The king of action slow-motion is back. And this time, instead of making sequels to the Transformers franchise, he’s remaking a French movie from 2005 called, (not) surprisingly, Ambulance? Yep, the movie world can be a weird place at times. Anyway, he does it in his style, inviting the hottest actors (Jake Gyllenhaal, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Eiza González) and directing it in what best can be described as “Michael Bay hard”. Except he found drones, so the action looks more lively without as many cuts. And that results in a surprisingly decent action film.

On my Letterboxd (username is InMoviesLost if you feel like following me there), I wrote about this film the following:

I feel like watching Ambulance must be how it feels to witness your first-ever Nascar race live. Thrilling, then it gets boring and it stays purely American for the entire time. The first hour is a thrilling adrenaline ride, only for you to quickly realize that this is pretty much all you get, so even the nonstop action starts to bore you. I enjoyed myself mostly but I won’t be in any rush to rewatch it any time soon. Also, Bay referencing two of his movies… I don’t know if that is the most self-centred thing ever, but somehow it didn’t feel out of place. It felt like something only Bay would have done.

My review of Ambulance

And I think that still sums up the film well. I was in it for the first hour. I liked the fast-paced action; I liked Yahya’s character; Jake understood he was in Michael Bay’s film and acted accordingly. What does that mean, you might ask? That means that Jake’s performance here might be the most unhinged I have seen in a while, possibly ever. But since he is a great actor, he understood he couldn’t act unhinged from the beginning; he slowly builds up towards it. And Eiza… I was surprised, given Bay’s history and his treatment of his female actresses and their characters, she was a surprisingly fleshed-out character with almost no “perv” shots (something Bay has made a career of, for more examples, watch any Transformers movies). So I was happy with our leading trio and the first hour of this wild movie.

The issue is the movie doesn’t have peaks and valleys. It is just one steady line of action, driving the ambulance and avoiding the police. Yes, the film tries to have some serious moments with Moses Ingram, who plays Yahya’s wife, but that storyline doesn’t get nearly enough time to be as impactful as the movie would like. So after that first hour, you start to get bored because it hits this weird spot where there are things happening, but you are almost numb to it, given there doesn’t seem to be any level of danger. Jake and Yahya are doing the best they can, but something tells me this film shouldn’t have been directed by Bay. If the film wants to be half action, half drama, we would have to get a different director altogether; as Bay can do action well, but “the drama” was never his forte. And I think this is where the cookie crumbled for me.

This is where I go back to what I have written on my Letterboxd already; and my Nascar analogy. If you have never watched it live (like me) and ended up at one of the stadiums to witness it, you would probably have a blast for the first hour or so. But then, since they are “only going in circles”, as the old joke goes, it gets boring. Ambulance was the same way. Once the film went past the hour mark, it started to get repetitive, and the film had to get louder; it must have had some more insane scenes (like operation over Facetime) and the more it goes, the dumber it becomes.

I will give you a perfect example of “the dumb” – at the end of this film, Eiza’s character does something nice for an unspecified character (without going into spoilers). And even though what she does is understandable (to an extent), the way she does it (in front of many people, including police officers) is simply so fucking dumb. And since this is Michael Bay’s film, nobody notices it, and she is allowed to do it and be the hero. If you have seen the movie, you know what I am talking about. Here is the thing – that scene could have been fixed simply by doing it a few days/weeks later. Eiza would do the same thing somewhere else, just her and the other character, and it would have worked much better. But that’s Michael Bay for you; he’s too focused on making shots look cool and operating those drones nowadays; he doesn’t pay attention to these tiny “details”. “Logic? What’s that? We need more drone footage, and we need it yesterday!” – Michael Bay on the set of Ambulance, probably.

Overall, Ambulance is a surprisingly solid action flick that is too long for its own good. The longer it goes, the dumber it gets but not in a good way, like “it’s so dumb it’s good!” kind of film, more like “it’s so dumb I wish it would have ended already”. What uplifts this film more than other flicks by Bay is the cast, as Jake, Yahya and Eiza are likeable and capable actors who know what they need to do. Especially Jake is as unhinged as you will see him in some time. I would cautiously recommend Ambulance if you want something big, dumb and actiony to watch.

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 three things you can count on in this world, death, taxes, and if you were ever a huge Hollywood star, you would eventually get a biopic about you. Now, whether it will be a good biopic or not depends on many factors. Take Judy, for example. Judy Garland is one of the most influential actresses and icons to ever lived. So you would expect her biopic would honour such a legend, and it would be jam-packed full of details we might not have known about her. And that’s not the case. I remember thinking when this movie was coming out how weird the reception was – every movie critic said pretty much the same – the movie is “ok”, but Renée Zellweger is spectacular. And to prove the point, yes, everyone almost forgot about this film, even the Oscars, that only nominated Judy twice, one nomination for Makeup and Hairstyling and the other for Renée, who turned the nomination into a win. But nothing else, no director, best movie, editing… Until I watched Judy, it puzzled me because if you are familiar with Oscars and biopics, you know that’s usually their “weak spot” the Academy will nominate anything. And I completely understood it when I finally watched this film a few weeks ago.

I honestly believe if this film were about almost anyone else than Judy Garland, it would get better reception. The movie’s biggest downfall is that it’s just your stereotypical biopic where we watch the past (Judy making The Wizard of Oz (1939) and her rise to what she becomes) and the present where she is, to put it very mildly, struggling. And this film shows us how we got from point A to B. And that’s it. I am usually all about simplicity, but for such a legend, it was simply not enough. It almost felt like they did the bare minimum they had to do. I am not Judy Garland’s number one fan by any means but most of the things this film showcased I knew already. And if your biopic tells me almost nothing new, that’s an issue, and again, I am not a hardcore fan of Judy’s by any means, so now imagine how those must have felt.

I think where the discrepancy lies the most is the film does its usual biopic thing for most of its runtime, and then, the last 20 minutes come. The final, pivotal scene of the movie happens, and for those 20 minutes, I felt a bit of magic happen, where the film made me, in fact, care about what is happening. It felt like it suddenly stepped out of its comfort zone and wasn’t afraid to put us in the audience for one of Judy’s shows. Those last 20 minutes were brilliant, heartbreaking and perfect. It’s too bad the rest of the film couldn’t be half as great as them.

The more I thought about it when the film was over, the clearer it became that this should have never been a movie. Especially now, when streaming services, for better or worse, dominate everything, this should have been a limited TV show. I would have been down with four to six one-hour episodes about Judy’s life, where we could see more than what is available on her Wikipedia page. Because she is one of the first original movie stars, she, in many ways, was the pioneer for many things, from stardom to awful things like abuse from her bosses, various addictions and struggling her will to live due to that. And Judy gives you the bare minimum for you to understand it, but it does it in such an unimaginative, boring way it’s not worthy of having Judy’s name next to it. For someone who has managed to do and influence so much even after her untimely death, for a cultural icon she undoubtedly was, this biopic was just… fine. And fine is, you know, fine. There is nothing wrong with fine. But if you are talking about legends and all you get is 100 minutes of “fine” and 20 minutes of brilliance, you wish it were the other way around.

So now, yes, I completely get the reception I heard about ever since this movie came out. Because Judy isn’t a bad film by any means, it’s technically made well and mostly intriguing (the less you know about Judy, the better for you). But the only two parts that are truly worth it are the last 20 minutes and Renée’s incredible performance. She truly lives and breathes this role, she never once slips out of it, and it’s no wonder that the Academy couldn’t ignore her, even though they were more than happy to ignore the rest of this film. Renée, without a doubt, deserved that Oscar. Because of her performance alone, I have actually raised my overall rating of this film because up until the last 20 minutes; I was sure this was a slightly better-than-average biopic. But the way she delivered throughout the film and towards the end made me reconsider my rating just a tiny bit. This movie should be studied on many fronts, mainly how (not) to make a biopic and how your main star can uplift an average film to new heights.

Overall, Judy is a truly fascinating movie for the wrong reasons. It’s a case study on how to make the most paint-by-number biopic whilst almost stumbling into a brilliant 20 minutes of the film towards the end. The one and only thing the people behind this movie did correctly was casting – because Renée genuinely does everything in her power to uplift this otherwise “fine” movie. And “fine” shouldn’t be a word used to describe a biopic about one of the most legendary stars of Hollywood’s golden era, Judy Garland. She deserved better; we all did.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Does anybody know what Netflix is doing anymore? Cancelling shows, increasing prices, losing subscribers and then, they (reportedly) give $200 million for a film like The Gray Man? Look, this review will be mostly positive as I enjoyed it just fine, but somebody at Netflix has lost the plot. Sure, you can see they get the biggest stars and travel on locations (the scene in Prague was the highlight for me, but I might be biased), yet if the result still seems like a “James Bond on a diet”, something is wrong.

As promised, let’s start with some positives. The cast is great. But that’s almost cheating when you have Ryan Gosling, Chris Evans, Ana de Armas and Billy Bob Thornton at your disposal. They all do well with what they were given, mainly Chris Evans, and his moustache is having a blast playing a bad guy after being Captain America for so long. I liked the back and forth between Gosling and Ana de Armas, and I appreciated they weren’t “teamed up properly” but were doing their own thing rather being full-time partners.

I also liked certain set pieces, from the begging one in Bangkok to the highlight in Prague. And no, I am not saying it because I am from the Czech Republic, but I (mostly) enjoyed that the most because it seemed non-stop. Every time you thought it couldn’t go bigger, it went bigger and louder. They effectively destroyed half of Prague, but details, right? The reason I said “mostly” in my previous sentence will go down as my first negative – the actual action scenes.

Anthony Russo and Joe Russo might have been involved with MCU too much as they know how to stage a set-piece, but they still don’t know how to direct a semi-decent action scene. The Gray Man suffers badly because of that, as it is obvious – if your film revolves around action, you better shoot it right. And by right, I mean the viewer can understand where everybody is; won’t get dizzy due to many jump cuts, all of that jazz. This film did exactly… none of this. Ok, some of the action was solid, but around 80% was just a bunch of flashy/smokey action scenes. On top of them being “flashy and smokey”, they were cut to death. You will notice that they had some expensive drones, I would imagine, and at one point, it seems like somebody on the set yelled: “Hey, we paid like a lot of money for these drones! We sure we don’t need to use them more?“, to which one of the Russos replied: “See, that is why we keep you around, have more Netflix money, you bastard! Hey, camera person, we need 30% more drone footage ASAP!” I have nothing against drones, but at some point, you need to stop and think whether the way you are shooting your film enhances it; or whether you are doing it just because you can.

That was my main bone with this film. Surely if you have such a massive budget, you should be able to deliver a movie that’s better than “pretty ok”. And if you want to have a spy film where you know there are about to be many action sequences, you try your hardest to get some decent stunt coordinators to, you know, help you with those scenes? If Netflix wants to start a franchise with some of these characters (and they do), shouldn’t the first film be amazing on its own to justify the franchise? This is why I started this review by saying Netflix has lost the plot. As big as they might be, they aren’t that big to “throw money at the wall and see what sticks”. At some point, you need to stop and ask; why these big-budget films like The Gray Man or Red Notice (2021, my review here) seem to be getting pretty mediocre reviews. Because here’s the thing, nobody says they are bad movies, no. People are noticing they aren’t that great to justify the massive budgets these “big” films are getting from Netflix. It will be fascinating to see if (or better question is when) something will snap, and Netflix will have to put some stop on massive projects and scale down.

Overall, The Gray Man is a decently good time with a great cast and mediocre to bad action sequences. You can tell Netflix spent serious money on this film, but it never truly breaks through from the “alright” territory. And that’s a shame, as there was massive potential. If we are getting sequels and/or spin-offs, can we please give them to somebody who can work with less money and give us better action? Gareth Evans would be my candidate, and for what he’s done with his Raid films, he is still criminally underrated or not talked about enough.

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

Until next time,

Luke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time,

Luke

Anna is a fascinating mess of a movie. What should have been a jump-off platform for a model turned actress Sasha Luss, got sidelined due to Luc Besson (the writer and director behind this film) being accused of sexual misconduct and the studio effectively buried this film. Read it for yourself below:

Writer, producer and director Luc Besson was accused of sexual misconduct during production of this movie. Although no charges were filed due to lack of evidence, the studio and distributors subsequently distanced themselves from the movie, releasing it without official screenings and with only a minimum of publicity. This movie, which was supposed to be the breakthrough for model-turned-actress Sasha Luss, only made thirty million dollars worldwide, which could mean the end for Besson’s EuropaCorp studio, which was already struggling from his previous box-office failure, Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017).

Source: IMDb.com

And yet again, I would love to live in an alternative universe where this didn’t happen, simply to see whether Sasha stood any chance of breaking through “the mould”. Because Anna stands on her and her alone, and I thought she did a pretty decent job. The film itself is a well-shot action film (whether he was or wasn’t inappropriate with people; I don’t know, I wasn’t there, so I will separate the art from the artist) because credit where the credit is due, Luc has always known how to shoot a cool-looking action scene. Unfortunately, this film suffers from a couple of things, mostly its twisty nature. But let’s start from the beginning.

Anna has a surprisingly great cast. This movie has (besides the already mentioned Sasha) Helen Mirren, Luke Evans, and Cillian Murphy, to name the biggest stars. Therefore you can go in expecting to watch some decent performances by all the titular performers as somebody as Helen Mirren or Cillian Murphy don’t miss. Sure, they might be in movies that are “beneath them”, but hey, we all have bills to pay. This film has many issues, but the casting wasn’t one of them.

The first issue is quite simple – this film came out in 2019, and that was already too late. Why? Because we’ve already had several “beautiful woman is an agent who kicks ass and schemes her way through the movie” movies. Off the top of my head, Atomic Blonde (2017), Red Sparrow (2018), and Salt (2010) did pretty much the same thing as Anna, and that’s only from the last couple of years. If you go back further, you will see there are many more. Sure, you might be asking: “What’s wrong with that; can women not be agents and kick ass?” No, that is not what I am saying. Of course, they can. But make those movies stand out! It’s the Fast & Furious issue – if you make too many films based around one premise, they all blend in. So, you must do something different, almost crazy, to stand out. And what Anna tried to do was to be a political thriller (?) with some twists. Well, many twists. Whatever number of twists you are thinking of, multiply it by five.

My brief Letterboxd review (that’s where I rate and occasionally give a quick review for films as soon as I see them, so give me a follow if you are there, wink ;-)) read: “Rumour has it that M. Night Shyamalan saw this movie and ejaculated about five times throughout it, given its twisty nature.” And sure, I am being a bit cheeky, but at the same time, I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case. Sadly, that’s Anna‘s biggest weakness. You can give your spy wannabe thriller some twists; I am not against that. But in this film, they dialled up those twists to eleven. When the fourth or fifth happened, I was already disconnected from the movie because you would think twists pull you into the film, right? Yeah, usually. But in this instance, I wished sometimes the inevitable twist wouldn’t have come because that would be the biggest twist of all. If you think about it, the more twists you have in your film, the more unlikely you are to care about the protagonists, as they always survive this, they will get out of this situation this way; you just wait for that twist that gives them something new to hold onto. Somehow, movies like this make twists of any kind so predictable they flip the premise behind twists on their head. When was the last time we saw a spy story where the spy wasn’t betrayed by their government? Where our hero didn’t learn some new information that totally shakes their world? For once, I would love to see an action/spy/thriller where the twist would be there is no twist.

It pains to write this because other than that, Anna is a surprisingly decent action flick. Most of the action scenes are shot well, Sasha is not only stunning but also seems capable enough to lead a film (I would love to see more of her), and the story (minus all the twists) was interesting enough to keep my attention for at least some part of this film. If only Luc didn’t believe he must have had so many twists sprinkled throughout this film, this could have been a sleeper movie. A film fans would discover a few years from now and talk about how surprisingly great a little spy film this is. And to a degree, it will still happen due to the issues I have highlighted at the top of my review; many will discover this film over the next couple of years. But I can’t imagine out of those people, how many will think that Anna is an overlooked gem, and how many would say: “Meh, I have seen better, no wonder people don’t talk about this movie!”

Overall, Anna is a well-made action/spy film with a surprisingly great cast, unsurprisingly brilliant action and unfortunate baggage that overshadowed this film’s release. If we focus on the movie itself rather than the claims against Luc Besson, it suffers from being a needlessly twisty film that seemed to have arrived too late to the party anyway. But I need to repeat myself; I genuinely hope Sasha Luss gets another chance (and she is making more movies, so here’s hope) as I think she might be an interesting one to watch out for. If you are looking for a well-made action/spy movie and are happy with so many twists your head will spin, give this one a try.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Don’t Breathe is one of those movies you hear about if you are in any way, shape or form into films at all. What I’ve heard most about this film was that it contains a disturbing turkey baster scene. So even before going in, I knew I was in for a ride. And for the first hour, I enjoyed… well, not enjoyed myself, but I liked what the film was going for. And then the last 30 minutes happened. I know “movie’s gotta movie”, but almost every single decision made by all the characters in the movie towards the end were just… so dumb, it pulled me out of it.

But let’s start from the beginning. I liked what this film was going for, having characters who are so flawed you can’t help but almost stay impartial on who to root for or, in this case, not. I always admire people who don’t see the world in black and white, and I don’t think it’s a spoiler to say there are no good people here, just a variety of shades of grey and black. Even the “best” character in this film (I am guessing it would go to Jane Levy almost by default) makes some questionable choices throughout the film. And I didn’t mind that at all, if anything, that allowed me to be a spectator in this twisted game of blind man’s bluff (is that really how that game is called in English? You learn something new every day) with a literal blind man. Well, a literal actor who pretends to be blind.

That transitions us well into talking about Stephen Lang. First of all, this man is buffed. Like his muscles have muscles. He spends his free time working out, and by the looks of him, he’s got PLENTY of free time because damn. On a more serious note, props to him for committing to this role by wearing contact lenses that restricted his vision. And his buff persona worked so well for this film, always looming around you were never sure where he might appear next. I thought he’s done a great job playing such an evil character.

I don’t think there was any “single” decision that somehow started to pull me out of the film; it was one blow after another. But it’s hard to write about those decisions without discussing some heavy spoilers, so…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

My main issue and where the film started to fall apart was when characters (pretty much all of them at some point) had the chance to either escape or kill the other party and didn’t do it. And the fact some characters have survived way too much.

Let’s start with the “kill the other party” side. Look, I understand Stephen Lang is a big dude, but the movie made him blind. And not “superhero” blind, where somehow he could sense more than other people. So I can understand he might scratch that, is smarter than the robbers (because they are simply a bunch of idiots), but he still should be easier for them to get rid of. Either to lose him (read, escape) or once they literally had him captured and chained up, not to chance it (they’ve already gone too far at that point) and to finish him off. Honestly, even before that, once his character learns there was more than one person in his home, it felt like especially two people should be able to “trick” him, no matter how buff he is. But since we have to have a feature-length film and them killing him would end it 20 minutes too short, they don’t do it, and he gets loose.

And the same goes for Stephen’s character called “The Blind Man” in the credits. He’s got no problem killing off the strongest out of their group, but he struggles (several times!) with somebody who is not exactly his match. And once they get down and it seems like he (The Blind Man) will kill Dylan Minnette‘s character with gardening scissors, he somehow stabs the other dead body! Which wouldn’t be that tough to swallow had we not seen him being more than aware of his surroundings very well. It seemed like the movie wanted to have its cake and eat it too with his character. You can’t make him this buff ex-soldier who kills one guy almost instantly to not only struggle against the second one but then to miss his body once he’s hovering above him!

The other “survives way too much” problem, yes, it’s about Dylan’s character again. The beating, falling, this guy survived almost everything. I half expected for him to survive even the bullets towards the end. Luckily, that wasn’t the case, but really, he should have been dead long before that.

The infamous turkey baster scene… Sure, it’s creepy and unsettling. But to be honest, I expected, I don’t know more? Maybe this is more of a comment on me rather than the film, but after everything I’ve heard about it, how people “hyped” it out as something so gross they couldn’t watch it… I don’t know. Unsettling? Yes. Tough to watch? Also yes? Will that scene stay with me for a while? Not really.

What hurts more than anything is I enjoyed everything about this film before the last 30 minutes. Because I like it when movies don’t have “heroes vs villains”. Where every character is somewhat of a twisted one, and it’s only up to you whether you will root for the “lesser of two evils” or whether you can sit back and be invested in the story without necessarily rooting for either character. Quite honestly, that was me. Once I’ve realised what was up with our “friendly buffed blind man”, that’s when I realised this movie has nobody to root for here, and it’s a good thing. I was admiring the balls on this film for doing that; it would have been so easy to make him the most sympathetic character, where we could justify him killing the intruders. But the film never takes the obvious route. It’s a shame nobody managed to step back while shooting this film and question whether the characters’ decisions towards the end made any sense.

Overall, Don’t Breathe is a movie that will stay with me for sure. Unfortunately, not for the reasons I thought (turkey baster!) but for remembering that there was a superb horror film here until the already dumb characters (and I am mainly talking about the robbers/intruders here) decided to act even dumber. I would still recommend this film but maybe make sure it’s nowhere near Thanksgiving. Otherwise, your turkey might be dry as fuck that year. Sure, that scene didn’t stun me as much as I thought, but I can still see some people avoiding turkey basters for a while.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Let’s get one thing straight right from the get-go. The Suicide Squad is better than Suicide Squad (2016). It’s the “the” that makes all the difference, sometimes you need to drop it (looking at you, The Facebook), and sometimes you need to add it to distinguish itself from the pretty bad film. And, of course, the director James Gunn might have something to do with the quality too. But, despite the undeniable improvement, better cast, embracing the weirdness way more than the “original” (I guess, technically it’s an original, but also not…?), I still thought this film had a long way to go to be “perfect”, or even “superb”. It’s great; don’t get me wrong, but once you have seen one too many James Gunn films, you discover that his style might occasionally work against him. And unfortunately, The Suicide Squad is the perfect example.

First things first, the cast is amazing. Yes, I could spend hours talking about how Margot Robbie was born to play Harley Quinn, how great it was to see Idris Elba being a bad-ass or how I thought John Cena was just “ok”. Not bad, but I don’t understand and never will the hype around his character specifically. But that’s on me. Who I want to talk about and feel like she’s getting short-shifted a bit was Daniela Melchior, aka Ratcatcher 2. When I first saw her and heard what her powers were, I was sceptical, to say the least. But she managed to convince me that not only the superpower of hers is actually useful, her backstory and acting sold me on her character. I hope this film will be a springboard for Daniela as I would love to see her be in everything for the next few years. She has the acting chops, and she was the standout in this loaded movie full of great actors.

My main thing about this film was they showed their hand too quickly. What I mean by that is we start this film with a lot of actors, old and new, and something happens that I didn’t expect. And I thought that was a brave move. But once you get over it, you quickly discover that was pretty much the biggest surprise of that film. And for this movies’ entirety, you start seeing that this entire concept of “Suicide Squad” can only be pushed so far. Either characters get killed unexpectedly, or they survive every single thing that’s thrown their way. There isn’t any middle ground, or at least there didn’t seem to be. And you know the “big” names won’t get killed off. And because we live in the age of spin-offs and extra “content” (I hate using this word for shows or movies, but it fits here), you know, for example, that John Cena will be fine. Even though the film tries to convince you otherwise at one point, and here’s the problem with that – it doesn’t work, does it? Since his show Peacemaker (2022 -?) is one of the most popular shows today, you might not even watch it (like me), but you know it’s happening. Giving you a pretty good idea about his character here, so even when they “kill him”, it doesn’t phase you because you know he’s not dead. That is why I am not even marking it as a spoiler because that’s how little impact his “death” makes.

And that is my biggest problem with this otherwise fairly enjoyable movie. It’s fun enough, it has some great ideas/sequences (the Harley flower sequence, Ratcatcher 2 showcasing her powers), but despite all of its originality and “unpredictability”, the movie becomes unfortunately pretty predictable, except for the beginning scene. Everything else that happens after that opening scene it’s your stereotypical comic book film. And it should be anything but that, given this should be opposite of one, you know, since it’s The Suicide Squad?

Weirdly, we’ve had two films five years apart, and both didn’t “fully” succeed. Yes, one is, without a doubt, superior to the other, but it still seems like this is the type of movie that should be a “one and done” deal. I would love it if the film honoured the name and if we got a movie where nobody survives. No fake-outs, no ifs, buts or maybes. Some might die instantly; some characters might sacrifice themselves because they aren’t the villains the world perceive them as. Some might get taken down at the end… And if you wanted a sequel, not a problem; grab dozen new characters send them to a new “balls to the walls” impossible mission. I have never read any comic books, let alone Suicide Squad, but from what I have heard about them, they are supposed to be full of quirky characters and surprising moments. Well, this movie achieved one of those… ok, maybe one and a half, the beginning was pretty cool.

Overall, The Suicide Squad is a decent enough film. But what makes it “decent enough” is your knowledge of the previous film and comparing them against each other. Because I think that is what’s happening here – if we didn’t get the first movie back in 2016 and had it not been… let’s say such an average film, this film would not be praised as highly as it is now. Don’t get me wrong, I had a good time with the film, but would I watch it again? Probably not, to be perfectly honest…? Or at least not any time soon. It’s only because of Daniela Melchior’s Ratcatcher 2 I am giving it a slightly better rating because if anybody deserves a show, it would be her character. The rest of the movie is an enjoyable, colourful film that tries so hard to be cool, it comes across as annoying at times.

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

Until next time,

Luke