niko-oinonen Reviews

Thor: Love and Thunder (2022)

Works as a comedy film

[6/10 · 8 July 2022]

Thor: Love and Thunder like the previous one Ragnarok is really a comedy film. It has got very much the signature feel of Taika Waititi. I didn't care for Ragnarok, and the same issues are present here, but at least some of the jokes land a bit better.

The main issue is that almost everything is a joke. Nothing is taken seriously or when a scene starts turning too serious, a joke is inserted to lighten or ruin the atmosphere. It's like the filmmakers a constantly winking at the camera and to the viewer. There's even an almost minute scene making fun of the serious moments of the previous Thor movie. The humor is very self-aware and often the characters feel conscious of the fact that they're in a comic book movie like Deadpool. They don't take the world they live in seriously. The one-on-one moments between characters feel especially forced and awkward, like they're forced to have the conversation and are conscious about it.

On the other hand, there are few scenes, especially when approaching the climax of the film, when the characters suddenly start taking the world and all the events very seriously. But at that point, it was too late for me to care about them. These moments are like from totally different film. Sadly, almost all these scenes have to do with Christian Bale's villain character Gorr, who had potential to be one of the better villains in Marvel films and not just an evil version of the hero.

Waititi has done this balancing act between seriousness and silliness before in Jojo Rabbit which I loved, but it managed to find the balance and was a satire, Thor: Love and Thunder is not. There are moments which made me laugh, but I can't take the world seriously when the film asks the viewer to do so when it feels like even the filmmakers aren't.

Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker (2019)

An enjoyable, yet unsurprising amusement park ride

[6/10 · 22 December 2019]

The Rise of Skywalker walks back on or hastily retcons some points of The Last Jedi during its first few minutes and that is the biggest problem with the new trilogy. It's the problem that plaques many tv- series, the uncertainty of direction. When a tv- show starts, the creators and the writers don't necessarily have any idea where the show is going to go. Anything could happen during a long production, especially with a show that spans multiple seasons. The same goes with this new Star Wars trilogy. There doesn't seem to be an overall agreed theme here. Rian Johnson made some of his own decisions about the direction of the trilogy in The Last Jedi and here J.J. Abrams takes a step back and goes off in another direction.

Maybe the biggest turnaround which doesn't sit well with me is the decision to go back to the point of Rey's parentage having some significance. It was a mistake go on in that direction in The Force Awakens in the first place and Johnson nicely concluded it in The Last Jedi, but here we jump right back to it. And in the end, it makes no difference. It doesn't add anything to Rey's character nor to the movie. In fact, nothing here actually adds anything to the characters, because it's not about them. The Rise of Skywalker is one action set piece after another, whereas The Last Jedi was more about ideas and the characters. Here the plot moves the characters and not the other way around.

Skywalker is still a very good-looking film. Daisy Ridley and Adam Driver shine from the rest of the cast, although their characters go through familiar dilemmas from the previous two films. The film does feel like its rushing. Granted, it bears the task of bringing the saga to a close, which it does in a satisfactory albeit unsurprising way. The film feels like an amusement ride. There are some emotional moments throughout the film, but the film doesn't linger in them long enough. It's in a hurry to get to another action set piece. The Rise of Skywalker is enjoyable film, but unsurprising and safe. It is like an amusement ride, without much everlasting feelings, but some visuals combined with John Williams' classic tune is still enough to strike an emotional chord in me.

Joker (I) (2019)

It's a tragedy

[9/10 · 17 October 2019]

After seeing Joker, it kept me up late into the night. It's certainly an unsettling film. It differentiates itself from the rest of the villain- centric comic book films, like Suicide Squad or Venom, by not providing any counter force to the bad guy. In Venom and Suicide Squad those who usually would be the villains are faced off against someone who is a bigger villain and by the end of the film they're almost become the heroes. In Joker however, there are no heroes. The tone is somber throughout the film and there are practically no elements to invoke any positive feelings.

Joker's real name here is Arthur Fleck and he's played superbly by Joaquin Phoenix. He brings his own flavor into the role and his performance is very physical. Not only did he lose weight for the role, but his movement, like his dancing, which there is surprisingly lot in Joker, is captivating. Joker is a standalone film from the rest of the DC Universe films and it tells the story, although borrowing cues from other famous movies, of how Arthur becomes the Joker. Whether intentional or not (although I doubt that due to Robert DeNiro's character) to me Joker resembles mostly Martin Scorsese's King of Comedy, taken only further to the extreme.

Like Rupert Pupkin in King of Comedy, Arthur Fleck in Joker is delusional and socially clumsy outsider who wants to be a famous comedian. He's not a edgy master criminal here. Arthur also admires a late-night host, played by Robert DeNiro. Like Pupkin, Arthur believes his destined to be on the stage, only that he hasn't had his deserved big break yet. Only problem is that Arthur doesn't seem to understand other people or what people generally find funny. Or maybe it's his lack of talent. In Joker, much emphasize is put on the fact that Arthur suffers from mental illness like his mother, whom he cares for. Arthur suffers from a condition which makes him laugh involuntarily. This makes it even more difficult for him to connect with anyone as he may laugh in very inappropriate situations.

A lot has been said about the violence and the depiction of a mentally ill person in Joker. It is indeed a violent film but compared to the likes of its role models such as Taxi Driver, it's nothing new under the sun. Maybe when compared to other comic book -based films, its violence and bleak atmosphere might seem like something new. However, as an actual social commentary Joker and its world feels too simplified. It leans its juxtaposition on the old poor vs the rich elite environment. It would be easy to say that the film is a warning of what neglected care for the mentally ill and the increasing wealth cap would cause, but to me it's just an environment where the film takes place. Sure, there are riots, mentally ill, rich and poor people in the real world too. But does it say anything meaningful of it? I don't think so. The idea that the films version of Gotham is an accurate depiction of today's society and where violence and murder are acceptable and admirable solutions to hardships in life is just too cynical and not all the way thought interpretation. Rather, the whole movie is about Arthur and his desire and inability to connect with the world, which in the end comes to pass in ironically twisted way.

Joker is by no means a subtle movie. It constantly reminds the viewer of the bleak Gotham City in which Arthur lives and of the state of Artur's mental wellbeing. The world around Arthur is bleak and sometimes cruel. Everything bad that happens to Arthur seems to happen without his fault. All he wants to do is to bring laughter and joy into this world. He displays a sort of child- like innocence, which makes it easy to side with him. It's very manipulative, but admittedly effective. But once things start to take a turn for the worse when Arthur shoots three Wayne Investment employees after being assaulted by them in the subway, the sympathy I felt turned into pity. It's this stark turn that the film takes that makes it captivating. This contradiction also applies to the film's soundtrack, where its original tracks are very melancholic compared to some other old classics which are heard. As Arthur dances in a shady restroom after his first murders I realized that I do not understand him. What Arthur does in the film is no way excusable. He may have tried to defend himself on the subway by firing his gun, but then he starts to hunt down the other two. This isn't a story of Arthur discovering his true self or becoming what he was meant to be by taking on the name Joker, but rather it's about Arthur losing his way. This is a Joker I don't see going head to head with the Dark Knight. In fact, I don't see any future for Arthur.

Joker isn't as dangerous film as it's claimed to be. Sure, it's intense and violent, and it's easy to draw some slim parallels between its world and the real world, but they are too vague and general that they do not contribute to anything. I also do not accept the idea that the film incites people to violence. In the film Arthur gains following through his acts of killing, but it speaks to the tragedy that he couldn't gain attention by bringing laughter and joy to the world, but instead through acts of violence and becoming uncivil himself.

Joker from time to time goes out of its way to remind the viewer that it takes place in the Batman universe. Some familiar names drop by here and there, but I still don't see, nor do I care to see a sequel where Arthur goes up against the Caped Crusader. The ending attempts to leave you guessing whether anything you saw on the screen was real or not, but it doesn't really matter. Although I'm leaning towards the former. That's much I want Joker to be its own self-contained film in this era of comic book films where a movie is more concerned about building towards a sequel rather trying to tell a proper story.

Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (2019)

Once Upon a Time... in Tarantino's film

[10/10 · 27 August 2019]

Tarantino once again shows that he has his own way of making a movie. If he wants to linger in a moment, he will. He's in no rush to get anywhere. This is present for example in the form of the many clips of the shows and films Dalton has starred in. Some other director might have rushed through the period showcasing to get to the juicy bit of the Manson family. But the focus isn't on them here. Once Upon A Time is most of all a homage to the Hollywood's golden era and to its end.

There is a very real sense of dread at the end when the Family is on the prowl, but also a sense of longing of knowing that an era is about to come to an end. That era is here symbolized by Margot Robbie's portrayal of Sharon Tate, who was murdered before her career really got off. But then something happens at the end, something completely surprising. The ending is one of my favorites I've seen in a long time. It ties the whole movie together and it left a smile on my face. It's Tarantino once again throwing the rule book out of the window.

Leonardo DiCaprio's star fading Rick Dalton and his stuntman played by Brad Pitt are at the center of the film. The focus isn't on the Manson Family. And rightfully so. This is a tribute to a bygone era, and the death of Sharon Tate's sort of symbolizes its end, so screw them. Dalton's fading career is played against Sharon Tate's bright looking career in Hollywood. There's a sort of expecting atmosphere throughout the film, because you think you what is going to happen. That's the ending works so well. It's a relief.

The film is filled with talented actors, but the two headliners; DiCaprio and Pitt are the ones who stand out the most. The chemistry between the two of them is real. DiCaprio plays his character like he did in Django Unchained. He's able to go from one extreme motion to another. Pitt's stuntman is more abstained, although he too has a violent side in him. But what works here is the relationship between those to. You get the feel that these two really have a long history together.

There's a lot less violence this time around than what one is usually expecting from Tarantino. A couple of scenes are still here to tick off that box, and especially the latter one of them is hilarious. Music also plays an important role here with a soundtrack that's filled with tunes that fit the times and mood of the film.

Tarantino has made a film that has heart, by mixing in fantasy with the events from the history. It feels personal, rather than just being an overview into the events of the late sixties Hollywood, the death of Sharon Tate and the Manson Family, which would have been a pretty uninspired approach from a director of Tarantino's caliber. This film's aspiration is much higher than that. It has the same elements that we have come to expect from Tarantino's film, but it managed to evoke feelings in me that his previous films haven't.

A Quiet Place (2018)

One note film

[4/10 · 26 August 2019]

A Quiet Place relies on a single idea. An idea that sounds intriguing for a horror film. The idea that you can't make loud noises or else a monster will kill you. But that's all the film does. It relies on that one single aspect of the idea. It doesn't develop it or try to build anything around it. It's just used to build more and more thousand times already seen cheap jump scares around it.

A Quiet Place centers around one family attempting to survive in this new hostile world. It's never explained where the monsters came from. And to be frank, it's all the same. A Quiet Place is in the end a rather small film. John Krasinski plays the father of the family and Emily Blunt, his real-life wife, is her on screen wife as well. They have a son and a daughter and are coping with the tragic loss of their youngest. Their daughter literally silently blames herself for it. The family is about to welcome a new one as the mother is pregnant.

Immediately when I saw the swollen stomach of Emily Blunt, I thought that this is a bad idea. It feels as if the pregnancy is thrown into the mix to put the characters yet in to another hot box and to create some jump scares. The fact that the actual delivery is over very quickly just ads to the notion that it's just another gimmick.

What I would have liked, as the name of the movie suggests, for it to be quiet. There is a soundtrack playing in the background, which usually heightens when the monsters are hunting the family. A picture without a soundtrack would have added to the atmosphere of the film. It's too bad, especially since there's a nice little sequence between Krasinski and Blunt holding each other close and listening to music through headphones.

A Quiet Place is rather disappointing. It doesn't develop the initial idea beyond the basic premise. It also offers no surprises. What you expect to happen, happens and nothing else. The quietness is only used as a gimmick to deliver cheap jump scares.

Mark Felt: The Man Who Brought Down the White House (2017)

Neeson carries the film

[6/10 · 30 March 2019]

Many movies have been made of the events surrounding the Watergate scandal, All the King's Men probably being the most famous one. Mark Felt falls somewhere in the alright section amongst them. Liam Neeson, playing Mark himself, is the carrying force here. It solely focuses on the scandal from Mark's perspective, stripping away almost everything else. It's not necessarily a bad thing since the subject matter has been tackled in film before.

Something is still missing here, something that would have wowed me. It's a story a man who's torn between his loyalty to an institution that he has served for many years and his frustration of the corruption and the filth that is taking over it. There certainly is some of it here, but it seems that the more factual based storytelling plays a bigger role here. Luckily Neeson's portrayal of Mark Felt keeps the whole thing afloat and makes it an interesting watch.

The Ritual (I) (2017)

Idiocy to the point of frustration

[4/10 · 23 March 2019]

The Ritual falls into some of the most obvious horror film pitfalls. It makes its characters act in such stupid manners that it feels like their actions have no other meaning than to forcefully keep them in the dark forest where they can be scared. Any other course of action would jeopardize the film itself.

The Ritual is about a group of friends who go on a hiking trip to Swedish wilderness in order to honor the memory of one their friend who was killed in a liquor store robbery. There is unspoken air of judgement amongst them since one of them was present when he was killed, only hiding behind a shelve.

The little remembering ritual is performed right at the beginning, and then it's time to hike their way to the nearest lodge. And then things start to go wrong. One of them spruces his ankle and complains that he won't be able to make the marked way through the high hills, so they must go through a thick and dark forest. That's only the first, and maybe the least dumb decision they are about to make. It all follows a typical horror movie style. They have strange dreams, encounters and they do insane things when they sleep, which they can't explain or don't remember doing. Even after the first night spent in the woods the sanest thing to do would be to turn back, bad leg or not. Yet, the movie insists to proceed on the road it has chosen. But in order to that, it must force its characters to act in more and more delusional and frankly idiotic manner that frustrated me. Otherwise there wouldn't really be a movie here.

With Swedish wilderness as the backdrop, you might expect a horror film relying on some Scandinavian folk tale. Well, there is one, but sadly it's kept mostly nothing more than a backdrop. Whatever message it's trying to relay with the ancient god-like deer creature that grants its followers eternal life, it feels very disconnected with what the group of friends are doing and what they're going to through. If the connecting piece here is that the creature only chooses as his followers those who have gone through something traumatic or have a deep dug guilt, then it's a very loose connection.

The ritual has some effective atmospheric moments in it, and it doesn't rely on cheap jump scares. The scariest moment being the first night they spent in a cabin in the middle of the woods. But the even the effect of the atmosphere diminishes towards the end as the film lays all its card on the table. Nothing is left to the imagination when the creature stalking the woods is shown in full and even its story is told straight to the viewer. But the most disappointing thing about the Ritual is that it fails to create a more thematically fitting connection between the group of friends and the horrors they face in the woods, or at least I can't find one.

The House That Jack Built (2018)

It's alright not to feel invigorated after seeing The House That Jack Built

[8/10 · 15 March 2019]

The House That Jack Built isn't the sort of movie you go see to spend a couple of hours to have a good time. You certainly will be exposed to some vile imagery and acts of violence and thoughts. So maybe it's alright to leave a movie like this feeling rather disgusted than satisfied and invigorated.

We follow Jack as he speaks in darkness to a man. They're on a journey to somewhere. He recounts five incidences he has chosen randomly. In them Jack murders people, mostly women in horrifying ways. You might argue against Jack claim that the incidents have been chosen randomly. The first incident involving a woman with a flat tire and a broken jack (Jack, jack, clever) differs from the rest in the sense that it doesn't seem planned. The woman just keeps pushing Jack's patience more and more until finally he hits her with the jack. It could be argued that this was the first time he killed since the walk- in freezer he stores the bodies in is at this time empty less the piles of frozen pizzas he bought from the previous owner. In the other four incidences, Jack clearly has an intent to murder from the get-go.

In between these incidences and sometimes during them Jack discusses art, poetry and many things more with his not yet seen mysterious escort. Jack interprets art and art in a twisted way. He sees mankind in worst possible way. People are not good. They're selfish, stupid and afraid of expressing what they truly fantasize of. Jack himself is an engineer and an architect who attempted to build his own house, but his own limited imagination and his OCD resulted him never being satisfied with his work. So, he ended up demolishing his building no less than four? Times. He talks about the art in destruction and ruins, things like religion and love are of little value to him.

Jack himself doesn't feel any empathy towards others. He practises basic friendly facial expressions in front of a mirror. He himself too is hard to empathize with. His theories on humanity and art and its relation to his murders are so twisted and sadistic that it's hard to find any aspect of him that you could relate with.

There's one other thing missing from The House That Jack Built that many other films about serial killers has; there's really no counter balance to Jack. Usually there's a cop or a detective who provides a moral counterpart to the killer. Sure, there's the mysterious escort Verge, but he isn't there to stop Jack. In fact, he's the one who suggests Jack to build his house from very unusual material, albeit very fitting and poetic for a serial killer, when Jack is at the end of his road. Verge even complements Jack on the house, saying that it's a fine little house and absolutely usable. He does argue against him, and even one time tells him to stop when discusses the value of icons and the subject of Hitler and the likes of him come up, but at no point does he try to stop him. And Verge isn't even human. All the people around Jack are clueless and too stupid to stop him.

Perhaps another point that makes this film feel so oppressing and bleak is that the world Jack inhabits is uncaring. Perhaps the best example of this comes in the incident number four where Jack is alone with his victim in her house and suggests that she screams for help. But no one comes to help. He joins her and screams from the top of his lungs and bangs the door as if tempting the fate or to prove his arrogant and cynical view of people to be true.

It isn't because Jack is too smart that he doesn't get caught. Sure, he's got book smarts, but no master plan per se. No ultimate goal, not any that he's aware of. It's not that he's too smart for the police and the rest for them to catch him, it's that they're too indifferent and stupid to catch him. And most of all, Jack is just too lucky. There are few moments where he is just a few steps away from being caught, but then something happens that is beyond his control and he gets away with it. A perfect example is the "great" rain that washes away the trail of blood Jack left behind by dragging a corpse from the back of his van. Von Trier certainly portrays the world and its people in a way that allows serial killers like Jack to thrive. It's fitting that in the end Jack is caught by sheer luck and most of all, suspected only of robbery when in fact he's killed over sixty people.

It's a world where bad deeds go unpunished. In the end, it's Jack's own arrogance that sends him to the deepest part of hell. During the epilogue we watch as Jack and the now present escort Verge literally descending into hell. This part relies more on visual storytelling, and the imagery presented here certainly is imaginative and intriguing. It combines visual effects to practical on location filming.

It's revealed that Verge isn't in fact taking him to the deepest part of hell, but actually to some levels above even the level from where the bottom seems endless. Jack and Verge come across a bridge overlooking the abyss. The bridge has fallen and on the other side are the stairs to redemption. Jack attempts to climb across to get out, but falls to the abyss. Cue credits accompanied by the song Hit the Road Jack.

