in their towers, and Freder becomes a symbolic bridge. The power structure remains intact. This is why Metropolis remains relevant: it offers no solutions, it only shows the abyss.

Technically, the film was a miracle. The robot special effects, the monumental sets, the use of shadow and light—everything was groundbreaking. Lang built an entire city in the studio, with miniature skyscrapers and thousands of extras. The result is a work that feels alive and organic, despite its mechanical subject matter. The Tower of Babel sequence, animated with pioneering techniques, remains dazzling.

More than a film, Metropolis is a modern myth. It speaks to the alienation of labor, the gap between rich and poor, and how technology can oppress rather than liberate. Its images have influenced everything from Blade Runner to Black Mirror. But its true power lies in how it confronts us with uncomfortable questions: Are we freer than those workers? Or have we simply traded steel chains for algorithms?

Ninety-seven years later, Metropolis continues to shock us because, deep down, we all live in it.

The German film production company UFA spent 5 million marks on this film, equivalent to about $200 million today, and nearly went bankrupt. Lang filmed for 16 months, using 37,000 extras, including children with shaved heads to simulate worker baldness.

It was worth it.

MY RATING

• Technical Innovation: ★★★★★ (Invented cyberpunk decades before the term).
• Narrative: ★★★☆☆ (Symbolic but schematic; the missing original editing hinders its fluidity).
• Performances: ★★★★☆ (Helm is electrifying; Fröhlich is excessive but moving).
• Legacy: ★★★★★ (It influenced everything from Star Wars to Blade Runner 2049). FINAL SCORE: 9.5/10 – A cathedral of cinema that still looks back at us from the future.

Cuando los nazis le ofrecieron a Fritz Lang dirigir cine propagandístico, huyó a EE.UU. esa misma noche. Su esposa, Thea von Harbou, se quedó... y se unió al partido nazi.

Metrópolis, la obra de Fritz Lang, es una película que, a casi un siglo de su estreno, sigue conmocionando.

¿Qué la hace grande?

Su visión distópica, su crítica social y su magistral puesta en escena. Por eso es mi segunda propuesta para el ciclo "Diez películas que estremecieron al mundo".

Es un clásico no solo por su influencia, sino por reflexión sobre la lucha de clases. Cuando la vemos por primera vez pensamos que es una pieza de museo o quizás una joya del cine silente. Pero es mucho más que eso querido hivers de #cinetv

Esta película tiene una capacidad prodigiosa para conectar con el espectador de hoy.

Fritz Lang (Viena, 1890-California 1976), con con esta cinta construye un universo fascinante. La arquitectura monumental, la coreografía de las masas obreras, la figura icónica de Maria, la autómata, son imágenes grabadas inolvidables.

El diseño de producción, obra de Erich Kettelhut, Karl Vollbrecht y Otto Hunte, es un auténtico prodigio de imaginación. Combina con maestría la estética industrial y el art déco, logrando una visión de la modernidad tan fascinante como inquietante. Cada fotograma se convierte en una obra de arte: composiciones geométricas impecables que refuerzan la atmósfera de control deshumanizado y alienación.

Sin embargo, donde la película de Lang adquiere su verdadera dimensión es en su capacidad para estremecer. La secuencia del cambio de turno, con los obreros desfilando como autómatas, o la visión del "Moloch", la máquina que devora a los trabajadores, son momentos de una intensidad visual y emocional insuperables. El horror del trabajo, la deshumanización del ser humano reducido a un engranaje, es un tema recurrente en la película, y Lang lo aborda con una crudeza que no tiene nada que envidiar a las obras más modernas.

El primer plano de Metrópolis lo dice todo: una sucesión de engranajes gigantescos moviéndose al unísono, pistones que suben y bajan como corazones de acero, obreros marchando en filas perfectas hacia las fábricas. No son hombres, son extensiones de la máquina. Fritz Lang filmó esto en 1927, pero bien podría ser hoy. Ahí radica su grandeza: Metrópolis no predijo el futuro, lo diagnosticó. Cada imagen, cada secuencia, es nuestra propia realidad, y duele porque seguimos sin aprender la lección.

La película divide el mundo en dos: arriba, la ciudad de los amos, con sus jardines colgantes y torres que rasgan las nubes. Abajo, las catacumbas donde viven los obreros, fantasmas que mantienen en funcionamiento la utopía de los ricos.

El joven Freder, hijo del amo de Metrópolis, descubre este infierno cuando sigue a María, una mujer que predica paz entre los oprimidos. Lo que ve lo marca para siempre: hombres convertidos en números, máquinas que devoran vidas, niños que crecen en las tuberías oxidadas. La escena donde un obrero colapsa agotado y es absorbido por los engranajes sigue siendo una de las más brutales jamás filmadas. No hay sangre, pero el horror es palpable.

