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.

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.
  

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.

So how's it all going in the nigger-torturing business, Dixon? It's 'Persons of color'-torturing business, these days, if you want to know.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)

8.4/10 on IMDb
93% on Rotten Tomatoes

Chloe's thoughts: Signed, sealed, and recommended by Chloe;
Low-energy entertainment

Watch it if you: Are a fan of Frances McDormand;
Are a fan of Sam Rockwell;
Want to enjoy a foul-mouthed comedy that has surprising heart in it
Months ago, Mildred Hayes' teenage daughter was raped and murdered, and police have hardly progressed on the case. Taking matters into her own hands, Mildred paints over three billboards outside the town, pointing the finger at Chief Police Officer Willoughy.

I was fortunate to see an advanced screening of this some weeks ago, with an interview with David and Margaret (the duo from At The Movies), and Margaret had put this movie as her favourite of 2017, so I was pretty excited for it. Since it's been a few weeks, my memory isn't the greatest, but I do remember really enjoying this film.

The great thing about this film is that it's really funny, but then it can go from 0 to 100 real quick and suddenly turn a bit dark and depressing. It's a great dark comedy, but it's also a really interesting drama as well.

The writing in this case was done really well, since it was able to realistically be really funny and yet really heartbreaking all at the same time. And it was able to subvert a lot of your expectations in many scenes, making heartbreaking scenes turn out to be funny, funny scenes turn out to be emotional, et cetera, et cetera.

And Frances McDormand is great in this because she was able to work with those crazy tonal shifts, and she did such a great job at being a psycho bitch one second, and then a loving and caring motherly figure the next second. It was great to see her portray this damaged woman who we first feel sorry for, then we start getting a little freaked out because of how psychopathic she is, and then we go back to feeling sorry for her because we realise that despite her craziness, she is still a sad and broken creature.

A lot of awards buzz for her, and she even nabbed the Golden Globe the other night. She definitely deserves it and she's a strong contender for the Oscar (but I haven't seen many of the other awards films this year, so I can't say who my pick would be yet).

But the rest of the cast was great too. Firstly, it was nice to see Lucas Hedges (the kid from Manchester by the Sea (2016)) here, even if he didn't have much to do. But I really liked seeing Caleb Landry Jones here. He did a good job in Get Out (2017) and American Made (2017), and he was really good in this so he's having a great year this year.

The stand out for me, though, was Sam Rockwell as Officer Dixon. He did an amazing job, I was so blown away by him and I'm so happy he got the Golden Globe because he completely deserved it! He does such a great job at being this imbecile of a policeman, and to see how his character ends up was really satisfactory. In fact all of the character arcs that happen in this movie feel very natural and real for each individual character, which is again a nod at how great the writing was.

Woody Harrelson also did a great job, which is good because I didn't really like him in War for the Planet of the Apes (2017). But here, his character's storyline is a bit tragic, and you get that he's a really great and fun guy despite being pestered by these billboards that Mildred's put up. There is one scene in particular that he does with Frances McDormand and that is when it goes from witty banter to serious shock real quick, and that was such a memorable scene. The actors in this movie honestly did such a great job, all round.

Overall, this was a really fun movie to watch with surprising heart and emotion in it. You go in wanting to munch on popcorn while seeing these insane characters do crazy things, but you end up really caring for them, and each character has a unique character arc. It's a fun time, with some witty banter that will make you chuckle, and it's got some great writing and fantastic acting in it.

A few side notes:

There is one scene with a deer, and the CGI for it was so offputting, but I don't know if that's just because they were deliberately trying to make it seem unrealistic. But yeh, that was the only super weird part for me

Also, Peter Dinklage is in this, and rocking a mullet!

This is brave, this is bruised, this is who I'm meant to be... This is me.

The Greatest Showman (2017)

8.0/10 on IMDb
55% on Rotten Tomatoes

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

Watch it if you: Enjoy watching musicals;
Care more for great songs and dance performances rather than writing and plot
Inspired by P.T. Barnum's creation of the circus, The Greatest Showman explores what it may have been like to start up a circus in 18th century America.

I was really keen to watch this since I've been seeing the trailer for this over and over and over again (not deliberately, just every time I see a movie in the theatre), constantly getting 'This is Me' stuck in my head when I hadn't even heard the full song! And while it's not the best film or best musical ever, it still didn't disappoint because in the end it was a fun musical with great performances and superbly catchy songs.

This film doesn't have a very high rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but that's mainly because of the criticism of having this film portray P. T. Barnum as some revolutionary visionary who protected his circus 'freaks' and wanted them to have better lives. No, in actuality P. T. Barnum was kind of a jackass who faked a lot of his 'exhibits', exploited his 'freaks', and did everything (even philanthropy) purely because of the profits. While they sort of touch on Hugh Jackman's character as being a bit of a con artist and gathering his 'human attractions' just for a buck, they still portray him as a nice guy who genuinely cares for them.

