The King's Speech (2010)

Firth is off to a great start in the opening scene, visibly discerned by what's about to happen, and not noticing that everyone of his people can see it, thus trying to reassure him. Firth is a true old-school actor and excels at the opportunity of a role where he gets to work with the smallest details, as his face is front and centre. He does not disappoint. Whether struggling with expectations from his father or his people, or agonizingly reliving the worst parts of his childhood, this film is Firth at his very best.

But though Firth is truly excellent, Geoffrey Rush gives him plenty of help. That hard to point out quality some artists just seem to have, he possesses in abundance. His quirky self-assured portrayal of Lionel Logue a perfect match to the Duke of York's ill-tempered and frustrated figure.

The chemistry between two actors has centre stage, as it should. And they truly are remarkable in their best scenes. Particularly the epiphanies bestowed upon the Duke/King by the purposefully disrespectful and provocative Logue. 

Generally, the cast is astonishing. Some great names trying to make their mark on a film where the two aforementioned are given more or less all the juicy bits. Pearce, like his brother, talking with a particularly nasal voice during their formal speeches. More surprisingly, Bonham-Carter also comes out well in this close-up friendly film. She displays all the traits and expressions of a loving and supporting, yet worried, wife. There isn't really room enough for any of them, though. Both as a consequence of sheer screen time, but also the quality the two leads bring. As for Spall as Churchill, his role is so minor there is no real impression to make. 

As the war moves closer, as does the suspense of the film, and though it is a strange change of pace for just a couple of minutes, it doesn't feel unnatural or forced. 

Director Hooper uses his cast perfectly to demonstrate the disappointment and awkwardness that arises from the regent's lack of coherent speech in front of a microphone. And a big tip of the hat to him for making a scene where a grown man sings bad experiences from his childhood, making us all feel crestfallen for him. Firth's first speech in front of his cabinet is breath-taking as Hooper relies on total silence in a large, sombre room, with the wonderful music of Alexandre Desplat slowly building up. 

Despite the excellence of Desplat's score, Hooper's use of Beethoven's 7th during Firth's final exam is simply sublime. An awe-inspiring scene in every aspect. From a formal address to the people. Now, that is art. 

This film is a marvel to watch for slow and methodical acting after a perfect cast.

9/10

The Best Offer (2013)

One simply can, nor should, overlook the opportunity to see Geoffrey Rush and Donald Sutherland interact. 

Firstly, the scenography is stunning, putting Rush perfectly into his role. Mansion after mansion filled with priceless art, restaurants of the most immaculate kind, his wardrobe, and of course his auction house. Pristine. Whether it's the auction room itself or just the storage facilities. You'd do well to find a film with more meticulously chosen venues. 

Then there's the mystery. It starts off with little hints. One could imagine Rush's Mr. Oldman would take it a bit more in stride, but the character is a peculiar one. The mystery does evaporate as we move on, being replaced by the strange relationship between the highly successful Rush and the curious young woman behind the painting. 

Rush is his usual brilliant self. His growing infatuation slowing getting the better of him. As a method actor that excels at tiny details and expression, he gets to play a very wide array. But the mood of the film doesn't really invite a romantic notion in the viewer, and even less so how little we get to see of the object of his affection. Her erratic behaviour helps little in that regard, nor does the huge age difference. Hoeks plays her part very well, but her screen-time is a mysterious voice for half the time, and her transformation therefore feels less well-built than that of Rush. But perhaps that is by director's choice

The dialogue is naturally somewhat pretentious and of higher standard to accommodate Oldman and his hiding heiress. Higher classes will have long words. Though there is at least one hint in it all that's too obvious for the viewer, and definitely too obvious for Oldman to miss. 

Director Tornatore is at his best when allowing Rush his space, though he's also very apt at both creating an eerie atmosphere, and not half-bad at Lynchian quirkiness either. You do get the feeling he doesn't quite know where to go with his characters or the story as such. There are grand metaphors comparing love to art that are overly obvious (particularly the parts about forgeries) and many different threads. They do line up in the end, but unfortunately in the most lazy and tedious way. 

So it has some excellent acting, it does leave you wondering. But it seems my scepticism while watching was well founded. The main plotline and subsequent ending was just as obvious and lazy as I feared it would be.

And that was a disappointment

6/10

Short Cuts (1993)

Robert Altman always did have a way to build an amazing cast. And few better than here. But is the rest of the film worth it?

Director Altman wastes no time in showing us the fallacies of his characters, Tim Robbins' Gene Shepard a particularly big douche. Though he is giving up cigarettes, so I suppose he's partially excused. But not for hating his dog of course. Oh no, that's inexcusable. Generally, the men in this film are not very nice. 

As usual with Altman, all the characters are wholly or partly entwined with one another. In "Short Cuts" mostly either through an affair, or being the confidante to the person cheated on. Adultery and jealousy are the main themes, as even those not cheated on are paranoid about it. And those cheating on their spouses are insanely jealous at the spouses of the people they are cheating with. Not to mention everyone else, that they might be double-cheating with. Sounds exhausting? Well, not quite. Altman opts for slow pace and length (more than 3 hours), so there's plenty of time for all this to unfold. 

Naturally with a cast like this, and the best character-director of that time, everybody's good. But who really excels? Madeleine Stowe for one. Perhaps the female character with the most to work on in the script, though she does fade out towards the middle. Surprisingly, the most stellar of the males are Bruce Davison, trying to deal with a fragile wife and his comatose son, as well as his estranged father. The latter having lunch with him in the hospital cafeteria perhaps the best scene of the film, mostly due to Davison. And he hardly has a line in that entire scene. Another underappreciated actor was the late, great Chris Penn. Wonderful. 

Like a Bruckner symphony, you can feel Altman building for a crescendo. Every now and then he will toss you a little storm, but it always calms down again, while the build-up continues. You don't really notice it at first with his slow pace, but then it sneaks up on you, eerily. 

So there is ongoing conflict, plenty of nudity (mostly female, as was the custom at the time) and some of the finest casting of the decade. All topped with very realistically portrayed tragedy and some quirkery. At times it does go on a bit, and it is possible to get bored, particularly if you don't pay attention to all the details. But the crescendo does come, no worries. Later similarly used by Paul Thomas Anderson in Magnolia. And then. Life goes on. 

Oh, in case you wondered. The dog is fine

8/10

Marathon Man (1976)

Has there ever been a cooler and more random start to a film? Well, probably, but 2 old geezers ramming each others' cars on a busy street, screaming at one another until they run into a fire truck and burn... Pretty cool

A great thriller needs to be good at suspense, and this film certainly is that. It leaves little hints and drops a thought into the viewer at just the right time, to get you to the edge of your seat. A rather forgotten art, unfortunately. And to perfect those moods, the uncertainty, you need a few smart surprises. And some very good actors. 

Hoffman is naturally solid, as is Devane. Scheider is very good. Though the real treat here is Laurence Olivier. Such attention to minor detail, and so good at displaying just enough to make you sense something, without fully understanding it. A wonderful gift for an actor in a thriller. And you will struggle to find a more meticulously fiendish foe. 

There are plenty of scenes with violence, all kept uncomfortably realistic. And some just gruelling. Director Schlesinger taking his time in the build-up to make it all the worse. Generally, Schlesinger sets a slow and methodical pace. A perfect fit for Olivier, and for most of the film.

The who-fools-who is not much better than decent, but that's mostly due to the decades of mediocre thrillers that were made later. Schlesinger also takes a risk by leaving a lot a loose threads for a while. Almost too many as you fail to see any connection. But when they come, it's apparent he has a plan behind it all, to a very impressive extent. Yes. Even the 2 old, angry drivers. 

The suspense is at times absolutely riveting, and the script not at all bad. But the protagonist is much less interesting than the villain (though his final scene is very good for him), and quite obscurely involved in a story where everything else is connected. So it's not perfect. But it is good. And it was brilliant when it came, before thrillers were a dime a dozen, using and re-using all the tricks in the bag until they were worn out.

7/10

For the Boys (1991)

The narration starts in present time, with a pretty straight-forward story about getting two (very) ageing stars together at a reunion-concert. Then you get the obligatory cut-backs to their stories as they were, leading up to the main even. Thus meaning James Caan looks old where he's supposed to be young, whereas Bette Midler is (badly) made up to look old in the present, and can barely pull off being young in the past. 

Caan and Midler are front and centre for most of the scenes, and they do have a great spark, particularly on stage. Midler never was a great actress, but this film plays to her strengths as she gets plenty of time on a stage, in front of a big band, revelling in the awe of a full room of sailors. Caan is mostly her side-kick, as perfectly captioned by the poster for the film. Arye Gross has the mishap of playing the non-character turned essential through coincidence, as Midler's chauffer in the present. He does so with due diligence and produces enough warmth to make you care about Midler by exposing her not too well hidden soft core. Other than that, all actors are basically extras. 

