Movie review: Love, Simon

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to a review of a gay teen romance that made a straight adult believe in love again. I’m kidding. But also, not really. Anyways, this is Love, Simon!

IMDb summary: Simon Spier keeps a huge secret from his family, his friends, and all of his classmates: he’s gay. When that secret is threatened, Simon must face everyone and come to terms with his identity.

Writing

Love, Simon was written by Isaac Aptaker and Elizabeth Berger (the showrunners of This is Us), based on the book ‘Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda’ (amazing title, tbh) by Becky Albertalli. I like to think (and pretend) that with me getting older, my tastes are changing and maturing. While that is true to some extent, I’m also very prone to living in the past, so, even though I’m close to finishing university, nothing pleases me more than a trip down memory lane into my high-school years. Thus, I’ll take a high school teen movie any day of the week. From that whole nonsensical babble, you can probably guess that I loved (pun, very much, intended) Love, Simon. Also, I haven’t read the book prior to seeing the movie, so I can’t comment on any plot or character changes. I will say this: the movie definitely made me want to read the book.

So, to begin with, I loved the mix of old teen movie tropes and new contemporary ideas in the writing of the movie. I absolutely loved the message concerning identity – whether related to sexuality or not – and how the reveal of one’s identity is always a scary thing, even when it will probably be accepted. Still, I wish the movie underscored a bit more the fact that the reaction to Simon’s coming out was a borderline, best case scenario. And yet, this movie was more focused on an individual story rather than on broader social issues, so maybe it should not be penalized for not addressing the bigger problems? Maybe its goal was to just tell a love story rather than to make a political statement (let’s leave political statements for Moonlight or Call Me By Your Name?).

And that love story was great. It felt real and heartfelt, but also quite sappy. And why shouldn’t it be sappy? Why hetero-normative stories can be allowed to be so sickly sweet romantic and gay ones not? Everyone deserves a great love story and the movie not only tells that but does it too. Still, while that whole love story was all cute and escapist on screen, please be careful when meeting people online. Catfish situations are plentiful in the real world.

Anyways, going back to talking about the treatment of identity in the movie, this time in relation to the specific identity of a gay teen – I loved how the movie both played into the stereotype but also subverted it. Love, Simon was great at showcasing that one’s sexuality need not be the defining factor of one’s identity and, let alone, whole life. I highly appreciated the film’s underlying focus on the fact that nothing has to change just because somebody comes out as gay. I also really liked the fact that, while the script made the viewers relate to and understand the lead Simon, it also did not over-idealize him. Simon still had flaws and hurt other people and his actions should not be excused just because he had a secret. They should be excused because he was human, like all of us.

Lastly, while Love, Simon had some nice messages about identity and some adorable romantic moments, it also had some great instances of humor. A lot of the jokes and situation were cringe-y and awkward (and very teen appropriate). However, an equal amount of jokes were genuinely laugh-out-loud funny.

Directing

Love, Simon was directed by Greg Berlanti – the master of the DC TV’s Arrowverse as well as the writer/producer of the beloved teen shows like Dawson’s Creek and, more recently, Riverdale. I thought that he did quite a good job with his 3rd feature film that he directed (it has been 8 years since the last one). Berlanti himself is gay but I don’t want to assume that his personal experiences anyway impacted his decision to direct this film.

No matter the reasons, he did a great job. Love, Simon was a well-paced dramedy, with a good mix of lighter comedic moments and deeper emotional scenes. The cinematography and camera work were also both good – typical of a mainstream drama, though some overhead shots were pretty neat and unique. The production/set design was great too. I loved the design of Simon’s room as well as that whole dream sequence about him being gay in college. The soundtrack was lovely too. I loved the final song ‘Wild heart’ by Bleachers.

