Death on the Nile (2022) Review

Time: 127 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence
Cast:
Tom Bateman as Bouc
Annette Bening as Euphemia
Kenneth Branagh as Hercule Poirot
Russell Brand as Linus Windlesham
Ali Fazal as Andrew Katchadourian
Dawn French as Mrs. Bowers
Gal Gadot as Linnet Ridgeway-Doyle
Armie Hammer as Simon Doyle
Rose Leslie as Louise Bourget
Emma Mackey as Jacqueline “Jackie” de Bellefort
Sophie Okonedo as Salome Otterbourne
Jennifer Saunders as Marie Van Schuyler
Letitia Wright as Rosalie Otterbourne
Director: Kenneth Branagh

Belgian sleuth Hercule Poirot’s Egyptian vacation aboard a glamorous river steamer turns into a terrifying search for a murderer when a picture-perfect couple’s idyllic honeymoon is tragically cut short.

I will admit myself as someone who liked Kenneth Branagh’s take on Murder on the Orient Express, even if it had its issues. So I was on board for Branagh’s next adaptation of a Hercule Poirot story with Death on the Nile. I didn’t really know what to expect going in, I just knew of the cast and premise. However it just kept being delayed for a number of years, and I began to lose interest. It finally released and again it opened to mixed reactions and again I enjoyed it, even with its issues.

Death on the Nile isn’t a great detective mystery film, but its pretty good for what it was. For me, the clearest issue was that the death at the centre of the mystery doesn’t happen till the halfway point, whereas in Murder on the Orient Express it happened by the end of the first act. While Death on the Nile gives us a considerable amount of time with the characters before the murder happens especially in contrast to the last movie, it’s a bit too much. There’s a long boat ride before it reaches that one death, and I couldn’t help but feel rather bored. When that death does finally happen, that’s where Death on the Nile really picks up as our lead detective tries to unravel the mystery. I was locked in and interested to see the twists and turns. However, I will say that the climax did feel a bit rushed. Also as someone who hadn’t read the book, with the way its presented in the movie, the twist was very easy to predict. One thing you’ll probably notice when watching the movie is that it might be taking itself a little too seriously. The previous movie also took itself seriously but there was lot more fun to be had with it. Here, it’s pretty dark from beginning to end and I’m not sure it always works, even if there’s little bits of humour. Even the ending was a bit of a downer. There are certainly some strange choices but I kind of admire them in a way. For example, there is an actual origin story for Poirot’s moustache in the prologue that’s played deadly seriously and honestly that could be a litmus test for whether the movie works for you or not. Also, like Orient Express (2017), there’s definitely a lot of cheesy, campy and over the top elements but I enjoyed those, if anything I wished it leaned into those elements more here.

On the whole the cast is pretty good, even if they aren’t as strong as the cast from Murder on the Orient Express. Kenneth Branagh reprises his role as detective Hercule Poirot to perfection, and has great chemistry with the whole cast. Again, he plays the character in a humorous and entertaining way but we also get to see more of his dramatic side here, and Branagh plays it well. The cast of murder suspects are fairly generic here, but the acting was pretty good for the most part. Tom Bateman’s Bouc is the only cast member from the last movie to return outside of Branagh, and he gets even more to do more here. A lot of the cast members were good, with the highlights being Annette Bening, Emma Mackey and Sophie Okonedo. Gal Gadot and Armie Hammer were the worst performers, but they weren’t enough to take me out of the movie entirely.

I liked Kenneth Branagh’s direction of the previous Poirot movie and the same is true with Nile. The cinematography is dazzling and impressive, every shot is colourful and pristine, especially with the scenes on the Nile and on real location. However the CGI is very noticeable and distracting at times, and there is a lot of CGI. Patrick Doyle also returns to do the score and it is good, matching the vibe and setting of the movie quite well.

As someone who liked Kenneth Branagh’s Murder on the Orient Express, I enjoyed his Death on the Nile almost as much. It has a decent cast with an intriguing murder mystery, and a very flashy style that I enjoyed, even if you wouldn’t put it among the best films in its genre. Overall it’s a solid if slightly unremarkable bit of detective fiction. However, I will say that the hour long build up to the central murder really let the movie down quite a bit, but I still enjoyed it for what it was. If you liked Branagh’s last Poirot movie, then I recommend giving his adaptation of Death on the Nile a look.

Advertisement

The Social Network (2010) Review

Time: 109 Minutes
Age Rating: Offensive language
Cast:
Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg
Andrew Garfield as Eduardo Saverin
Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker
Armie Hammer as Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss
Max Minghella as Divya Narendra
Brenda Song as Christy Lee
Rashida Jones as Marylin Delpy
Rooney Mara as Erica Albright
Director: David Fincher

In 2003, Harvard undergrad and computer genius Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) begins work on a new concept that eventually turns into the global social network known as Facebook. Six years later, he is one of the youngest billionaires ever, but Zuckerberg finds that his unprecedented success leads to both personal and legal complications when he ends up on the receiving end of two lawsuits, one involving his former friend (Andrew Garfield). Based on the book “The Accidental Billionaires.”

A story about Facebook could easily be done poorly. It doesn’t sound very interesting on paper and even if it could be pulled off decently enough, it doesn’t seem like it could be anything better than just good. And yet The Social Network is more than just a decent movie, it is truly great and better than anyone would expect it to be. David Fincher, Aaron Sorkin and the talented cast and crew made the story of Facebook riveting and fantastic, it’s even better upon a second viewing and I suspect it will only get better with further watches.

Aaron Sorkin’s screenplay is excellent and one of the stand out best parts of the film, and that’s saying a lot. The dialogue is so well written, very sharp, memorable, riveting and fits perfectly for the moments, Sorkin is known for his exceptional dialogue and his work on Social Network is no exception. It is fantastic from the beginning, the opening scene between Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) and Erica Albright (Rooney Mara) is brilliant and helps establish so many things about Mark and it sets him off on his path for the rest of the movie. It’s interesting watching all the events progress, and how things in Mark Zuckerberg’s life would lead him to make actions to take Facebook further. You wouldn’t think that a movie about Facebook would be so interesting and entertaining to watch but it really is, you are genuinely on board with everything that’s happening. It’s like we are right there watching history happen right alongside these characters. What Mark started was something small and grew into something that not even Mark was expecting. Really fantastic writing by Sorkin.

The cast all around were great in their roles. I’m fully aware that some people don’t really like Jesse Eisenberg’s acting style but he was perfect in the role of Mark Zuckerberg. The portrayal of Zuckerberg is great, it doesn’t try to make you like him, just to show what he is like. Andrew Garfield is also really great as Mark’s friend and business partner Eduardo Saverin and his performance was really overlooked, especially by the awards. A big part of the movie is their friendship and they have great chemistry together. Armie Hammer plays two people as the Winklevosses (Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss) and really does give one of his best performances here, being really convincing as two twins. Even Justin Timberlake was really good as Sean Parker, really fitting the role well. Rooney Mara is only in a couple scenes but she does well to leave an impression as Mark’s ex-girlfriend, especially in the first scene of the film. Really everyone was great.

Saying that David Fincher’s direction is great would be redundant, it’s just so stylish and well put together. You wouldn’t think that a movie about Facebook would even need to look that great. On paper, The Social Network just sounded like it needed a good script and an okay direction but Fincher’s handle really adds a lot to the movie. I don’t know where Fincher used all the visual effects in this movie, but he generally uses these in his movies to make things look better like the environment or background. One effect that you can tell was used was the effects for making two Armie Hammers, and I say this because Armie Hammer doesn’t have a twin or a clone (that we know of yet at least). Even though it’s a film from 2010, these effects still really hold up well today and look effortless. The score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross was excellent, and with it’s dark ambience really elevated this movie even further.

The Social Network is truly fantastic and yet another one of David Fincher’s all time best films, and that means quite a lot when it comes to him. The talented cast all give tremendous performances, Aaron Sorkin’s writing is top notch, and Fincher with his work here has made one of his best crafted films. It gets better every single time I watch it. As for all these talks about a possible Social Network sequel, as long as Fincher and Sorkin are returning for it, I’d be more than on board for it.

Sorry to Bother You (2018) Review

Time: 111 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence, drug use, sexual material, offensive language & content that may disturb
Cast:
Lakeith Stanfield as Cassius “Cash” Green
David Cross as Cash’s “white voice”
Tessa Thompson as Detroit
Jermaine Fowler as Salvador
Omari Hardwick as Mr. _______
Patton Oswalt as Mr. _______’s white voice
Terry Crews as Sergio Green
Danny Glover as Langston
Steven Yeun as Squeeze
Armie Hammer as Steve Lift
Director: Boots Reilly

In an alternate reality of present-day Oakland, Calif., telemarketer Cassius Green (Lakeith Stanfield) finds himself in a macabre universe after he discovers a magical key that leads to material glory. As Green’s career begins to take off, his friends and co-workers organize a protest against corporate oppression. Cassius soon falls under the spell of Steve Lift (Armie Hammer), a cocaine-snorting CEO who offers him a salary beyond his wildest dreams.