María es el alma de la película. En las catacumbas, rodeada de niños hambrientos, cuenta la historia de la Torre de Babel: cómo los mismos que la construyeron terminaron sin entenderse. Su mensaje es de esperanza, pero el poder no tolera voces disidentes. Joh Fredersen, el padre de Freder, ordena crear una copia robótica de María para manipular a las masas. Lo que sigue es pura pesadilla: el robot-María baila semidesnuda ante los ricos, incitando al pecado, mientras en los barrios pobres siembra el odio. La escena donde el robot cobra vida, rodeada de electricidad, con su cuerpo metálico brillando bajo una piel falsa, es uno de los momentos más icónicos del cine.

El caos estalla cuando los obreros, engañados por el robot, destruyen las máquinas que los esclavizan. Pero su rebelión los lleva al borde del infanticidio: sin darse cuenta, inundan los barrios bajos donde están sus hijos.

Lang filma esto como una tragedia bíblica: el agua sube, los niños lloran, las madres gritan. Freder y la verdadera María luchan contra la marea humana, pero el daño ya está hecho. Es aquí donde la película alcanza su clímax emocional: no en la acción, sino en la desesperación de quienes se dan cuenta de que han sido manipulados para destruirse a sí mismos.

El final, con su mensaje de reconciliación entre manos y cerebro mediados por el corazón, parece un consuelo fácil. Pero la genialidad de Lang está en la ambigüedad: ¿realmente cambió algo? Los obreros regresan a sus máquinas, los ricos siguen en sus torres, y Freder se convierte en un puente simbólico. La estructura de poder permanece intacta. Esta es la razón por la que Metrópolis sigue vigente: no ofrece soluciones, solo muestra el abismo.

Técnicamente, la película fue un milagro. Los efectos especiales del robot, los escenarios monumentales, el uso de la sombra y la luz: todo fue innovador. Lang construyó una ciudad completa en estudio, con rascacielos en miniatura y miles de extras. El resultado es una obra que se siente viva, orgánica, a pesar de su temática mecánica. La secuencia de la torre de Babel, animada con técnicas pioneras, sigue siendo deslumbrante.

Más que una película, Metrópolis es un mito moderno. Habla de la alienación laboral, de la brecha entre ricos y pobres, de cómo la tecnología puede oprimir en lugar de liberar. Sus imágenes han influenciado todo, desde Blade Runner hasta Black Mirror. Pero su verdadero poder está en cómo nos confronta con preguntas incómodas: ¿Somos más libres que esos obreros? ¿O solo hemos cambiado las cadenas de acero por algoritmos?

Noventa y siete años después, Metrópolis sigue estremeciendo porque, en el fondo, todos vivimos en ella.

La UFA productora de cine alemana gastó en esta película 5 millones de marcos, equivalente a unos $200 millones actuales, y casi se arruinó. Lang filmó durante 16 meses, usando 37,000 extras, incluidos niños con cabezas rapadas para simular calvicie obrera.

Valió la pena.

MI CLASIFICACIÓN

• Innovación técnica: ★★★★★ (Inventó el cyberpunk décadas antes del término).
• Narrativa: ★★★☆☆ (Simbólica pero esquemática; el montaje original perdido lastra su fluidez).
• Actuaciones: ★★★★☆ (Helm es electrizante; Fröhlich, excesivo pero conmovedor).
• Legado: ★★★★★ (Influenció desde Star Wars hasta Blade Runner 2049).
  PUNTUACIÓN FINAL: 9.5/10 – Una catedral del cine que aún hoy nos mira desde el futuro.

Hello movie lovers,

Trust your day is going well and your week amazing as well. I’m equally enjoying my day as usual because why not.

source

These days, I seem to have so much time for exploring different movies and I’m having some real fun doing that. Today, I wish to share with you a review of this drama series I discovered days ago and managed to binge it all in just a day. If I loved it, I’m sure you will too. So let’s get right into it!

---

THE PLOT

- - - This series explores a side of the Roman Empire that never we got to the books. We’ve all heard stories about the grand rising of the Roman Empire but actually, we didn’t get the full story.

This show is actually not based on real life occurrences but some characters are said to have existed and real life. We all know ancient Rome for their way of entertaining their people. In ancient Rome, then Emperor Vespasianus who had managed to make his way up the crural seat amidst all the chaos was nearing his death and of his two sons, Titus and Domitian Vespasianus, he had to choose one to take after him when he is no more.

But, his two sons both had their lives. His eldest, Titus was a warrior who lay in bed the Jewish queen and all Roman’s who knew of this were against the relationship. His youngest, Domitian was gay and a huge gambler. He would steal from the empire and use it to be with all the betting houses in the city for every game hoping to make enough to pay back the memory he supposedly borrowed.

On the other hand, we have Tenax, a man who rose from the lowest ranks in Rome making his way up to the top. He owns one of the largest betting Taverns in Rome and with the help of his close friend Scorpus, who was a horse man, he was on his way to accumulate enough money to start his own faction in addition to the four already existing factions of Rome.

Then, we have Cala, an African woman doing business away from Rome in order to take care of her three children, Kwame, Aura and Jula. But their lives change when Aura kills a guard from Rome to protect her junior sister Jula. When the other guards find out what happen, they take Jula and Aura with them to Rome to be sold as slaves. Their mother Cala finds out and also makes her way to Rome in her quest to buy back their freedom. But little did she know that her eldest Kwame would also be in Rome with a business man selling of animals caught from their hunting.

The lives of all these people somehow get intertwined in time with Cala and Aura working for Tenax in his betting center, Kwame becoming baba Gladiator, Aura also working for Tenax but from the home of a faction leader Consul Marsus. Tenax on the other hand is hell bent on rising to the top and that could only happen if he helped Domitian Kill his brother , Titus after their fathers death so he could rise to emperor and make him the Eadile Ludi which was one step away from being emperor.

Would these slaves gain their freedom at the end of the day or would Rome change them into people they don’t let recognize. Would those also seeking power make it to the top and at what cost? You’d have to find out!

---

MY THOUGHTS AND RATING.

- - - I’d rate this show an 8/10 because it was a great show, one of the best I have seen this month. First of all, the graphics were amazing and even though I know most of the things are fake, they looked so real.

The characters were amazing and played their parts very will and plot, excellent. I don’t know what I could really have asked for in this show because everything was just on point. I probably would see it again in the coming days when I’m bored.

If I’m to recommend a show to anyone out there, this would be it!

---

Hey there, people!!! I hope everyone is doing great. This time we are back with another movie from A24, a movie studio that got me hooked the first time when I saw Green Knight and motivated me to see more of their productions with Civil War. This is kind of like a mini section that I haven't given a name as such yet, but basically I'll be reviewing or analyzing film from certain studios, some sagas and some directors. In the same line of A24, it was Past Lives' turn. As always, this review will have spoilers so keep reading at your own discretion, I warned you.

First things first, and the first thing is to know what Past Lives is about. The film puts us in the shoes of Nora and Hae Sung, two great childhood friends who have to separate when Nora's parents move from South Korea. Decades later these friends re-establish communication and will have to face destiny, love and the difficult decisions that characterize so much of what we call life.

From what I was reading, Past Lives is also a kind of biography of the director Celine Song. This movie deals with very, very interesting topics such as reincarnations, important decisions in our lives where there is no turning back and everything that could have been in another life. Watching Past Lives reminded me a lot of Your Name, a Japanese animated film that touches on the theme of the red thread and the connections between two souls destined to be together, only this one there is no “happy ending” for our protagonist but the one they needed.

Past Lives is a romantic story about what could have been and was not, what could have happened in another life if the necessary conditions were met for two people to be together, here we see how despite their reunions do not end in anything but the closing of a cycle for both. Nora and Hae Sung, two friends who live with the memory of the people they were 12 or 24 years ago, the fact of seeing how they meet again after so many years and you can feel in the air that maybe they still feel something for each other makes the theme of reincarnations a little more credible.

The film deals a lot with the theme of In-Yun which means destiny or providence, especially in the context of romantic relationships it refers to the invisible connection that binds two people destined to meet in their future lives, suggesting that current relationships have been occurring from past lives. In the film this concept is introduced by Nora when she meets Arthur at the artists' residence but at a certain point we are given to understand that this concept, or belief, is not only limited to relationships between couples as Hae Sung tells Arthur at the bar that they are also part of an In-Yun.

The film takes its time, it is engrossed in showing what the relationship between Nora and Hae Sung is like over those 24 years and how maybe, just maybe, they did have the opportunity to be together only they didn't take on the challenges that this presented, after all one of them had to give up some aspirations of things they wanted to do. The film presents a lot of silence, where only the scenes and the walks speak for themselves, it is a film capable of conveying a lot in a few words at crucial moments.

It is not a boring movie or anything like that, I think that if you pay enough attention you can realize many things that the film wants to convey that yes, if you went through a situation of this style or you are currently, believe me that the film will hurt a little, because it manages to put you in the shoes of both protagonists and even you question your past relationships. Undoubtedly, a great job by Celine Song.

I recommend watching Past Lives, it is quite an experience and you get to see certain things in retrospect, I like to call it “The movie that could have been and wasn't”. A plot that entertains, that manages to present how in the end two people end up being able to close a cycle that had been asking for a while, speaking in terms of the story. Without more to add, that was my opinion about Past Lives, I invite you to leave yours at the bottom so we can exchange ideas about this emotional story. Thanks for making it this far, I'll meet you in a future opportunity :)