I can’t even remember when was the last time I wanted to like a movie as much as this one. On paper, it’s got many great things going for it – the cast is superb; I like Spike Lee‘s films and how political he can get. The story is also intriguing and (yet again) on paper should work. And to top it all off, one of the last roles for Chadwick Boseman. I still can’t believe he’s gone. What a talent, gone way too soon. So what went wrong? My personal opinion is, Spike just bit off more than he could chew.

Let’s start with the cast because I want to praise this film first. Everyone here is simply superb. As pointed out by many people who were cursing the Academy for not nominating him, Delroy Lindo is the standout amongst them all. That is saying something because, at first glance, I wasn’t too sure about his choices. He seemed so over the place for me. But the more layers you peeled of his character as the movie progressed, the more you understood why he’s going all in. There was no other choice. What his character has gone through, the burden he was carrying with him for the last almost 40 years… Once everything was revealed all cards were on the table, you couldn’t do much more than join the people who were cursing the Academy for not recognising him. I remember only one more snub from the recent history that always leaves me perplexed and angry – Amy Adams not being (at least!) nominated for Arrival (2016). What’s that, you say? I am wrong because for sure she must have been nominated? Go ahead and check for yourself. Anyway, back to Delroy. He managed to stand out in a sea of great actors and took some bold choices that paid off. Everybody else (and I could pretty much copy and paste every single actor in this film) was also superb in their way, but Delroy… he delivered a complex performance.

I also like the way Spike Lee shot this film. How characters would sometimes talk about someone, and there would be a picture of the real person on the screen. Or an event that took place that’s related to the story. But that’s not “news”. Meaning nobody will be surprised when Spike Lee’s films (or joints, as he calls them) are filmed in their unique way. That goes almost without a saying. But in this example, I wish he would focus more on the story.

And I think this is where the cookie crumbled for me – since we are following two timelines (past and the present), they should complement each other, right? They should feel like they belong, almost intertwined? Well, that didn’t happen. I wish we would have gotten more scenes with the “younger Bloods” in Vietnam, as every time it got interesting, we went back to the present. And the same way, the moment I got used to the present storyline and that got interesting, we shifted the focus again. The movie felt disjointed. This storyline structure isn’t anything new; it’s been used countless times before, and it works (mostly). But for some reason in here, it felt more disruptive than anything.

The other thing, and I want to make sure I word myself precisely here. The scenes from the Vietnam War; as much as I enjoyed them, I didn’t buy them. What I mean by that, I wasn’t transported in the ’70s. The movie failed to convince me we are in the past now. And I think it might have been the way those sequences were shot, but all I could see were actors playing their parts. Not the characters. Because those scenes were shot in this almost documentary-style, that yes feels unique, but every single time it managed to pull me out of the film completely. Maybe that was just my problem; I don’t know. But if a movie wants to take you back in time, and it fails to convince you that what you are seeing is happening in the past, something is wrong.

What I liked, even though it was a bit on the “predictable” side, was the underlying story about money (or, in this case, gold) corrupting everybody. And how everybody from the “Bloods” wanted to be exactly like Stormin’ Norman (Chadwick’s character), the guy, who’s got his shit sorted, he’s got a clear moral compass, ideals and ideas he is not willing to comprise. But the moment life/money gets in the way of that, almost everybody cracked. Again, even though it sounds predictable, I liked how that was executed. Part of it was Chadwick’s performance because he made it seem so easy.

Speaking about cast the, I was surprised and delighted to see Jean Reno in a movie like this. But then almost immediately got sad to see an actor of his calibre reduced to the “evil European with an accent” trope. Honestly, you get somebody like him in your movie, and you give his character almost nothing to do besides “be evil, be French and make sure you let everybody know how evil you are”. That seemed a bit wasteful. You can almost argue he wasn’t necessary for this film, his part could have been replaced by the gangsters, who are after “the Bloods” in the second half of this film, and nothing would have changed. That’s how unimportant and wasteful his character was. What a pity.

Overall, Da 5 Bloods is a wasted opportunity. The film is a bit too long; the scenes from the Vietnam War didn’t transport me there (therefore didn’t work for me, and they pulled me out of the movie), and Spike seems to be wanting to tell so much, he missed the basics. Just because something is complex doesn’t mean it’s better. Is it worth seeing this film? I would say yes, just for the cast alone and Delroy’s performance, that will go down in history as one of the biggest snubs we’ve had. But don’t expect too much. That is a shame, as I thought on paper, this couldn’t have failed. And, to give this movie some credit, it didn’t exactly fail. It just fell short of any movie you can think of that’s dealing with the Vietnam War.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

First things first – I didn’t grow up watching Fred Rogers in any way, as that character (of course I am referring to Mr Rogers) isn’t known at all in the “mighty” Czech Republic. And I haven’t seen the critically acclaimed documentary Won’t You Be My Neighbor? (2018) yet, but I have heard amazing things about it. To the point, I (as most movie lovers) started to ask, what is the point of having a movie about Mr Rogers right after this (apparently) lovely documentary was made so close to each other? I am glad to write there is a point, as this is not really about Mr Rogers. Even though he plays an important part in healing one man’s life.

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is more about Matthew Rhys‘s character and his complicated relationship with his father. When Matthew’s character has to interview Fred Rogers (as Mr Rogers is the only one who is willing to talk to him), he doesn’t trust him. And to be honest, I still can’t believe somebody like this truly existed. As it is mentioned in the movie, it’s hard to think somebody who didn’t seem to have a selfish bone in his body existed. And yet, the film does a great job to humanize his character through his wife (played by the great Maryann Plunkett), who at one point says: “You know, I’m not fond of that term. If you think of him as a saint, then his way of being is unattainable.” She was responding to Matthew’s character’s question: “So, how does it feel to be married to a living saint?” And this scene, to me, is the key to “unlocking” this entire movie.

Yes, it has Mr Rogers in it, and yes, he was an incredibly kind person. But he wasn’t a saint. Because we are all people, we all have bad days. And that’s fine. And from the little I have heard, read and seen of Mr Rogers, that is what he was all about. How to deal with problems, how to talk about issues that are hard to talk about. And this film translated that so well onto the screen you can almost feel the warmth through the TV set. Tom Hanks delivers what I thought was a great performance. It must have been hard to play somebody who was so known (at least in the USA) because those roles are hard to nail – if you give in too much into the character you are playing, people will shout: “This is almost parodying, there isn’t any new twist!” If you lean too little into the character, those same people will scream: “That’s nothing like he/she was!” What he did here was to me, nuanced enough where he convinced me. But again, I didn’t grow up watching him.

The movie also hit me way more than I’d imagined, as I also had to deal with my feelings towards my father. I won’t go into specifics; all I will say is this. If you are a more sensitive person, who has gone through something with your father, you might want to skip this until you deal with whatever you have going on first. I am not easily affected, so I was ok, but this movie definitely made me think about my feelings towards him and how everything is complex.

And I don’t think there is anything better I can say about this film than that. If a movie makes you re-evaluate your feelings or thoughts about something or someone that is a success. That is how we grow as people, by constantly thinking about our feelings, where certain negative feelings are coming from, and what we can do to be better. This movie is trying to remind you that kindness and love is the root of all. And as cheesy as that might sound, deep down, we all know the entire world could use more empathy and love. It’s hard to talk about these things and not sound like I am running for the Miss USA (what’s next, I want world peace too? I mean now, since you brought it up, it wouldn’t be ba… SHIT! Ok, just let me get my bikini I guess…)

There are two scenes that I will remember for a long time – the restaurant scene and the end scene. In the restaurant scene, Mr Rogers asks for a minute of silence, and suddenly everybody in the restaurant goes quiet. And on top of it, the scene finishes with Tom Hanks, aka Mr Rogers looking at us, the audience, as he would be staring directly into our souls. Then there is the end scene. I don’t want to spoil where it takes place, but it’s when Mr Rogers talks about death and how natural it is, even though it makes for an uncomfortable topic of conversation. How in the entire room of people, they were all thinking the same thing, and he was the only one willing to talk about the one thing everyone else was afraid to mention. And as a bonus, the very end scene with just Mr Rogers and the piano. The deafening sound of silence, followed by something alluded to earlier on in the movie. Showing us a peek behind the curtain of Fred Rogers himself, a few could see.

Overall, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood feels like a warm blanket. It is one of those films that will remind you how simple and at the same time difficult it is to live a happy, fulfilled life. But more than that, it reminds you to try and be better; be kinder to not only people around you but to yourself. And maybe, the most important reminder of all, it’s fine not to be ok. It’s fine to have bad days, to feel blue, as he puts it. If you feel like there is no hope in this world, put this movie on. It’s not some “biopic about Mr Rogers”. Think of this as more of a window into the soul of one man who was helped by Mr Rogers when he needed it the most. And it’s simply delightful.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

There is a lot that I can simply copy and paste from my review of the “original” Dune (1984, my review here). Well, I could only post the stuff I wrote regarding my experience with the story itself and how I’ve always heard about these books being so complex. Because, as you might expect, the movie versions differ a lot, quality-wise. But there is one thing both versions have in common – they have assured me that I need to read all the Dune books.

I won’t compare these movies “like for like”, as that would be like comparing Skoda 105 (my very first car) to Skoda Superb I have briefly driven due to it being my work car. Yes, technically, both should be comparable, as both have the same brand, but everything is so different given one car was made in the 70s/80s, and the other was 2020 make. There is no point in comparing. It wouldn’t be fair to either and would just waste my time and yours, so let’s talk about this version.

Dune is quite simply an epic masterpiece. Denis Villeneuve had an uphill battle from the very start. The moment he managed to make a name for himself with movies like Sicario (2015) or Arrival (2016), he made a sequel to one of the most classic sci-fi movies ever, Blade Runner (1982, my review here). And did it very well as Blade Runner 2049 (2017, my review here) smashed all the expectations and was a great film. But after doing that, he said he wanted to remake Dune. And so he did. I still remember thinking that even though I believed in him, I wished he would go to something original and not remake films that already exist. I am glad to say I was wrong, and he proved me wrong. Because he made this film in a way, there can’t be any discussion about the simple fact he was the one to film this unfilmable sci-fi.

It has everything trailers have promised you – talented cast, stunning visual effects, and mainly the movie feels epic. It has scope like not many movies, especially in recent years I remember. Every planet we explore in the film felt unique; the scenes from dessert felt like you were there. And the worms truly had the “awe” moment. That one scene where you understand how big these creatures can get. And I haven’t watched this in IMAX, as there is only one in Scotland, and I don’t think it would be wise to travel just now. But if there were one nearby, I would love to see this again, in IMAX.

I won’t lie, when I saw the runtime of almost three hours (155 minutes), I was a bit afraid of how well would this movie be paced and yet again, I forgot who I was dealing with here. Denis Villeneuve doesn’t make boring movies. The runtime was not only justified; it never once bothered me as there was always something happening on the screen. But don’t get me wrong, Dune isn’t some action-packed film, even though there are some great action sequences here. No, you are sucked into the world, into the story, the general “lore” of it so much, you wish it would be twice as long. And that made me think whether a movie approach for something as complex as this is the correct way to go.

Wouldn’t a TV show, where each season = one book, be much better? The technology is there now, and if Game of Thrones (2011 – 2019) proved anything, people would tune in if you give them a great story. No matter how complex it is or how many characters there are. If you make it intriguing enough, they will come. And subscribe to your streaming service, I guess. I am saying this as a person who thoroughly enjoyed this film. I wouldn’t be surprised if five or ten years from now, we would get this as a big-budget show.

Also, we need to mention the cast. I think that’s the only thing I would compare against the Dune from 1984. Minus the insanity of some performers (cough, Sting, cough), I would say that is the only thing both movies got right. I wasn’t too convinced with Timothée Chalamet in other films, but in this one, he fits right in. I thought he gave a very understated performance, where even though he is effectively the titular star, he is not the focus of the movie for the most part. As arguably, you get more time with Rebecca Ferguson and Oscar Isaac, playing his parents. And what a power couple. Rebecca yet again proves she is one of the leading ladies of the 2010s and beyond. Because her performance in this film just made me love her even more if that was even possible. The same could be said about Oscar “I am in every movie now, because I am that awesome” Isaac – we live in his era, where every time you see his name on the screen, you know that no matter the movie, he will always deliver. I have seen him in many films, and I have yet to see him fail. And something tells me he won’t. And together, they form a believable power couple, where he is the wise king who needs to have somebody on his level. It’s hard to talk about the rest of the cast, as most of today’s Hollywood stars are in this film, but I think you’d struggle to find a bad performance here. The only negative (from my point of view) is Zendaya being in the film for not even ten minutes. Yes, I wanted to see more of her. I understand her character will be more important in the already announced sequel (Dune: Part Two (2023)), but it was funny to see how many promos and trailers were focusing on her.

Overall, Dune was a massive risk to make, given the history with this property, given the complexity of the story, how many characters we need to keep track of, what house controls what etc. But somehow, Denis Villeneuve managed to succeed against all odds. And yes, I understand what I will write next might sound too pretentious, but I understand and agree with him when he said the studio might have killed his movie by making it available on HBO Max. Luckily we now know it’s not the case, but if there was a movie to see in the cinemas for its scope this year, it is this movie. There is something about the cinema truly enhancing your experience, and Dune is the prime example. If you can and feel safe to do so, go and see Dune in the cinemas. It is worth it.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke