Bradley Cooper and I have a complicated relationship. Firstly, it’s one-sided, as he doesn’t know I exist. Secondly, and much more importantly, I have always liked him as an actor, even when his main schtick was doing “just comedies”. He was charming and seemed like a chill dude who would be fun to talk to. And then he decided to direct, something many actors have done before to various degrees of success. The thing is, Bradley isn’t a bad director. But every shot and every decision he makes in his films almost screams: “Please, like me. I am a director now, and I want to get an Oscar too!” Maestro is the latest example of that where the movie plays, and you go through and once it ends… I felt next to nothing.

This might be a shock to many, but I don’t know much about the world of classical music. But even I have heard the name Leonard Bernstein before. So when I heard a biopic about him is in the works with Bradley and Carey Mulligan playing the titular duo, I was actually mildly excited to see it as again; I like Bradley and love and adore Carey, who has been one of those “always excellent” performers since her first movie. But most importantly, I was looking forward to this as it was a biopic, and given I know next to nothing about the real-life Leonard, I wanted to learn a bit more, something that might intrigue me to go and Google a couple of things about him after the movie was over. You know that feeling when you watch a great biopic and then read trivia about that movie and Google what was true and what the “it’s a movie, so we made this up to make it more cinematic” details? But… I didn’t do any Googling after this movie finished.

The reason for that is simple, the movie gave me two or three things about Bernstein I didn’t know. He got his “lucky call”, was bisexual (?), and he seemed to live a carefree life with this zen-like attitude. And yeah, he cared about music and composing. Was there anything else? Unfortunately, no. Nothing about what made him great because he was already great when we met him. Ok, maybe we will delve deeper into his passion for music…? Kind of, we got one scene towards the end where he teaches a class and demonstrates his knowledge. But that is about it. Look, I don’t need your stereotypical “from cradle to the grave” biopic. I don’t mind the film focusing on specific events in someone’s life like Ferrari (2023, my review here) did, but Maestro seems all over the place and distant. And you can pick one movie, not both!

We mostly follow him throughout the years and his life with his wife Felicia, portrayed by Carey Mulligan. Bradley’s performance was great, and Carey’s excellent (another Oscar nomination, please!), I don’t think I have gotten to know him any better than before this movie. That is something I thought was the point of making a biopic in the first place for the general audience to understand or get to know someone much better. Unfortunately, when the movie ended, I thought for a second and realised that I still had no idea who Bernstein was and what made him one of the best (if not the best) composers who has ever lived… And if the point of Maestro was to portray him as this carefree bisexual (?), that is also fine, but I am not sure whether that works.

The reason I put a question mark after the word bisexual is that I don’t even know whether he was one, illustrating my point about this film not wanting to tell us anything. All we see is him loving his wife and having kids whilst openly flirting and kissing men as well. To me, he seems like a bisexual, but here’s the thing. How did he see himself? Because he wouldn’t (and frankly shouldn’t) give a flying fuck about what I thought he was, but it would be nice of the movie to (maybe) let us in more. My big problem with this film was that distance, that almost coldness where we are watching a movie about this unique talent, but we never see what made him unique. It feels like the film is keeping us at arms’ distance.

Technically, the movie is stunning to look at. Here is where I can’t help but think of Bradley and his eagerness to be recognised by his peers. And there is nothing wrong with wanting that, and in all the interviews I have heard of him talking about this movie, he seems like a genuinely decent guy, but… Maestro feels like that overachieving kid in a class who wants to convince you he knows everything and then pleads with you to like him for it. There are some beautiful shots that serve no purpose. The same can be said about aspect ratios; the movie has several, and they are used for the most basic “passage of time”, aka “We shot this scene in this ratio because it’s the 30s, you see!” Cooper feels like he’s read every single book about directing and, on paper, knows exactly what he is supposed to do, how to frame a shot, stage a scene, etc. But those scenes feel mechanical, lifeless and boring.