Acting

Love, Simon’s cast consisted of up-and-coming talent that you might have seen in other films/TV shows aimed at younger (and not only) audiences. The lead was played by Nick Robinson (who was absolutely amazing in this film – real and relatable) who you might remember from Jurassic World but also another YA adaptation Everything, Everything. His friend group consisted of 13 Reasons Why Katherine Langford, X-Men: Apocalypse’s Alexandra Shipp, and Jorge Lendeborg Jr. (who had a tiny role in Spider-Man: Homecoming). Keiynan Lonsdale (known by a lot of fans of Berlanti’s work as the Kid Flash on The Flash) and Miles Heizer (also of 13 Reason Why but Nerve too – another modern teen movie) also had small roles in the film.

On the adult front, Josh Duhamel (Transformers 5) and Jennifer Garner played Simon’s parents and had a couple of heartfelt and a couple of funny scenes concerning modern parenting. Tony Hale (weirdly, also from Transformers, but also Veep which I really need to watch) and Natasha Rothwell played the vice-principal and the drama teacher, respectively, and were sort of cartoonish. Their jokes went too far at times but they still somehow worked in the context of the movie.

In short, Love, Simon was a great teen dramedy that had the timeless appeal of a John Hughes’ film and the representation of the modern times!

Rate: 4.5/5

Trailer: Love, Simon trailer

Love,_Simon_poster.png

 

Advertisements

Movie review: Call Me By Your Name

Movie reviews

Hello!

Another awards’ contender has landed in theatres! This is the review of Call Me By Your Name.

IMDb summary: In 1983, the son of an American professor is enamored by the graduate student who comes to study and live with his family in their northern Italian home.

Writing

Call Me By Your Name was written by James Ivory (a writer and director of mainly indie dramas), based on the book by Andre Aciman. To begin with, I’m sure that the LGBTQ+ focus of this film will automatically mean that it will be compared to the big awards winner of last year – Moonlight – especially since Call Me By Your Name is also supposed to get at least nominated. I believe that this comparison is quite unfair because, even though both movies tell coming-of-age stories of young men, exploring their sexuality, the circumstances and the details of their stories are vastly different (race, class, time period, location, community – all these aspects of the two movies are on the opposite sides of the spectrum). Other topics of discussion, which will surely arise in the popular discourse, are the questions of consent and age of consent. I can already see the online fights brewing, with minimal productive arguments about legality and morality, and full of trolls who just want to see the world burn.

Anyways, I, personally, loved a lot of aspects of the writing. To begin with, I liked the settings of the movie quite a lot, both the spatial one (Italy) and temporal one (the 1980s). Both of these places/times posses a feeling of freedom and history mixed with timelessness – almost a fairytale-like setting, perfect for a story of first love. And the said romance at the center of the movie was written beautifully and richly. The film explored the interplay between masculinity and sexuality, sensuality and sexuality, innocence and maturity, and emotional love and physical love. It touched upon the ideas of art, creativity, and self-expression. It portrayed the teasing and flirting stages of the relationship so purely. Call Me By Your Name also examined both the development of its main character’s personality and sexuality, e.g. wanting to be with Oliver and/or wanting to be Oliver (copying his mannerisms (‘Later’) and style (sunglasses, shirts, the pendant of the star of David).

The movie also presented an unheard of example of accepting parents. It was so refreshing to see parents being so nonchalant about their child’s exploration of his sexuality. That final speech of the father was one of the best written fatherly wisdom scenes ever. My few criticisms regarding the picture were: 1) it was a bit too long. I know that it was made to be long so as to build up the stronger connection between the characters and the viewers but I also believe that this connection could have been created through a few quality scenes much better than through a bigger quantity of mediocre ones. 2) I also would have loved to see the film interrogate the role of women in this instance, whether as supportive friends or ‘girlfriends for show’ a bit more.

In short, ultimately, Call Me By Your Name was a gorgeously written sad love story full of moments of hope and happiness and what can all of us ask more of life than brief moments to enjoy?

Directing

Call Me By Your Name by Luca Guadagnino – an Italian film director, best known to English-speaking audiences for his 2015 film A Bigger Splash with Tilda Swinton (a longtime collaborator of Guadagnino). He directed the film absolutely beautifully. Call Me By Your Name looked raw, rough, and unpolished – an example of natural beauty. The handheld camera brought the vibrancy to the film, while the close-ups helped to create an intimate and personal atmosphere. The lingering shots strengthened the emotional impact.

In addition, Call Me By Your Name explored the male sexuality by looking at the male physicality: the male bodies and their parts were at the center of the camera’s gaze. The topic of bodily physicality was continued with the inclusion of the sculptures into the movie. Some scenes were quite explicit and not the most comfortable to look at (*cough, cough*, peach). Other images were just beautiful and deserve to be framed in an art gallery. The closing image of Elio, looking at the fire and contemplating his experiences, was just so striking and a perfect visual to finish the film with.

Acting

  • Timothée Chalamet, who has previously appeared in Interstellar as well as some lesser-known indies, was absolutely brilliant as one-half of the main pair. The other half was equally brilliantly played by Armie Hammer, who is finally getting the recognition he deserves as an actor. He has experienced a relative level of success with The Social Network and J. Edgar and I also quite liked him in The Man from U.N.C.L.E., Nocturnal Animals, and Free Fire, however, I believe that Call Me By Your Name will be his ‘big break’ and maybe even get him an Oscar nomination. Chamalet absolutely deserves one too.
  • The supporting cast of the film was quite small and didn’t have much to do. However, the aforementioned moment of fatherly wisdom would not have been the same without Michael Stuhlbarg (Doctor Strange, Arrival) in the role of the father. It was also lovely to see some European actors joining the American talent on screen, namely Amira Casar (in the role of the mother) and Esther Garrel (who played Elio’s friend).

In short, Call Me By Your Name is an emotional, beautiful, and raw drama about love and finding oneself through it.

Rate: 4/5

Trailer: Call Me By Your Name trailer

CallMeByYourName2017

Movie review: Battle of the Sexes

Movie reviews

Good evening,

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

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

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

Writing

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

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

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

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

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

Directing

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

Acting

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

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

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

Rate: 4.3/5

Trailer: Battle of the Sexes trailer

Battle_of_the_Sexes_(film).png

5 ideas about a movie: Moonlight 

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to probably the last review of the awards season. Today, we are discussing the frontrunner Moonlight!

IMDb summary: A timeless story of human self-discovery and connection, the film chronicles the life of a young black man from childhood to adulthood as he struggles to find his place in the world while growing up in a rough neighborhood of Miami.

  1. Moonlight was written and directed by Barry Jenkins, based on a play ‘In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue’ by Tarell Alvin McCraney. Jenkins made his directorial debut in 2008, with the critically acclaimed indie romantic drama Medicine for Melancholy. Moonlight is only his second feature film.
  2. At its core, Moonlight is a coming of age story. However, it is a coming of age story like no other because it focuses on an individual that the mainstream media would rather forget – a poor black gay boy/teenager/man. And yet, even if a viewer’s identity falls on the other side of the spectrum, the movie still has universal appeal. The family problems, bullying, finding a life path for oneself, dealing with emotions, learning to forgive and reconnect – these are all topics of widespread appeal. The more personal issues of sexual identity and masculinity are also present. The picture paints a complex picture – it asserts that only an individual can decide who he/she wants to be, but also undermines this statement by showing a stereotypical outcome for the character of this background. Lastly, the film provides interesting commentary on the LGBTQ+ position within the black community.
  3. For such a progressive and modern movie, Moonlight has a very striking traditional structure – the film is divided into vignettes, like some movies from the past. Jenkins manages to create a deeply personal almost documentary-like feeling for the film. The long slow takes in the first part of the movie allow this story to unfold at its own pace, while the shaky and fast closeups in the other parts of the picture create a sense of disorientation and intimacy. Some pretty standard techniques, like the over the shoulder shots for the dialogue, are also implemented.
  4. In the first part of the film, the main character of Chiron, played by Alex Hibbert, takes on a passive role in order for Mahershala Ali’s Juan – the drug dealer mentor of Chiron – to shine. Juan is even the first characters that the viewer is introduced to. Ali has been getting a lot of recognition for his work in this film and that’s happening for a reason. Although he only appears in a handful of scenes, both his characters and the actor himself leave a striking mark on the picture. Juan, the drug dealer, seems to be the only positive influence on Chiron and they form a student/mentor type of relationship. The scene in which Juan teaches Chirton to swim is just beautiful. The question arises why would a Juan care for this child? Maybe because he saw a part of himself in the little boy?
  5. The teenager Chiron is portrayed by Ashton Sanders, while the adult Chiron is played by Trevante Rhodes. Rhodes does an absolutely incredible job in the third part of the film and I wish that his performance would have been rewarded much more. Nevertheless, this film really helped him to breakthrough into the business, as he was just cast in a mainstream movie – 2018’s The Predator. Janelle Monáe also appears in the film as the truth mother figure for Chiron. Her career has also kicked off to a good start – she starred in not one but two awards contenders in 2016, other being Hidden Figures. Naomie Harris also plays a small role of the actual birth mother of Chiron. Although the role is a bit stereotypical, Harris does a brilliant job. She has also probably hoped to be in 2 awards contender this year. She also recently acted in Collateral Beauty, which was supposed to be an awards movie, but that film did not materialize at all.

In short, Moonlight is a well-written and nicely directed personal story that takes the framework of a coming of age narrative and tells a unique story about an individual who has been relegated to the fringes of society for too long.

Rate: 4.5/5

Trailer: Moonlight trailer

download.jpg

Movie review: Independence Day: Resurgence

Movie reviews

Hello, my dear readers!

Welcome to the review of another sequel of this summer. This time, it is Independence Day: Resurgence – a movie that came out 20 years too late and should have probably been left in the 1990s.

IMDb summary: Two decades after the first Independence Day invasion, Earth is faced with a new extra-Solar threat. But will mankind’s new space defenses be enough?

Roland Emmerich

Roland Emmerich is known for making disaster films. He, of course, made the original Independence Day feature back in 1996 as well as other mindless fun pictures of the 90s and the early 00s: 1998’s Godzilla and 2004’s The Day After Tomorrow. Most recently, he destroyed the world in 2009’s 2012 and burned the White House in 2013’s White House Down. Now, Emmerich is directing a sequel to a film that made him famous and created his brand in the first place.

The first Independence Day was cheesy, campy and yet still fun summer picture. I wasn’t even born when it first premiered, but I’ve seen it multiple times because TV re-runs are a thing. ID1 had a bunch of awesome and even iconic pop-culture moments: the President’s speech, the shot of the White House being blown up and the shot of Smith and Goldblum smoking cigars in the dessert. Hollywood has been trying to make an ID sequel for a long time and they finally did it 20 years later, hoping that it still would be a success. Well, I highly doubt that this is/will be the case. While last year’s summer disaster film San Andreas was both sorta critically acclaimed and profitable, I do not think that the audiences are really interested in these types of disaster films anymore. I, personally, have seen almost all of Emmerich’s films. I have also seen the majority of Michael Bay’s films. Moreover, I live in the world that is pretty f*cked up. Basically, what I am getting at is that the destruction of the world doesn’t surprise or interest people – we have seen it on screen  as well as in real life multiple times.

Writing and the Story

ID2 had 5 screenwriters: the director Emmerich, Dean DevlinNicolas WrightJames A. Woods and James Vanderbilt. Two of them are actors with minimal to no previous writing work and the two screenwriters of the group do not have a great track record either. Vanderbilt, for example, wrote both The Amazing Spider-Man films. While I can deal with a picture having 2-3 scriptwriters, 5 is definitely too much and that showed in the film. The movie’s story was so much bigger that it needed to be: ID2 had too many characters, too many background stories, too many unexplained storylines and too much of everything. It seems that all 5 people, who were responsible for the script, wanted to portray their individual ideas rather than create a great narrative collectively. Also, bigger does not necessarily mean better.

To begin with, the film had a way too long and way too slow set-up in the first half an hour. It also had a way too drawn out boss battle in the last half an hour. Somewhere in between, there was a good 1-hour movie.

The first ID started with the alien invasion, but its sequel had to catch up on all the old characters and introduce the new ones. It also had to set up a vague ‘thing’ that would help defeat the enemy in the end. It was quite hard and frustrating to sit through all of the set-ups since we all knew from the trailers that the aliens were coming back. I wanted to shout at the screen – JUST GET ON WITH IT.

While I did like the fact that we got to see the kid characters from the first film all grown up, I did not see the need to add even more (young and old) characters into the movie. That whole idea of the other virtual species in that ball shaped ship was also too much. All of the ‘humans are cool and efficient, let’s pat each other on the back’ ideas felt like they were shoehorned into the film and made me roll my eyes a few times. Since the President’s speech from the first film turned out fine, they decided to have 2 speeches in this film. Pullman’s character had a new cheesy speech as well as the new President. In general, the dialogue was pretty terrible. All of the sidelines – the kid’s on the bus and Goldblum’s characters father, those random gold diggers on the ship, the pilots attacking or falling, the scientists with that ball ship, the politicians and all the screens, some random African nation fighting the aliens, alien telepathy, government and funding for the scientist – OMG. In short, everything was too convoluted and too over the top. Also, nothing made much sense because not one sideline was explained or explored properly – there wasn’t enough time for a few of them, let alone all of them.

The end of the picture also tried to set up a third film, which I doubt will materialize. Well, maybe in another 2 decades or maybe never for the better.

Directing and the Visuals

While I had a lot of problems with the movie’s story, I did enjoy the visuals. The CGI looked good, as it should, in 2016. The opening recap with the voice-over speech was a cool way to open the film. All the futuristic technology were also visually interesting and I did like the premise that people used the alien technology to make the world better. The battles were also interesting but some of them could have lasted shorter.

Acting

As I have already mentioned, Resurgence had way too many characters, so its ensemble cast was huge. Some of them had better performances, others – worse ones, so overall, acting wise, ID2 was a mixed bag.

Those who came backJeff Goldblum as David LevinsonBill Pullman as Thomas J. WhitmoreBrent Spiner as Dr. Brakish Okun, and Judd Hirsch as Julius Levinson. Goldblum was great in his role and was my favorite part of the film. Pullman felt a bit shoehorned in but was also quite useful. Spiner’s character could have been easily replaced – while I appreciated the fact that he wasn’t a stereotypical gay character, I did not really see the need to keep him alive, or in a coma for 20 years. Why Goldblum’s character’s father played by Judd Hirsch came back, is beyond me. He and his children group, led by Joey King as Samantha only slowed down the film and didn’t contribute at all to its quality.

Will Smith chose not to return for ID2 and was replaced by his ‘son’ and another pilot. I wish Smith would have come back: it is obvious that he didn’t need ID2 since he is getting plenty of work without it, however, the decision to return would have shown some kind of loyalty to the project that helped him transition from TV to movies in the first place. Also, his participation in ID2 might have made the film better. On the other hand, I doubt if there would be enough place for him, with so many unnecessary characters being introduced.

New charactersSela Ward as Elizabeth Lanford, the 45th President, William Fichtner as Joshua Adams, a U.S. General, Deobia Oparei as Dikembe Umbutu, a Congolese warlord, Charlotte Gainsbourg as Dr. Catherine Marceaux, a British medical scientist, and Nicolas Wright as Floyd Rosenberg, an accountant. Ward was terrible in her role: her one-liners to attack were super cheesy and she didn’t help the plot much – definitely should have been cut or replaced. Fichtner played a much better political leader and could have been in charge from the beginning of the film. Oparei was there to add diversity to the cast and while the ideas that were introduced through his character were interesting, there was no time for them. Same goes with Gainsbourg’s psychology ideas – interesting but unexplored. Wright’s character was included for comedic relief, which felt forced, out-of-place and boring. The film would have been better without him.

New pilots: Liam Hemsworth as Jake MorrisonJessie Usher as Dylan Dubrow-Hiller, Maika Monroe as Patricia WhitmoreAngelababy as Rain Lao, and Travis Tope as Charlie Miller. All of the new pilots were fine in their roles but I think the film would have benefitted if it reduced their number. I was happy to see Hemsworth getting more work, now that The Hunger Games franchise is over. Usher’s and Monroe’s characters were also okay and had an organic place in the story since they appeared as kids in the firs film (played by different actors back then). However, Angelababy’s character was obviously there to appeal to the Chinese audiences (get that Chinese box office money, Fox!). What the appeal of Tope’s character was, is beyond me.

In short, Independence Day: Resurgence was a watchable movie, with terrible writing (too many cooks in the kitchen), okay directing and passable acting. A disappointing sequel that had no place in the 21st century.

Rate: 2.5/5

Trailer: Independence Day: Resurgence trailer

Independence-Day-2-poster

5 ideas about a movie: Carol

Movie reviews

Hi!

Welcome to one of the first reviews of the awards’ nominated film. I watched this one back in the middle of December, but I will only be able to see other awards’ contenders in January. So, let’s talk about Carol.

IMDb summary: In 1950s New York, a department-store clerk who dreams of a better life falls for an older, married woman.

However, before reviewing the film, I would like to tell you about my experience visiting an independent/art cinema in Aberdeen, UK. The cinemas that I am used to are the commercial ones with huge screens and a couple of hundred of seats. Even the independent cinema in my hometown looks like a generic commercial theater- it has at least 300 seats and a huge screen. However, the Aberdeen art cinema is completely different – the screens are tiny (or at least the one that showed Carol) and there are only around 70-80 seats in quite a tiny room. I also love the hallway of the movie theater – it has pictures of iconic movie moments instead of a wallpaper. So, this smaller scale film-house made the whole experience of watching a film into a cozy and unique activity. From now on, I will definitely visit this particular cinema more often.

  1. Carol’s screenplay was written by Phyllis Nagy who adapted the film’s story from the book The Price of Salt by Patricia Highsmith. The movie was directed by Todd Haynes – it was only the 6th feature film he has directed. This motion picture was a character film – the whole narrative relied on the two main leads, whose characters were developed slowly but fully. The film also relied more on visual storytelling and subtle cinematography rather than dialogue.
  2. The film Carol told an LGBTQ love story in the 1950s when it was still a taboo. However, I loved the fact that the two main characters were not stereotypical – they were just ordinary people who just happened to have a different sexuality than the one that society accepts. The film was also quite sad but still hopeful and was the first film about members of the LGBTQ that had a happy ending or at least an open ending with possible happiness in the future.
  3. Rooney Mara starred as one of the leads and did the best performance of her career – her portrayal of Therese had many nuances. Lots of critics are predicting that Mara will win the Oscar for best actress this year – she already has SAG and Golden Globe nominations in the same category. I have seen a few films starring Rooney Mara, however, she never really impressed me – well, that was until I saw Carol.
  4. Another lead and the titular character of Carol was played by Cate Blanchett – she has also received nominations in the category of Best Actress, thus, she will be competing against her co-star. I really liked Blanchett’s sophisticated performance in Carol, but that did not really surprise me since I have always been a fan of hers. I applaud her for being able to shine in the mainstream movies like Lords of the Rings and Cinderella while still maintaining a good relationship with critics and independent filmmakers and starring in movies like Blue Jasmine.
  5. The supporting cast had a few familiar faces. Cory Michael Smith  starred as a private detective type of a character and was as creepy as he is on Gotham as Nygma/The Riddler. I was pleasantly surprised seeing him in this film and was happy to see him transitioning from the small screen to the silver one. The husband of Carol was played by Kyle Chandler (Argo, The Wolf of Wall Street and Zero Dark Thirty). His character was not fully villainous and the viewer could understand that his actions were coming from a good place – his intentions were positive. However, there was definitely a sizeable amount of ignorance in the way his character though as well.

In short, Carol was an ordinary romantic film that just happened to have an LGBTQ couple in the spotlight without making a lot of fuss about it. These characters were real people and more than just their sexuality. All of the cast brought their A-game, Blanchett  and Mara had amazing chemistry and the visuals of the film (mise-en-scene and cinematography) were also great – the motion picture took the audience back in time to the 1950s flawlessly.

Rate: 4/5

Trailer: Carol trailer

carol-poster (1)