I should have loved this movie. After all, it’s made by David Fincher (his first movie since 2014’s Gone Girl) about one of the most influential movies of all time, Citizen Kane (1941). On top of that, the script was written by Fincher’s late dad Jack Fincher (the movie is also dedicated to him), Gary Oldman is giving one of the best performances of his career, Amanda Seyfried has, dare I say it, stolen the movie for herself and overall, Mank is working like a well oiled machine. So how come I didn’t absolutely love it? How come there was something, that simply didn’t click with me…?

I think there are two answers to this question – the first is “simple”. Mank is too much “inside baseball“, which is something I didn’t expect and the second might have been the fact that except the very last dinner scene, there was no standout for me. So, let’s start with my first point…

I know it seems almost too silly to complain about this film being so obsessed with one topic, as that’s literally what this movie is about, but it went too overboard/microscopic with that. I always like to claim that I am true cinephile (whatever that means) but even for me, who has heard some stories about what was happening “behind the scenes” of what many critics consider “the best movie of all time” this might have gotten too deep. And if I sometimes got lost in politics and the plot, what about the casual viewer? Let’s face it, plenty of people know of Citizen Kane, but how many of your casual movie goers know there was so much happening behind it? And how many of those would need little to no information about it and just be thrown into it all? Because that is what happens in Mank. You are kind of thrown in, without any warnings, into two storylines, where especially in the flashbacks, it can be a bit overwhelming to remember all the names, who is doing what, who is working where, why is this person saying this about this person… you always kind of get this is supposed to be a nod to something that’s happened, or someone who existed, but the movie isn’t interested in giving you more. It’s almost like it expects you to either go in with all the knowledge prior watching it, or banking on you having such a great time with this movie, that you will spend hour or so on Google, making sense of everything you’ve just seen. And again, I love the passion and the general idea behind this, but it’s really easy to get overwhelmed by watching it (and with the current IMDb ranking of 7.0/10, it seems like I am not the only one who thinks that).

The other major issue I had with this movie – it doesn’t really feel to “Fincher-y”. As I mentioned above, there is only one scene you will remember because it stands out, and that is the dinner scene towards the end. The rest kind of blends in together, where you have tiny moments that are great (like the scene where Seyfried’s character is having the heartfelt conversation with Oldman’s character, where they understand each other perfectly, yet they know it might not be for too long) but the movie kind of flows in one way, where yes there are no low’s, but also no discernible highs either.

Mank is definitely a performance driven vehicle, and as much I would love to say how everybody is great in this (and that is because they truly are) I need to single out two performers I really enjoyed – the already mentioned Oldman and Seyfried. With Gary Oldman, he’s been consistently great for his entire life, but in here, he yet again does something that feels familiar, yet totally different. You understand how witty his character is and yet you see how broken he is, especially when his ideals get shattered. But the real star to me was Amanda Seyfried. She (weirdly) reminded me what Brad Pitt did in Once Upon a Time… In Hollywood (2019) where from the start, it feels like “normal” performance, but the more we get into the story, the more you understand how Amanda’s performance is brilliant, because it’s not “shiny” by any means, yet it could have easily been. She shares her scenes mostly with Gary Oldman, but she not only stands her own, but is more than equal acting partner to him, where you understand that there is something about her that only Oldman’s character can see. And she’s subtly suffering, being silent, knowing fully well, she’s better than the movies her character is given to star in. That is why I loved the tiny moment these two share, as I described earlier. Mutual admiration, and yet there is a hint of everything going away, because that’s how this show they call business works, where she doesn’t want him to write what he’s written and even though he admires and respects her (and again, in the entire movie, he might be the only one!) he can’t just let it go, even if that means loosing her as a friend.

Overall, Mank is a great film I feel it might be great for you, IF you go in with your “research” done. As a bare minimum, I would (re)-watch Citizen Kane right before this film, as I believe it would have made it a great “double bill” feature. And then, (or maybe prior watching Mank, as I would imagine that would have helped you big time) go for one the documentaries about Citizen Kane (or Orson Welles), something like The Battle Over Citizen Kane or maybe a TV movie made in 1999 called RKO 281, as I’ve heard that definitely helps giving you more information about what is happening in this movie. I feel like when it’s time for me to re-visit this film, I will definitely watch some of these and only then re-watch Mank and who knows? Maybe I will fall in love with this movie. But as with everything, that’s focused on one subject in almost microscopic fashion, your enjoyment of this movie will directly corelate with the fact how much you know about Citizen Kane, Orson Welles, the studio system in late 30’s/early 40’s of last century… and of course, the man, the myth, the legend, Herman J. Mankiewicz himself.

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 one thing straight – Missing Link is definitely one of the “lesser” Laika movies (the studio behind such gems like Corpse Bride (2005), or my personal favourite Kubo and the Two Strings (2016)) but it’s almost like saying “Pixar’s lesser movie”. Because as with them, even their “lesser” movie is still really, really well made, told and executed. And Missing Link has a few things going for it, that worked for me.

The first one is the voice casting – Hugh Jackman, Stephen Fry, Zach Galifianakis, Zoe Saldana or Timothy Olyphant are great and pleasant to listen to. They also give this stop-motion animation that extra level of charm, personality and that is definitely THE main thing this film has going for it, big time. It’s really charming. I can’t really explain it, because overall, the story isn’t anything new we wouldn’t seen before, it’s your typical “explorer finds a new species, but he’s trying to get him to his own people, rather than profit from it”, but there are evil people after them. So they go from one location to another, escaping one escapade after another.

But there is something about the stop-motion of this movie and that voice cast, full of really talented people, that even though you know exactly where the story is going (Missing Link is definitely more of kids movie, rather than “adults can get something out of this too”) you will still be glued to the TV screen. It’s funny at the times, cute most of the time and most importantly, the moment the movie starts to drag on a bit, it’s only about 10 minutes from being finished.

I know this might sound weird, complimenting the fact this movie is short (the runtime is 93 minutes) or making it sound like it’s a benefit, but it really is, as to me that is an underrated art, knowing when your movie should end. There are movies that definitely overstay their welcome, so for this film to be fully aware of what it is and knowing when to end, it’s definitely a benefit.

Also, I need to talk about the end credits, where you can see how painstakingly slow the process of stop-motion animation actually is and how much work goes into every shot. Those have always fascinated me, and I know it’s almost “standard” at this point for stop-motion animated movies to have a scene or two during the credits to show the fans how the movie gets made, and I will always respect people behind these movies, because you can tell they really care and it shows, as this movie is stunning to look at.

Who I really want to talk about in this movie, is Zach’s voice performance as Mr. Link/Susan. I used to think he’s not a great comedian, but the older I get, the more I appreciate his comedy chops. And in this movie, his performance was perfect. What pleasantly surprised me was that plenty of A list celebrities, who would do voices for animated movies, especially in some sort of creature/animal role, they would usually do a “shouty” performance, slightly over the top. Zach took it in totally different way, making his character really sweet, tender and quiet. Only thing that did get old, especially towards the end, was his character taking everything so literally. It was funny the first couple of instances, but repetition only works so many times before it doesn’t.

Overall, even though Missing Link won’t be attacking any TOP rankings/lists when comes to “best animated movie” or even “best stop-motion animated movie”, but it’s still a really good movie, that targets kids exclusively. Parents might have a good time too, but they will have much better time with some other stop-motion movies. For example the prior mentioned Kubo and the Two Strings is to me on the same level as the best Pixar movies, because that film is stunning, with great performances, brilliant story and really big chunk of heart in it. I am not going to say you will get the same experience with Missing Link, probably not. But it still has its charm and I don’t think there is any danger of you dying from boredom.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Do you feel too happy? Are you enjoying your life little too much right now? Do you want to see a movie about two beautiful people arguing about everything, examining their relationship, and proving even hot, rich people have issues? Well, do I have a movie for you! Just login to your Netflix account and watch Malcolm & Marie right now!

