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.
lauantai 30. kesäkuuta 2012
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
lauantai 3. joulukuuta 2011
The Tree of Life
Ah, what a better way to start my blog than share my thoughts on the most controversial film of 2011, in my opinion of course. Terrence Malick's Tree of Life won Palme D'Or at Cannes and got five star reviews. Many theatres had to put up signs warning people that the film's editing wasn't linear, because so many people walked out and wanted their money back. How does something like this happen?
I saw the film in London. I do not live in the UK so for me it was a very special occassion. I travelled 40 minutes from where I was staying just to see this film, I had waited for it and the posters led me to believe it was going to mind-blowing. It was.
There were about 20 people in the theatre, because the latest Harry Potter had stolen all the crowds. I had a nice chat with a lovely elderly lady, because we were the first ones to go in, we thought "this wasn't everyone's cup of tea". When the film ended, there were maybe 15 people left. I have never seen people leave the theatre before and for the first time, I was also thinking about leaving in the middle of the film, but decided to stay.
In the end, I did enjoy Tree of Life, but I don't think I fully understood it, but then again, who did? And even though I enjoy artistic film with non-linear editing, I thought this had one major problem. The infamous birth of the universe scene. Beautiful, absolutely beautiful, but in the wrong place, in the wrong time. You start a film with 3 different timelines: the boys as children, the boys as adolescent when the Mother receives the terrible news and then the oldest son as an adult, played by Sean Penn. You introduce the characters and you let the audience have a sneak peek at what the lives of these boys and this family was back then and how it has affected Sean Penn's character. And then, 25 minutes into the film, you put in a 25 minute nature documentary with dinosaurs . And then you carry on like nothing happened. The scene was breathtaking and beautiful, there's no denying that, but for me, it felt like with every passing minute I was moving farther away from the characters and when we got back to them, we had forgotten who they were or how they were relevant to this film.
The middle part was the strongest and most enjoyable part for me. Brad Pitt was amazing, when did he became such a respectable actor? I remember seeing him in films that didn't really matter, that were fun but forgettable. But that's just me. And the young Hunter McCracken, I hope we see more of him. Sean Penn and Jessica Chastain also delivered fine roles as the adul Jack O'Brien and as Mother. All the actors really did an amazing job and the everything from the script to the cinematography worked for me. But leaving the theatre, I had a feeling that if someone asked me what the film was about, I wouldn't know what to say. And I felt utterly confused, like 80 % of everyone who saw this film. But I also felt impressed. Like I said, it was a beautiful film with steady direction and well played characters that weren't one-dimensional.
I bought the DVD a week ago and I watched it again. The film made more sense, but I still felt like the nature scene should have been in the very beginning or at the very end. I would not cut the whole scene, it's beautiful, but I would just... place it differently.
Overall, Tree of Life was very satisfying and beautiful film by Terrence Malick, that left a lot of us in awe as well as confusion, wondering which way am I living. The way of Nature or the way of Grace. How about you? What were you feeling?
I saw the film in London. I do not live in the UK so for me it was a very special occassion. I travelled 40 minutes from where I was staying just to see this film, I had waited for it and the posters led me to believe it was going to mind-blowing. It was.
There were about 20 people in the theatre, because the latest Harry Potter had stolen all the crowds. I had a nice chat with a lovely elderly lady, because we were the first ones to go in, we thought "this wasn't everyone's cup of tea". When the film ended, there were maybe 15 people left. I have never seen people leave the theatre before and for the first time, I was also thinking about leaving in the middle of the film, but decided to stay.
In the end, I did enjoy Tree of Life, but I don't think I fully understood it, but then again, who did? And even though I enjoy artistic film with non-linear editing, I thought this had one major problem. The infamous birth of the universe scene. Beautiful, absolutely beautiful, but in the wrong place, in the wrong time. You start a film with 3 different timelines: the boys as children, the boys as adolescent when the Mother receives the terrible news and then the oldest son as an adult, played by Sean Penn. You introduce the characters and you let the audience have a sneak peek at what the lives of these boys and this family was back then and how it has affected Sean Penn's character. And then, 25 minutes into the film, you put in a 25 minute nature documentary with dinosaurs . And then you carry on like nothing happened. The scene was breathtaking and beautiful, there's no denying that, but for me, it felt like with every passing minute I was moving farther away from the characters and when we got back to them, we had forgotten who they were or how they were relevant to this film.
The middle part was the strongest and most enjoyable part for me. Brad Pitt was amazing, when did he became such a respectable actor? I remember seeing him in films that didn't really matter, that were fun but forgettable. But that's just me. And the young Hunter McCracken, I hope we see more of him. Sean Penn and Jessica Chastain also delivered fine roles as the adul Jack O'Brien and as Mother. All the actors really did an amazing job and the everything from the script to the cinematography worked for me. But leaving the theatre, I had a feeling that if someone asked me what the film was about, I wouldn't know what to say. And I felt utterly confused, like 80 % of everyone who saw this film. But I also felt impressed. Like I said, it was a beautiful film with steady direction and well played characters that weren't one-dimensional.
I bought the DVD a week ago and I watched it again. The film made more sense, but I still felt like the nature scene should have been in the very beginning or at the very end. I would not cut the whole scene, it's beautiful, but I would just... place it differently.
Overall, Tree of Life was very satisfying and beautiful film by Terrence Malick, that left a lot of us in awe as well as confusion, wondering which way am I living. The way of Nature or the way of Grace. How about you? What were you feeling?
Tilaa:
Blogitekstit (Atom)