Movie review: Ready Player One

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to the perfect Easter movie all about them Easter Eggs – Ready Player One.

IMDb summary: When the creator of a virtual reality world called the OASIS dies, he releases a video in which he challenges all OASIS users to find his Easter Egg, which will give the finder his fortune.

Writing

Ready Player One was written by Zak Penn (who worked on The Avengers and some early 2000s Marvel movies) and the author of the original novel Ernest Cline. I have read the book last year and very much enjoyed it. While watching the movie, I didn’t remember all the details, so I wasn’t exactly sure what changes to the narrative were made. However, I do think that the film’s plot was a bit more streamlined than the book’s. Also, as a longtime fan of dystopias of all shapes and sizes, I loved an opportunity to immersive myself in a new one.

What certainly didn’t change (going from the book to the movie) was the plethora of Easter Eggs in the story. In the book, the extensive lists of references were easier to get (or google). Having said that, those lists did feel a bit tedious at times in the text, while a motion picture format is way a more organically fitting format for Easter Eggs. And yet, in my mind, references are harder to get and easier to miss in a visual form. Still, I was quite proud of myself for spotting a lot of cool nods in this film. I’m a sure that I missed a tonne as well too, though.

From the structural point of view, the movie’s writing was good. The opening set-up was a bit heavy-handed and had a lot of narration. That information was necessary for the following story, but I wish that it would have been presented in a less typical fashion. The rest of the narrative was fine – the quest story was entertaining and fairly cohesive, while the characters – interesting and well-developed enough too. Some of the dialogue sounded bit cheesy. Nevertheless, the overall theme and message – to focus on reality rather than the virtual world – was a neat one. Another side message that I got from the movie was a warning to the corporations to not mess with the nerds. Honestly, that just sounds like today’s online discourse when fans go mad if a big company attempts to do something different with the beloved properties.

Directing

Ready Player One was directed by the master Steven Spielberg (Bridge of Spies, The BFG), who somehow managed to find time to film this movie and to also make The Post, both to be released just months apart. I think he did a spectacular job. First of all, he made a good video game movie that is not even based on a video game but feels like a video game. And yet, in addition to feeling and looking like a video game, the movie also feels like a movie – it has a story and characters and a message. My one gripe with the film was that it was a bit long and did slow down in the second act.

While Spielberg has always been known for revolutionary computer effects, he has also always been a filmmaker who championed the practical aspect of the visual effects. Thus, it was really interesting to see him make a movie that is definitely about 80% CGI. This begs the question – how much of what we are seeing is Spielberg’s vision and how much is the impeccable work of the animation and the art departments? Whoever was responsible for those visuals, they were great: appropriately artificial looking yet somehow not fake. The throwback soundtrack was amazing too.

Acting

Tye Sheridan (the new Cyclops in X-Men: Apocalypse), Olivia Cooke, and Lena Waithe played the three main ‘players’ in the game and delivered great performances in both the reality and through motion capture as their characters’ avatars. Ben Mendelsohn (Darkest Hour) was a bit of a mustache-twirling villain. I think his villainous performance in Rogue One had more subtlety. T.J. Miller (Deadpool) was good as the comedic relief (not a big surprise). Simon Pegg (MI: Rogue Nation, Star Trek Beyond) also had a small role, while the new Spielberg favorite Mark Rylance (Dunkirk) was amazing and played such a relatable character (an antisocial nerd afraid of taking a leap. That’s literally what’s going to be written on my tombstone). Every time I see Rylance in a new film, I amazed by his versatility. No surprise that Spielberg is putting him in everything now.

In short, Ready Player One is an entertaining extended homage to pop culture and a lovely celebration of all things nerd.

Rate: 3.8/5

Trailer: Ready Player One trailer

Ready_Player_One_(film).png

Advertisements

Movie review: The Post

Movie reviews

Hello!

Spielberg. Hanks. Streep. Need I say more? This is The Post!

IMDb summary: A cover-up that spanned four U.S. Presidents pushed the country’s first female newspaper publisher and a hard-driving editor to join an unprecedented battle between the press and the government.

Writing

The Post was written by Liz Hannah (a first-time writer on a movie) and Josh Singer (who worked on The Fifth Estate and Spotlight – two similar pictures to The Post). I thought that the writers did a really great job and I’d like to explore 3 particular aspects of their writing in a bit more detail. These are the journalism narrative, the commentary on war, and the character development.

To begin with, some of you may know that I once wanted to study journalism and this movie, with its display of amazing investigative journalism, reawakened that dream. The quote from Streep’s character, how news is the first rough draft of history, was brilliant and summed up everything that is great about true journalism. It was also incredibly interesting to see the relationship between the politicians and the press: how they not only used to be in cahoots (and started to be against each other after the events of 1971) but how members of the two occupations had personal relationships, thus, fighting against the politicians wasn’t just a job for journalists, but sometimes an attack on a friend. Hanks‘ characters line, about JFK being a friend rather than a source, perfectly encapsulated that whole conflict. In addition, The Post not only showcased the reporting side of journalism but the business parts of it too. The competition between newspapers, as well as the financial struggles of The Washington Post, were amazing to witness and helped to contextualize the particular events of the film.

The war commentary, as well as the insights into the faulty ideals of the American government, were also fascinating. The Post really showed how fragile American pride was and how the government was determined to put its citizens in jeopardy because they were afraid of embarrassment. And they still got embarrassed and have had a hard time working on that issue. Don’t even get me started on how they attempted to work around that problem with the 2016 election and dug themselves into an even deeper hole (and that’s only one of the parallels between the past events in the movie and the contemporary real ones).

