Minnesota native and movie lover Morgan Lee Potter reviews any and all films.
- One girl, thousands of movies; endless rants, swoons, and possibilities!
If you would have told me three years ago a Matthew McConaughey performance would leave me in tears (multiple times) I would have laughed in your face...
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Released: 2014
Staring: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, and Michael Caine
Rated: PG-13
Christopher Nolan once again reminds me why I love cinema. A director who understands both the visual and narrative elements, he transports to worlds unknown and warps our minds all while keeping the story grounded in human relationships. Interstellar builds to a crescendo of sight, sound and emotion. A thrill to watch, this film is nothing less than the perfect cinematic experience. Nails were bit, tears shed, and breath taken away. Nolan, his creative team, and extensive acting ensemble create nothing short of the most original film of the year and (arguably) Nolan's best work. Before viewing Interstellar I pegged The Dark Knight as Nolan's definitive masterpiece; now, that title seems up for debate.
Bold and devilishly clever, director Christopher Nolan
on set with star Matthew McConaughey
The Dark Knight posses a timeless quality I call the re-watch factor. No matter how many times you've seen The Dark Knight there's always something new to appreciate in it's near perfect construction and execution. Interstellar lacks none of The Dark Knight's prestige or re-watchable attributes; those attributes, are simply different. I refrain from comparing Interstellar with Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy (primarily The Dark Knight) on the basis of adapted vs. original work. In the respects of an action movie I would rate The Dark Knight a better, overall movie; however, Interstellar isn't JUST an action movie. What Nolan does brilliantly, in all of his films, is implement personal drama onto large scale crisis. He takes an action movie, a mystery thriller, or in Interstellar's case, sci-fi and injects one of humanities' biggest struggles; relationships with other humans.
Simple or complex, human relationships define us. The decisions we make and how we react to decisions made by others drive our lives, making interactions with fellow humans unique. Nolan applies the emotional human scale as a spring board for the plot and Interstellar's utilization of human relationships propel the film higher than any of his pervious work. A heightened emotional drama such as Interstellar needs a top notch cast to effectively communicate with it's audience. Once again, under Nolan's watchful eye and carefully written script, the best of the best shine their brightest. Known for bringing together large, talented ensembles, Nolan runs into the problem of having too much talent and not enough material. Not lamenting the length of Interstellar ,it's nearly 3 hours long, but I found myself wanting more from each character. Smaller parts such as Casey Affleck's, are fascinating and so well performed it's a let down when they're not important enough to warrant more screen time. A problem, but perhaps not the worst one to have.
Talented novice Mackenzie Foy & newly minted Oscar Winner Matthew MacConaughey
A surprise appearance alongside talent both young and old, Interstellar's cast carry the film in ways stunning visuals never could. McConaughey delves deeper into his emotional range, exploring a relationship most of his earlier selfish characters never touched upon. The father daughter relationship. Creating an honest relationship on screen is hard, creating an honest relationship between an adult and a child, harder still yet McConaughey's and the fresh faced Mackenzie Foy's performances meld seamlessly. Their connection is an essential force that dictates the tone of the film and audience's reactions to it's development. Jessica Chastain remains one of commercial film's most under-rated gems. She, like most of the supporting cast, lack the time to build a real character connection with the audience, most of it come from the fact that she is the older version of McConaughey's daughter. Chastain takes what she's given and amplifies her character's importance none the less. Anne Hathaway's role and performance felt somewhat forced during her crucial, text heavy scenes but over all her presence adds variety to the cast. This is a nice way of saying that the Nolan Brother's scripts lack WOMEN, an important and intricate topic I may touch on in a later post bu for now I'll leave it at that.
Jessica Chastain adds another knock out performance to her resume
Interstellar, like Inception, offers a unique story producing more than it's far share of shocks. That being said, after several different viewings those shocks loose their value, no matter how brilliantly they play out. Deconstructing Interstellar reveals a formula nearly identical to Inception. Not the film itself, just it's formula. Tropes of time travel i.e. relativity direct Interstellar's mind-bending story and unravel it's plot akin to Inception. A fascinating comparison that will have film theorist/analysis dissecting Nolan's two films for years to come.
Similar tropes and themes don't hold Instellar back from being the most original film of the year. Hans Zimmer returns with an hauntly gorgeous score reminiscent of 2001: A Space Odyssey, without a doubt, his best work since Inception. Shout out to the Orchestra's organ soloist whose disturbing and impactful chords set the film's otherworldly sense of dangerous beauty. Visuals, on par with any Nolan film, transcend expectations. Space allows unnumbered possibilities and Nolan accompanied by his team of visual effects artist take advantage of everyone of those possibilities. A feat of senses and emotions, this bold space epic can not be missed on the big screen. Interstellar masterfully entrances audiences, cementing them to their seats and leaving them speechless.
Getting the chance to watch a film on 35mm was a real treat
and reading "This film was shot and finished on film" icing on the cake.
Staring: Ben Affleck, Rosamond Pike, Carrie Coon, Neil Patrick Harris, & Tyler Perry
Rated: R
Misogyny, Murder, Marriage; who better to direct Gillian Flynn's twisted, relavent novel than David Fincher. The master of the modern, dark thriller, Fincher presents a film whose source material mirrors many themes in his 2011 adaptation of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Gone Girl is a manipulative roller coaster ride, offering an obvious path to audiences before whisking them down an unexpectedly wicked tunnel.
Visually striking, the film's aesthetic (as well as it's score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) screams Fincher. There's no question Fincher was the best choice to bring author Gillian Flynn's complex characters to life on the big screen and who better to pen the screenplay than the author herself. Beautiful visual qualities and haunting score aside, the most important piece to Gone Girl's delightfully dismal puzzle is it's screenplay. Any time a best seller is in adaption, there's a risk of loosing the story's true message and spirit. Flynn adapting her own novel was crucial in developing a successful film. And Gone Girl is one quality film.
Fincher/Flynn fed this film to the media as a missing persons thriller. Upon first glance, clean and simple, this Scott Peterson-esque drama quickly unravels the mysteries beyond the media frenzy. This is a film both men and women of this generation need to see. This is a film about marriage, what it means to present yourself as someone your not for the happiness of another. This is a film that calls into question how women act for men. How women are treated by men and what they should do about that. I would categorize Gone Girl as a feminist film based on the fact it's one of the few in recent memory that depicts men and women as true equals...for now I'll leave it at that, the second half of my review is a deeper analysis that enters spoiler territory. YOU'VE BEEN WARNED.
But for now I'll keep it clean.
The first act is slow, set up, but as soon as that second act sets in, following Amy's "Cool Girl" speech, the game elevates and in it's finale, Gone Girl explodes in a shower of sinister shocks. The the collective gasps, moans and mutters in the theater following the progression of the film literally speak volumes. AUDIENCE REACTION reveals more about a film than any critics review; it's a testament to the film's effectiveness. You didn't like Gone Girl's ending? GOOD. Your reaction, that little burn of annoyance in the center of your chest affirms the film's quality. Great films elicit reaction, uproar...your reaction had nothing to do with media surrounding the director, the actors, or the studio, it's purely rooted in response to the film's story, script and how it was presented on screen and THAT is great screen writing and great filmmaking. There's nothing more satisfying then entering a theater and partaking in a true cinematic experience like Gone Girl. It's films like Gone Girl, ones that create buzz and discussion, that remind me why I love the cinema and the influential media it can be.
Assisting Fincher and Flynn on their expertly crafted thriller is a grade-A cast. Main and supporting cast are strong and several surprise with their bold performances. The one complaint I do have regarding the screenplay and film in general is that characters, especially supporting roles played by Tyler Perry and Neil Patrick Harris, aren't given time to be fully fleshed out. The surface and what's just below are there, but what really drives them feels absent. Even the film's focus, Nick Dunne is reduced from the conditioned misogynist he's presented to be in the book. However, the film's runtime already surpassing two and a half hours, I feel it couldn't have been helped and didn't derail the overall effectiveness of the work.
Ben Affleck IS Nick Dunne, for him it's not much of a stretch. The man in search of the "Cool Girl", dreamboat turned douchebag is realistic and believable. The effectiveness of his presence and performance in the film feels more the result of considered casting rather than real, impactful acting. Nick's counter part played by Roseamund Pike however plays the opposite side of that coin. An actress who occasionally pops up on the radar if you watch a considerable amount of British films, it's safe to say Pike isn't a huge presence in American film. One of those rare actresses who understand the effectiveness of subtlety, Pike dominates the screen with her portrayal of Amy Dunne. Those moments of subtlety are interjected with explosions of commanding emotion, making the performance as dynamic as the written character. Scenes between Pike and Affleck build upon tension and eventually erupt into seething exchanges audiences can't help but squirm in response to.
The supporting cast of Tyler Perry and Neil Patrick Harris, again not completely developed, were pleasant surprises. Known for very specific characters, the two step outside the walls mainstream media recently boxed them into and play their respective characters quite well. I would have enjoyed observing and learning more about both, a testament to the actors' performances.
Gone Girl, proves a difficult film to discuss without entering spoiler territory and for that reason I'm breaking my review in half The first a basic look at the film as a whole, spoiler free and the second a deeper analysis of characters and how Fincher/Flynn represented them. So I'll leave yo with this; Gone Girl, an important film, is beautifully directed, expertly written and smartly acted. It'll have you crying out in your seats and wanting more from each character. A series of twists and shocking exchanges between characters make Gone Girl a thriller that's worth watching as soon as possible.
YOU ARE NOW ENTERING SPOILER TERRITORY, as in I'll be discussing big plot twists that you may NOT want to know if you haven't seen the film and want to be surprised.
-----------------------------
Tumblr enjoyed this film just as much as I did.
Thank you David Fincher and thank you Gillian Flynn for writing women equally calculating and formidable as men. Gone Girl evolves from enjoyable murder mystery to quality thriller following Amy's "Cool Girl" speech and the reveal that she is behind her own disappearance. The beauty behind Gone Girl is it's address female conditioning. Conditioning women to perform for men, conditioning women to accept how men treat them, and conditioning women to fear men. One of the most fulfilling moments in the film takes place after Amy's return; as she, the women, tucks Nick into bed his faced is flushed with fear. Flynn creates a female character whose actions are on the same despicable level as the mans. THAT is what's groundbreaking about Gone Girl.
Directors like Lars Von Trier depict women as villains but never pit them equally against their male counterparts. Antichrist in particular features a female character who wreaks havoc for no other reason than the fact that women are inherently evil and men deserve to be tortured and destroyed. A truly horrible film in it's representation of women. Gone Girl shows that men can be cruel, women can be cruel; both genders are capable of manipulating and and performing for the other. Amy and Nick are represented as equal characters both guilty of horrendous crimes, leaving audiences to discuss who's actions deserve more ridicule. Initially, majority of surrounding audiences reacted with "Wow, what a crazy bitch.", but let's think beyond those primal conclusions. Why such a strong reaction to this female character?
Society has been taught to fear women in power, specifically power of their own lives and actions. In the film Amy takes her life into her own hands, plans revenge, plans her own death and finally asks "Why do I have to die?" Yes the discovery of her dead body would be the final nail in her husbands coffin, but ultimately Nick would be crowned the victor. He would have gotten what he always wanted, his wife gone. SO SHE ACTS. Those actions are perceived by many audiences as "crazy" and "selfish" but they're also parallel with Nick's actions during their marriage. Flynn pens some truly wonderful dialog between Nick and Amy explaining the dichotomy of the male and female relationship...primarily the "Cool Girl"speech and this little bit of spice in the film's third act.
Amy : I'm the cunt you married. The only time you liked yourself was when you were trying to be someone this cunt might like. I'm not a quitter, I'm that cunt. I killed for you; who else can say that? You think you'd be happy with a nice Midwestern girl? No way, baby! I'm it.
Nick : Fuck. You're delusional. I mean, you're insane, why would you even want this? Yes, I loved you and then all we did was resent each other, try to control each other. We caused each other pain.
Flynn's prose has a raw edge that makes it all the more relavant and impactful to the audience. Amy Dunne shouldn't be critiqued as a bitch, she should be a hailed as a complex, literary character; capable, strong and sly as the boys. She experiences moments of triumph and moments of failure. Neither Amy nor Nick end up the clear victor, both are condemned to live with the other who made them so completely unhappy...but this time both possess the same portion of command and control. Feminism isn't about hating men, it's about being their equals and Gone Girl, while not completely perfect, represents it more clearly than any film in recent history.
While Gravity may have been King of last weekends box office, Captain Phillips is packed full of just as much intensity and thrilling action; not to mention brilliant performances.
Directed by: Paul Greengrass
Released: 2013
Staring: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi, Barkhad Abdiraham, Faysal Ahmed, Mahat M. Ali, & Michael Chernus.
Rated: PG-13
Times Viewed: 1
"Based on a True Story" often leads to over-exposed and ultimate let down of many films in today's market; however, Captain Phillips lives up to the hype and offers the audience a solid and memorable action thriller.
When Captain Phillips first crossed my radar I wasn't overly concerned with it's presence. Yes Tom Hanks is good but it was just going to be another dumbed down action-withouth action movie, nothing to get excited about. Weeks passed and the hype over the true tale of a brave cargo ship captain grew and grew, traveling from media sites to my own parents. "That Tom Hanks is just incredible" my Dad boasted "Very good. Very intense" my Mother described via text. With their stamps of approval and the ever present accompaniment of "Oscar Buzz" I thought it was time to give Captain Phillips a chance. If all else fails, it has Tom Hanks, he's always a treat to watch!
Captain Phillips successfully lives up to it's praise. Paul Greengrass creates a film that is not only laden with suspense, intensity, and action, but REALITY. Too often in Hollywood, action films turn into monstrous feasts of CGI, Good Guy vs. Bad Guy, and unnecessary SFX. Captain Phillips minimizes all the artificial aspects of an action film and allows the story be the source of action, not the effects. Granted, Greengrass had quite the story to work with. NOT to say I believe every event depicted in the film was what happened in real life, but how often is that what a film sets out to do?
Based on True Event films like Captain Phillips set out to raise awareness and tell a great story. Is that always the right thing to do? No, but it's what making films is so often about, interpretation and presentation, not give an exact account. Yes, telling the real story is important but audiences must understand that this cinema and liberties will always be taken. I'm not here to tell you if Captain Phillips was an accurate presentation of the hijacking of Maersk Alabama in 2009, I'm here to review the film. If a movie like this is presented in such a way that it sparks my curiosity about the real events and compels me to do a bit of research, it's done it's job...along with entertaining of course.
Greengrass' execution builds upon constant tension without feeling like a one note movie. Captain Phillips isn't confined to one space or vantage point, allowing the audience insight to more than just it's title character while retaining a sense of perspective. That perspective, while slightly slanted, is not singular. From beginning to end, the audience is shown both Phillips' and Pirate leader Muse's lives, motivations, and approach to their respective situations. Greengrass does this by presenting parallels in each man's life, showing the audience that the American Captain and Somali Pirate are not so different. I really loved this. Muse{pronounced "Moo-Say" I think}is , without a doubt, the antagonist; however, he's not completely unsympathetic. Audiences are shown why he's Pirating, his struggles, and his determination to prove himself. You're not necessarily rooting for the Pirates, but because of the insight into their lives and motivations, you're don't entirely want them to fail. A fresh take for the worn, one sided approach Hollywood so often takes. To quote one, Tom Hiddlestone "Every Villain is a Hero in his own mind." Captain Phillips illustrates this beautifully.
Director Paul Greengrass with his cast of Somali Actors on the set of Captain Phillips (2013)
"From the Director of The Borne Supremacy & Ultimatum" had me nervous. These are the films that brought us the current action film staple...SHAKEY HAND-CAM. Yes that lovely, belligerent craft of strapping a camera to one's hand and not giving a frame as to whether the audience can acutely tell what's being filmed for not...Everyone rats on J.J. Abrams for lens flares? Shaky Cam will always be my ultimate enemy...
So you see why I had my reserves about the film due to it's director, but Greengrass blew away all preconceived assumptions and delivered one helluva great action film. A great story helps, but the way this movie was filmed is what made it a such a success for me. "No tricks" as many characters in the movie often repeat, there were no tricks while making Captain Phillips. No ridiculous camera tricks, SFX tricks, or (most importantly) CGI tricks. This was solid thrills and action done without a single explosion or illogical car {boat} chase. In simpler terms, everything in Captain Phillips made sense. I never felt there was a time when I was apart of a sequence of action that didn't NEED to happen.
Now action cannot be anything without actors and Captain Phillips' cast is ripe with raw, talented actors. Tom Hanks, I don't think this man has made a bad movie. And don't you dare say the Da Vinci Code because I immensely enjoy that movie! We all know Hanks can be the good guy, the nice guy, the funny guy, but we rarely see him in such a HUMAN role. It's refreshing to see him portraying a though, sometimes verging on unlikable character. Hanks doesn't milk the scene he has with his wife at the beginning, he just makes it real. The same goes for the first couple scenes as his character first takes charge of the Alabama and it's crew. Dare I say, he's kind of a hard ass. But it's truth, it's real. Hanks' final scene, after his rescue, is one of the most heart wrenching on film this year. The pure emotion that he exhibits is unbelievable and leaves not one dry eye in the theater.
While Hanks is the obviously the big star in the film his rookie co-stars are not to be cast into his illustrious shadow. Much of the hype that's followed Captain Phillips has been surrounding the Somali actors who portray the hijacking pirates. All who, I might add, are from MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA! The four amateurs play it like old pros, all unforgiving and truthful as Hanks himself. Barkhad Abdi, the leader of the pirate crew, is getting a fair amount of Oscar Buzz for his performance and for good reason. Even in his silent moments we see the cogs turing in his mind, calculating and determining. Abdi holds his own against Hanks and gives a truly outstanding performance that is reason enough to check out Captain Phillips.
If you haven't seen it yet, Captain Phillips is the one to watch this weekend. Where Gravity staggered in acting, Captain Phillips sores above. This film is everything that a GOOD action film should be complimented by top notch acting. It's bound to score at least one Academy Award nom come early next year; this is one Oscar film that can be enjoyed by any and all audiences.
"You play with a Prince to do business with the King"
Directed by: David Cronenberg
Released: 2007
Staring: Naomi Watts, Viggo Mortensen, Armin Mueller-Stahl, & Vincent Cassel
Rated: R
Times Viewed: 3
It's David Cronenberg's birthday today and coincidentally I watched his film "Eastern Promises" last weekend. A film many say was in contention with Scorsese's "The Departed" for best mobster film of the past decade. Both released within a year of each other, Eastern Promises was produced on a much smaller scale but packs just as hard a punch.
Where The Departed is a loud and brash game of cat and mouse, Eastern Promises has a quiet kind of suspense about it. Not to say this movie doesn't have it's fair share of violence because let's face it, it's Cronenberg. The man's middle name IS violence. *cough* History of Violence *cough* The trailer is a bit misleading from the actual plot of the film but the basic story is communicated quite well.
p.s. I love The Departed just was much as Eastern Promises. I am not bashing it in anyway...just comparing the two.
Viggo Mortensen is a knock out and I'm not just saying that because he has a nude fight scene in a bath house...but come on, that was pretty bad ass. There is a bit of a surprise tacked on to Mortensen's character at the end that really defines his actions and elevates the story to a whole new level. His Oscar nod was well deserved and I really wish he would take on more parts...more parts like this one. Check out his flawless performance in this scene with Armin Mueller-Stahl, another silent, yet hurricane like force that drives the film.
If you like mafia flicks, great acting, and a touch of violence, I highly suggest you watch Eastern Promises. It's a film that takes you out of the hunt and inside the mob, the family, and the consequences. Beautifully directed by David Cornenberg who today turns 70.
I love B-camp, bloody, gory horror films, but honestly, what just happened?
Directed by: Jeremy Kasten
Released: 2007
Staring: Crisping Glover, Brad Dourif, lots of horrible unknown actors and strippers. No really, they are an actual group of strippers/porn stars...The Suicide Girls
Rating: R or Unrated
......I wish I had a running sound bite for chirping crickets because that's the only thing I heard when I try to think of something logical to say about Wizard of Gore. The concept of the film was so promising and it's execution so dismally disappointing. And if you're wondering, yes this film was watched on my Crispin Glover viewing escapade...Sadly, not even Glover's creepy charms could save this horrific illusion of a "mind bending" horror rampage.
Basic Synopsis...A downtown journalsist attends several shows featuring the magician Montag the Magnificent in a seedy, underground venue. During the show, the Wizard of Gore chooses a member of the female audience and appears to dismember their body on stage, but when the lights come up it is revealed as nothing more than an illusion. The following day the bodies of the girls are found murdered in very similar fashion to their on stage deaths. As journalist Edmund travels down the rabbit hole, he discovers that he has become more apart of this wonderland than he'd like.
Sounds like a solid outline for an interesting game of cat and mouse movie making right? This is just the problem...this script and the film makers don't keep to this solid story, instead they choose to trip themselves and the audience up on back stories, side stories, incomplete stories, past stories, present stories and any other type of added "story" you can imagine.
We have a magician who is possibly using his show as a cover for his murderous urges yes? Yes. We also have the possibility that someone ELSE is using Montag's show as a cover for HIS murderous urges yes? Yes. Two, you have TWO great murder motifs that you could run with the whole film. Was it Montag or was it not Montag...Is someone else using his tricks as basis for their murder? If so who and if so why? If it had just been left at that this movie could have been successful.
But no. We have to add in strippers, and drugs, and sex, and vietnam (just what?), and how Edmund knows absolutely everyone, and where he met his girlfriends and how he secretly gets off on beating women, and there is the escort service, and all the girls that are killed are apart of this escort service and how Edmund is involved with the murderers, perhaps HE is the murderer Oh my good, gracious father above, let's make him an UNRELIABLE CHARACTER so we can JUSTIFY this whole movie NOT making sense or fitting together in the end!
Ok!!! Now that that is out of my system I'll attempt to do and actual review. I know I usually go a bit deeper into story line and characters but honestly I just can't do it for this film. Why? Because I truthfully still do not know what happened at the end. I watched this movie from beginning to end and do not know who the ultimate killer was at the end. Too many would be killers turned into victims and and with a big part of the story being the use of this drug that can make people believe what you want them to believe, the viewers is in for a big disappointment if they expect to get any real closure with this film.
Is Edmund just being a good boyfriend and giving his girlfriend Maggie and message or is he hell bend on snapping her neck in two? I never figured it out. Kip Pardue & Bijou Phillips in The Wizard of Gore.
Characters and Setting- The main character of Edmund is just dull! Boring, uninteresting and poorly POORLY written. Any development that his character supposedly goes through is NOT well written or in that case performed by the incapable Kip Pardue. His character wanders around in 1940's garb living in a world that apparently "HE created" If Edmund really had collected such an interesting group of misfits to fill his surrounding habitat in, I would have liked to see more characters that mimic his 1940's style and attitude. You could have the squeaky blonde dame, the street wise, chain-smoking best friend who works in the morgue, a mysterious and sexy asian lady who works for the enemy. Is she spying is on him? Is she falling in love with him...just so many characters that hold that sleazy 1940's downtown crime style that the movie tries so hard to emulate but only does for ONE character. There is a Halloween scene at the beginning were a couple of characters are sporting some retro grab and I think if they would have carried that theme throughout the WHOLE movie it would have made it visually intriguing as well as add some continuity to the otherwise jumbled mess of odd characters. The downtown L.A. location is great for that old school crime thriller atmosphere and if the director would have chosen to extend this 1940's esque world that Edmund has apparently "surrounded" himself in it would have made much more sense for the character and the intended feel of the film.
OMG. I'm SO retro.
This gate is retro right?
We are not going to talk about Edmunds idiot of a girlfriend Maggie because I don't even want to go there and I don't believe I can without repeatedly swearing and confusing myself and you even more. Brad Dourif, a.k.a Grima Wormtonge to us Lord of the Rings fans, plays a...a doctor/vietnam vet/message therapist/ acupuncture/ drug dealer who we think is maybe, was, sort of not, could be friend of Edmund...I mean he helps him figure things out (because obviously stellar journalist sleuth can't do that on his own) and tells Edmund that he supplies the hallucination drug Treto Detoxin (?) to Montag who dispenses it throughout his audience by greeting each one at the theater door with a hand shake...mmm, slimy! Dourif's character almost makes sense in this film...I mean he's suppose to be a crazed war vet/drug dealer and I'm not going to lie, he plays that part well...gold start to the drug lord! ...who may or may not be the murderer and may or may not know who the killer is and may or may not be controlled by the drugs he distributed...you see how this movie works now?
I'm pretty sure these were the four main facial expressions I made throughout the film.
Sometimes pictures say so much more than words.
"Uh...wha?" "Oh mah Gosh!" "No GROOOSS!" And the end "WTF?"
Uh...and now for the part that I really don't want to talk about but must...because Crispin Glover is the only reason I'm writing this review.
In this film...Crispin Glover is strange...and I don't mean like his regular, cute awkward intriguing strange...I mean like eh this part is so bad I'm just sorry you took this role and I don't want people to judge you for it because it's not your best work although you are the best actor in the movie and I wish you had more screen time and oh my gosh those are really tight white pants they have you in and I like your hair like that but oh my gosh why are you eating that squid intestine baby is that thing from Prometheus and is that the voice you use when you have sex because you basically sound like you're having sex throughout your entire stage performance and I kind of like it but not really because I'm actually quite terrified of you right now but not in a good way please just don't shove that florescent light down your throat again....and ya.
Umm...well I don't remember him actually EATING it in the movie...I though he just rips it out...
Glover's character Montag the Magnificent was written to be the cynical, psychological villain who messes with our minds and seems to justify each killing with an analogy for the lack of emotions humans posses and our desensitization to horror and gore (WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN A GREAT MOTIF FOR A GORE BASED HORROR FILM TO PLAY UPON...but no. We had to have strippers and drugs.) These could have been some great monologs for Glover to deliver except he uses this gasping, sexual voice when he's on stage as the illusionist. The only time we don't get this disturbing delivery is when he chooses the girl who will assist him in his demonstration of gore and debauchery. I believe "SIT DOWN BITCH! You die tonight." are the lines...interesting...I must say that things like screen play are not the actors fault...it's the screenwriters. Zach Chassler (according to IMDB) YOU die tonight. Or just please never write another screen play ever again.
"Sit down bitch! You die tonight."
Crispin Glover as Montag the Magnificent...just crazy as hell.
For as uncomfortable as Montag the Magnificent is, I do wish his character would have gotten more screen time. At least he's intriguing, amusing, and actually sensical believe it or not.
On the plus side, Glover gets to use his Creepy Thin man sword training again! :D
And that's all the farther I feel like I can go with this one...can't really recommend it for anyone unless you're a huge blood and gore horror fan, which I know there are a ton of people our there who love this movie. I watched solely for Crispin Glover and while I wasn't really disappointed with him, it was just the fact that I'll never get back the two hours I spent watching this movie...and even more tying to figure out who actually DONE it! Concept I like. Production I hate.
P.S. I KNOW that this movie is based off of a Herschell Gordon Lewis slasher flick from the 70's, but as I said in my review for Willard I'm not a big fan of 70's film so I've left it alone and haven't checked it out. I thought the 2007 version might just be one of those bad remakes of a gory, horror classic but when I look on IMDB their ratings only differ by .3 Original Wizard of gore at 5.3 stars and the 2007 version at 5.0...so I figured the original can't be much better...especially if it was from the 70's.
If you read the whole review wow and thanks a lots! I know it was kind of an odd one but I can't praise every movie I watch...this review was more of a subconscious train of thought.
Slowing down? So is James Bond...after this film he might be joining you in a retirement home while Ben Whinshaw takes out all the badies from his apartment in his pajamas.
Directed: Sam Mendes
Released: 2012
Staring: Daniel Craig, Dame Judi Dench, Ralph Fiennes, Javier Bardem, & Ben Whinshaw.
Rating: PG-13
Times Viewed: 2
It's Saturday night, February 23rd, 2013 and as my friend and I walk towards Coffman Memorial Student Center in the University of Minnesota campus I'm preparing myself of a night of historical, emotion drama catered by Stephen Spielsbergs Lincoln. I have yet to see the film which stars one of my favorite, as well as best actors of all time, Daniel Day-Lewis. As we enter the building and our third friend greets us she informs us that it's not Lincoln that is showing tonight but Skyfall. At first of course I was quite disappointed; I had been looking forward to crossing it off my "Need to Watch" Oscar Best Picture Nominee list. Not to be discouraged though, when my friends asked if we should stay or go back to the dorm I replied we should stay. We were already there and even though we all had seen the movie before we all enjoyed it and greatly appreciated Daniel Craig.
This is NOT Lincoln. And yes, more people did show up
Skyfall, directed by Sam Mendes, is without a doubt my favorite Bond film. I've truly enjoyed watching the resurrection of the Bond franchise these past few years. The Bond films (to me) should be classy, suave, attractive, and just a little bit risky, just like 007 himself. The films staring Pierce Brosnan were anything but classy, suave, or attractive. They were big, loud, and dumb. Brosana himself was not bad. He was a fabulous choice for Bond, but the movies alone were almost too action packed with plots so ridiculous they were never to be believed and teetered on the edge of sci-fi. That all changed in 2006 with Casino Royale. We had a new (BLONDE) Bond who many didn't feel had the same commercial appeal that the other's had possessed. This feeling of unease among many 007 fans was quickly diminished when the viewed the movie. This was the Bond film that brought back the suave smoothness of the classic Bonds. The car chases were there, the femme fatales were there, the fights were there, and the explosions were there, but done in a way to bring the realism of these stories to the audience. As in film all things must be exaggerated, but the new series of Bond films still read true to the clever movie goer. Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall rely more on story, character development, and style rather than smoke and fire to make the film appealing to views. Not saying that the new franchise doesn't have it's fair share of excitement and impressive effects.
I'm going to put it out there and say that Skyfall is probably the most beautiful action movie to be filmed in the past ten years. This movie is GORGEOUS. Cinematographer Roger Deakins is master of manipulation when it comes to illumincent light versus dark. He works in shadow and silhouettes, acknowledging the script were both our hero Bond and villain Silva are said to have "come from the shadows, a place you don't believe exists." The first shot in the entire film is 007 walking through a darkened corridor and pausing for a moment to assess the situation while allowing the narrowest beam of light to pass across his brilliantly blue eyes.
Another dazzling scene featured in the first trailer is a silhouetted fight with Bond and a darkened opponent in an office building with a massive LED screen projecting a the fluid blue curvatures of a jelly fish. Beautiful and well choreographed scene. As you can tell from the teaser trailer there is a considerable amount of Back Lighting and Low Key lighting.We just talked about editing and lighting in my film class so I was ALL OVER THIS! When Deakins is not show casing his talent for shadow play, he produces stunning wide shots of London, Singapore, and the moors of Scotland.
So much...
...gorgeous...
Back Lighting!
To bring attention some of Deakins other work, he was director of photography on True Grit, The Reader, Doubt, The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, No Country for Old Men, The Village, O' Brother Where Art Thou? and The Shawshank Redemption...just to name a FEW. Deakins is the Kate Winslet of Cinematography. This man has 10, I REAPEAT 10 Academy Award nominations without a SINGLE WIN! How? Just how? Deakins is up agains some heavy competition this year from films Life of Pie, Anna Karenina, Django Unchained, and Lincoln. I would honestly love for Roger Deakins to finally win, but this is serious competition, I guess we'll find out come tomorrow night!
Roger Deakins on the set of Skyall. Cinematographer extraordinaire.
Now I'd like to talk about the story for a bit. As I said, the most recent Bond films move the story along through character progression rather than a ludicrous plot to take over the world via sharks with laser beams on their freakin' heads. Every action scene is fueled by intension. The established relationship between characters 007 and M is, according the the villain, a reflection of the relationship Silva had with the head of MI6. The revenge is generated by a very warped motivation. There is reason to care about Bond, there is a reason to care about M. During his psych analysis, Bond relates "M" with bitch and honestly this may be true for many movie goers. Although we see how close Bond and his boss have become over the years we still see her as that nagging boss every one hates for being that nagging boss. This script effectively generates sympathy for M by bringing the British government into play, blaming M for many recent security breeches and agent deaths and forcing her to step down from her beloved post. By creating this side plot, when the viewer discovers who the villain is and the motivation for his actions, we aren't left thinking "Well why should we care? She's a BITCH!"
Judi Dench as M, Ralph Fiennes as Gregor Mallory and that one guy as that one guy...?
Much of this story deals with age and experience. Wether it was her decision or not, Dame Judi Dench is not a young lady and it was written that Skyfall would be her last adventure with Bond. Dench's own retirement from the character is used in the plot by the British Government forcing her to step down, most likely in order to replace her with some younger blood. When 007 meets his new Quarter Master he is shocked to find a young pup who "still has spots." that clever spotted young man is Ben Whinshaw who's character Q, while quite the technological genius still has much to learn about a career is espionage. Still, the banter between Q and Bond does make one think how different the franchise might be if a youthful, less traditional man was to play the role of 007. Are the producers/writers setting us up for something? Judi Dench is being replaced (quite to my excitement) by Ralph Fiennes character Gareth Mallory, so does this mean we could be expecting the attractive young Ben Whinshaw to take the reins from Craig? I don't believe Whinshaw himself would be put in the role, but I do think we can expect a considerably younger Bond when Daniel Craig decides to leave the franchise.
Could Ben Whinshaw's Q be replacing Daniel Craig as the next 007?
Bond deals with doubts about his age and physical state throughout the whole film proving to all that even 007 get's old. After an extended "holiday" aka playing dead, Bond has taken to drinking and pills, both affect his return to MI6. After numerous test Bond is returned to the program but not truly is the best of shape. Doubts from M, Mallory, and himself creep into his subconscious as well as problems from his childhood. These are mentioned and then resurface in the form of Skyfall, the home on the moors of Scotland where James Bond grew up. Now I do believe they mention in Casino Royale that this Bond is an orphan, but it was nice to have that revisited, and even play a large role in this film. We see that this persona of Bond has taken over this man's life and turned him into someone completely different. There's a moment near the end where Silva looks apon the grave of Bond's parents that read Arthur Bond and Monique Alexander Bond. Silva almost laughs to himself. As we learned earlier in the film, Silva, a former MI6 agent, is not the true name of our villain. If this can be said of Bond the fact that his parents graves bare false names is very intriguing. At one point, Bond is handed his father's old hunting rifle that bares the engraved letters AB...A coincident that his real sir name started with a B. When one becomes 007 just how much of their past must be changed to keep their true identities safe?
Dabbling into the casting of new comers.
No 007 film would be complete without it's circle of sexy women for Bond to playing with or by played by. Resident Bond Girls for Skyfall are the Naomie Harris as Eve Moneypenny, and Bérénice Marlohe as Severine. Harris is phenomenal. Not only is she gorgeous, but as a member of MI6 she's clever, able to kick some serious ass, and holds her own against Bond. That being said, her character is truly conflicted when ordered to take a shot even if it means killing Bond. When she does believe that she'd killed him she shows an acceptable amount of remorse to Bond before rebounded and turing the situation into an on going joke that adds some great chemistry between the characters. This character is without a doubt on the same playing level as Bond and knows it; she is in control 100% of the time. She flirts with Bond but never allows him to one up her. This is was a good supporting Bond Girl should do; be hot as well as use some of that heat to lash back.
Naomie Harris as Eve Moneypenny look hot and kicking ass.
While the character of Eve Moneypenny is the perfect mix of charisma, sexiness, and badass, the femme fatale character of Severine is nothing but a plot device. She is honestly is only in the film to move Bond from point A to point B and she knows it the entire time. And the film doesn't try to make her into something more. That being said actress Bérénice Marlohe plays this well; fist cool, collected apparently in control...until Bond calls her out. Then like a beautiful porcelain vase she cracks, shaking hands and wondering eyes we learn that all the body guards that trail her aren't there for her protection, they're there to control her.
"I've only been waiting for you to figure out that poker chip message for 2 weeks. I'm too drunk now to NOT tell you everything...let's have sex."
As for the boys, I mentioned Ben Whinshaw a bit so I'll stick to Ralph Fiennes and Gareth Mallory and Javier Bardem as Silva. If there was any British actor I should think would be apart of the James Bond series is Ralph Fiennes. Perhaps it's because he played a similar agent type in the atrocity that was 1998's The Avengers (No, not Mavels Avengers...different...bad....British Avengers) Suave, dashingly handsome and a bit dangerous. Is voice is smooth and rich like red wine and his profile is the most beautiful of any man his age. With all these attractive characteristics I always found it odd that Fiennes was never cast as Bond himself or even a villain...ugh he plays a bloody fantasmic villain. When I read that Fiennes would be staring is Skyfall I automatically assumed he'd be taking on the role of the villain, which would have been spectaular, but not the case. Fiennes character is almost better than the villain; working for the government we see that Fiennes, as well as his character, is the embodiment of Great Britain. Along with Judy Dench's character, he evolves throughout the film from a suspicious outsider to someone I was cheering for quite a bit. I can't tell you how thrilled I am that Fiennes is now officially a concrete part of this new Bond franchise.
WHY. Why did it take so long to get Fiennes involved in the Bond movies...He IS Bond to me.
Ralph Fiennes is secretly judging you...
When is Javier Bardem not good? I cannot name anything he does wrong. Bardem is one of those actors that spout such a distinct look and voice that you can't help but notice when they're featured in a film. In all of his movies when his character first arrives my mind says "Javier Bardem" but as the scene progresses I don't even remember it's him. THAT is what ACTING is. Truly becoming a completely different person; and when an actor has the face that Bardem has it can be very, very difficult. As he did in Vicky, Christina, Barcelona, Bardem turns up the charm the moment he appears on screen. His character Silva is complete in every way down to his walk, gestures, even the way he throws a hand grenade; these are specific to that character and the physiological movement of the character. Silva is a true love to hate character. The audience knows just enough but not enough about his back story to piece him together. He's a box of cats one mouse away from bursting off the top and wreaking total havoc on society. Chaos through composure...that is what Bardem brings to the table with Silva and it's with that he will become a memorable Bond villain.
Javier Bardem as disgruntled former MI6 agent Silva.
Who can do a lot...perhaps too much with his computer...and lucky timing.
The ladies aren't the only ones eager to undress Bond in this film...
Remember to ALWAYS put your psychopath in a glass prison.
.jpg)
