stefstars

I really wanted to like this one. I'd been looking forward to it, but unfortunately, it wasn't as good as I hoped it would be. It's beautiful to look at, they successfully accomplished the Gothic aesthetic. The story didn't feel fleshed out. Granted, there's only so much they can work off of from the original incarnation of this story. Still, I feel it's enough of a "skeleton" for the writers to have fleshed out a full on story where we could've seen some important character development, rather than rushing us right into the madness.

From the start, we hear Count Orlock say that Ellen is not human - that's why he's so attracted to her. However, it's never explained why Ellen isn't human. She's your typical 1800's pretty young wife who's faithful to her husband and then starts experiencing possession (thanks to her husband making a deal with Count Orlock) and that's about it for her. I wish the movie would've shown instances in the character's life or personality that would've explained what Orlock meant when he kept insisting she wasn't human. This is the case for every other character except Count Orlock, we don't know much about them before everything starts happening and we just have to go along with it.

The strong points of this film are the set design, costume design, make-up, Bill Skarsgård and Willem Dafoe. Skarsgård does an amazing job as Count Orlock. His movements, the way he delivers his lines, he's deservingly the star of the whole thing. Willem Dafoe never misses, I can't think of a role where this man isn't amazing. It could be the dumbest film ever and if this man is in it, he's it's saving grace. In this case, Dafoe plays a character that, like Ellen, goes from 0 - 100 in terms of "going mad", but even it's not sensible, Dafoe's acting chops make it worth watching. Nicholas Hoult (who has come so far since his skins days) he was good, but I feel like he couldn't demonstrate his acting chops as much since the character he's playing didn't seem to be nothing more than a dutiful husband who's reduced to a scared wreck ? The performance that I felt was the worst one in this was Lily-Rose Depp as Ellen. I already explained the problem with her character, but Depp's over acting didn't make the situation better. She counted on her handy dandy "worried face" to get her through the film along with crying and screaming. While she may have the correct look for these kind of films, she hasn't developed great acting skills yet - despite her parents. Hoult did what he could with what he was given, but it wasn't as exaggerated and ridiculous like Depp's performance. This could serve as a good lesson for acting instructors to use to teach "what to do vs what not to do" when a character you're playing isn't written as well.

I'd watch it to appreciate the Gothic Aesthetic and to see Skarsgård's performance. Especially if you're someone who appreciates the Gothic aesthetic, I recommend it, some of the shots (especially at the end) are beautiful. But if you're watching to find a new take on the Nosferatu story to enjoy, you'll be sorely disappointed.

While I found this movie entertaining and appreciate the points it's making, I didn't find it to be the ground breaking, Oscar worthy film that people are saying it is. As other reviews have pointed out, the first half of the film and the second half are like 2 completely different movies. Maybe that, in itself, is supposed to be some "deep" storytelling device, showing how in the first half of the film Anora is in control and the second half is where she loses it and doesn't know what's going on. Sure, it's nice, but I still wouldn't consider it an Oscar worthy film.

As a whole, it felt like I was watching an MTV film. I get that this movie is supposed to be making a statement about class differences and the treatment of sex workers - both topics that should be explored more in film. While I commend the film for doing that, I just don't think it's the flawless, Oscar worthy film that most people are saying it is. The main actress was fun to watch, but I wouldn't think she'd be in the running for a Best Actress Oscar nomination.

The movie is mid in every way. Enjoyable, but quite frankly, it's mid.

This is one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life. I hate that it had to be a biopic dedicated to my favorite singer of all time. The 2 stars is for Jack O'Connell's performance, he truly transformed into Blake Fielder-Civil and played him so well. I can also say the same for the actress that played Cynthia Winehouse, Amy's grandmother. I wish this was a better project so that both these actors' work and performances weren't in vain. Everything else about this film... garbage.

The film takes no time in exploring Amy's childhood, rushes through when she made her debut album and stays focused on Amy's relationship with Blake Fielder-Civil, the man who inspired most of the songs on the Back to Black album. The only glimpse it shows into Amy's "pre fame" life is when she'd go have dinner at her Grandma's house and sing with her family. It then "yadda yadda's" through Amy's parents' divorce and just shows her writing the song 'What Is It About Men ?' - a song that has very profound lyrics that talks about how her parents' divorce affected her emotionally and psychologically. You wouldn't get that through this film though. The film itches and rushes through everything just to get to the Blake and Amy part.

The thing about Amy Winehouse is that she's been so criminally misunderstood throughout the years, this is true for even while she was alive. This biopic does not help in any way. You don't see the fun loving, sweet girl she really was. It loves showing her troubles, something the world became all too familiar with, but doesn't take the time to show who she actually was. It is solely focused on the drama and even romanticizes it. While I'm glad it doesn't portray Blake as the ultimate villain in Amy's story, because in reality he was a troubled young man that came from a messed up home, I don't think sugar coating him and trying to make him seem faultless is correct either. This movie implies that Amy got hooked on to heavy drugs prior to meeting him, when in truth, Blake got her onto heroin. Amy's story is fresh enough in the public conscious that articles from the time are readily available on google - where you can read from Blake, himself, his regret of introducing Amy to heavy drugs.

The actress that was chosen to portray Amy, I'm sure she's good at her craft with the right projects, but this was not the right role for her. Not only could i hear her struggling in trying to recreate Amy's singing voice (whose awful idea was that ?) but I could hear her struggling to do Amy's speaking voice. She looked like a little girl in a Halloween costume parading around, not an actress playing a person that actually existed. She played Amy in a very one dimensional way and made her come off as an unlikeable terror. That is completely unfair to do to someone who, again, has been misunderstood throughout the years.

Amy was more than her relationship with Blake, her troubles started long before that. She dated more men than just Blake, before and after the release of Back to Black. Her heartbreak went beyond romantic relationships, she was let down by her parents, "friends," and just about the world in general. How disrespectful that the director and screenwriter just summed her up to be a lovesick drug addict that hyper focused on one man. That's how you know they didn't do the proper research on their subject matter and just wrote something up based on the first few articles they could find on google.

I don't recommend this film to anyone. If you want to learn more about Amy Winehouse, please watch Asif Kapadia's documentary instead, it won the Oscar for a reason and does Amy more justice. I'm sure there will be more attempts made at an Amy Winehouse biopic in the future, I just hope they're done better and actually take the time to tell her story in the right way.