“Uncut Gems” stars Adam Sandler, Kevin Garnett, Idina Menzel, Lakeith Stanfield, Julia Fox, and Eric Bogosian. Released on December 13, 2019, the film is about a jewelry store owner who is addicted to gambling. The film is directed by Josh Safdie and Benny Safdie, who also directed films such as “Daddy Longlegs”, “Lenny Cooke”, and “Good Time”. It's not every day when you have to face a ton of tough obstacles in order to get to the top. When you’re gambling your way to the top, however, the obstacles can get a whole lot tougher. This latest film from the Safdie Brothers reflects on that situation, which would hopefully teach people that gambling is not always cool. There was a lot of strong buzz for the film when it was released a couple of weeks ago, with Sandler being praised for his dramatic performance, so there’s no reason why I should skip out on this one. Even though I enjoy Sandler in some of his works, mostly the comedy ones, I can admit that his latest comedies were a bit more dumbed-down and underwhelming compared to his earlier films like “Happy Gilmore”, “Billy Madison”, and “Click”. Yes, I like “Click” and I don’t care. So I’m hoping that his recent role would be enough for Hollywood to start treating him as a respectable actor again. I was able to see this film after posting my top ten list of my favorite films of 2019 yesterday, and based on my experience with it, I wished I should’ve saved that list until after I saw it. The film follows a jeweler named Howard Ratner (Sandler) who runs a jewelry store and struggles to pay off the gambling debts, including the money he owes to a loanshark named Arno (Bogosian). One day, he received a valuable opal that’s worth millions of dollars, sells it to basketball player Kevin Garnett (played by himself), and takes his championship ring as collateral. Howard then sells the ring to a pawn shop in order to place a large bet on Garnett’s game. After he wins the bet, Howard’s life starts to spin out of control with one problem after another, resulting in him racing against the clock to retrieve the opal and pursue for the ultimate win. This is the type of film that doesn’t play well with others during the most wonderful time of the year. It’s crude, it’s mean-spirited, and it’s loud. This is definitely not the film that you want to watch with your grandparents or your younger kids during the holidays. If you’re able to get used to the amount of crudeness that this film delivered, you might find that its core is as valuable as the opal itself. That is exactly what I did, and my goodness. It is truly a sight to behold. Combining the Safdie Brothers’ gritty style with a riveting and complex script, “Uncut Gems” is a heart-pounding and magnetic piece that displays the dangers of gambling addiction and how it affects one’s choices. You have a charismatic and nasty character who bit off more than he can chew while attempting to pay off his debts with gambling. While it’s good to win more money through gambling, that doesn’t mean it should be taken for granted. Whether you win or lose, gambling always comes with a cost. The film was able to handle this theme beautifully without sacrificing the entertainment value that it offered. Yes, you read that right. I was highly entertained by the anxiety that was displayed in “Uncut Gems”. It can be pretty exhausting at times, but thanks to its respectable pacing and the cast, the exhaustion was worth it. Adam Sandler was absolutely fantastic in his role as Howard. I had a hunch that he would impress me as well, and just like that, my hunch has proved me right. It just goes to show that despite his struggles in his recent comedy roles, Sandler still has some talent left in him in certain roles outside of his usual routine. The rest of the actors were also very impressive in their roles. Stanfield, Fox, Menzel. Heck, even former basketball player Kevin Garnett was great in his first big-screen debut as the fictionalized version of himself. The other aspects that made this film work was its cinematography and Daniel Lopatin’s mesmerizing score. The way this film was shot onscreen has the makings of a gritty crime thriller, but it was never afraid to also show off some hallucinatory sequences from the opal as well. The cinematography had the right amount of realism to please my eyes rather than strain them. Overall, “Uncut Gems” may come off as a tough sell for some people due to its crude nature, but for fans of anxiety-inducing cinema, it’s an exhilarating and enticing gamble that paid off extremely well. It’s a film that relies on the tension and the drama to get the message across and provide a unique experience that’s impossible to resist. With its brilliant cast (particularly Sandler), its slick and grim style, its breathtaking cinematography, and an enthralling score, the film is a great way for me to end off 2019 with a bang. If I was able to see it before I posted my top ten best list, I would definitely place it somewhere in my top five. This is another gripping piece of cinema that can give you something to think about. If you haven’t seen it yet, do yourself a favor and go check it out. A
1 Comment
“Little Women” stars Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Eliza Scanlen, Timothée Chalamet, Laura Dern, Meryl Streep, and Bob Odenkirk. Released on December 25, 2019, the film chronicles the lives of the March sisters in 1860s New England. The film is written and directed by Greta Gerwig, who is known for directing “Lady Bird”, and it is based on the 1868 novel of the same name by Louisa May Alcott. I didn’t expect myself to see something as ladylike as this film, but here we are. After making a remarkable first impression with “Lady Bird” two years ago, Greta Gerwig is getting ready to head back to the Oscars with her own version of the beloved novel. The novel, which tells the tale of four sisters, has been popularly known for delighting many readers with its timeless story about sisterhood for many years. In fact, it’s so popular that Hollywood decided to make seven (that’s right, seven) film adaptations of the novel, including the 1994 version which starred Winona Ryder and the 2018 adaptation that no one wants to remember for some reason. I have not watched any of the film versions of “Little Women” nor read the book it’s based on, so this will be my first experience with the source material. I was a little concerned that a film like this may not be to my liking, but after watching it for myself, I was pleasantly surprised at how good it was. Much like the book and the other film versions that came before it, the story centers on four March sisters: Jo (Ronan), Meg (Watson), Amy (Pugh), and Beth (Scanlen). It showcases their lives and their sisterly bond from their childhood to their adulthood. From what I read about the film, the only difference that this adaptation made was its narrative structure. Instead of having a linear narrative where we see the characters grow up from beginning to end, the film went down a non-linear path by placing its main focus on the main characters as adults and using flashbacks to showcase them as teens. It does sound confusing at first given the fact that the main actresses portrayed the same characters in different timelines, but it’s actually not. I honestly liked the direction they took for its narrative because it helped maintain the flow of the pacing, even though there were a couple of scenes that dragged just a little bit. It also gave me clear notifications on which scene is the flashback scene by displaying the color palettes in the background. If it has a golden yellowish color, it’s a flashback scene. If it has a light bluish color, then the scene takes place in the present. I thought it was pretty cool that they did that in order to avoid confusion. As for the story itself, I can definitely see why people enjoyed the source material so much. It had the right amount of charm and emotion to display its miraculous theme about sisterhood in a natural and serene light. It’s not too overly sentimental and it’s not too safe either despite its PG rating. In terms of the direction and the screenplay, Greta Gerwig has crafted a wonderful and well-written period drama that earned the happiness and the sadness. Part of that is due to the chemistry between the four main actresses and its tone. Ronan, Watson, Pugh, and Scanlen were what made the film shine the brightest as they portrayed the fictional March sisters like they are actual sisters in real life. These four actresses absolutely nailed their roles in both the uplifting scenes and the dramatic scenes. Laura Dern and Timothée Chalamet also did really well with their performances as Marmee March and Theodore Laurence respectively. The film also benefitted from its remarkable production design, the costumes, and its stellar score by Alexandre Desplat. The former two fit really well with the film’s time period, and the music has a suitable beat that captures the beauty of its scenes. Overall, the seventh film adaptation of “Little Women” delivers just about everything that I wanted out of a film about sisterhood without losing the heart and soul of the source material in the process. I didn’t really expect myself to love it that much at first, but this film managed to prove otherwise. With its lovable cast, Gerwig’s direction and screenplay, and Alexandre Desplat’s whimsical score, the film celebrates the unbreakable bond between sisters with passion and brilliance. If you’re familiar with the novel it’s based on, then this film is worth a watch. A-“Spies in Disguise” stars Will Smith, Tom Holland, Rashida Jones, Ben Mendelsohn, Reba McEntire, Karen Gillan, and DJ Khaled. Released on December 25, 2019, the film is about a super spy who gets turned into a pigeon by his genius inventor. The film features the directorial debuts of Nick Bruno and Troy Quane, and it is loosely based on the 2009 animated short, “Pigeon: Impossible”, by Lucas Martell. Spies are equivalent to Batman. They save the world from villainous threats, they’re good-looking, and they have the tools to get themselves out of dangerous situations. Where exactly do the spies get the tools from, you ask? Why, their genius inventors, of course. A spy isn’t a spy without a gadget or two from the inventors who made them. It’s like James Bond infiltrating an evil organization empty-handed. It’s just not possible. This latest animated feature from Blue Sky Studios offers a comedic look at the relationship between the spy and the inventor that’ll attempt to attract kids that are too young to handle the awesomeness of “Star Wars” during the holiday season. The animation studio tried a similar strategy with “Ferdinand” two years ago in order to compete with “Star Wars: The Last Jedi”. While "Ferdinand" wasn’t as highly successful as the “Ice Age” franchise in terms of box office, it was able to earn solid ratings from critics and audiences as well as some award nominations for Best Animated Feature. Never underestimate the power of John Cena as a bull. Like “Jumanji”, Blue Sky Studios is facing off against the power of “Star Wars” once again in hopes of copying the same success as “Ferdinand”. Does it have enough gadgets to complete this mission? The story centers on Lance Sterling (Smith), a famous super spy from a top secret organization who accomplishes his missions with his good looks and his gadgets created by science genius Walter Beckett (Holland). Sterling’s latest mission has him tracking down a half-man, half-cyborg terrorist named Killian (Mendelsohn) who threatens to destroy the world with a stolen assassin drone. Sounds easy peasy, right? Well, unless you count the fact that Sterling’s been framed for stealing the drone and using it to kill people, then yeah, this mission is definitely easy peasy. With no one else to turn to, Sterling seeks the help of Walter, who’s been working on a secret invention that can make its user “disappear”. Unfortunately, the invention turned Sterling into a small pigeon instead. Whoops. Now he must find a way to save the world from Killian’s wrath in pigeon form while Walter attempts to change him back. It’s practically James Bond for kids without the slow-moving dialogue scenes and the sex scenes. Genius. I wasn’t expecting too much out of this film since it’s made by the same animation studio that created the likes of “Ice Age” and “Rio” because let’s be honest, some of its films are enjoyable and full of heart, but in terms of quality storytelling, it’s no Pixar. “Spies in Disguise” is no different. It’s an energetic and colorful cartoon that combines fast-paced action with some heartwarming messages about teamwork, and to me, that’s all it needed to be. Heck, I would even say that it’s a pretty solid introduction to the spy genre for the little kids because it offered plenty of moments that were harmless and fun for the young ones while also offering the intense sequences for the adults who are familiar with the other spy films like the "007" installments. It’s a good combination that I think people of all ages will enjoy. The film’s story did well in taking advantage of its bizarre concept and having fun with its action spy tropes, even though there were a couple of story elements that didn’t have any real surprises in its gadget backpack. Regardless of that, it’s a pleasing story that delivers on the action, the heart, and the humor, with the latter two coming from the voice cast and the characters. The main highlights of the voice cast has to be Will Smith and Tom Holland as Lance and Walter, respectively. These two have the right amount of chemistry to make their main characters likable and funny. Will Smith is just as good as ever, and Tom Holland proves that he can work well as a voice actor and not just as Spider-Man. What’s also good about these two characters is that they have different perspectives on how to handle a specific situation, which made the development of their friendship between Lance and Walter much more convincing. I would also have to give Ben Mendelsohn some credit for his impressive voice work as Killian. It’s like the studio saw him in his other villain roles from the past and said, “Wow, this guy is good. Let’s hire him to voice the villain in our spy cartoon.” It’s almost like this actor was born to play the bad guy. Sure, he’s been in other films where he’s not the bad guy, but from my personal point of view, I think he works best in the villain role when it comes to his performance. I also thought the animation was on par with the other films from Blue Sky Studios. It’s colorful and a little cartoony. The animation works well for the film’s locations, the character designs, and more importantly, the action sequences because you can’t have a spy movie without the action. Speaking of character designs, I have to point out that the design for Lance Sterling is actually Will Smith in cartoon form. So if you’re wondering why they added Smith in the film, here you go. As for the action sequences, all I can say about them is that they’re fun and intense without being too intense for the young ones. Overall, “Spies in Disguise” is an entertaining James Bond-inspired cartoon that’s action-packed, heartwarming, and hilarious. While its storytelling didn’t have the same quality as the ones from Disney and Pixar, it has enough gadgets to accomplish its mission, which is to deliver a fun animated spy film for the kids and their parents. With its amusing voice cast, likable characters, solid humor, and vibrant animation, this is not only a respectable back-up plan for families who couldn’t get seats for “Frozen 2” or “Star Wars” during the holiday break, but also another hit for Blue Sky Studios. It’s also a good film that will satisfy fans of the spy genre while they wait for the new James Bond film to come out. B“Bombshell” stars Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, Margot Robbie, and John Lithgow. Released on December 13, 2019, the film follows the female workers of Fox News and their allegations against the founder. The film is directed by Jay Roach, who also directed films such as “Austin Powers”, “Meet the Parents”, “Dinner for Schmucks”, “The Campaign”, and “Trumbo”. It wasn’t that long ago when a bunch of women are now coming out to accuse famous male celebrities for sexual harassment, but it didn’t happen because of you-know-how. Before Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexual allegations, there was another famous man who was convicted of the same crime, and that man was the chairman and CEO of Fox News. This situation was once showcased in the Showtime miniseries “The Loudest Voice”, which depicted the ups and downs of Roger Ailes’ career, back in June, so it didn’t take us very long to get another take on the real-life scandal from the guy who brought us the “Austin Powers” trilogy. This is Jay Roach’s latest trip into drama territory as he attempts to make his way to the winners’ circle during this year’s awards season. Is he able to succeed? Let’s dive into the scandal and find out. The film’s story centers on the real accounts of three Fox News workers: Megyn Kelly (Theron), Kayla Pospisil (Robbie), and Gretchen Carlson (Kidman). Carlson filed a lawsuit against the organization’s CEO Roger Ailes (Lithgow) for sexual harassment, which resulted in other female workers coming forth to speak out against Ailes. The film showcases the events that lead to the lawsuit as well as the events that happened during and after this process. Keep in mind that this occurred more than three years ago. I can see the importance of this event that’s represented in “Bombshell” not just because it inspired other women to speak out about harassment in a workplace, but also because it showcased how they were treated compared to how the men were treated in a workplace. This type of stuff was once the norm more than 30 years ago, but since we’re in the 2010s and we’re one step closer to the 2020s, it has now become a huge no-no, and sadly, most people still don’t get it. The film respectively illustrated those themes and delivered a well-acted and inspiring drama that's worth talking about. Theron, Kidman, and Robbie deserved the praise they got for their engaging performances as Megyn, Gretchen, and Kayla respectively. Megyn Kelly is another character that Theron can easily sink herself into and you won’t even recognize it’s really her playing the character. The resemblance between the two were pretty remarkable. Kidman still proved herself to be a very talented actress, and Robbie did not disappoint me in terms of her performance. Robbie’s character, Kayla, is one of the female workers who became a victim to Roger Ailes’ harassment and is afraid to speak out. When I saw this scene that involves Roger telling Kayla to lift up her skirt so he can see her legs, I can immediately see the discomfort that Kayla is expressing on her face. I didn’t see it as acting discomfort, it was real discomfort. I thought Robbie did a superb job at portraying this type of character and the film showcased this character arc very well. It’s a bit uncomfortable for people who have been in this situation before, but I can see it as something that’s important to those who want to prevent this from happening to everybody else. While the main three actors are the stars of the show, the supporting cast should deserve some credit for keeping up with them, especially John Lithgow as Roger Ailes and Kate McKinnon as Jess Carr, Kayla’s friend. The best way I can describe Roger Ailes is that he’s an absolute hothead who apparently has a thing for lady legs, and Lithgow was able to master this type of personality effectively. As for Saturday Night Live star Kate McKinnon, let’s just say that she’s one of the comedians that can also handle drama pretty well. The film’s director, Jay Roach, was able to envision this type of story in a way that’s almost along the lines of “Vice” or “The Big Short”, but he didn’t do that much else to delve even deeper into the film’s subject. There were times where the film’s script by Charles Randolph fell into safe territory in order to make it more watchable for its audience despite its R-rating. I’ve seen other films that deal with certain unnerving themes at a discomforting level, such as “Joker” back in October. That film has themes that were portrayed in an unnerving and emotional way. There’s a couple of uncomfortable moments in “Bombshell”, but it struggled to go beyond those moments when it comes to the emotion behind them. Despite this flaw, the story we got was fine the way it was. I think if they took the time to express some emotion a bit more, this could’ve been a real winner. Overall, “Bombshell” dropped the ball hard on its subject and the result is a compelling fact-based drama that earns its importance. While the film does feel safe from time to time and the emotion behind its themes is somewhat lacking just a bit, it is held together by its stunning cast and Roach’s respectable sense of direction. It’s not a straight-up masterpiece, but it does have a shot at inspiring people to stand up and speak out against those who done them wrong, especially women, and to respect each other regardless of sex and race. I would recommend this one to those who are familiar with its themes and the cast. B-“Cats” stars James Corden, Judi Dench, Jason Derulo, Idris Elba, Jennifer Hudson, Ian McKellen, Taylor Swift, Rebel Wilson, and Francesca Hayward. Released on December 20, 2019, the film follows a tribe of cats known as the “Jellicles”. The film is directed by Tom Hooper, who also directed films such as “Red Dust”, “The King’s Speech”, “Les Miserables”, and “The Danish Girl”. It is based on Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical of the same name, and it is based on Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats by T. S. Eliot. Looks like someone had the balls to come out on the same day as “Star Wars”, or should I say “hair balls”? Just like last year and the year before that, a musical film is making its debut during the holiday season. This time, it’s a musical about humanoid cats. I guess they couldn’t afford to use actual cats for the film, so they have to rely on human actors in their computer-generated cat costumes instead. I’m pretty much one of the very few people who have not seen the stage musical that the film is based on, but I am familiar with its director Tom Hooper. This is Hooper’s second time directing a musical film following his film adaptation of “Les Miserables” back in 2012, which I thought was excellent by the way, so it would be interesting to see if he can hit the right notes again with this one. Not a lot of people were excited for the film, with many of them calling it out for its uncanny mixture of live-action and CGI on the cats. I’ll get to that part later on, but first, let’s see if this latest musical film is good enough for me to recommend it. Taking place in London, the story follows a white cat named Victoria (Hayward), who has been abandoned on the streets for some reason. She then encounters the “Jellicles”, a group of cats that is known for their sexualized cat-like dancing that would put the dancers from “Dirty Dancing” to shame. She is invited to take part in a competition called the “Jellicle Choice” in which they compete with one another through song and dance and the tribe’s leader, Old Deuteronomy (Dench), decides which cat will go to the Heaviside Layer and undergo reincarnation. That’s it. That’s the entire plot. It’s just “American Idol”, but with humanoid cats. I’ve seen a lot of strange films that left me feeling speechless, but this film is quite possibly the most strangest thing I have ever witnessed on the big screen. I don’t know if there’s anything that could top this one. But is that a good thing or a bad thing in terms of its quality? Honestly, it would depend on your expectations. If you go into this film expecting it to be more than just a weird hallucination that you would get when you’re overdosed with drugs (or in this case, catnip), you’ll wind up having a hissy fit on your way out. If you’re expecting it to be a weirdly-attractive wet dream that comes from the mind of a cat lady, you might be somewhat satisfied with the end result. From my perspective, “Cats” somehow works as a PG-rated fantasy dream in terms of the set designs and its unusual visuals, but compared to the other musical films from the past, it lacks a special soul in its storytelling to match its music and its talented cast. As I mentioned before, all these characters do in the film is sing, dance, and take part in a competition where the winner goes to the great beyond and comes back in the next life. It never took the time to fully explore the characters and their personalities, especially Victoria. Some of them were just there to show off their singing and dancing talents, while others were there to make them feel important to the story despite the fact that they’re not convincing enough to earn that importance. If the narrative is like this in the musical, then I would say it’s fine when it comes to translating it from musical to film, but since I’m reviewing it as its own film, I’m gonna have to say that the story was pretty underwhelming and almost non-existent. There were also some pacing issues that may become troublesome for young kids, especially those who haven’t seen the musical. Part of that might be due to the lack of grandness in its visual flair, especially from some of the musical numbers. The music sequences were pretty enjoyable, especially the “Beautiful Ghosts” sequence and the “Macavity” sequence by Taylor Swift, but they didn’t quite pop out as much as I thought they would. Aside from those icky flaws, I was okay with everything else, including the cast. Francesca Hayward made her first on-screen debut as Victoria, the main character of the film. Hayward is a professional ballerina and a principal dancer at the Royal Ballet in London. Her dancing skills and singing voice were undoubtedly remarkable, but her performance could use some improvement. It’s not bad, but I wouldn’t say it’s award-worthy. James Corden and Rebel Wilson both serve as comic relief as Bustopher Jones and Jennyanydots respectively. They’re all right for the most part despite their humorous moments falling a bit flat at times. Instead of relying on actual costumes and makeup, the film uses CGI to transform the live-action actors into human-like cats as well as the mice and cockroaches during the one music sequence, which I thought looked unintentionally hilarious. I’m not kidding, I was seriously laughing my lungs out when I first saw what they did to the mice. I didn’t think it was possible that it couldn’t get much weirder than humanoid cats, but the film managed to prove me wrong. That moment right there is now in my list of cures for my depression. Anyway, the CGI effects for the characters were the most common criticism that has been plaguing this film, with most of the people hating the film just because the cat designs are giving them nightmares or something. I’m actually fine with how the cats were portrayed, although I did get weirded out by the mice and the cockroaches. They’re pretty much what I expected them to look like based on what I read about the source material. I think if they went with the practical costumes or make the film fully animated instead, the backlash wouldn’t have been so severe, but hey, what can you do? There were some visual effects that looked a bit lazy at times, especially with how they edit certain scenes, but other than that, they’re nice to look at. The dance choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler was also quite impressive as it is one of the only things that kept the nifty musical numbers from landing head first into the litter box. The other thing being the songs. It’s swift, elegant, and oddly whimsical. They dance like humans, yet they behave and move like cats. Yeah, it’s so flipping weird. Overall, Tom Hooper’s take on “Cats” is undoubtedly high on catnip, but it isn’t “purr-fect” enough to convince everybody to take this bizarre trip. Great, now I’m starting to use those dumb cat puns in my review. The cast was fine in their roles and the musical sequences were mildly entertaining due to the choreography and some passable visuals. Unfortunately, they weren’t able to scratch their way out of the film’s mediocre plot and underwhelming characters. It’s funny that I had no problems watching this film despite being disappointed with the end result while the rest of the world were losing their minds over the cat designs and its concept. Another sign that people have nothing better to do other than complain about a film. So sad. If you like the musical and you happen to like this film more than I did, then hey, good for you. Don’t let anyone from social media treat you like garbage for liking it. As someone who hasn’t watched the musical, this film isn’t flat-out terrible, but it could’ve done a lot more to prove the naysayers wrong. C- |
Home of the most friendly movie reviews on the planet.
Categories
All
Follow Me |