Alexandra Petrache reviews Olivia Wilde’s anticipated directorial debut.

Director Olivia Wilde does “coming of age” effortlessly and hilariously funny. Amy (Kaitlyn Dever) and Molly (Beanie Feldstein) are two best friends who have spent high school getting the highest honours and studying hard so that they could get into the best US colleges. On their last day of school, Molly realises that they could have also had some fun in the process and convinces (read: forces) Amy to go to one party and make up for the years of shunning their more sociable peers. They go on a fun – and often weird – journey,  find out things about themselves and one another, and bond with their classmates.

The concept itself is not original, but the delivery is. The characters feel fresh, curious and explorative; importantly, they have chemistry. Damn, I want to have a code word with my friends now! Every character introduced in Booksmart has their moment and their backstory – they are all in this together and they are all archetypes we meet in school. Putting everyone’s experiences on an equal footing allows the film a light hearted and natural approach to Amy’s sexuality, too. It is emphasised, but in the same way that every other character’s sexuality is (even teachers get their moment). And for once, this doesn’t seem like an American high-school experience on steroids; it feels relatable and, for someone who went to high school quite a few years ago, nostalgic.

Booksmart finds a natural comparison in Lady Bird (Beanie Feldstein plays the best friend in both). Where Lady Bird felt forced and precious, Booksmart felt natural from beginning to end. Sure, some of the situations the two friends go through seem a bit far-fetched, but they feel right – and so does the progression of the film, the character development, and even the “girl meets boy” part. It doesn’t tell things just for the sake of telling them, it doesn’t aim to be another “rebel without a cause” story or roll its eyes in pastel colours. It feels real, light-hearted and very, very enjoyable!

Written by four females and directed by one, Booksmart is feminist without even trying. Even though the two main characters are female and the film is peppered with supporting female characters, it doesn’t for a moment feel like they’re in it “for the sake of it”. It also has solid male supporting characters with their own stories and voices. As in Lady Bird, those male roles are acted well too. Skyler Gisondo’s Jared was brilliant. At times I was more interested in his character development than in that of the leads. He plays an apparently arrogant spoilt boy with an inane vulnerability that appears from time-to-time, making you wonder whether there is more to him than meets the eye (spoiler: there is).

Booksmart is also humble. For all it’s worth, I did feel that the film’s peaks were reaching some form of a plateau – even the most exciting or interesting moments were sometimes not given enough space to fully develop. This could have gone two ways: make the audience feel unsatisfied, gagged; or make us feel like these moments are part of life and they will pass, because the world doesn’t stop for anyone. I’d say it made me feel a bit of both.

Go see Booksmart. It is an absolute feel-good delight: happy, effervescent, and nostalgic. Every punchline lands effortlessly. Kudos to the writers: Sarah Haskins, Susanna Fogel, Emily Halpern, and Katie Silberman.

This review was originally published here.

Booksmart is currently out in cinemas. Check out the trailer below:

Alexandra Petrache reviews the surprisingly delightful addition to the Transformers franchise.

The making of Bumblebee almost slipped by me. It did not seem as hugely  marketed as the other Transformers movies from the saga, and I walked in not knowing what to expect. An origin story meant tying together the comics and cartoons with which many fans grew up and the films that started in 2007. The director Travis Knight did that very cleverly – Bumblebee (voiced by Dylan O’Brien) leaves his home planet Cybertron in search of a safe haven, and lands on Earth. After managing to accidentally cause some damage to a military base, the Autobot stays in hiding in the form of a yellow Volkswagen Beetle.

Fast forward and the Volkswagen is taken home by Charlie (Hailee Steinfeld), a rebellious 18-year-old girl struggling with family issues. She quickly learns that her car is an Autobot, and in true Transformers fashion, human and shy robot become friends. Their happy time doesn’t last for long; Decepticons (voiced by Angela Basset and Justin Theroux) are trying to track down Bumbleebee’s location and force him to disclose the location of his leader, Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen). Add some US government officials, a love interest (Memo, played by Jorge Ledenborg Jr.), and some kick-ass Transformer fights, and you have a cleverly orchestrated film that manages to captivate the audience from the first second.

Bumbleebee touches on several layered themes. It’s a young girl’s coming-of-age story – in contrast with previous Transformers movies, where the cars and robots are usually reserved for boys – and Steinfeld does a good job at portraying the teen. At times it felt that Bumblebee was alluding to what it means to be an immigrant – the Autobot arrives on a foreign planet and tries to convince the locals that he means well and wishes to just be left to carry out his business.

Satisfyingly, the film was stripped down to bare emotions and action. There were no oversexualised teenage girls, no over-the-top fights or unnecessarily ridiculous plot twists. Unlike the previous Transformer movies, Bumblebee is a down-to-earth, humble film, where the main characters have more of a hero-next-door kind of vibe. The signature Michael Bay explosions are gone as well.

Comedy is also catered for. There are a couple of funny scenes where Bumblebee completely ignores or misunderstands Charlie’s instructions and ends up creating chaos, making him even more of a lovable character – who wouldn’t like a robot that can kick ass and yet be completely unable to understand how a coffee machine works, looking desperately to the dog for help?

There was nothing that I did not like. If I were to find anything, I would be nitpicking – not necessary for a film that was better than expected. One thing worth mentioning is that, although it captures the heart and mind, and shows some solid acting from both the main and supporting characters, Bumblebee is not a risky film. It does not try to “make or break”, but rather aims to put up an intelligently crafted performance. And it does it well. Special shout-out to characters like Charlie’s brother Otis (Jason Drucker), her mother Sally (Pamela Adlon), her step-father (Stephen Schneider), and Jack Burns (played by John Cena), which were all played well.

Bumblebee has the air of an underdog. As a film it seems smaller, less “bombastic” and eccentric, than the Transformers franchise. However, that makes it refreshing and well-built. It mirrors some of the action from the previous films while managing to concoct its own formula. When I left the theatre on the evening of the premiere, I was asked whether I would give it five stars. I have a slight aversion towards rating movies, but I think it worthy of a least three stars (for the picky viewers), if not four (for nostalgics like me).

Oh, pay attention to the Easter eggs, of which you will find quite a few sprinkled throughout the film.

Bumblebee is currently out in cinemas everywhere. Check out its trailer below:

Alexandra Petrache reviews the anticipated latest instalment to J.K. Rowling’s Wizarding World franchise. 

WARNING: Contains minor spoilers.

The end of the Fantastic Beasts series’ first installation left us with an imprisoned Grindelwald (Johnny Depp), an Obscurial fragment who seems to have escaped the destruction of the Obscurus, and a couple of budding love stories. Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald picks up the action right where it was left off. The beginning is dark and gripping, showing Grindelwald escaping from prison in New York with the help of a rogue American Auror. Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) also has a less-than-delightful meeting with his brother and an unsurprisingly confusing meeting with young Dumbledore (Jude Law). We get to catch a glimpse of the zoo of magical creatures Scamander harbours in his house – and can I just say that riding a Kelpie beats all water sports?

After Queenie (Alison Sudol) and Jacob’s (Dan Fogler) impromptu visit to London, Newt ends up in Paris looking for Tina (Katherine Waterston) and Credence (Ezra Miller) at Dumbledore’s suggestion. What happens next is a mix of magic, betrayal, loyalty, and guilt. Darker than any of the other films from the Harry Potter universe, The Crimes of Grindelwald has an adult tone. The title is intriguing, alluding to the eponymous wizard creating havoc and troubles, but in reality it feels like he somehow isn’t allowed centre stage and has to take a step back, giving way to various subplots.

The film features old and new characters in abundance – so many it is hard to keep count of them. Introducing a plethora of characters that all seem important and are mini Easter eggs for fans seem to be central to the film. J.K. Rowling, screenwriter and author of the original Harry Potter series, gets overexcited and introduces key characters to the Harry Potter universe who are quickly tossed aside to make room for new ones with every twist of the plot.Therefore, few characters have space to develop and conquer the minds and hearts of the audience. Queenie and Jacob have a likable development on their own and as a pair, and Newt and Tina share a few awkward moments. Grindelwald seems utterly delightful (albeit wearing too much powder) for such a bonafide bad guy.  He’s clever and cunning, and we hope the wizarding world can see through his carefully-constructed Nazi-esque propaganda.

The main story is slightly blemished by minor subplots that lead to a dead end, like when Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravtiz) takes centre stage as the love interest of Theseus Scamander (Callum Turner) while focusing on the death of her brother – just for her story to end suddenly. Similarly, Credence’s unlikely companion and massive Harry Potter Easter egg Nagini (Claudia Kim) stands out as odd; she doesn’t seem to be part of any group and although potentially interesting and likeable, is not given an opportunity to shine.  

It seems that Rowling still writes film scripts as if they were novels and, as a result, they are highly lyrical but confusing and full of information. In the case of important details in Crimes of Grindelwald, if you blink, you miss it. The film is full of threads that are woven together and left unfinished, leading to the next film. (A friend described it as J.K. Rowling doing an Empire Strikes Back; I’d say it’s Empire Strikes Back meets the prequels). The Crimes of Grindelwald is also not as thrilling as the title makes it out to be, although admittedly, as someone hopelessly in love with Paris, some of the scenes stirred something sentimental inside of me. The final act of the film was, however, very good. Every line lands, complemented by an excellent score. The reveal that takes place in its final act is very theatrical and raises many questions that I bet will be answered in classic Rowling style. It’s a plot twist that at the moment seems highly improbable and needs another massive plot twist to answer the questions it raises.

Darker than its predecessor, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald takes us deeper on an enjoyable journey into the world of Harry Potter. It’s a shame that, with its many subplots and characters that are not given enough time to develop, the film feels claustrophobic and unpolished. Maybe they should have called it Fantastic Beasts: The Plot Thickens. 

6.7/10

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is currently out in cinemas everywhere. Check out its trailer below:

Alexandra Petrache breaks down Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut.

An idyllic-looking, warm-toned piece of cinematography, Lady Bird captures the last year of high school in the life of Christine McPherson, or “Lady Bird”, as she prefers to call herself. It takes place in Sacramento, California, where Lady Bird has lived her adolescent life, made friends, and fallen in and out of love for the first time. The troubles and family arguments start when she decides to move to New York for college, as she wants to be “where culture is” and deems Sacramento too small or insipid for her taste. Her hard-working family cannot fully support her financially, and she gets into arguments with her mother Marion McPherson (admirably played by Laurie Metcalf), finds out that her dad has been battling depression and tries to hang out with the “cool kids”.

The Good

The cinematography is lovely, reminiscent of a warm and gentle autumn sun. The directing seems confident, solid and mature – which makes for a strong directorial debut for Greta Gerwig, consolidated by rich previous experience in the industry.

Laurie Metcalfe is brilliant (ever noticed how “brilliant” is a word used very often to talk about films and performance arts in general). I felt every emotion in the tone of her voice, her body language and the muscles on her face. Metcalfe plays Lady Bird’s mother, a hard-working nurse, who appears to be the pragmatic voice and engine of her family. She’s progressive enough, but worried about finances and to making sure her daughter has a chance in life at a comfortable existence. Clashes often arise when she thinks Lady Bird has unrealistic ambitions. Metcalfe owns the role, and brings on a roller coaster of emotions (happiness, sadness, desperation or exasperation) in an otherwise static and bland film. Saoirse Ronan also delivers; there is not an act out of place in her portrayal of the teenage girl.

The Bad

Erm… nothing really happens. I watched the film with a few friends and afterwards some of us felt that the experience didn’t enrich us in any way. To me it felt as if I had stared at a blank wall for the duration of the film, like 1.5 hours of void, albeit pleasantly warm void. Like in any coming-of-age film, Lady Bird goes through a series of events that are normal for any teenager. This does help make the character identifiable with, but it fails to deliver any impactful moments. *SPOILER ALERT* Take the scene where Danny is found kissing another boy in the men’s toilets. This could have been a key moment in the film – Lady Bird would be devastated, right? Sad and angry and confused, like any teenager girl whose boyfriend turns out to be gay. Perhaps understanding and supportive after a while. Does any of that happen? Yes, but very muffled. There is no peak, no strong exchange of words, nothing to suggest this supposedly important and pivotal experience for the both of them is in any way important and pivotal. She leaves the men’s toilet and some time later they meet behind a café and hug. No peak whatsoever, like a dead heartbeat.

The Outright Bland

“Lady Bird? Is that a given name?” […] “It is given to me by me.” You’d think that a nickname defended so confidently would make some impression on the audience, would bring about a sonority like the beat of a gong. Instead, it is just a mundane nickname connected to a mundane character. Maybe this is what the film is all about: a regular girl who goes through regular experiences and has a slightly odd nickname. However, I feel that the aim was to present more than that: the trailer gives the impression that adolescent bombs of emotion, maturity and immaturity were to be dropped upon the audience. Shame the bombs were always defused just before exploding, like a violin cut off just before it is to reach the highly-awaited crescendo. It’s also not as humorous as it’s made out to be. It is a fine example of when a trailer steals the limelight from the actual movie.

Should you go watch it?

It’s a nice movie to watch on a rainy afternoon when you’re clutching a cup of tea in bed. Wait for it to get on TV.

Lady Bird is out now in UK cinemas. Check out the trailer:

The latest screening at Central DOCS Club – where newly-released documentaries are shown at Picturehouse Central in association with FilmSoc – featured Mountain followed by a discussion.

Alexandra-Loredana Petrache reviews Jennifer Peedom’s symphonic doc.

A gorgeous piece of cinematography. An ode to the mountains. 

Beautiful imagery and score

Soothingly narrated by Willem Dafoe and bringing in the Australian Chamber Orchestra to perform pieces from the likes of Vivaldi, Mountain presents stunning, breath-taking imagery of people who aim for more: who test themselves, defy the norm and go in search of aventure. It also shows the modern reality of such sports, and of the people who try them in pursuit of not only the climb itself, but social media’s fame and adulation. The documentary scratches the surface of a whole universe of sports and sport-lovers, of madness and sanity, of will and strength, and shows the audience the thrills and perils that come with such ventures, without going too far into characterising the activities or associated risks. This is not meant to be an in-depth documentary about climbers, mountain-bikers or base-jumpers, but a serene piece of cinematography accompanied by good music. It will occasionally make you reach the edge of your seat but mostly it will induce a sense of wonder and worship towards the mountains. The music complements the footage perfectly – the beginning of the film comes into focus as a violin is being tuned. The sound weaves the metaphor of dizzying heights: we see climbers ascend over the crescendo of a violin, as a piano is subtly playing in the background, finishing off the metaphor of serene peace that accompanies the sport.

What Mountain succeeds at is showing both the exhilarating and the brutal: people smiling upon reaching their destination on the mountain, and euphoric spirits and cheers, but also bloody fingers, faces bitten by frost, tents filled with snow so cold it feels like a blade cutting the flesh down to the bone. Broken legs, twisted ankles, deep scratches, concussions, vertigo, pain, death. The price to pay for fleeting moments of sweet ecstasy.

Climbing a mountain: reward or plunder?

We keep talking of conquest when we speak of mountains and I’m not sure whether this comes from a sense of reward after the daunting experience that climbing can be or if it is sheer arrogance – do we really think we can outwit timeless (yet perpetually changing) rock giants? Is reaching a peak plunder or reward? Should we not talk of conquering ourselves, perhaps? Are mountains not just enablers for us to test our mental and physical strength?

The mountains can be a refuge for an ordinary living, an infusion of life, of raw, naked reality. It is a two-sided story: one of humility and one of hubris. On one side, we are glancing upon our condition and are reminded we are insignificant in this vast world. On the other, this sheer feeling of inferiority pushes us to overcome it, reach for the gods and prove that we are nothing less. And the fall will be all the more bittersweet knowing that, for a split moment, we were their equals and shared their world.

It is interesting how the film-makers decided to give the audience only a taste of the charm and seduction the mountains possess, instead of going for something with more substance and tackling concrete ideas about the sports presented or the more commercial aspect that now accompanies some of the sports presented. They focused on romanticising the antithesis between man and mountain, between ephemeral and long-lived.

Join us at the next Central DOCS Club screening on 8th January: see and discuss Walk With Me, a rare insight into the world of mindfulness and the Zen Buddhist master Thich Nhat Hanh, narrated by Benedict Cumberbatch! Check out the Facebook event HERE.

Mountain premiered at London Film Festival on October 9th. Watch the trailer below.

Alexandra Petrache reviews the latest instalment of the beloved franchise.

WARNING: Potential spoilers

December 2015

There has been an awakening – have you felt it?

I will finish what you started.

Yes, a thousand times, yes! I felt the awakening in the chills that went through my body as I got ready for the midnight showing (I could not have risked the film being spoiled for me the next day). Putting on my belt and the lightsaber to dress up as Obi-Wan, I realised it was the first ever film from the Star Wars franchise I was going to see at the cinema. I remembered a little girl ages ago saying “George Lucaaaaas” in an ecstatic voice when her dad asked her who directed the Star Wars movies, her favourites. I remember her crying the next day if she failed to get up to watch the movies on TV (they were always being shown so late at night!).

Well… cry no more, little girl.

After all this time… there is another. Another Star Wars film.

December 2016

…and another one. Hmm, bit suspicious about this one – taking a tiny aspect of the story and turning it into a movie. Can we get a movie about Obi-Wan? Or Yoda? Yet Rogue One delivered well and managed to introduce new characters smoothly and successfully.

October 2017

Tickets for Star Wars: The Last Jedi are on sale! Better buy them before they run out!

13^th of December 2017, 6pm

It is tonight. The first showing is tonight. The past few weeks at university have been a roller coaster and time has crept by without me realising – IT IS TONIGHT!

I am re-watching the trailers and I have so many questions. What is Kylo referring to when he is suggests he will “kill the past”? His family – Leia and Luke? His past as a knight of Ren?

Is Luke afraid of Kylo or Rey? Who is Rey?

What about the porgs? And how is Chewie managing without Han?

Is Luke the last Jedi and is he turning rogue?

Let’s dissect the trailer a little bit. The scene when Kylo looks pensively through a glass panel as he oversees the construction of new weapons is reminiscent of Darth Vader. Like Vader, does Kylo think about finding the last members of his family and turning them over or destroying them? Throughout the trailer, there seems to be a parallel between Kylo and Anakin – will Kylo return to the good side of the Force, maybe by training Rey and plotting for the collapse of the First Order together?

Something makes me think the “raw power” and “something special” that Supreme Leader Snoke’s voice is describing refers to Rey’s innate ability with the Force. Like Emperor Palpatine before him, he seems to be tapping into her raw emotions of uncertainty, confusion and maybe fear to seduce her into joining the dark side of the Force. Plus, Rey’s first meeting with Luke is unravelling over a slightly different version of the Imperial March, Vader’s anthem – are the crew hinting that one of the two is going to turn rogue?

My prediction is that Kylo is going towards the good side – flying a TIE fighter among black and red ships is reminiscent of Luke flying along the first Death Star seconds before destroying it. Kylo says, “Let the past die. Kill it,” right after he can be seen smashing his Vader-like helmet against a wall, and before we see him shooting (at a First Order ship?). Is his past his grandfather and the sense of adoration he carries (carried?) for him? Are Leia’s eyes watery because of betrayal or because she sensed her Ben turned good in the end? Something makes me think it’s the latter and that she is also in danger of dying, but that she will join Han peacefully, knowing their son is no longer a knight of Ren.

Let’s see what the movie brings.

13^th of December 2017, 23:59pm: ONLY TWO MORE MINUTES!

14^th of December 2017 3am

This is definitely one that will split the fans: on one side you have a decent film with nice visual and sound effects and some interesting ideas; on the other, a negation of everything that is Star Wars and a reduction of the franchise to a commercial comedy.

Synopsis

The First Order has located the Resistance and found a way to follow their ships through hyperspace. Poe shows disobedience, as usual, and manages to buy them some time. Finn wakes up from a coma, figures out the situation they are in is a bit sticky and wants to warn Rey of the dangers, but gets caught up in saving the Resistance again, this time with the help of Rose, Poe, Maz and a few others.

In the meantime, Rey is trying to convince Luke (now old and bitter) to show her the ways of the Force. The first lesson is very valuable and nicely presented and shows Rey figuring out the connection between all the living things. She discovers the dark side of the Force and manages to scare Luke with her raw power which, he says, is similar to Kylo’s.

Rey and Kylo have an interesting connection and she desperately believes that he can be turned from the darkness. She takes some time exploring her connection with the Force, questioning Luke about the Jedi Order.

Meanwhile, Vice Admiral Holde manages to tone down Poe’s “trigger-happy” tendencies and figures out a plan to save the Resistance. New and old characters get together in the end to face the First Order and carry on the legacy of the Jedi.

Rey’s Parents

“Who are you?” the voice in “The Force Awakens” asks. I really wanted to find out Rey’s ancestry. Is she Luke’s daughter? Obi-Wan’s? As the movie went on I had this sudden (albeit a bit absurd) thought: could she be Kylo’s sister? I half expected her to call him “brother” when he confronted her about her past.

The truth about Rey’s parents is that… the writers came up with a good idea. I thought “yes, this is bang-on, perfect!” However, it was very poorly presented and made no impact. What a waste of an original idea.

Character development

Character development is one of the key areas in which SWTLJ fails to deliver, and probably the most important. It is incredibly difficult to form a connection with the characters, as the makers try to awkwardly build a love triangle fit for Twilight  (as my friend Veronica put it: remember when a simple”I love you – I know” was strong enough to create a powerful love and a comedic effect?”) and put characters in danger only to save them in ludicrous ways. It also feels like they got inspiration for the lines from some dad-jokes-and-pick-up-lines website. When characters died in previous films (oh, Han!) or were put in dangerous situations, I felt it strongly but now I could not care less whether they lived or not.

Out of all the characters, Vice Admiral Holdo’s arc is an interesting one; it manages to draw in the attention and develops nicely until the end. She briefly takes over command from Leia and has some cunning plans to save the Resistance from the First Order. She does not appear as a strong female character, but delivers some nice lines and, surprisingly, comes out on top in a few verbal exchanges with Poe. Good job.

Would I see it again?

No. It fails to capture the classic Star Wars spirit (or make its own, like Rogue One did). There were some parts where I almost felt a glimmer of hope, but that was almost immediately buried under a pile of embarrassment (seriously, who thought Leia’s “stunt” was a good one to pull?).

It pains me to say the part I enjoyed most was the music – the classic tunes plus some variations.

I am a silly nostalgic fan ready to leave a lot of room for experimentation with new characters and situations. Mistakes are welcome, as long as the movie is built on a good scaffold and makes its own name while being respectful of the past. The Last Jedi, however, has tarnished the franchise. Or better said, its makers have. It is hard to believe there was a single Star Wars fan in the crew that made the movie.

In short, Luke kills a fish with a spear and gets a pep talk from Rey. Finn gets a pep talk from Rose. Poe gives and gets a pep talk. Luke gets another pep talk. Kylo gets a few of those. R2 gives a pep talk. Fantastic drinking game, if you ask me. Some characters sacrifice themselves, others try to, there is an awkward love(?) triangle and some cute animals. BB-8 saves the day a few times, and there is some fleeting lightsaber work.

Star Wars is dead. Long live the cute, commercial Christmas movie relying on cuddly animals to save a franchise. Some will undoubtedly like the new-cool-kid-on-the-block atmosphere of the movie, but I rest my case that so far The Last Jedi is the weakling of the whole saga. A decent movie, but not a Star Wars movie.

6/10

Star Wars: The Last Jedi is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Alexandra Petrache reviews the second seasonal comedy instalment.

“A day without laughter is a wasted day,” my Thai fortune cookie said on Saturday night. Fantastic, I thought. Good thing I was going to see Daddy’s Home 2 the next day. Let’s see if I can get my portion of laughter.

I walked into Vue West End, excited to have received a nice Christmassy invitation by mail, and made my way to the screen. The first thing I noticed were the kids, who were all eating Maltesers. “I want some,” I thought, “do they only give them to kids?” Imagine my pleasant surprise when I reached my seat and found not only Maltesers, but an advent calendar. My day was made. Now to melt into my comfortable seat and enjoy the film…

I must say I remembered only disparate scenes from Daddy’s Home and had to piece some things together, but there is no need to have seen it to enjoy the second instalment. The film picks up where the first left off – Dusty is back in his children’s lives and trying to raise them together with his ex-wife’s husband, Brad. Things appear to have reached a consensus, and the two are happy to be “co-dads”. You cannot help but wonder whether everything is a pretence in their small corner of Heaven. There is a strong smell of competition, though Dusty tries to rein it in and prove he’s changed, and Brad needs to keep his image of “good boy”.

After the children complain about the household being split, the two dads decide to offer them the perfect Christmas: one big celebration with the whole family. So far so good. However…enter Mel Gibson as Dusty’s macho dad and John Lithgow as Brad’s loving one. Add to the mix a bunch of step-siblings and ex and current wives, and throw all of them in a cabin. What can go wrong?

This film is not the sharpest tool in the box. There are some funny jokes and genuinely amusing situations (cue the bowling scene or the turkey hunt), but most of the jokes seem half-hearted. Sometimes it feels like there are too many threads going on – the characters get placed in lots of ridiculous situations that don’t last enough to produce a build-up and fully engage the audience. It fails to deliver on a number of occasions where it could have been a hit.

If there is one thing the film does well it’s bring on the Christmas spirit. The ending, especially, is peppered with heart-warming moments between the siblings, the two moms, the five dads (plot twist) and the townsfolk. It’s one to watch this Christmas after a copious meal.

Bonus point: halfway through the screening I realised the seat reclined. Free snacks, fun AND a reclining chair. My day was made.

Daddy’s Home 2 is out in UK cinemas on November 22nd. Trailer below:

Alexandra Petrache revisits a Coppola classic, recently screened at BFI Southbank for its Thriller season launch.

Found in a brutal-looking brown glassy building with a friendly and welcoming restaurant on the ground floor, the inside of the BFI Southbank throws you into an overwhelming mixture of red velvet, interactive sound installations and – as my friend Mariam put it the moment we walked in, getting a drink before entering the screening – a “21^st-century take on a 1920s bar”.

The Conversation is a 1974 thriller written, directed and produced by Francis Ford Coppola, whom I had shamefully only known for “The Godfather” trilogy. It tells the story of Harry Caul, a surveillance expert with strong work ethics, who faces an internal struggle upon listening in to what sounds like a potential murder – should he get involved, or should he be “professional” and give his client the tapes regardless?

The film’s introduction follows a street mime who tries to impersonate rushing passers-by. Although superficially cheerful and relaxing, the scene feels claustrophobic, taking place in one square – San Francisco’s Union Square. Oddly enough, I felt watched and restless observing it. The camera pans to a character holding a large microphone (had I not known what the film was about, I would have thought it was a bazooka) behind a neon panel. We are being introduced to the world of surveillance experts. A cacophony of sounds and information emerges: musicians, random conversations, footsteps, everything else you might hear on a trivial day in a city square, and a couple just about raising their voices above everything else. We meet them again and again – when they comment about a homeless person who has fallen victim to the cold, when they talk about Christmas presents, when they wonder whether they would be able to “do it”. They look like they are being chased, constantly looking around and pretending to be having a regular conversation. A man knocks on the door of a van turned into a surveillance station: enter Harry Caul, the best in the field of surveillance, with unsuspecting looks and clothing. His only signature item is a grey long raincoat he takes everywhere.

Coppola gives away the turns of the plot little by little, giving audiences minute pieces of information to pick at. Although Harry does not talk much about himself, other characters drop small hints about his past and present – like the fact that Harry is “number one” surveillance, or that he started working in New York.

A parallel to how we use technology nowadays?

Harry is considered the best in this field, a true legend, and perhaps because he is always on the spying side of conversations, he is paranoid and obsessed with his own privacy. He barricades himself inside his flat and makes sure no one goes in. He pretends he doesn’t have a phone and does not answer any personal questions from other people. The film is an excellent parallel to how technology shapes the world and it is still very relevant to our days. We are the opposite of Harry Caul: we live a life very much made public through photos, check-ins and “likes”. We store our bank details online, pay using fingerprints and sign up to text alerts from the local ostrich egg farmer.

The colours of the film also depict a sombre and metallic reality, where privacy is apparent and even a conversation can be misunderstood. Palettes of grey, brown, green and yellow take over,  giving the film a visual aspect that feels safe and predictable, while colours like red introduce key moments in the film and turns of plot.

Oddity

Being such a freak for privacy and not even opening up to those closest to him, it seems odd that Harry allows his work colleagues to come back to his workplace after a conference and have a party. It is not only an invasion of his privacy, but also a risk for his work, with many tapes just lying around, including the ones that held the recent conversation he was obsessing over.

You should definitely watch it

The Conversation is a concoction of paranoia, fear and internal dilemmas. It still resonates strongly with today’s society, the use of technology and aroma of slight fraud.

Harry’s existence is a hypocrisy. He says he doesn’t “know anything about human nature […], anything about curiosity”, but he is curious in his own way – his fight with himself and obsession with the couple’s conversation show him unconsciously reaching for that sheer human nature he so vehemently despises.

The calibre of his work and the obsession for professionalism should offer Harry a safe and warm routine, but that turns against him when he has the slightest doubt; his world built on a foundation of high-quality well-done work starts wobbling when the conversation comes into his life. Perhaps it has echoes in another past job he had completed?

8/10

The Conversation was screened at BFI Southbank on October 20th for the launch of Thriller film season ‘Who Can You Trust?’.

[Coppola & Hackman on set]