Surviving the Holiday Season with Disordered Eating

The holiday season can be really difficult for people who struggle with a history of eating disorder(s) or body image problems. Not only is there a lot of (unhealthy) food to eat, but the holidays mean you aren't in your normal routine, you're socialising more, and you might be eating out of boredom more when you don't have anything like work or study to keep your mind occupied.

On top of that, as we near the end of the year we might be deliberately or subconsciously thinking about what this year has been like, and what we would like to change for next year. For some, guilt could be a great motivator to make changes in your health, habits, and lifestyle, but for others, guilt could be associated with great shame, and so this act of making a New Year's resolution could be really distressing.

In response to this, I've made a list of 5 things that help me get through the holiday season (or any difficult period of time when I am feeling unhealthy, e.g. uni holidays, stress-eating when doing uni assignments, coming home from a birthday party, etc.). I'm obviously not a health professional so if you're struggling, do seek professional help, such as a psychologist that has experience with disordered eating, or a dietician. This is just a list of things that have helped me, and they have come from my dietician, psychologist, and personal experience. I hope they help you too!

1. ALL food is good. Whether for nutrition, or enjoyment.
When my dietician said this, I was so shocked. It was like this huge epiphany or revelation that had slammed into me. It might sound silly for people who have never had issues with food or their body image, but I just never realised that unhealthy food could still be good. I always thought, "If it's not healthy, it's bad for you." While I was thinking about it physically, I didn't at all think about it psychologically or mentally.

My dietician continued: "A donut is not bad. It may not be nutritional, but it brings you enjoyment. But if you're eating a donut for every single meal of every single day for 30 days, then that's bad."

So the next time you're worried because you ate something unhealthy, just remember: it's psychologically good for you!


2. Strength and health are more important than weight.
Weight doesn't tell you everything. Weight includes not just fat, but also your bones, muscles, ligaments, and even the food and water you just consumed but will eventually leave your body.

What is imporant, though, is your strength and fitness.

6 years ago I was at my worst. I was underweight, barely eating, and exercising like crazy. I was so tired all the time. Last year, I was probably the most I've weighed, but I was training every week to be able to do the Everest Base Camp trek. If I didn't gain weight, and get stronger, there was no way that I could have finished the trek. I was struggling as is, but even though I had the flu, and all I wanted to do was curl up somewhere warm and just die instead of keep walking, I managed to get up to 5360m high, trekking for anywhere from 4-9 hours a day, for 8 days.

Even though I felt like I was dying, that whole experience made me feel truly alive. It allowed me to truly appreciate, experience, and live in the world. But I wouldn't have been able to do that if I were underweight. In fact, I barely got through it even after gaining weight and training the whole year. If anything, I should have gained even more weight to have stronger muscles to carry me further, and to have been able to insulate myself from the cold. Which brings me to my next point.


3. Fat is good for you. You need it to keep warm and to protect your organs.
I asked my dietician, "You say I need to gain fat to be in the healthy range, but what even is the point of fat? How is more fat healthy?" It didn't make any sense to me.

She told me that fat is really important to insulate and protect my organs. It would help me in the cold (which, as I've already said, really hit me hard at Everest), but it would also help with my lupus. I don't have systemic lupus, I only have skin lupus thank goodness, but there's always that risk that it might turn into systemic lupus and attack my organs and my body. So having additional fat around my body is actually better for me.

Plus, as I have to gain around 5% body fat, my dietician has said that a small increase in fat isn't very noticeable.


4. Thoughts do not equal reality. Just because you "feel" or "think" you are fat, doesn't mean that you are.
Last week was quite bad for me, and I felt disgustingly fat because of all the food I had eaten in the last few days. I was telling my dietician about how gross I had been feeling, and how many unhealthy things I ate. She asked me whether I thought I had gained or lost weight (she weighs me but it's a blind weighing so I don't see how much I weigh, since that can be very triggering). I told her I thought I gained weight. A lot of weight.

But... she told me that I had actually lost weight!

Although that wasn't the goal (since she wants me to gain weight and fat), she said it just goes to show that just because I think I've gained weight, doesn't mean that I actually have. (But again remember that weight isn't all that important and it includes muscle weight too.)


5. Eating healthy means introducing more foods into your diet, rather than restricting your diet.
My psychologist was the one that told me this, and I thought it was actually a really good approach to changing my diet.

When people (or at least people with disordered eating) go "on diets" or, for a better phrase, change their diets, a lot of it revolves around getting rid of foods. You've been eating unhealthily, so you get rid of unhealthy food. You've been eating too much, so you eat less or reduce your calories.

Instead, you should look at introducing healthy food into your diet. For example, introducing salad into your main meals, and fruit into your snacks; or: introducing lentils and legumes into your main meals, and nuts into your snacks.

When you start introducing healthy food, you naturally tend to eat less unhealthy food, but you're still eating the same number of meals and the same amount of food as you were before, so it's not restrictive. Hopefully this allows you to have a healthier relationship with food.

-----
So those are the things that are helping me right now. I hope they help you too, and if you have anything else that helps you, feel free to let me know what they are!

Happy holidays, Merry Christmas, and have a fabulous New Year!

A Podcast Phase

This year has been a really stressful year, with me doing Honours, and as a result, I've dedicated almost no time to reviewing movies, and I haven't even really been too keen on movies in general this year. Even worse, I haven't really been reading either! I think many people might not know this about me since I always review movies, but I actually think reading novels is more enjoyable than watching movies, yet this year I've been terrible with my reading. And it doesn't help that my current book is about 900 pages long.

So instead, I got really into podcasts.

I love podcasts simply for the sole fact that you don't have to use your eyes. I can close my eyes and rest on, say, public transport, or even at home, and not feel like I'm wasting time by doing nothing productive. And depending on the podcast you choose, you can learn something, be entertained, laugh, or all of the above.

You can easily listen to podcasts by downloading a podcast app (I use Podcast Addict), streaming the podcast on Soundcloud or wherever the producers upload the podcast, going through iTunes, or even Spotify. You can stream the podcasts, or download them for offline listening.

Here are a list of my favourite podcasts so far. Any more recommendations would be great!


Currently bingeing:
No Such Thing As A Fish:

Four QI elves (mainly Anna Ptaszynski, James Harkin, Dan Schreiber, and Andrew Hunter Murray) each take turns discussing the most interesting fact they found in the last 7 days. This is an all-round interesting, educational, and hilarious podcast to listen to.

Episodes you can start with: literally any episode.
Note: On Podcast Addict, there's two of "No Such Thing As A Fish": the second one has episodes 127 and later. Also, episodes 2-52 are unavailable however I found someone's saved stash of them.

Myths and Legends:

Ancient myths and legends are retold in an easy and accessible way for modern listeners to understand. Some are stories you've never heard of, while other more mainstream stories might have surprisingly different details (for example, did you know that Aladdin was actually Chinese?).

Episodes you can start with: any myth or legend that peeks your interest.

Also obsessed with:
Heavyweight:

Jonathan Goldstein interviews people who carry heavy burdens from something that happened in their past. Then he helps them resolve these burdens. These stories can be anything from weird and hilarious, to deep and thought-provoking. Jonathan's unique way of storytelling and sense of humour are balanced really well in the way he presents these stories.

Episodes you can start with (in chronological order):

• #6 James: James' father's dying wish was for his ashes to be scattered into the 18th hole of his favourite golf course, but James never got around to doing this.
• #10 Rose: Rose was kicked out of her college sorority with the explanation, "You know what you did." But she didn't know what she did, and over ten years later, she still doesn't.
• #12 Jesse: Four years ago, Jesse was hit by a car and nearly died. This accident changed his life, but now he wants to find the driver, and thank him.
• #16 Rob: Rob vividly remembers breaking his arm as a kid, but the rest of his family says it never happened. Is he crazy?
• #18 Sven: Sven was on a jury that sentenced a man to death. He's regretted it ever since, and eight years later, the man's mother emails Sven.

Reply All:

Alex Goldman and PJ Vogt discuss anything and everything related to the internet. Some of the episodes are only loosely connected to the internet, and more recently some episodes have nothing to do with the internet but through their journalism they discovered these stories and thought they were interesting enough to air on the podcast. They have segments such as Yes Yes No, where their producer asks them to explain memes to him, and Super Tech Support (a favourite of mine), where Alex helps people with bizarre tech problems.

Episodes you can start with (in chronological order):

• #21 Hack the Police: Higinio Ochoa was a hacker that got released on parole on one condition: he can't use the internet. Not only does this mean he can't use a smartphone or internet-connected computer, but he also can't touch his smart-fridge, or even his TV remote control, which can navigate to Netflix on the TV. So how does he navigate his way around this modern world?
• #23 and #24 Exit & Return, Parts I and II: Shulem Deen was part of the Hasidic Jewish community, which doesn't allow certain modern technologies to be used. When he was 22 years old though, Shulem bought his first computer, and his relationships with his family and friends, all being Hasidic Jews, changed forever.
• #86 Man of the People: Not really internet related, but a fascinating story about a con doctor in the 1900s. There's even going to be a movie based on this podcast episode, with rumours of Robert Downey Jr, Matt Damon, and Richard Linklater attached.
• #104 The Case of the Phantom Caller: A great Super Tech Support episode that tries to determine why a woman is getting really bizarre, strange phone calls where no one answers, but it seems like she can eavesdrop on the lives of the strangers calling her.
• #130 The Snapchat Thief: Another great Super Tech Support episode which delves into the world of Snapchat hacking, and social media black markets.

Homecoming:

A fictional psychological thriller podcast focusing on a psychological facility that helps homecoming soldiers. It stars Oscar Isaac, Catherine Keener, and David Schwimmer, and has now been turned into a TV series starring Julia Roberts. I haven't yet listened to the second season because there's an accompanying book where they recommend you to listen to one episode then read one chapter, but for some ridiculous reason, the book is only available for people with Apple products! So I'm waiting until it's available on PDF before I start the second season.

Episodes you can start with: start with the first episode since it's a chronological podcast series.

Other good podcasts:
Science Vs:

Each episode looks into a topic which science can either refute or support with evidence. The host, Wendy Zukerman, has a very intense Australian accent, and it got me a couple episodes to get used to, but she's very endearing, funny, and super enthusiastic. Overall I think it's a great way to learn a bit more about things you are unsure of.

Episodes you can start with: Any episode that peeks your interest.

Invisibilia:

A podcast that explores the invisible forces like our thoughts, beliefs, and emotions, that affect our behaviour.

Episodes you can start with: Any episode that peeks your interest. I've only listened to the first two episodes of this so I don't know much about the other episodes, but I thought the first episode was a fantastic introduction to the show.

Podcasts that have finished:
Mystery Show:

There were problems with production and there's a rumoured season 2 coming out in the future, but as it's been about 2 years since that rumour started, it currently stays at one season of 6 episodes long. Nevertheless, these 6 episodes alone made Apple name Mystery Show as the Best New Podcast of 2015. Each episode, Starlee Kine tries to solve a mystery. It's not a murder mystery or anything super serious; they are often quite minor mysteries, but they can't be resolved just by Googling. Starlee is so cute and adorable as she takes these mysteries as serious as any private investigator would take a headlining mass-murder case, and she's a great storyteller.

Episodes you can start with (in chronological order):

• #2 Britney: "Andrea's a writer no one reads. Then she makes a shocking discovery."
• #3 Belt Buckle: "A young boy finds an enchanting object in the street."
• #5 Source Code: "While watching a movie, David notices a discrepancy."

Serial (season 1):

This is an investigative journalistic podcast that narrates a nonfiction story; one story per season. I've only listened to the first season, which focuses on the 1999 murder of Hae Min Lee, a student in Baltimore. Following initial investigations, Adnan Syed, Hae's ex-boyfriend, was sentenced to life for her murder. He insists he's innocent, and the evidence against him is actually quite contradictory, questionable, and may even be wrong. Very recently, Adnan was granted a re-trial, and there will be another hearing by the end of the year.

Episodes you can start with: start with the first episode.

Is the silent film making a comeback?

At the inception of film, there was the silent film era. We had films with no sound at all, except the live orchestras that would play as the film was being projected. In this sense, films were completely non-diegetic; they were wholly comprised of sounds that the characters in the film could not hear themselves (diegetic sound on the other hand being anything the characters can hear themselves, like conversation, music on the radio or TV, etc.).

During this time, all acting was visual, and the non-diegetic sound conveyed just as much meaning as an actor's facial expressions or body language.

Film has evolved a lot since these early days. Nowadays filmmakers can use sound in a variety of ways unconstrained by the technical limitations that were forced upon the silent film era.

For one, sound is recorded when filming, so actors can speak now. And a lot of acting lies in one's voice, whether it's their tone, their choice to emphasise certain words, or even their accent. And while soundtracks are still important, they can often go unnoticed or be forgotten about in the face of the actors' performances.

Some films of course make it impossible for their soundtrack to be missed. Think back to the epic Jurassic Park (1993) moment where the music builds up the first time they see the dinosaurs. And there's obviously a lot more examples, particularly with big blockbuster or franchise films. Sometimes they don't end up so well though, as pressure to add in iconic and epic music means forcing it into scenes that don't match the music. Now think back to Jurassic World (2015), where the epic music plays when nothing epic is even happening and we don't see any dinosaurs.

Some movies even use music and sound as a piece of storytelling. Think to the trumpet sounds of Inception (2010) slowing down to the iconic BWAAAAAH when they enter the dreamscape and time slows down. It's a great use of music that's both diegetic, signalling a warning to the characters that time's running out, and it's a non-diegetic tool to get audiences nervously shuffling on the edges of their seats. (And, of course, it's been endlessly copied by other movies in their trailers or tense moments).

Mixing diegetic and non-diegetic sound then seems to be a fun plaything for film makers. Think to a scene where a song plays in the background and then someone reaches to switch off the radio and suddenly the music stops. Some films do a great job at mixing in between diegetic and non- together, like in the beginning of Atonement (2007) when the opening sequence seamlessly turns the clicking of a typewriter into song.

More recently, there was Baby Driver (2017), where the music was the backbone of the movie. The mix between diegetic and non- was unclear, similar to how it is in musicals. And this movie was just like an action musical. The non-diegetic music wasn't there just to set the tone of the scene. It actually dictated the directing, the camerawork, the acting, and even the diegetic sound of the film. The soundtrack didn't follow the gunshots or the timing of when car doors were slammed, it was the other way around. Everything revolved around the beat of the music.

