Passengers

Recently someone who was studying scriptwriting was giving a talk in my class and thy told us how writing for a movie was different than writing in books, because in film you can't show character's inner thoughts and struggles. It all has to be dialogue and can't all be very deeply psychological.

Now I'd like to shove this film into their faces and ask how the hell is it possible then? It is a brilliant masterpiece. Touching, deep, well-written, well-acted, well paced. I am honestly having trouble pointing out any grand faults with it. There were things that bothered me, but overall the piece is stunning.

So Jim wakes up on a space ship. All seems well until it becomes clear that he is the only one away and there are almost a hundred years still left to travel...

A big chunk of the story is told with only one human character. A difficult task indeed, made somewhat easier by the appearance of a human-like robot. The said robot, Arthur, is actually possibly my favorite character despite being a plot device for a large part. He doesn't really feel like an easy cop out either, because as a robot - well, he only seems like a slightly improved Siri. He is fun to be around, friendly and likeable, just like Siri is in my opinion. But no matter how long you talk to Siri you never really forget that in the end you are just talking to your phone. Arthur is adorable, but does never really feel too human and I love that. The acting here is also one worthy of an Academy Award.

So we are still left with only one main character for a while and his inner struggles and thoughts and feelings are so brilliantly portrayed - without any narration!

Now to the stuff that did bother me. There are 3 human characters in this film and one of them is a plot device. Honestly I can't even remember his name anymore, because all he was was a plot device. Not a badly written one, but you can tell that he was only ever needed to advance the story in ways in which just having Aurora and Jim there couldn't have happened.

Another question that rises is - why don't they return to Earth? Some answer is given to this, but it sounds like a very unbelievable one. They say it would get as long to get back as it does to go forward and add something about the time it takes to turn the ship around, but that does not seem logical. It is a small thing, but one that has stuck with me.

All in all the film is truly brilliant. The characters and their struggles feel realistic, the acting is fantastic, the story is really fantastically told. It is hard to tell a story with just two people and for the most part this film manages it.

Allied

Era-specific films are an odd thing for me. There are certain eras that don't appeal to me and then there are some like the Victorian era and World War II that usually interest me. I don't care for films with a lot of the actual fighting done on the line of fire, but human relationships and society are the parts that I find fascinating.

I like this film, there's fairly little of the actual war and fighting shown, but everything is still connected to it. As far as the film itself goes I think it's well done. The viewer isn't told too much right away. It's exciting. We know what the main character knows and therefore we remain unsure whether or not his wife is a spy throughout the movie. Just as things seem clear and the viewer thinks they can relax a new piece of information comes up, leaving us unsure and confused once more.

The settings and scenery are beautiful. The ending is a bit too much for my taste, it seems keen on wanting to squeeze tears out of the viewer and needlessly sugarcoats the sad ending to give it that Hollywood Happy Ending taste. I don't like that bit, but otherwise it's a film worth watching.

Fantastic Beasts and where to find them

It was a good film. Very good and I liked it for the most part, but for some reason I just can't get as into the Harry Potter universe as I can get into Doctor Who and Sherlock and Doctor Strange. 

I like it a lot, but I'm not as amazed as everyone else have been. I really liked Newt. I liked his value system and what he believed in as a person and the way he thought American laws were stupid. I think he was a really great character and I think the actor had very interesting facial features and good body language. He reminded me of The Doctor a bit. He could have been the Doctor. There was all this righteousness and - it was cool. I liked him.

I didn't like the way Queenie and Jacob played out. I feel like that sends a terrible message. Their love is forbidden, but instead of defying a stupid law and simply hiding him which could have been done so easily, they just sort of give up and go:"Oh well, it's the right thing to do." After already rebelling so much and doing what they feel like is right they just give up for no apparent reason. Sure, it would have been difficult and dangerous, but much more inspiring than it was now. 

My only hope is that there will be a better solution in the following films. Otherwise  I really enjoyed Queenie's character otherwise. She was not only pretty, but clever, kind and had interesting personality. 

Tina and Newt had a bit of an odd relationship too - it's feels like there might be a romance there, but then there sort of isn't. It doesn't feel like a friendship either. It feels like a tense romance, they're not really at ease with each other, but nothing really happens there by the end either.  Those two clearly also need a sequel rather badly.All in all, I'm still glad there are more of these films to come. It seems like there is more to tell.

Polina, danser sa vie - PÖFF post

I saw this film as part of Black Nights film festival in Tallinn.

This is my blog so I expect no one will mind if I sometimes talk about my personal feelings a bit. No worries - it's all in connection to the film. I have a very serious love and hate relastionship with ballet. On the one hand I loved watching it as a child and I think it's stunning. On the other it's hateful - it's so ruthless, so strict.  A child has to at a young age make the decision that they want to dedicate their whole life to the art. They have to work and basically give up their entire childhood doing unnatural painful things with their bodies and practice hours on end. Then it can all come crashing down when they hit puberty and their bodies change. They might never be good enough to be a ballerina no matter how hard they work - how badly they want it. Of course you can say that about other professions too I suppose.

This movie, echoes all these thoughts. The main character eventually makes it to the Big Theater in Moscow and eventually - after working her whole life gives it up, because it's not what she wants. Dancing is still her life, but she seems tired of the strict, merciless, unforgiving world of classical ballet. She goes to find herself - to find the sort of dance she can enjoy and express herself in - and to find herself.

