Mudbound

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: ★★★

Dunkirk

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.

Rating:★★★★½

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: ✮✮✮

Song To Song

Terrence Malick is not my favorite director but there is one thing he always delivers for me - beauty. This was once again an eye-candy. Visuals, sights, wide angles - thank you very much.
There are barely dialogues there, usually voice-overs because the story is being told  from a diary point of view I would say. We hear character thoughts and reflections and basically all dialogues are "silenced out". It's appealing. Casting hit the bulls eye for me.
What could've been better: the script (somehow through all the expressed emotions it still felt shallow for me), songs they used could've been less but played for longer periods of time or something..Also - editing. Film felt very chaotic and so I couldn't really attach to anyone or anything (except for the nature shots).
Conclusion: It had the potential of being unbelievably amazing but in the end it is just beautiful with excellent cast and too much "cutting" and "putting it back together".

Rating: ✭✭✭

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

Some of us already know something about Arthur and his beloved sword in the stone and its' strength. Some of us don't. It doesn't matter. What matters is that this movie was quite great!
What good things you will possibly see or get out of this:
 - Great, interesting operator work AND editing! The different angles and ways the cameras were turned and then cut and cooked up again in such a pleasant way..tiny bulbs of joy popped inside of my soul because of the likeness of what my eyes saw and brains comprehended. So prepare for nicely done visuals.
- LANDSCAPES
- Jude Law as an evil character was a bit funny to see. He did a good job. Just still find it funny.
- It's a Guy Richie movie (previously famous for different movies, most popular - Snatch). It goes without saying - there will be some good and funny punch-lines. Enjoyed the screenplay.
- Modern yet with a sense of medieval times soundtracks - lovely and appropriate.
- As I have no intention of spoiling anything... but I also can't not speak..Oh well, whatever - In an early stage of the movie there is a montage about the little Arthur and how he grows up and what happens in the mean time. I found it to be a very cool way of showing things that are important to get but not that important for the main story. So I was happy of what I saw and also about how much time out of the movie these scenes took.
- Also a teeny, tiny thing at the end of the movie that just made me smile and is not a spoiler - I saw dirty fingernails. It may sound a bit odd but it is nice to see these little but realistic things in movies.
What bad things to expect?
- I can't really name any. I wasn't ecstatic or on the edge of my seat all the time, there were little parts were the movie felt flat but they were just for a very short period of time.
Here it goes - Medieval tale-ish movie about king-to-come Arthur and the sword told (and definitely shown) in a bit of a nowaday-way. Entertaining.


Rating: ★★★★

Get Out

Get Out was interesting. Genre wise it's not my favorite (horror, mystery. Although I wasn't scared for a second) but the story and where it was going was quite interesting and original.
The story begins when African-American man accepts to visit his Caucasian girlfriend's somewhat rich family somewhere off-road. He is the first African-American man who she takes there. Family itself seems legit (....but are they?), the staff is being off-putting a bit (...but are they?) so you get curious of why is that..Well, let's say the journey begins there and I don't want to give anything away anymore. It's interesting.
Won't be able to tell you that soundtracks were great (didn't notice them), or the operator did a fantastic job (didn't notice the work) or that acting was superb (didn't feel like it, didn't even care) but I will say again - it kept me intrigued.
So if you are not a person with weak nervous system I can suggest you go and see this film.

Rating: ★★★½

Life

Life did not impress me.
It's okay but brings nothing new to the table. The characters felt like they've been poorly based so the entire movie I could not care for anyone. I also was able "to guess" some parts and events in the movie - that I count as a bad thing too.
The plot is simple, not bad. Action, scary parts are there but somehow it is just okay. Did not look at the clock while the film was running (so it was entertaining) but wasn't excited or anything.
Jake Gyllenhaal is my favorite male actor but even he wasn't able to move me.

Rating: ★★½

Silence

As it is History/Drama called Silence and it is about two Jesuit priests who travel to Japan which has banned Catholicism and almost all foreign contact, you know it is not going to be something fast-paced or action packed. 
With that said - a pleasant cinema experience if you are ready for it. It is 2 hours and 40 minutes long and it is about different religions and how different people view them in that specific century. I liked it, it made me think about things I usually don't think about as I am not a religious person (don't mind others being though). It was interesting for me to see that sort of faith, flaws and lack of it at different points. 
What you can expect when going to see this:
- Interesting accents. 
- Religious, faithful/faithless mood. Struggles.
- Beautiful nature
- Brutality
- Strength. Weakness. 
- Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver. :D 

All in all, it is a bit hard to sit still for that long period of time but it was also quite enjoyable. 

Rating: ★★★½

Lion

Lion is a title to a movie which is based on true events and it tells a story about a very young Indian boy who gets lost and through different obstacles finds himself adopted by an Australian family where he grows up, eventually finding himself in need to find his birth mother, brother and - home.

The story itself is somewhat divided into 2 parts - we get to really experience the young boys journey and then his life in middle twenties as he starts to look for home.


The movie is very good but I want to enhance what I liked the most:

• The young boy - Sunny Pawar (his first film and first time traveling with airplanes by the way) - such a cute looking and sounding boy! Can't remember the last time I was so fond of a kid in a movie. Very lovely youngster. 
• Rooney Mara. Especially because it wasn't about her. She still managed to win my heart by portraying a down to earth, genuine person who cares. The subtle things she can do amaze me. This time it was this small tremble of her lower lip for about 2 seconds that just caught my eye. Great. Sold.
• Dev Patels' voice. In general. He looks good too, don't get me wrong, but his voice..
• How music cooperated into colliding timelines. This one is a bit hard to explain. If you are interested, feel free to ask? It may contain spoilers. 

There wasn't anything in particular that I did not like. Don't see why Nicole Kidman was nominated for an Oscar for this (can't believe there weren't better options. She is not bad, but usually the academy nominate extraordinary performances and this wasn't it). Otherwise - I connected to the story at some point, felt a bit emotional at the end (yes, many women and some men tend to cry after this piece) but still - something didn't work for me, hence the rating. 

Rating: ★★★½

20th Century Women

I don't know where to start. Sometimes it's hard to put down in words the things you feel during and afterwards.
The director and the writer Mike Mills drew from his life with women that were around him to make this film. It's about a single mother trying to figure out how to raise her teenage boy into a good man. She seeks help from two other (and different character-wise) women that linger around the house for different reasons. 
It was so good for me. Throughout the entire movie a sense of sadness is always there. Sometimes it's very blunt, sometimes very subtle. At points it gets heavy and at others - humour appears.
Always fantastic to see movies where the characters are well made. Here we got to see more than two:
Annette Bening does a fantastic job showing a non-stereotypical mother - a mother who has her good sides and many different flaws. I have no wonder anymore why she got an Oscar nomination. 
Greta Gerwig - one of my favorites in everything (this is a lie - I have not seen EVERYTHING) she does and this is no exception. She masterfully shows an artistic woman who has these "different" views on life and who doesn't live by the standard rules. She has heart and crazy good looking red hair. Very pleasant to watch her work. 
Although Elle Fanning played a character that I felt like I've seen before doesn't take away that she also did good in my eyes. Through her we see a somewhat cool, rebellious (she has her reasons) late-teenager who has sh*t of her own which is not shown that much because it's not the point of the movie. Believably played.
Lucas Jade Zumann plays the son of Annette Bening's character. So cute and lovable. And the way he is is very different from what I've seen in other films boys to be and that is something that I'm very keen on - to see uniqueness, something unordinary. And those brown eyes of his.. 
There is also Billy Crudup who plays a semi-meaningful role but I won't get into that because to me he didn't "shine" here.
What was also satisfying to see was the way and how well these characters blended. It didn't matter if it was a group scene or a dialogue, it all felt very interesting and natural. It had heart. 
I have nothing bad to say about the way it was shown - nice view angles at times, color choices for different "events", pretty landscapes. Very nice work. 
I have nothing bad to say how the story was told.
I have nothing really bad to say about 20th Century Women. It spoke to my heart and that is basically all I seek to get from a movie. 
If you are up for some down to earth different relationship drama which focuses on women - this should be a good choice! 
P.S. La La Land still gets the Oscar from me.

Rating: ★★★★½

Hidden Figures

Women handling numbers, physics, cars, other machinery and standing up for themselves? Yes, please!
Based on real people and events Hidden Figures shows us the time when NASA dealt with different problems in order to successfully complete first space missions. Here we get to follow 3 (well, one more than others to be fair) African-American women and their problematic "journey" as they are "colored" and segregation is in what they live in.
What I loved about it the most was how this movie managed to show difficult stressful situations, day-to-day unfairness with such lightness that it was impossible to get sad, angry or depressive. Big thanks must go to soundtracks for that. They could've just put in more dramatic (rather than something groovy and funky) songs and melodies but they didn't. I thank them.
Movie itself doesn't really show anything new, you know - it basically is any other space mission launching movie. The true story behind it is unique of course. What I want to say here is that the real life achievements of these women and their portrayal was very pleasurable and satisfying to see but what wasn't so amazing - how it was quite typically done (view points, dialogues, the whole picture itself, even saw some cliche scenes).
Although it is about three African-Americans Taraji P. Hensons character is seen way more than others. In my eyes Janelle Monáe was the one who popped out of the crew as the most interesting one to watch but unfortunately I didn't feel like her character was given a fair chance here. AND YET -
Octavia Spencer is the one who gets the Oscar nomination? REALLY? Don't get it but okay..
As I am bad in history and wasn't there at that time I can't judge how true or fabricated this movie is in reality and I don't even want to. Watched it, liked it very much and won't argue about "facts".
All in all - a very good, humane drama with splashes of lightness through tough times. Great main lady ensemble, soundtracks and overall feeling after the end credits. And feelings are what basically make my rating, so..

Rating: ★★★★

Patriots Day

This is a story, a somewhat true story about Boston Marathon bombing which took place on April the 15th and the search for the terrorists after. It's about some of the involved people (the police, terrorists, people who ran the marathon and people who came there to watch) - how they were either involved  or affected by this.
It's starts off with an introduction of these chosen people - who they are, where they are. We just get a glimpse, no deep character (real people? This is confusing..) development. Later on we get to see the bombs go off and then we follow how the police, ambulance, community itself, government and FBI work together to help people and work on finding those who caused this.
All in all movie is filled with action and bravery.
I did not really enjoy this piece and here is why:
a) Although I get to see how people can be and are brave, helpful and strong, which is really great, I could not "enjoy" this, because it somehow felt "forced on me". Like they were trying to make me feel emphaty and feel for everyone rather allowing me to reach that place on my own. I also get why they chose to show us some of the victims and their back-stories but that doesn't mean I liked it. I know it is a bit horrible to say (because it's based on true events and real people) but again - it just felt cliche, the way they executed everything about and around these characters. So yeah, forced and cliche.
b) Trent Reznor, oh dear Trent Reznor. I was let down. Hard. At some places in the movie it was like "I have heard this before" at others - it was just too predictable. I believe there are ways how to create suspense, create more stressful, dramatic scene without making it so obvious that NOW SOMETHING (and at the scene you know exactly what) IS REALLY GONNA HAPPEN. I really enjoyed (still do!) soundtracks from Social Network, I also do listen to Nine Inch Nails from time to time but this was....this was bad (still being subjective).
c) I WANTED TO SEE MORE OF THE "SEARCH". I wanted to see how the FBI (and maybe other instances, that doesn't matter how they are called) works - how they operate, how actually hard, intense it can be, wanted to see some conflicts (or just silent-working...as they probably know what and how to do everything) between different workers. How people contact and help the FBI for this specific reason.. Anything like that. I was left with this longing.
So, Kate the hater - what DID you like?
Well, Mark Wahlberg in his character (real person?) was doing a great, believable job to my eyes. He looked legit, acted like a real person (who he was portraying) who had his flaws and wonderful qualities. I also did enjoy some scenes at the end of the movie about which I won't say anything else...because they were very close to the end. All in all - I wasn't bored, didn't look at the watch or wonder off in my mind.

I can see critics are giving this movie good reviews (mostly)..So maybe it just wasn't my day and I was just unconsciously looking for reasons not to enjoy (PMS, you know) it. It is definately a whatchable movie, I just did not like it.

Rating: ★★½

Passengers

Before going to see it I knew it wasn't a good one (still wanted to see it). So I went in hoping it would be a sexy futuristic space movie (because of Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence and..spaceship and stuff). It wasn't. Instead I saw a film. It started, it went on but nothing really happened and then - about 20 minutes before it was supposed to end, SOMETHING started to happen. That is not a good pace.
Anways, the film started by Chris Pratts character unplanned awakaning in this spaceship which was set to go to another planet where mankind would develop a new world, new living space ect. J. Law was there too. All in all everything was quite bad, at points silly or illogical.
Good thingies - the spaceship was quite beautifully made. Pratt and Lawrence have appealing faces (and other features)..That's about it.
All in all - "Passengers" was quite boring, predictable, dumb and not at all intriguing. What was interesting - me and my friends thoughts of "what if-s". For example - what if NOW HE REALLY DID DIE (it was like 20 minutes in the movie)? Or - What if now it turns into a soft-porn movie? At least that would've been unpredictable... Needless to say our "fantasies" didn't make it.
Ugh, I just can't suggest it to anyone really. I won't judge you for going to see it though (because I did).

Rating: ★★