Movie review: Spiderman: Far From Home

Movie reviews

Hello!

And welcome to my once in a blue moon movie review blog! No surprise in what movie I’m reviewing – I’ll always crawl out of the cave for Marvel – so let’s discuss Spiderman: Far From Home!

Spoilers for Endgame and Far From Home!

Writing

The Spiderman sequel was written by Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers – a duo that was also part of the Homecoming writing team. They did a great job following up both their own first movie and Endgame. Far From Home was undeniably rooted in MCU and dealth with the aftermath of Endgame in an interesting and meaningful way. It also somehow managed to take Iron Man’s legacy (both legacy of his movies and legacy of the character) and do something unexpected with it. And yet, I do wish that for the third film, Spiderman would attempt to move away from Iron Man’s influence a bit more – he has to grow into his own at some point (and I think that that is exactly what’s gonna happen – the basis for that type of story was already laid in Far From Home). The way Mysterio was handled in the story was interesting too – I felt that his character development lacked in the first act but his story kinda found its footing after the twist. Thematically, Far From Home was all about fake narratives and people believing in them – quite a timely topic if I may say so.

Directing

Jon Watts returned to direct the Spidey sequel and managed to mush two distinct genres – a teen comedy and a superhero epic – even more perfectly than the first time around. Far From Home felt like a decade defining teen comedy drama overflowing with awkward encounters and timely problems for teens everywhere. It also felt like an amazing superhero flick that was both sophisticatedly high stakes enough and also silly and comic-booky.

The humour of the film, while a bit cringey cause of second hand embarrassment, felt light and easy-breezy – a nice and much needed break after engame. Still, the action scenes in the film were great – not Endgame levels of epic but highly deserving of praise for a standalone film. I especially loved how the illusion sequences were both visually interesting and carried an emotional weight to them. I also loved the European setting of a lot of the action scenes – it was a nice and familiar trip for me as a European (especially remembering how I walked on the same bridge in Prague when I was the characters’ age – I always appreciate a personal touch in movies).

Mid-credits and Post-credits

Far From Home also had two quite shocking ending scenes – dare I say, we haven’t had post credits scenes that raised so many questions in a while. The mid credits acted as an amazing twist and a set-up for a Spidey sequel (and featured a long awaited cameo from a fan favorite), while the post credits gave us hints about the future of the wider MCU (I say ‘hints’ but, personally, have no idea what the scene means exactly).

Acting

Tom Holland proved everyone once more that he is the best Spiderman we ever had. He was endearing in the role and handled both the awkward comedy and the heavy drama so well. Jake Gyllenhall was also amazing: really enjoyed all the layers of his performance. It was also nice to see so many familiar MCU faces – Samuel L.Jackson and Jon Favreau – whose characters both had interesting small arcs. Zendaya shined as MJ while Jacob Batalon was a friend we all wish we had.

Rate: 4.5/5

Trailer: Spiderman: Far From Home trailer

In conclusion, Far From Home gives Marvel fans a deserved break after Endgame while simultaneously building on the legacy of it.

Advertisements

Movie review: John Wick Chapter 3 – Parabellum

Movie reviews

Hello!

And welcome to the review of John Wick 3: Parabellum! The first two films have been pretty great but can they stick the landing of the trilogy?

‘Si vis pacem, para bellum’

IMDb summary: Super-assassin John Wick is on the run after killing a member of the international assassin’s guild, and with a $14 million price tag on his head – he is the target of hit men and women everywhere.

Writing

John Wick 3 was written by Derek Kolstad (who created this series), Shay Hatten, Chris Collins, and Marc Abramshile. While the first film introduced us to the character, and the second one did wonders for word building, the third film had a goal of separating the first from the second, meaning it tried taking out the character out of his world. And while the film separated John Wick from the rules of his world of assassins, it only expanded the viewers’ familiarity with the different aspects of it. Thematically, John Wick 3 looked at what happens when human connection interferes with the rules and how order can never fully account for the human factor.

Also, apparently it’s not only Wick who loves dogs in this assassins’ world. In summary, the plot was perfectly fine for an action film. It was mostly there to enable the action but I don’t think it was purely there just to serve the action but could actually stand somewhat on its own. However, I don’t think the plot will be able to do that much longer. The ending of the third film made it appear as if John Wick 4 is in the plans and I feel like they maybe should have stopped with 3. I’m afraid things from now own will start making less sense or require even more suspension of disbelief.

Directing

Chad Stahelski returned to direct John Wick 3 and gave us what we expected: some finely choreographed and filmed action. The action scenes throughout the trilogy have certainly gotten more and more ridiculous. It’s a shame that the franchise is leaving its somewhat realistic roots behind as I thought these particular roots were one of its major strengths. I understand why they are moving away from them, even if not consciously: topping the action of the first two films is difficult when the bar they set themselves is this high. And yet, it’s becoming more and more obvious that some of the sets in this film were there just to look cool rather than to make sense. Also, some of the injuries really should have been deadly.

What was particularly great about the film’s action was that the movie made its violence count: the breaks, the cuts, the bullets – all left an impact not just on characters’ bodies but had a physiological impact on the viewer. In short, don’t watch this movie if you are squeamish. While some R rated films just work to desensitize the viewer to violence, John Wick 3 uses its R rating to make us care and think about that same violence.

Acting

Keanu Reeves shined for the third time as the titular character. Man of little words, Reeves was still both believable and enjoyable to watch in an action film that was made to serve his talents while hiding the things he may be lacking (action above dialogue). Ian McShane came back to sprout some cool sounding one-liners that one cannot think about for a long time. While the second film helped to kickstart Ruby Rose’s film career, this one seems to attempt to help Halle Berry resurrect hers (decently successfully too). Laurence Fishburne returned as the crazy pigeon dude. Asia Kate Dillon played the main villain role in the film and was fine but quite annoying.

On the representation front, John Wick 3 had a diverse cast. Still, I wouldn’t stay it had diverse representation, more like diverse inclusivity? More importantly, I don’t think John Wick 3 is the type of film that one really wants to be represented in (this being a movie about assassins and all).

In short, John Wick 3 might not live up to its predecessors but is a decent action film overall. Still, if the filmmakers are planning on moving forward with the series, they should go back to the drawing board and see what made the first films better: in my mind, a tighter plot and more realistic action.

Rate: 3.7/5

Trailer: John Wick 3

Movie review: Eight Grade

Movie reviews

Hello!

And welcome to the review of Eight Grade or the age I might be stuck in (spoiler, self-realization occurs in this review)!

IMDb summary: An introverted teenage girl tries to survive the last week of her disastrous eighth-grade year before leaving to start high school.

Eight Grade was written and directed by Bo Burnham – a creator that actually got his start on YouTube. Eight Grade is his first feature film. You might also know him from his stand-up work.

Writing

I thought that Eight Grade had a brilliant script and a lot of its success comes from the fact that it was just so real and relatable. I saw myself on that screen in more than one scene and it wasn’t a comfortable (actually, rather cringe-y) experience but it was absolutely necessary. Necessary in terms of making me realise that I’m actually quite happy with being an adult and shouldn’t really pine away after my own lost childhood. Putting some distance between all the versions of you is not a bad thing. It brings clarity and this clarity also leads to the film’s message. Eight Grade tells the viewer to move on from the past if it wasn’t great and to be okay about the uncertainty of the future.

Not only does the film have an appeal towards someone who isn’t in Eight Grade (like me), but it should also be a must watch for all those in middle school, more or less as an example of all the things you shouldn’t be doing. But I guess it’s hard to learn from others’ mistakes so go on forth children and make the wrong friends, say the wrong stuff,  and embarrass yourselves. And if it seems like the end of the world then, trust me, it isn’t. You are your own version of cool and no one else’s. Furthermore, don’t ever let anyone critique you for caring about your teen problems as they are highly important to you and should never be trivialised. Your anxieties are valid and should not be overlooked because of your age.

The film’s appeal doesn’t stop with someone who is in 8th grade or just a bit older. It should also be watched by parents. While parenting isn’t a very obvious topic within the film, it is always there, just like your parents (hopefully) are (so be nice to them!). The scene by the fire has some spectacular dialogue and some neat lessons too. The dialogue in general was really good because it wasn’t completely coherent and eloquent: it was sincere and real instead.

Directing

Eight Grade also has some stellar directing. The film’s usage of online video makes it feel contemporary. However, all the jokes (oooh the dabs) might make the film age quite badly and quickly. It’s a good thing that it has some timeless topics though, John Hughes-esque. However, where Eight Grade tops Hughes’s films is in its portrayal of a real school. There is no Hollywood glamour: there are awkwardness and acne. The clever ways Burnham decides to portray first crushes (with that fabricated tension and dramatic music) are spectacular too as they are both accurate and also funny.

Acting

Elsie Fisher is absolutely magnificent in the role. She looks the part and acts the part impeccably. I really hope she has a long and successful career ahead of her. Josh Hamilton is also really good as the single dad!

In short, Eight Grade is an incredible coming-of-age story for everyone, including but not limited to middle schoolers, new adults (me, an almost uni graduate), and parents!

Rate: 4.5/5

Trailer: Eight Grade trailer

posters_3_1500.jpg

Movie review: Aquaman

Movie reviews

Hello!

And welcome to a review of a good(?) DC movie that took forever to write. This is Aquaman!

IMDb summary: Arthur Curry, the human-born heir to the underwater kingdom of Atlantis, goes on a quest to prevent a war between the worlds of ocean and land.

Writing

Aquaman was written by David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick and Will Beall with a story by Geoff Johns (who is responsible for the whole od DCEU) and James Wan (who also directed). These writers packed so much into the movie and for a reason. With DCEU’s future being so unclear – the whole thing might be scrapped soon, it looks like the writers attempted to tell a story that could have easily been divided into 2 films or even a whole trilogy. There was a quest upon quest and upon a quest. An origin story on steroids. Weirdly, with so much stuff happening in the film, it didn’t feel messy or convoluted. It somehow worked? I know, I’m as surprised as you’re.

The multiple quests in the film not only helped it to establish quite a few characters but also allowed the film to showcase so much of Aquaman’s world. I also appreciated the fact that the script embraced Aquaman’s inherent silliness but also made it kinda cool. But also still stilly?

Directing

The horror (and FF7) director James Wan really succeeded with Aquaman. He nailed the fast-pace and the hefty script: the movie was long but it never dragged and kept up my attention. I also liked its style – sort of space opera but in the ocean (ocean opera? you heard it here first). Wan also showcased the fact that he definitely can direct stellar action scenes. And yet, like with a lot of films, I could take or leave the big third act battle. The CGI wasn’t always perfect too. But at least you could see the flaws in the CGI rather than having to stare into a dark and gloomy screen.

Acting

The movie has a weird cast. Jason Momoa was good as Aquaman but he already showed that in Justice LeagueAmber Heard was a pleasant surprise because I haven’t seen much of her work or heard any good things about it, to be honest. Willem Dafoe was also good and fit the movie better than some of the other actors. The two stand-outs (not in a good way) were Patrick Wilson and Dolph Lundgren. Their performances were not bad but they felt somehow out of place within a movie like AquamanYahya Abdul-Mateen II was really good though, I’m happy that Moonlight gave a real bump to his career. Nicole Kidman was also good and fit the movie much better than Wilson and Lundgren. I guess actors like Defoe and Kidman are so good that they know how to shift their acting talent according to the movie, while Wilson and Lundgren are maybe more one-note/comfortable in a different film.

In short, Aquaman might be the best DCEU film. It’s certainly up there with Wonder Woman (I might have to still give WW the no. 1 spot just because of political/representation reasons).

Rate: 4/5

Trailer:  Aquaman trailer 

 

Movie review: Widows

Movie reviews

Hello!

And welcome to a review of another awards’ hopeful that didn’t look like an awards’ movie from the trailer but is one because of who is involved with it in front and behind the camera. This is Widows.

IMDb summary: Set in contemporary Chicago, amid a time of turmoil, four women with nothing in common except a debt left behind by their dead husbands’ criminal activities, take fate into their own hands, and conspire to forge a future on their own terms.

Writing

Gillian Flynn, best known as a novelist (Gone Girl) rather than scriptwriter, and the director Steve McQueen wrote the screenplay of Windows. The script was based on a TV show. And that could be felt while watching the film because the movie’s narrative was oversaturated with ideas and plotlines. The movie also felt a bit like a book-adaptation by how dense it was – or that may just be Flynn’s writing style.

I really liked how unique the characters were and how they felt like real, well-rounded people rather than cliches or archetypes. I also appreciated how all the plotlines were handled: the film was complex and clear at the same time. It was also engaging, though I wasn’t completely convinced by the twist. Thematically, the movie didn’t really focus on just a couple of concepts but rather it put a mirror to the contemporary world and portrayed an interplay of issues, including women’s position in society, betrayal, criminality, politics, family, marriage, relationships, and race among others.

Directing

Steve McQueen of 12 Years a Slave directed Widows and did a good job. I appreciated his visual style, the extreme close-ups and how he played with the frame (what was in or outside of it) and depth (front v back). I’m still not entirely sure whether the film was awarded’ material. It was definitely a solid film but was it revolutionary in any way? I don’t think so. I also think it was more thriller-y than drama-y, and the Academy still values dramas above everything else.

Acting

Widows had a diverse cast, and by diverse, I mean diverse in identities that were represented and in the quality or status of actors. Viola Davis (Fences), Daniel Kaluuya (Get Out) and Colin Farrell (The Beguiled) were there to boost the awards chances of the film. Elizabeth Debicki and Michele Rodriguez are both great actresses but they are still closer to the B than the A-list (they are not main stars of their respective franchises, Marvel and FF, respectively). Liam Neeson is an action star that usually has his movies come out in January (a.k.a. the worst month?), like The Commuter. Some quality TV actors were also part of the cast, and even though they were great, they are still associated more with the small rather than the silver screen, and while that isn’t a bad thing for the audiences, it might be a hard sell when it comes to awards?

In short, Widows was a solid thriller with an engaging story and great execution of it by both the director and the actors.

Rate: 4/5

Trailer: Widows trailer

MV5BMjM3ODc5NDEyOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTI4MDcxNjM@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,631,1000_AL_

5 ideas about a movie: Suspiria

Movie reviews

Hello!

And welcome to the review of one of the weirdest films I’ve seen in a while. And I don’t think I’m using the word ‘weird’ as a compliment in this case. This is Suspiria!

IMDb summary: A darkness swirls at the center of a world-renowned dance company, one that will engulf the artistic director, an ambitious young dancer, and a grieving psychotherapist. Some will succumb to the nightmare. Others will finally wake up.

  1. Suspiria was written by David Kajganich and directed by Luca Guadagnino (A Bigger Splash). It was a remake of a 1977 Italian film of the same name. To put this review shortly, Suspiria was an artsy, 3h long horror film with half of the dialogue in German. If that sounds like a hard sell, it is/was.
  2. The movie’s story was quite incomprehensible to me. Thematically, it tried doing something with ideas of motherhood and matriarchy. I feel like it also wanted to showcase female empowerment. Honestly, I don’t know what the movie’s message was. Is it because I’m stupid? Or that the movie was too pretentious?
  3. It also had a weird setting amidst political events that were not explained fully for a viewer to get. The movie should not assign its viewer’s homework but should be a full package! The ideas on Germany’s generational guilt were interesting but not given enough room to be explored.
  4. The movie was directed in quite an interesting way. It was slow and long. The visuals were disgusting and looked quite CGI-y at times. The focus on the diegetic noise made the movie into an uncomfortable sensory experience too (I swear 65% of the ‘score’ was just breathing noises). The dance sequences were visually pleasing and interesting, though.
  5. The movie had a good cast but I wasn’t really able to judge their performances as I was confused by the plot. Tilda Swinton played a couple of roles (don’t know why as one couldn’t really tell it was her playing one of the characters, thus, no ideas on doubling could be seen?). Dakota Johnson was also there: I guess arthouse films are better than Fifty Shades? I also feel like a lot of the cast mumbled through their dialogue which didn’t make an already confusing plot easier to understand. A film also had a lot of German actors and actual dancers in the cast.

In short, Suspiria was a trainwreck of confusion that reminded me a lot of mother! in a variety ways (thematically and visually).

Rate: ?/5 (confusion strikes again)

Trailer: Suspiria trailer

MV5BMjQ2MTIyNjM2MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDE3NDMyNjM@._V1_UX182_CR0,0,182,268_AL_.jpg

5 ideas about a movie: BlacKkKlansman

Movie reviews

Hi!

Welcome to a review of the movie that I saw 2 months ago and can’t really stop thinking about unless I try to review it! This is BlacKkKlansman.

IMDb summary: Ron Stallworth, an African American police officer from Colorado Springs, CO, successfully manages to infiltrate the local Ku Klux Klan branch with the help of a Jewish surrogate who eventually becomes its leader. Based on actual events.

  1. BlacKkKlansman was written by Charlie Wachtel, David Rabinowitz, and Kevin Willmott (based on a memoir of the same name by Ron Stallworth) and directed by Spike Lee (who also contributed to the script). As a film fan, I have always known of Spike Lee and how he impacted the modern cinema. However, I don’t think I’ve seen any of his previous films in full and I’m kicking myself for that as I absolutely loved BlacKkKlansman.
  2. The story of the film was just fascinating: it was so far out there that it had to be true. It was handled very well in the script, with an appropriate amount of sarcasm and humour but also seriousness and sophistication. Every chucklesome moment was followed by a harsh reality: the viewer paid dearly for laughing.
  3. It was also fascinating in that it seemed poignant and topical. Nothing has really changed in the world and while this type of realization is not an original, first time thing, it doesn’t make it any less effective or emotional.
  4. The film was also very well made from a directing point of view. It was paced well and was engaging. The cinematography was neat and clear. The near-perfect film was also rounded out with a great cast.
  5. The film’s cast consisted of some amazing talent, including Adam Driver, who has been popping up in a variety of arthouse films (Logan Lucky, Midnight Special) in addition to Star Wars and has been doing a stellar job in all of them. John David Washington was also great in the lead and I hope that he gets a lot of recognition for this film.

In short, BlacKkKlansman is an amazing feature that I recommend to everyone. Even though it came out a couple of months ago, I really hope it comes back during the proper awards season and makes some sort of splash.

Rate: 4.5/5

Trailer: BlacKkKlansman trailer

BlacKkKlansman.png

Movie review: Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

Movie reviews

Hello!

And welcome to one of the most painful reviews I’ve ever written. This is Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald.

IMDb summary: The second installment of the “Fantastic Beasts” series set in J.K. Rowling’s Wizarding World featuring the adventures of magizoologist Newt Scamander.

Writing

J.K.Rowling wrote the screenplay for the second film: she started this prequel franchise and it doesn’t look like she will let anybody else play in her sandbox. And I really wish she would, because Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald was really poorly written.

To begin with, why was this movie called Fantastic Beasts? All of the beasts that were included in the story were completely irrelevant and unnecessary: they were just stuffed into the narrative to justify the title. And the filmmakers know how unnecessary the beasts were: the logo of the film out ‘Fantastic Beasts’ in tiny letters in the corner and gigantic ‘The Crimes of Grindelwald’ in the center. They should have just dropped the first part and have every movie named differently.

Sadly, that wasn’t the beasts were not the only problem with the script. The whole script was one giant problem. The film had way too many plotlines: it tried to continue the plotlines set up by the first film, introduced new storylines, and tried to explain HP lore from years ago. And it just basically failed at everything. The whole narrative felt confused because the storylines did not have much to do with one another or the connections felt forced. A lot of the plotlines by themselves were boring or inconsistent. I did mostly enjoy the hero(s) plotlines but found the villain’s one to be very weak: preachy but not persuasive (the only part of the villain’s arc I enjoyed was the attempt to connect wizarding world to real-life history in his final speech). I also think that the movie had too many characters, all fighting for spotlight rather than sharing the movie like an ensemble should. The twists also did not make much sense but were just meant to shock. The references or the explanations of HP role also had no real place in the story and were just cheap fan service. A fanservice for only hardcore fans, because as a casual fan, I could either not get it. Or those references/explanations were new inventions by J.K.Rowling that she just tried to fit in there. Basically, if the first one felt like it was a return to the beloved world of magic, this one was the death of it. This movie marks the first time that I don’t agree with the canon: honestly, fanfiction and fan theories make more sense.

Directing

David Yates, the director of the first film and 4 last HP films, directed The Crimes of Grindelwald and did a decent job. The movie looked gooded visually and did look like an HP movie (not in the third act: it turned into Hobbit for the final battle). The pacing was not the best: the film felt slow and long but that was mostly because the story was unengaging and confusing.

Acting

The movie had a gigantic cast. Eddie Redmayne was a stand-out: charismatic, loveable, and unique. Katherine Waterston and Dan Fogler were also really good: as the more obvious hero of the story and the comedic relief/audience stand-in, respectively. Alison Sudol was also good even though the script made some weird choices with her character. Ezra Miller didn’t have that much to do despite his character being so integral to the plot. Zoë Kravitz impact. Callum Turner and Claudia Kim were fine too: they didn’t have anything to do with the story, but, hopefully, something is awaiting her characters in the future. Johnny Depp was fine but I have stopped caring about his performances at this point. Jude Law was a very promising Dumbledore, but, again, he should have been in the film more!

In short, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald was not a great film. It looked pretty but lacked where it counted: in the story department.

Rate: 2.7/5

Trailer: Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

FNBST2_ACTION_NEWT_VERT_MAIN_DOM_2764x4096_master

5 ideas about a movie: Assassination Nation

Movie reviews

Hello!

And welcome to a review of the film that left me flabbergasted. This is Assassination Nation.

IMDb summary: After a malicious data hack exposes the secrets of the perpetually American town of Salem, chaos descends and four girls must fight to survive while coping with the hack themselves.

  1. Assassination Nation was written and directed by Sam Levinson as only his second feature film that he has directed and the third one that he has written. It was basically a feminist manifesto wrapped up in a Purge movie. Let’s unpack that:
  2. Assassination Nation featured some quite heavy-handed social commentary. It openly expressed the fact that women should not be silenced by society and that they should fight back. The message was realized within such a radical and extreme and hypocritical plot-line that it was a bit hard to take it seriously. And yet, with everything that is going around in today’s world and the current cultural/political climate, maybe the world of the movie wasn’t that hard to believe. Which makes the whole ordeal even scarier. And maybe then the message of the film should not be subtle either but direct as it was here.
  3. Assassination Nation was also a genre movie: a gory horror picture that both drew the viewers’ attention to the fact that cinema has helped to desensitize violence by simultaneously partaking in such desensitization of violence itself. And I don’t know whether that genre-outside helped the movie to strengthen its message or whether it just distracted from it.
  4. The four main characters were played by Odessa YoungSuki WaterhouseHari Nef, and Abra. I loved how the film had some diversity within this core 4, both in terms of race and gender identification, but how it also didn’t draw too much attention to it but rather presented it as a given fact, a reality that ought to be normalized. Bella ThorneBill Skarsgård (It), and Joel McHale also had supporting roles in the film.
  5. At first glance, Assassination Nation seemed like quite a unique picture to me. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it is actually following in the footsteps of such films as Heathers and, more recently, Thoroughbreds. That is not to say that Assassination Nation wasn’t unique or great in its own right.

In short, Assassination Nation as either confused cringe fest or a brilliant masterpiece. I’m not sure I’ll ever know which one.

Rate: ?/5 (my confusion is refusing to give a number this time)

Trailer: Assassination Nation trailer

p15408140_v_v8_ab

5 ideas about a movie: The Grinch

Movie reviews

Hello!

And welcome to another Christmas movie review that’s coming out way too early. This is The Grinch!

IMDb summary: A grumpy Grinch plots to ruin Christmas for the village of Whoville.

  1. The Grinch was written by Michael LeSieur and Tommy Swerdlow. I don’t really have strong feelings about the film’s script: I think it was adequate but didn’t really add anything to the material. The message of belonging and family was a cute one but wasn’t really executed in a way that would make it powerful. What I’m saying is that basically, The Grinch lacked an emotional impact. What I liked best about the writing were the bits of rhymed narration: I thought that they added authenticity to the movie.
  2. Dr. Seuss’ books are absolute children favorites. The 2000 live-action Grinch is a family classic and a Christmas-staple: I clearly remember watching it every year on TV. Thus, since I have fairly fond memories of the last cinematic adaption of this story, maybe that’s why this one seemed unnecessary and average at best.
  3. The Grinch was directed by Scott Mosier and Yarrow Cheney (two filmmakers that haven’t had that much practice as directors). The animation was absolutely stunning and extremely detailed: one could literally see every individual hair on Grinch’s body. The slapstick humor of the film was a win with the kids at my screen too.
  4. Benedict Cumberbatch voiced the Grinch and was really good. At first, I couldn’t really tell that it was him but after a while, you could distinguish his voice. I don’t know if he bested Jim Carrey’s performance, though. Supporting cast featured the voices of Cameron Seely and Rashida Jones. Pharrell Williams was the narrator.
  5. Before The Grinch, a short Minions film was screened, as both properties belong to the animation money maker that is Illumination entertainment. I don’t really have much to say about the short film (I’m not really a fan of the Minions), but I appreciated the fact that it was actually short (I’m looking at you, Frozen shorts).

In short, The Grinch is a good but, ultimately, unnecessary retelling of well-known Christmas legend.

Rate: 3.5/5

Trailer: The Grinch trailer

41hsIfGzhfL