Films like Lucky are so rare nowadays. Why? Because in their simplicity, their straightforwardness, they feel like pure, raw cinema. I know this might sound really pretentious, but I don’t know how else to express what I felt while watching this movie. Because here’s the thing – on the surface, there is nothing too special about the story. We follow an old person, who’s going about his monotone life, basically waiting to die. He’s got his routine, his friends, he is surrounded by people most of the time, but he still feels lonely. And afraid of what’s coming. Doesn’t sound too special right? Well, John Carroll Lynch (for whom this is a directorial debut and what I great one!) made it special, by casting the best people.

Harry Dean Stanton was always a great actor of small recognition. I honestly feel it’s a shame that he never was at least nominated for an Oscar (anyone who’s seen Paris, Texas (1984) knows it wasn’t for luck of great roles showcasing his talent) as he’s always been one of those actors, who no matter the movie he was in, he always delivered. And Lucky might be one of his best performances. It’s almost unbelievable and sad that he knew this might be he his final film. Maybe that is why he put his heart and soul into this film and without any exaggeration, you can feel it. This movie touches you on a deep personal level, and pulls you in really slowly and without realising, you are in. And you can feel everything he feels – the pain, the uncertainty (will there be another day?) the loneliness… And most of it is shown, not spoken.

That is what I really appreciated in this movie – plenty of “big” scenes don’t rely on dialogue, they rely on Harry Dean Stanton to do his thing, they rely on others around him to rise to his level and they do. Like David Lynch (one of my favourite directors ever and really close friend of Harry’s) playing his good friend here. He’s not given plenty of scenes, but those ones he’s in, he’s got such a presence you won’t forget him. The same goes for Ron Livingston – another one of those actors, such as Harry Dean, who’s mostly in great things and he’s usually good, but doesn’t get the recognition he deserves.

Even though Lucky deals with the heaviest topic(s) possible (death, loneliness) it never feels exploitative, it never feels like it’s being “sad for the sake of it”. It feels organic and that is why the sad scenes resonate with those touching scenes (Harry singing at the birthday party, or his speech at the bar towards the end about “the truth”) so beautifully, they hit you the way you won’t be expecting. They definitely hit me and that is how I knew I absolutely adore this movie. It’s not flashy, it definitely takes its time, but man, if it isn’t one great, film!

Usually, I don’t have a problem writing a review for a movie I really loved, as it’s quite easy – you just describe what you love about the movie, right? But with Lucky, I find it surprisingly difficult, as I didn’t expect for this movie to get to me as much as it did. Everything resonated with me on personal level, as at the end of the day, aren’t these the things most of us are worried about? The fact we will end up all alone, by ourselves, no matter what we do, the fact that nothing really matters, and yet, we keep on smiling, we keep on going…? And this is what the movie is about. The will to keep on going, the need for another human being to be there for us.

Lucky is truly one of a kind movie, that is small in scope, but big in everything else, especially heart. And I don’t really care how cheesy this might sound, because I don’t think there is a better to describe it, even if I were to consume the entire Thesaurus. Lucky feels like a raw force of what a movie should be and the perfect farewell to a truly underappreciated character actor, who Harry Dean Stanton definitely was. If you feel like honouring his memory, do yourself a favour and watch this film. I don’t think you will 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

As I mentioned in my previous review here, I didn’t need several viewings for John Wick: Chapter 2 to become my favourite out of this (so far) trilogy. Something clicked and even upon my latest re-watch, I still consider this film to be the best out of the ones we have gotten so far (and yes, I know there are at least 2 more movies coming our way).

Paradoxically, one of the main reasons I like this movie as much, you can tell they have a bit more money to spend, which is usually a downside for any sequel, as with more money filmmakers usually forget what made their first movie such a success. But not this franchise. They took the money and utilised them for bigger set pieces, new locations (I love the Italian part of this movie) and added a few actors (reuniting Keanu with Laurence ‘Morpheus’ Fishburne, for the first time since the Matrix Revolutions (2003)) but most importantly stayed true to what the first movie was. Yes, in Chapter 2, everything feels bigger, but it naturally bigger, it never felt forced, unlike other sequels.

I believe part of the reason for that is the subtle, but great, world building. We have a few hints of that in the first John Wick (2014) movie, where you get the basic gist of it (there is a secret society of assassins, they use golden coins as their currency, they have some rules they follow, John Wick was the best out of them all and managed to get out from that world) and what this sequel does so well is expend on that idea, give you a bit more rules, that make sense. Whenever these films are discussed, plenty of people focus on the action and the action only, which is great, don’t get me wrong. But people often overlook the simple, yet effective world building. They don’t try to force feed you the rules in one go, every movie you have a set of “new” rules we didn’t know prior and it never feels forced.

