Exactly that is what you will say to yourself, once this film ends. Is that it? Really? Even my girlfriend, who slept through most of it, woke up, I briefly caught her up on the story, so she could finish it with me, felt underwhelmed. And to be fair, she said it first, while I was quietly thinking: “Well, that went nowhere.” It’s a paradox, that a film, that is essentially about editing, could 100% use a better cut.

Since The Final Cut is not a well-known film, let me describe it in my own words. In the not too distant future, there is this implant called Zoe (which means something, but I do not remember what exactly and I am too lazy to look it up for such a mediocre film), that records everything you do. And once you die, your family can hire a cuter, who extracts the implant, discusses with them what should be included in your “highlight” video and cuts your memories into a nice video. This leads to people sanitizing their lives, where somebody is remembered more fondly than they were etc. And the main crux of this film is one of the company executives, who was behind this implant, dies. And he’s the first one who can have this video done at the request of his widow. Except, he also was a bad man, so the anti-implant groups want to get hold of his implant, to showcase him, for who he truly was. On top of it, our main hero Robin Williams is dealing with his issues, where he thought he accidentally killed a kid he briefly met when he was a kid. Except he discovers that he might not have…

It sounds intriguing, doesn’t it? That is what I thought too when the movie started. Plus, Robin Williams is the main star in this not comedic film, and I know he can do drama, so what can go wrong, right? Well, nothing really went wrong, it just went nowhere. The movie touches on a few things (morality of sanitizing memories, is it right to have implants like this at all if some people might not know you are recording them) and does some interesting stuff with the premise, but overall, when the movie finishes, you can’t help but feel… underwhelmed.

Let me start with the things I liked about this film – the main idea and the world built around it was done well. If something like this existed (and to be fair, the sentence should probably start with “when”, not “if”, as I honestly believe it’s just a matter of years) there would have been anti-implant groups. There would be debates (and valid ones, might I add) on this topic, how right or wrong these are. What I also liked is how throughout the film, they show you people with face tattoos and it’s only explained towards the end of it, that those aren’t just normal tattoos, but they are special (can’t remember the explanation, I believe they were somehow electro-magnetic?) tattoos, that clash with implants, so those people won’t get recorded, even if they talk to somebody who’s got the implant installed. I liked how the movie didn’t tell us that straight away.

I can’t discuss the rest without going into spoilers, so…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

Let’s start with the accidental murder of the child. So, you can tell Robin’s character is haunted by this, as he believes he was responsible for the death of this kid. He tries to make everything as right as possible, living his life and effectively punishing himself for that. That is until he thinks he might have seen him on his client memory implant. But you know how he noticed him? Because when they were children (and most of the story takes place about 40/50 years after that incident, which is a crucial detail) the kid cleaned his thick glasses using his t-shirt and the guy in the “implant memory” also has similar glasses and is also similarly cleaning them! Yes, I am serious, that is how he recognizes him. Because of course, there isn’t a chance that more than one person could have had thick glasses, which they clean using their t-shirt, no way. You know when movies ask you to swallow some bullshit just so they can start the plot? Yeah, sometimes, it’s a lot of bullshit to swallow, and I honestly can’t remember the last time a movie would ask me to swallow something that would be as laughable as this one. Not only the fact that he would remember that one detail after 40/50 years after, but the fact he thought it might be him purely based on that act alone. Jesus-tap-dancing-Christ.

Another thing that bothered me – the movie teases a lot but doesn’t deliver on almost anything. For example, Mira Sorvino is playing Robin’s kind of girlfriend, who is only there to show us, how deep in his work he is. Oh and, she also destroys the most important implant of his career. That only leads Robin’s character to reveal that he also has an implant, which he knew nothing about, which of course, goes against the rules, as no cuter can have this implant. That gets him into some issues, but kind of fizzles towards the end too?

Now let’s talk about the ending, where Robin gets killed and afterwards, we see his protégé (Jim Caviezel), who wanted the implant to expose the powerful executive, how he is cutting Robin’s implant. And since we never got to spend time with his character, we only got a few lines about their friendship, it just fell flat for me. Yeah, I understand the story comes a full circle, he promised he would never cut again, but for Robin, he will make an exception… I get it. I truly do. And that might be the most disappointing thing about this movie.

