I remember like it was yesterday – one day in 2006, my (back then) best mate and I went to see this film in our local cinema. We’d never shut up, we’d always have plenty of things to talk about, but when the movie started, we wouldn’t talk to each other for the entirety of its length. Not even single “Wow” or “That’s so cool.” And that continued some time after coming out of the theater, we’d just walk towards his bus stop, silently, with occasional “fucking hell, what a movie”. We were literally out of words and mind blown by that movie as we haven’t seen anything like that before (we were both just 14/15, but still).

Ever since that experience, I’ve seen this movie 2 more times, one of them being tonight to refresh my memory and see how I feel about it, and also to introduce it to my girlfriend. She loved it, as she was mainly mesmerized by all the abs… and yeah, there’s plenty of good looking, built men. Some might say you get to question your sexuality in some scenes, you know those are really nice looking men, with oily abs and… what was I talking about again? Oh yeah, how do I feel about the movie?

I still love it. Sure, it does have its issues, some slow-mo shots were slightly over the top and other might’ve been unnecessary, some might say it’s over-stylized, it’s over the top in general, BUT… this is a movie you need to meet on ITS own terms.

What I still love about this movie is it announces itself really early on, and tells you straightaway – hey, this is how this movie’s going to look like, feel like and if you accept it and just give in, you will enjoy this Greek/Scottish (oh Gerard I know you’ve tried to tone down your Scottish accent, but it slips out in some scenes) ride to the fullest and at the end you might not be sick.

What might help in your enjoyment of this movie is this fact I’ve stumbled upon while browsing Reddit the other day, that stuck with me and I truth to be told, have never realized until I’ve read it:

I don’t know if this is what Zack Snyder was trying to say, maybe he just thought it’d be cool to have elephants, and giant monsters and sorcerers, but it does make it more “believable” as propaganda is a strong tool, even in our times.

Before ending this review, I do want to give a “shout-out” to Lena Headey and Dominic West where both actors are given fairly limited space, but mainly Lena does well with what she’s given and she makes a memorable Queen. And Dominic’s sleazy senator is also memorable, for entirely different reason.

That’s it for 300! What did you think, did you like it, or was it too much for you? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

I need to preface something – I love these kind of movies. Shaun of the Dead is probably in my TOP 20 movies of all time, I even like when cheesy horror meets cheesy musical (I really need to re-watch and write a review for Repo! The Genetic Opera to see whether I still love it the same way I have a decade or so ago), so I was quite excited for this movie. And from a few people I trust on the internet I’ve heard it a pleasant movie, that’s worth watching.

Maybe that’s why I feel slightly disappointed with what I’ve seen. Anna and the Apocalypse is not a BAD movie, that’s not what I am trying to say. It flows well, the main protagonists are likable, I liked that they’ve taken some bolder choices regarding who survives and who dies and when, so far we are good.

My two big issues with this film are these:

1. The music is like something from the High School Musical movies. I’m really sorry to the creators, if that was the intention, but it didn’t work at all. I think it was supposed to add the “cheesy” factor to this movie, but I feel like it’d have worked better if only one or two songs were like that and after we would’ve gotten some kick ass songs. Opera/rock/metal literally any other style than what we’ve gotten for the entirety of this movie, because eventually they all blend together where there wasn’t any standout song. And I was patiently waiting for that ONE scene/song that would stand out above them all, something that would’ve embrace this genre more, something I might be inclined to re-listen after the movie was over, and nothing.
2. This movie wants to have a “heart” so much and I honestly wanted to love it even more, but it falls flat. There was something about it, where for a comedy it wasn’t funny enough, for a horror it wasn’t scary enough, and for a musical it wasn’t good enough. If only the director had managed to blend at least 2 out of those 3 factors successfully, it’d have been a better film with some heart, but it falls flat so many times where it’s supposed to shine (some deaths we were supposed to care about more didn’t hit me as much as they should have).

I feel like by a complete (and I guess unwanted) accident, this film only highlights how brilliant of a director Edgar Wright truly is for making Shaun of the Dead and blending the horror genre with comedy so flawlessly. That movie has no (W)right (see what I did there? Ok, I see myself out now…) to be as brilliant as it is.

