I can’t seem to remember last time a movie was considered as controversial as this one was. If you don’t know, ever since The Hunt has been announced, it’s been panned as it was the liberals hunting people, not the other way around etc. Then, it got pushed back because of mass shooting, then the pandemic hit… It seems like nothing was going this movie’s way. Which is a shame, as it’s a delightfully charming satire.

I have seen a few movies in my life, and the older I get, the more I appreciate a movie, that can surprise me in any way, shape or form. The Hunt definitely does that and more. Not only the premise is not what you might expect (after all, the liberals are not really the “side” known for loving guns or hunting) it also introduces you couple of big stars in the beginning of the movie (the only one I have recognised was Emma Roberts) just to pull a rug under you and have “gotcha” moment. It’s really hard to talk about this movie without going into the spoiler territory, so let me just say I did enjoy this film and I just wished they would’ve given us a bit more backstory to the very main character, and maybe established what happened right after the end. Having said that…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

The element of surprise is definitely the main advantage of this movie. If you watch it the same way I have (not knowing almost anything about the story, or who the main character is) the first 20 minutes or so will be pretty wild for you too, as everybody you get introduced to, dies almost instantly, keeping you on your toes. From then on, the movie still finds a way to tell pretty simple story (not everything is black and white, especially when comes to people and politics, too much of one thing can be bad) in interesting way, where you just go along, hoping to get a bit more of news (but not those fake ones) about what is happening, who is behind all of this and why. Once you discover that, it is pretty funny and also sad, when you think about it.

I have not yet seen The Glow (2017 – 2019) so I had no attachment or prior knowledge of Betty Gilpin, but she can definitely act. Hers was the most intriguing character, as I do believe (and movie even gives you several clues about this) they have picked her up by accident, as you can tell she doesn’t “fit the type”. She is highly trained bad-ass, she’s obviously experienced with war and combat, she’s really smart… Without trying to hint at anything at all, the other people around her are definitely slightly different kind. But maybe that is the point, maybe she was “the correct one”, but they just underestimated her? Maybe her being this smart bad-ass, that is the message of this movie…? I did hope the movie would hint a bit more about who she actually was.

Having said I think this movie brilliantly displays America. Now, more than ever, seemingly 2 large groups of people with very opposing views, believing their group is the correct one and the other group is the devil are always fighting. Which is fine, but then guns enter the debate and this is where it gets slightly scarier. The movie illustrates quite well how that element just complicates everything, and how we (or at least Americans) should try to unlearn seeing other people as certain groups, with one being the correct one, and the other being the wrong one. This two party system sure is fun.

Overall, I did enjoy The Hunt more than I thought I would. The only thing that was missing for me was a bit more information about Betty’s character and I wouldn’t mind knowing what happened to her after she’s boarded the plane. Did she manage to get back home? Did somebody else wait for her at the airport, to make sure she can’t say anything about what she’s just been through? Would anyone believe her…? The more I am thinking about it, the more I believe this might make even better limited series. If you can put your own personal bias aside, I believe you should have a pretty good time with this movie.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Who would have thought, that DC, who have Batman and Superman in their catalogue (arguably two of the biggest and well known superheroes ever created) would finally figure out how to make a watchable superhero movie with a guy, who’s not that known and kind of Superman’s rip-off…? Shazam! is a surprisingly great movie, that is witty, funny and has a bit of heart to it.

And “only” thing that took to make it was David F. Sandberg who understood the material, perfectly casted Zachary Levi alongside great villain played by Mark Strong, make it about family… well, looking back at it now, there were quite a few things that had to come together. I think that is what makes Shazam! such a nice surprise. I knew this movie was coming out, but at that point, only decent movie DC came out with was Wonder Woman (2017) and it was definitely the best DC movie, but still nothing I would be rushing to re-watch. Whereas this film I can see myself going back to, especially if the sequel(s) will be any good.

I think the main difference is the tone – DC seem to finally understand, that just because they have the more serious superheroes, not every movie needs to be dark, serious and deal with some serious topics. This movie is almost dancing on the line of making fun of the genre, but at the same time understanding it, so it never goes beyond that line. It never becomes annoying and in hands of somebody, who doesn’t understand the material, I could have easily see that happening. Shazam could have easily been really annoying superhero. But maybe it was the script, maybe it was the focus on the themes of what family means (it’s not the people who brought you to this world, but the people who are there for you, who actually care) maybe it was the perfect casting of Zachary, or maybe it was a mix of all of the above, it just never got annoying.

The only “issue” I had with this movie is – it’s not as clever as it think it is. And let me explain – the movie is doing more or less the same thing as Deadpool (2016). It is very much aware of what it is, even though it won’t break any fourth walls, it is still very self-aware, while at the same time, still playing by the same “comic book” rules. And Deadpool managed to surprise me along the way several times, where the was always an extra joke I wasn’t expecting, or scene that pushed it over the top for me and made it highly enjoyable. Shazam! doesn’t have that element of surprise, everything is lined-up and going exactly where you think it’s going. Which is fine, as it serves the story, but there is nothing extra. At least there wasn’t for me.

But that is very minor detail, as don’t get me wrong, this is highly enjoyable film and unlike this movie, where I knew it was coming out, I just didn’t care about it as I knew little about it, I will be looking out for the sequel, hoping it’s going to deliver, expand on the world and stays true to what’s been lined up here. I would be disappointed, if the sequel(s) suddenly went dark and serious. Let us have something lighter, DC, just for once. Also, plus points for foster family, who actually weren’t terrible people and having a disabled step-brother, who doesn’t feel like he’s there to fill in a quota, but actually serves the story!

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

Until next time,

Luke

If you have been reading my blog for a bit (and I can’t thank you enough if you had, really appreciate it) you’d know that I often use phrases such as “as average as it get’s”, “perfectly predictable” or something along these lines. Abominable could be summed up in three words I have used to name this review “formula done right” and that sometimes can be enough.

Let me start with the animation style. I know it’s like bringing alcohol to a pub, but every year, the animation gets better and better. Sure, we don’t see such a big jump like we used to, even though the technology is still evolving, but not to a degree we would be stunned the way we’ve seen animated movies of the past. But this movie still looks beautiful and especially the nature scenes in the middle/end portion of the movie. Some sequences are simply charming, same goes for the characters.

The story is… as average as it gets. Honestly, if you have ever seen an animated movie, you won’t be surprised by anything, as I feel like now we have reached a point, where we need to stop relying on those same clutches (one parent who’s dead, but they had a plan with their child, and the child will stop at anything to honour the plan) we’ve seen a lot in this genre. Nevertheless, the voice cast is great, animation is stunning, so I will let this slide, especially when it is more of “feel good” movie, that doesn’t take itself too seriously, which is always nice.

Only thing I can’t think of improving, would be the actual villain of the story, as it wasn’t menacing, or even memorable, to be perfectly honest. There seems to be a thing lately, where all the animated movies of past couple of years don’t have great villains. It’s almost like the studios started to believe they can’t scare kids anymore. Really? I mean, I don’t think we need to traumatize them, but at the same time, memorable villain can lift up your movie, big time. Just couple of examples, Scar from The Lion King (1994) or Jafar from Aladdin (1992) are not over the top threating villains, but they don’t shy away from being villains and they can be menacing. And in both cases, they contributed to make those movies what they are, fondly remembered classics. I do also need to add one often overlooked animated movie, which I love, Anastasia (1997) and its movie villain, Rasputin, who has certain scenes that are threating, but again, nothing I would consider too dark. This “trend” needs to come back, as especially nowadays, young kind are more “mature” than ever before (I mean, plenty of 7 year old can use iPhone/iPads better than their parents).

That, in all honesty, was the thing I was missing from Abominable. Because overall, I really enjoyed this light-hearted movie, but there was nothing too memorable, and the villain was so non-threating, I don’t remember plenty of it a few weeks after. But I do remember thinking “if only this movie had a better, more impactful villain, this could’ve been on the next level.” And that is exactly what this movie is. It’s a lovely, fun, charming film, that is really easy to watch, but also to forget. The only reason my rating is still fairly high is the movie’s charm and stunning animation.

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

Until next time,

Luke

If not the first, The Bishop’s Wife is certainly one of the first movies you can tell they made, because something really similar to it did great the previous year (yes, I am of course talking about It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)). I mean, it’s basically the same premise, except here, the angel (played by Cary Grant) actually comes down to help out a bishop with… well everything in his life.

As far as copies go, this was actually a decent one. The Bishop’s Wife is a charming movie, that has just enough beats of its own to keep you interested and the further along you watch, the more the connection between this film and It’s a Wonderful Life disappears. The main focus of this movie is more on the balance of having a meaningful life, but not on the account of your family, that is what the bishop has managed to forget and that is why we have Cary Grant’s Dudley coming here, to help him out with his work and his marriage.

But of course, as it happens in movies like these, even angel has feelings and manages to fall for Loretta Young, and who can blame him? I am not too familiar with her, but she looked charming in this movie, and she delivered a great performance, as you could feel that even though she still loves her husband, she just needs more from him. Although, I do need to admit, the final exchange between her and Cary Grant felt a bit weird, as he basically said if he wasn’t angel, he would try to do something (I guess break up the family, he’s just saved…? Dude, you know the heaven exists, you sure you want to go down that route?)

What I found fascinating is while reading through IMDb’s trivia section, I have learned not only that originally, a different director (William A. Seiter) was shooting the film, but once he was fired, Henry Koster replaced him and realised why the movie wasn’t working and swapped the roles of bishop and the angel. That’s right, originally, Cary Grant was playing the bishop and David Niven was playing the angel. Personally, I can’t imagine that, as they fit their roles so perfectly, it only proves Henry Koster made the right decision and also goes to show you never know. Sometimes, actors get a job and it’s not until somebody else steps in and tells you: “Hey, why don’t you try this role?” and then everything fits together nicely.

On the surface, The Bishop’s Wife might just seem like a “It’s a Wonderful Life wannabe”, but credit where credit is due, it’s not just that. This movie does stand on its own, and if for nothing else, you should watch it for the delightful ice-skating sequence, that was the emotional highlight of this movie for me. The only “negative” thing, and I am using the word “negative” very carefully, is it doesn’t hit you (or at least it didn’t hit me) emotionally as much as It’s a Wonderful Life hits me every time I watch it, and even the very first time. But should you still watch it, maybe around Christmas time? Sure, I don’t think you will be disappointed, especially if you are a big fan of Cary Grant or Loretta Young.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Movies from the “good old days” of Hollywood are usually inadvertently funny, not because they were meant to be, but because of what used to be considered inappropriate or indiscreet (roll credits!) back then. Take this movie for example – there is a scene where Ingrid Bergman‘s sister doesn’t want to leave her by herself in the room with Cary Grant, as that wouldn’t be appropriate now, would it? I mean, a woman who’s NOT married?!

If you look past the archaisms of those days, you’ll see Indiscreet is pretty decent film, that once it decides to be full on comedy, is enjoyable. But it takes the movie a long time to get there. I don’t know why, but the first half of the movie felt to me like the director wasn’t really sure whether he should approach this more seriously, or give into the “craziness”. I had a hard time putting my finger on what this movie actually was for its first 40 minutes or so. But then it seemed like in its second half, the movie decides to be a full on silly comedy, and it’s better for it.

I have not watched plenty of movies starring Ingrid Bergman and this is my first movie of hers, where she’s more on the comedic side and I really liked it. Dare I say she was the main star of this film…? Yes, I would say so. Of course, for a movie like this, where the main story is about Cary Grant’s character lying about whether he’s married or not and Ingrid’s character than being mad at him because he is or isn’t married… you do need a good scene partner to make it work and they do work really well together.

What I need to mention is the fact this movie doesn’t merely rely on those two mega stars (and they were, both in their own right) as all the side characters were pretty funny too, mainly Cecil Parker with Phyllis Calvert stood their own alongside both of those “superstars” and had some funny scenes.

There is a certain charm to these old comedies, where even if you don’t laugh out loud all the time, they feel more relaxed, more down to earth, which is a bit strange considering how much has changed since the time they were released. The way how people act, talk, what used to be considered inappropriate is now so normal, nobody bats an eye when we do it… And yet, on some sort of level, these movies feel more grounded than most of Hollywood comedies made in the last 10 years or so. Maybe the movies from the “good old days” are not relying on physical humour as much and they were trying to work on stories and jokes coming from the characters/situations rather than “this person is loud, that person is clumsy, and this one is just an idiot”, and that helps, having actual characters in your comedy.

As I said prior, the only criticism I have is the first half of the movie didn’t sit “properly” with me. If somebody were to tell me that one director shot the first half of the movie and then they swapped him for a different director, I would totally believe that. But the second half is great, so my rating is still fairly high, as Indiscreet is a pleasant movie, that you could watch on a chill Sunday afternoon and have a pretty good time with.

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

Until next time,

Luke

First time I’ve watched this movie, I thought it was good, but given Hitchcock’s other movies, I thought this must be one of his “lesser” movies. Well, my girlfriend is really into Grace Kelly right now (can’t really blame her), so I thought I’ll show her this movie and that’d give me a chance to re-watch it, to see whether I might notice something I could have missed the first time.

Truth be told, I don’t think I have noticed anything new, but I did enjoy the movie a bit more the second time around. I don’t remember the cinematography being as stunning my first time watching this movie, so that immediately struck me. The other thing that caught my attention – the age difference between Grace and Cary Grant didn’t bother me as much, as with Rear Window (1954) and the age difference between her and James Stewart in that movie. I don’t know why, maybe Grant (even though he looks significantly older) aged better than Stewart…? But somehow, they worked for me slightly better, as a “couple” and it was more believable for Grace to want Grant, as even in this role, 50 years old, he was still charming.

It’s a bit unfair comparing To Catch a Thief to other Hitchcock movies, as he’s effectively trying to “take a vacation”. What I mean by that, the movie isn’t as serious as the movies that are considered to be his masterpieces, so we shouldn’t put this film next to the likes of Psycho (1960), Vertigo (1958) or The Birds (1963) as they aren’t in the same league, because they were never supposed to be! To Catch a Thief is an enjoyable summer movie about, who can serve almost as a commercial for France and even the greats can take a holiday every once in a while.

What I found a bit hilarious and I guess you could count as “sign of those times” was Brigitte Auber‘s character, Danielle. It wasn’t anything about her or her performance, it was more about everybody around calling her “a kid”, “child” etc., so I had to check my trusted adviser IMDb and not only she wasn’t a kid (which was quite clear from the film) she was full 4 years older than Grace, who was supposed to be “the mature woman”, as a contrast to her character…? I don’t know whether I was more amused than confused, but then again, those were different times…

To Catch a Thief is definitely worth seeing, as it’s nice, “light” entertainment, with great main actors and stunning cinematography. The only thing this movie has going against it, is the man who made it, and the incredibly high bar he set with some of his other movies. But if you judge this movies on its own merits, rather than the director’s reputation, I believe you should enjoy this film. Especially in COVID-19 times, it’s great seeing a nice, sunny beaches, with people on them, not worrying about whether somebody next to them might infect them.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I’m not much a movie watcher nor am I good writer/reviewer. But since my boyfriend (Luke) asked me to write a review on anything I want. I had no idea what I was going to write about, until I randomly decided to watch Contagion because what else could anyone watch during an actual pandemic.

Now onto the film, for the first in my life I can say I understood some of the medical references, looks like my studying payed of.

I enjoyed how slow it was, the slow pace seemed to bring it to life, making it more relatable. In terms of the characters, as the audience we never get to spend too much time with them, thereby never getting to see any major character development (in my opinion) and that efficiently helps bring the story to life. As that is the way of a pandemic, it all happens too fast to grasp what is happening.

Then comes the most annoying part of the movie, the blogger who basically spreads fake news. Telling people about a cure that doesn’t actually work and going as far as faking having the virus for the views and most importantly to him for the money. To me there is lesson to be learnt from this ALWAYS GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM CREDIBLE SOURCES.

This film also gives an insight into how people lose their shit and panic as we saw with the shortage of toilet paper (seriously people toilet paper?) We as humans really need to get our shit together. It also raises the issue of who gets the vaccine first (this is going to an interesting topic in the coming months or even years). All in all, as humans we are extremely predictable and unfortunately, that is to our detriment.

So, I’m done boring you, I won’t continue writing about the film because I don’t want to give it all away. But y’all should definitely watch it, especially during this strange strange time.

If you managed to read through this review, thank you 😉

Anyway, bye until next time.

Eugenia xx

I remember that day like it was yesterday – I was 15 years old (that sentence sounds really terrifying almost 15 years later, well nobody’s getting any younger) and somehow, the tiny city I lived in at that time, had a local cinema, that wasn’t really packing crowds on a good evening, if you know what I mean. But somehow, the owner back then, managed to preview this movie the same day as the international premiere, so for that one evening showing, the cinema was properly packed. That was the first and the last time I’ve seen that cinema fully packed.

I remember really liking the movie (but then, I was 15, so that’s not saying that much) and my mum, who’s read the book prior, really loved it. Over the years, this movie became one of our “safe choice” films. Those are movies we would pop in any time we wouldn’t feel like watching something new, so we would play something we had seen a few times prior. Kind of like a background noise, where you don’t necessarily watching it fully, but still catch yourself watching some scenes, as the movies would usually be entertaining. And that to me is the perfect definition of The Da Vinci Code – don’t think about it too hard (you can’t really) and just try to enjoy it.

I haven’t read the book, but I have been told by people it’s highly readable material (as most of Dan Brown’s books apparently are) but I can tell why this book would be popular – it really dives into something, people nowadays gravitate towards – conspiracy theories. Where somebody tells you: “Everything you know is a lie. Here’s the real truth!” Just think about it – we live in a world, where people believe or don’t believe in:

• Vaccines
• Global Warming
• Flat Earth
• COVID-19 being caused by goverment
• COVID-19 being caused by 5G towers
• COVID-19 being born in lab in China (yep, plenty of COVID-19 theories around).

And this is just a top of an iceberg I don’t really want to sink into. And it’s by no means a new thing, but because of the internet being so widely accessible, now more than ever, anybody can voice their opinions on some blog, pretending like they know anything about what they are writing about (like me and this blog! Oh, wait… have I become one of them? Harvey Dent from The Dark Knight was right all along, you either die a hero, or you live a long enough to see yourself become the villain…)

Anyway, back to The Da Vinci Code, don’t expect a history lesson, any historical accuracy (well, there is some, but not a lot) or anything to actually chew on, as this movie is just a fast food of movies. Which every once in a while, is not a bad thing, especially if you know not to take it for something this movie isn’t. If you do your own research (dammit, I’m sounding like the conspiracy people again!) you will see how much Dan Brown made up, or tweaked to fit into his narrative. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it only becomes a bit dangerous when you are adamant about it being real (read it for yourself here).

And this is something I’ve always struggled with when comes to The Da Vinci Code – even though I know I shouldn’t enjoy it as much as I do, because of these half-truths and twisted facts, but I still do enjoy this, as for me, this is purely a work of fiction. And if I am judging it based on that criteria alone, it shall pass (yes, Sir Ian McKellen is in this movie) on the movie being just entertaining enough, that I don’t mind anything else. Plus, the film’s run time is 2 hours 29 minutes, but it never feels like that, and that’s a definite plus in my book.

I would recommend this movie on a lazy Sunday afternoon, where there is nothing better on, it’s raining and you just want to cuddle up on a sofa with something, that grabs your attention, but it doesn’t demand a lot from you. If you take this movie as it is, and won’t be expecting any historically accurate drama, I think you might actually have a decent time with this.

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

Until next time,

Luke