I need to show my cards here – I am a huge Edgar Wright fan. I have been ever since I have seen Shaun of the Dead (2004). I have learned a lot about him, mainly the fact, he’s an avid cinephile. I would imagine he’s the only one who comes anywhere near Quentin Tarantino and/or Martin Scorsese regarding the film knowledge, the passion for movies and how many films he has seen throughout his life. And Last Night in Soho might be his most “matured” film yet. Even though that feels wrong to say because it implies his previous films were not that. They were. But this one seemed so different, yet underneath it all, you could tell it was made by somebody, who is an incredibly clever, movie-loving person.

Last Night in Soho sold me when I watched the very first trailer, with “Downtown” playing underneath it. I knew two things straight away – I didn’t want to see anything else, as I wanted to avoid any potential spoilers, and I will be seeing this in the cinemas, if possible. Luckily, in Scotland just now cinemas are still open, so I took two of my friends and went to see this. And we all loved it. We all had different reasons for it because the movie has so much going for it.

First of all – if you are like me and have only seen the first trailer, you have been lied to… a tiny bit. And that’s good. Because I expected one type of movie, and what I got was something completely different. But guess what? I am glad that was the case. I was so relieved the trailer only showed you enough to get you intrigued, but not too much, so you’d know precisely what will happen and when. So once I realised the fact, this is not “just” a period movie set in the 1960s, I was surprised and intrigued.

Next thing I adored – just how clever and unique Edgar is, portraying the 1960s. Because you can tell instantly through this film (and if you follow him on Twitter @edgarwright) that even though he absolutely loves the decade, he doesn’t fetishes it. The movie starts like that, with Thomasin McKenzie‘s character being in love with everything from the 60s, just to slowly discover that it wasn’t all good. Well, scratch that many things weren’t great at all in the 60s. But here’s the thing – the movie understands that you can do both – you can still admire the films, the music, the fashion of that era and with the same breath admit, there were a lot of issues with… well, take your pick. This movie centres mainly on woman’s experience during that era, but I guarantee you any minorities at that time also didn’t have “a jolly great time”. At times, it felt like a sobering documentary picture, with some superb performances mixed in.

Yes, here’s the part where we will talk about the three ladies – the already mentioned Thomasin, Anya Taylor-Joy and Diana Rigg. Sure, we have a few other major actors in this (and let’s face it, both Terence Stamp and Matt Smith were great), but this isn’t their movie. They are almost props to our three leading ladies. Almost like the movie flipped it, as in the 60s, the ladies were the “props”? I am sure this was just a coincidence. 🙂 First of all, I completely forgot that Diana Rigg died in 2020, and this is her last performance. And what a way to go. Most people will recognize her mainly due to her role on Game of Thrones (2011 – 2019) playing Olenna Tyrell. But I hope that seeing her performance here will inspire moviegoers like me to get more familiar with her filmography. It sure inspired me, as she was a vital part of this film and gave a superb performance.

I have only seen Thomasin in Jojo Rabbit (2019, my review here), but I will correct that and get more of her movies watched. Because she is the lead of this film and she delivers. Her character is given a lot to do/deal with, and she nailed everything. At any given moment, you understand her, you sympathize with her, and you feel for her. I really hope this will be her breakthrough, and we will see a lot of her in the upcoming years. When comes to Anya… what else is there to say? You can’t convince me otherwise that she was the one whose career was raised above and beyond in 2020 and continues to strive and succeed. And not because of her beauty, but purely based on her talent. And you are telling me she can sing too? Ok, that’s just not fair; you need to leave something for the rest of us. Both Anya and Thomasin were spectacular in a different way. It almost felt like they were different sides of the same coin.

