I think we are too close to call the year 2023 anything yet, but one thing seems for sure. There were a few mainstream raunchy comedies, from No Hard Feelings (2023, my review here) to Joy Ride (2023), which I still haven’t seen but have heard it’s dirtier than your usual comedy to Anyone But You. It seemed that 2023 was the year Hollywood wanted to bring a bit of raunchiness and nudity back into comedies and was testing the waters whether we (the audience) are up for it. For my money, I would say yes, as long as it’s not just about gratuitous nudity.

Take this movie for example. There is some (very light) nudity, but it’s hardly about that. Anyone But You is your typical guy who meets a girl; they immediately fall for each other only for them to hate each other shortly afterwards because of… reasons. That reason is neither of these individuals is mature enough to have a simple conversation. So they go about their life, only to be brought back together again after a couple of months by fate (or the screenplay). Sounds familiar? It should be, as this is the plot of most romantic comedies from the past 30 years. You can find elements of Much Ado About Nothing here too. But, surprisingly, it all (mostly) worked for me.

Firstly, I am but a man, so if you give me Sydney Sweeney and Alexandra Shipp in one movie, I will be happy (almost) no matter what. But I will be even happier when you give them something to do, and Sydney has a lot, since you know she is the leading star of this film. And I thought she was great. Yes, for this movie specifically, she won’t be winning any prestigious awards; however, her character, Bea, never annoyed me, and I think in the hands of a less capable actress, it might have. But Sydney found that sweet spot between comedy and a bit of drama where I laughed with her in some scenes and sympathised with her in others.

The same applies to Glen Powell. He managed to play this on-the-surface flawless character (I mean, this dude is built) with humour, and when it was time for his character to be over-the-top crazy, I believed him that he could be like that in real life. Plus, his chemistry with Sydney was there. Yes, I might be biased as I have seen and read some alleged behind-the-scenes drama/rumours (if you Google this movie alongside Glen and Sydney’s names, you will see what I mean), but I don’t think there was anything else to them but that, rumours. And yet, when you see those two in the movie and how they interact with each other, you can tell where those rumours were coming from.

Besides them, what I thought worked beautifully was the Australian setting. I was afraid of that, as many times, with these destination movies, they tend to overdo jokes about the setting of those films. My worry was we would hear one too many Aussie jokes, bad accents and stereotypes, and despite there being some, it never felt like too much. It feels odd to write this about (at times) crazy, over-the-top comedy, but they really knew when to rein it in.

The only complaint I had with this movie is the side characters are mostly forgettable, and to repeat myself, the story won’t surprise you at any given point. In this instance, I am willing to forgive the predictability of the plot given how many jokes worked and due to my having a good time with these characters. I just wish the family was a bit more memorable because I swear, I don’t remember anything anyone did in this movie besides Dermot Mulroney, and even he was memorable mostly because of his… Mulroneyness (read, he is still a recognisable enough face for me).

But that is where the cookie crumbles with Anyone But You; if you want to see some of the sexiest people in Hollywood right now being all over each other in Australia and having a blast while doing it, then this movie is for you. If you require something more profound from a romantic comedy starring Sydney Sweeney and Glen Powell based on Much Ado About Nothing… I don’t know what to tell you, to be honest. 😉

Overall, Anyone But You is a good time. Yes, it’s a predictable movie where if you googled the definition of “raunchy comedy”, the poster for this movie would display. However, the lead performers had chemistry, most jokes landed, and the story was just crazy enough to work while the movie didn’t take itself too seriously, so I had a great time with this film. Sometimes, predictable is good, mainly when it is mixed with funny jokes. Also, after you watch this film, you won’t forget the song “Unwritten” by Natasha Bedingfield any time soon, which is good as that song has been on my playlist for ages and is a certified banger.

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

Until next time,

Luke

It’s weird writing a review for a movie many have not even heard of, let alone seen. If you think I am exaggerating, on IMDb, “only” around 14 000 people have rated this movie, and on Letterboxd, that number is slightly higher, around 36 000. Even I have only heard about it recently because one of my Internet friends (Rowan Wood, you can find him on Letterboxd or his new website www.knockonwoodfilm.com) has talked about it a few times on Franchise Paradiso, a podcast he co-hosts (also a strong recommend). And since I trust him, I had to look it up, and yes, he was correct to praise it. And now, I am doing my part, hoping I inspire at least one more person to watch this movie.

This movie must be one of the earliest examples of “vibe” films. There is a surprising “amount” of a story (more about that later), but most importantly, The Phantom Carriage understands the atmosphere and how to get you into that head space and vibe this movie has. Because if I am being honest, the film won’t surprise you much, if at all, since it’s more than 100 (!!!) years old. However, that was the surprise to me, how much it surprised me. I know this is as clear as mud right now, so let me explain.

Since I have been watching more “old-school” horror movies (like the Universal Monster movies from the 30s and 40s), I have gotten used to the story being pretty simplistic because that was the norm at the time. They didn’t know any better. There were always complex themes and great ideas in those films, don’t get me wrong, and I liked or loved most of them, but as far as the narrative portion of those films, they were all pretty simple. Naturally, I expected something similar from a Swedish movie from 1921. And for us now, what this movie does isn’t that uncommon. But I always like to put myself into the audience’s shoes at the time. Because I don’t think there were that many movies that played with characters reminiscing about the past, and in those memories, we go back again. Hopefully, it makes more sense now, as nowadays we are used to seeing flashbacks and spending half a movie there, but back then, that was hardly the norm.

I also loved the idea that the last person to die in a year must replace Death and drive Death’s carriage for the following year. I am not a spiritual or religious person, but if you give me something as intriguing as this, I am into it. This idea definitely was something unique and new, as I had never heard of it. And that supernatural element weirdly grounds this movie and clearly defines the stakes. We understand what is happening and why, so we can focus on this redemption journey of this poor soul who lost his way.

This might also be the first movie that deals with this Dickens-like tale of seeing your life as you are about to die so you can reflect on what you have done. Those stories have always fascinated me because we see ourselves (naturally) as heroes of our stories, but often, we can be the villains in somebody else’s story. There is a saying I like that goes: “We judge everyone based on their actions, but we judge ourselves based on our intentions.” Since I read that quote somewhere, I try to remember it before judging others harshly. The Phantom Carriage is one of those movies that might make you think about what if something like this were to happen to you tomorrow, what you would see and whether you would like everything you see.

I also need to mention the special effects that I thought were amazing. Of course, with a caveat that I judge them based on 1921 standards and not today’s ones. But I thought they worked all the transparent ghosts worked for me, but I am a sucker for older horror movies where I can forgive many tiny blemishes due to the age of those movies. There is something charming about the imperfection of early cinema. Also, and this can’t be understated, this movie influenced many filmmakers who became legends and influenced others. Just reading through IMDb’s trivia:

Ingmar Bergman watched this film at least once every summer, either alone or in the company of younger people. He also stated that this film, to him, was once “the film of all films”, and that it was a main influence on his own work.

Source: IMDb.com

Charles Chaplin stated this was the best film ever made.

Source: IMDb.com

And I am not about to sit here and argue about how two of these cinematic titans were wrong. As I stated at the beginning of my review, I strongly hope I may influence at least one person who will search for this movie and watch it because of this review. It might or might not (wink wink) be available on YouTube… but hey, I didn’t say anything. 😉

Overall, The Phantom Carriage is an almost-forgotten masterpiece that influenced generations of filmmakers and continues to have an impact on movies even today. But unlike other films like Citizen Kane (1941), this movie is virtually unknown unless you are a hardcore cinephile, and even then (like me), you might not heard about it. So, I am writing this review hoping that someone reads it, watches this film and then passes it on. I would love for everyone to know about this movie full of ground-breaking stuff, both visually and narratively. Even after 100 years, The Phantom Carriage deserves to be seen.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Bradley Cooper and I have a complicated relationship. Firstly, it’s one-sided, as he doesn’t know I exist. Secondly, and much more importantly, I have always liked him as an actor, even when his main schtick was doing “just comedies”. He was charming and seemed like a chill dude who would be fun to talk to. And then he decided to direct, something many actors have done before to various degrees of success. The thing is, Bradley isn’t a bad director. But every shot and every decision he makes in his films almost screams: “Please, like me. I am a director now, and I want to get an Oscar too!” Maestro is the latest example of that where the movie plays, and you go through and once it ends… I felt next to nothing.

This might be a shock to many, but I don’t know much about the world of classical music. But even I have heard the name Leonard Bernstein before. So when I heard a biopic about him is in the works with Bradley and Carey Mulligan playing the titular duo, I was actually mildly excited to see it as again; I like Bradley and love and adore Carey, who has been one of those “always excellent” performers since her first movie. But most importantly, I was looking forward to this as it was a biopic, and given I know next to nothing about the real-life Leonard, I wanted to learn a bit more, something that might intrigue me to go and Google a couple of things about him after the movie was over. You know that feeling when you watch a great biopic and then read trivia about that movie and Google what was true and what the “it’s a movie, so we made this up to make it more cinematic” details? But… I didn’t do any Googling after this movie finished.

The reason for that is simple, the movie gave me two or three things about Bernstein I didn’t know. He got his “lucky call”, was bisexual (?), and he seemed to live a carefree life with this zen-like attitude. And yeah, he cared about music and composing. Was there anything else? Unfortunately, no. Nothing about what made him great because he was already great when we met him. Ok, maybe we will delve deeper into his passion for music…? Kind of, we got one scene towards the end where he teaches a class and demonstrates his knowledge. But that is about it. Look, I don’t need your stereotypical “from cradle to the grave” biopic. I don’t mind the film focusing on specific events in someone’s life like Ferrari (2023, my review here) did, but Maestro seems all over the place and distant. And you can pick one movie, not both!

We mostly follow him throughout the years and his life with his wife Felicia, portrayed by Carey Mulligan. Bradley’s performance was great, and Carey’s excellent (another Oscar nomination, please!), I don’t think I have gotten to know him any better than before this movie. That is something I thought was the point of making a biopic in the first place for the general audience to understand or get to know someone much better. Unfortunately, when the movie ended, I thought for a second and realised that I still had no idea who Bernstein was and what made him one of the best (if not the best) composers who has ever lived… And if the point of Maestro was to portray him as this carefree bisexual (?), that is also fine, but I am not sure whether that works.

The reason I put a question mark after the word bisexual is that I don’t even know whether he was one, illustrating my point about this film not wanting to tell us anything. All we see is him loving his wife and having kids whilst openly flirting and kissing men as well. To me, he seems like a bisexual, but here’s the thing. How did he see himself? Because he wouldn’t (and frankly shouldn’t) give a flying fuck about what I thought he was, but it would be nice of the movie to (maybe) let us in more. My big problem with this film was that distance, that almost coldness where we are watching a movie about this unique talent, but we never see what made him unique. It feels like the film is keeping us at arms’ distance.

Technically, the movie is stunning to look at. Here is where I can’t help but think of Bradley and his eagerness to be recognised by his peers. And there is nothing wrong with wanting that, and in all the interviews I have heard of him talking about this movie, he seems like a genuinely decent guy, but… Maestro feels like that overachieving kid in a class who wants to convince you he knows everything and then pleads with you to like him for it. There are some beautiful shots that serve no purpose. The same can be said about aspect ratios; the movie has several, and they are used for the most basic “passage of time”, aka “We shot this scene in this ratio because it’s the 30s, you see!” Cooper feels like he’s read every single book about directing and, on paper, knows exactly what he is supposed to do, how to frame a shot, stage a scene, etc. But those scenes feel mechanical, lifeless and boring.

This movie has a pretty sad storyline I won’t spoil, just in case you are like me and didn’t know anything about either Leonard or Felicia. And when I started seeing it unveiled, I didn’t care. When it finished, I still didn’t care. Because when everything feels cold and emotionally distant, you will… well, not care too much about either character on the screen. In any other biopic, that would have been one of those tough-to-watch scenes that might bring tears to your eyes. In Maestro, despite my enjoyment of the performances, I honestly didn’t care.

If I omit the distance, the camera work was great; some shots were spectacular, and the church scene was superb. And again, mainly Carey Mulligan carries this movie on her tiny frame. Therefore, Maestro wasn’t a waste of my time, but what should (and could) have been an excellent biopic about this titan of classical musicals turns out to be a perfectly fine movie that you might appreciate if you already know who Bernstein was. I know some people loved this movie. I am happy for them. Unfortunately for the rest of us, we still aren’t any closer to understanding who he was, why was he so great, and what made him tick, but hey, we know he was a happy-go-lucky guy who fucked everyone…? So, yay?

Overall, Maestro is a fascinating biopic that doesn’t seem like it wants to give you anything about the titular character. Instead, you get this almost “over the years” montage, snippets of Bernstein’s life that should allow you to get to know him better, but, in my case, it didn’t work. From a person who’s watched many biopics, from great to awful ones, Maestro is pretty much in the middle. Just like Bernstein apparently was, this movie just is. It exists, and some people are very happy about it. I wish I could be one of them.

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

Until next time,

Luke

It took me a few weeks to finally see this movie in the cinemas, so by that point, I had heard mostly positive reviews about this film and how charming everything was. So naturally, I was hoping for a lovely, charming and joyfully magical movie and what I got was that, but… Wonka is one of those movies where the pieces of the puzzle are better than the overall picture the puzzle creates, as ultimately, your enjoyment will correlate with whether or not you can feel the magic. And I never could.

I don’t think it was due to any preconceived bias. For example, I didn’t grow up with Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971); I didn’t see that movie until about 2018 if I remember correctly. I grew up with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), but even that movie was always one I liked, not loved. I have also never read the book these are all based on, so when I went to see Wonka, I was ready to love it, enjoy my time and be charmed. And the movie definitely isn’t bad by any means.

The biggest reason to see this film must be Timothée Chalamet. Given my history with this “franchise”, I wasn’t against him (I remember some people were not happy when he was announced); I hoped he would be at least decent. To my surprise, he was a clear standout. Sure, it’s easy to stand out if you are the leading performer. But still, he had the charisma and the naivete about this world, but most importantly, you believe him when he suddenly does something magical or impossible. It’s hard to do impossible stuff within semi-real-world boundaries and get away with it, and he did. I think the reason for that was his character always acts nonchalant about all the magic. For him, that magic is the norm. He is quirky and doesn’t find it peculiar that he travels with a pretty much chocolate factory in his suitcase because that is just his reality.

I was confused that some people were calling out his performance for being too cutesy and that he wasn’t as cynical as the legendary Gene Wilder. And those are the moments I can’t even with some people as the obvious answer is he wasn’t supposed to be cynical. Even I, who has never read the book, understood that this was Wonka at the very beginning of his journey. Back when he was young, full of hope, optimism and joy. It would make zero sense for this young guy to be grumpy, cynical or disillusioned with the world as for his older character to make any sense, he must start from this place. You can even see it in the original movie, where Wonka has that magic and charm about him, but his life and everything that happened to him led him to be this cynical. The point of this paragraph is if you hear a critique of Chalamet’s performance and someone refers to Gene’s performance as to why, you know you don’t have to listen to them. 😉

Back to the movie, everything else has also worked. I thought Olivia Colman was the other obvious standout, as she is funny and hams it up in her role. I liked the decision to have Noodle (Calah Lane‘s character) as almost a younger sister character rather than casting someone older for a potential love interest. Not every story needs one, and this was a perfect example of something the filmmakers did perfectly; plus, I enjoyed the chemistry between Wonka and Noodle. They were the heart of the movie. The rest of the supporting cast was great; everyone from Keegan-Michael Key to Jim Carter was perfect in their roles.

I also didn’t mind it was a musical. I know there has been a lot of controversy about the promotion of this movie and how many went into it, NOT knowing this was a musical (because of some study…?). I didn’t mind it, even though I wasn’t sure whether it added anything to the film. I thought the songs were cute, but honestly, I can’t remember any single one now, and I have only been removed a few weeks from watching this movie. There are many musicals I have seen only once, some time ago, and I still remember quite a few songs (The Greatest Showman (2017) is my example). So, even though I didn’t mind it, it did very little for me.

But, where the cookie crumbled was the “mood” of the film. For you to enjoy Wonka, you must feel that magic. You should feel like you are part of that world where everyone is vaguely British (except for a few characters), magic is (kind of) real, and chocolate solves all your problems. From reading other people’s thoughts and discussing this movie, I understand I am in the minority here, so this is truly a “me issue”, but I have never felt that magic. I enjoyed this movie and all the individual pieces of it, but when I reflected on my experience later on, I found myself feeling empty, almost indifferent. The best way to describe it is that I never got into that world; it felt like everyone was invited to this magical party, and my invite got lost in the mail.

And I apologise because I try hard not to do what I am about to do, but I didn’t feel “it”. In all of my reviews, when I give a movie a bad or an average rating, I usually have a few reasons for it. But with Wonka, besides not feeling “that magic” and “songs didn’t do much for me”, I have nothing else. I feel a bit weird because my rating may ultimately seem a bit harsh, but I assure you, this is how I feel now about this movie. To buy into this world and get immersed in it, you must feel that levity that magic. That is something both Paddington movies had (my reviews for both movies can be found here and here). For me, that something was missing for me.

I know I have said this for many movies of 2023, but Wonka will be a fascinating rewatch because I get that I am in the minority, and many have enjoyed this movie much more. I wonder how well (or not) this will play the next time I watch it and whether anything will change for me. Only time will tell, but I promise, if I rewatch it and suddenly like or even love this movie, I will release a different review, something I have never done and will go on record about it.

Overall, Wonka is a charming movie that has everything going for it. From an excellent lead performer to a great cast of supporting actors, this movie shines. Where it lost me was that I never felt that magic come through the screen and charm me with it. It was missing that “it” factor I usually feel while watching many delightful movies, big and small, but for whatever reason, Wonka did not have it. But, what might be a rarity, I would still recommend this film as I understand the majority of people enjoyed this movie. So, despite my average rating, if you liked the Paddington films, you may end up liking this movie too.

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

Until next time,

Luke

This is a “me” issue, but I wasn’t as hyped for Napoleon as everyone around me seemed to have been. I knew a few things about him, and I don’t find him any more or less fascinating than other rules, who, at one point in time or another, conquered a vast amount of the world. But, the fact Ridley Scott was behind the camera and Joaquin Phoenix alongside Vanessa Kirby were in front of it definitely intrigued and sold me on seeing it in the cinema, despite me knowing that this won’t be “the ultimate version”, as there is a four-hour director’s cut coming to the Apple TV at some point. This might sound strange, but despite this movie having a few issues, I still want to watch the longer cut.

Let’s start with the positives. Napoleon is a technically well-made movie. Scott showcases that his longevity in Hollywood (his first feature, The Duellists, is from 1977!) isn’t a coincidence and pours his knowledge of six decades of filmmaking into this film, and it shows. Especially, the battle sequences were shot beautifully, they have a scope and despite me occasionally getting lost as to who was fighting who (many dirty uniforms looked alike), I had no complaints in this department. The visuals are stunning.

The same applies to Joaquin and Vanessa. With Phoenix, this performance won’t surprise anyone, as, if we are being really honest here, it isn’t a stretch for him by any means. He has portrayed similar, if not the same characters, a few times before, but hey, if it ain’t broke… What he does with Napoleon seems to be on the edge of humanising him and almost parodying him. There were scenes where it seemed almost like a parody of this film, only for me to read how historically inaccurate Napoleon is and realise, yeah, maybe I shouldn’t take my historical information from the movies as they are here to entertain and need to make anything or anyone cinematic enough.

I have found Vanessa Kirby much more interesting, as when she wasn’t getting humped from the back by Joaquin in some of the most hilarious sex scenes of 2023, you could tell a lot about their relationship, respectively the power nature. Her character starts as a commoner when Napoleon is rising through the ranks, so there is a power imbalance already, and then we can see his obsession with her almost instantaneously. And once she marries him, she becomes an equal and treats him like it. It almost seemed like she was the only character through which we could see him for what he truly was, this man-child obsessed with power and didn’t really care much about anything else.

And with this is where my problem lies. Despite the runtime of almost 160 minutes, I felt bored, but also like there was something missing. Was my mind clouded a bit by the knowledge that there would be a longer cut at some point? Yes, probably. But even not focusing on that, Napoleon felt disjointed at times, where I thought some scenes didn’t transition as smoothly to other scenes. Especially in a biopic, albeit historically inaccurate one, we should be able to feel the progress of everything, from time to the characters. In Napoleon, occasionally, that escaped me. But I suppose that having that director’s cut available soon-ish (nobody knows when exactly this will come out, but it’s presumed either February or March 2024) should fix some, if not all, of these issues.

When I say “issues”, I am talking about pacing too. While the battle sequences were fascinating to watch, the rest of the film dragged on occasionally. To put it bluntly, I felt the runtime more often than I didn’t. Especially towards the end, I couldn’t help but check my imaginary clock at the cinema. Which sounds weird, given I am actually excited about the director’s cut and will watch it. Why? Because I truly hope and believe the extra material might fix the pacing and give me more to chew on. And especially with Ridley Scott, he’s got a good track record of having better director’s cut movies than pretty much anyone (Blade Runner (1982, my review here) is the obvious example, and I hear the same happened with his other film I still haven’t seen, Kingdom of Heaven (2005)).

But that begs the question, why does this still happen? Why does he “need” two versions; why not just release the longer one in the cinemas? Well, we can blame ourselves, and I am counting myself in that group too, as many moviegoers wouldn’t have gone and watched such a long movie in a cinema. I know many are like me and don’t like to get up and go to the bathroom when watching a film in cinemas, so you won’t miss anything, whereas, at home, you can pause the film. And as the movies aren’t getting any shorter, why not be smart about it and give us an intermission? For any movie that’s longer than, let’s say, 150 minutes, why not find a sensible enough scene in the middle where we could “cut” or “pause” the movie for about 10 minutes? That way, people could not only stretch their legs and relieve themselves, but they could also get extra popcorn and drinks, hence cinemas would make a bit more money…? I know I am not the only one who feels like this, and I still remember how The Hateful Eight (2015) had an intermission built into it, and that’s a three-hour movie that made almost $200 million. Anyway, I hope and strongly believe that the longer cut of this film will be better, and I wish I could have seen that (with an intermission) in the cinemas.

Overall, Napoleon is a technical masterpiece made by someone who understands his craft. The two main performers are excellent, and so are the battle scenes. However, the movie felt disjointed at times, and the pacing was also off, especially towards the end. That will not stop me from eventually watching the Director’s Cut once it drops on Apple TV; I simply wish I had the chance to see that first on the big cinema screen.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I had a vague idea of what I was in for when getting seated in my cinema, about to watch this movie. When Saltburn finished, I was still surprised by how graphic a few scenes were and how unhinged, sexy and on the nose this movie was. For the most part, it worked, and I was entertained and fascinated by this high-society family while also admiring how slick this movie looked, although there was a part of me that hoped for a slightly different, more open-ended closure of this story.

