I wasn’t planning on writing a review for this film. I mean, why would you? Dogtooth is one of the most uncomfortable films you will see. It’s that kind of movie you want everyone to watch because it stays with you, but you are afraid to recommend this to anyone because you feel scared about what they might think of you. But to hell with this, let’s get uncomfortable and talk about this film that stayed with me for a while, and I will try to formulate it to the best of my abilities why I thought it’d be worth seeing it.

Dogtooth is the film that put Yorgos Lanthimos on the map. Sure, this isn’t his feature debut, but I still remember hearing “whispers” about this film back when it came out in 2009. Now, of course, he’s the director best known for (mainly) The Favourite (2018) and if you have seen that film and that was “too weird” for you, stay away from this one. Because comparing The Favourite against something like Dogtooth is like comparing weed to heroin. Sure, both are technically drugs, but one will have more impact on your life.

I don’t usually post reviews that contain a synopsis, but I think it might help in this case, given this is a movie not many would have seen. And also, I don’t want to spoil it too much, so this is what the film is about:

A controlling, manipulative father locks his three adult offspring in a state of perpetual childhood by keeping them prisoner within the sprawling family compound.

Source: IMDb.com

And this is really saying it all without spoiling anything for you. I will try my hardest not to give anything away because part of the reason this film stays with you is the shock factor. It takes this concept of controlling father and runs with it, and trust me, every time you think it needs to “stop running with it”, as surely, we can’t get any crazier/weirder than that? The movie usually pushes past that to something even crazier.

I think the main reason I liked this film (well, “liked” might be a very weird word to use here) is simple – this is a pure, raw character study of a flawed character and the impact he can have on his surroundings, if left unchecked. It’s another “nature vs. nurture” debate, taken into overdrive where the movie forces you to think and see how much we are affected by the nurture as opposed the nature element. And the scariest part about this? I could totally see this happen. Think about it, those three (adult) kids living in total isolation with just their parents, being told from the early age they can’t go anywhere as the outside world is scary and dangerous place. They have a very limited idea about the world and what is happening, as everything is “filtered” through their parents who are supposed to be the ones preparing them for the real world. So, unfortunately it’s not that crazy to believe “the nurture” (at least in this very specific and horrifying example) would have… won, I guess?

What I admired about this film was how dedicated each actor was to their role. There weren’t any slip-ups; all performances in this film felt raw and contributed massively to this films’ overall mood. Because if you, as an audience member, would believe one of them isn’t 100% on board with this, or worse yet, is a pretty famous face, the whole film wouldn’t have worked. That is another thing about Dogtooth; I can’t imagine an English remake of this film, but this might sound weird; I can imagine a sequel. Hear me out.

Without spoiling the ending of this film, let’s say the things are left… open. And I would love to see what happens/happened next. But not even necessarily on that same day or week. I would love to see a sequel exploring just the “children”, let’s say 10/20 years after. Have they ever managed to discover there is a life outside of their house? Or are they somehow still trapped there? If they managed to be free, how do they live now? Because you know there won’t be any happy endings, as even if they ever managed to free themselves, their brains are wired in such a unique way, it would probably take years of therapy to get them to some sort of “normality”, if such a thing exists. I know this won’t happen; firstly, Yorgos doesn’t strike me as the type to do this (and rightly so), and secondly, the younger daughter Mary Tsoni, unfortunately, passed away in 2017. But the idea of seeing them in the “outside” world, without their parents’ influence… that still intrigues me.

Overall, Dogtooth is not a movie for everyone. Even though I rate it highly, and I would love for more people to discover this film, I will say I’d understand if somebody switched the movie off halfway through. Because it deals with heavy topics and some scenes are very graphic. And that goes back to my question from the beginning of my review. How do you recommend a movie like this to anybody without them slowly backing away from you? Well, if you discover the answer, please let me know because I don’t think I’ve cracked the code on this yet. Dogtooth is one of those films that you can discuss for hours upon hours because it covers many intriguing topics underneath all this weirdness and awkwardness. If you are triggered by certain things, I would recommend doing your research before watching this film. If you don’t care about that, and you enjoy movies that aren’t your “run of a mill” films, this one might be for you.

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

Until next time,

Luke

There are only a few books/pieces of art, that inspired modern storytelling in such a profound way as A Christmas Carol did. Think about it. Any movie, TV show, book, game, story… anything you can think of, that involves looking at past, present and future, usually corresponding with the main protagonist being a bad person, who almost immediately does a 180-degree flip and starts helping out others, came to some degree from A Christmas Carol. Not to mention some other things (we all know what it means when somebody is called “Scrooge”.)

This one is yet another version of this famous story, but how to make it unique? One of the most used devices in modern history? Well, make it fully CGI, and hire Jim Carrey, that should do the trick, right? Well, not really. I know this might sound weird, but I promise you, at the end of my review, it should make sense, but this movie really made me appreciate Avatar (2009) even more. Yep, it seems like a random thought now but bear with me here…

The weakest part of this movie is without any doubt the CGI element. Not because it’s been 12 years from the movie’s release and it looks… let’s just say weird, but it was already outdated when it came out. I understand this was the final of the “CGI obsession trilogy” done by Robert Zemeckis, who before this movie directed two other films, that are not related to each other at all, except for the fact they have all been directed by him and they are all fully CGI films with motion caption actors playing the parts (The Polar Express (2004) is the first one and Beowulf (2007) is the other one). And there is one more thing that joins them – they all look incredibly dated now. But I understand why he’s done them.

I remember there was a phase, where it looked like motion capture and full CGI will be the next big thing. I remember reading articles with headlines “we won’t need actors anymore, anything can be tweaked on the PC”, but it still hasn’t happened, because even though we’ve come a long way, it’s still not “life-like”. Don’t get me wrong, especially in the last year or so, we are getting incredibly close (google some deep-fakes and tell me you are not disturbed) but there will always be something about real actors, in real (or at least half real, half CGI) environment. I believe that is why Zemeckis eventually stopped doing this method, even though he didn’t fully stop using it, but he was always the one, who liked to push barriers of what was real or not. But in this one area, he was beaten, by James Cameron (here’s the Avatar link).

People nowadays don’t seem to remember things as much as they used, as when Avatar is discussed, it’s usually in some sort of jokey way or a punch line to how bad it is. And I understand plenty of it is because we are getting four more sequels, that are constantly getting pushed back so that one is kind of on Cameron. But the main “selling point” and the reason it became the highest-grossing movie of all time was the CGI was something, we didn’t get to see to that point and to be honest, I can’t think of many movies since, that would give me that sense of wonder. We’ve had visually stunning films since Avatar, but there was something about the scope of it and the fact it still looks great (even though it’s been a while since I’ve re-watched it).

And compare it to A Christmas Carol, a movie, that even in 2009 (the same year as Avatar) must have felt like something, that just doesn’t seem right. Unsurprisingly, the animation itself isn’t that bad as the sequences of Scrooge flying over London are pretty cool, but the problem with this specific animation has always been the facial expressions. They just don’t look right, natural, at some moments they look more terrifying than intended… that was my main problem with this film.

Another thing about it, is something I will mention, but I can’t really blame the film for it – we’ve seen this before. But that goes with what I’ve talked about in the beginning – the source story has been used a countless amount of times, so there is nothing new, surprising about this story. Hence why you need to think about what to do to make it new, make it feel fresh and the CGI might not be the way to go.

The performances are alright, Jim Carrey definitely lets himself loose, and then we have Gary Oldman or Colin Firth here, but I can’t say they have been great here. Not because they wouldn’t be trying their hardest, but here you will realise, how much a good actor can give you with just their eyes. And unfortunately, the eyes in this movie all look deader than disco. So their voice work is alright, but it’s nothing spectacular and we can’t judge anything else.

Overall, A Christmas Carol is a hard one to review fairly. Because the movie as it is doesn’t bore you, it has its moments, you have some good actors trying their best here, but the main selling point of it, the CGI and full-on motion capture performances just didn’t work for me. But I can’t fault this movie, or even Zemeckis for it, because we need films like these to move forward. Filmmakers need to be able to experiment, to see for themselves what works, what does not, what can be improved upon. And if you look at this film under this light, not as “yet another adaptation of one of the most famous novels ever written” but approach it with more of an experimental view, you might have some fun with this movie. I don’t regret spending my time on it, even though I can’t see myself re-watching this any time soon.

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

Until next time,

Luke

The Princess and the Frog is one of those “filling my gaps” movies, I haven’t seen until now. One of the rare exceptions for modern Disney animation that was escaping me throughout the years, and now I can finally cross it off my “list of shame”. Which I am pleased about because this is a lovely story, a great film that’s just so close to being a great one, But let’s start from the beginning…

I appreciated a lot about this movie – the characters, the story being set in New Orleans (a place that’s been on my to-visit list long before the COVID-19 pandemic, as I keep constantly hearing stories about the amazing cuisine, rich history and most of all, the jazz connection) and of course, Disney’s first African-American princess, Tiana. But this is also my biggest gripe with this movie. I know what you thinking, wait what? Ok, let me explain.

Since this is based on a well-known fairy tale (albeit with one twist), I will spoil a tiny bit of the main plot, to explain my biggest issue with this film – they only gave us the “real” Tiana for about 20 minutes…? Exactly, in most of the movie, we spend time with her being one of the titular frogs. And even though I appreciated this twist, that it’s not just the prince, who needs to turn back but also her, I can’t help but feel cheated. The first African-American princess, but not only that, with her agenda (she really wants to buy and run her own restaurant) and yet, for most of the film, we are starring at the frog. And look, as far as frogs go, it’s a pretty sexy looking frog, I am not going to lie. I am not saying I would have anything with a frog, all I am saying is if I must have something with a frog… what are we talking about again?

Oh yeah… anyway, for some reason, it really bothered me we did not get to enjoy Tiana in her human form for longer. Come to think of it, I think that’s a valid complaint, as I need to admit… I am a man. Also a white man, so there is that. And even I have noticed how little time we get to spend with human Tiana. Now, imagine how some little kid will feel, going to see a movie, where they finally see somebody, who looks like them on the screen in the main role, not just being wacky sidekick, or sassy friend, to only see the human version of them for a quite limited amount of the screen time. All I am saying, representation matters.

The voice acting was pretty great – I need to compliment Anika Noni Rose, as she did well and has a beautiful voice (not only for talking but singing, as all actors actually sang their parts too). I need to be honest, everybody else did a decent enough job, but nobody except John Goodman stood out for me. I know what you are thinking: “Hey, great to see your values, talking about representation and stuff, just to say one of two people who stood out was a stereotypical white guy!” Look… you might have a point, but I honestly think if I wasn’t so familiar with his voice, even he wouldn’t have stood out as much. Come to think of it, that might have been purposeful, as even though this movie has the mighty Oprah Winfrey included in the voice cast, I didn’t know about it until the credits rolled. I was so focused on our main heroine, mesmerised with her voice, I ignored everybody else. I was enjoying the story, so I didn’t care to ask myself “why don’t I recognize any of these voices except John Goodman?” And that’s a pretty great thing, if you ask me, as I don’t measure the quality of any movie by “how many famous people I recognize appear in it”, but based on how invested I am into the story itself.

Overall, The Princess and The Frog is a great movie, which puts a new twist on the old story we are all familiar with. It’s impossible not to get hungry while watching the film or to fall in love with Aniko (or her voice). My tiny issue was only with her being a frog for most of the movie. So I will say something I don’t usually say – I would 100% be for a sequel. Give us a sequel, where she won’t be a frog, maybe with her running her restaurant, some original story, as I’d love to get to know this character more. And yes, I know there will be a TV series called Tiana (2022 -?) but I don’t think I am that age group, that could justify watching a TV show about a Disney princess. A movie though, that’s something different, as you don’t have to invest too much time and should be “packaged” more neatly.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Angels & Demons to me is the pinnacle of the “Dan Brown” trilogy, as it doesn’t rely so much on the conspiracy aspect I was talking about while reviewing The Da Vinci Code (my review can be found here) and it’s almost like a quest game, where you are on a timer, need to solve one puzzle, so you can move to another one, and while this is happening, one of the best music composers of all time is doing his magic and orchestrates amazing piece of score, that to this day, is criminally underrated.

I think the change of scenery really helped to distinguish this not-so-sequel (remember, even though this is a second movie of this “franchise”, the book was released prior to The Da Vinci Code) and made it more vibrant and different. And focusing the story on this mystery (Illuminati, possibly murdered pope) that’s mixed with action and scenes of Tom Hanks and Ayelet Zurer running throughout Rome… it feels really fresh and very unlike the first movie, as it doesn’t really let you rest, in a good way.

A big part of this is due to this movie’s soundtrack, and I do need to talk about Hans Zimmer for a bit. I remember when this movie came out and I’ve seen it in the cinemas for the first time, I wasn’t actually as convinced as I am now (don’t get me wrong, I liked it, just not as much as I thought I would) but what I loved instantly was the soundtrack. So much so, I had downloaded it to my phone I had back then, and while working my summer part time job, it was keeping me awake in the mornings. And that doesn’t happen often. I know plenty of people are really into music and soundtracks, and I can definitely appreciate great soundtrack, but I am not one of them. It only happened a few times, that I would download the entire soundtrack, that I would listen on a repeat for a fair number of days to come. I honestly do believe when fans discuss and rank Zimmer’s work, this movie is often omitted, as plenty of people dismiss it. Which I never understood. Sure, in his long career, he’s definitely scored better rated movies, but even though Angels & Demons is admittedly not as great as The Dark Knight (2008), Gladiator (2000) or The Lion King (1994), that doesn’t mean this score is any worse. I’d argue this must be in his TOP 3, easily.

What also really worked for me are the rest of cast around the main star – Ewan McGregor has long been one of my favourite actors, Stellan Skarsgård is always a welcome addition to any movie and Ayelet Zurer worked for me more than Audrey Tautou, as she had better (for lack of a better word) chemistry with Hanks. I am not saying Audrey was bad in The Da Vinci Code, not at all, I just thought Ayelet stood out more to me, maybe she’s had a flashier role…?

The other thing I’ve always loved about this film is that they actually shot this in Rome. There is always something about actors being on a location, rather than crammed in a green screen studio, acting opposite a wall. Even though the CGI we have now is almost unbelievable, it’s the word “almost” that spoils it for me, as there is always something about mostly CGI locations, where they either feel not great enough, or too perfect/airbrushed that my brain doesn’t fully believe in what is happening right in front of me. Plus, even though I am not a religious person by any means, I’ve always wanted to visit Rome and even Vatican to see the landmarks, churches, the artwork. Maybe one day…

Only thing that “spoils” this movie just a tiny bit for me, happens about 20 minutes before the end. It’s nothing to do with the story (even though, if you properly analyse it, I know you could find a lot of plot holes) but there is a CGI of one particular thing/event, that looks so “rubbery” it always takes me out of the movie for a bit. I don’t want to spoil anything, but once you see it, I willing to bet you will know what I am talking about.

But other than that, this is my jam. Angels & Demons isn’t a perfect movie by any means. Is it entertaining though? Hell yeah! And, I cannot stress this enough, the soundtrack uplifts this movie by at least a grade higher. I swear to… pope I guess, if it wasn’t for Hans Zimmer and for his magnificent work, I don’t think my rating would have been as high. One of the best examples of a movie, where a soundtrack takes “a pretty good film” and makes it into “a pretty great film”.

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

Until next time,

Luke