It seems like I have a weird relationship Judd Apatow, as I usually like his movies, but I don’t love them as many people do. Except for maybe The 40 Year-Old Virgin (2005) which I need to re-watch, as I’ve only seen it once some time ago, I also have another problem with his movies – they are usually too long. Which is something he openly talks about in interviews, how he just can’t make himself edit more, as he just believes so much in those jokes and people etc. The King of Staten Island is yet again another of his movies, that could have used a trim, and I mean solid 30 minute trim at least. And then it might have been a really great comedy.

But let’s start from the beginning – the overall story is intriguing, especially as it’s loosely based on Pete Davidson‘s real life experience (his dad was a firefighter, who died during 9/11 attacks) so that part was really interesting, seeing it from his perspective and realizing how that could seriously mess up a child, losing their one of their parents in such an early age. But no matter what, I couldn’t force myself sympathize with his character. I think Pete was actually playing him well, but for me, that character was too obnoxious about everything, too immature, which I understand, it’s the point of the movie, to see his character grow, but here I need to ask the most important question – did he mature enough? Did he truly “change” so much by the end of the movie…? I mean, sure, there is some growth, but I don’t think there is nearly enough as the film thinks there is, if that makes sense…?

Speaking of casting, there are plenty of great people here, but the true highlights were Bill Burr, whose character I really loved and Bel Powley. Let’s start with Bill. The reason I really enjoyed him in this movie, is because when he shows up, you think you know where his character is going, how he’s going to be. And the movie let’s you be wrong for a bit until you learn, not everything is black and white and yes, he might have his flows, but overall he’s a decent man. Plus, he’s always funny and that is a good quality to have, especially in a comedy. I’ve never heard of Bel Powley before, but from now on, I will definitely be paying more attention to her, as there was something about her, that attracted me to her. And not just in physical sense, every time she was on the screen, it was her I was watching the most, as she was funny, relatable and overall gave a really good performance.

The movie can be split in two halves. The first one really bored me, where we are supposed to get familiar with all the characters, get into the story, it just wasn’t for me. From the moment Bill Burr’s character showed up, the movie became much better, funnier and overall more watchable. But then, it lost steam and the last 20 minutes, the movie limped to the finish line. Which was a shame, as there some really memorable scenes (Pete having a talk about his dad with firefighters, or when Marisa Tomei, whose also great in this, sees what is the “big tattoo” Pete’s been working on for a while) but then those get lost by the unnecessary “noise” around.

Obviously I am in minority here, as people seem to adore Judd’s movies, but for me, he should really hire an editor, who could stand up to him and tell him that comedies don’t need to be over 2 hours long, especially if they have said everything they meant to say within their first 80 minutes! Because there comes a point where Pete’s “I lost my father at a really young age, he was a hero and nobody can replace him” “shtick” goes from being heart-breaking to, frankly, annoying. And I feel pretty bad for saying this, especially knowing he was affected by it in a real life and is still struggling with it, but I am not judging Pete’s life here. I am reviewing a movie, that’s somehow based on him. And that movie simply doesn’t work as well as it should, especially with this topic.

Overall, The King of Staten Island is slightly above the average movie, that really gets saved by the amazing performers in it. It’s too bloated (136 minutes!) and I honestly believe, if there was some other editor, who could stand up to Judd and fight tooth and nail with him, they might cut out good 30/40 minutes, improve movie’s pace and it could have been a great one. I can see this being a funny, touching movie, that could have been. Instead of it, we get a film with great scene here and there, that’s surrounded with plenty of almost filler, that’s sometimes funny, and sometimes just misses the mark completely. But if you are a big Judd Apatow fan, and you liked all his previous movies, the chances are you will like this one too.

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

Until next time,

Luke

The 90’s were a decade, where you got a few smaller movies, that are considered almost untouchable cult classics nowadays, where even if you haven’t seen the movie, you’d know some quotes, or even memes. Office Space (1999) comes to mind instantly and Friday is definitely in this conversation too. We all have seen/used the meme and many people on “the Internets” have used the “Bye, Felisha!” quote, that comes from this movie. It is safe to say that Friday definitely made an impact on our pop-culture.

And yet, it’s such a simple movie. Which is kind of the point, the day in the life of a few people, who just want to chill, maybe smoke some weed, but things get in a way. What I liked was the vibe of this movie. It doesn’t rush anywhere, it takes its time, trying to establish some characters, even a few instances of foreshadowing, which I appreciated. Plus, this is the movie that gave us Chris Tucker. And that depends on you, whether it’s a plus or minus, as I know certain people love him and certain people don’t really like him, as he can be a bit over the top with his delivery. But in this movie, he shines and I finally understood how he came about. If you ever wondered why he had a career, watch Friday. Ice Cube might be the main protagonist of this movie, but Chris Tucker is the one, who stole this movie for himself in every scene he’s in.

I was slightly surprised how many jokes don’t really land (or didn’t land for me) in this comedy. Maybe it’s because I don’t really like weed, so I can’t relate to that aspect…? Don’t get me wrong, there are some funny scenes, but there isn’t one that stands out, or good few where I would laugh really hard. Sometimes I chuckled a bit, but mostly I was just enjoying the story and some characters in this movie. What I am trying to say, if I were to judge this movie as a comedy first and foremost, my rating would have been lower.

But I try to judge the films I see as whole packages, and for me, Friday mostly worked. Again, don’t expect any Oscar drama, after all, this is meant to just be a simple stoner(ish) comedy about a guy, who manages to get fired during his day off and then he’s trying to help out his friend, who happens to owe $200 to a local drug dealer. And of course, the dealer wants the money by the end of Friday, otherwise there won’t be any Saturday… And that is pretty much it. Only thing I left off is the fact you get to meet a lot of interesting characters along the way, and when the movie is over, you kind of end up in this mindset, where you feel like it wasn’t bad, but something was missing and it didn’t hit the spot for you.

Overall, if you happen to love the occasional weed and can relate to people who just like to chill, let’s say on Friday, doing nothing but smoking some weed and trying to get some money, this movie might be for you. Or if you fancy a really straightforward movie, where you don’t really have to use your brain, where the story is nicely self-contained within one day, Friday is also the movie for you. But if you are in the mood for a movie, that gives you something extra, this ain’t it, chief.

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

Until next time,

Luke

After The Griswolds went on a round trip around USA (National Lampoon’s Vacation (1983), my review here) and went to Europe a couple of years later (National Lampoon’s European Vacation (1985), my review here) it seems like the people behind these movies have asked themselves “Well, what else can they ruin?” and somebody said “I know! What about Christmas! People love Christmas movies, and we only have sappy ones, let’s give them a crazy one!” And that is what they have done. And to be honest, it’s definitely the best out of the National Lampoon’s films I have seen (I might come around to watching the Vegas Vacation (1997) eventually, it’s just not on my immediate list of things to watch) even though it’s still not as funny as comedy should be. But, it’s got a few other things going for it.

First of all, out of all of the previous ones, this film does have the best casting – as a trademark, the kids have been re-casted again, so this time, brace yourselves for Juliette Lewis as Audrey and Johnny Galecki as Rusty. And, just alongside for the ride, as a neighbour’s wife/girlfriend (?) Julia Louis-Dreyfus, who’s done probably the best she could with such a limited time (but then, it was just before Seinfeld (1989 – 1998), the TV show that made her the star we all know and love today). And if those three actors are not enough for you, may I interest you in another TV legends, Doris Roberts or Mae Questel, the original voice of Betty Boop AND Olive Oyl! All I am saying is with such a strong casting, they had much easier job to sell me on the actual movie, which had another thing going for it.

I actually “felt” the heart I was missing so desperately, especially in the first movie. Maybe it’s easier to “sell it” with Christmas movies, maybe it’s something to do with all the talented people involved, but somehow, towards the end, I actually felt sorry for Clark, for probably the first time. And I have also felt that all the people involved in this movie could actually be family. I know! All it took was 3 movies and third set of kids for me to appreciate it, to some level 🙂 I am still not on board with Randy Quaid‘s character and that particular side of his family “unit” and I will tell you why. They always (and by that I mean the first movie and this one) felt like the “low hanging fruit” that’s not so hard to reach for and make a joke out of. Which I found lazy in both movies. I know, he’s supposed to be the “idiot character with a golden heart”, I get it. But he’s too dumb and plenty of times too gross to sell it for me. I don’t think he’s ever in any of these movies had any “breakthrough” moment, where they would actually show him as human being, rather than the idiot.

I know that especially in USA, this movie is one those Christmas classics, that some families play every year and I get it, but I won’t be joining them. Yes, it might (finally!) have a heart and it does make you feel a bit fuzzy towards the end (when the big bad boss realises how big and bad he is being towards his employees, like that would ever happen) but I come to the same issue as with the other two previous movies – I didn’t really laugh all that much. So, it doesn’t work for me on the comedic level and when comes to the “Christmas movie” level, I have different favourites (Home Alone (1990), Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992) or new and recently seen animated movie, Klaus (2019, my review here, just to name a few of the more famous ones) and I will not be adding National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation anytime soon. But who knows? Maybe, in couple of years time, I might re-visit these movies and find something there…? Never say never.

Overall, I do recognize the importance of all National Lampoon’s movies to the American cinematography, I mean after all, entire generation grew up watching this family and their adventures and I get it. I just feel like these movies don’t stand the test of time on their own merits. Which is fine, it’s perfectly fine if a piece of art no longer works, because not everything is immortal. On the flip side of the coin, not everything works for everyone and I might just be the exception that confirms the rule, by not understanding why are these movies so beloved. Would I recommend for you to watch them, if you haven’t? I would, because I can see how somebody might enjoy them, I wish I had, trust me. Go give these movies a shot, they might be your cup of coffee! And if not, welcome stranger, we already have one thing in common, care to grab a drink? 😉

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

Until next time,

Luke

I realise this might be slightly controversial view, based on what I have read about this movie right after seeing it, but… I need to say what I feel. The ending didn’t work for me the way it (apparently) worked for most of the people on the Internet. Which slightly hinders my enjoyment of the movie overall, as I thought it was going one way and the movie went the other way. Which, reading all the different reviews/reactions, was probably smart decision, as I am definitely in a minority of people, who thought the ending didn’t work as well. But we will get to it…

For the vast majority of Ready or Not, I really liked it. Even though some of the things/scenes I could see coming miles away (and by others I was pleasantly surprised) I still had some fun this movie, and will definitely remember name Samara Weaving from now on, because she absolutely rules this movie. And yes, she looks like what would happen if Margot Robbie and Emma Stone somehow had a baby, but holy shit, this woman can act! Put somebody else in this film, who might scream less, or has lesser presence and the movie loses a lot of what Samara is bringing to the table. I will definitely need to watch more films with her and be on the lookout for her name in any movies and TV shows from now on.

The film overall felt like it wanted to be Get Out (2017) so bad, but it didn’t have the complexity or symbolism of that movie, which is why they decided to go with that ending. I need to discuss it in some length, and obviously that can’t be done without going into the spoiler territory, so…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

For the entire movie there is this idea, that if the family doesn’t succeed with killing Samara’s character by the dawn, they will all die, because, as you learn, their grandfather made a deal with Mr. Le Bail (who could have been called the Devil just to simplify it, really) so they don’t have any other choice, which is something a few characters say (like Andie MacDowell, who I don’t think I have ever seen playing a villain character!) And I was really looking forward to either them realising it was wrong and them truly understanding how wrong they were all these years, or how Samara’s character will kill them off one by one, but only because they tried to kill her first, therefore it would have been this ironic situation, that yes, they would all be dead, but only because they believed in such bullshit in the first place. But then the movie decides that the curse is a real thing, they even show a flash of “Mr Le Bail” and… to me, it doesn’t work. Because it justifies the family’s actions to really shitty extent, where that crazy, satanic shit they are doing/worshipping, actually exists and they actually need to do it. And I know it should have been more of “yey, her soul was pure, that is why she didn’t blow up and they did, fuck the rich fucks” hoorah, but honestly if anything, that made me feel (a little bit) sorry for them, because they were right. They were still crazy and insane for going through with it, no questions about that, but I feel like part of the “dark comedy” this movie wants to be so hard is lost, when the main crazy thing turns out to be true.

Let me put it this way, I can handle a movie that justifies villain(s) in a way, because as the old saying goes, “there are always two sides to every story”, but with this one, that side/secret/the reasoning behind it is just so ridiculous, I can’t get over it. It’s maybe because up until that point, movie is trying to be realistic about everything, it puts Samara’s through hell and back and I thought even most of characters make logical choices that are aligned with their characters, no matter how sane or insane those choices are. So yeah, I just couldn’t get over that curse being a real thing. And don’t even get me started with the true darkness of that ending, where she’s totally and utterly fucked. She’s going to jail or some sort of mental institute for a long time, because what else would happen? What’s her defence? “I had my wedding here yesterday, but as you can see, there are splashes of DNA all over the place, but not because I killed anybody, but it’s this ancient curse, see? This family worshipped Satan and I try to sacrifi- Wait, where are you taking me??!”

Who really surprised me in this movie was Adam Brody. I have seen him in couple of movies, but never in something where I would say “he’s pretty good”. But in this movie, he’s pretty good! You can tell on his character how affected his entire life was by what happened to his brother and him when they were children (I will get to that in a second too). Pretty decent performance, I thought.

The other issue, even before the ending, was the opposite, actually. Yes, the beginning. And the reason I had an issue with that is simple – the movie totally undercuts itself. Let’s presume you are like me, never seen a trailer for this film, don’t know what the story is about, you just wake up one day, and decide to watch Ready or Not. When the movie starts with the scene of the brothers being kids and seeing the “hide and seek” game, the surprise is really out of the window within a first minute. Then, once we get to the wedding and see the groom more nervous than usual, it doesn’t take a genius to put 2 + 2 together to figure out what is about to happen. Just imagine this movie starting with a wedding, maybe some “cliché” opening credits, to trick you into thinking you are about to watch something else. That’d be awesome! And you can still have the “opening” scene later on, as I understand why it’s there, we need to understand especially Brody’s character and his reasons for… well, everything he does in this film. You could have it later on, in form of flashbacks, and I think it would actually improve the flow of the movie. It would also give the audience the chance to catch their breath, before another horrible thing happens to Samara’s character.

Overall, Ready or Not is a pretty good movie, that could have been better. Your enjoyment of the movie really depends on how much gore you can take, because there is a fair amount of it in this movie and how tolerant are you to see a movie, where the villain(s) are justified dicks. They are still dicks for doing what they are doing, but given they are correct in everything (what would happen if they won’t do it), can you REALLY blame them? I mean, yes, of course, but really? Oh, and it’s definitely worth seeing it, just so you remember the name Samara Weaving.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I am not going to lie, yesterday I had no idea this movie existed or what was it about. But, as soon as I saw the name Denis Villeneuve, I knew I needed to watch this (without even knowing this is his feature movie debut!) just to see how the director behind movies like Prisoners (2013), Arrival (2016) or Blade Runner 2049 (2017) started his journey. And August 32nd on Earth is a really tiny movie, that’s definitely slow, yet beautiful.

This movie is 100% as indie as it gets. You can tell there was little to no budget, and yet, this movie looks stunning. What I like about directors like Denis is even though he dips in different genres and no two movies of his feel the same, he’s got his style, his own almost “feel”. The same way you can tell when you are watching a Spielberg movie, or a Scorsese movie, I can always tell I am watching a Villeneuve movie, as no matter what’s happening on screen, it’s shot beautifully, yet with certain distance. I always thought he’s a really subtle filmmaker, whose movies are stunning “almost by accident”, where the way his film are shot doesn’t feel “flashy” or in you face. I really, really like his aesthetics.

August 32nd on Earth is a strange movie, where “almost nothing happens”, but at the same time, a lot happens. To me, I was slightly confused when the movie was over, as I was expecting a little more from the ending, but the more I thought about it afterwards, the more I understood nothing was missing. Because the story is about second chances, life and death and how circumstances beyond our control (such as car accident) may shape our life.

What I was also struck by was the fact you can’t really fit this movie into one genre/category. The first 10 minutes reminded me a lot of Mulholland Dr. (2001), which is one of my favourite movies of all time, as we have a car accident, possible memory loss, etc. Then, all of the sudden, it gets more upbeat and the movie shifts into a third gear, where it almost feels like a comedy, but without any laughs. And towards the end, it turns into “romantic” drama of sorts…? But neither of those genres I’ve just named describe this movie correctly. It’s been a while since I have seen a movie that’s simple to describe narrative wise, but hard to describe genre wise, as it shifts between couple of them fluently. And the word “fluently” is the important one in that sentence, as plenty of smaller indie films do this, but not successfully and as a result, the films can feel all over the place. But this film never felt like that. Everything felt natural, every shift that happened felt earned, every decision one of our main characters made felt in line with the story and their character.

As you can tell, it’s quite hard to describe this movie, so I will tell you this – if you don’t mind indie movies, that move at their own pace and you (like me) admire Denis Villeneuve, give August 32nd on Earth a shot, because the chance is, you might enjoy it. It’s not something that will change your life, but at the same time, it is a movie that gets to you in a weird, subtle way and you will think about it for a bit (or at least, that’s what happened to me). For a debut, not bad at all.

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

Until next time,

Luke

We all have those moments in life, when you feel like the dumbest person in the room. That is how I felt while watching Vampyr, to a certain extent. I truly love these old horror movies, because they had to do so much with so little, but this one had me in the first half, where the tension seems to be building towards something and then… I hate to admit this, but I thought it was kind of all over the place and ultimately, it went nowhere interesting…?

I know we need to give films that will soon celebrate their release date in triple digits a break, as they helped establish the genre to a degree, and I honestly enjoyed this film, in its first half, as it starts in pretty straightforward way. A foreigner (or drifter, as the official plot synopsis says) arrives to an inn and quickly discovers, there are strange things happening. So he decides to investigate. And when you think you know what is happening, the movie takes a weird turn, that made me question whether I missed something obvious, as I thought it was going to go one way and it went the other way. I had to read a full description of this movie afterwards, to make sure I didn’t miss something crucial (when I blinked I guess?), but no, even the description of the film confirmed that I didn’t miss anything. Maybe I am too “conditioned” to think more logically about a story structure, narrative and things of that nature we take for granted nowadays, as obviously, really old movies had only a few storytelling rules, as they were creating the rules, without realising.

One thing I need to acknowledge, Vampyr is a beautifully shot film, which you can see even though the English dubbed copy seems to be lost forever, so the filmmakers who restored this film didn’t have everything available as censors in different countries would cut out different scenes. Hearing (and seeing) something like that makes me appreciate how movies are stored and maintained today, because it is a shame that we can’t fully appreciate some of the older movies in the way they were meant to be seen/appreciated. Especially when comes to old fashioned horror movies, they are almost always shot in such almost creepily beautiful way, where directors play around with (mostly) shadows and orchestra music. Today, that might seem cheesy, but again, we can’t judge these movies by today’s standards, where today, even a low budget movie can have half decent CGI effects. Plus, there is something charming about those long shots, minimum cuts, it’s almost like watching raw film, without all that (modern) glitter around it.

It was also interesting to see how many “vampire rules” this movie follows, as they (vampires) have been “around” for centuries, long before there was any celluloid around, so of course, the myths differ from place to place, from book to book. What today’s pop-culture takes for certain, might have not been established almost 100 years ago. What surprised me, for example, was the steel rod to the heart, as nowadays all movies and TV shows usually go with “wooden stake” as the weapon of choice, at least for a close combat. What I also found interesting was the fact we don’t actually see anyone getting bitten by a vampire, we always see the victims afterwards, but never the act itself. I guess back then it wouldn’t fly because of the censors…?

Overall, Vampyr is an interesting piece of movie, that (for me) is hard to put into one genre. Sure, technically it’s a horror movie and throughout the film, you do get this haunting, chilling feeling, but it ultimately leads to nowhere, so I would classify it as more of adventure/drama/ a bit of thriller…? For example, when I watched Nosferatu (1922) there were still some scary(ish) scenes, so I had no problem understanding people being terrified, especially back in 1922. But I just can’t see it with this film. I am not saying that’s a flaw, I would still watch this movie, if you are at all interested in old vampire films, just don’t expect “full blown horror”, even by 1932 standards, this is as mild as Korma.

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

Until next time,

Luke

When you say “spaghetti western”, the first name that flashes in my mind is Sergio, but not Corbucci, who directed this movie, but Leone, who (for me) defined the genre (and to this day, is still one of my favourite directors of all time). And Django is a decent copy of a copy (as Leone’s films were “inspired” by Yojimbo (1961)), but ultimately, this movie doesn’t compare with the “big boys”, and you can tell the way they were shooting this, they really wanted Django to be in the same league as films such as A Fistful of Dollars (1964) or For a Few Dollars More (1965). And while Django is interesting, nicely paced, and “short” (only 88 minutes!) movie, it just proves that just because your name is Sergio and you cast somebody, who resembles young Clint Eastwood, that won’t automatically elevate your movie.

Don’t get me wrong, this is not a bad movie by any means, it’s just… fine. From Franco Nero‘s performance, to the story, the coffin (and the reason behind it), everything is… fine, but not outstanding. Only thing this movie has truly going for it, it’s the main theme song. I am not going to lie, that “Djangoooo” tune will get stuck in your head for a while, that is for sure.

What I found slightly weird, which is no fault of this movie, was the American dubbing. I tend to watch all my movies in their original language with subtitles and not dubbed, just to be perfectly clear, but Amazon Prime (where I watched this film) only had the dubbed version available, so it brought me back a bit to my childhood, when I would watch everything dubbed in Czech language, as I haven’t learned “proper” English till I was about 18/19 years old. I don’t know, whether it was cheaper for them to get “just” the dubbed version without any other options, but it is definitely weird to watch a movie, where you can not only see, what the actors are saying is not matching their mouths, but more importantly, hear that the sound quality is a bit different (better) than the picture and it doesn’t match.

But I don’t think (or I would hope so) that this influenced my rating in any way, as the biggest thing I’ve struggled with, while watching Django, was the feeling this was made purely because the two films mentioned above were so good, beloved and the spaghetti western craze was in its peak. At times, I felt like this was filmed while the director was watching the other two movies for… let’s say a bit more than inspiration.

The other thing I liked, but I also struggled with a bit, was the main character of Django. I appreciate the fact they made him into almost a villain with a good character/heart, but since he does not talk much and his only motivation we get is the story about his wife, that just was not enough for me to flash his character out properly. I know, I know, it was the 60’s and these westerns don’t necessarily must have properly flashed out characters, but at the same time, I don’t think that approach worked/works for your main character, who acts like your stereotypical “good guy” for most of the movie, just to kind of “flip” towards the end. Maybe a hint or two, that something like this would come at some point would be helpful…?

Overall, as I have mentioned before, Django is not a bad movie by any means, and if you like spaghetti westerns, I don’t think you will have a bad time with this film. It’s just a bit predictable, and there is no one scene that would stand out. There are at least couple scenes from each of Leone’s movies I still remember, and with this film, I am afraid only thing that will stuck with me, is the really catchy main theme and that… is pretty much it.

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

Until next time,

Luke