I fully understand this won’t be my most read review, as Mass still feels like this almost “underground” film only a few movie nuts have heard of. That is strange, considering everybody who has seen it can confirm three things. The less you know about this movie before going is better, it’s a brilliant movie, and all four lead actors should have been nominated for Oscars in their respective categories. Yep, this is how I have stumbled upon this film; I heard this is a “shoe-in” for all four performers. What a surprise it was when neither actor got nominated. I think this might be one of the Academy’s most colossal and noticeable mishaps in the last decade.

I have challenged myself to write this review without spoiling anything. Everything I had read about Mass before going in was so perfect; I will continue in this as I strongly believe this is one of the rare films that works without you knowing the main idea of the film. All I will tell you is this – the movie is about two couples coming together in a church to discuss something, a tragedy that has affected both of their lives. That is the only thing I knew about this film, and please do not search for anything else as this movie’s pacing is so deliberate it reveals all the answers in its own time. The movie wants you to be a bit confused first to possibly sympathize with all involved before knowing what the tragedy is because that is where the cookie crumbles. Once you know what is happening, you will form your opinions about who is right or wrong… except you might struggle, as I have too, to label either right or wrong. Mass is almost a perfect film about how tragedy affects everybody, so it’s hard to judge any one person as being wrong here.

As stated above, Mass is mainly a performance piece for four brilliant actors. Jason Isaacs, Martha Plimpton, Ann Dowd and Reed Birney. It rarely happens, but I can’t name my favourite performance because all four performers have their specific roles to play, and they play off each other so well that one can’t work without the others. They are a true ensemble where you can’t lift one without mentioning the others. They each get a moment to shine, but it never feels forced. The movie felt so natural regarding this aspect; all four performers talk like regular people would. Sometimes they talk over each other, sometimes they struggle to formulate what exactly they mean, but it always felt “right”.

I know it’s almost cliché to write: “How come Academy did not nominate person X, Y or Z? What a travesty.” But in this case, it really felt bizarre as all four performers put everything they had into their roles. I could also imagine a script getting a nomination, as, without that, there isn’t a movie to celebrate. And again, this script is so clever, revealing the story slowly, letting you get in the mood and get to know everybody before we understand why they are there in the first place. And especially with this story and topic, what a genius (and I don’t use that word lightly) execution. This film should be showcased in movie writing classes as a bright example of enabling your viewers to follow the story naturally as it unfolds. I imagine most films of this nature would want the audience to be one step ahead. But Mass lets us make discoveries for ourselves without any “interference” or playing favourites.

The only “tiny” problem I had with this film and the reason I can’t give it the maximum rating is I have seen movies like this (people talking for an hour and a half), and those managed to suck me in a bit more. I don’t know why I was, at times, detached from this film, but that is what happened to me. Maybe it was due to me not having to experience what they are talking about (and I am hoping I will never have to live through something like it), and that is why I could not have imagined what the characters were going through? Possibly. I will give you an example, one of my favourite “nothing happens, you just watch people talk about everything for 90 minutes” films is The Sunset Limited (2011). I would be surprised if many people have even heard about that film, let alone seen it. But it’s directed by Tommy Lee Jones (who also plays a character only known as ‘White’) and co-starring Samuel L. Jackson (playing the other character, called ‘Black’). If that doesn’t intrigue you enough, let me throw this into the mix, it is based on a play by Cormac McCarthy (go through his filmography if his name alone doesn’t ring any bells), and it shows. And that movie grabs you and doesn’t let go until it’s over. Mass captures you too, but there were moments (even if not that many) where I felt not 100% in the story. It will be fascinating if I ever re-watch this film and whether I will feel the same way or not.

