Tag Archives: 2016

Movies or shows released in 2016.

Movie Reviews

The Shallows (2016) Review – Blake vs. Wild… I Mean Shark

Leave a comment
Advertisements

The Shallows is a fascinating film for me. Firstly I am not too familiar with Blake Lively as an actress. Sure, I have seen her in some movies, but it wasn’t up until recently in the film A Simple Favour (2018), where I have finally seen her as more than “the sexy one”. She rocked in that film (alongside Anna Kendrick), and I knew I needed to see more movies with her. Well, The Shallows is undoubtedly a film where she shines. And she pulls off something not too many actors could – being pretty much the only focus of the movie; she has almost nobody to share a screen with except a seagull.

The Shallows is as raw of a film as they come. There is a resemblance of a “B story” (Blake’s relationship with her family) but only barebones. That might sound like a criticism, but it is not, as the movie knows where its strength lies… well, at least for the most of it. The premise couldn’t be any simpler – imagine being stranded and injured far enough offshore, and a shark is circling around you. Not letting you do pretty much anything. Your phone is on the beach, and that beach? Yeah, “famously” unknown one, where only locals know where it is, so there is little foot traffic. And you know that nobody can help you even if they wanted to, because they wouldn’t know where they should start looking for you.

That is this movie in a nutshell. And for about 80% of it, I’ve loved it. I love when filmmakers go back and strip their films to bare bones. When they have one “basic” idea, and they execute it well. And when they hire the right people. Or, in this case, the right person. Yes, there are some other actors in this movie. But for the vast majority of it, Blake is on her own, with minimum lines. And I think she nailed it. It’s always challenging when you need to act without saying too much when you don’t have lines of dialogue to “hide behind”. It almost opens the actor up to be more vulnerable. And Blake is not only “not bad” to look at (translation – as if we needed another reason to envy Ryan Reynolds. Come on, you can’t be a funny, philanthropic, successful businessman and also form a great looking power couple with Blake alongside you that just isn’t fair. :-)) but she kills the role. You can tell how her character goes through stages of anger, denial and ultimately almost gives up any hope. You are on the journey with her (and her seagull friend Steven Seagull, which is unquestionably an excellent name for a seagull), and you can feel every bruise she’s gotten. You can feel when she is angry, sad or almost given up any hope, and it’s heartbreaking. To say I was impressed with her performance would be an understatement. And then, once I’ve learned that she was pregnant while filming this… my imaginary hat is off.

The movie itself worked for me until the very last 20 minutes or so. Because I get it, we have a shark movie, so eventually, you (as the director) feel obliged to show us the shark more and more, and of course, the main heroine should go toe-to-toe with it. Unfortunately, the movie’s budget didn’t support it, and the sudden (yet expected) shift to action territory didn’t work for me. I would have admired the movie more if it had the balls not to do that. Maybe a “chase” sequence towards the end, where we could see Blake’s character, with her last breath, would desperately try to swim while trying to keep the shark out of the way?

According to the IMDb’s trivia, one of the reasons Blake decided to make this movie was Ryan, who acted in a similar “minimalistic” film called Buried (2010). See for yourself:

Blake Lively was partly inspired by her husband Ryan Reynolds work in the similarly minimalist film Buried (2010), stating “that was one of the reasons why I wanted to take on this movie so much, because I know how tough that was for him and how rewarding it was.”

Source: IMDb.com

And I think by her admitting that it’s fair to compare them “like for like”. Because those movies are similar, to a point, and that is the ending. As Buried (a superb film where Ryan Reynolds showcases his talent. I would 100% recommend it, it’s worth the watch) had the balls to end the movie… without going into spoilers for that film, let’s say in not such a traditional way. And that is why it stuck with me. It’s been over ten years since I’ve last seen it, and I still remember it vividly. Whereas The Shallows I will remember mainly due to Blake’s performance and the unfortunate fact that they didn’t land the ending. I really wish the people behind this film didn’t feel the need to have an action sequence that effectively takes you out of something that (for me) was drama mixed with thriller. And it worked and was built up really well.

