Richard Jewell

This was a confounding film. The story itself was interesting and Richard Jewell proved to be a fascinating character. However, Clint Eastwood's directing felt tonally flat and un-involving. Throughout the film, we felt more like a passive observer of a bio-docu rather than an involved participant of a human drama.

That being said, lead actor Paul Walter Hauser was a revelation and this film could be his big breakout and future calling card. Kathy Bates deserved her Oscar nomination and Sam Rockwell was solid as ever. Jon Hamm and Olivia Wilde were cast in stereotypical, cliche roles, especially the latter who had a complicated arc that tarnished the film. Odd choice for the director of Booksmart to agree to her role; not so odd for Eastwood though. But similarly, it was equally sexist of Hollywood that Hamm got no blowback for his part.

At just about two hours, the film was not too difficult to watch, but after a brilliantly brisk and economical Act 1, Eastwood kind of meandered and doddered in the middle. Like most historical biopics, most of the audience would have known enough to know how the story ends, therefore it was up to the director (and screenwriter) to make that journey worth our time. Unfortunately, it was not in this case. Eastwood and writer Billy Ray barely got us inside the characters' head space and at times it was difficult to empathise with Jewell.

Hauser was a surprising choice to cast in the lead, but he nailed the role. It was not a big showy role but his portrayal of Jewell was convincing and consistent.

Bates too nailed her role as Jewell's mother, and her big moment absolutely cemented her Oscar nomination.

Rockwell, dependent as always, does not get much to do here, but his presence was reassuring.

Richard Jewell was one of Eastwood's better recent films. If not for the misogynistic undertones it would have been received better.

Little Women

This was a good and entertaining film that was far from perfect. Written and directed by Greta Gerwig, this film was anchored by great performances (in particular Saorise Ronan and Florence Pugh)  but the pacing was problematic which made the 135 minutes run-time felt longer than it should. This was no Lady Bird. Furthermore, Gerwig's direction lacked emotional weight throughout the film save the last 10 minutes. Now, that last 10 minutes was excellent - intelligent meta-fiction that had the right balance of drama and comedy - but it was perhaps a little too late.

Gerwig's adaptation of the novel was better than her directing. Her interpretation seemed to require its audience to have some knowledge of the source material which may be difficult for a non-American audience.

The screenplay played with time and chronology effectively and managed to highlight and parallel significant events of the girls' life in the past and the present. However, her direction was unremarkable. She never really let scenes marinate and emotions fully develop, frequently cutting scenes off just at the peak. And her direction was not always clear even with the different tints for different timelines.

Ronan was excellent and truly embodied the spirit of Jo March. She carried her scenes beautifully and was a heroine worth rooting for. However, the film's material did not appear to allow Ronan to fully express her range. So was she really worthy of her Oscar nomination over Jessie Buckley (BAFTA nom for Wild Rose) or Lupita Nyongo (SAG and CC noms for Us) or Alfre Woodard (Indie Spirit nom for Clemency)?

The standout - and breakout (again) - was Pugh as Amy March. Pugh deserved her Best Supporting Oscar nomination (definitely over Jennifer Lopez in Hustlers). Pugh made Amy a distinctive character, and other than Jo, the only other sister who was well defined. Pugh's Amy was a delight to watch and her Parisian scenes were better distractions from the doldrums of Jo's self-absorbed boordiness.

Eliza Scanlen was underrated as Beth March  and Emma Watson was pretty and bland as Meg March.

Meryl Streep stole her scenes (and chew them all magnificently) and Laura Dern was reliable as always.

Timothee Chalamaet was an odd choice for Laurie. He has the visage for a period piece, but his chemistry with the girls was more that of a brother than a lover; sure he could act, but ironically he just seemed miscast here.

His counterpart Louis Garrel as Prof Bhaer, on the other hand, was great casting albeit a 180-degree departure from the book.

And a special shout-out Jayne Houdyshell who got the best line of the film.

Alexander Desplat's score was also another standout of the film. It played almost throughout the entirety of the film and really helped to underscore Gerwig's direction, sometimes even giving it more emotional heft.

Cinematography was by Yorick Le Saux and he imparted the March's home with a lovely warm glow of familial bonds and memories; whereas the present was highlighted in colder blues of isolation and despair. But perhaps a bit too on the nose.

Jacqueline Durran's costuming for the film was also outstanding. Not only did it look period-appropriate but yet also modern and stylish.

