JayDee's Movie Musings [Archive] - Page 10

JayDee

10-12-14, 04:56 PM

Thank you everyone for all the response and feedback to my Southern Comfort review. I'll reply to some of it in time but right now I just wanted to get another review out there.

Oh and I'd like to apologise for the lack of variety from my reviews recently in that every one just now seems to be really positive. I've not a grumble about a film for a while but it's just the way it's worked out. It's been a mix of revisiting old favourites I already knew I liked/loved, a couple of new releases that I had high hopes for liking/loving and did so and just some films that really grabbed my attention. Because of how I've felt for most of the year a lot of the time I've just not felt like I had the energy or motivation to write about film I wasn't all that keen on. That said there is a bit more balance coming down the line.

All that said on to the review

mirror mirror

Year of release
2013

Directed by
John Lee Hancock

Written by
Kelly Marcel
Sue Smith

Starring
Emma Thompson
Tom Hanks
Colin Farrell
Paul Giamatti
Jason Schwartzman
Annie Rose Buckley

Saving Mr Banks

rating_4 +

Plot - Iconic entertainment mogul Walter Elias 'Walt' Disney (Hanks) has long held a desire to produce a screen adaptation of the Mary Poppins novels written by P.L. Travers (Thompson). It is a desire that has went unfulfilled for 20 years however, due to the fact that Travers has always refused his requests because he she holds a great disdain for his animated films. Now however her financial situation has demanded that she at least consider submitting to his pleas and agree to the big screen adaptation, but only if she retains final say on whether the project goes ahead or not. Bringing her out to California, Disney tries everything in his power to make her happy. He teams her up with the creative team tasked with bringing the film to the big screen but is met by one complaint after another from the disagreeable Travers. Her behaviour and connection to the Mary Poppins character leave Disney greatly confused, unaware that the answers lie in Travers' past and her relationship with her father, Travers Robert Goff (Farrell).

In the future, when people reflect on the cinematic year that was 2013 it's unlikely that this film will be amongst the first that jumps into their mind. It's not as incendiary or 'cool' as The Wolf of Wall Street. It's not as ground-breaking as Gravity. It's not as powerful or important as 12 Years a Slave. It's not as inventive or original as Her. It's hasn't imprinted itself upon the public's consciousness the way that Frozen has. In 5, 10, 20 years time I imagine all of those films will still be remembered while this one may quickly fade from the minds of cinema audiences. And yet for all of that, Saving Mr Banks has won a place in my heart like few other films of 2013 have. The film made me laugh, it moved me (almost to tears on a couple of occasions) and as the end credits stopped rolling it had left me with a lovely, warm glow inside and a smile on my face. I just thought it was really rather delightful.

On the surface of things this film is about the making of the Disney classic, Mary Poppins. Beyond that however the film is about how our past, and in particular our childhoods, informs and moulds our character and our lives as we grow up. And it's about how sometimes we have to let go of the past if we are ever to move on, even if the future before us is unclear and perhaps just a touch frightening. The film to's and fro's between two separate story threads; the strained making of the film in Hollywood and P.L. Travers' childhood years in Australia. Now admittedly on its own the Australia segments come off as rather trite, pat and very heavy on the melodrama. If that was the whole film it would not be able to stand up on its own. It's when it is combined with the other half of the film however that it works, as we see how they are inextricably linked. And this is to the credit of the film's writers, Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith. While it doesn't match Emma Thompson's omission in terms of shock (more on that later), I also think that they were quite unlucky not to receive a nomination for their smart and witty script. The script impresses the longer the film goes, continually revealing extra layers to the story as it illuminates more and more how both the character of P.L. Travers and her creation of Mary Poppins were influenced by her childhood in Australia, and in particular the relationship with her father.

It is from her father that the young Pamela Travers, or Helen Goff as she was known at the time, gets her creativity and flair for imagination that she would display in her tales of the magical nanny, Mary Poppins. Her father had his demons however, alcohol in particular. His behaviour and inability to hold down a job also inform both her and her work. It has created a bitterness and pain within her, and a need to build walls to keep people from getting too close. It also creates a bit of a paradox in her work, one that rather flummoxes Walt Disney. He struggles to balance the fantasy and the whimsy of a flying nanny with the more straight-laced approach she has and that she wants the film to have, wanting it to help prepare children for the harshness and cruelties of the world. In the role of her father is Colin Farrell, who I've got to say I had some reservations about. And while it may have taken me a little while to accept him in the role I've got to say that in the end I was really quite impressed with his contribution. And as the young Helen Goff, or Ginty as her father calls her, Annie Rose Buckley is really quite adorable in her big screen debut and with a considerable presence. Amongst child actresses I think she really could be one to watch in the next few years. Their scenes together have a really sweet and touching quality to them.

Now before I move onto talking about the wonderful performances at the heart of the film I have to ask the question, who exactly has Tom Hanks p*ssed off over at the Academy? Once thought of as one of the Academy's golden boys it has now been 13 years since his last nomination, with this year's ceremony certainly being the greatest example of him being overlooked. The fact that his incredible performance in Captain Phillips went unrewarded was an absolute shock to me. And while this wasn't close to that level of snubbage, I think he can once again feel slightly unfortunate not to have earned a nomination in the Supporting Actor category for his impressive turn as the iconic Walt Disney. He is pretty much a perfect fit for the role. As a man renowned for bringing joy into the lives of children all over the world, casting just about the most likeable and charming man in movies is about as spot-on a piece of casting as you can get. For the large majority of the time his Walt Disney is utterly endearing and full of spirit and enthusiasm; the kind of person who can enter a room and and just makes every single person feel like the most special person in that room. Alongside that loveable uncle persona however there are also hints of a slightly darker undercurrent to the character; a slightly oily and manipulative individual who isn't used to not getting his own way, and who still sees money as the bottom line. Now it might only be a hint at the negative side of the Walt Disney character, but for a film from Disney themselves it's perhaps a lot more than you'd expect.

Film Trivia Snippets - Despite what the film shows, P.L. Travers never did come to care for the film. After viewing the film at the première she would not watch it again for another 20 years. In 1977 she conceded that she had “seen it once or twice, and I've learned to live with it. It's glamorous and it's a good film on its own level, but I don't think it is very like my books." She was so displeased with what she saw as a vulgar and disrespectful adaptation that she refused to allow any of her other Mary Poppins novels to be filmed, despite Walt Disney pleading with her to do so. In fact such was her anger that in 1994, thirty years after the release of the film, Cameron Mackintosh approached her about a musical stage version and she refused, citing the film as the reason she would never allow another adaptation. Eventually she agreed to give permission to the project but with several caveats; no Americans were allowed to take part in the production, and not a single person from the film version, not even the Sherman brothers who composed all of the film's songs, were allowed to participate. /// The production team were absolutely meticulous about every detail of Tom Hanks' portrayal of Walt Disney, right down to measuring the exact length of his moustache. /// In the film we see P.L. Travers request that all of the working sessions between herself and Disney's creative team be recorded on audiotape. And this really happened. In total the tapes amounted to an astonishing 39 hours, all of which were made available to the screenwriters and later on both Hanks and Thompson. /// The film's cinematographer, John Schwartzman, is actually the half-brother of Jason Schwartzman who stars in the film as Richard Sherman. /// Tom Hanks said that Disney CEO Robert A. Iger called personally and asked him to portray Walt Disney, especially since the company had not originally developed the script it had acquired, and now wanted to make certain it had someone it could trust to play its iconic large-than-life founder to move ahead with the risky project. /// Tom Hanks is actually a distant cousin of Walt Disney.
While Hanks may have been unlucky not to land a nomination, the biggest snub this film received was certainly the fact that Emma Thompson was not recognised for her terrific performance as P.L. Travers. She is tremendous in the role, just carrying the film beautifully. P.L. Travers was a very intriguing person who led a very interesting life, and while this film may only shine a light on a small part of her life, Thompson ensures that she remains a fascinating character throughout, if an extremely awkward one. For a number of reasons she really shouldn't be all that likeable. She wears a constant sneer of disappointment and disapproval on her face, and is completely oblivious to social niceties and the notion of small talk. With her ridiculous demands she is almost impossible to work with; at one point she actually insists that the colour red cannot feature whatsoever in the film because she “has gone off the colour.” And yet for all this you never come close to disliking the character because Thompson is so engaging, and also suggests a real sadness to her that engages your sympathies.

And Thomspon's line delivery and comic timing are just splendid throughout. Her character never says anything that she intends to be humourous, but the way that Thompson delivers it certainly makes it so. I just love the disgust and contempt in her voice when she utters “responstible is not a word” after hearing the latest creation from the Disney songsmiths. There's also a great little moment where she gets so annoyed with one of the songsmiths that she strictly sends him out of the room like a school teacher disciplining a student by telling him to stand outside. Together Thompson's Travers and Hanks' Disney engage in a great battle of wits and wills throughout the film; the prim and proper author against the jovial charmer. And they have a great chemistry together that makes their conflict so much fun. The scenes that feature the actual planning of the film also have a great spark to them as we see Thompson clash with the film's writing team, portrayed spiritedly by Jason Schwartzman, B.J. Novak and Bradley Whitford. And in a minor role Paul Giamatti also adds some real warmth and heart. In fact the whole film is really well acted.

In visual terms Saving Mr Banks is really quite a lovely film to behold. The cinematography of John Schwartzman presents a series of crisp, handsome images imbued with a warm, vibrant colour palette. Images that highlight the period setting and distinguish between the three distinct locations in which the film unfolds. There's the segment set in Australia that depicts Pamela's childhood, revelling in the country's wild and ruggedly beautiful expanses and shot with a beautifully warm, golden glow to evoke its nostalgic nature. The scenes set in England are very brief but have a lovely, quaint quality to them. While Travers' time in LA is marked more by the urban expanses, the extravagance on show and the slightly hollow veneer of Hollywood. Just like the scenes in Australia, the scenes take place predominantly in bright sunshine. But whereas the Australian sunshine had a warm, nostalgic vibe here it feels much more harsh and foreboding. Helping Schwartzman to create some of these beautiful images are numerous fine examples of both production and costume design that really heighten the film's charming period detail. I also enjoyed the shrewd direction of John Lee Hancock. There was nothing very showy about it but it was a controlled, finely crafted effort, with a few clever, subtle shots that generated laughs such as focusing in on Travers' tapping feet to show she's actually enjoying one of the songs for once, the reveal of a huge Mickey Mouse stuffed toy or the hiding of the sheet music for “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.”

Oh and there's also a great soundtrack from Thomas Newman that captures both the sadness and the magical whimsy of the film. Newman was rewarded for his work with an Oscar nomination in the Best Score category. It's just a shame that the Academy didn't see fit to further reward this charming film.

Conclusion - As a film that details the making of a Disney production and concerns itself with their iconic style, it is very fitting that Saving Mr Banks is a classic example of the Disney formula, with all the positive and negative factors that will produce depending on the viewer. So yes the film is indeed rather melodramatic, corny and sentimental; all things that P.L. Travers herself worried about and railed against. But it is also delightfully charming, full of heart and with just a little sprinkling of magic. Throw in a sharp script and two great performances at its heart (with Thompson in particular in sparkling form) and you've really got something. Given her attitude towards the films of Disney, in all likelihood P.L. Travers would have hated this film, but I most certainly did not. I can see this being the type of film I could watch over and over again on a rainy Sunday afternoon or on a bank holiday, that I could watch so much that it could become a real favourite.

seanc

10-12-14, 05:05 PM

I liked Banks as well, though probably not quite as much as you. The Farrel stuff didn't do much for me. I do agree that Thompson was tremendous. Maybe not Blanchett tremendous, but I would have given her a nom.

The Gunslinger45

10-12-14, 05:20 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg

I enjoyed Saving Mr Banks as well. Tom Hanks was the perfect casting for Walt Disney. As for what you described his darker side I called his more human side. Reality of it is he is a business man and will want to get the movie he wishes to create and we even see him smoking. I would not call this his darker side. Maybe if they examined some of his other personal feelings then yes. Otherwise I agree that this was a wonderfully whimsical romp with more then a spoonful of drama.

Miss Vicky

10-12-14, 05:38 PM

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewGladiator_zps075dbbe5.jpg

I watched Saving Mr. Banks prior to the Oscars and I enjoyed it, but not nearly as much as you seem to. I thought the performances were all pretty strong, but not being a fan of Mary Poppins, I had to side quite firmly with Travers in her hatred of the music.

I don't think I'll ever watch the movie again though. I had "Let's Go Fly A Kite" stuck in my head for days afterwards. :mad:

JayDee

10-14-14, 09:51 PM

Was just looking around the web and discovered some great news. There's going to be a Saving Mr Banks sequel!!!

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/SavingMrBanksII_zps49337034.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/SavingMrBanksII_zps49337034.png.html)

cricket

10-14-14, 10:29 PM

I'm not very interested in Mr. Banks, but everyone seems to like it so I'll watch it when there's not much competition.

Captain Spaulding

10-15-14, 12:25 AM

Excellent review, as usual.

You had a much stronger reaction to Saving Mr. Banks than I did, but I agree with all of your points. It is a really well-made film in every facet. Hanks and Thompson are both excellent in it. And I thought the flashbacks added a much needed dimension to the film, not only showing the inspiration behind Mary Poppins, but also showing why Travers is the way that she is and why she makes some of the demands that she makes. Without those flashbacks, I wouldn't have found her character as endearing.

TylerDurden99

10-19-14, 03:02 AM

I wasn't too fussed over Saving Mr Banks, but Tom Hanks and Colin Farrell definitely saved it for me.

JayDee

10-19-14, 09:37 PM

I enjoyed Saving Mr Banks as well. Tom Hanks was the perfect casting for Walt Disney. As for what you described his darker side I called his more human side. Reality of it is he is a business man and will want to get the movie he wishes to create and we even see him smoking. I would not call this his darker side. Maybe if they examined some of his other personal feelings then yes. Otherwise I agree that this was a wonderfully whimsical romp with more then a spoonful of drama.

Well I just meant darker side in terms of it going against the squeaky clean image you imagine that Walt Disney would have, as well as hinting at the darker side that has often been rumoured about Disney in terms of him possibly being sexist, racist, anti-Semitic, a ruthless businessman etc

I've only seen two of Walter Hill's films--- The Warriors and Bullet to the Head, neither of which I particularly liked, but Southern Comfort sounds intriguing enough for me to add it to my watch list. Your comparisons to First Blood and Deliverance especially pique my interest.

Well I like both The Warriors and Bullet to the Head so perhaps Hill just isn't for you. Pleased to hear you're willing to give Southern Comfort a go though and hope you enjoy it.

Other films of his I've watched are Hard Times, 48 Hrs, Streets of Fire, Brewster's Millions, Red Heat, Trespass, Last Man Standing and Undisputed. Perhaps one or two others I can't remember at the moment. A lot of his stuff you wouldn't exactly call great films but they're almost always fun in my eyes. Of those Hard Times and 48 Hrs are the best.

What a masterpiece! :up: All this while I haven't been paying attention to Walter Hill ever since I saw The Warriors. I'm looking forward to watching Extreme Prejudice.

What's the masterpiece, the film or the review? :D And Extreme Prejudice is my next Walter Hill film to watch as well

Great review JayDee; I've always loved that movie. I saw it before Deliverance, but after First Blood, and I never thought of the comparison, but what you say makes plenty of sense. I remember when I first saw it and I thought Peter Coyote would be the star of the movie, and then bam-that's a memorable moment.

Thanks cricket. I think Southern Comfort was on your favourite films list wasn't it?

The Gunslinger45

10-19-14, 09:40 PM

[COLOR=#000000][FONT=times new roman][FONT=Arial][COLOR=#000000]

Well I just meant darker side in terms of it going against the squeaky clean image you imagine that Walt Disney would have, as well as hinting at the darker side that has often been rumoured about Disney in terms of him possibly being sexist, racist, anti-Semitic, a ruthless businessman etc

I knew what you intended, I just thought dark was the wrong word. And I doubt Disney will ever make a movie dealing with some of Walt's rumored failings. Smoking and swearing seem to be the line they will cross.

JayDee

10-19-14, 09:41 PM

Oh yeah and you people have totally spoiled me with rep of late. 18 for Guardians, 19 for Apes, 15 for Marathon Man, 16 for Serpico and Southern Comfort.

So 7 reps for Saving Mr Banks, which is very respectable, now seems measly by comparison! :D

cricket

10-20-14, 12:02 AM

Thanks cricket. I think Southern Comfort was on your favourite films list wasn't it?

I had it at #190 two years ago. Either way, I think it's great.

JayDee

10-29-14, 11:06 PM

mirror mirror

Year of release
2013

Directed by
Stephen Sommers

Written by
Stephen Sommers
Dean Koontz (novel)

Starring
Anton Yelchin
Addison Timlin
Willem Dafoe
Nico Tortarello
Gugu Mbatha-Raw

Odd Thomas

rating_3_5 ++

Plot - In the small town of Pico Mundo, California lives a very unique individual; an individual fittingly named Odd Thomas (Yelchin). What makes Odd so unique is that he is blessed with the ability to see the spirits of dead people, and he uses this ability to help them achieve peace, usually by bringing those who were criminally responsible to task. There are only two people in his life who know Odd's secret; his girlfriend Stormy (Timlin) and local police chief Wyatt Porter (Dafoe) who helps Odd pit his powers to good use. An additional power at his disposal is his ability to see Bodachs; creatures normally invisible to human eyes who feed on pain and misery and whose appearance warns of impending death and destruction. When more Bodachs begin to show up than he has ever seen before, Odd realises that a truly major catastrophe must be in the offing and that it's up to him to stop it.

When it comes to the cavalcade of directors currently plying their trade in Hollywood, Stephen Sommers is not exactly amongst the most revered or respected. He's certainly not what you'd call an artistic auteur, and he has delivered his share of flops. However he has also proved on a few occasions (The Mummy and Deep Rising for example) that he is very capable of delivering films that are just a massive amount of fun. And Odd Thomas is another that can be added to that list. Well at least in my opinion. Perhaps unsurprisingly it has not been met with a great deal of affection from the critics. I however found it be a very energetic, highly enjoyable little flick. In fact so taken with it was I that towards the end I had become so engaged with it that I found myself getting slightly emotional at the direction the story took.

Given his form in other enterprises it should perhaps come as no real surprise that Sommers is able to deliver a few lively and exciting set-pieces through the film. He also keeps proceedings moving along at a brisk pace, using a few cinematic tricks and CGI for stylish editing and inter-cutting to further enhance the breezy life of the film. His experience in the world of CGI is also put to good use as he impressively handles and incorporates the film's special effects into proceedings. On occasion you can tell from the effects that the film isn't blessed with a massive budget but they are generally well handled and fairly creative. I was particularly taken with the design of the Bodachs; the shadow-like creatures who feed on human suffering, their presence forecasting future death and disaster.

While watching through the film the most obvious comparison that came to mind was definitely Peter Jackson's terrific 1996 film, The Frighteners. Just like that film, Odd Thomas details the life of an individual with the ability to see the dead, an ability that alerts him to a major disaster that is about to occur. Also like that film it attempts a blend of horror, action and dark comedy. What I would say though, and it's perhaps the film's main flaw, is that it's unable to balance the shifting tones quite as well as The Frighteners was able to. There are stretches of the film where it focuses very much on the sweetness of the central romance and on its comedic bent (largely dark but with a touch of the slapstick), while there are other long stretches where the film veers towards the rather dark and grisly. The tonal shifts can occasionally lack a cohesion and feel jarring.

Film Trivia Snippets - For the role of Stormy Llewellyn, several of Hollywood's hottest young things were considered. Amongst them were Lily Collins, Emma Roberts, Kat Dennings and Portia Doubleday. Collins was actually the front-runner but dropped out in favour of doing Mirror Mirror. /// Tim Robbins was originally considered for the role of Chief Porter before Willem Dafoe was cast. /// Originally the film was set to feature a character by the name of Shamus Cocobolo, who is a blind DJ. Sean Combs was considered and 50 Cent was actually cast. He does not feature in the final film however, though it's unclear if he filmed his scenes and they just got left on the cutting room floor or not. /// In Odd's apartment there is a life-size cardboard figure of Elvis Presley that the character talks to on occasion. This is a reference to the original source novels which actually featured the ghost of Elvis as a companion to Odd who would interact and converse with him. When Elvis moved on, the ghost of Frank Sinatra became Odd's new companion. Sinatra has subsequently replaced by Alfred Hitchcock. /// Odd Thomas actually started filming all the way back in May 2011. Filming was halted in June however due to financing problems. Even after filming was completed the film had financial difficulties and became delayed indefinitely in 2013 due to legal action. At one point it was unknown whether it would ever see the light of day. Anton Yelchin is most famous to cinema audiences for his role as Chekov in J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek series. While he's proven to be quite charming in the role he's been restricted to being little more than a 'funny' accent; nuclear wessels and all that. When he's been given the opportunity however he has been able to show himself to be a very interesting, diverse actor. Whether that be in small little indies or even in big blockbusters such as Terminator Salvation where I thought he was the best thing about it. He feels like the embodiment of geek chic to me, and he proves to be a terrifically likeable and engaging lead as the eponymous Odd Thomas. In the role of his beloved, Stormy, I imagine that for many viewers Addison Timlin will walk the fine line between adorable and irritating. For me however I would definitely go with insanely adorable, and I just fell in love with Timlin right there and then. Willem Dafoe, in what feels like a very rare 'good guy' role these days, proves to be as watchable and entertaining as ever. In addition there are also a couple of interesting and quirky cameos from Patton Oswalt and Sommers' old Mummy colleague, Arnold Vosloo.

Odd Thomas had a tough time of it in terms of securing distribution, never really receiving a proper cinematic release. Here in the UK it only got a direct-to-DVD release, while in America a lawsuit substantially delayed the release date (in fact at one point Dean Koontz feared it may never see the light of day) and ensured that its eventual release was extremely limited with no promotion. While I think that's a shame, in a way it actually seems quite fitting as Odd Thomas very much feels like a direct-to-DVD film, though not necessarily in a bad way. It has a cheap, low-key, offbeat sensibility that offers a great charm. In fact what it actually feels like is the feature-length pilot for a new TV show; and your new favourite TV show at that. Indeed given its strong similarity it could be an apt successor to the oft-lamented “Dead Like Me.”

As someone who hasn't read the Dean Koontz novel on which the film is based I didn't know from the outset where the story was going, and while on reflection it may seem like a standard, by-the-numbers plot, as I watching it constantly kept me on my toes throughout, unsure of where the story was going to go from one moment to the next as it threw in a couple of twists and surprises along the way. In terms of the dialogue, the writing once again evokes the feeling of a TV show. It's that hyper-realistic, self-aware, quippy style of dialogue that pops up every so often in the likes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Gilmore Girls or Veronica Mars. It's a type of dialogue that may not sound that natural but it can certainly be very creative and highly entertaining.

Up until viewing this film I had absolutely no knowledge of Odd Thomas; the character or the book on which this film is based. Turns out that it's a whole series consisting of 6 novels (soon to be 7), 3 graphic novels and now this film adaptation. It looks like this may be the only screen outing for the character however, and on this evidence I'd say that's a real shame. I think there was potential here for a really fun, pulpy series of films. The film may be a little rough around the edges, but endearingly so I thought.

Conclusion - Odd Thomas is not a brilliant piece of cinematic craftsmanship. Nor was it ever going to be in contention for any awards. And I'm sure a whole lot of people on here would hate it. However if it's a Friday or Saturday night and you're just looking for something fun to watch (either by yourself or with some friends) along with a few slices of pizza then I'd say this might just fit the bill. It's directed with a lot of energetic flair, features a series of likeable performances (with Yelchina being the stand-out) and I just found it to be quite a blast. Perhaps worth a shot for fans of The Frighteners, maybe Men in Black, Buffy, Supernatural, Dead Like Me etc. A future cult favourite? Very possibly.

As this is perhaps not a particularly well known film here's the trailer to help people out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX0Vreu6eW8

Miss Vicky

10-29-14, 11:10 PM

I don't think I've ever heard of this movie.

The Rodent

10-29-14, 11:13 PM

I've heard of it, but it's just one I had no interest in seeing or really no interest in knowing about really.

Kind of a meh film in terms of interest.

Captain Spaulding

10-30-14, 01:01 AM

Godoggo

10-30-14, 01:50 AM

I remember picking up the book at a bookstore and reading the back of the cover. The premise sounded interesting, but I'm not really a big Koontz fan, so I put it back on the shelf. I wasn't aware of a film adaptation, but I'll definitely check it out at some point. If you're comparing it to The Frighteners, a film I very much enjoy, then Odd Thomas should be worth a rental.

Me either, but I've read three or four of his novels. The only one I really enjoyed was Watchers which was also adapted into a movie. That movie was crap.

I might give Odd Thomas a try. A couple of people have told me that I would like it.

The Gunslinger45

11-01-14, 09:52 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg

Never heard of this movie but I did enjoy the first two Mummy movies and Dead Rising, so I might check it out.

JayDee

11-04-14, 05:57 PM

The reaction to this one should be rather interesting

mirror mirror
Year of release
2014

Directed by
Josh Boone

Written by
Scott Neustadter
Michael H. Weber

Starring
Shailene Woodley
Ansel Elgort
Nat Wolff
Laura Dern
Sam Trammell
Willem Dafoe

The Fault in Our Stars

rating_3_5 -

Plot - Hazel Grace Lancaster (Woodley) is sixteen years old. She is smart, witty, sarcastic and occasionally moody. She loves her parents, but also gets very frustrated with them. In fact she is your average teenager in every way. Except that she has terminal thyroid cancer. At the behest of her mother (Dern) she attends a support group for cancer sufferers, entirely convinced that it will have nothing to offer her. It is there however that she meets Augustus Waters (Elgort), a fellow cancer sufferer who may well be the love of her life. Striking up a friendship a strong bond is quickly formed between the two. As their feelings for each other begin to grow they embark on what to them feels like an epic romance; a romance that includes a trip to Amsterdam, health relapses, the crushing disappointment of meeting their favourite author (Dafoe) and heartbreak.

Before I start allow me to hand this over.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/ManCard_zpsd60afe77.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/ManCard_zpsd60afe77.jpg.html)

That's right, I'm relinquishing my man card. It seems only right given that this film is apparently aimed at 14-year-old girls and yet not only did I willingly watch it, not only did I enjoy it but yes I may even have teared up a little bit (don't judge me! I'm in a vulnerable place right now.)

Yes it has some glaring flaws but on the whole I just found it to be a rather tender and touching film that had a witty script and was beautifully performed. Addressing the flaws first, the film does have a tendency towards cheesiness, although to be fair I don't think it ever really crosses over into full-on melodrama. Perhaps the biggest issue is that it can come across as rather pretentious at times, this is particularly true of the Augustus Waters character who really doesn't talk like any 18-year-old guy I've ever come across. To call him precocious wouldn't come close to covering it. He talks in a very literal, over-written style. So many of the sentiments that come out of his mouth aim to be words of deep wisdom but instead feel like mere platitudes; so much so that I think he could have a good sideline as a writer of fortunes for fortune cookies. Although to be fair to him, with a name like Augustus Waters your parents have pretty much pushed you in the direction of pretentious douche right from the start! :D

Even if his character is written somewhat questionably Ansel Elgort is largely able to overcome it thanks to a natural performance of easygoing charm, even if he does struggle to sell some of the character's more precious dialogue. Terrifically impressive also was Laura Dern as the mother of the cancer-stricken Hazel. I think she does a great job of conveying what it must be like to be a parent to a terminally ill child. She does her best to stay strong and positive for her child but we can see just how fragile she is, fearful that every second will be her daughter's last; caught between trying to ensure she lives every moment to its fullest but also trying to protect her. Along with Sam Trammell as her husband, Dern shares some lovely, really honest feeling scenes with Hazel. They actually make for some of the best and most touching scenes of the whole movie.

The undoubted star of the film is in no doubt however, it's Shailene Woodley. I've got to say that I kind of fell in love with her during the duration of the film. To begin with she remains physically attractive despite sporting breathing tubes for pretty much the entire time, but it's a lot more than that, it's to do with her performance and the qualities she imbues Hazel with. She captures a beautiful balance between the fear and fragility that comes with her condition, but also the great strength and courage she tackles it with. She really is just adorable, as is the relationship between her and Elgort's Augustus. They have such a sweet chemistry together. Since the film's release people have been bandying her name about in regards to the possibility of an Oscar nomination. Due to the nature of the film itself I'm not sure it will happen, but if it did I certainly wouldn't complain because I think she is rather excellent.

Film Trivia Snippets - In Divergent, also released in 2014, Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort played brother and sister, while here they played boyfriend and girlfriend. Kinky! /// While filming in Amsterdam there was a scene featuring Woodley and Elgort sitting on a bench down by the canal. On the 2nd of July, following the film's cinema release, city officials confirmed that they bench had gone missing, presumably stolen by a fan. /// The author of The Fault in Our Stars, John Green, got his inspiration for the character of Hazel from a young girl he met called Esther Earl who had been diagnosed with thyroid cancer. They met at a Harry Potter convention in 2009 when Green noticed her carrying an oxygen tank. Green came to admire and like her because of some of the videos she put up on Youtube, as well as her humour and openness. From the time they met to her death in 2010 at the age of 16, they frequently exchanged correspondence. Green has stated that “I could never have written The Fault in Our Stars without knowing Esther. Every word on that book depends on her.” /// John Green actually has a cameo in the film. In one scene at an airport Shailene Woodley talks to a yonng girl who is interested in her breathing tube and oxygen tank. The girl's father is played by John Green. /// In an effort to land the part of Hazel, Shailene Woodley wrote impassioned letters to both the author, John Green and director Josh Boone. "If I'm passionate about something, I'll do everything I can to try to be a part of it," Woodley asserts. Green had not initially pictured Woodley for the role, instead seeing Mae Whitman, but when she read for the role he “was blown away”, admitting that “we were all crying. It was actually sort of bad,” he laughs. “But it was hers from that moment on.” If there was one thing that I feel perhaps holds the film back a touch it is the direction of the inexperienced Josh Boone. At times I feel he struggles with the pacing and on occasion the tone. He seems much more comfortable in the first half when the film plays more like a quirky, offbeat romantic comedy, than he does when things take a darker, more sombre turn. And the actual look of the film is pretty unremarkable; it could easily pass for some made-for-TV movie. Faring better I feel is the script of Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber. Setting aside the issues over some of Augustus' dialogue I found it quite a sharp, witty offering. In the opening hour the film comes off sort of like a teen cancer version of (500) Days of Summer, which isn't all that surprising given that Neustadter and Weber were responsible for that film's script as well. Their script helps to ensure that the film avoids being as depressing as you may expect; that's because the film is not so much about grief because it unfolds with the characters in a place of acceptance. Hazel and Augustus have come to terms with their mortality and openly talk about their thoughts on the afterlife and discuss their respective eulogies. The film may have a touch of manipulation to it, but they help to keep it from ever crossing over into exploitation.

One of the main factors which will determine people's enjoyment, or lack thereof, is how they feel the issue of cancer is addressed and portrayed. I'm a little bit torn on it. On the one hand I'm sure some people will feel it rather glamorises cancer. After all while we see background characters clearly suffering the effects of cancer; bald people who are obviously undergoing chemotherapy or their friend who loses his eyes, Hazel and Augustus themselves could probably still be strutting their stuff in the latest Gap ad. The film does however show some constant consequences of the disease; for example we never see Hazel without the breathing tube protruding from her nose and frequently see the difficulties she has lugging about her oxygen tank. In the grand scheme of things however these struggles seem rather minor inconveniences of such a horrible disease. When it comes to Hazel the more serious ramifications of her cancer are seen in flashbacks to her childhood, and are presented in slow motion and soft focus to minimise the power and pain. What this does mean though is that towards the end of the film when one of them does suffer a serious episode and it is presented in a slightly more graphic, matter-of-a-fact way the contrast means that it comes across as quite distressing and upsetting.

I'm aware that everyone else on her may well hate this film, and on another day I myself may not be all that keen on it. But on this particular viewing I feel I was just in the right mood and place for it. I was perhaps in a bit of a low mood and was just looking for something sweet and touching. I was open to being emotionally manipulated. And even if I didn't actually cry I think it sort of played into that thing of how it can be good and cathartic to cry. While I didn't, just the fact that it made me feel something and made some kind of emotional connection with me was enough.

So come on, bring on the hate! :D

Conclusion - I have been very fortunate in that neither myself or anyone I know has been diagnosed with cancer. Had I had not been so lucky then perhaps I would have felt differently about this film and its portrayal of the disease and those affected by it. As it is I found The Fault in Our Stars to be a witty, humorous, acerbic and touching film. It also happens to be a very well-acted piece, topped off by a terrific performance from Shailene Woodley that confirms her ascent to stardom.

PS - Just heard back from the Association of Men and they have accepted my resignation.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/ManCardRevoked_zpseff73841.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/ManCardRevoked_zpseff73841.jpg.html)

seanc

11-04-14, 06:11 PM

Good review Jaydee, you may have even gotten me to give this one a shot. Oh, and don't worry about that man card. at least you had one once.

Sexy Celebrity

11-04-14, 07:47 PM

Before I start allow me to hand this over.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/ManCard_zpsd60afe77.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/ManCard_zpsd60afe77.jpg.html)

Give it to Miss Vicky.

Captain Spaulding

11-05-14, 06:51 AM

If anyone else had written a review for The Fault in Our Stars, I doubt I would have read it, but I'll make an exception for the best reviewer on the forum. :cool:

However, to raise your level of testosterone back up to a respectable level, I think you need to review a Van Damme, Stallone or Schwarzenegger movie next.

Godoggo

11-05-14, 10:14 AM

I went ahead and read Fault in our Stars although normally I don't read reviews for movies I haven't read yet. I just have no intention of ever seeing this movie.

Everything you wrote confirms what I thought I wouldn't like about it and having had someone close to me die from cancer, I think this movie would be like a sand spur in my foot. Annoying and painful to step on. ;)

Your review is well written, but didn't change my opinion that the movie looks like a whole lot of hokey sentimentalism. Kind of like Twilight for cancer. :D

honeykid

11-05-14, 10:20 AM

I'm sorry, but Twilight For Cancer sounds like a great band. :D Well, that or an charity.

Godoggo

11-05-14, 11:10 AM

Wait a minute. Vampire cancer!!! Seriously guys, I can't bear to do it but someone write a YA book about teenage vampires that get this form of vampiric cancer. There is a cure but you have to drain the blood of a tomboyish, but very hot, virgin with a penchant for spouting very meaningful one liners to do so. Love ensues, but the vampire would rather die than to have to kill the girl he loves. You could call in it , "The Fault in My Teeth." You'll make a million.

gandalf26

11-06-14, 06:18 PM

When are you gonna do a review that isn't totally gay? :) (Just kidding don't bite)

Zatoichi?

The Gunslinger45

11-06-14, 06:28 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg

Not a movie of your usual fare, but still a good review.

If anyone else had written a review for The Fault in Our Stars, I doubt I would have read it, but I'll make an exception for the best reviewer on the forum. :cool:

However, to raise your level of testosterone back up to a respectable level, I think you need to review a Van Damme, Stallone or Schwarzenegger movie next.

There is wisdom in the Captain's words.

JayDee

11-09-14, 03:25 PM

JayDee

11-09-14, 03:26 PM

Nice to see I've introduced people to and perhaps interested them in watching Odd Thomas. Although I always dread people watching something based on my word, hating it and then blaming me! :p

If anyone else had written a review for The Fault in Our Stars, I doubt I would have read it, but I'll make an exception for the best reviewer on the forum. :cool:

Well thank you very much good sir. Good form. A tip of the hat to you

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Tip%20hat_zps9wc4zz44.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/Tip%20hat_zps9wc4zz44.gif.html)

However, to raise your level of testosterone back up to a respectable level, I think you need to review a Van Damme, Stallone or Schwarzenegger movie next.

