Around June or July, I started to hear excellent things about Past Lives, but as with some smaller films, it takes a while for them to be released in the UK cinemas if they even get a cinema release. But luckily, this one finally got one, and I was able to catch it. Nothing about this movie is “instant”. Past Lives is a slow-paced film; it talks about this “what if” idea we have seen in the last couple of years a lot, and it does it all very deliberately. It’s one of those “mood films” where you must let it go under your skin, need to accept its tempo, and then you will enjoy it. And it 100% deserves to be enjoyed, seen and celebrated. The more I thought about this film after it was finished, the more I loved it.

The biggest strength of Past Lives is its self-awareness. Celine Song understands that the audiences in 2023 have seen many “what if” or “multiverse concept” movies, as that’s the main theme of this one as well, the idea of what would happen if Nora (Greta Lee) stayed in Korea, whether she would stay with her childhood love (Teo Yoo). Where the self-awareness kicks in is this is a “what if” movie on a small budget, so don’t expect anything “fancy”. No; instead, it gives you brilliant characters with actual depth. There is a scene in the bedroom around halfway through the film where Nora talks to her husband (John Magaro), and that scene helped me understand and, to a certain level, unlock this film. Because there are no villains in Past Lives, you may think you know where this is going, but the film is smart enough to flash out all its characters, so there are just… people. I soon started to realise how easy it would have been to tell this story in an easier, likeable way, you know the drill, the husband doesn’t love her or is not attentive, etc., but this film doesn’t do that. It asks you to take a step back, gives you the scenario, lets you decide how you feel about this situation and asks you what you would do.

Another point I loved about this movie is how it will mean so much to people like me, who emigrated in their lives and left everything behind. I am sure I am not the first or last person to stop and think about my life and how it would look like had I stayed in my home country. What made it even more relatable is that I find myself in the same boat as Nora; I like my life now, I made something of myself, have friends and a long-term girlfriend and yet… You can’t escape those “what if” thoughts when talking to friends and family you left behind. Many people quote a few different lines from this film, but the one that stuck with me, I haven’t seen anyone else use it yet. I believe it was Nora talking to her husband: “For him, I am the one who left. For you, I am the one who stayed.” I am paraphrasing here because I can’t remember, but it was something to that extent and… Yep, these two simple sentences carry so much weight and meaning. No matter what you do after you emigrate and settle somewhere else, to some, you will always be the one who left them.

But most importantly, this is a “mood film”. I can’t stress this enough, you need to let it flow and get into that flow. Past Lives is not a film that will dazzle you with CGI, huge names or a concept you have never seen. It takes its time to tell you this unique story that is easily relatable to many people, and if you let it, it will reward you, in the end. You just need to play by its rules; there is nothing “big” in this film. It’s a quiet, reflective, humane drama about people, and that is the big idea here. It does that so well, and you will struggle to find a movie that feels so earnest.

I briefly mentioned them, but I need to compliment the main three actors (Greta Lee, Teo Yoo and John Magaro) as they were excellent in their roles. All three can tell/act so much by just looking at the other person. Many of the movie’s best moments happened with little to no dialogue; you simply feel the connection between our protagonists. I must also mention Celine Song again, the writer and director for whom this is her feature debut. And what a strong debut this is. Celine understands what each scene needs when to pull back and say a lot by not saying anything, and she shot the film masterfully. I can’t wait to see what she has for us next, and I hope this movie will unlock many doors for her career.

Overall, Past Lives is one of the best movies of 2023, hands down. It’s a film that asks you to be patient with it as nothing here happens “instantly”. But it rewards you for your patience with a beautifully earnest human story about people who found themselves in this strange situation. I loved everything about this movie, and the further away I am from it, the more I love it because I keep thinking about it with different scenes and pieces of dialogue going through my mind. I can’t recommend it enough especially if you have emigrated before and managed to find a “new life”; this movie will resonate with you on a much deeper level.