I always love that Edgar doesn’t “simply” make movies – he makes a movie almost as a way of paying homage to his heroes. Maybe this is me reading into this a bit too much, but Last Night in Soho felt like Edgar was confessing his love not just for the 1960s but also for the movies of that era and later, with two names coming to my mind throughout the film – Brian De Palma and Alfred Hitchcock. Let me explain – I thought the use of colour and the paranoia was really “De Palmaesque”, and certain mirror scenes to me felt really Hitchcockian. And the moment towards the end, where there is a knife involved, and we can hear violins in the soundtrack, reminding us of Psycho (1960)… Or I may be reading something into it that’s not there at all. But I wouldn’t be surprised, as that is almost his thing – to base his movies around genres, he loves and take something and put his own, unique twist on them. And the best part, it never feels cheap. It always comes across as a loving homage, rather than “Let me just steel this element real quick, because I know it works”.

The only thing (and this is not a criticism and is up for debate) is that I don’t consider this a horror film. I think this movie occasionally goes to horror territory, but for the majority of it, I got more of a psychological thriller vibes more than anything. The reason I am mentioning this – if you want to go and see this movie, you absolutely should. Because it’s amazing, stunning and clever. But don’t go expecting a straight-up horror film, as you might leave slightly disappointed by that. There are some horror elements (and jump scares), but not too many. Especially towards the end, I wasn’t even jumping out of my seat. I was glued to the screen and my seat, watching everything, not wanting to miss a single detail.

Overall, Last Night in Soho was one of my most anticipated movies of the year 2021. I went in hoping it would deliver something unique, clever and stylized. And I got that and much, much more. This movie might not be everyone’s cup of hot cocoa, and I get it. But it was sure enough mine. The film is clever in many ways; it pays homage to an entire decade without fetishizing it and addresses issues of the years past and today’s ones (the taxi ride at the very beginning.) If you can, please do yourself a favour and watch this in the cinemas. The movies like Last Night in Soho should be supported as much as possible. I can’t wait to re-watch it.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Oh, Jesus-tap-dancing-Christ. Where do I start with this? Ok, first things first – whenever I find out that a movie is a remake, I try to watch the original first, to see what has been done where, what was improved, what wasn’t, you know. So I went into this film right after watching the original Black Christmas (1974, my review here). And I have praised the original movie for being a gem that helped establish plenty of rules for horror movies to come while having a great, albeit not-so-subtle feminist message. This remake is, unfortunately, the exact opposite of that. The clichés are used in such a lazy way, you can see every single twist from a mile away (except for the dumbest twist, but I will get to that), and the feminist message here was… let’s say more than in your face. A lot to unpack here…

I can’t discuss much without going straight to spoilers, so I do apologise, as usually, I try to sum up a film at least a tiny bit before going into the spoiler territory. But plenty of things that are bad with this remake are so intertwined with the main plot I need to jump there pretty much straight away. Let me just say that the only thing this remake has in common with the original from 1974 is the name and the setting (sorority house). Everything else is different. That might make you think something like: “Hey, that’s great, at least the remake is trying to say something different and isn’t copying the original!” Sure, but where the original helped establish the horror clichés, this one felt like they gave in to them, focusing solely on the message. That would be fine if the message wouldn’t be so black and white. Ok, without further ado…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

Black Christmas starts like your stereotypical horror film. We have a murder within the first five minutes. Fine. Except this is where the movie shows its hand for the first time – the killer is not “a shadow” we never see, like in the original, but a masked, hooded figure. And since it moves way too quickly, you realise almost instantly – ok, there are multiple killers.

Which is fair enough; after all, plenty of horror films made that work, albeit they didn’t tip their hand in the first five minutes. But ok, moving on. The movie consists of plenty of cheap jump scares (something the original managed to avoid), but I understand that unfortunately is the “norm” nowadays, so I can’t hold that against this film too much either. But there is no underlying tension, no horror atmosphere whatsoever, as it gets overshadowed by this movie’s “in your face” feminism and the (men) characters being so black or white you swear you are watching a film from the 1920s.

