Lady Bird (2017)

So this was finally released in the UK, luckily just before the 2018 Academy Awards. All I'd heard about this film was 'coming of age story' and Oscar nominated. That doesn't sound that thrilling to me but alright. Found out it's a film from A24 and became more interested in Greta Gerwig's directorial debut. 

Lady Bird, played by Saoirse Ronan, a name she gave herself in her rebellious teenage phase, is in the last year of highschool navigating her way to university. She has her first serious boyfriend, that doesn't work out, has her first big fall out with her best friend, that of course comes back around. Becomes popular for the first time, has sex for the first time and has her biggest argument with her mother for the first, and hopefully last time. 

Saoirse Ronan is 3rd time Oscar nominated and at such a young age that's an amazing feat. Her accent is good, her character is annoying but just about likeable over that. I mean teenagers are annoying, we all were, she's not meant to be great, teenagers are dumb and that's okay. She argues with her mum and you just think, was that necessary? Did you have to talk back to her? Did you have to make a big deal out of something that isn't a big deal? You watch her self-sabotage her relationship with her mum and you wonder whether it was worth it. To me it seemed a bit extreme but I imagine many related to that type of relationship. They have some heartfelt conversations about it which definitely emulate mother daughter relationships.

Lady Bird's parents are great, very real, their relationship strained with money issues and of course tensions of Lady Bird leaving the nest. Laurie Metcalfe is wonderful as her mother, really hits the honesty that I think mum's have where they don't humour you. Tracy Letts is a great father figure, shows some vulnerability which adds to the authenticity of the relationships he has with his wife, Lady Bird and his son, Miguel. 

The young cast are all likable in spite of their immaturities, and that's often where the jokes come from. Timothee Chalamet is fantastic of course, a little douchey but honest, typical teenage boy. He has a great line to Lady Bird in which he says, 'you're gonna have so much unspecial sex in your life'.  Which I think is quite honest for what is essentially a teen drama/comedy. Lucas Hedges was also very sweet as Lady Bird's first love and they maintain a relationship throughout though it may not be exactly what she was looking for to begin with. And gotta give props to Beanie Feldstein who is a great best friend, is so sweet and likeable you feel like you've watched her before. I imagine she'll be in a lot more than just Bad Neighbours 2 (2016).

The film looked nice sure, there were a few subtleties as the film was set in 2002. Mostly fashion and mobile phones date the film but they do discuss 9/11 in a slightly different way than we do now. Most of A24's films I've found have a prominent use of natural lighting and this is no different. The music was also great and again a nod to the time which is now scarily 16 years ago. It's also pretty well edited, you don't notice it too much but that's a good sign. 

I thought this film may be quite unlike any other other Best Picture nominees but Call Me By Your Name (2017) is a beautiful telling of teenage love which arguable boasts more relatable in the realm of heartbreak. It also follows the relationship with his parents, albeit it a different one to Ladybird but still has that coming of age difficulty. I'd recommend both, though Lady Bird does have some sad moments it is more light hearted overall.

Both moving, both incredible, both Oscar nommed. 7/10 for Ladybird surprisingly funny, and pretty damn touching. 

CINEMATES - A

Father Figures (2018)

Kyle (Owen Wilson) and Peter Reynolds (Ed Helms) attend their Mother’s wedding to find out that after years of thinking their father had died due to illness, their Mother had lied and their real father may still be out there. they both set off on a trip to try and find him, they get to spend some time together, and they meet some interesting characters along the way.

First of all, I wanted to see this because the trailer looked like this would be okay. The reviews, however… THE REVIEWS!!! People can be so mean, but it worked, it roped me in further and I decided I had to see it.

So, this story isn’t an original idea, siblings set off to find their parents, they get into a pickle more than once, there’s a twist, and at the end everyone is happy and after years of bickering – the siblings get on great. But it was fine, I don’t want to use the word light-hearted, (because what is light-hearted about absent parents?) but I will, because it is an easy comedy. It doesn’t intend to offend anyone.