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

Until next time,

Luke

When you are on almost a 14-hour flight, you try to get some sleep. And when, several hours later, you are all broken up because sleeping on the plane is as uncomfortable as it ever was, you try to watch some movies to help you take your mind off it. I was in that situation a few days ago and didn’t want to watch something “heavy”; I was just looking for a comedy I hadn’t seen yet. And Instant Family caught my attention as I have seen the poster before, but I don’t remember hearing about this movie too much. But it has Rose Byrne, Octavia Spencer, Isabela Merced and Margo Martindale, so surely it will at least be decent, right? Despite the presence of Mark Wahlberg, whom I don’t hate, I don’t really care for, I hoped for something good. And what I got was… excellent?!

This film starts like your stereotypical comedy. We have the sexy power couple (Byrne and Walhberg), who have everything they could want except for kids. So they decide to adopt some. And this was the first surprise, how much time the film spent showing us how the foster process isn’t as easy and how much you must do to get some kids into your care. Where many films would show us a montage supercut of that, Instant Family spends decent enough time on this portion of the film.

And then we finally meet the kids, played by Gustavo Escobar, Julianna Gamiz, and, the aforementioned, Isabela Merced. If you watch some “family comedies”, you know that more often than not, the kids might be cute, but they aren’t the best actors and can get annoying very quickly. But Instant Family won the lottery with these three, as each kid’s personality is different enough that it never gets stale. They all have delivered great performances, but most importantly, they always behaved like kids. Many times, movies (and TV shows) have a kid character that talks and acts like an adult because that’s easier to write. This film gives each of these kids their persona; each goes through a believable growth, and that’s what makes them getting closer to their foster parents so charming. You believe them when the kids either hate them or are not sure about them, and when the movie progresses, you also accept that these kids would farm up to them, and it never feels forced. All three were natural and had great chemistry amongst themselves and with their foster parents.

I have seen a quite few movies with Rose Byrne to make this claim – she might just be one of the most underrated and underused actresses of our time. No matter the film, she always delivers; no matter her scene partner, she elevates their work and does it effortlessly. It’s her and her relationship with all these kids (but mainly with Isabela) that’s the heart of this film, and if their mother-daughter chemistry didn’t work, this movie would have felt off. But they both delivered. Also, this movie might have cracked the formula regarding Wahlberg being an okay actor simply; surround him with better actors, and he won’t be as bad! 😉 On a more serious note, I thought Mark did fine in this role; he was funny and charismatic, and his bond, particularly with Gustavo’s character, worked. I never thought I would write this, but his chemistry with Rose Byrne worked much better than expected.

Here is the thing, I don’t cry during films (often). It only happened twice so far, the first time being Coco (2017) and the second CODA (2021, my review here). I don’t know whether it was because I was still tired or whether Instant Family was that great, but it almost made me cry on the plane. When the emotional beats hit, they hit hard and feel authentic. I would imagine it would partly be because the director and one of the writers of this film, Sean Anders, made this movie because he went through this situation and adopted three children. Maybe that is why those emotional moments never felt cheap to me; perhaps because of that, I enjoyed this movie much more than I had expected. I had a blast. I laughed a lot; I almost cried three times, and that should count for something. When a movie can elicit such a strong reaction (again, it’s unique for me to cry at films), I must give it the highest rating because I would be a hypocrite. Also, Character Actress Margot Martindale is that cool, loving grandma everyone would want to have.

Overall, Instant Family delivered much more than I expected. I went in anticipating a fine family comedy and left almost crying, but despite that, still in a great mood. This movie felt like a warm blanket on a cold Sunday afternoon. I never thought I would say this, but I love this movie. It shows the whole foster process whilst also presenting us with the perspective of the kids and the parents, making us understand all their characters. The heart of this film lies with Rose Byrne and Isabela Merced, who carry this movie alongside everyone else. If you want to watch something lighter with a big heart, Instant Family is the perfect choice.

