Change Your Image
NatKaminska
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Anyone But You (2023)
Cringe, boring comedy with paper thin romance. If this is what is called romantic and funny nowadays, then love and comedy are dead!
I need to warn those of you who want to spend your money on this thing: don't do it, not worth it. I watched the movie and it was horrible. It tried to be a charming '90s and '2000s rom-com, yet it failed in every department except with the male lead. Glen Powell is the only good thing about this movie.
'Anyone but you' is full of cliches and while you can do cliches in a good way, and make genuine, great gem of a specific genre, this is not the case here. The movie is boring, shallow, cringe comedy with typical cringe, over-the-top, not-funny jokes, maybe 1 joke lands in the entire movie, that's how bad it is. The supposedly 'hilarious' nude scene on the cliff, especially the part when Powell is bending over, completely naked, holding his balls in his hands, is the next level of cringe, nothing funny, nothing charming, just cringe, awkward, awful. It's also full of heavy, not subtle, and obvious cultural references as if the writers just wrote down popular internet memes. Man, these writers really don't have any respect for the viewers. I basically wanted to walk out of this movie after the first 15 minutes.
The romance part is badly done as well. The chemistry is average at best, just like a normal chemistry between two beautiful people - they are easy on the eyes oh right, like most people in this industry, but nothing more. They are not Mulder and Scully or Hanks and Ryan. Another problem with the main couple is that only Powell is to some degree likable, even tho the script doesn't make his character particularly likable, Powell's natural charisma and charm do the trick. With Sweeney that doesn't exist, she is utterly unlikeable as Bea, and this flaw kills the romance and fun completely. Despite what was said about this duo during the last summer and what some of their blind stans and the media still say now, they don't fit together as a rom-com couple at all!
The screenplay itself doesn't help the actors achieve any chemistry, as the entire story is incredibly predictable, and thus boring, with awful dialogues and wooden acting most of the time.
Nothing really happens in this movie! Any romantic comedy has to have some stakes in the relationship, some solid drama, and funny, unexpected twists and turns that make sense at least in the fictional universe. In this movie, the conflict that starts Ben and Bea's feud doesn't even make sense! Literally, one minute of simple explanation would clear the air between them, as they are visibly attracted to each other, from the first moment they meet. So the whole basis of this film, that they hate each other, doesn't make sense. We needed some stronger reason for the hate here.
Yes, I'm aware that this movie is based on Shakespeare's play 'Much Ado About Nothing', and that one point of that play is that a great fuss/drama between the protagonists started from something insignificant ('nothing'), but every artist, and not only an artist but average person, knows that film is a completely different medium than a theater play, and what worked in a play about romance, written in Shakespeare's times, doesn't work as well in a modern, romantic comedy film. This movie isn't written intelligently enough to make it work either. Again, for the plot to be compelling in this film, we needed a stronger reason for hatred between the main characters, and the development of the characters, and we got neither of those things. Throughout the film, the characters are basic sketches, and we don't know much about them till the end.
Then, during the next two, remaining acts of the movie, also nothing really happens. They decide to fake that they are together out of the blue, and their reasons for it are also simply not good enough for the audience to care about the characters and the story. Throughout the entire film, we don't see at all that Ben genuinely desires his ex, and Bea's parents don't have enough of the presence, are completely flat, insignificant characters for the audience to believe or care that she needs to lie to them, which were the two main reasons for the masquerade. Therefore, another giant flaw of the script: the motivations of the main characters that are supposed to push the plot forward are insufficient to be credible and interesting to the audience.
In general, the problem is that nothing is fleshed out in 'Anyone but You' - not the main storyline, not the two main leads, not the background characters, drama, or comedy.
The 'meta' lines in the script, the kinda 'wink- wink we know it's typical rom-com trope' also don't work because for this to work, the entire script would have to be much more intelligent and satirical, and it isn't smart or a satire at all! It just tried to cheat the audience by doing this, or the writers gave themselves an easy excuse for the rest of their bad writing, and again - it doesn't work. Nothing works in this movie.
Yet another big problem: Sydney doesn't have a talent for comedy, sorry. Her delivery is very bland and too stiff, her character is flat, like cut out of a cardboard figure. I just don't understand how someone like her could get the role specifically in romantic comedy if she doesn't fit this role at all. Weren't there some other, better, and actually comedy-talented, cute actresses available during the casting process? Or was it just an easy money grab because it is Sydney Sweeney from 'Euphoria'?
Glen is the only one who can be genuinely hilarious and gives his all, and that is not a surprise for anyone who follows his career. Glen already showed his comedy talent in Scream Queens but also proved it as Hangman in Top Gun. He is a very funny guy in real life too, as you can see in his interviews, so it's obvious comedy is natural for him. That's why he absolutely is in his element in this movie, and he 'feels it' but the problem is no one of the rest of the cast is, including Sydney. And Glen alone is still not good enough to save this movie.
When you have such a difference in comedic chops between two leads in a romantic comedy that is a giant problem. I don't know if you noticed, but the hilarious thing is, you can already see in the trailers, that Sydney is not good at all in this movie. I remember that I commented her delivery is terrible the minute I watched the trailer!
After I watched this movie, I definitely think Glen is much better in romantic comedies when paired with Zoey Deutch. Glen has a way better, more organic, and natural chemistry with Zoey than with Sydney, maybe because Zoey has a comedy talent just like Glen. I saw on Glen's IMDB that he is going to star in another comedy with Zoey, hopefully, better written than this one, so I will wait for it.
To sum up, 'Anyone but You' is not worth one second of your time, your money, or any buzz, just wait for the the movie to appear on the streaming platforms. It doesn't have the great main couple, it doesn't have good background characters, it doesn't have the charm, wit, and natural flow that romantic comedies of the '90s or early '2000 had, like She's All That, Love Actually, Holiday, 10 Things I Hate About You, or How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days.
It simply doesn't have good or even decent writing! And I'm not the enemy of romantic comedies, I'm a woman and aspiring filmmaker, I love great romantic comedies just like any other great movie, of any other genre. But this movie is so bad, that I genuinely felt ashamed while watching it - I felt ashamed for the filmmakers who made this, especially the writers. Don't bother!
Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)
Visually stunning and ambitious but ends up boring and empty.
Everything Everywhere All at Once started ambitious and interesting but ended up being an overlong boring mess with an orgy of random colorful stuff thrown around, and non-stop action, that doesn't allow the audience to breathe. My head hurt so bad after.
It's always fascinating to me how much people's opinions differ. Contrary to the laudatory reviews, the film has very little substance and message. The creators laid the foundations, but did not fill it with content, the conclusion is quite a cliche, and yes, in the end, life is a bunch of old truisms that can be deep and charming in their simplicity if the road leading to them, is real. But this film quickly gets lost in a madly spinning merry-go-round of colors, movements, words, and sounds. You can cut half of the movie and it won't change the message or the ending, the movie is 40 minutes too long. This isn't coherent vision at all and it just leaves you confused and with a headache. Someone may say that this form is intentional because that's exactly how life is, but sorry, the creators can't get a pass so easily. If you claim you made a movie with a real message it's your job to make the audience care, to show something that is raw and true not bore people to death and just throw random things around over and over again.
Everything Everywhere All at Once is in the end tedious and loud, and it leaves you with very little not some grand wisdom.
It's absolutely not an 8, 9 or 10. It's technically and visually well done, but the story itself pretends to be more profound than it really is. This is def one of the most overrated movies this year.
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Great action movie for sure, talented cast but not a masterpiece
It is a great action movie -no doubt- but a masterpiece it is not, sorry. It's a mix and I gave it solid 7, so bear with me.
First, things I didn't like: this movie is incredibly predictable. I knew step by step what is gonna happen next, I knew Hangman will save the day in the end because he was basically the younger version of Maverick and they did exactly the same thing at the end as they did in the original movie. We had Rooster vs Hangman just like we had Mav vs Iceman in the first one. We had obvious sentimental callbacks to the relationship between Mav and Goose, and of course that - and Goose's death - translated into the relationship between Mav and Rooster. If you have half of a brain you knew they are gonna clear the air and bond with each other in the end. They were never going to die and anyone who knows typical big-hero American movies, knew it, so there was no surprise. People who claim there were in shock and didn't expect this finale, hm, lets put it lightly - are not very bright.
Also, for me, it was pretty lame that we didn't even find out who was the enemy. If you are making a movie like that when the mission is the center of the action, how could you not explain who is the powerful enemy? It's like making a war movie and not saying who the other side is. Ridiculous and lazy. So again, genre-wise, it was a great action movie. But nothing more. Do you know what a masterpiece is? Godfather. Or Thin Red line by Malick.
However, despite all of the bad, there is also a lot of good in Top Gun 2. The cast is def talented and very, very charming. Miles Teller is a perfect choice as Goose's son and his talent is on full display, same as the talents of the rest of the young crew. Glen Powell is probably the most charming of them all, he has great charisma and million dollar smile. I have to say I enjoy his Hangman the most. The evolution of his character was obvious and not subtle at all but Glenn is such a scene-stealer that you just can't help to enjoy and like him.
Top Gun: Maverick is simply very entertaining and we need that and not just movies that make you want to kill yourself. It's a big popcorn, classic Americana movie very well made, just like Ford vs Ferrari was in 2019. Both have a lot of similarities - both are classic Americana, heroes , dad-son movies, each celebrates technological and engineering breakthrough worlds that have not only allowed the human race to achieve amazing things and push boundaries, but to live a more comfortable life as well. One focuses on the aviation industry, the other on the cars industry. Both have no CGI but real, practical effects and were filmed as real as possible with help of the insiders.
So, all in all, Top Gun Maverick is nothing new, and the plot could have been better - less predictable but if you want to relax, live a real big cinema experience, have fun and watch a movie that makes you feel good, like comfort food, it's for you. It's def the action movie of 2022.
The Batman (2022)
The Batman is another serious, dark take on the most popular, brooding superhero. It is an ambitious movie, but ultimately not very innovative, and a little dull.
I love Batman stories simply because for me he is the most interesting, torn superhero with no miraculous superpower (which to me is just boring and banal), he only has and uses his iron willpower and his demons. He is superheroic yet just a human, who does heroic things. Thanks to this, each new vision of Batman has something more to offer than just people in masks puchning each other and some cringe humor, which is the case in most superhero movies.
Or at least such a more serious, deeper take on Batman has become possible thanks to the iconic Nolan Trilogy. In fact, all modern superhero movies, including Marvel ones, were inspired by Batman Begins (imo the greatest pure- Batman movie to date and underrated) because Begins was produced in 2004 and aired in 2005 so long before the first Iron Man. Since then, all superhero movies, even with chessy humor, are still trying to tell about something more than cartoonish movies of this type, from the 90s.
So it's no surprise that 'The Batman' too, inevitably borrows a lot from The Dark Knight Trilogy. I can see that some reviewers here don't see this (maybe you need to watch DKT again).
First, the atmosphere. Dark, heavy, elements of horror and film noir - we've seen all of this before in The Dark Knight and Batman Begins, respectively. Begins had a great, suffocating atmosphere, dark, claustrophobic shots - especially the scenes when Batman goes on his missions, wandering through nightly Gotham, and a beautiful dark- orange light that completes horror's atmosphere, such as in the epic scene when Bale first utters the words' I 'm Batman' '. All of these elements - the use of light in the shots, heavy atmosphere, noir and horror elements are present in the Reeves' movie. Used very skillfully, you can see the excellent cinematography in this movie, that's for sure, but it's nothing new and the inspiration of The Dark Knight Triylogy is immediately apparent.
A fresh, new element is the focus on Batman's detective talent, something that previous Caped Crusader movies ignored, although you can still find a little of this in the Nolan Trilogy as well (especially in Rises). However, 'The Batman' focuses entirely on this aspect and makes it the essence of the movie. A wise choice, although predictable, because at this point, after so many Batman movies, this was kinda the only, unexplored thing left in his story.
Pattison plays a rookie Batman carefully, his character is someone who is just starting fighting crimes, and who also shows a lot of vulnerability. All is very well done, but again - we've already seen this in Nolan's movies. Whether in Begins, when Bale's Batman is just starting - we see his failures and his amateurishness, gradual development and improvement of his skills, or in Rises, when we see Bruce and his alter ego weak and completely broken by Rachel's death, what happened to Dent and ultimately, his failure. Of course, Matt Reeves' film portrays a different type of vulnerability - it's more of a layman's sensitivity and a youngster's inexperience, but again, it's not a completely new idea.
Pattison is a great actor who already has absolutely phenomenal roles to his credit, for example in Lighthouse, his acting talent is unquestionable, but as Batman he didn't fully convince me. Yes, he is serious and wounded from trauma, he is brooding, but he lacks the mystery and charisma that Christian Bale's Batman had.
That's the thing about Bale - he posesses this one of a kind, brilliant charisma, masculinity and clandestineness, which no other actor playing the role of Batman has had and it's still unmatched. Yes, when Robert hides behind the Batsuit and is wearing a mask, he shows more confidence and bravery, but that's still not charisma, and when he takes off the mask he's too boyish for me, if you know what I mean. If you don't see this, just go back to Bale's Batman and see his captivating, agressive eyes and intense stare behind the mask or without it, and then watch Robert again. This is why Bale was not only brilliant Batman / Wayne, but also great in American Psycho. He is a magnetic enigma, very manly yet can be subtle and sensitive the same time. You can't learn that, you are just born with it (there are very few actors like this, one is James Brolin; curiously, young Bale looked like young Brolin's twin or older Brolin's lost son, google their photos).
To sum up - Pattison worked very hard on this role, you can tell, but the result is that he is wasted here (go read New Yorker review, the best review of The Batman yet - very insightful). A lot can be said about Batman voice, especially comparing it to the famous Bale's Bat voice but I feel that such discussions are kinda pointless. Each Batman is different and adapts the physical elements of the performance to the director's vision. Bale's Batman was more realistic than previous versions, so he couldn't use any electronic device to change his voice, and for me Bale's voice - very masculine, deep, vibrating, especially in Begins was perfect! Go back to the scene where Bale first says "I'm Batman" - he sounded absolutely phenomenal. And you can argue Pattison voice in The Batman is very similar or at least used in similar manner to Bale's voice in Begins. We know that later, in Dark Knight and Rises Bale kinda went overboard, but few people know, it was partly because Bale started losing his voice, so he had to speak more deeply each time to not sound tired. Partly, however, it was a conscious choice and in my opinion a good one - Bale himself said in an interview that he wanted to sound almost animalistic, like a wild beast, a completely new take on Batman and he did just that. Many fans didn't understand this and still don't understand it today. The conclusion is that while Robert did a great job in this movie, he still lacks this special 'spark' Bale had as Batman. Therofore, for me, Bale is still the best Batman to date.
I have a different feeling about many of the rest of The Batman's brilliant cast, who for me created the best versions of their characters in the history of cinema. I especially mean Zoey Kravitz as Selina and Paul Dano as Riddler. Both are just genius. Kravitz's Selina possesses extraordinary sex appeal, which is neither ostentatious nor vulgar like Michelle Pfeiffer's version of this character, and at the same time is more exciting than Anne Hathaway's version. Paul Dano is an outstanding actor who doesn't need to be introduced to any cinema connoisseur and I expected from the very beginning the role is going to be brilliant, you can't go wrong with Paul Dano. His villain is captivating, his acting is crazy good, and I would say, he rivals Ledger's Joker as the most complex, best villain in superhero movie ever. Colin Farell as Pinguin is good but kinda too limited to say smth truly great about him, we will see if he gets more screen time in the next Reeves' Batman installment.
