JayDee's Movie Musings [Archive] - Page 8?login=1

JayDee

02-09-14, 03:24 PM

The next installment of my superhero season. Now usually I present you all with a review, with a little bit of trivia mixed in as a bonus. This time out it's more a post of film trivia, which just happens to have a little bit of a review thrown in! :D It just happened to have a lot of trivia that I found rather interesting

mirror mirror

Year of release
1978

Directed by
Richard Donner

Written by
Mario Puzo /// David Newman
Leslie Newman /// Robert Benton /// Tom Mankiewicz

Starring
Christopher Reeve
Margot Kidder
Gene Hackman
Marlon Brando
Ned Beatty
Jackie Cooper

Superman

3.5 +

Plot - On the distant planet of Krypton a scientist named Jor-El (Brando) is convinced that their world will soon face destruction. Unable to convince the planet's ruling council however, Jor-El and his wife make the heart-breaking decision to send away their infant son, Kal-El. By sending him to Earth they realise that he will possess great powers and that he can become a champion of truth and justice. Found and raised by the Kents, an elderly farm couple in the small town of Smallville, he adopts the name Clark. Realising he must use his abilities for good he travels to the city of Metropolis where he becomes Clark Kent (Reeve); mild mannered reporter for the Daily Planet....who just also happens to be the caped superhero who goes by the name of Superman. In both guises he forms a relationship with another Daily Planet reporter, Lois Lane (Kidder). There is a problem though, she has no idea that they are one in the same and only has eyes for Superman. An even greater problem arrives in the form of Lex Luthor (Hackman), the self-proclaimed greatest criminal mind in the world, who plots to pull off the greatest real estate swindle of all time; a plot that will result in the deaths of millions.

As will have become very evident to anyone who has spent even a little bit of time perusing my reviews, I love superheroes! I just do. I love them both in comic book form and up on the big screen, having seen just about every superhero film to have so far hit the big screen. Despite this however I had never seen any of the original four Superman films, including this film which kicked it all off; the granddaddy of all superhero movies. This is largely as a result of the fact that as a character I just don't like Superman. Of all the caped crusaders and masked heroes out there, I'm struggling to think of any that I have less interest in than old Supes. I've just always found him to an exceptionally dull character, completely lacking in the intrigue that comes with a Bruce Wayne or a Peter Parker and being nowhere near as relatable. So as a result of that lack of enthusiasm for the character I was really pleasantly surprised by just how much I enjoyed this film.

I was under the impression (perhaps wrongly) that 'real' Superman fans had a fair degree of vitriol for the 90s TV series, Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. I thought they held it up as an example of messing with and undermining the true nature of the character, similar to how 'real' Batman fanboys regard the campy exploits of Adam West's Batman in the 60s TV show. So it was a bit of a surprise for me to discover just how similar I found this film to be to the TV show which cast Dean Cain as the orphan from Krypton. The film takes a really quite cheesy and tongue-in-cheek approach to the material, featuring humour of the goofy and occasionally slapstick nature. I think you'd struggle to get away with such an approach these days but it's done with such an earnest attitude that it works. It seems very apparent that the filmmakers have a great affection for the character and the source material and that definitely comes through on the screen.

Film Trivia - The search for an actor to play Superman proved to be a long and arduous task. The search began in 1975 and ended with a press announcement on 23rd Feb 1977 just 35 days before filming was due to begin. During that time Robert Redford, Clint Eastwood, James Caan, Warren Beatty and Burt Reynolds all turned down the opportunity to take on the role. Redford wanted too much money, Eastwood said he was too busy and Caan said, "There's no way I'm getting into that silly suit." Pual Newman was actually offered the choice of playing Superman, Lex Luthor or Jor-El for the fee of $4 million, but wasn't interested in any of them. Other actors who were considered for the part included Kris Kristofferson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ryan O'Neal, Jeff Bridges, Jan-Michael Vincent, David Soul, Robert Wager, Richard Gere and Jon Voight. The filmmakers also auditioned over 200 unknown actors for the part, including Christopher Walken and Nick Nolte. Legend has it that Nick Nolte was actually offered the role but said that he'd only take it if they agreed to make Clark Kent a schizophrenic. /// The original screenplay that Richard Donner inherited (and quickly rewrote) included one infamous camp moment where Lex Luthor encountered Telly Savalas playing Kojak in a railway station. Kojak then offered Luthor a lollipop and asked him his trademark line "Who loves ya, baby?”The script may concern itself with a really quite simple story but it does it well, and is also really quite witty. This is especially true in terms of its dialogue, presenting some great one-liners for Perry White and creating amusing interplay between Lex Luthor and Otis. The script splits the film into three very distinctive phases and acts. The first act of the film takes place on Krypton, detailing the planet's destruction and the decision that his parents take to send him away from the doomed planet to Earth. That early stretch really is pure, campy 70s sci-fi; never more so than when it comes to the white jump suits that all of Krypton's inhabitants wear and that seemed to plague every sci-fi film of that era. I've got to say that I actually found the opening to be a bit dull, lifted only by Brando's performance. I was rather worried at what I had let myself in for due to how very seriously it seemed to be taking itself. Following that the film becomes a more traditional comic book movie, covering his coming-of-age story and origin tale. Thankfully this phase is a lot more fun, really embracing its tongue-in-cheek and playful tone. And then lastly the film becomes something akin to another 70s staple, the disaster movie.

In a number of ways I was actually surprised by some of the quality on show. For whatever reason I had been expecting something really cheap and tacky, but instead found a lot of really quite impressive. It was really well shot and featured some very nice cinematography. There are also a few great sets to be spied throughout the film, with the locations of Krypton and Superman's Fortress of Solitude being particularly noteworthy. My favourite set however was certainly that of Lex Luthor's underground lair. A bit of a classic Bond villain creation it is a great fit for the character, really playing up to Lex's eccentric billionaire side. Chock-full of art and knick-knacks it's like a cross between a museum and a library, which just happens to have a pool!

Even though I had never seen any of his appearances in the famous red y-fronts until now, I was well aware of the fondness that fans had for Christopher Reeve's portrayal of the character. From reading the likes of SFX magazine and frequenting sites and forums that appeal to my geek side, I know just how highly fans regard him. And having finally see the man in action I can begin to understand why. I found him to be a highly engaging and likeable anchor for the film. When he dons the famous suit and cape as Superman he is very noble and heroic, and most importantly I got the feeling that he really believed in the character he was playing. Recently I saw an article in which Christian Bale revealed that when he was auditioning in costume for the role of Batman he felt stupid. But here Reeve seems to embrace it and you can feel his sincerity and the film benefits greatly. As good as he was in the guise of Superman, it was as Clark Kent however where he really flourished. He is exceptionally charming in the bumbling goofball persona that he adopts to avoid suspicion, really endearing himself to the audience. I actually found there to be quite a strong Cary Grant vibe to his performance given Clark's glasses and blundering nature. There's an excellent moment in the film where we see Clark contemplating whether to reveal the truth to Lois; it allows us to see the great effort Reeve put into creating the two distinct personalities. As Superman he stands tall, barrel chested and gives the impression of having an imposing frame. For his Clark Kent persona however Reeve appears to completely change his whole physical presence, altering his stance, posture and gait to become this clumsy, slouching figure who appears like he would offer no resistance in a physical confrontation.

Film Trivia Snippets - When it came to the part of Lex Luthor, both Jack Nicholson and Gene Wilder were considered while Dustin Hoffman actually turned down the part. Nicholson was again under consideration to play Lex Luthor for a proposed Superman film in the 1990s which ultimately fell through. And then even when Gene Hackman was cast there was a problem. He initially refused to cut off his moustache for the film, and early one-sheets feature Hackman with a moustache. Before Hackman met Richard Donner face-to-face, Donner proposed to him that if Hackman would cut off his moustache, Donner would do likewise with his. Hackman agreed to this, but it later turned out that Donner didn't have a moustache at all. He wore a false moustache that he peeled off at the last moment. /// During its initial run, Superman topped the box-office charts for an astonishing 13 consecutive weeks. It's eventual $300 million gross made it the 6th highest grossing film ever at the time of its release. /// Can I just say what a d!ck Marlon Brando was. He was paid $3.7 million and a percentage of the profits for playing Jor-El for just 12 shooting days. The fee (plus the percentage) also covered the sequel, which was being simultaneously shot with the original. Brando did not appear in the sequel, however, as he was involved in a lawsuit with Ilya Salkind over what Brando said was the producer's non-payment of his profit-participation for this film. He ultimately received about $14 million for his mere ten minutes on film. All that money and yet he still refused to memorise his lines in advance. In the scene where he puts infant Kal-El into the escape pod, he was actually reading his lines from the diaper of the baby.Opposite him I found Margot Kidder to be quite delightful as Lois Lane, the iconic love interest of the Superman mythos. She was very sexy as the feisty, brash and impulsive news reporter and very much created the Katharine Hepburn to Reeve's Cary Grant. Together they have a great chemistry and their interplay very much reminded me the screwball comedies of the 30s and 40s which Grant and Hepburn were so famous for. Also a lot of fun was Gene Hackman hamming it up as the diabolical Lex Luthor. While I'm not a big fan of the series this incarnation of Lex certainly isn't what I associate as being the classic version of the character. That aside he is just immensely entertaining, conveying a wonderful sense of superiority and stealing just about every scene he is in. Ned Beatty also generates quite a number of laughs in his role as Luthor's sidekick, Otis. While it may not match that of Reeve and Kidder, the two men also share a nice chemistry. I've got to say that I was also really quite impressed by Marlon Brando's brief contribution in the role of Kal-El's father, Jor-El. While I've not seen a great deal of Brando's work, anytime I have he has always been very hammy as he attempted to chew his way through every piece of the scenery. So I felt that throwing him into a superhero film of all things (not exactly a genre prone to subtle performances) could have met with some disastrously overblown results. So I was rather surprised at just how straight he plays the role, bringing a welcome seriousness and gravitas to proceedings.

It certainly is a film very much of its time, both in terms of tone and its look. This film is now 35 years old. In terms of being an effects-packed spectacle that pretty much makes Superman an ancient relic. So credit to the filmmakers then that a number of the effects still hold up today as being both impressive and just downright engaging, able to draw you into the magic of the film instead of pulling you out of it as you sneer at the stone-age effects. And even the effects which don't work and now look decidedly ropey I didn't feel really hurt the film, if anything they just seem to add to the film's naïve charms. The film has one of the all-time great taglines; “You'll believe a man can fly.” While I perhaps wouldn't go that far it's actually surprisingly effective how they pull it off. And then there's the part played by John Williams' famous score and his iconic Superman theme. When Reeve takes to the skies backed by that classic theme even I, a self-admitted Superman hater, couldn't help but get momentarily swept up in the magic and wonder.

Conclusion - A very pleasant surprise. I came in expecting very little and was met with a really fun escapade; a sweet-natured little film imbued with a sense of playful innocence. It took a while to get me really involved, it wasn't until Reeve showed up that the film really got going in my eyes, and at over 140 minutes it does feel a bit overlong. However a sharp script helps to bring out a series of great performances from the whole cast who really seem to throw themselves into proceedings with gusto. It's a film with a warm heart and a sharp wit, both attributes largely arising from Reeve's winning performance in the central role. And who can't enjoy a film which features a character flying around the Earth so fast that not only do they turn back time, but I'm guessing destroys the minds of every scientist watching!

Bonus Trivia - A number of well-known directors were offered the chance to direct the film. Both William Friedkin and Sam Peckinpah were offered the chance to direct. Friedkin turned down the offer outright. Peckinpah dropped out of the running when he produced a gun during a meeting with Ilya Salkind. Stephen Spielberg was also offered the chance to direct, but the producers balked at the salary he demanded. They decided to wait until they saw how "this fish movie" (Jaws) that he had just completed did at the box office. The movie was a huge success, and Spielberg went on to other projects. /// The film was a mammoth undertaking. It was 3 years in planning, 2 years in filming at the height of which there were over a thousand full time crew on 11 units spread over 3 studios and 8 countries. Over a million feet of film was used and at the time it had the highest production budget. /// At one point it was planned that the film would end with a giant hologram of Superman flying out into theaters. /// Richard Donner had a single word, printed in big letters, on numerous signs, sent to every creative department involved with this film: VERISIMILITUDE. "It's a word that refers to being real . . . not realistic - yes, there IS a difference - but real," explained Donner. "It was a constant reminder to ourselves that, if we gave into the temptation we knew there would be to parody Superman, we would only be fooling ourselves." /// According to Jeff East (who played the teenage Clark) during the shot in which young Clark jumps in front of the train, he was nearly hit by the train. But stuntman Richard Hackman grabbed him just in time and he avoided being injured. /// For his portrayal of Clark Kent, Christopher Reeve based his performance on Cary Grant's character in Bringing Up Baby. I promise I did not know that when I made the comparison in my review!

The Rodent

02-09-14, 03:39 PM

Love Reeve as Superman. And yes, Brando was a complete turd. He even got his name on the cast sheet before Reeve.

Who ever heard of the lead role, and the titular role, getting shunted down the list?

One thing that always gets me is that Reeve was 25 years old when he was cast and 26 when they finished filming.

25-26, yet he portrays himself as someone who has a knowledge in their 50s.

Kidder was 29-30 from casting to completion yet seemed much younger.

The Gunslinger45

02-09-14, 08:58 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I love this movie! I get a nostalgia-gasm from thinking about it! I remember being a kid in Hong Kong running around the furniture while the soundtrack was playing on the folks stereo system. And for me, Reeves IS Superman the same way Kevin Conroy is Batman, and RDJ is Iron Man.

I am very happy you liked this movie dude. I hope you like Superman II as well. But as for statement about cheap... don't have high hopes for Superman III and IV. The budgets for the sequels got cut in half for each subsequent film.

gandalf26

02-12-14, 07:31 AM

Great review JD!

Everyone try this on for size, put the volume to MAX, hit play and shut your eyes! The movie theme of the 20th century no doubt about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9vrfEoc8_g

Superman 1 and 2 were maybe top of the list of my childhood favourites. The first half of Superman feels like a dead serious origins story of real importance whilst the second half changes things up and becomes quite camp and silly in parts.

Brando was certainly a dick but he brings real gravitas to the film, especially with some of his early lines (that he was reading from the diaper according to JD trivia LOL), "Son becomes the Father, and the Father the Son". Hard to imagine the film without Brando.

Reeve is great as Superman but his performance as Clark Kent is legendary imo. You find yourself almost looking forward to the next Clark scene to see what the clown is gonna do next. They really lucked out with Reeve who fit the role like a glove. Shame he was typecast by the role and never really had any success outside of the blue suit and cape. Sadly ironic that the Superman would finish his life crippled after a horrific accident. Also hard to believe that he was only 25 when he could easily pass as a 35 year old.

In fact all the cast are on terrific form, especially Kidder as Lois Lane. No Lois Lane since has come close to her awesome performance. Don't know what they were thinking casting 40 odd year old Amy Adams who is borderline ugly opposite young Henry Cavill.

Superman made it into my top 50, you have to be able to look past the dated effects when watching an old classic like this.

9/10

JayDee

02-14-14, 05:08 PM

Taking a brief break from my superhero marathon for a couple of current films. I like to do so because I know there are loads of you out there who wait with baited breath for my views on current films so you can decide whether to spend money on seeing them or not. :D

And I'm actually giving you a double bill. First up is a review that I already posted in the 'Rate the Last Movie You Saw' thread but have since extended. Whether I've added anything of any substance to it I don't know

mirror mirror

Year of release
2013

Directed by
David O. Russell

Written by
Eric Warren Singer
David O. Russell

Starring
Christian Bale
Amy Adams
Bradley Cooper
Jennifer Lawrence
Jeremy Renner
Louis C.K.

American Hustle

3

Plot - A fictional film set in the alluring world of one of the most stunning scandals to rock our nation, American Hustle tells the story of brilliant con man Irving Rosenfeld (Bale), who along with his equally cunning and seductive British partner Sydney Prosser (Adams) is forced to work for wild FBI agent Richie DiMaso (Cooper). DiMaso pushes them into a world of Jersey powerbrokers and mafia that's as dangerous as it is enchanting. Carmine Polito (Renner) is a passionate and volatile New Jersey political operator caught between the con-artists and Feds. Despite all the best laid plans, Irving's unpredictable wife Rosalyn (Larence) could be the one to pull the thread that brings the entire world crashing down.

I know this film has amassed quite a sizeable fanbase on here but what can I say, I wasn't particularly excited by it. I'll certainly give it credit for being a well made and exceptionally well acted film, unlike the marks that the con artists target however I never felt myself being taken in by their charms. In the knowledge that this may well incite a small riot on here, dare I say I even found it all a little bit......dull? :shrug: I'd certainly say that was particularly true of the opening hour, with the film really taking considerable time to get into the real swing of things. It was only when the sheikh 'arrived' in the jet and the con got under way that I felt the story start to come to some sort of life. Even then however it never matched my expectations; perhaps it was the fault of the film's advertising but I was expecting a far breezier, more comedic venture. When it comes to con films/TV shows I think it should be a lot slicker, flashier and sexier than what this was. And its running time of 138 minutes felt way too long for a story of this nature. Cutting out a chunk of that running time would perhaps have helped the film find that energy that I felt was lacking.

As I said at the start though the performances across the board are almost uniformly excellent. Christian Bale delivered one of his most impressive performances that I've seen in the role of Irving Rosenfeld. Going by some of the interviews he has given over recent years, I got the impression at times that Bale was never greatly comfortable taking on the mantle of Batman. Well if that were true then he probably couldn't have succeeded in choosing a role more different from the Caped Crusader than Irving Rosenfeld. Sporting a ridiculous combover and substantial beer belly he has left his days of superheroics well and truly behind him with this performance, certainly more sad sack than superhero. He acts as a fairly strong anchor at the heart of the film. Butting heads with Bale's Irving, and following on from their collaboration on Silver Linings Playbook, Bradley Cooper once again excels under the direction of Russell. His performance is one of great fire and determination in the role of Richie DiMaso, a man of initially good intentions who eventually begins to capitulate thanks to his excessive ambition. With ever larger carrots being dangled in front of him it's not long before his sights move on from catching mere con artists to politicians, senators and gangsters.

While Bale and Cooper deliver strong work that has already attracted awards recognition, the undoubted stars of the show for me however were the leading ladies of the piece. As the apple of Irving's eye, I thought that Amy Adams was excellent as the manipulative Sydney Prosser, or Lady Edith Greensly depending on the situation. She was the one character that I really couldn't put my finger on, whose intentions I was never entirely sure about. Adams also proves to be damn sexy in a series of elegant and very revealing outfits which allow Russell's camera to place great emphasis on sideboob! So much so that I feel her breasts should actually have gotten their own mention in the end credits. And whoever her costume designer was deserves an Oscar for services to humanity! Despite all this talk of great performances, when it comes to the question of who deserves the MVP plaudits there is no doubt in my mind that it's Jennifer Lawrence. As Irving's wife Rosalyn she was far and away my favourite component of the whole film. Displaying an incredible charisma and alluring nature, whenever she would appear on screen the film gained a spark that I felt was otherwise lacking. She once again shows that she really could be something pretty special, and without a doubt she was the film's saving grace. Well to be fair she was actually one of two saving graces, with the other to be found in the very amusing and combative discourse between Cooper and his boss, played by Louis C.K.

Film Trivia Snippets - The film is a highly fictionalized telling of the Abscam (short for Arab scam) scandal of the late 1970s and early 1980s, an FBI operation that began as an investigation of trafficking in stolen property, but was later expanded to include political corruption. /// This is not however the first time that attempts have been made to adapt the story for the screen. In the early 1980s French director Louis Malle adapted the Abscam story into a film script entitled "Moon Over Miami" which was set to star Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi. Plans for the film were abandoned however with Belushi's death in March of 1982. /// The script was originally titled "American Bullsh*t" and came in eighth place on Hollywood's 2010 Black List. Originally Ben Affleck was in consideration to direct but he dropped out in favour of directing an adaptation of Stephen King's 'The Stand', which he has also dropped out of subsequently. /// In 1980, Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha was targeted by Abscam but not indicted since he didn't accept the bribe. He would later be saved from a House Ethics Committee punishment by Charlie Wilson. Coincidentally Amy Adams also starred in the film Charlie Wilson's War. /// David O. Russell stated that Robert De Niro didn't even recognise Christian Bale on the set even after they were introduced to each other. De Niro pulled Russell aside, pointed to Bale and asked who he was. First De Niro didn't believe it was Bale but after Russell convinced him of that De Niro noted, 'Wow, he looks really different", and nodded his head as a sign of approval. Russell then had to re-introduce the two now that De Niro knew who Bale was.
Alongside the cast that he was able to assemble, also in line for credit are Russell, his cinematographer Linus Sandgren and the production design crew because the film does look and feel very much like the 70s, or at the very least like a 70s movie which is the closest that I can equate to. Oh and Hustle also features a really fun soundtrack as well, composed of an eclectic mix of songs from the period that covers both the very familiar and the lesser so. Russell's direction certainly seems quite confident and assured, with his work and the film as a whole having quite a strong Scorsese vibe. In particular the film attempts to peer inside the world of con artists in a similar fashion as Goodfellas did with the mob, with a great deal of similarities shared between the two films. Both films open in a tremendously similar fashion as the main protagonist delivers a narration that details who they are and the world they operate in, complete with flashbacks to their younger, formative years that attempt to highlight how they ended up where they did. And from then on a great resemblance can be seen throughout between the two films, whether it be in their shared period setting, the cool soundtrack or in Russell's mobile, roaming camera that seems to ape Marty whenever possible. While the film may evoke the work of Scorsese however, I'd certainly class it as 'Scorsese Lite.'

And perhaps this is just a feeling that I imbued the film with personally, but throughout I got a sense of smugness and self-satisfaction about the whole project, with the film seeming really proud of itself. And I really didn't feel that it should have been. The script is often clumsy, relying heavily on contrivances and characters occasionally acting out of character. The plot, especially for its lengthy running time, is pretty basic and lacking in substance while it's characters don't have a great deal of depth, coming across as under developed and largely unlikeable. In fact that was one of the main obstacles to my really enjoying this film; I never came to care for any of the characters and so had little interest in who came out on top of the various games of cat and mouse. That marked a major departure from how I felt about the characters in Russell's last film, Silver Linings Playbook. And while it's not so much a fault as just a missed opportunity, I didn't feel that the film fully exploited its 70s setting. While I understand it was set there due to the true story it is partially based on, I felt it could have explored it more. Other than the odd comment here and there that refers to events of the time there wasn't a great deal of it. Oh and perhaps I'm mistaken but at one point did Amy Adams' character talk about running off to Russia or Estonia? In 1978? :skeptical: Haven't these people ever heard of the Cold War? Surely that would create some issues for that plan.

It's a decent enough film that has its moments, but just as many flaws, and is strongly acted. All in all however I really was left slightly baffled as to why Hollywood and film critics have fallen so in love with it. There already seems to have been a bit of a backlash against the film amongst cinema audiences and I think that will only grow if it somehow sneaks off with the Best Picture at the Oscars. In a few years time I could easily imagine it being talked about as one of the weaker winners of the big prize. To me the film felt like the halfway point between Ocean's Eleven and The Grifters, with it unfortunately coming up short of the respective attributes of both films. I didn't feel it had the slick, flashy frivolity of Oceans; nor did I feel it had the substance, depth or grit of Stephen Frear's The Grifters.

Conclusion - American Hustle actually represents a very accurate depiction of the cons that its central characters ply their trade with. It promises much, looks great and says all the right things but in the end you don't get what you were expecting and are left disappointed. I think that myself, and indeed many other viewers, might have been more welcoming to the film's attributes had it been released in August for example, and billed as just a 'normal' film. Its release smack bang in the middle of awards season however, and all the accolades that said award shows have been quick to lavish upon it means that expectations have been raised. And for all its style I didn't feel it came close to having the substance required to meet those expectations.

JayDee

02-14-14, 05:08 PM

And following on from American Hustle here is the second review of a film currently in cinemas (at least here in the UK).

So far in this thread I've dedicated reviews to many of my regulars (honeykid, mark f, Gunslinger, Rodent, Miss Vicky etc). Well I'd like to dedicate this one to Sexy Celebrity. He probably can't be bothered to even read it! :D and he'll certainly think it should be rated higher but I know he's a big fan of it.

mirror mirror
Year of release
2013

Directed by
Jean-Marc Vallée

Written by
Craig Borten
Melisa Wallack

Starring
Matthew McConaughey
Jared Leto
Jennifer Garner
Denis O'Hare
Griffin Dunne
Michael O'Neill

Dallas Buyers Club

3.5 ++

Plot - Dallas, 1985. Electrician, occasional rodeo rider and strict homophobe Ron Woodroof (McConaughey) is shocked and horrified when he is diagnosed as being HIV-positive and given just 30 days to live. Refusing to accept the death sentence that has been dealt his way he begins to read whatever research he can get his hands on, leading him to the drug AZT which is currently in clinial trials. Despite pleading to his attending physician Dr. Saks (Garner) she informs him that she cannot get him a supply of the drug or into the trials. So Ron decides to get the drugs himself by whatever means necessary, eventually leading him to Mexico and Dr. Vass (Dunne). Dr. Vass however does not supply him with AZT, believing it to do more harm than good, and instead gives him a cocktail of other drugs and vitamins which have not been approved in the US by the FDA. Taking notice of the improvement in his health, Ron strikes a deal with Dr. Vass and begins smuggling these drugs back across the border into the US. He begins to sell the drugs to other affected inviduals, eventually establishing a partnership with an HIV-positive transgendered woman by the name of Rayon (Leto). While not an amicable relationship to begin with it does prove fruitful as they establish a 'buyers club' that sells memberships to HIV+ patients and then gives the drugs away for free in an attempt to avoid breaking the law. This doesn't satisfy the FDA however who begin to target him and his operation.

While I'm aware that I am unlikely to be the first person to draw a comparison between this film and Jonathan Demme's 1993 hit, Philadelphia, I really do think the similarities between them are quite strong, beyond the obvious link they share in their Aids-driven narratives. Just as with Philadelphia I wouldn't say that this is an especially great film on its own merits. It is told in a fairly straightforward, conventional manner with its plot unfolding in a predictable manner that offers little in the way of surprise. In many ways it could even be viewed as unexceptional. Also like Philadelphia however, the film features two performances that are anything but. And it's those performances which give this film its power and vitality, and that make it a film that deserves to be seen. I can't remember where it was now but I read a review recently that concluded by saying that this was “a 3 star film with 5 star performances”, and I'd certainly say there is something to that.

The first performance I have to talk about is of course the astonishing turn from Matthew McConaughey in the film's central role of Ron Woodroof, the purveyor of the titular Dallas Buyers Club. It has been a while since I've seen a film whose main character is so spectacularly unlikeable. For the large majority of the film Ron is a pretty despicable individual, completely devoid of any redeeming features. He is the absolute epitome of the term 'trailer trash.' A homophobic drunk with a drug addiction and a propensity for cheap, tawdry sex there is absolutely nothing to admire here. And yet you can't help but start to like him (even if you may hate yourself for it initially) because you do admire his sheer will to survive and to fight. As is a commonly known fact, there are five stages of grief - denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Across the film's running time we see Ron hit every one of these stages (even if it is sometimes in an unconventional manner - see the prayer he offers up to God while sitting at a strip club as a naked woman gyrates in front of him); every stage that is except for acceptance. No matter the diagnosis and words of warnings from doctors he continues to fight it. I just love his rage towards everything; the disease, the doctors, the medical profession, his friends who turn on him etc. The most obvious aspect of McConaughey's performance is without a doubt the dramatic physical toll that he put himself through for the role. Having dropped close to 50 pounds there is no doubt that his gaunt frame cuts a striking and troubling figure. It would do so for any actor, but to see one of the men so often acclaimed as one of the sexiest in the world look so dreadful really does add to its power. To focus solely on the weight loss and not see beyond it however would be a sin as its a tremendous, powerful and utterly electric performance. The best thing I could say about it is just how real and natural a performance it is. He conveys this incredibly relaxed nature as if he isn't really trying.

Film Trivia Snippets - Following a 1992 article about Ron Woodroof in The Dallas Morning News, and just a month before he died, Ron was interviewed by Craig Borten in the hopes of creating a screenplay about him. Borten recorded many hours of interviews with Woodroof and was also given access to his personal journals. Borten went through 10 drafts of the script before he attempted to get the film made in the mid 1990s when Dennis Hopper was attached to direct with Woody Harrelson in the role of Ron Woodroof. The project fell through at the time when it was unable to secure financial backing. Jared Leto has admitted that he was actually sent a script at the time but never read it. /// Following this a couple of other director/actor duos attempted to get the project off the ground. In the late 1990s Marc Foster circled the project with the intention of Brad Pitt fulfilling the role of Ron, and then in 2008 director Craig Gillespie and Ryan Gosling were in talks with producers until Vallée and McConaughey signed on. //// Ron Woodroof's sister was reportedly very pleased with the eventual casting of McConaughey in the role of her brother. Having shown earlier concern when Pitt and Gosling were attached, she was delighted that McConaughey became involved because she felt he shared a similar swagger and personality.If McConaughey is the fire and fury that drives the film, then it is Jared Leto who provides the heart and soul as transgendered Rayon, a fellow Aids sufferer. If Ron is spectacularly unlikeable then Rayon is the complete opposite. From her first moment on screen you find yourself just loving this fascinating and unique character of such vitality and energy. Rayon really could be the poster-child for the sentiment “we're here, we're queer, get used to it!” Even in this close-minded and homophobic environment she is never anything less than herself. Even against all of the looks and comments she garners she never lets it dissuade her. Though behind closed doors we do see a more troubled and tragic side as she resorts to a reliance upon cocaine. It's a role that would be so easy to get completely wrong but Leto just nails it. In fact he makes you so fully believe in this character that on the one instance where we see Rayon wearing men's clothing it just seems completely wrong. You wonder just what the hell she's doing, this isn't her. And together Leto and McConaughey share such a great chemistry whenever they are on screen together. I was going to call it a bromance of sorts but I think it's too antagonistic for that. It's more like a classic buddy cop relationship. And in the tradition of a film like 48 Hrs the initial relationship between them is one of hate, and even when tensions have eased somewhat they continue to butt heads and needle each other. The third main performance in Dallas Buyers Club comes for a more unexpected source. Were it up to cinema audiences to cast the role of Dr. Eve Saks I don't think many people would have instantly thought of Jennifer Garner. Despite this I've got to say that I thought she did a good job. She may struggle on the odd occasion and her character was never going to make the kind of impact that Ron and Rayon do, but I think she does a commendable job. Her inclusion also allows for an additional, perhaps unintentional, thread to McConaughey's performance. Typically you would expect to see these two individuals brought together for a romantic comedy, as was the case in Ghosts of Girlfriends Past. So watching McConaughey's faded lothario attempt in vain to woo her is rather sad, touching back to Ron's own past but also playing into McConaughey's established screen persona which he appears to be putting behind him in recent years.

Given the nature of the film's story, audiences could be forgiven for expecting or even fearing a much more melodramatic experience than its end result proves to be. This is predominantly down to the characters and their outlooks on life. Despite their shared illness both Ron and Rayon continue to live their lives to the fullest extent that they can. Ron refuses to just lay down and give in, while Rayon is such an effervescent and spirited individual who just seems so at peace with herself even in such a hate-filled environment. So despite the opening exchanges seeing Ron diagnosed with Aids and given just 30 days to live, Dallas Buyers Club actually turns out to be a film more about living than it is dying, more about life than death. Also quite surprising is just how funny the film actually is, delivering a decent amount of laughs. Admittedly most of those laughs do come from quite a crude and coarse place so it might not appeal to everyone, but for myself and the audience I saw the film with just about every one of them landed.

At the start of this review I made note of how conventional and perhaps predictable it is, and that largely arises from the script by Craig Borten and Melisa Wallack. Even before I say this I know it's going to sound strange, but if anything their script is a little too 'perfect.' It just feels a touch too polished with the characters and plotting seemingly lifted straight from Screenwriting 101. Despite being based on true events the only character based on a real individual is Ron. Outside of that everyone else is a fictional creation, all of whom seem to exist only to aid in the development of Ron's character and the story. Ron's homophobia is established instantly in the bluntest of terms with the addition to the story of Rayon clearly acting as the instigator for Ron's evolution and the barometer by which we can measure his journey. The two doctors responsible for Ron's treatment (Garner's Dr. Saks and Denis O'Hare's Dr. Sevard) just happen to be at polar ends and represent the differing points of view amongst the medical profession. While the FDA are cast in the role of this large, sneering villain; a real 'big bad' for the film so that once again in a move similar to Philadelphia, the film's protagonist is cast as the little man up against this large corporation in a real David v Goliath battle of good versus evil.

Film Trivia Snippets - Before filming began both Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto lost a substantial amount of weight. Jared Leto lost over 30 pounds for the role and has confessed that at one point he stopped eating so he could lose weight quicker. The lowest recorded weight that he got down to was 114 pounds. McConaughey meanwhile lost an incredible 47 pounds, prompting newspaper reports to describe him as look “terribly gaunt” at the time and that he was “wasting away to skin and bones.” /// Hilary Swank was originally cast in the role of Dr. Eve Saks, while Gael Garcia Bernal was cast as Rayon. Both dropped out before filming and were replaced by Jennifer Garner and Jared Leto respectively. /// Due to budgetary constraints the film was shot in just 25 days with a single camera and no customary lighting set-ups. Rehearsals were excluded and to the relief of the actors, no post-production looping requested. McConaughey apparently revelled in this style of film-making, saying that “I was riding a new way of making a film. There were no lights, one camera, 15-minute takes.” And Jennifer Garner has stated that McConaughey actually “gave an even wilder performance in takes that didn't appear onscreen.” /// Throughout those 25 days of filming Jared Leto stayed in character as Rayon for the entire time. At one point Leto went grocery shopping in character to a local Whole Foods where he received numerous stares and double takes. It's unusual for a film to achieve such critical acclaim and recognition at major awards shows, with little recognition going the way of the film's director, certainly not in terms of awards or nominations. Having now seen the film however it is not something that surprises me all that much. Very rarely throughout the film did I ever find myself noticing Vallée's hand at work, and perhaps that's the way it should be. For a story of this nature anything all that noticeable may come across as being nothing but obtrusive, when he should instead just be allowing the performances to speak for themselves. Alongside a jittery and rushed style to recreate the condition and ailments of Ron, there are really only a couple of instances where its the visuals as opposed to the performers that catch your eye. The first actually comes from the film's very first images. Opening at a rodeo we find ourselves in one of the bull stalls where Ron is engaged in wild sex with two women. As he thrusts and grunts his way through this encounter we can see through the slats in the stall to the ongoing rodeo where a rider is thrown violently from his bull to the ground and left motionless. With an unsettling audio mix of the roaring crowd, the rowdy sex and a strange, high-pitched ringing accompanying the images of the fallen rider Vallée is clearly establishing the danger that Ron has placed himself in.

The other notable visual from the film occurs as it nears its conclusion. While visiting a doctor's clinic down in Mexico, Ron is drawn towards a strange sound emanating from a room in the back. Entering the room he finds himself surrounded by hundreds, perhaps even thousands of butterflies. As he adjusts to his surroundings he notices that a couple of butterflies have landed upon him. Spreading out his arms to embrace the situation he soon finds himself covered by dozens of them. The scene quite clearly acts as a representative for the beauty and wonder of life if you open yourself up to it as Ron now has, and it makes for quite a striking scene. Taking into account the metamorphosis of character that Ron undergoes across the film's running time it would also not be much of a stretch to see the image as a metaphor for Ron himself. Just as the caterpillar transforms into this creature of great beauty, Ron too has grown. From his origins as this horribly homophobic, hateful scumbag he evolves into this much more enlightened, accepting individual. And his white trash appearance and attitudes actually belies a keen mind, a mind that is capable of studying and understanding all of the medical information involved with his disease and its treatment, capable of setting up and running such an operation and capable of battling against the government. From hating and then exploiting the gay community he comes to genuinely care for and respect them. In his own way Ron too has managed to become a creature of beauty worthy of our admiration.

Conclusion - As a film Dallas Buyers Club may not be perfect but it certainly has its heart in the right place and it enriches the spirit. It takes a difficult subject and presents a unique take on it, delivering the story in a digestible and engaging fashion that even manages to be joyous and uplifting on occasion despite its inherent sadness. And whatever flaws it may have can be overlooked fairly easily because of the two incredible, award-worthy performances at its heart. Both McConaughey and Leto are excellent and are reason enough alone to make this a film worthy of anyone's time.

The Gunslinger45

02-14-14, 05:41 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I like Dallas Buyers Club quite a bit. I will agree that the performances deserve much more mention then the direction. But I do say the film is more then a thee star movie with 5 star performances. That was American Hustle for me. :D

cricket

02-14-14, 06:12 PM

Great reviews JayDee

I liked Dallas Buyer's Club a little more than you did, but your minor criticisms are valid. I'm still unsure how I feel about the character of Ron. I'm not totally convinced that he just wasn't all about the money, at least at the beginning. And I'm not completely sure he became a better man. A lot of people, when they have serious problems, start to act differently towards others. Often times it's because the person needs sympathy for themselves. You're not going to be rotten towards others when you need a lot of help yourself. He may have become a better person out of necessity, rather than having a change of heart. I'm not sure though, at least he appeared to become more tolerant. But if he was suddenly cured, would he have gone back to his old ways? I also agree with SC's comment about the butterfly scene, it ended way to abruptly.

I haven't seen American Hustle yet. When I saw the first trailer for it, with the Led Zep song playing, and the era, and the style, I was looking forward to this movie like no other. I was hoping for something in the mode of a Boogie Nights. When I saw the next trailer, with the dialogue and hints of the story, my anticipation waned dramatically. I still want to see it, but my expectations are now not very high. It looks to be very lightweight, in contrast to what it could've been.

cricket

02-14-14, 06:27 PM

That's interesting; kind of like the Chris Cooper character in American Beauty.

Miss Vicky

02-14-14, 09:57 PM

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

I'm glad that you enjoyed Dallas Buyers Club, but I don't agree that it has much in common with Philadelphia beyond the obvious superficial similarities.

And "disappointing" is exactly the right word to describe American Hustle. It disappointed me the first time and I liked it even less on the rewatch.

Sexy Celebrity

02-14-14, 09:59 PM

I still haven't seen Philadelphia. I couldn't say -- but I bet Miss Vicky is right.

honeykid

02-15-14, 03:12 PM

A bunch of people have come forward and said that the real Ron Woodroof actually wasn't homophobic at all. In fact, according to his wife, he was bisexual. His own doctor considered him one of her gay patients and other people said he had gay relationships.
I don't know either way, but it's not like he'd be the first homophobic closeted gay guy.

Excellent review, JD. :up:

gandalf26

02-15-14, 04:04 PM

I'll read those 2 after I've watched them sometime in a couple of months when the DVDs come out.

Looking forward to American Hustle after watching the brilliant Silver Linings Playbook like 3 times recently.

JayDee

02-16-14, 08:53 PM

Alright, JayDee, I read your whole review. Aged five years reading it, but whatever.

Thank God Gael Garcia Bernal did not play Rayon...........

How long does it take you to write these reviews, JayDee? You put a lot of information in there. Very nice.

Well I'm touched by your great sacrifice Sexy. :D How long does it actually take you to read these reviews? I know they're rather lengthy but you talk as if they take you 30 minutes or something.

What did you make about the other possibles for the character of Ron? Not sure I could see Pitt or Gosling in the role, although I'd have been curious to see how Pitt would have done. Woody Harrelson however I think could have been great in the role.

Well I saw the film on Tuesday afternoon/early evening and made a little start that night. I finished on Thursday during the day and then at night did the plot and trivia. How long it actually took when combined I'm not sure.

Great reviews JayDee

I liked Dallas Buyer's Club a little more than you did, but your minor criticisms are valid.

Thanks cricket. And as I was writing the review and reflecting on the film I actually felt I should bump the score up a little bit to 4 - or even 4. However I decided to stick with my instant gut instinct leaving the cinema. Can always bump the score up on a repeat viewing. And I think I'm also a little harsher these days when rating films on their initial viewings. I've seen 28 or 29 films from 2013 and only 4 got a rating of 4 or higher, and two of them were superhero movies which are my achilles heel/weak spot and almost don't count! :D

I'm still unsure how I feel about the character of Ron. I'm not totally convinced that he just wasn't all about the money, at least at the beginning. And I'm not completely sure he became a better man. A lot of people, when they have serious problems, start to act differently towards others. Often times it's because the person needs sympathy for themselves. You're not going to be rotten towards others when you need a lot of help yourself. He may have become a better person out of necessity, rather than having a change of heart. I'm not sure though, at least he appeared to become more tolerant.

At the start it definitely was all about the money for him and any help he gave to others was either for monetary reasons or by mistake. However I do think he became a better person. Beyond coming to care about Rayon obviously, I think he does become much more compassionate towards the gay members of the buyers club and that it becomes much more about procuring the drugs for those that need them rather than the money. We even see him selling his car to fund the operation

I'm glad that you enjoyed Dallas Buyers Club, but I don't agree that it has much in common with Philadelphia beyond the obvious superficial similarities.

Thanks Vicky. Nice to see both yourself and Commodus making a return to the thread. :D Although you did miss out on the reps, just an oversight I'm sure! :p

And to be honest Philadelphia is just one of any number of films I could have chosen to illustrate the point that I felt it was a good/very good film without being truly special, but that it was elevated because of two excellent performances. Given their Aids link it just seemed the obvious, and I suppose you could say the lazy choice. I'd certainly say that when it comes to addressing Aids Dallas Buyers Club is certainly not as safe and a bit more in your face on the issue.

I still haven't seen Philadelphia. I couldn't
say -- but I bet Miss Vicky is right.

Not trying to just go by the gay stereotype but I'm surprised you've not seen it given your apparent interest in films about gay individuals and issues. Have you actively avoided it or just never got round to it?

Excellent review, JD. :up:

Thank you very much HK. I'm actually a little surprised that you read and repped it given its 21st century status! :D Is Dallas Buyers Club a rare one that you actually have some interest in?

I'll read those 2 after I've watched them sometime in a couple of months when the DVDs come out.

Looking forward to American Hustle after watching the brilliant Silver Linings Playbook like 3 times recently.

I'll hold you to that! In fact I think I need to start keeping a little notebook with all these promises. So that's you for American Hustle and Dallas Buyers Club, Godoggo for Thor: The Dark World etc. I'll become like the debt collector of reps. If you don't pay up with your reps, I'll break your freaking legs!!! :p

And good luck with American Hustle, I hope that you enjoy it a lot more than I did. Not a patch on Silver Linings Playbook in my eyes, and not close to being as engaging and satisfying an experience as Dallas Buyers Club.

Miss Vicky

02-16-14, 09:36 PM

Thanks Vicky. Nice to see both yourself and Commodus making a return to the thread. :D Although you did miss out on the reps, just an oversight I'm sure! :p

Fine, rep whore.

McConnaughay

02-17-14, 01:31 AM

I read your review over Rush, and I agree with a lot of the points that you made in the movie. The focus on the two-characters individuality is probably the best that I have seen since The Departed with Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio. Also, the story is wondrously beautiful to the point where you'd assume that it's romanticized, however, Niki Lauda actually commented on this movie, praising its authenticity and the reality that it carried as a whole. You walk into this movie ready to assume one person as the good guy and one person as the bad guy, and this was a movie that showed that things don't have to be so black and white.

JayDee

02-17-14, 04:49 PM

Returning to my season of comic book movies now although this was not originally part of it. I only just watched this recently and finished writing the review last night but thought I'd throw it in just now. Oh and aplogies to my good buddy Rodent who I know despite everything still did rather love this.

mirror mirror

Year of release
2013

Directed by
Zack Snyder

Written by
David S. Goyer
Christopher Nolan (story)

Starring
Henry Cavill
Amy Adams
Michael Shannon
Russell Crowe
Kevin Costner
Diane Lane

Man of Steel

2

Plot - The planet Krypton is on the verge of destruction, with nothing being done about it despite the warnings of Jor-El (Crowe), the planet's chief scientist. With Krypton's council overthrown by General Zod (Shannon) and his followers, Jor-El and his wife are able to send their newborn son, Kal-El, to safety by putting him on a spaceship bound for Earth. The ship lands in Smallville, Kansas where the infant boy is found by Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane) who raise him as their own. As he grows up the young Kal-El learns the truth about his birth and begins to discover that he has incredible powers at his disposal. Now an adult, Clark Kent (Cavill) wanders the Earth, living a Nomadic lifestyle when he discovers a Krytonian ship that crashed on Earth thousands of years ago. Also discovering the ship and Clark's secret is Daily Planet journalist Lois Lane (Adams), who after hearing his story decides to keep his true identity a secret. By accessing the crashed ship however, Clark has alerted General Zod to his presence. Travelling to Earth with his followers, Zod demands that humanity turns Clark over to them or face destruction. The only way that Zod can be stopped is if the newly dubbed 'Superman' can do so.

WARNING - SPOILERS
For anyone who has not seen Man of Steel yet but plans to subject themselves to it be warned that there are major spoilers ahead.

The release of this film sparked two main questions. The first was obviously about the quality of the film itself. And secondly, was Henry Cavill able to fulfil Christopher Reeve's substantial shoes and make for a worthy Superman? Well I personally think that both questions can be answered in almost the exact same way. Aesthetically they achieved the 'look' with a decent degree of success (Cavill's physique and Weta's visual effects respectively) but I found both the Superman character and the film as a whole to be completely lacking in any sense of warmth, heart, wit, humour or just good old fun. Over the course of the last decade Christopher Nolan took the superhero movie to new heights of credibility with his serious, realistic take on the Caped Crusader. With Nolan acting as a producer this time out, and having supplied the story alongside David S. Goyer, the film attempts to port over the same grim, gritty approach that worked so well for Batman. But this is Superman!!! Placing him in such a bleak world just does not feel right on any level.

As anyone who has paid a decent amount of attention to my reviews will know, I love my action movies! Were I forced to choose just a single genre to live with for the rest of my life, then action may well be the front runner. But as this movie proved, even I can suffer from action fatigue. There's an accepted way to approach a film such as this; spend 30-45 minutes building up the character to a point where we care about them and then throw them into the action. Well Man of Steel completely ignores that approach and turns it on its head. Right from the opening moments it is pretty much just one action sequence on top of another, with the film never really getting around to that pesky character development whatsoever. The film's final act does pretty much consist of just one never-ending smackdown that pits Superman against Zod and his cronies, a sequence which lasts some 45 minutes! Now it's possible to get away with this as long as the action is imbued with a degree of creativity and variety, as was evident in the big conclusion to The Avengers. Sadly I found both of those qualities to be completely lacking throughout their battle. It was just a constant stream of the characters punching and throwing each other through the infrastructure of Metropolis, destroying one building after another. This also threw up an issue that similarly affected Star Trek Into Darkness in my eyes - the glazing over of collateral damage. Just as with the final sequence of Into Darkness, the large scale destruction of their battle must have resulted in thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of deaths. And yet not once is it acknowledged. We never see a body and there is no mention of those who will surely have perished. And while Zod is responsible for much of the destruction, Supes himself would have to take some of the blame. It gives the impression that he doesn't care about the people of Metropolis, and yet when Lois is in trouble he springs into action.

Film Trivia Snippets - Across the numerous roles required for the film it seems that just about every name in Hollywood came into consideration at one point or another. When it came to the role of Clark's parents Julianne Moore, Lisa Rinna, Jodie Foster, Sela Ward and Elisabeth Shue were considered for the role of Martha Kent; while for the part of Jonathan Kent names under consideration were Dennis Quaid, Bruce Greenwood, Michael Biehn and Kurt Russell. When it came to the role of Jor-El both Sean Penn and Clive Owen were contemplated on, while Viggo Mortensen was in the frame to play General Zod. /// Now when it came to the characters of Lois Lane and Zod's henchman Faora it really does seem like every 20 or 30-something actress in Hollywood was pondered over. When it came to Lois Lane, names considered included Natalie Portman, Charlotte Riley, Anne Hathaway, Dianne Agron, Kristen Stewart, Malin Akerman, Rachel McAdams, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kristen Bell, Lake Bell, Olivia Wilde, Mila Kunis and Jessica Biel. And as Faora was concerned, Diane Kruger, Rosamund Pike, Alice Eve and Lindsay Lohan were talked about. /// Although Amy Adams did have quite a patient wait before she finally landed the role of Lois Lane. She had actually auditioned for the character twice before, first for an abandoned Brett Ratner version and then for Superman Returns.One of my main gripes wit the film was the entire look of it. The colour palette of the film matches its much bleaker tone, its aesthetic throughout is very drab, grey and washed out with nary a primary colour in sight. Again it just doesn't feel like a natural fit for the character or his world. I also had a lot of problems with Snyder's directorial style, hating many of the stylistic choices he went with. There's a style that is very prevalent these days and seems to be aimed at adding a sense of realism to a film. It's the shaky, handheld camera look with the lens flares and clumsy manual zooms. It's a style that works for certain types of films but not for a film of this nature. The tale of an alien dressed in blue tights fighting against other aliens isn't a story crying out for realism. Now as I mentioned in my opening statements of this indictment the visual effects by Weta are admittedly very impressive, so it's a shame that Snyder's clumsy, shaky direction works so hard to obscure them. The action sequences really do just become a chaotic blur that assaults your senses and attempts to beat you into submission by becoming ever and ever louder. While the credits may list Zack Snyder as Man of Steel's director I have my doubts about that. Throughout the film and especially during that mind-numbing finale that appears to last forever, I had someone else in mind shouting out directions - Anchorman's Brick Tamland.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/EWFzV_zps6644b55f.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/EWFzV_zps6644b55f.gif.html)

Alongside Snyder's direction where this film really falls down is with Goyer's woeful script which manages to fail on pretty much ever level. The plot was simplistic and completely uninvolving, the dialogue was clumsy and on occasion laughable and pretty much every single character was mishandled. Every single character across the board has absolutely zero depth and gives us no reason to care about them whatsoever. To call them merely one-dimensional would be generous in the extreme. And even the very few characteristics that Goyer does attempt to imbue them with feel completely wrong for such established characters. Particularly getting the shaft in this respect are Ma and Pa Kent. In pretty much every screen iteration so far, whether it be the original 1978 film, the 90s Lois & Clark TV show or the Superman prequel show Smallville, it has fallen to Jonathan and Martha Kent to raise Clark and teach him about the values of humanity. It is they who help mould Clark into this great beacon of hope for the world. Well not in Goyer's world they don't! That role is completely snatched away and given to Crowe's Jor-El, and even worse than that they are lacking in their typical humanity and compassion. At one stage Costner tells young Clark that perhaps he should have let his classmates die in a bus crash to preserve his secret. :eek: What?! Come on, that isn't even close to feeling right. And that leads us onto that scene. Even though its barely six months since the film was released, already the 'tornado scene' has reached a level of infamy in superhero circles that is arguably matched only by Peter Parker's emo dancing in Spider-Man 3. And it's certainly worthy of such infamy because it's a dreadful scene. To start with, the logic of Jonathan risking his life instead of the invincible Clark is already pushing it. The fact that Clark then holds himself back and allows his father to die? :facepalm: Beyond the poor writing of the scene it is also constructed and shot really poorly, resulting in a scene so bad that it's laughable.

While I understand that Man of Steel is a reboot of the character and the franchise, and that some things are perhaps going to be tinkered with, many of the story choices they have made are just baffling. As you'd expect the film opens on Krypton which admittedly is presented in quite impression fashion in terms of its visuals, and does feel decidedly alien. However I didn't think that it actually felt like Krypton; a feeling that was only enhanced when Jor-El hitches a ride on a f*cking dragon!!! Like I said I don't have an in-depth knowledge of Superman history so perhaps I'm missing something but where the hell did that come from? The only conclusion I was able to come to was that with Weta providing the visual effects for both this film and James Cameron's Avatar, they mistakenly included an errant CGI file of one of Avatar's flying beasties. Then there's the complete mishandling of the Superman/Clark Kent character. A large part of the reason why I've never particularly liked the Superman character is that as an invincible alien who is little more than a perennial do-gooder I don't find him all that relatable or interesting. It's the Clark Kent persona that brings some interest. It's the Clark Kent persona that brings humanity to the character and endears him to audiences. And yet this film chooses to withhold that side of his character until the very last second. Doing so also robs the film of that classic established dynamic that should exist between Clark and Lois, of Lois falling in love with Superman completely unaware that she is working side-by-side with him. In fact the whole relationship between the iconic lovers is really poor, never giving us any indication of any attraction or possible love there until out of nowhere their lips lock in a clinch at its conclusion.

And then there's the character of Superman and his sense of justice. I addressed Jonathan's death earlier, and as bad as that scene is, amazingly it has some strong competition in the controversy stakes amongst its viewers thanks to the conclusion of Superman and Zod's battle which sees Superman kill Zod by snapping his neck. Now while the scene didn't pain me as much as it does many other Superman purists, it still felt completely out of place for Superman to do such a thing, particularly in such a brutal fashion. And beyond how right or wrong it was for the character my other question about it would be - you can kill a Kryptonian just by snapping their neck? That seems a little bit simple. And if it was just that easy and Clark was willing to do it why not do it a lot earlier and save thousands of lives and millions/billions of property damage when he was just throwing him around Metropolis? Much of the film's dialogue too is clunky and risible, and at times I imagine I could feel the embarrassment of the actors having to deliver such lines, many of which would qualify as amongst the worst lines of the year. And at times the dialogue didn't even make sense, for example the moment where Zod tells Superman that “there's only one way this ends, Kal; either you die, or I do.” Hmmm. :confused: Now I'm not claiming to be a great maths whiz or anything, but I'm pretty sure that's two ways you've given there Zod old boy.

Film Trivia Snippets - For the iconic role of Superman himself, Henry Cavill emerged from the final shortlist of names to grab the part. The other names on that shortlist were Matthew Goode, Arnie Hammer, Matt Bomer, Joe Manganiello, Zac Efron and Colin O'Donoghue. And this finally allowed Cavill to shake off his tag as a nearly man. He had actually been attached to play Superman in the ill-fated “Superman: Flyby”, a project written by J.J. Abrams, directed by McG and set to star Robert Downey Jr. as Lex Luthor which eventually fell apart. When the project was revived a couple of years later Brandon Routh was instead cast in the role. Cavill had also been the runner-up to both Daniel Craig for the role of James Bond, and Christian Bale for Batman. /// /// When Zod broadcasts his message to Earth we see it being delivered in English, Chinese, Portugese, Esperanto and Klingon! /// Most of the scenes set in Smallville were filmed in Plainfield, Illinois. Coincidentally, a massive tornado actually destroyed much of the town in 1990 killing 29 people of of the town's 4500 population. A tornado obviously plays a large part in the film itself, leading to the death of Jonathan Kent. /// When it came to who would take the directorial reins, Darren Aronofsky, Duncan Jones, Ben Affleck, Tony Scott, Matt Reeves and Jonathan Liebesman were all considered before Zack Snyder was eventually chosen.When it comes to describing the performances, the all-encompassing keywords would be along the lines of 'bland' and 'flat'. Once again though this largely harkens back to Goyer's character development, or lack thereof, because the cast are given absolutely nothing to work with. And it's a real shame because it's actually quite a strong cast of talented individuals that was assembled, individuals such as Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner and Laurence Fishburne. And yet not one of them is able to rise up above the severe constraints placed upon them by the script. Cavill may have an impressive physique but his performance never hints at the charisma of Christopher Reeve, the man who will always be Superman. As for Amy Adams, I'm a big fan of hers but she just feels completely out of place for the entire film. And with so little material to work with it's no surprise to find that Cavill and Adams have absolutely no chemistry together. Now when it comes to villains for this type of venture there are generally two directions they can go in. You either get the over-the-top, colourful villain or you get the sadistic villain full of menace. Sadly Shannon's General Zod is pitched pretty much right in the middle, resulting in a very unmemorable nemesis for Superman to combat.

In the epic fanboy war that is Marvel v DC, I'm very much a Marvel guy, both on the page and the big screen. And in terms of the latter, if this is really the best that DC has to offer then that certainly won't be changing anytime soon. Make Mine Marvel!

Conclusion - Slower than a lackadaisical slug. Flimsier than a piece of wet cardboard. Able to flop spectacularly in a single movie. Man of Steel is a complete turkey. A turd. Or a turd-key if you would! Back in my review for Richard Donner's revered 1978 effort I noted how it was quite evident that the film-makers had a great affection for the Superman character. Well with Man of Steel I didn't detect a single trace of affection whatsoever from Goyer, Nolan and Snyder. Bleak, joyless, nihilistic and completely lacking in any warmth, humour, heart or simple fun. I may not be a Superman guy, but even I know this isn't right for a Superman film.

The Gunslinger45

02-17-14, 05:05 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I think you know my thoughts on this movie VERY well considering my own review of this turd. You hit the key points and then some. Needless to say Marvel rules the big screen.

JayDee

02-18-14, 05:46 PM

:eek: You don't expect me to read all that do you Sexy?!!! I'll age some five years going through that. :p

No it's very interesting hearing your thoughts on the subject, your own experiences and why you've perhaps avoided Philadelphia. I had never really thought of it that way, that it's a subject you'd not be looking to be confronted with really.

And I'll definitely have a look at Chapter 27 to see what it's all about. Never heard of it until now as far as I'm aware.

Fine, rep whore.

Oh don't be like that. I may be an admitted rep whore but there seems to be a sense of vitriol in that statement. :(

:p

I think you know my thoughts on this movie VERY well considering my own review of this turd. You hit the key points and then some. Needless to say Marvel rules the big screen.

I'll need to give your Man of Steel review another read actually. Was going to right after watching it but decided not to so it wouldn't influence my own review. And for anyone else I'd recommend you give it a read. From memory I think it covers a lot of the same points but complete with the anger and fury of someone who loves the character.

The Gunslinger45

02-18-14, 07:12 PM

I'll need to give your Man of Steel review another read actually. Was going to right after watching it but decided not to so it wouldn't influence my own review. And for anyone else I'd recommend you give it a read. From memory I think it covers a lot of the same points but complete with the anger and fury of someone who loves the character.

Oh there was anger alright! lol

Miss Vicky

02-18-14, 07:47 PM

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

I've never been much of a fan of super heroes and never cared for Superman in particular, so I can't say that I was disappointed with Man of Steel, but I also didn't like it.

I agree that the characters lacked much depth, but I put the blame for that squarely on the shoulders of Zack Snyder and David S. Goyer. Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner and Diane Lane have all shown themselves to be entirely capable of delivering wonderful performances in other films, but they could only do so much with the garbage they were given to work with here. I will say though that Cavill and Adams had zero chemistry together. Not sure who's to blame there.

What should have been a visual treat if nothing else, turned out to be overload. The fight scenes were too long and too disorienting. The only eye candy to be had came from Cavill and Crowe, both of whom I find incredibly sexy.

I'd probably rate it 2 as well.

Brodinski

02-24-14, 06:55 PM

I see you're still appreciating stuff like Equilibrium and Dark Angel over The Player, Quiz Show, and Big Lebowski. As I've said many times before, admirable work, but disagree with most of your scores.

TylerDurden99

02-24-14, 09:06 PM

I loved Man Of Steel a lot more than you did, but your review was well-written and I agreed with some of your points. However, I thought the acting was a lot better than you thought, particularly Kevin Costner and Henry Cavill.

Masterman

02-25-14, 03:42 PM

Love your reviews... But that one sucked :). I have very different opinions on Man Of Steel than most on here.

gandalf26

02-26-14, 01:17 PM

Masterman you should just accept that MOS sucked, that way you could move on with your life.

JayDee

02-26-14, 10:07 PM

Hey everyone. Sorry to have left you all in the lurch of late. Been feeling extremely poorly - unsettled stomach, feeling sick, constant headache, completely run down etc. Anyone just thought I'd pop in to say hello. Will try and be back with some more reviews soon.

Oh there was anger alright! lol

If my memory serves me right weren't you actually drunk when you wrote it? :p Or at least had been drinking?

I see you're still appreciating stuff like Equilibrium and Dark Angel over The Player, Quiz Show, and Big Lebowski. As I've said many times before, admirable work, but disagree with most of your scores.

Wow Brodinski, you're still alive. Long time no see. And of course the first thing you do is take a shot at my taste in movies! Well that's it, I quit. If I continue to disappoint you then there is no point in me continuing!

But seriously it's nice to see you back. And no I did not say that through gritted teeth whatsoever. :frustrated:

Oh and who the f*ck repped that post by the way? :p

Love your reviews... But that one sucked :). I have very different opinions on Man Of Steel than most on here.

Woah woah woah! Let's not say something you can't take back. 'Sucked' is a strong word. Just because you don't agree with my opinion does not mean the review sucked.

And you've actually reminded me of something - you hated The Avengers didn't you? So you hated The Avengers and loved Man of Steel? :eek:

Breakdown in logic! Cannot compute! Cannot compute! Cannot compute!

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/bb97b49570b302ff145b26047560f5c1_zpsc865b545.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/bb97b49570b302ff145b26047560f5c1_zpsc865b545.gif.html)

The Gunslinger45

02-26-14, 11:15 PM

Oh I was drinking Colt 45 malt liquor while writing that review all right. lol

nebbit

02-27-14, 07:17 PM

Oh I was drinking Colt 45 malt liquor while writing that review all right. lol
Naughty naughty http://www.smileys4msn.com/displaysmiley.php?show=4475

Masterman

02-28-14, 03:40 PM

Okay, my mistake. Your review was well written as always. Your opinion just sucked :).

gandalf26

02-28-14, 05:18 PM

Okay, my mistake. Your review was well written as always. Your opinion just sucked :).

Son of a Bitch is dug in like an Alabama tick!

http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsV/17613-15150.gif

JayDee

03-08-14, 01:38 PM

Thought it was about time I revived my reviews after the longest gap in quite some time. Got to say it was quite the bitch to set-up, really struggling with the new site. Anyway it's something a little bit different, it's a 2 For The Price Of 1 Review.

Oh and I also just remembered this little thing I made up a while ago.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Superherowarning_zpsaa62eaf9.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/Superherowarning_zpsaa62eaf9.jpg.html)

mirror mirror
Years of release
2004 / 2008

Directed by
Guillermo del Toro

Written by
Guillermo del Toro
Mike Mignola (graphic novels)

Starring
Ron Perlman
Selma Blair
Doug Jones
John Hurt
Rupert Evans
Karel Roden
Luke Goss

Hellboy / Hellboy II: The Golden Army

4 / 4 +

Hellboy Plot - During the last days of World War II, the Nazis attempt to use black magic to aid their failing cause. With the aid of Russian mystic, Grigori Rasputin (Roden), they open a portal to a monstrous dimension. A raid on the camp by Allied forces interrupts the ceremony before it can be completed, but not before a demon made its way through. Adopted by the Allies he would come to be known as Hellboy (Perlman). Raised under the tutelage of Professor Bruttenholm (Hurt) he serves the forces of good rather than evil, becoming a part of the BPRD (Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defence). Decades later Hellboy will face his greatest battle when Rasputin returns from the world to which he was sent.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army Plot - Long ago a war was waged between the forces of mankind and of the magical creatures that inhabit this land. When the elven King Balor has an indestructible army called The Golden Army constructed, they laid waste to the humans. Overcome with guilt however, Balor strikes a truce with the humans to co-exist in peace, and locks the army away deep within the Earth. If Balor's son Prince Nuada (Goss) has his way however the Army will once again be unleashed upon humanity. He has broken the ancient pact and declared war against mankind. With this unstoppable force about to be unleashed upon the Earth, it is once again up to Hellboy and his team-mates to protect all of humanity.

There have now been dozens and dozens of superhero films released on the big screen, any yet it is still only a small handful of actors who have really encapsulated their respective character and become synonymous with them. Christopher Reeve and Robert Downey Jr. would probably be top of the list when it comes to actors who have become iconic for their superhero counterparts; in their cases Superman and Iron Man respectively. For every success story that was Reeve, Downey or Hugh Jackman there have been numerous high-profiles flops that have drawn the ire of fanboys the world over - Halle Berry, Ben Affleck, Jessica Alba, even the Hollywood golden boy that is George Clooney. Well I think than Ron Perlman deserves to join Reeve and Downey on the Mount Rushmore of great superhero casting decisions. He is absolutely perfect in the role of Hellboy. The shortlist of actors who have the requisite frame for the character, but who also have the acting talent and comic timing for the role must be absolutely minuscule. But Perlman, standing at over 6 foot tall and possessing of a hulking frame,certainly looks the part of Hellboy and also has the acting chops required to make him an endearing character. It's a tough ask to act through make-up and prosthetics but Perlman pulled it offbeautifully. Throughout the two films he is also given a whole hostof one-liners to deliver and he knocks just about every one of them out of the park with his droll, sarcastic delivery. While the films themselves are a lot of fun in general, it is Perlman's performancethat really makes them work.

What might come as a surprise is just how much heart and emotion there is to be found in the character of Hellboy, with Perlman again due much of the credit. Despite his physical prowess and demonic appearance he is really still a big kid, acting out against his superiors and constantly pushing against the will of his father, and the rules he lays out to him. For all his red skin and horns the character is actually very human. All he really is is a gruff, blue-collared joe who very much resembles a grizzled old cop. Deeply in love with Liz we see his desperate attempts at winning her back, and his extreme jealousy and insecurity when a new man enters her life. He proves to be a really likeable, charming character, highlighted by moments such as when he eats cookies on a rooftop with a young boy, or the great scene in the sequel where both he and Abe Sapien are having girl troubles so get drunk and sing a duet of Barry Manilow's “Can't Smile Without You.”

There are also a couple of other examples of fine casting to be found in the films. Selma Blair I thought was a great choice for the character of Liz Sherman. While still beautiful she just has this naturally tragic, wounded quality that just fits perfectly for the troubled and traumatised fire-starter. Together she and Perlman actually develop a shockingly sweet and touching romance, so much so that you almost forget that one of them just happens to be a large red demon. As Trevor Bruttenholm, the directorof B.P.R.D. (Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense), John Hurt brings a great deal of heart to his performance as Hellboy's surrogate father of sorts, making it a real shame just how limited his role in the sequel is. Also a real miss in the sequel I felt was the vocal talent of David Hyde Pierce. While the voice of Doug Jones was a very capable replacement I didn't feel that it quite had thesame character and appeal of Pierce. It is rather made up for however with the addition of the Seth McFarlane-voiced Johann Krauss; a disembodied ectoplasmic spirit. Completely fulfilling the role of a stereotypical German he is an up-tight and extremely by the book individual whose style frequently clashes with that of Hellboy, with highly entertaining consequences. Alongside Pierce's voice, another element dropped from the first film was the character of John Myers who had been played by Rupert Evans. I felt that Evans had done a decent job in the original film but he was no great miss in the sequel as the character was rather bland and wet behind the ears. Oh and a big thumbs up for Jeffrey Tambor's small but extremely amusing addition to both films.

Hellboy trivia - Bringing the character of Hellboy to the big screen was a long term passion project for Del Toro, in fact it took him a total of six years to finally realise this dream. Such was his passion that he turned down numerous other projects including Alien vs Predator and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban so that he could direct it. All that said however he was not actually the studio's preferred choice, with others underconsideration including Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Peter Hyams and David S.Goyer. /// Del Toro also had quite a few other obstacles to overcome before he could bring Big Red to the screen. He was desperate to cast Ron Perlman in the role of Hellboy, but could never secure a budget or studio approval. Following the massive success of Blade II however del Toro was offered the chance to make Blade: Trinity or Hellboy,obviously opting for the latter. Even then however he had to deal with the film's producers. When del Toro met with them many changes to the character were suggested. One idea was to have Hellboy be a human who transforms into Hellboy when he gets angry. Another suggestion was that he came from hell but was a normal human. del Toro vetoed all such attempts to alter the character. The studio also wanted Vin Diesel to play Hellboy. /// The make-up process that both Ron Perlman and Doug Jones had to go through was very intensive. Perlman's make-up took four hours to apply every day, while for Jones it took anywhere from five to seven hours to apply the make-up, and a further three hours to reverse the process. /// The exterior shot of the BPRD is in fact a mausoleum in Prague where Russian dignitaries are entombed. /// During filming for the subway scenes Ron Perlman broke a rib when he jumped onto a train that he was coming towards him atabout 45 mph.When it comes to the villains who provide the threat for Hellboy and the world at large, both films share the same strengths but also the same weaknesses. The main villain in the first film is Grigori Rasputin, a Russian mystic played by Karel Roden. Possessing great paranormal abilities we initially see him working with the Nazis in a bid to open a portal to another dimension. During the attempt the Allied Forces attack and he winds up being sucked into the portal. He is resurrected however in the modern day, still intent on opening the portal. As a character we never really get to know him all that much, learning very little about him or his motivations. One respect he does work in however is visually, proving to be a very stern and imposing presence. And I rather love his costume design, particularly his steampunk gauntlet glove. Even though he is the main antagonist of the piece however it's left to his henchman to make the biggest impact. Karl Ruprecht Kroenen was a highly skilled Nazi assassin who became Rasputin's disciple. Like Rasputin we don't get a great deal of characterisation for him but he makes an exceptionally vivid impression. An extreme case of body dysmorphic disorder left him obsessed with perfecting his body, leading to him conducting brutal experiments on his own body that included the removal of his eyelids, lips and all of his toe and finger nails. Visually he is a fantastic and truly disturbing creation. In his uniform he resembles a sort of steampunk gimp;extremely creepy and that's before we see him unmasked, revealing the horrors that lie beneath.

And it is almost the same story in the sequel. The main villain this time out is Luke Goss' Prince Nuada, an elf out to destroy humanity and claim Earth for the magical creatures who have been forced to dwell in the shadows. Again he is a very strongly designed and realised character whose great skill in combat results in some fantastic action sequences. While his character does not have great depth there is certainly more to him than Rasputin, particularly when it comes to the interesting relationship he has with his sister, Nuala. With him representing the dark and her the light there is a real yin and ying dynamic to their relationship with their psychic link also adding to the intrigue. Nuada's main henchman is another tremendously intimidating and creative figure in visual terms. Going by the name of Mr Wink, he is a giant cave troll with large tusks and a giant metal fist that he can wield as a weapon.

Hellboy II Trivia - As was the case with the first film del Toro turned down several other projects so that he could bring Hellboy back onto the big screen. Peter Jackson had approached him with the opportunity to direct Halo but he turned that down, as he did I Am Legend, One Missed Call and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. /// At the start of the film we get a prologue featuring Hellboy as a young boy. Well he was actually played by an adult woman, Montse Ribe. /// The resting place of the Golden Army was originally scripted to be under water, requiring the main characters to swim to it. This concept was removed for budgetary reasons. /// The female reporter that interviews Hellboy outside of the auction house is actually Ron Perlman's daughter, Blake. /// Filming proved to be a real test of endurance for Doug Jones. When in costume as either Abe Sapien, the Chamberlain or The Angel of Death he was rendered almost completely blind and deaf from the prosthetic pieces on his head. While in the Angel of Death costume the mechanical wings that he wore weighed about 40 pounds. Doug was originally supposed to walk around the set, but when it was discovered that he could barely stand, they instead hung him from a wire. This is why The Angel of Death floats. /// And he wasn't the only one to have a tough time. Brian Steele portrayed the characterof Mr Wink and his costume weighed 130 pounds, causing him to lose nearly a stone in weight through sweating. He also had to wear 10-inch stilts while in the suit. /// Speaking of Mr Wink, the character was actually based on Selma Blair's pet dog. Just like the monster in the film, Blair's dog was called Wink and had just one eye. /// Seth MacFarlane based his accent for Johann Krauss on Jeremy Irons' character from Die Hard: With a Vengeance.When you look at the films of Guillermodel Toro it's quite clear that there are two genres which most inform his work; horror and fantasy. And his Hellboy films are no exception, with each representing one of those respective genres. The first film is certainly the darker of the two films, embracing the element of horror that is inherent in Mike Mignola's creation. And even though there is a plentiful amount of humour it is largely of the very dark variety. My favourite example is probably the scene set in a cemetery where Hellboy digs up a corpse and reanimates it so that it can give him directions. He proceeds to carry the understandably grumpy fellow over his shoulder as it hurls insults at him. The sequel takes the characters into a much more fantastical and magic-laced world, where the horrific Lovecraftian monsters of the first film are disposed of in favour of creatures of a more fairytale variety. Each film sets out its tone right from the opening moments. Hellboy opens with a prologue that feels very much inspired by the classic Hammer horror films. Taking place on a remote island that is being battered by rain and lightning it is a very dark and gothic setting. Though it does feature an adorably cute Hellboy as a baby. In contrast the sequel opens in a much more whimsical, fairytale like nature. Set on Christmas Eve in 1955 we find a young Hellboy waiting impatiently for Santa Claus. In an attempt to get him to sleep his father (a welcome return for John Hurt) reads him an old story about a battle between humans and magical creatures, and the birth of the titular Golden Army. As the story unfolds we see it presented on screen as a rather crude, but charming, puppet show that mimics the style of the Howdy Doody TV show that Hellboy was watching.

In just about every way it really does seem like the world of Hellboy was a dream project for Del Toro; the perfect canvas for him to unleash his uniquely creative and imaginative machinations upon the audience. It's a venture that demands he delivers just about everything that he seems to love; unique creatures, Lovecraftian monsters, terrific make-up and prosthetics work, and a blending of horror, fantasy, humour and emotion. One of the reasons that I love the films of Guillermo del Toro is that they really allow you a glimpse into his unique mind, in fact I'd love to live in his mind for a little while. So as you would expect both films are wonderful when it comes to their visuals. They really are like works of art, with the art design, sets, props and creatures being beautifully crafted. The effects throughout both films, both practical and CGI, are just fantastic, helping to bring to life so many of del Toro's trademark touches such as his affinity for intricate clockwork machinery, insect imagery, steampunk elements, religious symbolism and unique creatures. The incredible work done by all the craftsmen involved is actually a large reason as to why I love the Hellboy films so much. And that side of things reaches its zenith with the troll market sequence in the sequel. It is an absolute feast for the eyes with an astonishing set populated by all manner of creatures and knick-knacks. Every frame is just jam-packed by an unending assortment of creativity. No matter how many times you watch it you're always likely to spot something you had never seen before. I honestly could write paragraph after paragraph on the Hellboy films while merely just focusing on its design and effects, analysing each character design etc.

And del Toro makes sure that none of the immense craft on show is put to waste, utilising it to deliver fantastic images and vivid visuals thanks to some superb shot compositions and use of colour. The man also knows how to stage an action set-piece, delivering some thrilling sequences across both films. The first film features a host of great big smackdowns that pit Hellboy against Raspurin and his hellhound Sammael, with the whole finale set in Rasputin's mausoleum being a real highlight. The sequel certainly meets and arguably surpasses the challenge throwndown by its predecessor. They also throw in quite a bit of variety,whether it be the chaotic attack of the freakish little tooth fairies, the graceful and beautifully choreographed swordplay of Prince Nuada or even when playing it for laughs in the creative little scuffle that occurs between Hellboy and Johann Krauss. The action is great fun, as are the films in whole.

Conclusion - Taking inspiration from Mike Mignola's highly acclaimed source material Guillermo del Toro was able to assemble two fantastic and unique entries in the superhero genre. Trying to separate them is a really difficult task,but I'd probably just have to give the edge to the sequel; it's villain is a bit more intriguing, it delivers perhaps even more laughs and this time Del Toro is really allowed to run rampant when it comes to his creativity. If anything it somehow makes the first film look conservative in its production design and creature effects by comparison. Both films are fantastically fun, bad-ass films which feature humour, a lot of heart, incredible art design and in Ron Perlman, an actor just born to play a part. Great stuff.

Bonus Trivia - When Mike Mignola (the creator of Hellboy) and Guillermo del Toro first met to discuss the movie they decided to reveal to each other their dream choice for the role of Hellboy. Both men said Ron Perlman at the exact same time. /// There are a couple of references to Mike Mignola in the first Hellboy film. During Liz's flashback sequence, an apartment complex named "Mignola Plaza" can be seen in the background while in the Russian cemetery one of the headstones reads “Here Likes Mike Mignola” /// Hellboy's line to Liz in the first film; “I'll always look this good”, was actually something that del Toro said to his future wife when she took issue with his very casual mode of dressing. /// When the make-up artist Matt Rose at Cinovation studios wanted to start working on the make-up design for the Hellboy character, they went into their archives and found that they already had a life mask of Perlman from when Rick Baker had made his prosthetics for the 80s TV show Beauty and the Beast. Some slight changes were required to account for Perlman having aged 16 years./// To prepare for his role as Hellboy Ron Perlman read every issue of the comics and worked out three hours a day, five to seven days a week. He also worked out while shooting, every day he had off from filming, he would workout. /// In the first film Doug Jones played the part of Abe Sapien but had his voice dubbed over by David Hyde Pierce. Pierece however refused a credit for the film because he felt the character was entirely Jones' creation and he did not wish to detract from his performance. He also didn't take part in any promotions or interviews for the film, or even attend its premiere. This didn't exactly please the producers who hoped that Pierce's name would help to make the film a box-office smash. As a result in the sequel Jones also provides the voice.

The Gunslinger45

03-08-14, 02:17 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

As a fellow comic book fanboy I dug the hell out of these movies. Even though I will admit I have never read any of the source material. Del Toro is an excellent filmmaker and his production design is fantastic as always.

Masterman

03-08-14, 03:55 PM

Nice review as always, but not really a fan of Hell Boy.

cricket

03-09-14, 01:46 AM

I guess I should watch these before submitting my comic book list. That makes 5 movies that I have to get in pretty quick.

JayDee

03-10-14, 10:12 PM

I'd certainly recommend that you do so. :yup: What are other movies you want to try and fit in?

nebbit

03-11-14, 02:06 AM

I know we got 2 for one but that was epic and great :yup:

JayDee

03-12-14, 10:41 PM

Man posting these reviews are killing me just now because of the struggles with the new site. Need to try and come up with something that works a lot better

Anyway I have 3 reviews left in my comic book season, and just to warn everyone these are also old favourites of mine, I'm talking top 100 material. So the ratings are going to skyrocket

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

mirror mirror

Year of release
1994

Directed by
Alex Proyas

Written by
David J. Schow
John Shirley
James O'Barr (graphic novel)

Starring
Brandon Lee
Rochelle Davis
Ernie Hudson
Michael Wincott
Anna Levine
Bai Ling

The Crow

4.5

Plot - On the night before their wedding, rock singer Eric Draven (Lee) and his fiancé Shelly are brutally killed by a gang of thugs on Devil's Night. Exactly one year later, Eric Draven rises from the dead with the intention of getting revenge on those responsible for his death and the death of the woman he loved. Guided by a crow and blessed with supernatural powers, he begins to track down the killers one by one. While he is able to pick them off with ease, he faces a tougher task when it comes to their boss, crime lord Top Dollar (Wincott). If he is to complete his task and gain his vengeance he will need to rely on the help of a young girl he befriended when he was alive, Sarah (Rochelle Davis), and a cop who looks out for Sarah, Sergeant Albrecht (Hudson).

One of the reasons I love this film so much is due to the numerous different levels that it works on. On the one hand it's a great, bad-ass vigilante flick full of righteous vengeance and gruesome violence. It's also a damn good action film with some excellent set-pieces. As well as a pitch black romantic fantasy.And it's also a deliciously gothic slice of the supernatural. I just adore the whole look and feel of the film. It's just so damn atmospheric, brooding and gloomy. The Detroit presented here is a hellish, almost otherworldly place. One of the most iconic lines of dialogue in the movie is Eric Draven's “it can't rain all the time.” Well apparently no-one told that to Detroit! With its forever rain-lashed streets, seemingly eternal nights, dark and grimy aesthetic and the billowing of smoke from fires all over the city it is a tremendously evocative and fitting setting for the story. The film's frequent fly-over shots of the cityscape are excellent, taking great advantage of an impressive mix of sets, miniatures, special effects and visual tricks to create a convincing world populated by dark, grimy streets and exaggerated, impressionistic architecture. Also impressive is the entire production design of Alex McDowell, with the set and art departments coming up with some wonderful creations. And that work is brilliantly captured by the cinematography of Dariusz Wokski. There's something of Gotham city about the look of the place, although by comparison it makes the Gotham presented in Tim Burton's Batman films look like a decidedly cheery place. It's terrifically noirish. In terms of bringing its comic book source material to life I'd have to put this up alongside the likes of Sin City as being one of the closest translations from page to screen ever produced. Oh and I almost forgot the character of The Crow himself. With his painted face and draped all in black, he is a fantastically vivid and powerful visual. It's no wonder you still see people breaking the look out at Halloween for costume parties.

In the lead role Brandon Lee is excellent, bringing a real charisma and a poetic, mysterious presence to the character. He also has a real aura of sorrow and tragedy about him that is perfect for the character, and is undoubtedly heightened by the tragic accident that befell him on the set. The knowledge of that adds an additional weight and pathos to the film. With the film's comic book roots, the white painted face of the character and the tragic death of Lee there is an unavoidable link to Heath Ledger and his portrayal of the The Joker. And just like Ledger, we are sadly left to only imagine just how much this film may have elevated Lee's career. At the very least this film exists to serve as a wonderful epitaph to Lee and what may have been. It's an amazingly tragic coincidence that the exact same fate befell Brandon's father Bruce, who passed away all too young but also left an indelible reminderof his talents with Enter the Dragon. Also proving to be tragically ironic is just how closely the character of Eric Draven mirrors that of Brandon Lee himself. Like his character, Lee was just weeks away from getting married when he sadly died. And his death actually occurred while filming the death scene of his character. It really does give the film an inadvertently haunting quality.

As his main nemesis, Lee finds a wonderful counterbalance in the form of Michael Wincott as Top Dollar. He hams it up to a wonderfully nefarious level, creating a spectacularly evil and despicable villain. In fact there's something almost Satan-esque about him, bringing to mind the suited businessman-Devil creations of De Niro and Pacino in Angel Heart and The Devil's Advocate respectively. He is also able to generate a few laughs with his deliciously deadpan delivery. While he is the undoubted stand-out amongst the villains that Eric faces, there are also a series of very colourful characters surrounding him. In the role of Top Dollar's twister lover/half-sister, Myca, Bai Ling may not got much in the way of dialogue but certainly makes an impact thanks to her character's depraved nature and tendency for sadistic violence. And the fact that's she damn sexy in a scary kind of way certainly doesn't hurt! :D Also making a memorable impression as Top Dollar's henchmen are David Patrick Kelly (T-Bird), Angel David (Skank), Laurence Mason (Tin-Tin) and Michael Massee (Funboy). There are also some highly entertaining performances from some great character actors. Ernie Hudson of Ghostbusters fame is very likeable as Sgt. Albrecht, the beat cop who looks out for Sarah and comes to aid Eric. While as Gideon, the piece of trash pawn shop owner, Jon Polito is as entertaining as always. Oh and in the role of Sarah there is Rochelle Davis. She may not come across as the most skilled of actresses (though to be fair it was only her first performance, and her last until 2009) but she makes the character a sympatheticand strong character with bravery and street smarts.

Film Trivia Snippets - Before Brandon Lee was cast in the role of Eric Draven both Christian Slater and River Phoenix were approached about it. While James O'Barr ideally wanted Johnny Depp to take on the role. Although wait until you hear about the plans the movie's executives had for the film. When James O'Barr met with them they originally wanted to make it into a musical starring Michael Jackson! :eek: Thinking it was a joke, O'Barr immediately began to laugh uncontrollably, only to find out that they were actually serious. It was only when Brandon Lee and Alex Proyas came on board that they movie took on a more serious tone. /// I mentioned how James O'Barr had wanted Johnny Depp for the part. He originally wasn't that happy with the casting of Brandon Lee in the lead role. Up until then all he had seen Lee in was Showdown in Little Tokyo and feared that it would end up as a Kung Fu movie and go straight to video. When he first met Lee on the set in the make-up and iconic outfit however he was thrilled with him. He was amazed by Brandon's take on the character when he spoke the exact lines from the comics. /// When it came to the role of Shelly, it was actually offered to Cameron Diaz but she turned it down as she didn't like the script. /// It seems that it may have been fated for Brandon Lee to die on set, and that you could perhaps have predicted it. According to a biography of Bruce Lee, he actually predicted his son's death when he awoke from a coma. He apparently foresaw his death on a set before Brandon had even considered taking up a career as an actor. The production itself also appeared to be rather cursed. During the first day of shooting a carpenter on the crew suffered severe burns after his crane hit live power lines. On subsequent days there was a grip truck that caught fire, a disgruntled sculptor crashed his cart through the studio's plaster shop, and a crew member accidentally drove a screwdriver through his hand. Lee too suffered a mishap before the accident that cost him his life. During the scene in Gideon's pawn shop Lee cut himself when he broke the glass. It was breakaway glass and it's very rare that anyone ever gets cut by it. Jon Polito actually told Lee that he was feared he would die in an on-set accident like Vic Morrow did on Twilight Zone: The Movie. /// Originally Alex Proyas wanted to shoot the entire movie in black and white to closer mimic the original comics, only using colour in the flashback scenes. The studio executives weren't keen on the idea however, making him shoot the movie in a monochromatic colour theme mixed with red and dark grey.

Re-watching this film I was really impressed by Alex Proyas' direction. His compositions and sweeping camera work make for a very grand, operatic experience. He just gives it such an epic feel at times, particularly in the final face-off between Eric and Top Dollar up on the rooftop. With the camera swooping high over the city, or dropping down to give shots at extreme low angles, Proyas' direction really does seem to strive to create images that could live just as comfortably on the pages of a comic book as they do up on the big screen. There is also some striking use of shadows throughout and Proyas keeps the whole thing flying along at a breakneck pace. Also adding to the overall atmosphere of the film is its terrific soundtrack. When James O'Barr was creating the original graphic novel he would constantly listen to songs by the likes of Joy Division, Iggy Pop and The Cure for inspiration. Therefore it feels very fitting that the soundtrack is composed exclusively of hard rock and heavy metal, featuring amongst others The Cure, Nine Inch Nails, Rage Against the Machine and Pantera. Alongside these songs there is Graeme Revell's excellent score; a terrifically intense, edgy and eerie creation. Together they create a soundtrack for the film that perfectly reflects its dark mood.

In terms of flaws I know that many people who don't like the film would likely point out the simple, superficial story and its one-dimensional, stereotypical characters. While I'll concede that there may be something in that, for me its style and striking visuals more than make up for it. And while The Crow is a film that undoubtedly revels in how stylish it is, I certainly don't think it's a case of just being style over substance. The film has a real degree of heart to it, as a result of both the romance between Eric and Shelly, and the story of the young girl Sarah. The Crow presents an immense love, one for the ages, where not even death proves to be an obstacle that cannot be overcome. Though one thing that I would have liked to have seen more of were flashbacks of Eric and Shelley together in happier times. Also bringing some emotion is Sarah's quest to survive on the tough streets with a junkie mother. Her voice-over which both opens and closes the film talks of preserving the memories of those that you have loved and lost, and was added after Lee's death in a bid to soften the film. People who aren't great fans of the film may also accuse it of being dated, but as an admirer I prefer to think of itas a time capsule of the early 90s, capturing much of what was considered cool at the time - gothic stylings, the grunge movement, black leather being the height of fashion etc. And the film does at times resemble the music videos that dominated the likes of MTV and VH1 in the early 90s.

One thing I will say is that it perhaps helped that I first saw this film when I was a teenager. I think it really is a film that appeals to a younger demographic, particularly those of an adolescent standing. It will obviously be one of the go-to films for those of the goth and emo persuasion but I think in general it will just appeal to people of that age. It seems that at that age, more than any other, we are more prone to feeling dark, troubled and rebellious, with this film suitably tapping into that. Had I come to the film for the first time when I was older there's a chance I may have seen it more silly and campy.

Conclusion - A visceral and lurid revenge fantasy that is directed with style and flair by Alex Proyas, features a fantastically vulnerable and mesmerising central performance from Brandon Lee that is set in a world created by some tremendous production design. When I originally saw this film as an impressionable teen I thought it was one of the coolest things I'd ever seen. Even now, more than a decade later, there is still a great deal of truth in that for me.

Bonus Film Trivia - As everyone knows Brandon Lee tragically died during a mishap on the set. A scene required a gun to be loaded, cocked, and then pointed at the camera. Because of the close-range of the shot, the dummy cartridges loaded had real brass caps, a bullet, but no powder. After the cut, the props master (not the arms master - he had left the set for the day) dry-fired the gun to get the cock off, knocking the projectile/bullet into the barrel of the gun. The next scene to be filmed involving that gun was the rape of Shelly. The gun was loaded with blanks (which usually contain double or triple the powder of a normal cartridge to make a loud noise). Lee entered the set carrying a bag of groceries containing an explosive blood pack. The script called for Funboy (Michael Massee) to shoot Eric Draven as he entered the room, triggering the blood pack. The bullet that was stuck in the barrel was blasted at Lee through the bag he was carrying, killing him. The footage of his death was subsequently developed and used as evidence in the investigation into his death. As part of the lawsuit settlement, the footage was later destroyed. /// Although he personally was not at fault for Lee's death, Michael Massee was so traumatised by his involvement in the incident that he stopped acting for over a year. To this day he has also never brought himself to actually watch the film.

The Gunslinger45

03-12-14, 10:55 PM

gandalf26

03-13-14, 07:46 PM

Not sure that I've ever seen The Crow all the way through, will have to watch it again given you re high review.

JayDee

03-14-14, 09:14 PM

I know we got 2 for one but that was epic and great :yup:

Thanks nebbsy. :up: Always a treat when you drop by.

You present the case of a true fan. Even though I admit I never cared for it.

Thanks GS. And that's a shame you've never particularly taken to it. Out of interest what age were you when you first saw it?

The Gunslinger45

03-14-14, 09:20 PM

I was 18 when I first saw it. I was forbidden to rent it from Blockbuster as a teenager. By the time I saw it, the movie could not live up to the hype.

edarsenal

03-14-14, 10:22 PM

i think i saw this at the movie theater somewhere around 8 times when it first came out and was already a fan of the comics, having seen the originals here in detroit through dark horse comics (an underground publisher at the time) and was, and remain to be VERY impressed with the entirety of this movie. DAMN FINE review, jay

also, let me add another DAMN FINE to the Hellboy reviews. I'm a huge fan of del Torro and his fantastical brilliance he brings to his movies. There is a lot of love there in that man for his art and he really expressed it with hellboy and i firmly agree, Perlman was frickin perfect at hellboy

JayDee

03-15-14, 07:06 PM

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

mirror mirror
Year of release
2008

Directed by
Jon Favreau

Written by
Mark Fergus / Hawk Ostby
Art Marcum / Matt Holloway

Starring
Robert Downey Jr.
Jeff Bridges
Terrence Howard
Gwyneth Paltrow
Shaun Toub

Iron Man

4.5 ++

Plot - Tony Stark (Downey) is a scientific genius, a billionaire, a playboy extraordinaire and son of legendary inventor and weapons contractor Howard Stark. While giving a weapons presentation in Afghanistan, the convoy he is riding with comes under attack from enemy combatants. During the attack he is severely wounded by an explosion which leaves him with a chest-full of shrapnel. When he awakes he finds himself held captive in a cave by Afghani rebels, with a car battery attached to his heart being the only thing keeping him alive. When the terrorists holding him order him to construct one of his company's missiles, Stark instead uses the materials to build an armoured suit which he uses to escape. Returning to America he refines both the technology keeping the shrapnel from his heart, and the armour. His time in captivity has changed him however and he no longer wants his company to be in the business of producing weapons. This decision brings him into contention with the board of directors and his second in command Obidah Stane (Bridges). With the help of his assistant Pepper Potts (Paltrow), Tony Stark has vowed to become a better man, starting with becoming the superhero known as Iron Man.

Spider-Man. Thor. The Hulk. Captain America. Wolverine. The X-Men. The Fantastic Four. Daredevil. Perhaps even Blade after his forays onto the big screen. Pre-2008 all of those Marvel individuals and teams were arguably more popular than Iron Man, and they certainly had a larger awareness in popular culture. I mean exactly who the hell was Iron Man? Had the Tin Man from Wizard of Oz had an upgrade and got his own spin-off? Who was this guy and why should we care? He was certainly a B-level character, if even that! Well that all changed in May of 2008 with the release of this film. After the film had completed its box-office run and racked up an impressive total of $585 million the character was well on its way to leap-frogging all the way to the top, with arguably only Spider-Man rivalling his popularity, certainly in cinema terms. And in fact you could perhaps argue that Iron Man has actually surpassed Spidey at the cinema considering that no Spider-Man film has ever made over a billion dollars like Iron Man 3 did. Not only did it prove to be a big film for the character of Iron Man, but I think it was a big film for Marvel and comic book movies at large. Iron Man was the first comic book movie that didn't include Spider-Man, the X-Men, Batman or Superman to make serious money, and it just confirmed the rampant appetite that audiences currently had for superheroes. It was no longer just the big names that everyone already knew that were ripe for the big screen. It also augured well for Marvel's ambitious plans for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Up until that point some people may have thought of it as being an ill-advised and overly ambitious project but this confirmed that it may well work. And as it turned out it certainly did. Iron Man marked the beginning of 'Phase One' which would culminate in the box-office behemoth that was The Avengers.

While the film has a lot going for it, without a doubt it is the performance of Robert Downey Jr that really ensured that I and many other people fell in love with it. Back in 2007 when it was announced that he had been cast I thought it was a great decision that showed both vision and a bit of bravery. Given that Downey and Tony Stark seemed like kindred spirits I thought he would be able to do an excellent job at capturing the arrogance and swagger of the character, of handling his acerbic and witty humour and of relating to the character's search for redemption. In the film, following his escape from capture Tony Stark decides that after seeing first-hand the dangers of his weapons he is going to dedicate himself to making the world a better place and attempts to prove to everyone that he is a changed individual. While it may not have reached the same lofty heights, Robert Downey Jr found himself in a similar predicament. After his much publicised problems (drug abuse, arrests, rehab, relapses) which were very much aired in public Downey had a lot to prove. He had to prove that he could still be a draw at the box office, that he could be trusted with such a big film and that he could be trusted to be the face of a franchise going forward. So while I may thought that Marvel had pulled off a bit of a masterstroke with his casting even I couldn't have imagined just how perfect a fit he would be however. He absolutely sparkles throughout the whole film, tackling the character with a tremendous charisma. And his charisma is important because on his own the character may not be the most easily likeable given his ego and narcissistic nature. Downey however brings depth, heart and lots of humour to the role. In the words of Jon Favreau he thought Downey would be perfect because he felt the actor's past was right for the part. He commented: "The best and worst moments of Robert's life have been in the public eye. He had to find an inner balance to overcome obstacles that went far beyond his career. That's Tony Stark. Robert brings a depth that goes beyond a comic book character having trouble in high school, or can't get the girl." Favreau also felt Downey could make Stark "a likable b*stard", but also depict an authentic emotional journey once he won over the audience.” Of all the actors who have portrayed superheroes on film I think Downey is the gold standard thus far.

While it's certainly Robert Downey Jr's performance that will bring the audience in and resonate most strongly, the efforts of the whole cast are on the whole fairly impressive. The great Jeff Bridges is damn good in the role of Obidah Stane, initially as Tony's reasonably genial business partner and later displaying a substantial amount of sleeze and menace. I may not be a huge fan of hers but I thought Gwyneth Paltrow was also pretty good here, and had a nice, easygoing chemistry with Downey. In the role of Rhodey I thought that Terrence Howard was decent but a bit bland, and I didn't feel it was any great loss when he was replaced for the sequels with Don Cheadle. The other great performance I thought came from Shaun Toub as Yinsen, Tony's saviour and fellow captive in the cave. He may not be in the film for a substantial amount of time but he made a sizeable impact in my eyes with a very warm, compassionate performance. As a result of his showing I also found the death of his character to be very touching. Oh and Iron Man sees the first appearance of the charming Clark Gregg on his way to stardom as Agent Phil Coulsen. Originally it was a much smaller role, so much so that his character was initially only called 'Agent.' During filming however it became apparent how much chemistry he had with all the other actors, so more and more scenes were added for him, and he would eventually become a large part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Film Trivia - You might think that Iron Man is one of those films that had to wait for technology to catch up before it could be produced. As it turns out however the film has been languishing in development hell since April of 1990. At the times the rights were held by Universal who had Stuart Gordon (Re-Animator) lined up to direct. Nothing came off it however and in 1996 the rights were acquired by 20th Century Fox. During this stage Nicholas Cage expressed a strong interest in the project but again there was no positive moment. Two years later Tom Cruise became interested in both producing and starring in the film, and was so keen on becoming Tony Stark that he actually commissioned a script by Stan Lee and Jeff Vintar. Despite this it still couldn't make its way into production. In 1999 Quentin Tarantino of all people was approached to direct but once again there was no progress. In 2000 the rights were taken over by New Line, who had a new script in hand and actually started talking to Joss Whedon about directing but that didn't pan out. In 2004 Nick Cassavetes was attached to direct but the project yet again fell through, and the rights finally reverted back to Marvel.
Of all the many comic book movies out there (and there have been many great ones in my eyes) very, very few have come close to matching the sheer spirit of comics like Iron Man was able to. For me a superhero film should above all else be fun. It should welcome with open arms the fantastic and pulpy nature of the material. It shouldn't try to dress it up and make it 'respectable' or 'overly serious' like I felt Christopher Nolan was guilty of at times. And Iron Man certainly does embrace the fun of its premise. It's a brightly-coloured, breezy world of larger-than-life characters and out-of-this-world events. I also loved the fact that its character had a different attitude than most of the other superheroes at the time. In the years previous to Iron Man we had seen the likes of Peter Parker, Bruce Wayne and Wolverine all having a pretty tough time at being heroes; struggling with the pressure of keeping their true identities secret, struggling to form relationships, suffering personal tragedies, even abandoning their alter-egos etc. Well when Tony Stark becomes Iron Man he completely embraces it. The moment where he first takes to the skies in the suit is fantastic; he just looks so happy, like a giddy kid. And then there's the film's great send-off where instead of hiding his dalliances in the suit he comes straight out and announces loud and proud that yes “I am Iron Man!”

The fact that Iron Man is nowhere near as dark, serious or 'adult' as The Dark Knight (which was released in the same summer) means that people might not appreciate or expect just how 'good' a film Iron Man actually is. It's often been the case that the best superhero films are those which are just as strong or even stronger when they're concerning themselves with the man inside the suit, rather than the suit itself. And thanks to a sharp and witty script Iron Man most certainly falls into that category. While the film may truly soar when its title character does likewise, the reason that we are invested in it is because the script has spent so much time building the character into someone we know and can relate to. It shows us who the character was, the predicament he finds himself in and how it changes him and his genesis as a superhero. I particularly loved the scenes dedicated to him building his suit. So many films just throw their superhero right into their spandex without showing us the process of getting there. So we care about Tony Stark just as much as we do Iron Man, and even without a metallic suit in sight the story is very interesting; first detailing his imprisonment in Afghanistan and then his battle of power with Obidah Stane.

The script is also well constructed and paced though as it doesn't forget to drop splashes of action in amongst this character building. Just as many of the best superhero films do (Spider-Man 2, X-Men 2 etc) the script also allows the film to bridge the gap between the two styles of comic book movies we've become accustomed to. There's the silly, fun likes of Superman and the Fantastic Four, and then there's the more serious and sombre efforts like Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy. Well by taking elements of both approaches the end result is one of the closest examples of truly brining a comic book to life. It's got the sense of escapist fun which is unavoidable, but grounds it with a dose of reality and substance. And as has become rather customary for Marvel's cinematic output Iron Man is also an extremely humorous film, generating enough laughs to rival and often shame the outright 'comedies' of recent years.

Film Trivia Snippets - Jon Favreau, on directing duties here, would actually go on to provide the voice of Iron Man himself. He did so in a 2009 episode of Robot Chicken. /// Paul Bettany provided the voice of JARVIS in the film, recording all of his lines in just two hours. Although Bettany himself has admitted that he didn't even know what film he was working on. He was merely doing it as a favour to Jon Favreau after they had worked together on Wimbledon. /// Early drafts of the script had the film heading in some very different directions to the finished product. One idea early on was to have Tony Stark's father, Howard, still be alive and a ruthless industrialist who would become War Machine. Another fairly radical idea and deviation from the comics was to reveal Tony Stark as being the creator of Dr. Otto Octavius' tentacles in Spider-Man 2. The original villain envisaged for the film was to be the Mandarin, who was to be re-imagined as an Indonesian terrorist. /// Before Robert Downey was cast several other actors were considered, amongst them were Clive Owen and Rockwell, while Timothy Olyphant actually read for the role. Rockwell would eventually get a part in Iron Man 2 as Tony's rival, Justin Hammer. Wolverine actor Hugh Jackman was also offered the role. /// The roadster that we see Tony Stark working on is actually owned by Jon Favreau. /// There are a couple of musical nods to the classic 1966 Iron Man cartoon. When Tony and Rhodey are walking through the Casino in Vegas the music playing is a smooth jazz version of the cartoon's theme song. While Rhodey's ringtone for when Tony calls him is a midi version of the theme music.
I feel that Iron Man has one of the strongest openings to any film of recent years, and really lets you know what you're in for up front. The first thing that happens is that AC/DCs classic “Back in Black” kicks in, perfectly setting the stage for the raucous, fist-pumping viewing experience you're about to be treated to. And right away we see that Tony Stark is not the typical superhero we had come to know. This is no righteous do-gooder with a heart of gold, this is no victim of a cruel fate which has sent them on a course of revenge. Instantly we see Stark as this arrogant, carefree individual with a glass of Scotch in his hand who is right on the line between being the coolest guy you've ever met and a massive douche. And it's not long before we see him hanging out with and bedding numerous women. He really is like the James Bond of superheroes. Downey is fantastic in that opening sequence while interacting with the soldiers, oozing charm and hitting every one-liner; instantly putting to bed any doubts some people may have had over his casting.

As well as praising the script for its part in moulding the finished product, a lot of credit also has to go to Jon Favreau. Up until now he had been known for light-hearted, 'kiddie' movies like Zathura and Elf. As he result he, like Downey, also represented a bit of a gamble perhaps on Marvel's behalf. Yet again however it proved to be a resounding success. He captures the tone perfectly, moves proceedings along at a beautiful pace and with his comedic background is more than capable of handling the moments of humour. What is perhaps more surprising is the fantastic job he does with the action set-pieces. They are all thrilling, fun-packed and wonderfully realised sequences that are joyous and just bring a smile to the face. There's the tremendous debut of the Mark 1 suit in all its clunky, bulking glory that aids in Tony's escape from his Afghani imprisonment. There's the moment where he returns to face and destroy his captors with his shiny new suit, before taking to the skies where he gets himself into a dogfight with a couple of fighter jets. That dogfight is a particular highlight of the film. And while it certainly wasn't met with universal approval I actually like the final face-off he has with Obidah Stane in his Iron Monger guise. The effects are great, it's hard hitting and avoids the problem that plagues so many big blockbusters - it doesn't outstay its welcome. It's pretty short and sweet.

While Favreau's staging certainly plays a part in the effectiveness of the action sequences, the biggest factor would have to be the film's special effects which are pretty much flawless. The design of the Iron Man suits themselves and their realisation is just tremendous. Huge credit on that front to both Industrial Light and Magic for their digital creations and to Stan Winston for making the actual, practical suits for Downey to wear and just how seamlessly they combine to bring the character to life. When Richard Donner's Superman hit cinema screens back in 1978 it came with the tag-line “You'll believe a man can fly.” With its retro effects that might be a little bit of a stretch these days, but it's a sentiment that you could certainly apply to Iron Man. The scenes of him in flight, particularly in the aforementioned fighter jet battle, are just astonishingly good and downright joyous. There are also a few other instances where we see some fine work in place. Some of the set and art design is very impressive, particularly when it comes to Stark's incredible mansion and the cave in which he is held captive. The cave sequences are also extremely well lit. There's also some crisp, sharp cinematography on show, whether it be of the urban cityscapes of California or of the Afghani deserts. While the film's soundtrack, heavy on rock, is a great fit for the action unfolding on screen.

Conclusion - The summer of 2008 saw the release of two of the most popular superhero films that have so far hit the big screen; Iron Man and The Dark Knight. And while I'm aware that I may be alone on here, I greatly prefer the adventures of old shellhead to Nolan's gritty take on the caped crusader. While I'm not going to argue that this is a 'better' film (but only because I don't want to antagonise the Nolan fanboys! :D) there's a great deal that means I prefer it. Unlike The Dark Knight this film has heart, humour, a charismatic lead performance and is simply just a lot of fun. I just love it.

Bonus Film Trivia Snippets - Trying to get writers to be a part of the project proved to be a difficult task. The production met with about 30 different writers and they all passed, as most of them felt that Iron Man was a relatively obscure character in the Marvel universe. They were also a bit nervous about working for an untried studio better known for producing comic books. Even the rewrites led to many refusals. /// During the scenes that feature Iron Man's Head Up Display, the sound effect used to indicate a target lock is the laser cannon firing from the original Space Invaders arcade game. /// All three sets of Iron Man's armor were designed by Adi Granov, a comic book artist from the "Iron Man" comic, and Paul Saunders. The suits were then constructed by Stan Winston Studios. In total about 450 separate pieces make up the Iron Man suit, which the Mark 1 armour weighed 90 pounds. Sadly Iron Man proved to be the last film that special effects legend Stan Winston completed before his death. /// There was a little bit of a directing merry-go-round as the Marvel films go. Originally Favreau was set to direct Captain America: The First Avenger, while in December 2004 it was Nick Cassavetes who was set to direct Iron Man. As opposed to the comedy adventure that his Captain America was set to be, Favreau instead decided to direct Iron Man and give it a more serious tone. Ironically Cassavetes was then chosen to direct Captain America. /// When it came to the relationship between Tony Stark and Pepper Potts, Jon Favreau envisaged it being akin to that of a 1940s screwball comedy along the lines of His Girl Friday. Gwyneth Paltrow subsequently based her performance on that of the heroines of 1940s films, claiming that they were sexy, witty and innocent all at once. /// The montage of Tony Stark's life story was created by editor Kyle Cooper, and was compiled using real-life photos of a young Robert Downey Jr and his father Robert Downey Sr.

The Sci-Fi Slob

03-15-14, 07:18 PM

Great review. :up:

http://replygif.net/i/432.gif

The Gunslinger45

03-15-14, 07:24 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

As you know I am one of the other people who ultimately prefer the Marvel Cinematic Universe to Nolan DC. And while as a movie I prefer The Dark Knight to Iron Man, The Avengers is in my Top Ten. A big part of that is as you said, the Marvel Cinematic Universe embraces it's source material.

Masterman

03-15-14, 07:29 PM

Great review. I love Iron Man,

seanc

03-15-14, 07:46 PM

You can love both, and I do. Nolan's world is superior though. :p

Sexy Celebrity

03-16-14, 04:46 PM

http://i.imgur.com/Ph0ISuX.gif

JayDee

03-17-14, 10:25 PM

Thanks guys. And nice to see approval pics back Sexy. :up:

I was 18 when I first saw it. I was forbidden to rent it from Blockbuster as a teenager. By the time I saw it, the movie could not live up to the hype.

That's perhaps a little older than would be ideal, at least in this little idea I have. And I can certainly see that long a wait hurting the film when you finally get to it. Have you ever seen it since?

i think i saw this at the movie theater somewhere around 8 times when it first came out and was already a fan of the comics, having seen the originals here in detroit through dark horse comics (an underground publisher at the time) and was, and remain to be VERY impressed with the entirety of this movie. DAMN FINE review, jay

also, let me add another DAMN FINE to the Hellboy reviews. I'm a huge fan of del Torro and his fantastical brilliance he brings to his movies. There is a lot of love there in that man for his art and he really expressed it with hellboy and i firmly agree, Perlman was frickin perfect at hellboy

Thanks for the compliments Ed. Nice to see you back around the place.

The Gunslinger45

03-17-14, 10:28 PM

That's perhaps a little older than would be ideal, at least in this little idea I have. And I can certainly see that long a wait hurting the film when you finally get to it. Have you ever seen it since?

I tried a few years later. But I had a chick over at the time and after like ten minutes into the flick... well I was not very interest in watching the movie.

Snap snap grin grin wink wink say no more.

JayDee

03-18-14, 03:06 PM

I've got to say something here. 8 reps for my Iron Man review is garbage!!! You get people posting in the 'Rate the Last Movie You Saw' thread and all they do is include a film poster and a rating, and if it's a popular film they can get like 10 ratings for that. Just for watching a film and somehow locating a poster for it. And yet other people (not just myself) put time and effort into actually writing a review and get less. It ain't fair I tells ya!!! It ain't fair!

Ah that's better. Been a while since I had a good tantrum/hissy fit. :D

Masterman

03-18-14, 03:33 PM

Daniel M

03-18-14, 04:07 PM

nebbit

03-18-14, 07:28 PM

It ain't fair I tells ya!!! It ain't fair!

Ah that's better. Been a while since I had a good tantrum/hissy fit. :D

Go JayDee http://www.smileys4msn.com/displaysmiley.php?show=1102

Miss Vicky

03-18-14, 07:40 PM

I didn't rep the review because I didn't read it. :p

I hated Iron Man and didn't want to read a novel about it.

JayDee

03-19-14, 08:18 PM

Hahaha, you never rep my reviews.

Yeah but my reviews are actually good! :p

But seriously, I have to say that you lie sir!!! I've just looked at your thread and not even including Amazing Spider-Man which I just repped a moment ago I've actually repped your last 10 reviews (maybe more but didn't go back any further). That despite the fact that I've not seen a fair few of them and that I really don't like Man of Steel or Death Proof. So even though I completely disagree with your views I still appreciated the effort you put into them.

I didn't rep the review because I didn't read it. :p

I hated Iron Man and didn't want to read a novel about it.

Fair enough. You get a pass. :D I've got a few reviews kicking about that I think you might like more.

Masterman

03-19-14, 09:02 PM

My mistake. Your one of few who actually does :). Everyone probably spends the whole day reading one of yours, that they have not time for mine haha.

JayDee

03-20-14, 06:09 PM

Well here we are with the last review of my superhero season. And this one is special, so much so that I've had to give it a double dose of warning because this really is a very personal favourite which not many people are going to understand. Like many of the reviews just now I knocked this up for my top 100 list in an attempt to explain my love for it and wasn't sure whether to post it as a review or not or just wait. But here it is anyway

Despite complaining about the lack of rep the other day I really don't see this one garnering much at all! :D It's a very personal, individual taste. In fact I should perhaps dedicate it to Rodent seeing as he might be the only other person on here who has a hope in hell of appreciating and agreeing with this in the slightest.

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

mirror mirror
Year of release
1990

Directed by
Steve Barron

Written by
Todd W. Langen
Bobby Herbeck

Starring
Judith Hoag
Elias Koteas
James Saito
Josh Pais
Kevin Clash

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

5

Plot - Down in the sewers below New York a rat and four turtles are transformed when they come into contact with a mysterious ooze. Mutated in size, in intellect and now with the ability to speak, the rat named Splinter becomes like a father to the turtles. He becomes their sensei, dispensing to them his knowledge of Ninjutsu. When a crime wave begins to sweep the city it brings the turtles into contact with a local news reporter, April O'Neill (Hoag). Doing so reveals their existence to the Foot Clan and their leader Shredder, an enemy from Splinter's past. When Splinter is captured by the Foot, the Turtles have to band together and use the skills their sensei has taught them if they are to get him back.

Before I get onto the actual film itself I feel I should first outline my relationship with the Turtles. They are something that has held a special place in my heart since I was a wee young lad. I grew up with them and still dearly love them to this day. In a way they've also kind of developed to suit me as I've grown up. In my early years I had the classic cartoon series to delight me with its colourful and goofy ways. Then as I got a little older I could add the live action films into the mix. During my teenage years I then discovered the original comic series where the characters were born, as well as a new animated series which took a bit of a darker and edgier approach than the original cartoon. And even today at 27 years of age there is a new animated series on Nickelodeon which I have developed a great fondness for. Raphael, Michaelangelo, Donatello and Leonardo have always had a part in my life. I have several photographs from my childhood that show my great love for them. I have a photo at Christmas with my newly acquired Raphael hand puppet, and a Halloween photo where I dressed up as one of the Turtles. And while I think I was probably too young to see this particular film I have fond memories of going to the cinema to see at least one of the Turtles films. And what I largely remember is leaving the cinema and as I walked to the car breaking out my best martial arts; no lamp post that I passed was safe, quickly being met with a karate chop or a roundhouse kick.

Now while I enjoy all of the films starring the Turtles (three live action, one CGI and an animated TV movie that celebrated the 25th anniversary of their creation) it is without a doubt this first film that I truly love. In fact for many years this would have sat proudly at #1 as my favourite ever film. While both my personal love for the characters and the nostalgia factor undoubtedly play a large part in how I feel about this film, I also happen to think that in terms of what the film sets out to be it is pretty damn great. The film is actually a lot darker than you would expect and probably remember if you haven't seen it in many years. While it does adopt some elements from the cartoon series and the Archie comics, it most certainly takes a bit of the edge from the original comics by Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird. The story unfolds in a rather gritty, unglamorous view of New York in derelict neighbourhoods and on streets swept by rain and strewn with graffiti. Much of the film also takes place almost exclusively at night. Even the way the film is shot gives the film quite a grainy, dark aesthetic that makes for an atmospheric experience. It really doesn't look like you'd expect a big comic book film to look.....except for you know, the four big walking, talking, butt-kicking turtles! :D Even a number of the turns that the story itself takes are rather dark given what you might expect. You've got Raphael brutally beaten to the point of near-death; you've got Splinter chained up and tortured; and while the sequel proved that he actually survived, the film sees a really rather grisly end for Shredder; crushed in the back of a garbage truck. Ouch!

Just the chance to see the Turtles themselves brought to life is a real treat for me. As someone who grew up watching their animated versions, and attempting to drew them over and over again, I still get a real sense of joy of seeing them in the flesh. Bringing the turtles from page to screen was the accomplishment of a number of individuals pulling together with one goal. To begin with you've got the stellar work done by the Jim Henson Creature Shop who created the Turtles costumes and the excellent Splinter puppet. You can definitely tell that the film is getting on in years and that its budget wasn't the biggest but they still hold up as being damn fine creations. The Turtles' suits were great creations, very detailed and even quite expressive at times when it came to their faces. Inside those suits were a series of performers who helped breath life into them. To begin with you had four individuals to handle their movements and interactions, aided by a team of assistants who controlled the facial animatronics. And then on top of that you had an additional four, extremely talented martial artists who performed all of the action sequences. All of the stunt performers deserve huge credit for being able to pull off what they did considering the immense restrictions that the suits placed upon them. They are somehow able to pull of some pretty impressive and complex action sequences that I just absolutely love, with favourites being the huge melee at April's antique shop and the epic final showdown on the roof with Shredder. The production company behind the film was the legendary Golden Harvest, famous for many martial arts classics starring the likes of Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan and Jet Li. As a result a couple of consultants were sent over from Hong Kong to assist with the fight scenes, adding a nice Hong Kong flair to proceedings. I also love the way that the action is filmed because you can actually see it! In contrast to so many modern action films there is no shaky cam and no rapid editing in sight here. The camera is kept very steady and just allows us to take in and enjoy the action. Using his Transformers films as an example I would expect Michael Bay to go more for the shaky cam and rapid editing when he takes on the Turtles later this year.

Film Trivia Snippets – At the time of its release, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles actually became the most successful independent film of all time, making over $133 million at the US box office. It would hold this record for nine years until The Blair Witch Project came along, grossing $140 million. /// Even though the film was sponsored by Pizza Hut, we quite clearly see the Turtles ordering from and eating Domino's. /// Robin Williams, a big fan of the Turtles, helped Judith Hoag with her character by providing her information gleaned from his comic book collection. /// The late Sally Menke was an editor most famous for being a regular collaborator of Quentin Tarantino's. However it was with this film that she made her feature film debut. /// It took three puppeteers to operate the Splinter puppet. Kevin Clash performs the puppet while the facial expressions are remote controlled by another puppeteer and the arms are controlled by the puppeteer who works along with Kevin during the performances of the puppet.
While the in-suit performers do a great deal to bring the heroes in a half shell to life, the characters require strong vocal performances to complete the illusion. So it's fortunate then that they have exactly that. All four voices feel like perfect matches for the respective characters and their personalities. So much so that they are how I generally imagine the characters to sound and the standard by which I judge all others. Corey Feldman is a particular highlight as Donatello, his rather nasal and geeky tones capturing Donnie perfectly. And then with the Splinter puppet, it comes across as so much more realistic and nuanced than it really has any right to. It's a great little creation from Henson & co. It took three separate puppeteers to control him, with one of them, Kevin Clash, also providing his voice. His vocals also feel spot on, giving Splinter real character and wisdom, creating a Yoda like teacher for his reptilian sons. All of Henson's creations just give so much more soul to the characters than CGI possibly could, and make their interactions with the human cast seamless and believable.

With so much time dedicated to the turtles there are only a small handful of human characters who are given a significant role. Fortunately however most of the actors in these roles rise to the occasion. As April O'Neill we have the pleasure to witness Judith Hoag giving an extremely likeable performance. Her April is strong, feisty and independent. She makes you believe that her character could accept the reality of the turtles mere moments after learning of their existence. While she's tough and all business much of the time, in the company of the turtles she also proves to have a lovely easygoing and fun nature. And man she is really rather sexy. In particular she has a fantastic set of pins on her. As the turtles' other ally we have Elias Koteas who just absolutely rocks it as Casey Jones. The man is just bad ass! He brings a terrifically vibrant energy to the role and delivers a number of laughs. He is able to make Casey likeable without having to soften the character, retaining his vigilante edge. And you've got to give it to him, it's not easy to stand out and make an impression when you're sharing the screen with four full-grown turtles who know kung fu! But Koteas manages it. His interactions with the turtles are a lot of fun. Together Koteas and Hoag have a fun sizzle to their chemistry. Both put in great performances and provide my favourite interpretations of the characters so far seen on screen. It's also a real shame that Hoag would depart the role for the two sequels. On the villainous side of things we don't exactly get well-rounded characters, but what we do get are a couple of very colourful individuals who make you take notice. James Saito helps to make the Shredder quite the imposing villain. In fact between the character's striking look and formidable vocals (dubbed by David McCharen) there's a little bit of a Darth Vader vibe to him. While as his second in command Tatsu there is the visually arresting Toshishiro Obata. He doesn't have much else to do but talk tough and look menacing, but he pulls it off with flying colours. The man is a scary dude. Oh and something I only just noticed for the first time I think - in the role of 'Head Thug' the film features a very young Sam Rockwell!

Film Trivia Snippets - Toward the end of the movie, one of the street punks says to the police chief "Check out East Warehouse on Lairdman Island." This was a reference to the two creators of the Ninja Turtles, Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird. /// In the script and novelization, the young boy that Tatsu attacks was to die from the beating. The sounds of the boy breathing and others saying he would be all right were added at the last minute after the movie ratings board objected to the scene. /// The four actors inside the suits all lost at least 20 pounds during filming. This was as a result of the already heavy suits, the 60 pounds of animatronics stored in the shells and the intense heat and humidity of North Carolina. /// Judith Hoag decided against reprising her role as April for the sequels because she “was never satisfied with how the film came out”, apparently unhappy with substantial edits that were made to scenes involving her character. /// Despite its New York setting the large majority of the film was actually shot in Wilmington, North Carolina. In fact the fight scenes that take place on the streets and rooftops were actually filmed on a giant New York city set that had been re-purposed from another cult classic, Big Trouble in Little China.
I also happen to think that the film is really quite well written. The central story at the film's core is really quite simple but I personally think it's really well constructed. To establish the overarching story the film employs a series of interconnecting sub-plots. There's the relationships between all of the turtles and Splinter; there's April's investigation into the activities of the Foot; there's the possible romance that develops between Casey and April; and very importantly there's the thread detailing the experiences of Danny Pennington, the son of April's boss. It allows us a way to learn about the inner workings of the Foot. While the main thrust of the film is most certainly concerned with four mutated turtles who kick butt using martial arts, I think if you look closely there are a few interesting little tidbits to be found. A large part of the film is about family, and how you can sometimes find it in the most unusual of places; such as between four turtles and a rat. There is a real love between those five. Through the story of Danny it also shows the problems that can sometimes arise between families. His strained relationship with his father leaves Danny feeling unwanted and like an outsider, leaving him vulnerable to being recruited by the Foot.

And while it may not be humour of the most sophisticated and high-brow variety I also find the film to be very funny on a number of occasions. The script delivers to the cast a lot of witty fun in their dialogue, particularly when it comes to their back and forth banter and bickering. I thought the script also did a really nice job of capturing the distinctive character dynamics of the four turtles, and also of creating the interactions between them. In particular I love the classic sibling rivalry that is constantly on show between Raphael and Leonardo. In terms of personalities those two really are polar opposites. Raphael is hot-headed and impulsive, always reacting with his gut rather than his brain. While Leonardo is the cerebral and responsible one, always sizing up the situation and carefully considering his options before acting. Bring them together and sparks are sure to fly. And yet just like all brothers when you get down to it (perhaps very deep down in this case! :D) they do love each other.

The film was directed by Steve Barron; a name I've got to admit to having no recognition of whatsoever. And it's perhaps no surprise. Known more as a director of music videos for the likes of Madonna, Michael Jackson and David Bowie, his only other feature film before the Turtles was 80s cheesefest, Electric Dreams. And since the Turtles he has been largely absent from the big screen, delivering just 5 films in the intervening years; the most notable of which being Coneheads and Mike Bassett: England Manager. Despite this rather lacklustre CV I think he does a damn fine job here in the director's chair. He handles the action sequences very well and has an eye for a great shot. I particularly love how he depicts the introduction of Shredder to the film; initially showing him as this long, ominous shadow before revealing the source of said shadow. I can easily picture that image of the stretching shadow as a panel in a comic book. Working alongside Barron to bring life and energy to the film is John Du Prez's brilliant score. While it will never be considered as a classic alongside the likes of Jaws, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Psycho etc it has got to be one of my personal favourite scores. It's a great piece of storytelling, whether it be fun and funky when the times are good or brooding and emotional when things take a darker turn.

So is this film as perfect as my 5 star rating indicates? No. Are there flaws? Yeah probably, but I personally am completely oblivious to them! And I couldn't be happier with my ignorance.

Conclusion - I'll be the first to admit that as reviews go this was not the most unbiased critique of the film's merits. Instead it was purely a love letter to a film that has a substantial place in my heart. Perhaps the best way I can think to sum up my feelings for this film is to say that in many ways this film is like my Star Wars. My relationship with the turtles is like the experience many people have with George Lucas' 1977 classic. It's a film that I first discovered at a very young age and that became an instant favourite, and that I watched countless times. And I hope that I will continue to watch and enjoy it on many more occasions to come.

Oh and as a fun little bonus to further highlight my personal connection with the film and the Turtles in general I dug out the couple of childhood photos I mentioned in the review. One from Halloween and one from Christmas

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Turtles2_zps8e6d594b.jpg ..... http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Turtles_zps8c674bcb.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/Turtles_zps8c674bcb.jpg.html)

Miss Vicky

03-20-14, 06:12 PM

Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtles? UGH.

I've never understood the appeal, even when I was a child. I don't even like Master Splinter.

Yoda

03-20-14, 06:13 PM

I don't even like Master Splinter.
You must be stopped.

Masterman

03-20-14, 07:02 PM

Great review. I've seen the movie but can't remember anything about it really.

Sexy Celebrity

03-20-14, 07:12 PM

http://i.imgur.com/hkQPhn7.gif

The Rodent

03-20-14, 07:18 PM

http://i.imgur.com/hkQPhn7.gif

Good job there was no anchovies in that review. If there were anchovies in that review there's have been big trouble, Dude.

Yeah, TMNT is a great film. I said in my own review, to make a film that good based on that premise... is a work of genius.

I was surprised my Kevin Clash though. He voiced Splinter, but what surprised me is that he's the same guy who voices and controls Elmo.

Plus, the cameos in TMNT are good. Keep your eyes open and you can spot the actors who played the Turtles in other roles.

Love TMNT. Rated it 90% in my own review.

seanc

03-20-14, 07:20 PM

Why did you get two of Rafael? Give another turtle some love. I was just a tad too old to be totally immersed in TMNT. I did see this one at the theater with a couple of friends. I remember liking it ok, but mostly remember it being the first time I got annoyed at noisy children in a theater.

Masterman

03-20-14, 07:23 PM

The Rodent

03-20-14, 07:25 PM

Oh yeah, I forgot to say about Turtles goodies.

I had every gadget and toy from the original release of the toys and stuff.
And I mean every gadget and toy.

Figures, vehicles, weird novelties, key rings, PEZ dispensers, slippers, hand puppets, bedding, bedroom carpet, a big metal tin that looked like a Mutagen Canister (that I used to store all my LEGO in), you name it, I had it.
Even wallpaper.

seanc

03-20-14, 07:30 PM

Children need to be barred from the cinema.

I wouldn't disagree even though I have a 5 and 6 year old I take pretty regularly. Im trying to teach them right though.

Miss Vicky

03-20-14, 07:31 PM

Children need to be barred from the cinema.

I think that's a little harsh, especially considering this is Ninja Turtles we're talking about.

Sexy Celebrity

03-20-14, 07:36 PM

Oh yeah, I forgot to say about Turtles goodies.

I have every gadget and toy from the original release of the toys and stuff.
And I mean every gadget and toy.

Figures, vehicles, weird novelties, key rings, PEZ dispensers, slippers, hand puppets, bedding, bedroom carpet, a big metal tin that looked like a Mutagen Canister (that I used to store all my LEGO in), you name it, I have it. Even wallpaper.

Fixed this for ya.

Masterman

03-20-14, 07:43 PM

I think that's a little harsh, especially considering this is Ninja Turtles we're talking about.

They should be barred from every movie. Especially the ones who are visiting the cinema for the first time without parents, them Fu**** are the worst :).

The Rodent

03-20-14, 08:03 PM

The Gunslinger45

03-20-14, 08:19 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

You review is a love letter to a franchise that has grown with you your entire life. Whether a new show, discovering the comics, or the movies as a kid, either way this is a very special movie and it shows in your review. Very nicely done!

I myself was a turtle fan back in the day, though not a life long fan. But the movies and TV show was a lot of fun back in the 80's and 90's.

Miss Vicky

03-20-14, 08:34 PM

Kids should be barred from the cinema for 2 reasons:

1. Everyone hates it when kids are in the cinema as they make loads of noise and piss about all the time
2. Studios pander to them and keep making child friendly crap just to get more arses on seats

If I didn't watch movies in the theater and at home when I was a kid, then I wouldn't have grown up loving movies. It's just one of those hazards that you have to expect to deal with when you go and see movies like TMNT that are marketed to children.

And I say that as someone who doesn't like kids and will probably never have any of my own.

The Gunslinger45

03-20-14, 08:39 PM

I got no beef with taking your kid to the movie. But I remember going to see Deep Blue Sea AND 300 in the movie theater and hearing a baby crying.

Taking your kid to see Frozen or The Lego Movie, that I understand and if I choose to see said movie I assume the risk of a noisy kid in the audience. But if the movie is rated R and you have an infant with you because you are too cheap or lazy to get a baby sitter I am going to have to punch someone in the d!ck or beat someone over the head with their high heels!

seanc

03-20-14, 08:43 PM

Maybe my worst kid experience ever was 21 jump st. Not because they were noisy but because I was super uncomfortable watching a film like that around 7 year olds. Leave your kid home or dont go.

Miss Vicky

03-20-14, 08:46 PM

I totally agree that in some movies - especially those rated R - it's reasonable to expect not to have to deal with unruly children.

But for someone to say that "children need to be barred from the cinema" is just unreasonable, hypocritical bullsh!t.

Miss Vicky

03-20-14, 08:51 PM

Maybe my worst kid experience ever was 21 jump st. Not because they were noisy but because I was super uncomfortable watching a film like that around 7 year olds. Leave your kid home or dont go.

Now I think that's a little unfair. If the children are being well behaved and quiet, then I feel like the decision of whether or not that particular child should be watching that particular movie should be left to the parents.

I watched quite a few movies with sex and violence when I was a kid and I don't think it had any negative effects on me.

seanc

03-20-14, 08:58 PM

Now I think that's a little unfair. If the children are being well behaved and quiet, then I feel like the decision of whether or not that particular child should be watching that particular movie should be left to the parents.

I watched quite a few movies with sex and violence when I was a kid and I don't think it had any negative effects on me.

I probably am. I am sure some parents would say I shouldn't let my kids watch the marvel movies. I was so conscious of those kids being there during certain scenes though. The first Ice Cube scene and the end scene where the guy picks the penis up with his mouth. Not cool in my opinion.

Sexy Celebrity

03-20-14, 09:09 PM

I was good in movie theaters when I was a kid. I remember going to see Gremlins 2 back when I was around 5 or 6 years old, and I SSSHHH'ed some other kids who were being too loud behind me.

I was only really ssshhh'ed once -- in 1993 during Jurassic Park because something my sister said made me start laughing uncontrollably during a serious scene -- and some old fart ssshhh'ed me and I had a total Sexy Celebrity moment at 9 years old where I got so angry and wanted to kill him right there in the movie theater.

Sexy Celebrity

03-20-14, 09:12 PM

or beat someone over the head with their high heels!

This sounds like something I would say.

The Gunslinger45

03-20-14, 09:29 PM

This sounds like something I would say.

Oh I'll do it! And I won't even hate myself in the morning! :D

Sexy Celebrity

03-20-14, 09:37 PM

Gunslinger, I think there's a drag queen in you somewhere.

The Gunslinger45

03-20-14, 09:38 PM

Gunslinger, I think there's a drag queen in you somewhere.

If there is I have to look like a combo between Swayze in To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything Julie Newmar and Swayze in Red Dawn.

Sexy Celebrity

03-20-14, 09:41 PM

I could see that. You could be Vita, Swayze's character from To Wong Foo. I'll be Noxeema, the Wesley Snipes character. We just need someone to be Chi Chi, the John Leguizamo character.

The Gunslinger45

03-20-14, 09:45 PM

I could see that. You could be Vita, Swayze's character from To Wong Foo. I'll be Noxeema, the Wesley Snipes character. We just need someone to be Chi Chi, the John Leguizamo character.

All we need is a Latino boy with more legs then a bucket of chicken.

Sexy Celebrity

03-20-14, 09:46 PM

Guaporense comes to mind, but I dunno.

The Gunslinger45

03-20-14, 09:46 PM

Guaporense comes to mind, but I dunno.

That is more Portuguese then Spanish decent.

Sexy Celebrity

03-20-14, 09:47 PM

Yes, yes. Everyone always must correct me when I confuse those Portuguese with the Spanish people. Even though they're really not all that different.

The Gunslinger45

03-20-14, 09:50 PM

Yes, yes. Everyone always must correct me when I confuse those Portuguese with the Spanish people. Even though they're really not all that different.

Don't say that, now we will get an essay!

Daniel M

03-20-14, 10:28 PM

I was a huge Turtles fan when I was younger too, although I haven't seen that actual film in aaaages. Awesome review though, very personal and it's clear you love it :)

Sexy Celebrity

03-20-14, 10:34 PM

I watched Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles last year and did a commentary to it -- by myself.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=936515#post936515

honeykid

03-21-14, 08:13 AM

+ repped for pics. :)

Frankly, I think people should be banned from cinemas... Or maybe just when I go. :D

I don't have to worry about young children at the cinema because I don't go and see the films they're allowed into.

JayDee

03-21-14, 03:24 PM

What the hell have you guys been up to? I came back and actually thought something had screwed up and my review hadn't been posted because it was nowhere in sight! You've managed to come up with nearly two full pages since then of children bashing and discussing Gunslinger's future as a drag queen!!!

Anyway....10 reps for a 5-star review of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? I'm flabbergasted!!! :laugh: I was complaining about 8 reps for Iron Man; I'd have been delighted to get that for the Turtles. Hell I'd have been happy with even half of that. I've posted reviews for such acclaimed films as Rashomon, There Will Be Blood, Rear Window, Dog Day Afternoon, Sullivan's Travels etc which haven't garnered anywhere close to the same response in terms of replies or rep. Some of the board's patrons will no doubt see that as a tragedy. I personally feel it's kind of awesome and why I love this board. You guys rock!!! :up:

Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtles? UGH.

I've never understood the appeal, even when I was a child. I don't even like Master Splinter.

:mad: Didn't your mother ever tell you that if you've got nothing nice to say, don't say anything ay all?! :p

Why did you get two of Rafael? Give another turtle some love.

Ah yes I meant to address this. It's so long ago that we're not entirely sure anymore. My mum doesn't know if I actually wanted two Raphael puppets, or if two people got me it separately and I accidentally ended up with two the same. Raphael was and always has been my favourite by a considerable distance, and as a dumb kid I can imagine wanting two of him.

I had every gadget and toy from the original release of the toys and stuff.
And I mean every gadget and toy.

I had my fair share as well. :yup: Along with all the figures I remember having the Turtles van (or Party Wagon as I remember it being called), the Technodrome, those puppets in the picture, a pop-up book (which I still have) etc etc etc. I watched all 3 of the original films at the time actually and it really reminded me of so many figures and items I had at the time, particularly from the 3rd film. I remember having the figures in their samurai get-up with the scepter etc.

And I have to admit to having my fair share of collectibles on display right now. As a big geek I love my figures, busts, statues etc so I've got all 4 Turtles figures that were released a few years back based on the original comices as well as the Turtles, Splinter and Shredder in a series called Pop Vinyl figures. I also own a couple of cool Turtles shirts that I wear with pride! :D

a big metal tin that looked like a Mutagen Canister (that I used to store all my LEGO in)

:eek: Oh my god I want that so much!!! Off to ebay I go! :D

You review is a love letter to a franchise that has grown with you your entire life. Whether a new show, discovering the comics, or the movies as a kid, either way this is a very special movie and it shows in your review. Very nicely done!

Thanks GS. :up: Glad to see people understanding what I was going for in terms of it being a rambling love letter rather than a proper review. For me the only other thing that really comes close in terms of something I loved and still hold pretty dear to my heart is Scooby Doo.

I was a huge Turtles fan when I was younger too, although I haven't seen that actual film in aaaages. Awesome review though, very personal and it's clear you love it :)

Thanks Daniel. It was actually the first time in quite a long while that I had watched it, and I was a little nervous about it, worrying that it wouldn't do it for me anymore. But it did that and more.

Miss Vicky

03-21-14, 03:38 PM

:mad: Didn't your mother ever tell you that if you've got nothing nice to say, don't say anything ay all?! :p

Um, no.

Also, I think my bitchiness is at least partially genetic. :D

mark f

03-21-14, 03:39 PM

I only gave you rep for your TMNT Wiki piece because you would openly bitch about it if I didn't. :)

honeykid

03-21-14, 03:58 PM

Yeah, and don't forget one of those reps is just for the pics at the end. I'm not reading a review of a bloody Turtles films. :p When you leave all this comic book bollocks behind, I might start reading again. :D

JayDee

03-21-14, 05:18 PM

I only gave you rep for your TMNT Wiki piece because you would openly bitch about it if I didn't. :)

I am shocked sir! Shocked and hurt. :( You have pained me greatly.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ca9dbcbf-3d90-48d0-8534-8b64ef1f2c35_zpsf6816073.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ca9dbcbf-3d90-48d0-8534-8b64ef1f2c35_zpsf6816073.jpg.html)

I don't know what I've ever done to make you, or anyone, think that! :pBetween this and calling me dumb the other day you and I are really on the outs just now buddy.

I even stated at the start of the review how I wasn't expecting many people to understand or get much rep for it. I have been surprised and greatly touched by the kindness of my fellow MoFo's, none of whom repped out of fear of my wrath. ;)

mark f

03-21-14, 05:32 PM

Boy, you ARE dumb! :)

JayDee

03-21-14, 05:58 PM

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/CryingDawson_zpsda6999cc.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/CryingDawson_zpsda6999cc.gif.html)

Please stop being mean to me! :bawling: I don't know whether you're kidding or not! The smiling smilie is too ambiguous. All kidding should be accompanied either by the big grin or the sticky-out tongue.

JayDee

03-23-14, 12:43 PM

Well I know that honeykid is desperate for me to move on :D but we still have a little business to take care of before we can finally leave my superhero season behind.

Micro Musings - Superhero Special

mirror mirror

Year of release
1993

Directed by
Eric Radomski / Eric Timm

Starring
Kevin Conroy
Dana Delany
Hart Bochner
Stacy Keach
Abe Vigoda
Mark Hamill

Batman: Mask of the
Phantasm

4 +

Yes it's an animated film. Yes it's only 73 minutes long. And yes it may be lacking in big-name talent. But I genuinely believe this to be one of the best adaptations of the Batman character ever to hit the screen. And one of my personal favourites. Though when you take into consideration that the film is a spin-off from the superlative animated series of the 90s it really shouldn't come as any surprise just how good it is. The writing for the film is fantastic across all levels; the story, characterisation and dialogue. And that writing helps to create a stronger romantic storyline for Bruce Wayne than most of its live-action counterparts have managed. Bruce Wayne and Andrea Beaumont have a great 1930s/40s screwball comedy/film noir nature to their interactions and dialogue. The vocal performances across the board are all very strong, from Kevin Conroy as Bruce Wayne/Batman to Mark Hamill's spot-on work as The Joker. I also love the appearance of the film. I love the look of the Gotham presented here; it's got a very gothic, art deco, film-noir aesthetic. And some of the shot compositions are excellent. This also helps in creating some great action set-pieces which are so satisfying and thrilling that they go beyond the film's animated limitations. Rather excellent.

mirror mirror

Year of release
2003

Directed by
Ang Lee

Starring
Eric Bana
Jennifer Connelly
Sam Elliott
Nick Nolte
Josh Lucas

Hulk

2

I'm a bit conflicted on this one. On the one hand I do have some admiration for Ang Lee for taking such a unique approach to the material, it's just that unfortunately I found the results to be dreadfully dull and dreary. In fact on a couple of occasions I actually found myself beginning to drift off and I never fall asleep during a film. And this was during the afternoon! As I said taking such a deep, thoughtful approach to the character is admirable, and its visual aesthetic certainly sets it apart from just about every other superhero film. I liked the film's editing and split screen approach on occasion as it creates a comic book panel style for the film, but I just felt that it overdone to irritating levels. It was like the work of a young, prospective director just out of film school who had learned all these techniques and wanted to use every single one of them! And the cinematography is top notch. But that's pretty much it on the positive side of things. I just found the whole thing so very, very boring. The performances of the cast were solid but bland and the CGI, particularly of the Hulk character left a lot to be desired. So an interesting attempt at doing something different with the genre, but in my eyes a complete failure. I can however see why not everyone thinks so

mirror mirror

Year of release
1980

Directed by
Richard Lester

Starring
Christopher Reeve
Margot Kidder
Terrence Stamp
Gene Hackman
Sarah Douglas
Mark O'Halloran

Superman II

3

After being really quite surprised at how much I enjoyed the first Superman film, I struggled to get into this one to quite the same extent for whatever reason. If anything this was more the kind of experience I was expecting going into the first film. In some ways I feel I should have liked it more but it just didn't happen. I think the fact that it was a little bit sillier and camper than the first film didn't help, including some awkward moments of humour. For example after Superman's supposed demise the film immediately delivers some moments of slapstick comedy to completely undermine any possible drama. The whole thing just felt a bit more disjointed and not quite as fluid as the first film, perhaps as a result of the much publicised problems behind the camera that plagued the movie. I also felt there were quite a few problems in the story, such as when Superman gives up his powers for Lois. Of course he does so just at the exact moment he needs them and then is able to get them back like 5 minutes later, undermining the power of the moment. It might seem a strange complaint for a superhero film but I think the fact that there were more superheroics in the film didn't help me like it. It made it seem sillier than the disaster movie approach of the first film and showed up some of the limitations of the effects. It also seemed stupid the amount of powers that Superman all of a sudden had whenever they were required; his ability to create dopplegangers of himself, his 'super kiss' which makes Lois forget everything etc. And what the heck was going on when he threw the big plastic S symbol like saran wrap? :confused: That said the villains themselves were quite fun; Terrence Stamp hammed it up in fine style as Zod, Jack O'Halloran was imposing and fun as the mute Non and Sarah Douglas was damn sexy! The film had its moments but came up some way short of the first in my eyes.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1998

Directed by
Stephen Norrington

Starring
Wesley Snipes
Kris Kristofferson
Stephen Dorff
N'Bushe Wright
Donal Logue
Udo Kier

Blade

3.5

While I don't absolutely love the film or the character I still think this is undoubtedly a fun film. In my Hellboy review I talked recently about some of the actors who have proved to be the best fit for their superhero character (Reeve, Downey, Perlman) and while it may sound strange perhaps Wesley Snipes deserves a similar level of recognition. I'm certainly not going to argue for him being a great actor but the character of Blade just seemed tailor-made for him. As well as looking the part Snipes does have quite a strong, charismatic screen presence and is capable of throwing out a one-liner. Then there's Snipes' martial arts background which allows him to pull off the action scenes with aplomb. He just makes for a pretty cool, bad-ass character. Kris Kristofferson brings a lot of colour and character to his role as Blade's ally while there are a number of fun, hammy performances to be found amongst the villains of the piece; Stephen Dorff, Donal Logue and Udo Kier all being really quite entertaining. It's not just down to the cast to bring the entertainment however; the film is filled with a series of gnarly, gory special effects and some pretty awesome, kick-ass action sequences. I certainly wouldn't say it's a great film, but it is damn good fun, even if the highlight comes in the opening moments at the vampire night club and it never quite hits those heights again.

mirror mirror

Year of release
2011

Directed by
Joe Johnston

Starring
Chris Evans
Hayley Atwell
Hugo Weaving
Sebastian Stan
Tommy Lee Jones
Stanley Tucci

Captain America

3.5 ++

Revisiting this for the first time since catching it at the cinema I've got to say that I found myself enjoying it a whole lot more. Its nostalgic, Saturday matinee vibe appears to be winning me over. The film is just a lot of fun and I love the period look and feel that it's able to generate. The CGI may be a little bit hit and miss but overall it works and creates some entertaining action sequences. Oh and talking of entertaining sequences I love the whole section dedicated to using the character as a propaganda tool. As a character Captain America is not the most naturally dynamic of individuals so to generate interest you need to hire an actor with natural charm and charisma and I think they certainly got that in Evans who I felt put in a very strong performance. Actually in terms of the names involved Captain America actually has to have one of the strongest, most interesting casts of any superhero film. I mean alongside Evans you've got the likes of Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci, Hugo Weaving and Toby Jones. That's a damn fine cast. Tommy Lee Jones is a huge amount of fun as the gruff Colonel Phillips, delivering most of the film's laughs while Tucci is very sweet and engaging in his small but vital role. And Weaving is also a lot of fun as he hams it up on villain duties. And then there's Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter. On performance terms I found her to be very endearing, and physically I found her to be very, very sexy. I've always loved that 1930s/40s 'dame' look of the heavily coiffed hair, curvy figure and the ruby red lips. And the moment she walks in to a pub wearing that red dress? :randy: Just a really likeable film.

The Gunslinger45

03-23-14, 12:53 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

Captain America and Blade I really like. I agree that Zod is the best part of Superman II and is overall pretty silly. Ang Lee's Hulk was crap and I really need to rewatch Mask of the Phantasm.

JayDee

03-23-14, 09:52 PM

Thanks GS. :up: Our opinions in general do seem to be pretty similar, especially when it comes to comic book flicks.

Sexy Celebrity

03-23-14, 09:54 PM

No more rep until you join MoFo Big Brother 2.

JayDee

03-23-14, 10:29 PM

No more rep until you join MoFo Big Brother 2.

Eh.....ok? That kind of came out of nowhere! I'll have a look into it tomorrow though

Sexy Celebrity

03-24-14, 09:54 PM

You joined, so, enjoy some rep. :)

Captain Spaulding

03-24-14, 10:38 PM

These aren't so much "musings" as in-depth essays. I applaud your effort, JayDee. Excellent thread.

Miss Vicky

03-24-14, 10:40 PM

These aren't so much "musings" as in-depth essays. I applaud your effort, JayDee. Excellent thread.

Compared to the novels Jaydee usually writes, these "micro musings" are very brief. However, his idea of a "micro musing" is an average person's idea of a full review.

Still withholding rep until I get a review of a movie that actually interests me, JayDee. :p

JayDee

03-29-14, 06:25 PM

Up next another couple of absolute favourites that I rewatched for my top 100 list to help sort out the rankings and also help me write a substantial amount about why they're favourites of mine

mirror mirror
Year of release
1984

Directed by
James Cameron

Written by
James Cameron
Gale Anne Hurd
William Wisher Jr.

Starring
Linda Hamilton
Michael Biehn
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Paul Winfield
Earl Bohen
Lance Henriksen

The Terminator

rating_5

Plot - In the year 2029, a vicious war is raging between man and machine. A computer system called Skynet gained sentience in 1997 and declared war on all of humanity. With billions already dead, all that stands between Skynet and the complete destruction of the human race are pockets of resistance groups. Despite their seemingly untenable position, mankind actually stands on the brink of victory when Skynet takes one final roll of the dice. It sends a cybernetic killer known as a Terminator (Schwarzenegger) back through time to 1984 with the goal of killing Sarah Connor (Hamilton). She may not know it yet but Sarah Connor is to prove vital to the resistance effort. She is due to give birth to a son named John, a son who will grow up and lead the resistance to victory. The Terminator has been tasked with killing her before she ever gives birth, attempting to turn the tide back in favour of the machines. The resistance follows suit however by sending a warrior of its own back on the Terminator's trail, Kyle Reese (Biehn). It becomes a race against time for Reese to reach Sarah before the Terminator does.

For many years I considered the sequel as the superior film. That was probably due to the sequel being so much bigger and more action-packed than the original, and that greatly appealed to my juvenile tastes. :D While I still love T2 I now feel this is clearly the best film that the Terminator series has to offer. It's just such a mean, lean film which moves along at a tremendous pace. In a number of ways resembling a noir thriller it's a gripping experience, and Arnie's Terminator remains quite a terrifying presence. You just can't stop him!

While the film has many attributes going for it (which I will get on to), without a doubt the one single element that made this film so iconic and ensured its place in cinema history is the involvement of Arnold Schwarzenegger as The Terminator. There can be few actors out there with careers as productive as Arnie that have less acting ability and nuance than him; no-one is ever going to mistake him for being a classically trained performer! On the other hand however there have been very few actors in the history of cinema who have such a strong screen presence as the Austrian Oak. And for a character that only speaks a total of 18 lines, for a combined total of less than 100 words, you really need someone like that so that the character makes an impression. And oh boy does he make an impression! While it may be a sentiment that is over-used these days by reviewers such as myself, on this occasion it really does bear saying; it is impossible to imagine how anyone else could have inhabited this role. On a purely physical level his imposing frame is a perfect fit, but it's more than just that. It's the stilted voice, the unnatural mannerisms and the dead eyes that create this terrifically mechanical performance. Schwarzenegger really did deliver one of cinema's all time great villains. It's just such a classic nightmare for people, being chased by something that is apparently impossible to escape from. There's also a deeper, metaphorical edge to these machines that I think I had somehow overlooked until now; that of being an allegory for the Nazis. Like the Nazi forces under Hitler's command, the machines are this seemingly unstoppable force intent on wiping out all of humanity. Through the stories of Reese we learn that the machines hold humans captive in work camps, while he also shows Sarah the ID number that he has imprinted on his forearm. How I didn't put this together before is baffling to me.

As much credit as Schwarzenegger deserves for the creation, side-by-side with him in the recognition stakes would have to be Stan Winston. Given the many years that have now passed since the film's release, and the tight budget at its disposal, it really is a great testament to the skill of Winston just how well much of his work still holds up. There are still great little moments such as our opportunity to see under the Terminator's skin when he is repairing his arm, with all the moving gears and gizmos inside; moments which you wouldn't bat an eye at in even a film released today. And the endoskeleton at the end is just an incredible achievement; it's a tremendous piece of design that just enhances the character's menace to an even greater level. There's no doubt that some of the effects may flag up the film's limitations; you can see the seams so to speak. During the scene where he repairs his eye at a motel it's very obvious when we're dealing with the real Schwarzenegger, and when we're dealing with his animatronic replacement. However it's still such a fantastic creation from the Stan Winston studio that you can't help but admire the craftsmanship. And when it comes to the aforementioned endoskeleton at the film's conclusion, the stop motion is admittedly a bit dodgy, with the Terminator's movements taking on a very awkward, jerking nature. Personally I actually think this works to its advantage however. It seems to heighten the inhumanity of this metallic monstrosity, making it even more creepy somehow. In fact just about all of the film's effects are still able to hold up today, whether it be the time travel effects, the make-up used to convey the damage to Schwarzenegger's face or at realising the post-apocalyptic world of 2029. The future world in particular is terrifically impressive. The opening sequence that shows the humans and machines battling on this wasteland, and ending with the tank's tracks crushing the human skulls, is just such a vivid and instantly engrossing start. We are only given another couple of brief glimpses at this world, but they are just so enticing. And it's just a shame that we're still waiting really for that potential to be fully realised in any of the subsequent films.

Film Trivia Snippets - It was an exceptionally long casting process before the role of Sarah Connor eventually landed at the feet of Linda Hamilton. When he originally wrote the script, Cameron had Bridget Fonda in mind but she passed on the project. Glenn Close, Debra Winger, Daryl Hannah and Tatum O'Neal all won the role at separate stages but had to drop out for varying reasons. Those who audtioned for the role included Sharon Stone, Kelly McGillis and Geena Davis. While a whole host of further acresses were considered before arriving at Hamilton. The list included Jennifer Jason Leigh, Kate Capshaw, Kathleen Turner, Michelle Pfeiffer, Diane Lane, Carrie Fisher, Susan Sarandon, Rhea Perlman, Sigourney Weaver, Cybill Shepherd, Jane Seymour, Anjelica Huston, Kim Basinger, Jodie Foster, Melanie Griffith, Diane Keaton, Goldie Hawn, Jamie Lee Curtis, Liza Minelli, Mia Farrow, Rosanna Arquette, Meg Ryan, Heather Locklear, Madonna and Margot Kidder. At one point even Julia Louis-Dreyfus was rumoured to be up for the role but was forced to turn down the role due to her commitments to Saturday Night Live. /// You might think that the battle between Kyle Reese and The Terminator is one of the great feuds in movie history. So you may be surprised by the fact that they are only together in the same frame on one single occasion. This occurs during the fight at the Tech Noir club when Reese shoots The Terminator for the second time. When they finally meet in the factory, it is not Schwarzenegger, just a metallic puppet.

As strong a showing as Schwarzenegger gives, you could make the argument that his job is easier than that of his co-stars. This is especially true of Michael Biehn who has the unenviable job of trying to ground this fantastic tale by explaining to both Sarah and the audience just what the hell is going on. So throughout he gets saddled with some extremely heavy exposition that he has to deliver, very often right in the middle of a big action sequence. Biehn proves to be more than up to the task however. This is particularly evident during the interrogation scene at the police station while he's talking to Dr. Silberman. He relays the whole preposterous story about the war and the Terminators with such indignant anger and conviction that we completely buy every single word he's saying. He is just this furious ball of energy throughout, fuelled by pure anger. He convinces you fully that he is a character born out of war, that he grew up in a wasteland where he had to scavenge just to survive and that as a kid he didn't play games, but instead he learnt to build bombs. He's also a pretty tough b*stard, as is seen by his ability to just shake off being shot as if it's nothing.

Also very impressive is Linda Hamilton as the iconic heroine Sarah Connor, though in a way it's not until the sequel that you really come to admire just how good she is. In the sequel we see her in full-on warrior mode, making her character at the start of this film seem a world away. There is still good work on show here however as she conveys the extreme, bewildering terror that enters the life of this working class suburbanite who you can imagine spent every day of her teenage years in a mall. And we do get a preview of what she is going to become at the film's conclusion. Finally managing to destroy the Terminator she delivers the line “You're terminated f*cker!”, and does it with such fury in her eyes that you can see she is well on her way to the transformation into the bad-ass we see in Judgment Day. While that trio carry the huge majority of the film all by themselves, on the rare occasion when others are required to step in they prove to be more than up to the task. Paul Winfield and Lance Henrikesen add some real colour and flavour as a couple of cops, just as Earl Boen does in the role of Dr. Silberman.

Film Trivia Snippets - The casting process for the character of The Terminator was not as arduous as that for Sarah Connor but it still threw up some interesting prospects. The original idea was for Lance Henriksen to take on the role while Mel Gibson actually turned the role down. Kevin Kline and Michael Douglas were both considered, while rumour has it that Tom Selleck was also offered the role but had to turn it down due to his Magnum P.I. Commitments. The most interesting possibility however? O.J. Simpson. At one point a mock-up movie poster was done that even featured Simpson in the role. In the end he didn't get it however because the film's producers considered him “too nice” to be taken seriously as a cold-blooded killer! :eek: Really not the best judges of character were they? /// If you're looking for perhaps the ultimate case of type casting how about this one. Stan Yale played the 'Derelict in Alley' who has his clothes stolen by Reese and uttered the line "That son of a bitch took my pants," Future credits for him included 'bum' in P.I. Private Investigations, 'wino' in Terminal Exposure, 'bum' in Moonlighting, 'bum in Matlock', 'first homeless man' in L.A. Law and 'homeless man' in My Name is Earl. He certainly seems to have cornered that particular market.

Every so often a film comes along that has reviewers waxing lyrical about how taut, tightly scripted and economical it is. If you've never been sure exactly what they're talking about, just give this film a watch and you should get the idea. The pace of this film is just incredible. For all of its robots, time travel and high concept story the film is basically a stripped to the bare bones chase movie. In fact the film at large rather mirrors the nature of The Terminator itself, careering along at an almost unrelenting pace. There is no wasted motion whatsoever, everything is aimed at one single goal. And this is true pretty much from its opening seconds. The film really does waste absolutely no time in getting going, handling all of the exposition in a mere few sentences and then dropping Arnie right into proceedings in a brilliant flash of light. And that's us, we're off, and we barely pause for breath for the next 90 minutes. A large factor in creating this incessant pace is the terrific editing by Mark Goldblatt which never allows the character or the audience to rest. Although it's not all about the rapid tempo of the film, there's also some great storytelling to be found in Goldblatt's work. The juxtaposition of The Terminator and Kyle Reese and how they go about acquiring clothing, weaponry and a vehicle is a nice sequence; The Terminator just mowing down anyone in his way and breaking every law imaginable while Reese attempts a much more restrained approach. My favourite example however is the introduction of the Sarah Connor character, allowing us to see just how completely out of her depth she is. Up until this point the film had been predominantly set in a grubby world of urban blight, but it then switches instantly to this sunny, colourful suburb as we find Sarah riding along on a bicycle. The edgy, electronic score also gives way to a much lighter, happy-go-lucky and playful piece of piano music. For Sarah, the biggest problem in her life is being late for work and we see that she can't even handle being a waitress, and yet she's expected to help save the world?

While he may have directed bigger films, including the two most successful films of all time, and even won an Oscar for his work on Titanic, I personally don't think that James Cameron's direction has ever been better than here with The Terminator. As well as keeping the narrative flowing at an unrelenting pace, he frequently shows a great eye for framing and composition to deliver some terrific shots and images; moments such as when the Terminator emerges from the flames sans its skin. I also really enjoy his occasional use of slow motion in the film. He uses it to highlight the horror and tension of scenes such as when The Terminator tracks down Sarah in the club, and not just because it's stylish in the way that a Zack Snyder does. Cameron also seems to have a real sense of fun at times throughout the film; for example I love the little shot that foreshadows what is to come later on as a small toy truck is destroyed under the wheel of the car that Arnie is driving. Later on in the film the Terminator will drive a truck that looks almost identical to this, and which also gets destroyed.

Cameron also brings his A-game to the action sequences, and when combined with Goldblatt's razor-sharp editing and Brad Fiedel's pulsing, electronic score they become tremendously exhilarating. While the action in the sequel may have unfolded on a larger scale thanks to its vastly superior budget and the huge leap forward in special effects, I think that the action here more than makes up for it with its fast and ferocious nature. In fact I'm not sure that the sequel was quite able to capture the sheer intensity and raw urgency of the set-pieces in this film. It doesn't matter whether it's the wild shootout at the night club, the ensuing car chase or the phenomenal assault on the police station, all of the action sequences are just fantastic. For all its ruthless speed and manic chaos however, it is perhaps when the action slows right down that we get the most thrilling sequence. I'm talking about the film's concluding chase between the severely wounded Sarah and the Terminator which is now only a torso but keeps on coming. With both individuals so worse for wear the chase becomes a crawl, and it's just so slow and tense that it is agonising.

Film Trivia Snippets - The Terminator is the only character ever to be listed in the American Film Institute's 100 Heroes and Villains list as both a villain and a hero. While AFI also listed the line “I'll be back” as the 37th best ever movie quote. /// One afternoon during a break in filming, Arnold Schwarzenegger went into a restaurant in downtown L.A. to get some lunch and realized all too late that he was still in Terminator makeup - with a missing eye, exposed jawbone and burned flesh. /// The future terminator who infiltrates the human camp in the dream sequence is played by Franco Columbu, who like Arnold Schwarzenegger is a multiple Mr. Olympia title winner and also a close friend of his. /// In James Cameron's original treatment, Sarah Connor has an old figure skating injury that was fixed with a couple of surgical pins and the terminator would cut the legs open of the first two Sarah Connors to find this identifying mark. /// There was minimal interference from the film's financial backer, Orion, partly due to the budget offered. However, they did have two suggestions. The first was a cyborg canine that accompanies Reese - an idea turned down by Cameron; the second was strengthening the relationship between Kyle and Sarah, which Cameron decided to accept.

The whole story unfolds from the tremendous original concept in the script. And the script at large is actually very impressive. Admittedly some of the romantic dialogue between Kyle and Sarah is a little bit clunky but it works because Hamilton and Biehn sell it so well and with such sincerity. They make lines that could easily be ridiculous ("I came across time for you Sarah. I love you; I always have.") come across as very touching. It also works because we understand the attraction on both sides of the coin. For Reese the romance almost works an example of celebrity worship. He has grown up admiring Sarah as this great hero; so much so that he feels like he has known her his whole life, even if he's never actually met her. While for Sarah we understand the sheer terror she must be feeling and the need for comfort. And I've got to say that their sex scene in the motel is really quite a sexy, erotic sequence.

It's very obvious that the budget for this film was very small, minuscule in fact when compared with its sequel. While Judgment Day was bankrolled by a budget of approximately $100 million, Cameron was able to craft this film out of an astonishingly paltry $6 million! And while that tight budget may be clear to see on the screen I actually think its to the benefit of the film. It gives it a cheap and grubby aesthetic which I think works for the subject matter, really heightening its noirish roots as the action takes place predominantly on these streets cloaked in shadows. The film even acknowledges the direction that Cameron is aiming for in the name of the club that the Terminator tracks Sarah down in - Tech Noir.

Conclusion - One of the great action films. One of the great thrillers. And one of the great sci-fi films. The Terminator is able to not only work but flourish on all of these levels. Not bad for a film made on such a tight budget by an unproven director whose only previous film to this had been the not-quite masterpiece Piranha II: The Spawning, and starring a trio of fairly inexperienced actors. Despite these inauspicious factors however, they were all able to come together to create an absolute classic.

gandalf26

03-29-14, 07:58 PM

Great review JayDee!

I just rewatched The Terminator like 2 weeks ago after it came up in the 80's countdown. Like you I am slowly coming around to the idea that the film may just be better than T2. Particular highlight is the Police Station assault. It just doesn't happen in movies, breaking the rules in the same way The Joker breaks them in Dark Knight. I'm not sure there has ever been a scene like it where a busy Police station is taken on and defeated by a lone assailant.

I'm not sure that your right about getting to see a full movie of the war between mankind and the machines, I just don't think it will ever work. It should stay where it lies as excellent flashbacks in T1 and T2, Terminator Salvation was dog ****. Unless a really top Director comes along with a top story, but even then we know the humans will win with John Connor leading the way so it's all a bit pointless. As they say in Terminator the real battle takes place in the past, and we've seen it brilliantly done twice.

cricket

03-29-14, 07:59 PM

Great review JayDee; I think it contains more words than the whole movie, but I agree with every single thing you wrote. I may have liked part 2 a little more as I walked out of the theater, but as time goes by, the first one blows it away more and more. I'm glad to see you talk about Michael Biehn; I think his role in this is underappreciated. He's probably a mediocre actor, but in this and Aliens, I think he plays tremendous movie heroes.

gandalf26

03-29-14, 08:05 PM

Looking at micro musing I feel Blade and Superman 2 deserve a slightly higher rating. Especially Blade, one of the best comic book movies around.

The Gunslinger45

03-29-14, 10:02 PM

Masterman

03-31-14, 05:31 AM

Great review of The Terminator. I'd agree that it is better than T2. Nice work.

JayDee

03-31-14, 06:30 PM

Thanks for all the compliments guys. :up:

These aren't so much "musings" as in-depth essays. I applaud your effort, JayDee. Excellent thread.

Thank you very much Captain. Always nice to get a new fan. :D

I just rewatched The Terminator like 2 weeks ago after it came up in the 80's countdown. Like you I am slowly coming around to the idea that the film may just be better than T2. Particular highlight is the Police Station assault. It just doesn't happen in movies, breaking the rules in the same way The Joker breaks them in Dark Knight. I'm not sure there has ever been a scene like it where a busy Police station is taken on and defeated by a lone assailant.

I'm not sure that your right about getting to see a full movie of the war between mankind and the machines, I just don't think it will ever work. It should stay where it lies as excellent flashbacks in T1 and T2, Terminator Salvation was dog ****. Unless a really top Director comes along with a top story, but even then we know the humans will win with John Connor leading the way so it's all a bit pointless. As they say in Terminator the real battle takes place in the past, and we've seen it brilliantly done twice.

The assault on the police station is indeed awesome. :yup:

And I didn't necessarily mean that I wanted a full-on war movie, just that even the glimpses we've seen in the following films and then with Termination Salvation it had not lived up to the intensity and thrills of those sequences in the first film.

Great review JayDee; I think it contains more words than the whole movie,

:laugh: Well I do try!

JayDee

04-01-14, 09:20 PM

Nothing to see here, move along. ;)

JayDee

04-01-14, 09:21 PM

Well after my review for The Terminator we coincidentally move on to....Terminator 2! What are the odds?

mirror mirror
Year of release
1991

Directed by
James Cameron

Written by
James Cameron
William Wisher Jr.

Starring
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Linda Hamilton
Edward Furlong
Robert Patrick
Joe Morton
Earl Boen

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

rating_4_5 ++

Plot - Almost ten years have passed since a cybernetic killer called a Terminator hunted down and attempted to kill Sarah Connor (Hamilton) and her unborn son who is due to lead the human resistance to victory in the future. That attempt failed but now a new Terminator has been sent back in time tasked with eliminating John Connor (Furlong) while he is still a young child. The new Terminator is a more advanced and powerful model than its predecessor, named the T-1000 (Patrick). Sarah and John need to go on the run, but this time they will have help from an unlikely source. The human resistance have managed to send back a Terminator (Schwarzenegger) of their own, tasked with protecting them at all costs.

In a recent interview James Cameron stated that these days he greatly prefers this sequel to the original. And I've got to say that it's not really a surprise. When you look at 1984's The Terminator and compare it to all of his films that followed there have very little in common. Following the lean, economical approach he took to that venture, his subsequent films became increasingly more epic and bloated, both in terms of their scope and budget. In fact in the six subsequent films since The Terminator not a single one has come close to clocking in at under two hours. So when you take the efficient, concise Terminator and the effects-heavy juggernaut Judgment Day, with almost an hour's difference in their running times, it's easy to guess which way Cameron would lean. It's for those same reasons however that I now prefer the first film to this much bigger and shinier sequel. Whereas The Terminator was one of the most direct films I've ever seen this has a tendency to meander; it's nowhere close to being as focused as its predecessor. I particularly find this to be the case in the stretch that leads up to the big conclusion. While Sarah's attempted assassination of Miles Dyson and the subsequent assault on the Skynet lab makes sense for the story, and even includes some terrific moments of action, I feel that it really does have a negative impact on the film's momentum. It really feels like the film becomes distracted, and I think it's a real problem when you completely sideline your main antagonist for a full 45 minutes. For a film that placed great emphasis on its chase element, not having Robert Patrick on screen whatsoever during that time seems like an odd choice.

I also don't think that the script is as strong this time around. In numerous ways it is actually just a straight remake of the first film with only a few slight alterations, namely the target of the hunt (John not Sarah) and the implementation of Arnie (no longer the villain). As a result it doesn't feel anywhere near as fresh or inventive as the original story, and also suffers from some occasionally dodgy dialogue and some irritating plot holes. My problems with the dialogue can most readily be found in the stretch of film centred in the desert where Sarah indulges in some pretentious, flowery and hippy-like voiceover sentiments. As for irritations with the plot there have always been a couple of things that have irked me. Such as why does the returning Dr. Silberman never mention Kyle Reese? The omission of his part in her story seems very strange, both in their sessions together and particularly when he is giving a tour to a group of medical students and talking about how fascinating her case is. Something else that has always confused me is why at the conclusion the T-1000 tries to torture Sarah into calling out to John. Considering that he can mimic both the voice and the form of Sarah this seems completely pointless. One thing I will give the script credit for is that it enhances the central issue of the film about humanity's over-reliance on technology. We see that Miles Dyson, the man responsible for everything, was a decent guy with the best of intentions who just happened to over-reach is grasp.

Film Trivia Snippets - Believe it or not but the first choice to take on the role of the T-1000 was actually Michael Biehn. It would have seen Biehn and Schwarzenegger once again go head-to-head but in a complete role reversal of the first film. The idea was abandoned however when the filmmakers deemed that it would be confusing for viewers. /// In the audio commentary on the film's DVD release, James Cameron revealed that not only was the biker bar scene filmed right across the street from the spot where LAPD officers beat up Rodney Kind, but that they were actually filming on the night of the incident. /// How about this for validation of the work done by the art and FX departments - local residents in Lakeview Terrace actually held a protest outsider their local Medical Centre when they thought it had been transformed into a state hospital for the criminally insane. It was only when they realised that it had been set-dressed to represent the Pescadero State Hospital that the protest disbanded. And in a similar incident the effects at the steel mill were so convincing that some former works of the plant, which had been closed for over 10 years, actually thought that it was back up and running. /// A sequel to The Terminator was first announced back in late 1984, with a projected budget of just $12 million. When the film was eventually made the final budget ended up coming in at $102 million.

While Judgment Day retained the same R rating as the first film the tone this time out is certainly a lot lighter with a lot more humour present. We can see this right from the outset with Arnie's terminator being introduced to the cheesy tones of “Bad to the Bone.” Arnie's Terminator just has a much more user friendly interface for the sequel (and I did steal that line from somewhere! :D), bonding with young John to create a humorous double act and tossing out one catchphrase after another; the “I need a vacation” line in particular feels so silly. As well as that you've got the surrogate father angle that evolves between the Terminator and John, culminating in the terrifically hokey thumbs up as Arnie enters the molten steel below. Even the look of the film is a lot easier on the eyes. While the first film seemed to take place almost exclusively at night and had an extremely grubby aesthetic, this sequel often takes place in the bright LA sunshine and in general is just a lot shinier and brighter lit. If the first film was a gritty thriller on the fringes of horror, then this is a purely bombastic blockbuster.

So far all I seem to have down is point out flaws in this film and why I prefer the first outing for the characters. Despite this I still find Judgment Day to be a tremendously entertaining slice of action. In massive contrast to the first film's shoestring budget, Terminator 2 boasted a budget just north of $100 million, making it the most expensive film ever made at the time of release. And it's very evident where all that money went because Judgment Day is a masterpiece in special effects; so much so in fact that for the most part they can still stand up to this very day. If a film was released today with this level of CGI then very few eyelids would be batted. Right from the opening seconds the upgrade in special effects is clear to see; the sequence detailing the warfare of the future is a much more up-scaled, high tech version than we saw in the first film. And the absolute pinnacle of the effects can most definitely be found in the liquid metal capabilities of Robert Patrick's T-1000. Whether it's morphing into other people or objects, transforming its hands into vicious weapons or conveying the damage caused by gunshots and the like the effects are fantastic. In fact the T-1000 remains to this day one of my favourite ever CGI creations. Some of the images the effects help to create are just fantastic, particularly to show the damage inflicted upon the T-1000; the gunshots which actually look like pie tins, the large impacts which damn near split the character in two or my personal favourite, the hole in the head that the camera moves around to peer through. I also love the scene where the T-1000 is doused in liquid nitrogen, freezing to the point where his legs begin to snap as he walks. Further great work from the Stan Winston company is to be found in the realisation of Sarah's nightmares, with the film this time relying on good old fashioned effects such as miniature models to bring to life the horrors of the forthcoming nuclear assault. It has been labelled by experts as the most realistic nuclear blast depicted in film and is an exceptionally vivid and horrific scene.

When it came to casting the upgraded Terminator sent back to hunt down the young John Connor, it must have seemed like a near impossible task. How exactly do you find someone who not only has to follow in the intimidating footsteps of Schwarzenegger from the first film, but has to be able to stand up to Arnie and convince as a formidable foe. Well the film pulled an interesting and inspired rabbit out of the hat with the casting of Robert Patrick. He certainly doesn't have the same physical frame as the Austrian bodybuilder, but on the strength of his own attributes he damn near proves a match for Arnie's T-800 in terms of menace; his sharp, chiselled, angular features and icy blue eyes making for an unnerving prospect. Whereas Schwarzenegger's muscles made him a weapon of brute strength, the T-1000 is a more wily and stealthy opponent. Even if he was nearly impossible to stop there was a feeling that you may somehow be able to outrun the T-800, but that's certainly not the case with the T-1000. And it actually makes a kind of sense that the film would switch things up with the Terminator. After all as technology advances it always becomes more compact, so having a smaller, nimbler Terminator is logical.

Film Trivia Snippets - When looking for inspiration on how to play the T-1000, Robert Patrick looked to nature. For the character's head movements he mimicked the American bald eagle, while when it came to moving through crowds he patterened himself after a shark moving in on its prey. /// If you want an example of the large divide in scale between this film and its predecessor beyond their budgets, take a look at their filming schedules. While the first film was shot in a mere six weeks, this sequel had a shoot that run for eight months! /// Arnold Schwarzenegger's “Hasta la Vista, Baby” line is amongst the most iconic quotes in all of cinema. For the Spanish release of the film it is translated into “Sayonara, Baby” to preserve the humorous nature. /// The date of Judgment Day is August 27th, 1997; the same date that the Soviet Union first detonated an atomic bomb in 1949. /// There was a proposed sequence that would have shown the design of the Time Displacement Machine that sent the Terminators and Kyle Reese back in time, but it was rejected. The machine would have consisted of three rings independently rotating around each other, with the subject to be displaced levitating in their centre. The design ultimately resurfaced in the 1997 Jodie Foster film, Contact.

With Robert Patrick taking over on villain duties it frees Schwarzenegger up to be the hero. While it's an understandable story choice given how iconic and popular his character proved to be in the original film, I preferred him as the terrifying threat rather than the noble hero. That said, his character is still pretty cool. I love the way the character continually spin-cocks his shotgun in between firing. As the mother of the resistance, Linda Hamilton is almost unrecognisable from the first film in the role of Sarah Connor. Where once was a damsel in distress there is now this intense, ripped warrior. She is just bursting with fury and violence, resembling a caged animal during her time in the mental institution. Her sanity has been pushed so far that she's actually rather frightening on occasion. As strong as it is on its own, it's only when you compare the performance to her first outing as Sarah that you see what an incredible transformation she pulled off. She very much inhabits the characteristics of Michael Biehn's Reese from the first film. As her son John, thing don't run quite so smoothly. Edward Furlong is a bit hit and miss, though in the end does a pretty decent job, especially when you take into account that it was his first ever acting gig. What I think also hurts him is that I've never been overly fond of the character that the script sticks him with; he's a little bit of a whiny, emo bitch! There's also a very brief but welcome return for Michael Biehn in the form of a dream-induced cameo. Oh and I also found Joe Morton very engaging as Miles Dyson.

When it comes to the action sequences I don't think they have quite the same intensity and edge as the first film. What they lack in those departments however the sequences most certainly make up for in terms of sheer spectacle and scale. The initial chase is thrilling and features some astonishing stunts, with the moment a huge 18-wheeler truck flies off a bridge into the flood control channel being an incredible highlight. Arnie's explosive one man assault on the entire Los Angeles police department at the Cyberdyne building is another very memorable set-piece. Earlier on I talked about the lull that occurs when the T-1000 is sidelined for 45 minutes. After that lull however the film does rally for a pretty bad-ass finale that centres around the brutal smackdown between the two Terminators and features some incredible special effects.

Conclusion - Back in the day I used to hold this above the first film. While that is no longer the case I still think it's an incredibly entertaining film, still one of the best films of its kind. And to be honest I should perhaps still be giving it 5 stars, it's just that I wanted to show the slight preference I have for the first film. I kind of see it like the first and third Die Hard films. The first Die Hard is undoubtedly the better film, but With a Vengeance comes damn close to it in terms of entertainment. And it's a similar case her I feel. It may not be as creative or as direct in its approach but it's still an astonishing mix of action and special effects that remains great fun on every viewing.

JayDee

04-03-14, 05:17 PM

Well as it turns out my superhero season was shelved for exactly two reviews! :D And now it's back!

I went to see this on its first day of release here in the UK but have held the review back a while until its US release was closer. And yet again it's another big massive rambling fanboy rave review. In fact it's not so much a review as it is a dissertation on the film and the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a whole. The world of comic book and superheroe films is the only area of film where I feel I have as much knowledge, if not more, than just about anyone else on here. So I like to show it off! :p

mirror mirror
Year of release
2014

Directed by
Anthony Russo
Joe Russo

Written by
Christopher Markus
Stephen McFeely

Starring
Chris Evans
Scarlett Johansson
Anthony Mackie
Sebastian Shaw
Samuel L. Jackson
Robert Redford

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

rating_4_5 +

Plot - Two years after the events of The Avengers, Steve Rogers (Evans) is living in Washington, DC and in the guise of Captain America he is the top agent of S.H.I.E.L.D., working alongside Natasha Romanoff, aka Black Widow (Johansson) under the leadership of Nick Fury (Jackson). The latest development in the world of SHIELD is Operation Insight, a new set of Hellicarriers linked by spy satellites that allows SHIELD to monitor the world like never before and the ability to eliminate those they deem a threat. The program is the baby of Alexander Pierece (Redford), the head of the agency. As it gets set to go operational however it sets in motion a series of events that put the lives of Captain America and his allies in danger, and leaves Steve not knowing who he can trust. To make matters even worse he finds his movements being stalked by a mysterious figure called The Winter Soldier (Shaw), an individual who seems able to match Cap physically step for step. In a lone bit of good news though he does find a new ally in Sam Wilson, a former soldier who utilised a piece of secret and advanced technology in warfare.

Cinematically, there is little worse than those occasions when your hopes and expectations for a film are sky high, only to have that particular film deliver a crushing blow of disappointment. They frequently make for the worst movie experiences, even if the film itself remains fairly decent. A recent and prime example for me would be Elysium. Now it certainly wasn't the worst film I saw last year (it would perhaps scrape a rating_3) but because I had massive expectations for it (I thought it could be the film of the year) it was the most negative experience I had, worse than inferior films which I didn't have much hope for. As a result I try and do my best these days to keep my anticipation for films in check, not getting too carried away and setting myself up for a fall. When it comes to superhero films however that's a struggle for me. As the rampant fanboy I am, I frequently can't stop myself from getting excited by the appetising deluge of little tidbits, teasers and trailers that lead up to their release. The latest to spark this anticipation was Captain America: The Winter Soldier. So what a relief it is to find that this film is one of those that at least matches, and perhaps even surpasses my expectations. Captain America has a reputation as the dullest of the Avengers. In the comic book world however that has not been the case for a number of years now. During an 8-year stretch under the stewardship of Ed Brubaker the Captain America series and its Winter Soldier spin-off have delved Steve Rogers into darker and more intriguing territory. And that change in tone has been reflected here in The Winter Soldier. To put it simply, The Winter Soldier absolutely rocks!

One of my favourite things about the Marvel Cinematic Universe is how unique it attempts to make each of its individual entities. While they may all be superhero movies they each exist in their own little sub-genre. So far we've had the Iron Man films deliver a slice of sci-fi/action comedy; we've had all-out fantasy adventures in the form of the Thor films; we've had The Avengers bring us a team-up/men on a mission alien invasion flick; the first Captain America was a period adventure in a Indiana Jones, Saturday matinee vibe, while the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy looks set to be a pulpy piece of sci-fi. As for The Winter Soldier we are very much in the land of the 70s conspiracy thriller, in the world of espionage which means we're dealing in shady dealings and shady characters, conspiracies and cover-ups, cloak-and-dagger machinations and double crosses galore. It makes for Marvel's most complex and intriguing narrative so far, eschewing the usual escalating series of battles between the hero and his nemesis for a more interesting and layered story. As a result, stretches of the film are surprisingly talky and plot-heavy. The only problem though is that the conspiracy thriller is a climate we're so accustomed to that you'll be able to predict many of the twists and turns before they happen.

In a film of this nature to truly challenge a hero it's not enough to just give them an adversary who can challenge them physically, you have to make them question and doubt themselves and why they do what they do. So when it came to Iron Man 3 for example it wasn't just enough to throw the Mandarin at Tony Stark, you had to get in his mind. In the guise of Robert Downey Jr., Tony Stark just oozed self-belief and self-confidence/arrogance. In his third solo outing however Tony was racked by doubt, fear and insecurity following the events of The Avengers, resulting in a series of panic attacks and making him much more vulnerable. Well if you want to make Steve Rogers doubt himself and why he fights, then you go after his reason for fighting in the first place - America. When Captain America was created in the 40s the US really was seen as the world's beacon of hope and honour; it was the land of the free, and Captain America was the symbol of this. Since then however it has largely been a downward spiral in terms of how the world views America. And that really culminated in the 1970s, a decade that was besieged by assassinations, wars, political scandals, civil unrest and riots. And that's why adopting the façade of the 70s thriller is the perfect avenue to make Cap question the country he fights for today. And while the film may hark back to the conspiracy thrillers of the 1970s it is also rooted very much in our current climate thanks to its sharp and insightful script. Right from the film's opening montage of Cap running past several landmarks (Washington monument, Jefferson Memorial, National Mall etc) we instantly know we're in Washington right at the heart of American politics. I find it a rather funny instance that its a film starring Captain America; regarded as the quaint, flag-waving, jingoistic symbol of the United States, that proves to be without a doubt the most subversive superhero movie to date. There's an irony there that I don't think even Alanis Morissette could fail to recognise!

Film Trivia Snippets - To prepare for his role as the Winter Soldier, Sebastian Stan went through five months of physical training and historical research. In his own words he "dove into the whole Cold War history: I looked at the KGB. I looked at all kinds of spy movies, and all kinds of documentaries about that time, and what it was about. I grabbed anything from that time period and anything about brainwashing." Additionally, during filming he would walk around all day practicing his moves with a plastic knife because he wanted his movements to feel natural. /// In battling the Winter Soldier, Captain America needs all the resources he can get, including his iconic shield, which has a lot more uses in the film. The shield is traditionally used mostly as a defensive weapon, but in Captain America: The Winter Soldier the filmmakers wanted to explore using it more as an offensive weapon. There are two handles on the shield and Steve Rogers can hold onto the handles in order to utilize it in an eastern style of fighting. /// Unlike the other films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, "The Winter Soldier" minimizes the use of visual effects as much as possible. Anthony Mackie, elaborated: "The Russos, what they did that was so great was, they wanted to stay with live action, which is a dying art form...If they could build it, they built it. If we could do it, we did it. They wanted to do as little CGI as possible. That's why the movie looks so great."

Ever since he was thawed out at the end of The First Avenger the catchphrase for the Captain America character has very much been that he's 'a man out of time.' So it's again pretty ironic that it's a film starring a man out of time that really is the superhero film of our times. The main issues at the heart of the film, and which make Cap question the system which he's fighting for are taken right out of today's headlines. He is extremely disturbed by S.H.I.E.L.D.'s plans for such intense surveillance and spying of the people, arguing about where the line is between making us feel safe and removing our sense of freedom. It's not hard to spot a connection to the NSA surveillance scandal that rocked the US government last year. While another issue that troubles Cap is that S.H.I.E.L.D.'s new defence system, Operation Insight, is able to target and kill people they deem to be a threat. This notion of execution without a trial very much plays into the controversial drone strikes that the American government now engages in. There's perhaps even an extra little touch that plays into the idea that Americans don't know the geography of the world, that they can't pinpoint countries on a map and that they see everyone as the same; this happens when a member of the World Security Council mistakes a French terrorist for an Algerian.

However the fact that the film has story and character is all well and good but that all accounts for nought if it doesn't deliver on the action front. This is a superhero movie after all! The Winter Soldier has no need to worry about that however because in action terms it also emerges as one of the strongest in the genre, perhaps the strongest. What I really loved about the action is how real and tough it comes across. It really sells the idea that Captain America isn't your normal superhero. He's not a mutant who was born with powers. He wasn't created by some science experiment gone wrong. He was created by the government for war; he's a weapon. And we really see that in this sequel. When he's in battle you really feel the power behind his blows. You can really feel his kicks and punches rattling bones and shifting internal organs around to locations they have no business being in. The fist-fights he engages in are brutal and hard-hitting affairs. I also love how he utilises his shield in this film, they've really stepped it up from The First Avenger. There's an awesome little moment that really shows the strength of the character and just put such a smile on my face. It's a scene where Cap is chasing the Winter Soldier through his apartment building. With his enhanced abilities he is racing through the halls at lightning speed. As he attempts to round a tight corner his momentum sends him crashing into the wall, leaving behind a huge, circular dent as a calling card.

It's not just the close combat scenes featuring Cap that impress and carry the load in terms of action. The film employs a whole variety of different styles and scenarios and nails pretty much every single one, delivering a series of thrilling sequences and moments. In addition to Cap's fighting, the hand-to-hand combat featuring Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow is extremely creative and wonderfully choreographed. You could argue that these hand-to-hand sequences actually reach their zenith right at the start of the film in an opening tactical assault they embark upon on a ship. And given the film's roots in the 70s thriller it should come as no surprise to find that a car chase features quite prominently in proceedings, and it really is quite a thrilling, fast-paced and bone-crunching sequence. For all these highlights however perhaps the most striking set-piece; the one that will get people talking, is an intense, large-scale gun battle that rages on the streets of Washington and for me at least evoked memories of the iconic shootout in Michael Mann's Heat. In fact between all the practical fighting and stunts The Winter Soldier made for a very welcome break from the CGI-fests that frequently populate cinemas these days; for the first three-quarters of the film at least. As it approaches its epic-scale conclusion the CGI does come back into play

Film Trivia Snippets - In one scene, Natasha Romanoff wears a necklace with an arrow on it. This is a reference to her teammate and occasional lover Hawkeye (the archer Clint Barton). /// For the several scenes that shared together Chris Evans and Scarlett Johansson actually wrote their own dialogue. /// You may expect actors to be happy to avoid wearing spandex but Anthony Mackie was actually unhappy with the modern take on his costume as Falcon. He wanted the red spandex look from the comics. /// Robert Redford wanted to do the film because his grandchildren are fans of Marvel films and he wanted them to see him in one. /// For the role of Sharon Carter a series of young actresses were considered. Amongst them were Anna Kendrick, Felicity Jones, Imogen Poots, Teresa Palmer, Alison Brie, Emilia Clarke, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Elizabeth Olsen and Jessica Brown Findlay. While Emily VanCamp landed the role a couple of those who lost out landed consolation prizes still in the superhero world. Felicity Jones has landed the role of Felicia Hardy (aka The Black Cat) in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, while Elizabeth Olsen is going to portray the Scarlet Witch in Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Now in his 3rd outing behind the iconic shield, Chris Evans really has settled into the role and made it his own. He really has proven to be a strong piece of casting in the role of Steve Rogers. Certainly for me at least he just evokes that all-American personality perfectly. To me he just perfectly fits that archetype of the blond-haired, blue-eyed star quarterback in a small American town. My favourite part of his performance as Steve is that he chooses to play the hero, not the superhero. At heart his performance is still very much that of the puny little weakling we encountered at the start of the first film. Alongside Cap we once again have the sexy presence that is Black Widow, portrayed by the beguiling Scarlett Johansson. I will admit that I'm not 100% sold on the approach they've taken with the character, I'd perhaps prefer her to be a bit more cold-hearted and dangerous. Given the approach they've gone with however I think that Johannson really is doing a great job in the role, with this film certainly giving her the most to do thus far. Her Widow is sexy, funny and a real livewire. And together she and Evans actually share a really nice chemistry. Some people may see it as a potential romance but I get much more of a sibling vibe from their relationship. Joining these two to further grow this little splinter group from the Avengers is the debuting Falcon, played by Anthony Mackie. I've got to say that I feel Falcon is one of the film's few weak points. And I do mean Falcon precisely, because I think that both Sam Wilson (Falcon's alter ego) and Anthony Mackie make for likeable additions. Mackie plays it with a really nice easygoing charm and right from their first meeting he and Evans strike up a nice chemistry that hints at a potentially entertaining buddy relationship in the offing. However The Falcon just didn't really click for me. His design is a little on the uninspired side and in general he just didn't feel 'right' for the film. In a film attempting to ground its story, at least as much as a film like this can, his inclusion just felt out of place. A much more high-concept, fantastical element that didn't fit comfortably with the rest.

I mentioned that The Winter Soldier gives Johansson's Black Widow her greatest exposure to date, and it's the same story for Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury. The character has now appeared in seven films in the MCU, frequently in a small capacity. As a result all we've gotten to know about him up until now is that he's tough and that he's cool. So basically all we know about him is that he's Samuel L. Jackson! While he was the man responsible for bringing the Avengers together, here however he is finally relevant to the plot of an individual film. And he seems to revel in finally being given such a chance. The last major draw in the film's cast is the addition of Robert Redford as the head of S.H.I.E.L.D., Alexander Pierce. As a man who has largely shunned blockbusters and mainstream crowdpleasers throughout his career, his involvement is a huge coup for Marvel. His presence brings a substantial weight, gravitas and respectability to proceedings, while his standing as one of the main icons of the 70s thriller genre allows the film to further play into that approach.

While Marvel has had several successes with its heroes; thanks in large part to its smart casting with the likes of Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo and Chris Evans, it hasn't fared quite as well with its villains. Tom Hiddleston's wonderful incarnation of Loki has certainly been the exception, with the character garnering a fanbase to almost rival that of the superheroes he does battle with. Many of the other supervillains have struggled to make anything near his level of impact in their respective outings, meaning that Loki is unrivalled as Marvel's no.1 villain in their big-screen rogues gallery. While that certainly doesn't change here, I do think that The Winter Soldier slots very comfortably into second position. He may not say a great deal throughout the entire film but he makes one hell of an impression both visually and as a physical threat to Cap. In fact throw in the character's relentless, seemingly unstoppable nature and you've got something akin to Marvel's version of The Terminator. Throughout the film you find yourself constantly wondering, “just how the hell are they meant to beat this guy?” Always a plus for a villain

Film Trivia Snippets - For the minor role of Batroc the Leaper, the filmmakers cast Georges St-Pierre, a former UFC Welterweight Champion who held the title from 2008 to 2013 when he vacated it. /// To try and avoid spoilers leaking out the film began production and filming under the working title of “Freezer Burn.” /// As is the norm now the film does feature a couple of easter egg credit sequences. The mid-credits scene is directed by Joss Whedon and helps to set-up his forthcoming Avengers sequel, Age of Ultron. /// At one point we see that Steve Rogers carries a notebook around with him that features a to-do list; stuff that he missed during his time on ice that he has been advised to catch up on. His list includes; I Love Lucy, Moon Landing, Berlin Wall (up and down), Steve Jobs (Apple), Disco, Thai food, Star Wars / Trek, Nirvana (Band) and Rocky (Rocky II?). Though it appears that this scene is set to be different depending on the region it is being screened in. Here in the UK the list featured The Beatles, Sean Connery, the TV show “Sherlock” and the 1966 World Cup. In Australia the list included AC/DC, Steve Irwin, Tim Tams and Skippy the Bush Kangaroo. While the Korean version apparently lists the footballer Park Ji Sung, Dance Dance Revolution and the film Oldboy.

One of the reasons Marvel has been on such a hot streak with the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been the studio's bold and often inspired choice of director for its properties, eschewing the obvious choices to frequently go for someone out of left-field. As the film that launched the MCU, Iron Man was a very important prospect for them. Instead of going for a director with extensive experience of the action genre however they plumped for Jon Favreau, up to that point known only for light-hearted family films like Elf and Zathura. That was a huge success. For Thor they went with Kenneth Branagh, a move which initially seemed fairly baffling. His vast experience in the world of Shakespeare however made him a smart choice for the grand, operatic world of Asgard. Then there was Joss Whedon and The Avengers. While his appointment may have been everything that geeks all over the world could have dreamt about (his experience of ensemble TV shows and known love for comic books making him the perfect choice) it was still a bit of a gutsy move on Marvel's part. Despite his Godly standing amongst geeks and all the critical acclaim his work had garnered, he's never exactly been a guarantee of success. “Buffy” and “Angel” may have been successful but after that it's been quite the struggle for Whedon. Despite outpourings of love for both shows, both “Firefly” and “Dollhouse” were cancelled very early on, while the movie that “Firefly” inspired, Serenity, was a complete box-office flop. And Serenity was his only previous movie credit so he had done nothing on this kind of scale before. So it was still a bit of a risk handing him the keys to their $220 million-budgeted baby. Well considering it became the 3rd most popular movie of all time at the box-office I'd say things worked out pretty well.

And now Marvel are at it again, with The Winter Soldier they've managed to pull another rabbit out of the hat with the appointments of Joe and Anthony Russo, perhaps their most risky choice yet. Their only previous film credits were Welcome to Collinwood and You, Me and Dupree; not exactly a CV that would naturally jump to the top of the pile. Their biggest success has arguably been their significant contribution to cult sitcom, “Community.” How exactly they ever entered the minds of those at Marvel is a puzzler, but it certainly paid of. I think they do a fantastic job here, capturing the tone and pace of all the required facets. I've already talked about the superb action scenes and the Russo brothers really do handle them very well. In addition to that however they also capture the suspense and intrigue of the film's thriller element, the little touches of humour as well as a couple of more touching and sombre moments. There's a really poignant moment featuring the return of Hayley Atwell's Peggy Carter that may bring a lump to the throat of many a comic book geek. It may actually be the film's gem as far as scenes go. Before the film had even been released Marvel was so pleased with their efforts that they contracted them for the next Captain America film already. On this evidence that appears to have been a very astute move.

I just love the whole concept of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it's already one of my favourite ever developments in the history of film. The way that all the films link together to create this much grander picture and world is just such a treat for comic book fans like myself. And yet again here we get a series of little connections to films both of the past and of the future, as well as the odd touch that will only mean something to fellow comic book geeks. I love it! And this film really does seem like it's going to be the most game-changing of them all. The whole world of the MCU is going to be affected and it will never be the same again.

And to finally cap of these fanboy ramblings just a couple of mini touches that I got a kick out of. Quite obviously as a result of the Russo brothers' involvement there is a cameo that should put a smile on the face of any fan of “Community.” There is a brilliant little Pulp Fiction in-joke in relation to Samuel L. Jackson. Oh and for all the great things in the film itself perhaps my absolute favourite thing in the whole movie are its exceptionally cool closing credits, a striking mix of bold colours and silhouettes that plays like a Marvel version of a Saul Bass creation.

Conclusion - Back when the first Captain America film was released in 2011 the prevailing viewpoint seemed to be that the film and the character himself wasn't particularly 'cool.' He was too corny and twee for many people who had become used to the nihilistic world of Christopher Nolan's Batman and the quick-witted arrogance of Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark. Well I think that may all be about to change with the release of this sequel. Its kick-ass action, cloak-and-dagger narrative and subversive streak should ensure that Cap walks away with a brand new level of street cred.

From the 'Generalize MoFos' film tastes' thread -
JayDee - Every superhero movie is a masterpiece
Huh.....maybe Cob had a point after all. :p

Masterman

04-03-14, 05:39 PM

How long does 1 review take you Jaydee.

The Sci-Fi Slob

04-03-14, 05:42 PM

How long does 1 review take you Jaydee.

I just pretend I'm reading the first chapter of a novel. ;)

mark f

04-03-14, 05:44 PM

Probably takes less time to write than to read.That is, if I bother to read it. :)

The Sci-Fi Slob

04-03-14, 05:53 PM

It's about time I rescued my review thread from the darkest depths of the forum. I may review The Wolf Of Wall Street and Nebraska tomorrow, watch this space...

JayDee

04-04-14, 09:06 PM

Probably takes less time to write than to read.That is, if I bother to read it. :)

You mean you don't always read my reviews Mark? :eek: I thought you read every single one. :(

The Gunslinger45

04-04-14, 09:28 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

Found how to do this from my phone! Sorry for the delay.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier is in my opinion the best of the stand alone movies for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! It is also a great improvement over the original. They also seemed to really up the ante with regards to Captain America and what he can do. They really played up his abilities more I feel and really made him more bad ass! No longer naive, but still the beacon of American values and principles! Awesome movie!

JayDee

04-07-14, 06:04 PM

Before moving on to the next review here's something I've not done in a long time (I think First Blood was the last). When I was looking around for the posters for my Winter Soldier review there were so many options that I struggled to choose. Therefore I decided to post a whole bunch, a mixture of official and alternative posters. Though I avoided some of the official ones that we've already seen loads of times.

Basically it's just a treat for my good buddy Gunslinger. :D

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica3_zps92eec9e2.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica3_zps92eec9e2.jpg.html) ..... http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica9_zpsc64499e1.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica9_zpsc64499e1.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica8_zpsa599b333.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica8_zpsa599b333.jpg.html) ..... http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica11_zps9da4da14.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica11_zps9da4da14.png.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica14_zps866b588b.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica14_zps866b588b.png.html) ..... http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica15_zps971ebb4f.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica15_zps971ebb4f.png.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica16_zpsb3da6b8a.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica16_zpsb3da6b8a.jpg.html) ...... http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica18_zps1d592137.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica18_zps1d592137.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica19_zpsce83ca98.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica19_zpsce83ca98.jpg.html) ..... http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica23_zpse3979b7a.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica23_zpse3979b7a.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica21_zpsbdfa82ce.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica21_zpsbdfa82ce.jpg.html) ..... http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica20_zps97fa8e3a.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica20_zps97fa8e3a.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica24_zpsac7b121e.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica24_zpsac7b121e.jpg.html) ..... http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica25_zps59604308.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica25_zps59604308.png.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica26_zps0bdcab64.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica26_zps0bdcab64.jpg.html) ..... http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica27_zps0aada061.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica27_zps0aada061.png.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica28_zps9f24e2d5.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica28_zps9f24e2d5.png.html) ..... http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica30_zpse4dc09c0.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica30_zpse4dc09c0.png.html)

And then lastly we have this one which I've left in a bigger size so the level of detail can be appreciated.
It's by comic book artist Paolo Rivera, and goes for a bit of a retro 70s-style vibe

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica17_zps4564ed39.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/CaptainAmerica17_zps4564ed39.jpg.html)

The Gunslinger45

04-07-14, 06:59 PM

Oh you are too kind sir!

edarsenal

04-07-14, 11:45 PM

it may TAKE EFFIN forever to read, but damn if it ain't a damn fun read all the same. :):)

VERY cool, jay!!
Glad to hear where they went with cap. I remember back in the 70's when cap quit because of all the BS going on in american politics (pretty heavy stuff for a kid in grade school reading about cap throwing down his mask and shield after walking out of a secret meeting in the white house) and to hear they tapped into that era and the doubt the cap went through sounds like an excellent road to wander down storywise

JayDee

04-08-14, 04:17 PM

Well it's time for the next review, though this time it's not just a singular review, but the start of a special season of films. As I talked about at the start of the year there were a number of directors I had thought of as possibly being the subject of particular seasons. One such person was Martin Scorsese.

Up until this year I had only seen a handful of Scorsese's films (4 to be exact) and had yet to find one I really liked or cared about. That despite the fact I had watched perhaps his three most acclaimed films (Taxi Driver, Goodfellas and Raging Bull). It's not that I thought they were bad films but they just didn't appeal to me on a personal level. I was turned off by their bleak, harsh, macho approach and just couldn't take to any of them, while Goodfellas' standing as a gangster flick certainly didn't help as it's a genre I have pretty much zero interest in. Considering how highly thought of he is around here and in movie cirlces in general however I thought it was about time I took a more expansive look at his work, particularly those that seemed like they would be more to my tastes

So here we go. Welcome to JayDee Does Marty (I can't see any problems with that title, certainly no possibility of it being interpreted as some kind of sexual innuendo! :D)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/JayDeeDoesMarty_zpsf2361a5c.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/JayDeeDoesMarty_zpsf2361a5c.jpg.html)

mirror mirror
Year of release
2004

Directed by
Martin Scorsese

Written by
John Logan

Starring
Leonardo DiCaprio
Cate Blanchett
Kate Beckinsale
John C. Reilly
Alec Baldwin
Alan Alda

The Aviator

rating_4 ++

Plot - Set within the era spanning the late-1920s to the mid-1940s this biopic depicts the early years of Howard Hughes (DiCaprio); legendary film director, aviator and businessman. Starting in 1927 with the notorious production of Hughes' passion project, Hell's Angels, the film culminates in 1947 with the test flight of the illustrious Spruce Goose. In the intervening 20 years we see the various famous luminaries that he was romantically involved with; including Katherine Hepburn (Blanchett) and Ava Gardner (Beckinsale), his acquisition and expansion of TWA Airlines, his incredible feats in the world of aviation, his clashes with Congress and his struggles with obsessive compulsive disorder which rendered him a recluse.

The Aviator is a very classy offering from Martin Scorsese, one that has many factors contributing to its success which I will get on to. However when it comes to biopics, no matter how much quality there is in every other aspect of the production, very often they will live and die on the strength of the performer who is inhabiting the subject of the film, in this case Howard Hughes. Even if everything else about a film is of the highest calibre, if it doesn't have an actor capable of convincingly bringing the character back to life then it's on a hiding to nothing. Fortunately The Aviator is on solid ground in this respect as it features a terrific turn from Leonardo DiCaprio as Hughes. Right from the off he captures Hughes' charisma and swagger with ease, while at the same time conveying a undercurrent of anger that hints at his later problems. As the years roll by we see a transformation slowly take over him; the façade of the once brash whippersnapper begins to crack, and other, less savoury characteristics begin to emerge. His levels of obsession heighten, he is struck by crippling bouts of paranoia, he becomes very possessive of the women in his life and in general he just does not seem at all comfortable in his own skin. More than perhaps any other facet of DiCaprio's performance I was really impressed with his physical acting. At one point during the protracted production of Hell's Angels we just see the incredible physical drain that the undertaking is having on his face and body. Later on in the film when he has become this twitchy, nervous wreck we will then see a subtle, but major, difference in him when he is in the presence of Katharine Hepburn or concentrating on aviation; all of a sudden he just comes to life, the old Hughes returns and he is so much more at ease. There was a small, but great little moment where he is overseeing one of his creations for the very first time and there is just this fantastic glint in his eye. And even when you think Hughes is a broken man, DiCaprio is able to drag himself back up and put on the display of a great showman at the Congress hearing.

The nature of a biopic means that by design it is customarily only going to focus on a solitary character more than a 'normal' film would. So it's a pleasant surprise that the film manages to deliver an additional examination of a character in the form of Cate Blanchett's Katherine Hepburn. The character is not given a great deal of exposure but through a combination of strong writing and Blanchett's excellent performance we are still given a fair degree of insight into her. We initially see her as this brash, ballsy seductress who just oozes with self-assurance; a real spunky ball of fire. As time goes on however the mask begins to slip and we see a more vulnerable and troubled edge to her. In fact that's something that comes into the film later on and is commentated on by Hughes, she seems to be putting on a performance much of the time, whether it be for him or her family. The line between who she really is and her on screen persona has become blurred. At the same time we see her despondency at being ignored while by Hughes' side. Previously one of the biggest stars in Hollywood, playing second fiddle to her man does not sit well with her, as we witness when they attend a première together and the media have eyes only for him despite her best fawning alongside. Together she and DiCaprio have a vibrant chemistry as these two unconventional characters who seemed to be the closest they came to finding an equal, with Hepburn at one point telling him, "Howard, we're not like everyone else. Too many sharp angles. Too many eccentricities. We have to be very careful not to let people in or they'll make us into freaks."

While it may be DiCaprio that commands your attention and Blanchett that scooped an Oscar, The Aviator actually features incredible talent throughout its cast. Even down to the most minor of roles you still find some very talented and experienced actors; individuals like Jude Law, Willem Dafoe and Brent Spiner in what amounts to little more than a cameo. As Hughes' two main adversaries, both Alec Baldwin and Alan Alda prove to be great value as Juan Trippe and Senator Owen Brewster respectively. They both revel in their roles as smug, smarmy pieces of s*it, with Alda in particular shining, so much so that it earned him an Oscar nomination in the Best Supporting Actor category. Further support comes from the likes of Ian Holm and John C. Reilly. While I'm aware that others were taken by her performance I was not quite as impressed with Kate Beckinsale and her attempts to impersonate another of the era's great screen dames, Ava Gardner. Given little to work with she failed to make any impact on me whatsoever, coming across as one of the few misfires of the entire film.

Film Trivia Snippets - There's an interesting link between this film and the 1980 film, Melvin and Howard. Leonardo DiCaprio received an Oscar nomination for playing Howard Hughes in this movie, just as Jason Robards did in Melvin and Howard. Cate Blanchett won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in this film, just as Mary Steenburgen did back in 1980. /// Leonardo DiCaprio spent a day with Jane Russell to hear her memories and impressions of Howard Hughes. She was very impressed with DiCaprio's visit and told him that Hughes was a quiet yet extremely stubborn man who always got his way in the end. /// Quite a lot of work went into Cate Blanchett's portrayal of Katharine Hepburn before filming even began. To begin with Martin Scorsese requested that Blanchett watch every single one of Hepburn's first 15 films to try and learn her mannerisms and poise. Above and beyond this Blanchett also learned to play both tennis and golf, and also began taking cold showers, something that Hepburn was known for. And then when it came time for filming Blanchett had to have freckles painstakingly painted onto her face, arms and chest to make her more closely resemble Hepburn. /// When you take into account his considerable reputation amongst film audiences it will perhaps come as a surprise that this was the first Martin Scorsese film ever to gross over $100 million in America. /// Jane Lynch, most recognised these days as coach Sue Sylvester from Glee, was actually cast as Amelia Earhart. Her scenes however were cut from the final movie.

The Aviator has a running time that surpasses the two-and-a-half hour mark, making it a very epic and lengthy undertaking. And yet very rarely does it ever feel like it, particularly in its opening hour. Hughes' fascinating life obviously plays a part in this, as does DiCaprio's magnetic performance. Beyond that though there are numerous other factors at work. A combination of slick editing and directing guarantees that the film moves along with great speed and vibrancy, a sensation heightened by the use of very lively, up-tempo jazz on Howard Shore's score that just makes the film feel like a very breezy experience. On top of this Scorsese also intersperses other visual sources to keep the film interesting and moving along; archive footage, newsreel footage and scenes from Hughes' old films. And even on the rare occasion where the film may hit a slight lull, DiCaprio is always there to make sure it stays on track.

A strong factor in the film's success is John Logan's Oscar-nominated script which I thought was excellent. I found it to be especially impressive during the film's first hour. Howard Hughes led such an incredible life, so much so that even a trilogy of films dedicated solely to him may not be enough to tackle every notable aspect in detail. Given that fact, trying to work out how exactly to tackle a biopic of his life is a tricky task, especially when it comes to the question of where do you start. It's at this point that Logan makes an inspired choice to structure the first hour or so of the film around the lengthy and infamous production of Hughes' epic war film, Hell's Angels. It forces a focus upon a film which could very easily have become lost amongst the incident-packed blur that was his life. It gives Scorsese something to hang his hook on and ensures that the film gets off on a solid footing. Concentrating on the production also allows us to see every aspect of his character at work. We see Hughes' great ambition and passion, we see his attention to detail which runs to an almost obsessive degree, we see his imagination and we see his great conviction in himself; on the other side of the coin however we also see his stubbornness, his reckless decisions, his inclination to just throw money at any problem. As the production rumbles on, the film begins to drops in other threads that become factors; the bevy of beautiful women that enter and exit his life, his battles with Congress and the hints of the psychological torments that are soon to plague him. If there would be one flaw I'd level at the script, and indeed at the film at large, is that it perhaps fails to really get under the skin of Howard Hughes, never showing us what exactly made him tick. Beyond the brief prologue where we see his mother planting the seeds of compulsion in his mind as a kid, Hughes remains something of an enigma.

One of my favourite aspects of The Aviator is its very rich evocation of a particular time, in this instance the decades surrounding cinema's Golden Age; Scorsese really does a fantastic job at recapturing the glitz and glamour of old Hollywood. The scenes that take place either at film premières or at the legendary Cocoanut Grove nightclub are particular joys. They are just such lavish affairs, with the costume and art departments really going to town on the attire and set dressing. And Scorsese apes these details for all they're worth, keeping his camera constantly on the move, scanning across the Cocoanut Grove to highlight the vastness of the set and to cram in as many furs, mink coats, sequin cocktail dresses and tuxedos as possible. Another very interesting aspect of the film's look is to be found in the cinematography of Robert Richardson. While I was instantly struck by the striking use of bold, hyper-realised colours it took a little while to click with me what exactly their intention was. It was only when the greens of the golf course and fields appeared as shades of blue that I realised Scorsese was attempting to mimic the colour techniques and visual appearance of films from those eras, namely Cinecolor and Technicolor. It's a nice little touch that just adds an extra layer to proceedings. There are also a few other unique and eye-catching tricks including some very theatrical uses of lighting, bringing darkness down all around except for a spotlight which falls on Hughes and an unnatural bright light that falls upon Blanchett's Hepburn as we see her angelic nature through his eyes.

Film Trivia - Considering the incredible life that he led it's no surprise to find out that many other individuals have tried to get a Howard Hughes biopic off the ground before this but failed. At one point Warren Beatty planned it as a companion piece to Reds. In 1993 John Malkovich and his production partner Russell Smith attempted to take it on. Then there was a planned adaptation by Allen and Albert Hughes who wanted Johnny Depp to take the lead role. After that Brian DePalma had a proposed project with Touchstone which fell through because of the $80 million price tag. In January 2000, it was announced that Milos Forman was to direct a biopic starring Edward Norton from a script by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski. Then two years later Jim Carrey and Christopher Nolan tried to get a film off the ground but were beaten to the punch by this film which was able to go into production first. And even this film which eventually made it to the screen was originally going to be directed by Michael Mann , but having directed back-to-back biopics The Insider and Ali he decided merely to produce, and offered the script to Scorsese.

In that first hour Scorsese seems to just be having an absolute ball playing around with his camera, imbuing the film with a very playful, light touch. He doesn't shy away however when things become more dramatic, if anything he comes into his element and delivers some captivating images. Amongst these is arguably the film's most thrilling sequence, a spectacular set-piece detailing the plane crash that nearly took Hughes' life and had a supremely detrimental impact upon his mental well-being. Test-flying a new aircraft in the skies above Beverly Hills, one of the engines malfunctions and he plummets to the ground, tearing through the surrounding homes. These days with the slew of action films, CGI-fests and superhero movies in cinemas, explosions and crashes are ten-a-penny. Scorsese makes this one stand out however and really makes us feel the intense pain Hughes is experiencing; we see him being tossed around the cockpit like a rag doll, bouncing back and forth of his glass surroundings, and then when he attempts to exit we get this nasty sizzling as his hands touch upon the burning plane.

While that is certainly the most spectacular scene in the film, there are a handful of other smaller images that carry a great depth to them. There's a terrific scene at the première of Hell's Angels where we see Hughes getting completely overwhelmed by the chaotic reception that greets him, the clambering of fans and the frantic flashes of paparazzi cameras causing him to grimace and recoil. As he walks the red carpet he finds himself treading on a floor of discarded flash bulbs, shattering underfoot. The scene is a strong analogy for the strain that Hughes felt once he had been pushed into the spotlight. There's also a striking moment towards the film's conclusion when it seems like Howard has been completely broken by his compulsions. Lying naked on the floor of the screening room that has become his refuge/dungeon, images from Hell's Angels are projected upon him, with his bare back acting as a makeshift screen. The images are that of the expansive dogfights, and as they dance across his naked back it's difficult not to see it as a metaphor for the internal battle that he is struggling with. During those sequences in his screening room there's also some clever lighting in evidence, with the blinking red light bulb of the studio covering Hughes in swathes of red light that come across very much like a warning of the danger that he the character is in psychologically.

While I think that most people will find the scenes detailing Hughes' descent into madness to be fairly uncomfortable because of Di Caprio's powerful performance, I personally found them to be an extremely tough watch. As someone who suffers from OCD, seeing it presented in such a strong, graphic nature on the screen I found to be very unsettling. My condition is thankfully not that close to the extremes that Hughes reaches, but with OCD being a progressive disorder I do worry about what I may be like one day in the future. And I was able to see myself in the character at times, such as the moments where he repeats phrases over and over again (“show me all the blueprints” and “way of the future”) as that is something I actually do, repeating phrases and saying things to myself until they sound 'just right.' So those instances, the scene where he can't open the bathroom door and the stretch where he has been reduced to urinating in jars I found very unsettling and painful to watch. But it did create a more personal link to the film that resonated with me.

Conclusion - Business tycoon. Aviator. Engineer. Movie director and producer. Romancer of many famous women. Recluse. Howard Hughes was a truly fascinating, one-of-a-kind individual. So trying to construct a film to do justice to such an iconic figure was always going to be a big ask, but one that Scorsese pulled off in extravagant style. The Aviator is a grand, prestige picture that brings Hughes' story to life thanks to a great script, imaginative direction, striking photography and some excellent performances.

The Sci-Fi Slob

04-08-14, 04:22 PM

A well written, interesting, and enormous review. ;)

Masterman

04-08-14, 04:34 PM

Great review Jaydee. Although I think your review thread has took 5 years of my life.

seanc

04-08-14, 05:29 PM

Hope you enjoy your time with Scorsese Jay Dee. One of my favorite directors for sure. I love Goodfellas and Raging Bull but also love quite a few of his that a lot of people consider his lesser works. The Aviator falls into that category, its in my fave 100. I also love Gangs and Color Of Money more than most. I hope you do as well.

Masterman

04-08-14, 05:32 PM

Check out Shutter a Island aswell Jaydee.

Mr Minio

04-08-14, 05:48 PM

Do JayDee watches Tarr and I will read whatever you write, no matter the length.

EDIT: The hell did I just write. :9 Grammar master.

edarsenal

04-08-14, 09:14 PM

epic review of an epic movie
Bravo

Sexy Celebrity

04-08-14, 09:41 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=13511&stc=1&d=1397003917

And I love The Aviator.

The Gunslinger45

04-08-14, 10:17 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

And while it makes me sad to hear about your experiences with Taxi Driver and Goodfellas, I am happy you can enjoy other Scorsese movies. As you know, I am a HUGE fan of the man's work. :D

Also, had no idea you had OCD. I guess that helps with writing these awesome reviews. :)

the samoan lawyer

04-09-14, 09:14 AM

Great reviews JayDee.

As we say round these parts - 'keep her lit!'

(Tacitus will know)

Miss Vicky

04-09-14, 11:03 AM

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

To be honest, I only read the first few paragraphs, but I'm glad to see you liked The Aviator. I think if you explore more of Scorsese's recent work, you'll find more that you enjoy.

cricket

04-09-14, 11:19 AM

Great review JayDee, I still haven't seen The Aviator.

I set the DVR to record it tonight.

JayDee

04-10-14, 05:59 PM

Thanks for the appreciation everyone, glad you enjoyed my Aviator review.

Oh and as for people recommending other films of his to watch I've already finished my Scorsese season for the moment. It's just that due to the backlog I have on my reviews they are only just now seeing the light of day.

Do JayDee watches Tarr and I will read whatever you write, no matter the length.

Hmmm.....well that's....an idea. :shifty:

I'll just go and get a bunch of rating_1 ratings ready! :p

Also, had no idea you had OCD. I guess that helps with writing these awesome reviews. :)

Yes I do indeed, I've kind of mentioned some of my problems before in my reviews, Pump Up the Volume and Perks of Being a Wallflower for certain, maybe some others as well.

JayDee

04-11-14, 05:20 PM

Time for the second installment of JayDee Does Marty. Now as the more eagle-eyed of you will notice I make reference at that start of the review to After Hours. After Hours was the second film I watched as part of the season but it didn't inspire a full review, instead a shorter one which will appear further down the line.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/JayDeeDoesMarty2nd_zpsf52a0a4e.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/JayDeeDoesMarty2nd_zpsf52a0a4e.jpg.html)

mirror mirror

Year of release
2010

Directed by
Martin Scorsese

Written by
Laeta Kalogridis

Starring
Leonardo DiCaprio
Mark Ruffalo
Ben Kingsley
Michelle Williams
Max Von Sydow
Emily Mortimer

Shutter Island

rating_3_5

Plot - In 1954, Federal Marshal Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio) and his new partner Chuck Aule (Ruffalo) travel to Shutter Island to investigate the disappearance of a patient from Ashecliffe Hospital for the criminally insane. The patient's name was Rachel Solando who had been sanctioned at the institute after she drowned her three kids. Teddy is a veteran WWII soldier, traumatized by his experience in the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp and the loss of his beloved wife in a criminal fire. Unable to access the records of employees and patients at Ashecliffe, he feels like his investigation is being obstructed by the facility's management, namely by head psychiatrist Dr. John Cawley (Kinglsey). While on the island Teddy suffers from several migraines and is laid up in bed as a storm engulfs the island, leaving Teddy and Chuck trapped. His interviews with the facility's patients lead him to the island's lighthouse where rumours of dark experiments run rampant. It is there that he will discover the mystery of Shutter Island.

I found Shutter Island to have the opposite appeal of After Hours. Early on and for a good long while I found myself really quite enthralled, but the longer the film went on the more I found my interest beginning to slowly wane away. On a technical level I think the film was made to the absolute highest of standards with the direction, sound and cinematography being stand-outs. Where I had problems was mainly with the story itself. The film is a psychological thriller that feels like it would be very much at home in the 50s or 70s, and I imagine would have thrived there. These days however it just feels a little bit old hat, and I think modern audiences are so trained in searching out twists that any mystery or shock value will be lost. In a way it reminded me of the David Fincher film, The Game. Like that film, Shutter Island sets up a very intriguing premise but just starts to crumble a little under the sheer incredulity of it all.

Where the film really suffered I personally felt was in the script. Too much of it was just too obvious and telegraphed to really have me on the edge of my seat. And I began to find it a slightly frustrating experience with the story taking us and the characters round in circles, with what felt like a lot of repetition. Now that worked in the sense of making the characters feel like they were rats in a maze and keeping them disorientated, but for me it just hurt the momentum and I felt my interest waning on occasion. I just thought that in the end the film was overlong and a touch heavy on dialogue; some scenes really did suffer from being overtalky in attempts to spell everything out. Even with the weaknesses of the story however I felt that Scorsese certainly did his best to retain what mystery there is, creating a very ghostly and spine-tingling tone. While the twist and plotting may have been obvious, he made the unravelling of the mystery interesting enough that it didn't completely fall apart.

And given the subject matter he had to work with, I think that Scorsese does a really quite excellent job. In conjunction with Robert Richardson's cinematography the film's imagery is frequently very striking and haunting. Right from the opening frames you can just tell that you're in for a treat on that front. As the island looms into view out of the thick fog we are instantly presented with this bleak and foreboding spectre. From there Richardson delivers a masterclass in cinematography, building a great sense of dread and paranoia. As one of the characters says, “there's a storm coming.” Where the visuals truly astonish however are in Daniels' flashbacks and dreams, scenes which are just incredible snatches of filmmaking. There is one dream sequence in particular that really wowed me, it seems Daniels hugging his wife as ash falls from the sky all around them, covering everything in their home like a fine dusting of snow. As their embrace continues, his wife herself turns to ash and crumbles through his arms. As well as just being a striking visual, the cinematography here really draws your attention as it is so different from the rest of the film. Whereas everything else is very grim and disquieting, the colours here are so bold and vivid. At that point the film very much evoked memories of the Hitchcock classic Vertigo. And it wasn't the only occasion where I got those feelings.

Film Trivia Snippets - Shutter Island was originally commissioned as a directing vehicle for Wolfgang Petersen. To fit more closely to Petersen's style however, considerable modifications were made to Dennis Lehane's novel in order to create a more action-driven blockbuster. When that fell through another director who was considered was David Fincher. /// When it came to creating the mood for the film, one of the main inspirations for Scorsese were the 1940s zombie movies of Val Lewton. While to give his actors an idea of how the film would look stylistically, Martin Scorsese screened both Out of the Past and Vertigo for the cast and crew. /// Before they settled on Mark Ruffalo, Leonardi DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese also considered both Robert Downey Jr. and Josh Brolin for the role of Chuck Aule. /// The movie's $40.2 million opening weekend take in the United States marked a career best for Scorsese. It went on to gross over $293 million worldwide, making it the highest grossing film of his career. /// Shutter Island was originally scheduled for release on the 2nd of October, 2009 so that it would be in contention for the Oscars. Paramount postponed the film however because their remaining yearly marketing and Oscars campaigning budget could not afford the required $50-60 to promote the film in addition to Up in the Air and The Lovely Bones. /// The traumatic killing of the Nazi guards at Dachau concentration camp that is depicted in the film is a historical event, taking place on 29 April 1945 when the camp was liberated by the US Army.
Quite often I got the sense that Shutter Island was almost Scorsese's homage/tribute to the Master of Suspense. Alongside the use of colour the whole mood is that haunting, claustrophobic tone that Hitchcock often created, while instead of going for a series of cheap jump scares the film is more interested is building a sense of suspense and tension. Even the way it's shot evokes Hitch at points I felt with sweeping and rotating shots, extreme close-ups and its use of lighting. I loved how Scorsese set the scene at the asylum. As the characters enter the imposing facility the camera moves into an almost first-person point of view, placing us firmly in the position of the characters, really making us feel the sense of dread of the place. And then when they make it through the gates all of the inmates faces are so grim and menacing that it sends a chill down the spine. Oh and Ward C! Man that was one creepy, f*cked-up rats maze of a place. Scorsese just makes the whole place so damn eerie.

Another strong element I thought was its sound design. Its score was quite an interesting concoction. In many ways the music was actually quite minimal, heightening the level of realism and refusing to give the viewer any refuge from the awkwardness and claustrophobia of the situation. When the music does kick in however it is very brooding, ominous and overpowering. The union between the two creates a rather unbalanced experience, one that works well with the film's subject.

The highlight of the film for me was another very strong performance from Leonardo DiCaprio, quite the powerhouse as Edward Daniels. Initially starting off as very aggressive, intense and confrontational, as the film progresses we see more to his character, coming across as this damaged, scarred individual racked with guilt. He takes this character that starts off seemingly in complete control, and before long has taken him to the edges of his sanity. While this is certainly DiCaprio's show, the acting in Shutter Island is pretty damn strong throughout the whole ensemble. As his partner, Mark Ruffalo may not have a whole lot to do other than be a side-kick and just give Leo someone to bounce off of, but it's a sign of his ability that despite this he is still able to make an impression as the sardonic Chuck. As Dr. Cawley, the institute's lead psychiatrist and in Daniels' eyes the mastermind behind the whole conspiracy, there's the considerable presence that is Sir Ben Kingsley, bringing a very assured and enigmatic quality to the character. In fairly minor roles I thought that both Michelle Williams and Emily Mortimer both came off strong. I'd like to single out Mortimer in particular. I've got to say that between this, "The Newsroom" and Lars and the Real Girl I am really becoming quite a big fan of Mortimer. And the fact that I find her adorable certainly doesn't hurt. Oh and lastly, can Max von Sydow please make more movies? I know he's in his 80s now I believe and I don't know what his general health is like, but if he is able to I'd love to see him on the screen more. Even in such a minor role he just brings such great gravitas and sense of character to his ghoulish Dr. Naehring. He's someone that you just can't help but pay attention to when he pops up.

Conclusion - I know that there are a number of people who rather love this film but I just didn't quite make it to that level of appreciation. That was largely as a result of what I found to be a fairly underwhelming and predictable narrative. Perhaps my expectations weren't quite right. I was expecting an intelligent psychological thriller, instead it was more of a pulpy, B-movie genre film. And on those terms it was good fun. The shortfalls in the script were certainly made up for by the superlative efforts of Scorsese and Richardson who crafted a beautiful looking filming of great atmosphere and paranoia.

PS - The rating I gave this film came about instantly after I finished watching the film, which was probably a couple of months ago now. Looking at it now I wonder if I was a little harsh on the film, with the disappointing conclusion sabotaging the rest of the film. With some more time now passed I feel it could perhaps be a little higher. And on a future viewing it may well be.

Sexy Celebrity

04-11-14, 05:25 PM

I haven't seen Shutter Island yet. I really should.

Jack1

04-11-14, 06:45 PM

I was thinking of watching Shutter Island. Good review, cheers.

Miss Vicky

04-11-14, 07:38 PM

I think you're looking too much at the film in terms of genre and story - which, yes, has very much been done (even as far back as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari) To me, the strength of the film lies more in its characters and their motivations, but I'm glad you had some appreciation for it.

I personally rate it a 4+

cricket

04-11-14, 09:23 PM

I actually didn't like Shutter Island; sort of an oddity for me.

The Gunslinger45

04-11-14, 09:42 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I am one of the people who really like the film. I rate it a 4 myself, and thought the twist was very good. Either way I look forward to your next review. :)

rauldc14

04-11-14, 09:44 PM

I didn't like Shutter Island, but I didn't hate it. Regardless it's my 2nd least fav from Scorsese.

edarsenal

04-11-14, 10:19 PM

been a while since seeing Shutter Island and I rather enjoyed the ending. The storyline, for me, felt something that had been done and redone again and the twist really pulled it out of that.
And i fully agree on the cinematic intensity of the film. Truly great stuff.

Masterman

04-12-14, 02:13 PM

Shutter Island is one of the best horror movies in years, and what's funny is it's not even a horror :).

JayDee

04-15-14, 05:08 PM

The third installment of JayDee Does Marty.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/JayDeeDoesMarty3_zpsce32ff98.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/JayDeeDoesMarty3_zpsce32ff98.jpg.html)

mirror mirror

Year of release
2011

Directed by
Martin Scorsese

Written by
John Logan (script)
Brian Selznick (novel)

Starring
Asa Butterfield
Chloe Grace Moretz
Ben Kingsley
Sacha Baron Cohen
Helen McCrory

Hugo

rating_4

Plot - Paris, 1931. Hugo Cabret (Butterfield) is a young orphan boy living in the walls of the Gare Montparnasse train station. His father was a man with a great knack for fixing clocks and other mechanical devices. When he tragically died in a fire, Hugo was taken in by his uncle Claude who put him to work keeping the train station clocks running. Back when his father was still alive, the two were fascinated by a broken automaton that his father had found abandoned in a museum, attempting to get it back working. Believing that the automaton holds a final message from his father Hugo now continues with these attempts, stealing whatever odds and ends he can get his hands on to aid him. However his thefts bring him to the attention of Papa Georges (Kingsley), a toymaker and shopkeeper in the station, who takes a notebook from Hugo that his father wrote and drew in. In his attempts to get it back, Hugo meets the acquaintance of Georges' god-daughter Isabelle (Moretz) who promises to help him and together they set off on an adventure, one that will hold some surprising discoveries about Papa Georges' past and reveal a startling connection between him and Hugo's automaton.

Following in the footsteps of After Hours this was another film where I really wasn't sure what exactly to expect. Martin Scorsese, king of the gangster film, making what essentially appeared to be a kiddie movie? I had my reservations. Also in the footsteps of After Hours however, Marty once again came along and blew those reservations away. I found Hugo to be an absolute delight, just an immensely charming and magical little film.

At one point in the movie, Chloe Grace Moretz's character says to young Hugo, “Thank you for the movie today....it was a gift.” And that seems to aptly sum up the sentiments that Martin Scorsese is attempting to convey with Hugo. There can be very few people on the planet who can match Marty in terms of passion and knowledge of the history of cinema. And this certainly feels like his love letter to cinema and its early pioneers, led by George Méliès. Some of the moments that he comes up with are just wonderful. The scene in which Hugo introduces Isabelle to the magic of the movies has got to be one of my favourite scenes in quite some time. It's magical stuff, and Moretz's joyous facial expressions are just a delight. It's not the only sublime scene to be found in Hugo. The sequences which see the automaton creak into life, and Méliès' drawings explode forth from their prison likewise put a smile on my face. Detailing the building blocks of cinema's early days also allows Scorsese to recreate some of the most iconic images from that time. The scenes featuring a recreation of an all-glass studio and the sets from Méliès' early productions are heartwarming and marvelous, largely because you can really feel the passion and reverence that Scorsese is putting into these scenes. In addition Scorsese also takes the opportunity to pay homage to some of early cinema's most enduring images; see the moment for example which has Hugo hanging onto the hands of a clockface in a obvious nod to the famous scene where Harold Lloyd dangles from a clockface in Safety Last!

Collaborating again with Robert Richardson, also the cinematographer on Shutter Island and The Aviator, once more proves fruitful for Scorsese who is able to deliver another movie that is just gorgeous to behold. Richardson cloaks the film in golden hues and bright tones and just creates such a sense of warmth that fits perfectly with the story. It's no surprise to discover that Richardson was awarded the Oscar for Best Cinematography at that year's Academy Awards. And some of the shots that Scorsese crafts are once again tremendous. The opening shot in particular is just an absolute treat. Opening on the gears and springs of a clock the image transitions by way of a slow fade to the bustling streets of Paris. The camera then sweeps across the city to its destination of the train station, along its platform, up and into the clockface, behind which we find young Hugo. It is just the first of many beautiful shots.

Film Trivia Snippets – I just mentioned the opening tracking shot of the film there. It was the very first shot designed for the film and it took a whole year to complete. It required 1000 computers to render each frame required for the shot. /// Martin Scorsese and Christopher Lee have been very good friends for a long time but had never worked together before Hugo. When Scorsese asked him about appearing in Hugo Lee's response was “It's about time!” /// This was Martin Scorsese's first film in 12 years not to star Leonardo DiCaprio. The last time that happened was with 1999's Bringing Out the Dead. /// During the early tracking shot that introduces us to the interior of the train station, there are appearances by characters who represent Django Reinhardt, James Joyce and Winston Churchill. /// When it came to how Ben Kingsley would portray the character of George Méliès, he based his characterisation on Martin Scorsese himself. /// The driving force behind the film was Martin Scorsese's young daughter Francesca who presented him a copy of Brian Selznick's book as a birthday gift hoping that he would make a film out of it someday. It was also her suggestion to have the film presented in 3D format. And when it came to how to direct the 3D cinematography Scorsese did so by wearing clip-on 3D lenses over his prescription glasses. /// During the flashbacks we see George Méliès staging his productions with lavishly colored sets and costumes. The real Méliès only used sets, costumes and make-up in grayscale, since coloured elements might turn out the wrong shade of gray on black and white film. Many of the prints were then hand tinted in post-production.
And the clockwork imagery that populates the entire film is extraordinarily charming. Given the intricate nature of the clockwork mechanisms it should perhaps come as no surprise to find Scorsese having such an affinity for its workings. As a director he comes off as such a craftsman that I can see why he'd appreciate the way in which all the gears and springs have to work together in conjuncture for the clock to function, similar to how all the different departments and individuals on a movie production have to come together to produce a finished project. Oh and with all the clockwork on show I imagine this is like a porno to Guillermo del Toro! The Parisian train station where the vast majority of the film is set is a terrifically evocative and richly detailed location; it's quaint, magical and 'oh so French' quality made me think that Amélie Poulain was likely to pop into shot at any moment. It's a realistic setting, but one that is also slightly on the fantastical side. That's on the surface but it's also a great creation behind that exterior, a complex maze of passages and rooms hidden from the public where Hugo lives and works. It sort of reminded me of the scenes in Star Trek with characters in the jefferies tubes, moving within the heart of the starships.

However perhaps the most impressive aspect of Scorsese's efforts is the performance he is able to coax out of young Asa Butterfield in the role of the eponymous Hugo Cabret. Butterfield, just 13 at the time of filming, does a superlative job at the heart of the film, proving to be a very mature and engaging presence. Together Scorsese and Butterfield make sure to pitch the character perfectly, making sure he doesn't fall into the trap of being too cute or too precocious. Oh and he's got to have the bluest eyes I've ever seen. As his partner-in-crime, or partner-in-adventure to be more accurate, Chloe Grace Moretz is also excellent. She just has such a delightful, endearing quality to her that I found it almost impossible to think that she was also the little girl in Kick Ass that was slaughtering everyone and throwing around the 'c word.' Some highly experienced adult actors also impress and bring a great warmth to proceedings, namely Ben Kingsley, Christopher Lee and Helen McRory. Kingsley and McRory also bring great emotion and sadness to their story thread about lost dreams and regrets. In the role of the Station Inspector, Sacha Baron Cohen is probably the closest the film comes to fulfilling its façade as a children's film, delivering a very broad and cartoonish creation that sees Cohen apparently channeling Peter Sellers' Inspector Clouseau. Even here however the character is revealed to have a heart and a gentler side through his bumbling attempts to romance Emily Mortimer's flower girl, Lisette.

Taking its narrative from Brian Selznick's novel “The Invention of Hugo Cabret”, the film has a lovely story at its heart; one that details both a young boy's grief over the loss of his father and his search for a final message from him, and an old man's regrets and longing for past glories. And as the story progresses these two threads are taken and skilfully woven together thanks to a few surprising and uplifting twists in the story. I loved the development of the Papa Georges character, initially building him up as this bitter, cantankerous individual before fleshing him out by exposing the reasons why he's like this and who exactly he is, forcing us to look at him in a different light and now eliciting a great deal of sympathy from the audience. Beyond the characters the film really is about the magic of cinema as I've already mentioned, and about finding and caring for the movies of the past. Scorsese has his own film company, The Film Foundation, who has made it its goal to preserve and restore films of the past, and bring them to the attention of audiences. In his own words he sums it up better than I ever could - “Movies touch our hearts and awaken our vision, and change the way we see things. They take us to other places, they open doors and minds. Movies are the memories of our lifetime, we need to keep them alive.”

Conclusion - The thought of Martin Scorsese making a family friendly kids film might seem odd on the surface but it's one that works out beautifully. As a film Hugo certainly has its flaws, and my mind was telling me it was miles away from being a perfect film. My heart however was telling me that it really wasn't all that far away at all. I just found it to be an utterly enchanting experience that looked just sumptuous, had a touching story and featured some terrific performances. I could be completely wrong but of the handful of Scorsese films I've seen now I get the feeling that this is his most heartfelt, the one that perhaps meant most to him. It's a profound and heartwarming little film.

The Gunslinger45

04-15-14, 06:53 PM

edarsenal

04-17-14, 12:02 AM

WOW!

JayDee

04-17-14, 09:17 PM

WOW!

Eh...ok? :confused: In what sense is your wow to be taken? :D

Sexy Celebrity

04-17-14, 09:28 PM

That's a Scorsese movie? I didn't know that.

So sick of you doing Scorsese movies already.

Miss Vicky

04-17-14, 10:46 PM

I haven't seen Hugo and don't have much interest in it. Still waiting/hoping for a Departed review.

Daniel M

04-17-14, 11:00 PM

I don't think there's a chance that JayDee would like [I]The Departed [I], he says he doesn't particularly like gangster films and he's not a fan of Jack Nicholson and his macho performances - and that role is one of his most over the top/crazy :p

edarsenal

04-18-14, 12:24 AM

Eh...ok? :confused: In what sense is your wow to be taken? :D

in the VERY HIGHEST of regards :)
I have heard very little about this movie except that it was a love letter to films, but now, reading your review, I have gotten to read a few paragraphs of that letter and was a bit on the speechless side when i was done -- in a VERY GOOD way.

I REALLY need to see this now when before it really didn't matter if i saw it or not

JayDee

04-19-14, 05:21 PM

Sorry Sexy but we're not done yet

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/JayDeeDoesMarty4_zps4e407eec.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/JayDeeDoesMarty4_zps4e407eec.jpg.html)

mirror mirror

Year of release
1983

Directed by
Martin Scorsese

Written by
Paul D. Zimmerman

Starring
Robert De Niro
Jerry Lewis
Sandra Bernhard
Diahnne Abbott
Shelley Hack

The King of Comedy

rating_4 -

Plot - Rupert Pupkin (De Niro) is a would be comedian who holds aspirations of greatness; aspirations that have reached the level of obsession. And in particular these obsessions have centred upon his comedy idol, talk show host Jerry Langford (Lewis). When he takes advantage of a situation and initiates a meeting with Jerry, he thinks he has made a real connection that will lead to him appearing on the show and becoming the star he so desperately desires to become. When his advances result in him simply being given the run-around, Rupert's attitudes and ideas take a dark turn. Teaming up with his fellow Jerry-obsessed friend Marsha (Bernhard), he concocts a plan to kidnap Jerry Langford and hold him ransom so that he can finally perform his stand-up routine for the show's millions of viewers.

Ah fame, she is a fickle mistress.

And that really is what this film is about. The great strength of The King of Comedy I felt was certainly to be found in its sharp and witty script. I'm not sure exactly how relevant the story was upon its release in 1983, but I can pretty much guarantee that it is more relevant today than it ever has been at any other time. Thirty years ago the film's central idea may have seemed rather ridiculous and far-fetched, these days however, not so much. While no-one has perhaps matched the actions of Rupert Pupkin in terms of their criminality - actually no that's not quite true is it? There was that television reporter in Brazil who was arrested for organising killings to boost the ratings of his TV show which focused on crime in the country. Well apart from a single rare occasion no-one may have matched the actions of Rupert Pupkin in terms of their criminality, however are some of the things we've seen people do in the quest for fame really all that much more distasteful? With all the reality and 'talent' shows that populate TV schedules these days terms such as 'celebrity' and 'TV star' have been completely b*stardised to the point of almost being an insult.

Rupert's ambitions really are a depressingly spot-on metaphor for the way that many would-be celebrities think these days. He doesn't want to tour the comedy club circuit, he doesn't want to hone his skills and work on his routine, he just wants his opportunity handed to him right now, he wants instant gratification. And that is something that is sadly common in this day and age. After all why should you work hard for years and years to become a great singer or comedian or actor when you can simply release a sex tape, embarrass yourself and your family on a 'reality' show or do something incredibly stupid or disgusting and upload it to youtube? Is there a sadder indictment of our current society that a girl was able to get somewhat famous purely because she ate her own tampon? Oh yeah, and as for everyone getting their 15 minutes of fame no matter how untalented they may be? Well these days that 15 minutes sadly seems to be lasting longer and longer. I just saw an ad on TV earlier promoting seasn 8 of Keeping Up With the Kardashians. Season Eight!!! :eek:

As well as a commentary on fame and the notion of celebrity, The King of Comedy also succeeds as a study in obsession. His very singular goal in life is to be famous, to have millions of people adore him and know his name. It's no accident on that front that Paul D. Zimmerman's script is full of instances of no-one being able to actually get his name right. In his mind he becomes convinced that the way he is going to achieve this level of fame is by appearing on The Jerry Langford Show, and as such he has actually linked his life and his experiences to Jerry himself. The film highlights the level of obsession that people can have for celebrities and the relationship that they can create between them in their mind. There's a great little scene in the film where Jerry is out walking the streets and an elderly woman recognises him, telling him what a big fan of his she is and asking for his autograph. She is using a payphone at the time and asks him to speak to her nephew on the other end of the line who is in hospital. Jerry refuses as he is in a rush, and in the blink of an eye the woman's attitude completely changes. She viciously snaps at him, telling him that he “should only get cancer! I hope you get cancer!” It's a wonderfully insightful snapshot of both the fleeting nature of celebrity and the expectations that the public have of you. Because they watch and support you, they somehow believe that entitles them to something from you. And that's the case with Rupert and Jerry. As a devout fan of his for years Rupert has imagined this friendship between the two men, and has convinced himself that not only will Jerry help him, but that it's his duty to help him. That incident on the street with the woman did actually happen to Jerry Lewis, and was included at Lewis' suggestion.

Film Trivia Snippets - During the scene where Rupert and Rita gatecrash their way into Jerry Langford's country home, Jerry Lewis got a distressing taste of De Niro's method acting style. Before they started filming, De Niro insulted Lewis with various anti-Semitic remarks which greatly angered him. Lewis had never worked with a method actor before and was shocked and appalled at this, but he was still able to deliver an extremely credible performance. /// During the scene where Robert De Niro and Sandra Bernhard argue out on the streets of New York, three of the individuals who heckle them may seem familiar to you. Credited as “street scum” you have Mick Jones, Joe Strummer and Paul Simonon, members of the British punk rock band, The Clash. Scorsese and De Niro were both huge fans of the band and regularly attended their New York shows. /// As well as making a cameo himself, Martin Scorsese made sure that it was a real family affair. His mother Catherine provides the voice of Rupert Pupkin's mother; his father Charles plays one of bar patrons during the scene where Rupert turns the TV on to show Rita he made it on the show; and his daughter Cathy plays a fan asking for Rupert's autograph during one of his fantasies.
As I've said before on this forum, and indeed quite recently (at the time of writing), I'm not really a fan of Robert De Niro. When it comes to a lot of his most celebrated performances I personally struggle to really warm to or admire them. There's just something about him in those kind of roles that I cannot connect with. That said however I have to admit that I thought he was really quite fantastic in this film as Rupert Pupkin. I know I'll be alone on this but I prefer when he subverts his gruff, macho image in the likes of Meet the Parents, Analyze This, Silver Linings Playbook, Stardust etc. And this performance certainly falls into that category. It's the performance of a real character actor I felt, creating an individual who is amusing and strangely endearing, but at the same time who is sad and rather unsettling. He really is such a pathetic fellow, dedicating his entire life to his delusional fantasies; fantasies that he indulges in down in his mother's basement and that are frequently interrupted by his mother. He has built his own replica of Jerry's set where he acts out these fantasies alongside cardboard cut-outs of Jerry and Liza Minelli. And he also has a entire wall covered in a print of a cheering audience that he likes to perform in front of. In a way he comes across as the ultimate optimist, completely oblivious to Jerry trying to give him the brush off, convincing himself that they are great friends. He is such a celebrity addict that he knows every single one of his fellow autograph hunters by name. Initially he comes across as a fairly harmless and feeble pest to Jerry; it's only at the half-way point when he is rejected by Jerry that he becomes really dangerous. There really is a very obvious link to De Niro's most famous creation, that of Travis Bickle.

Unlike Travis Bickle however I found Rupert Pupkin to be a surprisingly likeable and sympathetic individual, largely because I think we can all identify with the character in a way, no matter how pathetic we may find him. I think we all have these great designs for our life, the majority of which never pan out. And I think we all fantasise about being able to go back and show off to someone in our past about how well we are doing. In Rupert's case we see that in his fantasy about having his Principal telling him about how he and everyone at school was wrong and how Rupert was right. And even though he does eventually turn out to be dangerous, for the large part he seems pretty harmless, even quite pitiful. Even when he has committed his big criminal act he still comes across more often than not as this bumbling, clownish oaf. See the scene for example where he is orchestrating Jerry's phonecall regarding the instructions for getting Rupert on TV; he can't even get that right. We see him clumsily dropping cue cards, putting them in the wrong order, presenting them to Jerry upside down etc; a criminal mastermind he is not. And then in the concluding monologue that he is finally able to present on Jerry's show we perhaps get an insight into just why he has turned out the way he has. While we don't know how much of it is genuine and how much is just for comic reasons, we do get clues of a dark past that included bullying and a tough childhood. And there's one single line that perhaps explains his whole way of thought; “That was the only attention my father ever gave me.” As I said we don't know how much truth there is in this, but perhaps it is a little insight into why he has become so obsessed with fame, why he has become so fixated with getting as many people as possible to pay attention to him and what he has to say.

Film Trivia Snippets - Before Martin Scorsese signed on to the project Milos Forman had been interested in directing. He dropped out of contention however when he was hired to direct One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. When it came to casting the role of Jerry Langford several big names were considered. These included Johnny Carson, Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., Joey Bishop and Orson Welles. Johnny Carson was the only one to actually be offered the role before Jerry Lewis, but he turned it down. /// Martin Scorsese said later that making this film was an "unsettling" experience, in part because of the embarrassing, bitter material of the script. Scorsese said that he and De Niro may not have worked together again for seven years as a result of how emotionally gruelling it was to make this film. He has also said that he thought De Niro's turn as Rupert Pupkin was De Niro's best performance under his direction. /// The original script for the film was actually written by Paul D. Zimmerman all the way back in the late-1960s. At the time of writing it he had Dick Cavett in mind for the role of the talk show host. /// Before Sandra Bernhard was cast in the role of Masha, the part had been offered to Meryl Streep but she turned it down.
That talk earlier of subverting the image that you're most recognised for leads me nicely onto the other stand-out performance in The King of Comedy, that of Jerry Lewis. Now while I don't believe I have ever actually seen one of his films before, I am well aware of his famous, unique and oft-imitated comic styling; all that childish slapstick and shouts of laaadddyyyy!!! Well there's not a single trace of that persona to be found here in his performance as Jerry Langford. The character seems to be completely worn down and embittered by the level of fame that he has achieved, and I wonder just how close to the truth and to the bone his performance was. The other starring performance is delivered by Sandra Bernhard as Masha, Rupert's fellow Jerry obsessive. In general I can't really stand Bernhard but her screeching, neurotic nature works really well for the character. She is entertaining, downright frightening and aggressively sexual all at the same time. Her attempted seduction of a tied-up Jerry is a spectacularly uncomfortable scene. And it wasn't the only occasion I got that feeling. For me there was a definite Curb Your Enthusiasm vibe to proceeding throughout, with many of the film's laughs being generated out of situations of pure discomfort. The scene in which Rupert and Rita invade Jerry's home under the delusion that Jerry has invited them for the weekend is just brutal to watch. As was the first date that Rupert and Rita went on. Throughout the whole date Rupert is just so spectacularly disingenuous; he is basically just practicing the schtick that he plans to one day use on Jerry's chat show, complete with a rousingly fake showbiz laugh.

I'm not going to claim that I'm now an expert on the works of Martin Scorsese just because of this little marathon of late. Based on what I have seen however I'd say that The King of Comedy is the least obviously Scorsese-ish (Scorsese-ian?) of his films. While thematically you can link the story and its characters to his other films, most notably Taxi Driver, his customary visual flair and creativity are pretty much completely absent. In fact it's so simple and plain-looking that you could argue it more closely resembles a television show than a film. Given Rupert Pupkin's obsession with appearing on TV's Jerry Langford Show I wonder if this was a deliberate move on the part of Scorsese, or perhaps I'm looking too deeply into it and giving Marty too much credit.

Then there's the film's ending which sees Rupert realise the fame he has sought with such demented desire, even if it's fame born out of notoriety more than actual talent. This closing sequence does however present the question of whether it is real or not. Throughout the film we saw Rupert indulging in his delusional fantasies about how great his life was going to turn out when he became famous. It's very easy to imagine this as another of those fantasies, that Rupert is sitting in his cell and this is all in his head. If however it's supposed to be genuine then it's Scorsese's withering attack on the cult of celebrity and what we as a society actually respond to. Or perhaps it's both.

Conclusion - The King of Comedy is a razor-sharp satire and black comedy that sets its sights on celebrity adoration, obsession and mental health. With an excellent script and a terrific performance from Robert De Niro at its core, this is a pretty great flick. If I were just honestly assessing this film on its own merits it may too have gotten a straight rating_4 rating. The fact that I didn't take to it quite as much as Hugo however made me feel that I should throw a minus in there just to reflect that.

The Rodent

04-19-14, 05:24 PM

That was on TV last night... good film. Great review :up:

The Gunslinger45

04-19-14, 05:41 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I am very glad you enjoyed this movie! You pointed out quite a few parts I have mentioned in my musings of the film as well. It was certainly a head of it's time, and the fact that it goes against most of the usual Scorsese and De Niro characteristics they usual bring to their movies makes this a very special film. It is also one of my top 50 favorite films and my 4th favorite Scorsese movie ever!

Nicely one! Also I remembered to rep it first! ;)

honeykid

04-19-14, 05:49 PM

Good review, JD. I disagree with your feelings about it and your rating, though. It's a 2 at best, for me, as the first hour is just tedious. After his rejection it picks up a little, hence the rating, but I just don't find it at all funny. In fact, of than boring, I didn't really find it anything. I certainly never felt uncomfortable. As for Pupkin, he's so annoying and, while I agree he's sad and pathetic, I didn't find him likeable or sympathetic. If he was a fly I'd happily pull all his legs off... And I don't do that to flies!

About the only thing I liked about the film was the way it instantly flipped from the moment of his rejection. He gets thrown out and suddenly he's with Masha looking to kidnap Jerry. The fickle finger of fame again.

With its targets all being things I myself oppose, I should like this. However, unlike Network, it doesn't get hold of me. I'm never interested or invested. I could turn the film off at any point and not think of it again.

JayDee

04-22-14, 09:18 PM

Beyond even Sexy, interest in my Scorsese season appears to be waning. We've gone from a 15-repper (Aviator) and a 16-repper (Shutter Island), dropped to 11 for Hugo and now just 5 for King of Comedy!!! :mad:

I feel a rep whore tantrum coming on

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/tantrum_zpsc3576d94.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/tantrum_zpsc3576d94.gif.html)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/giphy_zps4a837f83.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/giphy_zps4a837f83.gif.html)

:p

I REALLY need to see this now when before it really didn't matter if i saw it or not

Well I hope youy enjoy it whenever you get round to giving it a shot.

That was on TV last night... good film. Great review :up:

Really? Didn't notice that. What channel was it on?

With its targets all being things I myself oppose, I should like this. However, unlike Network, it doesn't get hold of me. I'm never interested or invested. I could turn the film off at any point and not think of it again.

See and I wasn't all that taken with Network. The wonder of movies and differing views eh? Although it's one I have in mind to revisit with the 70s list looming, see if it works more for me on a second viewing

honeykid

04-22-14, 10:37 PM

Beyond even Sexy, interest in my Scorsese season appears to be waning. We've gone from a 15-repper (Aviator) and a 16-repper (Shutter Island), dropped to 11 for Hugo and now just 5 for King of Comedy!!! :mad:
Do you really need telling why? You've gone from popular and oft seen to Hugo and The King Of Comedy. That's a bigger drop than I'd expect, I'll grant you, but still.

See and I wasn't all that taken with Network. The wonder of movies and differing views eh?
Yeah, it's amazing how wrong people can be, isn't it? :p:D

Miss Vicky

04-22-14, 10:47 PM

bitch, bitch, bitch. Poor poor pitiful Jaydee and his lack of rep.

I didn't rep the King of Comedy post because I just now saw it. Now I'm not gonna rep it just to spite you for bitching about the lack of rep. And because I haven't seen the movie so I can't agree or disagree with what you have to say about it.

edarsenal

04-22-14, 11:35 PM

does repping your tantrum count? ;)

JayDee

04-24-14, 02:36 PM

Can I just say well done to Vicky. She's the only one to react the proper way to a tantrum. The rest of you are just condoning such behaviour by repping me. You would all make terrible parents!!! :D

Daniel M

04-24-14, 04:39 PM

You're not getting rep from me because I don't like you and the review was terrible. :cool:

honeykid

04-24-14, 05:00 PM

Can I just say well done to Vicky. She's the only one to react the proper way to a tantrum. The rest of you are just condoning such behaviour by repping me. You would all make terrible parents!!! :D
I repped the post because I read it. :D

JayDee

04-24-14, 08:13 PM

Now we come to Marty's latest film, and his latest to be largely acclaimed as a masterpiece. It has also inspired a truly epic, apparently never-ending review (though Sexy kind of stole my thunder :D); the kind of review normally only reserved for superhero films and my absolute favourites.

I think the reason it happened on this occasion is that as I began the review I still wasn't entirely sure of my opinion. So part of the review was me just trying to work out how I felt about it. As a result there may be a few contradictions and a few examples of me repeating myself. I say 'may' because unlike I normally do, I didn't read back through the review for mistakes and for editing. I couldn't be bothered! :D And if even I can't be bothered I guess I can't blame other people if they can't be either.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/JayDeeDoesMarty5_zps98119739.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/JayDeeDoesMarty5_zps98119739.jpg.html)

mirror mirror

Year of release
2013

Directed by
Martin Scorsese

Written by
Terrence Winter

Starring
Leonardo DiCaprio
Jonah Hill
Margot Robbie
Rob Reiner
Matthew McConaughey
Kyle Chandler

The Wolf of Wall Street

rating_3_5

Plot - A film based upon the true story of disgraced stockbroker Jordan Belfort (DiCaprio), a man who began at the very bottom of the financial world as a penny stockbroker, but ended up running one of the largest brokerage firms on Wall Street. Not that he employed lawful means to get there mind you. Setting up the firm Stratton Oakmont with a number of his friends, including his business parter Donny Azoff (Hill), Belfort is willing to skirt every single rule in the book if it means making money. And make money he certainly does! Employing a series of scams, the size of the company expands rapidly, as do their bank accounts. As Jordan's bank balance grows, so does his thirst for decadence, resulting in lavish and outrageous parties for his staff and dangerous levels of substance abuse. When the FBI begin to take notice of his activities, Jordan has to devise more and more schemes in an attempt to stay one step ahead. With both the pressure of the FBI's investigation and his level of drug intake increasing, Jordan's life both at work and at home begins to crumble apart around him.

Whenever it comes time for the Academy Awards to roll around, it seems that more often than not there is one film that is chosen as the most controversial in the field. This year it appeared that 'honour' was bestowed upon Martin Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street. The main complaint levelled against the film seemed to be that it glorified the characters at the heart of the film and the criminal acts that they committed. In addition to that, many other people had issues with the excessive use of foul language and full frontal nudity that are present pretty much from the first moment. Addressing the latter I did have some problems with the language and sex of the film, though not the problems that most people had. I wasn't offended by it (in fact I rarely get offended by anything in the way of foul language, sex, violence etc), instead I just found it to be tiring and slightly irritating. It's already become quite a well-known fact that this film features more uses of the f-word than any other film, discounting documentaries. Now as I said I wasn't offended by this but just found it to be tiring after a while, hearing the same word over and over and over again it loses any power it had and just becomes grating, whether it be the f-word or not. For example it would be the same if you were bombarded by something along the lines of, “listen here you banana, I will banana you up you mother-bananaer. I mean really, what the banana man? Banana's sake!” And even if it's not the case it just gives off the feeling of laziness. And it's a similar case with the amount of sexual escapades and nudity throughout the film. Scorsese just seems to get so carried away with it all, taking it to excesses that just aren't necessary and begins to cross over into the territory of trying to shock just for the sake of it. Now I'm sure that many people will point out that this excessive behaviour of the film accurately reflects the excessive nature of the characters themselves, and I will admit that there may be some truth to that, but that doesn't mean I personally found it any less irritating.

Now in regards to the accusations about glorifying their actions what I will say is that if you are looking for a morality tale then you have most certainly come to the wrong place. If you're waiting for the central character to grow a conscience and expound about how the true meaning of life is not money but love then you will be sorely disappointed. And a similar level of disappointment awaits you if you're hoping to see the character severely punished for his crimes. Despite all of the crimes he commits and the pain he inflicted on goodness knows how many people, his comeuppance is crushingly lenient. It really does come across as the proverbial slap on the wrist. And I think a large part of the problem that many people have with the film comes from the fact that Scorsese very much toes the line throughout the film, not imbuing the film with a personal point of view or explicit message of any kind. That leaves it up to the audience as to how the film should be interpreted which is why I think there is such a large split between opinions. So each individual may come away with a completely different view of the film. Is the film a look at how obsession and the unquenchable thirst of greed can destroy a man's life? Does such a flashy, glitzy approach make it a glorification of these men and their actions? Or is it merely just a depiction of the events that occurred with no ulterior motive behind it whatsoever? By deriving humour from these characters and their criminal behaviour is Scorsese undermining the pain they caused countless people, or does it show the characters for the idiotic buffoons they are? I've got to admit that just as with Goodfellas I do have a sense of misgiving at the film using the crimes of real individuals who did actually hurt people and turning that into entertainment.

And if anything I feel that instead of going after the criminal scumbags who commit these crimes, Scorsese is perhaps judging and indicting us, the people who fall for them. In that respect I felt that the film's final image was quite telling. It sees Jordan Belfort, now released from prison, conducting a motivational seminar on becoming the best salesman you can be. As he goes about interacting with people in the front row Scorsese drifts away from him to focus on the faces of the audience, and they're all sitting there entranced by him. This is a guy who committed one crime after another, who ruined one life after another and yet here they sit looking at him with a sense of wonder and adoration, wanting to learn from him. I could be getting it completely wrong but if that image were to come with a caption it might be something along the lines of, “look at these stupid b*stards!” So it may be about the stupidity of people, the ineptitude of the FBI and the leniency that is allotted to the rich. Now while the events take place in a different time and in a different financial sector the film also feels strongly linked to our current climate and the financial meltdown that the world suffered because of the reckless actions of bankers. In that sense the film perhaps acts as an examination of just how such a financial catastrophe could have occured; highlighting the danger of a world that is not properly regulated and just how some individuals can do such things when they become so intoxicated by the power at their fingertips. It will perhaps make people ask themselves what they would do in such a position, and a few people may not like the answer they come up with. I just feel that the film could have benefitted from presenting an alternative viewpoint and a competing philosophy to the gross, materialised gluttony on show. I think that if Scorsese had just slightly reduced the time he spent on the excesses of Jordan and his cohorts and devoted it to perhaps enhancing the FBI investigation it could have added another level of intrigue. Or if it had perhaps allowed for a brief glimpse at some of the lives their antics must have ruined.

Film Trivia Snippets - Matthew McConaughey's scenes were shot on the second week of filming. The chest beating and humming performed by him was improvised and actually a warming up ritual that he performs before acting. When Leonardo DiCaprio saw it while filming, the brief shot of him looking away uneasily from the camera was actually him looking at Martin Scorsese for approval. DiCaprio encouraged them to include it in their scene and later claimed it "set the tone" for the rest of the film. /// For the scenes that depicted the actors taking cocaine they were actually snorting crushed vitamin B pills. /// The scene where Brad punches Donnie is real, in fact Jon Bernthal hit Jonah Hill so hard that the prosthetic teeth he was wearing split and flew out of his mouth. Scorsese then proceeded to film Hill's face swelling in real time. /// Desperate to work with Scorsese, Jonah Hill took a pay cut by being paid the SAG minimum, which was $60,000. When Scorsese asked to meet him, Hill also demanded that he actually audition for the role; his first audition in six years. /// Margot Robbie claimed that her sex scene with Leonardo DiCaprio on a bed full of cash was extremely uncomfortable, as the fake paper bills had sharp edges resulting in multiple paper cuts to her back. /// Martin Scorsese claimed that the sequence of Jordan attempting to get in his car while overdosed on Lemmons was improvised on the day of filming, and that it was Leonardo DiCaprio's idea to open the car door with his foot. DiCaprio strained his back during the scene, and was only able to perform the stunt once.
When discussing Scorsese's latest opus the most common comparisons that people made to his back catalogue were to Goodfellas and Casino. And it's certainly not hard to see why, they do share a great number of similarities, so much so that they feel rather like companion pieces in an unofficial trilogy of sorts. The only problem there is that I'm not a massive fan of either film, as shocking as I'm sure that is to most of you. Granted much of that is down to their settings within the gangster world, or underworld, which this film obviously does not suffer from. It does however share a number of other traits with those films that I have some issue with. The main issue being the rather episodic nature that the trio take on which in my eyes leaves the films lacking a focus at times which in turn makes them feel on a bloated side. I felt this was particularly true of this film; I honestly cannot see why this film needs to be 3 hours long. It pretty much concerns itself with just a single character and I wouldn't say it's a particularly epic story so such a running time feels unnecessary. Such an episodic approach makes me feel like I'm at a dinner party or in a bar and a stranger sits beside me. They start to relate a series of anecdotes from their life, all of which would be very entertaining on their own. By the time they've run through their 8th such tale however you're getting pretty fed up. And in the case of this film it just begins to feel rather redundant. After a while we really don't learn anything new about these characters; “oh up until now I thought Jordan just liked drugs and hookers. Now I see that he really, really likes drugs and hookers. How illuminating.” I think you could easily have trimmed at least 30 minutes from the runtime by eliminating a few of these interludes and you would have lost absolutely nothing of what we know of the story or the characters. It feels like there were so many anecdotes that Scorsese loved he just couldn't bring himself to leave any of them out.

The Academy Awards does not hand out awards for Best Ensemble. If it did however then this film would have been very difficult to beat this year as across the board the performances are almost uniformly excellent. Taking the lead and truly anchoring the film is Leonardo DiCaprio. Now in his fifth collaboration with Scorsese he really has become Marty's go-to guy, and he is yet to disappoint in any of those five outings. For every single second of the film's 180 minutes he just commands your attention completely. He really does embody the phrase 'go big or go home.' He just throws himself into proceedings with 100% conviction, convincing you of his ability as a natural salesman. He really is a bullsh*tter of the highest order! It's his performance that keeps you watching and keeps you engaged with his despicable character. It would not be any fun to watch Jordan Belfort enjoy the spoils of his crimes, but it is fun to watch Leo do so. Now I'll admit that I'm a little torn about how to feel about Jonah Hill's performance, well not so much his performance as the plaudits it accumulated. It's no doubt a very entertaining performance from Hill as Jordan's wild animal of a friend, but I don't know if I'd say it was a 'great' performance that deserved all the nominations he got. There's no real depth or nuance to the role, all he basically has to do is be coked-up and shout a lot over and over again. And he does that very well, but I think a large part of the reason he got an Oscar nomination was merely because he did so in a Scorsese movie, and such an association somehow makes it seem more important and impressive. In reality however it's a performance straight out of a broad, bawdy comedy. This film was in theatres at the same time as Anchorman: The Legend Continues, and I honestly think you could have taken his character and placed it alongside Ron Burgundy & co and the character would have in no way looked out of place; no-one would have batted an eye. The only difference is that he certainly wouldn't have gotten a nomination for Anchorman.

In addition to the main cast there were a lot of treats to be found amongst its supporting players. Rob Reiner, in what is a rather rare screen appearance these days, is very entertaining and about as close to likeable as the film gets as 'Mad' Max Belfort, the lone voice of sanity who attempts in vain to act as his son's conscience. As a Swiss banker who helps Belfort to hide his money there is Jean Dujardin. Since rising to prominence with his Oscar win for The Artist Hollywood seems to have struggled with what to do with him. Here however he is utilised very well, allowing him to use the charm and comic timing he displayed in his Oscar-winning turn and back in France in projects such as the OSS 117 films. The most pleasant surprise for me would have to be the inclusion of Kyle Chandler, someone I've been a fan of since his days on “Early Edition” and who I think is very underrated. He's just a really solid actor who always seems to be good no matter what he's in. The biggest surprise however? Joanna Lumley! I would never have put any money whatsoever on seeing Joanna Lumley star in a Martin Scorsese film. And then there's the film's secret little weapon. While all of the film's central players put in impressive turns, if you were to create a formula that measured the impact of a performance divided by their screentime then I think the winner would have to be Matthew McConaughey. His is only a minor role but for the brief time he Is on screen he just absolutely owns the film. In just his 10 or 15 minutes on screen I found his performance and character to be more intriguing and captivating than Jonah Hill was throughout the entire film. He plays Mark Hanna, the man who somewhat takes on the role of the financial Devil, taking Jordan's innocent soul and leading him astray down a dark path. I certainly would not have predicted it just a few years ago but McConaughey really has become just about the coolest and most interesting actor currently working today.

Film Trivia Snippets - During the party scene where Donnie begins masturbating, Jonah Hill wore a prosthetic penis. The other actors did not know about it however so the surprised reactions from the actors and extras are genuine. /// Scorsese has confirmed that the editing is weird on purpose, especially the scenes where one or more characters are high, every time Jordan is seen taken drugs the scenes that follow have continuity issues and just flow very oddly, while the sober scenes are fine. /// On a routine visit, Steven Spielberg spent a day on the set watching the production shoot of the Steve Madden speech. Scorsese claims that Spielberg essentially co-directed the scene, giving advice to actors and suggesting camera angles. /// Jonah Hill had a noticeable lisp when he first put the teeth in to play Donnie, to get rid of this he spent over two hours on the phone calling up random businesses and talking with them. /// Before Martin Scorsese came on board Ridley Scott was asked to direct the movie. /// For the role of Aunt Emma, Julie Andrews was considered and it was offered to Eileen Atkins. It would eventually go to Joanna Lumley. /// "RFK 575" -the license plate number visible on the front of Jordan's yellow Jaguar that he parks at the Greek diner when he first meets Donnie, is the exact same plate number also used in at least three other previous films: The Long Kiss Goodnight, Final Destination and Zoolander. /// Jordan Belfort coached DiCaprio on his behavior, especially instructing him in the various ways he had reacted to the Quaaludes he abused as well as his drugged confrontation with Danny Porush.
I could be completely off base but I just got this niggling feeling at times that Scorsese actually had a level of admiration for Jordan Belfort, even if it was of the begrudging nature. On occasion it feels like he's being painted as a mythic, Jesse James-style outlaw. And it's certainly not how Jordan or his cronies deserve to be seen. These men were disgusting, reprehensible little toads. Hell even Jordan was disgusted by their stupidity at times. The Stratton Oakmont company is not so much a brokerge firm as a frat house. I mean for goodness sake the most serious meeting that they engage in is about the merits and safety issues of employing midgets as entertainment, referring to them throughout the discussion as 'it' and 'these things.' Some people will say that the way Jordan's personal life disintegrates is a form of punishment that shows the error of his ways. I'd say that it punishes his behaviour as a person, a husband and a father but not so much on the criminal side. For everything that he does, all he gets is 2 years in a cushy prison playing tennis. The guy should be rotting in prison, getting gang raped for the next 20 years! Or he should have died given the reckless behaviour he indulged in. Now obviously as it's a true story Marty cannot manipulate events just to give us a more satisfying conclusion. Taking that into account however the question becomes should the film even have been produced in the first place if this was the style it was going to made in. Does this scumbag deserve the fame that comes with this film, even if it is of an infamous nature. Does he deserve to have his story presented in such flashy style by one of the world's most popular and revered directors? Does he deserve to have Leonardo DiCaprio, one of the world's top actors and sexiest men, portray him? This man has had enough breaks. Following the film I had a look around the web for details about the real man and found some troubling tidbits. Back in the day he defrauded over 1500 people who lost approximately $200 million in total. He then spent just 22 months in a cushy prison that had facilities for soccer, tennis, baseball, basketball and volleyball in addition to a rec hall, library, music room, dining hall and picnic tables. His cellmate was Tommy Chong (yes that Tommy Chong) who said it was more comfortable than a Manhattan hotel and nicknamed it 'Camp Cupcake.' While there Belfort paid other inmates to do his chores and even employed one as a full-time butler. And these days he earns $30,000 for every motivational speech he gives, he is a frequent financial commentator for CNBC, CNN, BBC and Sky News. And thanks to the publication of his books and the sale of the film rights he made an additional $1.7 million capitalising on the crimes he had already committed. Perhaps it's just me that's perturbed by this but considering all the people he screwed over, karma does not yet seemed to have paid Mr. Belfort a visit.

Despite the fact that I do think the film is way too long I have to give credit to Scorsese for trying his best not to make it feel like that's the case. His direction gives the film an incredible spark of energy and adrenaline from the first minute to the last, helping to convey the intoxication that the characters find in this life of crime and the avaricious world that it creates for them. To keep the pace and level of interest up Scorsese employs a series of tricks and moves throughout. Right from the opening moment he lets us know what we're in for. Opening with a commercial for the Stratton Oakmont brokerage house that sees Leo detailing the values on which he founded his firm; stability, integrity and pride, Scorsese quickly cuts to the image of a midget being tossed like a dart. He instantly sets the stage for the wild, irreverent, p*ss-take that is about to unfold. Additionally we get Leo delvering a voiceover throughout the film, one that often includes him breaking the fourth wall to give an address straight to the audience. Now one of the main factors that made this such a favourite for so many people, and why they could perhaps overlook the possible glorification, is how hilarious they found it. So perhaps that's another reason why I only liked, didn't love the film. I didn't find it to be an exceptionally funny film, instead being more sporadically funny. Though I have to admit that on those occasions it could be very, very funny. The already famous Lemmon scene being the prime example.

My main problem with the film and his direction is that it too often feels like it is closely mirroring the characters themselves. So the film shares their attitudes towards women meaning that the film often comes off as misogynistic and tasteless. While hiring prostitutes and cheating on his wife was a huge part of Jordan's life, showing it in such a full-frontal nature over and over again seems excessive. At what point does a film risk crossing the line from merely showing us an individual who revels in misogyny to becoming misogynistic itself? There is really only a single performance, that of Margot Robbie, that is able to rise above this wave of misogyny. She emerges with a strong, seductive performance. The characters have an incredible propensity for excessive behaviour, self-indulgence and a superficial nature. And at 3 hours long I feel that Scorsese indulges in a similar fashion, particularly when the film doesn't really seem to have a message or point of view to share. He just shows us what Jordan and company did without ever really getting close to explaining exactly why he did what he did, other than as a materialistic quest. 3 hours is a long time to say nothing. Especially when you're spending it exclusively in the company of such detestable characters.

Conclusion - As you'd expect with the involvement of Martin Scorsese, The Wolf of Wall Street is a terrifically crafted film that features many of his trademark touches; vibrant direction, lively soundtrack and strong performances. In technical terms the only negative I really have is about the film's length, which at least in my eyes is way too long. My potential problems are more to be found in the tone and approach the film takes, and how exactly I feel about it. And I've got to say I'm still undecided. For as undeniably entertaining as it is, I have some reservations about Scorsese's unapologetically extravagant perspective on the story. I think it's a film that will definitely require at least a second viewing before I settle on how exactly I feel about it.

Daniel M

04-24-14, 08:20 PM

Your review is like the film. Overlong and not very enjoyable.

cricket

04-24-14, 09:05 PM

Great review JayDee; I read the whole thing and I'm glad you liked it. I really can't disagree with anything you said, although I myself never got sick of the nudity and foul language; I totally enjoyed the f*+k out of it. What I am tired of though, is reading, hearing, and talking about it. It's not your fault obviously; this movie has just been beaten to death.

The Gunslinger45

04-24-14, 09:30 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

As you know I am an unapologetic Scorsese fanboy and The Wolf of Wall Street is now among my top 50 favorite films. I love the film, but I can see why people would be taken aback about the subject matter and the length of the film. Pity you did not enjoy it as much as I did. But you gave it a good rating so it is all good.

seanc

04-24-14, 10:27 PM

I rank it slightly higher than you jaydee, but just slightly. I am in the camp that thought the over indulgence was the whole point so it certainly didn't bother me. There are two scenes in particular that I really didn't enjoy and that kept me from rating it higher. The quaalude scene and the scene where they are discussing the midget tossing. They are supposed to be two of the funnier scenes in the film and they just did not do a thing for me.

Miss Vicky

04-25-14, 12:34 AM

I liked your review, but some of the criticisms you give just leave me scratching my head. One glaring example is this:

He just shows us what Jordan and company did without ever really getting close to explaining exactly why he did what he did, other than as a materialistic quest.

What makes you think there was any motivation for their actions other than materialism (and the fun that goes with it)?

Sexy Celebrity

04-25-14, 12:43 AM

The review's length looks like typical JayDee length.

JayDee

04-26-14, 06:14 PM

Your review is like the film. Overlong and not very enjoyable.

:eek: Getting quite ballsy in your old age aren't you?

What I am tired of though, is reading, hearing, and talking about it. It's not your fault obviously; this movie has just been beaten to death.

Can't really blame you. The amount of coverage it's gotten on here has been immense. In fact I don't think there's any other film that has been reviewed so much. In addition to myself now we've had views from Gunslinger, Sexy, seanc, Masterman, Sci-Fi Slob etc.

What makes you think there was any motivation for their actions other than materialism (and the fun that goes with it)?

Well perhaps there's not but again I just felt that if that's all there is behind their actions there's no need for it to be such an extremely long film. Or perhaps I'm just naive and would like to think that it takes more than that to turn the heads of so many people.

You're not getting rep from me because I don't like you and the review was terrible. :cool:

Woah woah woah!!! We've been having fun with those whole 'feud' thing but it's possible to take things too far. You can have a go at a lot of stuff I care about, but you don't threaten my rep. As I believe the kids on the streets would say - S*IT just got real!!!

Sexy Celebrity

04-26-14, 06:15 PM

I find myself thinking of The Wolf of Wall Street a lot. I think I liked it more than I realized. I need to watch it again.

Sexy Celebrity

04-26-14, 06:16 PM

And I need to actually spend some weeks and read your review.

JayDee

04-27-14, 03:10 PM

These next two reviews are a bit shorter than the norm, but still longer than a micro musing. That's what I thought it was going to be originally which is why I never got round to doing the plot or trivia or even a conclusion

To make up for the shorter length of the review I'll make it a doubler

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/JayDeeDoesMarty6_zpseb80a682.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/JayDeeDoesMarty6_zpseb80a682.jpg.html)

mirror mirror

Year of release
1999

Written by
Paul Schrader

Directed by
Martin Scorsese

Starring
Nicholas Cage
Patricia Arquette
John Goodman
Ving Rhames
Tom Sizemore

Bringing out the Dead

rating_3 +

Of all the films I've seen in this recent Scorsese marathon this is the closest to being a misfire in my eyes. Though up front I should say that a large part of that is certainly down to its fairly dark and depressing nature, which made it tough to warm to. It wasn't a complete loss though and there was some stuff here I really enjoyed.

In the lead role you've got Nicholas Cage, who as I've touched on before in a couple of my reviews, is really quite the enigma. Certainly not someone I'd rate as a particularly good actor, he can however be very effective if his unique style is properly harnessed by the right director and in the right role. And I certainly found that to be the case in this film, with Cage delivering one of his most impressive performances I've come across. His manic, bug-eyed style made for a very suitable fit for Frank Pierce, the burnt-out paramedic who really is on the very edge of his sanity throughout the film. In addition I've always found Cage to have this naturally worn down, defeated demeanour to him, heightened by his lazy drawl, that just makes him seem a bit of a sad-sack. Again making him almost perfect for this soulful, tortured individual. Oh and great job on both his behalf and that of the make-up department for creating just about the most haunted set of eyes I've ever seen.

And I loved some of the minor characters that populated the film such as Ving Rhames' religious-minded paramedic, Tom Sizemore's demented and homicidal paramedic and the female doctor who openly despised most of her patients. In general those performers and pretty much everyone else are all very strong. Patricia Arquette is very good as the daughter of patient that Cage befriends, giving a very honest and haunted performance. John Goodman, the acting god that he is, is as great as you'd come to expect and it's just a shame that he vanishes from the film about halfway through. While both Sizemore and Rhames steal the show whenever they pop up.

As is frequently the case with a Scorsese film, Bringing out the Dead is a very flashy and showy movie to look at. On this occasion that is evident in the form of lighting and shots that reflect the chaotic nature of the character's job and the dark frame of mind he finds himself in. We get lots of shots that are sped up, some anarchic editing and wild camera movements to really create a sense of disorientation. On top of that Cage's face is frequently drenched in neon light coming from the city's buildings, and the blue and red flashing from the ambulance's lights to create frenzied and nightmarish mood. Alongside that flashy aesthetic however I didn't think the film had the substance that usually goes along with it, coming off as just a touch shallow on occasion. I just didn't feel that the film necessarily went anywhere. He starts the film driving the city's streets in an ambulance and ends it the same way, with the film not really going anywhere in between.

The atmosphere that Scorsese creates is a that of a very bleak, hellish urban environment; Woody Allen certainly never featured this New York in any of his films. If you had asked me a week ago what I thought of Robert Richardson, I'd have had no clue who you were talking about. Now however I'd have to rank him as one of my favourite cinematographers working today. Following in the footsteps of Hugo, Shutter Island and The Aviator this film marks another visual masterclass from him. And just looking at his back catalogue he was also responsible for JFK and Django Unchained, another two movies which I was greatly impressed by in terms of their visuals.

So even though I wasn't hugely sold on the film, as you can see there was quite a lot about it that I admired and enjoyed. And now that I know what the film is about and what it entails I could certainly see it growing on me with future viewings. Now knowing its dark tone I could time it to coincide with beng truly in the mood for it. Oh and I almost forgot to mention what was perhaps my favourite thing about the film - its soundtrack; a great mix of a dirty jazz score and an eclectic mix of songs from the worlds of rock, reggae and R&B.

JayDee

04-27-14, 03:10 PM

mirror mirror
Year of release
1993

Directed by
Martin Scorsese

Written by
Jay Cocks
Martin Scorsese

Starring
Daniel Day-Lewis
Michelle Pfeiffer
Winona Ryder
Alexis Smith
Miriam Margolyes

The Age of Innocence

rating_3 ++

This film had quite an uphill battle ahead of it right from the start just as a result of its general nature. The fact that it was a period drama certainly didn't fill me with great expectations; if I were being honest there would be few genres that fill me with less enthusiasm than the period drama. Now while I wouldn't say that the story ignited a great passion in me, I did however find myself more captivated by the narrative than I anticipated. As time passed I found myself becoming more and more invested in the tragic and doomed romance at the film's heart between Daniel Day-Lewis and Michelle Pfeiffer. The film is able to make these two just holding hands feel more passionate and erotic than the large majority of more explicit sex scenes.

Before viewing Age of Innocence I was a little surprised by the notion of Scorsese making a period film, and not just because it marked a break from the gangsters he frequently spent time with. For someone who had so often concerned himself with contemporary issues going back to the 1870's seemed like a bizarre choice. But it didn't take me long to see why the project held an interest for him. Very much like Goodfellas this is a film that focuses on a closed society, the hierarchy of families and their clandestine ways, except this time we're focusing not on the mob but the upper classes. Even many of the themes are similar to those found in Goodfellas; loyalty, sacrifice, social and family responsibilities, following a strict code of conduct etc. The whole world that is created is one that is just so different from today. Even though the events here take place just a little over a hundred years ago it's almost impossible to imagine such things going on today.

Had I truly taken to the story and its characters I could have ended up absolutely loving this film because I did love how it was presented. Age of Innocence is a very rich, sumptuous experience; a real feast for the eyes with excellent direction and great use of colour. The film was rewarded with an Oscar nominations for Best Art Direction/Set Direction and a win for Best Costume Design, and it's exceptionally easy to see why; it's a gorgeous film to look at. And Scorsese just seems to be oozing with confidence behind the camera. He has always been known for his very active camera, and that is the case once more. However it's not as rapid or energetic as usual, taking a much more languid and gentle approach to suit the material. Such an approach also has the unique result of placing you right in the presence of the characters, making you feel like a guest in their homes. Scorsese's camera however chooses to focus less on the actual characters and more on the garments that adorn them, the accoutrements that fill their homes and the art that decorates their walls; highlighting how these people defines themselves. It really is a loving tour of their homes that comes off like a piece of interior décor porn. Scorsese's confidence can also be seen in some rather audacious tricks and techniques that are very alien to the genre but work nonetheless.

The reserved nature of this world and its characters makes it tough for the actors to really stand out; there's little opportunity for grandstanding or hogging of the spotlight. That aside the central trio of Day-Lewis, Pfeiffer and Ryder all impress in their respective roles in quiet, restrained and often deceptively simple performances. However for me the undoubted stars were Scorsese and those responsible for the gorgeous production design. They join together for some truly lavish affairs such as visits to the ballet and the parties that are thrown by the families. Affairs that are brought to life with incredible detail and vivid colour, and filmed with great class by Scorsese. Special mention also to Elmer Bernstein's gentle, soothing and operatic score which was beautiful to listen to and a perfect fit for the material.

I actually feel quite bad about the fairly harsh rating I've given this film as in many ways I can see how it actually has more quality to it than a film like The Departed; it's just that I happened to enjoy The Departed more. However I'd say this one has a chance (a small chance but a chance none the less) of growing on me. And for people who are real fans of the period drama genre I could see them possibly loving it.

Miss Vicky

04-27-14, 03:18 PM

Bringing Out the Dead is a very strange film. I like it, but it's certainly not a favorite. The Age of Innocence has been sitting unwatched and collecting dust in my collection for awhile now. I bought it because it's Scorsese and because I enjoy period dramas, but for some reason haven't yet gotten around to it.

Can we expect to see a review for The Departed in the future?

The Gunslinger45

04-27-14, 03:22 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

JayDee I am about to say something you will more then likely never hear me say again.

You rated that Scorsese movie too high when it comes to Age of Innocence.

But then you rated Bringing out the Dead too low, so we resume business as usual.

honeykid

04-27-14, 03:56 PM

I quite like a period drama, but I couldn't get into The Age Of Innocence when I tried, oh so many, years ago. I'll have to give it another go.

BTW, good reviews, JD. :)

cricket

04-27-14, 05:46 PM

I thought Bringing out the Dead was just ok; it's in my bottom 3 Scorsese. I haven't seen The Age of Innocence yet because it doesn't seem like my kind of movie. I'll watch it at some point.

nebbit

04-28-14, 07:45 AM

Nice reviews, Not a big fan of Cage but quite liked this movie :yup:

JayDee

04-30-14, 08:53 PM

I quite like a period drama, but I couldn't get into The Age Of Innocence when I tried, oh so many, years ago. I'll have to give it another go.

BTW, good reviews, JD. :)

Oh really? I know you like a period drama and have a fondness for Scorsese so that surprises me. Though that would be one you liked

And thanks. :up:

Deadite

04-30-14, 09:32 PM

Great review of BOTD, man. I'd have rated it higher myself but your criticisms are very fair.

JayDee

05-03-14, 04:26 PM

Now a trio of, well not quite micro musings, but shorter reviews anyway

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/JayDeeDoesMarty7_zpsc41b75e5.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/JayDeeDoesMarty7_zpsc41b75e5.jpg.html)

mirror mirror

Year of release
1985

Directed by
Martin Scorsese

Written by
Joseph Minion

Starring
Griffin Dunne
Rosanna Arquette
Teri Garr
John Heard
Catherine O'Hara

After Hours

rating_4

Before I became a movie buff (or at least a movie buff in training) I pretty much only associated Martin Scorsese with the likes of Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Gangs of New York and The Departed; films that while I may admire the qualities of, I'm not overly fond of. They just aren't the type of films that generally appeal to my senses. So when I discovered that Marty had made a dark, quirky comedy I really wasn't sure what to expect. An uncertainty that was only heightened by the opening credits listing Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong amongst its cast! :eek: What I discovered however was a delightfully bizarre little oddball of a film. I was a little sceptical and uninvolved to begin with, however as it moved along I felt myself being more drawn in by the minute.

In the lead role of Paul Hackett I thought Griffin Dunne was excellent, perfectly capturing the bouts of anger, frustration and guilt that he goes through on his night from hell, and making the audience feel and empathise with each emotion. Alongside him there are a cavalcade of recognisable faces making up the rest of the cast, with Rosanna Arquette standing out as the manic and unbalanced Marcy. And there was a nice bonus in the form of a Home Alone connection, with both John Heard and Catherine O'Hara starring. Oh and Linda Fiorentino as Kiki? Phwoar!!!

Back in the year 2000 the Coen Brothers released O Brother, Where Art Thou?; a folksy, Depression-era take on Homer's The Odyssey. In a way this film felt like Scorsese making his own version of The Odyssey, a very surreal and noirish version All the main character wants to do is go home but a variety of baffling eccentrics and improbable events keep inhibiting his efforts. More than just about any film I've seen in quite some time I really had no idea where After Hours was heading from one moment to the next. Scorsese does a fantastic job at creating this surreal, nightmarish atmosphere for proceedings to take place in. Aiding him in that respect is Howard Shore's quirky, mischievous and haunting score. Also impressive on Scorsese's end is the sharp pace of the film, keeping it slickly moving from one episode to the next. As far as I could surmise there was no real message or lesson to all this kafkaesque weirdness, it was just weird for weird sake. But I enjoyed it all so much that I really don't care! This is the type of film that I could see possibly growing on me to the point of becoming a real favourite.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1991

Directed by
Martin Scorsese

Written by
Wesley Strick

Starring
Robert De Niro
Nick Nolte
Juliette Lewis
Jessica Lange
Joe Don Baker

Cape Fear

rating_3_5 +

Up until now my Martin Scorsese season has consisted of some great storytelling, in-depth examinations of characters and stories that examined particular themes such as celebrity, obsession, the magic of cinema etc. Well this wasn't one of those!!! This was much closer to the territory of being pure schlock! As far as schlock goes however I thought it was rather well made, even if Scorsese does throw any sense of subtlety right out the window. The score is exceptionally overpowering and the images are very much in your face, such as the moment where Cady is released from prison and we see storm clouds gathered ominously overhead. What his direction may lack in subtlety however he certainly makes up for in effectiveness, creating a tense and nervy viewing experience. I also found the film to be really quite unseemly and unsettling on occasion, never more so than during the scene where a near 50-year-old De Niro seduces the 17-year-old Lewis. Very creepy!

Perhaps I'm softening my stance on De Niro as I actually found him rather giddily entertaining as he hammed it up in the role of the truly despicable Max Cady. The character also had a few great design touches such as his extensive collection of tattoos that cover his body and his lighter in the form of a lady's body with flashing breasts. While as the married couple that he torments Nick Nolte and Jessica Lange both put in solid showings. The star turn of the film however most definitely came from the young Juliette Lewis as their daughter Danielle, perfectly capturing the awkwardness of teenage life. I just loved her reaction to the character of Cady; a wonderful mix of intrigue, attraction, fear and repulsion.

I have to say that unfortunately the film slightly lost me as it reached its conclusion, coming off as preposterous and too drawn out. At the moment where it's revealed that Cady has strapped himself to the bottom of their car I couldn't help but laugh, both at how ridiculous it was and also because it brought to mind the episode of The Simpsons where Sideshow Bob did the same thing; until now I had not realised that episode was a parody of this film. And then I thought that the finale just went on too long, and I felt my interest dwindle a little. Cady has boiling water thrown on his face, has hot wax engulf his hand, is set on fire, is involved in a boat crash and battered numerous times over the head with a rock; and yet he keeps on coming! He's like a damn terminator. Just die already!

mirror mirror

Year of release
2006

Directed by
Martin Scorsese

Written by
William Monahan

Starring
Leonardo DiCaprio
Matt Damon
Jack Nicholson
Mark Wahlberg
Vera Farmiga
Ray Winstone

The Departed

rating_3_5 ++

Of all the films during this Scorsese marathon this has perhaps supplied the most pleasant surprise. I really wasn't all that sure about it given my disinterest is gangster films and dislike for Jack Nicholson. So it proved a real bonus to discover just how much I enjoyed it. I wouldn't say it's necessarily a truly great film, and think that the acclaim that has been lavished upon it seems rather over-the-top. However I did find it to be greatly entertaining. As I mentioned, one of the main issues that was putting me off the film was its standing as a gangster film. So it was a relief to find that it wasn't really a gangster film in the strictest of senses, certainly not like Goodfellas was for example. Instead it's more of a pure thriller which just happens to have one foot in that world.

Without a doubt the most significant factor in my enjoyment was the superlative cast. In the roles of the duelling undercover moles both Leonardo DiCaprio and Matt Damon are excellent. Between the two I'm more of a Damon guy but in this instance DiCaprio was arguably the more impressive for me, given more scope to show the effects that the ordeal has upon him. Coming damn close to stealing the show however, and very surprisingly so, was Mark Wahlberg as the delightfully antagonistic and insulting Sergeant Dignam. He's not in the film for a great amount of time but thanks to the sheer fury he imbues the character with he certainly makes an impression. And the rest of the ensemble is rounded out by a number of talented people such as Martin Sheen, Vera Farmiga, Ray Winstone and Alec Baldwin. The one sticking point amongst the cast was as I feared Jack Nicholson. To be fair to Nicholson though I don't feel that he was the main problem with the character. The biggest flaw was in the writing of the Frank Costello character, creating a character that was just too over-the-top and cartoonish for my taste. Between his colourfully crass turns of phrase and his manic antics I just felt that the film was constantly striving to make him a real larger-than-life cult figure, and for me it just came across as way too forced; particularly the scene where he wears a strap-on dildo. :facepalm:

I know that amongst his fans many of them are upset that of all the work he has done it was this film that finally earned Scorsese his Oscar. And I can certainly see why. In fact I'm a little surprised that he won for this film full stop. Compared with the large majority of his other films I've been watching (Hugo, The Aviator, Shutter Island, Age of Innocence etc) it was quite rare that I was really impressed by the direction. It's not that I thought his work here was poor, it's just that it rarely caught my attention the way his work on other films had. Even if it was still skilfully presented, particular moments and images didn't jump out at me like they had in those films I listed.

Captain Spaulding

05-03-14, 05:49 PM

Great write-ups, Jaydee. I wish you kept them at that length more often--- they're still detailed and insightful, but without being so long-winded.

I really need to see After Hours. It's one of only three Scorsese films I've yet to watch (The Age of Innocence and Kundun are the other two). I'm pretty sure I'll love once I finally watch it.

I agree with everything you said about Cape Fear. It's lesser Scorsese, but it's so ridiculous, and De Niro is so infectiously over the top, that it's still pretty entertaining. The climax is definitely overwrought, however, and it causes the movie to drag when it should be at its most exciting.

Sounds like I like The Departed more than you, but it's been several years since I watched it. Scorsese's Oscar win that year was more of a lifetime achievement award, really, since he should've won numerous times in the past for much better films than The Departed.

seanc

05-03-14, 05:52 PM

I do not get the love for After Hours. My least favorite Scorsese by far. Cape Fear I would rate the same. The Departed half a point higher.

Miss Vicky

05-03-14, 06:08 PM

Coming damn close to stealing the show however, and very surprisingly so, was Mark Wahlberg as the delightfully antagonistic and insulting Sergeant Dignam.

http://www.angelfire.com/music6/walteregan/MoFoPics/joaqdisapproves.gif

The biggest flaw was in the writing of the Frank Costello character.

http://www.angelfire.com/music6/walteregan/MoFoPics/joaqdisapproves.gif

I'm glad you liked The Departed, but I couldn't disagree more with the above statements.

Daniel M

05-03-14, 06:11 PM

I think you are right on a lot of things that you have highlighted with The Departed, JayDee. Mark Wahlberg is great, but is seems some MoFos hate him and refuse to really acknowledge when he puts in a great performance due to bias. And whilst I enjoyed Jack Nicholson, he is ridiculously over the top and sometimes silly in the film. I agree with your rating of it and also After Hours, not seen Cape Fear myself.

The Sci-Fi Slob

05-03-14, 06:13 PM

Vicky's Commodus gif should be confiscated.

Sexy Celebrity

05-03-14, 06:14 PM

Vicky's Commodus gif should be confiscated.

It was -- by her. Nobody else wanted it.

The Gunslinger45

05-03-14, 06:28 PM

cricket

05-03-14, 11:11 PM

Awesome JayDee; I'm loving your Scorsese reviews. Any in the works for Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, and Casino?

I agree completely with your review of After Hours. I didn't care for it when I saw it at the movies; I was probably too immature to appreciate it. I saw it again a few months ago, and I saw what you saw. 4

Spot on for Cape Fear as well, although I like it more than you, which is to be expected. I'm glad you're coming around on De Niro. 4.5

Ditto for The Departed; Jack Nicholson is my favorite actor, but it's the rest of the cast that ruled the roost in this one. Btw, the dildo wasn't in the script, it was just something Nicholson pulled out of his ass at the last minute, and they kept it in the movie. 5

honeykid

05-04-14, 01:50 AM

I've not seen it for a good 20+ years, but I remember really not liking After Hours at all. Whenever I think of it, the feeling I get is that it was stupid. I don't know why, as I can't remember a thing that happens in it, but that's the feeling. I've hated, yes hated, Cape Fear since I saw it on release. The only thing I liked about it was Lewis' performance, which I thought was fantastic and I think I hated the ending even more than you did. T2 and Cape Fear came out the same year. Saw both at the cinema and both ended with me being bored and annoyed before the end of the film because the stupid thing won't die.

The Departed was OK. I agree with Captain S in that it's well overpraised because it was going to, and did, win Marty the Oscar. Jack was as expected, and those of you who know me will know that's not praise for a Nicholson performance after the late 80's, while I thought everyone else did pretty well.

Captain Spaulding

05-04-14, 01:51 AM

Btw, the dildo wasn't in the script, it was just something Nicholson pulled out of his ass at the last minute 5

I hope you mean that figuratively, because otherwise: :eek:

mark f

05-04-14, 02:25 AM

It works both ways. :)

honeykid

05-04-14, 02:43 AM

So it's double-ended? :eek::D

Deadite

05-04-14, 07:12 AM

Ba dum tish.

I much prefer the original Cape Fear to its so-so remake. Mitchum rocks!

Masterman

05-04-14, 08:11 AM

Great reviews. I actually enjoyed them shorter. Anyway, Cape Fear is fantastic. I actually find it very frightening. One of my favourites.

mark f

05-04-14, 12:29 PM

Great reviews. I actually enjoyed them shorter.
Agreed.

The Sci-Fi Slob

05-04-14, 12:41 PM

Nice reviews. I prefer the shorter format.
Cape Fear is a classic - just good as the original. 4.5
The Departed is a solid crime thriller. 4

Sexy Celebrity

05-04-14, 02:37 PM

I loved The Departed after recently rewatching it. Years ago, after it first came out, I tried watching it and I hated it, but I liked it the last time.

Cape Fear had a stupid ending and it wasn't that great, but there were parts that I liked (Robert De Niro's character) and it was okay. I have it. Honeykid and I should do a commentary.

Haven't seen After Hours. Not sure if I'd like it... the cast looks good, but I've got this feeling that I wouldn't like it. Too many people from this website love it and that gives off a bad vibe with me.

JayDee

05-05-14, 09:15 PM

Great review of BOTD, man. I'd have rated it higher myself but your criticisms are very fair.

Thanks Deadite. :up: Nice to see you back in the thread

How many of Scorsese's movies have you seen now?

Well I've got a little wrap-up coming soon of the season. It's only a handful of his films that I've not seen now.

:mad: So all the effort and time I've put into crafting my reviews and this is the kind of thanks I get? Basically just being told that people prefer my reviews when I don't talk as much -

I wish you kept them at that length more often--- they're still detailed and insightful, but without being so long-winded.

I actually enjoyed them shorter.

Agreed.

Nice reviews. I prefer the shorter format.

Well F*CK the lot of you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://i.imgur.com/s7d0u.gif
http://media.giphy.com/media/za0WewKzFf0ME/giphy.gif
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--GkFqocIW--/qvjzsayjgih0h5uqkwjp.gif
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/njHHKXt_zpsfc0002c9.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/njHHKXt_zpsfc0002c9.gif.html)
http://iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/gifs/mr-bean-in-car-middle-finger-to-everyone-flipping-everyone-off-1383268085B.gif

:mad: You ungrateful sumbitches!!! :mad:

(I'm really enjoying the multi-gifs today. :D)

mark f

05-05-14, 09:57 PM

Well, so much for constructive criticism. :)

edarsenal

05-06-14, 12:45 AM

serious reps for the Mr. Bean flipping off everyone :D

JayDee

05-06-14, 04:14 PM

JayDee Does Marty - A Wrap Up

Well there we have it, that's my season of Scorsese films wrapped up for the time being. I've gone from having only seen 4 of his films to having seen all but 4 of his films, well not including his documentaries. The only films I've still not seen are Boxcar Bertha, Who's That Knocking at My Door?, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and New York, New York.

And now that I have had substantial exposure to Scorsese and his work I can see why he is so highly lauded and loved by critics and audiences alike. That said there are a number of his films, especially amongst his most beloved, that just aren't for me. And in general I'm sure my scores are too low in the eyes of most people. However I have come away with a few films that I really liked and could one day love (Aviator, Hugo and After Hours), a large number that I enjoyed, a few that surprised me by how much I liked them (Departed, King of Comedy etc) and a couple that I could see perhaps growing on me in the future (Bringing out the Dead, Shutter Island, Age of Innocence).

I also watched a few more of his films that for one reason or another I just didn't get round to writing about. I watched Mean Streets, and it's another of Marty's gangster films that just don't do it for me. Although this time it wasn't just the genre that worked against it, I actually didn't think it was a very good film. Harvey Keitel's fiery performance aside I didn't find anything to really interest me at all. It was made on a shoestring budget, which sometimes a filmmaker can get around. Mean Streets however both felt and looked cheap to me. But maybe that's just me. Around about a rating_2 + perhaps. I watched and really rather enjoyed The Color of Money. As Scorsese films go it was actually quite a small, simple story but my interest was held by a couple of captivating turns from Paul Newman and Tom Cruise. Scorsese's direction and camerawork were very helpful at maintaining the excitement of the pool matches which in themselves are not the most dynamic exercises to watch. Probably about a rating_3_5. I watched what is generally considered to be Marty's companion piece to Goodfellas, Casino. And I was quite surprised by how much I enjoyed it considering its similarities to Goodfellas which I'm not overly enamoured with. While it's generally seen as the inferior film of the two I actually enjoyed Casino more, perhaps because it wasn't quite as mired in the gangster world as Goodfellas was and was quite flashy and glamorous. That said I still don't see it being one I will be all that desperate to ever revisit. Perhaps about a rating_3_5 -. Of all Scorsese's films perhaps the one I was most reluctant to view was The Last Temptation of Christ. As someone who is not at all religious I would generally avoid it like the plague, only watching it because it was another Scorsese film. Initially I was unable to get past my pre-conceived notions and prejudices but as time wore on I found myself more intrigued than I had expected, even if I still didn't come close to greatly liking it. This was largely down to Scorsese's direction and Dafoe's terrific performance. In the end perhaps rating_2_5 ++ which is considerably more than I expected. The biggest disappointment of my Scorsese season was definitely Kundun. As someone with a passing interest in Eastern culture I was quite intrigued to see it but it did not work for me whatsoever. I just could not get into it, finding it extremely dull. As a result it was one of the toughest viewing experiences I've had in quite some time. Just rating on my personal enjoyment/investment would be lucky to get rating_1_5

Anyway here is how I would currently rank Scorsese's films, based on my enjoyment and not necessarily their quality which is why many of his films that are considered the best are down at the bottom. I'm aware that it's quite a unique ranking of his films, probably upside down to what many people would have. And it is definitely subject to change as they're based almost exclusively on single watches.

1. The Aviator
2. After Hours
= Hugo
4. The King of Comedy
5. The Departed
6. Cape Fear
7. Color of Money
8. Wolf of Wall Street
9. Shutter Island
10. Casino
11. Age of Innocence
12. Bringing out the Dead
13. Goodfellas
14. Taxi Driver
15. Last Temptation of Christ
16. Mean Streets
17. Raging Bull
18. Kundun

I've also seen Gangs of New York but many years ago. I'll need to give it another go someday but just now I think it would probably be somewhere in the 13-15 range.

mark f

05-06-14, 04:35 PM

I guess even you are allowed your opinion. :)

cricket

05-06-14, 09:56 PM

Hey at least you watched them so I applaud you for that. Do try to watch Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore if you get the chance. It's excellent.

TylerDurden99

05-06-14, 10:21 PM

Even though I don't agree with all of your rankings, I respect that you gave Marty a chance.

It's also cool to see another person who considers The Color Of Money one of his better films.

JayDee

05-07-14, 08:38 PM

Well before I return to my long-winded reviews that everyone apparently hates :D I'm going to clean out my backlog of micro musings. To start with I'm going to go with a few that I know aren't going to prove all that popular. However if I'm happy to post positive reviews for popular films that I know are going to get a lot of agreement and rep then it's only fair I post the opposite as well

Micro Musings : Woody Allen Hate-a-thon

mirror mirror

Year of release
1985

Directed by
Woody Allen

Starring
Mia Farrow
Jeff Bridges
Danny Aiello
Edward Herrmann
John Wood

The Purple Rose of Cairo

rating_2_5 +

Of all the Woody Allen films out there I felt this was the one that held the most promise for me. And while there were some things about it that I liked, the overall experience yet again came up short for me. The film's central idea of a movie character coming to life and jumping out of the screen is a nice idea but one that was never able to rise above being merely a gimmick for me; and one that I didn't feel sustained the whole film. It only runs for a little over 80 minutes but even then I felt it was running on steam with Allen attempting to pad it out. Though I think it did a decent job of realising the escapist nature of films and why in particular they were so appealing during the depression. And I enjoyed the performances of both Jeff Bridges and Mia Farrow, finding both of them quite charming and endearing. So all in all it's quite a sweet little film but not one that really stoked a passion in me. It is however the one Woody Allen film I could picture myself being most likely to revisit, and perhaps take to someday.

mirror mirror

Year of release
2011

Directed by
Woody Allen

Starring
Owen Wilson
Rachel McAdams
Marion Cotillard
Michael Sheen
Kurt Fuller
Kathy Bates

Midnight in Paris

rating_2_5

Alongside Purple Rose of Cairo this was the other film of Allen's that I felt was most likely to appeal. And like that film there are some positives. Midnight in Paris does look lovely and I found Owen Wilson to be a very likeable, charming presence in the lead role. And it is pleasant enough in a whimsical, frothy sort of way but in the end it all felt pretty pointless and flimsy. One of the biggest problems I had with the film which just sabotaged it right from the start was Allen's writing in terms of the relationship between Wilson and Rachel McAdams. At no point did I ever get any sense why they were together and about to be married. She was just constantly fawning over Michael Sheen, belittling him in front of others and moaning about him to her parents. So I didn't get that she loved him, or why Wilson would love someone who in my eyes anyway was so clearly a real bitch. With Allen's films I just find that the dialogue and characters feel so fake, unrealistic and pretentious. And I'm aware I'm being pretty hypocritical because I've been known to like, and sometimes even love the films of Wes Anderson who you could very easily level the same complaint at. One other thing I should say is that I really don't like Woody Allen all that much in real life. I find him to be really quite the sleezy, unsavoury character and as much as I try to not let it do so I imagine that it certainly does colour my opinion of him and his films. While I like to think I'm going into his films with an open mind and looking to enjoy them, perhaps subconsciously I'm actually hoping to dislike them so I can level more hate his way.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1973

Directed by
Woody Allen

Starring
Woody Allen
Diane Keaton
John Beck
Marya Small
Susan Miller

Sleeper

rating_2 -

I know this is considered to be one of the funniest of Allen's films amongst many of his fans but it just really didn't do it for me. I actually found this to be pretty insufferable to be honest. The whole thing just annoyed me, and that was never more true than when it came to the Benny Hill inspired sequences which drove me to despair any time that the stupid music kicked in and the slapstick started up. I just found them to be brutally unfunny. And that's how I'd sum up Woody Allen in general. I just find his whole schtick to be spectacularly irritating. It's like he's doing a stereotypical impression of a Jewish person with his neurotic behaviour and constant whining. I'm struggling to think of an other actor that instils such a desire to punch them within me. And he seems to do the exact same thing in every movie! It seems to be almost impossible to differentiate one performance from any other. For me there were only really a couple of rare laughs to be found; Rags the robot dog and the robot tailors he encounters. And I did enjoy the absurdist idea of stealing the Leader's nose. But really very little for me here. And in terms of how much I actually 'enjoyed' this I'm perhaps being generous with my rating. The one thing that did work in its favour however is that at just 80 minutes long it had the good grace to get out of there early.

I know the views I've expressed here aren't shared by many people, if anybody on here, but just wanted to throw them out there anyway. That's now 5 or 6 Woody Allen films down and it's really not looking like he's for me. However I'm not saying that I will give up on him quite yet. I might try Manhattan next, although if I'm to really like any of his films I get the feeling it will be one that he doesn't actually star in.

seanc

05-07-14, 08:46 PM

Boo ;) Seriously though Purple Rose and Midnight are fantastic.

The Gunslinger45

05-07-14, 08:49 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I admit I am not a huge Woody Allen fan and have been let down by a lot of his movies, but The Purple Rose of Cairo I rather like quite a bit. Have not seen the other two.

Daniel M

05-07-14, 09:19 PM

I think you let your opinions on certain subjects influence your ratings too much sometimes. Like on Goodfellas and The Last Temptation of Christ for a start which you seem to dislike because you don't like gansters and you're not religious. And then Woody Allen films because you don't like the man.

cricket

05-07-14, 11:59 PM

I've just started watching Woody Allen films this year. I've seen 5 so far and Sleeper was my least favorite, although I did find it to be rather funny. I haven't seen the other two yet. I like that his films are not very long.

How I rank what I've seen

1. Blue Jasmine
2. Annie Hall
3. Manhattan
4. Crimes and Misdemeanors
5. Sleeper

rauldc14

05-08-14, 12:12 AM

Purple Rose of Cairo a 5/10?!!!!! You're nuts.

rauldc14

05-08-14, 12:14 AM

My Woody rankings
1. Purple Rose of Cairo
2. Midnight in Paris
3. Annie Hall
4. Manhattan

Seems to be all I've seen.

cricket

05-08-14, 12:19 AM

My Woody rankings
1. Purple Rose of Cairo
2. Midnight in Paris
3. Annie Hall
4. Manhattan

Seems to be all I've seen.

I know you liked Play it Again Sam; but I saw that's just written and starring him.

Nostromo87

05-08-14, 01:09 AM

JayDee Does Marty - A Wrap Up

1. The Aviator
2. After Hours
= Hugo
4. The King of Comedy
5. The Departed
6. Cape Fear
7. Color of Money
8. Wolf of Wall Street
9. Shutter Island
10. Casino
11. Age of Innocence
12. Bringing out the Dead
13. Goodfellas
14. Taxi Driver
15. Last Temptation of Christ
16. Mean Streets
17. Raging Bull
18. Kundun

:eek:

...

:p

you've seen a lot more Scorsese movies than i have tho. good job on the reviews and being willing to seek out so much of his filmography

honeykid

05-08-14, 07:41 AM

Well before I return to my long-winded reviews that everyone apparently hates :D I'm going to clean out my backlog of micro musings.
Your stomach playing up again. :D

I found Owen Wilson to be a very likeable, charming presence in the lead role.
Does not compute. :nope:

I know this is considered to be one of the funniest of Allen's films amongst many of his fans
I know. WTF is that all about? Have they seen this crap?

It's like he's doing a stereotypical impression of a Jewish person with his neurotic behaviour and constant whining.
Did he pretty much invent the comical NY neurotic Jew, though?

I'm struggling to think of an other actor that instils such a desire to punch them within me.
I can give you a list if you want one. :D

I might try Manhattan next,
I don't think you'll like it, for all the reasons you've already explained bar the slapstick. Despite that, it's his best work.

although if I'm to really like any of his films I get the feeling it will be one that he doesn't actually star in. [/LEFT]
Give Bullets Over Broadway a go. :yup: You get John Cusack instead.

JayDee

05-08-14, 11:29 AM

Page 100!!!!!!!!!!!! What an epic achievement! :D

I think you let your opinions on certain subjects influence your ratings too much sometimes. Like on Goodfellas and The Last Temptation of Christ for a start which you seem to dislike because you don't like gansters and you're not religious. And then Woody Allen films because you don't like the man.

I think you're being rather unfair. If I was actually avoiding watching those films and just assuming they were crap because of those things that would be one thing but I have given them all a chance. And while their standing in those respective genres is certainly part of the reason why neither of those Scorsese films are favourites of mine, it's not the only reason. I thought both films had flaws and elements which annoyed me. And as for Woody Allen I actually blind bought a few of his films a few years back so I obviously wanted to like them. I don't ever watch a film I'm expecting to hate just so I can rant about it, I'm not a masochist. And as for influencing my ratings, as I've said many times before my ratings generally represent my enjoyment of a film.

You're reminding me of Mr Minio from a while back. Are we just not allowed to dislike films anymore? Or is it just those that come from revered sources such as Scorsese and Woody Allen? If we don't like something one of these cinematic gods deliverss why does it automatically seem to be it's because we didn't get it or because we went into with pre-conceived notions and didn't allow ourselves to enjoy it? If I was saying the same things about the the torture porn genre or the films of Michael Bay or Adam Sandler would you say the same thing? Or have they been approved to dislike and mock?

:eek:

Just to reiterate I don't think they're 'bad' movies, they just don't appeal to me on a personal level. I don't find them greatly enjoyable or have any strong emotional connection with them. The fact I don't really care for De Niro in these types of roles plays a big part in both. And a large reason with Goodfellas is indeed its setting in the land of the gangster; it's just not a world or a set of characters that really interests me. Beyond that I have similar problems with it as I do to Wolf of Wall Street; an episodic nature which lacks a focus, characters I don't relate to or like, mining comedy from such characters etc. However I can admire certain things about it (such as Scorsese's direction) and actually enjoy it more than I expected to. With Taxi Driver I also think it has flaws but admire some of it. It's just a bit too bleak for me. Going on my enjoyment/fondness for them both would still fall around the rating_3 mark so I certainly don't hate either.

Your stomach playing up again. :D

When I typed that I thought it sounded a bit dodgy and was wondering if someone would use it for a joke. It really shouldn't have come as much of a surprise who it was! :p

I know. WTF is that all about? Have they seen this crap?

So you're not a fan either? Just to check do you generally like Woody Allen or not? I'm never exactly sure

Did he pretty much invent the comical NY neurotic Jew, though?

Well I couldn't tell you that but perhaps. I'm sure there are more knowledgeable people on here who would know.

I can give you a list if you want one. :D

Well you know that the forum loves a good countdown list so how about Honeykid's Top 20 Most Punchable Actors? :D

I don't think you'll like it, for all the reasons you've already explained bar the slapstick. Despite that, it's his best work.

Good call. I actually watched it a little while after writing up about those films, would probably fall around the same 2.5 kind of territory for me. For me the whole film was just a bunch of people I didn't like moaning about stuff I didn't care about.

Give Bullets Over Broadway a go. :yup: You get John Cusack instead.

I'll keep an eye out for it. Looking at the cast I see it also has Jennifer Tilly. She always gives me at least a 'couple' of reasons to watch a film. :D Any others you'd recommend? Is there not actually a Woody Allen on your top 100 that stars Drew Barrymore? Or am I having a brain fart there?

Skepsis93

05-08-14, 11:46 AM

Micro Musings : Woody Allen Hate-a-thon

You're the worst. You're the Britta of MoFo.

Skepsis93

05-08-14, 12:15 PM

You're reminding me of Mr Minio from a while back. Are we just not allowed to dislike films anymore? Or is it just those that come from revered sources such as Scorsese and Woody Allen? If we don't like something one of these cinematic gods deliverss why does it automatically seem to be it's because we didn't get it or because we went into with pre-conceived notions and didn't allow ourselves to enjoy it? If I was saying the same things about the the torture porn genre or the films of Michael Bay or Adam Sandler would you say the same thing? Or have they been approved to dislike and mock?

There definitely seems to be a culture emerging around here lately that holds up certain directors or films as sacred, and lots of people (not everybody, before anyone jumps down my throat) seems to want to actually discuss anything, instead contenting themselves with a "shocked reaction gif" or something. I think the issue is that you seem to be the kind of person who experiences films on a much more personal level than one that is overly concerned with the reputation of the director/film or the technical, cinematic elements of the movie, and you're not afraid to be honest about those feelings. For a lot of people, I think (myself included) there's this pressure to like the "right" films because if you don't you feel alienated, or that you don't "get it," as if there's something wrong with you. I guess some people are more adept at handling that and being secure in their own opinions and reactions.

Well I couldn't tell you that but perhaps. I'm sure there are more knowledgeable people on here who would know.

I feel like he did. Everyone who is doing that character at least partially owes it to Woody Allen. But if he's not for you, he's not for you. :shrug:

I'll keep an eye out for it. Looking at the cast I see it also has Jennifer Tilly. She always gives me at least a 'couple' of reasons to watch a film. :D Any others you'd recommend? Is there not actually a Woody Allen on your top 100 that stars Drew Barrymore? Or am I having a brain fart there?

Bullets is great. Give it a shot. It's hard to recommend Woody Allen movies to someone who strongly dislikes what I consider three of his best films, but I can try to suggest some that go at least a little against his grain. If you disliked Sleeper then I would steer clear of Bananas and Take the Money and Run. Zelig is very un-Woody, even though he stars in it, and extremely smart and original. Stardust Memories and Deconstructing Harry take different approaches than you might be used to from his films. Manhattan Murder Mystery is more plot-driven than many of his others, and Interiors is pretty much his only straight drama. And as far as I'm concerned, you can't definitively say you dislike Allen's sense of humour until you seen (what I think are) the riotously funny Mighty Aphrodite and Love and Death. Two very different films, but if you don't like those, then there's no hope for you. :p

Drew Barrymore was in Everyone Says I Love You. Can't remember if it was on the HK 100.

Nostromo87

05-08-14, 12:28 PM

Just to reiterate I don't think they're 'bad' movies, they just don't appeal to me on a personal level. I don't find them greatly enjoyable or have any strong emotional connection with them. The fact I don't really care for De Niro in these types of roles plays a big part in both. And a large reason with Goodfellas is indeed its setting in the land of the gangster; it's just not a world or a set of characters that really interests me ... With Taxi Driver I also think it has flaws but admire some of it. It's just a bit too bleak for me. Going on my enjoyment/fondness for them both would still fall around the rating_3 mark so I certainly don't hate either.

hmm, i don't ask the following in a derogatory manner, just wanting to understand. what sort of story world, set of characters, and tone do you need to be interested and to be able to connect on a personal level?

i think, to some degree, Daniel M is right. that your opinions or worldview on certain subjects may influence your ratings to an observable degree. i think everyone does this to an extent, but some more than others. this isn't an insult, it just seems to be true

not like everyone has to be crazy about Taxi Driver or GoodFellas, i just think it's intriguing to try and understand where you're coming from since you place them down a ways compared to the rest of his filmography. to be honest, the first time i saw GoodFellas, i wasn't crazy about it either for some reason. that has its own simple explanation. i loved it on rewatches tho and it quickly became one of my favorite movies

i think i remember you saying you really don't like strong type-A male personalities bc they remind you of your dad or something... is that right? not out to get personal, but i think that's probably a clue into why you don't like these movies. the Robert DeNiro characters seem to turn you off... along with some of Jack Nicholson's characters in other movies

there may be something to be said for projecting too much of personal experiences onto movies, almost sorta having ratings over-reflect the projection of ourselves and where our identities fit into the movie

you can tell me if i'm way off-base. if not, folks might be amazed how liberating and how much more enjoyable movies can be if we can find a balance of letting the movie tell its story, without projecting too much of our own experiences onto it

i say balance, bc i think naturally we will project our experiences onto movies. i just think it's possible that can be overdone

honeykid

05-08-14, 12:59 PM

I think you're being rather unfair. If I was actually avoiding watching those films and just assuming they were crap because of those things that would be one thing but I have given them all a chance.
Yeah. He's not me, y'know. :D

When I typed that I thought it sounded a bit dodgy and was wondering if someone would use it for a joke. It really shouldn't have come as much of a surprise who it was! :p
So long as I saw it before SC, it shouldn't have been a surprise. :D

So you're not a fan either? Just to check do you generally like Woody Allen or not? I'm never exactly sure
I quite like his films, though not his earlier stuff. Annie Hall/Manhattan/Zelig and the 90's are what I like. I've not really seen what he's done this century which, for someone who makes films at the rate of Allen, isn't good.

Well you know that the forum loves a good countdown list so how about Honeykid's Top 20 Most Punchable Actors? :D
:laugh: I'll give it some thought. Would this just be punchable or would hating come into it, too?

Good call. I actually watched it a little while after writing up about those films, would probably fall around the same 2.5 kind of territory for me. For me the whole film was just a bunch of people I didn't like moaning about stuff I didn't care about.
That's pretty much what I thought you'd think. Like Skepsis, I'd recommend Zelig to you.

I'll keep an eye out for it. Looking at the cast I see it also has Jennifer Tilly. She always gives me at least a 'couple' of reasons to watch a film. :D Any others you'd recommend? Is there not actually a Woody Allen on your top 100 that stars Drew Barrymore? Or am I having a brain fart there?
I was going to mention Jennifer Tilly for that very reason(s).:D Dianne Weist is really good in it, too.

I was wondering whether Manhattan was there or not, but it seems it's not. It's around that area, though. Or, at least, it was. :D I haven't seen it in a very long time.

Congrats on the 100 pages. :)

seanc

05-08-14, 02:11 PM

The first thing I love about Woody is his writing which almost goes without saying. What I think he does that is hard to duplicate is create these neurotic, self centered characters with horrible views of humanity. Yet puts them in films that are light hearted and mostly hopeful. I love this about him because although I think Allen's world view is much different than mine, I see a lot of myself in the way he views human behavior. His characters continuously let each other down and behave like narcissists but they never see themselves that way. They see themselves as trying to be happy instead of just being happy. His films are very easy to watch for me. I dont feel like I am expressing myself very well but there it is.

JayDee

05-08-14, 02:21 PM

I'll reply to the rest later but there's something I have to address first
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Holy crap!!! Do my eyes deceive me? Look who it is everyone. It's the long lost prodigal son of JayDee's Movie Musings, Skepsis. Long time no see. Although trust you to show up just to complain about my views. Where were you when I abandoned my superhero movies and did a Scorsese season especially for you, including a review of The King of Comedy which I know you love. No feedback or reps then but as soon as I go after something you care about, BAM!, there you are. :p

You're the Britta of MoFo.

You mean I'm the funny, adorable, awesome one of the board? I'll take that! :D

Cobpyth

05-08-14, 04:09 PM

There definitely seems to be a culture emerging around here lately that holds up certain directors or films as sacred, and lots of people (not everybody, before anyone jumps down my throat) seems to want to actually discuss anything, instead contenting themselves with a "shocked reaction gif" or something. I think the issue is that you seem to be the kind of person who experiences films on a much more personal level than one that is overly concerned with the reputation of the director/film or the technical, cinematic elements of the movie, and you're not afraid to be honest about those feelings. For a lot of people, I think (myself included) there's this pressure to like the "right" films because if you don't you feel alienated, or that you don't "get it," as if there's something wrong with you. I guess some people are more adept at handling that and being secure in their own opinions and reactions.

Or some people just have better tastes. :p

Seriously, though, I never feel the pressure to like certain films because they are 'sacred'. I add to this culture of idolatry towards certain directors (Woody Allen is an example of that), because I genuinely believe that those filmmakers showcase signs of cinematic brilliance in (a big part of) their films. Therefore I'm always a little bit surprised when some people don't tend to see that.

Then I try to understand why they don't like it and I THINK it's often (but not always) because of personal bias and wrong interpretations (or an inappropriate cynical way of watching the film because of prejudices). Now, we can probably never switch these personal "flaws" completely off and all these particular irrational bits are just parts of ourselves and that's what makes it interesting to see everyone's take on certain films. Even the great Roger Ebert, the most famous and popular film reviewer of all time, sometimes wrote odd and obviously biased reviews

It's always a matter of 'opinion' and 'personal views' and I also like films that are "objectively" not that good and dislike certain films that are probably of a higher quality than I'd like to admit, but what we should always do, is trying to explain properly what we like and what don't like about certain films. That's when dialogue and discussion can start and that's how we can see why certain people like a film and other people don't. It's the core of what makes film discussions interesting for me!

Now, back to JayDee and his pitiful Woody Allen Hate-a-Thon. :p

I'll try to explain why I personally like the films that you "hated".

The Purple Rose of Caïro:

Sure, the films is built on a clever, funny little gimmick, but Woody is one of those directors that can transfer certain interesting existential problems in a refreshing, comical way, (often) using this kind of gimmicks! His whole filmography is filled with stuff like that!
In one film it's a sperm cell that is afraid of what will happen and what his faith will be when he's at the point of leaving his usual phallic habitat, in another film there's a guy who automatically transforms into the kind of people around him because he's afraid of not fitting in and in this film it's about a woman that suddenly gets approached by a film character that comes off the silver screen.
These gimmicks themselves are already pretty cool and inventive but what makes Woody Allen a true genius and one of the most respected film directors of his time is how he poignantly and self-consciously is able to make a philosophical statement or offer certain insights to the viewer, while still giving them plenty of stuff to enjoy along the way.
The Purple Rose of Caïro shows us all those frustrating (little) things in life that can make you feel kind of depressed. We rarely see that kind of stuff in films and Woody cleverly mixes the perfect fantasy universe with the frustrations of real life. What we get is therefore a mix of fantasy and clever microscopic satire. Woody's statement at the end is wonderfully and fittingly ambiguous. At first sight, it's kind of sad and depressing, but the last scene is, in spite of everything, strangely uplifting. It charmingly shows how a simple thing as a Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers musical can make us forget our problems for a minute. In a way, it tells us how we shouldn't lose sight of the beautiful side of life even in the darkest times. It doesn't even matter how abstract and banal that glimpse of beauty and escapism may be...

Midnight in Paris:

I think your criticism is focusing on something that doesn't really have much to do with the film's themes and intentions. I think the movie actually even adresses that issue. The relationship is pretty much based on typical superficial qualities of both persons. Rachel McAdams' character is beautiful and Owen Wilson's character is succesful and rich and has that certain romantic aura that many girls would fall for (at first sight). Their relationship kind of starts bursting in Paris, because they start to notice that there isn't really much more to them than just those superficial attractions. I don't see why that would be a flaw in the film.
Furthermore, Midnight in Paris is pretty similar to The Purple Rose of Caïro. It's built on a gimmick and through that gimmick the main character and the audience learn certain things. Instead of focusing on fantasy and escapism, however, the film now tackles the notion of nostalgia. This film is actually part of my top 101 favorite movies, so you can read there why I specifically like this film so much. Obviously, I don't agree with your criticism towards Woody's writing and his characters.

Sleeper:

This is one of those films that seems impossible to dislike to me (but apparently it is possible). I think the comedy is simply amazing! It's cleverly satirical, extremely inventive and just completely absurd (I'm glad you at least liked the bit with the nose, because for me, that part is just pure comical genius). On top of that, it also shows us a really cool and idiosyncratic futuristic world and all of those small, absurd, but strangely believable futuristic elements are brought together and add up to one of the most satisfying and original comical experiences I've ever had!

It's really a shame that you can't enjoy Woody's witty dialogue and sheer originality, like I do, JayDee. :(

I understand your irritations (believe it or not, I didn't really think Woody Allen was all that special either after I first watched a film of his several years ago), but I think your problems with him should be easily omittable when you start focusing on what makes Woody such a great director, instead of always pointing out what you hate so much about him (this goes for some other quality films that you couldn't appreciate in the past too). I am strongly convinced that everyone should be able to enjoy Woody's best work (and the 3 films you reviewed are part of his top 15 best films, in my opinion). You just have to watch his films with the right mindset and you have to try and stow away the personal problems you have with his persona (the same goes with the alpha-male problem you seem to be having, by the way, because you're missing out on a lot of great stuff because of that).
Open-mindedness is the key to enjoying as many (good) stuff as possible! ;)

Oh well, you definitely deserve credit for what you're doing, JayDee, because at least you are actually trying to explain why you don't enjoy certain films (even if it's because of very personal issues you seem to be having sometimes). I respect that and you deserve rep for it. I wish I could give your Woody Allen post a :up:, but I just can't because those ratings are way too low. I'll rep some of your other posts in return to show my appreciation for your review efforts. :p