This movie has a pretty sad storyline I won’t spoil, just in case you are like me and didn’t know anything about either Leonard or Felicia. And when I started seeing it unveiled, I didn’t care. When it finished, I still didn’t care. Because when everything feels cold and emotionally distant, you will… well, not care too much about either character on the screen. In any other biopic, that would have been one of those tough-to-watch scenes that might bring tears to your eyes. In Maestro, despite my enjoyment of the performances, I honestly didn’t care.

If I omit the distance, the camera work was great; some shots were spectacular, and the church scene was superb. And again, mainly Carey Mulligan carries this movie on her tiny frame. Therefore, Maestro wasn’t a waste of my time, but what should (and could) have been an excellent biopic about this titan of classical musicals turns out to be a perfectly fine movie that you might appreciate if you already know who Bernstein was. I know some people loved this movie. I am happy for them. Unfortunately for the rest of us, we still aren’t any closer to understanding who he was, why was he so great, and what made him tick, but hey, we know he was a happy-go-lucky guy who fucked everyone…? So, yay?

Overall, Maestro is a fascinating biopic that doesn’t seem like it wants to give you anything about the titular character. Instead, you get this almost “over the years” montage, snippets of Bernstein’s life that should allow you to get to know him better, but, in my case, it didn’t work. From a person who’s watched many biopics, from great to awful ones, Maestro is pretty much in the middle. Just like Bernstein apparently was, this movie just is. It exists, and some people are very happy about it. I wish I could be one of them.

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

Until next time,

Luke

It took me a few weeks to finally see this movie in the cinemas, so by that point, I had heard mostly positive reviews about this film and how charming everything was. So naturally, I was hoping for a lovely, charming and joyfully magical movie and what I got was that, but… Wonka is one of those movies where the pieces of the puzzle are better than the overall picture the puzzle creates, as ultimately, your enjoyment will correlate with whether or not you can feel the magic. And I never could.

I don’t think it was due to any preconceived bias. For example, I didn’t grow up with Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971); I didn’t see that movie until about 2018 if I remember correctly. I grew up with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), but even that movie was always one I liked, not loved. I have also never read the book these are all based on, so when I went to see Wonka, I was ready to love it, enjoy my time and be charmed. And the movie definitely isn’t bad by any means.

The biggest reason to see this film must be Timothée Chalamet. Given my history with this “franchise”, I wasn’t against him (I remember some people were not happy when he was announced); I hoped he would be at least decent. To my surprise, he was a clear standout. Sure, it’s easy to stand out if you are the leading performer. But still, he had the charisma and the naivete about this world, but most importantly, you believe him when he suddenly does something magical or impossible. It’s hard to do impossible stuff within semi-real-world boundaries and get away with it, and he did. I think the reason for that was his character always acts nonchalant about all the magic. For him, that magic is the norm. He is quirky and doesn’t find it peculiar that he travels with a pretty much chocolate factory in his suitcase because that is just his reality.

I was confused that some people were calling out his performance for being too cutesy and that he wasn’t as cynical as the legendary Gene Wilder. And those are the moments I can’t even with some people as the obvious answer is he wasn’t supposed to be cynical. Even I, who has never read the book, understood that this was Wonka at the very beginning of his journey. Back when he was young, full of hope, optimism and joy. It would make zero sense for this young guy to be grumpy, cynical or disillusioned with the world as for his older character to make any sense, he must start from this place. You can even see it in the original movie, where Wonka has that magic and charm about him, but his life and everything that happened to him led him to be this cynical. The point of this paragraph is if you hear a critique of Chalamet’s performance and someone refers to Gene’s performance as to why, you know you don’t have to listen to them. 😉

Back to the movie, everything else has also worked. I thought Olivia Colman was the other obvious standout, as she is funny and hams it up in her role. I liked the decision to have Noodle (Calah Lane‘s character) as almost a younger sister character rather than casting someone older for a potential love interest. Not every story needs one, and this was a perfect example of something the filmmakers did perfectly; plus, I enjoyed the chemistry between Wonka and Noodle. They were the heart of the movie. The rest of the supporting cast was great; everyone from Keegan-Michael Key to Jim Carter was perfect in their roles.