Yes, I am being slightly cheeky, so let’s get serious for a second. One of the first movies to be “written, directed, and completed during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States” (source IMDb.com) and thank god it’s not about the pandemic (but trust me, those films are coming) and I think Sam Levinson (the director of this film and the creator of Euphoria (2019 -, also starring Zendaya) made the best out of the bad situation. With very limited resources, with people not being able to travel, he made a movie that happens during one night, it’s literally just two actors and most importantly, it doesn’t feel “cheap”. He made those limitations work for him, where ultimately, you could see something like this being made even if there was no pandemic (imagine… and I have just remembered that video of celebrities singing Imagine, so let me recover from that cringe).

Ok, I am back now, so let’s talk about Malcolm & Marie. As weird as this might sound, it’s definitely up to you how much enjoyment you will get out of this film. I know what you are thinking “well, now you have described literally every movie ever, thanks! So helpful from you!” but with this one, it is almost a different ballpark, as there are only two characters, two actors who pretty much do not leave the screen for 106 minutes, so you are either with them, or not. The movie is also stylised and shot in black and white (I thought that decision worked quite well) and minus the music played by our main characters, it’s without any soundtrack. That worked well sometimes, but sometimes the “song choices” were a bit too much on the nose, so it pulled me out of a moment or two. I understand those characters were being petty towards each other, so the song choices might have been appropriate for them, but in some bigger moments, that wasn’t working for me too much.

But the main “selling” point of this movie is definitely the “gimmick”, the draw if you will – one location, one night, two actors, already mentioned Zendaya and John David Washington. And I could watch those two reading Apple’s terms and conditions for 2 hours and it would still be worth it, as they both give this movie their 100%. I knew both of them from their previous projects, so I wasn’t surprised how great they were, but there was something about this mix that just worked for me even more than I expected. To me, and as much as I loved his work in this film, this is Zendaya’s movie. She can do funny, cute, crazy, sad, mad, sexy, and in some scenes, those emotions can all be there within a few minutes and she delivers every single time. Especially her big speech at the end stunned me and that is where you will see that as with most of relationships, there is a lot to process, there are two sides to everything and yet you can not help but really understand her character a bit more, where was she coming from the entire time and she sells it. Honestly, I can’t wait for her to win an Oscar in a couple of years time, as you know it’s just a question of “when”, rather than “if”. And the same goes for John David Washington, he’s immensely talented individual, who doesn’t (physically) remind me of his dad (for those who don’t know, he is Denzel Washington‘s son) until he opens his mouth, as to me, that is how I knew he is his “kid”, as they sound almost identical. I am glad to see he’s inherited some of his dad’s talent and probably took some acting advices from him (I mean, if your dad was one of the finest actors of all time, you would be dumb not to ask a few questions, especially if you want to act yourself) as he’s brilliant.

Where the movie loses me a bit was towards the end, where some of the arguments feel a bit hollow and technically you can make an excellent short film out of this (let’s say 20/30 minutes) as the main point or even the history between our main (and only) characters isn’t THAT complicated. Sometimes, the movie almost wallows in that misery too much and I didn’t think it was necessary.

What this movie does really well is making you root for a different character every 20/30 minutes. When this movie started, I was 100% in Zendaya’s corner, when John David had his big speech about movies and movie criticism and how today’s society works (“Does the male gaze exist if the filmmaker’s gay and not straight? And to what degree? What if they’re asexual?”) I understood his character better and agreed with him to a certain extent… and I think that’s also a sign of a good movie, where you are basically swinging like a pendulum, and at the end of the movie you understand nobody’s perfect, she’s made mistakes, he’s made mistakes and they either learn to talk about them/live with each other despite those, or they call the entire relationship off. I did appreciate the ending, where to me, it was clear what happens with them after the movie is over, but it is very much open to an interpretation.

Overall, Malcolm & Marie is a hard movie to rate without feeling you need to take sides, or be personally involved. It makes you reflect on your relationships, past and present, and hopefully it makes you understand how sometimes, you are not 100% right and you just need to listen to your significant other and talk to them about difficult things, that are hard to talk about. It makes you reflect on your past decisions and fights you might’ve had and possibly re-evaluate them. Or not and you are here just to watch two hot people fighting for almost two hours, that’s ok too, we don’t kink shame around here 😉

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

Until next time,

Luke

Ever since I got more serious about movies, when I started to “track” the TOP movies of all time, read about the most influential movies from the years long gone, The Passion of Joan of Arc was a title that came up a lot. Many called it one of the most influential movies of all time, others said it’s still as powerful today as it was back in 1928… long story short, I have heard a lot about this movie. And finally, I managed to watch it.

This film is definitely powerful. There is something about this being silent film, where it just works better without any dialogue, just the overpowering music score and great camera work. That is all you need to make an impact. That and of course, powerful story, and what other story could be more powerful than a woman being prosecuted and burned to death (I really hope nobody considers this a spoiler, for historical reasons) for something she believes in greatly. That’s another aspect of why this movie is cherished and has been ever since it’s been made, the stunning imagery between Joan and everybody else, where she is the only woman in this film (apart from maybe some other ones in a crowd scenes…?) and she goes up against these usually old men of power, where they try to get her to betray her faith, and she just does not. And eventually, when she does, she realises it’s wrong and chooses death (again, I would hope everybody is familiar with the historic story behind this movie).

The only thing I would say, which is the only reason I can’t give it higher marks, the movie drags on a bit. And to be honest, I don’t think I am judging this movie based on today’s standards. But I have watched other movies from that era (perfect example is Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927), which was simply a perfect movie) and I can appreciate them in their own right. But I honestly felt that the length of The Passion of Joan of Arc is bit too much. Because at the end of the day, the story is simple enough, this could really be 20 minute shorter, if you really wanted. All I am saying is sometimes, even though I was admiring the movie, I found myself a bit bored, and that should definitely not be the case, mainly when comes to a movie about this subject.

But other than that, there is nothing I could say against this film. The Passion of Joan of Arc is still a relevant, chilling and overall impactful piece of cinema, that definitely has its place in history. It’s unbelievable how much were the actors able to get across without any dialogue, without any words, just some good old fashioned text on the black background, powerful piece of music, brilliant camera work and great acting.

Overall, I think your enjoyment of this film heavily corelates with how much you care about influential pieces of cinematic history. If you are a casual movie fan, who doesn’t really care for silent movies, you might want to skip this one. If, however, you would consider yourself a cinephile (like me) and love to explore movies from any film decade to see how films were made almost 100 years ago, The Passion of Joan of Arc would be the movie for you. The only thing going against it is the pace of this movie is slightly uneven at times, but the last images from this film will stay with you.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Before we dive into the review itself, can we just (and by “we” I mean Hollywood people in charge of coming up titles for movies) stop naming movies “Bad _____”? Honestly, this is the third movie and fourth “content” called Bad Education, next to the TV show Bad Education (2012), (hence the word content), the movie based on that TV show called The Bad Education Movie (2015) and Pedro Almodóvar’s Bad Education (2004), which I haven’t seen, but given the synopsis “An examination on the effect of Franco-era religious schooling and sexual abuse on the lives of two longtime friends.” I will take a wild guess and say that isn’t really a comedy, or anywhere near close this movie starring Hugh Jackman. Anyway, how many of these “bad” movies do we really need and when is enough, truly enough? From a really quick search, we’ve had Teachers (2011), Moms (2016 and 2017, twice!!) Santa’s (2003 and 2016, also twice!!), Boys (1995, 2003, 2020 AND just announced another sequel?!) and I bet I could find even more examples. Honestly, at this point, can we just retire this “Bad ___” and don’t use it for anything for at least 20/30 years?

One of the reasons for why I feel so strongly about this, would be this movie. Because it is actually pretty good film, but I bet you plenty of people were not keen on watching it, as the title does not really relate to the film…? I mean, I guess kind of? You know, since he’s not a teacher…? This could have been called “Hugh Jackman is a Pretty Big Dick in This Movie” and that would have described this film more accurately than its current title.

Basically, this movie is about money embezzling that goes on at one school and the movie let’s you guess when comes to who’s involved (even though it’s fairly obvious from the very beginning) and how long it’s been going on for. That’s the basic gist of it. And I know it sounds boring, and with lesser actors, it would have been. But Hugh Jackman, Allison Janney and Geraldine Viswanathan are bringing their A+ game to this, and mainly these three actors make it above average experience. Especially Hugh, who I was surprised by. How he tried to do something, he doesn’t do that often anymore, be a pretty big dick in this movie. But his character is convinced until the very end, he’s not being a dick and everything he does he justifies to himself and the audience, and because of his charm (and come on, Hugh is charming, you know it) you want to believe him, even though you know the truth about his character all along.

As a person who’s never heard of this scandal, I think it was told very well, but there was no major surprise within the movie. Which is a bit disappointing, especially if it’s based on something real you’ve never heard of, but the movie can’t surprise you in any way, as you can tell where everything is going the entire way. But, it is well made TV movie (HBO movies usually know how to bring quality material) so I do think it’s worth watching.

Overall, please ignore the horribly plain title of this movie and give it a shot. Especially if you only know the nice, gentleman-like Hugh Jackman, give this a watch, to see that he can do something, that is very outside of his (usual) wheelhouse. This movie probably won’t change your life in way, shape or form, but it’s pretty entertaining ride, even though you know how that ride will finish.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Ad Astra feels familiar, yet different. It mixes Interstellar (2014), 2001 A Space Odyssey (1968) and Gravity (2013) together to create something that’s not as great as either of those film, but it’s still interesting nevertheless. Also, it take the “best” elements of those movies (space travelling feeling of Interstellar, the slow pace of 2001 and some action-like sequences of Gravity, especially the sequence at the very beginning of this movie) but it doesn’t feel repetitive, it feels like its own unique(ish) thing.

For me, the biggest draw to this movie was Brad Pitt. Especially the last year was really kind to him (it’s easy to forget because of COVID-19, that he’s won his second Oscar in February 2020 (yes, this year!) for Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019), his first for an acting role, as his first Oscar was for producing 12 Years a Slave (2013)) and it seems like people finally are recognising him for his talent and are seeing what he’s doing for other filmmakers in Hollywood, as he’s produced more than 60 movies in the last 14 years. Not bad at all. And in Ad Astra, he gives us something different, as his performance is really subtle. Basically, there are almost no scenes without him, as the entire movie revolves around him, but you never get the feeling like it’s too much. Pitt’s performance is really… approachable…? The best way to describe it is “low key” as it seems like he’s barely acting, in the best possible way. At times, this movie felt more like a documentary about a real guy, who’s actually this level-headed astronaut, whose blood pressure barely goes over 80. Definitely one of Brad’s best performances.

The movie ultimately suffers from a tough competition, as just in the last couple of years, we have had our fair share of truly great sci-fi movies. And while Ad Astra is definitely a good movie, that stands out, it also drags on a bit too much every once in a while. As I mentioned in my previous reviews, I honestly don’t mind movies that take their time to build their world/atmosphere/feeling properly, but there is also being a self-indulgent. And this movie might have been bit too self-indulgent. Yes, plenty of shots were stunning, but plenty of them dragged on. Yes, there were some great action sequences (yet again I need to mention the beginning of this movie) but than there were large chunks of this movie where if you told me you fell asleep while watching, I wouldn’t blame you.

Also, any time we might have another interesting character Brad Pitt can interact with, they either serve as exposition dump for him, or they just die after a few minutes. And look, I understand this movie is ultimately about this dad/son journey, where the son is looking for his dad and in doing so, looking for piece of himself in the process, but sure would be nice to get to know some other characters in this movie. Especially if the film includes actors like Tommy Lee Jones, Ruth Negga, Donald Sutherland or Liv Tyler (who if I am not mistaken, doesn’t speak a single word in this entire movie, which must be some kind of record…?)

I do understand the division with this movie, as it’s definitely more about the feeling, rather than a simple story/narrative structure. If you are into movies, that make you think about life, and if you want to see how Brad Pitt matures to perfection and can have the entire film basically rest on his shoulders, than you might like Ad Astra. But if you are looking for more “conventional” sci-fi film, I would stay clear of this movie, as you might fall asleep while watching it.

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

Until next time,

Luke