Overall, The Shallows is worth seeing. Especially if you are like me and you are not that familiar with Blake Lively as an actress. I can’t think of anything negative I would say regarding her performance. Blake, quite simply, shines and makes the movie. The film itself is a fine mix of drama and thriller that, for the most part, knows that simple = better. Then, for the last 20 minutes, it forgets this lesson and tries to give you an action sequence. And some people might enjoy it, but it took me out of the film completely. But other than that, I can’t recommend this film enough.

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

TV Show Reviews

The Night Of Review (Season 1) – The Definition of “Complex”

Leave a comment
Advertisements

As I wrote in my post about Michael K. Williams passing (here), I was going to, finally, sink my teeth into The Night Of. The show I’ve heard people talk about when it was coming out, but ever since then, barely anybody mentions it. And I get it there is so much stuff out there things sometimes get forgotten about. Well, you better not forget about this show, or if you are like me, you better not sleep on it too, because you’d only be doing a disservice to yourself, as it is simply an excellent show through and through.

The Night Of is a limited series (or mini-series, if you wish) that has only eight episodes. That is the first win here – it’s not too short and not too long for the story it tells. It’s exactly as long as it needs to be for you to get familiar with the characters. And this is where this show brilliance lies – the character work. The choices the creators made how the characters are portrayed everything is without over-selling it, pure perfection. At first, I was surprised to see James Gandolfini‘s name as he passed away in 2013. But then I discovered that this has been “brewing” for a while, and he was supposed to play the role of John Stone, portrayed by John Turturro! How great would that be? But John definitely didn’t disappoint, but I will get to that soon.

It’s hard to talk about this show’s brilliance without going into some heavy spoilers. But before I do that, let me acknowledge the titular star and the heart of this show, Riz Ahmed. He was phenomenal in here. Every decision, whether it’s a smart one or a pretty dumb one (and this character makes a lot of each), makes sense given how Riz is portraying his character, Naz. I honestly hope Sound of Metal (2019, my review here) and his (well deserved) Oscar nomination for that movie finally allows him to “breakthrough” to be a big name because he has got it. You name it he’s got it. He’s immensely talented and is single-handledly carrying this show. If this show had nothing else going for it (and believe me, it does), you should watch it for Riz’s performance alone. With that being said…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

I think The Night Of, even though it’s a great title, it should have been called differently – Making a Murderer. Or, if not murderer, at least a criminal (very least). It’s chilling how this show displays the system in its “full glory”, but at the same time, the show is not trying to make Naz into a saint. He’s made some dumb decisions (took his dad’s car without permission, did drugs and alcohol with a complete stranger, panicked and made himself look extra guilty), but we can safely presume he’s not an awful person.

Yes, he’s got his flaws, and as the show progresses, you hear more and more about them (prone to violence, even though he was provoked, selling his classmates pills), but it wasn’t until he was thrown in the system for something he hasn’t done, where his character skewed towards his terrible side. That is what The Night Of is about – the demise of one “kid’s” character, who might have made some mistakes, but he was thrown into jail to fend for himself. So everything he does from them on, he is doing because he is slowly losing any hope, he might win the case. But also because he wants to survive. So even though the show ends with him being cleared of his charges because even the jury is hung 50/50 and nobody is budging, he is most likely lost. He lost his way, his will to live; he started to use drugs regularly, and he distrusts his mum because deep down, she still believes her son could be a murderer. And that’s the thing – even though he is out of the system at the end, you see him and know that unless he gets some massive help, he will end up back in prison. But this time, he would have done it.

And I can’t remember whether I have ever seen a show or a film that would be this complex. As yes, we have gotten thousands of movies and TV shows from prison over the years. But I can’t think of any just now, whose main character is “a normal guy”. What I mean by that is, you usually see two stereotypes – either somebody who is almost a saint and makes one big mistake and ends up in prison or somebody who isn’t a saint and how they are trying to change or survive in prison. I think the closest, to a certain extent, was Orange Is The New Black (2013 – 2019). As that series comments on this issue too, but even there, they didn’t go as deep. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a brilliant show, and you should 100% watch it if you haven’t already. But given the fact they had so many characters, they couldn’t go that as deep as this show has gone. Because here, it’s easy to identify with Naz’s character. Yes, you might not be of Pakistani heritage, as he is, but everything else is unbelievably relatable. He’s just “a dumb kid” who has made some mistakes in his life, sure. But what he’s gone through and how he turns out at the end… that was rough to watch. It was scarier than many horror movies because it felt so real. You can feel “the light” that used to be in his eyes was no longer there at the end. And it will take a lot of hard work, energy and money to “get it back” if that is even possible.

