The Princess and the Frog is one of those “filling my gaps” movies, I haven’t seen until now. One of the rare exceptions for modern Disney animation that was escaping me throughout the years, and now I can finally cross it off my “list of shame”. Which I am pleased about because this is a lovely story, a great film that’s just so close to being a great one, But let’s start from the beginning…

I appreciated a lot about this movie – the characters, the story being set in New Orleans (a place that’s been on my to-visit list long before the COVID-19 pandemic, as I keep constantly hearing stories about the amazing cuisine, rich history and most of all, the jazz connection) and of course, Disney’s first African-American princess, Tiana. But this is also my biggest gripe with this movie. I know what you thinking, wait what? Ok, let me explain.

Since this is based on a well-known fairy tale (albeit with one twist), I will spoil a tiny bit of the main plot, to explain my biggest issue with this film – they only gave us the “real” Tiana for about 20 minutes…? Exactly, in most of the movie, we spend time with her being one of the titular frogs. And even though I appreciated this twist, that it’s not just the prince, who needs to turn back but also her, I can’t help but feel cheated. The first African-American princess, but not only that, with her agenda (she really wants to buy and run her own restaurant) and yet, for most of the film, we are starring at the frog. And look, as far as frogs go, it’s a pretty sexy looking frog, I am not going to lie. I am not saying I would have anything with a frog, all I am saying is if I must have something with a frog… what are we talking about again?

Oh yeah… anyway, for some reason, it really bothered me we did not get to enjoy Tiana in her human form for longer. Come to think of it, I think that’s a valid complaint, as I need to admit… I am a man. Also a white man, so there is that. And even I have noticed how little time we get to spend with human Tiana. Now, imagine how some little kid will feel, going to see a movie, where they finally see somebody, who looks like them on the screen in the main role, not just being wacky sidekick, or sassy friend, to only see the human version of them for a quite limited amount of the screen time. All I am saying, representation matters.

The voice acting was pretty great – I need to compliment Anika Noni Rose, as she did well and has a beautiful voice (not only for talking but singing, as all actors actually sang their parts too). I need to be honest, everybody else did a decent enough job, but nobody except John Goodman stood out for me. I know what you are thinking: “Hey, great to see your values, talking about representation and stuff, just to say one of two people who stood out was a stereotypical white guy!” Look… you might have a point, but I honestly think if I wasn’t so familiar with his voice, even he wouldn’t have stood out as much. Come to think of it, that might have been purposeful, as even though this movie has the mighty Oprah Winfrey included in the voice cast, I didn’t know about it until the credits rolled. I was so focused on our main heroine, mesmerised with her voice, I ignored everybody else. I was enjoying the story, so I didn’t care to ask myself “why don’t I recognize any of these voices except John Goodman?” And that’s a pretty great thing, if you ask me, as I don’t measure the quality of any movie by “how many famous people I recognize appear in it”, but based on how invested I am into the story itself.

Overall, The Princess and The Frog is a great movie, which puts a new twist on the old story we are all familiar with. It’s impossible not to get hungry while watching the film or to fall in love with Aniko (or her voice). My tiny issue was only with her being a frog for most of the movie. So I will say something I don’t usually say – I would 100% be for a sequel. Give us a sequel, where she won’t be a frog, maybe with her running her restaurant, some original story, as I’d love to get to know this character more. And yes, I know there will be a TV series called Tiana (2022 -?) but I don’t think I am that age group, that could justify watching a TV show about a Disney princess. A movie though, that’s something different, as you don’t have to invest too much time and should be “packaged” more neatly.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is one of those movies, that just grows on you, or better said, it did on me. I still remember my very first time watching this film, I wasn’t ready for the amount of craziness, that’s in strange, chaotic comedy. I am not saying I didn’t like it at the time, but this movie became one of those everybody around me loved, and I just liked. I’ve recently re-watched it, just to see how this film plays out now and I am definitely more on board with this entire craziness. Almost to the point of loving it, or at least very, very close.

