SEARCH RESULTS

Jennifer's Body (2009) directed by Karyn Kusama and written by Diablo Cody When I get asked "what is the most underrated movie of all time" my answer will almost always be "Jennifer's Body". Upon release, it was brutally slammed, with critics maligning it for its lack of identity, cringey dialogue, and unoriginality. Much of this was due to how it was marketed before its release. Touted as a sexy horror, many viewers were disappointed when they found out that whilst it has elements of both, it isn't particularly sexy or scary. The hostile reception the film received, clouded all of its good qualities. Critics failed to recognise that much of the humour comes from its intentionally cringey one-liners. Its lack of sexiness was also a deliberate choice. Whilst Megan Fox is undeniably beautiful in this movie, rather than extenuating her looks for the male gaze, the film instead opts to use her beauty for the purpose of the plot. This is an extremely smart choice by director Karyn Kusama, as Megan Fox is an actress who was sexualised from an extremely young age. In 2009 she spoke out against director Michael Bay who she accused of sexualising her when she was 15 after she was cast as an extra in Bad Boys II. In her breakout role in Transformers, a scene of her fixing a car is famous for the way the camera lingers and zooms in on her body. It is one of the prime examples of Laura Mulvey's male gaze theory in modern cinema. It is clear to the viewer that her role in the movie is purely to appeal to the male gaze. She was 19 at the time. In Jennifer's Body, however, in the few moments where Megan Fox is sexualised, it is clear to the audience that it is being done in a satirical way. In many ways, Jennifer's Body is a satire. Its cringey dialogue, for instance, is a satire of 2000s culture. This is what many of the critics who slammed the movie missed. It is a film which has aged beautifully, especially among younger viewers. The concept of Jennifer, a bi-woman, needing to kill boys (who sexualise her) in order to stay beautiful and desirable was so ahead of its time and hits so much harder in 2022, where people's drive to be beautiful is higher than ever. It's hard to truly understand why critics hated this movie so much in 2009, but I think one of the reasons may have been their age. This is not a movie made for middle-aged men, and so critics (most of whom are middle-aged men) aren't going to be able to fully appreciate it. This is not a movie meant to be taken seriously. However, if you sit back, relax, and take in all of its humour and silliness, this is an extremely entertaining watch.

Don't Look Up (2021) written and directed by Adam McKay Adam McKay is a director rarely praised for his subtlety. His previous movies, Anchorman (1 and 2), Step Brothers, and The Other Guys were a specific type of comedy centred around unapologetically brash over-the-top humour. This is what made his transition to somewhat more serious films slightly surprising. How can the guy who filmed Will Ferrell excitedly rubbing his balls on John C. Reilly's drum kit (by the way, hilarious scene) also film a weighty social commentary which aims to satirise the media's reaction to climate change? The short answer is... he can't, and that is the failure of Don't Look Up. Don't Look Up has all the makings of an excellent movie, with a sharp writing team, enticing plot, potentially impactful message, and not to mention an insanely talented cast, which cost tens of millions of dollars to assemble (Jennifer Lawrence, Leonardo DiCaprio, Meryl Streep, Jonah Hill, Cate Blanchett, Tyler Perry, Timothée Chalamet, and Ariana Grande all appear in this movie). Nonetheless, McKay's mixed-up tone means that the movie misses the mark, coming off as shallow and out of touch. That's about the worst thing you can say about a social commentary that aimed to smartly satirise the media's reaction to climate change. McKay's biggest tonal issue is that he can't decide whether he wants to make a serious movie or a silly one, and the end result is a movie that isn't either, as it fails to move audiences or make them laugh. There are moments where it feels as though Don't Look Up is veering towards something of significance, for example, Dr. Randall Mindy's live television breakdown towards the end of the movie, which is one of the only moments where the movie utilises Leonardo Dicaprio's incredible gift for passionate outbursts of rage and turns it into a captivating moment of cinema with a clear and defined message. However, moments such as this were fleeting, often interrupted by superficial, un-funny jokes that suck you right out of scenes and disrupt the tone of the movie. Although climate change is never explicitly referenced, Don’t Look Up operates as a (very obvious) metaphor, with the threat of the comet standing in for the real-world threat of climate change. Evidently, this was a film created to provoke thought and make a difference - a commendable goal for which McKay deserves a lot of credit. However, I think in the grand scheme of things, this movie comes off as far more unaware than it does useful. There is an unmistakable air of vanity which hangs over the movie. The film's 'underlying' message - that humans are carelessly destroying the earth and we should be paying closer attention - is one so obvious and familiar that it holds little weight at all, especially when you factor in that the celebrities involved in the movie are the ones who, considering the power they hold, should be doing more. I will admit, it's hard to be mad at anything which aims to raise awareness surrounding climate change, and as Don't Look Up is already one of Netflix's most streamed movies, it has certainly done more good than it has harm when it comes to raising awareness. Some scenes, such as Dr. Mindy and Kate's first time on The Daily Rip, gave an almost true-to-life depiction of an all-to-common media exchange where real, tangible threats, are shrugged off due to media outlets wanting to keep things light and breezy. Scenes such as this resonate more with audiences because they are so scarily accurate to the type of ignorance we see in real life, and It is because of this, that I can't help feeling as though Don't Look Up missed a trick. When the film works, it really works, but, there are too many fundamental flaws which hold the movie back from greater things. One such flaw was the film's insistence on wacky, 'comedic' characters. The US president, played by Meryl Streep, was a character who, for me, symbolised everything wrong with McKay's character writing in this movie. On paper, a character aimed at making fun of superficial people in positions of extreme power should have worked, however, Meryl Streep's performance is so over the top and the character writing is so unbelievably unfunny that the authenticity of the satirisation becomes lost. This is where McKay's lack of subtlety really costs the movie. So many high-level actors are completely wasted because they are playing such extreme, caricature versions of the people who they are trying to make fun of. None of Don't Look Up's flaws can be blamed on its premium cast, watching this movie is like watching the NBA all-star game if all the players were being played in the wrong roles and positions, the talent is clear, it's the system which is at fault. Mark Rylance also falls victim to this issue. He plays a billionaire tech guru, who forms a misguided and selfish plan to save the planet. This is a character who because of his extreme power we as the audience should feel frightened of. He should be one of the villains of the movie. Yet, McKay attempts to use him as comedic relief. A bizarre choice given that the character is completely unfunny in just about every way. There is an argument to say that characters such as Peter Isherwell and President Orlean would be far more effective if they were toned down. By doing this, the satirical aspects of their characters would still be present, however, as a whole, the characters would become far more impactful. A comparison I made whilst watching Don't Look Up was to another recent blockbuster Sci-Fi film, The Martian. This is a comparison I haven't seen anyone else make, so perhaps I'm wrong, but to me, The Martian represents the exact type of movie that Don't Look Up could have been if not for its muddled tone and lack of identity. Of course, Don't Look Up is a satire and The Martian is not (don't worry I did notice), but both are comedic Science Fiction films, with the main difference between the two movies coming from their tone. Where Don't Look Up opts primarily for cheap, plot-disrupting humour, The Martian puts full focus on its compelling story and lets the humour come naturally from within. It's not that The Martian's way of doing things is inherently better, but it is certainly a better fit with the story they are trying to tell. A lot of the comedic choices in Don't Look Up can come off as corny and out of place. Not all of the jokes are bad (although a lot of them are) but it's hard to enjoy any of them due to the way they are shoe-horned into an otherwise bleak story. It's this lack of awareness surrounding the movie's all-around tone, that makes Don't Look Up McKay's most out-of-touch film to date, and raises the dreaded question... has he lost his once compelling comedic touch?

