Professor Marston and the Wonder Women

Well that's a mouthful for a movie title. Anyhow..
I am sitting here and not typing for about 5 minutes now. I just don't know how to correctly express of what I'm thinking. Maybe I just haven't recently seen anything that is what this movie was...Which was....argh..Fuck it. Let's start from another angle.
The film is based on true events and it shows us a later (his mid thirties and later) part of Harvard psychologists and professors William Moulton Marstons life with his wife....and a student of his. During the runtime of the movie not only we get to see what was his input in creating lie detector test, how the idea and invention of Wonder Woman arose, we also get to experience quite juicy, richly described and visualized relationships of his.
In first minutes I already could tell that it will be a good time in front of the screen. How come you ask? I only had heard a few dialogues but already felt that the shown characters were deep, well established and diverse in their qualities and flaws. Okay, the flaw part might have been similar. But that is not that important.
What is important to say is that it is multilayered, passionate and also educational piece of art. All three main characters are so strong, smart, independent and played wonderfully by the attractive cast - Luke Evans,  Rebecca Hall and Bella Heathcote. They did a great job filling the room with different kinds of emotions and transcending them to the opposite side of the screen. I felt what they were feeling, thank you.
I can't really comment on music, cinematography or editing (wasn't bad, wasn't also anything unordinary) or anything else really. Costumes were fair I guess, the chosen color spectrum was nice as well but I was in it for the characters and the story. Don't want to get into more details about the characters (what I liked and what not) or the story itself. See for yourselves, that's the best thing to do.

A well written, interesting and passionate movie.

Rating: ★★★★


And once again Netflix brings us good cinema. Just when I started to doubt them. Thank goodness.
Mudbound is filled with hatred, hurt, heart and compassion and it tells a story of two families who try to make a living on the countryside of Mississippi. One is a family of color, other is not. Timeline when this happens is a bit during and mostly after World War II. Both of these families had one member joining and returning from duty. They both struggle, just in different ways. And that is what this piece is about.
I hadn't seen anything else from the director Dee Rees beforehand but this movie has me assured I will give a try from anything she makes in years to come.
When it comes to acting I am ready to praise the villain of the movie - played by Jonathan Banks. When a character can bring out such strong emotions out of me it deserves a notice. This is the time when I can say I loved that I hated someone.
Not in the spotlight for me but Rob Morgan, Carey Mulligan, Garrett Hedlund and Jason Clarke also brought in some fine, diverse and believable performances portraying very different people in different life situations. I thank everyone.
Enjoyed hearing some of that gospel type of singing. What is more, I always appreciate seeing hard work done. And by hard work I mean labor, that getting-down-and-doing-the-dirty-ground-work not sitting in front of piece of paper, computer, phone, you name it.
Apart from seeing things I also enjoyed hearing quite a lot of monologues that went on in their minds. That was pleasant and felt like a little but cool change from other movies I have lately seen (and not written reviews, forgive me).
What I found as a problem was that it was too dark at times. And I mean literally-it lacked some lighting, especially at the beginning of the movie. It was almost pitch black and I couldn't see what was happening. I hope it might be a Netflix brightness thing or something. Another little thing was that some scenes felt too long.

All in all this was a strong enough movie to compete in getting some Golden Globes. I truly believe it. Not sure about the Academy Awards (though I would be happy to see it nominated).
This one got my attention and even reached my feeling hiding place. I cared. It deserves a review. Thank you. Thank you Mississippi and your damn heavy rain which brings trouble to farmers (not the main plot of the film, don't get excited).

Rating: ★★★★

Logan Lucky

When it comes to Steven Soderbergh ("Ocean" movies, "Magic Mike" and my favorite from him  - "Side Effects")  I like noticing how he has his "favorite actors" to work with (I know it's not only his thing, there are many directors out there who like to collaborate with specific actors). So again we get to see Channing Tatum in action (quite different from Magic Mike, be aware).
Logan Lucky has an easy plot  - two brothers (Channing and Adam Driver) decide (okay, one of them decides and the other one just jumps in) to pull off a heist during a NASCAR race somewhere in the South of the USA.
For this one I can praise the work of Mr. Tatum and Mr. Driver. They were just spot on. To see such working chemistry is a delight - they were awkward enough and had big hearts. Thank you guys. Riley Keough (my somewhat new discovery) had some characteristic clothing, make-up AND nails..Also good to see. I couldn't admire the work of Daniel Craig because it was overshadowed by Tatum and Driver. He had cool hair color. All I remember. I have nothing else to say - I enjoyed it.

It's a bit silly, it's a bit serious with some action on the side. It's a Steven Soderbergh movie: a good one to wind off to.

Rating: ★★★★

The Beguiled

Sofia Coppola has brought us some good cinema before (Lost in Translation, The Virgin Suicides etc.) and The Beguiled is not about to break that pattern.
It tells us a story about different aged women who stay at somewhat abandoned girls school during American Civil War. One of the girls while picking mushrooms finds a badly wounded soldier "from enemy lines" and decides to take him in. Then we see everyone interact with him and each other and so the story unfolds. It's a proper drama.
There were a few things besides the story itself that I enjoyed:
  • I pretty much LOVED the visual tones that were set. Such deep, slightly cold and saturated colors were like candy to my eyes. Ahhh, very appealing. 
  • Although I am a fan of Elle Fanning, Kirsten Dunst stole the show for me when it comes to acting (and writing I guess). She was so believable in her facial expressions. Great job.
  • Colin Farrell. YES. 
Main thing I did NOT like was seeing the same shot at least two times (you can see it in the image I've added. It's a beautiful scene...but I believe there are different angles that look also astonishing). I don't believe it had a hidden message, it just felt lazy. And with that repeated shot later came an upgraded version which was filmed from the same spot. It might have been first time I've noticed something like this. Did not like it at all.

All in all it's a good drama with diverse and interesting human interactions in private and in group settings.

Rating: ★★★½

The Glass Castle

I really enjoyed Destin Daniel Crettons' directed Short Term 12. It was very subtle, had a very nice tone to it and felt like an "indie movie".
The Glass Castle felt like a "Hollywood movie". Is that a good thing? When combined with the plot and the mood of the film - no.
About the movie: The Glass Castle is not linear - it switches between two timelines in Brie Larsons portrayed Jeannettes (main character and we basically follow her and her observations) and her family's life. You see the present time but the past is the one which leads the whole thing. You get to see the messiness and how it got that way. It's just a story (based on true events) about an... unusual family (somewhat hippy-like parents with issues and as a result - a bit damaged children) and their different struggles.
Despite the good work from mainly Brie La
rson, Naomi Watts and Woody Harrelson it was just too predictable and filled with cliche moments that I couldn't fully enjoy their performances. Or maybe the script was lacking, I will never be able to tell. Also - Max Greenfields character felt like an upgraded Schmidts version from New Girl. Don't know who's at fault there.
It's a proper drama however it was either filled with too many messed up sh*t together or just should've been even longer to completely resolve everything (why resolve you ask? Remember the "Hollywood movie" factor I mentioned? Well there you have it).
From a time-jumping perspective it was quite decent. It was pretty easy to follow the story.
What is a bit interesting to me - I couldn't stand hairstyle choices for "the present time" there. Usually I don't even comment on such things as hair and make-up but this time it (hairdo) was just so into my face and so not good looking/appealing that I noticed.

Anyways, it's not a bad one, it had some good punch lines here and there but overall I left the theater with a bit of a letdown feeling.

Rating: ★★★


Thank you Christopher Nolan for making another very enjoyable piece of art! Enjoyed the way it started, continued AND especially how it ended. It kept me tense and on my toes from very first minutes - a very rare state when it comes to cinema experience.
Hard note: I believe you must see this movie in cinemas to truly feel it. Otherwise your judgement won't be completely honest (or respected by me). Just like Mad Max: Fury Road.
Movie is based on true events that happened during a battle in Dunkirk (France) in World War II.
What hit me the most (and in the best way possible) - sound. While watching I couldn't believe that I was not only into the story but also could find time to admire sound effects and music. There should be at least two or three Oscar nominations right there. Thank you Hans Zimmer, I felt you and didn't find you were falling asleep at the Organ this time.
The second best thing that comes to mind is...well, actually there are two which somewhat mix together. I loved how tense and up in my seat it could make me feel without showing any (maybe there was some but it wasn't that noticeable) blood or "raw injuries". Also another a bit different approach that spoke to me - never really seeing the enemy. This movie was purely showing us one side of the battle and everything that was happening on this one side. Unordinary and great.
There is not much to say when it comes to the script as there were not many dialogues happening (nor there should've been!). As the movie felt so honest you know the script was well done.
I also don't really have anything to say about the characters except that they felt very genuine and without saying much (as I told you there weren't many dialogues) they somehow felt well developed with strong backgrounds. All these men felt like real and diverse soldiers and that is all I want to see and experience.

An excellent film.


Baby Driver

Baby Driver comes from Edgar Wright (a guy who I connect with Scott Pilgrim vs the World and as Anna Kendricks ex-boyfriend) who has his own style... but is it for everyone?
No. But is there anything that is for everyone (except for basic human needs of course)? Anyways, back to the movie.
Before going to the cinema I tried not to rewatch trailers, tried not to know anything about it but still could see the very good reviews (didn't read them) coming in. I thought it will be one good, easy-going movie with a sense of light spirit over it. Baby Driver did not live up to my expectations. I would describe it as a car chasing, light heist action movie with silly romance on the side, filled with men and two weak women characters. Boom! Done! Okay, let's make it longer.
Here goes the good stuff:
- Soundtracks were cool.
- John Hamm. There is no wonder why he was so fitting for the role, (portraying a somewhat cocky macho criminal) he was playing as it was written FOR him (found that out just before the movie started). Splendid job, John, splendid.
- Some car chasing scenes were also enjoyable.
- All in all it was entertaining. Not the most fun I've had though.
Here comes the not necessarily bad, but let-downs:
- I can't see why it has such great ratings. It wasn't that fresh - yes, some plot parts were new for me but overall it had high predictability percent.
- It was a men-movie. Weak, weak women characters (did I mention they were basically two there? TWO...and maybe like two others somewhere in the background). I can't. Imagine you meet a guy two times and see clearly that something's off and already are in love and ready to ruin your life and just run off to wherever? Really? That's just a bit (or very) upsetting. I call b*llsh*t on this.
- Male characters weren't that great either. 
- Not enough heisting and scheming (I know it's a DRIVING movie but it is about a guy driving a getaway car so I had hopes..)
- There were other disturbing character changes that I did not approve of.

Overall, as it has that many good reviews, I think you should see it and prove me wrong. It wasn't bad but it definitely wasn't that "fresh" or amazing. No.

Rating: ✮✮✮