This is why the movie feels underwhelming, not because the elements weren’t there, but they haven’t been executed in such a way, where it would hit you. Robin’s story, where he is looking for redemption, only to discover he never killed anyone, feels hollow, as the guy died on his own a year prior. His character having an implant (something forbidden in his profession) could have also brought more drama, yet it didn’t. Even his relationship with Mira Sorvino or Jim Caviezel both felt unexplored. This entire film felt like it was going someplace really promising, only to leave you hanging towards the end, without any hint of resolution.

Overall, The Final Cut is the type of movie that we should be remaking. Because as mentioned before, all the elements for a great story are here. The topic is great and can be explored further from several angles, it’s a story that’s not told as often, so it could stand out, even in today’s world full of “content”, and most importantly, this might be better as a limited TV show. It doesn’t even have to have eight episodes. I can see maybe three or four one hour, or possibly an hour and a half episodes, where we get to know the characters, explore the morality of this Zoe implant, deal with the past mystery and also focus more on the main crux of the story and I think we could have something great on our hands. But as it exists now, it feels like an unpolished diamond. You know something is there, but you need to let talented people near it, as those usually make it shine the most.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Movies like Havoc are really hard to review. Not because they are so hard to follow, have super convoluted story, or some great idea behind it you’d have to watch the film five times to fully understand/appreciate, no. It’s more to do with the fact that this is one of those “even rich kids have problems” movies, which can be “a bit” cringey. And this one definitely goes to the cringe territory hard (did somebody wanted to imagine, what it would look like, if all white cast acted like the toughest gang ever, acting all “gangsta”? Nobody? Yeah, same.) but at the same time, there is a point to that. Whether it’s good enough (or a new enough) point, that’s up to us to decide.

Havoc is definitely an indie film with some big actors just before they became big (Anne Hathaway, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Channing Tatum) and it is definitely the first movie, where Anne Hathaway showed us, what she was capable of. She definitely shakes off the “princess” films and is the reason to watch this one, as she is the single reason this movie stays on some sort of tracks and doesn’t go fully into the cringe town. Her character is nothing new under the sun, spoiled, bored, rich girl, who is bored. She does dumb stuff, because she’s young, privileged and doesn’t suffer almost any consequences. But Anne does her thing and somehow, she makes her kind of likeable, especially towards the end. What I also liked about her character was the fact that even though she was everything I’ve just written above (spoiled, bored etc.) and more, she was given two choices to “snitch”. And both times, she refused, and not because she tried to be cool, no. She did it, because deep down, she understood, that what her character was doing, wasn’t right. Especially her second “not to snitch” choice was really impactful, as she had a skin in the game and there were actual stakes for her. Long story short, Anne is the reason to watch and finish this film.

Your overall enjoyment of this movie will be entirely derived from a simple question – whether you can empathize with people, whose boredom stems from them being white, privileged and not happy with their life, so they just try to be somebody else. And somebody else in this instance are black people, because this group perceives them as cooler. And that is pretty much the entire movie – bunch of young, bored students get themselves into trouble, because their lives are so dull, they are looking for that spark, that excitement, that fix. Which we can judge as being just “first world white problems”, because, yes, that’s exactly what it is. But at the same time, I can 100% believe people like this existed and still exist. And if you try really hard not to cringe, especially during those scenes, where they talk to each other, like the members of the lamest gang in the world, and look slightly deeper, you might find a bunch of scared kids, who are still trying to figure out everything.

I have also hit the age (almost 30 now) where I see what’s popular on YouTube or TikTok and can’t wrap my head around it. And of course, naturally, my first reaction “10/15 years ago, when I was that age, my generation was way cooler!” But deep down, the honest truth is – this how it always goes. Most of us can be (and were) really embarrassing while we were growing up, as that’s part of life. And the generation that matured before us, looked at us disapprovingly, saying how more cringe we are, because when they were young… see that circle of life? Every generation believes they were the shit, the peak of the civilisation and once they reach a certain age, when the trends stop making sense, they can’t believe “what these Gen eXers are into”, but are the young people truly much worse than you or I, when we were growing up? No, I don’t think so.

And I think that’s what Havoc is trying to be about. Deep down, underneath all that “glitter”, gang-like behaviour, it is all about just bunch of teenagers, who are looking for something, yet they don’t know, what that something is. Does the movie go about it in engaging way? Not really. As mentioned prior, if this movie didn’t have Anne giving her all to make it work and hold this movie together, it wouldn’t have worked at all. Who I thought also did a great job was Bijou Phillips, whose character goes from intriguing to flat out spoiled fast, but that is who she was underneath. I also liked her fixation (and I think the movie is hinting at more than that) for Anne’s character, how they depicted that friendship and the ultimate “resolution” of that friendship. That was done really well.

Overall, Havoc is definitely a movie, that won’t leave you feeling cold. You will either feel sorry for most of the characters portrayed, or feel an unhealthy amount of rage towards them, for having the means to do pretty much anything they want to, and yet, most of them are still incapable of making any sound decisions. For me, it honestly reminded of a pendulum swinging from one side to another as (I know, I keep mentioning this) mainly the scenes, where they pretend to be tough, “gangsta” and try to talk/look like black people, was a cringe fest. But without those scenes, you wouldn’t have the other ones that give you “access” to some of these characters and what they are all about. Of course that is, if you want to know, if they haven’t annoyed you prior. This might be one of the hardest movies to “recommend”, as it’s not exactly great, but Anne Hathaway is giving a great performance and for what it’s worth, I liked the ambiguous ending. Watch it with zero to low expectations and maybe, you will be rewarded…?

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

Until next time,

Luke

This review will be quite hard for me to write, as I will try really hard not to come off as some sort of incel, who hates women in leading roles. That’s a great introduction to a review about a mediocre action movie, isn’t it? Well, believe it or not, but I didn’t want to go there, but the movie really forces your hand, as it lets you know, how men are just the worst by using the worst stereotypes you can think of. Don’t get me wrong, you can use stereotypes to get your message across, but most (if not all) men in this are based in these lazy, Hollywood way of stereotype, where you either have bad men, who are bad, or occasionally some pretty good, nerdy, weak(ish) men. Nothing in between, it’s black or white. And to me, that’s just lazy.

Before actually moving on and reviewing this film, let me make this argument – I know we can’t compare them “like for like”, but take Promising Young Woman (2020, my review here) and Charlie’s Angels. Both of these films are about women, how hard and dangerous it can be (and is, let’s face it), being a woman in “the man’s world”. However, the first mentioned film uses stereotypes to its advantage, it makes you feel uncomfortable, without shouting “girl power, all men are trash!”. And that movie is really out there, really great, uncomfortable, yet much needed watch for many men, to help them understand, how their behaviour might affect all women in their lives. Whereas in Charlie’s Angels, we just see this weird thing, that’s not really about empowerment, more about putting somebody down. What also doesn’t help your case is the director, producer and one of the main actresses, Elizabeth Banks, blaming men and comic book films, as apparently, we hate women led action movies…? You know, except for Wonder Woman (2017), the original (or should I say the first remake) of Charlie’s Angels (2000), the Alien franchise, The Terminator franchise (until they focused on Arnold‘s character only and binned Sarah Connor). I hope I am getting my point across, this film for me could have been a great, light-hearted fun/action film, with women kicking ass. Instead of that, they decided to take it in the “we kick ass BECAUSE we are ladies, take that!” and it just feels really dumb. Even the already mentioned Charlie’s Angels from 2000, wasn’t a masterpiece by any means. But it was really enjoyable, re-watchable movie and what made it enjoyable, was the fact all three main actresses kicked ass and they never focused on this “we kick ass despite and/or because we are women”. They just did, didn’t ask question, weren’t there to explain themselves, because they what they did.

Anyway, sorry for this rant. But it ties in with my overall enjoyment of this. The main trio I thought worked really well. The more I watch Kristen Stewart, the more I admire her for being so versatile. I thought she killed it in this role, as she was the perfect blend of crazy and sensible. It would have been so easy to make her character “dumb, with good intentions”, but luckily, the movie never went overboard with that. I have only seen Naomi Scott in Aladdin (2019, my review here) and Power Rangers (2017) which I have to admit, I didn’t really remember she was in, as that movie just went through my head, that’s how forgettable that was. In here, I thought she did a great job being the “fish out of water” character, where she avoided going into the annoying territory of being too all over the place, and she could handle herself in a fight too, so props to her. As most, I’ve been introduced to Ella Balinska and… damn. She can do it all, she can be funny, tough, emotional, kick ass, she is the complete package. But here’s the thing – I think they complement each other really well, I can’t even say one was my favourite over another, as they all had their roles to play and they played them well, but most importantly, the complimented each other maybe even better than the 2000 movie.

When comes to Elizabeth Banks, I honestly believe she’s much better actress, than director. Especially action in this film was… hard to follow. I am not going to hold it specifically against her, as it wasn’t any worse than your average Hollywood action movie these days, but that’s not really a compliment either. I do think if they really wanted to have a woman director, why not try to get this into capable hands of somebody, who had proven themselves in the past, like Kathryn Bigelow or Patty Jenkins. Especially Kathryn, I would love to see her spin on Charlie’s Angels, especially with this cast, I would actually pay money to see that on the big screen.

As mentioned prior, I do think the biggest problem of this movie is the script. The “message” aside, it’s as basic as it gets, we have this miraculous gadget, that can help people beyond anything ever invented, or can kill everyone, so of course, rich people want to take advantage of it, we need to stop them, Bob’s your uncle. Honestly, even the fake twist halfway through the movie, where the film is desperately trying to convince you that this *something* happening, you know, it’s not happening. Also, thinking back, there was no memorable scene from this movie. Even as unbelievable as it was, the Charlie’s Angels from 2000’s had the big heist from the white safe, where you could see their minds, their craft, their attention to details, it sticks with you, even though you question how possible or not would it be, to pull something like this off. But this movie doesn’t have anything like that. It does have some decent enough set pieces, but I think I won’t remember either one in months’ time, whereas I still remember that white safe heist, and it’s been a lot of years, since I’ve seen that version.

Overall, Charlie’s Angels is a film, that could have been really fun. Instead, it decided to go with this weird “empowerment” route, that’s not really about empowerment at all. And when it failed (and boy, did it fail hard, remember the rule of thumb, where movie has to earn roughly 2.5x its budget, before it becomes profitable) the movie’s director tried to blame everyone, but herself. You might think I am happy this film failed, but actually I am not. Why? Simple – I want movies to succeed. I love movies, so wishing for them to fail, that just doesn’t make sense to me. Plus, I genuinely enjoyed the main trio, so I would want them to have another chance to make a great action movie. But whoever would take on directing this, they need to make a decision – are they making a cheesy, light-hearted action movie? Or will it be more R-rated, “hard ass” action film, with some laughs, but more drama about feminism? Because this movie tried to do kind of both and the result is… let’s just say, not that great. If you were to take this film apart, all the elements are great, but the overall result is far from enjoyable. Which is irritating, as again, the main trio worked really, really well together. It’d be shame not give them one more chance, with better script and a capable director, who knows thing or two about action.

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 heard a lot about this movie, as it’s one of those that bombed in the cinemas (I couldn’t find the movie’s budget, but it didn’t gross even half a million dollars worldwide, see for yourself, which I would have to imagine had to hurt, unless they made it for about $20.000) but gained cult status over the years, and even more especially since certain somebody became a president of… this tiny, not really significant country, that let’s say wanted to be great again (even though nobody could really define when they were truly great and what that even means). Anyway, I went into this movie expecting just couple of laughs, nothing else and what I got what… mixed bag full of promise, but that underwhelms you overall. It’s like getting a really cool PS5 game for your birthday, but you have never owned PS5, or Xbox and you are not really a gamer. That’s how I felt while watching Idiocracy.

What puzzles me the most is there was such a promise! The story, the general idea behind this film (the most average guy you can ever think of gets frozen and he’s awaken 500 years later, in the meantime, everybody got dumber to the point he’s by far the most intelligent human being on the planet) is great and if executed well, this could have been really fun experience.

