I'm honestly a big X-Men fan. I've heard bold accusations that they aren't good movies or that I like them, my movie taste would be otherwise questionable. That's truly a pet peeve of mine; underestimating and ranking peoples' personal views on movies. I have had so much faith in X-Men and have always fought back the annoying comments.
But now, sitting in cinema in front of big screen showing X-Men: Apocalypse, I felt awkward. Because even though I've enjoyed watching all of the X-Men franchise before (haven't seen Wolverines though), I left the cinema with mixed but mainly disappointed feelings.
I was drooling over Michael Fassbender with a beard - but still giggled and sighed at the hugely cliché I'm-a-good-man-I-found-love-oh-shit-they-died-now-I'll-destroy-the-world plot line. Many of the coolest characters (Psylocke, anyone?) didn't have almost any screen time. What about the mixed timeline that didn't have any sense at points? Characters didn't seem to be any older than before.
The worst thing, though, was the very awkward way they underlined the franchise. Lame jokes. Lame references. The movie seemed to shout WATCH ALL OF THE MOVIES ALL OF THEM WE ARE SO COOL AND FUNNY all over the place. It was not cool.
Because movies should work on their own. Because that's what I've always loved about X-Mens - they haven't felt like a money making machine.
The young actors really shined though - I had read an article on Empire, where they all told about their experience, but even without reading it beforehand it was very clear that this job was such a big deal for all of them. They gave their all. I've never really liked Jean Grey, but Sophie Turner (whom I admit to love unconditionally, but her skill was definitely not just my blind appreciation) showed a Phoenix that I couldn't help but admire.
There was a lot of potential, but it didn't deliver. I'm just hoping that the upcoming X-Men movies return to the quality we are used to.
I absolutely adore Rufus Norris’ debut feature film Broken, so from early on I was very excited to see his next film, London Road. Today – way later than I would’ve liked to – I got to finally see it and Norris didn’t let me down.
I’m very surprised of how low ratings this movie has: it’s only 5,3/20 on IMDb. The reviews are polarized. It seems like the whole basis of the movie is too much for some to handle: London Road tells a real story of community that’s getting over horrible serial murders of five prostitutes, based on interviews of the locals. By the way, it’s a musical.
I feel like it’s mainly just that musicals are stereotyped as feel good, silly, overly dramatic. Definitely not the right way to process such serious (and recent, the murders taking place in 2006) matters. In addition to underestimating musicals, the viewers stubbornly close their eyes from the fact that the movie is not really about the murders; it’s about the community of London Road.
What’s really refreshing about the movie is the way it shows just regular people. It’s definitely not Broadway styled big show; the songs are based on what those real people said in interviews. It’s brilliant play with speech patterns and intonations more than actual singing. Stutter and erms are included so it actually sounds more natural than in many movies where the character pop pretty perfectly shaped sentences out of their mouth so effortlessly all the time. What comes to choreographies, they are based on coordinated movement to build the tension. I personally really dig that kind of styling as film really has no need to follow the reality faithfully.
By telling the story of the local people, the movie didn’t leave out the ones left outside of the community: the local prostitutes. It took the story to a new level, I even got goosebumps few times: the scene of the girls speaking about how it took the murders to make people want to help them, and then in near end when Julie (Olivia Colman) told the interviewer that she would want to thank the murderer of getting rid of the prostitutes, next to her sleeping daughter.
What I really did not like about this movie was the not-so-subtle symbolic color schemes. The greyish blue of the beginning was just not visually appealing, it felt too underlined and too pushed forward. Otherwise the cinematography and editing was really on point though. All in all, London Road is a bold, sharp and respectful but interesting movie. Rufus Norris is a great storyteller, I would love to see his work also on stage (and keep my fingers crossed for more movies too).
On my mission to see
all the movies I should, I got around to at last watch My Fair Lady. I think it
might be the first Audrey Hepburn film I’ve seen (yes, I’m ashamed of myself).
It’s a witty movie
with lovely score and great performances. Especially Rex Harrison shines as
Henry Higgins, being the kind of charismatic character you just love to hate. I
really enjoyed myself curled up in my covers, listening to the songs and getting
to know the colourful characters. So, how
did it suck if you liked it so much?
My Fair Lady sucks
because it wins it all in so many ways and then it shoots its own leg and
stumbles down. Yes, I’m talking about the ending.
Eliza Doolittle is
absolutely brilliant character. I was already signed up for faithfully celebrating annual Eliza Doolittle Day. The growth to independence from Higgins’ influence was
what really dragged me toward the movie. And then the end scene breaks my
heart. After all the struggle she comes back to him and it makes no sense.
To have some
explanation, one could argue that she had now won the battle and they both knew
it – so she didn’t have to be without him if she didn’t want to. She could do so. He couldn’t, she’s in
power. But the way this version of Eliza looks at poor professor Higgins… It’s
a tender look. And gosh, if he would’ve learned anything at all he should’ve
worked on what to say to her. After all the power she has gained back it doesn’t
feel good enough reason.
Other commentators
online were saying that she just had to marry someone as the social structures
demanded that and Higgins’ was the only choice. Well, she had Freddy, but
really he’s just a useless side character, she couldn’t possibly care for him –
and he didn’t have money anyway. Why everyone tends to forget Freddy was the
one character who was attracted to her for who
she was right from the beginning? After the talk Eliza gave him (“Show Me”),
it seems that he was there for her. That was just what she dreamed of in the beginning
- that, and chocolate, and we could assume that somebody being there for her
for a change would be something she needed a tad more. Just think about her
father. Anyway, if she didn’t want to
marry Freddy she could’ve married somebody else. It was proven that she was
popular – and after all the attention at the embassy ball she sure looked good
in the eyes of (rich) suitors.
Somehow Higgins still
has his fans. Direct quote from a YouTube comment favouring Eliza/Higgins: “Higgins is a little sexist and
over the top with his personality”. Little sexist? Really, it’s 2016 and men
are still so easy to forgive. There was no proof of him changing his habits –
and without that there was absolutely no reason for her return. Is it really
just me who doesn’t think that love hurting is not a romantic idea? When love
hurts you know it’s your time to leave.
My Fair Lady – the musical – is based on the play Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw, first performed in
1913. He did not write the two ending up together and he was repeatedly
crossed when the impossibility of this pairing was ignored. To please the
audience with a ‘happy ending’, the actor of Higgins gave Eliza flowers. "My ending makes money; you
ought to be grateful.” Shaw wasn’t grateful. For the 1938 movie version of the
play he offered a compromised tender farewell between the two and then a scene
from Eliza’s and Freddy’s flower shop. Didn’t go as planned; in that movie too
Eliza comes back like in My Fair Lady, joking about her first visit.
From Eliza’s point of view the ending doesn’t feel natural. It’s clear that the audience is keen
to see Higgins as the hero but as the story goes on, I think it’s inevitable to
see that Eliza is the real hero here – and I believe it was supposed to be so. If
George Bernard Shaw could write a strong female character who chooses her own
way and says no to a man a hundred years ago, you’d think that it could be seen so over romantic clichés decades later - and that the present day
viewers could do that too. Bring down the patriarchy or what?
When I started this
blog, I thought that it would become a motivator for me to dig deeper into
cinema – and maybe something to mention in my personal statement for film
studies. As it can be seen, the noble idea was quite short lived. Whoops.
But since then
everything has changed. I got into the school of my dreams without any mention
of a film blog; I’m moving to London in September and starting a new chapter in
my life. As the glorious unknown is getting closer, the urge to write about movies
has grown stronger. I’m really motivated about my future studies and that’s why
I want to do my best, why I’m already reading through books on cinema and watching
the classics I should've seen ages ago.
So, this is something
of a new beginning. Here’s my little travel video from my first visit to London
last autumn. I promised I’ll come back... but didn’t really think it would mean actually
moving there!
Straight Outta Compton (dir. F. Gary Gray, 2015) ***
When I walked into the cinema, I really had no idea about N.W.A - I live Finland and really don't have a clue about hip hop culture. I had seen the trailer, and of all the given options it seemed the most interesting one to see - strong visuals that reminded of music videos, interesting themes, what's more to ask from?
It was powerful. It's overwhelming to take a look at the past, just to see that no significant progress has been made. I was on edge of tears for few times. Yeah, police brutality. We live in just that world, even though the movie is set in 1980-1990's. I loved the structure of the film, feeling like a river going on and on - even though the movie was long (2 h 27 min), I wasn't bored. Maybe it wouldn't have hurt making the movie a tad shorter, but the ongoing rhythm was at least for me really enjoyable. It made it feel realistic on the behalf of emotions - that's how life works, it keeps moving and there's nothing to do about it.
That said, the biggest problem to the movie was actually it being biographical. As a viewer, you had to keep that it mind to enjoy it. Among the producers there are some of the characters themselves - Dr. Dre, Ice Cube, Eazy-E's wife. They are not going to pay for a movie that would give them any bad light. Even though the characters in the movie make bad choices, they are the good guys. They are shown in a good light and there's no room for self reflecting or growth. They are the best, most likable versions of these young men that could be given.
The movie just forgot about the things it didn't want to include. For example, women. Women shown in the movie were groupies partying, and then there were glimpses of wives of the group. Even though their wives were shown with respect, they really didn't stand out for the plot. It felt like they were included as symbols of the growth of the characters - after banging the groupies they really learned to love a woman like a proper man! The whole picture is problematic. Here's a piece by Dee Barnes, who was beat up by Dr. Dre. I'm just going to quote her:
"That event isn’t depicted in Straight Outta Compton, but I don’t think it should have been, either. The truth is too ugly for a general audience. -- But what should have been addressed is that it occurred. When I was sitting there in the theater, and the movie’s timeline skipped by my attack without a glance, I was like, “Uhhh, what happened?” Like many of the women that knew and worked with N.W.A., I found myself a casualty of Straight Outta Compton’s revisionist history."
On overall, I did enjoy the movie. Music and cinematography were really great, the gig scenes amazing and the flow good. Even though it's so understandable, it feels quite cheap that the women were so clearly cut out. Movie that addresses social problems leaves out the misogyny? Just stating that the cases could've made the movie even more powerful - and for a man to admit ones mistakes it's not the end of the world.
After all, the movie is "a great fusion of fantasy and reality" (Alonzo Williams) and should be taken as such. It states important things from our reality but leaves others out to show the heroes of the movie as heroes - and it truly is amazing to see a movie that doesn't star a white male lead in theaters for a change. I'm glad I saw this movie, but I'm glad I read further.
A Finn in London studying film. Occasional post about other fields of culture, the London experience for international student and everyday adventures in the life of Mimosa.
