I still remember when I first heard about this film, what it was about and who was behind it. The reason I remember it is simple, I thought we were in for a perfect movie by Danny Boyle, as he continues the trend of having one of the most varying filmographies out of any filmmakers. But when the first reviews came out, and everyone agreed that Yesterday was just “ok”, that made me less interested in the film. Well, finally I managed to catch it, and yeah; I can see why this film didn’t do as well as it should have.

Unfortunately, it has everything to do with that great premise. Imagine being the only one who remembers The Beatles? Whether you are their fan or not, you can’t deny the insane influence they had on pop culture, how many things and other groups exist because of them directly, and this movie feels like it never captures it adequately. There were some jokes in the film which worked, but the moment the story went onto Himesh Patel making it big due to their songs, the film started to lose me because we got into the nitty gritty of show business, and that’s not as interesting as the original premise.

The casting is excellent, Himesh had this sincerity to him that we rooted for him from the start, and then we cheered for him to do the right thing when the moment came. All his friends (including Sophia Di Martino, who is now known for Loki (2021 – ?, my review here), were great, and I wish we could have spent more time with them. But we need to discuss the mistreatment of Lily James.

I get that Yesterday wasn’t “her film”, so I am not arguing to make her character into a protagonist. But she was totally wasted in this film; her character was a blend of manic pixie dream girl mixed with “waiting awkwardly in British before the protagonist realises he loves me and I love him, and we should be together”. For someone with her talent, I almost felt bad for her, as she wasn’t given much to do here. And it bares to repeat; I understand she isn’t the main character. But even the supporting roles should have some agency and not exist purely to advance our main character, only to retreat and wait for the big finale.

Because this film was directed by Danny Boyle, it had a unique visual “flair” that made it not boring. There is always something happening; there are some surprises along the way. For example, the group of people, who follow Himesh around with the yellow submarine, that pay-off was different to what I expected. If only the entire film were like that, where it would surprise me more often whilst exploring the world without The Beatles. Don’t get me wrong, they do explore it for a moment, but then we spend more time on the morality of “is it stealing or not?” and “this is how showbusiness takes your soul” portion of the film and those sections didn’t fit as neatly as they should have.

This movie felt like Danny Boyle tried to make a Richard Curtis movie. It was a clash between this fantastically quirky rom-com and the brutality of what it takes to make it in modern-day show business. And I feel like that was Yesterday‘s biggest issue, as on the surface, these two films sound great on their own. I would love to see a quirky rom-com about this timeline where only one person remembers The Beatles. And I would like to see a darker, grounded drama about the unforgiving nature of show business, but this wasn’t it. They might seem like they would complement each other nicely, but in reality, you either want to spend time on one or the other.

Overall, Yesterday is a perfectly fine film that should have been anything but “perfectly fine”. It features one of the most classical and beloved Beatles songs, it has a great casting (albeit some characters were wasted), and the film makes one or two unexpected twists that work. But the film doesn’t know what it wants to focus on, and it ultimately feels disjointed. I would cautiously recommend this movie if you are a hardcore fan of The Beatles. For the rest, it’s honestly a flip coin kinda film, which I had a reasonably good time with, but it should have been much, much better.

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

Until next time,

Luke

There are three things you can count on in this world, death, taxes, and if you were ever a huge Hollywood star, you would eventually get a biopic about you. Now, whether it will be a good biopic or not depends on many factors. Take Judy, for example. Judy Garland is one of the most influential actresses and icons to ever lived. So you would expect her biopic would honour such a legend, and it would be jam-packed full of details we might not have known about her. And that’s not the case. I remember thinking when this movie was coming out how weird the reception was – every movie critic said pretty much the same – the movie is “ok”, but Renée Zellweger is spectacular. And to prove the point, yes, everyone almost forgot about this film, even the Oscars, that only nominated Judy twice, one nomination for Makeup and Hairstyling and the other for Renée, who turned the nomination into a win. But nothing else, no director, best movie, editing… Until I watched Judy, it puzzled me because if you are familiar with Oscars and biopics, you know that’s usually their “weak spot” the Academy will nominate anything. And I completely understood it when I finally watched this film a few weeks ago.

I honestly believe if this film were about almost anyone else than Judy Garland, it would get better reception. The movie’s biggest downfall is that it’s just your stereotypical biopic where we watch the past (Judy making The Wizard of Oz (1939) and her rise to what she becomes) and the present where she is, to put it very mildly, struggling. And this film shows us how we got from point A to B. And that’s it. I am usually all about simplicity, but for such a legend, it was simply not enough. It almost felt like they did the bare minimum they had to do. I am not Judy Garland’s number one fan by any means but most of the things this film showcased I knew already. And if your biopic tells me almost nothing new, that’s an issue, and again, I am not a hardcore fan of Judy’s by any means, so now imagine how those must have felt.

I think where the discrepancy lies the most is the film does its usual biopic thing for most of its runtime, and then, the last 20 minutes come. The final, pivotal scene of the movie happens, and for those 20 minutes, I felt a bit of magic happen, where the film made me, in fact, care about what is happening. It felt like it suddenly stepped out of its comfort zone and wasn’t afraid to put us in the audience for one of Judy’s shows. Those last 20 minutes were brilliant, heartbreaking and perfect. It’s too bad the rest of the film couldn’t be half as great as them.

The more I thought about it when the film was over, the clearer it became that this should have never been a movie. Especially now, when streaming services, for better or worse, dominate everything, this should have been a limited TV show. I would have been down with four to six one-hour episodes about Judy’s life, where we could see more than what is available on her Wikipedia page. Because she is one of the first original movie stars, she, in many ways, was the pioneer for many things, from stardom to awful things like abuse from her bosses, various addictions and struggling her will to live due to that. And Judy gives you the bare minimum for you to understand it, but it does it in such an unimaginative, boring way it’s not worthy of having Judy’s name next to it. For someone who has managed to do and influence so much even after her untimely death, for a cultural icon she undoubtedly was, this biopic was just… fine. And fine is, you know, fine. There is nothing wrong with fine. But if you are talking about legends and all you get is 100 minutes of “fine” and 20 minutes of brilliance, you wish it were the other way around.

So now, yes, I completely get the reception I heard about ever since this movie came out. Because Judy isn’t a bad film by any means, it’s technically made well and mostly intriguing (the less you know about Judy, the better for you). But the only two parts that are truly worth it are the last 20 minutes and Renée’s incredible performance. She truly lives and breathes this role, she never once slips out of it, and it’s no wonder that the Academy couldn’t ignore her, even though they were more than happy to ignore the rest of this film. Renée, without a doubt, deserved that Oscar. Because of her performance alone, I have actually raised my overall rating of this film because up until the last 20 minutes; I was sure this was a slightly better-than-average biopic. But the way she delivered throughout the film and towards the end made me reconsider my rating just a tiny bit. This movie should be studied on many fronts, mainly how (not) to make a biopic and how your main star can uplift an average film to new heights.

Overall, Judy is a truly fascinating movie for the wrong reasons. It’s a case study on how to make the most paint-by-number biopic whilst almost stumbling into a brilliant 20 minutes of the film towards the end. The one and only thing the people behind this movie did correctly was casting – because Renée genuinely does everything in her power to uplift this otherwise “fine” movie. And “fine” shouldn’t be a word used to describe a biopic about one of the most legendary stars of Hollywood’s golden era, Judy Garland. She deserved better; we all did.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I won’t lie – The Dead Don’t Die is one of those “not for everybody” movies because it is so… not even original, per se. It is a very quirky zombie movie with an extremely dry sense of humour. Think of the “driest” humour you can imagine and multiply by ten, and you might be getting close to this zombie flick that has a bit of everything.

I wasn’t prepared for the “meta-ness” of it all. How characters in the movie refer to the song The Dead Don’t Die by Sturgill Simpson as the “theme song” or how Adam Driver knows he is in a movie. There is this running joke throughout the film where his character says (repeatedly): “Oh man, this isn’t gonna end well.” And Bill Murray‘s character asks what he means by that, and Adam says something along the lines of: “Well, I have read the script.” To which Bill replies: “He (Jim Jarmusch) only gave me our scenes. I never saw a complete script. After all I’ve done for that guy, and it’s a lot that you don’t even know about. What a dick.“

And this is just a glimpse of what this film is all about. And I think if you imagine Bill Murray saying the above line in the driest way possible, it might be a good indication of whether this film might be for you or not because I loved it. Upon further rewatches, it might reach the 5/5 star rating, but I would understand people not liking it. On IMDb, the film currently has 5.4/10 on Rotten Tomatoes, the critic rating is also 54%, and the audience score is even worse at 38%. And although I have enjoyed this dry zombie comedy, I am not surprised or even shocked by these lower scores. You need to be in a certain headspace to enjoy this, and more importantly, you need to adjust your “dry humour meter” to a maximum capacity. Because literally, everybody plays it straight here the entire time.

I think that might have tripped many people how “serious” everybody is, how all actors in this film movie deliver all the jokes with such a deadpan stare and extra dry sense of humour. Imagine if Shaun of the Dead (2004) dialled up the dryness of its comedy to eleven. It would be a very different movie. And I think that is what many people might have expected from The Dead Don’t Die, Shaun of the Dead kind of film, directed by Jim Jarmusch. What he delivered, however, was a zombie comedy that’s a kind of drama, kind of parody and 100% Jim Jarmusch. I have not seen many films from him (a glaring omission from my cinephile journey I need to fix), but in those few movies I saw, I noticed he has an extraordinary view of our little world. And his films can be very hit or miss for many. I don’t know about you, but I would much rather see a director swing big and missed than try to play it safe and have the most average film ever made.

Since I have already mentioned some of the cast, let’s delve deeper into it because Jim Jarmusch is still a name many mainstream stars would love to work for/with, and it shows. Along with the already mentioned Adam Driver and Bill Murray, you can find here: Tom Waits, Chloë Sevigny, Steve Buscemi, Danny Glover, RZA, Rosie Perez, Carol Kane, Iggy Pop, Selena Gomez, Austin Butler and Tilda Swinton! Yep, the term “star-studded” doesn’t begin to cover this film, even though some actors on this list have more of a “cameo” than a proper role. Won’t tell you which one as that is part of the fun. But I need to talk about Tilda Swinton and her performance here.

This film might be one of the only movies she’s appeared in that acknowledges her Scottish ancestry, even if the movie has her as this samurai-like killing machine, wielding her katana with such precision that Toshirô Mifune would have been proud. Yes, you are reading this right – she plays a Scottish character with a pretty thick Scottish accent that goes into full samurai mode when shit hits the fan or zombies leave the ground. It was chaotic, random, and so much fun to witness. It might be the most “Tilda Swinton role” ever, and I loved every second of it.

The only reason I can’t give this movie the perfect score is actually not that simple. It was more about a feeling I had. Do you have that feeling when you watch a movie and have a blast, but something is missing? It feels like everything seems to be in place correctly, yet you have this nagging feeling like there is some element you are not enjoying 100%. It is one of those “maybe when I watch it next time; I will appreciate it a bit more” movies.

Overall, The Dead Don’t Die was a blast for me. And yet, it is hard to recommend it “universally” given its nature isn’t universal, and the film’s appeal is far from universal. It will only click with a small, niche audience (as proven by the IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes rating), but that audience will fucking love it. I can imagine this film getting “a second life” in about 15/20 years from now, where it would join those films that flopped and were critically panned when they came out, only for them to be appreciated much more later on. I hope this will be the case for The Dead Don’t Die, but honestly, I don’t care that much, as I have enjoyed it no matter the ratings. I hope more people will see and discover this film for themselves. Also, The Dead Don’t Die song is an excellent jam of a song that won’t leave you for some time (yes, you can hear it about ten times throughout the film, so that’s why).

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

Until next time,

Luke

Anna is a fascinating mess of a movie. What should have been a jump-off platform for a model turned actress Sasha Luss, got sidelined due to Luc Besson (the writer and director behind this film) being accused of sexual misconduct and the studio effectively buried this film. Read it for yourself below:

Writer, producer and director Luc Besson was accused of sexual misconduct during production of this movie. Although no charges were filed due to lack of evidence, the studio and distributors subsequently distanced themselves from the movie, releasing it without official screenings and with only a minimum of publicity. This movie, which was supposed to be the breakthrough for model-turned-actress Sasha Luss, only made thirty million dollars worldwide, which could mean the end for Besson’s EuropaCorp studio, which was already struggling from his previous box-office failure, Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017).

Source: IMDb.com

And yet again, I would love to live in an alternative universe where this didn’t happen, simply to see whether Sasha stood any chance of breaking through “the mould”. Because Anna stands on her and her alone, and I thought she did a pretty decent job. The film itself is a well-shot action film (whether he was or wasn’t inappropriate with people; I don’t know, I wasn’t there, so I will separate the art from the artist) because credit where the credit is due, Luc has always known how to shoot a cool-looking action scene. Unfortunately, this film suffers from a couple of things, mostly its twisty nature. But let’s start from the beginning.

Anna has a surprisingly great cast. This movie has (besides the already mentioned Sasha) Helen Mirren, Luke Evans, and Cillian Murphy, to name the biggest stars. Therefore you can go in expecting to watch some decent performances by all the titular performers as somebody as Helen Mirren or Cillian Murphy don’t miss. Sure, they might be in movies that are “beneath them”, but hey, we all have bills to pay. This film has many issues, but the casting wasn’t one of them.

The first issue is quite simple – this film came out in 2019, and that was already too late. Why? Because we’ve already had several “beautiful woman is an agent who kicks ass and schemes her way through the movie” movies. Off the top of my head, Atomic Blonde (2017), Red Sparrow (2018), and Salt (2010) did pretty much the same thing as Anna, and that’s only from the last couple of years. If you go back further, you will see there are many more. Sure, you might be asking: “What’s wrong with that; can women not be agents and kick ass?” No, that is not what I am saying. Of course, they can. But make those movies stand out! It’s the Fast & Furious issue – if you make too many films based around one premise, they all blend in. So, you must do something different, almost crazy, to stand out. And what Anna tried to do was to be a political thriller (?) with some twists. Well, many twists. Whatever number of twists you are thinking of, multiply it by five.

My brief Letterboxd review (that’s where I rate and occasionally give a quick review for films as soon as I see them, so give me a follow if you are there, wink ;-)) read: “Rumour has it that M. Night Shyamalan saw this movie and ejaculated about five times throughout it, given its twisty nature.” And sure, I am being a bit cheeky, but at the same time, I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case. Sadly, that’s Anna‘s biggest weakness. You can give your spy wannabe thriller some twists; I am not against that. But in this film, they dialled up those twists to eleven. When the fourth or fifth happened, I was already disconnected from the movie because you would think twists pull you into the film, right? Yeah, usually. But in this instance, I wished sometimes the inevitable twist wouldn’t have come because that would be the biggest twist of all. If you think about it, the more twists you have in your film, the more unlikely you are to care about the protagonists, as they always survive this, they will get out of this situation this way; you just wait for that twist that gives them something new to hold onto. Somehow, movies like this make twists of any kind so predictable they flip the premise behind twists on their head. When was the last time we saw a spy story where the spy wasn’t betrayed by their government? Where our hero didn’t learn some new information that totally shakes their world? For once, I would love to see an action/spy/thriller where the twist would be there is no twist.

It pains to write this because other than that, Anna is a surprisingly decent action flick. Most of the action scenes are shot well, Sasha is not only stunning but also seems capable enough to lead a film (I would love to see more of her), and the story (minus all the twists) was interesting enough to keep my attention for at least some part of this film. If only Luc didn’t believe he must have had so many twists sprinkled throughout this film, this could have been a sleeper movie. A film fans would discover a few years from now and talk about how surprisingly great a little spy film this is. And to a degree, it will still happen due to the issues I have highlighted at the top of my review; many will discover this film over the next couple of years. But I can’t imagine out of those people, how many will think that Anna is an overlooked gem, and how many would say: “Meh, I have seen better, no wonder people don’t talk about this movie!”

Overall, Anna is a well-made action/spy film with a surprisingly great cast, unsurprisingly brilliant action and unfortunate baggage that overshadowed this film’s release. If we focus on the movie itself rather than the claims against Luc Besson, it suffers from being a needlessly twisty film that seemed to have arrived too late to the party anyway. But I need to repeat myself; I genuinely hope Sasha Luss gets another chance (and she is making more movies, so here’s hope) as I think she might be an interesting one to watch out for. If you are looking for a well-made action/spy movie and are happy with so many twists your head will spin, give this one a try.

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 have mentioned in my review for Downton Abbey: A New Era (2022, my review here), the only subgenre of films I tend to struggle with are these old-timey “fancy dresses” movies about people who lived “back in the day”, and tend to solve problems that would not be problems nowadays. I know it is not a logical way of looking at it, but alas, we all have something. That is why I didn’t see Little Women for a while, even though I’ve heard very positive things about it. Until one evening, I noticed it was on one of the streaming services I subscribe to, so I finally pulled the plug. And I am glad I have.

First and foremost, the direction and cinematography are excellent. Greta Gerwig is showcasing her storytelling talent; I liked how we would go back and forth between the past and the present and how it served and enhanced the story without making the story confusing. At least I never got confused about where I was in the story. The cinematography by Yorick Le Saux was also on another level. Sure, I might not appreciate many of these “old times films”, but they all seem to have one thing in common – stunning cinematography. And Little Women is no exception. I found it strange this film was nominated for several Oscars (and won one for Costume Design) but was not nominated for “Best Cinematography”.

I guess it got overshadowed by the performances? Because Little Women is an acting vehicle for everybody involved, especially our four titular performers – Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, and Eliza Scanlen. First of all, all four performers have the “sister” dynamic/energy down. The way this movie is shot and told, they often bicker/talk over each other as a real family would. It’s easy to believe that all four of these young actresses could be sisters in real life because they work together so well. Those scenes where they are all together were definitely the highlight of this film.

But here’s the thing – those four are “big names”, yet we aren’t done, not by far. This movie features many more great actors, from Timothée Chalamet to Chris Cooper, Laura Dern, Meryl Streep and Bob Odenkirk, among some well-known names. And they aren’t here just because of their name alone; they all make sense and play their parts superbly. Besides the four sisters, I would like to highlight Timothée and Laura Dern. Both had roles as significant as our main heroines and had to step up to keep up with them, and they have.

I need to admit – this is the first adaptation of Little Women I have ever seen. I know this book seems to be “reimagined” almost every generation, but I have not stumbled upon any other version of this film. From the little I know and understand about this movie, this seems to be the most exceptional adaptation of the book. As those time jumps are not something that was in the book or any other versions (at least not to my knowledge, but I am more than happy to be corrected!), that decision was fascinating to me as a first-time watcher. That narrative form (cutting from the present to the past and vice versa) suited this film exceptionally well.

And that narrative choice, plus the cast of impressive actresses and stunning direction/camera work, might be why I really enjoyed this film, almost loved it. Why almost? I couldn’t help but feel that occasionally, the movie drags on a bit. It is 135 minutes long film, so this might seem obvious, but for most of the movie’s runtime, the length didn’t bother me. Until some scenes/moments came (especially towards the end, where you can tell where everything is going, all cards are on the table), and those few moments slowed the film down just a tiny bit. But that would be my only complaint, and as you can see, it isn’t a significant complaint. I wouldn’t mind rewatching the movie at some point, especially knowing how many talented actresses appear here.

Overall, Little Women is a great movie that is anything but “little”. Every scene feels big, either in scope or the stakes. Sure, some scenes or moments might drag on a bit too long, but I don’t think there was a scene or subplot I wouldn’t like. Greta Gerwig certainly deserves much bigger praise for this film. She took a classic book that’s been done and adapted so many times and managed to make it unique. I can’t compliment her direction or the choice of changing the narrative timeline enough. And putting together such a vast number of actresses, making sure they all have their moment to shine, that’s also not a small task… I can see Little Women growing on me. It’s one of those films I can’t wait to revisit.

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 have mentioned in my review for The Peanut Butter Falcon (2019, my review here), I admire Daniel Radcliffe. Or, to be more precise, the way he took charge of his career after he was done with the Harry Potter franchise. If you think about it, he was the lead of a massive (and still to this day most successful) young adult franchise. He must have been swamped with different offers for many big, mainstream films. And he said, nah, let me just do something smaller for less money but with a more intriguing pedigree. Sure, he still does big movies every once in a while, but if you look through his filmography, he mainly does indie films, intriguing movies like Swiss Army Man (2016). That, by the way, is also a strong recommendation as that is a highly unusual yet surprisingly lovely little film. Anyway, Guns Akimbo is in the same vein as Swiss Army Man, as it’s a film with a smaller budget but an interesting idea behind it. And besides Radcliffe, there is another performer who seems to be almost a guarantee of a great movie every time I see her – Samara Weaving.

Did you see the movie Gamer (2009)? If yes, you might have a decent idea about what you are signing up for with Guns Akimbo, as those movies are pretty similar. Except here, Daniel’s character (Miles) isn’t an “avatar” somebody else is using to play a real-life “shoot ’em up” game he gets forced into playing by… well, being a bit of a dick on the Internet. The idea of this film is simple there is a company that streams people fighting to the death live on the Internet, almost like modern-day gladiators, except more violent, with guns and a much larger audience. And one evening, Miles is trolling their website, so they pay him a visit and bolt guns to his hands. So whether he likes it or not, he is now a part of the game as well. And, of course, he is on a schedule of kill or be killed. And Samara’s character (Nix) is the one who is killing it (in the game and literally). That’s the basic idea of the story.

And as you would imagine, it gets insane quite quickly. But that’s the thing, you either are with it or not, and the movie announces itself early on. I appreciate films that do this when they let you in within the first five to ten minutes, and you know what you are in for immediately. Guns Akimbo is a hyperactive action movie that is a simple, straight-up fun with two brilliant performers who are not afraid to go for it. Let’s talk about them a bit more, shall we?

Everybody on this planet knows Daniel Radcliffe. But I still remember many would discredit him simply due to his involvement with the Harry Potter franchise; they would say he would get forgotten right after that franchise was over. I am so glad they were wrong, and he is not only still relevant, but he’s choosing these smaller films, where he is “allowed” to go all out, balls to the walls. Not just in this film, but in the already mentioned Swiss Army Man, it’s insane how “game” he is for anything; as long as the movie comes out well, he’s there for the director(s). And it shows on the screen; he’s so easy to root for in any film he appears in.

I am somewhat familiar with Samara Weaving, but she seems to be on the same trajectory as Daniel, except she was never the star of a major franchise. But she doesn’t need it because something tells me her time will come. She is a talented actress who also seems to be down with anything. You could argue she’s continuing her trajectory from Ready or Not (2019, my review here) and appears in yet another original, not mainstream film where she proves (yet again) how talented she is. I would love for her to join MCU. Not because everybody has to but to cement her star power and get her name to be more known to a larger audience. Because I fear she is still fairly unknown, despite her being in many films and proving she has the acting chops necessary for anything.

The main reason I am talking about both performers is simple – they are the film. If you don’t buy what those two are selling, you won’t enjoy the movie. They work not only separately but altogether, they played really well off of each other, and I would love to see this pairing again on the screen. It doesn’t have to be a sequel to Guns Akimbo, but I would love to see both Daniel and Samara doing maybe a straight-up comedy? I think that could be hilarious. And don’t get me wrong, this film is funny, but it’s not a comedy per se. It’s a straight-up action madness that is concerned with looking cool; at all times. And for most of its runtime, it works. The only tiny issue with this movie was the third act I thought was “lagging” a bit. But not enough to sour my mood or enjoyment of this crazy film.

Overall, Guns Akimbo is a blast, at times, quite literally. It’s a hyper action movie focused primarily on two people; who are both excellent in this film. Sure, is the story predictable at times, mainly in the third act? Yes, yes, it is. But the movie managed to stay cool without being obnoxious about it. The best way I could describe it is this film is “sneaky cool”. If Guns Akimbo were a guy at the bar, he’d be the confidently quiet cool guy, knowing exactly; what he is and what he isn’t rather than the obnoxious loud guy telling you “he’s kind of a big deal”. And even though this film is anything but “quiet”, I believe my metaphor works because this movie is aware of what it has going for it, and it leans into it, for better or worse. If you want to see something new, exciting, original and, at times, insane, look no further.

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

Until next time,

Luke