One thing I have totally forgotten, it’s how many people are in this movie. Obviously, you don’t forget the “main players”, but I was pleasantly surprised to see the likes of Kathryn Hahn, Seth Rogen, Danny Trejo or Jack Black in mostly tiny roles, most of them could be classified as “glorified cameos”. And yet, they all have a scene or two, where they manage to squeeze a joke (more often not just one).

The main thing about this film and why I might have been so surprised the first time watching it, is how it takes itself seriously in its abstract humour. How they have taken the Airplane! (1980, my review here) approach, and just went nuts, but they took the craziness even further. The prime example of what I am talking about, is the now infamous “battle of the reporters” scene. Specifically, how Brick (brilliantly played by Steve Carell, just before he became THE Steve Carell we all know and love) suddenly, in the middle of this chaotic fight (he starts with a hand grenade, because of course he does) has a trident and kills one of the reporters with it. Later on, they allude to that fact, acknowledge it happened and Ron (aka Will Ferrell himself, who was born to play this role) just says in this really calm, matter of fact manner: “Brick, I’ve been meaning to talk to you about that. You should find yourself a safehouse or a relative close by. Lay low for a while, because you’re probably wanted for murder.” But then, this gets forgotten about and the movie goes on, like nothing happened. And that’s the kind of madness I enjoy or had to “mature” in some way to appreciate.

What I think is not talked about enough regarding this film, is how “woke” the film is, before being woke was popular. They not only displayed various forms of prejudices and sexist behaviour towards women at work, from the obvious ones, to the “tiny ones” (calling woman “honey”, “sweetie”, telling her to calm down, etc.), but they also address them and what’s more, the movie gives Christina Applegate the chance to prove herself. The best part is, her character isn’t tricking anybody, she isn’t scheming, she doesn’t have to sacrifice her integrity to succeed or anything like that, she’s just really good at what she does and when she finally gets that one chance to prove it, she nails where she can’t be ignored anymore, no matter how “old fashioned” the station’s management is.

I have really enjoyed re-visiting this film, but I still can’t give it the highest marks just yet. For me, the reason is simple – the movie slows down massively towards the end. I understand it’d be near impossible to have a comedy movie, that doesn’t have some slow spots, but the last 20 minutes or so, I thought the movie took the foot from the gas maybe just a little bit too much. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still one of the best (maybe even the best) comedies of the 2000s, as plenty of different quotes worked their way into our vocabulary, there are quite a few memes from this film too (which believe it or not, is also how to measure film’s/TV’s success nowadays) and most importantly of all, it’s funny. They really struck gold with this casting, nobody feels out of place, they all work together perfectly and you just sit down, relax and go along for the ride.

Overall, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is a really great, fun movie, that will make you laugh, you will fall in love with basically everyone in this cast (as it’s impossible not to) and I think if you haven’t seen it (either ever, or in a long time), give it a watch. It definitely holds up. I am planning to re-visit the Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013) at some point too, as I have watched it just once too and remember not hating it as much as everybody and then catching good chunk of the film on TV a few years ago, and laughing way more than expected. That will be a good one to re-watch, as I know most people were really disappointed by it. But you won’t be disappointed by the original, I almost guarantee it.

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 watching this movie “back in the day” in cinemas and I liked it, but it was one of those films, where everybody around me and on the Internet really liked it. It made me think I might have missed something, as I didn’t understand why everybody seems to love this film as much. Again, don’t get me wrong, I liked it (back then I would have given this movie solid 3.5/5*) because I liked the concept, the main duo, but it felt predictable at times and the ending slightly confused me.

Ever since then, I have re-watched it twice. Once about 3 years ago (where I liked it a bit more) and the second time about a week or so ago and I yet again, I liked it a bit more. What’s changed? I think I let myself to enjoy this a bit more and I also think I underestimated how hard was it to make this concept work as flawlessly as people behind this did. Do I understand the ending now? Still not quite sure, plus I have realised something new, but let’s start from the beginning.

Edge of Tomorrow (or Live Die Repeat as it might be known in some countries) is a great “groundhog day” movie, where we have a person stuck in a loop, unable to die. Or, to be more precise, every time he dies, the day resets. Except it’s not a comedy about a gopher predicting weather, this is an action/war/sci-fi movie about alien invasion. And it’s done really well. Tom Cruise is great, but I do think Emily Blunt steals the movie. Her Rita is really interesting character, and I really liked how you can pick up information about her character slowly, throughout the movie, in “natural” way. It didn’t feel like a forced/clunky exposition, as especially action movies can sometimes do that and have awkward expositional dialogues. But she’s the heart of this movie. If those two didn’t work as well, the movie would have fallen apart.

I really appreciated how the action scenes are filmed. The more new action movies you see, the more likely you are to see bad action scenes, as they tend to be cut to bits, as mostly the actors don’t want to, or are not allowed to do their own stunts (insurance purposes, or if they got injured, it would have stopped the production for weeks, maybe more) so directors need to work around that and unfortunately as a result, most of action scenes can be quite confusing, rather than convincing. Not this film though, as this movie does it quite well – you can feel the madness, the confusion of the combat, as everything is happening at once, everything is all over the place (especially the very first time Cruise’s character is on the battle field) but it’s without you, the viewer, being confused as to what’s actually happening in front of you, where everybody is etc. Notice, how plenty of action scenes in this film are shot with minimum amount of cuts. Of course, that is mainly due to Cruise being obsessed with doing his own stunts and when this happens, most people don’t want to be the “odd one out” and just do it too, allowing the director to have the freedom to plan it properly and not having to cut every scene to death.

One thing I have noticed during my last viewing and what might be the reason I am still not 100% in love with this movie (although I am as close as possible) – the final act really slows the movie down. I can’t discuss it without going into some spoilers, so…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

The first two thirds of this film are mostly about the “final” battle on the beach, prepping/planning it step by step, and having fun with it. That is right, for an action/war/sci-fi movie, you will laugh couple of times, as it can be funny too. But from the moment Cruise loses his “powers” and can no longer reset the day, the movie slows down for me. I know this has to happen in order for the film (or the book this movie is based upon) to have any stakes at all, but what this step has done, ironically, it removed the stakes for me, because you know once the main character is no longer “immortal”, he can’t die, so of course he does “everything correctly”. That’s why I also have a problem with the ending. Yeah, I get it, his blood got mixed with the blood of the Omega, that is why he survived, but how come they are gone? Surely, if the time gets reset, the omega also has the same information as Cruise does, so the aliens can plan accordingly…? Or does the movie say that even though the Omega reset the time for Cruise, it still died…? Somebody much more clever than me, please explain it to me. 🙂

And this is where the issue lies with me – imagine this. The movie ends not by time reset, but rather with all aliens suddenly dropping dead, where nobody knows why. Soldiers don’t think about it too much, as they are too busy with celebration, we know, who the hero of the story is, and we as the audience know, he sacrificed himself. But nobody will ever know, because if I remember correctly, everybody who was alongside Cruise in the Louvre ends up dead right…? And then, we would just see Brendan Gleeson‘s character, watching the battle, seeing everything and joining the dots together. If you want super dark ending, he would take all the credit, saying it was him who sent out troops to take out the Omega, but won’t name Cruise. Or we could even do “Nolan” ending, where would just see him, pondering what he should do/say to the media and before his speech, it would end, so the audience can decide whether Cruise’s visit changed him or not…? To me, the sacrifice only makes sense if Cruise stays dead. The movie wanted to have its cake and eat it too, which slightly bothers me, but hey, it seems to be working for plenty of other people, so what do I know. 🙂

Overall, Edge of Tomorrow is one of those movies, where the more I watch it, the better it gets. It has great cast, superb action scenes and great premise. For me, the only downside is the last third feels bit slower and the ending doesn’t make sense to me. But other than that, it is a really great movie, that’s definitely worth watching.

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

Until next time,

Luke

In a world, that can be really cruel, ugly and sad, movies like Paddington might feel almost disingenuous at times. As we are so wired to always be suspicious about everything and everyone, films like this one are here to remind us, that some genuinely good people still exists, alongside talking bears, who really love marmalade. Although the jury is still out on that one I think.

Paddington could have easily gone the other way, where everything would be way too sweet to take seriously. But it never does. I guess that might have something to do with the opening scene, where we are reminded, that even in this beautiful, colourful world, there are stakes. And because of the caricature of a villain, portrayed quite well by one of my all time favourites Nicole Kidman, the “evil” is almost always looming behind every corner. But despite that, I think of Paddington as movie about family and kindness, rather than good vs evil. As that is the main point of the movie, if you show somebody a bit of kindness, they will be kind to you.

What really impressed me was the CGI. Sure, you can tell the main character is “a bit” animated, but over the course of the movie, you kind of forget that you are basically watching animation. Because the effects are so good, and Ben Whishaw does such an amazing voice work, you soon accept the fact that yes, talking bears do exist, they are really friendly and they really love (and apparently can make) marmalade. Only long after the movie was over, I’ve realised that’s why this movie (and its sequel) are so beloved – because we have reached the age, where if done properly and with care, you can have animated character to be your main protagonist, surround them with bunch of actors and you might just have a great family film on your hands.

Speaking of cast, that’s another strong point. Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, Julie Walters, Jim Broadbent in the main roles simply shine, especially you can believe that Hugh and Sally have been married for some time. I did like the fact how they went with the stereotypical “strict dad, not-so-strict mom”, as this movie presented a perfect example of incorporating this trope. The dad isn’t just strict for strictness sake, he’s a logical business man, who’s having a hard time with ageing, while the mom is free spirited artist, looking for an adventure. We tend to forget that even stereotypes can be done well enough to propel the story forward.

If I were to be really nit-picky about this film, my only tiny gripe with it would be the lack of proper suspense. Almost every obstacle is solved within couple of minutes, so the stakes that do exist in this movie, are as tiny as Paddington himself. And I do understand this being targeted specifically at families and (mainly) children, but believe me, today’s kids can handle much more than when I was growing up, around 20 years ago now. But it’s really tiny gripe, as this movie really is fun, sweet, innocent fairy tale about a talking bear, who makes everyone he encounters into a better person. Well, almost everyone.

Overall, Paddington is one of those movies that’s surprisingly hard to review, as you either buy it (everything is sweet and world can be better place if we are nice to each other) or you don’t. And I bought it, don’t get me wrong, but then, you struggle with writing anything meaningful, as you desperately wish to live in this film, where people truly are kind, if you show them a bit of kindness too. And unfortunately, the cold harsh reality is that plenty of times, that’s just not the case. But that’s not Paddington‘s fault.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Onward is a really fascinating movie to me. First of all, it’s one of the two movies Pixar released in 2020 (the other being the Oscar winning Soul (2020, my review here)) and I remember when it hit the VOD (as this was also one of those movies, that because of the pandemic, was simultaneously in the theatres and also available online) everybody seemed to love it, until Soul came around. That is when I have noticed almost a shift, where people felt the need to compare these two vastly different movies. And I even though I understand that impulse (after all, it makes sense, as Pixar is such a great “brand”, and they don’t usually release two movies in one year) I don’t think it’s necessarily fair. Even though it needs to be said, Onward is slightly weaker, than what we are used to from Pixar (oh shit, I am doing too, aren’t I)?

Let start with the good things first – I really liked the overall ideas here (magical beings got lazy, so the magic is almost gone) the overall message about how you don’t need a dad, if you have a pretty great brother that steps up and is there for you was also heart-warming and something, that’s on point with Pixar’s “branding” – stories, that deal with really serious, adult themes, told in a form everyone from your family can enjoy, doesn’t matter if they are 5, or 65.

I also liked most of the voice over casting – Tom Holland was great, I couldn’t recognize Julia Louis-Dreyfus, but the moment I realised (well, looked up) who voices the mom character, it clicked and Octavia Spencer was also a delight to listen. The brighter readers might have noticed, that I didn’t name the fourth main actor, and that is because he is the reason behind “liked most of the voice over casting”. Chris Pratt seems like a chilled dude, who I really like and enjoy seeing. I don’t think his voice is annoying, no. But I don’t think he was the correct choice for this character (brother who is supposed to be only couple of years older than Tom Holland’s character) as he sounded way older. And that is because he’s 43 years old (so he was around 41 when he voiced this character). Which is not old by any stretch of imagination, I am not saying that. But to me, this was equivalent of seeing a high school comedy, where all the characters are portrayed by actors in their mid 20’s, early 30’s. Some can pull it off better than others and even though I usually am down with anything Chris Pratt is doing, in here, his voice didn’t jive with me. Maybe it’s because he has such a recognisable voice, you know he’d his way, way older brother…?

But he’s not the reason why I think Onward is weaker of the Pixar movies, even though it’s weaker by a speck of dust. The main thing that bothered me a bit more was the predictability of the movie. If you think about it, Pixar is known for having ordinary stories told in extra-ordinary way. For example, Inside Out (2015), one of my absolute favourites done by them, is a pretty simple idea (emotions having emotions) done in extra-ordinary way (it’s colourful, out here and the main story is about how it feels to grow up, feeling all alone, dealing with a lot of complicated feelings in early age). And this film seem to have swapped the formula around – they started with extra-ordinary premise (magic exists, but it’s hardly used, as with technology, magical beings just got lazier) told in pretty ordinary fashion. Because nothing in here will surprise you. There is no unexpectedly great joke, there is no sneakily great scene or lesson. And even the story follows quite straightforward formula, where you know exactly what will happen in the next 5 minutes. The problem with your narrative being as predictable as it was here, you need to something, to blow us away with, the “big pay off”, the climax of the story. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. I did say the ending was heart-warming, but I didn’t say you couldn’t see it coming miles away. And that’s something that usually doesn’t happen to me with Pixar movies. Yeah, I am doing it again, comparing Pixar movies against each other. In my defence, it’s hard not too, when they have a really great track record.

Movie like Onward fall into something I call “the Pixar paradox” – if the exact same film with the exactly same story came out from a different studio (like DreamWorks or Illumination) we would be all over it, praising it for being “Pixar-like”, without being the same and it would have been pretty much the highlight for that studio (maybe not for DreamWorks, but definitely for Illumination). Instead of that, since this film is associated with the power house of Pixar, it allows us to compare it “like for like” with their other movies, and unfortunately, even though it’s still pretty outstanding movie, it just doesn’t compare with their “big boys”.

Overall, Onward is worth seeing. Especially if you are into Dungeons & Dragons or fantasy movies, as this film is definitely inspired by plenty of elements from modern fantasy/magic pop-culture. It’s also a cute story about what it means to have somebody by/on your side, even if that somebody isn’t your dad. If you judge this film on its own, it’s definitely a great animated movie with a nice message. If you judge it against most of Pixar’s movie catalogue, it would probably be in their bottom half of movies, quality wise. But as I mentioned before, even that half is exceptionally great. After all, Pixar’s “pretty good” is another studio’s “excellent”.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I don’t even know where to start with this movie. You can tell ever since around 2014, Christopher Nolan really decided to go all out and experiment with… well, everything. His movies were always high-concept, but each new one tops the previous one, and Tenet is his current peak. It’s as conceptual as it gets, as you either are on board with not understanding plenty of things about this movie and having to re-watch it a few times, or not. I am still in the first camp, where I admire what he’s doing, even though I would appreciate understanding some of it… It also makes me wonder what his next film will be like.

It’s really hard to rate this movie, or even meaningfully talk about it, as I am sure I have missed so much, or that plenty of things will be much clearer next time I watch it. I do understand where people, who really don’t like this movie, are coming from, as it’s definitely a challenging film, that not only demands your full attention, but it also needs you to re-watch it a few times before everything (hopefully?) falls into place properly. And this is what I admire about Nolan, he knows he can shoot movies. He knows his strengths. He could be making perfectly understandable, great movies, that wouldn’t challenge you or force you to spend the next 2 hours of your life on google/youtube watching/reading everything about it, trying to piece everything together, but it’s almost like he’d ask himself: “but what is the point?” He’s making everything harder for the audience, but what plenty of people are missing is the fact, that he’s also making it harder for himself.

I honestly don’t think he’s being snobby about his films, or that he would want to “eliminate” some of his fans/audience. To me, he strikes me like that kind of guy, who can’t stay put. He needs a challenge, he needs to learn new things on day-to-day basis. But since he already operates on much higher frequency than most of us, his challenges are not the same ones as ours would be. He wants to challenge our norms, how movies are made, told, he loves to play around with time (think about it, more often than not his movies are all about time being relative and how that affects the story) and since he’s already mastered the art of making movies, he wants to improve upon it.

For what it’s worth, I really enjoyed Tenet, even though I am not sure… no, I am sure that I didn’t get everything. I really enjoyed the action sequences, especially the highway chase scene and the ending. I really liked how John David Washington is handling himself in this movie and proving to everyone he’s not just Denzel‘s son, but he is a great actor in his own right, who isn’t afraid to do some action too. I loved Elizabeth Debicki‘s performance and how they didn’t try to make her look smaller. What I mean by that – she’s a really tall woman, and usually, if your male actors are not as tall, plenty of movies employ bunch of tricks (shooting at different distance, angles, or the tall woman sitting a lot of times) to make the actress look shorter. But in Tenet, she’s hovering above everyone. It’s mainly noticeable in her scenes with Kenneth Branagh, who’s not short by any means (177 cm) but can’t compare to Elizabeth (190 cm). Throughout the entire movie, I found their scenes fascinating and I couldn’t put my finger on what it was, until I’ve listened to the SinCast podcast about Tenet, where they were talking about it and I’ve realised, that yeah, they are right. You can also argue that her performance is the most memorable, as to me, she was given a lot to work with and she nailed it. Especially her scenes against Kenneth, who was dancing on a really fine line between being great villain and Russian caricature (at times, he might have crossed that line) were great, as we can see everything her character’s been dealing with, living with him.

I honestly can’t wait to watch this movie couple of times more, not just to wrap (or try to) my head around the concept, but because I really enjoyed myself. The movie is almost 2 and half hours long, but yet again with Nolan, you don’t really feel that, as you are just so into everything that’s happening, you won’t even notice. The movie never dragged on for me, I never got bored. And maybe, that’s the hidden brilliance of Nolan’s movies – just confuse your viewers and that way, they won’t complain about the movies being too long…?

Overall, Tenet is something, that I feel will be more appreciated over time, than now. I can see this being one of those movies, that 20 years from now, we will be reading articles about containing lines like “it wasn’t as highly received as his other movies when it was released, but now it’s a cult classic, and considered among his best work”. Honestly, that wouldn’t have surprised me, as I know I’ve said it a lot throughout this review, this film requires multiple viewings. That’s the only thing that’s preventing me from rating this even higher, I want to see whether this movie improves or not upon multiple viewings. Knowing Nolan, it probably will.

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

Until next time,

Luke

The little movie, that could. The film, nobody expected to be as good as it was. Those two sentences sum up The Invisible Man perfectly. What originally was slated to be a second movie in the “dark universe” franchise, that failed to happen, as The Mummy (2017) made no money and didn’t impress anybody from critics to general audiences, found its way to Leigh Whannell, who was given little to no money (around 7 million dollars, which in Hollywood is nothing) to make this work on its own. What is most interesting to me, was the fact that if The Mummy didn’t fail, this movie would have been different for sure (bigger budget for one), but also, it would have starred Johnny Depp as the invisible man. And that could have been interesting to say the least. But that’s the only reason to be slightly sad about the fact the “dark universe” didn’t happen. To be fair, with what we’ve been given, we (the movie watching audience) definitely got the best possible movie, considering it only costed 7 million dollars!

There are two main things, that contributed to this movie’s overall brilliance – innovation of this story in really clever way and Elisabeth Moss. Yes, I know it’s more than two factors involved, but to me, those are the two main reasons, why I enjoyed this film so much.

Let’s start with the story and how it got updated for this day and age. That’s not always easy thing to do, or in some cases even the best/smartest thing to do (as I’ve argued recently with Scoob! (2020, my review here), that some stories don’t play well in today’s environment and should remain in the past setting), but in this case, it worked really well, because Leigh Whannell, who not only directed it, but has also written a script for it, changed two key things. He grounded the fantasy element of The Invisible Man in science (it’s not the person, who has an accident, or suddenly becomes invisible, but they need a suit, that also looks pretty believable to work) and most importantly, he shifted the focus of this film. Yes, The Invisible Man is not the main character/protagonist of this movie, even though it might seem like that, but Leigh grounded this movie by making it part thriller, part drama about toxic relationship, and how it feels like to be in one. Really smart and ballsy choice to make Elisabeth Moss the main protagonist of this movie, and that brings me to my other point, which will be just me, admiring Elisabeth’s talent.

I need to admit something – I’ve always heard about how talented she was, and I have seen her in couple of movies prior, but I still have yet to see her big performance pieces such as The Handmaid’s Tale (2017 – ?) and Mad Men (2007 – 2015) as those are the two main things I have always heard mentioned alongside her name. So for me, she was a revelation. What she can showcase in a few seconds, with no lines… I was blown away by her. She is the true driving force behind this movie, she basically never goes off the screen for the entire length of it and yet, you want more of her. Now I understand people mentioning her name between those being snubbed for an Oscar nomination, as she should have definitely been at least nominated. It is a shame that she wasn’t, but I am sure she will get the recognition she deserves soon. She’s one of those actresses, for whom the phrase isn’t “if she wins an Oscar”, but “when she wins an Oscar” as it will eventually happen.

The movie is really clever, entertaining, gripping and really well thought out with couple of twists I didn’t expect. That is why it pains me, that I can’t give it the ultimate rating. For me, the last 30 minutes or so, is what slightly spoils the movie. I am not really talking about the actual ending, I thought that was amazing. I can’t really discuss what bothered me without going into spoilers, so just for a few tiny nitpicks…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

I really liked the idea/twist that his brother not only knew about him terrorizing Elisabeth’s life all along, but also was wearing the suit (what I liked is the movie never tells you how many times it was Elisabeth’s boyfriend bothering her and how many times it was his brother) and had part in the entire thing too. But my main issue was with the whole scene, where Elisabeth’s character is fighting back and escaping the mental hospital. She damages the suit, so it glitches and finally, there are guards, who can clearly see somebody has this kind of technology (let alone, they would have had cameras, right?) so that’s great. My two issues: Number one, Elisabeth’s character is down on the floor, the invisible man is fighting and mostly killing guards left right and centre. I am pretty sure she’s within a reach of a gun from one of the guards, but we can see her just being on the ground, observing everything…? She should be keen to at least injure him, to finally have the evidence she isn’t crazy. Also, in the same scene, even though he kills most of the guards, he does let some live – why? That made zero sense – their entire plan was to make everybody believe she’s crazy, but if you let people, who have seen a person in some sort of glitching invisibility suit walk away, surely that’s defeating the entire carefully crafted plan…?

I know, these are two fairly minor things, but until that scene, everything was grounded in reality, where you felt bad for Elisabeth, but at the same time, you would not have believed her either! Think about it, somebody tells you, that bad things happen around them because their ex (that’s supposed to be dead) is somehow invisible and haunting her. Of course you wouldn’t have believed anybody like that, and that is what makes this movie so chilling. We can clearly see she isn’t crazy, but we can also understand why everybody would think she was. And until that hospital escape, everything made sense to me. That is why those two tiny details bothered me maybe a bit too much.

Overall, The Invisible Man had no right to turn out that well. But yet again, it proves that it’s not the budget or star power, that makes great movies. It’s stories and most importantly creators, who have new perspective, who bring something new to the table, who can think outside of the box. Especially in the thriller/horror genre – go back and study the most beloved ones – they are not just “scary” movies. They always comment on something bigger than themselves. They always address much bigger things, often overlooked. This film addresses toxic relationships and makes a horror movie out of something, that’s bit too real for some people, but that’s what makes it scary and unfortunately relatable. Definitely a movie I will re-watch and who knows? Maybe next time, even those two tiny things won’t bother me that much. It’s definitely one of the best movies of 2020.

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

Until next time,

Luke

As many other movie fans, when I learned Hollywood is making a sequel to Blade Runner (1982, my review here) I was worried, as if the last 15 years or so had taught us anything, it’s rarely a good idea to make a sequel 10/20 years later. Usually, I would give you couple of examples, but there are so many, you can literally google “unnecessary sequels” and you might be surprised how many there are. But when I learned it’s going to be directed by Denis Villeneuve, Roger Deakins will be behind the camera and they casted Ryan Gosling in the main role, I… felt a bit of hope? I still wasn’t 100% convinced we needed a sequel, but they got so many talented people behind this, I started to hope this might not turn out to be a garbage on fire, as most of these “20 years later” sequels.

And it turns out, they did the best they could. Blade Runner 2049 is visually stunning movie. We need to address that first and foremost, as the visuals are definitely on pair with the original. As Blade Runner was stunning when it came out, but obviously given the current technology being much better than what they had in 1982, this movie looks breathtakingly stunning. Part of it is the technology and CGI, but much bigger chunk of that goes to Deakins being probably the best cinematographer we have at this moment. His vision directed by Villeneuve works for me and I really hope these two will work with each other for as long as possible.

The performances were great. We have surprisingly good performance from Dave Bautista, we also have as always great Robin Wright (even though you could say she’s playing a variation on her character Claire from House of Cards (2013 – 2018) again, but hey, if something works…) to stunning and heart-breaking role for Ana de Armas, who is definitely forging her path in Hollywood of being one of the top leading actresses of her generation to Ryan Gosling, who is trying to give us “young Harrison Ford” as his performance felt quiet, subdued, really reminding me of Harrison’s performance in the original film. The only person that didn’t fit for me was Jared Leto. I just can’t take him seriously in almost anything, but in here, there was another thing that bothered me about his character. While watching the film, it felt wrong, almost as he was “too young” to play it… I couldn’t explain it, but his lines and his character motivations felt like it would be much better fit for somebody bit older than him. After the movie finished, I went to check the Trivia section on IMDb and yeah, the very first one confirmed my “suspicion”, that his role was originally meant to be played by David Bowie, but unfortunately he died before shooting. And that made me even sadder, as I could imagine Bowie nailing that role, bringing his genuine quirkiness to that character… It’s a shame we didn’t get to see his version.

The overall story I found intriguing. I don’t want to go over too many details, as it’s pretty long and “full” movie when comes to the amount of information, so further viewing will be necessary for me to properly form an opinion, but I liked how they didn’t really bother to answer whether Harrison’s character was Replicant. Instead, we get more pressing question – what if Replicants could reproduce? Would that make them equal with humans? Would that start the revolution, the uprising everybody is afraid of? How is it possible? I really liked how they went about making this sequel, that yes, we had certain call-backs to the original Blade Runner, but mostly it was trying to be its own thing.

The best thing I can say about Blade Runner 2049 is this – it is definitely not a short movie (164 minutes) but not only the runtime did not bother me (the movie never bored me or felt too long), but when the movie finished, I wanted more. I wanted to go back to that world, I wanted to know what happens next. And that’s always a good sign, when movie leaves you with wanting more. I could easily imagine making a limited TV series with a proper budget, maybe 6/8 one hour episodes, if the people behind this movie and the original one joined forces and “finished” the story, we could have something truly great on our hands.

Overall, this film seems like a small miracle – what could have been just another “sequel made 20 years too late” turned out to be really, really great film, where everything looks stunning, most performances are great to watch, the story makes sense, it doesn’t rely to heavily on the original film, but there is enough from it to make sense and it leaves you wanting more. Only reason I am not giving it full rating is that I need to re-watch it again, to take everything in, to digest it properly, as this definitely is a movie, that will reward multiple viewings. And I can almost guarantee that on my second viewing, when I pick up more hints and information, my rating will almost certainly go up. I don’t think there was much more they could have done better than this. If you liked the original Blade Runner, I think you should enjoy this one too. Sure, it looks/feels different, but at the same time, it does feel familiar enough and that is the magic touch of Denis Villeneuve. Now I am more excited for his version of Dune (2021).

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

Until next time,

Luke