I wrote on this blog many times about “raw” movies. I have always described them as “going back to the basics”, where you just need a great story and decent actors, and the rest will “take care of itself”. And what is more “back to basics” than the story of Hamlet? That’s right; many know that the Shakespeare stole got inspired by the tale of Amleth from Gesta Danorum (History of the Danes). If you didn’t know that, welcome to the club; I had no idea before watching this movie too. And maybe that’s the reason The Northman works so well, and that story feels so natural in the Viking setting.

If it wasn’t for Everything Everywhere All At Once (2022, my review here), this would have been my favourite film this year (so far) because I admired everything about it. From the action sequences that are often long (or at least longer than what were are used to) and brutal. From the acting performances, where neither of the actors was afraid to be “out there”, to directing style of Robert Eggers, who has an eye for stunning visuals without sacrificing any of the movie’s integrity/logic. What do I mean by that? I believe any director can make a visually stunning shot, but not many can do it while incorporating those within the logic of the movie or scene. The perfect example of this is Zack Snyder. All his films have many stunning shots, and should you judge his movies solely based on those shots alone, all would be awesome. But when you see those shots within the film or scene, they often clash with logic, like Superman flying above the people reaching out for him to save them. It is a cool-looking shot that makes no sense – Superman wouldn’t have lingered over them; he would have saved them, no questions asked. If you don’t remember or don’t understand what I am talking about, see it for yourself here. And this is where The Northman comes back, and Robert Eggers must be complimented. This movie is full of stunning shots, but not even once was I pulled out of the film because they all made sense. It’s almost like Eggers lets the story tell him how it needs to be shot, whereas Snyder starts with something cool and shoots everything around that idea.

I loved my cinema experience and seeing such a simple yet powerful story told so well. The setting worked for me from the get-go, yet again something I need to attribute to Eggers’ direction. Everything felt natural, the action felt raw and brutal, yet it never felt forced or out of place. That can often be an issue, especially with historical films based on cultures known to be “a bit” on the violent side. And Vikings definitely have always been one of those I’ve learned in school, how they would ravage villages and conquer everything. Speaking of Vikings, is there anyone better suited for this role than Alexander Skarsgård? Let’s talk about the casting, and we need to start with him.

I already have made the joke about Alexander’s muscles having muscles in my review for The Legend of Tarzan (2016, my review here). Well, in this film, it seemed like those muscles have grown, entered puberty, went out, fucked other muscles and had muscle babies on his body because goddamn. If I looked 10% as good as Alexander did in this film, I would be so proud of myself. But this role wasn’t just about his insane physique; it was more visceral. When you watch his Amleth, you might be tempted to think he isn’t doing anything ground-breaking here because it seems pretty straightforward. I would argue differently; he had to be Shakespearean without leaning fully into that, plus he had to combine it with this animalistic behaviour. The result worked for me, his character seems “switched on” for his time, but you can always tell there is a wild beast behind those eyes who is seeking revenge and will go out of his way to make it happen.

Yes, both Ethan Hawke and Willem Dafoe are in this movie, but they both have limited time here, so they are always reliable but neither did something “outstanding” simply due to them not having more time. Who we need to talk about, however, are Nicole Kidman and Anya Taylor-Joy. Both are talented, amazing actresses in two very different roles. Nicole shined and wasn’t afraid to lean into the madness her character was consumed with. She has a monologue many people refer to when talking about her performance near the end of the film that is so on edge between genius and insane I would understand people telling me she was the best or the worst part about this film. Honestly, it was one of those rare moments you can read it any way you want – she either went full-on into this insane character, or she just danced too close to the fire and burned herself. I have been a fan of Nicole for the longest time, so it seemed perfect, but I might be biased.

Anya Taylor-Joy continues to impress me. Look, I am on the Internet and have seen all the jokes about her looks, even though I still don’t understand them. Does she look unique? Sure. Is that bad? Absolutely not she’s breathtaking. And what’s much more important here, she is proving time and time again she’s got talent. Her character (Olga) could have been one of those “I am strong because the screenwriter told me I am strong” characters, but no. Anya portrays her so well – you can tell her character is the smart one, and she is scheming (as that is what you had to do to survive), and because of her smarts, she is a strong character. But in all of Anya’s scenes, there was something behind her eyes where I felt the character knows she isn’t as strong; she’s “just” bluffing because she must to survive. And that was “the thing” that made her strong – standing up for herself, being smarter than most people in this film, fully knowing if you get caught scheming, that’s you done. I can’t wait to see Anya in more movies, mainly in the Furiosa (2024) prequel.

Another aspect of having such a brilliant director at the helm and another aspect of this film I want to talk about a bit more are the action scenes. I have already mentioned they are not cut to death as we are used to being, most were shot with long takes, and I always appreciate that. But there is another thing I haven’t seen mentioned that often – in this film, a few of those scenes take place in the dark (evening, night). And where a director who doesn’t know what he’s doing or is less sure of himself would use that to “cheat”, and we would see nothing except for brief flashes of butts getting kicked, The Northman delivers. I don’t think I was confused once; I always knew where we were, who was where and even the darker scenes were easy to follow. It feels weird complimenting a film for us not getting lost during fight sequences but let’s face it, we all know what I am talking about. Not many directors can do action scenes well anymore, either due to lack of resources, time, or both. Yet another reason to appreciate this film being made as well as it is.

Overall, The Northman isn’t anything revolutionary in its story. But its strengths are how the story is told and its cast. Everybody involved is doing their best the movie retells one of the most known stories of all time but does it so well you won’t care about knowing every twist and turn. I sat back and let myself get lost in that time period, and those 137 minutes flew by like nothing. Another mark of a brilliant movie is you never feel the time, and I have not once felt bored. So far, definitely one of the best movies of 2022 and I would be surprised if this ends up not in my TOP 5 at least.

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 are into movies whatsoever, if you consider yourself a movie fan or a cinephile, you must have heard of this film by now. I can’t remember the last time a relatively small movie made such a splash, word of mouth travelled that fast, and it became the highest-grossing movie produced by A24, at least in the US. It also became (for a brief period) the best-rated movie on Letterboxd (if you are there, don’t forget to give me a follow. Yes, shameless plug, I know). While writing this review, it dropped to number three of all time. So yeah, no pressure in seeing it, right? I mean, how could a movie possibly live up to this kind of hype? And I couldn’t see it any sooner as it came to Scottish theatres middle of May, so by the time I was seated in the cinema, everybody and their cinephile mom were raving about this film. I was as excited as I was scared that somehow, this won’t live up to the hype. But guess what? It superseded my expectations.

Everything Everywhere All At Once is the best example of taking a concept that’s been very popular lately (multiverse) and using it as a tool for your story. But at the same, the movie isn’t about “look how well we can utilise this concept!” no. I mean… yes, it’s partly about that because they (and by they, I mean the writers and directors Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert) go fucking wild with it. Literally, anything goes in this film. But ultimately, they are smart enough to tell a personal story, in between all this multiverse madness anybody can relate to. And it works. It works so beautifully I don’t understand how it works. How does a movie like this exist? How can somebody make those bizarrely funny scenes to be hilarious and not cringy? How come a film can make you emotional by just showing you some rocks? That is what I mean by wild this movie takes the multiverse concept and doesn’t just run with it; it straight up flies with it into the stratosphere. And yet, somehow, it never forgets the “simple” story about one family; that is at the heart of this movie. How did they make it so effectively?!

I believe a big part of the movie’s success is the actors. Five actors are somehow important in this movie’s success – Michelle Yeoh, Stephanie Hsu, Ke Huy Quan, James Hong and Jamie Lee Curtis. The thing is, you could argue that any of those are the “heart” of the movie to an extent because this film digs deep into relationships. It examines the relationship between mother and daughter (Michelle and Stephanie), wife and husband (Michelle and Ke Huy), between generations (whether it’s dad and daughter or granddaughter and granddad) or your relationship with the outside world (everybody and Jamie Lee). This movie touches on everything, and somehow, not one of those felt short shifted. The film is almost 140 minutes long, but somehow it felt longer and yet shorter at the same time. What Everything Everywhere All At Once manages to address within those 140 minutes felt incredibly packed (because it is, it goes through so many things), but it also felt short. I wouldn’t mind spending another 30 minutes in this world because the movie just flew by.

Let’s discuss these actors. Michelle Yeoh is phenomenal in this role. She is funny; she kicks some ass, she is serious… While watching this film, you almost feel like saying: “Ok, Michelle, we get it, you can do it all. Can you stop showing off and making it look so easy? Thanks.” But not really, because I was flabbergasted by her performance. Other actors on the same level as Michelle were Ke Huy Quan and Jamie Lee Curtis. You might know Ke Huy from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984). Yep, he played Short Round. His character needs to be on the same level as Michelle’s character otherwise, their chemistry wouldn’t have worked as well, and boy, did he deliver. He goes from funny to earnest without a flinch. And, he might have the most heartbreaking line of this entire movie, where you truly understand his character and what he stands for; what a brilliant performance by him. And Jamie Lee Curtis seems to be having the most fun in ages with her role of IRS clerk. She is as committed to every single crazy decision her character goes through as anybody in this film. The thing with her character, in any other movie, it would have been just that “mean, old, possibly racist lady”. But in this film, not only the script gives her more to do (due to the multiverse nature), but Jamie Lee sells you that performance. She also has some touching scenes with Michelle’s character.

Stephanie and James are equally important to the overall story (mainly Stephanie), but they are not on the same level as the previous three performers. But this isn’t a negative; quite the opposite. The only reason they aren’t on their level is that for the story to make sense, they can’t be. They need to be on a different level and do separate things with their characters, not try to match them. And they both do it beautifully. I can’t wait to see Stephanie in more films and James… This film made me realise that this man has been in so many different movies it’s low key insane. He has 453 (!!!) acting credits on IMDb and was born in 1929. Yep, acting for most of his life, he’s always a welcome addition and finally got a bigger chance to shine in this film, and he nailed it. The same goes for Stephanie; she played such a relatable character so well that one can’t help but root for her. Even if she creates the “everything bagel”. What does it mean? Go and see the film for yourself!

That’s right, I won’t go to spoilers, even if that means I can’t discuss everything properly. But I would encourage everybody (everywhere, all at once!) to go and see and discover this movie for themselves. If you have never heard of this film (somehow), that’s awesome. Don’t watch any trailers, don’t look up any information about this film, go and support it in your local cinema.

Everything Everywhere All At Once is the perfect example of what originality means. Because many believe there are no more original ideas anymore. And to a degree, that’s correct. Everything has been done, said, performed or sung before. But where originality lies and can still be found is in movies like this, where they utilize a concept we are all familiar with (multiverse), centre it in a story that’s intimate and relatable and have fun with everything else. Because that is what this movie ultimately is – it’s part drama, part comedy, part sci-fi, part action, but ultimately, it’s a whole package. It’s like a dish you make, and you put everything (everywhere all at once!) you find in your kitchen into that dish. 99% of the time, it fails because there is simply too much happening in that dish. But occasionally, there might be that 1% where you put combinations together that shouldn’t have worked but somehow, they do. This movie is that in a nutshell. I believe if you were to read a full-on spoiler description that tries to explain everything (everywhere all at once!) that happens in this film, you might think: “There is no way this movie will be any good!” But this film is in that 1% where it shouldn’t work. It shouldn’t be this good, and yet, it is.

Overall, Everything Everywhere All At Once needs to be watched by as many people as possible. I wish nothing more but for this film to be seen by the masses, by those who complain “there are no more original movies anymore”. There are, but you need to support them. You must show up when people tell you it’s actually a great movie. And I beg everyone who reads this review (albeit it might be only a few people) to go and see it if they haven’t. Fuck it; even if they had, go and watch it again. I will, and I rarely re-watch movies, let alone in the cinema. I will take my girlfriend to see this movie and try to convince more people to give this movie a chance. If you go and see it, don’t go into it thinking: “I might see the best movies ever made.” No. Go into it thinking: “I might see one of the most original movies ever made.” And whether you like it or not, I can guarantee you, you won’t see a more original movie in the cinemas this year. There is so much more to discuss I could write another 5000 words; nevertheless, I don’t think I would do this film justice. Everything Everywhere All At Once surpassed the hype. It’s truly all I wanted it to be and more. I can’t wait to see it (in the cinema!) again. And then, many more times at home. It might be too soon to say this, but I can’t see any other movie topping this one, at least regarding my personal TOP 19 films for 2022. And what a year it’s been, and we are not even halfway through!

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

Until next time,

Luke

I will be honest; I didn’t think I would like this film. Don’t get me wrong, I love me some good murder mysteries, but the previous film Poirot film, Murder on the Orient Express (2017), left me cold. I am not saying it was a bad movie, no. It is more about the fact I only remember the stellar cast, the ending that I didn’t care for that much, and that was it. Therefore, I thought Death on the Nile might be similar enough for me. To my surprise, I’ve enjoyed myself, and I still don’t know why.

First things first – we need to acknowledge that the CGI is terrible, especially at the beginning of this film; it looks rough. Everything (well, mainly the scenes in Egypt) looked too polished to be realistic. But from the moment all our main characters got on the boat, and the ‘A’ story kicked in, I had fun with this film. Kenneth Branagh seems more than in the previous film to be stretching his director’s muscles and framing certain shots in a very intriguing way. And after a while, I don’t know whether I got used to the CGI or whether it got slightly better; I didn’t mind it as much.

The one thing I liked about this film, it tried to give Hercule Poirot more backstory. Now, I understand that might be a bone of contention if you are a fan of the books or the old TV show with David Suchet, as I was watching this movie with my girlfriend, who (unlike me) is a massive fan of the old TV show and didn’t like how they were going about his character. I found that interesting since I had no previous notions about that character; I thought and liked they flashed him out a bit more. Plus, I would argue this is a new retelling of Poirot, so why not make him slightly different from his previous reiteration?

Let’s talk about the casting. And wow… almost every main star has been in some hot water lately. You can pick your poison and see whether you want to focus on Letitia Wright and her stance on vaccines, Armie Hammer and his… taste for blood (among other things) or Gal Gadot and her views on Israel/Palestine. Oh boy… or, and hear me out here, we can try to put all these aside just for a second and focus only on their performances…? Because to me, that sounds simpler than trying to establish who stands where and whether they are right or wrong. I thought the cast, for the most part, worked.

I would argue the highlight of this film was Emma Mackey alongside Sophie Okonedo, who were both amazing. Gal Gadot, when she wasn’t being her sexy self, was serviceable. Armie, I thought, was a bit off at times; Letitia did pretty great with what she had available. I also need to mention Annette Bening, who might have been the funniest character in this film. And as I’ve alluded to before, Kenneth Branagh, as Hercule himself, seemed much more comfortable in this character. He portrayed Hercule with some flaws that made the character human, and that was a decision I appreciated, even though I understand not everybody will be on board with that.

The mystery at the heart of this story was pretty straightforward. I actually guessed it all when it started. I am not even joking when I say I knew what happened and who was behind it; from the moment the murder occurred. Surprisingly, it didn’t take anything away from this film or my enjoyment of it because I liked the journey Death on the Nile took me on. And I can’t help but think it’s due to Kenneth’s directing I was entertained enough even if I knew how this would play out. Or maybe I was just in an extraordinarily great mood the evening I watched this film? Also, my weakness for Egypt and movies set in there might have something to do with the fact I have enjoyed myself more than I thought.

I remember thinking to myself after the Murder on the Orient Express that these films might not be for me, despite the impressive cast. But Death on the Nile made me appreciate this detective much more, and if Kenneth would get the chance to give us at least one more film, where he would again be the main star and behind the camera (maybe with less CGI this time), I would be on board. Well, not literally on board because that’s where people get murdered, but you get me. 😉

Overall, Death on the Nile is a film I would mildly recommend. Is it something that will rock your world? No, probably not. Is the movie perfect? Again, no, the CGI was awful, mainly in the first half of this movie. And yet, because of this vast cast of talented (yet somehow troublesome) individuals, the story setting and Kenneth’s directing takes this film slightly higher than I thought it would go. I went into this movie expecting a decent enough murder mystery. But I got more than that, and I left the film in a mostly good mood, even if the film wasn’t 100% perfect. I didn’t think I would say something like this, but I would like to see where Kenneth would take this character next.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I have always said I love all movies equally. What that means is I don’t have a genre I would dislike (for example, I know people who hate musicals, westerns etc.) And I have never had that issue. Until I discovered I might struggle at times with your old-timey movies that many call “pretty dresses, and people struggling with stuff we mostly no longer struggle with”. And don’t get me wrong, I don’t avoid them, but for whatever reason, they mostly don’t click with me. That is why I was sceptical when my girlfriend suggested we should start watching Downton Abbey (2010 – 2015) together. Imagine my surprise when I was enjoying this entire show as it was well made, brilliantly cast drama that didn’t shy away from dealing with some tough subjects. Then, they decided to make a movie called (surprisingly) Downton Abbey (2019), and I remember liking it (rated it 4.5/5*). But for whatever reason, I wasn’t sure about this new one, as I thought the “Downton magic” might have gone away. It has been a couple of years since I’ve watched the show and the film I only watched once when it came out in the cinema. But I thought I should go back and see whether this world is no longer for me. Well, long story short, it took me about ten minutes before I was back in, and I think Downton Abbey: A New Era is even better than its predecessor.

My main concern going into this film was how do you keep things fresh? Yes, we love these characters and like spending time with them, but you need to have a story to tell; otherwise, you have no movie. Well, this film did a clever thing, where we split the “family” and get two stories happening at once. Part of the family goes to France to deal with a sudden inheritance, and the other stays behind to… watch a movie being made? Yep, even the lords of Downton are slowly running out of money, so when a movie production approaches them about whether they could use the abbey for filming, they (albeit reluctantly) say yes. And both these storylines brought something new, and that is the reason why I loved this film.

I enjoyed the French part of this movie because we get to know more about one of my favourite characters, Violet ‘Dowager’ Crawley, aka Dame Maggie Smith. It’s funny that in reality, you wouldn’t probably like her character, as she personifies that life-style. “A bit” snobby at times, definitely raised to believe because they own lands, they are better than “common folk”, but… Dame Maggie Smith portrays her so brilliantly that you can’t help but fall in love with her character. And in this movie, she is the reason the French storyline happens, as she inherits a chateau, and that fact alone raises more questions about what might have happened there that one week when she was young. I enjoyed looking back at her past before she became the “noble” lady and how they humanized her, even if the “final result” might not be as scandalous as you might expect. Also, there is a surprise mystery to this French element of the film I won’t spoil because I didn’t know about it and had fun thinking about whether “that thing” is true and what would it mean for this world if it were.

Since I am a cinephile, I loved the “making a silent film at Downton” part. How it wasn’t just about the production, it was more about the cinema shifting from silent films to “talkies” and how that affected not only that production but also actors who, up until then, had to only rely on their gestures rather than voices/performances as we think of those now. I also liked how the filmmakers managed to involve most of Downton’s staff to contribute at some point. Sure, that might have been an obvious move to have them involved, but if you think about how productions work today, it makes sense as to why would we have to look for extras if they had people around just then? Also, I need to give a special shoutout to Laura Haddock as her Myrna character was fun, and because of her, you were rooting for her.

Downton Abbey: A New Era made me realise I don’t struggle with “pretty dresses, people struggling with stuff we mostly no longer struggle with” movies. Give me intriguing storylines and, most importantly, great characters and I am there. Sure, what helps in this specific case is you have hours of material in the form of the TV show, so you get to know these characters inside and out. And maybe that is where the key lies for my enjoyment…? Instead of making movies from this time period that need to pack a lot in them for you to “get into the world”, TV is where this genre shines?

What I also enjoyed was how they wrapped up storylines for certain characters. Again, I won’t spoil anything, but I will say everything this movie did with a couple of beloved characters felt satisfying. It almost felt like a farewell to Downton, but (and this is something I never thought I would write) I would love to see another Downton Abbey film. Yes, I am still all in this world. No, I wouldn’t want to go back and live in that era, but I’ve grown to like these characters, and I wouldn’t mind seeing them one more time to give some other characters closure. But, if Downton Abbey: A New Era will be the last time we get to visit this world, they did their farewell brilliantly.

Overall, Downton Abbey: A New Era is a must-see for any fan of the original TV show. The film never felt stale; quite the opposite, both storylines were funny, charming, and intriguing, and the movie still had the “Downton Abbey” essence that managed to pull me in, even after not watching anything Downton related for a few years. And it’s a Downton movie for sure, meaning you will laugh, you will smile, and there are scenes you will probably cry as they still know how to hit you in the feels. I enjoyed my cinema experience, and I can’t recommend this movie enough. If you are a fan of this show, it truly is a must-see event.

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

Until next time,

Luke

It would seem we might have a new “power couple” on our hands. We used to have Martin Scorsese working a few times with Robert De Niro and, later on, with Leonardo DiCaprio. Or Ridley Scott, making a few movies with Russell Crowe. Well, now, we have Shawn Levy and Ryan Reynolds in their second collaboration (the first being Free Guy (2021, my review here)) and the third one is coming up, as Levy was announced as the director for Deadpool 3 (no date yet). And for what it is worth, I think this collaboration works well even if The Adam Project didn’t break any new ground. What it did, though, was one fun movie.

The first surprise for me was the casting of young Ryan. Yes, I am talking about Walker Scobell, whose name you should probably remember, as I believe he might be the next big star. He nailed the way Ryan talks without it sounding forced or awkward. Also, he got cast as Percy Jackson in the new Disney+ show Percy Jackson and the Olympians (2023), and I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if he got the part of Percy for his performance in this film because he was great. He was, in fact, so great I might check out that TV show and I wasn’t that interested in it. Especially considering he had to go up “against” megastars like Ryan, Jennifer Garner, Zoe Saldana, Catherine Keener or Mark Ruffalo. Yep, as you can see, just from these names, the casting here is full of talented performers who all done well. But I would like to focus on Jennifer and Zoe.

For Jennifer, I will say she has done an amazing job. You understand her pain; you believe she is just a single mum trying to do the best she can with a son who can be “a bit” of a pain in her ass. Her scenes with Ryan, where he is older now and realising how he wasn’t making anything easy for her, were surprisingly touching. But for me, the real heart of the story was Ryan’s relationship with Zoe. From the moment they reunite until they have to go their separate ways, you can tell how much they care for each other. You can also see why Ryan’s character would risk everything for her. Also, on an unrelated point, it was nice to see Zoe Saldana in her “original” skin colour as she seems to be Hollywood’s top pick for “Hey, who do we cast to play this blue/green/purple alien? Oh yeah, Zoe Saldana exists; let me speed dial her real quick.” Anyway, even though her role wasn’t as big as others and she didn’t have plenty of screen time, she made an impact, and she was one of the reasons I enjoyed this film.

The Adam Project is a sneaky movie. Because yeah, it’s a sci-fi story. But it utilises that element to tell a pretty compelling drama about past mistakes and complicated relationships (whether it is between family or romantic relationships), and the film blends those two genres really well. Again, is it breaking any new ground? No, to be honest. But you will have a good time with this film as it is a well-blended cocktail of fun and seriousness, the jokes work, and the emotional scenes land.

Also, let’s talk about the main star of this film, Ryan Reynolds. If you look at his performance here from far, you could say he’s just being his typical self, kind of Deadpool character. But look at it more closely, and you might see that he’s got more earnest moments/scenes, and he is nailing them all. It would be easy to write: “Ryan Reynolds is being another version of him, again.” And sure, there is some element of that; I don’t think that will ever go away. But not because he’s playing one character; no, it might be because that is who he is. And in this film, he showcased much more than his snappy, quick-witted side, and I appreciated that. I wouldn’t be surprised if he wins an Oscar in about ten years, as I think he is getting better and better, and he can make these characters work in his favour.

The only real “issue” I had with this film was its predictability. You knew where the story was going; you could see every twist and turn coming from a mile away. But I honestly don’t think it takes much away, at least in this case. Because the film has a reasonable length, it never overstays its welcome, and again, the casting makes all moments work. The comedic ones and dramatic ones land, and you walk away smiling.

Overall, The Adam Project is a fun half sci-fi, half drama that mixes those genres surprisingly well. The script is decent, the performances were superb across the board, and it seems the new Hollywood duo Levy & Reynolds is having fun. And as longest they can transport that fun onto the screens, I will be rooting for both. This film won’t shake your world, but here’s the thing, it’s perfectly fine for a movie to be “just” fun and not “life-changing”. The Adam Project is the prime example of a fun family movie you put on one Saturday afternoon, and it doesn’t matter how big your family is; there is something for everyone in here. And I love we still get these family films with “higher” concepts. I would definitely recommend you to watch it.

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

Until next time,

Luke

There are two types of movies. Mystery movies and “mystery” movies. The first type is your mystery murder stuff, ghost mysteries; you get the drill. The second type is “how did they manage to take something decent and totally fuck it up” mysteries. Take, oh, I don’t know… Deep Water, for example. Adrian Lyne was once considered one of the best directors for “sexy thriller films” came out of his… I guess retirement? Semi-retirement? Anyway, he hadn’t done a film since Unfaithful (2002). So Lyne came back to direct a movie for the first in 20 years, having one of the sex symbols of today in front of the camera (Ana de Armas) while having her partner at the time, Ben Affleck, there, too. And yet… Despite everything being there in theory, the reality of the situation is that this movie is terrible.

Deep Water has been out only briefly, yet it almost is a cliché to write “it’s neither sexy nor thrilling enough”. Unfortunately, every cliché is a cliché for a reason, and there is no better way to describe this film. You can tell the bones, the structure is there, as the film was based on a book from 1957 with the same name. I can’t comment on the book’s quality as I’ve not read it, but even from the film, you can tell something was there in the original story. But I can’t help to think this was misdirected to hell. Maybe there was some studio interference, and who knows, possibly a year from now, we will get the LyneCut (should we start #ReleaseTheLyneCut?) that will absolve Lyne from any blame. Until then, I could only comment on what I saw; and that something was… boring.

The main issue Deep Water had was the lack of ambience or an atmosphere, call it whatever you want. I believe that is one of those things that made other films by Lyne back in the ’90s so famous. They weren’t “high” cinema, but there is a reason people liked those films as there was some electricity between the leads (usually), and all those films had this atmosphere that (for the most part) works even today. Sure, it might come off as cheesy at times, and not everything will age well, but still, there was something about those films you could feel. And there is nothing like that in Deep Water. Excuse me, but how do you make a movie with Ana de Armas, and it doesn’t feel sexy; that’s an achievement within itself, but not the good kind.

I can’t even blame the leads, as I think they were doing precisely; what they were (probably) asked to do. Ana de Armas is perfect in this role, exuding the sexiness and confidence needed for this role because Ana knows she is sexy. Even when the movie wasn’t firing on all cylinders, she was superb by simply her being and carrying herself in an unbelievably sensual way. I know “sexiness” can have many definitions by many people, but for me, there is nothing sexier than seeing a woman carry herself as Ana de Armas does in this film. She isn’t shouting from the rooftops about how hot she is or bragging about it; it’s all in those eyes. The eyes; that tell you and everyone: “Look, I know how sexy I am; I own a mirror.”

Ben Affleck might be a bit broody and “meh” in this film, but I could imagine these were his directions. He’s supposed to be this “dark, mysterious, broody millionaire”. Speaking of that, is there any other kind? Because if you are only “dark, mysterious and broody” without the millionaire part, that’s a pretty boring movie, isn’t it? Anyway, I thought he was fine in this film. Not great by any means, as Ana “stole” whatever was worth stealing from this film for herself.

The reason I believe Deep Water is a misdirected film is simple. All parts to making a good, if not a great film, are present here. But this film feels “old”. It felt like Lyne directed this movie to see whether he still has it after 20 years of not directing anything. I would say, maybe try a different genre? For a thriller, this film’s mystery is pretty see-through where you are thinking to yourself: “No, that can’t be it. There will be a twist at the end.” So you spend the entire movie trying to come up with a twist, only to discover that… no, that is really it. That’s the story. And for “sexy thriller”, it’s nowhere near sexy enough. The fact we get to see Ana naked a couple of times is appreciated, but that doesn’t make this film sexy. And the sex scenes between her and Ben’s character… Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, don’t get me started on those. One of those was edited to fuck that you don’t know whether they are fucking or fighting and others (like maybe two?) aren’t worth mentioning. Deep Water looks new and has “new and modern” actors, but it feels old. The times have moved on; the audience nowadays has seen so much they will see through you in the first five minutes. And if you don’t evolve with the audience, then… you might end up directing Deep Water.

Overall, Deep Water is a film I went into expecting nothing, and that’s pretty much what I got. Affleck gives an ok performance, Ana de Armas shines just being herself (read: wins by default), and the story is intriguing because you expect more. You, the audience, effectively make it more intriguing by thinking about what else will happen because surely, that can’t be it, can it? Yes, yes it can. If you are a hardcore Affleck or de Armas fan, I would imagine you could give this a shot…? Otherwise, I can’t imagine most people having a good time with this film.

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

Until next time,

Luke