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

Until next time,

Luke

This movie is the perfect example of how little you should trust the overused tagline of “inspired by a true event”. If you just go to IMDb’s trivia page, you will quickly discover how “uneventful” the true story was and how much heavy lifting the word “inspired” does in that sentence. Long story short, yes, there was a drug smuggler who dumped some cocaine out of a plane and died during it. And yes, some of the cocaine ended up getting eaten by a bear, but… He didn’t go on any drug-induced rampage; he simply died by overdosing, presumably within minutes. But see, this is why I love Hollywood because somebody reads about this and says to themselves: “Yeah, but… what if he didn’t die though?” And thus, the Cocaine Bear was born.

From the first trailers, it seemed like Cocaine Bear would be one of those B movies that give you precisely what it promised – a bear who did a lot of cocaine and went on a killing spree. And if you were to summarize this film, that’s honestly it. But, to my surprise, there was much more to chew on. From the casting to the directing, I thought everything was well done, and this movie surprised me a bunch.

I think the biggest surprise was the direction. This is Elizabeth Banks‘ third movie. After an underwhelming Pitch Perfect 2 (2015) and decent but ultimately faulty Charlie’s Angels (2019, my review here), I was worried that she might be one of those artists trying to do everything but end up not doing anything well. You know the old saying, “Jack of all trades, master of none.” But, funnily enough, it was Cocaine Bear who convinced me that she had something going for her, as she managed to blend a few different stories quite well; she understood the pacing and how long this film needed to be, and it seemed talented people want to work with her. As weird as it sounds, I am much more excited about her next project because of her directing a movie about a bear that did cocaine.

When we talk about the cast, where do you start? From legends like Ray Liotta (for whom this is his last film, may he rest in peace) and Margo Martindale (aka Character Actress Margo Martindale) to Isiah Whitlock Jr., O’Shea Jackson Jr., Alden Ehrenreich, Jesse Tyler Ferguson and in the leading role, Keri Russell. They each have vastly different roles to play, but more importantly, each character has a unique quirk that makes this movie much more believable. Many movies struggle with this, as they drop us into a situation where we should feel like this is just another day for these characters. Cocaine Bear succeeded in that regard, and it was due to these quirks (like Isiah’s love for dogs but not being sure about the one he’s gotten now, Aiden’s trying to get over his ex etc.), that this movie felt real.

Also, this movie has two child actors who did a great job. Brooklynn Prince and Christian Convery managed to nail their roles. In many other films, we would almost be rooting for the bear to eat those annoying kids already. It’s an unfortunate truth that most child actors are not that great, but you don’t want to criticise them too much because they are children. But in this movie, both not only nailed their roles, but Henry (Christian’s character) was my favourite character in this film. Especially the scene where he pretends to know how to do cocaine and, in the aftermath of that scene, how he acts high… that was comedic gold. I hope he’s got a bright future ahead of him because I feel like he’s got some chops and talent.

The only thing I could critique this movie for is that towards the end, it became more predictable than I think was necessary, and how our characters meet it didn’t flow as naturally as what happened before. Also, some characters are paper thin with no work put into them, and they just do things because it says so in the script. Case in point, Ayoola Smart‘s character Reba flips sides whenever the script needs her to without us understanding why or where she stands… Maybe there was a longer cut of this film involving more scenes with her? But again, how much character work do you really need in a movie called Cocaine Bear?

Overall, Cocaine Bear is a fascinating case study of many things. It shows us how much “inspired by a true event” can be overexaggerated and reminds us that some people take time to hit their stride (like Elizabeth), and we should allow them to find it. I had a lot of fun with this movie and was impressed with the packed casting, with both kids and, honestly… For a film with such a thin premise, it worked much better than it had any right to. I would recommend it to anybody looking for a great B movie.

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

Until next time,

Luke

When Renfield came out earlier this year, I remember seeing people raving about how great it is and many others how bad it is. Needless to say, I was intrigued. Plus, from only watching a few sneak peeks but never a “proper trailer”, I had little to nothing spoiled for me. Also, by pure coincidence, I watched the original Dracula (1931) a few weeks ago and loved it. And it could be because I watched the original movie pretty recently that I enjoyed Renfield.

Let’s actually start there with how Renfield pays homage to the original film by linking them together, inserting Nicholas Hoult and Nicolas Cage into the original movie. Usually, I am against retconning, but in this case, they actually did it well, so I didn’t mind because the filmmakers didn’t do it to say: “Well, in our version, the original film happened like this, so that’s what you will watch now.” No, they actually recreate a few scenes from the original film, and then they build on that with Renfield, imagining how those two would have worked some 90+ years later. And this is the only retconning I can get behind, not the other: “Well, actually, this is what you didn’t see last time… only so our latest movie made some sense.”

In a twist, the movie is a gory comedy about Renfield and Dracula having this unhealthy co-dependant relationship, and it gets so bad that Renfield (Nicholas Hoult) visits a self-help group where we see him slowly building up his courage to leave this “unusual” relationship. What I liked about this idea is… well, pretty much everything. I thought it was a clever twist to portray Dracula with his henchman, but instead of the grateful servant, he just wants to be left alone after the years of service where he saw suffering and blood and received nothing but abuse from his Master.

This is where we must talk about the casting of the two “Nics” with different spellings. Since I have already mentioned Hoult briefly, let’s start with him. He continues to be one of the best, underused young actors we have working today. I hoped his supporting yet memorable role in Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) would finally get his name out there and get him more leading roles where he can fully showcase his talent. And he’s been working steadily for a while, no doubt about that. But I still think he is one of those “movie people who know him, but the general audience is not so much” actors. I wish he’d reach that mainstream, where his name alone would sell films, because he is always great, if not excellent, in each role. In Renfield, his character serves as a narrator and comedy relief, but he also needs to deliver on the emotional beat of the story later on. It seems almost too much to put on one character, but not for Nicholas Hoult; he nails everything flawlessly.

Regarding “the other Nic”, aka Cage… Yeah, what else is there to say? This dude has had a career revival and plays another role that, weirdly, he seems to be the only one who could do it justice because you need an actor that can go “full Cage”. And you never go “full Cage” unless you are Nicolas Cage. His Dracula is exactly what you might expect from Cage portraying this iconic character. A tiny bit funny, a whole lot of crazy, oddly menacing and weirdly, such a fit. You believe that he would be that psycho “boss” Renfield would try to run away from. Honestly, at this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if, within five years, Cage would win another Oscar, completing his comeback.

I also liked Awkwafina, despite the movie giving her the bare minimum regarding her character development. We get the story about her dad, we get the sense that she might be the only cop in her unit/district who isn’t corrupt and… Then Renfield and her form this bond/relationship? I don’t think that was necessarily bad, but every time we went to her character or Ben Schwartz‘s gangster family, the movie lost a bit of steam for me. I understand without these characters, the movie would have been probably a 40-minute short, but I still think there was a potential to have Awkwafina in this film, lose the entire gangster family sub-plot, focus more on these three characters, and then we could have had a movie that feels “whole”. As much as I enjoyed Renfield, it felt disjointed a bit at times.

Also, if you are not a fan of gore, blood and different kinds of details of people getting brutally murdered, Renfield may not be for you. I was surprised at how gory and “up there” it was, how the camera didn’t pan out and showed us all the details. I loved it because I don’t mind gore, especially when it’s mixed with comedy (see, Evil Dead franchise), but I understand that’s not everyone’s cup of hot cocoa, and it either clicks with you or not. It worked for me just fine.

Overall, Renfield was a fun experience that finally let Nic Cage play the master of darkness, Dracula himself. And in a bit of comedic twist, this movie is more about his henchman and the idea of a toxic relationship between “boss and his employee” rather than between partners. Renfield did what I wanted it to do; it kept me entertained for the majority of the movie, it surprised me at times, I laughed a few times and liked both “Nics”. I can recommend Renfield to anyone looking for a gory, darker comedy.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I have been hearing great things about this movie for a while, so when I finally got the opportunity to watch it, I grabbed it. What is fascinating and scary to think about is that Never Rarely Sometimes Always was relevant and filmed long before Roe v. Wade was overruled in 2022. What a fucking disgrace that is.