My favourite part of this movie, as mentioned prior, is the Italian mission. Where we meet Franco Nero, who runs the “Italian Continental”, Peter Serafinowicz gives Keanu some weapons and off he goes for another “impossible” mission. The entire sequence is honestly great, the level of planning (simple details such as Keanu leaving his weapons scattered throughout the underground, knowing he needs to reach certain points, is a great touch) is smart and you can tell John Wick is kind of a super human. But somehow, it never feels laughable. Some moments might make you question what else can he survive (or maybe a better question what would actually kill this guy?) but you let it go, because the action scenes are so entertaining and well shot, you just go with the flow and don’t have a time to nitpick. That’s always a great sign, movie being so entertaining you don’t really stop and think about any plot holes, because you are fully transported to this movie’s world.

This is yet another thing in which these films succeeded where others failed – you could nitpick this and other two movies to death, but you will not, because they are quick and entertaining. They might suspend your disbelief a bit, but never to something like Fast and Furious level, where they literally became superheroes with cars. John Wick is close to a superhero, but something always happens where you not only see him bleed, but also suffer and that makes him more relatable. Plus, he’s on plenty of medicine, so you could make an argument that he’s reached a super level of functioning junkie, because he needs something to numb all that pain (next time you watch these movies, notice how often he gets and takes pills).

Overall, John Wick: Chapter 2 was the film that convinced me that I will watch any future sequels and that I am fully on board with this becoming a franchise. As long as it’s always directed by Chad Stahelski (credit where credit is due, this guy has worked himself up from stunt coordinator to a movie director, who can shoot action sequences like almost nobody else today) I will be on board. And Keanu. Without him, there is no John Wick.

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

Until next time,

Luke

The very first I’ve heard about this movie was on SinCast (my review for this great podcast can be found here) where they had the co-director and author of the graphic novel this movie is based on, Scott Christian Sava as a guest in 2017 (for anybody interested, the episode number is 130). Scott really painted a picture of a strange, strange production hell this movie was stuck in and ever since then, I’d occasionally think about it and wonder how is he getting on and whether we would ever see this movie.

So you can imagine my excitement when I’ve heard the first time, that it will be available on Netflix, and right after that, Scott even came back for another SinCast episode to discuss yet another part of what it took for this to happen (the episode number is 239) so I knew I just had to see this. After everything this movie has been through, I wanted to like it so bad, and I was worried, what if it isn’t any good? I went to this with some worries, as Scott came across like a such genuinely nice guy, that I was almost worried about not liking this movie as much.

Luckily, I can say I did enjoy this movie. Animal Crackers has a really interesting premise, that is utilised perfectly and feels fresh. My main thing with animated movies (and Pixar aside, as they “play” in a league of their own, for the most part) is most of the new ones feel a bit stale, and this movie didn’t. I am not saying something groundbreaking is happening in this movie, not really, but I am saying that the main idea is utilised very well and it works.

The voice cast is simply brilliant. From Danny DeVito, Sir Ian McKellen to Raven-Symoné, Patrick Warburton and Gilbert Gottfried (whose character Zucchini stole the movie for me, not only because of his voice, but also how he always refuses to acknowledge his boss isn’t his henchmen) they all put in a brilliant and fun performance and you’ll have a blast listening to them.

I do need to admit, this movie isn’t perfect, as the beginning feels a bit over the place, which even the director admits. But Animal Crackers is one of those movies, where longer you watch them, the better they get. Once they fully embrace the circus, the transforming into animals, that’s where the fun starts and that’s where the movie catches your attention. But for me there was something else, that truly persuaded me into liking this as much as I have. The family angle.

I feel like any other “studio” movie, would’ve lost its way in all those circus shenanigans, where the moment you are supposed to feel something, you don’t and the movie doesn’t work. What I truly appreciated in this movie, there was no “cheap” moment of tension, where the family would break apart (the movie has a scene where I thought that moment was coming, just to pull the rug from underneath me) and then reconcile 5 minutes later, nothing like that. The story, and the conflict, felt like a natural and logical progression.

I also liked the fact both parents are sensible people. What I mean by that – plenty of movies (and not just the animated ones) have this “template” of family, where one parent is the smart/responsible one, and the other is the “simpleton” with a heart of gold. Usually the mom is the smart one, the dad is the goofy one. I never once felt like this movie tried to do that, as both parents have the child-like side to them, where you are convinced that is why they work together so well. And the relationship with their little daughter was also portrayed in such a loving, caring way, you could tell this it was written by a dad, who wanted his child to have something nice.

Is Animal Crackers worth seeing? I would say so. Does it have flaws, mainly the beginning that drags a bit too long and feels a bit over the place? Absolutely. But will you care, at the very end? Not really, at least I didn’t, as the movie managed to convince me to just sit down, and enjoy this (literal) circus. And that’s coming from me, who’s never been keen on circus and I have visited some during my childhood years.

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

Until next time,

Luke

As with plenty of other movies, I’ve heard so much (both good and bad) about this movie, ever since it came out on Netflix back in 2017. I’ve heard about the Cannes fiasco (article here), I’ve read plenty of different reviews, so I was composing myself before watching this movie, as it was in my Netflix queue for the longest time (I know, shame on me). And then, something else happened.

Yes, The Oscars 2020 happened, where Bong Joon Ho became the star of the evening, for his brilliant movie Parasite (2019) that collected the most important awards that night. That somehow made it even “harder” for me to watch this movie, as my expectations went through the roof, even though it doesn’t really make sense, as everything that’s happened that night had nothing to do with Okja.

Well, I’ve finally got around watching it the other night, and I was blown away. Because I have expected this movie to be well shot, with really interesting story, colourful characters and some message behind it all, but I didn’t expect how smart it will be.

This movie would’ve been so easily done in a way, where there are the good guys and the bad guys, where everybody who eats meat is bad, and everybody who doesn’t and is fighting against it is good. But I’ve (for the last time, I swear) underestimated Bong Joon Ho, as he is one clever fella. The thing that struck me with Okja, is how he made it feel like a something that could happen in our world.

The following will contain SPOILERS!

Let’s get over couple of examples of this good vs. bad, how this movie deals with traps where a lesser movie would’ve fallen into. The “big bad” company, respectively the people running it, are not some “we need to kill everything, because we hate animals” cartoon characters. They are strictly business people, where they just want to make money. The key scene here is at the very end, where Mija in a desperate attempt to save Okja, offers Tilda Swinton the golden pig she got from her granddad in the beginning of the movie. But instead of Tilda’s character laughing at her for trying to save that one super pig, she examines the golden one, and says, “Great, you can have that one, we are finished here”. Because they are not is the business of killing this one super pig, they want to make as much money as possible, so given the opportunity, of course she’ll take it. And sure, you can speculate whether this makes her less evil, after all the company is still killing bunch of super pigs, but the motivation behind it makes it more believable. Also, you do get into the conversation “Are people who sell guns bad people? After all, they KNOW that gun will eventually be used to kill someone?” where there is plenty of grey area and no one answer is easy.

Another example, from the “opposite” side, is the ALF people (Animal Liberation Front) where any lesser movie, would’ve made them as perfect as possible. This one almost takes shots at them, at the “group think” where “we’ve come so long for this, so the ends justify the means”, where some of the members think like that and are not that “good”. Or with that one member, who tries to have “the smallest footprint on the planet”, so he refuses to eat and is starving himself, therefore going to the extreme end of spectrum where you try to be helpful, but there are probably easier and more productive ways.

My main takeaway from this film is that it wasn’t trying to say “everybody who eats meat is bad and should feel bad”. I honestly believe the message this movie was trying to convey, was more about mass production of meat, how we should treat animals with decency and courtesy, to make us think about that and whether we want to tolerate that particular part of this industry, that unfortunately does exist.

I’ve seen plenty of movies to know Jake Gyllenhaal is a great actor, but I’ve not seen him like this in a long, long time, where he’s so fearless… He knows exactly what he must do, who the character is and why he needs to be so over the top, and he goes for it, with not hesitations. Tilda Swinton proved yet again, she’s criminally underrated actress (she should have more than one Oscar to her name) and one of the finest actresses of her generation. And Giancarlo Esposito in his small, but meaningful role was also great, but that’s nothing new, he’s always welcomed addition to anything.

With Okja, I’ve seen every movie Bong Joon Ho has made except one (Barking Dogs Never Bite (2000)) and I can now safely say, he’s one of my favourite directors of today. He always delivers, his movies have a certain style/mood, where you can go back to them and find something new almost every single time. I’d imagine, if I were to watch Okja again in a few months, I’d find even more things to appreciate. Can’t wait for that and for what he makes next, I’ll definitely be watching out for that.

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

Until next time,

Luke