A handful of people can go by just one name. Yes, nowadays, it’s more common (Rihanna, Beyoncé, Cher, the list goes on and on), but it was not as common back in the 60s and 70s. And regarding “the king”, many think of the name Elvis without even having to say his last name, Presley. A name that became a symbol of this legendary, almost God-like status; it’s wild to me that Elvis is the first biopic about him with a “proper” budget, meaning the first one ever to be released in the cinemas. Yes, we’ve had some TV movies made about him, but nothing as big, fancy and sparkling as this film. And boy, does it scream Baz Luhrmann from every frame.

Whether you love or hate him, one thing can’t be denied – his directing style is unchangeable. You don’t watch one of his movies thinking somebody else directed it; the moment the show (in every sense of that word) starts, you know goddamn well who is behind the camera without checking the IMDb. His unique flair (did you know cinema is derived from kinematic? Well, in Baz’s world, that sentence is true.), his mixing of old tunes with a new artist, his unusual transition shots and reflections… I love his style (after all, his Moulin Rouge! (2001) is still one of my favourite films), and it makes sense that it would be him; who would make a biopic about the bigger-than-life personality Elvis truly was.

Except now, knowing how much he was influenced by black music/artists, there is that side of that story. I saw people talking about it and landing all over the place; some were on the “he was clearly appropriating black culture” spectrum, while others didn’t judge him that harshly. Look, I am not his biggest fan, nor would I even call myself a fan. But from the little I know (and the film makes it quite clear too), he never “stole” anything; he sang songs he loved. What I liked, and this film makes that point well, was how he is reminded several times (by black singers): “If you were to sing this song, you would make more money than we can dream of.” The film acknowledges the divide and his inspiration and isn’t shying away from showing it how it was. But I don’t think for one second Elvis ever appropriated/stole anything from black culture. But we aren’t here to discuss America’s deep-rooted racism and many, many, many issues stemming from that; we are here to discuss this film.

Ever since Elvis opened in the cinemas, I’ve heard mixed reactions. Some fans loved it, others… not so much. It seemed that the majority of people at least agreed that Austin Butler did a great job, and Tom Hanks did not. And I agree with one and disagree with the other. Austin did a spectacular job as Elvis. He lived, breathed and ate the role, and I hope this is only the beginning for this (what seems like) talented actor. Regarding Hanks’s performance, I understand I am on the island, but I thought he did well too. Now, I am not saying he should have been nominated for an Oscar for this role, no. But I feel like had “The Colonel” been more known (and by all accounts, he was as sleazy as portrayed in this film), Hanks wouldn’t have been as panned. Yes, the accent is weird. Yes, the make-up job looks scary. But I thought both of those were supposed to be like that. I thought Hanks took a big swing and mostly landed the hit.

As a film, Elvis is the prime example of being either 40 minutes too long or four hours too short. I know I will sound like a broken record, but for a biopic about such a legend, I think a miniseries would have been more appropriate. Let’s say six or seven episodes, an hour or so each. Why? Because I loved the first hour. I was enjoying everything; Elvis’s youth, understanding of the world, the family dynamic, everything. And when the film goes through the “we need to hit these biopic markers”, that was when the film lost me a tiny bit. Don’t get me wrong; the film is still entertaining, primarily due to Baz’s directing. There is always something visually interesting happening on the screen. It felt like, for the most part, we follow a very stereotypical biopic setup, from “this is where he started to do drugs, here are the ladies, here comes the stress, here comes the pressure”. And I understand, for the most part, the film is pretty faithful to what happened. But I couldn’t help to think of someone who was anything but ordinary, whose name became a term for something special, something almost beyond this world; this wasn’t all it could have been. And that is why I thought rather than making a film that will skip through the time periods rather quickly at times (like when he is down and making “specials”, selling out), I wished we would have explored that more. Because had we done that, those clichés would have worked much better.

The other thing is, if you are a big Elvis fan and want to hear his most iconic songs, this (surprisingly) film is not the best choice for you. As discussed above, since Elvis’s music was influenced by black artists, I liked how Baz decided to mix his songs with a few of the most successful contemporary black artists of today (like Doja Cat). I actually had a conversation about that aspect with one of my co-workers, who said he was disappointed he couldn’t hear those songs sung by Elvis himself; he wanted to hear “the originals”. When I explained why he said he had never thought about it like that. And to me, that’s a (tiny) win. Whenever a film can start a discussion where people learn some facts about one of their favourite performers, that is always worth it.

Overall, Elvis stands slightly above the sweaty shoulders of most modern biopics. Sure, it does fall into the same traps, and I believe there is a good argument to be made that this should have been a limited series, but… Baz almost makes it all work. Yes, sometimes it can be laughable, sometimes it is wild, and sometimes it seems almost unbelievable. But if you read a few things about the real Elvis, you will see how much he managed to do in his extremely short life and, therefore, how this film (or anything made about him) can’t be “normal”. Also, I can’t state this enough, Austin Butler was great.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I remember a period when this film was one of the most recommended films by many movie people I talked about movies with. That was the mid to late 2000s when Peter Dinklage was virtually unknown, same with Bobby Cannavale, and Tom McCarthy was still mostly an actor rather than the Oscar-winning writer and great director he is today (for those who don’t know, he wrote and directed Spotlight (2015)). So yeah, before they all became big in one way or another, they met here in McCarthy’s debut as a director and writer.

It was fascinating going back 20 years and watching them all (alongside Patricia Clarkson and Michelle Williams, by the way) act in this little indie film before they all became huge. And that, weirdly and cruelly, is the only reason this film doesn’t work as it might have 20 years ago as I think the main charm of this film is you not knowing all of these actors are so good. And The Station Agent banks on them a bit too much, as the story kind of goes from somewhere to nowhere.

I realise this was supposed to be one of those “slice-of-life”, character-driven movies, and I usually love those. But I had two issues with this film the predictability of the story and the ending. Let’s start with predictability; when I say this is as indie as it gets, I mean it. And if you have seen a few indie movies (like I have), nothing about this film will surprise you. A man who is quirky or unique in some way gets his life turned upside down when something major happens in his life. In this instance, he inherits a piece of land with a train station. And who would have guessed it; he is, of course, really into trains, where he not only knows different train models and makes, he goes train watching.

So this man (played by Dinklage) moves to his new train station, where he just chills around, getting to know the locals; it’s all about the vibes. One thing that wasn’t clear was whether he happened to have some money saved or maybe he also inherited money along the train station because he doesn’t work and is not in any rush to get a job. Anyway, he meets up with locals, and they slowly become friends; some feelings ensue, and they might or might not return those feelings. Some other things happen I won’t spoil, and then the film ends.

And when I say the movie “just ends”, believe me, it happens without any prior warning. When it seems we might be going towards some resolution or answers, the movie just ends. If you are a frequent reader, you know I have often said I don’t want movies to spell everything out, tie everything with a nice big bow, on the contrary. But The Station Agent is one of the rare exceptions where I wanted more of… everything. I wished to get to know the characters more, as some seemed to only be examined on a surface level (like Bobby’s or Michelle’s characters). And I hoped for some resolution to the story, but this film merely hints at things. And in this case, I didn’t think it worked as well.

But other than those things, The Station Agent is a charming film with incredibly stacked casting full of “soon to be famous” people in front of the camera and (at least one) behind it. It is a delightful little movie full of warm moments that don’t necessarily bring the film together as well. It’s like the pieces/scenes of this film are better than the overall result. I am not saying this film is bad by any means, no. I think if I were to watch it in 2005, let’s say, I would have probably loved it as it would surprise me how many great actors I have not heard about are there. But knowing everything I know about them and watching them in many other shows or movies, I know they all have been much better. I know that’s not fair, and I would love not to have that knowledge and be surprised, but that is impossible. This movie definitely felt like one of those “at the moment” movies; if you saw it in 2003, you would probably remember it fondly. But I am willing to bet you if you were to watch it now, you would see some holes here and there as you won’t be as captivated by the main protagonists because you have seen them all in many different things.

Overall, The Station Agent is a fascinating movie. I believe your enjoyment of it would directly correlate with how many films of “its kind” you had watched before as if you had seen some, nothing about this will surprise you. But if you are looking for one of those slice-of-life films with a cast of great performers before they were famous, this film might be for you. I would recommend it, but with the caveat that if you want to watch a great indie film by Tom McCarthy, do yourself a favour and watch The Visitor (2007). A movie that is still criminally underseen.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I remember the first time I watched a trailer for The Lost City, and that was all it took to hook me in. I like self-aware adventure films; I like Sandra Bullock (not only is she hilarious, she ages better than a fine wine in a French monastery), and Daniel Radcliffe‘s choices continue to surprise me. Plus, since watching both Jump Street films, I knew Channing Tatum has an unexpectedly brilliant comedic talent and timing… this guy is actually hilarious! So when I finally got around to watching this film, I expected to have a good time with zero to no stakes, and that’s what I got exactly.

Let’s be honest; is The Lost City some new, revolutionary comedy during which you will laugh so hard you will piss your pants? No. Is it predictable in almost every aspect? Yes. Does it make fun of a genre of films we don’t really see anymore, at least not done well on the big screen? You bet. But does it also let you know that it respects the genre it is making fun of? Absolutely. The Lost City feels like that kind of film that was designed to bring butts back to the cinemas after the pandemic ended. Or when we decided that we would just ignore it to the best of our abilities whilst hoping that no new, much deadlier, variations won’t arise and eventually kill all of us, same difference. And the task was completed successfully. This film has no desire to blow your mind, to give you something meaningful to ponder; The Lost City simply wants you to have fun.

And for the majority of this film, it works. This film made me realise it’s been almost ten years since we last saw Sandra in a full-on comedy movie; that movie was The Heat (2013, my review here). And The Lost City reminded me how much I missed her in this genre because she is the undisputed queen of that genre. She is funny enough, so she carries this film with ease; she is talented enough to switch between comedy and drama if needed, and most importantly, she knows when to slow down or take a step back to let others around her have their moment. I don’t think Sandra gets the appreciation for the comedy skills she possesses, as she is making it look too easy. So, to the surprise of absolutely nobody, she was great in this film. Her character has funny moments, but she isn’t the centre of attention at all times, which is crucial, as that lets the other performers shine alongside her, not instead of her. And that’s important, especially in some other comedies, and I saw many of them; you could swear you could see the tension between the leading actors. Everybody wants to be “the funny one”, to stand out, and sometimes it shows in the film being simply not funny. But in The Lost City, I felt like Sandra, Channing, and Brad Pitt were just three drinking buddies who had decided one day to make an adventure film together; because why not.

Speaking of Brad Pitt, he might have been the highlight of this film. His over-the-top, nothing can stop me Jack Trainer was a perfect mix of parody and homage to these macho men of mainly the 1980s. I have to repeat myself, but I am enjoying this late stage of Pitt’s career where he got his acting Oscar, and now he seems to be doing projects “just for fun”, where he doesn’t take himself seriously. Good for him, and I hope he continues.

Staying on the “not taking yourself seriously” theme, Channing Tatum, yet again, didn’t disappoint. I think the best thing he decided to do (or maybe somebody gave him this advice some time ago) was: “Don’t be afraid to look absolutely ludicrous.” And he commits, in both Jump Street films and in this movie too; he plays this character of a big, dumb guy who isn’t too dumb to exist but dumb enough for him to be funny, especially when we get a scene or two of his impressive physique. That contrast of him being so awkward and dumb with his physique will never not be funny to me. And this film knows how to utilise it without driving it into overkill. Same with Daniel Radcliffe, who enjoys making odd choices and isn’t afraid to go weird, literally. Even his performance is more subtle than expected, where he never goes overboard with either too nice or too menacing.

And that’s the best thing The Lost City has going for it. It never reached the point of nonsensical jokes or characters that would be so one note they’d become annoying. Again, the worst thing I can say about this film is that it won’t surprise you. There is one “shocking” thing, but even that you will be able to see coming miles away if you have ever seen a comedy. And sometimes, having something reliably predictable can be a nice, almost comforting thing, especially with a cast as great as this one.

Overall, The Lost City delivered exactly; what the trailer promised me some time ago. If you saw any trailers for this movie and it looked good/funny to you, then you should 100% seek this film out as it shouldn’t disappoint you. If you saw the trailer and didn’t like it, it’s probably best for you to avoid this film altogether. That might sound obvious, but from my experience, especially lately, I have seen many great trailers for pretty average to downright terrible movies and vice versa. The Lost City is a rare example where the film delivers on a promise made by a trailer. Nothing less, but unfortunately, nothing more. And based on where you stand, sometimes that’s more than enough.

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

Until next time,

Luke

As a self-proclaimed cinephile, I have seen many Christmas movies, but many more still escape me. Take Jack Frost until not long ago; I only heard about it maybe once before, a long time ago. But it recently popped up on one of the streaming services I pay for (Amazon Prime), and I thought, why not; I might as well expand my horizons with a Christmas film. And with a cast like Michael Keaton, Kelly Preston and Mark Addy, what could go wrong?

And honestly, for the first 40/50 minutes, Jack Frost was a delightful, even if slightly predictable, film. We have the typical “dad works too much and might miss Christmas!” plotline, but here is the thing. Michael Keaton was (and I would argue still is) a charismatic dude, to the point where we should dislike him as the audience (after all, he’s bailing on his son!) I didn’t. What’s more, I understood him, and those scenes we got with him and his son (played by Joseph Cross) felt real because Michael’s character was never too mean/shouty about his mistakes; he sat down with his son and talked to him. That might seem like nothing, but in these Christmas movies, where we usually see this type of conflict, the parent (or the child) can go way too over the top for the main dispute to mean anything.

I also appreciated the inventive cinematography, mainly the snowball fight from the beginning of the film, shot like a war movie, even with some camera angles from the perspective of a snowball. Again, little things, but as they say, they do make the difference because it’s easier to stand out from such an overcrowded market, which in this case are your cookie-cutter Christmas films that are not only the same, but they all tend to look the same too. So I appreciated it when Jack Frost was at least going for something more to latch on to.

The moment I became slightly detached from the film was when Michael Keaton returned as the snowman, aka Jack Frost. That was weird because that should be the main point of this film; dad gets killed and returns the next year as a snowman to make things right. But that was when the film took more of a forced comedy route and started to look and feel more formulaic.

Not to mention the snowman CGI is slightly unnerving. I don’t get spooked easily, but I can understand why some people hate this movie purely because of the CGI alone. One needs to see it in action to comprehend it, as it’s not like it is a creepy design for all of the film, but there are some scenes where the snowman looks more menacing…? It’s hard to describe it correctly; it’s one of those “you just gotta see it to believe it” types of situation.

And these two things took Jack Frost down a peg for me because I don’t know whether I am getting softer as I get older, but I loved the first 40/50 minutes. Before the dad died, I was enjoying the film, whether it was Michael Keaton’s charisma or the stunning beauty of Kelly Preston (it is strange to write about her in the past tense). I was enjoying myself and thought this could potentially become one of those Christmas films I would put on every Christmas season from now on. Now that won’t probably happen, but it’s still a solid movie, and this is where I need to make my last point.

Don’t pay any attention to the rating of this film. For some bizarre reason, Jack Frost is currently rated 5.4/10 on IMDb and only 19% on RottenTomatoes. Sure, the movie is far from flawless, and it can be overly simplistic and sentimental, mainly in the second half, but come on! That is way too low. When I checked those scores after finishing the film, I had to make sure there wasn’t some different version everybody but me watched, but no, most people don’t enjoy this film at all. I would like to know why, especially since we have gotten many, many, many worse Christmas movies that don’t have Michael and Kelly in the titular roles. They also (probably) don’t have a creepy CGI snowman in them too, but that’s beside the point… 😉

Overall, Jack Frost is better than expected Christmas film. I believe; if you can get over the CGI that can be a bit too much at times and some overly sentimental moments, you might enjoy yourself. I can’t say this enough, for some reason, I really liked Michael in this role, at least before he transferred into the snowman because that man is a walking charisma. If you are like me and have never seen Jack Frost, this Christmas would be a good time to fix it. Don’t expect anything spectacular, just your good old-fashioned Hollywood Christmas fluff that is sometimes needed.

Wishing you all Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and whatever else people do or don’t celebrate!

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

Until next time,

Luke

When I first became aware of this film, I was excited. Not many actors have garnered a reputation as unique as Nicolas Cage; it doesn’t matter if you love or hate him, the word that best describes him is truly “unique”. So it made sense for him to go even more meta than in Adaptation. (2002, my review here) and make a movie that should have been the peak of “Cageiness”. Or would it be “Caginess”? Either way, as you might tell from the “should have been”, I thought the movie mostly worked, but overall it didn’t deliver as much as I hoped it would.

This film had to have been made from the fan angle, from someone who truly loves and admires Nic Cage. It’s like with amazing comedy roasts; they only work if the person insulting the “target” of the roast likes/loves them. If they don’t care for them, it can turn awkward really quickly. And you can tell The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent was made from a pure love for Cage and his career, however odd that career might have been. But dare I say it might have been made by a fan who was maybe too close? Tom Gormican not only wrote but also directed this film, and listening to his interviews about this film, you understand that not only he is a fan of Nic’s but also he didn’t want this film to turn “mean” or punch down. And I get it, I don’t think either of us wanted that, but at the same time, I wanted more.

For example, if you already have Nic Cage playing two roles (himself and himself again, as “Nicky”), why not use that for more self-deprecating humour? I get there might have been some references or lines the actual Nic Cage wouldn’t be happy with, but it just felt like the movie scraps the surface as to exploring the vast, intriguing mind of somebody who became a meme back when memes started. Before it was “popular” to make famous people into memes, Nic Cage was already one, for better or worse. And the movie never addresses some of the more obscure roles he became infamous for and that “helped” Nic become the “bigger than life” entity he is now.

And that was my main issue with The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent. The film feels like it’s in on the joke, but only on half of it. For as many crazy scenes as there are in this film, I expected/wanted more. Because we are not talking about any other actor, we are talking about Nicolas fucking Cage here. This approach – kinda biopic, kinda fiction action film seems to want to have it both ways, and I would like to know how much was it down to the director/writer being “too big of a fan” and how down Cage was with being the butt of some jokes. My uneducated guess would be 50/50.

Don’t get me wrong, The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent is a fine film I have enjoyed. I liked the action scenes, I thought Pedro Pascal was brilliant in this film, but everything else besides him and Nic, I could do without. For example, Tiffany Haddish is in this film; and her character is totally pointless. Her character has some funny lines, but overall she and her fellow agents serve no purpose. This film is weirdly split between being an ode to Nic Cage whilst also being an action/spy film, and neither of those is working to their fullest potential. The Nic Cage ode works much better than everything on the action/spy side; I could have lived without it.

And maybe that begs the question – would this be a perfect short film? Would this film work much better as a movie with a runtime of 60/70 minutes with just Cage and Pedro talking about his life and reliving some of their favourite scenes from Cage’s films? Possibly. The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent feels like the classic movie structure hurts this film the most. And if you think about it, where else than this film could we have dropped the need for a certain number of acts? Who needs act two or three? Who needs a plot? If you have a movie titled The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent and it stars Nicolas Cage as himself, do audiences go in and expect a “by the book” film? As the meme with Pedro Pascal goes: “Life is good, but it can be better.” And that’s how I feel about this movie – it’s definitely a well-made action flick that celebrates the career of one of the most unique actors who has ever lived, but it should have been just a tad bit… more. Crazier, bigger, more unhinged.

Overall, The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent is a good time if you are a massive Nicolas Cage fan. If you get at least 50% of all the references, you are in for a good time. If not, you might want to brush up on your Nic Cage filmography a bit before watching this film. I think the Nic Cage storyline mostly works, the other storyline is your average action flick, but it still has so much going for it, the pure joy of Pedro’s performance; I am a bit forgiving. Also, if there is one thing we can all agree on, and this film talks about it very openly is the fact that Paddington 2 (2017, my review here), in fact, fucking rules.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Saving Mr. Banks is one of the prime examples of the golden rule that states: “You don’t take your historical facts from a movie.” No matter whether it’s “inspired by true events” or “based on true events”, there will always be something that has been processed, cut, excluded or overblown for the sake of “movie magic”. And I think that is the correct thing to do, as long as you understand the difference between film vs real life. Take this film, for example. The base of the story is accurate. But if you search how much was changed, tailored with or straight-up omitted from the film (for more information, check out the Wikipedia article for this film), you will see what I mean by saying movies are not historical re-enactments. But that’s because they shouldn’t be. And Saving Mr. Banks is better for it.

I know it’s popular to view Disney corporation as this evil entity that only cares about money, profits and dollar bills. But, part of the reason I liked this film was that it wasn’t about “the Disney” we know and have now; it was (partially) about the person who co-founded Disney – Walt. Tom Hanks delivers a great performance, and I think he portrayed Walt very well. I can only judge based on several interviews I listened to with people who knew and worked with the actual Walt Disney, and their description matches what Hanks delivered on the screen. And that person might have been quirky or weird, but one almost must be like that to do what Walt did. Hanks managed to personify this almost mythical person, and I thought he did well with his performance.

But the main star of this film is undoubtedly Emma Thompson who might have portrayed the most English person who has ever Englished on the silver screen, and I have seen many. I heard some interviews about her (P. L. Travers) and how difficult and strict she was, and I thought Emma portrayed her exceptionally well. There is always a risk of playing a real-life person who was known for being difficult because you don’t want to downplay that, but also, you can’t portray them as an asshole because you, as an actor, have failed. And Emma’s delivery was pristine; she managed to tippy-toe on the line between a hard-ass, a bit of comedic character and a broken old soul who needed somebody to understand the story of Mary Poppins; and what that entails. Again, I am not talking about the real P. L. Travers, this isn’t a documentary. I am talking about the movie version that Emma helped to create, and she absolutely nailed her performance.

Regarding the film itself, I thought it was a well-made 100-minute film that, unfortunately, ran for 125 minutes. The flashbacks to P. L.’s childhood helped from the beginning, but there was a point where I was more invested in the storyline of making the film and not in the past because I understood from only a couple of scenes what it was that made her “tick”. But since this is a Hollywood movie, you can’t just “show, don’t tell”; you need to show, dance around it, and then spell it out towards the end; to make sure everyone understands you.

The perfect example is her resentment of pears. You kind of understand from the first flashback that there was something triggering from her childhood based on the first or second flashback we saw. And honestly, I would have been happy had we left it out like that, but no, we have to get a scene, later on, involving pears for you to “truly understand” why she reacted in such a way. I understand I might be crazy, trying to look for subtlety in a Disney film about a film that’s part of Disney history. But that was my only problem with Saving Mr. Banks; during the first hour, I was really into the film, and it was quite a shock, even for me. But the more the movie continued, the less interested I became because you can only “get it” so many times before the film ends. It’s like listening to a stand-up comedian whose jokes have the same punchline for an hour. Sure, the first two or three jokes will be alright, but if the tenth joke’s punchline is the same as the nine prior, you are walking out. Except I don’t walk out (or, in this case, switch movies off) of screenings (or when at home, don’t stop the film).

Overall, Saving Mr. Banks was a surprisingly charming film with exceptionally great Emma Thompson. I didn’t grow up watching Mary Poppins (1964), I only watched it not that long ago and didn’t care for it that much, and I still managed to enjoy the movie about how Mary Poppins was made. And to me, that’s saying something. So I would suspect if you did grow up watching Mary Poppins, love all things Disney and understand that films can’t be taken as historical facts, you will probably adore this film. I was surprised by how much I liked it. That tells me I probably have to re-visit Mary Poppins.

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

Until next time,

Luke