Unfortunately, it leaned into “the dumb” too much. Like 150% bit too much. And here’s the most frustrating part, there is a way of doing dumb comedy well. Hell, guy behind this movie (Mike Judge) knows his stuff, he gave us Office Space (1999) or really great show Silicon Valley (2014 – 2019) that proves he can make a lot of things/themes really fun. But this movie just went really overboard. Where I struggled the most was the luck of subtlety. There are some slightly subtle jokes that worked (like every station does everything to get viewership from swearing, to half naked attractive models reading the news, plenty of brands still exist, but they are in totally different business than what you remember them doing, or how in this dumb future, all these TV stations have re-branded everything and then, there is the good old fashioned Fox News, the same exact brand, the same exact logo/jingle :-)) and I wished more jokes were like this. Unfortunately, most of the jokes here were really in your face, where it sometimes felt like the director believed we already live in 2505 and we have to have everything spoon fed, so we could understand it.

I did appreciate the fact it was Luke Wilson, who played the most average person on the planet, as… yeah, who else…? The mayonnaise looks at him and it thinks he’s too bland. Who I felt bad for was Maya Rudolph. I have always felt that she’s been put in this box, where she’s always one of the supporting actresses, and she never gets to showcase properly what she can do. In here, she has the biggest role after Luke, but she’s not given much to do, so the movie wasted her talent. And as much as I love Terry Crews (or how he’s credited here, Terry Alan Crews) his character is on one consistent level of ignorance mixed with violence with “a bit” of shouting on the side. He’s also not given much to do, as the moment we meet his character, that’s exactly who we see for the rest of the film, there are no peaks or valleys, just one over-the-line performance, that gets boring the more time goes by.

I think Idiocracy is a perfect example of somebody taking a big swing, and unfortunately, missing their mark completely. I am not going to say it’s not worth seeing, or that it is the worst movie I’ve even seen, no, by far not. Sometimes I laughed, it’s really short (not even hour and half) film and… that’s about it. Yeah, the casting is pleasant, but if 2/3 of your main actors feel wasted (where you know both Maya and Terry can do better), it might be slightly painful to go through at times (as my girlfriend said at one point “Thank god it’s only 20 minutes left, this movie is infuriating!”) and even though I wasn’t as harsh on this movie as she was (she would have given this 1/5*, maybe even 0) I could see where she was coming from. Just because your movie deals with total dumbness, that spread around the world worse than COVID-19, it doesn’t mean there can’t be any sign of slightly intelligent, subtle humour. You don’t have to bathe us in the dumbness, for us to understand it.

Overall, Idiocracy is one of those movies, that might have a cult status which I will never understand. I still think the idea is worth exploring and if done properly (maybe a TV show reboot with different writers? I felt like this concept could be great for a proper R-rated TV show) this might have been a great comedy. Unfortunately, instead of the golden “show, don’t tell” rule of storytelling, the movie went with “show, tell and scream just in case the audience is really daft” route. Which is a shame.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Where to start with this one… I really wished to love this movie, because I really, really like uniquely weird fantasy movies like that (two of the most obvious examples from the same era would be The NeverEnding Story (1984) and of course, Labyrinth (1986), two “darker than your average” kids fantasy movies) in which you don’t see the most advanced CGI and even as a child you can tell, there is some sort of “cheap” quality to them – the sets, puppets, effects, but that doesn’t matter, because you do love those stories, that unique atmosphere those movies created and they both stayed with you, for better or worse. One might traumatize you (I don’t think my 10 year old self was ready for the “horse drowns in swap of sadness scene) one might make you ask questions (is David Bowie really hitting on 16 year old Jennifer Connelly? I mean, I can’t blame him, but damn…) but both had their uniqueness, both standout in their ways and I don’t mind revisiting either of them. Now, The Dark Crystal is a different story, maybe because unlike those two movies, I didn’t grow up watching it? But it very much felt like a product of its time, to make something for the sake of making something. And even though the runtime is just around 89 minutes, it managed to bore me…

The thing about this movie that’s the most striking to me, it clearly takes its inspiration from Star Wars, which is not a bad thing per say, but it fails to deliver on any big, major moments. The entire movie can be summed up to about 2 pretty short sentences, which also is not necessarily a bad thing, as plenty of movies I adore are based on really simple concepts, executed well. And that was my problem with The Dark Crystal, I don’t think it was executed well. If you are falling asleep while watching a fantasy movie, that’s only 89 minutes long, because this could have been literally told in 10/15 minutes, something is wrong.

