jayjaycee Reviews

Red Dawn (1984)

Silly cold war propaganda, yet a solid action film

[6/10 · 16 February 2021]

"Red Dawn" is a 1984 action drama directed by John Milius starring Patrick Swayze and C. Thomas Howell. ⚪ All in all, John Milius' eighties classic parachutes with a lot of seriousness and drops in hostile territory of anti-communistic propaganda, archaic enemy images and exaggerated patriotism, but despite its utter silliness and hilariously unrealistic concept, it is smart enough in the context of its story, what causes it to make a lot fun, and thanks to a superb cast lead by a charismatic Patrick Swayze, a comparatively coherent plot and decent practical effects, it becomes an incredibly stupid yet extremely entertaining, paranoid war fantasy that's too much fun to be terrible. ⚪ As a proclaimed adorer of Emile Ardolino's "Dirty Dancing", the reason I originally became aware of this flick was that it marks the first collaboration of the leading actors of the iconic dance romance, Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey, and since I am also a die-hard fan of the first's films, it was almost mandatory for me to watch it. However, it wasn't quite easy to track down a Blu-Ray of this film, as it was literally sold out in Germany, and if anyone was offering it, then it was for a utopian price only. So, after months of searching, I was able to get hold of a copy, moreover a British one - and of course, for a reasonable price. Regarding the film, I wasn't expecting much, I just hoped that it would have been worth the time and money - and in the end, it did. I am not going to say that it is a great film, because it is anything but this, but I've had so much with it that it is almost ridiculous. Like, the basic concept is totally bonkers in the first place: out of nowhere, the Russians land in the United States and begin to shoot everything down. In the matter of seconds, an invasion has started, and World War III has begun. The enemy has taken over parts of the country, and it is about a group of teenagers, who were able to escape the attackers at first, and how they fight them and save their hometown from subjugation. Sounds completely crazy? It is, and there is really no denying about that. Considering that this film was released during the zenith of the Cold War, it is obvious why it has been produced in the first place. It is a blatant attempt of conveying anti-communism, patriotism and superiority in a fictional motion picture - and living out one of the most feared scenarios in the history of the USA. Seriously, this film oozes nationalism and follows the plain concept "Russia bad, America good" with a ridiculous one-dimensionality. Yes, it is an undeniably hilarious political statement, a weird demonstration of power, but it is extremely entertaining. As someone who is neither American nor Russian, I don't care about the political aspect of this film or find it offensive (it is still a work of fiction), and I am not going to deny the total absence of logic and realism, but once I was able to look past it, I had a great time with it. Honestly, I probably even enjoyed it much more than I should have. The basic premise of the films sounds like it could have originated from an online multiple battle royale game in the likes of "PUBG", and since I liked it a lot when I was younger, the situation was all too familiar. Like, who wouldn't want to wage a guerrilla war against an invading force with the best friends? All fun put aside, the film makes the best out of it silly premise, and it is mostly thanks to outstanding cast. Next to Swayze as the leader of the group Jed (named after an American icon), we have future "Two And A Half Men" superstar, Charlie Sheen, "Back To The Future" star Lea Thompson, "Dirty Dancing" lead Jennifer Grey, "E.T." actor C. Thomas Howell, action movie warhorse Powers Booth and also a short but significant appearance of Harry Dean Stanton as the protagonist's father. Yes, there is a lot of star power here, and that makes it a lot easier for me to identify with them, as I simply love most of the previously mentioned actors. Together, this group of kids, named "The Wolverines", give the Russians hell, and it is equally dumb and entertaining to watch them do this. Aside from the fact that alleged teenagers, pubescent high school students, act like they are professionally trained soldiers and know to use all the weapons and equipment they find along the way (hey, Jed's father used to take him and his brother on hunting trips, so it makes a lot of sense, I guess?!), their success rate is ridiculously high. I mean, they are just a bunch of scared kids, and you want to tell me that they can fool a freaking army like this? Not really, but again, look past the stupidity, and you will find some in fact decent aspects about it. Since they are just adolescents, their fear about the whole situation is thematised, nevertheless. In many scenes you can see them breaking down in tears because of the mental overload, and in others you can visibly see how they struggle with the fact that they have killed and will have to kill even more - again, they are just kids. However, as the movie goes on, they are increasingly more inured to the situation (mostly thanks to the training of Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Tanner, who they pick up along the way), and dare to do even more - what soon after shows them their mortality. At first, I was sceptical about the fact that none of the kids was injured or killed in the first assaults on the Russian troops, but then it became more and more threatening. The frequent losses of said troops lead the enemy to react accordingly and send reinforcements. Soon after, "The Wolverines" are outnumbered and what started as a funny act of resistance turns into a nightmare of betrayal, horror and death. One by one, the oh so powerful group is decimated, and in the end, all of them are killed brutally. Yes, against my own expectations, the film did a 180, and all the characters that seemed to be untouchable are dead. Even though the film ends with the fact that the Americans eventually won the war and that those teenagers were honoured for the braveness, it was still shocking to see. Speaking of which, this film furthermore convinces with its extreme grittiness. Considering that it was the first film to ever receive a PG-13, it was extremely brutal. Next to a graphic massacre of a school class in the course of which kids are butchered by the invaders, it was extremely intense to see the juvenile protagonists being hunted down one by one as well. Also, the practical effects such as explosions, blood and gore were surprisingly realistic, what added to the horror as well. Yes, the film oozed patriotism and embodies the slogan "Live Free Or Die Trying" in all its silly glory, but aside from the basic stupidity of its concept, it nevertheless delivers decent and horrifying action. The acting is acceptably solid, in the context of its own absurdity, it is astonishingly smart and coherent, and once again, way too much fun to watch. Surely, the cold war propaganda predominant in this case, but all politics put aside, it delivers guilty pleasure entertainment. I could see this as a mini-series, honestly, but they have to change the premise a little in order to make it acceptable. Until then, this will be my movie.

The Towering Inferno (1974)

Hellfire of a disaster film, partially extinguished by plot holes

[7/10 · 8 February 2021]

"The Towering Inferno" is a 1974 action thriller directed by John Guillermin starring Paul Newman and Steve McQueen. ⚪ All in all, Irwin Allen's classic disaster flick menacingly sparks a vertiginous and nail-biting catastrophe that downright amazes with its nerve-rackingly realistic visuals and special effects, as well as its eclectic screenplay that knows to perpetuate the suspense and panic-inducing atmosphere throughout most of its almost gigantic runtime, and even if some plot holes and an oddly paced second act seem to extinguish the flame for a while, the film nevertheless burns slowly yet continuously and eventually becomes an unstoppable force of nature of a blaze that will get you on the edge of you seat. ⚪ I cannot really believe that it has already been more than a year since I have watched "Bullitt" and thus discovered the legendary Steve McQueen. Against my own expectations, this man fascinated me with his genuine charisma and instantly became one of my favourite actors of all time, and now that it has been a while since I last watched one of his works (I guess it was "The Blob" last summer), I thought it was a phenomenal idea to commemorate the time I discovered him by visiting one of the longest films he has ever starred in. From what I have heard and read, people cite this one and "The Poseidon Inferno" as two of the greatest and most influential disaster films of all time, and I can really see why. No pun intended, but this film is an undeniable slow-burner and takes a lot of time to unfold its brilliance, but it in the end it is reward as hell. In the very beginning, we are introduced to a myriad of characters that will play a special role later on, but at first it is Paul Newman's Doug whom the film focusses on. As the architect of the colossal building (supposedly, even the tallest in the world), he uncovers that the skyscraper wasn't constructed as safely as he had planned due to human errors and cost savings, and soon after, while the builder and many prominent names of the city of San Francisco are having an opening party on the top floor, a fire starts in the middle of the tower. As you can guess, it is getting out of hand quickly and what men thought they were able of containing ends as a total tragedy. In general, I can really say that I was amazed by this movie throughout, even though it also has its obvious flaws, but before I go further into that, I want to point out the positive aspects. First and foremost, this film displays probably one of the most versatile and talented cast I have ever seen in a film from the early seventies. Next to Newman and McQueen as the architect and chief of the fire department, respectively, we have many other prominent names of the era, such as William Holden as the builder, the goddess Faye Dunaway playing the love interest, veteran actor Fred Astaire as another guest, Richard Chamberlain as the smeary son-in-law, Robert Vaughn as a senator, Robert Wagner in a smaller role and even disgraced sportsman-turned-actor O.J. Simpson as a security guard. Without a doubt, star power and decent performances are aspects this film certainly doesn't lack, and that is by far not everything notable about it. What seriously defines the vehemence of this movie are the more technical aspects, in other words, the cinematography, the editing, the setting and, most importantly, the visual and practical effects. From gorgeous exterior shots to nail-bitingly realistic set pieces you get everything you want from a film like this. Seriously, most of the time, the actors are playing their scenes amid actual fires and explosions, and with almost everything being done via CGI nowadays, this deserves my utmost respect, especially the cast members who did it just like this. Furthermore, the screenplay knows to engage the audience throughout its enormously long runtime, as it never runs out of ideas and knows to constantly come up with new ways of maintaining the danger. Like, every reasonable option of saving the party guests is cleverly eradicated, and it is just brilliant to see the crowd responding to it, as they become increasingly more panicked and desperate to find an exit. Thus, it never gets boring with them, at least most of the time. What do I mean by saying that? Well, if I say "most of the time", I mean that there is indeed a phase in the film that features a weird pacing and an odd characters focus. Oh, and lots of illogical events. In said second act, the previously well-established atmosphere of panic is more than less thwarted, as it shows Doug and the security guard Jernigan saving two kids and a deaf woman. In itself, it is no terrible sequence at all, the only thing that makes it so odd is that it takes way too long and causes it to lose focus of the main group on the top floor. I am not saying that it was unnecessary, because the climbing scene is indeed breath-taking, but at the same time, it brings the momentum that was built up before to a halt, and it takes the movie a lot of time to recover from this redundant pause and re-establish its distinct impetus. Also, this was the exact scene in which I noticed some things that didn't make any sense: Next to Nordberg ... I mean ... Jernigan suddenly disappearing without a trace and showing up in the end (unfortunately indicating that there has indeed been an exit all the time), the fire itself is nonsensical. Like, the fire starts after a malfunction in a storage room on the 81st floor, and it is mentioned multiple times that it is containable and will only spread upwards, so my question is: Why are there suddenly conflagrations and explosions on more than three stories? Okay, since the entire construction is built poorly, it might be that they started off-screen, but on the other hand Chief O'Halloran, the literal fire chief, the expert, says that it won't spread anymore. Like this, the film unintentionally contradicts itself ridiculously, and this type of confusion seriously affected the experience for me, because it didn't make any sense, but what am I going to think about a film in which characters breathe normally while literally standing in the midst of smoke that would have killed them in the matter of minutes? Anyway, after I was able to look past those irrefutable plot holes, I was still having enormous fun, because the third and final act offered what made the first so brilliant: anxiety-inducing, breath-taking and horrifying action. After some unexpectedly gruesome deaths, McQ for example saves an elevator full of people that is about to break lose from the front of the building or in the end, they blow up the water tanks to extinguish the fire below them and the men fighting for their survival is just dreadful. Oh, and after everything is finished, the film even expresses social criticism on the hybris of men that try to create something which they are unable to control, and also visibly says thanks to fire fighters all around the world. In the end, this classic disaster flick is a pleasure to watch if you really love the genre and the cast. Of course, some plot holes and illogical events are undeniable in this context, the runtime might a tad too long, but if you really sit through it entirely, you will be rewarded with a phenomenal experience. For the early seventies, it is astonishingly advanced and offers a lot of things you will see in future productions. I mean, the author of the book on which "Die Hard" is based on watched this movie, went to sleep and dreamed about what would happen if there were terrorist instead of fire. The rest is history, and so is this classic.

Clerks II (2006)

Lacking the wit of the original, still a solid revisitation of the characters

[7/10 · 7 February 2021]

"Clerks II" is a 2006 comedy directed by Kevin Smith starring Brian O'Halloran and Jeff Anderson. ⚪ All in all, the direct sequel to Kevin Smith's classic independent film serves the audience with the same type of misanthropy, dark humour and layabout philosophy, and even if it fails to reach the same brilliant eloquence and intelligent stupidity the original is known for, the witty humour, the character development and the smart, if repetitive, plot make for a heart-warming revisitation of the lives of the clerks that fans fell in love with in the first place, making it a must see for them. ⚪ The next entry to the "View Askewniverse" (what this franchise is apparently called for real) is the first actual sequel to one of its previous films. While all the others were only connected by the appearances of the fan-favourite layabouts Jay and Silent Bob, this one in fact picks up more than a decade after the first film, showing what happened to the misanthropic clerks and best friends Dante and Randal, and honestly, what this movie showed was the best that Smith could have done with them. After carving out their existences at the Quick Stop convenience store they used to work at since their early twenties, the now thirty-something slackers work at "Mooby's", a fast food restaurant, after some moron accidentally caused their previous workplace to burn down. In fact, the two idlers haven't changed much: Dante still struggles with his life and doesn't really know what he is supposed to do with it, Randal bullies everyone and everything passionately, and Jay and Silent Bob still deal with drugs. However, since it is Dante's last day at the shop before moving to Florida with his over-ambitious fiancée Emma, all they have previously built up is about to come to a close, so Randal tries to end it with a bang ... and everything is getting way out of hand. As a whole, I can really say that I enjoyed this film thoroughly, because after the stupidity "Strike Back" displayed, this film picked up the intelligence aspect again, but let me make it clear at this point: It is by far not as phenomenal as the original "Clerks". Undeniably, the same ingredients are there, but still there is this distinct hilariousness missing that defined every awkward situation of the original. This one here is palpably more adapted to mainstream audiences and includes a lot more perversity and infantility. Like, from Jay dancing almost completely naked, over a discussion about racial slurs to acts of bestiality (I mean, interspecies erotica!), you got everything and even though it is hilarious to watch, it is not the same type of ingeniousness Smith is capable of. Furthermore, the plot pattern is pretty much copied from the original: Randal harasses customers, Jay and Bob (despite not being that prominent) do exactly what they used to do (cannot really categorise what they are actually doing) and Dante messes up his love life by being torn between his pushy fiancée and his boss Becky, someone he apparently loves. In between we get to see the same type of conversations, jokes and philosophy. Does it make it a terrible film? In fact, not in the slightest, because if there is one notable aspect about it, it has got to be the character development. Dante and Randal have worked at their store with no real purpose, and the events of this film make them see what is really important in life: to do what you want to do, not what society is expecting you to do. After many awkward situations, they end up in jail, where they decide to buy and rebuild the Quick Stop convenience store, and honestly, it was so touching I almost felt like crying. Dante finally managed to find true love, and together the two Clerks found their calling in life - to hate and serve customers. Thus, Smith concluded their story perfectly and has shown that everyone will eventually find their way home. In the end, this sequel might be far from being perfect, but I assure you, it is definitely well-made and will bring those who loved the first movie extreme joy. In terms of performance it is average at best (aside from Rosario Dawson, maybe), but what makes it so special is that it almost feels like Smith's love-letter to his former self and his oldest work, eventually showing how much he has grown as a filmmaker. It is intelligent, full of dark humour and perverse and tasteless as per usual. I for one loved it despite its obvious flaws.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)

Atypically dumb, yet full of amusing self-irony

[6/10 · 5 February 2021]

"Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back" is a 2001 comedy directed by Kevin Smith starring Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith. ⚪ All in all, Kevin Smith's fifth directorial work retaliates with a lot of self-irony and absurdity, staging the silly comeback of the two iconic drug dealing stoners with a hilarious amount of self-awareness and meta level jokes, but even if it features the certain kind of humour that defines the previous instalments of this weird franchise, countless cameos and references to said films cannot save the movie from its utterly stupid story as well as the atypically vulgar, absurd and infantile plot that is basically lacking the intelligence and wit of the popular writer-director, thus becoming a borderline enjoyable gag fest that will please many, but definitely not all, diehard fans of the two layabouts. ⚪ Since they have played the role for four films in the past and became fan favourites, it was only a matter of time that the vulgar stoner Jay and his taciturn buddy Silent Bob would get a standalone film. As someone who loved the two weird layabouts since their first appearance in "Clerks", I was so stoked to finally check out their first solo mission, and I got to say that I am kind of confused but not entirely appalled by the outcome. I know that I should be careful with what I am writing, for I don't want Jay and Bob to pay me a visit, but this was probably the most atypical film Smith has ever made thus far. In their first own story, the loungers embark on a journey to Hollywood to stop the filmic adaptation of "Bluntman & Chronic", a comic book of which the characters are based on their likeness, and what happens on the way is nothing short of absurd. What irritates me most about this strange film is that it really doesn't feel like a Smith film at, as he settled for infantile humour and vulgarity rather than sharp and intelligent lines. Even though it is part of his sick personality, it became fatiguing to hear Jay swear constantly, and that is not even the worst part of it all. To put it mildly: the story doesn't make any sense at all. Yes, they hit the road to reach Hollywood, their goal is more than clear, but what happens in between is mostly irrelevant and ludicrous tomfoolery. From four bombshell diamond thieves, over an Orangutan to Will Ferrell as a weird kind of animal Sheriff, there is literally all. The thing is, it is only hilarious to a certain degree, because after a while it becomes painfully dumb and questionably stupid. Oh, and yeah, I know Smith doesn't deliver his best performance when he has to include fart jokes in his script. Yes, you have read correctly, the writer of films known for his admirable wit and eloquence quips about flatulence ... and you know my opinion about this type of "humour". Furthermore, he once again dared to joke about homosexuality and racism, and as you can guess, it ended not as well as he probably hoped, but what did Smith do about all the criticism he received from the last films? Exactly, he responded to it. Multiple times in this film, he used what fans said and retorted. That is what I indeed found funny about it, and what honestly saved it from being a total disaster: self-awareness. Yes, the flick's biggest advantage is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. I am not going to say that it makes up for the previously mentioned weird humour, but there are so many great aspects. For example, when characters break the fourth wall and look straight into the camera after saying something that has happened for real ("Who would pay to see a Jay and Silent Bob feature film?"), it is nothing short of hilarious. The meta level it is located in makes for lots of hysterical scenes. From Ben Affleck praising himself over a questionable sequel of "Good Will Hunting" to a "Charlie's Angels" parody there is almost all - most prominently, cameos. Undeniably, the most rewarding aspect about it are the appearances of dozens of icons and popular celebrities. Next to many characters of Smith's films reappearing, you got "Buffy - The Vampire Slayer" stars, basically half the cast of "American Pie", Luke and Leia themselves in weird roles, many famous directors playing themselves and many more. Most of the time, you are simply amazed by the star-power this film displays and hence forget about the in itself stupid story. In the end, this continuation is exactly the same as its titular heroes: weird, vulgar and somewhat dumb - and yet loveable. It is definitely the least intelligent film of the franchise, but at least I was able to have a few laughs. Only recommendable to hardcore Smith fans, but even for them it might be too silly.

Bombshell (I) (2019)

Narratively flawed but extremely important statement

[7/10 · 4 February 2021]

"Bombshell" is a 2019 biopic and political drama directed by Jay Roach starring Charlize Theron and Nicole Kidman. ⚪ All in all, Jay Roach's political drama detonates with an enormous explosiveness and appropriate cynicism, as it exposes the vicious power plays, the shocking male dominance in the news television business, as well as the problematics of sexual allegations from women unreservedly, not shying away from depicting the uncomfortable truths and tragic side-effects of the topic at all, and thanks to powerful performances by its three leading ladies (especially by Robbie) it becomes a solid yet lacklustre, and at times narratively unexciting and shallow statement about the #metoo debate, but an extremely necessary wake-up call for the world to realise that sexual harassment indeed exists. ⚪ After a long observation of my recently purchased films, I thought it would be great to kick off the month with a newer and important title. The only thing I knew about this movie was that it was nominated for three Oscars last year and won one of them for best make-up, but after that my knowledge about the subject matter ended. "Trumbo" director Jay Roach took on a comparatively new scandal that occurred only a few years back and fictionalised the disgraceful downfall of the prominent CEO of the conservative network, Roger Ailes, after he was accused of sexual harassment by a number of women who have worked for him. Altogether, I can already say at this point that is an undeniably solid film with lots of aspects that make it great, but on the other hand there are also a few ones that keep it from reaching its full potential. First of all, as someone from central Europe and hence an outsider, it was slightly confusing to fully understand the entire film at first. Yes, of course, the gist of what was happening was more than clear, but on the other hand the entire situation wasn't constructed as perfectly as it could have been. Like, I don't know much about liberal and conservative politics in America, especially not which TV network belongs to which camp. It feels extremely muddled in the beginning and becomes even more confusing when it introduces characters at minute intervals, and thinks it is enough when they show their names and what role they play. For Americans that are actually able to make use of all those names, it might be sufficient, but as an onlooker, I wish there was been a little more explanation than that. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the narration is solid yet at the same time very flawed, as it could have been a lot more packing than it eventually turned out to be. The film depicts its major events in a modest and not thoroughly exciting way and basically moves from plot point to plot without seriously reaching the emotional depth it could have reached. Yes, it scratches on the surface most of the time and hence prevents it from being as shocking as it could have been. Don't get me wrong, it still is upsetting in many sequences, but there is still much left to be desired, and almost frustratingly, it could have been perfect. However, the screenplay rather focusses on processing its key events quickly, and thus the pacing of the film suffers from it a lot - but what is there to expect from a biopic about one of the greatest scandals of the twenty-first century that runs for less than two hours? Sufficient exploration and a decent pace? No, not really, because instead it spends its little time to touch a raw nerve and mercilessly point out the horror of the entire topic - and that is also the main reason why I still don't hate this film. What it lacks in craftsmanship, this film makes up with the message it conveys - and it achieves this almost only with its three leading actresses. Charlize Theron plays the prominent TV show hostess Megyn Kelly superbly and, seriously, looks exactly like her. Next to her, we have Nicole Kidman as her colleague Gretchen Carlson, and last but not least, Margot Robbie as the ambitious Kayla Pospisil. The story behind them goes as follows: After Carlson refused to defer to the disgusting seductions of Roger Ailes, she is at first transferred to a less important show and eventually fired by the network, and since she was no part of FOX anymore, she subsequently sues Ailes for sexual harassment. While it appears that she is the only one at first, more and more women begin to speak up and stand with her, famous hostess Kelly included. In the end, Ailes is fired by the network. However, what initially sounds like a way too simple story is exactly what happened a few years ago - and it depicts the ugliness of this whole situation superbly. It is irrefutably one-sided, but how in the hell are you supposed to depict such a delicate thing from both sides? Anyways, it shows all facets of what happens when a rich and powerful man faces sexual allegations: negations of the accusations, pathetic power plays and assertations of innocence. I know that the law says "in dubio pro reo", so the benefit of the doubt, but why do people tend to believe one man and insult one woman when she finally has the courage to speak up and want to seek justice for the traumatising events she has experienced? This is exactly what this film tries to point out. At first, Carlson was ridiculed, called a "man-hater", because people said she only sued after being fired, as a part of vengeance or something, but soon after, many other women spoke up as well, one of them being Megyn Kelly herself. This film also illuminates the objectionable procedures of powerful men like Ailes: "I you want to get ahead, you gotta give a little head.", as the CEO said himself (at least, in this movie). It points out the unfairness and male dominance perfectly: If you want to be successful in the television business as a woman, you have to do what men tell you to do - it is absolutely sick, but it is what really happened. In an uncompromising way, this film points out this hideous dilemma many women in fact face in this business and shows that they are abused if they want to make a career. Exactly this problem led the defenders of Ailes to say that it was always consensual, but let me say at this point, hell no, not in the slightest. Women are tricked into thinking that this is the only way of succeeding, and it is nothing short of deplorable - and this film depicts this problem, emphasising the ugly and unvarnished truth. In scenes in which it is shown that Ailes is harassing females it is downright uncomfortable to watch - but guess what the women in those exact situations must have felt like? Remember, this film is a biopic that, as far as I can judge it, sticks to the truth ... at least for one point. The character of Kayla, outstandingly portrayed by Margot Robbie, is in fact fictional. Wait, a fictional character in a true story? At first, it sounds kind of stupid, I admit it, but later on I realized that Kayla was probably one of the most important characters of the film. Surely, she wasn't real, but what she experiences is real, and that leads me to think that she is some sort of a metaphor. Kayla represents all women that have ever been through such atrocities, and furthermore, her character is one of many - the plot eventually works out without her, Kelly and Carlson are the ones who seal the deal on the case. Does it leave out the Bill O'Reilly scandal and the Kell racism éclat that happened shortly after? Yes, it does, but even if that is definitely not less important, it still would have disturbed the main focus of the film. This isn't a film about Megyn Kelly. This is also no film about Gretchen Carlson. And as crazy as it sounds, this is no film about Roger Ailes either. In the first place, this is a film about women seeking and eventually getting justice. It is a survivor story, and it is so utterly important I cannot even put it in words. The reason this film was made wasn't just to entertain audiences, no, it was made to inspire women who have been through the same and encourage them to speak up, made perfectly clear when Nicole Kidman looks directly into the camera and motivates women to do what is necessary - and that is why I think it's a phenomenal film. In the end, however, I don't celebrate this film for its technical brilliance, because honestly, there is very much to be desired, but I do love it for its powerful message, the acting and the ideas behind it. Those two factors even up each other, and only imagine what would have been if it were better crafted. Anyway, this film is utterly important, nevertheless.

