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

I remember hearing about this movie when I was growing up, but everything I’ve heard about it was terrible. It seemed like nobody liked it, and that feedback discouraged me from wanting to watch it. And it wasn’t until a few years ago, where this film “crept” back into the conversation. But this time, people would say that this was a misunderstood gem that got wrongly paired with all these dumb teenage comedies from the late 90s/early 2000s. One evening I discovered Not Another Teen Movie on one of my streaming services, so I have decided to pull the trigger and see it for myself. To see once and for all what this is all about. And let me tell you, I was shocked by how much fun I had alongside my girlfriend, who at first didn’t want to watch it but ended up watching the entire film with me. And not only that, she laughed throughout it, at some points harder than me.

Not Another Teen Movie honestly reminded me of one of my favourite movies of all time, Airplane! (1980, my review here). And before I go any further, let me clarify something before I lose any shred of credibility I might have had at some point. It’s not on the same “playing field” as Airplane!, as that is clearly the superior film. But the reason it reminded me so much of that film is simple – this might be the last parody film that plays it straight. Almost every single parody film we’ve gotten starting mid-90s and (unfortunately) continuing with the “infamous duo” Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg, and their filmography was, to put it mildly, fucking horrible. And that was my main worry coming into this film that it will be full of awkward jokes, mostly naked/semi-naked people “because funny” and they would just take scenes from famous movies, and overact in them. Because that is what parodies have been known for and “evolved” into, unfortunately.

But not this film. There is a story that quite simply takes advantage of all the teenage films we’ve known from mainly the 1980s and pokes fun at them. But, and this is important – it never seemed to be mean spirited. You can feel the love; coming from the people behind this movie while they acknowledge that films they grew up on might have been a bit silly at times. And (this is where the Airplane! comparison comes in) they rarely wink at you. Everybody here plays it straight. And maybe that is why people didn’t respond to it as well, thinking this film takes itself too seriously?

It’s insane to think (knowing what we know now and how big he’s gotten) that this was Chris Evans‘ first role. Because he is one of the biggest reasons, this movie works as well as it does. His character dances on this fine line between dumb and charismatic while playing everything straight but not “Shakespeare” straight. As mentioned prior, it is not just him, but pretty much everybody involved. They all understand what they are doing here. It felt like the director told them not to be afraid to have fun with it but don’t have too much fun; otherwise, it wouldn’t have worked.

I can’t lie to you, I have laughed a lot, so I guess you could say this movie has worked for me. Whether it was the making fun of horniness of teenagers by having Cerina Vincent be naked for the entirety of this film (and her name being Areola) or the jab about having the one token black guy, who is only there to say things like “Damn!”, “Shit!” and “That is whack.” as said by him in the film. And here’s the thing about that – we laugh because we know it’s funny, but at the same time, he does more than that in this film. He isn’t just the stereotype, even though that’s his primary purpose here, to display it.

Overall, Not Another Teen Movie is funnier than I expected. And dare I say even more clever? Yes, I do dare to say that. Because this film has moments, it could have easily fallen into the same traps as the “parodies” of the late 2000s and went overboard with everything. But this film never does that. Every time it gets a bit crazy, the film always tries to balance it out with “a story”, even though it’s your typical teenage film story. I would say give this film a chance if you’ve never seen it and if you have and it’s been a while, I would suggest a re-watch. You might be surprised how much you will laugh, as long as you know teenage comedies, mainly from the 1980s.

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

Until next time,

Luke

As with Ari Aster’s previous movie Hereditary (2018), Midsommar is… wild. And that is still underselling it. But unlike Hereditary, this is one of the rare horror/thriller films set (mostly) during the day in the light. And it doesn’t make it any less effective or creepy. Ari Aster has quickly become one of the directors to watch both of his films I really liked.

Midsommar is an acting vehicle for Florence Pugh. She’s had a few other movies in 2019 (when this movie also came out), so it’s hard to say this was the film that launched her into the stratosphere. But honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised as she is front and centre in this uneasy film and she needs to make some brave choices for her character as… it’s hard to describe her journey. Her character Dani starts the movie being almost a doormat due to a family catastrophe. That sequence, by the way, was the reason Ari Aster is somebody to watch out for – from the first moment he sets up the tension, and you know something is wrong. And he starts to slowly reveal just how much everything is way worse than you thought. And this defines Florence’s entire character for most of this film. She needs to deal with a lot; she’s trying to do her best and could really do with a pleasant Swedish holiday without getting tangled up with a local pagan cult, you know?

I think this film works mainly due to Ari Aster’s mind. Not to discount the performances by all our main actors, but here’s the thing. While watching Midsommar, he drops many hints throughout the film, and you know they will matter. A lingering shot here on the ominous-looking wooden hut that’s “off-limits” a glance at a disfigured member of the cult there, and we all know something is going down. But with Ari, it’s truly not about the destination; it’s all about the journey and how he gets you there. His tension building is off the scale. I have been thinking about this film for a while now, and that’s when it hit me. He isn’t “reinventing the wheel”; he’s thinking about the wheel in his way. We’ve seen thousands of “there is something wrong with these people” films, and let’s face it, some of them are not great. That’s because those films focus on the “weirdness” too much. But Ari almost embraces it. You never feel like he’s judging these people (even though they should be judged); this film almost feels like a documentary feature. But without the complete detachment from the people of this community, that wouldn’t have worked either.

The main thing I also appreciate in both Midsommar and Hereditary is how sparingly he uses jump scares. Both films have some, but they are justified, and they aren’t your conventional jump scares. And that’s due to the simple fact that he knows how to get you. Ari Aster knows that often we aren’t terrified of the dark rather than what is lurking in there. And if we are scared of that, it would be terrifying even in the daylight. You just need to spend some time building the uneasy atmosphere, where you can cut the tension with a butter knife. And have all your protagonist sitting on the metaphorical powder keg full of dynamite, while in the distance, we can see a faint figure approaching with a lighter.

The other thing that made this film memorable – the horror/cult stuff is almost a B plot because the movie is all about toxic relationships. Whether it’s our main duo that shouldn’t be together or the toxicity of cults and how you can justify anything, as long as you have somebody around you who will agree and support you, but it’s not just about that, the movie is about many other things. I think Midsommar is definitely one of those “the more you watch it, the more you can read into it” kind of movies. The only question is, would you want to watch this multiple times…?

My only thing about this film and why I am not giving it the absolute rating was simple – towards the end, I felt so overwhelmed by the runtime (2 hours 28 minutes) and thought the length wasn’t justified. The film did drag at times, albeit slightly, and that’d take me out of this otherwise masterfully built atmosphere. I think you could have easily lost around 10/15 minutes and still have the same impact, and the film wouldn’t have suffered, on the contrary.

Overall, Midsommar is a film that it’s hard to watch. It deals with many heavy/uncomfortable topics set against uncomfortably sunny Sweden. It’s a unique experience where I almost guarantee you that you won’t see many movies like this (at least not mainstream ones). It’s also a great “Hey world; here I am” acting vehicle for Florence Pugh. If you haven’t seen her anywhere but MCU and want to know why she will be one to look out for in the future, watch this film, and you will see her immense talent on full display. This role was risky and could have easily gone wrong, but Florence said no and delivered one hell of a performance. Even if you don’t like creepy horror films, this film is worth watching for Florence’s performance alone.

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

Until next time,

Luke

When comes to older films (and let’s face it, this year Cape Fear will turn 60 years!), you sometimes need to “excuse” certain things. And among one of them is acting. I always say I love any films, so it doesn’t bother me that much. But let’s just say mainly in the acting profession, we’ve had a revolution as I believe a decent actor today is probably better than 95% of actors from the 1950s. I know some people will argue that, and I invite them; I love discussing anything movie-related. Anyway, I also believe that this acting revolution slowly started in the 1960s, and this film is the perfect example.

When you say Cape Fear today, many people would know exactly, what you are talking about, the Martin Scorsese film, right? From 1991, starring creepy Robert De Niro, that Cape Fear? Yeah, I’ve seen it. I would be willing to bet you most people nowadays don’t know that it’s a remake of this film. And why would they, since it is one of the best remakes. Scorsese was going strong, one of the best De Niro performances… but it is a shame (a bit) that people don’t talk about the original version that much, especially when it holds up surprisingly well.

While watching this film, you immediately realise how the times have changed. Robert Mitchum straight-up bullies Gregory Peck‘s character at times, but since he’s got no proof, he needs to be more cautious than ever. And everything slowly builds up throughout the film. And both of these men are excellent in their roles. Especially Mitchum is enjoying his role of… well, you can’t even call him a bad boy/man. Because he is straight-up obsessed with ruining Peck’s (and his family’s) life. I enjoyed his diabolical performance, even though, towards the end, there were scenes where you could argue he was “hamming it up” just a tiny bit. But that doesn’t take anything away from him.

Throughout the film, I thought the fact this film is in black and white adds to the creepiness. To the point, I was surprised that Scorsese’s remake wasn’t also in black and white. There was something about the “scruffy” nature of this film that added to the overall uneasiness of everything. There is this lingering uneasiness throughout the film that culminates in the swamp (as the remake). In a way, it’s a genius move – the film makes you feel uneasy and almost dirty while you watch it, just for its finale to take place in a literal muddy swamp.

While writing about this movie and thinking retrospectively about it, I’ve come to a realisation – modern films don’t do this kind of thing anymore. Sure, they set up things, so they can pay them off later on, but there is something about these older (or classical if you wish) movies that makes them seem like much more thought was put into most of them. That is why I am often willing to see past weaker performances or some things that wouldn’t play well today (whether it’s “casual” racism, attitudes towards women, you name it, old Hollywood got it). But obviously, there are exceptions to every rule.

The only negative thing I would have against this movie is the pacing, especially towards the end. Because for the entire film, we are building up tension, building it up even further and then when the “action” happens in the swamp, it takes some time. And once the tension building is gone, you start to look at the clock to see how much time the movie’s got left. In a sense, it almost felt anti-climatic. But I need to repeat myself – that was only towards the end and, that would be my only complaint. The rest of this film, for me, held up well.

Overall, Cape Fear is almost a perfect film. The performances are (especially for its time) superb, the tension/sense of desperation is palpable, and the movie lets you almost bathe in the uneasy atmosphere it so masterfully creates. If you only know Cape Fear from 1991 and you liked it, give this movie a chance; as I would say, this is almost as good as the remake. One of the rare instances where the remake is as good, maybe even better than the original. But not because the original film would be bad. And that’s what makes it so much more impressive.

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

Until next time,

Luke