Change Your Image
paulmcuomo
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Aftersun (2022)
Very touching, moving, but also heartbreaking portrayal of a holiday memory
Aftersun, as the theatrical debut of Charlotte Wells, is a fairly simple story but with a unique spin on things that make a rewatch or reanalysis both necessary but also tricky, as it involves you potentially going down a road that's hard to come out of.
The film stars Normal People's Paul Mescal as Calum Paterson, a Scottish man on holiday with his 11 year old daughter Sophie on the eve of his 31st birthday. Throughout the journey of Sophie enjoying being a young girl on holiday, interacting with other kids there and discovering herself, she doesn't see the very real struggles that Calum is experiencing outside.
Throughout the movie, an adult Sophie is shown watching the holiday back on Video, and we also see interspersed rave sequences where the adult Sophie is trying to reach Calum without success.
The movie is, first of all, very well scored, acted, and shot. The aforementioned rave scenes are intentionally jarring and do serve a good juxtaposition to the open and breezy, yet grainy shots of the resort. You even get underwater shots that are filmed without any issues, which is impressive considering the film's budget.
The two main leads of Mescal and newcomer Frankie Corio have an excellent chemistry together and do feel very interactive with each other, like they are actually father and daughter. Paul Mescal especially deserves props for turning his Irish accent into a convincing Scottish one, and he portrays Calum is such a fine way to where he is the loving and caring father but is also deeply depressed behind the scenes. This does come through in ways that wouldn't be immediately noticeable, which are on rewatch; he has mood swings, he is struggling financially, he engages in smoking and other drugs despite warning Sophie away from the dangers of both. And Frankie Corio is a very great child actress that has a great spark, warmth and carries the film very much.
Plotwise, the movie is sparse, admittedly. However, if the plot was bigger and busier then all the little character details would've been lost. All of which culminates in what people are calling "The Under Pressure Scene". This scene made me cry like never before: it is the culmination of the film's pace, plot, theme and the central struggle of trying to remember what you've now lost. The score by Oliver Coates also bleeds in brilliantly, and the lyrics just speak to the moment.
Aftersun is a perfect experience of a film. There's a lot to pay attention to, and there are bits you may miss on first watch. But give it a chance as it is a fantastically heartbreaking film.
Beau Is Afraid (2023)
Anxiety: The Movie, created by someone with ADHD...if that makes sense
Right, before I start my review, I want to say that I've watched all 3 of Ari Aster's feature films now. I have seen Hereditary, which I enjoyed despite some slight missteps that I thought stopped it from being a perfect sit but was still solid. I saw Midsommar which was also a good sit and in which Ari seemed to learn from a lot. And now I have seen this movie, Beau Is Afraid.
Now, I appreciate that Aster has attempted something very ambitious with this film. Wikipedia describes it as a "surrealist tragicomedy horror", which I think does accurately summarise it, but given that Ari Aster has now done two movies before this, he's had time to hone his craft, work with extremely accomplished actors in his previous films, such as Toni Collete, Gabriel Byrne, Florence Pugh and now Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Ryan and more in this film, so he could do it. Spoilers, he couldn't.
The plot of the movie is about a man called Beau Wasserman, anxiety ridden man who is making a trip up to see his mother. After finding out subsequently that she was killed in an accident, he must now make his way over to the funeral, on the way encountering a serial killer, a theatre troup, an overly friendly couple Roger and Grace, played by Nathan Lane and Amy Ryan, a double crossing therapist played by Stephen McKinley Henderson, PTSD ridden soldiers and the homeless occupants of his crime ridden city.
There are very quickly two things I want to compliment on this film before I start complaining. The first is the opening pre-credit scene. It is truly uncomfortable, and pictures Beau's birth, and it is very well shot, well scored and has an underlying violence about it, then title pops up which is unlike the previous films. The second thing is Joaquin Phoenix once again proves why he's such a great character actor moving to lead actor, even though the character I will get onto, he plays it well and at least can convey things well.
Now, showtime!
Biggest problem with this movie is it is TOO DAMN LONG. I mean, after leaving Roger and Grace's house, everything about the movies structure and goals goes completely out the window. There are about 4 distinct points that movie could stop, but it is just keeps on going and it loses more and more ground every time. It's clearly a filmmaker with a ton of ideas - some of them are fantastic, but there's just so many.
Then there's the main character. Unlike Toni Collete's character Annie, or Florence Pugh's Dani, Beau has nothing that can make him work as a lead in this movie. I get that he's scared, but what makes it a problem is Beau shows no capable thought or even a learning reaction to anything that happens in this film. Literally so much of it could be avoided if he'd had an ounce of learning, or even some spine.
Just this movie had too much going on, and I'll be honest, because the pacing is all over the place and it is so absurd you do lose track a bit. The surrealism does also hurt it; there's a scene at the end of the film with Beau arguing with his mother, played by Patti LuPone in probably the movie's best overall performance, but it succeeds such a mental scene that I don't wish to spoil entirely, but so much happens in it that is NUTS and then we go to this grounded in reality family dilemma.
Even the horror elements felt flat, where it doesn't play on anything that would be a prolonged scare for long enough. Even Bobby Krlic, who scored the last two films, felt flat with his music though I give him some sympathy as I can imagine him seeing the film and going "you wan me to put music over this?!?"
This movie reminds a lot of Jacob's Ladder, when I think about it now. It has a lot of the same elements: everyman character, albeit one more assertive and proactive, nightmarish visuals of faceless people, world bending creatures, a family secret that keeps haunting the main character before the realisation of it leads to them accepting fate. Only that film has, like I said a more proactive protagonist and is such much better paced, with a better handle on its ideas.
I know I'm sounding harsh, but it's not because I loathe or detest Ari Aster at all (quite the opposite). I am just deeply, deeply disappointed.
Bones and All (2022)
Want to see a Romance/Horror/Road Movie/Cannibal film? Well, here's one.
Movies such as this are ones that can be placed under the Umbrella term "divisive". And for good reason; if you haven't seen the movie and know going in asides from one incredibly brutal scene at the beginning that's already in the trailers, telling anyone the plot of the film would find it hard to listen in.
So you have a choice: do you dismiss the movie for the subject and the fact we're being presented with a challenging thing, or do you accept or try to accept the movie's quality of the direction, cinematography and performance as things to praise? And there is a lot to praise.
The plot of the movie follows a young girl called Maren Yearly played by Taylor Russell. After being invited to a sleepover and attacking one of the girls there, her and her father Leonard played briefly by Andre Holland run. After her 18th birthday, Leonard abandons Maren as he can no longer control her impulses, leaving her to make her own way in the world; she decides to track down her mother, Janelle, and on the way encounters other "eaters", the creepy Sully played by Mark Rylance, and the young charismatic Lee played by Timothee Chalamet. The latter of these she starts a sweet but co-dependent romance with, and the former will stalk her throughout the story up to the violent end.
First things first, yes the movie refers to cannibals such as Maren, Lee and Sully as "eaters". It does keep the movie in a very weird spot where it's trying to be kind of young adult in the handling of the subject, in a way to stop it boiling over too far. In many ways it helps, but it does make Maren a little bit too innocent. In many ways, Maren is a likeable character who displays a moral code; for example, she was disgusted with bit character Jake when he reveals that he eats people because he likes it, and was distraught when Lee killed and ate a man with a family. In the film you see her trying to be a normal person who just happens to have this insane compulsion, and Russell plays it well.
Timothee Chalamet is the it boy right now for movies and if you're looking for a young, attractive man who can pull off being still very dangerous, Chamalet is the man. Lee really does pull off this part well as he makes this part work and make the romance grow well. His chemistry with Russell is awesome and even if the romance between two cannibals is bad news for society and is, like I said, very co-dependent, they both make it work.
Other actors like Andre Holland and Michael Stuhlburg, playing the aforementioned Jake, make their parts memorable. Chloe Sevigney played Janelle, Maren's mother who is also an eater and the cause of her addiction. Sevigney, who is non verbal in the film and lacking hands, also makes her part viseral and violent, as well as tragic for the self-committed fate of her.
However, the best supporting performance of the film BY FAR is Mark Rylance playing the very predatory eater Sully. Rylance, who traditionally plays very warm, loving and noble characters, plays a character who is very unnerving but also not flat. This is a part that could've been played very joyless and bland, but Rylance gives Sully a lot of tics and mannerisms that make him feel genuine and real. And it's important that's the case, so when he tells Maren "never eat an eater" we believe him, and when he's hurt by Maren running away from him, we also believe it. The character is dangerous as we see him consuming on the body of a woman he was waiting to die naturally, and he also kills a character that was close to Maren and Lee albeit off screen, emphasising his impact on the story.
Director Luca Guadagnino shoots the movie with the same honesty and focus as with Call Me By Your Name, and thesoundtrack by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross is awesome especially the unnerving Campfire track. Also, the use of Cannibalism as a allegory for not just romance within the film but also poverty was very interesting, and the backdrop of 1980's America emphasises this. Overall, I do have to say the movie is almost perfect. There are, however, two massive issues:
- Firstly, there is an emptiness to some of the scenes. For example, the scene with Jake, asides from giving the idea of "Bones and All" to consume a person entirely, doesn't go anywhere beyond and is never referenced again. Also, there seems to be a lot of eaters in this world but none of them are ever connected which seems strange, even moreso that civilians aren't more aware of this. The meeting with Janelle also isn't really looked into again, and Leonard is never shown outside of memories.
- The ending. Now, the ending scene, a lot happens, as Sully finds and corners Maren in her flat and pins her to the bed in a scene where Rylance makes a serious case for an Oscar nomination (which I hope he gets). Then Lee comes home and a fight ensues where Sully is killed, but he fatally stabs Lee in the lung. Whilst dying, and knowing what going to the hospital means, Lee asks Maren to eat him "bones and all". Which she does. But then the movie stops. First of all, why aren't we shown the affect this has on Maren? And also, one of the big arcs, that is still left unresolved, is what kind of eater Maren turns herself into. We're given examples all through the film of the different codes held by Sully, Lee, Jake and Janelle, but when it comes time to let Maren decide she's not shown to make it. And it makes the ending feel incomplete and inconclusive. The book the movie is based off has no sequels, and actually does give an answer to this question which no one liked as it outright states Maren becomes a predator like Sully. Yes that might've been heartbreaking, but it's better than the nothing we got. It's not the worst ending to a movie this year - Don't Worry Darling firmly holds that - but it's still worth mentioning for a film this well made and acted.
The ending doesn't break the film, but it does hold it back. I did enjoy it though; due to the fusion of genres, there'll be something to enjoy whether its the romance or the horror or the great visuals. Give it a try, although it isn't an easy sit at all.
The Menu (2022)
Fun, funny, and aware horror-comedy with plenty of rewatch value
This seems to have been a good year for horror movies - a genre that has sorely underdelivered for the past few years. For every Midsommar, or Get Out, there will be 5 or so Bye-Bye Man films often dumped out in January or October.
This year, we've had Nope, The Black Phone, Bones and All (which I saw the day after this in the theme of horror movies based around food) and The Menu, a self-contained chamber play set in a restaurant on an island full of wealthy characters close to the life of Julian Slowik, the fanatical celebrity chef played by Ralph Fiennes, ranging from his investors to film critics, from ignorant customers of his to celebrity hanger ons, to one character called Margot/Erin, played by Anya Taylor-Joy. Over the course of this night, the characters see how the overworked and disenfranchised Slowik really does hate what his life has become and how he looks to take it out on the clientele for the night, as they try to find a way to survive.
The cast of this movie is huge - and I mean HUGE. Ralph Fiennes is an incredibly versatile actor and he brings all of this to the foreground with a character who isn't without morals or principal beliefs, even if they are somewhat contradictory by design. Slowik is someone who could've easily come off as a Gordon Ramsay parody, but the understated nature of Fiennes performance keeps him grounded and keeps the film, as mad as it does get, on the right side of believable to still be fun.
Anya Taylor-Joy is a powerhouse in this movie, as the audience surrogate and unfortunate victim in the situation, but also as literally the only character who is able to stand up and access Slowik throughout the film on an emotional level. Her characters ending and result was well-earned, especially with the nonsense she has to go through at the hands of her date, Tyler played hilariously by Nicholas Hoult as this over enthusiastic food nerd who is also the only one aware of the death within the menu.
Other characters are played by performers like Janet McTeer, John Leguizamo and a great turn by Hong Chau to add the sense of the idea of films ethos of artist versus consumer - here literally - and the ways in which it can veer off.
My personal standouts were actually three bit parts of sous chefs played by Christina Brucato, Adam Aalderks and Matthew Cornwell, as chefs embodying the struggle for the lesser known chefs including belittlement, stress of living up to their mentor and loyalty beyond.
If I talk anymore about the movie I will overall wreck it. However, I will say this - even if it doesn't scare you, which is fair enough as the movie isn't horrifying as it is ominous, it's absolutely hilarious. The satire is very workmanlike and solid, but the moment-to-moment and line delivery off the whole cast is excellent.
See it in cinemas as the film's cinematography is intended for the big screen. You'll enjoy the taste of this film I assure you.
Nightmare Alley (2021)
Both Del Toro's most entrancing film, and also his darkest
I saw this movie last night and, I have to say, I sat for a few minutes just absorbing the hell I'd seen, and I just said "That was fantastic" when it was done.
This is a very different Del Toro movie for a number of reasons. Firstly, it's adapted from a book rather than his own original work. Secondly, it has probably the bleakest movie ending I've seen in a very long time, which is very unlike Del Toro. And finally, there's no supernatural elements; now, don't take that as "there's no horror" because there is, but the horror is all grounded in a very horrific reality of human freak shows in the 1930-40's of America. So the plot focuses on Stan, played by Bradley Cooper, who joins a Carny fair run by Clem, played by Willem Dafoe. At this show, he works as a stage hand, slowly moving his way up after learning Mentalism from performers Zeena and Stan, played by Toni Collette and David Strathairn. Following a few years, him and fellow performer Molly, played by Rooney Mara, leave for the city, and take the mentalism into places that only lead to havoc.
Now, I could talk about how amazing this film looks how grand the sets are how on point the music is, and richly vast this period world is. But is Guillermo Del Toro and all of that goes without saying, because even with his lesser films, they look divine.
Instead, I'll focus on the acting. Bradley Cooper, as with Licorice Pizza, steals the whole movie. The great part about Stan is how Cooper plays him; for most of the beginning 15 minutes, he doesn't even speak, instead watching and listening, and this plays into how quickly he takes on the game of reading tells for mentalism. Stan is also not a completely immoral character at all - he shows sympathy towards all the carnival staff, and seems to go out his way in a lot of instances to improve or assist the show. Naturally, due to his ambition to not hit "rock bottom" for a lack of a better term, all of these go by the way side eventually, which makes this downfall so captivating.
There are two characters introduced later in the film who very much steal the show. Cate Blanchett as Dr. Lilith Ritter, and Richard Jenkins as Ezra Grindle are both very special performances from both, with Cate Blanchett visually embodying the film-noir femme fatale, and also pulling off the acting for it too, and Richard Jenkins playing an uncharacteristically villainous and intimidating character that whilst he has a heart and is guilty of things he's done is still a frightening character.
Rooney Mara as Molly is sweet and smart, and a great romantic part, who also is strong enough to have enough free will in the plot instead of being window dressing.
There's also great performances by Ron Perlman, Willem Dafoe, and Tim Blake Nelson as well that really make the film elevated to such a level.
The use of Alcoholism as a theme as well is excellent, and is used perfectly in ways I don't think I've seen before, especially as a horror device/theme in a horror film. Stan throughout the film says he never drinks, harkening back to his alcoholic parent. Through the movie, we see the effects of alcohol on an American population blighted by war and the Great Depression; Stan's father was an Alcoholic, his mentor dies from alcohol poisioning, and the Carnival geek - the one member who has no rapport or interaction from anyone else at the carnival - is somebody lured in through alcohol. The portrayal of the geek is really special to see in this film; played in a small role by Paul Anderson from Peaky Blinders, the character is hunched over, barely human looking, and the poster promoting him (and this is truly genius) shows a very similar posture to Francisco Goyer's painting of Saturn devouring his son. This itself is a very stark comparison to the fall of Stan throughout the film, where his greed, and desire to avoid the inevitable lead him to ruin. That, intentional or otherwise, was a great touch.
If you're a fan of Del Toro, see this movie as soon as you can, and ideally see it in cinemas so you can maintain a focus on the action. It doesn't drag at all and is actually quite economical, but it's a very quiet film in spots. Like I said see it in cinemas.
Licorice Pizza (2021)
Really honest, intriguing romance story set in 1970's LA
Paul Thomas Anderson is a filmmaker I have a lot of interest in. Whether it's a single character study such as There Will Be Blood, a large scale hyperlink film like Magnolia, or period set explorations of times and people like The Master, Phantom Thread and Boogie Nights, he always manages to create a kinetic flow to his stories where they move naturally from one point to another, with a very economical style of shooting to allow the actors to work and the audience to enjoy. This is no difference.
The plot of Licorice Pizza follows the friendship and eventual romance between a high school senior and actor Gary Valentine, and Jewish photography assistant Alana. Gary played by newcomer Cooper Hoffman, and Alana played by fellow newcomer Alana Heim. The casting of newcomers doesn't hinder the movie at all - in fact it helps, because you stick newcomers who are involved with the characters in with experienced actors such as Bradley Cooper, who has an excellent but brief part that almost steals the show, and Sean Penn in a less outstanding but still important part, then you get a good blend.
Pretty much the whole movie is following the friendship across 3 years to eventual romance between Alana and Gary, and, genuinely, this is one of the best romances portrayed on screen for a very long time. The thing that makes it so special is that instead of, very easily, making them characters, Anderson makes them people if that makes any sense: both of them demonstrate positive traits as well as negative. Gary is ambitious, driven, and charismatic, but he also overlooks smaller details, and is frequently prone to jealously regarding Alana interacting with other men. Alana is incredibly practical and worldwise, as well as having a more robust moral compass than Gary, but is also prone to emotional outbursts, such as the one where she fully shoves Gary away. Removing these moments would take away from the tension where the group is going along with Gary's plans in spite of major worldwide events impacting them.
I did enjoy this movie. I do think it's not quite as good as some of the other of Anderson's films, and doesn't quite use some of the supporting cast outside of the aforementioned Cooper and Penn too strongly but I'd say check it out.
Arcane: League of Legends (2021)
This series is amazing. Allow me to elaborate...
Just got back from watching this series through for the second time. And for the record, it's incredibly rare for me to do this - I rarely go back and watch movies twice, let alone a 9 episode TV series. But, what we have here is something that is truly spectacular; a deeply constructed, emotional, cinematic show that in scope rivals Game of Thrones. And considering this show is based off a mobile gaming app, that's a true testament to the work ethic of the producers.
So the story follows multiple parts, but in short, we take place in the prosperous city of Piltover, and the seedy, desperate undercity. In the upper city, we follow a young inventor called Jase as he discovers and applies a form of arcane magic called Hex. From there, we follow his application of it and the councils greed and desire to misuse it.
In the undercity, we follow two particular parties: Vander, a peacekeeper who keeps order after leading a failed rebellion years prior, and a shady industrialist Silco looking to continue the rebellion he and Vander started using a new drug called Shimmer, that gives the users enhanced strength. We also follow the two children in Vander's care, Vi, a pink haired hot headed brawler looking for equality, and her blue haired sister Powder, an inventor with an emotional vulnerability to her. The first three episodes are very much set up for this world, and the last six jump forward a few years, where Jase is a counsellor negotiating politics, Vi is still carrying on her fight, and Powder is now a mercenary of Silco going by the name "Jinx".
If you haven't gathered, it is a complex narrative but not to the point of alienation; the series does give very adequate time to building all of the main players, especially Vi and Jinx, with their build up coming over episodes rather than crammed into one. I've never played League of Legends and found the narrative very easy to follow, with the distinct character designs aiding this - you'll never be able to confuse anyone or find it hard to visually keep up. The fight scenes, of which there are many, never lack weight, with the characters showing clear and visible fatigue that adds tension, and the emotional weight in all of them helping to keep them engaging.
I could talk all day about the characters and the voice actors around them, so I'll just focus on three: Vi, Jinx, and Silco.
Hailee Steinfeld as Vi voices a real strength and emotional rawness to the situation - it never feels controlled or contrived it is flows, much the way Vi does from moment to moment.
Jason Spisak gives Silco a real menace, where he's relaxed, intimating, but also not unaware of the emotions of those around him - rather he doesn't care as opposed to ignorance, and that makes him seem very certain and deliberate, and helps his distinctive red eyed look.
Lastly, and the breakout character from this show, Ella Purnell as Jinx is amazing. Jinx is a character that ultimately could've easily come off as a Harley Quinn type. However, the writers, as well as Purnel manage to evoke enough emotion into Jinx to where her wild swings emotionally are very tense and unpredictable. I also loved her distinct steampunk look, and the way her incredibly toxic relationship with Silco is, where it's clearly doing her no favours but it's also not too dissimilar to her relationship with Vi.
I can't speak enough on how much I loved this series. The music is great as well, with artists such as Imagine Dragons, and even Sting, contributing to it. It's on Netflix so if you can, check it out.
Showtrial (2021)
A very good writing exercise here, with a strong central performance and character, but some shortcomings elsewhere
So, this story is one of those concepts I very much would describe as "quality neutral", as it has potential based on the execution. I'd say that the story itself does well, but a lot of the success/perceived success is based on the central performance.
So incase no-one knows what the story is about, it's about the Police Investigation into the disappearance of Hannah Ellis, an ace-student and the daughter of a single parent in Oxford, England. The Police's first suspect is Talitha Campbell, an arrogant, flippant, generally unlikable daughter of property mogul Damian Campbell. Throughout the story, we follow the Police headed up by detectives Paula Cassidy and James Thornley, and the defence counsel headed up by former high flying barrister Cleo Roberts, as well as the family and defence for Talitha's friend and fellow suspect Dylan Harwood, himself the wealthy and entitled son of a British MP.
As mentioned, the best part of the story is BY FAR Celine Buckens as Talitha Campbell. Talitha is a character that is kind of integral to the story, as any wrong actions with her can kill the story dead if you stop asking yourself the genuine question, "Did she commit the murder of Hannah Ellis?". Buckens takes this role and very much runs with it. There's the theatricality and a haminess to her performance, but she stays on the right side of it to keep the audience invested in her, even if her character is utterly repulsive to a lot of them, including myself. Don't get me wrong, she does have positive characteristics; she's an incredibly witty character, and that maintains under pressure showing her actual composure she pretends not to have, as well as a headstrong attitude that helps her win over Cleo Roberts after a rocky initial meeting. The best thing about her is she raises the characters around her, and they become far more compelling when she's about, as the detectives have a good foil to work against, and Cleo gets to mentor and look after her in their other scenes, and her father in their final scene gets to make amends in a believable way. The only exception to this is her co-defendant Dylan Harwood, who honestly doesn't spend enough time with her to get a sense of their relationship - not to mention it seems particularly odd that this meek, quiet, socially awkward guy would be friends with someone he's the exact opposite of outside of having the same kinds of drug addictions. Their relationship during and post trial isn't really explored either. One thing I will credit the series for is not revealing either Talitha did it or not, as either one would ruin the point of the story a bit, but it gives you enough hints - including Talitha's overwhelming indifference to Hannah's fate - to make your mind up.
However, when the other character's AREN'T around Talitha, they are quite crudely constructed. Cleo Roberts, played by Tracy Ifechor, is very basic as a "driven defence attorney who is emotionally invested in this case". Her father, played by James Frain, is equally described as "distant rich parent" without too much around it. The only two exceptions to this are Paula and Dylan, respectively by Sinead Keenan and Joseph Payne. Paula is such a weird character as she's meant to be this seasoned detective, but she's so immediately incensed by Talitha that she becomes almost completely blind to the evidence for dislike of her, and it seemed odd that some written that way could be in such a senior position; we also don't get to follow her, or really anyone except Talitha after the trial. Dylan is kind of explored well, as an anxious, socially distant young man who misreads social ques, but isn't explored well in relation to him and Talitha and Hannah. And Hannah? She really doesn't get too much exploration, but is also featured enough to where she can't be just a nameless body, which is odd.
Like I said, its the case of a good main character helping to lift everything around. I assume there won't be a series 2 as there's not really anywhere else they can go with it unless they get a whole new cast and story. I'd say, overall, it's alright and you should check it out on iPlayer if you can - and try to do it in one sitting as that really helps.
Last Night in Soho (2021)
A lot of good fun here. Very glamourous horror movie, with plenty of tributes to the past.
Edgar Wright is a filmmaker I have a lot of time for to say the least. I loved his Cornetto trilogy, found Scott Pilgrim Versus The World to be a very underrated film that thankfully has found some cult appeal, and Baby Driver is one of my most frequently watched movies ever. I've heard of this project for around a year, because of his signing onto it, and several of the cast members I was very keen, in particular Thomasin McKenzie, Anya Taylor-Joy and Matt Smith in the three main roles. There's also additional parts by Terence Stamp, a Sam Claflin cameo, and a bit extra from Synnove Karlsen from the TV series Clique here in the UK, as well as the late Diana Riggs and Margaret Nolan (both of whom are remembered in the movie as their last performances). Overall, I was intrigued by the movie, its premise and its ideas, and thankfully, it did live up fully to that.
The movie opens with country bumpkin Eloise, played by McKenzie, moving to London to begin a fashion designing course at the University of the Arts London - which is awesome because I used to work near there for about two years. Upon moving there, being sick of her flatmates and their behaviours and attitude, she rents a room from a landlady, Ms Collins, played by Riggs. After renting this room in the Soho district, specifically Goodge Street which I too have been down, she begins to have visions. In this visions, she sees the past events of a girl named Sandie, played by Taylor-Joy, and her dreams of becoming a successful singer in London's busy and bustling night life in the 60's...before a meeting with handsome but dangerous Jack, played by Smith, sends it all astray.
The cast in this movie is solid. The main standouts are McKenzie, Taylor-Joy and Smith. Thomasin McKenzie does an excellent job in this movie of holding her Cornwell accent which is incredibly difficult, especially considering her natural New Zealand accent. I've always enjoyed McKenzie having seen her in Leave No Trace, Jojo Rabbit and Old before this, and in this movie, she holds the wonder and intrigue of moving to London, but is able to hold those whilst the fear of the seedier side of London sinks in. Her character displays clear morals and desires, but is also street smart enough to get out of danger when its presented to her. Taylor-Joy I too have enjoyed since I saw her in The Witch. Here as Sandie, she adopts the role of a skilful, elegant and eloquent young woman in the 60's very well, plus her singing and dance work is excellent as well. Matt Smith here is given a much more vicious character to work with, and he does a very good job at making Jack enticing to be around, but also making him a common sight of the era; in an era when women wanted the spotlight by any means necessary, Jack was the embodiment of men who would abuse that, and Matt Smith does a great job at making this character who could've easily been a moustache twirling villain very seductive and charismatic, in the same way his version of The Doctor may have appeared to be, or even his Charles Manson in Charlie Says.
The camera work is the second biggest hero of the story. There's a lot of good work here, especially with light and framings at the bookends of the movie. There's also excellent work with mirrors; typically, when Eloise was interacting with the past, she was seeing herself as Sandie in mirrors and occasionally switching from Sandie to Eloise; there's a really excellent dance number between the three main players towards the beginning of the film, and the way it transitions between Eloise and Sandie around dancing with Jack is majestic. Also, there are plenty of little clues about the mystery of the story really well placed throughout.
Now, the horror elements. This is where a bit of the movie falls apart because, despite having worked on a zombie horror film, an alien invasion horror film and now a psychological horror film, Wright isn't necessarily a horror director. The horror elements of this movie are very - and I mean VERY - reminiscent of Roman Polanski's "apartment" trilogy. From Repulsion, there's the images of men has faceless ghouls looking to molest the central characters, from Rosemary's Baby it's the institutional control that allows this abuse to happen, and from The Tennent, it's Elouise slowly turning herself into Sandie in appearance and even living in the same room; her breakdowns towards the end of the movie are similar to that too. Elouise being leached over by male figures, from an intrusive Taxi driver to horndog students, is effective at creating dread but doesn't quite follow through with it. It's certainly a very tense movie that uses Elouise and Sandie as desirable objects to keep the tension high, but it does get undone a bit by the film's ending; I won't spoil it here, but whilst the twist is good and I didn't see it coming, it's a bit undermining for what the film is trying to say. Also, the actual ending puts a bit too much in and, again, lessens the horror element a bit. Additionally with the writing, the character Jocasta played by Karlsen doesn't get too much to do and is a bit wasted by the end, Elouise's love interest John, played by Michael Ajao, is also a bit of an undermining element to the horror elements as well, even though his character was a welcome relief from the tension. Overall though, I had a great time with this film and will hopefully do it again while it's still out.
In closing I do have to say one thing: NO WAY IN HELL IS THIS MOVIE AN 18. This movie, genuinely, is a 15 tops. I've seen may more violent movies than this that weren't even close to an 18, and it sucks because the Box Office for this movie is going to be severely impacted by it, and it doesn't deserve to be. So I'm pleading guys: see it in cinema if possible, or if not buy the DVD, least of all for the DVD commentary to explain stuff that Wright always does so well.
Antlers (2021)
Really had the potential to be better than it is. Kind of disappointing
So, the first line Anna Bogutskaya said when talking about this film on the Mayo and Kermode show was "This wants to be a Guillermo Del Toro film but lacks the heart". This is such an accurate statement, I could just leave it at that and get on with my morning...but I have more to say so I shall continue.
So, it needs to be pointed out that whilst this is a Guillermo Del Toro PRODUCED film, it is directed by Scott Cooper, responsible for movies such as Crazy Heart and Out Of The Furnace. This is where one of the biggest issues in the film's tone and execution fit in. Guillermo Del Toro does fantastical, big, wild large scale productions that even in infancy had an element of fantasy, and an idea of characters overcoming severe emotional or situational trauma and ending up better for it. Scott Cooper, by contrast, is best described as a gritty realist filmmaker whose films are well shot but ultimately incredibly depressing whilst at the same time not following through enough with the depressing themes to say something with this. This disconnect results in a theme of abused characters trying to conquer their abuse...but ultimately losing everything in the process...and not overcoming it...and also kind of conquering it in a way that doesn't quite add up with what we've seen so far.
By far the most scary and effective material is done with the child Lucas in this movie. The kid who plays him, Jeremy T. Thomas, is excellent - and is certainly a better child actor than the kid who played his bully in the film, who was terrible. His role in the film is that his dad and brother are infected by a mysterious illness that makes him cannibalistic, and he works on keeping them safe. On the other side, you also have Keri Russell and Jesse Plemons as sister and brother Julia and Paul, both of which dealt with abuse in their past that makes them feel attached to Lucas' case. Their acting is solid, although it is very fair to say that Russell has way more to work with given her character's abused history gets explored whereas Paul feels quite short changed on front. But back to Lucas, his stuff is easily the best part of the film, as it follows him searching for roadkill and killing other small animals to give the family he feels obligated to a life, and it's oddly haunting in the way the film should've been.
However, now I have to begin my problems with this film that stops it being as good as it should. The film, whilst being very well shot, very well scored, is incredibly, unbelievably predictable. To an annoying level. So the creature in this film is a Wendigo - and I'm being completely honest here, I knew the creature was a Wendigo before I even walked into the cinema without reading a synopsis, spoilers, review or anything because Wendigo's are in everything these days. But that's only the start to where the film's problems are when it comes to this: the film has serious issues when it comes to plot armour and reverse plot armour. For example, in the climax, the Wendigo transformed from Lucas's dad absolutely annihilates a cop called Dan, who in the whole film had about five lines so I knew he was destined to die, much like Lucas's bully who was portrayed as a one-dimensional dickhead who was there to get horrifically killed. Right after this, the Wendigo attacks Paul, and unlike Dan who gets instantly killed, we have a prolonged sequence that seems very illogical, and doesn't even end with Paul dying. And then when Julia faces off with this creature that just completely overpowered two trained Policemen with sheer ease in less than desirable circumstances, a female schoolteacher is able to hold her own in perfect conditions for this creature. It was ridiculous, and it takes away from the realism that Scott Cooper wants to enforce in this movie but is, ironically, consistent with Del Toro's themes. There's also another character who lemmings herself into death that allows the plot to kick in, when it may have been more effective for them to do the smarter thing but it fails anyway. All of this leads to a bizarre sequel baited ending that I'm genuinely unsure why it's there, or how it happened in the first place. Once again, leaving it more final and maybe focusing on the psychological impact of all this unresolved pain would've been more effective.
That's not to say the movie is ineffective in scaring audiences. It has a very ominous presence throughout the entire story, and is well shot with a spaced out and tense theme throughout. Not to mention, whilst limited, the Wendigo is well shot through and is an imposing, frightening presence - the transformation scene is particularly horrific in an amazing way, and the creature has an initially unsettling trait in the appearance with it having Lucas's dad's skin over its face like a Hannibal Lecter style thing. It's just a thing that could've been amazing if given a bit of extra tightening.
Don't Breathe 2 (2021)
An interior sequel, for a problematic premise.
In 2016, I saw Don't Breathe in cinemas twice - once out of curiosity and then again out of interest in the technical details. I even reviewed it here - I did enjoy it, despite the fact you do need to turn off your logic part of the brain and simply absorb what's on screen for what it is. He had a strong central pair of characters in Jane Levy's Rocky and Dylan Minnette that both brought their own unique perspective to situations and were very well-rounded, it had an ominous and interesting antagonist in "The Blind Man" played by Stephen Lang, and the movie was directed in a very tight manner with a lot of creative set pieces and camerawork. Like I said, turn off logic and the movie is a great sit.
This sequel carries over that excellent camerawork and set pieces, with very recognisable locations that service the geography of the house well. That's the only real part that does carry over fully from the first film; there are traces of the strong acting, threatening antagonists and an enjoyably silly plot, but it's not all there. The first part is that whilst it is stupid to say you hate this movie based on the fact you're being asked to root for the monstrous Blind Man from the first film in this one, it is fair to say it is a massive obstacle that the movie has to overcome and it can't quite manage that as he isn't a strong enough character to build an entire film/story around.
So in this film, the Blind Man has rebuilt the family he lost before the events of the first film, and he has a daughter now symbolically named "Phoenix", played by Madelyn Grace who does a good job for a child actor being asked to do a massive amount of difficult scenes. One day, she runs into a gang leader called Raylan, played by Brandan Sexton III, who takes a bizarre interest in her. When the men break into his house to look for her, events similar in a way to the first film unfold, but with just as many twists thrown in.
Speaking of the quality of the scares, one thing that surprised me a lot in this film was the amount of gore, considering the first film was noticeably absent of it - by design. This film takes more of an exploitation movie approach, with is odd because it leads to characters doing very out of character things especially in the climax where a character ensues an easy kill for a piece of cheap violence and then it comes back to hurt them. The villains are intimidating and powerful, but they're nowhere near the overawing presence of the Blind Man from the first film, who in a role where he's been elevated to protagonist, essentially just feels like his role from the first film just with the perspective switched, and the moderately sympathetic robbers have been replaced with people who are more unsavoury.
The acting is fine; Lang is good in a film that is demanding a lot of him - just like the last film he doesn't have many lines to work with, and it must be very exhausting to act blind and still be realistic with it. Grace does well. Sexton is alright but he does feel mildly out of place, especially when the truth about him is revealed. He also has several smaller cronies with him that are very thinly drawn - it's kind of the cost of the movie having multiple villains is that they can't be drawn the same way as having one big one. The fact that, also, no one in this film has the names like Jane Levy or Dylan Minette makes it hard to remember people beyond hairstyles.
Overall, it is a good movie that does seem to draw a line under the series. However, in my personal opinion, they didn't seem to be a point in this film being made - the first one is fairly final despite the arguably open ending, and whilst this has a closed ending there may be a place it can go. We'll wait and see.
The Woman in the Window (2021)
How many talented people does it take to make a terrible movie? Apparently the entirity of the production staff on this film!
Well, before I start I have to admit two things here.
Firstly, I watched this film a while ago, but I needed a bit of time to fully process everything.
Secondly, I haven't read the novel the film is based on. However, after seeing the film, I'm not that devoted to doing so because this movie's premise is very quality neutral, in terms of it is alright on paper but execution is a big component of it. This film, and its screenplay and direction, executes this shockingly.
The direction by Joe Wright is supremely misguided - and Joe Wright is an excellent director. However, for some reason, he seems to be trying to take these big, epic scene transitions that he think will work in an arthouse style, but instead are just a massive distraction considering the complete lack of events happening in this story. Literally, the plot of this movie is former therapist Anna (Amy Adams) is having agrophobia, and during an incident with some kids harassing her, a woman Jane, played by Julianne Moore in a very thankless role, comes, talks to her and has some drinks and then vanishes. This woman is later on being seen stabbed by her husband Alistair, played by Gary Oldman in a role that again is thankless but Gary Oldman nails through the sheer virtue of being Gary Oldman, and begins to suspect things about the family - this is only heightened when she meets Alistair's wife Jane, a completely different woman played by Jennifer Jason Leigh. All of this is set up early, but the rest of the movie are very repetitive dream sequences, occasional meetings with Anna's therapist played by Tracy Letts, again a very talented writer who seems unable to wring quality from a reasonable premise...
...and the ending. Oh. My. God, the ending.
The mark of a bad story is when a mystery takes you by surprise, but not because you didn't anticipate it, but more because it's so stupid that you could never have seen that happening. And the worst part is the one thing I can say good about the movie is the cast work their damned best, even in limited roles such as Anthony Mackie or Brian Tyree Henry who don't appear in many scenes at all; this is except for one person, that being Fred Hechinger as Ethan, who is never convincing at any point in the film for what he is. Without spoiling too much, his character does a complete 180 that comes completely out of left-field, and worse than that, the reasoning makes no sense either. It's completely unrealistic, and worst of all contains probably the worst use of plot armour I've ever seen in a story - I won't mention it here because it is genuinely stupid and is completely not fitting with the characters as shown to this point.
The only reason I've given this two stars is because the cast, mostly, were doing good work. And I saw it on Netflix and not in cinemas. That's it. To everyone in this, hopefully your next projects will be better.
I Care a Lot (2020)
The whole is lesser than the sum of its parts
I saw this movie today, and I really had to think about what to rate this movie, because there's so many good things about it, but there's also so many aching problems that really hamstring it with what it wants to do and be.
Starting with the positives, they really lie a lot with the acting and music. Rosamund Pike, in the central role as Marla, is a vicious force of nature, and while it's not a particularly big leap to make comparisons to her role as Amy in Gone Girl, there's enough differences to make it seen. Eiza Gonzalez is good enough as her lover Fran to where she's not a scene stealer, but isn't an unwelcome presence. Peter Dinklage as the gangster Roman is an intriguing and intimidating character (for the most part) and is a great watch, and Diane Wiest as Jennifer is also a marvellous little character who isn't put to waste. The music, which I mentioned I liked, goes with the visuals nicely, in that it feels big, cinematic, and guides you well from scene-to-scene.
Now, what I didn't like. This is where I talk spoilers, because honestly, this is a movie that needs to be talked about for why you do/don't like it, so if you want to watch it, stop here.
The three biggest problems in this movie are the tone, characterisation, and attitude towards the main characters.
Starting with tone, this is a "comedy-thriller" but a lot of the comedy is undone by the fact that Marla, Fran, and what they're doing is monstrous, and the comedy falls flat. In fact, I would say honestly the true villain of the story isn't Roman, but Marla. In case no one knows what Marla is doing, she is taking legal guardianship of the elderly of America, and then milking their assets - property, cars, jewellery etc - as well as getting paid by care homes to commit people, isolating them from their families and abusing their care. She takes clear sadistic glee in this, and the movie treats her as if she's always in the right; like we're looking at a monster presented by people who don't think she's a monster. The linear narrative, and the fact we're never given a moment to humanise with her does nothing to help this, and when she was getting tortured by Roman, the Russian mobster, I was rooting for him (and that's a problem).
The last 30 minutes of the movie are particularly problematic and suffer a lot from plot armour and reverse plot armour. When Roman catches Marla and tries to get her to release his mother from her care and she refuses, he tells his men to kill her. They knock her out, pump alcohol into her stomach, and send her car down a cliff to make it look like a drink-drive. They also beat up Fran, and leave her unconscious in a pool of her blood in a flat filling with gas. Marla somehow survives all of this, and she loses a tooth in the process. Then, not only is the tooth fixed immediately, but Fran lives with minimal damage, which ruins the stakes of the story because it makes them immune. They then get their revenge on Roman that is so contrived, that if one part fails the whole thing fails, and is dependent on a smart gangster becoming suddenly dumb. All of this leads to an ending that, to its credit, takes a massive risk out of left field, but honestly feels like an afterthought as it doesn't really link to the rest of the film.
I've seen a few 1 star reviews here. It's not that, as there's too many good parts to be 1 star. It's also got a lot of problems. It's OK; nothing exceptional, but not terrible.
Saint Maud (2019)
...I don't actually know how to title this review.
This film is certainly something that needs to be experienced in a cinema, and I'm glad it got that rather than the streaming service treatment it very easily could've gotten because the luxuries of pausing, checking your phone etc. would've really gotten you out of the movies many terrifying moments. This is easily one of the most uncomfortable, unsettling movies I've ever seen, and I enjoyed it immensely.
To start off with, with have the two main characters of Maud and Amanda, played by Morfydd Clark and Jennfier Elhe respectively. Both of them do a fine job, with us viewing Amanda in the moment rather than as a point-of-view character, and she is portrayed as alternatively pitiable in her dying state, and cruel in her treatment of Maud that makes you view her in ways that intentionally work in the moment, and Elhe conveys this perfectly. Clark, on the other hand, portrays Maud as a gullible, well-intentioned, soft-spoken Welsh girl with a strongly devout Christian faith, but who's always a bad moment away from snapping. Clark is excellent with her physical acting, but especially with her face as in two specific moments she contorts it into shapes that make you unsettled, and carries this all the way through. Just like how Ryan Gosling broke out in The Believer, this is Morfydd Clark's breakout. There are other actors in bit roles who all convey characters that give a great insight into Maud and Amanda's lives, but those two are the main highlight of the movie acting wise.
The real MVP of the movie is the Lighting and Sound work. Rose Glass, in her directorial and writing debut does a lot of effective work with minimalism and what isn't there than what was. In terms of scares, a lot of it is through theme and mis-en-scene and not so much jump scares - in that, there's one jump scare sequence at the films end and that's it. The film has a lot of close-ups and extreme close-ups to create tension, and in the dark seeing flashes of Maud's eyes piercing through with blue, or the pervasive clock ticking overshadowing a simple scene really emphasise this. However, there are a few instances where the film tries a more experimental approach, and whilst I understand what she's trying, it didn't work for me; namely, when Maud gets fired by Amanda, she starts to spiral out of control and the film portrays this by slipping the camera upside-down, when a Dutch angle would've worked just as well and not been as distracting.
Overall, the religious horror film is one that's easy to make but hard to make well without sounding biased or exploitative, or worse just crass. This film avoids both, by making Maud kind but easily led, right but sometimes doing wrong things, and making the horror elements more inferred than overt. You can tell the clear influences of Roman Polanski in this, whilst also making it Rose Glass to the core.
If you haven't yet seen this movie, SEE IT NOW WHILE YOU STILL CAN. It won't be the same on DVD or Stream, and there's not much else out so you might as well.
Knives Out (2019)
Easy one of the best films of the year, with plenty of rewatch value
I saw this film today, and left wishing to see it again in the cinema - a thoroughly enjoyable affair, with a whodunnit with more twists and turns than the Nürburgring.
Rian Johnson, who's a filmmaker I've always enjoyed - especially when he can operate without the handcuffs of a franchise such as Star Wars, which is easily the most stifled film to date - and has a habit of writing and directing films that don't quite fit a mold. Brick is a Neo-Noir in theory, but is also not, and Looper is a Sci-Fi that often isn't. Knives Out is a Mystery, but it's predominantly a character study and comedy, particularly with Harlem (Christopher Plummer) and Marta (Ana De Armas).
Easily the two best aspects to this story are the contempory nature setting of modern day to contrast with the old school mystery elements similar to Agatha Christie or Arthur Conan Doyle stories to help make the story funny, and also the acting.
Quickly on the film's structure and editing, Johnson does manage to do several moments of misdirection; we are shown the truth vey early in the film, as with several people's recounting stories to the police, but the way that the story twists this is something that I think can be taught in Film School as setting precedents and placing details that people might not notice like a phrase, or a question that gets answered later in an organic way. It probably won't get acknowledged by the Oscars in either the screenwriting or editing departments, but it should be.
Acting wise, this film is loaded, but the four main standouts are Daniel Craig, Chris Evans, Ana De Armas, and Christopher Plummer.
Daniel Craig, who in the vain of Logan Lucky, gets to do something a bit more funny and different than the James Bond films, and it's clear he really enjoys playing this Kentucky version of Sherlock Holmes, who is simultaneously believable as a sleuth - for he does uncover the whole truth - but is also able to make it not seem like a revelation.
Chris Evans, similarly, gets to play a character who is the exact opposite of what he does as Captain America, where plays, essentially, a total tool. However, he's a total tool who still carries himself with a degree of charisma and who is watchable and identifiable - even if its the worst parts of him we're identifying with.
Ana De Armas and Christopher Plummer respectively play Marta Cabrera and Harlan Thrombley, and are both the heart of the film. Marta is exceptionally likable, and clearly is representative of similar traits of Harlan - both are people who built their success from the ground up, with Harlan being a self-made millionaire crime writer, and Marta being a daughter of immigrants who works as a nurse. Marta is essentially the main character, and also the only one played by someone unfamiliar to Western audiences, as this enhances her appeal as a hard working person, and likewise Plummer plays Harlan like a man who cares for everybody around him and goes out of his way to help them, but is also firm when he needs. Both Plummer and De Armas could've played these roles as "throwaways", but both of them ensure that we're rooting for both of them until the end. Fantastic work by them both.
I loved every part of this film, and I may even see it a few more times in theatres - I recommend you do too.
Crawl (2019)
Does everything intended of it, and does it amazingly well
First things first - this is easily the most stressful movie going experience of the year so far for me.
Alexandre Aja, who directed Don't Breathe a while ago, a movie that was incredibly claustrophobic, tautly directed and well acted, although did have a slightly convoluted villain and build a bit too much for a weird sequel, but great set of performances and screenplay to keep it exciting. That tautness in the directing remains here, but simplifies the story a lot more, and gives the story exactly what it needs.
The plot is simple - daughter, father, and also dog, are trapped in a house during hurricane season, and have to escape a swarm of alligators. And it delivers precisely what you want to see. High octane and creative set pieces using well established locations and geography, bloody, gory deaths, jump scares that made me literally scream in the cinema - don't mean to brag but that's quite hard to do - and a credits roll with "See you later Alligator" playing over it.
Kaya Scodelario and Barry Pepper are a great pairing, with Pepper playing a grieving parent trying to help his emotionally distant daughter focus on her future and surviving, and Scodelario does a great job of selling the danger, she looks in great shape which does help to sell the action scenes, and she also does an excellent job of keeping up her American accent during these high tension moments.
Go and see this movie - if you like creature features, there's probably not going to be one better out soon.
Ma (2019)
What is this movie?
I saw this movie a fair while ago. I actually saw it roughly around the time I reviewed Brightburn, but believe it or not, I knew how much more how I felt about that movie than this, which is REALLY saying something.
First things first, the biggest thing about this movie is that, despite the really messed up ending, absolutely NOTHING of worth or note happens in this movie otherwise. This is honestly one of the most boring horror movies or thrillers I can remember watching, and once again, it's directed by Tate Taylor.
Background on this movie - this movie was developed BY Tate Taylor for Octavia Spencer to allow her to play someone outside of her normal sassy, lovable self, and also continuing the horror/thriller trend he set for himself with The Girl On The Train, and this movie has a bucketload of alumni from both that film and also The Help. You have Allison Janney in probably the most thankless role of her career as Ma's nameless boss who gets killed, Luke Evans plays a womanising prick who dies, and also no-one cares for, and Octavia Spencer tries to play up the humanity and humour in a character that ultimately has zero.
Speaking facts of facts here, Ma's whole role in the story, and her backstory, is something that whilst sucks, she also seems to be targeting the completely wrong people over, which hardly builds sympathy, and on top of that, she has a daughter in this film who she constantly belittles and bullies, which again, is hardly going to make her likable.
Also, if you are going to go down the monster route with this character, the mental thing is the big sequence at the end of the film, where she tortures the kids, is done to unconscious people, so if you did come for that side of the film, you too get robbed. Like, what was the goal of the movie, apart from giving Octavia Spencer an unusual role that she doesn't fit at all, and even if she did is so tissue thin that she can't do anything with it?
Honestly, I don't know WHY Tate Taylor keeps trying to do movies like this when he clearly as no aptitude for it; he directs his movies in a slow, labouring way that lacks kinetic flow, or even worse is so trained of colour that they're an effort on the eyes. At least in something like The Help, it being set mostly at day can offset that, but in a dark lit movie like this kills it.
That's that. A fairly late opinion of it, but yeah, don't buy or rent this movie, or pay to see it.
Midsommar (2019)
Kind of a tough film to review, but easy to rate highly
Last year, Ari Aster wrote, produced and directed Herditary, which I saw in cinemas and I had a good time with, up until the end. Admittedly, a large amount had to do with me seeing this with an audience of mostly people that weren't engaged in that kind of horror, but also a lot was due to the film kind of wrote itself into a corner by telling you how it was going to end about 20 minutes before it did, and also containing a lot of unintentionally funny moments that kind of ruined the mood.
I bring this up because I was curious to see how this movie would be different. And it was substantially so; first of all, this movie a lot lighter and contains a lot more scope than Hereditary that was so much based around that darkly lit house, and it does use that contrast well in making the landscapes of Sweden seem somewhat idyllic and a great place to be. The grander scope of the cast does actually give Ari a greater focus, impressively. He does have some funny moments, but this time they are more intentional, and therefore don't detract from the story. This is especially evident in the film's ending, which is far more subtle, sinister, and grounded than in Hereditary, whilst also continuing to make excellent use of a soundtrack that is both uplifting and dissonant at the same time.
From the acting, everyone is mostly solid; Will Poulter (arguably the most well known of the cast with the least to do) is a good comic foil for the group, Jack Reynor is great as this distant, somewhat-of-a-prick boyfriend character who is integral to the main theme of the story, which I'll cover in a second, and there are great secondary bit parts in as well. However, both Florence Pugh as Dani, who I've always rated highly as a versatile and intelligent, subtle actress, and who shines in a role that could otherwise have been very monotonous and unlikable, and also Swedish actor Vilhelm Blongren as Pelle, are the true stars. I think they are both early frontrunners for Oscars, especially Blongren, who really does a great job in a role that easily could've been a one dimensional villain, but instead becomes a vision into the future for Dani, and is doing these clearly wrong things, but due to his alliance with the Cult, views it as anything but; because of this, his presence within the story was deeply unnerving.
Now, one important thing to note here, and it's something that knowing about after the film made me appreciate it so much more. This movie is marketed as a cult horror film, but in Aster's own words, this is a break-up movie dressed as a cult horror movie - much like Shaun of the Dead is a Rom-Com dressed as a zombie horror but obviously way more subtle here. The central relationship here, between Dani and Reynor's Christian, is terrible, and throughout it becomes increasingly more obviously broken up, and to see the way it leads towards the ending, it was easy to feel unnerved for how it unfolds - especially as it taps into a major fear of mine - but also points to both of each character's major flaws, in that Dani is looking for affection and Christian is someone who looks to take advantage of people. This fulcrum point for all the horror to revolve around is probably the thing the film does the best, but something that has been underplayed in the advertising, which is a mistake as knowing about it does improve the film significantly in my eyes.
My recommendation, go see this film. Best part is the film is rated 18 here in the UK, which helped me enjoy the film a lot as there's less chance of young groups of kids being there, and there is a lot of intense gore as well. If that's your kind of thing as well, of course.
Brightburn (2019)
A good idea, but a little bit of a miss in some areas
Here comes a film that, for all intents and purposes, was born in a weird kind of way. After James Gunn was fired from Marvel's franchises, he and his brothers teamed up to write an anti-superhero movie, with a very sellable one sentence premise: "What if Superman was evil?"
Pros first: the acting, especially from the three main leads was fairly good, and they did what they needed to do, with both Elizabeth Banks and David Denman acting like a couple that are grateful for the chance to become parents, and in the wake of all this carnage going on have sod all clue what to do and how to deal with it, and Jackson A. Dunn is a very good child actor on screen, and for what this role is, he's terrifying when he becomes active in the latter part of the movie whilst still looking like a kid.
The kills, and the gore elements are also surprisingly extreme (in a good way). The film does make very good use of the superpowers for very violent, gory kills, and in particularly, the death of Erika in the diner as seen in the trailer, and which is by far the film's standout sequence, is well shot and makes great use of sound effects and music for effect, and the aftermath of it is sickening - in fact, the whole movie is very well directed, and has a delicious, dark tone to it.
However, there are some issues with the story, and the fact that the movie is, deep down, too short. The story is watching this kid become an absolute monster, but there are three aspects to this that don't let it fulfil potential:
1) Some of the things Brandon does in the movie are truly reprehensible, but they are things that would've had more impact if the character was a little older and had a lot more understanding of - like 16 years old.
2) He escalates to a level of Psychopathy that only people like Ted Bundy can reach with a lot of the things he says, and no-one bats an eye - only taking a second to tell him that he's being weird and then going on with their day, and not going "HOLY S**T THIS BOY CRAZY!".
3) The biggest thing about this movie that detracts from the premise is that Brandon is called to be evil by the ship that dropped him off on Earth, as it starts repeating the phrase "Take the world", and he's called to this immediately, with no struggle or debate. I understand why this was done, as having him turn bad due to bullying is cliché, and this movie doesn't engage in that at all to be honest, but Brandon is turning evil without much prompting does remove a lot of options for storytelling and does make it a bit of a gorefest - not that I'm complaining, but it's a missed opportunity.
Overall, I do think the movie had some good principles, but I think with a bit more time spent on it in pre-production, it could've been the game changing movie it was intended to be. I do rate it though.
Hereditary (2018)
A potential horror classic, spoilt by a silly, cliche ending
From what I understand, this is one of those movies that critics love and audiences at the minute seem to hate. It's kind of like The Witch, which I really liked and was a really great example of slow burning, intense, isolated horror within a family setting. It's no surprise that this movie is also from the producers of this movie.
Personally, I think this movie is a little bit the victim of hype on behalf of the trailers that call this "The Exorcist for this generation" and comments of a similar ilk. Sadly, the film is a little too slow burn for that.
Generally, I would say by far the strongest element of the movie is the cast that is all very worthy of awards for their acting - in particular the standout Toni Collette as Annie, who has to give a vastly layered performance of grief without ever becoming monotonous, which she does do in spades and is impressive in both her power and her brokenness. Also great is Gabriel Byrne as the cynical and realist Steve, who loves his family and his wife especially, but is also in a position where he's not able to give Annie what she wants, and this ultimately costs him. Alex Wolff does give a very solid performance in a character role that we've never seen from him before, but I do think that whilst he is exceptionally good in this film as Peter grieving over his sisters' death, I think he gave a better performance in My Friend Dahmer, but that could do with the fact that character was a bit more intelligent than here, where he is, to be honest, an imbecile in places. Most exceptional is young MIlly Shaprio as Charlie, who's not in the film long before her death that's the catalyst for the action, but really gives her some recognisable tics and mannerisms that stick with you after she leaves, and that when they return do give the horror some grounding. And then there's Ann Dowd as the film's overarching antagonist Joan, politely and sweetly being a friend to Annie in her suffering, but really planning the whole thing. In anything is certain, this is an Oscar worthy cast.
Feature debut director Ari Asher does break horror clichés for the most part, avoiding jump scares in favour of slow-burn, emotionally brutal horror, very well lit and very well written. It makes use of mental manifestations, processions and more, to make us frightened on a deeper level.
However, this is where my issues with the film come to light.
Now, it's nothing new for me to have my opinion adjusted of a movie by it's ending - it's what took me from being apathetic about Me Before You to absolutely hating it, and what took me from being mad at Memento to loving it. Endings can make or break a film. This one breaks it.
Don't get me wrong, it doesn't ruin the movie, but it does become the point that Asher ends up falling INTO the cliches' rather than cleverly avoiding them. It all starts to go downhill when Steve dies and Annie becomes possessed. Having already been explained that a male host is needed for the villain to succeed, and being left with a moronic 17 year old who just does dumb things pretty much always, all tension is lost because we know he's screwed. Surely enough, instead of running out his front door, he goes to the attic, and jumps out of the top window. He then becomes possessed by the demon and all is lost.
There's also significant decisions made that really cost the film tonally here - first is the decision to have a headless corpse levitate up a ladder instead of moving on its own which would've bee far more effective, there's the musical score that went from being dark and sinister to being overly upbeat, there's the clichéd death-of-family-pet which, as a pet owner, I hate, see no point in, and does NOTHING TO FURTHER ANYTHING, also an over abudance of older naked people that do nothing to add to the mood but detract from it, and then finally some confusing speech at the end. Roll credits.
Here's the thing - I do still really rate this movie. There's a lot in it to defend, but there's also things you can't defend, which is a shame. Certainly, with a film like this, you need to see it and form your own opinion. So please, go do so.
My Friend Dahmer (2017)
A brilliant addition to the serial killer genre, and also the coming-of-age genre
The true life serial killer genre isn't exactly over-crowded, just more that there's fictionalised ones that take more of a forefront - Hannibal Lecter, Norman Bates, Freddy Krueger all for instance - and they always portray those characters with a certain degree of appeal. However, when I was watching this movie, I was thinking of a less violent but just as emotionally wringing version of the brilliant Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, based heavily on Henry Lee Lucas.
My Friend Dahmer comes at the story of Jeffery Dahmer from an interesting angle; it follows Dahmer growing up at school, following from aged 17 to his first murder at 18 - the film stops just after he picks up Steven Hicks. The story as written by John Backderf, played by Alex Wolff in the film, follows him and his various friends as they both invite Dahmer into their group to use him in various pranks, but also try and be friendly with him - or as friendly as you can be to an asocial, seemingly asexual outcast who fakes seizures to get attention.
The film does have certain benefits that I would say raise it above the bar of simply "good" to great. Firstly, the cinematography is first class; there is so much boldness and colourfulness that does associate it much more with a coming-of-age film - the sharpness of colours does remind me a lot of The Spectacular Now, and that type of look helps the movie have a groundedness to it and make you almost forget you're watching a film about one of the most infamous serial killers in history. The script is full of very interesting scenarios about both the characters and the town that we're growing up in. You get to see the individual disintegration of the lives of both Dahmer's parents, which are brilliantly realised by both Dallas Roberts and Anne Heche, you get to see the conflicting dynamic between Derf and his friends over their treatment of Jeffery and how their whole lives are currently going off course.
The cast is strong - small, and full of little parts that still stick with you. Alex Wolff is kind of nerdishly charming as John Backderf, who views what him and his friends are doing as harmless fun and does seem to like Dahmer, really. There's a recurrent role of a doctor played by Vincent Kartheiser who Dahmer starts to fantasise over, played with a normalcy that makes the part stand out.
However, BY A MILE, the best part of this move is Ross Lynch as the young Jeffery Dahmer. The thing that makes this performance as Dahmer so interesting is that he's not an overly awkward, nerdy, introverted guy at the start of the film - he's just someone who has problems but isn't overall bad. However, as the film goes on, you see this guy growing more and more dangerously in upon himself, and the few good qualities leave him overtime - his willingness to make people laugh, his academic interests, and even his acceptance of Derf's drawings for him are completely gone over the course of the film. I won't say the film made me feel sad for him, but more despair watching someone become more and more lost than anything else.
From his graduation towards the end of the film, when he literally left entirely alone by his family, just left with a bottle of Vodka, the film's tone shifts from amusing to soulless, and it's a tone that Ross Lynch fully embraces, through an unbelievably tense scene with Derf, to the brilliant final scene where he picks up hitchhiker Steven Hicks, that felt me very emotionally shook. I really liked this film, a lot. It shows a great showcase of acting from Ross Lynch, who looks more than capable of shedding his Disney Channel image, and also Marc Meyers for directing such good material.
Isle of Dogs (2018)
An unconventional children's film, but it's Wes Anderson so what did you expect?
Wes Anderson is probably, along with Spike Jonze, one of those directors that has such an extreme style that you know that when they have a new movie out you have no idea what it'll be like - just that you'll want to see it and you'll almost certainly like it.
I really enjoyed The Fantastic Mr Fox and The Grand Budapest Hotel, and so for this I was interested for an angular, interesting take on the idea of the children's film. The dog angle also played a big part of my anticipation in the film, as I have had 4 dogs in the course of my life, and view them as my best friends in a way.
The big thing about this film, much like other Anderson films is that there is no shying away from the fact that the animals in this film do suffer some harm. Bizarrely enough, despite there being instances in the film relating to suicide, cannibalism, starvation and - in a way - genocide relating to the dogs, the kids in my audience had zero issue with it. It was a "think of the children" moment that the children didn't care about, because within the context of the story, it functions perfectly for the narrative.
Speaking of narrative, this film has a deeply tangent storyline, in which we follow the dogs on the Isle, specifically Rex, Chief and Spots, voiced respectively by Edward Norton, Bryan Cranston and Live Schieber. Then there's the attempts by Atari, voiced by Japanese actor Koyu Rankin, to rescue Spots and fly a prop plane to the Isle to do so, and also the similar endeavours of American exchange student Tracey, voiced by Greta Gerwig. The film is also told in an untraditional 5 act structure, which frequent flashbacks, stories retold from an altered perspective, and everything to make this an unconventional movie. The voice acting is a standout of the movie, with those names I've mentioned being real standouts, in particular Cranston, who does well with his tough guy stray persona that evolves into a softer, more caring character throughout, and Norton who delivers a side to acting we haven't seen before: delivering heavy, expositional, big dialogue in a rapid fire humorous fashion. Also shoutout to a small part voiced by Scarlett Johannson as a love interest for Chief, who provides a soothing quality akin to her voice role in Spike Jonze's film Her.
The film's mystery and thriller elements are accessible to both older and younger audiences, and do make this, along with Kubo and The Two Strings, a film that would both test and extend the tastes of younger audiences. It certainly does merge into an element to the film I want to talk about with regard to how it is portrayed - the portrayal of the Japanese culture, and the "white saviour" character of Tracey. First and foremost, something cool about this film is that whenever there is a dialogue not in English, it isn't subtitled - really, only the credits have both the English and Japanese equivalents - and this is acknowledged: "Man, I wish someone spoke his language", among other things are said, and a healthy amount of visual storytelling is used. Secondly, the idea that Tracey is a white saviour is fairly misplaced, as whilst she does uncover a deeper mystery run by the Kobayashi government (itself, a callback to the Japanese coffee cup brand, and the alias used by Keyzer Soze's lawyer in The Usual Suspects, great touch) her findings are largely ineffective until Atari (another piece of Asian business and culture used sweetly and amusingly) gets involved. In fact, her involvement is entirely triggered by Atari's engaging in his quest.
What we're viewing here is tantamount to healthy cultural, and bi-cultural conversation. It's not offensive, nor inoffensive, it's an integral part of a film I very highly rate and recommend. Oh, one last thing - Isle of Dogs, if said quickly, sounds very similar to "I Love Dogs". Again, really nice detail.
Come Home (2018)
A fantastic BBC drama, with characters expertly written and acted
This BBC series finished on Tuesday the 10th of April, with an ending that was supremely brutal on the emotions, but also incredibly satisfying and also leaving me envious on the amazing way that writer Danny Brocklehurst manages to characterise the struggles of the Farrell family over this 3 episode mini-series.
The biggest praise I can give to this show is the way it portrays its various characters in shades of grey rather than the sadly constant black-and-white mundaneness that sadly common in BBC material which paints one side clearly as hero and the other as villain. In this, both Greg and Marie, portrayed respectively by an Irish accented Christopher Eccleston - which does take a moment to get use to but it's not a massive distraction - and Paula Malcomson, are portrayed as both being at fault for the downfall in this marriage, and whom their previous major faults are both portrayed as their faults, and not as justification.
In the case of Marie, it's revealed that she had an affair with a hairdresser called Billy, which resulted in the birth of their second child Lauren, whom Gregg always treats as a daughter and loves the same way and this destroys him. In the case of Gregg, he lied about having a vasectomy, which resulted in Molly, the third child and the catalyst to Marie's leaving.
Now, one of my biggest complaints about last year's BBC drama Trust Me (which by the way I stand by everything I said about that) is that it undermined its thriller element by making the consequences for everything that happened go in Cath's favour and it made the series impossible to like or even believe. In this, Brocklehurst displays these in a very grey manner - very respectful to the auidence's intelligence and values, and very commendable in terms of ability.
The kids are equally as skilled in conveying the story. In particular Anthony Boyle as Liam, the eldest child, and Lori Petticrew as the aforementioned Lauren, are good at conveying both the fragmented state of the family unit and the conflicts that come with the new status of their parents relationships. Liam is the one who goes through a big transformation, as he leaves both of his parents seemingly behind and starts to live alone. Lauren is the diligent, reasonable daughter trying to hold a relationship with both parents. Elsewhere in the cast is Kerri Quinn as Gregg's new girlfriend, reeling from a breakup with her violent ex-partner and who tries to make a mark in the Farrell household but causes unintended friction, who likewise isn't painted as a monster, but as a person and who is equally well acted. There's also Susan Ateh as Marie's new friend Lucy, who is unable to conceive and whom is betrayed by Marie's lies about her childlessness. Ateh isn't in a large amount of the story, but her breaking down of Marie's subsequent hedonistic behaviour really stood out as being high quality TV acting from someone who really makes this role standout.
In the brutal final moments of the series, Marie looks to Gregg after a nasty custody battle and offers some compromise. She tells him that in spite of the result, "We both lost". As viewers, I say we won, with an intelligently written, well structured and well produced show, with some amazing editing and music choices to boot, being our prize.
Wind River (2017)
A hatrick for Taylor Sheridan's official trilogy
Whilst it's not exact to refer to this, Sicario and Hell or High Water as a trilogy in setting or character, it certainly is through themes as said by Sheridan himself. In all of his films so far, there is a principle character who is a father who is trying to make amends for previous shortcomings as a parent. In Sicario, that was Benicio Del Toro's Alejandro, in Hell or High Water it was Chris Pine's Toby, and in this we have Jeremy Renner's Cory Lambert, a wildlife reserve hunter who despite his profession as a protector and hunter is haunted by the murder of his daughter Emily three years prior to the events of this movie.
Sheridan, as an actor, is expert with giving his actors, even the minor players, a lot to play with. Now, with him moving behind the lense with this film, he shows that he can also give his actors excellent direction to go with this. In particular, the standout of this movie is Jeremy Renner in his role as Cory. Cory is noteworthy in this film, since he lives and works in the Wyoming Wind River Native American reverse, of being one of the few white American men who work on the land, and is ironically the outsider here. Renner plays the character with a steel similar to Del Toro's portrayal of Alejandro, but is far more empathetic, and is certainly the standout of the film's amazing cast.
Elsewhere, Elizabeth Olsen is in the film playing FBI Agent Jane Banner. She's newly qualified, completely unprepared for the conditions, and completely under resourced. This character could've easily been a useless bimbo type of girl, but fortunately in the hands of Olsen, this part gifted by one of the most exciting new writers of our time is given something new: Jane is smart enough to recognise that she's out of her depth and needs help, is humble enough to empathise with Ben, the police chief, and is realistically capable in gunfight situations.
The film's plot is simple, but intriguing: the body of a Native American woman, Natalie, is found raped, barefoot, 6 miles from the nearest civilisation in extreme snow. Jane arrives, and teams up with the Police and Cory to find the truth. The simplicity of the plot doesn't affect the pacing, which is certainly contemplative for the first 20 minutes, but then the rest of the film grows in action and interest - should be noted that this film is very short by modern film standards, at 110 minutes. It certainly is visually interesting, with lots of fantastic poetic imagery with Cory hunting the wolves to protect the Native's flock, the snowstorm setting looking great on screen, and strong correlation of soundtrack and imagery and the way the two don't trample on the other.
The supporting cast is amazing, with actors such as Graham Greene, James Jordan, Julia Jones and Eric Lange providing memorable roles.
But the true standouts among the supporting cast are Gil Birmingham, who plays Natalie's father, a big, warm presence in the film consisting of the cold, Kelsey Chow playing Natalie herself, and Jon Bernthal playing Natalie's similarly ill-fated boyfriend Matt. Bernthal and Chow only have one scene in the movie, and it's a scene that needs to work otherwise both the investment of the audience and the realism of the situation would fail, and the vibe they give off - that of a relationship that is genuine, affectionate, funny and caring - is one that makes the events of that scene so much more tragic.
This movie is brilliant. Admittedly, I've only watched it the once, but it's certainly got the feeling of rewatchability like Hell or High Water especially has. If you haven't seen it yet, buy the DVD and support it.
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)
A film that may not have all the answers, but doesn't claim to. Oh, and top notch acting and writing of course!
I saw this film yesterday, and I do not regret it - 100% will watch it again.
The movie is very much unlike many other movies out at the minute, or in really recent history. Even by Martin McDonaugh's standard's, this is a movie that doesn't fit into the same Black Comedy box as his previous two movies "In Bruges" or "Seven Psychopaths". In fact, this movie is far more up on tragedy than those two, which even in their sad moments have some humour. Don't get me wrong; this is not a film that's lacking in colour or dynamics, but it's certainly bleaker than those others by McDonaugh.
At the head of this movie is a phenomenal cast. The most notable of these are the recent Oscar nominated Frances McDormand as Mildred Hayes, Woody Harrelson as Sheriff Bill Willoughby and Sam Rockwell as Officer Jason Dixon.
Frances McDormand is a force of nature in this role, and is certainly her best film work since/included Fargo, depending on your opinion. Her character of Mildred is one that could very easily be portrayed as a flawless martyr, striving for justice for her daughter at the behest of everyone else but whom will convince the audience to see her as a perfect person and nothing more. But she doesn't, as whilst you will laugh and cheer when she confronts Dixon in the station with her now famous "Hey f***head!", you have issues when she tells Willoughby she doesn't care of his cancer, but is later sympathetic when she starts to wain. It's a character that could easily have been boring, but isn't in her hands. The best example of this is when they show a flashback to her final chat with her daughter, and her daughter yells "I hope I get raped on the way", she responds "I hope you get raped too!", and that's what happened. It's a great moment, played as intensely as needed for it to work.
Woody Harrelson plays a side of him people rarely see. He's not in the film for very long, as he kills himself fairly early in, but he certainly stays in the mind despite this. Willoughby is a man trying to do the right thing, but is going against an unbeatable obstacle, and who we, as an audience, do get a sense of despite his short screen time: a funny, compassionate, well respected leader of the police, and a great father and husband at the same time. When he went, I legit teared up.
Sam Rockwell, in his best work ever, plays the character who goes through the biggest arc in the movie. At the start, Dixon is very much a bitter, violent cop with a fragile ego, who when it breaks becomes scary. His endpoint however, whilst not a complete 180, is still big; he learns to take his time, think things through, and be more willing to do a policeman's work for the good of the community than himself.
Martin McDonaugh's screenplay is top tier brilliance, as humour and horror do exist in the same plain, and his direction is just as sterily clean, so when the violence does hit, it really does. The two biggest examples are when the fight between Mildred, her ex-husband Charlie played by John Hawkes, and her son Robbie played by Lucas Hedges, and when Dixon attacks the billboard owner in a rage at his office.
The ending, whilst not what I was expecting, was welcome. To me, it signals that whilst the resolve isn't there, the character's of Mildred and Jason have found a purpose beyond and this helps them to cope. As they head off to places unknown to do a thing they're not sure of, we know that their moral compasses are still guiding them, in this very adult, very great film, that is totally worth a rewatch.
One last thing: the race issue in this movie, is something that, if it hadn't been brought up, you wouldn't notice. It's ironic that in a movie that is based around growing in compassion and empathy, that this strange label of racism has been put on a movie that neither promotes these viewpoints, but the character's that do exhibit these points of view see the error of them.
Whatever; I enjoyed this film regardless, and that won't change. If you think it looks like a good viewing, give it a go.