Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) was a late and (to many) surprise of hit of 2017 (and when I say hit, I mean “almost made a billion dollars” hit) where the movie was just a mindless fun, but it was fun nonetheless. Plus the main characters lead by Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson were really fun to watch, especially him (a nerd in The Rock’s body) and Jack Black (teenage girl controlling Jack Black’s body) made for a few decent laughs, so when the movie ended, you had a good time watching it.

So, what do you do when your movie makes almost a billion worldwide? You make a sequel as soon as possible, where you try to change things up a bit, but not too much, as that’s what people really want, right? Well, kind of… Sequels, especially the comedy ones, are always hard to do, because plenty of times the reasons for the first movie working so well aren’t that simple, they can’t be calculated, or predicted – the movie landed perfectly, there was nothing like it playing in the cinemas (the first movie went against The Last Jedi, my review here, one of the most divisive films ever made, so people who didn’t want to go and see that went to see the first Jumanji instead), it was during Christmas, so this was THE family movie to see… I am pretty sure even the executives of the first Jumanji didn’t predict for it to do THAT well. I am circling around the point, but the main thing about sequels (nowadays) is simple – it’s not really about the quality, but money, the box office numbers. And with Jumanji: The Next Level, that’s unfortunately the case.

This movie is a bit bizarre. The first 20 minutes or so before we go back, are the “necessary evil”, where we need to establish why we are going back to the game, and it doesn’t feel as natural as the first film. But once we are in, we have a twist, where Danny DeVito is inside The Rock’s body and Danny Glover “controls” Kevin Hart, and that was surprisingly great. I really need to take the time to compliment Kevin Hart – I don’t mind him, I even kind of like him, but I never understood why people LOVE him, as he’s always Kevin Hart in every single movie. Which is not bad, it just gets old quite quickly. But in this film, given he had to play/mimic Danny Glover, that forced him to try something completely new and it worked, dare I say this was his best performance I’ve seen. He was, by far, the highlight of this movie. I only wish he’d step out of “himself” more often, tone it down a bit and he might become someone, who I would follow more closely.

Beware, MINOR SPOILERS are coming!

But then, since we NEED to get the characters back exactly in the way they were in the first movie (remember how much fun were you having with that?!) there is a magic switching river, where everybody switches bodies and plays the same characters as before. That’s where the movie lost me a bit. If we were to introduce this “switch”, why not try something else? Why did we have to go back to the same formula as the first movie? Wouldn’t it be more intriguing to see different interpretations of different characters by the main actors? From that point on, it feels like the movie is in “neutral” gear, where it hits all the places it must to “land” safely, but safe is pretty boring. I guess Awkwafina was also funny, but it wasn’t enough and it felt like she didn’t have anybody interesting around to compliment her character in most of her scenes. And this movie’s villain, played by Rory McCann from Game of Thrones is not really necessary for the movie, as he barely does anything…?

Jumanji: The Next Level feels like a movie that was based on half of a great idea, that was rushed through everybody, so the studios can make the quick cash, as soon as, possibly yesterday. Most of the movie feels half baked, and that’s shame as overall, it’s not a bad movie by any means, mainly the first hour. I just can’t shake the feeling that if this film came out later, giving the screenwriters time to work on the story, jokes, and the concept of this movie as a whole, it could’ve been way better than just “ok”. Which is what this movie is – a perfectly ok movie, where Kevin Hart finally proves he can be more than just Kevin Hart. I am really hopping if there ever was to be a third movie (the setup is quite obvious that there should be at least one more movie after this) they will take a more time to work on the story and try to experiment with the game elements.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Gemini Man is a fascinating movie. On one hand, I wasn’t bored watching the action scenes, I thought most of them were actually solid, I thought most of the CGI was pretty great (definitely not the final scene though, which I will talk about later) and I do like both Will Smith and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, so what’s not love, right? Well, right after I’ve finished the movie, I wasn’t sure about my rating, so I’ve waited a few days and discovered, that there is no standout, as now, only couple of days later, I only remember fragments of the movie, but there is no one scene, or sequence that’d stuck with me.

According to IMDb’s trivia, this movie has been in development since the 90’s and it shows, as the story definitely feels like a stereotypical 90’s action/drama, where there is one man, who’s THE BEST at what he does, until somebody wants to kill him (no less than government’s officials) so he goes on the run with a woman, who was supposed to spy on him, but since he is THE BEST, he immediately knows she’s agent… but this time, the twist is… clones. And that’s no spoiler, as the official trailer pretty much spoiled it for everyone. Still don’t understand the logic behind that, but I guess if you advertise the fact Gemini Man has twice the Will Smith any other Will Smith movie ever, you make twice the money…? Well, that didn’t work…

There are two major things that I had issues with – the story and the CGI. Let’s break it down, shall we?

The story is really, really basic. What I mean by that is, if you ever seen an action movie from past 30 years or so, you will not be surprised by literally anything that happens in this movie. This movie might have been in development for the last 30 years or so, but the script was written in 90’s and than nobody touched it since, just pile of papers, collecting dust, while the CGI got better. The script feels unoriginal and predictable, which makes it boring. And just the action scenes will not save your otherwise boring movie… I mean, they potentially could, but then your action scenes would have to compare to movies like The Raid (2011) or John Wick (2014) to even stand a chance, as these two franchises are perfect examples of what really great action scenes can do for a really simple story, but this movie ain’t it.

Let’s talk about the CGI… I don’t know if it’s just me, but it seemed the longer the movie got, the worse the CGI was. When the clone first showed up, I thought it looked a bit “rubbery” but it was still pretty great job. But then it seemed like the movie was running out of money, time or both, so the further in the story we’ve gotten, the poorer the clone looked like, and then the very last scene happened, which was… funny, yet disturbing and a bit embarrassing at the same time…? I mean honestly, I don’t know whether they had to do the CGI for the last scene 1 day before releasing the movie into the cinemas or something like that, but holy shit, that was… something. It’s almost like having a decent dessert, where when you start eating, you think to yourself “alright, it’s not the best dessert of my life, but it’s decent” but the more you have, the weirder it gets, only for you to discover at the very end it was actually a piece of fake plastic, that somehow managed to trick you. And then you feel strange, and tricked and full of… well, plastic.

That’s what Gemini Man is in a nutshell – a strange, weird dessert, whose last 5 minutes sink the entire selling point of this movie – the CGI. It’s so distressingly bad, I am honestly still not over it. I was thinking about posting a picture below, but then I thought to myself, no, I should not do that. I don’t want to take this “surprise” from anybody who might consider watching this movie for the first time. I want them to be as shocked as I was/still am. And isn’t this what being a movie fan is all about? We should all suffer I mean share things together. 😉

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

Until next time,

Luke

If there was one movie in 2019 festival going people wouldn’t shut up about, it was definitely this one. Portrait of a Lady on Fire was all I heard about from certain people I trust, so I was really looking forward to it.

And the result… I don’t want to say it was underwhelming, because that just wouldn’t be fair, as this is cinema in its purest form. Let’s just say, it took me a while to get used to this quiet (except couple of parts, there is no soundtrack, no background music, nothing at all) and slow burning (get it? Because she’s on fire…) drama. I’m having a hard time writing about this movie without getting into some details of a plot or possible spoilers, so without further ado…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

The “issue” is, I’ve seen a trailer and I heard what the movie is actually about – two women falling for each other, in a time where that thing wasn’t really easy to do. And the trailer was cut exactly as modern trailers are – to sell you the movie, to get you to see it by ANY MEANS NECESSARY. So it made this movie look like something, it wasn’t really…? I know this is not a movie’s fault and I mean, don’t get me wrong, this movie is definitely about a painter, who’s tasked to paint a wedding picture of a woman in secrecy. But soon, the truth comes out, and they start getting closer, until they fall for each other. So far so good, right? Yes, except if you go into this expecting a “juicy” drama, you’ve come to the wrong show.

When I said “slow burning”, I meant slow burning, as we don’t actually see them admit their feelings for each other until there’s “only” 40 minutes left. Most of the movie is basically a setup for us to fully understand both of these characters. Which is a ballsy choice, to make a movie in this day and age, where attention spans are getting shorter, and we are so used to scenes, that have 156 cuts in a minute and on top of that have dramatic music in the background, to tell us how to feel about it. This film doesn’t do that, it lets each of us decide how we want to feel and the absence of any music was a brilliant choice. So brilliant, I need to talk about it a bit more.

Plenty of filmmakers nowadays rely on soundtrack/music, as it can make, or sometimes, break a scene. And there is nothing wrong with that, after all, we all are suckers for a great soundtrack, me included. And Portrait of a Lady on Fire could’ve had some sort of ethereal, piano, maybe a few violins kind of soundtrack, really easily, that would’ve underlined some scenes, where it would’ve worked so well and I would’ve probably loved it even more. And yet, I am so glad it didn’t. As when you remove these “clutches” (and I need to repeat this again, I am in no way, shape or form disrespecting any sound people, musicians etc., as I admire what they do and I could never do what they do) you almost strip the movie of clothing, that protects it and reveal everything, bones, bruises, skin. You make your film more vulnerable. And that is why it worked so well for this particular film, in order for us to fully feel, what these women are feeling for each other, we needed to have the protective layer stripped, so it can standout even more. Céline Sciamma, I admire and applaud you.

That is what makes Portrait of a Lady on Fire unique – what could’ve been yet another, run of the mill kind of historical drama (but hey, this time with lesbians!) we’ve seen so many times before, was elevated to a higher level, because somebody in charge had the balls to not only do something risky, but also was smart enough to know, how to convey the lesbian love story. What I mean by that, Céline Sciamma is not only a woman director, but also lesbian. And we desperately need more people like her directing stories through her eyes, as she knows more about this than your average dude. You can tell this wasn’t shot in salacious way, where bunch of guys wanted to see (naked) girls make out. That’s yet another aspect that worked about this movie – everything was portrayed with such a raw honesty, it genuinely sneaks up on you, where once you see the final 5 minutes, you do get a bit emotional, because you’ve been on this journey with them.

The only slight knock I have against this film, there are scenes that could’ve been trimmed, just a tiny bit – maybe 10/15 minutes or so. I am all for building up atmosphere, slow burning dramas, but maybe, just maybe, if couple of scenes here and there stayed on the cutting room floor, this would have flown slightly better for me.

But who knows? Maybe, once I see it a second time, I won’t mind it at all and my rating will change, who knows. What I know for sure is, I will follow Céline Sciamma more closely now and I’m secretly hoping I’m not the only one (people in Hollywood, give her a call, a decent amount of money, don’t talk into her process and just let her work, are we clear?) as she deserves to be a household name. I can’t wait what she’s got in store for us next.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I still don’t understand what happened – on paper, Miss Bala had everything necessary to succeed – Catherine Hardwicke is definitely capable director, Gina Rodriguez is so fit I would believe her being able to kick some ass after only a few days of being captured by Mexican gang… so why is this movie so below average?

I think part of the issue is not enough character work for us to care about what happens to Gina’s character – the movie wastes literally no time to throw her into a really bad situation, but we only get to know her on basic level, where any kind of danger she’s subsequently in, we are not as invested. I don’t blame Gina herself, she’s doing pretty much anything she can to make this movie watchable, and the movie “moves”, so it never feels still, but yet, somehow, despite all the action scenes, colourful settings, and the fact Gina’s character is in some kind of danger every 3.5 minutes (on average, I did the math so you don’t have to), you find yourself pretty bored.

Because of that boredom, I started to notice the scenery more and more, and this is how you know this movie is not that great – Miss Bala is about a woman, who gets, by a complete coincidence, mixed up with a cartel, really dangerous one (even though that’s kind of given, isn’t it? I don’t think there are cartels that would solely be focused on petting puppies and muffin sales) and yet, this movie didn’t pull me in, and therefore I had all the time in the world to see the beautiful Mexico and I want to go visit it even more than before watching this film! And that (I’m pretty sure) is the opposite reaction of what I was supposed to feel right after finishing this movie. Yes, somehow, I can actually imagine using this film to advertise holidays in Mexico! You know, just ignore all the cartel stuff, or the corrupt police, and you’ll be fine… probably.

The movie itself advertises the fact this is based on a Mexican movie with the same name, Miss Bala from 2011. And I honestly want to see the original, out of morbid curiosity, just to see if it’s any good and what happened, because then, maybe, just maybe, it will help me understand, how this movie, that has plenty of pretty decent action scenes, Gina Rodriguez, and is being directed by somebody, who knows what they are doing, could turn up so… painfully below average, where you don’t really care about anyone in the movie.

I do feel the need to apologise to any of you, dear readers, as I feel like this entire review is really bland, but then again, so is this movie. I’d tell you to go watch it to understand why I am struggling to come up with something, except I can’t recommend this movie with good conscience to anybody, other than (maybe?) some hardcore fans of Gina Rodriguez. And even they would probably be disappointed.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Late Night is definitely product of our time, where more and more we are getting comedies, that address harsh reality and injustice of today. This movie (or more precisely, its main star and screenwriter, Mindy Kaling) focused on late night setting (which is understandable, as she used to be an intern for Conan O’Brien, so she knows this environment really well) and the representation (or lack thereof) of women, and people of colour and how hard it is to get a gig like this (still?).

The movie definitely let’s you know that straightaway and isn’t shy about it, and I reckon that’s why this movie is rated fairly low on IMDb (currently sitting on 6.5/10 with 23.500+ votes) as just a mere mention of things like that irks some people the wrong way. I think this movie could’ve easily been a preachy, way to “woke” of a movie to be enjoyable, but, because of all the talent involved and the clever screenplay by Mindy, it’s not that at all. It’s actually the very opposite of that.

Late Night is a smart movie about a few real issues (the movie mainly touches on topics such as race, sex, age, you know, the to-go topics for the most awkward dinner conversation with your elderly relatives, you will ever have) but it never goes overboard with it, meaning we still are watching a comedy, where the one and only Emma Thompson proves that she’s still a force to be reckon with. Her relationship with Mindy felt real, and the two of them had a really good chemistry together. Mindy herself was great, I thought she did really well, especially playing “against” an icon such as Emma, but she held her own.

My main and practically only issue with this movie was (surprisingly) with the script, where event though it was clever, I felt it wasn’t clever enough. Let me explain…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

The first thing about Late Night is that it’s about Mindy’s character mainly, and we are supposed to be rooting for her, as she’s fighting everybody and works her way up, BUT… it’s not as much because of her own skills/abilities, but because the choices are either made for her (like her being hired had nothing to do with her skills at all) and she’s dealing with that, or she’s bad at her job, until her co-worker points her to the right direction, tells her what she should try, so she does it and of course she succeeds. There is a point, almost one hour into the movie, where she makes a decision to attend the charity stand-up thing, she’s been talking about for most of the movie, even though Emma Thompson’s character tells her she’ll be fired, if she goes. And at that moment, I’ve realised that might be her first actual decision without anybody else giving her direction, or where some sort of coincidence happened. All I am trying to say is Mindy Kaling is clever, likeable and adorable, so of course we all want her to succeed in this movie, but it shouldn’t take her (especially if she’s the main character) almost an hour before she takes her destiny into her own hands.

The only other thing I’d say about the script is, I honestly wished it would’ve followed some nontraditional ways, as you can safely predict what happens next. For a normal, “switch your brain off” comedy, that’s not a problem, but for a comedy that’s a smart, bitty (that’s 100% a word!) and wants to address several (important) issues, you’d think they would didn’t feel the need for the fairy tale happy ending, or they would at least threw something into this mix, that wasn’t so predictable. I expected bit more, story wise, to be perfectly honest.

But other than those two points, I had a blast and Late Night is a delightful, smart comedy, that’s definitely worth seeing. I don’t think you will have a bad time with these two amazing actresses.

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

Until next time,

Luke

The sequel literally nobody asked for, for a movie, that was slightly better than everybody expected, came… and went, as I didn’t really see anybody talking about it, to be honest. And yet, it made almost half a billion dollars, so somebody did see it. Go reckon…

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil is another Disney retelling an old story with darker twist to it, except this time, it’s a sequel to a darker retelling of an old story, where especially the first half of this movie is really dark. And I am not talking about the material, I mean it’s so dark most of the time you can’t really see what’s happening on the screen, as most of the action takes place at night! Whoever is making these choices, as plenty of movie seem to “share” this problem, can that person just… don’t do that anymore? Thanks.

But the second half improves the setting (mostly day) and surprisingly, the movie became watchable, and even entertaining. Most of it was due to watching Angelina Jolie, as I do miss seeing her on the big screen and I wish she would act bit more. I have never understood the hate she sometimes would get, I do think she’s a great actress, when given opportunity (see movies like Gia, Girl, Interrupted or Changeling) and she’s obviously not bad to look at either.

Other than that, this movie won’t really surprise you, as we are given pretty much the same as last time, the story follows a clear path, where we know from the get-go who’s bad, who’s good and that Maleficent is still in between and her daughter (played by charming Elle Fanning) is what keeps her grounded. I did like their dynamic and scenes, just wish they would have more of them. But given the fact where they went with the story, I feel like there was a room for improvement, I am not going to spoil it here, but for me, the villain didn’t have to tip their hand so soon, it would have been a pretty cool reveal to discover what actually happened and who’s responsible. And I know, it’s Disney, it’s a fairy tale sequel, so I can’t judge it as harshly, but that could have been a really decent reveal.

Overall, this movie is almost exact definition of the word “average”, but average by Disney’s standards. That means, you can clearly see how much money they threw into it, the movie looks good, the special effects were alright, and the talent involved was great. But it’s only because of Angelina Jolie and her dominating this role, I’m slightly over-rating this movie. If it wasn’t for her, this could have been a dictionary definition for the expression “an average movie”.

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

Until next time,

Luke