If you were to ask me five years ago: “Which Asian director would be the first to win the ‘Best Director’ Oscar?” I would have replied Park Chan-wook, no competition. His body of work is varied, and even if some of his films don’t land with me 100% of the time (like Thirst (2009, my review here), which is still a solid film), he made some of the most astonishing and compelling films (both visually and story-wise) of this century. And I am glad to report Decision to Leave (original title Heojil kyolshim) joined them, and he is only getting better with age.

The fundamental draw of this film is the simple story that gets told in a decisive way. I don’t know how to describe it better, as this film knows what it wants to be, what notes it wants to hit, and it does it every single time. I wouldn’t consider Decision to Leave a twisty crime story because you have a good idea of what’s happening from the beginning. But it takes somebody as talented as Park Chan-wook to make this story into the 139-minute epic it is. Despite the runtime, I was never bored and was always fascinated with our protagonists (brilliant performances by Park Hae-il and Tang Wei) and what their next move would be. Also, the nature of their relationship and the push-and-pull game between those two makes for a fascinating watch.

I have seen many online calling this film “Hitchcockian” in its nature, and I would politely disagree. If we need to compare it to anybody (and I don’t think that’s the case; the movie stands brilliantly on its own, and Park Chan-wook is one of the best directors of the 21st century), it was Brian de Palma who came to my mind. Weirdly, this film reminded me of Blow Out (1981, my review here). Both of these films are straightforward story-wise, but their protagonists are clever people who utilize technology to their advantage. But let me repeat myself, let’s not compare this film or its director to anybody/anything, especially since it has the quality to stand on its own with no problems.

One aspect I didn’t see mentioned anywhere about this film is the utilisation of modern technology and how brilliantly the movie goes about it. I know what you are thinking: “What? A crime film using the latest technology? How groundbreaking indeed!” But the difference between many others and Decision to Leave is the cleverness mixed with believability. They don’t use their smartphones for anything you and I can’t do right now. They use it for translation (as Tang Wei is Chinese, not Korean), voice recording, and taking pictures… I know; it all sounds trivial, but the film makes it look cool. Not only that, but it also makes the movie more believable, as again, they also don’t use any tech nonsense other films do. No “hacking”, no unbelievable apps doing impossible things, just a detective utilising his tools to the best of his abilities. In many other films, it would almost be distracting how often they rely on smartphones, but Park Chan-wook knows his stuff and makes it work seamlessly into the story.

Now, I will attempt my favourite writing “discipline” – talk about the ending without going into spoilers. I don’t think it’s a spoiler to say Decision to Leave isn’t about the crime as much as it is about the relationship between the protagonists and their weird affiliation/affection with each other. I called it before “a game of push-and-pull”, and I still stand by it as it describes it perfectly. In the last ten minutes, I knew something would happen; I was trying to guess what, but the film is (purposely) vague I didn’t see it coming until a minute before. And when that ending happened, it managed to hit me. The last few minutes will stay with you for a while, and it’s one of the most poetic (?) endings I have seen in a while. It’s weird, sad and unexpected (again, I knew something would happen, I simply wasn’t expecting that), and it worked, as the film doesn’t end straightaway. Yet again, the brilliance of Park Chan-wook shows here as he knows he needs to allow you to be in this moment for a bit, almost “bathe” in it. And it worked.

Overall, Decision to Leave might not be for everyone, but it hit me correctly. The movie tells a simple story in a very compelling way, it’s visually stunning, and it has an ending that might just hit you in the gut. I know this seems to be a stacked year for directors, but I would love for Park Chan-wook to get at least a nomination for this film because he deserves it. The fact he has yet to be nominated for either directing, writing or producing (I had to triple-check that because I could swear he was nominated at least once) is heresy. I have a tiny hope this film might change that.

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

Until next time,

Luke

If you ever dared to “join” film Twitter (and by joining, I mean reading some of the spiciest takes nobody asked for from a person you have never heard of but you are reading because one of the people you follow RT’d it), you might have been tempted to disregard this film. That one specific film bubble might have led you to believe this film will crush and burn upon its opening because… well, the reasons were: “Nobody cares anymore, nobody liked the first Avatar, Pocahontas 2: Electric Boogaloo, this will make no money because the sequel took forever to make…” and the list goes on and on. And then the first trailer came out and shattered a record. Fast forward to pre-opening in cinemas, and the reviews were mostly positive, proving yet again a couple of general rules to live by. First, Twitter will never be the “real world”. Just because a certain group of like-minded individuals think and repeat the same things over and over again does not make them correct. Second, it is enlightening to step outside your echo chamber (and we all have built them for ourselves, myself included) because it can be eye-opening to what real people think, say or do. And third, you can have any opinion on James Cameron, but he still got it. And is one of the last true visionaries we have.

The main issue people had with the original Avatar (2009) was the story, respectively, how it lacked originality. And Cameron heard it, hired some decent screenwriters (Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver) and went back to Pandora to build on the previous film. The result was the same but different. Avatar: The Way of Water is a three-hour-long epic we don’t see anymore. The reason; we don’t see films like that anymore is simple – money. It’s well known this movie and its sequel (Avatar 3, 2024); had been shot simultaneously, but the scripts for both Avatar 4 and Avatar 5 have been completed too, meaning he had a plan, a blueprint (pun kind of intended) if you will, for all films before starting to shoot this one. Of course, that costs money, same with shooting two mostly CGI films back-to-back. But it was worth it.

There is a section in Avatar: The Way of Water where you could say, “nothing happens”. We, as audience members, are almost “chilling” and getting to know the oceans of Pandora. But that section was stunning and gave us something many big blockbusters can’t have the luxury of doing – developing many characters and setting them up for future films. I will admit I have always defended Cameron and Avatar, but even I was not sure whether we needed four more sequels. But experiencing this one in the cinema, yeah, I will return happily. As with the previous movie, you need to see it on the largest screen possible to appreciate it. I can only (yet again) regret the nearest IMAX is about three hour drive because I would love to see it in IMAX. I still might because if not something as beautiful as this film, what else?

Ever since the pandemic started, the movie industry has been trying desperately hard to figure out a way to get people back in the cinemas. And 2022 definitely was a year of films doing it correctly, from the “underdogs” (Everything Everywhere All At Once, 2022, my review here) to “I can’t believe this sequel is as good as it is” film like Top Gun: Maverick (2022, my review here). But leave it up to Cameron to come in and make almost 2 billion dollars (!!!) in under a month. And for me, the reason is simple, yet difficult – give people something so stunning and great they have no choice of staying home. Because no matter how big and awesome your home set-up is, Avatar: The Way of Water must be experienced in the cinema. I can imagine this film having some effect when it comes out on streaming or 4K, but as cheesy as it sounds, I don’t think you can watch this at home; you need to experience this film in the cinema.

I also need to mention that this film understands worldbuilding and sequel set-up very well. Because Avatar: The Way of Water isn’t anything revolutionary, at least story-wise. But they have managed to establish all the new characters and expand on the ones we knew from the original, so well it never felt like a “half movie” to me. In the past, I have watched films where it was almost painfully obvious they have so much story to tell but couldn’t layer it well enough into one film (looking at you, Alita: Battle Angel (2019, my review here)) it felt like a sequel baiting, like the director himself would say throughout the film: “There are so many cool things to see/learn about, but you need to pay more to see more.” And this film understood that in order to deliver a satisfying experience, it needs to work on its own. I thought it worked, as nothing big, story-wise, was left unresolved by the end of this film. Sure, we could see the journey of many characters is nowhere near over, but here is the thing – all these characters had the time on the screen for me to be invested in them and understand where they were coming from. No matter whether I agreed or disagreed with what they were doing, because the film utilised the runtime, it wasn’t about the “pretty colours/effects”; many characters were introduced, expanded upon and hinted at as being more important down the road. But it never felt cheap. I will buy the ticket for the third Avatar not because of a cliffhanger ending; I will buy it because I want to see where they will take certain characters and what else we will get to explore. Especially Kiri (played by Sigourney Weaver) and Spider (portrayed by Jack Champion); both seemed to be hinted at throughout this film for us to pay attention to them. Kiri because of her uniqueness (also, great work by Sigourney playing a teenager) and Spider because of his complex character I, at first, didn’t care for. But the further we have gotten, the more I could see how this could be the ultimate “not a good guy but not a bad guy either” type of character who, if the script is done right, might be the most intriguing character. That’s not to discredit the other actors, everyone from the kids to adult Avatars did well, but mainly it was these two characters; who intrigued me the most.

One more thing that’s worth mentioning is the 3D element. As mentioned above, I don’t have IMAX near me, so I went in and saw this movie in “just 3D”, and it still blew me away. Just like in the first film, the 3D never serves as a gimmick, but it gives everything depth and sucks you in. Since I wear glasses when watching screens, I was worried that I would have a headache for not wearing my glasses and going with the 3D ones instead, but no. And it never bothered me in those three hours.

Overall, Avatar: The Way of Water is a good reminder that you never bet against James Cameron. His tenacity in going to the deepest parts of this Earth “just” to film and study creatures and how they survive is admirable. This movie spends most of its runtime in water, and it never once bothered me; on the contrary, I loved my time spent in this world and will buy a ticket for the next Avatar. I guess that might answer the question many on film Twitter were asking – it’s not I “need” more Avatar films; I want more Avatar films. And that’s something; I didn’t think I would write, but here we go. Do yourself a favour and see this on the biggest screen possible; if you haven’t already.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Wow. There is one reason for me to recommend watching the Disney Pinocchio (2022, my review here) by Zemeckis, and that reason is to see the vast difference in quality regarding… well, everything. From the animation style to keeping the same story but setting it into new beats, this version of Pinocchio (also known as Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio, but I will keep it short) is the same at its core but brand new where it counts. It’s a genuinely heart-warming, well-told story about so many different things; it puzzles me how two capable directors can take the same story and characters and tell it so differently. Of course, the elephant in the room is whoever pays the piper calls the tune (Disney probably didn’t give Zemeckis the freedom Guillermo del Toro had with Netflix) but still… The difference, or frankly speaking, the improvement, is jarring.

Let’s start with the animation style – where Zemeckis used a life-like CGI that you could describe as more Disney/child friendly; del Toro shows his affinity for monsters and all things of unusual nature, and his animation style reflects that. In some scenes, there are images that might scare or unsettle your kids, but I would argue it never goes overboard, so this would still be a kids’ film. The way I perceived Pinocchio was very reminiscent of old fairy tales I grew up watching/reading, and people forget how dark the “original stories” can get. And that’s a quality in kids’ films we seem to have forgotten that kids can deal with dark themes, and we shouldn’t shield them from it, especially in art, one of the safest environments. Especially if your kid understands that whatever they see is not real, they will be fine. How is that related to Pinocchio? Well, just take a look at his design; he’s not smooth, he looks wooden and uneven at times. When he lies, his nose sprouts, not just grows (a brilliant touch), and I appreciated these little details that make this film stand out immediately. Guillermo is too smart to use this beautiful stop-motion animation “just because”, and he utilises it to its full potential and then some. Everything looks stunning but somehow a bit “off”, at times unsettling even, and that stays with you.

But even the best, most unique animation style is nothing without a story to support it. And here is where Guillermo strikes again. He isn’t afraid (yet again!) to explore darker themes and go deeper, so we get to know Geppetto’s son Carlo. And then, when Carlo dies (and that’s not a spoiler by any means), we understand Geppetto much better, especially the pain he feels because he loved his son so much. Yes, every Pinocchio film explores this father/son theme but every other version I have seen (I also saw the original Disney Pinocchio from 1940) does not do it as well and explores it as deeply as this version does. Another aspect Guillermo changed was setting this film between the First and the Second World War in the 1930s in Italy. Therefore we can see on the outskirts the rise of fascism and Mussolini. You might think it will not “mash” with a kids’ film, and you would be wrong. It gives this story another layer of brilliance because when Pinocchio gets involved (we don’t get any Land of Toys sequence; instead, we get a military camp), there are stakes, given the situation and historical danger looming everywhere. And I have to repeat myself; it never felt out of place, somehow, Guillermo made it work.

And since I have been name-dropping him, let’s talk about Guillermo, but also, we can’t forget it’s not just his film. Pinocchio was also co-directed by Mark Gustafson. Therefore, every time I said “Guillermo this” and “Guillermo that”, we must remember Mark’s name too. But since Mark is mainly an animator, I will talk mostly about Guillermo, so forgive me. I am now firmly in the “Guillermo is one of the best living directors we have” camp. It took me a while, or maybe he matured more, but his last couple of films have been amazing in my book. And Pinocchio only underscores his evolution as a filmmaker who can take on any movie, no matter how known the story is and make it his own. What also helps is having listened to a bunch of Guillermo’s interviews and how he approaches art, anything from books to films to paintings; he knows his stuff. And you can tell he still keeps his childlike wonder “alive”, and he will turn 60 years in 2024. From now on, anything Guillermo touches, I will be there.

Another thing that was supreme about this version was the voice cast. Just go through the IMDb profile for the entire list, as I won’t list all of them. But I need to mention a couple that stood out. I thought Tilda Swinton and her “Wood Sprite” was great, I liked Gregory Mann as the voice of Pinocchio, and I can’t get over the fact that Cate Blanchett, THE CATE BLANCHETT, voiced a monkey that does not speak but only makes noises. And the reason why she did that is so pure:

Cate Blanchett told Guillermo Del Toro that she wanted a part in this film during work on Nightmare Alley, but the only character that hadn’t been cast yet was Spazzatura, the monkey. To Del Toro’s surprise, Blanchett wanted to voice the character anyway even though they have little actual lines and spent most of the film making sounds. In the making-of documentary, Blanchett and Del Toro confirm that she enthusiastically told him “I’ll do anything. For you, I would play a pencil”.

Trivia section for Pinocchio

But the two real standouts were David Bradley as Geppetto and Ewan McGregor as Sebastian J. Cricket. I only know David from the Harry Potter franchise, and his vocal performance here captured me from the first minute. Dare I say his Geppetto felt more real than what Tom Hanks did with his? Yes, I dare say that. And I say that as a long-time Hanks admirer, but Bradley takes this one, no competition. The same goes for Ewan. He has been one of my favourite actors for a while, but in this film, he truly shines. Even though I liked Jiminy and what Joseph Gordon-Levitt did with his performance, it was the same as the film, more kids-oriented. What Ewan did with his performance was outstanding. He serves as a narrator but is also very active in the story; he has some funny lines/moments, and then he manages to bring the emotion down to more serious levels. He puts so much behind every line reading; he was the first Cricket that made me care about him. In the other versions, I could take him or leave him, but in this film, there is no removing him, otherwise, this film would have lacked something. What a beautiful performance by him.

I rarely cry during movies, even though I seem to be getting “softer” with age, but Pinocchio almost cracked me. Because the main reason this film worked and Zemeckis’ didn’t wasn’t the animation or voice-casting. It comes down to a simple yet most complicated thing possible – having a relevant story that is told well and captures you. Guillermo with Mark managed to take this old, well-known fairy tale and give it their all, turning it into a masterpiece that no previous version (and yes, I am counting the original film from 1940) can’t touch. I bet you anything I have; if Disney hired more people like Guillermo and given them more freedom to do what they excel at, fewer people would be angry at their live-action remakes. Because then the remakes wouldn’t be perceived as simple cash grabs but as an actual attempt to bring those classics to modern times. But what do I know?

Overall, Pinocchio surprised me. I had a hunch this would be great, but not even I thought it would be as outstanding as it ended up being. Guillermo del Toro shows us that it is possible to remake an old story without you wondering why this had to be done. You can tell from every frame this was his passion project (he’s been working on this since 2008), and he poured his heart and soul into it. I am glad it’s on Netflix, as I hope that helps more people to watch it. This version of Pinocchio deserves to be seen and screened at Disney’s headquarters to showcase how to remake old, well-known stories… what is the word I am looking for? Oh, that’s right, “well.” This film shows everyone how to do a remake “well”. I can’t recommend this enough.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I remember the first time I watched a trailer for The Lost City, and that was all it took to hook me in. I like self-aware adventure films; I like Sandra Bullock (not only is she hilarious, she ages better than a fine wine in a French monastery), and Daniel Radcliffe‘s choices continue to surprise me. Plus, since watching both Jump Street films, I knew Channing Tatum has an unexpectedly brilliant comedic talent and timing… this guy is actually hilarious! So when I finally got around to watching this film, I expected to have a good time with zero to no stakes, and that’s what I got exactly.

Let’s be honest; is The Lost City some new, revolutionary comedy during which you will laugh so hard you will piss your pants? No. Is it predictable in almost every aspect? Yes. Does it make fun of a genre of films we don’t really see anymore, at least not done well on the big screen? You bet. But does it also let you know that it respects the genre it is making fun of? Absolutely. The Lost City feels like that kind of film that was designed to bring butts back to the cinemas after the pandemic ended. Or when we decided that we would just ignore it to the best of our abilities whilst hoping that no new, much deadlier, variations won’t arise and eventually kill all of us, same difference. And the task was completed successfully. This film has no desire to blow your mind, to give you something meaningful to ponder; The Lost City simply wants you to have fun.

And for the majority of this film, it works. This film made me realise it’s been almost ten years since we last saw Sandra in a full-on comedy movie; that movie was The Heat (2013, my review here). And The Lost City reminded me how much I missed her in this genre because she is the undisputed queen of that genre. She is funny enough, so she carries this film with ease; she is talented enough to switch between comedy and drama if needed, and most importantly, she knows when to slow down or take a step back to let others around her have their moment. I don’t think Sandra gets the appreciation for the comedy skills she possesses, as she is making it look too easy. So, to the surprise of absolutely nobody, she was great in this film. Her character has funny moments, but she isn’t the centre of attention at all times, which is crucial, as that lets the other performers shine alongside her, not instead of her. And that’s important, especially in some other comedies, and I saw many of them; you could swear you could see the tension between the leading actors. Everybody wants to be “the funny one”, to stand out, and sometimes it shows in the film being simply not funny. But in The Lost City, I felt like Sandra, Channing, and Brad Pitt were just three drinking buddies who had decided one day to make an adventure film together; because why not.

Speaking of Brad Pitt, he might have been the highlight of this film. His over-the-top, nothing can stop me Jack Trainer was a perfect mix of parody and homage to these macho men of mainly the 1980s. I have to repeat myself, but I am enjoying this late stage of Pitt’s career where he got his acting Oscar, and now he seems to be doing projects “just for fun”, where he doesn’t take himself seriously. Good for him, and I hope he continues.

Staying on the “not taking yourself seriously” theme, Channing Tatum, yet again, didn’t disappoint. I think the best thing he decided to do (or maybe somebody gave him this advice some time ago) was: “Don’t be afraid to look absolutely ludicrous.” And he commits, in both Jump Street films and in this movie too; he plays this character of a big, dumb guy who isn’t too dumb to exist but dumb enough for him to be funny, especially when we get a scene or two of his impressive physique. That contrast of him being so awkward and dumb with his physique will never not be funny to me. And this film knows how to utilise it without driving it into overkill. Same with Daniel Radcliffe, who enjoys making odd choices and isn’t afraid to go weird, literally. Even his performance is more subtle than expected, where he never goes overboard with either too nice or too menacing.

And that’s the best thing The Lost City has going for it. It never reached the point of nonsensical jokes or characters that would be so one note they’d become annoying. Again, the worst thing I can say about this film is that it won’t surprise you. There is one “shocking” thing, but even that you will be able to see coming miles away if you have ever seen a comedy. And sometimes, having something reliably predictable can be a nice, almost comforting thing, especially with a cast as great as this one.

Overall, The Lost City delivered exactly; what the trailer promised me some time ago. If you saw any trailers for this movie and it looked good/funny to you, then you should 100% seek this film out as it shouldn’t disappoint you. If you saw the trailer and didn’t like it, it’s probably best for you to avoid this film altogether. That might sound obvious, but from my experience, especially lately, I have seen many great trailers for pretty average to downright terrible movies and vice versa. The Lost City is a rare example where the film delivers on a promise made by a trailer. Nothing less, but unfortunately, nothing more. And based on where you stand, sometimes that’s more than enough.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I went into this movie blind, not knowing anything about it. And when I learned it’s a fantasy story, I hoped I would end up loving it because it’s been a while since we got a truly great fantasy film. And the story got me hyped, I thought there were elements of something magical (even if it kind of reminded me of The NeverEnding Story (1984)), and I was hoping for it to pay off. And it did but only halfway? The rest, unfortunately, got lost in this overabundant mess of CGI.

Let me clarify – Slumberland is a beautiful movie visually, for the most part. At least for the first 30 minutes or so. But after that, the film suffers from everything being CGI, so nothing stands out anymore. It’s like if you order a really spicy meal at a restaurant. The first couple of bites will stand out because it’s new and spicy, and you weren’t expecting to be that spicy. But after several other bites, your mouth will go numb, and since you know what to expect now, it will eventually not surprise you as much. But unlike spice, CGI (and especially CGI that looks kind of “samey”) is something many movies still use because it’s easy and cheaper, and it shows. No matter how beautiful the scenery gets, deep down, you know it’s too shiny; too pretty, and therefore it’s all fake. And that took me out of most of the film. Maybe that is just a “me thing”, but I would rather see practical effects/sets, no matter how laughable they can sometimes be, than CGI effects that make the film feel the same throughout it.

This film is centred around three performers – Jason Momoa, Marlow Barkley and Chris O’Dowd. And I feel like they all deserve to be mentioned, at least briefly. Since Marlow is the youngest one, I was not familiar with her at all, but I thought she did a great job. If her character didn’t click, the movie would have fallen flat. Luckily that wasn’t the case, and Marlow gave a really solid performance. I was happy to see Jason Momoa going for something new, pushing “the silly” in his performance because we don’t often see him as silly, but I thought it mostly worked. But the one who truly surprised me was Chris. He gave probably the best performance of his career (at least from the films of his I saw) and crushed this role. At first, it seems unlikely, given his role is the “boring one”, the responsible boring adult who has the most boring life/hobby possible. And then, the film starts to unwrap his character, and the highlight, the peak of his performance, was him watching a video of his youth and talking about his brother. I wasn’t expecting Chris to ground this film that much, but he did, and that was the shining light in an otherwise vast sea of CGI that gave me hope. I guess what I am trying to say is; we all know and love Chris O’Dowd as the funny, quirky guy. But goddammit, somebody needs to cast him in a proper drama because there is way more to him than what we have seen. I believe that even Slumberland barely scratched the surface of his acting capabilities.

And unfortunately, I could write the same about this entire movie. Slumberland has nice visuals and an intriguing story with a positive message, but… The whole thing feels like it’s only scratching the surface. It never dares to go too deep (besides that one scene with Chris), and we could have used more scenes like that and less CGI. I understand the primary purpose of this film was to be as imaginative as possible, given it is “Kidception“, but the lack of anything creative besides CGI was ultimately where the film failed for me.

If it sounds to you like I am hung up on the CGI element of this film, you are correct because most of it doesn’t look even that believable. So if the majority of your movie consists of questionable CGI and you want to tell this touching family story with a message about not losing that childish spark, it’s hard to focus on that when everything surrounding it looks fake. It’s a shame Slumberland couldn’t have a bigger budget with somebody at the helm insisting on trying some practical stuff, as that could have given us an amazing film. Instead, we ended up with something that will get forgotten about amidst thousands of Netflix movies that should have been better, but they were not.

Overall, Slumberland is a decent film with great performances by our main duo and one excellent performance by Chris O’Dowd. The overreliance on the cheap/samey looking CGI is, unfortunately, what kills a lot of momentum for this film to do anything meaningful, like stay with you for longer than a couple of hours. I get why, for many filmmakers, fantasy equals CGI nowadays (any CGI is still cheaper than sets, locations etc.), but I miss those days of fantasy movies at least striving for something bigger. And I secretly wish somebody who wields power in Hollywood would bring that genre back “properly”. Say what you want about Game of Thrones (2011 – 2019) or how it ended, but in its prime, it was the fantasy show to beat. And a big part of it was the fact they shot on real locations with as many real props as possible.

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

Until next time,

Luke