Movie review: The Mercy

Movie reviews

Hello,

Welcome to a review of a small British film that you haven’t seen. This is The Mercy.

IMDb summary: The incredible story of amateur sailor Donald Crowhurst and his solo attempt to circumnavigate the globe. The struggles he confronted on the journey while his family awaited his return is one of the most enduring mysteries of recent times.

Writing

The Mercy was written by Scott Z. Burns (writer of Bourne 3 among other thrillers), based on the real-life events of 1968. I thought that the structure of the writing was fine but I had a lot of problems with its content. If the movie had a more critical rather than a celebratory approach towards its lead, I would have enjoyed The Mercy vastly more.

To begin with, the movie opened with quite a weird set-up. Instead of starting with the development of the main character, the viewer first found out about the actual sailing challenge and the navigation technology. Only then, was the main character and his family somewhat established. Since the movie did not persuade me to like the character in its first act, I cared little to none about him during the subsequent acts, where the viewer’s emotional connection to/understanding of the character were the only things holding the film together.

After half an hour of wonky set-up. the movie really began when Crowhurst set out for his journey. Quickly, a few things were revealed: he was really unprepared and he didn’t really know what he was doing. While his whole journey and this movie were pitched as an inspiring quest of a single man, in truth, his decision for the voyage was an attempt to prove his worth and best other men. Additionally, he wasn’t really looking to inspire others but rather to drive revenue into his business – it was a marketing/publicity stunt more than anything else. When his true intentions came to the surface, it became easier to understand why he was prepared to lie and cheat his way to the finish.

His whole ‘inspirational quest’ was just one giant attempt to cover up a failure and the movie celebratory view of its main character was completely wrong. How could one celebrate a man who would rather die than lose? Who would rather die than return to his family? I do get that the voyage did damage his psychology and that he wasn’t thinking clearly in the end. However, even though the fact that he committed suicide was an unfortunate event that should not have happened, it’s not a good enough excuse or a justification for his earlier actions, the ones prior to the mental illness he suffered onboard. Unless he was mentally ill before he even set out for the journey? Or was he just a sad little man, who believed in the tropes of classical masculinity?

Lastly, the concluding scenes with the wife’s decision to blame everyone else seemed like a cheap trick. Ultimately, it was his decision to sail away! Moreover, he was the one who created the circumstances that would push him to sail away! It was all on him!

Directing

The Mercy was directed by James Marsh (of The Theory of Everything). I don’t think he nailed the direction for this film. As evident in the previous section, I had lots of problems with the writing and this movie’s perspective on this story. A lot of that came from Marsh’s directing. Also, the movie was incredibly slow and not intense enough to make up for the lacking pace. The scenes of being stranded at sea were few and far between and they were not constructed in a particularly compelling manner – this was no In The Heart Of The Sea (didn’t have the same visuals) and wasn’t deep and thoughtful enough to succeed without them.

Acting

Colin Firth (Kingsman 1, Kingsman 2, Genius, Magic in the Moonlight) played the lead of Donald Crowhurst, and while he was okay, I didn’t think his performance was powerful enough. He certainly did not make me like or even understand Crowhurst’s motives and actions. Rachel Weisz (The Lobster) was fine as Clare Crowhurst but it was quite sad to see her relegated to the ‘wife at home’ role. David Thewlis (Wonder Woman) was good as the journalist/publicist Rodney Hallworth – his character was the only truly interesting part of the film.

In short, The Mercy wasn’t a great film as you can tell from my ‘less than merciful’ review of it.

Rate: 2.5/5

Trailer: The Mercy trailer

mercy.jpg

 

 

Advertisements

Movie review: Breathe

Movie reviews

Hello!

Yesterday, I had a chance to attend a preview screening of Breathe as part of the BFI London Film Festival. Thus, my review of the film is coming out early. Hope you enjoy it!

IMDb summary: The inspiring true love story of Robin and Diana Cavendish, an adventurous couple who refuse to give up in the face of a devastating disease.

Writing

The novelist and awards’ nominated screenwriter William Nicholson (who wrote or co-wrote such movies as Elizabeth: The Golden AgeLes MisérablesMandela: Long Walk to FreedomUnbroken, and Everestpenned the script for Breathe and did a great job. The film’s story had to cover quite a wide time frame, so the movie mostly focused on the major events in the lead duos life and had quite a few time jumps. The opening sequence of Robin and Diana meeting and falling in love was very quick: with lesser actors in these roles, the romance would have seemed rushed, but, in the case of Breathe, I thought that the set-up was written and later realized on film effectively enough. That sequence also established the lifestyle that Robin and Diane led: adventurous, exciting, and active. It also neatly set-up their caste (middle/upper) and their friend group – both factors came into play in the plot a bit later.

Thematically, Breathe touched upon a variety of concepts, like the most unversal one of them all – love, but also sacrifice, survival, and bravery. It was also interesting to see how the family’s social class informed Robin’s survival (amongst other things). For one, his better than a lot of people’s financial situation allowed him to be relocated to a more convenient house and to have the funds for the medical machinery (the historical medicine was very well-realized in the picture). However, it was also really heartwarming and uplifting to see Robin taking his personal goal (to survive) and expanding it into a communal goal for the betterment of the whole community of the disabled.

Two other related concepts in Breathe were friendship and humour. Robin’s and Diana’s friends helped them a lot, both physically and emotionally. It was also just remarkable to see that, even though Robin had a condition that was a hinder to his life, that did not change the way his friends communicated with him: they were still joking around, partying, drinking. It was a different life, not a ‘normal’ one (whatever that means), but it was as valid as the life of any individual. Robin, Diana, their son, and their friends took the difficulties and made life into an adventure, with moments of both weakness and triumph. And Breathe not only told this story, but convinced its viewers of its remarkability and had a lovely message that life is always worth living, no matter the circumstances.

While the film generally was quite emotional (alongside being funny – tears would be replaced by a smile and vice versa), its ending was the peek emotional time. The jokes kind diminished it the last 15 minutes of Breathe and were replaced with a sense of sophistication. The last moments of romance were so pure and simple, which resulted in the line that defined this film – ‘My Love, My Life’. Lastly, the choice to die on one’s own terms was presented as a dignified and powerful action (I can hear all those against euthanasia scoffing while reading this sentence). It was A middle finger to faith and determinism rather than life itself.

Directing 

Breathe was directed by the king of motion capture Andy Serkis. This was his directorial debut and not a film one would expect him to direct, knowing his achievements with the CGI and motion capture technology (Serkis has already directed a film that is more in line with what he usually does: he has his own version of Jungle Book, but it keeps being pushed back in the release schedule so as to escape from Disney’s The Jungle Book’s shadow). I though that he did an incredible job with Breathe. The film was shot beautifully and the jumping around in time was handled as good as it could have been. I wish, however, that he would have made the film longer. Some of the scenes, especially at the beginning, felt like they were cut off too quickly, while the snapshot focus on the major events of the characters’ lives had a sense of urgency. Basically, I wanted Breathe to be allowed to breathe more (no pun intended or was it?). Having said that, the movie did slow down a bit as it was progressing: the shots were allowed to linger longer and the camera did not cut away as quickly.

Acting

Breathe has assembled a brilliant cast and it got especially lucky with its two leads, who had realistic and very sweet chemistry.

Andrew Garfield has become a new awards front runner, with last year’s Hacksaw Ridge and Silence (who knew that being replaced as Spider-Man will be the best thing that has happened to his career?). I’m positive that he will get a nomination this year, for that monologue at the conference alone. Maybe he even be rewarded to his technical difficulties of acting as a disabled person, similarly how Eddie Redmayne won for his transformative role of Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything.

Clare Foy has made the jump from the small screen to the silver one very successfully. Although, I don’t know if Netflix’s The Crown can really be seen as a TV show, knowing its production quality, budget, and amazing storytelling. I’d love if she got a few nominations for her performance too, I could definitely spot a few key scenes which can certainly be included in her awards’ reel.

The supporting cast of the film was good too. Tom Hollander (Tulip Fever, The Promise), in twin roles, was the most obvious comedic relief. Downton Abbey’s Hugh Bonneville starred as the inventor Teddy Hall, whose talents were crucial to the survival of Robin and I wish we would have seen more of him. Dean-Charles Chapman (GOT’s Tommen) and Ed Speelers (another Downton Abbey alumni) had small roles as well.

In short, Breathe was a great film that told an extraordinary, touching, and humorous real-life story, which was brought to life by a wonderful group of actors and a competent first-time director. Definitely a picture worth to be screened at the Opening Night Gala of the BFI London Film Festival

Rate: 4.2/5

Trailer: Breathe trailer

MV5BMTc1MTIzNTgwN15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjcyMDM1MzI@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,674,1000_AL_

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: Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them

Movie reviews

Hello Hello Hello!

Welcome to the review of Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them. If my triple greeting wasn’t enough of a hint – I’m super excited to review this film! A few weeks ago, I’ve done a preview post for this picture, where I talked about my personal relations to this universe as well as the original textbook novella that inspired the movie, so, without further ado, let’s travel back to the beloved magical universe!

IMDb summary: The adventures of writer Newt Scamander in New York’s secret community of witches and wizards seventy years before Harry Potter reads his book in school.

MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD (gonna give another spoiler warning when I talk about the big reveal)

Writing and Story

The author of the original HP series and all the extra material – J.K.Rowling – is credited as the sole screenwriter for this movie. If that’s the truth (that she wrote the whole script by herself), I have to applaud her. I was a bit worried that she wouldn’t be able to transition from the novel writing to screenwriting (she did collaborate with a few playwrights when writing The Cursed Child play), but she proved me wrong ten times over. I loved how imaginative the story was, how it expanded the already known magical world and how it was just purely entertaining and enjoyable.

Moreover, I loved the fact that this movie and the narrative can and did stood on their own – although Fantastic Beasts is technically an HP prequel, it didn’t rely too heavily on the previous knowledge of and love for this franchise. Also, with all the speculation about the sequels to this film, even before it came out, and the upcoming Grindelwald/Dumbledore arc, I was worried that this movie would get hijacked by the future set-up but it wasn’t! Fantastic Beasts was first and foremost Newt Scamander’s and his beasts’ story, while the teases came in second. An important reveal happened at the end when Newt’s main plot was already over and it wasn’t obvious at all – there was only one spoiler-y visual cue for it in the film. Honestly, if I hadn’t read the rumors online and if I wasn’t actively looking for their evidence in the picture, I would have been super surprised by the reveal.

On top of expanding the magical world, Fantastic Beasts and Rowling did a good job of incorporating the said world into real history. I loved the fact that Newt arrived in NY by boat – that scene reminded me of a similar scene in last year’s Brooklyn. I liked how the New Salem anti-wizard movement had verbal and visual relations to the actual Salem Witch Trials. That jazz club and the whole setting of the 1920s was well realized too – it’s one of my favorite historical eras, so I loved seeing its magical version on screen.  Lastly, the decision to portray the U.S. magical world as more strict and the wizard/muggle relationship as intolerable seemed kinda appropriate for the contemporary world. I wonder if that was Rowling’s way of critiquing the modern and real-life discrimination that we have yet to get rid off.

Another interesting thematical idea were the Obscurials, who are created when a child tries to suppress his/her magical abilities. This was a perfect and a very on-theme/appropriate for the magical world way to encourage the movie’s viewers to be themselves. Furthermore, I applaud J.K.Rowling (just keep clapping) for touching upon quite a dark topic of abuse in a family film.

Lastly, the character development was really nice. I loved the writing for the character of Newt – his backstory was intriguing but I also liked that they remarked that people change and they do leave their pasts behind. I also loved Newt’s life motto – that worrying makes one suffer twice. All the other character, wizards and no-majs alike, were cool and interesting as well. Their inner relationships were cute and natural – they didn’t seem forced or pushed. In general, I’m intrigued enough to want to spend more time with these characters.

Directing and Visuals 

David Yates, who did the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th HP films as well as this year’s live-action Tarzan, directed Fantastic Beasts and did an amazing job. I’m really happy that he was the one directing because he already has such a great knowledge and understanding of this world. I absolutely loved the visuals, starting with the newspaper opening and ending with the epic 3rd act fight. I loved the fact that visuals (like the story) were sorta familiar but not repetitive – fresh and exciting. The design of the actual beasts and of the Obscurials was cool too: scary, inventive but sort of tied to reality.

Yates also did a wonderful job at finding a balance between epic action and slower character moments – the pacing was top-notch. In addition, the cinematographer Philippe Rousselot also deserves the praise for helping bring this world and its action to the big screen in such a spectacular way. Lastly, all the production and set design teams should be honored for their work on the movie, but I want to give a special appreciation shout out to Colleen Atwood, who did the costumes – I absolutely loved all the coats and classy formal costumes. The coats especially reminded me of BBC’s Sherlock which I just finished watching and I’m currently obsessed with.

The score by James Newton Howard was great too, although, I was most excited to hear the familiar theme music, which was originally composed by John Williams. 

Acting

  • Eddie Redmayne was so good as Newt Scamander. I absolutely loved the character because I could relate to him so much (introverts, unite!). Redmayne’s performance was super fitting for the character: awkward, shy, vulnerable but confident and skilled in his field. He was adorable and super likeable too. I have been a fan of Redmayne since 2012’s Les Miserables and although I did enjoy his indie films, like The Theory of Everything and The Danish Girl, I’m quite happy to see him in a more mainstream (and succseful) film (let’s pretend that Jupiter Ascending didn’t happen).
  • Katherine Waterston as Tina Goldstein – I loved her character –  she was an Auror – as well as Waterson’s performance. I wasn’t familair with her as an actres before (although, I did see her in Steve Jobs), but she did impress me. Her next movie is the 2017’s Allien prequel.
  • Dan Fogler as Jacob Kowalski was amazing too. His character was the funniest and the most likebale and relatable out of the whole cast. I wasn’t familair with Fogler’s work either, but I do hope that he returns as the character of Kowalski in the future films.
  • Alison Sudol as Queenie Goldstein was great too. I liked the fact that we got to explore a sorta new (mentioned in HP 5) skill of magic – Legilimency – through her character. Sudol is an alternative singer-songwriter, but I was fascinated by her acting abilites too – she portrayed Queenie as a very loveable and free-spirited character, in a realistic and natural way.

BIG SPOILER WARNING

  • Ezra Miller as Credence Barebone. I didn’t predict the reveal concerning his character and I was led to believe that the Obscurial would turn out to be his siter. Nevertheless, his performance was great – I love the facts that Miller can play such weird and closed-off characters, but also be able to embody super likeable and extroverted characters like the Flash (based on the Justice League trailer). I also like the fact that he brings his indie acting skills and makes them work in a mainstream film.
  • Colin Farrell as Percival Graves. I loved Farrell in the role and, as I said, I would not have seen the big reveal if I wasn’t looking for it. I really hope that the filmmakers find a way to bring back Farrell as the real Percival Graves. If not, well then at least we can watch him in other pictures – I still need to check out the highly praised The Lobster.
  • AND The Big Reveal and The Biggest Spoiler …..as speculated online, Johnny Depp is playing Grindelwald and he did have a cameo appearance and a few lines to say in this movie. He looked a bit different than I imagined Grindelwald to be but I am open to Depp proving me wrong since I still believe that he is a great actor, despite the all the mishaps. Now, moving forward, the crucial decision to make for the filmmakers is who to cast as Dumbledore? Grindewald/Dumbledore relationship is super complicated and will obviously be imporatnt in the future films, so the actor that will take on this role not only has to do Dumbledore justice but also have to able to hold his own againt Depp.

SPOILERS END HERE

In short, Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them is an amazing return to the magical world that should please both the fans (it satisfied me) but should also interest the non-fans as well as people who are new to the franchise (if there are any left, though). The story is fantastic, the acting is great (the cast is full of both movie stars and smaller talent), and the visuals are superb. I’m very much looking forward to another decade of magic!

Rate: 4.9/5

Trailer: Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them trailer

fantasticbeastsposter_0

Movie review: Inferno

Movie reviews

Hello, my dear readers!

The latest Dan Brown/Ron Howard/Tom Hanks collaboration – Inferno – has reached cinemas, so, let’s review it!

IMDb summary: When Robert Langdon wakes up in an Italian hospital with amnesia, he teams up with Dr. Sienna Brooks, and together they must race across Europe against the clock to foil a deadly global plot.

I have done a preview post for this film where I talked about all the books as well as the previous films of the franchise (you can find it here). As usual, I’ll try to list as many book-to-movie changes as I could spot, although it has been a few months since I’ve read the novel, so I might not have noticed everything. Once again, the critics are ripping this movie apart (like the earlier movies of the series), so I’ll also try to defend it from a fan’s perspective.

SPOILERS AHEAD

Writing

The screenwriter David Koepp adapted Dan Brown’s novel to the big screen and did a fairly good job. Koepp’s track record has been mixed. Although the movies he has written have been very financially profitable, not all of them were liked by the movie goers or the critics. He has contributed to such successes as Jurassic ParkMission: Impossible and Panic Room. However, he also co-wrote the horrible Indiana Jones 4 and directed one of the worst films of Johnny Depp’s career – Mordecai. Koepp has also written the second film of the Robert Landon franchise – Angels & Demons – it used to be my favorite, but I think Inferno has taken its place.

For the bigger part of the movie, narrative alterations have been minimal. Even the third act and the finale went down in a similar way in the book, however, the final end-game of the story was changed completely.

To begin with, the book started with Langdon already in the hospital, while the movie added an explanatory set-up (and yet ‘Would you press a button’ idea came from the book). The picture immersed the viewers into the film’s world first and then dropped Langdon in it, while the book used Langdon as the reader’s lens into the world of the story. The screenwriter also modernized the narrative by showing Zobrist giving a Ted talk like presentation and by using a drone to look for Langdon and Sienna.

The scriptwriter also added some shared history for Sienna and Langdon (met when she was a kid), introduced an idea that Langdon might be a carrier of the virus, and also added a new character of Christoph Bouchard – the inclusion of him allowed the film to explore the plot-line of a virus possibly being stolen and sold. Furthermore, Koepp cut Sinskey’s personal background and added some shared backstory for her and Langdon. He also streamlined the story and made it more linear, as usual for book-to-movie adaptations.

The film’s finale happened in the same location as did the book’s. The premise was also similar – Langdon + W.H.O. and Sienna were separately looking for the bag. However, that’s where the similarities ended. In the film, Sienna had mini bombs to break the bag – she didn’t have them in the book. However, the biggest change was the fact that the virus was actually contained in the movie, while the book explained that the bag has dissolved a week ago and that the virus was already out in the world. The film only talked about the virus killing half of the population, while, in the book, this was only a false facade to hide the fact that the virus would sterilize a third of world’s population. The book also had Sienna’s character surviving the whole thing and she even ends up working for World Health Organization to research the virus, though the book also made it explicit that the sterilization of some humans might be a good thing. The movie cut this kinda controversial ending and finished the picture with the good guys winning and Sienna dying for basically nothing. I wish the filmmakers would have had the courage to keep the novel’s ending.

The film had a lot of expositional dialogue and monolog – some of it worked well and seemed organic, some appeared forced and out-of-place. The character development through dialogue was good: e.g. Sienna mentioning her childhood and Langdon saying that he had a fear of tight spaces and a bad past relationship. However, before the 3rd act of the film began and all the characters had to get on the same page, that part of the exposition was a bit cliche and an extremely obvious plot device.

Directing

Ron Howard (Rush, In The Heart of The Sea) directed the picture, like the two previous features of the franchise and did a solid job. The pacing was really good for the majority of the film, but the movie did slow down during the Sienna/Zobrist flashback and before the 3rd act. The dream montages were effective and quite scary and Langdon’s disorientation was also portrayed well through the shaky cam, close-ups, and quick cuts. I also liked how the classical music was incorporated into the finale – it wasn’t just an outside soundtrack but an actual diegetic musical score. I also found it amusing that the 3rd act’s action happened in the water – fitting for Langdon’s swimming/water polo background.

Acting

  • Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon was good as always. I’m one of a few people who actually like Hanks as this character and I also cannot ever find anything wrong with his acting abilities – in my opinion, he is one of the best and most reliable actors (quality-wise) of today. I don’t think that I would be able to pick my favorite movie of his because I have seen so many and all of them have been great, so I’m just gonna list his latest and upcoming performances. Hanks recently starred in Bridge of Spies, A Hologram for the King, and Sully (which will only premiere in the UK in December – so annoying). Going forward, he will star and produce The Circle and will also come back to voicing Woody in Toy Story 4
  • Felicity Jones as Dr. Sienna Brooks was great as well. Since I knew the big twist of her character, I think I noticed a few hints at it in Jones’s performance. She had a weird look here and a strange expression there, so I was expecting the reveal and was mostly sure that it wouldn’t be cut. I was first introduced to Jones in The Theory of Everything, since then she has moved to way bigger things. On top of being in Inferno and another possible awards’ contender for this year – A Monster Calls – she will also play the lead in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.
  • Ben Foster as Bertrand Zobrist was good. He didn’t get a lot of screen-time – he actually mostly appeared in flashbacks or in videos. Nevertheless, he played a solid mad genius. Foster’s recent performances include The ProgramThe Finest HoursWarcraft and one of my favorite movies from this year Hell or High Water.
  • Omar Sy (The IntouchablesJurassic Worldas Christoph BouchardSidse Babett Knudsen (A Hologram for the King) as Elizabeth Sinskey and Irrfan Khan (Life of Pi, Jurassic World, The Jungle Book Hindi version) as Harry Sims were also great in their supporting roles. Khan probably stood out the most out of the three of them just because his character was so interesting – wish we could have explored his backstory and his company more.

In short, Inferno was a solid action adventure film with some art history sprinkled on top. It had an okay writing, good directing and nice performances. It wasn’t a special or groundbreaking movie, but I still had fun with it and definitely do not understand why critics hate it so much.

Rate: 3.5/5

Trailer: Inferno trailer

inferno_poster_goldposter_com_6-jpg0o_0l_400w_70q

5 ideas about a movie: The Danish Girl

Movie reviews

Hello!

I have been reviewing movies for over 2 years now and I have never before felt afraid to review a film. Well, that was until now. The Danish Girl tells a story of one of the first gender reassignment operations in the world. Sadly, even after all these years, this topic is still highly controversial and dividing. I, personally, believe that all people have a right to be themselves. However, I do not know enough about transgender issues to talk about them (for example, which pronouns are to be used). Thus, I am scared that I will offend someone because of my ignorance, while reviewing this film. Nevertheless, I will try to do my best and I only ask you to be patient and tolerant with me, while I try to handle this difficult and delicate topic and film.

IMDb summary: A fictitious love story loosely inspired by the lives of Danish artists Lili Elbe and Gerda Wegener. Lili and Gerda’s marriage and work evolve as they navigate Lili’s groundbreaking journey as a transgender pioneer.

SPOILERS!

  1. The Danish Girl is a semi-fictional and semi-autobiographical story. It first came to life in a book form, written by David Ebershoff. Later, it was adapted into a motion picture, using playwright’s and screenwriter’s Lucinda Coxon’s script. I don’t know how much the narrative has changed when adapting it from textual to the visual medium, but I believe that Coxon did justice to the story. The two main characters were developed slowly and carefully (the end result was really good). In addition, the scarf metaphor at the end of the film was a nice touch. Overall, the movie was very sad but also somewhat hopeful – it is such a cliche thing to say but it is true. Although, Lili died, she died being herself, her true self and that’s the only thing we can all wish for – being able to find our true selves before our time runs out. I,personally, still have lots of looking to do.
  2. The film was directed by Tom Hooper, whose past few films I really enjoyed – The King’s Speech and Les Miserables. While there weren’t many significant shots or anything too surprising in the film coming from Hooper, I applaud him for kinda stepping back and allowing the story to unfold organically. Sometimes, it is even harder to do that than to be really hands on. Nonetheless, I did like the shots with the manually shifting focus – those are always a win for me. I liked the soft pallet of the film as well. Lastly, slight warning – this film does contain quite a lot of nudity, so beware of this, if that somehow bothers you.
  3. Eddie Redmayne was unbelievably amazing both as Einar and Lili. The quivering, tiny movements of the face and the hands portrayed the inner chaos of his character perfectly. I give highest praises to Redmayne for not only giving us this amazing performance but for being brave enough to take on this immensely difficult role in the first place. I can’t imagine a different actor playing Einar/Lili. If I did not want Leonardo DiCaprio to finally win an Oscar for The Revenant, I would a 100% give it to Redmayne for the 2nd year in a row. His physical and mental transformation in The Theory of Everything was amazing to watch, but he upped his game even more in The Danish Girl. If not for Jupiter Ascending, 2015 would have been an absolutely groundbreaking year for Redmayne’s career. I can’t wait for November to come because we will see him in a Harry Potter universe film – Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them.
  4. Alicia Vikander also did a magnificent job and proved us all (for like the 3rd time this year) that she is the one to look out for. She portrayed Gerda impeccability and you could see the inner process of her mind (denying at first and them coming to acceptance) on her face in a variety of different emotions. A few of the films, starring Vikander that I have reviewed are The Man from U.N.C.L.E., Anna Karenina, and Testament of Youth. She was also wonderful in Ex Machina and in a tiny role in Burnt. In 2016, we will see Vikander in Tulip FeverThe Light Between Oceans and in a yet untitled 5th Bourne film.
  5. The supporting cast of the film also had a few familiar faces who did a very nice job. Ben Whishaw (Suffragette, Spectre, In The Heart of The Seaplayed another LGBTQ character in a time, when being gay was unacceptable and was a great support for Lili (not at first, but in the end). Matthias Schoenaerts (Far from the Madding Crowd) played a supporting character in Vikander’s Gerda’s plot-line. Lastly, Amber Heard (Magic Mike XXL) starred as a family friend, while Sebastian Koch (Bridge of Spies) played the doctor.

In short, The Danish Girl was an interesting film with stellar performances from the up-and-coming cast. I hope that the film helps to bring the issues of the transgender community to the forefront even more and I do believe that the positive change will happen in a near future.

Rate: 4,5/5

Trailer: The Danish Girl trailer