The most redeeming thing about this film was the cast.

                                 

I’ve seen so much controversy around the cast, and didn’t realise before how much of a ‘marmite’ actor Owen Wilson is for some people. I think he’s a gem, he’s like Hugh Grant; he basically always plays the same character, but it works, and rarely flops. I thought he was good in Father Figures, but I am a Wilson fan. This is the same with Ed Helms, I am a fan, so I thought he was good. The chemistry between the two though, is what I’ve seen to internet kicking off about. Was it really that bad? I mean, I had to remind myself that they were brothers sometimes, but it wasn’t completely awkward throughout. The cast did an alright job, I guess?

I have to say though, I believe a chunk of the responsibility for the bad parts of this film have to go to the script. The writing for this was poor, it could have been rounded up in a much neater way. There were times when this film went off on a tangent, and other times it just dragged. You were given glimpses of what the characters are actually like, and it started to get good, and sometimes even funny… and then we lost this. The pacing was just so off, it was almost like the editors were like ‘ehhh, that’ll do, I’ll just put whatever in, it’s nearly home time’.

Saying that, though… I don’t think the comedy was a massive flop, that kept the film light, and actually watchable, however – if you don’t like dad jokes, dick jokes, or dirty jokes about mums even slightly amusing, just don’t bother. I’m sure this film could offend some people, but really, it was pretty harmless. It’s no comedic masterpiece, but there were some bits of dialogue that absolutely tickled me, and I ended up doing a massive belly laugh.

One problem I did have, was the score. I was SO aware of this throughout the film, because we get a nice landscape of one of the random places in America they arrived in and playing on top of this was Grouplove’s Ways to Go. I don’t remember hearing more than 1 chorus of a song. Was there a soundtrack? Was there any other sound? Did they forget to put that in?

This film wasn’t bad in any sense. Well, not as bad as the internet claims it is anyway… It just wasn’t really very good.

Average comedy, average performances. Bad pacing, bad writing. Though, despite all that – somehow it was watchable.

5/10

CINEMATES - S

Don't Knock Twice (2017)

Hey guys! Before I get started, I just wanted to introduce myself! My name is Isabelle (you can call me Izzie) and I am the fangirl who writes over at Fandom101.com! Today, the lovely ladies here at Cinemates have been kind enough to let me write my very own review in this guest post! So, without further ado, let’s get started!

Warning: There are some minor spoilers ahead. There are some bits of the plot that really need to be addressed when discussing some aspects of the film which I'll be talking about, but I'll try not to give the whole plot away!

Right, so let’s start with a brief synopsis: Jess is an American sculptor (and recovering drug addict), who, after finding success in her career, moves back to the U.K. with her wealthy banker husband to try and reconnect with her estranged teenaged daughter who has unknowingly attracted the attention of a child-eating witch.

It’s set supposedly in London, and at a large estate in the English countryside (which I suspect is in Wales, but I could be wrong, and in any case, is a gorgeous location).

This film is a perfect example of something that could be really good in theory, but goes wrong when executed.

Although based on an interesting horror-mythology premise, and backed up by genuinely scary creature design and spooky imagery, Don’t knock twice is let down by choppy editing and a sketchy storyline.

Going into the movie, I had a slightly higher expectation than I would with other free-to-stream horror flick, partly because of Katee Sackhoff starring and partly because of some comparisons I read that likened it to The Babadook.

Katee didn’t let me down on the acting front, but the film never really seemed to come together.

I have to say, it delivered some lovely atmospheric visuals throughout the 93-minute runtime. The country location was perfect, and the house they chose really gave you a sense of isolation and an underlying insidious, creepy tension, especially in the church-like art studio.

It also didn’t fail in delivering some actual genuine scares. The entire movie had me feeling quite jumpy, and the witch (who actually reminds me of the main antagonist in Lights Out), although possibly a bit clichéd, still absolutely scared me. Honestly, I wish they had featured her more often.

Where the movie falls apart though, is the storyline itself.

It bases its premise off an urban legend, which in and of itself, is quite interesting, but the problem is that it fails to stick to it. The further into the movie I got, the harder the plot became to follow. One minute the creature is from a door forest, another the next she’s actually an old lady getting revenge, then she’s back to being the door witch.

One minute the detective is decent, the next he’s dodgy and staring weirdly at an old house, then he’s back to being decent again, ect. I think you get my point.

The sad thing is that I would be willing to put up with that, if not for badly put together and edited ending. (A couple spoilers coming)

Some things just made absolutely no sense.

Why did the weirdo detective go and stare at the witch’s house for seemingly no reason? How come Jess’s daughter Chloe just magically happened to knock on the door just after Tira starts trying to set Jess up to take on the curse? Did she know that Chloe would do that? Also, why did Tira kill Jess’s husband? Were they having an affair? Oh, and if the Detective Boardman was such a great person, why did Chloe leave him to die? How did Tira get the curse?

(Spoilers over)

The questions go on and on. There was just too much left to the imagination to set up an even remotely satisfying ending.

Oh, and the acting was a bit bland at moments too. If it weren’t for Katee’s convincing performance, I don’t think there would be much to miss on that front.

Overall though, I’m not sad I watched it.

I would still recommend it if you’re looking for a horror film on the weekend and are willing to overlook some obvious inconsistencies for the sake of a decent scare.

Guest Author: Izzie McKenzie

I share thoughts, roundups, reviews, and tutorials for fans like you, based on awesome films/shows, books, and more.

Visit me at fandom101.com or on Twitter @Fandom101Blog

Black Panther (2018)

Black Panther video review!

The Shape of Water (2017)

The Shape of Water, where to begin. Again we were lucky enough to catch this early at an Odeon Screen Unsceen a few weeks ago. A Del Toro picture about a mute woman that forms a relationship with an otherworldly creature kept in a research facility in the 50's. When this first got a bit of buzz all I remember hearing was, a woman has sex with a fish man. That is a bit odd right? We'll get back to that but it's Del Toro so get over it.

Guillermo del Toro is known for his fantasy characters and settings and his peculiar stories. As per usual he has a story which embellishes the use of intricate costume and make up. And this is no exception. 

The 1950's setting is pretty perfect for the story, though we were given odd reminders. It's an interesting take that in the 50's two of the characters that have the most dialogue are a closeted gay man and a black woman. But in return the film handles the stigma towards each of them in an odd rashness that just isn't necessary to the narrative. Yes it happened and yes it should be accurate but was less than subtle on occasion and felt out of place at times. 

Now Oscar nominated Sally Hawkins plays our mute leading lady Elisa Esposito. She comes across quiet, not just because she can't talk but because she lets others do the talking. She has a routine and as we find out, a tragic backstory. She's quite quirky and has long accepted she can't speak but not quite accepted that people treat her differently. My gal Octavia Spencer is of course nominated for Best Support as Zelda, one of Elisa's two friends. Used to having a silent friend she does a great job in talking to herself and reacting to Elisa's lack of vocal reaction. Her other best friend relies on Elisa more than he realises, Giles, who lives next door though it may as well be together. Again Oscar nominated, are you sensing a theme? Richard Jenkins plays an older man who is struggling to get back into selling his art to advertisers. Struggling to be true to himself he, like Elisa, sees a part of him in the Amphibian Man and his treatment. Michael Stuhlbarg is fantastic, plays a character with a developed backstory and earns his likeability. Feels like he's the only aspect of the film to not get recognised by the academy, which is a shame as he really was great to watch. Michael Shannon is pretty damn engaging. He's pretty awful, pretty extra. Great character, power hunger aggressor in and out of work. Being the person that captured the Amphibian man he holds a level of possessiveness. 

The amphibian man, who is never named (not even when Elisa brings him home) is played by Doug Jones. At this point Doug must be bessie mates with Guillermo, his most well-known parts include, Abe Sapien from Hellboy (2008) and Fauno/Pale Man from Pan's Labyrinth (2006). Outside of Del Toro's work he's played a lot of roles which are alien or monster or mutant, I hope he doesn't take that personally. But he's good at it. The creature begins just that, a creature, an animal, regardless of its potential intelligence we can't communicate. After Elisa begins to teach him basic sign language we see that he is capable of learning and remembers the humane habits she keeps. That's kind of the extent of his character development, anything further than that is more Elisa's feelings projected onto him. 

The relationship between Elisa and the creature is okay, you don't entirely buy into it but you kinda do. She has a thing for water so connecting that to sex isn't a great leap for her somehow. The distance put between her and most people due to her muteness isn't there with him as he's in the same position. And regards to the sex thing she very briefly discusses how it works, only see lady body parts I'm afraid. Though we see their relationship we see a biased version from her perspective and don't get to see how he feels throughout. But that's likely the point.

Racking up 13 academy award nominations the costume and makeup have got to get some attention. Both work well with the environment, Del Toro's use of practical effects comes as authentic and true. The artistic element to it is emphasised with the music and score, rightly so, has received many nominations. Beautifully fitting to the narrative and each scene, the highlight of the movie for me personally. 

I thought the ending was fitting. I felt oddly satisfied when the credits rolled which is all I want from a film. It is a good film, maybe a great film but 13 nominations feels almost excessive for something that isn’t quite timeless yet, but hey time will tell. Beautiful film worth a watch 7.5/10

CIINEMATES - A

I, Tonya (2018)

As a young girl, Tonya Harding is pushed by her Mother to do better. She goes through life being told she isn’t a good skater, she hasn’t got any style, she isn’t typically attractive, and battles with the feeling that she isn’t good enough. This doesn’t make her any less determined to succeed though.

I, Tonya tells the story of Tonya Harding’s controversial career, and focusses on her traumatic past. The film pays attention to her relationship with her ex-husband Jeff, and the attack that was carried out on her main competition – Nancy Kerrigan. I, Tonya focusses on her point of view, and how all these events ended up being the thing that determined how she would be remember, and how her career would pan out.

The tone of this film is established right from the beginning. We get to understand immediately that this is going to be something that tries to make no specific truth claims, and incorporates the different stories of 3 key characters. For me, this was perfect. I don’t think it could have been done in a better way.

My biggest issue with biographical productions, is the fact that they are always going to be far from the truth at some point, but this is never acknowledged. I, Tonya makes this account of Tonya’s life comical. Any claims to events were knocked down straight away by sarcastic, on the nose comments along the lines of, ‘that’s how I remember that happening’, and ‘what that person is saying is probably not true’. The mockumentary style that this film takes on suits in perfectly, and really helps ensure this film holds its own style, and has decent pacing.

Aside from the screen writing being spot on for the direction this film is going in, the reason for this film’s success is without a doubt the cast. Margot Robbie portrayal of this character is brilliant. Even though Tonya is portrayed negatively in some scenes, the dark comedy manages to lighten the mood, and doesn’t make her seem like such a monster. It was inspiring to see Robbie playing a role that seemed different from other roles she has previously taken, and do it well. 

                           

Alison Janney presents Harding’s mother as a witch, but a good witch, I guess. Yes, we see that she is nothing but harsh towards Tonya, and I imagine at some points she was. But again, the dark humour just gives the character a different edge. If LaVona really did throw a knife at her teenage daughter’s arm, you can at least try and empathise. Of course, this account isn’t displayed as one given by a Mother who would drown her daughter in obvious love and affection, but what parent hasn’t acted in an unreasonable (maybe not AS extreme) way to show they care!?

