By now, there are a few things you can take for certain in this life – death, taxes, the fact we have more knowledge and information available at our fingertips than ever before in history, yet people are constantly wrong about everything, and Disney remaking every single classic movie they have in their catalogue, until the run out, by which point… let’s remake the remakes!

I’m happy to say, Cinderella is definitely on the better “side” of those remakes, as I feel like the story lends itself for different interpretations more than other classic Disney movies. Why? Well…

1. Arguably, it’s the simplest story there can be – good x evil, where there is nothing “major” at stake, but it’s always revolving around family/step-family. And that’s something more people can relate to, rather than having a magical genie, or 7 helping dwarfs. The beauty of Cinderella is the universality of the story.
2. The previous iterations never had any “memorable” performances, or a crowd pleasing songs – really think about it. We don’t necessarily talk about previous versions of Cinderella story because of somebody specific shined in those movies, or there would be something remarkable about them, no. They were nice, simplistic and beloved movies, no argument there. But that also gives the director/writer almost no hill to climb in regards to “we need to make sure we are better than X, Y & Z”, where they don’t “compete” with previous versions as much. Perfect examples would be the original Dumbo (1941) had the heartbreaking mum scene, or Aladdin (1992) had Robin Williams‘ performance, and those are things their remakes had to overcome or address, be either different or better. Whereas Cinderella doesn’t have anything like that.
3. Because of the universality of this story, you can pretty much set it into any time and tweak it however you like, to various degrees of success.

Luckily, this movie had seasoned Shakespearean Kenneth Branagh behind the camera, so you can tell it was shot and told by somebody who’s got a sense for drama, as it was told and shot very well. My main issue was with actors “overacting” a bit too much for my taste. And sure, I understand they know they are in a fairy tale, therefore they don’t have to take themselves so seriously, but there was something especially striking about Cate Blanchett overacting the shit out of most of her scenes. I was kind of amazed as to why, or whose choice was that. She’s usually great, reserved actress and I guess if she were to make it more menacing/serious it wouldn’t be as kids friendly…? It’s weird saying that, as usually, Cate is highlight of almost every single movie she’s in, but I guess sometimes even an actress of her calibre deserves to go slightly over the top.

Lily James was a perfect choice for Cinderella, as she’s young, naturally beautiful and charming young lady, everything Cinderella should be. It’d be easy to believe Cinderella is slightly “stupid” for letting her step-family to boss her around, but due to her performance and instant likeability, we believe her to be that person, who’s just too kind for her own good sometimes, so we understand where is she coming from. Plus I thought it was a smart move to have almost everybody to be English, as it gives this classic story certain “extra” polish.

Will you see anything new whatsoever in this remake? No. Nothing will surprise you, story wise. But that’s not the point – the movie is fairly enjoyable as the cast is great, the movie is not too long and because of Kenneth’s directing, there are plenty of stunning shots throughout, where Cinderella definitely is closer to the “top” of these remakes, than plenty of other ones. Part of that might be because of my weakness for Lily James and her delightful performance, but still. 🙂

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

Until next time,

Luke

This is another movie review, where I need to mention the low IMDb ranking, which at the moment is 5.6/10. I honestly don’t understand those ratings sometimes, as it seems some people have problems accepting movies for what they are, as maybe they’ve expected some big epic movie, and instead of it, were given something completely different.

The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then the Bigfoot is a movie with a really memorable title, for a start. 🙂 But importantly, it’s almost a meditation of a movie about one extraordinary person. We never know why he’s different, or how exactly he’s different, but he was the man who killed the original Hitler (because the other ones were body doubles, of course).

Plenty of times I am not ok with history being interpreted in “slightly different way” to say it lightly, as when you take a look around what’s happening now, where some people are actively trying to change history, or some people might have a different interpretation (that suits their particular needs) of what actually happened there and then, you get into some really weird branches of the internet where I’m not comfortable. But I didn’t mind this film toying with this idea, as it served purpose in this story AND because it wasn’t THE point of the story – the movie isn’t really about what the man has done, but what he couldn’t.

As he says it in the movie: “I just killed a guy. But I couldn’t kill the evil, that he’d already spread around the world.” (this is paraphrased). That’s the main point of this story – we see a guy (brilliant performance by Sam Elliott) who’s had a truly hard life – his only love died really young and even though he (might’ve) killed Hitler, at the end of day it didn’t change a thing, as you can kill a man, but you can’t kill the idea, the philosophy that man was spreading.

That is why he’s hesitating to take the job to take out the Bigfoot (yes, the title of the movie is literal) as he’s worried that it wouldn’t make a difference, that he’s old… But eventually he takes the job and in a weird way, that sets him free.

I really liked the feel of this film, where some parts felt like a pretty decent historical drama/thriller (him putting together the gun from the unusual components was a great scene, that wouldn’t get lost in a James Bond/Mission Impossible movie) and others felt like a swan song for one extraordinary man, who just wants to live an honest life and die an honest death, if there’s a such thing.

If you are going to give this movie a chance, and I strongly encourage you do, don’t expect anything over the top, even though the title might suggest that. Brace yourself for a heartfelt movie, that “flows” like a river – some sections will be a bit wilder, but overall it’s quiet and almost peaceful piece of cinema.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I am not going to lie, I’ve enjoyed Thoroughbreds much more than I’ve anticipated. This is the kind of movie that is really hard to describe without going into spoilers, so for those who want to see the movie and therefore won’t be reading any further, I’ll just say this – it’s a really good movie where all the main stars get to shine, but the one that shines the brightest is Anya Taylor-Joy.

Following review might contain spoilers.

On a surface level, this movie isn’t something new – all kind of “psychotic” disorders have been portrayed on the big and the small screen for the past 20+ years and it seems people are enjoying them, as Hollywood studios keep making them.

Where this movie differs from the rest is it puts you on the edge of your seat from the very beginning, where the cards are seemingly on the table, the introduction tells us who’s the “crazy” girl (brilliant performance by Olivia Cooke), but not even 10 minutes in and you start to question whether you couldn’t make the case for Anya Taylor-Joy and as the movie progresses, one thing is for certain – there is something uneasy about both.

First hour or so the movie has a great atmosphere, where it builds up the main villain (step-dad) just to pull the rug right under you. Where a lesser movie would just keep him a villain, maybe made him slightly creepy, this one chooses a different path. For me, the pivotal scene of this entire movie, is the confrontation between him and Lily, Anya’s character, in the kitchen. After that scene you realize that everything you thought you knew about this story/character is skewed by Lily. That’s the point where the second “twist” happens, where you realize it’s not Amanda (again, Olivia is superb) who’s the propeller of this story, even though, she can’t feel any emotions, so she’s just faking everything, but Lily. That’s the point you realize Amanda is trying to fit in, in her own way, and just because she can’t feel anything she’s not inherently bad, but Lily is as she is choosing to kill her step-dad and nothing is stopping her.

If you were to put anybody less talented in the role of Lily, this movie would’ve been an alright movie at best, and easily forgettable. By casting Anya, the director (Cory Finley, for whom this was his debut film) made an excellent choice as she definitely has the raw talent to pull this off. The entirety of this movie lies on her and her ability to convince you of her evilness in a really subtle, non-cartoony way and she’s nailed it.

The final nail in this would be the end scene with Anton Yelchin (this was one of his last movie before his untimely and really unfortunate death) where she embraces everything and goes along, knowing very well she’s not the “good guy” in this story, even though she got away with everything.

Overall, this movie surprised me, gave me chills at some places and made me even more aware that Anya Taylor-Joy is (or at least should be) the next big thing and I really hope she’ll have a long, long carrier.

That’s all for this movie? Did you like it or thought it wasn’t anything special? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke