lostonthehighway Reviews

The Northman (2022)

Sorry...

[5/10 · 24 May 2022]

Why do I feel that someone gave Robert Eggers a little too much money and a little too much fake blood?

I hate to be writing this review, I'm sorry, I really am. I know that The Northman is important in terms of an original blockbuster that isn't some flicks superhero thing in a world when we sorely need them. But I highly doubt that this is the way to go about it.

This film has been lauded a lot for its raw violence and its gritty edge, but honestly, I wasn't a big fan of that. Maybe this is a personal choice, but this film felt very primal and I couldn't say I loved that. I suppose it's the thing where they try to shock you with weird stuff to try and take your mind off the film's storyline problems (something that I found Midsommar particularly guilty of). I don't like that. But hey, if you want to see Ethan Hawke drinking blood, have fun with that.

In a lot of ways, this film reminds me of The Revenant. Now, I enjoyed The Revenant (more than this, might I add), but it suffers a lot of the same problems. Beautiful visuals, but for no meaning, really. The storyline of this is flat, which makes me confused over how you can mess up the story of Hamlet, and the fact that this isn't my first time saying this (see my review of that horrible 2000 version for more). To quote a very particular internet adage - if I had a quarter for every time someone messed up a film adaptation of Hamlet, I'd have two quarters, which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it's happened twice. Back to the film, the shaky story, which drags soooooo much in the second act, really did end up showing through when you weren't being blinded by pretty cinematography.

This film is really aimless. That is my main critique, which is weird to say for a film that seems to have so much gusto and force - or, at least, you think it does, until you realise it's all a facade. The character development doesn't go anywhere, the characters themselves felt flat, Anya Taylor-Joy looked like she had walked onto the wrong set the entire time, I could go on.

I mean, you know what's going to happen from the start. It's literally the main character's catchphrase - avenge his father, save his mother, kill his uncle. Great. And that's exactly what he does. Amazing. Am I supposed to care that the thing that was drilled into my brain to anticipate from the start was going to happen? Wait, no - the second act is full of dumb plot choices that just kind of delay what you ALREADY KNOW IS GOING TO HAPPEN. And that's just annoying, man.

Of course, the cinematography is great, et cetera et cetera, and there's good production design and stuff. But again, no matter how nicely and fancily you present a plain piece of chicken breast, it's still going to be a wet lump of meat with no seasoning and no point. And that's what this film felt like to me - pointless.

I haven't see Egger's other films but I might check them out to have an apt comparison. In the meantime, I'd like my money back.

-Sasha.

Lightningface (2016)

This is my favourite short film of all time.

[10/10 · 13 May 2022]

I don't usually review short films because they seldom leave me with anything distinctive to say. The reason I'm writing this review is because this film is basically the dictionary definition of distinctive. And, despite the fact that I've seen more short films than I can count, I can safely say that this is my favourite short of all time.

A lot of people find this film weird and I don't blame them in the slightest. In fact, when I showed this film to my friend, their first reaction was "the f$%&?", and, in all fairness, so was mine. But the thing is, for the longest time, I've loved weird, off-beat humour, so this scratched that very particular niche in my brain. The reason this film is so funny stems from its absurdity and its campiness. In fact, when I was watching it for the first time, I really had no idea where it was going to go next. And, I mean, what else can you expect from a film about someone who gets struck in the face by lightning?

Oscar Isaac once again proves that he is an incredible actor by simply stealing the show for the entire 20 minutes. Said 20 minutes are essentially him having a complete mental breakdown whilst confined inside his apartment (strangely enough predicting both Moon Knight and all of 2020). And somehow, even though this film (as I've mentioned) is one of the, if not *the* weirdest film I've ever seen, Isaac gives an incredibly realistic, if not a little over-the-top, performance. I'd definitely watch a feature film of him just throwing stuff around a very nice-looking apartment.

Speaking of throwing stuff around a nice-looking apartment, the single-space set-up works really well and shows how creative you can be even if you've just got one location on your hands. In general, despite all of its transcendental monkey-themed lightning weirdness (well, that's a sentence I never thought I'd write), it's a really interesting portrayal of someone who is clearly losing it. And I love the ambiguity of it all - despite watching it twice within the last two days, I am no closer to understanding it, and I can't stop thinking about it.

After loving this film a lot, I checked out some more of Brian Petsos's work. He's collaborated a lot of with Oscar Isaac (I presume that the two are friends), and I really love his style of short film. The other short of his that I saw, Ticky Tacky (2015), once again displayed that dry, absurd sort of humour, but I enjoyed this over that partially due to the weird premise. I'd very much like to see more collaborations between the two, maybe even a feature film.

In conclusion, I guarantee that this will be 20 of the strangest but most fulfilling minutes of your life.

-Sasha.

Moon Knight (2022)

Unexpectedly enjoyable!

[8/10 · 13 May 2022]

Let me get something out of the way - I don't like Marvel. I don't like superhero movies, mass-made media, action-y CGI-y flicks. But somehow, this defied all of my expectations.

What I think made me enjoy Moon Knight much more than I usually enjoy Marvel content is the fact that it's own thing. In my opinion, that is singlehandedly one of the strongest things this series has going for it. There are no stupid cameos, no attempt to shoehorn it into the Spider-Man films or whatever else it is these people like to do. Moon Knight is its own thing - a first in the MCU - and that in itself is incredibly refreshing.

Now, for the real star of the show - Oscar Isaac. This man elevates what would probably have been a pretty average MCU show to something that - dare I say? - could even be Emmy quality. Honestly, after seeing Isaac's other films, I strongly believe that he is one of the best actors of this generation, and damn does it show here. Even at times when other aspects of the show weren't top notch, his slight mannerisms and the way he switches seamlessly between the alters - not to mention the fact that he's more often than not doing the very difficult job of acing against himself - make this show stand out in and of itself. Episode 5, especially, is probably one of the best TV episodes I've seen in recent memory, mostly due to Isaac's performance. Honestly, again, referencing the fact that I don't even like Marvel, the only reason this show piqued my interest to begin with is the fact that I heard that he was attached to it, which prompted me to check it out, and he did not disappoint.

Hailing from London myself, his accent is probably more convincing than any of the times when American actors simply assumed everyone in Britain spoke Queen's English, and it was incredibly endearing. It was also very nice to have a change of location and not have the show set in New York like every other MCU thing, not to mention the switch between the accents made it simple to see the switch between Marc and Steven.

After watching the first few episodes, I decided to read some of the comic books - most notably Jeff Lemire and Greg Smallwood's 2016 run of the comics, which got me simply hooked on the character. After having read that 14-issue series three (3) times in the last week or so, I'd say that I now have enough of a scope of understanding to be able to compare the two. Although, that's not quite right, because comparing the two would be like comparing a pigeon and a stapler because they are two completely different mediums. Despite that, the Lemire run definitely had the most influence on the visual style and storyline of the series, and I highly recommend it to all that enjoyed the show as I did. Despite my aversion to Marvel films, I do greatly enjoy some of their comic work, and the show contains plenty of Easter eggs to reward comic fans like myself.

In terms of the story itself, it started off incredibly strong with a very compelling pilot, and only really went upwards from there, peaking at episode 5, which, as I already mentioned, was brilliant. The finale, in my opinion, felt slightly flat, partially because of the breakneck pacing and the bad CGI (mostly due to the fact that the story had to be shoehorned into 6 episodes, for some annoying reason). Despite that, I think that the quality of the first 5 episodes definitely evens it out, and the post-credits scene at the end of the finale contains a very neat and long-awaited surprise that will certainly please fans of the comic.

What makes this show good is the fact that it's so character driven. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely plenty of Marvel-y things in here (massive-scale CGI, one-liners, typical superheroey stuff) but what I enjoyed about the show is just how much it focused on the fragile character of Marc/Steven and the way it dealt with issues such as mental illness. I'm not saying it's 100% accurate (and I don't really have any way of knowing due to a lack of personal experience with DID), but you can at least see that they tried, and that in itself is a plus.

I almost wish that Marvel didn't quite tone it down so much - I know that a PG-13 rating is necessary because money, but again, based on my own knowledge of the comics and the character, the show could have been so much more fun and violent. And also, it annoys me ever so slightly that the titular character got maybe 10 minutes of screen time. But I mean, it was made for such a large audience, I wasn't quite sure what I was expecting, so I'm willing to let it slide.

In conclusion, this is a very good show, which I wasn't expecting to say. Watch the show, read the comics, have fun.

-Sasha.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022)

I guess?

[6/10 · 9 April 2022]

I don't quite know what to feel about this, despite finally having seen it after waiting the better part of two years waiting for it.

Anyone who knows me will know what this series (most notably the first film) means to me personally for reasons I won't go into now. Back in 2018, Crimes of Grindelwald disappointed me massively and was a massive step down from the first, which I still love to this day as a comfort movie with sentimental value. So going into this, I was simultaneously fearing for the worst whilst also still holding up hope that maybe this can fix it. And.... I still don't really have an answer.

Let me say this - it's better than the last, and it was enjoyable. I think this is partially due to the fact that Steve Kloves (an actual, seasoned screenwriter) was brought in to help co-write the screenplay with JK R*wling, who is a literature author and not a writer for the screen (as was painfully obvious with the mess that was CoG). One of my biggest problems with the last was the sheer volume of characters, jumping from place-to-place, nonsensical, plot-hole riddled exposition, and not enough balance between the light and dark moments - all of which are clearly just storytelling errors due to Rowling's screenwriting inexperience. This was done somewhat better (not great, but still noticeably better) here, which was nice. The plot flowed - given, it flowed like a river of treacle, but it flowed nonetheless - and it *was* more character-driven.

Despite what I just said, I am in no way overlooking this film's multiple problems. The plot, despite being a hair better than the previous film, is still a mess. This was probably due to the fact that this film suffered the same issue as the last one - instead of having a grounded and character-driven story set in one place (ONE PLACE), as we saw worked perfectly fine in the first film, we once again had to jump from London to China to Berlin to Bhutan to god-knows-the-f#£%-where. Not to mention the events in the plot itself were just Not Interesting. I mean, despite never being the biggest fan of Harry Potter, I can admit that the books managed to have a good mix of serious political stuff whilst still being actually interesting. This was two hours of a magical election. Yep. I think that says all it needs to say.

Another problem is that despite being called Fantastic BEASTS, there is, once again, minimal focus on Newt and the beasts and instead, it seems like the film is just unsure of who the protagonist actually is. The storyline keeps jumping from Dumbledore to Grindelwald to Newt and back again to the point that it's hard to get attached to any of the characters individually, because the second you actually start caring, you're whisked back to some other storyline you forgot was even happening. However, I appreciate the fact that they clearly realised withe the last film that their "Fantastic Beasts" film had stopped being about fantastic beasts, so the plot of this one revolves around one of said beasts, which gives it a nice link to Newt and his story (which up until this point had been serving as a Trojan horse of sorts for the whole Grindelwald thing).

Whilst not as bad as in CoG, this is partially due to the sheer number of characters. They do seem to work more cohesively here (I heard Eddie Redmayne described the film as a "heist film" in an interview and I'd say that sums it up pretty well) - as in, it's nice that we can see the characters together and interacting as part of a bigger united storyline as opposed to the last film where there were maybe five unrelated storylines going on at the same time which were impossible to keep track of. However, there are still too many damn characters! And they don't get anywhere near equal screen time. Listen, as much as I think Jacob is a great character, I think they're really pushing it trying to keep him in the films. And Jessica Williams is great as Professor Lallie Hicks, but she don'ts get anywhere enough time or character development on screen. And then I forgot that Ezra Miller was even supposed to *be* in this film. You get what I'm saying.

And the thing that has upset me the most - the *blatant* erasure of one of the strongest and most interesting characters - Katherine Watherston's Tina Goldstein. I'm aware of the stuff she said about JK Rowling, and I also know that she had COVID during the filming period, and if it really is the former, I think it's a horrendously petty thing to do, especially when she's supposed to be Newt's primary love interest for the remainder of the series.

Annoyingly, this was all done very well in the first film, I have no idea what happened (a smaller number of more developed characters, a nice straightforward interesting plot, a good mix of dark and light, etc). Maybe the thought of all of the money that these films are supposed to generate made Yates forget basic aspects of cinematic storytelling. But it's unfortunate, because this series had potential before it completely nosedived. I think that the first film should have just been a standalone. It was ridiculous to try and make a five-film series based off of a goddamn textbook. I'm telling you, if anything, they should have made some kind of limited series about The Mauraders era of Harry Potter - it seems to be the most popularly requested thing among fans and there's enough backstory for that time already given in the books. Again, I'm not even a big fan of Harry Potter but I know people who are, and as much as I enjoyed the first film, I don't think making it into a series was a good move.

I'm not going to spend the whole review raining on the parade, though. I've got to admit that as a fan of the first film there were plenty of enjoyable moments in this film. As pissed as I was about the whole Johnny Depp situation and the way it was handled, I think Mads Mikkelsen gave a very good performance (even though his presence took a bit of getting used to), and so did Jude Law. And Eddie Redmayne was excellent as always. I think that the whole Dumbledore-Grindelwald plot line was very well developed, which is something I wasn't expecting to say, and despite the limited presence of the titular beasts, their appearances were heartwarming, accentuated with the magic-realism style CGI. I absolutely adored the ending, though. Not to spoil anything, but I think that the last ten minutes are what the whole film should have been like.

All in all, it's a mixed bag - it's enjoyable, and it's a definite improvement, but I just don't like the way that this series has been handled so far. This whole film feels like it's trying so hard to be better but only getting a third of the way there.

-Sasha.

Blade Runner (1982)

Neo-noir meets science fiction in a classic of both genres.

[9/10 · 6 April 2022]

Blade Runner is a philosophical journey into a sci-fi underworld, steeped in rain, darkness and philosophy.

I consider the 80's-90's the science fiction revolution - advances in technology and computers, along with the formation of major studios such as Lucasfilm gave us films like Alien, TRON, The Terminator, Star Wars, Dune, Brazil, The Fifth Element, I could go on. But among them is Blade Runner, a film that completely flopped upon its first release, but is now worshipped both in and out of film circles as a classic of the neo-noir genre.

There's a very specific reason I simply adore Blade Runner so much - its vision of the future. Well, the future at the time - I am writing this review in 2022, meaning that according to Blade Runner, "the future" was three years ago. Either way, in a genre that's usually filled with colourful fantasy, Blade Runner is as noir as they get - mysteries that need solving, dark skyscrapers at night, rain, violence, all wrapped with a wonderfully-executed dose of brain-bending existentialism that makes us wonder what being human means.

The film's pacing is languid, and I've noticed that brought up a lot. I mean, in general, I wouldn't say that this is the easiest film to love. The first time I saw it a few years ago, I had no idea what was going on, the storyline confused me, and the slowness of everything really didn't help. But upon a recent rewatch, that slowness is what really leaves time to appreciate the film in and of itself. Honestly, I feel like the miniature skyscraper shots could have an entire separate film dedicated to them, and Vangelis's soundtrack is probably my favourite piece of film music of all time. I guess that Blade Runner really is a bit of an acquired taste.

Speaking of the visual effects, I don't think I'll ever stop praising them. I miss old science fiction, back when visual effects were hand-crafted and took care and time, as opposed to now, when everything has been replaced by computer renders and green screen. And honestly, the miniatures in this look better than half of the commercial green-screen garbage that we get nowadays anyway. I wish science fiction could go back to a simpler time.

I watched the Final Cut, so I don't know what it's like with the voiceover or the "happy ending", but I'm honestly kind of glad that I don't. I enjoy the way that Ridley Scott's final vision throws us into this world of darkness with no explanation, and I like that ambiguous ending that keeps you wondering.

In conclusion, even though I do agree that appreciation of a film such as Blade Runner is acquired, it's definitely a must-see science fiction classic.

-Sasha.

Frances Ha (2012)

A lively slice of life!

[8/10 · 21 March 2022]

Much like a dance in itself, Frances Ha is an effortlessly flowing, beautifully shot, written and directed film.

For the record, despite what everyone thinks, I'm not 27. In fact, I'm not going to be 27 for a while. But this film's lively, whirlwind, slice-of-life style was so well made that it somehow made me feel that I've already lived the life of a 27-year-old in New York who didn't really know what she was doing, and it was absolutely delightful.

Speaking of whirlwind, I think that for a film that didn't really have a defined three-act structure and was more of (as I mentioned) a slice-of-life style dramedy, the storyline flows impeccably. I usually don't pay much attention to the editing a film unless it's really good or really bad, and in this case, I'm glad to say that it's the former - the quick, sharp cuts really emphasise the speed of life in a city like New York.

This flow is, of course, aided by what I think is the strongest part of the whole film - the script. It's funny in all the right places, but never forced, and never so over-the-top that it seems unrealistic. It's amusing enough to be entertaining but dramatic enough to feel real.

A lot of people have expressed annoyance over the "quirky NY millennial" characterisation of Frances and her friends. I never found that to be a problem - Baumbach and Gerwig's writing makes the characters interesting and lively without ever feeling too annoying. Frances' immaturity and childlike qualities were the point - the point being that it's okay not to always know what you're doing and take life as it comes.

The black-and-white is something that I've seen a few people raise an eyebrow about, and I myself think it's an interesting choice. The juxtaposition of the traditional "old-movie" black and white cinematography with a decidedly modern series of events created a very interesting and almost minimalist atmosphere. This film is supposed to be relatively low-key - it's not about massive events, it's about, well, just someone's life - and the minimalism provided by the black and white carries this perfectly.

In conclusion, watch this film - it's the perfect mix of light-hearted and dramatic, and even if you're not quite 27 yet or 27 was a while ago, the story will rope you in like no other.

-Sasha.

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (2016)

Almost.

[6/10 · 15 March 2022]

Don't we all love it when Hollywood ruins yet *another* good book?

Please note that this review contains spoilers for both the book and the film.

Picture this - I was a little freak of a kid who practically worshipped these books aged around 11 or 12. I vaguely remember hearing about this film when it was first released, but, for some reason, opted not to watch it. And now, I finally have, and my feelings are mixed, to say the least.

Now, I think Tim Burton was a perfect fit for directing this film - his filmmaking style and the unsettling, gothic horror of the source novel would have meshed really well in theory. And the first two acts are excellent, apart from a few tweaks that took some getting used to (like the whole Emma-Olive switch). But my biggest grudge comes with the third act.

This film, previously composed of beautiful set pieces and minimally stylish visions of peculiarity, suddenly devolves into... CGI slendermen fighting skeletons. I s**t you not. Regarding the slendermen part, that was probably one of my major problems. In the source material, the hollows are truly a menace, as were their white-eyed counterparts, but here, you have, as I mentioned, bad Slenderman rip-offs. And Samuel L. Jackson was probably one of the least convincing villains I've seen for a while.

The entire climax was just terrible - the original ending was minimal, open-ended and packed with suspense. You'd think that in an industry so obsessed with sequels and reboots, they'd stick with the source material, which beautifully paved the way into three sequels. But nope - take some rushed CGI garbage instead!

I'm not saying that this is a bad movie in its own right - as I mentioned, the first two acts were really good, and I wish that it hadn't gone downhill during the third. I know I whined about some of the creative deviations from the book, but there actually were some good creative choices - the eye thing actually pleased me quite a lot, and I'm sure that people who have read the later books will agree with me. And Eva Greene's performance was absolutely excellent.

But unfortunately, this has killed all of my hope of ever getting a full trilogy (tetralogy, even), which really does annoy me, because that makes this yet another series from my adolescence that was ruined by Hollywood (yes, I'm looking at you, I Am Number Four and The Giver).

If you're a fan of the book, you might as well watch it for the first two acts, but I'd suggest the graphic novels instead (Yes, they exist, and they are beautiful. Trust me).

-Sasha.

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

Just... Star Wars, man.

[10/10 · 27 January 2022]

There are over 1,022,000 words in the English language and that still isn't enough to describe the absolute brilliance of Star Wars.

Unlike most people who have seen and loved Star Wars, I actually watched this film a little late - i.e. I wouldn't say it was a childhood film of mine, as it was for most people, rather, I watched it a few days ago at my current age. This was partially because I a) didn't think I'd like that kind of thing and b) because I found it to be so hyped and so talked about, it couldn't possibly be *that* good. Well, let me just say that I have never been happier to be so wrong in my life.

By the way, I should probably note that what I'm saying in this review largely applies to all three films, because I love them all pretty much equally, but I'm going to write it under the original because, well, it's the original, and also (despite a very close competition), my favourite of the three.

Every single facet of this film captivated me from start to finish. Not for a dingle moment did I feel its 2 hour runtime, I was always too busy staring at the set pieces... or trying not to laugh... or trying not to cry... or biting my nails in anticipation. Speaking of the set pieces, the fact that this was made all the way back in '77 is actually beyond me. The effects have held up mind-blowingly well almost fifty years later, and I honestly prefer this a thousandfold to the green screen trash we get nowadays. I can just see how much care and time was put into those beautiful practical effect spaceships and everything. I can definitely see some influences of 2001: A Space Odyssey in the effect work, and I mean that in every good way possible.

Now, the plot. The story. Just. Wow. I mean - Star Wars has been referenced in popular media so much that I was pretty familiar with the series, as pretty much anyone is, even before I watched it. So I thought I had it all down. But the reality was that I was hit with such a massive... FLOOD of visual and narrative beauty that I didn't think that my tiny insignificant human mind could handle it all. And seeing all those aforementioned references finally click together and make sense...and the characters were all awesome in their own ways and the worldbuilding was incredible. It's just so original and beautiful, and the ending left me smiling from ear to ear. I didn't think that somehow you could have moments that were both hilarious and heartfelt, with drama and impeccable action scenes and beautiful FX in one movie, all while still being rated U.

Writing this in 2022, I know that Star Wars has grown into a multi-million-dollar franchise, with spin-offs, prequels, sequels, side movies, books, and a hell of a fan base. I actually haven't seen anything apart from the original trilogy (at the time of writing), and one of the main reasons I want to keep it that way is that before Disney got its greedy little hands on it, these three films were basically THE science fiction films - the new, industry-changing, Big Thing that everyone was talking about. I'm a big fan of old 80's-90's science fiction (The Matrix, Blade Runner, 2001, the old Dune, etc), which is why I gravitated towards watching it in the first place. And I really do want to keep it as a perfect trilogy by not voyaging into the wider world of Star Wars. Who knows, maybe I will watch the other stuff one day, but my heart will always belong to the originals.

Getting to see a film just so iconic at an age where I can genuinely appreciate its greatness was actually really nice. When the opening crawl started with its iconic yellow letters, the double sunset on Tatooine, the lightsaber fights, the Millennium Falcon, "That's no moon", the X-wings, C-3PO and R2-D2, Han and Leia, Luke using the Force, I could go on and on. You know it's going to be amazing when, within the first 10 minutes, you think to yourself, "Damn, what a film". And then continue to think that throughout the entire runtime.

Honestly, I could talk about this film for hours, but in short, giving this anything less than 10 stars is a crime.

-Sasha.

Don't Look Up (2021)

Well, that's two and a half hours I'll never get back.

[4/10 · 19 January 2022]

The first time I heard of this movie was around November 2020, which is when I was scrolling through IMDb and saw the cast list. And my first thought was "oh boy, this is going to be s**t". And won't you look at that: I was right.

Now, at its best, a satirical comedy can deliver a perfectly crafted "oh, damn" sensation to the viewer. At its worst, you get a bloated, boring, unfunny and overdone mess. Unfortunately, Don't Look Up falls into the latter category.

Don't Look Up has got to be the most annoyingly in-my-face movie I have ever seen. I mean, never before have I seen a movie that spoon-feeds you its message like you're 5. Like, we get it, comet, we're all gonna die, climate change, you couldn't even *try* to somehow make it a little less... well.... literal? The ending was obvious, the suspense was s**tty, and it was just so loud and in your face and LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! All the time that it was hard to focus on much else. It just had so much potential, but really didn't go there.

And it's not even like the plot is particularly interesting. Everything that happened in it is just so damn predictable. I'm not saying that it's devoid of good humour - I've got to admit, there were some good moments (really enjoyed the running joke of paying for the snacks!) - but it drags so much that any good humour is diluted to tiny islands in a sea of utter boredom. Speaking of boredom, it was just so long. Like, around the middle, I started counting minutes. Seriously, like half of this could have been cut. And the editing was eye-watering to say the least.

I feel like McKay was trying too hard to relate to the younger generation to the point when it just got kind of annoying. Like, you know those "hello fellow teenagers, sup" people out there? Make that into a movie. There you go.

Here's my biggest problem, though: the ensemble cast. Don't get me wrong, I love a good old ensemble cast - Trial of the Chicago 7, I loved. But the problem is that it seems like 90% of the film's $75m budget went towards the cast and none went to the script. I mean, Ariana Grande and Kid Cudi were in it for two scenes... but were somehow billed ABOVE Meryl Streep, one of the main characters apart from the main two protagonists! Besides, I thought we said we weren't going to cast famous singers who couldn't act.

I mean, it is relevant, and I get what people were trying to say, but in the end, McKay just didn't quite stick the landing.

-Sasha.

Jodorowsky's Dune (2013)

I am furious beyond words that this film was never made.

[9/10 · 6 November 2021]

I cannot describe how much I wish this project went through. I really can't. It just pains me so much.

Picture this. It's the late 70s and the world has just been shook by Dune, a science fiction epic helmed by Alejandro Jodorowksy, the visionary arthouse director. The cinematic world is in chaos. The film, hated by the general public and hailed as a cult classic by arthouse film enthusiasts, attracts thousands upon thousands of people to the theatres, only to have them walk out twenty minutes in. Word of mouth calls it both an abomination and a masterpiece. An X rating attached to a film so graphic, many theatres refuse to show it all together. Critics tear each other apart over it, not knowing what to think. The original Paris premiere ended with a riot so violent the police had to detain the audience. The 12-hour runtime had had to be split into four parts. The most devoted cinema junkies try to sit through all four parts in one go, whilst many try and fail to get through just the first. To this day, people take to the Internet to argue about it and film accounts on Instagram create infographic upon infographic to try and at least scratch its surface. It is named the most controversial film of the century, if not of all time.

Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in. The visionary spectacle that would have been Jodorowksy's Dune was scrapped in 1974. And to this day, I think that I'm still raw about it. This film, this transcendental film that would have changed the face of cinema forever, was cancelled just because Hollywood studios thought that Jodorowksy was just plain crazy trying to accomplish it.

As a massive fan of the Dune books and both David Lynch's and Denis Villeneuve's version, I think that if this film had been made it would have honestly been the most ridiculous of all three. In a world where David Lynch's version was shunned for being "too weird", I can't even begin to imagine what people would think of this. Now, since it was never made, I don't think that I can accurately judge whether or not it would be a good or bad movie, but I think that it would definitely have been a movie that was incredibly divisive. On one hand, Jodorowsky's ideas matched the craziness of the book, if not even crazier, and I think that, drawing from all of the concept art, it would have been a complete visual FEAST. On the other hand, it just looked full of so much... STUFF.... that it could have just as easily be a beautiful mess. We'll never know.

This is a great documentary of one of cinematic history's biggest what-ifs. It's really well made, and the way that the concept art is exhibited alongside the interviews really helps bring the never-made movie to life as much as it ever will be. All of the art is absolutely STUNNING and it just gives a tiny taste of what it could have all been (I wish I could own a copy of that massive book of storyboards!). In fact, I think that even though Jodorowksy deviated quite a bit from the original novel, it still seems like it would have worked. Actually, I think that Jodorowksy's altered ending is actually much better than not only Lynch's ending (complete studio-manufactured happy bullis**t) but actually even the ending of the book (flat and slightly lukewarm). I think it would have perfectly encapsulated Paul's role as a self-destructive messiah, as well as demonstrating the transcendence of his mind as his powers as the Kwisatz Haderach - "one who can (very literally) be in many places at once".

If this movie was made and I had been alive back then, you bet that I'd have been the first one in the theatres.

-Sasha.

Midsommar (2019)

OH DEAR GOD MAKE IT STOP MAKE IT STOPPPPPPPP!!!

[1/10 · 30 October 2021]

Ari Aster, I'm sure you're a genius and I'm sure you had the right intentions, but NO NO NO NO NO PLEASE NO.

Please note that this review contains spoilers.

Right, so I've to say, I love myself some psychological horror. And after hearing how lauded this was and being invited to a movie night to view this, I was pretty excited to see what al the hype about - after all, culty horror sounds very appealing to me after previously having loved films such as Like Minds. And I'm not usually squeamish or anything (David Lynch movies have left me desensitised to all that). But this left me having to keep it together in front of 4 other people whilst feeling absolutely sickened to my core for two and a half hours.

Jesus, how did I managed to sit through all of this? Listen, as I mentioned, I really don't have a problem with gore and sex, but only when it's genuinely shocking and effective. Here, I feel like it was all thrown in for pure shock horror, with the film alternating between the most boring and drawn out moments and just surface level shock value. I feel like this film almost adds to the long tradition of Pagan practises being viewed as violent and horrific. I literally googled it and almost everything is made up, with actual midsommar celebrations being peaceful rituals of life and birth.

I get that the entire movie is about Dani's grief and the way that she can't think clearly, but I don't really think that's shown very well. Despite being the entire trigger for the movie, it's quickly cast into the background in favour of sex, orgies and mutilation. The cinematography is very beautiful and jarring, but I think that it very much distracts from everything at times. Same for the gratuitous gore. I think that it's much more effective when certain things are shown off camera, but instead, here, you're just so disgusted by the caved in faces and skinned bodies that you can't quite focus on much else.