There is wisdom in the Captain's words.

Well I may just have something that would fit the bill for you both. It's actually quite a recent watch and review so it would be jumping the big long queue of reviews I have in storage but if it's my manliness that is on the line I may just have to do so. Will try and get it up later

mark f

11-09-14, 03:43 PM

... if it's my manliness that is on the line I may just have to... try and get it up later
Good luck with that. :cool:

JayDee

11-09-14, 08:45 PM

mirror mirror

Year of release
1986

Directed by
George P. Cosmatos

Written by
Sylvester Stallone

Starring
Sylvester Stallone
Brigitte Nielsen
Brian Thompson
Reni Santoni
Andrew Robinson

Cobra

rating_3_5

Plot - A gang of vicious, psychotic thugs known as The New World Order, led by The Night Slasher (Thompson), have the streets of Los Angeles in a state of panic. Following a series of murders and escalating brutality it quickly becomes apparent that there is only one man capable of bringing their reign of terror to an end. That man is Lieutenant Marion Cobretti (Stallone), aka Cobra. His renegade style and take-no-prisoners policing methods means that he is not especially popular with his superiors, but its his brand of justice that is required in this instance. After yet another killing, the cops finally catch a break when it turns out that there was a witness to the latest crime. The witness is Ingrid Knutsen (Neilsen), and its not long before she finds her life in danger. With the gang out to silence her it is Cobra who attempts to protect her. His efforts are sabotaged however from within his own police force, and it isn't long before they find themselves in a desperate fight for their lives.

Ah Cobra, god bless you. You're really, really not a particularly good film but I still like you. You're gratuitously violent, unashamedly trashy and dripping with cheese. For many people those are major drawbacks. For me it just sums up your charm!

By the time this film was released in 1986 Sylvester Stallone had already established two iconic, much-loved characters. In the character of Rocky Balboa he had his beloved underdog sporting hero. While with John Rambo he had his action/war hero. Well with Marion 'Cobra' Cobretti you can see it is a very concerted effort to establish another iconic character and potential franchise figure, this time fulfilling the classic renegade cop role. And more than that it feels very much like an attempt to clone the character and success of 'Dirty Harry' Callahan. Just like Dirty Harry he is a renegade cop who plays very much by his own rules, who clashes with his superiors and who hands out his very own brand of justice. And that Dirty Harry vibe is just amplified by the presence of both Reni Santoni and Andrew Robinson. Santoni played Harry's partner in Dirty Harry, and repeats the trick with Cobra. In fact his character is actually called Gonzalez in both films, surely no coincidence. And then there's Andrew Robinson, the man who so memorably played Scorpio opposite Eastwood's Harry Callahan in Harry's debut outing. Though here he actually takes on the role of one of the good guys (though Cobra may disagree).

Throughout the film it really isn't hard to see the longing to create a Dirty Harry for a new generation, never more so than in the film's opening sequence which sees Cobra called in to deal with a crazed psycho who is holding a number of people hostage in a supermarket. Cobra takes on the role of a one-man army, storming the supermarket all by his lonesome and engaging in an explosive fire-fight with the man. It feels like an exact carbon copy of the type of diversion Harry would frequently be involved in once or twice during every movie. The film also attempts to gift Cobra with some similarly styled one-liners, though none of them quite hit the heights that some of Harry's did, but fair play for trying; “You're the disease, and I'm the cure” and “You know what's bad for your health....me” being the most obvious examples to create something that could sit alongside “Do you feel lucky punk?”

A look at Stallone's CV shows that he has twice appeared in films based on comic books; first in Judge Dredd and then more recently in Bullet to the Head. Well you'd likely be forgiven for assuming that this film marked the third such occasion because in many instances Cobra really is very pulpy and comic book in style. That's true right from the start actually both in terms of tone and look. The film opens by inter-cutting images of an axe-wielding gang alongside a biker silhouetted against an impossibly red sky. And from then on there are so many little touches that feel as if they could be straight out of a comic book; Cobra's gun emblazoned with the image of a cobra on the handle, his classic car with the personalised licence plate AWSM 50, the gang clinking their axes together in some weird ritual/celebration and even the name given to Cobra's section on the police force - the Zombie Squad etc. There's even a little moment that reminded me of the iconic camp-fest that was the Batman TV series of the 60s. When one of his superiors realises they require his assistance he puts out the order, “Call the Cobra.” It felt so much like the instances where Commissioner Gordon would put out the call for Batman.

Film Trivia Snippets - Strange as it may sound, Cobra actually came about because of Beverly Hills Cop. Before Eddie Murphy came along it was Stallone that had been signed on to play Axel Foley. Stallone also did a lot of work on the screenplay, jettisoning much of the humour and turning it into an action spectacular the studio could not afford. When his plans fell through and Stallone left the project he reworked his ideas for that film into Cobra. /// Director Nicolas Winding Refn is aparently a huge fan of Cobra. In his film Drive, Ryan Gosling's character has a toothpick in his mouth in some scenes. This was Refn's homage to the opening scenes of Cobra where Stallone likewise has a toothpick in his mouth. /// There is actually a very rare workprint of Cobra that is available amongst its diehard fans. Although most copies are of a very poor quality, it includes 30 to 40 minutes of additional footage which are not available in any other version. This includes all of the X-rated material that was removed from the released version. /// The custom 1950 Mercury car that is driven by Cobretti during the film was Sylvester Stallone's actual car. The studio produced stunt doubles of the car for some of the action sequences but for the most part it is the car that Stallone actually owned. /// The movie was actually based on a novel by Paula Gosling called “Fair Game”. And nine years later the novel would again be the source material for a film, this time Fair Game starring William Baldwin and Cindy Crawford. And coincidentally both films suffered many of the same problems including both being re-edited in post production due to test audiences giving a negative reaction to the original cuts. The pulpy, comic book vibe continues with the villains of the piece. As his nemesis, Brian Thompson's Night Slasher is a very colourful creation reminiscent of the kind of larger-than-life killer that often graced the TV show, Dexter. Together he and his Manson Family-styled cult, the New World, certainly make a memorable impression even if no depth whatsoever is given to the characters or their motives. And kudos to those in charge of casting for bringing in both Brian Thompson and Lee Garlington; it's hard to imagine they could have found two creepier looking individuals. In fact if you needed someone to play a crazed psycho in the 80s and you didn't turn to Brian Thompson you were missing out. In addition to its comic book feel, on occasion the film really is terrifically 80s, never more so than in the bizarre and inexplicable moment when the film all of a sudden breaks into a MTV music video that sees Brigitte Nielsen posing and dancing around a series of metallic robots that have seemingly been lifted from some sci-fi movies of the 1950s. And the film doesn't even address it! It just moves on as if it's the most normal thing in the world. And it gets even weirder. At the end of this impromptu music video we finish off with a close-up of the robots. The lights go out, the score becomes a sinister slice of electronica and one of the robots begins to glow red. The film appears to be setting up some kind of Terminator-like robotic uprising for Cobra to battle, but then immediately drops it.

I have always been great fan of Sylvester Stallone. Growing up with the films of Rocky Balboa, arguably cinema's most loveable underdog, instilled an early love of Stallone in me; one that has continued unabated. While I still enjoy his work here I certainly wouldn't say it's one of my favourite of his performances. Something I've always liked about Stallone is that very often it feels like there is an undercurrent of humour to his films and his performances, like he's aware of how ridiculous they are and is on the joke with the audience. Here however he plays it extremely straight, gravely serious and really quite po-faced. He grimaces and glares his way through the film, attempting to create the ultimate macho bad ass. And the film follows suit, also aiming for the very serious. So serious however that it almost goes too far and strays into the territory of spoofing both itself and the films of Dirty Harry.

So we know that Stallone both wrote and acted in the film, but perhaps that wasn't all because Cobra is one of these films that joins the likes of Poltergeist, Return of the Jedi and Tombstone in that rumours persist about who really directed the film. While George P. Cosmatos may be the credited director there is a real belief amongst many people that it was really Stallone that was calling the shots. Well whoever the director was (in addition to being due a fair amount of criticism for much of the film) deserves some credit for their handling of the action sequences which are largely very entertaining, with some fun fights, gun battles and car chases populating the film.

The character of Marion Cobretti was unable to capture the imaginations of the viewing public to a degree that would have seen a sequel being greenlit. And I think that's a bit of a shame. Whatever this film's limitations (and there are indeed many) I think it's good fun, and I'd have been more than happy to spend some more time with the man known as Cobra.

Conclusion - As I stated at the beginning of this review Cobra is not a particularly good film. It is all style and no substance, with no real plot or character development to speak of. But then that's not what you really expect from action movies of the 80s. They were all about exploitation, trashiness, cheese and aiming to be a guilty pleasure. And on all those fronts Cobra pretty much succeeds. It's the kind of film where if someone asks you "what's Cobra like?" you could either give the answer "it's rubbish" or "it's brilliant" and you'd be 100% right on both counts.

TylerDurden99

11-09-14, 08:48 PM

Stallone at his cheesiest.

Not one of my favourites of his, but it is fun and, of course, great review like always.

honeykid

11-10-14, 07:47 AM

I really like Cobra, as you know, but I didn't know there was an X rated workprint. I really, really want to see it. :eek: Cobra's such a wonderful, OTT, cheesefest. Terrible characters, awful writing and the acting? Well, it's Stallone and Nielsen. If you've not seen it and it doesn't sound like a nightmare, then it's must see stuff. My favourite thing about the whole film is the gang. They're beyond ridiculous. :D This is one of the films I've had on my list to do a commentary for. I think it'll work wonderfully.

Excellent review, JD. :)

Captain Spaulding

11-12-14, 10:32 AM

I'm glad to see that you took my advice, JD. Hopefully watching and reviewing a Stallone film helped reverse the flow of estrogen caused from The Fault in Our Stars. Cobra looks like the kind of film that would put hair on a man's chest. It's one of the only Stallone films I haven't seen, but your review for it makes it sound gloriously entertaining, even if it's for all the wrong reasons.

JayDee

11-12-14, 09:48 PM

I've actually gone back in and edited my Cobra review a little because I forgot something. At the bit where I'm talking about the robot music video I added -

"And it gets even weirder. At the end of this impromptu music video we finish off with a close-up of the robots. The lights go out, the score becomes a sinister slice of electronica and one of the robots begins to glow red. The film appears to be setting up some kind of Terminator-like robotic uprising for Cobra to battle, but then immediately drops it."

And I also can't believe I didn't throw in a mention for the Night Slasher's knife; that thing was f*cking bad ass!

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/030809cobra_knife_zps37a37a3e.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/030809cobra_knife_zps37a37a3e.jpg.html)

I really like Cobra, as you know, but I didn't know there was an X rated workprint. I really, really want to see it. :eek: Cobra's such a wonderful, OTT, cheesefest. Terrible characters, awful writing and the acting? Well, it's Stallone and Nielsen. If you've not seen it and it doesn't sound like a nightmare, then it's must see stuff. My favourite thing about the whole film is the gang. They're beyond ridiculous. :D This is one of the films I've had on my list to do a commentary for. I think it'll work wonderfully.

Excellent review, JD. :)

Wow look at you, reading the entire review, even the trivia. :D And yeah I'd be interested in seeing the extended cut of Cobra but I'd approach with caution. 30 to 40 additional minutes is a substantial chunk of runtime; they might actually be able to build some plot and character in that time. It might even start to become a good film, which would completely ruin its appeal! :D And the gang truly are a wonder to behold. And I agree it would make a great film for a commentary. In fact a lot of Stallone's films would, like Tango and Cash.

Oh and if you want to know who/what is to blame for not having that 2 hour cut of Cobra it's your beloved Top Gun! :eek:

The first rough cut was over two hours long (the closest estimated original running time is 130 minutes). It was then shortened to a roughly two hour director's cut which was intended to be released in theaters. However, after Top Gun became a smash hit, Stallone and Warner Bros. were worried that Cobra - which would premiere the following week - would be overshadowed, so in order to ensure at least one extra screening each day the movie was heavily re-edited. Stallone removed much of the plot and scenes involving characters other than his own. Warner Bros. also demanded that the more graphic scenes be cut down or removed entirely because they were "too intense," and that some action scenes be cut for pacing.

When first submitted to the MPAA the film received an X rating, necessitating even more cuts. The full extent of the censorship is unknown, but based on director Cosmatos's commentary and several other sources, some of the cut scenes include:

The first murder victim having her throat cut and hands severed;
More dead bodies in the autopsy scene, including lingering shots of naked and mutilated bodies of murdered women;
An extended death scene for Ingrid's photographer Dan, in which he is hit several more times with axes and attempts to escape, only to slip on his own blood and fall down in puddle of it before being finished off with even more hits;
The scene in which Nightslasher tries to kill Ingrid in the hospital was cut down for pacing and content. The deaths of the janitor and nurse were originally shown onscreen and a scene where police guard outside Ingrid's room is killed by Nightslasher was also cut. A later scene where Cobretti mentions the officer's death to Monte was cut to maintain continuity, which as a result made the editing of that scene choppy;
More scenes of the townspeople being killed during the climax, including a scene in which one is hit in the face with ax; two of these death scenes appeared in 1990's TV versions of the film, but with most of the more graphic shots removed;
Graphic close-ups of the Night Slasher's wound after he is impaled on the hook; Cobretti repeatedly forces the hook deeper into Nightslasher as he screams in pain.

And thank you.

It's one of the only Stallone films I haven't seen, but your review for it makes it sound gloriously entertaining, even if it's for all the wrong reasons.

I'd certainly say to give it a go. And it reminded me there is still one Stallone film I've not seen. I think I've seen all his films from the 80s and 90s other than Nighthawks. Been meaning to watch that for years

The Gunslinger45

11-12-14, 10:06 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg

I LOVE Dirty Harry and this was clearly a Dirty Harry clone. But that being said it was still an okay flick.

honeykid

11-13-14, 04:40 PM

I've not seen Nighthawks for ages, but I've seen it a few times and I've enjoyed it each and every one of them.

Those rumoured cut scenes sound great, although, what were they thinking? Cobra was never going to be as fantastic (or take as much money) as Top Gun, regardless of running time. Idiots. How is there not a directors/extended cut of Cobra? There's extended cuts of LOTR for crying out loud. That last one was over 10 hours long on its own. :D

JayDee

11-23-14, 08:46 PM

Time for another one of my never-ending rambles about an old favourite. Though this time it's quite appropriate that it's a monster review. ;)

mirror mirror
Year of release
1993

Directed by
Steven Spielberg

Written by
Michael Crichton
David Koepp

Starring
Sam Neill
Laura Dern
Richard Attenborough
Jeff Golblum
Ariana Richards
Joseph Mazzello

Jurassic Park

rating_5

Plot - Wealthy entrepreneur John Hammond (Attenborough) has taken advantage of huge leaps forward in the world of science and genetics to create the greatest show on earth. On the tropical island of Isla Nubar he has created Jurassic Park, a theme park that he has populated with dinosaurs, brought back to life after 65 million years in extinction. Before the island is open to the public however a worker at the park is killed by a Velociraptor, prompting the park's investors to demand that a group of experts visit the park and sign of on it as being safe before the park can be opened. Joining the investors' lawyer is palaeontologist Dr. Alan Grant (Neill), paleobotanist Dr. Ellie Sattler (Dern) and Dr. Ian Malcolm (Goldblum), a mathematician who specialises in chaos theory. Joined on tour by Hammond's two grandchildren the group are astonished by some of the sights they find and it seems like the park is going to fulfil its potential as the greatest attraction on the planet. However it isn't long before things turn decidedly dangerous for each one of them. Unbeknownst to Hammond, the park's computer programmer (Knight) has been paid off by a corporate rival to steal steal dinosaur embryos. To do so he has to shut off the park's security systems, allowing the dinosaurs to escape from their enclosures and placing the lives of everyone in great danger.

“You know the first attraction I ever built when I came down south from Scotland? It was a Flea Circus, Petticoat Lane. Really quite wonderful. We had a wee trapeze, and a merry-go... carousel and a seesaw. They all moved, motorized of course, but people would say they could see the fleas. "Oh, I see the fleas, mummy! Can't you see the fleas?" Clown fleas and high wire fleas and fleas on parade... But with this place, I wanted to show them something that wasn't an illusion. Something that was real, something that they could see and touch. An aim not devoid of merit.”

That's a piece of dialogue spoken by Richard Attenborough's entrepreneur John Hammond. However you imagine that it could very easily be the mission statement that Steven Spielberg set out with when he embarked on the epic undertaking that was Jurassic Park, particularly that bit I've highlighted in italics. Throughout his career it seems like Spielberg has constantly had the goal of bringing a sense of wonder and of magic to cinema audiences, and of inflaming their imaginations. And he perhaps never scored higher in those regards than he did with this film in which be brings dinosaurs back to life after 65 million years in the wilderness. It really does feel like a classic slice of Spielberg as he attempts to meld ingredients from his most famous works into a single entity; the thrills and terror of Jaws, the magic and wonder of E.T., and the excitement and adventure of Indiana Jones. Now somehow this film is now over 20 years old!!! :eek: That just boggles my mind. Despite this I still believe that Jurassic Park is one of, if not the ultimate event movie of all time.

When people discuss what represents the 'magic of the movies' they frequently refer to a handful of specific scenes or images which wowed them upon first viewing and subsequently seared themselves into their minds. Moments such as Star Wars' opening image as the Star Destroyer first looms into view, the bicycle flight in E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial, King Kong on top of the Empire State Building, the crop duster in North by Northwest, Gene Kelly splashing through the puddles in Singin' in the Rain, the spaghetti eating in Lady and the Tramp, Tom Hanks dancing on the piano in Big, the Statue of Liberty reveal in Planet of the Apes, the musical communication in Close Encounters of the Third Kind etc. Well for me there are two moments which immediately jump to mind. The second moment is from Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, when the immense Argonath statues first loom into view.

Film Trivia Snippets - Had things worked out differently on the casting front, Jurassic Park could have been a reunion of Spielberg, Harrison Ford and Sean Connery following the trio's work on Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade a few years previously. Harrison Ford turned down the role of Dr. Alan Grant, while Connery did likewise with the character of John Hammond. /// William Hurt was also offered the role of Dr. Grant but turned it down without reading the book or the script. In addition, both Dylan McDermott and Tom Sizemore tested for the role. While Spielberg had also considered Richard Dreyfuss for the role following their work together on Close Encounters..., Jaws and Always. /// So a few names in the running for Dr. Grant. That was nothing compared to the search for an actress to portray Dr. Ellie Sattler however. Juliette Binoche was offered the role but turned it down to make Three Colours: Blue, while a whole host of notable names were considered for the role. Amongst them were Jodie Foster, Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Pfeiffer, Ally Sheedy, Geena Davis, Daryl Hannah, Jennifer Grey, Kelly McGillis, Jamie Lee Curtis, Julia Roberts, Linda Hamilton, Sarah Jessica Parker, Bridget Fonda, Joan Cusack and Debra Winger. Additionally Laura Linney, Sandra Bullock, Gwyneth Paltrow, Julianne Moore, Helen Hunt, Teri Hatcher and Elizabeth Hurley all auditioned for the role. /// And as a little extra Christina Ricci auditioned for the role of the little girl, Lex, while Jim Carrey was considered for the role of Ian Malcolm. First and foremost however is a moment from Jurassic Park. It's a moment that actually comes fairly on in proceedings as Attenborough's Hammond gives a tour to his assembled experts who have been gathered together to assess the park. All of a sudden something catches the attention of Sam Neill's Dr. Grant. He stands up in the car, a sense of great wonder in his eyes. Dumbfounded and unable to speak he gets the attention of Laura Dern's Dr. Sattler by grabbing her head and turning it forcibly in the direction he is looking at. Her jaw drops and she sits there with her mouth agape. Spielberg holds the camera on them for a moment before finally allowing us in on the secret, revealing the epic sight of a brachiosaurus towering above them, rising up onto its hind legs so it can eat from the tops of the trees. With John Williams' truly iconic score sweeping up in the background it is a tremendous moment, one that really defines the magic of movies for me. On that initial viewing, as soon as I saw this I was just mesmerised. And even though I've now seen the film on countless occasions since, every single time that scene arrives on screen I still get a great buzz. Welcome to Jurassic Park indeed.

While I think this is a pretty great movie on its own terms, I am very aware that a large degree of the reason why I love it so much is due to the personal relationship I have with the film. While I didn't catch it at the cinema, Jurassic Park was the first adult film that I ever saw. Wait, let me be more specific. It was the first 'grown-up' film I ever saw. The first 'adult' film I ever saw is a very different story and one for another time. :D I can actually still remember very vividly the experience of first seeing this film at 7 years of age. Although it almost didn't happen as my mum had concerns about whether I was old enough and whether I'd find it too scary. Those concerns were probably quite well founded! :D I can very clearly remember being a little scared by the opening scene in which one of the park's workers falls prey to a raptor. That aside though, I just loved it. As was the case with just about every young boy I was fascinated by dinosaurs as a kid, so this film really was the realisation of my boyhood dreams. Despite the small issue of them being extinct Steven Spielberg had somehow managed to bring the dinosaurs back to life and captured them on camera. That's the kind of magic you can only get in film.

And when you talk of magic you just have to talk about his prehistoric cast. At the beginning of the review I mentioned how amazed I am that this film is now over 20 years old. A large reason for that are the film's incredible special effects which still to this day have the ability to astonish. While the odd effect here and there may now look a little iffy and dated, the large majority of them still hold up amazingly well. Along with Terminator 2: Judgment Day this was the film that really set the standard and showed the immense potential of CGI. And it's a testament to the effects of both films how strong they still look even today. The way the CGI is able to bring to life the Tyrannosaurus Rex and Velociraptors is particularly stunning. As impressive as the CGI remains today, and as utterly ground-breaking as it was back in 1993, I've always maintained that it's the practical effects of the Stan Winston studio that are truly important to the film as it really helps to hide the seams and convince you that what you're watching is real. Through their breathtaking models and animatronics, Winston and co just came up with a whole host of astounding creations; the absolute star of which is undoubtedly the Tyrannosaurus Rex. The instances where we are allowed to see it up close, even if it's something as simple as its foot pressing down and making an imprint in the mud, are just terrific.

Film Trivia Snippets - Jurassic Park forced some very creative sound design by the film's foley artists. The sounds made by the Brachiosaurus were a combination of whale and donkey sounds. The sounds made by the Dilophosaurus came about through a combination of howler monkeys, hawks, rattlesnakes and swans. The main cry of the Velociraptors was a combination of sounds from elephant seal pups, dolphins and walruses. While the roars of the Tyrannosaurus Rex were a combination of dog, penguin, tiger, alligator and elephant sounds. And for the scene where the T-Rex catches a Galliminus and shakes it in his mouth, the sound was taken from a dog shaking a toy in its mouth. /// Steven Spielberg and Michael Crichton's first meeting was actually over two decades previous to Jurassic Park. During the production of The Andromeda Strain (another film based on one of Crichton's books) Crichton was given a tour of Universal Studios. The individual who gave him that tour? A young Steven Spielberg. /// In Dr. Grant's trailer there are a series of newspaper clippings on his fridge. Amongst them are headlines that read "Space Aliens Stole My Face" and "Dinosaurs On Mars!" /// During the T-Rex attack on the car that held the two kids inside, things didn't quite go as planned but perhaps to the benefit of the film. When the T-Rex came through the glass roof, the glass was not actually meant to break. Therefore the screams and terrified looks from the children are very much genuine. The strength of the T-Rex however should not overshadow the other gold-standard work they were able to create. Their work is almost entirely responsible for one of my absolute favourite scenes, that of the sick Triceratops. What they were able to create is so amazing and realistic that it enables the camera to get right up close and even allows the actors to interact with it without shattering the illusion. The moment where Sam Neill is able to rest himself upon the creature's stomach, moving up and down as it breathes is another wonderful moment. The scene also allows Laura Dern's character to show she's someone who's willing to get her hands dirty...literally! And then of course there are the Velociraptors which they are somehow able to make even scarier than the T-Rex. And while it may not be as showy or sexy as the work that went into creating the dinosaurs themselves, there is also some highly impressive craft in evidence when it comes to the production design with a series of grand sets that excite in their scale and detail (the huge entrance gates, the visitor centre and labs, the large electronic fence system etc). There are also some lovely smaller details in the set design such as the pillars in the centre's restaurant which have fossils carved into them.

While the dinosaurs are, and always were going to be the stars of the show, the puny little humans that take part are just about able to hold their own thanks to a series of engaging performances. What really stand out when it comes to the cast is how unusual it is by blockbuster standards. There are no big stars, hot young sex symbols or individuals who are obvious kick-ass heroes. If a film like this were made today you'd be forgiven for expecting the likes of Tom Cruise, Channing Tatum, Ryan Reynolds, Emma Stone and Megan Fox to be amongst the actors lining up to become dinosaur food. Instead Spielberg concentrated on populating his film with a series of solid actors who actually felt right in their respective roles. In the role of Dr. Alan Grant is the always reliable Sam Neill, playing a character who is only a step or two removed from one of Spielberg's most iconic characters, Indiana Jones. Like Jones he is a man in a profession that most would typically describe as 'dull', but he somehow finds himself at its very extremes . Like Jones he is not exactly the most care-free or cheery of fellows; I love the scene where he puts the fear of god into a young kid who dares to say of a Velociraptor that is “doesn't look very scary”, with Grant traumatising him with talk of spilling his intestines. And like Jones you can see the great passion he has for his work. Grumpy he may be, but Neill brings a bit of heart to proceedings, particularly in his interaction with Hammond's two young grandchildren. As his partner Dr Ellie Sattler, Laura Dern isn't given a great deal to do but does it in an feisty and engaging manner. She also happens to have a great set of legs on her. :D Now while I understand the character breaks somewhat from his depiction in the book I really like Richard Attenborough's portrayal of John Hammond. I find him very endearing as the kindly-seeming grandfather type with a sparkle in his eye, who nevertheless also has a little hint of a dark streak in him. The stand-out of the cast however would probably have to be Jeff Goldblum's Dr. Ian Malcolm, with Goldblum utilising his unique style to make Malcolm into a charismatic, snarky, somewhat cocky individual who's always prepared with a sarcastic and humorous quip.

While he is arguably the most popular director of all time, Steven Spielberg is also not without his naysayers. The most frequent complaint that is levelled against his work is that he has a tendency to wallow in sentimentality to the degree where it becomes mawkish. The one area where he receives almost universal praise however is in his handling of set-pieces, with it being very possible that he has no superior in that regard throughout the entire history of cinema. And this film really acts as a showcase of sorts where he can just let his talents and imagination run wild. This is especially true of the film's second half where the film does pretty much just toss aside any attempts at a story or characterisation and morphs into a full-on theme park ride. And on this evidence Spielberg is a pretty sadistic fellow. He seems to derive great pleasure from taking his characters and subjecting them to one nightmare after another, taking them out of the fire just to throw them right back into the frying pan. It really is just one thrilling set-piece after another, several of which are amongst the most classic ever committed to celluloid. The one such sequence that everyone remembers is the first appearance of the T-Rex. Foreshadowed by the masterful and iconic touch of the water ripples in the glass, it is the T-Rex's introduction that really kicks the film into another gear of both thrills and wonder. Its subsequent attack on the car holding Hammond's grandchildren is a thrilling and terrifying sequence. While some would no doubt argue that the film's set-pieces hit their peak with that scene, Spielberg was far from done. Following on from that are a series of equally exhilarating sequences with the T-Rex chase and the Raptor attack in the kitchen proving particularly memorable. There's another expert touch from Spielberg during the latter; the moment where one of the Raptors appears to have little Lex in its sights, charges and hits its intended target. Except for the fact that it was a reflection on a shiny surface.

Film Trivia Snippets - Michael Crichton's novel was published in 1990. However it was the subject of a bidding war before it was even published and went into pre-production in 1989 based only on his manuscript because it was just assumed the book would be a huge hit and make for a great movie. Warner Bros. wanted the rights with plans for Tim Burton to direct. Columbia was planning it for Richard Donnier. Fox were also interested with the intention of it being a project for Joe Dante. While Universal wanted it for Steven Spielberg. Crichton however was reluctant to submit to a bidding war. Instead he instructed his agents to put a set price on the film rights and he could then decide who was more likely to actually get the film made. After interviewing all the prospective directors, he agreed to sell the rights to Universal and Steven Spielberg, who was already his first choice. In the end Universal paid Crichton $2 million for those rights. Spielberg had actually been in the early stages of pre-production for the film “ER”, based on another Crichton novel. When he heard about the Jurassic Park however he dumped it so he could make that film instead. Afterwards he returned to “ER” and helped develop it into a TV series. Throughout his career there have been a host of individuals with which Steven Spielberg has had several collaborations with. There's his partnership with George Lucas on the Indiana Jones films, his frequent casting of Tom Hanks and Richard Dreyfuss, his almost exclusive use of Janusz Kaminski as his cinematographer and Michael Khan as his editor, and his role as a producer and mentor to the likes of Joe Dante and Robert Zemeckis. Perhaps his most successful and renowned collaboration however would be with the legendary composer John Williams; in fact Williams has scored every single one of Spielberg's theatrically released films except for The Color Purple. And once you've seen the likes of Jaws, E.T., Raiders of the Lost Ark or Close Encounters of the Third Kind it becomes impossible to imagine them without the incredible contribution that Williams made. Try to picture a scene from one of those movies and you will inevitably have his score running through your head right alongside it. And Jurassic Park is certainly another you can add to the list. I don't think there's another composer in the history of cinema who can do awe and wonder quite like Williams, and this film provides one of the prime examples. For a film of this nature, with such a grand and immense concept, it is absolutely vital to get a score that will do it justice. And so much of the film wouldn't have anywhere close to the impact it does where it not backed by his compositions that beautifully complement what is happening on screen. The scene where the characters are in the helicopters and we get our first glimpse of the island for example; his epic, awestruck score lets us know that we are about to witness something truly monumental. It's not just the sense of wonder when the score plays its part however, it is also very effective at backing the more thrilling and sinister moments. There's a really small touch of his score that I love. It occurs during the first visit to the park's visitor centre. In conveying the sense of awe that the visitors have it is initially another slice of wonder as the camera pans across the room. As the camera falls upon the skeleton of a T-Rex however a dark, ominous tone breaks in to the score, foreshadowing the terror that is to come. It's just a small example of what Spielberg and Williams have done so well across their 26 films together, the collaborating of image and sound to tell a story.

Like the majority of major blockbusters, the most common complaint that is thrown the way of Jurassic Park is generally about its story, or lack thereof. For a film that details the rebirth of dinosaurs and is always going to be about the adventure of that I think there is just enough story to enlighten proceedings without bogging them down. The film really is a classic example of a film of two halves. In the first hour of the film it's all about the set-up; it's all about the magic and wonder of this venture that John Hammond has managed to create, and of explaining the science behind it. I just love the information film that is played at the visitor centre featuring the cartoon helix, Mr DNA. I think it's probably got to be the greatest example of an exposition dump ever. It's so fun and entertaining that you don't even notice you've just been subjected to such exposition. There's also an extra level of intrigue added by the corporate espionage thread featuring Wayne Knight's Dennis Nedry. The film even takes the opportunity, albeit briefly, to sneak in some serious points about the ethicality of what they are doing. As is summed up by Dr. Malcolm's criticism, “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should”, the film questions our right to play God. Just because we now understand and can manipulate genetics doesn't necessarily mean that we should. It's a notion that is still very prevalent and controversial today in the field of stem cell research and its capabilities in terms of cloning, designer babies, the eradication of disease etc.

Following that, the second half really does become all about thrilling the audience and leaving them as breathless as possible. Spielberg took his dinosaurs and mined them for two emotions. The film's first half is all about the wonder; the second half all about the terror. And Spielberg announces the switch in tone in a very deliberate manner. As the film enters its second half night falls, the rain begins to lash down and lightning begins to strike, letting us know we are firmly in classic creature feature territory. While Spielberg was happy to show us the 'nice' dinosaurs early (the Braciosaurus and Triceratops), just as he did with Jaws he made sure to hold back the dangerous specimens for a considerable amount of time. However right from the start he had been building the tension and conveying their threat. The film's very first scene details the delivery to the park of a Velociraptor. With Williams' edgy score and dozens of workers standing around wearing stern looks it builds a sense of trepidation, a sense that is quickly realised when one of the men falls victim to a vicious attack. Despite this Spielberg keeps the perpetrator completely hidden but for a glimpse into its eyes. There are then a series of other little touches to build the sense of dread such as the scene where a harness that one held a cow is lifted out of the Velociraptor pen in complete tatters. The sound design for the dinosaurs throughout is also fantastic, creating a series of ancient, guttural and bone-chilling growls and roars. It then falls on exactly the one hour mark before we first see the T-Rex and it's astonishing. As is pretty much the entire film.

Conclusion - Other than the first Lord of the Rings film I don't think I've ever felt such wonder at a film as I did with Jurassic Park. Steven Spielberg really did deliver one of the definitive blockbusters of all time. Thanks to some truly exceptional effects, both digital and practical, the film really was able to bring dinosaurs back to life; fulfilling the dreams of the young and the young at heart the world over. And if Alfred Hitchcock is the Master of Suspense then Steven Spielberg is surely in with a shot of the accolade, Master of Set-pieces. His work, along with some likeable performances, another terrific score from John Williams and those effects make for one of the great popcorn films of all time; something that may still hold true even after another 65 million years.

Bonus Film Trivia - In the original script, the T-Rex skeleton in the lobby was hooked up to pulleys like a giant marionette. In the original ending, Dr. Grant was going to man the controls and act as puppeteer, using the skeleton's head and feet to crush the Velociraptors. Spielberg changed the ending however to have the T-Rex save the day when he decided it was the hero of the film. /// After making the movie, Ariana Richards (Lex Murphy) developed a great interest in dinosaurs. So much so that she actually assisted Jack Horner (palaeontologist advisor for the film and the inspiration for the Dr. Grant character) on an actual dinosaur dig in Montana the following summer. /// A baby triceratops was built for a scene where one of the kids rides it. Special effects technicians worked on this effect for a whole year but the scene was cut at the last minute as Spielberg thought it would ruin the pacing of the film. /// With every new draft of the script, there would be a different set of survivors and a different set of characters dying. At various points during pre-production, Hammond, Malcolm, and Dr. Wu were all going to die and Gennaro and Muldoon were going to live. /// Ariana Richards' audition consisted of standing in front of a camera and screaming wildly. Steven Spielberg "wanted to see how she could show fear." Richards remembers, "I heard later on that Steven had watched a few girls on tape that day, and I was the only one who ended up waking his sleeping wife off the couch, and she came running through the hallway to see if the kids were all right."

seanc

11-23-14, 09:04 PM

Someday i am going to get around to a re-watch of Jurassic Park. I liked it well enough, but it isn't the all time favorite for me that it is for many.

The Gunslinger45

11-23-14, 09:17 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg

I love Jurassic Park! It is an excellent movie for sure fun, thrills, and just enjoying for the ride.

Nostromo87

11-23-14, 09:34 PM

nice review JayDee! went and saw Jurassic Park on the big screen again a year or so ago when it had a re-release. Last year i gave a dvd of this movie to my 11 year old cousin for his Christmas present, and it's a testament to its lasting power that he found it a cool gift. I like Jeff Goldblum and his chaos theory

agree how cool the effects still are both for this and T2: Judgment Day, which you mentioned in your review

The Gunslinger45

11-23-14, 09:43 PM

Indeed. Jurassic Park and T2 still hold up today since they use practical effects WITH use of CGI. That way it tricks the brain into thinking the CGI is the same as the practicals.

Miss Vicky

11-23-14, 09:47 PM

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewGladiator_zps075dbbe5.jpg

I rewatched Jurassic Park a year or two ago and was still amazed at how realistic everything looked and how exciting the film still felt. I wouldn't give it a perfect five myself, but it's definitely a very good movie.

Sexy Celebrity

11-23-14, 10:40 PM

http://i.imgur.com/l0eZ61r.gif

JayDee

11-24-14, 08:55 PM

Wow I can't believe some people seemed to have actually read that s*it! :laugh: At that length I thought there was no chance of anyone doing it. As a rewatch for my long-gestating favourite films list it's not so much a review as another of my personal love letters to a particular film

I rewatched Jurassic Park a year or two again and was still amazed at how realistic everything looked and how exciting the film still felt. I wouldn't give it a perfect five myself, but it's definitely a very good movie.

I'm certainly not saying it's a 5-star movie in terms of quality but in terms of how much I personally love it and how much it means to me I'd say 5 stars is definitely warranted.

Oh and it's always nice to see Commodus :up:

Captain Spaulding

11-26-14, 04:51 AM

I'm one of those Spielberg naysayers you reference in your review, but even I find Jurassic Park to be one of the elite blockbusters. It isn't a personal favorite, and I haven't watched the film in many years, but I still think of T-Rex anytime I see a ripple in a glass of water.

Miss Vicky

11-26-14, 05:16 AM

Wow I can't believe some people seemed to have actually read that s*it!

I didn't read it. :laugh:

I looked at the title of the film, then at the popcorn rating, then glanced at the novel's worth of text and said "Nope, not reading that." But thumbs up anyway.

JayDee

12-01-14, 09:16 PM

mirror mirror

Year of release
2012

Directed by
Tim Burton

Written by
Seth Grahame-Smith

Starring
Johnny Depp
Michelle Pfeiffer
Eva Green
Helena Bonham Carter
Chloe Grace Moretz
Jackie Earle Haley

Dark Shadows

rating_3_5 -

Plot - In the year 1752, Joshua and Naomi Collins, with young son Barnabas, set sail from Liverpool, England to start a new life in America. But even an ocean was not enough to escape the mysterious curse that has plagued their family. Two decades pass and Barnabas (Depp) has the world at his feet-or at least the town of Collinsport, Maine. The master of Collinwood Manor, Barnabas is rich, powerful and an inveterate playboy...until he makes the grave mistake of breaking the heart of Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green). A witch, in every sense of the word, Angelique dooms him to a fate worse than death: turning him into a vampire, and then burying him alive. Two centuries later, Barnabas is inadvertently freed from his tomb and emerges into the very changed world of 1972. He returns to Collinwood Manor to find that his once-grand estate has fallen into ruin. The dysfunctional remnants of the Collins family have fared little better, each harboring their own dark secrets. Matriarch Elizabeth Collins Stoddard (Michelle Pfeiffer) has called upon live-in psychiatrist, Dr. Julia Hoffman (Helena Bonham Carter), to help with her family troubles.

When this was released a couple of years back it failed to really capture my attention. And even upon deciding to watch it I wasn't entirely sure what to expect. As it turns out I really rather enjoyed it. Although that being said I'm not sure if I would actually recommend it to anyone, largely because I'm not entirely sure who it's meant to be made for, aside from Tim Burton and perhaps Johnny Depp of course. How Tim Burton managed to talk the studio into spending $150 million on this is rather baffling because it really isn't an easy sell for audiences. While it has a few laughs it's not an all-out comedy. While it has a couple of spookier moments it's most certainly not a full-blown horror. Nor is it a drama or a romance though it includes elements of both. While it's dark it doesn't go full blown gothic. And while it's sometimes rather silly it doesn't go far enough to become fully camp. So what exactly is it? Well it's an oddity which doesn't really fit comfortably into any restrictive box, other than to be described as a typical Tim Burton film.

And in addition to that confusion the film certainly isn't short of flaws. For a film whose running time is encroaching upon 2 hours there really is very little story to speak of. It has several small threads which often act as little vignettes battling for attention throughout but struggles for a real focus or momentum, suffering from pacing problems as a result. Instead the film concentrates a great deal of time on the fish out of water/culture shock experience that Depp's vampire is going through, and to be fair to the film it does get decent mileage out of it. I also struggled to identify what tone exactly Burton was aiming for on occasion. There are instances where the film feels really quite cheap, cheesy, and melodramatic; a feeling powered predominantly by some quite hammy acting. I was unsure however whether it felt like that just because it did, or if it was done on purpose in an attempt to pay homage to Dark Shadows' soap opera roots.

Even with Burton's films which have not attracted great love or admiration from critics or audiences alike, the one thing you can just about always guarantee is that aesthetically it's going to be a creative and generally dynamic experience. And Dark Shadows is no different. More often than not it does look rather fantastic, very much employing a similar tact to another Depp collaboration, Sleepy Hollow. It's the same drab, drained colour palette and heavy use of smoke and fog to create a fantastically atmospheric world. The opening prologue set back in the 18th century is just pure Burton. And the level of detail to be found in its production design is excellent; the Collinwood mansion where Depp and his family reside in particular is incredible in its intricacies; a delightful cavalcade of spires, wood carvings, spiral staircases, decadent grandeur, gorgeous craftsmanship, lavish furnishings and an endless assortment of knick-knacks. In addition to the mansion delivering some gothic flair you then have the costumes, cars and general design that bring the flashy, psychedelic 70s to life.

Film Trivia Snippets - Tim Burton, Johnny Depp and Michelle Pfeiffer were all big fans of the original Dark Shadows TV show that aired in the 60s, having watched it when they were young kids. In fact Michelle Pfeiffer was such a fan that when she heard the show was to be adapted for the big screen she actually called up Tim Burton and asked for a part in the film, something she has rarely ever done throughout her career. /// Anne Hathaway, Lindsay Lohan and Jennifer Lawrence all auditioned for the role of Angelique Bouchard, but lost out to Eva Green. /// The face of Nightmare Before Christmas' Jack Skellington appears on a scarecrow set amongst the pumpkins at the Collinwood mansion when Willie first meets Barnabus. /// To create the chalk-white complexion that Johnny Depp sports throughout the film, make-up artist Joel Harlow would apply several layers of custom greasepaint to his face. /// Several stars of the original Dark Shadows TV show make cameo appearances in the film. Jonathan Frid (Barnabus Collins), Lara Parker (Angelique Bouchard), David Selby (Quentin Collins) and Kathryn Leigh Scott (Maggie Evans/ Josette DuPres) appear together as party guests at the ball held at Collinwood Manor. Over the last decade or so Johnny Depp has gone from becoming one of the most interesting and respected actors out there to something almost resembling a persona or even a caricature; wheeling out the same basic performance time and again and really cornering the market on quirky. Which is not to say he still hasn't done some great work; his performance as Jack Sparrow in the first Pirates film was pure genius. And I really rather enjoyed his performance as Barnabus Collins, the man cursed to be a vampire who returns from two centuries in an unwelcome grave. It feels like he is rather taking the p*ss at times with his campy showing; hamming it up in fine style as he sends up legendary horror stars (particularly those who have played Dracula) such as Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney and Christopher Lee; playing into their template of the stiff, old-fashioned, grandiose acting style. However it never feels like he is really mocking those individuals, with a tangible fondness to be found throughout. And the script does give him the occasional line of wonderfully colourful dialogue to sink his sharpened teeth into; “You may strategically place your wonderful lips upon my posterior and kiss it repeatedly!”, “Goest thou to hell, and swiftly please, and there may Azmodaeus himself suckle from your diseased teat” and “Fifteen, and no husband? You must put those birthing hips to good use at once, lest your womb shrivel up and die.” for example. And his wonderfully droll approach to the material ensures that serious and melodramatic pieces of dialogue come off as wonderfully rich and amusing; “I have spent the last two centuries locked in a box, with nothing to keep me occupied but a glimpse into the dark shadows of my soul.”

Around his regular collaborator, Tim Burton was able to assemble quite the impressive cast of seasoned professionals. So it's just a shame then that so many of them feel like they were severely underused and their talents wasted; Jonny Lee Miller and Jackie Earle Haley could feel particularly aggrieved on that front. Faring best of the supporting cast is perhaps Helena Bonham Carter who appears to have great fun with Dr. Hoffman; arguably the film's most colourful character (at least amongst the humans), a drunken lush of a woman who is the Collins' live-in psychiatrist. Also hitting the mark is Chloe Grace Moretz who adds some spark to proceedings as Carolyn, the sulky and sarcastic teenage daughter of the family. As the most 'hip' member of the Collins family she gets several fun scenes with Barnabus that highlight how out of time he is. Michelle Pfeiffer gives a solid showing although she feels a little out of place with everyone else. While the rest of the cast drift back and forth between drama and comedy she plays it very straight and serious for pretty much the whole film. As the supposed love interest of Depp's Barnabus is Bella Heathcote but sadly her performance and character are extremely flat, generating zero chemistry with Depp in the process. More successful on that front is Eva Green as Angelique Bouchard, a vengeful witch who has a love-hate relationship with Barnabus; very heavy on the hate. They engage in one of the more energetic and entertaining sex scenes I've seen in quite some time.

There are two distinct camps that you can split Tim Burton's films into. There is the big budget extravaganza that you feel the studio has convinced him to make (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Alice in Wonderland, Planet of the Apes) and generally lack for charm and invention. And then there are his very personal projects that make you question just how he managed to talk someone into funding them; quirky efforts such as Beetejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood and Batman Returns (yes it's a superhero film but it's so weird!). Of the two approaches I far prefer the latter. You can tell he really cares about these films and as such they benefit greatly. And I'd say that Dark Shadows falls into that category.

Conclusion - Why exactly I enjoyed this film quite as much as I did is a little bit of a mystery to me. The script and story are a jumbled mess, its tone is all over the place and its action-packed finale is a little underwhelming and felt completely out of place with the rest of the film. And yet for all those many flaws and complaints I did really enjoy it; I just found it fun in a really quirky kind of way. The film does look gorgeous with excellent work by the set and costume departments and has a few fun performances. I'm assuming that very few people on here will care for Dark Shadows, but I certainly did.

cricket

12-01-14, 09:33 PM

I'm not a big fan of Tim Burton movies in general, but I remember seeing the trailer for Dark Shadows and thinking it looked decent. I do like the cast, and with your review, I would watch it.

Captain Spaulding

12-02-14, 05:04 PM

Unlike most people on this forum, I'm a very big fan of Tim Burton. I'd count Edward Scissorhands, Beetlejuice, Batman and Ed Wood among my favorites, and I'm also very fond of Frankenweenie, Corpse Bride and Sleepy Hollow. I admire his thick Gothic atmosphere, and I often relate to the weird, misanthropic characters that populate his films since I'm strange and unusual myself (or so I've been told). Also, Johnny Depp is my favorite actor, so his frequent collaborations with Burton have probably increased my affinity for both men.

Unlike most people, I was actually really excited about Dark Shadows. I've never watched the show, but I assume it was somewhat similar to The Addam's Family and The Munsters -- two shows I very much enjoy. I also get a kick out of watching characters typical of a horror film go about their daily existence-- seeing the family dynamic and what they do when they're not sucking blood or terrorizing the local townspeople. Plus it was Depp and Burton and I had enjoyed the trailers for the film. But Dark Shadows was a disappointment. Not terrible, but only moderately enjoyable; fun in spurts, funny in spots, but too inconsistent as a whole to be worth more than a rental. I'd give it the mark f rating.

I'm glad to see that you were more entertained by it, despite finding similar faults. :)

Over the last decade or so Johnny Depp has gone from becoming one of the most interesting and respected actors out there to something almost resembling a persona or even a caricature; wheeling out the same basic performance time and again and really cornering the market on quirky.

I resent this statement, even though I've heard the same thing from many others. Depp has always specialized at playing oddball characters, but I think he brings something different to every role. I never feel like I'm watching the same performance, in other words. I think the reason so many people share your sentiment is because he only seems to work with Burton and Gore Verbinski nowadays. He needs to branch out more often and work with different directors with different styles.

Miss Vicky

12-02-14, 05:22 PM

. How Tim Burton managed to talk the studio into spending $150 million on this is rather baffling because it really isn't an easy sell for audiences. While it has a few laughs it's not an all-out comedy. While it has a couple of spookier moments it's most certainly not a full-blown horror. Nor is it a drama or a romance though it includes elements of both. While it's dark it doesn't go full blown gothic. And while it's sometimes rather silly it doesn't go far enough to become fully camp. So what exactly is it? Well it's an oddity which doesn't really fit comfortably into any restrictive box, other than to be described as a typical Tim Burton film.

Not sure if you're aware, but the television show on which the film is based has a rather large cult following. Add to that the fact that both Burton and Depp still attract a good sized audience and the fact that vampires are really hot and I'm sure the studio saw dollar signs.

As a fan of both Depp and Burton, I very much enjoyed this film. I wouldn't rank it as a favorite or anything, but it's a good bit of fun.

Yoda

12-02-14, 06:41 PM

409392298561376256

The Gunslinger45

12-02-14, 07:22 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg

Never watched Dark Shadows the show or the movie. Nor do I have any interest in doing so. But glad you enjoyed it.

JayDee

12-05-14, 09:38 PM

I've got some good news for Sexy and others. A while back people talked about how they liked when I did somewhat shorter reviews so at the time I decided to go that way for a while. So a number of upcoming reviews are going to be a bit shorter than normal (at least by my normal standards)

mirror mirror

Year of Release
2011

Directed by
William Friedkin

Written by
Tracy Letts

Starring
Matthew McConaughey
Emile Hirsch
Juno Temple
Gina Gershon
Thomas Haden Church

Killer Joe

rating_3 +

Plot - When he finds himself in considerable debt to a local gang boss, 22-year-old drug dealer Chris Smith (Hirsch) comes up with a radical solution to his problems. He decides to have his mother Adele murdered so that he can collect on her insurance money; a plan that proves surprisingly popular with his whole family. Along with his father and Adele's ex-husband Ansel (Church), they decide to go ahead with the plan and hire Joe Cooper (McConaughey). Cooper, a police detective who just happens to moonlight as a contract killer, agrees to take on the job but demands payment up front. This proves to be a problem for the family who cannot afford it; they had been planning to pay him afterwards with the insurance money. With the deal initially seeming to be dead, an alternative payment method is agreed upon. Joe will take on Chris' younger sister Dottie (Temple) as a 'retainer.' Having suffered a head injury when she was young, Dottie is a very unique young girl; simple-minded, childlike and decidedly odd, Joe actually becomes very taken with her. The growing relationship between Joe and Dottie does not sit well with Chris however, setting the two men on an explosive collision course. Finding himself in considerable debt, Chris a Texan drug dealer, decides the only solution is to murder his mother to collect the insurance money. Getting together with his father, the ex-husband of Chris' mother, they decide to hire Joe Cooper a contract killer, who also happens to be a police detective. The plan is that the money will go to Chris' sister Dottie. However due to the size of the contract fee, Chris agrees that Joe can take Dottie as a retainer until the insurance comes through.

“Shower! Shower! I need to go and have a shower right this instant!” Those were my first thoughts upon finishing this brutal, unflinching film, the latest from William Friedkin. Killer Joe truly is a nasty, sordid, lurid film that left me feeling decidedly dirty; a film of unflinching violence, incestual subtext, the most cold-blooded of murders, sexual humiliation, full frontal nudity and perhaps one of the most f*cked-up of families ever committed to the screen. You don't often see a film like this these days, certainly not one featuring an A-lister as its star. It's the kind of film you struggle to imagine anyone truly loving. And if you ever do come across someone who does you may do well to give them a wide berth; chances are they're pretty messed up! :D

For all that depravity however I have to admit to finding it strangely mesmeric and rather compelling, especially as it enters the final stretch where the twists and impactful scenes come thick and fast. Much of that compelling nature can be attributed to the central performance of Matthew McConaughey. I've now seen just about everything that has constituted the McConaissance. And while I have been greatly impressed by everything he has done and become a big fan in the process, this here really is something quite different to anything I've seen McConaughey do before. His performance as 'Killer' Joe Cooper is a darkly magnetic powerhouse of a showing, and one that on occasion had the ability to chill me to my very bones. With his sadistic depths only being revealed gradually it's a performance that just grows and grows throughout the film, leaving the audience never entirely sure where this guy is going to go next. It's nearly impossible to marry this guy to the man who had become the shirtless mainstay of romantic comedies and become a parody in the process. Had Kate Hudson ever run into the Matthew McConaughey of Killer Joe she would have been in a world of trouble.

While McConaughey delivers the stand-out performance that will stay with you, the entire cast are actually very strong in bringing to life the trashiest of trailer trash families. Emile Hirsch sparks with a nervous, fiery energy and plays beautifully off of Thomas Haden Church as his father. Juno Temple I found to be just delightful and somewhat ethereal as the brain damaged Dottie. She plays the character as such a frail, vulnerable individual and yet on occasion it feels like she imbues the character with a unique wisdom of a sorts. Gina Gershon, in what seems like an all too rare prominent role these days, smolders as the trashy, sultry Sharla. The individual who comes closest to stealing the show from McConaughey however is Thomas Haden Church, highly amusing and even strangely endearing as the simple-minded patriarch of the family, Ansel. Oh and even though he only appears in a single scene I have to give a mention to Marc Macaulay who portrays local gang boss, Digger Soames. He makes for a chilling, darkly charismatic presence and one you're left hoping will show up again.

Film Trivia Snippets - Killer Joe was originally created by Tracy Letts for the stage and 20 years previously to the film, Gina Gershon was offered the role of Sharla in the play; the same character she plays in the film. She turned it down back then however as she could not imagine performing the infamous chicken-leg scene "eight times a week" on stage. /// In one scene Dottie asks if Joe is a detective like Magnum PI. Matthew McConayghey was actually in the running to play the character of Thomas Mangum in a big budget movie remake of the series back inn 2007 but he turned it down. /// Gina Gershon's character is introduced to us completely naked from the waist down, though it turns out not all is as it seems. In an interview Gershon later revealed that she wore a merkin for the scene. After ordering a wide variety to choose from, she finally settled on one that she named Bertha. William Friedkin is a director who really made his name in the 1970s but whose name and reputation have been in steady decline every since really. With this film however he proves that there's still some life in the old dog yet. Killer Joe is a powerful, incendiary effort that seemingly attempts to push every button imaginable; it's no surprise that its release sparked a bit of a controversial reaction. And much of those qualities are a result of Friedkin's vigorous and energetic direction, though the punchy dialogue of Tracy Lett's script is also a contributing factor. Together they create a film constructed of one dynamic and edgy scene after another, many of which may leave you ill at ease. In particular there is a scene featuring a chicken drumstick that is amongst the more uncomfortable scenes I've endured in quite some time, and one that is unlikely to be leaving my mind anytime soon.

For all of its dysfunctional and disconcerting elements elements Killer Joe does actually play a substantial amount of it for laughs. To describe its humour as being merely dark however doesn't come close to serving it justice. It attempts to mine its humour from some of the darkest places imaginable, and actually succeeds in being very funny on more occasions than you'd imagine or perhaps like to admit to. However I think that is where one of the film's main flaws is also to be found, that of its tone. The humour generally originates out of a pretty dark and disturbing place. On occasion however it descends into territory of a much more farcical and downright silly nature and the balance has a tendency to feel just a bit off.

Conclusion - I have to say that as a film-making exercise I feel I'm perhaps under-rating this a touch. The reason being that in terms of the approach the film aimed for it succeeds with great aplomb. It's just that the approach is an acquired taste to say the least. A slow first half hurts it but a series of strong performances, a stylish aesthetic and real verve ensure it finishes strongly. It is actually a film I could imagine myself possibly growing to like more on repeat viewings. The only problem however is trying to imagine when I'll next feel up to subjecting myself to its vile ways. :D

The Gunslinger45

12-05-14, 09:52 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg

I liked the movie more then you (a 4) but I do seem to have a taste for things that can be more dark and sleazier.But I still love the bright and fun comic book and Disney flicks, so it evens out. Either way what you praised I also praised. You just seem to like it as much. Which is cool. Also yeah the scene with the chicken leg was awkward to say the least. There was a reason it was NC-17.

Captain Spaulding

12-05-14, 11:45 PM

It's the kind of film you struggle to imagine anyone truly loving. And if you ever do come across someone who does you may do well to give them a wide berth; chances are they're pretty messed up! :D

You might want to keep your distance from me then, because I loved Killer Joe. Excellent film, excellent lead performance, excellent dialogue. I enjoyed wallowing in its depravity.

Have you seen Bug, the previous Friedkin-Letts collaboration?

cricket

12-06-14, 10:23 AM

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote, Jaydee, except the part about at times getting near silly. If I ever do a new favorites list, Killer Joe will be on it pretty high up. I love this movie, and the last half hour is incomparable.

JayDee

12-06-14, 09:44 PM

Wow quite a lot of love for Killer Joe. Who knew we had so many sick, twisted individuals on here. :p

As I said I did actually like it and to be fair perhaps more than that rating indicates. I wrote that review quite a long while ago now, but it certainly stuck in my mind and shortly afterwards I was considering bumping it up to a 3.5 -. I decided to leave it with my initial gut reaction though, thinking that it can always be bumped up on a repeat viewing

Have you seen Bug, the previous Friedkin-Letts collaboration?

No I haven't. Just looked it up and it sounds.....interesting (that's as much as I'm willing to commit to it :D). I like Michael Shannon though

Daniel M

12-07-14, 09:37 AM

When I first watched Killer Joe I liked it but was a bit indifferent because I also thought it got a bit too near silly at the end. I've seen it a couple of times since and I now think it's great.

JayDee

12-07-14, 09:19 PM

Well look who it is, it's Danny boy. How gracious of you to see fit to climb down from you art house high horse and mingle with us commoners. :p

Daniel M

12-07-14, 09:21 PM

Also, JayDee, you mentioned the 'McConaissance', any chance you could rank your favourite McConaughey performances? Would be interesting to see :)

Daniel M

12-07-14, 09:22 PM

I am a cross between a commoner and an art house lover I tell you! I am the one who holds the ladder, helping people get up and down as they please :p

Sexy Celebrity

12-07-14, 09:33 PM

I hate all this reading. I wish Yoda would invent MoFo Implants that just let your brain "suck up" all the text instantly so you can know what was said without actually reading it.

Yoda

12-08-14, 09:14 PM

I hate all this reading. I wish Yoda would invent MoFo Implants that just let your brain "suck up" all the text instantly so you can know what was said without actually reading it.
I was working on that, but had some serious problems with human testing. Some subjects saw permanent damage.

I'll leave you to figure out which former members were the product of this.

Frightened Inmate No. 2

12-08-14, 09:19 PM

love killer joe, and ever since i saw it i've wanted to rewatch it because i feel like my 4+ was too low. it's the film that made me love matty m, which was a really hard task at the time. i still think it's his best performance of his career.

JayDee

12-08-14, 09:34 PM

I hate all this reading. I wish Yoda would invent MoFo Implants that just let your brain "suck up" all the text instantly so you can know what was said without actually reading it.

I wish Yoda would invent something that would allow me to avoid all of your moaning.

Wait a minute, someone's telling me something.......what's that, Yoda has already done that......the ignore list, what's that?.........:eek: are you sh*tting me?!!! You mean I've been stuck reading all of Sexy's rubbish for all these years when I didn't have to? Why did no one tell me?!!!

:p And really even that was too much for you Sexy? I think it was less than 1000 words. For me that's akin to a short little haiku. That's me basically phoning it in

JayDee

12-08-14, 09:35 PM

I am a cross between a commoner and an art house lover I tell you! I am the one who holds the ladder, helping people get up and down as they please :p

:rotfl: Oh that's the best laugh I've had in an age. You in touch with the common man? :lol: Yeah you keep telling yourself that. Now why don't you just totter off back to your arty land of pretentiousness where you're most comfortable.

Also, JayDee, you mentioned the 'McConaissance', any chance you could rank your favourite McConaughey performances? Would be interesting to see :)

Wow that's tough. I'm terrible at comparing and choosing between films or performances unless I've actually just watched them and my memory of them is fresh.

I think I've seen all of the films that constitute the McConaissance except for Paperboy. At the bottom I'd perhaps have Bernie and Magic Mike. Both very good performances; I especially admire his balls out (almost literally) bravery in Magic Mike, but neither asked as much of him as other films. Then I'd go with his very impressive turns in The Lincoln Lawyer and Mud. Killer Joe would probably then come in second just behind Dallas Buyers Club.

His showing in Wolf of Wall Street was fantastic and one of the film's real highlights but it's tough to compare it to the rest given it's brief screentime. And then I was absolutely wowed by his work in True Detective but again because that's so different from just a single film I'm struggling to compare it accurately but it would certainly be up there alongside Dallas Buyers Club and Killer Joe I would say

How about you Daniel, how would you rank them? Oh and is the McConaissance over now that he has reached the top of the mountain (winning an Oscar) or does it keep going until he throws in a clunker?

Sexy Celebrity

12-09-14, 12:20 AM

:p And really even that was too much for you Sexy? I think it was less than 1000 words. For me that's akin to a short little haiku. That's me basically phoning it in

Yeah, if you're E.T. making a long distance call!

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=18771&stc=1&d=1418098790

Daniel M

12-09-14, 12:07 PM

:rotfl: Oh that's the best laugh I've had in an age. You in touch with the common man? :lol: Yeah you keep telling yourself that. Now why don't you just totter off back to your arty land of pretentiousness where you're most comfortable.

Wow that's tough. I'm terrible at comparing and choosing between films or performances unless I've actually just watched them and my memory of them is fresh.

I think I've seen all of the films that constitute the McConaissance except for Paperboy. At the bottom I'd perhaps have Bernie and Magic Mike. Both very good performances; I especially admire his balls out (almost literally) bravery in Magic Mike, but neither asked as much of him as other films. Then I'd go with his very impressive turns in The Lincoln Lawyer and Mud. Killer Joe would probably then come in second just behind Dallas Buyers Club.

His showing in Wolf of Wall Street was fantastic and one of the film's real highlights but it's tough to compare it to the rest given it's brief screentime. And then I was absolutely wowed by his work in True Detective but again because that's so different from just a single film I'm struggling to compare it accurately but it would certainly be up there alongside Dallas Buyers Club and Killer Joe I would say

How about you Daniel, how would you rank them? Oh and is the McConaissance over now that he has reached the top of the mountain (winning an Oscar) or does it keep going until he throws in a clunker?

There are a couple I haven't seen, and I'm gonna throw True Detective in there too, so:

True Detective
Killer Joe
Dallas Buyers Club
Mud
The Wolf of Wall Street
Bernie

It's been too long since I saw The Lincoln Lawyer but I liked it a lot. I think his Bernie performance is odd, but the whole film is :p The rest of his performances I would all say are great, I'm not really sure why I asked you to rank them, as it is quite difficult :p

JayDee

12-09-14, 09:19 PM

This little spell of shorter reviews also happened to coincide with me having a fairly low mood at the time which meant I wasn't really in the place for any films that were too taxing. So daft, easy watches were the order of the day. Such films don't always inspire much of a review however but I kept writing a little just to keep my eye in.

So how about this Sexy, can you manage this? In fact this should perhaps come under the title of one of my medium or middle musings of whatever I called them a while back

mirror mirror
Year of release
2012

Directed by
David Koepp

Written by
David Koepp
John Kamps

Starring
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Michael Shannon
Dania Ramirez
Wole Parks
Jamie Chung
Aasif Mandvi

Premium Rush

rating_3 +

Plot - New York bike messenger Wilee (Gordon-Levitt) is given an envelope by a young woman at an uptown Manhattan college and is told he has 90 minutes to deliver it to an address in Chinatown. Complications ensue when undercover police office Bobby Monday (Shannon) appears and demands the envelope on special grounds. The truth, hidden motivations, and the life-and-death stakes on all sides are revealed through a series of flashbacks as the cop and the messenger engage in a length-of-Manhattan chase, racing against time after the messenger discovers the precious nature of the envelope’s slender contents.

As a huge fan of action films I'm always intrigued by a film which appears like it's going to bring something new to the genre. So when I saw the promos for Premium Rush, a film which appeared to confine its action exclusively to bicycles, my interest was piqued. While it perhaps didn't quite reach the full potential I thought such a daft, B-movie premise had it was still good fun. For me the film really can be split into two distinctive areas. When the action is set on the bikes I found it to be a terrifically entertaining piece of nonsense with really impressive and thrilling action sequences that seemed to channel a sort of Looney Tunes kind of sensibility. I really was impressed with how they were able to construct and film such elaborate chases on the actual streets of New York, while some of the stylistic, music video-style tricks and effects that were used just heightened the entertainment.

When the film goes on foot and attempts to dispense an actual story however my interest began to wane. It's actually quite a bizarre, involved story all things considered. It places us in a world that we're not overly familiar with. That can work two ways. On the one hand it can create quite a level of intrigue, but on the other hand your unfamiliarity means you can struggle to be draw into it. And sadly for me this fell into the later. I did however enjoy the whole biker subculture the film is immersed in, even if it does come off as rather daft. It kind of reminded me of the biking equivalent of Point Break, treating its world with a kind of soulful, noble, mythical approach which makes you roll your eyes a little bit but is also rather fun and endearing.

Film Trivia Snippets - Premium Rush was shot simultaneously to “Triple Rush”, the TV docu-reality series about bike messengers in NY was wrapping up. Many of the stunt doubles and characters from the underground TV series appear in the movie. /// In the film the love triangle between Wilee, Vanessa and Manny is compared to the MTV series, The Real World. Jamie Chung, who stars in the film as Nima actually began her career by appearing as a cast member on The Real World. /// Several times throughout the film Michael Shannon's cop, Bobby Monday, uses the alias Forrest J. Ackerman. This was a tribute to Forrest J Ackerman (aka Forry Ackerman), an American collector of science fiction books and movie memorabilia and principle writer and editor of the fan magazine Famous Monsters of Filmland and father of science fiction fandom. He was the first to coin the term 'sci fi' in 1959, cameoed in 48 movies and was the literary agent for Ray Bradbury, Isaac Asimov and Hugo Gernsback. Ackerman died in 2008. Alongside its unique action style the other aspect of the film that caught my attention was its cast. I'm a fan of both Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Michael Shannon (especially Levitt) and both men put in good showings here. Levitt is really likeable as Wilee (as in Coyote), playing the part with no short amount of warmth, passion and charm. While Shannon is quite a hoot as he hams it up as the despicable villain of the piece. His over-the-top, unhinged performance brought to mind the likes of Gary Oldman for his work in films such as Leon. Everyone else is stuck with fairly one-note characters but generally give quite fun showings all the same. I particularly enjoyed a running feud that Wilee has with a NYPD bicycle officer. Sadly Jamie Chung and her character Nima, whom the whole story actually revolves around, are extremely flat.

David Koepp made a smart move with the film's running time. The credits begin to roll with a mere 85 minutes on the clock, meaning that even with its daft, fairly uninteresting story the film is able to remain a brisk, lively experience. Oh and look out for a mid-credits out-take that shows the dangers of those aforementioned bicycle chases. It shows the aftermath of a crash that Joseph Gordon-Levitt had; he crashed into the back of a taxi, flew into the rear windscreen and cut up his arm so badly that it required 31 stitches. Ouch!

Conclusion - As silly as Premium Rush is I still found it to be an entertaining diversion thanks to impressive action sequences and engaging performances from Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Michael Shannon, two talented actors who are above this type of material but enter into the spirit of things with gusto. And for however daft the film is I found it to have a bit of an underdog spirit to it, and a goofy charm.

Daniel M

12-09-14, 09:26 PM

Totally agree, although the plot is a bit silly and some of the acting is a bit over the top (although I love Michael Shannon, so I enjoyed it and thought it fitted the role well), I thought it was a decent enough, enjoyable little film.

Maybe we can be friends after all :p

Captain Spaulding

12-10-14, 12:45 AM

Even though I'm a fan of JGL and Michael Shannon, I thought Premium Rush was a very poor film. Or maybe I'm just a hater since I never learned how to properly ride a bike without the assistance of training wheels.

Sexy Celebrity

12-10-14, 01:15 AM

I can manage looking at it.

cricket

12-10-14, 08:29 PM

I thought Premium Rush was pretty lame and forgettable.

I'm also lukewarm on JGL; I think he's ok, but I don't see a lot of star-power there.

The Gunslinger45

12-10-14, 09:06 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg

Haven't seen Premium Rush, and probably never will. Glad you liked it though.

JayDee

12-16-14, 09:46 PM

Another slice of McConaughey, though this time it's pre-McConaissance

mirror mirror
Year of release
2001

Directed by
Bill Paxton

Written by
Brent Hanley

Starring
Bill Paxton
Matthew McConaughey
Powers Boothe
Matt O'Leary
Jeremy Sumpter

Frailty

rating_4 -

Plot - Fenton Meiks (McConaughey) walks into an FBI office late one evening and announces that he has information about a serial killer known as the God's Hands Killer, but that he will only talk to the lead investigator on the case, Agent Wesley Doyle (Boothe). When Doyle arrives, Fenton tells him that he believes his brother Adam, who has just died, is the killer. Initially skeptical about his claims, Doyle becomes more and more convinced the longer Fenton talks. After admitting to stealing his brother's body and an ambulance so that he can fulfil a promise to bury him in the "rose garden", he goes on to tell him a tale of their childhood. He describes how his father (Paxton) came to believe that God had talked to him and given him a divine mission to become an demon-slayer. Completely convinced by the delusions, their father began to enlist the two young boys as accomplices in his demon slaying ways. While Fenton rejected his father as being insane his brother saw his father as a hero and bought into his delusions. And Fenton now believes that his brother is carrying on their father's work.

A subtly creepy and unnerving little film this one. It really is a very eerie and atmospheric effort. Much of that can be attributed to the excellent performance of Bill Paxton. Paxton, an actor I've always enjoyed watching and who I think deserves a lot more plum roles, plays the part of the father with such conviction that you really start to question your initial assertions that his visions are purely the result of mental illness. Paxton seems to believe in their authenticity with such unshakeable belief that he makes us wonder ourselves. His character is actually quite a complex one because despite of the atrocious acts he commits he is not a completely evil individual. We see that he is a loving father who believes he's doing the right thing with a genuine sincerity. He just happens to be a man who has become lost in his delusions. Through his character the film also highlights the hugely detrimental effect that mental illness can have not just on the individual, but those surrounding them. Additionally the film is an exercise in the dangers of religious obsession and fundamentalism.

I was slightly disappointed to find how minimal the screentime of Mathew McConaughey actually was. I was under the impression that he was the main star here but unfortunately he is relegated for much of the film to the role of narrator. In his sadly brief time on screen however McConaughey is still able to make a sizeable impression. His Fenton Meiks is a tremendously brooding figure, one with the haunted nature of someone who has gone through such an ordeal. Special mention too has to go to both young boys in the film, Jeremy Sumpter and Matt O'Leary. Performances from child actors are always very hit-and-miss at the best of times, but when you take into account the difficulty present in this particular situation then I think they both deserve to be commended, particularly Matt O'Leary as young Fenton. Credit also to Paxton for the performances he was able to draw out of them.

