Movie review: Geostorm

Movie reviews

Hello!

A film from the producers of Independence Day (yeah?) and Independence Day: Resurgence (oh). This is Geostorm!

IMDb summary: When the network of satellites designed to control the global climate start to attack Earth, it’s a race against the clock to uncover the real threat before a worldwide geostorm wipes out everything and everyone.

Writing

Geostorm was written by the director of the film Dean Devlin (he is a longtime producer) and Paul Guyot (a TV writer). Usually, movies like this one have a whole army of writers, so I was actually quite surprised to see only 2 writing credits for this one). The picture’s writing was exactly of the quality that I expected it to be, while the story was predictable, typical, and full of far-fetched science (again, as it was supposed to be). It also had the most cliched lead – a family man with a broken family (father-daughter AND sibling issues).

The best part about the writing was the interplay between the movie’s messages and the current political climate.  To begin with, the whole movie was basically an awareness campaign for climate change – a development that some (you know who) still think is a hoax. Like all disaster films, the movie also showed the people trying to control or fight nature, while we should have left it alone long ago.

The more obvious political message, or the anti-political one, was the portrayal of the film’s villain (who had that ‘Make America Great Again’ attitude) and the anti-weaponization idea (I suppose that by the anti-political tone I also kinda mean if not ‘anti’ then at least un-American tone too). And yet, even though the film was made for an international market and had an international cast, it still had a typical American hero front and center. China, being the box office power it is, also was spotlighted a bit. Basically, Geostorm seemed like an old school/90s very typically American (but also somewhat un-American) film disguised as a ‘dumb’ actioner for the foreign audiences.

Speaking of the ‘happy’ (millions died, don’t mention it) ending of the film: I, as a realist and a cynic, generally have a hard time stomaching the positivistic happy endings, which are all about the single humanity, solidarity, peace and bright future. I, honestly, stopped believing in that dream long ago and nothing that’s happening in the world today is work towards persuading me otherwise. Well, at least the movies try.

Directing

Independence Day films’ producer Dean Devlin had his directorial debut with Geostorm. I guess he did as good of a job as this genre requires of him. The action was fine, the story made sense in the context of the film (suspension of disbelief is key). The effects were okay. Some of them looked like they belonged in the 1990s, the others in the 2010s. The space stuff looked best, but the weather catastrophes looked kinda awful and very obviously CGI. It was basically a remake of 2012 movie for 2017.

Acting

Gerard Butler starred as the lead and did an okay job. This is the type of movie that he usually makes but I don’t really know why executives still cast him because he is no longer a box office draw. Also, even though I buy him as an action hero, don’t push your luck and make him a scientist too. That’s a bit harder to comprehend. Lastly, why is he always made into an American (or an Egyptian character)? Can’t we hear his actual Scottish accent just once?

The supporting cast of the film included Jim Sturgess (whose performance I did enjoy. I’m also more inclined to give him a pass as he has starred in one of my favorites movies of all time – Cloud Atlas – and also had a role in Stonehearst Asylum); Abbie Cornish; Ed Harris (mother!, also, please, shoot more Westworld ASAP), and Andy García (a Cuban-American actor in the role of the President: should I read into this?). The film also had a bunch of international actors whose character’s only character trait was their nationality (that’s not how you do diversity, Geostorm). The film starred Germany’s Alexandra Maria Lara, Ireland’s Robert Sheehan, Hong Kong’s Daniel Wu (Warcraft), Mexico’s Eugenio Derbez, Adepero Oduye of Nigerian ancestry and Egypt’s Amr Waked in a role of a Frenchman. Also, Zazie Beetz, who will play Domino in Deadpool 2, had a minor role.

In short, Geostorm was exactly what you would expect it to be. I didn’t expect nothing, so the movie was also nothing.

Rate: 2,7/5

Trailer: Geostorm trailer

img_6373

Advertisements

Movie review: Hacksaw Ridge

Movie reviews

Hello!

Before the year ends, I’m desperately trying to see all the movies I’ve missed and all the films that might make my top 10 list. Well, I just came back from the cinema where I saw a strong contender for it – Hacksaw Ridge.

IMDb summary: WWII American Army Medic Desmond T. Doss, who served during the Battle of Okinawa, refuses to kill people, and becomes the first man in American history to receive the Medal of Honor without firing a shot.

Writing

TV writer Andrew Knight and playwright Robert Schenkkan wrote Hacksaw Ridge’s script and did a very good job. They managed to tell a very personal story in the context of a huge global event – WWII – and have given a unique perspective on it. This film, similarly to The Birth of a Nation, was not only a war drama but a religious picture too. The power of belief and religious dogmas were contrasted to the horrors of war. The writing for the main character was really good and extensive: his upbringing and personal background really helped the viewers to sympathize and even identify with him. I especially liked the contrast between his quite violent childhood and the feeling of innocence that he maintained in his adult years before the war (the sweet flirting scenes showcased that the best). These varying scenes made him into a fully rounded character and set up his character journey neatly. The truly heartbreaking and inspiring part of his story was the fact that he managed to keep his goodness when faced with the evilest thing in the universe – war.

The most compelling part of the film, to me personally, was the second act. I found it really interesting to see how this man struggled to even get to war. The court speech was one of my favorite pieces of dialogue (the other one being the line from the 3rd act ‘Help me get one more’). The debate on whether rules or beliefs are more important was interesting too.

When watching this movie’s narrative unfold on the big screen, a couple of questions popped into my mind. The first one revolved around bullying in the army – we all know that that happens in real life and we all have seen the countless movie scenes with the Sergeant shouting at the Privates. This type of a scene has become a cliche in both the reality and in cinema. The question that bothers me is why? Why is bullying in the army seen as accepted and normal rite of passage? The second, more general movie question, has to do with war dramas. Every year, at least one WWII or WWI film reaches theaters and they all usually do pretty well, both financially and critically. I’d like to know when are we going to run our of real (and fictional) war stories to tell? When is humanity’s fascination with world wars is going to end? Maybe if one starts in real life, there won’t be any need to look for this kind of horrific violence in the cinema.

Directing

After a 10 year hiatus, Mel Gibson (Braveheart, The Passion of the Christ) came back to directing and did a magnificent job with Hacksaw Ridge. I loved how he realized all the different parts of the story (upbringing, training, and war) and how he paced them: the movie was quite slow and long but I didn’t feel like it dragged unnecessarily, the balance between drama and action was good. The way the actual war sequences were actualized was just spectacular. They were graphic, violent, and uncomfortable to look at – everything a war scene should look and feel like. From start to finish, Gibson crafted a solid and well-constructed motion picture, which was cleverly completed with the inclusion of the real life counterparts of the film’s characters. I always appreciate these real world tie-ins in the biographical dramas.

One last note before I move on to acting – I would really like to praise the sound designers of this film – their aural effects accompanied the striking visuals of war and really made an impact, this time around. The first few bomb explosions in the first few scenes of the war action really startled me – they were extremely effective.

Acting

  • Andrew Garfield played the lead and did an absolutely spectacular job. After he was replaced as Spiderman, Garfield has really turned his career around and focused more on serious and indie films rather than blockbusters. He started and produced 99 homes and was also in Scorcese’s Silence (which was yet to be released widely).
  • The supporting cast of the film featured so many familiar faces: Vince Vaughn (True Detective Season 2), Sam Worthington (Avatar, Everest), Luke Bracey (Point Break), Hugo Weaving (The Matrix, LOTR, V for Vendetta, Cloud Atlas), Rachel Griffiths (Saving Mr. Banks), Richard Roxburgh (Moulin Rouge!)Teresa Palmer (Point Break, Triple 9) and Nathaniel Buzolic (The Vampire Diaries, The Originals) had roles of varying sizes. All of them delivered great and realistic performances. One aspect in which the film lacked realism was the physical look of its soldier characters – the majority of them looked like male models rather than soldiers, but, this is Hollywood, so I should not have been that surprised.

To conclude, Hacksaw Ridge was a very strong WWII drama – the best one in recent years – coming close to even the likes of Saving Private Ryan in its levels of quality. This film had a truly amazing and unique narrative at its core, which was nicely brought to life by the main actor – Andrew Garfield –  and the main man behind the camera – Mel Gibson.

Rate: 4.5/5

Trailer: Hacksaw Ridge trailer

hacksaw0001.jpg

Movie review: Florence Foster Jenkins 

Movie reviews

Good morning/day/evening!

Although the awards’ season doesn’t fully start until the late fall, some potential awards contenders have already had their premieres. I was lucky enough to attend one of such screenings, so, let’s talk about a movie that could possibly get some high brow nominations just because of who is involved in it, both in front and behind the camera. This is the review of Florence Foster Jenkins.

IMDb summary: The story of Florence Foster Jenkins, a New York heiress who dreamed of becoming an opera singer, despite having a terrible singing voice.

Writing

Florence Foster Jenkins was written by a TV screenwriter Nicholas Martin. This British comedy was based on a quite fascinating true story. The film mainly focused on its titular character, so the writing for the movie was essentially the writing for a specific character.

Florence Foster Jenkins is not a character or an actual person that anyone can like but that anyone can be intrigued by. She was a sweet eccentric. The first act of the film kinda made her into a laughable caricature – a singer that didn’t know that she couldn’t sing. However, the following two acts really added depth to her character and showed that she was actually a caring, friendly and generous individual that had been hurt in the past but didn’t allow these past troubles to define her. Of course, these positive appearances and the optimistic aura were only kept up because she was sheltered from all criticism. Moreover, nobody ever said no to her. Was that because she was sick or because she was rich? The cynic in me is leaning towards the second option but I really do hope that Florence had people in her life, who were taking caring of her out of the goodness of their hearts and not out of the emptiness of their pockets.

I, as a realist/pessimist, don’t think that being exposed to only good things is beneficial to anyone. However, it was advantageous to Florence – she lived her dream and died in it. She might haven’t known how to sing but nobody can’t say that she didn’t sing. I haven’t seen many films who presented music and life in a way that Florence Foster Jenkins did.

Directing

The film was directed by Stephen Frears, who previously directed such pictures as 2006’s awards contender and winner The Queen, 2013’s awards’ contender Philomena and last year’s Lance Armstrong biopic The Program. I wouldn’t be surprised if Florence Foster Jenkins gets a few nominations as well because it is a solid comedy with a very specific atmosphere. This atmosphere will either make you hate or love the movie. Basically, the movie Florence Foster Jenkins was oversaturated with poshness and aristocratic and rich aura. The sense of entitlement and high-class privilege were also abundant. This whole thing was quite laughable in today’s time or in any time for that matter. Since I don’t come from a background like this, that whole affair made me chuckle more than a couple of times. That’s why I think that Florence is a picture for a very specific audience, which is hard to define. If you come from a middle-class background, you will either love the movie and laugh a lot or you will hate it and be offended by it. I wonder how would the viewers from the upper class feel about it – would they see themselves on screen and love it? Or would they see this film as making fun of them?

As I have mentioned, I laughed a lot during this film. Not only did the actual singing scenes and the whole atmosphere were both funny – the reaction shots of the other characters were hilarious as well. Florence Foster Jenkins was both a feel-good and a heartbreaking movie that made me laugh and then put a sad smile on my face. It was nicely tied up with the photos of the real-life Florence during the credits.

Acting

Meryl Streep, of course, is the main awards’ whisperer for this film. She has been nominated for an Oscar 19 times and has won 3 times, the last one being in 2012. I would not be surprised if she gets another nomination because she was is magnificent in the film. It was very interesting to see arguably the best actress of this and the previous generation playing the role  of a terrible actress/singer. My first introduction to Streep as a performer was in the movie musical Mamma Mia – my favorite guilty pleasure film. In the past few years, she has gone back to this genre, with 2014’s Into The Woods, 2015’s Ricki and the Flash and now with Florence Foster Jenkins. Streep has also proved everyone that she can pick any role she likes and just nail it. I also think that if anybody else would have played Florence in this feature, I would have been super annoyed by her as a character. However, Streep added a lot of emotional depth to a seemingly vain caricature and actually made me care about Florence and her first world problems.

Hugh Gran starred as Florence’s last husband St Clair Bayfield. Their relationship was extremely interesting. Throughout the movie, I couldn’t fully figure out if St Clair and their whole friend circle were gold-diggers or did they actually cared about Florence? St Clair did have a girlfriend on a side but he was also always there for Florence – even on her death bed, so there are arguments both for and against the matter. A few of Grant’s films that I have been watching lately were Sense and Sensibility from the 90s as well as the last summer’s The Man from U.N.C.L.E. He also has co-starred in one of my favorite films of all time – Cloud Atlas.

The last main member of the cast – the pianist Cosmé McMoon was played by Simon Helberg. His reaction faces were both super awkward and marvelous. The way he was trying not to laugh was also amazing. I felt that the character of Cosmé was a stand-in for the viewer in the picture. The actor who played this role – Simon Helberg – is a talented TV comedian that has been part of the critically acclaimed The Big Bang Theory since 2007. 

In short, Florence Foster Jenkins was an extremely entertaining film that also made me think. I still have conflicting feelings about it and its narrative. I do wish that somebody would have told Florence the truth but, at the same time, I am happy that nobody did it and that she was allowed to live happily and freely as long as possible.

Rate: 4,5/5

Trailer: Florence Foster Jenkins trailer

Florence-Foster-Jenkins-Poster-Meryl-Streep.jpg

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

Movie review: Brooklyn

Movie reviews

Hello for the third time today!

I’m desperately trying to catch up on my list of movie reviews before the year ends. I saw this particular film back in autumn but totally forgot to review it, however, it’s better to be late than not to review it at all, so let’s talk about Brooklyn –  the most heart – warming and heart – breaking the film of 2015.

IMDb summary: An Irish immigrant lands in 1950s Brooklyn, where she quickly falls into a new romance. When her past catches up with her, however, she must choose between two countries and the lives that exist within.

Writing + Story + Theme

Brooklyn’s script was written by Nick Hornby, who wrote last year’s Wild. Both Wild and Brooklyn were stories of an individual’s journey and while I was interested in Wild, I completely loved Brooklyn, because I could relate to it so much more and identify myself with the main character. As an Eastern European immigrant in the UK, I also feel extremely homesick sometimes. Of course, I will never truly be able to understand the things that our main character felt, as I live in a different time period. Back then, one could not travel across the ocean easily, while now I could potentially fly home during the weekends (although, that would be extremely unpractical and expensive).

Brooklyn wasn’t based on an original script but was an adaptation of Colm Tóibín’s 2009’s book with the same name. After watching the film, I definitely feel compelled to read the book as well – I hope I will be able to find time for it in 2016. The film’s main character’s arc was written brilliantly – the viewers were able to follow Eilis’s journey from a shy and introverted girl (literally, me) to a young and blossoming women who stood up for herself and made her own decisions. The film also had an extensive supporting cast – all of the smaller characters were also quite well developed with what limited screen time they had.

Lastly, as a cinephile myself, I really appreciated the Singin’ in the Rain reference and the lamp post scene.

Directing + Visuals

The film was directed by  John Crowley who has done a lot of stage work and has also directed the highly praised TV show, True Detective. I am not that familiar with his past work, but I loved what he did in Brooklyn. For one, the 1950s setting was realized beautifully. The cinematography (by Yves Bélanger) was also very picturesque. The costumes were also amazing – Odile Dicks-Mireaux did an amazing job with the look of the characters. I also really liked how the viewers could distinguish the European (Irish) setting from the American one. I feel like the shots in Ireland or about Ireland had warmer tones, while more American based shots had colder tones. I might be looking for something that was not there, however, that’s what my eyes told me.

Acting

  • Saoirse Ronan as Eilis Lacey was magnificent in the leading role. She was extremely likable and relatable. I was first introduced to Ronan as an actress in the film City of Amber (based on a book that I really liked as a child). Afterward, I watched her in The Host – not that great of a film, although, I adored the book that it was based on – definitely preferred S.Meyer’s writing in The Host over Twilight. In 2014, Ronan had a small role in one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen – The Grand Budapest Hotel – trust me, it looks like a painting has come to live. Next year, Ronan will be starring in The Seagull – a film based on Russian dramatist’s Anton Chekhov’s play of the same name. It should be an interesting motion picture.

Cast in the US:

  • Emory Cohen as Anthony “Tony” Fiorello was a very nice love interest for the main character. Cohen and Ronan had great chemistry and they were a really cute couple. Cohen is the best known for starring in The Place Beyond the Pines and he has 6 movies coming out next year.
  • Jim Broadbent as Father Flood was a nice father figure for Eilis while Julie Walters as Madge Kehoe was her mother away from home (even more caring than her actual mother, if you ask me). Both of these actors have had long and rewarding careers, but I still remember them best from the Harry Potter films, however, I also really liked Broadbent in Cloud Atlas and Walters in Mamma Mia!
  • Jessica Paré as Miss Fortini and Emily Bett Rickards as Patty McGuire were Eilis’s friends. Both of these actresses are better known on the small screen – Paré had starred in Mad Men (which I have yet to watch but really want to) and Bett Rickards currently plays Felicity Smoak on Arrow – one of my favorite female characters on the small screen.

Cast in Ireland:

  • Domhnall Gleeson (as Jim Farrell) appeared in one more film this year. He had a small role and did a good job as usual – I have already told you everything about him in the reviews for Star Wars, Anna Karenina, and Unbroken. I will see The Revenant in January and will probably talk about him once again.
  • Bríd Brennan as Miss Kelly was quite a terrible character but she was supposed to be this way, while Jane Brennan as Mrs. Lacey was intended as a good character of a mother but somehow turned into a very dislikeable one. I feel like Eilis’s mother was really selfish and pushy and did not care much about her daughter.
  • Fiona Glascott as Rose Lacey – Eilis’s sister and the true motherly figure in Eilis’s life. The connection between the two sisters was felt even in the voice-over of the letters.  

To sum up, Brooklyn was a story near and dear to my heart. It had amazing acting and a great ark of the main character. The supporting cast also did an excellent job, while the people working behind the scenes did not disappoint as well.

Rate: 4.75/5

Trailer: Brooklyn trailer 

img_8050-1

Movie review: Bridge of Spies

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to another movie review! This time, it’s a review of another Oscar contender! I have actually seen this film almost two weeks ago, but, due to the revision for the exams, I had no time to review it. Anyway, I found a spare minute, so, let’s talk about Bridge of Spies!

IMDb summary: During the Cold War, an American lawyer is recruited to defend an arrested Soviet spy in court, and then help the CIA facilitate an exchange of the spy for the Soviet captured American U2 spy plane pilot, Francis Gary Powers.

Tone

This year, I have seen way too many films about spies and special agents. Some of them were really nice (Rogue Nation), others (Hitman) – not really. It’s a good thing that Bridge of Spies falls into the first category. The film is set during the cold word and its narrative is inspired by real life events. We have already seen a spy film set in the cold war years in  2015 – The Man from U.N.C.L.E. However, that film was a remake of a TV show and had a more fun, upbeat tone and was a popcorn flick/action film. Bridge  of Spies, although set in the same era, approaches the USA vs USSR conflict in a more serious manner – it’s definitely not an action film, but suspenseful thriller/drama.

Directing

The film was directed by the famous Steven Spielberg. Spielberg is probably the first director that I have ever been interested in, even before I became really invested in films and cinema and was just a casual viewer. I couldn’t even pick my favorite movie of his, because he has directed so many films, that are now considered classics. I really love his movies from 1993 – Jurassic Park and Schindler’s List. Saving Private Ryan, E.T., Jaws and Indiana Jones films are all wonderful as well.  Moreover, did you know that Spielberg was in talk to direct a Star Wars film? Sadly, that didn’t happen, but if it had happened, it would have been amazing.

Spielberg, not surprisingly, did a great job with this film as well. All the shots were beautiful and suspenseful. I especially loved the train/wall shot. It had an emotional impact and was beautifully done.

Writing

Bridge of Spies script was written by Matt Charman, Ethan Coen, and Joel Coen. Charman has previously only written one film – a WW2 drama – Suite Française, while the Coen brothers have written numerous critically acclaimed and Oscar-winning films, their last one being Jolie’s Unbroken.

Speaking about this film’s narrative and screenplay – I liked how, although made in the US and by American filmmakers, it did not offer any judgment and presented or at least tried to present both sides of the story and not just the American view on the Cold War.

In addition, I found it interesting how this film had two different stories. Th 1st act of the film was the story of the court case while the 2nd part was the exchange in East Berlin. There wasn’t really the 3rd act in the film, although, a few scenes at the end (the resolution/the aftermath) could be considered to be the 3rd act.

This film also had amazing dialogue and a lot of lines worth quoting. The character development was also quite good.

Themes

The film explored lots of serious themes and asked a few historical questions, which are highly debated in the scientific circles as well. I am actually writing this review the night before my history exam, so my head is buzzing with various names of historians and their arguments on the different controversial topics. One thing I have definitely learned from this course (Uni of Aberdeen’s Europe in the 20th century) is that history is not set. It’s not an objective subject, it’s not just set facts and dates – I have never thought that history has so much subjectivity and debate. However, let me end this paragraph the same way I ended my history essay – with a C. Hitchen’s quote: “Time spent arguing is, oddly enough, almost never wasted.”

So, the few themes and questions touched upon in this film were:

  1. Humanity: people are still people, even in war.
  2. The hypocrisy of rights: American values of liberty and equality are universal, but only to the privileged and the Western. (Read S.Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations for an interesting take on the universality of the Western values).
  3. Who actually won the Cold War? I personally would say that USSR definitely lost the war, but I am not sure that the USA won anything. Americans tend to think that they helped the USSR to fall, but, I have a different opinion since I grew up in Eastern Europe – the most common view there is that the Cold War ended because of the actions of the oppressed people and not because of the questionable help from the West. But that’s a debate for a different conversation. (Found more info about it in M. Sarotte’s book The Collapse.)
  4. The Berlin wall and its symbolic meaning. I was born 7-8 years after the wall fell and when I was 13, I visited Berlin and saw the remains of it that are now turned into a memorial. It’s a very strong and heartbreaking image that rallies up lots of emotions, whenever I remember it. Also, on a lighter note, I have that cliche magnet with a piece of the Berlin Wall on my fridge.
  5. Nation vs individual. Are nation states even a good thing for organizing people into groups? Plus, Hank’s character presented as a silent hero – not just an American one, but a hero of humanity.
  6. The names of the countries. I have always been annoyed by people who call countries by the wrong names. Living in Scotland, it annoys me immensely when people say the UK and have only England in mind. I had the same problem with the film – characters usually said Russia when meaning the Soviet Union, which was a UNION of countries. It’s true that Russia was the leading country and occupied a lot of its neighbors and kept them in the union against their will (my country – Lithuania – included). However, when acknowledging that USSR was a union of countries, we at least acknowledge the existence and uniqueness of other Eastern European countries – they were not Russia and will never be Russia. I feel very annoyed about this issue, because these past few months, I have been meeting lots of people from all over the world and not a lot of them actually know where Lithuania is. They think that the territory of Lithuania belongs to either Poland or Russia. The ignorance reaches the highest level, when, for some people, Europe ends with Germany and the maps in their minds are missing all of the Baltic countries, Belarus, Ukraine and other central/eastern/former Yugoslavian countries.

Acting

  • Tom Hanks as James B. Donovan was the leading man of the film. This was the 4th or 5th time that Hanks collaborated with Spielberg. He did an amazing job with his dialogue and I also loved how you could see a mix of emotions on his face during the intense scenes. His character was also really likable the same way that Hanks is one of the most likable actors ever. It’s hard for me to pick my favorite Hank’s performance. I really enjoyed his later work in Cloud Atlas, Saving Mr. Banks, and Captain Phillips as well as his earlier work in Forrest Gump and The Green Mile.
  • Mark Rylance as Rudolf Abel/the soviet spy. I am not familiar with Rylance’s work but I have really enjoyed his performance in this film. I liked how emotionless he was. The line: ‘Would it help?’ was funny and showed the true horribleness of that situation.
  • Austin Stowell as Francis Gary Powers/the American pilot. I am also not familiar with his work, although, he starred in one of my favorite films from last year – Whiplash. He was okay in this film as well, nothing about his performance stood out to me that much.
  • Jesse Plemons as Murphy played a friend of Powers and Plemons performance stood out to me more, maybe because I am more familiar with him as an actor. The same day, I have also watched another movie of his – Black Mass (review coming next). He was also in 2012’s Battleship, which I and my dad enjoyed while critics destroyed it. Anyway, speaking about Plemons, to me he looks like a very charismatic actor, who for some reason just attracts all the attention when he appears on the screen. Good for him and not so good for other actors, placed near him in a shot.

That’s basically all the actors that played the main roles in the narrative or had the best performances. The full list of actors is on the IMDb page right here.

All in all, I really enjoyed Bridge Of Spies. I loved Hank’s performance as well as Spielberg’s directing, although, the writing to me seemed like the strongest part of the film and I really hope that all the scriptwriters will get an Oscar nominations. I am sorry that this review was more a contextual and conceptual one while my other reviews are usually more formal and deal with the actual film and not so much with its themes. I just wanted to try something new and use my new found knowledge on the historical debates.

Have a great rest of the week!

Rate: 4/5

Trailer: Bridge of Spies trailer

Bridge-Of-Spies-poster

Movie review: Suffragette

Movie reviews

Hello!

One of the good things about living in the UK is getting British films early. However, nowadays, finding time to review them is pretty problematic. So, in honor of Suffragette’s limited release in the US (a week later), let’s review it!

IMDb summary: The foot soldiers of the early feminist movement, women who were forced underground to pursue a dangerous game of cat and mouse with an increasingly brutal State.

Feelings

Personally, I get really angry when watching movies about minority rights. Although, I should not call women a minority, since we inhabit half of the world. Anyway, Suffragette, like 12 Years a Slave, Mandela: A Long Walk to Freedom, The Butler, and a plethora of other movies, angered me in a good kind of way – in a way that makes you want to do something with your life and change the world for the better. For this reason, I believe that everyone should watch Suffragette. In addition, I appreciate movie industry’s efforts to bring important issues to the forefront. How many people would actually research historical facts themselves? But when you put the same story into a visual media format, it instantly gets more attention.

Story&Writing

The film’s script was written by Abi Morgan – a British playwright and screenwriter. I have not seen her previous films, but would love to check them out someday, when I have time to do that. I believe that she did justice to this story. I would like to discuss a few plot points:

  1. The thing that really added a lot of flame into my overall angry/inspired physiological state after watching the film was the male characters. And not the ones who were actual douche bags. The main character’s husband was a terrible person. He acted like a victim and then just gave his son away. Even the detective, who was trying to stop Suffragette movement was a more likable character since he at least could justify his actions by saying that he was only trying to enforce the law (though, the law was definitely wrong that time). But the husband, who should have been supportive, was a complete disappointment. The film did a great job of reversing the roles of male characters and playing upon the viewers’ (or at least my) expectations.
  2. The movie also portrayed the fact that not all women wanted to fight for the cause. And while I disagree with their decision, I still believe that they were entitled to choose. I have already explained to you that I believe in feminism (contemporary way of fighting for women’s rights) as a choice when I reviewed Cinderella. Also, I have recently studied lots of fairy-tales in my English course at university and definitely realized that these stories are not as black and white as one might think.
  3. I loved how the film portrayed Suffragettes as a group. Although the movie focused a lot on one individual, you could still sense that she was a part of something bigger.
  4. Lastly, the end credits included the list of historical dates when women received voting rights in various countries. And sadly, some of the dates were not past but present ones. This just shows that the fight is not over and we have a long way to go. The film’s narrative also portrayed the idea of a long fight: the film was set in 1912 and the actual voting rights in the UK were received only in 1918 (partly) and in 1928 (fully). Other countries established equal voting even later.

Directing&Visuals

Suffragette was directed by Sarah Gavron who had her start making documentaries and later transitioned into narrative films. It is not really surprising that this film was made by a female director since it tackles women’s issues. However, I am really happy that it was directed by a woman, because I do not think that a male voice could have brought this story to live in a proper way. Although, I am not the kind of movie goer who pays a lot of attention to gender, race or skin color of a director, screenwriter or an actor and I believe in absolute equality, I still think that some individuals can tackle some issues better than others. I love how I contradict myself in the same sentence. Eh, what the heck: we can have ‘to each their own’ and ‘everything to all’ in the 21st century.

Talking about the visual aspects of the film, I have to admit that I did not really noticed them since the narrative was so strong. It overpowered both the Mise-En-Scene and Cinematography or it would be better to say that all three elements worked in perfect unison to create a flawless continuity. On a side note, some scenes for the film were filmed in the actual Houses of Parliament! 

Acting

  • Carey Mulligan as Maud Watts was a great leading lady. Her on-screen transition was simultaneously heartbreaking and empowering. Mulligan did a great job. I am a fan of hers – especially loved her last film – Far From The Madding Crowd – where she also played a strong female in a male world in a slightly different (earlier) period. She has also previously worked with the screenwriter of Suffragette in 2011’s Shame.
  • Helena Bonham Carter as Edith Ellyn was also amazing as one would expect. I became a fan of hers back when she was in Harry Potter films, but I also really loved The King’s Speech, Les Miserables and Alice, which she also has starred in. Interesting fact, according to Wikipedia, Bonham Carter is the great-granddaughter of H. H. Asquith, who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 1908–16, the prime years of the suffrage movement, which he opposed. Great granddaughter is going against her great granddad’s will – props to her.
  • Meryl Streep as Emmeline Pankhurst was also a nice addition to the cast. However, I can definitely understand why a lot of people were angry about the false advertisement. Streep had one scene/speech in the film and one encounter with our main character and while she definitely played an important figure of the movement (the leader), she should not have been put on the poster of the film. I would not even call her a supporting actress in this film, at best it was a cameo appearance.
  • Natalie Press as Emily Davison. Interestingly, I was not familiar with this actress only a few weeks ago, but then we watched the short film Wasp by Andrea Arnold in the film class. I really enjoyed that short movie, which portrayed raw social realism realistically. It was one of Press’s early films and she was great back then and is still a great actress now. She should have had that 3rd spot on the poster because of that spoiler-y reason at the end.
  • The cast also included Anne-Marie Duff as Violet Miller. I loved the contrast between her’s and Mulligan’s characters: one was becoming more fearless and independent, while another had to lose her independence for, again, a spoiler-y reason.
  • The two males of the film, whose stories I have already discussed were played by Brendan Gleeson (the detective) and Ben Whishaw (the husband). Previously, I have only seen Gleeson in Harry Potter films as well as in Edge of Tomorrow and Stonehearts Asylum. He will also star in In the Heart of Sea later this year. Speaking about Whishaw, I am a fan of his since Cloud Atlas, so it was quite weird to not like him as a character because he usually plays very likeable ones. He will also star in In the Heart of Sea, which comes out on Christmas, but we will also see him in Spectre next week. He will also be in The Danish Girl – another quite controversial film, which I can’t wait for. Whishaw sure is having a busy 2015.

All in all, Suffragette was a great movie about an important issue. While it might not be an entertaining film to watch, it is definitely an important one. This historical and, at the same time, very recent story was brought to life by amazing on screen performances and splendid off screen work.

Rate: 4.5/5

Trailer: Suffragette trailer

suffragette-2015-movie-poster

Movie review: Jupiter Ascending 

Movie reviews

Hi!

So, I’ve recently watched Jupiter Ascending –  a new movie by The Wachowskis siblings and this is going to be my review.

IMDb summary: In a bright and colorful future, a young destitute caretaker gets targeted by the ruthless son of a powerful family, who lives on a planet in need of a new heir, so she travels with a genetically engineered warrior to the planet in order to stop his tyrant reign.

First of all, I am the fan of The Wachowskis. To my mind, The Matrix is a masterpiece but, more importantly, their another movie – Cloud Atlas – is my favorite film ever. There hasn’t been another movie which made me think that hard and analyze every little detail. It’s actually the motion picture that got me interested in movie reviewing in the first place. Having said that, I didn’t particularly like this movie and I desperately wanted to like it just because it was getting such bad reviews…Mine isn’t going to be better..

To begin with, let’s start with the things I liked: setting, visuals and acting.

Setting

The setting and the whole world of the movie reminded me of one of the worlds from the Cloud Atlas (Cloud Atlas is set in 6 different time periods). Jupiter Ascending resembled the futuristic Neo Seoul, 2144 world from that film. Although, it had a more of a cosmic vibe.

Visuals

The Wachowskis always had astonishing visuals and this movie was no exception. The landscapes were breathing and the action sequences exciting and fun even if they were a little bit unbelievable and too long in some parts.

Acting

I believe that all of the actors did a great job. Mila Kunis was great: I love her as an actress both in comedy (Friends with Benefits) and drama (Black Swan). 

Channing Tatum was also good in his role as a human/wolf/angel..However, I had no idea why he got those wings in the end…

Douglas Booth and Tuppence Middleton were also functional in their roles. I have never heard anything about this actress but I know a lot about Douglas and have practically watched all of his movies.

Sean Bean as another human/wolf/angel was also good. Though, as a GoT fan and someone who spends a lot of time on the Internet, I couldn’t stop thinking if he was going to die at some point. 

Eddie Redmayne was the only questionable character in the story. Why did he speak like that? His voice only detracted my attention from the film. BTW, I was really happy when he won an Oscar because I loved him in The Theory of Everything and I even believe that he should have been nominated in 2012 for Les Miserables. But he won now, so there is no reason to be sad about past snubs.

One last note: the movie had a lot of other small characters because The Wachowskis love to have a lot of character (just watch Cloud Atlas). I was happy to see James D’Arcy, who started in Cloud Atlas and recently been in Agent Carter, in the movie too – he made make a short  cameo.

Now, let’s move on to the bad stuff…

Story

The story of the movie was interesting, don’t get me wrong, but it was just way too complicated. The mythology was so rich  and they went into details so much but they never fully explained anything. As a result, you could hardly follow the plot and you weren’t interested in the movie or the faith of the characters. They also did a crap job of setting up a loving relationship between Mila’s character’s family and Mila’s character – I had no idea why she wanted to save them because they have been complete a****les to her.

In addition, that love story was a complete push… They have know each other for 2 days and they have fallen completely in love? I do not believe that at all. But, that’s a movie love, I guess?

Jokes were also kinda mehh: “I love dogs” and that period pad…Really? Only She’s a man with Amanda Bynes knows how to make period jokes.

Themes

Though the story was difficult to comprehend and follow, I have found a couple of themes between the lines, which interested me. First one is time: I loved the quote “Time is the single most precious commodity in the universe“. This saying is so true and so relevant to our modern society. Other themes were capitalism and never stopping consumerism – also great reminders of the contemporary world. The last idea, which sparked my interested, was that our genes have our souls inside them…I love when movies explain religious facts as science facts. Maybe because my favorite movie genre is sci-fi, followed closely by comic book/superhero movies…

All in all, the movie was watchable but not remember-able. I would only recommend it to hard core sci-fi fans and the niche fans of The Wachowskis. 

Trailer: Jupiter Ascending trailer

Rate: 3/5

lkl1ydfPhotos: trailer screenshots

Movie review: Stonehearst Asylum

Movie reviews

Hi!

This past weekend, I went to see the new mystery thriller Stonehearst Asylum. I went to this film for 3 reasons:

  1. Since seeing Cloud Atlas movie I became interested in Jim Sturgess – he plays the main role here.
  2. The movie is based on Edgar Alan Poe’s short story The System of Doctor Tarr and Profesor Fether. I had read Poe’s short story The Pit and the Pendulum in 10th grade and since then became intrigued to read more of his work. I have read the short story this film is based on before going to the movie and I can definitely see why Hollywood producers chose this particular story to turn into a motion picture. It has a tremendous amount of potential possibilities and a tonne of mentioned but unexplored themes.
  3. The work of asylums and the complexity of human mind fascinate me. Moreover, Fox’s Gotham’s story-line about Arkham asylum is my favorite part of that whole show.

Summary (from IMDb): A recent medical school grad who takes a position at a mental institution soon finds himself taken with one of his colleagues — though he has no initial idea of a recent, horrifying staffing change.

Directing

The movie is directed  by Brad Anderson whose most well know films are The Call (2013) with Halee Berry (we watched this one at school during psychology class – that film really shocked me, especially when something like that happened in my own county only recently) and The Machinist (2004) – I’m planning to watch this one.

Visuals and the setting:

The movie is set in 1899. I love period pieces and XIX century is one of my favorite time periods. Imperialism, industrialization, nationalism are 3 words that describe the XIX century. All these events have negative and positive outcomes and I love when history is complex like that and doesn’t give us just straight-up facts but challenges our minds, makes us compare pluses and minuses and lets ourselves decide if disadvantages outweigh the advantages or vice versa.

The color palette and the design of asylum looked believable and really cool too.

Twist (SPOILERS)

The first twist that the patients with Lamb had overthrown the doctors of the asylum and put all the keepers and the true head of the asylum Dr. Salt into cages was predictable and it was also spoiled in the trailer. The movie really had a lot of cliches and I swear, I finished almost all the lines of dialogue in my mind before the characters said the words. When the movie made me think than I had it all figured out, the plot had the twist that I really didn’t expect it to have. I might have predicted it if I had watched more carefully, but I stupidly turned off my mind and just enjoyed the movie. The twist was really nice surprise at the end and made the movie even more better.

Acting/Character by character breakdown

I don’t usually do my reviews like this, but this film had so many characters and all of them did something important. So, let’s begin!

featured_stonehearst_asylum

Jim Sturgess as Edward Newgate – he is the main protagonist and the only character you can root for because his intentions are mostly pure. He is divided between two sides: the cruel patients and not less cruel doctors.  Jim’s acting was great, really good performance.

Kate Beckinsale as Eliza Graves – a troubled woman whose family got rid of her and whose husband beat and used her, so she bit his ear off and ended up in an asylum. She suffers from seizures when touched by men. I wished her back story was explored a bit more.

These two characters, of course, fell in love in the course of the movie. To my mind, their romance was a bit fake and pushed.

Michael Caine as Dr. Salt – a cruel doctor with cruel treating methods. Michale Caine was on screen for only a short time and I never understood his character, he looked no better than a crazy person.

Ben Kingsley as Silas Lamb – mad genius and a killer whose actions I could understand. He was a surgeon in a war and killed few of his patients because they were suffering and dying, so he relieved them of their suffering.

In my opinion, Lamb’s action were justified much better than Salt’s. They could have showed why Salt was acting the way he was because it just seemed that he wanted to break his patients and, while trying to restore their sanity, he only made them more mad. Lamb, on the other hand, clearly had a post dramatic stress disorder after the war.

David Thewlis as Mickey Finn – a crazy supporting character who really lacked the back story. You knew he was crazy but you didn’t know why and as a result, didn’t care for him much.

Sinéad Cusack as Mrs. Pike – the head nurse of the asylum and the only character who was completely selfless and kind. Wish we would have spent more time with her as well.

Sophie Kennedy Clark as Millie – one of the patients who suffered from Salt’s treatments and blossomed when Lamb became the head of the asylum. Her whole plot-line could have been cut because it distracted the viewer form the main events.

Themes and Questions

The movie raised a lot of questions like: Can human actions be justified? Can we know what is right and what is wrong? Are selfless but cruel acts still acts of kindness ? What is insanity? Do we know if we are insane? Is there a cure for insanity? Is it a disease or just another term that describes a person as different? Can people be saved? Is there good side and a bad side or are they are inseparable and undefinable?

All in all,  I liked the visuals and the acting. Some characters were interesting and their actions raised a lot of questions while others could have been developed much more or cut out completely. The twists and clichés mixed together made the movie a plesant experience.

Trailer: Stonehearst Asylum trailer

Rate: 3.5/5 

Stonehearst_Asylum_poster(Google Images)

Collection: Mood/Inspiration Board

Uncategorized

Hello!

Welcome to part 2 of my wall decorations. Last time I told you all about my posters and other little bits and pieces that are hanging on my walls (Part 1). This time, I will show you my mood/inspiration board.

First of all, it is actually not a board, just two A4 format pieces of papers glued on the wall with a bunch of sticky notes stacked on them.

Words that are on these sticky notes are mostly inspiring quotes of famous people like: Audrey Hepburn, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., Anne Frank, John Lennon and authors like David Mitchell (Cloud Atlas book), Michael Grant (Gone series), and John Green (TFIOS). There are also some lyrics from my favorite Lana Del Rey songs (Born to die, Blue jeans) as well as Rihanna’s Shine Bright like a Diamond. In addition, there are also some random words that mean something to me: Bravery, Vulnerability, Solidarity, Equality and so forth and a little tag that says 1960s which is my favorite era.

My obsessions also have their place above my desk: there is a Mockingjay sign and May the Odds Be Ever in Your Favor signature quote from The Hunger Games because I am the huge fan of the franchise. There is also a shadowhunter rune from The Mortal Instruments series by Cassandra Clare, Okay? Okay clouds from TFIOS, double infinity sign, a sparkly silver star, LONG LIVE THE KING saying that reminds me of Game of Thrones and Reign TV series and other random things like: GEEK, NERD pins that represent me, names of the countries I have visited and other inspirational sayings.

I hope you liked seeing my mood/inspiration board. Every time I glance at it, my spirits are automatically lifted and all the bad stuff, negative emotions and sad feelings fade away. I wish that this blog post brighten your day as well. Bye!

10656406_939001636126666_1930923130_n  10643273_939001649459998_528830683_n