Dogma (1999)

Intelligently dark humour, yet a little uneventful

[7/10 · 1 February 2021]

"Dogma" is a 1999 adventure comedy directed by Kevin Smith starring Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. ⚪ All in all, Kevin Smith's fourth directorial work ascends to comically celestial heights with hilariously decorated wings by combining doctrinal theology and dark humour to a weird yet fascinating road trip comedy that, despite its general silliness and a predictable plot, displays an extreme intelligence and knowledge about its sophisticated subject matter, and thanks to likable characters, effective side-blows and a script with love for detail, it becomes a strangely enjoyable and meticulous twist on the biblical movie genre that knows to mock as well as respect the themes it deals with. ⚪ After the previous film has been nothing short of a total catastrophe, I really hoped that Kevin Smith's next film would be much less offensive, insulting and uncomfortable to watch. Well, it is in fact much less awkward to watch, but I cannot really deny that it is less insulting to some, for it is an absolutely dark comedy about religion, Christian teaching and Armageddon. However, unlike his last feature, this one surprisingly displays a lot of intelligence, knowledge and, most importantly, respect towards the subject matter it deals with. What is this film even? Well, I cannot fully describe what it actually is supposed to be, but if I had to summarize it, I would say that this is the result of what would happen if you combined biblical spectacularity and comic book extravaganza to weird genre mix. Given that the writer-director is a professed fan of comics and was apparently raised a Catholic, it is no wonder that he seems to have comprehension about both aspects - unlike with his previous project. The result of this experimental undertaking is a naughty but nonetheless fascinating road trip movie that entertains with its basic premise as well as its dark humour. It displays a lot of respect towards religion and biblical values, but at the same time doesn't hesitate to point out the stupidity of some other aspects. Like, the main character, who turns out to be the last descendant of Jesus Christ is working at an abortion clinic that is constantly besieged by devout Catholics, and in another scene, it is revealed by one character that Jesus Christ himself was black and not white as everybody says. What makes it all so effective is that it exactly hits a sore point of many believers, and reportedly, it was successful, as the movie was later on protested against by the same people. However, since I am not really religious and can take dark humour, I had no problem at all with what is shown in here, quite the contrary, it was extremely fascinating. As mentioned above, Smith seems to know a lot about doctrine theology and hence knows to invent as well as to stage characters from the matter like superheroes. Next to the previously mentioned descendant of Christ, Bethany, we have the angel Metatron (brilliantly portrayed by Alan Rickman), the thirteenth apostle Rufus (who was never mentioned because he was black), a muse living on earth as a stripper, the mischievous Azrael, the two renegade angles Loki and Bartleby and, last but not least, two prophets - Jay and Silent Bob. Wait, what? Yes, exactly! Next to all the bible inspired characters you have your two favourite drug-dealing stoners accompanying the group with their abilities. Seriously, never ever have fictional characters been totally out of place and right were they belong at the same time. Together, they embark on an adventure to stop the boys from "Good Will Hunting", I mean, the two fallen angels from experiencing indulgence, thus proving that God is not infallible and inadvertently destroying existence itself. In the course of the film, Smith doesn't hesitate from calling attention to some valid points about the bible, for example why angels have no free will and humans do despite being his first creation, or that God in fact might be female or even that Jesus was no only child. There are so many ideas and legitimate discussions about it, that it is downright thought provoking, but even if it is mostly a great idea and a well-executed film, there is still one thing about it that bugs me a little. Most of the time, it shows the characters having sophisticated conversations about the total hilariousness of it, and once again it is so wittily written that it downright amazes me, but at the same time it affects the experience tremendously. Kevin Smith's love for detail and intention to satirize the whole subject results in a certain kind of uneventfulness. Like, the importance of each character is thoroughly explained and they are well-designed from start to finish, but considering how they are introduced, they all do comparatively little. They travel from Chicago to Jersey, arrive there and stop the angles - there isn't actually happening much more. It is kind of predictable, straightforward and proceeds without any major complications. I am not going to deny the ingeniousness behind it all, because it is seriously impressive, but at the same time the plot comes up short. In the end, it however tuns out to be an extremely enjoyable and intelligent experience. The characters are loveable, the cast is probably the most outstanding Smith was ever able to assemble, and the satire is wonderfully constructed. Also, Alanis Morissette plays God herself. How can you not love that idea? Weird, yet meticulously crafted and strangely fascinating.

Last Tango in Paris (1972)

Detestable subject matter with some fascinating technical features

[7/10 · 31 January 2021]

"Ultimo tango a Parigi (The Last Tango In Paris)" is 1972 drama directed by Bernardo Bertolucci starring Marlon Brando and Maria Schneider. ⚪ All in all, Bernardo Bertolucci's controversial drama scandalously clings to a shockingly erotic dance partner of melancholy, depression and toxicity, as it depicts the difficult relationship of its protagonists with unadulterated ugliness and a certain kind of bitter power, and even if there are countless contemptible things shown, it inexplicably manages to equally bore with the lack of a distinct plot and intrigue with its sheer raw emotional intensity, and by furthermore having Brando and Schneider, displaying versatile and emotional acting, this contentious drama is deservedly a controversial and disgusting, yet weirdly eccentric and absurdly fascinating contemplation about life, love, hate and human relationships, ultimately impressing with how it deals with its subject matter, not with what it depicts. ⚪ As my entry for the "Extremely Shocking, Wicked and Vile!" community project hosted by the witty @whattheflickreviews, as a part of which selected accounts came together to present and review films generally considered to be controversial, disturbing and infamous, I decided to watch an Italian classic by notorious director Bernardo Bertolucci, and oh my god, this film indeed makes the title of this project justice. What is it about? Well, honestly, I cannot really summarise properly what this film deals with, for there are a myriad of aspects about it, but on its core it's a drama about two humans, a middle-aged man and a young woman, having an unusual kind of affair in the city of love. Paul, shatteringly portrayed by "A Streetcar Named Desire" superstar Marlon Brando, is an American businessman living in Paris who tries to deal with the tragic suicide of his wife Rosa, and on the other hand, we have Maria Schneider playing the twenty-year-old girl Jeanne trying to gain a foothold in the same famous city. However, after a mysterious encounter at an apartment inspection, the two begin to bond in a strange way: Paul wants to keep it all anonymously, furthermore at one location only, the rancid flat they first met at. He doesn't want that they know each other's true identity, so they begin a relationship solely on the basis of sex - and what follows is an utterly detestable yet weirdly intriguing journey. The infamous Italian director Bertolucci made no secret of it that he brought his most perverse and despicable male fantasy to the big screen, as he reportedly always wanted to have an affair with a "way younger" woman in a "foreign city". As a result of this questionable undertaking, we got this strange drama, and when I say strange, I mean that it is indeed very strange. Remember that this film came out in the early seventies, a time when things were different. Next to graphic nudity, suicide and profanity, there are also many, many aspects that personally disgust me a lot, like rape and misogynism. What makes it even harder to draw a line between reality and fiction is that Bertolucci treated his female lead in the worst way possible, for example as the most infamous rape scene was added to the script in the last minute, without her knowing. So to say, she was raped on screen, and I freaking hate the director for his sick methods. Furthermore, Schneider's Jeanne is depicted as a girl with no distinct personality, and the only thing that in fact defines her is the dependence to men that treat her like a lifeless object rather than a human being. Her soon-to-be fiancé Tom only exploits her as the leading actress for his film project, and is simply interested in the fame he can achieve by taking advantage of her, on the other hand, she is abused by Paul as a living sex toy, and both of it is just distasteful. Yes, even though it is mostly advertised as such, this film is anything but a romance, quite the contrary, I would categorise it as an anti-romance. Paul and Maria are having a toxic relationship, where the first abuses the latter constantly, and even though he does her wrong most of the time, she comes back to him, saying that she loves him (as it sadly might be the case often). Seriously, once you started the film, you are trapped inside the most disgusting and vile male fantasy one could come up with. Is it a thoroughly terrible film, though? Funnily enough, no, and I really I hate so say this and give it credit, but before you lapidate me at this point, let me once again make clear that I absolutely object everything this film stands for - but that I am amazed by how it is crafted (well, at least everything next to the treatment of the female lead, of course). What makes this movie great is not what it shows but how it shows everything. In fact, there is no actual plot, and in instances I was left utterly confused by what it just witnessed. Like, the premise is what this film is about, but at the same time it is an elastic term. It is uneventful, incoherent and, honestly, completely pointless most of the time. However, in the end, I had the feeling that this was done on purpose and that the "plot", if you may consider it as such, only serves as a means to an end. Ultimately, each scene is just a fragment, a powerful feeling and the film is a concatenation of all those. It doesn't want to make sense in the first place, it wants to make you feel - all kinds of sensations, and in the end, this undeniably weird approach worked out, because each scene displays this utterly heavy, gritty emotional intensity - and it packs a punch most of the time. It is shocking, outrageous and yet fascinating. Furthermore, despite his irrefutably disgusting nature, I think that Paul is indeed a phenomenally constructed and eclectic character. On the surface, he is an extremely toxic and absolutely wicked human being, but as the film moves on, his haunted personality becomes more and more clear. I am not going to say that it makes his character likable, quite the contrary, because in the end, he is still the same deplorable jerk he has been in the beginning, but there are several minimal moments in which we learn about him a lot. Most prominently, he struggles a lot with the suicide of his wife and this one specific scene in which he "talks" to her, I was once again impressed by Brando, who delivers as superbly as per usual. It is formally never said directly, but many times it is hinted that he was probably raped as a child, abused by his own parents, and indeed is unable to cope with the loss of his own wife. It is undeniably no excuse for his behaviour, but an explanation as to why he is what he is. In a sad and appalling manner, he beguiles Jeanne to escape his own inner turmoil, to give free rein to his inner demons, to numb the desperation that haunts him. Even though I absolutely hate what this film stands for, I cannot deny a certain technical brilliance that underlies this film. Bertolucci's methods were horrifying, and I am definitely not going to say that it was the right thing to do, because it simply was, but on the other hand, there were still other aspects that made it a weird yet peculiar drama. In the end, it is deservedly considered as a controversial title, because there are so many objectionable aspects about it, on the other hand it is ingeniously crafted. It's a perverse, nihilistic, melancholic and escapist contemplation about life, love, hate and sexuality that's as drastic as it gets. Despite its undeniably repulsive themes, it still manages to become weirdly fascinating. Without a doubt one of the most controversial films I have ever seen, and probably the best choice I could have made to participate in this promising community project.

Deep Blue Sea (1999)

Guilty Pleasure material drowning in its own stupidity

[5/10 · 26 January 2021]

"Deep Blue Sea" is a 1999 action horror film directed by Renny Harlin starring Thomas Jane and Saffron Burrows. ⚪ All in all, Renny Harlin's late nineties shark flick harpoons an irrefutably silly but at the same interesting premise, and in the process, manages to create a blood-curdling scenario with some surprisingly great ideas and a distinct feeling of subaqueous dread, but in the end, it sadly floods its unstable concept with terrible acting, major plot holes, questionable visual effects and by blatantly ripping of everything that has ever happened in "Jaws" films, and thus it becomes an enjoyable yet utterly cheesy and anything but outstanding trash gem that thinks it has more brains that is actually has and eventually drowns in stupidity. ⚪ I never really thought that I was going to say such a thing, but it indeed feels like it has been ages since I have seen this film. Almost a decade ago, my passion for film was sparked when I watched Steven Spielberg's terrorising masterpiece "Jaws", and I was so enthusiastic with it that it wanted to write an article about it. Fortunately, I happened to be working at my own school newspaper. After consultation with my chief editor, I was allowed to write a piece about the top three sharks of all time. As a result of my research, I came to the conclusion that (at that time) the three commercially most successful shark films were "Jaws", "Open Water" and this one here. So, as a further part of my journalistic investigation, I turned on my tiny computer and watched it on this small screen, and thinking about it reminded me how far I have come since then. Over the years, the monitor made way for an HD television set and Blu-Ray player, and reminiscing about how I got from there to where I am nowadays, how much time and money I have spent, I indeed felt slightly proud about it. Anyways, the walk down memory lane put aside, I rewatched a film that downright terrorised me back then, and honestly, has frightened me to a certain degree even now. Renny Harlin's trash flick can best be described as guilty pleasure material, because even if it has its decent moments, there are twice as many other aspects that make it ridiculously bad, and honestly the premise isn't even that terrible at all. In order to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease, a group of scientists took up residence at an underwater research facility on the open sea and genetically manipulated a group of Mako sharks, to extract a certain protein from their brains. However, as a tropical storm approaches and destroys the location, the security measurements malfunction, and the scientists as well as a few other crew members are trapped in the basement and everything is flooded as well. The sharks? Well, since everything is waterlogged, the highly intelligent fish begin to hunt down the survivors mercilessly. Silly? Yes. Entertaining as hell? Absolutely! Believe it or not, even if the concept is blatantly stolen from "Jurassic Park" (a rich man finances a high tech facility with genetically manipulated, highly dangerous animals, and after a storm causes the security measurements to fall out, said animals to run free, it turns into a horror survival trip), and the antagonistic animal and all of its features were obviously ripped off of "Jaws", there is still a lot to enjoy in this trashy film. To all the gamers out there: Do you remember that laboratory level with the sharks swimming around in the first "Resident Evil" game from 1996? This is basically the movie adaptation of said segment, and it is just as hilarious as it sounds. However, if there is one thing to seriously acknowledge about this film, it is how it managed to indeed create a threatening atmosphere. From small corridors, flooded stair cases and rooms to explosions, it knows to use all of its feature to scare the audience - and just as I did back then - I felt uncomfortable and claustrophobic most of the time. Nonetheless, the menacing setting is already the only great thing about the film, because all other aspects rank from mediocre to terrible. The characters are unintentionally hilarious and stereotypical. Aside from a bunch of shallow (pun intended) scientists that are destined to be shark fodder from the start, you have Saffron Burrows as the over-ambitious turned evil doctor who values her vicious creation over human lives, Samuel L. Jackson as the rich man who finances all, Thomas Jane as a shark tamer (yes, you read correctly) who is the typical cool dude with a dark past, and aside from speaking in maritime puns and slipping whenever there is water, he leads the group, of which LL Cool J is also a part, since he plays the comic relief character of a religious cook/gangster. Together they try to escape their watery grave and the sharp teeth of their guinea pigs (metaphorically speaking). The thing is, despite the in itself solid story, the technical and practical features are what pull the production down into an abyss of ridiculousness. Since the most talented actors of the film are killed of early in the film, the rookies/b-list actors take the lead, and as you can guess, what they deliver is mediocre at best. Burrows and her emotionless face as well her British accent, Thomas Jane's impassive, straight face and tough guy attitude and LL Cool J's attempt at being funny are unintentionally funny, and not even in the good way. They are nothing but b-movie horror clichés in human form, and there is nothing to gain from them. Furthermore, what made me think that it is PS1 game even more are the effects. While the animatronics are quite acceptable, the GCI is painfully cheap and, once again, took away all seriousness of it. The degree of brutality is alright and well-done for that time, but ugh, the visuals are dreadful. Also, speaking of which, unlike its altered fishes, the script is anything but intelligent. Yeah, the methods of research might make sense in some way (I cannot really tell, I am no scientist), but I can tell that it creates many plot holes by contradicting all rules it laid down in the beginning. Like, the sharks are supposed to be like 45 feet long, so how in the hell are they able to fit in the small hallways of a facility created for humans? Why can they literally smash metal doors but no oven in one scene, let alone a freaking metal fence? Why are humans able to run away from them in the water, even though its their territory? Oh, and aside from the constantly varying size of the fishes, why are they literally killed off like the sharks have been in all "Jaws" films? There is just so much wrong with the logic, that hurts - and the peak of physical pain isn't even reached until the utterly cringe worthy song rapped by LL Cool J himself is played during the credits. In the end, this film is only enjoyable as a guilty pleasure. Nothing more, nothing less, because all director Harlin did was reusing all the best ingredients of already existing animal horror films. It is anything but innovative, smart or outstanding. Is it fun, though? As crazy as it sounds, yes, and that's what I give it credit for. Despite being the cheap kind, it offers a certain thrill most of the time and turns it into an enjoyable trash film.

