Advertisements

Dan the Man's Movie Reviews

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

Tag Archives: Henry Lloyd-Hughes

Now You See Me 2 (2016)

David Blaine was more convincing.

After fleeing from the public eye, the Four Horsemen (Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Lizzy Caplan) Dave Franco) have now decided to get back in the game of stealing from the rich and giving back to the poor, all for the beloved and mysterious “Eye”. However, they all land themselves in some deep water when a billionaire who’s money they once took (Daniel Radcliffe), wants them all to do another heist, but for him only. The Horsemen have no option, so obviously, they set out to make sure that the heist goes as perfectly planned as possible, even when there’s the unpredictable factor of magic around. Meanwhile, FBI agent Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) is still trying his hardest to keep his disguise, while also trying to hatch together some sort of plan his own plot against Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman), a man whom he blames for the death of his dad, some many years ago. But eventually, he’s going to have to run into the Horsemen and help them get out of this sticky situation, alive, well, and still capable of performing tricks for the greater good of society.

Lead 'em, Jess-man.

Lead ’em, Jess-man.

The first Now You See me was fine. At the very least, it was a lazy summer blockbuster that used fancy, cool-looking visuals as a way to say, “Oh, wow. Magic!”, when, in reality, all they were doing was trying to hide the fact that there were no real believable plots or twists in their own story. Instead, they were just phony, but because they’re taking place within a story that features a bunch of people performing and acting out magic tricks, then yeah, fine, they don’t need to make any sense.

But honestly, that was the least of my problems with that movie and, to a greater extent.

While I can get over the sheer manipulation of their twists and turns, I can’t get over the fact that Now You See Me 2 has more characters than the first, but at the same time, still doesn’t develop any of them. And that’s a huge problem when you take into consideration that the characters from the first movie still have nothing to them other than, uh, well, that they’re “magicians” and uh, yeah, that’s about it. Sure, they all have backstory, but a personality other than snarky? Not really.

In fact, I’d go so far as to say that, had it not been for some of the great actors in these roles, these two movies, as well as the characters themselves, would just absolutely fail. No one really has anything going for them and because the actors themselves are so vibrant and fun to watch in almost everything else they do that isn’t this, it’s kind of hard not to feel disappointed. You know that almost everyone here is better than what they’re being offered, yet, they don’t seem to care about that fact; they’re getting paid, so why the hell should they better?

If anything, though, Now You See Me 2 does remind the world that Lizzy Caplan deserves every role offered to her, if only because she truly is the real deal. Even though a lot of the material handed to her is pretty bad, she handles it all so perfectly; she’s called on to be the smarty-pants, call-it-like-it-is character who says whatever she wants, whenever she wants, and to whomever she oh so pleases. It’s a role that she seemed pitch perfect for in Mean Girls, however, hasn’t done in quite some time. Thankfully, she gets a chance to do that here and shows that this isn’t just a man’s playground – sometimes, a woman has to come in and show everyone else up.

And yeah, everyone else is fine, too.

Harry's evil? Oh my!

Harry’s evil? Oh my!

Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Mark Ruffalo, and Dave Franco all do what they did in the first and it’s what they always do best: Just read lines. Newcomers like Jay Chou and Daniel Radcliffe almost don’t matter, because the script seems to have so much going on at times, that when it comes time for them to actually matter to the plot, it’s hard to care. Chou himself feels like a shameless way of ensuring that Now You See Me 2 will be an international hit, whereas Radcliffe, bravely playing against-type, never seems serious or evil enough to play someone as twisted and sick as he’s made out to be here.

In fact, I’d say that’s how it is for the rest of the movie. Because everyone involved with Now You See Me 2 takes itself in such a jokey way, none of it ever registers as being a really gripping, emotional, or thrilling movie. That’s fine and all, if all you want to do is entertain people, without offering anything beneath the surface, but sometimes, you need an extra push or pull to make it work. Now You See Me 2 exists in a world where everyone follows each other with a joke about something that isn’t funny, or makes no sense, yet, no one seems to really care; they’re all just laughing, smiling and moving on with their day.

Once again, that’s fine, but Now You See Me 2 isn’t a really fun movie. There’s maybe one or two sequences that really work, but other than that, there’s just too much talking going on about stuff that nobody cares about, or has any clue of, and way too many surprises that make literally no sense. Yes, I know that’s the beauty of film, in how they can transport us to this world where realism and simplicity doesn’t exist, but seriously, I need to have some grasp on reality. It doesn’t need to be firm – it just needs to be there so that I’m reminded that once the movie’s over, I can go home and just sit down, wait and pray that they don’t announce a third movie.

Just please. No.

Consensus: Squandering an immensely talented cast, Now You See Me 2 is an obvious cash-grab with little-to-no personality, a confusing, almost nonsensical story, and a bunch of characters who, quite frankly, are hard to care about at all.

3.5 / 10

"Rain, rain go away, that's what all my haters say."

“Rain, rain go away, that’s what all my haters say.”

Photos Courtesy of: Indiewire

Advertisements

Madame Bovary (2015)

When being rich just isn’t quite cutting it for you.

Young American Emma (Mia Wasikowska) is finally able to leave the convent, although, it’s only so that she can get married to a country doctor by the name of Charles Bovary (Henry Lloyd-Hughes). It was arranged by her father, of course, but there’s no real problems with Charles to begin with; however, he’s so boring and dull, Emma begins to grow tired and look for something more meaningful. She thinks she finds that with the dashing Marquis (Logan Marshall-Green), a man who appreciates hunting and fine art, and then she thinks she finds it with local law clerk Leon Dupuis (Ezra Miller). Eventually though, this excess in love and sex, leads to a much greater excess in fashion and luxuries; both of which Emma, nor Charles are able to pay for, although the dry-goods dealer Monsieur Lheureux (Rhys Ifans) has no problem extending her as much credit as she wants. This all starts to catch up to Emma, where she’s not only in constant fear of her husband finding out about her philandering ways, but also of losing everything that was handed to her when she got married in the first place.

Normally, these kinds of fluffy, British period pieces don’t do it for me, but with recent releases like Belle and Far From the Madding Crowd entertaining me, my tune has changed a bit. Now, I’ve come to realize that these period pieces can work if they’re made for more people than just their target-audience. Sure, you can say, “It works for who it’s made for”, but to me, that’s another way of saying, “Oh well, you know, a good majority of people will hate this movie, but they aren’t the target audience who it’s made for.” If that’s so abundantly the case, then whom exactly are these period pieces made for?

Sad.

Sad.

Older people? Intellectuals? People that aren’t below the age of 50? Either way, I’ve come to realize that the more these kinds of period pieces start to try and reach out a little to other possible target audiences, the more I’ve come to enjoy them and understand the appeal.

And then, there’s Madame Bovary, which kind of reminds me exactly why these kinds of period pieces don’t work for me, as well as many others like me, in the first place.

Adapting the story of Madame Bovary must be a pretty hard task, but you’d think that with a female director on-hand to direct a story about a female, straight from the female’s perspective, that there’d be a little bit more of an impact, right? Well, that’s the problem here – there isn’t. Instead, director Sophie Barthes just shows Emma’s actions, over and over again, without much of any tension or narrative driving it. Rather than understand full-well why it is that Emma wants to screw around so much on her husband and spend all of his money in places she shouldn’t be, making us at least understand her, and somewhat stand behind her back, the movie mostly portrays Emma as being a bit of mopey, unlikable, and needy brat.

Which wouldn’t be so bad had the movie been maybe an hour-and-a-half where we didn’t have to see Emma constantly make the same mistakes, over and over again, but that’s not the case. The movie goes on for at least two hours, to where we see the mistakes being made, she hardly ever learns, and it’s hard to care. Not to mention the fact that the movie actually starts off with Emma’s death early-on, so much rather than actually building to that shocking climax, the movie already shoots its gun too early and makes it easy for us to all connect the dots.

This isn’t to say that Mia Wasikowska doesn’t do a fine job as the title character, because she does, it’s just a role that sees her sort of going through the motions. Of course, she may not have been challenged all that much to begin with, but there’s a lot of Wasikowska just looking drab, bored and sad, which makes sense at certain points with this character, but at the same time, feels repetitive. Also, the fact that Wasikowska absolutely killed it in another period piece not too long ago (“Jane Eyre“), makes this performance sort of seem like an after-thought and shows that maybe Wasikowska doesn’t need to bother with them anymore.

And then, there’s her suitors, who all try just as much as Wasikowska does, but they too seem to fall on dead ears. It may seem like a weird role for somebody as modern as Ezra Miller to play a character in a period piece, but surprisingly, he works well with it. There’s no sense of irony to anything he does or says, and more often than not, seems like a reasonable enough guy to fall in love with Bovary, although he mostly falls into the background of a character people lose interest in. Ditto for Logan Marshall-Green who seems to be ready to charm the socks off of Emma Bovery, but instead, just looks at her and all of a sudden, she’s absolutely smitten.

Handsome.

Handsome.

If only it was that easy in real life.

But the real performance I want to talk about from this whole movie that’s probably the most interesting anecdote it had to offer was Rhys Ifans’ Monsieur Lheureux. Even though Lheureux initially seems like a sweet, likable and honest businessman who actually is looking out for Emma and her expenses, he eventually starts to edge on over the other way. He’s very easy to extend her as much credit as she oh so desires, he doesn’t care how much time or effort it takes for him to get the goods that she wants, and he doesn’t even bother his head as to when he will get the money back; he just knows that he one day will.

Ifans is so good at oozing charm, that it makes it all the more scary when he turns the other cheek and shows ulterior motives. People who have read the book will know what happens with this character, but for those who don’t, it will come as an absolute and complete shock, all thanks to Ifans’ work here. Even though, yes, Paul Giamatti is around too, he doesn’t get nearly as much as Ifans and it’s quite surprising what he’s able to do with so very little.

Consensus: Occasionally engaging, if only due to the performances, Madame Bovary suffers from the fact that it’s too repetitive and bland to really get over that hurdle that so many period pieces as of late seem to get over.

5 / 10

EVIL.

EVIL.

Photos Courtesy of: Indiewire03

Anna Karenina (2012)

Think of this as one, big act of revenge courtesy of Sienna Miller.

The story centers around Anna (Keira Knightley) – a Russian wife and aristocrat who visits her brother in Moscow after his wife accuses him of adultery. While mediating between the two, Anna finds herself romantically drawn to the affluent bachelor Count Vronsky (Aaron Johnson) and the two begin a tumultuous and passionate affair that will challenge the rigid social structures they live under and bring Anna to the depths of despair and isolation.

I don’t think I’m in the minority at all when I say that I don’t enjoy watching period-pieces, especially one that’s done by Joe Wright. Yes, even though the guy has made some pretty impressive movies of the year and always has something flashy and beautiful to show-us, I still can’t help but feel like the guy should be spreading his wings more and going for action-thrillers like Hanna, rather than going back to the period-pieces that made him so famous in the first-place. However, maybe a period-piece by Joe Wright is all I really needed to have me less-hateful of them in the first-place. Then again, maybe not. It’s probably just that period-pieces are way too boring for my fast-paced, 19-year old soul.

Even though this may come off like a normal period-piece that’s no different from any other one that has came-out in the past-decade or so, Wright brings us something new, something fresh, and something that’s worth taking a second-look. See, what’s so unique about what Wright does with this material in the first-place is that he stages the film as if it was all a play. Characters, situations, and events may change, but the setting rarely ever does and rather than just filming all-over-the-globe and having places look like 19th century Russia, Wright keeps it condensed into one, theater-room that brings a new level of art to it, but will also confuse the hell out of you, as it did to me.

For the first 20 minutes or so, I kept wondering to myself why everybody was acting and dressed differently, but still in the same-spot as they were before. Of course, as time went-on, I started to realize that this obviously wasn’t the case and it was just a stylish way of Wright trying to get our minds off of the fact that this is yet, another period-piece, with soapy melodrama to spare, but hey, I gotta give the guy some kudos. If it wasn’t for Wright directing this flick with his sharp-eye for color and design, then I don’t think this film would have held my interest as well as it did. That, and also the fact that Wright keeps this story moving at a pretty quick-pace that doesn’t seem slow-down for anything in this movie, which I liked it because it was a fresh-approach to a period-piece that I feel like I needed to fully be entertained by.

Sadly, this quick-pace doesn’t stick and after about the first hour or so, the story starts to really take a toll on you with it’s snail-like pace that rarely goes anywhere with itself. Like most period-pieces and the stories that inhabit them, this story’s tale of love, lust, and passion during a frowned-upon fling doesn’t generate anything new or exciting that we haven’t ever seen before and even though it’s like that throughout the whole-movie, it didn’t really seem to bother me because of the distraction Wright had on my mind. However, once that distraction was lifted, I felt like I could see all of the problems with this story and how it seemed to linger-on as if it had somewhere to go with itself, but needed a good shove here and there to actually do it.

Thankfully, Wright does give the story that occasional shove every once and awhile, but it’s not enough and the latter-half of this flick just really started to bore me away, like I usually expect from period-pieces of this nature. The story isn’t anything new, but I was expecting a different-look at the theme of adultery and finding the real you through it, however, none of those sparks ever seem to be lit. Instead, we get a bunch of scenes where Knightley just runs around, cries, throws temper-tantrums, gets jealous really easily, and has a bunch of panic-attacks that could have almost had her back to the psych-ward that she was in last year with A Dangerous Method. Actually, come to think of it, that would have been a lot more entertaining to watch then just Knightley acting all bi-polar because she needs her bones to get jumped. Crazy Knightley for the sake of being crazy = good. Crazy Knightley for the sake of just banging a gong and getting it on = not good. That’s as much of a surprise as to me as it must be to you, I know but it’s the truth.

Even though her character was one that I started to care less-and-less about as the flick went-on, Keira Knightley is still great as Anna Karenina and shows us why she deserves roles like these. Knightley has always been this actress  that I’ve liked and saw a lot of promise in, yet, she never really seems to break out of that crap-mold that she always finds herself in with flicks like The Jacket and Domino. However, it seems like whenever she has to put on some old-school, pieces of cloth for a role, she’s always on top of her game and nails it just about every time. I think she’s an actress that deserves more credit because of the way she can handle weird roles like Karenina, and make her the least-bit likable and surprising with where her motivations go and don’t go.

Playing the eye of her affection, is Aaron Taylor-Johnson who seems to really be crankin’ it up as of late with all of these strange-roles he’s been taking as of late. Kick-Ass was obviously the one flick that had us all notice him, but then he takes something as wacky and weird as his role in Savages, and now this! The guy definitely likes to expand himself and see what he can do and he does that very-well here as Count Vronsky. Vronsky was a pretty-interesting character right from the start because he’s very sly and very mysterious, but he never lets his guard-down long enough for somebody to capitalize on it. That is, only until Karenina does and then all of the interest I had with him was just lost as he and her both seem to go through a pretty obvious, pit-fall in their relationship and as much as I would have like to sympathize with both of them, I just didn’t.

The guy who I did actually sympathize with here, was in fact, Jude Law as Karenina’s much-older hubby, Alexei Karenin. What surprised me the most about Law and his performance here as Alexei was that he doesn’t play the type of “jealous husband who’s being cheated-on” role like we are so used to seeing in movies of this nature. Law actually down-plays himself very well and only allows his emotions and feelings to come through his facial expressions and actions, rather than words. Law is definitely the most interesting out of the bunch and really made me feel sorry for him because even though some of it his fault for being such a dull, and boring dude, I couldn’t help but feel like the guy wanted nothing else other than to be loved and not cheated-on like he is by Anna. I would have said look for Law to be nominated for an Oscar by the beginning of next year, but due to this film’s already, mediocre-performance, I think it’s pretty safe to say that we won’t have to look at all. Shame too, because I think Law’s been due an Oscar for quite some time now.

Consensus: Joe Wright definitely adds an extra-level of style and beauty to an otherwise, ordinary and empty period-piece, but Anna Karenina still fails to deliver on the emotional fire-works that it’s premise seemed to promise, as well as interesting characters that we actually care about and have sympathy for as they go-on, with all of this lust and adultery.

6/10=Rental!!