The film is great, realistic and well-plotted. People often complain that so much that comes out of Hollywood is all the same. Well... So much of what comes out of Europe is all the same too -  excruciatingly long pauses of silence and characters staring silently - the heavy tension in the air - the feeling that someone is about to get slapped or hit or raped or killed lingering constantly. Even if they don't, you expect it - the scene is quiet, the surroundings are dark, dirty, poor. A dark alleyway, an eerie subway station with homeless people on the frame, a sad grey suburb. Sure - it's realistic - but life has more colors than that, more feelings than sadness, longing, angst, confusion and grief. Even when there is happiness, it is only there to contrast the up and coming sadness, to give it more emphasis. And then there are the needlessly realistic sex scenes.

This film has all that, but it knows when to stop. Knows that at one point the audience will find the sadness too much, tiring or worse - funny because it's so over the top. It knows to lace all the dark with enough happy to make the story still seem realistic. Polina still had a pretty harsh and dark life at time, but at least you can believe that someone like her exists. And dancing - ah the dancing is beautiful. It is undoubtedly the reason to see this French-Russian-Belgium(?) masterpiece. 

Dr. Strange

All attempts at being objective are thrown into the wind now. I love it. I adored it. I want to see it again and again and again. I know that I might be able to say that about every one of Benedict's films simply, because they are his, but I'm not lying either. It was fantastic. I will try to now explain why

*Some films I forget a week after I see them. I never even remember to make a post here. Then when I do remember I saw it I remember nothing of the film itself. This film, after seeing it once I feel like every frame has been burnt into my memory permanently. I can't stop myself from going back to it again in my head.

* It doesn't feel like a typical superhero movie. Actually, I have nothing against those either. I like them. I enjoy them, but I can predict every mood, I find myself thinking about what is to come, knowing what it will be and whispering:"I knew it!" I'm not sure if this film was predictable. In a way - yes. We knew something needs to happen to Dr. Strange for him to get his powers, There is a cliche training montage. A lot of things are a little cliche... Okay. Maybe it was typical in some ways, but I was so entranced by what was going on I didn't think of what was yet to come.

*There are a lot of visual elements that remind me of Inception. Inception is one of my favorite films, so naturally, I enjoyed that.

*The characters are so believable.   Doctor Strange is so believable. This is largely Benedict's doing, but there has to be some good writing to it. He has the desperation of a person who has lost hope in modern medicine and turns to esoterica as a last resort. A thing I've seen and heard of so many times. A very current topic too, at least in Estonia, I feel. And yet he remains a doctor - a sceptic, not believing in chakras, auras and spiritual healing and the power of your mind. It's realistic. His transformation could have been slower and more gradual, but I realize the running time of a movie can't be five hours. His inner battle between trusting only in science and medicine and opening his mind to something greater, something divine is relatable. It is a dilemma many people face.

He remains a sceptic, a curious man to always ask questions and doubt even when he is told not to. Even when that is shown as a bad thing.  He never becomes a soldier who questions nothing. I love that.

*Finally, the film is funny. I laughed so many times, there were so many good jokes that I still remember now. The humor was fantastic. And there wasn't a single low joke! Not one hit in the groin! Not one fart joke! I mean, come on, that alone is an achievement.

Café Society

It's a very Woody Allen-ish movie. The visuals are beautiful and stunning. There is a lot of gorgeous dresses, outfits and scenery. The setting and the time the film is set in is lovely. Aaand that's about the only thing I like. I'm not going to rate this one, because I feel that a lot of things I don't like about this film doesn't actually make it a bad film. I just don't like the characters. I find them impossible to relate as my tolerance to all things like cheating is very minimal and I don't really feel empathy for the characters. In my eyes they are all completely responsible for their own misery. The men are dreadful - pushy and they din't really seem considerate of women's feelings. They don't wait, They don't take no for an answer and what's even worse is that all the other characters encourage this sort of behavior. Maybe it fit the era, maybe it doesn't, but I don't like it.

Kristen Stewart's Vonnie has some potential to being a likable relatable character, but Kristen Stewart's "one expression fits all" approach makes it very hard to get her character. Especially because she portrays a character who is written in a way that you should be able to read loads of stuff just from her expression. But you can't. Does she genuinely likes this guy who says she wants to be with her and says so on the very day she was dumped? And when Vonnie says she never wants to love again the man she considers her friend only disregards her feelings by saying:"You just need time." It would make sense of Vonnie to feel unsure and not like him, but you can't really tell by her expression. You have to go by the narration.

Aaand that brings me to the narration. The famous film critique channel cinemasins always sins narration. Often unfairly I think. In this case through, the narration was annoying. It felt like there wasn't enough screen time to have the whole movie done and therefore what was happening needed to be told to the viewer as quickly as possible. Or maybe he was just too lazy to film more than a montage.

Jessie's character was okay. He has more versatile approach than Kristen, but I felt like maybe his character development could have been shown more clearly. Or maybe I just imagined there was meant to be any?

X-men apocalypse

★★★★☆

I like the X-men movies. They are exactly what they are - if you like x-men you will like this too and if you don't you won't. I have to admit I had forgotten some of the plot few weeks later, but it was enjoyable. I wouldn't say the plot was bad, it was actually good, just complex enough for me to forget some of it. I am still not very used to the younger x-men. I love Jennifer Lawrence, but I'm having trouble seeing her as Mystique.I love Charles through, in both of the versions. 

 

The soundtrack is a lot of fun. It's mostly old hits reused, but they're the sort of hits I personally really enjoy like "Sweet dreams are made of this". So yeah, a good, enjoyable, fun X-men film.