A movie review – Widows

Chicago, Illinois. The South Side’s 18th ward is up for grabs as rotten to the core Jack Mulligan and equally sleazy Jamal Manning are running for alderman. No punches are pulled as we are given a tour of Chicago’s most crime-plagued precinct. In this otherwise charming neighborhood where robberies aren’t exactly uncommon, thief Harry Rawlings and his crew get killed in the aftermath of a job. As a result, their widows, led by Veronica Rawlings, find themselves in a highly uncomfortable situation. Indeed, their late husbands’ legacy includes a $2 million debt that they can’t exactly afford to settle (at least not legally). Stop looking, you’ve got yourself the heist movie of the year.

If glancing at the menu hasn’t convinced you yet, you might want to take a closer look at the ingredients. Academy Award winning director Steve McQueen (12 Years a Slave) and writing genius Gillian Flynn (Gone Girl, Dark Places, Sharp Objects) co-wrote the screenplay and their cast alone probably justifies the $42 million budget (all right, all the explosions must have cost a few nickels too). Viola Davis, Liam Neeson, Colin Farrell, Michelle Rodriguez, Robert Duvall and Elizabeth Debicki, to name but a few, hold their own to say the least. However, Daniel Kaluuyah of Black Mirror fame leaves them all in the shade with his stellar performance as ruthless goon Jatemme (I love you too) Manning. Even his London accent seamlessly disappears as his midwestern character takes over. And I haven’t even mentioned Veronica’s dog’s acting skills yet.

If this movie still doesn’t have your vote after this show of force, here’s the real reason why you should drop everything and go watch it. Its thrilling heist component is merely an excuse to explore multiple thought-provoking societal themes in a sometimes utterly brutal way. Guns, extreme violence, crimes of all kinds, political dynasties, status quo, ghettos, racism, police brutality, toxic masculinity, you name it. Chicago’s 18th ward seems to encapsulate and amplify everything that is wrong with the world in general and America in particular. There is so much (too much?) to unpack that this movie should be seen at least twice. Especially since the plot takes as many twists as it offers issues to examine. Much in the same way as it is done in Crash, my all-time favorite movie, all of these individuals’ seemingly unrelated deeds are actually a part of the same much bigger picture. You’ll end up breathless and probably quite shaken (I can think of a few scenes that will have you grip your armrests) but grateful for the ride.

Picture: Diego Delso, Skyline de Chicago desde el centro, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 06.jpg, Wikimedia Commons.

A movie review – The Crimes of Grindelwald

I wanted to start this review with the confusing case of Queenie Goldstein (Alison Sudol) but happened to have forgotten her last name. So I googled her. I wasn’t disappointed. The first hit I got was an obscure blog entry – though not as obscure as mine I’m sure – entitled “Queenie Goldstein makes no sense in ‘Fantastic Beasts – The Crimes of Grindelwald’”. Wow. I definitely didn’t get the memo then. 

In a world where yellow-haired populist leader Gellert Grindelwald (Johnny Depp wearing his customary make-up), unlike his two-dimensional successor Lord Voldemort, earns his followers’ support through his arguments instead of coercing their terrified allegiance, Queenie is your average Trump supporter. She’s not necessarily evil or ignorant but she desperately needs someone to challenge the status quo. Her doomed love affair with a Muggle encapsulates all the issues plaguing the post-WWI wizarding world and her joining the dark side of magic serves as a telling example of Grindelwald’s popular appeal. J.K. Rowling is really making it hard for us not to draw obvious parallels between her fiction and reality in neoliberal western democracies where the likes of Trump, Farage and Le Pen are mistaken for the voice of reason by the disenfranchised masses. 

This distinction between Voldemort’s undisguised and ruthless dictatorship and his predecessor’s unapologetic yet seemingly noble fight for “the greater good” is crucial. Some might say Harry Potter’s best-selling author has merely come crawling out of the woodwork to add a few hundred million pounds to her estate. While that may very well be a part of the equation, those of you who follow her on Twitter are probably familiar with Rowling’s political views and her fondness for analogies. Using Grindelwald’s more subtle tactics to echo our society’s tendency to create its own archenemies through its most serious shortcomings isn’t something I would put past her. Theseus Scamander (Callum Turner) is fully aware of all the implications when he tells his fellow Aurors: “It isn’t illegal to listen to him! Use minimum of force on the crowd. We mustn’t be what he says we are!” However, when one of his followers is killed in front of hundreds of witnesses at his rally, Grindelwald is quick to reap the benefits of yet another unforced error made by the establishment: “Go forth from this place and spread the word: it is not we who are violent.” This is coming straight from the self-victimization chapter of a demagogue’s playbook.

Furthermore (is this semi-formal review becoming too formal?), the fact that a Legilimens should act as a symbol of what leads to Grindelwald’s rise to power is no coincidence either. Queenie can read minds for crying out loud! And yet she still makes that fateful decision. She can probably see through Grindelwald’s euphemisms (“I say the Muggles are not lesser, but other. Not worthless, but of other value. Not disposable, but of a different disposition”) or could if she wanted to. Not to mention that her fiancé chooses to stay behind when she crosses the threshold leading to Grindelwald’s side. Voting against our own interests, that age-old argument, isn’t that something that’s been going on since the dawn of time?

So Queenie kind of makes sense as a character from this standpoint, right? Which is not necessarily the case of everyone as far as the returning Fantastic Beasts characters are concerned. I’ve already mentioned Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) in passing as the No-Maj Queenie is besotted with, which gives him his significance in the grand scheme of things. Apart from that, his comic relief function is a breath of fresh air in this mostly grim movie. For all their touching awkwardness and dramatic lack of eye contact, Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) and Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston) are not so lucky. They’ve gone from central characters to mere bystanders in the span of one franchise installment. They’ve become a subplot that is mostly used as a pretext to tell Dumbledore (Jude Law) and Grindelwald’s intertwined stories.

This new focus acts as a safeguard against the movie’s numerous inconsistencies and seemingly blatant contradictions. The viewers can’t help but focus on the main plot and the vital questions it raises instead of dwelling on characters who have miraculously come back from the dead, haven’t been obliviated after all or were included in the plot for undisclosed reasons. Even the way this movie keeps asking American actors (Depp, Kravitz) to use their linguistic wand to turn themselves into (very convincing to my taste) British witches and wizards as if there was a shortage of great actors in the UK and not enough American parts in the film gets swept under the rug. If this is not magic, I don’t know what is. 

And if none of this has convinced you to get an upgrade on your Glasgow Cineworld ticket to treat yourself to a bankruptcy-inducing Swiss cinema experience like I just did (check my previous post for the rest of this elaborate joke), I have two more words for you: Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz). Not sure if her eyes can compete with those of a salamander but she’ll take your breath away even if the rest of the movie fails to do so. Yup, I’ve read the reviews that claim the Harry Potter franchise has taken an anti-feminist turn by weakening and/or killing off its female protagonists and making one of them look like a marriage-obsessed lunatic. And yes, I stand by everything I said here, including the part on dazzling Leta Lestrange.

Picture 1: mine.

Picture 2: Wikimedia Commons. Gage Skidmore. Alison Sudol and Dan Fogler speaking at the 2018 San Diego Comic Con International, for « Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald », at the San Diego Convention Center in San Diego, California.

A movie review – A Simple Favo(u)r

Hi moms!

Just kidding. I’m allowed since this is literally a meta blog entry. I’m updating this article while reading the book (yes, this movie is an adaptation, how shocking!) in which many chapters are Stephanie’s blog entries (the movie has turned them into vlog entries but kept her signature “hi moms!”). Let me stop you right there. Yes, Darcey Bell has clearly jumped on the Gone Girl bandwagon, like Paula Hawkins (The Girl on the Train) with her wife-missing-husband-grieving-multiple-narrators-novel. Yes, the novel is aggressively bad and getting through it cover to cover was nothing short of an ordeal but I believe there is much more to it than meets the eye. Starting with the movie version.

Anyway. Here goes.

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

Yes, apparently they spell “favor” with an additional “u” here. “Here” is Cineworld Glasgow, Scotland, where your movie ticket costs a staggering £11 (and there I was, enjoying a vacation from Swiss prices, or so I thought). For such a fee you can probably buy the whole alphabet and rename every letter. I know, I had 5 floors, all the way up to Screen 12, one floor short of the VIP experience room, to think of a decent joke to make about such a massive ripoff and I failed to deliver. However, I had enough time to debrief and mentally write this review on my way down. Sitting through the credits on my own – it turns out local moviegoers tend not to linger – had enabled me to get my heart rate and blood pressure back to a human level so that walking could be envisioned again.

Yup, this thing is intense. My hotel is a mere two blocks from the movie theater so I wasn’t able to stop shaking before reaching my third floor room. I’ve just triple checked that my door is locked. I have the hotel reception and the cops on speed dial. Honestly, I can’t remember watching something this forked up (yes, trying to avoid profanity, The Good Place style, I wouldn’t be able to take it in my current state) in a long time. Comedy, thriller and pseudo horror rolled into one and twisted for good measure. The creepiest most sordid details share the spotlight with sheer brilliance and comic relief.

This is all set up by a trailer so misleading that it’s pure genius. Literally every ingredient is missing. None – and I mean nothing, squat, nada – of the highlights of the plot are included and yet it somehow triggers your polite interest. Well worth the risk of losing a few jaded couch potatoes – and let’s face it, regular Scottish people who can’t afford to add a third mortgage on their house to go to Moneyworld – in my humble viewer’s opinion. This trailer void is the reason why I’ll stop here – at nothing – as far as the basic scenario is concerned.

Equally misleading – and something I can definitely mention without spoiling the movie for you – is the cast. Blake Lively (Emily) is so stereotypically tall, beautiful, perfectly toothed and usually typecast (Gossip Girl, need I say more?) that her acting skills just blew me away. And this gig is no rom-com, I can tell you that. Besides, I was once told that good acting meant seeing an actor in two separate contexts without constantly thinking “hey that’s *insert character name* from *insert movie / TV show name*”. Well, Anna Kendrick pulled that off within one and the same movie by seamlessly evolving from a nerdy character to its polar opposite in the span of 117 minutes. Henry Golding (Sean) and Linda Cardellini (Diana) of ER fame (channel your inner old fart or google that prehistoric show) hold their own as supporting characters without being as stellar as their lead counterparts among an overall solid cast.

The final touch of this masterpiece is brought by an almost all-French soundtrack that will give history buffs an academic boner with a direct reference to and semi reenactment of Jesse James’s death while the final seconds of the movie will make most French speakers dizzy (try reading an English epilogue and listening to French rap at the same time). If you’re really not sure what I’m talking about but are definitely intrigued, you’ve got yourself a heck of a movie (still not cursing) to look forward to. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to call my bank because I’m planning on watching two more movies at Priceyworld this week.

Picture: MTV International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)

Yet another dusty thing from 2010 I’ve recently unearthed. A movie review – Shutter Island

What if my whole universe turned out to be a delusion ? Is it possible that the good person I think I am has always been a big fat lie ? Does this all really exist or is it only a giant hallucination ? This is the kind of questions you ask yourself when the ending credits appear on the screen. When Martin Scorsese (Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Casino, The Departed to name but a few) works on a novel by Dennis Lehane (Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone), the result is bound to be explosive. And Shutter Island doesn’t disappoint.

Let’s rewind. Shutter Island, Ashecliff Hospital for the so-called criminally insane, 1954. US Marshal Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) set foot on this island, which is not exactly the ideal holiday destination, in order to find a missing patient, Rachel Solando (Emily Mortimer). However, we quickly understand that Teddy’s real aim has nothing to do with that particular investigation and that Dr Cawley (Ben Kingsley) is hiding what’s really going on (or not going on, for that matter). The original (wo)manhunt turns into a quest of the self, a desperate search for sanity in an insane world. A world where the real lunatics are not necessarily easy to find once we’ve gone beyond the obvious. In the end, the concepts of truth, reality and identity have become blurry at best. Just when you thought Lost was the best a director could do with an island…

In a perfect horror movie setting (a bit too much so, as a matter of fact… What are the odds of a storm destroying all communication devices on an isolated island full of dangerous maniacs and surrounded by deadly cliffs ? Please.) vaguely reminiscent of Stephen King’s The Shining, Martin Scorsese skillfully directs his way through a highly twisted plot with the help of his now usual accomplice Leonardo DiCaprio (their fourth collaboration after Gangs of New York, The Aviator and The Departed), as brilliant and troublesome as ever since he reached the grown-up stage (I’m talking about the post-Titanic period) in his interpretation of a tortured widower scarred by what he discovered in the Dachau concentration camp and his wife Dolores (Michelle Williams)’s death. Through the eyes of its main character, the movie oscillates between nightmares and reality until we can no longer tell them apart. The only thing remaining in the end is that once you’re considered out of your mind, it’s forever and no one will ever listen to you again. Even the viewers will eventually doubt your word in their cozy movie theater seats. But don’t take my… word for it, go watch it !

Article published in MUSE in April 2010.

Picture: By Siebbi (Leonardo DiCaprio) [CC-BY-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons