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.
Tilaa:
Blogitekstit (Atom)