When you talk about movies online and listen to/read other movie fans, you notice how some movies get mentioned more often than others. About Time was one of those films where it seemed like everyone but I had seen it already, and what’s more, they loved it. I knew the film’s premise, and I had the ending unintentionally spoiled for me as well. So maybe that is why it’s been on my watchlist forever. Well, when your girlfriend wants to watch a good rom-com, and you want to watch something you haven’t seen yet, this came to mind, and despite all I knew about this film, it still delivered. I would even say it surpassed my already high expectations; it is THAT good.

What I loved the most was the key ideas (cherish the time with your loved ones, and it’s only up to you how you tackle each day) aren’t anything new or groundbreaking. On paper, it feels like a bad/cheesy motivational poster. That is where the pedigree comes in in the form of the talent in front of the camera (Domhnall Gleeson, Rachel McAdams, Bill Nighy and Lydia Wilson are arguably the most important characters) and behind it (Richard Curtis). Let me start with the man in charge, Richard Curtis.

I think I can safely write that there aren’t many others who understand the rom-com genre as well as he does. He’s mostly a screenwriter who has written or co-written over 70 movies, so naturally, there will be some average movies, too. But he only directed three features – this one, Love Actually (2003) and The Boat That Rocked (2009). A side note – if you haven’t seen The Boat That Rocked, stop everything and watch it; it’s such a great movie, and I don’t think it gets talked about enough. Anyway, these are all the movies he directed and what a resume. I think the reason I gravitate towards his films is the realness. The characters in all his movies frequently deal with love, sex, and life, but often in a relatable, awkward way. He understands that for us to feel something, he needs to make us fall in love with those characters, and he does it effortlessly. But, most importantly, all the main characters feel like people, not like we are watching Hollywood celebrities trying to be relatable. Sure, Rachel McAdams was a big name even in 2013, but About Time plays into her “girl next door” vibe, and that is why the contrast between her and someone like Margot Robbie worked because the movie (or rather the characters in it) point out how insanely stunning Margot is, so next to her, even someone as gorgeous as Rachel McAdams looks almost “generic”, despite the simple fact she isn’t. His style almost feels like he knows how to “turn down” the “rom-com” element and does it in a more subtle way, where the ending to his films always hits you.

Take me, for example. I knew THAT moment towards the end was coming; I was getting myself ready for it, but when it finally played out, I almost cried because the movie had earned my trust by then, and I loved all the characters. I won’t spoil anything, but you know what I am talking about if you have seen the movie. And that character work goes to the screenplay (Curtis again!) and the actors. Domhnall Gleeson has always been a great actor, and in this film, he simply confirms it as he plays the awkward yet charming character perfectly. When the movie started, I wasn’t sure whether I could see what women in this film did, but after a few scenes, I saw it too; his charm and charisma made it hard not to like/love him. Bill Nighy plays a dad everyone should have, or if you are like me, you wish you would have had. You can argue this movie is more of a father/son family film rather than a romantic comedy, and it would make sense to me. I also loved Lydia Wilson as her Kit Kat (what a fun nickname) was this bittersweet reminder of someone who tries to be happy but can’t.

However, I need to give a special shoutout to Rachel McAdams. She’s been a great actress for over two decades and is still not getting enough recognition because she has done mostly comedies and romantic comedies. I think there’s still the prejudice against this genre and how “easy” these movies are to do/be in. And sure, whilst you can find questionable acting performances in many of those movies, Rachel has always delivered. Even in this movie, I knew she was this cool actress, but she convinced me she was this dorky girl who loves this awkward guy. When I was watching About Time, I forgot that I was watching Rachel and instead believed there was a girl called Mary in London like her. My point is that Rachel McAdams is criminally underrated and deserves more praise and projects that would allow her to do whatever she wants.

The sign of a great movie, at least to me, is when the movie finishes and you still want to be in that world. When the movie is over, and you are thinking about the themes, story, and characters, you can tell how almost nothing (maybe besides that time-travelling element) was that groundbreaking, and yet, you want to rewatch that film again. Because movies aren’t just one thing. A mix of a couple of words filmed and then thrown on the screen. The great ones use everything in their toolbox to “lure you in”, and once they have you firmly in their grasp that is when they make you feel everything. About Time did that to me several times, and each time, I loved it. I can’t wait to rewatch it again.