The run-time here is almost two and a half hours, but as mentioned the present-story isn't worth more than 5 minutes, and the flash-backs are generally longer than necessary. Hence the length of the film is mostly shoddy editing. Though generally it's lacking in priority as director Mark Rydell prefers to tell a little about most things, refusing to make the necessary choices to give it a good flow and keep the audience entertained at all times. 

Apart from the great chemistry between the leads, this film does offer an array of emotions and it does them well. From the filled hangars of soldiers, to the fear of death in war, the pain of loss, and the tediousness of growing old with the highs (and lows) of your life behind you. 

So it's a nice film, but it could have needed a more disciplined hand on both editing and and directing. Perhaps the star producing wasn't such a great idea. But the final scene is gorgeous, and the last words magnificently sentimental, alone worth the watch.

6/10

Murder by Death (1976)

What. A. Cast! Let's start with the magic comical talent of Alec Guinness. As a blind butler, he provides mischief and laughs at most turn. Peter Sellers' character would definitely be labelled cultural appropriation today, but is funny as hell. His little quotes of wisdom mostly festive treats of comedy. And please don't forget to notice James Cromwell as a Frenchman. 

This is a silly film, and that means the silliness needs to be accompanied by good acting and some intelligence. As for the former, it's in abundance. The start is very enjoyable as the puns and wit fly across the room, and the parodies materialize themselves. The intelligence is a bit more hit and miss, though mostly hit.

As comedies tend to do, the jokes deplete about halfway through. "Murder by Death" does not quite escape this fate, but Sellers and Falk in particular are still able to provide some giggles and laughs. Director Robert Moore changes emphasis towards the murder story, and forgets to bring the jokes at the same pace. Which would be OK, had someone actually bothered to write a decent ending to that part of the story. 

There are some sloppy mistakes by the director that lead to some tedious glitches in the murder mystery. There are some good options, some silly (and not very funny), and some lazy. But the solution is really none of them. If you need 6 good endings to a murder story, make 6. Not 3. 

As a comedy, this is very much above average. There are plenty of laughs and an almost unbelievable array of comical talent. And such different actors, with different strengths. The film also has you intrigued with the murder mystery for a while, though the ending lets us down in a big way. But quite frankly, it's a comedy. It made me laugh more times than they usually do. And for that, I rate it a success.

8/10

Hugo (2011)

Martin Scorsese making a film for children, starring children. Surely not?

"Hugo" is wonderfully inventive in design, both the scenography and the details, not to mention the making of film as it portrays it. Scorsese lays heavy on with the filters to illustrate the different moods, particularly the illuminated yellow to emphasise how Hugo sees the world he feels he's not a part of but desperately wants into. 

For a children's movie, it's imperative to create a warmth without it becoming cheesy. Scorsese surprisingly excels at this, though a lot of the credit must go to the cast. Jude Law only has a few scenes, but he is pitch perfect here. Special mention to Michael Stuhlbarg as well. 

The children are truly wonderful, with Moretz a particular delight. She really was an outstanding actress from a young age. Such a range of emotion and ability to create feelings in others, are rare even for adult actors. Of course, they need to be good, as they are pretty much front and centre for the last two thirds of the film. Sacha Baron Cohen is the (forgettable) menacing threat that need to be a part of all films for the young. He steals a bit heavily from Crabtree in 'Allo 'Allo, but since that is a rather obscure character to most, I'll let that one slide. As for Ben Kingsley, he is stoically magnificent. 

Scorsese leaves a lot of the suspense to be a result of marvel and wondrousness. All helped by a just intricate enough script for the children to follow the breadcrumbs of the mystery. There's also the matter of his wonderful use of angles and sound (or more notably, lack thereof) to underline and deepen the emotions of some of the film's better scenes. None perhaps better than Kingsley crouching over his old drawings. 

As with most films for the younger crowd, parts of the plot are fixed with some nifty coincidences, and a few shortcuts. You'll probably be too busy feeling good and smitten by the marvelling of the actors, though.

The director's biggest achievement, however, is to make you marvel at the sight of very, very old technology. And that, as they say, is saying something.

8/10

What we do in the Shadows (2014)

Mockumentaries are, of course, no longer original. Gone are the days of Spinal Tap. But can one about four vampires living together bring some life to the genre?