Look, a lot of great horror movies comment on political issues. But, and this is huge but, they do it subliminally, via allegories or metaphors. They don’t do it by effectively taking a megaphone and shouting at you for an hour and a half. Because that is what I remember most, and that is how I felt while watching this film. The men characters here are either really useless/weak or the worst possible men you’ll ever meet. The thing here is I could even understand why if there wasn’t the supernatural element. I know what you are asking: “Wait, what now? What supernatural element are you talking about?” Oh well, that was the only “twist” I didn’t see coming because it was so dumb.

In a nutshell, the movie mentions in the beginning how the school’s founder was this awful guy who might have been involved with some dark magic. He was so bad they removed his bust someplace else, so it wasn’t as visible. And while moving the bust, somebody noticed there was a black goo leaking out. Someone also discovered (how?) that black goo “unleashes the alpha male”. Yep. And that infects you (aka fraternity guys) so much, they don’t bleed blood anymore; they bleed the black goo. And the founder is also alive, somehow, or his spirit…? Yes, this is something that the movie hints at towards the end; there is this massive (boss) hooded figure in charge, but never explained how, why, who…?

And here’s the thing – I don’t have a problem with “supernatural” elements. Or black goo that turns people evil. But in your horror/political movie, that’s all about how men are evil creatures – doesn’t the existence of black goo go against it? As the fraternity guys are infected by the black goo, how are they responsible for what they do under its spell? To me, that’s a massive misstep in the film, as it almost shifts the blame from the men to “they were only evil because of the magic black goo, that was somehow preserved in this bust of the evil founder of our school”.

I know, there is a trivia on IMDb trying to give us an insight into this:

The black goo that the fraternity brothers bleed is meant to represent literal toxic masculinity and how it affects men and changes them from humans into monsters. It was also used because they were not allowed to show red coloured blood in a PG-13 rated film.

Source: IMDb.com

But for my money, the film is trying to be too clever for its own good. Sometimes, the clearer your point is, the better it works. This movie is a prime example. It would have worked much better as a movie, let alone a horror movie if there wasn’t any evil black goo. Whether it represents something or not.

I swear this movie went from “average, slightly more in your face movie” to “batshit insane” with that supernatural element. I wish the people behind this film would have just left it out completely, and that would have improved the movie instantly. And better yet, maybe don’t make the main villain (Cary Elwes, who is much better than to be in this film, but I could say that about any actor/actress in this) the obvious one. How great/unexpected would it be if Madeleine Adams (who plays Helena, who is revealed as a traitor to her sisters) would be the “main boss” behind this? How more interesting/nuanced the story/the message could have been?

From the main cast, I need to talk about Imogen Poots. She was perfectly fine in her role. But same as Cary Elwes, she is much better than to appear in this film. I “liked” (the quotes are there because it’s hard to say that I liked a rape story) how her storyline was dealt with and how the “sexy dance” routine turned into this fuck you to the frat guys. If only the movie had more genuinely surprising scenes like this.

And to prove I am not some “not all men” or some sour person, I will give you a perfect example of what this movie could have been. But it’s not based on my views (because I do need to admit, I am but a white, straight male), no. If you want to see a movie that is out there when comes to these issues and knows how to portray characters well, how to tell a story in a superb way, where it stays with you for days to come, please do yourself a favour and watch Emerald Fennell‘s Promising Young Woman (2020, my review here).

The more I think about it, the more I am sure both of these movies are pretty much identical. Except one is superb, and one just “is”. One portrays very well how it is to be a woman in the man’s world while not being condescending but, at the same time, giving zero fucks. The other film shouts at you. One has characters (even some male ones, so it’s not that difficult) who are complex and all in their core flawed to some extent. But some are more flawed than others. The other film has a “girl power, fuck yeah!” thing going on that doesn’t work because it doesn’t feel like part of the story. And I could write like this for days, but instead of wasting your time and mine, I shall repeat – please, do yourself a favour and watch Promising Young Woman. It might not be a horror movie per se, but it’s so close to being a horror film it’s that much scarier than this movie.

Overall, Black Christmas fails on all accounts. It fails as a horror, as it can’t scare you without cheap jump scares. It fails as a political movie, as there is no depth to almost any characters, beyond “girl power!” for most of the women and “I take ages to invite a girl out” or “I will fucking rape/murder you” for men characters. It fails with its many twists, as most you see coming from a mile away (if you ever seen a horror movie or two). And the one that you don’t see coming is just so dumb you are left to wonder, why does it have to be there? But, most importantly, it fails as a remake of Black Christmas. A movie that helped defined the genre and actually had something to say when comes to feminism. And it didn’t need to shout at you.

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 were like me, growing up in the early 2000s, you might have heard stories about how this film was terrifying etc. So naturally, you didn’t want to watch it. Then, you grow up to discover that you do like horror movies and you try watching those famous ones, as those should be good, right? That’s what I thought, at least. This film didn’t sit well with me at all.

Cabin Fever is clever, starting as your stereotypical “cabin in the woods” story. A bunch of horny teenagers go to the cabin for a weekend, meet a local (racist, but there is a caveat to that I will address later) clerk, who semi warns them they get out and head towards the cabin. They make themselves comfortable one couple immediately goes to bed and gets freaky, the others go out, and one of them stumbles upon a strange dude.

From then on, everything changes. You realise you are not watching a slasher, more a virus/plague movie. And maybe it has something to do with the fact, we are still dealing with the pandemic and have a virus going around, killing people (albeit not in such a gruesome way as this one) I did not care for it. The smartest character was the guy who freaked out about germs and bailed on everybody. I appreciated that because even though back then he was the asshole, in 2021, he’s the most reasonable one in that group!

Where the movie loses me was with pretty much anything else. You can tell Eli Roth had a limited budget, which is not a bad thing per se. That is if you know how to shoot your way around it. Unfortunately, this film didn’t. The movie looks cheaper than even the original The Evil Dead (1981), especially the editing struck me as quite harsh (cutting too quickly in between scenes) for some of the scenes. And it’s downright bizarre. But yet again, the bizarreness of it isn’t blended well into the film.

I know the “pancakes karate kid” is beloved for how weird that segment is (kid does karate in slow motion while shouting: “PANCAKES!” and then bites one of our heroes). And if it stayed with just that one thing, I think I would not mind that much. By the way, I appreciated the humour of when our protagonists are back there, later on, there is a sign saying something about how strangers shouldn’t approach the kid as he bites. But then, we have the cop character, who was more interested in partying. And every scene with him, the way he carried himself, took me out of the movie and transported me in a Monty Python sketch. But not one of those good ones, no. It transports you to one of those sketches that are weird, and you know there is a joke somewhere around, but you can’t find it.

I appreciated most of the performances here for a horror movie our main protagonists played precisely, who they were meant to play. I guess the highlight for me must have been Cerina Vincent. Not because of her nude scenes (those were nice, I won’t lie) but mainly for her attitude towards everything. There is a scene involving her and Rider Strong towards the end that was so funny to me. Just something about the way her character went about it.

I have been thinking, trying to figure out why Cabin Fever didn’t work for me as a horror film? And after some time, I think I’ve figured it out. The “cabin in the woods” concept works brilliantly for slashers because “the killer” can come from any direction you are alone, in the middle of the woods. But if you don’t have a killer but a virus killing our main protagonists, then the concept doesn’t make sense. It’s not a slasher per se, more like psychological horror, and those work much better in closed, claustrophobia-like spaces, with our heroes trapped someplace they can’t escape from. The characters in this film were neither. I never got the sense of urgency, even though we see the virus progressing and killing them off. It felt to me like this movie started with the twist (“let’s make a horror movie, that looks like your typical slasher, but it will be more of psychological horror and there is no killer, but it’s a virus”), and they worked back from there. And unfortunately, nobody stopped to check whether it makes sense tonally. Everything else was sacrificed for that twist, tone included. Which is a big one if your killer is “an invisible virus”.

And before I forget, the old guy at the beginning wasn’t racist, see? He only said the n-word because he knew the black people, and they say the n-word back! Oh, the early 2000’s, where this was considered comedy.

Overall, Cabin Fever is a horror film that tries to be unique. And in some ways, it definitely succeeds. But as a horror film, it didn’t work for me at all. The twist dictates everything else in this movie; that is why you have no sense of underlying tension, tone, anything you can grasp. Then you have to deal with Monty Python/Twin Peaks like characters, who effectively took me out of the movie even more. I can see how this could be somebody else’s cup of hot cocoa. It’s just not mine.

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 hard writing a review for Taken, as it became a pop culture phenomenon… well, at least THAT Liam Neeson‘s speech about “a particular set of skills”. It’s hard writing a review because people often forget that this movie is more than that but not too much more. And that, believe it or not, is this movie’s biggest strength.

I still remember watching Taken for the first time. I believe it was the end of 2009, so before this film became “That’s the movie where the speech is from!” almost a punchline. I didn’t know much about it, only heard good things from people, who love action films, how this one is great and how Liam is kicking ass. And with little to no expectations, I’ve watched it. 90 minutes later, I was ready to take on the entire world as my adrenaline went through the roof. I was in total disbelieve, how great yet simple this movie was and how believable Liam was.

That is another thing people tend to forget. This movie effectively restarted Liam’s career, and that is why not only he became the “I am old, pissed and armed” guy to approach, he (and effectively this film) inspired other semi-retired older actors to “give this action movie a try”. You have to remember something – before this film, Liam had been known as a dramatic actor, with some exceptions on his resume. But nowadays, there might be a generation of fans that recognize him with a gun in his hand, and it all started here.

While re-watching this film recently, I have confirmed two things – this film is still a superb adrenaline ride, and the reason it works that well is its simplicity. Where other films would have tried to make the story more convoluted, this one simply knows what it wants to show (Liam kicking many asses) and how to get there. Through his relationship with his daughter…? Yes.

That is another thing plenty of people tend to forget when discussing this film. We all know his daughter gets kidnapped, but did you remember it takes almost 30 minutes before that happens? So yeah, all that excitement, the adrenalin you and I remember, stems purely from about 60 minutes. And yet, it works. We needed those 30 minutes to see the complexity of his relationship with his daughter. How much she means to him, how much he sacrificed just to be near her. So the moment when she “finally” gets kidnapped and Liam destroys half of France to get her back, you understand everything. He’s a soldier on a very simple mission who has little time for anything else. Ok, occasionally, he saves some other girls, but that’s done almost by accident. His focus remains sharp, and once the movie starts to run, it doesn’t stop.

And I think that’s the biggest compliment I can give to Taken. Here, we have a 90-minute film, where the first 30 minutes or so, we spend on exposition, seeing their family dynamic, getting hints about what a badass Liam truly is (or was, as you know, he’s retired). But once the movie is done, you won’t think back, saying: “I wish we could have shortened the first 30 minutes to get even more action.” No, because it wouldn’t have been as impactful and because the action never stops, you completely forget, the first 30 minutes even happened. I don’t know how, but Pierre Morel truly captured lightning in a bottle. As proven by countless copies since this movie, or even with the official two sequels, it seems easy, but this is pretty hard to pull off.