While I agree with needing to accurately portray people in movies, I don't recall this movie actually saying it was based on a true story or true events. I know in the ads it said it was inspired by true events, which is fair enough since it was inspired by the creation of the circus. But I guess having that same name sort of puts a sour taste on the movie because you have this feeling that something is just off. Imagine if there was a musical out there celebrating Hitler as a nice person. It's not the same, but if you think about it, it's understandable why a good movie can get low ratings because the character is nothing like their real life persona.

So I think if they just made this movie about someone who creates a circus, someone other than P. T. Barnum, then it would have been more positively reviewed. I don't even mean change how the character was written, I mean literally just change the character's name and keep everything else the same. I think that way it would have been received better.

Apart from that, there's not much else to fault on this movie. I did find it was a bit sloppy in terms of writing and editing, like the plot and the transitions between scenes were a bit all over the place, but in the end I went in not wanting a great movie with great writing, I just wanted a great musical with catchy songs and great feel-good music performances, and I got that.

All the songs were great, and all the dancing was great too.

Each song has a very unique feel to it, either because of the singers, the dancing, or even the set location. Seriously I was so amazed that not every single song was just in the circus setting. Each set choreography was great because they adapted the song and dance to match where they were. For example, I loved the song 'The Other Side' which Zac Efron and Hugh Jackman sing together, and in the background there's a cool bartender doing crazy moves, and the choreography includes the usage (and drinking) of shot glasses.

I also loved when Michelle Williams and Hugh Jackman were dancing on their roof to 'A Million Dreams' in between the white sheets hung up, it looked really magical. And Zendaya and Zac Efron singing 'Rewrite the Stars' was another great visual performance, since they were dancing on the trapeze and it looked amazing.

That is possibly my favourite song of the whole soundtrack, but I also really like 'This is Me' and 'Never Enough' (which is not actually Rebecca Ferguson singing, but someone called Loren Allred who was on The Voice U.S. in one of the seasons). But honestly, all of the songs are really good.

So in the end, this wasn't the perfect film. The writing lacked a bit and the movie felt a bit all over the place with so many things happening, but I understand they didn't want to cut much out of the movie because these plot elements made way for some really great song and dance performances. Hugh Jackman is such a legend, being a quadruple threat with acting, singing, dancing, and being a great action hero. The songs really make this film, and I know what I'll be singing for the next month or so.

♪♪ Remember me. ♪♪

Coco (2017)

8.8/10 on IMDb
97% on Rotten Tomatoes

Chloe's thoughts: Signed, sealed, and recommended by Chloe;
Watch it in cinemas;
I'm buying the DVD

Watch it if you: Are a fan of Pixar movies;
Disliked the last 3 Pixar movies and want to see Pixar doing good movies again;
Want a fun movie that kids would enjoy;
Want a deep and mature story that adults can also really enjoy;
Want to see some great colourful animation
Miguel comes from a long line of music-hating shoemakers, yet wishes he could pursue a life of music despite his family's prejudice. One day, he accidentally enters the Land of the Dead, where he must explore his familial roots before he can go back to the Land of the Living.

I saw a teaser trailer for this ages ago and then proceeded to forget what it was really about, but knew I wanted to watch it. Lately, though, I noticed there's hardly any marketing for this movie, I haven't even seen a single trailer for this when watching any movie in the cinemas, and sure that might be because I haven't seen any kids' movies, but I've seen some comedies and family-centred movies (like Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017)), and still didn't see any trailers. I've also spoken to a few people who haven't even heard of this movie.

Having said that, I'm really sad that the marketing for this isn't that great, because it is a great movie! It's your typical Pixar movie with a heartwrenching story, great music and beautiful animation.

Before I start my review on this movie, I will mention two things that aren't about the actual movie:

1. I was at first annoyed there was no Pixar short film that played in front of this film, since there's always a short film played. But then I later read that apparently there was some 22 minute Frozen short revolving around Olaf (the most annoying character of Frozen tbh) which was so long and annoying that people kept complaining and all cinemas (across the world I think) ended up not playing it anymore. I'm super glad I didn't have to sit through a 22 minute Frozen short.
   
2. There's an animated movie called The Book of Life (2014) that apparently people were worried this movie would be too similar to, since they both deal with someone in Mexico entering the Land of the Dead. I haven't seen The Book of Life, but people who have seen both have stated that they aren't similar at all except for involving the Land of the Dead.
   

Okay, having said all that, the thing that took my breath away in this movie was its stunning animation. It's no news to us that Pixar is amazing, but seriously the animation here was beautiful, and managed to capture that wonderful essence of magic.