The score for this film was thoughtfully selected based on the music of Tonya Harding’s choice for competitions. Similarly, this really suited the mood throughout the film. Really, although an amusing film, there were some difficult real issues in this. It was a film about an angry, disregarded teenager, who spent a chunk of her life getting beaten and songs such as ‘The Passenger’, and ‘Free your Mind’ were incredibly suitable. It is hard for figure skating to look bad, and of course, the editing had to play a part here, in making sure everything was as perfect as it could be, and team on this film did a pretty stellar job.

Of course, this film is not perfect, but it was entertaining. It had such potential to be a lot worse than it was – ‘cringe-worthy’ even, but it was far from it.
I would happily watch this again, and believe it is deserving of the academy award nominations it has received.

7/10

CINEMATES - S

Early Man (2018)

Set in the Stone Age, Early man tells the tale of young Dug’s mission to save his tribe’s home, after Lord Nooth tries to take over their valley to mine.

This film really is as basic as that, and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It just means that there wasn’t much to work with because of how the script was written. Unlike other recent animated films, this film doesn’t really have a message… Like Pixar’s Coco for example, this attempts to teach children that your family are important, and this is strong throughout the film. With Early Man we get a glimpse at the end that you will do anything you can for what is important to you. Regardless, if this is the case, you aren’t constantly reminded throughout.

The story was a bit lacklustre, and honestly – I couldn’t believe that the whole thing was about football. I genuinely had no idea, which I guess is good that this much wasn’t given away before hand. Even though I don’t care about football – it was a surprise. 

The comedy in this film was average. I definitely heard some children laughing throughout, but there wasn't much in the way of original comedy. The comedy that was present was very clever, and incorporated the time period well, but it was a bit hit and miss. That doesn't mean it wasn't entertaining, but again it was something that was average in this script. 

Similarly, the score was perfectly fine. To be honest, there wasn't much that could have been done differently here. It was simple, and it worked. It suited the era that this film is set in, and it creation enough tension, sadness, excitement, or joy, as it was needed.

As with all animated films – it’s hard to judge the acting. Voice acting you get what you’re given sometimes and it’s fine. I was happy with the choices for this though, and I couldn’t really imagine another person taking on these roles. Although I could hear that Eddie Redmayne was the voice of Dug, he managed to adapt his voice to make it suit his role. The same goes for Timothy Spall, and Tom Hiddleston, I had no idea which character he was playing before seeing this, and his voice worked perfectly. The accent that was created for Lord Nooth was a chunk of strange genius. Richard Ayoade’s voice is the perfect voice for a childish cave man, and Johnny Vegas certainly knows how to make someone sound dumb.

The star of the show though is the animation itself. Aardman animations have a special place in my heart, not only from growing up watching Wallace and Gromit, Angry Kid, Creature Comforts, and continually watching Chicken Run. But also, being from Bristol, I’m rooting for those guys! The team must be full of patience and passion, and it really shows in the editing. I found myself paying attention to each individual hair on Hognob’s body, the movements of each character’s eyes, and the intricate details of the animals.

                                     

As a film, it wasn’t bad. As a kid’s film, it was probably better. From an artistic point of view, it was impressive.

5/10

CINEMATES - S

Phantom Thread (2017)

Set in 1950's London, Reynolds Woodcock, Daniel Day-Lewis, is a renowned dressmaker whose fastidious life is disrupted by a young, strong-willed woman, Alma, who becomes his muse and lover. Now let me just make you aware of a couple things. First off, this is one of the Oscar nominated films that I watched after the nominations were announced, which I believe makes a difference going in. And also that if it weren't for the 6 noms and this being Daniel Day-Lewis' final film I wouldn't have watched it. 

In general, personally, I'm not keen on period dramas. Being set in the 1950's Phantom Thread has a distinctive style for costume and makeup, especially so due to it it following Woodcock a somewhat compulsive dressmaker. 90% of the film in take place in the one location, his home and workshop, a large victorian style home. Best way to describe the visuals are eggshell. Imagine a clean off white and you've imagined the theme of the film. It was crisp and purposeful, as if mimicking measurements for dresses. The sound was there almost every frame, it was wonderfully edited to silence on occasion. Rightfully nominated for best music this Oscar season. 

Our man Daniel Day-Lewis in what he says is his final film, sounds pretty daunting but he's decided to retire. Well known for his many Oscar acknowledgments (3 nominations and 3 wins) and his method acting so he is of course very good in this. The character is annoying, he's an aged perfectionist that is set in his ways because his ways work and no one has told him otherwise. He lives with his sister, Cyril, played by Lesley Manville is attuned to him and the business. She has a fine balance of pandering to him and keeping him in check, exactly that of a sister, defensive of others but happy to call him out herself. She is powerful and clashes with Alma, Woodcock's new partner, earning herself a Best Supporting Actress nomination. 

Vicky Krieps plays Alma, a waitress become muse for Reynolds Woodcock and his dresses. She is younger and stubborn, wants to open Woodcock up to a slightly different day to day and he does not hide his annoyance to that. She was good, she felt familiar though I haven't seen her in anything else as of yet. She was the most relatable though she was treated like a child. And in fairness when she gets to the end of her tether she behaves as such in punishing Woodcock for his behaviour. She wants him to suffer in a way that means he needs her, she wants a purpose as he so vocally denies it. 

The change of relationship between them, their back and forth, is difficult. You can't quite justify the benefits but they find a way to. No spoilers but the agreement they have in the end is an odd one. Somewhat romantic idea though a bit twisted, didn't fulfill me and my time invested in the story but I imagine a lot of people are happy with it. 

Good send off for Day-Lewis, great big break for Vicky Krieps, deserves most of the Oscar noms. 7/10

CINEMATES - A

Coco (2018)

Miguel’s family have a very different view on a career as a musician compared to him. He dreams of becoming a star, and perusing his dream to be a musician like his idol Ernesto de la Cruz. He disobeys his family, and enters a talent competition. Miguel end up finding himself in the Land of the Dead. After meeting Héctor, who agrees to help him do what he needs to, in order to get home. The two of them start their journey, and start to discover the true history of Miguel’s family.

This film is stunning. It is a beautiful new addition to the Disney Pixar universe. The characters are so different to previous Disney films, and it was so refreshing to watch. Of course, there are always going to be some similarities in an animated film, but this one managed to stand out from the crowd.

Visually, this film is beautiful. There is definitely serious attention paid to detail in this film, this was down to the little things like the strings of a guitar, the bridge of marigolds, the intricate details like the bones of a skeleton, to the widepan views of the land of the dead, or the village that Miguel lived in. They got the visuals spot on, and even if you thought the story was crap (which would be difficult), you’d be hooked because of the fact that it is so visually appealing.

Another thing about Coco that got me, was that it was even more appealing because Disney really embraced the darker side of the world. They tackled the topic of death, but still kept it light, and enjoyable – because after all this is a kids film. This film manages to pack in an interesting, and tense adventure, yet manages to keep the moving story with such an important message in it.

The characters were what got me the most. It was paced well enough that the audience is given a chance to connect with more characters that just the main characters. We had moments of being able to empathise with characters, who were all in different situations.

                                         

The original score for this film was of course, going to be great, its Disney, of course the score would be great. Don’t get me wrong ‘Remember Me’ is no ‘I Just Can’t Wait to be King’, but it’s catchy, and I imagine kids all over the world are singing together.

It feels like there isn’t enough to say about this film, considering how good it was, but it is definitely worth the watch.

Stunning, fun, film. It’s funny without being bad, it’s happy, and emotional but without making you cringe, or roll your eyes. It will probably make you cry, but I’m not sure if it’s a sad cry, or a happy cry.

7/10

CINEMATES - S