Taika Waititi (who along with Clement also wrote and directed) is amusing as Viago, particularly his views on "dating" the women he's about to kill. He is quite one-dimensional, however. Clement as Vladislav is by far the best character, whereas the two others are just unfunny pains to have around. The characters as such are shockingly shallow (yes, even for a comedy) considering the writers had thousands of years of history to get something good out of. With large parts of the cast so uninteresting, the jokes had better be good.

There are definitely fun moments here, some of the jokes are excellent. However, the set-up really isn't. It follows the genre a bit too meticulously, meaning it comes off formulaic at times. They simply apply everyday life to vampires, and try to pass it off as smart and original. I understand that that is much of the premise for a mockumentary, but it's stale enough as a concept now for a film to need more. 

Another limitation of the mockumentary is the filming and the cut-in interviews. Both tedious and adding nothing in terms of humour nor cleverness. Having a camera crew "on site", means the angles will be bad and when the concept has been done to death over a couple of decades, it offers very little. The action-scenes are usually frenzied and accompanied by extremely annoying music, adding to the feeling of unwelcome editing-chaos. 

In single scenes, this flick is quite smart and extremely funny. But as a whole, it seems a bit of a diamond in the rough. Like a good idea worked too little on, or by the wrong people. 

5/10

Gosford Park (2001)

 

As always with Altman, you get a full ensemble, and Gosford Park is a particular treat. Maggie Smith is naturally pitch perfect as an aristocratic bitch, particularly revelling in the small misfortune of Ryan Phillipe. Helen Mirren is wonderful as the subdued head of the servants doing all things in accordance with the old traditions. Michael Gambon and Kristen Scott Thomas could of course play aristocratic hosts from the 20's blind. And just the look in Charles Dance's eyes brings glee and excitement of the arrogance to come. Richard E. Grant is also worthy of a special mention. 

Altman lets the story centre around Kelly McDonald a lot of the time, which isn't the best option. Not because she's bad, but she has a rather demure and uninteresting character, despite the directors best attempts at giving her a background story. Generally, the casting and acting is one of the more solid of the decade, and there's hardly a flaw to be found. 

Gosford Park pays particular notice to the servants, a feature missed entirely by Stephen Fry as a disappointingly bumbling detective, and that is quite clever. The director does a wonderful job at portraying the idle gossip amongst them, the small joys of eavesdropping to the music played by the higher classes, and the imagined hierarchy amongst them. With all that involves in terms of suspicions and envy, even among those who have little. Sort of a poorer mirror of their masters. 

The film takes a long time getting started, setting up little controversies all around the manor. I do love little, smart breadcrumbs, but there was perhaps room for some editing. The murder doesn't occur until well into the second half. And here lies the film's greatest weakness. Altman is a bit too busy with his actors and all the pieces of information to pay attention to the actual murder story

The scenery is British as can be and quite lovely in all respects. Though, grey and always raining of course. As for the inside, it's very lavish and with minute attention to details.

If you want an Agatha Christie, you might well be better off with, well Agatha Christie. The murder in Gosford Park isn't really what Altman wants the film to be about. So it isn't. It's about the fates of some key characters, and the dynamics of the people in a manor. As a stylistic study, and an ensemble film, it is quite delectable. 

7/10

The Good German (2006)

Ah... Voiceover. A true mark of pretentious and lazy directing. Shame on you, Soderbergh. 

Another mark of the former, is unnecessary black and white. Sometimes a genius move, most of the time not. Soderbergh does strive to make it authentic, but the fact that he uses documentary footage, makes the difference in style noticeable in a way that draws far more attention than it otherwise would have done.  

As for the casting, Maguire is perfect as the eager beaver in his workday mask, and more average as a wannabe-trickster and gangster. The voiceover also lets him down, as it distracts from his otherwise half-decent character, explaining unnecessarily for those too busy to actually watch the film. Another problem with his character is that that there is zero believability in the relationship between him and Cate Blanchett. On all levels. She is, I suppose, meant to be some sort of femme fatale here, but really doesn't cut it. Apart from the black and white and her "hard to love" theatrics she is leaps and bounds from the true great women who've pulled that off. Besides, her Russian accent is almost half as bad as Connery's was in "The Hunt for Red October". Clooney doesn't really add much to the story apart from being the protagonist it is told around. It's impossible to see much of a motivation for his actions. 

Another weakness is Soderbergh trying to introduce a political drama, but leaves it almost an hour into the film before even implying much of it. From there on, there is a clear improvement of both intrigue and suspense for a while. Unfortunately, director Soderbergh drops that ball rather quickly, and we're back in a bit of a mess. At least it never gets boring to see Clooney beaten up by half the cast.

There is a twist with a bit of cool irony to it, but the story is muddled and the characters uninteresting. There are none you really care about the faith of, and the Macguffin is as muddled as the story. And to practically steal the ending scene from the far better war-film Casablanca. Sacrilege. And not a comparison that Soderbergh should have made.

5/10

See no Evil, hear no Evil (1989)

Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor. 2 geniuses. Though this was the 80's. It could still suck. Most things were bad back then.

Firstly, the comedy. The fight-scene is the stuff of legend, and there are plenty of laughs around. Mostly in the first 45 minutes, unfortunately. Pryor is the pure-bred asshole with a big mouth, and Wilder has his trademark wiseassery. And when he gets irritable and sarcastic, he's even better. Nobody did sarcasm better. It would have been an advantage if they'd written a dialogue worth having for some of the other characters too, though. 

Pryor isn't particularly good at playing blind, but he has great chemistry with Wilder. The latter is the true star of this film, however. He brings a warmth and vulnerability to the film that is much needed to avoid that it becomes a simple spoof with one-dimensional characters. And for the completionist, there is a rather young Kevin Spacey as a buffoonish criminal. 

Like most comedies from this decade, it is a bit hectic at times. That doesn't really suit it, as most of its better scenes are the two main characters interacting when the script is good. Oh. And since it's the 80's, there is of course a car chase on pavements that wreaks havoc on much food.  

So, it does have a good concept, and some great laughs. Still, the limitations of the horrid decade are there to see, and unfortunately they keep the film from being the true classic it could have been. Though there were always titties in those years. However, the jokes drown and disappear in the frantic need to have car-chases and some rather contrived suspense. Apart from the scene with two blind men with a gun each, trying to shoot each other in a closed room of course.

7/10

In the Heat of the Night (1967)

 

Ah. There's nothing quite like Ray Charles to set the mood for a southern film about murder and bigotry. 

The story is a good one. A detective story with some twists. And even though there are plenty of detours, they never really forget that, and it keeps the flow of the film going. Also, it makes it smarter.

Steiger is massive here. Frantically chewing his gum, trying to solve a murder using a black policeman, whilst keeping his integrity amongst the countryfolks, who are less inclined to accept a black man's authority. All the while struggling to overcome his own prejudice and loneliness, as he slowly starts to respect Mr. Tibbs. Easily earning his little golden man for best performance. Poitier is stoic and repressed as the well-educated coloured man amongst racist red-necks, though it is a treat when they manage to find his line, even though his response is still very much controlled and with the proper retaliatory response. There is also a special mention for Anthony James, for one of the creepiest characters in cinematic history. 

The movie is very slow in pace, director Jewison (nominated for an Academy Award) letting his wonderful cast, and the sombre mood of the town, work wonders. Racism is an ugly thing in general, and even more so when it's an important part of culture. Enough to make people look the other way to heinous demeanours. Jewison is not afraid to show us that aspect in this film, making it both important, but also hard to watch at times. The suspense is built around very minute details, in total silence most of the time. And it works a treat. 

Quincy Jones provided the music, and it is pitch perfect. Though the most unnerving instalment in that respect is "Foul Owl", setting a truly eerie mood to an already disturbing scene. 

An important film, and a very good one too. One of the few films actually worthy of being called a classic.

9/10

The Eiger Sanction (1975)

So the gruff Eastwood has done a film where he portrays an art professor... Though naturally doubling as a professional assassin. Directed by himself. Intriguing. My scepticism feels unbearable. 

Eastwood as a professor really doesn't fit. Not even as a mountain-climbing professor. His gravelling voice and rough demeanour are bad enough, not to mention the fact that he serves his women steaks. But his trademark sneering and unnecessary brutality (in words and action) doesn't really scream "professor". This is 70's Eastwood. He might be a cop, an alcoholic or both. But he's certainly no professor. "Suave" will never be a term to coin Eastwood. 

As for the rest of the cast, it's mainly to provide service to Eastwood, though Vonetta McGee does stand out with a very believable charm. Furthermore it's always nice to see George Kennedy, and he does make a meal out of a rather shallow part. 

The scenery is lovely at times. Naturally as mountain climbing is a big part of what seems to be a plot. Well, actually, the plot itself isn't half-bad. The problem is director Eastwood doesn't really stick to it, and just sums it up with dialogue from the daftest character on show at an opportune time. It seems a bit random which parts of the story take focus at different times of the film, and an older (and better) director Eastwood would have done a better job with the story available to him.

The action is in short supply, bar some fight-scenes, and they are mostly in here to make Eastwood look tough and brutish. But setting up a mountain-climb where one of the climbers is a killer (and we don't know who), is always a great source of suspense, and it works here as well. Quite marvellously. 

So the story is decent, but well hidden. The protagonist is direly miscast if they wanted him to actually have the mannerisms of a professor (and there is no need for him to be script-wise), and the suspense is well executed. The humour is gruff and very macho (also funny for the most part), and John Williams actually wrote a lovely little score. 

6/10

Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory (1971)

 

Before there was Johnny Depp... There was Gene Wilder. And that can only be a good thing.

It is cool in a children's movie to have the sinister-looking Günter Meisner as Mr. Slugworth (was there ever a more perfect actor for a dark leather coat and a swastika on his arm?) mysteriously show up and whisper in the children's ears. As for the child actors, some are good, and some less so (Cole and Nickerson particularly awful). Peter Ostrum as Charlie is decent (in his only film ever), at his best when acting against Jack Albertson. Albertson easily the best actor on show until Wilder. 

Wilder's entrance is the stuff of legends and his overly friendly demeanour towards his guests is a big improvement over the later Jackson, uh I mean Depp. It also leaves room for giggles and laughs as his more mischievous sides appear. And he really has a callous and direct side, made so much better by his warm smile and polite words. Furthermore, Wilder's body language is amazing. Something for all to study as seemingly every little movement has a meaning. His timing of the lines the same. A talent forgotten, unfortunately. 

Though CGI was unavailable in the 70's, they've managed to create quite the Wonka-world, and it makes me smile just thinking about all the creativity that went into all the minutiae details. 

As this is a musical, some of the film's quality will be dependant on whether or not you like the actual tunes. Personally, it's a bit hit-and-miss for me. Leslie Bricusse and Anthony Newley are good at the playful tones, but the ballads are a bore. It doesn't help the music that much of the cast are quite mediocre singers, and only Albertson can make up for it in charm.

So this film lacks CGI and decent child-actors, plus it has a few songs I definitely could have gone several lifetimes without hearing (though I've had to suffer through "All I want for Christmas is you" most Christmases so I guess it could be worse). What it does have is an ingenious Gene Wilder and a tight direction by Mel Stuart. Plus all the charm a wondrous tale for children (with plenty of joy for the adults) should have.

8/10

Jojo Rabbit (2019)

 A comedy about Nazi-Germany in todays politically correct society... Starting off with The Beatles "I want to hold your hand" with German lyrics... Oh my

Films with a kid front and centre is always a risk but Roman Griffin Davis delivers in a way Daniel Radcliffe wishes he could at his age. Not in an easy part either, was will become obvious further down. Taiki Waititi (also directing) is a most amusing Hitler, clearly taking inspiration from Dick Shawn's turn in the original "The Producers". And it's marvellous to see Scarlett Johansson's comical and more subtle talents at full scale after growing tired of her as an Avenger. The most excellent turn, however, comes from Thomasine McKenzie. Easily turning from fatigue and hopelessness to sneering threats at our little villainous protagonist. Displaying close to every emotion available to a teenager in her screen-time. Of the extras, there is special praise for Stephen Merchant as a ridiculously tall Gestapo-man. 

Generally, Waititi demands a lot of his actors, changing moods and pace in a heartbeat. It could have given a feeling of inconsistency, but it's mostly done with such thought and care, that it comes out as delightful little surprises. And he even manages real suspense at times. 

The film starts very-light hearted and fast-paced, but as it finds its core of morals and relationship development, it goes more jagged. There is real beauty in the emotional bond forming between our little Hitler-Jugend and the teenage Jewish girl in the attic. Truly a joy to behold. The humour does wander off at times, and you could lay a bit of blame on the director for abandoning too much of it, in exchange for the sentimentality that naturally surrounds the basis of the story. It's also a bit more hit and miss when applied.

Jojo Rabbit is a real roller-coaster, as it explores so many moods and emotions at such a blistering pace. And though Waititi doesn't really manage to keep it funny throughout, and gets a bit lost towards the end, this still is something you rarely see this days: A kind of film you haven't really seen before, made with genuine love for the project. And even if it hadn't been a very good film, that would still have been a good reason to see it.

8/10