Kill Your Darlings (2013)

There are very few people in the world that are as interesting as the greatest writers in the world were (or are). Kill Your Darlings is a biographical drama that attempts to capture the hectic musings of gifted writers and poetics while telling a gripping tale at the same time. With characters as interesting as Allen Ginsberg. Jack Kerouac and William S Burroughs you think that would be quite easy. Unfortunately this movie has a lot of trouble finding a consistent way to tell their story and ultimately feels all over the place. Still I think this movie has a lot of really great things going for it and hidden within the tonal insanity of Kill Your Darlings is a highly poignant drama about some of America's best writers. This movie is unfortunately unfocused in a number of ways but it still has intriguing strands running throughout it that come to life due to a solid performance from Daniel Radcliffe and thematic honestly.

Kill Your Darlings tells the story about a very young Allen Ginsberg (who blossomed into one of the most awarded and controversial writers of the 1950s and 1960s) who goes to college and is exposed to many things that may change him in dramatic ways. He meets another young student named Lucien Carr who isn't afraid to speak his mind but seems to have some issues with his education and how he handles his relationships in general. The two become quick friends and decide to come up with a daring new concept for writing poetry and eventually become entangled in a sort of romantic/tragic/melodramatic circle of friends that are fond of getting in trouble but don't take the time to evaluate the realism in their situations frequently enough. The core of what this film is trying to do is wonderful but unfortunately this movie ends up feeling like two or three different movies put together. Maybe it was a bit dull at times but for a movie that is only an hour and 44 minutes long it certainly felt a lot longer than that.

This movie goes from being a gripping and stylish story about the early beatnik poets in the USA who are rebelling against convention and academics to a weepy drama and finally to a kind of murder mystery. It just doesn't work as a whole and I wish this film would have been more confident in choosing exactly how it wanted to tell the story. The first act of the movie was my favorite part and I loved seeing these fearless young men being somewhat reckless for the ultimate goal of creating art in a way that nobody has before. The middle is where I feel the film sort of fell apart. There are elements of the young Allen Ginsberg exploring his sexuality that felt a little clumsy and a lot of the side characters were very bland (which limits a lot of the thematic intrigue to one or two characters, mainly Ginsberg and Lucien Carr). You would think a person as interesting as William S Burroughs would be a more important part of this story but ultimately he is just sort of there to be the wide-eyed, drugged out friend who has a lot of money. It's unfortunate how limited the movie feels as it weighs down on how much I was willing to care for the characters.

Still, Kill Your Darlings has a lot of great things going on as well. Sure the story is unfocused but I like where it ends up and it made me reflect on some of the more dull moments in the film in a different way (the historical context of these characters is particularly interesting). Daniel Radcliffe gives a daring and strong performance as well and largely carries the movie. He starts off as quiet and timid but you see him discovering himself and his potential along the way. His representation of Allen Ginsberg is good although he doesn't necessarily fit the role physically and took a bit to get used to. I don't think any of the performances in this movie are bad (most are pretty good) but I think a few roles were miscast or wasted. Michael C Hall was the only one that didn't work for me (I watched Dexter recently and couldn't see anybody else other than that character... so maybe I'm crazy). I think Ben Foster was sort of wasted in the film as well. Luckily Radcliffe is good enough and is given so much screen time that a lot of the shortcomings are forgiven. I also really like the actor Dane DeHann in this movie even if his character is sort of one-note. Kill Your Darlings is carried largely by its lead performance and historical context but the stylish sepia-toned color palettes and sprinkling of surreal editing make it a visually pleasant film as well.

Overall I enjoyed myself watching Kill Your Darlings. I was riveted for the first act of the movie and thought it ended on a pleasantly reflective note. A good (and most certainly daring and fearless) performance from Daniel Radcliffe would have had a lot of people talking if this film had received more attention and for the most part the story is worth sticking around for. Unfortunately this movie stumbles pretty heavily in the middle and ends up getting very muddled as a result. Most supporting characters are lifeless which doesn't add a whole lot of anything and the dramatic relationships aren't developed in a fully realized way. Kill Your Darlings probably isn't going to be a movie a lot of people talk about after a while (probably won't even be considered the best portrayal of Allen Ginsberg) but it is worth a watch for people who are interested in American writers or this period of time in general. When this movie ended I did feel as if I understood how these chaotic minds worked just a little bit more, so that certainly says something.

6/10

Afflicted (2013)

Maybe I'm starting to show my true colors but I hope it isn't too much of a secret how big of a horror fan I am. Well here's another one for you... Afflicted. Following in the ever popular and constantly growing found footage genre, Afflicted luckily has a few tricks up its sleeve that you may not be expecting to separate it from the pack. It's also a remarkably difficult movie to talk about in terms of its story because most of the fun with this film is seeing how it plays out. While Afflicted is not a perfect movie and has a fair number of flaws I think it is one of the better found footage films of the last couple of years. Afflicted is a fast paced, fairy violent, creative and interesting horror movie that is held back from being great by some unfortunately poor acting weakly fleshed out plot points.

Like I already mentioned, Afflicted is a very hard film to not spoil but I will do my best and keep it basic. Ultimately this movie is about two friends (who have known each other almost their entire lives) who plan to go on a year long vacation around the world to explore and film the entire experience for a website. They are doing this partially because one of them has a potentially life threatening brain disease. Derek and Cliff are the two leads and they quickly set out on their journey to see the world and start in Paris where Derek has an encounter with a local woman and wakes up with a strange bit on his body. As the journey goes along it is clear something is wrong with Derek and he is infected with some sort of ailment that may either be the worse thing that has ever happened to him or the best. For the most part I think the film is straight forward and makes it's increasingly fantastic story as believable as possible.

One of the best things about this movie is how quickly it moves along. A lot of the time found footage horror movies will spend a good 30 minutes or more developing characters and simply dropping tiny hints at the horror they will face in the future. Afflicted doesn't really do that and starts getting intense withing 15 or 20 minutes and never lets up. There aren't needless characters added or anything either and the focus remains on Derek and Cliff. After Derek starts to get sick the movie really takes off and is successful in introducing new elements that keeps it from being boring. That is a major plus in a film like this. However the movie is so fast paced at times that it becomes a bit silly with how quickly our two lead characters jump to conclusions that they never question. Of course this a movie so I give it a pass but at the same time there were a few moments I asked aloud “really?” Not a huge complaint but one that keeps this from being even all the way across. Also the acting from the two lead actors (who also directed the film) leaves a LOT to be desired.

What helps Afflicted stand out from other found footage horror films is how innovative it is with its camera movements. Instead of being ridiculously shaky and incomprehensible to hide things this film establishes the characters as semi-competent filmmakers who are more than talented enough to properly film things in an interesting way. As a result the movie definitely feels like “found footage” but still keeps everything in focus (including scenery and night time shots). There is great use of a camera that attaches to one of the main character's chest that makes some of the scenes incredibly tense. Again I'm trying not to spoil anything but there are scenes where one character is running through the streets of Paris and jumping around buildings and we see it all from this first person perspective. I was on edge the entire time and found the overall results extremely entertaining. The violence and gore effects aren't super extreme here but what we do get is effective which adds to the visual style of the film in a positive way as well. This is a movie I can see more casual horror fans enjoying as well if they can suspend disbelief enough. Frankly I'm surprised this wasn't given a wider release.

Afflicted was a nice surprise. I had heard sort of mixed things from different people about it but I'm really happy to have given it a shot. It is a surprisingly confident and attractive found footage movie with a really fun, quickly-paced plot that is only ridiculous sometimes. Thanks to a very creative and fun use of first person cameras and consistently creepy imagery I think Afflicted is sure to satisfy most fans of horror films. It may not do anything spectacular with its plot and has some admittedly terrible acting but I hope more found footage films come out of the gate like Afflicted does. There is very little time wasted in this film. Highly recommended especially if you want to watch a good horror movie with a big group of people.

8/10

Starry Eyes (2014)

It's a growing concept in recent years for movies to be critical of Hollywood and the idea of stardom in general. Films such as Mulholland Drive, Map to the Stars, I'm Still Here and others all aim to poke holes at what it means to be a celebrity and are largely pessimistic about it. Starry Eyes follows suite in that regard and this movie makes it clear that the filmmakers believe stardom to be a hollow void that may even be evil. The reality of such an assertion will always be up for debate but this movie gets its point across and does it without flinching. Starry Eyes is a slow burn horror movie about a young woman who more than anything in the world wants to be an actress in Hollywood. Warning: this movie is probably best enjoyed if you're a seasoned horror fan or if you are ready to be really grossed out. Starry Eyes may be too slow to start and its overall point too obvious but it is still a hugely effective gross out horror film that is made with lots of flair and clear talent.

Starry Eyes is about a young woman named Sarah who lives out west and badly wants to make it big as an actress. She works a job as a waitress but works hard at auditions to try to get a big break (with no luck so far). The group of people she is friends with are mostly in the same boat as her but they are much more content with how unsuccessful they are so much that they even revel in their positions and find reasons to justify them. Sarah, however, is not happy and after an audition goes well (all things considered) she gets a potential in with a big movie studio named Astraeus. As Sarah decides to move forward with auditioning for the role she realizes how hard to travel the road to stardom may be and that this particular production company may have a darker path to reaching that goal. How far is Sarah willing to go to be a star?

The idea of a young actress struggling to get work is about as cliché as it gets so it's a good thing Starry Eyes takes its concept much further than you would expect. In fact, a lot about the lead character's situation is sort of basic but the last act in this movie is beyond shocking. Ultimately this movie blends slow burn 1970s style horror films with perhaps Cronenberg-esque body horror. A more recent movie this reminded me of is Contracted (which is about a young woman who starts to decompose after a bad sexual encounter) and fortunately Starry Eyes takes all of the best elements of something like that and has a much more interesting premise to work with. It's just a shame it takes so long for this movie to really get going. Starry Eyes is very slow in the beginning and I think a good 10 minutes could have been shaved from this to make it move along better (or perhaps the horror elements could have been introduced sooner). Still, Starry Eyes is a deeply disturbing movie that really works dramatically and viscerally. Make no mistake, this movie is not for the faint of heart. It really goes there and is incredibly brutal at times.

Starring in this film is a young actress named Alex Essoe. I don't think I've ever seen her in anything before but I'm hoping this role earns her some recognition because she is fantastic and carries the film. She makes the lead character sympathetic and the ethical dilemmas she faces seem like real trouble because the movie does a great job of putting you in her shoes. Also the movie looks really nice. It has a gray, shadowy visual aesthetic and as a result the entire film feels very creepy and a sense of dread is never ending. The gore special effects are incredible as well but I won't go too much into that since it's best to be surprised with where this movie ends up going. I was very surprised with how stylish Starry Eyes looked overall. If you're in the mood for a very dark, unflinching horror experience this might do the trick for you (even if it gets a bit silly at times).

This movie wasn't really what I was expecting. I had heard it was very violent and knew the basic outline of the plot but I was still shocked with how visceral the movie actually is. It is an anti-Hollywood image film that has a lot of bad things to say about the nature of celebrities. Agree or disagree with that message but at least the filmmakers stick to their guns and take the concept all the way. Unfortunately the movie starts off far too slow and I feel like it could have had the same impact if it moved along faster. Even if the end result of the movie is way more over-the-top than the build up would suggest I think it works. Horror fans should absolutely see Starry Eyes but if you're one who is easily grossed out or disturbed I would definitely do some more research before watching it since it is incredibly violent in parts. Starry Eyes may not be perfect but it is definitely a very solid movie.

7.5/10

RoboCop (2014)

The original RoboCop is about as classic and recognizable as action movies get.  When this remake was announced there was plenty of negative buzz, statements of indifference, a little bit of excitement and of course the feeling that it was bound to happen sooner or later.  Fortunately for me I’ve never been a massive fan of the original (more like I saw it once a while ago and liked it but don’t feel strongly about it) so the existence of this remake didn’t seem like a huge deal to me and I was slightly excited to see it.  It has finally arrived on Netflix instant so I got to check it out and for the most part I had a good time with this movie.  It certainly isn’t as visceral or hard-hitting as a lot of action films are (it’s PG-13 rating definitely lightened this one up a bit) but it still worked for me as a whole.  While RoboCop isn’t unique in any way at all it provides some decent action scenes a somewhat clever satirical framework for its by-the-numbers story.

If you’ve seen the original RoboCop you won’t be surprised too much with how the story plays out.  In the near future there is a company called OmniCorp that is pushing the use of robots in the police force and military.  Unfortunately for them there is a lot of controversy surrounding the morality and ethics of using robots to make life/death decisions so they need a big break that will help sway public opinion as well as political influence.  When police detective Alex Murphy is nearly killed in an explosion his wife gives OmniCorp permission to transform him into a part-robot-part-human machine who is, in many ways, the perfect crime fighter.  The rest of the movie shows RoboCop at work and puts into question how much of the original man is still in charge.  It was pretty predictable for the most part but I still had fun with it (it is definitely nothing new).

Probably the best aspect of the story is how they’ve adapted many of the elements to fit in with modern culture.  More modern political concepts have been integrated into the story and there is a heavy emphasis put on a fictional TV news channel commentating on the events being portrayed.  It clearly is meant to be some sort of satirical take on Fox News or CNN (or whatever) and ultimately how biased the news has the potential to be.  It actually gets a bit too heavy handed at times and came off as overly obvious but it still provided some chuckles.  There are some good discussions about the blending of technology and biology and the morality of such things which was interesting but I wouldn’t exactly call any of it philosophically challenging.  RoboCop is about as simple as it gets with its story and it does benefit a bit because of its commentary but it doesn’t necessarily make it the most intriguing movie ever.  Instead RoboCop is best enjoyed straight up as an action film instead of a movie with a lot to say.

I think the action in RoboCop is frequent enough to keep things moving and the special effects are remarkable.  There is a good balance between action and drama throughout the movie’s two hour runtime but the strengths in the movies are obvious.  This is a crystal clear presentation that is about as shiny as possible.  The effects on Alex Murphy in full RoboCop mode are stunning (when you see him without all of his gear it is actually disturbing) and his gear, motorcycle and gadgets all look amazing.  Many variations of robots are faced throughout the movie and each looks just as good as the last.   Clearly the budget on this movie was big and most of it went into making the movie look great. Unfortunately even the action isn’t as remarkable as the special effects.  There weren’t any “wow” moments in this movie outside of a few effects shots and the action itself is fairly straightforward.  Still I think RoboCop is more than serviceable in providing high octane thrills.

RoboCop wasn’t surprising for me in good and bad ways.  It was good that they got a huge selection of recognizable actors who were clearly having fun with the satirical story but unfortunately the story itself wasn’t anything that exciting (but I also wasn’t really expecting it to be).  This movie’s amazing CGI effects and fun action sequences move along the predictable plot and thanks to a few clever commentaries the story isn’t a complete waste.  The label “remake” was bound to hurt this movie from the beginning.  If this were an original production I think more people would have been taken with it.  So much of RoboCop feels recycled not just from the original but from other modern effects driven action films as well.  As a result I found it to be an enjoyable movie but an unremarkable one that is the very definition of “popcorn flick”.

6/10

John Wick (2014)

It’s refreshing to see an action film aimed at mainstream audiences that isn’t a strictly by-the-numbers affair.  Movies involving hitmen, mobsters and revenge can be oddly formulaic and ultimately boring if they don’t offer anything unique at all.  John Wick is an action movie that doesn’t stick out because of its plot or characters but rather its presentation.  I had heard a lot of really good things about this movie and was antsy to check it out after some of the action sequences were compared to the excellent Raid films from director Gareth Evans (if you’ve never heard of them just google “The Raid”).  I’m happy to report that I wasn’t let down by John Wick at all.  While the story in this movie may not be anything particularly new the way it is framed and how amazing the action is setup excels the movie to a higher level.  John Wick is everything you could want in an action picture.

The story in John Wick is relatively simple.  After the devastating loss of his wife, John Wick is delivered a pet beagle which he instantly becomes close with.  The dog represents the continuation of his marriage and her dying wishes for John to continue living his life.  Unfortunately things don’t stop getting hard for him and a tragic event snaps something in John Wick which causes him to go on a violent revenge rampage.  We learn that John is an ex-hitman with ties to a powerful Russian gang and that he is probably one of the most deadly men alive.  The whole movie has John Wick trying to right a wrong that was done to him and he is thrust back into the world of contract killing that he tried once to get away from.  The movie is simple enough to keep you interested and I think the title character in particular has a story arch that stays strong all the way to the end.  There wasn’t a moment of down time in the entire film.

One of the great strengths of the story in John Wick is the world it builds.  Instead of just having a bunch of tough looking gangsters killing each other this movie presents a seedy, mysterious underworld of killers and gangsters in an interesting way.  As John Wick moves along his ultimate goal of revenge we see many of the people he used to work with in this underworld (much of which takes place in a hotel that primarily seems to be a sort of safe haven for contract killers).  I thought it was a surprisingly clever way to make a somewhat basic revenge story more interesting to watch.  There are more than enough twists and revelations throughout the movie that keeps it moving along.  It helps that Keanu Reeves gives his best performance in years and made me fondly recall the Matrix days.  I really have very little to complain about how this movie plays out except for perhaps it being a bit predictable.

The real star of John Wick is the action.  There is a great blend of shootouts, martial arts and stunt-work that is extremely hard-hitting and surprisingly well choreographed.  The movie isn’t edited in too frantically a way so it is always easy to see who is fighting who.  Fighting sequences are dazzling as a result and always feel real.  As John Wick dodges punches, deflects aimed guns and weaves his ways around set pieces with ferocious speed the tension rises and gives a constant sense of motion and intensity.  There is one action scene in a night club that is particularly breathtaking and is actually one of the most entertaining actions scenes I’ve ever seen.  When action scenes are done as well as they are in this movie it makes it pretty easy to forgive any narrative shortcomings or shortcuts the movie takes.  John Wick is a nearly perfect action movie as a result.

My expectations were proudly met with John Wick.  The action scenes are frequent and never too repetitive as well as absolutely dazzling in their visual style.  John Wick’s story is a straight forward revenge plot that benefits greatly because of the movie’s style but also benefits from a creative setting and sense of progression.  I was never bored during this movie which is refreshing since I often find myself bored in movies like this.  By the time the credits started to roll I just wanted more.  The title character was explored enough to remain intriguing but left mysterious enough to make me want to return to the movie again and hopefully in a sequel.  Action buffs take note.  John Wick is everything that a lot of movies should be.  It isn’t necessarily dramatically triumphant but does a movie with this much style really need to be?

9/10

Whitewash (2013)

Whitewash is a movie of pure simplicity. It isn't hard to see a premise like the one presented in this film being over embellished or overly fantastic. Luckily for me there still is some subtly left in the world of movies and can sneak up on you in ways you weren't expecting. In a lot of ways this was one of the most surprising movie experiences I've had in a while (I picked it randomly based almost solely on the fact that that I enjoy the actor Thomas Haden Church). Whitewash is an incredibly simple and tense film that doesn't try to be any more profound than its story inherently is. While this film may not necessarily do anything particularly new or innovating it tells a captivating story in a minimalistic and very effective way.

I really don't want to spoil anything so I'll only discuss the bare bones basics of what Whitewash is about. On a very cold, Canadian winter night a man named Bruce is recklessly driving a snow plow down the road with bottle of liquor at his feet. All of a sudden he hits a man who was walking in the middle of road and panics when he realizes the man is dead. He hides the bodily hastily and proceeds to drive his plow as deep into the woods as possible where he gets it stuck. The rest of this film is this man Bruce trying to survive in the freezing woods without really knowing where he is or how much the outside world knows about what happens. In the end Whitewash can be enjoyed as a very simple dramatic thriller but I think this movie succeeds just as much at giving the viewer the sense of paranoia and helplessness that the lead character is feeling.

I really want to stress how simple this film really is. While there are some flashbacks (which are short) in this movie mainly near the end it is primarily just a movie showing this man's somewhat simple and limited survival skills while he slowly draws deeper into his own psyche. As times goes on in this movie we see Bruce start to really soak in what he has done and what it may mean for him. We don't get a whole lot of back story on Bruce but I think Thomas Hayden Church's performance is excellent enough to bring the character fully to life. I was deeply satisfied with pretty much everything in the movie from beginning to end and the distinctly ironic and slyly funny ending of the movie was the perfect way to end a movie I was already having a good time watching.

For the most part I had a really good time watching this movie. I hope that doesn't suggest that it's a super upbeat or fun movie in general. Nope, Whitewash is actually quite dark and intense most of the time. The survival aspects give a lot of scenes a great sense of suspense and how the movie looks and feels is a great compliment to that. Whitewash's form is just as simple as its story. The movie doesn't have much music but what music there is tends to be quiet and very droney. There also isn't a ton of dialogue which really speaks for how good Church's performance is since I never found the film to be boring. The snow-covered, windy wooden terrain really do feel extremely cold and isolated. It's a simple but effective presentation that perfectly compliments the story.

Still, Whitewash isn't a perfect movie and I have a feeling it will bore a lot of people. It's so simple that even the 90 minute run-time may feel a bit long for some people. Perhaps some of the scenes could have been shorted here and there because when a movie is this basic I think it tests the patience of audiences who expect somewhat more dramatic occurrences in a film. Also I don't think this movie was necessarily shocking at any point. I sort of saw where this was going from the beginning and I was sort of right in what I was expecting. However I don't think that takes away from how enjoyable this movie is. I was riveted for the bulk of the movie and felt the ups and downs the man character as much as I think I could by simply watching a movie. Whitewash gets it right and manages to be a very good movie as a result.

Whitewash was a great gamble to take. I wasn't expecting much out of this movie when I passed it on Netflix and I was very surprised by it. It is a very well acted and well put together dramatic movie with strong survival elements and a good sense of tension throughout. The film's style made me sufficiently “cold” and Church's subtle performance is really what carries the movie to the end as we see his character descending further into his own paranoia. Whitewash doesn't re-write the book on these type of movies but it manages to be a surprisingly formidable picture with more than enough going on for me to recommend it to friends.

8/10

Cleopatra (1963)

Every now and again I like to watch a classic movie that I've never seen before. I was browsing through my Netflix queue recently and was in the mood for a really long, epic film and Cleopatra seemed like the perfect choice. After watching the movie I decided to read just a bit about the movie's history and wasn't overly surprised to discover that the movie had a very troubled production and is somewhat infamous for being a “bad” movie that was a product of the studio. While I can see why critics were originally very rough on this movie it also isn't hard to see why this movie is still talked about to this day. Make no mistake, this film version of Cleopatra is considered a classic by many people (and despite the critical ravaging it received in 1963 it still was in for 9 Academy Awards). For me Cleopatra was a mixed bag but overall I enjoyed it. Cleopatra is one of the most lavish, extravagant movies I've ever seen but is unfortunately weighed down by poor dramatic purpose (at times) and a painful pace in the middle act.

Cleopatra tries its best to be a historical epic. Obviously it tells the story of Cleopatra but more specifically it focuses on her relationships with the leaders of Rome. In some ways Cleopatra is almost two different movies. The first half focuses on her relationship with Julius Caesar and the second half focuses on her relationship with Mark Antony. All of this is framed generally through the showing of how the nations of Rome and Egypt relate and clash and how these figureheads drive all of the occurrences. Maybe a lot was left on the cutting room floor but Cleopatra is obviously focusing more on those main characters than the overall politics. While I think this was intended to make the larger than life characters more sympathetic I don't think it really succeeds since often it's a little confusing why characters are where they are or what they are doing (or why I should feel sorry for them). Still, I think the story is serviceable but definitely not hard-hitting. Luckily the final stretch of this movie was my favorite part and it all came together is a pretty satisfying way.

Personally I thought the second half of the movie was superior and the final act of this movie is definitely the most emotionally convincing part. Perhaps it was due to Richard Burton's performance as Mark Antony (which was easily the best of the bunch in my opinion) but I think it would be unfair to ignore how surprisingly intelligent some of the writing is. The last part of this movie almost feels like a different film as it focuses on the intimate relationship between Cleopatra and Antony and makes it convincing (especially given what the character of Mark Antony goes through). Unfortunately a solid final act doesn't make up for how droll a lot of this movie is. This movie is over four hours long and it feels like it. As the middle act of the movie tries to balance politics and relationships it fails more than it succeeds and as a result it feels very, very long. In terms of its narrative I think Cleopatra is hard to give high praise. It has great moments but is very long and not always interesting. Maybe this is a somewhat controversial opinion but I think Elizabeth Taylor's performance is large reason a lot of this doesn't work. There wasn't a moment where I really bought her in the weighty roll (but at least she is easy to look at). When a movie called Cleopatra has such a weak performance from the actress in the title role you know there is a problem.

Coming in to save the somewhat weak storytelling in Cleopatra are the movie's visuals. This movie is absolutely astonishing to watch and it is most certainly one of the most gorgeous films ever put together. The film is notorious for its enormous budget (which was astronomical for its time and adjusting it for inflation still shows it as one of the most expensive films ever made). The budget really shows. Sets are unbelievably detailed and come to life. Outfits are just as detailed and the changes are never ending. Every scene has something interesting going on visually thanks to the amazing production design put into this film. If there's anything about this movie that should be praised it's how amazing it looks. That's really what this film is known for and it's not hard to see why. Cleopatra is a wonder and really must be seen to be believed. Maybe it can even be seen as a sort of cautionary tale about “polishing up a turd”. That's harsh in my opinion but there's more style than substance in this film (well... most of it).

Overall I'm really happy I finally decided to sit down and give this super long film a go. Dramatically speaking Cleopatra is all over the place. It tries to be political, romantic, dramatic, tragic and funny (not sure if that was intentional) all at the same time without ever being clever enough to make it all blend together. While the movie ends on a high note that doesn't necessarily save how many shortcomings there really are in it. The true star of Cleopatra is its visuals. Cleopatra is an amazing looking movie and has some of the greatest sets and outfits ever put on film. It's a treat to watch and really feels like a product of a bygone time. Also, make sure you have enough time if you plan on watching Cleopatra because it certainly isn't the shortest film. Film lovers and lovers of classic cinema absolutely must see this, but overall I found Cleopatra deeply flawed and far from perfect.

6.5/10