I have an almost love/hate relationship with this film. Because I absolutely loved it until it started to go up against itself with the story presentation. If you have seen the movie, you know we effectively see what I would call a stand-up routine, which is pretty much narration but dressed differently. And that is the element of this film where it either works for you or doesn’t. And for me, that was the key part of this film, where it worked about 70%, and for the remaining 30%, I felt we as audience members would have been much better not seeing/cutting back to it. As sometimes, it broke the tension of some scenes. But, this is a great feature debut for Lin-Manuel Miranda.

tick, tick… BOOM! wears its heart on its sleeve, and that’s 100% a good thing. I appreciate it when movies not only know what they are but also announce themselves from the first minute. And this one lets you know instantly; what you are in for. But, at the same time, you might not realize how much of that stand-up/narrating you have signed up for. I am saying that I understand that this stand-up element would be one of the biggest reasons why this film worked for so many people; and all power to you. My issue with such a persistent narrative device (which this stand-up routine was to let us know how Andrew Garfield‘s character is feeling at all times) is that it gets used too often. And that, in turn, made me think, on occasion, like Lin-Manuel doesn’t trust his audience to almost feel for themselves.

I know that wasn’t his intention and that he (probably) trusts them, but there were multiple scenes where you knew what was happening/what was about to happen because, you know, you are watching the film, only for the movie to cut back to Andrew’s character that will spell it out for you. Again, I understand so some people, this approach worked. For me, it was, as mentioned before, a 70/30 split. I would say in the majority of the film the stand-up enhances it. But mainly with dramatic scenes (him arguing with his girlfriend portrayed brilliantly by Alexandra Shipp), it didn’t work. Because we see him hurting, and we know why they are fighting. We didn’t (or at least I didn’t) need the “let’s cut back to the stand-up, to make sure even the slowest ones understand what is happening in this scene” crutch. I get why it’s there; it’s theatrical. It also honours Jonathan Larson’s play, and it’s cool and all, however… I can’t help but think that Lin-Manuel has managed to fall into one of the most “obvious” traps when adapting some existing material (video games, books, musicals, theatre etc.) into a movie form. He was trying to force everything to fit that “original” form.

I firmly believe that is why we have never had a truly spectacular movie based on a video game. Because often enough, filmmakers tried to copy most video games elements “just because that’s what the source material is” without accounting for how would those elements look/feel on the silver screen. And same goes for theatre/musical – just because something works on Broadway doesn’t make it an automatic winner for film adaptation because movie and theatre are two different beasts. Now, more than ever, filmmakers do realize. But tick, tick… BOOM! still somehow managed to fall into this. Funnily enough, what this film should have done to succeed was pull back from that, ever so slightly, don’t disturb the flow of those dramatic scenes where the audience should be invested in the fight between our main characters. And trust your audience that they get what is happening without “Andrew unplugged” showing up every five minutes.

Since I’ve already mentioned both, let’s talk about our main duo. Andrew was rightfully nominated for an Oscar for this role, as he gave everything to this role. I can’t imagine what else he could have done because his performance felt truly raw and vulnerable, and that’s not an easy thing to do, considering Jonathan Larson is portrayed as “a bit” of a dick in this film. Maybe it’s just me, but I liked that about this film where what I got from it was he was a musical genius who obviously was a few decades ahead of his time. But the film didn’t shy away from showcasing him as “dickish”, for lack of a better term, to people around him. And sometimes, it was clearly portrayed intentionally rather than “well, that’s just who he is/was”. But I didn’t mind that no person is a monolith, we all have some good and some bad in us, and Andrew Garfield managed to make me root for him. As to Alexandra Shipp, I knew she was a stunning and talented actress, so that isn’t news. But what I didn’t know; was how well she could sing! There is a song where Andrew, Alexandra and Vanessa Hudgens sing all together (probably a highlight of the film for me), and I had to pause the movie to double-check whether it was Alexandra singing that part. I knew Andrew had singing lessons beforehand, and Vanessa is a singer but Alexandra… damn. Talk about a triple threat, a stunning, talented actress and an incredible singer. Hollywood, please get her to star in… everything?

This film will be fascinating to re-watch as it definitely has moments you think to yourself: “Yep, this is a 5/5 movie.” Only for the film to lose some steam in the second act. And again, the stand-up schticks could have been used much more sparingly. But part of me wonders whether, after multiple re-watches, these “problems” might disappear, as I have enjoyed this film and felt the energy coming through the screen for the most part. tick, tick… BOOM! is 100% one of those rare films I immediately wanted to re-watch to see how much I would (or not) enjoy myself, knowing everything I know now.

Overall, tick, tick… BOOM! is worth your time. You have one stellar performance by Andrew followed closely by one superb performance by Alexandra (and that’s only because she doesn’t have as much screen time as Andrew’s character, for the simple reason that this film is about him). The movie is charming, energetic and has phenomenal music throughout it. The only things I could hold against it would be the over usage of the stand-up routine that, at times, would disturb the flow of the film and the second act loses some steam before the third act picks it up again. But I would still recommend this film. And for a directing debut, Lin-Manual did a fantastic job; I can’t wait for what he will direct next.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Nightmare Alley might be the ultimate example of the power of Guillermo del Toro. I can’t think of a director who could make a movie like this, make it two and a half hours long and for the film to be a visual and storytelling feast, without any “boring” parts. Everything in this film is here because it belongs here. Everything was so intricately connected; I didn’t realise what movie I was watching until the last ten minutes. When I understood where this film was going and what it was trying to say, I knew I was 100% behind it, and I couldn’t rate it any other way. I know many people won’t agree with what I am about to write next, but oh well. Guillermo gets better with each film, and Nightmare Alley (directing-wise) is his best achievement yet.

It’s hard to say that because it’s not like Guillermo del Toro hasn’t been a superb director for a while now. Of course, he was. But there was something about Nightmare Alley that felt familiar (he likes his creatures, freaks, and geeks, you can’t deny that) yet, different from his other films. Nightmare Alley felt like he was directing on a brand new level, as he’d “level up” from the last time we’ve seen his movie. I noticed many long shots that lingered just long enough to set the mood, and those would, in turn, let the actors do their jobs with surgical precision. Everyone in this film is giving everything they have.

I am genuinely surprised Bradley Cooper didn’t get a nomination for his role. Once I’ve finished the film, I thought he gave the best performance of his career yet (I don’t like to play this card, but he got nominated for A Star Is Born (2018) but not for this? Really?) and I was with him the entire way. The same could be said about everybody from Rooney Mara to Cate Blanchett; they were both perfect in their roles. And don’t get me started on Willem Dafoe and his delightful performance as the circus director/manager who gets stuff done, no matter what. Again, you’d need a microscope to find somebody here who was off their game.

The biggest reason I loved this film so much was how Guillermo directed Bradley’s performance. He is clever to let him wow you, but he constantly reminds you to be aware of him. I would recommend listening to some interviews with Guillermo regarding Nightmare Alley. And him talking about where the inspiration for this film came from. After that, you realise how careful Guillermo is when showcasing every aspect of this craft. The inspiration, by the way, was him dealing with charlatans like Bradley’s character back in the ’90s when his dad was kidnapped, if I remember it correctly? And I think that is the reason for having Mary Steenburgen and Peter MacNeill playing the couple who believe they are communicating with their son through Bradley’s character. Because Guillermo is clever enough to know that people watching this film might be asking questions like: “So what, he’s a fake and everything is a show? What’s the harm in that?” That’s the harm. Without going into spoilers, you can end up like this couple.

But Nightmare Alley isn’t even about that as much, as it is more about Bradley’s character. It sounds obvious, after all, he is the main star of this film. But again, without going into spoilers, I haven’t realised how much this film is about him until the last ten minutes “kicked in”. And suddenly, the imaginary wheels in my head started to “click”, and I knew how this film would end. To me, that’s brilliant filmmaking, where you are so invested in the movie overall, you miss these giant obvious clues (looking back at the film with the knowledge I have now), and the movie catches you at the end. This film convinced me that Guillermo del Toro is one of our best living directors, and I need to watch everything else he’s done so far and the movies he will make.

Overall, Nightmare Alley surprised me by how much I’ve enjoyed it. It surprised me; by how little I’ve noticed the runtime that I admit did scare before I started this film. It surprised me by showcasing Bradley Cooper like I’ve not seen him before. But mainly, this film assured me that Guillermo del Toro is maturing as a director with each movie he makes. If you have a chance to listen to him talk about films, art or “just” his life, I strongly recommend it. The few interviews (or podcasts) I listened to him talk about anything were always a blast. Especially him talking about this film, you can listen for yourself here (courtesy of DGA, if you are into movies, you should be listening to this podcast).

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

Until next time,

Luke

Movies like The Lost Daughter are the reason I love films. It might sound weird, especially when I am not fully “in love” with this film, but let me explain. The Lost Daughter is a challenging movie to sit through. There are literally no “good” characters/people. Everyone is flawed, and what’s more interesting than that, they all are aware of it. And I think that is why I have already seen people having issues with this film because there is nobody to root for. But is that truly the point of art? Do we honestly need a clearly defined hero and villain? Because I thought the best art should challenge your views, should make you a tiny bit uncomfortable at times. And this film does it by showing us a bunch of people who were clearly, never cut out to be parents. Yet, they became them, and now they are trying to cope with it. And yes, it’s uncomfortable to watch at times, seeing some characters’ darker moments. But I think it’s a much-needed mirror for some.

Before diving into the movie, I need to take a moment to praise, stan, worship… call it whatever you prefer, Maggie Gyllenhaal. I’ve always said she was and still is a criminally underrated actress. But now, she not only writes (Oscar-nominated screenwriter Maggie Gyllenhaal has a ring to it, doesn’t it?) but also directs. The Lost Daughter is her feature debut as both writer and director, and goddamn it, she didn’t make her life easy with adapting that specific book/story. As I mentioned above, this film is so complex, and everything needs to fall in place for the film to work because you have nobody to root for. It’s really easy to lose your way and make your movie bleaker than it needs to be. But Maggie has done it excellently. Every decision, every scene, every character felt believable, raw, vulnerable and yet nobody would blame you if you ended up despising them. I’d imagine when Maggie decided to put on her screenwriting and directing hat, she might have had other, “easier” choices. After all, her name means something in Hollywood (at least that is what I think, but I might be totally wrong here), so I’d think this film wasn’t her only choice. But she decided to start with such a challenging task it could’ve easily failed. But it didn’t. Well done. For a feature debut, what a success. And I can’t wait what else will Maggie bring us.

The Lost Daughter perfectly balances several things at once – having no “good” characters, having flashbacks for us to understand why characters are acting in the way they are, and never going overboard concerning the darkness of it all. And all those elements have to work with each other otherwise the movie falls apart. And we’ve seen it before. How often you’ve watched a film, where every time they’d flashback, it would disturb the flow of the story even though those flashbacks would be crucial for the movie? And in this film, it never felt like the movie was being disrupted. I think it’s the story structure, where we see everything from Olivia Colman‘s point of view; it felt natural when we’ve suddenly “went back in time”.

That’s another thing why this film worked for me – the cast. Olivia practically never leaves the screen, so she has to carry this film on her shoulders, and she delivers. Olivia’s career over the past 7/8 years is truly enviable. From getting recognition to being in popular TV shows and movies… bravo. Jessie Buckley has done a spectacular job as Olivia’s younger version. She doesn’t get as much screen time, so I’d argue she had a tougher job to really establish her character because it wasn’t just about her. If we didn’t buy Jessie’s character/role, we wouldn’t have bought Olivia’s too. And she too delivered. Last but definitely not least, we have Dakota Johnson here. She had the least screen time, as her character served as almost a mirror into the past and possibly an alternative timeline. Where it was through her character, Olivia’s character was going through everything again, and that makes her wonder about the choices she’s made. I am glad Dakota has shaken the Fifty Shades franchise off of her because I genuinely believe she will become one of the best actresses of this generation. She’s got the charisma, talent, acting chops, and she is stunning. She delivered in the little time she had here, and it was with her character you made the realisation that there are no “good” people in this film.

Ok, since I’ve mentioned this several times, let’s talk about it. There are no good characters in this film. That might sound harsh, but ultimately, that is what The Lost Daughter is about. It’s a film about living life filled with regrets, knowing very well why you have those regrets. And suddenly, you realize what you have done in the past affects you, in some situations, more than you understood. Even though every character in this film tried at various points to make amends or to change, for one reason or another, they didn’t succeed. Or with Dakota’s character, the moment she “becomes” a bad person, you don’t like her because of what she’s done, but there is a part of you that understands it. I won’t go into spoilers, so I apologize for being a little cryptic here. I thought it would be rewarding for you to go on this journey, not knowing too much. And the same can be said about every single person in this film. Even though you can’t root for them, there is a part of you that somehow understands their motives.

Here’s the thing about this movie. It’s clever enough to realise that just because you might understand (if you can see past some preconceived judgements, mainly about parenthood/parents) why our protagonist has done what she’s done, it never asks you to like her. There isn’t a moment where you could say the movie is trying to justify what she did because that would be a challenge. So instead, the film showcases her life and not just “the bad and the ugly” but also the good. And it leaves it up to you whether you want to judge Olivia’s character or whether you want to think about everything she’s been through. The Lost Daughter definitely isn’t your “feel good, switch your brain off” film. You have to be in a specific mood/headspace to watch it.

The only negative I had against this film was the length. Even though the film is intricate, I don’t think it’s complex enough to support its runtime of slightly over two hours. It definitely could be paced a bit better, and that could have made it more palatable for many viewers. Because it seems I am in the minority who praises this film (on IMDb, it’s sitting on 6.7/10, Letterboxd has it 3.5/5) as highly.

Overall, The Lost Daughter is a challenging movie to watch. It touches on a subject most people wish to avoid discussing at all costs (parenting, the “cost” of being a parent), and it presents you with mostly flawed (but one could also say “human”) characters who are hard to root for. And this is where your participation is needed. You either go along with this film and become a spectator, or this film will turn you off by the lack of “good” characters, and you will walk out not liking it at all. I couldn’t blame you, to be honest, because this film is not for everyone. It’s a hard movie to watch, that’s for sure. But I think it rewards you with superb performances by our main trio and the ending might give you hope that not everything is as bad as it seems.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Like many, I still remember when this remake was announced. Mainly because I remember thinking, why, Steven Spielberg? Why do you feel the need to remake West Side Story (1961)? Why “waste” your talent on this? Anyway, I hoped for the best, as always. And then, the first reviews started to come out, saying it’s decent…? Imagine my confusion when I saw how well was this movie received. And not only by critics but also by the general audience? Then it earned seven (!) Oscar nominations, so I knew I had to see it sooner rather than later, and thanks to Disney+, I’ve managed to watch it before the Oscar ceremony. And that was my last surprise with this film, how much I enjoyed myself.

West Side Story is a classic for a reason. Based on the immortal Romeo & Juliet play, there is almost nothing new you can do with this story. Well, except a couple of things, like making sure all Latino characters are portrayed by Latino actors/performers (something that Spielberg insisted on) and shooting it as your life depended on it. A lesson learned, you should never underestimate someone like Steven Spielberg. As he cleverly utilises the skills he has picked over his long career and uses modern technology and approach, but at the same time, he is honouring the original. For example, it’s almost impossible not to notice how effectively Steven uses editing. Even the most challenging dance sequences are shot with minimum cuts. Because of that, you can see a lot of long, tracking shots. Why? If anybody can pull off this “magic”, it’s Steven, but I would argue it’s because that is how filmmakers used to make films “back in the day”. We often forget that because nowadays, we are used to quick edits; we no longer take that as something strange. But watch movies from the 60s or 70s and notice how often/little they cut. Because they want you to be in the story, the filmmakers wanted you to be involved, so them not cutting is almost them not wanting to give you a chance to “rest”. And this remake replicates this very well. Notice how many scenes go on for a couple of minutes, and they only cut when it’s absolutely needed.

It also (and this is only my guess) has something to do with actors and time constraints. Films are usually shot in under a month, often around 20-ish days and that, believe it or not, doesn’t give you plenty of time to experiment or “be fancy” with some longer shots. That’s why it’s easier to set up two cameras, where every line has its own cut. And not everybody is Spielberg, where he gets away with “doing it” the old fashioned way. But not because he refuses to change; it’s more about (in my opinion) honouring the original film. If you listen to him talk about it, it’s clear how much he loves the original West Side Story. And this is how he could justify making this remake by putting his visual twist on it. And in this feat, he succeeded.

West Side Story is a stunning film to watch. And not just because of the young and attractive cast. The movie simply looks gorgeous. And it’s not “just” because of those long shots; it’s more about Spielberg knowing how to shoot a scene dynamically. This whole film feels fun, dynamic and full of life. More importantly, it never bores you, which is saying something, given it’s over two and a half hours long! That’s another sign of a great film. When it ended, I started to think about whether it was too long. In about two seconds, I knew that it wasn’t because I couldn’t think of a sequence or a scene that felt out of place or something the film could do without (a scene, character). A great reminder that if you have an entertaining enough story that is you can tell engagingly, you can get away with longer runtime.

Let’s face it, as was the case with the original film, the highlights of this film are women. Whether it’s Rachel Zegler or Ariana DeBose, they light up every scene they are in (which is most), and both are incredible performers. I understand it’s a musical, meaning “some” overacting is allowed, so I won’t be too hard on Ansel Elgort as he was (surprisingly?) the weakest link here. He’s charismatic (even though what came out about him makes you question that charisma), and he can sing well enough, but especially in big, emotional scenes, he was “a bit” off. I find it interesting that in both the original and the remake, you don’t “remember” the guys (at least not the performances), and it’s the actresses who stick with you.

When I learned Spielberg was nominated for Best Director, it seemed weird. Almost like one of those “we can nominate Spielberg because he made a film this year, so why not?” nominations. But that was before I had seen this film. Because this is true “director’s film”. Everything from those long takes to how this film feels “alive” felt extraordinary. I was glad to see he wasn’t nominated “just” because of his name alone, but because he’s earned that nomination.

Overall, West Side Story is an outstanding achievement. The film is slightly over two and a half hours, but it never bored me. As with the original, it’s half musical, half movie, and it never felt out of place. The big musical numbers worked, and everything was crowned with Spielberg’s direction and performances by Zegler and DeBose. I honestly wouldn’t have predicted that I would enjoy this remake as much. If you loved the original and, like me, wondered whether we needed this remake, do check it out, as Spielberg gave me a pretty clear answer. That answer was “yes”, just so there is no confusion 🙂

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

Until next time,

Luke

The Mitchells vs the Machines is one of those films I’ve heard plenty about, mainly how amazing it is. So when it got an Oscar nomination, that bumped it on my “to-watch” queue higher. And after finishing this film, I couldn’t be happier about that. Because this movie was everything I didn’t know I needed and more. The best way to describe what I felt after finishing this film would be – this was The Lego Movie (2014) for me. I still remember after I watched that movie; I thought it was decent enough, but everyone around me was deeply in love with it. And The Mitchells vs the Machines the moment it finished, I knew I loved this film.

And yet, on paper, the premise couldn’t be thinner/more cliché. A dysfunctional/quirky family, where one of the kids feel different and therefore not understood? Yeah, because we have seen that done many times now, especially in the animated format. But here’s the thing, this film not only throws in the “robot apocalypse” wrinkle, but it’s also one of the few animated films that utilise the art form to its advantage. It throws a lot at you because its animated world/form allows it. The people behind this film are clever enough to realise that the only limitation regarding animated films is… well, budget. But mainly their imagination(s). And this film certainly doesn’t lack in that department.

The Mitchells vs the Machines understands the Internet culture very well, hence why most jokes here work so well. Sure, some of those might be “a bit” old, but even the movie knows it can “cheat” as those jokes come from when our main protagonist Katie (voiced by the brilliant Abbi Jacobson) was growing up. You can see how that kind of Internet culture of making memes and funny videos where your dog is a cop would influence her and shape her sense of humour. Also, way to go for making her character lesbian and not making anything of it. Good for you, Sony Pictures.

Also, let’s talk about Maya Rudolph. Not only she is a great voice actress, but she also appeared in another animated movie that’s up for an Oscar (Luca, 2021, my review here) and in a live-action film that’s also nominated for Best Picture (Licorice Pizza (2021). That’s a pretty impressive achievement, appearing in three films in one year and all of them being Oscar-nominated. But unlike Luca, where her character wasn’t… let’s say necessary, in this film, her character has a scene where she stole the movie for me. I won’t tell what happens because I didn’t expect that joke, and I didn’t expect that joke to be as long as it was and for it to work for its entirety. It’s not a major spoiler by any means, but for me, it was the highlight of the film, and I want you to experience it for yourself.

Another thing I admired about this film was how every family member had a part in the story. Nobody was there “just” to be the comedic relief. I know that sounds obvious, but not many animated movies do that, as they usually focus on the main character or two. For example, the already mentioned Luca – if you saw the film, you remember the main trio, but what impact did Luca’s parents have on the story? Not that big. Honestly, he might’ve been an orphan; that’s how little impact on the movie they had. But not here. And it’d be so easy to focus mainly on Katie, possibly her dad (voiced by Danny McBride), as that is the heart of this story. But no, mum gets a memorable scene, her brother too, hell even the dog (did you know he is a cop?) plays a crucial plot point. That is why I loved The Mitchells vs the Machines; it was, in fact, about all the Mitchells, not just some.

What I feel needs an especial compliment is choosing Olivia Colman as the voice of PAL (imagine if H.A.L. 9000 from 2001: A Space Oddysey (1968) fucked Alexa) aka the evil supercomputer that’s trying to dispose of all humanity. I don’t think I would have come up with her for this role, and that is why I loved that surprise, hearing her voice in this unconventionally funny role. Speaking of great years, Olivia has also done well for herself as she’s nominated for Best Actress for her role in The Lost Daughter (2021) – a powerful film that’s worth seeing too (review is coming soon).

Overall, The Mitchells vs the Machines is a delightful film. Even with the runtime just under two hours, it never felt too long, it didn’t overstay its welcome, and I will 100% rewatch it. The family element mixed with the impending apocalypse shouldn’t have worked as much, but it does. I know it sounds like the biggest cliche, but this movie has a heart. Even when you think it hit you with everything the movie’s got in store, there is always something more that makes you realise just how much this family care for each other, and it was joyful to see. This movie is one of the simplest recommendations in a while. The only complicated thing for me will be what animated film am I going to be rooting for in this year’s Oscars? Because I thought Encanto (2021, my review here) would get my vote, but now, I want The Mitchells vs the Machines to win.

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

Until next time,

Luke

After the success of The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020, my review here), Aaron Sorkin seems to have caught the directing bug. And since he loves his scripts, old Hollywood and the words he puts on the paper, there was no better subject for him to make a film about than the backstage of I Love Lucy (1951 – 1957), still to this day, one of the most influential and popular TV show of all time. Unlike The Trial of the Chicago 7, a film that was Sorkinean (that’s 100% a word) through and through, and I loved it, Being the Ricardos sometimes felt like it gets in its way. I thought it was a great performance piece, written (as always) masterfully, but I don’t believe Sorkin was the correct choice to direct it.

Let’s start with the positives, and they definitely outweigh the negatives. Everybody in this film is acting like their careers are on the line. From Nina Arianda, J.K. Simmons (who seems to have one of the best “second” careers ever after receiving his Oscar for Whiplash (2014)) to two of our main stars – Javier Bardem and Nicole Kidman. I will be honest – I have never seen a single I Love Lucy episode, which probably won’t be a shocker. But I’ve heard great things about it, and I know how revolutionary it was for its time (the pregnancy plot, Lucy being married to Cuban). So knowing that gave me some appreciation for what both Nicole and Javier are doing here. I thought they both didn’t go for the obvious choices. Javier was the best I’ve seen him in a while – he portrayed Desi so well you understood everything he did, said or even shouted at times. Nothing shocked me as he left everything on the table.

As for Nicole, I thought she disappeared into this role, which is saying something given she is one of my favourite actresses ever. Plenty of times, when actors are portraying these legendary characters, they often try to imitate them as close as possible where it can feel like a parody rather than a performance. And Nicole brilliantly avoided that here. The make-up and costume have transformed her into Lucy, and her performance only elevated all the elements around her. But her performance never felt too forced or too “old Hollywood” – a trap she could have fallen into, trying to mimic everything. But no, she gave us Lucy that felt like an actual person and what’s more, she displayed how she was the brain behind the show, going over every line/joke, set up for those jokes, why is this joke funny or why this one isn’t working. Maybe that’s why Kidman nailed this performance, because to an extent, Kidman is Lucille Ball of today. Not only a brilliant actress but also a producer, who is used to wearing many hats in Hollywood, not to mention the fact she’s been at the very top for more than 20 years now. And that is no accident.

My only thing with Being the Ricardos was the direction. I understood that Sorkin made this almost into a play, with occasional time jumps. I didn’t mind those, as I thought they weren’t hard to follow; I always knew what was happening. But the play-like structure… I am still not convinced it was the best way to go about this film. I don’t know how to describe it, but there were moments where some decisions (like the end, where J.K., Nina and Nicole are outside, waiting for the taping of the show) should have hit me harder than they did. The movie has its moments, don’t get me wrong, but given those big moments sometimes felt like a film mixed with a play, that decision didn’t work as intended for this specific film. Unlike Sorkin’s previous film, I think for Being the Ricardos, it would only be beneficial if somebody else directed his script and he would stand back. And it’s not just one or two directors that come to mind; I can imagine many “old-timers” or relative newcomers who are experienced enough in dramas that could have elevated this script and made it less of theatre and more movie. For example, Rob Reiner for the “old-timers” (an obvious nod to him directing A Few Good Men (1992), one of my favourites, written by Sorkin) and for the newcomers, I would love to see what someone like Damien Chazelle or Jason Reitman would do with this script. Especially somebody like Jason, who is from “Hollywood royalty”, and because of it probably knows a lot more about how it used to be “back then”, I would love to see his take on this Sorkin’s script.

Overall, Being the Ricardos is one of your typical “Oscar bait” films that works. It all comes down to the performances from everybody involved and the script, that’s as ever, sharper than an expensive Japanese knife. The movie is just over two hours long, but you barely feel it; because there is always something happening, and the performances suck you in. It’s only with certain scenes you might be (like myself) pulled out slightly because the “theatrics” of the film doesn’t “mesh” with everything around it. You can tell Sorkin loves old Hollywood, but he might love it too much, being maybe too close to this topic. Like a kid in a candy shop, they shouldn’t be left there all alone, as too much candy is a bad thing.

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

Until next time,

Luke