Little Women was a good film and deserving of a Best Picture nomination, but in the end, if there had only been five nominees, it might not have made the cut. Similarly, Gerwig did a much better job adapting the novel than directing the film. If the Best Director category had more slots, she might get a nomination, but of the Best Picture nominees, she would still have to fight with JoJo Rabbit's Taika Waititi or her partner Noah Baumbach for Marriage Story.

1917 [IMAX]

The camera work for this film was astounding. Just give Roger Deakins his Best Cinematography award now. Together with the superbly edited pseudo-one shot (or actually more like two long tracking shots), Director Sam Mendes and his co-writer Krysty Wilson-Cairns have crafted an immersive and thoroughly exciting 2-hour war film. It was relentless in its action, with non-stop excitement and fantastically tense scenes. However, that being said the moments of quiet and tenderness that peppered the film ended up being well-earned and well-deserving; these quieter scenes allowed the film and the audience to breathe which was essential given the rapid pacing propelled by the long shot film.

The story itself was simple and Mendes told it in a relatively straightforward three-act structure with one large action set-piece/sequence each. However, one of the biggest fault in the storytelling was the obstacles that was laid before our protagonists which at times seemed rather contrived. Then again, we are watching a film and cinematic cliches sometimes have to occur, but that does then diminishes the film's originality.

Mendes was smart to cast George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman in the lead roles, because they were good actors that could carry the dramatic and emotional weight of the film, but also being lesser known, their visage do not distract too much from the storytelling and the technical accomplishments. This was unlike the big British stars who were cast in otherwise glorified cameo roles that kind of distracted and brings you out - albeit just temporarily - of the story.

And MacKay was excellent throughout. He gave one of the best performances of 2019 and especially given the difficulty to emote "spontaneously" given the long-shot execution. With this and Captain Fantastic, MacKay's star is definitely rising.

Chapman was also a solid buddy for McKay but he was definitely the more supporting role than lead as MacKay was.

Thomas Newman's score was also a beautiful match for the film. It drove and propelled the action, and helped to underscore the emotional beats. It was nearly present throughout the whole film and any moments of absence was used to highlight a situation.

But nothing beats Deakins incredible cinematography! Sure, initially it was quite distracting to figure out where the cuts/edits would be, but once we got past the opening sequence, everything seemed quite natural. This one-shot technique really helped to lend immediacy and urgency to the story. At some points, it was literally breath-taking as the action unfolded. And cued with Newman's score, the film was a visual and aural pleasure.

The film should definitely be watched in a big screen and it was entirely formatted to fill the screen for IMAX which was superb!

This film is going to sweep up tons of nominations. It is definitely will be in the running for the Oscar for Best Picture, Director, Original Screenplay, Score, Cinematography, Editing, Sound Mixing and Sound Editing. Unfortunately, it will be a long shot for McKay for Best Actor (that #5 spot will be a tough battle).

Jojo Rabbit

This was, as advertised in its poster, an anti-hate movie. It was a feel-good, family-friendly, child-appropriate anti-hate, anti-nazi satire. But it lacked depth. It was a superficially rendered satire designed to make you feel good about yourself. However, narratively, it was contrived, contrite and over-simplistic. Nonetheless Jojo Rabbit was a fun and entertaining way to spend 108 minutes and it did boast great performances by Scarlett Johansson, Taika Waititi, Sam Rockwell, Thomasin McKenzie and Jojo himself, Roman Griffin Davis, and did bring in some genuinely good laughs.

Waititi wrote and directed this "satire" (is it really now?) and kudos to him for getting fantastic performances out of his young cast especially Davis, and Jojo's best friend Yorki played by Archie Yates. However, in his attempt to satirise the anti-hate message of this nazi war film, he somehow lost the heart of the film.

Sure, there was some dramatic moments, but they had no impact nor consequences. They happened, the sad strings play, and then it was over. Could Waititi not have gotten the necessary emotional reactions from Davis? Then perhaps the script needed to be reworked to draw on the expertise of its adult cast. Johansson and Rockwell surely did so in their scenes, and we know McKenzie can nail it too from watching her in Leave No Trace. Alas, Waititi went for the feel-good angle and hence lost out on the emotional depth.

Ironically, Davis' Jojo was also the only character the Waititi provided any real character arc for. All the other characters served to nudge him along his narrative trajectory and he ended up being a protagonist with very little agency. And consequently, the other characters are written as flat, one-dimensional archetypes which can only allow them do so much. As aforesaid, Johansson and Rockwell sure did try. The others like Rebel Wilson, Alfie Allen and Stephen Merchant were really only there to provide sight (and side) gags and easy laughs.

Like I said, this was a child-appropriate film. Not only was it made easy for the most common denominator to understand, it was also pleasing and non-offensive to almost everybody.

Music was by Michael Giacchino and it was appropriate and drove the narrative along, but it was not highly memorable.

Based on what Waititi has achieved, and the popularity of the film, Jojo Rabbit will surely get some Oscar nominations. It will likely sneak in for Best Picture and maybe even Adapted Screenplay and be a long shot for Best Director. Supporting Actress.

The Nightingale

An utterly devastating and truly difficult film to watch. But it should be watch. The cultural issues (and also gender, race and equality) significance and magnitude of this film is undeniable and timely. For everybody and in particular Australians. Written and directed by Jennifer Kent (“The Babadook”), this film will shock and anger and ultimately move you. first 30 minutes was truly one of the most challenging first act of a film in a very long time. However, once you can get past that, the extraordinary relationship that developed and evolved between the two protagonists was a wondrous sight to behold. Kudos to Aisling Franciosi for bringing the beautiful and brutally hurt, fragile yet infinitely strong Nightingale to life; and to Baykali Ganambarr for imbuing his Blackbird with strength and dignity. Lastly, not forgetting, Sam Claflin who, underrated as he is, turned in his finest performance as the villainous, I-just-wanna-stab-him-in-the-heart, straight white man. One of the best films of 2019.

Official Secrets

Keira Knightley shone in this retelling of Katherine Gun’s story although it felt more suited to be a TV-movie than a straight up film. Mrs Gun’s story was unknown to me and so it was rather interesting, but for someone familiar to the leak and controversial, Gavin Hood’s execution of the film could seem a bit rote and by-the-numbers. However, Knightley sold her role and saved the story. It was one of her least showy roles, but yet it still retained a lot of her signature emotional beats. She made Mrs Gun’s motives appear unforced and grounded in realism, and not staged and falsely/cinematic altruistic. Ralph Fiennes portrayed her lawyer Ben Emmerson and he equaled Knightley in terms of passion and conviction. Matt Smith, Matthew Goode and Rhys Ifans rounded up the cast and they were competent although Ifans tended to overact and chew as usual.

The Lighthouse

This film proved that Robert Eggers is truly an exciting filmmaker to pay attention to, and that “The Witch” was not a fluke. It was a tense, psychological-horror drama that gripped you and messed with your mind from the beginning. It was disorientating and disturbing, so kudos to Eggers and his cinematographer Jarin Blaschke for successfully achieving an Hitchcockian result with the black and white, and 1:1.19 aspect ratio. However, for the film to work as well as it did, Willem Dafoe’s casting was inspired. Dafoe was terrific and should really get nominated. He was terrifying as he was sublime and darkly funny. Robert Pattinson also gave an outstanding performance that had moments of raw brilliance, but his wavering accent was distracting. And it was unavoidable to postulate if he was cast so that the film could be made. Nonetheless, Pattinson is a good actor, and Eggers (with his co-writer brother Max) did manage to weave his prettiness into the narrative. Eggers, together with Ari Aster (“Hereditary” and “Midsommar”), have both raised the bar for the psychological-horror genre (aka “prestige horror”; move aside Jordan Peele), and it will be very exciting to see what they will both follow up with next.

Judy

Just give Renée Zellweger all the awards and the Oscar already. She was phenomenal and utterly riveting. It was a transformative and truly lived-in performance. Zellweger found the heart and soul in an otherwise histrionic and excessively melodramatic figure and film. And therein laid the film’s biggest fault. It was directed to a melodramatic excess by Rupert Goold, and truly some of the best moments were the quieter scenes where Zellweger was allowed to simmer and stew and smoulder. Regardless, the melodrama of it all paid off in the end as the emotional manipulation reached its peak and the audience’s heartstrings get inevitably tugged. Of the supporting cast, Jessie Buckley stood out, as always. Finn Wittrock as fifth husband Mickey Dean was an uninspiring love interest that was blandly written; as was Rufus Sewell’s Sidney Luft. Kudos also to Zellweger for performing her own songs. That added to authenticity of her role and helped to sell the dramatics of it all. Like I said, just give her the awards already (Sorry, Scarlett Johansson!). Unfortunately, that may be the only category “Judy” gets nominated in for the Oscar.

Cats

I have watched the stage musical production of “Cats” three times, and what was undeniable were the powerful emotional quality and indelible staying power of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s music and T. S. Elliot’s witty and memorable poetry/lyrics. To the extent that the new song, co-written with Taylor Swift, was actually a standout moment. 

But other than the music, this film was a hot mess. 

They really should have honoured the original production and not try to shoehorn a narrative or plot, and even worse, a romance! That really threw the whole film off because now it just felt even more ridiculous than the original production. 

What helped the stage musical was its reliance on the audience’s imagination to fill in the blanks; whereas now, Tom Hooper and co were trying to shove their version of the story down your throat. 

To be fair, the CGI cat-costumes was not as distracting (or less weird/ridiculous) as the lyrca-clad version, but it was the lack of genitalia with the hint of breasts that was utterly odd. As were the strange feet (shoes?!) and clothes/attire that adorn different cats that defies logic. Even the varying proportions throughout the film was less distracting. 

Judi Dench (Old Deuteronomy) and Ian McKellen (Gus) managed to retain some dignity; Jennifer Hudson channeled Effie in her Grizabella and her version of “Memory” though packed a punch, lacked the emotional weight deserving of the character; Taylor Swift (Bombalurina), on the other hand, stood out with her single song cameo as she appeared to embrace the ridiculousness of it all; Idris Elba (Macavity) was criminally underused and distracting CGI-ed in his big number; Rebel Wilson (Jennyanydots) and James Corden (Bustopher Jones) were funny and competent but their musical numbers were not great; Jason Derulo (Rum Tum Tugger) was superfluous; Laurie Davidson (Mr Mistoffelees) and Robbie Fairchild (Munkustrap) were standouts but pity they were not as well known; and lastly newcomer Francesca Hayward (Victoria/White Cat) danced beautifully but it was hard to judge her acting under all that CGI and a plot that only demanded her to stare out, mouth agape mostly. 

To really enjoy this film, a keen and fond memory of the original musical is essential. It will definitely not gain “Cats” any new fans. Perhaps it might be a lot more enjoyable under the influence of alcohol or what not (imagine watching this during an acid trip!), and may even be so bad that it develops into a cult film just like “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” or even “The Room”!

The Two Popes

This would have been a fantastic play to watch, especially if it also starred Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce as the titular popes. This film was made by these two great actors. It was riveting to see Hopkins and Pryce banter off each other, as they acted their faces off with every twitch, glance and side eye. They were like two predators constantly circling around each other, both strong and intelligent, scheming and cunning, both right in their thinking but also not without fault. That dance between these two adversaries was so gracefully depicted and captured - and often in close-ups - by director Fernando Meirelles. “The Two Popes” was so radically different from Meirelles breakout film “City of God” and his last Oscar movie “The Constant Gardener”. This was a lot quieter, introspective and meditative. A lot of the drama, comedy and pathos arose from Anthony McCarten’s great script which was based off his own play. It was smart, witty, biting, theological yet atheistic, but most surprisingly, this film packed an emotional punch despite the audience already knowing how history unfolded. And that is entirely due to Meirelles assured directing, McCarten’s confident script and Hopkins and Pryce’s riveting masterclass in acting. “The Two Popes” may be a lot less snowy than lots of the other films this year, but it is definitely one that should be watched. It does have a chance in Best Adapted Screenplay, and some outside chance for Picture, Actor (Pryce) and Supporting Actor (Hopkins).

Knives Out

A delightfully entertaining, Robert Altman-esque, Agatha Christie-type whodunit that was smartly written and well directed by Rian Johnson. The film moved along smoothly, although admittedly there was a slight pacing lag in the second act, but otherwise it did keep you guessing to the end. Clues were peppered throughout and attention needed to be paid to the things that were being said if you would like to solve the crime instead of being told (it was just like reading a book); and it could be solved. However, the secret to this film’s brilliance was not the script but its cast. Johnson had masterfully assembled, and wrangled, a great cast who had good chemistry and worked fantastically well with each other, but importantly, could also deftly balance the wicked blackness of the comedy with the campiness of a dysfunctional family and alt-serious drama of a murder thriller. Kudos to Daniel Craig who seemed like he was having so much fun, Chris Evans and his fantastic knits and sweaters, Jamie Lee Curtis and her campy overacting, Michael Shannon for always being able to find something menacing about any character he plays, Toni Collette and her blonde flooziness, and Ana de Armas for being the effective emotional heart of the film. If there are ten films nominated for Best Picture Oscar, “Knives Out” could be #9 or #10.

The Irishman

"The Irishman" aka “I Heard You Paint Houses” was a deceptively simple yet quietly majestic and emotionally meditative gangster/mob epic by Martin Scorsese that deserved to be watched on a large screen and absolutely well-worth the 3.5 hours of my uninterrupted attention. 

Scorsese and writer Steven Zaillian crafted a simple story based on the life of Frank Sheeran, an alleged mafia hitman, that slowly unfolded from the 50s to his eventual death as it traced Sheeran’s rise within the Bufalino crime family. 

The 209 minutes allowed Scorsese to introduce a huge rotating cast and sufficiently develop the emotional beats of Sheeran’s story. And it is to Scorsese’s phenomenal credit that the film never felt it length, as the story moved along at a steady clip before reaching the climatic end that will surprisingly hit you with an unexpected emotional sledgehammer. 

What a great storyteller! 

But, it will all not have been possible without the superb work of the three leading men. 

Joe Pesci was outstanding; a quietly intense, razor sharp performance. 

On the other spectrum, we had Al Pacino who chewed every single scenery he was in, but partnered with Scorsese, Pacino was - at long last again - electrifying, magnetic and deadly charming. 

Lastly, we had Robert De Niro who was the emotional heart of the film and actually the least showy of the three actors. However, his presence anchored the story and allowed the audience to be immersed with him in his journey. This was the De Niro whom we had forgotten was once one of the best actors of his generation. 

Yes, the de-ageing technology was apparent but it definitely was not distracting unless you are very, very familiar with how the actors looked in their youth. “The Irishman” was one of Scorsese’s best film of this century (before “Hugo”, we would have to go all the way back to the 90s with “Goodfellas”, “Cape Fear” and “Casino”), and definitely the best gangster film since “Goodfellas”. 

Totally expect this film to sweep up a bunch of nominations and eventually some awards too. 

I would love “Parasite” and its director Bong Joon-ho to win Best Film and Director, but “The Irishman” and Scorsese really presents a real threat. Try to watch it in a cinema if you can! Or at the very least, do yourself a favour, and set aside 3.5 hours, and watch it at home on a TV.

Marriage Story

This Netflix should be seen on the big screen. Uninterrupted is the best way to focus on this devastatingly sharp and brutally honest divorce-drama that was, hands-down, one of the best two-fer drama in years. Both Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver were outstanding and totally deserving of all the accolades for their naked, lived-in performances. Their chemistry was palpable and believable, which made Noah Baumbach’s script all that more searingly painful. All that raw emotions were painful to watch. So, kudos to Baumbach for having the courage to write and direct this semi-autobiographical, searingly honest film, and for getting such great performances from his stars. Now, this film was not perfect and it has its faults, although they were mostly nitpicking issues like it could sometimes get too blatant, hand-holding, emotionally manipulative, self-indulgent. But these issues arose because the film was so good that you wished it could have been even better and sweep all the awards. The supporting cast - Laura Dern, Alan Alda, Merritt Weaver and Julia Hagerty - were excellent but this was really Johansson and Driver’s showcase. There was no vanity in their performances. It was not difficult to believe that these two individuals loved - and love - each other but yet have stopped being in love. That was the exquisite beauty of Baumbach’s best film to date.

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

JJ Abrams and co. succumbed to toxic fanboy pressure and retconned daring - and controversial, but brave - creative choices from “The Last Jedi” to produce this unimaginative, cheesy, horribly acted (save Oscar Isaac, Keri Russell and C3PO’s Anthony Daniels) and misogynistic film that was an unsatisfying end to this new trilogy and the saga as a whole. There is a good story somewhere within, but the fan-servicing killed it. Not even John Williams’ great score could save this 142 minutes from the doldrums of tediousness. The plot holes were gaping, characterisations were broad and/or filmsy, and just way too many lens flares (Abrams obviously still has not learned). Abrams has great ideas and a great mind to imagine big set pieces and create indelible images, but like his TV shows, he needs a team to sharpen the details and knit the stitches holding the pieces together, but this was not the team assembled for this film. In the end, what was the reason of having this new trilogy? It might have been better as a TV series...oh wait, there is already the better “The Mandalorian”.