Flipje

This movie is bonkers, zany, unbelievable and yet a pleasure. It feels like a callback to classic, kook-filled Hollywood and while yes, there is a Woody Allen-vibe, it was just a pleasure to watch. At times, the film had this element of a screwball, Broadway play and even with a barrage of certain, ridiculous clichés ('the prostitute with a heart of gold' being one of them along with the unfaithful theatre director), the performances and the script seemed to rise above it all. Some critics have called it forgettable and sure, if you focus on the typical tropes, there is a kind of 'been there, done that' aura to the overall piece. What I loved was the sincerity to this film. Despite everything being over-the-top and too-too-coincidental, I laughed and smiled the whole way through. The story of a rise-to-fame-reflective actress telling her fairy tale to a jaded journalist frames the main narrative. On the one hand, you listen to her with a gullible eagerness, eating up her every word, swept into her world as the movie veers between her maudlin retelling and the events themselves. On the other hand you feel like you are becoming wiser to the charms. Imogen Poots brings that doe-eyed whimsy to her character and mixed in with her tender-raw New Yawk accent, you are hook-line-and-sinker along for the journey even though she is a bit unreliable in her narrative and superficially sentimental depending on how it favours her. She flits from guy to guy in the story and the guys themselves are no better than her whether it be Owen Wilson's overly-generous 'John' or the playwright's (Will Forte) meek but do-good eagerness, no one is innocent here. The other characters and nuances of the script are too webbed to even explain so I just say, hey, plonk down and give them one a go. I absolutely loved the supporting characters from Anniston's jaded therapist to Ifans' aged English actor to Hahn's revengeful wife. The story and film may not be to be everybody's like but for those that like a whirlwind comedy, this is it. I will definitely return to this one.

I have not yet seen The Hitman's Bodyguard and The Man From Toronto was directed by the very same Patrick Hughes. And while what you see is what you get, it's a fun ride, a mix of mistaken identity comedy and odd couple with Hart and Harrelson delivering the goods on their respective stereotypical characters. Ever since Harrelson walked away from the set of Cheers, he's been typecast as the badass and he does fine here. Hart is Mr. Blabbermouth Hijinx who plays a failed salesman that fouls everything up whatever he touches. Lots of cliches here, lots of different locales and the romp around keeps the story going. The highlight has to be the gym fight sequence towards the end. For a moment, it felt like a completely different film with the brawl choreography clean and overall, a rollicking hoot. This is Friday night, pizza night fare and all the parts work together. It's a Netflix film and while sections feel tired and bland, the leads keep you hooked. It's way better than Red Notice. A nice distraction.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

There are some horror films that are classics. They redefine the genre and they remain genuinely scary and essential with every viewing. Sandberg impressed me with Lights Out', a film I was surprised to enjoy. But hey, when you break it down and a writer and director invest in their characters, and give the audience someone both to identify with and root for, the scares end up becoming more meaningful because a talented team of artists had invested in their work. That approach, it's going to resonate people. Here, the approach started off decent. I was at first sympathetic to the Mullins and their loss in the opening. Then, I briefly fell for the unlikely group of orphans moving into the Mullin's household. But as the characters remained flat stereotypes doing typical dumb things and the Mullins remained drab and uninteresting, and the cliched scares piled up, I ended up giving up. Some people say, you cannot review a film until you have completed it. Nah. If I lose interest in the characters, that is part of my viewing experience and this review is related to that aspect of seeing a film. When your characters are daft and bland and the scares are the only thing holding the movie together, you got nothing. There's no steak here, just the spice and that's no reason to keep watching a film. It's not a genuine entertaining experience, more an exercise in futility. Or rather, self-punishment. Watching uninspired characters do things done better in other films is no way to spend an evening. If you plan to be forgiving and shut off a critical part of your brain, sure, give this a whirl. Otherwise, there is better fare to explore. Like a plate of spice, this is not going to fill my appetite.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

This is a soapy, alcoholic version of Rear Window except the main character, an inebriated train commuter Rachel (Blunt) happens to be more intimately connected with the main players. This film, based on the book by Paula Hawkins, came out at a time when the word 'girl' in a property title was at its height following Fincher's Gone Girl. I have revisited Gone Girl many times. A well-structured film with some great twists and turns. The Girl on the Train... not so much here. The film begins with loaded down voice over narration that gets the audience up to speed only to slow it all down. It all feels contrived when you think about the likelihood of a passenger train with one specific female passenger happening to catch so many precise moments. Thankfully, the cast and their dedication get you through the awkward screenplay bumps. This is melodrama meeting a murder mystery here, and yet Blunt's portrayal of Rachel evoked so much pathos. You are more focussed on her performance than the other leaps in logic. It's Friday night fare, entertaining if you want something bleak.

The sense of disorientation evoked by this film made it a compelling and stunning watch. Antony (Hopkins) lives in a strange, revolving door of moments whereby we have no idea whether he is in the past or present. The filmmaker, also the writer, Florian Zeller has taken his French play, La Père and brought it to the screen, perhaps giving the most realistic portraying of senility slowly emerging in an aging person. Thankfully, he knows when to ground the viewer's perspective, orient them for awhile before bringing back the confusion. A fine balancing act. I will admit, I was hesitant, and for a while, resistant to watching this one, afraid it would be a gloomy trek. It turns out, this movie not only shows you Antony's frustration with his dementia but the plight and frustration of loved ones around him, namely his daughter (Colman) and her husband (Sewell). It is a compassionate film, and it deeply respects its characters and world without dunking its audience into a heavy morass of depression. By the film's end, there is a sense of hope and yet resignation. Life continues, no matter the pain and the confusion. Beautiful, meaningful. Highly recommended.

It struck me while reading the negative comments to this movie that movie critics don't treat films the same way book critics treat books. For instance, a beach book is never critiqued the same way you would a Nobel-Prize winning's latest work. Why doesn't the same apply to movies? Why do most stuck-up, arrogant critics have to compare everything to the pantheon of Criterion Films and AFC classics? Isn't that counterintuitive? In a single night I watched both this film and the Florian Zeller film The Father (2020) starring Anthony Hopkins. These are two different kinds of films. I enjoyed them both for different reasons. And let me say this, after watching a tragic, lovely but difficult film about a person slipping away into senility, Home Again is a nice remedy, a counterweight to the more difficult film and at the same time, to the current crap in this world. Home Again is a love letter to the 'idea' and idealized version of Hollywood (the reality is far more sinister, I am sure) and a story about a newly-separated woman who happens to be the daughter of a deceased auteur filmmaker and nice-twist, allows three aspiring young filmmakers to occupy her L.A. guesthouse has a good vibe to it. Yes, these actors have appeared in other stellar roles in other blah blah blah award-winning fare but, as the old Shel Silverstein song goes, after you've been having steak for a long time, beans, beans taste fine. This movie is cinematic jelly beans, and there is a time and place for candy. Don't tell the critics that, they would rather we spend our time watching depressing, pessimistic drivel with politically correct messages. They don't live in the real world. And this movie, made my daughter of Nancy Meyers (The Holiday, It's Complicated, Something's Gotta Give, What Women Want) delivers a nice little tale. You go to the beach with a beach book, right? Most people don't read Dostoevsky while sipping margaritas (those kinds of people would be cool to meet, come to think of it...) And here, hey, you want a pizza night movie, this works. I'd rather watch something like this and smile at the end, as opposed to a rave review film that would have me reaching for Prozac. The characters in Home Again are easy going, fun, kind (most of them) and there are a few lessons learned along the way - Alice (Witherspoon) gets her priorities sorted, the filmmaker trio mature as friends. What's the problem here? My only criticism is that the story could have tied in the importance/presence of the filmmaker father more. We are introduced to him in the beginning and there are a few nods to him along the way, but it would have been more interesting to learn how his influence shaped his daughter's life, the decisions she made. That sort of thing. My only critique here, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying this movie.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I have never stopped loving this film. I can't believe I first watched it as a teen over twenty years ago. Then, on a whim, my mother had brought it home from the rental store. She popped this bad boy in the VCR and after a few minutes, I somehow became engrossed, enamored with the young Helena Bonham-Carter - who plays Lucy - and her wanderings in Tuscany. At her side, the overprotective and fiendishly finicky chaperone, Charlotte (the great Maggie Smith) keeps watch only for the beauty-inspired George (Julian Sands) to plant a nice, juice kiss on Miss Lucy's lips in a field of hillside violets. The scene, scored to the music of Puccini, never fails to give me goosebumps and whenever the sun comes out suddenly from behind a bank of dismal clouds, I cannot help recall this movie and its sensuous cinematography. Yet it's not all romance. There is plenty humour here. George's father, Mr. Emerson (Delholm Eliot of Indiana Jones fame) is a prototype romantic with a case of social awkwardness who makes muddles out of moments while the young Freddy, Lucy's brother back in England likes a good tease and a 'bathe' in the woods. For all fans of this film, the Sacred Lake swim featuring Freddy, George and Mr. Beebe (a young Simon Callow)is the laugh-out-loud highlight. The cast must have had a hoot filming it. Meanwhile, I am always amazed at how Daniel Day-Lewis disappears into roles. When I first watched the film in my teens, I knew him from My Left Foot and Last of the Mohicans. To see him as Cecil, the pompous, pencil-thin twit, you have to shake your head. Yet he pulls it off with such conviction, becoming the awkward cherry on top of this much-cherished masterpiece. The entire film feels like a pleasant and briefly troubling dream. The good parts are wonderful, the sad parts come out satisfying, and the film comes full circle. Love wins. Is that a spoiler? This is truly my favourite of all Merchant and Ivory films. All these years, it still feels like a little miracle to me.

Some films are so endearing and fun that critics cannot wait to smear their purple pen venom all over it. Sometimes I cannot help but think most snobs are secret sadists and unless a filmmaker makes some complicated, incoherent, elitist, brow-beating masterpiece or yet another 'woke' film, most critics will say pass and throw words at films like Table 19 like 'tepid' or 'awkward' and complain about it being unfunny. But as Leonard Bernstein once noted, he'd been around the world many times and not once seen a monument or statue to a critic. Most of them don't even deserve a paper maché look-alike, being such humorless souls. For me, I say, you want a fun movie with a bunch of misfits to hang around with, here's your chance. Sure, it tips its cap to The Breakfast Club, but instead of high school detention we're at a wedding with a former maid of honor (Kendrick), a convict (Merchant), a horny teen (Revolori), a bickering couple (Kudrow and Robinson) and the former nanny to the bride (Squibb). The guests at Table 19, as you might guess, form to become an endearing and protective unit, a family throughout the course of the film where hijinks prevail but never feel forced. Each in their own turn, the characters reveal more of themselves, their strengths and weaknesses adding to the drama (again, yes, Breakfast Club-influence) and the more we watch, the more we want to spend time in this world with them. By film's end, there is redemption, some loss and hope. I chuckled, laughed, smiled, sighed and when the credits rolled by, I felt cheerier, happier. The film satisfies. But then again, I am not some New York elitist who prefers films that make people want to throw themselves in front of buses or convince someone to bring a knife into the bathroom and run the faucet. Table 19 is joyful, life-affirming, and the story is from the Duplass brothers. If you want something miserable, look elsewhere.

This is one of those films that has no idea what it wants to be. Right away, from the premise alone, most movie savvy types might say, hey, the plot reminds me of Hitchcock's Rear Window (shut in witnesses a murder in a neighbouring apartment, tries to get involved, etc...). Indeed, it does and agoraphobic Anna's movie viewing shows a brief glimpse of the classic. Otherwise, the cameo bit of Rear Window you witness in this mess is the only real redeeming instance. Otherwise, I spent a lot of time shaking my head. Honestly... and the actors (Adams, Moore, Oldman), all normally superb in other films, find themselves paychequing their way through this one. They give B-movie performances, working with a muddle of a movie script (and based on a book.... so I have to wonder). And the movie indeed feels B quality at times, then schlocky, then momentarily surreal. At one point I found myself wondering: are these people, namely Anna's neighbours, her tenant and the police all acting so strange and stilted because she has been a shut-in watching far too many old-fashioned movies and thus projecting onto the world around her? Could this explain the exaggerated moments of dialogue? Nope. It was just the movie not figuring out itself. And when it does, and you get to the twist and beyond it and find out who the real murderer is, the climax and death scene for the bad guy, and you have to guffaw if not choke back your incredulity. I wonder what happened to this movie. It feels like someone started a fire, tried to put it out with a few drops of water, added more oil, then, added gasoline then gave up and focussed a camera on the flaming pyre figuring, might as well get something out of it. Avoid this one unless you like dumpster flambé.

