Anyone, who is just a tiny bit familiar with a larger than life persona of John Waters knows, that his movies are always on the verge of… well, couple of things. Sometimes it might be a good taste (still haven’t seen his most famous film, Pink Flamingos (1972) as I’ve heard couple of really “interesting” things about the movie, so I am still mentally bracing myself to eventually watch it) and sometimes on the verge of camp, like Cecil B. Demented. And you either love it, or hate it. Or more precisely, you either love Waters or not. And that directly impacts your enjoyment of his movies, as I don’t think there is more polarizing filmmaker, who is so 50/50 with mainstream audience, where you either understand his shtick, or you don’t want to.

This film is surprisingly “tame” for his standards, as it mainly criticizes Hollywood and everything about it, from their reliance on sequels, to most people there being fake and being in it just for the money (hm, not much has changed since 2000, did it?). But what this movie does really well, it takes that concept into camp overboard. What I mean by that – it would have been so easy to get caught in the trap of being too preachy. After all, he might be an outsider and someone who challenges the system, yet he is still very much part of it, but this film sends its message through over the top camp, and I am here for it, so even if some “not so subliminal” messages about what real art is hit too hard on the nose, it’s done in such a crazy fashion, it’s more than bearable.

Everybody in this “rebel cinema crew” has tattoos that somehow relate to masters of cinema, they are in it for the “art for the arts sake”, but their leader (amazingly over the top performance by Stephen Dorff) is always taking it a few steps too far, from not having sex until the movie’s finished, to using live grenade, ammunition, guerrilla style filmmaking that often includes innocent people, to sacrificing lives for the art. And also forcing it onto his crew, effectively making himself a cult leader. Yeah, Cecil B. Demented is wacky, campy love letter to cinema in its purest form, that can be read at the same time as a warning against what happens, when you take anything “too pure” too far. You know the saying, everything in moderation.

Let’s talk about this movie’s casting, because there are a few big names. Already mentioned Stephen Dorff as the titular character Cecil, Melanie Griffith, who plays the “bad Hollywood diva turned good(?)” also goes all in when comes to her performance, even though she’s more “reserved” than him. By far my favourite performance was by Maggie Gyllenhaal as the Satanist worshipper, who just killed me with her every line (“Want some goat urine?” or “Pain is pleasure! Slavery is freedom! Suicide for Satan!”) and played that really quirky, out there character with everything she’s got and more. Who I was really surprised to see here (and had to pause the movie to make sure it was the guy I was thinking, as he’s credited here as “Mike”) was Michael Shannon as a gay person, whose true love is ashamed of being straight, as he “just loves pussy so much, he’s ashamed of being hetero!”. Since he’s such a dramatic actor nowadays, it was truly great seeing him in totally different role and as with everyone around him, just going with the flow and giving his best to this movie.

I think that’s the part I appreciated the most – all the actors understand, that this is a really campy movie, and yet, everybody is giving everything they have. Nobody holds back, they all seem to be having so much fun, it’s impossible not to have fun alongside these crazy, demented cinema rascals. And even though they go “a bit” too far, most of what they say you can agree with it (in principal, of course). But since it’s done in really campy form, the movie never feels preachy. I really liked that aspect of it.

The only thing I was slightly disappointed by, I wanted something more, one scene, that would stand out among all this craziness. Because if everything that’s happening is crazy, eventually nothing seems to be crazy, because it evens itself out. It feels weird to even say that, but I was expecting something more outrageous, one scene that would just underline everything and I don’t think I’ve gotten that in this film.

Overall, Cecil B. Demented is a film, that’s made for certain audience only. It’s definitely more of acquired taste, where if you enjoy crazy, campy performances, films, and also understand enough of cinema history and references, you will have a really good time. But if you think a movie, that’s preaching “Power to the people who punish bad cinema!”, while attacking the shoot of Forrest Gump‘s sequel, is taking it too far, this might not be a film for you.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Assault on Precinct 13 is one of those movies, that you can’t escape from, when you turn into a cinephile. Often mentioned alongside its remake by the same name from 2005, that’s also supposed to be pretty good. But for what its worth, I have never heard about the main selling point behind the movies’ “X” rating (that’s what people in Hollywood call a death sentence, as that’s the strongest advisory rating there is, only a few mainstream movies get those). And you know what? I am going to talk about it, and even though this is a film from 1976, I will eventually put a spoiler tag in front of it, as it’s something, that if you’ve not heard it’s coming, it will definitely shock you.

