Guess what I did this morning? Went to a movie theater to watch Channing Tatum & Co. strip butt naked (almost...). Good times. More surprisingly, a good film. Steven Soderbergh has kept himself busy, having released 3 films in a years time, Magic Mike being the latest and probably the strongest.
Loosely based on Channing Tatum's own experiences as a stripper, the titular Mike introduces young Adam (Alex Pettyfer) to the world of male stripping. A world that is filled with money, sex, drugs and booze, but also success that the young man has been lacking, but craving. Adam, now known as The Kid, embraces this new lifestyle, but at the same time Mike is looking to pursue his other dreams, while mentoring Adam.
You could imagine this be an R-rated comedy, but as it turns out, this is a serious film, a drama about the ugly side of show business. There is a few laughs and the overall feeling is quite comedic, since, you know, we have a group of guys stripping their clothes off every 15 minutes or so, but it manages to keep a serious face, where you actually see these men as people, who are working for a living, not just as sex objects. These men seem to have it all; the money, the ladies, who scream for them every night, the status. But as Cody Horn's character (Adam's older sister) implies, they can't be doing that forever, because it's a career that's seen as shallow and not real. And behind the scenes, it's not such a pretty picture. Young Adam's life spins out of control and Mike is trying to find his way out of the business and get a new start. But the women who watch these men dance don't see their struggles, they only see their own fantasies, as Dallas says "the husband they never got". This proves to be the heart of the film; the men build up a perfect illusion on-stage for the audience, but the reality is somewhat different, there is no such thing as perfection (except Ken's wife's rack...).
Channing Tatum shines in this film, he keeps it afloat and proves to be charismatic enough to support the weight of the film. It's good to see that he can actually act and provide a real and relatable character, who is actually quite tragic. He's looking for a way out, to be just Mike, without the "Magic" and promises to keep Adam safe and sound, but ends up leading him to the very life he now rejects, a life that could prove to be fatal to young and sinister Adam. And because he can actually dance, his solos and his effort in group numbers are a joy to watch.
And sure, the other guys (Matt Bomer, Kevin Nash, Joe Manganiello, Adam Rodriguez) are eyecandy too, but don't really stand out. Especially Adam Rodriguez gets very little screentime and doesn't seem to put on a show like Matt Bomer and Joe Manganiello during the group performances. Alex Pettyfer isn't bad, but he isn't good. He starts off really strong, but fails to deepen his character enough for us to really care or understand him. But I was still pleasantly surprised by his performance, I was waiting for a lot worse. He was actually at his best when dancing / stripping on-stage.
But it's Matthew McConaghey who steals the show as Dallas, the club owner. He is phenomenal and confident in his role, hosting the shows like a reverend would preach to his congregation. His role isn't that big, but it's important. Tatum's Mike sees himself in Dallas, he's afraid he's gonna end up like him, a 40-year-old male stripper. Adam looks up to Dallas, having seen how succesful he's become and how the ladies love him. So even if he doesn't get a great story arc in this film, he is a very influential character. I would like to see him get an Oscar nomination for Supporting Actor. Can I get an Amen to that?
perjantai 14. syyskuuta 2012
tiistai 11. syyskuuta 2012
The Raid - Redemption
The Raid - Redemption is this year's action hit and it's as good as all the hype surrounding it. I found all this hype pretty surprising considering, this is an action film that takes place in Indonesia and everyone is Indonesian. But that might be the best part of it.
We follow "20 elite cops" who plan to capture a well-known crime lord. Only thing standing between them and the crime lord are about 20 floors filled with criminals, committed to kill every one of the cops. We mostly follow a newbie, Rama, who is stunningly good with hand-to-hand -combat and is about to be a father and also carries around a secret connecting him to the building.
As a woman, I would never thought I'd say this, but one of this film's strenghts is that it only has one woman in it, Rama's wife in the very beginning. The rest is all about action. Although Hollywood may have strong special effect teams and stunt coordinators, it also has big studios that demand romantic relationships to get the girlfriends to go to the movies also. This film doesn't bother to use its valuable screen time to host a romantic relationship, because it would have no relevance to the story.
Gareth Evans started his career making documentary about Silat, the fighting style seen in this film. That's when he met Iko Uwais, who plays Rama in The Raid. The duo is very dynamic, they have a strong sense of what works and what doesn't. They understand who is going to be watching this film and what they want to see. And let me tell you, it is mindblowing. I usually hate action films, but this one was surrounded with such hype, I couldn't miss it. And I'm glad I didn't, because The Raid- Redemption truly is the best action film I have ever seen. Sure, The Dark Knight is probably a bit better, but I can't count it as an action film, it's a superhero/action/comicbook/one-of-a-kind-Christopher-Nolan-film. So The Raid Redemption takes the cake, easily.
Unfortunately, this isn't perfect. It's very, VERY close, but I found it lagging a bit at some point and because you don't know the actors and they all have pretty difficult names and look very alike in their costumes, it's hard to recognize anyone. And although the fighting is very entertaining and nicely choreographed, at some point you really start wondering "Really? The guy has a freaking lamp stuck on the side of his neck and he just keeps going!" Sure, no action movie is realistic, but these guys could take down Batman, Superman and Spiderman all at the same time without getting out of breath.
I read somewhere that they were making a Hollywood remake and my heart sunk. How are they going to make it? How are they gonna make it work? I bet 100 euros they are gonna cast whoever is the best newcomer that year and Michelle Rodriguez as a tough elite cop who has a sexy, but secret affair with our protagonist. And the fighting? No way. The scenery? Never.
We follow "20 elite cops" who plan to capture a well-known crime lord. Only thing standing between them and the crime lord are about 20 floors filled with criminals, committed to kill every one of the cops. We mostly follow a newbie, Rama, who is stunningly good with hand-to-hand -combat and is about to be a father and also carries around a secret connecting him to the building.
As a woman, I would never thought I'd say this, but one of this film's strenghts is that it only has one woman in it, Rama's wife in the very beginning. The rest is all about action. Although Hollywood may have strong special effect teams and stunt coordinators, it also has big studios that demand romantic relationships to get the girlfriends to go to the movies also. This film doesn't bother to use its valuable screen time to host a romantic relationship, because it would have no relevance to the story.
Gareth Evans started his career making documentary about Silat, the fighting style seen in this film. That's when he met Iko Uwais, who plays Rama in The Raid. The duo is very dynamic, they have a strong sense of what works and what doesn't. They understand who is going to be watching this film and what they want to see. And let me tell you, it is mindblowing. I usually hate action films, but this one was surrounded with such hype, I couldn't miss it. And I'm glad I didn't, because The Raid- Redemption truly is the best action film I have ever seen. Sure, The Dark Knight is probably a bit better, but I can't count it as an action film, it's a superhero/action/comicbook/one-of-a-kind-Christopher-Nolan-film. So The Raid Redemption takes the cake, easily.
Unfortunately, this isn't perfect. It's very, VERY close, but I found it lagging a bit at some point and because you don't know the actors and they all have pretty difficult names and look very alike in their costumes, it's hard to recognize anyone. And although the fighting is very entertaining and nicely choreographed, at some point you really start wondering "Really? The guy has a freaking lamp stuck on the side of his neck and he just keeps going!" Sure, no action movie is realistic, but these guys could take down Batman, Superman and Spiderman all at the same time without getting out of breath.
I read somewhere that they were making a Hollywood remake and my heart sunk. How are they going to make it? How are they gonna make it work? I bet 100 euros they are gonna cast whoever is the best newcomer that year and Michelle Rodriguez as a tough elite cop who has a sexy, but secret affair with our protagonist. And the fighting? No way. The scenery? Never.
Lawless
I have no idea how to start this post. Because I'm not sure what I think of Lawless. Based on Matt Bondurant's book "The Wettest County in the World" about his own bootlegging ancestors in the 30's, Lawless has been in the making for a long time. You can't actually say that a film about bootleggers is going to be a box office hit. Unless your cast is made of the hottest rising stars.
In the center of the story, we have the Bondurant brothers, Howard, Forrest and Jack who are known bootleggers in the county of Franklin, providing much of their town's alcohol in a time when alcohol was banned, but everyone was craving for it. Forrest is somewhat of a local legend, having survived the Spanish flu, which left him thinking that the brothers are invincible, immortal. Well, that is tested when Chicago hotshot deputy Charlie Rakes (a very distrubing Guy Pearce) walks into town demanding to put an end to the boys' business. Let the corruption and violence begin!
Shia LaBeouf, America's very own robot-friendly actor, is working towards a career where he is to be taken seriously and he's not actually bad. He's not perfect, but there is a credible actor in there. He portrays Jack Bondurant, the youngest brother, as a boy who is eager to be a man and be worthy of his brothers, mostly Forrest, who is played brilliantly by Tom Hardy. LaBeouf's face, especially his huge deer-like eyes are sometimes filled with emotion, but he lets the audience in too easily. We are left craving for some mystique, something to wonder. You can read him like an open book, which suits his role, but also makes you feel kind of cheated. But his transformation from a foolish boy to a revenge-seeking man is interesting, but I'll get back to that later.
Hardy is quickly becoming the next Heath Ledger, he has a very distinct style as an actor, he makes the role his own and isn't afraid to make it a little funny or a little quirky. Forrest is a mama bear, or actually a mama lion, who protects his family to the very end and you actually start to believe nothing can bring him down. His performance will not leave everyone happy, because he mostly just grunts and looks like he's on drugs, but it's a very nuanced, very well-thought-out performance.
The supporting cast is brilliant as well. Gary Oldman's role was a huge let-down for me, because Oldman is one the greatest actors of his time and he killed this role, he proved he still has it. So why left his story so open? Why introduce him and then just forget him? He obviously had a huge effect on Jack when he winked at him when he first saw him, so that relationship could have been explored more.
My personal favourite was Dane DeHaan, who played Cricket, a crippled boy who is best friends with Jack. He gave us the impression of innocence in a time when no one was innocent.
There isn't a lot of women in this motion picture. Two, to be exact. Mia Wasikowska as Jack's love interest and Jessica Chastain as Forrest's love interest. Both were fine and actually better than fine, but their performances were lost in the middle of all the men in the film and their characters were underwritten.
Lawless doesn't shy away from the violence. We have throats cut wide open, genitals mutilated, people beaten to a pulp... But the violence has a meaning. The camera never lingers on the bloodied faces or the injuries, it's only to show that the times, as well as the business, were hard and no one got off easy and if you wanted to survive, you had to strike back. Violence equals survival.
Most of the violence are conducted by the Bondurants or our main antagonist, Guy Pearce's deputy Charlie Rakes, who is one of the creepiest villains I have seen in the last couple of years. He is ruthless and disturbing, much of it coming from his constant need to keep a civilized and clean appearance, but when no one is watching, he is dirty and disgusting.
But unfortunately, Lawless isn't as epic as it wants to be, or as the trailer suggests, which is a let-down, because it had all the ingredients, but the outcome is not as powerful as it could be. It biggest problem is that it has the feeling that the editing process left some great scenes (involving Oldman...) out and replaced them with scenes with more Tom Hardy, who is great, but this really isn't his story. He is charismatic, but at the end you feel that he was given too much room for a supporting character, but too little for a lead. Is this Jack's coming-of-age -story? Or the Bondurants' fight, more so Forrest's, against the corrupted law?
It ultimately is about Jack's journey from an eager young boy wanting to be seen as man, to a flawed individual who has learned that his actions have severe consequences. At the beginning Jack is so eager to be a man. He believes he will be worthy of his brothers if he manages to make some money by selling their liquour to a dangerous gangster, almost getting himself and Cricket killed, but ultimately achieving the respect of Floyd Banner. He buys a camera and a car and new suits, things his brothers would never buy, alienating himself from them. Everything seems to be going great for him, but one stupid move and it all comes crashing down when he not only reveals their hideout for the booze and money, but also getting his best friend killed, indirectly of course, but still, he seems to blame himself even if it was Rakes who actually ended Cricket's life.
So in the end, has he become worthy of his brothers? By seeking revenge, foolishly running into a situation he is not prepared to handle, blinded by rage? After getting kicked around by Rakes, Forrest tells Jack "It's not the violence that sets a man apart, but the distance he's prepared to go" and demands to know what he's about to do next to get himself back in the game. In the end, Jack doesn't expect anyone else to do the job for him, he goes for the kill himself, not sitting around for Forrest or Howard to take care of it. Has he become a man? Maybe, but it was still a stupid move to go against a dozen cops by himself.
All in all, I believe this is a film that will be better with time. In five years, this could be seen as a modern-day classic, because it has some great performances and great scenes, but it will never have the status it actually wants to achieve.
In the center of the story, we have the Bondurant brothers, Howard, Forrest and Jack who are known bootleggers in the county of Franklin, providing much of their town's alcohol in a time when alcohol was banned, but everyone was craving for it. Forrest is somewhat of a local legend, having survived the Spanish flu, which left him thinking that the brothers are invincible, immortal. Well, that is tested when Chicago hotshot deputy Charlie Rakes (a very distrubing Guy Pearce) walks into town demanding to put an end to the boys' business. Let the corruption and violence begin!
Shia LaBeouf, America's very own robot-friendly actor, is working towards a career where he is to be taken seriously and he's not actually bad. He's not perfect, but there is a credible actor in there. He portrays Jack Bondurant, the youngest brother, as a boy who is eager to be a man and be worthy of his brothers, mostly Forrest, who is played brilliantly by Tom Hardy. LaBeouf's face, especially his huge deer-like eyes are sometimes filled with emotion, but he lets the audience in too easily. We are left craving for some mystique, something to wonder. You can read him like an open book, which suits his role, but also makes you feel kind of cheated. But his transformation from a foolish boy to a revenge-seeking man is interesting, but I'll get back to that later.
Hardy is quickly becoming the next Heath Ledger, he has a very distinct style as an actor, he makes the role his own and isn't afraid to make it a little funny or a little quirky. Forrest is a mama bear, or actually a mama lion, who protects his family to the very end and you actually start to believe nothing can bring him down. His performance will not leave everyone happy, because he mostly just grunts and looks like he's on drugs, but it's a very nuanced, very well-thought-out performance.
The supporting cast is brilliant as well. Gary Oldman's role was a huge let-down for me, because Oldman is one the greatest actors of his time and he killed this role, he proved he still has it. So why left his story so open? Why introduce him and then just forget him? He obviously had a huge effect on Jack when he winked at him when he first saw him, so that relationship could have been explored more.
My personal favourite was Dane DeHaan, who played Cricket, a crippled boy who is best friends with Jack. He gave us the impression of innocence in a time when no one was innocent.
There isn't a lot of women in this motion picture. Two, to be exact. Mia Wasikowska as Jack's love interest and Jessica Chastain as Forrest's love interest. Both were fine and actually better than fine, but their performances were lost in the middle of all the men in the film and their characters were underwritten.
Lawless doesn't shy away from the violence. We have throats cut wide open, genitals mutilated, people beaten to a pulp... But the violence has a meaning. The camera never lingers on the bloodied faces or the injuries, it's only to show that the times, as well as the business, were hard and no one got off easy and if you wanted to survive, you had to strike back. Violence equals survival.
Most of the violence are conducted by the Bondurants or our main antagonist, Guy Pearce's deputy Charlie Rakes, who is one of the creepiest villains I have seen in the last couple of years. He is ruthless and disturbing, much of it coming from his constant need to keep a civilized and clean appearance, but when no one is watching, he is dirty and disgusting.
But unfortunately, Lawless isn't as epic as it wants to be, or as the trailer suggests, which is a let-down, because it had all the ingredients, but the outcome is not as powerful as it could be. It biggest problem is that it has the feeling that the editing process left some great scenes (involving Oldman...) out and replaced them with scenes with more Tom Hardy, who is great, but this really isn't his story. He is charismatic, but at the end you feel that he was given too much room for a supporting character, but too little for a lead. Is this Jack's coming-of-age -story? Or the Bondurants' fight, more so Forrest's, against the corrupted law?
It ultimately is about Jack's journey from an eager young boy wanting to be seen as man, to a flawed individual who has learned that his actions have severe consequences. At the beginning Jack is so eager to be a man. He believes he will be worthy of his brothers if he manages to make some money by selling their liquour to a dangerous gangster, almost getting himself and Cricket killed, but ultimately achieving the respect of Floyd Banner. He buys a camera and a car and new suits, things his brothers would never buy, alienating himself from them. Everything seems to be going great for him, but one stupid move and it all comes crashing down when he not only reveals their hideout for the booze and money, but also getting his best friend killed, indirectly of course, but still, he seems to blame himself even if it was Rakes who actually ended Cricket's life.
So in the end, has he become worthy of his brothers? By seeking revenge, foolishly running into a situation he is not prepared to handle, blinded by rage? After getting kicked around by Rakes, Forrest tells Jack "It's not the violence that sets a man apart, but the distance he's prepared to go" and demands to know what he's about to do next to get himself back in the game. In the end, Jack doesn't expect anyone else to do the job for him, he goes for the kill himself, not sitting around for Forrest or Howard to take care of it. Has he become a man? Maybe, but it was still a stupid move to go against a dozen cops by himself.
All in all, I believe this is a film that will be better with time. In five years, this could be seen as a modern-day classic, because it has some great performances and great scenes, but it will never have the status it actually wants to achieve.
torstai 16. elokuuta 2012
Like Crazy
I saw this film at the BFI Film Festival in London last October and I couldn't get this film out of my mind. I finally had the chance to get the DVD and I watched it again and I fell in love with it again.
The story is quite simple: girl meets boy. They fall in love. Girl violates her student visa and can't go back to the USA where her loved one lives. So they have a problem the size of the Atlantic ocean.
How can they make their relationship work when Anna is in the UK and Jacob in the USA? Is their love strong enough? And even more importantly, is it worth it all?
Felicity Jones is superb as Anna who makes a mistake and has to pay for it the hardest way possible. Anton Yelchin shows that he is capable of showing emotion and can hold his own in a film. Together they make a very real couple on screen and it's easy to relate to the pain they are feeling when Anna is deported back the UK. They improvised most of their dialogue and that makes their relationship seem real, you have the awkward first date and the casual conversations, notthing fancy really. Just moments together, little things.
After the screening in London, there was a Q&A with the director Drake Doremus and Felicity Jones. The director asked us how many of us thought Anna and Jacob would stay together after everything that happened and how the film ended. I recall that about 50 % thought they would stay together and 50% thought they would break up. I was in the group who didn't think they could make it, because the shower scene in the end was very revealing, emotionally. I believe that at some point Anna and Jacob didn't fight to be together, they fought for the idea of them being together, because it was denied from them and they had fought for it for so long, they couldn't give up now. Just, at some point, they didn't need to be together, they didn't need each other, like they used to. They had grown apart, but now that they were allowed to be together, how could they give it up, after all this time and all this effort and longing? That was the thing that impressed me the most, the feelings that were there, the emotion. There was so much under the surface and it gave this film depth and heart.
Drake Doremus made all the right choices with this film. Cast two relatively unknown actors so the audience can relate to the characters. Cast one rising star (Jennifer Lawrence, superb as well) to create competition between the two women in Jacob's life. Shoot the film with a regular camera to make it seem more like a really well made homevideo instead of a big movie. Use the best indie songs for your soundtrack. Have the cast improvise their dialogue to have those awkward, but yet so sweet moments. Mix well and serve right away and ta-dah! You have yourself a festival hit!
The film is a bit naïve and starts lagging a bit in the middle and you start to feel that you need something happening, now! But it picks up very quickly and manages to stay interesting enough to the end. Anna's character is also a bit stupid. Or maybe not stupid. But you can't help but to wonder, why on Earth would she violate her visa when she knew better? But maybe it can be blamed on her youth. She was young and in love, is it reason enough to make bad decisions that affect other people too?
I hate rom-coms and romantic dramas because I feel that they are often stupid and I can't find anything relatable in them. But I didn't want this film to end and I want to watch it again after seeing it twice now. Yes, it is a bit naïve and makes everything seem a bit sugarcoated, but the cast make also seem real and relatable. We all have had those little moments when falling in love and then we've had those horrible arguments. And it really helps that Anna isn't played by Katherine Heigl.
The story is quite simple: girl meets boy. They fall in love. Girl violates her student visa and can't go back to the USA where her loved one lives. So they have a problem the size of the Atlantic ocean.
How can they make their relationship work when Anna is in the UK and Jacob in the USA? Is their love strong enough? And even more importantly, is it worth it all?
Felicity Jones is superb as Anna who makes a mistake and has to pay for it the hardest way possible. Anton Yelchin shows that he is capable of showing emotion and can hold his own in a film. Together they make a very real couple on screen and it's easy to relate to the pain they are feeling when Anna is deported back the UK. They improvised most of their dialogue and that makes their relationship seem real, you have the awkward first date and the casual conversations, notthing fancy really. Just moments together, little things.
After the screening in London, there was a Q&A with the director Drake Doremus and Felicity Jones. The director asked us how many of us thought Anna and Jacob would stay together after everything that happened and how the film ended. I recall that about 50 % thought they would stay together and 50% thought they would break up. I was in the group who didn't think they could make it, because the shower scene in the end was very revealing, emotionally. I believe that at some point Anna and Jacob didn't fight to be together, they fought for the idea of them being together, because it was denied from them and they had fought for it for so long, they couldn't give up now. Just, at some point, they didn't need to be together, they didn't need each other, like they used to. They had grown apart, but now that they were allowed to be together, how could they give it up, after all this time and all this effort and longing? That was the thing that impressed me the most, the feelings that were there, the emotion. There was so much under the surface and it gave this film depth and heart.
Drake Doremus made all the right choices with this film. Cast two relatively unknown actors so the audience can relate to the characters. Cast one rising star (Jennifer Lawrence, superb as well) to create competition between the two women in Jacob's life. Shoot the film with a regular camera to make it seem more like a really well made homevideo instead of a big movie. Use the best indie songs for your soundtrack. Have the cast improvise their dialogue to have those awkward, but yet so sweet moments. Mix well and serve right away and ta-dah! You have yourself a festival hit!
The film is a bit naïve and starts lagging a bit in the middle and you start to feel that you need something happening, now! But it picks up very quickly and manages to stay interesting enough to the end. Anna's character is also a bit stupid. Or maybe not stupid. But you can't help but to wonder, why on Earth would she violate her visa when she knew better? But maybe it can be blamed on her youth. She was young and in love, is it reason enough to make bad decisions that affect other people too?
I hate rom-coms and romantic dramas because I feel that they are often stupid and I can't find anything relatable in them. But I didn't want this film to end and I want to watch it again after seeing it twice now. Yes, it is a bit naïve and makes everything seem a bit sugarcoated, but the cast make also seem real and relatable. We all have had those little moments when falling in love and then we've had those horrible arguments. And it really helps that Anna isn't played by Katherine Heigl.
The Art Of Getting By
When on Earth did the little boy from Finding Neverland and Charlie and The Chocolate Factory grow up? When did he get so... tall? I'm talking about Freddie Highmore of course, who plays George Zinavoy in this film. George is a master of just going through life without doing anything. He's just waiting for his life to be over, because what's the point? He's not depressed, he's just not interested.
Until he meets a girl, Sally (Emma Roberts, who's quickly becoming the new Ellen Page). Sally introduces George to a life he didn't knew existed, where things are fun and light and where he isn't as irrelevant as he seems to think he is. And to top it all off, he finds a mentor, Dustin (Michael Angarano) who helps him with his art and with his feelings for Sally.
This isn't a perfect movie. There are a lot of flaws, but there is something at the core that makes this film really special. It feels kind of of real, without being too raw and depressing. It makes you remember how it felt to feel irrelevant to the world and how the things that should have mattered to you, didn't. As a teen, you are utterly lost in this world and we really get a good sense of it, without the film becoming too sad or wallowing in the drama of it all.
But as I said, it isn't a perfect film. I was excited when I learned Michael Angarano was in this film but I was very disappointed in his character. Dustin could have been a very rich, very influential character, but ended up being rather dull and meaningless. If they made him more important to George, more of a mentor who gave him guidance and advice, his relationship with Sally would have felt more like a betrayal than it did now. If Dustin had a bigger role in George's life and in this film, the betrayal would have felt worse, because George would have been betrayed by the girl he loves without actually knowing it and the guy he hopes to become one day.
Emma Roberts is quickly becoming the new teen-indie-queen. And I'm actually growing more and more in love with her. She can portray such raw and real emotion without being melodramatic which is rare these days. She is stunningly beautiful but in a very familiar way, we don't see a Hollywood superstar, we see the girl next door. Freddie Highmore is surprisingly good, but sometimes I wished for him to show more emotion or at least a few more facial expressions. But all in all, the cast is good.
I do have to say one more thing. I loved the ending. It was sweet and lovable, without being sadly clichéd. It was a happy ending, not a sappy ending. That said, this is a little gem of a film. It's not perfect, it's not directed by James Cameron or Christopher Nolan, but it's sweet and it's the perfect thing to remind you how it felt to be young and lost and finding your way out of it.
Until he meets a girl, Sally (Emma Roberts, who's quickly becoming the new Ellen Page). Sally introduces George to a life he didn't knew existed, where things are fun and light and where he isn't as irrelevant as he seems to think he is. And to top it all off, he finds a mentor, Dustin (Michael Angarano) who helps him with his art and with his feelings for Sally.
This isn't a perfect movie. There are a lot of flaws, but there is something at the core that makes this film really special. It feels kind of of real, without being too raw and depressing. It makes you remember how it felt to feel irrelevant to the world and how the things that should have mattered to you, didn't. As a teen, you are utterly lost in this world and we really get a good sense of it, without the film becoming too sad or wallowing in the drama of it all.
But as I said, it isn't a perfect film. I was excited when I learned Michael Angarano was in this film but I was very disappointed in his character. Dustin could have been a very rich, very influential character, but ended up being rather dull and meaningless. If they made him more important to George, more of a mentor who gave him guidance and advice, his relationship with Sally would have felt more like a betrayal than it did now. If Dustin had a bigger role in George's life and in this film, the betrayal would have felt worse, because George would have been betrayed by the girl he loves without actually knowing it and the guy he hopes to become one day.
Emma Roberts is quickly becoming the new teen-indie-queen. And I'm actually growing more and more in love with her. She can portray such raw and real emotion without being melodramatic which is rare these days. She is stunningly beautiful but in a very familiar way, we don't see a Hollywood superstar, we see the girl next door. Freddie Highmore is surprisingly good, but sometimes I wished for him to show more emotion or at least a few more facial expressions. But all in all, the cast is good.
I do have to say one more thing. I loved the ending. It was sweet and lovable, without being sadly clichéd. It was a happy ending, not a sappy ending. That said, this is a little gem of a film. It's not perfect, it's not directed by James Cameron or Christopher Nolan, but it's sweet and it's the perfect thing to remind you how it felt to be young and lost and finding your way out of it.
lauantai 28. heinäkuuta 2012
Christopher Nolan's Batman -trilogy
20th July, the day many of us had been waiting for since we saw the magical film The Dark Knight. On 20th of July, the last installment in Christopher Nolan's Batman -trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises arrived on our screens. And boy, was it a good day.
I had the pleasure to watch all three films back to back in an IMAX-theatre and I have to say that this just might be the best trilogy ever made (I'm not a Lord of the Rings -fan, sorry...)
Note: This post will contain SPOILERS FOR ALL THREE BATMAN FILMS, so beware!
Batman Begins
Batman Begins starts the trilogy strong, but is still the weakest link in this saga. We meet Bruce Wayne (superb Christian Bale) who tragically lost his parents as a child and blames himself for it. This has left him with anger he cannot control and that will always shadow his life. I won't go over the basic storylines, because A) you probably know it and if you don't you can find out and B) Christopher Nolan's storylines are never easy or quick to explain and that would result in the longest post ever made.
Batman Begins starts off really strong, but falls victim to its inability to choose whether it wants to be a character drama or a superhero movie. It does well in both, but it just feels a little insecure at times, like it's still trying to figure out the right way to do a Batman film. It spends so much time figuring out who is Bruce Wayne and why he needs to become Batman, that our villain Scarecrow, doesn't frighten us, because we don't get to see him or start to understand him. And when they pull out Ra's Al Ghul as the mastermind behind everything, it just feels unnecessary and forced.
But still, Batman Begins is no less than a fine, fine film. Nolan has an eye for the visuals and Christian Bale really breathes life into Bruce Wayne. He has a way of letting the audience see the range of emotion that Bruce Wayne is trying so hard to hide, with very small gestures. I, for one, am very used to Batman being Batman and Bruce Wayne being the alter-ego that is just for show. Here, Nolan and Bale really paint a picture of a man, who has a primal need to defend his city and become something better than he really feels he can be as a person. It is beautiful.
The cast is magnificent. As said, Christian Bale is phenomenal, transforming Batman from a regular superhero to an actual person. Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman provide warmth and heart to the film, all of them actually. Cillian Murphy is frightening, but could have used a further developed character. Katie Holmes is the only one who doesn't really fit in. She is fine, but when compared to everyone else, she falls a bit flat.
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight will go down in history for many reasons. A) Heath Ledger's Joker, B) Nolan using IMAX, C) Heath Ledger died and D) this is probably one of the best action, comic-book and superhero films in a LOOOOOOONG time.
Starting with an IMAX-sequence, this film will have your heart pumping blood twice as fast, because it sucks you in and doesn't let you go until the last minute and you notice you haven't taken a good, deep breath since you sat down.
As we have already established Batman and Bruce Wayne as characters, we can just get on with the action and story in this film. And we start off pretty good with the bank robbery and meet Bruce Wayne, who has turned himself into a playboy by day and a masked man by night. In this film, it's all about the Batman. He gets to do some great car chases and fights, but Nolan also takes time to show that because his alter-ego, he cannot have a normal life or love, aka Rachel, in his life, he can't afford that kind of luxury. Enter Harvey Dent, the new fancy DA, who is "Gotham's white knight" to Batman's "dark knight". Harvey Dent seems to have everything Bruce ever wanted. He has Rachel and he's saving Gotham in broad daylight by locking bad guys up and giving the people of Gotham hope without having to hide behind a mask.
The first scene introduces us to the villain of this film, The Joker, who we have seen before, played by Jack Nicholson many years ago. Heath Ledger's Joker is very different from Jack Nicholson's. Some will always say that Nicholson's Joker is the right Joker, but no one can deny that Ledger's version is quite impressive. From the messy make-up and hair to the honestly disturbing mannerisms, Ledger created a very unique villain and his performance was rewarded with an Oscar. The Joker knows no good or evil, just chaos and individuals he can toy with. This could be seen as the perfect villain, because he has nothing to lose nor an agenda, he just creates chaos because it's what he wants. And that is frightening, you never know what is going to happen and because you don't understand the reasons, you are left trembling and peeing your pants.
Maggie Gyllenhaal is able to bring some edginess to her Rachel Dawes, something that Katie Holmes lacked. So finally we see a character, who is worthy of our Dark Knight's love and passion. She would have sacrificed herself for him, for sure, but she could also stand up to him and be her own person, seeing the person behind the Batman's mask but also that person's need to wear it. Magical. Too bad that she is killed just when we got a feeling that she could evolve as a character.
Like all Nolan's films, The Dark Knight is intelligent, but also it can get a bit confusing. So much is happening and sometimes you feel like altough you know exactly what's going on, you're missing something, the bigger picture. These films can't be watched like you would watch Transformers. You will get lost very easily and all the new locations and devices will have your head spinning if you don't pay attention.
The Dark Knight Rises
Finally, we have the last film of the trilogy. After The Dark Knight's critical and box office succes, it was a huge challenge for Nolan to top it, but in my honest, humble opinion, he managed to make a film that could stand up to the previous film. TDKR might not necessarily be better than The Dark Knight, but it sure as hell is an excellent film.
It's been 8 years since Gotham has seen Batman and Bruce Wayne is nowhere to be seen or heard. When we meet him, he is a shadow of his former self. Walking with a cane, facial hair.... Not a pretty sight. He is in pain and believes that Batman is no longer needed. But the arrival of Bane, a masked terrorist, has him suiting him up again, not before he has an encounter with Selina Kyle, a catburglar who steals his fingerprints and his mother's necklace.
This is a very unique superhero film, as was The Dark Knight. We don't get to see Batman until about 35 minutes into the film and even after that, we see very little of Batman. We see more of Bruce Wayne and how he needs to find the strenght in him to defeat Bane. There is a scene where Bane literally breaks Batman with his bare hands, no fancy electronics. As Alfred says "I see the power of belief" and that is what Batman is lacking after losing Rachel Dawes in The Dark Knight. So Bruce Wayne needs to find his strenght as a person, not as Batman, and his belief if he is to defeat Bane. And it's a beautiful and raw thing to watch. In a way, Bruce Wayne needs to learn to be Bruce Wayne and strong as him, before he can be Batman again, because Batman would not exist without Bruce Wayne. They are the one and the same in the end.
Bane on the other hand... What can be said? Tom Hardy had a very difficult job description, being a Batman villain after the Oscar-winning, now deceased Heath Ledger. Luckily, he had an interesting character. Bane challenges Batman, because he is stronger, he is intelligent and he believes in his mission. And he looks scary as hell.
When I was sitting in the theater, watching Bane, I was thinking to myself "Do I like him? Is he a good villain? Am I scared or do I feel threatened by him?" Tom Hardy's Bane is nowhere near a traditional villain. He has a weird accent, you have difficulties understanding him, he doesn't seem that aggressive until he suddenly shoots you or beats you to mush. But it works. It works surprisingly well, but it's risky. Not everyone will love it the way I found myself loving it. My personal favourite scene was where he placed his hand on John Daggett's shoulder, not grabbing his shoulder, but placing his hand in an almost a gentle way.
So the big question on everyone's mind is: "Is Bane worthy? Is Tom Hardy as good as Heath Ledger? How does Bane compare to The Joker?" My answer? You shouldn't compare them. They are very different characters, with different motives and missions. The Joker is mad, he is absolutely bonkers if you ask me. Bane is much more oriented, he has a mission. The Joker wanted to play with Batman and tried to get to him, by kidnapping his sweetheart and Harvey Dent, making Batman choose between a person he loves and a person Gotham desperately needs. Bane never did care for Batman, he wanted to destroy Gotham and just wanted Batman out of his way so he could get on with his actions.
Tom Hardy's performance may not be as radical as Ledger's, but again, they are very different characters. I found Bane much more interesting as a character and I think Tom Hardy's perfomance was superb from the accent to the huge figure he had to build up. But Heath Ledger's Joker was also amazing and groundbreaking, never have seen such disturbing character. They are both amazing villains and great performances by their actors, but they shouldn't be compared.
The ending. Some loved it, some hated it, some would have changed it. I thought it brought Bruce Wayne's story, as well as Batman's, to a fine end. Although being a bit cheesy, it seemed like the ending our hero deserved. The story arch has been completed. It came through very well when watching all three films back to back.
What's there still to be said about this trilogy? It's awesome, it's great, it's full of great nerdy moments and breathtaking action. Chris Nolan did the impossible; made a great superhero trilogy with real characters and real heart, without forgetting the action and the comic book roots. Bravo.
-CoffeeCat
I had the pleasure to watch all three films back to back in an IMAX-theatre and I have to say that this just might be the best trilogy ever made (I'm not a Lord of the Rings -fan, sorry...)
Note: This post will contain SPOILERS FOR ALL THREE BATMAN FILMS, so beware!
Batman Begins
Batman Begins starts the trilogy strong, but is still the weakest link in this saga. We meet Bruce Wayne (superb Christian Bale) who tragically lost his parents as a child and blames himself for it. This has left him with anger he cannot control and that will always shadow his life. I won't go over the basic storylines, because A) you probably know it and if you don't you can find out and B) Christopher Nolan's storylines are never easy or quick to explain and that would result in the longest post ever made.
Batman Begins starts off really strong, but falls victim to its inability to choose whether it wants to be a character drama or a superhero movie. It does well in both, but it just feels a little insecure at times, like it's still trying to figure out the right way to do a Batman film. It spends so much time figuring out who is Bruce Wayne and why he needs to become Batman, that our villain Scarecrow, doesn't frighten us, because we don't get to see him or start to understand him. And when they pull out Ra's Al Ghul as the mastermind behind everything, it just feels unnecessary and forced.
But still, Batman Begins is no less than a fine, fine film. Nolan has an eye for the visuals and Christian Bale really breathes life into Bruce Wayne. He has a way of letting the audience see the range of emotion that Bruce Wayne is trying so hard to hide, with very small gestures. I, for one, am very used to Batman being Batman and Bruce Wayne being the alter-ego that is just for show. Here, Nolan and Bale really paint a picture of a man, who has a primal need to defend his city and become something better than he really feels he can be as a person. It is beautiful.
The cast is magnificent. As said, Christian Bale is phenomenal, transforming Batman from a regular superhero to an actual person. Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman provide warmth and heart to the film, all of them actually. Cillian Murphy is frightening, but could have used a further developed character. Katie Holmes is the only one who doesn't really fit in. She is fine, but when compared to everyone else, she falls a bit flat.
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight will go down in history for many reasons. A) Heath Ledger's Joker, B) Nolan using IMAX, C) Heath Ledger died and D) this is probably one of the best action, comic-book and superhero films in a LOOOOOOONG time.
Starting with an IMAX-sequence, this film will have your heart pumping blood twice as fast, because it sucks you in and doesn't let you go until the last minute and you notice you haven't taken a good, deep breath since you sat down.
As we have already established Batman and Bruce Wayne as characters, we can just get on with the action and story in this film. And we start off pretty good with the bank robbery and meet Bruce Wayne, who has turned himself into a playboy by day and a masked man by night. In this film, it's all about the Batman. He gets to do some great car chases and fights, but Nolan also takes time to show that because his alter-ego, he cannot have a normal life or love, aka Rachel, in his life, he can't afford that kind of luxury. Enter Harvey Dent, the new fancy DA, who is "Gotham's white knight" to Batman's "dark knight". Harvey Dent seems to have everything Bruce ever wanted. He has Rachel and he's saving Gotham in broad daylight by locking bad guys up and giving the people of Gotham hope without having to hide behind a mask.
The first scene introduces us to the villain of this film, The Joker, who we have seen before, played by Jack Nicholson many years ago. Heath Ledger's Joker is very different from Jack Nicholson's. Some will always say that Nicholson's Joker is the right Joker, but no one can deny that Ledger's version is quite impressive. From the messy make-up and hair to the honestly disturbing mannerisms, Ledger created a very unique villain and his performance was rewarded with an Oscar. The Joker knows no good or evil, just chaos and individuals he can toy with. This could be seen as the perfect villain, because he has nothing to lose nor an agenda, he just creates chaos because it's what he wants. And that is frightening, you never know what is going to happen and because you don't understand the reasons, you are left trembling and peeing your pants.
Maggie Gyllenhaal is able to bring some edginess to her Rachel Dawes, something that Katie Holmes lacked. So finally we see a character, who is worthy of our Dark Knight's love and passion. She would have sacrificed herself for him, for sure, but she could also stand up to him and be her own person, seeing the person behind the Batman's mask but also that person's need to wear it. Magical. Too bad that she is killed just when we got a feeling that she could evolve as a character.
Like all Nolan's films, The Dark Knight is intelligent, but also it can get a bit confusing. So much is happening and sometimes you feel like altough you know exactly what's going on, you're missing something, the bigger picture. These films can't be watched like you would watch Transformers. You will get lost very easily and all the new locations and devices will have your head spinning if you don't pay attention.
The Dark Knight Rises
Finally, we have the last film of the trilogy. After The Dark Knight's critical and box office succes, it was a huge challenge for Nolan to top it, but in my honest, humble opinion, he managed to make a film that could stand up to the previous film. TDKR might not necessarily be better than The Dark Knight, but it sure as hell is an excellent film.
It's been 8 years since Gotham has seen Batman and Bruce Wayne is nowhere to be seen or heard. When we meet him, he is a shadow of his former self. Walking with a cane, facial hair.... Not a pretty sight. He is in pain and believes that Batman is no longer needed. But the arrival of Bane, a masked terrorist, has him suiting him up again, not before he has an encounter with Selina Kyle, a catburglar who steals his fingerprints and his mother's necklace.
This is a very unique superhero film, as was The Dark Knight. We don't get to see Batman until about 35 minutes into the film and even after that, we see very little of Batman. We see more of Bruce Wayne and how he needs to find the strenght in him to defeat Bane. There is a scene where Bane literally breaks Batman with his bare hands, no fancy electronics. As Alfred says "I see the power of belief" and that is what Batman is lacking after losing Rachel Dawes in The Dark Knight. So Bruce Wayne needs to find his strenght as a person, not as Batman, and his belief if he is to defeat Bane. And it's a beautiful and raw thing to watch. In a way, Bruce Wayne needs to learn to be Bruce Wayne and strong as him, before he can be Batman again, because Batman would not exist without Bruce Wayne. They are the one and the same in the end.
Bane on the other hand... What can be said? Tom Hardy had a very difficult job description, being a Batman villain after the Oscar-winning, now deceased Heath Ledger. Luckily, he had an interesting character. Bane challenges Batman, because he is stronger, he is intelligent and he believes in his mission. And he looks scary as hell.
When I was sitting in the theater, watching Bane, I was thinking to myself "Do I like him? Is he a good villain? Am I scared or do I feel threatened by him?" Tom Hardy's Bane is nowhere near a traditional villain. He has a weird accent, you have difficulties understanding him, he doesn't seem that aggressive until he suddenly shoots you or beats you to mush. But it works. It works surprisingly well, but it's risky. Not everyone will love it the way I found myself loving it. My personal favourite scene was where he placed his hand on John Daggett's shoulder, not grabbing his shoulder, but placing his hand in an almost a gentle way.
So the big question on everyone's mind is: "Is Bane worthy? Is Tom Hardy as good as Heath Ledger? How does Bane compare to The Joker?" My answer? You shouldn't compare them. They are very different characters, with different motives and missions. The Joker is mad, he is absolutely bonkers if you ask me. Bane is much more oriented, he has a mission. The Joker wanted to play with Batman and tried to get to him, by kidnapping his sweetheart and Harvey Dent, making Batman choose between a person he loves and a person Gotham desperately needs. Bane never did care for Batman, he wanted to destroy Gotham and just wanted Batman out of his way so he could get on with his actions.
Tom Hardy's performance may not be as radical as Ledger's, but again, they are very different characters. I found Bane much more interesting as a character and I think Tom Hardy's perfomance was superb from the accent to the huge figure he had to build up. But Heath Ledger's Joker was also amazing and groundbreaking, never have seen such disturbing character. They are both amazing villains and great performances by their actors, but they shouldn't be compared.
The ending. Some loved it, some hated it, some would have changed it. I thought it brought Bruce Wayne's story, as well as Batman's, to a fine end. Although being a bit cheesy, it seemed like the ending our hero deserved. The story arch has been completed. It came through very well when watching all three films back to back.
What's there still to be said about this trilogy? It's awesome, it's great, it's full of great nerdy moments and breathtaking action. Chris Nolan did the impossible; made a great superhero trilogy with real characters and real heart, without forgetting the action and the comic book roots. Bravo.
-CoffeeCat
sunnuntai 15. heinäkuuta 2012
The Amazing Spider-Man 3D
Apart from The Dark Knight Rises (opening next week!) and The Avengers , I think this was one of the most anticipated films this summer. I have to say that I'm not a huge fan of the original Sam Raimi's trilogy. It's good, but I always felt that it fell into the category of films that could have been so much more. There was nothing wrong, but there was something missing.
So I had high hopes for this and I let out a really girlish squeal, when it was announced that Andrew Garfield would play the new Spider-Man. I like him, I think he's done really great roles an´d he's going to go far. But I did have doubts as well, I thought (like everyone else...) that it was a bit stupid to reboot a film series that ended just a few years ago. But when the whole cast and director were announced, I was more optimistic. How could they go wrong with these people?
They couldn't.
So we have Andrew Garfield playing Peter Parker, who gets bitten by a spider and suddenly is able to kick everyone's ass and climb really tall buildings. But at the same time, there's a new species roaming around New York and our very own Peter Parker has something to do with it and has to take responsibility for his actions and rise to the occasion and save the world... New York, I mean. All while dealing with your typical high school problems like girls and bullies. Talk about a rough day.
It's a very traditional story, but it works. The story in this film and the original is very similar, but for me, this works better than the one in the original Spider-Man, because this has more heart in it and we play with emotions like guilt and responsibility more.
Rhys Ifans is the star of the film, giving a superb performance as Dr. Curt Connors who turns into Lizard, who is for me, the most interesting villain in the Spider-Man universe. Emma Stone is feisty as Gwen Stacy, but sadly the character turns out to be a bit underwritten and boring, but I'm hoping that we see more of her in the sequels. I'm sure the writers had their hands full with the whole "rebooting a super popular film franchasise while trying to convince the audience that we're not in this just for the money", I get it. And Sally Field and Martin Sheen. What can be said? You take two amazing actors and give them two very lovable characters, you just can't go wrong. These characters are very different from Raimi's characters, but I fell in love with them.
I am very happy that Andrew Garfield was able to support the weight of a character like this. I read a few reviews and they said that Garfield was born to play Spider-Man and I do have to say, I agree. His take on the character was really different from Tobey Maguire's Spidey, but I like them both. Maguire's Parker is a really awkward boy, while Garfield makes his Parker young, but fun, very light sometimes. Despite this, Garfield is able to bring depth to Parker, who, in the end, is a very damaged and hurt character, who has lost his parents and is suddenly struggling with a power he doesn't understand.
The Lizard... A great character, very complex. As I said, Rhys Ifans did a marvellous job with it, but I still hoped for something more. I wanted to see the difference between Dr. Connors and Lizard, how they are not the same, but one can't exist without the other. I wanted to see more Dr. Connors battling his inner demons and his desire to have his missing arm back. I also wanted for him to pose a real threat to Spider-Man. Not at any point did I suspect that Spidey couldn't win this fight, it was more of a question if Spidey could save Connors while capturing The Lizard. And I did have a slight problem with The Lizard's looks. He looked... bald? I was impressed at first, but after watching close-ups, it just started to look a little funny. But all in all, a great villain for this film.
Marc Webb is fast becoming one of the most promising directors in Hollywood. I was a big fan of his music videos and who doens't loe (500) Days of Summer? And he just did the impossible; he successfully rebooted a franchasise that didn't need rebooting. So I will definately be watching what he does next.
So I had high hopes for this and I let out a really girlish squeal, when it was announced that Andrew Garfield would play the new Spider-Man. I like him, I think he's done really great roles an´d he's going to go far. But I did have doubts as well, I thought (like everyone else...) that it was a bit stupid to reboot a film series that ended just a few years ago. But when the whole cast and director were announced, I was more optimistic. How could they go wrong with these people?
They couldn't.
So we have Andrew Garfield playing Peter Parker, who gets bitten by a spider and suddenly is able to kick everyone's ass and climb really tall buildings. But at the same time, there's a new species roaming around New York and our very own Peter Parker has something to do with it and has to take responsibility for his actions and rise to the occasion and save the world... New York, I mean. All while dealing with your typical high school problems like girls and bullies. Talk about a rough day.
It's a very traditional story, but it works. The story in this film and the original is very similar, but for me, this works better than the one in the original Spider-Man, because this has more heart in it and we play with emotions like guilt and responsibility more.
Rhys Ifans is the star of the film, giving a superb performance as Dr. Curt Connors who turns into Lizard, who is for me, the most interesting villain in the Spider-Man universe. Emma Stone is feisty as Gwen Stacy, but sadly the character turns out to be a bit underwritten and boring, but I'm hoping that we see more of her in the sequels. I'm sure the writers had their hands full with the whole "rebooting a super popular film franchasise while trying to convince the audience that we're not in this just for the money", I get it. And Sally Field and Martin Sheen. What can be said? You take two amazing actors and give them two very lovable characters, you just can't go wrong. These characters are very different from Raimi's characters, but I fell in love with them.
I am very happy that Andrew Garfield was able to support the weight of a character like this. I read a few reviews and they said that Garfield was born to play Spider-Man and I do have to say, I agree. His take on the character was really different from Tobey Maguire's Spidey, but I like them both. Maguire's Parker is a really awkward boy, while Garfield makes his Parker young, but fun, very light sometimes. Despite this, Garfield is able to bring depth to Parker, who, in the end, is a very damaged and hurt character, who has lost his parents and is suddenly struggling with a power he doesn't understand.
The Lizard... A great character, very complex. As I said, Rhys Ifans did a marvellous job with it, but I still hoped for something more. I wanted to see the difference between Dr. Connors and Lizard, how they are not the same, but one can't exist without the other. I wanted to see more Dr. Connors battling his inner demons and his desire to have his missing arm back. I also wanted for him to pose a real threat to Spider-Man. Not at any point did I suspect that Spidey couldn't win this fight, it was more of a question if Spidey could save Connors while capturing The Lizard. And I did have a slight problem with The Lizard's looks. He looked... bald? I was impressed at first, but after watching close-ups, it just started to look a little funny. But all in all, a great villain for this film.
Marc Webb is fast becoming one of the most promising directors in Hollywood. I was a big fan of his music videos and who doens't loe (500) Days of Summer? And he just did the impossible; he successfully rebooted a franchasise that didn't need rebooting. So I will definately be watching what he does next.
lauantai 30. kesäkuuta 2012
Attack The Block
Alien invasion. London. Nick Frost. What else could a girl want from a film?
Attack the Block follows a group of teens and a few others in the middle of an alien invasion in South London. The film has been compared to Shaun of The Dead, which happens to be one of my favourite films so the stakes were high.
The film opens when the gang robs a nurse called Sam, without knowing that she actually lives on the block just like they do. They later have form an alliance to get through the night, when the aliens follow the kids to their apartment block and all hell breaks loose. Trust, responsibility and courage form the film's themes we explore through the eyes of adolescent individuals from the wrong side of life.
I first saw this at a film festival, where this was screened as a surprise film, we only figured out a week before the screening what we were about to go see. And I admit, I was really disappointed when I heard that I spent money to go see this, I had no interest in this film. But, I was surprised, because I walked out of the theater with a huge grin, because this film was funny and scary and surprisingly impressive.
Let's start with the cast. A bunch of unknowns, only one I recognized was Nick Frost who seems to be in every British comedy. The cast felt fresh and real. You really can't have glamorous A-listers shouting out "ALIEN INVASION, BRUV!", now can you? The language is something that I truly loved. Since I'm not British, it was kind of hard to understand at times (the screening nor my dvd had subtitles...) but it also felt like a piece of true inner city London. There is nothing glorious or fancy about the situation, so why shouldn't our protagonists swear and use the proper language? The slang can also be a major turn-off for some, because it sounds so foreign and weird if you are not a Londoner. But I liked it, I just didn't understand everything 100%.
AtB is Joe Cornish's first film, but you could never tell that from the film itself. It's made with confidence and steady vision. It pays homage to the great alien movies made before, but also tries to reinvent the genre a little bit. We don't have the unfortunate hero, who just happens to be in the wrong place and just has to save the whole world, possibly even sacrifice himself in front of his new found love interest. Instead, we have a group of kids, who are way over their heads, who gear up (baseball bat, a sword, fireworks...) and plan to invade their block back. It's not about survival, it's not about life or death, it's about territory. The kids are of course scared and fully aware that it's dangerous, but they face dangerous every day living in the block. It's their world and they are going to protect it.
The aliens. Very interesting and weirdly, very fuzzy. There were things that I absolutely loved about them and things that I missed. A huge plus was to hide their eyes and only show their glowing jaws and teeth. I also liked to black ("It's too black to see") colouring, but they were a bit funny looking, because of the hair, was it hair? and the way the moved on all four legs. They looked like a gorilla and a Xenomorph had a baby that hit puberty and decided to dye its' hair black. But overall, I think the aliens were scary and were presented well.
That said, I think this is one of my top5 alien-movies. Attack The Block delivers laughs and a few gags as well. It works perfectly when you're searching for an entertaining alien film with gore, but don't expect too much emotional drama.
Attack the Block follows a group of teens and a few others in the middle of an alien invasion in South London. The film has been compared to Shaun of The Dead, which happens to be one of my favourite films so the stakes were high.
The film opens when the gang robs a nurse called Sam, without knowing that she actually lives on the block just like they do. They later have form an alliance to get through the night, when the aliens follow the kids to their apartment block and all hell breaks loose. Trust, responsibility and courage form the film's themes we explore through the eyes of adolescent individuals from the wrong side of life.
I first saw this at a film festival, where this was screened as a surprise film, we only figured out a week before the screening what we were about to go see. And I admit, I was really disappointed when I heard that I spent money to go see this, I had no interest in this film. But, I was surprised, because I walked out of the theater with a huge grin, because this film was funny and scary and surprisingly impressive.
Let's start with the cast. A bunch of unknowns, only one I recognized was Nick Frost who seems to be in every British comedy. The cast felt fresh and real. You really can't have glamorous A-listers shouting out "ALIEN INVASION, BRUV!", now can you? The language is something that I truly loved. Since I'm not British, it was kind of hard to understand at times (the screening nor my dvd had subtitles...) but it also felt like a piece of true inner city London. There is nothing glorious or fancy about the situation, so why shouldn't our protagonists swear and use the proper language? The slang can also be a major turn-off for some, because it sounds so foreign and weird if you are not a Londoner. But I liked it, I just didn't understand everything 100%.
AtB is Joe Cornish's first film, but you could never tell that from the film itself. It's made with confidence and steady vision. It pays homage to the great alien movies made before, but also tries to reinvent the genre a little bit. We don't have the unfortunate hero, who just happens to be in the wrong place and just has to save the whole world, possibly even sacrifice himself in front of his new found love interest. Instead, we have a group of kids, who are way over their heads, who gear up (baseball bat, a sword, fireworks...) and plan to invade their block back. It's not about survival, it's not about life or death, it's about territory. The kids are of course scared and fully aware that it's dangerous, but they face dangerous every day living in the block. It's their world and they are going to protect it.
The aliens. Very interesting and weirdly, very fuzzy. There were things that I absolutely loved about them and things that I missed. A huge plus was to hide their eyes and only show their glowing jaws and teeth. I also liked to black ("It's too black to see") colouring, but they were a bit funny looking, because of the hair, was it hair? and the way the moved on all four legs. They looked like a gorilla and a Xenomorph had a baby that hit puberty and decided to dye its' hair black. But overall, I think the aliens were scary and were presented well.
That said, I think this is one of my top5 alien-movies. Attack The Block delivers laughs and a few gags as well. It works perfectly when you're searching for an entertaining alien film with gore, but don't expect too much emotional drama.
perjantai 22. kesäkuuta 2012
Warrior
Warrior is a film that I don't think anyone who has seen it, anticipated how strong it would be. For me it was the film, that I noticed only because I saw it so many times IMDB's front page and reading reviews that praised it. Where did it come from? And after seeing it, how had I missed it before?
Warrior is Gavin O'Connor's film about two brothers set on a collision course in Sparta, an Mixed Martial Arts event, where winner takes it all, all being a shitload of money. Contestants will brutally beat each other to the edge of passing out or literally passing out. There aren't many rules in this sport and the fights are brutal, but not as brutal as the contestants themselves. Our brothers come in us true underdogs. Brendan is there to collect the prize to support his family, but Tommy, after being AWOL for almost 15 years is there for a whole other reason we learn only in the end, because it turns out, Tommy has many secrets and he isn't so proud of them. Both brothers have cut all ties to their alcoholic father, who in Tommy's request starts training him, like in the good old days. Only that everything has changed.
Just reading the summary makes this seem like a guys' film, but believe me, it is not. This film had me in tears. This isn't about MMA or guys brutally kicking and punching each other, this is a film about family. And that is exactly the reason this film stands out. Also, making this even more interesting, the lack of women is nice. Brendan has a wife and two girls, but apart from them, there aren't that many women in the picture and I found it... interesting, because the dynamics between a father and his two sons proved to be strong and more complicated. Men are known for having a hard time showing their emotions so we have all this build up anger and grief and bitter that bursts out of our characters. The boys don't have a gentle mother who would protect her sons and provide a shelter from their father. Tommy had to actually watch his mother die slowly and painfully and Brendan didn't get to say goodbye to her. So even if we don't have their mother as a physical being, her presence is there and gives the characters depth and adds tension between two brothers.
Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton give fine performances in this film. Tom Hardy's performance as Tommy brought Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain into my mind. He has strong, silent force in him, this one. From the beginning, we know very little about Tommy, but Hardy makes us believe that there so much more to Tommy than meets the eye and we are rewarded for our patience in the end. Hardy's performance gives the audience glimpses of the broken man Tommy has become, before we find out his real motive for entering Sparta.
Joel Edgerton is almost left in the shadow of Hardy's strong performance, but in the end, can hold his own and makes Brendan a very grounded, a very real character. He is the guy all the girls can see marrying in the future, he is the sweet guy next door, but when faced with a dilemma that could cost him his family, he fights fiercely, because his family is all he has and can't bear the thought of losing it. If he were to lose this fight and going home empty handed, he would see himself a failure, he wouldn't see himself as a father or a husband, he would have failed and let down his family.
But it's Nick Nolte who steals the show as the boys' alcoholic father, now trying to make amends. The scene where he visits Brendan is absolutely heartbreaking. Nolte brings reality to this character, in the way that we all recognize him. He is not a saint, even though he has been sober for years now, and he knows that his alcoholism will always be the huge elephant in the room standing between him and his family.
The ending is quite clichéd, but then again, why have these clichés become clichés? Because they work and they do draw tears from our eyes. So, bravo. This is a well-made movie that stands out because of its' strong focus on the shattered dynamics of a broken family and its' strong perfomances by Hardy, Edgerton and Nolte. I recommend this film to each and everyone of you.
-Coffee Cat
Warrior is Gavin O'Connor's film about two brothers set on a collision course in Sparta, an Mixed Martial Arts event, where winner takes it all, all being a shitload of money. Contestants will brutally beat each other to the edge of passing out or literally passing out. There aren't many rules in this sport and the fights are brutal, but not as brutal as the contestants themselves. Our brothers come in us true underdogs. Brendan is there to collect the prize to support his family, but Tommy, after being AWOL for almost 15 years is there for a whole other reason we learn only in the end, because it turns out, Tommy has many secrets and he isn't so proud of them. Both brothers have cut all ties to their alcoholic father, who in Tommy's request starts training him, like in the good old days. Only that everything has changed.
Just reading the summary makes this seem like a guys' film, but believe me, it is not. This film had me in tears. This isn't about MMA or guys brutally kicking and punching each other, this is a film about family. And that is exactly the reason this film stands out. Also, making this even more interesting, the lack of women is nice. Brendan has a wife and two girls, but apart from them, there aren't that many women in the picture and I found it... interesting, because the dynamics between a father and his two sons proved to be strong and more complicated. Men are known for having a hard time showing their emotions so we have all this build up anger and grief and bitter that bursts out of our characters. The boys don't have a gentle mother who would protect her sons and provide a shelter from their father. Tommy had to actually watch his mother die slowly and painfully and Brendan didn't get to say goodbye to her. So even if we don't have their mother as a physical being, her presence is there and gives the characters depth and adds tension between two brothers.
Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton give fine performances in this film. Tom Hardy's performance as Tommy brought Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain into my mind. He has strong, silent force in him, this one. From the beginning, we know very little about Tommy, but Hardy makes us believe that there so much more to Tommy than meets the eye and we are rewarded for our patience in the end. Hardy's performance gives the audience glimpses of the broken man Tommy has become, before we find out his real motive for entering Sparta.
Joel Edgerton is almost left in the shadow of Hardy's strong performance, but in the end, can hold his own and makes Brendan a very grounded, a very real character. He is the guy all the girls can see marrying in the future, he is the sweet guy next door, but when faced with a dilemma that could cost him his family, he fights fiercely, because his family is all he has and can't bear the thought of losing it. If he were to lose this fight and going home empty handed, he would see himself a failure, he wouldn't see himself as a father or a husband, he would have failed and let down his family.
But it's Nick Nolte who steals the show as the boys' alcoholic father, now trying to make amends. The scene where he visits Brendan is absolutely heartbreaking. Nolte brings reality to this character, in the way that we all recognize him. He is not a saint, even though he has been sober for years now, and he knows that his alcoholism will always be the huge elephant in the room standing between him and his family.
The ending is quite clichéd, but then again, why have these clichés become clichés? Because they work and they do draw tears from our eyes. So, bravo. This is a well-made movie that stands out because of its' strong focus on the shattered dynamics of a broken family and its' strong perfomances by Hardy, Edgerton and Nolte. I recommend this film to each and everyone of you.
-Coffee Cat
tiistai 29. toukokuuta 2012
The Avengers 3D
Probably the most anticipated film of the year, The Avengers finally arrived and conquered this May. If only all superhero movies were like this...
For a few years, we've had the pleasure (or not...) to follow Marvel's heroes come alive on screen... Hulk (twice and always disappointing), Iron Man ( twice and kicked ass!), Captain America and Thor. And now they all shared the screen in Joss Whedon's latest.
When you're making a superhero film, you have to be careful not to make it seem like a film about a guy dressing up in a ridiculous outfit and acting stupid. With the Avengers, you have a bunch of guys dressing up and playing heroes (and acting stupid...), so there was always a huge chance of this film coming off as stupid. But luckily, Joss Whedon knows what he is doing and the audience will be blown away with the film's awesomeness.
The film is very cast-driven. Robest Downey Jr dominates this film, but Chris Evans gives him a run for his money. Mark Ruffalo finally gives Hulk the treatment we have been waiting for. Eric Bana and Edward Norton, this is how you portray Hulk! But despite all of the big names in the cast, it's Clark Gregg as Agent (Phil? His first name is "Agent") Coulson who steals all the scenes he is in. The whole cast is well-balanced, but as said, this is Downey Jr's film. He has such charisma on screen and the whole character of Tony Stark/Iron Man is so dominant that the rest of them didn't have a chance. But the biggest surprise for me was Scarlett Johansson, who I thought was going to be very wooden and seriously, ending up as damsel in distress even though Black Widow can kick some serious ass. My only complaint would be Colbie Smulders who had absolutely nothing to do, she was no way relevant to the film and seemed to me that she was just there because they had to have another woman on board or else all the testosterone would have been too much.
What makes The Avengers so great is that it's a very well balanced film, almost the perfect superhero film. It has the action, which is adrenaline-filled and fast-paced and brings out the best of our heroes. And it has the comedy. For fans of Joss Whedon's other work, this is a joy ride. The familiar sense of humor is there and we love it and it gives the film heart. The tensions between The Avengers are delicious, they truly are a ticking time-bomb and we know it. And Joss Whedon knows how to play it. He knows when to joke about it but also he knows how to work it so that we have a taste of our heroes not-so-pretty side.
But unfortunately, The Avengers wasn't perfect... It had no major problems but a bunch of smaller
ones.
Like a) Why on Earth would you make Jeremy Renner's character flip sides so early on? Hawkeye was an interesting character and I would have wanted a bit more of him before he was made Loki's servant. That way I would have cared for and understood his need of vengeance. Now the character didn't seem as imporant as he could have. Her relationship with the Black Widow could have been expanded or even shown more in the beginning of the film, so that when Hawkeye was "captured", it would have been emotionally more gripping.
B) Thor's (the film) main problem was that it gave too much space for Loki, who is the Big Bad in The Avengers, making Thor seem a bit childish in his own film. This film's fault is that after Thor giving so much attention to him, this one gives too little attention to him. Loki is one of the most interesting villains to me and Tom Hiddleston is amazing, making Loki creepy but somewhat understandable. So in this film, we never get the feeling that he really is the Big Bad, that we should be scared for The Avengers that they couldn't beat him. Hiddleston does really fine work in this film, but script doesn't allow him to go all the way with the character. Shame...
C) Loki doesn't get enough attention, but neither does Thor. The whole cast is amazing, but we are mostly centered on Iron Man and Captain America. All the others get their time but fall in the shadow of these two. Robert Downey Jr. of course dominates the whole film, but I would have loved for all them to bicker more and be on each others' throats more. And in the end, come together more. I never got the feeling of unity, I would have wanted to get.
All in all, this is a really good, fun film. It's not a film to be taken so seriously, it's made to entertain. And it succeeds. Joss Whedon was truly the right man for the job and he pulled it off. I bow down to the master.
The ending left us wanting more and the scene after the credits (why do people alway run away so soon?) left us pretty happy and sure that we'd be getting more. But who will take the wheel for Avengers 2? I have no idea, but topping this film will be a huge challenge. I'm hoping to see Joss Whedon to return, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. I just hope that they can get the old gang back together as soon as possible. ASSEMBLE, PLEASE!
For a few years, we've had the pleasure (or not...) to follow Marvel's heroes come alive on screen... Hulk (twice and always disappointing), Iron Man ( twice and kicked ass!), Captain America and Thor. And now they all shared the screen in Joss Whedon's latest.
When you're making a superhero film, you have to be careful not to make it seem like a film about a guy dressing up in a ridiculous outfit and acting stupid. With the Avengers, you have a bunch of guys dressing up and playing heroes (and acting stupid...), so there was always a huge chance of this film coming off as stupid. But luckily, Joss Whedon knows what he is doing and the audience will be blown away with the film's awesomeness.
The film is very cast-driven. Robest Downey Jr dominates this film, but Chris Evans gives him a run for his money. Mark Ruffalo finally gives Hulk the treatment we have been waiting for. Eric Bana and Edward Norton, this is how you portray Hulk! But despite all of the big names in the cast, it's Clark Gregg as Agent (Phil? His first name is "Agent") Coulson who steals all the scenes he is in. The whole cast is well-balanced, but as said, this is Downey Jr's film. He has such charisma on screen and the whole character of Tony Stark/Iron Man is so dominant that the rest of them didn't have a chance. But the biggest surprise for me was Scarlett Johansson, who I thought was going to be very wooden and seriously, ending up as damsel in distress even though Black Widow can kick some serious ass. My only complaint would be Colbie Smulders who had absolutely nothing to do, she was no way relevant to the film and seemed to me that she was just there because they had to have another woman on board or else all the testosterone would have been too much.
What makes The Avengers so great is that it's a very well balanced film, almost the perfect superhero film. It has the action, which is adrenaline-filled and fast-paced and brings out the best of our heroes. And it has the comedy. For fans of Joss Whedon's other work, this is a joy ride. The familiar sense of humor is there and we love it and it gives the film heart. The tensions between The Avengers are delicious, they truly are a ticking time-bomb and we know it. And Joss Whedon knows how to play it. He knows when to joke about it but also he knows how to work it so that we have a taste of our heroes not-so-pretty side.
But unfortunately, The Avengers wasn't perfect... It had no major problems but a bunch of smaller
ones.
Like a) Why on Earth would you make Jeremy Renner's character flip sides so early on? Hawkeye was an interesting character and I would have wanted a bit more of him before he was made Loki's servant. That way I would have cared for and understood his need of vengeance. Now the character didn't seem as imporant as he could have. Her relationship with the Black Widow could have been expanded or even shown more in the beginning of the film, so that when Hawkeye was "captured", it would have been emotionally more gripping.
B) Thor's (the film) main problem was that it gave too much space for Loki, who is the Big Bad in The Avengers, making Thor seem a bit childish in his own film. This film's fault is that after Thor giving so much attention to him, this one gives too little attention to him. Loki is one of the most interesting villains to me and Tom Hiddleston is amazing, making Loki creepy but somewhat understandable. So in this film, we never get the feeling that he really is the Big Bad, that we should be scared for The Avengers that they couldn't beat him. Hiddleston does really fine work in this film, but script doesn't allow him to go all the way with the character. Shame...
C) Loki doesn't get enough attention, but neither does Thor. The whole cast is amazing, but we are mostly centered on Iron Man and Captain America. All the others get their time but fall in the shadow of these two. Robert Downey Jr. of course dominates the whole film, but I would have loved for all them to bicker more and be on each others' throats more. And in the end, come together more. I never got the feeling of unity, I would have wanted to get.
All in all, this is a really good, fun film. It's not a film to be taken so seriously, it's made to entertain. And it succeeds. Joss Whedon was truly the right man for the job and he pulled it off. I bow down to the master.
The ending left us wanting more and the scene after the credits (why do people alway run away so soon?) left us pretty happy and sure that we'd be getting more. But who will take the wheel for Avengers 2? I have no idea, but topping this film will be a huge challenge. I'm hoping to see Joss Whedon to return, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. I just hope that they can get the old gang back together as soon as possible. ASSEMBLE, PLEASE!
lauantai 28. huhtikuuta 2012
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
I saw this film in theatres when it premiered and now I had the chance to get my own copy on Blu-ray and watch it, no, experience it again. And it was nothing less of amazing on the second time.
Daniel Craig plays Mikael Blomqvist, who is hired to investigate a 40-year-old murder mysery by Henrik Vanger (superb Christopher Plummer). After being publicly humiliated and prosecuted by the media, Blomqvist retreats to an isolated island where the Vanger family live and where the murder took place. At the same time, a young hacker named Lisbeth Salander (even more superb, the I-have-no-words-for-it-superb Rooney Mara) is struggling with difficulties of her own. The two come together and find out what really happened on the island when young Harriet Vanger was murdered.
David Fincher is at his best when dealing with sick and twisted people and sick and twisted storylines (see Se7en). He knows exactly how to show sex, violence and perversion, without making it seem too extreme, but just extreme enough and maybe a bit more even. His use of camera (Jeff Cronenweth did an amazing work) and lighting is innovative and they are used in the best way possible; they bring more to the story. The lighting is often cold and leave shadows where evil can lurk, strenghtening the idea that the characters in the film have something they want to hide, leave in the shadows.
Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall's editing is once again pitch perfect. I had lost my hope that they could win an Oscar two years in a row, but thankfully, they did and they earned it.
In my eyes, this is film is almost perfect when talking about the technical side. Of course, there are a few mistakes, trees having leaves even though it's supposed to be winter etc. but those mistakes are always going to be present when making films, you can't escape making mistakes.
The film's cast is... absolutely amazing. Young Rooney Mara steals the show as Lisbeth Salander and is provided with a lot of support from veteran actors like Christopher Plummer and Stellan Skarsgård. Daniel Craig is known as an action hero, but shows his ability to do more than just throw punches and high kicks.
Daniel Craig shows us that he's not just James Bond, he can transform himself to play another character. I just wish he had transformed himself a bit more physically. His arms and chest look too worked out and his posture is a bit too straight for a tired, failed journalist. But emotionally, I think he captures the essence of his character quite well. He paints a portrait of a flawed man, who has nothing to lose and a need to make himself relevant to the world after being publically castrated by the media. He also gives great support to Rooney Mara's Lisbeth Salander, but ultimately fails to provide a performance strong enough to match Mara's fierce Salander.
Rooney Mara. What can be said... If Katniss Everdeen was "The Girl on Fire" in Hunger Games,then Lisbeth Salander is the Fire. This is a very extreme character to play, it's a very physical role but also a very emotional role. But what makes it so impressive that Mara can capture Salander's emotional vulnerability and strenght even when the character shows very little emotion on her face.
I think this Lisbeth Salander has become every woman's guilty pleasure or fantasy. We all want to be her, but surprinsingly we also want her. Why is that? She provided a new beauty icon for women. She is fearless and has sex with whoever she wants. She is comfortable with her own body. She is sort of a Samantha Jones 2.0 if you will. And of course, she is insane, which isn't ideal but you can't have everything.
The role of Lisbeth Salander is a very physical one, for which you need a strong actress for. Mara looks very fragile, like she would break if you knocked her down. But because her presence is so strong, she turns this quality into a strenght as opposed to letting it be a weakness for her. Salander seems to be driven by sex, violence and everything that is wrong in our eyes and that is the key to her. Wrong is all she knows and it brings her safety and more importantly freedom. Her freedom was taken away from her at a very young age and now she gets her freedom and independence by doing things that are borderline wrong or completely wrong. If she were to follow society's rules, she would see herself as a puppet with chains around her neck. So she breaks these chains and goes the other way.
There will always be comparison made between this film and the original. Shocking. The biggest one will be the differences between Rooney Mara's Salander and Noomi Rapace's Salander. Even though I love Rapace's take on the character, it will always be seen as "the original", I prefer Mara. Mara makes the character feel more insane, to the point where you question if she even has any human emotions left in her. Is she a human or has she become a machine. And still, we all want her. And that is impressive.
The film is almost perfect. There is something that I don't like about the ending, but I can't putmy finger on it. Maybe it's the fact that the climax isn't so... climatic. The scene in the dungeon, although being very interesting, lacks intensity like Daniel Craig's characters lacks oxygen. It needed more, it didn't match either or the raping scenes and therefore, felt out of place. The film is also quite long and tones down quite a bit after Salander arrives on the island. After being introduced such an intense character, so capable of doing horrible thing, the perverted side of us wants to see more of it and this is where Fincher lets us down. Of course, he is following a book, but still, we demand more extreme violence and Salander!
This film was marketed as a murder mystery, which I believe, was misleading. The murder mystery is just something that brings our two characters together. The viewer feels a bit confused when the mystery is solved and all is well and then we have another 15-20 minutes to go with footage that has nothing to do with the Vangers, but with Lisbeth and Mikael. It was good 20 minutes, but when you go see a murder mystery, you expect the film to end when you find out who the killer was. So this film should have been marketed as an interesting story about two very interesting characters, because that's where the film focuses on and is at its' best.
All in all, I think this was one of Fincher's best when talking about style, but it could have used even more edge in the end. But still, I think this was one the best films of 2011 (Drive taking the trophy home...) and we can only hope that there were more filmmakers like David Fincher making films this good.
-CoffeeCat
Daniel Craig plays Mikael Blomqvist, who is hired to investigate a 40-year-old murder mysery by Henrik Vanger (superb Christopher Plummer). After being publicly humiliated and prosecuted by the media, Blomqvist retreats to an isolated island where the Vanger family live and where the murder took place. At the same time, a young hacker named Lisbeth Salander (even more superb, the I-have-no-words-for-it-superb Rooney Mara) is struggling with difficulties of her own. The two come together and find out what really happened on the island when young Harriet Vanger was murdered.
David Fincher is at his best when dealing with sick and twisted people and sick and twisted storylines (see Se7en). He knows exactly how to show sex, violence and perversion, without making it seem too extreme, but just extreme enough and maybe a bit more even. His use of camera (Jeff Cronenweth did an amazing work) and lighting is innovative and they are used in the best way possible; they bring more to the story. The lighting is often cold and leave shadows where evil can lurk, strenghtening the idea that the characters in the film have something they want to hide, leave in the shadows.
Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall's editing is once again pitch perfect. I had lost my hope that they could win an Oscar two years in a row, but thankfully, they did and they earned it.
In my eyes, this is film is almost perfect when talking about the technical side. Of course, there are a few mistakes, trees having leaves even though it's supposed to be winter etc. but those mistakes are always going to be present when making films, you can't escape making mistakes.
The film's cast is... absolutely amazing. Young Rooney Mara steals the show as Lisbeth Salander and is provided with a lot of support from veteran actors like Christopher Plummer and Stellan Skarsgård. Daniel Craig is known as an action hero, but shows his ability to do more than just throw punches and high kicks.
Daniel Craig shows us that he's not just James Bond, he can transform himself to play another character. I just wish he had transformed himself a bit more physically. His arms and chest look too worked out and his posture is a bit too straight for a tired, failed journalist. But emotionally, I think he captures the essence of his character quite well. He paints a portrait of a flawed man, who has nothing to lose and a need to make himself relevant to the world after being publically castrated by the media. He also gives great support to Rooney Mara's Lisbeth Salander, but ultimately fails to provide a performance strong enough to match Mara's fierce Salander.
Rooney Mara. What can be said... If Katniss Everdeen was "The Girl on Fire" in Hunger Games,then Lisbeth Salander is the Fire. This is a very extreme character to play, it's a very physical role but also a very emotional role. But what makes it so impressive that Mara can capture Salander's emotional vulnerability and strenght even when the character shows very little emotion on her face.
I think this Lisbeth Salander has become every woman's guilty pleasure or fantasy. We all want to be her, but surprinsingly we also want her. Why is that? She provided a new beauty icon for women. She is fearless and has sex with whoever she wants. She is comfortable with her own body. She is sort of a Samantha Jones 2.0 if you will. And of course, she is insane, which isn't ideal but you can't have everything.
The role of Lisbeth Salander is a very physical one, for which you need a strong actress for. Mara looks very fragile, like she would break if you knocked her down. But because her presence is so strong, she turns this quality into a strenght as opposed to letting it be a weakness for her. Salander seems to be driven by sex, violence and everything that is wrong in our eyes and that is the key to her. Wrong is all she knows and it brings her safety and more importantly freedom. Her freedom was taken away from her at a very young age and now she gets her freedom and independence by doing things that are borderline wrong or completely wrong. If she were to follow society's rules, she would see herself as a puppet with chains around her neck. So she breaks these chains and goes the other way.
There will always be comparison made between this film and the original. Shocking. The biggest one will be the differences between Rooney Mara's Salander and Noomi Rapace's Salander. Even though I love Rapace's take on the character, it will always be seen as "the original", I prefer Mara. Mara makes the character feel more insane, to the point where you question if she even has any human emotions left in her. Is she a human or has she become a machine. And still, we all want her. And that is impressive.
The film is almost perfect. There is something that I don't like about the ending, but I can't putmy finger on it. Maybe it's the fact that the climax isn't so... climatic. The scene in the dungeon, although being very interesting, lacks intensity like Daniel Craig's characters lacks oxygen. It needed more, it didn't match either or the raping scenes and therefore, felt out of place. The film is also quite long and tones down quite a bit after Salander arrives on the island. After being introduced such an intense character, so capable of doing horrible thing, the perverted side of us wants to see more of it and this is where Fincher lets us down. Of course, he is following a book, but still, we demand more extreme violence and Salander!
This film was marketed as a murder mystery, which I believe, was misleading. The murder mystery is just something that brings our two characters together. The viewer feels a bit confused when the mystery is solved and all is well and then we have another 15-20 minutes to go with footage that has nothing to do with the Vangers, but with Lisbeth and Mikael. It was good 20 minutes, but when you go see a murder mystery, you expect the film to end when you find out who the killer was. So this film should have been marketed as an interesting story about two very interesting characters, because that's where the film focuses on and is at its' best.
All in all, I think this was one of Fincher's best when talking about style, but it could have used even more edge in the end. But still, I think this was one the best films of 2011 (Drive taking the trophy home...) and we can only hope that there were more filmmakers like David Fincher making films this good.
-CoffeeCat
torstai 19. huhtikuuta 2012
The Cabin In The Woods
Trying to post more often now...
I saw The Cabin in the Woods last weekend and still, I feel quite amazed by it. I cannot get over its awesomeness.
You know it as the lovechild of Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard, two men who are currently my heroes. It was shelved for two years because MGM went down and for a while, we all thought that was the end. Until April 13th came around.
I agree with everyone: you shouldn't know anything about this film when you walk into the theatre, because part of the fun is that you have these jaw-dropping moments every 15 minutes and you believe that now you have it, but you really don't and bang! Jaw drop.
5 kids go to a cabin in the woods. It's a horror film. That's about everything you really need to know.
Let's start with the cast. I loved them, especially Fran Kranz who played Marty, the stoner. The character may seem a bit too much, but somehow, he's just so lovable, loyal and real that you really don't care. And the audience broke into applauds when "The Fight" started and we saw Marty's choice of weapon, you know which one if you've seen the film... I had a bit of a problem with Chris Hemsworth. He was really good as Curt, but somehow I found him a bit irritating because I kept thinking "Where's his hammer?", but that was not his fault, this was made prior to Thor.
The whole cast felt fresh and were obviously very aware of that the filmmakers wanted to achieve, they managed to make the characters very grounded and you didn't get the impression of one-dimensional-only-there-to-die-a-gruesome-death -kind of characters. I don't think there were a single character that you hated, because.... well, I can't tell you, because that's a spoiler. Kind of... Maybe not?
Despite the young cast being so great, it's Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford who steal the show as two men who seem to control the doings of the kids in the cabin.They have amazing comedic timing and chemistry and they don't over-do their performance, they're fun, but also very real. I would love to see these two working together again in the future. They are the Regular Joes. They are us.
Which brings us to the next topic. What really makes TCITW so good is that it's not single-layered. You have the story and you can treat the film as a really fun, a bit nerdy horror film, that you can watch and be done with.
But then you have "The Meta Effect". Very discreetly Goddard and Whedon make a bold statement about today's horror films, -filmmakers and us, the audience who goes into the theatres to watch kids getting killed. It's brilliant.
They have taken all the clichés, blown them up with dynamite and rewrote them. And dear lord, does it feel good. It was interesting to see these characters that you already know from hundreds of horror films finally get a new treatment. It really got me thinking "Why haven't we seen this before? Why hasn't no one bothered to do something different until now? Why are we watching the same films over and over again?"
But even better than taking the clichés and reconstructing them, is the Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford's characters and their co-workers. They represent the filmmakers today making uninspired as well as uninspiring horror films, they have fallen into a routine, it's just another day at the office when it should be something more! The biggest difference between now and the 1980's is that the movies then were exciting, they felt new. And now they just feel used and old. Of course, we also have take into account that times have changed too. What was terrifying 20 years ago, feels like a kids' movie today. We seem to need film like Hostel to feel shocked, because nothing else will do it for us anymore. And we go and see it. And I really don't know many horror fans who have not seen Hostel or all the Saw films.
But then again, we critize people who made Hostel, because it felt cheap and bad, because it relies on the torture and not on the tension.We also kind of judge people who watch and like Hostel, because it's not a proper horror film, it's torture porn. But the truth is that these films wouldn't get made unless we were there to watch them.
Back to the actual film...
Jenkins and Whitford also represent us, the audience. We frown at them in the film, for taking the situation so lightly and making jokes and taking bets. But wait a minute, don't we do the exact same thing? We take bets on who is going to die first, we want to see the kids die disgusting deaths, we want them to die, that's why we came to the theatre! So we really can't judge them, because we would be judging ourselves and we can't have that.
I thought "the big reveal" in the end was great. I was really glad that they chose kind of a classical ending, in a way that they didn't try to make the twist too modern by making the whole film and the events unnecessary by revealing at the end that they were actually inside a studio making a film or that the kids were actually in a reality tv-show. With this ending they kind of took a bow to the oldies.
All in all, I really liked it. I understand people who didn't like it, it's right on the verge of coming off as silly and a bit stupid. But for me, it was 107 minutes of pure fun. And I am going to see it again tomorrow. People have been asking if you need to be a horror fan to "get" the film. No, you don't have to be, you will understand it, but let me say, you won't have nearly as much fun as the horror geeks in the audience!
-CoffeeCat
I saw The Cabin in the Woods last weekend and still, I feel quite amazed by it. I cannot get over its awesomeness.
You know it as the lovechild of Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard, two men who are currently my heroes. It was shelved for two years because MGM went down and for a while, we all thought that was the end. Until April 13th came around.
I agree with everyone: you shouldn't know anything about this film when you walk into the theatre, because part of the fun is that you have these jaw-dropping moments every 15 minutes and you believe that now you have it, but you really don't and bang! Jaw drop.
5 kids go to a cabin in the woods. It's a horror film. That's about everything you really need to know.
Let's start with the cast. I loved them, especially Fran Kranz who played Marty, the stoner. The character may seem a bit too much, but somehow, he's just so lovable, loyal and real that you really don't care. And the audience broke into applauds when "The Fight" started and we saw Marty's choice of weapon, you know which one if you've seen the film... I had a bit of a problem with Chris Hemsworth. He was really good as Curt, but somehow I found him a bit irritating because I kept thinking "Where's his hammer?", but that was not his fault, this was made prior to Thor.
The whole cast felt fresh and were obviously very aware of that the filmmakers wanted to achieve, they managed to make the characters very grounded and you didn't get the impression of one-dimensional-only-there-to-die-a-gruesome-death -kind of characters. I don't think there were a single character that you hated, because.... well, I can't tell you, because that's a spoiler. Kind of... Maybe not?
Despite the young cast being so great, it's Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford who steal the show as two men who seem to control the doings of the kids in the cabin.They have amazing comedic timing and chemistry and they don't over-do their performance, they're fun, but also very real. I would love to see these two working together again in the future. They are the Regular Joes. They are us.
Which brings us to the next topic. What really makes TCITW so good is that it's not single-layered. You have the story and you can treat the film as a really fun, a bit nerdy horror film, that you can watch and be done with.
But then you have "The Meta Effect". Very discreetly Goddard and Whedon make a bold statement about today's horror films, -filmmakers and us, the audience who goes into the theatres to watch kids getting killed. It's brilliant.
They have taken all the clichés, blown them up with dynamite and rewrote them. And dear lord, does it feel good. It was interesting to see these characters that you already know from hundreds of horror films finally get a new treatment. It really got me thinking "Why haven't we seen this before? Why hasn't no one bothered to do something different until now? Why are we watching the same films over and over again?"
But even better than taking the clichés and reconstructing them, is the Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford's characters and their co-workers. They represent the filmmakers today making uninspired as well as uninspiring horror films, they have fallen into a routine, it's just another day at the office when it should be something more! The biggest difference between now and the 1980's is that the movies then were exciting, they felt new. And now they just feel used and old. Of course, we also have take into account that times have changed too. What was terrifying 20 years ago, feels like a kids' movie today. We seem to need film like Hostel to feel shocked, because nothing else will do it for us anymore. And we go and see it. And I really don't know many horror fans who have not seen Hostel or all the Saw films.
But then again, we critize people who made Hostel, because it felt cheap and bad, because it relies on the torture and not on the tension.We also kind of judge people who watch and like Hostel, because it's not a proper horror film, it's torture porn. But the truth is that these films wouldn't get made unless we were there to watch them.
Back to the actual film...
Jenkins and Whitford also represent us, the audience. We frown at them in the film, for taking the situation so lightly and making jokes and taking bets. But wait a minute, don't we do the exact same thing? We take bets on who is going to die first, we want to see the kids die disgusting deaths, we want them to die, that's why we came to the theatre! So we really can't judge them, because we would be judging ourselves and we can't have that.
I thought "the big reveal" in the end was great. I was really glad that they chose kind of a classical ending, in a way that they didn't try to make the twist too modern by making the whole film and the events unnecessary by revealing at the end that they were actually inside a studio making a film or that the kids were actually in a reality tv-show. With this ending they kind of took a bow to the oldies.
All in all, I really liked it. I understand people who didn't like it, it's right on the verge of coming off as silly and a bit stupid. But for me, it was 107 minutes of pure fun. And I am going to see it again tomorrow. People have been asking if you need to be a horror fan to "get" the film. No, you don't have to be, you will understand it, but let me say, you won't have nearly as much fun as the horror geeks in the audience!
-CoffeeCat
sunnuntai 15. huhtikuuta 2012
Shame
A few months back I saw a film called "Shame". You probably know it. It's the one with the fully naked Michael Fassbender. Now that I've had time to process the film, I feel ready to write about it.
Fassbender is Brandon, a lost man in New York battling his sex addiction, which is slowly getting harder to control. When his possibly even more lost little sister moves in with him, his life spirals out of control and has unpredictable effects on his and his sister's lives.
Honestly, after seeing this film, I was speechless, but at the same time I had so much on my mind. Everything from the absolutely beautiful score, heard in the beginning and end, to the editing was pitch perfect. The long take on Carey Mulligan singing " New York, New York" was one of the most capturing ones I have seen in a while. And the climatic scene(s) showing Brandon roaming the city, trying to find something to satisfy him when nothing is enough for him anymore, was beautiful and horrifying and hard to watch.
Michael Fassbender gives a bold performance as Brandon. His character is easy to hate, but at the same time, there is something very humane about him. I was enraged when I found out that the Academy did not give him the nomination for Best Actor. His performance made this film and he carries the weight of it without making us think he is trying too hard. His connection with Brandon is remarkable.
Carey Mulligan is good as Brandon's sister Sissy, but I did hope to see more of her. I did not feel a strong connection to her, she felt a bit thin. I also hoped to see Brandon's boss more. He was there in the beginning, where did he go all of a sudden? I wished for a phone message or an e-mail, explaining his sudden absence in Brandon's life, they were friends after all.
Steven McQueen has created a masterpiece that will challenge its audience without using complex plots with twist endings. He raises questions about addictions and the people behind them and how easily their lives spiral down when they cannot control their urges anymore, without passing judgment. He shows Brandon as a human being, not a villain or a tragic hero and that is what sets Shame apart from other films. It's realistic and it's good and you should see it.
-CoffeeCat
Fassbender is Brandon, a lost man in New York battling his sex addiction, which is slowly getting harder to control. When his possibly even more lost little sister moves in with him, his life spirals out of control and has unpredictable effects on his and his sister's lives.
Honestly, after seeing this film, I was speechless, but at the same time I had so much on my mind. Everything from the absolutely beautiful score, heard in the beginning and end, to the editing was pitch perfect. The long take on Carey Mulligan singing " New York, New York" was one of the most capturing ones I have seen in a while. And the climatic scene(s) showing Brandon roaming the city, trying to find something to satisfy him when nothing is enough for him anymore, was beautiful and horrifying and hard to watch.
Michael Fassbender gives a bold performance as Brandon. His character is easy to hate, but at the same time, there is something very humane about him. I was enraged when I found out that the Academy did not give him the nomination for Best Actor. His performance made this film and he carries the weight of it without making us think he is trying too hard. His connection with Brandon is remarkable.
Carey Mulligan is good as Brandon's sister Sissy, but I did hope to see more of her. I did not feel a strong connection to her, she felt a bit thin. I also hoped to see Brandon's boss more. He was there in the beginning, where did he go all of a sudden? I wished for a phone message or an e-mail, explaining his sudden absence in Brandon's life, they were friends after all.
Steven McQueen has created a masterpiece that will challenge its audience without using complex plots with twist endings. He raises questions about addictions and the people behind them and how easily their lives spiral down when they cannot control their urges anymore, without passing judgment. He shows Brandon as a human being, not a villain or a tragic hero and that is what sets Shame apart from other films. It's realistic and it's good and you should see it.
-CoffeeCat
Tilaa:
Blogitekstit (Atom)