After seeing both the film and miniseries version, I prefer the former. Still, the same idea. Take two talented comedians, throw them in a Land Rover together and send them off to England's rustic and picturesque Lake District. On the way, they annoy each other (or rather Brydon annoys Coogan), attempt to out-do each other in terms of impressions (Michael Caine, Al Pacino, Richard Burton, Woody Allen) while visiting hoity-toity restaurants, sipping all kinds of wine, taking in the wild and wondrous scenery and for Coogan, being naughty with several ladies. The movie uses the characters to present meaningful contrasts in life choices. Coogan (both comedians are playing 'versions' of themselves) is ambitious but conflicted and wonders if he shouldn't go off to America and take on bigger, flashier roles. His girlfriend is already there, doing work and during their abrupt phone chats, you get an idea of tension. Meanwhile, Brydon is happily married, and new father and Coogan can't help but feel envious while hoping to rebuild his relationship with his own son. Layered over this wayward inner/outer journey is Michael Nyman's spare piano pieces, adding a meditative and **** tone. Highlights include: the scenery, the impromptu impressions and Coogan, while out on a hike, encountering a know-it-all amateur geologists who knows everything about limestone rock formations. It is very British but in a mildly snobby, but charming, cheerful way.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

This is good example of a movie you will sit through, 'enjoy' to the best of your ability, admire its qualities, remark on its brilliance and subtlety, gush about its merits while... while... perhaps avoiding a second viewing. It is visceral and respects its audience in the right moments. The violence is never glorified. In fact, the viewer's imagination does a fair bit here which is fantastic. As an audience member, you participate in the film by filling in the blanks. For instance, you will see a body lying crumpled on the floor following the protagonist's vengeful progression through a certain location. It is up to the viewer to determine how said body was 'taken out'. As for the protagonist, Joe, a hired thug who specializes in freeing victims of child trafficking, you get initial glimpses of his past and slowly, you piece together why he fantasizes of suicide. Again subtle, well-made movie but with so much agony here, you appreciate his character, his journey, his efforts to liberate victims of sex crimes while again, thinking, once on this trip is enough. I got the point. Brilliant but I can check this box and move on.

Under the Shadow and The Babadook feel quite similiar. Both feature a mother in the throes of sturm und drang (whether sociopolitical or psychological) while having to tolerate a child that borderline merits a good whooping. They are both solid films while I happen to prefer Under the Shadow. Here, we are in 1980s Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. In her academic life, Shideh (Rashidi) is being penalized by her superiors for her political views and as such, will not be able to become a doctor. What's left? The role of Hausfrau or so it seems. Her husband isn't quite sympathetic with her predicament and gloatingly floats in and out of the film within the first third. When he leaves to escape the bombing, Shideh's daughter begins to become spooky-disturbing (at times annoying) with her mother and naturally, we are in ghostly territory. Objects go missing in the apartment. Disturbing sounds. Jump scares galore. I found this movie gave me the right balance of the chills and feeling frightened. While Shideh's neighbours slowly move out of the building, finding safety in the country, leaving the vulnerable mother behind, you truly get a sense of her loneliness and her pride. Shideh wants to be strong but this evil presence, namely the Djinn, a metaphor for government, the perils of the military-industrial complex is wearing her down. She is the grand Every Woman, a heroine in her own right and her journey to protect and free herself and daughter is thrilling and vindicating. The ending leaves the right amount of questions. A great movie for those that like their terror gore-free.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Emma Thompson (screenwriter) and Ang Lee (director) have made a little charming Jane Austen adaptation. For Jane Austen fans, this is good ol' landed gentry, period drama, Pride and Prejudicish goodness. It satisfies like high-priced, imported chocolate. The screenplay moves at a brisk-enough pace for a film focussed on love and misunderstandings, not to mention heartbreaks and other cad, bad boy moments care of upper crusty too-good-to-be-true rogues. Emma Thompson (Elinor Dashwood) does her best Emma Thompson here and if you loved Howard's End or Remains of the Day, she is always tip-top and very received pronunciation in her dignified delivery. This version of Hugh Grant (Edward) is perfectly fine though it is Hugh Grant... pausing... between words... and selecting the next ones... with poise, perplexed brow... thoughtful... demeanor and yet, why not? It works. Alan Rickman (Col. Brandon) here is solid, saintly and just right the amount of stiff upper lift and you dearly wish, watching him, he made more films like this. His accent gives him a kind of nobility. As for Kate Winslet, well...wince, well... I have to say, she doesn't compare with Thompson's previous co-star from Howard's End. Helena Bonham- Carter, in my opinion, can act circles around Winslet and I'm sure, she would have been ideal for the role of Marianne if Miss HBC had not had an affair with a certain someone's hubby... hmmmm... so Winslet does the job but only barely, basically turning on the woe-is-me waterworks whenever necessary. I never felt for her giddy and emotionally mood-swinging character. Yet overall... story, writing, pace... great stuff. Villages of stone houses. Proper discussions. Green rolling landscape. Also, great fun with Hugh Laurie as Hugh Laura but being put-off and surly in period attire. Have to mention Gemma Jones as the matriarch: quite the screen presence to balance Winslet's lightweight weepiness. Easily recommended.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

