Movies that I've managed to see this week.

Like many others, recently I've hadn't had that many things to do. Ever since the global pandemic hit, all my work related stuff (speaking engagements) was postponed and I've been spending my time at home trying to take things as easy as possible

Naturally, since I've had a lot of spare time, this week I've tried to watch some of the latest films that have been released. I managed to watch the WWI movie '1917', the Oscar winning film 'Parasite' and the animated film called 'Missing Link' with my friend.

So when it comes to the first film, '1917' is a WWI based movie directed by Sam Mendes. This 'one take' (in real time) movie is about a British soldier trying to relay an important message across the enemy lines to inform about a trap that the Germans have set up.

Not surprisingly, as a some sort of a history enthusiast (I do subscribe to a history magazine) I was not disappointed by the film. Both me and my friend thought that the movie was professionally made and kept our attention well.

Indeed, the movie not only looks good, but it's also well acted and directed. The scenes in the film flow effortlessly (the edits are cleverly disguised) and you can't help but to be immersed in all the things that are going on. 

In hindsight, the only tiny 'problem' that I had with the film is that there's not much of a story here. It seems that it's not possible to pack that much drama into a story that is as straightforward and simple as the film is (run, duck & cover). 

Still, when you look at the movie as a whole, these storytelling issues don't really matter that much. I'm definitely not saying that '1917' is a movie where the negative aspects in any way managed to outweigh the positive qualities.

In that sense, if you haven't managed to watch the film yet, you should definitely give it a shot and watch it at some point. You should watch it, because even though the story could have been stronger, everything else in '1917' is absolutely fantastic.

The second movie that I watched with my friend is a 'Missing Link', an animated stop motion film produced by Laika studio. This is a production company that has earlier produced films like 'Kubo and The Two Strings' and 'The Boxtrolls'. 

So when it comes to this movie, the story in the film is about a big foot and a desperate British explorer. The explorer wants to a prove that bigfoots exist, whereas the (lonely & well read) bigfoot - once found - wants to join his ancestors in Himalaya.

Not surprisingly, as a big fans of animated films, it was not a difficult decision to give the movie a chance. I was looking forward to watching it, even though the user rating for it wasn't that high (67% fresh by the audience at Rottentomatoes.com). 

So when it comes to the qualities about the movie, it has to be said that 'Missing Link' looks good. It's obvious that a lot of hard work went in to making the film look as beautiful as it does (it's hard to believe that it's actually a stop motion film).

Another really good thing about the film that has to be mentioned has to do with its acting and performances. Like in most other animated films, in this film the voice acting is top notch too (Hugh Jackman, Zach Galifianakis, David Walliams etc.)

Story-wise and character-wise it has to be said that the movie isn't particularly strong. Even though the screenplay for the film isn't bad per se, I couldn't help but to feel that the characters were a bit bland and 2-dimensional.

After all, especially when it comes to the non-big foot characters (especially villains), I couldn't help but to think that they weren't that well defined. It was somewhat difficult to relate to any of the main characters that were present in this movie.

Still, when it all is said and done, once the end credits rolled, I was entertained by the film. I was entertained by it, so in that sense, if you haven't managed to see 'Missing Link' yet, I think it's obvious that you should give the film a chance at some point.

The last film that I saw is 'Parasite', the South Korean film has been the big thing this year in the film industry. It's the picture that won the main prize at Cannes and that won the best picture Oscar at this year's Academy Awards. 

Story-wise it's a comedy/drama/thriller movie where a poor hustler family infiltrates a rich Korean family. One by one the family members come up with clever tricks to get hired to assist them in various tasks (maid, chauffeur, tutor etc.).

So when it comes to the quality of the film, I have to say that even though 'Parasite' won the awards, it's not that good of a movie. There's just too many basic storytelling, thematical and even genre problems that the film struggles with.

By that I mean is that when it comes to the film, in the first half 'Parasite' does do a good job in establishing the characters and their plight. I couldn't help but to root for them, especially when they were scheming to become part of the family.

However, once we reach the midpoint in the film, it becomes obvious that the writers just didn't know what they were doing. They run of out structural story beats and just start to make up random, incoherent stuff - typical for Asian movies.

Indeed, especially once we get to the preposterous basement stuff, the flooding, the morse-code & the massacre nonsense, the movie simply falls apart. It's really astonishing how quickly it deteriorates and becomes unwatchable.

In that sense, if only 'Parasite' would have wrapped itself fairly soonish after its first half, in that case this would have been a pretty good comedy movie. In that case I would have understood what the hype for the film was supposed to be about.

Unfortunately for us, that's not what the makers of the film did here. They didn't wrap up the film and instead switched to slasher drama for another 60 minutes, which did not work at all and at least in my case made me dislike the film and its supposed 'message'.

'Richard Jewell' is an important movie.

A couple of days ago me and my friend managed to find time together to watch Clint Eastwood's latest film 'Richard Jewell'. The movie tells the story of a security guard falsely being accused of being behind terrorist attack during the summer Olympics in 1996 in Atlanta.

Indeed, the movie tells how Jewell - after saving dozens of lives thanks to his alertness - became the target of the investigation. The FBI and the media went after him thinking that he must have been the person who planted the bomb that went off in the Olympic village.

Having now seen the film, I have to say that 'Richard Jewell', overall, more than met my expectations. The movie really managed to capture my attention and entertained me, even though there were some tiny flaws with the story that need to be mentioned too.

So first of all, when it comes to those good aspects in the movie, one of the best things about it has to do with its acting and the performances. There's no denying that Clint Eastwood has managed yet again to get some real acting talent to this film.

Indeed, when you have a cast that includes Oscar winners like Sam Rockwell (as Jewell's furious lawyer) and Kathy Bates (as Richard's suffering mother), you can't go wrong with them. They really manage to bring some gravitas and relatability to their roles.

At the same time, even though these two 'sell' us the movie, the best acting actually comes from Paul Walter Hauser as the main character Richard Jewell. He really surprises as the soon-to-be-framed hero and manages to transform himself into his role amazingly well.

Indeed, Hauser is a total revelation in the film and really shines here. It's great that he gets to do some straight drama, because before had been known for being the 'comic relief guy' (the ridiculous henchman in 'I, Tonya' and the silly guy in the 'Cobra Kai' series).

Story-wise, the really good thing about the movie is that it does a great job at showing how recklessly the FBI and the media acted during the whole ordeal. There's no question that they botched their jobs and did not care about the truth at all.

After all, as the movie keeps moving forward, the more obvious it becomes that the FBI was out to get him. Almost everything was done to railroad the guy and trick him into giving a confession, which is just brutal to watch.

At the same time, even though the story in the film in most cases works really well, that's not to say that screenplay was perfect. It's clear that there were moments where the story had some boo-boos and the script could have required some extra polishing.

After all, had the first act been a bit smoother (Jewell getting his job was choppy) and had the villains been more fleshed out (Jon Hamm & Olivia Wilde were flat), the script would have been tighter. In that case the pacing in film would have clearly been better.

Still, when you look at the movie as a whole, even though there were some tiny flaws, overall these minor issues weren't really that serious. I'm definitely not saying that the negative aspects in the film outweighed the positive aspects.

After all,  as you kept watching the film, you couldn't help but to be immersed by its 'slow burn'. It's just shocking how easily things can go wrong when the media gets sensationalistic and doesn't care about what actually happened.

In that sense, if you haven't managed to see 'Richard Jewell' yet, I think it's safe to say that you should give it a try at some point. You should give it a try (96% positive by users on Rottentomatoes.com) and not be discouraged by some of its detractors.

After all, even though some have been complaining that the film is supposedly inaccurate, that's not really the case here. You shouldn't believe those who are trying to whitewash the case (in my country too!) and deny that the whole thing ever happened.

On the contrary, when it all is said and done, the film does show what happened. It shows that the FBI & the media did try to frame and destroy Jewell and that in the end, most of them had no problems, sense of shame or regrets about what they had done to him at all.

'Star Trek: Picard' isn't good enough as a series.

So when it comes to the beloved 'Star Trek' franchise, it's not exactly a secret that the franchise hasn't been doing great lately. Pretty much all the new movies and tv shows that have been produced have turned out to be disappointing.

In reality, even though the J.J. Abrams Trek films weren't completely unwatchable, CBS:s 'Star 'Discovery' series turned out to be really terrible. It was so bad and so against 'Star Trek's' values and idealism that things certainly didn't look good here.

Nevertheless, when I heard that there would be yet another Star Trek series called 'Picard', I had my hopes up a bit. I thought that since Patrick Stewart would bring back his captain Jean Luc Picard, there was a chance that the series would actually work.

So based on the first six episodes of 'Star Trek: Picard' that have now aired, I have to say that - unfortunately - the latest instalment in the franchise hasn't been that good either. Even though 'Picard' is better than 'Star Trek: Discovery', that's not saying much. 

Indeed, one of the biggest problems with the new show is that it - like the Trek movies and 'Discovery'- is just too dark and depressing. It feels like we're watching some cheap, cynical action series instead of  real' Star Trek stuff.

By that I mean that when it comes to the 'original' Star Trek, that included the 'original' series and the 'Star Trek: The Next Generation', those shows were about giving people hope. Those shows were about what we as human beings could be at our best. 

In these new shows though, the producers and the writers are doing everything in their power to make everything as awful and hopeless as possible. There aren't really any characters (excluding perhaps Picard) who would actually represent honesty or idealism. 

Indeed, one of the most mindboggling things about 'Picard' is that there are so many two-faced characters on the series. Almost everyone is either an infiltrator, back-stabber or someone who has something awful to hide (Allison Pill's murderous character).

Story-wise, one of the issues I had with 'Picard' 'Trek-wise' is that there aren't individual episodes. This continuous story approach means that it's (unlike in The Orville) difficult to come up with episodes that would allow them to handle thematical or moral issues.

Another problem with the writing has to do with the structure of the story and the way the forced story beats drive the characters. There are so many instances where the characters wouldn't really do things the way they do if it the story wouldn't force them.

Still, perhaps the worst part about the writing on the show is the continuous flashbacks (a cheap exposition device). There are so many of them in almost every episode (15 years ago, 13 years ago, 17 years ago etc.) that they kill the pacing of the show.

In that sense, when I think about 'Star Trek: Picard' as a whole, it's pretty clear that there are a lot of problems with the show. There are so many flaws here that it's hard to say that the good aspects (like acting) are enough to redeem the show.

After all, even though it's always good to see Sir Patrick Stewart and his captain Picard in action, one would definitely have expected more than that. One would have expected that the series would have been able to bring out the good stuff more than they did here.

In that sense, in the end, knowing that there are still four episodes to be aired this season, I'm not getting my hopes up anymore. I'm not expecting that the series would magically be able to turn around and come up with some great episodes that would entertain us.

After all, especially when you consider that 'Star Trek: Picard' is also a product of J.J. Abrams's team (Kurtzman & co), the show probably won't be able to recover. It won't be able to recover and won't become as good and watchable as it probably could have been.