In fact, the Land of the Dead looked way more lively than the Land of the Living! The animation here is so vibrant and colourful, when you first see it, it honestly blows you away. One thing that I read online was that the Land of the Dead, which has cities being built on top of each other, start off with pyramids at the base, then colonial architecture, and then it continues all the way up until there are modern buildings, and it's still undergoing construction. It's such a cool concept!

And apparently Mexico and Mexican culture related to the Day of the Dead is represented really well in this film. It's so nice looking at other cultures in a Hollywood movie, and it's nice to not be getting crappy diversity movies just for the sake of having diversity movies. Here, the Mexican tradition is not just a setting, but it's a huge plot driver, and adds to the overall message of the movie as well.

And as to the message, there are so many feels here as well, typical of a Pixar movie. It's a great message for kids, and there is a plot twist here that I won't say too much about, but I really did not expect that plot twist at all. (Covering this as a spoiler because if someone knows it's unexpected, they might actually end up guessing the plot twist when watching the movie because in hindsight I guess it's not that unexpected.)

Lastly, the songs are not the best, but they are made really nice because of the lyrics in them, and because of the meaning and emotion behind the words.

Overall, this movie was really touching. It's great to see Pixar return to form with this after mediocres such as The Good Dinosaur (2015) and (oh dear) Cars 3. With this great story on family ties, Pixar is bringing back it's heartwrenching stories with beautiful animation that we all fell in love with. It's a great movie for kids but it's also very mature and deep, so it's enjoyable for adults as well.

A few (spoilery) side notes:

• Alzheimer's sucks yo!
  
• I didn't notice this before but Héctor has a gold tooth, and Ernesto's guitar also has a gold tooth coloured in on it

I’m still an old fat guy, right?

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017)

7.2/10 on IMDb
77% on Rotten Tomatoes

Chloe's thoughts: Signed, sealed, and recommended by Chloe;
Low energy entertainment

Watch it if you: Want to watch a movie that doesn't take itself too seriously because it know what it is;
Want a fun, entertaining movie that plays off the strengths of its actors;
Want a good laugh
Four high schoolers undergoing a Breakfast Club (1985) styled detention discover an old video game console and are sucked into the game, Tron (1982) styled. Inside the game, they need to get used to their character avatar bodies while figuring out the way to save Jumanji and leave the game.

When I first heard of this movie, I couldn't help but think, "Really? Does this really need a sequel?" The answer is a hard no. But you know what, they did it anyway, and I have to concede: I was very pleasantly surprised.

I actually enjoyed this movie! It was really funny and very entertaining!

I liked the things they did in this movie specific to video games, like the characters seeing cut scenes, and non-playing characters only repeating set lines. These things were really interesting and it would have been cool if they expanded on the way video games are experienced when played.

But for what they did, it was really interesting. I also really like how a lot of the humour was derived from the specific actors playing them.

All the actors are playing against their character tropes, and this is where the best part of the movie comes from.

For example, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's actual character is some scrawny nerd, so he gets to do funny things like react to his newfound strong body with the largest arms he's ever seen.

Jack Black's character is an insta-obsessed pretty and popular girl, and so he does a lot of amazing things in this movie that made me actually see him as a teenage girl. I kind of forgot that it was Jack Black, and I was honestly watching a teenage girl inside Jack Black's unfortunate body. He is fantastic and steals every scene that he's in.

Karen Gillan is a babe but the young girl that plays her character is this awkward and socially isolated girl who doesn't know what to do with her midriff and her short shorts. There is one scene in this movie that focuses on her and it is so hilarious, the whole cinema was in stitches watching her.

Then, there's Kevin Hart.

And I actually like Kevin Hart and he was really funny in this movie as a jock who's not used to being a short, slow, and weak character. But his was the only character where I felt he didn't at all connect to his high school character, who was originally very quiet and almost stoic-like. Then he becomes Kevin Hart and he's suddenly cracking hilarious jokes and being really animated. I don't think I would have wanted Kevin Hart to change the way he acted (in the end, Kevin Hart playing himself is still enjoyable), but they could have written his teenage counterpart differently so it wouldn't seem so disjointed.

There aren't many down sides to this movie because it was entertainment through and through, but some things I can get nitpicky on are:

• The villain was very mediocre. In video games there's usually a huge emphasis on the villain and there's a huge boss fight but it was pretty underwhelming here.
  
• I felt like Dwayne Johnson had most of the things to do here. The other characters' special abilities help but they weren't written very well enough to have everyone do an equal amount of things.
  
• I really liked when they did the cut scenes joke for the exposition parts of the movie, but they did this once and never again, despite having a lot of cut scenes in this movie.
  
• On that note, it would have been funny to see all the characters lazing around while our main protagonists were off somewhere else, completing a prior level of the game. Then once they progress to the next level it would have been funny to wait for that level to load while all the characters take their place. Chris Stuckmann says something similar in his review and I was actually thinking, while watching the movie, that it was odd to have the villain do things behind the scenes if it weren't a cut scene that our main characters can see.
  
• Nick Jonas is decent in this too. I've always thought he was the cutest Jonas brother and had a crush on him in high school so he is welcome eye candy in this movie. But one thing that bothered me was: There's no way his character is 'the missing piece' they needed to find, since his character was meant to start the game at the same time that the other characters started. At first I thought the characters were making it up to make him feel better, but as they kept repeating it, I got the feeling that they actually believed he was the missing piece.

Overall, I really was not expecting to actually like this movie. It was fun, and entertaining, and it's just a good ole mindless film to laugh about and not think too much about. I like that they didn't try to unnecessarily add in character complexity to the point where they were trying to be more serious than they actually were. Of course, there's a bit of character conflict and drama, but it's just enough to get by, I never felt really bored by it. Jack Black is a living legend, and he steals the movie, but Dwayne Johnson and Karen Gillan are amazing in this too. Kevin Hart is the same old Kevin Hart and there's nothing wrong with that, he was a source of great laughs too. An all round fun movie.

I need to show my ass to sell this picture!

The Disaster Artist (2017)

8.1/10 on IMDb
92% on Rotten Tomatoes

Chloe's thoughts: Signed, sealed, and recommended by Chloe;
Low-energy entertainment

Watch it if you: Have seen The Room (you don't need to, but I think it's honestly better if you have);
Want to see a funny yet endearing movie about the makings of a really terrible movie
The Disaster Artist depicts the beautifully bizarre making of cult-classic film The Room (2003).

A little background on The Room: I had the pleasure of watching it twice at The Hayden Orpheum and it is honestly one of the greatest movie experiences ever. The Room is frequently described as one of the best worst movies, or "The Citizen Kane of bad movies", but what distinguishes this disasterpiece from other really crappy movies is that fact that Tommy Wiseau (the director, writer, producer, and star of the movie), honestly had no idea how bad it was. He invested $6 million into this terrible movie and paid to keep the movie in one cinema for 2 weeks to make it eligible for nomination for The Academy Awards (The Oscars). Several scenes are out of focus and several lines are badly dubbed/unsynced in scenes but that is nothing compared to the terrible acting, directing and writing. It is a horrible experience if you were watching this alone at home, but it is a wonderful experience watching it at any cult screening, such as the one that The Hayden Orpheum holds every first Friday night of the month. Here, you get to fulfil all your dreams of heckling and being rowdy, and you even get to throw spoons at the screen!

So how does someone go about making a movie so bad that it becomes an international phenomenon? Well, Greg Sestero, the second lead actor in The Room, wrote a book detailing it all, and this is the movie that explores all that.

I'll keep this review short, but I really enjoyed this movie. It was definitely not what I expected, though. I went in thinking it would be some straight up parody of Tommy Wiseau. There are honestly some theories out there that Tommy is an alien and he's trying to disguise himself as a human, and all of the things he does in The Room are his interpretation of what humans are like. This is actually the best explanation I have heard for any of Tommy's behaviours, because he really does not seem human at all.

So I thought the film was just a straight up mockery of him, but it turns out it's actually quite factual and presents the making of The Room not as something that means we should make fun of Tommy, but more like something that shows us just how passionate Tommy was about the film industry.

Yes, it's a pretty factual movie (a lot of it was close to the book apparently, and Tommy even said he approved 99.99% of the movie), and the facts are funny, so you can't help but laugh, but it's definitely not a mockery of Tommy. You start off laughing at him, but along the way you realise just how much he cares for acting and making a movie. And I think that's a testament to all the real life actors of The Room: they took huge risks in making this movie, they really wanted it to work out well, and unfortunately it just didn't. But at least they tried.

As to the actors of this movie, I really enjoyed the acting all round.

James Franco honestly disappears as Tommy, with the way he looked, the way he acted, and the way he talked. He would stay in character with Tommy's accent whenever he directed this movie, and the actors couldn't take him seriously, but he told them that they'd get used to it.

And sure enough, even we as an audience get used to his accent. I sometimes would forget I'm watching James Franco and not Tommy Wiseau.

And then it's a little Franco brothers party in this movie because Dave Franco plays Greg Sestero (the second lead in The Room, and the author of the book The Disaster Artist). Dave was really good too as the good friend who's relatable to us and yet somehow manages to understand and (try to) rein in Tommy at his weirdest.