I felt relieved as the credits started to roll. The House That Jack Built shows a bleak and a cynical world where serial killers like Jack are allowed to go on with their murders for over ten years. We don't see Jack facing justice in the earthly realm. He might be had been killed or just arrested. Maybe what Lars is trying to depict here that people like Jack will ultimately receive their punishment for their hubris. Their place is in the deepest parts of hell and it's their own arrogance that leads them there.

How you react to The House That Jack Built might also depend how seriously you take it. When Jack is flailing a knife in front of a woman who he has tied up and complaining about how it's always the man's fault and how to be born a man is to be born guilty, alarm bells should be going off. It's an ironic scene that couldn't have been written by accident.

The House That Jack built is certainly hard to watch during its most violent points. I too had to peek through my eyelashes at some points. It's also oppressive to be exposed to some truly evil thoughts throughout the film. There's very little joy to be found here, although there are some dark humour flavoured moments here and there that stem from Jack's OCD, like the scene where he's about to flee his murder scene, but he can't because he fears he may have left bloodstains behind, so he has to return to the house to clean over and over again even though he can already hear the sirens. Here we come to an important question: is a movie about a serial killer allowed to be evil and hard to watch. I say yes. I didn't leave the film hating it, but it certainly evoked feelings in me, feelings that didn't make me feel good. I could say that a film has done its job, if it manages to raise feelings in its viewer. They don't only have to be positive. It's easy to slam such films to be depraved and garbage, but I'd wager that few directors are out there just to bum people out.

The House That Jack Built most of all reflects the thoughts of its maker. It certainly can be interpreted in many ways; a self-portrait of Lars himself as a failed artist who only can create films containing only death and vile and disgusting imagery. I see it as Lars' view of today's world. It certainly is a depressing one, I don't deny that. What gives it some hope however, is the fact that throughout the film Jack is on his way to hell and that it's his own hubris that finally lands him a punishment crueller than god had reserved for him.

Destroyer (2018)

A great transformation by Nicole Kidman, not much more

[6/10 · 1 March 2019]

Destroyer relies heavily on the physical transformation of Nicole Kidman. It is a story of a cop named Erin Bell (played by Kidman) who after an undercover job gone wrong has found her life to be in degradation. She has lost connection with her daughter and her former husband.

It's an impressive transformation, that's for sure. Normally I've used to seeing Kidman as blond, but here she sports a dark brown hair. Her facial appearance is ragged and constantly weary. You'd might doubt if it's actually her, but thanks to some flashback scenes of the days before everything went bad, you can make out similarities and see that it is indeed her.

Bell and her former partner infiltrated a criminal gang but something went wrong during a bank robbery and her partner died. Now the boss of the gang is back to clean up what's left. Well, at least that's the impression I got after Bell receives one of the bill from the bank job from mail. But he never really goes after her. Rather, it's her who goes after him. She meets some old faces from the gang, only now as a cop.

The story is nothing surprising, in fact there doesn't seem to be enough of the old gang resurfacing to fill the two hours the film lasts since as a side story there's Bell's attempt to reconnect with her daughter who herself too has lost her way.

Once in a while we get a flashback to the times when Bell and her partner were undercover. These scenes add some new elements to the story and to the character of Bell as to why they actually took part in the robbery. It's too bad that this part of the story is not explored as much as I would have wanted. Although the actual robbery is shown in the end, we don't see the aftermath of it. Maybe it's for the best as it allows the physical appearance of Bell to fill in the details.

Story-wise there's a satisfactory, thematically everything nicely tying up moment in the end, however it's proceeded by an unexplainable urge of the film to attempt to be clever by forcing a twist that plays with the structures of storytelling. I won't spoil it, but I will say that it in no way impacts the story. It's just there for the sake of it being there. Sometimes it would be best just to end it with an emotional high note rather than forcing in a twist in the end, at least something as meaningless as this.

Vice (I) (2018)

Outrageous, funny, yet fragmented

[6/10 · 5 February 2019]

Can you blame a movie for its biggest shortcoming, if it blatantly admits to it at the start? A text appearing at the starts says that Dick Cheney is a very secretive man and portraying events which happened behind closed doors is very difficult, even impossible. Then, as if pleading exemption of this difficult task the words at least we peep tried pops up. Albeit it did put a smile on my face, it still doesn't excuse for the fact that a great portion of the events of the first half of the film have already blended into a rather fuzzy mix in my memory.

The beginning of the film attempts to tell what kind of a man Cheney is and how got involved in politics. It isn't a straightforward kind of narrative where the events of one scene fluently leads to another. Rather, it jumps from one moment in time to another, lingering in some moments for only a few seconds. There's a lot of name dropping during first half and a lot of events are dealt with in just one sentence. Such moments as Cheney becoming the CEO of Halliburton, he being the White House Chief of Staff or the Secretary of Defense rather only mentioned. The films true focus is on the time when Cheney ran as W. Bush's VP and how he steered power in his direction.

The whole structure of the film is like an investigative article. The director Adam Mckay might have taken one or two pointers from Michael Lewis, the author of the Big Short, which Mckay adapted into a film. Vice also contains the same satiric tone. There's once again a narrator to emphasize how outrageous some of the things happening on the screen are. Fourth wall is broken often, which this time around isn't as sharp and witty as it was in The Big Short. There are however some funny deliberate satiric imaginations of the gaps where we don't exactly know what was said since there are no eye witness accounts, my favourites being the moments where Cheney and his wife recite Shakespeare in bed as they discuss him running as VP and where a waiter explains how Guantanamo Bay operates as if it's the evenings menu.

But ultimately Vice is entirely Christian Bale's show. His the center of almost every scene and his transformation into Dick Cheney truly is Oscar worthy. Steve Carell and Sam Rockwell do fantastic job as well, but they're not given nearly as much as space as Bale is. The film as whole just doesn't feel as coherent narrative as The Big Short did. However, Mckay has the same sort of satiric touch as Michael Lewis has to dig up moments in history and present them in such outrageous way that it's almost hard to believe they actually happened, and perhaps make us wonder wonder why we didn't notice this back in the day.

Creed II (2018)

Two stories that don't fit together

[5/10 · 6 January 2019]

I have rather mixed feelings of Creed II. It has two incompatible pieces. The first piece is the revenge story of Ivan Drago and his son and how they're trying to regain their lost glory in Russia by beating Apollo Creed's son. The other one is of Creed's son Adonis and his new fiancée and their new born baby. Adonis now has something important in his life, something too important to lose.

After his first match with Drago's son he's lying on a hospital bed bruised, barely able to talk. It's a moment that would make one to think twice before entering the ring again. Even Adonis himself recognizes the possibility that his daughter might have to live without a father, if he would face Drago again.

The film stays on this route for surprisingly long. It's a very humane moment where you might even forget this is a boxing movie. Meanwhile we learn that Drago and his son are seeking a rematch in a hope that it would bring back their mother/wife. Maybe it's the accent or the total cold heartedness of her that to me makes their desperate struggle seem unintentionally comedic.

All this time there's a thought in the back in the head that the final rematch fight is coming, but what's happening on screen doesn't feel like it's leading up to it. Instead, it feels like there shouldn't be any match. But of course, that won't do. And there's the laziest transition back to training and to the ring that brushes aside everything that has happened so far. "I have to fight him again", he says. All the worries about the baby and the possibility of Adonis getting hurt or dying in the ring like his father are forgotten by everyone. And the built up to the fight is so victorious in on itself that the possibility of him losing is pretty much out of the picture. If the film had wanted to say something meaningful about family and life outside the ring, wouldn't it have been more impactful to the story, if Rocky had saved Adonis during the rematch by throwing in the towel like he contemplates, if he should had done during his father's fight all those years ago. Maybe it wouldn't have been as triumphant, but it would have fit the two pieces together better rather than forcing them together.

Brad's Status (2017)

A refreshing and honest perspective

[9/10 · 16 September 2018]

I'm so tempted to start to explain the plot of Brad's Status from the son's perspective. How he's coming of age and has to make one of his biggest choices in life. Maybe it's because I've seen so many movies like that. In fact, if someone started the explanation like that, you'd probably think that the name Brad in the title is the name of the son. Hell, even I thought so until I actually saw the film.

Instead of the son, the film focuses on the father. It's a perspective that feels refreshing. In films, we usually exclusively see fathers who are proud of their children going off to college. They're all about the teenagers experiencing the scary, yet thrilling changes as they enter a new phase in their lives. Here, it's all about the father. We don't know much about the son nor do we learn much. All we know he's a talented musician who does composing, although we never hear him play anything. His face is so emotionless most of the time that I don't have clue of what he's thinking. And we're not supposed to know. It's all about the father even though the son is the thriving force in the plot as they travel together to find a school for the son.

Like most people they don't talk much to each other about their hopes and fears. Brad doesn't even know where his son would like to go to study. There are a few rare moments where they open up to each other, but like in real life, they're in shortage and often follow a stressful situations. The only thoughts we can hear are Brad's own by the means of voice over monologues throughout the film.And there are a lot of monologues, but these moments are its carrying force.

One of the appealing aspects of the film is that Brad's thoughts are so honest. He's not just the proud father of a son who might get to go to study at a prestigious school. He's that too, of course, but he's going through so much more. He envies his son for the life he has ahead of him. He resents him for his possible success might alienate him from his parents. He goes through his own life choices and wonders why he hasn't become as successful as his friends has. He places blame for not reaching higher on his wife's agreeableness. He wonders if this is all there is in life for him.

All Brad's friends who he used to be close with in school are now rich and famous each in their own way. Brad himself is in no means a failure, yet he can't but compare himself to his friends. We all do that. It's easy to say someone; "Don't worry about it. You have enough. Many people would do almost anything to have what you have." So says a young, idealistic student to Brad one night at a bar. It's easy for someone to dismiss such thoughts as the problems of a white man. But as Brad says, it's still his life and he has to live it.

One and perhaps the only thing I didn't like about the film is that it gives the viewer a rather easy way out of the dilemma by giving easy reasons to dislike all Brad's former friends. So far, Brad has imagined all of them living perfect lives. It's the sort of image you'd get from only viewing someone's carefully constructed social media profiles. And that's exactly what Brad's been doing. He hasn't seen any of his friends in years. But then it's revealed that all of them are in some ways flawed; one is about to go to jail, other has drug addiction and one is a narcissistic person. Brad's realization of his own life's meaningfulness would have had a greater impact, if he'd made it in spite his friends' deserved success. Fame and money doesn't necessarily have to come as Brad puts it, at the cost of selling yourself out.

Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)

When recycling old material doesn't work

[4/10 · 29 August 2018]

The sequel to the Ant-Man from 2015 leans heavily on the goodwill produced by the first one and wastes it. There's a lot of repetition and barely anything new. Admittedly there's a lot going on all the time, but without a clear focus. I've always found the individual films between each Avenger movie to be more of a snack until the next big meal and after the gigantic Infinity War that certainly is the case here.

The main plot concerns the heroes trying to find a way to get Pym's wife out of the quantum realm. Along the way we also stumble upon a black market dealer also interesting in quantum technology, Scott's struggling security business and his attempt to slip and out of his house while in a house arrest. Not the most exciting stuff. Then there's the villain, who I think is one of the weakest ones in Marvel cinematic universe so far. Her powers are unique, but in the end, a bit underwhelming. She's supposed to be a tragic figure, but her backstory is told so hastily that I couldn't get any grip on her. It feels there's so much more to her story, but what we get is a one minute recap of it.

The film recycles almost all the high points of the first one and not much new is invented here. Not even the new character Wasp brings in anything new. Besides her wings and blasters she has the same powers as Ant-Man. His powers also remain basically the same, except when his suit malfunctions and turns him into the size of a teenager. It's there only for the laughs, and the scene where he and the Wasp break into a school when he's stuck in his teenage form feels forced and like sidestep in the overall story even there's a reason for them to be there. It's just that forced. The same type of visual jokes from the first Ant-Man are recycled here. The overgrown Thomas the tank engine is replaced by an overgrown Hello Kitty Pez dispenser thrown at the enemies. Michael Pena's Luis again tells a story in a same fast pace as in the first one. Scott has a falling out with Hoppe and Pym at the start of the film, only for them to rekindle their romance again which we saw at the end of the first Ant-Man. I had hoped that the sequel would be a step forward, but instead it barely moves anywhere.

It seems that Marvel has the sort of "if it isn't broken, don't try to fix it" mentality. The first two Thor are probably the two Marvel movies that have received the most criticism. They took a risk and reinvented Thor as a pure comedy in Ragnarök. Granted, Marvel took a risk in the first Ant-Man, but not as big as they could have taken, if Edgar Wright had remained as the director. I imagine it wouldn't had looked anything like the film we got. For me the first Ant-Man's driving force is the character itself. He's new and unique. The other aspects of the film are the same old Marvel we've seen throughout the years. Not including the differences of the characters, the Marvel films feel very homogeneous. They reuse the winning formulas of the previous films. In other words, if it's not broken, don't try to fix it. With Ant-Man & the Wasp, Marvel attempted to reuse the things that made the first one great, and ended up breaking it.

The Double (2013)

A visually unique, psychological nightmare

[10/10 · 26 August 2018]

The Double could take place in any time and any place, but the dystopian future- looking setting only enhances its nightmarish feeling. It's a psychological nightmare. Jesse Eisenberg plays Simon James in a world where no one acknowledges him or his efforts. He's in love with his neighbor, but he doesn't know how to approach her. His shyness and awkwardness may seem like from an off-beat romantic comedy, but we soon see that he's actually a creep when Hannah (Mia Wasikowska) tells the story how a man who just committed suicide in front of Simon's eyes stalked her and approached her with a love confession. It's the stalker's fantasy that a girl will suddenly and madly fall in love with you just because you once momentarily glanced at each other and she smiled at you. This is what Simon also thought would happen and is now even more afraid to tell his feelings. Yet, by now I've already sympathized with him. I want him to overcome his shyness and gain confidence to approach her. I want him to get the girl.

"I don't know how to be myself. It's like I'm permanently outside my body", Simon cries. He says he's like a Pinocchio. Not a real boy. He knows what kind of a man he wants to be, but not how to be one. And soon he literally finds himself outside his body as his doppelgänger also played by Jesse Eisenberg and called James Simon starts working at the same place as he. James is more aggressive, more confident than Simon, the exact opposite. And Hanna of course finds James attractive, which Simon can't figure out and to be frank neither can I, not after seeing what James is really like, and it frustrates me as much as it does Simon.

At first even Simon admires James, but as he resorts to more and more extreme and despicable measures Simon sees that this is not the way he wants to do things. Even though James is able to get what Simon has always wanted; the girl and the attention of his boss, he realizes the cost may be too high. He soon finds himself in the middle of a nightmare as James begins to take over his life.

The totalitarian feeling society where Simon lives only enhances the nightmare. Everything feels oppressing from the concrete buildings to the work place where he lives in. And in a way Simon is oppressed, mostly by himself. He watches a corny sci-fi show and dreams of being like the hero who stands up to oppressors. The film's world truly is one of the oppressive ones that I've seen. Everyone seems to be hostile and no one acknowledges Simon.

The films great insight is that Simon isn't alone with his thoughts in the world, although it seems so. He finds the identical twin of the guard at his work working at a hospital. Even Hannah confesses that she feels she's like a Pinocchio, not a real person. We don't often dare to open our hearts to other people fearing they find our thoughts and feelings to be weird. We think we're alone in the world with our fears. Everyone else may seem strong and confident, like they're living the life they've always wanted without fears or regrets.

Eventually Simon has to stand up to James, his oppressor. In doing so he's able to gain confidence and more and more people are start to see the real him. He has to fight against the imagined person he thinks other people wants him to be. "I'd like to think I'm pretty unique", he says at the end. He's not just another creep, nor is he just another nameless cog of the corporate machine. People start to acknowledge him.

Downsizing (2017)

A missed opportunity, yet a delightful surprise

[8/10 · 25 August 2018]

While I appreciate Downsizing for trying to actually say something with its unusual premise, it misses some opportunities to have fun with it. Although it has those visual comedy moments as Paul, played by Matt Damon adjusts to his new life as a downsized person, it misses many good opportunities to show us the world through the eyes of a tiny person. It's even missing some of those moments already shown in the trailers. I can't help, but wonder, why they were left out. It sacrifices the humor for the message, when it wouldn't had to do so. You can have comedy and tell a serious point.

Early on it the film we learn that downsizing is the way to save the planet because smaller people consume less resources and pollute less than the normal sized. Other films might contend with just that and focus on the visual comedy. Downsizing isn't that naïve. For Damon's Paul, downsizing more of a way to save his failing marriage, even though he might delude himself by saying that he's going to save the world. After Paul gets himself shrunk the whole idea is left more in the background for a while. At this point the tone of the film also changes. We find out that the world of the small has the same that the normal world has. There are poor people living in slums in the outskirts of the cities who perform the more menial jobs of the society. What's more, we learn that the downsizing hasn't been successful solution and the world is still facing its end. It's in this second half of the film that it ends up finding perhaps a more interesting direction than I had anticipated. It's about the small things we do for other people in life that truly matters, not necessarily trying to save the whole world.

Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)

Great first half

[7/10 · 10 August 2018]

An interesting idea is introduced at the start of Fallout; if it would come to it, would Ethan Hunt be able to choose the mission and sacrifice his friend for the greater good. This idea is carried through to a certain point of the movie, but is ultimately dropped and the climax of the film is the usual save the world from a nuclear blast business. The old familiar faces return from Rogue Nation and Henry Cavil is introduced as a CIA secret agent who is sent along with Hunt to make sure he doesn't screw up the mission.

Fallout is a sequel to the previous one. The plot here isn't anything new. A terrorist group wishes to destroy the old world order by blowing up couple of nuclear bombs. Their motives aren't interesting and in fact, the film itself isn't interested in opening them. They say a couple of preachy lines how suffering creates peace, but doesn't go deeper than that. Frankly, it doesn't have to. I'm here for the action. And there are some really good looking action scenes. The night time sky diving in Paris is visually impressive and the fight scene that takes place in the bathroom is very satisfying. It's always a funny turnaround when a big guy like Henry Cavil gets his ass kicked.

The first half of the film is the part that works best for me. There's a clear plot and cool action scenes. By the time we reach the half point there's so much going on. The plot gets rather heavy with so many threads that it feels like the film loses its way. The villain and the MI6 agent from Rogue Nation return, there's a philanthropist who's actually a weapons smuggler, a distrust going on between CIA and IMF and also the mysterious identity of a plutonium buyer. The film focuses on heavily on the latter one for the first half. It goes so far as to at one point Ethan is suspected to be the said buyer. At that moment you can clearly see that there's a twist coming and how it's going to turn out. Luckily, when the twist happens the film takes an unexpected turn and doesn't go down the predictable road that has been taken so many times in so many films before. Too bad that its most interesting aspect of choosing between the mission and your friends turns into complete the mission or everyone dies in a nuclear explosion.