This movie reminded me why I love movies that are older, even if by only 20 something years. As every movie (as long as it’s not historical drama or something along those lines) is a time capsule of an era, or a certain time period. But I’m a Cheerleader deals with the fact that Megan (Natasha Lyonne) might be… A LESBIAN?! Imagine the horror… 🙂 Which this movie pokes fun at and at the same time reflects on her experience throughout all of this, and does it really well.

I find it hard to write about But I’m a Cheerleader as it’s almost one of a kind movie. On a surface, it might seem like pretty straightforward comedy, where parents think their daughter can be cured of her lesbianism, so they send her to “rehab camp”, where in a couple of weeks time, they should cure her of all the gayness and make her ready to jump on any dick in her general vicinity. But dig deeper and you will find it’s also tender, gentle story of a few girls coming to terms with who they are, while this silliness is happening in the background.

A big part of this movie’s charm goes with the casting – from Natasha, Melanie Lynskey, Clea DuVall, to RuPaul (as a man!) and in tiny roles Michelle Williams and Julie Delpy! And I need to stop to discuss Ru, as I am so used to his Drag Race persona, I never realized how much “on” he is. What I mean is, in here, he actually uses his “normal” voice, which I almost didn’t recognize, as he’s talking much much higher, even when he is out of drag. It was definitely fascinating seeing him act and to be “prototype” of this manly man and him being the coach for all the gays, that should turn into men, under his supervision.

And I think if you knew who he was back in 1999, you’d appreciate this film much more than your average movie goer, as even that fact (RuPaul being the one who coaches young guys and giving them advice on how to be a man) is making mockery of this idea, that you can “cure” gay/lesbian thoughts. And that is something this movie does really well, as this topic could have been turned really sad really quickly. And yet, it never goes there, there is always a hope.

Something tells me that if you wanted to make a movie like this today, it wouldn’t be a comedy, rather it would be this deep psychological drama, mixed with bit of a thriller, where they would let you wallow in a dirt and misery for just over 2 hours. But I’m a Cheerleader took entirely different route and took this topic as a challenge, it made it into almost light-hearted comedy, that doesn’t shy away from dealing with the idea of how fucked up this system is. And it does it in a very different, more optimistic way and I really, really liked that.

I think we kind of lost this form of filmmaking, where if we want to make a movie about something that’s serious, there can’t be any joy in it, as it is serious, right? This film reminds us that not only it can be done, but it can be done really well, especially if you let somebody like Jamie Babbit write and direct the movie too.

Overall, But I’m a Cheerleader feels like almost a unicorn in the dark. It’s shinning bright, it’s making mockery out of everybody, who is still thinking homosexuality can be cured and actually takes its time to introduce and develop characters, so you as a viewer can easily identify with them. And that is worth a lot as I can’t imagine how it must feel like being a teenage girl, who’s not only confused about liking girls, but now she’s being told it’s bad and she shouldn’t do that. But this movie shows you her experience and perspective so well, it’s really easy to understand and not only her character, but everybody at the “camp”. I think I might re-watch it at some point, as I didn’t expect to like this movie as much as I have.

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

Until next time,

Luke

The African Queen is the perfect example of a movie, that simply can’t be judged based on today’s standards. Not because something highly not politically correct is taking place, no. I was actually quite surprised, that the movie aged pretty well and there were almost no scenes/dialogues of that nature (but then again, I might have missed something, I am sometimes not woke enough). No, the reason for this film being judged by the standards of 1951, is the adventure seems almost laughably not adventurous. Most of this movie is taking its sweet time, and even where there is some action, it’s nothing too exciting. And the ending!

Which again, I can only say this, because I’ve been raised on movies, that might be average, but they are way more exciting than this. But again, that’s only because people behind those movies grew up on films like The African Queen and were inspired. And of course, the technology has evolved significantly, the stunt work became it’s own industry almost… there are bunch of reasons newer movies will be more entertaining than this one. But most of them won’t be as “movie like” as The African Queen and that is this movie’s biggest weapon. It actually behaves like a movie, it has a good and entertaining story and two of the biggest names from the “old Hollywood” era.

Both Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn are great in this movie (again, by 1951’s standards!) and they actually make a good couple, where you don’t struggle to believe those two could form a couple (and the age difference between them is “only” 7 years, which for a film from 1950’s is almost progressive, given how young the leading ladies usually were, no matter who the male lead was) and dare I say there was some chemistry there? What surprised me was the fact that Humphrey won his only Oscar for this role, and not only that, he was “the last man born in the 19th century to ever win a leading role Oscar.” (source IMDb.com) which puts everything into perspective regarding the age of… not only this movie, but everything. I mean, this year (2021) this film will turn 70 years!

What I really liked about this movie might just be the fact it takes its time. With everything, from the action, to building a relationship between our main protagonists, but…! It doesn’t do it in the cliché way of “first, they hated each other, but 30 minutes later, they understood they can’t live without the other person”. No, in here, Katharine’s character is more puzzled, maybe slightly disgusted by Humphrey’s choices, but I never got the feeling that she would be despise him. On the opposite, because he doesn’t behave like anyone she knows, she seems intrigued by him! Which if anything, is still kind of revolutionary and not done often enough in today’s movies. Notice how if our main protagonists are a man and a woman, they NEED to hate each other, despise each other first, before (eventually) falling for each other. I always found that false, as plenty of time, you don’t despise people straight away, do you? You behave more like Katharine’s character, where you might look at the other person with some fascination, and try to get to know them.

The other interesting this is how towards the end, this movie skews slightly more towards a comedy, albeit unintentionally. I think I can at least hint at some spoilers for a movie that’s been out (checks my watches for some reason) for almost 70 years now, but the scene with the torpedo and how not only Humphry knows how to home build one (or two!) but even when their boat sinks, by sheer luck, it still fulfils its destiny. Or the fact the captain of the ship that takes them hostage and wants to hang them, would be kind enough to marry them just before… but that’s (old) Hollywood for you. Anything goes, as long as our protagonists end up happy, with each other in their arms.

Overall, I understand why The African Queen can be found on various different “best of” lists, whether it’s best movie, adventure, romance etc. It’s still an enjoyable, entertaining movie, that knows when to end and how to occupy your time for almost 2 hours, where you don’t feel the time, which is definitely a good sign. Would definitely watch it again, at some point in the future.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Do you (somehow, in this day and time) feel happy, joyful and just wish to be down? Have you ever wondered how it would feel like to experience the war through child’s eyes, and to see many horrors, some of which, you didn’t want, or didn’t even think of seeing, happening to said child? Well, look no further, because I do have this Czech movie to tell you about, full of… *shuffles card deck* made-up, European language… (elaborate choice of the director, he made up a language as he “did not want to associate the film with a specific country”)?

Yes, The Painted Bird is a Czech movie I have heard a lot about, it made more waves than any other Czech movie in recent memory and… yeah, it’s definitely talked about for a reason. This movie is beautifully shot, it deals with heavy themes and topics, BUT… If you happen to be a sensitive soul or if you (especially now, in early 2021) don’t want to experience plenty of unnecessary depression, you might just want to skip this movie altogether. As it’s definitely one of those “great, but probably once in a lifetime watch” kind of movie.

The main story deals with a boy, who wonders around Europe, as the World War II is happening. And he meets variety (and that’s putting it mildly) of people, most of them really bad. I have already read an opinion, saying the movie is painting the wrong picture of Europeans being savages living in huts, which is true, but at the same time, not the point of this movie…? Plus, during the WW II, there definitely were people living in really poor conditions, and more importantly, I don’t think the movie was saying these people were savages, but we will get to that later.

The Painted Bird is split up into “chapters”, and each chapter is named after a different person, whom our protagonist meets. As I mentioned earlier, most of these people don’t treat the kid nicely. Some even properly abuse him and… well, imagine the worst thing that can happen to a boy who is about 12 years old. Now imagine, what you wish it wouldn’t happen to that boy. That thing you imagined? That probably happens to him in this movie and then some. And I think the movie is exploring two themes here.

The first one is the war – I felt like the movie begs the question “were these people so horrible prior the war, or did the war make them like this?” That is why I believe the point I read someplace about “Europeans being savages” is invalid, as you are not focusing on the cause of why they act like they act. As this movie shows in some of these chapters, desperate people do desperate things, which is true and not just in war times.

The other, and I would argue the main theme of this movie is bit more “poetic”, and it focuses on a soul. Specifically, can you loose your soul? If you go through hell and back, can you ever get back to “normal”? You will probably never be the same person, but can you be a good person? Even in the face of everything that’s been done to you, can you keep a bit of humanity left? Or once it’s gone, is it gone for good? I found the movie’s answer (and I believe the very end does give you an answer to this question) satisfying. Is it satisfying enough to justify the torture the movie puts you through for almost 3 hours…?

I would have to say… kind of…? My biggest problem with this movie is definitely its length. I understand you need the boy to go through a lot, but with certain scenes I had a feeling the director was making “art for the purpose of making art”. In another words, I don’t think the story justified the length. But I also need to say, I don’t think you’d have to cut out a lot. Maybe 10/20 minutes…? Because this film needs to put the kid (and therefore you) through something, you won’t forget, otherwise the ending and what the movie is trying to say, wouldn’t work.

Overall, The Painted Bird is definitely not a movie for your usual moviegoer. It’s more of “brace yourself, because you will see some things you have never even thought of before” kind of movie. And it’s not easy to get through. But the story is interesting (luckily now proven to be mostly fictional), the camera work is stunning (as a Czech, trust me, this is not how 99% of our movies look like, this is some next level camera work) and the black and white only adds the bleakness to the already bleak, sinking feeling you will have once the movie is over. It’s been a while since I have seen a film I would want to recommend to everybody, but at the same time, would not want to recommend to anybody, because yeah… It’s a tough watch, but (for me) it was worth it. Absolutely one of those “glad to have seen it, but (probably?) never again” movies.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Before I go into this review, let me just explain the heading – this movie has two different titles, depending on where you are. In most of America, it’s called Ford v Ferrari, and pretty much everywhere else it’s called Le Mans ’66. I don’t know the reasoning behind this, whether the producers believed Le Mans (the actual race) has such a pull, that it would bring more people to the theatres than names of two (arguably) biggest car brands in the world, but I don’t like it. I understand, especially being from non-English speaking country, that movie titles get translated, which is fair. But here we are, talking about two different titles for the same movie and that just confuses everything. Just imagine trying to have a conversation with somebody, who is not such a movie fan, and trying to explain to them, that you both have seen the same movie, but since you are from two different places, it’s titled differently… What I am trying to say, it’s needlessly confusing. Now, with this rant out of the movie, let’s talk about the movie (I will be calling it Ford v Ferrari as personally, I prefer that).

I will be the first to say I am not into moto sports at all. Doesn’t mater if it’s Le Mans, F1, F2, F365, F42069, it never grabbed my attention. But, strangely enough, I do enjoy movies from moto sports, as they tend to be great (perfect example of this would be Rush (2013) that was pure joy watching in the cinema and a movie, that’s still not talked about enough) so I was looking forward to watching Ford v Ferrari. And sure enough, it didn’t disappoint.

Strangely enough, not the driving/racing scenes, but the actors are the best part about this movie – both Matt Damon and Christian Bale are great as their characters, but more importantly, they have great chemistry between each other. You trust the fact these too have been friends for some time, especially when you see them argue about technical things that, unless you are a mechanic, you will probably not understand. I also need to highlight Caitriona Balfe as she wasn’t just “Bale’s wife”, even though she didn’t have plenty of scenes, the ones she was in, she delivered and made us, the audience, understand exactly what kind of relationship her and Bale’s character had. And that’s not easy thing to do, especially in the fairly limited time she had. Definitely somebody I need to watch out for.

My only issue with this movie and the only reason I am not giving it the highest rating – there was something about it that didn’t pull me into the story properly. I don’t know how to explain this, so let me try it this way… Do you know the feeling, when (sometimes) you are watching what you know is a great movie, with great performances, everything feels properly done and great, and yet, there is something that’s not clicking for you? As if something, some invisible hand is pulling you back slightly, so you can’t “absorb” yourself in the movie fully? No, just me? Ok then. Because that is how I felt while watching Ford v Ferrari. Technically, this movie is great, I had no issues with the story, casting, soundtrack, even the length didn’t bother me too much, but… there was something that didn’t grip me.

And it’s not even the fact the movie is about something I have no interest in outside of it, as I have loved (and still love, even though I haven’t seen it since the 2013 cinema screening) Rush the moment I left the theatre, saying what a great movie it is. Don’t get me wrong, Ford v Ferrari is definitely a movie worth watching, I don’t think you would have a bad time with it, I sure didn’t. There was just something, that either wasn’t there, or something that subliminally bothered me…?

I do have a list in my head, that’s full of movies just like Ford v Ferrari, where I might have liked the movie, but I didn’t “love” it and want to go back to them in some time, to see whether I change my opinion, whether I might grow and appreciate a different aspect I might have missed the first time… this movie definitely goes on that non-existing, yet very real list, as it’s 100% worth your and my time.

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 not familiar with the works of Franz Kafka, I would seriously encourage you to read a thing or two about him before watching this movie, as The Trial is quintessentially movie based on his book, rather than a movie made by THE Orson Welles. What I mean by that is even though you can definitely tell it was directed by Welles as his unique director’s eye really compliments the insanity of the story, but it’s the insanity that ultimately seeps through this film, that you either accept and let if frustrate you, or don’t and you are in for a bad time, just as our main protagonist.

The Trial is everything but a conventional film, as it deals with a man, who one day wakes up to him being on a trial for… something. Nobody can tell him what did he do, nobody can give him more information. What I really liked is how you can see the evolution of Anthony Perkins‘ character (if you only know him from Psycho (1960) you should definitely watch this film to see he definitely wasn’t one trick pony, his performance is great!) as when the movie starts, he’s afraid, he wants to cooperate as much as he can, but once he realises the absurdity of the situation, he’s the pretty much the only one who stands up against “the system”. And that is ultimately the message here, if you don’t stand up for yourself, nobody else will.

This film might be one of the only ones I would recommend with a big caveat – get ready to be frustrated. And try (?) to enjoy it. As Orson does really well with the absurdity of… well, everything. Being on a trial and never knowing what for, trying to navigate the convoluted system that is setup for you to fail, the judges having all the power, therefore becoming the most powerful and most feared people in the system… Honestly, I don’t know how else would you go about filming something like this, as The Trial ultimately feels like a really bad fever dream, but you can’t look away, as you are hoping to crack it, to make a sense out of the nonsense presented to you.

But this movie is not just about the nonsensical story or great visuals, we can’t forget the casting! From already mentioned Perkins, to Jeanne Moreau and Romy Schneider, you can tell Orson knew how to pick his actors, as they all fit perfectly in this crazy narrative. Both of these actresses are strikingly beautiful, especially in the way Orson is shooting them… there was something about black and white, where some directors made it look so great, you won’t even mind the lack of colour.

The Trial is really hard movie to review, as it’s so abstract, so frustrating, yet so beautiful, it needs to be seen to be… understood? No, I’ve seen it and I am still not sure whether I got everything the movie wanted me to get. But do I regret the time spent watching this? Not at all. And I would hope you won’t either.

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

Until next time,

Luke