Seth Rogen also plays the script supervisor, Alison Brie is Greg's love interest, and there's a bunch of other small cameos and roles by celebrities we're familiar with.

Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. I don't know what it'd be like to watch it without having seen The Room, though, and I think it would be a bit weird, but for fans of The Room it's a must see. It's not absolutely amazing, like it's not going to win awards or anything but I can see why some people want James Franco to be at least nominated for a Golden Globe. It is a fun time, and it's great at showing the passion that new actors have for the industry. It will make me look at The Room a bit differently the next time I see it, and maybe I won't even laugh as much as I would normally. Or maybe I will, it's a pretty terrible movie after all.

You know what they call arranged marriage in Pakistan? "Marriage."

The Big Sick (2017)

7.7/10 on IMDb
98% on Rotten Tomatoes

Chloe's thoughts: Signed, sealed, and recommended by Chloe;
I'm buying the DVD;
Low-energy entertainment

Watch it if you: Want to watch a wholesome romantic comedy;
Want a romcom that isn't your typical cheesy B-flick;
Want something to laugh at but are okay with it being very heartfelt and endearing too;
Are a fan of Kumail Nanjiani
Based on the real story of when Kumail, a Pakistani living in America, begins a relationship with an American girl named Emily. Having very traditional Muslim parents, Kumail becomes concerned of how his family will react to their relationship. If that weren't enough, one day Emily is put into a medically-induced coma, and Kumail ends up meeting Emily's parents while visiting the hospital.

I recently became a fan of Kumail Nanjiani through watching Silicon Valley and his interviews on talk shows, so I really regretted not seeing this movie in cinemas when it came out. At the time, I had heard a few things about it but the movie didn't really interest me because I don't usually watch romcoms in the theatre. But after having heard the amazing reviews for this movie and becoming a fan of him, I've been waiting for this movie to come out on DVD so I could watch it. I ended up watching it on the plane (my flight was the day before this movie was released on DVD), and I'm so happy I watched it because this film did not disappoint!

I expected it to be a hilarious comedy, and while it was really funny, it was surprisingly very, very endearing as well. I actually cried a bit towards the end.

What I love about this is that the dialogue and the acting felt very organic, and the chemistry between Kumail Nanjiani and Zoe Kazan makes it hard to believe that Kumail is married to anyone else. They did a very good job in making a romcom very believable and realistic.

Ray Romano and Holly Hunter were also great as Emily's parents. I haven't seen Ray Romano do any dramatic acting, and while there is a hilarious scene he does in the hospital cafeteria, I was really pleasantly surprised at how well his acting chops were. Holly Hunter was fantastic in this and just listening to her voice is making me so excited for Incredibles 2!

But back to this movie.

What I loved about the acting was that even when it was dramatic, they didn't do anything over the top, it was all very subtle and seemed very natural, which you don't really get in typical romcoms.

The way the story is written is also really well done. You have Kumail's family who seem like antagonists but you also have Kumail understanding their cultures and not wanting to really villainise them. And then you have issues with Kumail's relationship with Emily and his relationship with Emily's parents, but none of it seems too dramatised. I think they managed to balance the drama and the reality really well in this.

So in the end, I think this film was really well done. I'm so happy for Kumail, he's a great comedian, and he managed to do an excellent job in both writing and starring in this movie. It's a romcom so it's romantic and funny, but it's not as cheesy as typical romcoms are, and it's actually very heartfelt and endearing to watch.

I tried to start a revolution... but I didn't print enough pamphlets

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

8.4/10 on IMDb
97% on Rotten Tomatoes

Chloe's Thoughts: Signed, sealed, and recommended by Chloe;
Watch it in cinemas;
I'm buying the DVD

Watch it if you: Are a fan of Thor and the Hulk;
Are a fan of the Guardians of the Galaxy;
Want a fun, action-packed, outerspace movie with a lighthearted 80s vibe

Since the events from Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015), Thor's search for the Infinity Stones leads him to a bizarre planet where he must contend in a gladiator-like contest. He finds himself needing to defeat the Hulk in order to survive, while also trying to find a way to prevent the prophetic doom of Asgard.

When the trailers for this film first came out, I was excited to see it have a lighter tone, similar to Guardians of the Galaxy (2014), but was a bit worried they would try too hard, similar to Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017). Fortunately, I think they did a pretty good job this time around in balancing the superhero plot and the humour, and I had fun watching this film.

So firstly, this Guardians-esque tone was really refreshing, particularly considering the fact that the previous two Thor films (and even the Avengers and Captain America films) were very serious, dark and moody. At first, I thought they were trying too hard to be like Guardians, and I was getting concerned for the rest of the film (for example, at the very beginning there's a recurring joke that repeatedly breaks the tension created by an evil monologue, and it was getting tiring). However, I think the film picked up and the jokes started to land more and more, and it ended up being really enjoyable with some great laugh-out-loud moments.

Another thing that this film does differently is it kind of just gets your typical Thor stereotypes and turns it upside down. One small example that isn't a spoiler is cutting Thor's hair. The God of Thunder's luscious locks are gone, and so even just visually you can see that it's being set apart form other Thor movies.

While I think this may have been a cool thing for the director to do just so that it would make a refreshing Thor movie, I also think that the studio really wanted this film to bridge the very wide gap between The Avengers movies, the Doctor Strange movie, and The Guardians of the Galaxy movies. These three types of films all seem very, very, different, and when all these characters come together for the Infinity War movies later, it could be very jarring and it could be a complete disaster. There will be an overload of characters, different personalities, different tones, and just way too much witty banter.

Fortunately, this film does a great job at tying in the fact that Doctor Strange lives in the very same world that the Avengers live in, and the fact that Thor really does come from outer space, and from the same universe as the Guardians of the Galaxy. While we don't ever see Star Lord, we feel his presence through the tone of this film, so when we see them all come together for Infinity War, it's not going to be as jarring as it could have been. So I think they did a really good job at tying all these movies together. It's a big task, and there is a lot of room for a disaster to happen, but Marvel is handling it very well at this stage.

And that brings us to the characters. There was a great variety of characters in this film, and I quite enjoyed what they did with some character arcs. Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston as the on-again-off-again love/hate brothers were great as usual. As I said, they uproot a lot of what we know about Thor, and it gave a pretty cool, pretty badass, character arc for him.

They also expanded a lot more on the Hulk and Bruce Banner's relationship. I'm not too sure what to think of it at this stage but it brings up a lot of questions for what they will do with that character in future films. There was a lot more focus on the Hulk rather than Bruce Banner this time around, which again brought about an interesting character arc.

Then there's a bunch of other characters in this. Cate Blanchett as the goddess of death Hela was great. She was such a bad ass and dayum, when did she get so hot?! Galadriel, gurl, get it.

The only thing is that her villain's plot wasn't the best. They introduce her well but then she kind of just... doesn't do much. In terms of Marvel villains, though, she's better than a lot of other villains.

I also really loved Tessa Thompson as one of the Valkyries, it's great that we're seeing her in more roles (she was in Creed (2015) and Westworld (2016)).

Idris Elba is badass and cool as Heimdall, Karl Urban was in this, and there's even a Matt Damon cameo! Alongside Luke Hemsworth and Sam Neill, which I didn't even notice because I was so shocked and taken aback by Matt Damon.

There's also Jeff Goldblum and I feel like he was just playing himself honestly, because his character was so bizarre and whacky.

Click to show/hide spoilers:

Thor's hair is gone (and he screams like a baby when it gets cut), his right eye is gone (making him look more like his father), his hammer is gone, and his home realm is gone! Talk about uprooting everything we know and love about Thor. Interesting how they worked in the Thor helmet, but he's more Odin than Thor now.

Speaking of which, they had a great send off for Odin here. Anthony Hopkins has always given me the creeps since Silence of the Lambs (1991) (I kept thinking he was going to crazy in Westworld), but he's a very lovely old man in the Thor movies, and it was sweet what they did with his character. (Also, of course they made Odin hide out in Norway, since he's a Norse god.)

They also uprooted the Hulk character by firstly hardly having Mark Ruffalo in, then giving Hulk a personality and even making him talk. You find out he's a huge man/monster-child and it's confusing, it's bizarre, it's pretty great. The only thing is that Bruce Banner specifically states that if he turns into Hulk again, he won't come back as Bruce Banner. I'm glad they didn't do a cop out like oh-look-I-can-control-this-again-because-I'm-always-angry, and they made him stay as the Hulk at the end of the film, but I'm curious how this will play out in future movies. Will Bruce Banner die and will the Hulk remain? Will the Hulk die too so it won't be confusing?

Although I think one of my favourite scenes was when the Hulk was transforming back to Banner, after seeing the clip of Natasha. That was so heartbreaking and tragic, and it really showed how difficult it was for Banner to come out, because the Hulk really wanted to keep his own identity too.

I found it hilarious when we saw Thor's goofy smile when he was trying the lullaby on the Hulk. And then his constant massaging of Banner's shoulders while repeating, "Sun's getting low. Sun's going down."

Also, let's talk about Doctor Strange. Firstly I laughed at how similar 177b Bleecker Street sounds to 221B Baker Street, and the fact that Mister Benadryl Cucumberpatch is both Doctor Strange and Sherlock. I thought it was a nod to Sherlock at first, but it turns out it's just a strange (no pun intended) coincidence. It's almost too perfect, though.

But I loved how much magic he has learned since Doctor Strange. He's still super arrogant, and shows off all his crazy teleportation and portal abilities (I laughed so much at him teleporting and then us just seeing Thor rolling down the staircase), and he even makes Loki really confused about how he does all this stuff. I'm really excited to see his powers grow in the next film.

And was the mid-credits scene a lead up to Infinity War? I couldn't get past how part of the ship looked like it had the Transformers logo, but at first I thought it might be Thanos' ship. That would allow for Thor and the Guardians to meet, and then Thor could relay this to the Avengers so they'd all come together. But then I thought it might be weird for Thanos and Thor to meet like that, so perhaps it could have been Star Lord's ship?

Overall, I really enjoyed this film. I mean, it's kind of like a Mad Max/Gladiator in space movie, and it's like a crossover with Guardians, so what's not to love? Does the tone match a typical Thor movie? I don't know, probably not, but I enjoyed it and that's all that matters. The acting was great, the character arcs were interesting and refreshing, and I would recommend seeing it in cinemas. It's definitely a very enjoyable watch.

Oh, one final note: there's a mid-credits scene worth staying for, but the post-credits scene is definitely skipabble.

Like Tears in Rain redux

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

8.6/10 on IMDb
88% on Rotten Tomatoes

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

Watch it if you: Are a fan of the first movie (but you can watch this movie without liking the first);
Are a fan of either Ryan Gosling or Harrison Ford;
Are a fan of the director, Denis Villeneuve;
Like watching dystopian movies;
Want to watch a beautiful and intense film
A lot has happened since the year 2019. After the first Blade Runner (1982) film showed Replicants going rogue and wanting to live like humans, a newer model of Replicants is created. These Replicants, however, are programmed to obey.

I had high expectations for this film, being directed by Denis Villeneuve, the amazing director of Arrival (2016), Sicario (2015), and Prisoners (2013), all fantastic films that I love. I was worried about them turning this into a cash-grab franchise film, but with Denis Villeneuve behind the camera, I had faith. And the movie didn't disappoint!

When I first saw the original Blade Runner numerous times for English, I hated it. With a passion. I thought it was so slow and boring, the sound effects were terrible, it was so dark, and it was just not enjoyable. Some people would pass this off by saying it was an old film so you couldn't expect much, but I always had to point out the fact that Alien (1979) came out earlier and did a great job with effects and sound. So yeah, there wasn't much going for this film.

On the other hand, I really appreciated analysing such a theme-heavy film, and this is the first film where I realised that you could have a bad film with good themes in it. I realised I loved talking about the film, and its themes, and what it represented and meant to us, but watching it was just terrible, especially because we had to watch it so many times in class.

So with many traumatic memories to fall back on whenever someone mentioned Blade Runner, I was hesitant to rewatch it, but recently I finally did, and... it was actually alright. I think because I remembered all the themes and analysis of it, I finally was able to appreciate this film for what it was: a very slow, very dark, but very meaningful movie.

After seeing the trailers and interviews, I was excited for the new Blade Runner movie. What themes would they focus on next? What role is Harrison Ford going to play?

I watched the three short films that they released that served as prequels of the movie, and they were great. I loved the first one with Jared Leto, and it was cool to see Dave Bautista in the second one too. The third was an anime, with beautiful animation.

Needless to say, I was keen going in.

What blew me away in this film was the stunning cinematography. Every single shot looks like a beautiful poster or artwork, but it doesn't detract from the film because it either exemplifies how materialistic this society is, or else it depicts how derelict and dystopian the world in which such a society lives in. The result of our materialism is, ultimately, the degradation of the world.

And you can see how much they used the original film as inspiration, because they were able to emulate both the landscape and city designs, as well as the tone, of the first film. You have the overcrowded streets of a California that's hybrided itself with Tokyo, the aggressive advertising, the dark and bleak city landscape, and the discrimination against the Replicants, who are ultimately just trying to find their place in society.

While heavy inspiration from the first movie means it's an almost guarantee that this film will be slow, I actually found that a lot of the slow scenes were quite fascinating to watch. The film is able to make you either think so much you don't realise how slow the scene is on screen, or see so much that you don't have time to think about how slow it is.

But what I loved is that even though it drew on the first film and used many of its themes, it developed these themes even further and made it into its own film.

While the first film's question was, "What makes us human?", this film asks, "Does it even matter if we're human?" More about this in the spoilers section, but I thought it was great.

Apart from that, the film's score is overwhelmingly great. Not a surprise, since it's Hans Zimmer. That guy is a legend.

Ryan Gosling's performance is fantastic in this. It's probably his best performance; it was so intense, emotional, and raw. He has very little dialogue but his inner thoughts and feelings are so well portrayed through his facial movements and body language.

Harrison Ford also did a great job here. He is a living legend, and again I dont think I've seen him do so great a performance as he did here.

The film has a huge cast, and they all do a great job, but they only have very small roles. In fact, I actually liked Jared Leto's character more in the short film he was in, and I got to learn a lot more about Dave Bautista's character in that short too. You know what, I think I might just watch them again to appreciate some of the things that happened in the movie.

Okay... Spoiler Time!

Click to show/hide spoilers:

In the first film, the theme was, "What makes us human?"

Replicants were created to be "More Human Than Human"; genetically perfect in a society where genetic defects were running rampant. Yet despite their obvious superiority, these Replicants didn't get the same rights that humans got: to live. Both in the metaphorical sense, and in the sense that they were only alive for 4 years.

Then they created Replicants that didn't even know they were Replicants. They had false memories, or real memories of others, implanted in themselves. And the question of what makes us human becomes even more fuzzy. If someone was able to emulate human emotion, retrieve human memories, and feel human things, even if these were fake, what's to say they weren't actually human? If they were designed to be like a human, and truly believed they were a human, how could you say that they aren't one?

In this film, the theme shifts. It's obvious that Replicants are not humans, and this is accepted widely because these Replicants are obedient now. They aren't thinking of rising up against the humans because they want to be them. Instead, they've accepted that they are different to humans. Although physically superior, they remain their slaves. And they are content with that.

Or not.

No, they're probably not content.

Officer K carries himself as someone happy to just do his job: to retire Replicants. He's fine with this, because he was ordered to do it. But we see that all along, what he truly wants is to be human. So much so that his Joi eggs him on, encouraging him to believe that he is a human. He listens to her, forgetting that she was programmed to "say what he wants to hear" and "do what he wants to see".

Then he starts to believe that he is a human. That he has a soul.

His entire character changes. He starts to go against his authority. His test results are nowhere near baseline. He breaks away from the mould of a Replicant. He couldn't do this before, when he was a Replicant, but now with this new knowledge that he was born of a woman (and thus is now a Human), he can start to do all these things. He is no longer preprogrammed. He has autonomy. He now has a sense of purpose: to live. To be human.

But then... he's not human. He's nothing special. He's just another Replicant. Without a soul. Without meaning.

Until he remembers that what it means to be human is to have a choice in this. Replicants are created to follow orders. They don't have choice, but to choose to die for something worthy is to choose to be human. To him, being a human isn't to be birthed from a woman, it's to have a sense of meaning.

At first, I thought the movie was being so obvious. Right when he saw the numbers carved on the tree and he had a flashback, I was like, "Wow, he's a Human? He was born? So now they're going to have a big redemptive story? Doesn't that suck for all the other Replicants who aren't Human? That's a bit lame."

Then I thought, maybe they're trying to make it super obvious so that it's sort of like a dramatic irony where we know that he's a human and that makes it more interesting? Or maybe it's just more interesting that we know the plot twist earlier so we can read into his actions?

But then. PLOT TWIST. For real this time.

But I thought that was great, because you could see how tragic his character arc was, and you truly felt so devastated for him. Props again to Ryan Gosling. A beautiful human being.

And I think what can summarise the whole of this film is the off-handed joke that Harrison Ford makes in response to, "Is he real?" "I don't know, ask him."

That's pretty much the end to my spoilers section, but here are a few side notes:

• I was so mesmerised by the scene with Joi syncing with Mariette, the prostitute; amazing stuff
  
• The baseline test scenes were cool too INTERLINKED (INTERLINKED)
  
• Kite harpoon. Awesome.
  
• Lel, Pale Fire, come back to haunt me
  
• The CGI for Rachel was... holy cow amazing. It didn't even look off.
  
• In one scene, I think when K is in Deckard's hotel/house, the horse figurine makes a shadow that looks like a unicorn, which I thought was a cool nod to the Director's Cut version in 1992 (or whichever one it was that had the unicorn)
  
• I loved the final scene, where K stretches out his hand and feels the snowflakes, which totally juxtaposes the previous scene of Joi in the rain where the water droplets pass through her hand. Here, K is solid, he's not transparent like Joi (how cool was the light going through her, though). He feels things, they don't just pass through him. Human or not, he's real.
  
• This also juxtaposes Dr Stelline, real as ever, born from a woman, a Human Being, stuck in a dome unable to feel the real snow.
  

Overall, this film is a stunning movie. I'd definitely recommend watching it in the cinemas, for the big screen and the great sound system. The film is beautiful to watch, and it has beautiful themes and symbolism. Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford give perfect performances, adding layers to this great, emotional, and intense film. Yes, it's long and yes, it's slow, but the film provides some really deep things to think about, and it builds on the original film really well.