The Insider (1999) Review

Time: 158 Minutes
Age Rating: M – Medium level coarse language
Cast:
Al Pacino as Lowell Bergman
Russell Crowe as Dr. Jeffrey Wigand
Christopher Plummer as Mike Wallace
Diane Venora as Liane Wigand
Philip Baker Hall as Don Hewitt
Lindsay Crouse as Sharon Tiller
Debi Mazar as Debbie De Luca
Director: Michael Mann

Jeffery Wigand, the former head of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company, goes live on television to expose the bitter truth of how tobacco companies function.

The Insider is another great movie from Michael Mann, intelligent, excellently made, and compelling throughout.

It is based on a true story of an exposing of Big Tobacco, albeit one with some fictionalised events added in. The screenplay is fantastic and eloquent, telling its thrilling story greatly. The story is gripping and riveting throughout and builds up suspense and tension. It starts out as a slow burn investigative journalism drama about fighting corporate interests and powers, and it turns into an engrossing thriller. The story could’ve easily been mundane and dry, but it is quite engaging. They are able to convey so much detail of the case without resorting to exposition dumps, keeping the right balance of not dumbing it down too much but keeping the viewer in the know about what’s happening. At 2 hours and 40 minutes it never feels dull.

There is a great cast here, all delivering amazing work. Russell Crowe gives one of his best performances as the titular insider. He does well at portraying the vulnerability and conflict and is believable as an ordinary guy who does the right thing and tells the truth at great cost. Al Pacino is also great, giving a grounded and understated performance, especially when compared to his other roles at the time. Crowe and Pacino are a solid on screen duo with some good chemistry. The rest of the cast are great including Phillip Baker Hall, and Christopher Plummer is especially a standout.

Michael Mann’s direction is slick and polished, as you’d expect from him. There’s some stunning cinematography and great camerawork, with good usages of colour and lighting, and the score from Pieter Bourke and Lisa Gerrard is great.

The Insider is an incredible and compelling film, with stellar writing, excellent direction and amazing performances (especially from Crowe, Pacino and Plummer). It’s some of Michael Mann’s best work, which is saying a lot.

Advertisement

Argentina, 1985 (2022) Review

Time: 140 Minutes
Cast:
Ricardo Darín as Julio César Strassera
Peter Lanzani as Luis Moreno Ocampo
Alejandra Flechner as Silvia Strassera
Norman Briski as “Ruso”
Director: Santiago Mitre

The true story of how a public prosecutor, a young lawyer, and their inexperienced legal team dared to prosecute the heads of Argentina’s bloody military dictatorship.

I didn’t know much about Argentina, 1985 before going into it. All I knew was that it is one of the movies nominated for Best International Feature, and it won that award at the more recent Golden Globes. It turned out to be a riveting historical courtroom drama which was great.

I didn’t know much about the events that Argentina, 1985 is based on, so naturally I found this very interesting and informative to watch. For those wondering about whether they can get into this, it’s a very accessible movie. It’s a good courtroom drama, conventionally told and straightforward, with a fairly simple story. It is gripping, told with a lot of weight, and you really feel the high stakes. It can be a heavy movie at times, mainly when we hear accounts from survivors. Still, there are little moments of humour which lighten up the tension, but don’t feel out of place. Despite the length of 2 hours and 20 minutes, it doesn’t feel that it’s too long, helped by the somewhat fast pace.

The performances from everyone were really good. Ricardo Darin is in the lead role of the main prosecutor and he’s great and convincing. The rest of the cast including Pedro Lanzini are also good. The actors playing the victims make an impression in their scenes too, especially Laura Paredes.

The direction is fairly simplistic from Santiago Mitre, but overall, his work is solid. The cinematography is slick, and the production design and editing are good.

Argentina, 1985 is a great historical drama, well acted and directed, and has a compelling story which I was engaged with from beginning to end. I highly recommend checking it out.

Blonde (2022) Review

Time: 167 minutes
Age Rating:
Cast:
Ana de Armas as Norma Jeane Mortenson/Marilyn Monroe
Adrien Brody as The Playwright, Arthur Miller
Bobby Cannavale as Ex-Athlete, Joe DiMaggio
Xavier Samuel as Cass Chaplin
Julianne Nicholson as Gladys Pearl Baker
Director: Andrew Dominik

A look at the rise to fame and the epic demise of actress Marilyn Monroe, one of the biggest stars in the world.

I distinctly remember the lead up to Blonde’s release. The idea was certainly intriguing, Ana de Armas was cast as Marilyn Monroe, and it would be directed by Andrew Dominik, who made The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford, Chopper, and Killing Them Softly, and this would be his first movie in 10 years. Not only that, but the source material it was based on seemed to indicate that it would be a very different and unconventional biopic. Then the controversy started, from the spread of awareness about the highly questionable source material which was a fictional take on Marilyn Monroe, to the announcement of it getting an NC-17 rating, to the eventual polarizing reactions of the movie itself. I admit that the very strong reactions caused me to put off my viewing of the film. However, with de Armas being nominated for her performance, I decided I might as well check it out. Unsurprisingly, I ended up being very conflicted about Blonde.

I should clarify first of all that I don’t know much about Marilyn Monroe, nor have I seen any of her movies. I think it’s fair on Blonde’s part to acknowledge that it isn’t meant to be a straight up Marilyn Monroe biopic. It is an adaptation of the book, which is itself a fictional take on the icon. While I can sort of get what Andrew Dominik was going for here, perhaps it would’ve been better to have a fictional character based on Marilyn Monroe instead. I understand that focussing it on such an icon would be more impactful for people, but there would’ve been more freedom to tell the story he wanted instead of having to tie it in with true events. As I said, there is a lot of controversy over the way that Marilyn Monroe is presented, mainly with it having her being subjected to abuse and more. Even as someone who doesn’t know much about Monroe, I get the impression that some people don’t want to be confronted with any tragedies that she went through, at least not without an optimistic or upbeat end to it. Even if some of the more extreme content was toned down, people wouldn’t take too kindly to this sort of story for her because it doesn’t reassure them that everything is okay. That being said, it’s still on the creators to handle these topics and events with a degree of care and delicacy, and sadly I have to say that some of the scenes border on exploitation for me. It’s not a full on sensory overload of bad stuff happening, but it is very drawn out. There are sex scenes and nudity but considering the controversy, it wasn’t nearly as bad as I thought it would be (although the uses of them do come across as weirdly prominent). It’s just that there are a few key scenes that are somewhat problematic. The rape scenes are very mishandled, a moment in the third act particularly signalled that I was about to check out of the movie entirely. There’s a scene that particularly garnered criticism for being potentially anti-abortion, with the inclusion of a CGI fetus talking to Marilyn Monroe. Even if it was to convey a feeling of guilt, it was misguided at best. The last hour is where the movie really leaned into just making everything worse for Mariilyn Monroe, and that’s where my tolerance wavered. I had has a reveal that twists the knife further, and it turned me off the last minutes of the film entirely. So as someone who doesn’t know much about her, it isn’t exactly a flattering portrayal. If you’re a fan of her in some capacity, I imagine that this would be very difficult to watch.

That being said, I had heard lots of these criticisms before going in. So I decided to try to view this version of Norma Jeane/Marilyn Monroe as if she was a fictional character. I do see what Andrew Dominik is going for with Blonde, he’s going for a tragic portrait of a rising and falling star, of someone that Hollywood and everyone used, abused and spit right now. We first see Norma Jeane in her childhood and it highlighted things which would stick with her throughout the rest of her life. Then when it jumps from childhood to adulthood, it’s very startling and strange. Her rise to fame is jarringly fast, and it feels like it skipped past some critical moments and details. There are multiple threads relating to Norma which Dominik goes for, but there is a real lack of depth and it feels very shallow. The approach to these aspects are very obvious, and that continues to the dialogue too. It comes across as pretentious at points, especially when they state the obvious over and over again. One notable thread is how there is a difference between Norma Jeane the real person and Marilyn Monroe the star. It is conveyed by some very on the nose dialogue, for example, Norma talks to her mother about Marilyn Monroe rising in popularity and says “I guess there isn’t any Norma Jeane”. Blonde also emphasizes the way that men look at Marilyn, her relationships with men, and how men abuse and take advantage of her. By that it usually just has men treat her horribly and have more on the nose dialogue like “Am I meat to be delivered?” . Norma not knowing her father is a massive part of the movie, introduced at the start and carried through to the end. She is constantly searching for him and holds onto any little bit of hope that he’s still out there. Dominik also conveys this by having Monroe refer to her husbands as “Daddy” (and you’ll be hearing that word a lot in the movie). The repetitive and grim nature only makes the nearly 3 hour runtime unbearable and tedious. If it was cut down to 90 minutes, it wouldn’t be missing any key moments or details that would take away from the main points, because Dominik doesn’t give it that much depth.

There are some good performances, with standouts in the supporting cast being Bobby Cannavale and Adrien Brody, and they bring believability and nuance to their characters. However the star of the movie is Ana de Armas as Norma Jeane/Marilyn Monroe. The best thing I can say about de Armas is that she gives a very committed performance. She gives little glimpses of further humanity, and there are opportunities where she gets to shine. However, the script mostly calls for her to be fragile, to cry, and be abused. It really doesn’t help that her character isn’t fully formed. This brings me to the key problem with Blonde: it is hard to get a clear idea of the character. It paints Norma as a tragic figure, someone with traumas and who is abused by so many people. However, there is nothing else to say about her, there are only a couple times where she is shown to have any personal drive or motivations. Despite the movie being in her psyche for a few hours, I didn’t understand her beyond the surface level. There are moments which I can tell would’ve hit harder if I was right there with Marilyn, but we are distanced and disconnected from her. Other tragedies on film like Diana Spencer in Spencer (a fictional take on a real person) or Laura Palmer in Twin Peaks (a fictional character) gives their subjects a clearly defined character. Blonde does not do that with Norma Jeane/Marilyn Monroe.

Andrew Dominik directs Blonde, and he certainly has a unique vision for the film. It’s directed incredibly well on a visual level. The cinematography is stunning with some compelling imagery, and there are some interesting camera techniques. On the editing front, it does make some unique choices, the aspect ratio and colours change often, and there are some creative transitions. Dominik is also great at making scenes feel uneasy, with much of the movie having a very nightmarish and dreamlike feeling. This is only helped further by the excellent, melancholic, and haunting score from Nick Cave and Warren Ellis. That’s not to say that all the technical and directing choices were good. As said before, some of the handling of the sex and rape scenes were in bad taste, whether it be what it showed or how long they went for. Other stuff like the aforementioned CGI fetus imagery is terrible, even with context.

After reading all the negative takes on Blonde, I made a strong effort to meet the movie halfway. There are some good aspects; some of Andrew Dominik’s direction is at least interesting; the cinematography is stunning, and the score is amazing. Additionally the performances are solid, or at least committed. With that said, even if you were to remove the uncomfortable portrayal of Marilyn Monroe, I don’t think Dominik’s take on this story succeeded. It lacks the depth and nuance that it sorely needed, and while I tried to not focus on it too much in the review, the feeling that its subject was being exploited really doesn’t help matters. I’m not really sure that I could recommend it, but I guess if you know what you’re going into, maybe it’s worth checking out. If you’re hoping for a Marilyn Monroe biopic though, Blonde is the last place you should look.

Till (2022) Review

Time: 130 Minutes
Cast:
Danielle Deadwyler as Mamie Till
Jalyn Hall as Emmett Till
Frankie Faison as John Carthan
Haley Bennett as Carolyn Bryant
Whoopi Goldberg as Alma Carthan
Director: Chinonye Chukwu

The true story of Mamie Till-Mobley’s relentless pursuit of justice for her 14-year-old son, Emmett Till, who was brutally lynched in 1955 while visiting his cousins in Mississippi.

I’ve been hearing a bit about this movie, mainly from hearing that it was getting some awards attention. I heard that it’s about the murder of Emmett Till in the 1950s; while it could’ve easily been mishandled, it ended up being a devastating but necessary and well made movie.

Some people might be a bit reluctant to watch this movie, understandably so. On top of it being about a tragedy like this, plenty are tired of movies focussing on black people’s suffering, especially in the past decade. For what its worth though, I wouldn’t put Till in that category. Its respectful and tasteful to the true-life events as much as possible and treats it with the thoughtfulness it deserves. They could’ve gone the graphic route by showing Emmett Till being killed on screen, but the film just show the lead up to his death and the aftermath, while his death is kept offscreen. It also serves the movie better, capturing the emotions of his mother Mamie Till rather than focussing deeply on the brutality inflicted on him. It is very much a character driven movie as it follows Mamie as she’s going through all this. At first it takes time to establish Emmett and Mamie’s life in Chicago before he goes to Mississippi, then after his disappearance and then death, it focuses on her search for justice. Till is painful to watch but affecting and moving. There are times where the movie can be slow, mainly in the second half, but the majority of the slower pacing works well enough.

The story is really led by the performances, each actor delivers a convincing performance that leaves an impression on you, no matter how small their screentime might be. Of course, the highlight is Danielle Deadwyler who is great as Mamie Till, and delivers a powerhouse performance. She has you invested in her fight and delivers a genuine and sensitive portrayal of grief and conviction. The rest of the performances are also top notch, including Whoopi Goldberg, Jalyn Hall, Frankie Faison, Jayme Lawson and Haley Bennett.

The direction from Chinonye Chukwu is great. It is very well shot, and there are even some stylistically interesting things that are done here. Abel Korzeniowski’s score was great too, making already powerful scenes even more powerful. However, probably the most distinctive directing choices had to do with what Chukwu decided to show and not show, which was very important. As previously mentioned, they concealed certain things so as to not be exploitative, but doesn’t shy away from the brutality of it all.

Till is a hard hitting and affecting movie which sensitively tells its real life story, and benefits from the excellent performances, especially from Danielle Deadwyler. It is definitely a hard watch, but I think it is worth seeing.

