Mockingbird In A Blizzard
By Nadia Ranaputri

Image source: IMDB

Director: Justin Kurzel
Cast: George MacKay, Essie Davis, Nicholas Hoult, Russell Crowe, Charlie Hunham, Thomasin Mackenzie, Earl Cave.

“Nothing you are about to see is true.” That is one of the very first lines of the film, and based on how the film plays out, it's an interesting way of setting the stage for a whole new interpretation of the infamous Australian outlaw, and it's quite ironic, almost like a cheeky little nudge on its own title. I remember watching Justin Kurzel's take on Macbeth whilst also reading Shakespeare's original play for class and being in awe the film's visual flair and how it almost feels like an entirely new take on a story that has been adapted several times. At that point, I was interested to see more from him as a director. Similar to that of Kurzel's previous films, namely Snowtown and Macbeth, The True History of the Kelly Gang delves into the story of a riveting figure with a new perspective on it, and this time, it's on a notorious figure who fought at the end of the line with an iron suit. 

Based on the 2001 novel of the same name by Peter Carey, The True History of the Kelly Gang begins with a young Ned Kelly (Orlando Schwerdt) as he is given away by his mother Ellen (Essie Davis) to a bushranger in favor of his safety when his father dies. Through his newfound mentor, Ned learns things the hard way, forging him into the ruthless outlaw with a strong desire for revenge. Because of the way he was taught, Ned (played as an adult by George MacKay) eventually grows to be a man built on survival and raw vengeance. As he witnesses the injustice being done to him and his family, Ned assembles a gang of his own with his fellow brother Dan (Earl Cave) and many others, leading to several anarchist operations against the police force, cementing his status as an infamous historical figure in Australia.

Fresh from the trenches of 1917, George MacKay continuously excels in his performance as Ned Kelly. Far from the bearded outlaw previously portrayed by Mick Jagger and Heath Ledger respectively, this version of Ned Kelly lacks such physical trait, opting for a mullet instead. It's a vast stretch from the reluctant hero of Sam Mendes' World War I epic, but it further proves MacKay's versatility, jumping from one drastically different role to the other. As Mark Kermode puts it in his review of Kelly Gang : "George MacKay is one of those actors who it is possible to see in four different films and not realize you are watching the same actor." MacKay is a powerhouse in this role, balancing between outlandish, savage, yet inexperienced outlaw. He threatens those that get in his way, but it isn't because he knows that his way of action is justified, it's because he was taught that way as a child, having been betrayed and exploited by several figures throughout his life. He presents himself as a force to be reckoned with, but is caught speechless when someone proves him otherwise, even being told that he's nothing but a merely clueless boy. Aside from MacKay, Essie Davis is also a standout as Kelly's mother, painting a fine line between a broken yet rigid woman who is willing to do anything in exchange for her family's safety. Russel Crowe also makes quite the lasting impression as Kelly's caretaker during his younger days, setting the film up in a strong and promising way. Nicholas Hoult, Thomasin Mackenzie, and Earl Cave also add solid performances to their respective characters, including Orlando Schwerdt as the young Ned Kelly; ranging from chaotic to innocent.

Image source: IMDB

The True History of the Kelly Gang oozes with style, in a very good way. Much like his previous film Macbeth, Kurzel has a distinct style when it comes to his films. There is a grunge/punk aesthetic that just makes it a visually pleasing film, though this type of aesthetic might not be for everyone. However, this type of aesthetic for me, is incredibly refreshing. There's a reason why directors like Wes Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, and Robert Eggers are praised, because they have their own distinct style when it comes to their films. Kurzel most definitely found his own unique style of film-making. No matter how they execute the story, you can't deny its ambition when it comes to its visual aspects. This is especially elevated by its cinematography, which is wonderfully done by Ari Wegner. There are some undeniably gorgeous shots and sequences, and some look electrifying, particularly when it comes to a sequence with strobe lights towards the final act, which makes more a fascinating yet dizzying experience, yet the aspect that I took from it the most is its visual portrayal of true desperation. Compared with the previous two films that delved into the Ned Kelly story with Jagger and Ledger, Kurzel's entry brings something new to the table by changing its visual style, it's more punk than it is a western. It's also best to mention the soundtrack, mainly that some of the songs featured in the film were written and performed by some of the cast themselves, including MacKay; that further embraces that punk rock feel.

Whether or not it is accurate to the history of the real Ned Kelly, that's for the audience to decide. I am not familiar with Ned Kelly as a historical figure, so I cannot exactly pinpoint the accuracy of the story when compared to the actual history. Hence, I can only judge it as a film. Now, does it feel more style than substance? I can say that as a film, it's dangerously balanced on a tightrope between style and substance. Sometimes it might even gear towards being more stylized than having substance; but then it also proves its potential and have powerful moments. Unfortunately, for a film that's intent on never playing it safe, it does have its tropes and underwhelming moments. Beyond the fights, the film chooses to focus on the small character moments than big spectacles as well, and that would have been fine, fantastic even; if those small moments added something impactful to the story. Sadly, they aren't enough to drive the story to an effective and emotional level. Other than Kelly's mother and Ned Kelly himself, the supporting characters end up being one-dimensional, rarely having a moment to really stand out or shine, which is unfortunate; considering that most of these characters are supposed to be vital figures for Kelly as a character. Furthermore, the story itself can be quite muddled. It knows what it wants to tell, but it gets lost in its own execution of it. Sometimes it goes straight to the point without any buildup, and other times it's abandoned in service of other aspects as soon as it's introduced.

As for Ned Kelly himself, the film does an impressive job in building him as an individual character. It's really an immersive character study of the man himself. While you can say that the film depicts Ned as the hero of the story, the question of whether Ned Kelly was truly the "Robin Hood of Australia" or an antagonist is still up in the air, but that's exactly what makes him an engrossing figure. The film knows when to be brutal to the point of no return, but with the way it is presented, it's almost poetic too. It's not Kill Bill levels of brutal with blood splattering everywhere, but it's still relentless, in a very fascinating way. Contrary to its title, The True History of The Kelly Gang feels more like a re-imagining than it is a re-telling of Peter Carey's novel or the true history of Ned Kelly. In terms of storytelling, it succeeds at telling it visually, but beyond that, there are still aspects that are underwhelming, though it doesn't weigh the film down as a whole. The film succeeds in some points, but drags a little in others. It is quite an interesting film, and one that I have not been able to fully comprehend how I truly feel about it. It's not because the film is too complex, it's just that there are elements that I could not exactly say as wholly negative or positive. It's a strange and at times, an incoherent film, but the ambition and spirit behind it is undoubtedly splendid.

Image source: The Young Folks

Overall verdict: It's hard to ignore the ambition behind such a film like The True History of the Kelly Gang. In terms of visual style, it is an absolutely gorgeous looking film. The punk rock aesthetic really adds to the experience, drawing the audience to something entirely new. MacKay is a powerhouse as the film's lead, Ned Kelly; with standout moments that will startle and amaze you as he gives it his all. Other than MacKay, the supporting cast bring solid performances, from the likes of Crowe, Hoult, Mackenzie, and Caves. Despite their one-dimensional characterization on paper, they are able to go beyond what has been written for their characters and translate them through their performance. The downside of this is that it sometimes gets a little incoherent. It's not fully a mess, but there are moments that feel like it's keeping the film rather stoic than elevating it. Despite its flaws, the film makes up for it with some visually stunning sequences and great performances from its cast. This is the type of film that while it has its flaws, can effectively grip you with what it has to say, like when Ned gives a speech to his army, you're immediately drawn in, yet sometimes the things it wants to say could be lost in favor of something else. The True History of the Kelly Gang is in no means, intended to be accurate to its original story; but then again, most biopics on real figures has its fictionalized moments. But because of its choice to put a new spin on the story of the Australian outlaw, it makes for quite a unique watch.

Stars: 3.3/5
 
The True History of the Kelly Gang is currently available on demand and selected digital platforms



By Nadia Ranaputri

Image source: IMDB
Image source: IMDB   
            
 
Director: Dan Gilroy
Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo, Toni Collette, Zawe Ashton, John Malkovich, Toni Collette, Natalia Dyer, Tom Sturridge, Billy Magnussen.

After the hit directorial debut that is Nightcrawler (which to this day, remains to be one of my favorite films of the last decade), Dan Gilroy returns with killer paintings instead of killer stories. While Nightcrawler deals solely on the insanity of the human mind and the way of the commerce, Velvet Buzzsaw does the same, but with a more supernatural flair. With a strong ensemble cast in the likes of Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo, John Malkovich, and Toni Collette (unfairly snubbed for an Oscar nomination for her amazing performance in Ari Aster's Hereditary), Gilroy has got the recipe for another hit, or perhaps it should have, had it not been for the execution of the story.

Velvet Buzzsaw tells the story of multiple characters, namely of renowned art critic Morf (Jake Gyllenhaal), who just so happens to be at the gallery of rocker turned curator Rhodora (Renne Russo). Morf is both respected and intimidating, with his insights treated as the final word in the success of one's art. Just as Morf is in the midst of exploring Rhodora's gallery, Rhodora's assistant (Zawe Ashton) discovers what seems to be a goldmine when she finds a collection of hidden artworks in her recently deceased neighbor's apartment. Despite the posthumous warning from the artist himself, Rhodora instead sees this as pieces of art worthy for her gallery. Just as the artworks gained attention, deaths related to the artworks begin to surface, prompting both a rise in investigation as well as widespread popularity towards the artworks.

If you're a sucker for aesthetics, Velvet Buzzsaw has you covered. I would be lying if I said that I didn't enjoy the visual aspects of the film. The cinematography is top notch, emphasizing the visual spectacle of the artworks that are showcased. Whatever flaw comes along the way (which there are, and I'll get to them later), it manages to live up to the themes it's presenting. It's satirical, enigmatic, and at times, quirky. It represents aspects that lie in the art itself, after all. Velvet Buzzsaw is satirical in telling the story of what happens when money collides with art, or rather, when money gets in the way of art. That's essentially the first half of the film. The second half is another story, because that is where the bloodshed begins, and it thrillingly delivers in some points, though that is also where its flaws lie. Paintings start to leap from the frame and grab people by the throat, other artworks on display become vulnerable to the touch of an unknown entity. Before you know it, people start dying and others begin to question why any of this is happening. Still, the way it's handled is sometimes satirical, like when the appearance of a corpse beside an artwork is discovered, a character emphasizes more on the fact that it spiked the exhibit's fame even further. The fact that someone had been killed was secondary information; obviously not regarded to be as important as the exhibit's killer rise to popularity.  

Image source: IMDB   

The film isn't short on its satirical characters that might as well be the snobs standing in the way of any kind of industry, entertainment specifically: the critics and figures of power that let their critique and greed get in the way of the more genuine and passionate aspect of the industry. There's Gyllenhal's Mof, for example, the obnoxious art critic who's introduced by critiquing nearly every single artwork in a gallery, complaining about the lack of originality as if he'd seen those types of art over and over again. If he does see an interesting one, his first question is the art's price, which leads to another character saying that "it's easier to talk about money than art." The point is, these characters are the unlikeable kind, in a rather cartoonish way. The issue is, however cartoonish they are, they're nothing more than pieces of cardboard that are ready to be sawed and torn into pieces, and no one would really have any sympathy in the aftermath. There isn't any depth given to the characters who aren't meant to be likeable, and it seems that the film intentionally makes us hate these curators and so-called art critics for getting in the way of art; but even then, there's at least supposed to be something interesting about them, right?

Velvet Buzzsaw's pantry of enigmatic characters feel like a gum that runs out of flavor. Interesting and enjoyable at first, but it eventually becomes rather dull. Even the performances of acting powerhouses in the likes of Jake Gyllenhaal and Hereditary's Toni Collette aren't enough to lift the characters off from the ground (they do have some great moments due to their performances, but since the issue lies within the script, it does little to serve their development). Gilroy's previous film, Nightcrawler; somehow had the upper hand on bringing malice and depth. Nightcrawler isn't far off from Velvet Buzzsaw when it comes to unlikeable characters (and an incredibly unlikeable lead), but the difference here is that Nightcrawler made them far more interesting to watch. Here, the characters are just unlikeable, and that's all there is to them. And that is only the surface of the film's main issue. The film chooses to focus on plot than the characters, which isn't a bad thing if it's done well. The issue here is that the plot progresses too fast, and characters do little to nothing to propel the actual story, leading to little or no sympathy and buildup. In all honesty, Velvet Buzzsaw could have been better made as a novel, it may have played a similar vibe to Donna Tart's The Secret History, just with killer artworks and mysterious entities. That would have probably done the characters justice for being unlikeable, but at the same time, some depth that would have made them enticing to watch.  

Perhaps the script, compared to Gilroy's previous and far superior film Nightcrawler; just lacks that extra kick, the depth, and the tension that would have made this film soar. The message is there, but the execution of it makes it too direct, as if the mass killings alone would do the job nicely (it doesn't). It's not just that, but the film's focus is all over the place, choosing to focus on things that eventually have little to do with the story or have any impact in the buildup rather than things that should have been buildups for the film's anticipated horror-themed finale. But of course, that too lacks genuine thrills. It's unfortunate, since it's already such a unique and original concept. It just lacks in the execution of it. Nightcrawler has so much more boisterous vibe to it, something that we are enticed with because the thrill, the connection, and the execution of the story was so well done. I can't say the same for Velvet Buzzsaw. Velvet Buzzsaw may be able to hammer the message down, but if the characters aren't able to gain the audience's sympathy and the horror elements are only there to create a "what the hell" moment rather (shock factor, in other words) than actually having any momentum or actual buildup to it, how are we going to care about the characters, or be invested in the story itself once the axe goes down and the bloodshed starts? 

Image source: IMDB
     

Overall verdict: It's clear that with both these films, whether it be Nightcrawler or Velvet Buzzsaw, Gilroy's message is about serving for commerce and popularity instead of the passion for the game. Velvet Buzzsaw makes this message clear, but the characters in charge of delivering said message don't get the time to develop as individuals. You can say that they're merely the victims and targets that are only there to be slaughtered rather than actual characters. It's rather unfortunate, since it has all the ingredients for a greatly thrilling film. It boasts such an impressive cast in the likes of Gyllenhaal, Collette, Russo, and Malkovich. Even more than that, it's already such an original concept, and one that would make a fine novel, had the execution been done right. Unfortunately, it's more like what happens when someone has all the ingredients they need, but that's all there is to it. From there, it becomes adement on getting from one point to the other, not quite figuring out the right footing to every aspect it has. Once the horror starts, there's no genuine sympathy towards the characters who are threatened because they're cardboard cutouts with no actual personality or development whatsoever. It delivers in the gore and haunting imagery, but lacks in plot and character, the two vital aspects that could have made the film so much more than just a thrill fest.

Stars: 2.6/5


  

                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                          

                                                                                            
By Nadia Ranaputri

2019 gave us great films, from Sam Mendes' World War I epic about two comrades heading into enemy territory, to Taika Waititi's satire about an imaginary Hitler. As the 2020 Academy Awards is right around the corner, it's time to take a look at some of this year's nominees for Best Picture. With the exception of Martin Scorsese's The Irishman, which I have not gotten to around to watching; I've done a little marathon and re-capped my thoughts on most of the films in the running for Best Picture. Let's get started.


1. Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood

Image source: IMDB

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Margaret Qualley, Timothy Olyphant, Al Pacino, Dakota Fanning, Luke Perry.

This is going to be a little controversial but....I don't think Once Upon a Time.....in Hollywood is as great as many have said it is. No, it has nothing to do with the fact that it altered the history of Hollywood. It is fun, no doubt about it. The amount of dedication put into the production design and costumes in order to fit into the Golden Age of Hollywood is insanely good. The pallette of 60's Hollywood, the billboards and the streets, they scream Hollywood's Golden Age. What makes this film are really the performances. Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt make the film what it is. Without them, it would have probably fallen flat on its face. Thankfully, DiCaprio and Pitt are exceptional and have this riveting chemistry between the two. Both provide incredibly hilarious performances, particularly Pitt. The issue with this film was that I personally felt as if there wasn't much going that fully engaged me during the first two acts, although I enjoyed the banter and chemistry between Pitt and DiCaprio. The first act had many interesting setups, but once it got to the second act, it didn't draw me in as much as when the film first began. It felt as if it had several different arcs that didn't really mesh together. The third act, however, felt unashamedly Tarantino, in the best way possible, and that's where it finally caught my attention again. In the end, Once Upon a Time....in Hollywood was enjoyable and it's a film that I would watch again and hope to appreciate more with each viewing.

Stars: 3.5/5


2. Parasite

Image source: IMDB
 
Director: Bong Joon-ho
Cast: Song Kang-ho, Lee Sun-kyun, Cho Yeo-jeong, Choi Woo-shi, Park So-dam, Lee Jung-eun, Chang Hyae-jin

Believe it or not, this was the first Korean film I ever saw in cinemas, and it's definitely one that makes me realize that Korean filmmakers are at the top of their game. Parasite is a masterpiece, a thrilling and engaging drama with some house invasion sprinkled on top. Bong Joon-ho is a goddamn genius, I have admired some of his works, particularly 2013's Snowpiercer. But Parasite is on another level, it's a brilliant piece of drama that knows how to build suspense in a very subtle way. They could even make a scene involving the sprinkling of peach fuzz engaging, and part of that is from visual execution. And the performances are absolutely riveting, from the naive mother of the Park family to the surprising turn from Lee Jung-eun as the Park family's former housekeeper. This is also a brilliant piece of visual storytelling. The cinematography is simply incredible, it tells a deeper story that elevates what is being said by the characters by emphasizing its importance visually. This is also due to its immaculate production design, from creating an entire neighborhood as a way to convey the differences from the wealthy at the top of the hill, to the poor living below them, exposed to floods and poor wi-fi signals. Its subject matter on social class, and family bonds are masterfully crafted to the point where you have no idea what's going to happen next. While it had obvious foreshadowing, Bong Joon-ho turns the tables around before anyone has a say on it, and it becomes a thrill-inducing drama that keeps the audience on their toes with its brilliantly nuanced story.

Stars: 5/5

 3. Marriage Story

Image source: IMDB

Director: Noah Baumbach
Cast: Adam Driver, Scarlett Johansson, Laura Dern, Alan Alda, Ray Liotta, Julie Hagerty, Merritt Wever, Azhy Robertson.

This film is quite the roller-coaster of emotions. Yes, it's a depressing subject matter, but Baumbach knows how to make it investing enough for us to keep our eyes on the journey of the two central leads. As heavy as the topic is, I did not expect it to have many humorous moments, though it is most certainly welcome, since it's done well. Marriage Story feels as if it was directed like a stage play, much like how Adam Driver's Charlie Barber is the director of a theater company in the film. It's even elevated by its two lead performances in the like of Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver. Johansson and Driver both deliver perhaps the peak performances of their careers. Watching the two on screen is utterly fascinating, as they're able to draw you in with their fallen and eventually, chaotic chemistry. It's especially helped by Baumbach's script, which hits the sweet note between hard-hitting dialogue and realistic yet still incredibly engaging dialogue. This film could be perceived in many different ways, especially when it comes to choosing sides. Some may be sympathetic to Johansson's Nicole for constantly becoming the shadow under her own husband's rise to fame. Or some may feel more to Driver's Charlie, who has to spend most of the theater's earnings just to get a decent lawyer to oppose Nicole's already intuitive yet fiercely opinionated lawyer (brilliantly played by Laura Dern). Marriage Story might be slow, but it relishes in developing the characters and their journeys to the point where they feel as if you've known them for years. You'd think that a two hour film about the process of a divorce shouldn't be so lively, but Noah Baumbach's drama is exactly that.

Stars: 4.8/5

4. Jojo Rabbit

Image source: IMDB
 
Director: Taika Waititi
Cast: Roman Griffin Davis, Thomasin Mackenzie, Scarlett Johansson, Sam Rockwell, Rebel Wilson, Alfie Allen.

Taika Waititi certainly has not lost his touch. Even with a bigger budget and even bigger names on his latest film, Waititi does what he simply does best: make the film so....devilishly Waititi. Meaning, it has all the elements that make it a Taika Waititi film, as Waititi's style of film-making just as memorable and unique as those of Wes Anderson or Quentin Tarantino. It's a charming comedy that also knows how to pull the strings and reveal a darker side without losing its essence. You can perhaps say it's like one of Waititi's earlier films, Boy, but with Nazis and instead of Waititi playing a father figure, he's a goofy dictator who also happens to be imaginary. Despite boasting familiar names on its cast such as Scarlett Johansson and Sam Rockwell, it's newcomer Roman Griffin Davis that's given the spotlight, and Davis plays the lead with that childlike quality that never strays to the point of making the audience feel annoyed with his naivety and innocence. Other than Davis, both Johansson and Rockwell gave fine performances that are just as humorous as they are charming. The humor is absolutely spot on, giving the film an eccentric style and genuine heartwarming moments. Jojo Rabbit could have easily fallen into the trap of being tasteless satire with nothing to say, which makes me even happier to say that it's the complete opposite. It's hard to imagine anyone coming up with the idea of having Hitler as their imaginary best friend, but if anyone could perfectly execute such an idea, it's Taika Waititi.

Stars: 4/5

5. 1917   

Image source: IMDB

Director: Sam Mendes
Cast: George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, Richard Madden, Claire Duburcq. 

1917 is a captivating film, adding one incredibly tense sequence after another. Every one of these scenes are meticulously and intricately choreographed, elevated by its technique of continuous shots. Its two lead actors, MacKay and Chapman; bring powerful and nuanced performances as Schofield and Blake respectively. Whilst Chapman exudes charisma and empathy, MacKay's performance is a subdued one, hence both are able to complement each other as their characters bond throughout the film. In terms of cinematography, there is no doubt that Roger Deakins is a masterclass, and 1917 yet another example of Deakins' master work. The use of one-shot technique isn't exactly new anymore, having already been used in present day films in the likes of Alejandro IƱƔrritu's Birdman and most recently, The Revenant; but 1917 is able to bring something new to the table by applying it in the subject of war. Every shot in the film, despite being shot as one continuous take; is gorgeous, showcasing the horrors of the trenches. Through its runtime, 1917 was able to showcase the consequences and the horrific battles that men had to face during the First World War. In the end, 1917 is a masterful film that should be seen in the biggest screen possible, expanding beyond its already impressive technical aspects. While 1917 has a simple story, it's able to make use of its vast setting and create a poignant and riveting tale of war, sacrifice, and brotherhood. 

Stars: 5/5 

You can read my full review of 1917  here

6. Joker

Image source: IMDB
 
Director: Todd Phillips
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz, Bill Camp, Frances Conroy, Brett Cullen, Glenn Fleshler, Douglas Hodge, Shea Whigham.

Joker doesn't take much of a focus on the elements of a comic book film, but rather in a similar beat of an arthouse film. In fact, it's taken a far leap from its source material by a completely different re-imagining that differs from most comic book films. Joaquin Phoenix is a revelation in this role, turning everyone's eyes on him and keeps them glued for the entire film. With Phoenix, the film boasts an impressive supporting casts with the likes of De Niro, Beetz, and Conroy. But in the end, it's Phoenix that steals the show. While perhaps it may not take the reign from Ledger's iconic take, Phoenix's performance is a close second, if not equally masterful to Ledger's. Its minimal action makes for a bigger focus on character, on the crumbling society that affects the characters. It focuses on the hard matters that other comic book films would probably never discuss. Joker takes an intriguing view of how society plays into the shaping of a person, of how things can lead them to certain actions that make them who they are; without hailing those actions as heroic. It's far from a standard comic book film, but it's a brilliant choice for Joker, especially when it nails the execution. Joker is without a doubt, a masterpiece, both as a comic book film and as a film in general.

Stars: 4.7/5


You can read my full review of  Joker here


7. Ford v Ferrari

Image Source: IMDB

Director: James Mangold
Cast: Matt Damon, Christian Bale,
Caitriona Balfe, Jon Bernthal, Noah Jupe, Tracy Letts, Josh Lucas. 

 
Ford v Ferrari manages to be accessible to anyone, be it a racing fan or not. Contrary to its title, it isn't exactly a story that revolves entirely around the corporation rivalry between Ford and Ferrari itself, but rather about the people working behind the company to make what seems to be impossible into something truly possible. It's really an underdog story about two people with a strong bond. It's also a story about loss, redemption, and family. Ford v Ferrari may be all about the races, but it's also about the characters and their process towards victory. The chemistry between Christian Bale and Matt Damon are one of the main driving forces that really took the film to its home-run. Their constant banter and shared passion over racing added much needed heart into the story. The racing sequences are excellent, it really knows how to take audience on a thrilling ride from start to finish. It doesn't feel dragged out, rather you feel the tension of every second of the race. These sequences are brilliantly shot and with little CGI present, it makes the sequences all the more thrilling. Yes, it might feel as if Ford v Ferrari ticks most of the checks from Racing Biopic 101, but it's the execution that makes it so much more.

Stars: 4.5/5 


You can read my full review of Ford v Ferrari here


8. Little Women

Image source: IMDB

Director: Greta Gerwig
Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Eliza Scanlen, TimothƩe Chalamet, Laura Dern, Meryl Streep.

Greta Gerwig's adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's iconic novel is heartwarming and simply a breath of fresh air. It's a classic tale of the bond of sisterhood and of the struggles of the working class. Despite their financial struggles, these little women have big dreams, whether it is to be a writer, to be married, to be the greatest painter in the world, or to lay low and indulge in the love of music as if no one's watching. And yet, they're capable of giving back to those with lesser conditions, such as in moments where the March sisters give their Christmas breakfast to a family in need. Saoirse Ronan gives yet another fierce performance as the film's lead, Jo March. Ronan carries the film as well as being the glue that holds everything together, and she does so magnificently. Florence Pugh is also divine as Amy March, adding more layers to the supposed childish character, but in the hands of Gerwig and Pugh, Amy is just as fierce, if not a little more wise; than her fellow older sister Jo. Together with Emma Watson and Eliza Scanlen, the four make a lovely ensemble of the March sisters. While it sticks to its original narrative for the most part, Gerwig adds some fresh insights that gave the film its illustrious charm. One of them is the addition of a non-linear narrative, going back and forth between the present day and the events seven years prior. Greta Gerwig's version of Little Women has more bite to it, re-packaging the story into one that manages to be relevant in the modern age.

Stars: 4.5/5

And there you have it. Which of these films do you think should win Best Picture at the Oscars? 
Newer Posts Older Posts Home

HELLO THERE!

Welcome to my blog! I'm an English Literature graduate navigating through a sea of films and books.

Categories

  • Articles/Editorials 12
  • Film Reviews 84
  • Movie Rewinds 6
  • Series Reviews 5

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Advertisement

Powered by Blogger.

Report Abuse

  • Home
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • ▼  2021 (15)
    • ▼  July (1)
      • Mid Year Book Freak Out Tag (+ video!)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (4)
    • ►  January (5)
  • ►  2020 (10)
    • ►  December (5)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  February (2)
  • ►  2019 (9)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  March (1)
  • ►  2018 (26)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  February (3)
  • ►  2017 (27)
    • ►  December (4)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2016 (20)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (8)
    • ►  October (4)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (1)

Search This Blog

Blog Archive

  • 2021 15
    • July 1
      • Mid Year Book Freak Out Tag (+ video!)
    • June 2
    • May 1
    • March 2
    • February 4
    • January 5
  • 2020 10
    • December 5
    • November 1
    • May 2
    • February 2
  • 2019 9
    • November 3
    • October 1
    • September 1
    • July 1
    • May 2
    • March 1
  • 2018 26
    • December 3
    • November 3
    • October 3
    • September 1
    • July 3
    • June 2
    • May 2
    • April 3
    • March 3
    • February 3
  • 2017 27
    • December 4
    • November 1
    • October 5
    • September 4
    • August 2
    • July 3
    • May 2
    • April 1
    • March 3
    • January 2
  • 2016 20
    • December 2
    • November 8
    • October 4
    • September 3
    • May 1
    • April 1
    • March 1
Show more Show less

Pages

  • Home
  • Home
  • Film Reviews
  • Series Reviews
  • Movie Rewinds
  • Editorials
  • What's Listed
  • Home
  • Features
  • _post format
  • _error page
  • Beauty
  • Fashion
  • Lifestyle
  • Contact
  • Buy now

Popular Posts

  • The Trial of the Chicago 7- Review
    By Nadia Ranaputri Image credit: IMDB Director: Aaron Sorkin Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Sacha Baron Cohen, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Mark Rylance, Je...
  • Nomadland- Review
    By Nadia Ranaputri Image credit: IMDB Director: ChloƩ Zhao Cast: Frances McDormand, David Straithairn, Linda May, Swankie, Peter Spears, Bo...
  • Judas and the Black Messiah- Review
    By Nadia Ranaputri Image source: WBUR Director: Shaka King Cast: Lakeith Stanfield, Daniel Kaluuya, Jesse Plemons, Dominique Fishback, Darre...
  • Home
  • Features
    • Error Page
    • Short Codes
  • Documentation
  • Download This Template

featured posts

Advertisement

Copyright © Mockingbird In A Blizzard. Designed by OddThemes