Story

Kate is a single mother of three girls. She struggles to make ends meet. Thus she works as a pizza delivery and also a maid for hire. On top of that, she is trying to pass nursing exam. One day she is invited to clean a big, luxurious yacht of billionaire Leonardo. He is total opposite of Kate – lazy, arrogant, spoiled, careless and total diva. While working he insults Kate, but she won’t stand it. Pissed off at injustice towards her, Kate tells Leonardo everything she thinks about him. In return Leonardo just pushes her off the boat and throws her cleaning equipment to the ocean. But karma takes its toll and later that night drunk Leonardo also falls overboard. He wakes next morning on the shore with amnesia. When Kate sees his face on the local news, she realizes it is a perfect opportunity to make him pay for everything. So she decides to bring him home and claim that he is her husband!

Leonardo (Derbez) telling Kate (Faris) that he is not paying her

Writing

Unlike the original film, the roles are reversed. In new version, the spoiled princess is Leonardo and hardworking single parent is Kate. This mostly works and gives opportunity to introduce new jokes. However, film lacks the charm of the original film. In there Goldie Hawn’s character was a extremely annoying and thus every unpleasant thing that Kurt Russell inflicts on her seems to be deserved. In the new film this doesn’t feel as much. Yes, Leonardo is pretentious and a pain to deal with, but his character doesn’t feel as spoiled as Goldie Hawn’s character.

There is also a problem with character evolution. Whereas in the original film, the transformation happened both to Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn’s characters, in this one the transformation was only on the part of Leonardo.

Directing

Director Rob Greenberg uses situational comedy elements throughout the film. There are a lot of small laughs, but nothing too crazy. This film will leave you more smiling than outright laughing. Also there are a lot of jokes reused from original film. Some work well, some leave you wonder if the writers couldn’t come up with something original. Also I thought the reveal in the end was very mellow in the new film.

Kate (Faris) showing Leonardo (Derbez) his “house”

Acting

Anna Faris as Kate and Eugenio Derbez as Leonardo are fun to watch on the screen. They seem to fit each other well and both can handle the requirements of comedy films. Rest of the cast are hit and miss. Children are completely pushed to the background and I wished they had bigger roles than that. Regardless, I think there was a possibility to make supporting cast to have more impact on the screenplay and also on the film.

Summary

Being a remake, new “Overboard” brings nothing new to the original film. It has some situational laughs and gags throughout and Faris/Derbez duo fit awesome on the screen together. It is a mediocre comedy and it plays like that.

The post Overboard appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

Simon a regular 17 year old kid. He has loving parents and adorable little sister. He is in his senior year in high school. Every morning he picks up his friends – Leah, Nick and Abby, to school. On the way they order coffees, listen to pop music, dream of big life. Everything is good for Simon. Except he has a big secret. He is gay. And he hasn’t told a single soul about that. Instead day in and day out he has to pretend he likes girls, hide his lusty looks at sexy gardener and pretend his is huge macho for his dad. And then, one day, anonymous guy who goes just by a nickname “Blue”, puts a post online on school internet forum admitting he is gay and writing about his struggles as a gay teenager. Excited Simon reaches out to him, under pseudonym “Jacques” and soon they become very close online. So close that Simon realizes he is in love with Blue.

Simon (Robinson) is wandering if that boy he is looking at is “Blue”

Writing

“Everyone deserves a love story,” says Simon and film concentrates on that. Despite me never going through personal experience like that, Simon feels very relatable character. Through Blue and his support Simon learns to accept himself for who he is. Or rather to accept others accepting who he is. For a first half of the movie Simon is under a huge stress. “For last 4 years, you have been holding your breathe,” one of closest persons to Simon says, and that is exactly what we see on screen. I like how the writers were able to show Simon’s emotions and struggle he goes through as he moves from status quo to complete his story arc. I was rooting for Simon.

There is several things I didn’t like about writing. Firstly, second part of the film deals with Simon’s outing and it is not written as good as first half. Simon does pretty weird choices through the movie, that in my opinion make no sense both logically and from character’s motivation standpoint. Without spoilers, Simon has to choose to break his moral code for his own gain and he does so. And although film tries to explain his choices as being done under pressure or “I didn’t have other choice” cliche, I felt it was not something happy, goofy, shy, romantic, likable, smart and positive character like Simon would have ever done.

Forget him, Leah (Langford), Simon (Robinson) is gay!

Second, if you strip down ALL the homosexual context, this film is just another mediocre, boring, cheesy, cliche teenage romance film. And it that perspective it is not even a good one! Just close your eyes and imagine Simon is looking for a girl, not boy, and you will understand that you have seen it before. “The Fault in Our Stars”, “10 Things I Hate About You”. “Easy A”, “Juno”, “Never Been Kissed”, “High School Musical” – this list is endless. And in that perspective you will understand that film lacks big punch, a big resolution.

Directing

Half of the film is done through narration and, to be completely honest, it was starting to drag me down. Why couldn’t director Greg Berlanti use visual exposition, I have no clue. Especially, I think, with some effort director could have reduced voiceover by 90%. I understand, film deals with Simon’s emotions and you had to resolve to narration, but why not give it another perspective? Like, “Easy A,” for example. Main character Olive also narrates that film, but she is telling the story to a webcam and we are watching the stream. And though there is more narration in that film, it never bores you down, because it IS a part of the narrative itself.

Film is also missing comedy elements characteristic for this genre. I think director missed big opportunity here to introduce some quirkiness and a lighter tone by doing so. Also I really wished the identity of Blue has been hidden. It shouldn’t matter to ANYONE, even Simon, who he is. It should just mattered that he made Simon learn, understand and accept. And be happy.

Nick (Robinson) and his crew ready for Halloween party!

Acting

Finding a proper actor to play Simon was crucial. He should have been likable, shy and believable. Nick Robinson is able to fill all of these check-boxes. He delivers a heartfelt performance, which is what drives this film. Supporting cast of students were acceptable, but otherwise not worthy of mentioning. Simon’s parents are Josh Duhamel and Jennifer Garner, and I felt that both of them did a weak job. That’s hardly their fault, they are written that way. There are here to fill the compulsory “understanding parent” niche and nothing more. They felt highly underutilized.

Summary

Film goes big length showing normalcy and acceptance of who you really are, no matter who you are. With likable main hero and his quest to get love story he deserves, “Love, Simon” is enjoyable. However, when stripped down to basics, film is a very mediocre romance film, that you probably would not even watch.

The post Love, Simon appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

In present, Stephen Hawking is at reception of the Queen of England with his family. But back in 1963, he was just a student at University of Cambridge. He is amazingly clever, but cocky and arrogant. At a local party he meets arts major Jane. He introduces himself as a complete atheist. She is devoted Christian. “What do you believe in?” she asks confused. “In finding an equation to explain everything,” replies Stephen. And so the relationship between two very different individuals starts. However, while having a sudden breakthrough in his research Stephen falls. Doctors have bad news: he has motor neuron disease. It will diminish his ability to walk, eat and eventually breathe. Two years is an average life span for this diagnosis. Stephen is devastated and in depression. But Jane arrives and promises to be with him for however long he has left. And despite the prognosis, Stephen lives for 55 years, becoming one of the most revolutionary physicists of all times. And he comes so close to finding his theory of everything.

Writing

Stephen (Redmayne) and Jane (Jones) share romantic moment

Based on the memoirs of Jane Hawking, film doesn’t concentrate specifically on Jane’s point of view. Maybe it was also because Stephen Hawking himself endorsed the film during his lifetime. Not sure. Regardless it feels more like a proper movie on the life on Stephen that merely a documentary. We get to learn how exactly he became who he is. At the same time, there is very little concentration on the science and theory. As a person who read Hawking’s books, I was a little disappointed in that regard. Film instead concentrates on the emotional view of Stephen and Jane’s life. The toll of taking care of the sharpest brain in modern history bound in the decayed and destroyed body.

One of the things I didn’t like much was the constant deliberation of characters regarding religion and science. The topic comes up pretty regularly. The evolution of characters is tied directly to religious imagery and contradiction of science. Not sure if that was in real life, but on the screen this seemed a little pushy to me. Also albeit having a little artistic freedom with historical events is acceptable for dramatic aspect, some motivations and choices of the characters seem to be a little far-fetched, unfortunately, and as such it might seem that the events were changed noticeably.

Jane (Jones) trying to communicate with Stephen after he lost ability to speak

Directing

Despite having a documentary feel, director James Marsh tries a lot to stay away from making it an actual documentary. And for the sake of the film, I think it works pretty well. He uses very careful expositions and cinematic imagery to support this. Also the film doesn’t shy away from stepping aside from the perspective of Jane and show us the life of Stephen. His problems, his character, his decisions, his arrogance, cockiness, annoyance and his eternal quest for the sacred theory. The emotional center of the film and the whole story is Jane and her struggle with Stephen and his ailment, but director gives us what everyone wants to see instead – the life of Stephen Hawking.

Acting

Stephen (Redmayne) in the most emotional moments of the film

Eddie Redmayne plays the famous physicist. For his portrayal of the character he deservedly received Academy Award for Best Actor. It is amazing the transformation he puts himself through. He replicates Hawking’s mannerisms, his speech and even his disability to unbelievable extent. There is one scene in the film towards the end, with the pen, that makes you totally forget what you are seeing and probably the whole reason for Redmayne winning Oscar. Felicity Jones also surprises in her portrayal of Jane Hawking as a strong and at the same time vulnerable person. We can clearly see the incredible journey of her life with Stephen Hawking.

Summary

“The Theory of Everything” is one the best modern biopics. While giving us an intimate view of Stephen Hawking’s life and his ultimate search for a theory he believes exists, we also get to see the emotional journey he has put on the person who love him most – his wife Jane Hawking.

The post The Theory of Everything appeared first on Kino-AZ.