Overall, Taken is worth a watch (or re-watch) as I feel like it became almost a punchline. Not only because of the famous speech but also with two pretty unnecessary sequels, we often forget that the first one was brilliant. I would compare this film to First Blood (1982). Sure, at first glance, it might seem a bit weird comparing a modern action movie to Rambo, as it’s more commonly known. But think about it – simplistic story, done well, that became a punchline, while having unnecessary sequels, where people often forget that the original is a much better film. Taken is as fun as you might have with an action movie.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I have never understood the fascination with any Tarzan movies or the story itself. But people seem to be drawn to the idea of a person who was raised by the jungle/animals. That means every couple of years, we get another of these films. And they are pretty much the same, with minor differences, like the cast, how much CGI a movie can afford to use, how in shape the Tarzan should be and how badly will the movie age. To answer these questions in order – the cast is probably the best there has ever been, a lot of CGI, in fact, more the merrier, Tarzan’s abs should have their own abs, and who knows, as art is a reflection of its time.

The Legend of Tarzan is a fascinating film to me. But not fascinating, in the good sense of the world, more like: “Wow, it is fascinating that everything around the world seems to be bleaker than ever.” Because I had one question on my mind for the entirety of this film – how a movie like this, with everything going for it (top-notch cast, budget, creative people behind the camera) can end up being so boring? How do you make a movie about Tarzan and somehow make it bleak, boring, and so forgettable with the budget of $180 million?!

Let me start with the positives – the cast. That’s pretty much it. Alexander Skarsgård was trying his best with the material he had, and to his credit, he did the best he could. Plus, his physique was simply impressive. If everyone behind this film worked as hard as he had, this would have won all the Oscars. Even in the categories, it wouldn’t have been nominated. Margot Robbie is effectively wasted as an actor in this film despite all the efforts to give her character something to do. She ends up captured and becomes the “damsel in distress”. Her relationship with Alexander was believable, but I can’t give the movie any extra credit for that, come on! Two attractive people pretend they find each other attractive that must have taken all their talent. Christoph Waltz was fine, but he seemed to be stuck in his usual “I am Christoph Waltz, I only know how to play one villain type pretty well, so don’t ask me to do more.” mode. But we can’t say “what a waste of a talented actor” without mentioning Djimon Hounsou. This guy can’t catch a break. He is always type-casted as a villain or an African person. This movie went with the latter, and we are all worse because of it. 

I had a tiny sliver of hope for this movie when I learned there is a… twist, maybe? The twist was that in this world (and this is no spoiler), Tarzan is almost a celebrity who needs to go back to the jungle to help out. The movie tricked me into thinking that maybe by having this caveat, they will sink their teeth more into the character of Tarzan. But no, they use it for next to nothing, forcing us to watch “Tarzan lives in London now” for a way too long, so we hope for the story to get back to its roots and get him to the jungle already.

What you (and I) have failed to realise is that instead of giving us some “nature porn”, where we could at least admire the scenery of Gabon (where they shot the film), what we get are some shots of Gabon, but mostly CGI. Because here’s the thing – it doesn’t matter if you shoot on location. If you go into overdrive with your CGI (and one that looks awful), everything becomes less impressive. I couldn’t even tell when CGI stops and “real nature” begins. And to make myself crystal clear, that isn’t a compliment. Sometimes, you get movies in which people behind them manage to blend both CGI and practical things (either effects or locations) to great avail. But most of the time, you end up with a movie like The Legend of Tarzan. Because the main hero is completely digital (when swinging), everything blends in together, and you are pulled out of the film.

Please believe me, I am trying desperately hard to find another positive about this movie, but I am coming up short. I had almost no expectations when starting this film, and somehow, the movie managed to disappoint me. Especially with the talent involved, the money spent on making this…

Overall, The Legend of Tarzan should and could have been at least a fun, entertaining movie. The creators tried to give this old story some spin, and the actors tried their hardest with what they were given. And yet, somehow, nobody wins here. I can’t imagine hardcore fans of Tarzan (I don’t know any, but I am sure they exist) being happy with this film. I can’t imagine your stereotypical moviegoing film lover being happy with this, and I am not happy either. This film is just a soulless blend of CGI, great cast and a shit ton of money that the studio could have put someplace else entirely.

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

Until next time,

Luke