Overall, About Time surpassed my high expectations and delivered one of the best rom-coms mixed with a great story about father and son with a unique quirk of time travel. Something that, on paper, doesn’t seem like it should work and mesh together as well, but it does. I don’t know if this is a heresy to write this, but this is my favourite Curtis movie. I think for many fans, it’s Love Actually, but for me, only on the strength of one viewing, it must be this film. If you are like me and haven’t watched this one yet, I can’t recommend it more highly.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I believe the thing that harms this movie the most is its posters. They are lovely, don’t get me wrong, but if you look them up, you think Philomena is a “feel good movie” starring the one and only Dame Judi Dench. And this movie might be that at times. But it’s actually much deeper, slightly darker, and filled with incredibly complex themes of (self)-hate, anger, forgiveness and letting go of all that anger and hate that it deserves your attention and time.

Firstly, it’s based on the unbelievably real phenomenon of rich people buying orphans because they could. And the Catholic church then wiped away all the evidence. You might be shocked to hear that the Catholic church would have done something like this; historically, they weren’t involved in any massive scandal(s) involving children… I mean, who would have thought? Not me, that’s for sure. Anyway, we follow Philomena, who had a child as a teenager and was punished for it by, effectively, slaving away at this covenant and ultimately having her boy given up for adoption. And 50 (!) years later, she finally decides to try and find him.

I won’t tell you anything else because this movie takes turns I wasn’t expecting. It’s not “twisty” by any means; it just doesn’t follow any “conventional” route. Every time I thought: “This is where we are going”, the movie took a detour to that place that was much more interesting than I had in mind. And ultimately, I love films that do that. I have seen many films, and it’s always a welcome surprise when you think you can clearly tell where this is going, only to have the rug pulled from underneath you, but it makes sense. And some of these turns can be heart-breaking.

That brings me to our main cast. Writing “Dame Judi Dench is a phenomenal actress.” feels like saying water is wet, sand is coarse and irritating and gets everywhere, or having a high ground can be advantageous when fighting on a planet of burning lava. But she is excellent in this film, especially in those small moments. She doesn’t have any “big Oscar moments” despite the fact she was nominated for this role. She’s been steadily excellent throughout this movie, with some moments bordering on phenomenal. She is a treasure.

I have only known Steve Coogan from his comedic roles, and even those I haven’t seen that much. But he nailed his role. I can’t imagine being an actor and my scene partner being Dame Judi Dench, but he isn’t me and handled it with no hesitation. He also co-wrote this screenplay (alongside Jeff Pope) and got nominated for that, but not for his performance, which is a shame. Yes, this is all about Philomena, but his character had to be purposively on different wavelengths the entire film and that could have been such a thankless role. I can imagine that would backfire in any lesser film, and this character would not work. But he made it work; we understand him every step of the way, and despite everything he does, I feel for him, even if I don’t agree with everything he did.

And I think my last sentence summarizes Philomena perfectly. What makes this movie stand out is the complexity of… well, everything. The most important thing this film talks about is how people will be mad or angry, and more often than not, they have every right to be. But it’s up to you how you react to people or situations that made you angry, whether you are controlling your emotions. Is that anger placed on the appropriate person? Is that even “your anger”, and aren’t you just angry on someone else’s behalf? This film shows us all these facets of different, complex emotions and how you can forgive someone, even if they may not deserve it. That is where this movie goes from “pretty great” to “excellent” in my eyes. There are many layers this film touches on, and I haven’t even mentioned many others because I don’t want to spoil anything, but all these layers work in harmony.

That would be my last point; Philomena never managed to bore me. Sure, it’s only 98 minutes, so nothing crazy, but this film takes you on a journey and by the end, I could have sworn this was longer. But in the best way possible, when you can’t believe how much a movie covered in its fairly short length. Philomena never bores you, always moves forward, and when you have Steve with Dame Judi in its centre, you are set for success.

Overall, Philomena is an excellent movie; I feel people aren’t talking about it enough. It features one of the best performances by a living legend Dame Judi Dench, and one perfect performance by Steve Coogan, who also co-wrote the screenplay. It is a movie with a heart, but it also openly talks about a dark past in Ireland and the Catholic church. And when you read that, you think you’d know exactly where this is going, but trust me, you have no idea. Watch it for yourself, please, you won’t regret it.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Saving Mr. Banks is one of the prime examples of the golden rule that states: “You don’t take your historical facts from a movie.” No matter whether it’s “inspired by true events” or “based on true events”, there will always be something that has been processed, cut, excluded or overblown for the sake of “movie magic”. And I think that is the correct thing to do, as long as you understand the difference between film vs real life. Take this film, for example. The base of the story is accurate. But if you search how much was changed, tailored with or straight-up omitted from the film (for more information, check out the Wikipedia article for this film), you will see what I mean by saying movies are not historical re-enactments. But that’s because they shouldn’t be. And Saving Mr. Banks is better for it.