The writing for Streep’s character is the third and last aspect I’d like to discuss. I found her whole character arc very interesting. To begin with, I didn’t think that Katharine Graham was a typical Streep character: she wasn’t untouchable Iron Lady. She was, at times, flustered and not always knew what to say. She was also very much part of her time: her lines about women not even knowing they could want more rang so true and opened my eyes to the fact that gender equality (and still not a full one) has not been a widespread thing for long, if the 1970s was still such a fighting ground for K. The said gender inequality was just perfectly seen in the fact that male characters would speak for her (she had to deal with a lot of manslapining); would question her decisions, or would even silence her. Lastly, the fact that journalism and all other business were dominated by white males also makes me question the legitimacy of the narrative cause it was just one kind of narrative.

Directing

Steven Spielberg (The BFG, so looking forward to Ready Player One) directed The Post and I’d place this film together with Bridge of Spies and Lincoln in his filmography. The picture opened with a battle scene and Spielberg knows how to direct those impeccably. I also loved how the initial focus of the film was on the papers and only then did it move to the actual subjects of this biography. The visualization of journalism – from looking for the sources to writing to printing to distributing – was amazing. I especially loved the sequences with the old school printing press and the one of overnight research at Hanks‘ character’s house. The gender inequality was also well visualized with that single scene of women sitting in a living room and men being left in the dining room. That rung so many visual bells to the 19th century and Downton Abbey, simultaneously. Lastly, the ending of the film – an obvious hint at the Watergate scandal – was spot-on and made me want to find out more about that it. Any recommendations for a good and somewhat accurate Watergate movie?

Acting

Meryl Streep (Suffragette, Florence Foster Jenkins) did a really stellar job with this complex role. Tom Hanks (The Circle, Inferno, Sully, A Hologram for the King, Bridge of Spies) was also really good as the confident, ‘no pulling punches’ editor. Sarah Paulson (Carol) didn’t really have much to do but she did have one great speech. Bob Odenkirk was amazing as one of the reporters at The Washington Post, while Matthew Rhys impressed as Daniel Ellsberg, the original whistleblower (he came way before Edward Snowden or WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange). It was also nice to see two Fargo’s alumni Carrie Coon (Gone Girl) and Jesse Plemons (American Made) in small roles.

In short, The Post was a complex yet straightforward biography that was well written, directed qualitatively and acted impeccably.

Rate: 4.5/5

Trailer: The Post trailer

image

 

5 ideas about a movie: Suburbicon

Movie reviews

Hello!

Once a sure awards contender, now a rotten tomato, Suburbicon has landed in theatres. Let’s see what it has to offer.

IMDb summary: A home invasion rattles a quiet family town.

  1. Suburbicon was directed by George Clooney (this was his 6th directorial outing but the first time that he did not star in a film he directed) from a script by the Coen brothers (Hail, Caesar!, Bridge of Spies, Unbroken), George Clooney himself, and Grant Heslov (actor-turned-producer/writer). Just looking at the list of talent involved behind the camera, this movie should have been great. And while it was surprising in the fact that it was not what I expected thematically, it was also not what I expected quality-wise.
  2. Suburbicon appeared to have two separate storylines that had little to do with one another, except maybe were there to be contrasted. The film opened with the event of an African American family moving into an idyllic white neighborhood. The racist undertones of the community’s reaction to their new neighbors quickly evolved into a racist attack and a riot – things that we should have left in the 1960s but which feel very contemporary. Another, supposedly main storyline, involved Matt Damon’s character. That plotline came a bit out of nowhere – we didn’t even meet Damon’s character in the set-up. The idealized facade of his family was never believable – the secrets that were supposed to be hidden could very easily be predicted. Suburbicon wasn’t subtle, let’s just say that. The parent-child dynamics and the husband cheating with his wife’s twin sister were both interesting concepts to explore but that didn’t really happen.
  3. The whole writing of the film started off quite simplistic and, while it did get more complex and compelling as the narrative unraveled, it never really reached the level of quality that was desirable. The two storylines never connected in the movie itself, they could only be brought together by the viewer. I interpreted the decision to have these two family plotlines side by side as an attempt to make a statement on race and society. The perfect facade of a white family hid deep perversion underneath, while the loving African American family was seen as unacceptable. The truth and appearances didn’t add up and I took the film’s message to be a slight warning for today’s society. I didn’t anticipate any of that to be in the movie from its trailer – that’s what I meant when I said that Suburbicon was thematically unexpected.
  4. Visually, Suburbicon looked quite nice and neat. In general, I find the 1960s setting aesthetically pleasing, so it was cool to see it realized quite well in this picture. The opening sequence in a style of a fairytale book was also good. The slow pace was a bit of a drag. Suburbicon also felt like a weird mashup of an old-school crime drama and a modern thriller. Some of its scenes of violence were very conservatively left out of frame – filmed as a shadow or only focusing on the characters’ feet, while some other violent scenes were extremely graphic – like the scenes one would expect to see in an R-rated modern thriller.
  5. Suburbicon had a great cast that deserved better material to work with. Matt Damon (The Martian, Jason Bourne, The Great Wall, soon Downsizing – now his only film for the awards season) and Julianne Moore (Kingsman 2, Mockingjay) were both really good, but a standout to me was Oscar Isaac (Star Wars, X-Men, The Promise) – I loved his spunky and charismatic insurance investigator character. The child lead of the film – Noah Jupe – was also quite good. I swear the child actors, in general, have never been as good as they are now.

