Category Archives: Movie Reviews

All of my movie reviews…

Don’t Look Up (2021) Review – What Does ‘Subtle’ Mean?

Advertisements

Oh boy… Where to start with this one. Don’t Look Up is one of the most talked-about films of last year for many reasons. Everything from the star-studded cast (I knew about the main players, but seeing names like Ariana Grande or Timothée Chalamet pop up in the opening credits surprised me) to the story and mainly how the film goes about telling the story… It will be hard to write anything new or anything altogether that won’t come off as too pretentious. Because if we learned anything from the last couple of years, literally anything can be politicised and therefore weaponised. And that is, at its core, what this film is about. Does it go about it subtlety? No, but have you “looked up” over the past couple of years? Because unfortunately (and this doesn’t apply to the USA only), there is a lack of subtlety. One side shouts, and the other side feels it needs to shout even louder. Rinse, wash, repeat.

One could say they don’t like how Adam McKay (the director and screenwriter) sees the world around him, that he might be too “glib”, “liberal”, or going for the cheap shots. But I don’t think that’s fair. Sure, you can clearly tell from this film (and Vice (2018) he did a couple of years ago too) where he stands, but especially in Don’t Look Up, he’s taking some jabs at everybody, from liberals to Hollywood and the pretentiousness of it all. I’ve heard some people say that his style lacks any subtlety. Does it? Or does he merely shows us (albeit via a crooked mirror) how silly/dumb we all look nowadays when we are so ready to disregard/shout at somebody just because their opinion is different from our one? The “party” politics, where some people can’t acknowledge a good point from somebody else purely because that somebody else “is from the other party”, therefore an enemy?

Don’t Look Up knows very well what it’s going for, and it’s not afraid to go places. But I think the film came out too soon. And I enjoyed it, but even I was struggling because we still live in this “post-truth” world, so you can’t laugh at some of these jokes, as they hit too close to home at times. Imagine making a movie about Titanic two years after it sank. Way too soon. Also, even though I liked the film, I will say it shouldn’t be as long as it is. You could easily cut it down by around 20 minutes, and the movie would have flown better.

What I liked about this movie, and I didn’t see this angle discussed nearly as often as the political one, was how this film portrayed our media consumption. Everything from social media to the news media, how we consume it and how we get over it (whatever that “it” is) in about a minute. We live in such an avalanche of information (and more often than not, bullshit information) coming at us at all times; it’s hard escaping it. This movie managed to emulate it brilliantly, always throwing a lot of things your way, and it’s up to you how much you like it or not. But what happens if you don’t like it? Well, you switch off this film, put a different movie on, while scrolling on your phone, looking for that fleeting something that triggers the brief dose of endorphins, satisfying your poor attention span just for a second or two longer, before moving on to something else entirely.

See, this is what I was talking about earlier. I am re-reading what I wrote, and I understand that comes off pretentiously like somehow I am not the same. Trust me, I am. I am as guilty of many of those things as your next person. Although, I would like to think that I can admit it to myself. And I have seen some people getting heated about this film, and it made me wonder whether it proves the point the film is trying to make? Whether it hit some nerve and that “knee-jerk” reaction kicks in, to blame everything/everybody around you except yourself.

Ok, back to the movie. I liked the performances, mainly our titular duo Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence. I thought they both were believable enough, as their characters start with their best intentions. But Leo loses his way in the middle, and Jennifer is so passionate, and straight-talking people often dismiss her. Who I think deserves a special mention, and probably the only person I was surprised that he wasn’t nominated for an Oscar, was Mark Rylance. His mix of “what if Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg had a baby” character was possibly the most subtle of performances. He also had that “awkward techy guy, who knows he’s smarter than most people in any given room” mannerisms down to a T. I have enjoyed him the most.

It will be interesting to see how well will this film age over the years. Because that is another unique point about it – I don’t think it’s trying to say that this attitude (two sides that are mad at each other all the time) is here to stay forever. I think once some time passes and we (hopefully) have moved past this “if you are not with me, you are against me” thinking, we will take a look back at this movie as a painful reminder. At least, that is my hope, that Don’t Look Up becomes funnier as it ages, as this shouty, party-first attitude has gone now, especially from the highest political places. We need to hope for this and VOTE for this to change.

Overall, Don’t Look Up is a fascinating movie. You either know Adam McKay and know what to expect or not and then you are in for a hell of a surprise. It’s hard to talk about just the movie without addressing the major culprit of why we have to talk about politics like this (for lack of a better term, in this “fake news” way). And of course, while talking about politics, we can all become a bit defensive of our side (the right side! Because I believe it, I must be right!) and not as respectful of the other side. Would I recommend this film? It depends how much you are into politics and, more importantly, how much you want to be reminded of what has (somewhat) now become our daily lives. I didn’t think this was a comedy. And that might be the saddest thing of all. Imagine, had this movie come out about 10/15 years ago, we would have never believed our “civilised” society could become “this”. You can put any adjective you wish to replace “this”.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

The Batman (2022) Review – Vengeance Begins

Advertisements

The Batman. One of the most universally known superheroes of all time is back (yet again), and this time, it’s Robert Pattinson‘s time to shine as the caped crusader. No, I won’t make some variation of “hey, that’s Edward from the Twilight films, he’s done well for himself”. Simply because if you followed his career since that abomination, I mean franchise ended, you knew as well as I, he’s proven himself ten times over now. And I knew he would nail this role, and he… kinda did. I will get to it more in just a second, but he’s much better Batman than he is Bruce Wayne. It will be hard to argue as I understand this should be the youngest Batman we’ve ever seen in the mainstream movie, but still. Also, it’s almost three hours long. And some films can justify this length but this one…? I would say no.

Let me write as much as I can before jumping into spoilers because as much as I would love to stay away from them, I can’t. Because it was later on in the film, The Batman started to work for me. Yes, the first 30 minutes I thought it was good, but some choices were made (especially as I alluded to before, how Bruce Wayne was portrayed) that pulled me out a bit. But once the Riddler storyline kicked in and we’ve started to untangle this mystery, I found myself engrossed more and more into this film where I left the movie theatre satisfied. Don’t get me wrong, this movie has issues, and I will address them, but I liked what they have done it.

Some things that are easy to discuss without going into the spoilers are the themes of this film. Batman has always been about not killing any bad guys, as “you become them if you do that.” And that is somewhat explored here even further, but not with Batman’s character, but with Catwoman, brilliantly portrayed by Zoë Kravitz. It was through her character and her storyline we truly explore this “no killing the bad guys” rule and can see how it plays a vital part of Batman’s identity. And how he realises something about himself throughout watching her character. I liked that complexity, and Zoë can do no wrong. Forget a TV show starring Penguin that’s been announced; why can’t we give Zoë a TV show?

What I also liked about this film was how Riddler (Paul Dano came, saw and delivered as I knew he would, so happy for him to finally be in a big movie as one of the main characters!) is looming over this film and how Batman needs to be a detective to get to him. He was a perfect villain, and I liked how they made certain choices about his character (but more about that in spoilers).

Something I wanted to mention before moving into the spoilers is definitely this film’s runtime. This movie should not have been almost three hours long. There are a lot of characters, and the story is complex enough that it 100% must be over two hours, sure. But I can easily see simply cutting out 20/30 minutes without affecting any story or characters because this movie has a lot of “atmosphere building” shots that look great. And resemble pages of comic books (says the person who has never read a single comic book in his life). But the problem with this was the movie almost reminded me of Zack Snyder and his approach to shooting his Batman films at times. Luckily, Matt Reeves isn’t Zack Snyder, so it never goes overboard, but there are definitely self-indulgent moments that do nothing but add to the already bloated runtime. I swear if this movie was about 20/30 minutes shorter, I think we might have had a serious contender for the best Batman movie ever. Anyway, let’s get into the spoilers, so…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

As I’ve mentioned above, the movie won me over when it delved into its themes more. One theme I have already mentioned (“no killing of bad guys”) but the other and more important theme of this film is how to deal with your past. And how we shouldn’t presume things just because they sound true, it doesn’t mean they are. Yes, I am talking about the revelation of Bruce’s dad making one mistake that would cost him his life. And how that shatters Bruce’s view on what he needs to do as he thought, “as long as I am Batman, I don’t need to be Bruce Wayne” because he believed his father was an impeccable man. But nobody is perfect, and he needs to deal with the fact and try to make a piece with it. What I loved about this wrinkle was how they tied into it the “guilty by proxy” element, where Riddler presumes just because Bruce is Wayne, he had to know or be involved with his father’s crimes. Because it sounds logical, doesn’t it? He was too close not to be involved. “Obviously”, he must have known something or later on even participated in something?

And the same can be said about Catwoman’s character and her surprising father. I liked how he had no idea she was his daughter, and her father’s sins were not hers. I loved that element of the story, and I think that was when the movie convinced me that it had something to say. Speaking of Catwoman’s dad, what a brilliant performance by John Turturro, who with the pretty limited time he had in the film, made the maximum impact. He was menacing without being forceful, and you, the audience, knew he was a much bigger piece of this entire puzzle even before the big reveal that he was “the rat” all along.

