Dan the Man's Movie Reviews

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

Tag Archives: Tilda Swinton

A Bigger Splash (2016)

2 Comments Posted by Dan O. on May 15, 2016

Life is always better under the sun.

Marianne Lane (Tilda Swinton), a famous rock star, is now living away on the remote Italian island of Pantelleria, where she and her photographer boyfriend Paul (Matthias Schoenaerts) spend most of their time eating, laying in the sun, dancing, swimming, laying around naked and, oh yeah, having lots and lots of sex. And for Marianne, this is especially great, seeing as how she can’t speak or strain her vocal-chords all that much due to a recent bit of surgery that may make, or break her long career. But while it seems like Marianne and Paul have the perfect set-up, it gets shaken up a tad bit by Harry (Ralph Fiennes), a former flame of Marianne’s, and a friend of Paul’s. While neither have seen Harry in quite some time, they have no problem with him around, because he’s such a blast to be around, but for some reason, Harry’s got himself a bit of a surprise with him: His daughter, Penelope (Dakota Johnson), who, according to him, he only found out about a few weeks prior. Seems fishy, right? Well, as the next few days or so go by, the situation gets more and more tense as old skeletons come out of the closet and people who shouldn’t be getting too close to one another, can’t help but get close to one another.

Young, attractive and horny. Uh yeah. I think we all know where this is headed.

A lot of people loved Luca Guadagnino’s I Am Love. I was not one of them, unfortuantely. For some reason, I felt like there was a whole lot more style going on than any actual story to really keep things tight and all that together, which sometimes made it feel like a pretentious slog. It looked great and, as always, featured Tilda Swinton in top-form, but really, it’s one of the main reasons that I wasn’t really looking forward towards A Bigger Splash. The cast is good and the premise seems interesting, but in the hands of Guadagnino, it could all go up in beautiful-looking, but muddled flames.

Thankfully, it didn’t and holy hell, the movie is so much better off for it.

Don’t get me wrong though, a lot of the rambunctious tendencies from Guadagnino are still out and about here, although they’re far more pushed to the backside than I expected. For some reason, a subplot concerning refugees is brought up in awkward, somewhat random ways, and even though there’s an eventual pay-off to its inclusion, it never gels together with the rest of the story. And also, not to mention that, on occasion, it seems like Guadagnino can’t help himself from blaring the trumpets and horns of the score as loud as they can be, to where it’s not only overbearing, but also gets in the way of what any of the actual characters are trying to say one another.

I know, it all sounds like annoying nitpicks on my part, but once again, these seem to be little eccentricities that Guadagnino himself can’t seem to contain himself away from. For some viewers, it may totally work and add an extra bit of excitement, but for someone like me, who appreciates a clear cut story, the kind that the movie gives us an awful lot, it can get a tad annoying. It almost feels as if Guadagnino doesn’t feel totally comfortable with having so many scenes where people just sit in rooms, or around a table, just talking to and staring at one another, that he all of a sudden has to call up the orchestra to bring the tunes in.

But regardless of all this, yes, A Bigger Splash is, for at least a solid portion of its two-hour run-time, a movie where people sit in rooms, talking to and staring at one another and you know what?

It’s pretty good for that reason alone.

The cast, for one, is really where Guadagnino got lucky. Tilda Swinton, as usual, is great, but here, she gets to play it a bit different; because her character can’t speak too loud, or barely at all, she has to do a lot of emoting and speaking with the looks on her face and body-motions and it’s an impressive performance from an actress who, honestly, we’ve gotten so many from, that it’s pretty hard to count by now. Her backstory as a big-time rock star may not totally work (her music sounds like really mediocre Tom Petty), but it doesn’t matter because after awhile, you just take the movie’s word for itself.

Don’t speak. I know what you’re thinking.

On the other hand, you’ve got Ralph Fiennes as Harry and well, he’s having the absolute time of his life in the role, as if you’ve never seen him before. As soon as he walks into the movie, all of a sudden, everything’s wacky, wild, exciting and most importantly, fun. Fiennes adds a certain bit of zaniness to this character that was always there in the beginning, but also doesn’t allow for us to forget that this in fact a human being and once we start to see his past relationship with Paul and Marianne get brought up more and more, we start to see him for what he was, and yeah, maybe still is. He’s the life of the party, but that’s only because he’s got such a controlling personality that needs to have everything his way, or the absolute highway; if anything, this character’s a lot more scary than you’d think from the very beginning, but it’s why Fiennes is such a marvel to watch here, as we sit back and watch this character unravel right in front of our very own eyes.

Dakota Johnson and Matthias Schoenaerts don’t have nearly the kind of flashy roles as Swinton and Fiennes do, but that’s fine, because they’re totally capable of making their time matter. Johnson is a fiery, seductive and mysterious grown-up version of Lolita here, whereas Schoenaerts is supposed to be this drab, dull and ultra serious bro who used to have a drinking problem and clearly has a problem with this situation. Schoenaerts has been knocking each and every role out of the park as of late, that even something like this, where it seems like he’s not really playing an interesting character, he still does wonders with, in all of the smallest ways possible.

It just goes to show you that it doesn’t matter if you have a bit of sketchy story – get a good cast together and yes, you’ve got yourself a pretty solid movie.

Consensus: Despite the occasional lapse into random pretentiousness, A Bigger Splash ultimately benefits from the fun, yet engaging cast who came ready to play with every bit of their might.

7.5 / 10

What a fearsome foursome.

Photos Courtesy of: Indiewire

2010s, 7-7.5/10, Movies 2016, A Bigger Splash, Aurore Clément, Corrado Guzzanti, Dakota Johnson, Elena Bucci, Lily McMenamy, Luca Guadagnino, Matthias Schoenaerts, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Ralph Fiennes, Tilda Swinton

Hail, Caesar! (2016)

6 Comments Posted by Dan O. on February 5, 2016

Old Hollywood was so much more interesting.

Being the known and so-called “fixer” for Capitol Pictures during the 50’s, Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) has got a lot on his plate. One concerns a disgruntled director (Ralph Fiennes), who can’t seem to get his actor to deliver the right lines. Another involves a singing cowboy known as Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich), who wants to be a bigger star and may also need a date for the premiere of his new flick. Then, there’s rising star DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johansson) who suddenly becomes pregnant before production and is in need of someone to take care of her. And then, last but not least, there’s the issue of superstar Baird Whitlock (George Clooney), someone who has gone mysteriously missing, while his latest film, Hail, Caesar!, is in the last stages of production. Reasons surrounding the why, or better yet, the who, of the capturing of Baird isn’t answered, but Mannix will not stop until he finds Whitlock and everything goes back to normal. However, there’s mounting pressure from all sides, especially when twin gossip reporters, Thora and Thessaly Thacker (Tilda Swinton), come snooping around, wanting to know what the latest scoop is.

Nothing like a 50’s-era ‘stache.

It’s nice to know that talented writers and directors like the Coen brothers are still trusted enough in Hollywood, to be allowed to do whatever it is that they want, with whomever they want, and however they want to. That’s why a movie like Hail, Caesar!, a polished, lovely-looking throwback and tribute to the old, post-war days of Hollywood where people were more naturally good-looking, all smoked, and seemed to be living lives of absolute luxury. And it’s no surprise that the Coens have actually gone so far as to make a movie like this, considering that most of their movies have an old-timey, screwball-appeal, but now, considering that their flick is placed in the early 50’s, they’re allowed to be as goofy and odd as they want to be, with the obvious wink-wink at the audience of what’s being made fun of.

Which is to say that, yes, Hail, Caesar! is actually a funny movie. There’s a lot of side-jocks, puns, and goofy occurrences that the Coens use here that make the movie not only entertaining, but also exciting. You don’t know what trick or trade their going to pull out of their hat next and it goes without saying, that while not all of the jokes or gags land, they are still seen as efforts from two people who clearly know and understand the form of creating a joke and allowing for it to land.

This is all mentioned to let the record state that Hail, Caesar!, the actual movie itself and not the movie-within-the-movie, is not a very good Coen brothers flick, but a fine one.

The main issue with Hail, Caesar! is that there doesn’t seem to be much of a energizing plot driving it. Sure, there’s a lot going on here, that Mannix, the protagonist, has to deal with and solve, but mostly all of the subplots come and go as they please, without their being much pushing everything forward. Rather than feeling fun, spirited and frothy, Hail, Caesar! surprisingly finds the Coens in a more subdued state, where they aren’t working as quickly as we’ve seen them before, but focusing more on the details of each subplot, as well as certain characters.

Which is fine and all, but nobody in Hail, Caesar! is really all that interesting, or as compelling of a character as the Coens may think. Mannix himself seems to be an intriguing specimen, who not only works as a collective fixer in Hollywood, but also a hardcore, dedicated family man, but really, he’s here to just service other colorful and sometimes, weird characters. Clooney’s Whitlock is clearly a take on Kirk Douglas, which doesn’t go much further than that; Johansson’s Moran is an old school dame, who definitely has a lot of sass, but not much more; and Ehrenreich’s Hobie Doyle, perhaps the standout of the flick, is perhaps the only given more to work with in general.

In fact, it’s the scenes with Hobie Doyle that work the most.

You can do it, George! Let that emotion out!

Whether he’s trying to nail a simple line in a very fluffy period-drama, or charm the pants off of his date, there’s something sweet and lovable about Hobie Doyle that not only makes you want to see more of him, but maybe wish that the movie was just about him and his rise in Hollywood. Ehrenreich is a likable enough presence to have us buy into the boyish charm of this character, while at the same time, still seeing him for a human being, even among all of the fakes and phonies that sometimes show up here. Though he’s been around the pond quite a few times, it seems like Hail, Caesar!, if anything, will be the launching pad for Alden Ehrenreich.

And everybody else is fine here, too. Actually, everybody who does show up, whether they be large roles, supporting roles, or simply, extended cameos, every member of the cast is clearly game for this material and want to add their own two cents in any way that they can. Is there perhaps too much of everyone here? Of course there is! However, it’s also sort of fun to watch the likes of Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill in a Coen brothers movie – something I’d never thought I’d see, but I’m glad I did and could definitely get used to.

But really, that’s all that Hail, Caesar! is: Fun and fine.

The movie’s not particularly deep, or special in that it brings some new sense of fun and charm to the Coen brothers style. If anything, it just shows that they’re capable of doing whatever movie they want. So what if it doesn’t always work or constantly excite us? Sometimes, the best movies are those that set-out to just entertain and leave it at that! Is it disappointing considering what we know from the Coens?

Most definitely, but hey, I’ll take fun and fine, over depressing and boring any day!

Consensus: Hail, Caesar! won’t stand as the best film of the Coens storied-career, but still proves that their attention to humor, fun and detail will never go away, no matter what environment they’re working in.

6.5 / 10

No, C-Tates. We salute you!

Photos Courtesy of: Indiewire

2010s, 6-6.5/10, Movies 2016, Alden Ehrenreich, Alison Pill, Caesar!, Channing Tatum, Christopher Lambert, Clancy Brown, David Krumholtz, Ethan Coen, Fisher Stevens, Frances McDormand, Fred Melamed, Geoffrey Cantor, George Clooney, Hail, Joel Coen, Jonah Hill, Josh Brolin, Michael Gambon, Ralph Fiennes, Robert Trebor, Scarlett Johansson, The Coen Brothers, Tilda Swinton

Burn After Reading (2008)

4 Comments Posted by Dan O. on February 3, 2016

Never trust those who are “too fit”.

When CIA Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) gets demoted from his job, he decides that it’s time to start the proceedings on his memoir. Somehow, though, the disk containing all of this information falls into the hands of two gym employees, Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) and Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt), both of whom clearly have no idea what they’re going to do with this disk. But they both have the right idea to blackmail Cox for some money, even if they don’t know how to go about it, nor what the actual proceedings are. Meanwhile, Linda herself is in search of a better life that isn’t just working in the gym. Currently, she’s trying to fund her cosmetic surgeries, as well as someone to love in her life. Through various dating websites, she meets the charming and likable Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney), and the two hit it off immediately. Strange thing is that Harry, despite being married, also happens to be shackin’ up with Osborne’s wife (Tilda Swinton), which leads the whole situation to end up in some real weird, sticky situations, sometimes with them leading to violence and all sorts of bloodshed.

“Malkovich? Malkovich?”

At this stage in their career, the Coen brothers can practically do anything that they want and nobody is going to tell them otherwise. They have enough Oscars under their belt, have made their studios enough money, and have earned enough respect in the biz to say that they want to make about anything, and everybody will fall for it, hook, line and sinker. As is the case with most writers and directors, they’ve had some mediocre films, as well as some amazing films, but mostly, they’ve made films worth checking out and taking time out of one’s day to watch, because a Coen brother’s movie is, quite frankly, better than a lot of other stuff out there.

And Burn After Reading is the exact reason why they are so beloved.

Though, at the same time, the movie doesn’t show the Coen brothers really working with anything new, or ground-breaking; instead, they’re taking on the whole spy genre, making a farce out of it, and rather than having real, actual spies involved, the movie’s just about a bunch of regular, everyday people who are, yes, goofy and sometimes idiotic. However, they are all searching for the same thing: Money and power. To the Coens, this is perhaps the most interesting aspect about the human-condition, in which seemingly normal people, can be driven so ridiculously mad by the prospect of wealth, that they’d do almost anything to achieve it and rule their own little world.

At the same time, though, rather than being all sad and serious about it, the Coens add a lighter touch onto that whole idea, giving us characters that aren’t just colorful and likable, but also interesting. Sure, some of these characters may come off as very schticky and thin, but the Coens also show how that they’re personalities make who they are and determine every decision that they make throughout the movie. Some characters are, obviously, smarter than others, but nobody here is actually a good person, and there’s something inherently fun and entertaining in watching all of these characters get caught in a crazy web of lies, murder and deception, just for the hell of it.

It also helps that the cast is pretty great, too.

As usual, the Coens work with some of their own regulars who, by now, have mastered the art of the “Coen speak”. George Clooney is exciting, but also very weird as Harry, who always seems to have an issue with the food he eats, as well as an odd obsession with wood-panels; Frances McDormand’s Linda is a total polar opposite of what we’re used to seeing her play, giving us a naive, sometimes sad character who always tries to stay upbeat, no matter what the situation may call for; and Richard Jenkins, as Linda’s boss who can’t seem to stop falling over her, makes you want to give him a hug just about every scene he’s involved with.

We get it, Brad: You’re really in-shape!

But the newcomers to the Coen’s also handle their material well and show why they deserve to be in their movies a whole lot more. John Malkovich does a lot of cursing and yelling as Osborne, and it’s so much fun to watch and listen that I didn’t care if his character didn’t get as developed as I would have liked; Tilda Swinton’s character is a bit bitchy and mean, but also seems like she’s got more going onto her that would have been interesting to see developed more, but for what it is, this is all we get and it’s fine; and Brad Pitt, well, let’s just say he sort of steals the show. Not only does Brad Pitt seems like he’s so eager and excited to be apart of a Coen brother’s movie, but he also seems like he really wants to see what’s more to this character that he’s playing – something that isn’t quite seen in the rest of the movie.

Pitt’s Chad, for the most part, doesn’t really care about gaining any sort of money or respect, he’s just around for the fun of it all. That’s clear from the very beginning, once we realize that there’s a certain zaniness and energy to him that’s hard to ignore. This is mostly all thanks to Pitt who, using his grace and charm, shows that while a meat-head like Chad can be lovable, he can also be one you sort of feel bad for, once the situation he’s involved with gets to be a bit too crazy and over-the-top for his own good. There’s something about Chad that I wanted to see more of, but really, what I got was fine enough.

And that’s basically all that there is to say about Burn After Reading: It’s fine, and although you wish you saw more, that’s all you really need.

But hey, don’t just listen to me, let J.K. Simmons tell you all about it.

Consensus: Though it’s not exactly breaking down any barriers, Burn After Reading still finds the Coen brothers in a fun, hilariously wicked spirit that maintains their sense of odd energy the whole way through.

8 / 10

How can these two not have a ball together?

Photos Courtesy of: Indiewire, IFC

2000s, 8-8.5/10, Movies 2008, Armand Schultz, Bart Wilder, Bill Massof, Bob Bowersox, Brad Pitt, Brian McKeon, Brian O'Neill, Burn After Reading, Carmen M. Herlihy, Charles Gemmill, Cliff Goulet, Crystal Bock, David Rasche, Dermot Mulroney, Devin Rumer, Douglas Nelson, Elizabeth Marvel, Eric Richardson, Ethan Coen, Fernando Lara, Frances McDormand, Gary Henderson, George Clooney, Hamilton Clancy, J.K. Simmons, J.R. Horne, Jacqueline Wright, James Thomas Bligh, Jay Parks, Jeffrey DeMunn, Joe Jagatic, Joel Coen, John Malkovich, Judy Frank, Justin Doescher, Karla Mosley, Ken McNeill, Kevin Sussman, Kevin Tan, Kimberly Dorsey, Liam Ferguson, Lil Rhee, Logan Kulick, Lori Hammel, Matt Cannon, Matt Walton, Matthew James Gulbranson, Melissa Merry, Michael Countryman, Michael Fawcett, Mitch Giannunzio, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Olek Krupa, Oliver Buckingham, Patrick Boll, Patrick Michael Strange, Pun Bandhu, Raul Aranas, Richard Jenkins, Richard Karn, Richard Poe, RJ Konner, Robert Prescott, Robert R. Barry, Roger Rathburn, Ron Kidd, Sándor Técsy, Stephen Ananicz, T. Alloy Langenfeld, Ted Bouton, The Coen Brothers, Tilda Swinton, Tim Miller, William D. Grey, William Fowle, Yury Tsykun

The Beach (2000)

7 Comments Posted by Dan O. on October 5, 2015

Give a hippie too much freedom, and peace does not conquer.

Having grown reckless and tired with his American life, Richard (Leonardo DiCaprio) decides to run away on a road trip of sorts that, for one reason or another, land him in Bangkok. Though Richard plans on spending most of his time navigating around Thailand, he stumbles upon a mysterious map that, from what he can read, takes him out into the middle of the ocean, where a random island pops up. Richard has no clue what is on that island or even what it means – all he knows is that he wants to go out there and find out for himself. Even if he does along the way, then so be it! At least he died by trying! Well, Richard does reach the island and finds out that it’s everything he wanted it to be: Peaceful, fun, and chock full of hippies that love to live life to their fullest. As time rolls on though, Richard begins to realize that there’s something wrong with this island, as well as some of the people on it and it isn’t before long that Richard starts getting that ache to head back home in the U.S., where life’s a lot more simple and cleaner.

Just think of the horrid stench they must carry as one unit. Yuck!

The saying around those associated with critiquing media is, “Review what’s there, not anything else.” Meaning, basically, just review what it is that’s in front of you and not a product that you wish happened, or better yet, wanted. You may have wanted for all the Transformers films to be heartfelt, eye-opening dramas about the state of technology versus today’s society, but the creator behind those movies, may have saw billion-dollar, explosion-fests with the depth of a pebble. And honestly, whose movie is going to be created? Yours, or somebody like Michael Bay?

Anyway, what I’m trying to get at here is that it’s hard to review a movie like the Beach, without thinking of what could have been. Cause, for one, I’ve read the book and needless to say: It’s a near-masterpiece. It’s fun, exciting, energetic, lively, interesting, hilarious, insightful, and most of all, smart about its themes that deal with nature and how humans, in ways, ruin it. Alexander Garland is a talented-as-all-hell writer who, quite frankly, deserves to create more in his life. I’d rather take a movie a year from Alexander Garland, rather than seeing another one of Woody Allen’s latest, where it seems like he’s got some time left in his year, so he just oughta make something.

But I digress.

Everything that the novel is, the movie-version of the Beach is not. And that’s not just a shame because the source-material is so ripe, raw, and perfectly-ready to be made for the big screen, but because there’s plenty of talented people here working this. Danny Boyle, in case none of you know this already, is an immensely talented director who makes anything more interesting just by doing what he always does: Add techno to the background, keep that camera moving, and always finding the most disturbing aspects of humans. This isn’t to say that Boyle’s style doesn’t help the Beach out, because it most certainly does; however, most of the time, it’s obvious that around the half-way mark, he gave up in the editing-room and just let the studio-hacks take over and make their own movie, creativity be damned!

Not that Boyle had a perfect film to begin with, but yeah, this is possibly his worst movie to date.

Once again, too, you’d be surprised to hear this, not just because it’s a Danny Boyle film, but because it’s one that stars the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio, Tilda Swinton, Paterson Joseph and Guillaume Canet, but they’re left without a paddle to float around on. The movie itself is such a jumbled-up mess, that even when it seems like there’s an effort being put in to give these actors interesting material to revel in, sadly, it seems to go to the next subplot and just totally forget about whatever it was that it was trying to develop mere seconds ago.

Sure, she’s cute and all, but just about the last time she bathed.

But most of all, it’s just disappointing to see DiCaprio, an amazing talent, give what is, essentially, a terrible performance. For one, it seems like Leo is trying way too hard at everything; he’s always yelling, wailing-about, and trying to make scenes a lot funnier than they may have to be, which make it seem like he’s straining himself more than he needed to. Also, despite Leo probably being around 25 to 26 around the time of this movie, he still seems so boy-ish to really work in this role and makes it appear like he’s a bit out of his league. Leo tries, time and time again here, but ultimately, it adds up to him just turning in, most likely, his worst performance to date.

It all worked out though once Catch Me If You Can came around and Hollywood finally realized what to do with him.

Thank heavens for that.

But to go back to my earlier point about not disowning a movie for what I would have liked for it to have been, and more of what it actually is, the Beach is possibly my most personal choice with that. There are certain plot-points and ideas that the novel touches on that help round this story, this character and the impact it has on the reader, more effective. Those same points and ideas are merely touched on here, only to then be tossed away once Boyle remembers that he’s got to get a whole 400-plus page book, into a near two-hour movie. Granted, it must have not been an easy task, even for somebody as incredibly talented as Boyle and his associates, but still, it’s hard not to deny the fact that this movie never has a clue what it wants to do, be, or even say about anyone, or anything depicted in it.

The book did all of this and so much more. Just saying.

Consensus: Messy, silly, uninteresting and poorly-acted, the Beach tries because of Danny Boyle behind the camera, but is a missed-opportunity on capitalizing with some very promising source material. So basically, just go and head to a Barns and Nobles, if they even still exist.

2 / 10

Jack survived the sinking after all and is now a wannabe hippie.

Photos Courtesy of: Movpins

2-2.5/10, 2000s, Movies 2000, Alex Garland, Alexander Garland, Andrew Carmichael, Apichart Choosakul, Bindu De Stoppani, Daniel Caltagirone, Daniel York, Danny Boyle, Elizabeth Thomas, Guillaume Canet, Gunilla Karlson, Hélène de Fougerolles, Irmelin Indenbirken, Isabella Seibert, Jak Boon, Jerry Swindall, Josh Cole, Jukka Hiltunen, Kaneung 'Nueng' Kenia, Krongthong Thampradith, Lars Arentz-Hansen, Leonardo DiCaprio, Lidija Zovkic, Magnus Lindgren, Michael Thorpe, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Myriam Acharki, Nina Jacques, Patcharawan Patarakijjanon, Paterson Joseph, Peter Gevisser, Peter Youngblood Hills, Ramon Woolfe, Raweeporn 'Non' Srimonju, Robert Carlyle, Samuel Gough, Sanya 'Gai' Cheunjit, Saskia Mulder, Seng Kawee, Sheridan Jones, Sian Martin, Simone Huber, Somboon Phutaroth, Somchai Santitharangkun, Somkuan 'Kuan' Siroon, Stacy Hart, Staffan Kihlbom, The Beach, Tilda Swinton, Timothy Webster, Victoria Smurfit, Virginie Ledoyen, Weeratham 'Norman' Wichairaksakui, Zelda Tinska

Trainwreck (2015)

2 Comments Posted by Dan O. on July 18, 2015

There’s more to life than booze. Like pot.

When she was younger, Amy (Amy Schumer) was always told by her dad (Colin Quinn) that monogamy is nearly impossible. Many years later, she’s seem to taken that note of advice to heart, where mostly every other night, she spends it drinking, smoking, partying, and going home with some guy that she doesn’t even remember the next morning. Her sister (Brie Larson) has turned out for the best with her husband (Mike Birbiglia) and step-son, but Amy just can’t seem to bring herself to want and/or be happy with those sorts of things – she’s already too happy enjoying her independence. That all begins to change, however, when Amy’s assigned a story for her magazine on a sports doctor, Dr. Aaron Conners (Bill Hader). Though it’s not necessarily smart for a journalist to get involved with her subject, Amy just can’t help herself one night and sooner than later, realizes that she’s in something that she’s always fought so hard against: A relationship. But because Amy is so commitment-phobic, she’s finding it hard to not let her personal issues get in the way of something beautiful she and Aaron could have, even if he too struggles with it from time to time.

It’s hard to make a good romantic comedy nowadays. Sure, a movie can try its hardest to spin the genre on the tops of its head so many times, in so many fancy ways, that even the most downbeat and depressed person can find something to be happy about. But sometimes, what ultimately ends up happening is that the movie turns out to be a pretentious piece of bull that’s trying so hard to please you in an ironic way, that it’s downright annoying. I’ve seen many rom-coms in my life that have been different enough to work (500 Days of Summer), I’ve seen many that try to be hip and cool, but just turn out to be gag-inducing (plenty of indies), and that will probably never change.

Cheers up, ladies. You deserve it.

However, there’s no denying that Trainwreck‘s a good rom-com.

Even in today’s day and age.

What Amy Schumer and Judd Apatow both do perfectly together here is that they blend their own certain styles of humor that it feels like one, cohesive whole, rather than just a splattering of ideas thrown at the wall like spaghetti. Schumer actually wrote this script and while most of it may definitely seem like the normal kind of banter we expect from Apatow projects, it’s surprisingly mostly coming from Schumer’s pen, paper, and mind. Sure, there’s definitely some improv to be found among the talents on-display here, however, Trainwreck is Amy Schumer’s baby, through and through, and there’s nobody who can get in the way of that.

Which isn’t to say that Judd Apatow tries to sneak in and take it all away from her – in fact, it’s all quite the opposite. Apatow allows for there to be many moments dedicated solely to just Schumer herself, acting, being charming, and building this character, rather than relying on non-stop scenes of people just rambling on and on about whatever comes to their mind first. Though this aspect of Apatow’s movies can still illicit laughs, here, it would have mostly felt unnecessary and random.

Because at the center of Trainwreck, there’s this fully-realized and developed female character who feels as if she was written in a smart way that she’s not only relateable to anyone out there, but still human enough to not be judged as harshly as she herself may want you to. That the movie doesn’t slut-shame Amy’s character, nor make her forget about the errors of her ways, proves that Schumer set out to make a human, rather than just a character that can stand in while everyone around her cracks jokes and moves the story right on along. Like I’ve said before, it’s totally Schumer’s movie and it’s better off because of it – she never forgets what’s driving this story, nor does she ever let herself take over the screen too much.

Which is to say, that when she’s letting others deliver the funny, they more than do so.

You’d think that with a cast as varied and nuts as Trainwreck, that there’d most definitely be some weak-spots to be found among the group, but somehow, that doesn’t happen. Every performer who shows up is more than up to the task of delivering the funny, making their presence known, and then leaving to let the movie get on with itself. And the reason why I used the word “performer” is because it’s a little hard to classify a group of actors, when you’re talking about the likes of John Cena, or Lebron James, or even Amar’e Stoudemire; okay maybe Cena’s more believable as an “actor”, considering his profession, but as for the other two, I can’t say that I’ve ever seen either show-off their thespian skills before.

However, both of them, as well as plenty of others are pitch perfect with their comedy. Especially James, who comes off like the sassy best-friend type that these kinds of movies seem to have, but instead, because it’s Lebron James and the writing’s a whole lot more knowing, it never comes off like a conceit. Instead, it just comes off as Lebron James being very funny in a role that, believe it or not, was written perfectly for him. Sure, he’s playing a heightened version of himself, but at least he can actually “play” around in the first place, yuck it up, and not take himself at all too seriously.

Kobe’s not this charming. Trust me.

Good for him, because who knows? When that basketball career of his dries up, there may be a bigger, brighter future out there for him in front of the camera.

So long as he doesn’t get stuck with starring in a Kazaam remake.

Anyway, Lebron’s not the only one who gets a chance to shine and show the comedy-world what they are capable of doing, and why you can depend on them some more in the future. Tilda Swinton, Ezra Miller (lovely little We Need to Talk About Kevin reunion, if there ever was one), Vanessa Bayer, Randall Park, Dave Attell, Marisa Tomei, Jon Glaser, Method Man, Daniel Radcliffe, and 100-year-old Norman Lloyd, among others, may or may not seem like the perfect choices for your rom-com, but they somehow assert themselves well enough here that they prove why they are. As usual with Apatow’s movies, some roles tend to lean more on the excessive side (Matthew Broderick, Marv Albert and Chris Evert), whereas other go unseen (Barkhad Abdi and Jim Norton were apparently cast), but there’s no denying that Apatow’s able to draw out some of the most odd, sometimes shocking moments of comedy from these talents, whether you expected any of them to deliver on them or not.

But at the center of all the mayhem occurring with this ensemble, is Amy Schumer and Bill Hader who not only have perfect chemistry, but really give some personality to these otherwise stock characters. Schumer’s boozy, free-wheeling character seems like she’s on the brink of self-destruction, but the movie makes it clear that it’s not necessarily a problem for her, nor is it a problem for us; Schumer’s just so charming and funny about everything, that it hardly registers at all that she’s slowly dying on the inside. Same goes with Bill Hader, who’s Dr. Conners feels like he could be the butt of every joke, yet, turns out to be the smartest character of them all. And even then, he’s got some problems worth solving.

Then again, don’t we all?

Consensus: As is the case with Apatow movies, Trainwreck is a tad overlong, but is still hilarious, well-acted, and insightful enough that it’s maybe his most polished work to date and proves that there’s plenty of room to grow for not just him, but Amy Schumer as well.

8 / 10

People in love – so happy and joyful. It makes me sick!

Photo’s Credit to: IMDB, AceShowbiz

2010s, 8-8.5/10, Movies 2015, Amar'e Stoudemire, Amy Schumer, Barkhad Abdi, Bill Hader, Brie Larson, Colin Quinn, Daniel Radcliffe, Dave Attell, Ezra Miller, Jim Norton, John Cena, Jon Glaser, Judd Apatow, LeBron James, Marisa Tomei, Method Man, Mike Birbiglia, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Norman Lloyd, Pete Davidson, Randall Park, Tilda Swinton, Trainwreck, Vanessa Bayer

The Zero Theorem (2014)

8 Comments Posted by Dan O. on December 11, 2014

We live in a world full of nothing. Now, go get some pizza!

Q (Christoph Waltz) is a programmer in the near-future, where everybody dresses like drag queens from the 80’s, interact to one another through computer-screens, and mostly don’t understand the world around them. Not Q, though, as he makes it abundantly clear on a few occasions that he does in fact believe that our lives, this world we live in, and the universe as a whole, leads up to nothing. Regardless of if he’s correct or not, he knows he has to prove this with a computer-program, but he finds himself getting more and more sidetracked as he continues to get closer to completing his assignment. For one, he meets a lovely, incredibly smokin’ hot girl by the name of Bainsley (Mélanie Thierry), who he starts to fall in love with, even though he knows she’s a stripper and gets paid for a living to sweep guys like him off their feet. Also, to make matters a bit worse, he’s forced to work with Bob (Lucas Hodges), a young whippersnapper who has a lot to say and is trying to help Q out with solving this problem, but eventually finds himself trying to solve most of Q’s problems in real life. Which, at this current place in time, just so happens to be his affections for Bainsley.

“But I thought this was just a check-up?”

Though I’m not a huge fan of Terry Gilliam and most of the work he puts out, I have to give him credit for at least trying to give his audience something more, something creative, and most of all, something ambitious that most movie-going audiences wouldn’t normally have the chance to see. Some say that about Christopher Nolan (I’m one of them), but it’s obvious that they’re both two different film-makers; they may seem to be working for the same movie-going audience, but when it comes to see who actually sees their movies and why, it’s a bit different. Nolan’s crowd is the accessible, more mainstream crowd, whereas Gilliam’s audience is a tad more limited, meaning that it’s definitely the stranger type of crowd who swarm to see his movies.

However, that’s neither here nor there. The only problem I seem to have with Gilliam’s movies is that, most of the time, his ambitions seem to lose themselves and go over our heads. Much rather than seeming smart or interesting, they just seem random and relatively insane. And though one could make the argument that maybe this is exactly what Gilliam is going for, a part of me knows this not to be true and instead, knows that Gilliam’s going for something with his movies – they just don’t always work.

That said, a movie like the Zero Theorem is one that I’m able to give a pass. Because while it’s goofy, over-the-top, campy, and seemingly crazy, it never lost my interest and seemed to beg questions that deserved to begged about in the first place.

For instance, is this world we live in now (or the near-future), more comfortable with interacting with a computer-screen, disguised as another human being, much rather than actually going out there and communicating with others, face to face? This is an honest question that deserves to be brought up and while it may be nothing new, Gilliam still brings it up in a way that’s relevant, but seems pertinent to the story. The fact that Q is a computer-programmer of some sorts (his job title is never fully made clear to us), makes it easier to understand why he’d not only be so infatuated with someone through the wonderful, lovely world that is the internet, but actually go so far as to get distracted about the beautiful, pleasureful things it can bring to one’s life.

And though this may all seem preachy, Gilliam keeps it away from being as such and it’s a smart move on his part. It’s not the only one, but it’s the one I found most noticeable.

Another person worth mentioning here is Christoph Waltz as Q who, in one of his first roles that isn’t in a Quentin Tarantino movie, actually impressed me with what he was able to bring to the script and his character as a whole. While it’s easy to fall for Waltz in most movies where he’s constantly speaking, and using that silver-tongue of his, here, Waltz is simply made to react to everything and everyone around him. This not only brings a lot of comedy to the film, but makes us sympathize a bit more with this character who, in any other movie, could have been made out to be some sort of sad sack, miserable a-hole that nobody would want to be around. But because he’s in this world wherein he knows that everything means nothing, you sort of feel bad for the dude and want him to cheer up, smile a bit, and possibly forget all about the meaning of life. Just living it is enough, honestly.

I'll let her check my heartbeat any time.

I’ll let her give me some medicine for that cough of mine any time.

And because it’s easy to feel for Q, it’s also easier to feel for the other characters in this movie, as strange as they sometimes may be. As Bainsley, the webcam hooker/stripper, Mélanie Thierry not only fits the role of being incredibly gorgeous, but also is quite charming, which makes it easy to understand why she’d fall for such a nut-job like Q. Same goes for the characters played by Lucas Hodges and David Thewils; though they don’t necessarily “fall” for Q in the same way that Bainsley does (that would have been a whole different movie entirely), they still feel for the guy and be present in his company. Some of it’s because they like to laugh at his expense, but some of it is also because they want to help the guy and make the world seem a bit brighter and better for him, even if they know that the task is almost impossible to complete. But nonetheless, they’re mostly all sympathetic characters.

Most of this is, yes, because the cast is very good at helping us understand who these characters are a bit more, but also because Gilliam gives them enough detail here and there, that not only shows us that he cares for them, but wants them to be happy in the end as well. Being the storyteller he is, he knows that he has to stick to how he wants his story to end first and foremost, but at the end of it all, he remains hopeful and cheerful that they’ll get the life they oh so desire. Even if, like Q, he still can’t help but scoff at what it all means.

If anything at all.

Consensus: Weird and over-the-top, the Zero Theorem finds Terry Gilliam in his comfort-zone, but still allows himself to breathe a bit more with detailed characters, ideas about the way our society is headed, and why, if at all, any of it matters.

7 / 10 = Rental!!

Not Halloween, mind you. Just a normal Friday in the world of Gilliam-land.

Photo’s Credit to: IMDB, AceShowbiz

2010s, 7-7.5/10, Movies 2014, Alin Olteanu, Ben Whishaw, Christoph Waltz, Dana Rogoz, David Thewlis, Emil Hostina, George Remes, Gwendoline Christie, Ingrid Bisu, Iulia Verdes, Lucas Hedges, Madison Lygo, Margarita Doyle, Matt Damon, Mélanie Thierry, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Naomi Everson, Olivia Nita, Peter Stormare, Radu Andrei Micu, Radu Iacoban, Rupert Friend, Sanjeev Bhaskar, Terry Gilliam, The Zero Theorem, Tilda Swinton, Tudor Istodor

I Am Love (2010)

6 Comments Posted by Dan O. on August 9, 2014

Rich people sure do love their fine cuisines.

After a tight-knit, upper-class family all get together for a reunion of sorts, Emma Recchi (Tilda Swinton), the wife of a very wealthy businessman, finds herself in a bit of a rut. She’s confused about where she wants to go with her life, what does she want with it, and most of all, who does she love and who loves her in return? She juggles these questions around all of the time in her head, you can just tell, and they all get more complicated when her son’s associate (Edoardo Gabbriellini) catches her lustful eye. Now Emma has to take two things into consideration: Either stay with her husband and keep with the lavish life-style that she obviously enjoys being surrounded by, or go off, bang this young dude, stay with him, and risk losing it all. What’s a lady to do when she’s got young man-meat around her, huh?

It’s a pretty simple premise for a not-so simple movie, but that’s the joy of watching movies that are hard to read like this. Not only do they challenge you to understand what’s going on, but it doesn’t hold your hand or smash you over the head with what it thinks you should know about its story. You just sort of have to put the pieces of the puzzle together, look closer, and realize that there’s more brewing beneath the surface here, and that’s exactly what I felt watching this flick for a good hour. Everything just seemed to be working well, and I think that’s mainly a credited to writer/director Luca Guadagnino, who really has me interested with what he’s got coming out on his next.

“What? Am I not young and nimble enough for you? I could get eXtense, ya know?”

Main reason being, is that this dude knows how to make any image, whether it be plates of liquid-soup, the Tuscan Sun, or the narrow streets of Italy, just simply and utterly beautiful. The camera-work is astonishing with how he just follows the action and keeps up with it, but also keep’s an arms-length with it as well to where we aren’t up in everybody’s grill, nor do we lose track of the beauty in the visuals here. It’s all so pretty and it’s all so gorgeous to just stare and gaze at, and gets even better when you throw in the orchestra score as well. Even though it does seem to get bloated by the end, the score still keeps things very interesting and may even have your heart racing out of nowhere. It did it to me, and it totally surprised the hell out of me.

So basically, when it comes to the look, the sound, and the feel of this material Guadagnino’s using, the man’s got it all down to a T. It’s definitely slow and it obviously wants you to settle in and be ready for something crazy to happen in the last Act, but it works because of his fine eyes and ears for beauty and detail. However, the problem the dude runs into is that he can’t quite keep a full head of steam going once that last Act hits, where everything begins to get somewhat “loco”.

The script by Guadagnino obviously works and doesn’t bring us in too much to where we feel like we know where it’s going, how it’s going to end, and what’s going to happen to who, and so on and so forth, but it also doesn’t feel like it’s working up too much either. All of these family members have something going on in their lives that’s definitely shown and made a great deal of, but never to the full extent where we continue to get more and more development about it. The only development for these sub-plots that we get is the one with Emma, which seems pretty obvious why hers is because its Tilda Swinton, and the chick is obviously the lead character out of the rest of these material family-members. That’s why when the end does come around, most of you will be left scratching your head what the point behind all of this was, and mainly, why the hell did it have to end this way, among many other, countless ways?

“Yo, uhhh, could you like NOT bang my mom?”

I’m not going to give too much away and spoil the “fun” for the rest of you out there, gang, but I will caution you that the last 20 minutes are some pretty funny stuff, and they don’t mean to be. Hell, what happens at the end of the movie, I wouldn’t even call a “twist” per se, I’d more or less say it’s just a random occurrence that happens to a character, that’s relatively tragic, and puts everybody else in the flick in a bit of a rut, which bothered me because it seemed totally unnecessary and almost like it was slapping the rest of the flick that came before it in the face. Very melodramatic, very random, and very over-the-top in the type of way that you’d expect to see from an episode of All My Children; not a movie about a mother falling for her son’s much-younger friend.

Speaking of the said mother who fails for her son’s much-younger friend, Tilda Swinton is pretty damn great as Emma, despite not being a native of Milan and still being able to sound fluent in Italian. Swinton has always been a knock-out, drag-out actress who’s always scared me with the way she looks, but all of that crap aside, she’s pretty damn good here because she’s able to give Emma a bit of a breathing-compass that’s easy to feel something for, especially when she starts getting all hot and heavy with her little boy-toy. The basic problem is that even though she’s very good showing emotions within this character, we never really do get a full understanding of why it is that she feels so tempted by the act of infidelity, and why it has to be this dude? Granted, he’s young, Italian, a chef, and wears an apron many times they stumble upon one another, but what makes him so freakin’ awesome that she has to totally throw away all of her years of marriage? Nothing really, but the movie never touches on that aspect of his and her character, so therefore, were just left to make up our own minds and wonder what’s up with this older-gal.

Consensus: For a good hour or so, I Am Love is very compelling, but moreso in a way that’s about its visuals, way of story-telling, and overall mood, but then dives right into the category of melodrama, and gets very laughable, very quick.

6.5 / 10 = Rental!!

Tilda: So majestic, so not Italian.

2010s, 6-6.5/10, Movies 2010, Alba Rohrwacher, Diane Fleri, Edoardo Gabbriellini, Elena Pavli, Flavio Parenti, Gabriele Ferzetti, I Am Love, Luca Guadagnino, Maria Paiato, Marisa Berenson, Martina Codecasa, Mattia Zaccaro, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Pippo Delbono, Tilda Swinton, Waris Ahluwalia

Snowpiercer (2014)

31 Comments Posted by Dan O. on July 5, 2014

Public transportation really is a pain.

In 2014, the government is afraid that global warming will rip our worlds to shreds, so they decide to test out an experiment which will supposedly counteract it. The problem is, that doesn’t happen. Instead, nearly all life on Earth is knocked out, with only a few hundred or so left riding on this super duper, seemingly never-ending train called “the Snowpiercer”. It doesn’t seem ideal at first, but when the world outside of you is a frozen wonderland, you take what you can get; but don’t tell that to those who have to stay, live and survive at the tail-end of the train. They’re considered “the low-life’s of society” that live poor, dress poor, and eat these black gelatin-bricks, they’re are told is “protein”; whereas the rich sit up front, eat their steaks and live in total luxury. It’s been like this for quite some time, but finally, the poor have had enough of being treated like total and utter crap! That’s when Curtis Everett (Chris Evans) decides that it’s his time to step up, take charge and map-out a way to get to the front of the train, find the creator, find that engine, and basically, take over the train as a whole. Sounds simple enough, but with the riot-team this train has, getting there is only half of the mission.

It’s taken quite some time for us Americans to get to see this movie, but finally, Bong Joon-ho’s English-language debut is here! And yes, even though I just recently got into him, I have to say, from what I’ve seen so far, I’ve been impressed. I like how Joon-ho is seemingly able to take all of these different genres of film, throw them into a blender, add a drop of sugar or two, and somehow, still be able to have it all come out fun, exciting, interesting, original, and best of all, cohesive.

“Call me ‘Cap’, one more time.”

That’s why, as ambitious as this project sounds, I was a little weary. Not because the reviews for it haven’t been good (actually, quite the opposite), but because it seemed like the type of film that gets so hyped-up in the States, because it’s so different/original from anything our lazy, cheeseburger-lovin’ asses see. It doesn’t matter if the film is bad or anything, as long as it features something else other than giant robots facing off against one another, then hey, strap me in coach, I’m ready to play. Personally, I don’t mind that with some movies, but maybe with this here flick, I was more inclined to be against it, solely because everybody and their weird, stay-inside-all-day-nerdy-brothers are loving the hell out of it.

But fear not, ladies and germs! DTMMR has seen Snowpiercer and yet again, DTMMR has given into what the rest of the world has been saying: It’s pretty rad.

That said, the movie isn’t perfect and I think that’s the most important fact to note right away. Because see, while this movie is all sorts of ambitious, strange and, for lack of a better word, “different”, it can be a bit messy. Not just with the action that spills out all over the place at times, but because the balance Joon-ho has here between having people beat the bloody hell out of one another, with said people sitting down, chatting about life and what it all means, isn’t very well-done. You can tell whenever the brakes on this movie are hit, because it doesn’t just slow everything down to a slower-speed, it slows absolutely everything down to a freakin’ halt.

That’s not to say that whenever the movie wanted to sit down, chat for awhile and be more than just “poor vs. rich; fuck yeah!”, it was bad or annoying, it was just clearly obvious that Joon-ho felt like he had to include those moments in there, just so that people wouldn’t be upset that there wasn’t any “substance” behind all of the brutal murders and acts of violence. And although those said brutal murders and acts of violence are a bunch of juicy-fun to watch and see play out, there was still a desperate need for this movie to be about something “more”. Not just in the existential-crisis kind of way where we all take a break or two from the action, to sit around and cry for hours on end about how, one day, we’re all going to die; but in the way that we’re given a story that feels like there’s a reason to it existing.

And for the most part, Joon-ho totally delivers on that point. Not because it’s fun to see a bunch of poor people dressed like chimney-sweepers from a Dickens novel, battle it out with a bunch of riot police, but because you get lost in their cause and what it is that they want. Although, I will admit, it was more interesting seeing as how this movie never quite addresses what it is that these poor ones are wholly fighting for; sure, they want to get to the front of the train, get to that engine, talk to the owner of it and become the big men and women on campus, but in all honesty, what exactly is it that they’re going to do when they get up there? It’s never really brought to our attentions (not just by the film, but by the characters themselves), which is why it’s so thrilling to see them battle their way to the front, and even more thrilling to watch them as they figure out and come to the realization that they have to think of something, and something quick if they want this train to be theirs.

That the film doesn’t feel the need to hit us over the head with non-stop “we’re the 1%” metaphors, really felt like a refresher. But was even more refreshing was just seeing an sci-fi/action blockbuster be exactly all that it should be. It has heart; it has originality; it has blood; it has violence; it has fun; it has sci-fi; it has themes about people taking over control of a situation that they either can’t get out of, or don’t want in the first place that almost everyone can relate to (looking at you, Grandpa); and, to add a cherry on top, there’s a wonderful ensemble cast to go along the ride with as well.

Also, another interesting note to be made about this movie, is it’s cast. Not only are there some pretty big names, but they all comes from different shapes, sizes and regions of the world that it feels so strange having them together, on the same screen at times. Sure, I expected Jamie Bell and John Hurt to eventually cross paths in the film world, but you could have never told me that you’d expect to see Ewen Bremner and Octavia Spencer just hanging out, side-by-side, giving their enemies hell. Then again, maybe you could; maybe, I’m just a strange duckling. But either way, it’s a pretty unique cast that not only works to the movie’s advantage, but also helps make the idea of the whole world being thrown onto this ultra-train all the more believable.

Tilda Swinton wants YOU to spend your money on this movie, and stop giving it to Michael Bay.

You can’t just have a dystopian-set futuristic world in which survivors from all throughout the globe have survived, and there be all American white guys just hanging around and shooting the shit about the good old days of bull-shitting about the Bush administration. This is the world, man! And last time I checked: It’s pretty damn big!

But although the cast is huge and pretty eclectic, the one who really leads this to the finish line is none other than an American white guy as is: Chris Evans.

Yes, for most of you hormone-fueled women (as well as gay man), Chris Evans has definitely been the pleasure of your eye-lids for quite some time, but he’s changing that all up now with this role. Not by throwing some dirt on himself and growing a beard, but by showing us that he’s an actor baby, and that he can sure as hell do exactly that, which is act! I’ve always had much faith in Evans as an actor, and here, he’s given free reign to not only command this group of his and be a leader, but also command this movie into being something more than just a sci-fi tale full of havoc, blood and destruction. He gives it some levity; most importantly so during one of the last scenes in the movie in which he talks about his history on that train, why he needs to do what he needs to do, and the type of effect it’s had on him for the past twenty or so years. Not only is it one of the most emotional scenes of the whole movie (of which there isn’t many), but it’s definitely the pinnacle of Evan’s acting-ability and shows that he can play both tough, angry, and emotionally distraught, all at the same time.

A very impressive feat. Try topping that, Downey.

Consensus: Internally, Snowpiercer is a messy flick, but it’s hardly ever boring, intriguing, nor against a crazy, out-of-the-box idea it didn’t like, making it one of the better, more memorable blockbusters of the summer.

8.5 / 10 = Matinee!!

Guess they don't have showers in the future. Oh well. Works for me!

Guess they don’t have showers in the future. Yay! Now I’d have an excuse!

Photo’s Credit to: IMDB, AceShowbiz

2010s, 8-8.5/10, Movies 2014, Adnan Haskovic, Ah-sung Ko, Alison Pill, Ana Braun, Brian Colin Foley, Chris Evans, Clark Middleton, Ed Harris, Emma Levie, Ewen Bremner, Griffin Seymour, Haruna Honcoop, Igor Juric, Jamie Bell, Jim High, John Hurt, Joon-ho Bong, Joseph Bertot, Kang-ho Song, Kendrick Ong, Kenny Doughty, Kojo Asiedu, Luke Pasqualino, Luna Sophia Bar-Cohen, Marcanthonee Reis, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Octavia Spencer, Paul Lazar, Peter Hallin, Sean Connor Renwick, Snowpiercer, Steve Park, Tómas Lemarquis, Tilda Swinton, Tyler John Williams, Vlad Ivanov

Only Lovers Left Alive (2014)

21 Comments Posted by Dan O. on April 28, 2014

Vampires were so 20th Century.

Adam (Tom Hiddleston) and Eve (Tilda Swinton) are two vampires living in the 21st Century. They’re both in love, married and have been living for a very long awhile, and it’s sort of beginning to take a toll on them. Maybe less so on Eve as she’s just happy with the way life has turned out for her and spends her nights reading, walking through the streets of Tangier, and meeting up with her blood supplier, Kid (John Hurt). As for Adam, however, he’s a bit less happy with life. He’s dark, moody and all alone, living in Detroit, yet, he makes music for the underground scene that is a big hit amongst the cool crowd, even though most of them don’t know who he is or where he lives. He too has a blood supplier in the form of Dr. Watson (Jeffrey Wright), in which he pays the big bucks to keep his life going on even longer. Problem is, he’s starting to feel like life really isn’t worth living, which is when Eve decides to come up to Detroit and visit him, where they hang around, drive, listen to music and get an unexpected visit from her sister, Ava (Mia Wasikowska), who causes all sorts of trouble for them.

I don’t think I stand alone when I say that I am absolutely tired of vampire movies. Nor do I really want to think of one directed by Jim Jarmusch – the kind of director I get and understand his intentions with certain movies, but I still don’t really know if I “like”. So, with those two aspects put together, I knew one thing for certain: I was not looking forward to this. But, being the type of dedicated movie-lover I am, I gave it a watch and believe it or not, things came out a lot better than I expected.

Don't always believe it when I guy tells you "Hendrix played it once". We've all fallen for that sham at least once.

Don’t always believe it when a guy tells you “Hendrix once played on it”. We’ve all fallen for that sham at least once.

For starters, this is definitely not the type of vampire movie I was expecting to see. There’s barely any bystanders getting bitten in the necks, hardly any violence, and only small doses of blood being shown to us. Other than that, everything’s pretty laid-back, cool and calm, in a way that I expected to see Jarmusch use. However, it never felt meandering here like it has with many of his past flicks; much rather, it seemed like Jarmusch had a reason to slow down the pace of this movie. Not to just pay attention to these characters and give us sympathetic blood-suckers, but actually shed a light on the world around us.

See, if you think about it, the way this movie frames both Adam and Eve (geddit!?!?!) is that they’re, essentially, the two, biggest hipsters of the 21st Century. They think they are better than everybody, refer to humans as “zombies”, listen to obscure, R&B hits from the 60’s and 70’s, where sunglasses wherever they go (mostly at night, of course), and even discuss Nikola Tesla and Einstein. If those aren’t recipes for the two biggest tools on the face of the planet, then I have no clue what is.

But here’s the thing about this movie and these characters: They’re supposed to be like this. Vampires, especially these two in particular, are immortal and have lived through it all, seen it all, experienced it all, etc. So, it makes sense that they would not only talk so negatively about those that surround them that aren’t their kind, but also be able to talk about such historical-figures like Christopher Marlowe, or Shakespeare, or even Robert Schuman for that matter. If these two were two, actual human beings placed in some random indie, they’d be absolutely insufferable. However, since they are vampires and have been living, breathing and drinking other people’s blood for as long as time can go back to, they just seem like themselves, no frills attached.

Because of that, we not only like Adam and Eve, but sort of see what it is that they are saying about the world around them. Yes, humans as a species, are dumb and don’t always make the right choices. However, there’s also something about humanity and the way it can end seemingly at any second, that gives those reasons to live. We can enjoy life, hold it in our hands, and do whatever it is we want with it, because we all know that one day, it’s all going to end. It’s sad, but that’s the reality of life, man.

Not the reaction I have to drinking blood, but hey, whatever floats her boat.

And with these two vampires, you can see that living through everything the world has brought to them, really is taking a toll on them. They’re not necessarily so tired with life that they want to end it any second (except maybe less so in Eve’s case than Adam’s), but they do feel as if they have so much damn time on their hands, that what is really the point of it all. It’s a sad existence those vampires are forced to live, which is why it’s easy to care for both Adam and Eve, if only because they know how to survive and do it the right way without anybody really getting hurt because of so.

Of course both Tom Hiddleston and Tilda Swinton are the main reasons why we feel this way towards Adam and Eve, but it’s also the way in which Jarmusch just keeps his attention solely on them, their daily-interactions and how it is they get by in life. He doesn’t necessarily change anything up about the conventions vampires have, but he does do some neat and cool things with the idea of having a vampire be, what is essentially a hipster living amongst everyday society. They’re almost human-like, except for the facts that they live off of blood, can’t let the sunlight hit them, walk into some place without being invited in, nor even see their reflections. However, it’s much less about these rules and standards that have been handed-down from the beginning of time that matter, and more about how these vampires are ones we actually care for and don’t totally loathe.

Take that, Bella and Edward!

Consensus: Slower than what most are used to expecting with movies about vampires, Only Lovers Left Alive shines an alluring eye on its sympathetic characters, while also realizing the realities they are placed into and why being human does matter, if it can be sometimes meaningless.

8 / 10 = Matinee!!

True love. Not like this crap.

Photo’s Credit to: IMDB, Collider

2010s, 8-8.5/10, Movies 2014, Ali Amine, Anton Yelchin, Aurelie Thepaut, Carter Logan, Cody Stauber, Jeffrey Wright, Jim Jarmusch, John Hurt, Kamal Moummad, Mia Wasikowska, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Only Lovers Left Alive, Slimane Dazi, Tilda Swinton, Tom Hiddleston, Wayne Brinston, Yasmine Hamdan

The Limits of Control (2009)

19 Comments Posted by Dan O. on April 24, 2014

Hiring a guy who doesn’t talk at all to kill somebody, actually seems like a pretty wise business-decision.

A lone man (Isaach de Bankolé) sets out to do a job he has been hired to do. Though it’s not exactly clear what this job is, he knows that the only way to get it done without any screw-ups is to have no sex, drugs, booze or even fun. Yes, pretty much the life of this lone man is to just sit around at a cafe, have two espressos (in separate cups, mind you) and wait around for something to happen. Somehow, it does, but without him or any of us watching at home, knowing. A woman who fantasizes about Hitchock’s movies (Tilda Swinton) comes around; a guy who discusses the meaning of the word “Bohemian” (John Hurt); and a random, Hispanic man (Gael García Bernal) gives him a guitar. It doesn’t make any sense, but apparently it’s supposed to lead us to the one rich, powerful man we’ve been waiting for this whole time (Bill Murray).

Listen, I know I’m not the biggest Jim Jarmusch fan out there. So I’m not going to try and sit here and act as if I am totally and utterly surprised that this movie turned-out to be just one, two-hour-long film about practically nothing. I kid you not, there is literally nothing to hold onto here. And in a way, I sort of get it.

I get that Jarmusch is trying to make the perfect, quintessential “anti-thriller”. For instance, early on in the movie, our hired-killer is told that “everything is subjective”, meaning that just about every decision or choice he makes, is totally up to him. However, I read that as a way of Jarmusch trying to tell us that yes, as boring and repetitious as this movie may be, it is up to us to look further into it and make up our own minds about what he’s trying to do. He’s not going to flat-out tell us, straight-up what message or mood he’s trying to convey.

There Paz de la Huerta goes again with no clothes on!

There that Paz de la Huerta goes again with no clothes on!

Which, as a movie-goer that appreciates a bit more of a thinking-process involved with the entertainment of watching movies, is something I have to respect. It’s very so rare to where I get to watch a film of where everything is practically left open to my interpretation. Not those thousands and thousands of others across the globe that are yelling about it and discussing it all over message boards (if they even have such a thing for Jim Jarmusch movies), but me. Me and myself alone!

However, I will admit, that even on some occasions, a little hand-holding could do me some good and this was one of those instances where I needed more than just hand-holding – I needed a freakin’ grab of the head, letting me know just of where the hell this was going! Seriously.

I mean, for the first 20 minutes of this thing, I stayed interested. I knew it was going to keep on moving with the same downtrodden, slow-as-molasses pace, so I should have just stayed happy with it, but that’s not all that happens. Rather than actually having this movie go on for so long, as slow as it does, we never get any characterization of anybody we are introduced to whatsoever. Heck, I don’t even think we get a single person’s name! Just “person with blonde wig”, or “Mexican dude”. That’s pretty much it and it frustrated the hell out of me after awhile because I never got a single clue as to who these people were that kept on popping in and out, why they mattered and if I needed to know anything about them whatsoever to further enhance the plot.

And mostly, these characters that just randomly show up here and there, are meant to be random and slightly idiosyncratic. I get that was the point and because of that being so, some of the performances are actually pretty entertaining; John Hurt, in particular, as the kind of spirited, energetic guy a movie like this needs to keep viewers awake. However, the point was thrown out the window once one of the characters plays a bit of a bigger part later in the movie, where we’re supposed to have a certain feeling towards them and whatever bad stuff is happening to them. Instead of giving the movie that pleasure of having them feel like they’ve really done a number on me, I had no idea what the hell was going, so I was more puzzled than anything.

Eventually though, that confused feeling turned into just downright anger with this movie. After awhile, I stopped caring about anything, or anybody for that matter. The only scene that actually had me awake by the later-part was when we’re suddenly placed into a dance club where people are making out, dancing, singing, drinking, and having a good time, while the lone man we’re stuck with, just stares on and has a weird, somewhat creepy smirk on his face. The only two reasons why this scene comes to my mind in particular is because it woke me the hell up, and also, because LCD Soundsystem is the band playing in the background during this scene.

Get the Hitchcock thing now? Yeah, me neither.

So yeah, anytime James Murphy is in a movie, without actually being in the movie, not only is it made a bit better, but also keeps my eyes open, if only for ten minutes longer.

Sadly though, James Murphy, believe it or not, was not enough to save this movie. Most of the problems with this movie you could chalk up to Jim Jarmusch and his reliance on just being as vague as humanly possible, and I don’t think you’d be at all wrong in doing that. Usually his sense of an offbeat style works so well for him and the characters he’s building, but here, it really seemed to work against him. Didn’t work for him, the movie, his cast or even most of whom saw this movie. But then again, I guess a 44% ain’t all that bad!

WAIT, WHAT?!?!? 44%!??!? FOR THIS HUNK OF CRAP!?!?!

Consensus: Though it’s easy to understand what Jim Jarmusch is trying to do with the Limits of Control‘s relaxed pace, it never builds to anything, except for maybe total confusion as to who everybody is, why they matter and why we’re even watching this two-hour slog in the first place.

2 / 10 = Crapola!!

The pretentiousness! Ek!

Photo’s Credit to: IMDB, Joblo, ComingSoon.net

2-2.5/10, 2000s, Movies 2009, Adolfina Escoriza Cano, Alba María Villaneva, Alejandro Muñoz Biggie, Alex Descas, Ángel Dominguez Duran, Bill Murray, Carlos Martorell Ypiens, Cristina Sierra Sánchez, Dolores Jimenez, Felipe García, Ferran Rial, Flo Ankah, Francisco Álvarez de la Morena, Gael García Bernal, Héctor Colomé, Henar Sánchez, Hiam Abbass, Ignacio Ramos, Isaach De Bankolé, Jean-François Stévenin, Jesús Losada Abadía, Jim Jarmusch, John Hurt, Jon Ánder Aguirrezábal, Jorge Rodriguez Padilla, José Corbacho, Juan Carlos Garrido, La Truco, Luis Tosar, María Isasi, María José Rodríguez, Mercedes Leoni, Miguel Alcibar, Miguel Casas García, Miguel Gabin Álvarez, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Norma Yessenia Paladines, Oscar Jaenada, Pablo García Lloret, Pablo Lucas Ortega, Paz de la Huerta, Richard Diment, Rubén Quiñonez, Santiago Bravo, Saskia Gonzalez, Talegón de Córdoba, The Limits of Control, Tilda Swinton, Víctor Ariel Raigón, Verónica Barberis, Victor Vaquero, Youki Kudoh

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

34 Comments Posted by Dan O. on March 7, 2014

This type of nonsense would never occur at a Motel 6! That’s for certain!

In 1968, a writer (Jude Law), staying at a beaten-up, run-down hotel called “the Grand Budapest Hotel” meets millionaire Zero Moustafa (F. Murray Abraham), who apparently has a lot to do with the history of this hotel – the same type of history not many people actually know the exact story to. Together, the two decide to meet-up, have dinner and allow for Moustafa to tell his story and why he is the way he is nowadays. The story goes a little something like this: Back in 1932, young Zero (Tony Revolori) was hired as a Lobby Boy at the hotel, where he eventually became concierge Gustave H.’s (Ralph Fiennes) second-hand-in-command. Gustave, for lack of a better term, is Zero’s role-model and he’s a pretty darn good one at that: Not only does he treat his guests with love, affection and respect, but he even gives them a little “something” more in private. And apparently, he treats one guest of his, Madame D. (Tilda Swinton), so well, that he’s apparently the owner of one of her prized-possessions, the same prized possession that her bratty son Dmitri (Adrien Brody) won’t let him have. But you can’t tell Gustave “no”, when he knows what is rightfully his, so therefore, he takes it, which leads onto all sorts of other crazy, wacky and sometimes deadly, hijinx.

So yeah, for the past week, I’ve been kicking ass and taking names with all of these Wes Anderson movies, and if there is one thing that I myself (as well as most of you) have learned about, is that I really do love his movies. I mean, yeah, I knew Wes Anderson has always been a favorite of mine, but what really surprised me with this past week is that not only have I been watching and taking note of how his style changes over time (or in some cases, doesn’t), but also, how he’s grown as a film maker and decided to get a whole lot more ambitious.

Okay, but on a serious note: Did the elevator really have to be THAT red? You know what, never mind!

And I don’t mean “ambitious” in the form that his movies are a whole lot bigger or more ensemble-driven, but more that they tackle on so many different-threads of meaning, rather than just being all about family-issues amongst a group of dysfunctional, troubled-characters. Don’t get me wrong, I usually love those said “family-issues”, but even I know when it’s time to move on, start trying something new and most of all, stretching yourself as a writer, director and overall creator.

Thankfully, not just for me, or you, or even Wes Anderson, but for all of us: Wes has finally shown us that he’s ready to take a swan-dive out of his comfort-zone and shock us with something that he’s almost never done before.

Key word being “almost”. More on that later, though.

First things first, I feel as if I am going to talk about any notable, positive aspect of this movie, it’s going to be the overall-style. Now, I think we’ve all known Anderson to be a bit of an eye-catcher with the way he has his flicks so colorful and bright, that you almost practically go blind because of them; but this, he truly has out-done himself. Since most of where this story takes place is made-up inside that creative little noggin of his, Anderson is practically given free-reign to just ran rampant with his imagination, where every set looks as if it was taken-out of an historic, field-trip brochure, dibbled and dabbled with some pretty colors, and thrown right behind everything that happens here. In some cases, that would usually take away from a film and be just another case of a director getting too “artsy fartsy”, but due to how crazy and rumpus most of this story is, it actually helps blend these characters in to their surroundings, as well as make this world we are watching seem like a believable one, even if they are so clearly made-up.

Which is why this is probably Anderson’s most exciting movie to-date. Of course though, Anderson’s other movies like Rushmore and even Bottle Rocket had an hectic-feel to them, but they were done so in a type of small, contained and dramatic-way – here, the movie is all about the vast, never ending canvas surrounding each and every one of these characters, and just how far it can be stretched-out for. So while those other movies of Anderson’s may have had a sense of adventure where a character would want to get out of the house, only to go running around in the streets, here, you have a bunch of characters who not only want to get out of their household, or wherever the hell they may be staying at, and get out there in the world where anything is possible. They could either go running, jogging, skiing, sight-seeing, train-riding, bicycle-hopping, parachuting, and etc. Anywhere they want to go, by any mode of transportation whatsoever, they are able to and it gives us this idea that we are not only inside the mind of Anderson and all of his play-things, but we are also stuck inside of his world, where joy and happiness is all around.

Though, there definitely are some dark elements to this story that do show up, in some awkward ways as well, the story never feels like it is too heavy on one aspect that could bring the whole movie crashing down. Instead, Anderson whisks, speeds through and jumps by everything, giving us the feeling that this is a ride that’s never going to end, nor do we want to end; we’re just too busy and pleased to be enjoying the scenery, as well as all of the fine, and nifty characters that happen to go along with it.

And with this ensemble, you couldn’t ask for anybody better! Ralph Fiennes isn’t just an interesting choice for the character of Gustave, but he’s also an interesting choice to play the lead in a Wes Anderson movie. We all know and love Fiennes for being able to class it up in anywhere he shows his charmingly handsome face, but the verdict is still out there on the guy as to whether or not he can actually be, well, “funny”. Sure, the dude was downright hilarious in In Bruges, but being that he had a dynamite-script to work with and was one out of three other main-characters, did the dude have much of a choice? Not really, but that’s besides the point!

What is the point, is that I was a little weary of Fiennes in a Wes Anderson movie, where most of the time, comedy and drama go side-by-side and would need all of the best talents to make that mixture look and feel cohesive. Thankfully, Fiennes not only proves that he’s able to make any kind of silly-dialogue the least bit “respectable”, but that he’s also able to switch his comedy-timing on and off, giving us a character we not only love and adore every time he’s up on the screen, but wish we saw more of. Because, without giving too much away, there are brief snippets of time where we don’t get to always be in the company of Gustave, and when those passages in time happen, they do take away from the movie.

No Luke?!?! Fine! I guess this chump’ll do!

It isn’t that nobody else in this movie is capable enough of handling the screen all to themselves, but it’s so clear, early on, that Anderson clearly beholds this character as much as we do, and we can’t help but follow suit and wish to see him all of the time. Most of that’s because of Anderson’s witty and snappy dialogue that’s given to Fiennes to work with, but most of that is also because Fiennes is such a charismatic-presence that the fact of him actually making me, or anybody laugh, is enough to make you want to see a biopic made about him, and him alone.

But, like I was saying before, the rest of the ensemble is fine, it’s just that Fiennes was clearly meant to be the star of the show and plays it as such. Newcomer Tony Revolori feels like a perfect-fit for Anderson’s deadpan, sometimes outrageous brand of humor that’s practically winking at itself. What’s also worth praising a hell of a whole lot about Revolori is how he more than holds his own when he’s stacked-up against certain presences that aren’t just Fiennes (although the two make for a wonderful duo that they are another reason why it sucks whenever Gustave isn’t around). All of these other familiar faces that pop-up like Bill Murray, and Owen Wilson, and Saoirse Ronan, and even Jeff fuckin’ Goldblum are all great, but surprisingly, Revolori doesn’t get over-shadowed and keeps the heart and soul of the story clearly alongside with him, as it was intended to be. And yes, even though that heart may not be the most richest, most powerfully emotional we’ve ever seen Anderson bring to the screen before, it’s still the same kind of heart that has go along with Anderson on any ride he takes us, all because we know that, at the end, it’s all going to be totally worth it.

That, and also, that we’ll have something new to recommend to our white friends.

Consensus: The Grand Budapest Hotel is definitely Wes Anderson’s most ambitious work to-date, meaning that we get plenty of laughs, jumps, thrills, some chills, heart and enough familiar, talented-faces working with some wacky, but fun material from one of our finest writers/directors working today.

8 / 10 = Matinee!!

All in the ‘stache, ladies. All in the ‘stache.

Photo’s Credit to: IMDB, Collider, Joblo, ComingSoon.net

2010s, 8-8.5/10, Movies 2014, Adrien Brody, Bill Murray, Bob Balaban, Edward Norton, F. Murray Abraham, Fisher Stevens, Harvey Keitel, In Bruges, Jason Schwartzman, Jeff Goldblum, Jude Law, Léa Seydoux, Mathieu Amalric, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Owen Wilson, Ralph Fiennes, Saoirse Ronan, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Tilda Swinton, Tom Wilkinson, Tony Revelori, Wes Anderson, Willem Dafoe

Constantine (2005)

36 Comments Posted by Dan O. on November 19, 2013

Cigarettes are the devil.

John Constantine (Keanu Reeves) was born with a gift that gave him the ability to recognise the half-breed angels and demons that walk the earth in human camouflage. It’s not something he wanted, but it was the hand he was dealt, so there’s not much else he can do with it other than drive the demons off of this Earth from hurting humans, and just smoke his life away. He seems pretty content on spending the rest of his days like this, that is all until police detective Angela Dodson’s (Rachel Weisz) twin-sister jumps off of a balcony, plummeting to her death. However, right before she decided to go sidewalk-diving, she apparently turned to the security-camera watching her uttering his name. Dodson knows that there’s something more powerful going on here than just a sudden burst of suicidal thoughts, so she decides to ring Constantine up, despite his best wishes to, once again, be left alone to smoke and fight evil for the rest of his days. But now, Constantine realizes there may be a way to save Dodson’s sister’s life, even if that does mean putting himself clearly in harms way.

A lot of people have made a stink about this movie and the choice in which Keanu Reeves was to play the titular character of the famous comics, John Constantine. While I have never read the comics, meaning I don’t have much of an opinion as if he perfectly solidifies this character or not, it doesn’t matter because Keanu Reeves, no matter what bad stuff you may hear about him, is STILL a movie star, and can take any piece of material, find a way to make it interesting and be able to get people to watch him do what it is that he’s doing, despite us all knowing he’s not-that good of an actor. That’s the reality of it, but we should all just get by that right now and move on. Shall we?

Hey, at least she didn’t leave Darren Aronofsky for THIS co-star of hers.

Anyway, what this movie does do well is that it sets its story up with a unique tone. Seeing this movie and material from afar, some would probably bet this to be an overly-serious, religious-themed thriller that’s all about demons, gods, angels and all sorts of other biblical references to where you feel like you’re back in Sunday School, but the movie has a little bit of fun with itself, right before it dives right into that cheesiness. Constantine’s played-up more as an anti-hero that always has something nifty to say, has his pack of smokes handy and basically knows what it is that he has to do next, at any given time. The movie sets us up with this cool-as-molasses character right away, gives us a tone that’s at times goofy, but darkly so, and has us feel like if the rest of the movie continues on like this, we may just have ourselves a clear-defined winner of religious-themed, action-thrillers, among the other religious-themed, action-thrillers (of which there are many, I think).

However, about half-way through, once the real bulk of this story gets introduced to us, things begin to slowly go downhill. For starters, the movie is over two-hours long, which already gives you the impression that no matter what it is that this flick does with its story, it must do it quick and easy, just so it doesn’t feel like a three-hour epic along the likes of Ben-Hur or The Ten Commandments (and yes, I know those two are way, WAY longer than just “two-hours”). But needless to say, despite him having a clear-eye for what it is that he wants to tell us about this story and this main character, director Francis Lawrence still can’t seem to get himself away from all of the constant-exposition that usually brings these types of movies to a screeching-halt.

With a story of this matter, it’s not like you don’t need to know the ins, the outs and whereabouts of when Satan was born, how, where and why he matters now, it’s just that there is a more efficient way to tell that, among many other parts of the story, without having it seem like a total snooze-fest that’s so repetitive, you don’t even care if it makes sense or not. Instead, you just want to see this Constantine guy put his feet into water, grab a cat, start meditating and all of a sudden, be thrown into this dark after-world, where all he does is battle demons. Yes, that scene does happen and it’s pretty cool, but it’s in the middle of non-stop dialogue-heavy scenes where people just use a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, that can easily get passed off as “religious”.

Dumb, dumb, dumb, I say!

As we all know though, once the middle-half of a movie goes by and we feel as if we’ve been more-than introduced to this story and the characters that inhabit it, then things begin to get fun, and that’s the truth with this flick. While it does get really goofy and cheesy by the end with all of the CGI, the movie still kept me entertained and feeling as if I was just watching a piece of science-fiction, rather than something that was supposed to have a deeper-meaning because it used biblical-figures like Gabriel or Lucifer himself (perfectly given the nickname of “Lou”; whatta cool guy). Some may be enraged by me saying something like that, but it helped me get through the movie a lot easier. So crucify me if you must, but I was just trying to make the pill go down easier.

“Did I hear somebody talking about ‘a machinehead’?”

And yes, I did use a “pill joke” there because Keanu stars in this and yes, he is like I said before: Stiff, tired and dull, but he’s still fun to watch. He makes Constantine the type of witty bad-ass a movie of this nature needs to move along and survive by, and without him, I don’t really know who else I could see doing it. Maybe if I read the comics I would know, but for right now, it seems like Neo was a pretty solid choice in the first place. Rachel Weisz, despite her credible acting-abilities, is sort of left without much to do other than work-off of the blank piece-of-paper that is Keanu Reeves’ screen-presence, but she makes it interesting enough, to say the least. Still though, this would be released in the same year that she won her Oscar, so I guess all was forgiven after awhile.

As okay as these two are in the lead roles, they’re sort of given the standard-roles where all they have to do is all act all plain and simple, amongst all of their crazy, bat-shit surroundings, which doesn’t just limit itself to the atmosphere and the story, but the fun and energetic supporting cast as well. Shia LaBeouf gets his first, real taste in mainstream cinema as Constantine’s lacky and shows that he has the ability to be charming and a bit annoying at the same time, but rightfully so; Djimon Hounsou plays a strange, voodoo-like conjurer called Papa Midnite, who doesn’t take sides between the angels and the demons, yet, sees himself leaning more towards the demons, just because the plot needs him to do so; Gavin Rossdale is charming as the cunning Balthazar, showing us that in the year 2005, he was still staying relevant by doing this and Gwen Stefani at the same time (bastard); Tilda Swinton shows up early on as the angel Gabriel, and isn’t heard from in quite awhile, until she shows up later and does what she does best; and Peter Stormare plays the infamous Lou, giving him all the likable, but evil charm we’d expect to see when Peter Stormare is playing the man also known as Satan himself. If that isn’t what the devil’s really like, then I have no clue what a better personification truly is!

Consensus: Juggles itself around with being overtly-serious at certain times, and campy-but-fun at others, but at the end of the day, Constantine is just a fun, cool-looking and feeling religious-themed action-thriller that somehow benefits from the deadly-charm of Keanu Reeves and the rest of his able cast.

6.5 / 10 = Rental!!

“WOAAAAAAAAAAH!!!”

Photo’s Credit to: IMDB, ComingSoon.net

1950s and below 2005, Abe Pagtama, Alice Lo, Andres Londono, Ann Ryerson, April Grace, April Malina, Barbara Pilavin, Ben-Hur, Billy Million, C.W. Pyun, Chad Stahelski, Connor Dylan Wryn, Constantine, Djimon Hounsou, Domino Harvey, Edward J. Rosen, Eileen Dietz, Erik Rusnak, Francis Guinan, Francis Lawrence, Gary Sievers, Gavin Rossdale, Gwen Stefani, Jeremy Ray Valdez, Jesse Ramirez, Jhoanna Trias, Joey Paul Gowdy, John Gipson, José Zúñiga, Jose Molina, Keanu Reeves, Kevin Alejandro, Kevin Eckhardt, Larry Cedar, Laz Alonso, Mahryah Shain, Martin Pierron, Matthew McGrory, Max Baker, Michelle Monaghan, Mohammed Hassan, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Nicholas Downs, Peter Stormare, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Quinn Buniel, R.A. Rondell, Rachel Weisz, Robbin Ryan, Roberto Kawata, Sharon Omi, Shia Labeouf, Stephanie Fabian, Suzanne Whang, Tanoai Reed, The Ten Commandments, Tilda Swinton, Tony Swift, Valerie Azlynn, Wesley John

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

19 Comments Posted by Dan O. on January 5, 2013

No matter how grand or wonderful your life is, you still end up shitting your pants. Message of the day, everyone.

Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt) was born on the Day the Great War (WWI) ended. That was supposed to be lucky day to be born on but this was an unlucky case because Button was born old, week and dyeing. Benjamin is now living his life in reverse and dealing with the hard ships that have to occur with such an unfortunate circumstance as this.

Watching this movie almost 5 years after I originally saw it really has me thinking, “Did I really just love this movie because I wasn’t that cinematically-inclined yet? Or, was it just that I loved this movie because it was a good movie?”. Those thoughts go through my head, each and every single time I even bother watching/reviewing a flick that I saw so long ago, way before I even thought about this website. Some of them turn-out to be the great story that I once remembered them as being, and others, well, thanks to my knowledge of what’s right and what’s wrong with a movie, make me realize that I had plenty of years to grab a hold of my movie-knowing mind. Somehow, this movie, is somewhere right in the middle and I have yet to make-up my mind. Oh well, hopefully I will by the end of this loooooooooong review.

The reason why I put such a strain on the word, “long”, was because that is exactly what this flick is and to be honest: it doesn’t have to be. This is adapted from a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, and for a bunch of source-material that probably equaled up to about 10-to-15 minutes full of reading-time, you would think that a simple story wouldn’t need to be told in over 3-hours. The story of a man that ages backwards and has all of these experiences in life, meets all of these people, and has a love that lasts generation-after-generation, does seem like it needs to be told in it’s own, epic-way, but this is a bit too much of a push. However, as long as this flick may be, you still can’t forget that this is a beautiful tale of growing old, falling in love, and above all, living life to the fullest. Yeah, it’s corny, but what makes it so strange is that the message is brought-out by David Fincher. Yes, THAT David Fincher.

There’s Brad, channeling his inner-Mr. Ripley.

It is quite surreal to see a story that’s so much about the human-spirit and always turning lemons into lemonade, directed by the guy who’s brought us some of the sickest stories in the past decade or so, but that’s what makes it so unique as well. Fincher has never, ever came close to touching material like this and at times, you’ll just think that it’s an attempt for him to make some cash and make a passion-project of sorts for himself, but you’ll begin to notice, there are still a whole bunch of Fincher’s trademarks. Everybody and anybody who has ever seen this movie always says the same damn thing, “It’s like Forrest Gump, but the guy’s older”. To be fair, that is a very true and realistic observation, one that I can’t contend with, mainly because the same writer of that flick (Eric Roth), is the same writer here but what makes the tales so different, is how one is all about sunshine and light at the end of the tunnels, this movie is more about how life starts and ends the same way: you start out as nothing, and in the end, you are still nothing. Anybody that has ever known you, will be the only ones and it’s a matter of whether or not you made an impact on their life is what really counts.

It’s a really depressing idea, especially when you put it side-by-side with something like, “Life is like a box of chocolates”, but it’s also more realistic and that’s why I applaud Fincher here, not just for stepping-out of his comfort-zone, but for being able to step-out and make the best type of movie he can. The story spans over generations and as long and dragging as it may be, it is always entertaining to see the type of stuff this man goes through, what he learns from certain experiences, and how it makes him a full and total human-being. Yes, there is always that known-factor that the guy is going to die at the end, but then again, isn’t that how life actually plays-out? Thanks, David Fincher! You’re always the type of guy I can depend on to remind me that life is great and all, but in the end, we just float away into the air. Happy hugs all-around!

Somehow, I still feel like this is how most of our elders still look in the mirror nowadays.

In a way, I still feel like this is how most of our elders still look in the mirror nowadays.

Where I still feel like this flick hits a problem in, is that it does begin to run-out of steam by about the third-to-last-act and I think that’s mainly because Fincher, as well as all of us, knows what has to be done, what has to be said, and what needs to come of this story. We all anticipate the time to when Benjamin eventually starts to get so young and so tiny, that he can’t remember anything that has happened in his life and is just continuing to shrink-up into this little guy, that is eventually going to die any day now. It’s so sad to watch and as much of as an emotional-impact it may have on you because you’ve gotten so used to this character and all his stories, it is slightly redundant and almost feels like Fincher really needs to shoot somebody or decapitate somebody, you know, just to spice things up. I can totally tell that Fincher was running a little wild on the inside, but at least he made it interesting and entertaining for us, in the meantime.

What probably distracts people the most from this story, is how much time and effort was put in to the make-up and special-effects for these characters and their surroundings. Since Benjamin is aging backwards, we get to see him when he’s old as hell and looks like a turd on the side of the road, to the point of where he looks like Pitt from Meet Joe Black. It’s mesmerizing to just stare-at, not just because they make Pitt look as handsome as ever and Blanchett as sexy and glorious as she’s ever been, but because it’s almost seamless and never seems like a gimmick. Movies like these that simply just depend on changing-up a person’s look or style through neat-o special-effects, usually kills a movie and features no substance, but thankfully, the movie features both the neat-0 special-effects that help make us believe more in this story, as well as having a story that is worth believing in and actually getting involved with. Still, it’s great to see Pitt and Blanchett back in their younger, golden days, even if it all by a computer. Damn you technology!

You’d still take him to bed. Don’t even bother fibbing.

Speaking of the Blanchett and Pitt, both make Daisy and Benjamin a lovely couple that is worth staying-for, no matter how uncommon the relationship they have may actually be. Blanchett is a joy to watch as Daisy, especially when she goes through her younger days as a free-willing, energetic dancer in her prime from NYC, and we get to see that charm and beauty come out of Blanchett’s acting-prowess that can sometimes go away when she takes crap scripts. I was a bit surprised to see that she didn’t get a nomination for her work here, but hey, I guess the Academy felt like they had to give the nomination to Taraji P. Henson, the caretaker of the old person’s home who finds Benjamin and takes of him, up until he’s an old, but yet, young-looking man. Henson is so charming and fun to watch in this movie that it’s a real shame she hasn’t been able to do anything that’s really worth buzzing-about. The girl’s got spark to her, and that shows through every scene she has.

Brad Pitt, though, is the real star of the show and milks this Benjamin Button’s simpleness almost to the point of where it doesn’t seem like he can go any longer, but however, he can. Pitt is great as Benjamin Button because he’s so kind, so simple, so polite, so regular, and so bright-sided about the world he lives in, that’s it almost way too easy to mark him as another caricature that ends-up taking some happiness out of his disability, but it’s not, and that’s all because Pitt won’t allow it. The guy doesn’t show many emotions throughout the whole flick (and that was the intention), but it feels real and honest, mostly because Pitt and Fincher, together, have painted a portrait of a guy that loves life and all those who inhabit it. Pit’s great to watch and the chemistry and love he has with Blanchett in this movie, never for a second, felt unrealistic or schmaltzy. It was as every bit as epic and heartfelt as I once remembered, and that will always stick in my mind when I think of this flick.

Consensus: Adapting a short story into a near-3-hour movie, is a bit of a stretch, especially when you have a flick that spans over decades-upon-decades, but The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is still a beautiful, endearing, and heartfelt story that looks at life through the eyes of a person who has a very strange one, despite him being played by the ultra-handsome, and ultra-powerful Brad Pitt.

8.5/10=Matinee!!

Keep control of your hormones, ladies.

2000s, 8-8.5/10, Movies 2008, Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, David Fincher, David Jensen, Donna DuPlantier, Ed Metzger, Edith Ivey, Elias Koteas, Elle Fanning, Eric Roth, Faune A. Chambers, Fiona Hale, Forrest Gump, Jacob Tolano, Jared Harris, Jason Flemyng, Joeanna Sayler, Josh Stewart, Julia Ormond, Madisen Beaty, Mahershalalhashbaz Ali, Marion Zinser, Meet Joe Black, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Patrick Thomas O'Brien, Paula Gray, Phyllis Somerville, Shiloh Jolie-Pitt, Taraji P. Henson, Ted Manson, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Tilda Swinton

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

25 Comments Posted by Dan O. on June 8, 2012

Wes Anderson’s mind is finally a fun place to be at again.

Moonrise Kingdom centers on two 12 year-olds (Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward) who fall in love and decide run away together into the wilderness. Naturally, the local community frantically scrambles to find them before a violent storm hits shore.

For awhile now, it seems like Wes Anderson has really started losing any credit he’s ever gotten since his debut, Bottle Rocket. Mainly, the reason for that is because his style is just overly-quirky, to the point of where you don’t feel like you’re actually watching real-life human beings, you’re just watching a bunch of twee characters made from Anderson’s sketches. However, that all changes here but at the same time, doesn’t change all that much. Which is very strange considering it’s probably my favorite from him since The Royal Tenenbaums.

This is probably Anderson’s best-looking flick he has ever done but it’s also with the same style he’s been using for his whole career, it’s just that it works so well with the story. All of the trademarks from Anderson’s direction are here in this flick, but the difference here that sets it apart from all of his other, beautiful-looking movies is that this one is set in the 60’s. The bright colors, sets, costumes, and camera-tricks that Anderson pulls out of his pocket all work rather than just seeming like another hipster attempt at being “cool” because of how he sets it in the 60’s. 60’s was a time for fun, relaxing, and being yourself and Anderson totally taps into that mind-set with just how gorgeous he makes this film look and even if you don’t like Anderson films (and trust me, there are plenty out there who absolutely despise the hell out of him), you can still sit there and just gaze at the beautiful portrait Anderson has on-display here.

Anderson always has beautiful films, no surprise there, but what makes this one so different is that he has a great script to give us something else to sink our teeth into. Anderson has a very dead-pan way of comedic timing but it’s put to great use here just because the film is so damn funny. As usual, you have to look out for little sight gags here and there but it’s the fact that this film continues to get more and more goofy as it goes on, that makes you feel like you’re having the time of your life. There’s a certain unabashed “fun” feel to this film that had me entertained so much but it’s more about how the story made me feel, rather than what it made me do.

This is probably Anderson’s most innocent piece of work to date, and with good reason because when you have a story about two runaway, little kids being together and falling in love, how can you not get a little cutesy? There are so many moments here that are so pleasant to watch because you really feel something for these two kids whenever they are together, and you want them to be happy, you want them to never grow-up and be old, angry people like Suzy’s parents, and you just want them to live their lives together, forever. I know it all sounds uber cheesy and lame, but this story really bring you into to its sweetness and Anderson takes full advantage of that showing us that the outside world for these two, is just not a fun or happy place to be, especially together. It was a story that actually reminded me a lot of my little crushes I had on some chickity-doo-da’s when I was little tike and made me feel young again, just watching how happy they were being able to connect to somebody in their lives. It’s some great stuff to see up on-screen and it’s a real surprise that Wes Anderson almost had me close to tears by the end of it all. “Close to tears” is what I said, people! Don’t worry, he didn’t get me just yet.

The reason why you love these kids together so much, is because the performances from Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward are so damn good that I was even surprised to hear that this was their first film-roles ever. Gilman has this nerdy, but endearing look to him that makes him easy to like especially when he starts acting all cool and tough, while he’s trying to protect his “girl” from the cruel outside world. While Hayward is absolutely great as this somewhat disturbed girl, that seems like she would most likely be one of those emo freaks, had she been born 30 years later. They both seem so natural with each other, which really shocked me because they have to do some pretty “intimate things” together that would more than likely have some kids turn their heads and go, “ewwww coootieeeeesss!!”. However, that’s not either of these kids and they’re definitely a perfect fit for one another and I hope that they both get some real, bright futures for themselves because I think they deserve it with the work they put out here.

They’re the real stars of this flick, but everybody else is pretty damn good, too. Bill Murray is great as the dead-pan, always sad daddy of Suzy; Frances McDormand is fun to watch as the very messed-up mom of Suzie (also, Hayward looked a little bit like a younger version of McDormand, just a little bit though); Edward Norton is a whole lot of fun as the cheesy Scout Master Ward, and totally had me by surprise by how spot-on his comedic timing was considering this was the guy who got nominated for an Oscar where he actually curb stomped some dude (doesn’t seem like the kind of guy that would have me really laughing at all); Tilda Swinton is evil and bitchy as Social Services, then again, what other kind of character would she play; and Jason Schwartzman also pops-up for about 5 minutes as Cousin Ben, but is still a lot of fun.

Actually, the most surprising piece of good work here was probably done by Bruce Willis as the sad and lonely guy that searches all over for these kids, Captain Sharp. Willis has been so many damn action roles as of late that so many people almost forget about how great of a “dramatic” actor this guy can be at times and he totally surprised me with the depth he was able to go through with this sad-sack of a character. He’s not really all that tough, he’s not really all that happy, and he’s really not at all like John McClane in the least bit. All of which, are a great thing and I hope this shows that Willis has more to him than just shouting out “Yippie-ki-yay, motherfucker!”.

If there was one complaint I had to throw out from this whole movie it would have to be Bob Balaban as the narrator. The guy opens up the film and is a funny joke, but every time he comes on, for some reason just bothered the hell out of me and it seemed like it was a joke that went on too long. Not a huge problem by any means, but any time the guy showed up, I seemed to have gotten more annoyed.

Consensus: Moonrise Kingdom is Wes Anderson’s welcome back to being a top-notch writer/director, and with good reason. The ensemble all bring out great work, including the little kiddie leads, the writing is hilarious in its subtle, dead-pan way, and the story itself will drag you in with its sweet innocence. Classic Anderson and I hope he’s back to stay for good.

9/10=Full Price!!

2010s, Movies 2012, Bill Murray, Bob Balaban, Bottle Rocket, Bruce Willis, Chandler Frantz, Die Hard, Edward Norton, Frances McDormand, Harvey Keitel, James Wilcox, Jared Gilman, Jason Schwartzman, Kara Hayward, Lucas Hedges, Moonrise Kingdom, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Owen Wilson, Roman Coppola, The Royal Tenenbaums, Tilda Swinton, Tommy Nelson, Wes Anderson

Michael Clayton (2007)

10 Comments Posted by Dan O. on April 11, 2012

It’s like the ‘Bourne’ trilogy, but with a lot more talking and yelling.

Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is an in-house “fixer” at one of the largest corporate law firms in New York. At U/North, the career of litigator Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton) rests on the multi-million dollar settlement of a class action suit that Clayton’s firm is leading to a seemingly successful conclusion. But when Kenner Bach’s brilliant and guilt-ridden attorney Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) sabotages the U/North case, Clayton faces the biggest challenge of his career and his life.

Writer/director Tony Gilroy is a dude mostly known for writing all of the ‘Bourne’ flicks and instead of going with the fast action, chases, and cool stunts, he actually aims for talking to take place. Which surprisingly works wonders.

The one thing that Gilroy does perfectly with this flick is give us a good premise that keeps on getting better and better as the all of the details start to show up, as well as more and more layers begin to peel. There’s a lot of info and details being thrown at us but it’s not too much to the point of where we don’t know what’s happening. Gilroy actually allows us to take in all of what we know about this story/case/mystery and he continues to reward us as each and every plot twist comes out. The script is very good and even as much as talking as there is in this flick, it’s not boring by any means so for anyone going in expecting a Jason Bourne-like flick, won’t be terribly disappointed. Gilroy knows how to create tension just by having people revealing things and the tension just keeps on going and going and going, until eventually the credits pop-up and he releases you.

The film also does another great job with its script by being very subtle about everything. Right at the beginning of the flick we are just sort of popped right into the middle of this story and we don’t really know why or how these different stories and characters connect in anyway, but through the conversations we start to understand but it’s not as obvious. There’s also never a moment in this flick that seemed too melodramatic or corny for my sake because Gilroy makes it all feel real with these people explaining themselves through not only words, but actions as well. Yes, I know these people aren’t real but the film still made it seem so with everything that they do here.

My problem with this flick is that even the realism can be a down-side of the film as well, especially when it starts to dive into darker territory. One of the things I couldn’t believe in this flick was that it seems a little hard for a company to actually be able to tap somebody’s phone without anyone ever knowing, but it’s almost even harder to believe the fact that they could get away with murder successfully for such a long period of time. I will not say or state what actually happens in this flick that made me think this but it was a little too hard to believe at first and it’s kind of a shame that the flick revolves around it a lot.

Like most thrillers though, the flick also pays more attention to its plot and what its characters are doing, rather than what they feel and this was also what set me back a bit. I wasn’t looking for any real emotional connection with these characters to the point of where I could call them an inspiration but the film, except for the titled hero, never really allows us in the minds of the other characters. Since there is a lot of subtlety, we rarely get a full understanding of what these characters are feeling and even though it didn’t take me out of the film completley, it still set me back once I realized that there was a bit of emptiness to its emotional impact.

I think one of the main reasons to see this flick is mainly for the performances from everybody involved, especially George Clooney as Michael Clayton. Clayton is an ambiguous hero-like character that seems like one of those messed up and strained dudes that just want a break from all of the havoc that they have had in their lives, which is what actually allows us to watch him and cheer him on for the whole 2 hours of this flick. Clooney is great with this role here because he combines some great elements of self-loathing as well as being exhausted with determination and that look and attitude that he’s always one step ahead of the person he’s against. It’s nothing terribly new for Clooney, as usual, but it’s always great to see him in top-form no matter what it may be and he definitely makes it a whole lot easier to actually feel something for this guy Michael Clayton.

Clayton’s opponent is named Karen Crowder, who is played very well by Tilda Swinton as well. I’ve already stated that I haven’t been the biggest fan of her but she’s pretty good here in a villain role that isn’t the type of villainous role you would expect. She’s self-conscious, scared, and one of those hard-workers that do terribly bad things in order to cover their own asses. Swinton isn’t exactly the ideal villain for a flick like this where you would expect her going around shooting people left-and-right, but she’s very good at playing a role that asks a lot more strength and emotion from her and it worked not just for me, but also for the Academy as well because she ended up winning the film’s only Oscar.

Tom Wilkinson is also another great performance in this flick as he is basically hooting, hollering, and running all-over-the-place throughout the whole flick but he’s still very good and adds a lot more to the character he’s playing as well as the story. We rarely get to see Wilkinson in such a role that allows him to just be a loose cannon and it was pretty cool to see him actually pull that off and seem very believable rather than just seeming like he’s over-acting. Sydney Pollack is also great in this role as Clayton’s senior partner, Marty Bach, and he’s always good in everything he does so no change there either.

Consensus: Although it hits some problems with its emotional impact, Michael Clayton still features amazing performances from the whole cast, an tense direction from Tony Gilroy, and a story that gets better and better as it goes along and more mysteries are revealed.

8/10=Matinee!!

2000s, 8-8.5/10, Movies 2007, Bill Raymond, David Lansbury, David Zayas, Denis O'Hare, George Clooney, Jason Bourne, Jennifer Ehle, Ken Howard, Merritt Wever, Michael Clayton, Michael O'Keefe, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Robert Prescott, Sean Cullen, Sydney Pollack, The Bourne Identity, Tilda Swinton, Tom Wilkinson, Tony Gilroy

Broken Flowers (2005)

9 Comments Posted by Dan O. on February 25, 2012

Come on Bill, cheer up. You’ll get that Oscar someday.

Don Johnston (with a T), played by Bill Murray, is a retired bachelor who finds a pink letter from an anonymous women saying that he has a son who is on the look-out for him. Don’s neighbor, Winston (Jeffrey Wright), somehow is able to get him to go out on the road and visit his past lady-friends and see who is his babies mama, and who isn’t.

Writer/director Jim Jarmusch has never been a guy I could fully get into as a filmmaker because too many of his films are just weird to be weird. However, this one is different from all of his others that I’ve seen and that’s a very good thing, especially when you have the effin’ man starring in your flick as well.

The film started off terribly slow with Julie Delpy just straight-up giving the low-down on why she is done with Don and it kind of lags for awhile after that as well which kind of bothered me. I wanted to know exactly where this film was trying to go and it seemed like Jarmusch just wanted to show all of these shots of Don being sad, bored, sleepy, and listening to some classical music all by himself in a very-dark room. The slowness in the beginning had me a little bit worried as to where this was going to go but then it started to finally pick up as soon as the story started to pick up.

I don’t know if anybody knows this by now but I have a total sweet-spot for road films. I don’t know what it is about them that just make me feel as if I’m on some sort of adventure with the character through everything and everywhere. The film started to pick up as soon as it started focusing on Don’s trip and then we started to see how Don inter-acted with all of his ex’s who, some changed, some haven’t. The writing is good because there are a lot of funny moments that are more dry than I expected and when it wants to focus on the total awkwardness that these meetings sometimes hold, really worked out perfectly.

My main problem with this film is that I wish the damn people would talk. Don is ultimately a very sad, slow, and quiet guy that doesn’t know what to talk to these chicks about other than try and snooze in the questions about whether or not they have kids, a type-writer, or pink paper. After awhile, the silence started to bother me because I know a lot of this material could have went a very long way given if the script wasn’t all about silences and awkward pauses in between conversations.

There were moments where I fell like this film hit the right note on being insightful. The film shows these women remembering him, and himself remembering them and there is always this slight thought going through both of their minds as to whether or not things could have been different given that they have stayed together. However, the contrived moments took away from this, as well as Jarmusch’s own weird way of putting his stamp on everything.

An example of Jarmusch just being weird to mess around with this story is when Don goes to his first house and a the daughter of the chick named Lolita lets him in to just chill. A couple of minutes later she comes right out to see him and is wearing absolutely nothing! Hey, I’m not complaining that I got to see Alexis Dziena nakey-wakey but to me, it just seemed way too weird to have in a film that seemed to really base itself on the real events that would happen with something like this. There were many more moments like this (well, not quite like this) but this was the one I kept coming back to.

Since Don Johnston is a very sad dude, the film relies solely on Bill Murray to play it subtle, which is something he can do perfectly. There is a lot of silence and pauses in this film, so that sort of takes away his way of improvising to the situations around him but it also gives him the perfect opportunity to create a very minimalistic character that I could still root for the whole film even though he didn’t have much to say. His character arc is pretty strong considering we don’t know much about this guy, but I felt like i really wanted to just because Murray can create so many emotions with just one look on his face. You can tell when he’s happy, sad, or just plain and simply hangin’ out being Bill Murray.

Jeffrey Wright almost takes the show away from Murray as his fun-loving neighbor, Winston. Wright is the total opposite to Johnston which makes him the best character in the whole flick. His performance is obviously a lot of fun and he brings a lot of life to the flick whenever he’s on-screen or talking on the phone to Johnston. It blows that he wasn’t in the flick some more because whenever he was gone, you could really feel the energy sort of come and go. All of Don’s ex-girlyfriends are all played perfectly by older actresses that somehow find a way to make every performance different for all of their slightly different female characters that show a lot of Don’s life somehow.

Consensus: Sometimes I felt like Jim Jarmusch just wanted to be weird for the hell of it, which sort of takes away from Broken Flowers, but Bill Murray’s subtle and understated performance breathes life into this main character and gives us an insightful, sometimes funny, and sometimes dramatic original story.

7/10=Rental!!

2000s, 7-7.5/10, Movies 2005, Alexis Dziena, Bill Murray, Brea Frazier, Broken Flowers, Christopher McDonald, Frances Conroy, Heather Alicia Simms, Jeffrey Wright, Jessica Lange, Jim Jarmusch, Julie Delpy, Mark Webber, Miami Vice, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Sharon Stone, Tilda Swinton

We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011)

14 Comments Posted by Dan O. on December 16, 2011

Kevin is the new Damien.

Tilda Swinton plays Eva, a mother who puts her ambitions and career aside when she gives birth to Kevin. The relationship between mother and son is difficult from the very first years. But when Kevin is fifteen, he does something truly evil and unforgivable and Eva must grapple with her own feelings of grief and responsibility. Did she ever love her son? And how much of what Kevin did was her fault?

All mothers are expected to love their sons no matter who or what they are. Whether they are sociopaths, killers, murders, satanists, the son of Sam, etc. it doesn’t matter because the mommy should always be there for her son, but how far is too far?

Director Lynne Ramsay hasn’t had a film in over nine years and she shows no signs of rust at all with this flick because right from the beginning shot of Eva covered in tomato sauce, I was hooked for the whole next hour and 52 minutes. Ramsay approaches this film with a non-linear narrative that bounces between Eva’s current life living all by herself after something horrible happened to her, then goes back in time to the time when Eva first met her husband leading up to them having their son Kevin. This at first, seemed a little confusing but after awhile it started to grow on me and I guess it did on Ramsay too considering I could tell exactly what time period we were actually in.

There have been so many movies that all talk about the “evil child” (‘Orphan’, ‘The Omen’, ‘The Bad Seed’) but somehow Ramsay makes it all different with her use of style that just had me creeped out the whole time. There are these dark and light colors in this film that will pop-up and seem absolutely terrifying because it’s almost as if she makes it all jump out at the audience. There are also plenty of other sequences that this film had that freaked me out with many of Ramsay’s stylized scenes seeming as if we were going inside the mind of Eva’s head and seeing practically everything that she sees.

And let me just tell you, the things that she sees this little bastard Kevin do, is down-right disturbing. This kid tortures the hell out of her from deliberate things like not saying her name, crapping his pants, making fun of her when she talks, shutting down any time she tries to be sensitive, putting her husband against her, and so many more outrageous and truly shocking things. It’s terrible to sit back and just watch somebody get completely torn up by their own son because the mom always comes back for more love, but I couldn’t take my eyes off of anything that happened here at all. It’s painful to just watch everything happen, but I just did not want to stop watching and I didn’t even know what Eva could have done in any of these situations.

Ramsay makes the right decision in making this seem more like a dramatic horror flick that is set in reality and shows us something that could happen to any of us, without us ever being able to do anything about it. The shit Kevin does, says, and even contemplates, is something that will stick in my mind for awhile now but most of all is the fact that there are kids like there out this and it’s hard to ever ignore them and get them out of your mind. There are some discussions about the idea of nurture vs. nature and who is to blame for a kids evil-doings but in reality, these ideas sort of left my mind as soon as I started thinking about all of the “Kevins” that I may possibly know and just how truly scary they could be to the ones who love them the most.

My problems lies within the later parts of Eva’s life where I feel like we are watching here just try to get on with her life, which seemed realistic, however, there were times where I couldn’t quite believe it all. I don’t know want to give away the very very very bad thing that happens to Eva but she decides to keep on seeing Kevin, even though she has nothing to do with him anymore and doesn’t need him in her life at all. I understand the whole fact that a mother should always love her child, but there is to a certain extent to where I would drop that little shit-head off at the loony bin and run away as far away as I can. The fact that she still is there for moral support bothered me and kind of made me feel like there is only so much that one person could go through, but then again, maybe I’m just a vicious bastard who shouldn’t have kids.

Another problem I had with this film was the performance and character that John C. Reilly plays. Reilly plays Eva’s husband, Franklin, and the guy is never around. He does some job that we never find out exactly what it is and whenever he is around, he just hangs out with Kevin because as soon as he comes home, Kevin is all of a sudden all cute and cuddly. The reason I didn’t like Franklin all that much is because when Eva starts to tell him about the problems she is having with Kevin, he doesn’t really even do anything about it instead of just saying that he’s a kid. When the second child is born, Kevin practically throws water in the babies face, and Franklin just pulls him over and takes him somewhere, without any discipline whatsoever.

It’s also pretty obvious that Eva is very depressed, disturbed, and just filled with all of these negative feelings because of Kevin but Franklin never seems to address them or ask what’s wrong. Instead, he just humps her one night and gets her pregnant once again, as if that was going to solve any of the problems she was having before. Hey, the first kid is sociopath, let’s try to see if we can get another and really eff things up. Reilly really does try in this role but Franklin is barely ever in it and whenever he is, he just bothered me as a total dumb-ass of a dude and a husband. It’s a shame because it almost feels like this role could have been played by any actor, and it would not have made any type of difference.

A performance and character that isn’t as bad as Franklin is Tilda Swinton who plays Eva. Swinton is one of those actresses who is always strong in everything she does but sometimes never gets fully up there as a great actress. As Eva, Swinton portrays a lot of emotions because she goes through so many unthinkable things that are not just with Kev, but everybody else around her when the bad event occurs. You can tell this chick is really suffering and trying her hardest to be a good mommy and not ruin things with her son, but she just never can fully win over Kev and it’s really hard to watch mainly because Swinton plays Eva, as if she was a real chick. It’s really hard to empathize with her but her character is strong and goes through a lot of shit throughout the whole film, something that Swinton makes believable.

Ezra Miller is also a real “treat” here as Kevin because this kid is just downright evil. Miller is dark and disturbing as Kevin because everything he does, he never has any good intent for it and just by watching this kid with that little evil and creepy grin he has on his face the whole time, is just something that will stay in my mind for awhile. Miller is able to take what would ordinarily be a very cliched performance as “the evil kid” but his latter scenes with Swinton, where he proves to be nothing other than equal to her, are played out with a perfect tone and way of using his grimness but also smarty-smarts to his favor as well. Kevin is definitely not a name you want to name your next kid, boy or girl.

Consensus: Director Lynne Ramsay combines elements of horror and drama to show a disturbing tale, with perfect performances from Miller and Swinton, and also making it impossible for anybody to turn their eyes away from.

8.5/10=Full Price!!

2000s, 8-8.5/10, Movies 2011, Ezra Miller, John C. Reilly, Lynne Ramsay, Orphan, The Bad Seed, The Omen, Tilda Swinton, We Need to Talk About Kevin

Vanilla Sky (2001)

10 Comments Posted by Dan O. on April 8, 2011

I thought Tom Cruise was confused in Eyes Wide Shut, but damn was I wrong!

David Aames (Tom Cruise) has it all: wealth, good looks and a gorgeous woman (Cameron Diaz) on his arm. But just when he’s found true love with warmhearted Sofia (Penélope Cruz), his face is horribly disfigured in a car accident, and he loses everything … or does he?

Vanilla Sky is directed by Cameron Crowe, and this is a remake of a Spanish film called Open Your Eyes. Once again, an American director is remaking a foreign classic, however, this is not so bad compared to others of that demographic.

I think my favorite element of this film is Crowe’s direction. It seemed kind of odd having his guy direct this type of material, but he has a bigger budget this time, and he spends it all so dearly. The film starts off all normal, with a sensational shot of a deserted Times Square, but then the car accident happens, and that’s when shit gets out of whack. However, it’s also so well done.

The film gets a lot of ish talked on it because it doesn’t make all that much sense the first time around, but that’s because you won’t be able to get it really the first time around. It’s one of those films that right from the beginning you have to pay close attention to every little detail, because they eventually will come back up later in the film. I also found myself finding a lot of beauty within this film, and some shots are just so perfect the way they look, and gets you this idea that you are in dream-like state of some sort. There are little clues to the real idea behind this whole story that you kind of have to look at, and at first you’ll be totally confused but if you can look past all the confusion and look at the clues underneath it all, you’ll find a real, brilliant message from the story.

The message is that the world we live in, is it just a dream, and if so how far do our dreams go, until they become nightmares. David Aames is a douche who thinks he’s got it all, but then in a quick second he loses it all, and creates this world of fiction where everything is perfect, and means something. What does reality consist of? This film searches for those answers and although they may not be telling you them right in the open to your face, it’s the idea of looking at everything and thinking is where the real beauty of this film lies.

My only gripe with this film is that I do feel like their are times where the film loses itself. Especially the ending since it kind of gives everything in a way that we aren’t really expecting. I feel like Crowe gives too much of a conclusion to this story and the reason as to what is happening, but somehow you can’t be too sure really. This is a minor complaint, because even though I feel like I have the whole story already thought out, I can’t be too sure honestly.

Tom Cruise does a lot with David Aames here, and it’s not easy stuff to do in the first place. Cruise has to play this narcissistic asshole, that goes through a whole bunch of transformations as he starts to have no idea just exactly what the hell is going on. His character gains a lot of depth, and many of the more emotionally intriguing scenes are from Cruise, and his crazy, balls-to-the-walls performance. Penelope Cruz is very likable here as Sofia, and you can see why Cruise’s character fell in love with her after all. Cameron Diaz is sickly sexual as Julianna, and brings out the films best performance because her character is so disturbing, and crazy that you almost feel like she is a big nightmare. There’s also some nice little side performances from the likes of Jason Lee, Kurt Russell, Timothy Spall, and the always creepy in any film Tilda Swinton.

Consensus: It may be too ambitious at points, but Cameron Crowe’s fearless direction brings out intelligent points about dreams, the life we live, among others, and the performance add more dimensions to this film than you expect.

9/10=Full Price!!

2000s, 9-9.5/10, Movies 2001, Cameron Crowe, Cameron Diaz, Eyes Wide Shut, Jason Lee, Kurt Russell, Penelope Cruz, Tilda Swinton, Timothy Spall, Tom Cruise, Vanilla Sky

RSS feed

	Landmark Films Of Th… on Time Out of Mind (2015)
	Jackie on Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber…
	Klaus on Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber…
	Paul Bowler on Sleepy Hollow (1999)
	Dude the cleaner on Blair Witch (2016)

Dan the Man's Movie Reviews

Tag Archives: Tilda Swinton

A Bigger Splash (2016)

Hail, Caesar! (2016)

Burn After Reading (2008)

The Beach (2000)

Trainwreck (2015)

The Zero Theorem (2014)

I Am Love (2010)

Snowpiercer (2014)

Only Lovers Left Alive (2014)

The Limits of Control (2009)

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

Constantine (2005)

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

Michael Clayton (2007)

Broken Flowers (2005)

We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011)

Vanilla Sky (2001)

Search It Up

Categories

Email Subscription

Other Places To Follow Dan the Man’s Movie Reviews

Tweet Me!

Like DTMMR On Facebook!

That RSS Thing You Do To Subscribe

LAMB #545

Half Popped Reviews

Blogroll

Top Posts

Past Reviews

Comments

Highest Read

Our Sponsors

Blog Stats

October 2016
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Sep
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31