But let’s start from the beginning – this is John Carpenter‘s second feature movie, just a few years before he cemented his name in the cinematic history once and for all, by creating one of the most known/recognisable movie serial killers of all time, Michael Myers (yes, of course I am talking about the Halloween (1978) movie, that turned into a franchise spanning around 1629 sequels/remakes by this point). But even in this film, you can tell this is from him, as it has his signature all over it. From the funky, unique synthesizer soundtrack, that he himself created/recorded (that’s something he does often, including the famous Halloween theme that is also done by him) to steady camera work, the tension build up, working with mainly “smaller” actors, it’s all here. Even the story could not have been simpler, but because of they way he tells it, you are invested. If there is one thing Carpenter always knew how to do, is to take little to no money he had to his disposal and utilize it in the most effective way possible. His movies never look cheap, even though he never had (especially in his early years) money to splurge.

By far the best thing this movie has going for it, is the tension building. I can see how it could be perceived as boring by today’s standards, especially the first 30 to 40 minutes of the movie, nothing much happens except of THAT one scene I will talk about soon, but in the reality, you can feel the uneasiness being built. And that is something we are not used to anymore, in this day and age of hyper, quick editing, straight to the action films. The more of Carpenter’s movies I watch, the more I wonder how come we don’t talk about him on the same level as Alfred Hitchcock, who is known as the “master of suspense”. I could genuinely argue John Carpenter should be in the same discussion, because his movie might not always be 100% perfect, but you could always cut suspension with a knife and he knows how to build it and utilize it.

Before going into the spoilers, let me just explain my only thing against this film – the performances. I understand the standards were way different in 1976 to what we have now. But some of these line readings were borderline awful and almost put the movie in the comedy genre for me. I am not going to single anybody out, but let’s just say that maybe John wasn’t as great when comes to directing women, as some of them read their lines with either deadpan delivery of a robot, or really over the top. Yes, I know you can say that even Halloween has some of this, but in there, I felt like it’s not as visible, or mostly it’s overshadowed with everything else that’s going on. And since this is more straightforward, more contained story, it is more noticeable. Ok, so let’s go the “main” shocking scene and as weird as it might seem, putting the spoiler tag for a movie that’s almost 50 years old, I encourage you, don’t read any further, if you haven’t seen it and you are considering watching this film. For the rest of you…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

It’s so weird having this tag for such a straightforward movie and for what is just one scene, but I really believe this is the crucial scene, that will “wake you up”, if you think this movie is boring. Maybe that’s the reason this scene is in the film, maybe just to make you aware, that anything is on the table, but yeah, I am talking about the infamous “ice cream scene”. This is one of the few mainstream movies, where we see a child (small girl, in this instance) getting physically shot and the camera doesn’t cut away. I can’t remember of the top of my head, but I have definitely seen movies, where children die, that’s not “unusual” (what a weird thing to write about, btw) but I am scrambling my brain for a mainstream movie, where the camera doesn’t either cut away when it happens, or we skip the scene altogether, so it’s implied it happened, or just stated it happened in the next scene. But not here, no. Here we see it and what adds to the scene, it happens like it’s nothing, no emotions, no hesitation, just a simple shot through the girl’s ice cream (that’s what you get for complaining about your ice cream, I guess? :-D, I know, I am a horrible person).

Overall, Assault on Precinct 13 is definitely worth watching, if you are into smaller, straightforward movies and you can appreciate a film, that takes its time and builds up tension. If you like Carpenter’s earlier films and admire his style, you will definitely have a good time with this one too, just get ready for some questionable performances and one scene, that might be quite uncomfortable, as it’s something, we don’t get to see too often (and I would say that’s a good thing).

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

Until next time,

Luke

Raya and the Last Dragon is one of those COVID-19 films, that were due in the cinemas in 2020, but since world has been kind of strange, it got pushed back, amongs many others. When it got finally released on Disney+, I’ve heard mixed reviews, where people were either underwhelmed, or just “whelmed”. I have yet to see somebody to praise this really highly (well, my girlfriend really liked it, so I am guessing I have finally seen somebody, who really adores this film).

For what its worth, I think I fall into the “whelmed” camp, where I thought this film was pretty cool, cute, colourful and at places, slightly unpredictable (I knew how the story will go/end up, just didn’t guess the route it took, so that’s a plus in my book) Disney movie, that mainly suffers from being a bit too long. I thought for the story and how it went about telling it, the movie had about 10 minutes too long.

I really appreciated the slightly new(ish) spin on all too familiar story (hero, or in this case, heroine, who needs to save the world, that used to be great, and while doing that, she might learn a lesson or two) but I thought at places the movie dragged on (or dragoned…? No? Ok I’ll see myself out then) a bit too much. What I also didn’t understand was how often then movie repeated itself, when comes to names of the dragons, or how our protagonists would talk about “we are approaching *insert a place named after a dragon body part here*, finally!” just for us to get the big font title screen with *insert a place named after a dragon body part here, you know, the one we’ve just mentioned 5 seconds ago*. I understand this is a movie for kids, but trust me, kids nowadays are not dumb and they catch on quickly, you don’t need to spell everything out for them.