I also didn’t mind it was a musical. I know there has been a lot of controversy about the promotion of this movie and how many went into it, NOT knowing this was a musical (because of some study…?). I didn’t mind it, even though I wasn’t sure whether it added anything to the film. I thought the songs were cute, but honestly, I can’t remember any single one now, and I have only been removed a few weeks from watching this movie. There are many musicals I have seen only once, some time ago, and I still remember quite a few songs (The Greatest Showman (2017) is my example). So, even though I didn’t mind it, it did very little for me.

But, where the cookie crumbled was the “mood” of the film. For you to enjoy Wonka, you must feel that magic. You should feel like you are part of that world where everyone is vaguely British (except for a few characters), magic is (kind of) real, and chocolate solves all your problems. From reading other people’s thoughts and discussing this movie, I understand I am in the minority here, so this is truly a “me issue”, but I have never felt that magic. I enjoyed this movie and all the individual pieces of it, but when I reflected on my experience later on, I found myself feeling empty, almost indifferent. The best way to describe it is that I never got into that world; it felt like everyone was invited to this magical party, and my invite got lost in the mail.

And I apologise because I try hard not to do what I am about to do, but I didn’t feel “it”. In all of my reviews, when I give a movie a bad or an average rating, I usually have a few reasons for it. But with Wonka, besides not feeling “that magic” and “songs didn’t do much for me”, I have nothing else. I feel a bit weird because my rating may ultimately seem a bit harsh, but I assure you, this is how I feel now about this movie. To buy into this world and get immersed in it, you must feel that levity that magic. That is something both Paddington movies had (my reviews for both movies can be found here and here). For me, that something was missing for me.

I know I have said this for many movies of 2023, but Wonka will be a fascinating rewatch because I get that I am in the minority, and many have enjoyed this movie much more. I wonder how well (or not) this will play the next time I watch it and whether anything will change for me. Only time will tell, but I promise, if I rewatch it and suddenly like or even love this movie, I will release a different review, something I have never done and will go on record about it.

Overall, Wonka is a charming movie that has everything going for it. From an excellent lead performer to a great cast of supporting actors, this movie shines. Where it lost me was that I never felt that magic come through the screen and charm me with it. It was missing that “it” factor I usually feel while watching many delightful movies, big and small, but for whatever reason, Wonka did not have it. But, what might be a rarity, I would still recommend this film as I understand the majority of people enjoyed this movie. So, despite my average rating, if you liked the Paddington films, you may end up liking this movie too.

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

Until next time,

Luke

This is a “me” issue, but I wasn’t as hyped for Napoleon as everyone around me seemed to have been. I knew a few things about him, and I don’t find him any more or less fascinating than other rules, who, at one point in time or another, conquered a vast amount of the world. But, the fact Ridley Scott was behind the camera and Joaquin Phoenix alongside Vanessa Kirby were in front of it definitely intrigued and sold me on seeing it in the cinema, despite me knowing that this won’t be “the ultimate version”, as there is a four-hour director’s cut coming to the Apple TV at some point. This might sound strange, but despite this movie having a few issues, I still want to watch the longer cut.

Let’s start with the positives. Napoleon is a technically well-made movie. Scott showcases that his longevity in Hollywood (his first feature, The Duellists, is from 1977!) isn’t a coincidence and pours his knowledge of six decades of filmmaking into this film, and it shows. Especially, the battle sequences were shot beautifully, they have a scope and despite me occasionally getting lost as to who was fighting who (many dirty uniforms looked alike), I had no complaints in this department. The visuals are stunning.

The same applies to Joaquin and Vanessa. With Phoenix, this performance won’t surprise anyone, as, if we are being really honest here, it isn’t a stretch for him by any means. He has portrayed similar, if not the same characters, a few times before, but hey, if it ain’t broke… What he does with Napoleon seems to be on the edge of humanising him and almost parodying him. There were scenes where it seemed almost like a parody of this film, only for me to read how historically inaccurate Napoleon is and realise, yeah, maybe I shouldn’t take my historical information from the movies as they are here to entertain and need to make anything or anyone cinematic enough.

I have found Vanessa Kirby much more interesting, as when she wasn’t getting humped from the back by Joaquin in some of the most hilarious sex scenes of 2023, you could tell a lot about their relationship, respectively the power nature. Her character starts as a commoner when Napoleon is rising through the ranks, so there is a power imbalance already, and then we can see his obsession with her almost instantaneously. And once she marries him, she becomes an equal and treats him like it. It almost seemed like she was the only character through which we could see him for what he truly was, this man-child obsessed with power and didn’t really care much about anything else.

And with this is where my problem lies. Despite the runtime of almost 160 minutes, I felt bored, but also like there was something missing. Was my mind clouded a bit by the knowledge that there would be a longer cut at some point? Yes, probably. But even not focusing on that, Napoleon felt disjointed at times, where I thought some scenes didn’t transition as smoothly to other scenes. Especially in a biopic, albeit historically inaccurate one, we should be able to feel the progress of everything, from time to the characters. In Napoleon, occasionally, that escaped me. But I suppose that having that director’s cut available soon-ish (nobody knows when exactly this will come out, but it’s presumed either February or March 2024) should fix some, if not all, of these issues.

When I say “issues”, I am talking about pacing too. While the battle sequences were fascinating to watch, the rest of the film dragged on occasionally. To put it bluntly, I felt the runtime more often than I didn’t. Especially towards the end, I couldn’t help but check my imaginary clock at the cinema. Which sounds weird, given I am actually excited about the director’s cut and will watch it. Why? Because I truly hope and believe the extra material might fix the pacing and give me more to chew on. And especially with Ridley Scott, he’s got a good track record of having better director’s cut movies than pretty much anyone (Blade Runner (1982, my review here) is the obvious example, and I hear the same happened with his other film I still haven’t seen, Kingdom of Heaven (2005)).

But that begs the question, why does this still happen? Why does he “need” two versions; why not just release the longer one in the cinemas? Well, we can blame ourselves, and I am counting myself in that group too, as many moviegoers wouldn’t have gone and watched such a long movie in a cinema. I know many are like me and don’t like to get up and go to the bathroom when watching a film in cinemas, so you won’t miss anything, whereas, at home, you can pause the film. And as the movies aren’t getting any shorter, why not be smart about it and give us an intermission? For any movie that’s longer than, let’s say, 150 minutes, why not find a sensible enough scene in the middle where we could “cut” or “pause” the movie for about 10 minutes? That way, people could not only stretch their legs and relieve themselves, but they could also get extra popcorn and drinks, hence cinemas would make a bit more money…? I know I am not the only one who feels like this, and I still remember how The Hateful Eight (2015) had an intermission built into it, and that’s a three-hour movie that made almost $200 million. Anyway, I hope and strongly believe that the longer cut of this film will be better, and I wish I could have seen that (with an intermission) in the cinemas.

Overall, Napoleon is a technical masterpiece made by someone who understands his craft. The two main performers are excellent, and so are the battle scenes. However, the movie felt disjointed at times, and the pacing was also off, especially towards the end. That will not stop me from eventually watching the Director’s Cut once it drops on Apple TV; I simply wish I had the chance to see that first on the big cinema screen.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I had a vague idea of what I was in for when getting seated in my cinema, about to watch this movie. When Saltburn finished, I was still surprised by how graphic a few scenes were and how unhinged, sexy and on the nose this movie was. For the most part, it worked, and I was entertained and fascinated by this high-society family while also admiring how slick this movie looked, although there was a part of me that hoped for a slightly different, more open-ended closure of this story.

Saltburn is the follow-up to Emerald Fennell‘s directorial feature Promising Young Woman (2020, my review here) and despite me not giving this movie 5/5, Emerald and I will be friends. I like her style; both of her films (so far) have had a distinctive feel of unease that I find admirable. Especially today, in an age where everyone wants to be liked, she isn’t afraid to rely on you being a bit uncomfortable while watching her movies. Also, she’s got a great eye for staging a scene and camera shots, especially with Saltburn, where the movie looks both sexy and expensive. I listened to an interview with her after watching the film, where she said something along the lines of wanting to shoot everything and everyone in a sexy, sleek way, as almost just the idea of money and power was tied to being sexy. And you can definitely feel that from this film and the stunning cinematography by Linus Sandgren.

It is the cinematography alongside the performances that you will remember the most about Saltburn. Barry Keoghan cements the fact that he is the next “big thing” and isn’t afraid of anything, and he will be an Oscar winner; the question is only “when”, not “if”. I saw some people debating whether Jacob Elordi is a good actor, and look… I don’t know. I have only seen him in this film, Euphoria (2019 – ?) and his tiny role in Deep Water (2022, my review here) and in all of those, he was fine. I won’t say he was excellent in either of those movies or shows, but for the characters he portrayed, he did a good job, and the same should be said about his performance in Saltburn. You had to have someone who looks, acts and, most importantly, feels like this untouchable, almost deity for Saltburn to work. His character (Felix) must have that ‘vibe’ around him, and he does have it. Who I thought was fascinating, and I had not seen before this film, was Alison Oliver aka Venetia, Felix’s sister. I liked her performance, where she seemed almost like the least deplorable person in that family, but you can still tell it’s probably too late for her anyway.

Besides Barry, I loved Rosamund Pike‘s flawless performance of somebody who thinks they are so clever and yet can be manipulated easily. I know many of her lines from this movie will become iconic; she is one of the best examples of “I hate that I love this character”, and it’s all due to Rosamund’s understanding of not overdoing it. Her performance never felt cliche, or too much despite her character saying and doing some ridiculous stuff. I don’t think it will happen, but I would love for her to get a nomination for Best Supporting Actress.

My only real problem with this film is the ending, specifically how unambiguous it was. Without going into the spoiler territory, you have a feeling that there is something happening. And even though I didn’t correctly guess everything, I was on the right track. However, the movie doesn’t want to leave anything to chance or your imagination and spills everything out in the last five minutes. Now, does it necessarily make it worse? That’s the thing, for me, this decision takes away the mystery this film spends most of its runtime building up. Part of the fun I had with Saltburn was figuring out what is up with this person or that person, and then the ending happens, after which everything is crystal clear. I thought for a movie like Saltburn, a bit of ambiguity wouldn’t hurt.

But that is my only problem with Saltburn; the rest of the film is a beautifully shot movie about class, deception and how easy or difficult you have it in life depending on your family or their wealth, respectively. The opulence of a family occupying this mansion (that feels and looks like a castle) and living in this little bubble was fascinating, almost as fascinating as thinking about how much of this movie may or may not be based on Emerald’s life and growing up as one of those “1%” of people.

Overall, Saltburn is a flashy drama full of great performances, beautiful cinematography and scenes you won’t forget any time soon. Whether it’s the bathtub scene, graveyard scene or the ending, it makes an impact and gives you some food for thought. Would I appreciate a bit more ambiguity towards the end? Yes. Will it hinder my enjoyment and potential rewatch of this film? We will see; I can see myself liking this much more on the next rewatch or slightly less. Yep, it’s one of those movies. I would recommend it, as long as you have a strong stomach.

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 watch Ferrari expecting a racing movie about how this bigger-than-life brand started, I have bad news for you. This movie doesn’t cover that it only focuses on one specific period (the summer of 1957), and by then, the Ferrari was a known brand, but it struggled. Also, Ferrari doesn’t cover many races either; only about 30% of the runtime is racing. This movie is mainly a biopic about one particular summer when everything seemed to come crashing down, professionally and personally, for one Enzo Ferrari.

Luckily, I didn’t expect this to be mainly a racing movie; that’s why this movie worked for me a bit more than it seemed to work for others (based on early reactions). The main driving force (pun intended) behind this movie is the titular duo Adam Driver and Penélope Cruz. I know many (myself included) have horrible flashbacks when they see the name Adam Driver in an Italian setting, as, unfortunately, the memory of House of Gucci (2021, my review here) is still pretty fresh. But what happened in that movie wasn’t his fault, although nobody came out well in that film. But Ferrari is Driver’s redemption; he grounds this titan and portrays him as what he ultimately was, a human whose name is now synonymous with luxurious cars. His performance was great; he made us understand what makes Enzo tick, and it shows him as a human with flaws.

But it was Penélope Cruz who almost stole this movie for me. What she can do with just her eyes is phenomenal, and she continues to prove every year why she is currently in the TOP five living actresses. Her first scene with the phone, gun and her waiting for Enzo, followed up by the conversation they have, gave me every single information I needed to understand that she was not “just a wife”; she was his equal, business partner, and a force to be reckoned with. And then we get the cemetery scene, as both visit their son’s grave (not a spoiler, as it happens within the first 15 minutes) even though they purposefully don’t go together and effectively “swap”. Whilst Adam Driver has about a four-minute scene showing emotional range, Penélope has one take that lasts approximately 30 seconds with no cuts, no dialogue, just a close-up of her face looking at her late son’s gravestone and in those 30 seconds, we see several different emotions. We see her pain, remorse, guilt and anger, and again, with no dialogue, just a close-up of Penélope ‘s face informs you about everything you need to know about her. That moment was when I knew what movie I was in for.

The rest of the movie covers this period of Ferrari financially struggling whilst prepping for a big race they need to win so they can potentially merge/raise money. At the same time, Enzo is dealing with his mistress (played by Shailene Woodley), with whom he has an illegitimate child. We quickly learn that “everyone but Laura (Penélope’s character) knows about him”, so it’s only a matter of time. This part of the film was when I was the most intrigued, not knowing anything about this history; I went on this ride with them and didn’t even mind that the movie didn’t have that much racing going on.

When the racing finally happens, it’s shot beautifully, as one would expect from a legend like Michael Mann. He shoots everything with precision; this movie is technically brilliant and fun to watch, even though, on occasion, I got lost when the big race was happening as to who was who and which car was which. What didn’t help was that Maserati (Ferrari’s main competitor in this film) also had red cars, so in some quick scenes, I had to focus to understand what just happened. But that doesn’t take away anything from the camera work and sound mix/design. This movie shines on a cinema screen and sounds beautiful.

Also, there is one more thing this movie deals with (and I thought well), but I won’t spoil that. If you are a petrolhead, you probably know; if not, don’t Google anything and go to this movie blind. Mann shoots the racing scene masterfully; you are at the edge of your seat every second, as danger is looming everywhere; even Enzo mentions how that week is the anniversary of when two of his friends died racing. But when that scene came, it was still brutal to watch. It was cold, quick and shot in this almost anti-cinematic way. It was almost as if Mann wanted us to feel like we were no longer in a movie and were just watching a live race from 1957.

The other tiny thing I will say about Ferrari is that occasionally, there were some pacing issues. I read after this movie finished that this was Mann’s dream project for over 20 years, and it shows because, on the one hand, he managed to transport us into Italy in the late 50s. On the other hand, some scenes went on a bit too long (the middle part of the film felt a bit dull at times). Again, I wasn’t expecting a full-on racing movie, and I am glad we didn’t get it, as Ferrari was great. Did it have to be 130 minutes? I think not. If you cut a scene here and there, mainly in the middle part of this film, this movie would have flown much better.

Overall, Ferrari is a great biopic which stands out due to its main duo. Adam Driver is great, Penélope is phenomenal, and I hope they both get some recognition for it. The movie was a good mix of racing and biopic that has at least one scene that will leave you speechless. Also, I appreciate movies where we see people whose last names no longer sound like last names because we know them as brands. Ferrari deserves to be seen on the big screen for you to truly enjoy the camera work and sound design, as both were excellent. I don’t think you would regret paying to watch this movie in the cinema.

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

Until next time,

Luke

This movie is fascinating on all levels. When you hear the premise and that David Fincher wanted to make this movie for over 20 years now, you imagine something dark, gritty and “Finchery”. We all know and love his uniquely twisted style. But The Killer is not what you might expect; it certainly wasn’t what I expected. It’s a fascinating movie because I had to read a review on Letterboxd by my internet friend Foster (give him a follow; he’s worth it) to understand that this is, in fact, a comedy. And once I understood that and reflected on what I saw, I appreciated it much more. I think this movie will get better on any future rewatch.

I will be honest; I felt a bit dumb as it never clicked while watching the movie, but it’s so obvious. I think what The Killer (and therefore Fincher) is toying with, is the idea of us, the audience, having seen hundreds of movies about killers. How cold and calculating they all are, and they rarely make mistakes, planning their every step, knowing their enemy’s every move before they make them. And this killer, portrayed by Michael Fassbender, isn’t “bad” by any means; he simply stumbles and fumbles a lot. The movie makes a big deal of his inner monologue and how he always has his rules to do this job, only for us to watch him break every single one or not follow them at all. In that sense, The Killer is a comedy, even though you will never laugh out loud.

Speaking of inner monologue, it was badly needed, as Fassbender barely talks in this movie. The one thing I noticed whilst watching this film was if it weren’t for that inner monologue and him talking to himself throughout the movie, Michael would have barely said 100 words in the entire film. Fincher tries to create this mood/vibe where we see him do a lot with saying very little. You know, the stereotypical “alpha” protagonists who do and don’t talk. And in his case, he does something, kinda fucks it up and then finishes the job.

I missed watching Michael on the screen as he makes this role work. He’s got the chops to convince us he could be out there killing people but has that physicality as well, where he can seem menacing when he has to. His restaurant scene opposite Tilda Swinton was brilliant, as you could cut that tension with a knife. What helped was that Tilda is a great actress. She might be on the screen for only ten minutes or so, but you will remember her after this film ends. Her character is simply brilliant and almost opposed to what our killer (we never learn Fassbender’s real name) is. She eats great food and enjoys her life, whilst we see him eat mostly fast food and not enjoying himself that much.

I might write something now a few people might view sacrilegious, but this movie didn’t feel “Finchery”, unlike his other films. If I started this movie not knowing who directed it, I wouldn’t have guessed he was behind the camera. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. It just seemed odd because I always viewed him as one of the most unique directors whose directing style could be felt through the screen. And The Killer felt cold, digital-like, which I suppose must have been a purposeful choice, but still… It will be interesting to watch what Fincher has coming next.

My only slightly negative thing about The Killer is that the beginning drags on for a while. In reality, the opening sequence might have only been 15/20 minutes long, but it felt like an hour. Luckily, once our protagonist goes on this revenge against some powerful people, that is when this movie kicked into a higher gear for me. And despite the reason for him going on that revenge is shown, it was never really explained; that’s my next point. Besides him and a few other minor characters, we have no idea who is who, meaning this movie finishes, and you are left wondering about… let’s say, who else lives in his house without spoiling things.

Overall, The Killer is a uniquely fascinating movie I enjoyed, and as I mentioned above, I can’t wait to rewatch it; knowing what I know now, I think this will play much better. Fassbender shines in this role, Tilda rules in her supporting role, and besides the slow opening sequence, the movie grabs your attention and doesn’t let go. I would recommend it, but with two caveats – treat it as a dark comedy and understand that this might be the most non-Fincher-like movie he has ever done.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I didn’t know what to expect when I pressed the ‘Play’ button on my remote, and I love that feeling. The only thing I heard about this movie was a small hype for Teyana Taylor‘s performance, but that was about it. I didn’t know anything else, and that is how I like to watch any movie with as little information as possible, with no ideas about what this movie is supposed to be, letting the film speak for itself. And this one speaks loudly.

This movie speaks so loudly that I don’t know how much I want to reveal, as there were a few elements to this story I wasn’t expecting, and then, there was the ending that I won’t lie; I didn’t see coming at all. A Thousand and One is one of those movies that explores people making questionable choices without judging them. And then, when you think you have been “tested” enough and know where this is going, something happens and shakes up everything, from your view of this situation to you and your core. It’s only towards the end that you discover that this film needs you to actively participate and re-evaluate everything you have seen.

It will be hard to talk about this movie without going into the spoiler territory, and as I am writing this review, I still haven’t decided whether I want to spoil this movie or not. Therefore, let’s talk about performances in the meantime. I know Teyana from Kanye’s video Fade, and I vaguely remember her tiny role in Coming 2 America (2021, my review here), so I was intrigued to see what all that fuss was about, and yeah, she was great. I am not sure whether I would start campaigning on her behalf for something like an Oscar nomination, but she was definitely strong in this role.

Her character, Inez, is one of those people who is tough to watch at times due to her decisions, but you understand that at any given point, she is doing the best she can. From the very beginning, the movie sets up everything where we see her leaving Rikers and understand that she’s had it tough for her entire life. It is at this point where she encounters her six-year-old son and decides to kidnap him from foster care. That is not a spoiler, by the way, as that is the official synopsis of this movie on IMDb. We then watch her trying to give them some sort of life as New York changes.

That was one of those things I didn’t expect, and I don’t think it’s a spoiler to say, how the movie jumps in time a couple of times, covering around 15 years of living in New York and how everything around our protagonists changes, mainly politically and with changes, there are new, often racially motivated, challenges. The movie never spends too much time telling you what exactly is happening; it shows it to you effectively. One thing I loved about A Thousand and One was how it deals with politics by not being political at all. You won’t hear any cheap and simple shots at any politician, policies, etc. The movie treats it as fact and shows how Inez and her community are affected by those new laws and policies. And how people within this movie simply had to adjust and, unfortunately, make it part of their life.

Regarding other performances, I liked how natural Aaron Kingsley Adetola was. I enjoyed how vulnerable Aven Courtney was. And I understood everything about Josiah Cross. All three played Inez’s son Terry throughout different ages, and they all brought something unique to this role whilst helping you understand how and why Terry would grow up into the person he became at the end of this movie. I also enjoyed William Catlett despite not necessarily liking his character Lucky, even though he had his bright moments.

And that is where the cookie crumbles. How willing are you not only to watch flawed characters, but, more importantly, try to understand where everyone is coming from? And when you think you are finally at a place where you seem to have everything and everyone figured out, the movie hits you, and it hits you hard. Ok, I have decided it’s a spoiler time. I can’t NOT talk about it.

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

After A Thousand and One finished, I immediately thought of Gone Baby Gone (2007). Both movies leave you pondering a moral dilemma you can discuss at length. You come to terms with everything Inez has done, and then we learn that Terry isn’t even Inez’s son. He wasn’t abandoned by her when he was two, as we were led to believe she found him there. And now, his character has to deal with not knowing who he is, the fact his parents left him at that corner totally alone, and also, how Inez never told him that. The final scene hits hard and has so much going in it when we see only Inez and Terry and how he eventually grabs her hand, as a son would. Yet, deep down, we know it won’t be easy moving forward, emotionally, practically, legally…

I think this movie will play much better on rewatch. A Thousand and One is one of those movies I wasn’t clicking fully with for most of the film, as I must repeat again; it’s hard to sympathise with someone such as Inez, even if you understand where she is coming from. But as the movie progressed, I was in it, and when that twist happened, it made me realise how complex of a character she is. Does one good deed justify everything else she did? That’s up to everyone to decide for themselves, especially when the “good deed” itself can be discussed, given Inez’s circumstances and struggles. Again, no matter where you land on this movie, there is a hefty debate that could take place, and I enjoy movies like these.

Overall, A Thousand and One is a fascinating movie I ended up liking, and it may end up even higher on any potential rewatch due to my knowledge of the complete story and all the twists and turns. I liked the idea and the concept, and all the performances were great; I will definitely be on the lookout for Teyana and what she decides to make next. Would I recommend this movie? Yes, if you can handle following characters that are hard, if not impossible, to root for. And for the moral dilemma this movie talks about.

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

Until next time,

Luke