And it’s not just Riz’s character who is complex. John’s character, the “bottom-feeding” lawyer, is also flawed. He does questionable things, he has his flaws, but underneath all that, he is trying his hardest to be and do good. It’s almost like a foreshadowing; what could Riz’s character look like in 20/30 years from then – if he does the work and re-lights that fire in his eyes, as they are very similar to each other. John Turturro’s character is miserable, dismissive, occasionally over the line mean guy, who almost always snaps back to being… not necessarily good, but neutral, possibly? He is trying his very best, and that occasionally doesn’t work as well, let’s just say that. And that is why he is so keen to help this “kid”. Because deep down, he can see he couldn’t have done it, but more importantly, he sees parts of himself in him when he was younger. And maybe he was thinking to himself that he would do something nobody has done for his character – reach out and try to help him. That is how I interpreted John’s character, as there isn’t much we know from his past. But we can see one thing – he is also killing it in this show. For my liking, Michael K. Williams had little screen time, but as with anything else, he didn’t waste a single second when he was on the screen. I need to repeat myself, but he’s gone way too soon.

The Night Of is also perfect in the sense that we don’t know who killed the girl. Yes, there is some strong evidence pointing at one person, but that’s never “finished” or confirmed. That might have seemed like a cheap move in another show, but when you have such a tight script, it worked. As when we see, what became of Naz, there are moments where even I doubted myself, whether he had done it or not. We never see the scene of the murder; we only see the aftermath, and all from Naz’s perspective. So in a way, the show puts you in a jury’s seat rather than the judge’s seat. Because it’d be easy to root for him all the way had we been shown what happened that night and who stabbed her. But then we would turn into judges. By not knowing for sure, the show makes you, the viewer, the 13th juror on the panel, and it’s only up to you to see for yourself and come up with your conclusion.

The other thing I have touched on briefly. The show displays brilliantly, how it must feel like to live as a minority (especially Muslim minority) post 9/11 in the USA. And the reason I know that for a fact, it’s a simple yet unfortunate fact. All the things people say and do to Naz’s family, once the news is out, about what “he’s done”, we have seen happen in real life. We have seen comments like “This reflects poorly on Muslim community.” or how people get death threats because of what somebody else who belongs to their religion/tribe/whatever has done. It showcases clearly, that you are not punishing just one person. by throwing them in jail. You are punishing their family and, in some cases, their entire community. And nobody should be blamed for anybody else’s actions. Whether or not the person in jail has done whatever they are charged with, it’s not their family or community that should be responsible for the actions of one individual.

And this is what I meant by the title of my review, “The Definition of Complex”. No matter how you approach this show, you can dig in deep and find many real-life things, real-life characters and most importantly – a reflection of our system. Of our mindset, way of life, punishing people. This show is not about whether Naz has done it or not; it’s more about everything else around it and how it affects more than just him. Bravo.

Overall, The Night Of is one of the best mini-series I have ever seen. I am now kicking myself for sleeping on this for way too long. And from now on, I will try to bang this show’s drum. Because I don’t believe it’s being talked about as much as it should be. Everything about this feels earnest, authentic, and because of that, uncomfortable. But sometimes, we need to face some uncomfortableness to open our eyes. To recognize there might be an issue or two with our system and how can we address it or, better yet, fix it. This show doesn’t offer you any simple solutions because there is no such thing. Any show that’s about an issue so complex won’t have easy answers. But that doesn’t mean we should stop asking difficult questions or looking for solutions. And yeah, Riz Ahmed and John Turturro are phenomenal in this.

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

Movie Reviews

The Legend of Tarzan (2016) Review – CGI, Abs and More CGI

Leave a comment
Advertisements

I have never understood the fascination with any Tarzan movies or the story itself. But people seem to be drawn to the idea of a person who was raised by the jungle/animals. That means every couple of years, we get another of these films. And they are pretty much the same, with minor differences, like the cast, how much CGI a movie can afford to use, how in shape the Tarzan should be and how badly will the movie age. To answer these questions in order – the cast is probably the best there has ever been, a lot of CGI, in fact, more the merrier, Tarzan’s abs should have their own abs, and who knows, as art is a reflection of its time.

The Legend of Tarzan is a fascinating film to me. But not fascinating, in the good sense of the world, more like: “Wow, it is fascinating that everything around the world seems to be bleaker than ever.” Because I had one question on my mind for the entirety of this film – how a movie like this, with everything going for it (top-notch cast, budget, creative people behind the camera) can end up being so boring? How do you make a movie about Tarzan and somehow make it bleak, boring, and so forgettable with the budget of $180 million?!

Let me start with the positives – the cast. That’s pretty much it. Alexander Skarsgård was trying his best with the material he had, and to his credit, he did the best he could. Plus, his physique was simply impressive. If everyone behind this film worked as hard as he had, this would have won all the Oscars. Even in the categories, it wouldn’t have been nominated. Margot Robbie is effectively wasted as an actor in this film despite all the efforts to give her character something to do. She ends up captured and becomes the “damsel in distress”. Her relationship with Alexander was believable, but I can’t give the movie any extra credit for that, come on! Two attractive people pretend they find each other attractive that must have taken all their talent. Christoph Waltz was fine, but he seemed to be stuck in his usual “I am Christoph Waltz, I only know how to play one villain type pretty well, so don’t ask me to do more.” mode. But we can’t say “what a waste of a talented actor” without mentioning Djimon Hounsou. This guy can’t catch a break. He is always type-casted as a villain or an African person. This movie went with the latter, and we are all worse because of it. 

I had a tiny sliver of hope for this movie when I learned there is a… twist, maybe? The twist was that in this world (and this is no spoiler), Tarzan is almost a celebrity who needs to go back to the jungle to help out. The movie tricked me into thinking that maybe by having this caveat, they will sink their teeth more into the character of Tarzan. But no, they use it for next to nothing, forcing us to watch “Tarzan lives in London now” for a way too long, so we hope for the story to get back to its roots and get him to the jungle already.

What you (and I) have failed to realise is that instead of giving us some “nature porn”, where we could at least admire the scenery of Gabon (where they shot the film), what we get are some shots of Gabon, but mostly CGI. Because here’s the thing – it doesn’t matter if you shoot on location. If you go into overdrive with your CGI (and one that looks awful), everything becomes less impressive. I couldn’t even tell when CGI stops and “real nature” begins. And to make myself crystal clear, that isn’t a compliment. Sometimes, you get movies in which people behind them manage to blend both CGI and practical things (either effects or locations) to great avail. But most of the time, you end up with a movie like The Legend of Tarzan. Because the main hero is completely digital (when swinging), everything blends in together, and you are pulled out of the film.

Please believe me, I am trying desperately hard to find another positive about this movie, but I am coming up short. I had almost no expectations when starting this film, and somehow, the movie managed to disappoint me. Especially with the talent involved, the money spent on making this…

Overall, The Legend of Tarzan should and could have been at least a fun, entertaining movie. The creators tried to give this old story some spin, and the actors tried their hardest with what they were given. And yet, somehow, nobody wins here. I can’t imagine hardcore fans of Tarzan (I don’t know any, but I am sure they exist) being happy with this film. I can’t imagine your stereotypical moviegoing film lover being happy with this, and I am not happy either. This film is just a soulless blend of CGI, great cast and a shit ton of money that the studio could have put someplace else entirely.

Rating: 2 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

Movie Reviews

The Angry Birds Movie (2016) Review – Birds, Pigs & Boredom

1 Comment
Advertisements

Ok, let’s get something straight – did I expect any kind of masterpiece from a movie, that’s based on one of the most known mobile games in recent years? No, I didn’t. But with such a stellar cast of funny people, I expected to at least be mildly amused and what really happened was… I was bored. It’s really strange, when a film called The Angry Birds Movie doesn’t really make you angry, instead of that, you just feel bored and empty inside, wondering how come this movie isn’t funny. And then you also wonder “wait, is the end actually pretty decent, or is that because I know, it’s almost over”?

