Movie review: The Disaster Artist

Movie reviews

Hello!

I just saw a great movie about an awful movie. This is The Disaster Artist.

IMDb summary: When Greg Sestero, an aspiring film actor, meets the weird and mysterious Tommy Wiseau in an acting class, they form a unique friendship and travel to Hollywood to make their dreams come true.

Disclaimer: prior to seeing The Disaster Artist, I wanted to watch The Room – the film whose behind-the-scenes story is the subject of this movie. However, then I thought that I already have a never-ending list of past quality pictures that I need to watch but don’t have time for. So, The Room fell off the list without even making on it. But, maybe if I truly love The Disaster Artist, I’ll give The Room a chance too.

Writing

The Disaster Artist was written by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber (the duo has previously adapted two John Green’s book to the big screen – TFIOS and Paper Towns, they are also writing the New Mutants film for the Marvel Fox division), based on the book The Disaster Artist: My Life Inside The Room, the Greatest Bad Film Ever Made by Greg Sestero (Dave Franco played him in the movie) and a journalist and a critic Tom Bissell. I enjoyed the writing for this picture very much. First of all, as a cinephile, I love all things related to movies, so a film about a different film is right up my alley. Moreover, I adore movies that celebrate other films and The Disaster Artist did just that. It wasn’t making fun of The Room or Wiseau but showed a certain kind of appreciation of and respect to it and him. Also, the fact that the movie didn’t go for the easy jokes, made The Disaster Artist so much better and funnier in its own kind of way.

The writing for Tommy Wiseau as a character for this movie was intriguing. I don’t know how accurate it was but it certainly worked for the film. The fact that Wiseau was trying really hard to make something he believed in and loved came across very clearly. His personal quirks (that have now become infamous) were present in the film too. However, the movie did not single them out more than necessary. What The Disaster Artist seemed to be more focused on were Wiseau’s insecurities and feelings behind the quirks. I drew a conclusion that he was somebody who wanted approval of others but on his own terms (basically, he wanted a friend who would understand him and it’s a good thing that he found one in Sestero. It’s cute that they still talk every day, if the text at the end of The Disaster Artist is to be believed).

Lastly, Wiseau, The Room, and now The Disaster Artist also expressed some neat ideas about cinema and human behavior (how one is the expression of the other). My main takeaway from the 2017’s biopic was the idea that the making of The Room was therapy for Wiseau. In addition, the watching of The Room seems to bring a feeling of catharsis for the viewers too (otherwise, why would they be watching it?).

Directing

James Franco directed The Disaster Artist and did an impeccable job (this film was actually my first introduction to him as a director). Not only did he recreate the scenes from The Room spot on (as evident in the credits side-by-side comparison) but he managed to balance out the film – keep it respectful but also funny. The opening interview montage, full of celebrity cameos, added a slight documentary feel to the movie, while the handled cinematography made it undeniably indie. The late 1990s/early 2000s soundtrack was fun (especially for somebody who grew up on that bad pop music). The funniest sequences of the feature, in my opinion, were the audition montage and the nude scene shoot. Lastly, the shots of the audience laughing while watching The Room felt very meta, as the actions of those moviegoers were mirrored by the audience of The Disaster Artist.

Acting

The Disaster Artist had a display of some bad acting from some great actors. James Franco not only directed the film but played the lead Tommy Wiseau (real Wiseau cameos during the end credits scene that nobody waits to see). I have enjoyed a lot of Franco’s dramatic roles before (like the one in 127 Hours) and I have liked some of his comedic work (he was hilarious in both Sausage Party and This is the End). I feel like, in this film, he combined all of his talents and delivered a brilliant dramatic and comedic performance. He nailed Tommy’s laugh and the vaguely Eastern European accent (though I’m not sure that Wiseau’s own accent is truly Eastern European – this comes from somebody who has spent years trying to lose her accent from the same region, so I think I’d recognize that particular accent in another person).

Dave Franco (Nerve, Now You See Me, The Lego Ninjago, Jump Street) played Greg Sestero and was really good too. He brought innocence and excitement to the role of the young Sestero (he was barely 20 or in his early twenties when shooting The Room). The Disaster Artist marked the first time that both Franco brothers appeared on screen together. Would love to see them collaborate on future projects!

Seth Rogen (Steve Jobs), in addition to producing the film, also had a role as Sandy Schklair, the script supervisor on the production of The Room. He was delightful to watch on screen: his scene about the check going through received a lot of laughs from the audience in my screening. Alison Brie starred as Amber, Sesteros’ girlfriend, while Ari Graynor played the actress who portrayed Lisa (yup, the same one that’s tearing Wiseau apart) in The RoomJosh Hutcherson (Mockingjay) and Zac Efron (BaywatchMike and Dave, We Are Your Friends) also both appeared as the members of The Room’s cast. They got a chance to recreate an incredible scene from The Room (that literally does not connect to anything else in that film) in The Disaster Artist.

In short, The Disaster Artist was an amazing movie that should be highly appreciated by any cinephile out there. Though it still did not fully convince me to watch The Room.

Rate: 4.5/5

Trailer: The Disaster Artist trailer

TheDisastorArtistTeaserPoster

Advertisements

Movie review: The Man Who Invented Christmas

Movie reviews, Uncategorized

Hello!

The Christmas movie season continues. After a couple of comedies (A Bad Moms Christmas and Daddy’s Home 2), we now have a biographical drama – The Man Who Invented Christmas!

IMDb summary: The journey that led to Charles Dickens’ creation of “A Christmas Carol,” a timeless tale that would redefine the holiday.

Writing

The Man Who Invented Christmas‘ script was written by Susan Coyne (a Canadian playwright and TV writer), based on a historical non-fiction book with the same name by Les Standiford. Even though the screenplay was based on historical fact, I still question the accuracy of the film’s narrative, as the cinematic adaptations of biographies tend to usually strive for an entertaining rather than truthful story. And this movie’s narrative was certainly compelling, mostly due to its content but also structure.

The Man Who Invented Christmas told (though great dialogues, I might add) the behind-the-scenes story of the creation of one of the most beloved novellas for readers of all ages – Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol. I do particularly remember reading the book as a child while laying down in bed with a cold during winter. Seeing this film made me want to definitely reread the book this winter. I would probably understand it in a completely different way now, not only because I watched this film but also because I just studied Charles Dickens’ other works, last of which I read and researched only last month – Great Expectations.

If the movie is to be believed, a lot of different elements from Dickens‘ life acted as the inspiration for the novella. One of the elements was Dickens’s struggles with the concept of class: the class divide and the class consciousness. He was known as ‘the writer of the people’ and yet, he was very much part of the upper/middle class. However, he had experienced lower class life as a child in a workhouse and those experiences haunted him the rest of his life. Dickens‘ father’s belief that he belonged to a higher class even if he had no funds to back up his membership also influenced the writer. The portrayal of the competitive literary scene of the 19th century Britain also acted as a neat realistic background for the story.

As much as I have enjoyed the content of the narrative, I also really loved its structure (a.k.a. how the inspiration behind A Christmas Carol was portrayed in the film). I thoroughly enjoyed seeing Dickens interact with his characters and move around his version of London in the story. It was as if the magical atmosphere of the book was transferred to its behind the scenes story. I loved seeing the parallels between Dickens and Scrooge too and liked the idea that both of them needed to learn to open themselves up to the world and see the hopeful side of it. It looks like writing was a form of therapy for Dickens. Lastly, I absolutely adored the picture’s message about the importance and the usefulness of imagination and storytelling.

Directing

The Man Who Invented Christmas was directed by Bharat Nalluri and this was the first film of his that I have seen. I thought that he did a stellar job. I loved the fairytale-like atmosphere of the film – the said aura made the movie more than just a biographical drama. The pacing was quite good too. The cinematography (by Ben Smithard) was good and varied as well, while the orchestral soundtrack (by Mychael Danna) was grand and emotional. Lastly, the narrative’s sentimental message and a heart-warming conclusion were brought to life in an excellent manner. My favorite scene of the movie that just epitomized all that was great about it was Stevens as Dickens looking at the first published copy of his new book and getting emotional about it. That single scene underscored both the hardships and the joys of creativity as Stevens‘ character seemed both relieved and excited.

Acting

Dan Stevens starred as Charles Dickens and did a great job. His performance was quite theatrical, which really fit the fairytale aura of the film (but would have been odd in a more realistic setting). Stevens seems to have a hard time escaping historical roles – he was just the Beast in 18th century France (Beauty and the Beast) and, of course, who can forget the beginning of his career and Cousin Matthew on Downton Abbey? If you want to see him in more contemporary roles, The Guest and Legion are both excellent (even though Legion is maybe set in the past – the visual style of that series makes it really hard to pinpoint its time period).

The supporting cast of the movie was full of great talent. Christopher Plummer was just amazing as Scrooge (I should not be surprised at how great he was after looking at his IMDb: he is, basically, the cinema royalty, and was even in The Sound of Music all those decades ago). Jonathan Pryce was also quite good as Dickens’s father. On the female character side, the movie didn’t have much (it was set in the 19th century, are you even surprised at the lack of female leads?). Having said that, it did attempt to do something with Dickens’ wife, played by Ger Ryan (she mentioned something about wanting an adventure of her own – not an idea that a woman would have had in the 19th century but definitely would have had nowadays) and Anna Murphy as Tara (an Irish housemaid, whose tales kickstarted the writing process of A Christmas Carol).

In short, The Man Who Invented Christmas was a unique biographical drama with a lovely message and a touch of theatricality.

Rate: 4.3/5

Trailer: The Man Who Invented Christmas trailer

images

5 ideas about a movie: Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool

Movie reviews

Hi!

Welcome to a review of a film with the best title ever. This is Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool.

IMDb summary: A romance sparks between a young actor and a Hollywood leading lady.

  1. Film Stars Don’t Die In Liverpool was written by Matt Greenhalgh (the British cinema writer). As the name suggests, this was a film about the movie business – a genre, that I, as a cinephile, am very partial too. However, the picture was also so much more than a love letter to cinema: it was also a survival story (not the best example on how to treat one’s cancer or any other serious illness), a faithful biography (it was based on the memoir by Peter TurnerJamie Bell’s character in the movie), and a timeless romance with a contemporary couple (these type of age dynamics in a couple – older woman/younger man – are still treated as an abnormal).
  2. The movie also explored the idea of growing old but staying old. It also mentioned bisexuality in the 1970s-1980s but didn’t dwell on that plot point. The film was set in the meeting point between the celebrity and the real world, which was an exciting boundary to consider. It also drew an interesting parallel between this real live romance and Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet. The narrative’s structure was also unusual: the movie’s story unfolded over the two time frames (past and present) and that allowed the story to have more an emotional impact, which stemmed from the contrast of the happy past and sad present.
  3. Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool was produced by Barbara Broccoli (longtime producer of the James Bond films) and directed by Paul McGuigan (he has directed some episode of Sherlock and Luke Cage as well as the movie Viktor Frankenstein). The visual transitions that McGuigan crafted between the aforementioned time frames, were quite beautiful and inventive. However, the CGI locations looked quite fake and took me out of the film more than once. The pacing was also really slow so the viewer had to be interested/invested in the story to keep watching. Lastly, I loved how the director replayed the same scene from two different perspectives and completely altered its meaning.
  4. Annette Bening (who has had a long and fairly successful career but only appeared on my radar last year with 20th Century Women) played the lead actress and was really great. Her actress character was portrayed as a bit of a stereotypical Hollywood celebrity – selfish, a bit aloof, and deeply insecure. This didn’t necessarily make her the most likable but certainly an interesting character. I loved the shots that focused on her makeup routine – they powerfully underscored the importance of the outer appearance of actors.
  5. Jamie Bell played the male lead of the film and was absolutely brilliant. I only remember seeing him in Fantastic Four where he didn’t have much to do, so I was quite blown away by his dramatic talents on display in this film. However, he has previously worked with Lars von Trier on Nymphomaniac and was also in Snowpiercer, so I think I should have known how good he was.

In short, Film Star Don’t Die in Liverpool was a lovely biographical drama with a real-life cinematic love story at its center.

Rate: 4/5

Trailer: Film Star Don’t Sie in Liverpool trailer

justice-league-poster

 

Movie review: Wonder

Movie reviews

Hello!

In honor of the World Kindness Day, the cinemas all over the UK put on special preview screening of Wonder and I got a chance to attend one of them. So, let’s review it!

IMDb summary: Based on the New York Times bestseller, WONDER tells the incredibly inspiring and heartwarming story of August Pullman, a boy with facial differences who enters fifth grade, attending a mainstream elementary school for the first time.

Writing

Wonder was written by Jack Thorne (a playwright and a TV writer), Steve Conrad (the writer of The Pursuit of Happyness (one of the most hopeful movies I’ve ever seen – no surprise he got this gig) and the director of the film Stephen Chbosky, based on the children’s novel of the same name by R.J. Palacio. I enjoyed the film’s writing quite a bit. I loved how the movie focused on multiple characters and had separate vignettes centered on each of them. The characters, who were chosen to be spotlighted, were not the typical ones. For example, the former friend of the main character’s sister. The typical thing would have been to turn her into a shallow bully rather than explore her backstory, which was what Wonder did. I only wish that we would have gotten more development for the parent characters and seen their struggles outside their relationship with their children.

The themes that Wonder explored and the messages it tried to spread made the picture the perfect fit for the World Kindness Day. The movie encouraged its viewers to value true friendship and family, to give people a second chance, to be the bigger person and to be kind at the same time, to be proud of one’s scars, to learn to listen and to be empathetic. Wonder’s story was heartwarming and hopeful, while still remaining grounded in the real world – not shying away from its problems, but encountering them with goodness in the mind and in the heart. The plot was also full of funny moments. I, personally, loved all the Star Wars references. I wonder whether they were in the original book or whether the film just included them because Jacob Tremblay (the actor who played the main character) is quite a fan of the franchise himself.

Directing

Wonder was directed by Stephen Chbosky – the author of The Perks of Being a Wallflower (he also wrote and directed the movie adaptation of that story) and the writer of the movie musical Rent and Disney’s live-action juggernaut Beauty and the Beast. I though that he did quite a good job with directing. I loved the visual metaphors and how science and astronomy were used to express the emotional state of the character. The vignette structure was also handled well and the film wasn’t choppy. It was a bit slow, though, but a story like this needs to evolve organically, so I wasn’t too annoyed about the pacing issues.

Acting

Wonder’s lead was played by Jacob Tremblay – one of the best young actors, in my mind. He was absolutely stellar in Room a few years back and as good in this film. He also did an incredible job acting through the make-up and the prosthetics. Julia Roberts (Money Monster) played the mother of the main character and was a pure joy to watch. Owen Wilson (She’s Funny That Way, Cars 3) starred as the dad and was appropriately funny (sometimes his roles go from comedic to stupid and I’m so glad this one wasn’t an example of that). Izabela Vidovic was really good as Tremblay’s character’s sister, while Noah Jupe, who I saw less than a week ago in Suburbicon, was great as the main character’s friend from school.

In brief, Wonder was a wonderful little film with a nice message.

Rate: 4/5

Trailer: Wonder trailer

Wonder_(film).png

Movie review: Paddington 2

Movie reviews

Hi!

A delightful bundle of joy has landed in theatres. It’s Paddington 2!

IMDb summary: Paddington, now happily settled with the Brown family and a popular member of the local community, picks up a series of odd jobs to buy the perfect present for his Aunt Lucy’s 100th birthday, only for the gift to be stolen.

Movie over Winnie-the-Pooh, there is a new bear in town! Christopher Robin and his bear first entered the pop culture in the 1920s (Goodbye Christopher Robin tells that story), while Paddington first debuted in Michael Bond’s children’s books in the late 1950s. In 2014, Paddington’s stories have been brought to life on the big screen for the first time (they have previously been adapted into TV movies throughout the second half of the 20th century). Due to the critical and commercial success of the first film, the sequel has been made and the world is just a tiny bit better because of it.

Writing

Paddington 2 was written by the director of the film Paul King (who also helmed the first film) and Simon Farnaby (actor-turned-writer). The writing for the picture was just great. The viewers got to see Paddington entering the workforce and coming face to face with the harsh realities of life, while never losing his optimism. Despite all challenges he had to face, the lovable bear remained an example of endless hope, understanding, and kindness – somebody that we should all strive to be a little more like. The innocent humor, which arose from the situations that Paddington put himself in, was so nice and a pleasant change from the fart jokes of the other children’s movies. The meta-humor – the joke about the actors being evil as they lie for a living – was appreciated too. The good side of the British culture, that was neatly spotlighted in the first film, was on display here too. I also liked the fact that the movie wasn’t afraid to poke fun at the poshness of Britishness too. Also, I loved the fact that the incentive for a story was a pop-up book – I used to love my fairytale garden pop up book as a child and it is still on the shelve in my old room at my parents’ house.

Not only did Paddington got a chance to go on a fun adventure in a sequel, but his family also got some nice screentime. The teenager problems, the middle-life crisis storyline for the dad, and the desire for adventure for the mother were all nice touches that expanded the plot. I also loved how tight the narrative was. Every detail that was introduced in the set-up came back again during the third act of the film. The son’s steam trains hobby, the dad’s yoga, the sticky toffee apples that Paddington ate during the fair, the judge character, the daughter’s newspaper, the mother’s painting and swimming abilities, Paddington’s folded ladder were all important plot-points, not just random ideas that the screenwriters had.

Directing

The director of the first film Paul King absolutely nailed the sequel. He kept the pure, innocent, and joyful atmosphere of the first movie that is so on-brand for Paddington. The picture’s setting was very well-realized: both the broad one (the feature was sort of a love letter to London) and the narrow one (the fair/carnival/circus setting was just adorable). The CGI animation that brought Paddington to life was impeccable too. The cinematography was amazing as well: the filmmakers used a lot of long and mobile shots that were so impressive.

Acting

Ben Whishaw (A Hologram for the King, In The Heart of The Sea, Spectre, The Danish Girl, Suffragette, The Lobster) was, once again, perfect as the optimistic, innocent, but determined voice behind Paddington. Hugh Bonneville (Breathe), Sally Hawkins (Godzilla), and Julie Walters (I can’t wait for Mamma Mia 2!) were great as the ‘adoptive’ family of Paddington, while Brendan Gleeson (Assasin’s Creed) had a lot of fun with the role of the prison cook. Hugh Grant (Florence Foster Jenkins) was wonderful as the over-the-top theatrical villain, while a plethora of great British actors (Jim Broadbent, Peter Capaldi, Ben Miller) also played some lovely minor roles.

In short, Paddington 2 provides an amazing opportunity for escapism and is both heartbreaking and heartwarming. It also will get you craving for marmalade!

Rate: 4.5/5

Trailer: Paddington 2 trailer

8f8b0e078426ff7a42ce5950c6c86368

 

5 ideas about a movie: Only The Brave

Movie reviews

Hello!

A touching cinematic ode to the fallen firefighters – Only The Brave – has reached theatres, so, let’s review it.

IMDb summary: Based on the true story of the Granite Mountain Hotshots, a group of elite firefighters risk everything to protect a town from a historic wildfire.

  1. I haven’t seen a lot of movies focusing on firefighters before. There have been a fair few films telling the stories of the police officers or the doctors, so it was only right that the firefighters and their important work should also be spotlighted. And that’s exactly what Only The Brave did. The picture was directed by Joseph Kosinski (director of Tron: Legacy and writer/director of Oblivion, who is also set to direct Top Gun 2) and written by Ken Nolan (Black Hawk Down, Transformers 5) and Eric Warren Singer (American Hustle). The script was based on a GQ article “No Exit” by Sean Flynn.
  2. In general, Only The Brave’s writing was good and ticked off all the boxes of the biographical drama to do list. The set-up and the character development was present, the narrative unraveled smoothly, and the emotional punch was strong. The film’s 3 acts had distinct qualities. The first act/the set-up acted as the ‘origin’ story of the Grand Mountain Hot Shots, the middle part showed their career highs and strengthened the connection between the viewer and the characters, while the last act revolved around a game-changing event. The conclusion of the movie used that aforementioned connection to make its viewers teary-eyed during the third act. In addition, I found that idea of nature as fuel for fire very interesting and unique – never seen nature from that perspective myself.
  3. The character development was mostly given to two characters – Miles Teller’s Donut and Josh Brolin’s Supe. We got to see their struggles and their family lives. Jeff Bridges’s character was there to push the plot forward, while Taylor Kitsch’s character was used as the comedic relief (‘2 dads and a baby’ moment was so funny). The other guys were there for the atmosphere. The said atmosphere started out quite unappealing, especially for me as a female viewer. I do get that guys talk like that (by that, I mean borderline sexist) in an all-male environment, but that doesn’t mean that I’d like to see it. What I did enjoy seeing was the training of the group as well as their growth from bullying each other to legitimately caring for one another.
  4. The directing of the film was quite good. The pacing was okay and the intensity of the action sequences was fine too – the movie did succeed in conveying the risks that these people were taking. The southern rural US setting was well-realized too. The burning bear visual was neat, while the other scenes of fire looked realistic. The nice dedication at the end of the film and the photos of the real-life counterparts of the characters were both nice touches.
  5. The cast of the film was quite extensive, but, as I have said, only a handful of characters were focused on. Josh Brolin (Hail, Caesar!, MCU) played Supe and was good, though I have already seen him in a comparable role (Everest and Sicario both come to mind). Similarly, Jeff Bridges also played a role he has played before (in Hell or High Water or even in Kingsman 2). Miles Teller (War Dogs, Allegiant, FF) was good too and I kinda feel that his character, at least during the first act, was basically the person that everyone images Teller to be in real life (he doesn’t have the greatest image in the media). Taylor Kitsch (American Assasin) was okay as well, but I wanted to see something more out of him. Jennifer Connelly (Noah, she was also the voice of Karen (the suit’s AI) in Spider-Man: Homecoming) played Supe’s wife and she actually had more to do than the characters of wifes or girlfriends usually do in films like these.

In short, Only The Brave was a well-made and a heartfelt biographical drama, worthy of a watch but not necessarily at the cinema.

Rate: 4/5

Trailer: Only The Brave trailer

images

Movie review: The Killing of a Sacred Deer

Movie reviews

Hello!

The reviews of the awards’ hopefuls continue. Today, we are discussing The Killing of a Sacred Deer.

IMDb summary: Steven, a charismatic surgeon, is forced to make an unthinkable sacrifice after his life starts to fall apart when the behavior of a teenage boy he has taken under his wing turns sinister.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer is director’s Yorgos Lanthimos’s and writer’s Efthymis Filippou’s follow-up movie to The Lobstera smart, sophisticated, and artistic dystopia, which I really enjoyed. Thus, I was looking forward to this film.

Writing

The Killing of a Sacred Deer’s writing was extraordinary. At the basest level, the film told a revenge story, inspired by the ancient Greek literature, especially the tragedies. However, so many unique details and topics were used to embellish this revenge story. A lot of them left me flabbergasted and puzzled, but in a good way.

The characters in the film were so peculiar. Their ‘prim and proper’ facade was very obviously just a facade. In truth, they were all deeply disturbed individuals, some more than others. They all had a weird aura of emotionlessness and eagerness about them. They blurted out sentences that ‘normal’ people don’t say. This all added up to a warped reality feeling of the film’s world.

The lead character, from the very beginning, was an unsettling one to watch. His relationship with the teenage boy also seemed inappropriate from the start, even if for different potential reasons that it ultimately turned out to be. Additionally, it was interesting to see how the movie explored the immense responsibility and the burden of doctors, even if taken to the farthest extreme.

Sticking with the theme of medicine, The Killing also commented on human psychology and introduced me to an idea of psychosomatic disorders, which I had never heard of before. Having said that, I wish that the movie had a more explicit explanation for the illnesses of the children – was it certainly related to psychology? Or was there a supernatural element? A symbolic explanation? Who knows. Maybe that’s also sorta the point, not to know completely.

The film also investigated the concept of family and family relationships. This was no positive representation of a family, but the example of parental favoritism and sacrifice (not like self-sacrifice, though, not even close). The questions of morality also sprung up from the family concept.

While I thought that the narrative, on the whole, was really strong, I also got a feeling that the writers weren’t sure how to end it. The 3rd act seemed to be winding down rather than building up to something and I’m not entirely sure that the conclusion we got was fully satisfying. Then again, when the entire movie was unsettling, why should it have a satisfying ending? Isn’t it more appropriate to carry the signature feeling till the very last frame?

Directing

I’ve seen this picture being describe as a modern take on Hitchcock and I do see some similarities to the thrillers of the beloved filmmaker.  What stood out to me the most, was how the director Lanthimos was able to take an already disturbing textual story and make it feel 10 times more creepy in a film form. The Killing of a Sacred Deer had a few very graphic and shocking images, like its opening frame, which popped out of the darkness and completely startled me. The sacral music that accompanied the image only strengthened the effect. That score, full of high pitched string orchestra sounds, deep drum noises, and a sacral/choral elements, was, in general, employed very effectively throughout the film. The long tracking shots, the zoom ins/outs, and the steady frame also contributed to that feeling that something was off or not what it seemed.

Acting

The whole cast delivered great performances, that combined the aforementioned qualities of eagerness and emotionless. Colin Farrell (Fantastic Beasts) was reunited with Lanthimos whom he worked with on The Lobster, and was just amazing to watch. Nicole Kidman (Lion, Genius), who was recently in The Beguiled with Farrell, was equally brilliant. Barry Keoghan (Dunkirk) was deeply disturbing, troubling, and just perfect for the role. Raffey Cassidy and Sunny Suljic starred as the children of Farrell’s and Kidman’s characters and were also really good. Lastly, Alicia Silverstone had a minor role and I did not even recognize her on screen. To me, she will always be stuck in a Clueless era.

 

 

In short, if mother! was the queen of creepiness than The Killing of a Sacred Deer is the king of unsettledness.

 

Rate: 4/5

Trailer: The Killing of a Sacred Deer trailer

MV5BMjU4NDcwOTA2NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMjE2OTg4MzI@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,674,1000_AL_.jpg

Movie review: Blade Runner 2049

Movie reviews

Hello!

The long-awaited (by some) sequel to another 1980s hit – Blade Runner 2049 – has reached theaters, so, let’s see whether it was worth the wait and all the hype.

IMDb summary: A young blade runner’s discovery of a long-buried secret leads him to track down former blade runner Rick Deckard, who’s been missing for thirty years.

The original Blade Runner has been a cult classic for years but I’ve never expected it to get a sequel 3 decades later because of the lack of mainstream success. Undoubtedly, it has aged well: the story is still solid and is open to as many different interpretations as there are versions of the film. The pacing is a bit slow but that can be seen as a feature of the time. The effects are great too even if you can tell that they have that particular 1980s futuristic style. Even though I did like the original film, I wouldn’t have been as excited about its sequel if they hadn’t gotten Dennis Villeneuve to direct it. His attachment to the project was the factor that immensely increased my interest the movie! Besides, the marketing shorts, which filled in the 30-year-old gap between the two feature films – the anime Black Out 2022, and the live action shorts 2036: Nexus Dawn and 2048: Nowhere to Run – have acted as great tasters for the sequel and doubled the hype as well!

SPOILER ALERT

Writing

Blade Runner 2049 was written by Hampton Fancher (the writer of the original) and Michael Green (the writer of Logan, Alien: Covenant, and the upcoming Murder on the Orient Express, the co-creator of American Gods). This duo of scriptwriters did an amazing job: they paid homage to the original (both the plot and the thematic concepts) and expanded upon it/them extremely successfully.

The first two acts of the sequel were structured as a mystery: a smart yet straightforward one man’s quest for answers. The third act upped the complexity: it had a tonne of exciting reveals and a bunch of sidelines converging with the main one. The writing for the lead character was just brilliant too. Every act of the film had some kind of twist relating to him: either the fact that he was a replicant at the beginning, a potential offspring of a replicant in the second act and just a decoy for the actual child in the end. It was amazing to see a character go from not knowing who he was to finding actual answers but quickly realizing that he was asking the wrong questions in the first place. He both found and lost an identity before our eyes in the time span of two hours. It was such a great and different character arc.

Two huge thematic concepts that 2049 introduced were the virtual/holographic humans and the procreation ability of the replicants. These two ideas pushed the question of ‘what is humanity ?’ so much farther than I ever dream it could go. I still can’t wrap my head around these two concepts.

Directing

Denis Villeneuve, who has quickly become one of the most critically acclaimed directors of our time with films like Prisoners, Sicario, and especially last year’s Arrival, directed the Blade Runner sequel and did a spectacular job. To begin with, he stayed faithful to the original with the pacing and the style of the visuals. Having said that, Villeneuve also built upon what was already there. 2049 was a really long and quite a slow film, however, it never dragged. It was always intense, intriguing, and exciting – way more than the original ever was.

When it comes to visuals, they were just breathtaking. The set design (by Alessandra Querzola + production design by Dennis Gassner), the costume design (by Renée April), the lighting and the cinematography (by Roger Deakins) – all these different departments just brought their A-game and created such a cohesive masterpiece. The scope was epic and awe-inspiring. The shots were composed so beautifully, you could just freeze them and frame every single image. The colors were so vibrant and just popped off the screen. The shots also lingered a lot (that’s why the movie was so long) but the combination of the visuals and the amazing score made them so impactful, powerful, and effective. In general, the soundtrack (by Benjamin Wallfisch and none other than Hans Zimmer) was so cool and that new instrumental theme was so heart wrenching.

A lot of films have tried to emulate a similar style but none of them have come close to Blade Runner 2049 (Ghost in the Shell looked good but wasted the visuals on an awful story). A few of noteworthy sequences in this picture were: 1. the interplay between the shadows and the light in the pyramid; 2. the memory-construction scene – such a brilliant example of storytelling within a bigger story; 3. the zoom/enhance effect carried over from the first film; 4. a very unique sex scene (not an adjective I’ve ever thought I’d use to describe a sex scene; and 5. an impeccable looking de-aging moment – that technology has never looked better.

Acting

Blade Runner 2049 had quite an extensive cast, full of fan-favorite actors in roles of varying sizes. At the centre of it was Ryan Gosling, who has lent his talents to a variety of genres throughout his career, including but not limited to musicals (La La Land), art films (Only God Forgives), indies with mainstream appeal (Drive), mainstream romantic dramas (The Notebook), arty romantic dramas (Blue Valentine), comedies (Crazy,Stupid,Love), political dramas (The Ides of March), action comedies (The Nice Guys), biopics (The Big Short), and crime dramas (Gangster Squad). Finally, he has added sci-fi to this extensive list with the lead role in Blade Runner 2049, which he was just absolutely brilliant in: powerful, vulnerable, dramatic, emotional. Totally marvelous.

Harrison Ford has come back to another role from his younger days. He has already retired Han Solo and will be back as Indiana Jones in 2020. In Blade Runner 2049, he only appeared in the third act but that was enough to make an impression.

The film also had quite a few female characters. Ana de Armas (War Dogs) was amazing as the virtual girlfriend, Sylvia Hoeks (Renegades) was wonderful as the warrior replicant, Robin Wright (Wonder Woman) was a badass police chief,
Mackenzie Davis (Black Mirror’s ‘San Junipero’ episode) had a fun appearance and, lastly, Carla Juri had a surprisingly important role. Guardians of the Galaxy’s Dave Bautista appeared in a short but the most dramatically challenging role of his career so far, while Captain Phillips’s and Eye in the Sky’s Barkhad Abdi also had a cameo (wish he got more roles). Lastly, Jared Leto (Suicide Squad) played the main antagonist and, although his role was unsettling and quite creepy, it seemed quite normal by Leto’s standards. He was great in it, though.

In short, Blade Runner 2049 was one of those wow pictures that stays with you, long after you are done watching it. Gorgeously looking, carefully written, brilliantly acted sequel that is *gasp* better than the original.

Rate: 4.8/5

Trailer: Blade Runner 2049

MV5BNzA1Njg4NzYxOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwODk5NjU3MzI@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,674,1000_AL_

Movie review: Flatliners 

Movie reviews

Hello!

The 90s are back in theatres with the remake of Flatliners. Let’s see how dead this movie about the near-death experiences is. Disclaimer: I haven’t seen the original, so I’m giving this movie as fair of a shot as they get.

IMDb summary: Five medical students, obsessed by what lies beyond the confines of life, embark on a daring experiment: by stopping their hearts for short periods, each triggers a near-death experience – giving them a firsthand account of the afterlife.

Writing

2017’s Flatliners was written by Ben Ripley (a newcomer screenwriter) and he did a very good job for the first half of the film. I really liked the set-up of the med school and how the movie showcased the strains of it. The science (barely?) parts of the actual procedures that the characters undertook were interesting too (the question is, how accurate were they?).

Speaking of the characters – they were not the best. The 5 leads were just stereotypes: the lead, the smart one, the wannabe smart one, the party-boy, and the good girl. Their afterlife visions could be seen as an attempt to develop their characters more deeply, but then again, those sequences only added a single extra feature – a sin from the past – to embellish the pre-existing stereotype. The personal arcs of all the character ended exactly how they always do. The lead was the ‘inciting incident’ (twice), the competitive intellectuals realized they love each other, the good girl went rogue and the party-boy grew up. Also, on a side note, all of them were more or less damaged in some way because of their actions in the past and they all decided to become doctors? Why? To fix others as they are not able to fix themselves? I feel like I’m digging way deeper than the scriptwriter ever did.

Also, on a side note, all of them were more or less damaged in some way because of their actions in the past and they all decided to become doctors? Why? To fix others as they are not able to fix themselves? I feel like I’m digging way deeper than the scriptwriter ever did.

The second part of the film was where Flatliners fell flat. The supernatural/subconscious horror went unexplained and the movie never committed to an answer of who/what was happening to the characters. That whole borderline-magical second part also seemed jarring after the more sci-fi (and quite solid) opening. Additionally, that ‘inner demons’ concept, could be comparable to a similar idea in It (which, BTW, is gonna murder this film at the weekend box office). Lastly, the conclusion that one should forgive oneself and take up responsibility was a nice message but it was also an extremely typical one.

Directing

Niels Arden Oplev, a Danish TV director (he helmed Mr.Robot’s pilot episode), was responsible for the Flatliners remake and did an okay job. The set-up and the first part of the film (the sci-fi) one were well realized and exciting enough but the second half’s jump scares and the unexplained horror cheapened and undermined the overall product. The opening title sequence felt very 90s, which, I guess, was an appropriate choice for a remake of a 90s film (an homage?). The scenes of the students partying/having fun seemed like they belonged to The Hangover remake, though. Basically, the movie was fine and somewhat enjoyable. If it weren’t a remake and were an original property, I’d praise it.

Acting

The main reason why I went to see 2017’s Flatliners was its cast. I was really interested to see whether Diego Luna’s English-speaking career will go anywhere after Rogue One and I guess it is, even if it’s not soaring high as I wanted it to. He has a Woody Allen project lined up as well as that Scarface remake (bummer, that it is another remake).

Another actor who drew me into the cinema was Nina Dobrev. I watched her on The Vampire Diaries for years as a teenager and was a bit disappointed when she decided to leave the show to start a movie career, which did not get off the ground quickly or even at all. This was probably her best big-screen work to date, as her appearance on the third XXX movie was atrocious. Weirdly, her med-student character here reminded me a lot of her TVD’s Elena character, who wanted to be a doctor at one point of the show. Also, another side note, her character in this movie was supposed to be a swimmer (at least I got that impression) and, as somebody who practices this sport IRL, I could not take her seriously because of that super-sexy and not at all training appropriate swimming suit and that cap, that elderly women wear to the water aerobics.

Other cast members of the film were: Ellen Page (X-Men) – the biggest name-talent attached to this film, who also had the best performance; British TV actor James Norton, and Kiersey Clemons (DCEU’S Iris West). Kiefer Sutherland had a few scenes (he played the lead in the original), while Awkward’s Beau Mirchoff also cameoed as basically his character from that MTV show.

In short, Flatliners was fun but unexceptional film, that started out quite promising but fell apart in the end.

Rate: 3/5

Trailer: Flatliners trailer

flatliners-poster

5 ideas about a movie: American Assasin

Movie reviews

Hello and welcome to the third and the last movie review of this weekend!

In this post, we are discussing American Assasin: one generic monstrosity of a film that was so basic that I couldn’t even come up with an interesting introduction for its review. I could have called it just ‘another movie in the line of films that all have the word ‘American’ plus a random noun in their titles’ (American MADE, BEAUTY, PSYCHO, GRAFITTI, etc.)

IMDb summary: A story centered on counterterrorism agent Mitch Rapp.

  1. American Assasin, as a story, first originated in a book format, written by Vince Flynn. 7 years and 4 screenwriters later (Stephen Schiff (writer of 1990s’ pictures like True Crime and Lolita, who now mostly works on the small screen), Michael Finch (wrote Hitman: Agent 47), Edward Zwick (TV writer), and Marshall Herskovitz (writer of The Great Wall and Jack Reacher 2), this narrative reached the silver screen. Now, I haven’t read the book, so I can’t comment on the similarities/differences between the version of the plot in the film and in the novel. However, I can tell you that, as a motion picture, American Assasin was completely unoriginal, predictable, bland, uninspiring, and, frankly, boring. It is also mind-boggling to see 4 scriptwriters credited for the writing of the movie. They seriously couldn’t come up with anything better?
  2. American Assasin didn’t bring anything new to the table when it comes to movies about terrorism (it even resulted in being just as the same old white male vs white male fight). It didn’t have anything new to say neither about the mentor-mentee relationship nor the world of the military/CIA/secret-ops and their rogue agents. It also didn’t practice what it preacher: everything was personal and nobody followed the rules. Lastly, the twists and turns could be seen a mile away, while the dialogue lines were super recycled, and, thus, cringe-y.
  3. A couple of compliments I could award the screenplay was that I liked seeing the transition of Dylan O’Brien’s character: from a millennial who would film his proposal (the acting made that moment sweet rather than eye-roll worthy) to an assassin with a personal (and almost justified) vendetta. I also loved the idea of the virtual training. The IRL training sequence (the one with the re-created shop) was also neat.
  4. Michael Cuesta, TV director and producer and the director of Kill the Messenger, helmed American Assasin and did as good of a job as he could. The script didn’t really give him much to work with but at least he made the hand-to-hand combat seem somewhat exciting. The pacing was fine too. The generic setting of the various European and non-European cities was well realized, but, still generic (Americans seem to enjoy wreaking havoc on the old continent).
  5. Inarguably, the best part about this film was the performances of its two leads. Dylan O’Brien has really begun his final transition from the YA-movies (a la The Maze Runner, which he still has one to promote and oversee the release of) and the young adult TV (Teen Wolf is also airing its last episodes, which he scarcely appears in). He has also had a small role in Deepwater Horizon. His performance here was believable and likable. Michael Keaton (Spider-Man: Homecoming, Spotlight) was also great: there were shades of ‘let’s get nuts’ level of craziness in his performance. Taylor Kitsch was fine as the villain too, though there wasn’t anything particularly interesting about his performance. The few female supporting characters were lazily written but performed well enough by Sanaa Lathan (who was, sadly, just the exposition machine) and Shiva Negar (or the film’s lazy attempt at the female empowerment and diversity).

In short, American Assasin is an action film that you have already seen numerous times. If you like the two leads (Keaton and O’Brien) you might watch it for them, other than that – I don’t recommend it. Maybe as a rental or a free TV rerun.

Rate: 2.5/5

Trailer: American Assasin trailer

American-Assassin-Official-Poster.jpg