After I enjoyed X (2022, my review here), I was on the lookout for its sequel, which is actually a prequel filmed simultaneously with X. I wanted to know more about Pearl and wanted to see more of Mia Goth in what many claimed should have been her Oscar nomination. As you can see, I was hyped for this film, and Pearl is as good as X; however, as with its predecessor, I wish I could write I love this movie. I like it very much, but…

Let’s get it straight, Mia Goth is fantastic in this role. I am not sure whether she is “she should have been nominated for the Oscar!” fantastic, but she made this role her own. Pearl shows you how the old, murder-happy lady from X became that way, and it turns out, as always, it’s all in the family. Whether it’s the idea of a strict mother, taking care of your paralysed dad, or the mix of both whilst your own mental health wasn’t the best to begin with, this movie shows us how much (or little) it takes for somebody to snap. And when Pearl snaps, she snaps hard.

I liked the aesthetic of this film. The movie takes place in 1918, and I had no issue believing it. Sure, for the most part, it helps that it mostly takes place on one farm, but everything around it, all the characters, just “fit”. And here, for me, is the biggest proof that you don’t need a multi-million dollar budget to make a half-decent movie; just hire someone as creative as Ti West, who has a vision and seems to understand how to get the absolute maximum out of the little they must have had to shoot both this film and X.

And as with X, I wanted more. That will be my ultimate “one thing” about this movie. Pearl is not a straightforward horror film. You could argue it’s even less of a horror movie than X was, as it mainly serves as this character study of our main protagonist, Pearl. Therefore, this movie is the ultimate definition of a slow burner; it takes its time before it gets going. And although I loved Mia Goth, I wasn’t captivated by all the movie’s length. And when I thought this is where it starts to get fascinating, this is where I will fall in love with this film, the movie ends. I know movie schools teach people: “Always leave your audience wanting more!” but Pearl took it a bit too literally.

I won’t spoil this film, but I will say this. There is a thing or an event we (and Pearl) are waiting for throughout the movie besides the “when will she snap?” And that thing happens (that also has a connection to X), so I thought that this was where we would learn more. Nope. The movie leaves us hanging on this, it is not really a cliffhanger, but I don’t know what else would I call it… Let me put it this way, where this movie stops and ends, I hoped that would be its halfway point. I hoped we would have at least 40/50 minutes left. It’s hard to say more without saying what the movie ends on, but I hope I am not the only one feeling like that.

I understand that I am doing what I hate the most, re-imagining the movie the way I want to see it; why did Ti West not make the movie I wanted? And the thing is, he kind of did because Pearl delivers on the main promise. It gives us more of Mia Goth and reveals how she became the way she did. But, whilst he did it, he kept reminding us that “this one thing is coming” throughout this movie. And once that “thing” happened, that was when I felt like I wanted another at least 30 minutes with Pearl. And I hope we might still get it after he’s done with MaXXXine (?), as I have a feeling that if he made a straight-up sequel to Pearl and picked right where this movie ends, it would have been amazing.

But it bears repeating that’s my only negative thing about Pearl. The rest of this movie is a great slow burn about one special young lady who wanted to be a star. She wanted to escape her life and misery and hoped for something better. Something greater, and when she didn’t get what she had hoped for, she took it the only way she knew how. As the famous line goes: “We all go a little mad sometimes.”

Overall, Pearl is a performance piece for Mia Goth. It’s a movie that will surprise you on multiple occasions with its choices, and it surprised me with its ending. Respectively, it ends almost abruptly just as it started to go somewhere I desperately wanted to see more of. But a few things are clear – we need more of Mia Goth, and we are in need of more people like Ti West. I will be there for MaXXXine, and I can’t wait for what he does next after he’s done with this X/Pearl world. It’s always great to have a fresh, new perspective and voice on the scene.

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

Until next time,

Luke

The third movie in “Kenneth Branagh can make any movie he wants, so he makes Poirot films” series, and it seems this might be the best one yet. Whether you like his movies or not (and I liked both previous ones, yes, even the “horrible” Death on the Nile (2022, my review here)), one thing is for certain; they each have their unique feel and impressive casting. A Haunting in Venice also adds another, less seen element into the Poirot mix – horror. Yes, it’s PG-13 horror, so don’t expect anything too edgy, but it is still a good way of keeping this “franchise” fresh.

It was the horror approach with the practical setting (the movie was mostly shot in Italy, which was a nice change after the CGI fest of the previous movie) which uplifted A Haunting in Venice and made it stand out from the previous two films. Let’s talk about the setting first, as I have no notes about that aspect. It was lovely and seemed “old-fashioned” enough (the movie takes place in the 1950s) that it worked and transported me into old Italy right after the Second World War. I also liked the setting of the building where the majority of the film took place, as it worked for the spooky stuff; it was big enough where we could conveniently lose some people but not large enough that you’d get lost and wonder where we were.

The horror theme worked as well as it was allowed to work. As mentioned above, this movie is PG-13, which makes it a very mild “horror”. You can almost think of this movie as an entry barrier to horror films, where it’s perfectly safe for most people to watch it without worrying whether they will be able to fall asleep afterwards. Therefore, if we judge by that standard, it’s fine. But part of me almost wanted them to go “harder” and turn this movie into a full-blown horror. I am not talking about slasher, but I believe one thing that could keep this franchise going for a couple of more movies is to try to play around with different genres. It was also intriguing to watch someone as logical as Poirot question himself despite you, as the audience, knowing there must be something else in play. And there is a shot towards the end that leaves it open-ended whether there might or might not be something more to these ghosts that are supposedly among us…

Regarding the cast, I thought everyone did well. Kenneth’s take on Poirot is more whimsical, but I always found him delightful. I was shocked by how much I enjoyed Tina Fey‘s performance in this movie. She has been such a strong comedic presence for the past two decades; I was slightly worried about her being “disruptive”, but she worked perfectly with Kenneth, and their back-and-forth banter was amusing, and it never felt forced. Also, this is the first-ever non-comedic role for Tina Fey in her almost 20-year career. Yep, until now, she hasn’t appeared in a movie or a TV show that wasn’t labelled “comedy”. I also need to highlight Jude Hill, who yet again acts under Kenneth’s direction and plays Jamie Dornan‘s son. They must have enjoyed their time on the set of Belfast (2021, my review here), and it translates into this movie as well because both performers did a great job, and especially Jude nailed his role. I hope he has a long career in front of him.

My only real issue with the movie was the non-commitment to the horror genre. I understand you must sell tickets, so Poirot can never be rated R, but it would be nice to push it even further. Especially with a great whodunit mystery, where we talk about a couple of murders and ghosts, the horror genre feels more natural than ever, and all we get are a few pretty predictable jump scares. But other than that, I can’t fault this movie. It’s possible I might rate it slightly higher on a future rewatch, as I did enjoy myself with this cast and setting, and I hope Kenneth has a few more Poirot films in him. As long as he is having fun and trying new things whilst introducing this character to a new audience, I will be there, seated.

Overall, A Haunting in Venice is a great movie that takes the Poirot we know and puts him up against ghosts and, to a degree, himself. He needs to figure out not only “whodunit”, but his core beliefs also get questioned in this slightly spooky continuation of this detective franchise. I liked the cast, the camera work and the setting; I just wished they would commit more to the horror genre. But, if you have a chance to watch this movie, I think you should do it. This film is definitely the best Poirot movie we’ve gotten from Branagh yet, and I hope the next one (if there is a next one) will be even better.

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

Until next time,

Luke

If there was a movie I felt indifferent about this year, Dumb Money was possibly it. Yes, the trailer looked fun; I like every actor in this film, and I was aware of the GME situation, although I didn’t participate in it. However, I felt like it was a bit too soon to make a movie about it, given how “fresh” this story was. And after watching this in the cinema, that would be my only big complaint.

Where Dumb Money shines is in understanding the Gen-Z meme generation. It’s hyper-edited, Cardi B’s WAP plays many times, and the word “retard” is used frequently… Welcome to the Internet in the year 2021, but honestly, not much has changed since. This story focuses mainly on the “leader” of this GME uprising of young people, who pretty much decided to beat the Wall Street guys at their own game. Now, I won’t pretend I still understand every single detail of what exactly happens on the actual stock market, but the movie explains it clearly enough that you won’t ever feel “left behind”. I would compare this movie to The Big Short (2015), except this movie is 10x wilder.

By embracing this meme generation, the movie precisely did what the people on Reddit did at the time – embraced their shortcomings and wore them proudly as badges of honour instead of pretending to be something they were not. You will see many comments and memes about “apes together strong”, and they call each other “retards”, but in this movie’s context, it’s almost a term of endearment rather than an insult. They knew that once this story got big, the mainstream media already had an idea of who your “stereotypical Redditor” was, so they jumped ahead and incorporated chicken tendies, making themselves into a laughing stock whilst making GameStop one of the hottest companies, at least for a while.

What I liked was that they didn’t just focus on Paul Dano‘s character. The writers smartly gave us several different people in different stages of their lives from many backgrounds. It’s easy to root for someone like America Ferrera‘s character, as we all know a mom who is just like her. No matter what she does, she somehow is still in the shit, but she never gives up and continues fighting. Her story arc was also the most heartbreaking, without going into spoilers. I also liked Myha’la Herrold with Talia Ryder, as their relationship was cute, and they provided the window to the core “audience” of Keith’s streams and how influential he became. I can’t forget to mention Anthony Ramos, whom I like more every time I see him in a new film. I can see him becoming a great leading actor at some point; he definitely has the charisma.

As I alluded to, the only problem I had with this movie was that it felt “too instant”. This entire GME saga (at least the portion this movie covers) only happened in 2021. I get that you need to strike the iron while it’s hot and want to make a statement about big corporations against the little guy, with a “little” thing called COVID-19 thrown into the mix, but… I can’t help but think this is too early. Even The Big Short had at least 6/7 years, where we knew much more details about what happened. Plus, the real-life protagonist kind of disappeared, at least from the online world. Wouldn’t it be better to wait a few more years, catch up with him and incorporate that into the movie? Because when the movie is over, it weirdly feels incomplete. Mostly due to the big corporations happily chugging on like nothing happened, but still…

But that is my only “real” complaint. I thought this film was much better than it had any right to be due to the people behind it understanding this generation the movie is about, the Internet culture, and focusing on several people from very different backgrounds living different lives, but ultimately, having the same goal – getting a bit more of that pie that seems to be shrinking every year for us, and each year, the rich get an even bigger slice. Somehow, this film makes that point without coming across as preachy, and I think that should be applauded.

Overall, Dumb Money surprised me on every level. From the great casting to the story and how they told it, I had a fun time. Sure, at times, this movie can be “too much”, but guess what? The world is too much; people nowadays have to deal with so much on their plates, and it reflects everything accurately. I wonder how this movie will age and whether we will look back at it in about ten years and cherish it as a time capsule of the “COVID-19 times” mixed with the resilience of the common people. I would recommend this film, even though I still think it’s a bit too soon for it to exist.

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

Until next time,

Luke

This movie is the perfect example of how little you should trust the overused tagline of “inspired by a true event”. If you just go to IMDb’s trivia page, you will quickly discover how “uneventful” the true story was and how much heavy lifting the word “inspired” does in that sentence. Long story short, yes, there was a drug smuggler who dumped some cocaine out of a plane and died during it. And yes, some of the cocaine ended up getting eaten by a bear, but… He didn’t go on any drug-induced rampage; he simply died by overdosing, presumably within minutes. But see, this is why I love Hollywood because somebody reads about this and says to themselves: “Yeah, but… what if he didn’t die though?” And thus, the Cocaine Bear was born.

From the first trailers, it seemed like Cocaine Bear would be one of those B movies that give you precisely what it promised – a bear who did a lot of cocaine and went on a killing spree. And if you were to summarize this film, that’s honestly it. But, to my surprise, there was much more to chew on. From the casting to the directing, I thought everything was well done, and this movie surprised me a bunch.

I think the biggest surprise was the direction. This is Elizabeth Banks‘ third movie. After an underwhelming Pitch Perfect 2 (2015) and decent but ultimately faulty Charlie’s Angels (2019, my review here), I was worried that she might be one of those artists trying to do everything but end up not doing anything well. You know the old saying, “Jack of all trades, master of none.” But, funnily enough, it was Cocaine Bear who convinced me that she had something going for her, as she managed to blend a few different stories quite well; she understood the pacing and how long this film needed to be, and it seemed talented people want to work with her. As weird as it sounds, I am much more excited about her next project because of her directing a movie about a bear that did cocaine.

When we talk about the cast, where do you start? From legends like Ray Liotta (for whom this is his last film, may he rest in peace) and Margo Martindale (aka Character Actress Margo Martindale) to Isiah Whitlock Jr., O’Shea Jackson Jr., Alden Ehrenreich, Jesse Tyler Ferguson and in the leading role, Keri Russell. They each have vastly different roles to play, but more importantly, each character has a unique quirk that makes this movie much more believable. Many movies struggle with this, as they drop us into a situation where we should feel like this is just another day for these characters. Cocaine Bear succeeded in that regard, and it was due to these quirks (like Isiah’s love for dogs but not being sure about the one he’s gotten now, Aiden’s trying to get over his ex etc.), that this movie felt real.

Also, this movie has two child actors who did a great job. Brooklynn Prince and Christian Convery managed to nail their roles. In many other films, we would almost be rooting for the bear to eat those annoying kids already. It’s an unfortunate truth that most child actors are not that great, but you don’t want to criticise them too much because they are children. But in this movie, both not only nailed their roles, but Henry (Christian’s character) was my favourite character in this film. Especially the scene where he pretends to know how to do cocaine and, in the aftermath of that scene, how he acts high… that was comedic gold. I hope he’s got a bright future ahead of him because I feel like he’s got some chops and talent.

The only thing I could critique this movie for is that towards the end, it became more predictable than I think was necessary, and how our characters meet it didn’t flow as naturally as what happened before. Also, some characters are paper thin with no work put into them, and they just do things because it says so in the script. Case in point, Ayoola Smart‘s character Reba flips sides whenever the script needs her to without us understanding why or where she stands… Maybe there was a longer cut of this film involving more scenes with her? But again, how much character work do you really need in a movie called Cocaine Bear?

Overall, Cocaine Bear is a fascinating case study of many things. It shows us how much “inspired by a true event” can be overexaggerated and reminds us that some people take time to hit their stride (like Elizabeth), and we should allow them to find it. I had a lot of fun with this movie and was impressed with the packed casting, with both kids and, honestly… For a film with such a thin premise, it worked much better than it had any right to. I would recommend it to anybody looking for a great B movie.

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

Until next time,

Luke

When Renfield came out earlier this year, I remember seeing people raving about how great it is and many others how bad it is. Needless to say, I was intrigued. Plus, from only watching a few sneak peeks but never a “proper trailer”, I had little to nothing spoiled for me. Also, by pure coincidence, I watched the original Dracula (1931) a few weeks ago and loved it. And it could be because I watched the original movie pretty recently that I enjoyed Renfield.

Let’s actually start there with how Renfield pays homage to the original film by linking them together, inserting Nicholas Hoult and Nicolas Cage into the original movie. Usually, I am against retconning, but in this case, they actually did it well, so I didn’t mind because the filmmakers didn’t do it to say: “Well, in our version, the original film happened like this, so that’s what you will watch now.” No, they actually recreate a few scenes from the original film, and then they build on that with Renfield, imagining how those two would have worked some 90+ years later. And this is the only retconning I can get behind, not the other: “Well, actually, this is what you didn’t see last time… only so our latest movie made some sense.”

In a twist, the movie is a gory comedy about Renfield and Dracula having this unhealthy co-dependant relationship, and it gets so bad that Renfield (Nicholas Hoult) visits a self-help group where we see him slowly building up his courage to leave this “unusual” relationship. What I liked about this idea is… well, pretty much everything. I thought it was a clever twist to portray Dracula with his henchman, but instead of the grateful servant, he just wants to be left alone after the years of service where he saw suffering and blood and received nothing but abuse from his Master.

This is where we must talk about the casting of the two “Nics” with different spellings. Since I have already mentioned Hoult briefly, let’s start with him. He continues to be one of the best, underused young actors we have working today. I hoped his supporting yet memorable role in Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) would finally get his name out there and get him more leading roles where he can fully showcase his talent. And he’s been working steadily for a while, no doubt about that. But I still think he is one of those “movie people who know him, but the general audience is not so much” actors. I wish he’d reach that mainstream, where his name alone would sell films, because he is always great, if not excellent, in each role. In Renfield, his character serves as a narrator and comedy relief, but he also needs to deliver on the emotional beat of the story later on. It seems almost too much to put on one character, but not for Nicholas Hoult; he nails everything flawlessly.

Regarding “the other Nic”, aka Cage… Yeah, what else is there to say? This dude has had a career revival and plays another role that, weirdly, he seems to be the only one who could do it justice because you need an actor that can go “full Cage”. And you never go “full Cage” unless you are Nicolas Cage. His Dracula is exactly what you might expect from Cage portraying this iconic character. A tiny bit funny, a whole lot of crazy, oddly menacing and weirdly, such a fit. You believe that he would be that psycho “boss” Renfield would try to run away from. Honestly, at this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if, within five years, Cage would win another Oscar, completing his comeback.

I also liked Awkwafina, despite the movie giving her the bare minimum regarding her character development. We get the story about her dad, we get the sense that she might be the only cop in her unit/district who isn’t corrupt and… Then Renfield and her form this bond/relationship? I don’t think that was necessarily bad, but every time we went to her character or Ben Schwartz‘s gangster family, the movie lost a bit of steam for me. I understand without these characters, the movie would have been probably a 40-minute short, but I still think there was a potential to have Awkwafina in this film, lose the entire gangster family sub-plot, focus more on these three characters, and then we could have had a movie that feels “whole”. As much as I enjoyed Renfield, it felt disjointed a bit at times.

Also, if you are not a fan of gore, blood and different kinds of details of people getting brutally murdered, Renfield may not be for you. I was surprised at how gory and “up there” it was, how the camera didn’t pan out and showed us all the details. I loved it because I don’t mind gore, especially when it’s mixed with comedy (see, Evil Dead franchise), but I understand that’s not everyone’s cup of hot cocoa, and it either clicks with you or not. It worked for me just fine.

Overall, Renfield was a fun experience that finally let Nic Cage play the master of darkness, Dracula himself. And in a bit of comedic twist, this movie is more about his henchman and the idea of a toxic relationship between “boss and his employee” rather than between partners. Renfield did what I wanted it to do; it kept me entertained for the majority of the movie, it surprised me at times, I laughed a few times and liked both “Nics”. I can recommend Renfield to anyone looking for a gory, darker comedy.

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

Until next time,

Luke

One concept that has been a staple in sci-fi films is AI. Respectively, how a variety of different AIs will ultimately destroy us all. It’s hard to find a sci-fi movie that deals with this subject and for it not to be us, the humans, fighting for our survival. The Artifice Girl takes a different approach that borderlines on hopeful, but funnily enough, that’s not what the movie is about. It is a movie that can surprise you and show you what can be done on a limited budget.

And that minimal budget shows. It’s not as distracting, and I liked how Franklin Ritch (the writer, director and one of the main actors) managed to squeeze every single cent out of what he had at his disposal and made it work. Sure, at times, you notice the lack of details and the fact the movie is fairly “stationery”, taking place in rooms with no “unnecessary” distractions, but honestly, I didn’t mind that. Or, better said, I didn’t mind it enough to hold it against this film, as what is being said/displayed is more important than the movie’s surroundings.

Without going into “heavy spoilers”, The Artifice Girl starts one way (a guy develops an AI to trap predators and is effectively coerced into working with this agency), but it goes places I didn’t expect. I liked the structure (the movie is split into three distinct chapters that span over several decades), and I thought Tatum Matthews was perfect in her role, adjusting seamlessly to what was asked of her throughout the film. I hope this movie will be a breakthrough for her as I would love to see more of her, and I think it would be interesting to see what else she is capable of as she carries this film.

It’s hard talking about this film whilst trying to stay away from spoilers, but this sci-fi film is different from many that came before it when it comes to dealing with the technology and the implications of having it. It’s almost a mainstream thought that artificial intelligence is not a question of “if” but rather “when”, and this film takes the next step in asking where the line is or if there is one. Once we have an existing artificial intelligence that can think for itself without any input, feel and not mimic feelings, learn, and produce art because it wants to, not because it was designed to do it, is it alive? Can we talk about free will? Or the idea of consent, when we create an AI to do certain tasks, and then it grows and becomes sentient, would consent apply to them as well? These are the questions the film wants you to ponder without giving a definitive yes or no, as it’s not a black-or-white question.

On the surface, The Artifice Girl seems like nothing new under the sun as there have been some movies talking roughly about similar ideas (like Ghost in the Shell (1995, my review here)), but I don’t think I have ever seen a movie that would deal with the idea of consent and AI. It is that kind of movie that can and probably did inspire countless debates about what constitutes being alive… And it does it (mostly) eloquently.

The reason I say mostly is it took me a while to get into the film. I thought for the first roughly 20 minutes, the script was clunky. It was just a mix of exposition and back-and-forth conversation that didn’t flow as well as the filmmaker wanted. And look, it got better after that, plus this was Franklin’s first feature script; therefore, I will cut him some slack. But yeah, if you take a chance on this movie and find yourself in the same boat as me during the first third of this film (intrigued by what’s happening but not being fully “in it”), stick with it; it does get better. Both the second and third chapters feel more organic, the dialogue feels more natural, and the back-and-forth between all our main protagonists feels much smoother.

But aside from that, I can’t say anything negative about this movie. It will be fascinating to see how well (or poorly) this ages, as again, this is one of the few movies that doesn’t see the event of singularity as “doom and gloom for the rest of us”. I truly hope this movie is correct, rather than something like the Terminator franchise. 😉

Overall, The Artifice Girl is a fascinating indie sci-fi that despite its minuscule budget and slightly awkward first 20 minutes, delivered on its premise and beyond. The movie surprised me at times and made me think about AI and ideas we don’t associate with it (like consent) and how we will be “forced” to have these conversations in the future when we reach the singularity. I also liked Tatum Matthews and hope to see more of her in bigger films, I think she has the talent to do great things. If you have never heard of this movie and fancy a great sci-fi, give this a chance.

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

Until next time,

Luke