The Evil Dead franchise might be the most consistent horror franchise there is. Sure, you can argue it’s down to them “only” having five movies, unlike the “big three” (Jason, Freddy and Michael) having at least 8 – 12 movies each, and sure, that is part of it. But I believe the big chunk of it also goes into having your “big bad” being this invisible evil that possesses anyone and everyone, and there is no escaping it. And it’s only up to the filmmakers behind each movie (and the Ash vs Evil Dead show (2015 – 2018)) how they will approach each sequel. Evil Dead Rise might be the most departure ever, as for the first time in this franchise, we are in a big city rather than the usual “cabin in the woods”, so I was a bit scared about that. Surprisingly, it worked beautifully.

This film is one of the prime examples of “they understood the assignment” I have ever seen. The Evil Dead franchise is not just about blood, gore and guts flying everywhere, despite that is what many might think. But no, the big part of why this franchise has survived since the 80s is having a great lead. And ever since the Evil Dead (2013) remake, we all understood that Bruce Campbell is irreplaceable, so why try and give us someone like him? That is why newer movies steered away from having your traditional male protagonist and gave us female leads. But this time, we have (kind of) two, with Alyssa Sutherland and Lily Sullivan playing sisters, one of which gets possessed by the evil and goes “a bit” nuts, as customary in these movies. And I loved every second of it.

This is also the first movie in this franchise that is more about family. Respectively, we follow the two sisters and three kids (technically one kid and two teens) and how they deal with this whole “our mum just became a deadite who wants to kill us” situation. Believe it or not, but that can ruin your entire night. So not only Evil Dead Rise changed the setting, but for the first time ever, we follow (more or less) one family instead of a group of friends who are up against this ancient evil. Both of these major changes not only worked for me but also elevated this sequel, which could have felt empty and unimaginative, into a new, fun territory. I cared about this family; I was rooting for them to survive, and when some made it whilst others didn’t, it felt different than when it’s “just” another teenager who gets killed.

Speaking of kills, that’s something this franchise was never short of. As ever, Evil Dead Rise is full of imaginative, disturbing, gross, over-the-top killing scenes, and I loved it. From the cheese grater scene to the tattoo scene or even the opening lake sequence, everything felt right. This movie never overdid it with cheap jump scares (another plus point in my book) and relies on the good old-fashioned blood, guts, gore and more blood to get a reaction out of you. What helps is Alyssa Sutherland (I don’t think it’s a spoiler to say she turns evil) is phenomenal as “deadite Ellie”, and her reactions, line deliveries (“Mommy’s with the maggots now.“) and overall performance is one of the best in this franchise, I enjoyed her performance and was (strangely) rooting for her, whilst being scared of her.

When you think it can’t get any bloodier, the finale happens. And without spoiling it for anyone, let me simply say that nobody does blood showers like the Evil Dead franchise. The ending convinced me that this movie is bonkers, but my type of bonkers. It’s the fifth movie in this gory franchise, with each being different from the previous one, but somehow, they all have the same “vibe”. Whether it’s more comedic or horror-skewed, whether we are in the cabin in the woods or in the big city or whether we found ourselves in the past or in “today”, you know that once the evil is released, nobody and nowhere is safe. Evil Dead Rise achieved that feeling of urgency whilst giving us worthy protagonists that make us root for them as they will keep fighting, no matter how dire the situation gets. In the horror world, this is unique, and this might be the only “big” franchise I would love to see pop up every couple of years with a new instalment, as long as they keep hiring people who understand what makes these movies great. Lee Cronin (the writer and director) seemed to get it; if he wants to do a sequel or another standalone film in this universe, I will be there.

Overall, Evil Dead Rise is the fifth movie of what might be the bloodiest horror franchise out there, and it still felt fresh. The two major changes (the environment and having a family instead of a group of young people) have worked brilliantly due to a great cast and people behind the camera, who seemed to understand what makes this beautifully twisted and gory world… Well, beautifully twisted and gory. Sure, can I nitpick and find a tiny flaw or two? Yes. But I had a great time, didn’t get bored and was left pumped and wanting more by the end of this movie. The ending, by the way, was so satisfying to watch. What else could I possibly want from a fifth movie in this franchise? If you are a fan of everything Evil Dead, you shouldn’t miss this one.

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

Until next time,

Luke

It’s been a while since I reviewed an older movie, let alone an older horror movie. And since we are close to finishing the Spooky Season (aka the month of October), I decided to finally start one of the last horror franchises I haven’t seen yet, Hellraiser. Despite its age, I didn’t know much about the movie except for the iconic character of Pinhead. But I didn’t know anything else, the crux of the story (or the franchise); I didn’t know how beloved or not the sequels were; I just knew it’s one of those with many, many, many sequels (nine sequels, one remake so with this original film, it accounts for 11 movies in total). As I write this review, I just finished the fourth one (Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996)), but I won’t review them all here, as this franchise already managed to devolve into a mess. An enjoyable, grizzly, R-rated mess, but still a mess; however, the original is worth talking about.

The biggest surprise of the original Hellraiser was the absence of Pinhead. I don’t think this is a spoiler, and he is definitely in this movie, but he isn’t the villain, at least not in this movie. He is treated almost like the shark from Jaws (1975) – you are aware of his existence, and he pops up here and there with his Cenobites, but this movie isn’t as much about him as it is about this family, who seems all happy and fine, on the surface, but there are secrets. Especially with Julia, played by Clare Higgins, we are in for a ride. So, from the start, I was shocked by the unexpected, but I liked this element, focusing more on the characters, building up the story and why we should be afraid of Cenobites.

The film does that well; I liked following this family and loved all the imagery. Speaking of that, I must discuss the main crux of this franchise – the body horror element. I was shocked how a movie from 1987 with all its practical effects can still be as effective now when it’s soon to be 40 years old. The Hellraiser franchise helped define and make this genre more mainstream, without any doubt and therefore, unlike other horror films, this won’t play well with many people. Your tolerance must be high towards hooks pierced through various parts of the human body, tearing it apart, or this near-dead person who slowly grows back, and we can see all the veins, flesh, blood… I am not squeamish, so I didn’t mind all that stuff, and I admired how it still looks great even today, but I totally get if this movie is too graphic for others. If you can watch slashers but don’t like anything more detailed, gory and over-the-top, maybe skip this franchise.

I will admit I don’t think this movie is perfect. I thought there were parts that could have been potentially cut (especially in the middle), and some performances can be a bit over-the-top (I am not going to name any names, Sean Chapman knows who he is). But here is the thing about that, it’s all so delightfully different. Hellraiser is one of those movies that can be described as “vibe”. You can tear it down here and there for some details, but if you accept the atmosphere and the world they built and “just go with it”, you will have a blast. And towards the end, you won’t care about those tiny blemishes; you are fully in this metal, over-the-top body horror movie that doesn’t pull any punches. At least, that was my experience. For the majority of this movie, my rating was around 4*, but the longer the movie played, the more I found myself captured by this world and its unique atmosphere. This is why I love horror movies; they don’t have to be perfect for you to love them; they should make you believe in their world and convince you why their “big bad” is the biggest and baddest of them all. Hellraiser succeeded in this category, as well as its sequel, Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988). I am not sure whether I would recommend the sequels (at least the two I have seen), but I know my completionist ass will finish this franchise one way or another.

Overall, Hellraiser is a perfectly imperfect movie you will love if you let the movie take you on a wild journey. I admire how, in 1987, when the world was already familiar with Jason, Freddy and Michael, Clive Barker showed up, said: “Hold my meat hooks”, and delivered a character who is as iconic as the most iconic horror movie villains. I would recommend this movie, as long as your stomach can digest body horror pushed to the limits (of what 1987 allowed). Don’t sleep on this movie for as long as I have.

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

Until next time,

Luke

Around June or July, I started to hear excellent things about Past Lives, but as with some smaller films, it takes a while for them to be released in the UK cinemas if they even get a cinema release. But luckily, this one finally got one, and I was able to catch it. Nothing about this movie is “instant”. Past Lives is a slow-paced film; it talks about this “what if” idea we have seen in the last couple of years a lot, and it does it all very deliberately. It’s one of those “mood films” where you must let it go under your skin, need to accept its tempo, and then you will enjoy it. And it 100% deserves to be enjoyed, seen and celebrated. The more I thought about this film after it was finished, the more I loved it.

The biggest strength of Past Lives is its self-awareness. Celine Song understands that the audiences in 2023 have seen many “what if” or “multiverse concept” movies, as that’s the main theme of this one as well, the idea of what would happen if Nora (Greta Lee) stayed in Korea, whether she would stay with her childhood love (Teo Yoo). Where the self-awareness kicks in is this is a “what if” movie on a small budget, so don’t expect anything “fancy”. No; instead, it gives you brilliant characters with actual depth. There is a scene in the bedroom around halfway through the film where Nora talks to her husband (John Magaro), and that scene helped me understand and, to a certain level, unlock this film. Because there are no villains in Past Lives, you may think you know where this is going, but the film is smart enough to flash out all its characters, so there are just… people. I soon started to realise how easy it would have been to tell this story in an easier, likeable way, you know the drill, the husband doesn’t love her or is not attentive, etc., but this film doesn’t do that. It asks you to take a step back, gives you the scenario, lets you decide how you feel about this situation and asks you what you would do.

Another point I loved about this movie is how it will mean so much to people like me, who emigrated in their lives and left everything behind. I am sure I am not the first or last person to stop and think about my life and how it would look like had I stayed in my home country. What made it even more relatable is that I find myself in the same boat as Nora; I like my life now, I made something of myself, have friends and a long-term girlfriend and yet… You can’t escape those “what if” thoughts when talking to friends and family you left behind. Many people quote a few different lines from this film, but the one that stuck with me, I haven’t seen anyone else use it yet. I believe it was Nora talking to her husband: “For him, I am the one who left. For you, I am the one who stayed.” I am paraphrasing here because I can’t remember, but it was something to that extent and… Yep, these two simple sentences carry so much weight and meaning. No matter what you do after you emigrate and settle somewhere else, to some, you will always be the one who left them.

But most importantly, this is a “mood film”. I can’t stress this enough, you need to let it flow and get into that flow. Past Lives is not a film that will dazzle you with CGI, huge names or a concept you have never seen. It takes its time to tell you this unique story that is easily relatable to many people, and if you let it, it will reward you, in the end. You just need to play by its rules; there is nothing “big” in this film. It’s a quiet, reflective, humane drama about people, and that is the big idea here. It does that so well, and you will struggle to find a movie that feels so earnest.

I briefly mentioned them, but I need to compliment the main three actors (Greta Lee, Teo Yoo and John Magaro) as they were excellent in their roles. All three can tell/act so much by just looking at the other person. Many of the movie’s best moments happened with little to no dialogue; you simply feel the connection between our protagonists. I must also mention Celine Song again, the writer and director for whom this is her feature debut. And what a strong debut this is. Celine understands what each scene needs when to pull back and say a lot by not saying anything, and she shot the film masterfully. I can’t wait to see what she has for us next, and I hope this movie will unlock many doors for her career.

Overall, Past Lives is one of the best movies of 2023, hands down. It’s a film that asks you to be patient with it as nothing here happens “instantly”. But it rewards you for your patience with a beautifully earnest human story about people who found themselves in this strange situation. I loved everything about this movie, and the further away I am from it, the more I love it because I keep thinking about it with different scenes and pieces of dialogue going through my mind. I can’t recommend it enough especially if you have emigrated before and managed to find a “new life”; this movie will resonate with you on a much deeper level.

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

Until next time,

Luke

When you are on almost a 14-hour flight, you try to get some sleep. And when, several hours later, you are all broken up because sleeping on the plane is as uncomfortable as it ever was, you try to watch some movies to help you take your mind off it. I was in that situation a few days ago and didn’t want to watch something “heavy”; I was just looking for a comedy I hadn’t seen yet. And Instant Family caught my attention as I have seen the poster before, but I don’t remember hearing about this movie too much. But it has Rose Byrne, Octavia Spencer, Isabela Merced and Margo Martindale, so surely it will at least be decent, right? Despite the presence of Mark Wahlberg, whom I don’t hate, I don’t really care for, I hoped for something good. And what I got was… excellent?!

This film starts like your stereotypical comedy. We have the sexy power couple (Byrne and Walhberg), who have everything they could want except for kids. So they decide to adopt some. And this was the first surprise, how much time the film spent showing us how the foster process isn’t as easy and how much you must do to get some kids into your care. Where many films would show us a montage supercut of that, Instant Family spends decent enough time on this portion of the film.

And then we finally meet the kids, played by Gustavo Escobar, Julianna Gamiz, and, the aforementioned, Isabela Merced. If you watch some “family comedies”, you know that more often than not, the kids might be cute, but they aren’t the best actors and can get annoying very quickly. But Instant Family won the lottery with these three, as each kid’s personality is different enough that it never gets stale. They all have delivered great performances, but most importantly, they always behaved like kids. Many times, movies (and TV shows) have a kid character that talks and acts like an adult because that’s easier to write. This film gives each of these kids their persona; each goes through a believable growth, and that’s what makes them getting closer to their foster parents so charming. You believe them when the kids either hate them or are not sure about them, and when the movie progresses, you also accept that these kids would farm up to them, and it never feels forced. All three were natural and had great chemistry amongst themselves and with their foster parents.

I have seen a quite few movies with Rose Byrne to make this claim – she might just be one of the most underrated and underused actresses of our time. No matter the film, she always delivers; no matter her scene partner, she elevates their work and does it effortlessly. It’s her and her relationship with all these kids (but mainly with Isabela) that’s the heart of this film, and if their mother-daughter chemistry didn’t work, this movie would have felt off. But they both delivered. Also, this movie might have cracked the formula regarding Wahlberg being an okay actor simply; surround him with better actors, and he won’t be as bad! 😉 On a more serious note, I thought Mark did fine in this role; he was funny and charismatic, and his bond, particularly with Gustavo’s character, worked. I never thought I would write this, but his chemistry with Rose Byrne worked much better than expected.

Here is the thing, I don’t cry during films (often). It only happened twice so far, the first time being Coco (2017) and the second CODA (2021, my review here). I don’t know whether it was because I was still tired or whether Instant Family was that great, but it almost made me cry on the plane. When the emotional beats hit, they hit hard and feel authentic. I would imagine it would partly be because the director and one of the writers of this film, Sean Anders, made this movie because he went through this situation and adopted three children. Maybe that is why those emotional moments never felt cheap to me; perhaps because of that, I enjoyed this movie much more than I had expected. I had a blast. I laughed a lot; I almost cried three times, and that should count for something. When a movie can elicit such a strong reaction (again, it’s unique for me to cry at films), I must give it the highest rating because I would be a hypocrite. Also, Character Actress Margot Martindale is that cool, loving grandma everyone would want to have.

Overall, Instant Family delivered much more than I expected. I went in anticipating a fine family comedy and left almost crying, but despite that, still in a great mood. This movie felt like a warm blanket on a cold Sunday afternoon. I never thought I would say this, but I love this movie. It shows the whole foster process whilst also presenting us with the perspective of the kids and the parents, making us understand all their characters. The heart of this film lies with Rose Byrne and Isabela Merced, who carry this movie alongside everyone else. If you want to watch something lighter with a big heart, Instant Family is the perfect choice.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I have been hearing great things about this movie for a while, so when I finally got the opportunity to watch it, I grabbed it. What is fascinating and scary to think about is that Never Rarely Sometimes Always was relevant and filmed long before Roe v. Wade was overruled in 2022. What a fucking disgrace that is.

It’s difficult to discuss anything related to this movie and not get political, despite that equivalence being absolutely fucking dumb. Women’s rights aren’t political. They exist, or, in an ideal society, should exist. The sheer fact that many women can’t decide their fate and whether or not they want to become mothers is ludicrous. It reminds me of the old joke that says that if men could get pregnant, there would be abortion machines on every corner. There would be a morning-after pill, during-the-coitus pill and one after-the-fact pill, just in case. And I strongly believe this is not a joke. If you still can’t see where I stand on this issue… I don’t know what to tell you.

I will try as hard as possible to talk about the movie and put the horrific facts aside for a moment. The film paints a very black-and-white picture, but it does it to make a larger point. What I mean by that is every man our two protagonists encounter is either disgusting, inappropriate or a straight-up creep. If I worked for a few right-leaning websites, my following sentence could look like this: “Never Rarely Sometimes Always hates all men! But some men are nice, but this movie doesn’t want to acknowledge that because it’s so pro-feminist, toxic….” You can probably imagine the rest, especially if you were not born yesterday. But, as always, people will see what they want to see. This movie chooses specific and, unfortunately, real-life characters that your mum, sister, girlfriend, or wife can encounter in her day-to-day life to illustrate a much bigger point. Don’t believe me? You don’t have to; I am a man. But ask them. Talk to the women who mean something to you; listen to them, and you might be surprised and uncomfortable.

And Never Rarely Sometimes Always puts you in this uncomfortable space from the very first scene, and it never disappears. Eliza Hittman knows how to say and show so much with so little and uplifts this film, where despite it being a very indie and low budget (I can’t find a precise figure, but it’s quoted under five million dollars) movie, you don’t feel “cheated”. It grips you, never lets you go, and you stay glued to the screen despite its bleakness and tough-to-watch scenes. A big part is Eliza, but the main heroines are Sidney Flanigan and Talia Ryder.

I can’t say this any louder, but I hope both actresses have a long and fruitful career ahead of them. Sidney is our lead, and she does so much with just her face and eyes; it was mesmerizing to watch. The pivotal scene where we learn why this film is called Never Rarely Sometimes Always when the camera is on her face for what must have been at least ten minutes, was a masterclass in acting. The subtlety, when she realized a couple of things about her life through those questions, she was “forced” to answer… heart-breaking, poignant, and well done. I felt like giving her a massive hug at the end, and if it was in my power, all of her rights back because she deserves is entitled to them.

Talia’s character must have been tricky on paper because it’s such a specific role to portray. She had to be the “fodder” for her cousin, provided some levity (even though there are hardly any jokes) and most importantly, captured that specific bond that only the best of friends have. Those you can tell to fuck off, and they know you just need a moment to yourselves, so they might walk away for a minute, but they never leave your side. They are always there, looking after you. Talia captured that perfectly, and her chemistry with Sidney was spot-on. Because of them, you cherish those (rare) moments of lightness these two share.

In a perfect world, Never Rarely Sometimes Always would not be needed. But we live in a less-than-ideal world, so films like this are badly needed. If even one person who is on some edge about abortion watches this movie and it convinces them that we should re-think this ban and let women decide for themselves, that would be awesome. As with any policy like this, you are not punishing women; you are punishing “normal” people, aka middle-class (that’s disappearing faster than polar ice caps) and lower-class people who don’t have the means. This movie doesn’t forget to show how money plays a big part in this situation and how much shit our protagonists must go through before it’s all over. Imagine now how this story would have looked if they came from a wealthy family. Still not that great, but much less struggle, right? Yep, that’s the point. Ban on abortion doesn’t ban abortions; it bans access to safe abortions.

Overall, Never Rarely Sometimes Always is a harsh watch, yet it is worth your time. It is as indie as it gets, but because of the craftiness of the people behind the camera and the acting talent of those in front of it, you never feel bored; you never think of the budget. You are there, in those couple of days, with these girls, one of whom is simply not ready to become a mom. And that is a good enough reason not to bring a baby to this world. This movie is one of those that hit you hard, but because of the two protagonists, there are genuinely beautiful moments that capture their relationship and our not-so-perfect world in all its madness. If you can, please see 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

I believe the thing that harms this movie the most is its posters. They are lovely, don’t get me wrong, but if you look them up, you think Philomena is a “feel good movie” starring the one and only Dame Judi Dench. And this movie might be that at times. But it’s actually much deeper, slightly darker, and filled with incredibly complex themes of (self)-hate, anger, forgiveness and letting go of all that anger and hate that it deserves your attention and time.

Firstly, it’s based on the unbelievably real phenomenon of rich people buying orphans because they could. And the Catholic church then wiped away all the evidence. You might be shocked to hear that the Catholic church would have done something like this; historically, they weren’t involved in any massive scandal(s) involving children… I mean, who would have thought? Not me, that’s for sure. Anyway, we follow Philomena, who had a child as a teenager and was punished for it by, effectively, slaving away at this covenant and ultimately having her boy given up for adoption. And 50 (!) years later, she finally decides to try and find him.

I won’t tell you anything else because this movie takes turns I wasn’t expecting. It’s not “twisty” by any means; it just doesn’t follow any “conventional” route. Every time I thought: “This is where we are going”, the movie took a detour to that place that was much more interesting than I had in mind. And ultimately, I love films that do that. I have seen many films, and it’s always a welcome surprise when you think you can clearly tell where this is going, only to have the rug pulled from underneath you, but it makes sense. And some of these turns can be heart-breaking.

That brings me to our main cast. Writing “Dame Judi Dench is a phenomenal actress.” feels like saying water is wet, sand is coarse and irritating and gets everywhere, or having a high ground can be advantageous when fighting on a planet of burning lava. But she is excellent in this film, especially in those small moments. She doesn’t have any “big Oscar moments” despite the fact she was nominated for this role. She’s been steadily excellent throughout this movie, with some moments bordering on phenomenal. She is a treasure.

I have only known Steve Coogan from his comedic roles, and even those I haven’t seen that much. But he nailed his role. I can’t imagine being an actor and my scene partner being Dame Judi Dench, but he isn’t me and handled it with no hesitation. He also co-wrote this screenplay (alongside Jeff Pope) and got nominated for that, but not for his performance, which is a shame. Yes, this is all about Philomena, but his character had to be purposively on different wavelengths the entire film and that could have been such a thankless role. I can imagine that would backfire in any lesser film, and this character would not work. But he made it work; we understand him every step of the way, and despite everything he does, I feel for him, even if I don’t agree with everything he did.

And I think my last sentence summarizes Philomena perfectly. What makes this movie stand out is the complexity of… well, everything. The most important thing this film talks about is how people will be mad or angry, and more often than not, they have every right to be. But it’s up to you how you react to people or situations that made you angry, whether you are controlling your emotions. Is that anger placed on the appropriate person? Is that even “your anger”, and aren’t you just angry on someone else’s behalf? This film shows us all these facets of different, complex emotions and how you can forgive someone, even if they may not deserve it. That is where this movie goes from “pretty great” to “excellent” in my eyes. There are many layers this film touches on, and I haven’t even mentioned many others because I don’t want to spoil anything, but all these layers work in harmony.

That would be my last point; Philomena never managed to bore me. Sure, it’s only 98 minutes, so nothing crazy, but this film takes you on a journey and by the end, I could have sworn this was longer. But in the best way possible, when you can’t believe how much a movie covered in its fairly short length. Philomena never bores you, always moves forward, and when you have Steve with Dame Judi in its centre, you are set for success.

Overall, Philomena is an excellent movie; I feel people aren’t talking about it enough. It features one of the best performances by a living legend Dame Judi Dench, and one perfect performance by Steve Coogan, who also co-wrote the screenplay. It is a movie with a heart, but it also openly talks about a dark past in Ireland and the Catholic church. And when you read that, you think you’d know exactly where this is going, but trust me, you have no idea. Watch it for yourself, please, you won’t regret it.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I still remember when First Man was about to come out in cinemas, and everything seemed to head its way. Damien Chazelle just had a massive success with La La Land (2016), both critically and financially and a biopic about Neil Armstrong seemed like it would continue propelling him forward. But I guess audiences expected your stereotypical “Murica, baby, fuck yeah!” biopic…? I remember some backlash regarding this movie not showing the flag planting, and based on this film flopping at the box office, my joke might not be that far from what happened. What hurts even more is this movie is so much more complex and deserves to be seen.

One thing Damien does well is subvert expectations. So, when a guy who doesn’t make anything “as expected” signs on to make a biopic about the first man who stepped his foot on the Moon’s surface, I should have known how much different this will be from anything anybody expected. How different? I could argue in good faith that the Moon landing and everything leading up to that is a secondary, possibly even tertiary, part of this film. This is a biopic in the truest sense of the word, and we get an intimate portrait of Neil Armstrong, but not the “cradle to the grave” thing we are used to. Also, it’s much less “American” and way more critical than I expected, and I will address both of these points separately, as those are the “meat and potatoes” of this story.

How do you make a biopic about someone who was not a “camera-ready” person? I understand why some might have thought First Man portrays Neil as a cold, emotionally detached, and very reserved man. Well, based on his children’s testimonies, this was the “most accurate portrayal of their father, Neil Armstrong and their mother, Janet Armstrong.” (source, IMDb trivia). And truthfully, I think Ryan Gosling nailed it. Not only in his portrayal of Neil but if you watch some interviews with him about this role, he said he approached him as playing a shy, reserved man who didn’t think of himself as a hero. He just wanted to do his job. And that’s already “strike one” with this biopic going against the convention – your hero should be likeable! Despite everything, right, I mean… It’s not like audiences can cheer for a regular guy who is simply a bit too reserved. I loved how (based on Neil’s children) faithfully they portrayed Neil, knowing very well he is not the easiest to root for. And yet, if you look deeper, you discover he was an emotional man; he simply kept his emotions to himself. It is weird to write what I am about to write about this movie, but I won’t spoil anything. But the scene on the Moon, and what he does there… If that doesn’t convince you what kind of person he was and that he is much more complex, I don’t know what to tell you. I will never understand how Gosling wasn’t nominated.

The same goes for Claire Foy and her portrayal of Janet Armstrong. Her role is not as flashy, but she had to be on the same page with Ryan, and more importantly, she had the difficult task of making us understand why she would stay with someone who is not the easiest to live with. You can see in some scenes how painful everything is for her character, and yet you can also see the love, admiration and, most importantly, understanding of Neil’s character. She was absolutely brilliant in this role.

Another aspect I appreciated was that First Man only covered a part of Neil’s life (specifically from 1961 to 1969). It must have been so tempting to do the “from cradle to grave” biopic, especially for such a complex character as Neil because I would assume many viewers would understand him better. It’s much easier to sympathise with a person if you know more about them, how he grew up, and what made him into the man he was. But First Man isn’t interested in that; instead, they give us a fully formed character without any backstory, as if the film says: “This is who you will follow for the next 140 minutes. Don’t try to understand him; try to feel what he feels.” And it is through that lens of us focusing on the present rather than the past that we can appreciate his character better, at least I could. Again, a lot of it had to do with that ending, where everything clicked for me.

That brings me to this movie being “anti-American”. And look, if you think it is anti-American because it doesn’t show the flag moment or because it portrays Neil in a more complex, nuanced way… Yeah, I guess that would make it anti-American alright. For what it’s worth I don’t think First Man is anti-American. I believe it is, again, more complex than that. Yes, it doesn’t have your “hooray, we DID THAT!” moment many would expect from a biopic about the first man who walked on the Moon. What this film shows us is all the hard work, determination and the number of failures it took them to get to the Moon. And how many people died before we ever got anywhere close to the Moon, and how the general public wondered whether we should go there in the first place. Chazelle’s choice of having the public discourse questioning whether we should spend the money like this entangled with the footage and song called “Whiteys on the Moon” hits hard. And again, I wouldn’t consider this “anti-American”. If you are making a biopic about a historical event, you should tell it with as much nuance as possible. And many people didn’t think it was necessary (especially in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement) to spend government money like that. Funny how times haven’t changed that much; now many a few even question whether we went to the Moon in the first place.

The last point I would like to make is the time this movie was made and how perfect it was. And what I mean by that is that had this movie been made about 15/20 years ago, it would undoubtedly resemble the likes of Apollo 13 (1995). Your stereotypical “American exceptionalism” movie that uplifts you doesn’t ask any pressing questions and just exists to lift your spirits. And there is nothing wrong with that; don’t get me wrong, I love that movie too. But I am so grateful we now can make biopics that aren’t “just” celebratory. First Man is a sobering look at the space race, the many failures it took us to even get to the Moon and how it was achieved by this man, who many perceived as cold and detached. But there is so much more than that in here. I am so happy we can get biopics about “heroes”, these bigger-than-life people who still feel like people and are shown with all their flaws, quirks and attributes that made them who they were.

Overall, First Man is an excellent film that grabs you from the first second and won’t let you go. The direction is flawless, the acting is superb, and you get much more than “This is how went to the Moon”. Damien is definitely a fascinating character who always thinks outside the box and questions everything. And when he understands the craft of cinema to make it entertaining along the way for us, the viewers, I am all in. I can’t recommend this movie enough.

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

Until next time,

Luke

I have been looking forward to Oppenheimer ever since it was announced. I am unapologetic about my love and adoration for Christopher Nolan, and I revere him as one of the best directors of his generation, someone whose movies are always uniquely “his”, no matter the subject matter. And it precisely is that unique “Nolan” flair that makes this movie such a spectacle. I know the word “spectacle” can be used as an almost derogatory term, but leave it up to Nolan to show you how to make a “humble” spectacle about a guy who developed the atomic bomb. Throughout the years, we have seen many different biopics about various people, from heroes to villains, from great biopics to those ones we would rather forget. And here comes Nolan, and delivers on every front, with our protagonists arguably being someone, who is neither here nor there. Some might see Oppenheimer as a hero we needed at the time, others as a questionable man with a complex past, and this movie presents him with all his flaws and quirks. And it does it in such a cinematic way that you will have a blast.

Usually, I know where I want to start my review and what to mention first because many movies (even great ones) tend to have one category they excel at, whether it’s casting (and therefore performances) or the soundtrack, the camera work, the CGI… With Oppenheimer, there are so many excellent elements/parts that it is hard to pick “the one” I have enjoyed the most. It feels almost criminal not talking about performances first, but I need to start with the score by Ludwig Göransson.

This movie marks Ludwig’s second collaboration with Nolan (he also scored Tenet (2020)), and I sure hope this won’t be the last. As much as I love and admire Hans Zimmer and the movies he has done with Nolan, I would not be mad if Ludwig and Nolan became “best buddies” for a while. It is insane how vital the sound/score is to this film and how it never overshadows what happens on the screen until it must. I am talking about the anxiety-inducing main (?) theme that sounds like a stampede or locomotive leaving the station. Throughout the movie, we can hear it often, and every time we do, we can see Oppenheimer almost “lost”. And I kept wondering what that sound was, and then, the film revealed what it was and… everything “clicked”. You understand not only the significance of the sound but also why it was so vital to our protagonist and his character arc. I hope Ludwig gets recognised and at least nominated for this score.

Speaking of nominations and recognition, let’s talk about actors. As it’s almost a trademark at this point, everyone and their momma want to be in a Christopher Nolan film, so we have half of the Hollywood here, and they all deliver, some I could argue were their best performances ever. Cillian Murphy should get all the awards and recognition he is seriously due as he nails this complex role. Because of the nature of this role, he portrays Oppenheimer in an almost unapproachable manner. There are scenes where you think you understand him, and then there are scenes where you can’t be sure what he thinks or where he stands. It’s almost as if Nolan wanted to tell us that we shouldn’t celebrate him too much, but also, we can’t condemn him either. He asks us to see him for what he was – a flawed person who, unfortunately, was needed at the time. Cillian found that balance of being familiar yet distant and cold when needed and displayed him brilliantly. I can’t imagine this was the easiest performance in his life, but he makes it seem so effortless he deserves all the praise he will hopefully get.

But my biggest surprise with acting performances must have been Robert Downey Jr. Firstly, I didn’t expect his role to be as big as it was; the trailer misdirected us into thinking his role would be more like a cameo, but no, he might have as much screen time as Cillian. And he excels in it. I don’t want to say too much, but it’s a departure for Downey, and he nails it. I wouldn’t be shocked if he managed to get nominated. Jason Clarke has also been awesome; I love seeing Josh Hartnett back in the spotlight, and he seems more sure of himself and his acting than ever before.

I will be honest; at first, I wasn’t sure about Emily Blunt. Respectively, her character. Because for the vast majority of Oppenheimer, she is either crying, drunk or a bit of both. It almost seemed like she was wasted in this role, and then her deposition scene happened, where she went toe-to-toe with Jason Clarke’s character, and you finally see her fully, her character and fierceness. Sure, is she the most flashed-out character here? No, because it’s not her movie; therefore, we don’t get much more of her than absolutely needed, but that scene makes us understand there is more to her than her drinking and crying.

And that is the genius of this movie in a nutshell. Where Oppenheimer shines is by showing us flawed people with certain labels (I didn’t expect that much talk of communism) and how they navigated that era, and more importantly, how you can be more than the ideals you stand for, your “label”. Oppenheimer himself is shown as a communist sympathizer. But he never labelled himself as one, and in reality, he never joined the Communist party either, yet many only saw that. “He supports these ideas; therefore, he must be a communist!” It was fascinating that this biopic about a man who “gave us” the atomic bomb had deeper themes of tribalism that still apply today. Just replace the word communist with any other word that dominates our thinking today – and there are many to choose from, like liberal, democrat, republican, woke, etc. How often do we choose to see each other based on our labels rather than what we stand for? Oppenheimer‘s brilliance is showing us those shades of grey, where you can be on board with many things a certain ideology talks about and yet not be fully on board with it, for whatever reason. Those small details are precisely what made this movie just that tiny bit better, smarter and ahead of most other biopics or films in general.

Another thing I appreciated was another staple of Nolan’s film-making – following several timelines. I won’t lie; at times, it was harder to get my head around where we were in the story or who is this person again, but I expect that to “clear” upon multiple viewings, as is expected for a movie with so many supporting characters, told over several decades, to be slightly convoluted. But I was never lost; the film never confused me; I was able to follow everything, even though some details might have escaped me. Often, my biggest criticism of modern biopics is they don’t cover enough ground, or they would skip over parts that I was intrigued by. I have not had that issue watching Oppenheimer despite its three-hour runtime; I was never bored, and it never seemed like it was too rushed. Sure, some side characters could have been more fleshed out (like his wife, portrayed by Emily Blunt, as already mentioned), but I thought this was an entertaining, well-paced, and brilliantly filmed story.

Have you noticed I have not even mentioned anything about the bomb sequence? It was insane because the moment we saw the bomb test, the cinema was silent, and as I complimented Ludwig’s score before, Nolan knew when to use it and when to pull back. He realises the power of sound/score and uses it so you can be overwhelmed by it, but he also understands the importance of silence and the lack of any score/sound and that made for one of the most memorable scenes in the entire movie. Also, I witnessed one of the biggest jump scares I have seen in non-horror films. I feel like with Nolan’s understanding of moviemaking if he ever decided to shoot a straight-up horror movie, he would have delivered something so unnervingly scary… Think of the elevated horror of Ari Aster and now imagine the “Nolan” touch. I don’t know about you, but I am already terrified. Back to Oppenheimer, I think that somehow tells you how brilliant this movie is if there is a stunningly haunting scene of the atomic detonation, and somehow, I (and many others) have been talking about many other brilliant things. I can easily imagine Oppenheimer climbing up my Nolan ratings as one of the TOP films he directed… and he already has some excellent movies on his resume. Yet somehow, he keeps on getting better.

Overall, Oppenheimer is worth your money. It is a movie I had high expectations going into, and not only wasn’t I disappointed, but the film managed to surprise me with almost everything. From its approach to the story, to how many great actors delivered the career best, to the score, the bomb sequence, everything that happens after… I strongly suspect this movie will age like a fine wine, and the more I see it in the future, the more I will love it. It’s a layered, complex biopic with a runtime of three hours and contains a lot of science and communism talk, and somehow, you don’t feel exhausted at the end. You will feel many emotions, but I can’t imagine “underwhelmed”, “bored”, or “meh” would be one of them. Watch Oppenheimer on the biggest screen possible (I envy everyone living near the IMAX cinema).

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

Until next time,

Luke