The Santa Clause 2 follows the traditional formula of sequels – bigger, louder and playing into what the creators think the audience wants to see more of. And as it often happens with sequels, bigger and louder doesn’t necessarily equal better.

As mentioned before in my review of the first movie, The Santa Clause (1994, my review here), I am experiencing the entire trilogy for the first time. So I fully admit I might (no, scratch that) am not the target audience for this trilogy. But I still thought the first movie was decent enough, albeit not something I would re-watch every Christmas as I do with other films.

And that, unsurprisingly, goes for this sequel too. I will be honest especially when this movie started; I thought this would not be for me at all. Because it shows its hand early on, and the film goes full-on into the “this is a kids movie” territory and goes there instantly. Everything is louder, brighter, with a lot more Santa puns (Elfcon) that will probably make your 6year old spit the breast milk out of their mouths. I won’t lie; I wasn’t getting the “magic” from the first 20 minutes or so.

Then the story kicks in, as surprise surprise, there is a second clause (get it?) to Tim Allen being (or, I guess staying) Santa – he needs to find his Mrs Clause. And it needs to happen soon. Don’t pay any attention to details that it’s been totally ok for him to be Santa for almost ten years now without any wife. The movie needs to have somewhat a resemblance of a plot, so let’s go. But surprisingly, this is where it turned around for me. Because the people behind this film did one thing superbly, and that was the casting of Elizabeth Mitchell. I have liked her ever since Gia (1998) and Lost (2004 – 2010) and haven’t seen her in anything for ages. And she not only brightness up this film for me but also grounds it.

Surprisingly, she works well with Tim Allen. Because she isn’t trying to match his energy/humour, she is there to do her thing and be the “voice of reason” in this film. And trust me, in a movie where the main “villain” is an evil clone of Santa, who looks like he used one too many Instagram filters on his face, someone who can ground this film is needed.

Yes, let’s talk about the clone situation. Did we truly need that? Wouldn’t the film be more magical had we seen Allen’s relationship with Elizabeth build-up for longer? Instead of spending time with this up and coming wannabe influencer, who takes over the North Pole? I get it this is a kids movie through and through, so the path of “least resistance” was the obvious one to take. But at the same time, the most magical moment in the movie, by far, was the “office Xmas party” and seeing all the employees rediscovering their inner child. And I am not saying we couldn’t have the “evil Santa clone” storyline at all, just maybe instead of spending a lot of time with him, wouldn’t it be better to spend more time with the actual Santa, seeing how is he trying to find his Mrs Clause? We could have also focused slightly more on Tim Allen trying to repair his relationship with his son, who ends up on the naughty list. Yes, this film has quite a few storylines going for it, but they don’t compliment each other, as well as you might hope. Mostly the clone Santa storyline sticks out, and we spend (for my money) too much time with him and not enough on the other two storylines.

The Santa Clause 2 has a surprisingly great cast in cameo roles. From Kevin Pollak or Michael Dorn to the stunning Aisha Tyler (portraying Mother Nature), I had fun seeing these actors in a movie like this one; because those are the last people you’d expect to see in a sequel to a film where Tim Allen is playing Santa.

Overall, The Santa Clause 2 is a slightly worse film than its predecessor. But not by much. And that is surprising to me, as based on the beginning of this film, I thought I was in for something way more childish. Luckily, the movie tries to get somewhat serious, and Elizabeth Mitchell grounds it while working well opposite Tim Allen. That, combined with some heartwarming scenes (adults being kids during their office party), makes this film watchable. It’s a shame the people behind this film felt the need to invent a villain who drags the movie down for me. If you liked the previous film, this one will deliver pretty much everything you’d expect.

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

Until next time,

Luke

The Shallows is a fascinating film for me. Firstly I am not too familiar with Blake Lively as an actress. Sure, I have seen her in some movies, but it wasn’t up until recently in the film A Simple Favour (2018), where I have finally seen her as more than “the sexy one”. She rocked in that film (alongside Anna Kendrick), and I knew I needed to see more movies with her. Well, The Shallows is undoubtedly a film where she shines. And she pulls off something not too many actors could – being pretty much the only focus of the movie; she has almost nobody to share a screen with except a seagull.

The Shallows is as raw of a film as they come. There is a resemblance of a “B story” (Blake’s relationship with her family) but only barebones. That might sound like a criticism, but it is not, as the movie knows where its strength lies… well, at least for the most of it. The premise couldn’t be any simpler – imagine being stranded and injured far enough offshore, and a shark is circling around you. Not letting you do pretty much anything. Your phone is on the beach, and that beach? Yeah, “famously” unknown one, where only locals know where it is, so there is little foot traffic. And you know that nobody can help you even if they wanted to, because they wouldn’t know where they should start looking for you.

That is this movie in a nutshell. And for about 80% of it, I’ve loved it. I love when filmmakers go back and strip their films to bare bones. When they have one “basic” idea, and they execute it well. And when they hire the right people. Or, in this case, the right person. Yes, there are some other actors in this movie. But for the vast majority of it, Blake is on her own, with minimum lines. And I think she nailed it. It’s always challenging when you need to act without saying too much when you don’t have lines of dialogue to “hide behind”. It almost opens the actor up to be more vulnerable. And Blake is not only “not bad” to look at (translation – as if we needed another reason to envy Ryan Reynolds. Come on, you can’t be a funny, philanthropic, successful businessman and also form a great looking power couple with Blake alongside you that just isn’t fair. :-)) but she kills the role. You can tell how her character goes through stages of anger, denial and ultimately almost gives up any hope. You are on the journey with her (and her seagull friend Steven Seagull, which is unquestionably an excellent name for a seagull), and you can feel every bruise she’s gotten. You can feel when she is angry, sad or almost given up any hope, and it’s heartbreaking. To say I was impressed with her performance would be an understatement. And then, once I’ve learned that she was pregnant while filming this… my imaginary hat is off.

The movie itself worked for me until the very last 20 minutes or so. Because I get it, we have a shark movie, so eventually, you (as the director) feel obliged to show us the shark more and more, and of course, the main heroine should go toe-to-toe with it. Unfortunately, the movie’s budget didn’t support it, and the sudden (yet expected) shift to action territory didn’t work for me. I would have admired the movie more if it had the balls not to do that. Maybe a “chase” sequence towards the end, where we could see Blake’s character, with her last breath, would desperately try to swim while trying to keep the shark out of the way?

According to the IMDb’s trivia, one of the reasons Blake decided to make this movie was Ryan, who acted in a similar “minimalistic” film called Buried (2010). See for yourself:

Blake Lively was partly inspired by her husband Ryan Reynolds work in the similarly minimalist film Buried (2010), stating “that was one of the reasons why I wanted to take on this movie so much, because I know how tough that was for him and how rewarding it was.”

Source: IMDb.com

And I think by her admitting that it’s fair to compare them “like for like”. Because those movies are similar, to a point, and that is the ending. As Buried (a superb film where Ryan Reynolds showcases his talent. I would 100% recommend it, it’s worth the watch) had the balls to end the movie… without going into spoilers for that film, let’s say in not such a traditional way. And that is why it stuck with me. It’s been over ten years since I’ve last seen it, and I still remember it vividly. Whereas The Shallows I will remember mainly due to Blake’s performance and the unfortunate fact that they didn’t land the ending. I really wish the people behind this film didn’t feel the need to have an action sequence that effectively takes you out of something that (for me) was drama mixed with thriller. And it worked and was built up really well.

Overall, The Shallows is worth seeing. Especially if you are like me and you are not that familiar with Blake Lively as an actress. I can’t think of anything negative I would say regarding her performance. Blake, quite simply, shines and makes the movie. The film itself is a fine mix of drama and thriller that, for the most part, knows that simple = better. Then, for the last 20 minutes, it forgets this lesson and tries to give you an action sequence. And some people might enjoy it, but it took me out of the film completely. But other than that, I can’t recommend this film enough.

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

Until next time,

Luke

As with many movies considered “classics” or “cults”, Ghost in the Shell has been missing me ever since I’ve learned of its existence. And to be fair, even now, it’s hard to watch it legally, as all of my streaming services haven’t had it. But finally, I have managed to watch it (hooray for subscription services with 7day free trial!). And I loved the film visually. I thought the film story-wise was decent enough but… it might have been too late for me to be blown away by it.

What I mean by that is quite simple. Ghost in the Shell’s fundamental theme is “yet again” do synthetic beings (it doesn’t matter how you call them) have a soul? If they have dreams and aspirations, does that make them human? Or are they inherently not human because we made them using wires, motherboards and optics…? The reason I said “yet again” is straightforward – a good chunk of sci-fi films have been dealing with this question almost ever since the genre was established. And I have also managed to see the remake (Ghost in the Shell, 2017) starring Scarlett Johansson. That meant I went in knowing what to expect. And for what it’s worth, and I know I will piss off a few people by saying this, the remake wasn’t that bad. Sure, the original is better, and they should have cast somebody else to honour the source material. But from the few things I remember about it, they tried their best.

But we are here to talk about the original, so let’s do it. As I said before, the visuals still get you even today. There are moments in this film where the camera just flows throughout the city for a couple of minutes. And at first, I was slightly confused as to why. But then I got it. This film knows how to put you in the proper mood. The people behind this knew what they were doing. The same goes with the story; we can see from early on that there is more to our main character. The mystery is also intriguing, and the movie’s pacing is fine.

My only real issue is something that it’s not this film’s fault. Unfortunately, I have seen it a bit too late in my life. So, the story could not have had any significant impact on me. As mentioned before, even your average moviegoer could probably name you five films with this theme. Let alone somebody like me, who has watched most of the sci-fi films available. What can I say, I watch everything, I don’t have a genre I would avoid, but I 100% have my favourite genres. And sci-fi would be in my personal TOP 3, no questions. So I can’t pretend to sit here, writing about this film like I would see something that I have not seen done before and, to be honest, even better.

That doesn’t mean I can’t stop and admire what this movie has managed to do for its time. That is the thing with many movies that might have been almost revolutionary at their time, inspiring young people to find more sci-fi films/stories, maybe make some too. Sometimes, you get to watch those films a bit too late to appreciate them fully. To fully admire them because it seems like this story and themes have been linked with the sci-fi genre itself, by the time you grew up (especially loving movies the way I did), you would have seen tens of films “just like this one”.

But I won’t lie, there is something about this film. So when it was over, I knew that one day I would want to rewatch it. And this time, I will make sure to watch it in the original language, not dubbed. Ok, before you throw the newly sharpened pitchforks in my general vicinity, let me assure you of something. I always watch films in their original language with subtitles. But, unfortunately, the only service that had this movie on I knew of only had it dubbed. And to be fair, the dubbing wasn’t horrible, but I could tell it just wasn’t “it”. So there goes another reason to rewatch it, sometime in the future.

Overall, Ghost in the Shell is a visually stunning movie that still has something to say. The only thing about its message is how many sci-fi films have you seen before watching this one. If the answer is “way too many to count”, you will be in the same “boat” as me, where you might still enjoy and appreciate this film for what it is, but it won’t “rock your socks off”. But if your answer is “not too many”, please watch this film, and you might find something unique, something that might make you think and something easy to look at. I will 100% re-watch it at some point.

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

Until next time,

Luke

If you have been watching the live-action Disney remakes, you know it’s been a while since one worked well. For my money, ever since Cinderella (2015, my review here) and The Jungle Book (2016) came out, we’ve gotten average and below the average films. That was the main reason I had minimal hopes for Cruella, even though I adore Emma Stone and Emma Thompson. Because here’s the thing – there was never any shortage of great actors in Disney films, but that didn’t always translate into a better movie. But it did translate it here.

Cruella feels like a punk-rock, rebellious film. Well, as much as it can be those things while still being under the Disney umbrella. I think, if we put aside the acting (which I will praise soon), that is why I enjoyed this film more than I expected – it had a great “vibe”. It felt way different from anything Disney produced up until this moment. It also didn’t lean into the whole “we need to wink at the audience as much as possible because prequel” too heavily; it mainly did its thing. And that thing was – let Emma Stone be a bad-ass.

Yes, Cruella is a one-woman show for Emma Stone. We have known she was a talented actress for a while now, but yet again, she reminds us that she can do little to no wrong. She could have easily done it for the paycheck; she could have phoned it in, but no. She went there, and because of her, I was on board from the first moment. Part of that was it wasn’t the typical “from clumsy idiot to superstar” journey. The movie shows you that even before she gets the job working for Emma Thompson’s character, she isn’t some shy, clumsy person with a bit of talent. You know how that usually is the cliche, so the person we should care about has the “glow-up” afterwards. Instead of that, we see Cruella as this kid who was always getting into problems. But because of her talent, her individuality rather than clumsiness. I liked the fact that they have done something to establish her character from early on. And once she grows up and “becomes” Emma Stone, that’s a winning combination. She’s the perfect combination of talent, sass and attitude you would imagine Cruella to be.

But no “villain” is great on their own, and here, we have Emma Thompson. At first, her employer, who sees something in this young girl, then becomes her rival in the fashion world. That was the part of the film I liked the most – seeing all those designs, how Emma Stone is the new “it girl” on the scene, and Emma Thompson’s character goes through a believable change from “I am not worried about her” to “We need to get on top of the “Cruella” situation”. Their rivalry and scenes of two Emma’s were 100% highlight of this film.

My only real issue with this film was its length. The run time of 134 minutes was definitely “a bit” too long, and the movie could be trimmed by at least 20 minutes. Especially towards the end, when Emma Thompson’s character figures out who Cruella is, the movie seems to come to a halt, and until the last confrontation of the two Emma’s, the film slows down massively. As much as I appreciate the slightly darker and realistic take on this iconic villain, “more realistic” shouldn’t always mean “this movie needs to be over two hours long because it is cinema!”

But other than that, I can’t say anything bad about Cruella. Maybe it was the expectations I came to the movie with. Perhaps it was the simple fact the people behind this film tried something new(ish) and didn’t rely too much on the existing material and made it their own. But one thing is for sure – both Emmas lifted this movie where it belongs. Especially “the main” Emma carries the film on her shoulders, and she does it with such ease, you feel safe. Some actors can be in a bad movie and still make you feel secure about what you are watching and she 100% is one of the finest ones.

Overall, Cruella is by far the best live-action film based on the original Disney property we’ve had ever since 2016. That doesn’t mean the film has no flaws. But except for the longer than necessary runtime, I couldn’t find any because I was enjoying the feel of this film too much. The fashion the soundtrack, and to top it all off, Emma Stone. She commands this film so well that even if you watch this movie and won’t like it as much as I have, it is still worth seeing for her performance alone. If you haven’t seen it because you are like me, “slightly” fed up with these live-action remakes that are usually (below) average, try to watch Cruella. And just like me, you might be pleasantly surprised.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Ok, let me set the scene. One evening, I am browsing through my Amazon Prime, looking for a movie to watch. I am in the mood for something light, possibly an older film I haven’t seen. And I stumble upon a movie titled The Torture Chamber of Dr. Sadism, with a poster similar to this one below.

You need to understand, I am but a simple man – if I see a title like this, poster like that, I am in. Plus, if you see names like Lex Barker (Czech people are really into Winnetou films) and THE Christopher Lee (!!!) are among the main stars, you bet your top dollar, pound, Bitcoin, whatever currency you use that I am watching that film. Honestly, I wasn’t hoping for much, just some light, cheesy, cough, naked, cough entertainment for a Saturday evening. What I got was… everything but that.

First of all, Amazon sure knows how to market these films. Because this film’s original title is Die Schlangengrube und das Pendel (yes, The Snake and the Pendulum). Also, this movie has a couple of alternative English titles – Blood of the Virgins, The Blood Demon, Torture Chamber… are you sensing a theme yet? Even the distributors knew they needed to hype this film up because it’s so boring…! And no, I am not saying this just because there is no nudity (even though the way this film is paced it wouldn’t have helped).

I will try to retell this film to the best of my abilities. There is a count Regula (I am not joking, that is how Christopher Lee’s character is called in this masterpiece) who gets killed at the beginning of this movie. He promises that he’d return. Cool. Then, 35 years go by, and the people who charged him to die have had daughters and sons, who look EXACTLY the same as their parents. Those offspring are invited for the longest ride in cinematic history (I swear just that ride took like three hours) to arrive at the Dracula’s… I mean Regula’s castle. Who, surprise surprise, IS BACK! And this time is personal, they need to fight him, they win and John’s your uncle or whatever.

I have seen some of the Dracula movies Christopher Lee’s made, and I managed to have fun with them, despite their cheesiness. But this film felt like a cheap knock-off somebody made with a budget of $1000, where 80% of that money went to Lex’s and Christopher’s salaries. So they had to do a lot with what little they had left, and it shows. Believe it or not, I don’t mind cheesy, low budget films that don’t take themselves too seriously. But this one, unfortunately, does. Everybody here plays it so straight it’s hard to take them or the movie seriously.

I am almost 100% sure that some producer had an idea to make a cheap knock-off of Dracula films. But he knew he couldn’t get the name because of licensing issues. But he either had some dirt on both Lex and Christopher to make them appear in this film, or he paid them so well, they just couldn’t resist…? Either way, I can’t see it any other way. This movie has basically nothing going for it.

Both our main stars seem to be done with the film halfway through. And I don’t mean Lee, I mean Karin Dor alongside Lex, as they attend the longest carriage ride. That fucking carriage ride, I can’t get over that. It felt like most of this film we spent there, and the movie is trying to “build up” some atmosphere, the emphasis on “trying to”, as it doesn’t work. Even the end at the castle, where our heroes finally face Dracula… shit, I mean Regula, is as boring as it gets. Because they don’t fight him per se, he manages to tie Lex’s character to a pendulum that’s swinging for so long you might actually die of old age before that pendulum would hit him.

As I said before, I honestly like cheesy, old films that are trying to be scary. I can have fun with them. But there are these films, and then there is a film like this one, where nothing works. Sure, you get one A-lister and one actor, who at the time was fairly known throughout Europe. But nothing else is working in this abomination of a film. Karin Dor is great to look at, sure. But even she has much better movies on her resume.

Overall, The Torture Chamber of Dr. Sadism is one of the rare films whose title describes accurately what it will feel like for you to watch this movie. You will feel like being tortured by Dr. Sadism. That is another thing, how does someone go from Dracula… fuck my life, I won’t ever remember this, Regula to “Dr. Sadism”, I will never understand. But in a way, I totally get it. You can say this film was well ahead of its time, as this is as close as you get to a “film bait” definition. You are promised excitement, horror and possibly some nudity by the poster and the title, and you get… exactly none of these elements. This movie honestly reminds me of those clickbait articles like “10 Actors You Won’t Believe Are Dead” or “This Is What Your Doctor Is Not Telling You! CLICK HERE To See What Can YOU Do to Prolong YOUR LIFE”. Then, you click the article, and after clicking through roughly 104.286 ads, it’s something like “Make sure to drink a lot of water” and “Eat more vegetables” kind of advice. I can’t recommend this movie to anybody. Even the people, who enjoy bad movies, I think they would truly suffer from boredom through this one.

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

Until next time,

Luke