And with this theme (children shouldn’t be blamed for their parent’s sins), I started to understand Pattinson’s Bruce Wayne portrayal a bit more. Think about it for a second; he starts the movie thinking the Wayne legacy will take care of itself, hence why he “only” needs to be the Batman. So he begins this movie as this emo youngster who is “too cool for board meetings”. It’s only when he’s confronted with the reality of Wayne’s name being exposed and Riddler (alongside Catwoman, which I thought was a nice touch) accusing Bruce of being “in on it” too, he realises he can’t just be the caped crusader. That there needs to be a balance between Batman and Bruce Wayne. And I don’t think we’ve seen this theme explored as well in a Batman movie. I am still not 100% convinced with his performance as Bruce Wayne, but now I could at least see what they were trying to do.

What I also liked regarding the Riddler’s character was how they set him up and, more importantly, how they avoided the cliché “we caught him, only for him to escape because that was his plan all along!” No, once he’s in jail, that is where he stays because he isn’t the physical type, as he says in the film. But he’s the brain, so he conducted the plan and had his “mini-army” to see it through. His character watching the explosions from his cell was a chilling moment, and I was glad he didn’t escape.

I also have a theory. And this is nothing but my intuition; I have not read anything that would inform me about what I am about to write, so I might be totally wrong here. Nevertheless, I believe this might be the start of the “life-cycle” trilogy. All we know for sure is Pattinson signed a three-movie deal, so we should get a trilogy and given this film has done amazingly (grossing around $280 million already), it seems like we will get it. So, my prediction is simple – this is the beginning of Batman’s journey. In the second movie, we will see him older, in his full “power”, balancing between being Bruce and Batman as flawlessly as possible. And in a third movie, and again, nothing but my guessing here, we will see him old(ish) and die, possibly passing the “mantle” to somebody else before that. I wouldn’t be surprised if that is the end goal for this trilogy, to have an ultimate Batman trilogy where we see him at the start of his journey, in the middle and at the end. Something tells me this is how Matt Reeves will differentiate this trilogy from any other that came before him (well, technically, the only complete one is Nolan‘s Dark Knight trilogy). And how cool would that be to see this journey of one Batman until the very end? No fake-out deaths? Or am I the only one? Well, only time will tell.

Overall, The Batman feels like a start to something that could be truly great. Don’t get me wrong, this is a complete movie, but something tells me there is a plan for how this entire trilogy will pan out. And I, for one, am glad that somebody in the DC universe has a plan, that seems like a nice change of peace 🙂 Ok, seriously though, my only real issue is the length of this film, as you can feel it at times. But who knows? Maybe on my second viewing, knowing what I know now, I will discover even more things about it, and the length won’t bother me anymore. For now, I will say The Batman is worth seeing in the cinemas. It’s 100% a different Batman than what we were used to, and the movie makes some weird choices at first, but if you go with an open mind and let the film try to speak for itself, you might have a good time.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012) – A Lot of Dumb, Not Enough Fun

Advertisements

You don’t put on a movie titled Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and expect anything remotely resembling a masterpiece; let’s get that straight. At least that’s what I did one evening, when I wanted some “mindless” fun, and I remembered seeing trailers for this film and thinking it looked ridiculous enough to be entertaining. So I stumbled upon this film and gave it a chance, hoping for something “dumb but fun”. Little did I know the trailers were, by far, the best part.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter falls into the same “vein” of literature as other gems of this weird sub-genre, where all you have to do is take a property or a person people know and add “and X”. Where X needs to be something outrageous, like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016), to grab your attention, and yes, by the way, that’s a real movie based on an actual book. That film, by the way, is only a tad better than this film. There might be more books like these two, but I don’t know any, and these two are the most known examples of this weird sub-genre. And as with Pride and Prejudice and ZombiesAbraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter suffers from one thing – it’s taking itself way too seriously, despite its name!

There is a scene in this film that broke me mentally. I will try to describe it to the best of my abilities. Our main hero (Benjamin Walker) is fighting the main baddie (Rufus Sewell) while the stampede of the worst, most awful, blurry CGI of horses is running around them. So what do our protagonists do? They jump on those horses and continue the fight. Ok, cool. And then, they both fall, and through some major bullshit, Rufus lifts a horse (he’s a vampire, so I guess extra strength?) and throws it at Babe Lincoln (because he’s dreamy as fuck), who not only survives the impact but manages to MOUNT THAT HORSE AND RIDE IT?! Like almost in an instant, no injuries, nothing…? Did I mention this movie is not great?

But funnily enough, at least this scene was one of the rare ones where they tried to embrace this nonsense and have fun with it. Unfortunately, in this 105-minute film, someone decided they would play most of it dead straight. And this is what I will never understand – you have a bonkers idea that Abraham Lincoln was, in fact, a vampire hunter before he became the president. Why not fully embrace it and go balls-to-the-walls crazy with it? Rather than trying to do what this film tried and play it as a drama about him, his family, friends…?

What hurts more than anything is the fact the cast is decent enough. On top of our two main protagonists, we have Mary Elizabeth WinsteadAnthony Mackie and Dominic Cooper, all capable actors who deserve to be in something much better than this. Or for their talent to be at least fully utilised by this film. But that didn’t happen.

Also, for a movie that has “Vampire Hunter” part of its title, it could really use a bit more vampire hunting. As mostly, Abraham isn’t hunting any vampires, more like getting surprised by them and then needing to fight them. But I guess “Abraham Lincoln is Surprised by Vampires” doesn’t have the necessary ring. And even the fight scenes are mostly cut to death.

I know this sounds like I expected too much from a movie called Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, but honestly, I didn’t. I just wanted a film where I could switch off my brain and have fun watching one of the presidents killing vampires. What I wasn’t prepared for was the fact of how dead-serious this film would take itself. I am not suggesting they should’ve made a parody or anything like that. But some occasional wink or nod to the audience, telling them: “Just relax, nothing in this film matters, and we know.” That would have been appreciated, knowing we (the filmmakers and us, the audience) are all on the same page. But the movie, for the most part, plays it pretty seriously. Which makes the fights and jokes it throws at us look weird in comparison. Not to mention; that God-awful CGI “throwing the horse” fight scene.

Overall, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter could have been a balls-to-the-walls fun movie. It could have been something like Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013) that understood the assignment and played it in such a way you felt safe to have fun. (Speaking of that, I have to rewatch it.) But it wasn’t. The movie never finds that balance between serious and funny, and that might be the biggest mistake a film titled Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter could make.

Rating: 2 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

A Quiet Place Part II (2020) Review – A Worthy Sequel

Advertisements

After the pleasant surprise that was A Quiet Place (2018, my review here), I remember thinking – does this film need a sequel? And before we go any further, there is a difference between “does it need a sequel” and “can I imagine more films from this world” because the answer to me differs. Sure, a post-apocalyptic world, where the only way to survive is not making any sound, of course, you can make a lot of movies within that world. But did the surprise hit, which had a clear beginning, middle and ending, really need a sequel? Even after watching A Quiet Place Part II, I would still say “no”, even though I enjoyed this. It doesn’t make sense, does it? Ok, let me explain.

It all boils down to elements you can’t control, and this film is the perfect example of that. Yes, the actors and people behind that film were great, and that hugely contributed to the overall enjoyment of the first film, but the biggest reason that film worked was the element of surprise. Nobody expected the first film to be as superb as it was. I think even Bryan WoodsScott Beck or John Krasinski (the people behind the script for the first film) didn’t expect the movie to have such a huge success, both critically and in the box office. On a budget of “only” $17 million, the movie grossed (worldwide) $340 million, so that’s a pretty great ROI, and the film was universally beloved. So, of course, we had to come back to this world because it wouldn’t have made any financial sense for them not to.

Hence this film, A Quiet Place Part II, was born. And to be honest, I think this probably is the best sequel we could have gotten. The movie feels larger than its predecessor but not too big, so it doesn’t feel different. There are some surprises and choices made that I liked (more about that soon). But also, some cracks (albeit tiny) started to show. For example, more unnecessary jump scares than in the previous film. The film also follows a more traditional “cookie-cutter” structure, as far as how and where the story goes; it won’t surprise you that much. And it’s all about the kids rather than adults, which is fine as those kids are great actors. But that also means putting Emily Blunt on “the side”, and nobody puts Emily in the corner! Shit, wrong movie…

Ok, let’s start with the things I liked. Without going into heavy spoilers, I enjoyed how this film didn’t go (most of the time) for the obvious choices. For example, from the trailers, I was afraid that Cillian Murphy is only here to be one of those cliché post-apocalyptic characters at this point, where he’s much worse than the monsters. And I am happy to say that no, he isn’t. The movie deals with those a bit, but it could have easily made him into some “major” bad guy in this film and possibly beyond (as we are getting A Quiet Place Part III, currently set to be released in 2023), but the film doesn’t go there, so props to you, movie.

As much as I would love to see more Emily Blunt in this film, I am glad the focus shifted to the “kids”. Well, mainly Millicent Simmonds as her storyline was the thread carrying this film. Every time we’d cut back to her brother, Noah Jupe, the movie got a bit boring for me. That is/was not his fault, to be perfectly clear. But it felt like even the people working on the script didn’t know what to do with his character, or they knew what they wanted to with Millicent’s character and had it all planned out, so they “kinda” forgot about him. I hope we see a future star rising here because Millicent can carry a film. She holds her own even in the scenes with Emily and Cillian, and that’s not an easy task, given the amount of talent between those two actors is insane. And I can’t wait to see more of her, beyond this… I guess now it’d be considered trilogy? A franchise?

The only thing that holds me back from giving this film “the ultimate” rating are the cracks that started to show during this film. Because it’s a much bigger film than the previous one, you get more, and the world-building here… felt a bit rushed at times. I don’t think this is a spoiler as we don’t know much about those people anyway. Towards the end, there is a group of people who I am guessing are supposed to be the “worse than the monsters” cliche I was talking about earlier? But we learn nothing about them. What’s their goal; do they have a leader…? But ok. Also, talk about having a great actor and wasting him. Like many movies before, we have a surprising Djimon Hounsou in here. And as with most films where he appears, he quickly disappears. Honestly, poor Djimon. He always plays the surprise villain or (rarely) good guy, but he hardly stays on the screen for longer than 15/20 minutes. If he and Cillian swapped roles, I wouldn’t be mad, and the more I think about it, the more I would love it.

Also, this film ends with a few plot points not being 100% resolved. I am not someone, who needs a pretty bow on everything to enjoy a movie, but the ending felt rushed. I know the first one ended “suddenly”, but there was a difference. Everything else before that ending was resolved, and you knew what would happen next. That’s what made that ending memorable. This ending felt more like: “Ok, but what happened with/to…” and you can fill in several people and situations that would apply. But I understand why – this film is self-aware, and I think while making this, they already had plans for a trilogy, so why not tease some stuff.

Overall, A Quiet Place Part II is still a pretty great time. I liked how the focus shifted from the parents/adults to kids, I enjoyed some choices, and I didn’t care for others. But, and this can’t be stressed enough, I’ve enjoyed this film a lot. I can’t even begin to imagine the pressure of making a sequel to such a surprise hit the first movie was. And even though I’ve spent most of my review nit-picking some things/decisions people behind this movie made, it must be said this is as close to a perfect sequel as we could have gotten. Let me end by repeating what I wrote in my review for the first film. I am still not sure whether we need a trilogy (another sequel), but I am hopeful the quality of the third one doesn’t drop. I think it will be interesting to look at these films in about ten years as a trilogy to see how well they’ll hold up and whether they complement each other. Let’s hope for the best.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Being the Ricardos (2021) Review – Sorkin, Javier and Lucy… I Mean Kidman

Advertisements

After the success of The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020, my review here), Aaron Sorkin seems to have caught the directing bug. And since he loves his scripts, old Hollywood and the words he puts on the paper, there was no better subject for him to make a film about than the backstage of I Love Lucy (1951 – 1957), still to this day, one of the most influential and popular TV show of all time. Unlike The Trial of the Chicago 7, a film that was Sorkinean (that’s 100% a word) through and through, and I loved it, Being the Ricardos sometimes felt like it gets in its way. I thought it was a great performance piece, written (as always) masterfully, but I don’t believe Sorkin was the correct choice to direct it.

Let’s start with the positives, and they definitely outweigh the negatives. Everybody in this film is acting like their careers are on the line. From Nina AriandaJ.K. Simmons (who seems to have one of the best “second” careers ever after receiving his Oscar for Whiplash (2014)) to two of our main stars – Javier Bardem and Nicole Kidman. I will be honest – I have never seen a single I Love Lucy episode, which probably won’t be a shocker. But I’ve heard great things about it, and I know how revolutionary it was for its time (the pregnancy plot, Lucy being married to Cuban). So knowing that gave me some appreciation for what both Nicole and Javier are doing here. I thought they both didn’t go for the obvious choices. Javier was the best I’ve seen him in a while – he portrayed Desi so well you understood everything he did, said or even shouted at times. Nothing shocked me as he left everything on the table.

As for Nicole, I thought she disappeared into this role, which is saying something given she is one of my favourite actresses ever. Plenty of times, when actors are portraying these legendary characters, they often try to imitate them as close as possible where it can feel like a parody rather than a performance. And Nicole brilliantly avoided that here. The make-up and costume have transformed her into Lucy, and her performance only elevated all the elements around her. But her performance never felt too forced or too “old Hollywood” – a trap she could have fallen into, trying to mimic everything. But no, she gave us Lucy that felt like an actual person and what’s more, she displayed how she was the brain behind the show, going over every line/joke, set up for those jokes, why is this joke funny or why this one isn’t working. Maybe that’s why Kidman nailed this performance, because to an extent, Kidman is Lucille Ball of today. Not only a brilliant actress but also a producer, who is used to wearing many hats in Hollywood, not to mention the fact she’s been at the very top for more than 20 years now. And that is no accident.

