The Peanut Butter Falcon is a tiny, gentle film we don’t see anymore. And before people jump on me with examples of indie films, hear me out. What I am talking about is having stars (Dakota Johnson, Bruce Dern), a few character actors (Thomas Haden Church, John Hawkes) and one problematic yet excellent actor (Shia LaBeouf) come together and make this little movie now. While arguably, Dakota is at the height of her “star power”. We see many indie movies with “big name” actors, but they would usually make them before they “hit it big”, and some rarely go back to those as there isn’t much money to be made. And I always appreciate A-listers, who take their time and make films because they see something in the script or want to work with this director or writer. The best examples would be Daniel Radcliffe, Elijah Wood, and now Dakota seems to be doing the same thing. And I love it. While watching The Peanut Butter Falcon, you soon discover that the story couldn’t be simpler. There is no filler, let alone some CGI effects. No, this is but a simple film that knows what it wants to say and got the perfect actors to do it with.

You might be asking yourself: “That’s all well and good, but why is this movie named The Peanut Butter Falcon?” I won’t spoil it for you, but there is a reason for that, so rest assured, it’s not just one of those “quirky names for the sake of having a quirky title”, no. And it’s not like it would be some big spoiler either. I merely want people to see this film, experience it and make those discoveries as they go along with the film.

There is one more thing that makes this movie stand out – the titular hero/actor of this story is Zack Gottsagen. Before this film, I have only heard of him because I watch the Oscars live. And during the 2020 telecast, he made Oscar’s history by being the first person with Down’s Syndrome to present the Academy Awards. Yes, this film’s protagonist has Down’s Syndrome. And I hope to see him in more movies because he was so natural in this film. The bond he formed with Shia’s character, the manner in which he delivered his lines, and how earnest he was. I really liked his performance.

And this is what The Peanut Butter Falcon is about – three strong performances by Zack, Dakota and Shia. Throughout this movie, they form this unlikely “family” where each of them represents something different. Zack is the wild card; he says what’s on his mind. He is also the unfortunate victim of a system that doesn’t know what to do with him. Dakota’s character represents the system, but only the better part of it – the people who still care. People who want to do more than “just their jobs”; and want to do what is the right thing for the people they care for. And Shia is the rebel with a cause as his character is on this self-destructive path where he tries to do well, but something always brings him down. He also might have the most painful past out of our three protagonists.

Speaking of Shia, let’s stop for a second and imagine we live in a different reality, possibly a multiverse if you wish. But in this one, Shia hasn’t had the baggage and issue he had in his (still quite a short) life. The conversation about him doesn’t have to include the “let’s separate the artist from the art” caveat; the only thing we can focus on in this alternative universe is purely his talent because that is what many (myself included) often forget. Despite his issues and his “bigger than life” persona and ego (I suspect since I don’t know him, so I am only judging by the numerous articles I’ve read about him), he is immensely talented. I believe that in that alternative universe, he would be right up there in between our brightest young stars (he will turn 36 soon), possibly part of MCU, having multiple Oscar nominations, maybe even one win under his belt. That would be an interesting world to live in, wouldn’t it?

The last piece of the puzzle I have to mention is Dakota. This film convinced and turned me into her fan. I knew she was much better than the Fifty Shades franchise, and considering her recent performances (like in The Lost Daughter, 2021, my review here) plus in this film, I am now Dakota’s fan as not only she’s distractingly gorgeous, she can act. The fact that she comes across as a pleasant person in all the interviews I have seen with her also helps, but I honestly believe she will be one of THE best actresses of our generation. Also, as I’ve mentioned at the beginning of this review, I admire her for choosing to make these tiny movies, where she certainly has offers for much bigger; and better-paid films on the table… kudos, Dakota.

I don’t want to overhype this film because the last thing I wish is for somebody to watch this and then be disappointed by how “simple” this movie is. Because The Peanut Butter Falcon is an incredibly simple film, but in its simplicity lies the power of great storytelling. Sometimes, you need these direct movies with no twists; no CGI to remind you that movies can be as simple or complicated as we make them. In the end, the largest budget won’t buy you a great story or intriguing characters. And sometimes, all you really need is to watch three different people come together on a short journey that is somehow inspiring, even though the journey’s goal might seem a bit silly. For example, I don’t even care about this movie’s topic (wrestling), but Zack’s character was so into it that he made me care about it. That’s the power movies can have; they make you care about things you might have not otherwise.

Overall, The Peanut Butter Falcon was a delightful surprise. I’ve heard from a few people I trust it’s a great little movie, but I wasn’t prepared for how great it was. It got me with everything – its simple storytelling, the casting, the southern setting, everything just worked so well in this film. I would almost call this film the most perfect “pallet cleanser”. If you need to get a break from CGI heavy films, dramas that are “heavier than life”, and comedies built around a one-joke premise, watch The Peanut Butter Falcon. It might just reinvigorate your pallet for movies for some time. I can’t wait to re-watch this little film with a big heart.

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’ve mentioned in my review for It (2017, my review here), I had little to no knowledge of this story. I have yet to read the book, have not watched the mini-series from 1990, but even I knew that the story was split into two eras. And given the first It movie was such a success, both critically and money-wise (or Pennywise…? Ok, I will see myself out now), as it made just over $700 million on a budget of “just” $35 million, we knew there would be a second one. And with it, the much-needed re-casting as the group of kids we followed in the first movie are grown up now. And this was one of many issues I had with It: Chapter Two and why it ultimately didn’t work for me.

Let’s start with some positives; Bill Skarsgård still does a solid job as Pennywise. Sure, nothing can truly re-capture the first time you have seen him as the killer clown, so the novelty factor has gone a bit, but he still found new ways to have some fun with this character. Jessica Chastain was the perfect casting choice as not only she does look like the adult version of Sophia Lillis she had the most captivating story out of all our main protagonists. And I honestly wished we would have spent more time with her character to give her a chance to flash it out more. Everybody else was good enough, but here’s where the first issue comes in – they are fine, not outstanding. Even Jessica doesn’t do anything spectacular here. But it’s not the actors’ fault as they had to cram so much into the beginning for us to catch up; I am convinced that this property ultimately needs to be re-done one more time, and I even have some ideas as to what I would have done, or to be more precise, how. But more about that later on.

The biggest issue for me was the length. This film is almost three hours long. As I always say, I don’t mind longer films, as long as they can justify the movie’s duration. This one felt like it could be the case, but ultimately, it wasn’t. As we try to get caught up on everybody, we get a scene where everybody finally meets up after 27 years, and it’s only then we can go to the ‘A’ plot. And that ‘A’ plot is no longer as scary given Pennywise is fighting adults. That’s something I still wasn’t clear on; I thought his entire schtick was about only kids being able to see him…? So do they see him because they’ve encountered him as kids and survived? I will be honest, the movie might have mentioned it, but I don’t remember because there is so much information thrown your way in the first half of this film it can get overwhelming at times.

What was also disappointing were the scares. It seemed, for some reason, the filmmaker(s) behind this took the wrong lesson as to why the first film worked so well and decided to go the more traditional horror route. And unfortunately, by traditional, I mean cheap jump scares (those that the first It managed to avoid for most of its length) we all love are back. Wait, did I say love? I meant hate. I don’t know about you, but I always view these jump scares as the cheapest way of getting a reaction. The best horror films (in my humble opinion) build on a creepy atmosphere and choose where (or if) they insert a jump scare. See The Haunting (1963) as the perfect example of this. Please note that I am talking about the original film from 1963, not the remake with the same name from 1999. It: Chapter Two mostly felt like they decided to go with the safe horror route. That’s not to say there aren’t some great scenes (like the mirror maze), but for almost a three-hour horror movie, you would expect to be tense for most of it. And I was mostly bored.

I have read some opinions about why the second part of It never works, and most people (including myself) agree that it’s simply not as scary with adults being the main protagonists as it was with kids. But I would also argue that this franchise shouldn’t be split into two movies. Maybe not even three films. My idea was we could get a brilliant It mini-series. What’s that, you say? We already tried that in 1990, and that also didn’t work? That’s true, but without even watching that, I guarantee you many things have changed since then, especially TV shows and how they are crafted nowadays. The more I think about it, the more I think we need maybe an eight to ten-episode mini-series, where you could have the first three to four episodes with the kids and the rest with adults. Why? Because that I believe would sort out many issues.

Think about it – the first It film worked because those kids had a connection; they had a group/bond. And for most of the sequel, all our characters are split apart, and we haven’t seen them for 27 years. That is why you need to give a bit more time for the adult characters, to make us care about where they are now. What they’ve been up to for those 27 years. Remember what I wrote in the beginning? Even though this film has some amazing actors, nobody truly stands out because we only get to see so much for this movie to happen, for their characters make sense within the context of this film. I would love to get to know those adults better, how exactly the Pennywise encounter affected them, affected their life, growing up… Some things are hinted at here, but nothing in any deep/meaningful way because they don’t have time to do that. The movie is already too long. The more I think about it, the more I believe It would make one hell of a limited TV show, one season, ten episodes max, get it a decent-sized budget, don’t be afraid to deviate from the book a bit (maybe add more depth to those adult characters) and I would watch it instantly.

Also, did we really need that secondary villain? Did we honestly need that storyline about that bully from high school coming back as a secondary villain? Maybe he has more impact in the books, but here, he’s so forgettable and pointless to this entire story I genuinely have forgotten he’s there for the most part. Even now, I still can’t recall his name. But guess what, I can imagine (in my fantasy show) that we would follow his character and journey through his years in the mental institute. If you only flesh him out and give him something to do, he might have a reason to be there, but in this film, that’s a storyline we could have easily cut from the film, and we would not lose anything.

It: Chapter Two still manages to have some decent scares; I thought the story (despite my issues above) was alright and easy enough to follow (once you get over the first half of exposition). But I can’t help myself every time I try to remember what happened in the film; I have to try hard to remember the ending. Whereas I still remember most of the first It movie. I think that speaks for itself.

Overall, It: Chapter Two had a difficult task ahead. But everything seemed to be working in its favour the cast was full of amazing actors, Bill came back as Pennywise, and even the same director (Andy Muschietti) who did the first film came back. And the final result isn’t bad per se; it’s just a few things gone wrong where I don’t think we confidently could place the blame on any one person. I honestly think this (two films) wasn’t the correct medium for It as it is ultimately one story that should feel joined and connected. Unfortunately, it didn’t. The scares became less original and more expected, and the extraordinary cast did all they could with the time they had to establish what their characters went through over the past 27 years. I’ve mentioned in my It review that I wouldn’t mind rewatching that. I think I will have to be in a very forgiving mood to rewatch It: Chapter Two.

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

Until next time,

Luke

First things first – I didn’t grow up watching Fred Rogers in any way, as that character (of course I am referring to Mr Rogers) isn’t known at all in the “mighty” Czech Republic. And I haven’t seen the critically acclaimed documentary Won’t You Be My Neighbor? (2018) yet, but I have heard amazing things about it. To the point, I (as most movie lovers) started to ask, what is the point of having a movie about Mr Rogers right after this (apparently) lovely documentary was made so close to each other? I am glad to write there is a point, as this is not really about Mr Rogers. Even though he plays an important part in healing one man’s life.

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is more about Matthew Rhys‘s character and his complicated relationship with his father. When Matthew’s character has to interview Fred Rogers (as Mr Rogers is the only one who is willing to talk to him), he doesn’t trust him. And to be honest, I still can’t believe somebody like this truly existed. As it is mentioned in the movie, it’s hard to think somebody who didn’t seem to have a selfish bone in his body existed. And yet, the film does a great job to humanize his character through his wife (played by the great Maryann Plunkett), who at one point says: “You know, I’m not fond of that term. If you think of him as a saint, then his way of being is unattainable.” She was responding to Matthew’s character’s question: “So, how does it feel to be married to a living saint?” And this scene, to me, is the key to “unlocking” this entire movie.

Yes, it has Mr Rogers in it, and yes, he was an incredibly kind person. But he wasn’t a saint. Because we are all people, we all have bad days. And that’s fine. And from the little I have heard, read and seen of Mr Rogers, that is what he was all about. How to deal with problems, how to talk about issues that are hard to talk about. And this film translated that so well onto the screen you can almost feel the warmth through the TV set. Tom Hanks delivers what I thought was a great performance. It must have been hard to play somebody who was so known (at least in the USA) because those roles are hard to nail – if you give in too much into the character you are playing, people will shout: “This is almost parodying, there isn’t any new twist!” If you lean too little into the character, those same people will scream: “That’s nothing like he/she was!” What he did here was to me, nuanced enough where he convinced me. But again, I didn’t grow up watching him.

The movie also hit me way more than I’d imagined, as I also had to deal with my feelings towards my father. I won’t go into specifics; all I will say is this. If you are a more sensitive person, who has gone through something with your father, you might want to skip this until you deal with whatever you have going on first. I am not easily affected, so I was ok, but this movie definitely made me think about my feelings towards him and how everything is complex.

And I don’t think there is anything better I can say about this film than that. If a movie makes you re-evaluate your feelings or thoughts about something or someone that is a success. That is how we grow as people, by constantly thinking about our feelings, where certain negative feelings are coming from, and what we can do to be better. This movie is trying to remind you that kindness and love is the root of all. And as cheesy as that might sound, deep down, we all know the entire world could use more empathy and love. It’s hard to talk about these things and not sound like I am running for the Miss USA (what’s next, I want world peace too? I mean now, since you brought it up, it wouldn’t be ba… SHIT! Ok, just let me get my bikini I guess…)

There are two scenes that I will remember for a long time – the restaurant scene and the end scene. In the restaurant scene, Mr Rogers asks for a minute of silence, and suddenly everybody in the restaurant goes quiet. And on top of it, the scene finishes with Tom Hanks, aka Mr Rogers looking at us, the audience, as he would be staring directly into our souls. Then there is the end scene. I don’t want to spoil where it takes place, but it’s when Mr Rogers talks about death and how natural it is, even though it makes for an uncomfortable topic of conversation. How in the entire room of people, they were all thinking the same thing, and he was the only one willing to talk about the one thing everyone else was afraid to mention. And as a bonus, the very end scene with just Mr Rogers and the piano. The deafening sound of silence, followed by something alluded to earlier on in the movie. Showing us a peek behind the curtain of Fred Rogers himself, a few could see.

Overall, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood feels like a warm blanket. It is one of those films that will remind you how simple and at the same time difficult it is to live a happy, fulfilled life. But more than that, it reminds you to try and be better; be kinder to not only people around you but to yourself. And maybe, the most important reminder of all, it’s fine not to be ok. It’s fine to have bad days, to feel blue, as he puts it. If you feel like there is no hope in this world, put this movie on. It’s not some “biopic about Mr Rogers”. Think of this as more of a window into the soul of one man who was helped by Mr Rogers when he needed it the most. And it’s simply delightful.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Oh, Jesus-tap-dancing-Christ. Where do I start with this? Ok, first things first – whenever I find out that a movie is a remake, I try to watch the original first, to see what has been done where, what was improved, what wasn’t, you know. So I went into this film right after watching the original Black Christmas (1974, my review here). And I have praised the original movie for being a gem that helped establish plenty of rules for horror movies to come while having a great, albeit not-so-subtle feminist message. This remake is, unfortunately, the exact opposite of that. The clichés are used in such a lazy way, you can see every single twist from a mile away (except for the dumbest twist, but I will get to that), and the feminist message here was… let’s say more than in your face. A lot to unpack here…

I can’t discuss much without going straight to spoilers, so I do apologise, as usually, I try to sum up a film at least a tiny bit before going into the spoiler territory. But plenty of things that are bad with this remake are so intertwined with the main plot I need to jump there pretty much straight away. Let me just say that the only thing this remake has in common with the original from 1974 is the name and the setting (sorority house). Everything else is different. That might make you think something like: “Hey, that’s great, at least the remake is trying to say something different and isn’t copying the original!” Sure, but where the original helped establish the horror clichés, this one felt like they gave in to them, focusing solely on the message. That would be fine if the message wouldn’t be so black and white. Ok, without further ado…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

Black Christmas starts like your stereotypical horror film. We have a murder within the first five minutes. Fine. Except this is where the movie shows its hand for the first time – the killer is not “a shadow” we never see, like in the original, but a masked, hooded figure. And since it moves way too quickly, you realise almost instantly – ok, there are multiple killers.

Which is fair enough; after all, plenty of horror films made that work, albeit they didn’t tip their hand in the first five minutes. But ok, moving on. The movie consists of plenty of cheap jump scares (something the original managed to avoid), but I understand that unfortunately is the “norm” nowadays, so I can’t hold that against this film too much either. But there is no underlying tension, no horror atmosphere whatsoever, as it gets overshadowed by this movie’s “in your face” feminism and the (men) characters being so black or white you swear you are watching a film from the 1920s.

Look, a lot of great horror movies comment on political issues. But, and this is huge but, they do it subliminally, via allegories or metaphors. They don’t do it by effectively taking a megaphone and shouting at you for an hour and a half. Because that is what I remember most, and that is how I felt while watching this film. The men characters here are either really useless/weak or the worst possible men you’ll ever meet. The thing here is I could even understand why if there wasn’t the supernatural element. I know what you are asking: “Wait, what now? What supernatural element are you talking about?” Oh well, that was the only “twist” I didn’t see coming because it was so dumb.

In a nutshell, the movie mentions in the beginning how the school’s founder was this awful guy who might have been involved with some dark magic. He was so bad they removed his bust someplace else, so it wasn’t as visible. And while moving the bust, somebody noticed there was a black goo leaking out. Someone also discovered (how?) that black goo “unleashes the alpha male”. Yep. And that infects you (aka fraternity guys) so much, they don’t bleed blood anymore; they bleed the black goo. And the founder is also alive, somehow, or his spirit…? Yes, this is something that the movie hints at towards the end; there is this massive (boss) hooded figure in charge, but never explained how, why, who…?

And here’s the thing – I don’t have a problem with “supernatural” elements. Or black goo that turns people evil. But in your horror/political movie, that’s all about how men are evil creatures – doesn’t the existence of black goo go against it? As the fraternity guys are infected by the black goo, how are they responsible for what they do under its spell? To me, that’s a massive misstep in the film, as it almost shifts the blame from the men to “they were only evil because of the magic black goo, that was somehow preserved in this bust of the evil founder of our school”.

I know, there is a trivia on IMDb trying to give us an insight into this:

The black goo that the fraternity brothers bleed is meant to represent literal toxic masculinity and how it affects men and changes them from humans into monsters. It was also used because they were not allowed to show red coloured blood in a PG-13 rated film.

Source: IMDb.com

But for my money, the film is trying to be too clever for its own good. Sometimes, the clearer your point is, the better it works. This movie is a prime example. It would have worked much better as a movie, let alone a horror movie if there wasn’t any evil black goo. Whether it represents something or not.

I swear this movie went from “average, slightly more in your face movie” to “batshit insane” with that supernatural element. I wish the people behind this film would have just left it out completely, and that would have improved the movie instantly. And better yet, maybe don’t make the main villain (Cary Elwes, who is much better than to be in this film, but I could say that about any actor/actress in this) the obvious one. How great/unexpected would it be if Madeleine Adams (who plays Helena, who is revealed as a traitor to her sisters) would be the “main boss” behind this? How more interesting/nuanced the story/the message could have been?

From the main cast, I need to talk about Imogen Poots. She was perfectly fine in her role. But same as Cary Elwes, she is much better than to appear in this film. I “liked” (the quotes are there because it’s hard to say that I liked a rape story) how her storyline was dealt with and how the “sexy dance” routine turned into this fuck you to the frat guys. If only the movie had more genuinely surprising scenes like this.

And to prove I am not some “not all men” or some sour person, I will give you a perfect example of what this movie could have been. But it’s not based on my views (because I do need to admit, I am but a white, straight male), no. If you want to see a movie that is out there when comes to these issues and knows how to portray characters well, how to tell a story in a superb way, where it stays with you for days to come, please do yourself a favour and watch Emerald Fennell‘s Promising Young Woman (2020, my review here).

The more I think about it, the more I am sure both of these movies are pretty much identical. Except one is superb, and one just “is”. One portrays very well how it is to be a woman in the man’s world while not being condescending but, at the same time, giving zero fucks. The other film shouts at you. One has characters (even some male ones, so it’s not that difficult) who are complex and all in their core flawed to some extent. But some are more flawed than others. The other film has a “girl power, fuck yeah!” thing going on that doesn’t work because it doesn’t feel like part of the story. And I could write like this for days, but instead of wasting your time and mine, I shall repeat – please, do yourself a favour and watch Promising Young Woman. It might not be a horror movie per se, but it’s so close to being a horror film it’s that much scarier than this movie.

Overall, Black Christmas fails on all accounts. It fails as a horror, as it can’t scare you without cheap jump scares. It fails as a political movie, as there is no depth to almost any characters, beyond “girl power!” for most of the women and “I take ages to invite a girl out” or “I will fucking rape/murder you” for men characters. It fails with its many twists, as most you see coming from a mile away (if you ever seen a horror movie or two). And the one that you don’t see coming is just so dumb you are left to wonder, why does it have to be there? But, most importantly, it fails as a remake of Black Christmas. A movie that helped defined the genre and actually had something to say when comes to feminism. And it didn’t need to shout at you.

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

Until next time,

Luke