This movie is very widely discussed in film circles, and a lot of people mentioned a few key scenes (the burning of the temple, the dancing, the bear), and of course I was expecting them when going in, but hat I didn't realise was that that was literally only going to be the main stuff. Everything in between was just fluff. And, of course, we have the cliché of everyone getting killed off one by one. Honestly, I kind of knew that everyone except Dani was going to die, but the detailed disgusting imagery of it all I was better off NOT seeing. Like, okay, I get it, paganism is disgusting to Western audiences, WE GET THE POINT.

I- I just- this was so horrifically horrific that I honestly don't ever want to watch it again. What I thought was going to be a creeping psychological thriller just ended up a nonsensical and disgusting and indulgent face-level shock-horror mess. I would rather break my own arm than watch this again.

Just don't. Trust me, DON'T.

-Sasha.

Dune (2021)

I just had a spiritual awakening.

[10/10 · 28 October 2021]

After a year of waiting, two watches of the 1984 version, 600 pages of book and £4.60 of popcorn later, I am happy to say that I am no longer the same person I was two and a half hours ago.

Right, so, I- just- I don't even know what to say right now, I am so deeply shook. This is everything I expected from a Dune movie and more. I stumbled out of the cinema not knowing how to walk straight and not knowing how to process what I had just seen.

I read the entire book earlier this year and watched David Lynch's Dune too. I really loved Lynch's interpretation, even if details from the book were changed. However, Villeneuve's Dune is THE modern science fiction epic for this generation. Staying literally 100% true to Frank Herbert's colossal novel, Dune is simple to follow even for people who aren't familiar with its universe, as opposed to Lynch's film which compresses the story to the point that it'll only really make sense for people who've already read the book.

The exposition is well explained but not overloaded and expertly incorporated throughout the movie. And, of course, the best part: the visual effects. Lynch's ambitious vision was weighed down by some slightly questionable (but still lovable in a weird campy 80s way) effects, but the massive budget shows through in the truly gorgeous world building. The worms, the buildings, the spacecraft, everything - sometimes I was so stunned babe the onslaught of visuals I couldn't focus on much else. Hans Zimmer's score sent chills through me and complimented the visuals perfectly. I give 10/10s close to never, and this movie definitely deserved it.

The sleek sci-fi landscapes are almost a world away from the industrial landscapes of David Lynch's version, and the entire thing just felt more clean. However, from time to time, I couldn't help but miss the weird campiness of it all.

Dune is infamous for just how much STUFF there is - the number of interwoven characters, plot lines and ideas, the strange and complex terminology, the complex history. By wisely choosing to split the book in two parts, you manage to see it all. The ensemble cast all give very strong performances. Despite my intense dislike for Timothee Chalamet, he was very good as the lead (although I much preferred Kyle MacLachlan's performance).

Dune is an intelligent science fiction blockbuster that finally did the book justice and is for sure Denis Villeneuve's magnum opus. Watch it.

-Sasha.

Un chien andalou (1929)

If you need me, I'll be in the corner screaming.

[9/10 · 12 September 2021]

Un Chien Andalou is what happens when you get two Surrealists to make a film inspired by their dreams. And there are no dogs, Andalusian or otherwise, in this film.

I didn't know that something that is only 20-ish minutes long would have me wanting to whip out the eyeball bleach, but, you know, that's what this film is like.

No matter which direction, which theory, which angle you'll come at it, this film will never make sense. And it's not supposed to, either. Instead, its strange, incomprehensible and borderline disturbing imagery is supposed to feel much like the dreams that it was inspired by.

I've been a fan of surrealism for as long as I can remember - I can vividly recall 9-year-old me poring over a book of Salvador Dali's art, and even now I'm engrossed in the films of David Lynch and the like, but I think that Un Chien Andalou is *the* surrealist film that defined the Surrealist movement of the 20s and today. Honestly, I didn't even watch this for a film class as most people who watched it do, I just caught sight of it on IMDb as a French surrealist film from the 20s and immediately beelined to YouTube.

A lot of the motifs already found commonly in Dali's paintings star in this film - ants, rotting animals, dismembered body parts. The effects for 1929 were simply mind-blowing and it was all incredibly well-put together. And, despite the lack of sound, it was still jarring as ever.

It really all did play out like a dream - nonsensical logic, storylines doubling back on each other, impossible spatial configurations and just general strangeness. But for me, surreal, disturbing, frightening and generally strange films are the most interesting and my favourites, just because of how they challenge the brain and shove you into territory you would have never thought of going into.

Un Chien Andalou is not a film for everyone, but I thoroughly recommend it, because you will, albeit in some sick and twisted way, enjoy it.

-Sasha.

Blue Velvet (1986)

Seductive, haunting, jarring, MASTERPIECE!

[10/10 · 10 September 2021]

I think that this is the movie that took me through five layers of enlightenment.

If you've known me for more than 0.2 seconds, you'll probably know that David Lynch is my favourite director ever. His works never cease to astound me, and of all of his already-perfect films, I would have to say that Blue Velvet really is not only the best film that he's made, but the best film of the 20th century, if not of all time.

There's something so stylistically beautiful and genre-defying about Blue Velvet. Something so sleek and so enchanting, combined with Lynch's classic horror, captivates you just like the eponymous song.

What's interesting about Blue Velvet is that even though it's one of Lynch's most confusing works, and the storyline isn't as strange as one of his later films (say, Lost Highway or Mulholland Drive), it still manages to be so incredibly disturbing and mind-bendingly horrific, to the point that sometimes you feel obliged to have to watch through your fingers.

Blue Velvet peels back the layers of the American dream to reveal a dark underworld that will haunt your mind for days. That signature opening with the unnaturally blood-red roses against a white picket fence and an artificially bright sky sets the theme of the slightly too-perfect image of suburbia that continues through the film, and contrasts jarringly with the things we later see and find. And that gorgeous song. Blue Velvet echoes throughout the film, and whenever you hear it you cannot help but be entranced.

There was not a single bad performance in this movie. Isabella Rossellini as the beautiful and troubled Dorothy Vallens, Laura Dern as "the girl next door", Dennis Hopper as the psychotic Frank Booth, and, of course, Kyle MacLachlan as our innocent young protagonist. How did none of these incredibly talented people get any sort of Oscar recognition? How did this movie generally not get any sort of Oscar recognition besides just a nomination for Best Director? Come on! Best Picture nom, at least!

This movie is certainly not for everyone, what with how horrifically graphic and disturbing it gets, every now and then, but let me tell you: when all is said and done, it really is a cinematic masterpiece and is my favourite movie of all time, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

-Sasha.

Fight Club (1999)

The problem with Fight Club isn't Fight Club itself.

[9/10 · 1 August 2021]

My first instinct was to write some witty, over-used joke about the first rule, but then I realised that I actually had a decent chunk of serious things to say about this movie, so here we go. Speaking of the first rule, I just broke it.

Fight Club is another one of those films that the so-called filmbros will tear you from limb to limb for not liking. Ever since its release, to say that it's built somewhat of a cult following is an understatement. It's been so ingrained in popular culture that even I've got to admit I made the "first rule" joke a couple of times before I had even watched it. And the problem is that ever since then, it's been worshipped as the epitome of filmmaking, the most profound commentary on culture, the greatest movie of all time, etc. Etc...

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Fight Club a lot. I've always been a fan of Fincher's, and this film, stylistically, is a beautifully gritty thriller, the kind that I've come to love. And it certainly deserves a lot of the praise that it gets. I don't think that it's the greatest movie in existence, but I did like watching it a lot. And a lot of the stuff that I'm about to say is going to make it sound like I hate this movie, and I don't. Fight Club is a good movie. However, I think that the biggest problem with this movie isn't the movie itself, but rather, the culture of people who have come to worship this movie like it's some sort of cinematic god. You know, those same people on Letterboxd and Instagram who think Parasite is an obscure foreign film and think that Joker is "relatable".

And it's honestly kind of annoying that this perfectly great movie had been ruined by this filmbro culture, to the point when someone says it's their favourite movie your first thought is "oh s**t". And that's the thing - I have nothing against people who do say Fight Club is their favourite movie, but just because of that small percentage of people who are just... like that, your mind will automatically go RED FLAG even if it completely isn't. And it's almost ironic how this movie has been packaged and adored by the masses, adored for its anti-consumerist culture by the very consumerists that it criticises.

I'm realising that this has veered away from being a review and is slowly turning into an essay about how much I hate filmbros, so let me just wrap it up with some final thoughts. I don't hate Fight Club, but I hate the people who have ruined it for people who genuinely like it.

-Sasha.

Living in Oblivion (1995)

I've been there.

[9/10 · 29 July 2021]

I'm also an independent director. Yes, I've made movies. And if you don't know what it's like, then this movie will tell you.

This movie was shown to me on the first day of film school. I don't know if they were being ironic or simply warning us for what would come in the next two weeks, but as a director who would then go on and direct my own film over those two weeks, this movie is painfully accurate and very hilarious.

When I first went into this movie, I thought it was some sentimental thing about the art of making a movie and the spiritual journey your soul goes on or whatever. But it's not. Again, this movie speaks to me, and is just so funny, just because of the way that it's relatable. I would definitely recommend all aspiring filmmakers to see this one, partially because it is demonstrative of the often-hilarious Murphy's Law-esque antics that happen on film sets.

You know a film is good when you have a theatre full of film students laughing their heads off every ten seconds. And that was exactly what was happening. This was actually the first movie I saw back in the theatre after an almost-2-year-long pandemic-related hiatus, and it really was genuinely a great film to see on the big screen.

The movie has a really unmistakable style, with a lot of clever colour-to-black-and-white switches to signify the difference between the film world and the real world which I really enjoyed. On top of all of that, everyone delivered excellent performances which elevated the comedy of it all even further.

One of the best comedies out there, and a must-see for indie filmmakers. Thank you MFI '21!

-Sasha.

Against the Wall (1994 TV Movie)

Powerfully disturbing, incredibly thrilling, and unfairly overlooked.

[8/10 · 30 June 2021]

Against the Wall walked so that Trial of the Chicago 7 could run. But the latter had a big Netflix release. This was made for TV and subsequently flew under the radar, and as a result is one of the most criminally underrated things I have ever seen.

This movie is really something else. Something else for sure. I went into this not knowing anything about the Attica riot, but still being more or less aware of the situation at the time after watching Trial of the Chicago 7. And I was expecting something akin to the Shawshank Redemption - a slow-burn drama with a nice ending. But Against the Wall was neither of those things.

This movie had my heart pounding so fast that I could hear blood in my ears the entire way through. The sheer brutality of it, not one dash of blood sanitised, really opened my eyes to how horrific the riot - no, the massacre - was. This movie feels ahead of its time, almost - ever since its 1994 release the incarceration problem in the US has only gotten more and more dire, and just as it was when it first came out, Against the Wall is a startling and sudden wake-me-up to all of the problems that are just as relevant today as they were in 1971.

Everything about this movie was mind-blowing excellence. The chaos of the riot was conveyed perfectly, and it all felt real, raw and terrifyingly true. And the acting - Kyle MacLachlan and Samuel L. Jackson were both absolutely mind-blowing. Hands-down two of the most powerful performances I've ever seen on screen. And the supporting cast was also great - they extended the story past the riot itself and had me caring so much more about what was happening.

A powerful movie that shows the messy side of America, but it will not leave your mind for days to come.

-Sasha.

Showgirls (1995)

Not the world's worst movie...

[7/10 · 28 June 2021]

I think most people who watch this movie don't look past the sex and dancing and dismiss it as a corny, sleazy, sexist flick. But the thing is, it's not a corny, sleazy, sexist flick. It's a corny, sleazy, sexist SATIRE.

I was told that this movie is terrible by countless people - look no further than the 4.9 rating on IMDb! - and even though it's not the best thing I've ever seen, it's not half bad.

The reason this movie is just so full of terrible people and exploitation and lap dances is because Las Vegas itself is full of terrible people and exploitation and lap dances. It's a cleverly written satire about the way that under its shiny, sequinned exterior Vegas is a pretty terrible place. And at first you think that that terrible place is going to completely demolish our innocent young heroine until - wait - we realise that Nomi isn't as innocent as we once thought and she's about to meet her match. And I think that people don't realise that this is supposed to be a satirical movie about how ruthless Vegas is.

Okay, yes, there's a lot of graphic content. A lot. This thing is rated NC-17 for a reason. And on a level, it is definitely a flick that appeals to, and is written by, the male gaze. But in between all of the shows, there were actually genuinely interesting moments. And again, this is a movie that does not sugarcoat a single thing. As I've said before, Vegas behind the curtain is a filthy place and tis movie showcases each and every last bit of it.

I'm not saying this film is flawless - the plot line is pretty basic and there are parts where you start to see the trashiness of it all shine through. However, I like what this movie does differently from every other one similar in genre - the fact that Nomi does not take s**t from anyone. For once, you have a character who threatens creeps and rapists with switchblades and throws ice at disgusting producers who cross the line and helps her friends. She does everything on her own terms and that's awesome to see.

As for the acting - I disagree with the fact that Elizabeth Berkley "killed her career" with the "terrible acting" in this movie. Again, remember that this is a satire - all of the acting, just like all of the performances, was intentionally over-the-top. And Berkley played both the determined and confident showgirl and the innocent Las Vegas newcomer (Versayce?) really well. And she's also a pretty good dancer, unlike what certain people say - not to mention all of it was done in high heels. Kyle MacLachlan is the world's slimiest slime ball in this movie - the likes of which are very common in these kinds of industries - and Gina Gershon is someone who you simultaneously love and hate, much like Nomi does.

Don't take this movie at face level. It's not the most intellectual thing you'll see in your life, but don't dismiss it like everyone else.

-Sasha.

Hamlet (2000)

I didn't think you could mess up Shakespeare this badly, but, well, here we are.

[4/10 · 25 June 2021]

Uhhhhhhhh.... well. I don't know what to say right now. I don't know why I spent 2 hours and £3.49 on this movie. Because somehow, someone took Shakespeare's Hamlet, a story that's usually considered pretty un-mess-up-able, and, well, messed it up.

Please note that this review contains spoilers.

Using Shakespeare's original 17th century script pretty much singlehandedly killed this movie. I mean, I know that Romeo + Juliet did the same thing, but the only reason that worked was because the film still felt sort of organic/rustic, and it still somehow fit the romantic tone of the original script. However, juxtaposing the play's winding monologues and soliloquies with modern skyscrapers and technology created such a jarring effect I wasn't able to focus on much else. You can't modernise everything BUT the script. And since the script wasn't changed, a lot of pretty questionable decisions were made attempting to stick as close to the story as possible. Ah, yes, let's include the To Be or Not To Be speech at a Blockbuster! And how about, yes, we keep the sword fight but get this: let's change it to fencing!

The thing is, script aside, if you tweaked a few small things this would have been a great movie. I liked the modern, neo-noir cinematography, and I think this would have worked great if they had just modernised the dialogue along with everyone else. There were some genuinely gorgeous moments in the film - Ophelia's death scene in the fountain, after several counts of ominous foreshadowing, worked beautifully. Honestly, I think it would work better if you watched this film on mute.

The acting was... uh. I mean, I can't really tell if the acting itself was bad or if it was the script that ruined it all. I think the strongest performance for sure came from Julia Stiles as Ophelia. Kyle MacLachlan was also good as Claudius, and Sam Shepard gave a brief, but memorable, performance as The Ghost. But the real problem was Ethan Hawke. The thing with Shakespeare is that you either can or can't do it, and I think that he was miscast. Now, I know that Ethan Hawke is a great actor (case in point: Gattaca), but I think that his performance here just fell flat. Again, maybe it was just the script distracting me, but he really wasn't a convincing lead.

In conclusion, don't watch this. If you do, watch it with the sound off. Just by looking through IMDb I can see that Hamlet, just like every other Shakespeare play, has been adapted a bajillion times, and I think this definitely falls at the lower end of the spectrum.

-Sasha.

The Trigger Effect (1996)

The human side of calamity...

[8/10 · 18 June 2021]

Right. I didn't think that a film, especially one that is generally lauded as terrible and has a rating of 5.7 on IMDb, could take me on such an emotional rollercoaster but, well, here we are.

Oh my god, wow. This was a movie unlike any other that I've seen for a long time. The thing that makes it so different to the many, many other films that are similar in style to it is just the way that it shows the human side of the climactic effect. Throughout the entire story, as well as just the sheer amount of tension and fear I felt, somehow there was just this connection to the characters that for once left me caring about what happened to the people who were affected by this.

A lot of similar films tend to focus on the actual event and consequently all the violence or whatever that ensues - taking pure shock/jump scare/gory action value to appeal to the wider audience. But not this - The Trigger Effect took the smart decision of leaving the blackout in the background, and instead focusing on what impact the blackout left on everyone who had experienced it. Even though it was rarely mentioned or seen itself, the chaos, the confusion, the strained relationships showed it in its fullness. Kyle MacLachlan, already one of my favourite actors, was incredible in this, and as was Elisabeth Shue. They brought to life what would happen to someone normal in an instance of mass panic.

I really don't get why everyone hate this movie. I really don't. And I know that there's obviously going to be a fair number of people who are going to have a go at me for being overly pretentious and hailing this movie as amazing. The thing is, I'm pretty sure that most people who read the longline of this movie were expecting something akin to a classic gory-action-violence post-apocalyptic movie - something like 28 Days Later, or Bird Box, or A Quiet Place - but The Trigger Effect isn't that. And I'm guessing most people didn't see that coming. But I've never liked those kinds of gory-action-violence movies. This... this was a relieving breath of air in the so-called disaster genre. I mean, pretentious drivel like Black Swan gets an 8? Interstellar, an 8.6?? This deserves way more than a 5.7 - the problem with IMDb is that there are certain quiet masterpieces which get overlooked in favour of the million-dollar blockbusters.

Don't listen to the hate. This is a thriller/drama that focuses on people, and it's truly beautiful.

-Sasha.

The Doors (1991)

HELL YEAHHHHHH

[9/10 · 15 June 2021]

The title of this review is a pretty accurate depiction of what I was screaming internally - even out loud sometimes - through the entire runtime of this movie.

This is one of the best, most insane, whirlwind and out-there movies I've ever seen. I was completely engrossed the entire way through, and I think that there was never one moment where I wanted the drug-crazed thrill ride to end. I had never previously heard of The Doors, but guess what I'm doing as I write this very review? Listening to their music.

I loved the hedonistic craziness of those concerts, to the point that I felt like I was there myself through the entire film. I loved the visuals of the film, with it really transporting you into the haze of 60's LA that defined the tone of the movie. The cinematography, the visual language, the tone, everything about the movie made me feel nostalgic for a time I had never experienced.

Oh, and there was the music - as I previously mentioned, I had never actually heard of the Doors, nor really been that into classic rock, but every time the opening chords of music played across the screen, an immeasurably wide smile spread across my face. I just loved the beautifully smooth, yet simultaneously wild, music that carried the entire movie, and it amazes me that I actually cannot tell the difference between Val Kilmer singing in the movie and Jim Morrison's actual songs.

This movie will have you cheering along with the crowds on screen and enthralled from start to finish. Watch it.

-Sasha.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

This is how you adapt a book, people!

[8/10 · 27 May 2021]

After practically inhaling the book, I ran to see if there was a movie (surely, something so amazing had to have been at least attempted to be turned into one), and to my delight there was. And it was amazing.

Somehow, everything I imagined whilst reading the book, and the way its quintessential British humour often made me laugh loudly and suddenly and choke on my food, was perfectly translated into the movie. The CGI was absolutely breathtaking - the Magrathea factory floor in particular blew my mind, as well as the zoom out from Arthur's house just as the Earth is destroyed. I also loved the interpretation of the Heart of Gold - amongst all of the sleek fighter-jet-type things people seem to like in Star Wars, it's nice to sometimes see what's pretty much a big blob floating through space.

Let me just say it: this movie is funny. Now, that is something I say veeerrrryyyyy rarely. But that somewhat straight-faced nonchalant kind of matter-of-fact humour that made the book what it was really came through here. In particular, I really enjoyed the entire cast's portrayal of the characters, and somehow Alan Rickman as the voice of a depressed robot is perfect. Also: I highly recommend reading the book before you watch this. Partially because otherwise it will be pretty confusing, and partially because it's one of the greatest works of fiction I've ever read.

I really don't get everyone's problem with this movie. I guess it's just everyone being all 'tHeY cHaNgeD sOmE StUfF', because clearly some people don't realise that the movie isn't supposed to be a carbon-copy of the book. However, despite not being a carbon-copy of the book, the feel of the book was very much there - even the segments that weren't there in the original book somehow fit in really well with the plot line. I've read somewhere that a lot of said segments are brought up in the later books which I intend to start reading immediately.

Also, there's the fact that you are trying to put an entire, ridiculously flamboyant, extravagant book into a two-hour movie. Which is often going to be viewed by people who have not read the book. So it's pretty unavoidable to have to cut and shorten some of the explanations.

Anyway, this is a great movie. It's crazy, it's pretty ridiculous, but it is hilarious, and you should watch it.

-Sasha.

Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992)

I watched this to try and find answers to my questions but it just left me with even more questions.

[10/10 · 21 May 2021]

This movie is both fundamentally Twin Peaks and an almost antithesis to Twin Peaks, at the same time as being a masterpiece as a standalone movie. And it blew my mind.

I am a die-hard fan of Twin Peaks to the point that I think it might be the only thing I'm capable of talking about. And of course, after the incomprehensible masterpiece that was the third season, I kept hearing that watching Fire Walk With Me would help me understand. And one some levels it did, but on others it was just as weird and bizarre as I could have expected from a Twin Peaks prequel.

It took a deep dive into the side of Laura Palmer we never quite saw during the original series, and amongst all of its classic weirdness, turned out to be a disturbingly tragic character study of a teenage girl who knew that death was inevitable. It shows the horrible nightmarish reality of happened on the last night of Laura's life, as well as all of the fateful events with Teresa Banks that led up to it as well as delving deeper into the mythology of the Black Lodge, a place that, to this day, haunts me with its strange beauty as well as being one of my worst nightmares.

This movie is different to the original TV show, and the reason it was dragged by critics was that everyone who saw it was expecting it to be the same. But as I've learned from watching The Return in Season 3, you never really get the same thing twice from Lynch. Fire Walk With Me is the dark, human side of Twin Peaks - it shows just what happened and spares no ounce of horrific detail. It's deeply emotional and deeply human, whilst still retaining the signature mystery of that small town in northern Washington. The ending was tragically beautiful, and I broke down sobbing so hard after finishing it.

I'm quite adamant over people trying to "eXpLaIn ThE MeAnInG oF tWiN pEaKs (NO, ACTUALLY!!!)" in four-hour-long videos. It just annoys me when something that is clearly not meant to be analysed is analysed. I mean, I'm not saying that there isn't a plot at all and you should take it at face level, because it is indeed a beautifully interwoven story which deserved thought, I'm more referring to the fact that a lot of people get too bogged down into trying to meticulously piece everything together that they completely forget the other aspects of the film. I mean, I've got to admit that even I sometimes have to google "Plot of Twin Peaks", but I usually never go further than that. This applies to pretty much every David Lynch film. I think that a lot of people don't realise that Lynch is unlike most other directors, and that his movies are less about having a coherent plot and more about the surreal and bizarre world they suck you into. And, besides, David Lynch never confirms nor denies any theories for interpreting his movies, so what's the point?

However, the thing with Fire Walk With Me is that, even though being just as bizarre as the rest of the Twin Peaks universe, it makes a strange amount of sense and bridges the gap between Seasons 1 & 2 and Season 3 really nicely. Throughout the entirety of this and Missing Pieces I kept exclaiming "Ohhhhhh!!' as I realised the way that everything links back to everything else was made weirdly clear. The one problem I had whilst watching this was the casting. As delighted as I was to see most of the original cast back, as good of a job as Moira Kelly did she didn't match the character of Donna as well as Lara Flynn Boyle did. Additionally, David Bowie, Kyle MacLachlan, Kiefer Sutherland and Chris Isaak deserved way more screen time. I think the scene with the CCTV camera in the hallway when Phillip Jeffries reappears, only for his recounting to turn into inter-dimensional chaos, has got to be the highlight of the movie. Also, Sherilyn Fenn and Richard Beymer were unfortunately absent too. Audrey and Ben Horne were two of the most interesting characters from the original series and I would have loved to see some sort of storyline with them (maybe something about One Eyed Jack's?).

One thing I should say: my recommended viewing order would be Twin Peaks season 1 and 2, then Fire Walk With Me and The Missing Pieces (I watched them back-to-back in one sitting!) and only then watch the third season. Don't make the same mistake as I did, believe me, everything will become much clearer.

Don't listen to the critics. Listen to the tiny voice in your brain that screams "What the ****? I need more information!" when you're watching Twin Peaks. And then watch this to get that information and let that tiny voice go crazy.

-Sasha.

Lost Highway (1997)

The most terrifying and surreal thing that I've seen in my entire life.

[10/10 · 14 May 2021]

Thank you, David Lynch, for providing me with nightmare fuel for the rest of my life. I don't think I can count just how many times I screamed out "WHAT THE (miscellaneous swear words)" at the top of my lungs whilst watching this. However, everything else aside, this movie is one that I will not forget for a long, long, long time.

I am a massive fan of David Lynch. And being a massive fan of David Lynch I know that all of his movies are at the same time similar to each other and completely different to each other. And Lost Highway is simultaneously undoubtedly Lynchian and somewhere where I've never quite seen Lynch go before.

I didn't understand Lost Highway. Not even after coming here and reading all of the theories and the Wikipedia summary. And, I mean, why should I? I think that in today's culture where everything myst have symbolism and significance, people get bogged down with trying to interpret everything. And as David Lynch has proved with films such as Mulholland Drive, understanding 100% what the film is about is not the point. I mean, on an inherent basis, I can sort of get what everyone's getting at, just as I more or less caught on to the (actually very similar) ideas in Mulholland Drive, but that's really not what it's all about. I mean, I think that Lost Highway perfectly toes the line between making no sense and a lot of sense.

As I mentioned in the title of the review, this movie scared the living daylights out of me. I'm not usually one to scare easily and have almost never been deeply terrified by a movie. And even when I have, it's never really been in that weird, satisfyingly adrenaline-filled, startling way. But for some reason, the tense, breakneck aura of Lost Highway did something to my brain that no other movie has ever done to my brain before. I was literally pressing myself backwards against the wall out of fear. But it's not your traditional blood-gore-jump-scare kind of fear. It's that specific kind of fear which builds in your mind and seeps through your brain the entire time you're watching the movie, and afterwards too - the type that is so eponymous of David Lynch's movies.

Unease is quite literally painted over the entire movie. That classic neo-noir keying, the music, the stretches of seemingly never-ending highway at night, the cabin burning down backwards, the mysterious tapes. I had absolutely no idea where anything was going to not next and I loved that. Lost Highway is definitely one of David Lynch's more graphic films, but sex and violence are both key themes and important plot points.

In conclusion, this film is terrifying. It does not make any sense and the way you interpret it is completely up to you. And there's something about its sleek, seductive and jarring atmosphere that will lodge itself in your brain and refuse to come out for a long time afterwards.

-Sasha.

Enemy (2013)

Just because something is psychological and artsy doesn't mean it's good.

[7/10 · 6 May 2021]

I was a massive fan of Villeneuve's take on Blade Runner so I decided to explore some of his other films. And there are lots of words I can use to describe Enemy, but unfortunately I don't think 'good' is one of them.

Please note that this review contains spoilers.

Enemy is an interesting movie. I sensed immediately that this was one of those movies that seemed normal at first, but were bizarre and surreal the further you looked. And usually I'm a massive fan of movies like that, but because of that I know that it's very hard to do right. And Enemy just misses the mark.

The biggest problem with the movie is that there's simply not enough for you to realise there is that deeper level. Villeneuve keeps dropping random hints which aren't followed through, to the point that I thought it was just some drama movie with the occasional giant spider instead of the intended nightmarish thriller. The most interesting drama is saved for the last few minutes, with the rest of the movie being slowed down to a languidly paced, uncomfortably colour-keyed drawl.

I mean, there wasn't exactly much linkage between the spider stuff and the main story. I didn't connect that it was a metaphor until I came here. The idea of an identical double could have got so many ways - identity mix-ups causing potentially life-threatening scenarios, crumbling of sanity, science-fiction-esque explanations, philosophical ideas. However, Villeneuve didn't go very far with the reasoning behind this, chalking it up to a coincidence that there just happened to be two Jake Gyllenhaals and skipping over to slow conversation in painfully yellow hotel rooms.

Speaking of whom, Jake Gyllenhaal was clearly the highlight of this movie. He pretty much carried Enemy in its entirety, to the point that I completely forgot that there was one person playing both Adam and Anthony.

The ending was good in theory but poor in execution. Again, there just wasn't enough buildup to make it particularly satisfying. If Villeneuve had infused the theme of the insects into the 'main' storyline a little more - dreams? Hallucinations? - then the ending would have been somewhat more complete-feeling, but instead you're left thinking 'what?', but unfortunately not in a good way.

This could have been good. It was a compelling movie on some levels, but it generally missed the mark.

-Sasha.