All in all - The Batman by Matt Reeves is very well made, well acted Batman movie with spirit but still, not fresh when it comes to ideas and overall a little dull. It's is also inconsistent, for example in the scene where Selina says how she have had enough of 'white, rich, privilaged dudes' and has a plan to teach them a lesson yet she - and the entire movie - seems to be oblivious to the fact that Bruce Wayne is a poster boy of white, rich, privilaged dudes. It's an unintentional irony, even grotesque. I don't think Reeves think this one through.
I'm curious what will happen next with Reeves' and Pattison's Batman, but the final verdict is this: The Batman, although it is successful in terms of depth of material and portraying the detective side of Batman's character, still stands on the shoulders of real giants: Nolan and Bale. They truly changed the superhero genre cinema forever.
Jungle (2017)
Cliché, formulaic, unoriginal film, with bad dialogues and paper- thin characters.
Amazing stories of survival in the wild, whether in the Amazon jungle (like here), whether in the desert or in the mountains, as well as stories of human arrogance in the face of the eternal struggle of man vs. nature, are nothing new in cinema. We've seen it all hundreds of times before. So the task of the ''Jungle'' creators was difficult from the beginning, because how can you say something new here? Well, anyone who watched ''127 hours'' - movie not so old after all, and which was made after hundreds of other, already existing survival films - knows that it can still be done, only if you write a good, engaging story, good dialogues, interesting characters that will be important to viewers. ''Jungle'' unfortunately has great problems in each of these basic elements, so the final result is poor.
First of all, the whole story is told in the least original way : 3 young guys meet during a trip across South America and with youthful arrogance and naivety, they decide to trust an older stranger, who claims to be an experienced jungle guide and promises to show them a rare, wild Indian tribe and provide an adventure that they will never forget (in this he is right). The viewer immediately knows that a bad guy is a ''bad guy'', because with exaltation, he says suspicious things, like, for example, that he doesn't need an accurate map, ominous music playing, you get the idea. Conflicts between the characters, which of course quickly appear, are written so predictably, without any imagination, that it was laughable. The dialogues are cheesy, self-righteous and at the same time wooden, which means that although the situation is dramatic, it feels ridiculous. Yossi's hallucinations are an idea taken straight from '127 hours' and made in a similar tone, but much more crude.
The next big and maybe the biggest problem of this film, is simply poorly written script and characters. The introduction of the main characters takes literally 30 seconds and is very sloppy, just unconvincing. Marcus and Yossi meet at the beginning of the film and after one second there is a jump to the scene that shows them as if they knew each other for a hundred years. Another problem - the viewer doesn't get to know these characters at all, their traits are 'told' in a few seconds of dialogue (''he was a poet'') instead of being shown in particular scenes, so screenwriter's error 101. We also meet a young girl, also a traveler, who obviously likes Yossi - and we know it immediately, because it is again said in the dialogue, not shown. The girl appears out of nowhere and disappears just as quickly, another paper character & waste of time in the film. Kevin and Karl are written equally thin, they also appear suddenly and in a moment they are behaving as if they knew Yossi and Marcus for a long time, and in the case of Kevin - Marcus's old friend, this is justified, but again the viewer doesn't feel it, because it's written superficially. So we have badly written characters. Then, unfortunately, badly written conflicts appear too.
The conflicts between the characters, the drama - is essence of every movie or story. As viewers, who know survival stories, we know from the start that conflicts will soon appear, because an expedition like this, especially if you are not prepared like our heroes, always sooner or later means stress, nerves and conflicts. The problem with this movie is that these conflicts appear out of nowhere again, there is almost no build-up to them, plus it all seems completely illogical, not supported by characters development (because there is no such development).
And the lack of logic is another problem here. I understand that it is based on a true story, but even if it is , I am convinced that in the book on which the film was based, it was developed and shown better (I didn't read it). In the movie it quickly turns out, that Marcus is the weakest link (which is told, in the primitive way, at the beginning of the film, 'he was a poet' - rolling eyes). After some time, he can't go any further, because his feet are basically bloody pulp, so the whole group decides to build a raft and swim down the river. Of course, the idea itself is ridiculous, because even if Karl is a guide, he is clearly not a specialist at crossing the wild amazon river, where it is known that whirlpools, currents and waterfalls are strong, big and dangerous.
All the more, the other three are unprepared for it, also why are they convinced that they can build such a good, solid raft? Of course, this is intended to illustrate human arrogance that is typical in such stories, but again the way it is shown in the film is weak, not supported by any deeper discussion. Then the viewer witnesses another completely illogical decision / scene. After rafting down the river for a while, the group takes a break, and while resting, Yossi and Kevin talk about what to do next and decide that they don't want to travel with Marcus anymore, whom they see as the weakest 'in the herd', so they manipulate him, so that he voluntarily agrees to continue on with Karl through the jungle (Karl seems to be afraid of water and doesn't want to swim on the raft any further). So they split, Yossi and Kevin take the raft and the plan is that everyone will meet in the designated place (nearest village). And here two great absurdities appear in this story. The only reason, why the whole group decided to use a raft in the first place, instead of going through the jungle, was Marcus, who couldn't walk anymore. But now, suddenly, the guy with wounded feet is supposed to go on foot alone with Karl (and it's obvious Marcus's feet are still bad&bloody, we can see in the scene), and the two who have healthy feet take the raft? Where is the logic here? Second thing that bothered me, was the lack of empathy by Yossi and especially Kevin, who is Marcus's longtime friend, towards Marcus. They went on such a wild trip completely unprepared, so it is normal that the more delicate/fragile individual would finally break, so why do Marcus's friends have so little understanding for him? I get that the creators wanted to show human arrogance by this, in such situations, the impact of jungle on the entire human psyche is inevitable. But because the filmmakers didn't really show deeper relationship between these characters throughout the movie, everything happens quickly and superficially, the characters and conflicts in this screenplay are written one-dimensional, viewers simply don't understand the motivation of the characters and can't sympathize with the characters. And everyone, even amateurish cinema lovers know, that this is a basic error of screenwriting and filmmaking in general - write conflict and characters so poorly that viewers simply don't care. Viewers must care, only then the film fulfills its function.
Another thing is the lack of realism in some scenes. Much later in the movie, when Yossi is lost, wandering in the jungle alone, his feet are becoming as bad as Marcus feet were, in fact even worse, with large holes and all brown-blue, and yet Yossi walks normally. It looks like a gangrene stage and in that case, Yossi just wouldn't be able to walk anymore, he would also lose his feet. What else is bad in the 'Jungle'? Coarse symbolism : Yossi's prayer book, a gift from his grandfather, hallucinations with an Indian woman - dialogues between this Indian woman and Yossi full of banalities, written almost comically. Acting is also totally average imo, including Radcliff. I haven't seen anything amazing in this role.
I could go on, but I'm ending now, because you get it already, right? If someone wants to watch a really well-made survival movie, from contemporary films, watch ''127 hours'' or ''The Revenant '' or even ''The lost city of Z''- movie with flaws, but certainly better than this. ''Jungle'' is simply a completely unoriginal, badly made movie. I give it 3 only because I appreciate the effort and intentions (who works in the film business, knows that a million things can go wrong while making a movie and it changes everything, and sometimes hard work and best intentions give a poor result) and despite everything, this movie is watchable, 1 or 2 I reserve for movies that are totally impossible to watch.
Ford v Ferrari (2019)
Ford vs Ferrari is pure entertainment, an epic sports/western about male friendship&passion for something. Nostalgic tribute to old Hollywood movies that are no longer made.
The director of the film James Mangold himself claims in interviews that he shot 'Saving Private Ryan' in the reverse, a film that unfolds gradually, and in the third act shows all its beauty, in a monumental scene portraying the course of the great and one of the toughest car races in the world - Le Mans, during which racers drove all day and night.
At first, however, I would like to briefly address the loud and polarizing opinions about this film that have already appeared.