All this seems to signal just how important sound is to a movie, both diegetic and non-diegetic. But modern filmmaking has started to take whatever we're comfortable and familiar with, and has changed it to create new forms of art.

One movie that does exactly this is No Country for Old Men (2007). It goes against typical filmmaking convention by having hardly any music in the film. Including the credits, it has a total of 16 minutes of music, and it's a 2 hour movie.

I think usually soundtracks go unnoticed to me unless they really stand out, for good or for bad, but when I watched this film I don't recall realising it had no music. Granted, I was only probably about 13 or so years old, and I may have even found the movie quite boring and forgettable (except two things: Javier Bardem's pressurised air gun, and Javier Bardem checking his shoes).

I may or may not rewatch that movie, but if I do I may find that the lack of music would indeed create the same amount of tension as music normally does. It's funny, it seems in this movie, filmmaking has done a complete 180 from the days of the silent film. Back then, there was no diegetic sound and only non-diegetic music. With No Country for Old Men, it's the opposite.

Now it seems we're coming full circle again. Or, almost. Last year's The Shape of Water paid an homage to the silent film, with its two main characters being mute. We relied on their acting prowess, subtitles, and the film's score (which is amazing, totally listen to it please), just like how we would have for silent movies.

Similarly, in this year's A Quiet Place, its characters can't make any sound. Well, they can, if they want horrible monsters with terribly acute hearing to hunt them down. Here, we're actually negatively associating sound; we don't want there to be any sound in the movie. Sound is bad. The movie has totally flipped what we're traditionally so familiar with, and has turned it into something we can no longer trust.

I think that's what makes A Quiet Place so interesting. The premise itself is interesting, but they wouldn't have been able to explore it if they didn't use long stretches of near silence in this film. It's great seeing films taking risks and doing things differently. Sure, when it doesn't work, it can make a pretty terrible film, but when it's pulled off well, it makes for some damn good cinema.

Is this the end of the Big Screen?

Recently, Steven Spielberg stated that he didn't think Netflix movies should win Oscars, in reference to Netflix having received 8 Oscar nominations for its original movies and documentaries. More saliently, Mudbound (2017) had four nominations in the most recent Academy Awards.

It sounds elitist at first, but Spielberg's main gripe isn't that the quality of Netflix movies are low, but it's with their distribution channels. Netflix movies, he argues, should be classified as TV movies. And there are other award shows for TV movies, such as the Emmys.

The eligibility criteria for Oscar-nominated films states that pictures need to be:
"for a qualifying run of at least seven consecutive days, during which period screenings must occur at least three times daily, with at least one screening beginning between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. daily"

So, Netflix would show their movies in select theatres for a week, before pulling these screenings. After that, the movies would only be available for streaming.

While this is the most cost-effective way to promote a film for Netflix (you'd get Oscar buzz, which is like free marketing, while only paying cinemas for one week of screening, and then you'd have a cheap method of distribution to a wider audience through the Netflix site), Spielberg's view is that it taints what the Academy's purpose is: to celebrate the cinemas.

Note: the cinemas. Not movies in general, but the cinema. The theatre.

There is a difference between an independent movie only being shown for one week because of budget constraints, and whatever Netflix is doing. This is the main gripe that Spielberg has: Netflix's intentions to screen movies in cinemas are not to celebrate cinema, but just to receive awards.

For me, if those are the Academy's requirements, then the fact that Netflix found a loophole to exploit it does not bother me at all. But this raises an interesting question: is Netflix killing the Big Screen?

Over the past few years alone, it has been increasingly difficult to get ahold of a DVD/Blu-ray without buying it. Video rental stores nationwide are disappearing at a faster rate than when all those froyo chains appeared.

But we adapted, moving on to the DVD vending machines located sporadically in shopping centres. But these only have a limited selection, and finding older movies is much harder now, especially since not every older or less-mainstream film is available on Netflix (especially Netflix Australia, but that's another topic).

The availability of less common films on Netflix is getting better, but there is still a lot of room for improvement.

But even if the availability got to the same level as what we have now with DVDs and Blurays, streaming sites still pose problems for avid DVD/Bluray collectors such as myself, and it still poses problems for cinemas.

According to Wikipedia, ^these were the top grossing films of 2017 worldwide.

Notice how they are all big blockbuster franchise movies (bar a random Chinese movie)?

It's getting harder and harder for smaller, more independent movies to compete with these big studio action movies. And while this may sound a bit pretentious, it's harder for more thought-provoking and artsy movies to be successful in light of these big action and visual movies.

One movie that's been in the news for exactly that reason is Annihilation (2018).

It's an amazing movie, and if you haven't seen it, please do.

Where can you see it? Well, that's the kicker isn't it.

The film was distributed in theatres all across the U.S., but internationally it was only released on Netflix. There's been quite a bit of controversy surrounding Paramount's decision to not let international audiences see it on the big screen, mainly because they thought the movie was too smart for mainstream audiences.

Sure enough, it wasn't successful, so Paramount was right in their judgement.

It still sucks though, because I feel like I missed out on the chance for the best experience to watch the movie. The visuals and the score were amazing, and watching it on a home TV just didn't do it justice. Intricate details needed to be bigger, sound needed to be more... surround (?), Natalie Portman needed to be bigger to better appreciate her phenomenal acting, and overall the atmosphere needed to be more serious in order to fully appreciate the movie. Casual watching at home on Netflix just isn't good enough for a film like Annihilation.

But yes, despite all that, I'll concede it's a pretty bizarre film. The ending reminded me of the ending of Under the Skin (2013), and if you've seen that movie then you know it's bizarre and not for everyone.

So Paramount was right, and the best avenue for this movie was Netflix I suppose. You can't really blame them, but you can blame moviegoers for not seeing movies like Annihilation.

Society is evolving, and as much as I hate to admit it, maybe the film industry should evolve too. Allowing Netflix movies into the Oscars might encourage more Netflix movies to be made, forcing theatre-released films into extinction, but if Netflix is the only way we can keep the film industry not only thriving but producing quality content, then I will begrudgingly resign to a life of watching movies on my TV screen, munching on leftovers from the fridge in my pyjamas. Just let me upgrade my home theatre system first.

You are a good man, with a good heart. And it's hard for a good man to be a king.

Black Panther (2018)

7.9/10 on IMDb
97% on Rotten Tomatoes

Chloe's thoughts: A must see;
Watch it in cinemas;
I'm buying the DVD;
Low-energy entertainment

Watch it if you: Are a fan of Marvel movies;
Aren't really a fan of Marvel movies but want a cool action movie (since it works well as a standalone film);
Are a fan of sci-fi action with unique African mythos mixed in;
Want to see a Marvel movie with a really cool villain;
Want an action movie that's different (in a good way)

This was the first time ever that I saw an ad play before the movie to tell us what brand of cars were in the movie, because apparently pure product placement isn't enough.
But hey, it worked.
The cars were Lexus cars.
The city of Wakanda is nothing like anything we've seen in a Marvel movie, or even just in any movie.

It lies in the heart of Africa, secluded from the rest of the world. Its culture is deeply rooted in traditional African lore, yet it wields the most powerful technology unknown to mankind. As a result, Wakanda is a beautiful mix of longstanding cultural traditions and lore, mixed with new, modern, and even futuristic technology. It's vibrant, a lot of fun, and is stunning to look at. When you see it, it kind of makes you sad to think of what Africa could be with better technology and foreign aid, which is a theme that's also explored a lot in this film.

This was my favourite thing about watching the movie. Yes, it's a story centered around Black Panther, but Black Panther isn't the focus here. The focus is on the characters, and their intentions, and the deeper consequences of what this has on the city of Wakanda.

I loved the lore and mythos behind this city; it's got such a rich history, and there are so many things to explore in Wakanda. I get the feeling that what we see in the film is just scratching the surface of what Wakanda has to offer.

And the music and score in this film is so good here! It adds to this deep lore and tradition. It does so well in setting the tone, with its African-inspired, tribal drums beating away, making you all giddy looking at everything on the screen.

And in exploring this fictional African city and its peoples, we get to see a little bit into the minds of how Africans view both African Americans and Westerners in general, calling them "colonizers" and looking at them warily. Killmonger is technically one of them, but they constantly refer to him as an outsider because of his Western upbringing. He truly is someone who doesn't belong, either in Wakanda, or in America. After all, he was "a kid from Oakland walking around and believing in fairytales." The social commentary in this film isn't subtle, but it doesn't feel preachy either. It feels natural, and it feels like it genuinely comes from the characters' hearts.

But Michael B. Jordan does a great job at being a villain here. Usually, DC's villains and characterisations are way better than Marvel's, as Marvel villains always get a bad rep. But here, you really feel sorry for Killmonger, and you even completely understand his reasons for doing the things he did. More on him in my spoilers section, but you could tell the writers really thought this through, and they didn't rely on Marvel's fan base to write a cheap cop-out of a villain.

Another fun villain was Andy Serkis as Ulysses Klaue. I'd love to see him in more crazy real-life characters. I mean, he's a great motion capture actor but damn he needs to step out and do more things where we can see him! He's also surprisingly very tall and very built!

Speaking of, I loved the Bilbo x Gollum reunion and I really really really wanted Martin Freeman's character to ask Andy Serkis' character, "What's in my pockets?"

I saw this funny post somewhere about how the only two white guys in the movie were Bilbo and Gollum, but I loved how they got such a great African American/British cast! It just felt really different, and it's such a good change to all the downbeat African movies out there about slavery. Just again makes you really think about what it could be like if Africa had better technology.

Riddle me this: Where do you get your Vibranium from?
So here comes the part where I talk about the rest of the extensive cast of amazing actors in this film.

The cast truly is amazing, with Chadwick Boseman, Lupita Nyong'o, Forest Whitaker and Angela Bassett doing a great job here. Also, Angela Bassett rocking an amazing hairdo.

I was also really happy to see Daniel Kaluuya here as well. He's had a great year with Get Out (2017) and I love seeing new actors from Black Mirror appear in mainstream movies. It's also a Black Mirror reunion with Letitia Wright, the chick from the season 4 finale, playing Black Panther's younger sister.

She was the standout in this film, she was so funny and cute in this and she stole every scene she was in. The scene where she was showing T'Challa all the new gadgets she made was very James Bond-esque, and it was pretty cool even if some of the new tech wasn't utilised in the film.

Which also makes me super happy at how badass the women in this movie are. There's a lot of talk about how women are misrepresented in film, especially right now with the MeToo movement in the wake of the sexual assault allegations, but I think we're really starting to get on track these days. Mad Max Fury Road (2015) had an amazing cast of strong women, Wonder Woman (2017) showed a really strong superhero woman, and then this film depicts women as powerful warriors, strong characters, and there's even a badass teen female genius scientist.

It's cool because I think a lot of young girls will grow up looking up to these strong women and that's so exciting. Even the strongest warrior in Wakanda is a female, played by Danai Gurira. I haven't seen The Walking Dead, but she is really cool in this film and I'm starting to be a big fan of her. The part where she complains about wearing a wig and then chucks it at someone during a fight was hilarious and got a huge laugh out of me.
Not to mention, a lot of the award season films this year have strong female leads (e.g. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri; All The Money in the World; The Post; Molly's Game; The Shape of Water; I, Tonya; Lady Bird; etc.)

But I digress.

Going back to Shuri, I loved seeing her dynamic with T'Challa. He's a king, thrust into this position that he is not ready for, under tragic circumstances. He is discovering how to be this great king, how to be this great Black Panther, and as a result he can be very stoic, and he needs to make a lot of difficult decisions. Yet at the same time, he's also an older brother to a fun, loveable sister who just wants to laugh at him. ("Delete that footage!")

Another stand out character of the film was M'Baku. He was really funny, I loved how his tribe kept making gorilla noises whenever they saw fit, and joking about feeding Agent Ross to his children, when he's actually a vegetarian. And then laughing at his own joke for a crazy long period of time.

^That's not M'Baku, I just needed to include a picture of this guy with his lip plate.
SPOILER TIME! Click to show/hide spoilers:

I actually really liked Killmonger as a villain. I loved how his plan played out throughout the film. From his perspective, he's the hero to his family. His father was murdered and abandoned. Yes, he was a criminal and yes he did turn his gun on Zuri, but in the end they abandoned him and his son in order to cover up a lie. It was really sad to see Killmonger's father stuck in the apartment that he was killed in, because he didn't have a proper burial. He's now isolated for all of eternity away from his people.

And so Killmonger seeks out revenge. To him, and to the rest of the world, the Wakandans are evil and selfish, sheltering their technology away from those who need it the most. It was interesting to see how his beliefs mirrored Nakia's believes, and it was cool to see that eventually T'Challa took these different viewpoints on board at the end. He was able to see the value in the villain's beliefs, and the tragedy of what sticking to his rigid tradition and culture has resulted in. In the end, he was able to find a compromise and carry out his rival's beliefs and plans, but in a more compromising and democratic way. A true leader is open to change, after all.

And this allows Infinity War to happen, since Black Panther and his tribe will now be helping out the Avengers and the rest of the world.

It also provides great social commentary, especially in today's trying times where it's evident that we need to all be working together, instead of having our countries divided against each other. The world would do so much better and progress so much further if we were all united.

The quote that Killmonger says as he dies, "Bury me in the ocean with my ancestors who jumped from ships, 'cause they knew death was better than bondage," was a pretty powerful quote, and it tied in well with all the other references to the hardships that Africans have faced over the years.

I was sad to see Erik die, and I was also very sad to see Klaue die as well! Two great villains gone in the same movie! It's a shame because both actors did great jobs at this.

I can go on a lot about the movie, and I'm very keen to re-watch it and buy the DVD, but I will say this: it did feel like I was rewatching The Lion King at times...

(Click to hide spoilers)

So this film was very visually appealing. The action is cool, with a particularly well-shot fight scene in South Korea (and the director does an amazing break-down explanation of this scene here, with spoilers of course), but the action isn't the reason why this film is so good. It's the look of how the traditional African culture adds a vibrance to the film when contrasted with the futuristic technology that the Vibranium brings. It's the futuristic designs of what could be, and it's the amazing costuming of both traditional garb and high-tech Black Panther vibranium suits (his purple outfit is amazing, and I'm not just saying that because I love purple).

The CGI isn't even what you watch this movie for. I mean, the CGI is good, but there are times when the bad CGI is really obvious. Especially in the last parts of the film (for example, fake green screen backgrounds or weird CGI when two characters are fighting while falling). The film still looks really beautiful, though, and they do spend more CGI efforts on the more salient and important things like the look of Wakanda and the technology.

But no, in the end you watch this movie for the stories and the characters that develop out of it. It's a long film, and some parts may feel like a bit of a drag, but it's still amazingly entertaining because it utilises the time to explore these characters, their motivations, and their intentions. And it comes to a very interesting and unique resolution that makes sense for the characters and also allows this movie to pave the way for Infinity War to happen.

My goal was to win. At what and against whom, those were just details.

Molly's Game (2017)

7.6/10 on IMDb
82% on Rotten Tomatoes

Chloe's thoughts: Signed, sealed, and recommended by Chloe

Watch it if you: Want to a see a thrilling and entertaining story around poker;
Don't know a lot about poker since the movie does a good job at explaining it;
Are a fan of Jessica Chastain
Molly's Game tells the true story of Molly Bloom, a soon-to-be law student on her gap year who finds herself thrust into an exclusive underground poker game. Suddenly, she's rubbing shoulders with the rich and the famous, assisting in hosting movie stars, directors, Wall Street moguls, and even royalty. Everything's going well but she realises that to make it on her own, and to be taken seriously, she needs to start hosting her own games.

Written and directed (the latter for the first time) by Aaron Sorkin, this film was really entertaining. It's really long, at 2 hours and 20 minutes, but it doesn't feel that long at all.

In fact, it's really well paced and entertaining throughout. There are some fast paced scenes and here is where Aaron Sorkin's writing shines; he just wrote these characters so well and he managed to write about poker games in a way that everyone could understand.

At first, I was a little confused as I didn't know a lot of the poker terminology, and some things went by really quickly and it felt like they went over my head. But soon enough I felt it was explained really well and I was able to understand what was going on, even being on the edge of my seat and sighing a heave of frustration when a particular card was drawn.

But it wasn't just the way the poker games were written. The opening scene was such a great scene. It has nothing to do with poker, but it's hard to see it as unnecessary because it was just so entertaining. It was written so well, instantly grabbing your attention, and when it's all over, you feel like you need to take a deep breath, also because of Chastain's fast narration.

Speaking of, I was surprised at how well the voice-over narration added to the movie. It actually was such a good decision, particularly since a lot of movies cop a lot of flack for choosing to go with boring, annoying, and unnecessary narration. Here, it was necessary to develop both Molly's character as well as explain the poker terms to us.

I really did like the characterisation of Molly in this film, and Jessica Chastain did a fantastic job portraying her. Watching interviews of the real Molly Bloom, you could really see how much of her was in Chastain's performance. So the acting and the writing really came together well to portray this intelligent, capable, and yet unlucky woman.

One thing I will say about Aaron Sorkin's directorial debut here is that in certain scenes, it kind of shows that this is his first time directing. The movie switches between present day and the past, and some of these scene transitions are very awkward and jarring. It was skipping from scene to scene and from time period to time period without a seemingly logical seque. For the most part, though, he did a good job for a first time director.

I'm assuming it was an executive decision either by Aaron Sorkin or by the studio to sort of anonymise some of the other characters, even though some of the real life people's names are mentioned in Molly Bloom's book.

It was interesting to see Michael Cera play against the awkward typecase that he always is, instead playing this anonymous poker player who was a famous movie star. In the movie, he's named Player X, but in real life he is probably Tobey Maguire. I was pretty shocked to find out that Tobey Maguire is an absolute jerk, but the other famous actors that Molly hosted games for (Leonardo DiCaprio and Ben Affleck) don't seem to fit the bill for this Player X guy. The general consensus is that Tobey Maguire was the dickhead who treated Molly terribly, and he does worse in the book than what they show in the movie.

That Player X character pops up more in the beginning of the film as we delve into the start up of Molly's poker games, and later as she gets more involved with poker and the potential of breaking the law, that's when Idris Elba's character as her lawyer comes in.

Idris Elba was great, and he has one scene where he is fantastic in. It's the type of scene that they would play at the Oscars if he was nominated. Although, his accent does slip up a few times, but since they're mainly in the scenes where he's really passionate, then I can forgive him for that.

Kevin Costner also does a few scenes as Molly's tough love father. A lot of people liked this one scene with the two of them, but the writing felt a little too on-the-nose personally, particularly since it was dealing with psychologists and 'analysing people' and I just think it didn't do a very good job of portraying psychologists and therapy. I get that in the end it was just trying to say that it's not that easy to always have answers to your problems, but it was still a weird scene for me.

Obviously, though, the star of this is Jessica Chastain. I've already said how amazing she was in this, but seriously, she did such a fantastic job in this movie. Not only is she super beautiful and sexy in this movie, but she is also such a strong female lead actress, and I love how she always tries to pick strong female characters to portray. I'm really glad she got nominated for the Oscar, it's a very well-deserved nomination.

Overall, this was a really interesting storyline based on a crazy true story. The directing could be better, but the screenplay is written really well. The dialogue is fast-paced, quick, and witty, and the narration is great. Jessica Chastain does a fantastic job and it's a very entertaining movie that doesn't feel as long as it actually is.

Winnie the Pooh's depressing backstory.

Goodbye Christopher Robin (2017)

7.2/10 on IMDb
64% on Rotten Tomatoes

Chloe's thoughts: It's alright

Watch it if you: Are a fan of Domnhall Gleeson;
Are interested in the relationship between the real Christopher Robin and his parents
Goodbye Christopher Robin tells the story of how A. A. Milne's creation (and the following success) of the Winnie the Pooh novels impacted his relationship with his son, the real life Christopher Robin.

I wasn't a huge fan of Winnie the Pooh when I was a kid (I mean, I did watch the cartoon but I never went crazy for them), so I wasn't too interested in this movie, but it was getting alright reviews and it had a good lead cast. I went in thinking I might get really bored and it might be a movie just for old people, but it was surprisingly entertaining. It's not the most entertaining story out there, and definitely not a movie for everyone, but I certainly wasn't bored and was even a little surprised at how engaged I was in the movie.

So since the cast is what sold me on this, let's talk about that since there's not much else to talk about. Domnhall Gleeson, who I love, stars as the post-war-traumatised A.A. Milne, while Margot Robbie stars as his commanding wife.

I really loved Domnhall Gleeson acting as Milne, and Margot Robbie did a great job at making the audience absolutely repulse her. I'm not too sure exactly what these people were like in real life, but their relationship with their son Christopher Robin was very strained, and you can definitely see and feel that in this movie.

Gleeson plays the distant father who kinda-sorta wants to connect with his son. He spends a lot of his time writing (or trying to), and so he ignores his son a lot, but the times that he does spend with his son, you can tell that he was trying his darndest to occupy and engage with him. On the other hand though, Margot Robbie's character thinks that literally just giving birth gives her the right to be a mother, and she doesn't actually put any effort into her relationship with her son. In between this and I, Tonya (2017), Margot Robbie is really making a name for herself with her diverse acting roles.

Speaking of, young Christopher Robin is played by Will Tilston, and Alex Lawther plays him grown up. It's been a great few years for child actors, since Will Tilston did a really good job! He was really cute, with his chubby face and huge dimples, and it didn't help that Mrs. Milne thought it best to dress up her little boy in girls' smocks...

Alex Lawther was also a pleasant surprise to see, as he was in the Shut Up and Dance episode of Black Mirror (2016) which he did a fantastic job in. His role in this is very small, and I hope to see him in bigger and better things.

Then the very Scottish Kelly Macdonald plays Christopher Robin's nanny, which makes her the third Black Mirror cast member here, so it was like a little fun reunion! I really loved her character, I felt so sorry for her because you could tell how much she loved Christopher Robin and how much she cared and looked out for him, especially when she had to witness his parents fighting all the time, and his eventual success after the Winnie the Pooh novels were published. She was Christopher Robin's true mother, since she always played and raised him, and since his real mother (Margot Robbie's character) was never emotionally around for him. Macdonald did a fantastic job here.

So the acting was really good, and I think that was the main thing that kept me engaged. The story was interesting and I don't remember ever getting bored, but I do recognise that it could be slow for some people and therefore it's not really a movie for everyone. It's also not a super memorable movie, but it's engaging in the moment. I'm quite interested in movies based on real people and real events, because I think that even if it was really dramatised and overly-Hollywoodised, it still happened to actual people, and so it's interesting to see that. I think it's also really interesting to see how the story of Winnie the Pooh was developed, just from A.A. Milne seeing how his son played with his toys. And to see how the stories became successful and sort of destroyed Christopher Robin's childhood was so fascinating because I never realised that at all. I don't know if I can see the cartoons the same way anymore.

I was loved for a minute, then I was hated. Then I was just a punch line.

I, Tonya (2017)

7.7/10 on IMDb
90% on Rotten Tomatoes

Chloe's thoughts: Signed, sealed and recommended by Chloe

Watch it if you: Want to see a well-acted, nicely directed film surrounding a real life sporting event;
Want to see unreliable narrators portrayed in a clever way;
Want to see some amazing acting by Margot Robbie and Allison Janney;
Are interested in the Nancy Kerrigan attack of 1994
In 1994, Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan were competitive skaters looking to compete in the Winter Olympics in Lillehammer, when an incident happened that shocked people the world over. After a practice session, Nancy Kerrigan was attacked in the leg, forcing her to withdraw. She quickly recovered, and ended up getting through to the 1994 Winter Olympics, taking the silver medal home. For Tonya Harding, though, life was about to be turned upside down. The attacker was identified as someone hired by Harding's ex-husband Jeff Gillooly, as well as Gillooly's friend (also Harding's bodyguard). They and the attackers were sentenced to 18 months in prison, however Gillooly also testified that Harding knew of the attack beforehand. Harding was stripped of her previous titles, fined, and, instead of being jailed, was banned from the United States Figure Skating Association, unable to competitively skate for the rest of her life.

This movie depicts Tonya Harding's life and the events surrounding the incident, based on what was said in interviews on those involved.

At first, I really was not interested in watching this movie. In fact, I got really offended when I saw that Tonya Harding went to the Golden Globes. I thought, "Really, Hollywood, you're letting this sports villain into the Golden Globes?" But after watching this film, I actually feel sorry for Tonya Harding. I don't know what's true, or what's false, and I don't think even the director or the writers know, but it does portray Harding's side of the story, and if it is true, then it's terrible what happened to her.

In all honesty, I didn't know much about this incident. I mean, I wasn't even born when this happened. But I had seen some things on TV or some documentaries where they talk about the biggest controversies of the Olympics, and so I did hear a little about it. When you watch these bits of media, it's very clear how 100% sure the media thinks Harding was a villain in this. They make her out to be some cunning and selfish athlete who will do anything to win. Because of that, I just wasn't interested in watching a movie where they try to glamorise a villain and give her money and attention by making a movie on her.

But, the film is based on interviews of everyone involved. The writers interviewed Harding, Gillooly, Gillooly's friend, Harding's mother, Harding's trainer, and even a media reporter. And a lot of what they say is very contradictory, particularly what Harding and Gillooly say, so instead of trying to figure out how to portray one perspective that will please everyone, they just decided to portray everyone's perspective. The film is the epitome of the unreliable narrator, which I thought was really interesting because even if we don't get to see the truth of the matter, we can really tell what some of these people are like just purely based on the things they said (particularly Gillooly's friend, the bodyguard).

And the film doesn't just focus on the incident with Nancy Kerrigan. I mean, everything is building up to that incident, but we start off when Harding was just a little girl just starting to ice skate. We see how she comes from a trash family, with an abusive mother, then marries the first guy that tells her she's pretty only so she can get away from her mother, and then how he turns out to be abusive too. And how he pretty much ruins her entire career through this incident with Kerrigan.

I don't think the film is really trying to tell you what to think of the story, it's kind of just presenting everything as the real life people described it, but I think it did a good job at painting a very sad picture for Tonya Harding. She basically never got a break, except for when she was the first US woman to land a triple axel, and then soon after this her life turned to shit again. It's actually a really heartbreaking story, if you think about it.

Margot Robbie does an excellent job at portraying this tragic character. She's both headstrong and stubborn, but she's also very frail and vulnerable. She's able to show so much emotion, particularly towards the end, and she's come a long way from her Wolf of Wall Street (2013) days.

Allison Janney has to be the standout of the film though. She plays the abusive mother who never showed any love to Tonya (to the point where, when she was just 6 years old or so, Tonya had to piss herself on the skating rink and continue to skate, since Tonya's mother "wasn't paying for her to pee", she was "paying for her to skate"). She does a fantastic job and I really hope she wins the Oscar for this.

Sebastian Stan is also really great as Gillooly, the at first very likeable and shy guy that makes Harding's life a little bit better, but then becomes the asshole who beats her up, shoots in her general direction, and ruins her ice skating career for life.

The whole cast actually did an excellent job, and I really wasn't expecting to like this movie as much as I did. The attack on Kerrigan seems like such a ridiculous thing to do, especially since she recovered and ended up winning the Silver anyway, so it was interesting to see this film explore sort of why and how it actually happened. The unreliable narrator trope was used well enough, and there's also quite a few fourth wall breaks in here (although I started getting sick of them as the movie progressed). In the end, this film is a really interesting look at Tonya's life, and it allows you to see her perspective of it.

And... you may even come out feeling sorry for her.

Unable to perceive the shape of You, I find You all around me.

The Shape of Water (2017)

7.9/10 on IMDb
92% on Rotten Tomatoes

Chloe's thoughts: Signed, sealed, and recommended by Chloe;
Watch it in cinemas

Watch it if you: Are a fan of Guillermo del Toro;
Want to see a mysterious and dark modern day fairytale;
Are after a change in tone for movies and are looking for something different and unique;
Want to see a visually beautiful and artsy movie
A mute cleaning lady discovers a captive amphibian creature.

I fairly recently watched Pan's Labyrinth (2006) and thought it was a great film by Guillermo del Toro, so I was excited to see this film too. It looked like such a ridiculous and unique concept that I was really excited to see it even just after the first trailer. And del Toro does another great job, and no wonder it's deserving of so many awards.

Firstly, this entire movie has such an amazing, ethereal, fantasy-like feel to it. Right from the start, the beautiful opening shot leaves you mesmerised, since it looks really stunning and really wondrously mysterious and intriguing. It felt like a dark fairytale and I absolutely loved that. It sort of brings out the inner child in you because it creates this feeling of wonder and amazement at what you're seeing.

And this feeling of wonder is carried through the entire film through Sally Hawkins, who is the standout in this film. She is phenomenal in this, playing a mute woman who's able to express herself so perfectly. Her sense of wonder is so innocent and childlike, her sadness is so heartbreaking, and she doesn't even need to speak for you to understand every single thing she's thinking.

One thing, though, is that I really would have liked for them to explore more of the relationship between Eliza (the mute lady) and the amphibian man.

Don't get me wrong, the film is really good, but for the first half of the film, I thought it was going to possibly be my favourite film of the year. I thought, damn this is going to be a must see for everyone!

But as the film progressed, it went a little down hill, particularly towards the end.

I think it really would have helped if they didn't rush through Eliza and the amphibian man getting to know each other, it would have been a better film if we saw their relationship develop slowly, rather than really quickly and all at once like it did in the film.

I also think the film was kind of messy going from character to character. It made sense that the film would want to elaborate on each character so you understood their thought process and their intentions, but sometimes it just got messy.

Don't get me wrong, though, the entire cast was great.

I loved Michael Shannon in particular; he is a fantastic villainous actor. I loved him in Nocturnal Animals, and in this film he really brought it in every scene he was in. He was this evil corporate guy that really took matters into his own hands and didn't see this amphibian man as a living being at all.

The amphibian man himself was stunning. And it wasn't CGI. They actually got Doug Jones to cover himself in prosthetics and make up, and he actually looked so amazing. He looked very ethereal and magical, and it was stunning to watch him move and act along with Sally Hawkins, since they were both voiceless characters. You could really see how characters in this film would be entranced by this amphibious creature, even to the point of calling him 'beautiful'.

The way the film is done also makes you feel like you're actually underwater, mainly because of the dark, slightly green, colour palette throughout the film.

I also loved the score in this movie. Right at the beginning, it was so perfect in taking you out of the real world and placing you within this fantastical world. It was just the right touch of whimsical to make you feel like this was a fantasy, but it could have still happened in this world of ours.

I'm so glad this movie got so many Oscar nominations, and I'll be so happy if Sally Hawkins takes home Best Actress. The whole cast was great though, and the cinematography was really brilliant although I do hope Blade Runner 2049 (2017) gets Best Cinematography. The film does go downhill towards the end but it still is overall a really unique and wonderful film to watch. It's a great story about people who don't fit in to normal society, and about finding your humanity and sense of meaning in life. It's a magical fantasy that sometimes seems ridiculous but it's portrayed in such a real way that you can't help but feel a little wholesome watching it.

A few side notes:

• I loved how the colour palette was really dark and green, but Eliza slowly started introducing red into her wardrobe the happier and more fulfilled she became.
  
• That poem at the end, part of which is the title of this blog post, was so beautiful.
  

Downsizing is about saving yourself.

Downsizing (2017)

5.8/10 on IMDb
50% on Rotten Tomatoes

Chloe's thoughts: Low-energy entertainment;
Proceed at your own risk

Watch it if you: Just want something to put on in the background when you do something else;
Just want a simple comedy that isn't as philosophical as it advertises itself to be
Attempting to cure the world of overpopulation and its resulting climate change effects, scientists discover how to permanently shrink people down to about 5 inches tall, literally reducing people's carbon footprints.

I was so excited for this movie when I saw the first trailer. It looked like a Black Mirror episode, except fun. It looked interesting, they didn't give away much of the plot, and I was really keen. Then I saw the second trailer for it (not deliberately, but it was shown in front of a movie I was watching), and I was like, oh... that's what it's about?! The second trailer kind of spoiled it for me, and I might not have watched this movie so soon if it weren't for a friend wanting to watch it with me.

Because of my low expectations though, I thought the film was not... terrible. But it was still... not very good. There are moments that are entertaining but there is definitely a lot more potential that the film could have reached, particularly because the premise is so interesting. In the end, it's a big disappointment.

Firstly, there will be mild spoilers in this blog. Nothing too spoilery, but I will be discussing the same things that the second trailer reveals. In fairness though, I think that if you want to see this movie, you need to know what you're getting yourself into.

So for the rest of this blog, be warned.

Sigh... so the first trailer shows us Matt Damon and Kristen Wiig as a married couple thinking of downsizing to relieve a lot of the financial pressure they are facing. Their money in the normal 'big' world can be translated to roughly 12 million dollars in the small world, meaning they can live a work-free life of luxury in a huge mansion for the rest of their lives.

Except, in the second trailer we find out that Kristen Wiig gets cold feet and decides to no longer undergo the downsizing procedure, leaving Matt Damon permanently small and without a wife. This is when the movie starts to go downhill, as it becomes a movie of self discovery.

And you know what? Movies of self discovery are fine. Heck, there are a lot of good self-discovery movies out there.

But this movie is so long because it's trying to handle the issue of downsizing, with the issue of climate change, with a whole lot of other social issues, all while going through Matt Damon's mid-life crisis. It's too much, it drags out, the movie seems unfocused and lacks a serious sense of direction. And the story line they choose to go with is the one least relevant to downsizing: it's Matt Damon's self discovery.

So they took this great premise of humanity killing the planet and people opting to downsize, and yet went nowhere with it. There are complications in this movie that fuel the plot that have nothing to do with downsizing, and sometimes you just forget that they're even small to begin with. It just seems like a normal movie about normal-sized people! Especially when there are things like small TVs and small mobile phones all built to scale so it doesn't even seem like they're not living in the real world. This whole film could have happened without them actually downsizing, honestly.

It would have been great if they brought in some large scale issue that actually affected small people because they were small. Something bigger than Matt Damon's self esteem blow needed to happen for this movie to be good.

And they actually tried to do this... they tried to show human nature not really changing even when small, they tried to show the effects of climate change on the human race, they tried to show the effects of corrupt politicians in developing countries, the struggles that refugees face, and they even tried to show us the effects of poverty. There's a lot of social issues happening but these don't really go anywhere. It's weird that I feel like these things were both 1) very preachy, and 2) not expanded on enough. I think it's because it felt like they had too many wild ideas floating around their minds, that they couldn't decide which idea to go with, so they all sort of crammed everything in to this movie. Which is what makes it long and lacking direction and focus.

As to the acting. Matt Damon is fine but he doesn't really stand out in this film. It's actually interesting all his movies in the last two years have been flops, I really hope his next few movies are a lot better.

However, Christoph Waltz is amazing in this. He is a fantastic actor, and I think he mentioned his character was actually written for a young actor, but he convinced the director to cast him, and he does a really great job. He is so funny and really steals the scene a lot of the time.

However, the person who steals the entire show has to go to Hong Chau. It was so nice seeing an Asian woman have so much screen time, and Hong Chau did a really good job at being both really funny, with great comedic timing, as well as being a really good dramatic actor. The only thing is that it was really unfortunate that her character and her actions were really a big caricature of a Vietnamese immigrant. Her accent was insane and very stereotypical, although I am guilty of laughing at the way she said things (and I now want to rewatch Anjelah Johnson's nail salon stand up).

Overall, this movie was disappointing because it has a really great premise but they didn't make full use of it. There is too much social commentary happening, and the main plotline doesn't even need to happen to someone who downsized. It seemed interesting at the start but then it becomes a movie where they forget downsizing even really exists in that world. The acting is decent but it's not enough to make up for the film's flaws.

A few side notes:

• As if they were the first couple to have gotten cold feet? As if there isn't a thing where if one half of a couple gets cold feet, then they wouldn't continue doing the procedure with the other person?
  
• Also why are children getting downsized? They should be at least 21 years old before they get to choose to downsize. You can't just force your already 10 year old kid... what if they never wanted it and they're stuck small forever???

Wouldn't you go to prison to stop this war?

The Post (2017)

7.5/10 on IMDb
88% on Rotten Tomatoes

Chloe's thoughts: It's alright

Watch it if you: Are interested in the event (The Washington Post's publication of government secret reports);
Are a fan of Meryl Streep and/or Tom Hanks
Katharine Graham, the first female American newspaper publisher, faces a difficult decision when it comes to light that four US Presidents were covering up government secrets relating to the Vietnam War. With her company's reputation, her family's legacy, and even her freedom, at stake, she must be the one to ultimately decide how to expose the truth.

The film ends up getting better, but the first half of the film felt like a bit of a drag. It was a bit slow, and I found it a bit confusing when they just rattled off names. It was hard to figure out which name was which character and which character played what role in the big conspiracy. As a result, you had this idea that something bad was happening with some papers, but they don't focus on it too much. It would have been nice for them to not rush through the important facts, which they kind of did in order to focus on the superb acting ability of the cast. So these important tidbits of information felt like they went by too quickly and it was hard to follow.

Sometimes you also feel like the film is trying a bit too hard to get some Oscar awards, with the camera work and such happening in some scenes. But at the same time it doesn't feel as epic as it should be, so I don't think the fancy camerawork, long takes, and difficult dialogue felt worth it. It didn't feel like they pulled it off well.

In saying that, there are some great scenes with Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks. Any film directed by Steven Spielberg that can sell itself just by using two words, "STREEP. HANKS." isn't going to be terrible after all. There is one scene where Streep and Hanks are just having coffee or something, and it's a really long take chock-full of dialogue, and it's great to see them just talking and acting so naturally well with each other.

And the film does get a lot better, but then it kind of goes downhill again right at the very end where they end up publishing the news article. It's all a bit... anticlimactic. And they even end the film with a snippet of the Watergate scandal, which felt really out of place. It made me feel like they were suddenly a Marvel movie teasing a sequel that was going to be much better than the one we just finished watching, particularly because the Watergate scandal was an even bigger deal at the time.

All in all, this film did not hit its potential. It didn't feel at all very out there or dramatic and different. It just felt like a pretty typical Hollywood retelling of a historical event that was famous enough to get seats in the cinema. Even though it's got Spielberg, Streep and Hanks, three of the greatest names in Hollywood, it's only alright.

A few side notes:

• At one stage there was Jared from Silicon Valley, Meth Damon from USS Callister, and then Tom Hanks in between the two of them! I was so in awe during that scene I was hardly paying attention to what they were talking about.

The Outrageous Misfortune of One of the Heirs of J. Paul Getty: Painfully Rich, Indeed.

All the Money in the World (2017)

7.1/10 on IMDb
77% on Rotten Tomatoes

Chloe's thoughts: Signed, sealed, and recommended by Chloe;
It's alright

Watch it if you: Are interested in films based on true events;
Want a tense drama with some great acting, particularly by Christopher Plummer

Inspired by true events, All the Money in the World tells the story of when the richest man in the world refuses to pay the 17 million dollar ransom for his kidnapped grandson.

I think this film wasn't really marketed or hyped a lot, and thus there wasn't much talk about it, particularly in the light of other Oscar-season movies such as The Post (2017) coming out around the same time. Surprisingly, this movie was actually really well done, and it just goes to show that Ridley Scott is far from being done with his directing days.

While I don't think this is a particularly amazing film in terms of rewatchability, it is actually a pretty intense film and really well made.

It's a bit long, with a run time of 2 hours and 15 minutes, but the movie felt pretty tight, and you don't really think of how long it is since it's 2 hours and 15 minutes of tensions. The fact that it is also based on true events makes the story feel so incredulous when watching it.

In fact I think if I didn't know it was a true story, I honestly would have thought, "This movie is so stupid. It's unrealistic, unbelievable, and just stupid."

And while they do dramatise some things that didn't happen, some things that happened in real life were actually worse than in the movie! You walk out of the theatre absolutely hating John Paul Getty Senior. Even though he's in the film for a short amount of time, his sinister presence overshadows the entire film.

Christopher Plummer did such a great job at playing this complete dickhead of a character. His blasé attitude and frugal nature to the kidnapping, ransom demands, and torture of his own grandchild make you really, really, despise him.

And to top it all off, Christopher Plummer wasn't even in this movie originally! It was meant to be Kevin Spacey in old age make up and prosthetics, but over the sexual assault allegations made over Spacey, they had to quickly reshoot his scenes with Christopher Plummer in something like 9 days. And you can't even really tell, because the movie was edited so well and even almost flawlessly.

Christopher Plummer was Ridley Scott's original desired actor, but I heard somewhere that the studio wanted someone more famous to help sell the movie. Which in hindsight is ridiculous not just because of the sexual assault allegations, but because 1) Kevin Spacey looks ridiculous (same link as before but honestly, he looks so weird!), and 2) Christopher Plummer is one of the best parts of this movie.

I mean, this guy walks in, rushes to learn his lines and do a quick 9 day job, does an amazing job while he's at it, and he gets nominated for a Golden Globe, and is possibly getting nominated for an Oscar. And, he's 88 years old! He's a legend, basically, is what I'm saying.

The other actors did really well too, with Michelle Williams being a really strong and determined mother who's stressed out to the max and is trying her darndest to convince J. Paul Getty Sr. to pay the ransom. The same goes with Mark Wahlberg, he's been doing a really good job with his most recent films lately, and I'm happy he's been choosing to do these good dramatic roles (I mean, for a guy who's doing stuff like Daddy's Home and Transformers movies...)

Charlie Plummer was also convincing as the kidnapped grandson, and I really loved his scenes with Romain Duris who plays Cinquanta. Duris was fantastic and he stole the show every time he was on scene.

So this film was surprisingly very intense and well made. It was able to build that tension relating to the kidnapping and J. Paul Getty Sr. not wanting to oay a single cent of the ransom. It can be quite suspenseful, and some scenes are really graphic and not for the faint-hearted. Christopher Plummer does an amazing job, as do the other actors, and Ridley Scott does a fine job as a director for seamlessly recasting Kevin Spacey so last minute. It's probably not something you will re-watch, but it provides a really interesting insight into this dysfunctional family.

A few side comments:

• Sometimes real life is worse than in the movies. According to Wikipedia:

When the kidnappers finally reduced their demands to $3 million, Getty senior agreed to pay no more than $2.2 million—the maximum that would be tax-deductible. He lent his son the remaining $800,000 at 4% interest. Paul III was found alive in a filling station of Lauria, in the province of Potenza, shortly after the ransom was paid. After his release Paul III called his grandfather to thank him for paying the ransom but, it is claimed, Getty refused to come to the phone. Nine people associated with 'Ndrangheta were later arrested for the kidnapping, but only two were convicted. Paul III was permanently affected by the trauma and became a drug addict. After a stroke brought on by a cocktail of drugs and alcohol in 1981, Paul III was rendered speechless, nearly blind and partially paralyzed for the rest of his life. He died 30 years later on February 5, 2011 at the age of 54.