Subscribe
I’ll admit, when I first read the synopsis for this film warning signs starting flashing. The storyline, a poor immigrant from the Paris suburbs takes on a job caring for a wealthy quadriplegic – please. I do not want to see a preachy pity-parade with the standard bromance storyline. I should qualify that statement. I was imagining the typical bromance – I Love You, Man, The Green Hornet, Wedding Crashers, Dinner for Schmucks, etc. – you know, where the two buddies have a falling out but realize there are underlying reasons for their behaviour which they then confront and become great friends again – I imagined that, interspersed with sobby scenes of bleak lives in the ghetto or as being someone severely disabled, playing (or shredding) my heart strings like Eddie van Halen on an Eruption solo – all the while trying to make me laugh. But, at the insistence of colleagues, friends and a the general public at large – I gave it a shot, and thoroughly enjoyed myself. It’s not preachy, it’s not sappy, it’s a break from the standard and just a high quality, enjoyable film – with plenty of laughs. Both of the main actors François Cluzet and Omar Sy are both well cast and play their roles convincingly, the story is that much more heartwarming due to the fact that’s it’s based on a true story. I shouldn’t have been so sceptical at the beginning, I don’t think that a film would become the second highest grossing film of all time in France if it were as bad as I’d imagined, but then again those Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer keep making movies (and money).
Intouchables Film Review
The Thing 2011 – Preview to a Review
I’ve noticed a lot of trafic hitting the site for people looking for a review of this film, I haven’t seen it, because it doesn’t come out in Germany until the 17th of November – it opened a month ago in the U.S. Because I’m so excited for this film I had considered watching a bootleg copy, but the one being circulated on the net is awful. Instead I went with a film of a similar genre, Pandorum, and was pleased. But that doesn’t help anyone wanting to know if this film is any good, and to give you an idea, audiences seem to like it more than critics. Rotten Tomatoes users gave it 59% fresh rating – which is actually rotten – and IMDB is currently showing a 6.7 rating. It seems it doesn’t do a whole lot entirely different than the previous films, with a lack of genuine scares. We’ll have to wait and see.
Hangover Part II Review – Spoiler Alert
I have marked some spoilers in this article, but I wonder if the first film will carry the same alert for the sequel. Ha-bloody-ha. Yes it’s true, the films are very much alike, and The Hangover Part II has taken a lot of heat from critics for essentially being the same as the original, just set in a more exotic location. But since it’s money that talks, you can chalk it up to a success, the film has become the highest-grossing R-rated comedy of all time. There are some legendary laughs but the creators relied more heavily on shock and awe that clever, situational comedy. My cheeks were still hurting leaving the film, and the mark of any good comedy is that, years on, you can think about a funny part and still chuckle to yourself – I thought about the the Sloppy Joes bit in Billy Madison had a laugh attack during a math test one time – what to others probably looked more like temporary insanity than a magic movie moment being relived. For me, my favourite part is right at the start (spoiler alert!) when Chow gets them psyched and is about to tell them the craziest story they’ve ever heard, takes a hit and keels forward, smashing his face on the table unconscious (spoiler over). There are plenty of simply hilarious moments, but I don’t see why the makers of this film didn’t shake up the storyline a little bit, obviously it was going to be similar, but they could have shaken up a few plot elements to make it familliar but somewhat new experience. For instance (spoiler again) Allan is again the culprit, having drugged the hapless foursome. It’s kind of the premise and I’m sure they could have thought of a number of alternative ways for everyone to get so bamboozled that they blackout and don’t remember anything. In any case, it was still thoroughly enjoyable, and there is a story arch for Stu, that makes sense and plays well. So saddle up for some raunchiness and get your ass to the theatre.
Joe Wilson's War or: Much Ado About Aluminum Tubes
I love political thrillers. Well in this case, “thriller” is being a bit generous, it’s more of a drama, the numerous shots of Sean Penn and Naomi Watts watching news clips in airports isn’t exactly edge of your seat action and suspense. Not to sell this film short, Valeria Plame is quite the femme fatale. Watching the film a had a lot more respect for her service and realized how badly the Government screwed her over. This film does a good job of covering all the bases and clears up a lot of the misconceptions about the scandal. For those who don’t know, Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent with a husband who was a former Ambassador to Niger. She suggested he be sent to investigate the possible sale of yellow cake to Saddam Hussein. He didn’t find anything but his visit and report were still used as a pretext for war with Iraq and when he realized what had happened he wrote an op-ed column and became one of the first to speak out against the case for war, in realiation, White House staffer Scooter Libby outed his wife as an agent publicly, endangering her contacts, operations and ending her career. As I said it is a political drama with many intricacies, and not so much action, but it is nonetheless a very compelling story, it also shows what a difference the media makes in todays politics. I was initially skeptical, given Sean Penn’s outspoken stance against the war in Iraq, but the film is very fair and balanced, not pushing an agenda but presenting all the angles. It was argued that Joe Wilson’s media campaign was shameless self-promotion, it’s not presented as such but the film is smart in showing lecture halls before and after his media exposure and Ambassador Wilson is obviously and understandably invigorated by his new found fame. His career, even facing off against Saddam Hussein before the first Gulf war, was very distinguished but not recognized or celebrated. If you’re into politics, political thrillers or anything definitely see this movie. It’s full of intrigue and personal drama, and offers an initmate look into the personal struggles of two people caught in the crosshairs of the media and government. What the White House and CIA did to one of their own is simply deplorable. It’s both agrivating and fascinating, it’s amazing how two people, a married couple, with the husband not knowing much about his wife’s work, were both such central figures in the lead up to the war in Iraq. I do however have one beef with the producers, and with the CIA, as a Canadian I’m tired of American spies using our nationality as cover, in Syriana, Mission: Impossible, and in this film. American tourists looking for a better reception overseas by sewing maple leaves on their backpacks is one thing, but spooks using our good name can have serious ramifications – Canadians travelling abroad might find themselves being taken away by immigration officials for a little chat more frequently, for instance. Thanks Hollywood, and the CIA. Then again that’s the only cover one could easily take, they’re not going to pass for Tibetan Monks, per se.
Due Date Review
Oh sweet bromance. Due Date stars Robert Downey Jr. as a successful architect named Peter Highman and Zach Galifianakis as Ethan Tremblay, who is an aspiring actor and complete idiot. The two are forced to share a car on a cross country road trip after the Ethan’s antics gets them both on the no-fly list, which technically isn’t a plot device but a distinct possbility and sad reality for some. In any case, the two set out from Atlanta to L. A. and it’s clear from the get go that these polar opposites aren’t going to get along. What happens over the course of the next few days and thousands of miles is a lot of outrageous shenanigans heavy on toilet humour, bad language and worse behaviour. Ethan stupidity is countered by Peter’s violent rage – the mix doesn’t produce a lot of high minded humour or poignant cultural references, but it is raunchy, and hilarious. While some of it is over the top and violent, it is nonetheless somewhat clever. At one point Peter is looking after kids while Ethan is buying pot. One of the kids throws a toy and hits him square in the face, and then continues to get on his nervesby hitting him and pulling his tie. How does one deal with a child who thinks he can get away with anything? Well one might expect for an upstanding man like Highman to deal him an intellectual blow but instead punches him in the stomach. That might nor sit well with some people but others enjoy that edgy kind of humour. While it is original, there are, as would be expected, parallels to The Hangover. Nevertheless for anyone looking to turn off their brain and work their face muscles this film is sure to entertain.
Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps
Audiences and critics are split over Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps. Detractors complain that it was a missed opportunity, or too complicated and lacking direction. One reviewer lamented that the old Gordon Gekko would have torn up this movie, and that this film would have doesn’t capture the zeitgeist the way the original did, since the crisis feels like “yesterday’s news.” I can understand the notion, we consume information at an ever increasing breckneck speed, but I find it poignant since we are by no means out of the woods and the people that got us into this mess, are still riding high while the economy is still in bad shape. There needs to be a degree of accountability, and the name of Gekko’s book “Is Greed Good?” certainly hints at the fact that the once great corporate raider certainly questions his own assertion some 20 years previous. That’s also the reason that Gekko didn’t “eat through this film,” even as a writer on the lecture circuit he can’t exercise the same clout he used to, the loss of wealth is a huge blow to his ego, and he’s forced into the wise and reflective role of the antihero – but without losing his edge or desire to return to the top. The film has a lot of ground to cover, granted, but as a result it never slows down, and it lives up to the original in both excitement and coolness. It’s very well cast, Carey Mulligan plays Gekko’s estranged daughter and is reduced to being an emotional basket case for the entire film, making her character less sympathetic. Charlie Sheen makes a brief and comical appearance (good on him); LaBeouf does a good job at the center of the story and a lot of acting talent (see Brolin, Langella, Sarandon); but watching Michael Douglas is the highlight, and his transformation from the academic-looking lecturer back into a financial big wheel is simply bad ass. In my opinion, the film is very entertaining and a fitting follow-up to the original.
I’ll be honest, even as a student of business I had a few questions regarding the stock market (in the movie Gekko mentions the 72 different forms of debt and acronyms used to identify them), but even if you’re well versed in things like balance sheets and the time value of money you might have some basic questions. For one, I had always wondered how the prices for shares are determined and continuously updated on the stock market. On Bright Hub there are a few articles regarding the basics, for those of us who wonder about these kinds of things.
Black Death Review
For anyone excited to see Sean Bean once again don the chain mail in a medieval adventure film à la Lord of the Rings, be warned that his isn’t the adventure film you might expect, and his character Ulric is a litte more burdened, or haunted, than Boromir. A monk (Eddie Redmayne) volunteers to help Ulric and his motley crew of warriors find a village unscathed by the Bubonic plague. There is rumour of hedonism and a necromancer, capable of bringing the dead back to life – obviously the Bishop can’t have any of that, and it’s off with his head! Well, actually, they brought a contraption that will slice a man “from his asshole to his apple,” but you get the idea. When they finally reach the small Jonestown like village, they don’t come out with all guns blazing. In fact what appears a dark and spooky adventure film turns end up as more of a horror flick and religious polemic – instead of a final battle it’s a series of tortures interspersed with an existential debate about God. I still enjoyed it – I’ll watch a sabred Sean Bean kick ass and take names any day.
Mr. Stallone Goes to Berlin: The Expendables at the Sony Center
On a very successful promotional tour, director, writer and star Stallone stepped in for Jason Statham when the latter was asked to freestyle, without missing a beat he let out „Rap, rap, rap so fine, miss a word, and your little ass is mine,” to the beatboxing being performed by audience member or “jorunalist”. I myself was on the road for a couple weeks and while you try to make the most of your time, beating the pavement across Hell’s half acres looking at all the sights and going out at night can get tiring. Since we were in Berlin I figured we’d relax and take in a film at the Sony Center, at Potsdamer Platz – a sweet ass place to catch a flick. As luck would have it a movie of purportedly equal epicness was opening that week, The Expendables. It just so happens that Berlin is the same location where Stallone had been answering questions, busting rhymes, and passing wisdom about the movie making business, “It’s never about beauty. It’s about soul.” Indeed, Sly was spitting the truth everywhere he went, but it’s not like he needed to create buzz for this film, the list of cast members alone would have been enough to carry this film. Nevertheless the hype was palpable, and I couldn’t help but get excited to see this film. Nestled into reserved seats with a cold beer, the opening scene explored a modern problem – a hostage situation in the Gulf of Aden – and we were off to a good start. Even Lundgren’s “warning shot” which separated the ring leader’s upper body from lower mixed some laughter into the bullet maelstrom (Not a single hostage hit, really?). But from there on the story is really, well, old hat. I understand this film was meant to pay homage to action movies of previous decades, ones made without CGI and capes, but the story is run-of-the-mill, and may have otherwise gone straight to DVD. The dictator and his cocaine-financed banana republic, the bad white guy pulling the strings, the ex-teammate turned traitor. The notion is good but the delivery is at times almost cheesey which makes it more cliché than classic. Having said that, it’s not like I didn’t enjoy this film, good cameos, an unbelievable scene with Mickey Rourke, explosions and some of my favourite action stars make for good movie watching. Sly’s passion and wisdom when speaking about it made me want to like it more than I did, it just wasn’t as crazy or funny as it could have been. But, reviews don’t determine box offixe numbers, as is often the case (and almost always the case when it comes to films by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer), and in those terms the film was a major success. Hopefully it has given Sly the financial mobility to make a sequel that’s dynamite. He’s apparently already got Willis lined up to reprise and act as a villain, additionally he plans to do something more radical with the sequel – why didn’t we start there!
Use Your Illusion: The Magic of Inception
There’s no point in writing a review for this film, for one it’s been out for over a week (light years on the web), and the English-speaking world is divided into those who have seen it, and those who haven’t. Suffice to say it is pretty good. Actually it is unbelievably good. It’s everything that’s great about movies: suspense and the suspension of disbelief. “Take a leap of faith,” good movies make us think, and not by preaching. Director Christopher Nolan waited until he’d had experience with other big productions before making this film, and the work paid off, with all elements – from the score, to the script – well polished and masterfully done. Go see it, and don’t read any further until you have (spoilers). Good, now that you’ve seen the film (last chance) you’re probably struggling with the resiliant question that was planted in your brain, was it all a dream? The web is just a buzzin’ with answers, and there is little to no consesus. However, one common thread throughout all the analysis is that Inception is an allegory for film making, or the shared dream of movies. The best argument for this is made by Deven Faraci:
The movies-as-dreams aspect is part of why Inception keeps the dreams so grounded. In the film it’s explained that playing with the dream too much alerts the dreamer to the falseness around him; this is just another version of the suspension of disbelief upon which all films hinge. As soon as the audience is pulled out of the movie by some element – an implausible scene, a ludicrous line, a poor performance – it’s possible that the cinematic dream spell is broken completely, and they’re lost.
Nolan builds an architecture and the dream (or film) is fleshed out by the actors, producers and production crew. I happen to agree with this take as well, it’s plausible that we in the audience, like the target, are left to fill in the blanks and interpret the story for ourselves. Regardless, the whole “it was all a dream” was my uninspired ending to a half-finished story as part of an English assignment and I simply can’t take another mind-blowing story where the unraveling epicness really was of no consqeunce.
Spending hours scouring the web looking for “the answer” probably won’t do any good (like many I’ll probably try), since the movie even puts the nature of reality into question. In what looks like a modern opium den where the patrons are out dreaming for hours on end the proprietor argues they are not there to sleep, but to awaken. I’m sure that I’ll be playing with these notions for a while, and subsequent viewings will likely be accompanied by further posts. (Un)like some, I’m glad the discussion is just getting underway. For those looking for jump off points on their Pi like journey to enlightment can check out Sam Adams, who presents the same dream of movies argument. Brad Brevet also points out some important and potential deal breakers.
Some comparisons have been made between this film and Shutter Island, which also features Leonardo DiCaprio struggling with the guilt surrounding the death of his wife and the inability to tell fantasy from reality, where dreams are admittedly more dream-like but I don’t see that as a downfall, rather a huge plus. There is a lot of room for debate but the way we remember dreams in anything but complete and for the sake of the general viewing experience the absence of tedious and esoteric dream sequences is welcome.
Another potential interpretation is that Cobb was the real target, that he was being incepted to throw away the guilt over the death of his wife, and his choice to look at his kids represented his acceptanceof the idea. I can only speculate, and will continue to do so.
If Only It Were Fiction…
It has all the makings of a good political thriller, and a tragic comedy, but unfortunately the characters and plot of Inside Job are all real. I think the largest challenge a filmmaker tackling an actual political scandal has, is parsing a great deal of information into a concise narrative that’s true to the story while entertaining at once. Take the Valerie Plame affair for instance, the film Fair Game has a lot of ground to cover and I can remeber having a hard time following all the developments in that story as it was happening at the time. You need to be a professional news watcher to pick up on all the twists, turns, escalations and falsehoods. But that story was neatly cut down to a digestable size. But that was the White House against Joe Wilson and his wife, try a global financial crisis – you need an ensemble cast and a mini-series of HBO proportions to cover that, right? Wrong. Charles Ferguson can cover all the bases in just over two hours, in a sleek and entertaining look at the biggest clusterfuck in financial history. As Dane Cook would say, it’s not a candy bar (full of peanuts and fuck). Unfortunately you have to use this language, because your blood does boil after watching this film. It’s essentially a tale of how wonton greed and corruption on Wall Street put the world into an economic tailspin not seen since the Great Depression. I’m no financial historian, but I do have an interest in the subject and I know that Niall Ferguson would argue in favour of financial innovation. After all it was and is “an indispensable factor in man’s advance from wretched subsistence to the giddy heights of material prosperity that so many people know today.” In the same article the author goes on to write that “Perhaps, too, it will be a financial crisis that signals the twilight of American global primacy.” One way or the other, this film will help you get a grip on what caused financial innovation to turn into the bum’s rush. The creators of this film spent a lot of time doing research for this film and the numbers presented are staggering. What would otherwise read or look like an unending heap of statistics becomes a concise narrative, showing where things went wrong, who was caught sleeping and why the system doesn’t work. Forget 3D, presenting statistics and a series specialists explaining in great detail how we, the taxpayers, got royally screwed over by a bunch of cocaine-snorting, prostitute-banging bunch of snake-oil salesmen in a throroughly entertaining manner is truly the greatest feat of modern cinema. Okay, so I tend toward hyperbole, but in all honesty it is truly praiseworthy, how this film tackles such a broad issue in a slick, panoramic fashion – with sweeping shots of the world, from Iceland to New York – peperred with interviews, and non-interviews. That is what is most frustrating: the fact that many of those responsible refused to appear on camera, and the few who did, should have elected for that route as well, for their own sake. No advocae of deregulation can stand for his opinion, and those asked as to their incentives get immediately agressive, like Columbia Dean of the Graduate School for Business, Glenn Hubbard. Even staunch supporters of Obama, like Matt Damon, agree that the guys and gals who got us in this mess, shouldn’t be the ones who get us out. There needs to be accountability, somebody has to pay. Watch it, and do something about it.