It’s difficult to discuss anything related to this movie and not get political, despite that equivalence being absolutely fucking dumb. Women’s rights aren’t political. They exist, or, in an ideal society, should exist. The sheer fact that many women can’t decide their fate and whether or not they want to become mothers is ludicrous. It reminds me of the old joke that says that if men could get pregnant, there would be abortion machines on every corner. There would be a morning-after pill, during-the-coitus pill and one after-the-fact pill, just in case. And I strongly believe this is not a joke. If you still can’t see where I stand on this issue… I don’t know what to tell you.

I will try as hard as possible to talk about the movie and put the horrific facts aside for a moment. The film paints a very black-and-white picture, but it does it to make a larger point. What I mean by that is every man our two protagonists encounter is either disgusting, inappropriate or a straight-up creep. If I worked for a few right-leaning websites, my following sentence could look like this: “Never Rarely Sometimes Always hates all men! But some men are nice, but this movie doesn’t want to acknowledge that because it’s so pro-feminist, toxic….” You can probably imagine the rest, especially if you were not born yesterday. But, as always, people will see what they want to see. This movie chooses specific and, unfortunately, real-life characters that your mum, sister, girlfriend, or wife can encounter in her day-to-day life to illustrate a much bigger point. Don’t believe me? You don’t have to; I am a man. But ask them. Talk to the women who mean something to you; listen to them, and you might be surprised and uncomfortable.

And Never Rarely Sometimes Always puts you in this uncomfortable space from the very first scene, and it never disappears. Eliza Hittman knows how to say and show so much with so little and uplifts this film, where despite it being a very indie and low budget (I can’t find a precise figure, but it’s quoted under five million dollars) movie, you don’t feel “cheated”. It grips you, never lets you go, and you stay glued to the screen despite its bleakness and tough-to-watch scenes. A big part is Eliza, but the main heroines are Sidney Flanigan and Talia Ryder.

I can’t say this any louder, but I hope both actresses have a long and fruitful career ahead of them. Sidney is our lead, and she does so much with just her face and eyes; it was mesmerizing to watch. The pivotal scene where we learn why this film is called Never Rarely Sometimes Always when the camera is on her face for what must have been at least ten minutes, was a masterclass in acting. The subtlety, when she realized a couple of things about her life through those questions, she was “forced” to answer… heart-breaking, poignant, and well done. I felt like giving her a massive hug at the end, and if it was in my power, all of her rights back because she deserves is entitled to them.

Talia’s character must have been tricky on paper because it’s such a specific role to portray. She had to be the “fodder” for her cousin, provided some levity (even though there are hardly any jokes) and most importantly, captured that specific bond that only the best of friends have. Those you can tell to fuck off, and they know you just need a moment to yourselves, so they might walk away for a minute, but they never leave your side. They are always there, looking after you. Talia captured that perfectly, and her chemistry with Sidney was spot-on. Because of them, you cherish those (rare) moments of lightness these two share.

In a perfect world, Never Rarely Sometimes Always would not be needed. But we live in a less-than-ideal world, so films like this are badly needed. If even one person who is on some edge about abortion watches this movie and it convinces them that we should re-think this ban and let women decide for themselves, that would be awesome. As with any policy like this, you are not punishing women; you are punishing “normal” people, aka middle-class (that’s disappearing faster than polar ice caps) and lower-class people who don’t have the means. This movie doesn’t forget to show how money plays a big part in this situation and how much shit our protagonists must go through before it’s all over. Imagine now how this story would have looked if they came from a wealthy family. Still not that great, but much less struggle, right? Yep, that’s the point. Ban on abortion doesn’t ban abortions; it bans access to safe abortions.