So the ultra-left side (swjs) already thinks that this movie is a step backwards, because it focuses on the friendship of two white men and generally it is a movie packed with alpha men fighting for power. Of course, this is unfair simplification and not true.
This film tells a classic story of David vs Goliath, a story of beautiful friendship between two passionate people. On the surface this is a film about a duel between Ford and Ferrari in Le Mans, but if we dive deeper, it is truly a story about eternal struggle between corporation and artists (which can also be transferred to the film industry itself).
Therefore, people should forget about politics at least once, especially if we are in the world of art, cinema, film, because pushing politics into everything becomes really devastating and toxic, art / films are given contexts that simply do not exist in these specific cases. Ford and Ferrari is a nostalgic return to the old cinema, yes, it talks mainly about men, but also about their passion, family and love. About small- big things that are simple and present in everyone's life, it is a film for everyone.
Other opinions that I heard are that the whole story is too simple and predictable, and the characters are not shown enough off the race track, too little character study. First of all, the allegation about the simplicity of this story is absurd, because the director clearly wanted to make such a film - it's not just a car film, but a classic western as the director himself confirmed in an interview for The Times : ''As much as I felt like I was making a race movie, I was making Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, a movie about friendship " - he said. And it's true.
This film ticks off every known point in the classic western story, in which you can find a duel between the good and the bad, fight between the charming 'outlaw' poets of the wheel and the great, bad, big bosses of something much bigger. Perhaps, as some say, Mangold's mistake was focusing too much on the conflict of bureaucracy - the racetrack, but as I read in interviews, the script was re-written several times, it was supposed to be an old classic cinema about male friendship and hardships and it works. And yes - from time to time, we need to take a break from the over-intellectualised and psychologically intense cinema and we simply need such pure entertainment, with a dose of pathos, emotions, great collective scenes and two very pleasant acting performances.
And now back to these two main characters. Bale and Damon play two geniuses, one of whom can communicate with the rest of the world like a normal human and belong to a larger community (Damon's Shelby) and the other (Bale's Miles), is a total freak, an outsider incompatible with anyone and anything except maybe his wife and son, exuberant eccentric. But it is exactly this '' separateness '', internal life, loneliness and quirks of Miles, that can lead to the defeat of the invincible Ferrari. These two make the film from beginning to end and the chemistry between them is great. The duo dynamics provide us with a few really hilarious scenes, one of which deserves special attention - the fight scene near Miles's home. Bale and Damon are excellent comedy-wise in this scene, as middle-aged daddies pathetically trying to knock each other down with bread or a trash can lid.
For me, these two performances deserve recognition, because Damon and Bale did what they could with the script they got. They both did a lot of work.
However, if I had to choose one, I would choose Bale. Bale plays Ken Miles, the maverick British racing driver really brilliantly. His energy, the entire digging into the psychology of the character, but also into his physicality - Christian is a master of total acting. Pay attention to the work of his arms at the cinema - just like Miles, and yet there are so few video clips with Miles. Bale's acting is not at all 'too big', Miles is just like that in this movie - explosive, impulsive, full of passion, but also has a tart language without a filter for those who want to manipulate him. Also, let's not forget that Bale spoke personally to Miles's son Peter, as he prepared for the role.
Miles was a bona-fide eccentric, and his cockpit monologues have something of Top Gear about them.
"Learn to drive, you pillock!" he roars as someone cuts him up. "More of that please, giddy up!" he shouts when the car responds. "This feels like a bag of squirrels!" he yells when it doesn't. Miles was from Birmingham, but Bale's version has more than a touch of Yorkshire. He is basically an unholy hybrid of Jeremy Clarkson, Alan Partridge and Geoffrey Boycott.
"Christian had this remarkable list of Brummie expressions he made on a wadded-up piece of notepaper" Mangold said in The Times interview "I'd like to frame it. People said that Miles liked to talk to himself while he was driving and we hadn't really written any ongoing mutterings for him. So between takes when he was in the car, Christian had this piece of paper: 'Your face is redder than a spiked arse . . . let's not go round the Wrekin (Black Country slang for going the long way).' " I find this anecdote hilarious.
According to the director, double-decker rigs allowed Bale and co to be filmed in the cars while they were driven by professional drivers sitting on the roof. "So the actors are moving through space at 100 miles an hour, they're amid other traffic all being driven by pros, but they're allowed to act, remember their lines, take notes." Or, in Bale's case, swear like a trooper.
Bale's character is certainly, heightened (but as I wrote this is Miles in this story) hurling wrenches as freely as he chucks insults. Mangold thinks the performance expresses "a lot of the joy in Christian's soul. So many of his roles, in a very direct contradiction of who he is in life, are just very grim. The playfulness rarely gets a chance to shine."
With Phoenix, as with Bale and Daniel Day Lewis, "you're not even sure where the acting stops", Mangold said. "There's a kind of danger.'' and he added : ''Matt, Christian, Joaquin, Russell Crowe, Vanessa Redgrave, Robert De Niro: they come to the set to play. They're the opposite of tricky - they want to be directed and they've worked with many great directors, so they have a great deal of trust.''
And for all these reasons, for me Christian Bale is actually the most fascinating actor in today's film world. He is the most unique and unpredictable actor of modern actors. He always turns left when everyone else turns right, and vice versa - goes straight when the others turn. His choices are quite unusual, they never go with fashion, with mainstream.
In the previous year, he played without hesitation in the very polarizing '' Vice '' and there is no doubt that he angered many on the right side of the political scene, and today he plays in an old-fashioned western - sport film about purely male friendship, which, as I can see, has already annoyed some feminists and ultra-leftists.
But Christian only goes his own ways, just like Ken Miles, and chooses roles that challenge him, not because of political correctness. As he has shown more than once, he does not care who he can anger with his dark, witty, sardonic and self-deprecating sense of humor (you can see it in many interviews) and I absolutely love it.
Finally, that's why Christian is a brilliant actor, one of a kind, but also a chameleon - because I've read thousands of comments online about him and no one actually has a clue. But James Mangold, who is friends with Bale, gave a great IndieWire interview about the film and Bale, one great quote: '' I felt the role was close to Bale and prayed he would do it. He's a model to me of artistic perseverance and flexibility. He'll text you with thoughts and free associations about the character. It's all incredible food. He's a wonderful father, loving husband, great friend. He's not interested in being famous. He drives a pickup truck, he's grounded in the world, he raced motorcycles but had to stop when he got hurt, when he had kids. There are so many parts of Ken in Christian, who's a perfectionist. He's trying to achieve something for himself. It's magical to direct someone like that because they draw you into their own idealism. You feel that energy; it permeates the set''.
Like Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood, Le Mans '66 is about "the transition moment for men in the Sixties as the world is changing from underneath them", Mangold says. With their nonchalant machismo and hands-on practicality, Miles and Shelby are an endangered species, as Leonardo DiCaprio's and Brad Pitt's characters were in Quentin Tarantino's movie. Mangold seems a bit like that too. Not a dinosaur, but one of those muscular all-rounders who would have thrived in the golden age of Tinseltown.
He smiles. "I'd be very happy 50 years ago, in the Hollywood system." He says he's trapped, but he has always been "a wanderer in terms of genre", from cops to cowboys, asylum inmates to country singers, superhero pensioners to retro racers. He thinks his versatility has been "almost to his detriment". Nonsense. Mangold is just that quaint, old-fashioned thing: a really good director.
Let this be the ultimate encouragement. Ford vs Ferrari is an epic, old-fashioned cinema, no CGI, they had car replicas, for that reason only it's worth watching in the cinema, on a big screen.
Joker (2019)
''Joker wants to be a movie about the emptiness of our culture. Instead, It's a prime example of It''
Until now, the only review of this movie that I mostly agree with is the review from The Times. I stole the title of this review because it just hits the nail on the head.
In the first impulse, I didn't even want to watch this movie, because I'm just fed up with the Joker. DC has many, much more interesting villains than Joker. It's time to tell stories about them and not constantly repeat the Joker's story, where there is no chance to say anything new, because in fact the Joker is not an interesting story at all, anymore. A rejected, angry man, who fails in life, a clown who becomes a killer - story as old as the world.
Everything that could be said about Joker, said Nolan in the Dark Knight Trilogy, plus various comics and yes - Batman and Joker cartoons too. Nolan also told the Joker story more subtly than this movie, not only by the whole story structure, but also excellent dialogues. People who, I already see, claim in the reviews, that it is this film, that fully reflects the depth of the Joker character or that it is such a successful '' artistic '' film - they simply try to cast a spell on reality, giving the film a meaning that doesn't exist .
In Nolan Trilogy Joker is really The Joker - madman, but with hatred and goal to burn the world down. Joker kills Rachel which Bruce never gets over. Alfred burns Rachel's last words to save Bruce from more pain. In an attempt to save Bruce from confronting Bane, Alfred disarms him with the truth even if it means saving his life. Even tho he isn't mentioned in the 3 film, you see how Joker messed up the characters in this film . But he isn't the ONLY ONE who beat Batman in this trilogy. All the villains beat Batman in one way or another. Ra's broke Batman's will, Scarecrow broke his mind, Joker broke his spirit, Two-Face broke his hope, Bane broke his body, Talia broke his heart, hell even Catwoman broke his trust early on....
Joker didn't know Batman's identity. He didn't even plan to torment Bruce for years.....
But the effects of his actions in the previous film TDK are felt in the third one. By corrupting Dent, both Batman and Gordon had to stage a cover up - we see Gordon struggling to deal with this lie, praising the man who almost killed his child. The lie he told 8 years ago for the greater good is eating him up inside. Then there is Bruce - Joker may not have known his identity but he certainly deduced that Rachel meant something to Batman. Joker kills too many people to force Batman to remove his mask and Dent boldly steps up to claim he's Batman. Rachel sees this on the news and is disappointed that Bruce did nothing to intervene and it's arguable this is what drives her to write the letter choosing Dent over Bruce. It is this same letter Alfred burns to spare Bruce more pain, thus leading to the bitter break-up between Bruce and Alfred.
This third movie is the aftermath of the Joker's actions and how the characters and city of Gotham are coping with it after 8 years. TDKR feeds off the relevance of its predecessors like any good third installment. 8 years of false peace covering a giant lie and watching that lie eat at Bruce, Gordon and the city.
The lie that enabled The Dent Act to be passed, removing organized crime and as a result removing the need for a Batman. The rich and elite benefitting from the clean streets while the middle class and poor gap widens.
The fact that Batman and Gordon had to lie proves to the League that Gotham is truly beyond hope and must be destroyed.
And a lie that caused Bruce and Alfred to break up....
Joe Chill broke his happiness when he pulled the trigger and fired the bullets that killed his parents and also Falcone and Maroni were indirectly responsible for Batman's birth, and what makes Nolan's trilogy a masterpiece is indeed how each of his enemies are responsible for major tragedies in his life or events that will scar him for life and as for the enemies he fought in the trilogy. I would say that The Joker (not only cause he's the archenemy) is the one who got under his skin in the most personal way not only by killing Rachel but by corrupting the "honest and perfect" White Knight but because he forced Batman to take on a role that in Batman's eyes it would be best for him by sparing the truth of who the real white knight was when he was pushed to his limits.
Nolan put in each film the right villains needed for all 3 stories. Not only are they responsible for tragedies in Bruce's life, but they mirror Bruce like some twisted perversion of what he could have been IF he crossed the line of an executioner. This is for me one of the most interesting elements of Batman from the source material.
Him never crossing the line his villains deliberately or accidentally cross is what he uses to check himself so he doesn't end up like them. In Rises there are many instances where I actually thought Bruce wouldn't make it! Seeing a hero humiliated and vanquished was so unexpected and effective it made me actually care for Bruce more than ever! There was a lot at stake this time around... More emotional layers are in the third film.
The problem with THIS movie is that the creators here openly say, that Joker is mentally ill. What?! This is a parody of the whole idea of The Joker. Yes, he is a sadist and psycho, but not in the sense of '' crazy ''. Besides, this movie is also full of cheap and failed imitations and quotes from movies like Taxi Driver or the Nolan Trilogy, Why do so few people notice it? This is not a breakthrough film, it is a mixture of everything that came before. Infantile psychology at the level of high school dramas for teens and the plagiarism of many other outstanding films. Making a '' serious '' movie about Joker is possible only thanks to Nolan, he, thanks to his Trilogy, has changed the approach to the whole genre, '' Batman Begins '' was the start of the more serious approach to the superheroe movies overall in cinema (Begins was released before Marvel movies).
But of course everything about the most popular villain of all time - Joker - is promoted on a gigantic scale and in this particular case, '' The Joker'', the rest of the sheep followed it. Phoenix is a great actor, no doubt, but in my opinion the whole movie - script and direction - is full of clichés hidden under the guise of the social commentary that is another primitive truism.
I will quote the Times review again, because it is excellent at exposing the shallowness and pseudo-artistic nature of this film : ''The movie's cracks - and it's practically all cracks - are stuffed with phony philosophy. Joker is dark only in a stupidly adolescent way, but it wants us to think it's imparting subtle political or cultural wisdom. Just before one of his more violent tirades, Arthur muses, 'Everybody just screams at each other. Nobody's civil anymore.' Who doesn't feel that way in our terrible modern times? But Arthur's observation is one of those truisms that's so true it just slides off the wall, a message that both the left and the right can get behind and use for their own aims. It means nothing.''
Another problem of '' The Joker '' is a very chaotic structure, which means that there is not too much entertainment and pure cinema in this movie. After some time it just becomes boring mess.
What was great about Nolan was that Nolan was able to combine the features of commercial, mainstream and independent film in one and what he said was authentic. He knew that such a film must also be entertainment, but he didn't limit The Trilogy to it. This accusation, which Nolan haters often repeat - that Nolan is pretentious is not true, especially in Dark Knight trilogy (because I can agree that Inception is terribly pretentious). In TDK Nolan doesn't arrogantly run away from mainstream, because he fully understood what it takes to make epic, successful superhero movie, but at the same time, he added depth to this story, by exploring both the dark and the altruistic side of Wayne / Batman and exploring, but not overdoing the Joker.
Nolan Trilogy revived the genre without a doubt. We talking about real change - originality in the approach, but still entertaining. Nolan's version was finally epic tale about moral choices, tragic fate, true heroism of a man but also our weaknesses and about evil personified in Joker- evil which very often is just trivial, but still destructive as great Michael Caine/Alfred says : ''Some men just want to watch the world burn''. So no matter how many great superhero movies will come and how critics will judge them, Dark Knight Trilogy is in history books, because it changed the genre, just like Pulp Fiction changed gangster films. Before DKT, superhero movies were very schematic and mostly drab. Now they are mostly sophisticated, every director wants to do something new and original or simply more within the genre and they are all following Nolan's footsteps.
Whereas Joker by Todd Philiphs is the quintessence of pretentiousness and fakeness. There is nothing authentic in this movie. It is a collection of cheap fanfiction, quotes from movies like Taxi Driver&Nolan Trilogy (even if Todd said he did it to pay tribute to Scorsese and Nolan, it turned out clumsy), poured with sauce of pop culture tricks. Phoenix battered body twists and turns on the screen, but there is no soul in this creation. Time to say goodbye to Joker, DC. You have much better villains in your stable, whose story can be fascinating to tell. The Joker ceased to be interesting long time ago. Btw, Batman has always been a more interesting character to me, because although he is a superhero, he is also the only such a popular superhero, who has so much darkness, killer impulse, but also humanity inside of him (and Bale showed all of this masterfully in Nolan trilogy). The ambivalence is fascinating here. The Joker is a wounded clown, nihilist, murderer. This story is told in the cinema several times a year. There is nothing fresh about it.
A Star Is Born (2018)
Overrated af. First part of the movie is good, but then it turns into boring mess. Gaga sings great, but she plays herself & Cooper is good alcoholic, but overall bland.
This is the one movie of the year, where I really wonder how it has been recognized as such a masterpiece by almost everyone, and really it is just one more remake of very well - known Hollywood story, cliché love story and familiar tale about glamour and pain of fame. For me it is nothing special, I prefer movies that bring something new to the cinema, from the technical side or from the plot/storytelling side, this film brings nothing new.
Lady Gaga plays Ally, a very musically talented girl, who works in a restaurant and occasionally, in the evenings, gives performances at a local bar. She dreams of being a real singer, but like so many artistic souls, she has complexes and little faith in herself, she doesn't have enough strength to face the brutality and falsity of the show business. And then one night, she meets Jack (Cooper) - famous and accomplished singer& artist, who is on the way down, destroyed by fame, his demons and alcoholism. He watches her performance, is delighted with her talent and herself, and from that moment things go fast - they fall in love with each other, Jack helps Ally become a real star etc. However, of course, only then the real problems start to emerge, Jack cannot defeat his demons, the finale is tragic, which can be seen from miles away, the most cliché ending in the world, calculated for cheap emotions.
Yes, the first part of the movie : all Ally's way to the top and a thriving romance is a well made story, and Gaga& Cooper have an undeniable chemistry, but that's absolutely no masterpiece.
Problems of this film begin in the second part. The script very quickly and superficially jumps to Ally's success, and although we see Jack struggling with addiction and childhood demons, the protagonists' motives are shown very superficially and unconvincingly, real drama/conflict is nowhere to be found, there is a boring story about family drama, emerging from poor dialogues. During the second part of the movie, in one moment, I found out, that from the boredom, I did not even remember what exactly characters said a second before, because I started thinking about something completely different. Cooper is good alcoholic, but so were 10000 actors in 100 different movies before, the rest of his role is bland. It was even one really bad moment from Cooper, when Jack started crying, talking about attempted suicide - it was so fake, really bad acting (sorry, coz I like Cooper, but this is just how I see it).
The same goes with Sam Elliott, I genuinely don't understand what fuss is about and how is he supposed to win Oscar for best supporting role. He has maybe 5 scenes in the whole movie and he's not doing anything innovative in them.
Music, I admit, is very good and ''Shallow'' will win Oscar for best song, there is not doubt abt this one. Gaga sings great and imo is better than Cooper with her acting, but she still just plays herself, nothing special and I hope Glenn Close will finally win her Oscar, she is fantastic in ''The Wife''. I feel like a lot of people are exaggerating in the assessment of this film, because how they feel about music, great music makes them emotional ( the same case with ''Bohemian Rhapsody''), but we are supposed to rate the movie/acting not music and singing.
So, in general, the movie is massively overhyped. It's 6/10 from me.
A Star Is Born (2018)
Overrated af. First part of the movie is good, but then it turns into boring mess. Gaga sings great, but she plays herself & Cooper is good alcoholic, but overall bland.
This is the one movie of the year, where I really wonder how it has been recognized as such a masterpiece by almost everyone, and really it is just one more remake of very well - known Hollywood story, cliché love story and familiar tale about glamour and pain of fame. For me it is nothing special, I prefer movies that bring something new to the cinema, from the technical side or from the plot/storytelling side, this film brings nothing new.
Lady Gaga plays Ally, a very musically talented girl, who works in a restaurant and occasionally, in the evenings, gives performances at a local bar. She dreams of being a real singer, but like so many artistic souls, she has complexes and little faith in herself, she doesn't have enough strength to face the brutality and falsity of the show business. And then one night, she meets Jack (Cooper) - famous and accomplished singer& artist, who is on the way down, destroyed by fame, his demons and alcoholism. He watches her performance, is delighted with her talent and herself, and from that moment things go fast - they fall in love with each other, Jack helps Ally become a real star etc. However, of course, only then the real problems start to emerge, Jack cannot defeat his demons, the finale is tragic, which can be seen from miles away, the most cliché ending in the world, calculated for cheap emotions.
Yes, the first part of the movie : all Ally's way to the top and a thriving romance is a well made story, and Gaga& Cooper have an undeniable chemistry, but that's absolutely no masterpiece.
Problems of this film begin in the second part. The script very quickly and superficially jumps to Ally's success, and although we see Jack struggling with addiction and childhood demons, the protagonists' motives are shown very superficially and unconvincingly, real drama/conflict is nowhere to be found, there is a boring story about family drama, emerging from poor dialogues. During the second part of the movie, in one moment, I found out, that from the boredom, I did not even remember what exactly characters said a second before, because I started thinking about something completely different. Cooper is good alcoholic, but so were 10000 actors in 100 different movies before, the rest of his role is bland. It was even one really bad moment from Cooper, when Jack started crying, talking about attempted suicide - it was so fake, really bad acting (sorry, coz I like Cooper, but this is just how I see it).
The same goes with Sam Elliott, I genuinely don't understand what fuss is about and how is he supposed to win Oscar for best supporting role. He has maybe 5 scenes in the whole movie and he's not doing anything innovative in them.
Music, I admit, is very good and ''Shallow'' will win Oscar for best song, there is not doubt abt this one. Gaga sings great and imo is better than Cooper with her acting, but she still just plays herself, nothing special and I hope Glenn Close will finally win her Oscar, she is fantastic in ''The Wife''. I feel like a lot of people are exaggerating in the assessment of this film, because how they feel about music, great music makes them emotional ( the same case with ''Bohemian Rhapsody''), but we are supposed to rate the movie/acting not music and singing.
So, in general, the movie is massively overhyped. It's 6/10 from me.
Vice (2018)
9/10 just for the mind blowing performances of Bale & Adams. Movie has its flaws & is very unusual, but it's a breath of fresh air in Hollywood.
Finally something else than boring, cliché , uninspired & simply awful superhero movies full of people in masks punching each other & cheesy jokes (the only exception in the genre is of course Dark Knight Trilogy, simply a masterpiece, all 3 movies).
''Vice'' is an artistic, very unconventional take on the times of Dick Cheney & Bush Junior and it will not be for everyone, but then again, whoever saw Big Short should expect unexpected. For me, this film is crossing the next boundaries in the cinema, a work that provokes deep reflection and I like it very much.
That said, ''Vice'' has it's flaws. I would like to see a more linear narrative, because Bale gives a truly masterful performance here (Adams also) and I can only imagine what a masterpiece it could have been, if it was more classic perspective.
But as for acting performances - my God, Bale is simply the most brilliant actor of his generation, period. Let me explain. Mannerism, occasional pauses when speaking, corners of his lips falling to one side, a completely different American accent than Bale usually uses and he nailed it and remember he is an Englishman! Also, Bale's natural voice is waaay deeper. Even the way he is holding his neck !! (producers talked in the interviews how they bought special machine for Bale, he used it to help him hold his neck just like Cheney). But this is not even the most important thing. The most important piece of this role, is mental structure and psychology, behind every gesture and gaze (McKay talks abt it in the interviews, go watch it) as it should be, this is not just an impersonation. Bale is powerful and terrifying figure, a man who once had rules, but starts to walk on corpses and on the other hand, he is still very human, he is a great father and an incredibly romantic husband. Bale showed it all with his acting and still watered it all with absurdity. If you still don't get it, go watch ''Actors on Actors'' series of interviews, with Tom Hanks and Viola Davis, this particular one. In this interview, Hanks and Davis - two brilliant actors with a lot of experience for sure - explain very well, that the real acting brilliance is when you could have better director or better script, yet still, by your acting alone, you make a role so good, and in this case, it's documentary-like, like you are watching real Cheney.
They claim, that the most genius actors are those, who still shine & are the best thing even in a bad/not so great movies. And as a film school graduate, who already works a little in the industry, I can confirm, this is so true! Because filmmaking, even more than other fields, is a team effort and great director&screenwriter always helps an actor to achieve greatness in a given role, it is natural that good material in the screenplay / good director strengthens the actor's good sides and helps him to hide his weaknesses. McKay is on his way to be fascinating director, but he still struggles with storytelling, he is no Spielberg or Scorsese, yet Bale, even in movies with flaws, is simply wonderful, each time (he had few cases like this in his career, for example Harsh Times - its a flawed, not the best movie, yet Bale plays a veteran, street rudeboy/gangster type character ridiculously good).
And this is exactly why, for me Bale is way above Di Caprio and always will be. Di Caprio has been hiding behind the genius of great directors, mainly Scorsese, since forever. From the beginning of his career, he took mainly projects of great directors (Cameron, Tarantino if he takes a break from Scorsese), he sits in a comfortable mainstream and doesn't challenge himself as an actor at all, doesn't go beyond a certain framework.
Meanwhile, Bale, often chooses unobvious projects, "dodgy" as he himself put it, he said : '' I always like that. Whenever there's a project where everyone's going : Oooooh, it's a bit dodgy, I always like it. If you actually look at it, there tends not to be anything risky at all. Why did I start acting in the first place? I didn't do it to be mediocre or to please everybody all the time.'' - I find it one of the greatest quotes about acting. Bale challenges himself all the time, like when he made Flowers of War, again, most big A-list actors sit in their comfort zone - mainstream, big, Oscar - productions, where everything is given to them on a silver platter. Christian did the Flowers of War movie, even if he didn't speak any Chinese and the whole crew on the set didn't speak any English, there was only 1 translator - this is real challenge for an actor. Another example is American Psycho - when Leo was afraid of public lynching if he played someone as disgusting as Bateman, and that's why, apparently, he gave up this role. Besides, the original director (Mary) and the writer of the book (Ellis) always wanted Bale not Leo, only the studio wanted Leo, because he was so popular at that time (well, the director&the writer were right). Bale turned out to be insanely good in this twisted, dark comedy, he was not only creepy, but funny as hell, I have yet to see Di Caprio playing a true dark comedy and being great at it (because Wolf is not it, not real satire/dark comedy, and anyone who knows writing/filmmaking knows comedy is the most difficult genre, especially dark comedy).
Again, I work in the movie business & I have been saying for a long time that Bale's acting is so subtle and at the same time so unusual in various films, depending on the role - sometimes very physical, sometimes more mental, but always, I would always call it ''intellectual acting'', because everything in his roles is brilliantly thought out. And that's why this is not acting for most average viewers, but for true connoisseurs of cinema art, a rare group. For example a well-known film critic Mark Harris, New York film critic, brilliantly described what Bale actually was doing in ''Vice'', he wrote : ''My VICE take for today: Christian Bale knows more than almost any actor about how to use elaborate makeup, padding, etc as a tool for acting rather than as a crutch that replaces it. IMHO it's a great performance with a deep and unusual interest in how Cheney lives in his body.''. Spot-on !! But to know that, you have to be a very good observer.
So overall, ''Vice'' is worth it just because of Bale's performance and I hope he will win an Oscar, becuase Cooper's overrated, bland and very much in the background role ain't anything special.
The second reason to see ''Vice'' is of course Amy Adams, she is also simply amazing. Lady Macbeth - like, infernal intelligence and fierceness, and at the same time a great love for a man, for whom, she sacrificed entirely her ambitions. I also hope this is not the last time we see Bale&Adams together, coz they have great chemistry and understanding on screen. It is already their thrid cooperation (after The Fighter, American Hustle) and they both simply outstanding.
In conclusion, I'm a little bit mad at Adam Mackay, because he as director and screenwriter could have done better job, but I give the movie a 9, because of a brilliance of Bale & Adams. Go watch it yourself !
Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)
Solid entertainment in the second half of the movie, but not much more. Overall bland and flat, Mercury and all the Queen deserve much better.
First of all, some people here - the most fanatical fans of Queen - have to stop writing two-sentence reviews, like "genius movie, Oscar for Rami Malek" & give 10 stars, because this is what makes the review biased and dishonest. I'm also a fan of Queen and Freddy himself, but the same time I graduated film school and I love cinema, that's why I also like to be as objective as possible in my reviews of movies. Here I will try to make my criticism honest, substantive, and not too long (so that everyone wants to read it).
Yes, sometimes professional film critics are deliberately malicious, and their opinions are detached from reality, but sometimes they are also right, and in the case of 'Bohemian Rhapsody', this is the second.
The film distorts a lot of facts from Freddy and Queen's life, and if these were unimportant events - I would not care at all, but these are important things and especially in a biographical film this should not be done, just to make the movie more dramatic. Fred's life was dramatic enough, if only the creators of the film really wanted to make an interesting movie, they would go even deeper into Mercury's childhood and the fact he escaped with his family, against persecution, from his own homeland. And this in turn could be the starting point / foundation for a deeper, better portrait of the Queen singer.
Unfortunately, there is no depth here, the worst part is that this film is schematic, completely flat, only glides over important topics, does not carry out any serious psychological analysis of such a fascinating, complicated character that Freddy was.
I don't accept excuses of the most fanatical fans of Queen (who cannot come to terms with the fact that many critics / reviewers, very rightly criticize this movie), that "this is the story of the band and not Mercury himself". Because firstly, one does not exclude the other: it was possible to include in the scenario a deeper analysis / truth about Freddy and the band, and secondly the band's history is also poorly told. The best moment of a rather boring, long-lasting, first half of the movie is the recording of '' Bohemian Rhapsody '', a humorous accent with a rooster and Galileo. The rest is a fast, also quite jumping and chaotic montage of musical scenes depicting, carelessly, subsequent tours and writing of individual hits, and while I understand that in a 2-hour movie it is not possible to show each creative process in the smallest detail, it was still possible to show it better from the pov of the characters - band members, thus also build better and deeper characters in this film.
The second half is better, I admit, both in terms of pace and in terms of writing/story, and the icing on the cake is the Live Aid concert, so really the edn. The performance, photos, acting of the main actor is at the highest level in this scene, unfortunately it is not enough to save this movie from failure.
Malek's acting, imo, certainly doesn't deserve an Oscar nomination. He tries his best with an empty and schematic scenario, and the writers / director's mistakes are not his fault, true, but Oscar is an award for outstanding acting performances, which are not limited to robotic mannerism, it must be accompanied by the psychological, emotional depth of the portrayed character, and there is no such depth in this film, in this main character. The only really emotional scene that attempts to penetrate into Freddy's soul is the scene of conversation between Fred& Mary, first at Fred's house and then in the rain. It is here, that Malek's creation is the truest and the best.
Unfortunately, when we look at this role through the prism of the whole film, majority of Malek's work is the mentioned mechanical mannerism - perfectly recreated- but it is not enough to rate this role positively, let alone reward it with an Oscar nomination. Imitative mannerism, gestures, faces alone - it is only a skeleton, an acting sketch, especially in a biographical film, and not a full, beautiful, complex image, which should be any biography. There is simply no soul in this act, and it's just a crime if you play a figure as extraordinary, colorful and complicated as Freddy Mercury.
In addition to the obvious mistakes of screenwriters and director, Malek himself (for me), does not rise to the task. Sometimes he is just Mercury caricature, and large, artificial teeth don't help to erase this impression, in fact, the opposite. The make-up department didn't do good job here, famous teeth of Queen frontman could have been done better, much more subtly, it would look less ridiculous. Returning to Rami Malek - he is still a young talent who - like any actor - needs more workshop and acting experience, plus really good material, to really shine. That is why I predict Rami Malek will not win an Oscar.
I still think that the great mistake of the Bohemian Rhapsody creators, was to part ways with Sacha Baron Cohen. When I found out that he had left Mercury's biography project, I felt it was a big mistake from film producers, because I was sure Cohen wanted to tell an uncompromising, interesting story, not forcedly smoothed , and it seems, my intuition did not disappoint me then. Cohen, a remarkable & colorful character like Freddy, would have fit in perfectly in this role. In addition, after hearing the interview, in which Cohen told why he finally left the movie and what vision of Mercury he had - I regret even more that it was not him who played the Queen main singer. People, who can't stand Cohen (they don't understand him) say it's good that he was replaced by Malek, because Sacha supposedly only meant/wanted controversy and scandals, that he would show Freddy only as crazy sex addict, taking drugs and nothing else. However, all of this are just primitive attacks, not supported by logic.
Whoever saw 'Borat' and really understood the message behind it, knows that Cohen is an extremely conscious and intelligent actor / artist, at the same time, I will repeat: extraordinary like Freddy. He is a master of imitation, a master of using various accents, a great actor and, additionally, he can sing very well - which he showed in his role in '' Les Misérables ''. Cohen's strengths don't end there, because physically, with stature, he is much closer to Freddy (who was a well-built man) than frail Malek, has naturally dark eyes and hair, and with a bit of characterization, I have no doubt that he could have been the most wonderful Freddy Mercury. What's more, if he was allowed to do what he wanted with this role - to portray Freddy as a complicated, controversial figure, with a great appetite for life, but also a great artist who mixed the big ego with great sensitivity and shyness - I have no doubt that it would be a great role. Now it's just a missed opportunity.
As a result, we got schematic, "polite" movie, ironically - because Freddy Mercury, as well as the entire Queen, were as original, unapologetic and creative as you could be and deserve much better. Sorry, but real Queen fan, who wanted raw, real, complex, deep, uncompromising truth and story - just cannot like this movie. Mercury and all the Queen story has so much potential (wasted in this movie), which is weird to say and how it all turned out, considering living Queen members were involved in this movie. Sorry guys, you did awful job. I guess I'll just wait for another movie, bold and great this time, I hope.
Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)
Solid entertainment in the second half of the movie, but not much more. Overall bland and flat, Mercury and all the Queen deserve much better.
First of all, some people here - the most fanatical fans of Queen - have to stop writing two-sentence reviews, like "genius movie, Oscar for Rami Malek" & give 10 stars, because this is what makes the review biased and dishonest. I'm also a fan of Queen and Freddy himself, but the same time I graduated film school and I love cinema, that's why I also like to be as objective as possible in my reviews of movies. Here I will try to make my criticism honest, substantive, and not too long (so that everyone wants to read it).
Yes, sometimes professional film critics are deliberately malicious, and their opinions are detached from reality, but sometimes they are also right, and in the case of 'Bohemian Rhapsody', this is the second.
The film distorts a lot of facts from Freddy and Queen's life, and if these were unimportant events - I would not care at all, but these are important things and especially in a biographical film this should not be done, just to make the movie more dramatic. Fred's life was dramatic enough, if only the creators of the film really wanted to make an interesting movie, they would go even deeper into Mercury's childhood and the fact he escaped with his family, against persecution, from his own homeland. And this in turn could be the starting point / foundation for a deeper, better portrait of the Queen singer.
Unfortunately, there is no depth here, the worst part is that this film is schematic, completely flat, only glides over important topics, does not carry out any serious psychological analysis of such a fascinating, complicated character that Freddy was.
I don't accept excuses of the most fanatical fans of Queen (who cannot come to terms with the fact that many critics / reviewers, very rightly criticize this movie), that "this is the story of the band and not Mercury himself". Because firstly, one does not exclude the other: it was possible to include in the scenario a deeper analysis / truth about Freddy and the band, and secondly the band's history is also poorly told. The best moment of a rather boring, long-lasting, first half of the movie is the recording of '' Bohemian Rhapsody '', a humorous accent with a rooster and Galileo. The rest is a fast, also quite jumping and chaotic montage of musical scenes depicting, carelessly, subsequent tours and writing of individual hits, and while I understand that in a 2-hour movie it is not possible to show each creative process in the smallest detail, it was still possible to show it better from the pov of the characters - band members, thus also build better and deeper characters in this film.
The second half is better, I admit, both in terms of pace and in terms of writing/story, and the icing on the cake is the Live Aid concert, so really the edn. The performance, photos, acting of the main actor is at the highest level in this scene, unfortunately it is not enough to save this movie from failure.
Malek's acting, imo, certainly doesn't deserve an Oscar nomination. He tries his best with an empty and schematic scenario, and the writers / director's mistakes are not his fault, true, but Oscar is an award for outstanding acting performances, which are not limited to robotic mannerism, it must be accompanied by the psychological, emotional depth of the portrayed character, and there is no such depth in this film, in this main character. The only really emotional scene that attempts to penetrate into Freddy's soul is the scene of conversation between Fred& Mary, first at Fred's house and then in the rain. It is here, that Malek's creation is the truest and the best.
Unfortunately, when we look at this role through the prism of the whole film, majority of Malek's work is the mentioned mechanical mannerism - perfectly recreated- but it is not enough to rate this role positively, let alone reward it with an Oscar nomination. Imitative mannerism, gestures, faces alone - it is only a skeleton, an acting sketch, especially in a biographical film, and not a full, beautiful, complex image, which should be any biography. There is simply no soul in this act, and it's just a crime if you play a figure as extraordinary, colorful and complicated as Freddy Mercury.
In addition to the obvious mistakes of screenwriters and director, Malek himself (for me), does not rise to the task. Sometimes he is just Mercury caricature, and large, artificial teeth don't help to erase this impression, in fact, the opposite. The make-up department didn't do good job here, famous teeth of Queen frontman could have been done better, much more subtly, it would look less ridiculous. Returning to Rami Malek - he is still a young talent who - like any actor - needs more workshop and acting experience, plus really good material, to really shine. That is why I predict Rami Malek will not win an Oscar.
I still think that the great mistake of the Bohemian Rhapsody creators, was to part ways with Sacha Baron Cohen. When I found out that he had left Mercury's biography project, I felt it was a big mistake from film producers, because I was sure Cohen wanted to tell an uncompromising, interesting story, not forcedly smoothed , and it seems, my intuition did not disappoint me then. Cohen, a remarkable & colorful character like Freddy, would have fit in perfectly in this role. In addition, after hearing the interview, in which Cohen told why he finally left the movie and what vision of Mercury he had - I regret even more that it was not him who played the Queen main singer. People, who can't stand Cohen (they don't understand him) say it's good that he was replaced by Malek, because Sacha supposedly only meant/wanted controversy and scandals, that he would show Freddy only as crazy sex addict, taking drugs and nothing else. However, all of this are just primitive attacks, not supported by logic.
Whoever saw 'Borat' and really understood the message behind it, knows that Cohen is an extremely conscious and intelligent actor / artist, at the same time, I will repeat: extraordinary like Freddy. He is a master of imitation, a master of using various accents, a great actor and, additionally, he can sing very well - which he showed in his role in '' Les Misérables ''. Cohen's strengths don't end there, because physically, with stature, he is much closer to Freddy (who was a well-built man) than frail Malek, has naturally dark eyes and hair, and with a bit of characterization, I have no doubt that he could have been the most wonderful Freddy Mercury. What's more, if he was allowed to do what he wanted with this role - to portray Freddy as a complicated, controversial figure, with a great appetite for life, but also a great artist who mixed the big ego with great sensitivity and shyness - I have no doubt that it would be a great role. Now it's just a missed opportunity.
As a result, we got schematic, "polite" movie, ironically - because Freddy Mercury, as well as the entire Queen, were as original, unapologetic and creative as you could be and deserve much better. Sorry, but real Queen fan, who wanted raw, real, complex, deep, uncompromising truth and story - just cannot like this movie. Mercury and all the Queen story has so much potential (wasted in this movie), which is weird to say and how it all turned out, considering living Queen members were involved in this movie. Sorry guys, you did awful job. I guess I'll just wait for another movie, bold and great this time, I hope.