I had been hearing some buzz for Sorry to Bother You for a while. A lot of people have been proclaiming it one of the best of the year, while it polarised a lot of other people. I didn’t watch any of the trailers, I just knew that basic plot and some of the cast involved and that was it, so going in I wasn’t really sure what to expect. Sorry to Bother You is one of the most original films of the year that will work for some and won’t work for others. Its full of ideas, entertaining, and is mostly well put together.

You have to watch Sorry to Bother You as an absurdist dark comedy, you can’t take lots of the movie as literal. So much of the movie is satirical, and a lot of the satire is blatant rather than subtle but it still somehow works. Thematically there’s a lot going on (which you’ll see for yourself), maybe a little too much, like writer/director Boots Reilly wanted to cover a lot and maybe he chose to do too much. Though I think it works well enough. I think it would be a disservice to reveal some of the things that happen in the movie (and plus it benefits not knowing much going in), so I’ll keep it as vague as possible. The whole thing about the lead character becoming successful as a telemarketer by putting on a ‘white voice’ is pretty much just covering the first act. Even when odd things were happening in the first and second acts, it wasn’t full out crazy yet. Where that changed was in the third act, from a suddenly dark moment/reveal that changes a lot from that point going forward. You just sort of have to go along with it, as absurd as it is. I was able to go along with it but I can easily see why it doesn’t work for others and was too much, because it is admittedly ridiculous both on paper and in practice. Sorry to Bother You is an hour and 50 minutes long and I found it entertaining from start to finish. Both the comedy and drama was balanced out well I thought, even though there’s generally more comedy here. There is a sort of ‘argument’ of sorts between Lakeith Stanfield and Jermaine Fowler that’s one of the funniest scenes of 2018. Aside from potentially tackling way too many themes, I guess the only other flaw I could think of was that the female characters are a little underwritten. Honestly there’s a lot to take in with the movie, so my opinion on the plot and the overall movie may change on a second viewing.

Lakeith Stanfield is great in the lead role as Cassius Green, balancing both drama and comedy really well, particularly shining in the later scenes of the movie. Tessa Thompson is really good as Cassius’s girlfriend, I mentioned how the female roles are underwritten a little bit, but Thompson does a lot with aherrole and is a real standout. Jermaine Fowler, Steven Yeun, Omari Hardwick, Terry Crews and Danny Glover are also good as the supporting cast. The white voices, done by David Cross, Patton Oswalt and Lily James were also pretty good. Although he’s not in the movie a lot, Armie Hammer gives by far his best performance yet here as a cocaine fuelled CEO. It’s a very different role for him, a much darker and hateable role but he actually seems at home playing it, more so than his other roles. He steals every scene that he’s in and I kinda wished that we got to see more of him. Aside from an interview clip in the first act, we really see him in a few scenes from the end of the second act.

For a directorial debut, Boots Reilly did a great job with the film overall. What particularly stood out is that he gets really creative with the way that he films a lot of the scenes. For example, earlier when Lakeith calls someone (because he’s a telemarketer), it actually shows him and his desk dropping right in front of the person before he talks to him. Other sequences like the transitions are also filmed fantastically, really unique from any other directors. The dubbing of the white voices can be pretty messy most of the time. You do eventually get used to it and it’s not a big flaw, but it does stand out.

Sorry to Bother You is definitely not for everyone, it’s weird, it’s not subtle, and maybe it covers a little too much thematically. However, it worked well for me, with the cast all doing a wonderful job, and Boots Reilly’s writing and direction being really something else. You just can’t compare Sorry to Bother You to any other film, and it’s one of my favourites of the year. Reilly has clearly proven his talent as a writer and behind the camera, and I’m really looking forward to seeing more of his film work.

Call Me by Your Name (2017) Review

Time: 132 Minutes
Age Rating: Sex scenes
Cast
Timothée Chalamet as Elio Perlman
Armie Hammer as Oliver
Michael Stuhlbarg as Mr. Perlman
Amira Casar as Annella Perlman
Esther Garrel as Marzia
Victoire Du Bois as Chiara
Director: Luca Guadagnino

It’s the summer of 1983, and precocious 17-year-old Elio Perlman (Timothée Chalamet) is spending the days with his family at their 17th-century villa in Lombardy, Italy. He soon meets Oliver (Armie Hammer), a handsome doctoral student who’s working as an intern for Elio’s father. Amid the sun-drenched splendor of their surroundings, Elio and Oliver discover the heady beauty of awakening desire over the course of a summer that will alter their lives forever.