Film Trivia Snippets - Following its release, Frailty achieved acclaim from several noteable sources. Film directors James Cameron and Sam Raimi, and legendary author Stephen King all lavished high praise on it. King actually thought it was the best horror film of the year. /// Bill Paxton had to use the same beer can throughout the entire filming of the movie because they could only find one single Hamm's beer can like that from 1979. The can was "opened" off-camera and a sound effect added for popping its top each time a new one was opened. /// The demon-destroying axe is inscribed with the letters OTIS. The significance of this writing is never given. Fans have speculated that Otis Meiks is the true name of Bill Paxton's character "Dad." Others believe OTIS to be an acronym for Only The Innocent Survive. /// Frailty was loosely based on the case of American serial killer Joseph Kallinger who murdered three people and tortured four families. He committed these crimes with his 13-year-old son Michael between 1974-1975 in New Jersey. Kallinger pleaded insanity, claiming God had told him to kill. Alongside Paxton's efforts in his day job as an actor, just as if not even more impressive is his work behind the camera. This film marked his directorial debut but I certainly don't think you'd be able to guess it. It's a terrifically assured and accomplished effort that when combined with the cinematography of Bill Butler and his moody lighting makes for a very atmospheric venture. In a way it's quite a deceptively simple, even old-fashioned tact he adopts. The material could very easily call for a more lurid interpretation but Paxton instead underplays it for a more restrained film. It makes the potentially trashy story more realistic and a great deal more unsettling. His pacing is quite deliberate, his camera generally quite static and very controlled and its score fairly minimalist though undoubtedly haunting. For a 2001 film it's quite surprising to find that Frailty wasn't conceived in a much flashier, more MTV kind of style. By avoiding this however, Paxton created a film of great tension and suspense that is never alleviated by a cheap scare.

Paxton realises that the horror is not to be found in the actual killings; as a result the series of axe murders all occur offscreen and there is an almost total absence of blood. He instead realises that the real horror lies in the situation that the boys find themselves trapped in. The film initially presents the Meiks' as a normal, happy family with the two boys living perfectly normal childhoods. With the arrival of their father's first vision however their lives quickly descend into a nightmare. While the resulting story may stray into quite outlandish territory, the core concept really is quite a nightmarish one. Trying to imagine what you'd do if you were placed in such a horrible, unbearable situation is an uncomfortable notion to consider.

My only major complaint about the film was its twist conclusion. Alongside the fact that I saw it coming quite a ways off it also felt just a little bit forced to me. It felt like the film had been forced into having a requisite shock at the end because it was the expected thing in the climate of thriller/horror films of the time, a notion that could easily be attributed to M Night Shyamalan and his work on The Sixth Sense.

Conclusion - The issue over its ending aside, I found Frailty to be a very impressive debut effort from Bill Paxton behind the camera. With strong direction and performances it's an unsettling little film that just reeks with a terrific Gothic atmosphere. And based on this evidence the fact that Paxton has seemingly abandoned his directorial aspirations seems like a great shame.

Sexy Celebrity

12-16-14, 09:47 PM

That review isn't that long.

cricket

12-16-14, 09:56 PM

Frailty is a solid movie; I didn't love it, but it was good.

Nice review JayDee!

honeykid

12-17-14, 09:43 AM

It's always nice to see words of praise for Frailty. It's such an effective film for me, like most films which really create and build an atmosphere. I'm not a fan of Paxton the actor, despite this and Near Dark, but I was longing to see more of him as a director, given this debut.

JayDee

12-17-14, 09:59 PM

That review isn't that long.

Surely you're not actually complaining about a review being too short! :D And I did say that we were in a stretch of shorter reviews. Don't worry, we'll be back to my long ass ramblings in good time

Sexy Celebrity

12-17-14, 10:01 PM

Surely you're not actually complaining about a review being too short! :D

Oh, no, no, no, no. No complaints. Just noting that it wasn't that long.

The Gunslinger45

12-18-14, 04:36 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg

Have not seen it but might check it out.

gandalf26

12-19-14, 10:10 AM

Whats with the short reviews? I saw Frailty one night late on TV, was quite good with a surprise ending that I didn't see coming.

JayDee

12-21-14, 09:42 PM

Whats with the short reviews? I saw Frailty one night late on TV, was quite good with a surprise ending that I didn't see coming.

Well I already mentioned we were in a little phase of shorter reviews. There were a few reasons; people saying they liked the shorter reviews which sort of made it ok in my mind, the mood I was in at the time meant I didn't really feel like writing out my big long reviews but I did just enough to keep my eye in and also quite a few of the films (like Premium Rush and some others to come) didn't really have enough about them to inspire a full review. But don't worry, normal service shall be resumed before too long. :)

And it's not like they're really short. My Frailty review was just short of 800 words. Shorter for me perhaps but for most people that is still quite substantial.

Did you see my Jurassic Park review? That was a long ass rambling! :p

Maybe we can be friends after all :p

Hmmm....I don't think so. I've been keeping an eye on your favourite movies list and I just don't see it! :p

At a stretch maybe we could be frenemies. In fact that should be new category at the Mofies - "I Hate Your Guts But in a Fun, Bantery Kind of Way - Frenemy of the Year" :D

TylerDurden99

12-22-14, 06:04 AM

I quite like Frailty as well, although not quite as much as you did. I really must give it a rewatch.

Great review, as always.

Zotis

12-22-14, 08:14 AM

I enjoyed Bill Paxton's performance, but other than that nothing about the movie particularly drew my attention as anything special. A decent movie overall.

JayDee

12-26-14, 09:15 PM

As a little Christmas present to all of you (got quite the high opinion of myself don't I? :D) I've decided to jump ahead from the shorter reviews of my backlog to give you all one of my classic, long-winded ramblings that I wrote just a week or two ago.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1990

Directed by
Paul Verhoeven

Written by
Ronald Shusett
Dan O'Bannon
Gary Goldman

Starring
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Rachel Ticotin
Sharon Stone
Ronny Cox
Michael Ironside

Total Recall

rating_4_5

Plot - The year is 2084. Technological advances have allowed humanity to make many great leaps forward, including the colonisation of Mars. Things are not all rosy on the red planet however as the governor, Vilos Cohaagen (Cox), faces a revolt by a group of rebels. With scenes of violence and destruction a regular fixture on the TV news, Mars does not seem like the most inviting of holiday destinations. Unless your name is Douglas Quaid (Schwarzenegger). He has always had a fascination with the planet. Unable to convince his wife Lori (Stone) to take the actual trip, Quaid settles for visiting Rekall Inc, a company capable of implanting memories of ideal vacations. Purchasing a Mars secret agent package things go horribly wrong and he is left confused and running for his very life. It turns out his wife isn't really his wife, but an agent working for Cohaagen. According to her he isn't really Quaid and his whole life is a fake. Managing to avoid the men who are trying to kill him Quaid heads to Mars to try and uncover the truth about who he really is, in the process becoming embroiled with mutants, a mysterious woman (Ticotin), Cohaagen's thugs and a secret hidden with the planet's mines.

I've always enjoyed a slice of trashy, pulpy sci-fi. And they don't come much pulpier than Total Recall. In fact right at this moment I'm struggling to think of another film that has quite as many moments and scenes that revel in such a lurid and gaudy nature. Even if you've only seen Total Recall just the once I imagine there will still be moments from it locked in your memory; the decompression scenes on the surface of Mars, the 'fat lady' disguise and the reveal of who it really is, the extraction of a tracking device through Arnie's nose, the three breasted hooker etc. Although given whose at the directorial helm it really shouldn't come as any kind of surprise.

There are a lot of things you can say about Paul Verhoeven and his approach to filmmaking throughout his career; 'purveyor of good taste' probably wouldn't be all that high on the list however. He has always been a director who is comfortable getting down and dirty in the filth and the sleeze of cinema. And Total Recall ticks off many of the boxes that make for a classic Verhoeven flick. Garish violence and lurid death scenes? You got it. Copious amounts of blood spurting all over the place? Absolutely. Gratuitous sex? Oh you bet ya! What is also common in the films of Verhoeven however (perhaps RoboCop most noticeably) is that beneath the flashy surface lies a substantial element of intelligence, very often that of a satirical and subversive bent. On the most basic of levels the plot is an absolute labyrinth, just a terrifically cryptic little puzzle which keeps you always guessing as to which direction it's heading in and is forever pulling the rug out from under you. Just when you think you've got a handle on its mysteries and the motivation of its characters the script will throw you another curveball. In fact Total Recall has more twists and turns than a twisty-turny thing (a little nod for Blackadder fans there). Verhoeven uses this mystery and its themes of identity, paranoia and unreliable memory to create what is actually quite a classic piece of noir cinema, albeit one populated with all manner of mutants and advanced technology.

Go deeper however and you find that the film covers similar ground to RoboCop in terms of its themes and issues. Just as with that Peter Weller-starrer, Total Recall uses its futuristic setting to provide some commentary on our own current society, most notably on large corporations and the stranglehold they have on our lives. It's about how these corporations have been able to gain a monopoly on the necessities of our lives, and how these greed b*stards put their own personal needs above the needs of the people. For us it takes the form of fossil fuels and life's necessities (oil, electricity, heating etc). For the inhabitants of Mars it takes on the form of life itself; Ronny Cox's Vilos Cohaagen controls the supply of breathable air for the entire populous of the planet. If you don't play ball, you die. It's an issue that was relevant back in 1990, it's an issue that is relevant today, and is an issue that will most likely be relevant for mankind's foreseeable future.

Film Trivia Snippets - The film's shoot turned into quite the hellish experience for all involved. Shooting took place in Mexico City and due to one issue or another; food poisoning, extreme heat and the city's extremely poor air quality (said to be akin to smoking two packs of cigarettes a day), pretty much the entire cast and crew fell ill at one point or another. In fact only two people escaped falling sick; Arnold Schwarzenegger and the film's writer, Ronald Shusett. Schwarzenegger escaped because he had all of his food catered in the US and flown in; he did this after falling ill during the filming of Predator (also in Mexico) due to drinking some tap water. Shusett meanwhile went to extreme lengths to preserve his health; he only brushed his teeth with boiled or bottled water and insisted on receiving weekly B12 shots. He was initially mocked by the crew for his germophobia until they all fell sick. One of those to fall sick as a result of the air quality was associate producer Elliot Schick who actually had to be transported by helicopter to a nearby hospital. Paul Verhoeven also suffered greatly. In fact at one point he got so ill from food poisoning that he had an ambulance on set at all times. In between takes paramedics would administer fluids and medication s that he could keep directing. So the film is still relevant and in fact if anything the film has actually gained an additional level of relevance in recent years with the rise of social media, smart phones and ever more immersive technology. Just as Douglas Quaid does to his great detriment we are losing ourselves in technology; choosing to live vicariously through our gadgets than to experience actual reality. We are not actually experiencing life, just an imitation of it. An additional link between Total Recall and RoboCop is Paul Verhoeven's apparent fascination with American consumerism. In the Earth set sequences when Quaid is out and about, and being pursued by his would be captors, we find him absolutely swarmed by all manner of brands and advertising all around him. And I love the sequence where the sales agent at Rekall attempts to sell Quaid on the virtues of their services in a style reminiscent of a dodgy used car salesman.

Now when it comes to the acting of Total Recall, let's just say that it's....interesting. The performances here certainly haven't been honed at RADA or Juilliard; it's a series of individuals who are either hamming it up for all they're worth or who just can't particularly act. However I'd argue that it's a perfect fit for the material. If someone was to actually start 'acting' with any kind of subtlety or restrain in the midst of all this sensationalist, over-the-top trash it would stick out like a sore thumb. It would be akin to Arnie hamming it up in a film by Fellini or Tarkovsky. Speaking of Schwarzenegger, he is of course the film's star. Now no-one is ever going to accuse him of being a great actor, but as is frequently the case, in his own inimitably Arnie kind of way he's sort of awesome. This film was released towards the end of Arnie's true golden era and it really is the perfect kind of role for him; a role which requires him to kick ass and throw out the odd one-liner here and there. And to be fair to him he does stretch himself a little from his typical action hero, displaying a more vulnerable and confused side to his character. As his 'wife' we have Sharon Stone who is actually quite a lot of fun in this film. As someone who has usually been relegated to simply being a sex object that entices the protagonist throughout her entire career, she seems to be having a blast in a role that allows her to be quite a cunning, diabolical temptress. Oh and what a bitch! I mean she hits Arnie in the crown jewels not once, not twice, but THRICE!!! :eek: That's true evil.

The real star turns of Total Recall however come from its villains, meaning that it once again mirrors RoboCop. In RoboCop, Peter Weller's police officer turned robotic avenger comes up against a double threat; a materialistic and sadistic boss and his vicious lackey that takes care of the dirty work. In both films the role of the boss is actually played the same man, the great Ronny Cox. In this instance he is Vilos Cohaagen, the corrupt and ruthless governor of Mars who is basically a dictator; stopping at nothing to achieve what he wants and sacrificing anyone that gets in his way. And as his brutal lieutenant this time out, replacing Kurtwood Smith, we have Michael Ironside as the relentless and merciless Richter. Both men just absolutely kill it in their respective roles, making us truly despise them to the point that we can revel and delight in the brutal deaths that befall them both. There are also a series of great performances in the film's smaller roles, helping to ensure that Total Recall has one of the most colourful casts of supporting characters you're ever likely to find; individuals like Mel Johnson Jr. as Benny the cab driver, Roy Brocksmith as Dr. Edgemar, Debbie Lee Carrington as the dwarf hooker Thumbelina, Dean Norris as the disfigured mutant Tony, Ray Baker as the Rekall sales agen and of course Lycia Naff as Mary, aka the three-breasted prostitute.

Film Trivia Snippets - Arnold Schwarzenegger was originally in line to play the title role of RoboCop, but issues with the costume caused producers to abandon that idea. When Schwarzenegger saw the resulting film he loved it and became determined to work with Verhoeven. When Schwarzenegger acquired the rights to Total Recall his first call was to Verhoeven to try and get him to direct. /// The script for Total Recall was floating around Hollywood for so many years that people began to think it was cursed. Early on it was originally going to be directed by David Cronenberg who intended to cast William Hurt as the lead; he dropped out however as a result of the production being put into turnaround. Then at one point Patrick Swayze was actually signed on to play Quaid with Bruce Beresford directing. Before filming could begin however the company financing the project went bankrupt. In the original script Quaid was much more of an everyman which explains why individuals who were strongly considered included Jeff Bridges, Richard Dreyfuss and Matthew Broderick. /// Hard as it might be to believe but the film was even more violent than the finished product. The original cut was actually given an X-rating by the MPAA because of its excessive violence. With some of the violence trimmed and different camera angles chosen to lessen the gore of certain scenes it was eventually able to gain an R rating. /// Paul Verhoeven offered the role of Richter to Kurtwood Smith which would have seen them re-teaming after RoboCop. Smith turned it down however because he felt it was too similar to the role of Clarence Boddicker in Robocop. I love how highly detailed and realised the world of Total Recall is; it's just brimming with visual wit and creativity. The production design team really do seem to be have given free reign just to let their imaginations run wild. Alongside the elaborate sets (the oppressive Earth-set scenes, Mars' communities and its red light district) and impressive work with miniatures (the surface of Mars) I love all of the gadgets and technology they created for the film which don't actually have any great importance to proceedings other than to just flesh out the world and convince us of both its futuristic and alien nature. Just little small things like the pen that can instantly change the colour of someone's nail polish, the holographic tennis instructor or the automated, robotic Johnny Cab. Or how about the screens at this world's equivalent of a subway that provide full body X-ray scans to check for weapons; technology that seemingly anticipated the TSA and the current airport climate.

At the beginning of this review I noted the large number of vividly memorable moments and scenes that Total Recall has in its arsenal. Most of the moments are a result of special effects and while Paul Verhoeven certainly deserves a great deal of credit for how he handles and incorporates the effects into the film, the real praise must go to the film's F/X maestro Rob Bottin. When people think about the great visual effects artists in cinema the names that generally come up are individuals like Stan Winston (the Terminator series, Jurassic Park, Predator etc), Ray Harryhausen (Jason and the Argonauts, Clash of the Titans, 7th Voyage of Sinbad) and Rick Baker (American Werewolf in London, Men in Black, Harry and the Hendersons). Rob Bottin doesn't seem to have quite the same standing and level of respect that is afforded to those illustrious artists and I think that's a real shame. Throughout his career he has crafted some astonishing creations and added immeasurably to the likes of The Thing, Innerspace, RoboCop and The Howling. And Total Recall is another wonderful showcase for Bottin's prodigious talents. From the terrific make-up applications that bring to life the many mutants of Mars (most astonishingly the mutant leader Kuato) to the exceptionally realistic puppets and animatronics that allow for such moments as the bulging eyes and swelling tongues on Mars' surfacem and the instance at the airport where Quaid's malfunctioning mask opens up to reveal its occupant.

There is of course the big talking point of the film, one which people continue to discuss and argue over even a quarter of a century after its release; is it all a dream? Does the entire film just spool out of Quaid's memory as a result of his visit to Rekall? There's certainly a lot of evidence to suggest that this is indeed the case. Near the start of the film when Quaid visits the Rekall offices the sales agent tells him what the package consists of, and in the process gives away the exact plot of the film to come pretty much verbatim. When he's undergoing the process one of the technicians notes of the programme that there is a “blue sky on Mars” (or something to that effect), predicting the final images. When Dr. Edgemar tries to talk Quaid out of the supposed delusion he predicts that if he doesn't the walls of reality will come crashing down. Seconds after Quaid shoots him the walls do literally come crashing down and Richter's troops storm the room. And then there's the fact that the film ends in atypical fashion, fading to white instead of black. However the film isn't satisfied to just settle for this simple conundrum. It goes darker than just the notion of whether it's a dream or not. It ups the stakes by positing that if he doesn't escape from this mindf*ck then he will be lobotomised. So when we get that flash of white at the end of the film perhaps that is Quaid actually having his brain wiped whilst still sitting in the chair at Rekall. That would be a pretty dark way to end a big Hollywood blockbuster starring Arnold Schwarzenegger; exactly the kind of subversive move that Paul Verhoeven would delight in.

Conclusion - Total Recall has a bit of a reputation as a guilty pleasure for a number of people. While that may be somewhat understandable in purely visual terms I think it's got way too much going for it to fall into that category. Yeah it may be rather pulpy, and on occasion even a touch campy, but it's also a slyly intelligent movie capable of melting your mind if you really think about everything and try to work it all out. The film is an absolute visual treat, not least because of the work of Rob Bottin, and Verhoeven directs it all with an incredible energy. Just an absolute blast.

The Gunslinger45

12-26-14, 09:33 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg

Which interpretation do you take? Reality or the dream and the lobotomy?

JayDee

12-27-14, 08:49 PM

Which interpretation do you take? Reality or the dream and the lobotomy?

Objectively the dream/lobotomy option seems most likely given the evidence and particularly the involvement of Verhoeven. However I watched it for years in complete ignorance before hearing about that theory and just enjoyed it straight up. And whilst watching it I still generally like to do so

Daniel M

12-28-14, 10:10 AM

I watched that fairly recently and loved it, I think you saw my review. JayDee, we have more in common than you want to admit! :p

Captain Spaulding

12-30-14, 05:35 AM

Great review, per usual.

I just watched Total Recall a few days ago. I agree with everything you wrote. It's a very entertaining movie, but it's also deceptively clever. The practical special effects have held up incredibly well. I also love how the whole dream vs. reality question is handled. From the very beginning I was expecting it to be unveiled as the big twist at the end despite being blatantly choreographed, so I was pleased that the script addresses that very question fairly early in the movie. We never get the answer because it isn't that important. The dream vs. reality question just adds an extra layer to the film and gives the audience something to ponder after experiencing Arnold's "Secret Agent on Mars" package.

gandalf26

12-30-14, 12:53 PM

Love Total Recall. Great review.

I think in the end he is likely still sat in the chair at Recall safe and sound, certainly getting what he paid for. But then who knows, I think I have Total Recall lying around somewhere, might watch it tonight.

JayDee

01-01-15, 02:20 PM

mirror mirror

Year of release
2013

Directed by
Gore Verbinski

Written by
Justin Haythe
Ted Elliott / Terry Rossio

Starring
Johnny Depp
Armie Hammer
William Fichtner
Tom Wilkinson
Ruth Wilson
Helena Bonham Carter

The Lone Ranger

rating_2_5 +

Plot - Native American Tonto (Depp) tells the story of how lawman John Reid (Hammer) became the legendary, masked figure known as The Lone Ranger. Tonto first encounters Reid when captured outlaw Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner) escapes custody, aided by his gang. Joining a group of Texas Rangers that include his brother Dan (James Badge Dale), Reid chases the wanted men but becomes the sole survivor of an ambush attack. Disguising himself from his enemies, who believe him to be dead, The Lone Ranger forms an unlikely partnership with Tonto and together they fight for justice against Cavendish and power-hungry railroad tycoon Latham Cole (Tom Wilkinson).

Back in 2012 Walt Disney Pictures released the big budget blockbuster, John Carter. Budgeted at a reported $250 million it was met with at best a lukewarm reception from critics and proved to be a massive and costly flop for the company. Fast forward a year and you'd be forgiven for suffering from a severe case of deja vu. Also released by Disney, The Lone Ranger rode into cinemas on a $250 million budget, received a critical hiding and rode back out of cinemas having grossed just $260 million, losing an estimated $160-190 million in the process. So as I said, deja vu. The thing is though, and this is why I wasn't completely writing this film off, that as it turned out I actually really enjoyed John Carter. Sure it certainly wasn't short of flaws but I found it to be a really fun and entertaining bit of pulpy sci-fi that wasn't deserving of anywhere close to the kind of pummelling it received. I was hoping this film was going to repeat the trick. Sadly that was not to be the case. The Lone Ranger pretty much does unfortunately live up to (or down to depending on how you look at it) the reputation that the critics bestowed upon it.

And the most disappointing factor about that is that I don't actually think this film is complete write-off. There are traces and hints throughout the film that this could have been a really fun piece of popcorn entertainment; sadly those traces and hints are largely enveloped by the film's exceptionally bloated running time. It kind of reminds me of what sculptors say (ok I know that sounds pretty weird but stick with me :D). On a number of occasions I've heard and seen sculptors talk about how the sculpture is already fully formed within the block of marble (or whatever material they are using); their job is just to remove the unnecessary pieces to reveal it. I think there is a good summer blockbuster in here somewhere; they just had to chisel away a few more rough edges. Amongst the film's pluses are the fact that it does actually have a couple of very entertaining set-pieces in its arsenal; large-scale sequences which feature the occasional spark of creativity and evoke the madcap logic of a Tex Avery cartoon. And thanks to the efforts of Depp as Tonto, and Silver (aka the comedy horse), there are a few laughs to be found. The film does also look rather fantastic on occasion, the cinematography of Bojan Bazelli evoking classic westerns of old with its endless expanses of desert and sweeping sky of a canvas.

As I noted above, arguably the film's biggest flaw is its terminally long running time that closes in on two and half hours in length. Now I know that these days that's actually a fairly standard running time amongst films of this nature; the first Pirates of the Caribbean film which this was clearly modelled on for instance clocked in at just six minutes shorter. But in this instance it doesn't feel like there is anywhere close to enough going on to justify it. While it's story is actually quite simple the film does its best to make it as convoluted and bloated as possible. As a result it creates several very lengthy stretches where the film falls into a deep lull; a cardinal sin for a film hoping to kick off a new blockbuster franchise. No matter how poor a would-be blockbuster is it should never be boring, and if it is then you're in trouble. To tell the story the film employs a framing device that just falls completely flat; it sees Depp as an elderly Tonto relaying the story to a young boy at a Wild West sideshow at a fair. On paper it might sound like a sweet idea but in reality it serves pretty much no purpose whatsoever to the story. The film returns to this every so often and all it does is slow things down, further bloat the running time and take you out of the film.

Film Trivia Snippets - In an interview, Johnny Depp thanked his stunt horse, Scout, for saving his life after a violent fall during filming. After Scout dragged Depp 25 feet, Scout jumped over him to avoid stepping on him. A clip of the fall shows the horse clearly jumping over Depp, and detaching him from the saddle. Depp suffered only minor bruises and scrapes, but says it could have been a lot worse if the horse had stepped on him. /// As an homage o John Ford, the scene that introduces John Reid features passengers singing "Shall We Gather At The River". It was Ford's favorite hymn, included in at least five of his movies. /// Tonto means "fool" in Spanish. In Spanish versions of this film, Tonto is renamed Toro, which means "bull". /// This is now the sixth film in which both Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter have worked together. However it is the first not directed by Tim Burton. /// Johnny Depp's makeup and costume were inspired by artist Kirby Sattler's painting "I am Crow". /// This is the first version of "The Lone Ranger" in any medium in which the actor playing Tonto receives top billing. /// The "frame story" where young Will meets the old Tonto, takes place in 1933, year of the first Lone Ranger radio broadcast. /// Jessica Chastain and Abbie Cornish were considered for the role of Rebecca Reid, but lost out to Ruth Wilson. /// This actually is not the first time Johnny Depp has played the part of a Native America. He played Rafael, a Native American, in his directorial debut, The Brave, which due to bad reviews at Cannes was never released in the USA.
The other major flaw here is the film's tone. In fact it's such a problem that more often than not it almost feels like the cast and crew were under the impression they were making two different movies. Johnny Depp, and to a lesser extent Armie Hammer seem to think they are indeed making a fun summer blockbuster, really trying to push the fun side of things. The larger majority of individuals however seem to think they're making a serious, and at times quite dark, straight-up western. Even the aesthetic of the film seems to differ from what you'd expect; eschewing the bright, primary coloured world you would normally find in a blockbuster in favour of a much more drab, drained colour palette to reproduce the dusty, murky world of the Wild West. And for a Disney film being pushed as the 'new Pirates of the Caribbean' I really was surprised by just how dark and sordid a territory it had a tendency to wander into; the dark and violent origin of Tonto, numerous killings and murders, the brothel, the slaughter of a Native American tribe....oh and then there's the cannibalistic villain! That's right, the film's villain is a cannibal who eats the body parts of his victims. At one point he actually cuts the a man's heart from his chest as he lies dying and eats it. With this dark, sinister edge going hand-in-hand with its more farcical, slapstick approach it makes for an awkward, unwieldy marriage.

Johnny Depp delivers what has kind of become his standard, go-to performance over the last decade or so. In many respects it's the same quirky, kooky turn we've seen in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Alice in Wonderland and the Pirates of the Caribbean series just with a slight variation. In fact you really wouldn't be all that surprised that if during the film Tonto washed off his face paint and removed the dead bird that adorns the top of his head to reveal that it has actually been Jack Sparrow in disguise all along. His performance is a bit hit-and-miss in truth. He plays the character with a great oddness which at times comes off as irritating, but at others entertains and does provide just about every laugh to be found. Depp is such a big star and such a cinematic mainstay that the failure of the film will not to anything to dent his reputation and standing. His co-star, Armie Hammer, however may not be quite so lucky. A bit of a rising star in Hollywood this film really could derail that ascension. And his fairly lifeless performance certainly won't help. Though to be fair to him much of that is likely down to the poor writing that lumbers him with a dull character. The Lone Ranger is a pop culture icon and yet the writers manage to make the character and his story completely flat and unengaging. Helena Bonham Carter adds some colour as Red Harrington, a one-legged brothel madam whose other leg is made of ivory. She is about the only person other than Depp to come close to generating some laughs

In the film's closing image Armie Hammer is finally given the opportunity to utter his character's iconic line of “Hi ho silver, away!” Tonto responds by telling him “don't ever do that again.” No need to worry Tonto, neither you or cinema audiences are going to be hearing him say that again anytime soon.

Conclusion - While this may never have had a chance at matching the delightful exploits of the first Pirates of the Caribbean film, I do feel there was some potential here for it to be an entertaining film in its own right. And the film certainly does have its moments but it's never able to completely overcome its flaws, especially that hideously overlong running time. I would say though that I think there's a small chance it could grow on me a little bit over time.

cricket

01-01-15, 02:58 PM

I was never much interested in seeing this, and the running time is just icing on the cake. Thanks for the reassurance:)

Captain Spaulding

01-01-15, 03:02 PM

The Gunslinger45

01-01-15, 06:21 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg

Thought about seeing this movie, but opted to watch Pirates again instead. Seems I made the right choice.

gbgoodies

01-01-15, 07:19 PM

Great review of a terrible movie.

I noticed that I seem to like Johnny Depp less and less with each new movie he makes. I haven't seen Transcendence yet, but I haven't heard much good about that movie either.

JayDee

01-01-15, 09:29 PM

I loved The Lone Ranger. It may or may not be making my 2013 list. :p

I agree with many of your points, though. It's definitely bloated and way too long. The stuff with old Tonto serves no purpose but to pad the length. However, I still had a ton of fun watching the movie, but I love westerns and Johnny Depp, so I guess it makes sense that I would enjoy the movie more than most.

I actually own it, so I was planning on re-visiting it in the next few weeks and writing a review to serve as a counterargument against all the exaggerated criticism.

Well there you go. :D And you know what, I've no problem with that. Usually I'm one of the rare voices defending derided films like these. As I pointed out in my review for example I really like John Carter despite the critical drubbing it got. The fact that you got so much out of it is great.

Well westerns are perhaps my least favourite of all genres, certainly right down there, so I didn't have that to help me out. But as I said there is just about enough good stuff there that I wouldn't rule out watching it again and hopefully it will grow on me. I just think it could have been a lot better. Had they dumped the old Tonto sections and trimmed about 20-30 minutes from its running time, particularly from the flabby second act which really drags, I can imagine I'd have really liked it.

And I look forward to seeing your review of it. :up:

gbgoodies

01-01-15, 09:38 PM

I hated The Lone Ranger, but your review makes me want to give John Carter a try. :up:

JayDee

01-03-15, 02:05 PM

Yet again we've got a queue jumper. All those poor reviews that I've had sitting about for months have to take a back seat for this review I've written just in the last day or two. The reason I'm throwing it out there immediately is because I already mentioned I was working on this review so thought I'd just go ahead with it. As a result however it may be a little rougher round the edges than normal. My large backlog of reviews usually allows them to percolate for a time, during which I can tidy them up a touch

mirror mirror

Year of release
2014

Directed by
Dan Gilroy

Written by
Dan Gilroy

Starring
Jake Gyllenhaal
Rene Russo
Riz Ahmed
Bill Paxton
Kevin Rahm

Nightcrawler

rating_4 -

Plot - Louis Bloom (Gyllenhaal) is a driven but isolated individual who stalks the streets of Los Angeles in search of employment and a purpose in life. On one such night he stumbles across a traffic accident which introduces him to the world of 'nightcrawlers'; freelance individuals who track down and film incidents deemed newsworthy and then attempt to sell them on to local news outlets. Acquiring a basic model video camera and a police scanner his life soon becomes dominated by the accidents, fires, assaults and murders that plague the city. As he becomes more embroiled in this world he develops a working relationship with Nina Romina (Russo), the news director for a local TV station. With each new story that he gets on the air the more successful he becomes, allowing him to purchase superior equipment and to even hire an assistant in the form of the young and unemployed Rick (Ahmed). Under the guidance of Nina he learns that the more visceral and gruesome his footage, the higher the price he can command for it. And as it turns out, Louis seems willing to do absolutely anything to get such footage, no matter how questionable or illegal that activity may be.

There's a lot to admire and recommend about Nightcrawler (and if you know me well you'll know I'll do so in great detail! :p) but I feel I'd be doing him a disservice if I didn't immediately talk about Jake Gyllenhaal. He gives what is undoubtedly one of the finest showings of his career to date. His performance is unflinching and darkly compelling as he really does lose himself in the character of Lou Bloom, one of the most unlikeable characters to be a movie's protagonist in quite some time. His proclivity for theft aside, Bloom initially presents as a slightly bumbling character of limited intelligence who is more likely to illicit pity more than anything else. He seems to be rather feckless and pretty aimless when it comes to his goals in life. In short he appears to be harmless. As the film progresses however we learn this is most certainly not the case as we discover him to be a truly deranged sociopath with ruthless ambition and no compassion for his fellow man. This is revealed in an excellent scene where he is having dinner with Rene Russo's news director, Nina. Both Nina and the audience believe this is to be a clumsy attempt at romance on his part. Out of nowhere however he does a complete 180° twist and reveals his true nature and intentions. We can now see him for the cunning and manipulative individual he truly is. And when he unveils his true character we realise how much of his previous behaviour was a mere facade and that's when he becomes quite a chilling creation.

In addition to capturing the personality of this Machiavellian oddball, Gyllenhaal also looks the part. His dark slicked-back hair, gaunt features and sunken, hollowed-out eyes give him quite the ghoulish appearance. In fact there were numerous times throughout the film where the lighting caught him just right that I thought to myself, 'you look like you're right out of a Tim Burton film.' The character of Lou Bloom is an extremely fascinating one. You're never sure from one moment to the next whether he's about to elicit an incredulous laugh or make your skin crawl. He is like the human equivalent of a car crash. We don't want want to look but we can't stop ourselves, and once we have looked it becomes seemingly impossible to avert your gaze. What is also very interesting is the world that Nightcrawler inhabits. This community of freelance news gatherers is a world I don't think has really been exposed on screen before, and it's one I was not really aware of whatsoever. Watching Bloom and his fellow 'nightcrawlers' stalking death and tragedy, massing around the victims of these predicaments like a pack of vultures is quite an unsettling and disheartening experience.

The film also features two welcome turns from Rene Russo and Bill Paxton, two actors whose appearances on the big screen have sadly been quite scant of late. I think that Russo does a really nice job with her role though I feel that on occasion her character had a tendency to be just a touch broad. I think we could have gotten the idea of the stance that her character represents without the character going so big at times. And while he is good during his screentime, Paxton's role is sadly very minimal. Those two are very experienced performers who have been plying their trade for several decades. The same can't be said for Riz Ahmed who is still very much at the dawn of his career. Probably best known for his leading role in Chris Morris' incendiary Four Lions, Ahmed proves likeable in the role of Rick, just about the only character in the whole film capable of eliciting any kind of empathy. He gives him a faintly endearing nervous naivety.

This is a film that brutally slays what passes for news coverage in our current society. A few days previous to this I had caught up with and finished the Aaron Sorkin TV series “The Newsroom” which proved to be quite a fascinating companion piece to Nightcrawler. The Newsroom presents journalism at its most idealised and optimistic, showing it as the tool of integrity and information that we all know it should be. Sadly that is now a somewhat outdated notion. In contrast Nightcrawler presents what is all too disappointingly closer to the actual truth of things. The term 'if it bleeds, it leads' is one that has now been around for quite some time. This film takes that sentiment and pushes it right to its absolute extremes, showing us where it is we are heading or perhaps arguing that it's too late and we're already there. The film highlights just how fear-driven the media has become. In one particularly unseemly sequence Russo's news director is seen coaching the on-air talent to really push the horror of a tragic news story and to induce fear in the audience.

What the film has to say about the media and journalism doesn't come as much of a revelation. If you'll excuse the pun, it's not exactly breaking news. After all, Sidney Lumet's Network highlighted the trade-off that news corporations are willing to make between journalistic integrity and ratings, and that was nearly 40 years ago! And to be honest I think it's something that most of us will have seen and recognised all on our own. That doesn't stop Nightcrawler from taking this well-travelled territory and doing it very, very well. One thing I would say however is that I found it rather strange that in this day and age the film never really addresses or even gives passing mention to the rise of the internet in terms of how people receive their news.

Film Trivia Snippets - To prepare to inhabit the role of Lou Bloom, Jake Gyllenhaal dropped 20 pounds. This was not a suggestion of Dan Gilroy but Gyllenhaal's own idea as he visualised Lou as a hungry coyote. In addition to the weight loss, to create the character's lean, gaunt appearance he worked out for up to 8 hours and either ran or biked to the set every single day. /// While to prepare for his role Riz Ahmed actually rode along with real nightcrawlers on the streets of Los Angeles. /// Dan Gilroy, the film's writer and director, is actually married to Rene Russo. /// During the scene where Lou Bloom is seen talking to himself in the mirror Gyllenhaal got so lost in the scene that he punched the mirror. The mirror broke and badly cut his hand. He had to got to hospital and received stitches before returning to the set immediately after being discharged. As I've detailed above, the film is most obviously a scathing critique on how the news is presented to us by today's media. Beyond that however Nightcrawler feels like a dissection of morality at large. Now I'll preface the next sentence by saying that I know full well how bizarre it sounds but go with me. At times during the film I actually found myself reminded of the series finale of Seinfeld. In that final episode Jerry, George, Kramer and Elaine found themselves put on trial for failing to adhere to the 'Good Samaritan law', a decree which states we are obliged to offer help and do the right thing where possible. Nightcrawler seems like it is putting society as a whole on trial, seemingly showing us that everyone has their price at which they are prepared to sacrifice their ethics and assigning at least some of the blame for this situation on to us. It feels like the film is asking us where exactly does the buck stop in terms of blame. How far down the line do you have to go before someone is absolved of any wrongdoing? It's not just Lou Bloom who is at fault. How about Riz Ahmed's Rick who is assisting him in his pursuits? Or does he get a pass because he has been forced into doing he's not proud of just so he can survive; something I'm sure many of us can relate to. What about Russo's Nina who feeds on Bloom's macabre offerings like a drug addict? Or do we just chalk that up to her doing what she has to if she is to hold on to her job? Or how about us, the viewing public. For if we didn't watch such exploitative, morbid trash then it wouldn't exist. Are we were the true blame lies?

The film also presents us with what may be the darkest ever example of the American dream, seemingly denouncing it in the process and revealing the 'facts' behind that rosy, inspirational notion. After all what is Lou Bloom but a prime proponent of capitalism, entrepreneurial spirit and self-motivation? So many of the words and platitudes he spouts come across as either glib aphorisms or soulless cliches he's picked up from some online corporate management course. The film is like an expose of how sociopaths operate and how easily they can worm their way into our lives, and into positions of power. In fact so intriguing a character is the sociopathic Louis Bloom that I felt myself left wanting more. I wanted to see just where he went from here. While I'd put the odds of us ever seeing one very low, I can easily picture a sequel ten years down the line which reveals that his ambition, unflinching lack of ethics and emotionless drive has allowed him to make it all the way to the top of the news business, creating a media empire capable of rivalling the likes of Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner.

After the end credits had rolled I came online and was extremely surprised to find this to be Dan Gilroy's directorial debut. For his first outing this is an extremely assured and proficient showing; one that I imagine will vault him onto many people's lists of directors to keep an eye on in the future. Up until this point he had worked exclusively as a writer with quite the varied CV that includes such disparate projects as early 90s sci-fi Freejack, Tarsem Singh's The Fall, robot punch-em-up Real Steal and the black sheep of the Bourne franchise, The Bourne Legacy. In general it's not exactly a resume that hints that he had something like this in his locker, but as both writer and director he impresses greatly. His dialogue is sharp and punchy, and together with Paul Thomas Anderson's regular cinematographer, Robert Elswit, he creates an extremely atmospheric world for events to unfold in. He presents a Los Angeles at its most seedy and dangerous. There are definite echoes of the cityscapes evident in the work of Michael Mann or in Nicolas Winding Refn's Drive, but with just an extra layer or two of grime thrown on for good measure. Gilroy also proves to have numerous other arrows in his directorial quiver. His pacing throughout is solid and as the film enters its second hour he changes gear on us and moves the film into the territory of great tension, really wringing out every drop of suspense that he can and making it an enthralling experience. He even proves adept at delivering a strong and thrilling action sequence at the film's close, a car chase that has a novel twist in that we're actually chasing a chase.

The film is not without its flaws however. Much like Bloom's search for a purpose in his life I felt that in the first half it took a while to really find its direction. Losing a little five or ten minutes may not have been the worst thing in the world. In the second half however Gilroy really turns the screw, ramping up the tension. However the film then pulls the trigger on quite an audacious moment that places the character of Lou Bloom in an entirely new light. Leading up to this point we have seen Bloom do some shocking and quite reprehensible things but this is in a completely different realm. I imagine it's a moment that may well divide audiences. Some will no doubt see it as an excellent, gutsy move that really caps off in the film in style. For me however I felt that Gilroy just went for a shock and perhaps pushed the boat out a little too far. For it to fully work I think the film needs to reside in the territory of pitch black comedy, whereas up until this point I had seen it as a predominantly straight-up thriller/drama

Those issues did not stop me from greatly enjoying and appreciating the film however. Just as with the equine equivalent, when the Oscar race gets under way a number of those in contention are split into several classifications. You've got the odds-on favourites, the long shots and then you have perhaps everyone's favourite, the dark horse. This film would probably fall into the latter category, and I'm not sure those horses have ever been darker than they are with Nightcrawler.

Conclusion - Nightcrawler certainly isn't what you'd call comfortable viewing. It's a film that resides very much in the seamy underbelly of society, but which also shows how that underbelly has seeped more and more into our everyday lives. Its ideas and arguments may not be overly original but they are presented in such slick fashion and in such a ballsy, feral manner that you may well not give a damn. In fact even if you take the themes and issues out of it, you can still be enthralled by Nightcrawler as a purely exhilarating thriller. As both writer and director Dan Gilroy has crafted a sharp, vibrant thriller that burns with caustic satire. But make no mistake, this is Jake Gyllenhaal's film. He is on screen for pretty much every frame and it's his restless, twisted, mesmerising performance that carries this amoral tale.

MovieMeditation

01-03-15, 02:37 PM

JayDee (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1231452#post1231452) vs MovieMeditation (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1231367#post1231367): The Battle of the Nightcrawler Review

It has begun... One review to rule them all! :eek:

Daniel M

01-03-15, 03:13 PM

I enjoyed Nightcrawler quite a lot and thought it worked great as a dark comedy, loved the ending. Agree it's Gyllenhaal's film, he's brilliant.

The Gunslinger45

01-03-15, 07:09 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg

I too really enjoyed Nightcrawler. Jake was REALLY good in the movie, his performance makes the film, and the shots were terrific.

Sexy Celebrity

01-03-15, 07:30 PM

I hate the fact that everyone thinks Nightcrawler is now THE best Jake Gyllenhaal movie/performance.

Two things:

1. Great performance, but he's such a rotten human being in it. Why do you have to love him when he's basically Satan?

2. He's not that attractive in it. I mean, he is, but you know what I mean -- he's very thin and bug eyed and it's just not really cute.

So I'm tired of hearing how it's his best movie, how there should be a sequel, etc.

Also, JayDee -- you couldn't tell that Jake's character was a sociopath until he sat down to dinner with Rene Russo? You guys really need to work on spotting psychos before they take advantage of you.

Also, yes, it's interesting how the internet doesn't really play into the movie. Nightcrawler could have been set in 1993 or 1986 and you wouldn't be able to really tell the difference.

The Gunslinger45

01-03-15, 07:34 PM

Brokeback is his best IMO. He was also really good in Jarhead and Prisoners. Also I think this is a good movie on its own. No sequel required.

Sexy Celebrity

01-03-15, 07:38 PM

I actually think he's better in Nightcrawler than he is in Brokeback.

The Gunslinger45

01-03-15, 07:40 PM

Nightcrawler I would say is his number 2 best performance. But that is just me.

hello101

01-03-15, 07:40 PM

What'd you think of his performance in Brothers?

The Gunslinger45

01-03-15, 07:40 PM

I have not seen that movie yet.

hello101

01-03-15, 07:41 PM

@SC

Sexy Celebrity

01-03-15, 07:46 PM

What'd you think of his performance in Brothers?

I considered that my favorite movie for awhile. I don't think I still do, but it's one of them.

I think Gunslinger is right about Prisoners and Jarhead -- those two stand out for me with Gyllenhaal. Those and Brothers. I need to give Enemy another watch, too.

gandalf26

01-03-15, 08:14 PM

Total Recall on TV in the UK now. Such a mind****, up there with the best of them.

cricket

01-04-15, 01:05 AM

I'm looking forward to seeing this, and it's this review JayDee, that gives me the most hope, because you don't seem to love a lot of dark movies.

JayDee

01-09-15, 10:19 PM

I don't know why you guys are having such a lengthy discussion over this. Quite clearly Gyllenhaal's best performance was his small but pivotal role as Billy Crystal's son in City Slickers!

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/JakeG_zpse9ce5ebd.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/JakeG_zpse9ce5ebd.jpg.html)

I watched that fairly recently and loved it, I think you saw my review. JayDee, we have more in common than you want to admit! :p

I enjoyed Nightcrawler quite a lot and thought it worked great as a dark comedy, loved the ending. Agree it's Gyllenhaal's film, he's brilliant.

This is starting to freak me out. We're agreeing on way too much just now; we both liked Killer Joe, are fans of McConnaughey and the McConnaisance, love Total Recall and really liked Nightcrawler. I can't handle this. I need to throw something your way that will re-establish our divide. Ummm.......of yeah I hated Under the Skin! Assuming you've seen it I'm guessing that's right up your street. :p

I hated The Lone Ranger, but your review makes me want to give John Carter a try. :up:

My mentioning it in the Lone Ranger review or did you go back and read John Carter?

I hate the fact that everyone thinks Nightcrawler is now THE best Jake Gyllenhaal movie/performance.

Also, JayDee -- you couldn't tell that Jake's character was a sociopath until he sat down to dinner with Rene Russo? You guys really need to work on spotting psychos before they take advantage of you.

I thought you'd just be pleased that he was getting so much praise and love thrown his way. It's the best performance of his that I've seen but I didn't state that in the review because I've not seen Brothers and I've somehow also not seen Brokeback Mountain. This despite the fact that I fancied seeing it at the cinema all the way back in 2005. I've even got it on DVD and have done so for probably 5 years or something.

Well I could tell that he was quite a detached guy but I felt it wasn't until that scene you really understood the extent of it

I'm looking forward to seeing this, and it's this review JayDee, that gives me the most hope, because you don't seem to love a lot of dark movies.

That's a fair point for the most part. And for much of the first half it was going that way. I was thinking it was very good and very well made but that it wasn't really doing a great deal for me. I felt it was heading towards something in the rating_3 to rating_3_5 range but then the longer it went the more gripped and enthralled I became

gbgoodies

01-09-15, 10:32 PM

I hated The Lone Ranger, but your review makes me want to give John Carter a try. :up:
My mentioning it in the Lone Ranger review or did you go back and read John Carter?

Just you noting that you liked John Carter, regardless of the way it was trashed by most critics, is the reason why I'm considering watching it. I've avoided John Carter because I've heard some pretty bad reviews of it, but you seem to have good taste in movies, so I was thinking about giving it a try based on your opinion of it.

Citizen Rules

01-09-15, 10:42 PM

I'll second John Carter (2012) great fun and I'm not usually into that type of movie.

JayDee

01-13-15, 02:35 PM

I'm breaking from the pack a little with this one in that I seem to about the only one on here so far that hasn't fallen head over heels in love with this film

mirror mirror
Year of release
2014

Directed by
Damien Chazelle

Written by
Damien Chazelle

Starring
Miles Teller
J.K. Simmons
Paul Reiser
Melissa Benoist
Austin Stowell
Jayson Blair

Whiplash

rating_3_5 -

Plot - Andrew Neiman (Teller) is a young and talented drummer who dreams of being one of the absolute greats. He is in his first year at Shaffer Conservatory of Music, regarded as the best music school in the country, when the respected and feared Terence Fletcher (Simmons) selects him to play in his Studio band. It doesn't take Andrew long however to learn that his selection does not guarantee a smooth ride to the top. It is only when he joins his class that he realises how much of a ruthless tyrant Fletcher is; he will abuse his students both verbally and even physically to try and get what he wants. In his attempts to please him Andrew's determination soon spirals into full-blown obsession. With these two constantly clashing who will come out on top?

In amongst all the massive event movies (Interstellar), issues movies (Selma), technical marvels (Birdman) and awards bait (Theory of Everything) that are jostling for Oscar nominations one smaller, unassuming film seems to have shot up the outside and become the darling of many a viewer; Damien Chazelle's Whiplash. In the last month or so I went from being almost completely ignorant of this movie to greatly anticipating it as a result of a string of reviews that have lavished unreserved praise upon it. Well it's certainly a very good movie and one that I definitely enjoyed, I can't deny either point, but it didn't quite live up to my expectations which had only recently gone from non-existent to sky high. And perhaps that's why I didn't fall for it quite to the extent of others. Whiplash is the kind of small film that people love to just sort of stumble upon with limited knowledge or expectations. Had I seen it a few weeks ago I may well have loved it, but now that I was greatly looking forward to it there was a degree of pressure on it.

Back in 2002 the Eminem-starring 8 Mile hit cinema screens, with countless reviews proclaiming it the rap version of Rocky with the film's thrilling rap battles standing in for boxing bouts. Well Whiplash could almost be categorised as the drumming version of Saving Private Ryan. It seems a truly preposterous notion but somehow Damien Chazelle has managed to make the act of banging away on some drums into one of the most thrilling things you'll see in cinemas all year, capturing a level of drama and intensity that doesn't feel a million miles away from that delivered by Spielberg's epic depiction of warfare. And to make things even tougher on itself, Whiplash focuses on jazz music, a genre that doesn't exactly have the cool, rebellious image of rock for example. That still doesn't stop Chazelle however. He employs a roving camera that likes to get up close to the performers during the musical performances, fixating on every bead of sweat and every throbbing vein, to bring a real sense of intimacy to proceedings that really pushes its immersive and absorbing qualities. Lots of credit for these sequences is also due for the film's editor, Tom Cross, who does an exceptional job.

So I was very impressed with Chazelle's efforts behind the camera as Whiplash's director. I would be more reticent with my praise when it comes to his writing however. His dialogue is good, it flows nicely and feels natural, but I did find myself questioning the movie's extreme approach to its subject. Now Chazelle was actually in a jazz band back in high school so perhaps it really can be this way but I just found myself struggling to imagine that such an environment could exist in this day and age; an environment where a teacher could possibly be so abusive to his students, not just verbally but physically, and seemingly get away with it for a substantial length of time. Never mind being fired he should be in jail for assault. Perhaps it could be explained away as just a heightened sense of reality but at times it just felt rather over-the-top and unrealistic. And then at around the hour mark the film takes a brief detour into full-blown melodrama that I felt was unwise and quite frankly unnecessary; the film was doing just fine at generating drama through Andrew's exploits and struggles at his drum set without resorting to something that felt comparatively cheap. And when it came to the film's finale, as undeniably enthralling and adrenaline-fuelled as it is, I felt it was a touch contrived and didn't ring particularly true. Even the character of Terence Fletcher, as incredibly portrayed as it was by J.K. Simmons (more on that later), was so big that he was right on the brink of crossing over into caricature throughout the whole film.

Above everything else the film seems to about sacrifice. It's about the sacrifices you have to make and the lengths you have to go to if you want to be truly great at something. It's only the very lucky few that are blessed with the natural, innate talent of a prodigy at birth; for everyone else you have to really work at it. And boy does Andrew Neiman work for it. In this film, pouring your 'blood, sweat and tears into it' isn't just a glib expression, it literally is the case. And there's even a bit of spit thrown in for good measure. Earlier on I mentioned the Rocky comparison that was frequently brought up in discussions of 8 Mile. Perhaps I should just have stuck with that analogy for Whiplash because after drumming Andrew often looks like he's just gone three minutes with the heavyweight champion of the world. As he sits on his stool, drenched in sweat and with hands bloodied, I was half expecting him to say something along the lines of “cut me Mick.”

For all this talk of sacrifice however I was left to question some of the exact ideology and messages at its core and its depiction of this world. I got the feeling that Chazelle was under the impression that he was making an inspirational film, but I'm really not sure I'd say that's the case. Given that the film has lifted much of its structure from your standard sports film you feel certain that at some point Andrew Neiman will rise up and overcome the abuse and anguish he has suffered to emerge victorious and heroic. Instead of rebelling against it however, he embraces it. It's almost as if the film is arguing that Fletcher's approach was right all along; that all the abuse he handed out, all the dreams he crushed, even driving someone to suicide, it was all worth it just to help one student.

Film Trivia Snippets - During the more intense scenes of drumming Damien Chazelle would not yell cut to force Miles Teller to keep drumming until he had completely exhausted himself. /// The role of Andrew Neiman was turned down by Chronicle and Amazing Spider-Man 2 star, Dane DeHaan. /// For the slapping scene, J.K. Simmons and Miles Tellar filmed several takes with Simmons only miming the slap. For the final take, Simmons and Teller decided to film the scene with a real, genuine slap. This is the take that is in the film. /// Miles Teller has been drumming since he was 15 years old. When he was hired for the film however he took additional lessons 3 times a week for 4 hours a day to prepare. /// Damien Chazelle was unable to get funding for Whiplash as a feature film. As a result he instead turned it into an 18 minute short film and submitted it into the Sundance Film Festival in 2013. The short film ended up winning the Short Film Jury Award, and he got funding soon after. And if this really was an accurate representation of the music landscape then I feel it would be a very sparsely populated world. I felt there was a complete absence of joy and passion for the music being performed. Those unfortunate enough to be under Fletcher's tutelage are forever wearing a grim look on their face and eyes of fear. They look less like a music class and more like a POW camp. Even Andrew's aspirations seem somewhat questionable. He doesn't appear to be doing this just out of love for drumming. His end goal is not to just be a great musician but to be remembered and talked about after he's gone; for him that would be the definition of creating great music. It feels like a lack of respect to create art, instead just making it a quest for glory, and somewhat souring the drama and excitement of the performances. I'm left wondering how many teachers and coaches the film may unfortunately inspire to act in a similar totalitarian fashion to Terence Fletcher, and also how many potential musical students it may turn off.

I was also somewhat turned off by the film's fixation with homophobic insults, particularly numerous uses of the word 'f*ggot'. All of the cursing and verbal abuse is one thing but this just felt unnecessary and to me it just came across as cheap, lazy and sensationalist. Remove Fletcher's repeated use of the phrase and replace it with just a general insult and it's not going to lessen his monstrous image any. There are several films and situations where it would be an acceptable element, or even strange to omit it. Here however I didn't think it had any real justification and it slightly disturbs me that it seems to be acceptable. For example there are several black students in Fletcher's class. Had he uttered the 'n word' on several occasions throughout the film I imagine it would have caused a bit of an outcry.

I think that another part of the reason why I didn't love the film to the extent that many people have is that while I was captivated by the on-stage trials of Miles Teller's Andrew Neiman, I don't think I could say the same for the character himself. Beyond his undeniable passion and drive for music I don't feel that I ever really get to know him, and what we do get to know isn't the most likeable or sympathetic of individuals as he wallows in self-absorption. There are some brief snapshots of his home life that attempt to sketch out why he is so insanely driven that didn't do a great deal for me. There is also a romantic sub-plot for Andrew, the purpose of which is to show the effect his obsession has on his everyday life outside of music, but I felt it was one of the film's weaker elements even if it was sweetly and tenderly played by both Teller and Melissa Benoist.

Now the one facet of Whiplash that dominates everything else is most certainly the performance of J.K. Simmons as noted conductor and fearsome music teacher, Terence Fletcher. Simmons' is one of the most reliable and watchable actors out there. Up until now however he had pretty much made a career out of being a character actor, of impressing and of stealing the show from supporting roles. Well it may have taken him some 20 years but he has finally found the role that has allowed him to take centre stage. Simmons is probably best known for his role as J. Jonah Jameson in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy. That series featured such iconic comic book villains as the Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, Venom and Sandman; well Terence Fletcher would have eaten every single one of them for breakfast! It is a truly monstrous performance from Simmons that has seemingly put him in pole position for the Best Supporting Actor award at this year's Oscars, Golden Globes, Baftas and every other awards show in existence.

There has perhaps never been an individual more suited to convey the sentiment, 'doesn't suffer fools gladly' than his Fletcher. If you make a mistake he will absolutely destroy you. Even if you don't make a mistake he will probably still destroy you just for the fun of it. He is absolutely terrifying, the kind of teacher every single one of us dreaded having. He is basically what would happen if you were to take R. Lee Ermey's drill instructor from Full Metal Jacket and put him in charge of a music class. This tyrant is a character that would fit snugly on many a 'Greatest Movie Villains' list....except is he truly a villain? How much of this snarling, abusive, sadistic beast is who he really is, and how much of it is a performance aimed at deriving the absolute best out of his students? Is he pushing them to deliver their best, or is he pushing them to their breaking point? I don't think there's much doubt that he is an exceptionally flawed individual but as to what the final verdict on him will be, I think that will very much depend on the viewer.

Conclusion - Whiplash is without a doubt an exhilarating film the is powered by two excellent performances, particularly the performance of J.K. Simmons which explodes with the energy of an atomic bomb. On a technical level it is a great success but I was left less impressed by its overwrought approach to the material, slight characterisation and some of its questionable ideology. I certainly didn't find the masterpiece that so many others have. Though I will admit I am perhaps looking too hard for morals and messages here; perhaps I should just have taken it more on a surface level

cricket

01-13-15, 08:49 PM

I never even heard of this movie until last week when it started getting raves on here. I'm very curious to see it. Great review as always:up:

Captain Spaulding

01-14-15, 08:44 AM

Unlike some, I actually think I prefer to read reviews for movies that I haven't seen, since a positive or negative review can tip my interest if I'm on the fence. Plus a good reviewer, like yourself, can give me a better idea of what to expect without ruining any of the plot. I've seen a few people on here rave about the brilliance of Whiplash, but until I read your review, I knew nothing about it except that the plot revolved around a drummer. The synopsis doesn't sound very dramatic or intriguing, but judging by your review, looks can be deceiving. I'm more interested in the movie now than I was before reading your review, so :up:

Some of your criticisms, like the lack of sympathy for the main character, or the coarse language and "questionable ideology," rarely bother me as a viewer, so it's possible that I'll like the movie more than you did.

JayDee

01-14-15, 09:48 PM

The synopsis doesn't sound very dramatic or intriguing, but judging by your review, looks can be deceiving. I'm more interested in the movie now than I was before reading your review, so :up:

Thank you very much. That's probably the best compliment you can get as a reviewer if you make someone want to watch a film. And you're right, the plot summary makes it sound like it should be exceptionally dull. All you can imagine is some dreary made-for-TV movie.

Some of your criticisms, like the lack of sympathy for the main character, or the coarse language and "questionable ideology," rarely bother me as a viewer, so it's possible that I'll like the movie more than you did.

To be fair quite a few of them I didn't intend to be so much as criticisms as just reasons why I personally didn't love it. Although just to be clear I have absolutely no trouble with coarse language in general. I'm Scottish for goodness sake! :D I personally just feel that when it comes to certain extremely offensive words that denigrate entire groups of people, be it sexual orientation or race, they have to feel justified. They have to feel a natural fit for the story, the place or the era. Dallas Buyers Club for example, it's not just ok to have the word 'f*ggot' frequently used, it's kind of necessary. Same goes for 'n*gger' in 12 Years a Slave. Here I didn't feel it was necessary, and the use just felt lazy and rubbed me the wrong way a little.

However with every additional gushing review that I hear or read I feel myself questioning my opinion more and more. I feel so alone on this! :D

MovieMeditation

01-14-15, 10:28 PM

I beat you to the Nightcrawler review, you beat me to the Whiplash review. Damn it!

I'll get ya next time... This ain't over!

The Gunslinger45

01-15-15, 01:26 AM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg

I have only heard of this movie in the last few weeks but I can't see it in the theater. Pisses me off!

JayDee

01-17-15, 09:56 PM

I've mentioned my backlog of reviews numerous times which are all saved in a big text document. However a while back I divided off the smaller micro musings and the like into a separate document and forgot all about it. Anyway I just recently discovered it so I'll get these out of the way.

First up is one that would qualify for that middle musings category I came up with or whatever it was called. And if you want an idea of just how long this has been kicking about you'll see that I reference the 1970s countdown as a future event.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1971

Directed by
Anthony Harvey

Written by
James Goldman

Starring
George C. Scott
Joanne Woodward
Jack Gilford
Rue McClanahan

They Might Be Giants

rating_3_5 -

This may not have held up quite as strong as I remembered but I still find it to be a fun and quirky little oddity that has a great deal of charm to offer. Trying to assign a label to it is rather tricky; it really is quite the hodgepodge of genres and tones. Parts of it are a mystery-adventure, parts are romance, parts are a slightly poignant drama whilst other moments find humour in rather farcical fashion. It also brought to mind one of my favourite films in a small way, Lars and the Real Girl. Like that film it questions what is insanity. At the centre of the film is a character who deals with the death of his wife by retreating into this persona of Sherlock Holmes. Now he is in no way harming anyone and it is bringing a vibrancy and depth to his life that would otherwise be missing. So is that really all the bad?

The film may have its flaws but for me they are generally outweighed by the two excellent performances at its core. George C. Scott makes for a great Holmes, capturing both the highly frustrating and wondrous natures of the character. Like all the best portrayals of Sherlock, if you knew him he would have you pulling your hair out one minute and then marvelling at his genius the next. As the psychiatrist given his case (a psychiatrist who just happens to be named Dr. Watson) Joanne Woodward is rather delightful; just giving a really heartfelt and endearing performance as the put-upon and feisty doctor. Together they have a really nice chemistry that helps to develop a sweet and surprisingly touching partnership. Returning to the film I was struck by the vast amount of familiar faces to be found, generally in very minor roles as an assortment of oddballs that Holmes and Watson cross paths with. So amongst the supporting cast you've got the likes of Rue McClanahan (Golden Girls' Blanche), Al Lewis (Grandpa Munster), F. Murray Abraham and M. Emmett Walsh.

Its plot may sound like it could deliver something decidedly mainstream but in reality They Might Be Giants has a bit more of an independent, Bohemian spirit to it. It's also quite a nice city movie, giving a retro insight into New York, complete with some time spent in a sleezy Times Square that is still crawling with the debauchery of sex and crime. One thing I had forgotten about though was the rather frustrating lack of closure at the film's conclusion. It leaves the viewer with a very open-ended closing image that you can interpret in two vastly different ways. Some people may enjoy that aspect but I just found it rather irksome.

I wouldn't say this is vital watch for people ahead of the 70s list. I don't envisage it making many lists. However I know people are going to be watching a lot of highly acclaimed, serious dramas for the list. So if you're looking for a little break and something a little bit different I certainly think you could do a lot worse than give this a go.

Sexy Celebrity

01-17-15, 10:10 PM

Christ, my index finger feels like it's on a treadmill when I have to use it to scroll down past one of JayDee's reviews on my phone.

Captain Spaulding

01-18-15, 05:36 AM

I wouldn't say this is vital watch for people ahead of the 70s list. I don't envisage it making many lists.

And I thought my dial-up was slow. ;)

I don't think I've ever heard of They Might Be Giants. It looks/sounds more like a movie from the 50's than the 70's.

Your new avatar is awesome, by the way. It hypnotizes me into wanting to do that same dance.

The Gunslinger45

01-18-15, 05:53 AM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg

Never heard of it, but it has George C Scott, so I need to check it out.

JayDee

01-19-15, 09:24 PM

Not too surprised a few people are unfamiliar with They Might Be Giants, though it is quite common to find it on lists of cult films.

Also what was it about quirky Sherlock Holmes films in the 70s? In addition to this one (about a mental patient who believes he is Sherlock Holmes) you had Murder by Decree in which Holmes goes up against Jack the Ripper and The Seven-Per-Cent Solution where he teamed up with Sigmund Freud

Christ, my index finger feels like it's on a treadmill when I have to use it to scroll down past one of JayDee's reviews on my phone.

Is this you setting the grounds for a potential lawsuit down the line about how you've injured your index finger because of me? I know what you Yanks are like, you'll sue for anything. :p

Your new avatar is awesome, by the way. It hypnotizes me into wanting to do that same dance.

Thank you. Now let's try a wall of hypnosis.

Dance boy, DANCE!!! Groot commands it.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/customavatars/avatar66044_49.gif http://www.movieforums.com/community/customavatars/avatar66044_49.gif http://www.movieforums.com/community/customavatars/avatar66044_49.gif http://www.movieforums.com/community/customavatars/avatar66044_49.gif http://www.movieforums.com/community/customavatars/avatar66044_49.gif http://www.movieforums.com/community/customavatars/avatar66044_49.gif http://www.movieforums.com/community/customavatars/avatar66044_49.gif http://www.movieforums.com/community/customavatars/avatar66044_49.gif http://www.movieforums.com/community/customavatars/avatar66044_49.gif http://www.movieforums.com/community/customavatars/avatar66044_49.gif http://www.movieforums.com/community/customavatars/avatar66044_49.gif http://www.movieforums.com/community/customavatars/avatar66044_49.gif http://www.movieforums.com/community/customavatars/avatar66044_49.gif http://www.movieforums.com/community/customavatars/avatar66044_49.gif

The Gunslinger45

01-20-15, 12:47 AM

The funny thing is I just bough the Awesome Mix off iTunes, now whenever I listen to The Jackson 5 I think of Groot.

Sexy Celebrity

01-20-15, 01:00 AM

I haven't met Groot yet. Haven't seen that movie.

Swan

01-20-15, 01:03 AM

http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/groot-9.gif?w=500&h=264

JayDee

01-21-15, 08:47 PM

mirror mirror
Year of release
2014

Directed by
Morten Tyldum

Written by
Graham Moore

Starring
Benedict Cumberbatch
Keira Knightley
Matthew Goode
Mark Strong
Charles Dance
Allen Leach

The Imitation Game

rating_3_5 +

Plot - Alan Turing (Cumberbatch) was a mathematics and cryptanalyst genius who was arrested in 1952 on charges of being homosexual. And for many years that was all the world at large knew of him. What was only revealed many years later was the incredible part he played in the Allied forces emerging victorious in the second World War. This film depicts Turing's attempts at decrypting the seemingly unbreakable Enigma machine that the Nazis were using to send messages and orders. Put in charge of a team of code-breakers that consists of mathematicians, linguists and chess champions he was in a race against time to decipher these messages and help turn the tide of the War in the favour of Britain and its allies.

In terms of how I'd sum this film up I'd probably throw it a bit of a backhanded compliment and describe it as 'a nice film'. While there's certainly elements in here to like, and the majority of the the film is well made, not many of them would I describe as being truly great. A number of people have complained, or at the very least noted, that The Imitation Game doesn't feel particularly cinematic; that it more resembles a BBC drama. And I do think that's a fair assessment, I'd say that it is does often look and feel more like a TV presentation, though a very classy one at that. There is one facet however that I feel jumps above everything else and is indeed able to feel very cinematic, and that is the central performance of Benedict Cumberbatch.

I thought that Cumberbatch did a really quite terrific job of bringing Alan Turing to the screen. Now admittedly I don't know how Turing himself sounded or acted so I don't know how technically accurate his portrayal of the man was. But in terms of inhabiting the 'character' that we are presented with here I think he does a grand job. His Turing is just such an awkward and guarded individual, as you would be if you had to hide who you were for your entire life. Throughout the entire film, for pretty much every second of its running time, I just saw such an incredible sadness and pain in his face and behind his eyes. I often found it quite heartbreaking just to look at him, especially the closer the film gets to its conclusion. Cumberbatch's performance certainly seems informed by and gives weight to the retrospective theories that some people have been presented that Turing may well have been somewhere on the Autisistic spectrum, possibly having Asperger's Syndrome.

To give him a modern day equivalent I'd probably look at The Big Bang Theory's Sheldon Cooper Yes that's right I'm reducing this multi-Oscar nominated film about a great man to the level of a sitcom. Deal with it! :D Just as with his superhero-loving counterpart, Alan Turing possesses an exceptional intellect, capable of solving any number of complex, mind-bending equations and problems. And yet the most natural and basic of things such as just interacting with people can leave him completely baffled. In fact the most meaningful connection he appears to form is actually with a machine, his Enigma decoder which he names Christopher. The only flesh and bone individual that he really forms some kind of connection with is Joan Clarke as played by Keira Knightley. A large part of this (at least to me) seems to be that he can empathise with her and her struggles to be accepted for what she is. Just as he would not be accepted by society if people learned of his homosexuality, she is judged and minimised for the simple fact that she's a woman. She just wants to put her great mind to productive use but is under the pressure of expectations that she should only be a wife and mother.

The Imitation Game really is a showcase for Cumberbatch. The characters who surround him have very little in the way of depth, each only there for his Alan Turing to bounce off of in some way as is frequently the case when it comes to biopics. Throughout the film it never really stuck me as a major problem however, largely as a result of the impressive ensemble that makes up the supporting cast; Matthew Goode, Charles Dance and Mark Strong all do solid work. I also have to single out Alex Lawther who played the young Alan Turing during flashbacks to his school days. For someone so young and with so little acting experience I thought his efforts were very impressive and poignant in what was an important part of Turing's story in terms of crafting the man he would become. Alongside Cumberbatch the other performer getting the most plaudits and securing a clutch of acting nominations is Keira Knightley, though in this case I'd say it's a bit more surprising. I think she's very good in the film, no doubt about that, but she's not really given a great deal to work with so such an outlay of praise seems a little strange.

Film Trivia Snippets - Benedict Cumberbatch has admitted that while filming one of the film's final scenes he could not stop crying and just broke down. In the process of inhabiting the character and getting into his mind he “had grown incredibly fond of the character and thinking what he had suffered and how that had affected him” brought about this reaction. /// On the 27th of November, just ahead of the film's US release, The New York Times reprinted the original 1942 crossword puzzle from The Daily Telegraph used in recruiting code breakers at Bletchley Park during World War II. Entrants who solve the puzzle can mail in their results for a chance to win a trip for two to London and a tour of the famous Bletchley Park facilities. In addition the film's official website allows visitors to unlock exclusive content by solving crossword puzzles that Turing himself had conceived during his lifetime./// In it's review of the film,The New York Times has indicated a parental warning for "advanced mathematics." The complete notice reads, ""The Imitation Game" is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Illicit sex, cataclysmic violence and advanced math, most of it mentioned rather than shown." /// Mark Strong plays the character of Stewart Menzies, the head of MI6. The real Stewart Menzies was actually the inspiration for James Bond's boss, M (as in Menzies). While it's unknown if they ever actually met, Ian Fleming's espionage work during the war means that at the very least he would have been aware of Menzies. /// Alan Turing is shown running on various occasions and although never mentioned in the movie, he was a world class distance runner with a personal marathon time of 2:46:03, achieved in 1946.The film is directed by Norwegian helmer, Morten Tyldum, in what is his English language debut. I rarely found myself overly aware or dazzled by his work but in general he handles the film in a very efficient manner. Probably the most impressive aspect of his direction is his ability to introduce a level of tension to proceedings. While the war may be at the very heart of the film's goings-on you're not going to get any action here; no explosions, no bullets, no bombs. And yet I felt he was still able to imbue the struggles of Turing and co. with a real sense of suspense, as well as a thrilling burst of excitement when they finally achieve their goal and break the unbreakable code.

It may have been Tyldum's English language debut but he at least had some experience back in his native country. For the film's writer, Graham Moore, this was actually the first feature he had ever written. Previous to this he had only written two shorts and one single episode of the “10 Things I Hate About You” TV show. Given that it's his first feature film it perhaps shouldn't come as much of a surprise that his script does have a tendency to hew rather closely to the genre conventions and cliches that are common with films of this nature. There are several scenes in here that we've seen countless times before. Outside of that however I think it's pretty solid work from Moore. He has the film unfold predominantly during the war and focusing on Turing's efforts to crack Enigma. Throughout the film however we get flashbacks to childhood experiences at school and jumps forward that revolve around his prosecution for indecency. This structure of jumping back and forth in time I thought actually worked very well. I also think he captures a decent balance between Turing's personal drama and the wider world issues at play. Though there was the odd occasion where I felt he failed to really dig into the possible drama of certain situations.

Now outside of Benedict Cumberbatch's performance you could argue that the greatest attribute of The Imitation Game is not actually to be found within the film at all. No, perhaps the best part of The Imitation Game is the increased awareness and recognition the film should bring to the story of Alan Turing. In addition to his undeniable genius this man was a true hero. Every so often you get these countdowns of the 'Greatest Ever Britons', with Winston Churchill more often than not topping each and every list. And a large reason for that was the part he played in Britain's resistance and eventual victory during World War II. Well with his decoding of the Enigma machine you could easily argue that Alan Turing was the most important individual of the entire war effort (even Churchill himself said that Turing made the single biggest contribution of anyone to the Allies victory). And yet during his life, and even for a substantial time following his untimely death, he did not receive the recognition he so richly deserved. Instead he was prosecuted for being gay under the charge of 'indecency' and was forced to undergo chemical castration as an alternative to prison until he committed suicide in 1954. It is a truly shameful chapter to a shameful period in Britain's history. And even if this film were made for no other reason than to celebrate this man, then I think that alone would be reason enough.

Conclusion - Outside of those that make up the voting committees on awards shows I'm not sure how many people will see this as a truly 'special' film as may be indicated by its substantial success at those aforementioned award shows. What The Imitation Game does have however is a performance that is certainly approaching being special in a film about a man who was without a doubt special. These two men, Cumberbatch and Turing, make this a worthy and worthwhile experience. And fair play to those involved for not making it as blatant an example of Oscar bait as you may expect. I didn't feel it was anywhere near as pompous or overbearing as you might expect, instead finding it to be a touch more humble and genuine than that.

The Gunslinger45

01-21-15, 09:28 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg

I have not seen this movie yet (blame Weinstein). I found your review insightful nonetheless. I will have to check this out on a rental because Cumberbatch will be playing Dr Strange.

Daniel M

01-21-15, 11:02 PM

One of the problems I had with this film that I didn't mention in the movie tab is that the film didn't really delve too much into his homosexuality, instead using it as a plot device to dry over characters and influence the decisions made throughout, he seemed rather asexual actually. I agree that the greatest thing the film does is bring attention to the real man, a disgrace that he received a 'pardon' a few years ago instead of something that actually 'recognises' his achievements.

gandalf26

01-22-15, 07:19 AM

Got the score about right Jaydee. I went hoping for another Tinker Tailor but it was just another Hollywood butchery of history full of silly movie cliché's. Like Turing doesn't get on with the Commander at Bletchley Park, the silly moment where Turing is nearly dragged away, the eureka moment in the bar and a few more I could name.

honeykid

01-22-15, 10:39 AM

I'm one of those people who think this is really good BBC drama, however, I'm also someone who thinks that it's probably better than most cinema in terms of quality, so it's not a putdown of any kind. It just doesn't need to be on the big screen, IMO.

Eddie Redmayne may well get an acting Oscar for playing a role which Cumberbatch did on TV ten years ago and, probably, better, so I don't think this is anything new. Just something I only started to notice in the last 5 or 6 years.

Captain Spaulding

01-22-15, 11:21 AM

I was already pretty disinterested in this movie. Now I'm even more disinterested, especially after you just compared it to a TV presentation.

Great review, though, as always.

JayDee

01-23-15, 10:12 PM

Well it appears that the wall of hypnosis has worked. We got Cap to do the dance!

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Cap%20Groot%202_zpsfcldb9yd.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/Cap%20Groot%202_zpsfcldb9yd.gif.html)

Captain Spaulding

01-24-15, 03:04 PM

JayDee

01-28-15, 09:50 PM

A couple more of the shorter write-ups I stumbled across recently

mirror mirror

Year of release
1996

Directed by
Tom Hanks

Written by
Tom Hanks

Starring
Tom Everett Scott
Johnathon Schaech
Tom Hanks
Steve Zahn
Liv Tyler
Charlize Theron

That Thing You Do!

rating_4

Just delightful! Absolutely delightful. This is a film absolutely bursting with enthusiasm and an infectious energy; a film I just couldn't help but get caught up in. Making his directorial debut, Tom Hanks exhibits a great confidence and no short amount of talent behind the camera. In fact the whole production is a testament to Hanks' abilities. Not only did he direct That Thing You Do! but he also wrote the script, wrote much of the music and acted in it. There's also the feeling of great affection for this time and the music of the era. While I don't know for certain I imagine that Hanks has a great fondness for that style of music and The Beatles in particular. The music, much of which Hanks himself wrote, really evokes that time, creating the sensation that he has ripped it straight from the charts of the 1960s. And this is never more true than with the band's signature bubblegum pop hit “That Thing You Do.” It is an infuriatingly catchy tune that worms its way into your mind and refuses to leave, ensuring that I was humming/singing it for the next couple of days. While to evoke the era there is some great period detail when it comes to the costumes and sets which capture the innocence and warmth of that generation for a lovely slice of nostalgia.

None of the film's cast are really stretched all that much by the material; there's no great characterisation or character arcs for them to sink their teeth into. However just about every single one of them delivers a lively and very likeable performance. Steve Zahn is highly entertaining as the clownish Lenny, very much cast as the film's comic relief. Tom Everett Scott impresses in the lead with a good degree of charm and charisma. On a side note I found Scott to be exceptionally similar in appearance to a young Hanks. And then there's Liv Tyler, and well I kind of love Liv Tyler and have done ever since I first saw her in her pointy-eared glory as Arwen. I just find her to be a beautiful, adorable, pure, angelic-like presence. And as if he hadn't already done enough on the production, Tom Hanks also pops up on screen in the role of the group's manager, putting in a great showing whilst displaying a bit more sleeze than is typical for him.

For the most part the film remains a lightweight, breezy endeavour but it does contain the odd hint of a darker undercurrent. It's a rags-to-riches story that highlights some of the pitfalls that comes along with success. It shows how people will come along and try to exploit your talents for their own gain; Hanks' manager has no great designs on helping the young boys achieve a long career, he just wants to squeeze them and their one-hit wonder for as much money as he can before dumping them. It shows how easy it is for bands to implode when one of them is pushed into the spotlight over the others (in this instance Scott's sunglasses-wearing drummer Guy 'Shades' Patterson) and when the band all have their individual priorities whether it be quick success, women, artistic integrity etc. As I said while it may have this more satirical and critical side for the most part That Thing You Do! the film could be described in almost the exact same way as “That Thing You Do!” the song; lightweight, inconsequential, a little cheesy and clichéd. But at the same time its sweet, sunny, fun and immensely likeable.

mirror mirror
Year of release
1978

Directed by
Colin Higgins

Written by
Colin Higgins

Starring
Goldie Hawn
Chevy Chase
Burgess Meredith
Brian Dennehy
Dudley Moore
Rachel Roberts

Foul Play

rating_3_5

Even though I was well aware he had absolutely nothing to do with this film whatsoever, when the end credits started rolling I was still half-expecting to see the name of Alfred Hitchcock listed as its director. I found Foul Play to be incredibly reminiscent of one of the Master's movies, so much so that it almost came off as a pastiche of his work. It takes his beloved 'wrong man' storyline (or 'wrong woman' in this case), perhaps throws in a little dash of James Bond in the shape of its colourful villains ('The Albino'. 'The Dwarf', 'Scarface'), and really runs with it all the way to a conclusion that certainly feels like one of Hitch's classic set-piece finales, in particular evoking the ending of The Man Who Knew Too Much.

I will admit that I didn't find it quite as funny as I was expecting. I think that due to its headline pairing of Goldie Hawn and particularly Chevy Chase I was expecting a much more knock-about, slapstick comedy. Instead I found that it played it a good deal straighter than I expected for much of the time, with its comedy often more subtle and the fact that it actually took the time to build a proper mystery surprising me. Which is not to say that it isn't funny, there are a few very amusing episodes throughout; Hawn's vicious assault on a dwarf for example, an incident-packed car chase through the streets of San Francisco or a running joke featuring Dudley Moore, the best part of which is his awesomely sleezy apartment. There's also a very funny throwaway joke that has absolutely nothing to do with the film but it very amusing; it sees two of the sweetest looking old ladies you could ever imagine playing perhaps the rudest game of Scrabble ever played.

Taking the lead and doing a fantastic job in the process is the lovely Goldie Hawn with a typically endearing and likeable performance. I really did rather love her back in the day. Alongside her charming and adorable personality, she had a beautiful face and the large, doe eyes of a damsel in distress that just make you want to save her. Opposite her is Chevy Chase as the police lieutenant investigating her case. This was his feature film debut (discounting Groove Tube which was apparently a collection of skits) and I'm not sure I ever saw him give him a more restrained performance throughout the rest of his career. For someone who usually acts the buffoon he is very much the straight man here. He does have some breezy chemistry with Hawn though. Oh and I need to give a mention to Burgess Meredith who just killed at as Hawn's landlord with a penchant for kung-fu.

seanc

01-28-15, 10:03 PM

I love That Thing You Do. Haven't seen it in a long time but I have seen it a bunch.

Godoggo

01-28-15, 11:39 PM

Just read your Guardians of the Galaxy review. It's pretty much spot on how I feel about the movie except I think I like it more than you do. :p

I went in expecting to love Rocket and Groot, which I did. I was not disappointed in the slightest. In fact, I think they exceeded my expectations a bit. They were more than comic relief and cute characters. They added a lot of heart & soul to the film.

My biggest surprise was Drax. He was a really strong character played perfectly by whoever Dave Bautista is. I didn't know what to think of Chris Pratt going in, but he ended up being another perfect casting choice. He definitely put me in mind of a goofier Han Solo and his charm keeps his character from stepping over the line into obnoxiousness. The four of them make for four fun & interesting characters to root for and go along on the journey with. Which leads me to my one and only gripe. Notice I said four, not five.

There is another character. This character is a she. Of course, even though she is the one that has the most connection to the plot, she is also the most forgettable and expendable character. I've even forgotten her name. This was a good opportunity to finally have a strong and interesting female superhero, but it's wasted. It's not all Saldana's fault but it was up to her to bring something to the role other than being the pretty little love interest and she didn't. Too bad. I know she didn't have the good lines but it's also the actor's job to make the role interesting no matter what they are given. Hopefully, Kare Mara will know how to do that.

Other than that gripe it was everything I wanted from a comic book movie. Right now it sits firmly at my favorite comic book movie and also my favorite of the year.

One other thing. It was nice to see Benicio in a good movie again even if his role was really small. Carina was stupid. I would have traded places with her any day. :randy:

JayDee

01-29-15, 09:27 PM

Just read your Guardians of the Galaxy review. It's pretty much spot on how I feel about the movie except I think I like it more than you do. :p

Thank G-Dog. :up: Well as I said in my birthday thread and I think in the review (though I don't remember exactly) I wasn't in the best shape that day both in terms of my mood and how my stomach was acting up that day. Despite that I was still able to greatly enjoy which I think was a huge accomplishment on the film's part given how I was feeling. And I am hopeful that when I rewatch it I will absolutely love it, and that I will perhaps be able to bump it from a rating_4 + to a rating_4_5

Right now it sits firmly at my favorite comic book movie and also my favorite of the year.

Wow great to see how much you've taken to it. Did you just see it for the first time recently or what? For me it's my 2nd favourite film of the year.

seanc

01-29-15, 09:33 PM

Hopefully, Kare Mara will know how to do that.

Is she taking over that role specifically?

Godoggo

01-29-15, 10:00 PM

Is she taking over that role specifically?

No. Not that role. She is going to be playing Sue Storm in the Fantastic Four reboot. There just hasn't been an interesting female superhero yet. It's too bad. Not leads anyway. The only exception I can think of is Mystique.

I have some hope for Kate Mara. She brings a lot to her roles.

JayDee, what was your favorite movie of 2014?

seanc

01-29-15, 10:02 PM

People are liking the new Fantastic Four trailer. I haven't seen it but I have no hope for it.

Godoggo

01-29-15, 10:48 PM

I like the cast at least. I don't know. Chronicle was a good movie, so I have some hope. I'll I know is it can't be worse than the pile o' poo that was the first one. :D

cricket

01-31-15, 10:16 AM

Nice to see you enjoyed Foul Play, and good to hear you're a fan of Goldie Hawn. I love that movie and she's an absolute doll. Chevy Chase is a tool but he was great back in the day. Dudley Moore was a riot in it too.

Sexy Celebrity

02-09-15, 05:37 AM

I'm posting this here so people can find it:

Check out JayDee's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles analysis -- he assigns a MoFo to every character. (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1253032#post1253032)

JayDee

02-10-15, 08:50 PM

As I mentioned in MM's reviews thread a while back I really struggled with this review. I was working on it off and on for a good 2 or 3 weeks. There were reasons for that; health, depression, time constraints etc. Plus I also left it to write a few other reviews at the same time. Beyond that though I just found it a tough review to get a handle on. Perhaps it's because I wasn't entirely sure what to make of the film for quite a long while. I was just sort of rambling along, looking for a point. In the end I just kind of called time on it and decided enough was enough

mirror mirror

Year of release
2014

Directed by
Alejandro González Iñárritu

Written by
Alejandro González Iñárritu
Nicolás Giacobone
Alexander Dinelaris, Jr.
Armando Bo

Starring
Michael Keaton
Edward Norton
Emma Stone
Naomi Watts
Zach Galifianakis
Andrea Risenborough

Birdman

rating_3_5 -

Plot - Riggan Thomas (Keaton) was once one of the world's biggest movie stars, famous for playing the iconic superhero known as Birdman in a blockbusting trilogy on the big screen. But that was many, many years ago. Now washed-up and largely forgotten he puts everything on the line in one final attempt to escape the shadow of Birdman and reinvent himself. He finances, writes, directs and stars in a Broadway adaptation of Raymond Carver's story “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love”. In the lead-up to the show's premiere however there is very little that is running smoothly. One of the production's actors is injured on set and is then replaced by Mike Shiner (Norton), an acclaimed method actor who arguably proves to be more trouble than he's worth. In addition to this headache New York's pre-eminent theatre critic has already decided to destroy the show before she's even seen it, the production's funds are running short, he is having a tough time trying to reconnect with his estranged daughter (Stone) and his own mental state seems to be very much in question. Riggan's dreams of crafting a massive hit are very much on thin ice; in fact will the show even be able to make it past opening night.

I certainly liked, but did not love Birdman. On a technical level it really is quite a marvel. Between Iñárritu's direction and the cinematography of Emmanuel Lubezki it is a film of tremendous vibrancy. With the freewheeling camera always on the move in the footsteps of its characters it creates a sensation of great energy, with the digital trickery creating the illusion that the film is unfolding almost exclusively in a single shot. Of course it's not the first time Lubezki has aided in the choreography and creation of such sequences, he was also responsible for the lengthy tracking shots in Children of Men and Gravity. Nor is fabricating a film to resemble being made in a single take an original idea; hell Alfred Hitchcock managed to do it with Rope more than 65 years ago and he didn't have anything close to the technology at his fingertips that Lubezki and Iñárritu have.

Trying to pigeon hole their creation into a definable genre is a near impossible task. Amongst the many labels you could bestow upon it are that it's a satire of actors and celebrity, a backstage expose, a drama, a character study of a desperate man, and a comedy of both a dark and a rather farcical/slapstick nature. On that last point on a couple of occasions the camera pans over to reveal that the film's jazz score is actually being provided by a guy sitting at the drums. It's the kind of gag you'd normally find in the films of Mel Brooks or Abrahams and the Zucker brothers. It is also a film that will delight viewers who enjoy their movies to be open to individual interpretations, and frustrate viewers who crave clarity and obvious answers. Trying to determine just how much of the film is 'real', how much is a delusion, how much is a dream, how much is allegory etc is quite the task and certainly up for debate. Hell I think it's even very possible to make the argument for the entire film being the fever dream of Riggan as he lies prone on a beach thanks to being stung by numerous jellyfish; a brief, almost imperceptible flash of jellyfish on a beach is actually the very first image we see.

Its often been said of South Park that the reason it can get away with such close-to-the-bone, offensive humour is that it doesn't discriminate. It goes after everyone and anything with the same relentless zeal, meaning that no single person or group is actually being singled out. And there's a similar sort of approach present in Birdman in that there's pretty much not a single person involved in the entertainment industry who is given a free pass. Actors are of course the primary target. The majority of these points are made through the character of Riggan (which I'll look at in detail later) but the film's aim extends wider than just him. It takes shots and mocks both 'real' actors who take themselves deadly seriously, and those who have 'sullied' themselves by appearing in superhero films and massive blockbusters. It depicts actors as these vain, narcissistic creatures who crave the love and admiration of strangers. Each actor featured in the film appears to be drastically flawed and broken in some way. There's a terrifically pointed stab at the mindset and personality of actors when Naomi Watt's upset actress asks “why don't I have any self respect?” The answer from her friend and fellow actress is, “because you're an actress, honey.” And it's delivered in such a matter of fact manner as if it's that most obvious thing in the world.

It skewers the journalists who cover the entertainment business, depicting them as either pretentious, philosophy-spouting douchebags or as a gossip-obsessed bimbo whose main line of questioning for Riggan concerns twitter rumours that he had received injections of semen from baby pigs. Then there are the critics, represented by the monstrous and reprehensible Tabitha Dickinson, as played by Lindsay Duncan. She is depicted as this merciless and vindictive bitch who speaks about theatre only in labels who sets out to destroy Riggan. She sees the theatre as this precious thing and is affronted by the notion that this spandex-wearing film star can come in to her world and play. I do think there's a valid point in here about the purpose of criticism, particularly when it comes to New York theatre critics who appear to hold such incredible power. When people have put so much time, effort and money into producing something they care about is it right that another person can come along, type at their laptop for 30 minutes and completely destroy it? And don't think that we the audience get off scot free. We seem to be depicted as suckers, and when Norton's Shiner accosts the audience with the line, “stop looking at the world through cell phone screens” you get the feeling that this may well be Iñárritu talking to us directly. In fact you're left wondering how much of the film is actually just Iñárritu's manifesto of a sorts just dressed up as film.

Beyond its visual creativity and innovations the real selling point for Birdman seemed to be its performances, and almost across the board they are indeed fantastic, with the cast delivering a series of raw and naked showings; in fact in a couple of instance we are talking literally naked. Michael Keaton's history as Batman obviously adds an extra meta-heavy layer to proceedings but he proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is no mere example of stunt casting. It is an honest, stripped down performance of an actor who has just put aside any sense of pride to deliver a frequently unflattering performance of sensitivity and humour. His Riggan feels somewhat reminiscent of a drug addict. He's this desperate junkie just trying to get another hit, except in this instance it's not drugs that are the issue but a need for acceptance, relevance and fame. He is desperate to be beloved again. He is a man who measures his self worth by his level of celebrity, as evidenced by his fears that had he died in a plane crash where George Clooney was also on board his death would not have made the front page. Oh yeah and he also appears to be in the midst of a completely mental breakdown.

Just as has been the case for the likes of Adam West, Christopher Reeve and Keaton himself, Riggan is an actor who has become trapped behind the mask and cape he donned for the Birdman series of films. He has been unable to escape the long shadow the character has cast. In fact he quite literally cannot escape him. There's a lovely symbolic shot where Riggan is eyeing himself up in the mirror of his dressing room, and in the background looming over his shoulder is the Birdman character on a poster on his wall. Not only that but through Riggan's delusions the character actually talks to him, representing his ego and self doubts. All he wants is to be seen for the actor and person that he truly is, not just the superhero costume that he donned on screen. There's a lovely little touch stuck on his mirror in his dressing room. It's a little piece of paper or a sticker with the affirmation, “a thing is a thing, not what is said of that thing”

Film Trivia Snippets - To adapt to Iñárritu's rigorous shooting style the cast found themselves having to perform up to 15 pages of dialogue at a time, whilst simultaneously hitting preciously choreographed marks. /// Given Birdman's unusual style of filming with all of the long takes it because a game of sorts to see who made the most mistakes. Edward Norton and Michael Keaton kept a running tally of the flubs made by the actors. Emma Stone made the most mistakes while Zach Galifianakis made the least. /// Just prior to the start of shooting, Iñárritu sent his cast a photo of Philippe Petit doing his famous tightrope walk between the Twin Towers. He told them, “Guys, this is the movie we are doing. If we fall, we fail.” /// Because Birdman was such a heavily rehearsed film that was shot both in long takes and in sequence it meant that the editing process was an astonishingly short two weeks. By comparison it's not unusual for editing on huge blockbusters to run upwards of a year. The film itself was shot in just under a month. /// During a number of the film's backstage corridor scenes you can see that the carpet is the same iconic, hexagonal design as used in Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. /// During the scene where Riggan is being interviewed by a group of journalists in his dressing room, he mentions that he hasn't played Birdman on screen since 1992. That was the same year in which Batman Returns was released, the film which marked Keaton's last appearance as Batman. /// The film was shot almost exclusively inside St. James Theatre, long considered one of Broadway's most prestigious venues. As a result the numerous references to the theatre being crummy and a bit of a dump are an inside joke.Alongside Keaton the other actor who has been getting the majority of the plaudits is Edward Norton and he certainly deserves them. He plays the douchetastic Mike Shiner, and it's a lot of fun to see Norton (a method actor) basically taking the piss out of method actors. In fact given Norton's own reputation for being somewhat difficult to work with he is almost parodying himself. He is somehow able to heighten the already energetic tone of proceedings, and when he largely disappears during the final act the film does miss him. There's also solid support from talented individuals such as Naomi Watts, Andrea Riseborough and Amy Ryan. Oh and Zach Galifianakis impresses too in a substantially straighter and more reserved performance than I think he's ever given before.

However the other performance I would really like to focus on is that of Emma Stone as Keaton's daughter. I thought she was just terrific as this extremely damaged, fragile and scarred individual who is just bubbling with anger and resentfulness towards her father. I found her to be very emotionally engaging, with her large evocative eyes proving to be a fantastic weapon in that respect. With the likes of Easy A, Crazy Stupid Love and her time as Gwen Stacey in the Amazing Spider-Man films she was already a proven commodity when it came to comedies with a very likeable personality and fine comic timing. Here she shows however that she has a lot more in her locker than just that, and that she could be a really fine dramatic actress. If Birdman acts as comeback for Michael Keaton, then for Stone it acts like an announcement that she really could be a force to be reckoned with. I know everyone is high on Patricia Arquette taking the Best Supporting Actress award for her commendable efforts in Boyhood, and it does seem a pretty sure bet, but personally I would love to see Stone take it.

It wasn't all plain sailing however. The film is jam-packed with visual tricks and gimmicks, so much so that it more often than not resembles a music video (they still make those right?). However on a number of occasions I wasn't entirely sure what if anything they actually added to the film. As a result they had a tendency to feel like Iñárritu was just showing off at times, resulting in the film coming off as superficially flashy and just a bit smug. While it is a great piece of artistry what does the illusion of filming in a single take actually bring to the film other than the aforementioned sense of energy? Yes it's very cool and terrifically well done, but what's the point? If it had a storytelling reasoning behind it that would be one thing but it just came across as flashy and really draws attention to the technique itself instead of really furthering the story. It would make sense if the film unfolded in real time but that's certainly not the case, it occurs over the course of several days. It works in this fashion during the first act which does largely unfold in real time, with the approach helping to heighten the sense of chaotic urgency and off-the-cuff immediacy involved in creating a production and staging a live performance. It would also make sense if the film was seen entirely through the eyes of Riggan but it doesn't. On a number of occasions the film breaks away from him to focus on the characters that surround him so it doesn't really work there either, not unless the entire film is all the delusion of one single man, namely Riggan.

As for the film's content, Birdman has a lot to say, and I do mean a LOT. To say it's multi-layered doesn't really begin to cover it. Around every single corner is another issue to deal with or another target to take a pointed jab at. At its core is an examination of the life of an actor and the pitfalls and dilemmas the profession can incur. The film posits the question of what is, or what should be, more important to an actor; achieving fame or creating 'art'. What is the difference between an actor and a star? Is it more noble to create work that artistically impresses a small group of people or a film that delights millions? It postulates on the close relationship often found between creating art and madness. Through Riggan we also see how an actor can struggle to escape the shadow cast by an iconic role they have become synonymous with. But that's not all, the film also deals with father-daughter issues, marital strife, the definition of celebrity and its difference from actors, the purpose of critics, the emergence and point of social media, theatre's reliance on big Hollywood stars to sell tickets, the quest for relevance and a few others I'm sure I'm forgetting about.

So as I said it's a hell of a lot. As a result the film tends to feel rather scattershot in its approach, arguably stretching itself too thin to really examine some of those issues in any great depth or detail. With so much to address the film also doesn't have much time for subtlety or subtext, very much spelling everything out for us in quite broad strokes with the characters commonly expounding every single one of their thoughts and feelings in very literal style. Some of the characters and moments are also rather under-developed; I'm thinking predominantly of a lesbian incident that feels kind of pointless. As another flaw I also felt the film dropped the ball a touch when it came to the conclusion. I think it had a really good, maybe even a great ending in its grasp but then it decided to stick around for a further five minutes and rather undermine it.

I'll be intrigued to see what I make of Birdman on repeat viewings. I can certainly see it being the type of film that could grow on me with repeat viewings. The film is a lot to take in, both visually and thematically, in one go. Conversely I could also see myself enjoying it less when I return to it. Without the novelty and wow factor of its visual splendour perhaps it may fail to enthral as much.

Conclusion - Birdman is certainly quite an intriguing, indeed a fascinating film to behold. It's choreography and direction certainly dazzle, as do the performances of its stellar cast. It's an inventive and unique piece of work that has the ability to enthral on occasion. However I'm not so sure it's the masterpiece that many people are proclaiming it. For me personally I'm not sure it was able to fully escape feeling just a bit gimmicky and shallow.

MovieMeditation

02-10-15, 10:30 PM

Wauw, I really enjoyed reading this one, JayDee! I'm so sorry to hear the struggles you've had, referring here to what was beyond writing the review. Get better as fast as possible my friend, MoFo cannot go on without JayDee at least popping in once in a while and shutting it all down with these great reviews! ;)

In connection to the review, I must say I sort of feel you struggle to gather all your thoughts and put them into this review. I, myself, had the same problem with cooking it down to a review I would accept, and that turned every aspect I wanted, but without going on forever. I can really feel all the thoughts you have had, and I defiantly have a clear idea of how and why you think of it as you do. And I agree with a lot of what you said here.

I hope my review partly inspired you to keep at it back them, and finally finish and release it in all of its glory! Oh, and btw.., Personally I actually gave this film a 3 the first time around, as you almost did as well. I ended on a very light 4 after a second viewing, which led to my ultimate rating and review... But yeah, I'm still not sure what to feel of this film. - And now I got PTA's new film on my mind as the new big puzzle to solve and put into a decent review. Damn.

But anyways, great work as always JayDee, I will eagerly look forward to the next one - though I do hope you priortize you health and better-self before anything else! :p take care and get better ;) :up:

Sexy Celebrity

02-10-15, 10:55 PM

As I mentioned in MM's reviews thread a while back I really struggled with this review. I was working on it off and on for a good 2 or 3 weeks. There were reasons for that; health, depression

Stop buying all those Pop! Vinyl dolls. You'll feel 100% better.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=19908&stc=1&d=1423623304

gbgoodies

02-10-15, 11:01 PM

Stop buying all those Pop! Vinyl dolls. You'll feel 100% better.

I like the Pop! Vinyl dolls. I just bought the mini dolls of Sulley and Mike from Monsters Inc., and the bigger size of Randall from Monsters University.
http://www.entertainmentearth.com/images/AUTOIMAGES/FU3599lg.jpg

http://media.popcultcha.com.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/330x350/0f396e8a55728e79b48334e699243c07/f/u/fun3213-monsters-university-randall-wacky-wobbler_3.png

Sexy Celebrity

02-10-15, 11:03 PM

See? GB buys 'em, too. That's why she calls the cops on every McDonalds worker who doesn't fill her fry box with fries all the way to the top.

Swan

02-10-15, 11:04 PM

See? GB buys 'em, too. That's why she calls the cops on every McDonalds worker who doesn't fill her fry box with fries all the way to the top.

Remind me about this post come next years Mofies, I may nominate it.

gbgoodies

02-10-15, 11:06 PM

See? GB buys 'em, too. That's why she calls the cops on every McDonalds worker who doesn't fill her fry box with fries all the way to the top.

I don't buy fries at McDonalds. They're something like $1.49 for a small size here. I never spend more than $1 on fries at a fast food restaurant.

Sexy Celebrity

02-10-15, 11:07 PM

I don't buy fries at McDonalds. They're something like $1.49 for a small size here. I never spend more than $1 on fries at a fast food restaurant.

That's why you call the cops. Not only do you expect the fries to come filled to the top, you expect the box to be studded with diamonds.

gbgoodies

02-10-15, 11:10 PM

That's why you call the cops. Not only do you expect the fries to come filled to the top, you expect the box to be studded with diamonds.

I didn't call the cops at McDonalds. I called the cops at Friendlys. If you're going to make fun of me, then you should at least get the location right.

Sexy Celebrity

02-10-15, 11:11 PM

I didn't call the cops at McDonalds. I called the cops at Friendlys. If you're going to make fun of me, then you should at least get the location right.

:rotfl:

Not exactly "friendly" there, I guess.

gbgoodies

02-10-15, 11:13 PM

:rotfl:

Not exactly "friendly" there, I guess.

Nope. Not that day. :nope:

Citizen Rules

02-10-15, 11:29 PM

I didn't call the cops at McDonalds. I called the cops at Friendlys... I missed that story, rats:p

So what happened?

Sexy Celebrity

02-10-15, 11:30 PM

I missed that story, rats:p

So what happened?

Keep the story short, though. Everyone's exhausted from reading JayDee's new review.

gbgoodies

02-10-15, 11:34 PM

I missed that story, rats:p

So what happened?

I don't think I ever told the story. It happened a few years ago. Basically the restaurant was overcrowded and they blocked up the aisles so bad that it was dangerous. They added extra seats to most of the tables by bringing chairs into the aisles. We asked them to clear the aisles near us because it was so crowded that it became claustrophobic, and my father-in-law was having a panic attack. They refused, and it became an argument with the manager, so we called the cops to report them. The cops came and cleared out the restaurant, fined them, and closed them down for the rest of the night.

Also corporate sent us a $50 gift card for the problem.

Sexy Celebrity

02-10-15, 11:36 PM

Also corporate sent us a $50 gift card for the problem.

$50? It should have at least been $100.

gbgoodies

02-10-15, 11:40 PM

$50? It should have at least been $100.

We didn't ask them for anything. They must have gotten our info from the police. We just wanted them to clear the aisles so we could eat our meals in peace, but the manager made a giant issue out of it. I guess she didn't believe that we would actually do something about it.

Sexy Celebrity

02-10-15, 11:48 PM

We didn't ask them for anything. They must have gotten our info from the police. We just wanted them to clear the aisles so we could eat our meals in peace, but the manager made a giant issue out of it. I guess she didn't believe that we would actually do something about it.

You made the whole damn restaurant close for the night!

Does having this kind of power ever get addicting? You should try to close one of those Taco Bells that are open really late at night. People would be driving up to the window and seeing a paper that says "CLOSED" with your picture on it as an explanation.

Citizen Rules

02-10-15, 11:57 PM

gbgoodies

02-11-15, 12:02 AM

You made the whole damn restaurant close for the night!

Does having this kind of power ever get addicting? You should try to close one of those Taco Bells that are open really late at night. People would be driving up to the window and seeing a paper that says "CLOSED" with your picture on it as an explanation.

No, we just asked them to move some people who were seated in the aisle where there aren't supposed to be any seats. It's against the safety regulations.

The police made them close for the night.

What power? All we want is to be able to eat our meals in peace. It's not my fault that everyone else around here is nuts. :shrug:

Sexy Celebrity

02-11-15, 12:02 AM

Sorry for the late reply I was writing a movie review trying to keep up with JayDee!

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=19909&stc=1&d=1423627238

Learn from Wyle E. Coyote and don't even bother. You can't catch JayDee. He writes all the way to the Moon.

gbgoodies

02-11-15, 12:03 AM

Wow! Don't mess with GBG!

Seriously good for you gbg. There are fire safety codes for a reason. You did the right thing. Sorry for the late reply I was writing a movie review trying to keep up with JayDee!

Thanks. I always try to do the right thing. If the manager had just moved a couple of people, everything would have been cleared up in just a few minutes, but she refused, so we had no choice but to take it to the next level.

Sexy Celebrity

02-11-15, 12:17 AM

No, we just asked them to move some people who were seated in the aisle where there aren't supposed to be any seats. It's against the safety regulations.

The police made them close for the night.

What power? All we want is to be able to eat our meals in peace. It's not my fault that everyone else around here is nuts. :shrug:

Like you said -- they probably didn't think anyone would do something like you did by calling the cops. That's power. You had the nerve to take an unexpected action.

gbgoodies

02-11-15, 12:39 AM

Like you said -- they probably didn't think anyone would do something like you did by calling the cops. That's power. You had the nerve to take an unexpected action.

You can call it power if you want to, but that's not how I see it. It's just asking them to do the right thing, and when they refused, I just did what needed to be done.

What would you have done in that situation?

Sexy Celebrity

02-11-15, 12:45 AM

What would you have done in that situation?

Well, now that I know the possibilities of what could happen if you really complain... and that they give out $50 gift cards if you call the police on them... I might just try doing what you did... if it came to that.....

What would I have probably done, though? Honestly, I probably would have just told your father-in-law to stop having a panic attack and get over his claustrophobia. That's how I am, though. I would have been like, "BREATHE. We'll be finished with our dinner in a minute and you'll be out of here."

I probably wouldn't have thought at all about calling the police and getting a $50 gift card.

gbgoodies

02-11-15, 12:50 AM

Well, now that I know the possibilities of what could happen if you really complain... and that they give out $50 gift cards if you call the police on them... I might just try doing what you did... if it came to that.....

What would I have probably done, though? Honestly, I probably would have just told your father-in-law to stop having a panic attack and get over his claustrophobia. That's how I am, though. I would have been like, "BREATHE. We'll be finished with our dinner in our minute and you'll be out of here."

I probably wouldn't have thought at all about calling the police and getting a $50 gift card.

Have you ever had a panic attack? Do you have any phobias? It doesn't sound like it if you think someone can just stop on command. It just doesn't work that way.

Sexy Celebrity

02-11-15, 12:56 AM

I would have been mad for sure if the manager and I got into an argument. I would have put the Sexy Curse on that Friendly's. And it would have closed. Trust me -- I'VE PUT the Sexy Curse on other establishments. And trust me -- THEY'RE NOT open anymore. For real.

gbgoodies

02-11-15, 12:57 AM

Sexy Celebrity

02-11-15, 01:01 AM

One place even caught on fire.

gbgoodies

02-11-15, 01:01 AM

One place even caught on fire.

I hope nobody was hurt.

Sexy Celebrity

02-11-15, 01:02 AM

I hope nobody was hurt.

I don't think so. It didn't close for good, but the place was closed for a long time.

Sexy Celebrity

02-11-15, 01:04 AM

Here's JayDee's new review again, so you don't miss it.

You can just give me the rep -- he won't mind.

As I mentioned in MM's reviews thread a while back I really struggled with this review. I was working on it off and on for a good 2 or 3 weeks. There were reasons for that; health, depression, time constraints etc. Plus I also left it to write a few other reviews at the same time. Beyond that though I just found it a tough review to get a handle on. Perhaps it's because I wasn't entirely sure what to make of the film for quite a long while. I was just sort of rambling along, looking for a point. In the end I just kind of called time on it and decided enough was enough

mirror mirror

Year of release
2014

Directed by
Alejandro González Iñárritu

Written by
Alejandro González Iñárritu
Nicolás Giacobone
Alexander Dinelaris, Jr.
Armando Bo

Starring
Michael Keaton
Edward Norton
Emma Stone
Naomi Watts
Zach Galifianakis
Andrea Risenborough

Birdman

rating_3_5 -

Plot - Riggan Thomas (Keaton) was once one of the world's biggest movie stars, famous for playing the iconic superhero known as Birdman in a blockbusting trilogy on the big screen. But that was many, many years ago. Now washed-up and largely forgotten he puts everything on the line in one final attempt to escape the shadow of Birdman and reinvent himself. He finances, writes, directs and stars in a Broadway adaptation of Raymond Carver's story “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love”. In the lead-up to the show's premiere however there is very little that is running smoothly. One of the production's actors is injured on set and is then replaced by Mike Shiner (Norton), an acclaimed method actor who arguably proves to be more trouble than he's worth. In addition to this headache New York's pre-eminent theatre critic has already decided to destroy the show before she's even seen it, the production's funds are running short, he is having a tough time trying to reconnect with his estranged daughter (Stone) and his own mental state seems to be very much in question. Riggan's dreams of crafting a massive hit are very much on thin ice; in fact will the show even be able to make it past opening night.

I certainly liked, but did not love Birdman. On a technical level it really is quite a marvel. Between Iñárritu's direction and the cinematography of Emmanuel Lubezki it is a film of tremendous vibrancy. With the freewheeling camera always on the move in the footsteps of its characters it creates a sensation of great energy, with the digital trickery creating the illusion that the film is unfolding almost exclusively in a single shot. Of course it's not the first time Lubezki has aided in the choreography and creation of such sequences, he was also responsible for the lengthy tracking shots in Children of Men and Gravity. Nor is fabricating a film to resemble being made in a single take an original idea; hell Alfred Hitchcock managed to do it with Rope more than 65 years ago and he didn't have anything close to the technology at his fingertips that Lubezki and Iñárritu have.

Trying to pigeon hole their creation into a definable genre is a near impossible task. Amongst the many labels you could bestow upon it are that it's a satire of actors and celebrity, a backstage expose, a drama, a character study of a desperate man, and a comedy of both a dark and a rather farcical/slapstick nature. On that last point on a couple of occasions the camera pans over to reveal that the film's jazz score is actually being provided by a guy sitting at the drums. It's the kind of gag you'd normally find in the films of Mel Brooks or Abrahams and the Zucker brothers. It is also a film that will delight viewers who enjoy their movies to be open to individual interpretations, and frustrate viewers who crave clarity and obvious answers. Trying to determine just how much of the film is 'real', how much is a delusion, how much is a dream, how much is allegory etc is quite the task and certainly up for debate. Hell I think it's even very possible to make the argument for the entire film being the fever dream of Riggan as he lies prone on a beach thanks to being stung by numerous jellyfish; a brief, almost imperceptible flash of jellyfish on a beach is actually the very first image we see.

Its often been said of South Park that the reason it can get away with such close-to-the-bone, offensive humour is that it doesn't discriminate. It goes after everyone and anything with the same relentless zeal, meaning that no single person or group is actually being singled out. And there's a similar sort of approach present in Birdman in that there's pretty much not a single person involved in the entertainment industry who is given a free pass. Actors are of course the primary target. The majority of these points are made through the character of Riggan (which I'll look at in detail later) but the film's aim extends wider than just him. It takes shots and mocks both 'real' actors who take themselves deadly seriously, and those who have 'sullied' themselves by appearing in superhero films and massive blockbusters. It depicts actors as these vain, narcissistic creatures who crave the love and admiration of strangers. Each actor featured in the film appears to be drastically flawed and broken in some way. There's a terrifically pointed stab at the mindset and personality of actors when Naomi Watt's upset actress asks “why don't I have any self respect?” The answer from her friend and fellow actress is, “because you're an actress, honey.” And it's delivered in such a matter of fact manner as if it's that most obvious thing in the world.

It skewers the journalists who cover the entertainment business, depicting them as either pretentious, philosophy-spouting douchebags or as a gossip-obsessed bimbo whose main line of questioning for Riggan concerns twitter rumours that he had received injections of semen from baby pigs. Then there are the critics, represented by the monstrous and reprehensible Tabitha Dickinson, as played by Lindsay Duncan. She is depicted as this merciless and vindictive bitch who speaks about theatre only in labels who sets out to destroy Riggan. She sees the theatre as this precious thing and is affronted by the notion that this spandex-wearing film star can come in to her world and play. I do think there's a valid point in here about the purpose of criticism, particularly when it comes to New York theatre critics who appear to hold such incredible power. When people have put so much time, effort and money into producing something they care about is it right that another person can come along, type at their laptop for 30 minutes and completely destroy it? And don't think that we the audience get off scot free. We seem to be depicted as suckers, and when Norton's Shiner accosts the audience with the line, “stop looking at the world through cell phone screens” you get the feeling that this may well be Iñárritu talking to us directly. In fact you're left wondering how much of the film is actually just Iñárritu's manifesto of a sorts just dressed up as film.

Beyond its visual creativity and innovations the real selling point for Birdman seemed to be its performances, and almost across the board they are indeed fantastic, with the cast delivering a series of raw and naked showings; in fact in a couple of instance we are talking literally naked. Michael Keaton's history as Batman obviously adds an extra meta-heavy layer to proceedings but he proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is no mere example of stunt casting. It is an honest, stripped down performance of an actor who has just put aside any sense of pride to deliver a frequently unflattering performance of sensitivity and humour. His Riggan feels somewhat reminiscent of a drug addict. He's this desperate junkie just trying to get another hit, except in this instance it's not drugs that are the issue but a need for acceptance, relevance and fame. He is desperate to be beloved again. He is a man who measures his self worth by his level of celebrity, as evidenced by his fears that had he died in a plane crash where George Clooney was also on board his death would not have made the front page. Oh yeah and he also appears to be in the midst of a completely mental breakdown.

Just as has been the case for the likes of Adam West, Christopher Reeve and Keaton himself, Riggan is an actor who has become trapped behind the mask and cape he donned for the Birdman series of films. He has been unable to escape the long shadow the character has cast. In fact he quite literally cannot escape him. There's a lovely symbolic shot where Riggan is eyeing himself up in the mirror of his dressing room, and in the background looming over his shoulder is the Birdman character on a poster on his wall. Not only that but through Riggan's delusions the character actually talks to him, representing his ego and self doubts. All he wants is to be seen for the actor and person that he truly is, not just the superhero costume that he donned on screen. There's a lovely little touch stuck on his mirror in his dressing room. It's a little piece of paper or a sticker with the affirmation, “a thing is a thing, not what is said of that thing”

Alongside Keaton the other actor who has been getting the majority of the plaudits is Edward Norton and he certainly deserves them. He plays the douchetastic Mike Shiner, and it's a lot of fun to see Norton (a method actor) basically taking the piss out of method actors. In fact given Norton's own reputation for being somewhat difficult to work with he is almost parodying himself. He is somehow able to heighten the already energetic tone of proceedings, and when he largely disappears during the final act the film does miss him. There's also solid support from talented individuals such as Naomi Watts, Andrea Riseborough and Amy Ryan. Oh and Zach Galifianakis impresses too in a substantially straighter and more reserved performance than I think he's ever given before.

However the other performance I would really like to focus on is that of Emma Stone as Keaton's daughter. I thought she was just terrific as this extremely damaged, fragile and scarred individual who is just bubbling with anger and resentfulness towards her father. I found her to be very emotionally engaging, with her large evocative eyes proving to be a fantastic weapon in that respect. With the likes of Easy A, Crazy Stupid Love and her time as Gwen Stacey in the Amazing Spider-Man films she was already a proven commodity when it came to comedies with a very likeable personality and fine comic timing. Here she shows however that she has a lot more in her locker than just that, and that she could be a really fine dramatic actress. If Birdman acts as comeback for Michael Keaton, then for Stone it acts like an announcement that she really could be a force to be reckoned with. I know everyone is high on Patricia Arquette taking the Best Supporting Actress award for her commendable efforts in Boyhood, and it does seem a pretty sure bet, but personally I would love to see Stone take it.

It wasn't all plain sailing however. The film is jam-packed with visual tricks and gimmicks, so much so that it more often than not resembles a music video (they still make those right?). However on a number of occasions I wasn't entirely sure what if anything they actually added to the film. As a result they had a tendency to feel like Iñárritu was just showing off at times, resulting in the film coming off as superficially flashy and just a bit smug. While it is a great piece of artistry what does the illusion of filming in a single take actually bring to the film other than the aforementioned sense of energy? Yes it's very cool and terrifically well done, but what's the point? If it had a storytelling reasoning behind it that would be one thing but it just came across as flashy and really draws attention to the technique itself instead of really furthering the story. It would make sense if the film unfolded in real time but that's certainly not the case, it occurs over the course of several days. It works in this fashion during the first act which does largely unfold in real time, with the approach helping to heighten the sense of chaotic urgency and off-the-cuff immediacy involved in creating a production and staging a live performance. It would also make sense if the film was seen entirely through the eyes of Riggan but it doesn't. On a number of occasions the film breaks away from him to focus on the characters that surround him so it doesn't really work there either, not unless the entire film is all the delusion of one single man, namely Riggan.

As for the film's content, Birdman has a lot to say, and I do mean a LOT. To say it's multi-layered doesn't really begin to cover it. Around every single corner is another issue to deal with or another target to take a pointed jab at. At its core is an examination of the life of an actor and the pitfalls and dilemmas the profession can incur. The film posits the question of what is, or what should be, more important to an actor; achieving fame or creating 'art'. What is the difference between an actor and a star? Is it more noble to create work that artistically impresses a small group of people or a film that delights millions? It postulates on the close relationship often found between creating art and madness. Through Riggan we also see how an actor can struggle to escape the shadow cast by an iconic role they have become synonymous with. But that's not all, the film also deals with father-daughter issues, marital strife, the definition of celebrity and its difference from actors, the purpose of critics, the emergence and point of social media, theatre's reliance on big Hollywood stars to sell tickets, the quest for relevance and a few others I'm sure I'm forgetting about.

So as I said it's a hell of a lot. As a result the film tends to feel rather scattershot in its approach, arguably stretching itself too thin to really examine some of those issues in any great depth or detail. With so much to address the film also doesn't have much time for subtlety or subtext, very much spelling everything out for us in quite broad strokes with the characters commonly expounding every single one of their thoughts and feelings in very literal style. Some of the characters and moments are also rather under-developed; I'm thinking predominantly of a lesbian incident that feels kind of pointless. As another flaw I also felt the film dropped the ball a touch when it came to the conclusion. I think it had a really good, maybe even a great ending in its grasp but then it decided to stick around for a further five minutes and rather undermine it.

I'll be intrigued to see what I make of Birdman on repeat viewings. I can certainly see it being the type of film that could grow on me with repeat viewings. The film is a lot to take in, both visually and thematically, in one go. Conversely I could also see myself enjoying it less when I return to it. Without the novelty and wow factor of its visual splendour perhaps it may fail to enthral as much.

Conclusion - Birdman is certainly quite an intriguing, indeed a fascinating film to behold. It's choreography and direction certainly dazzle, as do the performances of its stellar cast. It's an inventive and unique piece of work that has the ability to enthral on occasion. However I'm not so sure it's the masterpiece that many people are proclaiming it. For me personally I'm not sure it was able to fully escape feeling just a bit gimmicky and shallow.

gbgoodies

02-11-15, 01:05 AM

I don't think so. It didn't close for good, but the place was closed for a long time.

And you think that I'm a problem? :skeptical:

JayDee

02-12-15, 07:25 PM

I like the cast at least. I don't know. Chronicle was a good movie, so I have some hope. I'll I know is it can't be worse than the pile o' poo that was the first one. :D

Well I loved Chronicle so that's enough for me to give it a chance. And I know I may well be completely alone on here but I actually kind of enjoyed the Fantastic Four films. :blush: I'm not going to argue for them being particularly good but I found them to be cheesy fun

No. Not that role. She is going to be playing Sue Storm in the Fantastic Four reboot. There just hasn't been an interesting female superhero yet. It's too bad. Not leads anyway. The only exception I can think of is Mystique.

I think that Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow has the potential to be very interesting. We've had hints at her dark past and hopefully they can expand on that at some point. In fact thanks to the current TV series you could argue the most interesting and strongest female character from a superhero film (though not actually a superhero) is Peggy Carter.

JayDee, what was your favorite movie of 2014?

Well it may not have been Guardians of the Galaxy but you don't have to go very far for my favourite film. It was Marvel's other cinematic offering of 2014, Captain America: The Winter Soldier. In fact I think that makes it at least 3 years in a row where Marvel has been responsible for my favourite film. And with Age of Ultron on the horizon I'm hopeful for 4 in a row.

JayDee

02-12-15, 07:26 PM

Here's JayDee's new review again, so you don't miss it

Thanks for that Sexy. After you've hijacked my thread the least you can do is point out that yes there is indeed a new review up. :D

I like the Pop! Vinyl dolls. I just bought the mini dolls of Sulley and Mike from Monsters Inc., and the bigger size of Randall from Monsters University

Woo nice GBG. :highfive: I think we might need to start up a whole thread dedicated to Pop Vinyl. After I mentioned them a while back in the Chill thread a few people now have some. With some money I got at my birthday I recently picked up a few new figures to add to my collection as well.

Wauw, I really enjoyed reading this one, JayDee! I'm so sorry to hear the struggles you've had, referring here to what was beyond writing the review. Get better as fast as possible my friend, MoFo cannot go on without JayDee at least popping in once in a while and shutting it all down with these great reviews! ;)

Thank you very much my dear movie yogi, both for your compliments on the review and your well wishes

And now I got PTA's new film on my mind as the new big puzzle to solve and put into a decent review. Damn.

Oh boy, good luck with that one. You'll be doing well if you can make sense of a film that seemed to revel in being nonsensical. Personally I pretty much hated Inherent Vice. PTA and I don't have the greatest of relationships and even by his standards I just found it so meandering and self-indulgent. It just pissed me off truth to be told.

But anyways, great work as always JayDee, I will eagerly look forward to the next one - though I do hope you priortize you health and better-self before anything else! :p take care and get better ;) :up:

Thanks again. Although be careful, you're kind of undermining the rivalry and hatred we're meant to have for each other. :p

gbgoodies

02-12-15, 07:53 PM

Woo nice GBG. :highfive: I think we might need to start up a whole thread dedicated to Pop Vinyl. After I mentioned them a while back in the Chill thread a few people now have some. With some money I got at my birthday I recently picked up a few new figures to add to my collection as well.

If you want to start a thread about the Pop Vinyl dolls, you might want to include anything made by Funko. I only have a few of the Pop Vinyl dolls, but I also have a Sheldon (from The Big Bang Theory) monitor sitter, and a giant Marvin the Martian bobblehead from Funko, and well as a bunch of their smaller bobbleheads.

BTW, I'm sorry about hijacking your thread.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cphUWDMmHhI/Tha5i1uFCII/AAAAAAAAAO8/4GiLu8hWZtk/s1600/1scp6.gif

Sexy Celebrity

02-12-15, 08:13 PM

It won't happen again because now I've invented this:

Hi, Hijackers! STFU or Finish Your Business in Here! (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1254836#post1254836)

MovieMeditation

02-12-15, 09:32 PM

Thank you very much my dear movie yogi, both for your compliments on the review and your well wishes

You are very welcome :up:

Oh boy, good luck with that one. You'll be doing well if you can make sense of a film that seemed to revel in being nonsensical. Personally I pretty much hated Inherent Vice. PTA and I don't have the greatest of relationships and even by his standards I just found it so meandering and self-indulgent. It just pissed me off truth to be told.

Yeah, I pretty much disliked the most of Inherent Vice, and I'm a big Anderson fan. I feel so disappointed in what he has created with this film. Such a shame...

Thanks again. Although be careful, you're kind of undermining the rivalry and hatred we're meant to have for each other. :p

Damn. You're right. I should've wished you had gone down in the deepest of depressions and burn in hell till eternity, right? Though, on the other hand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoA7kkl__oM&spfreload=10
.

Godoggo

02-12-15, 10:12 PM

Well I loved Chronicle so that's enough for me to give it a chance. And I know I may well be completely alone on here but I actually kind of enjoyed the Fantastic Four films. :blush: I'm not going to argue for them being particularly good but I found them to be cheesy fun

I think that Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow has the potential to be very interesting. We've had hints at her dark past and hopefully they can expand on that at some point. In fact thanks to the current TV series you could argue the most interesting and strongest female character from a superhero film (though not actually a superhero) is Peggy Carter.

Well it may not have been Guardians of the Galaxy but you don't have to go very far for my favourite film. It was Marvel's other cinematic offering of 2014, Captain America: The Winter Soldier. In fact I think that makes it at least 3 years in a row where Marvel has been responsible for my favourite film. And with Age of Ultron on the horizon I'm hopeful for 4 in a row.

Black Widow might be interesting if someone else was playing her. Scarlett is so robotic. I have high hopes for Kate Mara. At least she's interesting. I wish they would cast an actress like Emilia Clarke or Taissa Farmiga in a super hero role. Or maybe even Anna Kendrick or Felicity Jones. Someone who could give something a little more than blank sexy robot stare.

I did like the second Capt. America much more than the first. It was really good, but I loved Guardians. I've seen it four times now.

JayDee

02-13-15, 05:05 PM

BTW, I'm sorry about hijacking your thread.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cphUWDMmHhI/Tha5i1uFCII/AAAAAAAAAO8/4GiLu8hWZtk/s1600/1scp6.gif

As well you should be! My Imitation Game review has garnered 15 reps. So far Birdman has only got 9. And everyone knows how important rep is to me. So if Birdman doesn't match Imitation Game I'll be holding you two directly responsible and perhaps I'll be adding a couple of new names to my list of enemies.

:D In fact maybe I should just get Yoda to delete all your nonsense!

Daniel M

02-13-15, 05:08 PM

That's a great review of Birdman there JayDee. I agree with pretty much everything you said, except in my experience I felt captured by the magic beat of the film (from the beginning of the beating drum) from the start all the way through, it kept moving and I didn't want it to stop. I didn't like the last scene that much either though, it was okay, but it would have been better without it.

What do you think of the ending?

In my opinion, he actually shot himself. The end is a dream sequence and everything he wants he finally has: he's free of his character, got a great review, and his daughter is happy.

What should have been a quite violent and selfish/horrible act turns out in his mind to be great.

Have you seen Taxi Driver? (I don't remember if you watched that on your Scorsese spree or not)

gbgoodies

02-13-15, 05:21 PM

Hey, everybody should read JayDee's review of Birdman. He worked very hard on it, and he wrote a great review of a great movie.

Here's a link to his review:

http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1253863#post1253863

And make sure that you give him the rep that he deserves when you finish reading it. :up:

Miss Vicky

02-13-15, 05:22 PM

Nope. When he starts bitching about the lack of rep he gets, I stop repping him.

JayDee

02-13-15, 08:37 PM

That's a great review of Birdman there JayDee. I agree with pretty much everything you said

Thanks Danny boy. :up:

What do you think of the ending?

In my opinion, he actually shot himself. The end is a dream sequence and everything he wants he finally has: he's free of his character, got a great review, and his daughter is happy.

What should have been a quite violent and selfish/horrible act turns out in his mind to be great.

Have you seen Taxi Driver? (I don't remember if you watched that on your Scorsese spree or not)

I'm not entirely sure. I'd like to watch it again before committing to a concrete opinion on it. What I would say that argues in favour of it not being real (whether that's a fantasy, a dream, a dying delusion, him letting go and entering heaven or whatever) is that it would seem kind of pointless for the film to have him supposedly kill himself just to do it again a few minutes later.

Yes I have seen Taxi Driver. It was one of the rare Scorsese films I had already seen before that season of his films. And I did watch it again during the spree. Anything in particular you're wondering about or just what I thought of it generally?
Nope. When he starts bitching about the lack of rep he gets, I stop repping him.

Harsh. Harsh but fair. :yup:

Daniel M

02-13-15, 10:06 PM

Yes I have seen Taxi Driver. It was one of the rare Scorsese films I had already seen before that season of his films. And I did watch it again during the spree. Anything in particular you're wondering about or just what I thought of it generally?

The ending reminded me of that.

Travis Bickle goes on a killing spree and could have easily ended up the villain, but instead he gets to be the hero, he saves the young girl, is loved by the press, and has control over a girl that once rejected him. Some say that was a fantasy/dream sequence and he died in the pimp place where he kills all the people.

TheUsualSuspect

02-14-15, 01:08 AM

As well you should be! My Imitation Game review has garnered 15 reps. So far Birdman has only got 9. And everyone knows how important rep is to me. So if Birdman doesn't match Imitation Game I'll be holding you two directly responsible and perhaps I'll be adding a couple of new names to my list of enemies.

:D In fact maybe I should just get Yoda to delete all your nonsense!

Do people vote you best reviewer just because they're long reviews? :p

The Gunslinger45

02-14-15, 01:42 AM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg

Sorry I am late to the party. Well put review, but a pity you did not like it as much as I did.

JayDee

04-25-15, 09:33 PM

I've been out of the reviewing game for quite a while so for any new members allow me to introduce you to JayDee's Movie Musings, the home of your two-time reigning Best Reviewer. :D As you'll quickly find out I do like my lengthy reviews in general. When it comes to comic book films however I tend to go nuts. I just wander off into some epic ramblings, as I've done here. And even by my standards this is pretty ridiculous

So without further ado, sound the alarm!

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Warning%20light_zpsmed4yoaq.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/Warning%20light_zpsmed4yoaq.gif.html)

Fanboy Alert! Fanboy Alert! Fanboy Alert!

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Superherowarning_zpsaa62eaf9.jpg

mirror mirror
Year of release
2015

Directed by
Joss Whedon

Written by
Joss Whedon

Starring
Robert Downey Jr.
Chris Hemsworth
Mark Ruffalo
Chris Evans
Scarlett Johansson
Jeremy Renner
Aaron Taylor-Johnson
Elisabeth Olsen
James Spader
Paul Bettany

Avengers: Age of Ultron

rating_4_5 -

Plot - The threat of Hydra has seen the Avengers reunite to bring the corrupt organisation down. One by one they take out Hydra's bases around the world, culminating with a castle in the Eastern European counry of Sokovia. If the team were expecting to put their feet up and take a break however they are left sadly mistaken as a number of new threats arise. Hidden within the walls of the castle are two young individuals who possess incredible abilities; Pietro Maximoff (Taylor-Johnson) who can move at incredible speeds, and his sister, Wanda (Olsen) who is capable of telekinesis and a telepathy that allows her to infiltrate the minds of others. If that wasn't enough the Avengers have another threat they must face, this time one of their one making. Attempting to create a peacekeeping program that will do away with the need for the team, Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) attempts to instigate the Ultron program; an AI program so advanced it will keep peace across the entire world. Things go awry however and what he ends up creating is a being bent on the destruction of Earth's Mightitest Heroes. Only by remaining a strong unit shall the Avengers prevail, but that proves to be a tough ask as divisions begin to appear at the group's core. Only by getting back on the same page, and perhaps forming some unlikely alliances, will they once again be able to save the day.

As far back as 2013, perhaps even longer, movie viewers have been salivating about the prospect of 2015 as being an epic year for cinema, particular for genre fans. In the space of just twelve months audiences are set to see a new chapter in the Star Wars universe, the conclusion of the Hunger Games story, the return of the nefarious Spectre to the world of James Bond, a double dose of Pixar (Inside Out and The Good Dinosaur), the return to cinemas for both the Mad Max and Jurassic Park series', a reboot for The Fantastic Four, the entrance of Ant-Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the new offering from Quentin Tarantino. Not to mention the the latest instalments in many ongoing franchises - Pirates of the Caribbean, Mission Impossible, Terminator, Fast and Furious, Kung Fu Panda etc. So quite the bumper year then, and that's not even taking into account what the small screen has to offer, such as the return of Game of Thrones or the first collaboration between Netflix and Marvel. However for me personally, 2015 has only been about one thing, the reassembling of the Avengers.

Back in 2012, Joss Whedon brought Marvel's supergroup, The Avengers, to the big screen, realising my boyhood dreams in the process. Truthfully it was something that was tough to imagine ever coming to fruition until Iron Man kicked off the Marvel Cinematic Universe in such style. And I loved it. Just absolutely loved it! As a result my expectations for this sequel were extraordinary. It was without a doubt one of my most anticipated films of all time. In fact to be more specific I'd say it was my most anticipated film since the 17th December, 2003. That was the day that the final instalment of the Lord of the Rings trilogy was released, with me there on opening day to enjoy it. This was the first time since that day that I headed to the cinema not just hoping to find a new favourite film, but actively expecting to do so. So my expectations were just massive. Is there any way that Age of Ultron could possibly live up to them?

Well the simple answer is no, not quite. At least not on this first viewing. But then it wasn't really that fair of an ask. To be honest the odds of it doing so were almost insurmountable. For the expectations I had placed upon it, it would pretty much have had to land a rating_5 rating. And well at this moment in time I only have about 30 or so films that I'd laud that accolade upon; the first Avengers amongst them. In a number of ways Age of Ultron may actually be superior to its predecessor but I just didn't love it as much. I don't think it was as fun, it didn't have as many great scenes, it didn't make you want to punch the air quite as often. It just struggled to recapture the same magic and charm of their inaugural outing. But again that was perhaps impossible because what counts against Age of Ultron is that it is just a film. The first Avengers wasn't just a film, it was an event. Having Earth's mightiest heroes assembled on screen for the first time ever? Tough to top that kind of experience.

Now before I move on to what was awesome about the film (and there is still a lot) let's have a look at some of the flaws I felt were to be found. The first complaint I have is going to sound like a strange one. I think the film is just too damn funny! That Pinocchio evoking trailer that got fanboys going crazy pointed towards a substantially darker and edgier outing for the Avengers. And while that film certainly is here it gets a little lost under the weight of Whedon's exhaustive assault of quips. It seems that during the action sequences 60 seconds can't go by without one of the heroes throwing out a witticism or a cheesy line. While the large majority of them do work in terms of being funny they do go some way to undermining the tension, the drama and the stakes. Given what was required for the first film Whedon was pretty much the perfect choice. It needed to be a whole lot of fun and it needed to handle a large ensemble, two things that Whedon has shown a great talent for in his career.

Film Trivia Snippets - Ultron is supposed to be between 8 and 9 feet tall. To replicate this James Spader had to wear an antennae-like contraption made out of a thick piece of wire with two red balls attached to the top that went up his entire back and 3 feet above his head. This was done so that the actors that shared scenes with him would be able to have a reference point for where his eyes would be; the two red balls represented the placement of Ultron's eyes. Elizabeth Olsen stated that this was actually distracting because Spader would be giving an intense performance and out of instinct she would look at him rather than the balls representing his eyes. Much to everyone's amusement, whenever this happened, Aaron Taylor-Johnson would yell, "Red balls! Look at his balls, Lizzie!" at her in order to get her to look in the right direction. /// Scarlett Johansson was actually pregnant during the Age of Ultron shoot. In addition to adjusting her schedule. to help hide this fact three stunt doubles were hired. This did cause a a deal of confusion amongst the other cast embers however because according to them all three stunt women were almost identical to Johansson. Chris Evans even stated that it got to the point where he would say hello and start a conversation with one of them, only to realize mid way that the person he was talking to wasn't Johansson. /// On James Spader's first day on set, the cast was so impressed by his performance that they applauded and cheered for him after his first take. Here however I think he struggles a touch to introduce drama and tension, lagging behind the efforts of the Russo brothers with The Winter Soldier. With that film the Russos found the perfect balance between being a serious, grown-up affair but still remaining fun and funny. I don't think Whedon finds that same balance. And as big of a fan of Whedon as I am this is perhaps the right time for him to exit the MCU, with the Russo brothers now moving into the captain's chair by directing not only Civil War but the Infinity War films. After Iron Man 3 with its ballsy storytelling decisions and issues such as PTSD and the media's depiction of terrorism, the out-there quirkiness of Guardians of the Galaxy and the awesomeness of Winter Soldier with its revelations that shook the Marvel Universe, on screens big and small, this just feels a little formulaic and safe. Winter Soldier was a textbook example of how to really move forward with a sequel, this feels a little bit like more of the same. All of that is not to say that Whedon still didn't deliver some gold on his farewell. He still proved incredibly adept at juggling such a large ensemble, just about giving everyone their moments to shine. And where his humour really shines is during the Avengers' downtime when they're just having a bit of banter together. He also has some real fun playing with a classic cliché before subverting our expectations at the end. One issue I have with his writing however is that it feels like it rather ignores the events of both Iron Man 3 and The Winter Soldier in terms of what it did to the characters. Iron Man 3 saw a Tony Stark racked with self-doubt and apparently ready to walk off into the sunset, while TWS saw Cap having his illusions after the country he loves shattered. I felt there was little sign of these events on either of them however.

Another problem is that the film feels like it has been forced into spending a lot of time setting up future events in the MCU as opposed to just concentrating on its own devices. A couple of years back when Age of Ultron was first announced it felt like it was going to be something truly epic. Since then however a lot has happened. Marvel has announced their slate of films up until 2019 which includes such enticing big hitters as Civil War and the two-part Infinity War story. They've announced the introduction to the MCU of fan favourites such as Black Panther, Captain Marvel and Doctor Strange. Not to mention the little matter of Spider-Man returning to the Marvel fold. As a result what once felt like the Biggest. Thing. Ever. has become a touch overshadowed. While the scheduling of further appearances for Thor, Captain America and Iron Man significantly cuts down on the threat to their mortality. Unless it was some ballsy misdirection on the part of Marvel the survival of those characters was a sure thing before this film even started. The first Avengers film was the culmination of Phase 1, everything had been building towards that. It was the event. By comparison, Age of Ultron feels more like a stepping stone to bigger things. So we get our first mentions of Wakanda and prominence placed upon vibranium to set up Black Panther; we get examples of infighting and distrust amongst the team which will lead in to Civil War and we have Thor put on a path towards his quest in Ragnarok. So it feels very much like just a piece in a much larger jigsaw. If The Avengers was The Fellowship of the Ring then Age of Ultron comes off like The Two Towers.

Well that's some of the negatives dealt with, let's move on to some more positive discussion. As with all sequels, Age of Ultron was obliged to try and go bigger than its predecessor. The most obvious way to achieve this is by introducing some new characters to the team, and the film certainly obliges. And for the large part it is a successful move. First to enter the fray are the Maximoff twins, Wanda and Pietro. Though never addressed as such, they are Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch and initially start out as nemeses to our heroes before switching to the side of good when they realise the depths of Ultron's insanity. Both characters prove to be very welcome additions to the MCU and the team, with Elisabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor-Johnson deserving real credit for what they bring to the party. Their Eastern European accents may be a bit iffy but that aside they both deliver quite charismatic and compelling turns. The film doesn't spend a great deal of time on their backstories but they are interesting enough to do the job. In war-torn Sokovia they lost their parents when a mortar shell hit their home with that weapon being made by Stark Industries. So their screentime is not the most substantial but I felt they certainly made the most of it.

Another reason why their presence is so welcome is that they just bring something a little bit different to the table. The Avengers may kick some serious ass but in a way they are largely pretty similar. The main physical trait of Thor, the Hulk and Captain America is to be found in their strength; they hit stuff and they hit it hard. So it's cool to have some new abilities introduced into the mix, particularly when those powers are so visual in their presentation. And speaking of new and visually interesting characters we also get the treat of Vision. He's only introduced pretty late in the game but is so damn awesome that it definitely leaves the audience wanting more. Visually he is a delight. He has a touch of CGI but the film-makers have largely gone down the practical route of make-up, making the character much more human than depicted in the comics. And in terms of his character he also seems quite a fascinating creation with Paul Bettany doing a lovely job at capturing the unique and eccentric nature of the character, and his almost naïve, childlike innocence despite his immense power.

Another way the film tries to make itself feel bigger is its scale in terms of being a much more globe-trotting adventure. The team finds themselves visiting several different countries across several different continents. In addition to just making it feel all the more epic it does a nice job of just making it a bit different. So many superhero films take place in large American cities that it's a welcome change to have various different looks and textures; from a sun-baked South Africa to the grittiness of Eastern Europe in the form of the fictional Sokovia, with the sterile, densely populated streets of Seoul thrown in for good measure. Oh and just as a little extra on the visuals because it doesn't really fit in anywhere else - Avengers tower, both inside and out, is a thing of beauty.

Film Trivia Snippets - At one point in time Abomination (the villain from 2008's Incredible Hulk) was considered to play some part in the film with Tim Roth reprising his role. The character was subsequently written out of following drafts however. /// Age of Ultron has the most VFX shots of any Marvel film to date, with its 3000 VFX shots besting the previous record of 2750 held by Guardians of the Galaxy. /// An early draft of the script had Ultron being created by the government to eliminate the need for the Avengers. However Ultron would turn on its creators, forcing the Avengers to once again team up to stop him. /// The versions of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch that feature in this film are largely inspired by their counterparts in the Marvel Ultimates comic. That series featured a controversial incest storyline between the two. While that particular aspect of their relationship was unsurprisingly never directly addressed in the film Elizabeth Olsen has said that she and Aaron Taylor-Johnson “played around” with certain parts of it. “Every time you see an image of them, they're always holding each other's hand and looking over each other's shoulder. They're always so close, it's almost uncomfortable. Aaron and I have been playing a little bit with those kinds of images just for ourselves.” As with the release of every superhero movie, much of its success depends on the action set-pieces the film is able to deliver. Though with the market now so saturated by those wearing spandex and capes the challenge to deliver action that is fresh and exciting becomes ever more difficult. And now Age of Ultron is the latest to take up this gauntlet. Well there's no doubt that the action on show is realised by some spectacular visuals and that it provides its fair share of thrills. I would say however that it comes up a little short of some of Marvel's recent forays onto the big screen, lacking the creativity and uniqueness shown during Iron Man 3's Barrel of Monkeys sequence for example, or of the dance-off as seen in Guardians of the Galaxy. I also didn't find them quite as hard-hitting or enthralling as the series of terrific set-pieces that were sprinkled throughout The Winter Soldier. As I said though, there is still a great deal to enjoy.

The film kicks off in tremendous fashion with a James Bond-esque opening that finds our heroes already in the midst of action as they launch an assault on the Hydra-defended castle of Baron von Strucker. As far as superhero movie openings go this has to be right up there with Nightcrawler's White House. incursion from X-Men 2. It is a giddily entertaining way to begin the film and is just chock-full of great moments. In fact you could argue that it sets the bar so high that the film is unable to match it for the next two hours. Well apart from one tiny, almost insignificant thing that comic book fans may or may not have been looking forward to; just a little thing called the Hulk vs the Hulkbuster! :eek: If Age of Ultron existed for no other reason than to facilitate this smackdown it would still have been a worthwhile exercise. It's a great spectacle with a number of funny and exhilarating moments; the highlight of which is perhaps the Hulkbuster breaking out a pneumatic hammer of a fist to try and subdue Big Green. That doesn't work out too well for Mr. Stark. One other thing I enjoyed about the action is that there was much more teamwork and co-operation on show from the team. They've now been together for quite some time and they've found their groove in terms of working together with various combo moves that were just really cool.

After a few strong sequences however I couldn't help but find the big finale to be just a tad underwhelming and anti-climatic, ending in a fashion similar to many comic book flicks. In defence of the film however I think it sort of gets stuck with its ending just by the very nature of being a big superhero team-up film. It's almost law that in an instance such as this you have to provide enough cannon fodder that allows the entire team to show off their skills. So with the first film we had a horde of faceless Chitauri warriors, and this time out we have an army of Ultron-controlled drones for our heroes to smash up. It's also unfortunate that it comes off as a bit of a retread of Iron Man's finale, though done with more style. One nice thing about the big finale however is that we see the characters being what they are supposed to be - heroes! Yes they're busy destroying a lot of robots but almost as much time is spent on showing them helping and rescuing the innocent civilians to try and prevent casualties. Too many films of late have glossed over this fact, and in particular this feels like a bit of a shot across the bows of DC and Man of Steel's city-levelling conclusion which seemed to put no value on human life.

The first Avengers film shone its spotlight predominantly on its big, super-powered stars; Iron Man, Hulk, Thor and Captain America. This time out Whedon has almost completely switched things up, pushing the 'normal' heroes of Black Widow and Hawkeye to the forefront. What sets them apart is that they are just normal humans, and it's that humanity that Whedon focuses on. In the case of Black Widow this reveals itself in more hints towards her very dark past and her relationship with Bruce Banner, and by extension the Hulk. In fact the two threads are connected with Widow's own life experiences allowing her to perhaps understand what Banner is going through better than anyone else. They have both been created as these monsters and are now trying to make the best of it and do what good they can.

As the trailers suggested the film does indeed follow up on some brief hints laid out in The Avengers and runs with a potential romance between the two characters. I'll be honest and say I had my reservations about it and wasn't sure it really fit in. By the end however I found myself almost completely won over by Whedon's dialogue between the two and the engaging performances of both Johansson and Ruffalo. It becames a real Beauty and the Beast kind of tale. And then you've got Jeremy Renner's Clint Barton. In many ways Hawkeye actually emerges as the unlikely star of the piece, getting the film's most profound story and many of the best lines. Renner plays the part with a real warmth and earthy charm which makes his story quite touching. I know that neither Black Widow or Hawkeye are likely to get a solo outing anytime soon, but this has just further wetted my appetite for any future Secret Avengers movie that would be spearheaded by these two.

Film Trivia Snippets - Before casting Elizabeth Olsen in the role, Saoirse Ronan was considered to play the part of Wanda Maximoff aka Scarlet Witch. Lindsay Lohan was apparently also in the running for the role after auditioning for the part. Though much of that is only coming from Lohan herself. /// Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark has appeared in a total of five films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And in every single one of them someone grabs him by the throat at some point. Must be his personality. This time out however it's not an enemy but an ally in Thor. /// Part of the film was shot in South Korea, or to be more specific it was shot in the Gangnam district of Korea; the area that originated the song and accompanying dance, “Gangnam Style.” During breaks between takes the cast and crew would often take to dancing to the song. /// The film's composer, Brian Tyler, has stated this his score pays homage to the work of John Williams, with Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars and Superman being specific inspirations. /// It took Joss Whedon a full year to convince Aaron Taylor-Johnson to accept the role of Quicksilver. Johnson was concerned over the intensity of the Marvel contracts, the time constraints, and the fact that it was going to be such a large cast. Even after he accepted the role, he was still nervous, but was comforted after he learned that his friend and Godzilla co-star Elizabeth Olsen would be playing his sister and would be his his filming partner throughout much of the film. As I believe I set out earlier on, my levels of anticipation were pretty astronomical. To be honest I'm not sure they could possibly have been any higher. If however there was still a little bit of room left for my anticipation levels to rise even further then they were probably fulfilled when news broke of James Spader's casting. I've been a fan of his for a long time and I felt that he was just perfect casting to provide the voice of Ultron. When it comes to creating a voice intended to evoke menace and evil there are two opposing directions you can go in. One is to rant, rave, growl and shout in an over-the-top insane manner. And the other is to go with a more quietly unsettling demeanour. And on the latter front there are few actors better than James Spader. He just has such a mellifluous and eerily calm voice that can prove to be somewhat hypnotic, whilst still dripping menace. Yet at the same time he allows Ultron still to remain human.

He certainly proves to be one of Marvel's better villains thus far but he falls short from being a true challenger to Loki's crown as their top bad guy, and again I'd have to say that Whedon is the one preventing it. Even he gets in on delivering a few comedic lines and just comes across a little too snarky, undermining how intimating he is just a touch and meaning he is not quite as compelling as Tom Hiddlestone's God of Mischief. He also struggles to feel like a true threat to the Avengers. Which is a shame because the motivations of the character are interesting. He isn't just a complete out-and-out evil b*stard, he believes he is doing what is right. Along the way however his intentions became more and more entangled with madness as he proves to be mentally quite unhinged, prone to bursts of anger and arrogance. And the fact that his motivations and personality have largely sprung from the mind of Star himself adds to his level of intrigue. And Spader's voice was indeed a terrific fit. In fact it's so perfect that he doesn't really have to alter his voice at all; Ultron is basically Raymond Reddington in robot form.

One of the major complaints levelled at many superhero films these days, and blockbusters in general, is that they are way too long. And it's something I often agree with. With running times that approach and on occasion even pass the 3 hour mark many of them come off as bloated and unwieldy. Well Age of Ultron arguably suffers from the opposite problem. It is such a jam-packed affair that has to try and service so many characters, so many subplots and so many future stories that even with its 141 minute running time it can still feel rushed, with some characters or subplots not getting fully serviced. You get the feeling that a great deal of footage was left on the cutting room floor, particularly when it comes to a side mission for Thor which seems to make very little sense. Age of Ultron is the rare superhero movie in that I'm actually hoping for a directors cut. So come on Joss, give us the 3 hour version!

Now over the last year or so I've noticed my ratings becoming much stricter. I'm not quite at Mark's level yet but I'm getting there. That tends to go out the window however when it comes to superhero movies; my own personal kryptonite. And I'll be interested to see what I make of this one on repeat viewings. I can imagine it going down as the flaws begin to bother me more but I could also see it going up without the huge pressure of expectation this initial viewing had with it. I'm hoping for the latter.

Conclusion - Age of Ultron may not be the out-and-out crowd pleaser that its predecessor was, largely as it no longer has the novelty factor it had, and I can see why it has not been as warmly received by critics. That doesn't stop it delivering another blast of cinematic fun from the minds of Marvel. It has some terrific action, some lovely character moments, a lot of funny lines and a host of impressive performances. And for whatever flaws the film may have there are several moments that pretty much achieve perfection as far as a superhero movies goes; when it's at the top of its game it is excellent.

Yoda

04-25-15, 09:40 PM

4,600 words, in case anyone was wondering. :laugh:

Nice job! Getting pretty hyped for this.

seanc

04-25-15, 09:50 PM

Its good to have JayDee back where he belongs.

Miss Vicky

04-25-15, 10:07 PM

I have pretty much zero interest in this film, so I did not read the review, but +rep for getting back in the game.

Sexy Celebrity

04-25-15, 10:12 PM

God. Scroll down a JayDee review and you might end up hypnotized. There is just so much writing that goes past your eyes.

The Gunslinger45

04-25-15, 11:16 PM

Will read this after I see it!

cricket

04-25-15, 11:28 PM

Wow, I can't believe I read every word of that-spectacular review! I showed my wife how long it was and she said "no wonder you spend so much time in the garage"(that's not all I do down here). Based on the trailer, I think I'll like this more than the first one, which I gave 4/5. I love that it uses multiple global locations and I also think Spader and Olsen are great additions. I'm not a fan of the Loki character so the less of him, the better for me. One thing that concerns me is the amount of comedy you say is in it-that can be a distraction for me if not done very well. I just read that the home release will have an extended version and an alternate ending; that could be awesome for you.

JayDee

04-27-15, 09:10 PM

4,600 words, in case anyone was wondering. :laugh:

:D Even though I write the plot and reword a lot of the trivia I only count the actual review part which I think was about 3500 or so words. Lengthy yes but I actually have another review waiting in the wings that dwarfs even that! :eek:

Wow, I can't believe I read every word of that-spectacular review! I showed my wife how long it was and she said "no wonder you spend so much time in the garage"(that's not all I do down here). Based on the trailer, I think I'll like this more than the first one, which I gave 4/5. I love that it uses multiple global locations and I also think Spader and Olsen are great additions. I'm not a fan of the Loki character so the less of him, the better for me. One thing that concerns me is the amount of comedy you say is in it-that can be a distraction for me if not done very well. I just read that the home release will have an extended version and an alternate ending; that could be awesome for you.

Wow someone actually read that whole thing? :eek: Even I didn't read all of it and I wrote it! There were parts where I just closed my eyes to give them a rest, keep typing away and hoped for the best. And thanks for saying it was spectacular. :up: I'm never really sure with this rambling superhero write-ups because they tend to not be 'proper' reviews in terms of structure and the like. And yeah that bit about the extended version could be awesome.

Just to check though -

she said "no wonder you spend so much time in the garage"(that's not all I do down here).

:skeptical: Anyone else a little concerned with this? I'm now picturing you like Dexter Morgan dismembering people out in your garage while your lovely wife is inside completely oblivious.

Will read this after I see it!

Hope you enjoy it GS. Then we can talk about it. I mean Hulk, Captain America and Thor all dying? Didn't see that coming. And the revelation that Ant-Man has actually been in every single Marvel film but he's just been too small to see? Blew my mind! :eek:

Although I'm not sure about this new Avengers line-up going forward; Howard the Duck, J Jonah Jameson, Dr Selvig, Baby Groot and Happy Hogan? Doesn't look all that intimidating to me. Thanos will crush them!

Captain Spaulding

04-28-15, 08:56 AM

That's a helluva way to make a comeback, JayDee! Rambling aside, I just enjoyed being able to read a review written in your voice again. It's been too long. I've missed you. I haven't ventured to the theater in a few months, but I've already got tickets to see Age of Ultron Thursday night. I expect a good time. These are the kind of movies meant to be seen on the big screen with a passionate audience.

I loved The Avengers when I watched it in the theater, but I think I got caught up in the excitement of everyone cheering and clapping and laughing. Re-visiting it on DVD wasn't the same experience. In my opinion, some of your issues with Age of Ultron, like the underwhelming finale and the overuse of quips, were present in the first film. And I also get frustrated by the seeming lack of stakes. Even when characters die, like Coulson, they don't stay dead. I'm so ready for them to kill off Iron Man. That's when ***** will get real.

Anyways, it's great to see you reclaiming your place on the throne. :)

edarsenal

04-28-15, 11:42 PM

the ONLY flaw to an epic Jay review is that you write an in depth reply and lose it because you've been logged out for being idle for so long. . .

BUT, it is VERY much worth it.
Been most of the winter since I've been here and reading this Tome review is an excellent way to drift on back. Thanks Jay

JayDee

04-29-15, 09:29 PM

I just enjoyed being able to read a review written in your voice again. It's been too long. I've missed you.

Huh...thanks Cap. It sounds like you're a really, really big fan. Almost to the point of obsessed. You're not going to start stalking me are you? :shifty:

the ONLY flaw to an epic Jay review is that you write an in depth reply and lose it because you've been logged out for being idle for so long. . .

BUT, it is VERY much worth it.
Been most of the winter since I've been here and reading this Tome review is an excellent way to drift on back. Thanks Jay

Oops. I do apologise for that. And great to see you back Ed. :up:

edarsenal

04-30-15, 09:32 PM

thanks, jay, and like i said, it IS worth it and i hope you're doin better since last winter

Sexy Celebrity

04-30-15, 09:35 PM

Huh...thanks Cap. It sounds like you're a really, really big fan. Almost to the point of obsessed. You're not going to start stalking me are you? :shifty:

Stop being rude. Captain loves you. You're too rude to people who are trying to be nice to you.

MovieMeditation

04-30-15, 09:48 PM

Wow, I somehow missed that you posted this, JayDee! And once again you beat me to it with a review I also wanted to do...

I'm heading to bed now, but I promise I'll swing by the thread again to read the whole damn thing. :D

Glad to see you back at it! :up:

Captain Spaulding

05-01-15, 12:22 AM

Stop being rude. Captain loves you. You're too rude to people who are trying to be nice to you.

He won't look me in the eye ever since I gave him that colonoscopy.

The Gunslinger45

05-02-15, 04:29 AM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg

Finally read this. Expect my review soon so we can compare notes!

Optimus

05-02-15, 05:51 AM

Damn, your reviews are longer than the bloody movie scripts.

JayDee

05-02-15, 02:28 PM

Finally read this. Expect my review soon so we can compare notes!

To help you compare by the way I also posted this list of little moments and lines etc that I enjoyed or found interesting

Ultron observations (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1301103#post1301103)

Stop being rude. Captain loves you. You're too rude to people who are trying to be nice to you.

:confused: Was I just advised on how to be more courteous to my fellow MoFos.....by Sexy Celebrity?!!! :eek: The guy that insults everyone? Who posts a gong in response to foreign films? Who compared this place to Nazi Germany? :confused:

:shifty: Isn't the universe meant to start ripping apart at the seams following such a paradox?

The Gunslinger45

05-02-15, 02:31 PM

I say that Von Strucker is indeed done. I think he was supposed to be the big threat for Captain America 3 when it was going to be Serpent Society. But now that they are doing the Civil War plot line, I think he is done. All the other notes you and I pretty much are in agreement.

MovieMeditation

05-02-15, 03:48 PM

I'm surprised how short this felt when reading it. A good review here, and it's definitely clear that you are a Marvel fan, this was almost a review/comment on the whole MCU. :D

But a good read! Thanks JayDee! :up:

JayDee

05-10-15, 05:41 PM

AAARRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Crazy%203_zps98k6syzr.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/Crazy%203_zps98k6syzr.gif.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Crazy%202_zpsqxytbnym.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/Crazy%202_zpsqxytbnym.gif.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Crazy_zpsay6vo4zr.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/Crazy_zpsay6vo4zr.gif.html)

Earlier on something happened to the document where I keep all my reviews which has f*cked it up! I had an old version of it on a memory stick but all in all I've still lost some 11 or 12 reviews!!! :mad: 10s of thousands of words and hours and hours of my time down the drain!!! I'm absolutely raging!!!

I'm trying to see if there's a way to recover it but I think I'm screwed. And if I am I don't know what to do about the lost reviews. I don't know whether to try and rewrite some of them while they're relatively fresh in my mind, whether to rewatch the films to help rekindle what I wrote or whether to just draw a line under them and forget about them; perhaps returning to them sometime in the distant future.

I'm off to sulk some more. :(

Sexy Celebrity

05-10-15, 05:43 PM

Forget about those reviews.

What you should do -- take the reviews you have and put them in book format. Then sell a book of your reviews on Amazon.com

Why not? That Matt guy sells every damn thing he writes.

The Sci-Fi Slob

05-10-15, 05:45 PM

Find whatever you can salvage and post some reviews, mate. How are you feeling now?

Sexy Celebrity

05-10-15, 05:45 PM

Of course, turning JayDee's reviews into books would cause everybody on Earth to die because all the trees in the world would be needed to print these books and we'd run out of oxygen.

Sexy Celebrity

05-10-15, 05:50 PM

Bet that memory stick of JayDee's just couldn't hold the giant size of those reviews -- they were all squeezed in there -- so the memory stick deleted a bunch of them so it could, you know, "breathe."

It didn't have enough memory! You try remembering all of JayDee's reviews. Poor little memory stick.

NatashaR

05-10-15, 05:53 PM

Oh boy... I just saw your Avengers review:eek: it's almost as long as my master's thesis :lol:

I hope you can find a way to recover your work...

Sexy Celebrity

05-10-15, 05:54 PM

Oh boy... I just saw your Avengers review:eek: it's almost as long as my master's thesis :lol:

It's almost as big as The Bible.

MovieMeditation

05-10-15, 05:55 PM

Damn, that sounds frustrating as hell? Did you have reviews not written on this site? Well, I guess that's why you are freaking out...

Sexy Celebrity

05-10-15, 05:56 PM

JayDee's movie reviews are so big THEY become adapted into movies themselves! For the people who don't wanna read them -- "Wait for the movie."

honeykid

05-10-15, 06:02 PM

Well that's bloody annoying, JD.

I can only hope that they were reviews of superhero movies and no reviews of good films have been lost. ;)

The Gunslinger45

05-10-15, 06:02 PM

Sexy Celebrity

05-10-15, 06:03 PM

JayDee, at least you're alive. You could of died with a tube up your butt. Remember that.

honeykid

05-10-15, 06:03 PM

Oh boy... I just saw your Avengers review:eek: it's almost as long as my master's thesis :lol:
I didn't know you had a master and what an odd name for it. ;)

NatashaR

05-10-15, 06:08 PM

I didn't know you had a master and what an odd name for it. ;)
Yeah I know... weird Romanian names

JayDee

05-10-15, 09:06 PM

Still no luck recovering the reviews as of yet. Has anyone had any luck recovering an earlier version of a document that was deleted or become corrupted or anything?

Find whatever you can salvage and post some reviews, mate. How are you feeling now?

Still not great at all. I do at least still have a bunch of reviews kicking about but it's just trying to get the time/motivation to post them as it can be quite a fiddly, time consuming process at times and I'm still so far behind on catching up with PMs and the like.

Damn, that sounds frustrating as hell? Did you have reviews not written on this site? Well, I guess that's why you are freaking out...

No these were reviews from my massive backlog that I had not yet gotten around to posting.

Well that's bloody annoying, JD.

I can only hope that they were reviews of superhero movies and no reviews of good films have been lost. ;)

Nope no superhero films. Here's a list of what got lost -

Maleficent / Men in Black 3 / Godzilla (2014) / Boyhood / American Sniper / Catch Me If You Can / The Voices / Walk the Line / Predestination / John Wick

There was also an unfinished Interstellar review and a review for The Guest that I was currently working on. Plus a couple of write-ups for my new favourite films list whenever it appears

honeykid

05-11-15, 03:03 PM

No these were reviews from my massive backlog that I had not yet gotten around to posting.
Trying... Not... To... Make... A.... Comment...:eek:

MovieMeditation

05-11-15, 03:19 PM

Oh my God JayDee, that's heartbreakingly bad news! :(

As a passionate and hard working reviewer myself, and admirer of the written words as a way of expressing your inner creative language, I must give you my deepest condolences...

There isn't any way of getting it back? Like back-ups, previous versions, going back in the control system to a earlier point in time etc. etc. ?? But I would guess you have already tried everything. :/ *crying on the inside*

JayDee

05-11-15, 09:19 PM

I've certainly not found any way as of yet to get them back. I can't find any back-ups or temporary files of the old version. I've got Windows 8 which doesn't have the previous versions option. It does have something called File History which might have been able to help but I wasn't aware of it and hadn't enabled it. I've tried a System Restore but kind of knew that wouldn't work seeing as that doesn't affect actual documents. I've downloaded a bunch of different programmes designed to recover documents or find earlier versions. I actually had some luck at finding previous versions of the document with one of those programmes and thought I was onto a winner but when I tried to access them it again came up in that same corrupted style. All the text that was there has been replaced by an infinite string of # symbols. I'm just absolutely scunnered.

I don't know how far to go with it. I don't know whether to try some IT/PC support firms here in Glasgow to see if they think they could do anything to recover it. As it's only one document though (as much as it means to me) there is going to be a limit as to how much I'd be willing to pay to try and get it back

Sexy Celebrity

05-11-15, 09:29 PM

Are you sure you didn't stick any of these reviews in any of your old reviews?

I mean, for some reason, there's pages and pages of writing in these old reviews -- maybe some of all that writing is THEM. Maybe that's why your reviews have seemed so long -- you accidentally stuck other movie reviews into them. Go over your old reviews and make sure there's not 7 or 8 different movie reviews put into one.

MovieMeditation

05-11-15, 10:08 PM

What was it you did exactly, since they suddenly got f*cked up?

The Rodent

05-19-15, 12:01 AM

JayDee... what code and URL code are you using to get your images lined on the left and right of the post?

JayDee

05-19-15, 10:52 PM

JayDee... what code and URL code are you using to get your images lined on the left and right of the post?

I think if you quote one of my reviews it will actually show you the code. Anyway it's this -

[*img_left*=the image's url]mirror[/img_left] [*img_right*=the image's url]mirror[/img_right]

Just remove the little asterisks of course

What was it you did exactly, since they suddenly got f*cked up?

Well it wasn't something I did really. At the same time as I was working on a review I was clearing off a bunch of old memory sticks, transferring data etc. And then with one of them there was a problem. It came up that the memory stick was damaged and it was going to try and fix it but while it was plugged in it seemed to screw everything up; the computer freezing, the internet crashing etc. And then when I went back on later I found the document all screwed up

Anyway the data is indeed lost. It's confirmed. I found the help of some people much smarter than myself with this kind of thing and they analysed the document for me and found it corrupted beyond repair and unable to recover anything. They're gone. :(

I've been working on them though and so far I've managed to remember and regurgitate 3 of the reviews pretty much in full I think. There are another 2 or 3 that I've remembered a decent portion of and might be able to cobble together a review, though I'd maybe need to give them a rewatch to help fill in some gaps. The others I can remember little snippets of but can't imagine being able to revive the reviews.

JayDee

06-07-15, 10:17 PM

As I continue to try and remember and rewrite the reviews that I lost here's a new one. Though I'm very aware that this isn't likely to please the masses. And trust me, no-one is more surprised than I am. Despite not being a big fan of the franchise I thought this was going to change all that. I went into the cinema all set to hand out a 5-star fanboy ramble. But it just didn't happen.

mirror mirror

Year of release
2015

Directed by
George Miller

Written by
George Miller
Brendan McCarthy
Nico Lathouris

Starring
Tom Hardy
Charlize Theron
Nicholas Hoult
Hugh Keays-Byrne
Rosie Huntington-Whiteley

Mad Max: Fury Road

rating_2_5

Plot - Following a nuclear war, the world has become a deserted wasteland and civilisation has collapsed into a state of chaos. Making his way through this chaos is Max Rockatansky (Hardy), a wandering loner just trying to survive the best he can. Along the way he runs into trouble when a gang known as the War Boys chase and capture him. The War Boys are the servants of Immortan Joe (Keays-Byrne), a tyrannical man who controls the population by keeping a stranglehold on the supply of water and oil. Initially held as a donor to replenish injured War Boys, Max eventually finds himself trapped in the middle of an epic chase. This occurs when Imperator Furiosa (Theron) steals Immortan Joe's five wives; women selected for breeding, and attempts to smuggle them to safety. Used as a 'bloodbag' for an injured War Boy named Nux (Hoult), Max soon finds himself right at the front of the pursuit to capture her and return the wives.

A quick google search has just informed me that the most common cause of hearing loss is presbyacusis; which is basically just a fancy way of saying aging. Well when it comes time to tally the figures for 2015 I think there will be a bit of an abberation with the results. Taking the no.1 spot will surely be 'went to see Mad Max: Fury Road at the cinema' for this is one loud, cacophinous assault on the senses, particularly on the ears. I felt like this was a film I had to see on the big screen; to see it in any form would be a waste. Having now seen it I think I may actually prefer to watch it in the comfort of my own home. Perhaps in comfortable surroundings and on a smaller screen it won't come across as quite a pulverising onslaught.

Now the Mad Max films have never been overly abundant when it comes to story and depth of character. Even by the standards of the original trilogy however this is one sparse, barebones enterprise. The story is a very simplistic, A to B adventure which actually turns around and starts heading back towards A at one point. While the characters are so thinly-sketched they're damn near emaciated. It seems a little odd to me that Michael Bay has received so much crap over the years for making films that are written off as loud, hollow and completing lacking in anything resembling a story or characterisation. And yet when George Miller does it with Fury Road it's hailed as a masterpiece. Now I'm not going to go as far to say that this film is inferior to the typical work churned out by Bay but the large disparity in reaction just seems a little strange. There were one or two twisted, lurid details though that I did like; the kind of thing that made me think of the films of Paul Verhoeven. The most memorable instance of this I think would have to be the harem of obese women having their breasts pumped for milk.

Taking over the iconic role of 'Mad' Max Rockatansky is Tom Hardy who steps in for the outgoing Mel Gibson. Now I am a really big fan of Hardy and thought that his casting sounded like a stroke of genius. When I watch his performances I often get quite a 70s vibe from them. The 70s was a great decade for tough badasses and he reminds me of individuals such as Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson and Bruce Lee. Those actors may not have had huge range but they had an incredible screen presence. Now Hardy is certainly a more talented performer than those men but I do think that he shares that sort of strength and presence. So if anyone was going to take this character who barely says a word, and turn them into a compelling personality I thought it would be him. And yet it just didn't really happen. In contrast to just about everything else I've seen him in he struggled to make any kind of impact on me. Though much of that is certainly down to Miller's script which damn near turns Max into a mute and relegates him to a supporting character. It's hard to care about a character who has so little to say or do. And the fact he spends a substantial amount of time behind a mask that obscures his face and his facial reactions certainly doesn't help in establishing a connection. And on the rare occasions where Max is actually entrusted with some dialogue I found Hardy's voice quite strange and distracting. I'm not sure whether it was the accent or the gruff register of his voice but it just struck me as odd, or on occasion just plain indecipherable. Hardy is asked to do little more than glower and communicate in grunts, and as surprising as it was to me I just didn't feel he was able to pull off the strong and silent thing as well as his predecessor Gibson was.

Film Trivia Snippets – The jacket that Tom Hardy wears throughout the film is the exact same one that was worn by Mel Gibson during the original trilogy, though it is now heavily worn. /// George Miller himself has admitted that the film's storyboards were completed even before work had begun on the screenplay. The reason behind that was because Miller envisioned the film as a continuous chase, with little dialogue and focusing on the visuals. The storyboard was made with the collaboration of five artists and had a total of about 3,500 panels. /// Tom Hardy actually had lunch with Mel Gibson to discuss him taking over the iconic role of Max Rockatansky. Gibson told him that he was fine with it and gave Hardy his blessing. /// The flame-shooting guitarist in Immortan Joe's crew is Australian artist/musician Sean Hape, better known as Iota. In an interview he revealed that the guitar weighed an incredible 132 pounds, and that it shot real gas-powered flames which he controlled using the whammy bar. /// The editor of Fury Road, Margaret Sixel, is actually George Miller's wife. When she asked her husband why he thought she should do it as she had never edited an action film before, Miller replied, "Because if a guy did it, it would look like every other action movie." /// George Miller enlisted a somewhat surprising ally when it came to creating the film. He consulsted with writer and staunch feminist Eve Ensler (creator of The Vagina Monologues) to help enhance the portrayal of the film's female characters. I commented above that Max feels very much like a supporting character. That's because it is the character of Imperator Furiosa, played by Charlize Theron, who is pushed very much to the forefront. Inhabiting a character that in large part feels basically like the female variant of Max, Theron does deliver a strong turn as the tough-as-nails badass. Based on this performance I wouldn't be surprise to see Marvel and DC engage in a mad scramble to try and bring her into their respective superhero stables. Again however there is not a great deal of depth to her character that should make us care about her. She talks of redemption at one point but we never learn what exactly she is attempted to be redeemed for. As the antagonist of Max and Furiosa we have the monstrous Immortan Joe who is played by Hugh Keays-Byrne, returning to the franchise after portraying the first film's main villian all the way back in 1979. Now I am no big fan of that original outing for Max, but by far my favourite element of it is Keays-Byrne's turn as the crazed leader of motorcycle gang, The Acolytes. Wild-eyed and bursting with a feral charisma he is absolutely magnetic. Unfortunately I found that he wasn't able to replicate that kind of impact, once again suffering as a result of the script not giving him the material to work with.

So neither of our two heroes, or our villain, really connected with me. As strange as it may sound, and I certainly would't have predicted it beforehand, but the character I did wind up connecting with and caring about the most was actually Nicholas Hoult's Nux. This is despite the fact that the character is a crazed, bloodthirsty psycho. However unlike just about everyone else he actually has an arc of some description and we actually learn a thing or two about him. It's not much but compared to everyone else it's a deluge of characterisation and ensured that not only did I like Nux, but I actually sympathised with him. Again this is all despite the fact that he's a psychotic albino trying to kill our heroes. The reason being is that we discover he has been mislead with grand deceptions into serving Joe. When he learns the truth he is crestfallen and I felt sympathy for him. Whether it's intentional or not on Miller's behalf, I found it impossible not to see a connection between the War Boys and Islamic State. Just as with Isis, we see that Immortan Joe is in the business of recruiting and brainwashing young children into doing his dirty work. He has coerced them into doing his bidding with falsehoods of him being a god and how that if they die in his employ they will enter the afterlife of Valhalla. I also just found Nux to be the most entertaining character of the entire film with Hoult doing a nice job bringing him to life. I actually rewatched About a Boy not too long ago and it was great fun, if a little baffling, to try and get my mind around the fact that this was that same little boy all grown up.

In the world of the action movie their exists a phrase known as 'action fatigue' (also known as 'battle fatigue') that describes the sensation of becoming exhausted by action overkill. Well Fury Road may be just about the greatest ever exponent of that phrase. We get a brief prologue in which a voiceover by Max reintroduces us to the post-apocalyptic world of Mad Max, and then we're off and running. A minute in and Max is being chased down by a horde of vehicles; and the film basically doesn't stop for the next two hours. It could maybe have pulled it off with a running time of 90 minutes, but at two hours I felt it became a bit of a slog. Now the action is staged and realised terrifically throughout, I can't deny that. Miller does an incredible job choreographing it all and some of the stuntwork is just mind-boggling. For a long time I've felt that the Academy Awards should have a category that honours stunts and stuntmen and this film is just another example why.

I just found it all extremely repetitive however. Films that are heavy on action usually include a great deal of variety in their sequences. So you'll get a foot chase, a car chase, then a big shootout, maybe a boat chase, some hand-to-hand combat and then if you're Guardians of the Galaxy, a dance-off! However with Fury Road it's just wave after wave of vehicular carnage and guns. As I said, when just judged on their own merits they are realised in spectacular fashion. When you just lump them all together into one two-hour event however I just found it quite exhausting and perhaps, dare I say it, a little boring. Additionally, action films will typically deliver their sequences in a series of different locations. Fury Road's sequences all unfold on the same sparse desert however, again limiting the sense of variation and freshness. The film intermission may have followed the likes of silent movies, the double feature, black-and-white cinema and cinemascope into obsolescence but even at just two hours, I think I may well have welcomed its return during Fury Road just to get a little break.

Film Trivia Snippets - There is a fan theory doing the rounds that the Max in this film is not the same Max as played by Mel Gibson. The theory goes that Hardy's Max is actually the Feral Kid from Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior. Max doesn't speak very much throughout the film, and actually communicates in the form of grunts on a number of occasions just like the Feral Kid. This Max also has a music box that resembles the one that Max gave to the Feral Kid in The Road Warrior. /// When the war rig breaks down during the end of the film, the sound it makes is the same sound as the Millennium Falcon during its break down in The Empire Strikes Back. /// The original plan for this movie was that it would act as a sequel to 1979's Mad Max, but also act as a prequel to The Road Warrior. It is believed that Immortan Joe would have been the Toe Cutter, who survived the accident in Mad Max but was badly injured, resulting in his body being battered and broken. Also, Rictus Erectus was supposed to survive the accident at the end of the film, with a broken neck and some burns, and he would have become Lord Humungous in The Road Warrior. /// Over 80% of the effects seen in the film are real practical effects, stunts, make-up and sets. CGI was used sparingly mainly to enhance the Namibian landscape, remove stunt rigging and for Charlize Theron's left hand which in the film is a prosthetic arm. /// The film has been in development for a long time. Heath Ledger was actually considered for the role of Max before his untimely death in 2008 while Jeremy Renner actively campaigned for the role. Despite Miller's direction of the action sequences and the astonishing efforts of the stuntmen, I think that the MVP award for Fury Road may have to go to the film's production design teams. The only question left is which particular team deserves the gold medal. Is it perhaps the make-up and costume departments who bring to life all manner of outlandish, larger-than-life characters? The pinnacle in this respect would have to be Immortan Joe. While he be lacking in terms of being a fully formed character, there is nothing lacking about his look. Between his bleached skin, his mane of platinum blonde hair, his insane cxygen mask, his clear plastic armour (complete with medals) and codpiece he has to be one of the most visually striking and memorable villains in recent memory. The scarred, tumour-ridden War Boys are also very effective. Or should the bragging rights for to those responsible for designing and creating the cavalcade of vehicles that populate and stalk the deserted wastelands of this world? They are absolutely insane creations, though it's clear that practicality certainly isn't important to these guys. They are exceptionally elaborate, over-the-top modes of transportation adorned with all manner of demonic trinkets, spikes and weaponry. There are some wonderful, truly deranged designs of makeshift and cannibalised machines that have clearly combined whatever remains they had lying about. I think my favourite example of this was perhaps that which belonged to the bullet farmer; the body of a 1970s car mounted onto a tank.

Throughout the original trilogy it was clear that George Miller had an epic vision for his world. What was also clear is that he didn't always have the budget to realise those ambitions. Well that certainly wasn't the case here. Somehow, despite a 30-year absence from the big screen, Miller was able to convince the bigwigs at Warner Bros. to bankroll him to the tune of $150 million. Such financial backing has allowed Miller to tell a story on a scale that dwarfs his previous attempts. And he showcases this right from the off with images of Immortan's Joe imposting lair (The Citadel) and the sea of humanity that has gathered at its base. The film remains visually strong throughout thanks to how it incorporates the CGI and thanks to the cinematography of John Seale. The film is painted with a very vibrant colour palette, certainly where post-apocalyptic films are concerned. The scenes set during the daytime have a bright, golden, sun-baked appearance while the scenes set at night occur against a backdrop of icy blueness that is both beautiful and rather eerie. There's also a sequence that takes place during a sand/electrical storm that is quite breathtaking to behold. I imagine the look of this world has also evolved in the intervening 30 years. The original trilogy, particularly the sequels, have a very 80s, hair metal vibe to them whereas this one goes for something a bit more grungy and steampunk.

Now I'm aware that this review may read quite strangely to a number of you. For a film with such a low rating I seem to have packed my review with lots of compliments. And throughout the film I kept thinking to myself that I should be loving this, but it just didn't happen. Now Fury Road is definitely a film I'll be revisiting at some point in the future and hopefully it will work for me on that occasion. Fingers crossed I just wasn't in the right mood/mindset for it, something that does happen quite frequently these days.

Conclusion - As can be seen from my review there is a great deal to admire about Mad Max: Fury Road and commend it for. It is visually strong, the execution of the action sequences and the work of the stuntmen is extraordinary, while the work of its production and art design departments is exemplary. That doesn't matter a great deal however when you struggle to actually care about what's going on. And unfortunately that was the case for me. Whether it was down to the scant plot, the thinly-sketched characters or the never-ending assault of carnage the film just always kept me at arm's length. Perhaps I've just become too accustomed to the Marvel brand of action blockbusters but I just missed the connection I form to those films thanks to their warmth, heart and humour.