Overall, Never Rarely Sometimes Always is a harsh watch, yet it is worth your time. It is as indie as it gets, but because of the craftiness of the people behind the camera and the acting talent of those in front of it, you never feel bored; you never think of the budget. You are there, in those couple of days, with these girls, one of whom is simply not ready to become a mom. And that is a good enough reason not to bring a baby to this world. This movie is one of those that hit you hard, but because of the two protagonists, there are genuinely beautiful moments that capture their relationship and our not-so-perfect world in all its madness. If you can, please see this movie.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I believe the thing that harms this movie the most is its posters. They are lovely, don’t get me wrong, but if you look them up, you think Philomena is a “feel good movie” starring the one and only Dame Judi Dench. And this movie might be that at times. But it’s actually much deeper, slightly darker, and filled with incredibly complex themes of (self)-hate, anger, forgiveness and letting go of all that anger and hate that it deserves your attention and time.

Firstly, it’s based on the unbelievably real phenomenon of rich people buying orphans because they could. And the Catholic church then wiped away all the evidence. You might be shocked to hear that the Catholic church would have done something like this; historically, they weren’t involved in any massive scandal(s) involving children… I mean, who would have thought? Not me, that’s for sure. Anyway, we follow Philomena, who had a child as a teenager and was punished for it by, effectively, slaving away at this covenant and ultimately having her boy given up for adoption. And 50 (!) years later, she finally decides to try and find him.

I won’t tell you anything else because this movie takes turns I wasn’t expecting. It’s not “twisty” by any means; it just doesn’t follow any “conventional” route. Every time I thought: “This is where we are going”, the movie took a detour to that place that was much more interesting than I had in mind. And ultimately, I love films that do that. I have seen many films, and it’s always a welcome surprise when you think you can clearly tell where this is going, only to have the rug pulled from underneath you, but it makes sense. And some of these turns can be heart-breaking.

That brings me to our main cast. Writing “Dame Judi Dench is a phenomenal actress.” feels like saying water is wet, sand is coarse and irritating and gets everywhere, or having a high ground can be advantageous when fighting on a planet of burning lava. But she is excellent in this film, especially in those small moments. She doesn’t have any “big Oscar moments” despite the fact she was nominated for this role. She’s been steadily excellent throughout this movie, with some moments bordering on phenomenal. She is a treasure.

I have only known Steve Coogan from his comedic roles, and even those I haven’t seen that much. But he nailed his role. I can’t imagine being an actor and my scene partner being Dame Judi Dench, but he isn’t me and handled it with no hesitation. He also co-wrote this screenplay (alongside Jeff Pope) and got nominated for that, but not for his performance, which is a shame. Yes, this is all about Philomena, but his character had to be purposively on different wavelengths the entire film and that could have been such a thankless role. I can imagine that would backfire in any lesser film, and this character would not work. But he made it work; we understand him every step of the way, and despite everything he does, I feel for him, even if I don’t agree with everything he did.

And I think my last sentence summarizes Philomena perfectly. What makes this movie stand out is the complexity of… well, everything. The most important thing this film talks about is how people will be mad or angry, and more often than not, they have every right to be. But it’s up to you how you react to people or situations that made you angry, whether you are controlling your emotions. Is that anger placed on the appropriate person? Is that even “your anger”, and aren’t you just angry on someone else’s behalf? This film shows us all these facets of different, complex emotions and how you can forgive someone, even if they may not deserve it. That is where this movie goes from “pretty great” to “excellent” in my eyes. There are many layers this film touches on, and I haven’t even mentioned many others because I don’t want to spoil anything, but all these layers work in harmony.

That would be my last point; Philomena never managed to bore me. Sure, it’s only 98 minutes, so nothing crazy, but this film takes you on a journey and by the end, I could have sworn this was longer. But in the best way possible, when you can’t believe how much a movie covered in its fairly short length. Philomena never bores you, always moves forward, and when you have Steve with Dame Judi in its centre, you are set for success.

Overall, Philomena is an excellent movie; I feel people aren’t talking about it enough. It features one of the best performances by a living legend Dame Judi Dench, and one perfect performance by Steve Coogan, who also co-wrote the screenplay. It is a movie with a heart, but it also openly talks about a dark past in Ireland and the Catholic church. And when you read that, you think you’d know exactly where this is going, but trust me, you have no idea. Watch it for yourself, please, you won’t regret it.

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

Until next time,

Luke