Movie review: The Snowman

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to a review of a movie you have never heard about. This is The Snowman!

IMDb summary: Detective Harry Hole investigates the disappearance of a woman whose pink scarf is found wrapped around an ominous-looking snowman

Writing

The Snowman is a European crime thriller (I love thrillers!), written by Hossein Amini (Drive, Snow White and The Huntsman, Our Kind of Traitor), Peter Straughan (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Frank, Our Brand is Crisis), and Søren Sveistrup (a Scandinavian TV writer), based on the book of the same name by Jo Nesbø – quite a well-known Norwegian crime novel writer. I’ve, personally, never read any of his books, but I definitely know that my dad has enjoyed quite a few of them. Sadly, I didn’t have the same experience with the movie adaptation of The Snowman. Mostly because of how illogical the plot was.

The opening set-up for a villain left me with so many questions, which were not really answered throughout the film. So, supposedly, the bad guy did nefarious things because he grew up abused by a man, who was probably his father, but somehow blamed his mother for everything and then decided to punish all less-than-perfect mothers las an adult? What kind of senseless self-styled heroism is this? I’m guessing you could make a case about his psychological damage pushing him to do that, but, even if we take his potential mental disorders into consideration, his actions still don’t make much sense!?

The other ‘hero’ characters were all similarly damaged. Additionally, the detective case was not just a job for them, but a personal vendetta. Their character development was minimal: the majority of the traits of the characters directly related to the plot. Or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, the character features appeared to be completely unnecessary and not relating to anything but then were forced into the main plotline. The supporting characters served no purpose in the movie, a few of them were dropped halfway through, with no explanation.

The narrative was predictable, typical, and full of plot-holes. The story was spread out all over the place – elabarote but not in a good way and convoluted rather than complex. All of the plotlines and the story strands were super loose. And yet, the movie somewhow managed to tie everything together. I guess the plot sort of made sense in the context of the film, but it would fall apart easily if one just dug a little deeper. The Snowman did very much feel like an adaptation of a book and I have a feeling that the story worked much better in the novel form.

Directing

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy’s director Tomas Alfredson helmed this film and did a passable job. At the beginning, the film did have a slight David Fincher-esque vibe, but that quickly went away. The Norwegian setting and the visuals of the fjords and the snow were good. In general, the realistic, down-to-earth vibe of a very European thriller was refreshing (I’ve been watching a lot of Hollywood high-glamour thriller lately, so this one was a nice change). However, that same vibe also made the project seem less cinematic and more like a TV movie. The violence was quite brutal and explicit (so maybe don’t see the film if that bothers you or your stomach). Lastly, the pacing was super slow and the intensity wasn’t always there to make up for the lack of action.

Acting

The Snowman assembled quite a good cast. In the lead was Michael Fasssbender, who desperately needed a financial or a critical win after Assasin’s Creed and Alien: Covenant (in both of which he was actually good in). However, The Snowman won’t do his career any good. Can somebody get him another Steve Jobs-type of a role? Or are we betting everything on the next X-Men film?

Rebecca Ferguson (MI5, The Girl on The Train, Life) was the co-lead on the film. Her character arc started out promising but then turned into a stereotype, however, Ferguson still delivered a neat performance. The supporting cast included a French actress Charlotte Gainsbourg (whose English language films include Independence Day: Resurgence), Val Kilmer (who I haven’t seen in a movie for years), and J.K. Simmons (Renegades) who had no business being in this picture. Oh, Jarvis aka James D’Arcy (Dunkirk) was in it too!

In short, The Snowman is a thriller that is not worth anyone’s time. If you are interested in the story, maybe read the book instead of watching the film?

Rate: 2.7/5

Trailer: The Snowman trailer

The_Snowman_(2017)_poster.jpg

Advertisements

5 ideas about a movie: American Made

Movie reviews

Hello!

Tom Cruise is back in the air in American Made, 30 years after he flown in Top Gun. Let’s see if he still has what it takes!

IMDb summary: A pilot lands work for the CIA and as a drug runner in the south during the 1980s.

  1. American Made is a real-life story of an American pilot Barry Seal, which was adapted to screen by Gary Spinelli – quite an inexperienced writer (his only other produced picture is 2012’s Stash House). The narrative of the film was extremely crazy and so far out there that it had to have happened (and the only place it could have happened was the dear old U.S. of A.). The plot presented in the movie felt a bit choppy but that was intentional. By the end of the picture, it was revealed that there was a framing device of the cassette tapes, full of memories that Barry recorded after the events had happened and recounted for the viewer in this film, so the different segments of the movie corresponded to the separate tapes and, thus, weren’t really connected.
  2. Doug Liman, known for a few things, like starting The Bourne franchise with Identity, creating the former power-couple Brangelina with Mr. & Mrs. Smith, and producing the 2014 film with multiple names that audiences didn’t know how to feel about – Edge of Tomorrow, directed American Made and did a good job. The pacing was fine if a bit slow, while the comedic timing was nearly perfect. The reaction shots of the characters, responding to the insane events around them, were super funny, while, by far, the most hilarious scene in the film was the sequence, where all the different law enforcement departments were fighting over the right to arrest Barry.
  3. The visuals and the cinematography of American Made seemed a bit confused to me. The frame would be super mobile one minute and then transition into a steady shot. A lot of handheld tracking shots and extreme close-ups were also used. Then the camera would switch to a long or even extremely long exterior shot. Lastly, there were cutaways to the actual homemade films that Barry made, that broke the fourth wall. It seemed to me that American Made was partially filmed as an indie documentary and partially as a classical Hollywood biopic. The era appropriate Universal logo at the start was a nice timely touch, though.
  4. Tom Cruise (Mission: Impossible series, Edge of Tomorrow, Jack Reacher series, The Mummy) starred in the lead role of Barry Seal and did an amazing job. While the real Barry Seal looks nothing like a Hollywood celebrity Cruise, I still believed his performance. How couldn’t I, when I still find Cruise extremely charismatic? It was also interesting to see him doing a more emotionally rather than physically demanding role. I don’t think I remember the last time, I saw Cruise in a dramedy like American Made, instead of a straight up actioner. His next film is MI6 as well as Edge of Tomorrow 2, where he will reteam with Liman.
  5. The supporting cast of the film didn’t stand out much but served their purpose. Sarah Wright was mostly just an eye-candy for the male viewers, while Domhnall Gleeson (The Revenant, Brooklyn, The Force Awakens, Anna Karenina, Unbroken) had quite an interesting role as a CIA agent – his nervous twitch and constant blinking were memorable parts of the performance. Glee’s Jayma Mays and Fargo’s Jesse Plemons (who also was in Black Mass) had cameo roles, while Get Out’s Caleb Landry Jones appeared in a similarly crazy role like the one he had in the highly regarded race-relations picture.

In short, American Made is a really funny take on a story that has insane twists and turns and a fairly sad ending. Tom Cruise, once again, flys high in a role that should be despicable but is likable instead.

Rate: 4/5 

Trailer: American Made trailer

MV5BMTUxNzUwMjk1Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDkwODI1MjI@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,675,1000_AL_

Movie review: Wind River

Movie reviews

Hello!

Let’s take a break from all the summer blockbusters of varying quality and give a chance to the dying genre of the regular movie. This is the review of Wind River.

IMDb summary: An FBI agent teams with a town’s veteran game tracker to investigate a murder that occurred on a Native American reservation.

