Widows

The more Steve McQueen's movies I watch the more I realize the only film of his I truly liked was Shame. McQueen's has this jarring style which was so evident to me in 12 Years a Slave - in spite of having protagonists in his films he focuses on supporting characters too often and in the result his films completely lose focus. In the end we know a little about all of the characters but we lose sight of out protagonists for long periods of time which is detrimental to the film.

Wonder Woman

75 years. That's how long Wonder Woman had to wait for her own movie. 14 years. That's how long the director Patty Jenkins had to wait to do her next film. But now it's finally their time. And with that all the women should cheer - we finally have a CBM movie where it's a woman who is leading, not following.

And it's wonderful. They should be very proud. We all should be considering the opening weekend box office.

The ending of The VVitch is one of the most stunning things you'll ever see

I have been eagerly waiting for the movie since I first heard about it last year when the first news and rumors from Sundance started pouring in. I love the horror genre and movies about witches and there is really not enough of the latter. We have one half decent show on TV (Salem) and time and time again someone does new spin on The Crucible. But that's it. There are generic money grabbing uninspired spins on the witches, portrayals of modern witches which are incredibly insulting (how Wiccans were portrayed in season 4 of True Blood) or interesting concepts trapped in a meddled mess (AHS: Coven). So when I heard that there is honest to God (well...) good story out there about witches set in the most fascinating time you can possibly set a story like that in I couldn't wait.

The Wolf of Wall Street

Martin Scorsese's outrageous new film The Wolf Wall Street is the director's return to formula known from films such as Goodfellas and Casino. A story of crime, money and ultimate consequences. Or in this case - perhaps a lack of them?

Wanderlust

Darlin', we shall shit in the woods!

If there is a movie out there that 1. was a flop at the box office 2. didn't get great reviews 3. stars Jennifer Aniston, I'm probably not going to see it. But if there is a movie out there that while happened to be a flop, didn't get greatest reviews and has Lauren Ambrose you bet your ass I'm going to see it. I loved her in Six Feet Under and she is one of my favorite redheads and actresses that still wait for their big break and truly deserve it. She appeared in a number of tiny indie movies that are hard to find, but each time seeing those was worth it because she was in it. Wanderlust is one of such films, that is worth seeing it. Because it's neither really indie and definetly not subtle.

The film follows married couple of New Yorkers - George and Linda (played by Paul Rudd and Aniston) who recently purchased a "micro loft" which is apparently college talk for tiny, narrow shithole of an apartment. After Linda's documentary about penguins with testicular cancer doesn't get picked up by HBO (not surprising since there is no nudity and no "sexy" violence) and George's company goes under, the two find themselves with a necessity to leave big city and seek help from George's douchebag brother. On their way they stay at B&B called Elysium which is also the home of hippies who believe in freedom, nature and free love. The two leave and after spending some time in crazy town that is George's brother house they decide to relocate to Elysium and join the commune.

The Woman in Black

68/100 (95 min, 2012)
Plot: A young lawyer travels to a remote village where he discovers the vengeful ghost of a scorned woman is terrorizing the locals.
Director: James Watkins
Writers: Susan Hill (novel), Jane Goldman (screenplay)
Stars: Daniel Radcliffe, Janet McTeer and Ciarán Hinds

Harry Potter and the Sullen Lady

"During afternoon tea, there's a shift in the air, a bone trembling chill that tells you she's there 

There are those who believe the whole town is cursed but the house in the marsh is by far the worst.

What she wants is unknown, but she always comes back - the spectre of darkness, the woman in black"

"The Woman in Black" went from being a novel, to being a play, to being TV movie and finally a film starring Daniel Radcliffe. 2012 version of the story is definitely the weakest one to date, but in the world where "found footage" horrors and shaky camera are what passes for horror movie, it is quite refreshing to see good old fashioned ghost story with haunted house, malicious ghost and noble hero, who is in way over his head.

Radcliffe plays a young man who lost his wife during childbirth. He has a young son, who he loves dearly - unfortunately, he also has financial problems which forces him to relocate to creepy town in order to attempt to sell property there. The problem is that ever since he arrives things do not go well - people are hostile for unknown reason, he keeps seeing weird things in the corner of his eye and finally a child dies in his arms. Soon he learns the secret - a woman, who once lost her child and now wants her revenge is haunting the townsfolk and whenever she is seen, a child dies.

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?

96/100 (136 min, 1962)
Plot: In a decaying Hollywood mansion, Jane Hudson, a former child star, and her sister Blanche, a movie queen forced into retirement after a crippling accident, live in virtual isolation.
Director: Robert Aldrich
Writers: Henry Farrell (from the novel by), Lukas Heller (screenplay)
Stars: Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and Victor Buono

Sister, sister, oh so fair, why is there blood all over your hair?

The only thing more famous than this movie are the legends from its set. Joan Crawford and Bette Davis, avid rivals, made life miserable for each other when they worked on the film and long time before it for that matter. Crawford's Blanche reasonable, polite sister to Jane, was mean and hateful in reality - during the kicking scene, Bette Davis kicked Joan Crawford in the head, and the resulting wound required stitches. In retaliation, Crawford put weights in her pockets so that when Davis had to drag Crawford's near-lifeless body, she strained her back. Even the director couldn't prevent those two from being horrible to each other.

When Davis got nominated for her work in the film, Crawford launch somewhat an anti campaign which may have cost Davis her win - also when Anne Bancroft had won Best Actress for The Miracle Worker that year, Bette Davis felt an icy hand on her shoulder as Joan Crawford said "Excuse me, I have an Oscar to accept".Crawford was the one who sent a letter to Bancroft, asking if she can accept the award on her behalf. Rumour also has it that at point Davis sent Crawford chocolate box - only instead of chocolates it was filled with dogs' feces.

We Need to Talk About Kevin

91/100 (112 min, 2011)
Plot: The mother of a teenage boy who went on a high-school killing spree tries to deal with her grief - and feelings of responsibility for her child's actions.
Director: Lynne Ramsay
Writers: Lynne Ramsay (screenplay), Rory Kinnear (screenplay), Lionel Shrivel (novel)
Stars: Tilda Swinton, John C. Reilly and Ezra Miller

There is no point

"We Need to Talk About Kevin" is one of the most harrowing and bleak movies of the year. Think - "Blue Valentine", "The Road" and "Mulholland Drive" - there is very little hope there and mostly just human suffering. The film features another one in the long line of Tilda Swinton's superb performances, it's also highly controversial due to its subject matter - is it possible that a child can be pure evil? Is it really a mother's duty to love it, no matter what?

Although every single synopsis of the movie tells us what happened, we don't actually get to see it until the end of the film - what Kevin did is shown though flashbacks and Eva's memory - his mother, who is left alive and is forced to live with the consequences of what her son did. The movie has very interesting narrative and it looks as if it was heavily inspired by David Lynch's work, especially "Inland Empire" - as with many of his movies, there is a very prominent use of symbolic colors - Eva is constantly surrounded of red, symbolizing her guilt, which is always there with her - there are also many goofy moments, usually delivered by odd choices of music, quick cuts and the sense of overwhelming menace.

The Wolfman

(103 min, 2010)

Director: Joe Johnston
Writers: Andrew Kevin Walker (screenplay), David Self (screenplay)

Stars: Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins and Emily Blunt

 

When the time is new, the remake comes to life...

People talk about remakes as if they automatically meant “bad movie”. It is not true – I greatly enjoyed new version of “Dracula”, “Dawn of the Dead” and “Solaris” is even in my top 20. Not to mention my favorite movie “Vanilla Sky” which is almost exact remake of “Abre los Ojos”. Even Academy honors them sometimes, take a look at “The Departed”. When somebody decides to make a remake he or she must realize they are getting rid of the biggest advantage here – original story. So if you are remaking the movie, 70 years after its initial release you better make sure you have some thing new to offer. Because if you not...then the only result is bad movie.

I'm going to start with the positives, since the list is shorter – Emily Blunt. She was the reason for me to see this film and I love her enough to forgive her participating in it. She's talented, beautiful, adorable. She does what she can here and as all English roses, she fits the movie. But she is replaceable here – it could be any other beautiful, young actress. But who knows, maybe it's a tradition to hire pretty English girl to wear beautiful costumes and look sad and distant.

The cinematography – beautiful. The movie had great atmosphere, everything was dark, grim, bathed in moonlight. The settings were terrific, all they had to do was to create characters. And they failed, oh so miserably.

Some scenes are wonderful – the episode in asylum – fantastic sequence, the nightmare scenes, sweet skipping stones scene. There is underlying tragedy and overwhelming sadness, written all over this movie, but because of the flaws the film is nowhere near to be good or satisfying.

First of all – the worst thing and the thing that ruins the movie is how the Wolfman looks. It's so tacky and cheap you have to look away not to laugh, but worst of all – it is not scary at all. And the scene near the end, where there are two of them....horrid. Which is weird because the transformation scenes are rather good, maybe most of the budget went there and they simply didn't have the money to finish. I read Rick Baker, who is responsible for doing make up wanted to pay homage to the old version, but I find it to be rather bizarre decision - isn't the point of remakes to shoot something better, with the use of modern cinematic technology? To prevent things which look campy before when there were no other ways to do them, from being campy now? The movements of the Wolfman are either too fast or to slow, to the point that when he was chasing Gwen near the end of the film I was laughing like insane and I suspect I am not the only one. Comparing to that New Moon werewolves would make me have a heart attack if I actually saw them live.

Second of all – the story. It is not engaging, I'm not even that concerned about the lack of chemistry between Gwen and Lawrence, chemistry is something that rare I'm not even waiting for this anymore, when it happens in movie it's like a miracle nowadays. Besides back in those times, everyone were that reserved, so I can pretend it is not a flaw. But the whole thing is just too enormous – gypsies, curses, detectives, family drama, weirdo kids in caves, too much. Some of the things don't make any sense – the whole gypsy subplot, the servant who lived in Talbot's house - it is confusing and essentially goes nowhere. Screw the fact the mystery itself is rather poorly explained and there are gigantic plot holes in the story, but the actors themselves don't seem to be interested in it, don't even make a tiny effort to care, then why would the audience?

And finally – Anthony Hopkins. He has, literally one good scene in the movie, where he scares off the people who came for Lawrence and delivers cold and hilarious monologue about this being his land and him being prepared to kill everyone. Everything else, especially the big reveal in the asylum is just terrible and laughable. He seemed to be rushing through the scenes as if he knew how bad the movie will be and how embarrassed he'll end up. And it's such a shame – after all he was in another iconic horror story and he was terrific there – I mean “Dracula” from 1992 by Francis Ford Coppola which seems to be timeless masterpiece compared to this movie.

But there is one thing, only one thing I cannot understand – the movie cost a fortune and studio lets Joe Johnston, the director of “Jumanji” and “ Honey, I shrunk the kids” direct gothic horror? Remake of iconic movie? What were they thinking?
Del Toro is a terrific actor and he does...well here, in this that at least he is not bad as the script or annoying as Hopkins. I never saw the original but I heard he too pays homage to the original, to Lon Chaney, who played The Wolfman in old version. Benicio was fine, but he lacked passion and torture. But he didn't bother me and I felt for his character a little.

Hugo Weaving plays detective Abberline, yes, the same one whom Johnny Depp portrayed in infinitely better and delightful „From hell”. He is fine, maybe even the best one among the cast, but he will always remain Agent Smith no matter what he does. Unless he of course wears a mask and there is a chance some of the viewers won't recognize him, but after all he has already done it.

The score is composed by Danny Elfman and I cannot believe I write this again but he too pays the homage, not to “The Wolfman” but to previously mentioned “Dracula”.It's a good score but it's terribly unoriginal, however it was a good background for scenes, especially the ones that were fast paced and sometimes, with enough of good will, it sounded a bit like “Sleepy Hollow” score with all the violent and terrifying sounds.

I'm a very skittish person, so a little fog, a little darkness, trees in the scene...I know something will jump out at any moment but I'm still scared. There are few scenes in the movie, which will probably be found by people who are not scared easily and completely sane to be not scary at all, but if you are fragile and your tempers are frayed like mine, you will jump on your sit few times.

But my expectations were low, after so many re-shoots what can become of the movie? I saw unrated version of the movie (additional 17 minutes of footage including appearance by Max Von Sydow, with the famous cane, I saw Comic Con people drool over when they saw it on the poster), so I fear to think how bad the theatrical one was, since extended cuts are usually better. The movie can be recommended only to the ones who like dark stories and gothic horrors and who are prepared to be satisfied only by the visuals of that movie. It's bad – it makes Brannagh's Frankenstein look good.