Advertisements

Dan the Man's Movie Reviews

All my aimless thoughts, ideas, and ramblings, all packed into one site!

Tag Archives: Astrid Bergès-Frisbey

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)

Where’s those Knights of the Round Table?

After the murder of his father (Eric Bana), young Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) is sent off, via boat, to an island where whores and crime run wild. However, Arthur gets going with it all pretty quick and soon, he becomes the smartest, craftiest, and trusted people on the island that, practically, everyone is asking him for their help, in any way that they can. But there’s a reason for why Arthur is the way he is – he comes from royalty, yet, doesn’t know what it is, what it feels like, nor does he actually want it. He’s actually pretty pleased with his life and doesn’t feel the need to up-end it, only until he discovers that his power-hungry uncle Vortigern (Jude Law), who also killed his father, is looking for him and needs him to pull the Excalibur sword from stone. Arthur eventually does and leads to all sorts of action and violence that both sides will compete in until their deaths, but also know that there’s more to being a king, than just having power and fine jewelry. There’s also this thing called respect and honor, and stuff like that.

Just look at that get-up! Clearly the baddie!

King Arthur is a movie that a lot of people will, and already have started to, hate. This isn’t to say that those who don’t like it, aren’t wrong, because in fact, they’re probably; the movie is loud, dark, brash, stupid, random, nonsensical, and downright weird. But sometimes, can’t there be fun had in all of that?

See, Guy Ritchie is the kind of director who seems to take on anything he wants, so long as he can put his own little cool, suave stamp on it. It’s why his early movies, the Sherlock Holmes‘, and even Man From U.N.C.L.E. have worked so well for him, because he was able to do something neat and different with these pieces of work, and make them entirely his own. And yes, it also helps that Ritchie’s style, while definitely show-offy, is still fun to watch and brings a certain amount of energy.

Then again, maybe that’s just for me.

See, the first ten minutes of King Arthur are just so odd, slow and boring, that it made me want to check out very early on. But then, out of nowhere, Ritchie’s style kicks in, where everything’s quick, a little dumb, loud, and random, making it feel like we were watching Clash of the Titans, only to then change to channel to 90’s MTV. It’s silly, of course, but it works in moving this flick forward when in all honesty, other films just like it would have kept a slow, leisurely pace for no reason.

Does it totally work? Not really, but it does help keep the movie fun at times when it shouldn’t be. For instance, Ritchie makes Arthur and his cronies as just another group of his usual rag-tag bunch of gangsters, stealing, lying and killing, for their own gain. Granted, Arthur’s supposed to be the hero here, but listening to him and his pals telling a story, or better yet, a bunch of stories all at once, is quite entertaining.

Once again, this may all just be me, but for some reason, King Arthur was a little bit of fun for me.

The issues the movie seems to have is in making sense of its story, which is why, for two hours, the movie can be a bit long. There are times when it seems like even Ritchie himself can’t make sense of the story and why Arthur matters in the grander scheme of things; certain supernatural elements with witches, eagles, and bugs, all randomly pop-up and are supposed to mean something, but they really don’t. The movie hasn’t really told us much about it, other than, “Oi, yeah, this kind of stuff can happen.”

Poor Eric Bana. The man can just never catch a break.

Can it, though? I guess, and it’s why King Arthur, while clearly not a perfect movie, also seemed to need some more help on the story, even though it took three writers to apparently bring it around.

Still, King Arthur provides enough entertainment when it’s needed and it’s also nice to see the ensemble here having some fun, too. After the Lost City of Z, I began thinking of whether or not Charlie Hunnam was actually a good actor, or if he was just another good-looking guy, who also happened to be able to read lines. Here, I think he fits Arthur quite well; he gets to cool, calm, sophisticated, and a little arrogant, which, if you’re someone who looks like Hunnam, it probably works, and it does here.

Even Jude Law gets to have some fun as Vortigern, although he never quite gets the chance to go full “villain”. Sure, he kills innocents, gives people the bad eye, and yes, even scowls, but there’s never any key moment where it feels like the man is as despicable and as evil as he probably should have been. He’s basically just the Young Pope, but instead of preaching and having weird sexual feelings for nannies, he’s actually killing people.

So shouldn’t that make him more evil? I don’t know, either way, Law deserves to be meaner and badder.

Consensus: While it is no doubt a flawed, odd and at times, random piece, King Arthur also proves that Guy Ritchie’s hip and cool style can still work, so long as it isn’t being depended on to help out with the story, or other things that matter to making a good movie.

5.5 / 10

He’s still deciding on what accent to use, or if to even have one at all.

Photos Courtesy of: Aceshowbiz

Advertisements

I Origins (2014)

Should have been re-titled Eye See You. Already taken, you say? Damn.

Dr. Ian Gray (Michael Pitt) is a man that feels slightly alone, as well as he should. He’s a scientist who takes up most of his day, not by hangin’ out, listening to rad music, sippin’ on brews and chillin’ with his boys, but instead, by testing to see if he can create a real life, fully-functioning eye, therefore, disproving God and all of the wonders of the world. Also, he takes pictures of eyes as a hobby. Does it sound like much fun? Nope, which is why when he has a chance encounter with a random spectator at a Halloween dress-up with a mysterious gal named Sofi (Astrid Berges-Frisbey), he can’t help but feel like it’s his one chance at love and therefore, his opportunity to make something more out of his life than just eyes. Eventually, the two start a relationship, but their conflicting-views on what life is really all about, get in the way and cause friction. Not to mention that it makes Gray want to find out more and more about his studying. And then, tragedy strikes.

Clearly there’s more to this premise than what I just laid-out, but let me just put it like this: You won’t want to hear what else I’ve got to say. Because, one of the key aspects about I Origins is in not knowing what to expect next. Which, of course, seems like something you look for in any movie, but there’s something much more interesting at work here. See, not only does writer/director Mike Cahill frame this story without us having any idea of what to expect from the studying of eyes, but he also gives us just enough to keep us satisfied on all fronts.

Does it really need to be said that you shouldn't listen to those ads?

Does it really need to be said that you shouldn’t listen to those ads?

For instance, the movie never limits itself to one genre in particular. One part is a romance about two strangers who meet, hook up, connect and eventually fall in love; another part is a sci-fi drama about figuring out the mystery behind these eyes; another is a deep, dark and twisty psychological thriller that doesn’t always clue us in on what to expect next; and lastly, we have a discussion about whether or not we can fully trust science to determine the rest of our society. All of it put together is very interesting to watch, but it’s also quite messy and you can tell exactly when the film sort of stumbles over itself.

Which isn’t to say that this is a deeply-flawed film, it’s just that it takes so many falls here and there, that you wonder how much ground Cahill was wondering of covering, and how much of it actually made it into the final-product. Sure, he gets the romance right in that, despite them being the quintessential couple that first met and, seven minutes later, were already banging in a dirty bathroom, but the sci-fi stuff itself? Well, not so much.

And that doesn’t mean I have to be a science-major of any sorts to get what it is that they’re talking about here; in fact, nobody has to be. Cahill does a well enough job at laying down all that we need to know about the science of this movie, its meaning and why it is that it’s so important to the characters (they’re scientists, duh!). That’s done well, but when he starts to do a little bit of preaching, it ends up being something more than just a romance-tale centered around a whole bunch of science-y stuff – it ends up being a movie that’s used just so that the director can present problems he feels is current in today’s society. Which is fine, however, he never really follows through on them.

And though directors like PT Anderson, Martin Scorsese and even David Lynch to an extant, have all presented ideas and never really followed through perfectly on them, they’re at least skilled enough to get by. Cahill, on the other hand, feels like he has a little way to go before he’s fully blowing our mind with whatever gibber-gabber he has to present to everyday America. We get that it’s all supposed to be deeper than the surface it’s presented on, but what is there to this whole idea that really allows us to give our attentions for the next two-hours? Well, not much. All there is, really, is just a bunch of characters talking about science and explaining that eyes are what helps one peer into another person’s soul.

Wow. Truly something mind-boggling right there, people.

Yes, I am being a bit snarky here, but that’s only because most of the movie seems so up its own rump, that it made me annoyed and want to get up out of my seat, only to firmly take its head, or hand, out of their rear-end. It was getting quite annoying and also, not to mention the fact that the later-half of the movie can get a bit ridiculous. It’s still interesting and relatively unpredictable, but when you have a movie that’s willing to throw everything and anything at you to confuse you of what’s next, regardless of it works for the movie as a whole or not, then it’s kind of disappointing. Makes you wish everything was more thought-out and not in need of such a rush job.

Gettin' her with the old "let me see your soul"-move. Oldest trick, man.

Gettin’ her with the old “let me see your soul”-move. Oldest trick, man.

But where Cahill really gets this movie right is in the cast he’s assembled here, especially Michael Pitt in a leading-role that shows us all what he’s capable of: Being quiet, yet, always interesting. Pitt doesn’t really use his boy-ish good-looks to get by on a role that’s basically made for a nerd, but he does allow us to sympathize with a guy who has a nerdy occupation, a nerdy hobby, nerdy ideas about everything he sees, and yet, is still able to pull in ladies like he does so here. It’s a bit unbelievable, considering how much of a no-nonsense deuche he can sometimes be, but I guess because he’s Michael Pitt, it doesn’t matter if he’s a scientist, a firefighter, or a trained serial-killer; he’s cute, dammit!

Anyway, he’s great and even though his love-interest’s English may be a bit rusty, Astrid Berges-Frisbey is still charming enough to make you see why they’d be such a lovely couple together and are right for each other in the end. Brit Marling’s also here as the “new” scientist Gray gets stuck with, and although it’s clear she isn’t used much at first, later on, without saying much, she becomes a central part to this story and still makes you wish there was more of her to go around. “The more Brit Marling, the merrier”, nobody said.

Except for me. Just right there.

Consensus: Boasting an interesting premise that runs down many different roads, I Origins definitely is a bold piece of fiction, yet ultimately becomes something that’s less important and deep than it thinks it is.

6 / 10 = Rental!!

Just blink already!

Just blink already!

Photo’s Credit to: IMDB, AceShowbiz