Saltburn is the follow-up to Emerald Fennell‘s directorial feature Promising Young Woman (2020, my review here) and despite me not giving this movie 5/5, Emerald and I will be friends. I like her style; both of her films (so far) have had a distinctive feel of unease that I find admirable. Especially today, in an age where everyone wants to be liked, she isn’t afraid to rely on you being a bit uncomfortable while watching her movies. Also, she’s got a great eye for staging a scene and camera shots, especially with Saltburn, where the movie looks both sexy and expensive. I listened to an interview with her after watching the film, where she said something along the lines of wanting to shoot everything and everyone in a sexy, sleek way, as almost just the idea of money and power was tied to being sexy. And you can definitely feel that from this film and the stunning cinematography by Linus Sandgren.

It is the cinematography alongside the performances that you will remember the most about Saltburn. Barry Keoghan cements the fact that he is the next “big thing” and isn’t afraid of anything, and he will be an Oscar winner; the question is only “when”, not “if”. I saw some people debating whether Jacob Elordi is a good actor, and look… I don’t know. I have only seen him in this film, Euphoria (2019 – ?) and his tiny role in Deep Water (2022, my review here) and in all of those, he was fine. I won’t say he was excellent in either of those movies or shows, but for the characters he portrayed, he did a good job, and the same should be said about his performance in Saltburn. You had to have someone who looks, acts and, most importantly, feels like this untouchable, almost deity for Saltburn to work. His character (Felix) must have that ‘vibe’ around him, and he does have it. Who I thought was fascinating, and I had not seen before this film, was Alison Oliver aka Venetia, Felix’s sister. I liked her performance, where she seemed almost like the least deplorable person in that family, but you can still tell it’s probably too late for her anyway.

Besides Barry, I loved Rosamund Pike‘s flawless performance of somebody who thinks they are so clever and yet can be manipulated easily. I know many of her lines from this movie will become iconic; she is one of the best examples of “I hate that I love this character”, and it’s all due to Rosamund’s understanding of not overdoing it. Her performance never felt cliche, or too much despite her character saying and doing some ridiculous stuff. I don’t think it will happen, but I would love for her to get a nomination for Best Supporting Actress.

My only real problem with this film is the ending, specifically how unambiguous it was. Without going into the spoiler territory, you have a feeling that there is something happening. And even though I didn’t correctly guess everything, I was on the right track. However, the movie doesn’t want to leave anything to chance or your imagination and spills everything out in the last five minutes. Now, does it necessarily make it worse? That’s the thing, for me, this decision takes away the mystery this film spends most of its runtime building up. Part of the fun I had with Saltburn was figuring out what is up with this person or that person, and then the ending happens, after which everything is crystal clear. I thought for a movie like Saltburn, a bit of ambiguity wouldn’t hurt.

But that is my only problem with Saltburn; the rest of the film is a beautifully shot movie about class, deception and how easy or difficult you have it in life depending on your family or their wealth, respectively. The opulence of a family occupying this mansion (that feels and looks like a castle) and living in this little bubble was fascinating, almost as fascinating as thinking about how much of this movie may or may not be based on Emerald’s life and growing up as one of those “1%” of people.

Overall, Saltburn is a flashy drama full of great performances, beautiful cinematography and scenes you won’t forget any time soon. Whether it’s the bathtub scene, graveyard scene or the ending, it makes an impact and gives you some food for thought. Would I appreciate a bit more ambiguity towards the end? Yes. Will it hinder my enjoyment and potential rewatch of this film? We will see; I can see myself liking this much more on the next rewatch or slightly less. Yep, it’s one of those movies. I would recommend it, as long as you have a strong stomach.

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

Until next time,

Luke