I heard a lot of excellent things about Call Me by Your Name, it is one of the big awards movies of 2017. So, I had high hopes while keeping my expectations in check before going into it. Before I continue I will confess that I don’t exactly love this movie. Not that there’s anything majorly wrong with Call Me by Your Name, I just really wasn’t invested in much of the movie as I should’ve been. However, I still do think that this is still a good movie, with some solid performances, and excellent direction.

Call Me by Your Name is based off a book, I haven’t read the book so I can’t comment on how they compare. Honestly there’s not much that I can say about this movie. If I was to pinpoint the main reason I didn’t love this movie was that I didn’t have any sort of connection with the romance, story or the characters. Don’t get me wrong, I can like romance movies, the Before Trilogy, Carol, La La Land, I really love them. However, there’s something missing here and it’s the emotional connection. The romance here is more subtle but there are films who have more subtle romances but you really feel an emotional connection (Carol being a strong example). Here I didn’t feel emotionally connected to the romance at all, while the characters aren’t unlikable, I didn’t care about them and how things would end. It seems didn’t quite have the emotional impact on me that it did on others, I was just watching events and the romance progress and I hate to say is but I was very indifferent to the whole thing. This movie is a little long at 2 hours and 10 minutes but I don’t think the problem is the length, it was more so the fact that I just wasn’t invested in this story. My general feeling of this movie is that its just fine. Thankfully the rest of the movie has much stronger elements.

The acting is all pretty good. Timothée Chalamet is great as the lead character, who is going through his coming of age story and discovering his sexuality. Armie Hammer also does a good job and both Chalamet and Hammer have good chemistry. Despite Chalamet and Hammer being pretty good, to me the stand out performance to me was from Michael Stahlburg as Chalamet’s father. There is a particular scene in the third act with him that people are raving over and it is well deserved because he was fantastic.

Even though I don’t love Call Me by Your Name, I have to strongly praise the excellent direction by Luca Guadagnino. The cinematography by Sayombhu Mukdeeprom is absolutely beautiful, they really makes use of its location in Italy. The music is also great, especially the score by Sufjan Stevens. Directionwise I have no issues.

Despite everything that I said, I do think that Call Me by Your Name is a solid movie. The performances are good (especially from Stahlburg) and the direction was absolutely beautiful. It’s just that although some aspects about the romance worked (including and especially the leads’ chemistry), I felt emotionally disconnected and I really didn’t care too much about what was going on. And the romance is such an integral part of the movie so that really brought it down for me. I’m probably part of a small minority when it comes to this movie however, most people love it and I think that it is worth watching for yourself.

Nocturnal Animals (2016) Review

Time: 116 minutes
Age Rating: Violence, sexual violence, offensive language & nudity
Cast:
Amy Adams as Susan Morrow
Jake Gyllenhaal as Edward Sheffield/Tony Hastings
Michael Shannon as Detective Bobby Andes
Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Ray Marcus
Isla Fisher as Laura Hastings
Armie Hammer as Hutton Morrow
Laura Linney as Anne Sutton
Andrea Riseborough as Alessia Holt
Michael Sheen as Carlos Holt
Director: Tom Ford

The life of a successful Los Angeles art-gallery owner’s idyllic, named Susan (Amy Adams), is marred by the constant traveling of her handsome second husband (Armie Hammer). While he is away, she is shaken by the arrival of a manuscript written by her first husband (Jake Gyllenhaal), who she has not seen in years. The manuscript tells the story of a teacher who finds a trip with his family turning into a nightmare. As Susan reads the book, it forces her to examine her past and confront some dark truths.

Nocturnal Animals was a movie that I was curious about, mostly because of its great cast. I didn’t know a lot about the movie aside from that, but the cast and the premise was enough to intrigue me. I have to say, Nocturnal Animals is not only a great movie, it’s also one of the best movies of the year. The acting, the direction and the story was done excellently. Even if you don’t like the movie, there’s no denying how unique Nocturnal Animals is.

This movie has a very unique structure. This movie cuts between storylines, with the present day storyline, the novel storyline and the flashbacks with Amy Adams’s character. It seems like it had the potential to become a mess but not once do any of the scenes feel out of place. There is something intriguing about this movie that had me invested from start to finish, it’s been many days since I’ve watched this movie, I’m still processing what I watched. I will say, without spoiling anything, the ending is one that might annoy some people, I myself was confused when I saw it. It is one of those endings that you need to think about for a while to understand the intent of it. I honestly want to watch this movie again, it’s one of those movies that gets better and better the more you watch it.

