Another year, another remake of a recent foreign movie. I managed to see the Danish/Dutch original, also titled Speak No Evil (2022), one night before watching this movie. That movie is a masterclass in tension while it touches on many societal themes (emasculation, politeness, power dynamics). Long story short, I enjoyed my time with it, and it stayed with me until now. That was one of the reasons I was hopeful that this remake would add something on top of it. That is the ultimate issue with any remake; there should be some justification for it, whether you want to tell the same story with different elements or put your unique twist on it… Well, this remake definitely changed the ending, but unfortunately, not every change is for the better.

The first two-thirds of this movie are almost as excellent as the original film. There are some additional scenes and dialogues, but you can argue that it’s virtually a shot-for-shot remake. So, for the first two-thirds of this movie, I was with it because everything felt familiar as I had watched the original the night before. It’s the last third when this remake decides to go its way and do its thing, and… yeah. Before we delve into that, let’s talk about some positives first.

The cast was awesome. The clear standout is James McAvoy, who you believe every word he says. His presence, intensity, physique, everything about him just worked, and you will remember his character for some time. Mackenzie Davis was also great; her character was much more “involved” than the character in the original, but she always delivers. Who I have never heard of and who surprised me was Aisling Franciosi, who played Ciara. I thought she gave this character that extra something that made her stand out; she had that spark, and her chemistry with McAvoy’s character was off the charts. Unfortunately, her character is one of the victims of the third act, but it had nothing to do with her portrayal; I hope to see more of her.

I will try to avoid direct spoilers and give you certain aspects of the third act that didn’t work for me. Therefore, if you haven’t watched this movie yet, proceed at your own risk, as I don’t want to spoil anything per se, but I will talk about the ending in more depth.

The issue with this remake is that it adopts the same themes as the original but then changes the ending, and the outcome defeats the ultimate point of the story. That’s why you will experience a tonal whiplash when this tense movie with little to no action suddenly turns into all-out guns blazing. I am trying so hard to separate this from the original film because we should judge movies based on what they are. But even with that caveat, it doesn’t work because the themes didn’t change!

Let me give you this example, both movies talk very openly about lost masculinity, and it’s on our main protagonist to try and recapture it before it’s too late. In the remake, they deal with it by… having Mackenzie Davis to be the go-get-shit-done person. And she is awesome and can kick ass, no issue there. However, that wasn’t the point of this story. The movie almost dodged this and makes her husband help in the final mayhem a bit, but it is ultimately her who does the most “work”.

Another problem I had was with Ciara’s character and her sudden doubts. In the original, this couple was one unit. You were terrified of both of them as they did horrible things without a single twitch or doubt. Here, towards the end, all of a sudden, by the way, she hesitates. There are two scenes where she suddenly turns against her husband, and I think the first is a fake out. But then we have the scene on the roof where she hesitates to do something. And that doesn’t track with her character, at least with what we were shown prior.

Finally, this movie explains everything to you. There is no room for any nuance, any audience interpretation regarding what will happen next, why they are doing it… nothing. Where the original leaves you hanging a bit and ends on a brutal note, this movie has a totally different ending. And I will be honest, I struggled with the original’s ending too, at first. But the more I sit with that movie and think about it, the more I love it. How everything is implied but never told because of the blanks we can fill in using our imagination as far as their motive goes is much more unnerving than anything the movie can show us. And this movie doesn’t have that. Everything feels more “Hollywoody”.

Ultimately, that’s where this remake lost me. Unlike the original, I haven’t really thought about this movie that much because that last third just changed everything; it was hard for me to find anything positive about that change. I will give Speak No Evil this – at least they justified their existence, and this remake is different from the original. Change is often needed and good, but there are times when that’s not the case, and this is one of those cases.

Overall, Speak No Evil is a great movie for the first 2/3 of it, and then an okay-ish action fest for the last third. I think your enjoyment of this movie will be linked to whether or not you have seen the original. I was thinking how watching it the night before almost made it feel like I was rewatching this movie already. And that’s how I ultimately knew that I wouldn’t rewatch this any time soon, if ever. However, the original from 2022… that’s a different story.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Unlike many, I didn’t grow up on the original Twister (1996), and I only watched it for the first time a couple of years ago and thought it was fine. So, I wasn’t particularly “hyped” for this sequel; however, after some initial reactions, I felt if I were to see this movie, I should do it properly – on the big screen. And as the title of this review hints, I seem to be on this island where I know people who love both the original and this sequel. I don’t hate either, but for me, both movies were just “fine”.

My biggest problem with Twisters was that the movie seemed to try so hard to be something different, more grounded, and be a blockbuster with a brain. Cool, I can get behind that. But what happens after that follows the same formula we’ve seen times and times again. We open with a scene that defines our protagonist (most of her friends die). Fast forward a couple of years later, where she leads a safe but unsatisfied life, yearning to chase tornadoes. And what would you know, when she thought she was out, they brought her back in. But it is 2024, so we must have a subplot about corporate greed. And she may or may not develop a substance that kills tornadoes. The end.

Am I simplifying this movie to make a funny (?) point? Yes. But Twisters is really that. The thing is, I went in hoping to see a big blockbuster that I would enjoy. And the movie has two awesome sequences (the rodeo tornado and the end) where you can feel the insane power of nature. But the rest was… neither here nor there. For a big blockbuster, I found myself bored a bit despite everything being just fine.

Take our protagonists. The titular trio are people I like to watch and believe are the future of Hollywood – Daisy Edgar-Jones, Glen Powell and Anthony Ramos. Each of them is perfectly fine in their role, but nobody stands out, and they all have had much better roles in movies where they played much smaller parts. Or take the subplot of corporate greed – yes, Anthony’s character works for the “bad guys” who exploit people right after the tornado hits them, but of course, he flips on the dime, facing no repercussions. What’s more, his turn makes it seem like everything is fine now, even though he helped this company scheme many people out of their homes. That was my biggest hang-up with Twisters; you can tell this film wants so badly to be a “better”, “more intelligent” blockbuster, focusing more on the people and their stories rather than the spectacle. But the story here is paper thin, and we have seen this exact formula done to death.

Even the themes of getting over someone’s death, not blaming yourself, and living with that guilt this movie wanted to explore with Daisy’s character fell flat because the film never digs too deep there. We see everything explored, don’t get me wrong, but it all feels shallow because we have more data to collect so we can stop them tornadoes. What I am trying to say, probably not as well, is everything in this movie felt like it wanted to be much more, but it’s ultimately very shallow.

To make something clear – I don’t understand tornado chasers and never will. However, I don’t understand many things and why people would choose to do those things, and they still make excellent movies about them. So I don’t think it’s a “me issue”, at least not from this angle. I understand that the original Twister was a phenomenal success, and many people worship that film. And I have seen many others support this one, calling it one of the best films of 2024. I am genuinely happy for them and won’t try to tell anyone they are wrong. It seems like this franchise (?) is simply something that’s not meant for me.

Overall, Twisters is one of the most “fine” movies I have ever seen. The story, performances, action, CGI, everything was just… fine. For slightly over two hours, it occupied my time, and I didn’t hate anything about it, but the same night, I couldn’t recall much about this film. Besides those two big set pieces, everything feels like a “by the numbers” blockbuster. I think your enjoyment is directly related to whether you are into chasing tornadoes and watching those YouTube videos or you enjoyed the original film. If the answer is “yes” to either of those two prompts above, you will have a blast with Twisters. If not, you may struggle to latch onto anything here, just like me.

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 old enough to remember when the original Mean Girls (2004) film came out. It took me two viewings to get into it, and I still wouldn’t say it’s my favourite movie. However, within that genre, it undeniably left a mark on our pop culture and helped to put some young girls (at the time) on the path to stardom, namely Rachel McAdams, Amanda Seyfried and Lizzy Caplan, I could argue were the most impacted by the success of this film. I have never seen the musical this movie is based on (yes, technically, it’s not a remake of the original; it’s a remake of that musical). Still, I have heard many people enjoyed it, and it gave us Reneé Rapp. Unfortunately, I can see how this would have worked much better as a stage musical.

Let me start with some positives. I thought Reneé Rapp was awesome as Regina, and she can sing. I thought the girl who played Janis was familiar, so when I checked IMDb and discovered it was Moana herself, Auli’i Cravalho, I was stunned. She was also great in her role, and I don’t think I need to even mention the fact that she has some pipes on her because she is freaking Moana! Of course, she can sing. But the standout of this movie was Avantika, who portrayed Karen. Sure, she is gorgeous, so that doesn’t hurt, but what’s much more important is that she (the same as Amanda Seyfried in the original film) is perfect as this idiot. The most I laughed at was her and her line deliveries because I know this isn’t an easy role. Playing the comic relief, you are always in danger of overstaying your welcome, and when that happens, it’s easy to get on people’s nerves. But the film gives her just enough scenes for it not to happen, and she capitalised on every single one. I wouldn’t mind seeing her career trajectory follow Amanda’s and seeing her in more dramatic roles and possibly getting some Oscar love. I hope she has been cast in 20 movies.

My biggest problem with this movie was the awareness of itself being a remake and needing to deliver on the iconic lines and scenes. Because the problem with the iconic lines (“That’s so fetch.” “On Wednesdays we wear pink!” etc.) and moments is that they became iconic organically. And this film puts so much emphasis on them that it becomes distracting. I would imagine all the crew and actors wanted to make sure they did them justice, but in doing that, they took it a bit too over the board, so every time a line or a scene from the original movie gets recycled, it becomes cringy, really fast. And this is what I can see would work as a Broadway musical because you MUST play it big for those moments to land in front of a live audience. Unfortunately, just like with many adaptions prior (whether you are adapting a book, game or musical), this film fell into the same trap, not realising that what worked on the stage doesn’t translate on the screen.

Another example of this would be the musical numbers. I watched this film a few weeks ago and can barely remember any that would stand out. I had to go back and read my review on Letterboxd (feel free to follow me here, shameless plug ;-)) because I remember naming two scenes that stood out. Those were the Halloween party and the Burn Book reveal scenes). I felt like those two musical set pieces at least tried to do something more cinematic. But as far as the rest is concerned, they weren’t any more imaginative than your average music video of the last decade. To be fair, I could probably name some music videos that are much more intriguing than most of these musical scenes. Again, what might have worked as a musical won’t work in cinemas or TV screens.

And if I must be brutally honest, I thought the songs were… fine. I think one of my biggest let-downs was that even after the movie finished, there wasn’t one tune, one song that would get stuck in my head. When I watch musicals, I love it when at least one or two songs stay with me to the point I would want to add them to my Spotify playlist, but here, nothing. I remember feeling like this when the credits were rolling, let alone now, a couple of weeks removed from this film.

Look, I am not saying this version of Mean Girls is bad. No, it’s a perfectly fine, semi-enjoyable movie that will, hopefully, catapult some young actors and singers to stardom. What I am trying to say is – when you adapt a musical based on a film that defines an entire generation, there are a few things you must balance out. You should also realise that there is no stage limit. Therefore, you can shoot musical numbers differently. You must, or otherwise, the final result will be average at best.

Overall, Mean Girls is a solid movie full of decent performers and actors who will be intriguing to watch where they end up in 20 years’ time. The movie won’t probably bore you, but especially if you have seen some musicals in your life, this might underwhelm you just a bit. But if you love “young sexy people” being young and sexy and every 10 minutes they break into a dance number, this film might be for you.

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

Until next time,

Luke

This movie is all kinds of weird. I will put aside my Czech bias of this movie, based on a Czech novel (Spaceman of Bohemia), and the fact this movie contains only some tiny Czech Easter eggs, but the main roles are an American man and an English lady with no attempt to do any accent is a choice… But again, let’s put that aside. Spaceman’s biggest problem is that we now have seen movies “just like this” (like the already mentioned Ad Astra (2019, my review here)) but done better. I am not just talking about the technical side; I am talking about the themes this movie tries to explore, and I don’t think they all land.

Let’s get something clear – Adam Sandler did a good job. I won’t hold the fact he isn’t Brad Pitt against him because I don’t think he did a bad job. The same goes for anyone else, especially Carey Mulligan, who uplifts what, otherwise, could have been a thankless job. I don’t think this will come as a shock to anyone, but I think she is the best actor in this movie, closely seconded by Sandler. The only reason Paul Dano isn’t any higher for me is the fact that we only hear him, but I won’t lie; you will remember his role. Sure, he is doing “just voice-acting”, but that’s a good reminder of how important voice-acting is and if done properly, it can move you, even if you never see the actor.

Where this movie lost me a bit was the split between Earth and Sandler’s space mission. Instead of those two storylines complementing each other, they almost seem to disturb the flow of Spaceman. Every time it gets interesting in space, we go back to Earth. That applies vice-versa every time something happened down there, on the Earth that I liked, we would go back to space. I can’t precisely put my finger on it, but despite those storylines being linked, they seemed disjointed. This is, for example, where Ad Astra understood what it must do and focused the majority of the film on Brad Pitt’s character and the loneliness of space.

Because Spaceman covers (or wants to cover) many of the same themes, from loneliness to realisation about humanity and how you might try to improve yourself as human to the people you care about the most, the themes are there. However, they never hit me as much as they should have. Spaceman wants to be this space drama about many complex things, but when the movie finished, I was… unmoved. I can’t say I was bored per se, and this isn’t a bad movie by any means, but it just felt a bit hollow and disjointed, and even incorporating the Rusalka myth, I wasn’t sure whether that symbolism did anything for this movie.

And this is where my Czech bias I put aside comes back, just for this paragraph or two. It’s weird to see some Czech actors but not in any major roles. It’s fascinating that studio people want to adapt this Czech book but then seem to do the bare minimum. Yeah, it was shot in Czech Republic. Yes, there are some Czech actors in mostly tiny roles and some Easter eggs (cukroví, aka Xmas Sweets Sandler has with him, CzechConnect etc.) But this Czech element ultimately doesn’t add anything to it. It’s still Sandler talking in his voice, the same for the other actors. Yes, they have Czech names, but they never explain why this “Czech” spaceman doesn’t have Czech accent. And it’s not just about the accents; Czechs have a unique attitude towards everything. We have a way we talk, we make jokes about everything, and this movie got… none of it. The best way I can describe it is that it lacked any “attitude”. Like this film felt empty when it shouldn’t.

I have not read the book this movie is based on, so I don’t know how that “Czech” aspect is portrayed in the book. But judging by the movie, I was hoping that the fact the setting and people in it should be Czech would play bigger part in it and at the end, it didn’t. You can literally rename all the characters in this movie, change Rusalka to some other folk tale and completely remove some of those Czech Easter eggs in post-production, and this becomes another Hollywood space movie. And it’s just an ok one on top of it.

Overall, Spaceman is one of those most “it’s a movie” movies I have ever seen. What I mean is this film goes for many things and themes, and some land, whilst others do not. The actors are all capable, and nobody is truly bad, but I can’t shake the feeling I will forget this movie’s existence in couple of months, because it ultimately makes little to no impact. Everything is competently made, there is nothing major to critique, but Spaceman feels disjointed and makes you wanting more. The only thing that had for it was that Czech angle, and trust me when I tell you that adds nothing to this story. That is what makes Spaceman feel like one of the most average films you will ever see. The CGI is fine, the performances are good, the rest you will forget. In a world full of great movies exploring this topic, you can probably skip this one and watch something like Ad Astra instead.

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

Until next time,

Luke

If you are a regular reader, firstly, cheers for reading! Secondly, you will know I am not shy to rate some proper B, C or Z movies highly, as long as they know what they are and I manage to have fun with them. That’s why I would never call myself a movie critic. Before watching this film, I hoped I could put that hat on while watching Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire. There were some moments I was able to enjoy myself (mainly the last fight in Rio), but most things before that just felt unnecessary, and dare I say too much. Am I really saying this movie had too much action? Yes, I do. Fuck me…

Before we proceed any further, I want to make one thing clear. I am not under the spell of Godzilla Minus One (2023, my review here). Is that a much better movie you should see rather than this Godzilla x Kong? Absolutely, no contest there. However, I knew before even sitting my ass in the cinema that Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire won’t reach the heights of that movie (well, I didn’t know, I had a hunch) because this isn’t that kind of movie. Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire is the other monster movie, where one big monster smashes stuff, fights other big monsters that smash more stuff, then they team up for reasons I still fully don’t understand and smash this third monster. The end. I knew this would be more about how they get them fighting and how those sequences would be shot; it is here where this monster cookie would crumble for me. And this movie… surely has quite a few action scenes.

During the third or fourth action scene, this movie gave me in a relatively short time, I caught myself getting bored. If there’s one thing you don’t want to write when reviewing an action movie where two titans fight each other and then fight some other monsters, that “thing” would be the word “boring”. But the action scenes all had the same “feel”, so they all kind of blended in for me after a while; I don’t know about you, but the moment I can’t differentiate what the difference between this scene and that scene, it’s hard for me to have fun.

The only action sequence I would call “pretty good” (notice I can’t even say excellent) is the one in Rio at the very end of this movie. That fight was filmed well where I understood where everyone was, the location was well-lit (read: bright), the action felt dynamic, and even the editing wasn’t as aggressive. But honestly, I can’t think of one other action scene before that one that would stand out to me, and this movie has precisely 11.259!

The other thing is the human characters are yet again in the way, and I couldn’t care less about any of them. This is shit to write, considering Rebecca Hall, one of the most talented actresses we have today, is in this movie with Brian Tyree Henry, who I like more and more! Rebecca at least tries something, but I don’t know whether her storyline with her daughter (played by Kaylee Hottle) could have ever worked, no matter how you shoot it, considering this isn’t that kind of movie. That storyline was beautiful and impactful, but it felt out of place in a movie called Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire. Also, this movie made me not like Brian Tyree Henry, as he is supposed to be the comedic relief. Luckily, I know he is funny and talented, so I know this wasn’t him, but damn, they did him dirty in this movie. Almost every single thing his character said felt off, and maybe one or two jokes landed. I feel like it’s important to repeat I am not blaming either of these actors; they did the best with what have been given, and honestly, if you recast this movie with anyone else, I doubt anybody could make these lines work.

What I enjoyed, besides the Rio finale, was the mythology behind the Hollow Earth and being there. I did enjoy the scenes “below” more than I thought. I thought they did a fine job trying to tie everything together (with Skull Island, other titans, ancient tribe). Does it work if you think about it logically? No. But I can accept it in the movie, because that is what I am talking about when I say: “judge the movie based on its merits”. Those parts worked to an extent for me within the movie.

But everything else left me cold. And again, putting aside the juggernaut that was Godzilla Minus One, I still think this movie is just average. When the movie finished, I thought long and hard about whether I had any bias towards this movie due to Godzilla Minus One. I realised I didn’t because even if I compare this film to something “basic, yet entertaining” like Transformers: Rise of the Beasts (2023, my review here), I enjoyed that movie much more than this one due to the action scenes feeling different. I still remember most action scenes because they weren’t choppy; most of them were shot in a way where you could always understand where everybody was. In this movie, I don’t think it’s the case, and again, it’s never a good sign when action scenes start to blend in with each other after some time.

Overall, Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire is an okay movie that has one pretty good action scene. As it became a trademark at this point, the human characters feel out of place, even if they get decent actors in these films. Most of the CGI feels the same, and halfway through the movie, you start thinking: “Yeah, I guess there is a such thing as abundance of action scenes; who could have known?” At this point, I honestly wonder whether this “monster verse” isn’t due for a reboot or, even better, a break. Ken Watanabe started it in Godzilla (2014) by saying: “Let them fight.” I think it’s time to let them sleep for a bit.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Bradley Cooper and I have a complicated relationship. Firstly, it’s one-sided, as he doesn’t know I exist. Secondly, and much more importantly, I have always liked him as an actor, even when his main schtick was doing “just comedies”. He was charming and seemed like a chill dude who would be fun to talk to. And then he decided to direct, something many actors have done before to various degrees of success. The thing is, Bradley isn’t a bad director. But every shot and every decision he makes in his films almost screams: “Please, like me. I am a director now, and I want to get an Oscar too!” Maestro is the latest example of that where the movie plays, and you go through and once it ends… I felt next to nothing.

This might be a shock to many, but I don’t know much about the world of classical music. But even I have heard the name Leonard Bernstein before. So when I heard a biopic about him is in the works with Bradley and Carey Mulligan playing the titular duo, I was actually mildly excited to see it as again; I like Bradley and love and adore Carey, who has been one of those “always excellent” performers since her first movie. But most importantly, I was looking forward to this as it was a biopic, and given I know next to nothing about the real-life Leonard, I wanted to learn a bit more, something that might intrigue me to go and Google a couple of things about him after the movie was over. You know that feeling when you watch a great biopic and then read trivia about that movie and Google what was true and what the “it’s a movie, so we made this up to make it more cinematic” details? But… I didn’t do any Googling after this movie finished.

The reason for that is simple, the movie gave me two or three things about Bernstein I didn’t know. He got his “lucky call”, was bisexual (?), and he seemed to live a carefree life with this zen-like attitude. And yeah, he cared about music and composing. Was there anything else? Unfortunately, no. Nothing about what made him great because he was already great when we met him. Ok, maybe we will delve deeper into his passion for music…? Kind of, we got one scene towards the end where he teaches a class and demonstrates his knowledge. But that is about it. Look, I don’t need your stereotypical “from cradle to the grave” biopic. I don’t mind the film focusing on specific events in someone’s life like Ferrari (2023, my review here) did, but Maestro seems all over the place and distant. And you can pick one movie, not both!