I genuinely believe the main issue with this film was the script. Not necessarily the jokes (even though you could probably count the number of times you’ve laughed on fingers of one arm man, who somehow lost most of his fingers on his still attached hand) but mainly the “story”, if that’s how you want to call it, didn’t work for me, as it was way too bloated. I understand they were trying to give these birds some characters. After all, you need something to make them standout, as the game couldn’t be any simpler (do you remember playing Angry Birds? Exactly, that wasn’t a game you’d remember because of great characters) but that also means there are no characters to attach ourselves to. And I think they went overboard on the main bird’s (simply called ‘Red’, because why the fuck not, creativity is dead anyway) backstory – we get it, everything wrong that could have happened to him, did happen to him, and that’s why he’s the way he is. But that could’ve been a montage, possibly funnier one that what’ve gotten, as opposed spending almost 40 minutes mainly on him and his struggles as the main story. It takes a lot before the pigs (aka the main villain(s) of the movie) even show up to get this movie rolling.

That was something I was fascinated by and don’t remember last time this happened to me – the movie did get slightly better, when the pigs arrived. And the last 20 minutes, when it actually goes and resembles the game (spoiler, but not really, when the birds are attacking the pigs, to get their eggs back) the action sequences were actually pretty cool and fun to look at. Unfortunately, it takes you most of the movie to get there. Which wouldn’t be that big of a problem, if the film gave us something really funny, intriguing or interesting to look at in the meantime. But it didn’t. Just your run of the mill dialogues, “jokes”, nothing you wouldn’t see thousands times before, except this time, it’s birds!

Here’s the thing – I honestly don’t want every animated movie to have “Pixar level quality”. No, I am more than happy to kick back, relax and just laugh and have a good time with animated movies, that don’t really have that much going on underneath the surface, but they are funny and you enjoy the ride (latest example would be The Emperor’s New Groove (2000, my review here). I knew this will probably not blow my socks off by any means, but I was bracing myself to at least have a good time. Even if it was dumb good time, it would still count as something. But what I have gotten was just a mess, that might have worked as 30 minute demo reel, rather than full on feature film, as (surprise, surprise) film based on app does not have too much meat on those bones. But, the movie made money and that is just the theatrical run, I would not be surprised if the total sales with toys, merchandise etc., grossed over one billion dollars easily, as I have seen plush toys, mugs, you know the drill. That’s probably why we’ve gotten The Angry Birds Movie 2 (2019). Yep, there is a second one and knowing myself, the curiosity will get the better out of me and I will end up watching it, just to see whether they improved it, or not.

Overall, The Angry Birds Movie will probably be a good time for your kids, if you have some. I can easily imagine them enjoying this movie, especially if they grew up playing the game. But when comes to entertaining adults… I would doubt most adults would have fun watching this film. And given the fact we have so many other animated movies to choose from, I would rather sling shot your way the further from this the better. Or watch just the last 20/30 minutes or so, as again, the action sequences are (surprisingly) entertaining enough. Everything else is just a boring waste of ones and zeros, that created this film.

Rating: 2 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

TV Show Reviews

Fleabag Review (Seasons 1 – 2) – Sex and The… London?

Leave a comment
Advertisements

To be fair, I don’t think the comparison with Sex and the City (1998 – 2004) is fair, because Fleabag is actually a really good TV show, that does the whole “women can fuck anybody they want” thing much better. And I honestly believe the only reason it’s doing it way better than the already mentioned Sex and the City is Phoebe Waller-Bridge. Not only her acting performance, that is brilliant by the way, but mainly her witty writing. But not just dialogue wise, but the clever use of breaking the fourth wall and talking to us right after she says something to somebody else in the TV show, is a stroke of genius.

Yeah, I know breaking the fourth wall has been done before, I am aware of it. And for example, House of Cards (2013 – 2018) did something similar with character breaking the fourth wall, but I think Phoebe perfected it. Why I really enjoyed this TV show is because of how there these tiny moments, where we hear something said in the TV show, just for her to tell us something else literally one second later, usually the exact opposite of what we’ve just heard. Simply genius.

Fleabag as a show is really simple and quick binge, where you can’t help but watch it as soon as possible, as all the characters are fascinating in their own way – from the main ones (huge props to Sian Clifford, who is playing Phoebe’s sister and Olivia Colman who is amazing as the “maybe evil” Godmother) to those who are there less often (Hugh Skinner as Harry or Ben Aldridge as “Arsehole Guy”, as he’s credited in the show and IMDb as well). But the main praise needs to go to the amazing Phoebe Waller-Bridge. She simply shines in her role and she’s got such a unique look to her, I immediately fell for her, and I would imagine I am not the first one, not by a long shot. Her performance and writing is just so amazing, I really need to watch another show she has created, Killing Eve (2018 -). I have already heard a lot about it too, but until now, didn’t know Phoebe was behind it, so was a bit down on my to watch TV shows (that currently has about 100 different TV shows). Knowing she is behind it, Killing Eve just jumped good 95 shows in that queue.

What this show also does well, is knowing when to finish and, more importantly, how to finish. Because there are only 12 episodes (and I believe that’s it, I don’t think third season would make much sense) the show almost feels like it has no space to stumble. It sets itself with a really high bar and it never dips below that, which is rare. Only tiny negative think I can think of, is I would love to know why only one person (I won’t spoil who) can see when Fleabag breaks the fourth wall, as it’s never explained. I have my theory as to why only that person can see it while others can’t, but it’d be nice to get something “definitive”. For example, the ending to this show was great, as even though it might seem “open-ended”, when you think about why the things that happen are happening, it’s almost crystal clear. That is why I hope this will be it for Fleabag, even though I would love nothing more than going back to that world, as that ending was perfect. But something tells me, I will re-watch this show.

Overall, Fleabag shows us how to make a “dramady” really, really well. Part of it is the great cast of talented British actors, but the biggest chunk of that success is Phoebe and her uniqueness, that shines through this, in a really good way. I hope she will write more and more original stuff, because she is definitely somebody to watch out for, and someone I will definitely follow more closely (not in a creepy way). Like her name attached to variety of different projects really makes me watch them where I wouldn’t have consider it prior. Example? There will be a TV show version of Mr. & Mrs. Smith (coming 2022). If you were to ask me a week ago, whether I would watch it, my answer would be “probably not”. But knowing now Phoebe Waller-Bridge is writing and (looks like) starring in it alongside Donald Glover (who is also writing it), the answer is “hell yes!” And I think that tells you everything you need to know.

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

Movie Reviews

Personal Shopper (2016) Review – Beautiful, Yet Frustrating

Leave a comment
Advertisements

The headline says it all, really, as I so wanted to love Personal Shopper! Really unconventional idea about an unconventional job told in a very “European” way. So far, so good, right? On top of that, Kristen Stewart, who I would hope, has managed to fully shake the “Twilight” image and like her co-star and Batman to be Robert Pattinson proven that she’s capable of way more than in those movies. And this movie is a great vessel for her… to a point.

Personal Shopper has a really intriguing story – I don’t know about you, but I haven’t really thought about lives of personal shoppers. To those who don’t know, if you reach a certain “celebrity” level, you might get “your guy/girl” that you will give a list of items to pick up and they do just that. So once you come back from a movie shoot, or the studio where you made your latest single/album, you have a new clothes to wear, new tech to play with it… I did like that angle. On top of that, Kristen’s character is a medium, who can communicate with ghosts. And on the very top of that, she doesn’t want to leave Paris until she makes a contact with her brother, who died there. That is the story here.

Before going into spoiler territory, as my frustration with this movie can’t be explained without spoilers, let me just say this. Kristen is subtle and great in this movie. The story overall is interesting, the movie is shot very well and I don’t mind when movies don’t give you straight answers. But this film went into overkill with not even hinting, what happened the very last 20/30 minutes. I was so unsure, I had to google and read some theories, which doesn’t bother me, but even those I wouldn’t have thought of, still had major gaps that I couldn’t overlook. And that hinders my enjoyment of this unusual movie. If you want for your viewer to be more connected to the story and also give them the chance to interpret it their own way, give them at least a map, some clues, hints about where they can go, what the rules of the world are… Without those, it’s just a frustration for frustration sake. Which is a shame, as I was really enjoying this movie. With that said…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

The movie for the most part is pretty clear on what’s happening – she’s a medium, her brother was a medium, and you can see her doing things that are out of this world in the movie. As far as the identity of the “mystery texter” is considered, it didn’t really surprise me who it was, as it made the most sense. What “surprised” me was everything that happened after their meeting in the hotel. Sure, we can see (well, we can’t, but it is heavily implied, you know what I mean) that ghost is leaving their meeting, then we have Kristen saying goodbye to her friends, while her brother is in the background, dropping a mug, fine. Then, she travels to see her boyfriend (who she talks to after the hotel meeting, if I am not mistaken) just to arrive someplace, where she’s “haunted” by… her brother, or maybe HERSELF? That is right, the ghost we did (not) see leaving the hotel room meeting, might have been her, as there are theories about Kristen’s character being murdered by the boyfriend of Kristen’s employer. But that doesn’t make sense, as how would ghost then communicate with her boyfriend and others? Sure, the friend I believe was also a medium, so fair enough, but the boyfriend and others she met on her journey to whenever her boyfriend was staying…? And if it was her brother, why is he being a dick to her? Or is it somebody completely different?

I honestly don’t mind ambiguous movies, where you need to “work” for it to make sense. The perfect example is Mulholland Drive (2001), one of my top 10 favourite movies of all time, even though I still haven’t cracked it 100% (but I think I am getting pretty close). But there is a difference between Personal Shopper and Mulholland Drive and it’s a strange one, but Mulholland Drive feels more approachable, as far as giving you clues, letting you into its world, even though it’s much crazier than Personal Shopper. Like way crazier, even the twist flips everything upside down. BUT, the way it happens and the clues it gives you, makes you want to re-watch it. Whereas this movie felt like it wanted to have a twist ending and didn’t bother with filling the gaps to justify the ending. Because films like this live or die on repeat viewings and how well you can spot something that you totally missed the first/previous time. But if you haven’t missed anything (and I don’t believe I have, as from what I have read throughout some forums, everybody has a different take on what this movie/ending is) and the movie with a twist “stays” the same the second time you watch it… well, there is more chance there won’t be any second time.

I might give this movie a second watch at some point to see, whether I did miss something or not. As I need to repeat myself, until the last 30 minutes or so happened, I was really into this. It’s different, it has its own tempo, its own feel and it’s trying to do something I haven’t seen, at least in recent years. Plus, and I can’t overstate this enough, Kristen is great in this. But it’s really important to land the ending. Without that, you have a 75% of a decent movie, and the rest that just puzzles you. And that, in turn, leads to me over-analysing a part of movie I didn’t like/get, instead of focusing on the most part of the film I did.

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

Movie Reviews

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) Review – An unnecessary brilliance

2 Comments
Advertisements

Let me start with this – I have never understood why this movie had to be made in the first place. Well, I have, to fix THE “plot hole” of all, according to some fans, as how could something as powerful as THE Death Star could have such a “glaring” weakness?!

This honestly has never bothered me, as I understand, even the most convoluted, most sophisticated things can fall apart in a instance (the virus by the name of COVID-19 has entered the chat) so I’ve always took it for granted, that was the fault, and there was no apparent reason for it. Well, this movie not only made the reason, but explained everything and somehow, not only did it well, but on top of that, we’ve gotten one of the best sequences of lightsaber and force use of all time…?

The review below will contain SPOILERS!

Rogue One on my first watch seemed like a good enough movie (would rate it 4* back then) as I liked it, I thought it was the best shot Star Wars movie to date (until The Last Jedi came along) but it still seemed unnecessary. What I admired was the balls on that movie to get us to care about bunch of heroes, just so we can watch them die, one by one, where any lesser movie would’ve had them survive with some lazy explanation (“Oh, they went to this far away planet, that’s why these characters are nowhere to be seen in the original trilogy!”) This one just said “Fuck everything, they need to die.” and then made sure they’ve died. Even on my first viewing I did like that a lot.