In short, Suburbicon was a mediocre film that was not thrilling enough to be a crime thriller or funny/ironical enough to be a black comedy or stylized enough to be seen as an art metaphor.

Rate: 2.9/5

Trailer: Suburbicon trailer

MV5BMTA3MjA1NDkxMTReQTJeQWpwZ15BbWU4MDU2Njg3NDMy._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,639,1000_AL_

Movie review: Battle of the Sexes

Movie reviews

Good evening,

My BFI London Film Festival series of reviews (it opened with Breathe) continues with Battle of the Sexes – another potential awards contender for the year!

IMDb summary: The true story of the 1973 tennis match between World number one Billie Jean King and ex-champ and serial hustler Bobby Riggs.

As a side note, before the actual review begins, I just wanted to tell you about a different tennis movie that already came out this year and left me pleasantly surprised. It’s Borg vs. McEnroe and I suggest you check it out! Onto Battle of the Sexes!

Writing

Battle of the Sexes was written by Simon Beaufoy (who is known for writing such movies as Slumdog Millionaire127 HoursSalmon Fishing in the YemenThe Hunger Games: Catching Fire, and Everest) and the film’s script was inspired/based on real events.

Battle of the Sexes tackled/portrayed two big concepts – the LGBTQ+ identity and the feminism/women’s rights. Sadly, both of these thematical spheres are still highly controversial and not discussed enough (or if they are debated, then only really unproductively, with zero chances of reaching a consensus between the opposing sides). Some might say that both of these issues are more topical in today’s socio-political climate than they were in the 1970s.

The movie approached these topics head-on (feminism way more than the LGBTQ+ side) and had a strong overall message. Personally, I loved it, but then again, I am a woman, a feminist, and a liberal. The general audiences, full of individuals of different genders/ideologies/beliefs, might turn on this movie because of its strong message of social justice. There was one short scene in the movie, where Emma Stone’s character confronted a journalist and clearly declared that she was not fighting to be seen as better, she just wanted to be treated equally. I wanted that idea – one of equality – to be more overtly stated in the movie because I worry that a takeaway for some audience members might be the fact that women want to be on top, rather than by side with the other genders. It is a bummer that, for some, being pro-female ultimately translates into an anti-male stance and I would hate if the cinema-goers interpreted Battle of the Sexes in such a way.

Now, let’s discuss some aspects of the writing in more detail. I thought that the presentation of Steve Carell’s character was captivating: his personal background and problems very clearly affected his actions of the tennis court. The way his gambling addiction and his work – tennis – were combined was super interesting too. It was also fascinating to see how he embellished his toxic masculinity for the public eye. The whole commentary on tennis as an activity in the middle of the spectacle v sports dichotomy was brilliant. In addition, the conflicting position of Carell’s character’s wife, played by Elisabeth Shue, was just amazing to watch: she rooted for her husband because he was her love but she also seemed to be cheering for Billie Jean and her cause.

Lastly, Battle of the Sexes also toyed with the concept of the gentlemanliness/sexism line (where one ends and the other begins). It also showcased sport as the factor that triumphed any relationship in the character’s life. The picture also did a very good job of combining feminity with feminism (which are often presented as polar opposites, which they aren’t). Oh, and the jokes were good too!

Directing

Battle of the Sexes was directed by a duo of filmmakers – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – who are responsible for directing one of my all-time favorite pictures Little Miss Sunshine. They did a great job with this film and its nuances and layers. Battle of the Sexes was a great biographical drama, a good sports drama, and an amazing romantic drama. The extreme close-ups of the characters made the movie seem intimate, real, and raw. The 1970s setting was well-realized, from the retro logos to the colorful vintage tracksuits. The sequences of the actual tennis play were good too, the final one was especially intense. The body doubles were hardly noticeable, so props to the directors, the cinematographer, and the camera crew for cleverly shooting around them.

Acting

Emma Stone (Magic in the MoonlightIrrational Man) and Steve Carell (The Big Short, Cafe Society) played the two lead roles. Both of these actors had quite similar careers – they started in comedy and then tried to transition to more serious roles, with varying levels of success. For Stone, this performance is her follow-up to the Oscar win for La La Land and a strong contender for at least a nomination this year. For Carrel, the involvement in Battle of the Sexes might bring him another nomination too. Emma was extremely lovable in the role and exuded both strength and relatable vulnerability. Steve was really good too – he looked exactly like the real person and also made the guy into a somewhat likable human being, even if he was sprouting nonsense most of the time.

The supporting cast was also really good. I loved Sarah Silverman as the bossy manager, she was perfectly cast. Andrea Riseborough (Nocturnal Animals) was brilliant as Billie Jean’s lover, while Austin Stowell (Bridge of Spies) brought a lot of heart to his role of Billie’s husband. Finally, I loved to hate Bill Pullman (ID: Resurgence) in his role and adored Elisabeth Shue in hers!

In short, Battle of the Sexes was a great drama about equality, freedom, and fighting. Undoubtfully, it was well executed, but whether you will agree with its message, will entirely depend on who you are as a person.

Rate: 4.3/5

Trailer: Battle of the Sexes trailer

Battle_of_the_Sexes_(film).png

Movie review: Dunkirk

Movie reviews

Hello!

A movie, that needs no introduction, has reached theaters, so let’s talk about it. This is the review of Dunkirk.

IMDb summary: Allied soldiers from Belgium, the British Empire, and France are surrounded by the German army and evacuated during a fierce battle in World War II.

Before we start discussing the film, I’d like to remind you that there already is a picture about Dunkirk, released in 2017 – Their Finest. It’s a completely different but as interesting take on the ‘event that shaped the Western world’. Also, my previous review of a Nolan film is the one for Interstellar.

Christopher Nolan

Both written and directed by Nolan, Dunkirk is the highly acclaimed director’s 10th feature film. It has already been labeled as his best film as well as a ‘masterpiece’ of modern cinema. With all of these accolades in mind, my expectations have also been really high. And while I certainly wasn’t let down, I haven’t been blown away either.

Writing

Dunkirk’s writing is unique (as should be expected from Nolan – the master storyteller) in that the film doesn’t tell a story of the evacuation but rather recreates the evacuation. The staples of the narrative, like the extensive dialogue or the character development, are mostly absent from the movie and the glimpses of the personal stories are scarcely dispersed throughout the intense action scenes. I believe that the lack of the character development actually serves the movie right because that makes the viewer see the characters as nobodies – a faceless mass of interchangeable soldiers – which is what they actually were. I did miss Nolan’s great dialogue, though, even if this film’s setting didn’t really call for it.

Even though, the picture doesn’t have much in terms of narrative, the plot that is in the film is told in a non-linear way (again, as it should be expected from Nolan). However, there isn’t too much of jumping around (Dunkirk is no Memento). The three main plot threads – the land, the air, and the sea – provide different and interesting perspectives on the evacuation but I wish that these viewpoints were wider within themselves. For example, I wanted to see the faiths of more than a few soldiers, or more than two planes, or more than just one civilian boat.

Another interesting choice that is made in the script is the decision to never call out the nationality of the enemy. Never once in the picture, do we hear the words ‘Germans’ or ‘Nazis’. It’s always ‘the enemy’. Is that the political correctness of today bleeding into a WW2 film or is the eternal shame and guilt of the German nation is slowly coming to an end?

Directing

Christopher Nolan has always been amazing at visuals and he proves that again with Dunkirk. The whole film feels, more or less, like the expanded version of the Saving Private Ryan opening beach sequence, with the levels of dread, fear, and destruction, never dipping below the maximum. The intensity is palpable, while the emotions – heart-wrenching. From a purely aesthetic view, the shots are masterfully composed, both in the air, on land, or in the water. To my mind, Dunkirk might not be his best film, but it is certainly a great-looking one.

Music

An element of Dunkirk that sometimes rivals the visuals as its best part, is the soundtrack by Hans Zimmer (a longtime creative partner of Nolan’s). The master composer (I feel like I used the word ‘master’ too much already) surpasses the sky high expectations and delivers an emotional, eerie, thrilling, and haunting score. The sounds of the bombs are so crisp and clear that one can definitely hear if their cinema’s sound system is lacking in quality (I’m not pointing any fingers).

Acting

Dunkirk has an extensive ensemble cast, full of newcomers as well as seasoned A-listers. All of them deliver excellent if brief performances. On land, we follow Fionn Whitehead (in his first film role), Aneurin Barnard (a Welshman playing a Frenchman disguised as an Englishman) and an ex-1D member and a successful solo artist Harry Styles. Nolan has claimed to not have known about Styles’ fame before casting him in the film. I find that doubtful because Nolan has a teenage daughter who might (must) have known who he was. Also, even if she (or he) wasn’t a fan, the 1D craze a few years back far exceed the limits of the fandom and was absolutely everywhere, so Nolan should have definitely at least have heard about him. Anyways, for whatever reason Styles was cast in the picture, he did act as a somewhat box office draw, as evident by a mother-daughter duo, who sat next to me in the cinema and could not shut up when his face showed up on screen. On a side note, I didn’t see anyone complaining about his involvement in the film or that his ‘famous face’ took the viewer out of the movie, but, somehow, Ed Sheeran signing three lines on Game of Thrones is a disaster that breaks the fictional world’s continuum?

Back to the cast I was discussing in the first place, the ‘land’ portion of the plot also had Kenneth Branagh (director of Cinderella and the upcoming Murder on the Orient Express) and James D’Arcy (Agent Carter) as two officers of exposition and trailer one liners. The ‘on the sea’ perspective had Mark Rylance (whose career really took off only in 2015 with Bridge of Spies, then The BFG, and soon Ready Player One), accompanied by a screen newcomer Tom Glynn-Carney and a bit more experienced Barry Keoghan. A longtime creative partner of Nolan’s  Cillian (Free Fire) also appeared in the film, in the probably the most fleshed out role. The ‘air’ part of the plot was acted out by Jack Lowden and another of Nolan’s usuals – Tom Hardy (Mad Max, Legend, The Revenant) with his face half-obscured as always.

In short, while I might not think that Dunkirk is a masterpiece, I unquestionably agree that it is a great film. The visuals are stellar, the acting is effective, and the writing – full of bold choices that I might not like but can and do appreciate.

Rate: 4,3/5

Trailer: Dunkirk trailer

dunkirk-poster-600x889

Movie review: The Circle

Movie reviews

Hello!

Sorry for not posting for a while but now I am back with a new movie review. This time, we are discussing The Circle.

IMDb summary: A woman lands a dream job at a powerful tech company called the Circle, only to uncover an agenda that will affect the lives of all of the humanity.

Spoiler Warning

Writing

The Circle was written by the director James Ponsoldt and the author of the original novel Dave Eggers. Even though Eggers was helping with the adapting process, the usual book to movie changes did occur. The narrative was streamlined and some of the unnecessary plot details were cut out (mainly the extra development for the main character – her interaction with the couple on a boat and her quite uncomfortable relationship with the character of Francis (who does not appear in the film at all). Also, the reveal of John Boyega’s character came sooner in the movie while it was held secret until the end of the book.

Idea-wise, the film was quite fateful, although it did have more gray areas, which I quite liked. My main complaint about the book was that it presented the ideas on privacy and freedom but wasn’t critical of them. The fact that the majority of people were okay with this new world order and didn’t bat an eye about losing their right to chose were two things that were hard to believe. This type of naivety was quite unrealistic and, in turn, annoying. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

The book’s ending, while shocking, was also very much frustrating and solidified the unlikeability of the character (due to her complete naivety). The movie’s main character – Mae – appeared to be more critical of the world she inhabited, and even though there were plenty of moments where the character appeared to have drunk the kool-aid completely, she ultimately chose to fight against it. However, whether she was fighting against the loss of privacy or just against the two heads of The Circle, I don’t know. I wish that would have been made more clear. Additionally, it is important to note that her decision to rebel might have made the film’s ending more stereotypically Hollywood-like, but I thought that it was more interesting than the book’s ending: it still raised the questions of transparency but it also gave a resolution to the story, even if a very uncertain one.

Directing

James Ponsoldt, who has previously directed The Spectacular Now, which I quite liked, and The End of The Tour, which I have been meaning to watch for a while, helmed The Circle and did an okay job. The setting and the design of The Circle company was good – not too futuristic and actually believable (in contrast to the ideas). The camera work was fine too – a variety of angles was used. The pacing was solid and the levels of intensity worked too. Overall, the film was not spectacular but I don’t think that Ponsoldt’s directing abilities were in any way to blame.

Acting

Emma Watson starred as the main character Mae. While reading the book, I absolutely hated this character but Watson succeeded in making her at least a tiny bit more likable and relatable on screen. I also thought that she made the character’s arc seem believable, as much as she could with the flawed writing. Her performance was not superb but it was an okay follow-up to one of the biggest movies of the year – Beauty and the Beast.

Tom Hanks (Sully, Inferno, Bridge of Spies) starred as one of the heads of The Circle and played a sort of villainous role – that’s not typical of him. However, the match between an actor and a character was actually quite a good one – the character needed to be really charismatic and Hanks as an actor just seems so likable and personable. I loved his reaction to Mae turning against him.  Interestingly, Hanks has already starred in a previous adaptation of one of Eggers’s books – A Hologram for the King.

John Boyega had a small role as his follow-up to Star Wars: The Force Awakens. He didn’t have much to do but he did shine in a few scenes he was in. Later this year, he will also appear in a potential award’s contender – Bigelow’s Detroit. He was also cast in the Pacific Rim franchise.

Karen Gillan also had a little role and was okay. It was nice actually seeing her on screen without all the blue makeup of Nebula (Guardians of the Galaxy). Her next film is the Jumanji remake/sequel.

Boyhood’s Ellar Coltrane and the comedian Patton Oswalt also appeared in the picture and did a fine job. Bill Paxton also had a small role. The Circle was his final appearance on film, may he rest in peace.

In short, The Circle is a good drama that has the potential to kickstart a conversation on the issues it addressed. However, I don’t think that the movie itself did a good enough job on commenting on the said problems that it introduced.

Rate: 3.75/5

Trailer: The Circle trailer

MV5BMjY2OTM2Njc3Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDgzODU3MTI@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,674,1000_AL_.jpg

 

 

Movie review: Sully

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to a review of a film, which the majority of the world saw in September, but here in the UK, we had to wait for it until December. It’s Sully!

IMDb summary: The story of Chesley Sullenberger, an American pilot who became a hero after landing his damaged plane on the Hudson River in order to save the flight’s passengers and crew.

Sully has already received and won some smaller awards and I also think that it will get nominated for a few of the bigger ones too (because of who is involved in front and behind the camera). This film might also be the most mainstream and the most financially successful awards contender this year. Also, one last note before I actually start reviewing the film – I don’t recommend watching it before a flight – I did that mistake and I’m now kinda nervous about my trip next week.

Writing

Sully’s script was written by Todd Komarnicki, based on the memoir book Highest Duty: My Search for What Really Matters by Chesley Sullenberger (Sully himself) and journalist Jeffrey Zaslow. I absolutely adored the writing for the film – I loved the not entirely linear narrative structure. All the flashbacks were not only interesting by themselves but super effective in raising the emotional stakes of the story.  I liked how the film focused more on the investigation rather than the actual event. The themes and commentary that sprung up from this incredible story were amazing too: the focus on the humanity or the human factor in the age of technology and computerization was refreshing and appealing to me as an anthropologists-in-training. In addition, the dichotomy between the facts and the context the was great too. The way the film showcased and explored the feeling of self-doubt was interesting as well.

Even though the event/the accident was not the main focus of the film, the picture still managed to represent it from a variety of both inside and outside perspectives. I enjoyed seeing the stories of some of the passengers (forming an emotional connection – raising the stakes). It was also cool to see the reactions of the flight attendants, the NY waterways workers, the policeman, and etc.

Lastly, I loved the dialogue of the film, particularly two clever and subtle lines. One of them came at the end, as a joke, when Eckhart’s character mentioned that he would do everything the same but in July rather than January. Other clever and much more serious mention was the one about the good news, New York, and airplanes – I took it as a reference to 9/11.

Directing

Clint Eastwood directed the picture and, not surprisingly, did an amazing job. I, personally, haven’t seen a lot of his films: I’m neither familiar with his work as an actor on a variety of highly regarded Westerns, nor have I seen his earliest films as a director. However, I did enjoy two of his recent award winners Million Dollar Baby and American Sniper. His newest film – Sully – might be my favorite out of the three, though. I loved how emotional and intense the drama was without being obvious. The pacing and the build-ups, as well as the sequences of the actual water-landing, were great. I enjoyed that scene so much and I’m super happy that they showed it twice. Plus, the hearing sequence was as intense as the accident. I also appreciated the accuracy with which this event was recreated – the film’s shots looked exactly like the real life photos which were displayed during the credits. I also liked the fact that the filmmakers managed to included the real life Sully, the crew, and the passengers in the videos during the credits. Sully was truly n emotional rollercoaster of a movie but at least it did have a sort of happy and satisfying ending.

Acting

  • Tom Hanks was brilliant in the role, which is not surprising. I think I already mentioned this but I will repeat it again – to me, Hanks seems like one of the greatest and the most reliable actors of our time. It would take me a whole separate post to list his movie recommendations, so I’m just gonna name a few: I’ve noticed that lately the majority of his films have been inspired by real events, so I suggest you watch them: Captain Phillips, Saving Mr. Banks, and Bridge of Spies (whose review I published exactly a year ago today). A Hologram for the King and Inferno, both based on books, weren’t bad either.
  • Aaron Eckhart was also really good in the picture, I especially liked his scenes with Hanks, as they had great chemistry. This is probably one of Eckhart’s best performances that I have seen, if we are not counting his work in The Dark Knight. He was quite good in the Olympus (and London) has(ve) Fallen franchise.
  • The supporting cast of the film was also really good, it included: Laura Linney (Genius, Nocturnal Animals), Anna Gunn (Breaking Bad), and Mike O’Malley (Concussion, Glee) among others.

In short, Sully was an emotional and entertaining drama, with great writing, good directing, and amazing acting. It is definitely my favorite non-franchise film of this year.

Rate: 4.5/5

Trailer: Sully trailer

sully

Movie review: The BFG

Movie reviews

Hi!

Welcome to another summer movie review. I’m running out of ways to greet you and introduce the posts, so without further ado, let’s talk about The BFGThe Big Friendly Giant.

IMDb summary: A girl named Sophie encounters the Big Friendly Giant who, despite his intimidating appearance, turns out to be a kindhearted soul who is considered an outcast by the other giants because, unlike them, he refuses to eat children.

Genre

I would say that The BFG belongs to the live action fairytale genre, which is so popular nowadays and especially this summer (we already had The Huntsman, Alice 2, The Jungle Book and Tarzan comes out next week). However, The BFG differs from all of them in that it is a somewhat original film – it is not a sequel or a remake of an animated picture, but the first-time big screen adaptation of Roald Dahl’s book with the same name. Dahl is a famous author who has created such stories as James and the Giant Peach, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Matilda among others.

Spielberg’s filmography and similar films

Back in the 80s, Spielberg made a career for himself, crafting beautiful family films about children who befriend unique creatures. Of course, I’m talking about E.T. (interestingly, E.T. and The BFG share a screenwriter – Melissa Mathison, who, sadly, had recently passed away). However, in the past 5 years, Spielberg have focused on serious historical dramas, like War Horse, Lincoln, and Bridge of Spies, so The BFG is kinda his comeback to the family fantasy genre. Another well-known director, who has also recently tried to transition from the awards contenders to family films, is Martin Scorcese, who made the child-appropriate Hugo in 2011. The BFG also reminded me a bit of Peter Pan films (the good ones) and it also had a slight Harry Potter-like feeling.

Writing: the narrative

The BFG’s story was okay. It portrayed a lead peaceful ‘monster’ in Spielberg’s fashion. It had nice things to say about friendship and growing up and also had a strong anti-bullying and standing up for yourself type of a message. The two faults I had with the story were: 1. the pace – the set up was really long and there wasn’t really any buildup: the film dragged on and the final resolution was also kinda disappointing – I did not see the need to involve The Queen – those sequences came out of nowhere and just seemed so bloody British; 2. the jokes – The BFG relied on slapstick humour and fart jokes – I really wish they would have come up with cleverer comic relief, like Zootopia did. In general, I felt that The BFG was not a family but solely a kids movie and not a very good one. It lacked sophistication for adults and didn’t have enough ‘adventure’ for the younger viewers. However, I do believe that this film could do great on TV in like 5 years time – I can definitely see people watching it at home during Christmas or something.

Directing: the visuals + the music

The CGI and the motion capture work on The BFG were both stellar. My favorite visuals were the dreamland and that tree – that whole physical manifestation of dreams was a cool idea and was realized nicely. The eye to sun transition was also a great and memorable shot. The BFG’s score by the great John Williams was breathtaking, heartfelt and suspenseful. He is the greatest score composer and his work will forever live on.

Acting

  • Mark Rylance as The BFG was really good. This was Rylance’s second collaboration with Spielberg – last year Spielberg directed Rylance into an Oscar-winning performance. His manners were really appropriate for the role – gentle yet steel giant like. His look was also on-point: Rylance looks like a really loving grandpa, so The BFG’s role was perfect for him. Next year, Rylance will be in Nolan’s Dunkirk and a year after that he will collaborate with Spielberg once again on Ready Player One
  • Ruby Barnhill as Sophie was a really good child lead. I think that this young lady has a bright future and a long career ahead of her. 
  • Penelope Wilton as The Queen. While I did not understand the need to include The Queen into this story, I was happy that Wilton was the one to portray  her. I’m happy to see her getting more work since Downton Abbey has ended. 
  • Jemaine Clement as The Fleshlumpeater – the main antagonist. Clement was okay: his look was pretty scary and ugly and his performance brought this flesh-eater to life in a believable way.

In short, I expected more from Spielberg. I hoped that he would create another family-friendly classic, which would satisfy both the adults and the children, however, I do think that anyone above the age of 11 will find The BFG kinda boring.

Rate: 3.25/5

Trailer: The BFG trailer

bfgposter

5 ideas about a movie: A Hologram for The King

Movie reviews

Hello!

Before I get back to reviewing big summer releases, let’s talk about one of the smaller films that I had a chance to see – A Hologram for The King.

IMDb summary: A failed American businessman looks to recoup his losses by traveling to Saudi Arabia and selling his idea to a wealthy monarch.

  1. The film was written and directed by Tom Tykwer. I absolutely loved his last film – Cloud Atlas, in collaboration with The Wachowskis. His 2006’s Perfume: The Story of a Murderer was also one of the first hardcore thrillers that I watched and enjoyed. I remember being 8 or 9 years old and watching that movie on a bus on my way to Germany. Because I liked Tykwer’s previous pictures , I was looking forward to his new movie. This time, he did not disappoint but didn’t exceed expectations either.
  2. The film was an adaptation of Dave Eggers’s book with the same name. The plot revolved around a depressed and down on his luck salesman who was trying to reinvent himself by escaping to Saudi Arabia. While being there, he not only learned a lot of things about himself but experienced a different culture, learned to deal with his past problems and even found love and friendship. The picture explored a diverse range of topics: the father-daughter relationship, the lack of time in the world, the inner workings of the international business trade and even love that crosses cultural barriers. The movie was a bit slow – nothing big happened. However, it was extremely realistic since it dealt with quite mundane activities, even if in an exotic setting.
  3. Tykwer did a good job directing the film. The visuals were nice – Saudi Arabia’s desserts and new cities were magnificent to look at. The car scenes and the back and forth dialogue between the characters were also realized in an interesting way. The party in the Danish embassy was also a pleasant surprise.
  4. Tom Hanks played the lead role and was, like always, really good. He is still one of the most reliable actors when it comes to quality. By any means, this wasn’t his best performance or the greatest role, but he was still good. Hanks’s most recent film was Bridge of Spies and later this year he will be in Inferno. Two standouts from the supporting cast were Alexander Black and Sarita Choudhury. I always appreciate a film which introduces me to talented actors that I haven’t known about before.
  5. A few movie suggestions based on A Hologram for The King. If you enjoyed those parts of the film that dealt with the reinvention of oneself, check out Eddie The Eagle – a cute, small scale underdog story. If you liked the business commentary, look up Money Monster. If you liked seeing the westerners in a foreign setting, I suggest you watch Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

In short, A Hologram for The King was an okay movie. There was nothing wrong with the film, but nothing really great or interesting. Hanks was good – even though this was probably only a paycheck for him, he still brought a nice performance. The writing and the directing were also fine.

Rate: 3.25/5

Trailer: A Hologram for The King trailer

fid16237

The Awards Season Round-Up 2016

Movie previews, Movie reviews

Hello Hello Hello!

Welcome to the last (finally) post dedicated to the awards’ season. This time, I won’t be reviewing any nominated motion pictures (I have done that already), but I  will tell you my own personal winners and will list all the others films in a very subjective order in each category. I am listing all the films because it was very hard for me to pick a definite number 1 spot. In addition, a lot of these films would have probably made my Best movies of 2015 list if I had seen them before January 1st, so I feel the need to at least mention them here.

Now, my categories won’t have a definite number of spaces in them. I have actually picked 20 films in total that have been nominated for either a Golden Globe, a SAG, a BAFTA, an Oscar or for all 4.  Also, I will be joining adapted and original screenplay categories into one. The distinction between lead and supporting roles will also be treated subjectively and not necessarily the way that the studios wanted. At the end of each category, I will also give my more objective prediction of who will probably take home the Academy Award.

P.S. The reviews of all these movies are linked to the names of the films only once – in the first category because it just seemed irrational to link you to a single post 5 or 6 times.

Best Picture

  1. Mad Max: Fury Road
  2. The Revenant
  3. The Martian
  4. Spotlight
  5. Creed
  6. The Big Short
  7. The Hateful Eight
  8. Steve Jobs
  9. Room
  10. The Danish Girl
  11. Bridge of Spies
  12. Brooklyn
  13. Ex-Machina
  14. Concussion
  15. Joy
  16. Straight Outta Compton
  17. Trumbo
  18. Beasts of No Nation
  19. Carol
  20. 45 Years

Prediction: As much as I would love for Mad Max to get the win, it seems very unlikely that this will happen. Although, with all the backlash against the Oscars online, the Academy might want to calm the fanboys/fangirls down by giving the award to the fan favorite. If they do decide to go the traditional route, The Revenant will probably be their top pick.

Best Directing

  1. Mad Max: Fury Road – George Miller
  2. The Revenant – Alejandro González Iñárritu
  3. The Hateful Eight – Quentin Tarantino 
  4. Room –  Lenny Abrahamson
  5. The Big Short – Adam McKay
  6. Creed – Ryan Coogler 
  7. Beasts of No Nation – Cary Joji Fukunaga
  8. Bridge of Spies – Steven Spielberg 
  9. Straight Outta Compton – F. Gary Gray
  10. The Martian – Ridley Scott
  11. Steve Jobs – Danny Boyle
  12. Ex-Machina – Alex Garland
  13. Spotlight – Tom McCarthy
  14. Concussion –  Peter Landesman
  15. The Danish Girl – Tom Hooper
  16. Brooklyn – John Crowley
  17. Trumbo – Jay Roach
  18. Joy – David O. Russell
  19. Carol – Todd Haynes
  20. 45 Years – Andrew Haigh

Prediction: Again, I would love for George Miller to take the award home, but I kinda think that Iñárritu will get his second win in the row. I would be willing to let Iñárritu win if Mad Max gets the Best Picture statue.

Best Writing

  1. Spotlight – Tom McCarthy, Josh Singer
  2. The Hateful Eight – Quentin Tarantino
  3. Steve Jobs – Aaron Sorkin
  4. The Martian – Drew Goddard
  5. Creed – Ryan Coogler, Aaron Covington
  6. The Big Short – Adam McKay, Charles Randolph
  7. The Revenant – Mark L. Smith, Alejandro G. Iñárritu
  8. Mad Max: Fury Road – George Miller, Brendan McCarthy, Nico Lathouris
  9. Bridge of Spies – Matt Charman, Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
  10. Straight Outta Compton – Jonathan Herman, Andrea Berloff
  11. Ex-Machina – Alex Garland
  12. The Danish Girl – Lucinda Coxon
  13. Room – Emma Donoghue
  14. Trumbo – John McNamara
  15. Concussion – Peter Landesman
  16. Joy – David O. Russell
  17. 45 Years – Andrew Haigh
  18. Beasts of No Nation – Cary Joji Fukunaga
  19. Brooklyn – Nick Hornby
  20. Carol – Phyllis Nagy

Prediction: this is the hardest category to predict. My best bet is that the original screenplay statue will be awarded to Spotlight, while the adapted one – to The Big Short.

Best Male Performance in a Leading Role:

  1. Leonardo Dicaprio for The Revenant
  2. Eddie Redmayne for The Danish Girl
  3. Tom Hardy for The Revenant and Mad Max: Fury Road
  4. Matt Damon for The Martian
  5. Jacob Tremblay for Room
  6. Michael Fassbender for Steve Jobs
  7. Samuel L. Jackson for The Hateful Eight
  8. Michael B.Jordan for Creed
  9. Will Smith for  Concussion
  10. Bryan Cranston for Trumbo
  11. Tom Hanks for Bridge of Spies
  12. Christian Bale for The Big Short
  13. Mark Ruffalo for Spotlight
  14. Domhnall Gleeson for Ex Machina
  15. Abraham Attah for Beasts of No Nation
  16. O’Shea Jakcson Jr. for Straight Outta Compton
  17. Tom Courtenay for 45 Years

Prediction: this is one of the few categories where my objective and subjective side think the same thing. If Leo does not win this year, he should just stop trying altogether.

Best Female Performance in a Leading Role:

  1. Brie Larson for Room
  2. Alicia Vikander for The Danish Girl and Ex-Machina
  3. Charlize Theron for Mad Max Fury Road
  4. Rooney Mara for Carol
  5. Jennifer Lawrence for Joy
  6. Rachel McAdams for Spotlight
  7. Cate Blanchett for Carol
  8. Saoirse Ronan for Brooklyn
  9. Charlotte Rampling for 45 Years

Prediction: once again, I both objectively and subjectively think that Brie Larson should get the Oscar, although, I would be pleasantly surprised if Vikander gets the win. On a side note, the saddest part about this category is that out of the 20 films, I could only find 9 actresses in  leading(-ish) roles, while there 17 male leading roles.

Best Male Performance in a Supporting Role:

  1. Ryan Gosling for The Big Short
  2. Mark Rylance for Bridge of Spies
  3. Sylvester Stallone for Creed
  4. Nicholas Hoult for Mad Max Fury Road
  5. Domhnall Gleeson for The Revenant
  6. Bradley Cooper for Joy
  7. Idris Elba for Beasts of No Nation
  8. Oscar Isaac for Ex-Machina
  9. Matthias Schoenaerts for The Danish Girl
  10. Walton Goggins for The Hateful Eight
  11. Michael Keaton for Spotlight
  12. Alec Baldwin for Concussion
  13. Corey Hawkins for Straight Outta Compton

Prediction: while I would like Gosling to win, I think that the award will go to either Mark Rylance or Sylvester Stallone. I wouldn’t be sad in either case.

Best Female Performance in a Supporting Role

  1. Kate Winslet for Steve Jobs
  2. Jennifer Jason Leight for The Hateful Eight
  3. Jessica Chastain for The Martian
  4. Tessa Thompson for Creed
  5. Amber Heard for The Danish Girl
  6. Gugu Mbatha-Raw for Concussion
  7. Diane Lane for Trumbo

Prediction: I would like the win to go to Kate Winslet, but the actual award will probably find itself in the hands of Jennifer Jason Leight. On a side note, this was probably the hardest category to fill, because I put a lot of actresses in the leading role category, while the Academy and the studios said that they were playing supporting roles.

I really hope that you enjoyed this post because I worked really hard on it. I felt the most challenged not when I was compiling the actual final lists, but while I was watching and reviewing all the films. Tell me in the comments your personal winners! Bye!!