I’m really hoping I get to see more of Ella Hunt in the future, as she’s tried her best to make Anna and the Apocalypse work. If it wasn’t for her, my rating would have been lower.

Is Anna and the Apocalypse worth seeing? Let me put it this way – if you have a chance, see Shaun of the Dead first. If you don’t have the means to see it, and your only other choice is this movie, I’d go for it, don’t expect much, maybe you’ll be surprised. I wanted to be, believe me.

That’s all for this movie? Did you see it? If so, what did you think? Am I too harsh, or were you underwhelmed too? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Let me just preface – I did grow up on some comedies starring Bill Murray, so I absolutely adore the guy. Ghostbusters is one of my favorite comedies, and I also like (I’m taking a cover while writing this) Ghostbusters II – both of these movies I love to this day. That’s why I went into Stripes expecting a good time.

What I got was a movie that’s split into thirds – first one was alright, second was pretty funny and the third one totally unnecessary.

The first part of the movie to me was anything prior our protagonists (Bill Murray and Harold Ramis) join the army, and unlike one of the later episodes of Family Guy, I didn’t mind it and I didn’t think it dragged on (the joke in question was about a movie you remember fondly, but it’s now dragging on). We’ve established characters, what are they about and I wish more newer comedies would take some time to do this and not feel the need for the audience to laugh every 10 seconds with some attempt at humour.

The second part was them joining the Army, going through the training and clashing with Sergeant Hulka. I thought it was well paced, some funny scenes, but nothing where you would properly burst into laughter, but enjoyable nonetheless.

The third part was after our heroes finish the training and then being shipped to Italy, where just so it happens, they end up in Czechoslovakia (hey, that’s where I’m from, except it’s been Czech Republic and NO, I refuse to call it Czechia) where there is the obligatory “action scene”. This part was totally pointless, didn’t really add too much to the story except additional 30 minutes, where at the end the movie felt like a chore.

Had the movie finished with some funny montage of them doing random/hero stuff right after the training session, my rating would’ve been better, but it didn’t. I also wonder if I were to grow up watching this movie the same way I grew up watching the two Ghostbusters movies, how would my rating be affected, but we will never know that now.

When I wrote “comedy that didn’t age well”, I didn’t mean the scene in a strip-club where John Candy is wrestling at some point 5 different women, or the fact John Larroquette was spying on some showering women with binoculars, because that wouldn’t be fair. Yes, by today’s standards, it is 100% wrong, but back in the 80’s nobody cared. I am one of those people that judges the film based on its merits and won’t pretend that had I seen this film in 1981, when the movie was released, I’d have been “woke” enough to say that’s wrong, no I probably wouldn’t. This is not me defending the movie, but the fact of the matter is, nobody paid any attention to this, and not just in this movie (this one is actually tame by different 1980’s movie standards).

What I meant by “didn’t age well” was the pacing, and most of the jokes – as they are harmless jokes, where today, we are used to something totally different, so they won’t amuse you as much. You could say “hey, but that’s judging the film based on today’s standards, you just said you don’t do that!” but it’s not really, because if movie won’t make you laugh where it’s supposed to, it doesn’t matter whether the movie is from 1981, or 2001.

Just to be clear, most of my favourite comedies are from the 80’s and 90’s (already mentioned Ghostbusters, Coming to America, Trading Places, Beverly Hills Cop series etc.) and these have never failed to make me laugh.

If you want an army comedy from the 80’s, might I recommend often overlooked Private Benjamin from 1980?

That’s all for this one, what did you think? Was I harsh? Do you adore this movie? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Elizabethtown is a strange movie. It’s almost 2 hours long, it’s directed by Cameron Crowe, so you know he was trying for something more, it’s got really decent cast and Crowe’s signature, great music selection.

If I was to rate this movie based on the soundtrack alone, it’d have been almost a perfect movie, there is and never was a question about Crowe’s music taste. But overall I’ve expected more.

