The 90’s. Decade of new age technology (internet blowing up), decade of some of the best movies ever made (mainly years 1994 & 1999) and also decade of dark thrillers, that inspired countless TV shows like Criminal Minds, NCIS just to name a couple, where mainly the first one is so influenced by dark, gritty 90’s thrillers, that if it wasn’t for them, that TV show wouldn’t exist. Which is funny, as this movie wouldn’t exist, if it wasn’t for a fact that every studio wanted it’s own version of Se7en (1995), as Phillip Noyce, the director of The Bone Collector, admitted:

Phillip Noyce is not a big fan of his work on this film. In the wake of Seven (1995), every studio wanted a copycat serial killer film on their books. He felt that he was just part of the assembly line by signing on to this film, knowing full well that he would never be able to match David Fincher‘s achievement.

Source: IMDb’s Trivia Section

The Bone Collector is surprisingly tough movie to rate by today’s standards, as the TV shows I’ve mentioned have done this kind of material better (was never a big fan of Criminal Minds, but because of my girlfriend, I have watched couple of episodes and it was interesting) as they not only had the advantage of time, but also… time? Wait what? Don’t worry, I’ll explain.

The first instance of time is the time period – working in mid 2000’s, with different technology and police procedures available, more knowledge about this kind of work, also knowing where the previous movies/TV shows succeeded and failed, that gives you an advantage, as you know what can you do with some stories and what to avoid/what wouldn’t work as well.

The other is the actual time, as by definition, TV show doesn’t have to have everything wrapped up nicely in 40 minute episode. Don’t get me wrong, they can and they definitely have done it, plenty of times in fact, but they can invest a full season or two, if they wish, to fully flesh out a character of a serial killer, think his/her plan through (yes, even ladies can be serial killers, #Feminism) and go in really deep for a really long time. And that’s something no movie can do, no matter how great or long it is.

And even though I understand why these thrillers are no longer being made as much as they were, I do miss them, as specially the 90’s ones have had this atmosphere, that you can’t replicate today. Even this movie, which is really entertaining, but nowhere near as great as already mentioned Se7en (1995), still holds up fairly well, because of the tense atmosphere and great casting. It also holds up as it was shot in pre-smartphone, pre-Internet (at least the “proper” Internet we have available today) era, as the detectives need to actually do some work, not just type everything into a PC, look for information online, where everything is “solved” within minutes.

What I really appreciated in this movie is the fact Angelina Jolie isn’t just an eye candy, but is given something to do, even if the reason for her being in that situation is the ultimate movie reason of all time (because she took some pictures really well and had a half a brain to stop a train, so it wouldn’t ruin the evidence, Denzel Washington‘s character sees something in her…? As I say, only in movies…) I also found it interesting to put Denzel’s character on a bed for 99% of the movie, so his character spends most of his time talking to people on the phone, staring on screens, or hyping Angelina’s character up, so she can see the very same thing Denzel sees in her.

If you are a fan of darker, twisted crime shows or old-ish thrillers, you might want to check this movie out, as I think it holds up fairly well. My main complain would only have to be that the run time could’ve been slightly cut down, as towards the end, movie starts to drag a bit, which is a shame, as until that moment, I was really enjoying it. But then again, I do like these darker thrillers and Angelina, so I might be a bit biased. 😉

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

Until next time,

Luke

It’s not that long ago I have re-watched the original Sabrina (1954), so I’ve decided to give this remake a go, after all, look at that pedigree! Harrison Ford, Julia Ormond, Greg Kinnear and many more, being directed by the one and only Sydney Pollack? Movie like that deserves a watch.

And I need to say, I was pleasantly surprised, even though at times, slightly confused. Sabrina is definitely not the worst remake I’ve ever seen, even though it is at least 80% the same exact movie. There was some minor changes (like Sabrina going to France, but not to learn to be a cook/chef, but to work for Vogue, being involved with fashion world) and for me two major changes, and paradoxically, one made the movie better and one slightly worse, even though it was necessary.

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

Let’s start with the good change – in the original movie, I didn’t get the “transformation” of the playboy brother to the “alright, I’m going to take the reigns now” guy at the end. Whereas in this movie, Greg Kinnear sold it better, where you can see his character more throughout other characters in this movie, so when he steps up, and shows everyone, that it’s not just his older brother, who knows thing or two about the business, it doesn’t feel as sudden. I did like it and I thought Kinnear’s performance might sneakily be the best in this movie, but as his role isn’t as big, it’s easy to forget about him.

The “bad” thing was Harrison Ford’s character, as they made him more cynical and jaded (at least it seemed like that to me) than in the original movie. The reason for the word bad being in quotes is, I do understand why they have done it, as his character (until he falls for Sabrina almost at the end) is really a bad person, who’s putting his company first, no matter what. And again, I totally understand why, as his character motivations were stated quite clearly in the movie, about filling out his dad’s shoes and making sure he’s a good fit for this company, but when you think about it, he’s the antagonist (villain) of the story, that only becomes the protagonist (the good guy) maybe 20/30 minutes before the end. But Harrison definitely was good in this movie, no question about it.

Julia Ormond was charming, but to me, she’s had the toughest job of all the actors, as playing the same role as the icon whom Audrey Hepburn unquestionably was, must’ve been terrifying. Look, nobody can’t really compare to Audrey, as she was the total package – charisma, charm, beauty, elegance, wit… but Julia managed, and I thought she did well.

The movie overall won’t really surprise you, even if you haven’t seen the original from 1954, as it follows what became one of the most copied story structures – poor person (usually a woman) watches/works for rich people most of her life, than she’s sent someplace for a year or two, comes back, but now she’s sophisticated, and changed, to a point where some of the rich people don’t even recognise her for a bit, and once they do, they fall for her and realise, what they’ve had right in front of them the entire time. It became a cliche, but it became a cliche for a good reason, as most of us can relate to watching the rich people having good time and secretly wanting to be them.

The only other thing I need to say is, this might be one of the rare instances, where a bit of fairy tale storytelling works a bit better for a movie (the original) rather than the shot of cynicism that (even though is needed) slightly puts the movie down a bit. That’s why I’ll prefer the original over re-watching this remake of Sabrina any time soon, even though it’s not a bad movie at all. It’s just more realistic, mainly when comes to the characters and sometimes, you want that, and sometimes, you just want the fairy tale, with the lovely Audrey.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I remember the very first time I’ve seen the first trailer for this movie, and I was… mixed on this. It looked like that type of movie that can be ridiculously funny and entertaining, but also looked like something that could easily be another Jupiter Ascending (2015), where (questionable) visuals overtake everything and the story and performances aren’t that great.

After the movie came out, I was hearing mainly positive things about the movie, so I was kind of looking forward seeing this. And finally, I’ve watched it, as with more and more movies nowadays, without knowing anything about it – I didn’t know it was based on manga (yeah, I know, I’m like the last person who didn’t know that) even though it became obvious watching the movie, as the action scenes were done differently than your typical Hollywood blockbuster (in a good way).

That’s where Alita: Battle Angel shines (no pun intended) – action sequences are not choppy, in most scenes you can tell what’s happening and where everybody is, so that’s definitely plus. And even the special effects are great, even though it will be interesting to see how well this movie will age (how great will it look 10/15 years from now).

Halfway through the movie I’ve realised something – I’m not enjoying this as much as I could be, as I thought the movie is trying to do 100 things at once, and it shows. There is a plenty of world building, but also there is a lot of what movie hints at. Which, if you do it properly and don’t overdo it, I wouldn’t mind. But if you do it in a way that says “we would love to tell you more about this character, about this place, about how everything works, so gives us money and we will make sure to explain everything in upcoming sequels” I refuse to play along.

Movie should always work on its own, even if you plan this as a trilogy, especially the very first one! You need to establish much more than Alita managed to do, because as it is now, Alita: Battle Angel is half of a movie. There is no end, there is just a setup for “things to come”, where you don’t really know answers to some basic questions asked throughout the movie (Who is she actually? Who is Nova?) and I’m kind of sick and tired of this approach.

This honestly feels like the movie is either 20 minutes too long (if we were to cut some sequel setups) or 2 hours too short. There is an argument to be made that this would be much better HBO/Netflix show, with proper budget, where you could immerse yourself in this world, properly build it and tell the story you want to tell. And then your viewers would even forgive you ending a season on a cliffhanger, where if you know second season is coming, it feels very different than having the movie simply not answering things it should. Movies are very different medium than TV shows. Yes, it sounds obvious, but looks like it’s not really to Robert Rodriguez.

Think about it, especially in 2020, the line between what’s a movie and what’s better suited to be a show is very blurry. But whatever medium you pick, you better stick to its rules, because they matter. Especially the rule that movies should have some sort of structure, where beginning, the middle and the end is not only appreciated, but it is mandatory, as it works much better. This is where Alita fails – it doesn’t work on its own. And sure, if there will be a sequel that clears up some things, it might work better, BUT…

It’s the same as making a movie based on a book – it’s always better to read the book before watching the movie, as books contain more details, but it should NEVER be mandatory, as movie should work on its own! It should only serve as a recommendation, where the book would go over extra (not necessary) plot points in more detail, or would give extra development to some characters. But having your movie rely on book (“Oh, you want to why this happens? Read the book!”) is a cheat. The same way having a movie rely on getting a sequel (“You want to know who this character is? Make sure to give us money, so we can tell you… THE NEXT TIME!”) is just annoying.

Which is a shame, as Alita: Battle Angel is a good movie with some great actions scenes, decent cast and world I wouldn’t mind exploring more. But not like this.

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

Until next time,

Luke

How to write about a movie, that’s based on an idea of grown men playing the game of Tag and going to extreme lengths, where they seriously play it, no matter what’s happening around them?

The premise of the movie is really intriguing, and the movie as a whole was quite a pleasant surprise, where the only problem is I wasn’t laughing nearly as much as I should have. Most of the jokes didn’t really work for me, as it was the stereotypical American comedy, we are all (or at least me) so used to by now, where everything is lined up for you, so most things won’t surprise you. What actually surprised me though, was the fact I didn’t mind not laughing, as the movie itself was actually entertaining by itself and the cast had a great chemistry.

What I found fascinating about this movie cast is the fact that there is a clear standout, but it’s not one of the main (guy) characters you might expect, like Ed Helms, Jon Hamm or Hannibal Buress (where the last one is a proper stand up comedian!). They were all good, don’t get me wrong, but for me, the one who stole this movie is none other than Isla Fisher – her character of Ed Helm’s wife, who’s “too intense to play the game, even if girls were allowed to play it” was hilarious and she had by far the best line in the movie: “Suck my tiny ginger balls!“. That was the only moment I properly laughed out loud, as it wasn’t just unexpected, but also her delivery was on point. Ok, sorry, but I need to rant for a bit (again).

I desperately want for somebody to give Isla Fisher a proper leading role, not the role of being “somebody’s wife” – she’s proven time and time again, she not only has the acting and comedic chops to steal a movie or two, but she’s charismatic, charming and actually funny! Please, somebody cast her in a movie where she’s the MAIN character, so she can truly spread her wings and fly.

For the most of the movie, I was thinking about rating it, as I wasn’t sure about it at all – it wasn’t hitting me as a comedy, I had a good time with the movie on its own, but couldn’t feel the “heart” as the movie wanted me to. That was until the last 20 minutes or so, where something that I have not expected happens and that, plus Isla Fisher, elevated my rating slightly above average, where I finally gave in, maybe bit later than the movie wanted me to, but at least it get me for a tiny bit.

Tag isn’t a bad movie. It’s an interesting story (albeit a fictional, if you wan’t to know what’s real and what is not, here’s some details about the actual people this movie is based on) that keeps you engaged, but if you go into this movie expecting barrel of laughs, don’t. And if you are looking for a modern comedy where you can actually laugh out loud more than once? I’d recommend either Blockers or even better (and this might be one of the best comedies of the last decade) Game Night (both from the same year as Tag).

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

Until next time,

Luke

I remember there was a period of time back in 2017/2018 where all the movie people I follow (Maltins, CinemaSins etc.) talked about this movie and how great it was.

I finally gave it a shot couple of days ago, and to be fair, I didn’t know what to think of it for some time – not because I was lost plot wise, but maybe I was expecting a bit more. That’s not to say this isn’t a good movie, because it is, Melanie Lynskey proves she should get better roles as she can handle leading a movie (basically) by herself and she’s amazing in this one. One thing I loved about her performance – she isn’t afraid to look ugly. She’s usually stunning, lovely looking woman and in this movie, she’s almost opposite of that, as her character goes through something we all can relate to more and more unfortunately, tough times and wondering… why? Why are things the way they are? Why do people treat other people like this? What’s the point of… everything?

I Don’t Feel at Home in This World Anymore. is definitely an interesting movie where my biggest gripe with it would be it’s not as unique as it thinks it is. Because for its entirety, I was waiting for this movie to standout from the “indie” crowd of the last couple of years and it didn’t, story wise. Respectively, I thought the story could’ve been crazier, deeper, something truly unexpected could’ve happened with Melanie’s character or with Elijah Wood‘s character (he’s living the life, as he’s choosing smaller, more interesting projects and you can tell how much fun he’s having) who almost overshadowed Melanie. But it kind of “stayed” in its lane the entire time, which is a good lane, but also a lane more and more indie movie goes towards lately and that makes them “blend in” more. To me, smaller movies should stand out bit more.

The movie’s main message is “be a dick, it will come back and bite you in the ass (or in this movie example, face…?) but if you choose not to be one, you have more chance of making it out unharmed” which I can get behind. Maybe I’ve expected bit more, given everything I’ve heard, so that’s not really the movie’s fault.

Is this film worth your time? I’d say yes, just brace yourself, as this is definitely not “the feel good” movie of the summer. Or fall. Or winter, for that matter. You will feel slightly down right after, even though it kind of finishes on a hopeful note (Gary Anthony Williams in a small, but great role tells Melanie’s character throughout the movie that him and his wife are going through divorce procedures, but at the very end he tells her “We are not doing that anymore, we’ve worked it out”) and to me, this is what the movie is about – things might look dark and gloom at times, but if you power through it and stay a good person, things might just look up. Might.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Some movies age like fine wine, where you can look get into them really easily, laugh along with the main characters, enjoy the story. Roxanne is not one of those movies.

20 minutes into this movie I thought “Oh no, this will be one of those films that must’ve been really funny when it was released, but now it will be a snooze fest”. Luckily, I was wrong, as after those 20 minutes, the movie improves. I think it has something to do with Rick Rossovich‘s character, as he’s the perfect foil for Steve Martin‘s character.

Let me just take a minute and go through something – this is where modern comedies make their biggest mistake – they usually cast two (or more) comedians, throw them in some situation and say “Now, BE FUNNY!” and it doesn’t work like that. The best comedies usually work because there is only ONE person that’s supposed to be funny, the other should really work like a foil, an opposite of whatever the comedian plays. In this instance, we have Steve Martin, who’s charming, intelligent, sharp and funny guy. On the opposite side, we have Rick, who’s handsome, and… that’s really it. He relies on his looks, so he doesn’t have to be witty, and he isn’t really dumb, but he’s also not really the sharpest tool in the shed (as Smash Mouth would say), and that’s why scenes between him and Steve’s character work really well, even today. For this to work, Rick needs to stay in his line and not try to be funny, as he’d just clash with Steve’s character and it wouldn’t work as well. That’s why comedies nowadays don’t work that well, as nobody wants to be the foil anymore, as it’s an ungrateful job, because if you do it well, you make the other person shine, and usually people overlook your performance.

The highlight of this movie is definitely Steve in the bar, coming up with insults about his big, big nose – where we can see the almost raw potential of his character and how he truly is, where he has plenty of opportunities to turn sour, but he never does. He manages to balance on a thin line between standing up for himself and not making his character be just about his nose, give us something extra where we can still root for him without feeling “Ok, he’s got a big nose, I get it.”

Other than Steve’s performance, the movie is pretty decent, Saturday afternoon movie, where nothing will surprise you, you might laugh once or twice, you will probably be charmed by Daryl Hannah (and since it was still the 80’s, we definitely needed to have a scene where she’s naked and running around, even though everything is covered up).

If it wasn’t for Steve’s brilliant performance, there’d be nothing memorable about this movie. But he went for it and single-handedly made this movie better, and that reflects in my rating too. Definitely a pleasant movie.

That’s it for this one! Did you see Roxanne? What’s your favourite Steve Martin’s movie? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke