The Shallows is a fascinating film for me. Firstly I am not too familiar with Blake Lively as an actress. Sure, I have seen her in some movies, but it wasn’t up until recently in the film A Simple Favour (2018), where I have finally seen her as more than “the sexy one”. She rocked in that film (alongside Anna Kendrick), and I knew I needed to see more movies with her. Well, The Shallows is undoubtedly a film where she shines. And she pulls off something not too many actors could – being pretty much the only focus of the movie; she has almost nobody to share a screen with except a seagull.

The Shallows is as raw of a film as they come. There is a resemblance of a “B story” (Blake’s relationship with her family) but only barebones. That might sound like a criticism, but it is not, as the movie knows where its strength lies… well, at least for the most of it. The premise couldn’t be any simpler – imagine being stranded and injured far enough offshore, and a shark is circling around you. Not letting you do pretty much anything. Your phone is on the beach, and that beach? Yeah, “famously” unknown one, where only locals know where it is, so there is little foot traffic. And you know that nobody can help you even if they wanted to, because they wouldn’t know where they should start looking for you.

That is this movie in a nutshell. And for about 80% of it, I’ve loved it. I love when filmmakers go back and strip their films to bare bones. When they have one “basic” idea, and they execute it well. And when they hire the right people. Or, in this case, the right person. Yes, there are some other actors in this movie. But for the vast majority of it, Blake is on her own, with minimum lines. And I think she nailed it. It’s always challenging when you need to act without saying too much when you don’t have lines of dialogue to “hide behind”. It almost opens the actor up to be more vulnerable. And Blake is not only “not bad” to look at (translation – as if we needed another reason to envy Ryan Reynolds. Come on, you can’t be a funny, philanthropic, successful businessman and also form a great looking power couple with Blake alongside you that just isn’t fair. :-)) but she kills the role. You can tell how her character goes through stages of anger, denial and ultimately almost gives up any hope. You are on the journey with her (and her seagull friend Steven Seagull, which is unquestionably an excellent name for a seagull), and you can feel every bruise she’s gotten. You can feel when she is angry, sad or almost given up any hope, and it’s heartbreaking. To say I was impressed with her performance would be an understatement. And then, once I’ve learned that she was pregnant while filming this… my imaginary hat is off.

The movie itself worked for me until the very last 20 minutes or so. Because I get it, we have a shark movie, so eventually, you (as the director) feel obliged to show us the shark more and more, and of course, the main heroine should go toe-to-toe with it. Unfortunately, the movie’s budget didn’t support it, and the sudden (yet expected) shift to action territory didn’t work for me. I would have admired the movie more if it had the balls not to do that. Maybe a “chase” sequence towards the end, where we could see Blake’s character, with her last breath, would desperately try to swim while trying to keep the shark out of the way?

According to the IMDb’s trivia, one of the reasons Blake decided to make this movie was Ryan, who acted in a similar “minimalistic” film called Buried (2010). See for yourself:

Blake Lively was partly inspired by her husband Ryan Reynolds work in the similarly minimalist film Buried (2010), stating “that was one of the reasons why I wanted to take on this movie so much, because I know how tough that was for him and how rewarding it was.”

Source: IMDb.com

And I think by her admitting that it’s fair to compare them “like for like”. Because those movies are similar, to a point, and that is the ending. As Buried (a superb film where Ryan Reynolds showcases his talent. I would 100% recommend it, it’s worth the watch) had the balls to end the movie… without going into spoilers for that film, let’s say in not such a traditional way. And that is why it stuck with me. It’s been over ten years since I’ve last seen it, and I still remember it vividly. Whereas The Shallows I will remember mainly due to Blake’s performance and the unfortunate fact that they didn’t land the ending. I really wish the people behind this film didn’t feel the need to have an action sequence that effectively takes you out of something that (for me) was drama mixed with thriller. And it worked and was built up really well.

Overall, The Shallows is worth seeing. Especially if you are like me and you are not that familiar with Blake Lively as an actress. I can’t think of anything negative I would say regarding her performance. Blake, quite simply, shines and makes the movie. The film itself is a fine mix of drama and thriller that, for the most part, knows that simple = better. Then, for the last 20 minutes, it forgets this lesson and tries to give you an action sequence. And some people might enjoy it, but it took me out of the film completely. But other than that, I can’t recommend this film 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 with many movies considered “classics” or “cults”, Ghost in the Shell has been missing me ever since I’ve learned of its existence. And to be fair, even now, it’s hard to watch it legally, as all of my streaming services haven’t had it. But finally, I have managed to watch it (hooray for subscription services with 7day free trial!). And I loved the film visually. I thought the film story-wise was decent enough but… it might have been too late for me to be blown away by it.

What I mean by that is quite simple. Ghost in the Shell’s fundamental theme is “yet again” do synthetic beings (it doesn’t matter how you call them) have a soul? If they have dreams and aspirations, does that make them human? Or are they inherently not human because we made them using wires, motherboards and optics…? The reason I said “yet again” is straightforward – a good chunk of sci-fi films have been dealing with this question almost ever since the genre was established. And I have also managed to see the remake (Ghost in the Shell, 2017) starring Scarlett Johansson. That meant I went in knowing what to expect. And for what it’s worth, and I know I will piss off a few people by saying this, the remake wasn’t that bad. Sure, the original is better, and they should have cast somebody else to honour the source material. But from the few things I remember about it, they tried their best.

But we are here to talk about the original, so let’s do it. As I said before, the visuals still get you even today. There are moments in this film where the camera just flows throughout the city for a couple of minutes. And at first, I was slightly confused as to why. But then I got it. This film knows how to put you in the proper mood. The people behind this knew what they were doing. The same goes with the story; we can see from early on that there is more to our main character. The mystery is also intriguing, and the movie’s pacing is fine.

My only real issue is something that it’s not this film’s fault. Unfortunately, I have seen it a bit too late in my life. So, the story could not have had any significant impact on me. As mentioned before, even your average moviegoer could probably name you five films with this theme. Let alone somebody like me, who has watched most of the sci-fi films available. What can I say, I watch everything, I don’t have a genre I would avoid, but I 100% have my favourite genres. And sci-fi would be in my personal TOP 3, no questions. So I can’t pretend to sit here, writing about this film like I would see something that I have not seen done before and, to be honest, even better.

That doesn’t mean I can’t stop and admire what this movie has managed to do for its time. That is the thing with many movies that might have been almost revolutionary at their time, inspiring young people to find more sci-fi films/stories, maybe make some too. Sometimes, you get to watch those films a bit too late to appreciate them fully. To fully admire them because it seems like this story and themes have been linked with the sci-fi genre itself, by the time you grew up (especially loving movies the way I did), you would have seen tens of films “just like this one”.

But I won’t lie, there is something about this film. So when it was over, I knew that one day I would want to rewatch it. And this time, I will make sure to watch it in the original language, not dubbed. Ok, before you throw the newly sharpened pitchforks in my general vicinity, let me assure you of something. I always watch films in their original language with subtitles. But, unfortunately, the only service that had this movie on I knew of only had it dubbed. And to be fair, the dubbing wasn’t horrible, but I could tell it just wasn’t “it”. So there goes another reason to rewatch it, sometime in the future.

Overall, Ghost in the Shell is a visually stunning movie that still has something to say. The only thing about its message is how many sci-fi films have you seen before watching this one. If the answer is “way too many to count”, you will be in the same “boat” as me, where you might still enjoy and appreciate this film for what it is, but it won’t “rock your socks off”. But if your answer is “not too many”, please watch this film, and you might find something unique, something that might make you think and something easy to look at. I will 100% re-watch it at some point.

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 watching the live-action Disney remakes, you know it’s been a while since one worked well. For my money, ever since Cinderella (2015, my review here) and The Jungle Book (2016) came out, we’ve gotten average and below the average films. That was the main reason I had minimal hopes for Cruella, even though I adore Emma Stone and Emma Thompson. Because here’s the thing – there was never any shortage of great actors in Disney films, but that didn’t always translate into a better movie. But it did translate it here.

Cruella feels like a punk-rock, rebellious film. Well, as much as it can be those things while still being under the Disney umbrella. I think, if we put aside the acting (which I will praise soon), that is why I enjoyed this film more than I expected – it had a great “vibe”. It felt way different from anything Disney produced up until this moment. It also didn’t lean into the whole “we need to wink at the audience as much as possible because prequel” too heavily; it mainly did its thing. And that thing was – let Emma Stone be a bad-ass.

Yes, Cruella is a one-woman show for Emma Stone. We have known she was a talented actress for a while now, but yet again, she reminds us that she can do little to no wrong. She could have easily done it for the paycheck; she could have phoned it in, but no. She went there, and because of her, I was on board from the first moment. Part of that was it wasn’t the typical “from clumsy idiot to superstar” journey. The movie shows you that even before she gets the job working for Emma Thompson’s character, she isn’t some shy, clumsy person with a bit of talent. You know how that usually is the cliche, so the person we should care about has the “glow-up” afterwards. Instead of that, we see Cruella as this kid who was always getting into problems. But because of her talent, her individuality rather than clumsiness. I liked the fact that they have done something to establish her character from early on. And once she grows up and “becomes” Emma Stone, that’s a winning combination. She’s the perfect combination of talent, sass and attitude you would imagine Cruella to be.

But no “villain” is great on their own, and here, we have Emma Thompson. At first, her employer, who sees something in this young girl, then becomes her rival in the fashion world. That was the part of the film I liked the most – seeing all those designs, how Emma Stone is the new “it girl” on the scene, and Emma Thompson’s character goes through a believable change from “I am not worried about her” to “We need to get on top of the “Cruella” situation”. Their rivalry and scenes of two Emma’s were 100% highlight of this film.

My only real issue with this film was its length. The run time of 134 minutes was definitely “a bit” too long, and the movie could be trimmed by at least 20 minutes. Especially towards the end, when Emma Thompson’s character figures out who Cruella is, the movie seems to come to a halt, and until the last confrontation of the two Emma’s, the film slows down massively. As much as I appreciate the slightly darker and realistic take on this iconic villain, “more realistic” shouldn’t always mean “this movie needs to be over two hours long because it is cinema!”

But other than that, I can’t say anything bad about Cruella. Maybe it was the expectations I came to the movie with. Perhaps it was the simple fact the people behind this film tried something new(ish) and didn’t rely too much on the existing material and made it their own. But one thing is for sure – both Emmas lifted this movie where it belongs. Especially “the main” Emma carries the film on her shoulders, and she does it with such ease, you feel safe. Some actors can be in a bad movie and still make you feel secure about what you are watching and she 100% is one of the finest ones.

Overall, Cruella is by far the best live-action film based on the original Disney property we’ve had ever since 2016. That doesn’t mean the film has no flaws. But except for the longer than necessary runtime, I couldn’t find any because I was enjoying the feel of this film too much. The fashion the soundtrack, and to top it all off, Emma Stone. She commands this film so well that even if you watch this movie and won’t like it as much as I have, it is still worth seeing for her performance alone. If you haven’t seen it because you are like me, “slightly” fed up with these live-action remakes that are usually (below) average, try to watch Cruella. And just like me, you might be pleasantly surprised.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Dune might be the very first attempt to film the “unfilmable”. I remember growing up and seeing stories about how the series of books are so complex there is no way to film them properly. And I think that was one of the reasons I avoided this film because I was almost scared, in a way. I knew it failed on pretty much every level – fans didn’t like it, critics despised it, it flopped hard in the box office and to this day, it’s the only movie of his, David Lynch refuses to talk about, as the memories are so painful for him.

And who could blame him? He didn’t have a final cut, he shot over four (!) hours of footage, but because movies at that time had a maximum length of 137 minutes, that is this film’s runtime… But don’t take my word for it, see for yourself:

David Lynch (January 13, 2006) : “Dune, I didn’t have final cut on. It’s the only film I’ve made where I didn’t have. I didn’t technically have final cut on The Elephant Man (1980), but Mel Brooks gave it to me, and on Dune the film, I started selling out, even in the script phase, knowing I didn’t have final cut, and I sold out, so it was a slow dying-the-death, and a terrible, terrible experience. I don’t know how it happened, I trusted that it would work out, but it was very naive and, the wrong move. In those days, the maximum length they figured I could have is two hours and seventeen minutes, and that’s what the film is, so they wouldn’t lose a screening a day, so once again, it’s money talking, and not for the film at all, and so it was like compacted, and it hurt it, it hurt it. There is no other version. There’s more stuff, but even that is putrefied.”

Source: IMDb.com

It was hard to go with my usual “open mind” attitude into the film I knew so much about, how it’s badly edited, how they tried to jam so much complex info into that runtime… I’ve always heard how the books are great but complex. And this movie made the already complex story even more confusing. So, fearing the worst, I finally decided to watch it, just before the latest attempt “to film the unfilmable” came out (there might be a review for the new Dune (2021) coming soon ;-)) to see how bad, confusing and dated this movie actually was. And I am not going to lie; I was surprised at how much I enjoyed myself.

Dune has problems, no questions about that. I am not going to try to spin it, that this is somehow a masterpiece everybody misjudged, but I am the chosen one who sees things nobody has managed to catch in the last almost 40 years now. No. But I never thought it was confusing, I was able to follow the story well enough (as a person who hasn’t read any of the books yet), and the cast was… yes, 80s as fuck. But I somehow felt everybody was trying their best. I liked Kyle MacLachlan‘s performance; I enjoyed Jürgen Prochnow as his dad and the insanity of Sting‘s performance.

As I always say, it’s easy for us to sit on our comfy thrones, judging a film that’s almost 40 years old now and laugh at the visual effects, which were outdated in 1982, let alone 1984 when this movie came out. It’s easy to say how over-the-top everything here feels because back then, studios wanted everything to feel the same, and there is an undeniable Star Wars influence on this film because that was popular at that time. But I am not going to do that. I went into this film as I would go into any other movie, trying to enjoy myself; with what was happening in front of me. Not what I want(ed) to happen what I know now would have been better because I am “armed” with today’s knowledge… and I had a good time.

Honestly, for me, the biggest problem with this movie must have been the studio interference and not giving David Lynch the final cut and the runtime this film needed. Because for most of this film, the story goes someplace and then, suddenly, when things are starting to get interesting, the narrator tells you: “Over the next two years, this is what happened…” And this works against this film on every level. As if you are a “normal” moviegoer, you don’t want to be told what happened; you want to see what happened. And if you are an “abnormal” moviegoer like myself who knows a lot about behind the scenes stories of certain films, that is when you remember why this film had such a reputation. How David Lynch didn’t get what he wanted, and as a result, there are versions of this film where he doesn’t have the director’s credit. Instead, “Alan Smithee” is credited as a director. That is a pseudonym used by many directors who wanted to have their names removed from the final product for various reasons. If you want more information, read it for yourself here. And that is why the time jump kills the film it doesn’t work for anybody, let alone the film itself.

I need to repeat this again – I haven’t read the books. So I understand there might be one thousand and one reasons for the fans to hate this version I have never considered. And as always, movies based on books are tough for me because I get it. I honestly understand if you read the book(s) and you are disappointed with the film because things get changed, or you imagined some scenes/characters differently. But, at the same time, I try my hardest to judge movies based on books solely on the quality of films. The perfect example is the Harry Potter franchise. I have read every single book and loved them. And the movies, even though I love those too, are very different. But guess what? I can still enjoy both because I get it. The books have details, and sometimes, things happen one way in the books and another way in the movies because at the end of the day, it’s a different medium, and also it’s the director’s vision/interpretation of the book. Plenty of people tend to forget that aspect of adapting a movie that many directors can respect the source material, but that doesn’t mean they should be afraid to change a few things here and there if they believe it would improve their movie. And, here’s the final thing about this film – it made me want to read the books.

And maybe that is the reason I have enjoyed myself more than others. I found it easier to ignore things that didn’t work because I was truly invested in the story. When the movie ended, I knew I needed to read it for myself. And not only the first book but all other books in the series (there are six books). And I will do that. Could there be a better recommendation for a film based on a book? If, at the end of it, the movie managed to convince you that you need to read the source material for yourself?

Overall, Dune is a sci-fi film from the 1980s with everything that goes along with that. I went in expecting the worst, knowing very well the behind the scenes stories of how everyone and their mum hated it. To my amazement, I managed to have fun with this film. It’s not perfect by any means. The time has not been kind to the special effects, and some performances were “slightly” all over the place. But I’ve never felt bored. And this movie convinced me to check out the books. If you are like me and have never seen this movie, go and try it for yourself. Especially if you are a fan of old sci-fi films, you might be as surprised as I was that it’s not as bad. Or you might think I went mad because I recommended you this, the choice is yours. 😉

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

Until next time,

Luke

Jackie Chan has always been a superb action star, but he became boxed in silly action comedies. So even though he got to showcase his unique fight moves/choreography plenty of times, he didn’t do that in plenty of serious action films. Hence The Foreigner came, trying to showcase what Jackie is capable of doing at his age. Especially in the “let’s showcase Jackie’s acting ability, not just the fact he can fight” department, and I think it succeeded. And even the rest of the film is made thrillingly. It grips you and doesn’t let you go until the very end. But I had one major problem.

The Foreigner‘s plot can be summed up by one sentence: “What if IRA came back?” Well, it is a frightenedly valid question, especially in the current post-Brexit climate. The movie doesn’t do the “here is what IRA was/is about”, like many other films before this one. It presumes you might have heard about them. It throws us into the terrorist attack, and we see everything through Jackie’s eyes as he loses his daughter during it (this isn’t a spoiler). Unsatisfied with nobody telling him more about who is responsible, he takes it upon himself to get “justice” for his daughter’s death. As of course, he might have had something in his past that helps him. You might say he’s got a particular set of skills… wait, wrong movie.

I am not going to lie. I have enjoyed this movie a lot. I have always loved action movies made by Martin Campbell, as he seems to know what he’s doing and can deliver consistently great blockbusters. I also liked Jackie’s performance. The fact that for most of the film, he is a serious, broken man who only wants some answers and to avenge his daughter’s death. My only issue with this film was how quickly and easily he managed to get on the right track determining who was responsible. And here, I will have to go spoilers to explain it properly…

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

The whole plot of this movie relies on Jackie’s character doing his investigation. Great. And he sees one article about Pierce Brosnan‘s character having his past linked with IRA. But he no longer is involved, as that was 30 years ago, and he is a prime minister now. But Jackie somehow knows to go to him and demands names. And this is where the movie loses me a bit – of course, Pierce’s character is behind it. Pretty much the first Irish man Jackie sees (and the most powerful, you know, as Pierce’s character is the prime minister) must be involved with IRA, just because he was once involved. I understand what the movie was trying to say. If you were once involved with a group like this, you are never fully out, but… this just seemed lazy to me.

Because The Foreigner is anything but lazy, all the other storylines and plots throughout this film were fun and intricate, which I liked. But the main storyline or the way Jackie arrived at the correct solution by basically going to the first Irish man he saw, somehow presuming he knew something… Give me a break. If we had some scene where we could see Jackie’s character getting a tip from “an old friend, who is still in the game” or something like that, I would have been way happier. Because the way the movie went about this was almost anticlimactic. And also, really lazy. Because think about it – what if Pierce’s character wasn’t actually behind the attack? We would have had a way different story on our hands, where Jackie’s actions (effectively blackmailing Pierce’s character just because of his past) would have been way harder to justify. Luckily, he was right, so I guess a bullet dodged there…?

What annoys me the most is, if it wasn’t for that detail, I would have no reason to rate this movie higher. Everything else was enjoyable. The action sequences were nice and clear, I have appreciated the more intricate storylines “on the side”, and I liked how they only gave us “enough” information about Jackie’s character. We only learn a bit about him. We can tell he was some sort of special forces in the past, that is why he’s as good as he is, but there is still this mysterious cloud about him, where you can tell there is more to him.

I appreciated that most of the actors were Irish or from the UK (as the story takes place in Ireland and England), so nobody needs to pretend to have an accent. Even though I will admit, it was weird hearing Pierce’s Irish accent in its full… glory? Irishness? Either or, it was great seeing or mainly hearing that fact, as too often, it’s some American actor(s) trying British accents for better or worse.

Overall, The Foreigner is close to a perfect action movie, full of intricate storylines. Jackie Chan is doing something he hasn’t done in a while (and I would say for mainstream audiences, this might be their first time seeing him act in a more serious film), and the movie doesn’t bore you one bit. It’s just a shame about the main storyline, how easy it was for our hero to be correct, and how effectively he “stumbled” upon the right answer. But other than that, I can’t fault this movie. It’s definitely worth the watch.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Ted 2 is a strange movie to write about. Why? Well, when I wrote about the first Ted (2012, my review here), I mentioned how surprised I was by the fact it’s fever jokes and more story than I expected from Seth MacFarlane. And with Ted 2, it’s the total opposite. Yes, there is still a narrative that drives everything forward, but it’s way more predictable, and it almost feels like there are no stakes. And that is compensated with more jokes that will remind you that Seth is the same guy who created Family Guy (1999 – ?). Because most of the jokes in this film are just random, nonsensical things. Almost cutaway scenes, the same as in Family Guy. And here’s the weird thing – I still like this sequel, as much as I like the original movie.

It’s impressive that somebody can “simply” switch to more random comedy bits but still somehow ground it in a resemblance of a story (Ted fighting to be acknowledged as a person) and for this film to feel familiar yet different at the same time. It almost felt like Seth cracked the sequel formula, where he gave us everything we were familiar with from the original Ted (except Mila Kunis, who was pregnant at the time, that’s why she wasn’t part of this film), but went with the more random approach. I know some people hate this comedy because they think it’s easy. The truth is, it can be done badly because random does not equal funny. But there is something about the way Seth does it in Family Guy and in this film that simply works for me.

Ted 2 is a sequel that is tonally so different it makes it almost unique. I remember watching it in the cinema when it came out and thinking: “Hey, that wasn’t bad.” But the general response was lower than for the original Ted. And I think that has nothing to do with the quality of the movie, but possibly with the fact that the unexpected became expected. Let me explain – a lot of people went to see the first Ted movie not knowing what they were in for. So they were surprised (most of them pleasantly) that there was a funny comedy with a unique concept. And with Ted 2, the surprise (teddy bear, who drinks, smokes weed, and bangs hookers) no longer works because people knew what to expect. So the expectation might have been a bit too high for this film. I have recently re-watched it, and I can say it plays just as well as the first time. And especially watching it back to back with the first movie made me realise how similar yet different these two films are.

Who stole the movie for me was Amanda Seyfried. Her Sam L. Jackson character was just a great mix of the “straight” character, who knew exactly how to react. What I have appreciated the most was how she played the same-ish character, effectively replacing Mila and being the new love interest for Mark Wahlberg, but she played it differently. Because unlike Mila, who was by far the smartest out of that trio (her, Mark, Ted), Amanda’s character might not be the sharpest tool in or even outside the shed. However, Amanda portrayed her in a way that was endearing but also believable. Is her character a bit slow sometimes? Yes. But does she have a huge heart (and Gollum like eyes) in the right place? Also yes. Plus, her character never goes “fully” stupid. That’s always a risk of playing somebody who isn’t 100% switched on. Some actors decide to take those characters over the line, where it stops being funny. But not Amanda. Her Sam character was believable, funny and charming. She made that look way easier than it is portraying this character this way. I honestly think Amanda Seyfried is just an overall underrated actress, and she isn’t given enough credit, especially for her comedy chops.

As with the previous film, my only complaint is its predictability. Especially in this film, which is focused more on jokes than the story, the “formula” is more visible. Also, the fact we had to bring the villain from the first movie back (even though I still loved the way Giovanni Ribisi portrays the character of Donny) and almost force him into the film wasn’t necessary. It worked overall, but it didn’t feel as natural, is what I am trying to say.

Overall, Ted 2 might seem like it’s pretty much the same movie as Ted, but that’s not true. It goes much deeper into the “random/cutaway” comedy Seth is more known for, and the story that’s trying to comment on civil rights goes into the background because of it. But it doesn’t feel like a “cheap” sequel that was made “just because”. It gives you enough variety to make it easy to watch plenty of jokes still work, Amanda Seyfried was a great addition, and there is one surprise cameo in the middle of the movie, and after the credits, that’s just cherry on top of the cake. I won’t name the actor, just in case you don’t know, but it’s a proper A list celebrity in one of those random jokes. That is where this movie truly shines, and if you are on board with those, you will enjoy 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