I believe Air was the first “big” movie to have come out directly to a streaming platform in 2023, and I remember hearing great things about it. But since I don’t follow the NBA, neither have I own Air Nike, I wasn’t in a big rush to see this movie until now. As every movie lover knows, the end of a year is when you try to cram and see as much as possible to make your list, gather your thoughts and get some potential Oscar candidates watched, so I finally got around to watching the “shoe movie”. Not surprisingly, it’s much more than that.

This movie is a biopic through and through, so there isn’t much to be surprised by at this point, since we have had so many and keep getting more each year. The only real surprise for me was just how much I enjoyed it, as Air made me invested and almost worried whether or not Nike made it. It’s one of those rare biopics where literally everyone who watches it knows what happens; it’s impossible to find someone who has never heard of Nike or Michal Jordan. Even I, who isn’t into basketball and again never owned Nike shoes, have known about this combination and how successful they have been. But Air takes you back to the 80s so well that you are willing to forget about the juggernaut Nike had become since and gladly watch Nike, the almost underdog, trailing both to Converse and Adidas.

I think the main reason is Ben Affleck (one of the stars and director of Air) not only lived through the 80s, but for him, it was the formative decade, as he was born in 1972, so he matured throughout that decade and succeeded where other “nostalgia trip” movies didn’t. He didn’t try to emulate the 80s; he recreated the 80s. And not just with the constant music, hair, wardrobe etc. It was mainly the feel, the vibe of the 80s he managed to recreate that decade as he remembered it, and that helped massively.

Another thing that I wasn’t ready for was just how funny this movie is. Here is the thing; when you make a movie about how a shoe company signed a future megastar, it’s not as thrilling because we know how it ends. But if you take us back and make it funny without overdoing it, now you have something on your hands. There are many funny moments in this movie, but my favourite ones must be the phone conversations between Matt Damon and Chris Messina as they are not only hilarious but from the first phone call, you get their entire love-hate relationship.

Speaking of actors, I thought Damon did a great job; Affleck was clever to give himself a role where his character stood out but didn’t have many scenes. The two performers who stood out above the rest for me were Chris Tucker and Viola Davis. Writing “another great performance by Viola Davis” seems redundant at this point, as she is on the same level as Meryl Streep, in my eyes. No matter what she does, she is always the standout in pretty much every movie and has been for a while now. In Air, she plays Jordan’s mom (personally picked by Jordan himself!), and she plays her so well, you know from the first minute what she is about, but mainly, she is the mom everyone would want to have in their corner. It’s been almost a decade since Tucker was in anything, but damn, I missed him. I don’t think I have ever seen him as great as he was in this movie, but that might be because I usually think of him as the “funny, goofy guy”. Well, this Chris Tucker is more than that, and I am here for this part of his career.

I also liked the decision that we, the audience, never see Michael Jordan. Respectively, we never see his face. I know the official reason (Ben Affleck saying nobody could play Michael but Michael because he is that famous, so he didn’t want to cast anybody younger so we would not have to suspend our disbelief), but I would like to think it also fits thematically. The movie is about him, but in a way, it’s not. It’s about Nike and their rise and his family (mainly his mom) making the decision(s) for him because he wasn’t “the Michael Jordan”. He was still a young player like thousands before him, hoping to be the “next big thing”. So I liked how us not seeing his face works on that level, as he isn’t fully in control of his life yet, and he has got everything in front of him.

The only bad thing I can say against Air is that the ending lost a bit of steam. There were a few scenes where I thought the movie was about to end, and it kept going. I understand going against the biopic expectations and not ending your film on the “win”, which in this case is closing the deal (spoiler, but not really). But there is a reason movies and mainly biopics tend to end on that note, as everything that happens after, no matter how meaningful, is not as impactful. But that’s only a tiny criticism; I can’t say that the ending was bad or it spoiled my enjoyment of this movie; all I am saying is, maybe if it lingered less and managed to cut out about ten minutes, you would have a perfect biopic on your hands.

