Tag Archives: 2020

Movies or shows released in 2020.

Movie Reviews

Gretel & Hansel (2020) Review – A Haunting Fairytale

Leave a comment
Advertisements

To say Gretel & Hansel surprised me would be the understatement of the year. I went into this film expecting next to nothing, and why would I? It’s a retelling of a well-known fairytale (because they usually end up great) that came out in January (typically, that’s where you put movies you don’t trust to do well because they aren’t great), and the response wasn’t all that great too (IMDb‘s score is 5.4, RottenTomatoes score is split, with critics rating it 62% but audiences only 23%). So with little to no expectations, I watched this film, and… actually, ended up liking it? As M. Night Shyamalan would say: “What a twist!”

Thinking back to my experience with this film, I believe there are three reasons I ended up enjoying myself more than I thought – the execution, Sophia Lillis and the runtime. Let’s start with the execution, and specifically, the cinematography. This film is visually stunning, and I need to give equal credits to both Oz Perkins (the director) and Galo Olivares, the director of cinematography. It seemed they had a clear vision of how this well-known story would be told using this modern approach. For example, even my untrained and “dumb” eye noticed how many shots were composed as triangles which is the main motive of this film. That is what made this movie visually stand out – it wasn’t “showy”, for the lack of a better word. This film is stunning, but it never felt “too pretty” or “too modern”. Both the direction and cinematography enhanced the story rather than trying to modernize it, and that was how I knew this movie was on the right path.

Now, let’s talk about Sophia Lillis. If this young actress won’t have a long and award-winning career, there is no justice in this world. Ever since I saw her in It (2017, my review here) and It: Chapter Two (2019, my review here), I knew she was an excellent actress and this movie confirmed that she could carry a film without hesitation. Her performance was so down-to-earth it captured me and didn’t let me go until the end. Like many great actors, she can express a lot by just using her eyes, and this film relies on her delivering the goods because there is a reason this film is named Gretel & Hansel. The classic fairytale we all know (and love?) has the kids be pretty much the same age, so we can sympathize with them and are more worried for them. This film, however, scrapped that and made Gretel the older sibling and made her the “leader” of sorts. Her younger brother relies on her throughout the film to keep him safe, and because of it, we, as the audience, need to see and understand that her character deserves this level of trust. And she does. It’s hard to pinpoint Sophia’s best scene or line as she’s consistently terrific leading her brother and this film throughout it all. I have to repeat myself; she better have a glorious career where many people would know her name because if they won’t, it would be a much sadder world to exist in.

The last reason I enjoyed this film was the runtime – it’s only 87 minutes. As don’t get me wrong, this movie isn’t perfect. At times, even at 87 minutes, the film manages to drag on just a tiny bit. I don’t think it’s the film’s fault per se; it’s just the story itself. Yes, the filmmakers try their hardest to put a new spin on this story, and they do, but there is only so much that you can do with it. Also, if you expect a solid horror movie, you might be disappointed too, as this is more atmospheric drama and thriller now and then, but I don’t think this should be classified as horror. Sure, there are some gory scenes but not that many. Maybe that explains some of these low ratings; people went to see this film expecting a “pure” horror film and what they got was a thriller at best. For me, that isn’t a negative, but I could see how for some, it would be.

I guess what made the movie above average for me; was how everything I expected this film to be, wasn’t. I expected to get some subpar horror film spin on Hansel and Gretel, and I got a well-shot, told and acted movie that isn’t as horror-y as some might have hoped. We got a decent film that is aware of what it is, what it isn’t, and manages to avoid cliches. Casting Sophia Lillis also helped as she carried this film on her shoulders for its entirety. And the moment Gretel & Hansel starts to overstay its welcome, it finishes, not leaving you with enough time to get bored.

Overall, Gretel & Hansel was a delightful surprise. Sure, one could argue that’s the reason for my relatively high rating, but you know what? Screw it. In this day and age, we go to see movies, and even those who try the hardest will still have some preconceived notions about what they are about to see. Is it any wonder when a film subverts those expectations and delivers something else entirely; I would like it because of it? I don’t think so, as I am glad to be wrong and that we got a decent film that isn’t long, is shot beautifully and (hopefully) is just a starting point for one, by all accounts, extremely talented actress. If you are on the hunt for something you don’t see every day and don’t mind one or two gory scenes, try Gretel & Hansel.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Movie Reviews

The Father (2020) Review – My Name is Anthony Hopkins. This is My MasterClass

Leave a comment
Advertisements

Let’s continue with Oscar movies for at least one day. The Father is an astonishing film that has managed to attach “a bit” of “baggage” to it in its short lifespan. But unfortunately, not by its own doing or by everybody talking about Sir Anthony Hopkins and his masterful performance. No, regretfully, many people will remember this film being “the film” that “robbed” the late and great Chadwick Boseman of his Oscar. If you don’t know what I am talking about, the 2021 Oscars done fucked up. Why? Well, someone has decided to shuffle with the award order by presenting “Best Leading Actor” last and not (as it has been a custom forever) the “Best Picture” category. Because even the people behind the ceremony presumed that Chadwick would get his posthumous Oscar for his performance in Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom (2020), I still haven’t had the chance to watch, so I can’t comment on Chadwick’s performance. But whoever decided to do this, shame on you because that evening ended up with the audience being disappointed that Chadwick did not win. Instead of celebrating Hopkins or Nomadland (2020) winning the Best Picture. What was supposed to be a glorious celebration of Chadwick’s painfully short life; ended up in an awkward situation, where Anthony Hopkins wasn’t even present. And some people even question (as always with the Oscars) whether Hopkins should have won. Again, I didn’t see Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, but Hopkins in The Father gave… an insanely powerful performance.

The Father is a chilling portrait of an old person; who is clinging desperately hard to reality, or, at least, he’s trying. But what if the reality you see isn’t actually the reality that’s happening? This film doesn’t just show you this brilliantly because of its choices; it puts you in Anthony’s shoes where you aren’t sure what is happening and what isn’t. There are scenes where for example, Anthony’s character (whose name is also Anthony); is attacked by his daughter’s husband. And it makes you feel awful. But then we see it again; we are not sure whether anything happened.

What “helps” with this feeling is the editing and directing, as both are so smooth you might foolishly think that this film was somehow easy to direct. After all, it’s mostly one location, only a few actors…? But The Father is the perfect example of “tough in its simplicity”. The editing is so smooth that often we see the same scenes without realising we’ve “moved” to another point of view of that scene. I appreciated the director giving us some hints, but nothing over the top, so we, the audience, are actively confused too. It’d be so easy to put on a different camera filter, to give us some kind of clutch to know: “Hey, this is something you have seen before”, where we could piece it together in a simplistic way. But the film isn’t interested in easy solutions, stories or characters. It wants you to experience that awful feeling of being so sure something has happened, to pull the rug from underneath you in the next scene, to make you question everything.

Ok, I’ve gone as much as I could without praising the performances, so let’s go. Olivia Colman is insanely superb in this film. I can’t even begin to imagine what a challenge this must have been, to act against a living legend and in such a role, but she nailed it. I also need to give a quick shootout to Imogen Poots. She was excellent in the little time she had, as her character was what I thought was the audience’s biggest “key” into this world. Let me explain – Olivia’s character acts one way because she must. She is used to Anthony’s behaviour (as much as you can get used to him losing his mind slowly) whilst Imogen isn’t, and she comes in as a nurse/somebody to be around Anthony’s character to watch him while Olivia can’t. In her scene where Anthony charms her, just for him to put her down brutally in the next five minutes, that scene is when we see his full impact on people around him. And how devastating this must feel to his loved ones, even though they understand it’s not him, it’s the disease that’s making him like that.

With all due respect to everybody I’ve just mentioned, this is a one-man show. Sir Anthony Hopkins shines in this performance. But for most of the film, it’s almost sneakily as his performance graduates and the further you are in this film, the more he disarms you with his performance. And then, the last twenty minutes of this film happen. I won’t spoil anything, but let me say, there is a scene where the camera stays on his face for a good few minutes as his character has one of those rare moments of realising what is happening around him. And all the different emotions he conveys in that scene alone – anger, confusion, sadness, remorse… At the end of that scene (which is effectively the movie’s end), you are so moved by him it’s unreal. If you are not, are you even alive? I don’t like these “if you haven’t cried during xyz scene, you have no heart” absolutism, but I would not trust any adult who wasn’t moved by the last 20 minutes of this film. I didn’t cry, but I was terribly close, I will tell you that. I am almost positive this film will be shown in acting schools. Because what Sir Anthony Hopkins is doing with this role is insane.

And this is why it angers me that we couldn’t enjoy him winning without feeling guilty or, what is more devastating, awkward. The entire Oscar telecast was building up to Chadwick getting his Oscar. Everyone was ready to celebrate only for Chadwick not to win, and the Oscar went to Sir Anthony instead. I genuinely believe it would have been less awkward had the “Leading Actor” category stayed where it always was, and the ceremony ended with “Best Picture”. I will watch Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, and I can’t wait to see what Chadwick did with his role, but it’ll be tough to go against Hopkins (or, more precisely, his performance) in The Father.

Overall, The Father is an excellent film that might not be the easiest to watch, but it rewards you for watching it by “serving” you stellar performances by everyone involved. It’s a chilling movie about a topic people don’t want to think much about. As I’d imagine, this is the worst-case scenario for every one of us, losing our mind, not being in control, being a burden to our family while snapping at them because what you see isn’t what is happening. I get it; this is not a film you’d put on every day. You certainly must be in a certain headspace/mood to watch it. But trust me, it’s so worth it when you do; a brilliant piece of filmmaking, supported by incredible performances.

Rating: 5 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Movie Reviews

A Quiet Place Part II (2020) Review – A Worthy Sequel

Leave a comment
Advertisements

After the pleasant surprise that was A Quiet Place (2018, my review here), I remember thinking – does this film need a sequel? And before we go any further, there is a difference between “does it need a sequel” and “can I imagine more films from this world” because the answer to me differs. Sure, a post-apocalyptic world, where the only way to survive is not making any sound, of course, you can make a lot of movies within that world. But did the surprise hit, which had a clear beginning, middle and ending, really need a sequel? Even after watching A Quiet Place Part II, I would still say “no”, even though I enjoyed this. It doesn’t make sense, does it? Ok, let me explain.

It all boils down to elements you can’t control, and this film is the perfect example of that. Yes, the actors and people behind that film were great, and that hugely contributed to the overall enjoyment of the first film, but the biggest reason that film worked was the element of surprise. Nobody expected the first film to be as superb as it was. I think even Bryan Woods, Scott Beck or John Krasinski (the people behind the script for the first film) didn’t expect the movie to have such a huge success, both critically and in the box office. On a budget of “only” $17 million, the movie grossed (worldwide) $340 million, so that’s a pretty great ROI, and the film was universally beloved. So, of course, we had to come back to this world because it wouldn’t have made any financial sense for them not to.

Hence this film, A Quiet Place Part II, was born. And to be honest, I think this probably is the best sequel we could have gotten. The movie feels larger than its predecessor but not too big, so it doesn’t feel different. There are some surprises and choices made that I liked (more about that soon). But also, some cracks (albeit tiny) started to show. For example, more unnecessary jump scares than in the previous film. The film also follows a more traditional “cookie-cutter” structure, as far as how and where the story goes; it won’t surprise you that much. And it’s all about the kids rather than adults, which is fine as those kids are great actors. But that also means putting Emily Blunt on “the side”, and nobody puts Emily in the corner! Shit, wrong movie…

Ok, let’s start with the things I liked. Without going into heavy spoilers, I enjoyed how this film didn’t go (most of the time) for the obvious choices. For example, from the trailers, I was afraid that Cillian Murphy is only here to be one of those cliché post-apocalyptic characters at this point, where he’s much worse than the monsters. And I am happy to say that no, he isn’t. The movie deals with those a bit, but it could have easily made him into some “major” bad guy in this film and possibly beyond (as we are getting A Quiet Place Part III, currently set to be released in 2023), but the film doesn’t go there, so props to you, movie.

As much as I would love to see more Emily Blunt in this film, I am glad the focus shifted to the “kids”. Well, mainly Millicent Simmonds as her storyline was the thread carrying this film. Every time we’d cut back to her brother, Noah Jupe, the movie got a bit boring for me. That is/was not his fault, to be perfectly clear. But it felt like even the people working on the script didn’t know what to do with his character, or they knew what they wanted to with Millicent’s character and had it all planned out, so they “kinda” forgot about him. I hope we see a future star rising here because Millicent can carry a film. She holds her own even in the scenes with Emily and Cillian, and that’s not an easy task, given the amount of talent between those two actors is insane. And I can’t wait to see more of her, beyond this… I guess now it’d be considered trilogy? A franchise?

The only thing that holds me back from giving this film “the ultimate” rating are the cracks that started to show during this film. Because it’s a much bigger film than the previous one, you get more, and the world-building here… felt a bit rushed at times. I don’t think this is a spoiler as we don’t know much about those people anyway. Towards the end, there is a group of people who I am guessing are supposed to be the “worse than the monsters” cliche I was talking about earlier? But we learn nothing about them. What’s their goal; do they have a leader…? But ok. Also, talk about having a great actor and wasting him. Like many movies before, we have a surprising Djimon Hounsou in here. And as with most films where he appears, he quickly disappears. Honestly, poor Djimon. He always plays the surprise villain or (rarely) good guy, but he hardly stays on the screen for longer than 15/20 minutes. If he and Cillian swapped roles, I wouldn’t be mad, and the more I think about it, the more I would love it.

Also, this film ends with a few plot points not being 100% resolved. I am not someone, who needs a pretty bow on everything to enjoy a movie, but the ending felt rushed. I know the first one ended “suddenly”, but there was a difference. Everything else before that ending was resolved, and you knew what would happen next. That’s what made that ending memorable. This ending felt more like: “Ok, but what happened with/to…” and you can fill in several people and situations that would apply. But I understand why – this film is self-aware, and I think while making this, they already had plans for a trilogy, so why not tease some stuff.

Overall, A Quiet Place Part II is still a pretty great time. I liked how the focus shifted from the parents/adults to kids, I enjoyed some choices, and I didn’t care for others. But, and this can’t be stressed enough, I’ve enjoyed this film a lot. I can’t even begin to imagine the pressure of making a sequel to such a surprise hit the first movie was. And even though I’ve spent most of my review nit-picking some things/decisions people behind this movie made, it must be said this is as close to a perfect sequel as we could have gotten. Let me end by repeating what I wrote in my review for the first film. I am still not sure whether we need a trilogy (another sequel), but I am hopeful the quality of the third one doesn’t drop. I think it will be interesting to look at these films in about ten years as a trilogy to see how well they’ll hold up and whether they complement each other. Let’s hope for the best.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Movie Reviews

Wife of a Spy (2020) Review – A Really Quiet Drama

Leave a comment
Advertisements

Wife of a Spy (in Japanese Supai no tsuma) is a film that is hard for me to review. Not because the story is confusing or the movie would be weird by any means, no. Everything in here is pretty straightforward, it is shot well, and the actors are also great. But the movie has a real issue with pacing and length. It’s almost two hours long, but truth be told, it felt like double that. And I don’t know if you can read it in my tone, not in a good way.

But everything about this film seemed so intriguing! Just see this summary below and tell me you wouldn’t want to watch this film right now:

A Japanese merchant who leaves his wife behind in order to travel to Manchuria, where he witnesses an act of barbarism. His subsequent actions cause misunderstanding, jealousy and legal problems for his wife.

IMDb.com (summary of Wife of a Spy)

And to tell you the truth, the story was compelling enough to watch, but… this might be that type of film which needs to be “dramatized” a bit more. And this film is uniquely Japanese, in a sense that it’s really quiet, really subtle, to its fault. I won’t pretend I am an expert on Japanese cinema or Asian cinema (or even cinema; after all, I am just a cinephile who loves movies no matter where they are from). And I have seen some Asian movies (Korean, Chinese, Japanese), and for the lack of better terms, they all can be divided into three groups for me:

  1. The “unique ones” – these are the films that have their own style, stories and themes you would never see outside of Asia. Most of those I love.
  2. The “Americanised ones” – these are the movies that closely resemble your stereotypical mainstream film. Arguably, the smallest group (but again, take this with a pinch of salt, I need to see more movies from Asian countries).
  3. The “quiet ones” – these are films that can be a mix and match of the previous two. Sometimes, they can be quiet and unique and sometimes, they can be pretty straightforward but not well-paced movies. Precisely like Wife of a Spy.

And even though I always call for originality and not doing things “by the book”, this film could have definitely used somebody with a bit of outside perspective to improve it by cutting at least 15/20 minutes out. Because that is the crucial thing for me – I can see a great movie entangled in here. But unfortunately, the run time doesn’t do the film any justice. The more I think about it, the more I believe if somebody shortened it, it would not need any other pacing improvements, as it is a drama after all. And they tend to be on a slower side anyway.

Wife of a Spy is the movie equivalent of: “This whole meeting could have been an email!” Because at its current length, it absolutely doesn’t have the story to justify it. And that drags down the film altogether. Everything else about it is good. The cinematography is excellent; the soundtrack is nice and subtle, performances are brilliant. I am not kidding when I say I would have enjoyed this movie much more had it been shorter by 20 minutes or so. And judging by the IMDb rating (currently sitting at 6.5/10) and some reviews I quickly glimpsed over (I try not to read any reviews so I can form my thoughts about the particular film), I am not alone on this.

Overall, Wife of a Spy is a hard movie for me to recommend but at the same time criticise in any significant way. It’s frustrating when you can see precisely what this film could have been. What the director Kiyoshi Kurosawa (no relation to Akira) intended and how just because of the bloated run time, didn’t land. I understand Asian cinema is different and has its unique way of thinking about stories and pacing. I get that. But in this specific instance, even though I was on board with everything, I was still bored throughout the film because it was way too long. If you are more into Japanese movies and dramas, in particular, give Wife of a Spy a try and then come back and tell me why I was wrong. 🙂

Rating: 3 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Movie Reviews

Da 5 Bloods (2020) Review – Da Miss, Rather Than Da Hit

Leave a comment
Advertisements

I can’t even remember when was the last time I wanted to like a movie as much as this one. On paper, it’s got many great things going for it – the cast is superb; I like Spike Lee‘s films and how political he can get. The story is also intriguing and (yet again) on paper should work. And to top it all off, one of the last roles for Chadwick Boseman. I still can’t believe he’s gone. What a talent, gone way too soon. So what went wrong? My personal opinion is, Spike just bit off more than he could chew.

Let’s start with the cast because I want to praise this film first. Everyone here is simply superb. As pointed out by many people who were cursing the Academy for not nominating him, Delroy Lindo is the standout amongst them all. That is saying something because, at first glance, I wasn’t too sure about his choices. He seemed so over the place for me. But the more layers you peeled of his character as the movie progressed, the more you understood why he’s going all in. There was no other choice. What his character has gone through, the burden he was carrying with him for the last almost 40 years… Once everything was revealed all cards were on the table, you couldn’t do much more than join the people who were cursing the Academy for not recognising him. I remember only one more snub from the recent history that always leaves me perplexed and angry – Amy Adams not being (at least!) nominated for Arrival (2016). What’s that, you say? I am wrong because for sure she must have been nominated? Go ahead and check for yourself. Anyway, back to Delroy. He managed to stand out in a sea of great actors and took some bold choices that paid off. Everybody else (and I could pretty much copy and paste every single actor in this film) was also superb in their way, but Delroy… he delivered a complex performance.

I also like the way Spike Lee shot this film. How characters would sometimes talk about someone, and there would be a picture of the real person on the screen. Or an event that took place that’s related to the story. But that’s not “news”. Meaning nobody will be surprised when Spike Lee’s films (or joints, as he calls them) are filmed in their unique way. That goes almost without a saying. But in this example, I wish he would focus more on the story.

And I think this is where the cookie crumbled for me – since we are following two timelines (past and the present), they should complement each other, right? They should feel like they belong, almost intertwined? Well, that didn’t happen. I wish we would have gotten more scenes with the “younger Bloods” in Vietnam, as every time it got interesting, we went back to the present. And the same way, the moment I got used to the present storyline and that got interesting, we shifted the focus again. The movie felt disjointed. This storyline structure isn’t anything new; it’s been used countless times before, and it works (mostly). But for some reason in here, it felt more disruptive than anything.

The other thing, and I want to make sure I word myself precisely here. The scenes from the Vietnam War; as much as I enjoyed them, I didn’t buy them. What I mean by that, I wasn’t transported in the ’70s. The movie failed to convince me we are in the past now. And I think it might have been the way those sequences were shot, but all I could see were actors playing their parts. Not the characters. Because those scenes were shot in this almost documentary-style, that yes feels unique, but every single time it managed to pull me out of the film completely. Maybe that was just my problem; I don’t know. But if a movie wants to take you back in time, and it fails to convince you that what you are seeing is happening in the past, something is wrong.

What I liked, even though it was a bit on the “predictable” side, was the underlying story about money (or, in this case, gold) corrupting everybody. And how everybody from the “Bloods” wanted to be exactly like Stormin’ Norman (Chadwick’s character), the guy, who’s got his shit sorted, he’s got a clear moral compass, ideals and ideas he is not willing to comprise. But the moment life/money gets in the way of that, almost everybody cracked. Again, even though it sounds predictable, I liked how that was executed. Part of it was Chadwick’s performance because he made it seem so easy.

Speaking about cast the, I was surprised and delighted to see Jean Reno in a movie like this. But then almost immediately got sad to see an actor of his calibre reduced to the “evil European with an accent” trope. Honestly, you get somebody like him in your movie, and you give his character almost nothing to do besides “be evil, be French and make sure you let everybody know how evil you are”. That seemed a bit wasteful. You can almost argue he wasn’t necessary for this film, his part could have been replaced by the gangsters, who are after “the Bloods” in the second half of this film, and nothing would have changed. That’s how unimportant and wasteful his character was. What a pity.

Overall, Da 5 Bloods is a wasted opportunity. The film is a bit too long; the scenes from the Vietnam War didn’t transport me there (therefore didn’t work for me, and they pulled me out of the movie), and Spike seems to be wanting to tell so much, he missed the basics. Just because something is complex doesn’t mean it’s better. Is it worth seeing this film? I would say yes, just for the cast alone and Delroy’s performance, that will go down in history as one of the biggest snubs we’ve had. But don’t expect too much. That is a shame, as I thought on paper, this couldn’t have failed. And, to give this movie some credit, it didn’t exactly fail. It just fell short of any movie you can think of that’s dealing with the Vietnam War.

Rating: 3 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Misc

The Last of Us: Part II (2020) Review – A Flawed Masterpiece

1 Comment
Advertisements

This is my first video game review. You won’t see many, as I spend most of my free time watching TV shows or movies, no longer that big of a gamer I used to be. But I do enjoy a good game every once in a while. And the first The Last Of Us (2013) is still one of my favourite games I have ever played. And I already replayed it a couple of times and even bought it when it got released with updated graphics on PS4 (the same one I used to play this game). Needless to say, I was hyped with the initial trailers, but then a few things happened I need to mention to explain why my enthusiasm dropped slightly before discussing the game.

First, the game got pushed back a few times. That is not necessarily a bad thing, as I would much rather play a finished game with as least bugs as possible, but then… We got some reports of how certain employees were working 60/70 hours a week for several months (read for yourself here). Which, unfortunately, it’s not news in almost any industry, whether it’s gaming or movie. Those people we rarely hear about work longer hours when needed and get zero to no credit. But then, the leaks came out. I won’t link any to avoid some spoilers (at least for now), but a few months before the official release, somebody leaked some major plot points and one thing about a new character. And people lost their minds. Again, I will go to the spoiler territory soon, but not just yet. Anyway, since then, it felt a bit strange, as it seemed that the game was almost rushed, as possible prevention against more leaks coming out…? But I still have ordered it and played the game.

I will try to give you some non-spoiler thoughts, but it’s hard to discuss this game without spoilers. Scratch that, not hard, impossible. The game itself is a visual masterpiece. You wouldn’t expect anything less from Naughty Dog (the company behind this series). Everything you loved and were used to from the first game is back. The mechanics are pretty much the same, which is always a plus. I also loved the scope of this game and plenty of different and impressive level designs (my favourite point was when you end up in the high rise buildings, climbing a ladder from one high rise to another, the visuals are simply stunning). What I had a hard time with was, not surprisingly, the story. And here is where I need to go to the spoiler territory, so…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

You play as several characters. I believe you start playing as Ellie first (it’s been almost a year since I started the game, that tells you how often I play) and then, you suddenly play as this brand new character, Abby. Now I can say she had a big part in the controversy mentioned before. Let me start with the bullshit one – there was a rumour that her character will be trans. Probably due to her muscular physique. I would not have an issue with that, so I won’t focus on people who might have any problems with that fact and swiftly move along. For what it is worth; there is a trans character; I won’t say who, but I thought it’s been dealt with well. Nothing was pushed onto you; it wasn’t in your face, just mentioned almost in passing. Anyway, the bigger and much more relevant part of those leaks – Abby is the character who kills Joel, arguably the protagonist of the first game and father figure to Ellie. If I remember correctly, the leaks even stated why she had done it. And I wouldn’t have a massive problem with it if the game didn’t force us to play as her for a big chunk of it.

Yep, that’s right. Imagine this – you play for Abby, then you bump into Joel. In a cut scene, Abby turns out to be “evil” (again, there is a reason why he and not anybody else) and kills him. Then we get to play as Ellie, tracking Abby down. And the moment we see Ellie almost catch up to her, the game switches. And suddenly, we are playing as Abby again, a few days before we bump into Ellie. The purpose behind this is to get to know Abby’s character and understand why she killed Joel. It was 100% a risky, ballsy move that split the fans, where some loved it, and most hated it. I am torn in-between, skewing towards the “hate” part. And let me tell you why.

Even when we know the reason behind Abby killing Joel (I won’t reveal it, as it’s explained pretty well in the game, and it requires knowledge of the first game if you want, Google it), it’s hard to sympathize with her. And that was not our fault because we got attached to both Joel and Ellie from the first game. They were the reason the first game worked so well, even with the dark choices you had to make, especially towards the end, was the fact we have been on the journey with them. So we could discuss whether the choices made were ethical or not, but most fans understood that they were flawed characters, but that was what made them so approachable/relatable. It’s not fun when your character is pure evil or pure good. But in The Last of Us: Part II, even we learn about Abby, what she has been through, what her reason for killing Joel was, I could never get on board with her 100%. If the game were to let you play as Ellie, let’s say for 80%, and as Abby for the rest of it, it would have worked way better. But currently, it seemed almost 60/40 to Ellie (yes, you spend a lot of time playing as Abby).

I understand why they decided to do it, what conversation they were trying to have. Morality is debatable; every story has two sides, all that good stuff. I get it. And yet, I still found myself thinking that Abby went too far. I couldn’t put my finger on it at first, but then I’ve seen a video that summed it up nicely. What Joel did (to piss Abby off) was wrong, but he didn’t plan it. He had seconds to think, he was under pressure, and he was protecting his “daughter” after losing his own at the beginning of the first game. Whereas what Abby did was calculated, cold-blooded and even when she saw Ellie begging her not to do it, she killed her father figure right in front of her, effectively prolonging the circle of violence. That is why Abby’s character never worked for me. Or the ending… yeah, let’s talk about the ending.

This whole game is one big thing about “revenge = bad”. Which, fair enough. But at the same time, what happens at the very end, after Ellie goes through literally hundreds of enemies, she… doesn’t kill Abby? She doesn’t kill that one person, who took everything from her, because she’s learned, several hundred corpses ago, that revenge is bad? I feel like the game wanted so bad to have this “every story has two sides to it” narrative, and they sacrificed everything to make it work, including logic.

The game mechanics haven’t changed almost at all from the original game. I mean, what is there to improve if you have nailed it pretty much from the get-go? While playing the first game or this sequel, I never forgot what buttons served which purpose, all the crafting, improving, everything stayed the same and honestly, that’s something I don’t take for certain. Plenty of other games can have a weird controlling mechanism or too much going on (upgrades, crafting, improvements). But everything here seemed smooth to me; there are weapon upgrades, character upgrades, you can craft items, but it’s never “too much” to become overwhelming, or you will never forget: “How do I do this again? What menu section do I go to?”

As I hinted at this before visually, this game squeezes out every single resource my PS4 had to offer, and it showed. It’s stunning, vibrant, you get a few big set-pieces (the already mentioned climbing in between high-rise buildings, some fire action set-piece towards the end), and this is where Naughty Dog shows they know what they are doing. Well, at least visually. And, to my surprise, I can’t remember stumbling into any bugs, so for a game that’s been pushed back several times, great job.

Overall, The Last of Us: Part II is a visually breath-taking masterpiece that really wants you to think about relativity, how any truth/story is relative, depending on how you look at it. That is something I have no issue with. I just wished they would go about it differently and, you know, didn’t force us to play as a character who viciously murders somebody, we as the audience, really get to know and understand. They set themselves up for an almost impossible task – to pull something like this off, I genuinely think they’d have to release a game in-between this one and the original. Think about it – it doesn’t have to be a long AAA game title, just almost a DLC to the first game, where we play most of the time as Abby, explore her backstory when she was younger, and it would all finish in the hospital. Then we would know, what she is all about and then, maybe, just maybe, you could pull something like this off. In its current state, I don’t think I will play The Last of Us: Part II anytime soon, whereas I have played through the original game about four times. One of the main reasons behind that was that even in the darkest moments, the first game managed to give us hope. It wasn’t too much hope, but there were hints of light shining through the darkness. But this game is more or less just about darkness, sadness and all the “great” feelings, without almost any glimpse of hope or light.

Rating: 4 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Movie Reviews

The Witches (2020) Review – All Hail Octavia Spencer!

Leave a comment
Advertisements

I knew very little going into this film. I have only seen bits and pieces of The Witches (1990), so I can’t compare them against each other, but this new one was… really bland. My biggest takeaway from this film was that I have no idea, what to expect from Robert Zemeckis, as I can’t think of any other modern director, who is so “hit or miss” for me. Because he’s made his fair share of great movies, but lately, he’s been experimenting and re-doing movies that didn’t necessarily have to be re-done…? This is how this film felt to me, like something that didn’t have to be re-told.

The Witches is a film that should be at least above average, considering the pedigree behind it. Just think about it, we have already mentioned Zemeckis, who managed to get Anne Hathaway, Octavia Spencer or Stanley Tucci to act in this film, just to name the main cast. But even two out of those three usually reliable actors didn’t fit in this film.

Let’s start with Octavia Spencer. She is a treasure and the best part about this film. It is that simple. She holds this film together, she is the glue that is needed here, and she nails her role. You would think Anne Hathaway would be the highlight, given she is the main witch in this film, you know, the show-stopping role. Or at least, it should (and could) have been. But no. I don’t understand whether it was her, who decided to portray her character like that or the director, but it felt flat, monotone and over the top and not in a good way. I think the most annoying thing about her character was that awful accent. I kind of understand what she was going for, but sometimes, less is more. She was trying to give us 110%, but sometimes, it’s fine to “just” give us 80%, especially when you are supposed to be the diabolical villain. From the little I have seen of The Witches from 1990, Anjelica Huston seemed to nail that character. But again, I didn’t see it in its entirety, so I can’t give you a fair comparison. All I know is I have seen this movie in its entirety, and as much as I love and adore Anne Hathaway, this performance was a pain to sit through.

I wish I could say something about Stanley Tucci, but I can’t because his character has nothing to do. Usually, these smaller but somewhat important characters can be scene/movie stealing, but not in this case. And again, we are talking about a more than capable performer. Stanley is one of our finest actors. This honestly makes me think it wasn’t Stanley’s or Anne’s fault, but rather the director’s…? It genuinely felt like Octavia is in one movie, and those two are in a film of their own.

What I appreciated, and since I haven’t read the book, I don’t know whether to give the movie credit for this, is the movie avoiding the “guardian of our child hero dies” trope. When Octavia’s character coughs throughout the movie, and it’s hinted that it might be something serious than your common cold, I was afraid of this trope. Luckily, the film manages to avoid it, so at least, in the end, I was happy with that. I wish I could say that about more things in this film.

Also, the movie drags on quite a bit. This is yet another example of “less is more”, where if you were to trim a couple of minutes from the beginning and a couple of minutes from the end, I think the movie would have worked much better. The more I think about it, the “less is more” could be applied to every aspect of this film – from the performances to the runtime. It seems this movie wants to be this fancy, epic tale of witches. But the result is just an “ok” movie you won’t remember much from a few weeks after seeing it. I am talking from my personal experience here.

Overall, The Witches is a weird one for me. The movie is full of talented people I admire, yet it fails to be anything more than the most stereotypical, average movie you might see. The only person, who actually shines and holds this film together, is the always spectacular Octavia Spencer. She plays a grandma everyone wishes they had. If only the rest of the film would get on her level, then I would have had a much better time with it.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Misc

The Sarah Silverman Podcast (Podcast Review) – Modern Day Jesus (with A Lot of Ads)

Leave a comment
Advertisements

As stated before, I go through a bunch of podcasts lately. So when I was looking for a new one to listen to, I didn’t want anything too serious. I was just looking for something funny but still interesting to keep my mind occupied. That’s when I stumbled upon Sarah Silverman‘s podcast. Let me say, I have never seen any of her stand-up specials, or followed her career. But I have always known who she was. And I like most of her opinions, so I thought, hey, let’s give this a shot. It took Sarah a few episodes to get everything “polished” (intro, ad breaks, signing off etc.), but that is what I liked – we get to see her and her podcast evolve.

From what I have seen all over the Internet, Sarah is that kind of comedian who you have heard of and have a strong opinion on. It’s like with my favourite stand-up comic, Frankie Boyle, you either love them or hate them because they say what they want to say and don’t look back. Except Sarah uses her platform (this podcast, her Twitter) to look back and isn’t afraid to admit when she was wrong…? What is that? It almost seems like she might be a half-decent human being…?

That is why I keep listening to her podcast, and I am all caught up on it because I admire somebody who isn’t afraid to speak her mind and be reflective enough to admit when she was wrong. Well, not even wrong per se, she isn’t shy to apologize for her previous jokes that didn’t age too well, instead of doubling down with excuses. That is what keeps me listening to her podcast – the fact she does what she is preaching. She is all about evolving, understanding that anyone can fuck up, but it’s how you deal with it afterwards. Without getting too serious here, this is my biggest problem with social media – everybody is trying to be “as pure as God’s balls”, throwing stones left, right, and centre. There is no room for nuance, for any reasonable discussion. If Twitter finds you guilty, nothing else matters anymore. But that’s not how people act or grow. And Sarah understands that and talks about it well, not only because she’s been through it a couple of times herself. I honestly believe that even though (as she often says) she is Godless, this is how Jesus would have acted had he came back (and you know, existed). I am an atheist myself (shocking after that previous sentence, isn’t it?), but I honestly believe that if there is some God, he would have acted more or less the same as Sarah. Meaning forgiving, talking to people about why are they the way they are, trying to engage with them, not shun them.

I love the show’s chaotic energy, as this is an “anything goes” podcast. Anything from taking calls from the listeners to making up songs with the live-searched porn phrases to the tune of “We Didn’t Start a Fire”. This podcast truly is pure chaotic energy in its raw form, and I adore it. That said, if you are looking for something more structured and “clean” (family-friendly), this might not be the podcast for you.

The only tiny negative thing I can say about this podcast, there are a lot of ads. I get it people need to be paid, we all have to eat, but sometimes it just seems like a bit too much. Especially sometimes, when Sarah’s commenting on a more sensitive issue, and suddenly the show goes to an ad break… it disrupts the flow a bit. But she isn’t the only one, and I understand that since podcasts are free, they need to make money somehow, and you know what they say, nothing is truly free in this world.

This podcast also makes me want to watch some of Sarah’s specials, as I like her opinions. Even though sometimes I might not agree with her on certain things, but guess what? People don’t have to always agree on every single thing. What I have noticed about the way she presents her opinions, she sometimes seems to be making a great argument, only to finish it off by saying: “But what do I know?” or something similar. I wish she wouldn’t question herself like that, as she seems knowledgeable on a plethora of issues. It almost seems like a reflex at this point, and I don’t think that’s necessary.

Overall, The Sarah Silverman Podcast is a fun way to spend around 50 minutes or so. Sarah seems to be someone you want to hang out with, maybe share some vegan food and listen to her talk about a bunch of things, just to hear her opinions. She seems like a cool, down to earth person who can make fun of you and herself. That is common for comedians but not so common in many people. I would say give her a listen if you don’t mind some politics, explicit language or porn-related songs. I am now hooked and can’t wait for new episodes.

Rating: 5 out of 5.

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

Until next time,

Luke