Ah yes, last year’s Oscar winner for Best Picture. Had not gotten around to watch it yet, because I was a bit afraid that I wouldn’t like it. The first half I was still being sceptical, but around the midway point in this movie, as the friendship between Tony (Viggo Mortenson) and Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali, deservedly winning the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor) takes a turn into deeper and personal emotions, this movie becomes something more. It’s really something special, and all it took is some excellent casting to bring this story to the screen. I had a hard time believing that something like this really happened, but it did. Of course they took some liberties to make the story better for the screen, you have to or it doesn’t sell. But it’s there. You love them for their qualities and dislike them for the faults they show, but you always end up liking them more and more because of how they push themselves to accept these faults and try to do something about them. At the end, they are changed men, but still the same. And I think that’s really beautiful.
This movie has my favourite quote of the week.
Frank “Tony Lip” Vallelonga: “The world’s full of lonely people afraid to make the first move.”
Ah yes! Michael Mann’s master piece from the 90s. I’ve referenced it here before, it just happened to be on the list to watch this week. The Old Man and the Gun did not make me want to watch this movie, just for reference.
I’ve watched this movie before, a couple of years ago, when I was going through a list I compiled of the 500 greatest movies. I think I got about halfway, and there were some movies that I didn’t pay attention to. This was one of them.
Boy, was I wrong to. There’s a lot going on, and I imagine my younger self did not have the patience to sit through 2.5 hours with his full attention. I admit, I caught myself on my phone a couple of times too during this rewatch (I’m working on it). Watching Pacino and De Niro act together is an absolute joy, I’m so glad I’m experiencing this is a new, more grown-up light. Their acting is so good that the rivalry between the two characters kind of takes the main stage over the plot. Not that I think that’s a bad thing, because both are very pleasurable to witness.
I know it’s a good movie and I’ve rated it as such, and yet it was my least favourite movie to watch this week. It’s not entirely for me, I believe. But that’s ok, if everyone liked and loved the same things, it would be a boring world.
As I'm reading J. Hoberman's "An Army of Phantoms", it's quite fascinating to see persons that are subject in the book be beatured on the big screen. Albeit a bit fictionalized, it takes place before the events in the book. Back in the day, politics shaped movies way more than they do now. (Although there are examples of this happening to appease certain nations in the world.) Propaganda in movies to shape the public's mind is something only Herman J. Mankiewicz frowns upon in Mank.
It took me longer to watch because I had to keep consulting Google and IMDB for the period correct mentions of events and persons. I left the movie not only better informed about how Citizen Kane came to be written, the impression I now have of the people involved helps me to humanize them. They're no longer just names on a page for me. The magic of the movies.
One has to mention the thorough effort to establish the particular sense of nostalgia for the 80-year old setting. They way it is filmed brings forth the unmitigated sense that this is a passion project. David Fincher did not hold back turning this era-defining story into this skillful product, although I do feel sorry for the actors having to go through multiple takes to reach his defenition of perfection. (Stanley Kubrick-flashbacks anyone?).
However, that leaves us with a picture that has accomplished acting, remeniscant of old Hollywood that is neither glamorous nor dismissive. If you love movies, this is a perfect addition to your "Must Watch"-list.
I can put this into the same category as Heat. A movie I’ve watched before, but not paid a lot of attention to. Boy, am I glad that I did now. Sitting close to 3 hours, it did not feel that long at all. The critics are right in saying that this is one of the best movies ever made. Not only is it excellently cast, the writing is fantastic, the tone, the colours, the camera work.... It’s one of those movies where the production story is just as enticing as the movie itself. Brando, Pacino, Duvall,... there’s so many actors to name that are brilliant in this.
It takes a bit of legwork from your brain to stay on top of everyone and all the storylines that are going on, but if you do and you’re with it, it’s fantastic. It’s organic, it’s real, it’s like you can reach into your screen and actually touch these people. It’s almost like a documentary, it’s that life-like. To edit a baptism with an array of murders at the end, is two-fold. Michael’s godson being baptized is secondary to his own baptism as the new Don of the family. It’s just perfect.
Well. This one was a really nice suprise. Joaquin Phoenix is absolutely brilliant and will be a strong contender to win that golden statue next year, I think. As Arthur Fleck, he is forced to watch his world crumble around him while he desperately tries to hold the pieces together. Not everything is entirely his fault. Gotham in the 80s is not treating its lower class citizens quite right and he is just one of the many victims in the corruption filled city. The movie is a slow stroll from barely hanging on, but surviving to reaching the bottom of a bottom-less pit, finding it full of monsters who are not there to hurt you, but doing the terrible things they tell you to do makes you feel so, so good.
Besides the terrific character study of how a ‘normal’ guy can turn into a villian if his surroundings push him to it, the movie also tries to send the message that corruption and misery are prevailing. It lacks a bit in this regard, but I respect what is trying to be said. But, between you and me, that is not why I watched this movie, and I bet neither did you. You and I both know what is going on in the world, we do not need to be reminded of it. But to shape the situation and plot, it definitely helps.
What I absolutely adored though, was the framing. Whenever a character has a close-up (and there are many), director Todd Phillips uses the environment to really focus on his actor’s. And it works, very well. It brings you real close and personal. His use of hallways and open spaces to make everyone feel small and like a marionette in a play is also Oscar worthy. The green Joker tint, just finished it off into finger-licking good cinema (See what I did there?).
As I’ve not yet seen De Niro in The Kingd of Comedy, I can’t compare him to this. But as always, he was great to witness.
February 16, 2020
Diary Entry #1
Jojo Rabbit (2019)
I’ve been a bit on a Taika Waititi binge lately, watching movies of him I had not seen before. I’ve seen What We Do in the Shadows (2014) and Thor: Ragnarok (2017) before, but I’ve yet to see his particularly well balanced style in yet another movie. So I went through his oeuvre and found another couple of gems in Boy (2010) and Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016). His excellent use of character combined with a fun way to use a camera (he likes to rotate it in place so you experience the entire room and actions in it in one take, it’s quite lovely) drew me to really look forward to this experience.
I just came out of It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) when I put this on and of course, the movie experience is quite different. I don’t know how Waititi manages it, but he draws us into the Nazi world without ridiculing them too much but also not vindicate any kind of their actions. He shows and tells us that Jojo does live in a cruel world, despite the slapstick like qualities his surroundings form around him.
Taika is very good at building relationships between people that meet each other for the first time. It’s a recurring theme in all of his movies. Two characters that meet up and are forced in some way to spend time together and get to know each other through dialogue and sharing of philosophies. His Andersonesque way of story through exposition makes me happy every time. Sometimes you don’t need words to tell what is going on. A well shaped image guides your mind towards the conclusion he wants you to draw from the scene. I admire that a lot in a filmmaker.
He doesn’t ask a lot of his audience, he’s not as symbolic as Anderson can be. But Taika knows how to be precise and concise at the same time. At this point, his style has become quite streamlined and he can fit pretty much anything he wants into the format he has become comfortable with. That’s why watching Jojo Rabbit feels like coming home to me. You know what to expect camera and dialogue wise, throw in a little bit of Waititi awkwardness, sprinkle in a setting that is compelling and homely at the same time and voila. You have a Taika Waititi movie.
Now, it’s definitely not his best. What We Do in the Shadows (2014) reserves that right. But it was of the same level as Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016). It’s bright, it’s funny without ridiculing itself. The story, you know, it’s a play on the Romeo & Juliet situation. It’s how it’s told and shown which is important. With the help of brilliant child actor Roman Griffin Davis as Jojo, this story just glitters off your screen.
Scarlett Johansson deserved that Oscar nod, Sam Rockwell was delightfully apathetic at first but vindicates himself later on. Rebel Wilson was there too and her bluntness got a good laugh or two out of me. The only thing that bothered me is that their accents jumped all over the place and all I could hear from Rockwell was Waititi’s New Zealand accent.
I think Waitit blends humor and emotion again in a perfect way, the story feels satisfying, has humor and sadness, regret and delight. If you’re a fan of his work, you’ll love this. If you’re not into him, you’ll question things a bit more than I did.
Thanks for reading, have a wonderful day!
Chiwetel Ejiofor's directorial debut and it's a strong start. Stuck in the fields, young William needs to find the courage to battle all the elements against him. Heavy rains followed by a dry season in a country which government does not provide enough for the lower classes of people, forcing him to work the fields so his family has enough to eat.
Being a bright young man and good with technology, he soon knows that he can find a solution for the drought and help his family. The battle between William's duties and ideas is well translated. Ejiofor is a strong player as his father, yet due to this performance it is him that kind of steals the screen.
It's not that the rest of the acting is bad, it's that one person stands above the rest, but it is unintentional. The photography is absolutely gorgeous and brands your eyes with the harsh thruth these people have to live with. Their goals are primal and the mistrust in technology to save them is warranted because having to build it takes away from the work needed to put in the field. The fact that they almost have to resort to praying for rain to survive is heartbraking enough.
In the end, it is a story about persevering in what you're good at and following an idea that can actually help and improve people's situations in a decor that we're not used to seeing in any other Hollywood movie. Props to Netflix and Ejiofor for picking up this story and putting it on the screen.
Vera has been on the air for 10 years now and a lot has happened. It leaves it first couple of seasons far behind in this one, as is pretty evident in this episode. It's still good, it's just lost something essential. A bit of spunk, a bit of urgence that was underneath it and I feel was fueled mostly by Brenda Blethyn. Brenda will always be a delight to watch, but that fury to do what is right that was so enticing to the character has left her a little bit. It's still there, but it has just wittled away over the years. I'm not saying her performance was bad, I'm saying it has shifted tones. Either it's because Vera has been established enough or Brenda's years are finally starting to catch up with her, being that's she's well into her 70s now. She hasn't aged at all, she looks wonderful still. But her performance has undeniably shifted. I hope she isn't growing tired, because I absolutely love her and want her to do 10 more seasons.
The episode is absolutely cramped with plot development and you have to have a good memory to follow what is actually going on. I honestly always found it convoluting and I couldn't pay much attention. Now that I have, I can really appreciate the level of detail that goes into this mini-movie they're making. And that for 3-4 episodes each year! It's really impressing. It helps they have the police set, but a lot of it happens in what appear to be real houses and locations. There must be a lot of travelling around for this and I can't imagine the logistics of keeping track of what is happening. This is why I'm so into this series, it is produced and written so well.
On to the episode at hand. Spoilers ahead!
Luke, a 28-year old cleaner guy is found by some binmen behind a dumpster. He has a wound on his head, his ribs and possibly self-inflicted chemical burn wounds on his legs, caused by bleach. The wound on his head caused his death, happening 5 hours before it. His brain was slowly filling with blood and he was literally a dead man walking. The bruising on his ribs looks irregular and potentiall has a further clue to his murderer.
At first you suspect his bosses, a maried couple who own the cleaning company. They act like they're the most caring and helpful bosses, but his ex-girlfriend and colleague Nadiya and her roommate Daisy confess to Vera and Aiden about the terrible working conditions they have to go through. Assault with bleach, unfair payment, exploitation, blackmail, terrible housing situation,... you name it, it's there. In the end the husband is arrested for assault, but has nothing to do with the murder of Luke.
Luke's father, Seth, was murdered when he was younger by a Terrence Kayle. His brother Raymond is the next big suspect. Terrence called the murder self-defense, but no one else seems to have backed this up. We learn in fact that Seth was an abusive husband and father, hitting his wife and son over many years. He was very aggressive and must have attacked Terrence immediately when he found out he was robbing his house. Luke seemed to have known this, as he had confessed this to Raymond, but he didn't want to accept it. That's why he hit Luke in the ribs (the strange bruising was from his rings), but the head wound does not seem to be made by Raymond, so he is also cast aside as a suspect.
Lastly there's Jasmine Asher, the last in the list of main suspects. When they were younger, Luke and Jasmine were a thing. But after the suicide of his neighbor Thea, who they hung out with, he broke up with her and left the town they lived in. Through the course of the episode Jasmine keeps denying things and lying about what happened in the passed. Arguing that Thea was depressed and a huge cannabis user, pushing her towards jumping of the edge of the crag. In fact, the three of them had used one joint and Jasmine had dared Thea to stand on the edge. She fell in. For years she has kept this silent, until Thea's sister, Georgia finally confronts Jasmine and her mother with this story. Luke had come to visit Jason, Thea's father, the night of his death to explain everything to him, because he felt so guilty about the whole thing. He was blackmailed by Jasmine the entire time. Instead of talking to Jason, Luke talked to Georgia, explaining everything to her instead. She grew angry and confused, starting to hit Luke overcome by emotion causing him to fall and hit his head. That caused a heamatoma in his head. Without realising it, or ever linking it together, Georgia has killed Luke.
This was an interesting conclusion to the story, mostly because the killer never realised that she killed someone, only at the very end. I think Georgia would have gone straight to the police if Luke had been instantly killed after hitting his head. She did not calculate his murder. But it's still murder.
My only comments would be is that the eventual murderer was not prominently featured in this and I kinda wanted it to go more into the subplot of the cleaning company. I could have gone without the Raymond subplot, instead filled it in with exposition of how the murder happend. I miss that, the little cinematic at the end of how it happened. It gives the actor playing the dead body for the most part of the episode something fun to do and we can better fit in the conclusion into the entire plot. That said, I do appreciate how the mystery branches off into dead ends, like a real police investigation. They cirlce around until they pinpoint the story that has the most potential to render a result.
Vera still has me, and I'll follow her adventures for as long as Brenda wants to do the role. I love you, please keep doind what you love as well!
Ah, now this one you didn’t expect, I bet! I watched this movie because I will be tackling the play in a big local production next year. I don’t know what role I will be playing yet, we just had the first read on Friday. I hope I get the role of Robert.
It’s a weird tragic comedy about people competing in a gruellingly long dance competition. (I checked, the longest one is 129 hours, but this one goes on for weeks). With that peculiar setting, you really have the chance to show the absurdity of the situation and why all the characters are doing it. They’re all doing it for the money of course, because it is set during the economic setback following the crash of Wall Street in 1929. It’s humor is dark, but witty. It sets down how capitalism can really ruin people’s spirits and what it forces them to do to survive. Of course, it’s all part of the initial problem. Instead of a way out of misery, it just pushes them further into it. I think it’s a great allegory for people fighting to survive, so they can finally start living, only to have their hard struggle be for naught.
Still holds the record for highest number of Oscar nominations (9), but only winning one (Best Actor in a Supporting Role, Gig Young). I recommend watching it, it’s something you haven’t seen before and very enjoyable to see how people from that time deal with the problems of society.
While the ending left me a bit baffled by how far the character was going to push himself in his own rising convictions, the path towards it is one of pure character developing joy.
Ethan Hawke bites himself deep into this role, letting the Reverend take over. His performance is superlative subtlety as he fights against the convictions he has built up for himself over the years. Current events that he has no control over but has to tackle as his duty as pastor catapult him into a mindset he is not ready to dive into yet. His silent struggle is real, a part he does not easily show towards any kind of public. That forlorn nature of the character is actually what pulls you through the movie, the narrow frame helping to make him feel even more locked up. Not only by his function, but by his hard mindset.
A bit of the genius of Taxi Driver trickles through the dialogue in here, I have to commend Paul Schrader for giving us yet another movie that folds a difficult setting and current problems into a sandwich of genius that I enjoyed thoroughly.
I could have done with maybe 20 minutes less of footage and an ending that was a bit differently scripted, but that is personal taste and for that, there is no remedy.
Convinced that I would roll my eyes a lot with this movie, I did. But then it did something wonderful and captured me in the way that The Goonies, Hook, and all those other classics did. It teaches without being too overpowerful, it situates itself within this time (make quite a few nods to Brexit England) and it is filled with hope when there's a world where it seems that there's not a lot of it left. It's clear what Cornish wants to achieve here and I do feel like he did. He wants to fill youth with adventure, goals and hope while reminding those that had forgotten that not all is lost just yet.
It's not perfect by any means, but it is charming, heartwarming and decently acted. It just looks like it was a whole lot of fun to make and I had a whole lot of fun watching it.
I really just wonder how the hell they explained the remains of the battlefield at the school to the teachers... Or did Merlin just hypnotise them to clean it all up and forget all about it. But what about all the dents in the cars?! Oh but wait, the meek kid can multiply money now, it's all good. And shouldn't they be like all over the news if 4 kids disappear for 4 days straight? Mum didn't seem too devastated or angry about it. Ah well, it's a family-fun adventure movie, what the hell am I going on about, I enjoyed it.
Ah yes! Michael Mann’s master piece from the 90s. I’ve referenced it here before, it just happened to be on the list to watch this week. The Old Man and the Gun did not make me want to watch this movie, just for reference.
I’ve watched this movie before, a couple of years ago, when I was going through a list I compiled of the 500 greatest movies. I think I got about halfway, and there were some movies that I didn’t pay attention to. This was one of them.
Boy, was I wrong to. There’s a lot going on, and I imagine my younger self did not have the patience to sit through 2.5 hours with his full attention. I admit, I caught myself on my phone a couple of times too during this rewatch (I’m working on it). Watching Pacino and De Niro act together is an absolute joy, I’m so glad I’m experiencing this is a new, more grown-up light. Their acting is so good that the rivalry between the two characters kind of takes the main stage over the plot. Not that I think that’s a bad thing, because both are very pleasurable to witness.
I know it’s a good movie and I’ve rated it as such, and yet it was my least favourite movie to watch this week. It’s not entirely for me, I believe. But that’s ok, if everyone liked and loved the same things, it would be a boring world.
This week starts off with what could well be Robert Redford’s last leading role credit. The man is in his 80s, and yet he does not relent in putting down the role of Forest Tucker. To feel alive, this man keeps doing what he’s good at and loves doing. Which is robbing banks. But it’s not a heist that you’re used to. Instead of impressing and intimidating, Tucker remains discreet, polite and above all, a gentleman. It doesn’t take much to feel sympathetic to the man, even if he’s committing crimes. The movie doesn’t portray him as a criminal, instead he feels like an older Georgey Clooney heist genius. Just with less bravado. A couple of times, Sissy Spacek turns up as a charming love interest. I also can’t help unsee the dewey eyed Casey Affleck from Manchester by the Sea and for me personally feels a bit lost in the role of a police detective, assigned to find Forest. It’s trying to push the Pacino – de Niro friendly rivalry from Heat too much and it’s not really working too well.
Tom Waits and Danny Glover feel severely undercast for the roles as Tucker’s aids. I think the film could have prospered with at least 20 minutes more time to flesh out the bonds the three have together, after having worked alongside each other for so many years. It’s just a bit of bickering about their situation and that’s it. Then again, sitting at 93 minutes, it’s not like it’s a huge waste of your time. If you like Redford and you like crime movies where the protagonist is lawful evil, this is definitely your jam.
Despite being a fan of Reitman's work (Up in the Air, Thank You for Smoking), this one didn't land home for me. I know why he wanted to make this movie, the link to the current president (Trump at this moment of writing in 2019) and what character he is as a leader. The one thing they have in common is that they may, or may not, have commited adultery and if that should be taken into account whether or not they are fit to command the oval office. The media prevented Hart from achieving this, but 30 years later Trump managed anyway, despite being a more nefarious character than Hart. It is a clear vision that in only a couple of decades, things can change dramatically.
I've established that I know what he wanted to do. But it did not land. It has a very strong performance by Jackman and Farmiga is passable. It just focusses and zooms in on the wrong things. The story feels like an uphill climb, but the sights up there are not worth the trouble of the journey. I don't feel like I got to know the man Gary Hart, or his family. I didn't feel how big the impact actually was on his campaign and family, the movie only showed it to me.
The only reason it got 6 points is of Jackman's performance, the line it tries to draw with current events and the fact that it was made with technology that was only available in the eighties. Besides that? Meh.
Well, I liked this one way better than Love Actually, that's for sure.
I know what this thing wants to be, it's very clearly aimed at children. It feels like a children's book brought to life and it is definitely filmed like it too. If done well, something like that can be charming and heartwarming, but this movie is neither of those things.
A lot of scenes feel like excuses to have Will Ferrel do what Will Ferrel does best, play a big child. Now, this fits his character well enough, but I got to wonder that during 30 years living at the North Pole, Santa or his wife didn't educate him thoroughly about how the world works outside of their magical Christmas land. Especially when Buddy decides to leave the safety of his home and venture somewhere he is very unfamiliar with. He doesn't know social cues, customs or how anything really works. The least he could do is give him some safety tips but he leaves it with some funny quips about peep shows and gum on the street being not for eating. (I gagged when he actually put some in his mouth from a filthy looking iron bar).
Buddy's supposed innocence gets really tiresome halfway through the movie. I mean, after a couple of days, wouldn't he realize that he needs to adapt to be able to be accepted in this world? Even after being beat up by a wonderfully great Peter Dinklage, he remains positive. He doesn't even wonder /why/ he was beat up or ask what he did was wrong. Instead he just accepts the beating and makes a quip about Peter Dinklage (he calls him an elf because he's small, har har) being a South Pole elf. Even if he grew up as an elf, he still has human emotions. I mean, even the elfs at the North Pole are mean to him, as he overhears a conversation that he's pretty useless in the shop. Words hurt more than physical violence, huh? In any case, watching Peter Dinklage kick Will Ferrel's ass was very satisfying.
The movie features a lot of movie tropes that are forgiveable, because it's aimed at movies and the rest of the actors are charming enough that it elevates the movie for me. It's not bad, but it's not good either.
Robert Egbert looks like he doesn't know what the hell is going on half of the time and the lines do not feel right to him at all. Zoey Deschanel is very charming, but doesn't add a lot more to the story besides being a love interest. James Caan pulls an incredible amount of patience from... somewhere. He must love his wife very much (a forgettable Mary Steenbruggen) because it's her that convinces him to let Buddy into his life. A selfless choice from her that's only there to have Buddy move in with the family and cause mayhem.
Not everything in this movie is annoying, I was pretty charmed with it. I loved the scene in the shop where he spends the entire night decorating the place. It shows that his background as living as an Elf is good for something in the real world, and feels like it's something that he can contribute to society over there. Despite that, there's not a lot going on that makes him a valuable character to society. That's not something he actively persues, not even if he wants to impress his dad. But at the end he ends up being a writer for a children's book that gets popular? There's not a single mention about him being interested in that anywhere. His father just took the story of his arrival and adventures in NYC and cashed it. Well done Dad.
Conclusion:
I didn't hate this, but I didn't love it either. It's a good attempt at making a child-friendly Christmas story, but the charm is partially ruined by Will Ferrel's man-child acting.
Ever since I found the story of It, I've been drawn to its story and concept. It features stuff from your worst nightmares, a scary clown, creepy crawlers, hideous monsters. And yet, it is not the stuff on the surface that scares you most, it is the absolute manifestation of your emotional fears. Crap that you have buried under layer upon layer of mental walls, making it disappear from your mind and thoughts. Until it is uncovered again.
This film embodies this. Takes a shovel and digs its way into your fears. This is what happens when you let a director loose who wants to do the source material justice. Not only for the fans, but because it is such a clear representation of what deep, emotional fear can be like. And when the shovel stops working, it takes a pickaxe. Then a drill. Then dynamite.
Skarsård has been compared to Heath Ledger wearing his role. And they're not wrong, the comparison is spot on. He lives and breathes Pennywise. If not for that brilliant casting, the movie would have falled flat for sure. And it's not only the clown that's been handed to capable hands, the rest of the losers are all one by one perfect in their adult rules. This is beautiful film making in a genre that has gone mostly unnoticed by talent. It's a great movie to end this decade of excellent horror movies.
It's not only scary, it's sweet too. Banding together with your friends to beat the demons of your past, together. It gave me the greatest sense of nostalgia for them, the characters and their lives in Derry.
I loved this movie and it's one of my favourite of the year and one of my favourite King adaptations. I would like some more, please.
I don't know why I tortured myself sitting through all 135 minutes of that, but here we are.
The only thing that makes this movie somewhat tolerable is the cast. There's a lot of big names in this, but not all of them are featured as prominently in the movie as they are on the art in front of the bluray. Especially Rowan Atkinson isn't even a full minute in the movie, it's just another big name to add to the list of people that are in this.
It just makes it feel more like a feel-good Christmas movie cash-grab. The best is Emma Thompson, she's amazing in everything.
It could have been so much more. It starts and ends with people meeting with their loved ones in the airport, but it's not where the story starts off. It would have made a lot more sense to start off with that and build up characters through that. But it's just 10 or so stories that are slightly connected somehow (mostly done by things happening on screens). It just feels so bloated and convoluted because by the end of it, you barely know anyone from this movie, and that's a real shame with these kind of actors.
The only other positive thing I can say is that is was charming, but most of that is done by the excellent work of the actors handling a script that is laughable at best. The text just isn't written for the characters, it really feels like they've been put words in their mouth and had to fill in the rest by themselves. Luckily these people are pretty good at that. It particularly bothered me with Thomas Brodie-Sangster (Sam). The little kid talks about love like he's been through it all before and watching Titanic he knows exactly what it's like in real life. I'm just not buying it.
It would have been better if they cut half of the stories, connected them more deeply so it feels like more of a world of story. Make them come together for Christmas at the end. Not like only 8 of the 10 coming together for the nativity play. Get all of them in there, don't be afraid to get some drama in there (nothing is always lovey-dovey). Just... urgh, this feels too fantastical and whimsical.
Conclusion:
Not my cup of tea. I'm sure people love this for its charm, I just couldn't get into it.
This is, by far, the weirdest kind of bad movie I've ever seen. It's so bad it's good, kind of thing. So it deserves a low score, but you know why you want to watch this, if you're into this kind of thing at all. They speak in this weird, forced, official language that is really hard to follow. Half of the time, you have no idea what's actually going on. The solution to a problem is literally super handy and within easy reach, building no tension. Everyone is convinceable. The bad guy is a stereotype pur sang. The actors seem to have no idea what direction they want to go on and their well-tried efforts did not come out well from the editing room. It's so ridiculously edited, at one point they try to portrey 4 global disasters going one, while also telling a story down on Earth and one on the space ship. Which ends up with this... off-balanced act of fitting all the pieces together, it becomes surreal in the process. Must watch if you want to have a laugh at a good effort to make a decent movie, but lacks heavily in the the dialogue and editing.