Weird: The Al Yankovic Story (2022) Review

Time: 108 Minutes
Cast:
Daniel Radcliffe as Alfred “Weird Al” Yankovic
Evan Rachel Wood as Madonna
Rainn Wilson as Dr. Demento
Director: Eric Appel

A fashion model celebrity couple join an eventful cruise for the super-rich.

Triangle of Sadness was on my list of 2022 movies to catch up on. I had been hearing about it; I knew that was that it was a satire on the rich, involved a luxury yacht, and starred Woody Harrelson. Most notable however was the fact that it won the Palme D’or at the Cannes Film Festival. The reactions to the movie also interested me, considering it was mostly positive but not everyone was on board with it. While Triangle of Sadness does have its issues and I don’t love it, I am glad that I saw it.

I won’t go into too much detail about the plot, as many other summaries and reviews disclose a bit too much about it. It goes in some wild directions and it is best experienced for yourself if you decide to see it. What I can say is that the movie is very much the opposite of what subtle is. It is a bombastic and absurdist satire about the rich and isn’t subtle about its themes at all. It covers elitism, the rich, class, social roles, and power structures. There isn’t any subtext and is very on the nose, but I’m not against that. It is also entertaining and enjoyable, and most of the dark comedy really hits. The middle act involving the yacht was solid, the cast get to bounce off each other and that was the funniest portion of the film for me. That being said, Triangle of Sadness is very flawed. As far as satires on the rich (or “eat the rich films”) go, it doesn’t say anything new. That isn’t inherently bad, but there is a self satisfied vibe to it at times that can get a little grating at points. Triangle of Sadness is a long movie at around 2 hours and 30 minutes long and you certainly felt the length, not helped by the uneven pacing. I do blame the last third of the movie for this. While the first act is decent and the second act is really good, the third act was a bit aimless. I was wondering where it was going, and not necessarily in a good way. It wasn’t as interesting or entertaining compared to what came before, and so it felt a bit of a slog. It certainly doesn’t help that this portion is around an hour long. Not only that, but I felt that there was a lot that wasn’t resolved or fully developed by the end despite the length of the film, and so it didn’t feel very satisfying.

The characters are for the most part blatantly unlikable, yet are all the more compelling because of that, and makes the dark comedy work a lot better as they are forced into certain situations. It helps that the performances from the cast are strong. Harris Dickinson and the late Charlbi Dean are the closest thing to the lead characters and they are great in this. I wish they had more of a focus in the movie; they are seemingly established as the protagonists in the first act, but over time its like they are forgotten about. Still, both are good in their roles. Everyone else plays their parts excellently, but there are a few standouts. Zlatko Buric is great, while Dolly de Leon particularly shines in the third act. Woody Harrelson also plays the marxist drunk captain of the yacht who is highly entertaining whenever he’s on screen. Honestly the movie would’ve benefited if he was in it more, certainly would’ve made the third act more enjoyable.

Ruben Östlund’s direction is solid, in fact I’d actually say that his direction is stronger than the writing. The cinematography is stunning and the camerawork is excellent. There are some very memorable sequences, one of which is a gross bodily fluid sequence which is perhaps a bit too long, but lingers in the mind nonetheless. Additionally, the use of music is good and fitting.

Triangle of Sadness is a lengthy and messy, but darkly comedic and entertaining satire, well directed and with some great performances. I do wish it was better and it certainly has its flaws, mainly with the writing and particularly the third act. But if you’re open to absurdist satirical comedy, I think it’s worth a watch.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) Review

Time: 83 Minutes
Cast:
Michael Rooker as Henry
Tom Towles as Otis
Tracy Arnold as Becky
Director: John McNaughton

Henry (Michael Rooker) is released from prison following his mother’s murder. He supplements his job as an exterminator with a series of indiscriminate and violent murders. Fellow jailbird and drug dealer Otis (Tom Towles) becomes a willing accomplice in Henry’s bloody killings. But as the depravity escalates and Henry forms a bond with Otis’ sister, Becky (Tracy Arnold), things start to get out of hand. The film is based on the true-life story of serial killer Henry Lee Lucas.

I heard some things about Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. It’s a movie from the 80s where Michael Rooker played the lead role of a serial killer named (in apparently his best role to date), and it was extremely controversial, leading it to be censored and banned in many places. I did hear some positive things about it though, so I decided to check it out. I do think it is good, even though its very much not one I would ever want to go back to

This movie is essentially the examination and portrayal of a psychopath and serial killer, focussing on protagonist Henry as he kills random people without any remorse or empathy. There doesn’t seem to be a point to these senseless killings, but that in itself seems to be the point. The film doesn’t dig deep into motivations or reasons for the killings, but I thought that it worked for the movie. From the very beginning, it establishes an uneasy tone and never lets up. There is very little humanity here; the only shred of empathy is in the form of a character played by Tracy Arnold. While I found myself locked in watching this movie, I will say that nothing substantial really happens with the plot. It’s a good thing that it is only 83 minutes long then, it might’ve suffered had it been any longer. There are some terrible and poor dialogue at times, but the roughness and rawness of the film’s approach does make it work in way, more so than if it was in a more polished movie. The story culminates with a very dark, bleak and chilling ending that lingers in the mind long after watching.

The role of Henry is played by Michael Rooker, in what is quite possibly his best performance yet. He is outstanding, compelling to watch and unsettling, with a subtle menace to him. Despite his character being clearly a serial killer, Rooker makes him someone you are willing to follow (at least initially). He makes him more complex, and you are interested in seeing his interactions with other people. Some of the acting from the rest off the cast aren’t that good. However, much like the dialogue, with the tone combined with the realism, it worked.

This movie is directed by John McNaughton and his work here really made it work. As said before, this film is low budget and it certainly looks like it, throughout it feels very dirty and raw. Its raw and grimy appearance gives it a sense of realism, helped by the 16mm cinematography and the grainy look. It almost makes it look like a documentary riding around with Henry. Additionally, it makes use of real locations and settings that give the story an added sense of realism, only making it more disturbing. Considering that this is a movie about a serial killer, a surprising number of the murders take place off screen and we usually see the aftermath, but they are no less impactful (or perhaps it makes them more impactful that way). The violence feels unsettlingly real with the movie never revelling in it, and the ominous tone and never lets you feel comfortable.

Watching Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, I can definitely see why it caused such controversy at the time. It is uncomfortable to watch and not for everyone, however I found it a compelling watch, and it is at least admirable with how uncompromising it is. While the writing and direction is very rough around the edges, that helped the movie succeed as well as it did, along with a strong lead performance from Michael Rooker.

Thirteen Lives (2022) Review

Time: 147 Minutes
Cast:
Viggo Mortensen as Richard Stanton
Colin Farrell as John Volanthen
Joel Edgerton as Richard Harris
Tom Bateman as Chris Jewell
Director: Ron Howard

A rescue mission is assembled in Thailand where a group of young boys and their soccer coach are trapped in a system of underground caves that are flooding.

I remember hearing the story of the rescue of a youth soccer team in a cave in Thailand back in 2018, and its no surprise that a movie would end up being made based on it. That eventually resulted in one such film directed by Ron Howard. I haven’t seen the documentary about the same event called The Rescue which came out a year earlier, but I liked Thirteen Lives.

Thirteen Lives is well scripted, the story is simple and is told in a straightforward way. I only knew the very basics of the real story, so some of the reveals and directions the story went in did genuinely surprise me, especially with the methods the divers took to rescue the people from the cave. While it is a dramatization and certain moments might’ve been added in just to raise the tension, it keeps any added melodrama to a minimum. The story didn’t need additional work and speaks for itself. Despite knowing the outcome of the story, the stakes felt high and it was compelling watching everyone come together in an effort to try to save all those lives. There isn’t a lot of character development, as a result I do think that it doesn’t quite have the emotional impact that it is aiming for. This is a long movie at 2 hours and 30 minutes long, and while I was invested in what is going on, it does admittedly overstay its welcome a bit, and is a bit too long.

One of the strongest aspects was the great acting. Colin Farrell and Viggo Mortensen are great as the cave divers from the UK who try to rescue the boys. The rest of the cast are strong from (an especially great) Joel Edgerton, Tom Bateman, and everyone else, down to the actors who play the kids trapped in the cave.

Ron Howard directs this movie very well and he especially succeeds at making everything feel effectively tense. The cave diving scenes are some of the highlights of the movie, well shot, riveting and claustrophobic. There is some impressive underwater camera work and great sound design that makes you feel like you’re right there with the divers as they navigate the dark and cramped caves. I can’t speak as to how it was in real life, but it certainly felt authentic. Its also helped by the score from a solid score from an ever reliable Benjamin Wallfisch.

Thirteen Lives is a solid thriller and admirable retelling of the true events. It may be a little too long and the lack of characterisation does take away from the movie somewhat, but on the whole its really good, with the straightforward storytelling, strong performances, and Ron Howard’s direction. Worth checking out.

Elvis (2022) Review

Time: 159 Minutes
Age Rating: Drug use
Cast:
Austin Butler as Elvis Presley
Tom Hanks as Col. Tom Parker
Olivia DeJonge as Priscilla Presley
Helen Thomson as Gladys Presley
Richard Roxburgh as Vernon Presley
Director: Baz Luhrmann

Elvis Presley rises to fame in the 1950s while maintaining a complex relationship with his manager, Colonel Tom Parker.

Elvis was a movie that intrigued me leading up to its release. I’ve only seen three of Baz Luhrmann’s movies, I enjoyed his divisive adaptation of The Great Gatsby, but straight up disliked Moulin Rogue and Romeo + Juliet (which are generally liked by people). I just couldn’t get into his style and while I liked some aspects, Baz seemed to be just a filmmaker whose style just wasn’t for me. Then after a very long time since his last released movie, it was announced that he would be making a new movie, that being a biopic of Elvis Presley. I’m not big on music biopics and I’m not big on Baz’s movies but somehow them being combined intrigued me greatly. I was curious to see how Luhrmann would approach it and at the very least, he would provide the movie with a distinct style within a subgenre that’s generally repetitive and dull. So I’m happy to say that I ended up liking Elvis far more than I thought I would.

I wasn’t familiar with Elvis Presley beyond a few of his songs, so I wasn’t sure what to expect from the movie, overall I was satisfied with what we got. During its first act I wasn’t sure about how I would feel about the film, it was just leaving us to come to grips with Baz’s style. That being said, I feel like the movie hit its stride after 30 minutes. At this point we really see Elvis, his upbringing, and his rise to fame. The movie does contain music biopic tropes in the sense that it has familiar rise and fall aspects, but that is just about impossible to avoid when the movie is based on the subject’s true life. Elvis isn’t the most complex of music biopics, there is certainly more emphasis on the spectacle and getting the spirit of Elvis. But for what it is, it works. I much prefer the movie capturing the spirit of Elvis over feeling like a Wikipedia page converted into a movie. The film really doesn’t have much of a structure; it more feels like a bunch of events and sections of Elvis’s life strung together and relying on the audience to be riding the high of the vibe. If I watched it again, I’m not sure I would enjoy it as much, but on my first viewing I liked it. It helps that there is a contagious and consistent energy throughout. I also found myself engaged with what was happening with the story, I even found myself emotionally invested. There are some questionable choices with the way that Baz Luhrmann decided to tell the story. These help to make the movie interesting at least (and distinct compared to the other music biopics out there), but there are still parts which I wasn’t entirely on board with. Probably the weirdest choice is the way the story is presented. From the beginning, it is narrated by Elvis’s manager Colonel Tom Parker as he presents his side of the story, and it’s like this throughout. It is an intriguing narrative decision, but I’m not really sure what the point of it was by the end. If Luhrmann were that insistent on having a narrator, I would’ve preferred it to be a random unknown person instead of making it Hanks. It is a very long movie at 2 hours and 40 minutes long, and in some ways, it pays off as it is trying to tell 42 years of Elvis’s life. But with Baz’s style, it can be an admittedly overwhelming and exhausting experience.

One of the best parts of the movie, if not the best part is Austin Butler as Elvis Presley, who is absolutely fantastic. He fully embodies the Elvis persona from beginning to end, with the movements, mannerisms and lines. Not only does he talk and sing like Elvis, but he also captures his essence well. He also shows such range; even though the movie could be very theatrical and flashy, the movie slows down at times to provide Butler moments to really shine with dramatic scenes. It was also interesting seeing Austin Butler evolve and grow older as Elvis did. Other actors are good including Olivia DeJonge, Helen Thomson and Richard Roxburgh who provide good supporting work. There is one other key actor alongside Austin Butler which I haven’t talked about yet, and that is Tom Hanks as Colonel Tom Parker. Elvis may have had raving reactions when it was first shown at the Cannes Film Festival, but the one aspect that not everyone was on board with was Hanks’s performance. Having seen the movie, I can see why. I’m not sure I’d say that it’s a bad performance because Hanks certainly sells the sleaze aspect and its one of the rare times where he plays a villain. That being said, it is a strong contender for Tom Hanks’s most questionable acting work ever. He’s very cartoonish and evil, it’s like he was playing the role like a typical Baz Luhrmann villain (see Richard Roxburgh in Moulin Rouge for reference) than a real-life person. I guess that might work in some respects, but it has its issues. It’s a bit jarring when most of the other characters are fairly grounded especially Butler’s Elvis, the latter is giving a very realistic and believable performance, whereas Hanks is very close to morphing into a cartoon villain at many points. Its worth noting that if you dislike his performance, you might have a hard time with the film considering that he serves at the narrator.

This is a Baz Luhrmann movie, and his style is very much not for everyone, you love it or you hate it. The frantic camera movements and editing can be a bit in your face. As for me, its hit or miss, but for whatever reason, it worked this time for me. I have heard some people say that it is Baz at his fullest Baz, and I’m not disputing that. It was a real experience watching it in the cinema, from the over the top and dazzling visuals to the loud sounds and music, it actually felt like you were in a concert. The musical  sequences were very entertaining to watch, Baz particularly excels here. Occasionally there will be the odd modern song which feels out of place here, but that’s to be expected given the director. Admittedly the movie can be overwhelming at times, especially toward the end I felt quite worn down and tired from the whole thing. For what its worth though, this might be the director’s most accessible film.

Elvis was pleasantly surprising. It is another music biopic with some of the typical failings, and it can also be a bit overlong, messy and exhausting at times. However, it is made energetic, chaotic and entertaining with Baz Luhrmann’s stylish and fast paced direction. Not to mention, I was actually engaged with the story. Even if you’re like me and don’t generally vibe with Baz’s style I do think it’s worth checking out, at the very least for Austin Butler’s excellent performance as Elvis Presley. As far as music biopics go, this is likely among the best.

Serpico (1973) Review

Time: 130 Minutes
Age Rating: contains offensive language
Cast:
Al Pacino as Frank Serpico
Director: Sidney Lumet

Frank Serpico (Al Pacino) is an idealistic New York City cop who refuses to take bribes, unlike the rest of the force. His actions get Frank shunned by the other officers, and often placed in dangerous situations by his partners. When his superiors ignore Frank’s accusations of corruption, he decides to go public with the allegations. Although this causes the Knapp Commission to investigate his claims, Frank has also placed a target on himself. The film is based on a true story.

I heard a lot about Serpico going into it, it’s a highly praised movie about the real-life story of a police officer who is going up against police corruption. The film is directed by Sidney Lumet and stars Al Pacino in the lead role of Frank Serpico. The movie certainly lived up to the acclaim that its being receiving.

This biopic covers the years of 1960 to 1972 and retraces Frank Serpico’s undercover career as he tries to clear corruption from the police force, while coming up against roadblocks and people who want him out of the way. The script is tight and absorbing, the story is told in a very real way, and it had me engaged throughout. Its actually incredible that its an biopic it doesn’t get bogged down by melodrama, its essentially a character study of a man trying his best to change a system that has no inclination to change. There is a real sense of doom and danger throughout its runtime, even when you know that Serpico is still alive by the end of the movie. His stance against police corruption made him a target for his fellow officers, and you really feel his paranoia and stress along with him. The script remained largely focussed on the real life issues at hand, and a lot of these topics are still relevant all these decades later. Serpico can be a frustrating movie to watch, but definitely in a good way, you get really invested in Serpico’s efforts. The movie can be a little slow at times, but it handles the 130 minute runtime well considering that there are multiple events, storylines and characters it has to cover and follow.

Al Pacino is brilliant in the lead role of Frank Serpico, a good cop caught in a bad system. Despite it being a biopic about him, Serpico not portrayed as a saint or a martyr. He’s shown to be quite flawed, conflicted, and is very compelling to watch. Pacino gives a charismatic and empathetic performance here, and he really conveyed the stress and strain the character is under. His performance also doesn’t feel overplayed for dramatic effect, it feels very real and authentic. The supporting cast all do a good job in assisting Pacino, but make no mistake, he is the star of the show here.

The direction from Sidney Lumet is fantastic as expected. It’s very well shot and edited, and it all feels very real and grounded, doing particularly well at setting itself in 1970s New York. The score also adds to the atmosphere, its quiet and mellow and really fits the movie quite well. I even like how the passage of time is conveyed through Serpico’s hair length.

Serpico is a very well crafted biopic and crime drama. The story of its title character was compelling to watch, Sidney Lumet’s direction is great, and of course Al Pacino gives a phenomenal performance here, some of his very best work. I wouldn’t say it quite measures up to some of Lumet’s other movies like Dog Day Afternoon or 12 Angry Men, but it is still a great movie and one that is worth checking out.

Being the Ricardos (2021) Review

Time: 131 minutes
Cast:
Nicole Kidman as Lucille Ball
Javier Bardem as Desi Arnaz
J.K. Simmons as William Frawley
Nina Arianda as Vivian Vance
Tony Hale as Jess Oppenheimer
Alia Shawkat as Madelyn Pugh
Jake Lacy as Bob Carroll Jr.
Clark Gregg as Howard Wenke
Director: Aaron Sorkin

In 1952, Hollywood power couple Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz face personal and professional obstacles that threaten their careers, their relationship, and their hit television show.

Being the Ricardos was a upcoming major awards contender that I had been hearing about for a while. I will admit though that despite not knowing much about it outside of some of the people involved, I was a little sceptical going in. First of all, it was a biopic movie focussing on notable film/tv people, and the movie looked like prime Oscar bait. Also the movie is written and directed by Aaron Sorkin, whose work could be a mixed bag at times, especially when it comes to whatever he directs. Still, it received Oscar nominations for the performances from Nicole Kidman, Javier Bardem and J.K. Simmons, so I thought I should check it out, and went into it open minded. Unfortunately, I just don’t think that the movie was particularly good.

I should state first of all that I am not familiar with Lucille Ball, Desi Arnaz or the show I Love Lucy, and went into this movie quite blind. However, even as someone who didn’t know of the subjects beforehand, I just didn’t find the film all that interesting, and I found it fairly dull. If the story of Lucille and Desi in real life was interesting, it certainly didn’t survive being compressed and repackaged into the biopic formula. The story of the movie follows Lucille and Desi over one stressful week, it seems simple enough but somehow the storytelling is very flawed here. The story as it was told just felt so disjointed, while the series of events play out over this particular week, it jumps across multiple points in time with an overreliance on flashbacks and flashforwards which muddles everything. To give context to all these events messily crammed into this movie, characters spent a lot of time stating facts about each other or clunkily discussing historical and cultural elements. For whatever reason, there is this present-day faux documentary framing device running throughout the movie where older versions of the three lead show writers for I Love Lucy are being interviewed. Every so often, the movie would just cut to these talking head mouthpieces, and every time this happened, it would be so disruptive and annoying. The dialogue was already on the nose and obvious, but the fact that they practically spoonfeed us the story by flat out telling us what is happening, it almost feels patronising. Count the number of times you hear “what you’ve got to understand is…” from one character alone.

Even as someone who aren’t familiar with the true life events, there’s some handling of the history that felt very off. The prime example is this inconsequential aspect where Lucille Ball is rumoured to be a communist. Even within the plot of the movie, it plays a very small part, but from the very beginning of the film it is fixated and focused on so much, to a quite frankly weird degree. You really get the feeling that this is getting into the writer’s own politics over the actual true events. The way that subplot is resolved towards the end in a scene with Javier Bardem on a phone call in front of an audience is hilariously absurd and ludicrous. I didn’t really learn anything from this storyline, the only thing that I can say coming out of it is that I’m confident that Aaron Sorkin would’ve been a supporter of the Hollywood Blacklist. Speaking of Sorkin, you can definitely feel that it’s a movie from him, and I mean that in a bad way. You really do feel like he’s really going for an Oscar here, and it somehow makes the movie even worse. His scripts always seem to have this self-perception of cleverness but it is especially grating here, the faux documentary framing device being an example of one of his decisions that make it harder to watch. Even when you put all of that aside, I just found myself so unengaged by the film as it progresses through the events. I couldn’t be emotionally engaged with the characters, and there was nothing keeping me invested in the story. There was just something dispassionate and underwhelming about the whole experience.

I would love to say that the acting elevates the movie. While it’s the best part of the movie, its not enough to save the movie. The acting is mostly decent, but much of the cast feel like they are playing caricatures rather than real people. Nicole Kidman is pretty good as Lucille Ball, even if it definitely doesn’t rank amongst her best performances. I will say that annoyingly with the writing she’s given, Lucille does feel like another ‘Sorkin protagonist’, much like how Sorkin wrote Steve Jobs and Abbie Hoffman. To Kidman’s credit though, she comes across as being a fully formed human, especially in contrast to the other actors. It’s just that there weren’t any times throughout the film where I felt that it was anything beyond a decent performance. Javier Bardem is the co-lead in this as Desi Arnaz. He’s fine enough, but like Kidman, its definitely not one of his best performances. Questionable casting choice aside, he is a bit of a caricature and is very hammy. Definitely not bland or boring, but nothing great. The chemistry between Kidman and Bardem just wasn’t there, which is a big mark against it considering that the relationship between the two people was a key part of the movie. J.K. Simmons and Nina Arianda are serviceable in their supporting roles, but don’t get much to do with the writing that they are given.

Being the Ricardos is directed by Aaron Sorkin, and this film is further proof that Sorkin is at his best when his scripts are directed by anyone else. While the direction is competent, its done so blandly and lacks any kind of personality, especially on a visual level. Even his last two movies had more to them. The costumes, hair, makeup, presentation is nothing special, everything feels like they’re on autopilot.

I’m sure that the actual story of these people is quite interesting. However, what is presented here is a functional but uninteresting, bland and occasionally grating to watch biopic that fails to engage, from the writing through to the direction. Even the performances aren’t good enough to elevate the movie beyond an average biopic. I’d only recommend this movie to people who want to catch up on the Oscar nominations from this most recent awards season. For what it’s worth, Being the Ricardos was by far the worst movie of this year’s Oscar season that I’ve seen.