I thought the voice casting was perfect. I really enjoyed both Kelly Marie Tran voice and performance. What I was surprised by was the fact how much I enjoyed Awkwafina‘s performance. I am not going to lie, it always takes me out of the movie slightly when characters, especially the ones that are supposed to live “long time ago”, speak in modern slang and use popular phrases. So it took me a while to get used to Awkwafina’s performance, but there was something about her voice that quickly convinced me and I loved it. Also, she definitely had some funny lines, definitely a perfect example of a great comedic character, that could have been annoying, but wasn’t.

Raya and the Last Dragon is also a great example of stunning animation, where the characters don’t necessarily look real-life, but everything around them does. Mainly the water animation, the level of attention to details, some of those desert shots… I loved how colourful this film was, it was truly joy to look at and it never felt like too much, or something would look off. But then again, it is Disney, so they can afford to spend some decent money on their movies.

Towards the end, when I started to fell the extra length of some scenes, I was really on the edge when comes to my rating, but then as I alluded to at the start of my review, things I expected to happen, happened. But way differently then I imagined. And I really liked that. Some of you might be thinking, what does it matter how it goes about it, if you know from the very beginning, how the story ends? Well, I really much believe in the rule of “it’s the journey, not the destination” so that is why to me, these tiny details matter. It’s easier to take the road that’s more travelled, so I do appreciate this film for at least throwing something slightly unexpected at us.

Overall, Raya and the Last Dragon is a prime example of Disney movie, that you can say it’s pretty great. It’s visually beautiful, mostly funny adventure, where you know what you are getting yourself into, but also the movie might surprise you at times by the path(s) it takes to get there. It can’t be measured with the likes of Pixar however, as not only it was a bit too long for me, I felt like there was nothing deeper in it. Don’t get me wrong, the movie’s message about “people being people” and “we are best when we come together, trust and help each other” is a good lesson. But compared to the “the cream of the crop” animated movies of the last 20 years or so, it does feel a bit on the shallow side, like there isn’t much meat on these bones. But it’s a great family movie nevertheless, and I don’t think you will regret watching this cute, colourful film.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I remember when the first Borat (aka Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, 2007) came out and how shocking it was. It was this movie, that made learn who Sacha Baron Cohen was and because of it, I have started to follow him more closely, as I liked his edginess, how we managed to mock people, by just allowing them to express themselves. But how do you top that? How do you make a sequel to a film like that, without solving some issues. First of all, the culture has progressed so much, we are so desensitized, plenty of things no longer shock us and more importantly, the Borat character became so known all over the world, it would be next to impossible to find enough people, who wouldn’t know what’s happening (as shown by the beginning of this film). And this is where the brilliance of casting Maria Bakalova comes in. Whether it was Sacha himself, or one of his screenwriters, they deserve the praise, as not only it was genius move, but she was superb.

Borat Subsequent Moviefilm (aka Borat Subsequent Moviefilm: Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit Once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan) feels more cinematic than its predecessor, and not because of technical reasons (camera work etc.), no. Because of everything that’s happened (election, COVID pandemic and mainly the entire storyline with his daughter) there actually seemed to be a cohesive narrative, not just like the first movie, where the main story was about him looking to marry Pamela Anderson. And honestly, Maria has a lot to do with that fact.

It’s still rare, in almost 100 years of Oscar existence, to be nominated for a performance in comedy film. I believe the number of people who managed to get nominated for that (and again, we are not talking about screenplays, just purely acting) would still be single digits. That’s how rare it is and that is why it always feels almost questionable, when somebody manages to do that. When Maria’s nomination was announced, I was shocked and it made me want to watch this film even more. And now I can say that I can see why she was nominated. She had a such a tough job – be on the same level of insanity as Sacha’s character, but at the same time, she needed to be more of a “straight woman”, for some of his jokes to work. As the golden rule of comedy goes, somebody needs to be the crazy one and somebody needs to be straight one, to make the crazy one standout and for the jokes to bounce off each other well. If both (or multiple) characters try to top each other and be the crazy, comedic one, it doesn’t work (for an unfortunate example of that, please see the Ghostbusters (2016) reboot, that’s not really a reboot?) So she already had her work cut out with that, but she not only nailed that part, but her character had an actual growth throughout the movie, where at the end of it, you couldn’t really laugh at her anymore. And that is no easy job to convey, in Borat movie! I was honestly impressed with her acting chops and I can’t wait to see her in other movies.

The main thing I loved about this film was how many obstacles they had to jump through (mainly the COVID-19 pandemic) and how brilliantly they incorporated them into the actual film. Just the fact Sacha actually lived for almost a week with the conservative people in their cabin, having to go to sleep and wake up in the character of Borat, is insane. On top of that, throughout the movie, he manages to stay as edgy as ever with a splash of brilliance on top (the whole abortion bit is just great).

My only issue is the same thing I praised the film for just a few sentences before – wait, what…? Yes. Because of more narrative, and because this feels more like your conventional movie, the last 30 minutes or so do feel like the film loses a bit of steam. Maybe it was because in most of it, Maria wasn’t there…? Yeah, she is back for the now infamous Rudy bit (which was probably the most uncomfortable moment in the entire thing and that is saying something) and the very end, but I still felt like the film might have been a bit too long. I do have to say, the final pay-off is worth it.

Overall, I would recommend this, as I thought it’s still a clever, funny movie, that yet again exposes certain people for who they are. If I were to make any distinctions between this film and the first Borat movie, I would say they are both great in their own right. It depends what you are in mood for. If you want to watch something with little to no narrative and laugh basically every single moment of the film, go for the original one. If you prefer something with more of a story, narrative structure and great performance(s) with actual growth, go for this sequel. I think you shouldn’t be disappointed either way.

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 ever seen any movie by Park Chan-Wook, you know he’s unique in every sense of that word and his films reflect that. They tend to be really raw, often bloody movies, with dark, twisted sense of humour. Thirst is no exception… except it is, as at some points, you can’t help but laugh at scenes you were not supposed to. I think that’s this film’s biggest sticking point, some scenes don’t work as they might have been intended.

I really liked the concept behind this film – priest volunteers for a vaccine trial (watching this in COVID-19 times, this definitely hits slightly differently), and then, he dies. Except he doesn’t. He is just a bit more “vampirey” than before. And needs to drink blood to heal, as that’s the only thing that seems to be keeping the virus under control. So he struggles with morality, he’s trying not to kill, but of course, nothing is that simple. And his biggest challenge, seemingly innocent girl he starts falling fall, might not be as innocent. This is everything I will share about this film, as anything beyond would just be ruining some surprises this movie has in store for you.

What I really liked about Thirst is what I can say about any of Park’s films – his aesthetic is on another level. I don’t know how to describe it, but you just know by how certain scenes are framed, lit, shot, that you are watching something totally different than your “paint by numbers” average film. He’s got a real gift of telling really unique stories in fascinating, unique way, that keeps you watching your screen without blinking, even though what is happening is sometimes bit too graphic to handle, for some people. I always liked that about him, he’s got the balls to go for anything, as in his movies, it’s not just about the extreme violence, or the occasional gore/nudity. There is always something extra underneath.

Take this film for example – it can be viewed as simple vampire story, but it is also about power and what it does to people with no moral compass. How ultimate power can and does corrupt people, what it takes to be a good person. And how even a good person can slip up. That’s what I have always found fascinating about his movies, not only they have great ideas, they consistently throw something unexpected on you. Kind of like taking a shower, where the water gets really cold for a few seconds – it’s something that you don’t expect and definitely wakes you up.

My only issue with this film is some scenes came across more comedic than I think intended. It’s almost like with Thirst, Park Chan-Wook didn’t find the perfect balance between drama and subtext and thus some scenes don’t hit you the way they were meant to. You understand what’s happening, you also understand how were you supposed to feel, but it just doesn’t hit you, you are not sold entirely, it’s almost like there is this disconnect between the viewer and the movie and I don’t think that was intentional.

I need to praise the main duo – Kang-ho Song and Kim Ok-bin. With Kang-ho, I have seen him act so many other times I know he’s a great actor, so I wasn’t that surprised, but I haven’t seen Kim anywhere prior and I was really impressed with her performance, as her character is really complex one, and she nails it. You can argue that she’s the main star of this film, as her character goes through a big journey and it’s Kim’s performance, that makes it work without you questioning it. Without going into any spoilers, what she’s done in this film isn’t easy and can easily derail your movie, if it’s done by a lesser actor. But you always understand her character, where she is coming from and mainly you can see why she ends up the way she does.

Overall, Thirst is definitely an interesting movie with a great premise, some stunning raw visuals and brilliant performances, that’s only hurt by the occasional almost genre fluidity, where you get what the movie is going for, but you can’t take it seriously. It’s worth your time and I don’t think you will regret watching it, but it’s definitely not on the same level of his other movies, such as Oldboy (2003), Stoker (2013) or The Handmaiden (2016).

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

Until next time,

Luke