We mostly follow him throughout the years and his life with his wife Felicia, portrayed by Carey Mulligan. Bradley’s performance was great, and Carey’s excellent (another Oscar nomination, please!), I don’t think I have gotten to know him any better than before this movie. That is something I thought was the point of making a biopic in the first place for the general audience to understand or get to know someone much better. Unfortunately, when the movie ended, I thought for a second and realised that I still had no idea who Bernstein was and what made him one of the best (if not the best) composers who has ever lived… And if the point of Maestro was to portray him as this carefree bisexual (?), that is also fine, but I am not sure whether that works.

The reason I put a question mark after the word bisexual is that I don’t even know whether he was one, illustrating my point about this film not wanting to tell us anything. All we see is him loving his wife and having kids whilst openly flirting and kissing men as well. To me, he seems like a bisexual, but here’s the thing. How did he see himself? Because he wouldn’t (and frankly shouldn’t) give a flying fuck about what I thought he was, but it would be nice of the movie to (maybe) let us in more. My big problem with this film was that distance, that almost coldness where we are watching a movie about this unique talent, but we never see what made him unique. It feels like the film is keeping us at arms’ distance.

Technically, the movie is stunning to look at. Here is where I can’t help but think of Bradley and his eagerness to be recognised by his peers. And there is nothing wrong with wanting that, and in all the interviews I have heard of him talking about this movie, he seems like a genuinely decent guy, but… Maestro feels like that overachieving kid in a class who wants to convince you he knows everything and then pleads with you to like him for it. There are some beautiful shots that serve no purpose. The same can be said about aspect ratios; the movie has several, and they are used for the most basic “passage of time”, aka “We shot this scene in this ratio because it’s the 30s, you see!” Cooper feels like he’s read every single book about directing and, on paper, knows exactly what he is supposed to do, how to frame a shot, stage a scene, etc. But those scenes feel mechanical, lifeless and boring.

This movie has a pretty sad storyline I won’t spoil, just in case you are like me and didn’t know anything about either Leonard or Felicia. And when I started seeing it unveiled, I didn’t care. When it finished, I still didn’t care. Because when everything feels cold and emotionally distant, you will… well, not care too much about either character on the screen. In any other biopic, that would have been one of those tough-to-watch scenes that might bring tears to your eyes. In Maestro, despite my enjoyment of the performances, I honestly didn’t care.

If I omit the distance, the camera work was great; some shots were spectacular, and the church scene was superb. And again, mainly Carey Mulligan carries this movie on her tiny frame. Therefore, Maestro wasn’t a waste of my time, but what should (and could) have been an excellent biopic about this titan of classical musicals turns out to be a perfectly fine movie that you might appreciate if you already know who Bernstein was. I know some people loved this movie. I am happy for them. Unfortunately for the rest of us, we still aren’t any closer to understanding who he was, why was he so great, and what made him tick, but hey, we know he was a happy-go-lucky guy who fucked everyone…? So, yay?

Overall, Maestro is a fascinating biopic that doesn’t seem like it wants to give you anything about the titular character. Instead, you get this almost “over the years” montage, snippets of Bernstein’s life that should allow you to get to know him better, but, in my case, it didn’t work. From a person who’s watched many biopics, from great to awful ones, Maestro is pretty much in the middle. Just like Bernstein apparently was, this movie just is. It exists, and some people are very happy about it. I wish I could be one of them.

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

Until next time,

Luke

It took me a few weeks to finally see this movie in the cinemas, so by that point, I had heard mostly positive reviews about this film and how charming everything was. So naturally, I was hoping for a lovely, charming and joyfully magical movie and what I got was that, but… Wonka is one of those movies where the pieces of the puzzle are better than the overall picture the puzzle creates, as ultimately, your enjoyment will correlate with whether or not you can feel the magic. And I never could.

I don’t think it was due to any preconceived bias. For example, I didn’t grow up with Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971); I didn’t see that movie until about 2018 if I remember correctly. I grew up with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), but even that movie was always one I liked, not loved. I have also never read the book these are all based on, so when I went to see Wonka, I was ready to love it, enjoy my time and be charmed. And the movie definitely isn’t bad by any means.

The biggest reason to see this film must be Timothée Chalamet. Given my history with this “franchise”, I wasn’t against him (I remember some people were not happy when he was announced); I hoped he would be at least decent. To my surprise, he was a clear standout. Sure, it’s easy to stand out if you are the leading performer. But still, he had the charisma and the naivete about this world, but most importantly, you believe him when he suddenly does something magical or impossible. It’s hard to do impossible stuff within semi-real-world boundaries and get away with it, and he did. I think the reason for that was his character always acts nonchalant about all the magic. For him, that magic is the norm. He is quirky and doesn’t find it peculiar that he travels with a pretty much chocolate factory in his suitcase because that is just his reality.

I was confused that some people were calling out his performance for being too cutesy and that he wasn’t as cynical as the legendary Gene Wilder. And those are the moments I can’t even with some people as the obvious answer is he wasn’t supposed to be cynical. Even I, who has never read the book, understood that this was Wonka at the very beginning of his journey. Back when he was young, full of hope, optimism and joy. It would make zero sense for this young guy to be grumpy, cynical or disillusioned with the world as for his older character to make any sense, he must start from this place. You can even see it in the original movie, where Wonka has that magic and charm about him, but his life and everything that happened to him led him to be this cynical. The point of this paragraph is if you hear a critique of Chalamet’s performance and someone refers to Gene’s performance as to why, you know you don’t have to listen to them. 😉

Back to the movie, everything else has also worked. I thought Olivia Colman was the other obvious standout, as she is funny and hams it up in her role. I liked the decision to have Noodle (Calah Lane‘s character) as almost a younger sister character rather than casting someone older for a potential love interest. Not every story needs one, and this was a perfect example of something the filmmakers did perfectly; plus, I enjoyed the chemistry between Wonka and Noodle. They were the heart of the movie. The rest of the supporting cast was great; everyone from Keegan-Michael Key to Jim Carter was perfect in their roles.

I also didn’t mind it was a musical. I know there has been a lot of controversy about the promotion of this movie and how many went into it, NOT knowing this was a musical (because of some study…?). I didn’t mind it, even though I wasn’t sure whether it added anything to the film. I thought the songs were cute, but honestly, I can’t remember any single one now, and I have only been removed a few weeks from watching this movie. There are many musicals I have seen only once, some time ago, and I still remember quite a few songs (The Greatest Showman (2017) is my example). So, even though I didn’t mind it, it did very little for me.

But, where the cookie crumbled was the “mood” of the film. For you to enjoy Wonka, you must feel that magic. You should feel like you are part of that world where everyone is vaguely British (except for a few characters), magic is (kind of) real, and chocolate solves all your problems. From reading other people’s thoughts and discussing this movie, I understand I am in the minority here, so this is truly a “me issue”, but I have never felt that magic. I enjoyed this movie and all the individual pieces of it, but when I reflected on my experience later on, I found myself feeling empty, almost indifferent. The best way to describe it is that I never got into that world; it felt like everyone was invited to this magical party, and my invite got lost in the mail.

And I apologise because I try hard not to do what I am about to do, but I didn’t feel “it”. In all of my reviews, when I give a movie a bad or an average rating, I usually have a few reasons for it. But with Wonka, besides not feeling “that magic” and “songs didn’t do much for me”, I have nothing else. I feel a bit weird because my rating may ultimately seem a bit harsh, but I assure you, this is how I feel now about this movie. To buy into this world and get immersed in it, you must feel that levity that magic. That is something both Paddington movies had (my reviews for both movies can be found here and here). For me, that something was missing for me.

I know I have said this for many movies of 2023, but Wonka will be a fascinating rewatch because I get that I am in the minority, and many have enjoyed this movie much more. I wonder how well (or not) this will play the next time I watch it and whether anything will change for me. Only time will tell, but I promise, if I rewatch it and suddenly like or even love this movie, I will release a different review, something I have never done and will go on record about it.

Overall, Wonka is a charming movie that has everything going for it. From an excellent lead performer to a great cast of supporting actors, this movie shines. Where it lost me was that I never felt that magic come through the screen and charm me with it. It was missing that “it” factor I usually feel while watching many delightful movies, big and small, but for whatever reason, Wonka did not have it. But, what might be a rarity, I would still recommend this film as I understand the majority of people enjoyed this movie. So, despite my average rating, if you liked the Paddington films, you may end up liking this movie too.

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

Until next time,

Luke

This is a “me” issue, but I wasn’t as hyped for Napoleon as everyone around me seemed to have been. I knew a few things about him, and I don’t find him any more or less fascinating than other rules, who, at one point in time or another, conquered a vast amount of the world. But, the fact Ridley Scott was behind the camera and Joaquin Phoenix alongside Vanessa Kirby were in front of it definitely intrigued and sold me on seeing it in the cinema, despite me knowing that this won’t be “the ultimate version”, as there is a four-hour director’s cut coming to the Apple TV at some point. This might sound strange, but despite this movie having a few issues, I still want to watch the longer cut.

Let’s start with the positives. Napoleon is a technically well-made movie. Scott showcases that his longevity in Hollywood (his first feature, The Duellists, is from 1977!) isn’t a coincidence and pours his knowledge of six decades of filmmaking into this film, and it shows. Especially, the battle sequences were shot beautifully, they have a scope and despite me occasionally getting lost as to who was fighting who (many dirty uniforms looked alike), I had no complaints in this department. The visuals are stunning.

The same applies to Joaquin and Vanessa. With Phoenix, this performance won’t surprise anyone, as, if we are being really honest here, it isn’t a stretch for him by any means. He has portrayed similar, if not the same characters, a few times before, but hey, if it ain’t broke… What he does with Napoleon seems to be on the edge of humanising him and almost parodying him. There were scenes where it seemed almost like a parody of this film, only for me to read how historically inaccurate Napoleon is and realise, yeah, maybe I shouldn’t take my historical information from the movies as they are here to entertain and need to make anything or anyone cinematic enough.

I have found Vanessa Kirby much more interesting, as when she wasn’t getting humped from the back by Joaquin in some of the most hilarious sex scenes of 2023, you could tell a lot about their relationship, respectively the power nature. Her character starts as a commoner when Napoleon is rising through the ranks, so there is a power imbalance already, and then we can see his obsession with her almost instantaneously. And once she marries him, she becomes an equal and treats him like it. It almost seemed like she was the only character through which we could see him for what he truly was, this man-child obsessed with power and didn’t really care much about anything else.

And with this is where my problem lies. Despite the runtime of almost 160 minutes, I felt bored, but also like there was something missing. Was my mind clouded a bit by the knowledge that there would be a longer cut at some point? Yes, probably. But even not focusing on that, Napoleon felt disjointed at times, where I thought some scenes didn’t transition as smoothly to other scenes. Especially in a biopic, albeit historically inaccurate one, we should be able to feel the progress of everything, from time to the characters. In Napoleon, occasionally, that escaped me. But I suppose that having that director’s cut available soon-ish (nobody knows when exactly this will come out, but it’s presumed either February or March 2024) should fix some, if not all, of these issues.

When I say “issues”, I am talking about pacing too. While the battle sequences were fascinating to watch, the rest of the film dragged on occasionally. To put it bluntly, I felt the runtime more often than I didn’t. Especially towards the end, I couldn’t help but check my imaginary clock at the cinema. Which sounds weird, given I am actually excited about the director’s cut and will watch it. Why? Because I truly hope and believe the extra material might fix the pacing and give me more to chew on. And especially with Ridley Scott, he’s got a good track record of having better director’s cut movies than pretty much anyone (Blade Runner (1982, my review here) is the obvious example, and I hear the same happened with his other film I still haven’t seen, Kingdom of Heaven (2005)).

But that begs the question, why does this still happen? Why does he “need” two versions; why not just release the longer one in the cinemas? Well, we can blame ourselves, and I am counting myself in that group too, as many moviegoers wouldn’t have gone and watched such a long movie in a cinema. I know many are like me and don’t like to get up and go to the bathroom when watching a film in cinemas, so you won’t miss anything, whereas, at home, you can pause the film. And as the movies aren’t getting any shorter, why not be smart about it and give us an intermission? For any movie that’s longer than, let’s say, 150 minutes, why not find a sensible enough scene in the middle where we could “cut” or “pause” the movie for about 10 minutes? That way, people could not only stretch their legs and relieve themselves, but they could also get extra popcorn and drinks, hence cinemas would make a bit more money…? I know I am not the only one who feels like this, and I still remember how The Hateful Eight (2015) had an intermission built into it, and that’s a three-hour movie that made almost $200 million. Anyway, I hope and strongly believe that the longer cut of this film will be better, and I wish I could have seen that (with an intermission) in the cinemas.

Overall, Napoleon is a technical masterpiece made by someone who understands his craft. The two main performers are excellent, and so are the battle scenes. However, the movie felt disjointed at times, and the pacing was also off, especially towards the end. That will not stop me from eventually watching the Director’s Cut once it drops on Apple TV; I simply wish I had the chance to see that first on the big cinema screen.

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

Until next time,

Luke