Tag Archives: 2015

Movies or shows released in 2015.

Superstore Review (Seasons 1 – 6) – Almost a Heavenly Show

Advertisements

Superstore can’t deny its roots. Created by Justin Spitzer, who wrote 11 episodes of The Office (2005 – 2013, my review here), this show came on the tail end of the “let’s put a camera into ‘normal’ workplace” comedy genre. Except here, it’s not a mockumentary, the actors actually act and don’t pretend they work there, and the camera crew is not following them. But since Superstore is one of the last ones of that “genre”, it was hard for it to stand out in any way. And yet, due to the great ensemble cast and witty writing, this show is 100% worth watching, even if it never reaches the level of The Office or Parks and Recreation (2009 – 2015).

As with all of these shows, you feel “safe” straightaway because of its setting. No matter where you grew up or how old you are, we all have been in some big store like Cloud 9. And, if you are like me, you might have even worked for one big store for a bit. That’s right; I used to work as a warehouse worker in my youth for a couple of months. But even if I didn’t, I think I would still find this show so relatable. The best running gag this show had were the “in-between scenes” of random customers doing very random things, leaving their children behind or, in most cases, doing really questionable stuff. The best thing about these tiny moments was when I started to question some of them for being “too random”, or I might even say: “Nah, nobody would do THAT in a public store!” I remembered the pandemic we have been through (and, to an extent, we still are in) and realised that people are weird.

That could be this show’s tagline, “people are weird”, because it does not apply to the customers only. The cast here is comprised of many not as known actors playing the ultimate weirdos. The biggest star by far is America Ferrera, who I have known mainly as one of the girls from The Sisterhood of Travelling Pants movies. Well, that “girl” grew up and became a great actress and excellent comedian. I loved the style of humour, her character and how each episode; she had a different name tag. If nothing else, this show was a vehicle for America, and she killed it.

But as I have mentioned before, this is an ensemble piece, so there were many others who helped to make the show what it was. From Ben Feldman (his well-meaning but often too much rambling activist Jonah), Lauren Ash (her Dina might have started as “Dwight Schrute but make him a woman”, but she managed to make the character her own very quickly) to many others (Colton DunnNico SantosMark McKinneyNichole Sakura). They each are given something unique and have managed to make their characters stand out. That is something I have to mention – this show finds its footing really soon. Even The Office and Parks and Rec had weaker first seasons, but this show felt like it knew what it was from the pilot episode.

The area where Superstore differs the most from the “giants” of the genre would be the political side. They don’t discuss “politics” per se, but the show was never afraid to tackle all kinds of issues, from class and race to big corporations in the USA and how they treat their workers alongside their anti-union approach. It was fascinating watching this show talk about unions and seeing everything happening now in the USA, where more and more places are shutting down because their employees have unionised. I think that’s one aspect of this show that will age well… Or, unfortunately, won’t age at all because there doesn’t seem to be any change coming. Let’s hope it ages badly as fuck, and if somebody stumbles upon Superstore 20/30 years from now, they will marvel at the stuff these characters had to go through, fight for and still not always get.

My biggest issue with Superstore and the only reason I can’t give it the highest rating is the character work. Especially in seasons four and five, some of my favourite characters (like Cheyenne or Mateo) get downright mean to unbearable where it’s not even funny. What’s more frustrating is you can see their growth through the series, so, at times, it felt like we had gone back several times with mainly these two characters being so back and forth. There is a fine line between your characters being mean where it stops being funny (something even The Office managed to balance most of the time), and mainly in those two seasons, it seemed despite all the growth these two have been through, it didn’t matter. I don’t blame the actors;a I think sometimes the writers have struggled with balancing character growth and comedy. Especially when (without spoiling the show too much) one of the characters gets promoted. I get that it might bread some animosity even among friends but come on.

But that would be my only gripe with this show. Everything else was terrific. I particularly enjoyed the last season because it might have been the first (?) TV show to implement the COVID pandemic into its story. Yes, the final season not only deals with its natural conclusion but also manages to (quite faithfully) showcase the struggles the actual workers have faced during the pandemic. We go from how there were zero to no rules to masks, 6 feet rule etc. In most shows and films, it might be a painful (or even unpleasant) reminder of this pandemic; but in the true Superstore fashion, they kept it real. The creators were not afraid to comment on the pandemic, how workers of these big shops were treated, and the consequences this pandemic had on shopping in general. For that, I applaud the writers.

Overall, Superstore was a delightful and funny show to watch. Sure, at times, you might get frustrated with some characters, and even though it’s the shortest show (out of The Office and Parks and Rec), there were some episodes (around seasons four and five) you could argue weren’t needed. But I would still recommend watching this show, especially, if you have ever worked in any retail or customer-facing job, you might find some much-needed catharsis, or it might give you some PTSD. Also, America Ferrera rules and she should get cast way more.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Trainwreck (2015) Review – Come for Amy, Stay for Everybody Else

Advertisements

I still remember this movie coming out, and it seemed like out of nowhere, Amy Schumer became “an overnight success”. Of course, there is no such thing, she has been working for a while before, but there is no denying Trainwreck was her big break, her mark on pop culture. And that’s already something way more than most people will ever do in their life, so Amy could retire tomorrow knowing she’s achieved something pretty special, even though I thought she was the weakest part of her own film.

Before going any further, I need to be honest with you. I don’t enjoy Amy’s comedy. Why? Well, because her “schtick” is predictable. Most of her humour stems from “women can be as filthy as men” or “I have a vagina, let me tell you about it.” And even though I don’t find those that funny, I can understand why some people would, each to their own; you know how that goes. But, every time; I see her trying to go more “mainstream” (like hosting The 94th Academy Awards, my review here), it usually feels awkward. And not the good, “planned” awkward. The kind of awkward where she tells a joke (awkwardly) and then feels the need to explain the punchline of it, so you can… laugh even harder…? She was, no competition whatsoever, the weakest link out of that trio of hosts that night. I would understand not being as funny as Wanda Sykes, a seasoned comedian and overall funny person, but Regina Hall is “just” an actress, albeit funny too. If Amy, a stand-up comic, gets fewer laughs than Regina Hall, is she a comic? If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Yes, I have many questions. Anyway, comparing Regina and Amy is not fair; because they are so different. Amy built her career on being the “bulldozer” of the comedy world – she will talk about whatever she wants, whether it’s funny or not. Regina seems to be a more likeable, “people-pleasing”, and genuine person, but I don’t know either of them, so I can’t judge them. There is a part of me that admires Amy and her attitude, making things her own way, and I respect her for that. Yes, that’s right, I can respect somebody for what they are doing and achieved and still not like the outcome of their work.

Let’s talk about Trainwreck. It is a movie so synonymous with Amy Schumer that you would be forgiven for forgetting it was directed by Judd Apatow. Yep, I always forget about that too. Trainwreck suffers from the same issue every Apatow film has ever since Knocked Up (2007); it is just too damn long. Judd is on record saying he doesn’t stop the cameras rolling after a scene is finished. Ok, that’s great, but that doesn’t mean we need to see everything you shoot. I want to admire him the same way many Americans admire him, and he obviously has an enormous comedic understanding; you can tell he understands it on a fundamental level. But it seems like he doesn’t know when to move on or when to say ‘stop’. And that is why I’ve always “just” liked Apatow, not loved him. Too much of a good thing can quickly turn into a bad thing quickly.

Trainwreck has its moments, but as many fans before me pointed out, Amy Schumer is the least interesting part of this film. Somebody you will remember from this film is John Cena (before he got super-famous the way he is now). You will remember Bill Hader, who is trying really hard to inject some much-needed down-to-earth humour and humility into this film. You might even remember Tilda Swinton much more in her role of this weird-ish boss that can only be described as “Tilda Swinton type”. And there are many people, comedic or not; you will probably remember more once you have finished this film, rather than Amy Schumer. I find that fascinating. Amy writes a film and gets the lead role, therefore, she has the most on-screen time, and yet, many people have come out of this film talking about John Cena. That’s saying something.

What doesn’t help is Amy’s character (also named Amy, what a coincidence) is hard to root for. I understand that was the point of this film, to see her transform into a much better person; I honestly get it. But there must be some “it” factor, some connection for us to care about our protagonist, for us to root for them to succeed. And her character Amy (and I am talking about the movie character only, not about Amy in real-life); is a very challenging character to cheer for. She cheats on her boyfriend (John Cena), can’t communicate with anybody, and is “a bit” of a dick to her family… The thing is, if you want to undermine the rom-com genre, fine. But then, you need to commit. And this film wants to have it both ways. We watch her go through this journey, and in the end, all is forgotten or forgiven, and she ends up with the right man. Whether she has actually changed (or you trust her character to learn anything) is another question altogether. Yay.

That is another thing I struggled with – I don’t mind films that go “against the grain”, movies that try to challenge the status quo. But if you make a film like a Trainwreck trying to be original, fresh and new, why would you do it only halfway? Why the shift towards the end, where you can make a checkbox full of clichés and tick them off one by one as the movie is coming to a finish. It just rings false, shallow and feels like the protagonist we watch didn’t learn the lesson “naturally”, but because they read the script.

One more thing I need to mention is the comedy aspect. After all, we should discuss some of it, because this is, you know, a comedy film? And if I put my dislike of Amy Schumer’s comedy aside for a second and think about Trainwreck on its own, it was… fine. I think I laughed at loud once, maybe twice…? For the rest of Trainwreck, I was between a mild chuckle and a moderate facepalm. Because most of the comedy here stems from people over-explaining why what they’ve just said was funny. I understand that is a thing now, and Amy is not the only one who does this kind of comedy but am I the only one who never found these jokes hilarious? And, of course, we have the “Apatow factor”, where if the joke lands, it goes on for a bit too long. Talk about a mixed bag.

Overall, Trainwreck is as Amy Schumer film as it gets, for better or worse. If you are a fan of hers and love her comedy, go and see this film, and you will love it. If you hate and despise her for whatever purpose, it might not be the best movie to watch. And if you are like me, where you don’t like her comedy but still admire Amy and everything she’s managed to achieve, you might have somehow decent time due to several great (mostly comedic) actors involved here. It will be interesting to see whether Amy will ever top this film with anything else or whether this will be her opus magnum.

Rating: 3 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Crimson Peak (2015) Review – A Visually Stunning Boredom

Advertisements

I have nothing but the utmost respect for Guillermo del Toro. If you ever heard him speak about movies, books, art, you know this guy knows his stuff. And Crimson Peak is the proof in the pudding, as they say. Because without him, without his sense of direction and his visuals, you could have the same actors, the same script and make it more boring and bad. At least in its current form, Crimson Peak is a visual feast that is unfortunately on the dull side.

Or maybe, I should phrase myself better. It’s not that Crimson Peak is boring, but the trailers for this film spoiled some of the biggest scares and oversold how scary this film would be. And looking around at different ratings and reviews around the Internet, I might not be the only one saying that.

Crimson Peak is a film where two women rule the screen – Mia Wasikowska and Jessica Chastain. Yes, we also have Tom Hiddleston here in the titular role, but he takes a back seat to these two and frankly, who wouldn’t? And both are great, Mia was believable, and her performance layered. She starts this film as a girl and ends it as a woman. Standing on her own, with the growth in between those two “stages”, was believable, and of course, she’s Mia Wasikowska; she knows a thing or two about this “acting gig”. Jessica Chastain has to breathe in a movie, and I would give her all the awards, just showing my cards on the table. But even I thought that her character could have been shown a tiny bit differently.

I know it was the point of this film for us to know, there is something wrong with her (Jessica’s) character, but I still would prefer it if we didn’t see it from the very first scene she was in. But alas, this is what Crimson Peak was for me in a nutshell. I understood why things happened the way they have, but those decisions mostly didn’t work for me.

What I liked, besides the already mentioned direction and visual flair by Guillermo, was the focus of this film, the main idea. And this is where I might spoil the concept of the film but nothing concrete, so I won’t put the spoiler tag up but proceed at your own risk. I liked how we have ghosts here, but they are not the enemy, the evil force in this film. It’s the people, the living, who you should be terrified of. And this is what I meant by the creative direction by Guillermo. Only he could have a vintage horror film made where you see a few ghosts, but those turn out to be warning our hero rather than trying to kill her.

Unfortunately, even with that idea, the actors, the visuals… it wasn’t enough for me not to get bored at times. I expected a few more scares, to be honest. And even the overall atmosphere of the film wasn’t what I thought I was in for. It’s almost like Guillermo was trying to play it too clever and try to have this Victorian ghost horror story too grounded, to the point you can’t get too scared. And then the “twist” happens that explained a few things, but honestly… was it shocking…? No, as much as it could have been, had Jessica’s character wasn’t telegraphed from the very first scene.

And yet, I need to make this point crystal clear – this movie is still decent. And it’s only like that because of Guillermo. I firmly believe had you removed him from this film and hired somebody else to direct the same actors without his contribution, visual flair, and intelligence, this movie would have become almost a parody of what a Victorian horror should be. So while I might have a few objections to the final film, I still realise this is the best thing we could have gotten.

Overall, Crimson Peak is a perfect way to get someone who usually doesn’t watch horror movies into horror films. I’ve started to watch it by myself, and around 15 minutes in, I got joined by my girlfriend. And since she also loves and admires Jessica Chastain and was intrigued by the visual flair of what she saw, she stayed throughout the entire film and liked it; she wasn’t concerned that it was a horror film. She even said how stunning the movie looked. And I couldn’t agree more. Crimson Peak is a visually stunning piece of Victorian horror that knows what it wants to say. It’s a shame that it couldn’t have held its cards closer to the chest at times, so we are in for a ride with our characters rather than being a few steps ahead of them.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Schitt’s Creek Review (Seasons 1 – 6) – The “Little” Show That Won Everything

Advertisements

I think it’s fair to say Schitt’s Creek is the Breaking Bad (2008 – 2013) of the comedy genre. Why? Think about this – it’s a show full of (mainly) established people who, for one reason or another, never got their major break, and the show became big (read: mainstream) only after a few seasons on the air. And you can also say that the longer it went, the better it gotten.

Schitt’s Creek is an outstanding TV show. But you have to be patient with it, as the first season is great, don’t get me wrong – I liked it. But it’s definitely very much used for setting up everything. So if you go into this show and expect to laugh out loud from the first minute, you might be disappointed. But here’s the thing, even when it took a few episodes for this show to start going, I have never minded. Because these characters (not just Rose’s family) are fun to be with from the very first moment, even if they are not “hilarious” from the first moment.

And that is because you can tell the creators of this show (father and son duo Dan Levy and Eugene Levy) put their time and effort into flushing these characters into life, making them human. That might sound obvious, but it really isn’t because this show is about the ultra-rich people who lost everything. That could have been an awful attempt to try and humanize these ultra-rich folks who are so far removed from reality it might not have worked at all. But leave it up to those two to make them somehow relatable and intriguing enough for us to care about them without it feeling weird.

Everybody in this show entirely nails their character, and this is the Schitt’s Creek ultimate “weapon”. It’s not (just) about the humour (and there is plenty of that). Schitt’s Creek might be one of the few comedic shows where the humour almost feels accidental, and it’s all about our characters. Mainly their growth. And what growth it is.

It feels weird to single out one performer in this ensemble cast. But in my eyes, there is one character that undeniably grows so much you won’t recognize her when the show is over. And that is Annie Murphy, aka Alexis. When the show starts, she is by far the most obnoxious character, the ultimate “fish out of water”, spoiled princess type of a person. But, throughout the six seasons, her story and character arc go through so much believable growth you will be amazed, especially if you watch a clip from the first season and compare it to the end. And here’s the most genius/believable part about her character’s growth – underneath all of that, she feels like the same character, Alexis. But she acts like a different person altogether. I know this might sound bizarre (same, but different?) but let me explain. For me, what was the most astonishing thing about this show was all the character development without changing “the core” of their personas. So Annie’s Alexis still talks in the same way, still has the “I had really different upbringing” stories she has had since the beginning, but she’s no longer clueless, removed from reality and doubting herself. She’s a more empathetic, a kinder person who can function on her own she is not relying on anyone but herself without acting like a different person.

I hope I am making myself clear because that is what many TV shows don’t do as well as Schitt’s Creek. On occasions, you might not even recognize a character towards the end of your show because not only they are different, they act differently. And that sometimes might go against everything you knew about the person – they might talk differently; their mannerisms have changed because they’ve changed, and that’s not always how it is in real life. If you grow as a person, that doesn’t mean you suddenly start talking differently. It simply means you are better prepared for the next stage, equipped with everything you’ve been through to face the next challenge(s) of your life. And that is what I admired about Annie’s character on this show – underneath all her change, the “good old” Alexis is still there. The way she talks, the occasional remark “I know famous and rich people” – that will always be part of her because that is part of her core, soul, whatever you want to call it. But those things didn’t make her the “disconnected” character from season one. Those were mere personality traits, but that was all she had to offer. As opposed to the end of this show, those traits are still present, but those are no longer everything she got going for her. She is a much more complex person, but most importantly, it feels earned.

I could write a few paragraphs for all other characters on this show as all Rose family members go through something similar. They never change who they are throughout the show. You can tell Moira (played by the phenomenal Catherine O’Hara) will continually mispronounce words, and her accent will be unidentifiable at best (her “BÉBÉ” gives me everything I didn’t know I needed). But she is also a changed person after the six seasons of this show. However not changed enough where you wouldn’t recognize her completely. And that, to me, is undoubtedly phenomenal writing.

And that is precisely what you get if you watch this show in its entirety. An unbelievably witty, charming, optimistic and funny show that will make you laugh in one scene just for you to tear up in the next one. I admired the writers approach and making this show with no “villain(s)”. Sure, there are some “wicked” characters here and there, but there isn’t anybody that would stand out. And every time you feel like something like that might be coming (this show deals with a lot of LGBTQ+ things), the show always manages to surprise you, and it takes a different route altogether. And yet, it never feels preachy or exhausting, something that could have undoubtedly happened. That’s because the show knows how to balance everything – from making you laugh to understanding a few things you might have not before (David explaining his sexual orientation with wines as props was sheer brilliance).

Overall, Schitt’s Creek started modestly and finished with the loudest bang in television history – winning nine Emmys in one year. All four main actors, writing, the best show… essentially you name it, they won it. And deservedly so. I could easily see this show going on for an additional two to three years, but they knew to stop at the top. And that’s how Schitt’s Creek joined in my eyes another “royalty” TV shows that never overstayed their welcome (for my money, The Wire (2002 – 2008) and Boardwalk Empire (2010 – 2014) are the top two that come to mind instantly) and managed to finish at the very top of their game. And that is not easy by any means. I can see myself re-watching this show and this becoming my to-go happy place kind of show, where you can go in and out of an episode so easily. If you haven’t yet, give it a chance.

Rating: 5 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Krampus (2015) Review – A Really Bad Santa

Advertisements

Christmas is a time of cheer, family/friends coming together and in some countries (apparently) Krampus. Because nothing says Christmas like the opposite of Santa Claus (or Father Christmas, depending on where you are from), a demon-like creature; who might punish you or straight up kidnap you if you misbehaved. I am from a country that still has this proud (I guess?) tradition going strong – on the 5th of December, if you are visiting the Czech Republic, go outside in the evening. And pretty much anywhere, you will eventually bump into the “holy trio” – St. Nicholas, an Angel and Krampus. St. Nicholas would give kids sweats (mostly chocolate nowadays, but occasionally some fruit too), and Angel was there to counter the evilness of Krampus, who would be threatening you with hell and might give you a piece of coal. Yep, many kids are traumatised from this tradition because you can imagine the Krampus masks are becoming more and more sophisticated, therefore scarier over the years.

But here’s the thing – Krampus isn’t associated with Christmas for us (Czechs). He’s more associated with “Christmas is coming” time, almost pre-Christmas. So for me, watching a movie like Krampus was something different. And not because of what was happening in it, but it had more to do with the simple fact that he isn’t a “Christmas” thing for me. But let’s stop with my traditions and what I am used to and get to the film.

Krampus is, for the most its length, an entertaining enough movie that’s really struggling with its rating. And this is my biggest complaint and the movie’s biggest weakness. You can tell this movie is trying to do the maximum with its PG-13 rating, but truth be told, it doesn’t work. It almost felt like Krampus was stuck in two gears for the entire movie – in between horror film and wacky, slightly darker comedy. And it does neither great.

For my money, I’d rather have the film one way that might have worked than pulled apart throughout scenes to various genres. And I could imagine the same cast (I will talk about them soon) in either scenario. Either make the movie “PG” and lean into the wackiness of it, with darker humour and some tension and bin the “horror” element or make it full hard R and go nuts with it. Balls to the walls bloody Christmas film which would not be forgotten for years to come. But in its current form, Krampus seemed stuck between these two options, and they simply clash.

And when you see the cast of this film, you will regret it even more. We have more than a competent bunch of mostly comedians; everybody from Adam Scott to David KoechnerAllison Tolman to Conchata Ferrell (RIP) do have their moments. And you can see them giving it their all in either genre. Plus, on top of everything, we have Toni Collette as our “main mum”, who is delightful as always. So the cast is solid, and maybe that’s the reason why it hurts even more seeing the final result.

The thing is, this to me looks like there was nobody to fault but the studio. I can easily see this being one of those cases where the director had one vision, and the studio said: “Cool, we are NOT doing that.” And that is how we got this film, being the “middle ground”. And lo and behold, IMDb’s trivia confirms it:

Understandably, with the controversy that surrounded other Christmas horror movies like Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984) and Black Christmas (1974, my review here), Krampus (2015) was a hard story to sell. It wasn’t until Legendary Pictures agreed to a PG-13 rating that Universal green lit the movie.

Source: IMDb.com

The thing is, I was saying this to myself while watching the film, long before I read the trivia section on IMDb. But you don’t have to be a genius to see it, especially when you are like me – a mad man who might have watched too many movies to catch on these tiny things. Because if it wasn’t for that, Krampus would have been a delightful surprise for me. The cast is great; it’s a Christmas movie about something we don’t see portrayed a lot in media, and I loved the open ending. Without going into spoilers, it’s not one of those endings that would try to set up a sequel. It’s more of those films that shows you something, and then it’s up to you, the viewer, to decide what that means. I have my interpretation of the ending, but I can see others arrive at something else, and it still would make sense. And I like films like that.

Overall, Krampus is a hard movie to review. Because all the elements are here to make something unique. Additionally, now I know if it weren’t for the studio, the film would have retained its R rating, and we could have gotten something remarkable. Something that might have still not been perfect by any means, but at least it would be its own thing. As it stands, I would cautiously recommend Krampus, especially if you are looking for a movie to watch throughout this Christmas and want to see something different. And who knows? Maybe the fact it’s stuck in this limbo between dark comedy and horror might be totally for you. And if so, that’s great. It just wasn’t working that well for me.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Ted 2 (2015) Review – More Jokes, Less Story

Advertisements

Ted 2 is a strange movie to write about. Why? Well, when I wrote about the first Ted (2012, my review here), I mentioned how surprised I was by the fact it’s fever jokes and more story than I expected from Seth MacFarlane. And with Ted 2, it’s the total opposite. Yes, there is still a narrative that drives everything forward, but it’s way more predictable, and it almost feels like there are no stakes. And that is compensated with more jokes that will remind you that Seth is the same guy who created Family Guy (1999 – ?). Because most of the jokes in this film are just random, nonsensical things. Almost cutaway scenes, the same as in Family Guy. And here’s the weird thing – I still like this sequel, as much as I like the original movie.

It’s impressive that somebody can “simply” switch to more random comedy bits but still somehow ground it in a resemblance of a story (Ted fighting to be acknowledged as a person) and for this film to feel familiar yet different at the same time. It almost felt like Seth cracked the sequel formula, where he gave us everything we were familiar with from the original Ted (except Mila Kunis, who was pregnant at the time, that’s why she wasn’t part of this film), but went with the more random approach. I know some people hate this comedy because they think it’s easy. The truth is, it can be done badly because random does not equal funny. But there is something about the way Seth does it in Family Guy and in this film that simply works for me.

Ted 2 is a sequel that is tonally so different it makes it almost unique. I remember watching it in the cinema when it came out and thinking: “Hey, that wasn’t bad.” But the general response was lower than for the original Ted. And I think that has nothing to do with the quality of the movie, but possibly with the fact that the unexpected became expected. Let me explain – a lot of people went to see the first Ted movie not knowing what they were in for. So they were surprised (most of them pleasantly) that there was a funny comedy with a unique concept. And with Ted 2, the surprise (teddy bear, who drinks, smokes weed, and bangs hookers) no longer works because people knew what to expect. So the expectation might have been a bit too high for this film. I have recently re-watched it, and I can say it plays just as well as the first time. And especially watching it back to back with the first movie made me realise how similar yet different these two films are.

Who stole the movie for me was Amanda Seyfried. Her Sam L. Jackson character was just a great mix of the “straight” character, who knew exactly how to react. What I have appreciated the most was how she played the same-ish character, effectively replacing Mila and being the new love interest for Mark Wahlberg, but she played it differently. Because unlike Mila, who was by far the smartest out of that trio (her, Mark, Ted), Amanda’s character might not be the sharpest tool in or even outside the shed. However, Amanda portrayed her in a way that was endearing but also believable. Is her character a bit slow sometimes? Yes. But does she have a huge heart (and Gollum like eyes) in the right place? Also yes. Plus, her character never goes “fully” stupid. That’s always a risk of playing somebody who isn’t 100% switched on. Some actors decide to take those characters over the line, where it stops being funny. But not Amanda. Her Sam character was believable, funny and charming. She made that look way easier than it is portraying this character this way. I honestly think Amanda Seyfried is just an overall underrated actress, and she isn’t given enough credit, especially for her comedy chops.

As with the previous film, my only complaint is its predictability. Especially in this film, which is focused more on jokes than the story, the “formula” is more visible. Also, the fact we had to bring the villain from the first movie back (even though I still loved the way Giovanni Ribisi portrays the character of Donny) and almost force him into the film wasn’t necessary. It worked overall, but it didn’t feel as natural, is what I am trying to say.

Overall, Ted 2 might seem like it’s pretty much the same movie as Ted, but that’s not true. It goes much deeper into the “random/cutaway” comedy Seth is more known for, and the story that’s trying to comment on civil rights goes into the background because of it. But it doesn’t feel like a “cheap” sequel that was made “just because”. It gives you enough variety to make it easy to watch plenty of jokes still work, Amanda Seyfried was a great addition, and there is one surprise cameo in the middle of the movie, and after the credits, that’s just cherry on top of the cake. I won’t name the actor, just in case you don’t know, but it’s a proper A list celebrity in one of those random jokes. That is where this movie truly shines, and if you are on board with those, you will enjoy this movie.

Rating: 4 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Songs My Brothers Taught Me (2015) Review – Indie Movie 101

Advertisements

Before watching Nomadland (2020), the movie, that won Chloé Zhao Oscar for Best Director and went on to get the Best Picture Oscar too, I wanted to get familiar with her other films and was lucky enough, that Mubi (this is not an ad, by the way, but if you are a cinephile, you need to get on Mubi) had Songs My Brothers Taught Me on it. This is her first feature debut and it is as indie as it gets. And in this instance, unfortunately, the “as indie as it gets” is a double-edged sword.

Let’s start with the positives – even from the tiny Oscar snippets (yes, even though I live in the UK, I still get up at 1AM to watch the Oscars live, I am one of those crazy people) I understood that Chloé has an eye for beautiful cinematic shots and that goes for her first feature too. This movie doesn’t look/feel like a feature debut, but it feels more certain, like some sort of seasoned veteran decided to make a low budget movie. Honestly, the way she frames the shots are stunning.

The story couldn’t be simpler, we follow a large family, where the dad, who had 25 (!!) kids with 9 (!!) different wives, suddenly dies and we get to see, how that affects some of his kids. Sometimes, you might get lost when comes to who is who, as most of the cast is made up by non-professional actors. And that is another positive for me – not only that adds authenticity to this story/movie, I wouldn’t have guessed most of them never acted before. That means, either Chloé Zhao stumbled upon quite a lot of people who can (somehow) act, or she is pretty great at directing people (come to think of it, she did win an Oscar for Best Directing for her 3rd feature, so I am guessing the latter is correct).

What I also liked that movie flown quite well, even though it’s one of those indies where seemingly “nothing happens”, as it’s paced differently than your stereotypical Hollywood drama, it never felt boring or too long. The only real issue is, if you are like me and watched quite a few indies in your time, nothing here will surprise you.

The movie doesn’t really have anything “extra” in store, what you see is what you get, it’s that kind of honest movie. Which sometimes, is great and can work beautifully. But Songs My Brothers Taught Me left me ultimately feeling cold at the end. I feel like we’ve focused way too much on Johnny’s character, which I didn’t find that intriguing and I hoped, we would focus more on Jashuan’s character, who definitely was the star of this movie. What I found fascinating about this young actress, was how much she could convey in one simple stare, how many emotions were pouring out of her eyes in just one look. How through her, you fully understand this place, and how either you get out of there and try to make something out of yourself, or get stuck there and you will be there forever, bumping into the same people you grew up with.

It pains me to give pretty average rating to this movie, as it’s masterfully shot and told in a way that makes you understand that the person, who tells you this story, knows what they are talking about. Unfortunately, it doesn’t really bring anything new to the table, it doesn’t give you anything extra, a mere day after watching this film I can’t remember one scene that would stand above the others, everything kind of blends in together. I know movies don’t have to be revolutionary, or have some sort of plot twists to be considered excellent, but I just wish Chloé would have given us something more, that would stick with you.

Overall, Songs My Brothers Taught Me is perfectly fine movie from a somebody, who just made a history (for those of you who don’t know, she’s the first Asian woman ever to be nominated, let alone win the directing Oscar and only second woman ever to win in that category, before this year’s ceremony, it was only Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker (2008)) and who by all accounts should have hopefully a great career in front of her, as her next movie is this little film, from this studio you might’ve heard of, Marvel – The Eternals (2021) and I can’t wait to see what she will bring to the table there. If you are into indie movies and you don’t mind a really simple story with no real surprises along the way, then this movie might be for you.

Rating: 3 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Cinderella (2015) Review – Kenneth Branagh To the Rescue!

Advertisements

By now, there are a few things you can take for certain in this life – death, taxes, the fact we have more knowledge and information available at our fingertips than ever before in history, yet people are constantly wrong about everything, and Disney remaking every single classic movie they have in their catalogue, until the run out, by which point… let’s remake the remakes!

I’m happy to say, Cinderella is definitely on the better “side” of those remakes, as I feel like the story lends itself for different interpretations more than other classic Disney movies. Why? Well…

  1. Arguably, it’s the simplest story there can be – good x evil, where there is nothing “major” at stake, but it’s always revolving around family/step-family. And that’s something more people can relate to, rather than having a magical genie, or 7 helping dwarfs. The beauty of Cinderella is the universality of the story.
  2. The previous iterations never had any “memorable” performances, or a crowd pleasing songs – really think about it. We don’t necessarily talk about previous versions of Cinderella story because of somebody specific shined in those movies, or there would be something remarkable about them, no. They were nice, simplistic and beloved movies, no argument there. But that also gives the director/writer almost no hill to climb in regards to “we need to make sure we are better than X, Y & Z”, where they don’t “compete” with previous versions as much. Perfect examples would be the original Dumbo (1941) had the heartbreaking mum scene, or Aladdin (1992) had Robin Williams‘ performance, and those are things their remakes had to overcome or address, be either different or better. Whereas Cinderella doesn’t have anything like that.
  3. Because of the universality of this story, you can pretty much set it into any time and tweak it however you like, to various degrees of success.

Luckily, this movie had seasoned Shakespearean Kenneth Branagh behind the camera, so you can tell it was shot and told by somebody who’s got a sense for drama, as it was told and shot very well. My main issue was with actors “overacting” a bit too much for my taste. And sure, I understand they know they are in a fairy tale, therefore they don’t have to take themselves so seriously, but there was something especially striking about Cate Blanchett overacting the shit out of most of her scenes. I was kind of amazed as to why, or whose choice was that. She’s usually great, reserved actress and I guess if she were to make it more menacing/serious it wouldn’t be as kids friendly…? It’s weird saying that, as usually, Cate is highlight of almost every single movie she’s in, but I guess sometimes even an actress of her calibre deserves to go slightly over the top.

Lily James was a perfect choice for Cinderella, as she’s young, naturally beautiful and charming young lady, everything Cinderella should be. It’d be easy to believe Cinderella is slightly “stupid” for letting her step-family to boss her around, but due to her performance and instant likeability, we believe her to be that person, who’s just too kind for her own good sometimes, so we understand where is she coming from. Plus I thought it was a smart move to have almost everybody to be English, as it gives this classic story certain “extra” polish.

Will you see anything new whatsoever in this remake? No. Nothing will surprise you, story wise. But that’s not the point – the movie is fairly enjoyable as the cast is great, the movie is not too long and because of Kenneth’s directing, there are plenty of stunning shots throughout, where Cinderella definitely is closer to the “top” of these remakes, than plenty of other ones. Part of that might be because of my weakness for Lily James and her delightful performance, but still. 🙂

Rating: 4 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke