|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Feb 3, 2022 18:17:37 GMT
My review of The Empty Man I went into The Empty Man blind and unaware of what to expect from it. All I knew was that it was a horror movie whose release was essentially shafted during the merger between Disney and Fox, but gained positive word of mouth. Knowing only that, I went into the movie open minded and I think that it may well be one of the most pleasant surprises from 2021. For what it’s worth, I do think it’s worth going into The Empty Man not knowing anything about it. The plot at first sounds like another creepypasta like the Slender Man, and the premise is simple at first as its about a missing girl and the protagonist detective trying to figure out what happened to her. However over time it becomes more than what is expected. Essentially The Empty Man is a psychological detective thriller with a supernatural element. It is definitely horror, but more of a hybrid horror film which mixes grim detective thriller with elements of cosmic horror and surreal doomsday cults. There’s even a surprising amount of existential dread throughout, with a constant ominous tone which keeps you unnerved throughout. There are some compelling ideas and the film isn’t afraid of being ambiguous at times. The opening 25 minutes are really strong, and it is practically its own movie as it seems so far removed from the rest of the film, but still ties back into the main plot in a meaningful way. I found the plot compelling and riveting as it takes its twists and turns, and I wanted to see where it would go. The final act is captivating and it has one of the most memorable horror endings in recent years. The movie is very long at around 2 hours and 20 minutes long, and it is definitely a slow burner, so it requires a lot of patience. However I was so invested with what was happening that the runtime didn’t prove to be a problem, even if the pacing stumbles here and there. The acting from everyone is good but it mostly comes down to the lead played by James Badge Dale as a detective investigating the missing girl. It’s a very strong performance and he does very well at carrying the movie himself. He effectively captures the terror, confusion and even the pitch black humour of the character, and he was compelling to watch throughout the film. This is David Prior’s directorial debut, and this is a very confident and great first film from him, with evidently a clear vision. Prior has actually worked with David Fincher and you feel his influence throughout, especially when it comes to the investigation side of the story. The Empty Man is incredibly well shot with beautiful and moody cinematography. The visuals are interesting and the imagery is memorable. There’s also a very haunting sound design which goes towards helping its ominous atmosphere. The scares themselves mostly come from the eerie atmosphere and thick tension, and they are very effective. The Empty Man definitely won’t work for everyone, its slow pace and more subdued nature might turn some people off. However I thought it was great, a great mix of investigation thriller with cosmic and cult horror, making for a very effective film and one of the best horror films of 2021. I’m interested in whatever David Prior does next; I hope he gets to direct more because his work here is fantastic. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2022/02/04/the-empty-man-2021-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Feb 7, 2022 18:18:50 GMT
My review of Mass I went into Mass fairly blind, I knew Jason Isaacs was in this and I heard a few people call it one of the most overlooked and best films of 2021. I checked it out, and I definitely agree that more people should be watching it. First of all, the screenplay is fantastic. The entire movie takes place at a church, it focuses on the meeting between the parents of a victim and the parents of a perpetrator from a school shooting, in which they share a lengthy discussion. That’s all you should know about the premise going into the film. It mostly takes place in this one location and it makes you feel locked and closed in this one room, just like these four characters. The film perfectly balances the four characters and each of their feelings and motivations as it tells its layered story between four parents grieving over a tragic event. The movie has a great amount of emotional weight, showing how each person suffers in their own ways. It is very much exposition heavy with great amounts of dialogue, it’s basically like a play. Mass is dialogue driven but doesn’t become tiresome and thankfully it’s all written very well and feels authentic and real. As you can tell from the premise, the film is tackling a very serious, sad and widespread issue and as such it is an uncomfortable watch (as it should be). While it could’ve easily handled the topic wrong, it dissects it perfectly. It avoids the usual cultural conversations surrounding such tragedies and avoids mentions of political issues, it doesn’t lay blame or give a clear or easy answer as to why these things happened. The focus instead is more on coming to terms with the event, and it encourages understanding and listening. It deals with trauma, grief, blame, loss, regret and more, with a great amount of empathy for those who survived and those who didn’t. It just felt so accurate and raw, and there are many scenes which hit hard. The plot is certainly slowly revealing, purposefully so, it doesn’t rush right into the tense conversations at the centre of the movie. I found this approach to be highly effective. In terms of issues, I will say that the last 20 minutes do seem a little drawn out but it ends very well in its final scenes. The acting really comes down to its 4 central performances with Jason Issacs, Martha Plimpton, Ann Dowd and Reed Birney. They deliver awards worthy performances and get to shine equally. They almost makes you forget that you’re watching a fictional piece of media. Each of them feel very authentic and represent their characters well. This is Fran Kranz’s debut film, and it is a good first movie. On a technical level it isn’t necessarily special, it isn’t aiming for visual flourish. However it is still very effective in its simplicity. For example the camerawork is quite straightforward and simple when the discussions start out calm and casual; but when the meeting gets more heated the camerawork changes to handheld and really captures the tight environment the central characters are in. There’s also some very effective use of blocking and framing of the four actors, and it conveys the tension very well. Mass is one of the biggest surprises of the year, and is one of the year’s best. It’s definitely a downer to watch given the subject and the simplicity and slow moving nature may turn people off. However if you know what you’re getting into, I think it is well worth checking out, from its fantastic writing to the outstanding performances. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2022/02/08/mass-2021-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Feb 9, 2022 18:17:07 GMT
My review of Spencer Spencer was a movie I had been anticipating for a little while. It’s a movie about Princess Diana, starring Kristen Stewart in the lead role, and most of all it has the director of Jackie. So I was intrigued to see how it would turn out, especially with all the acclaim it has been receiving leading up to its release. It didn’t disappoint, I really liked Spencer and think it’s one of the best of the year. Much like Jackie, Spencer is not a conventional biopic by any means, and I’m so glad that this is the case. It doesn’t feel tired or cliched like a lot of other biopics, and I was captivated throughout. The movie is set over the Christmas period in 1991, taking place over a few days. As a result, it feels like it wasn’t progressing anywhere necessarily, but I was nonetheless invested in it. I won’t talk about the accuracy to real life because I’m not an expert on Diana, but I can say that it is definitely more a character study than biopic. It does a great job at diving into the personal life of Princess Diana and makes us see her life from her eyes. This character piece focuses on Diana’s sadness, anxiety and struggles as she has to change to fit in with the royals while haunted by her past and future. Much of the movie feels like a horror movie sometimes, and it is effectively unsettling. Spencer does a great job at making the audience just as uneasy as her, especially with the tense and uneasy atmosphere. It definitely leans into being more psychological compared to Jackie, there are even hallucinatory elements, from a direct metaphor between Diana and Anne Boleyn which has the former imagine seeing the latter, to Diana literally imagining herself eating her pearl necklace. It thought it worked for the type of movie that it was going for. Whether or not her character in the film is accurate to the real person, Kristen Stewart disappears into the role of Princess Diana and delivers a powerhouse performance. She does incredibly well at portraying a princess forced to live in a family that doesn’t want her and really conveys her pain and anxiety. Stewart definitely places emphasis on the subtlety and leans into the overall feel of Diana rather than pure impersonation, which is definitely for the best (especially when looking at performances of other widely known real people). Nonetheless, she nails the voice, mannerisms and expressions, and gives an eloquent performance. It’s the best acting work I’ve seen from her so far. There are some other really good supporting performances from Sally Hawkins, Timothy Spall and Sean Harris, however it’s a film very much focused on Stewart as Diana. Pablo Larrain directs Spencer incredibly well, which was to be expected after watching Jackie. There is a lot of incredibly visual storytelling on display in this film. Claire Mathon’s cinematography is gloomy and hazy, and helps convey a feeling of claustrophobia, creating a layers of anxiety, ambiguity and paranoia. It all works to make us feel the pressures of the lead character. The production and costume design are also on point and are perfect for the period. Another thing constantly present throughout the film is Jonny Greenwood’s jazzy and intense score, which perfectly captures the tone of the film. Despite being a Princess Diana biopic, Spencer is definitely not for everyone. On top of definitely being a character piece over a conventional straightforward biopic, it is slow moving and definitely not what some might expect going into it. However I loved it, incredibly well crafted, its directed well, and Kristen Stewart gives one of the best performances from the past year. It’s one of the best movies from 2021. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2022/02/10/spencer-2021-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Feb 11, 2022 21:07:10 GMT
My review of Belfast I heard of Belfast over the past months, with it being Kenneth Branagh’s latest film and a major Oscar contender. I heard some very positive things about it, but also some backlash with regard to its high awards chances. I put aside the awards attention and watched the movie by its own merits, and I actually quite liked it for what it was. The script is pretty straightforward and very rarely surprises, but it is solid nonetheless. The intense political situation of Belfast in the 1960s is present throughout the film, but the movie is not solely about that specific aspect. Essentially it is a coming of age story of the lead child named Buddy, and its very much a story told through the eyes of the child. It is fairly plotless, although an aspect present throughout is the possibility of Buddy’s family leaving Belfast, and we see how that develops over the course of the film. It is a slice of life film about family and childhood, and this approach to the story won’t work for everyone, it worked well enough for me though. With that said, it is one of those movies which feel like snapshots from a period of time rather than actually telling a strong narrative, and as a result the narrative can meander and feel disjointed. Also, while I appreciate the commitment to having most of the film told through the main child’s perspective, it can occasionally work against itself. When the movie focuses on other elements, some situations and scenes can be pretty contrived, such as when Buddy happens to hear very important conversations from his family. It didn’t bother me too much, but it is nonetheless something I noticed when watching. Nonetheless I was invested with what was happening, and I particularly liked how things were ended in the third act. Finally, the film is semi autobiographical, it is very much a passion project, and that really does help the movie quite a lot. Even with the flaws of the screenplay, it does actually feel like a story Branagh wanted to tell, and that helped the movie feel genuine and heartfelt. One of the strongest elements are the cast, and each of them are top notch, with Caitriona Balfe, Jamie Dornan, Ciaran Hinds and Judi Dench all giving great performances. They all worked very well together, and the chemistry between them felt real, they actually felt like a family. Credit should also go to the lead actor for Buddy, Jude Hill. This is his first film but he did very well especially considering that he’s in almost every scene in the film. Kenneth Branagh directs this movie very well. Immediately noticeable is the black and white cinematography, its gorgeous, well shot and nice to look at. I don’t really think there was much point of having the black and white outside of the few moments where colour is included, but it was nonetheless nice to watch. Belfast seems to be one of the main frontrunners for Best Picture, and I don’t necessarily think that it’s a great pick for the award. Putting aside Oscar chances however, I think the movie is actually quite good and was better than I was expecting. As a movie focusing on a child’s coming of age, it’s solid and I was invested enough, even if it wasn’t anything special. It is also decently directed by Branagh, and the great performances really helped the film work as well as it does. I do think it is worth checking out at the very least. wordpress.com/pages/thecinemacritic.wordpress.com |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Feb 13, 2022 18:20:27 GMT
My review of Parallel Mothers There were a couple things about Parallel Mothers that I heard about which made me want to watch it. First of all, it was getting some awards attention, especially towards Penelope Cruz in the lead role. Second of all, it was the new movie from Pedro Almodóvar. I admit I haven’t seen many of his movies, but I did watch Pain and Glory which was great and so I was interested to see more from him. Parallel Mothers did not disappoint. The screenplay is brilliant and smartly handled. Looking at the plot, I think Parallel Mothers is worth going into blind and not knowing much about beyond the premise. It is a real treat of a drama, it is engaging and keeps you intrigued for the entire runtime. It does have its twists, and turns and with the shocking revelations it easily could’ve been a very contrived soap opera. However, it actually felt authentic and genuine, the characters feel real and relatable and are exposed to complicated life issues. The premise of single mothers giving birth at the same time is intriguing, and I was invested for that plotline following the two mothers as played by Penelope Cruz and Milena Smit. It is a look into motherhood, relationships, family and grief, and approaches the subject matters with great honesty and empathy. There is one aspect that might take some people out of the viewing experience and that’s a notable subplot involving family history with the Spanish Civil War. Without going into too much depth with the specific plotline, I will say that it is to do with Penelope Cruz’s character and plays a notable part of the movie, while not being the main focus. Initially it seemed to distract from the main storyline of the parallel mothers, but by the end I thought it worked. I do like that these storylines played alongside each other, they’re very different but I liked the way they were brought together in the end. The acting is another strong aspect of the movie. Penelope Cruz is tremendous as the lead character, giving such a layered performance, displaying and jumping between a wide range of emotions. She conveys her love, joy, frustrations and feelings of devastation incredibly well, and is very believable in her part. It’s at the very least one of her all-time best performances. Equally great is the other main character as played by newcomer Milena Smit, who impresses alongside Cruz. She portrays the comparatively more reserved and insecure parallel mother in a terrific way. It’s a great and mature performance which also deserves a lot of praise. The dynamic between Cruz and Smith is great, the two characters are polar opposites to each other, but the bond shared between the two is heartfelt and we really feel the connection. It’s helped by the realistic chemistry between the two actresses, every moment of them on screen felt believable. The other actors of the cast like Israel Elajalde and Aitana Sánchez-Gijón also play their parts well. Pedro Almodóvar directs this movie exceptionally, with this and Pain and Glory, I really want to watch through his filmography. Visually, the film is very well captured, framed and filmed, with a great use of colour, particularly with the set design and costumes. Alberto Iglesias’s score is also great, setting the right tones and moods, and is a constant presence throughout the film. Parallel Mothers is an engaging, emotionally charged and layered drama that’s excellently written and directed, and has some fantastic performances, especially from Penelope Cruz and Milena Smit. It is one of my favourite movies of 2021, and it is well worth checking out. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2022/02/14/parallel-mothers-2021-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Feb 15, 2022 18:20:56 GMT
My review of The Worst Person in the World I heard some great things about The Worst Person in the World. Along with having a very memorable title, it had been receiving acclaim, even receiving an award for Best Actress at the Cannes Film Festival. I really didn’t know what to expect going into it, but having seen it, I think that it really deserves all of the acclaim. The screenplay is heavy hitting, poignant and handled with such care. This character study is structured into 12 chapters, along with a prologue and epilogue. It is almost structured like a book, which I thought was effective especially as it covers a period of the main character’s life. It is effectively a romantic comedy, it is genuinely funny and entertaining to watch, and is also powerful with some emotionally cathartic scenes. At the same time, it does well at subverting the well-known romcom tropes and feels very fresh. This movie is also a coming-of-age film for adults, and it is authentic, empathetic and human with its writing. It’s a thought-provoking movie about self discovery and struggling to figure out what you desire in life. It is deeply touching and has such a depth to it that I wasn’t expecting. Sometimes the writing can be messy especially with the pacing, some of it can be inconsistent between chapters, but in a way, that reflects its lead character’s complicated headspace so it works. As we go through chapters of the protagonist’s life, I found myself engaged with what was happening, I was invested in her journey and seeing where it was going. There are some incredible and naturalistic performances as the characters, everyone is great. First of all is Renate Reinsve who is phenomenal in the lead role of Julie. She is a tricky character to play, someone who frustrates yet radiates empathy, and she handles this very well. She’s someone who is always unfulfilled with her decisions in life, and Renata effectively conveys the subtlety and hidden layers of the character in a very nuanced way. We’ve seen many of these types of (for lack of a better word) self-destructive characters, but here it feels raw, genuine. It’s an incredible performance and she definitely deserved that Cannes award she received. Anders Danielsen Lie is sensational and riveting, and his last scenes are particularly hard hitting. Herbert Nordru is also great, so is the rest of the cast. Joaquim Trier’s direction is practically flawless here. The cinematography is crisp and stunning, it looks amazing from beginning to end. There are also some very standout sequences which are creative. One is a hallucination scene, the other (without spoiling things) begins with the flipping of a light switch, and has to be one of the all time best scenes from 2021. The Worst Person in the World is one of the best romantic comedies in recent years, and one of my favourite movies of 2021. It is a melancholic, funny, emotional and thought provoking romantic dramedy, directed and written incredibly and with phenomenal performances. Check it out when you can. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2022/02/16/the-worst-person-in-the-world-2021-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Feb 17, 2022 18:22:34 GMT
My review of CODA Going into CODA, I only knew a few things about it. I just knew that it was a movie about a deaf family, it was from Apple, and it was a notable awards contender. I went in only knowing those things and it turned out to be much better than I was even expecting. It is certainly a familiar kind of story that we’ve seen many times before, but it is handled in a very heartfelt and nuanced way, and overall I think it works very well for what it is. CODA is certainly a simplistic movie with a straightforward narrative and structure. The story beats are somewhat predictable and its pretty easy to see where the plot is headed. It is a coming-of-age story, and as such it falls into certain cliches and has its fair share of predictable and cheesy dialogue and moments. I’m not someone who’s typically into coming-of-age stories and usually can’t connect with them, however it should say something that CODA is one of those select coming of age movies that I actually emotionally engaged with. It’s a very charming and heartfelt movie, and it hits the emotional beats in satisfying ways. There are some very touching scenes, particularly in the final act, and none of the familiarity of the scenes took away from the movie at all. An aspect that added a lot was the fact that it was about deaf people, which of course we don’t see in most movies, and the dynamic between the family really added a lot. The comedy also makes it even more enjoyable to watch, it’s a surprisingly funny movie. Essentially, CODA is a crowdpleaser movie, and it certainly succeeds as that. There is a great ensemble of performances here, the cast brought together such raw emotion to their characters. First of all, there’s Emilia Jones as the lead character Ruby, and she gives a great and nuanced performance. She pulls off everything that’s required of her, and she’s very convincing as someone who is torn between loyalty to her family and wanting to pursue her newfound passion of singing. Marlee Matlin, Troy Kostur and Daniel Durant are fantastic in their respective roles as members of Ruby’s family. Each actor was emotionally strong and represented their character very well. The family dynamic is what makes the movie works as well as it does, and their chemistry is pure, wholesome and believable. The rest of the cast are good, including Ferdia Walsh-Peelo and Eugenio Derbez. The film is directed quite well by Sian Heder, its well shot and put together. The directorial choices that place the audience in the family’s positions were very effective, mainly the use of muted sounds. I also liked the musical performances that were in the movie. CODA is definitely deserving of the high praise that it has been receiving. Despite the familiar coming of age story and cliches, it genuinely connects with its touching story, and the performances from the whole cast are fantastic. Definitely check it out when you can. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2022/02/18/coda-2021-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Feb 19, 2022 22:04:56 GMT
My review of Tick, Tick, Boom! I wasn’t sure about how to feel about Tick, Tick… Boom! going into it because musical theatre isn’t really my thing. I’m also not familiar with the musical its based on, nor Jonathan Larson, nor Rent. However it starred Andrew Garfield in the lead role and it was receiving awards attention, so I was willing to give it a go. I’m glad to say that I’m one of the people who liked the movie despite its issues. Tick, Tick…Boom! Is based off Jonathan Larson’s semi autobiographical musical, which is partially based off his own life. The story from its premise is quite accessible, focussing on someone who is a struggling creator, very familiar premise and setup and one that plenty of people can identify with. It is a lively, fun and emotionally bittersweet ride throughout. Even if his direction is a little rough around the edges, director Lin-Manuel Miranda’s passion for Jonathan Larson and the story shines through clearly, and the heart, passion and admiration is felt throughout. There are issues though. There is certainly some cheesy writing, and the pacing has problems especially in the second act, with some moments that can really drag. There is also one thing that made the movie worse the more I thought about it. I like character studies about what it takes to make it big, but there’s some mixed messaging regarding Jonathan’s actions and who he was. Larson in this musical seems to alienate people around him in his pursuit for greatness, and so it became very difficult to be sympathetic with his plight, not helped by his friends going through comparatively harder struggles. Its not enough to bring down the movie but it is something that you do notice when watching. If you need one reason to watch the movie, its Andrew Garfield, delivering one of his best performances, and he is very much the best part of the movie. So much of the movie relies on the lead performance, and he more than delivers. Garfield’s work feels very much alive, he is full of energy, charisma, life, and sadness, and he can really sing too. For all the issues that the writing has particularly with his character, Garfield sort of makes it work. The film belongs to him, but the other actors are good too, including Alexandra Shipp, Vanessa Hudgens, and especially Robin de Jesus. This is director Lin-Manuel Miranda’s first film as a director, and as a film its quite rough around the edges. There wasn’t anything that special and it’s a little too safe, but as a debut, it was okay. Not all the choices work, but some of them really, such as the sound of ticking throughout. Some of the musical sequences were really well shot, there’s a number of flashy and fun musical moments. I did enjoy the songs and they are presented well for the most part, but I did find them somewhat forgettable, although that might just be me. The editing can be a little jarring, mostly because it is very inconsistent throughout. With that said, the non-linear storytelling and narration worked quite well for me. Tick, Tick, Boom has its fair share of issues, mainly with the writing and directing. However I liked watching it, and the performances are great, particularly Andrew Garfield in the lead role. I do think its worth watching at the very least for Garfield here. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2022/02/20/tick-tick-boom-2021-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Feb 21, 2022 18:18:27 GMT
My review of The Eyes of Tammy Faye I heard about The Eyes of Tammy Faye for quite a while, it’s a biopic starring Jessica Chastain and Andrew Garfield that had some awards hype. When it received Oscar nominations including Chastain for Best Actress, I thought I’d check it out. I wasn’t expecting much from it honestly, I don’t know much (if anything) about Tammy Faye, but it looked like a typical awards bait biopic. In a way it was another standard biopic with the acting being the strongest part of it, however it was considerably better than expected. I should mention again that I didn’t know anything about Tammy Faye Bakker before going into this movie, so my knowledge of her only comes from the film. Most people who’ve seen the movie seem to say that the writing is average and the performances are really what make the movie worth watching, which I completely understand. But for what it’s worth, I thought the story was interesting and entertaining enough, even if it’s not good enough to elevate the whole film to being good on the whole. I found the subjects so different and interesting for a biopic, and the ridiculousness of the Bakkers as played by Chastain and Garfield made the comedy jump out. They made it mildly fun to watch and went some way to make me actually pay attention to what was happening. Unfortunately, it still played the drama too straight and serious considering how ridiculous its subjects are. The Eyes of Tammy Faye really could’ve benefitted from leaning into the absurdity and potentially into satire territory, even to at least I, Tonya levels. However, it really jumps between absurdity and being serious, resulting in a disjointed experience. Despite some entertaining aspects, the film is still on the whole a by the numbers and standard biopic. It falls into the many shortcomings that you’d expect from most biopics, with another repackaged rise and fall story with marital strife and drug addiction which we’ve seen many times before. It also has one of the worst (and unfortunately common) biopic failings with it once again feeling like a Wikipedia article skim being processed and generated into a 2 hour long movie, breezing through significant topics and moments with montages and brief scenes, but not capturing everything in a satisfying way. Even as someone who didn’t really know anything about Tammy Faye beforehand, I still felt like the movie didn’t do enough to explore her. That’s a shame because it seemed like there was a lot of interesting material with potential. The film just jumps so fast through Tammy’s life, it might’ve better served as a limited series if the filmmakers were that determined to capture her whole life instead of just a section of it. The acting is the strongest part of the movie, especially from the hammy yet great performances from Jessica Chastain and Andrew Garfield as Tammy Faye Bakker and Jim Bakker respectively. Chastain delivers one of her best works here. She is definitely very over the top but doesn’t let the performance fall into a caricature or make a mockery of Tammy. It is an empathetic, lived in and committed performance that makes Tammy feel like a person. Andrew Garfield is also really good in an integral part of the story, and shares convincing chemistry with Chastain. However Chastain’s Tammy Faye is definitely the focus in this movie. The supporting cast is also good, especially Vincent D’Onofrio and Cherry Jones in their roles. The direction from Michael Showalter is pretty good. The cinematography is nice and framed well, the costumes and hair are on point and capture the time period well. Most of the makeup work is great, especially for the work on Jessica Chastain to make her look closer to the real-life Tammy Faye. Despite its strengths and entertaining aspects, The Eyes of Tammy Faye is yet another passable but typical biopic with many of the familiar shortcomings. However, it is generally written and directed well enough, and I can’t deny that I was glad to have watched it even putting the acting aside. So while it really could’ve been much better, I think it is well worth checking out, mainly for the performances, especially from Jessica Chastain. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2022/02/22/the-eyes-of-tammy-faye-2021-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Feb 23, 2022 18:23:25 GMT
My review of Being the Ricardos Being the Ricardos was a upcoming major awards contender that I had been hearing about for a while. I will admit though that despite not knowing much about it outside of some of the people involved, I was a little sceptical going in. First of all, it was a biopic movie focussing on notable film/tv people, and the movie looked like prime Oscar bait. Also the movie is written and directed by Aaron Sorkin, whose work could be a mixed bag at times, especially when it comes to whatever he directs. Still, it received Oscar nominations for the performances from Nicole Kidman, Javier Bardem and J.K. Simmons, so I thought I should check it out, and went into it open minded. Unfortunately, I just don’t think that the movie was particularly good. I should state first of all that I am not familiar with Lucille Ball, Desi Arnaz or the show I Love Lucy, and went into this movie quite blind. However, even as someone who didn’t know of the subjects beforehand, I just didn’t find the film all that interesting, and I found it fairly dull. If the story of Lucille and Desi in real life was interesting, it certainly didn’t survive being compressed and repackaged into the biopic formula. The story of the movie follows Lucille and Desi over one stressful week, it seems simple enough but somehow the storytelling is very flawed here. The story as it was told just felt so disjointed, while the series of events play out over this particular week, it jumps across multiple points in time with an overreliance on flashbacks and flashforwards which muddles everything. To give context to all these events messily crammed into this movie, characters spent a lot of time stating facts about each other or clunkily discussing historical and cultural elements. For whatever reason, there is this present-day faux documentary framing device running throughout the movie where older versions of the three lead show writers for I Love Lucy are being interviewed. Every so often, the movie would just cut to these talking head mouthpieces, and every time this happened, it would be so disruptive and annoying. The dialogue was already on the nose and obvious, but the fact that they practically spoonfeed us the story by flat out telling us what is happening, it almost feels patronising. Count the number of times you hear “what you’ve got to understand is…” from one character alone. Even as someone who aren’t familiar with the true life events, there’s some handling of the history that felt very off. The prime example is this inconsequential aspect where Lucille Ball is rumoured to be a communist. Even within the plot of the movie, it plays a very small part, but from the very beginning of the film it is fixated and focused on so much, to a quite frankly weird degree. You really get the feeling that this is getting into the writer’s own politics over the actual true events. The way that subplot is resolved towards the end in a scene with Javier Bardem on a phone call in front of an audience is hilariously absurd and ludicrous. I didn’t really learn anything from this storyline, the only thing that I can say coming out of it is that I’m confident that Aaron Sorkin would’ve been a supporter of the Hollywood Blacklist. Speaking of Sorkin, you can definitely feel that it’s a movie from him, and I mean that in a bad way. You really do feel like he’s really going for an Oscar here, and it somehow makes the movie even worse. His scripts always seem to have this self-perception of cleverness but it is especially grating here, the faux documentary framing device being an example of one of his decisions that make it harder to watch. Even when you put all of that aside, I just found myself so unengaged by the film as it progresses through the events. I couldn’t be emotionally engaged with the characters, and there was nothing keeping me invested in the story. There was just something dispassionate and underwhelming about the whole experience. I would love to say that the acting elevates the movie. While it’s the best part of the movie, its not enough to save the movie. The acting is mostly decent, but much of the cast feel like they are playing caricatures rather than real people. Nicole Kidman is pretty good as Lucille Ball, even if it definitely doesn’t rank amongst her best performances. I will say that annoyingly with the writing she’s given, Lucille does feel like another ‘Sorkin protagonist’, much like how Sorkin wrote Steve Jobs and Abbie Hoffman. To Kidman’s credit though, she comes across as being a fully formed human, especially in contrast to the other actors. It’s just that there weren’t any times throughout the film where I felt that it was anything beyond a decent performance. Javier Bardem is the co-lead in this as Desi Arnaz. He’s fine enough, but like Kidman, its definitely not one of his best performances. Questionable casting choice aside, he is a bit of a caricature and is very hammy. Definitely not bland or boring, but nothing great. The chemistry between Kidman and Bardem just wasn’t there, which is a big mark against it considering that the relationship between the two people was a key part of the movie. J.K. Simmons and Nina Arianda are serviceable in their supporting roles, but don’t get much to do with the writing that they are given. Being the Ricardos is directed by Aaron Sorkin, and this film is further proof that Sorkin is at his best when his scripts are directed by anyone else. While the direction is competent, its done so blandly and lacks any kind of personality, especially on a visual level. Even his last two movies had more to them. The costumes, hair, makeup, presentation is nothing special, everything feels like they’re on autopilot. I’m sure that the actual story of these people is quite interesting. However, what is presented here is a functional but uninteresting, bland and occasionally grating to watch biopic that fails to engage, from the writing through to the direction. Even the performances aren’t good enough to elevate the movie beyond an average biopic. I’d only recommend this movie to people who want to catch up on the Oscar nominations from this most recent awards season. For what it’s worth, Being the Ricardos was by far the worst movie of this year’s Oscar season that I’ve seen. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2022/02/24/being-the-ricardos-2021-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Feb 25, 2022 20:50:10 GMT
My review of No Sudden Move I was interested in No Sudden Move for the talent involved alone. This is Steven Sodebergh’s latest movie, I like the movies from him that I’ve seen, and this would be another crime movie from him. Not only that but it has a fully stacked cast including Don Cheadle and Benicio Del Toro, so I definitely wanted to check out. I was expecting an entertaining watch, and it turned out even better than I was expecting. No Sudden Move has a tightly written and solid script, making for a really good crime thriller. It is tense, smart, intriguing and filled with twists and turns, which you would expect from a Steven Soderbergh movie. Not only that but it also manages to balance the humour and playfulness with the engaging intensity and grittiness of the story and setting, and I was enthralled the entire way through. The dialogue is particularly strong, it is witty which you would expect from a Soderbergh movie, but its also very reminiscent of a classic noir film in the way everything is written. There’s even some social commentary on display, mainly towards corporate greed, classism and particularly with a lot of cynicism towards automobile industry corruption. That really only comes out strongly towards the end of the movie, but even without it, No Sudden Move works as a twisty crime thriller. It’s not exactly tightly paced but it moves well over its 2 hour runtime. There is a large ensemble cast and everyone brought their A-game to their performances. Don Cheadle and Benicio Del Toro are in the lead roles, and they are great in their parts. David Harbour gives one of his best performances in his supporting role, and Brendan Fraser makes a strong impression in his screentime. Other supporting actors like Kieran Culkin, Jon Hamm, Ray Liotta and more all work in their parts. There’s even a surprise major actor who appears in a key role near the end, who actually works very well for his part. There is some very solid filmmaking from Steven Soderbergh here. This is easily one of his best shot films with its eye catching cinematography, and the lenses give it the 50s noir aesthetic with the right amount of grain, setting the period correctly. It is a very stylish movie that’s really nice to look at. The score from David Holmes is nice too, adding a lot to the mood and feeling of the movie, especially with the era it is set in. No Sudden Move is a consistently entertaining, smart and stylish crime thriller, well written and directed, and with some great performances from the amazing cast. One of Steven Soderbergh’s best films, especially in recent years. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2022/02/26/no-sudden-move-2021-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Feb 27, 2022 18:19:08 GMT
My review C'mon C'mon C’mon C’mon was one of the remaining 2021 movies I was looking to catch up on. I haven’t seen many films from director Mike Mills, but the one movie I did watch, 20th Century Women, was great. I also knew that Joaquin Phoenix was in it, fresh off his Oscar winning performance in Joker, and it was shot in black and white. I went in fairly blind outside of hearing that it was something of a dramedy, and came out of it thinking that it was really good. C’mon C’mon is a feel good dramedy and very much a slice of life movie. The plot is not driven by anything, although the focus is on an uncle, Johnny, and his nephew, Jesse, played respectively by Joaquin Phoenix and Woody Norman. I can tell this is a movie that won’t be for everyone. Not that it’s incredibly artsy or anything, but it is probably one of the most understated movies from the past year. It really could have ended up as just a sweet yet formulaic story focussing on a family centric affair. However it is also one of the most genuine and honest movies I’ve seen in a while, and it hits hard on an emotional level. The screenplay is poetic and asks probing and life affirming questions, while being incredibly compassionate and tender. It is a heartfelt story about growing up, parenthood, and how it’s okay to admit that you’re not okay. It helps how naturalistic the movie feels, especially with the authentic dialogue. Something noteworthy it takes children seriously, even beyond Jesse. A big part of the movie is that it has Johnny and his crew interviewing kids for a documentary, the kids being interviewed are giving unscripted answers to these questions. I found these scenes and their inclusions to be quite effective, and really provides more perspective on life. The central relationship between the main two characters is the main focus of the movie and is well handled. Along with learning through the children he interviews, Johnny learns just as much from Jesse as Jesse does from him. In terms of problems, there is some minor issues with pacing in the third act but that’s about it. A big part of why the movie works as well as it did were the strong and believable performances. First of all is Joaquin Phoenix who gives one of his best performances here. Phoenix is usually known for his darker or unhinged roles like in Joker or The Master. However, in this movie he gives one of his warmer and lighter performances. He portrays his character in such a subtle yet genuine and believable way. His scenes with Woody Norman are fantastic, but the scenes where he interviews children about the future are just as good. Equally good as Phoenix is Woody Norman as his nephew, who was incredibly believable and nuanced, and one of the best child performances I’ve in recent memory. He really does hold his own against Phoenix and the pairing of the two are great, with their chemistry natural and believable. The other performances were good and fitted in well, especially Gaby Hoffman as Phoenix’s sister and Norman’s mother. I haven’t seen many of Mike Mills’s films outside of 20th Century Women, however with that and C’mon C’mon I can say that he is a good director. The first thing you’ll notice with this movie is the black and white cinematography, which is stunning to look at. The black and white aesthetic never feels like a gimmick, it actually looks good, and it meshes well with how simple and old fashioned of a story this is. Everything is framed nicely, and I really liked the way that cityscapes were captured. I also loved how it felt weightless with the use of the camerawork. Another thing that worked well was the ethereal score from Aaron and Bryce Dessner, perfectly setting the mood and tone and drawing you into its vibe. C’mon C’mon is a heartfelt, poignant and feel-good dramedy, beautifully shot and directed and has fantastic performances, especially from Joaquin Phoenix and Woody Norman. It has been overlooked generally especially from awards season, but I recommend giving it a watch when you can, it’s one of the highlights of 2021. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2022/02/28/cmon-cmon-2021-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Mar 3, 2022 18:24:35 GMT
My review of Death on the Nile (2022) I will admit myself as someone who liked Kenneth Branagh’s take on Murder on the Orient Express, even if it had its issues. So I was on board for Branagh’s next adaptation of a Hercule Poirot story with Death on the Nile. I didn’t really know what to expect going in, I just knew of the cast and premise. However it just kept being delayed for a number of years, and I began to lose interest. It finally released and again it opened to mixed reactions and again I enjoyed it, even with its issues. Death on the Nile isn’t a great detective mystery film, but its pretty good for what it was. For me, the clearest issue was that the death at the centre of the mystery doesn’t happen till the halfway point, whereas in Murder on the Orient Express it happened by the end of the first act. While Death on the Nile gives us a considerable amount of time with the characters before the murder happens especially in contrast to the last movie, it’s a bit too much. There’s a long boat ride before it reaches that one death, and I couldn’t help but feel rather bored. When that death does finally happen, that’s where Death on the Nile really picks up as our lead detective tries to unravel the mystery. I was locked in and interested to see the twists and turns. However, I will say that the climax did feel a bit rushed. Also as someone who hadn’t read the book, with the way its presented in the movie, the twist was very easy to predict. One thing you’ll probably notice when watching the movie is that it might be taking itself a little too seriously. The previous movie also took itself seriously but there was lot more fun to be had with it. Here, it’s pretty dark from beginning to end and I’m not sure it always works, even if there’s little bits of humour. Even the ending was a bit of a downer. There are certainly some strange choices but I kind of admire them in a way. For example, there is an actual origin story for Poirot’s moustache in the prologue that’s played deadly seriously and honestly that could be a litmus test for whether the movie works for you or not. Also, like Orient Express (2017), there’s definitely a lot of cheesy, campy and over the top elements but I enjoyed those, if anything I wished it leaned into those elements more here. On the whole the cast is pretty good, even if they aren’t as strong as the cast from Murder on the Orient Express. Kenneth Branagh reprises his role as detective Hercule Poirot to perfection, and has great chemistry with the whole cast. Again, he plays the character in a humorous and entertaining way but we also get to see more of his dramatic side here, and Branagh plays it well. The cast of murder suspects are fairly generic here, but the acting was pretty good for the most part. Tom Bateman’s Bouc is the only cast member from the last movie to return outside of Branagh, and he gets even more to do more here. A lot of the cast members were good, with the highlights being Annette Bening, Emma Mackey and Sophie Okonedo. Gal Gadot and Armie Hammer were the worst performers, but they weren’t enough to take me out of the movie entirely. I liked Kenneth Branagh’s direction of the previous Poirot movie and the same is true with Nile. The cinematography is dazzling and impressive, every shot is colourful and pristine, especially with the scenes on the Nile and on real location. However the CGI is very noticeable and distracting at times, and there is a lot of CGI. Patrick Doyle also returns to do the score and it is good, matching the vibe and setting of the movie quite well. As someone who liked Kenneth Branagh’s Murder on the Orient Express, I enjoyed his Death on the Nile almost as much. It has a decent cast with an intriguing murder mystery, and a very flashy style that I enjoyed, even if you wouldn’t put it among the best films in its genre. Overall it’s a solid if slightly unremarkable bit of detective fiction. However, I will say that the hour long build up to the central murder really let the movie down quite a bit, but I still enjoyed it for what it was. If you liked Branagh’s last Poirot movie, then I recommend giving his adaptation of Death on the Nile a look. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2022/03/04/death-on-the-nile-2022-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Mar 5, 2022 21:15:56 GMT
My review of West Side Story (2021) I’m not familiar with West Side Story, the musical. Nor have I watched the 1960s adaptation from director Robert Wise. So I wasn’t exactly interested in the latest West Side Story adaptation. What did have my attention however was that the fact that this most recent adaptation would be directed by Steven Spielberg, in fact it’ll surprisingly be the first musical directed by Spielberg. I’m not sure that I would put Spielberg as one of my favourite directors of all time but there’s not denying how impactful and influential of a director he is. So I was curious to see how it would be. I have to admit, his West Side Story turned out to be a lot better than expected, it was actually amazing. As someone who wasn’t familiar with the musical beforehand, I quite liked the movie. It was over the top, theatrical and cheesy at times, yet endearing, entertaining and emotional at points. I was quite interested with the story and the characters and how it played out (for the most part), and it helps that in each scene it felt that there was so much care put into it. I almost feel like it’s hard to critique the writing of the film here because it’ll probably be closely based off the source material, yet I’m unfamiliar with said source material so I can’t judge it as an adaptation either. As far as flaws with the writing go, I will say that I wasn’t invested in the love story at the centre with the main two characters (as played by Ansel Elgort and Rachel Zegler). Any story which has two characters instantly fall in love at first sight is immediately going to turn me off (large reason for why I just don’t care for Romeo and Juliet), and I don’t particularly like the way it plays out here either. However, I do feel like this’ll be a problem I’ll have with every variation with the story, and not necessarily an issue with how Spielberg presented it. West Side Story is a very long movie at 2 hours and 40 minutes, and despite that length it had me invested and entertained from beginning to end. A notable strength of the film was the powerhouse performances from most of the cast. One of the main leads is newcomer Rachel Zegler as Maria and she’s really good, effectively portraying her character’s innocence and vulnerability, and her singing is particularly great. Other actors like Mike Faist, David Alvarez and Rita Moreno are also fantastic in their parts and sell their characters exceptionally. Even the more background characters make strong impressions in their screentime. The most memorable character and performance for me was Ariana DeBose as Anita, she felt very real and was amazing. There’s just one outlier in the otherwise strong cast in the form of one Ansel Elgort, the other co-lead as Tony. I wouldn’t quite say that he’s terrible, but he’s mostly just passable, and his performance could most charitably be called a charisma vacuum. Compared to all the other characters in the story, Tony is relatively boring, but its really not helped by the fairly bland portrayal here. I wasn’t invested in their romance at all but this really isn’t helped by the scenes between him and Zegler lacking the chemistry and believability needed. In fact, the way that Elgort plays those scenes gives his character a weird and creepy undertone at times that wasn’t intentional. Otherwise, the rest of the cast are fantastic. Steven Spielberg is a more than accomplished director, and even though most of his recent movies have been just okay to me, his technical work is always strong. However, this genuinely might be one of his best directing works. His direction of West Side Story is constantly fluent and fluid, and there’s a lot of energy throughout. The sweeping cinematography and camerawork from Janusz Kamiski is just perfect. From beginning to end, every shot is composed perfectly and so much thought was clearly put into every frame, from the lighting to the colour. The song and dance sequences are fantastic; the dance scenes are next level with outstanding choreography, and the scenes with singing are beautiful to watch too even if some are more memorable than others. Other details like the costume designs are strong too. However, I think it’s the production designs and environments that really sell the setting of the film, everything from the barriers, ladders, stairs, flags and destroyed building really works in making it all feel believable. West Side Story is a vibrant, entertaining and excellently made musical, with greatly directed song and dance sequences, and a mostly fantastic cast of performances. This really is Steven Spielberg’s best film since Munich, and it is possibly among his best movies. I highly recommend checking it out, it’s among the best films of 2021. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2022/03/06/west-side-story-2021-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Mar 9, 2022 18:25:11 GMT
My review of The Batman The Batman has been one of my most anticipated movies ever since it was announced. I’m always interested in Batman movies, and I was particularly invested in this latest film’s development. It already had my attention with Matt Reeves directing, his work on the Planet of the Apes films showed him to be an amazing director, and that had me greatly confident in him taking on the Batman character. Then it had a fantastic cast including Jeffrey Wright and Paul Dano, but most of all it had Robert Pattinson, who’s next to helm the role of the iconic Batman character. The Batman was amazing and did not disappoint. The Batman is first and foremost a detective movie, taking inspiration from noirs and murder mysteries like Se7en. We’ve seen Batman doing detective work such as in The Dark Knight, but nothing quite like this. It is so committed to being a noir detective story, Batman looks through diaries, and files, searches evidence and decrypts riddles, and not just in a one off montage scene where he figures everything out instantly. There’s even narration from Batman throughout, it throws you into the noir ambience and makes it feel like a graphic novel brought to the big screen. On top of that, the detective work keeps you genuinely engaged. It is definitely a dark story, it constantly feels bleak and grungy, with scenes reminiscent of Zodiac, Se7en, and even Saw. At the same time, it is hopefully and inspirational by the end, and I love the journey that Batman goes on. Also, despite the darkness and grimness, there’s an element of embracing the goofiness that you just don’t see in most comic book movies (at least without the self-awareness and snark). There’s also a decent amount of comedy, whether that be Batman and Gordon’s interplay, some of Penguin’s lines, or the dark comedy of the Riddler. The script does an excellent job at balancing all these characters and plays its story at a steady pace, taking its time. It also helps that it feels self-contained and more concerned about being a movie over being an entry in a franchise. The first two acts are very much a detective story, but the third act does feel different as it gets larger scale and with much more action, but I still really enjoyed it, on top of being a satisfying conclusion to the story of Batman in the film. It is a very long movie at 3 hours, it potentially could’ve been trimmed, but if I had the choice to do so, I wouldn’t cut anything out. In terms of issues, there is a moment towards the end of the movie which did feel a little out of place compared to the rest of the movie, however I didn’t dislike it. The cast are great all round and fit their parts well. First and foremost is Robert Pattinson who plays Bruce Wayne/Batman. There was a split reaction to the casting, but as someone who’s seen some of his post Twilight movies like Good Time and The Lighthouse, I was greatly looking forward to his portrayal of the iconic character, and he did not disappoint. Pattinson here portrays a younger Batman, 2 years into his vigilante career. This is a Bruce Wayne who can’t balance Batman and Bruce, instead living as Batman most of the time and is otherwise is a recluse as Bruce. Many Batman live action stories have the whole “Batman is his true face” aspect but Pattinson’s leans into that the most. As a result, this is the most amount of time you’ll see Batman (not Bruce Wayne) on screen in a Batman movie. You could say that it is a minimalistic performance, but it is fitting for this version of the character, and Pattinson still conveys a lot, whether he’s playing Batman or Bruce. Pattinson accurately portrayed so much of the character, the torment and trauma of Wayne, as well as the physical presence and detective skills of Batman. I particularly loved Batman’s journey here and the arc he goes on, and Pattinson’s performance conveys that wonderfully. The rest of the cast are great too. Zoe Kravitz plays Selina Kyle/Catwoman and so far, she might be my favourite version of the character. It helps that this is the best written Selina Kyle yet and given layers and depth, and Kravitz also shares really good chemistry with Pattinson. Jeffrey Wright plays James Gordon, and is a very strong contender for the definitive version of the character. We’ve seen Gordon and Batman team up in the movies, but they have a full on buddy cop team up here, and I loved the dynamic that he and Batman have. Andy Serkis plays Alfred Pennyworth, he’s only in select scenes but makes memorable impressions in each of his scenes with Pattinson. I will say though that he doesn’t quite get enough screentime, and I would’ve liked to have seen more of him. I thought that the villains overall were effective. John Turturro was great as crime boss Carmine Falcone, quietly menacing in a rare villain role for him. Colin Farrell is an absolute scene stealer as The Penguin. He is unrecognisable both with the physical prosthetics put on him and his performance. He is entertaining and funny, and very reminiscent of a Italian gangster cartoon, while not becoming too silly. However, the main villain of the movie is Paul Dano as The Riddler. This is definitely one of the darker and more unsettling adaptations of the character, less the goofy Jim Carrey Riddler and is more of a serial killer here, even his costume is reminiscent of the Zodiac killer’s appearance. Dano gives one of the best comic book movie villain performances. He is genuinely scary, unstable and captivating, even when we don’t really get to see his face all that often. While the Riddler has often been considered a bit of a joke, I think this version will bring more respect to the character. I had confidence in director Matt Reeves and once again he has handled a blockbuster like this amazingly. Outside of occasional moments of using blur a bit too much, the cinematography from Greig Frasier is stunning, even giving it a comic booky look at times. The movie leans into the noir aspect, especially with the rain and darkness and I love that vibe. I really liked the representation of Gotham, especially with the production design and sets, helping to make the setting feel incredibly lived in. The Batman isn’t as focused on the action scenes compared to the other Batman movies but the action scenes are entertaining and well filmed, from the fight scenes to the car chases. There’s even some good horror elements with chilling imagery, especially with the Riddler, even some of his elaborate traps were very Saw-like. Another strong aspect is the phenomenal score by Michael Giacchino which is possibly his best work yet. It has a presence throughout and ranges from being dark and moody to uplifting and hopeful. It could very much be the definitive Batman theme, which is saying a lot. The Batman was phenomenal and incredibly satisfying. There’s a lot to take in from the 3 hours that I watched, but I loved it all. The whole cast were perfect in their roles, the direction from Matt Reeves is strong with a clear vision, and the overall it was an intriguing detective noire and a compelling Batman story. As someone who just about likes every version of Batman in film that I’ve seen, from Tim Burton’s films from the 80s to Zack Snyder’s from the past decade, I think this just be my overall favourite. It is a strong contender for the definitive Batman movie and the definitive Batman portrayal in Robert Pattinson. thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2022/03/10/the-batman-2022-review/ |
|