The Revenant (I) (2015)

Crawls slowly but brutally

[9/10 · 25 January 2021]

"The Revenant" is a 2015 adventure drama directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hardy. ⚪ All in all, Alejandro G. Iñárritu's uncompromising adaptation of the life of legendary trapper Hugh Glass crawls slowly yet vehemently through a powerfully enacted and utterly gritty survival turned revenge story that amazes with its genuine emotional intensity as well its breathtakingly atmospheric setting, and even if it might disregard the narration in order to focus on the outstanding visuals at time, the brutal performances, the intense scenery, the gorgeous cinematography, as well as the forcefully realistic special effects make this journey a heavy yet packing contemporary drama that displays an extreme historical accuracy and does the term epic cinema justice, becoming a force of nature of a film in the process. ⚪ Since it has been one of those rare days my hometown is comparatively snowbound, I decided to re-watch one of those films that have shaped my teenage years a lot. Back in the day, I was only just allowed to see the film (yes, I was still a minor back when it was released) and it was my first contact with "heavier" films. Like, I have never experienced such brutality before, and also haven't quite cared for this kind of genre before, but after hearing that Leo might win an Oscar for this role, I decided to jump in at the deep end - and the rest was history. After five years (!) have passed since this life-changing event, I knew that it was time to revisit, and believe it or not, I was as equally amazed by it as I was back then. It might be that the little story I just told that renders me some kind of biased, but seriously, it has once again been a phenomenal experience I savoured every single second of. "Birdman" director Iñárritu took on the life of the myth-enshrouded trapper Hugh Glass who famously survived a wrestle with a grizzly bear and, after being left for dead, returned to the fort he was working at after walking a distance of more than three-hundred kilometres. Ever since it happened in the 1820s, the man has become a legend, and eventually a famous part of folklore. Even though his story has been retold a thousand times and the true details of his journey remain unverifiable, all perspectives however are in an agreement about the fact that Glass was indeed attacked and mauled by a grizzly, left for dead and still managed to come back alive, and in terms of what has been passed on, this film remains historically accurate. Leonardo DiCaprio portrays the famous trapper Glass, Tom Hardy plays his colleague John Fitzgerald and Will Poulter took on the role of Jim Bridger. The reason I am mentioning the two is that they have allegedly been the men who left him behind even though he wasn't dead, what caused Glass to hunt them down one after another. However, what makes this film so packing and interesting is that Glass doesn't only have vengeance in mind, but also has to fight many other aspects as well. After the downright brutal opening scene (of which the suddenness reminded me of "Saving Private Ryan"), it becomes clear that Glass has more than one enemy to fight. Aside from the Native American people, he also must face of the hostile French trappers and, who would have guessed it, nature itself. When I say that it is the ultimate survival story, I mean that it is the ultimate survival story. Despite some things that made me question the realism of the story, it all made sense to some degree. Like, mustn't his wounds have been fatal? Wasn't his leg broken? Mustn't the cold itself killed him multiple times when he was literally lying on the ground? Anyway, those things put aside, I still think that it is a masterfully constructed adventure drama. Even if it might disregard the narration and allows it to become dragging at times in order to focus on the beauty of the visuals, I still think that it is an amazing achievement. It is a thing of taste, and I personally don't mind when a film is extremely slow-burning, and I mean, the visuals make up for that, right? Well, at least they do for me. Every single frame, every single second shot by the extremely talented Emmanuel Lubezki, takes my breath away. From shots of snowbound trees, to intense sequences in the water, all of them give me goosebumps and are downright awe-inspiring. It really feels like I was in the situation, because Lubezki managed to capture the brutality of the story perfectly. Speaking of which, another aspect of the film that still amazes me are the effects, computer generated and practical alike. I mean, I have seen many films that featured graphic violence and CGI and I had a slight idea about how they were done, but in this case, they are so extremely realistic that I was shocked. I knew that it was brutal, but I admittedly didn't remember it to be that ruthless. Like, in many scenes they came so suddenly (a certain scene that involves chopping or being clawed by a bear) or are so well crafted (animal cadavers) that it left me speechless, for I still cannot say for sure how they have done it. All of the brutality peaks in the final fight between Fitz and Glass, and the ending is just uncompromisingly entertaining. However, all of this adds to the mercilessness of the tale superbly, and it is outstanding in all departments. In all of them? Well, you cannot review this film without saying a few words about the acting. Back in the day, I was more than happy to see that Leonardo DiCaprio has won the Oscar for his role of Hugh Glass, but nowadays, after my reception of those things has evolved tremendously, I view it all differently. Undeniably, Leo delivered a brutal performance, but I don't think that literally crawling in the dirt, making a pained face and eating a real bison's liver as a vegan are in the same street as his portrayal of Jordan Belfort in "The Wolf Of Wall Street" or anything he has done before, let alone Michael Fassbender's performance as Steve Jobs in the biopic of the same name. Honestly, even Tom Hardy delivered better than him as his enemy Fitzgerald, but since it was "his time", Leo won, in my opinion, undeservedly. Another thing I only realised upon a rewatch is that the film also doesn't hesitate to express social commentary as well. Yes, mostly the Native American people are referred to as "savages" and are attacking the protagonist, but still the director included some scenes about who is really stealing from whom, and this deserves my respect. In the end, this film is a hit or miss for many cinephiles I know. Many consider it too long, unbalanced in terms of pacing and even boring, but I think it is a cold-hearted journey that balances masterfully between being beautiful and brutal. It is a story about revenge, willpower and survival, and all of that touches me a lot, especially since it has also a more surreal feeling to it. The frequent dream sequences and appearances of Glass's dead wife add an emotional and spiritual level to it that make the open ending heartbreakingly touching. It is outstandingly crafted, utterly realistic and probably the closest we got to monumental filmmaking in years. Undeniably, a phenomenal experience, after all.

Cocktail (1988)

Cinematic counterpart of cheap fusel

[3/10 · 19 January 2021]

"Cocktail" is a 1988 romantic drama directed by Roger Donaldson starring Tom Cruise and Bryan Brown. ⚪ All in all, this late eighties flick mixes capitalist success fantasies, toxic misogyny and bartender philosophy to an abstruse, pointless and embarrassingly tasteless concoction that suffers from utterly unlikeable characters, a simply dumb and meaningless plot and questionable creative decisions, and in the end it doesn't leave an interesting and satisfying aftertaste and instead becomes the cinematic counterpart of a stale beverage consisting of the cheapest sorts of fusel that have ever existed. ⚪ No creative mind working in the film business has indeed a flawless filmography. There is at least one project in each of them the respective artists probably want the audience to forget about. I think, in this case I have found this small stain in the shiny oeuvre of the legendary Tom Cruise. Those who have followed me for a while know that the constantly running "Mission Impossible" superstar is one of my favourite actors of all time, and one of the few artists whose filmography I almost watched in its entirety. Well, if I say almost, I mean almost, because some of his earlier are still unknown to me. Of course, "Top Gun" and "Rain Man" are perfect examples of why the man is a total legend, but in the same decade, the glorious eighties, he has also starred in some, well, let us call them "less successful" productions - this Roger Donaldson flick being one of them. I have heard many things about it before, and it is reportedly not the greatest feature of all time. Honestly, my expectations towards it weren't that high, quite the contrary, I assumed it to be incredibly cheesy guilty pleasure material in the likes of "Road House". What could possibly go wrong, then? Frankly, so much, because boy, this was worse than everything I have anticipated. At first, I thought it was honestly interesting: You have got an ambitious young man, desiring wealth and fortune, going to college while working as a parttime bartender, and I seriously thought it was either going to be a predictable yet inspiring "rags to riches" story of a dreamer starting on the bottom or a tale of a man torn between his dreams of becoming famous and living out his newfound passion as a bartender. Well, in the first thirty minutes it indeed appears to venture into one of those directions, but after that it becomes absurdly ridiculous. Instead of staying true to its exposition, it turns into a half-heartedly constructed and absolutely schmaltzy romance. Multiple times I asked myself what the hell was going on, and I never really found the answers to my questions. Cruise's character Brian apparently falls in love with Elisabeth Shue's Jordan, but does the exact opposite of what he allegedly feels. Remember when I said above that it was going to be a success story? Well, in some way, it is one, but the worst type you could imagine. Instead of working hard and earning it, Brian and his mentor Coughlin try to sleep their way to the top and earn the money for their visions by sweet-talking and straightaway using wealthy women. Seriously, the two are the epitome of toxic and mischievous gigolos, and it was just painful to watch this development. For what feels like is the first time, Tom Cruise played a character I found absolutely unlikable. After the disrespectful show he put of most of film, they really want me to root for him as he fights to get Jordan back, supposedly because he is in love with her? Like, it was more than obvious that she was just a one-night stand for him, and then he all suddenly catches feelings for her after his rich lovers have rejected him? In no way was his conversion convincing, it was almost hilarious how the money-grubbing, wealth desiring man who was previously shown as someone who only worships casual sex, proclaims his love for a woman that he most likely only finds interesting because she rejected him most of the time. It is getting even dumber, when said woman unexpectedly forgives the jerk and allows him to be the father of their child. Honestly, there is so much wrong with this film. The plot consists mostly of pointless and simply dumb scenes, the development feels completely wrong and it is just terribly paced. Regardless of those technical features, it is even more dreadful when you take a look at what values this film represents. It is like the most perverse male fantasy one could only imagine. Women are constantly objectified, and only seen as opportunities to get filthy rich or as a means of drive satisfaction. All of that might have been "charming" or "tempting" back in the eighties, but nowadays the only words coming to my mind are "distasteful" or "offensive" or "disgusting". Yes, it is that bad, and its probably one of the most misogynistic films I have ever seen. The thing is, as a film there isn't much to appreciate either. Tom Cruise, aside from less than a handful of scenes, delivers an awkward performance, and also his co-star Shue, who I know has plenty of grey matter, fails to shine as well, and their shared chemistry suffers severely from that. The values it represents are completely objectionable, the writing is nothing short of poor and the acting doesn't save it either, but if there is one thing I enjoyed, it has got to be the (non-sexist) bartender philosophies and the scenes in which they actual perform barman tricks. However, since the film stops being about bartending after the first half and hour, you can guess yourself that there aren't many of those scenes - and I really thought I could learn something for the next birthday party I wanted to spend behind the counter. Apparently, I now must read books about the topic. Well, I guess they are much less sexist, so it is a win-win situation.

Heathers (1988)

Dark yet effective high school comedy

[8/10 · 18 January 2021]

"Heathers" is a 1989 crime comedy directed by Michael Lehmann starring Winona Ryder and Christian Slater. ⚪ All in all, this late eighties flick bizarrely swings a croquet mallet to radically smash high school movie stereotypes with extreme destructive energy and very dark humour, satirizing school popularity and teenage suicide in an equally tasteless and ingenious way, and thanks to charismatic performances by Ryder and Slater, an unusual yet chaotically insightful writing and an unpredictably drastic plot, it becomes a weirdly fascinating and unconventionally surreal teenage flick that's as poisonous as a cup of drain cleaner. ⚪ I went into this film with a completely open mind, without expectations at all, except for one - that it is going to be yet another of those stereotypical high school flicks, and oh my god, how wrong I was. In the beginning, I had the strange feeling that it turns out to be a spiritual predecessor of "Mean Girls" that I famously disliked, and honestly, there were many hints that it might go into the same direction. Like, you have got a famous clique of toxic, spoiled girls (three girls called Heather, hence the title), an outsider girl given the opportunity to join them, lots of high school clichés and a subsequent act of betrayal. Sounds familiar? Well, to this point, it surely does, but when protagonist Veronica plans to kill her former friend/enemy, and accidentally goes through with it with the help of her mysterious boyfriend J.D., I knew that it was going to be nothing like Tina Fey's attempt to making a satirical high school comedy. After an admittedly sudden and confusing beginning, it becomes increasingly clearer to me what the film tries to tell, and the way it does this is both weird and brilliant. The two main aspects the film focusses on are the popularity issues in school and, well, teenage suicide. Wait, what? Exactly, this comedy deals with this undeniably delicate topic, because after the accidental murder, the two protagonists decide to use their special skills (forging handwritings and plans) to make it look like that their first victim, Heather Chandler, has killed herself, and after that, they both try to do this to other popular students as well, until Veronica becomes gradually disgusted by the actions of her partner. Let me say beforehand: suicide is absolutely no laughing matter, and it is still a serious issue affecting many people's lives, and I think everyone comes in contact with this topic at least once in their lifetimes (me included), but as inappropriate as it might sound, the film uses this delicate issue to drastically prove its point. Popularity, bullying, cliques and mental health issues are relevant problems affecting the high school experience of many students, and this film depicts the severity of it in an exaggerated yet effective way. All adults, parents and teachers alike, are depicted in a caricatural manner, because all of them seemingly deliberately misunderstand what the teenaged characters in this film are going through. After the first apparent suicide, the teachers are seen discussing the incident, and they all visibly couldn't care less and rather discuss how amazed they are that the dead girl used a word in her not she previously failed to use correctly in a vocab test. Later on, when it became more prominent, they then decide to make some happiness dance instead of enlightening the students about the severity of this issue. You know what I mean? Furthermore, Veronica's parents are also an overstatement for parents in general, as they, like the teachers, are so preoccupied with their own lives that they don't take their kids' issues seriously. Like, in one scene a rumour states that their daughter might be suicidal, and all they do is put on a solemn face and half-heartedly ask superficial questions, not really making the effort of looking actually concerned. The entire side-swiping continues when an unpopular, bullied student, Martha, tries to kill herself after being humiliated in many scenes before. Like, when the admired Heather Chandler died, her death was glorified and everyone pretended to have liked her, but when Martha decides to do the same thing and fortunately survives the attempt, one might think that they care about her more. No way! Instead, she is even more teased by her schoolmates, saying she only tried it too because it was a trendy thing to do. I admit, the film performs a tightrope walk between being ingenious and just distasteful, but as horrible as it sounds, if the film were too tame, the social criticism it expresses wouldn't have the same vehemence it does now. It is utterly dark humour I didn't expect in the slightest to see in a film from that era. Many other things happen in the background or indirectly, like the fact that J.D. is a total psychopath and a toxic boyfriend, but since he is handsome, those obvious facts are shrouded, and in another scene one of the Heathers is simply raped by a jock in the background, and only those who see it will see it - and that is the quintessence of the entire film. This film does everything the works of John Hughes never could have done, simply because it isn't appropriate for children. But is it appropriate for children that suffer from such issues? Mental health problems know no age, and this flick managed to hit the bullseye in that matter. At times it will make you laugh for how ridiculous some things are. Like J.D. perfectly points out, the extreme always seems to make an impression. It is villainous, toxic, vicious, drastic, and (especially in the end), extremely dark - but so are the high school experiences of some. Despite having something surreal to it and feeling silly, it depicts a part of reality many other films never would have dared to show, and this bold move deserves my respect. In the end, this movie is everything "Mean Girls" desperately tried to be. Oh, and before I forget: If you are struggling with the issues mentioned above, just know one thing: You are loved and never alone. Even if it at times feels like you are alone and hopeless, you are not. Life is worth living, trust me. I love you, and so do many others. If you are struggling and want to get help, swipe to see where you can get help. Don't give up, it will be better someday.

