If you are familiar with Seth MacFarlane‘s style of humour (mainly Family Guy (1999 – ?)) and you like it, then Ted is for you. I remember watching it when it came out and being almost surprised how the movie is more story-driven rather than joke-driven, which is something I’ve come to expect from him. While re-watching it a few weeks ago (back to back with Ted 2 (2015)), it jumped out even more, mainly contrasting those two films up against each other.
Ted is a simple story about a teddy bear who comes alive because of a boy’s wish. This simple premise got the “MacFarlane” treatment, where this gentle, innocent idea goes from there (first ten minutes of this film) to what would happen to that teddy bear later on? When his buddy is growing up, going through puberty, and ultimately becoming an adult…? Well, this movie will answer that for you.
I liked the fact that we got to know Ted’s story in this montage, where we see everything. From his rise to fame to the inevitable crash to the bottom. But the movie isn’t interested in that journey, hence why we only get that one montage. Because the rest of the film is more about Ted living his life, while he is no longer “the curiosity”. Everybody is aware of talking, living teddy bear going around, so people are no longer surprised to see him. Talking teddy bear? That’s old news. I liked that aspect of it.
The casting surprisingly worked for me. Mark Wahlberg is funnier than I thought. Let’s face it, back in 2012, he wasn’t known for his comedic chops, but I need to give credit where credit is due, as his casting was perfect in this movie. Also, he makes a believable couple with Mila Kunis, who plays the “straight” role. She isn’t that funny in this film, as she is the “board” others can bounce the jokes out of. So she might not be “as funny”, but she is equally important, as she grounds the film. She gives the movie stakes (her relationship with Mark’s character is the catalyst that kick starts the plot), and a big chunk of the film only works if you believe her character and understand where she is coming from. And she nailed it. Giovanni Ribisi almost stole this film, as his creepy Donny was hilarious, and you could tell he was having a blast with that character. And of course, Seth casting himself as the voice of the Ted was spot on, even though it was just mostly his voice. But he’s so good I didn’t mind.
The only thing that I can hold against this film is the simple fact of how formulaic it is. For such a unique and original concept, you wouldn’t expect the movie to follow the stereotypical comedic structure. Where the first hour consists (mostly) of jokes, then there is a fight, some action scene, a moment where it seems all is lost, but not really, the end. I am not saying Seth should have re-invented the comedy genre, no. All I am saying is, it is a bit weird, having a film like this, where if you were to strip down the unique premise, it’s just your run of the mill comedy. It’s still a great one, though.
Overall, your enjoyment of Ted will be equal to how much you like Seth’s style of humour. I, personally, am one of those people who have watched every single Family Guy episode and will continue to watch the new season(s). So yes, I am on board with everything this guy does. If you are too, I can’t imagine Ted would disappoint you. But if you don’t fancy humour that is a bit rough around the edges, you might want to choose something more traditional.
⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 4 out of 5.
That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!
This movie might be the perfect example of how something like winning eight Academy Awards (including Best Director, Screenplay, Supporting Actor, Actress and Screenplay) doesn’t guarantee your movie “legacy”. Because it feels like this movie isn’t talked about today at all, unlike different films from the same era. But funnily enough, what if I told you, you have seen a piece of this film parodied to death, or at least paid homage to? Yes, it’s true. The famous beach scene (that was parodied in a variety of movies starting from Airplane! (1980, my review here) to Shrek 2 (2004), just to name a few) we all know and love originated in this film. So you could say that weirdly, this movie managed to make a mark on pop-culture history, but it seems almost unintentionally.
From Here to Eternity is everything you’d expect from a movie made in 1953. The pace is slower than usual, characters can be slightly over the top sometimes, and you can bet the acting is anything but subtle. And yet, there is something about this film that keeps you interested. I think the movie’s main selling point is impending doom. As we know, what happened in Pearl Harbor, you are just patiently waiting for it while getting to know these characters.
For me, this movie is about the unbreakable nature of the human spirit. Aka, if you are stubborn enough not to box, your superior officer will do everything in his power to make your life a living hell. That was the most intriguing part of this film, seeing how much Montgomery Clift‘s character endures throughout it and whether he breaks or not. He was by far the most compelling character to watch. Well, him and Donna Reed. I wondered what she was supposed to be, and then I read some IMDb trivia that cleared it up:
Censorship at the time meant that Donna Reed‘s character was never referenced as a prostitute, but as a nightclub hostess.