I know it’s popular to view Disney corporation as this evil entity that only cares about money, profits and dollar bills. But, part of the reason I liked this film was that it wasn’t about “the Disney” we know and have now; it was (partially) about the person who co-founded Disney – Walt. Tom Hanks delivers a great performance, and I think he portrayed Walt very well. I can only judge based on several interviews I listened to with people who knew and worked with the actual Walt Disney, and their description matches what Hanks delivered on the screen. And that person might have been quirky or weird, but one almost must be like that to do what Walt did. Hanks managed to personify this almost mythical person, and I thought he did well with his performance.

But the main star of this film is undoubtedly Emma Thompson who might have portrayed the most English person who has ever Englished on the silver screen, and I have seen many. I heard some interviews about her (P. L. Travers) and how difficult and strict she was, and I thought Emma portrayed her exceptionally well. There is always a risk of playing a real-life person who was known for being difficult because you don’t want to downplay that, but also, you can’t portray them as an asshole because you, as an actor, have failed. And Emma’s delivery was pristine; she managed to tippy-toe on the line between a hard-ass, a bit of comedic character and a broken old soul who needed somebody to understand the story of Mary Poppins; and what that entails. Again, I am not talking about the real P. L. Travers, this isn’t a documentary. I am talking about the movie version that Emma helped to create, and she absolutely nailed her performance.

Regarding the film itself, I thought it was a well-made 100-minute film that, unfortunately, ran for 125 minutes. The flashbacks to P. L.’s childhood helped from the beginning, but there was a point where I was more invested in the storyline of making the film and not in the past because I understood from only a couple of scenes what it was that made her “tick”. But since this is a Hollywood movie, you can’t just “show, don’t tell”; you need to show, dance around it, and then spell it out towards the end; to make sure everyone understands you.

The perfect example is her resentment of pears. You kind of understand from the first flashback that there was something triggering from her childhood based on the first or second flashback we saw. And honestly, I would have been happy had we left it out like that, but no, we have to get a scene, later on, involving pears for you to “truly understand” why she reacted in such a way. I understand I might be crazy, trying to look for subtlety in a Disney film about a film that’s part of Disney history. But that was my only problem with Saving Mr. Banks; during the first hour, I was really into the film, and it was quite a shock, even for me. But the more the movie continued, the less interested I became because you can only “get it” so many times before the film ends. It’s like listening to a stand-up comedian whose jokes have the same punchline for an hour. Sure, the first two or three jokes will be alright, but if the tenth joke’s punchline is the same as the nine prior, you are walking out. Except I don’t walk out (or, in this case, switch movies off) of screenings (or when at home, don’t stop the film).

Overall, Saving Mr. Banks was a surprisingly charming film with exceptionally great Emma Thompson. I didn’t grow up watching Mary Poppins (1964), I only watched it not that long ago and didn’t care for it that much, and I still managed to enjoy the movie about how Mary Poppins was made. And to me, that’s saying something. So I would suspect if you did grow up watching Mary Poppins, love all things Disney and understand that films can’t be taken as historical facts, you will probably adore this film. I was surprised by how much I liked it. That tells me I probably have to re-visit Mary Poppins.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Let me make something crystal clear from the beginning – The Heat is a great comedy that’s unfortunately buried inside a very long film. Both leads (Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy) are funny in this film, and they worked so well together. I could even imagine some “reunion” of those two, where they could swap the roles, where Melissa could be the “straight” character, and Sandra would be the “wild” one. And you could even give it to Paul Feig, except this time, please assign him an editor who won’t be afraid to challenge him.

Because this is where The Heat frustrated me the most, almost every joke here works because of two of our superb leading ladies. Yet unfortunately, about 80% of those jokes are dragging on for way too long. Most of this film felt like when you are talking to somebody who makes a good point. So you agree with them. And then, they make another point. And you say: “Ok, I get it, you are right.” And then they go on a bit more, and you go: “No, honestly, I am being serious, I know you are correct, let’s drop it.” Only for them to say one more thing, where at this point, you are annoyed at them not for being right but more for not dropping it where they were “in the lead”.

The Heat 100% feels like that. The “not cutting after the punchline, just to get some improv to see whether we can improve upon it” feels counterproductive when it’s overused. Because it makes you look almost unsure as to what does and what doesn’t work in your movie. And again, the most frustrating thing is, the jokes worked! As it stands, this film is 117 minutes long. It doesn’t seem that much, but for a movie that is effectively a buddy cop comedy starring Sandra and Melissa, that is “a bit” excessive. I am not kidding when I say there is an excellent 90/95 minute comedy hidden in plain sight! If I had the time and energy, I would try and re-edit the movie since everything you need to make it hilarious is here. You don’t have to rearrange any scenes; you need to cut down the “endings” of most of the jokes, mainly by Melissa, and then the movie would feel better paced, and you might have one zinger after another. But in its current form, the film feels like they just let the cameras roll, captured everything they could and if it fit “well enough”, they left it in the movie.

That is a shame as I long for those days when Sandra Bullock was the comedy queen. Take Miss Congeniality (2000); it’s only about ten minutes shorter, but there is more of a story in that film, and most importantly, the movie never manages to bore you or make you cringe. We also know Melissa is a superb comedienne. I knew that for a while because I loved the show Gilmore Girls (2000 – 2007), and Spy (2015) is her best work yet. So putting these two together should have resulted in a comedy that would have been funny and remembered for generations. Unfortunately, not cutting out the end bits of the jokes (that mainly consist of why the joke somebody just said is funny or accurate) makes this film cringe at times and bloated. Even though I enjoyed both main leads, I thought the ending couldn’t have come soon enough.

But to repeat, I would love to see Sandra and Melissa in a movie again. I am not advocating for The Heat 2 or some version of #ReleaseTheWhoeverCut. Nah, let’s not do that. What if, instead, it was a semi-new idea, and this time the roles would flip – Melissa being the “straighter than an arrow, everything by the book” character, Sandra the “fuck you, my way is way better” character and just let them work. They don’t even have to be cops; I would watch them do pretty much anything, as long as there is somebody who knows that jokes don’t have to be over-explained and that improv works in small doses (in films anyway).

Overall, The Heat would be a cautious recommendation from me. It stars two funny actresses, both I’ve admired for a while now so I thought I would love this film. And I thought the movie was… just ok? Frustratingly, I will do what the film does and explain it one more time – there is an excellent cop-buddy film “hidden” inside this bloated mess. I challenge somebody to cut this movie to around 90/95 minutes, and you will see how much would this film be improved. As it is now, I will say watch it, and you will judge for yourself. It’s decent enough that you shouldn’t hate it, and who knows? Maybe, you won’t mind it’s almost two hours. Just don’t say I didn’t warn you when you keep checking your watch halfway through it.

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 the kind of review I always feel the need to state that I have never consumed drugs. But I think if I had, I would perceive time and space kind of like this movie. It reminds me of David Lynch, who is one of my favourite filmmakers ever, where you are not sure what you are watching. Whether it’s a dream or reality. Is it a horror, drama, psycho-thriller? Comedy? Tough to say, for the most part. And yet, you can’t look away, and the movie never bores you. That is if you are into movies like this.

The Strange Colour of Your Body’s Tears (original title L’étrange couleur des larmes de ton corps) is a fascinating movie. Mainly because it starts in so innocently straightforward way. Just read this summary below:

Returning home from a business trip to discover his wife missing, a man delves deeper and deeper into a surreal kaleidoscope of half-baked leads, seduction, deceit, and murder. Does anyone in the building know something?

Source: IMDb.com

And the first 20 minutes or so seem relatively simple to follow. But then this movie starts to delve into… I don’t even know what. Dreams? Surrealism? Time travel? Honestly, I could answer all three of those with “yes”, and it would somehow make sense, and at the same time didn’t at all. And this is the beauty of this film.

Because to me, movies like these are the reason I love cinema. Nothing else manages to transport you into almost another state of mind, another dimension just like these “balls to the walls” films. They are going for something, and it’s fully up to the audience, whether they are on board with it or not. I don’t mind these films if they give me hints throughout them; that would point me in some direction. And in this film, I believe there might be some. That’s why I mentioned time travel, as I have a theory, that somehow our protagonist is stuck between present, future and past? How? Why? Am I right? I don’t know how, why, and I wouldn’t be surprised if I was mistaken. But guess what, that’s ok, to be wrong.

I always wonder, if I were to take drugs before watching something like this, how would it affect me? Would I enjoy myself, to the point I would be shouting from the rooftops about this movie? Or would I go into a deep spiral, where the different eye close-ups would haunt me until I’d sober up? I’ve heard stories about people who enjoy the occasional weed and how they watch movies like this to enjoy themselves more, and I always wondered about how would I enjoy myself? See? The art of cinema truly has the power to take you to some unexpected places, where you wonder whether or not you should start smoking weed.

As you can tell, it’s almost impossible to write a review for this unique film. But I wanted to, even if I convinced one person or put this film on their radar and they would watch it, I would be happy. It doesn’t happen too often that movie ends, and I want to re-watch it straightaway. Even with A++ films, it rarely happens, the feeling of “I need to watch it again, now!” But it happened with this film. I didn’t end up re-watching it, as I had things to do that day. But I think that’s the best I can say about this film. I had no idea what I was watching, yet I couldn’t take my eyes off the screen. And when it was over, I was so fascinated with the visuals, the story, the characters, I wanted to watch it again. Just to see whether I could figure it out. This beautiful looking mess.

Overall, The Strange Colour of Your Body’s Tears is as trippy as if David Lynch got high on coffee and cocaine at the same time. It can be disturbing at some points, kind of funny at other times, and the movie engages you for its entire length. What’s more, this might be one of the most unique looking and beautiful movies I have seen in some time, and that is saying something. If you are like me and enjoy films that make you question whether drugs are a good idea or not, give this a try. I can’t guarantee you will like it, but I think you won’t forget it 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 early 2010s were truly wild. If you define “wild” by literally every studio wanting to have its own “young adult” franchise, they could milk and ran to the ground so deep they’d disturb Satan’s slumber. This film isn’t even trying to hide it, and that somehow makes it so much worse. Before I continue, let me say one thing – this review is only about this movie, and this movie alone. I’ve never read the books, they could be the best, the most amazing stories ever written, and the movie just couldn’t transfer them properly onto the silver screen. That happened many times before. As I am about to criticize the story mainly, just putting it out there, everything I am about to write is only aimed towards this… abomination.

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones (that just rolls of the tongue, doesn’t it?) starts fairly well. You are intrigued as the movie doesn’t waste any time, so great. I also enjoy Lily Collins, who I think is a pretty capable actress, so I can only imagine that she was given some dodgy (as we say here in Scotland, you are welcome for that) directions. As she was… not bad, but boring in this? But to be perfectly honest, I don’t blame her. Or any of the other actors involved. Come to think of it, you can’t convince me otherwise that Lena Headey had a much bigger role, but since she saw how the movie is going, she wrote in the script that her character will stay still there in a coma. Was it a coma? Who knows who cares. Usually, I am against people not doing their best, but with this role, all I am saying is, good for you, Lena. You take that money just for being still for most of the movie!

As mentioned before, the biggest issue for me was the story. More precisely, how it felt like the people behind this took big chunks of most of “young adult” novels before this one, put it into a shitty blender, and turned it on. But since it was a shitty blender, it didn’t even blend properly. So yes, we have vampires and werewolves! But what’s that, you say? Sounds familiar? Well, we have demons too! And shadows and portals, and magic, and “mysticism” and the most obvious family, who don’t know they are family and… It infuriates me just writing down, reliving the film again.

I understand most of the stories we see today are “copy of a copy” to some extent. And I totally get it. I subscribe to the idea that 99% of all the stories that could have been told have been told already. And only every once in a while somebody comes along, who gives us something new to consider. But since that is happening less and less now, we need to be happy with “copies of those copies”. And as long as those films/books/games have some unique twist, a different point-of-view, that hasn’t been explored before, I am down. But every once in a while comes something like this that makes me say: “I can’t believe this, but I do miss Twilight (2008).” Because no matter what, those movies were first. Yeah, I know that technically Harry Potter franchise would be considered first, but not really, as that is a universally beloved series. As it’s just way too late for that kind of movie, as proven by the fact there hasn’t been any talk of a sequel. And it’s not for the lack of trying and “setting stuff up for later” in this film.

The only good thing I can say about this film is… It’s moving along nicely…? No, there are some parts (step-daddy, who sure enough, turns out to be “crucial” for a scene later) that drag on. Maybe just Lily and Lena, especially Lily, is trying her best to do something better? But since Lena is taking her well-deserved coma/nap for most of the movie, she’s alone.

Overall, The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones was a pain to watch. My eyes had to work overtime, given the number of eye rolls I’ve done throughout the movie. I find it easier to write reviews for either really great movies or really bad ones, as those are more fun to write about that than your most average film. But there only are so many ways you can write “this movie is just plain awful” it stops being fun anymore. I won’t waste your time, my time or precious kilobytes of data. Even if you are a hardcore fan of Lily Collins, do stay away.

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

Until next time,

Luke