Overall, Mass is a near excellent film that will stay with you for a while. You will think about everything that is said by all the main characters; you will try to imagine how would you react if you were on either side and how awful would that be. And even if there were some tiny moments where I felt slightly disconnected from the film, I wholly admit that might have been just a “me problem”, and your experience may vary. Mass is 100% worth searching and seeing, for the performances, the screenplay, and to give you something (albeit dark and uncomfortable) to think about. It’s definitely not a movie you put on if you want to chill and relax. Please see it and go into it as blindly as possible to fully experience this film on its terms.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Let’s get something straight – I never understood why so many people were afraid of clowns. I am not saying I love them, or they would be my favourite thing when I used to visit a circus or two back when I was little, but they always left me indifferent. And being on the Internet for such a long time, the fear of clowns seems to be one of the most common fears nowadays. It’s possible that Stephen King’s novel It might have something to do with that. I still haven’t seen the mini-series also called It (1990), but I’ve heard great things, mainly about Tim Curry‘s performance as Pennywise. I also need to mention I have not read the novel by Stephen King, so this review is me jumping into this film with completely fresh eyes as this is my first ever encounter with Pennywise. And as you can tell from the heading, I enjoyed myself.

It could have just been your stereotypical run of the mill horror film. But something somewhere clicked, and this film works as part of an intriguing horror film and part as a coming-of-age movie about kids who are just trying to figure out life. I’ve heard about this film ever since it came out back in 2017, and that was the one universal thing everybody agreed on – the kids in this film work wonderfully with each other. All I can say is, yes, I will join the crowds because they do. Their group seemed believable, and their chemistry was there. I would imagine it’s partly the actors, partly the script, and mostly Stephen King’s book. And somehow, Andy Muschietti (the director) made it all work within a construct of a horror film.

Regarding the group, I can’t single out any guy character that I thought would stand out. But there was somebody who had – Sophia Lillis. I thought her character was a big reason the entire group dynamic never got stale because she was the perfect addition to give these pre-pubescent boys a girl that is a bit older, so she is in that “not a girl, not yet a woman” stage of her life. You could tell she is a bit smarter, than them, but most importantly, she is kinder. And to me, that was the key to fully unlocking this group dynamic. If we only followed the boys and all their teasing, dumb jokes etc., that would get annoying quite soon. But her character comes in at the right moment, and Sophia seemed so sure of her character she was the stand out for me. Well, at least in relation to the “kid group”, as we need to talk about the leading star, Pennywise, as portrayed by Bill Skarsgård.

When I was looking through his filmography, I realised I saw him in some films before, like Anna Karenina (2012) or Atomic Blonde (2017), but I would be lying if I said I remembered him from any of those films. But after watching It and It: Chapter Two (2019, and the review is coming soon as well), I will focus on him more in the future. Because he truly is the definition of perfect casting. He understood the character where he made him silly enough to make us believe he was a clown but adequately dark/scary for us not to forget he’s not just a clown. And as much praise he got for this role, I honestly don’t think he’s praised enough; because he nailed that balance. It’d be so easy to lean into one or the other more, but somehow he knew how to give us both sides of Pennywise. I was impressed by him.

And I was impressed by this film too. It is 135 minutes long, but it never felt too long. The movie had to be this long for everything to come together with the way it did. Another thing I also appreciated was how the film managed to build tension with some scary and unsettling images in the background (library scene) while reducing cheap jump scares to a minimum. Well, until the last 30 minutes.

That would be my only tiny gripe with this film and the only reason I won’t be giving it a 5/5 rating. As for most of the movie, there were some jump scares, but most of those didn’t feel cheap until they did. It was the last portion of the film where the horror element became too predictable and resembled most horror movies these days, where the film lost that unique atmosphere for me. Not by a massive amount; I still think this is a close to excellent film, but the last approximately 30 minutes doesn’t live up to the 100 minutes we’ve gotten before. But again, this would be a tiny flaw in otherwise a superb film I would not hesitate to rewatch, and I don’t say that for many horror films.

Overall, It managed to make me understand why people are afraid of clowns. I’ve heard on occasion that Stephen King’s It did the same thing for clowns that Jaws (1975) did for sharks. I can see that, as even after watching this film with one terrifying clown, I am still not “sold” on the idea of regular clowns being scary to me. However, Pennywise, as played by Bill, was terrifying. And let’s face it, it was due to him being so great as Pennywise and the chemistry between the kids that made It what it was. A surprisingly well-made horror movie with some heart. Too bad it all got messed up in the sequel, but that’s another review altogether.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I wasn’t planning on writing a review for this film. I mean, why would you? Dogtooth is one of the most uncomfortable films you will see. It’s that kind of movie you want everyone to watch because it stays with you, but you are afraid to recommend this to anyone because you feel scared about what they might think of you. But to hell with this, let’s get uncomfortable and talk about this film that stayed with me for a while, and I will try to formulate it to the best of my abilities why I thought it’d be worth seeing it.

Dogtooth is the film that put Yorgos Lanthimos on the map. Sure, this isn’t his feature debut, but I still remember hearing “whispers” about this film back when it came out in 2009. Now, of course, he’s the director best known for (mainly) The Favourite (2018) and if you have seen that film and that was “too weird” for you, stay away from this one. Because comparing The Favourite against something like Dogtooth is like comparing weed to heroin. Sure, both are technically drugs, but one will have more impact on your life.

I don’t usually post reviews that contain a synopsis, but I think it might help in this case, given this is a movie not many would have seen. And also, I don’t want to spoil it too much, so this is what the film is about:

A controlling, manipulative father locks his three adult offspring in a state of perpetual childhood by keeping them prisoner within the sprawling family compound.

Source: IMDb.com

And this is really saying it all without spoiling anything for you. I will try my hardest not to give anything away because part of the reason this film stays with you is the shock factor. It takes this concept of controlling father and runs with it, and trust me, every time you think it needs to “stop running with it”, as surely, we can’t get any crazier/weirder than that? The movie usually pushes past that to something even crazier.

I think the main reason I liked this film (well, “liked” might be a very weird word to use here) is simple – this is a pure, raw character study of a flawed character and the impact he can have on his surroundings, if left unchecked. It’s another “nature vs. nurture” debate, taken into overdrive where the movie forces you to think and see how much we are affected by the nurture as opposed the nature element. And the scariest part about this? I could totally see this happen. Think about it, those three (adult) kids living in total isolation with just their parents, being told from the early age they can’t go anywhere as the outside world is scary and dangerous place. They have a very limited idea about the world and what is happening, as everything is “filtered” through their parents who are supposed to be the ones preparing them for the real world. So, unfortunately it’s not that crazy to believe “the nurture” (at least in this very specific and horrifying example) would have… won, I guess?

What I admired about this film was how dedicated each actor was to their role. There weren’t any slip-ups; all performances in this film felt raw and contributed massively to this films’ overall mood. Because if you, as an audience member, would believe one of them isn’t 100% on board with this, or worse yet, is a pretty famous face, the whole film wouldn’t have worked. That is another thing about Dogtooth; I can’t imagine an English remake of this film, but this might sound weird; I can imagine a sequel. Hear me out.

Without spoiling the ending of this film, let’s say the things are left… open. And I would love to see what happens/happened next. But not even necessarily on that same day or week. I would love to see a sequel exploring just the “children”, let’s say 10/20 years after. Have they ever managed to discover there is a life outside of their house? Or are they somehow still trapped there? If they managed to be free, how do they live now? Because you know there won’t be any happy endings, as even if they ever managed to free themselves, their brains are wired in such a unique way, it would probably take years of therapy to get them to some sort of “normality”, if such a thing exists. I know this won’t happen; firstly, Yorgos doesn’t strike me as the type to do this (and rightly so), and secondly, the younger daughter Mary Tsoni, unfortunately, passed away in 2017. But the idea of seeing them in the “outside” world, without their parents’ influence… that still intrigues me.

Overall, Dogtooth is not a movie for everyone. Even though I rate it highly, and I would love for more people to discover this film, I will say I’d understand if somebody switched the movie off halfway through. Because it deals with heavy topics and some scenes are very graphic. And that goes back to my question from the beginning of my review. How do you recommend a movie like this to anybody without them slowly backing away from you? Well, if you discover the answer, please let me know because I don’t think I’ve cracked the code on this yet. Dogtooth is one of those films that you can discuss for hours upon hours because it covers many intriguing topics underneath all this weirdness and awkwardness. If you are triggered by certain things, I would recommend doing your research before watching this film. If you don’t care about that, and you enjoy movies that aren’t your “run of a mill” films, this one might be for you.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Oh boy… Where to start with this one. Don’t Look Up is one of the most talked-about films of last year for many reasons. Everything from the star-studded cast (I knew about the main players, but seeing names like Ariana Grande or Timothée Chalamet pop up in the opening credits surprised me) to the story and mainly how the film goes about telling the story… It will be hard to write anything new or anything altogether that won’t come off as too pretentious. Because if we learned anything from the last couple of years, literally anything can be politicised and therefore weaponised. And that is, at its core, what this film is about. Does it go about it subtlety? No, but have you “looked up” over the past couple of years? Because unfortunately (and this doesn’t apply to the USA only), there is a lack of subtlety. One side shouts, and the other side feels it needs to shout even louder. Rinse, wash, repeat.

One could say they don’t like how Adam McKay (the director and screenwriter) sees the world around him, that he might be too “glib”, “liberal”, or going for the cheap shots. But I don’t think that’s fair. Sure, you can clearly tell from this film (and Vice (2018) he did a couple of years ago too) where he stands, but especially in Don’t Look Up, he’s taking some jabs at everybody, from liberals to Hollywood and the pretentiousness of it all. I’ve heard some people say that his style lacks any subtlety. Does it? Or does he merely shows us (albeit via a crooked mirror) how silly/dumb we all look nowadays when we are so ready to disregard/shout at somebody just because their opinion is different from our one? The “party” politics, where some people can’t acknowledge a good point from somebody else purely because that somebody else “is from the other party”, therefore an enemy?

Don’t Look Up knows very well what it’s going for, and it’s not afraid to go places. But I think the film came out too soon. And I enjoyed it, but even I was struggling because we still live in this “post-truth” world, so you can’t laugh at some of these jokes, as they hit too close to home at times. Imagine making a movie about Titanic two years after it sank. Way too soon. Also, even though I liked the film, I will say it shouldn’t be as long as it is. You could easily cut it down by around 20 minutes, and the movie would have flown better.

What I liked about this movie, and I didn’t see this angle discussed nearly as often as the political one, was how this film portrayed our media consumption. Everything from social media to the news media, how we consume it and how we get over it (whatever that “it” is) in about a minute. We live in such an avalanche of information (and more often than not, bullshit information) coming at us at all times; it’s hard escaping it. This movie managed to emulate it brilliantly, always throwing a lot of things your way, and it’s up to you how much you like it or not. But what happens if you don’t like it? Well, you switch off this film, put a different movie on, while scrolling on your phone, looking for that fleeting something that triggers the brief dose of endorphins, satisfying your poor attention span just for a second or two longer, before moving on to something else entirely.

See, this is what I was talking about earlier. I am re-reading what I wrote, and I understand that comes off pretentiously like somehow I am not the same. Trust me, I am. I am as guilty of many of those things as your next person. Although, I would like to think that I can admit it to myself. And I have seen some people getting heated about this film, and it made me wonder whether it proves the point the film is trying to make? Whether it hit some nerve and that “knee-jerk” reaction kicks in, to blame everything/everybody around you except yourself.

Ok, back to the movie. I liked the performances, mainly our titular duo Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence. I thought they both were believable enough, as their characters start with their best intentions. But Leo loses his way in the middle, and Jennifer is so passionate, and straight-talking people often dismiss her. Who I think deserves a special mention, and probably the only person I was surprised that he wasn’t nominated for an Oscar, was Mark Rylance. His mix of “what if Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg had a baby” character was possibly the most subtle of performances. He also had that “awkward techy guy, who knows he’s smarter than most people in any given room” mannerisms down to a T. I have enjoyed him the most.

It will be interesting to see how well will this film age over the years. Because that is another unique point about it – I don’t think it’s trying to say that this attitude (two sides that are mad at each other all the time) is here to stay forever. I think once some time passes and we (hopefully) have moved past this “if you are not with me, you are against me” thinking, we will take a look back at this movie as a painful reminder. At least, that is my hope, that Don’t Look Up becomes funnier as it ages, as this shouty, party-first attitude has gone now, especially from the highest political places. We need to hope for this and VOTE for this to change.

Overall, Don’t Look Up is a fascinating movie. You either know Adam McKay and know what to expect or not and then you are in for a hell of a surprise. It’s hard to talk about just the movie without addressing the major culprit of why we have to talk about politics like this (for lack of a better term, in this “fake news” way). And of course, while talking about politics, we can all become a bit defensive of our side (the right side! Because I believe it, I must be right!) and not as respectful of the other side. Would I recommend this film? It depends how much you are into politics and, more importantly, how much you want to be reminded of what has (somewhat) now become our daily lives. I didn’t think this was a comedy. And that might be the saddest thing of all. Imagine, had this movie come out about 10/15 years ago, we would have never believed our “civilised” society could become “this”. You can put any adjective you wish to replace “this”.

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

Until next time,

Luke

The Batman. One of the most universally known superheroes of all time is back (yet again), and this time, it’s Robert Pattinson‘s time to shine as the caped crusader. No, I won’t make some variation of “hey, that’s Edward from the Twilight films, he’s done well for himself”. Simply because if you followed his career since that abomination, I mean franchise ended, you knew as well as I, he’s proven himself ten times over now. And I knew he would nail this role, and he… kinda did. I will get to it more in just a second, but he’s much better Batman than he is Bruce Wayne. It will be hard to argue as I understand this should be the youngest Batman we’ve ever seen in the mainstream movie, but still. Also, it’s almost three hours long. And some films can justify this length but this one…? I would say no.

Let me write as much as I can before jumping into spoilers because as much as I would love to stay away from them, I can’t. Because it was later on in the film, The Batman started to work for me. Yes, the first 30 minutes I thought it was good, but some choices were made (especially as I alluded to before, how Bruce Wayne was portrayed) that pulled me out a bit. But once the Riddler storyline kicked in and we’ve started to untangle this mystery, I found myself engrossed more and more into this film where I left the movie theatre satisfied. Don’t get me wrong, this movie has issues, and I will address them, but I liked what they have done it.

Some things that are easy to discuss without going into the spoilers are the themes of this film. Batman has always been about not killing any bad guys, as “you become them if you do that.” And that is somewhat explored here even further, but not with Batman’s character, but with Catwoman, brilliantly portrayed by Zoë Kravitz. It was through her character and her storyline we truly explore this “no killing the bad guys” rule and can see how it plays a vital part of Batman’s identity. And how he realises something about himself throughout watching her character. I liked that complexity, and Zoë can do no wrong. Forget a TV show starring Penguin that’s been announced; why can’t we give Zoë a TV show?

What I also liked about this film was how Riddler (Paul Dano came, saw and delivered as I knew he would, so happy for him to finally be in a big movie as one of the main characters!) is looming over this film and how Batman needs to be a detective to get to him. He was a perfect villain, and I liked how they made certain choices about his character (but more about that in spoilers).

Something I wanted to mention before moving into the spoilers is definitely this film’s runtime. This movie should not have been almost three hours long. There are a lot of characters, and the story is complex enough that it 100% must be over two hours, sure. But I can easily see simply cutting out 20/30 minutes without affecting any story or characters because this movie has a lot of “atmosphere building” shots that look great. And resemble pages of comic books (says the person who has never read a single comic book in his life). But the problem with this was the movie almost reminded me of Zack Snyder and his approach to shooting his Batman films at times. Luckily, Matt Reeves isn’t Zack Snyder, so it never goes overboard, but there are definitely self-indulgent moments that do nothing but add to the already bloated runtime. I swear if this movie was about 20/30 minutes shorter, I think we might have had a serious contender for the best Batman movie ever. Anyway, let’s get into the spoilers, so…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

As I’ve mentioned above, the movie won me over when it delved into its themes more. One theme I have already mentioned (“no killing of bad guys”) but the other and more important theme of this film is how to deal with your past. And how we shouldn’t presume things just because they sound true, it doesn’t mean they are. Yes, I am talking about the revelation of Bruce’s dad making one mistake that would cost him his life. And how that shatters Bruce’s view on what he needs to do as he thought, “as long as I am Batman, I don’t need to be Bruce Wayne” because he believed his father was an impeccable man. But nobody is perfect, and he needs to deal with the fact and try to make a piece with it. What I loved about this wrinkle was how they tied into it the “guilty by proxy” element, where Riddler presumes just because Bruce is Wayne, he had to know or be involved with his father’s crimes. Because it sounds logical, doesn’t it? He was too close not to be involved. “Obviously”, he must have known something or later on even participated in something?

And the same can be said about Catwoman’s character and her surprising father. I liked how he had no idea she was his daughter, and her father’s sins were not hers. I loved that element of the story, and I think that was when the movie convinced me that it had something to say. Speaking of Catwoman’s dad, what a brilliant performance by John Turturro, who with the pretty limited time he had in the film, made the maximum impact. He was menacing without being forceful, and you, the audience, knew he was a much bigger piece of this entire puzzle even before the big reveal that he was “the rat” all along.

And with this theme (children shouldn’t be blamed for their parent’s sins), I started to understand Pattinson’s Bruce Wayne portrayal a bit more. Think about it for a second; he starts the movie thinking the Wayne legacy will take care of itself, hence why he “only” needs to be the Batman. So he begins this movie as this emo youngster who is “too cool for board meetings”. It’s only when he’s confronted with the reality of Wayne’s name being exposed and Riddler (alongside Catwoman, which I thought was a nice touch) accusing Bruce of being “in on it” too, he realises he can’t just be the caped crusader. That there needs to be a balance between Batman and Bruce Wayne. And I don’t think we’ve seen this theme explored as well in a Batman movie. I am still not 100% convinced with his performance as Bruce Wayne, but now I could at least see what they were trying to do.

What I also liked regarding the Riddler’s character was how they set him up and, more importantly, how they avoided the cliché “we caught him, only for him to escape because that was his plan all along!” No, once he’s in jail, that is where he stays because he isn’t the physical type, as he says in the film. But he’s the brain, so he conducted the plan and had his “mini-army” to see it through. His character watching the explosions from his cell was a chilling moment, and I was glad he didn’t escape.

I also have a theory. And this is nothing but my intuition; I have not read anything that would inform me about what I am about to write, so I might be totally wrong here. Nevertheless, I believe this might be the start of the “life-cycle” trilogy. All we know for sure is Pattinson signed a three-movie deal, so we should get a trilogy and given this film has done amazingly (grossing around $280 million already), it seems like we will get it. So, my prediction is simple – this is the beginning of Batman’s journey. In the second movie, we will see him older, in his full “power”, balancing between being Bruce and Batman as flawlessly as possible. And in a third movie, and again, nothing but my guessing here, we will see him old(ish) and die, possibly passing the “mantle” to somebody else before that. I wouldn’t be surprised if that is the end goal for this trilogy, to have an ultimate Batman trilogy where we see him at the start of his journey, in the middle and at the end. Something tells me this is how Matt Reeves will differentiate this trilogy from any other that came before him (well, technically, the only complete one is Nolan‘s Dark Knight trilogy). And how cool would that be to see this journey of one Batman until the very end? No fake-out deaths? Or am I the only one? Well, only time will tell.

Overall, The Batman feels like a start to something that could be truly great. Don’t get me wrong, this is a complete movie, but something tells me there is a plan for how this entire trilogy will pan out. And I, for one, am glad that somebody in the DC universe has a plan, that seems like a nice change of peace 🙂 Ok, seriously though, my only real issue is the length of this film, as you can feel it at times. But who knows? Maybe on my second viewing, knowing what I know now, I will discover even more things about it, and the length won’t bother me anymore. For now, I will say The Batman is worth seeing in the cinemas. It’s 100% a different Batman than what we were used to, and the movie makes some weird choices at first, but if you go with an open mind and let the film try to speak for itself, you might have a good time.

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

Until next time,

Luke

After the pleasant surprise that was A Quiet Place (2018, my review here), I remember thinking – does this film need a sequel? And before we go any further, there is a difference between “does it need a sequel” and “can I imagine more films from this world” because the answer to me differs. Sure, a post-apocalyptic world, where the only way to survive is not making any sound, of course, you can make a lot of movies within that world. But did the surprise hit, which had a clear beginning, middle and ending, really need a sequel? Even after watching A Quiet Place Part II, I would still say “no”, even though I enjoyed this. It doesn’t make sense, does it? Ok, let me explain.

It all boils down to elements you can’t control, and this film is the perfect example of that. Yes, the actors and people behind that film were great, and that hugely contributed to the overall enjoyment of the first film, but the biggest reason that film worked was the element of surprise. Nobody expected the first film to be as superb as it was. I think even Bryan Woods, Scott Beck or John Krasinski (the people behind the script for the first film) didn’t expect the movie to have such a huge success, both critically and in the box office. On a budget of “only” $17 million, the movie grossed (worldwide) $340 million, so that’s a pretty great ROI, and the film was universally beloved. So, of course, we had to come back to this world because it wouldn’t have made any financial sense for them not to.

Hence this film, A Quiet Place Part II, was born. And to be honest, I think this probably is the best sequel we could have gotten. The movie feels larger than its predecessor but not too big, so it doesn’t feel different. There are some surprises and choices made that I liked (more about that soon). But also, some cracks (albeit tiny) started to show. For example, more unnecessary jump scares than in the previous film. The film also follows a more traditional “cookie-cutter” structure, as far as how and where the story goes; it won’t surprise you that much. And it’s all about the kids rather than adults, which is fine as those kids are great actors. But that also means putting Emily Blunt on “the side”, and nobody puts Emily in the corner! Shit, wrong movie…

Ok, let’s start with the things I liked. Without going into heavy spoilers, I enjoyed how this film didn’t go (most of the time) for the obvious choices. For example, from the trailers, I was afraid that Cillian Murphy is only here to be one of those cliché post-apocalyptic characters at this point, where he’s much worse than the monsters. And I am happy to say that no, he isn’t. The movie deals with those a bit, but it could have easily made him into some “major” bad guy in this film and possibly beyond (as we are getting A Quiet Place Part III, currently set to be released in 2023), but the film doesn’t go there, so props to you, movie.

As much as I would love to see more Emily Blunt in this film, I am glad the focus shifted to the “kids”. Well, mainly Millicent Simmonds as her storyline was the thread carrying this film. Every time we’d cut back to her brother, Noah Jupe, the movie got a bit boring for me. That is/was not his fault, to be perfectly clear. But it felt like even the people working on the script didn’t know what to do with his character, or they knew what they wanted to with Millicent’s character and had it all planned out, so they “kinda” forgot about him. I hope we see a future star rising here because Millicent can carry a film. She holds her own even in the scenes with Emily and Cillian, and that’s not an easy task, given the amount of talent between those two actors is insane. And I can’t wait to see more of her, beyond this… I guess now it’d be considered trilogy? A franchise?

The only thing that holds me back from giving this film “the ultimate” rating are the cracks that started to show during this film. Because it’s a much bigger film than the previous one, you get more, and the world-building here… felt a bit rushed at times. I don’t think this is a spoiler as we don’t know much about those people anyway. Towards the end, there is a group of people who I am guessing are supposed to be the “worse than the monsters” cliche I was talking about earlier? But we learn nothing about them. What’s their goal; do they have a leader…? But ok. Also, talk about having a great actor and wasting him. Like many movies before, we have a surprising Djimon Hounsou in here. And as with most films where he appears, he quickly disappears. Honestly, poor Djimon. He always plays the surprise villain or (rarely) good guy, but he hardly stays on the screen for longer than 15/20 minutes. If he and Cillian swapped roles, I wouldn’t be mad, and the more I think about it, the more I would love it.

Also, this film ends with a few plot points not being 100% resolved. I am not someone, who needs a pretty bow on everything to enjoy a movie, but the ending felt rushed. I know the first one ended “suddenly”, but there was a difference. Everything else before that ending was resolved, and you knew what would happen next. That’s what made that ending memorable. This ending felt more like: “Ok, but what happened with/to…” and you can fill in several people and situations that would apply. But I understand why – this film is self-aware, and I think while making this, they already had plans for a trilogy, so why not tease some stuff.

Overall, A Quiet Place Part II is still a pretty great time. I liked how the focus shifted from the parents/adults to kids, I enjoyed some choices, and I didn’t care for others. But, and this can’t be stressed enough, I’ve enjoyed this film a lot. I can’t even begin to imagine the pressure of making a sequel to such a surprise hit the first movie was. And even though I’ve spent most of my review nit-picking some things/decisions people behind this movie made, it must be said this is as close to a perfect sequel as we could have gotten. Let me end by repeating what I wrote in my review for the first film. I am still not sure whether we need a trilogy (another sequel), but I am hopeful the quality of the third one doesn’t drop. I think it will be interesting to look at these films in about ten years as a trilogy to see how well they’ll hold up and whether they complement each other. Let’s hope for the best.

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

Until next time,

Luke