It pains me to say this, because I have really enjoyed the look and the feel of this movie, as again, I grew up watching fantasy movies such as this one, so even though some of those puppets looked really terrifying, rather than cute/charming (the main hero Jen looked like a puppet, who somehow got hold of Instagram’s most annoying smoothing filter in 1982 and used it for the entire movie) you eventually get used to it and admire the craftsmanship behind it. The production design on this movie was honestly great, some scenes looked amazing even by today’s standards, but the story, the characters, nothing grabbed me the way it was supposed to. The humour didn’t land, the “epic” finale didn’t land, nothing story-wise worked for me.

When comes to movies like this, I always tend to wonder, what would happen, if I watched this movie when I was the target audience for it? Would I adore this film and looked back at it fondly, had I seen it when I was 10 years old? Do you need to be a certain age, to fully appreciate movies like The Dark Crystal? But if that’s the case, does it make the movie good, or bad? I know art is subjective, and there is no one right answer to this question, but it always makes me wonder, every time I see a film like this, that’s a cult classic for one generation of people who seem to adore it, and when I finally get to watch it, it leaves me not only stone cold, but also bored.

Watching this film, I really got intrigued to revisit the already mentioned Labyrinth, as that’s the closest “fair” comparison to The Dark Crystal, and see whether I still love it the way I have. I think the answer will be yes, but I don’t think it’s purely nostalgia driven – you can make the argument that this movie walked, so Labyrinth could run. That this movie was just almost a “demo” version of things to come, as thinking back, even as a child, Labyrinth always felt like the strangest fever dream, that I loved, but wasn’t sure why. Years later, I think I finally realised I love it because of Bowie, young Jennifer, great soundtrack, and the overall creative force behind it, where mainly the story feels unique and original. This movie (story-wise) doesn’t feel like that.

Overall, it’s been interesting watching The Dark Crystal for the very first time. It’s definitely a different movie from a different time and you either are on board with that (most likely meaning you grew up watching it) or not and that will heavily reflect your enjoyment of it. I am glad I have finally watched this movie, as it gave me another glimpse of the artwork, that’s slowly dying (mostly practical stunts/CGI puppets etc.). It’s just shame, the story bored me to tears and I couldn’t get into it.

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 a weird past with this franchise, as I didn’t grow up watching any of them, at least fully, but I did see bits and pieces from all of them, therefore, they all blended together for me. But I know it’s considered one of the most classical comedies in the USA, so I thought I might as well fill in some gaps in my “movie education”. And… yeah. It’s good enough, but National Lampoon’s Vacation definitely must have been funnier when it was released.

Let me explain – for me, comedies from (mainly) the 80’s can be split into two categories – either they still work, or they don’t. I know, shocking right? But I am being serious – I can enjoy bad, cheesy action movies from the 80’s with no issues. I can enjoy dramas, basically anything from that decade with no issues, but comedy is such a specific genre, that it either works no matter the decade you are watching it in, or you are just watching a movie, that sometimes can be kind of funny, but most of the time, you are just there to see how the story unfolds. The latter unfortunately described this film.

I am not saying it’s a bad movie by any means, or that you won’t laugh. I am also not comparing it against comedies made nowadays, because that would be just unfair. What I am doing is comparing this film with others from that area (such as Ghostbusters (1984), Airplane! (1980, my review here) or The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! (1988)) where all of them are different sub-genres of comedy, but they all still work within what they are. National Lampoon’s Vacation is trying to be a “family road-trip” comedy and I think it works good enough. That’s the main issue with this movie for me – most of the jokes seemed like were they were “alright”, but not one made me genuinely burst out laughing. They almost felt like it’s all setup, but barely any punchlines.

I was still kind of enjoying the movie, don’t get me wrong, but you do want to get some laughs out of a comedy movie. And this is where this film failed. Also, it tries to have the “heart” of family comedy, but it never worked for me too. All characters are borderline stupid or sometimes even mean, which should at least by funny, but turns out it doesn’t have to be. Because in this movie, the characters were just there and that was it.

National Lampoon’s Vacation is for me one of those comedies I wish I could have experienced in a theatre, when it opened back in 1983. Because it must have been pretty great. But that’s the thing – I think most people who consider this film to be “great” were brought up on it, so I would question how much the nostalgia comes into their ratings. Because as I have mentioned before, I didn’t grow up on this movie and as a comedy, it didn’t hit me. And as a movie, it was “just” good enough.

I have actually watched the first three of these films and I might be (yet again) in the minority, but it seemed like with each sequel, the movies got slightly better, but I will write about the other ones too. 😉 Overall, National Lampoon’s Vacation is one of those “wild” 80’s comedies, that doesn’t stand the test of time for me and it seems quite tame today. But luckily, it’s fairly watchable as a movie on its own, so even if you are not going to be laughing all the time, it’s not a bad watch per say.

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

Until next time,

Luke

First of all, the full title of this movie is Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn (but in the UK it was released only as Birds of Prey, so let’s go with that) is a mouthful, even though I do kind of like it. Why am I mentioning this? Because, the same as the actual movie, it is a bit messy and bit all over the place.

What I don’t understand is, how can you make a movie about Harley Quinn played by Margot Robbie, (whose performance was one of the best things about Suicide Squad (2016)) and make it so… dare I say boring? Maybe boring isn’t the right word, predictable…? Look, this film is kind of (and by then I mean really) all over the place. Take Birds of Prey. And I don’t mean the title of the movie, I mean the group Birds of Prey. I had no idea, what the title meant before watching the movie. I didn’t know it’s also “a group thing” similar to other comic books groups like Avengers or, Suicide Squad. But in this movie, it only starts to get interesting when they get into the “Birds of Prey” thing which is… 20 minutes before the movie ends…?

I think the biggest mistake was to trying to do two things at the same time – have a standalone story about Harley Quinn breaking up with Joker, therefore becoming a target for everybody in the Gotham could have been a great standalone story on its own, with possible minor involvements of the other members of what would then become Birds of Prey. But this movie is supposed to be about the group and if you spend 70% of your movie’s time on Harley dealing with not only the break up, but also the fact everybody and their assassin mother is after her, then you are faced with two options – either make the movie over 2 hours (which probably wouldn’t work) or shorten the “B” story, which in this case should have been the “A” story though…?

Or, you know, make two movies, one fully focusing on just Harley Quinn (let’s face, if there is a character who can carry the entire movie by herself, it’s Harley played by Margot, as she’s not only having fun playing the character but I feel like she understands her really well) and then make your Birds of Prey, where we get to learn more about “the others”, where Harley can be the “side character”. As if you were to do that, you might have two decent films on your hands. But we have gotten a movie, with a big potential, but where most things felt off.

Let me give you couple of examples – Ewan McGregor is in this movie and I thought he was good enough. You know why? Because I felt like I didn’t get enough information about his character to know how well is he performing, I wasn’t sure where he’s coming from, what his motivations are… They did slightly better job with Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who almost managed to steal this movie, which is close to a miracle, given how little she had in this overall! And that is a shame, as her character was great, funny, cool and I wish we could spend more time getting to know her. Or another example – Jurnee Smollett – what happens with her character towards the end felt really out of place. I understand, that is what her powers are in the comic books, but in the movie, where we don’t really have anyone with any kind of powers, or supernatural being (yep, Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash etc. took a COVID vacation together I guess?) her big reveal at the end almost took me out of the movie completely, because I have completely forgotten that one tiny scene from the beginning, where they hinted at her powers. And that wasn’t Jurnee’s fault, because I thought she did a good job, but if your audience forgets something like this (“hey, she might have superpowers”) you might have not done such a great job of setting it up. And then it takes you out of the most enjoyable part of the movie.

Yes, as I have mentioned before, the last 20 minutes, where they actually (and finally) get together and fight the bad guy(s) are entertaining, but even those can’t redeem the 70/80 minutes prior, full of mainly Harley being all over the place and us not getting to know, you know, the Birds of Prey properly. At this point, people in charge of the DC universe should just take a hint from Marvel and actually plan stuff, trying to introduce, and hype characters, rather than throwing everything at the wall and see what sticks. That is how most of their movies feel like to me. Unfortunately, Birds of Prey is one of them. And like with most of the DC stuff prior, I am not saying it’s a bad movie. What I am saying is plenty of things just didn’t stick to that wall for me, sorry. It’s especially sad for this movie, that has really intriguing characters I would love to know more about. This could and should have been DC’s Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) where we could have been amused and possibly fall in love with quirky and unique characters in a really unique movie. What we have gotten instead are quirky and unique characters in a movie, that is mix of standalone movie about one character we knew quite well and tiny bit of setup to this super hero group she is part of. Shame, because the potential was there.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Let’s be blunt about this – Ava is your typical, (below) the average action movie, that’s trying so hard to ride on coattails of (mainly) John Wick‘s franchise. Except they have spent much less time and energy on any kind of world building (you know, the thing that made John Wick franchise as successful as it is) and that leaves us, the viewers with… this boring action (?) movie, with surprisingly great cast.

And that is the main advantage of this movie and realistically, the only reason I might even consider recommending this film to anybody, as the main cast is great. Colin Farrell is always a welcomed addition, even though in here, he doesn’t really have much to do, same for Geena Davis, who I like, but in this movie, she’s also acting on “auto-pilot”. John Malkovich‘s character does have more scenes, so he’s actually turning in pretty decent performance, and he’s a great mentor to Ava. This is where I need to stop and acknowledge the main character, star, and by far the best thing this movie has got going for it – Jessica Chastain. Do I have a weakness for her? Sure, but let’s not talk about that right now. As she’s the only reason (for me) to watch this movie. Don’t get me wrong, Jessica and the other great actors I’ve just named all had much better performances in much better movies throughout their respective careers, so it’s not like you’d have to watch Ava to see something spectacular from either of those actors, but mainly John and Jessica make this movie somehow watchable.

The main issue with this film is the script – we literally have seen everything in this movie not only done before, but done much better. It’s almost like somebody pitched this movie along these lines: “What if John Wick was a woman and the movie wouldn’t be as great? Everybody sold? Perfect, let me get Netflix on the phone”. Then, on basis of that pitch, they somehow got pretty great cast, and because they’d spent most of their money on those actors, didn’t have that much money left to spend, everything else was done as frugally as possible and voila, Ava was born!

What frustrates me the most is this movie could have been done differently, if only it didn’t feel the need to follow exactly the same storyline as literally every single movie in this genre for the past almost 10 years now. Only while watching this film, I had a realisation that in these movies (assassins, who are basically invincible ghosts, living double life, much smarter than your average Joe, or in this case, Jane) we have been getting only one type of story – this super duper assassin getting betrayed by their own agency/government/organisation and they have to fight the people they know to survive, go against the system that raised/train them. And with most of the other movies, they tend to be enjoyable enough, that I had not only never noticed, but was never bothered by that! But with Ava, I was bored halfway through the movie, so I started to think, why? I love this genre, I love Jessica and she’s great in this, why am I so bored? And then the realisation hit me harder than puberty hit my face some time ago – because I have seen this before, way often than I care to admit.

That could have been (alongside the casting) the saving grace Ava needed – if we did not follow in the footsteps of other movies so closely, if the filmmakers showed us more interaction (maybe even some training from the past?) between John and Jessica, this could have been much better. I can imagine it right now, half the movie would have been about how Jessica ended up with John’s character, how he trained her to be the great assassin she is now, the other half might have been about her getting ready for some important job, to show us how smart she is, what planning goes into what she does…? To me, that sounds much more interesting, we could have focused on those two characters mainly and the movie might have been at least been a bit different. I am not saying this would make Ava better by any means, but at least it would stand out.

Overall, if you are fan of Jessica Chastain (and if you are not, what is wrong with you, you monster!?! :-D) and you have watched everything else she is in, you might, just might, give Ava a shot, just to complete her filmography. Don’t expect too much though, as without that great cast, this movie would have barely been worth the piece of SD card it was filmed on.

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

Until next time,

Luke