And if you read through more trivia, you will find that the movie had to tone down plenty of things. From how much Clift’s character endures throughout the film to profanity and some homosexual content that didn’t sit well with people back in the 1950s, let alone with the Army. And that got me intrigued to actually read the book, as I would love to know how much they have toned it down. Because I thought the movie was done well enough.
I know this might be almost a heresy to say, but if the book (aka the source material for this film), was changed so much, it would be intriguing to see what could modern-day filmmakers be able to do with it today. I know I won’t earn any “brownie points” with film people for suggesting a remake of a classic (?) that won eight Oscars. But to me, a long time has passed, and I can see the space for improvement. Plus, if you think about it, tangled up love stories, Army abuse, gay themes… the story would work today, and except the Pearl Harbor thing, you wouldn’t know.
Speaking of Pearl Harbor, let’s talk about it. Since we’ve it done a few times, it’s hard not to compare this to other, more modern/flashy movies. And yet, there is something in this film’s simplicity and the way it approaches this topic. Because it works with you, as the audience, your knowledge that you know what’s coming. That knowledge allows you to be slightly on the edge just waiting for it, or get so wrapped up in the story, that once it finally comes, you will almost go: “Oh yeah, of course, we need to cover that.” And for what it’s worth, this movie did it effectively. You can feel the sense of urgency, loss and hopelessness. I knew it was coming, and I was waiting for it and still was surprised how they managed to portray the attacks. If you think about it, it’s “ancient history” now (even though it really is not), but at that time, it was only 12 years ago. That must have had some effect on the audience.
Overall, From Here to Eternity is a film that gets better with each minute. From the romance I didn’t care about until I kind of did to the Pearl Harbor sequence towards the end, it’s worth seeing. However, you need to accept this movie on its terms and understand that in the early 1950s, this is how they made films. What I mean by that – mainly the pacing might deter a few people as it can drag on a bit at some places. Also, some acting performances can seem silly, rather than “great”, because we judge them by today’s standards. But if you get over all of that, you might enjoy this film. If for anything else, you will finally see where the famous beach is from.
⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 4 out of 5.
That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!
Do you know the feeling, when you are watching a film, you are really into it even though you know, that logically, it will fall apart the moment you start to dig deeper into it? But you don’t mind, because you are having fun? And then, the movie goes overboard and sets up an unnecessary sequel(s) because that’s how it’s done today and that pulls you out? That was my experience with Escape Room. I was really in the movie for most of it and then, the last 20 minutes happened, that made me… let’s say not as interested, as I was before.
As Sigmund Freud once said: “Let’s talk about it, shall we?” It’d be so easy to see a movie like this as “not as bloody/twisted copy of Saw franchise” and discredit it altogether. Even though to a certain point, you’d absolutely be right. This is nothing new the concept is clearly “Saw-like” it is just re-done for escape rooms that have become popular in the last five years or so. But honestly, I had more fun with this movie than with anything beyond Saw III (2006), and I am saying it as somebody who has seen all the Saw movies except the very new ones.
The main thing I liked about Escape Room was the overall concept, how each room was different (and later on in the movie we find out that wasn’t a coincidence) and how there wasn’t just one piece of the puzzle to solve. This whole movie is people looking to solve clues, so they can move to a different room, and yeah, stay alive. And honestly, for most of the film, I was all in. I was having a blast, I liked the fact they didn’t go over-the-top with blood/violence, that they have tried to do their own thing.
Also, the cast was a pleasant surprise as for me, consisted of mostly unknown actors who did a great job. The highlight was Taylor Russell, whose performance I have truly enjoyed. She was the most intriguing character out of all the people involved with “the game”, where she was smart, but still felt relatable and human. Honestly, she did a great job.
I can’t talk about this movie (or the issues I had with it) without going to spoilers, so before then, let me just reiterate, that Escape Room is a great movie for the first 80% of its length. If I end up watching Escape Room 2 (2021), it will only be because of my morbid curiosity, the fact I am a completionist, and also to see the character(s) who managed to survive the first movie and whether they will have a big impact on the second one. Anyway, here we go…
Beware, SPOILERS are coming!
As stated at the start of my review, I was enjoying the movie, until the last 20 minutes or so came along. The way this movie went, you know they will play the “there is a big, powerful society/company behind all of this” angle which didn’t surprise me. What surprised me, and not in a pleasant way, was everything that followed afterwards. You have one scene, where of course, nobody believes the two characters who survive. Also expected, but ok. Those two meet up six months after, where Taylor’s character manages to persuade Logan Miller‘s character to go with her to an unknown, unmarked building in the middle of New York (?) Then we have a scene of a plane crash, except, SYKE, it was all fake and we are seeing a preparation of a trap (?) for those two characters because of course, they (the big secret company) know the two survivors are about to fly to New York in two weeks. And there is a mysterious voice behind all of this, ordering his minions to make the plane trap harder… and that’s when I was supposed to be in, but I was out.
I understand everybody wants to have trilogies, or better yet, entire universes of movies. But what happened with starting with a solid base? The last 20 minutes of this film didn’t feel like anything else but a cheap setup aka “look what else we can do with this, as long as you give us your money”. And had you closed this properly, answered some questions (how come the big bad company managed to sweep all the evidence so swiftly? Who is actually behind this and why? I know there was a speech, that tried to justify what is happening and why, but who is behind the mysterious voice? Wouldn’t it be more dangerous to keep those two alive? If the company is truly that powerful, wouldn’t they just kill the survivors rather than risking anything?) and then, maybe give me a 5-minute tease for what’s potentially to come, and I wouldn’t complain at all.
This problem is not unique to just this film, I know. But it honestly bothers me how everyone in Hollywood feels the need to “tease us” with what’s there to come, but they fail to give us one full adventure. The way this film is structured it felt like it was a movie and almost a quarter of a new one. And that is the thing that made the very first Saw (2004) so great if we go back to it quickly. They gave us a movie with a beginning, middle, a great twist, and an end. Where you could tell there might be more, but even if there were no more Saw movies released ever again (imagine making more than six sequels, right?) you could still go back and re-watch the first one on its own. You can’t do that with this film.
Overall, Escape Room is a fun movie that knows how to utilize its concept to the fullest. It’s a film, full of different, interesting characters, and as it usually goes in movies like these, one evil company, that just wants to watch people suffer. Had it finished sooner, without that ending that wasn’t really an ending, more of “this is what can you expect in our next instalment(s)” it would have been one flawed yet fun movie to watch. As it is, it’s still fun to watch, just be ready to be taken out of the movie in the last 20 minutes.
⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 4 out of 5.
That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!
The moment I finished this film, I had plenty of thoughts, but overall, I knew I liked the movie. Then I went on to its IMDb profile to read the trivia, as I always do, and was stunned by its rating. I am not saying this is pure perfection by any means, but 5.5/10 seems awfully low. Yes, Mute has its problems, which I will address in just a second, but it also is an interesting premise done well with some great actors.
I might have the advantage of still not being too familiar with Alexander Skarsgård, so I wasn’t distracted by his past roles, as I still have to see his “big projects”, but I thought he was brilliant in this role. It’s always a testament to the actor’s ability to have them do a role with one major challenge/obstacle (in here, the challenge being his character couldn’t speak) and to see how they deal with it. And yes, in the first 10/15 minutes it felt weird for the main hero to be silent all the time, but you will get used to it, and a big part of it is Alexander’s performance and how expressive he is. I liked him in this role, I thought he had the physicality where needed, the tenderness in some other moments and most importantly, I believed him, he was mute his entire adult life.
Before explaining what I didn’t like, let me just give two more shootouts – one to Seyneb Saleh and the other to Paul Rudd. Let me start with Seyneb – since she’s a German actress, I’ve never seen her in anything before, but I thought she did the best she could with the little she had. You could tell from the few brief scenes everything about her character, how she cares about Alexander’s character, and yet, there was something else in her eyes, even before she said to him: “I need to tell you something.” I would 100% love to see her in some other movies.
Let’s talk about Paul Rudd. He stole this movie for me. It might be because I don’t think I have ever seen him play this character, but I liked the way he went about it. Even before I read the IMDb trivia, I immediately got reminded of the TV show M*A*S*H (1972 – 1983, even though most people might think of the original movie by the same name from 1970) and Hawkeye Pierce. But the main thing about his performance I adored until the very end of the movie, I wasn’t sure where he stands. His character to me is the closest we might have come to a complex villain in a while, where he isn’t this “evil dude twirling his moustache” because he’s got his moments, where he is genuinely good and likeable, but he also is evil. The more movies I watch, the more I love these grey characters, where they can be evil people, with some redeeming qualities, or vice versa, heroes, who are not 100% heroic all the time.
My biggest issue with this film might be a simple fact that it is trying to do too much. Respectively, the story isn’t that complex, but it feels like it is purposely told in such a complex way that you might get annoyed. I watched this film only a couple of days ago, and I can tell you I still remember liking it, but I would be lying if I told you I remember every single narrative decision/why it happened. It almost feels like Duncan Jones (someone, who I admire) is stuck in thinking “the more complex I make something, the better it will be.” No, that is not the reason we (or I) loved Moon (2009) or Source Code (2011). I love those films because they are great, straightforward movies with some big ideas, explored really well. Mute feels like Blade Runner (1982, my review here) inspired sci-fi, that wanted to be so different, it not only made its hero mute but decided to put a lot of filler into what could have been a really simple way of telling its story otherwise. And with no other reason.
That was a shame, as I have enjoyed the film, but even I found the longer it played, the less “in it” I was. And that pains me to say, as again, I love Duncan’s films, the way he thinks, and I still think, he is one of the most unique filmmakers we have today. I want him to succeed, and here, it felt like he was so close, yet, so far from his standard. For example, there is something I guess you could call a plot twist that serves almost no purpose other than to make our main character even more likeable…? I think I understood the message about “family” (but no the Fast & Furious one), but still, that reveal didn’t do much for me, I just said… “Ok…?”
Overall, Mute is a film I have enjoyed, despite its flaws. It feels like if Blade Runner had characters from M*A*S*H in it, where you don’t know, about the main villain, as you can see him from both sides, from being a total dick to standing up against bad people. I have enjoyed the performances and the general mood of the movie. I also thought the film could have been about 20 minutes shorter, leaner and more cut down because that would have improved it. If you are like me and have enjoyed Duncan’s movies so far, I would still give this a shot. Ignore the bad/low ratings, as Mute is not as bad as it might seem. I am looking forward to seeing what is next in store for Jones.
⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 4 out of 5.
That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!
This movie is a mystery to me. On one hand, you have amazing people in front of the camera (Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, Russell Crowe, Leonardo DiCaprio just to name the biggest players) and behind it too (Sam Raimi directing, Alan Silvestri composing) and yet, if it wasn’t for SinCast (huge recommend, my review here) I don’t think I would have heard anyone talking about it. You’d think given all this talent involved, people would be talking about this film a lot more and yet… they don’t. Upon finally watching it for the very first time, I think I can see why…
I believe the fact we get so many good people involved with this film, actually works against it. Especially watching it now, 20+ years since it’s been released. Let me explain why. There are so many talented people involved, but we have seen all of them be much better in different movies. Most (Leo, Russell, Sam) had their best roles in front of them, others (Gene, Sharon) had theirs just behind them.
What I am trying to say is, The Quick and the Dead is a pretty good movie, with some neat things, but literally every single person on the screen has had better roles either before or since this movie came out. That means even though we can watch these great performers act together here, nobody stands out. Leo (given how young he is) is slightly off, Sharon in this has just three modes (sad, moody or horny), Russell’s role is a bit simplistic and Gene is your stereotypical villain. He tried to do something with it, but it ultimately didn’t go anywhere for me.
Don’t get me wrong, they are all doing their best they can with what they are given and it’s not like either of them are “bad”, but once the movie is over, you honestly won’t remember anyone’s performance. What you will remember is Raimi’s directing style where he tried to make this western into something cooler, and you will also remember the ending.
Let’s talk about both of these things. I love Sam Raimi’s directing style. Adore it. He can blend horror and comedy like almost nobody else (see The Evil Dead trilogy, if you aren’t familiar with it) and I have always loved his unique sense of camera work, shooting certain scenes (his famous POV shot also appears here). That being said, I didn’t think it worked for this western. At least some of his choices, mainly the 90’s “chaotic close-ups” during some tense scenes were distracting. To the point, it actually took me out of the movie for a bit, as it was properly disruptive. But his other choices (making Sharon the main character, who’s a badass with a secret, the fact we see holes in bodies after some gunshots, which is unusual for a western film) I quite liked.
Now let’s talk about the ending. I don’t think I need to put the spoiler tag here, as I won’t spoil it per se, I will just hint at certain aspects of it. You know that there is a history between Sharon’s and Gene’s characters, that is given. Therefore, the only question throughout the movie is, what exactly happened. I knew it will probably boil down to some sort of “Gene’s character shot her family right in front of her when she was a child” and I was right… kind of. Because the actual reveal is a way darker and sinister than I anticipated and I liked that. What I mean is I didn’t like what happened to her character, but the fact this movie surprised me, where I thought we are going one way, and even though we ended up in the same destination, the movie decided to take us there via different, much darker, route. That ending pushed me to rate this film slightly higher.
It’s also very obvious Sam isn’t shooting this as “something new, something original”, as it felt very much like a vehicle for him to pay homage to his favourite westerns. And there is nothing wrong with that, it is just some shots/plot points were more obvious than (I think) intended. I will give you a great example of an even newer western, that is a remake, and yet, it works brilliantly on its own – 3:10 to Yuma (2007). Not only it also stars Russell Crowe, but that movie is just a superb, new(ish) western, that never bores you and even though you can see where everything is leading towards, you still enjoy the ride. It’s been a while since I’ve seen it, but I still remember how I adored it (need to re-watch it). And that is something this western just couldn’t do, there wasn’t a scene that would stand out for me, or performance, that would push it further. Also, everybody is so damn clean in this movie. They try to make the main actors looks somehow dirty/gritty, but they never “felt” dirty. Some just looked like they might have not showered for a day.
Overall, The Quick and the Dead is a pretty solid western. Paradoxically, its main selling point (so many talented people involved) is its biggest disadvantage, as I’ve expected something more, given all the talent here. Everything here you have seen done prior and better, all the performers had much better roles in different movies and there isn’t a scene or an actor, that would stand out. And yet, it’s a pretty entertaining film, that isn’t boring and just because of the ending and the way it goes about the “twist” (if you could even call it like that) I am rounding up my rating a bit. If you like westerns, you might like this one, but one thing is for sure – there is a reason nobody talks about this movie, even though you have some heavy hitters involved. There isn’t much to talk about, the story is quite simple and I know I am repeating myself, nothing and nobody stands out. Will see how I feel, when/if I re-watch it some years down the line.
⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 4 out of 5.
That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!
I tried really hard to come up with a way to review this quintessential animated Disney movie. What else, what new can be said, that hasn’t been said before? And yes, I realise that sentence might feel like a cheap cop-out, but it’s truly not. Almost everyone knows the story of Peter Pan, the boy, who doesn’t grow old, lives in Neverland, hangs out with the Lost Boys, right? Yeah, that one. Well, this film is exactly what you would expect from an animated Disney movie of its era. It has a certain undeniable charm to it, but like all movies from that era, some scenes/depictions didn’t age well. That’s when it hit me. Why try to re-invent the wheel, when we can talk about the wagon?
Yes, this won’t be a “pure” review for Peter Pan, as you can sum it up with the sentence “the most Disney film ever” and you’d be 100% right. But what does it mean? Well, maybe the more eloquent way of describing this movie would be “the most Disney film of its era, with all of the Disney beauty, charm and music, with something, that spoils it if we judge it by today’s standards”. But as you can imagine, that’d make a pretty long title for a review, so I had to shorten it a bit. But this would be the most accurate representation of this film, you will truly find every single Disney trope here, plenty of them are still being used today, let’s see:
Cute hand-drawn animation? ✓
Character breaking into songs? ✓
The story, that is based on an old fairy tale? ✓
Clear definition of who the hero and the villain is? ✓
Can you safely predict everything that will happen? ✓
Being culturally insensitive towards other (read: non-white) cultures? (Unfortunately) ✓
But here is where I am hoping I will differ from some other people on the Internet, where there are groups of people, who do believe everything that “didn’t age well” should be locked away, so it can’t offend anybody. And I am here to say that’s not the best approach…? Before you start sharpening your knives, pitchforks and light those torches, just hear me out. I am definitely against those depictions and I understand why these things are problematic and the fact they always have been. In this case, just so we are all on the same page, it’s the depiction of Native Americans and some dialogue around them too (like the song “What Made the Red Man Red?” etc.) But I do like how Disney (and especially their streaming platform, Disney+) went around to “solve” this.
Well, they didn’t solve it. They could have easily just edit it, re-dub it with something less offensive, or just not show it at all, no harm done, right? But no, they have done something, I think it’s the best solution for this particular problem, before any of these old Disney movies (honestly, if you grew up on animated Disney movies, go back and you might discover, you don’t remember certain things, especially the ones from 1950’s/1960’s era… Basically, every single movie has something that will make you cringe “a bit”) you will get this screen:
“Warning” screen for any content on Disney+, that didn’t age well.
And if you want to hear my opinion (I mean, you are reading a review written by me on my blog, so for some reason, you think my opinion is worth something, in which case, thank you, I am happy to serve you :-)) this is the best way to go about it. Why? To me, the issue breaks down into two points.
The first point is – deleting, changing or not allowing people to see a piece of art, just because something in that piece of art didn’t age well, is contra-productive. Because if you think about it, how do we, as a society or even you, as an individual, learn? From our mistakes. Our mistakes are often the best lessons because only then do we know not to repeat them, as we’ve grown, learned from them. Well, most of us, at least. You know the saying “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it?” Yes, if we pretend this never happened, we are just doing a disservice to everyone. What might also be a sub-point here, it borderlines on censorship, where you have a certain group of people, who is deciding on your behalf. Here’s a mental exercise for you – think of your best friend, your significant other, the person or people, you trust the absolute most in your life. Now, imagine you give them power over every single thing you will watch until the end of your life. Any new media, whether it’s a movie, TV show, a book, has to go through them first, as some sort of filter. Would you really want that? Just a reminder, in this example, some of you might say yes, because you know the person/people who you trust the most, therefore you might feel comfortable with that. Now replace them with a nameless, big, worldwide conglomerate like Disney – would you trust them to always make the “correct” thing? What even is the “correct” thing? I wouldn’t, as I think any reasonable adult can see/judge things on their own and realise, when piece of art is product of its time.
The second point is we need to stop pretending we (and I use the royal we, where I include everybody including myself) have reached some sort of mythical peak of righteousness, that we’ve got everything figured out, nothing else to work on, the humanity has peaked with the current generation that totally learned its lesson and shall not repeat it, we are all good. I hate to burst your bubble, but we are not. I count myself as being a fairly “woke” person, and I think you, my dear reader, are too. But believe me when I say even now, we tolerate something or doing something the future generation will look back with disgust and say “How did you think this was normal? Don’t come at me with your ‘everybody was doing it’, you know that’s a bunch of crap, it’s SO OBVIOUS what you were doing back then was wrong!!” Remind you of somebody? Look, I am not trying to say we shouldn’t strive to have an open conversation about what is right, what is wrong, no, quite the opposite. We should embrace dialogue, no matter how it can make us feel uncomfortable, talking about what “we” used to consider normal. All I am saying is we, as in the human race we all are proud (?) members of, will never be fully there, 100% fair. At least I do not think that is possible. But that is a good thing! Because the moment we think we have reached some sort of peak, what’s the point of questioning ourselves? We can’t stop evolving, questioning ourselves. It’s good to ask, whether what we are doing is right, or are we doing something just because “everyone is doing it, so I might as well?”
I do apologize if this comes across as I am preaching at you or being too “ranty” (that’s 100% a word, no need to google it) I just have strong feelings about trying to bury or burn a piece of history, because it’s uncomfortable as that doesn’t do anybody justice. That way, we will never learn, we would never get the “full picture” of things and how they used to be and most importantly, we can’t allow ourselves to think just because we no longer do X, Y or Z, we are the best generation ever. Trust me, we are not. Yes, we are trying our hardest and that is admirable, but there will always be some things we could (and should) do better, but that is part of life. You live, you learn and hopefully, one day, leave behind a better world for the generations after you.
Overall, Peter Pan (yes, this is still a review of the 1953 movie, even though it doesn’t look like it ;-)) is a movie, that could be in a dictionary under “classic animated Disney movie: See Peter Pan, 1953″. It contains everything we love from that era (catchy songs, beautiful hand-drawn animation, short enough running time) and some things we don’t really like from that era (let’s just label those “problematic things”.) The movie puts everything together and it’s up to you, what you will focus on. We have a saying in my native Czech language, which roughly translates to “After the war is won, everyone is an army general.” It’s easy to sit down and critique this film because of those “problematic things”, saying there are so obviously problematic, why are they even there? We just need to accept that we can’t view older movies through our current “lenses of justice” and do some reading into why those “problematic things” existed in the first place. This is how I see this film – not perfect, but it is catchy at parts, cringe at other parts and can serve as a great place, where to start learning about American history, how that is linked with portraying different races in popular entertainment and why is it still relevant discussion today. Or you can just watch a movie about a boy, who doesn’t age, knows how to fly and fights pirates, that might work also.
⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 4 out of 5.
That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!
Anyone, who is just a tiny bit familiar with a larger than life persona of John Waters knows, that his movies are always on the verge of… well, couple of things. Sometimes it might be a good taste (still haven’t seen his most famous film, Pink Flamingos (1972) as I’ve heard couple of really “interesting” things about the movie, so I am still mentally bracing myself to eventually watch it) and sometimes on the verge of camp, like Cecil B. Demented. And you either love it, or hate it. Or more precisely, you either love Waters or not. And that directly impacts your enjoyment of his movies, as I don’t think there is more polarizing filmmaker, who is so 50/50 with mainstream audience, where you either understand his shtick, or you don’t want to.
This film is surprisingly “tame” for his standards, as it mainly criticizes Hollywood and everything about it, from their reliance on sequels, to most people there being fake and being in it just for the money (hm, not much has changed since 2000, did it?). But what this movie does really well, it takes that concept into camp overboard. What I mean by that – it would have been so easy to get caught in the trap of being too preachy. After all, he might be an outsider and someone who challenges the system, yet he is still very much part of it, but this film sends its message through over the top camp, and I am here for it, so even if some “not so subliminal” messages about what real art is hit too hard on the nose, it’s done in such a crazy fashion, it’s more than bearable.
Everybody in this “rebel cinema crew” has tattoos that somehow relate to masters of cinema, they are in it for the “art for the arts sake”, but their leader (amazingly over the top performance by Stephen Dorff) is always taking it a few steps too far, from not having sex until the movie’s finished, to using live grenade, ammunition, guerrilla style filmmaking that often includes innocent people, to sacrificing lives for the art. And also forcing it onto his crew, effectively making himself a cult leader. Yeah, Cecil B. Demented is wacky, campy love letter to cinema in its purest form, that can be read at the same time as a warning against what happens, when you take anything “too pure” too far. You know the saying, everything in moderation.
Let’s talk about this movie’s casting, because there are a few big names. Already mentioned Stephen Dorff as the titular character Cecil, Melanie Griffith, who plays the “bad Hollywood diva turned good(?)” also goes all in when comes to her performance, even though she’s more “reserved” than him. By far my favourite performance was by Maggie Gyllenhaal as the Satanist worshipper, who just killed me with her every line (“Want some goat urine?” or “Pain is pleasure! Slavery is freedom! Suicide for Satan!”) and played that really quirky, out there character with everything she’s got and more. Who I was really surprised to see here (and had to pause the movie to make sure it was the guy I was thinking, as he’s credited here as “Mike”) was Michael Shannon as a gay person, whose true love is ashamed of being straight, as he “just loves pussy so much, he’s ashamed of being hetero!”. Since he’s such a dramatic actor nowadays, it was truly great seeing him in totally different role and as with everyone around him, just going with the flow and giving his best to this movie.
I think that’s the part I appreciated the most – all the actors understand, that this is a really campy movie, and yet, everybody is giving everything they have. Nobody holds back, they all seem to be having so much fun, it’s impossible not to have fun alongside these crazy, demented cinema rascals. And even though they go “a bit” too far, most of what they say you can agree with it (in principal, of course). But since it’s done in really campy form, the movie never feels preachy. I really liked that aspect of it.
The only thing I was slightly disappointed by, I wanted something more, one scene, that would stand out among all this craziness. Because if everything that’s happening is crazy, eventually nothing seems to be crazy, because it evens itself out. It feels weird to even say that, but I was expecting something more outrageous, one scene that would just underline everything and I don’t think I’ve gotten that in this film.
Overall, Cecil B. Demented is a film, that’s made for certain audience only. It’s definitely more of acquired taste, where if you enjoy crazy, campy performances, films, and also understand enough of cinema history and references, you will have a really good time. But if you think a movie, that’s preaching “Power to the people who punish bad cinema!”, while attacking the shoot of Forrest Gump‘s sequel, is taking it too far, this might not be a film for you.
⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 4 out of 5.
That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!
Assault on Precinct 13 is one of those movies, that you can’t escape from, when you turn into a cinephile. Often mentioned alongside its remake by the same name from 2005, that’s also supposed to be pretty good. But for what its worth, I have never heard about the main selling point behind the movies’ “X” rating (that’s what people in Hollywood call a death sentence, as that’s the strongest advisory rating there is, only a few mainstream movies get those). And you know what? I am going to talk about it, and even though this is a film from 1976, I will eventually put a spoiler tag in front of it, as it’s something, that if you’ve not heard it’s coming, it will definitely shock you.
But let’s start from the beginning – this is John Carpenter‘s second feature movie, just a few years before he cemented his name in the cinematic history once and for all, by creating one of the most known/recognisable movie serial killers of all time, Michael Myers (yes, of course I am talking about the Halloween (1978) movie, that turned into a franchise spanning around 1629 sequels/remakes by this point). But even in this film, you can tell this is from him, as it has his signature all over it. From the funky, unique synthesizer soundtrack, that he himself created/recorded (that’s something he does often, including the famous Halloween theme that is also done by him) to steady camera work, the tension build up, working with mainly “smaller” actors, it’s all here. Even the story could not have been simpler, but because of they way he tells it, you are invested. If there is one thing Carpenter always knew how to do, is to take little to no money he had to his disposal and utilize it in the most effective way possible. His movies never look cheap, even though he never had (especially in his early years) money to splurge.
By far the best thing this movie has going for it, is the tension building. I can see how it could be perceived as boring by today’s standards, especially the first 30 to 40 minutes of the movie, nothing much happens except of THAT one scene I will talk about soon, but in the reality, you can feel the uneasiness being built. And that is something we are not used to anymore, in this day and age of hyper, quick editing, straight to the action films. The more of Carpenter’s movies I watch, the more I wonder how come we don’t talk about him on the same level as Alfred Hitchcock, who is known as the “master of suspense”. I could genuinely argue John Carpenter should be in the same discussion, because his movie might not always be 100% perfect, but you could always cut suspension with a knife and he knows how to build it and utilize it.
Before going into the spoilers, let me just explain my only thing against this film – the performances. I understand the standards were way different in 1976 to what we have now. But some of these line readings were borderline awful and almost put the movie in the comedy genre for me. I am not going to single anybody out, but let’s just say that maybe John wasn’t as great when comes to directing women, as some of them read their lines with either deadpan delivery of a robot, or really over the top. Yes, I know you can say that even Halloween has some of this, but in there, I felt like it’s not as visible, or mostly it’s overshadowed with everything else that’s going on. And since this is more straightforward, more contained story, it is more noticeable. Ok, so let’s go the “main” shocking scene and as weird as it might seem, putting the spoiler tag for a movie that’s almost 50 years old, I encourage you, don’t read any further, if you haven’t seen it and you are considering watching this film. For the rest of you…
Beware, SPOILERS are coming!
It’s so weird having this tag for such a straightforward movie and for what is just one scene, but I really believe this is the crucial scene, that will “wake you up”, if you think this movie is boring. Maybe that’s the reason this scene is in the film, maybe just to make you aware, that anything is on the table, but yeah, I am talking about the infamous “ice cream scene”. This is one of the few mainstream movies, where we see a child (small girl, in this instance) getting physically shot and the camera doesn’t cut away. I can’t remember of the top of my head, but I have definitely seen movies, where children die, that’s not “unusual” (what a weird thing to write about, btw) but I am scrambling my brain for a mainstream movie, where the camera doesn’t either cut away when it happens, or we skip the scene altogether, so it’s implied it happened, or just stated it happened in the next scene. But not here, no. Here we see it and what adds to the scene, it happens like it’s nothing, no emotions, no hesitation, just a simple shot through the girl’s ice cream (that’s what you get for complaining about your ice cream, I guess? :-D, I know, I am a horrible person).
Overall, Assault on Precinct 13 is definitely worth watching, if you are into smaller, straightforward movies and you can appreciate a film, that takes its time and builds up tension. If you like Carpenter’s earlier films and admire his style, you will definitely have a good time with this one too, just get ready for some questionable performances and one scene, that might be quite uncomfortable, as it’s something, we don’t get to see too often (and I would say that’s a good thing).
⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 4 out of 5.
That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!
