Movie review: Atomic Blonde

Movie reviews

Hello!

Accidentally, this week my blog has a theme – alternative (not DC or Marvel) comic book movies. On Tuesday, I reviewed Valerian (based on a French comic book) and today, we are talking about Atomic Blonde!

IMDb summary: An undercover MI6 agent is sent to Berlin during the Cold War to investigate the murder of a fellow agent and recover a missing list of double agents.

Writing

The movie Atomic Blonde is based on a 2012 graphic novel ‘The Coldest City’ by Antony Johnston and Sam Hart. The screenwriter Kurt Johnstad (writer of the 300 movies) was the one who adapted this property. It was actually quite refreshing to see a film written by a single person rather than a group of screenwriters of varying experiences. And yet, the writing was still a mixed bag. I loved the main narrative and its structure – the story was presented in a flashback with the verbal exposition being given in an interrogation room. So, the plot was both told and shown. The set-up for the story and the decision to start it from almost the very end also helped to establish the main character. In the first seconds of her appearance, we realized her occupation, her relationships, and her vulnerabilities.

The spy-world was also well realized, with some of its details being quite fascinating. I loved how the film spotlighted the way spies deal with their lives, both physically and emotionally (ice baths, drinking, smoking). The historical tie-ins – the TV announcements about the state of Berlin Wall – were cool too and help to ground the movie. The ideas of spies deceiving each other and always having multiple ulterior motives were quite neat as well.

My few gripes with the film were a single logical flaw and the conclusion of the story. The thing that didn’t make much sense was the fact that James McAvoy’s character was trusted by others when he was obviously acting shady. Plus, the picture’s motto was ‘Never Trust Anyone’, so the fact that the characters turned a blind eye to his deceptions was kinda dumb. Secondly, the film’s story had a lot of twists and turns at the end, which were really heavily piled one on top of another. I wish that these reveals would have been given earlier or handled in different a way because it felt like the movie had multiple endings and didn’t know when to stop.

Directing

The longtime stunt coordinator, stuntman, and fight choreographer who recently transitioned into directing – David Leitch – helmed Atomic Blonde. His previous directing credits include the first John Wick (with Chad Stahelski), while his upcoming project is the Deadpool sequel. Not surprisingly, Atomic Blonde has been nicknamed online as the female version of John Wick and, while the comparison is valid, Atomic Blonde is also very much its own thing. It has its own cool action scenes, which were choreographed superbly and showcased fighters using a lot of everyday props rather than guns. The way these fight scenes were modified for someone, who is physically weaker (a female body) was interesting too. I also loved the car chases with all the old, now vintage, cars (no yellow Fast&Furious Lamborghinis here). 

The overall tone of Atomic Blonde was also really cool. I’d describe it as gritty glamor. The gritty part comes from the bloody action and the truthful depiction of the life of spies. The glamor could be seen in the costumes and the hairstyle of its lead – Charlize Theron had an impeccable look with her long, classic coats and platinum blonde hair. The cool color pallet added to the glamor too. The punk influences of 1989/1990s Berlin (the combo of grit and glamor) were also felt in the movie, from the locations of the underground clubs to the visuals of the graffiti on the wall. The soundtrack of the picture also emerged up from this general feel and tone. The composer of John Wick and Guardians of the Galaxy films, Tyler Bates, did a great job on the Atomic Blonde score, by mixing together 90s English and German songs as well as their more modern reworkings.

The director Leitch also did a brilliant job of filming the action in a variety of angles. Every trick in the book was used – from long panning shots and zoom ins/outs to close-ups to handheld shots with and without the cuts. That continuous action sequence in the apartment building was especially amazing. Genre wise, Atomic Blonde certainly felt more like a drama/thriller rather than just an action film. Its pacing wasn’t super fast – the movie didn’t really drag (except maybe the ending) but it never got as exciting as it could have been.

All in all, though I had some problems with the directing of the film, I enjoyed it overall and I still think that Leitch can nail Deadpool 2. We all know that he can deliver a magnificent action sequence, I just wonder whether he can do humor and comedy.

Acting

Atomic Blonde had quite a stellar cast. Charlize Theron (The Huntsman, Mad Max, FF8, Kubo) was front and center, demanding all the attention for the best reasons. She was amazing in the role, especially in its physical aspects (she did lots of stunts herself). James McAvoy (X-Men) was cool and creepy in his role. His persona in this film felt like just another personality of his character in SplitSofia Boutella (The Mummy, Star Trek, Kingsman) was also good, though her performance was brief. John Goodman (Kong, Trumbo), Eddie Marsan (Their Finest), and Toby Jones rounded out of the cast.

In short, Atomic Blonde is a very entertaining thriller that has a lot of cool aspects but also some minor flaws. Not a perfect film but definitely worth a watch.

Rate: 3.7/5

Trailer: Atomic Blonde trailer

abl-rtdadv1sheet-rgb-1-5938474674f1c-1.png

Advertisements

5 ideas about a movie: The Beguiled

Movie reviews

Hello!

A festival favorite and one of the strongest summer contenders for the awards season – The Beguiled – has premiered, so, let’s review it!

IMDb summary: The unexpected arrival of a wounded Union soldier at a girls’ school in Virginia during the American Civil War leads to jealousy and betrayal.

  1. The Beguiled was both written and directed by Sofia Coppola, latter of which was awarded at the Cannes Film Festival – she became the second woman ever to the Best Director Award. I’ve seen some of her films (The Bling Ring and Lost in Translation), but I’ve always had her other pictures on my ‘To watch’ list. I really need to do a movie marathon consisting of not just hers but of The Coppola’s family tree films.
  2. The movie’s script was based on a book A Painted Devil by Thomas P. Cullinan and the main topic being explored was the taboo issue of female sexuality and, especially, the repressed female sexuality and its dangers. Thus, all the character development mostly revolved around this issue, with not much attention being paid to anything else. The actions of the women did not make them into likable characters, while their choices at the end of the film were really quite shocking, which, I guess, was the intention. I did like the jab at the ‘Southern Comfort’, though – it’s the food that kills you. Literally.
  3. The writing for the lone male character was the best and he was the most well-rounded individual. His slay manipulations could really be seen in Colin Farrel’s (The Lobster, Fantastic Beasts) performance: he knew what each of the ladies wanted him to be and fulfilled that role. He was the older brother and an adult of the world to talk to, he was someone to impress and a potential suitor. Mostly, though, he was the personification of the budding sexual fantasies. These type of manipulations in his demeanor and the bursts of anger made me kinda see his demise as weirdly justified.
  4. Coppola’s directing was full of classical elements, like the steady camera, the old school ratio, and the long shots. These long shots really dictated the pacing of the film. The Beguiled was slow but carefully crafted, however, I did feel that, on a few occasions, some shots were lingering for too long without any intensity in them to make up for the lack of literal action. Nevertheless, I did enjoy the way Coppola realized the setting of the Civil War, with the noises of the battle going off in the background, but never allowed it to overpower the romantic drama happening within the house. The Beguiled wasn’t a Civil War film but a romantic thriller set during it. For the first hour, it was quite innocent (flirty and cute), while the last half hour was full of unforeseen cruelty and insane choices (all those repressed feelings were just bubbling over).
  5. I’ve already briefly touched upon Farrel’s smooth performance, so, now let’s look at the female cast. Nicole Kidman (Genius, Lion), Coppola’s usual partner Kirsten Dunst (Hidden Figures, Midnight Special), Elle Fanning (Trumbo, The Neon Demon), Angourie Rice (The Nice Guys, Spider-Man), and Oona Laurence (Southpaw, Bad Moms, Pete’s Dragon) all starred in the picture. The sexual tensions and frustrations were palpable in all of their performances with the exception of the youngest cast member Laurence.

In short, The Beguiled is a beautiful and slow art-house cinema offering that focuses on a theme that is still not as widely discussed as it should be, in the year 2017.

Rate: 4/5

Trailer: The Beguiled trailer

beguiled.jpg

Movie review: Fast & Furious 8

Movie reviews

Hello!

The latest FF film – The Fate of the Furious or Fast & Furious 8 – has driven into theaters, so, let’s discuss it!

I can’t actually believe that I have never reviewed a Fast and Furious movie before as I have been a fan of them since I was a child. 2006’s Tokyo Drift was probably the first nonanimated movie that I saw at the cinema and have been hooked ever since. I and my dad would always watch these movies together and bond over the fast cars and the crazy action. And that’s what I have come to expect from these films: the amazing action and the funny jabs between the cast members (or a family, wink wink) that have real chemistry. I am not looking for Oscar-worthy performances or original stories. However, I have to give immense props to the 7th film for dealing with Paul Walker’s death in such a gracious and poised way. I don’t think anyone expected a Fast and Furious movie to show so much class but it did. Well, enough talking about the previous entries in the franchise, let’s see what the 8th picture can offer! Has anyone ever believed that this series would have eight installments with 9th and 10th ones already planned ???

IMDb summary: When a mysterious woman seduces Dom into the world of terrorism and a betrayal of those closest to him, the crew face trials that will test them as never before.

Writing

FF8‘s script was written by Chris Morgan, who penned all the previous films, except the first two. The narrative was exactly what one thinks it was: just a collection of expositional scenes to further the story and a sprinkling of funny jabs and interactions between the characters. The film’s plot referenced the events and the characters from the previous 3 films quite a lot too, which was really fun for longtime viewers of the franchise and not that surprising, knowing that all of the referenced entries were written by the same screenwriter. It was also nice that the said references didn’t seem pushed but happened quite organically. Thus, The Fate of the Furious seemed like a true continuation of the same story arc that more or less started with the 5th picture.

The interactions between the characters were brilliantly ridiculous as well. I wonder how much of that was written and how many jokes were just improvised on the spot by Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris. The love triangle jokes were funny too. The attempt to give characters more development was also fine. The main theme of the series – family – was present in this film more than in any other entries before. Similarly to Dom having to make a choice between family and his criminal/car chasing past in this movie, the same choice now has to be made by this franchise when moving forward. And the picture did leave a few opportunities open for the same plotline to be continued.

Directing

Fast & Furious 8 was helmed by a newcomer director to the franchise – F. Gary Gray, best known for directing Straight Outta Compton. He did a good enough job with the movie and utilized the FF staples – the exotic locations and the butts. I appreciated the first, could have done without the second, but it looks like the two were a packaged deal. Speaking of the third staple of the series – the crazy action set pieces excecuted with the help of gorgeus and extremely expensve cars – they were not the best of the franchise but were still quite inventive and, most importantly, explosive, energetic, and entertaining. Yes, the technology was far-fetched and, yes, the explosions – unsurvivable and unbelievable. But you can’t argue that they didn’t look cool and absolutely kickass and that’s all I wanted. The visuals were nicely paired with a good soundtrack too, although I can’t pinpoint an iconic song that will be on the radio all summer, similarly how I See You Again was everywhere after the 7th film, We Own It after the 6th and Danza Kuduro after the 5th.

Acting

Fast and Furious was one of the first film series to have a truly diverse cast and the franchise is continuing the trend. While the 8th flick didn’t really introduce any new characters apart from revealing Charlize Theron (The Hunstman, Mad Max, Kubo) as the big bad behind the last few films, it had a ton of fun cameos and comebacks. Speaking of Theron – she was a great addition to the cast and a good villain, I would even dare to say the best of the franchise. I think her distinct look really helped her to stand out – those white dreads and V-neck T-shirts looked effortestly cool.

All of the familair faces, except Jordana Brewster, were back. Vin Diesel (Guardians), Michelle Rodriguez, Dwayne Johnson (San Andreas, Central Intelligence, Moana), Tyrese Gibson, Ludacris, and Nathaniel Emmanuel (Game of Thrones, The Maze Runner) appeared to be genuinely having fun on screen, both as their characters and as the actors themselves. The return of Jason Statham (Transporter films, Spy) was also actually appreciated by me, even though I have never been much of a fan of his. I never thought that I would want to see Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham just absolutely dragging each other non-stop. Gibson’s, Ludacris’s and Emmanuel’s characters’ interactions were good too, I loved the rivalry and the shades of the love triangle. Gibson’s action moment was good too and a nice touch for the character, who usually ends up being a butt of a joke.

Kurt Russell (The Hateful Eight, Deepwater Horizon) also reprised his role and took Scott Eastwood along for a ride this time as his assistant/trainee. Eastwood’s character was a bit annoying at the beginning but he was supposed to be like that and actually turned out to be a not that bad addition to the cast. He certainly had more to do in this film than in a similar role in Suicide Squad.

In short, Fast and Furious 8 was exactly what I wanted it to be – a cheesy nonsensical fun. This franchise is certainly not done and still has some steam left.

Rate: 4/5

Trailer: Fast and Furious 8 trailer

fast-and-furious-8-poster-600x888

SPOILERS

The film unexpectedly had quite a few reveals and twists and turns in the story which I didn’t want to spoil in the main review but still wanted to mention. I expected the leverage that Cypher had on Dom to be Bryan’s and Mia’s child but the movie instead presented us with Dom’s and Elena’s (5th movie) son – a new family member for a character obsessed with having a family. The way the child was named at the end was also a cute and touching moment – I do love the fact that FF franchise remembers its roots and how much Paul Walker and his character Bryan did for the series.

The same topic of family was continued with the return of Jason Statham’s (7th film) character (that babysitting action scene was amazing), but this time around his mother made an apperance, played by Helen Mirren (Eye in the Sky, Collateral Beauty, Trumbo). Her inclusion was enjoyable and I loved the few scenes she was in. Staham’s character’s brother Owen (6th movie), played by Luke Evans, also cameod. Evans’s performance in Beauty and the Beast has really solidified me as a fan of his, so I was extremely happy to see his cameo.

Movie review: Power Rangers

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to the review of Power Rangers. I should probably start with a disclaimer: before going to see the new film, I had no prior knowledge of the property. But, fun fact, I recently did find a photo of myself as a 3 year wearing a Power Rangers T-shirt. My mom got it for me without even knowing what it was.

Generally, I wasn’t really excited about this movie and didn’t have any expectations. I wouldn’t have even watched it but, since I like superhero films and I’m okay with YA pictures, I decide to give Power Rangers a fair chance. And, I was actually pleasantly surprised and quite entertained by the movie.

IMDb summary: A group of high-school kids, who are infused with unique superpowers, harness their abilities in order to save the world.

Writing 

The film’s screenplay was written by John Gatins (who also co-wrote the recent Kong: Skull Island) but Matt Sazama, Burk Sharpless, Michele Mulroney, and Kieran Mulroney all contributed to the story. The script was based on both Saban’s early 90s Power Rangers and their original version – Super Sentai by Toei Company. The movie’s narrative wasn’t the most inventive and original but it was done in a way that was still pretty entertaining. Nevertheless, those super convenient story turns, plot-holes (oh, so you know how to fight now?) and a cliche big monster at the end still annoyed me. That Krispy Kreme marketing, though –  that was something else.

As usual, the viewer got to spend more time with the characters instead of just watching the endless action. Usually, YA films crumble when it comes to the characters, but this new team was quite likable and I actually cared for them. Granted, some characters were more developed than others, though that always happens. The diversity aspect of the film was pretty good too. I thought that the scriptwriters did a really good job representing an autistic teenager, but I wish they would have explored the LGBTQ+ aspect of one of the other characters more. I also wanted to see more background of the Asian character: while African Americans are slowly but surely becoming fully formed characters in mainstream movies, Asian actors and characters are usually still just there for financial rather than creative reasons.

The interactions between the teenagers were also pretty good, though also maybe a bit too exaggerated. Then again, young people are known for exaggerating everything. The camaraderie within the group also sorta worked. I loved the sequence where the kids were just having fun with their powers as well as the camping scene.

Although the plot itself was a bit cliche, it still had some neat message relating to coming of age and friendship. I, personally, really liked the fact that they written in a character who realizes that they are a terrible person and need to change – basically, I appreciated the how NOT to grow up into an awful individual aspect in one of the character’s story.

Directing 

Project Almanac’s Dean Israelite directed Power Rangers. I feel that his previous film was his audition tape for this movie, cause Project Almanac and Power Rangers were fairly similar. I mostly liked what he did with the picture. The action was solid, while the CGI was either decent or good. The handheld shots were a nice touch and reminded me of the found footage style of Project Almanac. Some other camera work was a bit weird, like those four full 360 shots at the beginning of the movie in the car. They felt really disorientating. The training montage was typical but fun too. The soundtrack was pretty neat as well.

Power Rangers also has a mid-credits scene which teased the potential arrival of the Green Ranger in the film’s sequel. However, I’m not entirely sure whether the movie will get a sequel cause I can’t see it earning a lot of money. I know that the filmmakers said that they have ideas for 5-6 sequels, but that just seems to be wishful thinking.

Acting

The 5 Power Rangers were played by relative newcomers who are obviously hoping that this will be their big break. One could definitely see that they were trying to give their best performances possible. The cast consisted of Dacre Montgomery (will appear in season 2 of Stranger Thrings), Naomi Scott (has worked with the Disney Channel), RJ Cyler (known to indie fans because of his appearance in Me and Earl and the Dying Girl), Becky G (singer – this is her first big screen role), and Ludi Lin (recently starred in a Chinese film Monster Hunt) as Red, Pink, Blue, Yellow and Black Rangers, respectively. Elizabeth Banks played the main villain of the film and was probably the most horrible aspect of the movie. She was just so over the top and cartoonish. Didn’t even look like she was trying to do anything legitimate with the role. I think she should better stick with directing. Bryan Cranston also had a small role. He was fine but I’m so tired of seeing him in these B-level films (Trumbo, Godzilla, The Infiltrator, Why him?) all the time. His career has gone downhill with the end of Breaking Bad and I’m not even entirely sure whether he can get any better roles anymore.

In short, Power Rangers is a fun dumb time at the movies, although, the film is not as cheesy as the trailers wiould lead you to believe. I didn’t expect much and was pleasantly surprised.

Rate: 3,2/5

Trailer: Power Rangers trailer

exclusive-final-power-rangers-poster-zords.jpg

Movie review: Kong: Skull Island

Movie reviews

Good day!

Kong: Skull Island was not a film that I was excited for until I saw its first trailer. That 2-minute preview really got me hyped and raised my expectations. Let’s see if Kong can deliver!

IMDb summary: A team of explorers and soldiers travel to an uncharted island in the Pacific, unaware that they are crossing into the domain of monsters, including the mythic Kong.

Kong: Skull island is the second installment in Legendary’s MonsterVerse franchise, which begun in 2014, with the reboot of Godzilla. Legendary’s MonsterVerse should not be confused with the Universal Monsters series, which also technically begun in 2014 with Dracula Untold and is continuing later this year with The Mummy reboot (although now, that Dracula movie has been dropped from the canon). While I’m all for cinematic universes, I find these two a bit ridiculous. First, they are too similar and are definitely going to blend in the public’s consciousness. Secondly, these properties are good enough on their own – not everything has to be mixed. And yet, I was recently informed that King Kong and Godzilla have already fought against each other in a Japanese film from the 1960s made by Toho. So, is this new shared universe just another Hollywood remake of a foreign property? I, personally, found 2014’s Godzilla to be an okay movie but hopefully, Kong can get me fully on board with this franchise.

Writing

Kong: Skull Island was written by Dan Gilroy (wrote The Bourne Legacy and wrote and directed the spectacular indie film Nightcrawler) and Max Borenstein (wrote the new Godzilla). To my mind, the writing for the film was okay: not great but not bad either. As usual, since the monsters were expensive to animate, the viewer got to spend a lot of time with the human characters and yet, the character development was scarce. All of the characters had one major feature that defined them and the said defining trait was sometimes interesting and promising and very cliche in the other instances. The representation of the tribal people of the island was a bit stereotypical and from a definite Western POV (and that’s is a huge no-no for me as an anthropology student).

Story-wise, the movie had a fairly quick and interesting set-up. I liked that the film had a wide variety of characters – the military, the scientists and two leads (Hiddleston and Larson) but, as I have already mentioned, I wish they would have done more with them. The twists and turns in the plot were also fine for the most part, but the narrative did have a few too convenient moments (like the vomiting of the dog tags). The Monster vs. Monster or ‘Let them fight’ idea that begun in Godzilla was also continued here. Kong: Skull Island actually included a surprising variety of monsters: from Kong himself to the big buffalo-like looking animal to the huge spider (felt a bit squeamish watching that scene) to the tentacle monster to the giant ant and, lastly, to the actual skull crawlers.

The film’s setting in the 70s served the purpose of providing some commentary on the issue of war. It was a promising concept and they should have done more with it than they did (the portrayal of the colonel as stubborn and plainly cruel was a bit laughable or at least it played that way). The other overarching topic was man vs. nature – an obvious choice for the monster/survival movies. That whole idea about dropping bombs was really stupid but I also have a feeling that it might have been temporally accurate. The whole ‘What is it? Let’s kill it!’ topic of the movie was also kinda idiotic but also very realistic.

The film had good comedic relief. Some of the jokes landed, some didn’t. One line, in particular, stuck with me. It wasn’t supposed to be funny but it just sounded so ironic in today’s context. I’m, of course, talking about the line ‘there won’t be a more screwed up time in Washington’. Well, how about now?

Directing

The picture was helmed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts and this was only his 3rd feature film. His directorial debut was the indie coming of age drama Kings of Summer, which I really enjoyed – I remember it was recommended to me by a friend, who absolutely loved the movie. Bearing in mind that this was only the 3rd picture for the director and the first one of such a massive scale, I think he did an incredible job. While the opening plane crash CGI looked horrible, all of the following CGI of the monsters and the fights was magnificent. I loved the shot of King Kong in a fiery background as well as all the other wide, sweeping shots of the nature of the island. The northern lights also looked neat. The shots from within the helicopter during the first major action sequence were great too. I also thought that Vogt-Roberts had more visuals of Kong than Edwards did of Godzilla. Or maybe they were just dispersed throughout the film more than they were in Godzilla. The old school photo/video visuals were also a nice touch. Lastly, the fact that the first (the sun) and the last (the eye) shots of the picture were similar was also an excellent way to frame the whole thing.

The post-credits scene

Yes, you read that correctly. The post-credits scenes aren’t unique just to comic book movies. I was the only person in my screening who sat through the 10 minutes of the credits but I wasn’t disappointed that I did. The tease for the future was quite cool and made me wonder whether the actors who appeared in the teaser, will reprise their roles in the future sequels of this shared universe.

Acting

Tom Hiddleston as James Conrad. Hiddleston was good in the role even if the role itself wasn’t that great. I mean, his character was just unexplainably good at everything. The most over the top part of his arc was that scene with a sword in a gas cloud – it looked cool but didn’t make much sense and kinda came out of nowhere. I just finished watching Hiddleston in The Night Manger for which he won a Golden Globe. While his acceptance speech wasn’t the greatest, his performance was spectacular, so I’d highly recommend this mini-series. Going forward, he will reprise the role of Loki – arguably, the best villain of MCU – in Thor: Ragnarok.

Brie Larson as Mason Weave. I liked the fact that Larson’s character was a photo-journalist and that they didn’t call much attention to her gender (only in one scene, which should have been cut). Larson herself was good in the role and I’m happy that she is getting more work post her Oscar win (Room). Having said that, the majority of the acting she had to do was basically just reacting to the imaginative things around her. Nevertheless, she did have that one scene of special connection with Kong. What is up with female characters and giant monkeys? Katelyn Snow and Grodd also had a special connection on The Flash.

Samuel L. Jackson as Colonel Packard. Jackson was just recently in another jungle-based movie – The Legend of Tarzan – and I think I liked him more in that one. Here, his performance seemed a bit too much for me. But, I cannot argue that he does know how to play/appear as a menacing villain-ish character.

John C. Reilly as Hank Marlow. Reilly was supposed to be the comic-relief character, based on the trailers and, while he certainly joked around, he was also the exposition machine. Plus, the Jason Mitchell and Shea Whigham duo provided some additional comic relief which was funnier than Reilly’s.

The scientists of the film were played by John Goodman (Trumbo, Patriot’s Day), Jing Tian (The Great Wall), and Corey Hawkins. They served the purposes of their roles well and added some diversity to the cast (the last two). Toby Kebbell (Warcraft, Fan4stic, Ben-Hur) played Jack Chapman and had the emotional character arc of the movie. While I get what the film was aiming for, I didn’t really feel much for Kebbell’s character.

In short, Kong: Skull Island was an entertaining adventure monster movie. The visuals looked amazing and made up for the sorta lackluster script.

Rate: 3.5/5

Trailer: Kong: Skull Island trailer

kong-skull-island-poster-2.jpg

Movie review: Suicide Squad

Movie reviews

Hi!

In 2014, on my birthday, I went to the Guardians of the Galaxy premiere. A year later, I celebrated my entry into adulthood (18th birthday) with Ant-Man. Well, today, I’m continuing this tradition and watching a comic book movie – Suicide Squad – on/around my birthday.

The majority of my knowledge about the actual Task Force X comes from the TV series Arrow. I was really disappointed when WB stop allowing Suicide Squad characters to be featured in the Arrowverse because they were making a movie, so all of these iconic characters were killed off like Red Shirts. If you want something to watch to prepare yourself for the film, I suggest Batman: Assault on Arkham animated movie and the Mad Love episode of the Batman TV series. Also, Gotham TV show has a few nice moments involving these characters. Lastly, I’ve read a few issues of the Suicide Squad comics but definitely would love to read some more, so leave your suggestions in the comments.

IMDb summary: A secret government agency recruits imprisoned supervillains to execute dangerous black ops missions in exchange for clemency.

The reviews, that have been coming in, have been pretty terrible and made me actually terrified to see the film because I desperately wanted it to be good. Sadly, I think we have another BvS situation on our hands. I didn’t hate Batman v Superman when I first saw it but had a lot of problems with it. Since I loved the concept of that film so much I didn’t want to give up on it, so I watched the Ultimate Edition and absolutely loved it. Suicide Squad feels like a BvS theatrical version – it is missing a ton of stuff that has been cut, including a lot of scenes showed in the trailers, so we will probably see another version of this film released in a near future.

David Ayer

David Ayer has only directed 5 feature-length pictures before he undertook the Suicide Squad project. For the most part, his films have been both critically and commercially successful, except the flop of Sabotage. Nevertheless, Ayer has shown that he can create intense action sequences in limited spaces (Fury and End of Watch). He has also demonstrated his writing skills – just listen to the Training Day’s dialogue – it’s snappy, funny and has a message. Until now, Ayer has made small-scale, more intimate, character-driven films (e.g. Fury – a group of soldiers stuck in a tank, End of Watch – 2 police officers in a car). Suicide Squad is his biggest film to date both cast-wise, story-wise, and budget-wise.

Sadly, I really think that David Ayer should have brought in an additional screenwriter or a co-director because I believe that he bit off more than he could chew. The actual writing on the film was fine but its execution and presentation on screen lacked quality. Moreover, the editing was all over the place again, like with the Batman v Superman.

SPOILER ALERT

The characters

The picture had way too many characters and didn’t give all of them enough of backstory or if it did give the characters some development, it did it in a rushed and really tacked-on way. Deadshot and Harley received the majority of development – Waller just basically told the viewer about them and there were also a few montages of flashbacks. The same happened with Rick Flag and June Moone, the only difference was that they received even less of any actual development. Captain’s Boomerang’s and Killer Croc’s backstories were mostly skipped. Slipknot was only there to be killed off, so no one even bothered to introduce him in any interesting way. Katana felt like an after-thought and didn’t have anything significant to do either, but at least she wasn’t an actual member of the squad, so at least that allowed her to stand out. The only character, whose development seemed to be organic and came out of the story, was El Diablo – he had an emotional monolog in the middle of the story.  I was also surprised by how quickly the Squad became friends or maybe they were just acting that way?

We also had two cameos: Batman appeared in Deadshot’s and Harley’s backstories, while The Flash – in Captain Boomerang’s. The Joker was also in a film – I really liked him as an updated modern gangsta, with a great fashion sense and a lot of sex appeal – and felt that he had a place in Harley’s backstory. However, his appearance in the present day was so-so. He showed up, did some stuff and went away again. And then popped up at the end, again. Didn’t make much sense.

I think that the main character of the Suicide Squad film was probably Amanda Waller – she had the most scenes and an actual place in the plot. The picture also had another soldier character, played by a sort-of well-known actor, but, given that that character’s part in the narrative was minimal, I think the role could have been played by anyone.

I was kinda worried that the movie wouldn’t be able to handle all of its characters, but really hoped that it would find a way to do it, but, sadly, my worries came true. Don’t get me wrong, I loved Harley’s and Joker’s scenes, I loved Rick’s and June’s scenes, I liked seeing Deadshot with his daughter – all of these elements were brilliant separately, but their organization and the way they were put together was just off. The whole first act felt like a big rushed montage, consisting of non-related 10 seconds long scenes, that was just cramming information left and right, without having any cohesion or flow.

So, let’s talk more about those character moments I liked:

Firstly, Joker’s and Harley’s relationship – I loved how it was changed during its transition from the comics to the big screen. Yes, their relationship was still abusive, obsessive and just plain crazy. But, it was not longer one sided – Joker actually seemed to care about Harley, as he should, since he was the one who made her crazy. I loved their moment in the helicopter but, unfortunately, it was cut short. The subtle hints at a possible Harley’s, Joker’s and Deadshot’s love triangle were also there. I would actually love to see this idea portrayed on the big screen. I usually hate love triangles in films because they tend to be extremely cliche, however, when the people involved in the love triangle are a nutjob, a crazy former psychiatrist and a criminal who can’t miss – I’m on board.

Secondly, June Moone’s and Rick Flag’s relationship was nice and I also liked the fact that, when June turned into Enchantress, who became the big bad of the film, at least one member of the squad had personal reasons to go after her/the villain. This made the final fight more emotional. However, Enchantress’s brother seemed like a weird addition. I don’t really know how I feel about him. He did look very cool visually (Enchantress also looked magnificent) but he kinda appeared out of nowhere. Is he a character from the comic books or an original creation?

Thirdly, I loved the back and forth between Deadshot and Rick Flag. Their inside competition and moments of one-liners were extremely entertaining. Captain Boomerang was also a nice addition because his comic relief was on-point.

Finally, I loved that almost all the characters’ reason to fight was their loved ones: Harley had Joker, Deadshot – his daughter, Rick – June, Katana – her husband, and El Diablo – his dead family

The narrative

The actual ‘quest’ of the movie or the mission that the Suicide Squad had to complete was fine. It wasn’t the most inventive but it did kinda work. However, I didn’t understand while the villain had to use a beam of light to destroy the world AGAIN. I just complained about this in my Ghostbusters review.

The visuals and the action

The action of the picture was fine – there were some nice sequences in the 2nd act and the final fight was cool looking, but there wasn’t anything special. I don’t feel like I have to go see the film again just because that one part was amazing. Also, in addition to investigating the editing choices and their negative effects on the story, I question some of the editing arrangements purely from a visual perspective. The slow-motion to fast-motion thing was fine in a few scenes, but got boring real quick. The color filter was also an interesting choice that didn’t necessarily work .

The character costumes were nice. I loved the look of Enchantress, as I’ve said. Her transition shot with the hand as well as that mirror shot were amazing.  The ‘money shot’ where the whole Squad was walking in the street at the end of the second act was also cool. The bar scene was nice and emotional, although it was missing a few intro shots that we’ve seen in the trailer. The darker tone also worked for the benefit of the film because it was paired with humor.

Lastly, I saw the movie in 3D – it was the first film I saw in 3D in a long time – and didn’t think that it added anything. I never was a fan of 3D, always felt that it was a financial gimmick. Are any of you fans of 3D? Can you recommend me a film that has to be watched with 3D because this effect makes it better?

The music

Suicide Squad’s soundtrack was created by Steven Price (Fury, Gravity). All of the song choices were nice but I don’t think that, on the whole, this collection of songs worked as a soundtrack. In some scenes, the music really added something special, in others – it was just distracting. I feel like they tried to make the soundtrack of the film  a character in its own right, similarly to what Guardians of the Galaxy did. However, I think that the music in Guardians was used more subtly and it at least fit the theme, while Suicide Squad’s songs were from all over the place.

The mid-credits scene

Suicide Squad had one mid-credits scene that involved Bruce Wayne, obtaining information from Waller. This was a nice Justice League set-up: now we know how Batman will able to find other meta-humans. We can see him doing just that in the first trailer for the feature, released during comic-con.

Acting

The whoel cast did a good job portraying their characters. Viola Davis (The Help) slay-ed the role of Amanda Waller. Will Smith (The Pursuit of Happyness, Focus, Concussion) was Deadshot – a badass with a heart of gold underneath the mask of a villain. Margot Robbie (Wolf of Wall Street, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Focus, Legend of Tarzan) was Harley Quinn – the crazy, funny but intelligent psychatrist/psychopath. Jared Leto (Dallas Buyers Club, Requiem for a Dream, Mr. Nobody) was a great Joker. It took me a second to get used to him, but now I really want to see more of him as the character. There probably isn’t another actor like Leto. He just completely loses himself in the role and tranfroms both physically and psychologically or at least performs in that way.

Joel Kinnaman (Child 44) was also great as Rick Flag. I didn’t know anything about the actor before, so didn’t really know what to expect, but he blew me away. Cara Delevingne (Paper Towns, upcoming Valerian) also worked as Enchantress. While she isn’t the most experienced actress, I can see why they cast her for this role – Enchantress’s had to be portrayed through bodily movements and eyes and that’s what models do every day in their field of work. Jai Courtney (Divergent, Terminator Genisys) as Captain Boomerang was amazing. This is the best work I’ve seen from Courtney. Jay Hernandez (upcoming Bad Moms) as El Diablo and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Trumbo) as Killer Croc were both really good too. I liked Hernandez’s performance in that emotional scene and Akinnuoye-Agbaje did a fine job acting through all that makeup and face paint. Scott Eastwood (Fury, The Longest Ride, upcoming Snowden and Fast 8) was also fine in the pictue – he didn’t have much to do but did okay with what he was given.

In short, I was a bit disappointed by Suicide Squad. Maybe it is my fault – I had too high expectations. I wanted to love this picture completely but couldn’t not notice its flaws. I did love the characters, I liked the story, I appreciated the action and some of the music. However, the way that this whole movie was put together a.k.a edited flabbergasted me – it was missing a lot of connective tissue and a few montages definitely could have been changed into more organic storytelling methods.

Rate: 3.5/5

Trailer: Suicide Squad trailer

suicide-squad-movie-2016-poster.jpeg

 

Movie review: Eye in the Sky

Movie reviews

Hello!

I’ve just come back from the cinema, after watching one of the best movies I have seen this year or possibly ever and I can’t wait to talk about it. Without further ado, let’s discuss the war drama/thriller – Eye in the Sky.

IMDb summary: Col. Katherine Powell, a military officer in command of an operation to capture terrorists in Kenya, sees her mission escalate when a girl enters the kill zone triggering an international dispute over the implications of modern warfare.

SPOILER ALERT

Writing: story and themes

Eye in the Sky’s script was written by Guy Hibbert, who has mainly created screenplays for TV movies. The story that he crafted for this film as well as the dialogue, which was used to tell this story, was truly spectacular. The film doesn’t have any action (almost) in the literal sense of the word, but it is still extremely engaging and suspenseful.

The movie is set during a wartime – in the midst of the contemporary war, where armies are replaced by drones and computers. Nonetheless, the aforementioned modern technologies are still operated by military individuals. I do not think that we have seen many films about the practices of modern warfare, and since this issue is very important to all present and future generations, it’s about time that mainstream movies began contributing to the conversation or at least helped to kickstart the discussion.

Eye in the Sky opened with a quote by the ancient Greek playwright Aeschylus: In war, truth is the first casualty. To my mind, this quote was a tiny bit misleading, because the movie dealt more with the questions of ethics rather than truth. On the other hand, truth and morality are too closely related or even intertwined value and the loss of one of them, results in the loss of the other as well.

Eye in the Sky succeeded in portraying the story of a single mission not only in an entertaining but in also realistic way: it showed how many parties (located in different countries and time zones all around the globe) are actually involved in making a decision – it was an example of true democracy – a good kind of democracy. However, it also showed the inefficiency of liberal democracy at times like these and people’s inability to make the important decisions. But can we really blame the officials who tried to avoid the responsibility when the stakes were this high – human lives were at risk. Nonetheless, maybe the officials who were avoiding the important decisions were doing this for personal reasons (so as to avoid possible culpability) rather than ethical ones?

Not only did the movies explored the process of decision making but it also touched upon the question of modern war propaganda (possibility of the footage being leaked). It also asked the viewers to considered the worthiness of human life. Lastly, Eye in the Sky showed the psychological effects on people who actually have to make the decision and, more importantly, execute it. In the end, military and army officials are still people, who are only doing their job.

Eye in the Sky was also a very emotional movie, and the end credits of the motion picture only increased the overall emotional impact of the film. I do not remember the last time I cried in a movie and this film definitely made me tear up.

The only thing that took me out of the picture’s story a tiny bit were the bird and bug drones. They seemed too futuristic to me and were a little unbelievable. However, I do not know whether this type of technology really exists. If it does, then I am really scared about the level of surveillance that we, as a species, have already reached.

Directing: visuals and sound

Eye in the Sky was directed by Gavin Hood, who has previously won an Oscar for the film Tsotsi (Best Foreign Language Film in 2006). However, Hood’s last two films (before Eye in the Sky) were X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Ender’s Game. I did not enjoy these two films and I do not believe that a lot of people did. However, I feel that Hood has at least partially redeemed himself with Eye in the Sky. Although the film’s plot was mostly very spatially confined, the shots were never too dense or too repetitive. The visuals of the drone, as well as the footage of the various computers, were also extremely believable. The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (Mamma Mia! (ultimate guilty pleasure film), ThorLockeJack Ryan: Shadow Recruit and Cinderella) was really nice as well. Lastly, the music by Paul Hepker and Mark Kilian was also very haunting and a perfect fit for the film.

Moreover, one of the film’s producers was actor Colin Firth (Kingman(!))- I actually did not know that, in addition to acting, he produced movies. Did you?

Acting

The film had a huge ensemble cast and I would even go as far as to say that this probably is one of my favorite ensemble movies in recent memory. Everest was probably the last ensemble movie that I really enjoyed.

So, the film’s cast consisted of Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, Alan Rickman, Barkhad Abdi, Jeremy Northam, Iain Glen, Phoebe Fox, Armaan Haggio, Aisha Takow, Richard McCabe, Carl Beukes, Kim Engelbrecht and the director Gavin Hood himself. I won’t be able to talk about all the actors in this list, but I will try my best to discuss at least a few of them.

To begin with, I loved the fact that Helen Mirren’s character was the one calling the shots. Film’s don’t tend to focus on female military officers, so that was a nice change. I also loved how determined and relentless her character was. Mirren is an extremely accomplished actress and I am embarrassed to say that I have only seen her most recent films, like Trumbo, The Hundred-Foot Journey and Woman in Gold. I also would like to watch The Queen in which Miller plays… well… the Queen (for the 4th time).

Breaking Bad’s alumni Aaron Paul is probably fairing a bit better that his past co-star Bryan Cranston (I see Paul in more movies than Cranston). I really liked Paul in the role in Eye in the Sky – he didn’t do much bodily acting but his facial expressions were magnificent. Earlier this year, I saw Aaron in Triple 9 and I have also reviewed a few of his films from 2014 – Need for Speed and A Long Way Down.

Alan Rickman also started in Eye in the Sky. It was quite a bitter-sweet feeling, seeing him in the film, since I will dearly miss him as an actor. I grew up with him as Snape in Harry Potter films and only yesterday watched him in 1995’s Sense and Sensibility. Eye in the Sky was Rickman’s last physical role and, once again, he proved what an amazing actor he was (and will remain in our minds). I wonder whether the scenes, where his character was buying that doll, were meant to show his human side or whether it symbolized his indifference to all children. His character did seem kinda ruthless, especially with the shiver-inducing deliverance of his last line Never tell a soldier that he doesn’t know the cost of war. Later this year, we will hear Rickman in his last role (overall) in the Alice sequel.

Barkhad Abdi, who burst onto the scene a few years ago with Captain Phillips, was also really good in the role. Game of Thrones’s Iain Glen also had a few scenes that were intended to be funny and I don’t really know if that comic relief was necessary – it felt out of place. Lastly, Aisha Takow played the little girl, whose presence in the film made the biggest emotional impact, and I think that she did a nice job.

All in all, Eye in the Sky was an extremely engaging film, which showed the complexities of war and raised questions of morality and ethics. The answers to these moral and ethical dilemmas were not fully given by the film or its characters, but it encouraged the members of the audience to make up their own minds. The directing, the cinematography and the music of the film all worked together to created a highly compelling feature, which was brought to life by an amazing and extensive cast.

Rate: 4.9/5

Trailer: Eye in the Sky trailer

EITS-INTL

5 ideas about a movie Hail, Caesar! + The Coen Brothers

Movie reviews

Hello!

Since the BvS hysteria has died down and the next superhero craze hasn’t started yet, let’s review a movie that I’m 3 months late to review – Hail, Caesar! by The Coen brothers. In my defense, UK was probably the last place that this movie was released in. However,  I do acknowledge the fact that, although I saw this movie probably 2  months ago, I couldn’t find time to discuss it. Well, better late than never, so without further ado, let’s talk about The Coen brothers themselves and their newest creation – Hail, Caesar!

The Coen Brothers

I would argue that The Coen brothers deserve to be called the modern auteurs of contemporary filmmaking for they distinct style and accomplishments in cinematic storytelling. They are able to take the core archetypes – the premises for either tragic or comedic stories – and make something spectacular and unique out of it. To give a few examples of this, I will briefly discuss their most well-known comedy The Big Lebowski, their most famous tragedy No Country For Old Men and their wonderful combination of these two polar opposites – Fargo.

The Big Lebowski: the kooky and quirky comedy that gave a start to a whole new religion. One of the weirdest films that I have ever watched, yet it still very clear and extremely funny. The story is kinda ridiculous (happens by accident and is a misunderstanding) but the film somehow makes sense in the end.

No Country For Old Men: a slow and suspenseful masterpiece, filmed in wide shots. Aurally haunting because of the lack of score. A great character study in a cohesive style of The Coens but, at the same time, very extraordinary and different.

Fargo: another example of the great usage of the wide and long shots. The film has a lot of  old school ‘fade to black’ transitions and uses the music really well. The mise-en-scene is full of white ‘any-space-whatevers’, as described by Deleuze. And, of course, all the ‘yah’ lines in that Minnesota dialect are iconic. Fargo is probably my favorite film by The Coen brothers.

Other films that The Coen brothers either fully made or only partially contributed to that I have seen are: Inside Llewyn Davis –  very personal story of a musician. This movie introduced me to Oscar Isaac for the very first time. The Coens also worked on Bridge of Spies’s and Unbroken’s scripts. Both of these films are very enjoyable.

Although, I have seen quite a few films made by The Coen duo, but I want to watch a lot more, especially Raising Arizona, Burn After ReadingA Serious Man, Miller’s Crossing, O Brother, Where Art Thou? and True Grit.

Now, let me tell you 5 things about Hail, Caesar!

IMDb summary: A Hollywood fixer in the 1950s works to keep the studio’s stars in line.

  1. To begin with Hail, Caesar! was The Coen brothers’ love letter to old Hollywood. While watching this film, I was taken back to the Golden Age of Hollywood and got a chance to directly witness the behind-the-scenes inner workings of the movie business. Other films about the creation of motion pictures, which you might want to check out if you are interested, are the old school Singin’ in the Rain and the newer ones like Trumbo, Hugo and even Argo.
  2. The actual story of Hail, Caesar! was quite hectic and overwhelming. Some scenes seemed to come out of nowhere, but I guess that just showed how unpredictable the movie business was/is. I really liked the 24h time frame of the plot as well as the fact that we got to see all the aspect of filmmaking: the pre-production, the principal photography and the post-production. The constant narration also did not irritate me. However, a few of the jokes seemed to be quite painfully awkward, at least to me.
  3. Hail, Caesar! explored themes like the manipulation of people, the power of the public image and the importance of movies. It also looked at the business vs. creativity dichotomy of the film industry. The picture also had a lot of religious undertones and Christian imagery. Overall, the picture was a great synthesis of the traditional and the modern.
  4. Hail, Caesar! tied itself to reality/history with that communist screenwriters plot-line, which I did not enjoy that much. It just seemed like the easiest route to go to for the movie that is set during the Cold War. I wish that the end-game of the film would have been different, because I have seen enough movies (from all genres) that have already explored the East vs. West divide of the 20th century and did that in a more compelling way.
  5. Hail, Caesar! had a huge an accomplished cast, but, sadly, this film seemed like a paycheck gig for the majority of the actors. I feel awful for saying this, because this is The Coen brothers’ movie after all. Josh Brolin (Everest, Sicario, Marvel), a long-time collaborator of The Coens, led the cast and did a nice job. George Clooney (Tomorrowland), another favorite of The Coens, seemed to be playing himself (at least that version of him that the media has created). The relative newcomer Alden Ehrenreich played quite a stereotypical character, but he managed to subvert that stereotype. Ralph Fiennes (Spectre), Jonah Hill (Jump Street films), Scarlett Johansson (Marvel, Chef), Fargo’s Frances McDormand as well as Tilda Swinton (Snowpiercer) also had minor but very theatrical roles.  Lastly, Channing Tatum (Jump Street, Magic Mike and Step Up films) rounded up the cast. His musical number reminded me a lot of Frank Sinatra’s and Gene Kelly’s performance in 1945’s Anchors Aweigh.

In short, Hail, Caesar! was not the best The Coen brothers’ film, but it was still enjoyable and pleasant. A solid B picture.

Rate: 3.9/5

Trailer: Hail, Caesar! trailer

hail-caesar-quad

FILM AWARDS SEASON is OVER

Movie previews, Movie reviews

Hello Hello Hello!

Welcome to the last (finally) post dedicated to the awards’ season. This time, I won’t be reviewing any nominated motion pictures (I have done that already), but I  will tell you my own personal winners and will list all the others films in a very subjective order in each category. I am listing all the films because it was very hard for me to pick a definite number 1 spot. In addition, a lot of these films would have probably made my Best movies of 2015 list if I had seen them before January 1st, so I feel the need to at least mention them here.

Now, my categories won’t have a definite number of spaces in them. I have actually picked 20 films in total that have been nominated for either a Golden Globe, a SAG, a BAFTA, an Oscar or for all 4.  Also, I will be joining adapted and original screenplay categories into one. The distinction between lead and supporting roles will also be treated subjectively and not necessarily the way that the studios wanted. At the end of each category, I will also give my more objective prediction of who will probably take home the Academy Award.

P.S. The reviews of all these movies are linked to the names of the films only once – in the first category because it just seemed irrational to link you to a single post 5 or 6 times.

Best Picture

  1. Mad Max: Fury Road
  2. The Revenant
  3. The Martian
  4. Spotlight
  5. Creed
  6. The Big Short
  7. The Hateful Eight
  8. Steve Jobs
  9. Room
  10. The Danish Girl
  11. Bridge of Spies
  12. Brooklyn
  13. Ex-Machina
  14. Concussion
  15. Joy
  16. Straight Outta Compton
  17. Trumbo
  18. Beasts of No Nation
  19. Carol
  20. 45 Years

Prediction: As much as I would love for Mad Max to get the win, it seems very unlikely that this will happen. Although, with all the backlash against the Oscars online, the Academy might want to calm the fanboys/fangirls down by giving the award to the fan favorite. If they do decide to go the traditional route, The Revenant will probably be their top pick.

Best Directing

  1. Mad Max: Fury Road – George Miller
  2. The Revenant – Alejandro González Iñárritu
  3. The Hateful Eight – Quentin Tarantino 
  4. Room –  Lenny Abrahamson
  5. The Big Short – Adam McKay
  6. Creed – Ryan Coogler 
  7. Beasts of No Nation – Cary Joji Fukunaga
  8. Bridge of Spies – Steven Spielberg 
  9. Straight Outta Compton – F. Gary Gray
  10. The Martian – Ridley Scott
  11. Steve Jobs – Danny Boyle
  12. Ex-Machina – Alex Garland
  13. Spotlight – Tom McCarthy
  14. Concussion –  Peter Landesman
  15. The Danish Girl – Tom Hooper
  16. Brooklyn – John Crowley
  17. Trumbo – Jay Roach
  18. Joy – David O. Russell
  19. Carol – Todd Haynes
  20. 45 Years – Andrew Haigh

Prediction: Again, I would love for George Miller to take the award home, but I kinda think that Iñárritu will get his second win in the row. I would be willing to let Iñárritu win if Mad Max gets the Best Picture statue.

Best Writing

  1. Spotlight – Tom McCarthy, Josh Singer
  2. The Hateful Eight – Quentin Tarantino
  3. Steve Jobs – Aaron Sorkin
  4. The Martian – Drew Goddard
  5. Creed – Ryan Coogler, Aaron Covington
  6. The Big Short – Adam McKay, Charles Randolph
  7. The Revenant – Mark L. Smith, Alejandro G. Iñárritu
  8. Mad Max: Fury Road – George Miller, Brendan McCarthy, Nico Lathouris
  9. Bridge of Spies – Matt Charman, Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
  10. Straight Outta Compton – Jonathan Herman, Andrea Berloff
  11. Ex-Machina – Alex Garland
  12. The Danish Girl – Lucinda Coxon
  13. Room – Emma Donoghue
  14. Trumbo – John McNamara
  15. Concussion – Peter Landesman
  16. Joy – David O. Russell
  17. 45 Years – Andrew Haigh
  18. Beasts of No Nation – Cary Joji Fukunaga
  19. Brooklyn – Nick Hornby
  20. Carol – Phyllis Nagy

Prediction: this is the hardest category to predict. My best bet is that the original screenplay statue will be awarded to Spotlight, while the adapted one – to The Big Short.

Best Male Performance in a Leading Role:

  1. Leonardo Dicaprio for The Revenant
  2. Eddie Redmayne for The Danish Girl
  3. Tom Hardy for The Revenant and Mad Max: Fury Road
  4. Matt Damon for The Martian
  5. Jacob Tremblay for Room
  6. Michael Fassbender for Steve Jobs
  7. Samuel L. Jackson for The Hateful Eight
  8. Michael B.Jordan for Creed
  9. Will Smith for  Concussion
  10. Bryan Cranston for Trumbo
  11. Tom Hanks for Bridge of Spies
  12. Christian Bale for The Big Short
  13. Mark Ruffalo for Spotlight
  14. Domhnall Gleeson for Ex Machina
  15. Abraham Attah for Beasts of No Nation
  16. O’Shea Jakcson Jr. for Straight Outta Compton
  17. Tom Courtenay for 45 Years

Prediction: this is one of the few categories where my objective and subjective side think the same thing. If Leo does not win this year, he should just stop trying altogether.

Best Female Performance in a Leading Role:

  1. Brie Larson for Room
  2. Alicia Vikander for The Danish Girl and Ex-Machina
  3. Charlize Theron for Mad Max Fury Road
  4. Rooney Mara for Carol
  5. Jennifer Lawrence for Joy
  6. Rachel McAdams for Spotlight
  7. Cate Blanchett for Carol
  8. Saoirse Ronan for Brooklyn
  9. Charlotte Rampling for 45 Years

Prediction: once again, I both objectively and subjectively think that Brie Larson should get the Oscar, although, I would be pleasantly surprised if Vikander gets the win. On a side note, the saddest part about this category is that out of the 20 films, I could only find 9 actresses in  leading(-ish) roles, while there 17 male leading roles.

Best Male Performance in a Supporting Role:

  1. Ryan Gosling for The Big Short
  2. Mark Rylance for Bridge of Spies
  3. Sylvester Stallone for Creed
  4. Nicholas Hoult for Mad Max Fury Road
  5. Domhnall Gleeson for The Revenant
  6. Bradley Cooper for Joy
  7. Idris Elba for Beasts of No Nation
  8. Oscar Isaac for Ex-Machina
  9. Matthias Schoenaerts for The Danish Girl
  10. Walton Goggins for The Hateful Eight
  11. Michael Keaton for Spotlight
  12. Alec Baldwin for Concussion
  13. Corey Hawkins for Straight Outta Compton

Prediction: while I would like Gosling to win, I think that the award will go to either Mark Rylance or Sylvester Stallone. I wouldn’t be sad in either case.

Best Female Performance in a Supporting Role

  1. Kate Winslet for Steve Jobs
  2. Jennifer Jason Leight for The Hateful Eight
  3. Jessica Chastain for The Martian
  4. Tessa Thompson for Creed
  5. Amber Heard for The Danish Girl
  6. Gugu Mbatha-Raw for Concussion
  7. Diane Lane for Trumbo

Prediction: I would like the win to go to Kate Winslet, but the actual award will probably find itself in the hands of Jennifer Jason Leight. On a side note, this was probably the hardest category to fill, because I put a lot of actresses in the leading role category, while the Academy and the studios said that they were playing supporting roles.

I really hope that you enjoyed this post because I worked really hard on it. I felt the most challenged not when I was compiling the actual final lists, but while I was watching and reviewing all the films. Tell me in the comments your personal winners! Bye!!

5 ideas about a movie: Trumbo

Movie reviews

Hi Hi Hi!

Welcome to the last (probably) review of the awards’ season! This time, we are talking about Trumbo!

IMDb summary: In 1947, Dalton Trumbo was Hollywood’s top screenwriter, until he and other artists were jailed and blacklisted for their political beliefs.

  1. To begin with, one of the reasons why I have enjoyed Trumbo is the fact that I love movies about film-making, like Singin’ in the Rain, Hugo or even Argo (that’s also the reason while I’m looking forward to Hail, Caesar!, coming out later this month). I enjoy seeing the behind the scenes and inner workings of Hollywood. I believe that Trumbo succeeded in depicting the movie business quite accurately, at least as far as I know.
  2. The movie’s story focused on the beginning of the Cold War and the ‘Red Scare’ and McCarthyism era of the US history. I have actually just studied this topic in my English Class, while reading Arthur Miller’s (another writer who has been questioned by House of Un-American Activities Committee) The Crucible – a really nice play, which one can enjoy even without knowing its controversial context. Personally, this whole idea of ‘catching communists inside the country’ seems to be an example of that terrible kind of patriotism – the one that is born out of fear, stupidity, and human error as well as hypocrisy. However, I also think that while socialism (communism’s less radical cousin) looks good (a.k.a. democratic) on paper, it is impossible to apply to real life, because, as my anthropology lecturer put it during the last lecture, egalitarianism is a romantic myth/dream. Read Thomas Moore’s Utopia if you want a proof of that.  But, I’m going off topic, let’s go back to the actual film.
  3. The movie focused on Dalton Trumbo – an accomplished and famous screenwriter, who was one of the members of the Hollywood Ten because he refused to testify before the HUAC and fought for his beliefs and for his right to even have these different beliefs.  I have seen a few films written by Trumbo – Roman Holiday, Exodus and Spartacus (the filmmakers of Trumbo used some actual footage from these films. I think they might have tampered with the footage of Spartacus to make actor Dean O’Gorman look like the actual Kirk Douglas (the actor who played Spartacus in the 1960’s motion picture) – that close-up scene looked suspiciously different to me). I also want to watch a few other movies, based on Trumbo’s screenplays – Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo – a war drama whose poster was visible in the fictional Trumbo’s office – and The Brave One.  I liked that they didn’t try to portray Trumbo as an untouchable hero – he had his flaws (for one, being very inconsiderate of his family). I don’t know if he was like that in real life, however, in the film, since he wasn’t completely perfect, he looked/felt more realistic/more developed as a character. Seeing a film about a screenwriter also rekindled my dream of becoming a scriptwriter myself someday.
  4. The picture was written by John McNamara, whose based the screenplay on a book by Bruce Cook. I enjoyed the story of the film – after watching a lot of serious and heavy films I appreciated the lighter tone and the funny moments (although, the subject of the film was still heavy). Trumbo didn’t try to judge anyone and didn’t have that big of an emotional impact on me – on this occasion, I see it as a good thing, but it also might work against this film. Going back to the story: I think that some of the temporal transitions were very vague and too quick – it was easy to get lost in the film’s plot. In addition, the movie could have been focused up a little bit – there was no need for that many side storylines (sick friend, betrayal, problems with a daughter, wife’s backstory, that whole thing with Hedda Hopper). Speaking about the visuals, Trumbo was directed by Jay Roach. I have seen a few of the films that he has produced, but this was my introduction to him as a director. He did a nice job but there wasn’t really anything spectacular that is worth mentioning. I did like the usage of real film and newsreel footage, though. Lastly, I felt that the film was edited quite unevenly – more than once I felt that the scenes were cut short unnecessarily.
  5. The motion picture had a huge cast, led by Bryan Cranston, who played the titular character. Cranston was amazing in the role and I was really happy to see him on the big screen once again, although, I do miss him on Breaking Bad and that TV show in general. Other cast members included Diane Lane as Cleo Trumbo, Helen Mirren as Hedda Hopper, Louis C.K. as Arlen Hird, Elle Fanning as Nikola Trumbo (who aged up really quickly and then stopped aging all together), John Goodman as Frank King, Michael Stuhlbarg as Edward G. Robinson, Alan Tudyk as Ian McLellan Hunter, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Virgil Brooks and Dean O’Gorman as Kirk Douglas to name a few. All of the actors did a nice job with their limited screen-time.

In short, Trumbo was a great biographical drama with amazing performances from the whole cast and an easy-going tone. It showcased what happens when art (and business) get mixed up with politics.

Rate: 3.8/5

Trailer: Trumbo trailer

trumbo-poster