Month: February 2023

In an earlier blog (not the last one, the one before ), I discussed the film Rumble and my new dislike of it as it was what you get in google when you search “The Film Ramble”. I looked into this monstrosity more and it turns out Terry Crews is in it. That got me thinking, Crews, Cruise. Tom Cruise, Top Gun. Tom Cruise, Scientology. That’s it, the powerful cult of Scientology is what’s trying to bring my blog down. Will I stand for this? No. I. Won’t. I am now officially changing this blog’s view to be anti-Scientologists and declaring war on them. Therefore, if this blog is randomly taken down or I randomly disappear, investigate Maverick himself, because this won’t be pretty.

Anyway, on to the reviewing.

Shrek, as a series, started off legendary. The original was fresh and new (if you forget The Princess Bride exists) and introduced a generation to the anti-fairy tale. With a bit of fun and humour for all, it was counter-culture everybody could enjoy in a sickeningly Disney world. The second film expanded on the first and provided Jennifer Saunders’ legendary Holding out for a hero. Then it all started to go wrong. The third film was a damp squib while the forth happened and I can’t remember much about it except the feeling of disappointment I had afterwards. In amongst this mess was a Puss in Boots origin story which apparently I’ve seen before as well. The problem with this is that I couldn’t remember it at all. Therefore, a puss sequel set after the four Shrek movies 12 years after the original seems not only a strange project, but one that is doomed to fail. Despite the odds, somehow not only is Puss in Boots: The Last Wish competent, but it’s actually pretty good.

The Last Wish starts with a big song and dance epic about how cool Puss is. He has a Babylon-esque party and then saves the day from a rock troll before dying. He’s invincible in his mind, then he dies. But this time, he’s died for the eighth time. Puss remains confident in himself until he comes across one of the coolest animated villains ever in Death, a red eyed big bad wolf of child like nightmares. Seriously, they didn’t need to go so far overboard with him. When Death humiliates Puss into running away from a fight, vowing to catch him, Puss loses his mojo and goes into the safety of a retirement home. This is where he stays until he hears about a shooting star which can give him his wish of more lives. He goes on a quest to find the star along with Kitty Softpaws and a quirky, suprisingly tolerable, sidekick dog, Perro. However, he’ll have to get there before Jack Horner and Goldilocks and the Three Bears, all while escaping death.

This film is actually surprisingly deep. Puss’ mortality suddenly changes him from an annoying individual who you don’t want to watch to a defeated wreck who almost seems to give up. His steely determination is built on fear, making him one of the most interesting characters in the Shrek Universe. The films themes of mortality and family are consistent but never feel over-bearing. Sure, the third act becomes predictable, it’s a children’s film after all, but due to the good work of the first two acts, it doesn’t feel undeserved.

Every single character has an interesting arc, with very few being fillers. Kitty Softpaws needs to learn to trust, Perro (the somehow not annoying therapy dog who has been abandoned by his family) needs to belong, Puss needs to deal with his mortality and my favourite characters Goldilocks and the Three Bears need to learn what family means. Seriously, they were great. Florence Pugh, Olivia Coleman and Ray Winstone have some of the best lines, both emotionally and comically. The delivery of all their jokes were brilliant and that’s down to the top level of casting. I mentioned Death earlier as well. This wolf’s whistling you hear before you see him is just fearsome. He really is an entity which feels unstoppable.

In a world of family films which need to have constant jokes every 10 seconds, loud and in your face (Thanks, minions), this movie uses its funny moments efficiently. Sure, not all the jokes will land, but they are used much more sparingly and at the right time, not in the middle of emotional moments. It’s a slightly different tone of humour to Shrek, but the structure of the humour is much more reminiscent of it. I laughed more than six times at this movie and that would’ve been in the first 30 minutes.

Visually, this film is satisfying. When Spiderverse came out, it felt like a game changer and this is one of the first films to use a similar style of animation. Unlike the duller Shrek colours, this film is vibrant in its lighting and uses motion brilliantly. The characters feel alive in what they do as does the world. In the darker and scarier scenes, the contrast to the light warm scenes is suddenly so much more striking. The use of different techniques to affect the pace of the busier scenes is smartly done. This is Dreamworks’ best ever looking film and it will be interesting to see if Shrek 5 uses a similar style (Although that film feels Far, Far, Away).

Puss in Boots 2 is one of those sequels which eclipses the first somehow. Made with lots of care and elements which somehow work despite the odds being against them, this movie does an incredible job with the tools it has and is certainly worth a half term cinema trip at the very least.

Puss in Boots: The Last Wish is out in cinemas now

Speaking of Shrek characters, let’s talk about a donkey.

So I’ve only been to the cinema with Cathryn a couple of times over the past few years. As far as I recall, our cinematic outings have been limited to Pokemon Detective Pikachu and Schindlers List, two nuanced arthouse classics. I was given full autonomy over our first post covid movie trip, so what did I pick? Did I go for awards darlings The Fabelmans or The Whale? Did I heck. Did I go for the fun, safe Puss in Boots 2? NOOOOOOOO. Instead, the choice of film which she willingly, yet questionably agreed to was experimental Polish piece EO

When we first meet Eo, he is a circus donkey, performing with a young woman who adores him and wants no harm to come his way. However, when the circus faces bankruptancy, he is taken away to another place. This is the beginning of his journey around Poland. He meets good and bad people. At one point he is stuck with a fox killer, while at another he is in a petting zoo for children with Downs Syndrome. To some he is a friend, others he is an icon. Some help him, others harm him. This film is ultimately a reflection of humanity and where it does and doesn’t exist. His tour is either about finding his way home or enjoying his freedom or looking for some tasty hay. It’s up to you how you see it. He’s a donkey, he can’t speak. There’s ambiguity.

Despite the ambiguity behind his intentions, Eo’s emotions are clear. His facial expressions are caught by close ups and accompanied by a wonderful undercurrent score all of which help you empaphise with this mule. You see his admiration of the big horses and the panic when he feels trapped. There are also shots with blurred edges making it feel like you are watching things from Eo’s perspective. He reacts in a very aware, but helpless way when he sees other animals being harmed. This is a donkey you want the best for.

The film isn’t always easy to watch. At the end of the film, there is a card which says that no animals were harmed and their wellbeing is the top priority. As this film focuses on man’s relationship with nature, there are of course going to be difficult moments to watch. These are contrasted well with beautiful moments. This is a movie that gives you hope and breaks you.

As well as being a fairly standard story, the film looks and sounds great. There are a variety of fun, experimental shots, which seem to focus more on man’s inventions and how they contrast with the calm of nature. This includes one seemingly random scene of a robot dog running. The scenery around Eo is beautiful as well, with a variety of long shots leaving me googling flights to Poland and the action encouraging me to bring a PETA banner. Its use of light, particularly in a momentary laser scene, is a thing of beauty. This really is a movie to watch on the big screen if you can because it’s more than a movie. It feels like art.

EO is available in cinemas now

I have a rule when I write this blog that I will primarily write about interesting films, not necessarily good ones. While The Fabelmans was great, I ran out of things to say after describing the plot. Therefore, it is to the credit of The Whale that it’s probably the most interesting film I’ve written about for a while.

The film is about Charlie, who following the death of his boyfriend has ballooned up to 600lbs. Following a heart attack in the opening scene of the movie, we learn he only has days to live due to his congestive heart failure. His life involves his nurse, a preacher who wants to save his soul and his daughter who he abandoned eight years ago, who is struggling with life. The movie then looks at people wanting to save one another in different ways, mainly looking at Charlie and his daughter.

No doubt the first thing you will see is that Brendan Fraser’s character is notably bigger than Fraser himself. This is thanks to a fat suit he wears. It’s convincing and never does it feel inauthentic. Alongside Frasers tall lumbering frame and some incredible hair and make up, we get this character that is not a man in a fat suit but a person.

Maybe it’s due to the fact that characters like Charlie don’t lead films, it takes a while to get used to. However, I feel the opening scenes set this film up to fail. When you see Charlie lumbering around, pushed along with a daunting soundtrack the film seems to relish a form of disgust. Look at this freak show, what an idiot. Obviously it’s a contrived way to show some humanity later on, but it defines him and at the point we realise he is going to die, we don’t get the full impact as we just see this body. Maybe it’s meant to be a reflection on a wider society, but it comes across as exploitative. There is a similar scene near the end where Charlie seems to give up where the music and his actions are made to look disgusting, not to show the fact this character has given up, but to show a horrible thing happening. It doesn’t feel sad but cheap. It’s in these moments this film has less heart, using the shock factor to stick in your mind.

The film wants to show a humanity in Charlie and Brendan Fraser does try that. He’s a character whose given up. His apartment is messy and dark, with very little light showing at all. He’s embarrassed by himself and is clearly not in a place where he wants to live, eating himself to death and refusing hospital treatment. Despite this, I never really felt like we got to see Charlie’s humanity. Everything about him is rarely said by himself. Instead his nurse will say things or his daughter explains his life and he looks sad. The film happens around him, not with him and that means we never really get into his character’s truth. This is ironic as his character always tells his students and daughter to write their truth. Ultimately, the story tries to say his truth is his size, which he keeps hidden from his students. This feels a betrayal of his emotional truth.

The film itself reminds me of Aftersun in its themes. It’s actually very similar. A father who has given up on life looks to create memories and legacies for a daughter after he’s gone. However, while Aftersun is a classy nuanced piece of cinema which feels genuine, The Whale feels more contrived, wearing its cognitively failing heart on its sleeve. Everything feels stage like and almost false. You can’t ever get over the fact they’re acting. These lines aren’t natural, they fit their themes. None feel wasted in a stage way, we don’t ever get our characters just talking, but instead working their way through a scene. However, the benefit to this is the emotional climax which will make audiences feel something and no doubt help Fraser win awards, unlike Aftersun’s more restrained Mescal.

I guess this review has primarily focussed on the negatives. Does that mean this is a bad film, no not at all. It’s well made and well acted. Charlie looks incredible and the scenery around them is brilliant. It also makes you think, portraying something new and different. However, its contrived nature means you don’t necessarily feel the humanity you should, the humanity that Charlie deserves.