At the height of his power, his most “Clooneyness”, George Clooney teamed up with his mate Steven Soderbergh (who arguable was also at the height of his career) to… remake Solaris (1972), the Tarkovsky‘s classic that was almost three hours long? Yep, that’s what you do. Well, that is what you do when you are these two guys. And they’ve managed to do it… pretty well?

I have seen the original Solaris, but that was a long time ago when I was too young to understand what was happening. So I didn’t appreciate it enough, and that film is definitely in my “have seen it, need to re-watch it” pile. But I remembered the basic gist and the fact I was bored. Again, please don’t judge me too harshly; I was around 13/14 years old when I watched it. I can see now that was a dumb thing to do, but hey, I was starting my cinephile life. What can I tell you; I wanted to see the best films, but I was too young to understand some of them.

It might be why I rate this remake a bit higher than others? Or it might be the fact we don’t get these “quiet” sci-fi films anymore? As Solaris is a sci-fi drama, meaning the drama comes from the personal lives of our protagonists rather than them being in space. Nowadays, if we get sci-fi films, we get epics, like Dune (2021, my review here) or the latest Star Wars films. And they are (mostly) great for what they are. But they aren’t quiet, meditative dramas that focus on people as much. Those films focus more on showcasing how breathtaking CGI can look, whereas Solaris makes the space the background for our characters to ponder about life, death and everything in between.

And if you are like me, you like films like that. You can say plenty about Soderbergh, but that guy knows how to build an atmosphere of isolation, doubts and paranoia. And he achieved it in this film really well where you understand what is happening, but also understand how confusing and painful the situation must be for everybody involved.

Without going into heavy spoiler territory, this is the official storyline from IMDb.com for Solaris.

Grieving psychologist Chris Kelvin is sent to investigate a lonely space station orbiting the mysterious planet Solaris, where terrified crewmembers are experiencing a host of strange phenomena, including impossibly halcyon visitors that seem all too human. Once aboard, he confronts an unfathomable power that could hold the key to mankind’s deepest dreams and darkest nightmares.

Source: IMDb.com

Yep, George arrives on the ship that stopped communicating a while ago, only to discover there might or might not be more people on board. I won’t say too much because I think it’s a cool idea to explore and would like you to experience it for yourself, if possible. What I also appreciated was this concept being a “polite” remake. The mere existence of this remake is not “hurting” the original Solaris. It’s such an intriguing concept about our existence, the meaning of life and all that good stuff that it might be one of those rare cases of filmmaking where just because you love the original film, it doesn’t mean you “have to” hate this remake. They can both exist and tell their stories.

Solaris is also one of those “before they became famous” films. There are young Jeremy Davies and John Cho, but the most notable appearance goes to Viola Davis. And even though she had acted before this film, it was mostly TV work and “side characters”, so I would go ahead and say this might have been her major breakthrough. And yes, this might be too obvious to write, but she is awesome in this film. I am so glad that I don’t have to write: “How come she didn’t become a bigger deal?” It was her scenes opposite George’s character I’ve enjoyed the most.

The only reason I can’t give this film a higher rating is simple. It didn’t stay with me for long. I’ve had a great time watching Solaris, but only about two months after I’ve seen it (showing my hand here, but some reviews take me a while to write), I only remember some scenes. I remember how I felt watching this film, but for me to rate it any higher, the film would have to leave a bigger impact on me. But as I always say, who knows? Maybe when I re-watch the original movie, I might re-watch the remake too to compare them against each other, to see how different directors with totally different backgrounds tackled one story…? Yeah, I can see myself doing that one day.

Overall, Solaris is 100% one of those “they sure don’t make movies like these anymore”. The space element here is crucial, but it is not the most important aspect of this film. It serves as a tool, a means to an end where our characters could have talked about life, death, what constitutes life… And if you enjoy movies like these, you might want to check this one out. Even though it’s a Hollywood remake, this one must be one of the better ones for sure. The fact it’s almost half the length of the original movie also helps.

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

Until next time,

Luke

The Santa Clause 2 follows the traditional formula of sequels – bigger, louder and playing into what the creators think the audience wants to see more of. And as it often happens with sequels, bigger and louder doesn’t necessarily equal better.

As mentioned before in my review of the first movie, The Santa Clause (1994, my review here), I am experiencing the entire trilogy for the first time. So I fully admit I might (no, scratch that) am not the target audience for this trilogy. But I still thought the first movie was decent enough, albeit not something I would re-watch every Christmas as I do with other films.

And that, unsurprisingly, goes for this sequel too. I will be honest especially when this movie started; I thought this would not be for me at all. Because it shows its hand early on, and the film goes full-on into the “this is a kids movie” territory and goes there instantly. Everything is louder, brighter, with a lot more Santa puns (Elfcon) that will probably make your 6year old spit the breast milk out of their mouths. I won’t lie; I wasn’t getting the “magic” from the first 20 minutes or so.

Then the story kicks in, as surprise surprise, there is a second clause (get it?) to Tim Allen being (or, I guess staying) Santa – he needs to find his Mrs Clause. And it needs to happen soon. Don’t pay any attention to details that it’s been totally ok for him to be Santa for almost ten years now without any wife. The movie needs to have somewhat a resemblance of a plot, so let’s go. But surprisingly, this is where it turned around for me. Because the people behind this film did one thing superbly, and that was the casting of Elizabeth Mitchell. I have liked her ever since Gia (1998) and Lost (2004 – 2010) and haven’t seen her in anything for ages. And she not only brightness up this film for me but also grounds it.

Surprisingly, she works well with Tim Allen. Because she isn’t trying to match his energy/humour, she is there to do her thing and be the “voice of reason” in this film. And trust me, in a movie where the main “villain” is an evil clone of Santa, who looks like he used one too many Instagram filters on his face, someone who can ground this film is needed.

Yes, let’s talk about the clone situation. Did we truly need that? Wouldn’t the film be more magical had we seen Allen’s relationship with Elizabeth build-up for longer? Instead of spending time with this up and coming wannabe influencer, who takes over the North Pole? I get it this is a kids movie through and through, so the path of “least resistance” was the obvious one to take. But at the same time, the most magical moment in the movie, by far, was the “office Xmas party” and seeing all the employees rediscovering their inner child. And I am not saying we couldn’t have the “evil Santa clone” storyline at all, just maybe instead of spending a lot of time with him, wouldn’t it be better to spend more time with the actual Santa, seeing how is he trying to find his Mrs Clause? We could have also focused slightly more on Tim Allen trying to repair his relationship with his son, who ends up on the naughty list. Yes, this film has quite a few storylines going for it, but they don’t compliment each other, as well as you might hope. Mostly the clone Santa storyline sticks out, and we spend (for my money) too much time with him and not enough on the other two storylines.

The Santa Clause 2 has a surprisingly great cast in cameo roles. From Kevin Pollak or Michael Dorn to the stunning Aisha Tyler (portraying Mother Nature), I had fun seeing these actors in a movie like this one; because those are the last people you’d expect to see in a sequel to a film where Tim Allen is playing Santa.

Overall, The Santa Clause 2 is a slightly worse film than its predecessor. But not by much. And that is surprising to me, as based on the beginning of this film, I thought I was in for something way more childish. Luckily, the movie tries to get somewhat serious, and Elizabeth Mitchell grounds it while working well opposite Tim Allen. That, combined with some heartwarming scenes (adults being kids during their office party), makes this film watchable. It’s a shame the people behind this film felt the need to invent a villain who drags the movie down for me. If you liked the previous film, this one will deliver pretty much everything you’d expect.

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

Until next time,

Luke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time,

Luke

Believe it or not, this movie kept avoiding me. I’ve heard about it ever since it came out, how great and funny it was. But for whatever reason, I have never seen it. Until a couple of days ago when I finally corrected that mistake. Let’s be honest, romantic comedies can be great, but most of them are not, as they fall into the same traps over and over again. For example, two beautiful people, who are clearly meant to be together, are fine for most of the film. Until there is a usually simple misunderstanding or a conflict, that in the real world would have been resolved within a five-minute conversation. And then, there is the big romantic finish, where everything gets cleared up again. Wash, rinse, repeat. That is why I was so pleasantly surprised with this film, as it did… none of those things.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding is first of all, really funny. The genius of this film is simple – you don’t have to be Greek (even though every word can be traced back to the Greek language, did you know that?) to spot some of your family members in this film. I am originally from the Czech Republic, and even I could weirdly relate to how certain family members were portrayed. Loud, well-meaning, but sometimes awkward, not comprehending what the meaning of “vegetarian” is. The movie had me on board from the very start is all I am saying, as I could understand where everybody was coming from. And what’s more, all the actors did such a great job, they felt like a family.

And that is because of the superb script, written by the main star of this film – Nia Vardalos. Yes, she didn’t direct this film, but you can tell this basically “directed itself”, as this is a movie where the script reigns supreme. Nia obviously took a huge chunk of inspiration from her real-life family. But she wrote the script so eloquently almost anybody can spot at least one of their family members on the screen. And that’s not that hard, given how big the movie family is. She somehow managed to do, what other writers go for, but often stumble on. The golden rule of writing is “write what you know.” But a lot of time, people tend to write about everything they know and not trying to adjust certain aspects of the story or characters to the outside world to make it more “universal”. That results in unique movies, which have their unique voice, yes. But since you can’t relate to the characters or situations the characters are in (because it’s the writer’s world, not yours), it doesn’t connect with you as much Whereas this film and screenplay did this perfectly, as from the title it might seem this is a “Greeks only movie”, but it’s anything but that.

Another thing I truly appreciated about this film is how it doesn’t fall into the same traps I have mentioned prior. There isn’t any pointless argument between our protagonists, no drama, that would be there just for the sake of it or to give the movie some “stakes”. No, quite the opposite, every time you think: “I see, this is the time where XYZ happens”, as seen in countless romantic comedies before this one, it never happens. For example – the movie sets up a couple of situations where John Corbett‘s character is teased about him going along with everything Nia’s family wants him to do. Any lesser movie would make this into a conflict, but not this one. He is mesmerized by her, and he understands how important her family/heritage is to Nia, so he goes with it, being a supportive partner. And that was so refreshing to see.

The movie also comments on the struggle of immigrants and their children (first generational Americans in this case) and how much the parents had to sacrifice to get where they are and to secure their children, to give them a better life. But again, this was done subtly. The movie isn’t “shouting it from a rooftop”. I have also liked how the film deals with the sense of identity. Acknowledging where you come from is important, but you also need to consider where you live. You can’t stay in your “bubble” forever, you need to experience new things, cultures etc. I can relate to that, as these are not things you would often find in romantic comedies.

Overall, My Big Fat Greek Wedding is a bit of a miracle in the moviemaking world. Notoriously, it’s one of the most successful movies of all time, when calculated for the budget/how much the movie made ratio (the budget was $5 million, and it went on to make almost $370 million globally). I couldn’t be happier it happened to this film. But don’t get it wrong, this wasn’t a coincidence. Part of me hopes that people back in 2002 recognized this movie might not be the best one ever made, but it was (and still is) sincere, funny, intelligent and avoids the stereotypical pitfalls of the genre. After all, many romantic comedies get nominated for the best original screenplay at the Oscars. And deservedly so. I put this movie on to relax, and have a good time and I got exactly that and much more. If I truly wanted, I could probably nit-pick a few things, but I can’t. For me, this is one of the best romantic comedies I have seen in a while. It also goes onto my list of top comedies to watch if I need to cheer up.

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

Until next time,

Luke

We live in the age, where there are plethora of animated movies released on almost a monthly basis, and because of giants like Pixar, DreamWorks etc., there is so much content (and usually really great content), that constantly, when there are discussions about the best animated movies, Ice Age gets often forgotten. To a certain extent, I do see why, as every single Ice Age movie after this one is really aimed towards kids, so it’s playing for the laughs. With that, people frequently forget that the very first Ice Age movie was and still is a different film all together.

I’ve recently re-watched it and was pleasantly surprised how well this holds up, story wise. Even the animation isn’t bad, even though at certain scenes you can tell this was done some time ago (which is crazy, as it’s “only” been 18 years, to see how CGI has evolved since then). But the story elements is where the cookie crumbles and that is why, no other movie from this franchise compared to this one, and there have been a lot of those, can hold a candle to the original.

The main reason for its brilliance is quite simple – the movie is not afraid to have quiet moments. Ever since I’ve seen this film for the very first time, when I was much younger, there was something odd about this movie that struck me every single time, but I could never put my finger on what it was, until I’ve re-watched it now. It’s those quiet moments. Nowadays, we are so used to everything (animated movies especially) being quick, fast-paced, witty, snappy, that we often forget to take a moment. This is what Ice Age does really well – it takes a moment here and there for audience to breathe. It does not feel the need to shove “a funny joke” down our throats every 10 seconds, it has a simple, human story in the middle that captures you and you can’t help but root for all of our main characters.

One fact I’ve realised while re-watching Ice Age, it was a very different movie, not just for its time, but overall, at least when comes to animated films. Because it’s not really funny. Don’t get me wrong, there are laughs and especially children will have a great time with this movie, but it’s nowhere near almost every single animated movie ever made, that’s usually filled in with jokes. This film is more focused on the story of pack of animals trying to get a human baby back to “the people” before it’s too late. The jokes are almost extra, a delicious side with your main course.

It’s pretty strange for me to comprehend how all sequels that followed kind of lost touch with what made this film so different. Maybe it was one of those cases, where the filmmakers thought “our movie was successful because of this, this and that, therefore we need to repeat that” and they misinterpreted what made the original movie standout. Because it wasn’t just Scrat the squirrel, chasing the corn, or Sid, the dumb, yet lovable sloth. No, it was all of them together, but most importantly in a story that made sense. The sequels had to raise the stakes, but unfortunately, they (unintentionally) lowered the quality bar, because the main reason the first film works as well, it almost plays as a decent drama. Whereas higher stakes in a kids movie usually equals more comedy, because we can’t have the movie to be dark.

I would highly recommend re-watching Ice Age, especially if it’s been couple of years since you last seen the first one, and all you can remember are the other ones, that are… honestly fine. But they are heavily aimed at children, kind of like the Minions (2015), where the adults won’t get much out of those movies. But I have feeling if you were to re-watch this one, you would get a bit more from it than you think.

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

Until next time,

Luke

There are movies that are ageless, and if it wasn’t for something (old piece of technology, a specific word/lingo we don’t use today) you wouldn’t even notice, how old they are. And then there are movies like Changing Lanes, a movie that took a concept that was really popular in the early 2000’s (car accident affects lives of several people) and made it in hyper edited, pseudo dramatic early 2000 way, that it’s hard to watch.

Changing Lanes is really frustrating movie, as it’s trying to have it both ways – it wants to talk about good and bad, with characters who are both in between being good and evil (even though you could argue Ben Affleck‘s character has passed the edge and went to the dark side with occasional glimpse of remorse) but everything this movie is trying to say/show is so on the nose it’s basically punching you in the face with it. Subtlety is not a word this movie knows.

Unlike movies like Amores Perros (2000) or Crash (2004), the car accident in this movie is more of a fender bender, so there is not much at stake, nobody’s injured. It’s more about the time to do the right thing in that situation, where both men are rushing to get to court (what a coincidence!) and Samuel L. Jackson wants to do the right thing (exchange the information, etc.). Ben Affleck is in a rush, so he just writes a blank cheque for Samuel to repair his car, but during the chaos, he forgets his red folder, that’s of course, the crucial piece of evidence for his case and trial he’s already late for, even prior to this accident.

From there on, is where the film starts being really melodramatic, as plenty of times if people had just waited for couple of minutes, they would’ve saved themselves plenty of problems, but they don’t. Which is not necessarily bad idea, but the execution… I don’t know whether the studio was interfering with shooting, or giving the director some notes, but the approach Roger Michell went with (half drama, half thriller on crack) didn’t work for me. Not only the pacing felt all over the place, but what the movie was trying to say was just too on the nose, and if you didn’t get, you will get it re-hashed at the end of the movie again, just to make sure you got it.

The other thing that totally didn’t work for me was Ben Affleck’s character, who I didn’t trust at all. To me, that was the typical Hollywood’s idea of “morally ambiguous” character, who knows he’s more on the evil side, but then he sees a family on the sidewalk crying for their dad, and that makes him realise the scope of his evil actions. Yep, that exact scene happens in this movie. I guess, I can’t disprove the fact there might be people like that, but usually people who do things that are… morally questionable, they realise the scope of everything they are doing. They just know how to justify it to themselves, how to disconnect from anything and everything, so people like that wouldn’t get shaken up by something like that.

That’s why the film doesn’t work for me overall – it seemed like it was afraid to either go deeper with Ben’s character, or to allow itself to have moments of quiet reflection, where you could see/believe Ben’s character is about to “break” for the better, not just a few seconds on the street. Unfortunately, the movie did neither, and that’s why it feels unearned.

Side note – if you are still asking “how on the nose can this film be?”, know this – the title literally comes from the accident, where the main characters were… changing lanes on a motorway. Yeah. Subtlety be gone.

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

Until next time,

Luke