A detailed look at a few of Baz Luhrmann's directorial style, as well as his newest release, Elvis (2022) Mark Anthony "Baz" Luhrmann (born 17 September 1962) first came onto the scene in 1992 when he directed his first movie, Strictly Ballroom. Since then, he has continued to develop his extremely distinct and recognisable style, directing just 6 movies in the last 30 years, and putting an incredible amount of work into each. He is a director who really cares about his work, and because of that, I have always had an interest in seeing his movies. One of Luhrmann's great achievements is that every movie he has produced has a style and pace so atypical of what you usually see from other mainstream directors. One distinction can be seen through his use of colour. He usually chooses to contrast heavily between bright and dull colours, creating a vibrant, beautiful look to his movies. Likewise, he cuts rapidly, assembling a lightning-fast pace that doesn't allow viewers a moment to catch their breath. This does, of course, create some issues which I'll look into later in this article, however, the biggest positive of this style is that it holds the viewer's attention while progressing the plot quickly. Luhrmann tends to create films that reflect on real, emotional, moral stories that excite and enthral his audiences. His three most celebrated movies, Romeo + Juliet, The Great Gatsby, and Elvis are adaptations of either books or real-life events, which focus specifically on love, pain, and the power of loss. Another distinct feature of Luhrmann's films is his use of music. Regardless of the time period of his movie, he will primarily use modern music, usually, hip-hop, which for better and for worse, can lead to his movies adopting the look and feel of a 2-hour long music video, with their quick cuts, vibrant colours, and general extravagance. Luhrmann's latest movie, Elvis, is a great example of the pluses and negatives of his directorial. Its unique visuals, recognisable performances, and undeniable charm make it an entertaining and memorable watch, however, it ultimately fails to tell Elvis' story in a way which is sharp, focused, and meaningful. The film's maximalist nature captures the excess and overabundance of Elvis' life, but in trying to do so much all at once, and cover so many different topics all at once, there is an argument to say that the subtlety and meaning of Elvis's life are lost. Luhrmann's choice to tell the story through the eyes of Colonel Tom Parker seems on paper to be an interesting idea, however, for me, it was one of the biggest pitfalls of the movie. Tom Hanks, for one of the first times in his long career, looked totally out of his comfort zone in this role. His character had the look and feel of a Batman villain, and not the good kind. With his over-the-top prosthetics, strange line delivery, and horribly inaccurate European accent, which routinely slipped back into just sounding like Tom Hanks at various points in the movie, his performance was so misguided that I genuinely did not know what he was going for. Hanks is undeniably a great actor, but he has rarely been a pin-point character actor, tending to succeed more off of his innate likeability and charm. For this reason, casting him to play the villain of the story seems an odd decision to me, especially given that Hanks had never played a role like this before. Additionally, there are issues with the writing of the character in general. By portraying Parker as this fat, greedy, unlikeable character with seemingly no redeemable traits (he isn't the least bit threatening, charismatic, or charming), it makes no sense to the audience why Elvis would have so much respect for the man. A character can be evil whilst still earning respect, just look at Terrence Fletcher in Whiplash, and Walter White in Breaking Bad, however, Parker comes across as a man who deserves nothing other than mocking. The issues with this role don't extend to just Hank and the character he is playing, there is also a great issue with Luhraman's choice to construct the story from Parker's perspective, as it doesn't allow the movie enough time to give depth and colour to many of the important events in Elvis' life. There are many plot lines in the movie which are only brief or otherwise completely ignored. For instance, Elvis' romance with Priscilla is given just one scene, his drug addiction is hardly mentioned, his eating disorder is disregarded entirely, and the racial tension of the time period is only lightly touched on. This isn't to say that the movie should have spent more time on these topics in addition to everything else in the movie, Elvis is already mind-numbingly long, however, in my view, some elements of the movie (especially anything Tom Hanks-related) could have been replaced with more scenes which give depth to these plot lines. There's something so frustrating about Luhrmann's insistence on jumping from plot line to plot line without fully giving any the time to resonate and become meaningful. Elvis is so overstuffed with ideas that it feels as though you are watching an early version of the film which needs cutting down. In some ways, as I mentioned earlier, it could be argued that this technique captures the chaos of Elvis Presley's life, but it still doesn't excuse the fact that it leads to messy story-telling. Despite some issues, there were many elements of the movie I enjoyed. Everyone is talking about Austin Butler and for good reason. He completely embodied the confidence and charisma of Elvis Presley. The film's makeup team did a great at transforming his look as the movie went along, but all the credit has to go to Austin for quite literally becoming Elvis. There is always a danger when you play a character as iconic as Elvis. A scene such as Elvis' first performance could have come off as cringey if Butler didn't live up to the hype. However, he stole the show, with every pelvis thrust and hip wiggle racing hearts almost as much as Elvis once did. In a scene such as this one, you can see how much work Butler put into his physical acting, somehow capturing Elvis' distinctive physicality and movement on stage. Some credit has to go to Luhrmann too, whose fast-paced editing and sound design helped capture these moments in all their glory. Butler’s crotch, in precisely fitted pink pants and shot in close-up, vibrates. Harsh zooms, quick whip pans, and a taste for horniness make the early moments of this biopic so special. Hundreds of women are shown screaming, sexually possessed, and reaching toward Elvis as though he is a God. Through all this extravagance, Butler and Luhrmann managed to do the impossible task of portraying Elvis' ground-breaking magnetism and sex appeal in a way that although silly, still comes off as magical and unique. Butler produces show-stopping moment after show-stopping moment, refusing to take his foot off the gas pedal for a second. His magnetism and charm uplift Elvis to impressive heights, and gel well with Luhrmann's brash over-confidence as a director, however, I'm not certain how well this really succeeds in telling the story of 'the King' in a way which conveys meaning. It certainly excites, but, as a biopic of Presley's life, this overstuffed film full of mystique and glamour does little to inform audiences about the man who was Elvis, instead, it focuses on capturing the mythic stature he had as a performer.

The Godfather (1972) written and directed by Francis Ford Coppola, from the novel by Mario Puzo It's hard to think of much to say about a movie as highly regarded as The Godfather. Widely considered to be the most influential piece of modern art created, for many, it is eternal, sitting at the top of the mountain when it comes to Television and Cinema. Personally, The Godfather has always held a special place in my heart. Being half-Italian, from an early age people around me were constantly talking about and referencing The Godfather as the ultimate movie. At around 9 (which looking back, was an absurdly young age to watch this film), my Dad sat me down and announced that tonight we were watching The Godfather. And whilst at 9 years old, the film didn't resonate with me the same way as it does today, I can still remember being totally amazed by what I was watching. As I mentioned, the movie has only grown in prominence for me as I've gotten older, and here are the reasons why... The first 20 minutes of the movie tell us all we need to know about Vito Corleone and the rest of the Corleone family. We open the film with an extreme close-up of a man's face, as he monologues, the camera slowly pans out revealing our titular character, Vito Corleone, who is sat quietly listening with his back to the camera. The shot holds whilst continuing to pan out slowly for just under 3 minutes until we finally cut to Vito, showing the audience that he is a man of significance. Marlon Brando's performance in the remainder of the scene is flawless and sets the tone for his character perfectly. His unique mannerisms, voice, and line delivery all set him apart from other protagonists you see in the film, and make him distinct. On top of that, the writing in this scene is essentially flawless; I find myself quoting it almost daily. The cinematography, sound design, and editing of the entire wedding sequence are also expertly done. Director Francis Ford Coppola's choice to refrain from using any close-ups, and instead use wide shots, means that as a viewer, it's as though you are watching a real family. This instantly immerses you into the plot and setting of the movie. One of the biggest accomplishments of The Godfather trilogy is the character of Michael Corleone, and in particular, his development throughout the three movies. In this first movie specifically, the foundation for his change is thoroughly planted through meticulous writing and nuanced performance from Al Pacino. He is introduced to the audience as a bright, optimistic young man with all-American dreams. In his first scene, he is placed at a distance from his family and he is the only one of Vito's children with no involvement in the Corleone crime family. He even verbalises this distance to his girlfriend at the time, stating "that's my family Kay that's not me." But by the end of the movie, he is cold-blooded, ruthless, and smart as the leader of the Corleone crime family. Michael's change in character seems to be catalysed by an attempt at his father's life, which gives him an initial push into the crime side of his family. It's not until the movie's end that he fully transitions from civilian to mobster, but when Michael visits his father at the hospital, the seeds for his change are undeniably planted. When he arrives at the hospital, Michael finds that his father’s room is unguarded, leaving the Don vulnerable to a second assassination attempt. In an attempt to ward off any threat to his father, Michael coerces Enzo, the baker (who had come to visit his father with flowers), into standing outside the hospital with him appearing as a guard. As hoped, this deters the passing car of the assassins. Michaels's initial quick thinking displays his adeptness in critical situations, however, it is the next 15 seconds that truly give an indication of his upcoming future as the ruthless leader of the Corleone crime family. After the assassins have left, Enzo tries in vain to light a cigarette. He is so terrified, that his hands are violently shaking. Michael on the other hand is unfazed by what just happened, and reaches over, takes the lighter, and lights Enzo's cigarette. Where Enzo's hands are shaking, Michael's hands are stable. Somehow, in this extremely dangerous situation, he has stayed completely calm. Al Pacino's performance of course adds a ton of value to this scene, the look on his face conveys to the audience that he realises his own lack of fear. But for me, it's the editor, who through choosing to linger on both the cigarette case and then Michael's face, transforms this otherwise insignificant moment, into something of extreme meaning. It almost feels cliche to call The Godfather the greatest movie of all time, and for a long time, I held off on calling it such. However, after watching it again (for probably the 50th time) a few weeks ago, I finally accepted that this is the case. Not only is it highly entertaining for its entire 2 hour 55 minute run time, but it features incredible performances, a highly emotive, influential plot, expert writing, precise editing, stunning set design and cinematography, and tying it all together, clinical film making from director and genius Francis Ford Coppola. The Godfather indeed is the best of the best. A true modern masterpiece, which will never be forgotten.

American Psycho (2000) written by Mary Harron & Guinevere Turner, from the novel by Bret Easton Ellis More than 22 years after the film's release, American Psycho is still as popular as ever. Not only is it beloved by multiple generations of audiences, but it is also the constant subject of Instagram memes and TikTok trends. The film was a success upon release, receiving generally positive reviews from critics and earning over $27 million at the box office, however, it feels as though its satirical look at class, sex, and gender has resonated more and more with audiences as time has gone on, leading to its status as a classic movie. One of American Psycho's greatest achievements is the way in which it has been able to stay relevant in modern film discourse. I think the main reason for this is its polarising and thought-provoking approach to gender, which has some viewers regarding it as a feminist masterpiece, and some viewing it as misogynistic. Whilst it is undoubtedly a movie about men, for men, I'd argue that it is actually a harsh critique of masculinity as a whole, and this can be seen through the movie's portrayal of the main character, Patrick Bateman. Bateman is seemingly what every man wants to be; he's fit, wealthy, attractive, and admired. He also has a beautiful Fiancée, a disciplined morning routine (which I'll go into more detail on later), and superb music taste... the list just goes on. This makes him appealing to the average viewer, with women sexualising him for his style and good looks, and men admiring him for his wealth and popularity. However, what he lacks is what lies beneath. Bateman himself actually comments on this in one of the movie's first scenes, stating "I have all the characteristics of a human being: blood, flesh, skin, hair; but not a single, clear, identifiable emotion, except for greed and disgust." Through this line, the movie's director, Mary Harron, is criticizing the way in which capitalism romanticises outward appearance and disregards internal feelings. Bateman's obsession with maintaining and improving his physical appearance is also a clear critique of capitalism, a system which leads people to believe that happiness can be bought in the form of a brand new suit. He is a man who has everything but feels nothing, and that concept undoubtedly resonates with viewers. His desperate need to fit in, whilst also wanting to stand out is another interesting comment on capitalist society, and Harron uses this notion to poke fun at the unoriginality of corporate life. Unable to differentiate himself from every other 'yuppie', Bateman places gargantuan importance on the smallest of details. When mistaken for one of his colleagues, he states "It seems logical because Marcus also works at P&P and in fact, does the same exact thing I do and he also has a penchant for Valentino suits and Oliver Peoples glasses. Marcus and I even go to the same barber, although I have a slightly better haircut." However, despite his self-realised similarity to his colleague, he openly insults him referring to him as a 'dickhead'. Because of this, Bateman's destain at being mistaken for his corporate clone, Marcus, is quite hilarious. Later in the movie, his decision to kill Paul Allen is sparked by a business card that looks almost identical to his own, and he experiences “sheer panic” at the realisation that Allen’s apartment is slightly more expensive than his. These minute differences mean everything to Bateman’s perceptions of social hierarchy and result in consequences so horrific you almost forget their ridiculous origins. In an early scene, now heralded as an iconic moment in cinema, Bateman follows his meticulous morning routine and gives the audience a direct insight into his social values and beliefs. Christian Bale, who plays our protagonist, narrates in a cold American accent, obsessively detailing everything from the number of stomach crunches the character can do, to the exact kind of water-activated gel cleanser he uses in the shower. Additionally, by starting off his introductory monologue with his address instead of his name, Bateman is essentially telling the audience that he sees his material wealth as more indicative of his identity than his actual name. To Bateman, his name means nothing because whilst "There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman, some kind of abstraction... there is no real me. Only an entity, something illusory." His outward appearance is simply a shell. It's a construction that Bateman has chosen to embody, rather than a representation of his true psychopathic self. The good-guy persona, which he displays in the first quarter of the film, is a complete and utter lie, and this can be seen in a few ways. For instance, at a dinner with friends, he performatively states "We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless, oppose racial discrimination, and promote civil rights, while also promoting equal rights for women." Later in the film, he murders a homeless man and several women. This is an example of the movie's matte black humour. Unfortunately, despite being satirical, there are many men who take American Psycho seriously. The rise in morning routine videos such as this one are undoubtedly inspired by Bateman's, and this is an example of men misunderstanding the movie's intended message, and mistaking Bateman as a hero rather than a villain. This is extremely common in the incel community, where Patrick Bateman has become an icon, idolised for his wealth, good looks, and ‘success’ with women. Of course, this success includes violently assaulting sex workers, but that detail rarely comes up. I've seen many men referring to the character as a ‘sigma male’, meaning a man who is on the same level as an alpha but sits outside the social hierarchy by his own choice. This is a pretty baffling label to be assigned to anyone, let alone Bateman, who as I mentioned earlier, is by his own admission desperate to fit in. The misunderstanding of the movie's satire reminds me of the discourse around the movie Fight Club, which was also released at the end of the 21st century. Like American Psycho, David Fincher's Fight Club is a satirical critique of masculinity, which many men misunderstand, by choosing to idolise the very characters at which they are supposed to be laughing at. To me, this is indicative of the 'crisis of masculinity, a term which refers to the shift in our societal structure that has changed what it means to be masculine, and led to men feeling disillusioned and devoid of purpose. Because of this, some men, such as the ones who idolise Bateman, end up gravitating toward powerful but morally questionable role models whose violence, in their eyes, represents what it means to be 'a true man'. The relatability of Bateman's character could also be a reason why so many men seem to connect with him. They see their frustrations and desires realised in him, albeit in an exaggerated way. In creating a character who is laughably evil yet strangely understandable, Harron created a monster. A monster who many men find themselves idolising. This misunderstanding of the movie's core values, brings into question whether a film with such fraught associations can still be enjoyed on its own terms? In my view, it can, as the divisiveness of American Psycho reveals the beauty of Harron’s satire. This is a film so purposefully embroiled in a controversy that the polarised responses all feed into the unknowable enigma of Bateman, making him an endlessly fascinating character.