Paul (2011)

For nerds, by nerds

[6/10 · 17 January 2021]

"Paul" is a 2011 adventure comedy directed by Greg Mottola starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. ⚪ All in all, this collaboration of American and British comedy geniuses takes you on an intergalactic fun trip by living out a true nerd fantasy and paying homage to classic features of modern pop culture, like science fiction and road trip films, and even if the humour might be a little too vulgar and off the road at times, it still manages to display the typical dry wit of the writers, and in the end, the likeable characters, the messy yet insane plot and a certain type of self-awareness answer the never asked question of what would happen if you interbreed "E.T. - The Extra-terrestrial" and "Bonnie and Clyde". ⚪ This film and I share an actually hilarious story, and I am going to tell you why: A few years back, I was on skiing vacation with my school, and the bus ride lasted for like almost fifteen hours. So, on the return trip, a classmate decided to pitch the idea to watch a movie via the entertainment centre of the bus, and since he expected the teachers to say yes, he suggested a movie that he "coincidentally" has taken with him. It was rated 12 and it didn't look quite inappropriate for my teachers, and thus they agreed to the idea. What made this experience this great wasn't just that the film turned out to be comparatively funny (I was thirteen back then), but also the horrified reactions of my teachers who didn't expect at all that it was going to feature such coarse language. Like, every time a character said something raunchy, the educators were totally embarrassed. So, this film has held a special place in my memories for bringing this kind of pleasure to a young teenager, and after all this time, I knew I had to revisit at least once. Even though I (expectedly) didn't hype it as I did back then, I still got to say that I have had a few laughs. What nowadays astonishes me most is the cast, as it assembles some of the most prominent comedians of the US and Great Britain. Next to frequent Edgar Wright collaborators and stars of the legendary "Blood & Ice Cream" trilogy, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, almost playing themselves and being the screenwriters, we have many other known names like Kristen Wiig as a fanatic religious, Jason Bateman, Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio as the secret agents and last but not least Seth Rogen himself as the voice of the titular alien. Also the fact that it is directed by Greg Mottola, the dude responsible for my all time favourite high school comedy "Superbad", makes me feel like that indeed the comedy elite of the 2010s of American and British film have congregated to make the ultimate comedy film - at least in theory. As phenomenal and promising as it all might sound, it unfortunately failed to reach its full potential, and it is almost frustrating. Despite being self-aware of its own silliness, the film once too often loses its way in terms of humour. Undeniably, Pegg and Frost lived out their nerd fantasies and it is full of pop culture references, inside jokes and fan service, but on the other hand, there are way too many scenes that rely too much on profanity. Yes, for almost every witty conversation and line there is also a scene that tries to make you laugh with swear words and vulgarity only - and I don't think that Pegg and Frost are in need of this. Of course, language has been a tool in their previous projects, but what bothers me here is that it is used too excessively. I mean, the character Ruth is constantly swearing after her faith in god has been shattered, and it is anything but hilarious, quite the contrary, it is infantile. Other than that, the characters are likable as per usual and (despite slightly outdated CGI), the chemistry with the animated alien is surprisingly well conceptualised. With the two main nerds, he boozes, smokes joints and parties, and it was also hilarious to see the endless references to classic films like "Close Encounters", "E.T." and "The X Files" (that are apparently based on Paul's ideas), and this type of pleasant atmosphere makes up for the unnecessary language. In the end, the film is a love letter for nerds by nerds, and even if the humour is a hit or miss, I can still say that I had a lot of fun with it. Not the best comedy, but an enjoyable, nevertheless.

Mommy (I) (2014)

Born to Die...

[10/10 · 16 January 2021]

"Mommy" is a 2014 French-Canadian film directed by Xavier Dolan starring Anne Dorval and Antoine Olivier Pilon. ⚪ All in all, Canadian director Xavier Dolan brought an utterly intense and shocking family drama in this world that simultaneously amazes and astonishes with its sheer narrative intensity, and even if it is a dramatic story in its core, it surprisingly displays a dazzling emotional range, going from gracious to ferocious in the matter of seconds most of the time, and thanks to intelligently used and sensitive cinematography, outstandingly portrayed and written characters as well as fitting soundtrack, it becomes an utterly intriguing, equally fascinating and harrowing rollercoaster ride that convinces with its brutal realism and merciless emotiveness. ⚪ Because it was the birthday of my buddy, the outstanding @officialnerdhub, I decided to make him a small present by watching one of his favourite films of all time, and since both "Interstellar" and "Lawrence of Arabia" simply run for too long for a Friday night and I have watched "The Shining" recently, the winner was Canadian director Xavier Dolan's most praised drama "Mommy" - and holy hell, what an incredible film it was. It once again proved to me that there are several masterful films out there many apparently haven't seen this far, simply because they are in a foreign language, so at this point one small piece of advice: go watch more non-anglophone films. In many cases you will probably end up like me - shattered to the very foundations - because what Dolan has created here is nothing short of outstanding dramatic writing. In a fictional Canada, independent mother Diane "Die" Després, tries to raise her seemingly ineducable son Steve, an obnoxious brat suffering from ADHD and violent outburst, and with the help of her mysterious new neighbour Kyla, it all seems to be possible ... at least for a while. This premise is yet another project of which the success of the film depends solely on the execution, because if you don't have a sufficiently sensitive screenplay, capable actors and an empathetic design, it will most definitely fail to unfold its full intensity. Thankfully, this film has got all of it. What makes it so indescribably intriguing is the fact that the film's plot somehow mirrors the emotional world of its protagonist, because if it is per se a drama, it is divided into totally different phases, and each is defined by an entirely different mood. In one scene, verbal and physical fighting takes place in all its ugliness and ferocity, and after that it turns into a calm and optimistic feel-good film. The thing is, this duality is noticeable throughout the entire film, but as predictable as it sounds, it is anything but this, because like violent outbursts, the atmosphere and the nature of the scenes shift in the matter of seconds. Seriously, at first it seems like Die and Steve will get along peacefully, and after a minimal issue, it suddenly turns into a horrifying scene - in one case ending with attempted murder. There is this certain type of discomfort and menace accompanying every single scene, since it is just impossible to tell what is happening next. Only after Kyla, a mysterious woman herself, steps into their life, it becomes comparatively organised. Even though it is factually never mentioned, I think that she has had severe problems in her past herself. She is a teacher on sabbatical, and next to her shyness, she also stutters nervously most of the time - and that makes me conclude that she was most probably bullied and humiliated by students at her old school. I know, it is a long shot, but it would fit perfectly into the context of the story. Anyway, after initial difficulties, Kyla seems to become the only person Steve respects in some abstract way, and a while later, the three become an inseparable trio. Honestly, to a certain point I thought that we would get a happy ending, but what comes after that is just the total opposite of that. Even if he seems to be on the mend, Steve remains a troublemaker, and the things he has done in the past begin to catch up. A major lawsuit forces Die to sweet-talk their neighbour Paul, who happens to be a lawyer, into helping them, but as she succeeds in her undertaking, Steve just cannot deal with it. As it shockingly turns out, he loves his mother more than previously assumed, and even if it was hinted in some occasions, it was still a shocking revelation - next to his hyperactivity and anger issues, he also suffers from an oedipal complex - and then the tragedy is perfect (in a classic Greek way as well). The justified rejection by Die makes Steve think that she doesn't love him anymore, and it all goes downhill from there. Die really wants to save her one and only son, even if he pulls her down. It is a simple yet utterly heart-breaking dilemma, and everything she does would hurt her in some way. It is self-destruction in its rawest form, and I think it couldn't get any more shocking - and I was wrong, once again. After an attempted suicide by Steve, Die decides to commit her son to an institution, and oh my god, this scene packed a punch. After a day-dream sequence depicting how Steve reached his goal, got his life together and eventually married, the bleak reality sets in. Once again, it was this the suddenness of this transition that made it so incredibly excruciating, because after that it is shown how Steve tries to resist the male nurses trying to capture him, and the feelings of betrayal, disappointment and anger written on his face - simply shattering. Subsequently, Die seems to live an easier life, Kyla moves away once again, and everything of the triangular friendship is gone forever - and thus, it ends heartbreakingly. As already mentioned above, what makes this so even more intense are the practical features. Dorval, Pilon and Clément, portraying Die, Steve and Kyla, respectively, are the driving force behind everything. The way they play their respective characters, how they convey their personalities and the connected emotions is downright mesmerising, and that makes it even more heart-breaking. Furthermore, the movie is entirely presented in a 1:1 aspect ratio, and that allows the viewer to experience the emotional intensity even more. Many close-up shots make for this uncomfortable yet ingenious intimacy, and it works out perfectly. However, just as I thought I saw through the meaning behind this unusual creative decision, the screen suddenly widened during the day-dream sequence, and I new that it also emphasises the lack of perspective and the feeling of being narrowed perceived by the characters, and how this all changes only in a figment. In the end, this film turns out to be distressing rollercoaster ride and probably one of the best foreign films I have ever seen. Every little aspect fits perfectly, and it still haunts me as I write those sentences. The soundtrack underlining the end credits, a famous song by Lana Del Rey, was added to my playlist shortly after, and it made me chuckle, because Steve was "Born To Die" in more than one way ... and the brilliance of that film increased, once again.

Cobra Kai (2018–2025)

Mercilessly exciting fun

[9/10 · 15 January 2021]

Season 1: All in all, the first season of this "The Karate Kid" sequel series slithers fearlessly, sinks its teeth into the right spot and poisons with its effective and absolutely intoxicating venom, as it manages to deliver the same (if not better) type of cheesiness its original film is iconic for, and thanks to surprisingly versatile writing, realistically eclectic character and fantastic choreographies, it becomes an utterly addictive and wonderfully constructed continuation of the eighties classic that doesn't only rely on its nostalgia, but also offers so much more to become a three point victory. (9/10)

The Farewell (I) (2019)

Absurdly heartwarming tragicomedy

[9/10 · 12 January 2021]

"The Farewell" is a 2019 directed by Lulu Wang starring Shuzhen Zhao and Awkwafina. ⚪ All in all, Lulu Wang's unusual drama bids adieu to genre stereotypes and clichés and welcomes an unconventional approach instead by constructing a tricky tragicomedy that knows to strike the dramatic and the comedic keys equally sensitively, as well as to give a deep inside into the cultural differences of the family, and even if there is not really much of a twisted plot, the likeable characters, an always superbly balanced narration and excellent performances (especially by Awkwafina), make for a weirdly touching and absurdly heart-warming genre mix that knows to approach its difficult subject matter extremely carefully. ⚪ Since many of my fellow cinephiles seemingly appear to love this film and I wanted to watch more foreign films in general, tackling this highly acclaimed Chinese drama was some sort of inevitable. As I expected it no differently, this film was indeed an unconventional experience, and the only reason I am shocked it that it was completely snubbed at the Academy Awards that year. Like, why? This drama is anything but ordinary and hence doesn't fit the taste of everyone, but on the other hand it was downright refreshing, simple because you haven't seen something like that before (well, at least I didn't). The famous independent film company A24 (that now has made a lot of uniquely entertaining flicks) produced yet another title as unusual as most of its other works, but like with its other movies, I adored it so much. What makes it so special, though? After the family matriarch Nai Nai is diagnosed with cancer, the entire family returns to China to meet her for one last time before she passes away, but as unthoughtful as it sounds, it is anything but this. Apparently, it is some sort of Chinese tradition to not tell people that they are terminally ill, so as an excuse for the family to suddenly visit the grandma, an impromptu wedding is scheduled summarily. The thing is, there isn't much happening in this film, there is no actual plot and no unexpected events. They all come visit her, have some fun with her, than there is the fake wedding, and then they already leave again. Sounds boring? In general, it would definitely be dull as hell, but it is how the minimalistic plot is dealt with what is nothing short of utterly amazing. All members of the clan are scattered all around the world: protagonist Billi and her parents have taken up residence in New York City, her uncle and her wife have settled in Japan and the rest of the family are still living somewhere in China, but most of the time Nai Nai was alone (except for her supportive sister and the caretaker). So, it has been ages since the whole family has been sitting at the same table, and everyone evolved entirely different. Aside from communication problems, the clash of cultures is the main problem of the film, since every household adapted to their respective society. Even if it does sounds macabre to Billi (and to me as well), it is some sort of custom to keep the dying person in the dark about their fate, and the struggle to accept this bitter truth is what makes this film so utterly interesting. Albeit being a drama in its core, there is still this superb poise of emotions that defines everything. In an extremely careful manner, director Lulu Wang manages to balance between moving drama and heart-warming comedy. Seriously, even though it felt sort of inappropriate to do so, I laughed multiple times, as the situations really allowed it (hint: grave visit). It gives a deep insight into the traditions of China, and with enormous respect, it points out the importance as well as the hilariousness of some things - and it is just touching all the time. What makes this film even more affecting are the main characters. Despite not being masterfully elaborated, it suffices in every single case, and in the end, I surprisingly ended up liking them all. Furthermore, in terms of performances the movie is pretty solid as well, with only one exception. Awkwafina, who I have previously known by name only, is nothing like the rest of the cast ... because she is absolutely amazing. The emotional range she displays is undoubtedly mesmerizing and astonished me out of nowhere. She plays her character Billi, a strong and independent woman, with such genuineness and ease, it is a shame that she wasn't considered for any acting Oscar. Seriously, she is that great! In the end, I have had an enormous pleasure watching this film, and I am glad that everyone recommended it to me. Yes, the plot isn't really the crucial factor as to why it works out so well, but the sensitivity it displays in everything it deals with. Not many dramedies manage to sway between sad and funny like this film does, and that deserves my respect. An absurdly touching and heart-warming gem, indeed.