Overall, Air is a great movie that manages the impossible. It makes you care whether or not a shoe company signs a future superstar. And not just any shoe company and not any superstar. Air puts you back in time before Nike was the giant it is, and Michael Jordan’s career was about to begin and, therefore, blow up. And when you make an almost two-hour movie out of that, and it manages to make you laugh, care and hold your attention for the majority of its runtime, something is right. Air is 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

One of the most fascinating things for me is when a movie gets only one Oscar nomination. And it’s not as rare as one might think, as a quick Google search gives me at least 40+ different films (and they range from Grease (1978), Full Metal Jacket (1987), and The Mummy (1999)) to this movie. My silly and unachievable goal is to watch every film ever made. But my second, much more achievable goal is to watch every Oscar-nominated movie for every feature-length category. And Pieces of a Woman earned its only Oscar nomination for Vanessa Kirby. After watching this film, I concur and will say that the 2021 Oscars was a packed year (Frances McDormand got her third Oscar, but Carey Mulligan, Andra Day and Viola Davis were all nominated alongside Vanessa). I still haven’t seen Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom (2020), but it’s on my list, so I can’t judge it properly, but honestly… I am not sure whether I would choose Frances over Vanessa or Carey.

And that’s not to say that Pieces of a Woman only relies on Vanessa. There are many different aspects and performers that make this movie unforgettable, but… Vanessa Kirby is exquisite in this movie. Her character and performance hover over everyone in this film, and that is saying something. Her character is complex and, at times, can feel detached, but Vanessa makes these tiny decisions and has such expressive eyes that you can see the pain, the heartbreak, the way she hasn’t processed her grief properly… Pieces of a Woman is not a cheery film, but I will recommend it, if for nothing else, than for you to see Vanessa’s performance.

The movie opens with a disastrous home birth, and that opening scene lasts 20 minutes. It is seemingly shot with no cuts, putting you directly into the “action”. And as everything starts to get uncomfortable, the movie never lets go, making you part of it, so from the very beginning, you are in it. You feel uncomfortable and probably shook a bit, but that scene is a masterpiece. I strongly suspect that 10/15 years from now, it will be shown in film schools, as it’s a great example of how to establish everything – the story, stakes, characters… Everything is set from that scene and is done masterfully.

The rest of the movie is a fascinating story about how losing a baby (if you didn’t get it by my “disastrous home birth sentence” sentence) can and will shake up everything and everyone. This film felt authentic by showing us how different people deal with loss. Some want to blame somebody else (like Ellen Burstyn‘s character), others try to process it but don’t know how (Shia LaBeouf‘s character) and then there are people like Vanessa, who needs her time and space and shuts down. And by doing this, alienating everyone. And again, if you decide to watch this movie, brace yourself for characters who can be really hard to root for. But here is why that opening scene had to be shot like that, for maximum impact – to make you part of the story, for you to feel like this just happened to you. The movie effectively forces you to ponder this uncomfortable question: “How would I react if this was me? Would I want to sue? Would I rage?” Pieces of a Woman is a movie that’s not afraid to “go there”, and I respect that.

Since I have already mentioned them, it’s worth noting that both Ellen Burstyn and Shia give superb performances. I will repeat what I wrote in my review for The Peanut Butter Falcon (2019, my review here) – it’s a shame that Shia, by all accounts, isn’t the “best person”, to put it mildly, because he’s got the talent. He goes toe-to-toe in this movie with Vanessa and is probably the closest person who can match her incredible performance. In another reality, he would have been one of the most sought-after actors with at least one or two Oscars to his name. It’s a shame that, in this reality, he seems to have temper and ego issues, and I hope he can change.

The film itself loses just a bit of steam in the middle. Maybe it’s the fact that the opening scene is such a strong one the rest of the movie fades, albeit only a tiny bit, in comparison, but the moment we found ourselves in the court, that is where this film cemented itself for me. And that was where Vanessa underlined her performance, where she is forced, under oath, to come to terms with everything… It’s a heartbreaking scene. And the “apple” reveal (without spoiling anything) will crush you. Surprisingly though, the movie ends on a hopeful note, and the metaphor comes a full circle, but that doesn’t negate the fact that Pieces of a Woman will be one of those films you might never want to rewatch again.

Overall, Pieces of a Woman is a near-perfect drama with one exquisite performance by Vanessa Kirby. If you (like me) know her mainly from the Mission: Impossible franchise, do yourself a favour and watch this film to see just how talented she is and why she should be one of the busiest actresses around. The rest of the movie is this almost quiet meditation about grief and different (un)healthy ways of dealing with it, whilst the movie asks you what you would have done. And that’s a question nobody wants to answer, let alone think about. If you like challenging, draining movies, this one is 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

As Martin Scorsese gets older, he gets better, and his understanding of life, cinema and things around him seems to reach new heights. Throughout his unbelievably long and successful career, he was always fascinated with morality and bad people, showing them to us so uniquely that many (to this day) believe that he somehow glamorises gangsters and crooks. That couldn’t be far from the truth, and Killers of the Flower Moon is another jewel in that specific jewellery box full of flawed characters, corruption, and murders, but underneath all that, humanity.

This film was something extra from the first minutes; Scorsese’s affinity for old cinema shines through as he mixes the visuals of the days past (4:3 aspect ratio along with title cards instead of dialogue for a few scenes) and then swiftly goes “modern”, showing us stunning visuals, many of which you could frame and put on your wall. But he understands (and it seems like he almost feels) that he has a duty to tell this story “right”. This true story of Native Americans getting rich only to be screwed by white people is as old as America. But, in this story, we have this unique element. The focus is on the marriage of two characters from different worlds, Ernest (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Mollie (Lily Gladstone). He is an older white man who came back from the war; she is a Native American woman who is suspicious of him at first, but eventually, they fall in love and marry each other. And despite his character plotting behind her back to kill her and her entire family, he… loves her? Talk about murky waters.

That is the main crux of this film. Killers of the Flower Moon shows us this naïve, one could almost say stupid, character portrayed by Leonardo and how he is nothing else but a pawn in this game of death chess controlled by his uncle, played by Robert De Niro. Both put on one of the best performances of their careers, especially in De Niro’s case; I don’t think I have seen him at this level for over a decade. He is truly a menacing driving force behind everything that happens in this film, and the way he manipulates every one around him and pretends to be “the best friend” of Native Americans in this movie is chilling. Leonardo also delivers a great performance, but he, by default, needs to shine slightly less, as it’s not his usual larger-than-life performance piece. It’s more nuanced, where you see in this man throughout this movie that deep down, he loves his wife and knows what he is doing to her family is wrong. But he is too weak to stop, to stand up to his uncle and do what he thinks is best. You need Leo firing at all cylinders for this film to hit you because he might be one of the most complex characters ever, as he needs to convince you how someone can claim to love his wife whilst doing everything he’s told against her and her family. I thought Leo nailed it because, in the end, I had no doubts that he wasn’t a great person (the real-life Ernest). But also, I had no doubts about him loving his wife and how his simple mind helped him separate these two things.

But, the main star of this movie and the person you will remember the most is Lily Gladstone. Famously, she was applying for an IT job, as she thought there would never be any big break in her career when she got the email to read for Martin Scorsese via Zoom. Lily puts everything she has and then some into this film and leaves a piece of herself in this movie. Her performance was stellar, from the beginning, where we see her lower her defences to Leo’s charm, throughout her “sickness” scenes where she transformed to the bitter end. Her character had so many memorable and powerful scenes that you will remember her, and I am sure she will be a front-runner for the Oscars next year. And deservedly so. I am happy she finally got her big break and hope to see her in many more movies to come, even though an IT career is nothing to be ashamed of (as someone who works within that sector ;-)).

I also loved the ending, better said, the last two minutes or so. And even though I wouldn’t consider it a spoiler per se, I will not reveal what I am talking about because I wasn’t expecting how this movie finished, so I want you to have the same “surprise”. Looking back at it now, it makes so much sense, given how the movie started and how Marty took everything about this film seriously. There is a fine line between being a “white saviour” and giving voice to the voiceless. I thought this movie (and therefore, Martin Scorsese) never crossed it, and it fulfilled the purpose of this film, highlighting how much this community suffered. And the way he does it throughout the movie is excellent, but the last two minutes just underline it and make it more meaningful.

The only reason I am holding off on the highest rating is simple. I don’t know whether it was the runtime or something else, but something didn’t click with me fully. This movie is so dense I will have to rewatch it, and I wouldn’t be surprised if, during my rewatch, I would appreciate it much more. Killers of the Flower Moon is definitely one of those you can’t “digest” all in one sitting, as the movie is complex, and I think it’s almost mandatory to go back and immerse yourself in this world again to appreciate it fully. Therefore, I wouldn’t even consider this as a critique; this was me possibly missing something, and I know I will rewatch it to formulate my thoughts better. But I already know how much I have enjoyed it, so there is little to no doubt this will go up higher in my rankings upon multiple rewatches.

Overall, Killers of the Flower Moon is one of the most fascinating, raw and beautifully haunting movies Martin Scorsese has ever made. It takes its time to establish everything; it isn’t afraid to show you complex characters whilst relying on your understanding that this movie never justifies anything these people did to the Native Americans. There is a difference between glamorizing and showing you how a person thinks, and Scorsese proved yet again why he is the master of these complex, dark characters. I wish he has many more years left and he gets to make movies he wants to make.

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 care about the Oscars, you know that the 2023 “Best Leading Actress” category was between Cate Blanchett for this movie and Michelle Yeoh for Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022, my review here). It was Michelle who managed to snatch that Oscar (and deservedly so, in my opinion); however, having now finally watched Tár, I understand why it was close and honestly wouldn’t be mad if it went to Cate, as much as I was happy for Michelle. But Tár relies much more on Cate than Everything Everywhere All at Once on Michelle, as we have several (now Oscar-winning) performances. In Tár, we have some great actors in supporting roles, but as far as making this movie what it was, it was Cate and her alone, not dissimilar to the “isolation” her character feels throughout this movie.

The first thing I noticed about Tár is how cold and detached this movie felt, but the more I delved into it, the more I understood that it was very much on purpose. Cate’s character, Lydia Tár, isn’t the most likeable person to ever exist; she is the exact opposite of that. We quickly sense that something is “up” with her, and the film builds on that feeling. We see her being strict, combative, paranoid, angry, and down, and there might be times we almost feel sorry for her, but the movie never tries to defend her character and everything/anything she did. In this sense, Todd Field‘s direction reminded me of Martin Scorsese, as a few of his movies tiptoe on the fine edge of making you understand an evil character to the point that many people accuse him every once in a while of “glamorising” them. Of course, both Marty and Todd don’t do that whatsoever; you just need to look deeper at those characters and understand the difference between understanding a character doesn’t correlate with sympathising with them.

And Lydia Tár is a brilliant example of this. You might even agree with some things she says throughout this movie, but once you realise what “that thing” is that is haunting her and stopping her from sleeping, I don’t think there will be many who would stand by her. Despite her undisputable talent, she is a flawed person. Many movies here would try to prompt the discussion of whether her talent is what makes her flawed or vice versa (her being a great artist correlates with her having these flaws), but I never got that from this movie. Tár isn’t interested in that because that’s not the point. The point here is for us to understand the fall of this giant and why she had fallen.

As mentioned above, this entire movie rests on Cate’s performance alone. She is in 99% of the scenes, and no matter what she does, you are fascinated, intrigued and maybe a bit scared of her character. Cate portrays her so earnestly and effortlessly that by the end of the movie, you are convinced that Lydia Tár was an actual person (she isn’t) and that Cate was born to play her (she absolutely was). In any other year, she would be the clear frontrunner for the Oscar, but in 2022, Michelle Yeoh ruled supreme.

Besides Cate, the movie has many things to say about our culture, about the state of conversations we seem to be constantly having, like judging historical figures by today’s standards, cancel culture, etc. But it does it in a way I feel it will age well. Plus, Tár is one of those movies that is filled with many “blink and you will miss it” moments; it requires repeating viewings to fully get your head around everything you see, witness and feel. And that is why I can’t give the highest rating because there was something stopping me, and I can’t pinpoint what “it” was. But I strongly believe this movie is one of those that only gets better on repeat viewings, so that should make for a fascinating watch. Plus, due to the epic classical music and Cate Blanchett, it never felt like a chore to watch this film, and it is almost 160 minutes!

Overall, Tár is a fascinating story about a complex character you will google immediately to check for yourself whether or not she is real. The movie convinced me she was real, as everything that happened felt like it could have easily happened. Plus, and I can’t underestimate this, Cate’s performance is one for the books. For most actresses, this would be their career highlight. For Cate, it’s just another year. Tár is a cold, precise movie that will have you question a few things but ultimately will deliver an experience you won’t forget any time soon.

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

Until next time,

Luke

To write a sentence “a controversial film made by Lars von Trier” feels almost redundant, as his last couple of movies have had that attached to them. And yet, The House That Jack Built seemed different, as I still remember reading about many walkouts during its premiere in 2018. When I read why many have walked out, I thought that this might be it; this might be where Lars has gone too far, but removed from all of that by a couple of years, I was intrigued to see it for myself. I had to check it out to see whether it was as uncomfortable as everyone claimed. The short answer is yes.

The long answer is yes, BUT… The House That Jack Built is not twisted for the sake of it. I am a strong believer that art should make you a bit uncomfortable, and great art is when you can watch something so awful, yet you understand that it’s fine to like it or even love it because that is what art is for. To explore the deepest, darkest places some humans might go. And if you make it surprisingly funny at times (as this film is) and shoot it as well as Lars, you will get a response. Sure, the response for about half of the audience will be disgust and walkouts, but that’s the gambit Lars has been doing for a while, so I am sure he is used to it by now. You don’t make a movie like this “by accident”, as that would be the one and only thing pushing me over the edge and making me “walk out” on this movie too. But in my case, I would have switched the film off as I watched it at home. Luckily, there is a point to this madness and craziness. Crazy right, an artist makes a controversial art to make a point and not just for shits and giggles? Imagine that.

In all seriousness, this film is one of those I “enjoyed” but never want to see again. And yes, it feels weird to write “enjoy” about a movie like this, where we follow a serial killer doing the most horrendous, brutal and insane stuff throughout the entire film. I hope everyone sees the quotation marks around the word enjoy. There are a couple of elements I must discuss, and the first must be the actors.

I don’t think I saw Matt Dillon act as brilliantly as he does in this film. I can’t imagine how tough it must have been for him, as he was not only the lead of this film, he was the antagonist as well. He plays the ungrateful role of an unlikable lead, who we aren’t rooting for, but we should be fascinated by him. But only if he does his job well. And he did. Matt Dillon delivered, and if this film wasn’t as unhinged, I am sure there could have been some award consideration coming Dillon’s way. I loved that Lars got Bruno Ganz as the voice of Verge (most people know him as Hitler from that one “parody YouTube video”; a few might know that video is from another hard-to-watch movie, Downfall (2004). I admired the choice because Bruno’s voice fits in this film just brilliantly. Mainly because, for most of the film, you don’t know who this Verge is or what his role in this “experience” is. And then, when it was revealed… I loved that reveal.

The others are here for a scene or two, and all are great. Uma Thurman portrays one of the most obnoxious and awkward people you will ever see. Jeremy Davies makes an impact in his few scenes, and Riley Keough‘s character “Simple” will first break your heart and then make you ultra uncomfortable. I won’t say she had the harshest scene in this film because there is always the “family hunting scene”, but goddamn, flip a coin between those two. And then, of course, what happens after in the freezer… Okay, there is no one scene that would top them all. The House That Jack Built makes you live through a horrible event/scene, lets you breathe for a minute and then says: “Hold my mug full of blood. I can do even better.” Except that, in this case, the “better” means worse, way fucking worse.

That is the main takeaway from this review; despite my “liking” this movie (again, the quotation marks are working overtime), I can’t say for sure I would ever recommend this movie. Firstly, it’s long. Secondly, it’s uncomfortable. Thirdly, it’s fucking brutal. If you are squeamish, don’t even chance it and go anywhere close to this movie; I beg you. Due to “growing up” on the Internet, I have been desensitized to seeing horrible stuff, but this movie shook even me. The only consolidation for me was knowing that this was just a movie, and no matter how convincingly everything looks, it’s not real. The usual stuff you tell yourself when watching a horror movie. But unlike your slasher horror film, this feels so raw and real, it makes you… I am sorry to keep using this word, but I don’t think there is any better one than ‘uncomfortable’.

But… I couldn’t look away. I don’t want to spoil anything if, for some reason, you decide to give this movie a chance like I did, but there is a “method to the madness”. Lars puts you through hell and back, but once you start to understand this film and what The House That Jack Built is trying to say/do, it is a fascinating watch. I don’t think it’s a spoiler to say that we get a glimpse of what a serial killer’s brain would look like. Matt Dillon is precise, methodical, and insane, but in his insanity lies sanity. What I mean is, in a very twisted way, you start to understand him throughout the film. At no point in this film will you ever be on board with anything he’s done, but to see the world the way a person like his character sees it certainly was a journey.

I guess that’s where the cookie crumbles; this movie takes you on a long, horrifying, uncomfortable journey, and it’s only up to you whether you will go and are willing to see past the horrifying murders. If you subscribe to the theory of great art making you uncomfortable and getting you thinking about stuff you wouldn’t be thinking about otherwise, then and only then, I would recommend this movie to you. However, if you are happy with not doing that and would rather live your entire life without seeing people get tortured, killed and used as material for this house, don’t feel ashamed to pass. The House That Jack Built is one of those rare movies where no rating will surprise me. If you rate it 5/5* or 0/5*, I would honestly not be surprised by either and would understand you entirely.

Overall, The House That Jack Built is one hell of a movie that will test you in ways I couldn’t imagine. It’s a film that has got Matt Dillon in possibly his best-acted role ever; it’s a well-shot film with a fascinating story once you understand what is happening and where we are going with all this. As mentioned above, I can’t outright recommend this because it’s hard to say: “Hey, do you like murder and torture? You will enjoy this movie then!” What I will say is, if you don’t mind getting uncomfortable, you have a strong stomach and enjoy being challenged by the art you consume, you might “enjoy” this movie. And if you watch it, no matter if you love it or hate it, it will stay with you for a while.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I believe this movie holds the title of being the first 2023 film where most of the audience went: “Holy shit, that’s actually better than we expected!” Because I still remember the trailers for it, and they didn’t inspire confidence. They were not bad, but for a movie about the most famous role-playing game, they seemed to be all over the place tonally. It seemed like it would be one of those “How did this get made?” Hollywood cautionary tales of spending too much money and not understanding the material. Well, how wrong we all were.

A huge disclaimer before proceeding – I have never played any Dungeons & Dragons. I am not into these games; I understand what they are, but they are just not my thing. So, my perspective will be focused solely on this movie and what I heard from people who are fans of these games.

I think the biggest reason, Dungeons & Dragons: Honour Among Thieves succeeded was it never took itself too seriously, but the fans/game was never the butt of any jokes. Also, when I talk about success, I mean at least audience-wise, it seems the movie was a box office flop, earning just over $200 million on a budget of $150 million (that must have hurt). It seems like John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein cracked the formula where they understood how to make jokes from this fantasy world without taking cheap shots at it or at its audience. There is nothing worse than seeing a game adaptation that doesn’t respect the source material or makes a few cheap jokes about its audience, but this movie seemed to be made by people who have affection for the game.

Again, I have never played a single minute of this game. But I understand there are many easter eggs for the most hardcore players. And here’s the thing, I never got lost or thought: “Oh well, this joke probably works for people who have played the game before.” No, everything was explained in the movie, so I could easily follow this story. From a few things I read about this movie after I watched it, many easter eggs are either in the background or used in dialogue, but are not “vital” parts of the story, meaning you can watch this film and understand what’s happening and your friend who’s played this many times is happier than a sailor in a whorehouse because they mentioned this item from the game or this place.

Another (as vital as not mocking the fans or the source material in my eyes) reason I enjoyed this movie was the fact they grounded this fantasy world. Because at the core, surrounded by all this magic, fantasy and adventure, lies a pretty simple story about a dad trying to make amends and get his daughter back. You need something that’s easy to relate to, something “simple” that grounds your fantasy, and this was a great decision. If they went on a quest for the Master Key of Shablong that opens the gates to Frubing land to get the Axe of Winterland, that would seem more generic, and I could see myself losing interest because I wouldn’t be as familiar with any of these. But when you ground your story with some simple yet effective family stuff, it usually works, as long as you have great actors to sell it.

And boy, did they win a jackpot there. Chris Pine continues his quest to be “the best Chris”, and his charisma, charm, and talent shine through this film. He’s effortlessly funny but delivers in many other dramatic scenes and was the perfect cast for this role. I also liked Justice Smith and his dynamic with Sophia Lillis, even though I am not sold about them being a couple. I think the movie suggests that they might hook up at the end, but for me, they worked almost better as this brother/sister duo. Michelle Rodriguez continues her role of “strong woman”, and she is the strongest and most useful out of all our protagonists, at least regarding close combat. Also, her scenes with a surprise cameo actor (I won’t spoil who it is because I didn’t know he was coming) playing her ex-boyfriend Marlamin were the highlight of this movie. Hugh Grant continues his renaissance of playing “charming bastards” and yet again gives us a funny, charming and villainous performance.

I also appreciated the action shot in a creative way, which seems to be a staple for Daley and Goldstein. After their movie Game Night (2018), they seemed to be carving this niche for themselves of directors who understand action and comedy and can blend them together well. I am on board with that and can’t wait to see what they direct next.

The only reason I am not giving this movie “the full rating” is just my feeling. The film didn’t “hit” me to that level where I would want to rewatch it instantly. And maybe, who knows, when I rewatch it, I will discover that I was a simpleton, and there was no reason to hold off on that “full rating”. But for now, I had a blast; I can’t critique much, just there was something about this film that “prevented” me from fully giving in.

Overall, Dungeons & Dragons: Honour Among Thieves is a nearly excellent film that understood the assignment. Yet again, 2023 seems to be the year when we finally cracked down on game adaptations, and we can hope Hollywood has learned their lessons and, from now on, no more excuses. We have had a couple of excellent ones, and this movie 100% belongs in that conversation, as any normies (such as myself) can enjoy it alongside the hardcore fans who worship this game. I had a great time and would be open to a sequel.

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

Until next time,

Luke

If there ever was a movie I am as far from the target audience as possible, Gran Turismo might be it. I don’t game (that much), if/when I do, I don’t play racing games, and due to the Fast & Furious franchise, I have given up on any racing movies being decent. And, to be perfectly honest, until a few months ago, I didn’t even know this movie existed because it missed me entirely, and it wasn’t until I saw a trailer in the cinema that I became aware of it. I also remember the exact moment I went from “Who is this movie for?” to “Ok, this movie might be for me.” That moment was seeing Neill Blomkamp‘s name. I like all his movies and was disappointed when he couldn’t deliver his version of Alien. His name was enough for me to be cautiously optimistic about this film and to get me into the cinema. Honestly, if it were not for his direction, this would have been a bland, middle-of-the-road film.

When we look back at 2023, one thing is for certain – many (myself included) might label this year “when we managed to get game adaptations right.” The big one is the show The Last of Us (2023 – ?, my review here), and now, Gran Turismo can stand proudly in that category as well. Let me be clear; I am not saying this movie is on par with The Last of Us, of course not. And you can argue that they had a much easier job not fucking this movie up, and I would also agree with that. However, the fact Gran Turismo is as good as it is almost a miracle.

Usually, I tend to begin with the positives, but in this instance, I will start with the biggest negative I have to say about this film. The reason for that is that it is also the only criticism from my side. The predictability of this movie was the only thing I could see as subpar. Yes, the film is based on a true (and frankly unbelievable) story, but that also means we can see everything “mapped out”. There is almost nothing that will surprise you; every story beat this movie hits, you can see coming from miles away. Also, some characters could be more flashed out (like the “girlfriend character” played by Maeve Courtier-Lilley). This is all we know of her; she only exists as a proxy to our main hero. If I were to put my critical hat on, those would be the biggest issues this movie had.

But even those didn’t bother me as much because Gran Turismo moves faster than the cars in the film. The movie is filled with many cliches, but they work within the movie because of the “based on a true story” element, the cast and Neill’s tiny touches. Everything from the freeze frames telling us Jann’s positions throughout different races and the video game noises to those scenes where Jann imagines being in a real car while playing the game was great. Those were the moments that differentiated this movie from any other in its genre. We’ve seen many racing movies (even if we wouldn’t count the Fast franchise), and Neill has managed to shoot this movie in such a way it feels different. The emotional moments work; you are there with Jann during his trials to become a racer to actually racing and having to end up fourth to get his licence; you are in those moments with him.

And by him, I mean Archie Madekwe. I don’t think he gave an Oscar-worthy performance, but he is likeable and charismatic enough that I wouldn’t want anybody else in this role. He was perfect because he felt like a regular guy who just loved Gran Turismo (the game) and was great at it. And his chemistry with David Harbour was magical. Gran Turismo is, funnily enough, a movie that finally convinced me of Harbour’s charm. I like him in Stranger Things (2016 – ?), but I haven’t seen a film with him where I would witness that charm “transferred” onto the big screen. But his character was fun, and again, his mentor/”race dad” relationship with Archie’s character made this movie and elevated it. I also loved what they did with Orlando Bloom‘s character. In any other lesser film, he would have ended up being the antagonist, and he has moments where you think that is where his character will end up, but he never fully goes there. His character tip-toes on this fine line between a sleazy corporate guy and a person who actually cares about the sport and is more in-depth than I expected from a movie based on a racing simulator. I also need to give an honourable mention to Djimon Hounsou, whose presence is always appreciated and Geri Horner. Yep, Ginger Spice is in this film, and she is our protagonist’s mum, married to Djimon.

The best example I can give you is this. Do you remember Need for Speed (2014)? Yeah, nobody does either, and there is a reason. If Gran Turismo had been made even five years ago and with somebody else other than Blomkamp, we would have ended up with a film like Need for Speed. That means a totally average, okayish movie you have some fun with during it, but you forget about it days later. And unlike Gran Turismo, I have played one of the Need for Speed games (Underground 2 was my jam), so if anything, I should be biased towards that one. But alas, I am not because it was literally an average, middle-of-the-road movie that brought nothing new. Gran Turismo, on the other hand, embraced its video game origins while telling this incredible story of a young guy who made his dreams come true. It took the genre cliches, used them as guardrails and delivered a fun, exhilarating story that swung past me in no time. It wasn’t until I was home from the cinema and was reading some trivia on IMDb that I realised this film was 135 minutes long! I could have sworn it was just under two hours, and that is probably the best thing I can say about any movie. If I get lost in any film so much, I don’t even know how much time has gone by that is usually a good sign, and it means I must have had a blast watching it.

Overall, Gran Turismo is a blast. If you have ever played the game, the chances are you will love it. If you are like me and have never played it, you may still enjoy yourself because the film embraces its video game origins while telling the true story of one extremely charismatic guy who just wanted to race. Gran Turismo delivers on the adrenaline and the thrill of the sport; it also gives you a great pairing with our titular duo Harbour + Madekwe. Yes, it falls into some cliches and is predictable, but you won’t mind as much, given you will be busy rooting for Jann and be there with him every step of the way. This movie had no right to be as great as it is. Go see it in the cinemas.

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

Until next time,

Luke