First let me start with the cast – some of the biggest names are here, Orlando Bloom did a decent job, Kirsten Dunst did well with what she was “allowed” to do (because of the trivia section on IMDb I’ve learned this performance coined the term “The Manic Pixie Dream Girl” and honestly yeah, can see why) as she doesn’t really have an agenda of her own, except her mysterious boyfriend “Ben” who I believe never existed, as that was just Crowe’s justification of her having some “character”. If it wasn’t for the funeral scene, Susan Sarandon would have been wasted in this movie too, but at least she had that (and it was highlight of this movie).

Bit of a side rant, as this is not just Elizabethtown‘s issue, but Jesus-jumping-Christ, give Judy Greer something to do in movies! I always thought she’s seriously underutilized in almost any major movie, and even in this one she doesn’t really contribute to much. Honestly, if her character was cut from the movie, it would literally not change the movie at all.

The main issue I have this with movie as some of the “feel-good” moments felt cheap/fake. I don’t know why, but there was something about the majority of the movie where I knew how was I supposed to be feeling, but I never “gave in” as something felt off. Maybe it was the screenplay, maybe lack of character development, maybe slightly more interesting story…?

As I’ve mentioned before, the emotional highlight of this film was the funeral scene, where Susan takes the microphone and starts talking about her deceased husband. Don’t want to spoil anything further, but the entirety of the scene was one of the few ones that felt real.

The rest of it is as average as it gets. And that’s why I believe it’s eventually a failure, as a movie with that kind of “pedigree” should’ve been better than just an average movie with one really great scene. Specially given the fact the whole movie is about how you should shoot for the stars, no matter how spectacularly you might fail, and even if you fail, deal with it and try again (which is a great message). Shame the movie didn’t listen to itself.

That’s all for this film. What did you think, did you like it, or will you avoid visiting Elizabethtown? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

I am not going to lie, I’ve enjoyed Thoroughbreds much more than I’ve anticipated. This is the kind of movie that is really hard to describe without going into spoilers, so for those who want to see the movie and therefore won’t be reading any further, I’ll just say this – it’s a really good movie where all the main stars get to shine, but the one that shines the brightest is Anya Taylor-Joy.

Following review might contain spoilers.

On a surface level, this movie isn’t something new – all kind of “psychotic” disorders have been portrayed on the big and the small screen for the past 20+ years and it seems people are enjoying them, as Hollywood studios keep making them.

Where this movie differs from the rest is it puts you on the edge of your seat from the very beginning, where the cards are seemingly on the table, the introduction tells us who’s the “crazy” girl (brilliant performance by Olivia Cooke), but not even 10 minutes in and you start to question whether you couldn’t make the case for Anya Taylor-Joy and as the movie progresses, one thing is for certain – there is something uneasy about both.

First hour or so the movie has a great atmosphere, where it builds up the main villain (step-dad) just to pull the rug right under you. Where a lesser movie would just keep him a villain, maybe made him slightly creepy, this one chooses a different path. For me, the pivotal scene of this entire movie, is the confrontation between him and Lily, Anya’s character, in the kitchen. After that scene you realize that everything you thought you knew about this story/character is skewed by Lily. That’s the point where the second “twist” happens, where you realize it’s not Amanda (again, Olivia is superb) who’s the propeller of this story, even though, she can’t feel any emotions, so she’s just faking everything, but Lily. That’s the point you realize Amanda is trying to fit in, in her own way, and just because she can’t feel anything she’s not inherently bad, but Lily is as she is choosing to kill her step-dad and nothing is stopping her.

If you were to put anybody less talented in the role of Lily, this movie would’ve been an alright movie at best, and easily forgettable. By casting Anya, the director (Cory Finley, for whom this was his debut film) made an excellent choice as she definitely has the raw talent to pull this off. The entirety of this movie lies on her and her ability to convince you of her evilness in a really subtle, non-cartoony way and she’s nailed it.

The final nail in this would be the end scene with Anton Yelchin (this was one of his last movie before his untimely and really unfortunate death) where she embraces everything and goes along, knowing very well she’s not the “good guy” in this story, even though she got away with everything.

Overall, this movie surprised me, gave me chills at some places and made me even more aware that Anya Taylor-Joy is (or at least should be) the next big thing and I really hope she’ll have a long, long carrier.

That’s all for this movie? Did you like it or thought it wasn’t anything special? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke