Film Reviews: Is Neurodiversity The Punchline? [Joker, 2019]

Joker (2019)

[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed. This piece also contains material of a sensitive nature].

Out of all of the Best Picture nominees for the 92nd Academy Awards season, I think I might be right in saying that Joker (2019) has received some of the biggest and controversial opinions from film-goers (with the exception of Jojo Rabbit (2019), of course). The film provides a new take on DC's iconic villain, depicting a man named Arthur (Joaquin Phoenix) who is essentially a struggling stand-up comedian with a neurological disorder that causes him to laugh uncontrollably, experience delusions and has difficulties with social interaction. 

I'll begin with what I found to be the good parts of this film. Firstly, if we look at technicalities alone, it looks and sounds wonderful. The cinematography, the camerawork, the musical score (maybe with the exception of Gary Glitter's song in the third act): they all equate to a very unique and distressing experience. I cannot fault it on that front. 

Credit: @themadimay_

Secondly, there are some representations of neurodiversity that don't rock the boat in terms of being harmful stereotypes. For example, the establishment of isolation that Joker experiences ("the other guys don't feel comfortable around you") and the inability to relate to people (demonstrated by a scene in which Joker observes the behaviours and social cues of people around him in his local comedy club) are very reminiscent of things that mentally ill people experience on a daily basis. We become sympathetic to this character's frustrations because we as individuals are shown a reflection of our own experiences, whether we are neurodiverse or not. 

However, Joker is (in this writer's opinion) a harmful film for representing mental illness in the way that it does. I will preface this by saying I am neurodiverse, therefore I am going to have a more biased say on this film: the things I take issue with are representations that will undoubtedly result in how others may treat me in the future. 

The entire premise of Joker is founded on this idea that a mentally unhinged man is pushed too far by the unforgivably cruel, neurotypical-driven society that surrounds him, and so he consequently has a psychotic break that leads him to murder five people within the film's runtime, beginning with three, middle-class boys that had begun beating him on a subway. 

Within the context of this scene, it's a grey area as to whether or not Joker is valid in his actions. The first two men are killed in self-defence, which can be justified, however he murders the third after running from the scene and begging to be spared. Joker then flees the crime scene and dances in a dingy, public bathroom, as if to suggest that his actions are all a performance to him and not as serious as the audience will make it out to be. In this sequence, it feels as if the film is saying that not only is a mentally ill person more capable of or inevitable in killing someone but it portrays Joker as a man who lacks empathy, contradicting earlier scenes in which we see his close relationship with his mother and his need to be liked by those around him. 

I have seen reviewers online claiming that this turning point is "haunting" or a "masterful depiction of mental illness" when, in reality, it's a blatant fetishization of a criminally insane man who has chosen to take the lives of other people (whether they deserve it or not) because he's fed up of being the bottom of the barrel. Now, as a neurodiverse person, I can agree with that sentiment: in the UK right now, funding to mental health services are being cut left and right (something also shown in Joker), and of course that's frustrating. However, that doesn't mean we're going to go out with a pistol and shoot people in the face for it. Demonstrating the flaws of the system in the film might be a realistic representation of our current society but to show it in a way that suggests that violence is the answer, or that there's no hope for the people affected by it, is irresponsible on the filmmakers' behalf.

Credit: @cigarettesenate

Another justification that the film tries to slap on you is that Joker's mother, Penny (Frances Conroy) is revealed to also be mentally ill, suffering from severe delusions and having a past of physically abusing and neglecting her son as a child. It is also revealed that Penny is not his biological mother and that she has been in Arkham Asylum numerous times. In this sense, it's almost as if Joker is suggesting that victims of child abuse are exempt from scrutiny, even if they commit heinous crimes like murder, when really a backstory like this should only provide context, not a means to his madness.

Finally, there is the climactic scene in the third act, wherein Joker attends a talk show (one which has laughed at his expense previously for his seemingly terrible stand-up material) and proudly announces that he is the one that murdered the three men on the subway, which has inadvertently started a revolution in Gotham (ironic, really, considering that Joker is the poster boy for an uprising that he doesn't even care about; "I don't believe in any of that"). 

The show's host, Murray (Robert De Niro) argues with him in a heated debate, with Joker claiming that society treats neurodiverse people poorly and then ends the segment with the joke "what do you get when you cross a mentally ill loner with a society that abandons him and treats him like trash? You get what you fucking deserve!" and murders Murray live on air. 

This is arguably the most poignant scene of the entire movie but it is also the most harmful. This entire interaction suggests that Murray's death is justified because of Joker's experiences, which it is not. Mentally ill people are not going to turn on neurotypicals and murder them because of how they've been treated; it is shown in many case studies that substance abuse largely has a direct correlation with most homicides and that mentally ill people are far more at risk to themselves than others. And to depict a division between these two types of people, to suggest that neurodiverse people are an 'Other', is enforcing this societal idea that we are different or "made wrong", or that without medication, we are more enlightened than everybody else.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: showing mentally ill people in cinema, ones with a predilection for murder, is not high art. It does nothing but portray harmful stereotypes of real people with real issues who are trying their best to navigate through a world that still sees their struggles as a taboo topic and are subjected to discrimination on the daily due to misinformation and unrealistic representation in the media (see Split (2017) for a 101 of how not to depict people with BPD). 

Credit: @catholicdad420

In a way, Joker largely tackles important issues, such as neurodiversity being shunned, capitalism and materialism being a basis for class division and kindness being integral to societal harmony. However, it does not tackle these issues in a healthy way. And I believe this is the true essence of Joker: feigning intellect but being unable to deliver it in a tangible and respectful way. As Jeremy Scott said in his recent review of Joker, "it's one of the most well-made movies I ever hated".

Overall rating: 6/10

- K

[Editor's note: Thank you all so much for being patient with me! I know I haven't posted content in a few months and that was down to personal/financial issues that I'm currently working through. I always appreciate my readership and feedback. See you again next week, hopefully!]

Ranked: Best Picture Nominees for the 92nd Academy Awards

Well ladies, gents and non-binary folks, it's that dreaded time of year again: Oscars season. Every time I walk into this dragging my feet, ready for the inevitable disappointment of my fave losing and elitists on Film Twitter™ arguing over the tiniest technicalities ("I'm telling you, you can see the motion blur!")

If you've been following me for a while, then you'll know that last year, I wrote a review for every single BP nominee. However, as proud of that as I am, I will not be doing that in future: instead, I will be posting a listing of them ranked based on my own enjoyment and critical viewing. I'd like to add a disclaimer here and say that, although these are not fully fleshed-out reviews, they will likely contain spoilers of integral plot points, so avoid reading on if you still have time to cram your viewings in!

9) Marriage Story

Directed by: Noah Baumbach

Starring: Adam Driver, Scarlett Johansson

Also nominated for: 
- Actor in a Leading Role (Adam Driver)
- Actress in a Leading Role (Scarlett Johansson)
- Actress in a Supporting Role (Laura Dern)

- Original Score (Randy Newman)
- Original Screenplay (Noah Baumbach)

At the bottom of the list, it has to be Marriage Story. When I heard this film was out on Netflix, I wondered whether or not we could be in for another Roma (2018) level of excellence to grace the streaming platform...I stopped wondering that after about ten minutes of run-time, when I promptly realised that this film was going to be nothing more than an arduous case study into a frankly over-dramatic heterosexual relationship between two, cis-gendered people living in LA. 

Yes, it's about divorce, and divorce can be a messy affair. However, this movie just felt bland and one-dimensional in every sense of the word. The infamous climax between husband, Charlie (Adam Driver) and wife, Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) is definitely a spectacle to behold but one shockingly dynamic scene does not a good movie make, otherwise we'd have to consider films like The Break-up (2006) being Oscar-worthy as well (which they're definitely not). 

If it wins Best Picture, I will set fire to every DVD I own. That's how confident I am that this has absolutely no chance of winning.

Overall rating: 5/10

8) Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood 

Directed by: Quentin Tarantino

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie

Also nominated for: 

- Actor in a Leading Role (Leonardo DiCaprio)
- Actor in a Supporting Role (Brad Pitt)
- Cinematography (Robert Richardson)
- Costume Design (Arianne Phillips)

- Directing (Quentin Tarantino)
- Production Design (Barbara Ling and Nancy Haigh)
- Sound Editing (Wylie Stateman)
- Sound Mixing (Michael Minkler, Christian Minkler and Mark Ulano)
- Original Screenplay (Quentin Tarantino)

Now, some of you who know me might be surprised to see me put Tarantino so far down on the list. After all, I'm a big fan of Reservoir Dogs (1992), Pulp Fiction (1994), Inglorious Basterds (2009), and especially Django Unchained (2012): however, all of these films have something that I believe Once Upon a Time does not, and that's an interesting plot.

I have never sat down to watch a Tarantino movie and become so dejected and bored within 20 minutes that I pull out my phone to look at something else and yet there I was the other night, doing exactly that. The acting is fine, and I understand completely why Pitt is nominated for Supporting Actor, but I doubt he has a chance against Joe Pesci; I'm genuinely surprised that Margaret Qualley wasn't put up for Supporting Actress because I'd argue she has one of the best performances of the whole film.

The last act is overkill, even for Tarantino: the gratuitous violence left me disgusted, not entertained. The only nod I think this film deserves is for Sound Mixing and Sound Editing but, all in all, this really isn't Tarantino's best work and it shows. 

Overall rating: 4/10

7) Joker

Directed by: Todd Phillips

Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Frances Conroy, Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz

Also nominated for: 
- Actor in a Leading Role (Joaquin Phoenix)
- Cinematography (Lawrence Sher)

- Costume Design (Mark Bridges)
- Directing (Todd Phillips)
- Film Editing (Jeff Groth)
- Makeup and Hairstyling (Nicki Ledermann and Kay Georgiou)
- Original Score (Hildur Guðnadόttir)

- Sound Editing (Alan Robert Murray)
- Sound Mixing (Tom Ozanich, Dean Zupancic and Tod Maitland)
- Adapted Screenplay (Todd Phillips and Scott Silver)

I won't go too into detail with this one (keep your eyes peeled on Saturday for a fully comprehensive review) but I will say that, despite its incredible musical score and cinematography, I do not believe that Joker has a place amongst the nominees for Best Picture. It is a narcissistic, "edgy" film that tries to convey an important message in a godawful way. 

I will say that it is 99.9% likely that Phoenix nabs Best Actor for this one because he does undoubtedly put a lot into his performance and, by default, he's the best of the men currently nominated. Having said that, I wish he wasn't receiving it for playing a character whose foundations are harmful stereotypes and poor writing. 

Overall rating: 6/10

6) 1917

Directed by: Sam Mendes

Starring: Dean-Charles Chapman, George MacKay

Also nominated for:
- Cinematography (Roger Deakins)

- Directing (Sam Mendes)
- Makeup and Hairstyling (Naomi Donne, Tristan Versluis and Rebecca Cole)

- Original Score (Thomas Newman)

- Production Design (Dennis Gassner and Lee Sandales)

- Sound Editing (Oliver Tarney and Rachael Tate)

- Sound Mixing (Mark Taylor and Stuart Wilson)

- Visual Effects (Guillaume Rocheron, Greg Butler, Dominic Tuohy)

- Original Screenplay (Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns)

This one really caught me by surprise. Admittedly, I am not the biggest fan of war movies: I find them bleak, uninteresting and difficult to watch, though I have found in recent years that I do enjoy some, such as Fury (2014).

However, I found 1917 to be entertaining. Is it a sensational war movie? Not particularly. Does it bring anything new to the table? Well...no. But I can say that the camerawork kept me intrigued the entire time, Thomas Newman's score (which some viewers found out of place) actually worked for me and there's something to be said about the intensely human feeling this film radiates. It deserves it's nominations for Visual Effects and Production Design, the latter being a win I wouldn't find unrealistic.

Overall rating: 7/10

5) The Irishman

Directed by: Martin Scorsese

Starring: Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, Al Pacino

Also nominated for:
- Actor in a Supporting Role (Al Pacino and Joe Pesci)
- Cinematography (Rodrigo Prieto)
- Costume Design (Sandy Powell and Christopher Peterson)

- Directing (Martin Scorsese)
- Film Editing (Thelma Schoonmaker)

- Production Design (Bob Shaw and Regina Graves)

- Visual Effects (Pablo Helman, Leandro Estebecorena, Nelson Sepulveda-Fauser and Stephane Grabli)

- Adapted Screenplay (Steven Zaillian)

I think, if The Irishman hadn't been nominated, there would have been a Joker-esque uprising in the form of avid film-goers frothing at the mouth and slamming their heads straight into their keyboards. So, it makes sense that it's up for Best Picture because, let's be honest: it's Martin Scorsese. The man is a legend.

In terms of the actual plot, I enjoyed The Irishman. I watched it back-to-back with Goodfellas (1990) first because I wanted to see how a) the actors' CGI holds up in comparison to actual footage of their younger selves and b) I liked the idea of having a Scorsese double bill to really get into that gangster movie mindset.

The acting in this film is so damn good, as expected: so good, in fact, two actors from the film are up for Supporting Actor (Al Pacino and Joe Pesci). If Pesci doesn't win it, I'll be absolutely shocked. He stole the show in every scene, truly embodied his character and delivered some of the best pieces of dialogue.

The only big issue I had with The Irishman is its pacing. For a Scorsese film, one that is expected to be at least three hours long, I was disappointed to find that it dropped the ball in places. I wouldn't say I ever experienced boredom but the momentum of certain scenes definitely slowed to a snail's pace and became a bit arduous to watch. It won't win Best Picture but it's certainly a wonderful film, one that truly reflects Scorsese's talents.

Overall rating: 7/10

4) Jojo Rabbit 

Directed by: Taika Waititi

Starring: Roman Griffin Davis, Scarlett Johansson, Taika Waititi, Sam Rockwell

Also nominated for:
- Actress in a Supporting Role (Scarlett Johansson)
- Costume Design (Mayes C. Rubeo)

- Film Editing (Tom Eagles)

- Production Design (Ra Vincent and Nora Sopková)

- Adapted Screenplay (Taika Waititi)

When I heard about this film, I was immediately sceptical. Satire, especially within our political climate, is a touchy subject: offended critics are more commonplace now than tumbleweeds in the Film subreddit threads. So, it came as a pleasant surprise to me when I sat down to watch this film and found it to perfectly balance comedy and tragedy, considering it's set in Nazi Germany.

I'm glad this earned itself a spot amongst the other nominees because I think, if judged purely on face value, it would've been overlooked. Nazism, something that has resurged in recent years, is something that we don't particularly want to see on our big screens, especially if it's coming from filmmakers trying to justify the use of them. But given that Waititi himself is a Polynesian, Jewish man playing Hitler (which he describes in various interviews as being the ultimate "fuck you" to Hitler and the Nazis' legacy), it's safe to say that there is no point in Jojo Rabbit where that part of history is celebrated (moreover it is parodied, mocked and harshly berated, as it should be).

Not surprisingly, it hasn't been nominated for a great deal of categories (despite the performances being hilarious) but I will say that if ScarJo is going to have to win something, I'd rather she get her award for her supporting role in Jojo than her lead role in Marriage Story.

Overall rating: 8/10

3) Ford v Ferrari

Directed by: James Mangold

Starring: Matt Damon, Christian Bale, Caitriona Balfe

Also nominated for: 

- Film Editing (Michael McCusker and Andrew Buckland)
- Sound Editing (Donald Sylvester)
- Sound Mixing (Paul Massey, David Giammarco and Steven. A Morrow)

It will probably come as a complete shock to a few of you that I put "that car movie" at number three on my ranked list. It came as a shock to me too, if I'm honest. I went into this knowing nothing about the film and only having a sub-par interest in Ford or Ferrari as companies (my favourite sports car is made by Volkswagen, for Christ's sake).

However, this film has such heart: tonally, it felt like a warm, nostalgic hug from your gearhead dad. The writing is cliché in places, and despite it being biographical, it is predictable. But I found myself not caring about the technicalities, which was a first for me. I've been watching and analysing all of these films but for Ford v Ferrari, I just sat back and enjoyed the ride, really unphased by all of its technical flaws.

The fact that Christian Bale was not nominated for Supporting Actor is an absolute oversight on the committee's behalf. Sure, it was no Pesci performance, but it was damn good. If anything, I'll be even more shocked if this doesn't get Sound Mixing because the sound of this film was sensational.

To be frank, the only reason Ford v Ferrari secured it's position at number three on this list is that I liked it ever so slightly more than Jojo Rabbit: otherwise both of them would be tied for third place.

Overall rating: 8/10

2) Little Women

Directed by: Greta Gerwig

Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Eliza Scanlen

Also nominated for:
- Actress in a Leading Role (Saoirse Ronan)
- Actress in a Supporting Role (Florence Pugh)
- Costume Design (Jacqueline Durran)
- Original Score (Alexandre Duplat)

- Adapted Screenplay (Greta Gerwig)

What can I say? I like women in period clothing: my love of The Favourite (2018) should've been a clear indicator of that.

Little Women, as both a concept and a story, has been done ten times over. I have seen two other adaptations and I have read the original source material. And guess what? This is the best version of the book I have ever seen. It's dramatic, it's funny, it's poignant, every single female actress is stellar...it cannot be faulted.

There is only one issue with this nominee and that is that it's somehow in the Best Picture category and not the Directing one as well. The Academy have already come under fire in the last decade for their dismissal of female directors (with only two being nominated since 2010 and only five in the history of the Oscars), so their exclusion of Gerwig is, to say the very least, appalling. It makes me wonder whether her biting social commentary throughout the film, lecturing men on their inability to recognise women as their equals, bruised some male egos at the Academy.

Overall rating: 9/10

1) Parasite

Directed by: Bong Joon Ho

Starring: Kang-ho Song, So-dam Park, Woo-sik Choi, Jeong-eun Lee

Also nominated for: 

- Directing (Bong Joon Ho)
- Film Editing (Yang Jinmo)
- International Feature Film

- Production Design (Lee Ha Jun and Cho Won Woo)

- Original Screenplay (Bong Joon Ho and Han Jin Won)

I should not have to explain the reason why Parasite is on the top of the list but, for those of you who haven't seen it yet, here's why: it is amazing. Gorgeous cinematography, great acting (despite none of them getting a nomination for it), darkly comical yet intense and overall a fucking great viewing.

This film has such a threatening yet entertaining aura about it: basically the antithesis of Ford v Ferrari. And it works. It has the pleasantness of Okja (2017) and the potency of Snowpiercer (2013). The fact that it's up for International Feature Film and Best Picture is a clear sign that the Academy is making some improvements; in 92 years of the Oscars, only 10 films have ever been nominated for both of these categories.

It would make history to see Parasite win, though it's very clear that the Oscars needs a film like Parasite whereas the case is not the same vice versa: I very much doubt Joon Ho requires the approval of a bunch of white American men, as he clearly knows his worth and is very dedicated to his craft. Having said that, this is my pick for Best Picture and I will be crying tears of shame once again if it doesn't win.

Overall rating: 8/10

- K

What's Happened to the Cinema Experience?

My friend and I went to see Us (2019) last week, and while I'd love to sit here and discuss how good Jordan Peele's second feature film is (don't worry, I'll write a review soon), I found myself waking up this morning still incensed from the experience I had at the cinema itself.

"Back in my day!"

I know, nobody likes hearing people hark on about the "good old days" when things were different to how they are now, and why that somehow requires a 20-minute lecture about the abhorrent state of society. But hear me out, because to understand my gripes with the current cinema experience, we have to consider context.

When I was younger, one of the first film's I ever went to see was Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003). I nearly shat my pants when the undead monkey popped up on screen, I cheered through Captain Jack's heroics and laughed at his quips. And aside from the film being everything 8-year old me could hope for, I remember loving the whole experience of visiting my local cinema. 

Geoffrey Rush and co. in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

Pick-and-mix on tap. Pop music in the foyer. Families laughing and crying at films together. It was a formative part of my childhood to go to a cinema because now I am so in love with films that it's ridiculous: I don't think I would've turned out that way had I not been taken to see things on the big screen. 

Now, an important aspect of any cinema visit is snacks. As a kid, we bought things from the concession stand: they were pricey, yes, but actual film tickets cost less than a fiver, so it was a luxury to splurge a bit on that extra large bag of popcorn or gorge yourself on too many chocolate M&Ms. It wasn't a necessity but it was just something you did to add to the experience.

Many of you who still go the cinema will know this, and I will explore it further in a second, but unless you only go the cinema occasionally, frequent movie-goers never buy anything from the concession stands anymore.

Why?

Well, I'd rather not have to take out a fucking loan to buy a small popcorn or sell my organs for a Coke.

Capitalist utopia

Let's fast forward back to the night in question. My friend and I enter the cinema, elated to see Us: I have personally been waiting well over a year to see this film and I've waited nearly a month to actually go because I pre-booked (yes, I was that damn excited).

Because I'd been gifted a voucher for my birthday, I had a little bit to spend of snacks: a rarity at this point because, as aforementioned, you don't buy food at cinemas anymore. The price of food is extortionate, to the point where people (including myself) often buy snacks in bulk from local corner shops before ever entering the cinema. 

Average annual cinema ticket price in the UK from 2000-2017 (in GBP)

You smuggle in your 99p chocolate to enjoy alone or with others because, seeing as cinema tickets now can cost anywhere up to £8 in the UK according to statistics dated in 2017 (though my local cinema charges up to £14 for an adult ticket, which is double the average), snacks are just not feasible. It's not stingy to turn around and refuse to pay £4.35 for a small popcorn when you can buy a bag from your local Tesco for a quid: that's called using your common sense.

Anyway, my friend and I decide to indulge ourselves in buying pick-and-mix: you're never too old for slightly chalky sweets that may or may not have been manhandled by a curious toddler beforehand. We chuck a couple of the ol' favourites in (I personally like chocolate mice, raisins and Smarties) and then go over to the register. To my absolute horror, she rings the bill up at £10. For pick-and-mix. 

I give a nervous chuckle and just pay what I can off my voucher card and then pay the rest by debit but my god, what kind of absolute madman must you be to price your sweets that high? Who on earth would pay for that? I know damn well my parents never would have bought me a bag of glorified corner shop sweets at a cinema if it meant costing them an arm and a leg to do so.

Cinema etiquette

So, at this point, my bank account is weeping in the background and I'm slightly disgruntled. But I acknowledge that this happens, that the average cinema is designed for #consumeristlife, so spending money is going to inevitably happen (even if it means throwing away £10 on fucking pick-and-mix).

On to the best part: watching the film. 

There's an unspoken rule, I believe, when it comes to seeing a film in public: be respectful of the audience. That means if you're watching something suspenseful, don't bring in bags of food that make a lot of noise. If you're seeing something subtitled (or, in my opinion, any film, subtitled or not), don't talk during the runtime. And the absolute obvious one: don't use your bloody phones. Don't take them out. Don't even have them on, unless you have to in case of emergencies. 

"Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe go fuck yourself." - The Departed (2006)

When we went to see Us, not only did people rustle behind us with their popcorn and crisps and whatnot, not only did people talk over the film when there were suspenseful moments and important, expositional dialogue, but they committed what I consider to be the worst of cinema sins: a couple of people were on their phones.

I watched one girl scrolling through her Insta feed and thought, "why the fuck are you here?"
Who pays this amount of money on a film and accompanying snacks to just...not watch the film? If you wanted to scroll through social media at your leisure and half-ass watch something, do it at home where you're not bothering anybody else. And I'm not trying to be some kind of elitist when it comes to cinema experiences, I just believe that it's "cinema etiquette".

I spoke to my best friend and fellow cinephile, Lili (@cinemellon) on her experiences with outlandish and rude cinema patrons, and she very kindly told me her experience when it came to seeing Hereditary (2018):

"When the film began, everything in the screen was fine, and during the first 20 minutes, everyone seemed to share the same sense of quiet tension with occasional nervous laughs. 

However, as the film went on, younger audience members started laughing at serious moments, talking loudly over dialogue, making jokes and making disruptive sounds. All of this was extremely distracting and I was completely thrown off. I was getting more and more angry and wasn't able to enjoy the film at all, no matter how hard I tried to focus.

I loved what I was seeing on screen but, after a while, I was just overcome by rage and sadness, wishing I would have waited until the DVD release.

Don't get me wrong, laughter alone would have been perfectly fine, but people were actively making fun of the film and ignoring the possibility that some people might actually want to pay attention and enjoy the experience they paid almost £15.

As soon as the credits rolled, I stood up and stormed the hell out of there."

Why bother, then?

The question you might now be asking is, "well why do you even go to the cinema then?"

Good question. The answer is simple: I don't.

And that's absolutely not to discourage anybody else from going because when I used to go to the cinema, I would stroll through those popcorn-scented corridors with my rose-tinted glasses firmly wedged onto my face, and I don't see any reason why other people shouldn't experience that.

My argument here is that...well, I don't get that experience anymore. Cinema has become so deeply imbedded in capitalism and profiting off their audience rather than setting up the perfect fairytale-esque experience that most people deeply crave when they go to see a film. 

There has been a debate recently on whether Roma (2018) should have ever qualified for being at the Oscars, considering it's a Netflix film: of course it does, it's a film that elicits strong, powerful emotions, directed by (in my opinion) one of the most visionary and kind directors of our generation. Of course it has a place at the Oscars, an award show that celebrates cinema, people. And a damn sight more filmgoers were able to see it because they were able to access Roma in the comfort of their homes for a considerably cheaper fee.

I understand that money has to factor into filmmaking: we wouldn't have films otherwise. But when did cinemas start to lose that magical edge? When did they forget why people came to see films at their establishments in the first place?

Because, as it stands, I only ever visit cinemas around once or twice a year. And it's not for the popcorn. 

- K

Film Reviews: Skilful Yet Monotonous [Roma, 2018]

Roma (2018)

[Reader disclaimer: spoilers will be discussed].

This is it, ladies and gents and non-binaries alike: this is the last hurdle. We finally come to Roma (2018), the 8th and final Best Picture nominee. I had placed this one last due to convenience but also because I am such a fan of director, Alfonso Cuarόn. 

It was to my disappointment, then, when I found myself not enjoying Roma very much. In fact, I tweeted on Thursday night (@Hristowen) that "[...] I feel like I was meant to like that more than I actually did, which is disappointing in itself".

Before I delve into why I felt that way, I would like to say that I think Roma is an incredibly important film. There's a reason why there's so much love and hype surrounding it: it is a vital watch, in my opinion, due to its subject matter. However, just because something is skilfully made, it doesn't mean it can't be monotonous, and I found myself coming to that conclusion after only 10 minutes into the runtime.

Anyway, I digress. 

Roma is a realism piece, set in 1970-71, which follows the lives of a family and their maids (played by Yalitza Aparicio and Nancy García). It explores the socio-political struggles of that era, interspersing shots and background dialogue of violent, civil uprisings, themes of adultery and commentary of working class in such a realistic way that the audience feels as if they are truly an observer to the real lives of others.

I found the characters to be authentic and endearing, as well as the interpersonal relationships that are established on and off screen: the maid character, Cleo (Aparicio) in particular becomes the forefront of the family's narrative, showing her dedication to her work, her accidental pregnancy and subsequent loss of child, as well as her bond with the family (especially the children) strengthened as time goes by. 

The cinematography is wonderful, as expected of Cuarόn. The panoramic and tracking shots, accompanied with purely diegetic sound, grounds the film in its realism and makes for an immersive viewing experience. Certain scenes are so skillfully constructed (like the scene of Cleo giving birth to her stillborn daughter) that, although they translate as harrowing and upsetting, they are also raw, arguably visceral in their understanding of real life. 

Roma is also successful in its ability to be subtle: from poignant scenes such as Antonio (played by Fernando Grediaga) parking his car with precision, demonstrating what kind of a man his character is before we even hear any dialogue from him, to more subtle scenes such as the civil war propaganda that can be seen behind characters, out of focus but not out of frame.

It's undeniable that this film is skilfully made but my biggest argument is that it's a think-piece. And there's nothing wrong with that, but it stands out like a sore thumb in comparison to the other Best Picture nominees, arguably focusing too much on interpretation than anything else.

As time went by, I found myself losing interest in what was happening. The opening three minutes of film alone have absolutely no sound, focusing primarily on the floor as water is being washed over it: yes, I know this parallels the end of the film, and I know what symbolic significance it holds in regards to the rest of the narrative, but it's not engaging. I found it monotonous and it dragged on for a long time. 

Despite the ending being uplifting, with the characters emerging from their individual feats of pain and pursuing a happier way of life, I also felt as if it took too long for us to get there; it reminds me somewhat of Bicycle Thieves (1948): wonderfully edited and shot but not particularly engaging until the second half of the film. The third act, in my opinion, was the best part of the film because more things happen. A film doesn't have to be as action-packed as Mission Impossible (1996) to get its point across but it does have to give the viewer a reason to keep watching it: if I hadn't have sat down to review this film, it's very likely that I wouldn't have had the attention span to finish it, which is saying a lot.

I think this may come down to taste. Roma is a brilliant film in many ways but perhaps it's just not my kind of film: I know that it has garnered praise from many critics and websites alike, so I objectively know that it's not as boring as I made it out to be.

What's it nominated for?

Currently, Roma is nominated for:

• Best Picture - Alfonso Cuarόn and Gabriela Rodriguez 
• Best Actress - Yalitza Aparicio
• Best Supporting Actress - Marina de Tavira
• Best Director - Alfonso Cuarόn
• Best Foreign Language Film - Alfonso Cuarόn
• Best Original Screenplay - Alfonso Cuarόn
• Best Cinematography - Alfonso Cuarόn
• Best Sound Mixing - Skip Lievsay, José García and Craig Henighan
• Best Production Design - Barbara Enriquez and Eugenio Caballero
• Best Sound Editing - Sergio Diaz and Skip Lievsay

Should it win?

Despite the fact that I personally didn't enjoy it, I know that it's a wonderfully executed film and I have no doubt that it will garner a lot of votes for Best Picture. Whether it'll win or not, I don't know. 

I am almost 99% convinced that it will get Best Cinematography and Best Sound Editing, due to the fact that I'd argue it goes unrivalled: The Favourite (2018) and A Quiet Place (2018) are probably its only competition in those areas and I'll be hugely disappointed if it doesn't win either award. 

I cannot say for certain where it stands in association with Best Foreign Language Film because I currently haven't seen any of the other nominees, but I think it stands a good chance of winning that as well.

Overall rating: 7/10

- K

Film Reviews: A Classic Tale of Opposition [Green Book, 2018]

Green Book (2018)

[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed].

For our penultimate review this week, we'll be delving into Green Book (2018), yet another "true story" biopic, this time focusing on pianist, Dr Don Shirley (played by Mahershala Ali) and his driver, Tony Vallelonga (played by Viggo Mortensen).

Green Book, in a nutshell, is the classical tale of opposition: ignorance versus intelligence, prejudice versus acceptance, normality versus outliers. It is exceptional in its subtleties, adhering to themes of hidden homosexuality, suppressed racism and even feelings of personal inadequacy. Like BlacKkKlansman (2018), it is set in the past (namely, for Green Book, the early 60s) but the displays of racial discrimination and generalised view of ethnicity in the film are just as applicable today as they were back then. In that sense, Green Book is also a sociopolitical commentary of contemporary racism, but it focuses on both the African American experience as well as the Italian American experience.

The film has been criticised for making Mortensen's character a "white saviour", glorifying his role in the narrative as the one who saves the man of colour from himself. However, I would argue that Mortensen's character undergoes similar changes to that of Ali's, exploring identity issues deeply rooted in his heritage and having to undergo the process of unlearning toxic or prejudicial traits. It is, in my opinion, equally balanced: what starts as an opposition, two bookends of the same, discriminating spectrum, becomes a harmonious connection over the span of the film's runtime.

As aforementioned, one of my favourite things about this film is the way in which it uses subtlety: be it speech convergence, silent scenes (such as Mortensen binning the cups that the POC used) or the omission of evident fact, Green Book spends time establishing character, motive and scenes in such cleverly veiled ways which are both simultaneously obvious in their meaning and not.

Unfortunately, there are some things that I found rather unsettling. Although the somewhat cringeworthy accent that Mortensen uses becomes surprisingly endearing as the film progresses, I found issue not with the movie itself, but with the context thereafter: it wasn't until I'd finished the film that I began to research into it for my review (I usually do a background check for context etc.) and that was when I found that not only did Don Shirley's real family condemn the film for its inaccuracies (it's never a good film if a biopic poorly reflects the subject matter, even if it's partly fictionalised...looking at you, Bohemian Rhapsody) but that Viggo Mortensen used the n-word in a press conference of the film.

Not only that but Nick Vallelonga, son of Tony and co-writer for the film, has recently been called out for past tweets that adhere to President Trump's racist ideologies, supporting the claim that Muslims were to blame for 9/11: it is now that I should point out for those of you who are not informed, that Mahershala Ali, one of the main actors in Green Book, is Muslim. So you can understand why that didn't go down too well.

Whilst Mortensen has now apologised for his use of the n-word, and has been supported by Ali who claims that "there's a difference between racism, insensitivity and a lack of awareness" and thinks that to move forward, people need to embrace that kind of apology for a lack of awareness in order to heal, the other contextual factors are admittedly troubling. I can guarantee that without this information, the film is thoroughly enjoyable, and knowing this now, it still doesn't detract from my experience of enjoying it, but the controversy surrounding Green Book may have an impact on its performance at the Oscars.

Having said that, I found this film to be surprisingly endearing. The third act especially is as empowering as it is wholesome, depicting both Mortensen and Ali's characters as more accepting and loving people, embracing their differences and finding solace in each other as friends. Regardless of whether this really happened in reality, it works well as a fictional piece.

What's it nominated for?

Currently, Green Book is nominated for:

• Best Picture - Peter Farrelly, Nick Vallelonga and Brian Currie
• Best Actor - Viggo Mortensen
• Best Supporting Actor - Mahershala Ali
• Best Original Screenplay - Peter Farrelly, Nick Vallelonga and Brian Currie
• Best Film Editing - Patrick J. Don Vito

Should it win?

Despite it being one of the higher ratings in my list, I don't think it'll win Best Picture. I'd like it to, but not as much as I'd want films like BlacKkKlansman or The Favourite (2018) to win. I imagine Adam Driver will get Best Supporting Actor but, again, I'd like for Mahershala Ali to get it.

I think, in terms of awards, it's wishful thinking. And I think that's a shame because I genuinely believe that Green Book is one of the best nominated films on this list.

Overall rating: 8/10

- K

Film Reviews: America's Most Hated [Vice, 2018]

Vice (2018)

[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed].

Alright. I'm going to open with my generalised statement for this movie: it's not my favourite. I have no intention of ever watching this film again. This is not to say that it is a bad film, just not one that I would consider to be in league with the other nominees in Best Picture.

That being said, let's dive in. So, Vice (2018) is another political biopic, concerning itself with the life and career of Republican official, Dick Cheney (played by Christian Bale). I will admit that I am not very attuned to the political climate in the United States (as I am a lowly reviewer from England, UK), so had I not watched this for my blog, I would never have been inclined to pick it up and give it a watch. The only socio-political biopic based in America that I can think of off the top of my head (that I enjoyed, I mean) is probably Frost/Nixon (2008) and that's from 10 years ago now.

So, because I'm not well-versed in American politics, perhaps I was not as engaged as an average American would be. But I believe a biopic (especially one that is up for Best Picture) should have a universal appeal, which I'd argue that Vice does not. 

I'd say that this film toes the line between satirical and just plain silly: it needed to lean one way or the other, because some sections depicted Cheney and his lackies as cartoonish villains and then other sections would try to humanise them. I ended up wondering whether Adam McKay, director of Vice, should've stuck to inserting politics into comedy rather than the other way round because this format didn't really work for me.

That being said, there were parts of this film that I truly appreciated. The use of freeze frames and voice over felt akin to the works of Martin Scorsese mashed up with the hilariously propagandised works of Paul Verhoeven, giving the film an interesting and unique tone. 

The bizarre segments interspersed within the narrative, including a Shakespearean-esque soliloquy, Cheney's fourth wall break, an end credit sequence mid-way through the film (a stylistic choice used as a kind of 'fakeout') and a post-credit scene of characters debating the possible political bias of the film, made Vice stand out from past biopics: this accompaniment of an unreliable narrator and disregard for general filmmaking rules made it an entertaining watch.

However, this film has a glaring problem. It may end up demonising Cheney and his Republican posse but I don't think Vice is entitled to its merit on the basis that it's a political film. BlacKkKlansman (2018) is a political film but I hold it in higher regard than Vice because it gives us something worth watching: the empowerment of minorities and the struggles they face as a community. Vice is about yet another old, white, male politician, abusing his power within a systematic country with far too much power for its own good. If I wanted to watch that again, I'd just stick The Ides of March (2011) on.

Overall, anything included in this film can be garnered from five minutes traipsing Wikipedia, rendering the movie's information obsolete: stylistically, yes, it's rather interesting and worth watching, but the plot holds no real substance.

What's it nominated for?

Currently, Vice is nominated for:

• Best Picture - Adam McKay, Dede Gardner, Jeremy Kleiner, Megan Ellison, Will Ferrell, Kevin J. Messick and Brad Pitt
• Best Actor - Christian Bale
• Best Supporting Actor - Sam Rockwell
• Best Supporting Actress - Amy Adams
• Best Director - Adam McKay
• Best Original Screenplay - Adam McKay
• Best Film Editing - Hank Corwin
• Best Makeup - Greg Cannom, Kate Biscoe and Patricia Dehaney-Le May

Should it win?

In the simplest possible way: absolutely not. I think it has a shot at Best Makeup but that's about it: it is outranked in pretty much every single category it's nominated for, which is such a shame because both Sam Rockwell and Amy Adams gave stellar performances respectively. 

Overall rating: 5/10

- K

Film Reviews: You're Pretty When Outraged [The Favourite, 2018]

The Favourite (2018)

[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed].

Next up on our list is The Favourite (2018), a historical drama focusing on 18th century ruler Queen Anne (played by Olivia Colman) and her relationship with her friend, Sarah (played by Rachel Weisz) and Sarah's cousin, Abigail (played by Emma Stone).

What is essentially a story of two women trying to win favour with the queen, this film is surprising in many ways. The dialogue, atypical of its genre, was wonderfully weird and vulgar in places. The quasi-queer chemistry between our main characters drove the narrative for the main part but the addition of other supporting actors (such as Nicholas Hoult and Joe Alwyn) made for some delightfully strange and, at times, harrowing scenes. 

One thing that especially stood out for me was structure and stylism. As aforementioned, this film is far from a stereotypical insight into a historical moment, moreso it is a period of time fashioned by modernised camera techniques (e.g. the use of a fish-eye lens) and title cards with witty quips and quotes to structure the narrative into acts. 

The main selling point, in my opinion, is that everybody is a villain but likeable in their own way. Weisz is a hard-hitting, tough-loving cast member whose on-screen relationship with Colman is, to put it plainly, simply spellbinding. Colman, in turn, is the other end of the spectrum: paranoid, daft yet stern, and somewhat child-like. These opposing forces make for some truly exceptional interactions, conveying both vulnerability yet a deep-seated relationship which in some scenes goes unsaid because it's unnecessary.  

Though I deeply enjoyed The Favourite, it had its flaws: its use of quick cuts are effective but, I feel, the use of transitions are misplaced. The pace of the film takes a drastic drop after the second act and, although consistent afterwards, feels as though it is dragging itself along; the end scene itself was (in my opinion) entirely too long. 

There are also questions left unanswered in the stead of the film's conclusion. Why is Queen Anne so opposed to the sound of music? Why does Abigail strive for power, knowing that she can never hold it under the current monarch's rule? I suppose some things are supposed to be left to the imagination but if you're going to include small details, at least allude to an explanation, otherwise deem it unnecessary to the plot and emit it entirely. 

Other than that, I have very little to chastise this film for. It's nowhere near perfect, but it's most certainly one of the best of the ones I've seen so far: in essence, I understand why it's nominated for Best Picture.

What's it nominated for?

Currently, The Favourite is nominated for:

• Best Picture - Yorgos Lanthimos, Ed Guiney, Ceci Dempsey and Lee Magiday
• Best Actress - Olivia Colman
• Best Supporting Actress - Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz
• Best Director - Yorgos Lanthimos 
• Best Original Screenplay - Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara 
• Best Cinematography - Robbie Ryan
• Best Costume Design - Sandy Powell
• Best Film Editing - Yorgos Mavropsaridis
• Best Production Design - Fiona Crombie and Alice Felton

Should it win?

I see no reason why it shouldn't. Amongst the other four films I've watched thus far, I'd rank it in the top tier, purely due to its originality and performances from both Colman and Weisz. 

As for the actress awards, Colman will be hard-pushed to beat Gaga: not due to ability, mind you, but due to popularity. Gaga sits well with modern audiences and, although Colman is far more established, I'd argue that the marketing for The Favourite wasn't as strong as A Star Is Born (2018); I'd say that Weisz will nab Best Supporting, which is a shame because Amy Adams was phenomenal in Vice (2018).

I mentioned in my review of Black Panther (2018) that it was a strong contender for Best Costume Design, given that it goes unrivalled by any other films, however I will say that the costumes in The Favourite were absolutely gorgeous and surprisingly contemporary in some places, and therefore I believe the award is going to be a tug-of-war between the two.

Overall rating: 8/10

- K

Film Reviews: One Great Singer Does Not A Movie Make [A Star Is Born, 2018]

A Star Is Born (2018)

[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed. This piece also contains material of a sensitive nature].

And now onto one of the more surprising nominees on our list this week: A Star Is Born (2018). I have seen so much damn hype about this film and I couldn't for the life of me bring myself to sit down and watch it until, one night during the week, I conceded defeat and allowed myself to watch with an open mind.

I will say this: Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga have amazing vocals throughout this film, Gaga especially. Some of the songs were hair-raising due to Gaga's exceptional range (though that was to be expected). I even enjoyed the introduction of her character, conveying a kind of manic yet controlled woman who expresses herself through drag clubs and isn't afraid to pull a punch (a scene in which her character, Ally, clocks a dude in the jaw was top tier comedy and no one can change my mind on that). However, on the flipside, the introduction to Jackson (played by Cooper) felt like a heavy-handed slap to the face, immediately jumping to the washed-up rocker cliche, a trope we've seen a million times.

Jackson's character is more in-depth than that later on, as we see that he is an ACOA (Adult Child of an Alcoholic) who is suffering from alcoholism and depression himself. I found this aspect of his character to be very realistic and the sequence in the third act in which he commits suicide is so hauntingly powerful due to its lack of diegetic sound and parallels with an earlier anecdote in which his character explains that he previously attempted suicide at the age of 13 by hanging.

The end of the film felt particularly poignant, with Ally returning to her natural hair colour (a nod to her returning to her roots, no pun intended) and singing a heartbreaking song to honour Jackson's character. The third act, overall, undoubtedly yanks at your heartstrings and refuses to let go until you've coughed up at least one stray tear.

However. That is the third act. As for the first two, I have to say that there were elements that just didn't meet the mark for me. 

For example, the initial interaction between Jackson and Ally (and then the subsequent interactions after that) felt horribly awkward in places, with characters stepping on each other's lines and sometimes forgetting or refusing to make eye contact where deemed necessary: I think this may have been Cooper's attempt at realism but I just found it distracting. I would go as far as to say that the dialogue is enjoyable but clumsily executed for the most part.

Ally's character also gave me food for thought because, despite being wonderfully fleshed out and well written, she takes a complete U-turn in dealing with Jackson, cutting between scenes of initially coming to terms with the fact that he's an alcoholic and then shots of her almost enabling him, indulging in his stupid behaviour as if they're children. If this is character development, then I'd say it felt insincere and an injustice to her character.

I wouldn't say that A Star Is Born is a necessarily bad film: on the contrary, I found myself surprised by how much I enjoyed it. The thing is, and I may be shot for saying this, it feels as if A Star Is Born is this year's La La Land (2016): united by passion of music, divided by creative ambition and personal demons. What I mean to say is, this didn't feel particularly original in terms of story (although I suppose it wouldn't be, considering it's a remake...of a remake...of a remake...and so on).

What's it nominated for?

Currently, A Star Is Born is nominated for:

• Best Picture - Bradley Cooper, Bill Gerber and Lynette Howell Taylor
• Best Actor - Bradley Cooper
• Best Actress - Lady Gaga
• Best Supporting Actor - Sam Elliott
• Best Adapted Screenplay - Bradley Cooper, Eric Roth and Will Fetters
• Best Cinematography - Matthew Libatique
• Best Sound Mixing - Steve A. Morrow, Jason Ruder, Dean Zupancic and Tom Ozanich
• Best Original Song - Shallow - Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper

Should it win?

Again, in terms of Best Picture, no. In comparison, it just doesn't meet the standard, in this writer's opinion. That's not to say that it isn't a good film with some exceptionally beautiful moments in it, but I doubt it'll win Best Picture.

I also highly doubt that Bradley Cooper will win Best Actor, either: the drawl he created for his character in this film felt akin to Jeff Bridges in True Grit (2010), that is to say, I could barely fucking understand him for the majority of this film.

In lending her vocals to this feature film, Gaga has most certainly ensured that it'll win at least one award, though, and I believe that'll be Best Original Song, as it's one of the film's greatest assets.

Overall rating: 7/10

- K

Film Reviews: I Will Price It, I Will Cash It

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)

[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed. This piece also contains material of a sensitive nature].

Third film on my list of Best Picture nominees is the "critically acclaimed" Bohemian Rhapsody (2018), a long awaited biopic that focuses on band Queen's late frontman, Freddie Mercury (played almost to perfection by Rami Malek).

Admittedly, I was wary of watching this film. I had heard rumours within the cesspool of opinionated film snobs (otherwise known as Twitter) that the film was riddled with so many inaccuracies that one could even claim it to be an injustice to Mercury's memory. I was also horrified to hear of its original director, Bryan Singer, being completely unprofessional and rude on set, as well as later being arrested for sexually assaulting young men.

But we're not here to judge that. We're here to judge the film. And, to put it politely, it did not deliver on its promise of an exhilarating crash-course through Freddie Mercury's life: it was more of a stumble through the hedges of glorified nostalgia.

I think the main reason this film was nominated for Best Picture was Rami Malek's performance: there may be aspects of this film that are lacking but no can deny that Malek as Mercury is absolutely sensational. From the eccentric mannerisms down to the almost perfect recreation of iconic scenes (such as Live Aid 1985), he truly embodied the late frontman. 

The film also does a fantastic job of representing Mercury's heritage and culture, his tendency to be gender non-conforming, the reason behind his immaculate voice, even the emotional elements of the narrative that dealt with grief, loneliness and compensating for such with artificial extravagance were handled wonderfully. 

So why is it that I genuinely didn't enjoy this film as much as I was supposed to?

The dialogue felt formulaic and inconsequential at the best of times. The pacing was entirely off in a lot of scenes, pulling the viewer out of immersion and slapping them in the middle of montages that felt rushed and poorly edited. 

Two things also stuck out like a sore thumb to me and both are linked to the theme of sexuality. Now, I'd been led to believe that the inclusion of Mercury's sexuality in the film had been out of the question and subsequently removed, hence my aversion to watch it in the first place. But then it came out that not only had they included it but they had also touched on the subject of his later years, when he was diagnosed with AIDS.

Okay, I thought, I suppose it's worth a shot.

Firstly, the scene in which Mercury admits to possibly being bisexual was so strange in so many ways. The interactions, again, felt obviously structured and it was as if Mary's (played by Lucy Boynton) feelings were just shoe-horned in through expositional dialogue: you only arguably become emotionally invested due to being sympathetic to Mercury's internal struggle, whereas Mary felt like she was there to be a plot device and nothing more.

Secondly, there is the demonisation of Paul (played by Allen Leech) and the queer groupies. Just when I thought the film was being progressive, it took a 180 turn and did what so many other films have done in the past: used the trope in which queer = villain. 

In the final act as well, Mercury leaves behind Paul and the others but is shortly after diagnosed with AIDS, making it feel as if it was set-up to be some kind of punishment for indulging in Paul's world of homosexuality and flamboyance. This is also wholly inaccurate in terms of chronology, as Mercury would not learn of his illness until two years after Live Aid, in which the film closes on.

The film takes liberties with real life, as I would assume it would, but there's adding fiction to reality and then there's fabricating storylines just to be dramatic. The way they handled Mercury's sexuality in this film is, in my opinion, rather distasteful, both as a film-goer and a queer person. 

What's it nominated for?

Currently, Bohemian Rhapsody is nominated for:

• Best Picture - Graham King
• Best Actor - Rami Malek
• Best Sound Mixing - John Casali, Tim Cavagin and Paul Massey
• Best Film Editing - John Ottman
• Best Sound Editing - Nina Hartstone and John Warhurst

Should it win?

Best Picture? Short answer: no. In comparison to films like BlacKkKlansman (2018) and Black Panther (2018), Bohemian Rhapsody just doesn't make the cut for me. It's undoubtedly an interesting biopic, executed through a phenomenal performance from Malek, but I don't think it's up to Best Picture standard. 

Although I'd love to see Willem Dafoe win, I am almost 99% certain that Rami Malek will win Best Actor this year, and I think it will be well-deserved if he does. However, I wouldn't want to see this win Best Picture when there are some clear frontrunners that supercede Bohemian Rhapsody.

Overall rating: 6/10

- K

Film Reviews: Wakanda Forever [Black Panther, 2018]

Black Panther (2018)

[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed].

For the second film this week, I watched Black Panther (2018) and I must admit, I had already seen this one before, though this is the only nominee I've seen prior to reviewing it. You've probably already read a million articles on this film due to its notoriety and enormous following, but I still think it's worth touching on, for the sake of keeping things in equal running for Best Picture.

I would like to go on record now and say that I am indifferent to the Marvel franchise. You have some critics that will rip holes in every single scene to make a point (though I never really know what their point is, other than being an asshole) and you have some critics that are die-hard nerds and will lovingly (but biasedly) praise a Marvel film, no matter how it comes out. I am neither and try to remain objective when reviewing these kinds of movies.

Black Panther opens with a visually dynamic and aestheticised animation, with a voice-over giving the viewer context to who and what the Black Panther is. Whilst I would normally chastise a film for opening with a lazy device like storytelling, I found myself applauding the film for it on this occasion: perhaps it was because I was unfamiliar with the source material or just because I was genuinely immersed from the get-go, but either way, I found it engaging. 

I think it needs to be said that although the cast is phenomenally funny and strong in their delivery of scenes, the aspects of Black Panther that shouldn't be slept on are costume design and musical score, two things that it has been (rightfully) given a nomination for respectively. 

The costume design is exceptional, beautifully incorporating traditional African garb with quasi-futuristic designs; the musical score seamlessly blends the sounds of the djembe drum and artificial synthwave to create something customary yet contemporary as a result. I would argue that one of the film's biggest assets, in a technical sense, is its use of sound. 

As aforementioned, I loved the cast. I loved that the cast was predominantly POC and that Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis, being two of the only Caucasian actors in the film, did not overshadow anyone else's performance. I love that Okoye (played by Danai Gurira) became a showstopper with her choreography and witty dialogue. I love that the villain had valid points and criticisms of the Wakandan policies, and that his desire to liberate other African-Americans in the world, though motivated more by repressed hatred than a need for equality, was wholeheartedly justified (just not in the way that he planned to do it).

Now, as much as I'd like to give this film two thumbs up, there are some downsides. I found the pacing to be irregular in parts, grinding almost to a halt and then losing me amidst a flurry of CGI fight scenes. And talking of CGI, let's be honest: there was no need for the rhinos, guys. The rhinos were fun but completely unnecessary. 

What's it nominated for?

Currently, Black Panther is nominated for:

• Best Picture - Kevin Fiege
• Best Original Music Score - Ludwig Göransson
• Best Costume Design - Ruth E. Carter
• Best Sound Mixing - Steve Boeddeker, Brandon Proctor and Peter J. Devlin
• Best Production Design - Hannah Beachler and Jay Hart
• Best Sound Editing - Steve Boeddeker and Benjamin A. Burtt
• Best Original Song - All The Stars - Kendrick Lamar and SZA

Should it win?

Whilst I highly praise Black Panther for it's costuming and musical score, I feel that it may not win its respective categories: it's always likely that a period piece will win favour for costuming (in this case being a close call between Mary Queen of Scots and The Favourite) and the music score nominees include Alexandre Desplat, a composer who already has two Academy awards under his belt for The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) and The Shape of Water (2017) and therefore is a likely frontrunner for this year's win. 

As for Best Picture, whether it will win or not, I'm inclined to say it won't. That's not to discredit this film's genuinely amazing quality but I would say that, because of its reliance on CGI-cluttered action sequences and sometimes shoe-horned humour, it falls behind the other nominees in terms of Academy standards. 

Overall rating: 8/10

- K