My only thing with Being the Ricardos was the direction. I understood that Sorkin made this almost into a play, with occasional time jumps. I didn’t mind those, as I thought they weren’t hard to follow; I always knew what was happening. But the play-like structure… I am still not convinced it was the best way to go about this film. I don’t know how to describe it, but there were moments where some decisions (like the end, where J.K., Nina and Nicole are outside, waiting for the taping of the show) should have hit me harder than they did. The movie has its moments, don’t get me wrong, but given those big moments sometimes felt like a film mixed with a play, that decision didn’t work as intended for this specific film. Unlike Sorkin’s previous film, I think for Being the Ricardos, it would only be beneficial if somebody else directed his script and he would stand back. And it’s not just one or two directors that come to mind; I can imagine many “old-timers” or relative newcomers who are experienced enough in dramas that could have elevated this script and made it less of theatre and more movie. For example, Rob Reiner for the “old-timers” (an obvious nod to him directing A Few Good Men (1992), one of my favourites, written by Sorkin) and for the newcomers, I would love to see what someone like Damien Chazelle or Jason Reitman would do with this script. Especially somebody like Jason, who is from “Hollywood royalty”, and because of it probably knows a lot more about how it used to be “back then”, I would love to see his take on this Sorkin’s script.

Overall, Being the Ricardos is one of your typical “Oscar bait” films that works. It all comes down to the performances from everybody involved and the script, that’s as ever, sharper than an expensive Japanese knife. The movie is just over two hours long, but you barely feel it; because there is always something happening, and the performances suck you in. It’s only with certain scenes you might be (like myself) pulled out slightly because the “theatrics” of the film doesn’t “mesh” with everything around it. You can tell Sorkin loves old Hollywood, but he might love it too much, being maybe too close to this topic. Like a kid in a candy shop, they shouldn’t be left there all alone, as too much candy is a bad thing.

Rating: 4 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

My Life as a Courgette (2016) Review – What a Film!

Advertisements

My Life as a Courgette (or Zucchini if you live in other countries) is a film I’ve heard many great things about. So my expectations were set pretty high from the start. And one day, it finally arrived on one of the streaming services I am paying for (thanks, Mubi), and I immediately put it on and hoped for the best. But I still doubted this film (a tiny bit) because of its surprising runtime – only 66 minutes! How much can you do in that amount of time? It turns out, more (way more) than some films that clock in around two hours.

I will give it to you straight; I fell in love with this film. And it’s not because of the cutesy animation style or the lovely kids’ voices (even though these elements were phenomenal), no. The main reason this film won me over is simple – it’s a kids movie that deals with A LOT of dark themes. Even Pixar movies that are brilliant regarding dealing with darker issues in their films seem almost “laughable”. I know that’s not the “correct” word because they are not. The best example I can give you is this. The main differentiator between most Pixar movies and this film would be how many things they both touch upon.

Because Pixar mastered its formula well, and usually one film deals with one major thing, and that “thing” is the main plotline throughout the film. For example, Inside Out (2015), one of my favourite Pixar films, deals (and brilliantly, may I add) with mental health and growing up. And that is important to discuss and showcase. Whereas My Life as a Courgette deals with much muddier and darker waters, from child abuse, deportation, the feeling of not being worthy/enough, and that is why you are “up for adoption”… And this is just scraping the surface.

And here’s the thing – when you write it down like that, it sounds like a lot, especially for a kids movie that’s not even that long, that can’t work, can it? That is what I would have thought before watching the film. But since I’ve seen it, I can tell you it works. This film juggles a lot, that is true. But it manages it so brilliantly you never feel overwhelmed, or it would be “too dark”, and everything, somehow, works. Well, it’s not somehow. The people behind this film crafted everything so meticulously, from the screenplay to the type of animation (that sort of reminded of me claymation); one can’t help but fall in love with this tiny movie, that could.

The most impressive thing about this movie is how emotional it makes you. One minute you want to cry because something sad happens or is mentioned, and in the next minute because something delightful and unexpected happened to one of our characters. And it never felt cheap, exploitative or wrong. And that is an achievement on its own, given the topic and imagining how Hollywood would make this film. They would make it longer by roughly 30 minutes or so and potentially hit you over the head with everything. Nothing like that ever happened here, or at least I’ve never felt like it had.

I remember seeing this film nominated for Best Animated Movie in 2017, the same year where Zootropolis or Zootopia (2016), depending on where you are, won. And back then, I was rooting for another animated movie that’s not talked about that often, Kubo and the Two Strings (2016), because that is also a criminally underseen and touching animated movie. Had I watched My Life as a Courgette before the ceremony, I wouldn’t know what movie to root for, to be quite honest with you. But I would still be disappointed that Zootopia won (even though that is also a superb animated film, but in the year when we had such unique animated features, it feels like it shouldn’t have won). And I am saying it as someone who enjoyed Zootopia.

My Life as a Courgette also showcases (as mentioned before) how much can be done with so little. I can’t imagine this movie having a huge budget, and yet, it never looked or felt cheap. You can tell most of the voice performers were first-timers and kids, but that also enhanced the movie rather than degraded it. I couldn’t imagine a kids movie could deal with a variety of darker themes in under 70 minutes, and yet again, this movie does it flawlessly. Even when I squint my eyes and try to find a fault, I am left speechless, hollow and empty. So, quite the opposite of how I felt after finishing this film.