Now I’ve seen it for the second time, almost 4 years later, and I have to say, it’s growing on me. Is it still unnecessary? Yes, it is. But is it also entertaining, funny movie, with some brilliant shots and scenes? Also yes. I feel like what I want to say would be best expressed by bullet points, so:

  • Alan Tudyk is a treasure, whose K-2SO steals every scene he’s in. I’m so glad he was part of this movie.
  • Donnie Yen is always a great addition to any movie, he was by far my favourite character out of this movie, my only regret with him was the fact the screenwriters should’ve just went the full Jedi route and gave him a lightsaber. He didn’t have to be Jedi “officially”, that lightsaber could’ve just been something “homemade” like Kylo’s, but I felt it was a shame to have a character who’s one with the Force, without giving him lightsaber, so he can kick ass a bit more. Not that Donnie would need it, as he’s lethal on his own.
  • Diego Luna‘s character was much better on my second viewing as I understood him bit more, I could see that his character was through a lot and picked up on some nuances I’ve missed in his performance the first time. I’m definitely more on board with his character having his standalone TV show.
  • I’m still really happy about Mads Mikkelsen being here and having (arguably) the biggest role in any Star Wars movie (without him, making the Death Star the way he had, the Rebellion wouldn’t have succeeded -> no original trilogy).
  • Felicity Jones was alright, for some reason I felt the people around her were slightly better than her. She wasn’t bad by any means, just didn’t standout as much as I thought she should have, especially her being the main character.

There are two sequence that I’d consider highlights from this movie – the beach attack scene, that almost felt like from a war movie, and Darth Vader using the Force, powering his way through the rebels. Just for those two scenes alone is Rogue One worth seeing. And who knows? Maybe on my third viewing, it will grow on me even more.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5.

That’s all for this one? How did you like Rogue One? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Movie Reviews

Antiporno (2016) Review – More than meets the eye?

Leave a comment
Advertisements

Wow. Where to start with a movie like that…

Antiporno is one of only a few movies I’ve ever seen, where after it was over, I wasn’t sure how to rate it, let alone what to say about it. So I’ve watched a different movie right after, and in the back of my brain, I was trying to make my mind up about this one.

Because this is the very definition of artsy movie, to the core. Sharp, pastel colors, some over acting that serves the main concept/idea of the movie… well, judge for yourself, slightly NSFW (not safe for work) trailer here:

When I’ve re-watched the trailer, something struck me – this could very well be made by David Lynch who’s one of my favorite directors of all time. The atmosphere is unique, the story is VERY unique and the message/point of the movie…?

That’s the thing I couldn’t comprehend when I finished it. I knew I felt something, and I knew I liked most of it, but I couldn’t put my finger on what it was. And then it struck me.

I believe these artsy movies always have a scene or two where they give you a key on how to “read” that movie and with this one (to me) the key was that lunch (?) scene where the main protagonist, her sister and her parents are REALLY openly talking about sex, but when the daughter asks about videos or pictures, she’s shamed for it, as it’s considered “indecent”, even though, as she says to her parents (paraphrasing here) “I hear you fucking every night, so why videos or pictures of sex are indecent?” This scene has “unlocked” the movie for me, to a certain extent.

I’m not Japanese but from the stories I hear, it seems like everybody is horny and wants to fuck all the time, but porn and everything about it is shamed upon, censored etc.. And when you realize that, how weird is it that somebody is trying to shame you for watching something they do later that evening, it’s hypocritical and it must feel confusing. And I think the movie’s title isn’t that IT is trying to be “anti” porno, it’s about the hypocrisy of trying to look like you are against it while watching/consuming it yourself.

It’s also trying to say something about a woman’s role in their society, as the main protagonist says several times throughout the movie “I’m a virgin. A virgin, but a whore.” I feel like the director tried to say something about how Japanese men expect their woman to be pure, only serve (read fuck) them, but once they do that, they NEED to be their little toy for them to do whatever they wish. How men are trying to control what women can and can’t do, the expectations they are putting on them. And to be fair, I don’t think that applies to Japanese men/women only, I feel this is more of a global message.

Then again, this is the way I’ve read it, and it might be completely wrong, and maybe it was supposed to be about seeing some women naked, while there are pretty colors around, what do I know?

I feel like even though I did like this movie, the overacting (however necessary) killed some of the “enjoyment”, especially at the end with the cake (which I guarantee you, that scene has some much deeper meaning, I was just too stupid to understand).

I would only recommend this movie to somebody who’s quite adventurous and doesn’t mind movies where the narrative might not be as straightforward as with mainstream movies. And be comfortable with some amount of nudity, that’d definitely help too.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5.

That’s all for this hell of trip. What did you think of it? Did you see this movie, or it doesn’t sound like your cup of hot cocoa? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke