|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Sept 2, 2020 22:00:51 GMT
My review of Tenet Tenet was one of my most anticipated films of 2020. It had a cast with the likes of John David Washington, Robert Pattinson, Elizabeth Debicki and Kenneth Branagh, the trailers looked incredible, but most of all, it was Christopher Nolan’s next film. Nolan is one of my favourite directors, an incredibly creative and visionary filmmaker, all of his movies are good, and almost all of them are at least great. However there was another layer of anticipation, with this being the first movie to be released in cinemas since March ever since the pandemic started, this was actually the first time I’ve watch a movie in theatres since February. Tenet was the movie meant to bring people back to the theatre. It lived up to all the hype and was quite an incredible experience, it’s for sure one of my favourite films from Christopher Nolan, and that’s saying a lot. For those worrying about spoilers, don’t worry, I won’t give anything critical away. At most I’ll refer to what was only in the trailers, which already do a good job at keeping a lot of the plot hidden. Tenet is probably Christopher Nolan’s most complex movie, and that is saying a lot. There’s a line from Clemence Poesy’s character to John David Washington’s character, “Don’t try to understand it, feel it”, and that idea is pretty much key to watching this movie. If you get too caught up with what you don’t understand, you won’t enjoy much of the rest of the movie, and will probably have a harder time getting what’s going on. The script by Christopher Nolan is fantastic, there’s a lot happening and really keeps you engaged from beginning to end, never letting go of your attention. At its core, Tenet is a spy and espionage movie that happens to have a science fiction element, kind of like how Inception is a heist movie. Time has played a big part in many of Nolan’s movies, with the events in Memento being played backwards, Dunkirk taking place at different time settings and over different frames of time, and even Inception and Interstellar had time playing a big role in their plots. However time is the central theme and focus of Tenet. It’s not a spoiler to say that this movie is not about time travel but rather time inversion, and for the most part I actually got on board with that concept. At first it’s a bit hard to understand it, especially earlier on where you only get a little bit of time inversion in the plot. However as the plot progresses and more is shown and revealed, you begin to understand it more, and I thought it was well handled, especially when it came to the use of exposition. There’s a specific moment layer on where there’s a lot of time inversion and I have to say I was confused as to what was going on, but again I just went with it. It’s definitely a movie that’ll probably improve on repeat viewings. I will admit that I did need to look up some ‘Tenet explained’ articles to get a grasp of some of the things that I missed as I understand more of what’s happening. However I actually understood much more of the movie than I thought I would. One criticism I have for the movie from this first viewing is that it was hard to even hear what was happening, which I’ll get into later on, but those if anything were the things that made it occasionally hard to follow what was going on. Tenet is definitely not one of Nolan’s character driven movie, despite a big cast you only learn about a few of the characters. That wasn’t a dealbreaker for me though, I was still along with the ride. Looking back at it on a whole, the more I think about the movie, the more I love it. There’s a great cast all around, and all of them perform really well. John David Washington plays the protagonist of the movie, who’s only referred to as ‘The Protagonist’, and he’s really great. Despite not much being known about his character, he brings such an on screen presence on his part and he carries much of the movie. Robert Pattinson was also good as an agent who works with The Protagonist, and Pattinson was particularly great alongside Washington, their on screen dynamic was very entertaining to watch. Elizabeth Debicki also gives a great performance as probably the most layered character of the movie, she’s the emotional core of the story. Kenneth Branagh plays the villain of the movie, it’s a scene chewing yet menacing performance, that really works for the movie. The rest of the supporting cast with the likes of Dimple Kapadia, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Himesh Patel, Michael Caine, and Clemence Poesy all play their parts well too. Christopher Nolan directs this magnificently as to be expected. Hoyte van Hoytema’s cinematography is nothing short of fantastic, it’s such a large scale movie. Nolan’s filming of action has been generally criticised (especially in the Dark Knight trilogy). I still liked them, but I can kind of see why, especially when it comes to the stunts. However, I’d say that this is by far the best action that he’s filmed (possibly even more so than Inception). The most impressive aspect of the film on a purely technical and visual level was the time inversion, with everything going in reverse, and it is much more than just reversing the film. Like every other movie he has made, his movies are filmed practically, which made so many of the sequences even more impressive. One of such moments as teased in the trailers was when a real plane was crashed, and while that certainly is a big moment, there’s far more to come which I won’t reveal. There’s so many moments that I just wondered how Nolan pulled off. The time inversion was especially impressive, and the cinematography mixed with the practical effects and stunts come together to form some unforgettable moments. This is the first time since The Dark Knight that Hans Zimmer doesn’t score a Christopher Nolan movie, instead it is Ludwig Goransson composing, and he does a fantastic job. It’s extraordinary and fits perfectly with the movie. This brings me to the sound mixing, it is a very loud movie and it can be a bit overwhelming, but it only bothers me in one particular way. As previously mentioned, I don’t have an issue with the amount of exposition in the film, it’s just that the music and a lot of the other sounds can drown out a lot of the dialogue during these moments and because of that you are sometimes left in the dark about what’s going on (and sometimes it’s simple plot points). Let’s just say that if you watched it with subtitles, you would probably understand a lot more about what is going on. With Tenet, Christopher Nolan has made another fresh, engaging, complex and spectacle of a film. The cast are great, I loved the plot and ideas presented, and the filmmaking is just on a whole other level. I can only see this improving upon further viewings. It’s an overwhelming and fantastic experience that is best seen in the cinema. At the same time, it’s only worth seeing this in cinemas if you feel safe and comfortable doing so right now in this moment, so if that is the case and the movie is in your area, I highly recommend seeing it. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2020/09/03/tenet-2020-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Sept 6, 2020 22:33:26 GMT
My review of I'm Thinking of Ending Things I’m Thinking of Ending Things was one of my most anticipated films of 2020. Although I haven’t seen any of his directed movies, I am somewhat familiar with Charlie Kaufman’s work having seen Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind which he wrote. Given the plot description and Kaufman as a creator, I was looking forward to seeing how this movie would turn out. Also, there’s the talented cast of Jesse Plemons, Jessie Buckley, Toni Collette and David Thewlis all involved with the film. It turned out to be one of the strangest experiences I have had watching a movie, however I was completely engrossed from beginning to end. Charlie Kaufman is known for his odd, creative and surrealist writing. From what I’ve heard, I’m Thinking of Ending Things is his strangest work, and for him that’s saying a lot. I’ll just say upfront that this movie is not for everyone. The plot is seemingly simple, however really describing what this movie is really about is a bit difficult. You have to go into a lot of depth to get to the meat of it all, and it’s a pretty dense movie as it is. The trailer makes it look like a straight up horror movie, even though it’s not really that (kind of a similar situation to Darren Aronofsky’s mother!). It’s an existential horror with unnerving dread that escalates, particularly in the second half. It’s pretty bleak and melancholic, and upon reflecting back on the movie, quite depressing. It’s a very affecting movie, so well written, and Kaufman gives the script so many layers, and gives much to talk about. There are some long conversations covering many topics, particularly on car journeys, mainly between Jake and his girlfriend (Plemons and Buckley respectively). Personally, I found myself really invested in what they had to say, and I think it really worked for me because of the excellent dialogue and the well written and interesting characters. It can be confusing, it is also slow paced for sure, and it is pretty long at 2 hours and 15 minutes in length, so if you don’t find yourself interested in the first 30 minutes or so, you might find I’m Thinking of Ending Things to be quite a struggle to get through. However, I was quite invested and fascinated with what was happening. The last 30 minutes and the ending is rather weird and bizarre, there also isn’t a clear cut explanation for everything at the end. From what I can heard, even the book it is based on was more clear about what happened, so if anything it made me want to read the novel. It also makes me want to revisit this movie to understand everything more. The acting from everyone is spectacular. Jesse Plemons has often been cast in supporting roles in plenty of well known movies, but here he gets to play one of the leads and he really shines in one of his best performances. However it’s Jessie Buckley in the main role who stands out the most, delivering a subtle and powerful performance. She’s been great in the likes of Wild Rose, Chernobyl and more, however I think this is her best work. The parents of Jesse Plemons are played by Toni Collette and David Thewlis, and both are fantastic in their segment. Charlie Kaufman’s direction was also excellent. The cinematography is truly great, the film is shot with a 4:3 aspect ratio that manages to work surprisingly well. The colour palette is stunning too, whether it be the environment outside with the heavy snow, or the inside of the parents’ house. This movie also has some of the best editing of the year, you really get the feeling that something is really off throughout. When the film does get surrealist (as you’d expect from Kaufman), it’s handled greatly, not to go into spoilers or anything. The music composed by Jay Wadley also adds a lot to the movie too. I’m Thinking of Ending Things is an off kilter psychological thriller, with so many layers. It’s written and directed excellently, and the performances are extraordinary, especially from Jessie Buckley and Jesse Plemons. Days after seeing it I’m still thinking about it. Again it is not for everyone, it’s a pretty strange and confusing film that will frustrate many. However, I think this is a special movie, and I want to watch it again, because there’s a lot to unpack. Definitely one of the highlight films of 2020. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2020/09/07/im-thinking-of-ending-things-2020-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by LaraQ on Sept 7, 2020 13:46:40 GMT
Loved Tenet,was not a fan of I'm Thinking of Ending Things.Jessie Buckley was great in it though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Sept 8, 2020 21:58:34 GMT
My review of Greyhound I heard about Greyhound for a little while, I knew of it as a World War 2 movie starring Tom Hanks that was sold to Apple to be released on its streaming service Apple TV. While I was willing to watch it at some point, I didn’t have a great interest in it, really wasn’t expecting much from it. The movie itself is nothing special and a little generic, but overall it was okay. Strangely enough, Tom Hanks actually wrote the screenplay of the movie, adapting a historical book called The Good Shephard. Unfortunately, I have to say that the writing is a bit of a mixed bag. First and foremost, there’s really nothing to say about most of the characters, so the moments when some side characters die don’t have any impact at all. The only character that gets any development is Tom Hanks, and even then in his case there’s not much we actually learn about his character. There’s a scene early on with one scene with Elisabeth Shue, which tries to establish some form of characterisation for him, however considering the rest of the movie wasn’t very interested in characterisation, that scene really feels lazy and tact on. I’m not going to act like I dislike movies not having character development, especially when it comes to war movies. I love Dunkirk and I like 1917, and both are war movies with little to no character depth or development. However, those movies still got me somewhat invested in what the characters were doing, even if they were just surviving. With Greyhound however, you don’t really get invested in what is happening at all, it is hard to care about what’s going on beyond them being the main characters, and this is based on a true story mind you. The runtime certainly shows that it is more interested in the spectacle over characters at 90 minutes. Despite that short runtime, it feels much longer than that. Tom Hanks is front and centre throughout as the Commander Officer of the Navy Destroyer (called Greyhound). His performance is good, pretty much what you would expect from him at this point, and he was the standout from the movie. As I said previously, the character doesn’t have anything to him. Its completely in Hanks’s solid performance, he has a commanding presence which fits the role well enough, and he portrays well the stress that someone in his position would go through. Everyone else is just fine, no one is bad, but no one is better than serviceable, again though it’s not like they had much to work with. Directed by Aaron Schneider, I assumed going in that this would be Greyhound’s strong point, especially with the action, but unfortunately like with the writing it is rather flawed. It seems most of the attention and money has been spent on the large action scenes, however even those are flawed. The action can be pretty good at times, but most of the time it’s unfortunately rather bland. It does try to be tense, but there are some faults in the direction, along with the lack of an engaging story, that kind of takes away from that. The CGI ranged from looking decent to looking a little fake. The colour pallet is rather grey, dark and dull, not that darker colour pallets can’t work (especially if they are trying to go for that grimy war feel), but here it feels rather bland. The editing is pretty standard, and the score is pretty generic. Something that was weird was the use of subtitling random things on screen. It’s not just the text at the beginning giving context going on, literally every time a new ship is introduced to the movie, text will appear above it. I have no idea why they did that. To its credit, the movie does at least aim to be authentic, and doesn’t try to be a typical over the top war movie blockbuster, and as previously mentioned some of the action works. The production value is also good, there was clearly a lot of attention into making the inside of the ship look authentic. Greyhound is a mixed bag of a movie. It is rather bland, its script lacks character depth, and it’s not particularly interesting. Even the action which is clearly its focus is at, that aspect is just decent at best, and most of the time it’s just mildly entertaining and generic. The movie is not bad by any means, it does have some good elements to it, Tom Hanks does lead with a good performance, and some moments of the action work. It’s a forgettable 90-minute World War 2 movie, however if you think you’d be interested in it (even just for Tom Hanks), I’d say that it’s worth a look. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2020/09/09/greyhound-2020-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by sethan on Sept 9, 2020 0:32:55 GMT
Loved Tenet,was not a fan of I'm Thinking of Ending Things.Jessie Buckley was great in it though. I haven't seen Tenet. How nice that you have been able to see it in the cinema. I loved “I'm thinking of ending things”... It made me feel many things. I almost screamed in the Gena Rowlands part (I love Women Under) I'm weird :) |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Sept 20, 2020 21:45:31 GMT
My review of The Devil All the Time The Devil All the Time was one of my most anticipated movies of 2020. First of all it has one of the biggest casts of the year, with it including Tom Holland, Bill Skarsgard, Robert Pattinson, Jason Clarke, and Riley Keough, so naturally that had my curiosity. On top of that though, the prospect of a psychological thriller with a large group of characters sounded quite appealing and very much my kind of film. Having seen it, I can see why some people are mixed on it, it’s not for everyone, but I’m glad to say that I really liked the movie and it really worked for me. You could describe The Devil All the Time as like The Place Beyond the Pines as written by Cormac McCarthy or The Coen Brothers. It spans a number of decades and generations, and features a large number of characters with intertwining storylines. It can feel like it’s not driving towards something for most of the movie, it’s very much a character driven story. For me though it works, I found the story and characters compelling, and I was invested with what was happening. As mentioned earlier it is not for everyone. It is a very grim and bleak movie, a lot of graphic, violent and gruesome acts happen, there are some pretty dark themes and subject matter touched on throughout, and almost all of the main characters are pretty far from what you’d call ‘a good person’ to say the least. So it’s likely to turn a lot of people off. The movie is also just under 2 hours and 20 minutes long, it does feel quite long and it is slowly paced for sure. You could make the argument that some parts could’ve been trimmed. At the same time there are some plotlines that could’ve done with some fleshing out, particularly those of Jason Clarke, Riley Keough and Sebastian Stan. Maybe a mini series might’ve been able to flesh out all the aspects of the story while not feeling too drawn out, but I’m fine with how it is as a movie. One point of contention will be with the narration by Donald Ray Pollock, the author of the book the movie was based on. It will work for some, and others will hate it, I have very mixed feelings on it. It really did add something to the tone of the movie, making it feel like a gothic folk tale, and it also added some context to the characters and the story that it sometimes needed. So I wouldn’t say that it should’ve been completely removed or anything. However, it really needed to be cut back a ton. There’s many moments that would’ve been more effective if they didn’t have narration, it just explains way too much, including what some characters are doing and why they are doing it, and it just takes me out of the movie. This may be a nitpick but there are a few characters who are around from the 40s through to the 60s, and don’t look like they aged a day, and it can be a bit distracting. The cast are of course the standouts from the movie, and everyone is great on their part. Riley Keough and Jason Clarke play a serial killer couple, Sebastian Stan plays a corrupt sheriff, and Harry Melling plays a fanatical preacher, the later of whom was one of the biggest surprises of the movie, delivering a truly memorable performance. Although their characters aren’t given much to do, Eliza Scanlen, Haley Bennett, Mia Wasikowska do well on their parts, and Scanlen particularly gave an effective performance. Even amongst an ensemble of great performances, there were three actors that stood out. First of all is Tom Holland, as the main character of the story (despite appearing for the first time like 40 minutes into the movie) Arvin Russell. This was quite a different role for him, a much darker and emotional role for him, and he was actually great on his part. While I like him in the movies I’ve seen of his, I’d say that this is so far the best performance of his career thus far. I hope Holland branches out to more indie movies like this, because he’s definitely got a lot of range. Bill Skarsgard is also great as Arvin’s father, he really leaves a strong impression despite being in the movie for only like 30 minutes. He gives an intense and emotional performance, and possibly the best work I’ve seen from him thus far. Robert Pattinson is also a scene stealer as a sleezy, deranged and sinister reverend. He’s not even in the movie a ton but he makes the most of his screentime. His performance could’ve so easily failed, it is definitely over the top. However it actually really works, and he really did well at portraying the most hateable character in the film, and considering the lineup of characters in this story that is saying a lot. A particular scene between him and Holland is one of the best scenes of the year. This is the first movie I watched from Antonio Campos, and from this I can tell that he’s a great director, and I do want to watch his other movies. It’s very well put together. The cinematography is great and really sells the environment and time period effectively. The 35mm and the grain really also really fit the movie and tone. You really get the gothic rural feeling throughout. The use of music was pretty great, both the song choices and the score, and really worked particularly well in some certain scenes. The violence and brutality is really effective and impactful, it feels very realistic, and there are some moments and particularly some imagery that really stick with you. The Devil All the Time has some issues with some of the executions of its ideas and with its writing, but on the whole I think it’s great. I was invested throughout, it’s very well directed, and it features some fantastic acting, particularly from Tom Holland, Bill Skarsgard and Robert Pattinson. It’s not for everyone, the aimless story might drag for some, and the grim tone might turn some people off. With that said I think that it might be worth watching for the ensemble of great performances alone. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2020/09/21/the-devil-all-the-time-2020-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Sept 26, 2020 21:06:44 GMT
My review of Enola Holmes I heard of Enola Holmes, I knew it would have Millie Bobby Brown in the lead role, Henry Cavill as Sherlock Holmes, and also star Sam Claflin and Helena Bonham Carter. Despite the cast involved I wasn’t really expecting much from it, especially after watching the trailer. It just looked like it could so easily be a cheap rip off and mediocre movie, though I was still interested in checking it out for myself. The movie turned out to be quite surprisingly good for what it was, and I was entertained throughout. Enola Holmes is light hearted, quite funny and was entertaining. The story isn’t anything special but it’s good enough for this movie. With that said, there are some things with the writing that could’ve been a bit stronger. It does meander story-wise a bit (especially towards the middle), and it can be a bit repetitive at times. The pacing can suffer sometimes, after the first 45 minutes it starts to lose some steam, even though I was still interested. The mystery also isn’t quite as intriguing or as interesting as it could’ve been, and it’s a bit predictable, especially towards the latter portion of the story. Thankfully there’s quite a lot of energy in the writing that made up for much of the shortcomings. Despite the flaws I still enjoyed watching it. Millie Bobby Brown plays the titular character and she was the standout from this movie. She has been in an ensemble in other movies/shows with like Stranger Things and Godzilla: King of the Monsters, but this is her first real lead performance, and she has shown that she can certainly lead and carry a movie. She has the charm, likability and presence for this role. Millie really sells the fourth wall breaking moments very well too, they could’ve easily come across as being obnoxious and forced but she makes them work. Henry Cavill also plays Sherlock Holmes, this is a very different version of Sherlock than we are used to, a more human and empathetic version in contrast to other recent live action versions of the character (e.g. Benedict Cumberbatch and Robert Downey Jr.). He’s definitely a supporting character in this story, but Cavill does very well on his part in his screentime. Sam Claflin really works well as Mycroft Holmes, and Helena Bonham Carter fitted the role of the Holmes’ mother perfectly, and was a presence throughout. Another actor who does well is Louis Partridge as the character of Lord Tewksbury, he shares great chemistry with MBB in their scenes together. The direction by Harry Bradbeer on the whole I thought was pretty good, I liked a lot of the decisions that were made. It had a distinct style and the editing was really effective. There’s the fourth wall breaks as mentioned before, but again it is more MBB who makes it work as well as it does. With that said, there were probably some moments where they didn’t have to have as many fourth wall breaking moments as they did, they did get unnecessary at some points. Enola Holmes isn’t great or special and some aspects of the writing could’ve been a little better, but it nonetheless was quite an enjoyable surprise as it was. It was entertaining, well directed, and the cast are solid, led by a great Millie Bobby Brown. There’s potential for some follow up movies for sure, and I’d be interested to see them. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2020/09/27/enola-holmes-2020-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by renoh on Sept 30, 2020 5:05:30 GMT
My review of Enola Holmes I heard of Enola Holmes, I knew it would have Millie Bobby Brown in the lead role, Henry Cavill as Sherlock Holmes, and also star Sam Claflin and Helena Bonham Carter. Despite the cast involved I wasn’t really expecting much from it, especially after watching the trailer. It just looked like it could so easily be a cheap rip off and mediocre movie, though I was still interested in checking it out for myself. The movie turned out to be quite surprisingly good for what it was, and I was entertained throughout. Enola Holmes is light hearted, quite funny and was entertaining. The story isn’t anything special but it’s good enough for this movie. With that said, there are some things with the writing that could’ve been a bit stronger. It does meander story-wise a bit (especially towards the middle), and it can be a bit repetitive at times. The pacing can suffer sometimes, after the first 45 minutes it starts to lose some steam, even though I was still interested. The mystery also isn’t quite as intriguing or as interesting as it could’ve been, and it’s a bit predictable, especially towards the latter portion of the story. Thankfully there’s quite a lot of energy in the writing that made up for much of the shortcomings. Despite the flaws I still enjoyed watching it. Millie Bobby Brown plays the titular character and she was the standout from this movie. She has been in an ensemble in other movies/shows with like Stranger Things and Godzilla: King of the Monsters, but this is her first real lead performance, and she has shown that she can certainly lead and carry a movie. She has the charm, likability and presence for this role. Millie really sells the fourth wall breaking moments very well too, they could’ve easily come across as being obnoxious and forced but she makes them work. Henry Cavill also plays Sherlock Holmes, this is a very different version of Sherlock than we are used to, a more human and empathetic version in contrast to other recent live action versions of the character (e.g. Benedict Cumberbatch and Robert Downey Jr.). He’s definitely a supporting character in this story, but Cavill does very well on his part in his screentime. Sam Claflin really works well as Mycroft Holmes, and Helena Bonham Carter fitted the role of the Holmes’ mother perfectly, and was a presence throughout. Another actor who does well is Louis Partridge as the character of Lord Tewksbury, he shares great chemistry with MBB in their scenes together. The direction by Harry Bradbeer on the whole I thought was pretty good, I liked a lot of the decisions that were made. It had a distinct style and the editing was really effective. There’s the fourth wall breaks as mentioned before, but again it is more MBB who makes it work as well as it does. With that said, there were probably some moments where they didn’t have to have as many fourth wall breaking moments as they did, they did get unnecessary at some points. Enola Holmes isn’t great or special and some aspects of the writing could’ve been a little better, but it nonetheless was quite an enjoyable surprise as it was. It was entertaining, well directed, and the cast are solid, led by a great Millie Bobby Brown. There’s potential for some follow up movies for sure, and I’d be interested to see them. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2020/09/27/enola-holmes-2020-review/The director uses Jean-Pierre Jeunet style, this is what made me click on that movie when Netflix shows you previews. Reminded me of Amélie, but not that good. BTW, I miss Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s movies. I don’t like the main actress but she was the producer too, that was smart, I would have prefer for the role the other girl from stranger things. Is it me or Helena Bonham Carter always does the same thing? it’s good but I don’t know if it is good for her to do that over and over...over all I like it. |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Oct 24, 2020 21:30:27 GMT
My review of The Trial of the Chicago 7 The Trial of the Chicago 7 was one of my most anticipated movies of 2020. The cast alone had my interest, with the likes of Sacha Baron Cohen, Mark Rylance, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Eddie Redmayne and more involved. Then there’s the writer and director Aaron Sorkin, who’s the writer behind fantastic scripts for The Social Network and Steve Jobs. Not only that, but the event it’s based on has a lot of potential for a great movie, with it being quite significant and infamous. This film had been in development for quite some time, Sorkin wrote the script in 2007 and it had been passed around to other directors before finally he decided to direct it himself. The Trial of the Chicago 7 ended up being a really great movie and I loved watching it from beginning to end. One of the strongest parts of the film no surprise is Aaron Sorkin’s script. It has all the things you’d expect from his writing, snappy and captivating dialogue, a fast pace, and memorable moments. I was actively captivated throughout, Sorkin does very well at locking you in with what’s happening from beginning to end. Much of the movie is a courtroom drama, and this certainly ranks among the best courtroom dramas from recent years. There are some very strong parallels to current events with regard to protests, police brutality and the like (even when the story takes place in the late 60s), and there are many impactful moments. You can get quite frustrated with some of what happens during the trial, and this really showed the movie’s effectiveness. Some people have complained about Sorkin’s ‘Sorkinisms’ in this movie, with some of the dialogue choices and especially with how he chose to represent certain events on screen, and I’d be lying if I said that I didn’t get some of the criticisms. There are definitely moments that didn’t happen like that in real life. The ending especially is such a feel good ending that might actually be too much for some people, it’s one of those scenes from biopics where you don’t even need to read up on the real life events to tell that it never happened. I would’ve liked to have seen a darker and more accurate representation of events for sure. Then again this is Sorkin, and we’ve come to expect this from him. There’s a massive ensemble cast for this movie, and everyone is great on their parts. I’ll start with my favourites from the film. Sacha Baron Cohen and Yahya Abdul-Mateen II were the scene-stealers for me. Yahya particularly had such a screen presence and does so much in his screentime, I just wish we got more scenes of him because he was truly fantastic. Another standout performance was from Mark Rylance, who is also great as the lawyer defending the Chicago 7. Eddie Redmayne plays really the lead of the movie, he’s the character who goes through the most development over the course of the movie. It’s certainly a different performance from him, but it’s a surprisingly effective performance, and particularly plays off Cohen very well. The rest of the Chicago 7 were acted well by actors like John Caroll Lynch and Jeremy Strong. Other performances were also great, including Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the federal prosecutor, Michael Keaton as an attorney general in an important role later in the story, as well as Frank Langella as the judge. As many people will say, Aaron Sorkin the writer is way better than Aaron Sorkin the director. I did like his first film Molly’s Game, but it showed that he still had a way to go as a filmmaker. His work on Trial of the Chicago 7 is definitely a step above his first movie. The strongest part of the movie on a technical level is the editing, which really works in favour of the script. This is particularly the case in the opening 10 minutes which efficiently sets up and explains so many things that happened prior to the event that sparked the trial. Additionally in the script there are many flashforward and flashback scenes, and while it could’ve been disorientating, Sorkin really pulled it off and made it effective. With all that being said, whenever Sorkin’s scripts are made into movies by top tier directors like David Fincher and Danny Boyle, they brought the scripts to another level to create fantastic films. If Trial of the Chicago 7 was given to someone of that caliber, it probably would’ve been even better. Still, I would say the direction was good. The score by Daniel Pemberton is also good, not amongst his all time best work, but it worked really well for this movie. The Trial of the Chicago 7 is currently one of my favourite movies of the year. It felt like an inspiring courtroom thriller made in the 90s, and I mean that in the best way possible. The timely, entertaining and engaging story, the fantastic script and outstanding acting alone makes it really worth watching. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2020/10/25/the-trial-of-the-chicago-7-2020-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by LaraQ on Oct 26, 2020 20:31:45 GMT
Other than finding the ending a little cheesy,I really liked The Trial of the Chicago 7 too.
|
|
|
|
Post by finroon on Oct 27, 2020 21:07:48 GMT
I’m finding the Queen’s gambit to be a great piece of tv and I have watched just two episodes. Anya Taylor-Joy is spectacular.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Oct 29, 2020 21:37:52 GMT
I’m finding the Queen’s gambit to be a great piece of tv and I have watched just two episodes. Anya Taylor-Joy is spectacular. I can't wait to get around to watching it, I'm always interested in anything that ATJ and it looks incredible. |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Nov 1, 2020 20:47:57 GMT
My review of Hamilton (2020) I heard about the acclaimed musical Hamilton for some time. Outside of one song however, I really didn’t know much about it, aside from it being about the founding fathers and Lin-Manuel Miranda being the person who created it. With one of the showings being put on Disney+ however, I knew I should probably watch it and see for myself if it worked for me. I’m glad to say that it very much did work for me, and I had a great time with it. Reviewing Hamilton is a bit weird, I’m essentially reviewing a musical, and it’s not even a film adaptation. However, I’ll try my best. I’m not an American History expert, according to some people the musical is accurate in terms of what happens, but I won’t judge it on that level. Though I think the casting and the fact that it is a Broadway musical should automatically give an indication that this probably shouldn’t be taken as being 100% accurate, and shouldn’t be the prime source of education about the founding fathers of America. It is 2 hours and 40 minutes long and it is a long running story, a lot of things happen over the course of the musical, it even has some actors playing more than one character. As overwhelming as it was going into it blind, especially as someone who didn’t really know what to expect, I was pretty invested throughout. It’s entertaining, it’s funny, and it becomes surprisingly emotional at points. By the end I was quite satisfied with what I had watched. The whole cast of actors do very well in their part in both acting and when it came to singing. The creator of the musical, Lin-Manuel Miranda plays the lead of Alexander Hamilton and does well on his part. I knew about Miranda from other things, with Mary Poppins Returns and His Dark Materials, but I think he did a good job here. I will say that his singing wasn’t the best, especially when compared to the others in the cast, but more than makes it up for his acting, especially in the latter half of the film. There were a few actors who really stood out, Daveed Diggs and Leslie Odom were particularly outstanding in their parts of Marquis de Lafayette/Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Jonathan Groff was only in a few scenes but was fantastic as King George III, a hilarious and entertaining performance that was very memorable in his onscreen moments. A big part of the movie is the music, and I thought it was really good. It is one of those musicals where every line is singing, but they pulled it off. A musical about the founding fathers doesn’t sound particularly like it’s prime music material. However the songs are pretty great (there are so many of them too), well written, and there was a lot of genres mixed in including rap, hip hop, jazz and Broadway, and it made the music and overall musical stand out and very entertaining. I’ve only watched the movie/musical once, but with every song on this from this first viewing, I found all of them to be very solid. Production values are top notch too, the choreography was great, and I can imagine it would’ve been a blast watching it in the theatre. In terms of the filming for the movie on Disney+, the direction from Thomas Kail was handled well, and really captured the show as best as possible. I really had no idea if I would like Hamilton going in, but I found it enjoyable, entertaining, and I was engaged from beginning to end. For those who haven’t seen it yet, I think it’s worth seeing it for yourselves, and by experiencing it first on the Disney+ version, you won’t have to pay money to buy tickets to watch it in person. I will say that I’m not sure how I’d feel about it on a rewatch, this is just from the one viewing and it was a lot to take in as it was. However, I think it’s really good and I’m glad I saw it. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2020/11/02/hamilton-2020-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Nov 21, 2020 21:31:13 GMT
My review of Guns Akimbo I and many people on the internet became interested in Guns Akimbo from the moment pictures behind the set of Daniel Radcliffe holding two guns while wearing a bathroom became viral. Also, I liked Daniel Radcliffe and Samara Weaving, so I was even more interested. Guns Akimbo looked to be a very over the top action comedy, so I was just going into the movie expecting that. I will say it doesn’t quite reach its fullest potential as I hoped, but I still enjoyed it. With this premise, of course it was going to be an over the top movie, and Guns Akimbo certainly is that and it aware of it. From the first two scenes, it really does feel kind of edgy. I have seen some movies that try to be edgy and they can really get on my nerves (something like Assassination Nation) and I completely understand if that tone really turns people off. I wasn’t a fan of it, but I tolerated it enough. Most of the movie is just Daniel Radcliffe running with guns stuck to his hands and the comedy is that he doesn’t really want to kill people for much of the movie. It does get old at a point and a little repetitive. Some of the logic by Daniel Radcliffe’s character is also a bit annoying, there are some specifically where he tries to cover up his situation of having guns fully bolted to his hands, and it just doesn’t make sense. There’s particularly a whole scene with him and his ex-girlfriend which he could’ve handled so much better. The comedy is very hit or miss, it tries hard at it though. It’s not so bad that it’s constantly cringy but a lot of the jokes don’t land. Speaking of cringe though, the writing is really not that good and is quite eye rolling at many points. The movie also does try to be something like a sort of satire and commentary about online trolls, social media and the internet today (ironic considering a certain controversy involving this movie’s director). However that aspect is just hard to take seriously, which is ironic considering that this movie is very clearly a comedy. It wouldn’t be so bad if it didn’t constantly throw that in the audience’s face for much of the movie and mishandle it. Finally, for as crazy as they wanted to make the movie, the storyline itself is quite predictable and unimpressive. Side note, but this movie also tries to set up a sequel that will never happen. The main cast do well in their parts. Daniel Radcliffe was kind of the perfect fit for this lead role and movie, as a mild mannered geek who doesn’t want to kill people but is stuck with guns in his hands. He’s particularly great with the comedy, and he even works with the action towards the end of the movie. I for one am down for the Daniel Radcliffe taking on crazy and weird projects post Harry Potter. However it is Samara Weaving who takes the movie to another level, as the killer hunting Daniel Radcliffe down. She’s energetic, owns all of her scenes and is a clear standout despite some of the iffy writing. I just wish she was in the movie more as like a co-lead. Both Radcliffe and Weaving share great chemistry too. I’m not sure if I’d say I liked the direction or not, I just know that it certainly tries very hard. It is very over the top and stylised, and sometimes the style can really fail. Within the first 20 to 30 minutes you can figure out whether it is for you or not. The camera spins and rotates and moves around at times, it’s like a less hyperactive version of the Crank movies. The action itself can be quite fun at many points, especially towards the end. With that said, at times a lot of the action can be flat out ruined by some of the editing, and the action isn’t exactly particularly standout or anything. Guns Akimbo is not for everyone and really doesn’t succeed as well as you’d hope it would, both with the messy script and the flawed direction. However I still like the movie, it’s got some fun moments, and ultimately both Daniel Radcliffe and Samara Weaving carry it. If it looks appealing to you from the trailer, check it out for yourself. Again, you’ll figure out very early on whether it’s for you or not. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2020/11/22/guns-akimbo-2020-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Nov 23, 2020 23:40:10 GMT
My review of The Queen's Gambit I was quite interested in The Queen’s Gambit. The main reason was Anya Taylor-Joy being cast in the lead role, she’s one of the best up and coming actors working today, and I’m always interested in whatever projects she takes on. Additionally, a mini series about chess sounded quite interesting. I had high hopes for The Queen’s Gambit and it turned out way better than I thought it would. It is an excellent miniseries, well made on every level, and with another great lead performance from Anya Taylor-Joy. The Queen’s Gambit consists of 7 Episodes ranging from 45 minutes to just over an hour in length. That’s pretty short as far as shows go, but it was the perfect length for this story. None of the episodes or moments in those episodes felt like they were filler. A lot happens in each episode too, even the episodes that aren’t an hour long. The first episode doesn’t feature Anya Taylor-Joy as lead character Beth Harmon outside of the opening scene, as it’s mainly Beth at age 9 when she’s at an orphanage and learns about chess. While that episode is pretty much just her at the orphanage, it is nonetheless a very important episode with plenty of things that it sets up for the rest of the show to continue on with. I’ll say that if you watched the first episode and weren’t as engaged as you would’ve liked to have been, the second episode is definitely where things advance a lot more, as it moves beyond the orphanage. I won’t give too much story details beyond that, but I’ll say that it’s very engrossing watching the lead character, the places she goes and everything she goes through. You’re really engrossed into what’s happening over the course of the story, the characters are well realised, and Beth’s story is quite compelling. The Queen’s Gambit is actually based off a fictional novel, but if I didn’t know that going in, I would’ve thought that it was a biopic, that’s how well made the show was. When it comes to chess, you don’t need to be an expert on chess in order to love the show. The Queen’s Gambit doesn’t even try to really explain the whole game to the audience, and that works. You can still follow along with what’s happening with no problems. Additionally, I’ve heard that a lot of chess experts has said that the portrayal of chess in the show is very accurate, so take that how you will. The acting is great by everyone. Anya Taylor-Joy gives one of, if not her best performance yet as Beth Harmon. She really portrays this complex character very well, it’s such a nuanced performance that conveys so much with very little. She definitely makes it convincing that she’s a genius level chess player, who is going through lots of issues throughout the show. Also, Isla Johnston deserves some praise as the younger version of Beth (mainly in the first episode). The supporting cast are all great too. Marielle Heller plays Beth’s step-mother, and that relationship between the two was one of the biggest surprises, as it went in a different direction from what I expected from it. I know of Heller as the director of The Diary of a Teenage Girl, Can You Ever Forgive Me and It’s a Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood, but she’s shown here that she’s great at acting too and shares great chemistry with Taylor-Joy. Other performances such as Bill Camp as the janitor who teaches Beth chess, and Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Harry Melling and Jacob Fortune-Lloyd as other chess players also add a lot to the show. Scott Frank directed all the episodes of the show, and he did a fantastic job with them. It’s an incredibly well shot show, the cinematography is great, and so is the production and costume designs. The costumes that Anya wears in the second half of the show particularly stand out. It really does well at placing the show in the time periods of the 50s and 60s. Chess is a big part of the show as you can tell, and that aspect is portrayed very well. Even the visuals of chess on the ceiling that Beth occasionally imagines in her head could’ve come across as a bit cheesy but actually ends up working. The editing is excellent too, not only working to make the chess matches thrilling and suspenseful, but also keeping the flow of an episode going. Everything that’s in each of the episodes actually has a reason to be there, while not feeling way too trimmed down. One of the aspects that really stood out to me early from even the first episode was the score from Carlos Rafael Rivera, which was really great and fitted the show perfectly. The Queen’s Gambit is an enthralling show with a great and entertaining story, and is incredibly well made. Acting across the board was also all solid but it’s Anya Taylor-Joy who stands out, giving another fantastic and compelling lead performance. This show was one of the biggest surprises from 2020, definitely worth checking out as soon as you can. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2020/11/24/the-queens-gambit-2020-review/ |
|