The Karate Kid Part III (1989)

An illegal blow to the face of fans of the original

[3/10 · 11 January 2021]

"The Karate Kid Part III" is a 1989 sports drama directed by John G. Avildsen starring Ralph Macchio and Noriyuki "Pat" Morita. ⚪ All in all, the third instalment to the iconic karate story serves leg sweeping revenge by absurdly picking up the antagonist from the original film, but even if it is interesting to see the protagonist be tempted by the dark values of Cobra Kai and the fights being (mostly) improved, the writing became questionably stupid, the plot undoubtedly lazy and the acting annoyingly terrible, and thus it becomes a ridiculously conceptualised and abysmally executed end to the trilogy that shows great roots can have miserable blossoms. ⚪ #TrainingForCobraKai ends with he third and most hated entry to the LaRusso trilogy, and as I expected it no differently, it was as terrible has I remembered it. The first sequel, a film that I famously disliked, looks like a downright masterpiece in direct comparison to this disaster. Seriously, what the hell went wrong? I mean, you have the same director, the same writer and even the same leading actors, how can it be so tremendously horrible compared to the first film? Did they all lose their talent to do it? It is yet another example of endless sequels and continuations, they do anything for the sake of commerce, and leave out creativity completely. I think, if you don't have a great idea, you should leave it alone completely, but who am I to say such things? In other words, his threequel displays the holy trinity of trash movie features: bad premise, bad execution and bad acting, and oh my god, it is just so painfully stupid. Disgraced dojo owner and karate sensei John Kreese is back and picked up by his veteran comrade Terry Silver, and together they scheme a retaliation campaign against Daniel and Mr. Miyagi. If you ask, yes, this film is just as stupid as you think it is. Next to the awkward run-of-the-mine revenge story you are offered, everything else that has made the previous films enjoyable (yes, even the second one had some good features) has vanished completely, just like Daniel's love interest did from film to film. First, the villain in this flick is just awful. Kreese's war buddy Terry Silver, dreadfully portrayed by Thomas Ian Griffith, is just unbearable every time he is on screen. Albeit being probably the best martial arts fighter of all the films, his acting is just embarrassingly wooden, awkwardly exaggerated and repulsive, but not in the good kind of way. He is neither a great villain, nor a decent actor and in every single scene he appears in, it is just ridiculous. On the other hand, Ralph Macchio's Daniel surprisingly wasn't exactly brilliant either. Yes, he is by far not as abysmal as Silver, and I am not sure if it just the writing or his performance, but Daniel LaRusso became extremely annoying in this film, and all the development he has been through in the previous two movies seems to have vanished completely as well. All suddenly, he is extremely naïve, intrusive and have I mentioned that he is annoying as hell and anything but likeable? Even though Mr. Miyagi tells him multiple times not to, he obtains a lease for his mentor so that he can open a Bonsai shop. Speaking of which, this plot point is just horrible as well. For more than the first half of the film we get to see how Daniel and Miyagi go into business, instead of doing something more meaningful. With the introduction of Jessica, we have the shallow love interest substitute (her actress Robyn Lively was only sixteen while shooting, Macchio twenty-seven, that's why their relationship is platonic), and with Mike Barnes and Dennis coming into play, we have the movie thugs, that are nothing but the bullies from the original film only ten times stronger (according to the actors themselves). As part of the plan, the two jerks want to force Daniel to apply to the tournament and defend his title, and yeah, they also do the usual bad guy stuff as well. After many failed attempts and lots of menace (violence against bonsai trees, for instance), the defending champion at last signs the application, and after that the only notable plot point of the entire film sets in. Since Miyagi doesn't want to teach karate for glory, he refuses to train Daniel for the tournament, and as a consequence of that, the pupil approaches Terry Silver who pretends to be a nice karate teacher, even though he follows his own mischievous plan to hurt Daniel. I think it is in this regard interesting to witness, because we get to see how Daniel, the innocent hero of the first film, is tempted by "the dark side", in other words, the values of the adversarial dojo, Cobra Kai, what makes his character morally ambiguous to a certain degree. I mean, he is even wearing the dojo's gown most of the time and learning about everything he has sworn to dismiss. However, all of this is over quite quickly for it is extremely rushed and the conversion is executed hastily. After one of the best fights of the trilogy at the Cobra Kai dojo (Miyagi vs Kreese, Silver and Barnes), there is the climatic fight in the finale of the All Valley Tournament. The excitement it caused in me was fraudulent, because as satisfying as it is, it is nothing short of a cheap move. The only reason I felt enthusiastic about it was that it blatantly copied the climax of the original film. Seriously, after being inferior to Super-Saiyajin Johnny, Mike Barnes, Daniel is reminded by his mentor about a special technique and - what a surprise - the underdog wins. Hurray, hurray, how original! In the end, this threequel is just a waste of time if there ever was one. Of course, it rounds up the LaRusso story (well, it used to), but as a film it is just a shame. Copying the most iconic aspects of the original film is already an impertinence, but the writing as well as the acting make it even worse. It is an illegal blow to the face of fans of the first film, seriously. Yes, the fighting is probably at its peak here and the moral ambiguity is also noteworthy, but the lack of originality and laziness in all other aspects of the film are ridiculous. It is so stupid it is almost hilarious, but in the end it is just painfully unnecessary and pointless. God, I am glad that the new show is reportedly on the same level as the first film. I am definitely looking forward to it.

The Karate Kid Part II (1986)

Promising premise, terrible execution

[6/10 · 10 January 2021]

"The Karate Kid Part II" is a 1986 sport drama directed by John G. Avildsen starring Noriyuki "Pat" Morita and Ralph Macchio. ⚪ All in all, the sequel to John G. Avildsen's iconic karate story makes for a change and bethinks of the traditions of the sport, as it explores the culture's origin after relocating the scene to Okinawa, but even if the idea itself is quite interesting, the execution isn't exciting at all and suffers from severe narrative problems, as the flair of the original has made way for a more traditional yet superficial atmosphere and story, and strange character focus as well as an unexciting plot turn this continuation into a most of the time boring rather than engaging, and poorly conceived sequel with tonal and plot issues. ⚪ #TrainingForCobraKai continues with the first sequel of the hit film, and as you can tell, it is by far not as great as the original. Another weird trend of the eighties was to continue the most successful films, and even if there are some exceptions, it often ended terribly, and the created sequels are mostly just average to less than mediocre version of their predecessor. Yes, this one is another proof that this unwritten rule applies. Half a year after Daniel LaRusso won the tournament and finally stood up to his bullies (as seen in the flashback sequences in the beginning), he accompanies his mentor Mr. Miyagi to Okinawa, his sensei's place of origin, and learns about his past. Honestly, I absolutely love that they decided to do something completely different for the sequel. You got a new place, new characters and an in itself new conflict, but as promising as it sounds in the beginning, the execution is what leaves a lot to be desired, because in the end, they did so many things wrong and messed up their basic idea. As you can tell by how they are billed, Pat Morita's Mr. Miyagi is all suddenly the main character of the film, and Daniel only plays the role of the supporting character. Even if I inherently like the idea of exploring the sensei more, it is at the same time disenchanting, for it deprived the mystical mentor of every bit of magic he has had in the previous film. We learn that Miyagi is indeed a disgraced coward who left his country after breaking with the traditions of his culture. In other words, he wooed the fiancée of his best friend Sato and publicly declared his love for her. Albeit it was probably the right thing in the name of love, it was still strange to see that Miyagi, who was previously introduced as someone who strictly follows his country's traditions, did one of the worst things he could have done. As a result of the humiliation his former best friend Sato experienced, he was challenged to a life and death fight - which he declined. Instead, he fled to the states and remained there - until his dying father brought him back. You know what I mean? The fabulous teacher turns out to be a hypocrite, and that is one of the worst things they could have done. On the other hand, one might think that we learn something about the traditions and customs of Okinawa, but well ... even this was done poorly. I mean, the film runs for almost two hours and until the storm scene and the final fight sequence, there isn't really much exciting happening. It simply scratches on the surface, develops a certain emotional depth in only a handful of scenes and is just unexcitingly boring most of the time. The mentioned traditions and customs are thematized only half-heartedly, and overall, the film lacks the flair and heart of the original. It is plain and simple. Furthermore, on the surface it looks like it is completely innovative, but on closer inspection, the film only slightly altered and re-used plot elements of the original and suited them to the new scenery. Don't believe me? Let me prove it to you: the predictable love interest/romantic character arc? Check. The bully who teases Daniel all the time and is factually superior to him by all means, at least until the end? Check. The new special technique Daniel isn't able to perform until the climatic combat? Also there. Other than that, everything the film builds up doesn't even happen ultimately. Like, it shows Sato trying to convince his old friend to at last accept his fate and fight him. One storm later, everything is forgiven and forgotten. The fight of the mentors, sensei vs. sensei, is off the cards, and all the previous development was redundant in retrospective, well, the entire film was redundant. Instead, we get to see Sato's disgraced nephew Chozen fight Daniel in a mortal combat. However, despite being slightly better choreographed than before (while still not being masterful), it is the length of the scene that bothers me - because it is just too short. In the matter of seconds, and after a comparatively intense exchange of blows, it is already over and Daniel wins. In the end, I cannot really say that I like this sequel. Of course, it is pleasant to see the characters again, but the change of scenery, the undeniably more brutal characters as well as the premise were sadly wasted and terribly executed. What kept the original film from becoming dreadful was the enormous amount of heart and magic - two factors that are practically absent in this one. Borderline watchable, but a title I probably won't rewatch for a long time. However, I am even more unsettled about the third film...

Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life (2016)

Enjoyable yet heavily flawed revival

[7/10 · 8 January 2021]

"Gilmore Girls: A Year In The Life" is a 2016 dramedy miniseries directed by Amy Sherman-Palladino and Daniel Palladino starring Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel. ⚪ All in all, the revival of the iconic small town located dramedy returns to Stars Hollow in the well-known witty way and delivers the usual amount of quirkiness, but aside from the nostalgia factor, some creative choices as well as some sequences were painfully poorly conceived and didn't do the original series justice, and thus it becomes an undeniably enjoyable comeback that at the same time could have been much better. ⚪ After watching all seven seasons of the iconic dramedy series "Gilmore Girls" from July to December, I thought I would kick off my TV reviews with the highly anticipated 2016 revival, and as much as I liked it as a whole, there are still some undeniable flaws and choices that leaves much to be desired. In general, I think that this revival worked out as a thing on its own without invading the original series too much. All important characters returned, they acted as always and in the almost ten years, they evolved and now live their perfect lives. All of them? Well, no, and that is already my heaviest point of criticism. Rory, an idol for young girls back in the day, Yale graduate and the example that you can achieve anything if you are dedicated enough, was a let-down, not going to lie. It is no secret that they made her character worse and worse after the end of season four, but what is shown here is nothing short of disappointing and caps it all off. After she has worked for the Obama campaign, she makes her bread with occasional job offers and questionable clients. What happened? She has been the epitome of success, an icon for many, why did they have to mess her character arc up so much? Like, she is practically unemployed, lost in life and without perspective. The thing is, even if that happens to many people that age, the writers also annulled her status as an independent woman. As we find out, Rory has an ongoing affair with her ex-boyfriend Logan, the man she famously rejected after he proposed to her, and it is just so wrong. She lives in the past, is (emotionally) dependent to a man who is about to get married and she is unemployed. How could they do it, seriously? This isn't the motivated and ambitious Rory we used to know, and it is downright disappointing. On the other side, Lorelai was handled pretty decently. Not perfect, but at least not as disastrously as her daughter. For the past few years, she has been living with Luke (at last) and lead a peaceful life. Aside from the fact that her best friend Sookie left the Dragonfly Inn (another stupid choice), it seemed to be idyllic - unless her father's sudden death. Yes, the dramatic core of this story arc is the passing of Richard Gilmore, the gracious patriarch of the family, and it really got me all the time. Even though it was the death of a fictional character, it gutted me, for Edward Herrmann, the actor who portrayed him, has died in real life in 2014 and you can feel how devastated everyone is. It literally suffers from the his absence, the lack of his warmth, and honestly, it was the first time in the series I was on the verge of crying multiple times, because they handled it so well. Emily's character, as macabre as it may sound, became unexpectedly interesting, as the proud housewife, who herself has said that it was her job, needs to adapt to a new life of being independent. Seriously, even though I heavily disliked her character, they managed to make her sympathetic and developed her decently. In the end, she succeeded to become independent and cope with her loss, making it heart-warming. You see what I mean? The writers managed to give my least favourite character a great arc, so why did they have to mess up Rory so much? Honestly, I liked her relationship with Logan in the original series, but now I am entirely Team Jess, for I think that they are perfect for each other. Logan is her Christopher, Jess is her Luke and that would be the best they could do in a possible sequel series. Overall, I cannot really say that I hated this sequel, it was in fact extremely emotional and felt like visiting an old friend, but considering that Amy Sherman-Palladino, the showrunner that left the series after the sixth season due to creative differences, penned this all herself, it was a let-down. Like, is this what she envisioned for her most beloved characters? Definitely enjoyable but at the same time unsatisfactory revival with some questionable writing choices.

Fighting with My Family (2019)

Sometimes historically inaccurate but heartwarming biopic

[7/10 · 4 January 2021]

"Fighting With My Family" is a 2019 sports drama biopic directed by Stephen Merchant starring Florence Pugh and Jack Lowden. ⚪ All in all, Stephen Merchant's fictionalisation of the life of one of the most influential female wrestlers throws itself into the ropes with full use of physical strength and stages a fine brawl, as its shows the life of Saraya "Paige" Knight in all its honest facets, and even if it at times feels slightly formulaic and displays major historical inaccuracies, it has got an indescribably huge amount of heart, and the writer-director's versatile writing as well as Florence Pugh's powerful performance as the British superstar make for an absolutely inspiring, gripping and moving biopic that will give kids, especially young girls, someone to look up to. ⚪ All hail the May Queen! In order to celebrate the 25th birthday of one of my favourite actresses, the phenomenal Florence Pugh, I checked out the title that marked her international breakthrough in the film business, and I had a blast in two different way. On one hand, it was another opportunity for me to witness the extraordinary talent of the British actress, on the other hand it was a feast for the wrestling fan in me. It was indeed one of the rare cases where I knew the person whose life is depicted on the big screen, and I witnessed her rise to prominence as it happened. Saraya "Paige" Knight (in real life: Bevis) has been my favourite female wrestler ever since she stepped into the ring and won the WWE Divas Championship title. She was different, her style and her appearance distinguished from the usual formula, and my family and I loved her - especially my sisters who in fact adored her and began to look up to her wholeheartedly. Yes, Paige was indeed an instant icon, and considering her background story, it was only a matter of time that someone would adapt and turn it into movie. Fortunately, this someone was "The Office" mastermind Stephen Merchant who, after The Rock called attention to the extraordinary story, took on the matter and let his brilliance flow in, in both the screenplay and the directing. Altogether, he did a decent job, even though there are major historical inaccuracies and changes that were made to make it more dramatic, but aside from that, the gist stayed the same. As it is common practice with films "based on a true story" the truth is in fact a matter of definition, but the outline remained the same: Norwich girl Saraya Knight grew up in a family of wrestlers, her parents, Ricky and Julia Knight as well as her brother Zak Zodiac, were local celebrities, and since all of her relatives engaged in the sport, it was as if to the manner born. After years of training, she is scouted by the legendary World Wrestling Federation and passed the try-out, so that she is indeed signed by the company later on. However, as easy as it at first sounds, it was a rocky road that bore a lot of problems. Merchant knows to approach this matter with his usual cleverness and always find the perfect balance between funny, serious and dramatic, and all of it is sufficiently elaborated and developed with enough sensitivity and, most importantly, respect. The film doesn't shy away to depict her origin in all its facets, and if I say all, I mean all. From the criminal records of her family, over the wrestling school they run to the harassment they are exposed to, you see all of it at least once. They are weird people, as she says herself, but weird people with dreams and desires - and they film depicts them as such. Saraya and her brother Zak have always dreamed about joining the WWE and one of the main issues the film focusses on is the difference between the two. While his sister got the chance to become a superstar, Zak struggles dealing with his rejection and living a life outside from wrestling. Like with everything else, this movie shows the conflicts it depicts in regards of the whole family. Yes, it is about Paige in the first place, but her family is a part of her, and this premise is reflected in the writing as well. In Florida, the pale, gothlike British struggles to fit in the group of tanned, blonde models and begins to lose her motivation. Furthermore, her physical conditions are not as ideal as previously thought, and for a long time she thinks about giving up - after trying to change who she really is. However, after a cathartic conversation with her brother, she makes tracks and succeeds in everything she had previously problems with. She begins to accept herself, befriend her colleagues and continue to fight for what she has always dreamed of - in the end, it all pays of, as she gets a shot at the title and, as fans know, wins in a spontaneous match against AJ Lee, thus making her the youngest "Divas Championess" of all time at 21. The thing is, even if the film ends at that point, she has done even more after that. Thanks to her, the female wrestling that has previously been more of a gimmick, has become a serious thing, as she was just tremendously popular: as part of the Women's Evoltuion, more female matches were scheduled, the storylines were more fleshed out and in general, they are more respected, as seen by the example that they have discontinued the term "Diva" and are nowadays referred to as "Women Superstars" or simply "Superstars". This film is a story of dedication, passion, pursuing one's dreams and never giving up. Even if many (some actually important) details have been altered in order to make them look dramatic (Paige was in real life respected for her origin, was already NXT Championess, and never suffered from self-confidence issues or stage fright), it is still a brutally honest and most of all inspiring biopic. Without a doubt a perfectly balanced, atmospheric yet undeniably predictable feel good movie that works out surprisingly well. The choreographies are always on point, the tone remains fitting to each sequence, and most importantly, the actors and actresses deliver excellently. Since I knew the woman she portrays, I can say that Pugh's performance as Paige is outstandingly authentic and played passionately. Paige is already a legend, and many girls around the globe look up to her (as mentioned before, my sisters as well) and seeing this film made me love her even more and even non wrestling fans will find this to be an inspirational underdog story. Heart-warming cinema, indeed!

City of Angels (1998)

Tonally irresolute, American remake of a German classic

[6/10 · 3 January 2021]

"City Of Angels" is a 1998 romantic drama directed by Brad Silberling starring Nicolas Cage and Meg Ryan. ⚪ All in all, Hollywood's adaptation of Wim Wenders' contemplative classic might gracefully spread its celestial wings above the same premise as its original film, but unlike it, this romantic drama flies a totally different course, as it leaves out the philosophical profoundness and rather aims at being a typical romance, but as promising as it sounds, the concept sadly isn't sufficiently interestingly elaborated, lacks a certain emotional depth and overall feels extremely distanced, and in the end, not even the in themselves decent performances by Ryan and Cage couldn't prevent it from becoming a tonally irresolute tearjerker that doesn't quite reach the brilliance of the film it's based on. ⚪ Even though it has been already more than a year since I have watched Wim Wenders' poetic masterpiece "Wings Of Desire", I can still recall all the emotions I have perceived while experiencing it, for it touched me on an unexpectedly deep level. It is a foreign classic for a reason, and I absolutely loved. However, despite having been aware that the American remake wouldn't be as magnificent as the original, I was still interested in checking it out. Honestly, I hoped it to be a deeply tragic and heart-breaking romance that devastates me and shakes me to the very foundations. Unexpectedly, my hopes were disappointed even though they weren't really high. Instead of a Nicholas Sparks type of schmaltzy flick, I got a poorly conceived, pale imitation of the German gem - and I seriously wonder what went wrong. I knew that they would approach the promise and make it a much less sophisticated romantic drama, but even for that standard it was painfully mediocre - none of the ideas were sufficiently elaborated. It is the tragic story of an angel that falls in love with a human and hence gives up his immortality to be with her - and it has had everything a poetic, philosophical tale needed. The remake? At times it tried to be profound, then it wanted to focus on its romance and then it attempted to be tragic - without giving it a chance to become intensive. Considering the devastating first scene, I seriously thought it would continue on this intense level, but aside from the comparatively heart-rending ending (that also could have been built up better), there was nothing remarkably gripping. Seriously, between the first and the last sequence, there was poorly developed, middling drama that tried too many things at once and hence did none of what it attempted correctly. It simply was too rushed to be emotional, too distanced to be tragic and too superficial to be profound - not even as a tear-jerker it worked for me (for the previously mentioned reasons), and if a movie of that genre doesn't touch or move me at all, I know that it didn't work out. Furthermore, I had mixed feelings about the performances. Meg Ryan was great as the ambitious and emotional surgeon Maggie Rice, she knew to give her character a personality and impress me, and her co-star, the glorious and divine Nicolas Cage, delivered decently as well, making the transition from being a distanced, indifferent angel to a buoyant human feel real - what bothered me was just them together. Bruno Ganz desired Solveig Dommartin with everything his character was able to convey, it was convincingly heart-warming. A crucial factor to a romance's success is the chemistry between the two protagonists, and as amazing as each performance was for itself, as a team, Ryan and Cage simply didn't work out for me. The love they talked about felt put-on, their on-screen interaction awkward and their subsequent relationship factitious, so much that I wasn't really moved to tears when Maggie dies in the end (especially, since the entire scene is terribly built up and rushed as well). I was downright frustrated to see that even the tragic aspects of the story were lazily processed. The existential themes as well as the philosophical questions about destiny, love, life and death were implied at the very most. Instead, we got painfully cheesy lines ("I fell ... in love") and not even the song "Iris" by The Goo Goo Dolls, a tune that I love to death, has been used interestingly enough. In the end, it is a far inferior, tonally irresolute version of a German classic that wanted to do many things at the same time and did none of it correctly.

Bumblebee (I) (2018)

Finally a decent adaptation

[7/10 · 31 December 2020]

"Bumblebee" is a 2018 science-fiction action film directed by Travis Knight starring Hailee Steinfeld and John Cena. ⚪ All in all, this "Transformers" spin off buzzes as mechanically as the titles of its original series, but unlike Michael Bay's bombastic, in quality declining robot epics, this one is a lovely teenage tale in the likes of John Hughes films, and even if the stereotypical features are there and the story is solid yet uninspired and unoriginal, it is an amazing coming of age eighties style flick with a lot of heart, that, for example by Hailee Steinfeld's leading performance, manages to transform into a marvellous adaptation that, while not being perfect, has all the right components and finally does its source material justice. ⚪ After my Christmas break I am returning for my annual final movie of the year, before I will once again go on hiatus. For this special occasion, I thought I I'd watch something not quite sophisticated and decided on a title that has made my inner child curious. I admit it: I grew up with Bay's "Transformers" and loved them as a kid, and since it is been ages I have seen them, I cannot really say anything from my today's point of view, but I think they are going to be utterly terrible. That being said, I was a little nervous with this one here. Surprisingly, it was much better than I expected, even though it is still not quite an outstanding achievement. Bay's films were undeniably pretentious, bombastic action epics that convinced with special effects rather than with story or plot, and hence most people disapproved of them, this one however was different. Director Travis Knight stepped away from the manner Bay used to approach this subject matter and did his own thing, and honestly, it works out. In a nutshell, this spin-off is a typical eighties movie that oozes the flair of the decade. From many visual and acoustic references, you get everything and even the film itself makes use of the tropes and stereotypes of the movies it pays homage to. This flick can best be described as "Sixteen Candles" meets "Iron Giant", as there are many obvious similarities. Years before he was possessed by Sam Witwicky, the titular Autobot belonged to protagonist Charlie, sweetly portrayed by Hailee Steinfeld, a typical teenager with typical problems. After the untimely death of her father, she has difficulties connecting with the family, especially her mother's new boyfriend, and hence she feels alone most of the time. Sounds familiar? Yeah, probably. Anyway, she is the one who finds the wounded Cybertronian soldier B-127 aka Bumblebee, and together they do everything characters in this type of movie do (next to saving earth from becoming the battlefield of an intergalactic war, of course). The thing is, even though it handles its premise anything but terribly, it is no rocket science either. It follows the "human befriends monster" formula in a decent but not really bold way. If you have seen one of them before ("E.T.", "The Iron Giant" and even "Lilo & Stitch"), you know what this film is like. Is it horrible, though? Actually, not, because what it lacks in originality, it makes up for with everything else. The visual effects and the design of the Transformers (that now resembles the looks of the cartoon series) is top-notch CGI, and Knight doesn't only use it mindlessly. In the focus are Charlie and Bumblebee, in completely different way outsiders who try to find their direction. Together, they build up an amazing friendship, and as crazy as it sounds, they share a genuine chemistry. Steinfeld (obviously one of my celebrity crushes, so I am kind of biased) plays her character wonderfully and leads the film like no other. Speaking of characters, aside from her, there are no others equally great. Her side-kick/lover Memo isn't only introduced way too rushed but also has no real personality, he is only there to ... well ... to create laughs? I actually don't know. Furthermore, John Cena, when he is visible, felt like the run-of-the-mine soldier antagonist with a personal vendetta you have seen dozens of times before. His acting? Let us not get further into it. The two antagonistic Decepticons are also not better. Yes, they are there to capture the fugitive, but there was nothing special about them. Why exactly them, if Megatron's right arm robot himself, Starscream, was already on earth? All supporting characters are too shallow and could have been fleshed out more. Furthermore, the plot at times felt poorly conceived and relied too much on the genre clichés and felt too comfortable in this domain. It is palpable that the film is aimed at the younger generation, and as a film for twelve-year-olds it works out perfectly, as the overused themes are new to them. For adults and older viewers? Aside from the said factors, it is a nostalgic fun ride nevertheless, and in direct comparison to Bay's attempts to bringing the beloved cartoon series to life, it is a masterpiece. As a whole, I would say that it is a successful adaptation, and I hope they make more of that kind (hoping they will fix the continuity errors by creating an own continuity).

The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)

Enchantingly true and wonderfully crafted adaptation

[9/10 · 22 December 2020]

"The Muppet Christmas Carol" is a 1992 musical drama directed by Brian Hanson starring Michael Caine and Kermit the Frog. ⚪ All in all, the Muppets' take on Charles Dickens' classic carol dusts off and converts the iconic story into a lovely musical that knows to tackle both the affectionate as well as the dramatic aspects of it, without ever losing its light-heartedness, and thanks to a phenomenal leading performance by Michael Caine as Scrooge as well as the puppets, wonderfully composed and catchy original songs and a sensitive narration, it becomes an atmospheric, marvellously crafted and child-friendly adaptation that resurrects the values of the tale successfully. ⚪ I have seen it dozens of times in the past, but this time was still some sort of a novelty, as it was the first time revisiting it after having read the original novelette. To my astonishment, this production here did a phenomenal job adapting the story, for almost everything is done superbly. The book itself was a fine piece of literature, even if it is not the most complex and brilliantly crafted novels, it works out well enough. It is atmospheric, positively edifying and excellently capturing the essence of the holiday. It is a classic for a reason, and hence I think that every child in the world should be exposed to it in some form at least once in a lifetime. Fortunately, there were Brian Hanson and his colleagues, and what they did roughly thirty years ago is absolute magic. In their charmingly iconic way, they turned it into a Muppet musical, and despite this being an undeniably bold undertaking, it works out marvellously well. Michael Caine, one of the few human actors, plays the infamous miser superbly and knows to navigate around his puppet co-stars like it was the most natural thing. Like with many of the Muppet films, it is the perfect balance of humans and puppets that define the film's inimitable charm. However, it isn't the acting that makes this adaptation so excellent, it is the narration. Dickens' story has some undeniably creepy and gruesome undertones that I thought were too heavy for a film aimed at children, but since I wasn't apparently the only one thinking this way, it displays the changes that were necessary. To preserve the way it is narrated in the novel, Gonzo plays Charles Dickens aka the narrator, and by his side is Rizzo the Rat playing himself. The thing is, through this fourth wall breaking narration as well as the occasional jokes, the film is always relieved and maintains its overall light-heartedness. The two are the comic relief it needs to be child appropriate, and I think that is downright clever. Aside from them, I think that some scenes from the source material I deemed to be either too long or too heavy were altered and on many occasions, even improved. Seriously, it rarely happens that an adaptation is superior to its original source, but here we are. Furthermore, there are the lovely and marvellously composed original songs that make it even more lovely. None of them feels corny or pointless, they fit the scenario perfectly every single time. Even my brother, an avowed opponent of singing in films, thinks that they songs are delightful, and I assure you, this is an unquestionable compliment! Honestly, this adaptation is near-perfect. It has a distinct atmosphere, knows to tackle all the emotions it needs to tackle and honour its source material. Even though it cannot be proved, I think Charles Dickens would have liked this production. In the end, it is even my favourite adaptation of matter, and it has proved me once again.

The African Queen (1951)

Straightforward, magnificently played journey

[7/10 · 21 December 2020]

"The African Queen" is a 1951 adventure film directed by John Huston starring Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn. ⚪ All in all, the penultimate collaboration between John Huston and Humphrey Bogart chugs down the river as majestically as it conceptualises its romantic adventure, and while the engine runs on a low level and is a little monotonous in the beginning, it gradually increases its steam and gathers a lot of pace, and thanks to superb leading performances by Bogart and Hepburn as the unlikely pair, their genuinely developing chemistry, as well as Huston's straightforward direction, it becomes an atmospheric, extremely authentic yet totally unambiguous journey through the wilderness of Africa and the hearts of humans. ⚪ #ItsAHumphreyBogartChristmas comes to an end with what happens to be the penultimate collaboration between Bogie and Huston (the last major production, however), and this time, as it has been the case many times before, the director adapted yet another novel. The book of the same name by author C.S. Forester is the basis of this adventure film, and as it turns out, it is yet another great premise: In nineteen-hundred-fourteen, an English missionary and a riverboat captain try to escape from German territory in Africa, as the war in Europe turned them into enemies, and they film follos their endeavour, that also includes wanting to blow up the main ship that lays at anchor. Sounds kind of crazy? Well, to a certain degree it is, but I got to say, before the story reaches the more intense waters, it bops up and down for a while. In the beginning, we are introduced to Captain Charlie Allnutt (as always, charmingly portrayed by Bogie) and the missionary Rose Sayer (elegantly played by Katherine Hepburn). Eventually, the film somehow manages to live from their chemistry, and the development of it is amazingly well paced, but in the first half it takes an almost painfully long time before it reaches this state. There isn't really much happening, it is as varied as, well, cruising down a calm river. They fight verbally, cast the anchor, then go on and repeat this procedure. Honestly, for a while I thought that it was going to be yet another classic I was going to end up disliking, but fortunately, there was some major development going on in the second half of the film. From thrilling white water rapids sequences, over dangerous encounters with German soldiers to exhausting wading through shallow undergrowth, there is surprisingly much variation, and the final act on the German ship is the glorious peak of the action. However, before it reaches this climax, the two main characters unexpectedly fall in love and become an unlikely couple. I mean, one is a strait-laced missionary, and the other is an uncouth and scruffy riverboat captain? How is that supposed to be realistic? The answer: if your leading actors are Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn. Since both are legendary and capable artists for a reason, they make this development look like the most natural thing. Together, they grow on each other, overcome all sorts of obstacles, and passionately rely on their better half, and honestly, despite developing rather quickly, it was effective and touched me a lot. To be honest, in some sort of way, they reminded me of Bonnie and Clyde. Of course, not in the way that they commit crimes together and escape from the police, but in the manner how they are embarking on a journey that is doomed to fail from the start. Like, they try to build torpedoes to blow up a majestic, German flagship while they are on a thirty feet riverboat that would sink after being slightly hit. To them, it doesn't matter, and hence they execute this suicide mission, nevertheless. In a territory controlled by the Germans, where British are executed, what are the odds to survive, anyway? Like this, they enjoy what they think are their last hours on earth, observe the beautiful flora and fauna of Africa (that is wonderfully captured, by the way) and get closer to their certain doom. However, in the end, they indeed manage to succeed in their undertaking (well, by coincidence rather than by plan) and the film ends with a happy ending, after implying that it would end totally different. In the end, this adventure film is a decent experience and a must-watch for every Bogart fan. With this role, he finally won the well-deserved Academy Award (even though there were roles that should have been awarded way earlier) and made one of his last great films. The cinematography, the Technicolor as well as the practical effects are marvellous, and even if the film is rather straightforward and unambiguous, and hence doesn't displayed the brilliant twistedness the director's films usually radiate, it is a phenomenally crafted piece of film, nonetheless.

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

Favourite feel good film of all time

[10/10 · 20 December 2020]

"Silver Linings Playbook" is a 2012 romantic dramedy directed by David. O. Russell starring Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence. ⚪ All in all, David O. Russell's adaptation of the Matthew Quick novel is the hot stuff on the dance floor, as it bluntly depicts the unprettified ups and downs of mental illness in all its nasty facets without becoming too melodramatic, and thanks to outstandingly authentic performances and characters, a sensitive directorial style and a touching amount of honesty and respect, it becomes a masterfully constructed, extremely moving and upliftingly natural feel good drama that represents the struggle of so many people in a non-judgemental and realistic way. ⚪ After a short break, I thought it was time to revisit one of my favourite feel good films of all time. Ever since I have watched it two years ago, I deeply love it, for I simply connect with it on an emotional level. It is the story of mentally ill people, dealing with their problems as well as their good moments, and as I already stated it back in the day, I think it is a masterpiece for the way it approaches its delicate subject matter. As someone who suffers from similar problems, it was just downright touching to see a fair but unprettified cinematic representation of mentally ill people. In general, society treats them like freaks with weird behaviour, in other words, many people look down to then for the problems they are not responsible for. It is the truth, mental health is still an issue that many don't take seriously, and hence troubled people mostly face shaming and exclusion. That is why I think this film is so utterly important. "The Fighter" director David O. Russell adapted the novel of Matthew Quick and created a lovely masterpiece that shines a light on its subject matter sensitively. It is the story of Pat, a former teacher who was sent to the mental hospital after snapping and beating up his wife's affair, and the way he tries to reintegrate into society and get her back, but as he meets the equally troubled Tiffany, he learns more than he originally expected. As mentioned above, the direction is anything but one-sided: In a touching and, by the way, authentic manner the film depicts both, the low and the highlight of a disease process. Protagonist Pat suffers from a bipolar disorder, of which extreme mood swings, weird thinking as well as angry outburst and the lack of social skills are the symptoms. Next to his father Pat Sr., who obviously suffers from OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder), there is also Tiffany. Even though it is never explicitly mentioned, she is most likely suffering from a borderline personality disorder, as well as depression. Those illnesses are anything but beautiful, in most cases a lot of suffering is connected to it, but it doesn't mean that they cannot live a decent life. Throughout the entire film, we see how Pat and Tiffany try to live and overcome their issues and be the best versions of themselves. A crucial aspect of this personal growth is the dancing they engage in, and honestly, it is both literally and metaphorically beautiful. In one way it shows that they manage to arrange the chaos and choreograph all their next steps, in another it is also a beautiful kind of therapy. However, all the elements mentioned above wouldn't be half as moving if it wasn't for the outstanding acting displayed here. I knew that Cooper was excellent before, but the way he conveys the mental illness his character suffers from is just superbly realistic, and the same applies to JLaw. She is undoubtedly gorgeous and manages to impress and, at times, even outshine a DeNiro - and how many people can tell that of themselves?. Furthermore, they both can also dance! According to interviews, Cooper and Lawrence both were total newcomers in the business, hence it was even more impressive to see them shine like this in here. Also, the side-characters, two of them played by Robert DeNiro and Jackie Weaver, were incredibly well portrayed as well. To me, there is nothing wrong with this film. Of course, the romantic ending was kinda predictable and unoriginal, but something else wouldn't have fitted the energy the film radiated earlier. It has got the chemistry, the heart and sensitivity it needed, and honestly, not many films manage to combine comedic, romantic and dramatic elements, without becoming too silly, too corny and too depressing, respectively. In an insightful way it shows the struggles as well as the good times of mentally ill people, in other words, it shows them as humans, and for a Hollywood film, an industry where perfection and flawlessness are generally preached, it was a phenomenal change. We are no freaks, we are not crazy, we are humans with problems and dreams, and for conveying this message, I think this is a feel good masterpiece.

Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984)

Another ho ho horrible rip-off

[3/10 · 15 December 2020]

"Silent Night, Deadly Night" is a 1984 horror thriller directed by Charles E. Sellier Jr. starring Lilyan Chauvin and Gilmer McCormick. ⚪ All in all, this festive slasher wants to bring you a jolly time by coming down your chimney and terrorising you with the horrors of another holiday, but eventually it gets stuck and dies a painful death, as the idea is absolutely pathetic and terribly executed, the acting and plot are expectedly cheesy and not even the effects are convincing enough to make it worthwhile, and thus it becomes yet another cheap rip-off of John Carpenter's masterpiece that, like the others, displays all the huge problems of others and becomes nothing but ho ho horrible piece of trash. ⚪ Since it was re-released only a few days ago, I knew that I finally had to check out another cult classic slasher from the eighties. Even though I didn't know anything about it and really didn't expect to witness cinematic brilliance, I was utterly curious, since the American metal band Ice Nine Kills based their song "Merry Axe-Mas" on it, and I actually like it a lot. Well, unlike the track, the original film is just utterly terrible and a waste of time. Remember John Carpenter's masterpiece "Halloween"? Yeah, just switch the holiday, take away the unnerving atmosphere and overall brilliance and you got this film! Seriously, I wasn't expecting anything at all, I knew that I was in for trash in its finest form, and yet I am incredibly disappointment. Once more, I am proven that most of the slashers after Carpenter's classic are blatant and uninspired rip-offs, and this one caps it all off. No kidding, from simple things like the musical score to complex issues like plot, it copied it all, only that it made it ten times worse, even though the story sounds admittedly promising: As the young Billy witnesses how his parents are murdered by a psychopath in a Santa Claus costume, he suffers from severe trauma, and his strict uprising at a Catholic orphanage doesn't make it any better. However, as he seems to have gotten back on track, his boss forces him to wear a Santa costume at the place he works, and since the boy hasn't recovered from what he has experienced, he loses the plot and goes on a killing spree, still in full costume. Yeah, that is basically all, and honestly, I hoped it would be trashy gem, but in the end, it was downright garbage. The first half of the film is successfully wasted with an extensive depiction of Billy's origin story, and even if I generally like to see how characters become the villains they eventually turn out to be, it was just painful to watch. More than forty minutes of unexciting, obvious and awkwardly written jabbering, all things that easily could have been narrated in less than ten minutes. But why make a good movie when you produce a unimaginative rip-off instead? The thing is, even when his transformation is accomplished, it doesn't get any better than that. The subsequent kills are plainly boring, comparatively harmless and just random. It spends so much time building them up, and in the end, it wasn't worth it at all. Also, I found it totally audacious how they imitated the relationship of Dr. Loomis and Michael Myers with Sister Margaret and Billy, I mean, they even pursue and eventually stop him in the same manner - and what is this thing with the fake Santa Claus twist this film tries to do more than once? I cannot explain. In the end, there was nothing I would consider rewatchable. The dialogues are cheesy, the acting is awfully corny throughout and the only character that would have deserved to die, survives. It displays all the dreadful features all cheap imitations show, random scenes of nudity included, and that is nothing short of embarrassing. Funnily enough, it doesn't even suffice to be a guilty pleasure, because there is nothing about it that entertains. It is only another perfect example for my opinion that "slasher" never should have been a sub-genre, and should have remained one single film instead.