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.
Tilaa:
Blogitekstit (Atom)