Taylor Sheridan

Wind River is a thriller, written and directed by Taylor Sheridan. Sheridan’s name might be unfamiliar to a lot of people, but cinephiles should know him for writing two recent marvelous pictures that both had some awards potential – 2015’s Sicario and 2016’s Hell or High Water. While Sheridan didn’t direct any of his previous scripts (Sicario was done by Villeneuve, and Hell or High Water by Mckenzie), he does have some directing experience, having helmed 2011’s horror film, Vile. Wind River is being distributed by the awards whisperers The Weinstein Company. Their involvement combined with Sheridan’s previous track record might actually give Wind River a chance to make some ways during the proper awards season. More importantly, the film highly deserves that.

Writing

Sheridan, similarly to his previous movies, has written a story that’s both thrilling and entertaining but is also thematically clever. Wind River, a film inspired by true events, is set on a Native American reservoir and the first victim of a crime is a young Native American woman. The local police are not equipped to solve the mystery, while FBI is also not willing to pay a lot of attention. This fictionalized account goes very much in line with the real life events (so, ‘inspired by true events’ sentence is accurate). As an anthropology student, I have studied a few cases of Native American women going missing in the north of North America and the local authorities doing nothing to find them (in class, we mostly focused on cases in Canada but the film’s Wyoming’s case was very similar). Wind River’s story at least had a somewhat happy ending and some closure, however, that’s usually not the case in real life. So, it was really nice for a film to end with a sentence about the statistics of missing Native women –  a call to action, even if it will probably go unheard.

The depictions of the reservoir life seemed quite accurate. The problems within a Native American community – the drugs and substance abuse, poverty, the loss of identity and the marginalization – were all mentioned. The relationship between the white Americans and the Native Americans was represented in a variety of ways. The viewers saw both a friendly relationship of a white man being, more or less, a member of a community and an outsider white American being seen as a hostile stranger (at least in the beginning). Lastly, even though some of the ideas and relationships in the film could be seen as very specific and having a limited crossover, the overarching themes of the picture were survival and family – two extremely universal concepts that are understood across all cultures.

I have mentioned the historical facts as well as topics of the movie, let’s now turn our attention to the actual detective story. To begin with, I found it refreshing to see an FBI agent and a local hunter working together and listening to one another, rather than competing to reach the same goal. It was also nice to see a completely professional relationship without any pushed romance being depicted. The reveal of who the criminals were – 5 white, less than bright, drunk men from a working class background – was maybe a bit disappointing at first but, on a second viewing, very much grounded and realistic. Plus, the scene that followed the reveal – the rapid shoot-out – was unexpected in the best way possible and also oddly satisfying.

Directing

While Sheridan’s directing style wasn’t groundbreaking, it was still good in its subtlety. His direction for the picture was mostly elevated by his own amazing writing. Visually, the film looked nice – the sweeping shots of the mountains and snow were naturally gorgeous, while the sequence of the snowmobile action added an element of effortless coolness. The pacing was very good too – the film was constantly building to a crescendo and also delivered on it. Wind River was definitely a great effort from a sort of new director.

Acting

At the center of Wind River, two Marvel stars were reunited – Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olsen. They both did a magnificent job. It was nice to see Renner continuing his indie/awards career alongside his blockbuster-focused one (he was just recently in Arrival in addition to Civil War, MI5, and Age of Ultron). Elizabeth Olsen (Godzilla) has really come into her own as an actress and is probably now more famous (acting-wise) than her older sisters.

The supporting cast, thankfully, provided an opportunity for some Native American/First Nations talent to shine, like Gil Birmingham (he was also in Hell or High Water), Julia JonesGraham Greene, and Martin Sensmeier. Jon Bernthal (Baby Driver, The Accountant, We Are Your Friends) also appeared in the film, reuniting with Sheridan, after having worked on Sicario with him. 

In short, Wind River is an emotional, smart, and entertaining thriller that deserves more recognition that it will probably get.

Rate: 4.4/5

Trailer: Wind River trailer

wind_river_ver2_xlg

Movie review: The Mummy

Movie reviews, Music

Hello!

Welcome to another movie review of a film that literally could have come out at any time in the last two decades – The Mummy!

IMDb summary: An ancient princess is awakened from her crypt beneath the desert, bringing with her malevolence grown over millennia, and terrors that defy human comprehension.

The Mummy is the official beginning of the rebooted Universal Monsters franchise, now titled Dark Universe. The first attempt to revive this classical (1920s-1950s) series happened in 2014 with the release of Dracula Untold, however, since the film underperformed, it was later made non-canon. And yet, I still feel like it might be reinstated into the franchise, as The Mummy is not fairing much better, neither critically nor financially. One last note – Universal’s Monster Dark Universe should NOT be confused with Legendary’s MonsterVerse, which has Godzilla and King Kong instead of The Invisible Man, Frankenstein, and The Mummy.

Writing

The 14th The Mummy film was written by David Koepp (who has worked on some of my favorite pictures – Jurassic Park, Mission Impossible, Panic Room; some stinkers like Indy 4 and Mortdecai; and some who were somewhere in between, like Inferno and Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit; he is also writing Indy 5), Christopher McQuarrie (who worked on The Usual Suspects and a trifecta of Tom Cruise films: Jack Reacher, Edge of Tomorrow, and MI 5; he is next both scripting and directing MI 6) and the actor Dylan Kussman (the least accomplished screenwriter on the project – this is only his 3rd project as a writer). The story credits were also given to Jon Spaihts (Prometheus, Doctor Strange, Passengers), the actress Jenny Lumet (she wrote Rachel Getting Married), and the director of the film.

I actually quite enjoyed the writing for The Mummy – it was definitely better than the writing for a few blockbusters that I’ve seen this summer movie season already. The film started on a really solid footing – the set up was good and interesting enough even if a bit heavy-handed and dense (I always liked the mixture of history and fantasy, so maybe that’s why I liked that ancient Egypt sequence)  – but the promising script fizzled out in the 3rd act (the love story and the solution to defeating The Mummy were both predictable). Also, the set-up story was repeated too many times. The viewers did not need to hear the same exposition 3 or more times.

The characters were great though – I liked the fact that we got to see the narrative through the ‘everyman’s’ perspective (even if Tom Cruise isn’t really an ‘everyman’). What I liked the most about his characters was the fact that he was a genuine idiot – let me explain – his character was a thief and not even a very good one, so the stupid actions that he had to make during the plot actually sorta made sense. It would have been illogical if a super smart person acted that certain way that action movie narratives require. I also liked the contrast between the two leads, how she was a scientist and he was totally clueless about most of the stuff except how much everything is worth on the black market. The duo of the two military partners was also good – I liked how one was an adventurer and the other wanted nothing more than not to be there. These contrasts between the characters gave rise to some funny moments. Actually, The Mummy was a way funnier movie in general than I expected it to be. A lot of the funny moments stemed from the awkward encounters or involved characters reacting to stuff – nothing too original but at least these scenes weren’t cringe-y.

Looking to the future of the series, the two main things should be kept in mind. First, Russel Crowe’s double identity (Jekyll and Hyde, good and evil) will probably come into play in the next film. He, as the head of Prodigium, is the connecting tissue for the Dark Universe, so his involvement in all the films is all but guaranteed. Second, Tom Cruise’s character’s double identity, acuired in the final act, will probably be also explored further, maybe in other Dark Universe films or perhaps in The Mummy 2, when or if that movie materializes (the future is unclear due to lukewarm reception from critics and moviegoers alike).

Directing

The Mummy was directed by the screenwriter Alex Kurtzman – this was only his second directorial attempt and it wasn’t a bad one for sure. The pacing was fine and the action sequences were serviceable too. The design of The Mummy was really cool looking as well and her powers were realized well (even if they were really vague). I especially liked that reanimation effect – it lookes appropriatelly disgusting. The world building/the visualization of mythology was fine too. The design for The Mummy’s victims-turned-zombies could have been better though – they looked like they were in/from World War Z. Overall, a good directing effort – not groundbreaking but nothing to be ashamed of either.

Acting

The Mummy had a pretty well-known cast. The biggest name was, of course, Tom Cruise, in the lead role Nick Morton. Say what you want about him as a person, but I still belive that Cruise is a good actor, especially when he is in his element – an action movie. He is good at physical stunts and charming AF. This time around, he also got a chance to show off his comedic skills – haven’t seen those in a while. His next film is Doug Liman’s American MadeAnnabelle Wallis (quite an unknow actress to me) starred as Jennifer Halsey and was good too. This was defintely her biggest role to date. She also had a small part in the new King Arthur film, which I’m finally seeing in a couple of days.

Sofia Boutella played Princess Ahmanet. She has made a name for herself by performing physically interesting or challenging roles in pictures like Kingsman and Star Trek Beyond. Those skills really helped her embody The Mummy as well. Her next film is Atomic BlondeRussell Crowe (Noah, The Nice Guys) was also good as Dr. Henry Jekyll. I like the fact that they were able to get a serious actor into this franchise – maybe that will give it more gravitas?

The comedian/actor Jake Johnson (21 Jump Street, Neighbors, Mike and Dave Need Weding Dates) starred as the sidekick to Tom Cruise’s character and did a good job being the comic relief. Lastly, Marwan Kenzari, who I just saw in The Promise a handful of days ago, played a security officer. I knew he looked familiar and I was rocking my brain, trying to remembering who he was, everytime he appeared on screen. 

In short, while The Mummy is a rocky start to Universal’s Dark Universe, it is a perfectly fine summer action movie. It doesn’t have any deeper themes, but it is also not convoluted, offensive or boring.

Rate: 3.5/5

Trailer: The Mummy trailer

c8tvyd8voaain_p.jpg

 

Movie review: Life

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to a review of the annual space movie. For the year 2017, it’s Life.

Life follows in the vein of the sci-fi space films, like 2013’s Gravity, 2014’s Interstellar, 2015’s The Martian, and, I guess, 2016’s Passengers. It’s also kinda similar to the earlier pictures, such as 2009’s Moon and 2007’s Sunshine. Life is the most similar to the last one because both films feature diverse groups of astronauts stuck on a space ship and have horror/slasher elements in addition to the sci-fi themes.

IMDb summary: A team of scientists aboard the International Space Station discover a rapidly evolving life form, that caused extinction on Mars, and now threatens the crew and all life on Earth.

Writing

Life was written by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (the duo previously co-wrote Zombieland and Deadpool). Story wise, the movie was not the most original but the narrative was still interesting and exciting. The two major themes were human intervention and survival. The character development was minimal but there were still a few nice character moments dispersed throughout. In fact, the movie’s main star was the alien – all the set-up focused on it rather than the humans. Life definitely depicted life beyond earth in an old-school way: the creature was instantly violent rather than communicative like the ones in Arrival. Whether the actual alien of this movie was just the rip-off of the Allien, I don’t know. It definitely appeared similar to that one and it was probably a good idea for this film to come out before Allien: Covenant.

In addition to there being some scenes to depict the character’s backgrounds, the picture also had a couple of sequences of the astronauts doing both scientific experiments and publicity for ISS. I really loved those parts and appreciated the fact that the scriptwriters attempted to show a variety of activities done by the astronauts. The ending of the movie was also interesting. I don’t know whether they didn’t explain what actually happened with the pods (how did they switch?) because they are hoping for a sequel or because they wanted to leave it open for speculation/discussion?

Directing

The Swedish director Daniel Espinosa directed Life. This was his second US-based picture, but he has also directed Child 44 in the UK (really enjoyed that one) and made a couple of films in both Denmark and Sweden. I quite liked what he did with Life. The visuals were just absolutely gorgeous and not once did I think that we weren’t in the real ISS. The pacing and the intensity were also great. The horror elements of the action weren’t cheesy either and didn’t rely too much on the jump scares but used the technique of suspense building and the visceral imagery to elicit a reaction. In fact, some of the scenes were quite gruesome and uncomfortable to watch but they were effective so I can’t fault a movie for that. The camera work was also pretty impressive, especially one of the early long shots that seemingly went all through the space station. The alien POV was also a neat effect.

Acting

The film had a very diverse cast for a narrative reason rather than just for a financial one. The astronauts were played by Jake GyllenhaalRebecca FergusonRyan ReynoldsHiroyuki SanadaAriyon Bakare, and Olga Dihovichnaya.

Seeing Gyllenhaal on screen in yet another movie made me realize that he is one of a few actors who is constantly working. He never seems to fall off the radar even if his pictures don’t earn much. A few of his recent films that I enjoyed are Everest, Southpaw, and, especially, Nocturnal Animals. It was also really nice to see Ferguson in yet another American film (she began her career in Sweden, but has already appeared in MI5, Florence Foster Jenkins, and The Girl on The Train) and I’m excited to continue following her career. For Reynolds, this was his first post-Deadpool film and I think that his role in the marketing campaign for Life was expanded because he is the man behind the Merc with a Mouth. The ad campaign led me to believe that he will be an important part of the picture so I was quite surprised with his character’s story arc.

Sanada, weirdly enough, portrayed a character in Life who very closely resembled his character in Sunshine – a movie which I already mentioned in this review because of its and Life’s similar stories. What a coincidence that these films share an actor too. Bakare has mostly done TV work before now, but he also had cameos in big films like Rogue One and The Dark Knight. Lastly, Dihovichnaya is a newcomer to the Western mainstream cinema but is an established actress in Russian-speaking indie cinema market. I hope that her work in Life will provide her with more opportunities in the West.

In short, Life was a well-made space horror flick. It had a great cast and neat, suspenseful action, which will entertain the majority of the cinema -goers, and an open ending for those who appreciate the intellectual layer in their sci-fi.

Rate: 4/5

Trailer: Life trailer

VkEOtTI

Movie review: Allied

Movie reviews

Hello!

Today, I’m reviewing Allied – the movie that ‘broke’ Brangelina, the ‘it’ couple of Hollywood. Okay, I’m kidding –  I don’t actually believe or care much about the rumors. To me, Allied is, first and foremost, a film by a director that is of my native descent (Zemeckis is half-Lithuanian).

IMDb summary: In 1942, an intelligence officer in North Africa encounters a female French Resistance fighter on a deadly mission behind enemy lines. When they reunite in London, their relationship is tested by the pressures of war.

Writing

Steven Knight wrote the screenplay for Allied. So far, his accomplishments have been a bit average: I absolutely loved his small film Locke and really enjoyed the stories of The Hundred-Foot Journey and Pawn Sacrifice. However, Knight also penned the script for the so-so picture Burnt and wrote the completely awful Seventh Son as well. His next film will be a different Brad Pitt picture – Wold War Z 2. Speaking of the writing for this film, quality-wise, Allied was a mixed bag , just like Knight’s track record.

I felt that Allied contained two distinct stories which could have been explored in two separate movies. The first suspenseful act of the two characters falling in love on a mission was cool and interesting. It was a successful homage to Casablanca and the Golden Age of Hollywood. The second story – the home life and the investigation – was much slower and less interesting than the preceding set-up. Nevertheless, I did enjoy the fact that this film focused more on the romance and less on the war because I have already seen enough historical films, in which the romantic aspect is relegated to the sidelines and feels out of place. Allied made a decision to be a romantic movie first and a war drama second and stuck with it. I, as I have mentioned, enjoyed and liked this idea, but I can also understand that some people might see it as too sappy and melodramatic. I, personally, found it touching and heartbreaking, although not Casablanca level heartbreaking (Allied didn’t reach the levels of ‘We’ll always have Paris’ is what I’m saying).

Having said that, Allied still did have some pretty nice lines of dialogue and some rather cool concepts. I don’t really know why but I liked the trailer line: ‘Being good at this kind of job is not very beautiful’. I also enjoyed the ideas about love in war – the problem isn’t the action of getting involved, it is feeling something about the involvement. Lastly, I liked how the film underscored that the two main characters could never be trusted, as they were trained to lie.

Directing

Robert Zemeckis, who is responsible for creating a whole slew of cinematic classics – Back To The Future trilogy, Who Framed Robert Rabbit, Forrest Gump, and Cast Away and whose latest films include The Walk and Flight, directed Allied and did quite a good job. The film looked beautiful visually, although the CGI at the beginning (the desert) seemed a tiny bit fake and took me out of the film. Other historical settings were realized nicely, though. Zemeckis also used a lot of time jumps in the film and they did make sense for the most part. Lastly, I did like his long takes that some critics panned. At first, they seemed unnecessarily long to me as well, but then I realized that they were this long for a reason and were meant to show or to indicate something extra.

Acting

I think that the lead duo – Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard – did an amazing job. First, they had crazy good chemistry and made a believable couple – their back and forth dialogue was superb, especially in the first act. Secondly, I think that the two actors nailed the ‘fake’ spy acting and didn’t make it seem cartoony. I was also quite surprised to see Lizzy Caplan in a supporting role and thought that her character was interesting, although, I question the motives behind the decision to include her character. A trio of actors, who seem to constantly appear in historical movies – Jared Francis Harris, Matthew Goode, and Simon McBurney, rounded up the cast of Allied and brought solid performances too.

Actors’ film recommendations:

  • Brad Pitt: Seven, Fight ClubMr. & Mrs. Smith (why not, it is still a good movie), Inglorious Basterds, Fury, The Big Short, By The Sea (even more ironic, as this one is directed by Jolie).
  • Marion Cotillard: Macbeth, The Dark Knight Rises, Inception, Big FishLa Vie en Rose for which she won an Oscar should also be on this list, even though I haven’t seen it yet. 
  • Lizzy Caplan: Now You See Me 2, Mean Girls (what a throwback).
  • Jared Harris: Benjamin Button, Lincoln, The Man from U.N.C.L.E.
  • Matthew Goode: Downton Abbey, The Imitation Game, Watchmen.
  • Simon McBurney: MI:Rogue Nation, Magic in the Moonlight, The Theory of Everything, Jane Eyre.

In brief, Allied was a solid romantic war drama. It had good acting and a decent story and visuals. However, the film was not groundbreaking, which it could have been, knowing who was involved in its making, both in front and behind the camera.

Rate: 3,75/5

Trailer: Allied trailer

allied-2016-3

Movie review: Arrival

Movie reviews

Hello, my dear readers!

An original sci-fi flick – Arrival – has landed in cinemas, so let’s review it! Since I hadn’t seen an inventive science fiction film in theaters for quite some time (I did, however, only recently watched an original sci-fi movie on Netflix, called ARQ – it was quite entertaining), I was super excited to see Arrival. Plus, I’ve also really enjoyed the previous work of the director as well as the cast.

SPOILER ALERT

IMDb summary: A linguist is recruited by the military to assist in translating alien communications.

Writing

Eric Heisserer, who has mostly written horror films, penned Arrival’s script and did an absolutely spectacular job. This movie’s narrative was so refreshing – it never went where I expected it to go.

To begin with, I appreciated the fact that this movie focused on a linguist and on the subject of languages and communication. Sci-fi films usually tend to have scientists or military personnel front and center, but this time, these types of characters were relocated to the supporting positions. As someone who studies art and humanities, I was extremely happy to see these subjects as useful in a sci-fi scenario, since usually after watching a science fiction movie, I would regret not studying physics or biology. But now, I can imagine that my language and anthropology skills can also be useful.

On the topic of anthropology, last year, in my symbolic anthropology class we studied the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that this movie took and made true. The hypothesis states that one’s language determines one’s culture, behavior, and thinking and Amy Adams’s characters mind was heavily impacted by the alien language. On the topic, of Adams’s character – I loved how the plot played up her backstory. Those ‘flashbacks’ were not only a story-telling technique but a part of the actual story. That was amazing and mindblowing.

Like other science fiction films, Arrival explored the topic of humanity. Some of the ideas and dialogue lines sounded a bit ironic and skeptical, especially in the post-Brexit and post-U.S. election context. The notions that the world needs to work together and that peaceful communication come first rather than violent attack/defense are wonderful ideas, but I highly doubt their real-life application. The plot-points about protecting humanity by not talking to other humans seemed like a more realistic outcome of the situation. The media’s role in all of this mess was also a great and topical inclusion for the modern context. Lastly, showcasing the panic as the biggest threat to humanity was also good writing! These thematical parts of the film frustrated me quite a bit, but then again, these kinds of things frustrate me IRL, so I guess the movie just represented the contemporary world and explored its negative aspects and shortcomings really well.

Arrival, like a lot of other sci-fi films, started as a grounded science movie but then quickly escalated into the fiction territory. It asked questions and didn’t answer some of them. With these type of movies, there is always a debate going on whether there was some kind of deeper meaning and I was just too stupid to notice it or whether the film was just badly written and didn’t make much sense. Having said that, I think this debate is part of the beauty of making and writing about motion pictures – they always mean something different to different people. I also believe that Arrival is a brilliant and intriguing film to watch and discuss.

Directing

Denis Villeneuve, who is best known for making 2013’s Prisoners and last year’s Sicario, directed the film and did a wonderful job. The visuals were spectacular: the design of the ships – so simple yet so cool and the long tracking shots – awe inspiring. At first, I wasn’t completely sure about the design of the aliens, but when we got to see them whole, I was pleasantly surprised. The way the communication aspect was visualized was super cool too. I also liked all the inventive and innovative camera angles. On a personal note, I loved Amy Adams’s character’s home – would love to have a house with such a stunning view myself.

I also really liked the pacing of the film – it was slow and suspenseful and did not need some big and over-the-top 3rd act action piece to be memorable and entertaining. The music choices (by Jóhann Jóhannsson) were great as well and really helped to build thrilling, frightening and yet curious type of atmosphere.

Acting

  • Amy Adams as Dr. Louise Banks, a linguist was at the center of the film and delivered a really subtle performance. I do believe that these smaller, more indie-like films showcase her talent much more than big blockbusters (BvS). So, I suggest you check out Amy in Nocturnal Animals, American Hustle, and Big Eyes.
  • Jeremy Renner as Ian Donnelly was also great in his role of a scientist. Renner is also one of those actors that is on everyone’s radar and is constantly working but is not a complete A-lister which he should be. He is equally enjoyable to watch in popcorn flicks like Marvel movies and Mission Impossible films and in more serious pictures like The Hurt Locker, The Town, and Kill The Messenger.
  • Forest Whitaker as Colonel Weber and Michael Stuhlbarg as Agent Halpern provided great support and presented a more stereotypical government perspective to the movie. Whitaker still has Rogue One to be released in a month, while Stuhlbarg just had a small role in the recently released Doctor Strange.

In short, Arrival was a visually stunning picture, with an extremely clever and interesting story and some nice thematical concepts and great acting. It is a great conversation starter of a movie.

Rate: 4.5/5

Trailer: Arrival trailer

_90843681_890a8bd8-6501-11e6-aefa-e8609c477948_486x

 

Movie review: Jack Reacher: Never Go Back

Movie reviews

Hello!

The latest film in that other Tom Cruise action-spy franchise has landed in theaters, so, let’s talk about it! This is the review of Jack Reacher: Never Go Back.

IMDb summary: Jack Reacher must uncover the truth behind a major government conspiracy in order to clear his name. On the run as a fugitive from the law, Reacher uncovers a potential secret from his past that could change his life forever.

While I’ve closely followed Cruise and his Mission: Impossible movies, I managed to somehow miss the first Jack Reacher picture when it was first released in 2012. However, I did my homework and watched it before going to see the sequel. I really enjoyed the narrative of the film: the story was a bit different from the usual action movie plot. It had more of the actual investigation and an interesting dialogue rather just a ton of physical fights. But, when the action did happen, it was quite cool too – it was more rugged and down to earth than the spectacular and over the top action sequences in MI. Jack Reacher’s action reminded me of the action in Jason Bourne films, just with less shaky cam. The characters were fine as well, although the film was mostly a Tom Cruise show.

While the first film was a delightful surprise, the second one was just another uninspired and cliche sequel. I didn’t really have any expectations going into this film and I was right to not expect anything because Jack Reacher: Never Go Back was just an average action movie at best.

Writing

Richard Wenk (The Mechanic, The Equalizer, The Magnificient Seven), the director Edward Zwick and Zwick’s long-time collaborator Marshall Herskovitz wrote the screenplay for the film, adapting Lee Child’s 18th book of the Jack Reacher series. I had a lot of problems with the story. For one, the whole set-up seemed forced and rushed. It took two phone calls for Reacher to want to help Turner, while in the first film, more than 30 minutes had to be spent to actually get Reacher into the action. That whole thing with Turner being wrongly accused seemed like a recycled idea from the first movie as well. And don’t even get me started on that plot-line concerning his maybe-daughter – she was super annoying and was a huge liability to both the characters and the film’s narrative. She had one smart scheme, which we didn’t even see her carrying out – we were just told about it, and a ton of stupid ideas. And why even include her if she turns out to not be his daughter after all? Only to have that cheesy goodbye that didn’t add anything to the picture?

The villain showed up in maybe like 3 or 4 scenes in the whole movie. If you want to see a much better movie about the government contracts and arms’ dealers, then just check out War Dogs. Lastly, while the first film was slow but had a somewhat interesting dialogue about the investigation to fill in the time between the action, its sequel had a ton of small talk that didn’t get the movie anywhere. When it tried to foreshadow or set-up something, it did that in the most obvious way possible. From a thematical standpoint, I did like the overarching military v civilian life debate, however, what I didn’t appreciate was that whole male/female bickering. That plotline was irrelevant and felt out of place even more than the father/daughter storyline.

Directing

Edward Zwick, who has previously worked with Cruise on The Last Samurai and has also directed such films as the biopic Pawn Sacrifice, the war drama Defiance, and the comedy Love & Other Drugs, helmed Jack Reacher: Never Go Back and did an okay job. He opened the film with the sequence from the trailer, which I have seen multiple times before even watching the movie since I go to the cinema a lot. Wish they would have either chose a different scene for the trailer or changed it up a bit for the movie. The overall action was fine but nothing too striking or worth mentioning. I liked the gray colored shots of Reacher visualizing the escape or the past events, but the movie kinda dropped this idea halfway through.

Acting

  • Tom Cruise was good as Jack Reacher but I have come to expect this from him a long time ago. It’s nice to see him doing his own stunts, though – makes the movie a bit more realistic. Cruise also produced this film, like the majority of his action movies, but I’m actually quite interested to see if he will ever direct one. His upcoming pictures are a biographical crime thriller American Made and The Mummy reboot.
  • Cobie Smulders as Susan Turner was quite good too. I was happy to see her getting some work, because since How I Met Your Mother has ended, I haven’t seen much of her, well except in the MCU films, although her role in those is really small. I liked hers and Cruise’s chemistry in this movie and I also thought that she was good in the action scenes.
  • Danika Yarosh as Samantha Dayton a.k.a. the daughter. I don’t want to be angry with the big screen newcomer Yarosh because she was fine in the role, but, as I have already mentioned, her character was written terribly and didn’t even have a place in the film. Yarosh has been mostly acting in various TV shows and I do hope that this mediocre film and a bit cringe-y performance won’t stop her from being cast in more movies.
  • The supporting cast also included a lot of quite unknown (to me) actors, like Aldis HodgePatrick HeusingerHolt McCallany, and Austin Hebert. No one really stood much but they also haven’t been really given a chance to do so.

 In short, Jack Reacher: Never Go Back is an average sequel that basically advises its potential viewers to skip it. The story is awful, the directing is okay and while the acting is good, the cast is not given enough solid material to work with. I advise you to Never Go Back to the Jack Reacher films.

Rate: 2.5/5

Trailer: Jack Reacher: Never Go Back trailer

cqlurvqumaatri2.jpg

 

Movie review: The Girl on The Train

Movie reviews, Uncategorized

Hello!

The highly awaited adaptation of the best-selling thriller has finally reached cinemas, so let’s talk about it! This is the review of The Girl on The Train.

IMDb summary: A divorcee becomes entangled in a missing person’s investigation that promises to send shockwaves throughout her life.

The Girl on The Train is an adaptation of the book with the same name, written by journalist-turned-writer Paula Hawkins and published in January of 2015. It has taken Hollywood only around a year and a half to come up with the cinematic version of the same story. The book has been compared to Gone Girl – famous novel by Gillian Flynn (another former journalist, now a published author), but I would also suggest you check out the other two Flynn’s books – Sharp Objects and Dark Places – if you liked The Girl on The Train. J.K.Rowling’s first adult novel – The Casual Vacancy – might also be of some interest to you, as it explores similar topics to The Girl on The Train, namely the idea of the domestic affairs and the concept of the outside image. Another analogous book about a dysfunctional family that is on my to-read list is The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and all its sequels.

To me, the dichotomy of private and public life was one of the most interesting aspects of the source material. The novel also appealed to my inner stalker – I, as the main character Rachel, like to watch strangers around me and imagine their lives or imagine myself in their place. I guess that tells you something about my less-than-stable mental state. I promise I’m not a drunk, though.

Last year, both Gone Girl and Dark Places have been adapted to films and The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo has been turned into a couple of movies (both in Sweden and the US) and I’m sure that the adaptation of The Girl on The Train will be compared to all of them. Some will even go as far as to compare it to Hitchcock’s classics, which isn’t really fair, in my opinion. But, enough of the introduction, let’s get into the actual review of the picture.

413uetl4gzl-_sx325_bo1204203200_

!SPOILER ALERT!

Writing

The Girl on The Train’s script was written by Erin Cressida Wilson. She penned last year’s Men, Women & Children – the only recent film with Adam Sandler that I didn’t hate – I actually even enjoyed it. As per usual, some of the details of the story were changed when adapting the narrative. To begin with, the action was relocated from London to New York for no obvious  creative reason, other than to appeal more to the American audiences. I would have preferred it to be set in England – the gloomy and rainy London would have fit the story more than the city who never sleeps – NY. The screenwriter also cut a few of the creepier details that were in the book, namely a couple of messed up sex scenes. She also gave more traits to some characters: Rachel liked to draw and we actually saw her go to an AA meeting and Megan liked to go on runs. Cathy’s character was altered a bit too, while the character of Martha was an original creation for the picture. The role that the media played in the murder mystery was also diminished in the film.

Other than that, the characters pretty much stayed the same – they were all damaged people, some for a reason, others – without explanation. Then again, some people just are the way they are and there is no deeper tale behind their personality. Rachel basically was digging a hole for herself throughout the film, Megan was playing with fire and got burnt, and don’t even get me started on Anna – she was so willing to turn a blind eye to everything that she kinda made me sick. The 2 male character got a bit less of development but they were both kinda similar – abusive in one way or the other to some extent. Inspector Riley’s character was actually better in the film than in the book – she was super annoying in the novel and actually quite efficient and clever in the film, though she still went after a wrong person.

The narrative was more compressed in the movie than in the book, but all the main themes stayed the same: the desire to create a family was still the most driving plot point of the story (so stereotypical and one that I cannot understand or agree with, then again, I’ve never been family-orientated and this story only reassured my beliefs) and the private life and the public exterior were juxtaposed. The characters looked at each other for an ideal example and lived in a past way too much. The movie also showed the complexity and the dark side of relationships and love and looked at a very important aspect of the modern life – mental problems and depression.

Directing

Tate Taylor, whose previous films include The Help and Get on Up, directed The Girl on The Train and did a fine job. The camera was a bit static, but the visuals of the train in the background of various shots were nice. All the close-ups also worked to make the movie a bit more intimate experience. And yet, the film was quite slow and the numerous flashbacks didn’t really allow the story to go forward – it seemed like something was holding the movie back. The levels of intensity were also low and the buildup to the big twist was basically non-existent. Nevertheless, I did enjoy the big reveal even if I knew it beforehand. I wish that particular sequence would have been longer, though – the picture wrapped up really quickly when the real killer was announced to the audience and the characters. Overall, the directing was a bit flat and I wish Taylor would have done more with the material.

Music

The movie’s soundtrack by Danny Elfman wasn’t really noticeable (which sometimes is a good thing). I liked the instrumental score but wished they used more actual songs. For one, I really liked the trailer’s song Heartless and that comes from a person who highly dislikes Kanye West.

Acting

  • Emily Blunt (Edge of Tomorrow, Into the WoodsSicarioThe Huntsman) as Rachel Watson was absolutely amazing. She played such a believable drunk person – her performance was never over-the-top or too cartoonish. She basically carried this whole movie by herself and I really wish that her work in this film would be recognized with at least a Golden Globe nomination. Her 2 upcoming film are both animated but I’m sure that we will soon get a few announcements about her being cast in some live-action flicks.
  • Haley Bennett (Hardcore Henry) as Megan Hipwell was also really good. She reminded me a bit of both Jennifer Lawrence and Rosamund Pike. Furthermore, Bennett’s acting range is amazing – the character of Megan was completely different from her last cinematic character in The Magnificient Seven. Would love to seem more of her work.
  • Rebecca Ferguson (MI5, Florence Foster Jenkins) as Anna Watson was also great. While reading the book, I really disliked Anna and thought she acted a bit creepy and Ferguson portrayed that well.
  • Justin Theroux as Tom Watson. Theroux played a good villain – that of the worst kind. He seemed to be a good husband and father on the outside, but deep down was a manipulative liar, who managed to believe his own lies, and had no regard for other people’s mental or physical lives. While reading the book, I guessed that he was the killer when I still had around 50 pages left to the big reveal. He just seemed too normal to be a character in the book full of broken people. Going forward, Theroux will be voicing a lord in The Lego Ninjago Movie
  • Luke Evans (The Hobbit trilogy, Dracula Untold, High-Rise) as Scott Hipwell was fine in the role. I kinda feel like he was used as an eye candy for the first half of the film, though. He only said his first line in the 45th minute of the film (I checked). Nonetheless, his few emotional scenes with Blunt were my favorite parts of the movie. His next film is the live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast, which I’m super excited about!
  • Allison Janney as Detective Sgt. Riley was really good. Janney’s performance made me like the character of Riley much more than I did in the book. Coincidentally, I only just saw another film with her – she had a small role in Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children.
  • Édgar Ramírez (Joy, Point Break) as Dr. Kamal Abdic was fine. He was clearly not Bosnian (that was a big deal in the book) but they still tried to mention his ethnicity in the film which didn’t work. In the book, he was the survivor/refugee of the Yugoslavian wars and this impacted the media’s perception of him as the supposed killer. In the film, they just had Rachel throw the line ‘Where are you from?’ as a possible nod to his background in the book, but that didn’t really work.

In short, The Girl on The Train was an okay movie. The strongest part of it was the acting, while the directing and the writing had to take the back seat. It is not a must watch, but the fans of the book, as well as those who like character/actor-driven films, should check it out.

Rate: 3.5/5

Trailer: The Girl on The Train trailer

girlontrainposter.jpg

 

 

Movie review: Captain America: Civil War

Movie reviews

Hello!

I’ve just come back from the cinema where I’ve watched the newest Marvel movie. I have been eagerly waiting for Captain America: Civil War since it was announced and I can’t wait to discuss it with you. I’m also predicting that this post will be quite long, so prepare yourselves! I’ve already done a review of the graphic novel that this movie is based on, so I invite you to read that blog entry before checking out this review! You can also find the reviews of other MCU movies here: Captain America 1&2, Avengers 2, Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy. 

IMDb summary: Political interference in the Avengers’ activities causes a rift between former allies Captain America and Iron Man.

SPOILER ALERT

Audience

Just before I start talking about the movie, I would like to mention a few things about the audience of the film. I complained in BvS’s review that there were only a few female viewers in my screening. Well, Civil War’s screening was also male-centric but there were more female viewers than in the BvS. The screening that I went to was also solely adult, which was kinda weird. Dark DC films are not as appropriate for children as the lighter Marevl films and yet there were a few kids in BvS and no children in Civil War. This might have just been a coincidence, but I still found it strange and worth mentioning.

Writing and Story

Captain America: Civil War was written by a long-time duo of screenwriters – Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely. They have written all previous Captain America’s films, Thor: The Dark Wold and will be scripting both parts of the Infinity War. I believe that they more than succeeded with the story of Civil War. In general, Marvel/Disney has done it AGAIN. They not only met my expectations but exceeded them.

To begin with, this film was not an adaptation of the Civil War comic book, and that may annoy some people. Captain America: Civil War was a sequel to Winter Soldier, a continuation of Iron Man’s trilogy, Age Of Ultron’s sequel and a setup/origin story for the new characters. Civil War arc was the thing that tied all of these story lines together but was not the main focus of the film.  I enjoyed the fact that the movie had so many connecting yet different/separate storylines – it gave the feeling of a bigger cohesive universe – Marvel Cinematic Universe – while in BvS all the different plotlines just made the film messy. That’s why you make an epic team-up/versus movie 13th in the franchise, not 2nd.

  • Winter Soldier sequel – the movie expanded the Winter Soldier’s backstory. We found out that in the 1990s Hydra was operating in Russia – moved from the nazis to the soviets. The movie also introduced the idea that there were more Winter Soldiers but never really went anywhere with it. I would have liked an explanation for that blue stuff/liquid.  The new villain of the film (who wasn’t really a villain) also used the info that Black Widow put online at the end of Winter Soldier. Lastly, the character of Crossbones, who was first introduced in Cap 2 as a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent (member of the S.T.R.I.K.E. team) was also featured in the Civil War’s opening, while trying to get his revenge on Captain America as well as steal a bio weapon. 
  • Continuation of Iron Man’s story – Tony Stark’s past – his parent’s death – as well as his present actions as an Avenger – played an important role in the film. This film also kinda returned the title of the leader of the Avengers back to Tony. Remember, how at the end of Age of Ultron, Captain America was the one shouting Avengers Assemble? Well, Civil War’s ending kinda suggested that Iron Man is resuming the position of the leader, since Cap is an outlaw now. Or maybe Cap will be leading Secret Avengers? Iron Man became the director of S.H.I.E.L.D. at the end of comic book Civil War, so it’s only right that he is back at the helm of the Avengers in the movie.
  • The film’s main idea, as well as Zemo’s main objective, was to break the empire from the inside – a.k.a break the Avengers from the inside. And while it looks like he succeeded – he certainly thinks that he succeeded – the hopeful ending of the film with the letter and the phone kinda suggests that the Avengers will be back together. Plus, we, as viewers, know that they will be back together since thy will have to fight Thanos.
  • Age of Ultron sequel – Sokovia accords, Zemo’s desire for revenge and Iron Man’s guilt originated in the Avengers sequel and were dealt with in Civil War. Also, the woman who confronted Tony at MIT was probably a nod to the comic book Mrs. Sharpe or she might have been an actual Mrs. Sharpe.
  • The origin stories for new characters: Civil War introduced us to Black Panther and Spider-Man. We got a chance to see T’Challa take on 2 mantels – king’s and warrior’s. We also met the new Peter Parker as well as his aunt – that whole sequence was one of the funniests in the film.

Shout-outs to the missing characters: Both Hulk and Thor were mentioned in the film. The characters wonder about their location and also questioned whose side would they choose. I think it was a good idea to cut them from the film, so as not to overcrowd it, especially when we will see both of them in Thor: Ragnarok 

Jokes: during the first half of the film, I kinda thought that Civil War might probably be the most serious film of the MCU with the smallest amount of jokes. However, then Ant-Man and Spider-Man showed up and went to town. I feel like both of their characters represented us – the viewers – and their actions probably mimic the actions that the fans would make if they met their favorite superheroes.

The writers also did an extremely good job with making the viewers understand and even sympathize  with both conflicting sides. That’s why the action scenes, where the heroes were fighting each other, were so interesting – the audience did not know who to root for. 

Lastly, the film featured a version of the prison for superheroes and it was completely different from the prison in the comics, which is not surprising. Nevertheless, it looked really cool and I wish that we would have gotten a chance to explore it more. 

Directing and Action

The Russo brothers did an amazing job directing the film – I am so glad that they will be the ones in charge of Avengers Infinity War Part 1 and 2. In Civil War, The Russos successfully juggled all the different storylines, gave the viewers enough character moments and plenty of exciting and epic action. It looked like action scenes were filmed with a handheld camera (and were actually done in-camera), so the frame was very mobile – it constantly moved and I needed a few minutes to get used to it. However, after that, I enjoyed all the actions scenes immensely. There were so many of them that they all kinda blurred together – I need a second viewing of the film to pull them all apart. 

Having said that, even though I’ve only seen the film once, I do perfectly remember those iconic shots with both teams charging into battle as well as Iron Man, Winter Soldier and Captain America fighting at the end. I really really enjoyed the sequence of the big battle because of the different fighting pairs and because those pairs constantly shifted. For example, Black Widow wasn’t always fighting Hawkeye and Iron Man wasn’t always going up against Captain America. Cap had a fight with Spidey and Hawkeye tried going against Black Panther. All of the characters moved around non-stop and fought whoever was in their way.

In addition, the other aspect of the film’s action that I liked was the Avengers, combining their powers – especially Scarlet Witch lifting Cap and then working with Falcon. I also would like to applaud the fight choreograpger – James Young – for his amazing work – all of the action scenes were unique and different yet all equally interesting. Moroever, the movie was set all over the world and I really appreciated the international feeling that it had, since Marvel’s fan come from all over the world. Lastly, the picture had an amazing and emotional score by Henry Jackman, who has previously composed music for  X-Men: First ClassCaptain Phillips, Captain America: The Winter SoldierKick-Ass, and Big Hero 6.

Acting and Characters

Although the film had a lot of characters, not any of them felt shoved in – they all fit into the story organically and all got plenty of screentime/development.

Team Captain America:

  • Chris Evans as Steve Rogers / Captain America: Evans was, once again, really great in the role. He is the Captain America and I will be very sad if someone else will take his mantel. This might happen in the near future, as the producers have said that Captain America’s story arc that started in The First Avenger is now complete. Moreover, Evans only has Infinity War Part 1 and 2 left of the contract. The way he dropped his shield at the end might be a reference to the fact that the end is near for Roger’s Captain America. I also really loved that they brought back the line ‘I could do this all day’. If you would like to see a non-comic book movie with Evans, may I suggest Snowpiercer.
  • Sebastian Stan as Bucky Barnes / Winter Soldier: Stan was also really good in the role. I loved the fact that we find out more of his backstory but I would also like to find out even more about that red book and why those specific words trigger something in him. Plus, I liked his friendly (or not) banter with Falcon – I felt like they were fighting for the position of Steve Roger’s best friend. Lastly, a great non-comic book film, starring Stan, is The Martian, if you are interested.
  • Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson / Falcon: Mackie’s Falcon is slowly becoming my favorite secondary character (and by secondary I mean that he doesn’t have a standalone frannachise). I enjoyed the shots with him fighting and I loved seeing him use the wings to fight and flip over. I also loved how he and Scarlet Witch combined their powers in the opening action scene. I wouldn’t mind if Falcon would get his own movie or at least would be featured on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. If you want to see more of Mackie but don’t want to wait for him to get his on movie or TV show, check out Triple 9.
  • Jeremy Renner as Clint Barton / Hawkeye: Renner was also great as Hawkeye once again. I have always been a fan of his character, since I love archery myself, so I am always happy to see him, although half of the fandom usually is not. I loved the fact that Civil War continued Renner’s and Scarlet Witch’s relationship – he was the one who talked her into going into battle in Age of Ultron, and her brother was the one to die saving Hawkeye, so it was only right that Clint was the one to break Wanda free. Film suggestion for the fans of Renner Mision Impossible: Rogue Nation.
  • Elizabeth Olsen as Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch: another new favorite. I loved her hand movemets in Age of Ultron and they still look cool in Civil War. Plus, I enjoyed Olsen’s facial expressoons, especially in the opening scene, where she realized what she has done. Also, the way she threwv cars at Iron Man was a pretty great move. Her accent was also consistent and authentic – I especially like her accent because that’s the accent that I have, as an Eastern European (mine is not that strong though). Olsen has previously starred in Godzilla and next year will start in thriller Wind River, alongside Renner.
  • Emily VanCamp as Sharon Carter / Agent 13: I was so glad to see more female characters in the comic book film. I loved the fact that they finally came out and said that she is a Carter and a relative of Peggy’s – Steve’s face, when he find that out was nicely confused. That whole scene, however, was quite sad, because I didn’t want to see Peggy go. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the fact that they gave Sharon some action scenes to participate in and that she was an important informant for Team Cap: while no one can replace Peggy, Sharon might be a great substitute. Her kiss with Steve was only a cherry on top – especially when they showed Bucky’s and Sam’s reaction – that shot was priceless and got the most laughs from the audience during my screening. I would love to see Sharon Carter pop up on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. – that would also mean more work for VanCamp – I used to watch her on Revenge, but that series ended a few years ago, so I’m sure that VanCamp would be open for more work.
  • Paul Rudd as Scott Lang / Ant-Man: I was really happy to see Paul Rudd as Ant-Man. I loved his interactions with Sam as well as his adoration of Cap. And can we just talk about the ‘big distraction’? They turned him into Giant-Man – didn’t even save that for the Ant-Man sequel – and it was epic. The CGI of Giant-Man was also pretty great. Tony Stark’s reaction to him – ‘okay, does anyone on our side have any amazing tricks?’ – was also superb. Scott Lang’s line ‘Hank Pym told me to never trust a Stark’ was also pretty great. Ant-Man sequel is scheduled for 2018, so we still have a few years to wait.

Team Iron Man:

  • Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark / Iron Man: Downey, Jr. could probably play this role in his sleep or, actually, he would not even need to play it, because he is both Tony Stark and Iron Man. I loved the fact that we got to see Downey, Jr. fight as both Tony Stark (that watch was super cool) and Iron Man. The Pepper Pots tie-ins were kinda hit and miss for me, though. Nonetheless, I enjoyed seeing that weird presentation with the hologram of young Tony – the CGI was amazing and that scene also set up the fact that Tony is still dealing with the loss of his parents. Lastly, I would not be surprised if we would get more Iron Man stand-alone films in the near of far future. Then again, Iron Man is set to appear in the new Spider-Man film, so maybe Downey, Jr. will only be appearing in other character’s films moving forward. For those interested, a quite good non-comic book film with Downey, Jr., which was also produced by him, is The Judge. 
  • Scarlett Johansson as Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow: an old time favorite of mine (both the character of Black Widow and Scarlett Johansson as an actress). Black Widow was the one who changed sides during the big battle, while in the comics, Spider-Man did that. But, since Spidey is so new to the MCU, it is not surprising that they didn’t use him that much and only featured him in the big battle and in the scenes with Iron Man. Black Widow had a few nice moments with Hawkeye (‘are we still friends?‘) and with Iron Man (‘do you actually agree with me?‘). I still have hope that we will get Black Widow stand-alone film,but until then, check out Johansson in Hail, Caesar! and Lucy.
  • Don Cheadle as James “Rhodey” Rhodes / War Machine: Cheadle was good in the role, but his injury was not that shocking, since he is a secondary character that was mostly features in Phase 1 and at the begining of Phase 2 and is not really that memorable (basically Rhodes only apperead in Iron Man films and the last picture of that trilogy came out 3 yeras ago – nobody really remembers those film that well, especially when we had so many oher MCU films in the past 3 years). By the way, Cheadle’s other big franchise is Ocean’s Eleven/Twelve/Thirteen films, if you want to see more of him.
  • Chadwick Boseman as T’Challa / Black Panther: Boseman was amazing in the role and I think that Marvel has succesfully launched  a new character with the perfect actor to portray it. I loved T’Challa’s few scenes with his father T’Chaka, played by John Kani. I am also interested to see how the character that Martin Freeman played – Everett Ross – will be featured in the Black Panhter stand-alone film. In the comics, Ross is an ally of T’Challa, but at the end of Civil War, they were on different sides. Although, Black Panhter never truly picked a side – he only chose Iron Man because that suited his personal interests. However, after he learned the truth and realized that killing is not a solution, he kinda picked Captain America’s side. Moreover, Black Panhter is hiding the Secret Avengers, as shown in the middle credits scene. Last thought about the new character –  I really liked the accent that Boseman spoke with – it felt authentic and fitting to the character’s heritage. Black Panhter’s stand-alone film is coming out in 2018, but if you want to see more of Boseman, the only other movie of his that I’ve seen and, thus, can reccomend is Draft Day.
  • Paul Bettany as Vision: I loved the little glimpses of the Vision’s personality that we got a chance to see – his scenes alongise Wanda were nice and their short fight was also interesting. I also liked that scene were Vision and Iron Man were discussing the fact that Vision is an AI with feelings, who is also dangerous, powerful and might even be uncrontrolable. Loved to see this idea developed futher. Other Bettany’s films, worth checking out are Legend, and a few not so great ones that you might want to see – Transendence and Mordecai.
  • Tom Holland as Peter Parker / Spider-Man: I was really worried about the new Spider-Man because in the past 10 years, we already had 2 different Spider-Mans. However, all my worries were for nothing – Holland played an amazing and most true to the comics Spider-Man and the most believable Peter Parker. Now I am really excited about his new stand-alone films. It was also really nice that they featured aunt May, played by Marisa Tomei, in Civil War. I loved that awkward scene between aunt May, Tony Stark and Peter. I was first introduced to Holland as an actor in In The Heart of The Sea – that movie is defintely not as bad as its box office numbers suggest.

Other characters:

  • William Hurt as Thaddeus “Thunderbolt” Ross: I hated Ross in The Incredible Hulk but I disliked him even more in this film, so I guess Hurt did a good job, making me hate the character that he played. Nevertheles, his character was useful in the movies because his presence added a political aspect and increased the sophistication of the story.
  • Daniel Brühl as Helmut Zemo: Bruhl was really good in the role and he will probably appear in a different MCU film in the future. His story arc in the film – the arc of revenge – was not the most original but it did work. He played up the superheroes against one another in a similar way that Lex Luthor did in BvS. I don’t really know which one of them (if any of the two) was more succesful with his plan. Zemo was not a great villain but I don’t think that the filmmakers intended to portray him as an all-powerful villain. He was just a man, dealing with the loss by getting revenge. Zemo himself has mentioned that ‘more powerful men have went up against the Avengers and lost‘, so he kinda admitted that he was not a great villain. A few of Bruhl’s films that might be wroth your attention are Rush (alongside Thor), Inglourious Basterds (alongside Magneto), The Fifth Estate (alongside Doctor Strange) and Woman in Gold (alongside Deadpool).
  • Stan Lee had his obligatory cameo, this time as a FedEx delivery man – he also had a very cheesy joke – Tony Stank!

Middle-Credits and Post-Credits Scenes

The Middle Credits scene showed Captain America and Winter Soldier in Wakanda. Bucky is being fridged (literally) until someone figures out how to restore his mind. This scene also gave me an idea that Black Panhter might be the new financer of the Secret(?) Avengers – a replacement for Tony Stark.

The Post-Credits scene was a cheeky teaser for the Spider-Man film. It showed Peter Parker back home, trying to explain to aunt May what happened (‘I just picked a fight with Steve from Booklyn’) and also discovering some toys that Tony Stark created for him.

The actual credits of the film were also quite nice and unique. I loved the addition of those shadowy symbols – Anthony Mackie’s name appeared with wings for Falcon, Paul Bettany has a gem for Vision and Tom Holland had a spider-web for Spider-Man and etc.

In short, Captain America: Civil War was/is my new favorite Marvel movie. It had a great and sophisticated story and plenty of jokes. It has amazing character moments as well as exciting non-stop action. Marvel has done it again, and I couldn’t be more pleased.

Were/Are you #TeamIronMan or #TeamCaptainAmerica? What did you think of the film and are you planning to see it more than once? I usually don’t do multiple viewings of films at the cinema, but I might make an exception for Civil War.

P.S. I went to see this movie again and enjoyed it even more than the first time because I was able to  focus on the little details. I also realized 3 new-ish things: 

  1. The dialogue was really cleverly written and engaging.
  2. The plot was actually quite complex yet the story was aranged in a way that was easy to follow and not hard to understand – it was sophisticated yet clear.
  3. The movie walked the line between the two idealogies extremely well and neither of the two sides seemed more right or wrong than the other. 

‬Rate: 5/5

Trailer: Captain America: Civil War trailer

civilwarintposer.jpg