This is truly an awful film. I can only imagine the writers concocting this story with one message in mind: make these characters quirky and also one dimensional. 'Quirky' is all they have going for them which makes them boring. Sure, there are messages of female empowerment yet it does nothing to propel a meaningful story. Tell a story. Come on. Here, each character broadcasts an over the top persona that is difficult to relate to. Initially, I liked that the one girl had a crush on a skater girl. Yet, we know nothing about her within the first forty minutes of the film. All we know of these highly educated outsiders is they are outsiders. That's it. Each scene only fosters a certain stereotype that is exagerated to the point of dullness. Slut girl acts like a slut. Dumb guy acts dumb. Rich kid acts rich. And the two friends are just two friends who find out the people they looked down on are actually goinst to prestigious schools. Wow, twist... So what is their motivation? To party. That's it? That's it. The whole wants vs. needs of screenplay writing 101 does not even happen here. They want to prove to people they don't care about that they can party as well. I mean, if the beginning of the film sets these two up as individuals who could care less about what others think of them, why would this matter? Their only character trait is they are indifferent to the opinions of others. And that is **** because the movie needs to happen. These are screenplay ideas running around as supposed characters and nothing else. And on their journey they meet other purposelessy strange characters. There have been wonderful female friendship films with fleshed-out, wonderful and quirky characters. Think Romy and Michele's High School Reunion. If you want female empowerment and self-awareness, look no further than the seminal Thelma and Louise. I have loved three seasons of Glow on Netflix mainly because the writers care to build on the dynamics and relationship of the characters. But I could not make it through this forced and over the top film. I didn't laugh. I rolled my eyes as it felt like this film had the concept of something interesting and fun without actually following through on it.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

While the film has its merits, I found the familiar tropes to be somewhat bothersome. The setting, the time period provide a nice backdrop for the story of a metal ET crash landing on earth. We have the Americana version of Maine during the Cold War and a young boy, Hogarth who is basically your everyman as a child. He is precocious and adventerous. He owns a BB gun, he loves his comic books and wants to have a wild animal for a pet. His mother is your typical single mom... or rather a widow (it was not well-established how she lost her husband and I only discovered this after referring to the Wikipedia site) and works at a diner. She is patient, long-suffering with her child's antics and his many other quirks which altogether come out of the stereotypical screenplay bag of basic ideas here. Into Hogarth's life comes this Iron Giant and from there, it plays out like ET. I know this is a kid's movie yet after hearing and reading the great reviews, I found myself wondering how this film could belong to numerous top ten film lists. I kept forcing myself to keep watching, expecting some depth or revelation. Yet Hogarth, his mom, and Dean, an artist who owns a scrapyard were all poorly written characters. The bad guy was boring and idiotic. The climax was overblown and ludicrous. The whole plot offered nothing new. The dialogue felt clumsy and trite. A pleasant film and I suppose great for children. Weapons are bad. Killing is bad. Yes, wonderful moral messages here along with the idea that we choose to be what we want to be. The film just felt bland and boring, more a chore to watch. There are far better animated films out there. I urge people not to believe the hype. Brad Bird directed this work and it is definitely a first film for him. I recommend The Incredibles which is much more mature and a far better film. It was more well-thought out than this piece of juvenelia. This felt like a sketch that needed more attention to detail. I truly don't understand the rave reviews. Sometimes I think the herd mentality is at work in movie criticism.