The acting by everyone is absolutely superb. Amy Adams gives such a great performance, both this and Arrival shows that she really is an excellent actress. I’ll just say that her performance here is truly one of her best, and that’s saying a lot. Jake Gyllenhaal unsurprisingly is excellent, showing that he is one of the best actors working today. There are two showstealing supporting performances in thismovie. One of them is from Michael Shannon, who not only has an entertaining character to work with, but also gives one of his best performances in a while. He was so enjoyable to watch but at the same time was very compelling. The other showstealing supporting performance is surprisingly from Aaron Taylor Johnson is also great as one of the villainous characters in the novel. Aaron Taylor Johnson is for me a decent actor, but this is hands down his best performance yet, Taylor-Johnson fully embodies the character. The cast all do a fantastic job, and all deserve high praise for their work here.

The style and overall direction by director Tom Ford is done excellently. This film is shot absolutely beautifully, it’s one of the best shot films of the year. Every scene was directed perfectly. A great example was the first scene in the novel storyline, without spoiling anything, I’ll say that it was truly unsettling and intense, and Ford’s direction executed this scene excellently. If I had to mention one problem I had with the film, it’s with the opening credit sequence, which I’ll just say, was really out of place. If you watch the movie, don’t be deterred by this though, the rest of the movie is great. The soundtrack by Abel Korzeniowski was also truly great, and added a lot to the movie.

Nocturnal Animals surprised me, I was expecting great acting at the very least (which I did get) I didn’t expect this movie to be this investing and to be directed so greatly. While I do think you need to know what sort of film you’re getting into before watching it, I do recommend going into this movie without knowing a whole lot about it. That’s how I watched it and I really got a lot out of it, and the surprises were more impactful. I personally loved Nocturnal Animals, it is a very ambitious film that manages to succeed on mostly every angle. It’s one of the best of the year.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015) Review

Time: 116 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence and Offensive Language
Cast:
Henry Cavill as Napoleon Solo
Armie Hammer as Illya Kuryakin
Alicia Vikander as Gabriella “Gaby” Teller
Elizabeth Debicki as Victoria Vinciguerra
Jared Harris as Saunders
Hugh Grant as Alexander Waverly
Director: Guy Ritchie

In the 1960s with the Cold War in play, CIA agent Napoleon Solo (Henry Cavill) successfully helps Gaby Teller (Alicia Vikander) defect to West Germany despite the intimidating opposition of KGB agent Illya Kuryakin (Armie Hammer). Later, all three unexpectedly find themselves working together in a joint mission to stop a private criminal organization from using Gaby’s father’s scientific expertise to construct their own nuclear bomb. Through clenched teeth and stylish poise, all three must find a way to cooperate for the sake of world peace, even as they each pursue their own agendas.

Along with the cast, the main reason I was interested in this movie was Guy Ritchie. Guy Ritchie can create very stylish and entertaining movies and seeing him take on the 60s spy genre is something that I was curious about. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is not a great movie but it is entertaining. The style benefited the movie, the acting was good and I was generally enjoying watching it. However the story wasn’t very strong and you don’t really care much about what’s going on. I still think that it’s enjoyable to watch but don’t expect something particularly great going into it.

This film definitely has more style over substance, if you know Guy Ritchie, you sort of know what sort of style you’re getting. Even when I enjoyed the style, when it comes to the plot in U.N.C.L.E., it’s nothing special. The plot worked for the film but you don’t really remember much of it and it’s a quite a familiar premise. I didn’t really care much about what was going on, or cared much for the characters. I was enjoying the way it was done but didn’t really care much for the story. I could tell that it was trying to spoof the 1960s spy movies and I thought that it worked quite well in doing that. The humour worked quite well however when the film actually tries to have serious moments, it really didn’t hit the right notes. I think that Ritchie probably should have stayed with the over the top tone, have a much simpler plot and go all out silly with the movie and just have even more fun with it.

Henry Cavill was great, despite being British he was actually convincing at being an American. Armie Hammer worked for the film even though I felt that his Russian accent was a little over the top at times (odd casting by the way, a Brit playing an American and an American playing a Russian). The two have great chemistry and it lead to some humorous moments between the two. Alicia Vikander was also pretty good in a supporting role. I would’ve liked to have seen Hugh Grant more, he is great when he was on screen but it happens so little that I can’t help but feel like he was wasted in this movie.

As I said earlier, this movie was more style over substance, but the style is enjoyable and added something to this movie. Sometimes it did feel that Ritchie’s fast style was used a little too much and distracted a little but most of the time I thought it worked well in the movie. The action scenes are also really good and very entertaining.

The Man from UNCLE doesn’t require viewing but it is entertaining. The acting was decent and the action scenes are pretty good but the plot is a little forgettable and you don’t really care about what’s going on. Still it’s a decent watch and it is enjoyable, however it’s not a movie that you need to see and it’s not really one of Guy Ritchie’s best.