Overall, My Life as a Courgette is a fantastic, brilliant movie that everybody should watch. Yes, it deals with a lot of things that many movies (let alone animated films!) shy away from, but it does it so well, in such an eloquent manner, you will be invested in all the characters, not just our main hero, who calls himself Courgette. You might have noticed I didn’t talk about the story that much, and that was on purpose because I would love for you to experience this yourself. It’s been a while since I’ve loved a movie this much.

Rating: 5 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

The Boss Baby (2017) Review – Expected Anything, Still Left Surprised

Advertisements

Like everyone, I remember when this movie came out. And based on nothing but posters and maybe one trailer, I’ve pre-judged it. And when it got an Oscar nomination, I was also making dumb jokes about it, even though I had not seen it. “But why would you need to see it? It’s about a baby who thinks it’s boss; it’s not exactly complicated.” I thought to myself. Well, after a few years, I have finally managed to watch this film. And I went in expecting anything; I was ready for the worst jokes, most awkward situational comedy, questionable decisions… but somehow I ended up liking it…?

Ok, don’t get me wrong – The Boss Baby isn’t a perfect movie by any means. But it’s clever how it goes about its story, respectively, makes you believe it. That is what sold me on this film instantly. Knowing we work with an unreliable narrator (aka 7year old kid) who makes up stories all the time because that is what kids his age do. His imagination is wild and vivid, so of course, he’d see a new baby as a spy, coming to disrupt his perfect family life. Also, we need to consider the “it was all a dream” angle, as no matter how cheesy it sounds, it works for this film. It would have killed most movies, the old cliché of “It was all a dream, see?” but given this is an animated movie about babies, I’ll give this one a pass.

Am I truly going on the defence for The Boss Baby? Yep looks like it. Honestly, I didn’t see this coming as I was prepared for anything. Except for the very beginning where they set up this world so believably, I thought it was quite sweet and… dare I say almost genius? Yes, I dare because the beginning of this film clearly establishes one rule that there are no rules. Once you (or your movie) operate within the boundaries of one’s imagination, that’s your carte blanche to go wild with the story. We know that usually ends badly, and we get movies that you can’t take seriously at all, but I never thought this film crossed this line. Sure, were there some dumb/simple jokes the movie could have stayed away from? Yep. But were most of the gags something more I didn’t expect? Also yes.

Maybe that is why I ended up liking this film – my expectations were set to an extremely low level. After all the jokes on the Internet, I thought this would be below something like Minions (2015), where for every decent joke, you get five that don’t work unless you are younger than four years old, so you quietly suffer through the film. But instead of suffering/powering through this film, I ended up liking it…?

Besides the low expectations, I liked it because the story had something more than a one-joke premise. Because ultimately, this movie is about something surprisingly relatable for many families and kids. The idea you are/were the centre of attention for a couple of years just for one day, “out of nowhere”, a new baby comes around, and suddenly, the attention you once received is starting to fade. I have seen it in my relatives’ families who had kids a few years apart, and sure, nobody in those families thought the baby was the boss who came to overtake the family. But at the same, the dynamic had changed every single time, and that is what The Boss Baby addresses and deals with, so ultimately, the payoff not only makes sense, but it makes you more invested in this film. Even though sure, the premise on the paper sounds like an absolute snooze fest you won’t be able to enjoy.

Overall, The Boss Baby truly surprised me. I didn’t think I would write a review about it, but the more I thought about it, the more it became clear that there is something here if you give it a chance. Especially when you realise from the very beginning nothing that’s happening might be true, and this all might be either a dream or wild imagination of a 7year old kid. And sure, you can take it both ways, you can ask: “Why should I care then?” and that would be a perfectly valid question. I would answer by saying you should care because, in doing that, the movie gives you an out. It tells you it knows how silly this is and gives you a licence to simply sit back and enjoy this animated film without patronising you or trying to convince you how this might be real. Because in the mind of 7year old kid, anything is real. Again, I didn’t expect to write a review, let alone a decent one defending The Boss Baby, yet here I am. If you haven’t seen it because you have heard one too many jokes about it, give it a shot. No, it won’t rock your world, and it’s not on Pixar level by any means. But it’s definitely in the better half of DreamWorks catalogue.

Rating: 4 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

CODA (2021) Review – When Expected Becomes Brilliant

Advertisements

This movie… I don’t get it. The story is a pretty ordinary “I need to live my own life” coming of age tale; the path this movie takes is also predictable (her singing clashing with her family “responsibilities”), and that becomes a significant plot point later. The only difference is the CODA stuff (Child of Deaf Adults) thrown in. On paper, I’ve never thought that would make such a difference. But it did. Because CODA managed to do something extraordinary – the movie took almost every cliché in the book, every single turn this movie made you could see from a mile away and yet… I loved it. And what’s more, this is only the second movie ever in my almost 31 years on this planet that made me cry. Yep, only a second one.

The “wrinkle” that differentiates this film from any other coming of age story, the deaf aspect, was done well and with such care. It never felt “out of place”. And it’s easy to see why – the four main actors. Marlee MatlinTroy Kotsur and Daniel Durant, three out of four family members, are deaf in real-life. And Emilia Jones is the only one in that family who isn’t. As the film title suggests, it’s mainly focused on Emilia (Ruby) and her journey, but, at the same time, not really. Because for this movie to work, you need to understand the family dynamic and the struggle of being the only hearing person and the responsibilities that “burden” brings upon your shoulders from a very early age. That was something CODA did so well. The family dynamic felt real, three dimensional and not forced. It’d be so easy to make one of her parents into a “villain” (and Marlee Matlin brilliantly dances on that fine line for her character), but they aren’t. Everybody’s reasons for their behaviour are valid to an extent, and you understand them.

I have always known the Oscars were not fair as there are so many actors and actresses who get “left out” every year. Well, after CODA finished, I felt weird. Because I thought I had seen one of the best performances in a film in the longest time and someone who should be a clear frontrunner, but then I check and discover she isn’t even nominated! Yes, I am talking about Emilia Jones. Because of what she needs to do in this film and what she had to do to even portray her character as realistically as possible (signing and singing lessons, operating a trawler)… my mind can’t comprehend that. The movie is about her, and for us to connect with her, she needs to hit every single mark every time. She needs to argue with her family and sign like she’d done it her entire life. I am not a deaf person, nor do I know ASL, but how she came across… I was stunned by her. Even now, when I think back to two specific scenes involving her character, the tears are creeping back because both times she commands the screen. But not in an obvious way, and she isn’t overshadowing her family. I honestly believe we will look back a few years from today and wonder, how is it possible she wasn’t nominated?

Another person I thought did an excellent job was Daniel Durant. Yet again, he could have easily been perceived or portrayed as a villain. But instead, because of his performance, you knew where he was coming from; you understood his anger. Because it was coming from a good place, I thought he did exceptionally well in his role and would love to see him getting more recognition because there was something about him. He took what could have been the thankless role and made it unforgettable.

I will put up the spoiler tag soon, even though I don’t think what I will discuss is a big spoiler. Because if you watch the film, you know those scenes are probably coming, but I would love for people to enjoy and savour those moments for themselves, so…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

Ever since Emilia’s character signs for the first, by herself in that quarry, I knew this movie had me emotionally. But as I alluded to this before, there were two scenes where it got me properly. The first one was the concert, following Emilia’s dad making her sing for him while he puts his hands on her throat and chest to feel the song. The concert scene is a powerful example of brilliant filmmaking. Because we’ve heard her practising the titular song for a while before, we know what’s coming. And then we watch her family throughout the concert, looking almost bored (talking… well signing about what to have for dinner and looking around). And then, it switches to their point of view, of complete silence and them looking around simply to watch how others react to their daughter singing. And how some people are moved to tears. That was a crushing moment when you understand she excels at something her parents will never be able to fully enjoy with her, even if they tried their hardest. And how it was in that concert, it clicked for her dad, realising his daughter got talent. Hence the scene after that where he wanted to “feel” her talent for himself. What a brilliant scene.

And, of course, the Berklee audition scene. Everything from her arriving late to Eugenio Derbez being there on piano and fucking up on purpose when he could tell she needed to start again… That was already magical. But when her family sat down and Emilia noticed and began to sign for them as she was singing the song… that is when a tear or two managed to escape my usually cold, dead eyes. Ok, they are not that cold or dead (at least I hope not), but plenty of movies have brought me to almost crying. But most of the time, I manage not to cry, or something doesn’t fully click with me to push me over the edge. In CODA, everything came together. What a beautiful scene.

Overall, CODA is a perfect example of using clichés to your advantage. As mentioned before, this movie isn’t original. I mean, plenty of people might not know this, but CODA is a remake of a French film La famille Bélier (2014) that was criticised for having only one deaf person in the leading role. So you can see, I am not being unfair by stating the fact it’s not original and full of clichés. If you have seen a few movies in your life, nothing about this will surprise you. BUT, how it goes about everything and how the film navigates these clichés to tell a unique story about a girl, who had to grow up a bit too fast, is the bit that made CODA my favourite movie of 2021. Yes, that might change as I have not seen many presumably top-tier films, but this experience will be hard to top. Super easy, wholehearted recommend. Please, do yourself a favour and watch this film.

Rating: 5 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke