Thinking about this now, would it be more sensible for me to write about this movie right around the Christmas period, while people are more likely to read reviews for Christmas movies to watch…? Yeah, probably. Oh well… Last Christmas is a weird movie for me, as it’s perfectly watchable, but ultimately it feels like that one friend, who’s trying so hard to be your best friend, he becomes irritating. That’s how this movie ultimately felt like to me, except in this instance, it’s trying to be way to clever.

The biggest strength of Last Christmas is without a doubt, its casting. Henry Golding is (and I am saying this as a heterosexual man) really good looking and charismatic, to the point he makes me jealous as to why I can’t be like him, Michelle Yeoh was fun and her story line with her man I mean Boy (played by Peter Mygind) was actually sweet and charming and Emma Thompson playing a Croatian, first feels slightly out of place, but I liked her performance and her place in the movie, as it belongs there (I will talk about that in a second). But the best performance by far and the reason I am rating this as “high” as I am, is Emilia Clarke. On the first glance, you might think she’s just playing real-life version of herself (as she is as adorable as a basket full of puppies and kittens mixed together) but her performance has layers. She’s got some scenes in this movie, where her character is all over the place (as her character makes one bad decision right after another) but she plays it in a really relatable way and she’s not over the top. Plenty of actors in other comedies would have chosen to play character like hers more comedically, even in the moments where it wouldn’t fit. But not Emilia, she wasn’t afraid to be all over the place emotionally, as that made sense for her character. So it’s much easier for us to root for her throughout the film, because we want to see her succeed, as her character feels real. Honestly, I don’t think people give her enough credit.

As mentioned before, this movie ultimately feels bit more needy, in two aspects. First aspect was, and I need to warn you here, this will get a bit political, how Brexit influenced the mood in the UK. And I didn’t mind that as much, as I am also a foreigner, living in the UK. Luckily, Scotland seems to be a bit more welcoming and a way less “get back where you came from!” place, as 99% of all Scottish people I have met throughout my almost 10 years living here, were friendly, smart and kind people. It’s a brave move to make a “feel-good” Christmas movie, but you also feel the need to include Brexit, and how the toxicity surrounding it affects people (and not just the foreigners/immigrants, but the English people and their attitude towards “others”) living in the UK and that is why I did eventually liked the fact Emma Thompson’s character was a Croatian migrant. Yes, it is a bit of downer, and yes, it is a bit (ok, a huge) of political statement, but wouldn’t it be more harmful to make a Christmas movie based in London in 2019 and completely ignore something as massive and life-changing for so many people? Anyway, this aspect felt strange, but I would be able to “cope” with it better, if it wasn’t for the second aspect, and the ultimate reason I struggled with this film.

I am not going to go into spoiler territory, as I think I can discuss it vaguely enough for people to understand my point. From the very beginning of Last Christmas, it’s strongly hinted that Emilia’s character went through something bad (medically) not that long ago, but we don’t know what it is, until we are about 70% into the film. Fine, seems interesting. But you can tell there will be more linked with this, you can feel there is a twist coming up. And there was. I am not going to claim that I predicted THAT particular twist before it happened, as I didn’t guessed it right. But you know what’s even more disappointing, when watching a movie, knowing there is a twist, and it’s not something you were expecting? The fact once the twist is revealed, it does nothing for you. Honestly, Last Christmas for me will be that one movie with a twist, that literally didn’t have to be there, as it didn’t add anything extra. I understood everything they were trying to do/say with this, I honestly do, but it felt shallow, empty and false. Especially with the constant foreshadowing, I expected something different, more impactful and when it happened, when the twist was finally revealed, I just said “Wait, that’s it?”. Honestly, it didn’t work for me.

And that was ultimately the biggest let down for me – if this movie didn’t feel the need to have some sort of twist and focused more on the relationships they already had established (Emilia and Henry, Emilia and her mum, Emilia and her sister, “Santa” and her “Boy”) and flashed them out a bit more, this could have been an interesting Christmas movie, that might have led the way for others. It could have been a great example of “see, Christmas movies don’t have to be just all happy, they can touch on complicated relationships or even politics” but instead of that, Last Christmas will be remembered as the movie with a twist, that leaves you colder than Santa’s balls throughout the toughest winter on North Pole.

Overall, I think Last Christmas is a decent movie, that could have been even better, had they focused on the right areas and weren’t trying so hard to surprise the audience. But, if you are a fan of Emilia Clarke (and who isn’t?) it’s definitely a must see, as she carries this movie on her tiny, elf shoulders. 😉 I am not being funny by the way, if she wasn’t part of this movie, my rating would have been way lower.

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

Until next time,

Luke

It is always hard reviewing older horror movies, as plenty of them aren’t as effective as they were back in their day. And it’s even harder to review one of “the” horror movies, that helped to define a genre, while establishing a legend such as Wes Craven, who undoubtedly became one. The Hills Have Eyes is still pretty unsettling movie, but it’s got a major pacing problem.

This is one of those weird times, where I had seen the remake (The Hills Have Eyes (2006)) first, a long time ago and I remember it shaken me a bit, as I was around 13/14 years old. Especially the caravan scene with Emilie de Ravin (who is probably the most known for her role in Lost (2004 – 2010) as Claire Littleton) stayed with me to this day, as it was disturbing, shocking, and… chilling. Even then I had an inkling this was a remake of an old, beloved horror movie and I knew someday, once I recover from the remake, I need to watch the original. It took me around 15 years, but I have finally done it (or, I have finally found it on Mubi, which ever you’d prefer ;-)).

As mentioned above, for me, this movie’s biggest flaw is (ironically) the time period this got made in. I know it used to be more common for movies to take their time, their pacing was different as you can tell instantly. But plenty of other times while watching other movies from this decade or even older, I had no issues. But this movie somehow had moments, where even though the story was interesting enough, it never pulled me in properly, so I have never felt the part of it. And that is a major problem, especially for a horror movie, as when you aren’t in the movie’s world, you can’t fully experience the horror element of the story.

Which this movie has a lot of. The Hills Have Eyes definitely has its moments and overall, is not a bad movie at all. What Wes was doing in 1977 took some balls, making people that uncomfortable. And I do applaud him for breaking certain barriers, thinking outside of the box, doing it his way. This is one of those movies I wished I could have seen around when it got released, as to experience something like this back in 1977 and on the big screen, must have been almost out of this world experience, I would imagine.

I know it is almost heresy for me to write this, but The Hills Have Eyes walked, so other movies in this genre could run, be improved upon. Take the remake of this movie, for example. I still remember it, almost 15 years after watching it and I want to re-watch it to confirm what I am about to say, but it was slightly better than the original. But it’s not because the original is bad, no. The main and only reason for the remake being slightly better, is that you can tell that the director behind it (Alexandre Aja) grew up loving horror movies and probably adored this one too. But everything’s changed since 1977 so he was allowed to go even further, to play with the well established norms of the stranded/slasher horror genre in even more sinister ways, as his movie is way more “in your face”, because he knew, what can be done to make it more terrifying. Whereas Wes was filming this film when this genre was in its early stages, and he helped to shape it.

And that is the ultimate paradox of this movie. For today’s standards, it’s a decent movie, that doesn’t pack the punch it had back in 1977. But, without this movie, without Wes, we might have never gotten where we are now, and directors like Alexandre Aja wouldn’t have known what to improve upon. I think it’s worth seeing The Hills Have Eyes, as it definitely has its moments, just make sure you don’t go in with today’s expectations of what horror “should be”. Try to enjoy it for what it is and for the fact it helped to establish Wes Craven.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Have you ever wanted to see a movie, that is so 80’s, it’s almost offensive? Well, look no further, as Footloose it’s exactly that! It’s got everything! Dancing, montages, teenagers, fashion, hairstyles, kick ass songs that are somehow great within the movie and outdated outside of it, and on top of it all, there is really, really young Kevin Bacon.

The main crux of this story is quite simple. Kevin Bacon’s family moves into the town that for reasons, banned dancing (which according to the IMDb’s trivia section, was loosely inspired by true events, where small town in Oklahoma banned dancing until teenagers challenged it) and of course, that is the only thing this teenage sensation wants to do. So he get’s together with bunch of local kids and rebels against the system. And… that’s pretty much it.

And to be honest, sometimes, that is enough. Footloose might not be a cinematic landmark, that will be celebrated for its challenging views and deep philosophical discussions, but as far as entertainment value, it holds your attention for most of the time, and it didn’t age as badly as some others 80’s comedies. Plus, the songs are catchy, and the movie does transport you to the simpler times of when you were a teenager, trying to make your mark on the world, trying to go against the system, to stand for something.

What works in this movie is the hero (already mentioned Kevin Bacon) and the “villain” John Lithgow as he’s not just some two dimensional character. You can actually see and understand his motivation (his son died in a car accident, where he was killed by bunch of drunk teenagers) even though he’s going slightly overboard, you can understand where he is coming from. Also his final “revelation” was I thought believable enough, as it didn’t seem forced.

Only thing that goes against this movie in my mind is that there is no standout, no one scene that would stick with you. It’s been a couple of weeks since I watched this movie for the very first time, and I am going to be honest with you, except the main plotline, young Kevin Bacon and the fact that this movie was so 80’s it puts anything else from that decade to shame, I can’t recall anything else. That is why my rating is what it is, but who knows? Maybe one day, I will re-watch it and discover something else, something I have missed, but it is possible, that Footloose is just a movie, where baby faced Kevin Bacon really wants to dance. And to reiterate, that might be enough.

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

Until next time,

Luke

The headline says it all, really, as I so wanted to love Personal Shopper! Really unconventional idea about an unconventional job told in a very “European” way. So far, so good, right? On top of that, Kristen Stewart, who I would hope, has managed to fully shake the “Twilight” image and like her co-star and Batman to be Robert Pattinson proven that she’s capable of way more than in those movies. And this movie is a great vessel for her… to a point.

Personal Shopper has a really intriguing story – I don’t know about you, but I haven’t really thought about lives of personal shoppers. To those who don’t know, if you reach a certain “celebrity” level, you might get “your guy/girl” that you will give a list of items to pick up and they do just that. So once you come back from a movie shoot, or the studio where you made your latest single/album, you have a new clothes to wear, new tech to play with it… I did like that angle. On top of that, Kristen’s character is a medium, who can communicate with ghosts. And on the very top of that, she doesn’t want to leave Paris until she makes a contact with her brother, who died there. That is the story here.

Before going into spoiler territory, as my frustration with this movie can’t be explained without spoilers, let me just say this. Kristen is subtle and great in this movie. The story overall is interesting, the movie is shot very well and I don’t mind when movies don’t give you straight answers. But this film went into overkill with not even hinting, what happened the very last 20/30 minutes. I was so unsure, I had to google and read some theories, which doesn’t bother me, but even those I wouldn’t have thought of, still had major gaps that I couldn’t overlook. And that hinders my enjoyment of this unusual movie. If you want for your viewer to be more connected to the story and also give them the chance to interpret it their own way, give them at least a map, some clues, hints about where they can go, what the rules of the world are… Without those, it’s just a frustration for frustration sake. Which is a shame, as I was really enjoying this movie. With that said…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

The movie for the most part is pretty clear on what’s happening – she’s a medium, her brother was a medium, and you can see her doing things that are out of this world in the movie. As far as the identity of the “mystery texter” is considered, it didn’t really surprise me who it was, as it made the most sense. What “surprised” me was everything that happened after their meeting in the hotel. Sure, we can see (well, we can’t, but it is heavily implied, you know what I mean) that ghost is leaving their meeting, then we have Kristen saying goodbye to her friends, while her brother is in the background, dropping a mug, fine. Then, she travels to see her boyfriend (who she talks to after the hotel meeting, if I am not mistaken) just to arrive someplace, where she’s “haunted” by… her brother, or maybe HERSELF? That is right, the ghost we did (not) see leaving the hotel room meeting, might have been her, as there are theories about Kristen’s character being murdered by the boyfriend of Kristen’s employer. But that doesn’t make sense, as how would ghost then communicate with her boyfriend and others? Sure, the friend I believe was also a medium, so fair enough, but the boyfriend and others she met on her journey to whenever her boyfriend was staying…? And if it was her brother, why is he being a dick to her? Or is it somebody completely different?

I honestly don’t mind ambiguous movies, where you need to “work” for it to make sense. The perfect example is Mulholland Drive (2001), one of my top 10 favourite movies of all time, even though I still haven’t cracked it 100% (but I think I am getting pretty close). But there is a difference between Personal Shopper and Mulholland Drive and it’s a strange one, but Mulholland Drive feels more approachable, as far as giving you clues, letting you into its world, even though it’s much crazier than Personal Shopper. Like way crazier, even the twist flips everything upside down. BUT, the way it happens and the clues it gives you, makes you want to re-watch it. Whereas this movie felt like it wanted to have a twist ending and didn’t bother with filling the gaps to justify the ending. Because films like this live or die on repeat viewings and how well you can spot something that you totally missed the first/previous time. But if you haven’t missed anything (and I don’t believe I have, as from what I have read throughout some forums, everybody has a different take on what this movie/ending is) and the movie with a twist “stays” the same the second time you watch it… well, there is more chance there won’t be any second time.

I might give this movie a second watch at some point to see, whether I did miss something or not. As I need to repeat myself, until the last 30 minutes or so happened, I was really into this. It’s different, it has its own tempo, its own feel and it’s trying to do something I haven’t seen, at least in recent years. Plus, and I can’t overstate this enough, Kristen is great in this. But it’s really important to land the ending. Without that, you have a 75% of a decent movie, and the rest that just puzzles you. And that, in turn, leads to me over-analysing a part of movie I didn’t like/get, instead of focusing on the most part of the film I did.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I couldn’t say I am the biggest fan of X-Men series, but, strangely, I have seen all the movies. You can also say I have really enjoyed most of them. Prior watching X-Men: Dark Phoenix, I tried my hardest to judge this movie based on what I have actually seen and not everything I’ve heard/read about this movie ever since it got released, as it was universally panned and hated by critics and fans alike. It is almost like everything went up against this movie. And it’s… not THAT bad. Sure, it’s definitely the worse out of the “First Class” movies, that’s certain, but it’s still enjoyable enough, in some scenes.

What I think is the biggest problem with Dark Phoenix, is everybody is tired. Some actors are tired of playing superheroes, so they get killed off quite quickly here (won’t spoil anything, but if you seen any movie in your life, you will see this coming miles away) the relationship between Eric a Charles is all tired and even the movie seems to be tired of itself sometimes, as we hit the same notes (chess game, good vs evil, mandatory Quicksilver scene) all over again. As a result of that, audience is tired and fatigued with this franchise, BUT, the movie doesn’t drag, and even though it might be dumb at some parts, it’s still entertaining enough for you to be somehow involved.

What really didn’t sit well with me was mistreatment of Jessica Chastain. Respectively, her character. We know that she’s super talented actress but in this movie she is playing really, really boring character… boringly. As almost she wasn’t given any notes/direction and just went with the flow, hoping to do the best she could. Especially if you compare her performance with Michael Fassbender, who didn’t even have that much of screen time in this movie, but still hit every note and showcased everything he’s got. To me, this speaks volumes about Simon Kinberg, who doesn’t seem to be able to lead performers where they need to be, as for Fassbender, this is his fourth time playing this character, so he knows him in and out and doesn’t need to be told what to do as much, character-wise. Whereas Jessica is a “newbie” in this universe and probably could use somebody “behind” her. What could have been a stellar performance (and I know she would’ve nailed too) turned out to be her most forgettable role.

The same could be said about Sophie Turner, who most of us know mainly from Game of Thrones (2011 – 2019) and her portrayal of Jean Grey. She wasn’t bad per say, but… I felt she could have been better. And I know she definitely has the talent to be better. This movie just doesn’t showcase it fully. And that is another thing about this film – there is a good movie buried here somewhere. But everything is done on two “levels” – “almost there” or “not there enough”. Like the “cosmic villains” of this movie – would have been great had they posed any real threat to the X-Men.

And yet, despite all I have just written, I still think people are a bit too harsh on this film. I mean, we can all agree this is not going to be proclaimed a cinematic masterpiece any time soon, but the story holds together well enough, you will not feel the fact it is almost two hours long (which is definitely a good thing) and some scenes are quite well done (the train action scene at the end was pretty cool). What I am saying is, sure, you can hate X-Men: Dark Phoenix and nobody would blame you, but should you? Because especially when comes to comic book movies, we have a lot of properly bad ones to choose from and this still stands strong above some, mainly from the mid 2000’s era. That said, will I be rushing to re-watch this any time soon? I will not, as I think we all deserve to get a little break from X-Men movies for a while. Let it rest for at least couple of years, before the inevitable reboot/remake with young, hip cast.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Frozen 2 is strange one for me. On one hand, it’s perfectly fine sequel, has some great moments and I wasn’t bored while watching it, on the another hand, it doesn’t have the “magic” of the first Frozen (2013), respectively, doesn’t feel as “natural” as its predecessor. The first one almost felt like a hit by accident, this one felt more like somebody said “how can we replicate this moment from the previous film that worked so well?”

I was mainly confused with the tone of this movie. Some scenes/themes seemed almost too adult for this “kids” movie. I know this might be strange to hear, as animated movies have long become medium for everything, especially as films from Pixar can deal with different topics really well, but this at times seemed as almost a drama. As if the filmmakers were forced to follow some sort of rule, that states “if you get a sequel nowadays, everything needs to be a bit darker”. I know modern-day kids can deal with a lot more than my generation could, but I’d be interested to know how do kids appreciate, when their favourite movie (and for plenty of fans, the first movie would have been one of their favourite movies they’d ever see) gets a sequel who doesn’t feel the same as the previous movie.

What I need to definitely mention is a standout performance by, to my surprise, Olaf (voiced by Josh Gad), who stole the movie. Not only I like him as a voice actor, but his recap of the first film (and even this one, while it’s happening) was truly hilarious. This honestly took me by surprise, as I don’t really remember anything from him from the first Frozen movie, but that might be because I have only seen it once.

I was pleasantly surprised that Frozen 2 took the path of “let’s not have a villain”. Well, to a some extent, there is one, but it’s a bit more complicated. I don’t think this is a spoiler, but the decision this movie took regarding its story, where and HOW it leads to, not only surprised me, but I appreciated it. I really appreciated it was more focused on relationships between Anna and Elsa, Elsa and Kristoff (even though he seems to disappear for a substantial part of the movie) and shows us how change might not be always pleasant, nothing stays the same, but we just need to adjust, move on and hope for the best.

Frozen 2 also doesn’t have the same musical “power” as the first movie. Into the Unknown is a pretty good song, but everything else (except that 80’s power rock ballad performed by Kristoff in the woods) is pretty forgettable. To be honest, I can’t really recall anything even from the power ballad, except how it caught me off guard, as I really wasn’t expecting that aesthetic from a kids movie (but I understand, this is one of those rewards parents get for bringing their children into the theatre).

Overall, Frozen 2 is a perfectly fine sequel, which is the best and simultaneously the worst thing you can write about a movie. Especially a movie that follows such a phenomenon, that was Frozen. It definitely feels like this movie was aiming to be much more than just “perfectly fine”.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Praising Terminator: Dark Fate for being the best Terminator sequel since Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) (even though I still believe Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003) gets a bad reputation and especially considering the two movies that came after that film, wasn’t bad at all, but I do need to re-visit it to see how it holds up today) is like praising a wild animal for only eating your left hand, as that’s the one you don’t use that often. Sure, but wouldn’t not eating any of my hands be much better option?

What I am trying to say is that Terminator: Dark Fate definitely is the best Terminator movie we have gotten since (for me) 2003, but given the “competition”, that’s not really a high bar to climb. It is almost impossible to talk about this movie without going into the spoiler territory, so before I go there, let me just say the main points here – the new “human saviour” is pretty bland, the new Terminator (Gabriel Luna) is 100% the best “evil” Terminator we’ve gotten since T2 and overall this movie is really, really solid. Having said that…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

I think your enjoyment of this movie depends on how willing you are to (yet again) disregard previous 2 films (that’s right, Terminator Salvation (2009) and Terminator Genisys (2015) never happened) which I believe most fans are fine with. But, there is one additional and really important caveat – you also need to be fine with the hero of T2, John Connor, being killed at the very beginning of the movie. That is why I think plenty of fans had an issue with this movie from the very beginning. Without trying to sound like a certain US president, I can see both sides when comes to this issue – on one hand, the timeline was so over the place, this was the best thing to do narrative-wise, as it allows you to follow up “the good stuff” and not care about how other movies prior made “the good stuff” obsolete. But that is a paradox within itself, as even though Sarah and John stopped Skynet, he dies and something else just takes its place, Legion. That’s the other side – it feels like even though this film still acknowledges the first two movies, it kind of makes them obsolete too, by killing the leader of human uprising against the machines, I can see why people would be upset. I thought for this story it worked, I didn’t have any major issues with that decision.

What slightly bugged me was Natalia Reyes, respectively, her character. I think she did a decent job, but her character, even though she’s “the new John”, as Linda Hamilton puts it, felt really bland. I know she’s supposed to “grew into a leader”, but I don’t think we have seen a lot of that and just wished we would have gotten a glimpse of that. I wouldn’t necessarily blame Natalia, I honestly believe they should have focused some part of the movie to why is she THAT special, that she’s the one who gets all surviving humanity united, as we’ve only gotten one flashback scene, where she saves Graces (Mackenzie Davis was great) and then has the BRILLIANT idea of “maybe we should unite and fight the machines” and you think… really? Is she really the first one who thought of that…?

What I was impressed with is, as mentioned before, the new Terminator, Gabriel Luna. I really liked the fact he didn’t have that much dialogue, because that only made him more menacing and he felt unstoppable. Without any exaggeration, he was the highlight for me, as I really felt the danger every time he was on the screen, my hat is off to you, sir.

When I talked about paradoxes, this might be the ultimate meta paradox – they finally make a decent Terminator movie, but it is so late and we still had a bad taste in our mouths after the last movie, nobody actually cared. The box office was underwhelming, even bringing back both stars of T2, Linda Hamilton and Arnold Schwarzenegger, made no real difference, as people have given up on this franchise. Which, for this movie is a shame, as on its own, it’s pretty solid Terminator movie. I honestly wonder, whether we will get another one at some point, or whether (which is more likely) we would get a TV show, that starts from the very beginning…

Overall, Terminator: Dark Fate is a decent action movie, pretty good Terminator movie and you won’t be bored with it. If you can accept the fact the first two movies will (probably) never be topped, quality-wise, and to certain extent, no longer matter in this universe.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I do love me some period films. But with these, it can either be a big hit, or a very big miss. Motherless Brooklyn is, strangely, kind of in between. The movie has potential, some really good performances and the story/mystery does grab you and doesn’t let go until the very end, but there is just something about this movie that doesn’t fully click.

I really like Edward Norton, despite the horror stories about his nightmare behaviour on movie sets (this article sums up most of it) but this movie might have had a case of “too much of Edward”. I don’t think he’s as good of a director/storyteller as he is an actor. And I don’t think that’s something controversial to say. I am not suggesting he’s a bad director, because he definitely knows what to do, some of the shots in this film were truly great, but I think the main reason Motherless Brooklyn didn’t click with me all the way, it just felt fake. Not the story element, but the period element. I don’t know why, it just looked too polished, too “new”… Think of The Untouchables (1987) or the brilliant HBO show Boardwalk Empire (2010 – 2014), these all felt as authentic as they could, so you could immerse in their world. This movie lacked that “it” factor.

But everything else around it was pretty well done, to be honest. Edward’s definitely made correct decision when he decided to cast Gugu Mbatha-Raw as her performance was really great. So subtle, nothing too flashy, but she definitely was the highlight and centre piece of this film. When the movie started and I’ve realised Edward’s character suffers from Tourette’s syndrome, it threw me off for a bit, as the first couple of scenes were… well, bad. But it seemed to have improved (the acting, not Tourette’s) as the movie went along, so it wasn’t a disaster by any means. Plus, being Edward Norton, you do make some decent contacts, so there are great performances by Willem Dafoe and Alec Baldwin and in smaller role, Michael Kenneth Williams, who’s always reliable.

As I said before, the story is intriguing from the very beginning, even though it might be a bit tough to follow at some places. Which brings me to another thing I would like to mention. I don’t know who came up with the idea to set this film in the 50’s, when the book this movie is based on takes place in the 90’s, but it worked really well. At least for the story element, but again, I do need to repeat myself, you don’t get the feel of the “ye olde times” as from other movies/TV shows. What this movie does really well though is build the relationship between Norton’s character and Gugu’s character, where only around her is his condition “calmer”. Especially in the scene where they dance and you can tell, that for the very first time in ages, his “threads in his heads” have calmed down, just for a little while, but they did.

The more I think about this movie, the more I am convinced Norton should have focused on the acting and there should have been somebody else directing the film, somebody like Martin Scorsese, Brian De Palma, one of these “old timers”, who could’ve taken the material and give it the extra “something”, that would have put this film a good category up. Because Motherless Brooklyn is a film, that’s pretty good, but with somebody else stirring the ship, it could’ve been excellent.

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

Until next time,

Luke