Daniel's New Reviews

[Daniel M]

DANIEL'S NEW REVIEWS

Some of you will be aware that I already have a review thread (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=29029) (you can close it, or keep it open if anyone randomly decides to comment on an old article, I do not mind), but I hope you don't mind me starting a new one. I am doing this for a couple of reasons, basically I have not posted in the other thread for a while and in there I felt I was probably too generous to a lot of the films and with a few exceptions most of my reviews didn't say too much about the films that you probably had not already heard, with a lot of overly positive ratings meaning it was difficult to really see my thoughts and how I separated films from one each other.

You will have also noticed that I use the Movie Tab a lot of the time now when I want to post my thoughts on a film, and often these turn into mini-reviews themselves, making my review thread basically needless. So from now on I am only going to post reviews where I feel I have wrote enough to warrant an individual post and have something interesting to say about a film that is too big for the Movie Tab.

Hopefully these reviews will be bigger, better and more enjoyable than some of those in my old thread. I have a review ready to post in here and just like my last thread I will use this post as an index.

Basically with my new ratings I am going to be using the first four popcorn boxes like how Ebert rated films out of 4, with the last popcorn box reserved for those films I found to be truly great experiences.

THE FILMS

1947

Brighton Rock (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1131747#post1131747) (John Boulting) 3.5-

1962

Dr. No (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1131684#post1131684) (Terence Young) 3.5

1971

Klute (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1138493#post1138493) (Alan J. Pakula) 3.5

1990

Total Recall (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1137427#post1137427) (Paul Verhoeven) 4+

1992

Lethal Weapon 3 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1132028#post1132028) (Richard Donner) 1.5

2000

American Psycho (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=928611) (Mary Harron) 4

2011

Rango (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=928974) (Gore Verbinski) 5

2012

Silver Linings Playbook (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=936892) (David O. Russell) 3.5+

2013

Inside Llewyn Davis (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1018551#post1018551) (Ethan Coen & Joel Coen) 4.5

2014

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1132462#post1132462) (Matt Reeves) 3.5

[Daniel M]

American Psycho (Mary Harron, 2000) 4

http://imageshack.us/a/img17/4895/dmwm.png http://imageshack.us/a/img607/8741/0saz.png


A brilliant dark comedy that works as an effective satire much like Fight Club, a film released the year previous to it. But like Fight Club, it is a film that I feel many will overlook and miss the point of, instead only focussing on the stylistic elements – the brutal violence that takes place within the film.

Adapted from a best selling novel of the same name, the film’s female director ensures that the film is something more than a piece of entertainment where we watch the actions of an insane man on a killing spree. The film has gained a cult following, mostly in part to Christian Bale’s superb performance as the eccentric Patrick Bateman, but it is not just the bizarre images such as the wealthy investment banker dancing to the music of ‘Huey Lewis and the News’ before proceeding to take an axe to a man’s head repeatedly, that makes the character such a memorable and fascinating one.

At the beginning of the film we are talked through part of Bateman’s daily routine complete with self narration as he showers, clean himself and undertakes his morning exercises in order to maintain his appearance. Key to the character of Bateman is his inflated ego, he is what most would describe as a ‘rich spoilt brat’, and is of the opinion that he is somehow superior to those around him, always trying to stay ahead of his work colleagues as they pathetically compete over business cards and restaurant reservations. We see scenes where Bateman is visibly angered by his jealousy of his work colleagues, not only the business card scene but also when he discovers that one colleague, Allen, has an apartment that would cost more than his. The actual fact is that these business cards and apartments are not much different from each other; the difference is small yet holds great importance to the greedy and narcissistic Patrick Bateman. The script is filled with lots of hilarious lines and scenes, and I will honestly say this film viewing was the most I have laughed in a while, whilst some may find it dark and disturbing, I personally loved the sick and twisted Bateman whose violent personality is crucially overlooked by his friends.

Subtle, almost unnoticeable differences that hold major importance, is a description that can be applied to Bateman and his colleagues themselves. One of the film’s running jokes is that Bateman is constantly mistaken for his colleagues. Bateman’s desire to be something more than he is, is what ultimately drives his brutal killing spree.

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/2669/suq6.png

"Do you like Huey Lewis and The News?"


** Spoilers ahead – do not read without watching the film **

In the end it becomes apparent that Bateman in facts wants to be caught, he wants the world to know about his crimes, he wants the fame, to stand out from the crowd. Yet somehow, he continues to evade punishment with a series of scenes that poise the question to the viewer whether Bateman’s killing is actually real or not.

This ambiguity between fantasy and reality is what makes the film such an interesting satire for me. I can see arguments for both sides of the real or not real argument. On the surface it appears that the film may be pointing towards the murderous spree of Bateman being simply fantasy. His drawings that are discovered at the films end seem to indicate that these are simply the insane thoughts of a man so egotistical, he wants to commit these murders and make a name for himself, but he can not – with the nail gun scene showing this.

Early on in the film there actually appears to be a subtle indication that Bateman’s murderous personality is part of his own imagination, when he seemingly panics over an alibi for Allen’s murder, only to be assured by the detective that he was, as confirmed by a number of his colleagues, present at a meal with them. This scene is important as it could imply a number of things: either what the detective says is real - Bateman was at a dinner and did not murder Allen or that Bateman did murder Allen but was given the alibi of the dinner meal due to the ongoing joke of mistaken identity - however this would likely not be so literal and instead be part of the films satirical criticism of the 1980s yuppie generation, implying that Bateman was ‘above’ being punished for such crimes and that somehow these actions would always be covered up. But it could in fact suggest something else, what if the character of Detective Kimball is a completely imaginative creation of Bateman, a character that represents everything he wants. He wants to be caught, and in his conversations Bateman appears to be slipping, he is uncertain about an alibi and his body language suggests that something is wrong, as if he wants the detective to suspect something.

Even after confessing to the murders, Bateman continues to evade punishment. His lawyer, Harold, again mistakes him for another of his colleagues in a conversation where he describes Bateman’s confession as unbelievable in part for his ‘decision’ to use Patrick Bateman in his ‘joke’, a person ‘too lightweight’ to be able to commit such crimes.

Bateman has not only managed to avoid getting caught and being punished for his crimes, he has also failed in his attempts to become recognised, he is still a pathetic human being no better than his colleagues, a man who will continue to be mistaken for others, someone whose colleagues will still not take seriously and continue to take his homicidal remarks as nothing more than humour. The film finishes with the words of Bateman, "This confession has meant nothing”, which can be taken as an indication of his continuous desire to inflict pain on others, but I saw it more of him displaying his frustration that his confession has meant nothing to those around him.

Whether or not as a human being he was capable of committing such crimes is not important to the film as a whole, what is more important is the dark ideas that fill is head, they represent the evil side of human nature where people are willing to at least fantasise about going to such extremes in order to achieve recognition.

[Masterman]

Nice review, look forward to some more.

[Deadite]

Great review, pretty much covering my own thoughts on the film. I especially felt the ending monologue was powerful and really drove the point home of his meaningless existence and ultimate anonymity.

[JayDee]

Oh great just what I wanted, more competition for my reviews! Going by your dormant reviews thread I thought I'd already seen you off but now you're back for more! :D

I've not seen American Psycho so only skimmed over most of your review but looks good. Looking forward to what other reviews you have up your sleeve

[Daniel M]

Oh great just what I wanted, more competition for my reviews! Going by your dormant reviews thread I thought I'd already seen you off but now you're back for more! :D

Haters are my motivators :cool:

On another note, I might copy my Rango review over here. From my other thread I feel that's the one I'm most proud of and worthy of a place in my brand new thread :p Don't want it to look like I am trying to get as much rep as I can or whatever, although I don't think many saw it anyway :p

[edarsenal]

been enjoying your mini reviews in the movie tab and while american psycho is on my list of haven't but REALLY need to see, i still liked your review and rather curious to see what ya thought of Rango (bit of a huge fan of the movie, meself)

[Daniel M]

Rango (Gore Verbinski, 2011) 5


http://imageshack.us/a/img19/1316/d90y.png http://imageshack.us/a/img197/6531/wws6.png


Rango is a delightful film that can be enjoyed not only by young children as wonderful visual treat but also as a fantastic piece of work that draws inspiration and pays homage to numerous films, as a result rewarding and pleasing more intelligent and experienced film watchers.

If you were to show this film to your child and expect to share a family experience similar to a Disney Pixar delight such as Toy Story or Wall-E then you may be disappointed. The strength of Rango lies not with its soul and charm, the main protagonist is in fact rather ugly and the film uses a landscape that we associate with gritty spaghetti westerns – a strong contrast to the vibrant colours in films such as Up And Brave. Instead the Rango relies on its style and intelligence; it’s wholly fresh and original, like no animation you have ever seen before.

Compare Rango with one of Disney Pixar’s most recent film franchise, Cars. One is a film that takes a classic genre, its environment, characters and characteristics that we associate it with and combine it with various other plot elements from other films, without feeling derivative but instead keeping its work fresh, creative and unpredictable, the other is a film about talking cars.

The film’s eponymous protagonist is voiced by Johnny Depp who works with Gore Verbinski once again following their partnership in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. Whilst I am not a particularly big fan of the film franchise you can not criticise Verbinski’s winning formula that has been extremely successful at putting a fresh, creative and exuberant spin on classic topic. I feel though that Verbinski’s first ever feature film Mousehunt can be better compared to Rango, a family comedy about a pesty rodent who refuses to leave a house in a Home Alone style comedy of errors from those attempting to get rid of the mouse, like Rango it can be categorised as a family film however it is similar in the fact that parents may feel uneasy at times letting their kids watch two films that both contain more darker elements, although Rango is a Western so I think it would be more disappointing if we did not see smoking, bad language and a little bit of violence.

http://imageshack.us/a/img703/1443/rango1m.png

Rango overlooks the town of ‘Dirt’ from the Mayor’s Balcony.

The story begins when Rango – as he later becomes known – tells us of the acting dreams he has, he is nothing more than a small pet chameleon but is then thrown into the fantasy world of his dreams, although this world is not how he quite imagined it with the town of Dirt clearly not thriving as it should be in the good old West.

Rango’s arrival into the town of Dirt is almost identical to the character of Clint Eastwood in Sergio Leone’s first film of the Dollars Trilogy, A Fistful of Dollars. We see Rango standing with the Mayor on a balcony that overlooks the town, almost parallel to one of the opening scenes in A Fistful of Dollars where we see the Man with No Name taking in his new surroundings, a town he is completely new to and a town he can use to his advantage as an experienced bounty hunter. Rango’s story is almost the opposite, although also without a name, he is also without a reputation or any type of experience that would aid him in solving the town’s main issue. In A Fistful of Dollars we see a capable bounty hunter play off rival factions of the town through his gun wielding skills. In the town of Dirt the problem is that that the water town has dried up, they are in need of a new sheriff, a hero to rescue them of their problems. Rango is not equipped to deal with any of such issues, but as you may expect ends up self volunteering for all three in a fantastic bar scene – that also draws some parallels to the gritty bar scene at the beginning of Leone’s Once Upon a Time in the West in terms of visual style and atmosphere – where through improvisation introduces himself as the tough and experienced drifter who famously killed seven brothers with one bullet, naming himself ‘Rango’.

What follows is a storyline almost identical to Roman Polanski’s masterpiece Chinatown, with Rango fulfilling the role played by Jack Nicholson, a private detective that finds himself drawn into a conspiracy involving a powerful organisation attempting to control the future through means of the water supply. The villain in Rango is the Mayor (voiced by Ned Beatty), an old aged turtle who is suspiciously unaffected by the lack of water and is able to enjoy the many luxuries of the west, such as golf. He is happy to allow the visibly out of depth Rango continue his role as Sheriff, not expecting the dim-witted chameleon to find much in his quest to get to the bottom of the water mystery. This character has two clear inspirations; one is the prospector Morton from Once Upon a Time in the West, and the other more noticeable is Noah Cross from Chinatown, a greedy and powerful old man who is portrayed by the great John Huston.

The film’s story combines a number of Western elements and the result is a very enjoyable story that is full of life, resulting in an enjoyable climax as a result of the inevitable Western style face off. The film’s central part is sandwiched between the two more serious parts and is focussed on the hunt for water, with Rango forming a traditional Western style posse to hunt down the men who he unknowingly led to the water bank, only further emphasising how incapable he really is in the role of Sheriff. This results in one of the films most memorable and exciting action scenes where Rango and his posse face off against an army of moles whom he discovers that to his surprise did not steal the town’s water. What occurs next is a scene that pays homage to one of my all time favourite film scenes, the helicopter attack from Apocalypse Now.

http://imageshack.us/a/img713/7430/rango2.png

Rattlesnake Jake’s character is a direct reference to one of the West’s most memorable actors, Lee Van Cleef


** Slight spoilers in the following two paragraph - if you are interested in the film you should probably skip **

After returning to town with more questions and answers the Mayor becomes increasingly concerned at how eager Rango is to uncover the truth, so calls in the dreaded Rattlesnake Jake, a vicious creature that ‘never leaves without taking a soul’ having only previously stayed out of Dirt because of a hawk, that is now dead thanks to Rango. Jake, who the town people believe is in fact Rango’s brother reveals that their favourite Sheriff is nothing more than your average pet, exposing him to be a liar in a scene where the Sheriff’s sign is shot down by Jake. This scene reminded me of the great The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and perhaps even greater parallels can be drawn from the two films overall. In the James Stewart and John Wayne classic, Stewart’s character is a young lawyer named Ransom who attempts to protect the town through means of legal measures, he puts up his own sign for his office with John Wayne warning that it will only be shot down by the ruthless Liberty Valance who will come back and terrorise the town with his violent ways. In both films the protagonists are thrown in to uncomfortable environments where they are way out of their own depth however both men finally provide the inspiration to fight against these men, to stand up to them when the rest of the town’s people wont, a familiar theme in other Westerns such as The Magnificent Seven and Rio Bravo. The snake itself is certainly inspired by one of the greatest villains associated with Spaghetti Westerns, Lee Van Cleef, with the snake bringing the same haunting presence, striking eyes and even his famous hat and moustache.

Rango is forced to leave town, ashamed of the lies he has told. He ventures back across the desert to the busy road where he came from. Like in many other films, we know Rango will inevitably meet encouragement that will drive him on to redeem himself with the town people by helping them. I have seen people say that the film although impressive in technical terms is soulless; hence why parents would rather watch their children watch a Disney Pixar film, unfairly overlooking Rango. I would disagree, although Rango is perhaps not an instantly loveable character in the same bracket as the likes of Wall-E or Nemo, we come to equally love him and even feel sorry for him, an animal with big ambitions who wanted to be somebody but is ultimately useless. Key to the film is the element of adaptation, Rango is not cut out for the town of Dirt and everything he has dreamed of is not as easy and simple as he has dreamt it to be. During Rango’s exile we finally see the personified form of the Spirit of the West who takes the appearance of the legendary Western actor Clint Eastwood, and we get a scene that will likely go over the head of most children, the majority wont know who Eastwood is. Although this scene takes place in a dreamlike sequence for Rango, he recalls his own interpretations of the Spirit of the West, countless times we have watched films where the protagonist refuses to walk out on his own story and in good spirit Rango does the same here, heading back to Dirt for the inevitable showdown between good and evil, with his return much like his opening in the fact it parallels Eastwood’s very own from A Fistful of Dollars.

http://imageshack.us/a/img600/4233/rango3v.png

The Spirit of the West appears to give encouragement to Rango, in the image of Clint Eastwood.


The animated film is the first animated feature from Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), was Gore Verbinski’s first animated feature and was produced by Verbinski’s production company Blind Wink, Graham King (GK) Films and Nickelodeon, although this does not in anyway undermine the individuality of the film that you may have expected to be tailored more strongly towards the audience of children. The film’s composer Hans Zimmer is a more familiar name for audiences and Verbinski himself, with the prestigious composer (Nolan’s Batman Trilogy) having previously worked with Verbinski on The Pirates of the Caribbean films, The Ring and The Weather Man, his score is wacky and delightful, perfectly suiting the film and combining the more traditional sounds of the West such as the work of Ennio Morricone with more fast-paced and energetic sounds that along with the visuals remind us of the Coen Brother’s comedy Raising Arizona.

Rango is like nothing you have ever seen before, and that is what makes it so great. A fresh and innovative attempt at creating an animation that will please a variety of different audiences, as stated in the opening paragraph Verbinski is able to draw inspiration and pay homage to numerous classic films including many from the film’s genre of choice – Westerns. You can not compare Rango to a single Pixar film; it is so unique in its approach although equally as successful with a screenplay that follows an enjoyable formula for children but is filled with a number of surprises and fantastic scenes to make it creative and unpredictable. Rango might just be my personal favourite animated feature film, it is certainly the one I have seen the most, and although I love the delightful films of Pixar that include Wall-E, Up, and Toy Story, there is just something about Rango and its unconventional approach to the genre that makes me admire it that little bit more.

Note - I already posted this in my original thread but it did not really get much attention so I hope you do not mind me posting it here, it is not because I want more people to notice it but because I honestly feel this is one of my best and most accurate reviews and in terms of what I achieve with it its in fitting with my new thread. It is a film that I really do love and one of my very favourites.

[Cobpyth]

Great reviews. I was also thinking about opening a new, decent thread, but I'm too lazy, so I'm sticking with my short opinions about every film I see.


American Psycho is an awesome film and it's probably Christian Bale's best acting performance I've seen so far. He's insanely funny and dark at the same time.
SPOILERS!
The ending was very interesting as Bateman escapes morality, while he actually doesn't want to. He was even kind of insulted by it.
The ending implies that one single man and his actions are just too puny to care for. Bateman very much experiences that feeling of 'being nothing'.
Whether his crimes are real or not, isn't completely clear (it's fun to find little clues), but neither of the options take something away from the real crisis Patrick Bateman is experiencing. A nihilistic existential crisis.


I already told you that I'm also a big fan of Rango. It's probably my second favorite American CGI animated picture (Toy Story 3 is number one) and is probably in my top ten favorite animation films of all time. It's EXTREMELY entertaining and actually quite intelligent. It also has the most beautiful CGI animation I've seen so far. I obviously also love its references to the many classic spaghetti westerns and of course Chinatown. Great stuff!

[edarsenal]

i can definitely see why you wanted to repost this, quite the exceptional review,daniel, and i quite agree on, well, everything in regards to an animated film i hold at the no #1 spot and one i watch very, very often.
Rango, has you say, takes inspiration from quite a few westerns and in the process of paying homage, spins something quite fresh and enjoyable to watch with that inspiration.

excellent movie and an excellent review for it!

[Gideon58]

Love AMERICAN PSYCHO...worth seeing for Bale's performance alone and for a film filled with so much unpleasantness, the film has massive re-watch appeal...I don't even know how many times I've watched it.

[Daniel M]

Silver Linings Playbook (David O. Russell, 2012) 3.5+

http://imageshack.us/a/img9/6402/asmz.png http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/1192/f983.png


The 2012 Academy Awards saw Silver Linings Playbook, a romantic comedy, pick up eight nominations in total, notably getting a nomination for all four acting categories, including a win for Jennifer Lawrence, two years after a nomination in the same category for her performance in Winter’s Bone.

This is a film that relies on its performances, and is a perfect example of a director knowing how to maximise, and do best, what he intends to do. The performances are vital because the story is quite straightforward, and some might say it is predictable and sentimental. But its simple style filled with charm is not a burden and is guaranteed to have you smiling and laughing throughout, this may have been very different in another film, under another director, but here it acts as a platform for us to watch these wonderful characters as they interact with each other.

The film is about two damaged characters. Bradley Cooper is Pat, a young man who has been released from a mental hospital after an eight month stay following a brutal attack on an older teacher that he came home to find his wife having an affair with, and Jennifer Lawrence is Tiffany, a young woman who has suffered from her husbands death and turned to a self deprecating lifestyle of sleeping with as many men as possible, much to the disgust of Pat. The two characters have different solutions to their problems, Pat believes that everything will turn out okay with his wife; he has lost weight and is attempting to control his anger, which he believes will bring her back. The pair argue with each other, both critical of each others personalities and methods of dealing with their problems.

http://imageshack.us/a/img542/197/srgb.png


These two damaged characters are perfect for each other, they are bonded by their similar problems, and both are looking to fix their lives. But aside from Pat’s refusal to accept the current situation with his wife (who has a restraining order imposed on him), there are other obstacles that threaten to ruin the duo’s potential relationship. Pat’s dad, of same name, portrayed by Robert De Niro, is a gambling addict with problems of his own, he has OCD and is highly superstitious, sometimes blaming his son for his own problems and dragging the family down with has bad habits. Jacki Weaver is his wife, Dolores, the most sensible and caring character, in certain scenes of family turmoil you genuinely feel sorry for her character has she attempts to keep everybody happy and hold it all together.

When you heard Robert De Niro and Chris Tucker were set to be in a comedy together, you might have feared the worst with the former’s recent track record with a string of less than impressive films following the turn of the 21st century, and the latter’s role in the Rush Hour series, however both actors do great jobs in their respective roles. As mentioned De Niro’s character is troubled, but the actor brings great balance to the person on screen, although often the cause of trouble, at other times he genuinely only means best for his family and is supportive of his son, wanting to strengthen his relationship with him and also for him and his brother (Shea Whigham, Boardwalk Empire). Then there’s Chris Tucker’s character Danny, who constantly pops up where you perhaps don’t expect him, injecting a good amount of humour to a number of scenes.

The film is not perfect in terms of story, at times the plot does seem a little bit silly or unlikely, such as the bet towards the end, but as I said near the beginning of the review, that is not very important and can be excused as it gives us a reason to spend two hours with these wonderful likeable characters, particularly of course the characters portrayed by Brad Cooper, and the deserving Oscar winner Jennifer Lawrence.

[Cobpyth]

I also enjoyed it. Good review!
It was an interesting film. A lot happens, it has a great deal of heart, there's good acting and above all, it's all very, very charming and sweet without getting unbelievably sentimental. I very much agree with the "balance" you describe.

I'm looking forward to David O. Russel's next film and I urgently have to see some of his earlier films, as some of them look very interesting.

[seanc]

Great review. It is like we shared a brain, Pacific Rim style, while watching it. I gave it the same rating.

[cricket]

Great review of Silver Linings Playbook and I totally agree. Very enjoyable movie, just not the kind I could watch many times.

[Daniel M]

Inside Llewyn Davis (Ethan Coen & Joel Coen, 2013)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/df/Inside_Llewyn_Davis_Poster.jpg/220px-Inside_Llewyn_Davis_Poster.jpg http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2014/1/7/1389095315194/Oscar-Isaac-in-Inside-Lle-009.jpg

Over twenty years ago the Coen Brothers’ created Barton Fink, a film in which its titular character is at times his own worse enemy, unable to see that it is himself that prohibits him from success, unwilling to compromise and accept help from those around him.

Here, Oscar Isaac’s lead character shares a lot in common with John Turturro’s as he attempts to become a folk singing success in 1961 New York. Llewyn Davis (I delightful Welsh name, I must add) is not a particularly likeable or sympathetic character, he is uncaring of those around him and does not see the pain and suffering he causes for others: he impregnates his friend’s partner and without hesitation offers an abortion, he carelessly loses another friends cat, and he rudely insults other artists for a variety of reasons.

Recovering from the death of his former partner, Llewyn Davis stubbornness and refusal to conform to the changing musical landscape around him ultimately holds him back from achieving success. In one of the beginning scenes a man sits beside him in a bar, praising his friends’ performance, Isaac sits there with a look of disgust,to him, this is not good music, and as we soon begin to learn: it is either his way or no way.

In another scene he agrees to take part in a musical piece with two other men, he initially mocks the writing of the song before he realises that it his is co-singer and friend who is the writer. He then decides to take an up front payment in order to fund the abortion of this same man’s wife’s unborn child, as opposed to receiving any future royalties. His past dismissal for the concerns of others once again proves to be a hindrance to his career.

Llewyn Davis’ disdain for others is summed up in a scene with his sister when he describes other people simply as those who ‘exist’. The other characters in this movie are shown in such a way in that we see them through Llewyn Davis’ eyes; he is a selfish man, unable to see the good in those around him. Justin Timberlake’s character is a more successful musician whose music whilst not folk music like Llewyn’s, is certainly more successful and profitable, he also has a wife and home unlike Llewyn. Then we have the characters portrayed by John Goodman and Garrett Hedlund, two talented musicians who are rather unpleasant and insulting towards Llewyn (at least Goodman’s character), themselves in a way representing wasted talents, unlikely to make it because of different problems, although Llewyn fails to recognise what they are trying to tell him, reacting angrily to their criticism of folk music.

The film is bleak and depressing at times, it’s a very moody film which will put off some viewers. But most of the Coen Brothers’ films are similar in the way they deal with the little man, the underdog, and at times with pessimistic fates. In No Country for Old Men we have a character that although faced with a number of forces against him, is ultimately responsible for his own downfall through his stubbornness and insistence that he will win by going his own way. The cinematography is superb in capturing the feel of Llewyn’s daunting journey throughout the film; it has a wonderful blue, frosty feel to it. The film probably has the best soundtrack of the year too, with all the music – bar the final song from a voice you might just recognise – recorded live by the actors themselves. Then there is the usual Coen Brothers’ dark humour, although at times nasty, you can not help but laugh at the human side of frustration that shows in both Llewyn Davis’ actions and dialogue.

The last scene in particular is a brilliant piece of writing, it replicates what we are shown at the start, but this time we get added context and have a full understanding of Llewyn Davis’ character, we know what exactly is happening and can easily accept why.

The Coen Brothers have made many great films, and this is right up there at the very top, it might just be their greatest and most honest human study, it’s a film that manages to be both beautiful and tragic, and you can not help but really feel the journey that Llewyn Davis’ goes on. My favourite film of 2013 so far.

Rating - 4.5

[Lucas]

Woah. Brilliant reviews man,very detailed and well-written. I'm watching ILD today, even more excited to view it now knowing you gave it a 4.5/

[Cobpyth]

My favourite film of 2013 so far.

Rating - 4.5

:eek:

Awesome review! It's basically what I wanted to hear. I'm extremely looking forward to seeing it after reading this (even more than I already was). It seems like a very dark Coen film and that's always something I enjoy.
I'll definitely let you know when I watched it. I'm probably not going to see it before the 22th (then is my last exam), but after that I'll definitely try to watch it as soon as possible.

Thanks for sharing your detailed opinion!

[cricket]

Great review; sounds like another home run by the Coen's.

[Daniel M]

Thanks for the kind words guys, I don't think this film is for everyone but it's definitely very Coen-esque so you should know what you're gonna get before watching it.

:eek:

Awesome review! It's basically what I wanted to hear. I'm extremely looking forward to seeing it after reading this (even more than I already was). It seems like a very dark Coen film and that's always something I enjoy.
I'll definitely let you know when I watched it. I'm probably not going to see it before the 22th (then is my last exam), but after that I'll definitely try to watch it as soon as possible.

Thanks for sharing your detailed opinion!

Yeh, I definitely think you'll like it a lot. You should ask me to share my detailed opinions more often :p

[Cobpyth]

Yeh, I definitely think you'll like it a lot. You should ask me to share my detailed opinions more often :p

I definitely should. Your review topic is way too empty for your writing skills and your always interesting opinions on films.

[Daniel M]

I definitely should. Your review topic is way too empty for your writing skills and your always interesting opinions on films.

Thanks, I'm too busy watching films to actually write about them! I might try and do more this year actually, maybe review a few of the Oscar contenders and then whatever new releases I see this year.

[Daniel M]

Dr. No
Terence Young, 1962

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/9/24/1348486408022/dr-no-008.jpg

I grew up watching the James Bond series, so whenever I get the chance to revisit one of the ‘classics’, it is very rare that I will pass up the opportunity. So when ITV Movies announced a classic James Bond season, starting from the very beginning with Dr. No, it was a very welcome opportunity to revisit a film that I had not watched properly in a long while.

Nowadays each new James Bond film seems to be trying to outdo the last in terms of extravagance, slick cinematography, elaborate set pieces and an array of modern gadgets are what we have come to expect from the series, but part of the beauty of the film that started it all is the simplicity of it. The plot is as simple as you like, when a British agent goes missing in Jamaica; James Bond looks to seek answers by travelling to Crab Key Island, the home of the mysterious Dr. No.

Whilst I have always enjoyed Roger Moore a lot more than some Bond fans, I think there is no denying that Sean Connery is James Bond. He introduces the confident and charming spy that we now know so well. Then there is the supporting cast with beautiful Ursula Andress as the first (and one of the best) ever Bond girl, and Joseph Wiseman as the ruthless villain.

The simple spy tale unfolds in a suspenseful manner, with much of the film slowly building up to Bond’s eventual arrival on Crab Key Island. Once there, we get the trademark action scenes, complete with futuristic sets that help evoke the Cold War, a similar theme throughout early Bond films as he tackles deadly world organisations.

Whilst I do not believe that Dr No is the greatest Bond, with the two great films that followed arguably more suited for that title, it is an undoubtedly very good film with everything you love about ‘classic Bond’, just a little bit lacking in ambition - understandable with it being the first entry of the now franchise.

Whilst I find myself enjoying Daniel Craig as the new face of Bond, I know a lot of people who complain about the spirit of the franchise being lost with the modern evolution of the series, and film itself. And watching this film again, it is clear that half a century has resulted in significant changes to the style of film and character of Bond himself, for better or worse? That will depend on what you are looking for.

Rating: 3.5

[Cobpyth]

You already know that I'm a great admirer of old Bond films. Well, Dr. No is my second favorite of them all (behind Goldfinger).

I'm very critical of the new films, because indeed, they seem to have forgotten the true spirit of the Bond series. To me, Bond was always about style and much less about action and fast paced plot developments. What I enjoyed so much about Connery's films were Bond's stylish mannerisms and his delightful alpha male behaviors! Today, they've practically reduced him to a full blood action hero with merely a few sparks of who Bond truly used to be and what he truly used to mean as a character.

I don't want action setpiece after action setpiece. They don't make me respect Bond's character, because they're mostly way too unrealistic and therefore don't have any true effect on me. In my opinion, you don't create a badass character by just making him do all sorts of incredible stunts (you can do a few of them of course, but it can't be the focus of the film) or unbelievable stuff. No, you have to make him do small, clever stuff.

One of my favorite scenes from Dr. No for instance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YELwJtgDkO8

We just see Connery setting up a simple trap for his enemy. He wins our respect because he does it in such a slick, casual and cool manner. The way he outsmarts one of the villains of the film with that classic line is just PERFECT. For me, this is 10 times more effective than that Home Alone-style scene from Skyfall (which was still an OK modern Bond film, by the way).

I don't want James Bond to be overcooked. He just needs to be a smart, cool, witty and womanizing detective for MI6. I want less overblown action scenes, less over the top plot turns and more stylishness and atmosphere in much more down-to-earth Bond movies (like in the old days)! I have no problem with it going over the top at the end (like in Dr. No or Goldfinder) and I don't mind a few action climaxes, but it's more important that the film contains the spirit of the original Bond character.

I'm also not a great fan of Craig as Bond, by the way. I don't think he's fit for the role. Connery will probably never be matched, but they should aim for someone like him.
The modern audiences seem to like Craig, though, so it seems like he'll at least do one more film...

[Daniel M]

I like Craig in his role, but I agree that he's not really 'Bond' in the same way as Connery. If it was a seperate Spy film/series, I think he'd be great, and he definitely is when you don't compare them to the old ones. If they existed on their own I would very much enjoy them, I'm a big fan of Casino Royale and Skyfall. I would like to see them cast an old fashioned 'gentleman', but there is not really many of them around these days, if I had a time machine I'd cast a young Cary Grant is Bond.

The only modern actor who really has the look, off the top of my head, is perhaps Jon Hamm, and even he isn't perfect. I've always said I'd love for them to do another film with Jaws and have Michael Shannon play the character, he'd be perfect :D

[Daniel M]

Another British 'classic'.

Brighton Rock
John Boulting, 1947

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/BOOKS/Pix/pictures/2011/10/28/1319797562246/Brighton-Rock-007.jpg

The film opens with onscreen text that gives us our setting for the film, the British seaside town of Brighton, and sets the tone of what to come, letting us know that it will be focusing on the dark side of the British criminal world that lies beneath the sunny little town. This is followed by a snippet from the newspaper; a local criminal boss has died.

This important piece of information sets in motion the events that change the film. The film takes place at a time of changing landscape of the criminal world, with a seventeen year old assuming leadership and finding him up against a much older, better organised ‘businessman’ operating from a luxury hotel. And whilst in a way it the events are very important the film is not purely focused on the change and the repercussions on the gang in the long run, instead looking at small snippet in time, on the character of Pinkie, the seventeen year old portrayed by Richard Attenborough. At a time when his mob is struggling to deal with the changing landscape, he finds himself having to clean up all sorts of mess.

The film is littered with all sorts of different sub plots; each character could have a story of their own. There is Fred, a newspaper reporter who is killed early on as part of the mob’s revenge for the death of their leader. There is Spicer, an old mob veteran who is struggling to keep up with the younger generation and is tossed aside despite his loyalty. There is Rose, a young naïve girl who believes she is truly in love with Pinkie and will do anything for him. And then there is Ida, a strong willed woman who is persistent in finding out the truth. All these pose different problems for Pinkie, who will stop at nothing to protect himself, he states he is religious yet uses underage marriage to protect himself, with a girl he does not truly love.

The direction and cinematography makes full use of the British town to make the more dramatic films effective. The peer scenes fantastically juxtapose the fun rides with the impending death of a character, thanks to some great editing, and then the chase scenes throughout the streets are truly filled with great suspense.

There is a feeling of impending doom for the main character throughout the whole film, who only seems to keep digging a bigger hole for himself. He can run, but he can’t hide. Many of the film’s scenes, including the finale evoke Orson Welles and in particular The Lady From Shanghai, with fantastic use of lighting and angles to heighten the tension.

The film is not perfect. Everything is centered around the menacing and amoral Pinkie, helped by a perfect performance from Richard Attenborough. Whilst there are other enjoyable elements, most of them mainly serve to help us study him as a character. Carol Marsh’s character is a great example of this, she does the job, and is vital in understanding Pinkie, but as a character herself she is a little rushed and underdeveloped. The last scene with her though is particularly brilliant, a great slice of dark comedy that leaves a strange smile on your face as the credits roll.

Rating: 3.5-

[The Sci-Fi Slob]

Two great reviews. I look foward to reading more.:up:

[Daniel M]

Lethal Weapon 3
Richard Donner, 1992

http://www.gonewiththetwins.com/pages/90s/screenshots/lethalweapon3/004.jpg

I had seen the original Lethal Weapon, but not the second film, although it looks like I missed absolutely nothing. I give the first film three out of five, and at the time I would consider that pretty generous. It is by no means great, but I was willing to forgive some of the film’s weaker points and sit back and enjoy the ‘cheesy fun’. Now, having watched this film, I would consider my rating for the first film even more generous. This is basically a complete rehash of the original, but far more laughable in its execution.

Going through what is wrong with the film won’t take long. First although there is the plot, the story is simple yet it feels like it takes an hour and a half for anything to really happen. Then there is the main characters, Danny Glover’s overacting is far more noticeable here, with many cringe worthy scenes, complete with constant saxophone and in any ‘emotional’ scene he just shouts. Mel Gibson, whilst more consistent, is your typical alpha male ‘sex magnet’, his purpose in the film is to sleep with the only (developed?) female character. The writing is laughable; the dialogue is not really funny. The plot is riddled with coincidences and weird occurrences, why did that young cop join them for a few minutes before being shot dead? The scene with Mel Gibson and the dog seems like parody, and I find the re occurring joke with Mel Gibson and Danny Glover’s daughter to be a little odd.

The main villain is lacking in any personality and is extremely unmemorable. An ex cop gone rogue, how original. On the opposite side of the spectrum you have a memorable character in Joe Pesci, but for all the wrong reasons. Yes, he was in some great roles under Scorsese, but outside of his work with him, he seems to be easily available for any silly comedy role. His character offers nothing to the film apart from being really irritating and unfunny; he shows up every now and again to remind us of this, and each time I think we are supposed to laugh as Gibson and Glover attempt to get rid of him without offending him.

And now onto something that possibly irritated me the most. The action sequences. I have read and watched many different people discuss directing action scenes, the importance of camerawork in ensuring the action is coherent and easy to follow. I am normally pretty easy on film and will admit I do not normally notice many films with sequences hard to follow, but here they are almost unwatchable. The cuts do not make sense; it is just random shots one after another mashed together, until we eventually get to the end of the scene. This is particularly evident in the final shootout scene.

I know there are people who are big fans of the series as a whole, and there are people who simply find the films terrible, that they have not aged well. I did not lean either way really after watching the first film, but this is worse for me on every single level. In It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, the characters make a spoof version of 'Lethal Weapon 5', it is hilariously bad, but at least it is supposed to be.

Rating: 1.5

[Captain Spaulding]

It's cool to see that you're writing reviews again. :cool:

A few months ago, I watched all four Lethal Weapon movies for the first time. I really enjoyed the first one, which I think is easily one of the best buddy-cop movies I've seen. The second installment was also pretty entertaining. However, I hated the third and fourth movies. I'd say Lethal Weapon 3 is the worst of the series.

[cricket]

Totally agree with that review

[Sexy Celebrity]

Haven't seen 3. Recently saw Lethal Weapon 2 for the first time with Gunslinger in a commentary. Didn't really like it.

[seanc]

Keep them coming Daniel.

[Daniel M]

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Matt Reeves, 2014

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/7/1/1404234892296/Dawn-of-the-Planet-of-the-009.jpg

After Rise of the Planet of the Apes, a film that despite its flaws focussed steadily on the interactions between humans and apes, and slowly built up to an action set piece finale, I feared that the follow up may have sacrificed certain elements that made it work and opt for a two hour action filled ‘war’ epic between apes and humans. Fortunately, that is far from the case, and I was impressed how Dawn manages to build up the tension slowly but surely, it feels like at any moment – thanks to a couple of ‘hot headed’ character – it could explode.

The plot of the film is simple, a large group of human settlers has sent a small team of people to attempt to fix a dam in an attempt to restore much needed power, however this plan is jeopardised when in a moment of panic one of the team shoots and kills an ape, leading to an uncomfortable stand off between the two species, both are generally hesitant to go to war, with too much at stake for either side.

Then we get to the character of Koba, the reason the movie exists. You have probably heard a lot about him as a villain, or at least seen that infamous World Cup advert with him. He is your typical character for this type of film, you know at any moment he could ruin everything for his tribe, single minded due to his own bad experiences, he lacks the level headed rational of his leader, Caesar. However terrifying his character may be, and believe me he is, it is always frustrating to see such characters purely created for the plot to exist, and thanks to this the story is pretty straightforward and predictable. One could have hoped for a bit more ambition with the overall story.

The story allows for the sort of dilemmas you would expect to occur, to occur. The Planet of the Apes films have always focused on the dark side of humanity, human nature, whether species can work together and so on. This focus unsurprisingly provides the emotional centre point, and it works quite well, largely in part to strong human performances at the front of the film, paired with another great motion capture performance from Andy Serkis. Jason Clarke gives the best human performance as the face of reason for the humans. Alongside him we have Kirk Acevedo as the human equivalent to Koba, only there to cause problems, and then there is Gary Oldman who is exactly as you would expect him to be, overacting, screaming battle cries, but in such a film it is to be expected, and he is good at what he does.

The third act, whilst filled with impressive battle scenes, seemed a bit convoluted. I did not really understand the final scene with Oldman’s character, and the build up and confrontation with Koba seemed to take a while to happen. I must say that the film underwhelmed me slightly in an emotional sense, perhaps because of the focus on violence and predictable battle scenes. In the first one there are many touching moments, but I could not point to a certain moment in this film where I could say, “That is the part where you would start tearing up”.

As far as blockbusters go, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a triumph in terms of special effects, and for what it wants to achieve, it does so pretty well. The story works within itself, but does not really do much overall in terms of the series. The sets are well designed, with the home of the Apes particularly memorable, the film has little details that help us evoke the original Planet of the Apes, and I am interested in if they plan on doing a same-story-new-technology remake of the original. Whilst I was perhaps a little underwhelmed, there is no denying that as a blockbuster affair, the film is strong, and the majority of people will go away more than happy and getting what they hoped for.

Rating: 3.5

[donniedarko]

Nice review of Dr. No. So far I've only seen the first three Bonds, but contrary to you I think Dr. No is the best of them. Just has so much style.

[Daniel M]

Total Recall
Paul Verhoeven, 1990

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2012/7/4/1341411898007/Total-Recall--008.jpg

Previous to watching this film, Paul Verhoeven had been a hit and miss director for me. Whilst I enjoyed his futuristic crime sci-fi satire Robocop, I disliked the ridiculously shallow Basic Instinct, a film where we watch Michael Douglas sleep with Sharon Stone for a couple of hours.

Total Recall looked more like my cup of tea, and within the first quarter of an hour, I was hooked. I think the main strength was clear from the off; an intelligent story that makes full use of the futuristic sci-fi setting, exploring the possibilities of mind/memory control. What made Robocop so interesting is the way it uses the setting and story to take aim at modern society, and more important the large corporations that control it. Similar themes are evident here and are extremely relevant in today’s modern society, large companies, and monopolies deliberating regulating supply in order to gain money and power, with personal benefit put ahead of the needs of the people.

The story and its elements, whilst not entirely original, are executed perfectly. The film will evoke similar films from the genre in how it deals with memory and identity: Blade Runner, The Matrix and Dark City, but what is fresh is the more light hearted way in which it does so, staying true to its satirical comedic tone and action driven style throughout.

Whilst Arnold Schwarzenegger’s serious acting leaves a lot to be desired, I can have no complaints over his role in which he is perfectly cast, bringing a welcome amount of comedy to the film, as well as, of course, being the part for a number of action scenes. Straight from the off Verhoeven makes full use of the elaborate sets, they are big, blocky and matched with the effects can perhaps be described as cheesy, but they make for a whole lot of fun.

There are many great moments throughout the film, I was aware of the famous head mask removal scene and the woman with three boobs long before I had seen either properly. And there is a great array of supporting characters, all unpredictable and with their own motives that keep popping up to provide us with problems. I particularly enjoyed Sharon Stone here, where instead of being a one note sex object like Basic Instinct, proves to be an effective cunning villain, with her final scene providing possibly my favourite line of the film, along with "Get your ass to Mars."

Total Recall is a film I would recommend to everyone, it works on almost every level. Going in you know you are going to get entertaining violent sci-fi action, but it would be a disservice to the film to label it simply a guilty pleasure, it’s much more intelligent and well made. I thought I was going to enjoy it, but I think I was surprised by just how much I enjoyed the film.

Rating: 4+

[The Sci-Fi Slob]

Total Recall is, Schwarzenegger’s acting aside, a Sci-Fi action classic.Great review! :up:

[Daniel M]

I can't imagine anyone else delivering lines like "get your ass to mars" and "consider that divorce" and making me smile so much :p

[Cobpyth]

Do you prefer Total Recall over RoboCop, Daniel?

[Daniel M]

Yup, I give RoboCop 3.5 :)

[Daniel M]

Klute
Alan J. Pakula, 1971

http://examinedlife.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/pair.jpg

A man goes missing and private eye John Klute (Donald Sutherland) is sent to investigate the only lead he has, a call girl named Bree Daniels (Jane Fonda) who was receiving strange letters from him. The plot makes the film comparable to many noirs, with an investigator falling into a world bigger than him as he is drawn in by a mysterious woman.

This film however is like no other noir, much more focussed as a character study and also a study of the dark underworld in which they are involved. Like our title character, we are drawn into this world slowly; with not much to go by he is soon shown the unsympathetic workings of the life of Bree. The film is moody and atmospheric. The first half at least, is comparable to some of the greatest slasher films ever made, we get a number of shots from point-of-view perspective of a creepy stalker, there is clever use of dim lights to illuminate near dark scenes – I find it interesting that Gordon Willis when working on The Godfather also justified the same decision as he wanted it to reflect the darkness of the world he was portraying and the same is evident here, and the sound is very relaxed adding to the eeriness.

Unfortunately, the atmosphere alone is not enough to make this a great film, and whilst it has other strengths, I felt it lacked a strong narrative to bring all the elements together in the third act. The film is comparable to Pakula’s other work All The President’s Men in some ways, both are about investigations and move along at a consistent methodical pace, but whilst one speeds up nicely to a great ending, the other seems to be repeating the same note until the very end. Whilst it is certainly a fascinating film, it feels like something that perhaps does not need an end, which when it comes is to abrupt given the slow burning creepiness that went before it.

Jane Fonda won an Oscar for her role, and she undoubtedly gives a great and intriguing performance. She is a complex character with serious emotional issues that are brought fully to surface when she meets John Klute. We hear her conversations with him, her clients, her pimp and her psychiatrist, all giving us glimpses into her life and her motives. She gets no pleasure from her job, but does it for security, both financial and from a personal perspective, convincing herself of her control. She is a truly damaged and tragic character, who Klute attempts to help and understand, and she does so herself attempting to become an actress, but ultimately she will always be trapped by her current lifestyle. Donald Sutherland is also good in the title role; he gives a quiet, understated performance that is very effective, only adding to my likeness for him as one of the great actors of the seventies era. Speaking of which, I was pleasantly surprised to see Roy Scheider appear as a pimp, whose character helps add to the grimy and cynical underworld Pakula depicts.

As mentioned, the mystery of the film takes a back seat to characters and plot, and its abrupt solution I feel was a little disappointing and perhaps prevents me from describing this film as a great one. But we are aware that this is just a slice of life for these two main characters whose own future paths in life remain ambiguous. I can certainly see the appeal of this film and recommend it to those who enjoy films that cynically explore the dark and grimy reality that is often hidden from broad daylight. All The President’s Men also does just this in a way, if you want a more focussed and entertaining/thrilling narrative, watch that, if you want a compelling character study with one of the most fascinating performances of all time, watch Klute.

Rating: 3.5

[seanc]

Klute sounds like my kind of movie. Not sure why I don't know it. I have a watch list a mile long right now but I will add it.

[Cobpyth]

Completely agree with everything you said about Klute. It's a good film and the story is truly intriguing in the first two acts, but the ending is not satifying enough to make it a great one.

[mark f]

Shoot Klute. That's my first impression. My second is "Shoot, Klute."

[Captain Spaulding]

I didn't like Dawn quite as much as Rise, but it's still a good, entertaining, fun summer blockbuster. I've seen the remake of Total Recall, which was glossy and shiny and forgettable, but I've yet to see the original. Klute was one of many 70's movies I had planned on watching before submitting my list, but simply ran out of time and never got around to watching.

Anyways, I thoroughly enjoy reading your reviews, so keep 'em coming!

[Daniel M]

Shoot Klute. That's my first impression. My second is "Shoot, Klute."

I have no idea what you're on about, Mark :p

I didn't like Dawn quite as much as Rise, but it's still a good, entertaining, fun summer blockbuster. I've seen the remake of Total Recall, which was glossy and shiny and forgettable, but I've yet to see the original. Klute was one of many 70's movies I had planned on watching before submitting my list, but simply ran out of time and never got around to watching.

Anyways, I thoroughly enjoy reading your reviews, so keep 'em coming!

I think I probably like Dawn slightly more, but it's close, there's not much in it. Hopefully the next film progresses the series a bit more. Thanks for the kinds words too, and everyone else so far :up:

[cricket]

I actually just taped Klute last night, looking forward to it.

[honeykid]

"One of the most fascinating performances of all time"? Have you gone mad, man. Overrated dullness. Not bad or anything, just meh.

[Daniel M]

"One of the most fascinating performances of all time"? Have you gone mad, man. Overrated dullness. Not bad or anything, just meh.

Jane Fonda's performance is great though, definitely deserving of an Oscar for me.

[Daniel M]

Gone Girl
David Fincher, 2014

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/9/22/1411385414844/f6526610-9c10-4ec6-b79a-62e1406c9bcf-460x276.jpeg

Anyone who has seen Gone Girl will know that it is incredibly difficult to review the film without giving away major plot details and spoiling the film for others. Going into the film I had seen a couple of trailers, knew the general idea and had heard a few comments regarding the films tone and quality, but nothing prepared me for what I thought was a fantastic two and a half hours, filled with so many fresh and often hilarious surprises.

David Fincher is a perfect match for the films mysterious plot, especially in the first half of the film which is filled with dark, edge of your seat moments as we are introduced to the two central characters, to Nick (Affleck) who narrates from the present day as his wife has gone missing, and from Amy (Pike) who tells her story in flashback form as she tells of her troubled relationship from a diary she keeps, detailing how her marriage turned from exciting love to a living nightmare, living in fear of her husband.

It soon becomes clear that all is not what it seems. I have read some pretty harsh comments regarding the character of Nick, but from the start I felt real empathy for him in a difficult situation. Whilst Amy paints him out to be some sort of psychopathic monster, I think that from the first minute he comes across as much more innocent, he may be stupid, say and do the wrong things, but is this a man capable of murdering his wife? The two conflicting stories just do not add up, Amy says Nick is an abusive (both emotionally and physically) husband who wastes her money and makes her life a misery, whilst Nick seems genuinely clueless to the allegations surrounding him, he claims that identity fraud has taken place and that he has not been spending Amy’s money, that he has never hit her and so on.

SPOILERS AHEAD – DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM

When the twist comes about half way (reminding me of the classic noir, Laura), it becomes much clearer about what type of characters we are dealing with. The hunt for Amy becomes much more needed for Nick who faces an uphill battle to save himself after being torn apart in terms of his public image.

I must say, that from the start I suspected that the characters would turn out to be like how they are, the writing makes subtle hints at a much darker, controlling side to Amy who sees herself as above people and blames Nick for a series of problems with her life. He may be a bit of an a*shole, he is guilty of having an affair with one of his students, but he does not deserve what he gets. Amy is a completely different monster, one of the scariest film villains in recent history, there is evil in her smile, a volatile unpredictability about her which sends shivers down your spine. Pike is absolutely brilliant as a psychopath who will go to extreme lengths to get what she wants. A certain scene with Neil Patrick Harris is particularly brilliant and dark.

END OF SPOILERS

One of the most surprising things about the film is just how funny it is. The audience I was with in the cinema was laughing all the way through the film. A lot of the humour is sick and twisted, but it really is hilarious. The last half an hour is particularly funny, but there are many great moments throughout. The opening line about Nick cracking his wife’s skull sets the tone for the dark comedy that is present throughout. The biggest laughs probably came from Tyler Perry’s character’s comment about their “f*cked up marriage”, and a certain moment when Nick utters (I believe it was) “you f*cking b*tch”.

Rosamund Pike aside, who for me, absolutely steals the show and must at least be nominated for an Oscar, there are great performances all round. Admittedly, I am not the biggest Ben Affleck fan, but here he is perfect, he suits a laid back a*shole, and I think in many ways he is quite relatable and human. Tyler Perry (who upon researching, seems like a very odd choice) is great and often very funny as Nick’s lawyer and so I Neil Patrick Harris as Amy’s creepy stalker.

From a technical viewpoint, as with all Fincher films that I have seen, the film is a pleasure to watch. The first half is darker (in terms of actual look) than the second as dark mystery and comedy are balanced together. The score is quite subdued at times, but always very powerful and effective. Many people have mentioned how the film feels like a noir, and the first half certainly does seem to evoke certain elements in its storytelling style, the whole thing feels very pulpy and fun, the second half can perhaps be compared to something like Basic Instinct, and there are clear nods to certain thriller/horrors such as Psycho and Play Misty For Me.

Gone Girl is a film I would definitely recommend going to the cinema to see if you can. It was a great experience for me and although some people have complained about certain plot elements, it is a great ride that is very fresh and creative; it is scary, funny and extremely enjoyable.

This is the ultimate anti-date movie, if you are going to the film with your partner, you wont be proposing to them soon after.

Rating: 4

[cricket]

Great review! I avoided reading the spoilers which is hard for me to do. Glad you liked Affleck in this, as he is an actor I like, even though I don't think he's the greatest(maybe it's a Boston thing). I can't wait to see this.

[Cobpyth]

I'm seeing this on thursday, so I'll read and respond to your review then. ;)

[Daniel M]

Fury
David Ayer, 2014

http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/7/17/1405610515908/Fury-tank-crew-012.jpg

Remember in Inglourious Basterds, where the Third Reich come together to watch the latest Joseph Goebbels production, "Nation's Pride"? Think of that film, Nazi propaganda that sees it's 'hero' Frederick Voller against-the-odds defeat over a hundred of his enemies whilst being trapped in a 'bird's nest', then replace Voller with five American soldiers, and their enemies into Nazis, and you pretty much have Fury.

A one note film with the simplest of plots, I am struggling to understand just why this has been met with a largely positive reaction from both audiences and critics. If you simply want to see two hours of Americans killing Germans, you might get something out of this, but if you want anything else, you'll be disappointing. The film lacks (almost) any kind of morality or human balance that make the most powerful war pieces so fascinating and aside from Logan Lerman's young character, each other member of the tank 'Fury' are lazily constructed caricatures that give you no reason to empathise or feel any kind of emotion towards, in fact, for most of the part they are quite despicable.

When the film does hint at something more than being a relentless and barbaric slaughter picture, the moments feel out of place, too little and too late. Brad Pitt's character hints at something more, but we never get to see it. I have heard many praise the dynamics of the members of Fury, but I can tell you for sure I would not like to spend time around these men. The films self serious tone makes the comedy hard to take, and quite frankly, insulting rather than fun. These characters act like they are just that - characters, and their 'coolness', their machismo personalities, make them painful to bear.

Killing Nazi's, drinking alcohol and f*cking women is all these characters seem to care about, it's all they are on screen to do. If it is supposed to be a buddy movie, it fails. As the film drives towards its conclusion, the ending becomes fully predictable long before it occurs. Then, probably just about the two hour mark, a scene takes place that feels so empty, a cop out that goes against the entire movie, that makes you sit there and shake your head in disbelief.

As for the positives? In terms of cinematography and the production of the film as a whole, everything is top notch, it looks like a quality and very well made war film, it is just a shame the content does not match up. Shia LaBeouf is not as irritating as you might expect him to be, probably because of the other also unlikable characters. And the end credit sequence, a strange red coloured montage of what looks like archived war footage (again, strangely out of place) is quite enjoyable.

Rating: 2.5

[christine]

Daniel I do agree with you in a lot of your review. The final set piece was unbelievable why did those marching German soldiers take so bloody long to reach the crossroads when Norman had only run across a couple of fields to get back to the tank!
But..there's something that makes me think we're supposed to be seeing this whole film through the eyes of Wardaddy. You say you wouldn't want to spend time around these men, but they're probably the sort of comrades you actually would want in a war. Their humour has naturally become hard and cold blooded just as it probably would after their experiences. These are men who've served close on six years fighting the Nazis in several campaigns on a few different continents so I think we have to see these men as absolutely inured to suffering otherwise how could they go on?
Anyway, unbelievable set pieces aside, I saw the film to be about the camaraderie that's necessary for soldiers to be able to get through so many years of death and destruction, but it was a simplistic way of going about it maybe.

[Daniel M]

Maybe it's because of my own politic beliefs that could probably be described as left wing and 'anti-war' that I didn't enjoy it.

At least in Saving Private Ryan, even though there were dislikable characters, they served a purpose for me, contrasting with Jeremy Davies' character to offer some sort of moral standing to the film. In this film the German's are all treated as if they are monsters, and there is no humanity involved at all, which is why I was so irritated by the ending.

I definitely agree about the set pieces, as I mention, from a technical viewpoint the film is great.

Also, about the last battle scene. I'm sure when they look out the tank and see the soldier's are outside, that it is still light, then it suddenly goes completely dark, that was a bit silly.

[christine]

Daniel my own political beliefs are left wing pacifist, and they have been for 50 years but there's no doubt that WW2 of all wars could be considered as a 'just war' . I'm not defending the film, which is simplistic on a lot of levels, but I think if we're looking as if through the eyes of the tank crew then the German soldiers were all Nazis , the propaganda would have them think so as that's how wars are won.
The scene with the German ladies in their house was I guess giving us a certain humanity . Brad Pitt was a gentleman in that scene showing up his compatriots thuggish behaviour , but when it comes down to it the one act of most kindness was committed by a German after all.
Yeah I said about the darkness too, but my son reckoned it was supposed to be the smoke bombs but it seemed a bit too dark for that!

[ashdoc]

Great review of GONE GIRL , but you are making me reconsider the idea of seeing FURY :(

[Daniel M]

Great review of GONE GIRL , but you are making me reconsider the idea of seeing FURY :(

Thanks. But you should go and see it, I wouldn't like to be responsible for a person missing out on a film they could love. Others have clearly enjoyed it and so far on this forum I seem to definitely be in the minority :p

[Daniel M]

Shame
Steve McQueen, 2011

http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2011/9/4/1315141190987/Michael-Fassbender-in-Ste-005.jpg

Michael Fassbender is Brandon, a man with a well paid job that affords him a very nice New York City apartment. He’s a man who can pull any woman he likes just by looking at them. It sounds like his life is great, doesn’t it? Apparently not…

When his sister moves in having now where else to stay his life suddenly turns to turmoil. I am not exactly sure why. One of his work colleagues, who is married yet goes out with Brandon as they attempt to pick up girls, ends up sleeping with his sister which infuriates him. I am not exactly sure why he gets so angry, and it seemed silly to let his friend get so close to him in the first place. It all seems strange since the moment Carey Mulligan enters the film, in fact. None of it felt real to me, each bizarre scene that occurs seems to do so simply for us to see Michael Fassbender showing an emotional reaction of some sort, whether is be him being upset, angry, or more often than not: both.

This event leads Brandon into complete breakdown, he attempts to completely change his lifestyle, and go from sex to a real relationship. His character seems completely crazy and without reason a lot of the time. Okay, it might be a strong performance in terms of convoying emotion and in terms of what he gives physically, but there is absolutely no reason to care for his character. His relationship with his sister feels extremely incestuous and silly; he seems to get extremely angry over nothing when it comes to her.

Steve McQueen seems to know all the artistic tricks in the book. Whether it is an extended long take of Brandon purposely running from right to left of the screen (to convoy negativity) to classic music, Brandon walking around full frontal, or Carey Mulligan singing for what felt like half the film, every scene seems so purposefully constructed and pretentious, without reason other than to say “look at me and my great artistic film!”.

By the end of the film nothing has really been achieved, we know nothing that we did not know about these characters at the start of the film and their ‘issues’ which are expanded way beyond any sort of reality that you just can not take the film seriously. The film tackles nothing new, and takes simple ideas and stretches them beyond belief. It is ninety minutes of Michael Fassbender showing us he can pull of a few extreme emotions, that is about it.

Rating: 2

[Cobpyth]

Remember in Inglourious Basterds, where the Third Reich come together to watch the latest Joseph Goebbels production, "Nation's Pride"? Think of that film, Nazi propaganda that sees it's 'hero' Frederick Voller against-the-odds defeat over a hundred of his enemies whilst being trapped in a 'bird's nest', then replace Voller with five American soldiers, and their enemies into Nazis, and you pretty much have Fury.

Interesting. I made the exact same observation to my friends after watching the film (and especially the final scene).

I do think the film is a little more nuanced and complicated than you seem to think it is (even though your criticisms are pretty valid) and I thought the battle scenes (especially the one with the Tiger tank) looked fantastic, so therefore I enjoyed it a little bit more than you did.

[Daniel M]

Interesting. I made the exact same observation to my friends after watching the film (and especially the final scene).

Great minds think alike :D

I do think the film is a little more nuanced and complicated than you seem to think it is (even though your criticisms are pretty valid) and I thought the battle scenes (especially the one with the Tiger tank) looked fantastic, so therefore I enjoyed it a little bit more than you did.

Yeah I definitely think the battle scenes and the look of the film in general are worth of a couple of popcorns, so especially if you enjoy war battle scenes, you will enjoy it at least a bit. I went with my housemate and he liked the film. My review my seem a bit harsh, but my rating is down the middle as to not completely write it off, I do think that the ending seemed like a bit of a cop out and irritated me given the lack of humanity that came before it.

[BlueLion]

I think Shame is a very disturbing and powerful film. Shame it didn't work for you (c wut i did thar)

[Daniel M]

Disturbing that it seems like he and his sister want to f*ck each other.

Powerful? Nope, why am I supposed to care either of them?

[cricket]

I really liked this movie but I'm drawn to movies dealing with addiction. I loved the 2 lead performances and thought the brother/sister relationship was intense and fascinating.

[Daniel M]

The problem for me though is that although the movie features addiction, I don't think it deals with it in any type of way. We're presented with two characters with problems, but we never get past that. It was nothing fascinating or unique for me, and I really thought it was a one-trick film that employed as many artistic tricks as it could to keep us watching. We don't know anything really about the characters or their lifes other than the snapshots we get of them (and they both seem pretty well off), and Fassbender's character seems to overreact to everything and seems very spontaneous a lot of the time which doesn't help in terms of sympathising with him.

[BlueLion]

Disturbing that it seems like he and his sister want to f*ck each other.

So is it disturbing or completely fine by you?

Powerful? Nope, why am I supposed to care either of them?

You don't have to care for them, the film doesn't ask you to. It's convincing in its depiction of addiction, in my book, and is quite effective in showing how addictions can ruin lives, so I found it quite powerful in that sense.

[Daniel M]

Yeah I do think that part was weird/disturbing. That's what I found disturbing about the film. But I don't think that's particularly a compliment.

For something to be powerful I think I have to care for it, or at least be able to comprehend it in some way. and the film fails at doing that for me. I don't think it's effective or realistic, we are supposed to believe that this well paid man with a NYC apartment has his life ruined because his sister sleeps with his work colleague (that he takes along with him to see her sing already knowing what the man is like), we are supposed to believe he would react like he would and go completely crazy? We're supposed to believe he can get any woman he wants? What was with the gay stuff? It seemed quite offensive in the way it dealt with sexuality at times.

The issues and lifes of the characters could have been interesting, but the film completely failed for me.

[BlueLion]

We're supposed to believe he can get any woman he wants?

The film doesn't show how rich he is, but that is beside the point.

What was with the gay stuff? It seemed quite offensive in the way it dealt with sexuality at times.

The gay scene summed it up best for me. But what did you find offensive about it?

[Daniel M]

Offensive to us as viewers that we would believe that the characters would act in such ways regarding sexual activity, I'm pretty much talking about all the characters here.

edit: Will write some more tomorrow, going to sleep as I'm really tired. Good discussion though, I know it's a pretty polarising film around here, I like people actually engaging with my thoughts :D

[Cobpyth]

Yeah I definitely think the battle scenes and the look of the film in general are worth of a couple of popcorns, so especially if you enjoy war battle scenes, you will enjoy it at least a bit. I went with my housemate and he liked the film. My review my seem a bit harsh, but my rating is down the middle as to not completely write it off, I do think that the ending seemed like a bit of a cop out and irritated me given the lack of humanity that came before it.

I don't know if there's a complete lack of humanity before the ending. I thought there were some interesting glimpses of how war psychology stands against usual ethics. Pitt trying to learn the boy to kill a Nazi by forcing him and Pitt making him feel guilty for the death of a comrade because he didn't shoot fast enough are two moments that have that interesting ambiguity, for example.
Pitt's face expressions are a combination of pain and duty. On the one hand he knows that what he's teaching the boy is not "morally right", but on the other hand he knows it's the only way they'll survive and win.
It was a bit of a shame that I wasn't a fan of Logan Lerman's character (or his acting for that matter) or otherwise those could've been two really strong and intense scenes for me. I give the script and Pitt some credit for those moments, though.

Apart from that, there wasn't that much interesting "humane" content to the film indeed. Sometimes they aimed for something more, but most of the time those scenes didn't work for me. The scene with the two German women, for instance, only seemed to have one purpose, which was to make them die so the audience may feel shocked. I didn't buy the sudden relationship between Lerman's character and the German girl for one second though and otherwise the scene was just some comic relief with the other tank inhabitants and some slightly revealing dialogue about the characters that could've easily been done somewhere else. It all fell kind of flat.

Some people think the visit to the German girls is the heart of the whole film, but I would've personally scratched that scene for the largest part (especially the "romantic" aspect of it that felt kind of inappropriate).
I would've embraced where this film is really good at, namely battle scenes and delivering technical/psychological information about war. For instance, they could've made the tank more of a character than it already was by telling us a little bit more about how everything exactly works and they could've delved into the past of certain characters to show us how much they've changed or who they really are (especially Pitt's character seemed to have a possibly interesting background).

Regarding the ending, I do feel you're completely right about that. It's a total cop out. I was rolling my eyes. There's no way a Nazi would've let a guy live who was part of a tank that killed practically half of his company. The very ending simply had no message, significance or impact (on me).
I would've personally ended it with the Nazi shining the light on him and the boy looking back, fearfully waiting for his fate in a sort of cliffhanger final scene. It would've been much stronger than the real ending, in my opinion.

For me the final product was nothing more than a solid, very well executed but flawed war movie.

[Cobpyth]

What was with the gay stuff? It seemed quite offensive in the way it dealt with sexuality at times.

The guy is obviously addicted to sex. He can't find any satisfaction anymore though and when his sister comes, he seems to consider to find the sexual satisfaction he's looking for with her. He realizes it's totally wrong, so he tries to resist it (even though she's making it very difficult for him). The conflict destroys him inside and one of his desperate remedies for his "urge" is to try and have gay sex and maybe find satisfaction there.

Shame is not one of my personal favorite films or anything, but I did feel like everything had some sort of psychological logic behind it.

[mark f]

Shame deserves a psychology and logic rating of 1, and that's generous.

[bluedeed]

Lol, Shame is offensive sh*t. Fetishization and removal of the complexity of image as style. Like Bresson but a worse painter

[Captain Spaulding]

Good reviews, Daniel, even if you sound like you were in a bad mood when you wrote both of them. :D

I haven't seen the film, but your take on Fury doesn't surprise me, since that's the same vibe I got from the trailers.

Shame felt very cold and artificial, and I think it's portrayal of sex addiction was only moderately successful. Or maybe I just have a hard time empathizing with such an addiction. I mean, the guy spends a lot of time watching porn, jerking off and trying to bed any woman he can. What guy doesn't? I guess you could call me a sex addict, too, if I was just more successful at it. The only time the film made me feel like it was a true disease is toward the end, when he goes to the bar and basically molests the woman in front of her boyfriend. I got a great sense of his self-loathing and desperation in that scene. Too bad the rest of the film wasn't as effective or powerful.

Oh, and nude Carey Mulligan turned out to be a huge disappointment.

[Cobpyth]

Shame deserves a psychology and logic rating of 1, and that's generous.

It had some sort of internal psychological logic, in my opinion, so I don't really agree here.

It's a given that people who get overly exposed to something addictive (in this case sex) will look for more "extreme" or personally abnormal ways to get the same rush he/she once had when doing it casually.
In the case of sex, "addicts" often explore extremes like having intercourse with a gender you're not actually into (having sex with a man as a heterosexual for instance), masturbating or having sex on odd places or even fantasizing about family in an obsessive way.

There's nothing offensive or illogical about Shame at all content-wise as far as I can see. It's been a while since I've watched it, but I found myself understanding everything that happened very clearly.